The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bismarck: some secret pages of his history, Volume II (of 3), by Moritz Busch

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Bismarck: some secret pages of his history, Volume II (of 3)

Author: Moritz Busch

Release Date: June 8, 2023 [eBook #70943]

Language: English

Credits: Tim Lindell, Bryan Ness, Neil Mercer and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BISMARCK: SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY, VOLUME II (OF 3) ***

Transcriber's Note

The cover image was created by the transcriber, and is in the public domain.

BISMARCK

SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY

# BISMARCK
SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY

BEING A DIARY KEPT BY

Dr. MORITZ BUSCH

DURING TWENTY-FIVE YEARS’ OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE INTERCOURSE WITH THE GREAT CHANCELLOR

IN THREE VOLUMES

VOL. II

London

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1898

All rights reserved

Richard Clay and Sons, Limited

LONDON AND BUNGAY

Copyright in the United States of America

## CONTENTS

CHAPTER I | PAGE
--- | ---
NO. 76 WILHELMSTRASSE—THE CHANCELLOR’S RESIDENCE AND THE FOREIGN OFFICE—THE CHIEF’S OFFICIAL SURROUNDINGS AND HIS LIFE AT HOME—BUCHER AND ABEKEN | 1
CHAPTER II |
FROM OUR RETURN FROM THE WAR UP TO THE TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE OF MY PERSONAL INTERCOURSE WITH THE CHANCELLOR—GLIMPSES OF THE DIPLOMATIC WORLD—COMMISSIONS FOR THE PRESS | 42
CHAPTER III |
THE LAST TWENTY MONTHS IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE—DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AND DESPATCHED | 109
CHAPTER IV |
HERR VON KEUDELL IN THE PRESS AND IN REALITY | 247
CHAPTER V |
ARNIM’S HAND—VISIT TO THE PRINCE IN BERLIN—I RECEIVE MY INSTRUCTIONS FOR A PRESS CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE EMPRESS AUGUSTA—THE “FRICTION” ARTICLES IN THE “GRENZBOTEN”—VISITS AT VARZIN, SCHOENHAUSEN AND FRIEDRICHSRUH | 258
CHAPTER VI |
AT VARZIN AND FRIEDRICHSRUH | 311
CHAPTER VII[p. vi] |
I RETURN TO BERLIN AND RENEW MY INTERCOURSE WITH THE CHANCELLOR—THE HISTORY OF MY BOOK—BISMARCK ON THE OPPOSITION OF THE FREE-TRADERS AND THE HOSTILITY OF THE NATIONAL LIBERALS—HIS OPINION OF THE EMPEROR AND OF THE CROWN PRINCE AND PRINCESS—HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO ATTACK GORTSCHAKOFF’S POLICY—MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OF REAL LIFE—CONVERSATION WITH VON THILE RESPECTING HIS RETIREMENT—THE TURNING AWAY FROM RUSSIA AND TOWARDS AUSTRIA-HUNGARY—MATERIAL FOR THE HISTORY OF THE ALLIANCE WITH THE AUSTRIANS—THE PRINCE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY FRACTIONS—HE DESCRIBES BÜLOW’S POSSIBLE SUCCESSORS: HATZFELDT, HOHENLOHE, RADOWITZ, SOLMS, WERTHER, AND KEUDELL—THE CHANCELLOR’S REMARKABLE OPINION OF STOSCH—ITALIAN POLITICS—POPE LEO—THE PRINCE ON THE CROWN PRINCE—THE ENVIOUS AND AMBITIOUS IN PARLIAMENT—THE CAUSES OF THE CHANCELLOR CRISIS IN APRIL—KING STEPHAN AGAINST KING WILLIAM—THE NEW MINISTRY IN ENGLAND—DELBRÜCK’S ILLNESS AND THE PRINCE’S OPPONENTS IN THE REICHSTAG—THE CENTRE PARTY DESCRIBED—THORNDIKE RICE’S REQUEST | 362
CHAPTER VIII |
THE ARTICLE “THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ITALIAN BISHOPS”—LOTHAR BUCHER ON HOHENLOHE, RADOWITZ AND THE TWO BÜLOWS—THE CHIEF WISHES TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE “DAILY TELEGRAPH” AS A LEGITIMIST, THOUGH THE FACT MUST BE REGRETTED—COURT INTRIGUES AND THE REQUEST TO BE RELEASED FROM OFFICE—BUCHER ON THE SECESSIONISTS, AND THE FUTURE MINISTERS—THE CHIEF ON THE MEANS OF SECURING THE FUTURE OF THE WORKING MAN—THE OPPOSITION TO THIS REFORM—THE JEWS—THE DEFECTION OF THE CONSERVATIVES AND NATIONAL LIBERALS—THE KING THE SOLE MEMBER OF HIS PARTY—THE “GRENZBOTEN” REGARDED AS AN OFFICIAL GAZETTE—THE DEBATE IN THE UPPER CHAMBER ON THE REMISSION OF TAXES, AND A “GRENZBOTEN” ARTICLE ON THAT SUBJECT BY THE CHIEF—THE BERLINERS IN PARLIAMENT—THE CHANCELLOR UPON THE JEWS ONCE MORE | 444

[p. 1]

BISMARCK

SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY

## CHAPTER I

NO. 76 WILHELMSTRASSE—THE CHANCELLOR’S RESIDENCE AND THE FOREIGN OFFICE—THE CHIEF’S OFFICIAL SURROUNDINGS AND HIS LIFE AT HOME—BUCHER AND ABEKEN

Before resuming the extracts from my diary I beg to be allowed to present the reader with a picture of the house in which the Chancellor resided during his stay in Berlin at the time when I had the honour of working under his instructions, and to add a few words upon the life of which that house was the centre.

I purpose to do this in some detail, not omitting even matters of secondary interest, and regardless of the question whether it may be to the taste of certain critics, as I hope the public will come to a very different conclusion, and will welcome my description.

In spite of the Radical newspapers of Berlin, and of the old women who write in the National Zeitung, and of the parliamentarian spirit which hovers over the turbid waters of the press, No. 76 Wilhelmstrasse is, in the highest sense of the word, a house of historic[p. 2] interest. Under its roof and in its rooms German history has been made, and—(as the new-born Germany, now raised to the position which is her due, may be regarded, without boastfulness, as one of the leading European Powers)—also a great, and perhaps the best part of the political history of the Continent. It has been the scene of great thoughts and deeds; and to give as precise an account of such a place as discretion will permit, enabling the reader to form a distinct picture of it in his mind’s eye, appears to me to be a praiseworthy undertaking, particularly when, as in the present instance, the house in question has already undergone important changes, and will in time altogether disappear.

What was the dwelling of the political regenerator of our people? how did he live at the time when he began his work and carried the most important part of it into execution? and what were the instruments which he employed? Our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren will ask these questions, and so will the following generations, as we now do respecting the heroes of the two preceding periods of regeneration in the life of the German people, respecting Luther, who liberated and rejuvenated our spiritual life, and respecting Goethe and Schiller, the two central suns of the days when, in the literary sphere, clear morning rose upon a world of night and twilight. The cell in which Brother Martin, the Augustinian monk of Wittenberg, in October, 1517, drew up the ninety-five Propositions with which he delivered the first powerful blow against the Papacy; the house and room where Faust and Gretchen and Wilhelm Meister’s apprenticeship were completed, and that in which the powerful tragedy of the “Friedlaender” sprang from the poet’s imagination,[p. 3] have been maintained by pious hands in the condition in which they were when occupied by those great spirits. That is also the case with Sans Souci, the château of the Great Frederick. No. 76 Wilhelmstrasse does not stand under such favourable auspices. During the lifetime of the former occupant of this house, and immediately after his removal into the neighbouring palace which had been built for him, the inner apartments underwent considerable alterations, as the upper floor was also to be used for offices. Later, however, and perhaps at no very distant date, workmen will come with pick and shovel to tear down and cart away these historic walls. The stones and woodwork which, as a house, once sheltered the greatest statesman of our time, the windows through which he saw the sun shine upon his most important labours, will be applied to vulgar uses. The wall papers which witnessed momentous councils and interviews will be scattered to the winds, and after the rubbish heaps have been cleared away, a pretentious palatial building of two or three stories will rise on the site, and cause the old house to be forgotten.

Reason says it must be so. The little house in which he lived may disappear, if only the great structure which he erected remains filled with his spirit. But for those to whom the house has become as closely identified with its occupants as the shell with its inlying mother-of-pearl, sentiment also has its claims, and if those claims are to be discharged, care must be taken that when destruction overtakes it, our hero’s dwelling place shall at least continue to live in the printed annals of our race.

No. 76 Wilhelmstrasse, which, during the decade and a half spent by Bismarck under its roof has been the[p. 4] most distinguished and finally the most influential Foreign Office in the world, was, both externally and internally, one of the most insignificant looking and uncomfortable of buildings. The Prefecture of a French provincial town, such, for instance, as that of Versailles or Nancy, is, as a general rule, both more roomy and imposing than the narrow and old-fashioned tenement in which the Chancellor of the German Empire and the officials of the Political Department of the Foreign Office were housed for almost sixteen years. Chosen as the residence of the Minister at a time when Prussia was only occasionally reckoned among the effectually great Powers of Europe, it may not merely have sufficed for its purpose so long as that period lasted, but have been, to some extent, an adequate symbol of her slight importance in the eyes of the outer world. After Prussia had taken a higher rank and compelled the world’s attention, after her diplomacy had developed into fuller activity, it was, if not materially indispensable, at least fitting and expedient, that something better should be provided. The fact that this was only done at a late period is due mainly to the simple tastes of Prince Bismarck, who, as we have already seen, contented himself throughout his campaigns with scanty shelter, quite incommensurate with his rank.

The former residence of the Imperial Chancellor was built in the first half of the last century, and in 1819, when it was purchased by the Treasury, was in the possession of Alopaeus, the Russian Minister of that time. It is situated not far from the Wilhelmsplatz, and nearly opposite to the palace of Prince Charles. It is flanked on the one side by a palace which belonged to Prince Radziwill until about four years ago, when, having passed into the possession of the German[p. 5] Empire, it was transformed into a residence for Prince Bismarck, and the Imperial Chancellerie, while on the other side is the building formerly occupied by Decker’s printing establishment, which has also been for some time the property of the State. Behind the house is a spacious garden, which reaches as far as the Königgrätzer Strasse—the only beautiful feature of the whole residence. Looked at from the front, No. 76 Wilhelmstrasse is a grey stucco house of moderate size. To the left on the ground floor is a carriage entrance, while to the right extends a row of eleven windows. On the first floor there are thirteen windows, and above a small flat gable projects from the tiled roof, beneath which are four pilasters in low relief, with Corinthian capitals rising between the middle windows. There is no other ornamentation of any kind. Whoever wishes may add to the picture, according to his own fancy, a few Chancery messengers with leather portfolios; Leverstroem, the “Black Horseman” (who acts as the bearer of hurried messages, inquiries and invitations); or one or other of the Ministers or foreign representatives stepping out of his carriage to pay the Chancellor a visit.

If we pull the bell of the outer door it opens for us, only to close immediately behind our backs. We find ourselves in a gateway which opens on a small passage between two walls, behind which a portion of the garden is visible. On the right there is a window, behind the panes of which a watchful eye studies our appearance. Further on we come to the steps of a stone staircase, and a landing with a chessboard pattern in red and white; then a yellow folding screen before a glass door between two grey Doric columns. On either side right and left of the staircase crouches a sphinx—mute, deep-gazing,[p. 6] and doubtless profoundly wise, which the stranger may regard as an intimation that he stands on the threshold of a mysterious region, inaccessible to most mortals. The watchful one awaits the visitor outside the small door, which opens on to the landing behind one of the sphinxes, scrutinises him closely, and inquires whom he wishes to see. This is Herr Linstedt, the Porter of the Foreign Office.

Let us suppose that the stranger is in a position to satisfy this strict, though polite, janitor as to his right to visit all the mysterious chambers behind the screen (which, by the way, Prince Napoleon on his visit to Bismarck is understood not to have been able to do without some delay), and let us further suppose that our stroll through the building takes place in one of the three years from February, 1870, to March, 1873. These are among the most important years of the last decades; and since then, as already indicated, alterations have been made both in the arrangement of the rooms and in the personnel employed there. Finally, it may perhaps be well to remember before entering, and to bear constantly in mind, that this is not the office of the Imperial Chancellor—a misunderstanding which to my knowledge was formerly very frequent, and which may occur occasionally even now; but the Foreign Office, or, to be still more precise, the first or political department of the Foreign Office, which works immediately under the control of the Imperial Chancellor. The Imperial Chancellerie, properly so called, is now located in the palatial building, Nos. 1 and 2 Wilhelmsplatz; while during the period here referred to it was also rather poorly housed. The Imperial Chancellerie, which is to a certain extent the Ministry of the Interior for Germany, at that time under the control of Herr Delbrück,[p. 7] was, and is, both actually and for purposes of business, about as distinct from the Foreign Office as is the Ministry of War and the Admiralty.

An ominous twilight prevails in the chambers behind the screens. A door to the right leads into the room occupied by the deciphering clerks. To the left a rather broad staircase, which receives its light from a small cupola decorated with green and gold arabesques, leads to the first floor, on which is situated the official residence of the Imperial Chancellor. For the present we pass by these carpeted stairs in order to continue our inspection of the lower regions. A few paces further on, and we find ourselves in a small dark passage, which is lighted with hanging lamps, even in the day time. It ends at a folding door leading into a large chamber occupied by the Secretary of State, which looks out on to the back-yard and the garden. On the left-hand side of the passage a second door opens into the room of the Chancery attendants. Passing through this to a third door we enter a small dimly-lighted antechamber, which might—if it were possible to compare the Foreign Office to the Temple at Jerusalem—correspond to the Forecourt of the Gentiles, or be described as the space where the Proselytes of the Gate collected together. In other words, here the minor officials of the Ministry receive and despatch business with outsiders, i.e., with persons who do not belong to the Foreign Office. Behind the folding doors visible to the right and left of this antechamber is holy ground, unapproachable for the profane world, and only accessible to the Levites and priests. On the right Secretaries cipher, decipher, and copy despatches. To the left those who are initiated and have the right of entry find themselves first in the Central Bureau, the headquarters of the Secretaries for[p. 8] confidential correspondence, and then in a small labyrinth of rooms, cells, and partitions, in which officials of various grades in the diplomatic hierarchy are engaged with the secrets of the house, mostly seated a few paces, and sometimes hardly three feet, from each other.

The impression left by this series of chambers is not at all a pleasant one, especially if the visitor has been previously in the Ministry of Commerce or the Imperial Chancellerie, and is able and disposed to make comparisons. In such circumstances one may perhaps think of Faust’s “drangvoll fuerchterliche Enge”:

“Beschraenkt von diesem Buecherhauf,
.....
Mit Instrumenten voll gepfropft,
Urvaeter Hausrath drein gestopft.”

Such is the oppressive sultriness, particularly when the visit takes place in the evening, and the steam of a dozen oil lamps is added to the smell of documents, printer’s ink, and the close air, revolting the nose and distressing the lungs, that one cannot help wondering how it is that lamps can possibly burn in such an atmosphere, and that such an accumulation of evil gases does not lead to explosions and accidents as in ill-ventilated mines.

This is no exaggeration. Man becomes accustomed to everything upon this earth, even to eating arsenic and to the poisonous air of overcrowded rooms. Such rooms, however, do not on that account become any the pleasanter to live in. Another and almost equally serious inconvenience to which several of those engaged there have perforce to become reconciled, is that of having to work so close together in small rooms, sometimes only divided by a papered partition, through which every conversation not conducted in a whisper interrupts[p. 9] the course of their own thoughts, and (I refer of course to the period above specified, though I quote from my diary in the present tense) the inconvenience is not diminished by the circumstance that some of the gentlemen employed there seem unable to speak in a low voice.

The furniture, which includes some fossils from the primeval Alopaeus period, is made of every kind of wood grown in our forests and gardens, and constructed in every fashion and style of cabinet-making, reaching back to the last century. Yellow plum-tree, dark mahogany, common deal, japanned, polished and merely planed wood, writing-tables, standing and cylinder desks, document cupboards, open shelves for books, journals and papers, and, in the furthest chambers of the labyrinth, a few sofas, each of which almost invariably differs in shape and material from its neighbour, are arranged along the walls in motley array. Several of these have the dignity of age. Not the most ancient of these grey and antique relics is a desk at which some official has, I believe for thirty years, always sharpened his pencil on the same spot, until at length his penknife has dug a hole right through the inch and a half thickness of the wood. These venerable survivals are calculated to provoke many thoughts both serious and humorous; but there is one in particular which they all suggested, at any rate to me. How it must have worried these ancient pieces of furniture, after so many years and decades of fruitless but comfortable routine, to find themselves suddenly roused in 1862 by the new spirit that had entered and filled the house! Can they ever have grown reconciled to that swift, exacting, imperious and not very considerate genius, even when they saw the fruits, the immense success, of the organisation[p. 10] which he introduced? One must assume that furniture has no interest in or understanding of such matters.

It would be a pleasant addition if I were at liberty to complete my description of these rooms with characteristic portraits of their occupants. They would be as statues and pictures in the house which I have built with words, and it is possible that a couple of original figures would be found among the number. There are, however, certain grounds for hesitation, of which I will only mention the following—that as a rule dignity will not suffer a jest; furthermore, that a member of the non-official world runs some risk of forming an incorrect or unfair opinion of an official; and that the latter—if he is of the right sort—wishes neither to be praised nor blamed by persons outside his own circle, nor indeed even mentioned oftener than is necessary. Such an one desires simply to do his duty, and contents himself with his own legitimate sense of personal worth, which in this instance is all the more praiseworthy, as those whose portraits I should here have to attempt are officials of rank and title.

These considerations made me hesitate. Finally, however, others forced themselves upon me. The picture of the Chancellor’s life must be made as complete as possible; and the truth, which through machinations in the press has been in many instances seriously obscured and disfigured, must no longer suffer violence. I therefore adopt a middle course, and take from my diary, where they have been preserved till now for the purpose of private reference, certain of the above-mentioned statues and pictures, the originals of which have in the meantime either died or been placed in an entirely false light in the public mind. These I exhibit partly here and partly in the later chapters. History,[p. 11] to which these fellow-workers of the Chancellor now belong, must know how they appear to an impartial observer. To this necessity all other considerations must give way. Of the other gentlemen I only give the names, recall their titles, mention in general that they are more or less richly provided with the usual decorations, and indicate in a few words some of their principal features.

We had remained in the first room to the left of the dusky antechamber already described, which I took the liberty of comparing to the Forecourt of the Gentiles. Under the windows are the writing-tables and desks of the Secretaries of the Central Bureau, who, if I am rightly informed, occupy the first rank among the minor officials of the Empire. Geheimer Hofrath Roland, the Chief of the Bureau, has his place under the furthest window, in the region of the Councillors of Embassy. He is an elderly gentleman, who entered at a time when these positions were mainly or exclusively occupied by members of the French colony, and when the principal business of the Central Bureau, namely, the registration of all documents despatched and received, was conducted in the French language. He is a paragon of registrars, although just a little brusque, and he might perhaps also be described as a good calculator, in a certain sense. Nine orders and medals decorate his meritorious breast, when on festive occasions he dons his uniform of a lieutenant of the Reserve. Thoroughly well versed in the etiquette of official intercourse, he would, in writing to the Minister, never subscribe himself other than “most obedient humble servant”; to the Secretary of State, “obedient”; to an Ambassador, “most dutiful”; or to an Envoy, “most respectful.” In writing to Bülow and Keudell, he signs himself “your most obedient,” possibly[p. 12] because they are Kassenraethe, or perhaps because of their titles of nobility. To Bucher and the other Privy Councillors he is only “your obedient,” to officials of equal rank “most humble,” and to inferiors “humble.” The next in place and rank is “Hofrath” Hesse, formerly a theologian, and also advanced in years. Then come Herr Boelsing, also for some time past a “Hofrath,” and the “Geheim Sekretär,” Wollmann, who has not yet been awarded the higher predicate.

I wish again to call attention to the fact that these descriptions and names refer to the period of 1873.

As already cursorily noted, the Central Bureau is the despatching and registering department of the Foreign Office. It is the centre from which all the ideas and orders of the Chancellor, as worked up by the Councillors in the form of notes, despatches, telegrams, instructions, &c., radiate out into the world, and it is the point at which all those coming in from outside, such as documents, reports, and letters addressed to the Minister personally, or to the Ministry, are opened, registered according to their contents, communicated to the Chief, and, after use—so far as it is desirable to retain them—arranged in bundles and pigeon-holed in the presses which line the walls, until they ultimately find their way into the State archives.

Adjoining the room occupied by the Geheim Sekretäre, is a narrow, one-windowed cell, with book shelves, newspaper cupboards, and other furniture, including the patient writing desk above mentioned, with its counterpart to the proverb that “Constant dropping wears the stone,” which has made the clearest and most lasting impression upon my memory, as it was assigned to me as my place of work. Next to this little chamber, which at the same time served as a thoroughfare to the larger[p. 13] room of the Secretaries, was a still smaller one, not more than two good paces in breadth, which was divided from the former by a thin wooden partition papered over. Within these narrow confines two Räthe (Councillors), the antipodes of each other, Lothar Bucher and Aegidi, were from the summer of 1871 driven to seek elbow-room and a few feet of space to move about in, and, what is still stranger, they managed to find it. A full account must be given of the first mentioned of these. One day, when the secret history of the Bismarckian era can be written, the name of this little, unpretentious man in the modest cell will have to occupy a prominent, and perhaps, indeed, the first place among the Chancellor’s fellow-labourers. And with justice! I do not exaggerate when I assert that of the assistants who co-operated in the work of our political regenerator, Bucher was in every respect the most gifted and the best informed, while at the same time he was unquestionably the man of strongest character, conscientiousness, unselfishness and loyalty among them. He was a man of genuine distinction, and with his clear and fine understanding, his wealth of knowledge, his skill in political affairs, and his great power of work, he was, in short—to borrow the words in which our master once spoke of him to me—“a real pearl.” Space fails me to show this at due length, and indications and outlines, with a few illustrations of his worth, must suffice in some degree to give an idea of this rare character. His name will recur repeatedly in the diary, which will, as far as possible, make up for what may be lacking here.

Adolph Lothar Bucher was born at Neustettin, on the 25th of October, 1817. When he was two years of age his family moved to Koeslin in Further Pomerania, where his father, a Saxon of the Electorate, and much[p. 14] respected as a philologist and geographer, was Professor and Pro-Rector of the Gymnasium or High School. Here the boy received his earliest instruction and his first conscious impressions of the world and life. The fact that his father was a friend of Ludwig Jahn’s must have had some influence on his riper youth. The subjects for which he showed the greatest aptitude at school were mathematics and natural philosophy; and as the time for choosing a profession drew near he first wished to become a sailor and afterwards an architect. His parents on the other hand preferred one of the learned professions; and he decided to adopt the study of the law, for which purpose he went to Berlin University. Here he found in progress the well known conflict between the historical and philosophical schools, between Savigny and Gans. He threw in his lot with the latter, and occupied himself diligently with the study of Hegel, their chief master. Subsequently, however, his inclination for philosophy cooled down, and he devoted himself exclusively to jurisprudence. From 1838 to 1843 he was engaged in the chief Provincial Court at Koeslin, and in the latter year was appointed Assessor in the Court at Stolp, which town returned him as its representative to the Prussian National Assembly in March, 1848, and a year later to the Parliament which had in the meantime been created. Up to 1840 there had practically been no public life in Prussia in the present sense of the words. The new representative from Further Pomerania was a jurist, whose education had been in the main confined to civil law, and who had had no experience whatever of affairs of State. Moreover he had read Rotteck and Welcker in his leisure hours, and had with his inborn thoroughness assimilated their views on history and[p. 15] politics. It was therefore almost a matter of course, particularly when the revolutionary spirit is taken into account, which at that time swept like a stormy west wind through the German States, shaking all the trees and loosening every joint, that Bucher should have taken his seat upon the Left benches and devoted his gifts as a jurist and as a speaker to the service of Radicalism. It should be observed however that he did not belong to the Waldeck party, which despised the rules of polite conduct, and just as little to those who delighted in the art of pathetic oratory. Speaking of him in his “Denkwuerdigkeiten” General von Brandt says: “I have never heard any one speak with more talent and moderation than Bucher on this occasion (the debate in Committee on the so-called Habeas Corpus Act). His blond hair and dispassionate attitude reminded me strongly of pictures of St. Just. Bucher was a ruthless leveller of all existing institutions, rank and property. He was one of the most consistent members of the National Assembly, and was determined to take every step which seemed to lead towards the attainment of his object, namely virtue as the principle, and fraternal affection in the conduct of affairs. With no knowledge of society and devoted to sterile legal abstractions, he was fully convinced that the salvation of the world could only be secured by the sudden and violent destruction of the existing State and social arrangements. He helped to organise the public opposition, and in particular to spur on the ambitious and turbulent fraction of the National Assembly to seize a Dictature. The ironical contempt with which he treated the existing authorities and evinced his hatred of the old constitution of the State, his dogma of the sovereignty of the people, whom he intoxicated with their own Radical[p. 16] chimeras, together with the ability which he displayed for the rôle of a demagogue would have enabled him in time to surpass all the members of his party in his strictly logical endeavours.”

In Parliament Bucher was particularly active in promoting the various measures of reorganisation. He played an especially important part as the reporter on the motion by Waldeck, calling upon the Ministry to raise the state of minor siege which had been declared against Berlin on the 12th of November, 1848. He found no difficulty on this occasion, when he again spoke mainly as a jurist, in proving the illegality of the measure, as there could be no doubt that it was impossible to justify it by Article 110 of the Constitution, which only came into force three weeks later, and the more so as this article only dealt with the suspension of certain fundamental rights in case of war or revolution. Neither the one nor the other existed in Berlin on the 12th of November, and the Minister had not only suspended the fundamental rights, but had subjected citizens to the jurisdiction of courts martial, of which there was no mention in Article 110, and for which older laws also contained no provision. The resolution passed by the House on that occasion led to its dissolution, followed on the 4th of February by the so-called Refusal of Taxes Trial.... The special hatred of Bucher in the higher circles, as evinced in the course of this trial, was due to his above-mentioned report on the illegality of the state of siege. The proceedings ended in the acquittal of most of the accused. Bucher and three others were, however, found guilty and sentenced to three months’ confinement in a fortress, with the usual additions, namely loss of civic rights, and, for officials, dismissal from the service of the State.

[p. 17]

This turn of affairs, and still more the vexations with which he was threatened by the police after the termination of his imprisonment, decided Bucher to go abroad. He settled permanently in London. Here began for him a period of enlightenment, which resulted in the gradual transformation of the juridical theorist and idealist into a practical politician. He occupied himself at first with the study of politics and political economy, and with the observation of English methods and customs, whereby he found himself in many respects disappointed with his former ideals, and filled with repugnance and contempt of things and persons which he, like other Liberals, had previously admired. Among the acquaintances which he made here were Urquhart, and afterwards Mazzini, Ledru Rollin and Herzen. The last three in particular contributed to his further transformation by openly speculating in his presence on sundry strips of German territory in the South, West and East, which were required in satisfaction of the doctrine of nationalities. This aroused a certain distrust in Bucher’s mind, which in this respect did not suffer from the disease of “principle.” His untainted patriotism warned him of the desirability of prudence. The experience and the convictions which he obtained in this way were, together with other material, utilised by him in the German press, and particularly in the National Zeitung, to which he for several years contributed political articles, which attracted widespread attention by the thorough knowledge of the subjects dealt with, their wealth and depth of thought, and the highly original views of which they gave evidence. He also wrote for the same paper some excellent reports of the London Industrial Exhibition, on English household arrangements[p. 18] worthy of imitation, and on other practical matters. He did eminent service in the enlightenment of such Liberal minds as were not closed to argument by his letters on English Parliamentarism, a brilliant criticism, which indirectly hit upon the weak points of Parliamentarism in general, and confuted the current heresy that the German popular representation should be modelled in every particular on the British system. He produced convincing arguments that the English Constitution was not a manufactured article but a growth, the product of the English State and social life and character, and further that Constitutional arrangements cannot be everywhere the same, but must correspond with the fundamental character, history and prevailing conditions of each separate country. To this was added evidence, which was then necessary, but is now no longer required by any sensible man, showing that the English art of government, so far as foreign affairs are concerned—when the ornamental veil of fine phrases is torn off—is nothing more than a commercial policy of the most self-seeking kind, devoid of all ideal motives and historical breadth. In these letters the difficulties and the seamy side of English Parliamentary life and the weaknesses of their leaders, Palmerston, Gladstone, the “Doctor supernaturalis” Cobden, and the whole gang of hypocritical and egotistic apostles of English Free Trade were illuminated by a light of truly electric brilliancy and clearness. It was a ruthless exposure of a kind that has rarely been witnessed.[1]

In 1860 Bucher, probably tired of working for the[p. 19] press, thought of emigrating to Central America, where he had acquired a piece of land (which was still in his possession twenty years later), in order to become a coffee planter under his own palms and mangrove bushes. Fate decided, however, that he belonged to growing Germany, and the amnesty of that year permitted his return to Berlin. Here he renewed his former friendship with Rodbertus, and made the acquaintance of Lassalle, to whom his intercourse soon became indispensable, while Bucher on his side felt attracted in many ways towards Lassalle. The Socialist agitator was a very different character to his heirs of to-day, a man of the highest ability, with whom Bismarck himself did not disdain to correspond, a respected savant who was highly esteemed by Bockh, and a resolute patriot who was only led into folly by his boundless ambition. As a follower of Hegel, he belonged to a different school of thought to Bucher, but was yet in agreement with the latter in his belief in the “iron law of wages,” and like him convinced that the State alone could reform the evils from which the labouring classes suffered. Bucher’s former political associates on the other hand belonged to the Manchester school, considering that the true way of salvation lay in “laisser-faire” and free competition, that is to say, in the destruction of the weak by the strong. They further swore by the principle of the Nationalverein, and detesting the idea of war for this purpose, they wished to unite Germany under Prussia by “moral” means, by a “popular policy,” speeches, and leading articles, and by athletic, singing and prize-shooting festivals. In this respect also Bucher, as a practical politician and contemner of phrases, was of a decidedly different opinion to his friends of the National Zeitung, and the difference in their views led[p. 20] gradually to an estrangement which was accompanied by an inward approach to Bismarck’s standpoint in the German question, resulting ultimately in the co-operation of the two. Bucher had severed his connection with the National Zeitung, and was by no means satisfied with the position which he afterwards took in Wolf’s Telegraph Agency. He therefore thought of seeking work as a lawyer, and wrote to the Minister of Justice on the subject. Bismarck heard of his plans through the latter. He asked Bucher to see him, and offered him occupation at the Foreign Office, which was accepted after some little hesitation. Bucher, the whilom Democrat, the former member of the Prussian party of the Mountain, who had hurled oratorical bombshells at the Minister, had been cured by a sound understanding, experience and change of air; and, in 1864, he was already in full and fruitful activity at No. 76 Wilhelmstrasse, where he continued for two decades. He did excellent service to the new German world in the most various ways, as lawyer, diplomatist and publicist, and fully justified the confidence of him who had chosen him as a fellow worker. In the years 1865 to 1867 he was chiefly entrusted with the administration of Lauenburg, a difficult task, as this Duchy when it came into the possession of Prussia was two centuries behind the times, both in its legal institutions and in its methods of administration. During the same period, in 1866, he drew up for his Chief the Constitution of the North German Confederation (the principal articles of which agree in the main with that of the German Empire). Bismarck of course had given him the main lines for his task, which Bucher, by the way, completed within twenty hours. He was afterwards repeatedly engaged in the preparation and execution of important political[p. 21] work and regulations, and discharged with skill and success several diplomatic missions, including two of universal historical importance. He became so indispensable to the Minister that the latter took him to Varzin for several summers while on holiday. During the war with France Bucher was working with the Chancellor at headquarters from the end of September up to the preliminaries of peace, and also in 1871 on the conclusion of the definitive treaty at Frankfurt. He kept the minutes of the Berlin Congress in 1878. He wrote a great number of the most important despatches and memorials, as well as a pamphlet on the Cobden Club, for which he had collected material in England. The Chancellor very seldom made any alterations in his work. As a matter of fact Bucher had from the beginning understood him, and easily assimilated his views of things in individual cases, while he had the further advantage of being able to take down verbal communications in shorthand.

While in his official life Bucher enjoyed the high esteem and full confidence of the Chief, whose example was followed more or less willingly by others, he experienced in later years considerable bitterness and neglect, principally, but not exclusively, under the Secretaries of State, von Bülow and Hatzfeldt. He finally asked for his discharge, not merely on account of age and illness, which were the ostensible motives. His request was acceded to. He declined the proposal of the Prince that he should retire into private life with the title of Excellency, because “he could not then have continued to stitch on his own buttons, or to stroll about the Jungfernhaide with a botanist’s impedimenta on his back.” Bucher, who was one of the truest of the true, paid several long visits to the Prince after the[p. 22] fatal 18th of March, 1890, and helped him to prepare his “Memoirs,” of which, so long as he was engaged upon them, his valuable assistance materially enhanced the trustworthiness.

It may be added that Bucher remained unmarried, and that, considering his position, he had little intercourse during recent years with his fellows. His friends in diplomatic circles included Schloetzer, Limburg-Stirum, and Kusserow; and in the financial and industrial world, Hansemann and Werner Siemens. The bond between him, Victor Hehn, and myself was our common veneration for the Chancellor and our equally deep contempt for hypocrisy and place hunting. His character in company was that of a sober, taciturn man, who was, nevertheless, by no means devoid of poetic feeling and humour, who could tell many a good story in an effective manner, and who sometimes talked also in very pleasant fashion of his canaries and the Alpine flowers in his herbarium. His ideas and feelings were expressed in a low tone, without being wanting in energy. A cool head, but a warm heart; still water, but clear and deep. I have given more time and space to his picture than I had intended at first, but I believe I shall have thereby compensated for the mischief done by others to his memory; for I remember that Count Caprivi’s menials, who had the preparation of the Reichsanzeiger, thought it sufficient to devote three dry lines to his departure when he passed into eternity at Glion, on the Lake of Geneva, on the 12th of October, 1892.

I propose to deal with Keudell later. Of Bülow I will only remark that he is a man of routine, of moderate ability, and is understood to be not altogether free from an inclination to intrigue. Geheimrath Hepke, a lean,[p. 23] wizened man in the fifties, is not a very pleasant personage. He has something in him of the Privy Councillor as he exists in the popular imagination—great self-conceit, a consciousness that he knows practically everything considerably better than the rest of the world, and doubtless also a high opinion of his own rank and title.

Leaving the room where Geheimrath Hepke works, and proceeding to the right along the adjoining narrow passage, we reach the small room containing the reference library of the Ministry. Here at a window which opens on the court another Privy Councillor of Embassy, Count Hatzfeldt, (afterwards promoted to the position of Minister in Madrid, then representative of the Empire at the Porte, and in 1880 appointed Secretary of State under the Imperial Chancellor,) spends a few hours daily. In the next room we hear the scratching of the ever ready pen of his older colleague, Abeken, whose gifts and character must now be dealt with. While the Chancellor himself selected Lothar Bucher as his fellow worker, Abeken came to him by inheritance. Heinrich Abeken may be regarded in almost every respect as the type of the official of the old school. His whole being and inclinations belong to that epoch in our history which may be described as the literary-æsthetic era, a time when political affairs were of secondary interest to poetry, philosophy, philology treated from an artistic standpoint, and other scientific questions. He enjoyed himself most, and felt himself most at home, in a circle of ideas which, previous to the appearance of Bismarck, chiefly attracted the attention of the Court, the upper classes, the higher bourgeoisie and persons of education. Indeed, he has hardly ever for a single moment[p. 24] thoroughly thrown himself into politics. Even at times when the welfare of his country appeared to be at stake he seemed to be more interested in some æsthetic question than in measures more closely connected with the sphere to which his office assigned him. It happened not infrequently that while others were anxiously awaiting the outcome of a political crisis his thoughts were occupied by an entirely different subject, so that for instance the verses of some old or new poet kept running through his head, and were usually recited by him with much pathos, although they had no visible connection with the situation of the moment. Abeken, who hailed from Osnabrück, was born in 1809. His education was conducted by his uncle Bernhard Rudolf Abeken, the philologist and writer on æsthetics, who lived at Weimar in Schiller’s time, and who had assimilated the style of sentiment which then prevailed there. The nephew afterwards studied theology, and in 1834 held the position of Chaplain to the Prussian Embassy in Rome under Josias Bunsen. He there married an Englishwoman, who was taken from him by death a few months later. A friend of Bunsen, whom he followed to London on his transfer to that post in 1841, and whose views and aspirations in ecclesiastical matters he shared, Abeken even at that time devoted himself so far to diplomacy that he drew up a memorandum on the creation of an evangelical bishopric in Jerusalem. This idea was regarded with lively sympathy in the most exalted quarters in Berlin, although, later on, under William I., it would scarcely have occurred to any one, or have served as a recommendation for its originator. In this connection we meet Abeken again among those who accompanied Professor Lepsius on his exploring tour[p. 25] through Upper Egypt in 1842, when he also visited the Holy Land. He entered the Foreign Office under Heinrich von Arnim, and there he remained until his death in August, 1872, notwithstanding the important changes that had occurred in the meantime, a model of loyalty and attachment, even though his virtues recalled in many ways those of the venerable old furniture to which I alluded just now.

The extracts from the diary during the war have already given some instances of the exceptional and occasionally comic attraction which everything connected with the Court and other princely circles seemed to exercise upon Abeken, and the subsequent chapters will contain a few more. In this respect he was the very antitype of his colleague Bucher, as also in the fact that he was particularly sociable and talkative. It was to satisfy the longing which he felt for intercourse with persons of rank that he used to frequent the circles which made the Radziwill Palace their headquarters. He was unable to forego these visits even when the society that collected there formed the centre of the ultramontane opposition to the ecclesiastical policy of the Chancellor. Apart from such social gatherings as the above, the old gentleman must have felt himself most at home at the weekly meetings of the Graeca, a society “consisting chiefly of former Romans,” the rules of which excluded all political discussions, its sole object in addition to its social aims being of a philological and æsthetic character.

With regard to Abeken’s business capacity and the limitations of his usefulness I would first recall the circumstance that our Chief, at the time when he described Bucher to me as a “real pearl,” is understood to have spoken of Abeken as a “true strawchopper”—a[p. 26] comparison which is less flattering than appropriate. Unquestionably Abeken was a very meritorious worker in the routine of the Foreign Office, but he was by no means such a prominent one as many outsiders thought. Owing to his long service thoroughly acquainted with all the ins and outs of official business, he had become a virtuoso in red tape. Provided with an ample store of phrases which, when he received his instructions, ran from his fingers’ ends without much thinking, and with a knowledge of several languages just about sufficient for his task, it was as if he had been specially created for the purpose of putting into shape the ideas given to him by the Chief with the readiness of a sewing machine. In addition to this he was an indefatigable worker, and would deliver in the course of the day astonishing quantities of well-written documents for the messengers and despatch bags. But when he had to deal with questions of importance, he was scarcely in a position to draw for the material upon his own resources. It was not, however, at all necessary that he should do so. The ready writer with a good knowledge of traditional forms was sufficient. It was the Minister’s genius and knowledge of men and things that provided the substance for his work, and sometimes also improved the form. He is understood to have worked with more independence under Bismarck’s predecessor, and among other things to have drafted the treaty of Olmütz. I have heard it asserted that he drew up on his own initiative documents of great political importance under the First Imperial Chancellor, and prepared speeches from the throne—but this is a baseless legend. On many occasions, however, when the Minister was out of temper with the King, Abeken acted for weeks at a time, entrusted as the mouthpiece of his Chief, and, of course, under instructions[p. 27] from the latter, reported to his Majesty on current affairs. He also on various occasions accompanied the monarch, in an official capacity, to bathing resorts, as for instance to Ems in the early summer of 1870, where he made himself useful during the last days of his stay and earned the thanks of the Chancellor. In the adjoining salon his Excellency the Secretary of State, von Thile, receives the diplomatists whom the Chancellor himself is unable to see. He suddenly resigned, if I remember rightly, on the 2nd of October, 1872, and retired into private life. I will, later on, give some particulars of the motives for this step. He was opposed to the Kulturkampf, and longed for the return of the peace of former times. He was exceptionally amiable as a superior. For a short time after his retirement his position was filled by von Balan, the German Minister at the Belgian Court. A definitive successor was then appointed in the person of von Bülow of Mecklenburg, who (I am also writing for the lay public), as Minister of State and Excellency, must not be confounded with his namesake mentioned above. Count Bismarck-Bohlen and Baron von Gundlach only put in an appearance here occasionally. The former, a cousin of the Chancellor’s, was a lieutenant in the Dragoon Guards and a Councillor of Embassy, and had charge of all sorts of personal affairs of the Chief, principally such as were of little importance. He was also the medium for the Minister’s communications with the Literary Bureau in the Ministry of State, and with Stieber, the chief of the Berlin detective force. Naturally good-natured he was addicted to bragging, played the heathen and the roué on a small scale, and indulged in jokes and puns which were not always bad; but he never carried weight with any one, even the Secretaries upon whom he occasionally tried to[p. 28] shift some of his work shrugging their shoulders at him. All that is to be said of Gundlach, a lean and sickly gentleman, who afterwards died at Lisbon as Chargé d’Affaires, is that he put in an appearance daily for half, or sometimes a whole, hour, glanced at the Journal des Debats, The Times, &c., chatted for a while, coughed a little, chatted again, and for these labours drew an allowance of six thalers a day. For some time after the war Count Wartensleben, a young and amiable nobleman, who was preparing himself for the diplomatic service, in which he died of cancer in 1880, and Count Solms-Sonnenwalde, who had previously been attached to the Embassy in Paris, and who afterwards acted as Minister first in Brazil, then in Dresden, and finally in Madrid,[2] passed in and out amongst us for a time.

It is hardly necessary to point out that notwithstanding the narrowness and discomfort of the Foreign Office there is plenty of hard and good work done there, particularly by Bucher and Abeken. The Chancellor demands it, and gives a good example of it in his own person. The strictest order prevails from top to bottom, unconditional obedience is the rule, and, as is right and proper, every one obeys without protest or contradiction, whatever his own opinion may be. At times one or other of the distinguished gentlemen who sit here kicks against the pricks, fancies he should do a little more or a little less, argues about some special instruction given to him, gnashing his teeth and clenching his fist—in his pocket. He prudently abstains, however, from giving expression to his dissatisfaction otherwise than in soliloquies within the walls of his own room. Everything downstairs moves at the bidding of one will, that which comes from upstairs, and every one works to the[p. 29] best of his ability. Whoever does not care to work within the broader or narrower sphere prescribed for him by the genius who rules here may take himself off. Discipline must be maintained, and absolute subordination, so that every wheel of the machine shall work readily and promptly and in its proper time and place. There must be no stoppage caused by this or that individuality. Acquiescence is the first and highest law.

Formerly things were different, but no great harm was done. Those who are acquainted with the history of Prussia prior to Bismarck’s entry into office know why. To-day when a fertile mind and an energetic will preside here, and matters of the greatest moment are at stake, there is nothing for it but to obey orders. The Councillors have no longer to offer counsel, but simply to regard themselves as instruments of the Chancellor’s will, who, like other instruments, Chargés d’Affaires, Ministers, and Ambassadors, have to use their knowledge and ability in carrying his ideas and intentions into execution. Strong self-consciousness is not compatible with the necessity of maintaining a continuous and homogeneous policy.

This was called “Ministerial despotism” by Count Harry Arnim. I call it the maintenance of an absolutely essential devotion to duty under a great leader. Arnim was offended at the expression made use of on one occasion by the Chancellor: “My Ambassadors must wheel round like non-commissioned officers at the word of command without knowing why.” I, on the contrary, consider it quite an excellent description of the relations which should always exist between the leading spirit of the Foreign Office and its branches at foreign Courts, especially when a man of highly[p. 30] original character and quite exceptional ideas and principles is in charge of the administration. With the kind permission of the Excellencies and Grand Crosses in question I should not have objected even if in that expression of the Chancellor’s they had been described as his senior clerks. The more they subordinate to him their own views, tastes and wills, regarding themselves as his staff sergeants, or clerks, and acting accordingly, the better services will they render, and the better will be their work. If, in addition thereto, they should prove to be impartial, clear-sighted observers and diligent reporters, with a sense of what is of importance, and a distaste for phrasemongering and smart writing (of these attributes, by the way, the only one with which Count Arnim could be credited was a desultory industry), they will have done pretty well everything that can be fairly expected of them.

I ought now to conduct the reader upstairs under the green and gold cupola to the first floor and there show him the rooms occupied by the Imperial Chancellor and his family. I prefer, however, first to pay a visit to the park behind the courtyards and the smaller outbuildings. It is a stately and pleasant fragment of the Thiergarten, which formerly extended to this spot, and of which many fine groups of beautiful old shady trees are still preserved behind the Wilhelmstrasse, where the nightingales beneath their spreading branches celebrate the budding springtime and the sunrise. The long avenue which runs in a straight line to the left, shaded by elm trees or white beech, and which finishes not far from the further end of the garden, narrowing more and more in perspective, I always thought to be specially charming and indeed fairy like. Exceptionally beautiful in the first days of summer with the green shadows[p. 31] falling athwart the branches in the foreground while the far end is bathed in a soft green light, it remains beautiful even in winter, when the fine lichens and mosses lend a greenish sheen to the stems of the trees. I believe the garden is one of the Chancellor’s favourite walks, and I hope that this, at least, will be preserved when the house is pulled down. A further reason for hoping so is that many a deep plan was thought out, and many a decision of great moment taken here. The Minister had often strolled up and down here at a late hour of the evening awaiting news from the King at times when important measures were under consideration. Here on the night of the 14th and 15th of June, in the Year of Victory, 1866, the idea occurred to him of inducing Moltke to order the Prussian forces to cross the frontier, and thereby the Rubicon, twenty-four hours earlier than had been originally intended; and here, in 1870, about the time of the declaration of war, he was to be seen repeatedly pacing up and down that evergreen avenue in a meditative mood, swinging a big stick, and from time to time sending the messenger in waiting to summon one of his assistants in order to give instructions for despatches, telegrams, or newspaper articles.

Returning from the garden behind No. 76 Wilhelmstrasse, we observe that the two wings in which the house ends at this side contain only work rooms, servants’ apartments, stables, &c., and that the courtyard between them is shaded by a broad branched nut-tree.

Proceeding up the stairs behind the screen in the main building, and passing through the glass door at the top, we enter a small antechamber. When the Chancellor is in Berlin, servants in livery and Chancery attendants in black swallow-tail coats await here the[p. 32] arrival of visitors and of those who are to be received in audience, or have to make verbal reports to the Chancellor. A door to the left leads into a second small antechamber, while another to the right brings us into a large oval drawing-room, which extends almost throughout the entire depth of the building. We are told that this was once the ball-room of the Minister Alopaeus, while it now serves as a dining-room when big dinners are given, and for the buffets at the well-known Parliamentary evenings.[3]

From this room we pass into a somewhat smaller one, the four windows of which open on to the Wilhelmstrasse.... The whole room leaves a bright and pleasant impression. It is elegant, but by no means sumptuous, and indeed might be described as comparatively simple. The lack of pictures, and the entirely white ceiling, gives it a certain emptiness and loneliness, while the old-fashioned arrangements for lighting it are not quite in harmony with the remainder of the apartment. In this respect, also, the Chancellor is more unassuming and indifferent to luxury and elegance than his colleagues of the diplomatic world. Not to speak of those who live nearer home, let us imagine how the French Minister for Foreign Affairs would have his residence furnished by the State!

This drawing-room is used for receptions, but sometimes the Chancellor also dines here with his family. This reminds me of a characteristic remark of his. On the 6th of April, 1878, I had the honour to be invited to dine with him. Having in the course of the conversation referred to himself as an “old man,” the Princess remonstrated: “Why, you are only sixty-three!”[p. 33] He replied: “Yes, but I have always lived at high pressure, and paid hard cash for everything.” (Ja, aber ich habe immer schnell und baar gelebt.) Then, turning to me, he added: “Hard cash—that means that I have always put my whole heart into my work: I have paid with my strength and my health for whatever has been achieved.” The German people should be grateful to him for this, instead of allowing themselves to be represented in the Reichstag by men who in their vanity and self-will vie with each other in ingratitude.

The Chinese Salon is about twenty-two paces in length by twelve in breadth, and has three folding doors. One of these opens into the dining-room, another into the second antechamber mentioned above, and the third into the billiard-room, which also looks out on the Wilhelmstrasse. The latter is of the same depth as the room just described, and is about three paces less in length. This room is full of historic memories, the spirit of decisive conferences. The decisive interview with the “Duke of Schleswig-Holstein” took place here in 1864, at which he, with his tenacious self-seeking and narrow-mindedness, suddenly found himself transformed into a modest “Hereditary Prince of Augustenburg.” In the last month preceding the war of 1866 the walls of this chamber listened to a fateful exchange of views between Herr von Bismarck and the Austrian Minister. Some time afterwards Prince Napoleon was received here; and in the spring of 1870 the slight figure of Benedetti might be observed waiting in this room for the Minister with whom he was to enter into negotiations.

If we now pass through the folding doors which open opposite those leading into the Chinese Salon, we find ourselves in the Chancellor’s study, a room about eleven paces long by ten broad.

[p. 34]

There is no lack of pictures in this room. If we turn to the wall on the right of the door through which we have entered we observe over a sofa covered in dark red woollen stuff, a number of portraits in gilt frames. The uppermost of these is a portrait, either lithographed or in crayon, of the Emperor in plain clothes, then that of his sister, the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and two small photographs of the Emperor in the uniform of a general. In front of this sofa there lay in 1870 the skin of a white lioness, in whose head gleamed two bright glass eyes. On the next wall, not far from the sofa, we find, again in a gilt frame, the portrait of the King of Bavaria in the dress of a civilian; and under this, framed in black, is a small water-colour portrait of the King of Italy, as a permanent guest in the Chancellor’s room. This picture has an interesting history, which will be given in a subsequent chapter on the Prince’s own authority. Victor Emmanuel, who is represented in uniform, has written a dedication under it. Then follows a small mahogany table with books, a carved tobacco chest, a white earthenware stove and a fireplace, together with a narrow door, papered over. Turning towards the third door we observe in a corner a carved pipe-rack, in which are a number of cherry-stick and jasmin stems and thick unmounted meerschaum heads, without mounts. Next to these is a cupboard with a mirror, and resting against it the full-length portrait of a lady, in a carved oak frame. This is the consort of Prince Charles, who died a few years ago. Behind this hang a plaster medallion, in a black frame, giving the bust of Moltke in profile, and above it the Great Elector and the Only Frederick look down upon us in life-size lithograph half-length portraits framed in gold. Further on we find a standing desk with maps,[p. 35] which, like all the furniture in this room, is made of mahogany, and a photograph of Princess Bismarck, also in a gilt frame. Near this a second papered door leads into the Chancellor’s bedroom. On the wall to the left of the door through which we entered is the only oil painting in the room, a life-size portrait, in an oval gilt frame, of the Prince’s daughter, in a ball dress. Beneath it on a cylinder desk stands a deer and a wild boar in cast iron, and a thermometer in the form of an advertisement pillar, and on a smaller adjoining table lies a collection of gloves and white and red military caps.

The Minister’s writing-table, which our descendants will doubtless find in some historical museum, occupies nearly the middle of the room. It is about two and a half metres long by two in width, and is so placed that the person sitting at it has his face turned towards the wall with the oil painting which I have just described. Over it hangs a red woollen bell pull, which many a time and oft has called the Chancery attendant before the door, in order to summon me to make my appearance before the Chief. On such occasions one hurried upstairs instantly, leaving everything just as it happened to lie, stood before the Chief at attention like a lieutenant before his general, all ear and memory, and then rushed off again to his place to commit the orders received to paper as speedily as possible. It was not permissible to misunderstand; and questions as to what had been said were, for the most part, also excluded, while the suggestion that something could not be done met with an angry retort. It had to be done, and as a matter of fact was done in most cases. A severe school, but he who would enjoy the honour of having direct intercourse with a great man, of serving him and his country, and of learning from him, must be able to overlook a[p. 36] certain hardness in his nature. In the present instance this was all the easier, as the Chancellor never bore a grudge, and could be most amiable when off duty. Moreover, others, and some of very high position, fared no better. “I am always frightened when I am obliged to go up to him,” said his Excellency von Thile to me one evening.

Alongside the writing desk and its belongings stand two chairs covered like the sofa, in one of which the Prince is accustomed to sit on the appearance of a visitor, while he invites his guest to occupy the other. At work he uses the oak armchair, with a low open back, which stands behind the writing-table. On his right-hand side is an etagère, upon the top of which rests the bronze figure of a greyhound, and some writing paper and envelopes, lower down some leather portfolios with documents, and quite at the bottom four or five thick folio volumes. On the left of the writer is another stand, with some handbooks. On a visit which I paid to the room in 1873, I found among these books the thick volumes of the “List of Orders” from 1862 to 1868, a number of Petermann’s “Mittheilungen,” Marten’s “Guide Diplomatique,” a collection of Hymns, “Hymnarium, Bluethen lateinischer Kirchenpoesie” (Halle, 1868), Gottfried Cohn’s “Constitution and Procedure of the British Parliament,” Joel’s “Lessons in the Russian Language according to Ollendorff’s System,” and Schmidt’s “Small Russian and German Dictionary.” On the green baize cover of the writing-table usually lies a fold of red blotting paper on which the Chancellor writes. To the right of this under a glass shade we notice a gilt clock, on which a painter in Spanish costume sits with a pencil and drawing board. We also observe on the green cloth a plain[p. 37] white porcelain writing stand with a little gilding, four or five lead pencils of the largest variety, such as the Minister now principally uses, and half-a-dozen quill pens with the feathers cut short, which are prepared by the artistic hand of Hofrath Willisch, one of the decipherers, a paper knife, a seal, a couple of sticks of sealing wax, and a candlestick with two candles.

In 1873 various additions were made: a paper-weight, with a piece of the famous colossal zinc lion that stood up to 1864 in the churchyard of Flensburg as a monument of the Danish victory at Idstedt, and which has now been added to the trophies in the Berlin Zeughaus, and two other paper-weights made of thick metal discs, one of which had been cast from an Austrian cannon captured in 1866, and the second from one of the French cannon taken in 1870; a pen-wiper in black, red, and white; two columnar cigar-cutters; an ash-tray, in the form of a large flower like a tulip, which, together with the two objects last mentioned, have now been removed, as the Prince has given up smoking for several years past on account of his health. Besides these, some old Roman bronze lamps with handles formed of green serpents, a terra-cotta pot with the figures of Massinissa and Sophonisba; and finally, at that time, a few books lay on the table: the red bound “Army List,” Hirth’s “Parlaments-almanach,” the Gotha handbooks, a railway guide, and Henry Wheaton’s “Commentaire du Droit international.”

What tales could be told by that writing-table if it had understanding, memory, and speech! What secrets, what mental struggles, what inspiration and illumination, what slow development of ideas, what sudden energetic decisions; what prayers, perhaps, may those pictures on the walls have witnessed! How the eyes of[p. 38] old Fritz and of the great Elector must have gleamed when they looked over the writer’s shoulder as he drafted bold and far-reaching measures which were to recast the German world, and with it the entire relations of Europe!

The creative mind that ruled here has departed, never to return. To-day perhaps some unimportant but pretentious Herr von So-and-so, the possessor of three high-sounding titles and three times three exalted orders, makes himself at home in his old workshop, for this part of the house has also been altered, and what was formerly on the ground floor has now been shifted upstairs. In our thoughts, however, he still occupies his old place. The Minister is now far away, but, as we feel, only for a time. We, at any rate, feel his invisible presence. We cannot picture to ourselves this historic chamber without thinking of him as its occupant. We pass through it silently, and hold our breath as if we might disturb him. We seem to be standing within sacred precincts. And these must be the feelings of every one, even after years and tens of years, who brings with him a sense of greatness and of hero-worship. The house will one day disappear, and with it this chamber. Otherwise the visitor who might come here a hundred years hence would be still more deeply impressed than we are to-day, and an inner voice would whisper to him, “Hush, this place is sacred ground!”

Continuing our tour of inspection through the front rooms, which were occupied by Prince Bismarck up to 1878, we pass through the papered door into the bed-chamber. Here the walls are covered with a white paper. There is but one window with two curtains, one white and the other of woollen stuff, with a black and red arabesque pattern. The bed is shut in by a screen,[p. 39] covered with red cloth, and on an adjoining shelf stand some cloth slippers and a pair of huge wooden shoes, with the colours of the Empire painted across the instep, a present from a simple-minded but skilful and patriotic patten-maker. A sofa in green stuff stands against the wall opposite the bed, and near it a table and a couple of cushioned armchairs. An old woodcut over the sofa, representing two knights with horses and hounds, and a white earthenware stove complete the fittings of the chamber.

As we return to the study previous to paying a short visit to the back rooms of the residence, we may recall the circumstance that in 1873 a large portrait of General Grant, in a handsome carved oak frame, rested on a chair near the sofa in the former chamber, doubtless an indication of the Prince’s liking for Americans. Their substantial qualities, their practical character, which, however, neither excludes idealism nor the power of self-sacrifice in its pursuit, their youthful audacity combined with far-seeing shrewdness in all their public and private undertakings, inspired the Prince with a hearty admiration, to which he frequently gave expression in my presence.

Of the rooms at the back of the house, the windows of which open on the courtyard with its nut-tree and on the garden, we need only inspect, and quite cursorily, those in the main building. We enter first of all a small sitting-room used by the Princess, in which hangs an excellent picture of Bismarck in his Frankfurt days; and then we pass into a larger room behind the billiard-room, which contains some oil paintings of the Prince’s ancestors, amongst others his grandfather, to whom as a youth he is said to have borne a striking resemblance.

The most interesting piece of furniture is a small[p. 40] mahogany table, which conveys a faint echo of the historic deeds and events that fill the stillness of the front rooms into the cosy comfort of these family apartments. We read on a metal plate that has been inserted into it: “The Preliminary Treaty of Peace between Germany and France was signed upon this table on the 26th of February, 1871, at No. 14 Rue de Provence, Versailles.” I may add that the gold pen set with diamonds which the Chancellor received for the purpose from one of his admirers in the Grand Duchy of Baden, was really used in signing this instrument. If I am not mistaken the Treaty with Bavaria, which was the keystone in the building of the German Empire, was not signed upon this table. Of course the owner of this otherwise comparatively worthless piece of furniture, to which the Chancellor had thus given value and importance, was provided with an exactly similar article.

Adjoining the tea-room is the chamber in which the Prince is accustomed to take lunch, and where the family also occasionally dines. It lies behind one half of the Chinese Salon, and like the latter is furnished with a Turkish carpet, red-cushioned chairs and gilt mirrors, and decorated with a few oil paintings, including a picture of Frederick the Great and a portrait of Frederick William III. It may be mentioned that the rooms just described play a not unimportant part in the orders of the day for the official world below.

Towards 10 o’clock in the morning, sometimes later, seldom earlier, one of the Chancery attendants comes into the Central Bureau and calls out “The Prince is in the breakfast-room.” That is the réveille, the first signal for action of the Chancellor’s little army of assistants, to whom the departmental secretaries now hand all the despatches and documents received for him[p. 41] through the post or otherwise. Some time afterwards the second signal follows: “The Chancellor is in the study”—a sign that the higher officials who have communications to make may report themselves to the Chief, and that the others should hold themselves in readiness to be summoned to him.

Finally, in busy seasons late at night, as a general rule about 10 P.M., those who have been kept at their desks by their work (—while the Chancellor is in Berlin the faithful Lothar Bucher is always amongst the last of these) hear the retreat sounded: “The Chancellor is in the tea-room.” That puts an end to the day’s work, or to the obligation of sitting booted and spurred, awaiting orders. The workers put on their hats and leave, the shutters are closed, and the Chancery servant puts out the lights.

[p. 42]

## CHAPTER II

FROM OUR RETURN FROM THE WAR UP TO THE TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE OF MY PERSONAL INTERCOURSE WITH THE CHANCELLOR—GLIMPSES OF THE DIPLOMATIC WORLD—COMMISSIONS FOR THE PRESS

After a few days’ rest we returned again to our former work at the office, accustoming ourselves to it once more, so that everything fell again into the old groove. The only difference for me was that I continued to enjoy the privilege accorded to me at Versailles, of access to all documents of a political character received by or despatched from the Foreign Office. Some of these were entrusted to my diary in the form of short summaries, or longer notices, together with many of my experiences and observations of that period, and an anthology of the tasks set to me by the Chief, which, as formerly, I noted down at once for future use. And now these faded leaves may themselves speak.

March 24th, 1871.—To-day, as also during the last few days, read old and recent despatches and other correspondence. It is reported from Vienna that Beust has been “much affected” by the telegrams exchanged by the Emperors William and Alexander, as from these it would appear as if the forbearance shown by the Austrians up to the last hour were not voluntary. A[p. 43] wire has been sent informing him that the telegram of the German Emperor was a purely personal act, and was despatched without the knowledge of the Minister. M. in Cassel reported that Madame Guisolphe from Versailles had been with Napoleon at Wilhelmshöhe; further, that Count Clary, passing as a M. Bertram, had, shortly before our departure, twice visited Versailles at the instance of the ex-Emperor, and then returned to Wilhelmshöhe; and finally, that Count Meulan had also been there on a visit, and that his communications appeared to afford Napoleon great satisfaction. Horace Rumbold, the English Chargé d’Affaires at St. Petersburg, is stated, in a report from that capital, to be vehemently hostile to Prussia as well as to Russia. According to a despatch sent to Bernstorff on the 17th of March, in which a desire is expressed that Loftus should be recalled, the latter had declared that England forbade the bombardment of Paris, and would know how to prevent it through the influence of the Crown Princess. A communication from Stockholm states that the King of Sweden had also written to General Brincourt of the French Guards, who had formerly been in Metz, and was there made prisoner by the Germans, a letter in which he expressed sentiments of a strongly anti-German character.

March 29th.—A letter from St. Petersburg reports that Oubril has been selected for the Russian Embassy in Paris, and that the Grand Duchess Hélène wishes him to be succeeded in Berlin by Walujeff, and not by the francophil Albedinski—also not by Orloff, who is very sensitive, and whose policy is governed by the treatment which he receives. The Emperor Alexander will nominate Walujeff if the Emperor William desires it, and she, the Grand Duchess, is prepared to communicate[p. 44] his wishes. Field Marshal von Berg, of Warsaw, is understood to be very well affected towards us.

April 7th.—Bucher told me this evening that “the venerable” Abeken drafted the Treaty of Olmütz, which is hardly calculated to add to our respect for the Herr Geheimrath, who passed through the room at the time, whistling as he went.

April 8th.—It is reported from Weimar, with “satisfaction and pleasure,” that for some time past there has been a marked change for the better in the political sentiments of the Grand Duke. “While his Royal Highness has never spoken to the writer on political subjects since the spring of 1866, and always carefully avoided touching upon them even at the most decisive moments, turning the conversation to private matters, he recently at a Court concert spoke to the writer on the internal affairs of the German Empire, and expressed his warm approval of the first parliamentary speech made by the Chancellor against the Ultramontanes.” The report continues: “The Grand Duke returned to the same subject yesterday at dinner, and spoke in high praise of the Chancellor, whom he had desired to thank personally the last time he was in Berlin, but had been unable to find at home.” The communication concludes as follows: “It is to be hoped that the ice is now broken, and that our relations with the Grand Duke will improve.”

It was probably on one of the immediately preceding or following days of April that the Chief gave me the ideas for an article for the press which I here reproduce: “On the formation of the Centre Party, in which Savigny rendered considerable assistance, the public was inclined to believe that the latter, who had[p. 45] been a Government official up to 1866, wished to continue to support the Government. In this view, however, the change which had taken place in his attitude was overlooked. After the first draft of the Constitution of the Confederation he was thought of for the post of Chancellor of the Confederation, which, however, would then practically have had only the importance of a presiding Minister, such as the Austrian representative had formerly been at Frankfurt. But the Diet amended the Constitution so as to make the Chancellor of the Confederation a responsible Minister, and the position became entirely different. It gave the Chancellor complete control of the affairs and policy of the Confederation, and it had never been the intention of the King to appoint Herr von Savigny to such a post. To the latter, however, this was a severe disappointment, aggravated further by physical discomforts, the worst of which was the necessity of again removing from the apartments in the Chancellerie of the Confederation, which he had already occupied and had arranged very comfortably.”

April 10th.—Wollmann told me to-day that recently an indignant communication with documentary enclosures had been received from Fabrice, reporting that ——, who had been acting as Prefect in a French provincial town, had been found guilty of serious misbehaviour. Fabrice had for a long time regarded him as unfit for the post. Now, on his departure, however, he was found in possession of 41,000 francs, which he had concealed in some old clothes, together with a number of silk curtains and chair covers, with which he wished to pack his boxes on leaving. Finally, when receiving money from the French, he allowed the latter less than 3 francs 75 centimes for the thaler, which was the rate[p. 46] at which he paid it over to the Treasury, and put the difference into his own pocket. Hardly credible, yet W. says that he has himself seen the general’s letter.

April 14th.—The Chief wishes to have the sensational stories published by the Avenir de Loire et Cher and the Revue des Deux Mondes contradicted in the press, and the real facts related—but “not in the Berlin papers.” According to these romancers, we took away with us the silver and table linen from Madame Jesse’s house, and the Chancellor tried to extort a valuable clock from the poor oppressed lady. The Minister at the same time gave me the necessary particulars. The article appeared in the Kölnische Zeitung, of the 18th of April.

April 16th.—Wrote the following article for the Kölnische Zeitung, on information received from the Chief: “Is there not a proverb to the effect, What is sauce for the goose is sauce also for the gander? For some considerable time past, the west end of Paris has been bombarded, and, indeed, without previous notice. A hail of shells has fallen on the Turkish Legation, and there has been a similar downpour in the immediate vicinity of the American Legation, so that Mr. Washburne found himself obliged to remove to another part of the city. That is done on behalf of a Government to whom these diplomatists are accredited, yet, lo and behold, they make no complaint. Nor apparently do any of their colleagues. If we Germans had no memory, we should consider this silent resignation quite proper, as no one who takes up his residence in a fortress is justified in protesting if he has to share its fate, a rule which applies to diplomatists as well as to all other mortals. But, having a memory, we may be permitted to ask why did the diplomats residing in[p. 47] Paris shriek and protest so loudly against our bombshells, when the majority of those gentlemen were no longer accredited to any one, and therefore had no official character? We refer to the declaration of eighteen foreign Ministers, Chargés d’Affaires and Consuls-General, dated the 13th of January in the present year, denouncing the bombardment of Paris by the German army, and complaining that the citizens of neutral States were being wounded and exposed to constant danger. It was further urged that the bombardment had been begun without previous notice, thus depriving the diplomats in question of the opportunity of warning their protégés. Feeling their responsibility, they joined in a resolution, which was unanimously adopted, in which they referred to the principles and usages of international law in support of their demand, that measures should be taken to enable them to bring the persons and property of their countrymen into a place of safety. Nothing whatever of this kind has taken place now. Shall we try to solve the riddle by assuming that personal partisanship was the motive of the complaint, partisanship against Germany and for France?”—I then quoted the names of the diplomats who had formerly protested and were now silent.

April 17th.—The Chancellor wishes to have the following inserted in the Kreuzzeitung, with reference to an article in the Standard, as reproduced by the National Zeitung: “The rumour as to a desire being felt here in Berlin, that France and England should no longer be represented in the capital of the German Empire by Ambassadors, but only by simple Ministers, has afforded the Standard an opportunity of arguing in favour of such an alteration, as it ascribes the existing usage mainly to the love of pomp and magnificence[p. 48] peculiar to the Second Empire. We do not know what truth there is in the rumour in question, but the grounds which lead the English newspaper to regard it as probable seem to us very far fetched. Another consideration, however, lies much nearer to hand, namely, whether the old diplomacy, with its formalities and struggles for precedence, which have delayed many a congress for weeks, can under any circumstances maintain its position at the present stage of development of international intercourse. A speed is now required in the transaction of business which was not dreamt of in former times, and railways and telegraphs furnish the means of achieving it. The prerogative which is put forward in support of the maintenance of Ambassadors, namely, their personal access to the Sovereign, is to our thinking largely outbalanced by the mediæval pretensions in the matter of precedence, which a diplomatic representative cannot forego so long as he bears the title of Ambassador, but which nevertheless render him anything but welcome at the Court to which he is accredited, to his colleagues, and to the Government of the country.”

April 18th.—Bucher brings me down the following sketch for an article for Brass (Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung): “Revolutions usually proceed too slowly for the taste of the revolutionaries. Their aspirations fly far in advance of the sluggish reality, and many a soldier of liberty has already had to console himself with Lessing’s observation, according to which there have been at all times, men who had a just idea as to the future of the human race, but who made the mistake of thinking that changes could be produced in months and years for which history required generations and centuries. One of the most[p. 49] remarkable features of the drama which is now being played in France is that the development of affairs proceeds too rapidly for most of the revolutionists, events outstripping the thoughts, wishes, hopes and interests of individuals. On the 12th of March, a popular assembly was elected by universal suffrage throughout the whole country, and a government established by that body. On the 18th of March, the red flag was in all seriousness hoisted in Paris. Garibaldi, on whose appearance before a representative European mob at Geneva some years ago the Alps bowed down their heads in veneration, and who a few years previously had been fondled by the highest circles of the British aristocracy, found himself obliged to decline the leading part for which he had been cast in the drama. It is now the turn of the Poles. The friends of the Poles in London, and the diplomatists of the Hôtel Lambert in Paris, who have been working for that cause for forty years past, cannot bridge the gulf which separates them from General Dombrowski. According to a communication published yesterday, Count Ladislaus Plater will not hear of any solidarity between the Polish emigrants and the Paris Reds—each side must remain responsible for its own actions. Will this communication, however, cause the world to forget that the bulk of these Poles in every country have stood on the side of those parties that fight against the State and undermine social order, and that the fact of their having done so has been proclaimed both by the Polish emigrants themselves and by others as one of their titles to fame? On the contrary, we are convinced that in Count Plater’s protest, the world will recognise an indirect acknowledgment that this has always been the[p. 50] case, and will see in the events on the Lower Danube a new proof that up to the present no change has taken place in this respect.”

Evening.—Called to the Chief, who wishes to have the following inserted in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung:—“A meeting of Catholics of all ranks and professions, which has been held at Munich, has passed a resolution begging King Lewis to use every legal means to avert the dangerous consequences of the dogma of Infallibility, to prohibit its propagation in public educational institutions, and to take speedy and energetic measures for regulating the relations between Church and State in harmony with the Constitution. The petition which was drawn up was signed on the spot by some two hundred persons, and is now being circulated in various places for the purpose of obtaining fresh signatures. Similar petitions are being prepared in most of the Bavarian towns. It was to be expected from the beginning that this movement would extend from the learned classes and the clergy to the general public. The fact that this has occurred at the present moment may unquestionably be attributed to the course taken by that party in the German Reichstag which claims to monopolise the name of Catholic. Its members have now had a proof that they made a mistake when at a political meeting, which was summoned on a purely sectarian basis, they formed themselves into a party which, dismissing all political considerations, assumes an attitude of aggression towards the other parties, and of defiance towards the Federal Government. The first lesson which these gentlemen received through their defeat in the Reichstag does not appear to have led them as yet to a recognition of their error, as[p. 51] instead of seeking for its cause in themselves, they, like all those who have a lust of power, try to make others responsible for it, and pronounce the allied Governments to be guilty of criminal neglect in not rushing to their assistance. Perhaps the movement in Bavaria will convince them. If not, future events will do so. The logic of facts, which wreaks vengeance upon them, will not cease with the present step. The effacement of all political character on the part of the Clericals must bring about an alliance against the latter, between all other parties having political aims, whatever differences may exist amongst them; and the attack which this non-political party has undertaken to make will lead the political groups to adopt the necessary means of defence against future assault.”

According to a report from Munich, the influential Cabinet Councillor Eisenhart, and the Ministers Von Lutz and Von Schlör, manifest a leaning towards the Döllinger movement, and if the latter should develop a tendency to form a community of “Old Catholics”—that is to say, of those who do not accept the dogma of Papal infallibility—the Government would be prepared to protect them in their rights of property. Read a letter from Switzerland, which has been sent to our Minister at Berne with the remark that it has come from a shrewd observer. The letter says that the Germans were themselves in fault for the disorders at the Peace Celebration in Zurich. They had bragged of successes for which they had not fought; and, indeed, up to the present, they had been mere parasites. If the “respectable” Swiss press now confirm the reports of these Germans who put everything in a false light, that is due in the first place to the Liberal party, which wants to[p. 52] make capital out of the affair against the democratic element, and in the second place to the Gothard party, which is acting with the former, and which fears that for some reason Germany may withdraw from the promotion of the Tunnel project.

April 20th.—We hear from Vienna that Beust is trying to draw nearer to the Hohenwart and Klerhalm Ministry, as there is now a power in the public life of Austria which is stronger than the Imperial Chancellor, and which, although it now spares him, could at a later moment bring about his fall. Many things which now happen probably have their origin in the Cabinet of the Emperor, and are therefore due to Herr von Braun, who is married to a Frankfurt lady, and who is in regular intercourse with the ex-Senator Bernus, who, in turn, has frequent meetings with Frese. Among the drafts is an instruction to W. in Munich, dated the 18th instant, which runs as follows: “In my telegram of the 7th I referred to the attitude of the Clericals in the Reichstag, where their hostility to the Imperial Government is becoming more evident from day to day. At first it might have been expected that the party which was being formed, even if it had a strongly Catholic tendency, would not subordinate all political questions to sectarian differences, but would, to some extent, join with the Imperial Government upon the basis of Conservative principles and the honourable promotion of the common national interests, supporting it in the same way as the strictly orthodox wing of the Evangelical Church has done, without sacrificing their independence. In consequence of this expectation, the Government had observed a friendly attitude towards the party, and in the debate on the Address had avoided any rejoinder to the plea openly put forward for German intervention in[p. 53] Italy, in order to leave free play to the expression of the various aspirations and views. That debate, and still more those that followed on the introduction of certain fundamental alterations in the constitution of the Empire, showed clearly that the Clerical Party had developed into a close organisation on a purely sectarian basis, and were prepared to sacrifice all national and political interests to those of their creed. The result is that they have made opponents of all the other parties, and particularly of those Catholics who remain faithful to the national cause, finding no support on any side except among the Hanoverian Separatists and the Poles. I greatly regret these tactless and inept proceedings, which aggravate the strain of sectarian differences. I learn that the Clerical Party regards the failure of its efforts to find support in the Federal Council as a sort of declaration of war on the part of the Government. The allied Governments, on the other hand, find that the aggressive tendencies of this party, which is only a continuation of the attitude long since adopted, and, unfortunately, still maintained by the Clerical press, naturally affects their position, and must force them into taking defensive measures of a more effective character, and oblige them on their side to assume the aggressive. The uncompromising attitude of the Clericals greatly promotes the Döllinger movement, and helps to win sympathy for it in circles which previously held aloof from it, where the course taken is regarded as confirmation of the assertion of Döllinger and his friends respecting the incompatibility of Clerical and Ultramontane tendencies with the demands of a national commonweal.” W. was to speak confidentially to Bray in this sense. I find from one of W.’s reports that this has been done. The Bavarian Minister has, indeed, expressed[p. 54] his agreement with the foregoing statement, but the chief cause of his regret is that the foolish course taken by the Clericals in the Reichstag has rendered it impossible for the Government to co-operate with them, a policy which would, in his opinion, have been desirable, and will now oblige it on principle to oppose them. Döllinger, in his opinion, had also gone too far.

April 21st.—This morning the Chief wished to have an article written for the Kölnische Zeitung calling attention to the contrast between the intellectual impotence of the French and their self-conceit, and to the circumstance that in recent times they have always had to trust to foreigners for their salvation—a theme for which he gave me the ideas. The article ran as follows: “The forces at the disposal of the insurgents number about 120,000. In addition to these may be reckoned some 10,000 or 12,000 more or less convinced Republicans who have come from abroad, from the provinces, from Belgium, and from England; and perhaps an equal number of criminals and misdemeanants. A large proportion of the National Guards, who are only serving under compulsion, long for the moment when they shall be obliged to lay down their arms. The remainder consist of workmen who prefer the pay of the Commune, the daily excitement and amusement of chasing former gendarmes and policemen, to a peaceful return to their workshops. That cannot last long. It would be unnatural if, among these thousands of idle workmen and insurgents under duress, a disgust for such a life did not make itself felt, together with a surfeit of the hardships of the soldier’s trade, and a loosening of discipline. For the moment, indeed, Dombrowski, who enjoys a certain popularity, succeeds in holding them together. This is a new symptom of[p. 55] the extraordinary intellectual poverty and weakness of will which characterises the Frenchman of to-day, and particularly the Parisian. They boast of being the centre of civilisation, the focus of the intelligence of our time; and yet, lo and behold, in the recent crises they have always selected foreigners for their leaders, and have sought their salvation abroad! After the fall of the Empire they allowed themselves to be tyrannised by Gambetta. At the same time they placed their hopes in Garibaldi, another Italian, who would now be Dictator in Paris had he desired it. Instead of Garibaldi, they must now depend upon Poles of the notorious guild of ‘barricade heroes’—such as Dombrowski, Okolowitch, &c.; while, finally, there is an almost universal wish entertained by the party of order, who are dissatisfied with the lack of energy manifested at Versailles, that the Germans—again foreigners—should undertake the restoration of law and order.” The following is an almost literal reproduction of the Chancellor’s own words: “Scarcely another people in the whole world would condescend in such a pitiful way to borrow its heroes from abroad. With the exception of these Parisians, who boast of being the cream of civilisation, but who in reality are merely the redskins of the pavement, as empty-headed and weak-willed as savages, none would submit to be driven by energetic, although otherwise insignificant, foreigners towards ends that are in every respect opposed to their own interests. Truly a repulsive and most pitiable degeneracy!”

April 24th.—Called to the Chief this evening, and received instructions and materials for an article in the Kölnische Zeitung, which ran as follows: “If the French ship which came to Glückstadt to convey[p. 56] 40,000 French prisoners of war back to their country was obliged to return without having effected its object, the reasons were very clearly indicated by the Imperial Chancellor in his last speech in the Reichstag. According to the Preliminary Peace, the prisoners were to be surrendered; but, on the other hand, the French Government was not at liberty, until after the signature of the final treaty, to station any troops between the Seine and the Loire, with the exception of 40,000 men in Paris. In consideration of the embarrassment caused to the Government of M. Thiers by the Communist rising, no objection was raised on the part of Germany to the collection of a force of over 40,000 men near Versailles; and, indeed, this measure was for a time endorsed by the liberation of a large number of prisoners. The Germans were, however, under no obligation to do this. On the contrary, their obligation ceased so long as the French Government was not in a position to fulfil its share of the undertaking to establish and maintain a neutral zone between the Seine and Loire. The concessions made on the German side in the matter of the liberation of prisoners were voluntary concessions, mere acts of a complaisance dictated by our own interest, the continuance of which depended entirely upon circumstances, upon the good will manifested at Versailles, and upon the confidence which may be reposed in Berlin, in the loyalty to its treaty engagements, as well as the energy and capacity of the Versailles Government. But there was also another consideration. Notwithstanding the order issued by Favre, all the German prisoners in the hands of the French have not yet been sent back, although their liberation should have taken place immediately after the Convention of the 28th of January. This is doubtless[p. 57] due to the independent position of the French Minister of War, as well as of the Chief of the Admiralty, who have shown a reluctance to discharge strictly and speedily the engagements entered into by Favre and Thiers for the release of some fourteen hundred German officers and soldiers, who are still held as prisoners, as, amongst other matters, for the surrender of the merchant vessels that had not been condemned before the conclusion of the Preliminary Peace. Can the Versailles Government fairly expect us to make further concessions when it has itself contumaciously neglected the fulfilment of its own obligations for fully three months?”

April 29th.—The Minister wishes the following explanation of the “double face” of the Paris Commune inserted in the press: “Many reports from Paris, and all those originating with persons who have access to the Government at Versailles, allude only to one of the tendencies which have contributed to the revolution in Paris and the foundation of the Commune. They represent it, namely, as the work of the cosmopolitan revolutionary spirit and as an attempt to realise socialistic and communistic chimeras. The truth of this is not to be denied. It is a cosmopolitan revolutionary spirit which united under the communistic flag MM. Dombrowski, Okolowitch, Stupny, Landuski, Burnaki and other Polish ‘heroes of the barricades,’ together with the Garibaldians and the crowd of Belgian and English members of the International, and which won for them the sympathies of Bebel and Schraps in the Imperial Diet. It is the grossest form of Communism that has united these champions of revolt, with fifteen to twenty thousand liberated criminals and the rest of the dregs of modern civilisation. But in addition to the fantastic[p. 58] and criminal cravings of which these are the representatives and tools, there is another element involved in the present Revolution that should never be lost sight of. This movement, which is thoroughly well founded, and is supported by order-loving and sensible citizens, aims at a more reasonable municipal organisation by the curtailment of an unnecessary and burdensome State guardianship. This tendency is explained by the history of France. The tyrannous municipal policy of Hausmann, which had a highly prejudicial effect upon the interests of the Corporation of Paris, is a striking example of the evils referred to. If the Parisians were given a municipal constitution approximating to that of the Prussian towns in the Hardenberg period many thoughtful and practical men in Paris who are now opposed to the Versailles Government would be satisfied, and would be no longer inclined to encourage the Revolution by their passive support.”

April 30th.—Yesterday and to-day read a number of interesting documents treating of negotiations with Cluseret, the present general of the Commune, and took note of them for future use. In the first of these, dated the 10th instant, Fabrice was instructed by telegraph to say in reply to Cluseret that he would listen to any overtures which the latter might desire to make to him, and bring them to the knowledge of the Chancellor. The telegram then continued: “If he should then call upon you it might be possible, without actually negotiating, to lead him to say how the Commune would propose to raise the money for us. You might also be able to bring home to him the helplessness of the whole affair, and in that way form an opinion as to the prospects of an attempt at mediation between Paris and Versailles. In reply to a despatch[p. 59] of the 21st of April, in which Fabrice says that the Commune has no money, and that in order to raise some it has already seized upon the property of societies and individuals, the Chief said that the general should nevertheless sound them as to the surrender of Paris to us, but only for purposes of information and report. The idea that the Commune could be really considered solvent had been entirely foreign to the telegram of the 10th instant. It was only a reconnaissance for the purpose of ascertaining the intentions and resources of the holders of power in Paris. Fabrice reports from Soissy on the 27th instant that Holstein, who had remained behind with him, had had a meeting with Cluseret, and that the Commune was disposed to pay a sum of 500,000,000 francs, of which 300,000,000 was in hand, in the form of securities belonging to the city, while the remaining 200,000,000 could be raised by the sale of the Octroi dues. In return for this the Germans would be required to abstain from taking any part in the stoppage of supplies, and not to deliver any of the forts occupied by them to the Versailles Government. A desire was also expressed that we should endeavour to bring about an understanding as to a modus vivendi between the two belligerent parties. There was a twofold basis upon which this could be effected. One was that the city should be disarmed, but should not be occupied by the troops of the Versailles Government, and that it should be granted a communal administration, together with security against a recurrence of Hausmann or Pietri Budgets. The second was the dissolution of the present National Assembly, which had exhausted its mandate, and a fresh appeal to France, whose decision would be accepted by Paris. Cluseret had described the Socialist[p. 60] and other excesses as a phase of this ‘drôle de mouvement’ which had now passed away. He treated the military siege of the city as an impossibility, but begged, in the event of Versailles being, in spite of all human probability, victorious, that they should not be permitted to destroy Paris. This, as well as the expectation that we might mediate, was only a desire on their part, and not one of the conditions of payment. The Frenchman then observed that negotiations with us would subject him to less suspicion in Paris than would negotiations with the Versailles Government. He further promised to release all German prisoners as soon as he was informed who and where they were, and also to move at once for the liberation of the Archbishop, whose imprisonment was an inheritance from the first phase of the movement. Finally, he repeated that the only important points were our neutrality and the abstention from interference with their supplies, as from a military standpoint the Versailles people caused him no anxiety.”

The Chief replied on the same day, that from this it appeared, if Cluseret’s views could be accepted as authoritative in Paris, that mediation between the latter and Versailles was not hopeless; those views being more moderate than he had expected, particularly with regard to disarmament. Fabrice might try to ascertain what Favre thought of the first alternative. In the meantime our attitude should be made to correspond with Cluseret’s expectations by observing neutrality, and taking no part in the maintenance of the cordon round Paris. A despatch setting forth the reasons for this course would be sent to him, Fabrice, that day. The telegram concluded: “The demands of the French negotiators in Brussels with respect to the five milliards and the Eastern Railway show qu’on se moque de nous.”

[p. 61]

These telegrams were supplemented by a further communication dated the day before yesterday, which said that Fabrice should keep up the relations that had been established with Cluseret, and should try to ascertain whether he was of opinion that in case of the disarmament of the city and its non-occupation by the Versailles troops it could be garrisoned by our soldiers. If that were the case it would be desirable to make a serious endeavour to mediate with Versailles. Communal independence, after the fashion of the Prussian municipal regulations, was not in itself an unreasonable demand, if no efforts were made to secure communistic adjuncts. Perhaps it would be possible to sever the reasonable communal movement from the international one. If in doing this we succeeded in occupying Paris with the approval of the two parties, guaranteeing communal independence until the French had come to an understanding among themselves, and intervening with a strong hand in restoring domestic peace in France, we should improve our own position and gain fresh securities against possible bad faith at Versailles. In these circumstances Fabrice was to avoid taking sides in any way against the Parisians.

The despatch mentioned in the last telegram of the 27th of April, which was to be forwarded by courier on the same day, began by referring to a telegram from Fabrice, according to which Favre begged in a formal Note that the French troops might be permitted to pass through our lines over the Northern Railway and force their way into Paris; further, that the German military authorities should call upon the insurgents to disarm the enceinte, in accordance with the Convention of the 28th of January; and, finally, that the French army might be permitted to pass through the district and[p. 62] gate of St. Ouen. It runs as follows: “The French Government requests us to permit the passage of their troops through St. Ouen. This lies within the neutral zone, where the presence of both armies is forbidden by the Convention of the 28th of January. In order to enable us to agree to this we should be convinced that any arrangements we may come to with the French Government would be carried out by the latter. This conviction has been shaken by the dilatoriness of the French in the fulfilment of previous obligations, and by certain indications of a tendency to place an arbitrary interpretation, contrary to their true sense, upon stipulations that are now in force. The French Government is in arrears with the greater part of the money payable for the maintenance of our troops, with the release of German prisoners of war, and with the issue of clear and peremptory instructions to the Governors of the Colonies and the Commanders of the naval stations in Eastern Asia for the suspension of hostilities. The disposition to put a construction upon agreements which they never had, as well as to extend and override them without an understanding with us, is betrayed by the collection of 140,000 troops, where they are only justified in having 100,000; in the attempt to reduce the war indemnity by making payments below par; and in what, to my astonishment, appears to be the manifestation of a desire for the commencement of the evacuation of the districts occupied by us. If the French Government should really assert that we are bound, upon the payment of the first half milliard, and before the conclusion of a definitive peace, to any sort of evacuation, that circumstance would destroy all my confidence in its loyalty, as during the negotiations no other view was ever held than that a definitive[p. 63] peace must precede any evacuation by us of this side of the Seine.

“It was then supposed that the conclusion of a definitive peace would take place previous to any payment by France. M. Thiers expressed his intention to commence his financial operations after a lapse of two months at the earliest, and considered that the definitive treaty would be concluded in from four to six weeks. There was no question that the whole present occupation was regarded as a guarantee to us for the conclusion of the definitive peace; and the terms clearly show that all the evacuation yet to take place was subordinated to the final peace, and that the payments only affected the various stages of these evacuations. The sentence following these stipulations, according to which the evacuation is to take place after the conclusion of peace and after the payment of the first half milliard, was not contained in the original text. M. Thiers wished to have it concluded, and M. Favre considered it superfluous. I declared myself in favour of its inclusion, as on the day before I had agreed that a comparatively large and important stage of the evacuation should be made dependent upon this first payment, which might be reckoned on the basis of the proportion between the entire territory occupied and the whole five milliards. M. Thiers kept me to my word, which I acknowledged; but there was never any question of the evacuation of this side of the Seine before the ratification of the definitive treaty of peace.

“Should the French entertain any doubt on this point your Excellency will explain to M. Favre that I would rather advise his Majesty to immediately renew hostilities than submit to such a falsification of the spirit in which the Versailles negotiations were conducted.

[p. 64]

“The decision of his Majesty with respect to our expected co-operation, direct or indirect, will depend, on the one hand, upon military considerations which are still under discussion, as well as upon the contents of the French official overtures announced in your Excellency’s telegram No. 196. On the other hand, we must take advantage of the present situation with the object of removing every uncertainty which the French may endeavour to read into our agreements. Should your Excellency really have occasion to suppose, as would appear to me from the contents of your reports of the 22nd and 23rd instant, that the French intend to interpret the treaty of peace as if the sentence in Article 3—L’evacuation des départements—s’opèrera graduellement après la ratification du traité de paix definitif—were modified by that which follows it, separated only by a semi-colon: après le versement—la rive droite, in such a way that the words of the first sentence, from après to definitif, would be rendered of no effect for the territory in question, your Excellency will please demand from the French Government, in the form of an ultimatum, a clear explanation upon this point. Were this to be refused I should lose all faith in its intention to honourably fulfil its treaty obligations, and it would then become desirable to renew the military operations as early as possible. We will not permit ourselves to be cozened out of our present position, but will, on the contrary, hold fast to it until the definitive peace has been concluded to our satisfaction. We have made these stipulations in order that we may be able to bring pressure to bear with this object. So long as the obligations undertaken, but not yet fulfilled, by France with respect to the indemnity and the prisoners of war remain unfulfilled, and so long as the above-mentioned[p. 65] doubt as to the intentions of the French Government respecting the interpretation of the preliminary peace and the conclusion of a definitive treaty is not removed, I must advise his Majesty against every form of support for the Versailles Government; and instead of any such support, I must recommend that a demand be at once addressed to the French authorities to reduce the number of their troops in accordance with the terms of the treaty, or to be prepared for a renewal of hostilities.”

May 1st.—According to a communication of yesterday’s date, from Fabrice, Colonel de la Haye had said to him, that probably a memorial from Thiers would be received, and not the Note from Favre, which had been announced, and that Favre had repeatedly declared that France was now fulfilling the obligations which she had undertaken, would continue to do so, and was prepared to conclude peace, and to recognise the preliminaries as merely intended to lead up to it. In return, he asked for permission to attack Paris by way of Epinay, and the Northern Railway line, through St. Denis, and that the Commune should be called upon, in accordance with the Convention, to withdraw its troops from the enceinte. The colonel requested Fabrice to inform the Chancellor of this. Should the latter decline, the French Government would be able to say, in the presence of Europe, that it had discharged its duty to the best of its ability, but that Germany prevented it from offering an effective resistance to the insurrection. Favre declared that he had exhausted all his resources, and that it was now necessary to know whether Prussia wished to favour the Government or the Commune. De la Haye had expressed a strong desire that Fabrice should not communicate this statement to the Chief, before the[p. 66] receipt of Thiers’ memorial. Fabrice, first of all, begged the Frenchman to hasten the despatch of the letter, but, also before that was done, to explain to Favre the significance and consequences of the demand which he expected us to make upon the Commune for the disarmament of the enceinte, a point upon which Favre did not, at the moment, appear to be quite clear. To this the Prince replied immediately, that we were not bound by any Convention to help the French Government, although we were justified in demanding from it the disarmament of the enceinte, and eventually enforcing the same, if we found it to be in our interest. The latter, however, was not the case. We had no interest in overthrowing the opponents of the French Government at the cost of German blood, so long as that Government did not carry out the stipulations of the preliminary treaty, but sought, on the contrary, to alter them to our prejudice. With the object of dissipating the mistrust that had arisen in this way, by means of a personal discussion of stronger guarantees, or of a fixed term for the payment of the five milliards, the Chancellor finally proposed to Favre that they should meet at Frankfurt or Mainz on any day he chose to select. As I saw later, Favre telegraphed that he would be in Frankfurt on Friday, and the Chief replied that he would arrive there on Saturday—perhaps because he considers Friday unlucky.

May 2nd, evening.—On the instructions of the Prince wrote an article for the Kölnische Zeitung, which was dated from Lagny, and was based on the foregoing despatch and other information. It was to be submitted for approbation upstairs to-morrow, before being despatched. It ran as follows: “The conduct of the French Government in the matter of the execution of[p. 67] the preliminaries of peace is quite enigmatic, not to use the stronger term of prevarication. In the position which it occupies towards the insurrection in the capital, which is growing more and more serious, it stands in urgent need of the good will of the Germans, of their indirect assistance, or, at least, of their neutrality. Yet up to the last few days it has shown itself extremely remiss in the fulfilment of the treaties concluded with us in January and March, quibbling in a very suspicious way over their most important stipulations, seeking in Brussels, as we hear, to enforce views which, if adopted in the definitive treaty, would bring about a change, by no means favourable to Germany, of the basis secured by us in the preliminary peace at Versailles. Moreover, it would appear that these unacceptable proposals are brought forward merely with the object of protracting the negotiations, and, in the interval thus gained, of securing, through the suppression of the insurrection of the Paris Communists, a position which would perhaps permit them, with some hope of success, to demand easier terms from those who have the control of our policy. M. Thiers’ Government only paid the maintenance money in a tardy way, and under the pressure of threats from the Germans. It temporised with the liberation of the German prisoners who still remain in France, and it shirked in like manner the just demands of the Germans for the surrender of the prize vessels that had not been condemned before the conclusion of the preliminary peace. There is reason to believe that it collected more troops near Versailles than had been agreed to in Berlin in view of so desperate a conflict with a powerful insurrection. It expressed an opinion that we were bound to evacuate the forts of St. Denis and Charenton—not after the ratification of the definitive[p. 68] peace, but after the receipt by us of the first half milliard. Finally, it caused proposals to be made in Brussels respecting the payment of the five milliards which were in no sense justified by the preliminary treaty, and which, if accepted—a thing utterly inconceivable—would delay the payment to a late period, and, besides, would leave Germany only four-fifths, and perhaps only three-fifths, of the war indemnity guaranteed in the agreement of the 26th of February. It is not to be wondered at if these and other similar facts have shaken the confidence which was felt at first on the German side in the loyalty of the leading French statesmen, if suspicion has begun to be felt, and if some disinclination exists to continue the favours which have already been extended to the French Government in dealing with the insurrection—favours which the latter sorely needed, and, it seems, formally asked for—until mistrust has been dispelled by explanations of an unequivocal character, or, perhaps, entirely removed by fresh guarantees. It is reported that the Chief of the Executive has been left in no doubt upon this point, and it is now stated here that M. Favre, who is understood to have given least ground for want of confidence, will in a few days have a conference with Prince Bismarck, for the purpose of giving explanations and coming to an understanding. It will take place, as we hear, at Frankfurt. It is to be hoped that this meeting will clear up the situation and hasten the conclusion of a definitive peace.”

May 3rd.—The foregoing article was returned to me unaltered from upstairs, and is now on its way to Cologne. Among the documents received, the following is of importance: F. reports from Soissy, on the 1st instant, that on the previous day Cahn, who is now[p. 69] attached to the Swiss Embassy, was authorised at the instance of Cluseret to go through the French prisons to find what Germans were detained there, in order that they may be set at liberty. Cluseret had also stated that he had proposed the liberation of the Archbishop. It was true that part of the Committee was opposed to this measure, but the life of his Eminence was nevertheless perfectly safe. A meeting with Cluseret was arranged for on the 1st instant. Cahn, however, came instead, and reported that Cluseret was now replaced by Captain Rossel as Minister of War for the Commune. Cahn was then instructed to see the latter, and ask him whether he maintained the decision of his predecessor as to the liberation of the German prisoners, and to seriously warn him against any ill-treatment of the Archbishop. The telegram adds that this will give the Commune an opportunity of entering into relations with us. If they do not avail themselves of it, doubtless an anti-German intrigue will have had something to do with the fall of Cluseret. The supply of provisions for Paris is seriously retarded on the north side, owing to the exceptional vigilance of the French administration, which is very well informed.

According to a report from St. Petersburg of the 26th of April, the King of Denmark has written to the Tsarevna, asking her to beg the Emperor Alexander to bring up the question of North Schleswig in Berlin. The Grand Duchess did not give her father’s letter to the Emperor himself, but applied to the Empress, who afterwards communicated its contents to him. Although the Emperor Alexander had said nothing on the subject to R., he nevertheless observed that he greatly desired to have a talk with the Emperor William, and hoped to see him in June either in Berlin or at Ems. The Grand[p. 70] Duchess Hélène informed R. of this, and asked what reply she should give to the Tsarevna, who had repeatedly inquired whether he had not said anything on this affair. The Grand Duchess was of opinion that our Government, whose German sentiments were doubted by no one, could now in its hour of triumph more easily make concessions than before. The matter might one day become unpleasant, and counter-concessions of a commercial character (?) could now be demanded from Denmark, which would secure the position of individual Germans in the territory to be ceded. R. replied that Germany would be prepared to make concessions, but that Denmark would not be satisfied with what could be granted. The reason of the Emperor Alexander’s great anxiety to see the affair settled is that he knows how eagerly the Danish Court stimulates the anti-German sentiments of the heir to the Russian throne. The same authority reports that the French Government, through the Marquis de Gabriac, their present representative in St. Petersburg, has complained to Gortschakoff that we are no longer as friendly as we were, and requested him to mediate between France and ourselves. This request was, however, declined, attention being called to the obligations undertaken in the preliminary peace, the fulfilment of which was the right means of securing the good will of Germany. At a Court ball the Emperor Alexander also observed to the marquis: “Remplissez d’abord loyalement vos engagements et après je serai votre avocat, si vous aurez des raisons de plainte. Aujourdhui ces raisons je ne les vois pas.”

May 4th.—The Chancellor, who leaves for Frankfurt to-morrow, wishes the Kölnische Zeitung to write somewhat as follows on the object of the journey: “The[p. 71] personal conference between Prince Bismarck and the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, the necessity of which has been felt for some considerable time past, will have begun by the time these lines go to press. To-morrow morning at 8 o’clock the Imperial Chancellor, accompanied by the Councillors of Embassy Bucher, Count Hatzfeldt, and the Attaché Count Wartensleben, will leave for Frankfurt, where Jules Favre will probably have already arrived. Apparently the French have come to understand that their interests urgently require the removal of the suspicions which have arisen in regard to their good faith since the arrangement at Versailles. We ourselves must also know exactly where we stand with them. It is necessary to hasten the conclusion of a definitive peace. Some progress must finally be made in that matter, and France must cease to imagine that we will allow ourselves to be kept dangling in suspense, or to be imposed upon and manœuvred into an unfavourable position. She must respect our rights and not endeavour by pettifogging subterfuges to whittle down, or perhaps, indeed, disown the consequences of the preliminary peace. It may be taken for granted that the principal subjects to be dealt with at Frankfurt will be the manner of payment of the war indemnity of five milliards of francs, the surrender of the German merchant vessels which were not condemned by the Prize Courts before the signature of the preliminary treaty, the position of the Eastern Railway—which, after the Versailles arrangement, can no longer be regarded as an open question, although it has been treated as such by the Government of M. Thiers—and finally the regulation of the frontier. On the German side, however, it will be sought first of all to clear up the situation, and hasten the negotiations for peace,[p. 72] which have been brought to a standstill through the unjustifiable demands of the French. It is to be hoped that the Frankfurt negotiations will open the eyes of those members of the French Government who have not yet succeeded in thoroughly understanding the position of affairs, and in recognising the legitimacy of the claims based upon it from the German standpoint, and their necessity from the French standpoint. In all probability they will not fail to receive a serious and unequivocal reminder of this necessity from our side.”

May 6th.—Again a few comic episodes to break the monotony of these grave affairs. Prince Peter of Oldenburg, who seems to be a very ancient gentleman, writing from St. Petersburg, sent the Chief a memoir which he forwarded to the Emperor on the 1st of April (not as a joke for All Fools’ Day), in which, after proclaiming his strictly monarchical, legitimist, conservative and religious principles, he argues, in an extremely prolix and nebulous fashion, in favour of perpetual peace, and begs the Chancellor to summon a Conference for the Abolition of War. This magnum opus ought to be laid in its author’s coffin. Wollmann says that Abeken is in the habit of keeping the envelopes of letters from the King in order, as he is reported to have said, “that the handwriting of his Imperial and Royal master should not be trampled upon by muddy shoes.” He is said to have whole bundles of these relics in his possession. Very touching! Bucher afterwards confirmed the fact that Abeken had actually delivered himself of the above remark. He appears to have acquired this tender sentimentality during his stay in the East. He ought to have been Councillor of Embassy to the Dalai Lama.

May 14th.—The Chief is again here. Count[p. 73] Wartensleben, who was with him at Frankfurt, told me to-day that he had been out driving with the Chancellor several times outside the town, and while they were walking about in the woods the latter gave him numerous particulars of his negotiations with the Frenchmen. “Once,” said the Count, who by the way is a very pleasant young man, “in speaking of the German negotiators at Brussels, he remarked to me, ‘It is very unlucky for those gentlemen that we cannot conclude our business there.’ (Possibly on account of the gratuities in the way of orders.) ‘I am particularly sorry for poor Balan. But what can one do? The snipe must be shot where it rises.’ Another time (it was after the first conference with Favre and Pouyer-Quertier) he looked very fagged and worried, and on my asking him about it he replied that the French had proved exceptionally obstinate. He told me then how he managed to secure himself an ally against them. He said, ‘I proposed to Favre to bring M. Goulard to the Conference as he was a member of the National Assembly. Favre was at first greatly surprised at this suggestion, and would not hear of it. I pointed out to him, however, that it would be to his own advantage. Goulard would feel flattered and would be grateful to him, and would furthermore as one of the negotiators support him, Favre, in the National Assembly. Favre thereupon consented.’ But it was also of great advantage for the Chief (continued Wartensleben), as when Favre finally consented, the little gentleman in the white necktie and high stand-up collar was also grateful to him for being admitted to the negotiations, and when the two others were inclined to refuse something he always spoke in favour of giving way—it could be managed, he would himself take the responsibility for[p. 74] it, he thought that one really might agree to it. Eventually Favre thanked the Chief formally for his advice to include Goulard.”

May 15th.—On the instructions of the Chief, wrote to Brass respecting an article in No. 113 of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, that the Prince did not consider it proper for a journal which was praised in another paper to reproduce this praise, and he positively prohibited all such misconduct in future.

May 17th.—Yesterday and to-day again read a number of telegrams and other documents received and despatched, which threw light on the Frankfurt negotiations and recent events in Paris. The Chief had from Frankfurt addressed an inquiry to Fabrice as to whether he believed that progress had been made in the fusion between the Comte de Chambord and the Princes of the House of Orleans, and whether it had a prospect of success. Count Arnim thought it had. The Republican form of government in France was more to our advantage, and therefore he would not oppose it unless he were compelled to. A telegram to Moltke on the 18th instant informed him that the Chief hoped to bring about the conclusion of a definitive peace at Frankfurt. Some of the conditions would, however, be that we should assist as far as possible in promoting the speedy occupation of Paris, which would then be in our interest, without exposing our men to danger, and in particular that we should consider the question of the passage of the French troops through our lines, of calling upon the Commune to evacuate the enceinte, of cutting off the supply of provisions, and of immediately liberating 20,000 prisoners of war for use in Algeria and the larger towns of the south. In case it were possible to secure at Frankfurt a peace which[p. 75] should receive the approbation of the Emperor, Moltke was requested to take the necessary preparatory measures for the above purposes. A short telegram of the same day, addressed to Thile and which was to be communicated to Delbrück, says that on the two preceding days the Chief was engaged in negotiations for fifteen hours, and had sent Favre a “strong ultimatum.” Another telegram reports to the Emperor that, according to the French Ministers, the stability of the present Government will in a great measure depend upon the speedy conclusion of the definitive treaty of peace. On the 11th a further telegram was sent to Moltke saying that, from Fabrice’s reports, the French generals, believing they could themselves dispose of the Communists, would endeavour so to arrange matters that they could dispense with our co-operation. But in that case also it would be desirable to mass our troops near Paris, as we could thus bring pressure to bear upon the French National Assembly in connection with the ratification of the treaty which would be discussed in about ten days, by exciting the apprehensions of that body as to the decision which we might take if the treaty were rejected.

Again a comic interlude between the serious scenes of the drama. Fabrice sends a report from Lieutenant von Mirbach, of the Guards, at St. Denis, which reached him through General von Pape, with the extremely naïve marginal note: “Most obediently submitted for kind consideration with the object of promoting the accession to the French throne of Prince Frederick Charles.” The document in question was to the following effect. Persons of all ranks and conditions, and quite recently an Attaché of the American Embassy, had inquired whether it was true that Prince Frederick[p. 76] Charles had been selected as the Regent of France. As far back as the winter a party had been formed with that object. Merchants, bankers, manufacturers, many citizens of standing and repute, “including even noblemen,” wished to offer the throne to the Prince, and were sure of the support of their friends, their employees, and of a part of the press. “Influential agents and leaders of the National Guard, and even some important members of the Commune, are understood to be well disposed towards this plan. The American inquired whether a deputation from this ‘Prussian’ party would be well received.” The writer had been informed by the “rich M. Vincent,” the Commandant of the National Guard in Versailles, and by M. de Bastide, that the same scheme had been discussed in that town. Obviously some one has been playing off a joke on the lieutenant, for, although we live in an age of miracles, it would be a miracle of miracles if a French party were now found to desire for their ruler a nephew of our old Master, after the efforts made by France to prevent the election as King of Spain of the Prince of Hohenzollern, who is only a remote relative of the Emperor William.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Third Army Corps in Compiègne has been informed that a conference took place on the 11th instant at Soissy between General von Schlotheim and General Borel, the chief of MacMahon’s staff.

“MacMahon desires to deliver the main attack on Paris on the west front of the enceinte, from the Bois de Boulogne or Billancourt against the bastion of the Point du Jour. In order to prevent the insurgents from continuing their resistance in the city from point to point, he wishes, at the same time—that is, during the same night—to endeavour to surprise the north[p. 77] front, and seize some positions in the north of Paris. Ten or twelve thousand men would be employed for this purpose, who would start in the evening from Gemevilliers, and march by way of Villeneuve, La Garonne and St. Denis, as also through Epinay, St. Denis, and Aubervilliers, towards the gates of La Chapelle and La Villette. With the assistance of some of the commandants of the National Guard, with whom an understanding was being entered into, and by taking advantage of the railway, and of the numerous conveyances which still frequented the main roads, it was considered possible to bring small detachments of trustworthy troops right into the city. In case the attack were repulsed, MacMahon binds himself to withdraw all the troops employed by him along the same route, on the same day, behind the rayon on this side, that is to say, behind the left bank of the Seine. By this means the proximity of French and German troops for any length of time would be avoided. Permission could hardly be refused for the French troops to march through St. Denis, although they are on no account to be allowed to tarry or post reserves there. General Borel was obviously desirous of preventing all co-operation on the part of the German troops and of the forts occupied by us, and gave it clearly to be understood that he regarded such direct support as undesirable on political grounds. He did not believe the insurgents would venture to pursue the storming parties in case the latter did not succeed—an opinion which is also shared here—and he positively denied that the French Commander-in-Chief intended to bombard the north front, or to proceed to a regular attack upon it if the surprise were to fail. As, according to these overtures, the French were prepared to forego our co-operation,[p. 78] and our own forces in and behind the forts are quite sufficient, I have, as already reported in a telegram of the 10th instant, given up the idea of a concentration of further troops outside Paris. In accordance with the wishes of the French Government, I consider it desirable in the first place to avoid everything that would attract the attention of the insurgents to the north front, and thereby endanger the success of the surprise. At the same time we consider it necessary to avert, as far as possible, all accidental losses to our troops should the insurgents, after repelling an attack, open fire with their artillery on the retiring French columns. In the event of his Majesty the Emperor and King afterwards expressly ordering the German troops to co-operate in the attack on Paris, I venture to express the humble opinion that, in view of the situation at the present moment, when the resistance is already organised and the insurgents are accustomed to fire, a simple bombardment of the enceinte would scarcely secure our object. It might then be desirable to proceed against the nearest gates and bastions with a battering train posted on the plateau of Romainville, and probably an occupation of the enceinte would only be attended with decisive success after we had advanced as far as Buttes Chamont, as this position commands the greater part of the northern half of Paris.”

Bucher informed me this evening that Professor Aegidi of Bonn has entered the Foreign Office as Councillor in charge of press matters, and is to undertake the appointment of agents, journalists, and other such gentlemen. He added: “Something has already been said in the newspapers on the subject. One newspaper contained a note, which had doubtless been provided by Aegidi himself, to the effect that he would[p. 79] replace Abeken, who had begun to grow old and weak. That ruffled our friend very considerably, and he grew as red as a turkey-cock as he remarked: ‘In such circumstances one can only wish to retire at once on his pension.’” Bucher further stated that Aegidi had been recommended by Keudell, whose cousin he had married, and who had previously secured him the position at Bonn after he had failed in Hamburg. In conclusion Bucher said: “Keudell has already appointed many useless people and expended large sums upon them. For example, some time ago he took up a Dane, whom he employed as an agent and richly remunerated, but who did absolutely nothing.” I recalled the case of Rasch, and B. said that he too had advised against employing him, describing him as a conceited blockhead to Keudell, who nevertheless sent him to Garibaldi with 20,000 thalers.

A telegram of the 15th instant from Fabrice states that the French had demanded in a despatch that the cordon drawn round Paris should be made complete so far as the German troops were concerned, as it was important that the leaders of this criminal undertaking (the Commune) should not escape the hands of justice. In reply to the French Government, Fabrice said that Borel had come to no understanding with the Third Army Corps respecting a blockade of the city. If the cordon was to be drawn at an early date, it would have to be preceded by an arrangement of that kind. The Chief telegraphed at once that, according to the understanding arrived at in Frankfurt, we were bound to completely isolate Paris as soon as the French desired it, to permit the Versailles troops to march through our lines, and to call upon the Commune to withdraw from the enceinte. We were not bound, however, to[p. 80] emphasise this demand by force of arms. But the three points in question must be carried into effect by the Commander-in-Chief, as we should otherwise commit a breach of the agreement entered into with the French Government.

It previously appeared from a pencil minute by Abeken on a report from Fabrice that we had offered, or that the French had demanded, something more than this, namely, in addition to the complete isolation of the city and the passage of the French troops through our lines, we should, in case the French Government asked for our support, give it in the shape of an artillery attack upon the enceinte, and, if the French storming parties were to fail, use all our forces to prevent a pursuit on the part of the Parisians.

May 20th.—According to a report from Stuttgart of the 17th instant, von Wachter, the Würtemberg Minister for Foreign Affairs, had remarked that King Charles now considered Würtemberg not to have been properly treated in connection with the Frankfurt treaty of peace (on the previous day he had known nothing about it), and he appeared to feel hurt at this. The Würtemberg Minister at Munich has reported that the treatment of Bavaria in connection with the conclusion of peace is greatly blamed in competent circles there, and that Count Quadt has been instructed to give expression to this dissatisfaction. It is doubtless Bavaria, therefore, that has altered the sentiments of Würtemberg.

Count von F., who has been in London, has informed Balan that the French Ambassador to the English Court, as well as the Duc de Grammont, have attracted a great deal of attention by their want of tact. The former had remarked to the Count in a reproachful tone that the[p. 81] Socialists in Paris had been principally recruited in Belgium. Grammont predicted the approaching return of Napoleon to France, and added, “Et alors on va bientôt mettre fin à cette ridicule chose qu’on appelle la Belgique.” Prince Napoleon, on the other hand, had observed to the Count that the neutrality of Belgium was an advantage to France during the last war. Baron Baude, the French Minister in Brussels, had stated in the presence of the English Minister d’Anethan that immediately after the Versailles troops had taken possession of Paris the National Assembly would proclaim the Comte de Chambord as King.

May 24th.—To-day read and noted down the draft of a despatch by the Chief respecting the International, and joint action on the part of the Governments against this organisation of the Socialist party. This is to be utilised in the press. The despatch is dated the 7th instant, and is addressed to Schweinitz in Vienna. Drafted at first by Abeken, the Chancellor struck out all but eight or ten lines, and then completed it in his own hand. Thus transformed it reads as follows: “The events that have occurred in Paris during the last few weeks and days, have disclosed in the most unmistakable fashion the common organisation of the Socialistic elements in European countries, and the dangers with which the State is threatened by that organisation. In Germany the influence of the Communistic working class associations is evident in the large centres of industry in our western provinces, and particularly in the manufacturing districts of Saxony. Herr Bebel, a member of Parliament, who is said to receive pecuniary support for his agitation from the funds of the late King of Hanover, has in the Reichstag given open expression to the criminal intentions of his party. Certain symptoms[p. 82] would go to show that in Austria, and indeed in Vienna itself, this agitation is making way among the workers. If your Excellency considers that the desire, and indeed the necessity, of opposing these movements of disaffection is felt by the Imperial Austro-Hungarian Government, please initiate a confidential discussion of ways and means. In my opinion, the first step would be an exchange of views respecting the extent and direction of the Socialist organisation, and the recognition of the principle that Socialist menaces to life and property, such as have been carried into execution in Paris, belong to the category of ordinary crime, and not to that of political offences.”

I here add the contents of some other documents on the same subject received and despatched later.

Writing on the 3rd of June, R. reported that the Emperor Alexander said to him that he intended to discuss with the Emperor William and the Chief the question of the means by which the European monarchies could be protected from the Socialist danger, and in particular from the International. In his opinion all the Governments of Europe should unite and assist one another in the struggle against this enemy. The Emperor will have a memorial on the subject drawn up by the Minister of Justice, in which, in particular, evidence will be adduced with the object of proving that the members of these Socialistic associations should be treated, not as political offenders, but as ordinary criminals.

During the second week of June, Bucher was much occupied in studying the International; and despatches drawn up by him were sent to Florence, Brussels, Vienna, and London. These were intended to pave the way for a joint intervention of the Governments[p. 83] against the agitation of the Communists. That addressed to Brassier St. Simon was dated the 9th of June, and that to Bernstorff the 14th. The following passage occurred in the former: “However much the ultimate aims of the revolutionary elements may differ in various countries, according to the conditions of the latter, yet their immediate purpose is in every instance the same, namely, the overthrow of the existing order in the State. It therefore follows that all existing Governments have a common interest in opposing them. When the State is defeated by the revolutionary movement in any one country, as was the case in Paris for two months, its power will be reduced in all other countries, and that of its opponents proportionately increased.”

On the 12th of June, the Chief’s answer, in which he gave an account of the steps already taken, was despatched to R. He had first sent the enclosed despatch to General von Schweinitz, and afterwards caused the latter to speak to Count Andrassy, who (perhaps in consequence of a private request on the part of the Chief) had already mooted the subject confidentially, in the same way as he had done to Count Beust. He (the Chief) then had copies of the despatch sent to the representatives of the Empire in Brussels, Florence, Dresden, and London, with the addition in each instance of some further observations more applicable to the special conditions of the country in question. In Brussels he had had attention called to the fact that Belgium, on account of its geographical position and its condition in regard to languages and industry, was most exposed to danger; that in the year 1868, on the occasion of the first International Congress of the Working Classes, Belgium was the scene of the[p. 84] first proclamation of Communism; and that, according to the statement of the leaders of the Paris Commune, Belgium had been chosen as the next field for their practical operations. In Florence he pointed out that the great associations which kept up disturbances in Italy, if they did not follow the same ends as the Communists, were still at one with them in their immediate task, namely, the overthrow of the existing Government and form of State, and were intimately associated with them, as was evident from the appearance of the Garibaldians in Paris. In Dresden it was pointed out that the industrial districts of Saxony furnished the largest contingent of Socialist members to the Reichstag. And, finally, in London it was shown that there the Communist associations, which had in the fifties given rise to criminal trials in Germany and France, together with the international union of the working classes, an offspring of that association, were founded in London, which was their official centre.

Count Waldersee (at present interim representative of Germany at Versailles) has been instructed to inform M. Jules Favre, in connection with his circular of the 6th instant, of our readiness to co-operate. All these communications contained as an enclosure an article from The Times, apparently based on official information.

About the middle of June Beust suggested that a “Note” should be sent asking for information respecting the Socialist organisation. The Chief believes that Beust’s proposal contemplates “blue-book lucubrations, which would only hamper the attainment of the real object in view,” as it would give warning to the Socialists and furnish the European press with a theme for denouncing new “Karlsbad resolutions,” and, to judge from the bias displayed in other complicated[p. 85] compilations of a similar character, the Austrian Chancellor would not be above making capital out of it for the benefit of his own popularity. The Minister was therefore to inform him that we were prepared, without any official demand on his part, to furnish him with the results of our observations upon the connection between the Communistic parties. A letter, dated the 26th of June, and addressed to S., contains the following further remarks: “I find him (Baron von Gablenz) much more disposed to meet our views in the matter of joint action against this danger (the Socialistic agitation) than has hitherto been the case in Vienna. He was of opinion that the Emperor Francis Joseph was very favourably inclined towards the understanding we had suggested.... I have not concealed from him, however, that Count Beust’s desire to see this suggestion embodied in the form of a ‘Note’ has, to some extent, cooled our zeal.”

B. reports, under date of the 1st of June, that Baron d’Anethan is in perfect agreement with the proposal of the Chief for an exchange of communications on the extent and direction of the Socialistic agitation, and also as to the recognition of the principle that Socialistic threats against life and property should be included in the category of ordinary crimes. He furthermore considers it absolutely necessary that the Governments should unite in establishing an international principle, and, acting on that basis, should proceed against the revolutionary agitation with inexorable rigour. The Belgian Minister strongly condemned the attitude of England, and expressed the apprehension that it would be difficult to procure the adhesion of the English Government to a common understanding.

There are grounds for believing that the motive for[p. 86] raising the whole subject was less the danger of the Socialist organisation (which, however, was strongly emphasised by me in the press under instructions from the Chief, and afterwards on my own account in the pamphlet Zur Geschichte der Internationale, Leipzig, 1872) than the opportunity which would be thereby afforded of bringing all the Powers together for the consideration, in common, of one question; and, in particular, of producing a rapprochement between two of them. In other words, the main object of the manœuvre was to maintain the antagonism between Russia and France—the land of the Commune, by exaggerating the danger of the International, and to win over Austria.

I now return to the chronological order of my diary, observing at the same time that some of the most important notes and instructions which I received from the Chief at that time cannot be reproduced, as the slips upon which they were written have been mislaid.

May 30th.—The National Zeitung, commenting in an exceptionally violent and discourteous tone upon an article in Brass’s paper, spoke of “the Mamelukes of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung,” of a “coarseness and boorishness, that can only be explained by the habits of literary menials,” and of the “tone of the Imperial Chancellor to which the anti-Parliamentary press, watching his every gesture, and exhibiting the zeal of a retriever, barks in eager response.” The Chief wished to have a reply written to this article, somewhat to the following effect. It was not necessary to enter into the attacks made upon the newspaper. The specimens quoted from the organ of MM. Bamberger and Lasker would suffice to show that persons who gave vent to their own irritation in that style were[p. 87] hardly entitled to complain of the manner in which others expressed themselves. But when the article charges the Imperial Chancellor with adopting an unseemly attitude towards the Reichstag, whereas his attitude has been eminently prudent and patriotic, when it accuses him of “domineering over men,” and of “demanding blind submission,” it may well be asked what part of the verbatim reports has given rise to these invectives. (From this point on dictation.) “We, who have not left these reports unread, as the author of this philippic would appear to have done, fail to find anything in the expressions of the Imperial Chancellor, but a declaration, for which he gave his reasons, that the motion under discussion was unacceptable, and that if it were maintained he could not undertake the responsibility for the administration of Alsace-Lorraine, during the period of provisional government. If any one discovers, in what he said, anything which would appear to justify in any way the charges in question, we would ask him to remember that a tone of bitterness and violence was first adopted by the Reichstag, and exactly by that party which takes credit for prudence and patriotism—and in general not without justification. We at least fail to recognise as models of prudence and patriotism, the sallies of Herr Bamberger in the last debate, in which he fell upon the Post Office officials. ‘When all is said, we are curs,’ and ‘Look out for the whip,’ were some of the flowers of rhetoric with which he presented the Government—and Herr von Hoverbeck’s feats of eloquence on the same occasion leave us in the same difficulty.”

May 31st.—Wrote to Brass to-day on the instructions of the Chief respecting the leading article in[p. 88] No. 124 of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which struck the Prince as too vehement in its attack upon the National Liberals. I recommended greater moderation and dignity. In reply, Brass excuses himself on the ground that he received that article from an official source, and was, therefore, in a dilemma—which is very probable.

A letter is to be sent to Vienna to-day, saying that Favre had stated at Frankfurt that a proposal from Beust in favour of the Pope had been submitted to the Versailles Government. This was made in such a form as to give rise to the inference that it was in harmony with the intentions of the Emperor William, as it referred to intimations from Count Bray, and Bavaria would not, presumably, adopt a policy on that question which deviated from that of the German Empire. S. is then requested to make guarded inquiries as to whether the Bavarian Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken any, and if so, what, steps in that direction. Of course, there was no doubt as to Bray’s personal views in the matter, but only a desire that, should he have actually taken such steps in Vienna, no room should have been left for misconception as to the personal and individual character of his action. The German Foreign Office had had no share in it, and “we have,” the letter concludes, “avoided, up to the present, expressing any opinion on the Roman question, or on the attitude of the German Empire towards it.”

June 5th.—Wrote an article, dated from Darmstadt, for the Kölnische Zeitung. The Chief gave me the information. The article ran as follows:

“However much our new Ministers may adapt themselves to circumstances, it is nevertheless no secret that the feeling in the spheres above them still continues[p. 89] unfavourable to the new state of things in Germany, and that it is sought here to preserve as much as possible of the old arrangements without causing too great offence. Whatever the spontaneous initiative of the powers that be fails to do in this direction is supplied by the very considerable influence of Prince Alexander, who is still associated with those circles in Vienna which in German affairs have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, and which now as formerly exercise a kind of co-regency that makes itself felt in many different ways. A case in point is the maintenance of the Legation in Vienna, which has long since lost all importance, particularly since the foundation of the German Empire through the Versailles Treaties. We hear on good authority that the present holder of that office, Heinrich von Gagern, the whilom President of the Frankfurt Parliament, requested several months ago to be allowed to retire from his post, at the same time recommending that it should be abolished, but he received a negative answer. He is now understood to have repeated his request and recommendation to the new Minister for Foreign Affairs, and—as we are informed—Herr von Lindelhof was not unfavourably disposed, particularly as there is no prospect of the representative body continuing to vote supplies for this post, which has become purely ornamental, as a necessary item of expenditure. In the highest quarters, however, a different view prevails, which is evidently due to the Prince, and if Gagern is permitted to resign he will have a successor. It is understood that in these circumstances the prospective successor would be von Biegeleben, the Prince’s intimate friend, a statesman as Ultramontane as could be found in the Episcopal Palace at Mainz, and as[p. 90] anti-Prussian as could be desired anywhere. I report this merely as a symptom of the sentiments prevailing in competent quarters here. Given adequate power, mischief can be wrought even without a Legation, but when that element is lacking, all diplomatic posts become merely ornamental, not to say ridiculous.”

June 7th.—According to a communication from Bernstorff of the 3rd instant, Brunnow reports that Napoleon has greatly aged and become very infirm. He speaks with gratitude of our Emperor and without hatred of Prussia; while, on the other hand, he is strongly incensed against Thiers and Favre, who will be overtaken by the just vengeance of Heaven for having brought about the overthrow of the Empire. Their punishment has already commenced in the severe conditions to which they have been compelled to allow the country to be subjected. According to this report, the Emperor did not express any hope of his restoration. The Empress, however, is full of courage, and has great expectations. The Bonapartists share her views. Some of them look forward to a restoration of Napoleon; and others, though a minority, to the regency of the Empress. Hopes are entertained that although Germany might not give any direct assistance to a restoration, it would moderate the conditions of peace if Napoleon were re-elected. In case of a plebiscite also, Germany might be helpful in the occupied provinces. Some are in favour of a national vote, as they feel sure of the rural population; while others are for violent measures, relying upon 180,000 soldiers. In their opinion, the main point is that neither the Comte de Chambord nor any one of the Orleans has any prospect of success.

The following communication was sent to Fabrice on the 4th inst.: “As the Government of which M. Thiers[p. 91] is the head has concluded a definitive peace with us, it is in our interest, and in that of our international position, to recognise only the present Government in France, so long as no other Government has been evolved out of it in a legal way which would secure for the future the execution of the Treaty of Peace, and the maintenance of the present relations between the two countries. The present Government is bound by its past, and by its entire position, to fulfil its obligations towards us, and it therefore finds a support in Germany. Any other Government which may seize power in an irregular way may possibly seek its salvation by sacrificing to popularity the treaties concluded with us, and in that manner force us to renew the war. We have, therefore, not only an interest in the maintenance of the present Government, but also the right to withhold our recognition from any violent change in the form of government, however brought about, and to make our decision dependent upon the guarantees provided for our treaty interests. It must, furthermore, be remembered that everything calculated to disturb order, which is scarcely restored as yet, must prejudicially affect the power of France to meet its obligations towards us within the periods laid down in the treaty, whoever may be at the head of affairs, and that we must therefore desire to avoid every crisis which would lead to a renewal of civil war. You will please express yourself in this sense to the French Government, and make it clear to them beyond all question that in those portions of the country which we occupy we shall recognise no alteration in the form, and no change in the principal holders of power, which does not arise out of the existing situation in the regular way, and in accordance with the laws now in force. We are giving evidence of the[p. 92] confidence which we repose in the present Government by rapidly reducing the German forces in the occupied districts. Should new movements in France force us to doubt the maintenance of the peace which has been concluded, your Excellency is aware that within fourteen days we could again put the same army in the field which we had in France last winter.”

June 11th.—Fabrice telegraphed the day before yesterday to the Chief stating, inter alia, that the rapid withdrawal of our troops outside Paris and elsewhere before the payment of the first half milliard was obviously exercising an influence upon the temper and behaviour of the population, whose attitude would grow more and more confident, if not hostile, as the evacuation proceeded. Washburne had confidently advised prudence, and in speaking to Holstein had described the sentiments of the Parisians towards the Germans as doubtful, adding that the Government lacked the power, and perhaps the will, to counteract this tendency, and that the protection of the Germans in Paris depended solely upon the German garrisons still in the neighbourhood. No reliance could be placed upon the future development of affairs in France. The first two milliards would be paid in order to give Germany a sense of security. The balance of three milliards, however, would not be paid—as had been openly stated by personages in authority, not soldiers—while, on the other hand, there was a determination to recover the ceded territories.

The Chief thereupon telegraphed to the Saxon General yesterday that neither were we bound nor did we intend to reduce the zone of occupation, and that we should certainly not evacuate the forts before the date specified in the Treaty of Frankfurt. If we reduced the[p. 93] number of our troops in the occupied districts, it was not that we trusted France, but only that we had confidence in our own rapidity of mobilisation. It was possible that the French would not carry out the treaty of peace in full, and even that they intended to attack us, but as soon as the mobilisation of the French forces rendered the latter eventuality probable, or if there were a wilful delay in the payments to be made, a force of 600,000 could, within a fortnight, be put into the field between Metz and Paris. He, Fabrice, should permit no doubt to exist upon this point. It was cheaper to strengthen our forces outside Paris as required than to leave them there for an indefinite period. There was no disposition to conceal the possibility of a renewal of the war, but on the other hand such a renewal was not feared.

June 19th.—This morning read a number of telegrams which have been exchanged between Waldersee and the Chief, from which it would almost seem as if it might come to hostilities if the French only had sufficient power. On the evening of the 15th instant their troops stationed near Lilas pushed forward their outposts to within twenty-five paces of ours, and on ground that belonged to us. The Chief, upon advices to this effect from Waldersee on the 16th instant, immediately instructed him to demand the punishment of the officers who had been guilty of this breach of existing arrangements, adding that our men had received instructions to attack the French troops posted within rifle range of them if the latter did not withdraw in the course of the day. He would also immediately advise the King to withdraw the orders for the recall of all our troops until satisfaction had been received. A telegram to the like effect was at the same time despatched to Favre.[p. 94] It concluded as follows: “Les protestations du commandant allemand contre cette violation des stipulations en vigueur sont restées infructueuses. Je regrette vivement un incident qui trouble les relations de confiance mutuelle qui commençaient à naître.” The Frenchmen were greatly frightened by this Quos ego, particularly MacMahon, who immediately ordered the withdrawal of the troops from a position in which they had no right to be.

Favre has declared that Pouyer-Quertier cannot pay the first half milliard before the 15th of July, as the Ministry of Finance has been destroyed (by the Communists). Moreover, the restoration of order, mentioned in Article 7 of the treaty, has not yet been completed. In a telegram sent to Waldersee the day before yesterday the Chief described these observations as “impudent,” and instructed Waldersee to tell Favre that if the money is not paid on the 1st of July, France will have failed to fulfil its obligations under the article in question.

Waldersee further reported the day before yesterday that he had presented his credentials to Favre, and was then received by Thiers. His reception by both gentlemen was exceedingly polite and amiable. A 6 per cent. voluntary loan of two milliards, with a 15 per cent. payment on account, was to be placed on the market on the 26th of June. With the money raised by this means, and with some other funds at the disposal of the Government, a payment of 375 million francs would be made. Thiers assured him that with the best will in the world he could not promise him the complete payment of the first half milliard before the 10th of July, as nobody could foresee at the present moment how the subscriptions would go. He, Waldersee, had, however, insisted upon[p. 95] the 1st of July, as otherwise we should be driven to question the good will of the French, and moreover—owing to certain financial arrangements—we required the money at that date. Thiers replied that he both desired and hoped to be able to begin the payment on the 1st, but it was a physical impossibility for him to collect the whole sum before the 10th. Waldersee had not stated that the proposal would be accepted in Berlin.

The Chief thereupon telegraphed the same day that the proposal of M. Thiers was incompatible with the 7th Article of the Frankfurt Treaty of Peace, and could not, therefore, be accepted without counter-concessions. The telegram continues: “Besides, the understanding at first was that the occupation of Paris should be taken as the term for this payment, and it was only in consequence of a concession made by us out of complaisance that the expression ‘rétablissement de l’autorité’ was inserted in the French draft of the treaty. Furthermore, through an oversight, the payment of the following 125 millions was fixed in the French draft at sixty days after the payment of the 375 millions, instead of thirty days, or sixty days after the occupation of Paris, as M. Pouyer-Quertier himself had proposed. In the presence of the unconciliatory attitude which the French negotiators now manifest, we see no occasion to show them any favour without counter-concessions. If, therefore, the French Government does not make the payment provided for by the treaty on the 1st of July, we must regard it as a failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 7. I beg your Excellency to leave M. Favre in no doubt upon this point.”

June 20th.—Again an amusing interlude provided by the diplomatic world. Von K., a Russian envoy abroad, has addressed to the Emperor Alexander a long[p. 96] memorial dated the 25th of May, or the 6th of June according to our calendar. This document, which deals with the Socialist parties and agitation in Germany, includes the following, among a number of other extraordinary whimsicalities: “Wuttke (Our Leipzig Professor and Puzzlehead), un des piliers républicains en Saxe, a dit dernièrement assez haut pour être entendu à Dresde: ‘Dans cinq ans il n’y aura plus de princes.’” Most wonderful and admirable knowledge of affairs and men! Wuttke, a pillar and prophet of Saxon Republicanism! And this is the sort of stuff which a diplomatist reports with a serious face!

June 22nd.—Under instructions from the Chief utilised in the press the main ideas of a memorandum written by Bucher on the Paris Commune, and the reasons why it was not supported in the provinces. This document, which was dated the 17th instant, was forwarded to Vienna. (...)

The following appears in the Volkszeitung to-day: “We have been requested to publish the following letter: ‘Desiring an audience of his Serene Highness Prince Bismarck, I addressed him as he was passing in the street, for the purpose of obtaining permission to present myself. Hardly had I spoken to the Prince before two detectives laid hold of me by both arms and wanted to arrest me. In spite of my protest that I was under no obligation to accompany two civilians, and moreover that I had committed no offence, I was dragged through the streets to the police station in the Taubenstrasse. I was then taken in charge of a policeman to the Molkenmarkt, where I was kept in custody for the whole night, being liberated at 11 o’clock next morning, with the remark that my arrest was doubtless due to a misunderstanding. I leave the[p. 97] whole affair to the judgment of the public. H. L. Back.’”

June 23rd.—Called this morning to the Chief, who showed me the above letter. He was in good humour, and while dressing he gave me the following account of the incident. “As I was leaving the Reichstag on my way home an exceptionally greasy individual, evidently a Jew, came up and said he wished to have an audience of me. I declined, but he remained at my side and kept on talking to me, I would surely not refuse a German writer such a request, as he had something of importance to communicate to me. Yes, but I do though, I replied, I never give audiences to German authors. He continued to follow me, however (with the fly-like persistence, obtrusiveness and foolhardiness of the young Jew), and while he kept on talking he pressed so close to me that he trod on one of my spurs, breaking it off. I wheeled round and was about to chastise him physically, when the two policemen took him in charge. He really was exceptionally greasy, one could have scraped the pot-house fat off him.” Wrote a paragraph on the subject for the papers.

Called again to the Minister later on, and received instructions for an article on certain pretended revelations of a M. de Vallon in the Versailles Assembly, which had been commented upon in the National Zeitung. He read through and corrected this article before it was sent off. In giving me the information, he said: “Favre has here made several erroneous statements. He gave an inaccurate account of the facts in his speech of the 19th instant, in which he referred to Vallon’s assertion that he, Favre, had told him I had been disposed at Ferrières to conclude peace on the cession of Strassburg and its environs. He declared[p. 98] that at that time there had been no negotiations respecting peace, though M. de Bismarck had, indeed, told him that it would be possible to negotiate on the conditions indicated by M. de Vallon in the National Assembly. Say, with reference to that point, that the French Minister for Foreign Affairs had thereby given evidence of a defective memory. Or, better still, say: It is quite conceivable that all the details of several long interviews have not been retained with equal clearness by all those concerned in them. According to the reports now before us, the question of the armistice occupied the first place, as a means of preparing the way for peace through the convocation of a National Assembly; but the peace itself was also discussed. M. Favre himself says this in his report of September last to the Government of National Defence, describing the occurrences at Haute Maison. There we read: ‘After I had made known the intentions of the French Government by means of a circular, I desired to ascertain those of the Prussian Minister. It seemed to me out of the question that two nations, without first ascertaining each other’s views, should continue a war which, notwithstanding its advantages for the victor, would be a cause of great suffering. Brought about by the will of one individual, this war had no longer any raison d’être when France had again become her own mistress. I vouched for her love of peace, and at the same time for her resolve not to accept any conditions which would transform this peace into a short and threatening armistice. M. de Bismarck replied that if he were convinced of the possibility of such a peace, he would sign it immediately.’

“On this occasion M. Favre also ascertained the conditions put forward by Germany, and these were by no[p. 99] means restricted to the cession of Strassburg and its environs. M. Favre’s above-mentioned report goes on to say: ‘On my pressing him very strongly with respect to the conditions, he told me plainly that the security of his country imposed upon him the necessity of retaining the territory which would guarantee the same. He repeated several times: Strassburg is the key of the house. (I said our house.) I begged him to speak still more plainly. That is useless, he replied, as we cannot come to an understanding; that is a matter that can be settled later. I requested him to do so immediately. (The following is given in italics in the article.) He then said to me that the departments of the Upper and Lower Rhine and a portion of the Moselle department, with Metz, Château Salins, and Soissons (incorrect, it was Saargemund which was mentioned) were indispensable to him, and that he could not forego them.’”

About the same time, probably shortly before the above article was written, the following communiqué was prepared for the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung under instructions from the Chief, who also saw and corrected it before it was sent to the press. He struck out the portions within brackets, although they were almost literally his own words: “Reports reach us daily of bad treatment and serious prejudice to their rights to which the Germans in France, and particularly those in Paris, are subjected. Bankers dismiss German clerks who have served them long and faithfully; manufacturers announce that they will no longer employ German workpeople; even academies and institutions, centres of French learning (and, as one would wish to think, of French wisdom), indulge in anti-German demonstrations, and decline in future to elect any corresponding members from among the German citizens[p. 100] of the Universal Republic of Letters. All these, more or less petty expressions of bitter resentment, may be merely regarded as symptoms of a feeling which is of significance for the future, and against which we must secure ourselves. But the French, and particularly the Parisians, have gone further in the petty warfare, which they carry on in continuation of the great war now concluded. Incited by an unbridled press, they have permitted themselves to adopt towards those Germans who have returned to France, either to put their affairs in order, or to reopen business, an attitude which would be regarded by civilised nations as improper, even in time of war. They have prevented Germans from opening their shops, and have wrecked German establishments. They have prohibited other Germans from attending the Bourse, and have arrested harmless German subjects, simply because they were Germans. That is not an affair of the future, but of the immediate present, and demands immediate redress. We have concluded peace, and we honestly and sincerely desire to maintain it, but of course, on the assumption that the French people preserve this peace, which was sought for and demanded by their Government. If the offences in question are not (speedily and thoroughly) checked, and if the French Government does not protect peaceful and law-abiding Germans, we must, in the interest of German subjects, and in view of the honour of Germany, decide upon the reprisals to be exercised. We should not be surprised if, then, for every German illegally arrested and not released immediately upon representations being made, arrests of French citizens were ordered in those districts of France which we temporarily occupy. We should not consider it out of order, if the evacuation of certain departments were postponed until these passions had[p. 101] calmed down, and indeed, according to circumstances, these regrettable occurrences might lead to fresh action against Paris, which is the seat of the evil.”

June 24th.—Wrote the following article for Brass from materials supplied by the Chief, whose attention was called to the matter by an article in the Schlesische Zeitung, on “Napoleon and the Men of the 4th of September”: “Trochu’s attempt to exculpate himself before the bar of public opinion has failed conclusively. His speech only confirmed the fact that he had betrayed the Emperor by using, in order to bring about his fall, the forces entrusted to him. It was principally through the men on the 4th of September that he came to the head of affairs. He was chiefly responsible for the continuation of the war from that date. And in addition to his treason came his incapacity. He was constantly giving assurances that he had plans which would infallibly succeed, and yet when they were carried out not one of them was really successful. When he finally, however, with brazen impudence charges the Prussians with having supported the Commune and with complicity in the scenes of terror enacted since the outbreak of the Socialist conspiracy, it may be pointed out (1) that German policy would have incurred no reproach before Europe if it had shown a certain readiness to meet the Commune during the first weeks following the 18th of March, when it had not as yet disclosed its true nature, particularly as there appeared to be very little good will and very considerable equivocation on the other side; (2) that there has been no question of any kind of complaisance on the part of the Germans towards the Commune, to say nothing of an understanding or of support, and that, on the contrary, everything which was permissible in[p. 102] the circumstances was done to assist the Versailles Government in its preparations to suppress the rising, and during the fighting itself. It is therefore to be expected that the members of the French Government, who are better informed, will contradict the assertions of the General, which if not mendacious are at least utterly erroneous. We still await such a correction. If this disavowal were not made we should consider it desirable that the matter should be taken up on the German side and that those diplomatic documents should be published which show that assistance was really given and in what manner, and that this was done at the wish and request of the Versailles Government.”

June 30th.—During the last few days again read a number of interesting documents despatched and received. Tauffkirchen, the Bavarian representative at the Curia, reported from Rome on the 21st inst. that the Pope had spoken to him on the previous day of the danger by which society was threatened by the Communists. “They are,” he said, as he drove away some flies from his table, “like these insects. It is no use to kill a few, still less to drive them away. General measures must be taken to prevent their entrance and propagation.” Respecting the removal of the Italian Government to Rome, a recent despatch says that if the King proceeds thither the foreign representatives will follow him in accordance with diplomatic custom. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs were to reside there without the sovereign, it would then depend upon the requirements of business whether, and for how long, an envoy would go to Rome for purposes of personal communication. France and Austria had instructed their representatives to follow the Minister to Rome, irrespective[p. 103] of the circumstance whether Victor Emmanuel went there or not; in that case, however, they were to take leave of absence, leaving a substitute in charge. A despatch from Waldersee, dated the 25th instant, contains the following sentence: “It is not in the interest of the Empire that the different Federal States should maintain separate envoys abroad. We may, however, await their gradual disappearance as a work of time, and as the result of the Budget debates in the several States.” According to a report from Tauffkirchen, Prince Löwenstein-Heubach, who has gone to Rome on behalf of the Clericals, threatened Cardinal Antonelli with the consequences of any disavowal of the Centre party in the Reichstag.

July 2nd.—The Chief asked me yesterday if I had not, in accordance with his instructions, informed Brass[4] that he should cease his attacks upon the French Government. I replied: “Yes, several times, both by letter and verbally.” He then said: “That must be put a stop to. But I believe he is paid by Napoleon.” To-day he wished me to send Brass the following article, for which he gave me the ideas. “There has been much discussion of the question, whether the war indemnity imposed upon France by Germany is too high, and whether the former will be able to bear the burden of those five milliards. Some answer the question in the affirmative, some in the negative, while others remain in doubt. Now, however, we may consider the point as settled, by the programme which M. Thiers has submitted to the National Assembly, first, as regards the loan and the financial position of France, and then with respect to the future of the country in general. Undoubtedly France is obliged to exercise greater[p. 104] economy than she has hitherto done. She must increase the productiveness of her resources, and administer them with the utmost care. Notwithstanding this, M. Thiers has no idea whatever of reducing the army or the navy, which nevertheless offer the largest field for economies. On the contrary he desires to bring both up to the highest figure they have yet reached, and to keep them at that point, and what is more, he wishes to have the army reinforced by a reserve of 900,000 men. This clearly proves to us that the idea of France being entitled to dominate Europe has by no means been given up in Government circles at Versailles, and that now, as formerly, they hold fast to the statement in which M. Thiers during his autumn tour expressed the hope and self-confidence of the French politician: ‘L’Europe ne veut pas changer de maître.’ Indeed, now that the French Government thinks of submitting the same military Budget, and the French seem to consider that they can bear their old military burdens even under more unfavourable conditions than prevailed formerly, the indemnity demanded must be regarded rather as too low than too high. Moreover, France is nowhere endangered or threatened, and these formidable armaments can therefore only betray aggressive aspirations, the expression of which must be looked upon as a direct threat to her neighbours. On both these grounds there ceases in our opinion to be any moral obligation to show indulgence in the matter of the indemnity.”

July 5th.—This afternoon Keudell brought down from the Chief an article which appeared in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung of the 2nd inst., which began with the words “Der Telegraph.” The Chief had written on the margin, “This article is[p. 105] contrary to the instructions given. The Minister of the Interior is to be written to respecting a warning to the editorial staff, or the withdrawal of all favours. Strict daily supervision necessary.” Keudell said the Chancellor was furious with Brass, and almost believed that he was paid by Napoleon to make mischief between ourselves and Versailles. He then begged me to write the necessary letter to the Minister of the Interior.

The article of the 2nd of July was the last which I wrote for the Foreign Office from the direct personal instructions of the Chancellor. From that time forward the direct intercourse with the Chancellor, which I had hitherto enjoyed, was transferred to the new “Press Councillor,” Aegidi, who had been here for some weeks, but had not been received by the Prince until eight or ten days after his arrival, and who, even then, was not employed immediately.

I did not know at the time what was the reason of the change, and Bucher also was unable to explain it. He was afterwards of opinion that Aegidi was introduced by Keudell, who intended to leave the Foreign Office and take an appointment abroad, in order that he might be kept informed of what was going on here. It would be his business also to see that the press men should not cease to accord him that recognition which he, as Personal Councillor, Treasurer and Administrator of Pensions, was accustomed to receive from time to time, but that it should, on the contrary, continue to flow in a stronger and deeper stream. I cannot say whether the former surmise was correct. I will show later on, when I come to deal with Herr von Keudell himself, that the other point did not remain any mere suspicion. For the present I will only remark that the censer, which used to be swung before the latter in the[p. 106] press, was much more frequently in use after the arrival of his protégé in Berlin, and that the smoke of the incense recalled in a very suspicious way Aegidi’s own style. (...)

James Ludwig Carl Aegidi, a Protestant, son of a doctor in Freienwalde, was born in 1825. He studied law at Königsberg, Heidelberg and Berlin, and was married to a Fräulein von Senden, a cousin of Keudell’s.... A few days after Aegidi’s arrival Keudell, speaking of him to me, credited him with “exceptional scientific knowledge, relations with almost all literary circles, and the tact which was desirable for mediating between the Chief and the daily press.”

The following chapters will show the nature of those relations and this tact. Let one proof suffice for the moment. Some months after the appointment of the new Councillor the following was to be read in the Spenersche Zeitung, with which he had exceptionally intimate relations: “A Berlin correspondent of the Pester Lloyd, recalling the circumstance that the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which is regarded as a semi-official organ, received some sharply worded démentis during the summer of the present year, draws attention to the fact that for a short time past the journal in question has again come to be considered as official in the highest sense. The correspondent writes that, ‘Since Professor Aegidi, who is at the same time one of the most eminent and respected of German professors of law and a spirited publicist, has been in charge of the press department of the Foreign Office, much more attention has again been paid to the newspapers. He has taken care, in particular, to maintain a certain continuity of views in the official press. The Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung has again become the[p. 107] principal official organ, and since the 1st of December all the leading articles published under the heading “Political News of the Day,” dealing with foreign affairs, the affairs of the Empire, the relations of the Federal States to the President of the Council, as well as those on Church and State, may be considered as the direct expression of the views held by the highest officials of the Empire.’ The correspondent states he is informed, on trustworthy authority, that for the most part Professor Aegidi himself edits the ‘Political News of the Day,’ utilising for the purpose the information which he receives direct from the Chancellor.”

The Chief was beside himself at this article. Aegidi was summoned before him, and returned—as a gentleman in the Central Bureau remarked—looking quite crestfallen and red in the face. He denied that he had prompted the communication in the Pester Lloyd. We soon ascertained, however, that it had emanated from one Julius L., a writer of the lowest rank and the most unenviable reputation, who had formerly served Keudell, and was now intimately associated with Aegidi.

I ought, perhaps, to have now tendered my resignation. Certain considerations, however, prevented my doing so for some time. There was still something for me to learn, and I soon observed that I could yet do good service. It was also conceivable that my old relations with the Prince might be restored, as a man of Aegidi’s character, with his self-seeking, mercurial exuberance of zeal, and his almost Jewish vanity, would sooner or later render himself impossible. I therefore remained, and fell in with the wish of the Councillor to “enter into friendly relations with him,” so far as that was possible. Subsequently, however, when he attempted to give me instructions, as a kind of superior, I once[p. 108] and for all entered an energetic protest against such presumption, and declared that I could only carry out such instructions as he could assure me were the direct expression of the Chief’s desire, thus taking up a position towards him, not of subordination, but of equality. I did well in deciding to remain yet a while. I learnt a great deal more, as I still had access to the documents received and despatched, and became more and more intimate with Bucher. The hoped-for opportunities of serving the Chief at the same time as the representative of Keudell’s interests, and without his knowledge, occurred more frequently than I had expected, although my personal intercourse with the Chief was not renewed for the time being.

[p. 109]

## CHAPTER III

THE LAST TWENTY MONTHS IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE—DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AND DESPATCHED

July 28th.—Count W. recently sent papers marked “Contracts,” adding, “these have been fetched on the instructions of Herr von Düring, and are intended for Herr von Meding in Thun.” I suspected immediately that the gentleman referred to was the ex-Government Councillor Meding, formerly in charge of press affairs under the Guelphs at Hanover, the patron of the Situation in Paris, who had now given up the cause of George V. in consideration of a respectable douceur, or a pension from the Guelph Fund. I thought to myself that it is doubtless to him and to his comrades that v. R. referred when he inquired the other day whether he should pay their money to the Hanoverians in Thun.

In this supposition I was on the right track. I see to-day among the latest correspondence received a letter from Government Councillor O. Meding to the Imperial Chancellor, dated from Thun, on the 22nd of July, in which he reports that non-commissioned officers and men of the Hanoverian Legion in Africa, which has now been disbanded by the French Government, have arrived at[p. 110] Geneva in charge of the former Hanoverian Lieutenant Kreiss. According to Meding they wish to go to Austria, in order to take service there, as they were told in France that Austria was preparing for war. Meding further reports that they were employed last year by MM. Malortie and Adelebsen for the formation of a volunteer corps, but were first interned in Rouen by the French Government, and afterwards shipped on board a vessel for Algeria under an escort of gendarmes.

I here add some extracts from other documents dealing with the same matter. On the 27th of July the same true friend of King George reports that those people are in Zurich, and manifest great bitterness against the King, who—as may well be the case—had not kept his promise to provide for them. Kreiss had received from Hietzing an assurance of a pension of five hundred thalers and an appointment as groom of the stud of the Archduke William, but desires, nevertheless, to remain at Romanshorn for the present. Commissary Ebers has gone to Zurich to collect any documents in the hands of these people respecting their entry into the French service. The communication concludes as follows: “I have given the address of the Hanoverians in Paris, which has been previously mentioned, to Beckmann, the writer, in order that he should hand it over to the Councillor of Embassy von Keudell. The other papers formerly in Paris have been brought here by Commissary Ebers, and I will shortly report on the historic material contained in them, and request your Serene Highness’s orders on the subject.” Later, on the 16th of September, von R. telegraphed from Berne, asking whether the next quarterly instalment should be paid to the “Hanoverian pensioners in Switzerland.” On the 28th of the same month an affirmative answer[p. 111] was sent, signed by Thile, who added, however, that those gentlemen should return to their homes, and assist there in influencing the population in favour of the Government. The Parisian papers have been received. The first contract with them was signed as early as the 24th of September, 1870, v. R. should report whether Count Mengerssen was to be included among the pensioners.

Wollmann told me this morning that the widow of the painter Bouterweck, a Prussian lady, has written from Paris to the Foreign Office, stating that several pictures owned by her late husband, which she had had in her house at Bougival, and which did not even belong to her, had been taken away by the Prussian troops. They were paintings by old masters, among them a Hobbema. She had ascertained that a Captain K., of the 47th (doubtless the 46th) Regiment, had packed them up and sent them away, and she now requested that they should be returned to her. They are certainly not in the possession of Captain K., but it may be that First Lieutenant —— has them, as the story goes that he has been sent packing on account of a consignment of flotsam and jetsam in the way of furniture, which he forwarded to his mistress....

August 23rd.—The following suggestions for the semi-official press were sent by the Chief to Thile, who handed them over to me: “The domestic complications in the cis-Leithan half of Austria-Hungary give rise to frequent misconceptions abroad, too much importance being given to the national aspect. The issue turns upon governmental and constitutional questions, and the relations of the various parties, rather than upon the struggle between the Germans and the Slavs. It is mainly a fight between the Conservative and Liberal[p. 112] elements. The German landed proprietors support the Slavs because they themselves are conservative or reactionary; and among the leaders of the Slav party and those who are promoting the compromise there are a great number of prominent aristocrats who do not understand a word of Bohemian or any other Slav language. Men like Thun and Hohenwart are in the first place conservative, and are only Bohemian in so far as they regard the Slavs as useful tools for advancing the views of the aristocracy and of the Church. That they further the Slav national movement at the same time, and even apparently adopt its principles, is due to the fact that the Slav peoples prove themselves to be more capable and willing instruments of aristocratic, absolutist and clerical tendencies than the German element. The latter, owing to its entire education and to the circumstance that it includes the real bourgeoisie and prosperous middle classes of Austria, gravitates unmistakably towards Liberalism. It is in this way that the struggle assumes a national character. This condition of affairs will be more readily understood by comparing it with similar occurrences in Germany and elsewhere, where the reactionary as well as the democratic and revolutionary groups, irrespective of nationality, have thrown in their lot with kindred parties in other countries (Poles and Frenchmen) for the purpose of forwarding their party schemes against their opponents at home.”

“The Federalist-Conservative party in Austria has selected two other elements as allies and—as it hopes—tools. Both of these are in themselves equally hostile to Liberalism and Conservatism, and desire for their part to use the Conservatives as instruments, hoping ultimately to out-general them. These elements are Ultramontanism on the one hand, and Socialism on the[p. 113] other. The latter, in the person of the Minister Schaeffle, has been able to extend its ramifications even into the present cis-Leithan Cabinet, and from that point of vantage democrats like May, Frese and others, who are opposed to every form of national as well as State organisation, will be utilised for momentary party purposes. From its nature Ultramontanism is equally hostile to every national element, and particularly to the German. The attitude of their organs in Germany and abroad shows clearly that the German nation cannot conclude any honourable peace with them. On the contrary, both elements, the Ultramontane and the Socialist, are the born foes of Germany.”

August 30th.—Abeken, under instructions from the Chancellor, has sent Thile a résumé, dated the 20th inst., of the conversation that took place between the Emperor William and the Emperor Francis Joseph on their journey between Welk and Ischl, from the particulars furnished by the former. The abstract runs as follows:—

“When their Majesties had taken their seats in the carriage the Emperor of Austria began immediately by expressing the satisfaction with which he followed the great and successful achievements of his Majesty the Emperor and King and of his armies. The conversation then turned on the distracted internal condition of France, and from that to the danger with which all Governments were threatened by the International and by the communistic and socialistic movements with which it was associated. His Majesty mentioned the last communication on this subject from the French Government, dated the 16th day of July, with which the Emperor of Austria also seemed to be acquainted. When his Majesty remarked that in addition to a number of fine phrases it also contained[p. 114] one practical suggestion, namely, that the Powers should if possible meet in conference to consider the causes of, and come to an understanding as to the means for averting, the threatening danger, the Emperor of Austria replied that this was a good idea, which must be carried into effect. The Emperor Francis Joseph referred to the domestic difficulties with which he was confronted, but expressed the hope that he would be able to overcome them. He hoped shortly to be able to bring about a compromise with the Czechs. Everything was ready, and the proclamation was to be made on his birthday, the 18th of August, which it was hoped would satisfy Bohemia. He did not give any further particulars of the measure.

“The Emperor Francis Joseph observed that the excessive demands of the Germans in his Empire gave him a great deal of trouble. Towards the close of the conversation the Emperor William took an opportunity of telling him that if he succeeded in meeting the legitimate demands of his German subjects, their thoughts would certainly not turn away from Austria towards Germany. He had made a similar remark to the Emperor of Russia with respect to the Baltic Provinces. The Emperor of Austria considered that his Majesty had every cause to be satisfied with the attitude of the Imperial and State Diets in recent times, to which his Majesty assented in general, although some few differences had arisen. His Majesty then recalled the circumstance that the Emperor Francis Joseph had once said to him at Teplitz that in twenty years’ time Constitutions would be things of the past. Ten years had now passed by, and it did not look as if his prophecy would be realised within the next decade.

“The question of the Roman Church was also incidentally[p. 115] referred to. The Emperor Francis Joseph said it was to be regretted that the Pope had brought the question of infallibility before the Council, whereupon his Majesty replied that if a Catholic Sovereign expressed himself in that sense it was all the easier for himself, from his own standpoint, to agree with him. The Austrian Emperor did not say what his Government proposed to do in the matter.”

His Majesty was highly pleased with the cordiality of his reception by the Emperor Francis Joseph. The Archduchess Sophia had previously left Ischl, as had also the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, who, as his Majesty remarked, had just completed her cure.

August 31st.—At noon to-day, Aegidi handed me the following, as coming direct from the Chief, who urgently desired its publication in the Kölnische Zeitung. “In the vehement attacks to which General von Manteuffel was formerly subjected, and even in the articles first published by the Frankfurter Zeitung, it was possible to credit the writers, although partisan and hostile, with honest conviction. It is obvious, however, that in the latest attack (Frankfurter Zeitung, No. 214) we have to deal with an absolutely unprincipled calumniator, who knows nothing whatever either of General von Manteuffel, or of any of the facts at issue. Nor can it be any longer supposed to have emanated from some malcontent officer with an official or personal grudge against General von Manteuffel, after the writer has made himself ridiculous by the puerile insinuation that the attraction of oysters or women induced the general to undertake his expedition to Dieppe. Every one who has even a slight knowledge of the general knows that he is, we might almost say, lamentably ignorant of the pleasures of the table, and that so far as[p. 116] the fair sex is concerned, even before marriage his conduct was always of such an ascetic character as to render suspicion ridiculous. From the latest article in the Frankfurter Zeitung it would seem probable that the writer belongs to a class which does little credit to the press, namely, the broken-down officers who had to be cashiered during the 1848 period. His judgment in military affairs is no better than his knowledge of oysters; for, with regard to the latter, he is not even aware that among gourmets the Dieppe oyster is known as the poorest of European crustaceans—big, leathery, and bitter, like the brazen audacity of his own calumnies.”

September 8th.—According to a report from London —— are very much annoyed that the visit of the Crown Prince has taken place in London, and during the London season, and especially that his reception was marked by such unmistakable signs of good will on the part of the population. Even society and the press recognised the importance of the Prince. The Crown Princess also made a pre-eminently favourable impression.... The Prince of Wales and his Danish consort were themselves more civil this time, and even put in an appearance at the German Legation.... The Royal Family is once more beginning to be afraid of France, and inclines toward Napoleon, who has always been “England’s friend,” whereas the House of Orleans for some unknown reason is looked upon as hostile.

September 21st.—Aegidi said to-day he understood that Waldersee had been “blundering,” having accepted from the French bills of exchange as of equal value to ready money in the payment of the war indemnity. He added: “We have lost in this way more than a hundred thousand thalers. That comes of entrusting[p. 117] such high posts to military men.” This piece of wisdom probably comes from Keudell. A short time ago, under instructions from the Chief, I announced that Waldersee’s recall was not due to any dissatisfaction with his management of affairs, but only to the more peaceful relations between Germany and France, which no longer required the services of a military representative.

September 22nd.—This afternoon Bucher told me that Arnim had shown great want of skill in negotiating the arrangement with regard to the Customs of Alsace-Lorraine. He went to work as if he were empowered to act on his own account, without reference to Berlin. It was a piece of good luck that the French took it upon themselves to insert an extra paragraph, or we might have fallen into the trap. Arnim is incapable, as are also his attachés, Holstein, and the Lieutenants of Hussars, Dönhoff and Stumm. Holstein is otherwise quite a capable man, but he has no real knowledge of State affairs. Bucher concluded: “I have had to give Arnim clearly to understand his position.”

September 25th.—Eichmann, our Minister in Dresden (who, by the way, is, according to Bucher, a vain, self-satisfied and rather insignificant gentleman), reported the day before yesterday that Friesen had told him that Beust, in speaking to Von Bose, the Saxon Minister in Vienna, about his interview with Bismarck at Gastein, said that the political views of our Chief fitted in with his own as did the key to the keyhole, and that the Emperor Francis Joseph had observed to Count Bray that his views had met those of the Emperor William half way, and that a complete understanding had been arrived at between them.

A despatch given in Benedetti’s book, Ma Mission[p. 118] en Prusse, forms a companion piece to Rasch’s mission to Garibaldi. From this despatch, which was sent to Paris on the 10th of November, 1867, therefore not long after the battle of Mentana, we obtain the following information. When Garibaldi was about to invade the States of the Church, he wrote a letter to Bismarck, in which he begged for substantial assistance for his enterprise both in the way of money and arms. For safety’s sake he had sent the letter by a confidential messenger, who handed it over to the Chief. The latter appeared to entertain some mistrust, as Garibaldi’s handwriting was easily imitated. Anyhow, he informed the messenger that he had at his disposal no money for which he was not bound to render an account to the Diet, and made several other remarks to the effect that of course France could not permit an incursion into the States of the Church, and that he regarded the enterprise as hopeless. Benedetti’s disclosure was immediately followed by one emanating from the Chief. As soon as France set about its preparations for an armed intervention in Italy, the Cabinet in Florence telegraphed to its representative in Berlin, instructing him to ask Count Bismarck if, and to what extent, Italy might reckon upon the support of Prussia. This was done; and the answer was, that in coming to the assistance of the Pope France had a just cause for intervention, and that Prussia could not be expected to lend its support to an incursion into the territory of a sovereign with whom she entertained friendly relations.

September 29th.—On the 26th instant the Bavarian Minister, H., told W. that the time had arrived to think about introducing obligatory civil marriage. According to the Council of Trent the sacramental element in marriage consisted in the declaration of the bride and[p. 119] bridegroom, before the priest and witnesses, that they desired henceforth to live together as man and wife. How would it be, however, if the Pope, who has now become infallible, were induced to declare that the sacramental element consists in the performance of the marriage rites by the priest? In reply to the inquiry whether he was aware that something of the kind had been proposed at Bonn, he said no, but that the idea was in the air. According to W., Professor Schulte, who has been fully initiated into the former Austrian Concordat negotiations, stated that the Emperor Francis Joseph could easily be induced to agree to the dissolution of any religious order in Austria, with the single exception of the Jesuits, to which he would certainly not consent.

October 7th.—Aegidi brought instructions from the Chief that in future Austrian affairs were to be treated differently in the press. In the official newspapers, as also in those that are regarded as having a remote connection with us, the greatest consideration must be shown towards the Hohenwart Ministry, while in the others all the concrete measures taken by it against the German element must be criticised and condemned in the sharpest possible terms.

October 15th.—A report from Stuttgart of the 12th instant states that the Baden Legation there has been abolished, and that Herr von Dusch, who is very popular at the Court of King Charles on account of his conciliatory character, has already presented his letters of recall. Von Bauer, the Würtemberg attaché at Karlsruhe, has also been recalled, and the Würtemberg Legations in Paris and Berne will likewise be done away with. Probably the Italian envoy to the Court at Stuttgart will also be withdrawn, and henceforth[p. 120] England will only be represented there by a Chargé d’Affaires. “What Frenchman will come?” asks the report in conclusion; and answers, “Certainly not St. Vallier. Grammont’s communications in l’Ordre have made a very painful impression at Friedrichshafen.”

October 22nd.—Stieber sends the Chief a report, dated the 20th instant, which begins:—“In accordance with your Serene Highness’s verbal permission I beg to submit the following particulars respecting the Vienna Vaterland, Obermüller, and the party connected with that paper. It was founded by Count Leo Thun, and was taken over from him in 1870 by Dr. Puffka of Posen and Heinrich von Huster. Thun now subscribes and writes very little for the paper. It has, on the other hand, many contributors in Westphalia. The present editor, Obermüller, (a Hessian, who formerly edited the fanatically particularist Saechsische Zeitung, in Leipzig, and at the same time gained for himself a not very enviable reputation as the author of some extraordinary works on the Celts,) has stated in letters (which Stieber appears to have seen and made extracts from): ‘The Saxon Federalist nobility has, up to the present, been far less generous towards the newspaper than the Bohemians, notwithstanding the fact that the sole salvation of the former lies exclusively in a rapprochement with the Czechish-Polish-French party, which is in process of formation. A meeting of the Saxon Federalist nobles has therefore been convened at Bautzen for the 16th of October, in order to raise the annual subvention from 800 thalers to at least 1,200.’ Obermüller writes further: ‘It is quite clear to every one, friend as well as foe, that Beust is now entirely on the Prussian side.... Beust has lost all credit with the Emperor, and is now trying to maintain his position[p. 121] with the assistance of Prussia, which will be of little use to him in the long run. Here they desire first of all to remain on tolerably good terms with Prussia, and for that reason Beust is retained, in order to mask the situation.’” Stieber thinks the writer is not badly informed, as Clam-Martinitz and Co., who used his office as their rendezvous, have doubtless given him the necessary information.

According to a report from Stieber of yesterday’s date the “meeting of nobles” at Bautzen has taken place. The only persons who put in an appearance were Stolle, the (Catholic) Councillor of Consistory, as the representative of the Dresden Patriotic Society, and the lawyer Fischer, as the delegate of the Leipzig Patriotic Association, which sent the Vaterland a contribution of 300 thalers for the current quarter, in support of its efforts in favour of a Federal policy in Germany.

In the evening saw an announcement from Munich, dated the 13th of October, and the draft of a reply, which I noted for future use. Lutz expressed his anxiety that “the Government may after all be unable to hold its own against the Ultramontane party.” The Minister’s opinion and desire is therefore that the ecclesiastical questions should be brought up for discussion in the Imperial Diet also, and that in existing circumstances the Imperial Government should adopt an attitude which would support and strengthen the Bavarian Ministry in its struggle with the Ultramontanes. The Chief replied that he approved the cautious tone maintained by the writer of the report, and instructed him, in case the Bavarian Ministers should again reopen the subject in the same sense as Herr von Lutz, to point out that the Federal Council was the proper place for the discussion of that question, and[p. 122] that we should be most willing to consider any proposals which the Bavarian Government might have to submit there.

It would appear from a draft which I have read that Beust has sent in a memorial on the International and the measures to be taken in connection therewith, and that this has been submitted by the Chief to the Minister of the Interior.

October 30th.—G. writes on the 25th instant from Lisbon that he is assured by one of the foreign Ministers accredited there, that Count Silvas, the diplomatic representative of Portugal in Berlin, in the spring of 1870 telegraphed to Lisbon the news of the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern, and that it was in this way the French Government first became acquainted with the affair. According to reports of the 21st and 22nd instant, Andrassy has set forth to the Emperor Francis Joseph in the course of a long audience the dangers to which he would expose himself if he were to take the anti-German side, “as was done in the unfortunate rescript.” “The genuine loyalty of which the German Government now gives such clear proof, would,” said the Count, “be then unable to stay the course of events. The Austrian Germans would turn to the German democrats, and these would tear the national banner out of the hands of Prince Bismarck, and carry it forward until the whole German race was united.” Furthermore, the Austrian Envoy at the Court of Baden reported that Prince Gortschakoff had not concealed at Baden-Baden his satisfaction at the concessions promised to the Czechs, and had in general expressed sympathy with the demands of the Austrian Slavs.

To-day on my pointing to the article in the Frankfurter Zeitung in which the Radical journal calls[p. 123] attention to the services of Count Solms, who was formerly attached to the German Embassy in Paris, and complains of the neglect to which he is now subjected, Bucher said that certainly before the outbreak of the war Solms had formed a much sounder opinion of the situation and sent better reports than Werther, but that the Chief was indisposed to believe him, being of opinion that he was a man of no judgment. He afterwards fell into complete disgrace for having accepted, during the campaign, a position in the Crown Prince’s suite, instead of acting upon the suggestion of the Minister that he should work with us.

November 2nd.—Count Bismarck-Bohlen came into the Bureau to-day to take leave of us. He is going to Venice, and then probably further on into Italy, where he will remain until July. He told me that he had tendered his resignation, but had only received—six months’ leave. He will therefore continue to draw his salary in return for laborious idleness. Bucher says he wanted to retire because his request for a higher official title had been refused.

November 8th.—This morning Wollmann showed me a letter of the 6th instant from W., stating that in pursuance of a rescript of the 2nd instant the Süddeutsche Presse was henceforth not to receive any subvention. Fröbel, the editor of the paper, is however to get further sums of 2,000 and 7,000 florins for the year 1872, in all 9,000 florins, as compensation.

Aegidi told me to-day that the article “From German Austria” in the Preussische Jahrbücher was written by him, and was “almost entirely from notes dictated upstairs.” What constant cackling over every egg! The little man with the swelled head then called my attention to a report by the Consul in Rio Janeiro[p. 124] on the slave law, which is printed in the Reichsanzeiger, to which he had sent it. He then observed that he would continue to supply them with such matter, and thus develop the journal into a “great political organ.” I said to him in that case he would perform a miracle, as it was like calling upon the lame to rise and walk. I did not believe however that miracles took place in our day. He replied: “Oh, yes, I know it will be a hard job, and indeed I have already had trouble enough with an article which I dated from Constantinople. But I shall manage it.” I said nothing, but thought to myself. “Much good may it do you, little coxcomb!” I heard afterwards that he complained to Abeken that in the Provinzial-Correspondenz Hahn had expressed satisfaction at the decline of anti-German feeling in Paris. “He should leave foreign politics alone,” he said. He evidently did not know that Abeken himself had inspired the article. An hour later, when he brought me his Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung article against the Provinzial-Correspondenz he insisted that Abeken had intentionally brought the matter up. Vanitas vanitatum, vanitas! But ludicrous at the same time, most ludicrous!

November 9th.—In reply to my inquiry, Aegidi admitted that he had sent the Sternsche Correspondenz the contents of a report by Balan on the Brussels Ministry and the “Roi Jésuite,” asserting at the same time that the Chief had said it should appear in a paper which was not regarded as semi-official. But the clever little man had carefully selected a news agency which is universally regarded here as of an exceptionally official character, and which competes with the Literary Bureau, to Doerr’s serious discomfort.

November 13th.—A report from St. Petersburg,[p. 125] addressed to the Emperor William and dated the 8th instant, which reached here yesterday, through safe hands, states: “His Majesty the Emperor graciously communicated to me the letter which your Imperial Majesty sent through Prince Frederick Charles. The passage respecting the meeting at Salzburg was specially emphasised by the Emperor, who remarked that what your Majesty had said as to the efforts of the press to represent the good understanding between the two Powers as being at an end was unfortunately too true; but that this, as I knew, could exercise no influence upon his sentiments. The Emperor also gave me the memoir of the Grand Duchess Marie on the negotiations with Count Fleury to read. This document, which is probably the work of M. Duvernois, and was handed to the Grand Duchess by Fleury for her use, the Tsar considers to have been skilfully drawn up. The advocate of the dethroned Emperor pleads his case cleverly in trying to convince the German Emperor that the indemnity is in danger so long as the present state of things continues in France; and that Germany should, therefore, strongly urge a plebiscite as the sole remedy. He then went on to say that Fleury constantly spoke of a strong Government, which was only to be had under the Empire. But who would guarantee that, with the return of the Empire, it would be possible once more to find the strong hand to which Europe certainly had reason to be grateful at the beginning of the fifties? If the French wished to hold another general election in order to decide upon a definitive form of government, by all means let them do so. That was their affair, and not that of foreign Powers, which had nothing to do in the matter.

“It was in this sense that the Emperor spoke with[p. 126] regard to Fleury’s proposals. In my opinion his Majesty will pay very little heed to proposals for a Bonapartist restoration. The trouble taken by his illustrious sister to interest him in this, her favourite scheme, is likely to be wasted.”

November 16th.—We hear from a well-informed source at Lemberg that the society “Opielka Narodowa” (National Protection), which has undertaken to establish and maintain the connection between the numerous emigrants from Poland and their old homes, under the control of Valerian Podlewski, is constantly increasing in numbers and influence. A branch society for Eastern Galicia has been founded in Cracow under the leadership of Byglewski, the president of the so-called Siberian Committee, which provides for the Poles who return from Siberia, and which is now to be affiliated to the Opielka. The society has already established branches in twenty-six districts. The Opielka Narodowa exercises strict supervision over the emigrants resident in Galicia, and is in direct communication with all the emigrant committees in England, France, Belgium, and Switzerland, thus forming a connecting link between them.

November 19th.—It is reported from Munich that Prince Otto’s health is going from bad to worse; that it is, therefore, doubtful whether he will be fit to succeed, and that consequently the King has again made approaches to the family of Prince Luitpold, having twice paid them a visit in the evening, an unusual thing for him to do. Abeken’s draft of a report respecting the dismissal of Beust, which was despatched to P. on the 13th instant, says that the Chief had not expected it from the impression he had derived during the interviews at Salzburg. “For the present he can only attribute the turn affairs have now taken—the resignation[p. 127] of the Austrian Chancellor following upon the real victory which he had just won—to that ‘Father Confessor’ policy (Beichtvater Politik) which has always been powerful in Austria, and he must take it that the influence of the confessional upon the Catholic monarch, rather than considerations of a political nature, led him to sacrifice his Protestant Minister to the Clerical party, as a compensation for the defeat which they suffered through the dismissal of the Hohenwart Ministry.” A communication forwarded to R. yesterday speaks in the same sense, and then adds: “Probably Councillor von Braun has also been active in this direction. I have previously mentioned to you that he was well known to me at Frankfurt as an accommodating and active instrument of the Clerical party.”

November 30th.—Arnim was instructed in a despatch of the 27th instant to secure redress in Paris for the impertinence of which the French representative in Rome was guilty towards the Bavarian envoy there. This despatch runs: “According to a report from Count Tauffkirchen the French Ambassador in Rome and his wife have been so impolite to him and his attachés that Tauffkirchen has asked to be allowed to call Harcourt personally to account. Before I grant him permission to do so I would ask you to secure the despatch of the enclosed instructions to Harcourt. Failing that, we will revenge ourselves upon the innocent Gabriac, and let Tauffkirchen loose on Harcourt.” A telegram from Rome of yesterday’s date reported that the Frenchman (doubtless under pressure from Versailles) had apologised for his rudeness to Tauffkirchen.

December 7th.—Von R., writing from Berne on the 4th instant, sent in the autograph answers of the “Hanoverian pensioners” to a circular of the 10th of[p. 128] October, in which they were called upon to make a declaration respecting the place of residence which they would select for the future.

December 9th.—Among the documents received is an exceptionally interesting communication from Vienna respecting an interview with Andrassy. The following is an extract: “The Count called upon me yesterday shortly after his return from Pesth. He is highly pleased. Up to the present, he said, as Hungarian Premier, he had only the support of the Deák party. Now that he is Minister for Foreign Affairs the whole country is on his side. I observed that certainly he was supported by the whole power of Hungary, but that on the other hand he would be influenced by the wishes of Hungary. Count Andrassy replied that even the Left, with the exception of a few followers of Kossuth, were in agreement with his policy of peace. I reminded him of the traditional friendship of Hungary for the Poles, but he strongly contested the existence of any dangerous tendencies in this direction. Returning to the subject of previous conversations, I acknowledged that the Polish idea, as expounded by Count Andrassy, seemed to me legitimate, namely, severance from France and the abandonment of the agitation against Russia, in order to stay the process of extirpation—in short, a conservation of the Polish nationality as a means of counterbalancing future pan-Slavist tendencies. At the same time, however, I again expressed my doubts as to whether the Poles would be sensible enough to accept these views, and asked whether it was not a fact that they were only entertained by a few Polish emigrants. He replied in the affirmative, and then informed me that although Prince S. Czartoryski had been betrothed to a Princess of the House of Orleans (the twenty-six-year-old daughter of the Duc de[p. 129] Nemours), he had received concurrently with this news an assurance that the projected union would not affect his policy. Passing to the Danubian Principalities the Minister said he had received trustworthy reports from Bucharest and elsewhere to the effect that Cousa, Bratiano, Ghika and Cogalniceano had combined to bring about the fall of Prince Charles. The Prince étranger was to be deposed, and Cousa reinstated, and with him French influence. The railway affair, and the pressure exercised at our instance from Constantinople, increased the difficulties of Prince Charles, whom he, Count Andrassy, desired to support. I repeated that we did not ask Austria to exercise any pressure on the Prince, but only to use its influence with the Ministry and the Chamber.”

A report addressed to the Chief from Paris on the 7th of December contains the following particulars respecting Beust’s visit and the French revanche idea:—“Count Beust called upon me on his way to London, having first had an interview with M. Thiers. His impression of the Government here was that, even in foreign affairs, it was not so judicious as was generally believed. I did not conceal from the Count the view which I have already expressed to your Serene Highness, namely, that the President of the Republic wishes, above everything else, to avoid all foreign complications. Count Beust, with whom M. Thiers seems to have talked a great deal of hypothetical politics, maintains his opinion that at Versailles there was too much disposition to seek out all sorts of complications. I refrain for the moment from commenting upon this statement, which was obviously made with a purpose. I have to-day received a communication of a similar kind from a French source, that is to say, from the Vicomte de[p. 130] Calonne, who formerly served our interests, though with little success. He is doubtless in possession of a great deal of information with which I am not yet acquainted. Possibly his present move is intended to reopen the old relations. The Vicomte asserts that Thiers has one idea which governs his whole policy, namely, that of la revanche. Although he may not show it, it is firmly rooted in his mind. M. Thiers has inaugurated—not unskilfully—a press campaign which is to keep the revanche idea alive. I do not deny that, from my own observations made some days before I had seen M. Calonne, a distinction should be drawn between the utterances of the President and the language of his journals. While M. Thiers and M. Casimir Perier expressed themselves grateful for the recognition of their loyalty contained in Herr Delbrück’s speech, the official papers assumed an offended air, and journals apparently of a more independent character, but also possibly influenced from Versailles, represented the Minister’s speech as a proof that Germany had not ceased her provocations to war. To this extent M. de Calonne’s communication is in harmony with other indications. He, however, somewhat diminished the value of his information by disclosing himself as a voluntary agent of the Legitimists. He expressed a wish that we should give the latter our moral support, as without a restoration neither peace nor order could be reckoned upon in France. I was able to point out to M. de Calonne that, next to the Bonapartist journals, the Legitimist press was the most violent in its crusade against Germany, and that the restoration of internal order was France’s own affair. Our interest in the matter was purely selfish, the only consideration for us being how best to tirer notre épingle du jeu. He could, therefore, see for[p. 131] himself what was our attitude towards internal questions, which, moreover, were still very unripe. M. de Calonne was not very pleased with these remarks, and expressed himself to the effect that we were on the eve of great crises, that France would fall to pieces, and that Thiers would by his policy prepare for a revolutionary war, if a definitive government, the traditional monarchy, were not speedily re-established.

“I have not considered myself justified in withholding the statements of Count Beust and the overtures of M. de Calonne, whom I had hitherto hesitated to receive. It is not impossible that M. Thiers may have spoken to Count Beust in a sense different to his remarks to me. M. de Calonne, whatever his personal significance may be, is in any case confidant of the monarchist circles, and an organ of their public opinion. The views of both gentlemen are confirmed by the circumstance that M. Thiers is raising a larger army than that maintained by the Empire. Casimir Perier, indeed, assures me that the Government cannot dispense with this strong force if it is to maintain public order. But even if that be so, who can guarantee that a gendarmerie of over 500,000 men may not suddenly become a field force, when circumstances permit?

“All these considerations might lead me to apprehend that I have reposed too much confidence in the intentions of the President of the Republic. Nevertheless, I do not consider myself to have any reason for in any way altering my previous view of the situation. Even if M. Thiers should permit himself to entertain vindictive combinations, and even if he thought of ultimately employing this great army to some other purpose than the war against the International, none of these dreams could take a definite shape before the year 1874.[p. 132] We, as well as M. Thiers, are for the moment only concerned with the next six months; and for these six months, and indeed for his whole lifetime, M. Thiers cannot desire warlike complications, because in spite of all his frivolity he cannot doubt that the first cannon shot fired would put an end to his own Government. What would happen afterwards is another question, the decision of which would probably no longer lie in the hands of the present President.

“It has become quite clear why Count Beust took Paris on his way, while every political consideration should have induced him to avoid this city. M. de Remusat, speaking of his interview with Count Beust, said to me: ‘Il a commencé par dire le plus grand bien du Comte Andrassy; il a fini par en dire tout le mal possible.’ Herr von Beust spoke of his own experiences as if he himself did not rightly know why he had been dismissed. The first consequence of his dismissal and of the idle talk to which it had given rise was that it became necessary to lean much more towards the Left than would have been the case had he remained. It appears to me that the fallen Austrian statesman has in general not made a very good impression here. He is thought to have affected too much unconcern with regard to all those questions with which he was officially connected. I first learnt from Herr von Beust that Prince Metternich, after all delicate hints had proved fruitless, was recalled at the express desire of M. Thiers. Nothing has yet been decided as to his successor; and Count Beust is of opinion that the appointment will be postponed for some time, as a means of marking the dissatisfaction felt at the course adopted towards Prince Metternich. The departure of Prince Metternich (whose sole merit consisted in the possession of a singular sort[p. 133] of wife, for whom Paris no longer offers a sphere of activity) is not regretted here.”

December 16th.—With reference to the foregoing the Chief considers Beust’s visit to Paris “a further characteristic symptom, affording fresh grounds for a grateful appreciation of the value of the official changes that have in the meantime taken place in Vienna. In the present circumstances it should have been evident to him and to every other statesman who regarded the matter from an impartial standpoint, that the right course was to take the shortest and straightest route to his new post, and rather to avoid such meetings as Count Beust had sought. Only the desire to get himself talked of and to pose before the world even in the smallest personal concerns could have misled an otherwise intelligent man to attract so much attention, and secure so much publicity to his movements. It is impossible to foresee into what courses an influential Minister may not be betrayed by such weaknesses, which destroy all confidence in his trustworthiness. Count Beust has once more proved what good reason we have to be satisfied with the change that has taken place in the control of political affairs in Vienna, a change which gives promise of a more business-like and less personal, and therefore steadier and more serious, policy.”

December 25th.—To-day sent an article to the Kölnische Zeitung, which was based on a despatch of Arnim’s of the 17th instant. Arnim wrote:—“According to private accounts, which have reached here from Stuttgart, the Würtemberg Court intends to appoint a Chargé d’Affaires in the person of Herr von Maucler. Improbable as this news appears to me, I cannot but point out how very regrettable such a decision on the part of King Charles would be. Of course[p. 134] at a decisive moment the presence of a Würtemberg Chargé d’Affaires would make no difference, but it would unquestionably increase the disposition of the French towards a new war by at least two per cent. Then there is the further consideration that a Würtemberg Chargé d’Affaires would lead to the appointment of a French envoy at Stuttgart, who would find it easy to discover people who are dissatisfied with the new order of things in Germany. Estimating the total loss of the German army in the last war at 100,000, and supposing that a new war were to cost only 50,000 men, the Würtemberg Government would thus be making itself responsible for the loss of 1,000, if it unwittingly contributed to encourage a French renewal of hostilities. Similar reflections should be made in Munich. Rudhard, the Chargé d’Affaires accredited here, whose attitude is perfectly modest and correct, gives no ground for complaint. The fact, however, that he and I meet in M. de Remusat’s antechamber is sufficient to give rise to false notions. The attention with which the French follow the symptoms of Particularism in the South German Chambers shows what great hopes they repose in the possibility of dissensions in the German Empire. The French cannot be judged by the same standard as other nations. They have no sense of proportion, and attach importance to matters that in reality have no significance. In a madhouse the merest trifles may lead to a revolt, and even if it be suppressed it may first cost the lives of many honest people. The small German Courts should think of this, before they, for vanity’s sake, send agents to Paris.”

Evening.—Read a report of the 14th instant from Berne respecting the impressions gathered by Colonel Ruestow (the well-known writer and Red Democrat)[p. 135] during his recent stay in Paris, as communicated by him to an intimate friend. He declares that he also conferred with the French Minister of War and with several officers of high rank. According to him, the revanche, and—however absurd that may sound—a speedy one, has been firmly resolved upon. Not only the army but all classes and sections of the population are filled with this idea and imbued with this spirit. Their reckoning is made for the year 1873 or 1874. The condition of the army, of which Ruestow closely inspected five corps, he declares to be worse than he had ever known it. Drunkenness and indiscipline, as well as socialistic tendencies, were universal, while, on the other hand, Bonapartist sympathies were far more widespread than was to be reasonably expected. The army and the people agreed in a common and equal dissatisfaction with Thiers and the present Government. R. thinks Ruestow’s views are not without interest, as “that renegade” is well-known in Paris, and familiar with circles which give some insight, both political and military, into the real condition of French affairs. R. himself, who is a vain visionary, cannot be regarded as a good observer.

December 26th.—To-day read two St. Petersburg reports of the second week of the present month, and partially utilised them for the press. It is stated in one of these, that on the occasion of a gala dinner at the Festival of St. George on the 8th inst., when the Emperor Alexander strongly emphasised his friendship for Prussia, and expressed a hope that later generations would also entertain that feeling, the heir to the throne observed to his neighbour at table, “Dieu veuille que celà se fasse!” A second passage runs: “I was anxious to hear what Gortschakoff would say to me respecting the speech made by the Emperor on the 8th[p. 136] inst. It confirmed what I knew already, namely, that the Emperor had not taken any one into his confidence beforehand. He asked Gortschakoff if he was satisfied, and the Imperial Chancellor replied that he was pleased to observe the words ‘ordre légal’ in the speech. If the Emperor had previously asked his advice on the matter, he would have urged the insertion of these words, as it would be of advantage that Europe should know that both Powers were at one respecting the maintenance of law and order.” The report then continues: “The Chancellor never likes the Emperor to deal with politics in an extempore fashion, and without consulting him. In the present instance, this feeling was again perceptible; but he had no option in speaking to me but to express his great satisfaction at the Imperial utterances. He added that the Russian press already commented upon his Majesty’s words with approval, and hoped they would be well received in Berlin, which has been the case. At the same time, so far as I can ascertain, opinion here in St. Petersburg is very much divided on the subject. Our friends applaud. Others, who, since the war, have been oppressed with the foolish apprehension that victorious Germany would soon fall upon Russia, now breathe more freely. Yet another section pull wry faces at this formal proclamation of Russo-German friendship. A serious blow has been dealt at all the attempts of this party to disturb the friendship by exciting mutual suspicion. After such words as those we heard on the 8th of December, the reading public will no longer credit what they say, as such a frank statement by the Sovereign cannot be without influence in Russia. They now seek to indemnify themselves by turning the Tsar’s friendship for Prussia into ridicule. The visit of the[p. 137] Prussians is referred to as the German ‘butter week’; exception is taken to the presentation to Count Moltke of the general staff’s map of Poland on the occasion of his visit to the general staff; the Field Marshal and the officers who accompanied him, although they were very careful in what they said, are accused of having betrayed their contempt for the Russian military organisation, and further rubbish of the same kind. These malicious stories may doubtless, here and there, fall upon fruitful soil; but, in my opinion, they will not succeed in effacing the good impression made by the Prussian visitors.”

What is here said of the Russian press was confirmed by a series of cuttings, probably emanating from Julius Eckart, of Hamburg. These were handed to me by Bucher on the 15th of December, under instructions from the Chief, and an abstract was sent by me to the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

In the meantime I had begun to prepare my article on the International. Bucher called my attention to the volumes of documents in the Central Bureau which contained useful material for this purpose, and instructed the Secretary to place them at my disposal. Here I also came across Beust’s memorandum which is mentioned in my diary under the date of the 22nd of October, and extracted the most important passages. From the style it would appear to be written by Beust himself, or, at least, to have been revised by him. Notwithstanding its somewhat florid phraseology, it is a document of unusual interest, particularly in view of the Constitutionalism which it affects. I was unable to discover in it any great ideas or new methods.

The Austrian memorandum was followed by a Prussian one (see diary under 14th of April, 1872); and,[p. 138] to my knowledge, preparations were made for a commission, composed of the representatives of both Governments, which was to discuss the question. I am not aware what further steps were taken in the matter.

January 2nd.—According to a report from London, Beust had an audience of Napoleon at Chislehurst on the 23rd of last month (December), and afterwards said to Bernstorff that the Emperor had not by any means given up the hope of returning to France. In reply to Beust’s question whether he entertained this hope for himself personally or only for his dynasty, the answer was that he himself expected to ascend the throne again.

January 5th.—Werther reports from Munich that Howard, the strongly anti-Prussian English Minister at the Bavarian Court, has been recalled, and on taking leave had an interview of three-quarters of an hour with King Lewis, the length of which was all the more striking as the Italian representative, Greppi, had remained with his Majesty only a quarter of an hour. That the Minister for Foreign Affairs only heard of this audience after it had taken place is significant of the condition of affairs in Munich. Howard is succeeded by Morier, former Chargé d’Affaires at the Darmstadt Court, with whom our Werther is on a friendly footing. I may add that a short time ago Bucher brought me some ideas from the Chief for a Munich letter, which was to be inserted in a “non-official newspaper,” and which, if I am not mistaken, appeared in the Kölnische Zeitung. It ran as follows: “Sir Henry Howard, the English Envoy here, who, if I am rightly informed, usually devotes his leisure to diplomatic chatter of an anti-Prussian description, is now charged with the doubtless very welcome duty of representing French subjects in[p. 139] Bavaria. His first act in this new capacity was to invest M. Hory, the former Chancelier of the French Legation, who had remained behind for the purpose of spying, with the character of Chancelier of the English Legation. This conduct on the part of the representative of generous Albion has aroused great indignation here. Sir Henry, the representative of the Queen of England, who bears the title of Defender of the Faith, is moreover strongly Catholic.”

January 8th.—A report addressed to the Chief from Berne, dated the 6th instant, states that Rohrschütz, the Würtemberg Consul in that town, under instructions from his Government, asked Welti, the President of the Confederation, whether Switzerland would be disposed to enter into a convention with Würtemberg for the mutual care of the sick. Welti replied that it would be more in accordance with the general interest to avoid Particularist treaties, and that Switzerland would therefore prefer to conclude such an arrangement with the German Empire. It would be more advisable for the Consul to submit his suggestion in the first place to the German Minister. The report concludes as follows: “The official communication made to me by the President of the Confederation characterises sufficiently the petty efforts of certain circles in Stuttgart, and tends to show the expediency of defining my relations here, so far as Würtemberg is concerned, with unmistakable precision.”

A characteristic article written by me on the instructions of the Chancellor and based upon his suggestions, which was sent to the Kölnische Zeitung, appears to belong to this or the following week. It was based upon an official communication from the Chief, intended—after certain excesses of anti-German feeling—to call[p. 140] the attention of the French to the real significance of the situation. It says, inter alia: “Two peoples dwell in France, the French and the Parisians. The former loves peace. The latter writes the newspapers, and seeks to pick a quarrel, which the other then has to fight out. Both, however, should clearly remember how near the German army is at Château-Thierry.

“If the Parisian moral code culminates in the categorical imperative of revenge, the nation cannot be too strongly reminded how speedily the Germans could reach Paris from Reims, now that Metz, Strassburg, Verdun, and Toul no longer stand in their way. It would also be well if the various French Pretenders would bear in mind the position and treaty rights of Germany. The Government in office will in the circumstances save itself from disappointment by not counting upon any special consideration at the hands of Germany. It is entirely in the interest of peace that countries and peoples should know exactly how they stand with each other. The occupation of the French departments, conceded to us by treaty, is for us a defensive position from which we can only retire, in so far as we are obliged to do so by treaty, when we are perfectly satisfied respecting the sentiments and intentions of France. The policy and disposition of France since the conclusion of peace does not inspire that confidence which would justify us in renouncing any advantage of our present strong defensive position. In France a war of revenge is being incessantly preached from the house-tops, and a Government which has added to the military budget eighty to a hundred millions more than it reached under the Emperor Napoleon can lay no claim to a reputation for peacefulness. If France maintains that the war indemnity[p. 141] is excessive, and at the same displays lavish extravagance in preparing for another war, it may be fairly said that the despatch of the 7th instant, with its expression of regret that the German hopes for the re-establishment of more peaceful relations should have proved premature, was a moderately worded intimation, and that its publication was a well meant measure of precaution.”

January 17th.—Wrote the following article for the Kölnische Zeitung, from the Chief’s instructions as transmitted to me by Bucher: “Professor Friederich, writing on the 2nd of May, 1870, in the much talked-of diary which he kept during the Vatican Council, that is to say, a considerable time before the outbreak of the war, and while not a soul here (in Berlin) thought of an approaching disturbance of the peace, says: ‘I have it from one who is in a position to know that there will be a war between Prussia and France in 1871. There are whispers of an understanding between the Curia, the Jesuits, and the Tuileries.’ Permit me to add a few observations that are taken from a trustworthy source. There was no ‘whispering’ about that understanding here, because people were perfectly certain of it. It was no secret, but a notorious fact, that Eugénie, the bigoted Spaniard, was quite in the hands of the Jesuits and in active correspondence with the Curia, and that in contradistinction to the apathetic Emperor she promoted this war (which she repeatedly described as ma guerre) with so much zeal because it bore the character of a crusade; and because she and her clerical advisers, who may be absolutely regarded as an agency of the governing party in Rome, hoped to promote the objects which were pursued by that party in the Vatican Council and the Syllabus that preceded it. The father[p. 142] confessor played the part of intermediary between the Empress, who was made Regent with full powers on the departure of the Emperor for the army, and the directors of the Papal policy. The assistance of other father confessors was also counted upon in this connection, Vienna, for example, and even Italy being influenced in the same way. If the victories of Weissenburg, Wörth, and Spicheren had not followed in such rapid succession, it is probable that the event would have borne out the calculations of the Vatican and the Tuileries in regard to a coalition of the Catholic Powers against Germany, which was equally hated in both quarters. There is, therefore, no doubt that the Empress worked hand in hand with the Roman Ultramontanes in promoting the war. On the contrary she prided herself on it. It was her heart’s desire. In judging political situations and events people frequently fall into the error of forgetting that the course of affairs is often abnormal, and that one very frequent cause of such departures from the regular order is the influence of women upon rulers. Where women have a free hand, however, there Jesuitism and its aims will speedily flourish.”

January 21st.—Werther has addressed the following complaint direct to the Emperor: He had been instructed to hand over the chain of the Order of the Black Eagle to the King of Bavaria. As the King had returned from Hohenschwangau on the 15th instant, he applied on the 16th to Hegnenberg to procure him an audience, but was referred by the latter to the Royal Household. He immediately called upon Eisenhart and explained to him the importance which the Emperor attached to the presentation of the chain on the 18th of January, the anniversary of two important events in the[p. 143] history of his House, and requested to be informed of the decision of the King by 1 o’clock. Not having received it however up to 3 o’clock, he called upon Eisenhart again and ascertained that the latter had not yet been able to lay the matter before the King. He now urgently renewed his request and pointed out “how opposed it would be to the intentions of his Imperial and Royal Majesty if the day passed without his instructions being carried into effect.” Finally, at 8 o’clock in the evening, the dejected and anxious Minister received a letter to the effect that the announcement was a source of surprise and pleasure to the King, who would have been very glad to receive at once the Emperor’s letter and the insignia if he had not been fatigued by night work and detained by visits to the Royal family. He would take an early opportunity of fixing a day for the purpose. Werther ascribes this more to the awkwardness of Eisenhart than to the shyness of the King. Hesse remarked: “Werther will get a sharp reprimand over this. Just look here!” The Chief had underlined the passage referring to the second visit to Eisenhart, and to the “urgency” of Werther’s representations, adding a large note of exclamation on the margin opposite the latter.

Since the great “Orders day” these button-hole decorations and higher felicities form almost the sole subject of conversation in the office. “Second class,” “with the ribbon,” “on the ring,” “with the oak leaves” and similar dainties have been discussed with more or less knowledge and gusto—Abeken, with a play of gesture and a flow of eloquence that are all his own, manifesting the finest discrimination, while Roland and Alvensleben very nearly approached his level.

January 25th.—The Clerical party has tried to[p. 144] refute the article of the 18th, and the Chief wishes to have a reply prepared. For this purpose Bucher brings me a sketch of the Prince’s ideas on the matter. The article written on this information, which was again to be sent to the Kölnische Zeitung, ran as follows: “My letter on the relations of the Tuileries and Rome before the outbreak of the war would seem to have hit the Ultramontanes in a tender place. They reply to-day through their Bonn organ in a tone of great irritation, and somewhat in the temper (here I used the Chief’s own words) of a man at the dentist’s when the forceps closes on his bad tooth. Their anger leads them so far astray that they sometimes lose both memory and judgment. In the article in question we read, inter alia: ‘Ollivier was a declared Gallican, therefore an opponent of the Pope and the Jesuits. His colleagues were almost all liberal Catholics.... Accordingly, one of the first steps taken by Count Daru was to send to Rome a menacing Note with regard to the Council, such as no other Government had ventured to despatch. He did everything in his power to promote a decision in accordance with the views of the minority, threatening even that, in the event of the Papal infallibility being proclaimed, France would be compelled to withdraw the protection which she had hitherto accorded to the Pope.’ The first thing to be said in reply to this is that Ollivier was not a declared Gallican, and indeed nothing whatever except a vain place-hunter who could not resist the influences brought to bear upon him by Eugénie. Furthermore, when the war broke out Daru was no longer one of Ollivier’s colleagues, and his Note to the Curia had been dropped by his successor, a striking proof in support of our contention. The Ultramontane tendencies of the[p. 145] Empress had in the meantime won the upper hand, and no one will be misled by the Bonn newspaper’s attempt to represent the withdrawal of the French troops from the States of the Church as the execution of Daru’s threat. That measure was a military necessity to which Eugénie was forced much against her will. The manner in which the Empress is treated in the ultramontane pseudo-démenti is both interesting and instructive. For the writer Eugénie is now ‘pious’ only within quotation marks, and she is said to have taken her nieces to anti-Christian and decidedly immoral and irreligious lectures, &c. The good lady has really not deserved such treatment, and it would have been much more becoming for the Ultramontanes to place on her head the martyr’s crown, which she has richly earned in their service through her bitter hatred of Prussia. When, on the contrary, they now insult and disavow her, they display not only ingratitude, but stupidity, a circumstance only to be explained by the confusion of ideas to which men are so frequently liable when unpleasant truths are sprung upon them. For after such treatment of their former patroness by the Jesuits, will not others in future think twice before entering into any understanding with them? and besides, can any one say positively that a Napoleonic restoration is out of the question? Furthermore, it is quite irrelevant for the Bonn Jesuit organ to appeal to certain regulations against the Order which it serves, to the difficulty which the Jesuits often had in obtaining permission to preach in Paris, and to the prohibition of new educational establishments controlled by them. In the first place these regulations were for the most part issued by Archbishop Darboy, who energetically opposed the intrigues of the Ultramontanes in the[p. 146] Council. Then again, the Tuileries were obliged to reckon with the unpopularity of the followers of Loyola and with the Voltairian section of the French people. On the other hand, one must bear in mind the way in which the great majority of the French bishoprics have been filled since 1852, to the almost complete exclusion of Gallicanism. But it is chiefly in Alsace, where we now have a clearer insight into affairs, that we find the consequences of these mutual relations between the former French Government and the Ultramontanes. When the advocate of the ultramontane cause wishes to make us believe that the war with Germany was mainly intended by Napoleon and Eugénie to curb the Pope’s temporal and spiritual power one involuntarily rubs his eyes, reads the absurdity over again, and asks: But in the name of common sense, if Napoleon had any such designs against the Holy Father, had he not, in the summer of 1870, more than sufficient power to carry them into effect, and did he require for that purpose a victory over Germany? We have reason to be thankful that the writer has given us an opportunity of saying a good word for him in conclusion. Towards the close of his article he says that the German victory in the last war had been of immense service to the Catholic Church. ‘Immense service!’ Let us note that. Up to the present we have heard these gentlemen almost always maintain the contrary. Nevertheless we thankfully accept the present declaration, and in return beg to offer a piece of good advice. If the victory be of advantage to you, then, gentlemen, cease to declaim against New Germany, which is the fruit of that victory, and show more gratitude towards its founder than you have towards poor Eugénie. It will then no longer be said of your[p. 147] Deutsche Reichszeitung, that—like the old saw, Lucus a non lucendo—its name has been selected because it is neither German nor Imperial.”

January 26th.—A report from Lemberg, dated the 21st instant, on the secret agitation of the Galician Poles, says: “The National Committee here, of which Prince Sapieha is the President, has three political news agencies—one for Hungary, one for Posen and Bohemia, and one for the Kingdom of Poland. Prince Czartoryski is at the head of the Hungarian agency and Dr. Smolka of the agency for Bohemia and Posen, while in the Kingdom of Poland it is controlled by Ignatius Lemwitz, who is giving the young Poles a military training.”

February 2nd.—In connection with Arnim’s communication respecting certain correspondents of the Kreuzzeitung who had made themselves obnoxious, the Chief reported to the Emperor through Abeken that the newspaper in question would be warned to be more careful. It was, however, hardly to be expected that this would lead to any improvement, as the Kreuzzeitung is in general not easily influenced by the Government, while in this instance the person indicated by Count Arnim as the writer of the objectionable article, has been closely connected with the paper for nearly twenty years, and has considerable influence on its Paris intelligence, although he is known to the Chief from previous personal intercourse as of very moderate political ability.

February 7th.—R. in St. Petersburg writes that he recently had a conversation with M. de Strenavukoff, the Director of the Asiatic Department, in the course of which the latter went so far as to assert that the only way of dealing with Rumania would be—after a[p. 148] preliminary understanding between the neighbouring Powers, such as was usual in similar cases—for one of them to receive a mandate to occupy the country. R. continues as follows: “On my pointing out to him that he proposed to do exactly that which he had always so strongly urged us to avoid, namely, to break the Treaty of Paris, he replied that such a measure could only be adopted as a last resource. France no longer existed, and if Germany, Russia and Austria were united, England would raise no objections.” The letter describes this as a “gushing outburst of the Director of the Asiatic Department.” The Emperor Alexander has expressed his approval of the course taken by the Berlin Government in the matter of the Inspection of Schools Bill, regretting, however, that it should have fallen out with the Conservative party over this measure.

February 9th.—Aegidi told me yesterday that the Chief desires to see Mittnacht and Lutz praised in the newspapers for being, like himself, defenders of the Empire. To-day I accordingly wrote the following article for the Kölnische Zeitung, which was based upon a despatch from our representative at Stuttgart: “... there is no doubt that the latter (the tame variety of Particularism) is largely represented at Court, but it is equally unquestionable that the present Ministry, Mittnacht included, is thoroughly loyal to the Empire. The Grenzboten was therefore not justified in recently opening its columns to an attack upon Mittnacht, in which, in addition to other unfounded charges such as nepotism, &c., his national sentiments were called in question, it being asserted that in the summer of 1870 he and his colleagues only supported the national idea because Gortschakoff had warned Varnbüler to do so on[p. 149] the occasion of their interview at Wildbach, and because the patriotic attitude of the Bavarian Government had brought pressure to bear upon Würtemberg. I believe I am justified in giving a positive assurance that both statements are untrue; that Bavaria was about to make the performance of its obligations towards North Germany dependent upon certain guarantees for its own sovereignty, to be given in Berlin, and that thereupon the Ministers at Stuttgart decided in favour of unconditional co-operation with the North, this being done before Varnbüler had spoken to the Russian Imperial Chancellor. These few facts for the sake of truth. They deserve to be emphasised all the more, as successful attacks upon the present Cabinet would benefit, not the supporters of the national cause, but the Court party, on whose behalf Chief Burgomaster Sick is intriguing.”

February 12th.—Wrote an article for the Kölnische Zeitung from the instructions of the Chief, which reached me through Aegidi. It contains several of the Prince’s ideas almost in his own words as communicated to me. The article runs as follows: “The Parliamentary struggles of the past few weeks have been of the highest significance for our Parliamentary life. Two factors which have been in course of development for some time past have taken positive form. These are: a homogeneous Ministry is supported on an important question by a Parliamentary majority, which includes even the ‘resolute Progressives’; and a new Opposition, formed by the fusion of all the elements which are on the most various grounds hostile to New Prussia and New Germany, together with the group of ‘resolute Reactionaries.’ The nucleus of this Opposition, which represents reaction in the fullest[p. 150] sense of the word, is the Centre Party, quite incorrectly designated the Catholic Party. We consider it to be rather a Theocratic Party, and as such to be treated not as a denominational, but as a political group. With these are associated the liegemen of the Guelphs, whose able advocate—the Member for Meppen—as an Ultramontane, has one foot in that party, and therefore serves as a suitable intermediary, his efforts being also directed towards restoring the old order of things at the expense of the new. A third contingent of this reactionary coalition consists of the Poles, or rather the Polish nobility, with their longing to revive the Jesuit and aristocratic rule which existed before the partition, and their inexplicable hatred of the German character. In this instance again the ultramontane sentiments of most of the Polish representatives promotes fusion.

“Finally this alliance of different elements bound together only by their apprehensions, their aversions, and their reactionary sentiments and aspirations, are now joined by the residuum of the Conservative party, represented in the press by the present Kreuzzeitung, the hostile attitude of which has long foreshadowed the change that has now taken place. The departure of this last body of troops to join the mobilised Ultramontanes will not signify very much, as the Conservatives have long since surrendered to the Government and to the Free Conservative fraction whatever they possessed in the way of talent, and can now only reinforce the Opposition with their votes. Through them, however, the united Opposition has acquired no little significance, for its relations now extend into very exalted circles, where endeavours are made to inspire suspicion and dissatisfaction in competent quarters, and the influences[p. 151] in question—feminine influences are spoken of in particular—are understood to be very active, and to have already produced dangerous friction in other matters. The statesman who stands above all parties, and who by his genius and energy has hitherto overcome these difficulties, will, we hope, in the public interest be able to continue his work unhampered by such opposition. We must not, however, be blind to the fact that the situation is serious and strained.”

February 18th.—Bucher brings me instructions from the Chief for a long article on the anti-German attitude of the King of Sweden, together with material in the shape of despatches. This is to appear in a non-official paper. I sent it to the Grenzboten, which published it in No. 10 of the current year, under the title “Stockholmer Velleïtäten.” After an introduction in which the great European Powers, with the exception of France, were represented as tolerably satisfied with the establishment of the German Empire, and therefore favourable to us, or at least not exactly hostile, the article went on to say: “On the other hand Prussia and New Germany have, in some of the small States neighbours at whose Courts there prevails an obstinate ill-humour, not to say a bitter and lasting hatred, which, of course, is not openly manifested, but is for that reason none the less cordial. Among these neighbours we may mention, for example, the Queen of Holland and Prince Henry, who, as the representative of the Grand Duke, governs Luxemburg in a sense as hostile to Germany as possible. We must also include in this number his Majesty of Sweden and Norway, Charles XV., with whose position as regards Germany and France we now propose to deal, giving merely a few general indications, as it would not be desirable to speak[p. 152] more plainly, our intention being not to cause irritation, but only to give a useful hint.

“Considered from a political standpoint it is not easy to discover the cause of that exalted gentleman’s aversion to Germany. The interests of Sweden and Norway are in no way opposed to ours. On the contrary, what benefits us Germans, is almost invariably of advantage to our two neighbours in the North. A powerful Germany does not threaten the free development of the Scandinavian peoples, nor for the matter of that, any other of her neighbours. The German Empire is the great universal preserver of peace, the protector of international independence, armed only for defence; and whether, remembering old, half-forgotten quarrels, they like to hear it or not, it is, and remains connected with them by ties of close racial kinship. Nor can public opinion in Sweden be held responsible for royal prejudices, which would even go to the length of making military preparations against us in view of possible contingencies. The Schleswig-Holstein question at one time caused a great deal of anti-Prussian feeling, but to our knowledge that agitation was not so deep-seated as might have been inferred from a section of the Swedish press, and anyhow it has long since subsided, except in a few newspaper offices. It broke out once more in Stockholm and other large towns during our war with France, but in the newspapers rather than among the public, of whom the more thoughtful section soon realised which side was in the right and by whose victory those not immediately concerned would be the gainers. It may be safely asserted that only a small minority in Sweden now regrets the triumph of Germany.

“From this it would seem to follow that sentiment can alone explain the hostile sentiments of King Charles.[p. 153] His aversion to New Germany may probably be chiefly the corollary of his sympathies for France, which again may doubtless be traced to the recollection that the Bernadotte dynasty sprung from a French lawyer, a recollection which would however assume a questionable complexion if it were to lead the King to forget that his first duty is to consider the interests of the countries over which he now rules. But perhaps there may have been also another recollection, namely that there was once in Sweden, years ago, a Charles XII. But it would be a pity for such memories to cause forgetfulness of the changes produced by time.

“We can find no other explanation, and that which we have ventured to give is the more probable, as it is stated that his Swedish Majesty has up to a short time ago been addicted to habits better calculated at times to stimulate feelings, for instance, of vain glory than to sharpen the judgment, and that under such influences he has sometimes made statements which it would have been better to have left unmade. Be that as it may, the unfriendly sentiments of the King towards Germany are a fact, and if Sweden were still the dreaded power that enforced the Peace of Altranstädt, if she were still in a position to compel obedience to the pair of top-boots that Charles XII. once set up in the Prime Minister’s chair, it would be possible to conceive situations in which one would have good ground for regarding the North with anxiety, while the main front faced towards the West. As things have turned out, however, this is happily not the case. The top-boots of the last century have given way to a constitutional régime, and the Swedes have become peaceful agriculturists, sailors, and trades people, who would not plunge into a ruinous conflict for the sake of[p. 154] anybody’s French sympathies or longings for military glory, and who would know how to protect themselves by constitutional methods, if any attempt were made to translate such dangerous sympathies and longings into action. Let us consider the present Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose appointment to that post might be quoted in refutation of our complaint if it had not been mainly a necessary satisfaction given to the peaceful disposition of the Swedish people, the majority of whom are friendly to Germany. Count Platen, who has been in office since last autumn, was born at Stralsund, where his father was Governor in the time of the Swedes, and has been many years at sea. He is a man of frank and straightforward character, very popular in the country, in which he is one of the largest landed proprietors. He entertains no hostile feelings whatever towards Germany, but is, on the contrary, very well disposed towards us.

“The King, on the other hand, holds different views, and has frequently felt impelled to give expression to them. This is done in the first place by displaying so marked a partiality for the representatives of France accredited to the Court at Stockholm over all other diplomatists, that it has not even escaped public notice. The intercourse of these gentlemen—Count Montholon, the Chargé d’Affaires, and the Attachés Benedetti and Hauterive—with the King is like that of intimate friends. At balls and soirées they are distinguished by him in every possible way. The monarch converses with them almost exclusively at every opportunity, withdrawing with them from the remainder of the company. A few weeks ago, at a ball given by Prince Oscar, one of the Attachés appeared in the uniform of a Parisian garde mobile, and it is presumed, doubtless not[p. 155] without reason, that this was done with the approval, if not at the express desire, of his Majesty.

“During the last few weeks of the Franco-German war reports were circulated in the German and Swedish press that King Charles had written a letter to one of the French prisoners of war containing expressions not particularly favourable to us. Denials of the existence of this letter were received from Sweden, and among others a Stockholm correspondent of the National Zeitung wrote that the story was apocryphal, and had given much offence to the King. Our information from Sweden is very different, so different indeed that we do not hesitate for a moment to quote, and to lay special stress upon this ‘apocryphal’ letter, as evidence of the anti-German sentiments of the King, and of his ardent sympathy for France, to which he is only too anxious to give tangible expression.

“One last proof will be conclusive. The King sometimes writes poems, which he does not withhold from publication, and which he is accustomed to sign with the initial letter of his name. Over the same signature he not infrequently writes and publishes military and other articles. Everybody in Stockholm knows this nom de plume. Now a few weeks ago, shortly after the scheme of army reorganisation was rejected by the Swedish Diet, the Aftonblad, a journal which is generally known to have intimate relations with the Court, and which is perhaps the most zealous and vehement preacher of the anti-German crusade in the Swedish press, published three articles under the title of ‘After-Considerations.’ These consisted of arguments by ‘C.’ in defence of the rejected Bill, together with sallies against Prussia, from which—if, as is generally assumed, they were the product of the Royal pen—we[p. 156] must naturally infer that King Charles regretted the failure of his favourite scheme, principally because it deprived him of the opportunity of preparing for a future attack upon Germany. It is true that the articles tried to repudiate the aggressive ideas concealed behind the Bill. But this certainly did not convince the party which, in the Diet and in the press, rejected the reorganisation scheme, principally on the ground of such aggressive tendencies.

“And now, in order to give some idea of the tenour and tone of this remarkable piece of military penmanship, so far as it affects us Germans, we here reproduce a few of the sallies referred to. ‘C.’ says, inter alia, ‘Just as we condemn all partisan misrepresentations of the history and position of our native land, however eloquent these may be, whether they be intended either to excite arrogance or to produce a sluggish sense of security, instead of a noble patriotism and an active spirit of independence, we also denounce the cowardice which shrinks from every danger, the lack of enterprise and endurance which will not struggle to overcome difficulties, the selfishness which will not submit to any sacrifice.’

“Mention is then made of Xerxes, who scourged the waves of the Hellespont, of Napoleon’s painful reflections at St. Helena, and of the fearful awakening of France in 1870–71. ‘C.’ then proceeds:—

“‘In like manner the Prussian policy of conquest and its sanguinary ambition will pave the way for its fall, and bring about its own punishment when peoples recognise that community of language does not form a common nationality, and that the yoke may prove a heavy one even to those who speak the same tongue. At the present moment, however, Prussia is a source of apprehension for all those who are not prepared to be[p. 157] enslaved, and who are not willing to be made subjects, either direct or indirect, of the King of Prussia. Russia shows that she has a mission, while England has betrayed us with a selfishness as inhuman as it is sordid. Russia will certainly have a great future. Russia, hated and despised at the bidding of England, may one day become a necessary bulwark against the arrogance of Western Europe or the covetousness of a certain great Power. England, on the contrary, already reaps, in the mistrust and contempt of other nations, the fruit of its hypocritical love of liberty, its calculating policy of peace, and its too successful efforts to tear open the wounds of Poland, in order to distract attention from its greed of conquest in India and its oppression of Ireland.

“‘The Emperor William has recently shown not only how to establish one’s self in a conquered country, but at the same time how to fill up deficiencies in the Treasury with German blood.

“‘If we consider the magnitude of the forces that are now being armed to sow and manure the battle-fields, and compare them with those of former times, taking also into account the enormous resources of the present day, and the five milliards which Prussia demanded as compensation for her trouble in maintaining the balance of power in Europe, it becomes evident that Prussia, working indefatigably and ruthlessly to assure her military ascendancy, will only too soon be able to throw hundreds of thousands of soldiers on our coasts with ease, rapidity, and certainty.

“‘The world desires to be deceived. Bismarck has known how to take advantage of this fact. Peoples and Governments have spared no trouble gradually to augment the power of Prussia and their own danger.[p. 158] Austria helped Prussia against Denmark, and was rewarded with Sadowa, and an impotence that makes her now powerless before the minority of her own population. France, or rather Napoleon III., at that time reckoned on being paid for his neutrality. The payment consisted in Sedan, the Paris Commune, and the International. England and Russia permitted the dismemberment of France. The former performs an act of penance in the Alabama affair, bows down before the ex-Emperor, and, placing herself under the orders of Prussia, sulkily pockets or hides under her petticoat (a delicate reference to the circumstance that a lady sits upon the throne of Great Britain) her defeat in the Black Sea question. Russia, by her readiness to fall in with the views of Prussia, has either dealt a deadly wound to the Slavonic cause, or incurred the necessity of an ultimate war to the knife in its defence.’

“We do not propose to gather all the flowers in this garden for the delectation of our readers. Those already submitted will suffice. It was thought in Sweden that the King, even if he were really not the author of this article, at least shared the views to which it gave expression, and therefore took no steps against the abuse of his nom de plume. This opinion has never been contradicted. It is true that about a week after the 7th of December, when the first article from ‘C.’ appeared, the Swedish newspapers denied that it had been written by the King; and on the 20th of December the correspondent of the National Zeitung (who is, of course, semi-official) mentioned that a man so well informed on military affairs, and doubtless also on the military constitution of Germany, as King Charles XV. could not have written such nonsense. But for a whole fortnight[p. 159] there was no official démenti, and even then, so far as we are aware, it only appeared in England. It was only on the 16th of January in the present year that Baron Hochschild, the Swedish Minister in London, declared that the statement of a correspondent of The Times, to the effect that the article in question emanated from the King of Sweden, was entirely unfounded.... We, of course, accept the démenti as we know that diplomatists never lie, but we are none the less glad to think that Sweden is no longer an absolute monarchy.”

February 20th.—In the morning again read despatches and made extracts for future use. Queen Olga, who was in Berlin about eight days ago, on her way to St. Petersburg, in writing to her consort, said she was very pleased with the political interview which she had had with the Imperial Chancellor, and with the reception given to her in Berlin, which was as cordial as it was brilliant. A letter from Paris of the 9th instant states that General Fleury has had an interview with Orloff, speaking to him exactly in the sense of the well-known memorandum (previously mentioned). Thiers must be called upon to summon the nation to a plebiscite, as Europe was interested in seeing the monarchical system firmly re-established in France. At the same time General Fleury did not conceal from the Prince that Napoleon was much pained to see Russia accredit an Ambassador to the Republican Government. It would almost seem as if the Imperial Government regarded President Thiers as the definitive ruler. Prince Orloff surprised the general by replying that Russia certainly regarded every Government in France as definitive so long as it existed. Fleury, in taking leave of the Prince, was disappointed, if not piqued. A report of the 13th instant from Rome states that the health of the Crown[p. 160] Princess is a source of anxiety to her immediate entourage. She is understood to be in the first stage of disease of the chest, against which the old school can do nothing. Furthermore that next summer she will perhaps visit Germany with her consort; and that a personage occupying a prominent position in Roman society had remarked confidentially: “In case the Crown Princess, the Pearl of the House of Savoy, should be lost to the country, it may be confidently expected that the Orleans family will strain every effort to place a Princess of their House upon the Italian throne. It would therefore be desirable to at once take that eventuality into consideration, and in order to prevent the success of a plan which would be most prejudicial to Italy, a Princess should be sought in Germany who, at least politically, might compensate such a loss.”

The conflict between the Kreuzzeitung party and the Chief is now a matter of public notoriety. For some time past these gentlemen have opposed the Prince, sharing Herr Windthorst’s views as to the necessity for a staunch opposition, and choosing for their watchwords the “vindication of the monarchical principle against the rule of a Parliamentary majority,” and “the defence of the Christian character of our State.” According to their organ the Prince, in his speech of the 30th of January, deliberately attacked or abandoned the principle which the Conservative party in Prussia had constantly proclaimed and defended during twenty years as one of the fundamental articles of their programme. The passage which led to this discovery runs as follows: “But as things stand at the present moment we, the Ministry in a Constitutional State, require a majority which is in agreement with the general direction of our policy.” This is represented as a “frank recognition of that[p. 161] Constitutionalism which the Kreuzzeitung has opposed with success, on the ground that it is not in harmony with the Prussian Constitution.” In a double article drafted by Aegidi, with liberal corrections and additions by the Chief, and which was published in the Spenersche Zeitung after it had been declined by the National Zeitung, the following considerations were very justly urged in reply: “Not Constitutional? Are we then not living in a Constitutional State? Have we not a popular representation? Do not our laws to be valid require its consent? Is not that consent given by a majority? Surely then it follows inexorably that the Counsellors of the Throne must seek a majority for their measures, so far at least that if it does not approve of every Bill, it shall at least support the general line of policy adopted by the Ministry. The man whom the Kreuzzeitung criticises with such an air of superiority has proved in times of storm and stress that he is willing to sacrifice a Parliamentary majority for what he recognises to be essential. But the same statesman once said that conflict cannot be made a regular part of the machinery of State. Where popular representation exists and there is no desire to see conflicts become a permanent feature of public life, it will be necessary to secure a Parliamentary majority. If those on the Right refuse their support, the Government, whose duty it is to keep the machine working, may have to look further to the Left for a Government majority whose support may be relied upon. The Prime Minister has already called the attention of the Right to the fact that their wanton opposition must forcibly transfer the centre of gravity to the other side. This warning has lost nothing of its significance. The majority can be regarded with indifference only in those countries where the approval of[p. 162] the popular representatives is not required for the validity of the laws, that is to say, in those States that are governed on absolutist principles.”

February 24th.—Read a variety of documents received. It is reported from Brussels on the 22nd instant, that the Comte de Chambord desired to go to Malines, but that the Archbishop advised him not, as public opinion was suspicious of religious motives. The Pretender has therefore remained at the Hôtel St. Antoine, in Antwerp, whither the King sent his greetings through the Chief Chamberlain. He will shortly pay the King a visit at Brussels, as he did last year. Great influx of Legitimists, who did not, however, remain long. Chambord entirely avoids publicity, and only goes out to hear Mass. The Précurseur, the most widely circulated newspaper in Antwerp, welcomed him on the 19th instant with a leading article which betrayed very little sympathy for him.

A fruitseller at Versailles had addressed a letter to the Empress Augusta, in which she asserts that the Marquise de la Torre (previously mentioned) had during the occupation of that town by the Prussians frequently ordered fruit from her which were intended for the Crown Prince—“pour le Prince Fritz.” These were not paid for, however, and she now begs the Empress to settle the account on behalf of her son. The enclosed account amounted to 75 francs. Probably the fruit was sent to the Coburger, but Wollmann declares that Bohlen also received some of it, including the beautiful grapes and pears which we had once or twice as dessert.

Bucher says he has ascertained that it is proposed to remove Abeken to the Chamber of Peers, “together with other deserving statesmen like Roon and Moltke.” (Surely not by the Chief.) This is an arrangement[p. 163] intended to compensate him for having been disappointed of the grant which was originally contemplated. He is therefore to be “Lord Abeken” in future.

Evening.—Read further documents received and despatched. On the 17th of February the Chancellor sent the Emperor an abstract of a letter addressed by Count Ladislaus Plater, a leader of the emigrant Poles who is residing in Zurich, to the editor of the Dzennik Poznanski (the Polish Journal), urging the most active agitation possible. This abstract, which the Chancellor received from a Polish agent, states, inter alia: “Germany, whose unification is hardly yet complete, is undermined by two very determined parties, the Catholics and the Socialists, neither of which will abate one jot of its demand, nor shrink from any means to promote its cause.” The Count goes on to say that it is the sacred duty of the Poles to support both parties in word and deed. Should a Socialist revolution break out in Germany, which may very shortly be expected with tolerable certainty, the Poles must assist it with all their might. Writing on the 20th Arnim reports various particulars with regard to parties in the National Assembly at Versailles, and adds: “The President considers the Monarchists to be powerless, and said to me yesterday that he had no anxiety on that ground. He at the same time clearly manifested his intention to establish the Republic as the definitive form of French Government.”

February 26th.—Bucher brought me instructions from the Chief to write an article for the Kölnische Zeitung, which was to be based on a report of the 17th instant on the anti-German agitation carried on by certain Orleanist officials of the French Embassy at Brussels. This was immediately done....

[p. 164]

Addendum.—Yesterday morning Doerr brought the news that Dr. Beuthner, the chief editor of the Kreuzzeitung, was so greatly affected by the thunderbolt hurled at his party in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, and the charge of incapacity levelled at him personally, that it brought on an attack of apoplexy. That is the inevitable fate of such stupid conceit as he showed last spring, when he declined in the following words to accede to a desire of the Chancellor which I communicated to him: “We will not do that, and we shall see who will prove to be right in the end. The Kreuzzeitung party is older than Bismarck, and it will last longer than his Government.” The article in question, which is certainly very strongly written, was in great part the work of the Chief himself.

Bucher informed me that the article in No. 41 of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on the concessions made to the Poles in Galicia also emanated from the Minister himself.

February 27th.—Bucher told me this evening that since yesterday the Chief has been “exceptionally irritable,” and treated Roland Boelsing and, again to-day, Alvensleben (who has now taken Bohlen’s place and does all sorts of subordinate work for him) with the greatest harshness. His irritation is no doubt due to the circumstance that Camphausen did not wish to draw up the Taxation Bill for which the Chief was most anxious, and that the latter had no power to enforce his views upon his colleague.

February 29th.—Read and noted the principal points of three documents received on the 26th. A report from Stockholm states that King Charles is still very weak, and that his doctors have ordered him “six weeks’ retirement for the purpose of undergoing special treatment[p. 165] as a measure of precaution against the increasing induration of the internal organs.” The Russian General Lewascheff, who was recently in Paris, is understood to have said to certain Galician Poles that a scheme was under consideration at St. Petersburg for reviving the Wielopolski system, and granting Poland a larger measure of independence. Orloff, on being questioned upon the subject, said it was a misunderstanding on the part of the Poles. On the 26th instant Abeken prepared for the Chief an abstract of a report from Pera dated the 14th of February. It states that “Russia favours the aspirations of the Bulgarians, and General Ignatieff has actively promoted them. The Greeks, whose influence in the Balkan Peninsula will be seriously diminished thereby, are greatly embittered against Russia. Herr von Radowitz himself considers it ‘an extraordinary change that Russia should have for the first time sacrificed the Greek element to the Slavic.’ Russia had previously relied chiefly upon the Greek element, and the Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey had received its death blow from the new measure, the Patriarch of Constantinople being deprived of almost all his former influence.”

Subsequently read another St. Petersburg report of the 22nd instant, which says: “Thiers has informed Prince Orloff that Casimir Perier would submit to the National Assembly a proposal, the object of which would be to confirm the Republican form of Government, and he, the President, would support the motion, and stand or fall with Perier. Orloff believes that the Bonapartists have a better prospect of success than any of the other parties. Fleury has been to see him and repeated to him almost literally the statements contained in the memorandum of the Grand Duchess Marie on the Bonapartist[p. 166] cause. He had asked at the same time whether Russia could do nothing to induce M. Thiers to have a plebiscite. On his replying that he had instruction to maintain the best relations with France and to avoid all interference in party politics, the general remarked in a tone of pique that they were less scrupulous in that respect in Berlin than at St. Petersburg.” (Hardly in Berlin, I fancy, but rather at Arnim’s.)

March 3rd.—Bucher brings me from upstairs instructions and material for a Rome despatch for the Kölnische Zeitung. It runs as follows: “Rumours have already been circulated on various occasions to the effect that the Pope intends to leave Rome. According to the latest of these the Council which was adjourned in the summer, will be reopened at another place, some persons mentioning Malta and others Trient. This report has now assumed a more positive form, and it is asserted that the departure of the Holy Father is near at hand. From what we hear there would appear to be something in this report, although the question of the convoking the Council afresh may not yet be ripe for decision. It is understood on good authority that the idea is mooted and recommended by a priest named Mermillod, who has come here from Geneva. He is a Savoyard by birth, and recently occupied the position of Suffragan Bishop in Calvin’s city. He is one of the most active agents in promoting the recognition of the doctrine of infallibility, and the restoration of the temporal power of the Roman Pontiff. For this purpose he has recently paid numerous visits to France and Belgium, and—as others assert—to Germany also. He has returned with the results of his observations and an account of the recruits he has been able to raise. It appears that his report has determined the Pope, or those who exercise a decisive influence[p. 167] upon him, no longer to hesitate between the party which is for remaining in Rome and that which urges his departure, and that it is now resolved to proceed either to Malta or Trient for the purpose of summoning the Council to meet there in April or May. Doubtless the main object of this gathering will be to elicit from the assembled fathers a strong declaration in favour of the necessity of the Temporal Power. Obviously a secondary object of this Parliament of Bishops, convoked away from Rome, would be to demonstrate to Europe that the Vatican does not enjoy the necessary liberty, although the Act of Guarantee proves that the Italian Government, in its desire for a reconciliation and its readiness to meet the wishes of the Curia, has actually done everything that lies in its power. The twenty Italian bishops nominated by the Pope on the 23rd of February, as well as the mitred abbots, were instructed not to submit the Bulls containing the nominations to the Italian Government, and were assured of compensation should they be deprived of their temporalities. This shows that if the Pope has really, and not merely nominally, less liberty than he requires, he at least has money enough.”

March 5th.—Bucher brings me the following instruction from the Chief for an article which is to be inserted in a South German newspaper, or in the Kölnische Zeitung, in connection with the debate on the vote for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which has just taken place in the Würtemberg Diet. “Under the Imperial Constitution Würtemberg has the right to maintain Legations abroad. It is questionable, however, whether it is in the interest of the Empire or of advantage for Würtemberg that this right should be exercised. The presence of several German representatives in Paris, for instance, would be a constant[p. 168] temptation to the French Government to try to sow discord. It is necessary in this connection to recall the ignorance of the French respecting foreign countries and their old idea that the German States have conflicting interests. The presence of a French Minister at Stuttgart, or indeed anywhere in Germany except in Berlin, is even more to be deprecated, as he may be easily induced by expressions of party feeling to try to enter into conspiracies with individual Governments. If the false reports of French diplomatists had not led their Government to reckon upon dissensions in Germany, we might perhaps have been spared a great war. Ministers who have little to do make work for themselves in order not to appear superfluous, in this respect resembling police agents, who do the same. That is particularly disquieting at Stuttgart, where St. Vallier had the hardihood, after he had failed with the Government, to apply direct to the Sovereign. It is true, indeed, that the King also was forced to decline his overtures. But, after all, it is better for the Sovereign not to be subjected to such pressure.”

March 7th.—According to a report from Stuttgart of the 3rd instant, the King a few days ago invited his Ministers to dinner, and said openly at table that the Queen had written to him that Prince Bismarck had, in conversation with her, expressed himself in favour of the maintenance of the Würtemberg Legations. He asked, therefore, why the Paris post should not be kept up. The King assumed, therefore, that there was no objection on the part of Prussia to the renewal of diplomatic relations between Würtemberg and France, and that he also would now receive a French envoy. Suckow described this as a misunderstanding. The Chief, however, said to-day with reference to his interview[p. 169] with Queen Olga, which, he said, had lasted some hours, that she finally asked if the Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Stuttgart should be maintained. “I contented myself with replying that Würtemberg, under the Imperial Constitution, had both active and passive rights with respect to diplomatic representation, and that we could not attempt to interfere with them. It was not a fitting opportunity to enter into the question whether it was in the interest of the Empire and of Würtemberg to exercise those rights, particularly as her Majesty did not mention diplomatic intercourse with France, which must form the main consideration in any such discussion. Paris was not mentioned in the course of the conversation.”

A St. Petersburg report of the 29th of February informs the Chief that “a correspondence is being kept up with Munich, and indeed with the Royal residence itself, through Richard Wagner, the composer, who is living in Switzerland.” This correspondence referred to the connection between the International and the Russian Nihilists. General Lewascheff, who was entrusted with the task of following up this connection in Paris and elsewhere, described Wagner as being altogether a very dangerous man, who made the worst possible use of his relations with King Lewis. The correspondence in question went by way of Berlin. This information was given as “very secret” by the Emperor Alexander. It is doubtless a mare’s nest, like much more that is related of the International, or still more probably an invention of the Russian police, the object of these weighty discoveries being gold snuff-boxes, decorations and such-like douceurs. (...)

The weekly paper, Im Neuen Reich, publishes a reply to an article in the Kreuzzeitung pleading in[p. 170] favour of the Palais Radziwill. “No doubt it is a splendid and hospitable house worthy of a Polish grand seigneur who holds his Court in Berlin, and those who have had access to it—amongst them evidently the contributor to the Kreuzzeitung—appreciate it. But we should advise the latter to make his inquiries about the characteristic feature of the Palais Radziwill not in the house itself, but on Prussian soil, and he may learn that the vast capital represented by its luxury and refinement, although acquired by bourgeois investments, yields its dividends only for the benefit of a certain form of Catholicism, which is Polish rather than German.”

Bucher called my attention to this article, and added the following commentary: “The article in the Kreuzzeitung is written by no other than our mutual friend Abeken, while the answer has come from the Chief. Abeken undertook the defence of the Radziwills against the charge that their palace has become the centre of Berlin Ultramontanism owing to the fact that he is accustomed to visit them, and because they are related to the Court and therefore sacred in his eyes.”[5]... “Doubtless the idea of raising Abeken to a seat in Olympus, or the Chamber of Peers, will now come to nothing, as the Chief has discovered his intrigues with the Ultramontanes. So it will not be ‘Lord Abeken,’ after all.”

March 8th.—To-day wrote the following article for the Kölnische Zeitung, from the Chief’s instructions as communicated to me by Bucher: “In the speech made[p. 171] by the Imperial Chancellor in the Upper House the day before yesterday he spoke of petitions in favour of the Pope which, during the session of the Reichstag, were ordered or countermanded just as the members of the Centre Party found convenient. Then proceeding to the seizures of papers by the police authorities in Posen, the Prince said that among these he had seen certain letters ‘which the police considered it necessary to bring to the knowledge of the highest authorities in order to put them on the right track with a view to subsequent investigations in another direction.’ The speaker further remarked that one of these letters was from a prominent member of the Centre Party to a priest of high position, a canon in Posen who has recently been much talked of. If I rightly remember, it said: ‘Do not send us any more petitions to the Reichstag.’ A similar instruction, in the French language, was despatched at the same time to the Province of Posen by a well-known German bishop, who also said: ‘Stop sending petitions for the present. They do no good in the Reichstag, and only lead to unpleasant discussions.’ ‘But,’ continues the former writer, ‘do not fail to forward these petitions later on at regular intervals, only address them not to the Reichstag but to the Sovereigns direct, upon whom they will in any case produce a greater impression. Although we may have nothing to hope for from the German Princes, it is nevertheless certain that sooner or later the Catholic Powers will intervene on behalf of his Holiness, and such intervention the German Princes will not venture to oppose if these petitions impress them with the idea that opposition would cause serious dissatisfaction among the Catholic population.’ The eventuality which the two gentlemen, whose statements I here intentionally[p. 172] reproduce in full, have in view is a French crusade against Italy, in expectation of which Germany must be rendered powerless. It is understood on good authority that the writers referred to by the Chancellor are Herr Windthorst and Bishop von Ketteler; while the canon to whom Windthorst communicated his plan for intimidating the German Princes is, as will have been surmised, the Polish prelate Kozmian.” (...)

March 10th.—Yesterday Bucher brought me down the outline of an article which I am to get Rössler to write for the Grenzboten, whose editor must then arrange for its reproduction by Biedermann in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. Bucher’s shorthand notes ran as follows: “One of the newspapers has expressed the opinion that Windthorst would appear from his letter to Kozmian to expect an intervention by France on behalf of the Pope. The member for Meppen, however, is doubtless more far-seeing, and recognises that if France were to take such a course the natural ally of the French and ultramontane policy would be found in Vienna. An Ultramontane-French-Austrian alliance would, of course, be directed chiefly against Germany, but would also find it an exceptionally easy task to revolutionise Poland in the direction desired by the Pope—if an inference is to be drawn from the concessions which it is proposed to make in Galicia. At present the relations between Germany and Austria are good, but mainly owing to the personality of the Sovereign. Nevertheless, there is danger under a Hohenwart Ministry of a return to the so-called ‘Father Confessor’ policy. That would also entirely paralyse free development of every kind in Austria. This is to be first inserted in a weekly paper and then circulated further.”

[p. 173]

Hints of a similar effect to the remarks here made respecting the Poles were already given by the Chief in Brass’s paper on the 17th of February. The article caused a great sensation in Vienna, and afterwards formed the subject of despatches between Schweinitz and our Chancellor.

March 13th.—This morning Bucher handed me a copy of Windthorst’s letter to Kozmian, with the remark that the Chief wished “it to appear in the press as coming from Parliamentary circles.” I sent the document, with a few words of suitable introduction, to the Kölnische Zeitung, from which it was copied into all the other papers.

This publication of Windthorst’s letter produced an immense sensation. The Liberal organs condemned the letter, while the Clericals poured out the vials of their wrath upon those to whom they ascribed “the outrage” of its publication. One of the most amusing features of the whole affair was the manner in which they vented their anger upon the “learned dwarf,” as the Germania was accustomed to call our little Aegidi, who was as innocent as a new-born babe of any share in our stratagem.

March 22nd.—R. reports under date of the 17th instant: “The Polish emigrants are making great efforts to bring about a reconciliation with Russia.... Reports to this effect are received not only from the Russian Ministers abroad, but also from the Governors-General of Wilna, Warsaw, Kieff, and Odessa.... At the command of the Emperor the most positive instructions have been sent to the Imperial officials to avoid everything that would look like negotiations with the emigrants. The Imperial Government can in no circumstances negotiate with the latter. It must also be[p. 174] positively declared everywhere that the Imperial Government will have nothing to do with pan-Slavism, but on the contrary regards it as one of the greatest dangers for Russia. His Majesty the Emperor appears to hold immutably to this opinion.”

March 24th.—Among the documents received is a report from Darmstadt giving particulars of an interview with the Grand Duke which is worth noting. It took place at a dinner which was given in honour of the Emperor’s birthday. In the course of conversation the Grand Duke had expressed himself strongly on the anti-national attitude, and almost exclusively selfish aims, of the Ultramontane Party, and upon the untrustworthiness and Jesuitism of Bishop von Ketteler in particular. (...)

April 2nd.—This evening between 8 and 9 o’clock the Secretary of State came to my desk. He first asked if I was always obliged to remain so late in order to see if anything was wanted upstairs. I replied in the affirmative, explaining at the same time that Bucher conveyed the Chief’s orders to me, and supplied me with material. He then observed: “He has stated to diplomatists that he wishes the war to be waged in a milder form. The English representative told me so, and I should be glad to know if any instructions to this effect have been received here. Has anything of the kind been done?... After all he cannot mean to go so far as the papers say. Why, that would amount to a Thirty Years’ War.” I said that would hardly be possible, and the Chief would scarcely think of going beyond a certain point. “I do not believe it either,” he said; “but in that case the semi-official journals should not give rise to such apprehensions as seem to be entertained by the other papers; and he should not[p. 175] have given such directions. If you should happen to hear that a milder tone is to be adopted, please let me know, so that I may be informed when the diplomatists question me on the subject.”

During this conversation I remembered a letter which I had seen on the floor of his room the day before yesterday, which was dated from Brussels, and would appear from the handwriting to have come from Balan. It contained the following passage: “It would seem as if the ecclesiastical question would more and more dominate all other relations with us, and in this respect as well as in many others would postpone for a long time to come the return of that idyllic peace of former times which we were accustomed to in our youth.... The main difficulties have scarcely begun. In my opinion they will inevitably arise when it becomes necessary to check the fanatics of the movement that has now been started.”

April 3rd.—Bucher dictated to me to-day the following ideas for an article for the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which he had taken down in shorthand from the Chief: “Naturally very many persons in Alsace-Lorraine wish to remain French citizens, through fear of the conscription and for other similar reasons. That was clearly foreseen by us, but we were obliged to keep that strip of land as military cover against new filibustering raids such as the French have attempted fifty to sixty times during the past two centuries. It is obvious that we could not permit those who elected for the French nationality to continue to reside in Alsace-Lorraine, as possibly the majority would then adopt that course. As to the threat of expelling the Germans from France, all those who are not absolutely necessary for the maintenance of industry and commerce in France are already[p. 176] being driven away. Life is made so unendurable to the others that they leave of their own accord.”

April 6th.—At midday to-day Bucher brought me instructions and material from the Chief for a long article on the Bohemian party of autonomy, which was to be dated from Prague and sent to the Grenzboten. It was afterwards reproduced in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung at the instance of the Chief. It ran as follows, the portions within brackets being a literal reproduction of the Prince’s own words: “I take the liberty to return once more to a subject which it is desirable should be clearly understood in Germany, namely, the character of our great landed proprietors, an important element in the opposition to the cis-Leithan Constitution. In this respect many organs of the German press give expression again and again to erroneous views, although the gentlemen in question have been repeatedly exposed in their true colours in this as well as in other journals. At the decisive moment our great Bohemian landowners will play the principal part. It is now asserted that the voting in both electoral sections may be expected to be in favour of the Government and the Constitutional party. Nevertheless, we think it best not to shout before we are out of the wood. At all events, a few weeks ago the landed aristocracy of Bohemia still belonged to the party which declared in favour of a Federal and anti-Constitutional policy. It would be a great mistake, however, to confound these magnates with the bulk of the nationalists and to fancy that they support the agitation of the Czechs from a genuine enthusiasm for the Crown of St. Wenceslas, and an autonomous kingdom of Bohemia.

“Who are these gentlemen that assume such a Bohemian air? A national nobility of Czech blood?[p. 177] By no means, or, at least, not in the great majority of cases. They are, on the contrary, an element which by birth and descent are not only foreign, but even hostile to the Czechs. [Precisely the most active members of their party are the descendants of the generals and statesmen who during the first decade of the Thirty Years’ War were most energetic in suppressing and destroying the national State, and in exterminating the native nobility of Bohemia and confiscating their lands. They are the grandchildren and heirs of those who, in return for the services they rendered to Father Lamormain’s imperial penitent, and for their assistance in suppressing the Bohemian nationality on the one hand and Protestantism on the other, were rewarded by the Jesuitic policy of the Hapsburgs with the estates of the national Czech nobles who had been sent to the scaffold or banished from the country.]

“The representatives of our landed aristocracy who now vie with the rabid Czech nationalists in their enthusiasm for Bohemian autonomy are almost without exception Germans. [In thus assuming the part of Czechs they make themselves as ridiculous as the gallant Junker von Krauthofer from the banks of the Vistula when he dons the embroidered Pekesche of the Poles with their white or red ‘Confederatka’ cap, and christens himself Pan Krutowski. Not one of them uses the Bohemian language in speaking to his equals; indeed few of them are able to read or understand it at all, while hardly a couple out of the whole lot could stand the test of pronouncing the famous vowelless shibboleth ‘Strcz prst skrz krk.’ (These words signify: Put your thumb down your throat.) They speak as their mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers spoke, they think and feel as their grandfathers and great-grandfathers[p. 178] thought and felt, that is to say, neither German nor Bohemian, but rather in as un-national and anti-national a spirit as their most intimate friends and allies, the Clericals and Ultramontanes.]

“This history of Bohemia shortly before and after the battle of the White Mountain is well known, and so are the statesmen and military commanders who lent their aid to the Emperor and his Jesuits in the destruction of Bohemian independence, and in the sanguinary ‘Reformation’ that followed, as well as the intrigues of the Centralistic-Ultramontane Court party in Vienna, and in the vengeance which they wreaked and the rewards which they received. People remember the wholesale executions of those who were the guardians and administrators of Bohemian autonomy, the dragonnades under the guidance of the Jesuits which were intended to drive the Czechs, aristocracy, bourgeoisie, and peasantry within the pale of the One True Church, and, finally, the enormous confiscations by which the Imperial Treasury acquired 642 estates during the year in which the battle occurred. The Emperor, it is true, had occasional intervals of a milder temper, but was again and again persuaded to take violent measures by the bigoted hatred of his Jesuit confessor and of the Papal Legate, and to at least an equal degree by the covetousness of officials of high position, who were actually promised a large share of the confiscated property. Even Czechs, who had been guilty of no offence, were robbed of their estates on all sorts of pretexts. Almost all the landed aristocracy lost half their property, and many, including the wealthiest, their entire estates through the Commissions that were appointed by the Emperor in 1622 to raise the amount that had been expended in consequence of the insurrection.

[p. 179]

“It would be well one day to give statistical details of the share which fell to the assistants in this great work of oppression and revenge, and of the portion that still remains in the hands of the families of those who were then rewarded, and with these details—for the sake of comparison—a statement of the political views of the present holders of those confiscated estates. It would be a very singular picture to see people who have grown rich and powerful through the destruction of Bohemian autonomy now promoting its restoration.

“That would in truth be a most extraordinary reaction. But one should be very cautious in crediting the sincerity of our large landowners who make common cause with the Czechs in opposing the Constitution, and in the aspirations and efforts that are ostensibly directed towards that end. Their reactionary aspirations do not extend so far back. They would be satisfied with a return to the conditions of the period immediately preceding 1849, to the Austria which flourished under Schwarzenberg and Bach. They and the Ultramontanes have allied themselves with the Czech Federalists in order to prepare for this reaction and to undermine and weaken the present political system of the Empire, reducing it to a state of permanent instability. Like their fathers, who once worked from Vienna against Prague, so do they now from Prague oppose the political and religious influence of the Austrian capital.

“Our ultramontane Princes of the Church, who now join with the remainder of the reactionary mob in attacking the Constitution, were formerly by no means in favour of Federalism or autonomy. The same bishops who are to-day fanatical supporters of[p. 180] the Czech demands, declared at the time when the Concordat was under discussion that the variety of languages was one of the evil consequences of the building of the tower of Babel which should be abolished, and emphasised the necessity of a centralised State. Even now they are not irreconcilable opponents of centralisation, but what they desire is to see Rome made the centre for all affairs of importance. For them a centralised Austria, under its present constitution, is an abomination. But a centralised Austria held together by Ultramontanism and thoroughly permeated with it, with a Vienna Star Chamber policy, like that of Metternich, coercing, in co-operation with Rome and the old nobility, all the contending nationalities and utilising them for their own ends and those of the Pope, far from being repugnant to them, would be the realisation of their ideal. And the members of our landed aristocracy who have fallen into line with these ecclesiastical allies of the Czechs have exactly the same ideas on the subject.

“I repeat, the Czech sentiment of these nobles is a mere pretence. It is as false as the zeal which they manifest for Bohemian autonomy. Two and a half centuries ago, their forefathers, as the servants of ecclesiastical and political reaction, and as tools of the Jesuits, opposed Bohemian autonomy with their whole might, and were rewarded by being put into possession of the estates of the Bohemian nobility. [The Schwarzenbergs could tell a tale on that subject. They have taken over the views of their ancestors with the estates which they have inherited. They will only support the Slav agitation for a time, and with the secret intention of dropping it at a suitable opportunity. In their hands the Czech peasant serves merely as the[p. 181] instrument for his own better subjection. He was chosen for that purpose solely because the Germans were not sufficiently gullible, and were too independent of character, to serve these gentlemen’s purposes, viz., the fusion of Ultramontanism and Absolutism which was established in Austria from 1661, and which the Jesuits and their lay and Clerical allies are now promoting with all their might in Germany also.]”

April 8th.—According to a telegram from Rosen, our representative at Belgrade reports the Secretary of the Russian Consulate had boasted that it was Russia who had put the Servian Government up to refusing to pay the Zwornik tribute. The Chief made the following marginal note: “Herr R. must be told to drop the habit of telegraphing every boastful utterance in which Consular officials may indulge.”

In consequence of the difficulties respecting Zwornik and Sakar, despatches have been written to S. and R., informing them that R. has been instructed to act with the greatest prudence and reserve in this matter, which clearly betrays a divergency of views between Austria and Russia, in order not to prejudice our relations with St. Petersburg or Vienna. Consul-General Rosen has however long since received instructions to unhesitatingly subordinate our interests in Servian affairs to the considerations imposed upon us by our intimate and friendly relations with Russia and Austria, and to avoid everything that could lead to misunderstandings or complaints on either side.

April 10th.—According to a report addressed by the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador, Count Apponyi, to Andrassy, which was shown by the latter to S., Thiers, speaking to Apponyi, said: “Les sentiments hostiles de Bismarck contre le parti catholique lui inspirent de la[p. 182] sympathie pour la gouvernement de Victor Emanuel.” In other respects, Thiers still maintains his optimistic view of the situation in France. He said the country had never been so tranquil, and the South was no more to be feared than Paris. He further observed that the good understanding between Prussia and Russia was based more upon family relations than upon the common interests and sympathies of the peoples.

April 14th.—Andrassy has again raised, through the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Berlin, the question of taking action against the International, remarking incidentally that although at the interview in Gastein nothing positive had been settled with regard to the measures to be taken, yet there was every reason to believe that both sides were in agreement, and that the German Government wished to take the initiative in the matter. The communication of the Spanish Government now afforded an opportunity of returning to the subject. It was known through Schweinitz that the German Government was not prepared to let the matter drop, but, on the contrary, intended to take it into serious consideration, and that it was disposed in particular to complete the existing extradition treaties by adding provisions respecting the International. It is then suggested that a conference of Austro-Hungarian and German authorities on the subject should take place in Berlin, the results of which might be submitted to both Governments. The document goes on to say:—

“The following measures might be recommended to the technical authorities on both sides as likely to be effective: The prohibition of labour congresses in which were represented associations belonging to different countries; the prohibition of all foreign control over labour societies at home; and, finally, the definition[p. 183] under treaty of those precautionary measures that require a common understanding between the European States and those which every State should be left to promote under its own laws. Those points once settled by arrangement between the two Governments, they might then proceed to consider whether in addition to repressive measures it would not be possible to discuss others of a remedial nature, to meet the legitimate demands of the working classes and thus counteract the Socialist propaganda.”

I may add here that on the 27th of April the Chancellor instructed Bucher to write to Itzenplitz, requesting him to have the materials collected in November last embodied in a memorandum, and to nominate for this purpose on behalf of his Ministry a representative acquainted with the subject. A similar request was addressed to the Ministers of the Interior and of Justice.

Evening.—Bucher brings me an article from the Pester Lloyd of the 11th instant and says: “The blue pencil mark, and the query ‘Surely to be laid before the Chancellor?’ are by Aegidi. He thinks it will be something new for the Chief. I am, however, pretty certain that the article has been written at his suggestion. I myself have on one occasion launched something of the kind against Augusta. Just see that the article, or the best passages of it, are reproduced in some low outside print (irgend ein entferntes Schandblatt). I do not wish to give the black fellow my views on the origin of the article, because, as you know, I do not trust him. Keudell has also connections in Augusta’s circles.” The “best passages” from the article, which began by describing the Emperor’s speech from the throne as dry and temperate, but free[p. 184] from phrasemongering, and typical of the “practical character of Prussian policy,” are the following: “Although the statements contained in the speech from the throne afford little ground for comment, yet the omissions point to another aspect of the question. For some days past a singular rumour has been circulating in the newspapers to the effect that the arm which has seemed on the point of crushing the intrigues of the zealots is felt in Berlin to be already unnerved, and that an armistice is impending with the reactionary party which Prince Bismarck has just branded as the arch-enemy of the German Empire. The sudden and unexpected arrival of the Chancellor from Varzin is regarded as an indication that something is pending in the capital which renders his presence there indispensable. Others assert that the threatened expulsion from Germany of the order of Jesus has excited such serious apprehensions in Rome that the Holy Father himself directed the Episcopacy to observe a prudent and moderate attitude in order to avert the execution of that measure; thus paving the way for a modus vivendi, negotiations for which had been already entered upon with every prospect of success. As it is well known how unwillingly the Emperor William entered upon that campaign, and what difficulties Bismarck had with the Conservative Junkers and Pietists, the ominous silence on this point of the speech from the throne may be taken as a confirmation of the foregoing rumours.

“Moreover, another dark rumour is gaining more form and consistence from day to day, and cannot be ignored much longer. We regret to say authentic reports agree in representing the Empress Augusta as the centre of that coalition which desires to stay the hand that Bismarck has raised to strike. We grant[p. 185] that the rumour sounds ludicrously improbable, yet in presence of the letters that represent the facts as fully authenticated, we have no alternative but to set aside all such denials as futile, and—taking the matter as it stands, for good or for evil—endeavour to explain it and to consider its consequences. We must confess that we have only two very commonplace explanations to offer, which may nevertheless suffice. These are the spiritual requirements of increasing piety, so common in energetic women who are advancing in years (the Empress will soon have completed her sixty-first year) and the desire to play a political part, which likewise grows upon them with age. It is scarcely necessary to recall special instances in history to show how easily and frequently these tendencies have combined, and how ladies of the highest station have thereby become the most convenient and effective instruments of pietistic schemes. The Empress, who has been at all times of an aspiring and ambitious mind, but who has never exercised much political influence over her consort, was obliged to seek a lever elsewhere. That is the simple solution of the problem, but it must not be dismissed merely because of its simplicity. Other ladies in a similar position follow the dictates of their hearts when, influenced by their innate piety, they devote their whole energy to promoting the interests of the Church.

“In the case of the Weimar Princess, the daughter of Charles Augustus, whose friends were Schiller and Goethe, and the pupil of Alexander von Humboldt, the connection between these two factors is reversed. The splendour, to which her pride has always led her to aspire, has now fallen abundantly to her lot. When it is remembered that the magnificent coronation festivities,[p. 186] ten years ago at Königsberg and Berlin, were principally her work, (it is well known that she begged the Empress Eugénie to lend her her hairdresser for the occasion), she must be fully satisfied in that respect, since the imperial crown has been added to the royal diadem. But, in addition to this outward pomp, Augusta now wishes to enjoy the sense of real power. Indications of this tendency were evident so long ago as 1866, when Vogel von Falkenstein received orders from Berlin in a feminine hand to proceed with leniency in South Germany, and was suddenly removed from the command of the army on the Main, because his anger at this interference found expression in the words, ‘When petticoats are to the front, the devil take a Prussian general!’ In order not to sink into insignificance beside Bismarck, the Empress required a party, and she was obliged to take it wherever it was to be found. In this way, the illustrious lady, who once prided herself on being the patron of the freethinking cream of the scientific and literary world in Berlin, has come to find herself presiding over a conventicle.

“The turn things have taken remains none the less extraordinary because we have tried to explain it. The Empress Augusta is the leader of the pietistic Junker clique, which, under Frederick William IV., did everything in its power to humiliate her, at a time when she, as Princess of Prussia, lived on the Rhine in a kind of honourable exile, because she was not prepared to humour the romantic visions of her royal brother-in-law. It is still related in Coblenz that a favourite amusement of the wife of that arch-Junker Kleist-Retzow, who is now leading the opposition against Bismarck in the Upper House, and who was then Governor of the Rhine Province, was to hang out her[p. 187] wet linen in the garden in such a way as to cut off the Princess’s view. Berliners still remember the article in the Kreuzzeitung which actually denounced the ‘democrats’ for an ovation that once took place in the fifties, outside the Palace of the Prince of Prussia, because he and his consort had regained their popularity by opposing the pietistic clique. And yet to-day the Empress is working hand in hand with Kleist-Retzow and Senfft-Pilsach, with Lippe and Gerlach! The unnatural character of this alliance is the best guarantee for its short duration. The Empress, who is a clever woman, will grow tired of the adventure as soon as she discovers that, instead of influencing others, she is herself being used as a tool. Bismarck, however, must now prove the truth of what he once said to Bamberger in Paris: ‘I am much more of a courtier than of a statesman.’”

April 15th.—Read two reports of the 11th instant from St. Petersburg. One states that a copy of the Kozmian Documents has been handed to Prince Gortschakoff, and that the Russian Chancellor has declared his readiness to join with us in protesting against the appointment of Ledochowski as Primate of Poland. The report goes on to say: “Prince Gortschakoff formerly complained that we intended to throw Russia alone into the breach, and yet it would now seem as if it was he who wished to throw himself into it, or rather had already done so, as M. K. has made representations in Rome, although only in a confidential form.” The other document reports: “Prince Gortschakoff told me to-day that a few weeks ago General —— showed him a private letter from M. Thiers which contained a reference to the German occupation. The Chancellor had replied that if the President of the[p. 188] French Republic wished to communicate to him a financial scheme giving adequate security for the payment of the war indemnity, the Russian Government would willingly commend such a plan to favourable consideration in Berlin. Beyond that he could promise nothing. The French Ambassador returned to the subject a few days ago and again asked if the Imperial Government would not use its influence in Berlin to hasten the withdrawal of the German troops. The Prince replied that he would not weary General —— with repetitions, but would relate to him an anecdote out of his own experience. On one occasion at the conclusion of a game, the loser went on bewailing his bad luck, thus unnecessarily delaying the other players. At length one of the latter exclaimed impatiently, ‘Payez d’abord et lamentez après!’ The Ambassador took the hint and did not press the matter further.”

April 17th.—To-day towards noon Aegidi came to my desk and said he wished to ask me a question. Hallberger, of Stuttgart, intended to found a great Review, jointly with another gentleman whose name he could not mention as yet. Now it had occurred to him, Aegidi, that Professor Roessler might be willing to accept the editorship, for which he would be highly suitable. The Chief knew and approved of the scheme. I replied that Roessler did not appear to me to be fitted for it, as although he was certainly able, he was nebulous, unpractical, and rather indolent, so that he would constantly require to be roused and kept up to the mark. Aegidi then said that there was plenty of capital behind the scheme, and that Roessler would have an excellent position. “But,” he continued, “the main point is this. The Review would publish a fortnightly survey of the situation from here, similar to[p. 189] that in the Revue des Deux Mondes. Would you be prepared to write it? Of course you must demand very high remuneration. All your terms will be agreed to.” I said I would consider the matter, particularly if the Prince appeared to desire it. “Yes,” he said, “and you shall have whatever you ask. But there is another point which may cause you some hesitation—the gentleman with whom Hallberger proposes to carry on the work is Meding.” I was thoroughly astounded, and felt the blood rush to my head. “Meding!” I exclaimed; “on no consideration whatever! That would be to roll myself in the mud of my own free will. I beg of you most earnestly not to propose anything of the kind to Roessler either, as he would regard it as an insult to suppose that he would have anything to do with such a double-dyed traitor.” Aegidi was highly surprised, and—with bated breath—supposed I would not be prepared to see Meding, who intended to call upon me at 2 o’clock. “Heaven forfend!” I replied; “I do not wish to hear his name or to have anything to do with him.” “Well,” he added, “I myself should really not have taken up the matter but for Keudell. You can see from this what an easy-going, unsuspicious man he is.” (As if one did not know better!)

Later in the day I returned to this outrageous proposal, and told Aegidi once more that I did not understand how such an individual could imagine that a respectable literary man would have any connection with a periodical edited by him. Roessler would be beside himself if such a thing were suggested to him, and I really had good reason to be angry at such a proposal being made to me. “You are right,” replied Aegidi, “and I beg your pardon for having done so. I really did not know at first that he was the same Oscar[p. 190] Meding.[6] (Stinking fish!) I cannot understand how Keudell could have recommended him to me.” (...)

April 20th.—In a report from Pesth, dated the 17th instant, I find that Andrassy fancies, from various symptoms, that dissatisfaction is felt at St. Petersburg at Austria’s disposition to enter into more intimate relations with us. This does not apply, however, to the Emperor Alexander himself. It would appear that the symptoms referred to are to be found in communications from Lieutenant-Colonel Baron Bechtoldsheim, the Austrian Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, and from Lieutenant-General von Tornau, the Russian Military Agent in Vienna. The latter, a meritorious old soldier, belongs to that class of Russian politicians who look upon the Prussian conquest of the Baltic Provinces as inevitable. During the war of 1870, General Tornau was so francophil that it was impossible to comply with the wish of the Emperor Alexander, that full information should be given to his military agent concerning Austrian armaments.

The same writer reports, under the same address and date: “I again called Andrassy’s attention to the principle that has repeatedly been laid down before as one of the preliminary conditions of our mutual rapprochement—namely, that it must not in the slightest degree impair the relations between Germany and Russia. In addition to the reasons already mentioned, I gave the[p. 191] following. In political affairs national and revolutionary passions have now associated themselves more closely than ever before with sectarian feeling. This circumstance increases the value of our orthodox friend. Andrassy took this opportunity to give me the grounds on which he bases his conviction that any action on behalf of Rome was an impossibility in Austria-Hungary.... Not only there (in Hungary) but also in Cisleithania, a Papal policy could not be carried into effect. ‘Even the Thuns, and the members of their party,’ continued the Count, in allusion to the notorious Clerical deputation, ‘entertain no such hope, and no thought of it exists in those quarters with whom the decision must lie.’ Therefore, if in the next war between Germany and France, the latter seeks to secure allies on a Catholic basis, she will have nothing to hope for here in Austria-Hungary. It is more probable, added Andrassy, that she would turn to the Slavs, who form the majority of the Austro-Hungarian population, and are connected with kindred races on the southern and eastern frontiers of the Empire.”

April 21st.—Brass to-day publishes an article (the greater part of which was dictated by the Chief to Bucher) on the language used by the Pope in bestowing his benediction upon a large deputation of Catholics last Saturday. I quote the following passages: “Until we are assured of the contrary on more definite information, we are disposed to think that those four hundred persons did not all come to Rome from their different countries merely to deliver the address, but rather that those who have charge of the Vatican policy considered it desirable to give the Pope an opportunity of expressing his views, and that the real pilgrims were reinforced with contingents from the tourists and foreign residents[p. 192] who are always to be found in Rome and the other Italian cities. We shall hardly do the Papal advisers an injustice in crediting them with this little stratagem, when the Pope’s own speech proves that they did not hesitate to impose upon him with the grossest inaccuracies, and when they induced so truth-loving a man to say that a spirit of hostility to the Church had provoked the struggle in Germany. The Pope does not understand the German language, and the Germans who encompass him are no friends of Germany. It is, therefore, no wonder that he is unable to control the statements made to him by his counsellors. Are we not, indeed, accustomed to find the grossest errors respecting Germany prevalent in leading circles in France, a neighbouring country which is in active, personal and literary intercourse with us? Every one in Germany who is capable of forming an independent opinion knows, and every one, with the exception of the party of the Germania, will acknowledge, that it was the Catholic reaction which began the quarrel with a Government whose dispositions towards the Catholic Church were most friendly. Every Government, including those of Catholic countries like Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Italy and France, must defend itself against a reactionary movement which now, through the mouth of the Pope, summons to its assistance the elements of opposition in Ireland, Poland, and Holland, in the same way as it must defend itself against the revolutionary democracy. This is confirmed by the Pope himself, so far as France is concerned; as the ‘party’ which fears the Pope so much must, we presume, be held to include the Government that has curbed the zeal of the ultramontane deputies. For the Papal politicians even France is not sufficiently Catholic; France, where for[p. 193] centuries the keenest Papal propaganda has been carried on, where Roman discipline has been maintained by the St. Bartholomew massacres, the dragonnades, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and whose first care, after stealing Strassburg from us, was to hand over the Protestant Cathedral to the Catholic bishops. The Pope admonishes the party which in France fears him to cultivate a humble spirit. If he knew the real condition of affairs there, as in all other Christian countries, he would rather have addressed that admonition to the arrogant priests who, unlike the Protestant clergy, instead of being the servants of the community desire to become its masters; and to those members of the laity who, for the purposes of their own ambition, abuse the prestige which he rightly enjoys, who terrify him with the lie that the Catholic Church in Germany will undergo similar material losses to those which it has suffered in Italy, who take allies wherever they are to be found, and who—as in certain election addresses—instigate the spoliation of the rich in the name of a religion of love.”

Bucher, who called my attention to this article, told me the Chief desired the whole official press to speak in this tone of the Pope—a good old gentleman, who does not understand German, and who has fallen into bad hands. He at the same time gave the following notes, requesting me to “smuggle them into the press somewhere:” “In the course of the debate in the Reichstag on the Statistical Bureau, the Federal Commissioner, Privy Councillor Michaelis, asserted that under the new order of things the Foreign Office had become entirely superfluous for Prussia. That is an extraordinary statement, which calls for rectification. The debate on the Budget in the Prussian Diet showed[p. 194] that there are still in existence eight Royal Prussian Legations, and that for the transaction of the business connected with them, the Foreign Office is still designated the Prussian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and appears as such in the Prussian Budget, the title of its officials to be regarded as Prussian officials having been expressly vindicated. It is an open secret that the opposition to the Prussian Statistical Bureau is due to other causes. This institute has done its work, and submitted its results without considering whether the latter harmonise with this or that theory—in other words, it has acted in a scientific spirit. Now, for a considerable time past it has been observed with disfavour in certain quarters that the results obtained by the Statistical Bureau do not always tally with the infallible and all saving doctrines of Free Trade. The opinion is indeed gaining ground in ever-widening circles that the preachers of economic infallibility would do well to test and amend their teachings by the light of such facts as are now being collected in Berlin, instead of emulating their ecclesiastical colleagues the Jesuits by calmly putting every heretic out of the way.”

April 22nd.—Aegidi told me this morning that the Chief wished to see the following subject discussed in the press. Prince Leopold of Bavaria, in consequence of his betrothal to the Austrian Archduchess Gisela, was to enter the Austrian army. During the war with France he had distinguished himself by his gallantry and other high qualities. Therefore, in spite of the pleasure caused in Germany by his betrothal, it would be a matter for regret if he were to be lost to the German, and particularly to the Bavarian army. Up to the present, there had not been any such[p. 195] intimate personal connection between the Bavarian army and the dynasty as existed for instance in Prussia and Saxony, and it must therefore be hoped that the rumour would not be confirmed, or that the decision might still be altered.

Aegidi added that he had just sent a paragraph to this effect to Zabel (then chief editor of the National Zeitung), but that he had declined to publish it....

May 4th.—Aegidi assures me that an article in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, written by himself, reproduces the ideas of the Prince, in several places “almost literally.” After alluding to the nomination of Cardinal Hohenlohe as German Ambassador to the Curia, and with the erroneous interpretation placed upon it by certain newspapers, the article goes on to say: “It is not the business of a diplomatic agent to have his own plans of campaign, to deliver battle or gain victories, nor to exercise influence through threats, stratagems, or persuasion. He is only the intermediary between the Governments and Courts that hold intercourse through him, the mouthpiece of his Government, whose instructions he must carry out skilfully and conscientiously. In the present instance the aim of the German representative at the Vatican cannot for a moment be to persuade or win over the head of the Catholic Church, and still less to bring the great struggle between the civil and ecclesiastical powers to an issue by diplomatic talent and resolution. The first task of the representative of Germany at the Vatican would doubtless be to prevent the Pope from being misled with regard to German affairs. Were such a representative—thoroughly acquainted with the questions at issue, and well informed both as to persons and things—to succeed in this respect it would be a great gain. It[p. 196] must not be forgotten that such subjects as are generally included in foreign politics do not come in any way within the province of his diplomatic mission. The envoy to the Papal See has nothing whatever to do with territorial questions or other worldly interests, but only with affairs of Church and State. Nor can these be settled in Rome, or be dependent upon any decisions arrived at there. They must, on the contrary, be regulated by legislation, with the co-operation of Parliament; and it is in that way that they will be regulated. It is none the less desirable to prevent numerous conceivable misunderstandings which may arise in connection with such important matters, and in particular to forestall wilful misrepresentations, thus averting unnecessary friction. These considerations will doubtless have exercised a decisive influence in the choice of an intermediary exceptionally suited for the post. The Pope, however, did not approve. As reported yesterday, in reply to the official communication announcing that Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe had been selected for the post of Ambassador of the German Empire, and inquiring whether the appointment would be agreeable to the Pope, the Cardinal Secretary of State declared that his Holiness could not allow a Cardinal to undertake such an office.”

May 5th.—The following paragraph appears to-day in the Magdeburger Zeitung, the Weser Zeitung, and the Hamburger Correspondenten: “St. Petersburg, April 29th. It will be remembered that M. Kapnist, the Russian agent to the Curia, was some time ago invested by the Pope with the Order of Pius. It is now reported from Rome that the cross of the Order is set in brilliants of exceptionally high value—the estimate varies between fifty and a hundred thousand francs. Such a distinction[p. 197] excites all the more surprise as M. Kapnist’s mission is by no means concluded.” This was probably written by Aegidi, who asked me yesterday to have the news circulated in papers to which I have access, but in such a way that the source of the paragraph should not be recognised. I wonder what object the Chief, from whom he received this instruction, can have in view in circulating this report. In a letter written by D. on the 27th of April, which reached here on the 30th, it is stated that the story circulated by the Italie, as to Kapnist’s Order being set with brilliants was unfounded, and that altogether he had received no distinction greater than was due to his rank. And yet four days later the above instructions are given!...

May 9th.—A communication was yesterday despatched to S., which contains the following passage: “You will have seen from the ciphered despatch of Consul-General Rosen, dated the 21st of April, and forwarded viâ Vienna, that M. de Kallay in Belgrade denies being the author of the report of our alleged intervention on behalf of Servia, in the Zwornik question. Different versions of his communications seem to have reached Vienna and Constantinople, as would appear from the statements made by Count Andrassy to your Excellency, and by Count Ludolf to Herr von Radowitz. Similarly, the false reports that have reached the newspapers can be traced to the same source. As they are obstinately maintained, it has been necessary to publish the following démenti in the Staatsanzeiger. An instruction has been issued from the Foreign Office, to contradict a report from Belgrade, dated the 28th ultimo, and published in the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung of the 2nd instant, which is in every respect unfounded. The report in question maintains, in opposition[p. 198] to the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, that the Berlin Cabinet intends to intervene in the Zwornik question on behalf of Servia. The correspondent observes: ‘I am informed, on an authority which it is impossible to doubt, that Prince Bismarck, in the last Note sent by him to Herr von Radowitz, expressly directed him to support the Servian demands.’ This statement is wilfully false in every particular. No Note, no instruction, no communication of this or a similar kind has been sent. When this audacious invention was first circulated, an official inquiry which was instituted into the affair showed that its author, whom we shall not name for the present, was closely connected with certain non-German official circles. Doubtless the correspondent knows the source of the rumour, and will be able to judge for himself what he should think of its trustworthiness.”

May 10th.—I noted down the following from a despatch sent to Rosen yesterday: “Count Andrassy tells me that M. de Kallay (the Austro-Hungarian agent to the Servian Government) has reported from Belgrade that the Regents give it to be understood that the German Consul-General has said that Servia would ultimately get Zwornik, but must avoid any step that would cause uneasiness.”

Read two reports from Paris, both dated the 6th instant. The following is an extract from the first: “As I have already stated on a former occasion, we ought not to decline off-hand the proffered understanding with the Bonapartists, especially as, on the one hand, they have no intention of intriguing against the present Government, and, on the other, they are the only party which openly seeks our support and includes reconciliation with Germany in its programme, while all[p. 199] the other groups and sections avoid every intercourse with us, and inscribe la revanche on their banners. I consider the candidature of the Duc d’Aumale to be as great a danger as that of Gambetta, and the so-called respectable Republic which would be represented by Casimir Perier and Grévy would form only a transitional stage to Gambetta. Therefore the most desirable development of the political situation appears to me one which would, on the one hand, leave us time to come to an understanding with the Government as to the speedy payment of, and security for, the three milliards, and, on the other hand, hasten as much as possible the inevitable change of system, so that the presence of our troops in the country might afford us an opportunity of exercising a decisive influence upon the crisis.” The following passage from the other report is of importance: “M. Thiers then explained to me the general outline of his scheme for the payment of the war indemnity. He wishes to raise a loan of three milliards. Of that amount not more than one hundred millions per month can be called up without placing too great a strain upon the Money Market. Those sums would be paid direct into the German Treasury by the banks entrusted with the operation. The payments could begin in the summer of the present year. The greater part of the first milliard, which is due on the 1st of March, would therefore be paid over before that date. This payment in advance should therefore be met on our side by a corresponding evacuation of French territory. I forbear to enter into the objections which I raised to M. Thiers’ proposals, as they are too obvious to be overlooked.”

May 16th.—This afternoon Bucher, under instructions from the Chief, handed me the following sketch for an article which was to be dated from[p. 200] Vienna: “I do not know whether the little flirtations of the authorities here with the Poles have been noticed abroad. The summons to the recalcitrant Galician members calling upon them to appear in the Reichstag within fourteen days under pain of losing their seats, was sent so late that the interval covered the marriage festivities, and these gentlemen were able to take part in them as members of Parliament. On the 21st of April, the day on which they were declared to have lost their seats, the Emperor nominated Dr. Ziemialkowski, the Burgomaster of Lemberg, whose revolutionary past is well known, as Minister without a portfolio, and in the Speech from the Throne referred to this appointment as evidence of his constant consideration for Galicia. Shortly before this the Archbishop of Lemberg and the Bishops of Tarnau and Przemysl thought good to send an address to the ‘Primate,’ Count Ledochowski. It will be remembered that at the time when Poland was still a kingdom the Primate sometimes acted as Interrex. The ceremony of inauguration of the Cracow Academy, which was founded by the Hohenwart Ministry, took place on the 7th of May, and was attended by the Archduke Karl Ludwig, the Patron of the Institution. The festivities and speeches on this occasion were of such a demonstrative character that the local journals, notwithstanding the full reports which they published, omitted a number of exceptionally piquant details, particularly in a speech of the new Minister Ziemialkowski. We may perhaps form some idea of that speech from the following passage in an election address which he delivered in 1870: ‘Very soon,’ he said, ‘the civilisation of Europe must measure swords with Asiatic barbarism. From this struggle Poland will arise once more like the Phœnix from its ashes. It is true, indeed,[p. 201] that in the present formation of Europe Poland, with a population of sixteen millions, situated between the German Empire with forty millions and Russia with sixty millions, could not maintain herself alone. She therefore must unite with Hungary and Austria and form a federation which would justify us in claiming that it had its origin in a political necessity.’ In Polish affairs one is thoroughly accustomed to these castles in the air, but it would really seem as if Prussia and Germany ought to keep a sharp look-out.”

May 19th.—A report from St. Petersburg, dated the 14th instant, says: “The news that Count Schuvaloff has been to Berlin and was received by your Serene Highness has not failed to cause some surprise here. It was reported immediately that Schuvaloff had been sent to Berlin with a special mission and, as I learn from a well-informed source, even Prince Gortschakoff’s own mind was not quite at rest with regard to this rumour. The explanation is that the varying influence of the Chief of the Third Department is unpleasant to the Chancellor, all the more so as Prince Gortschakoff is aware that Schuvaloff dislikes him, and the two Ministers are not always in agreement on questions of principle.”

May 21st.—We hear from St. Petersburg: “Prince Gortschakoff hopes soon to receive communications respecting the International.... The tête-à-tête with Austria is certainly the best means of proceeding in the matter. At this time of day a repressive treatment of the disease is not in itself enough. The origin of the evil must be discovered, and with it the antidote. Russia has resolved to suppress with the utmost energy all disorders in which this dangerous association is involved. The further communications to be made by[p. 202] me on the result of the conference proposed by Count Andrassy are awaited here with interest.”

Bucher has left here to-day to join the Prince at Varzin.

May 26th.—The following very academic, but none the less noteworthy, dissertation written by Aegidi, as he says on instructions from Varzin, may be read in to-day’s Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung: “The attitude of the Conservative element in a country is of the greatest consequence for its sound development. If there be no party which can adopt into its programme the demands and requirements of a new period, the altered conditions and principles of the present time, then the two conceptions, conservative and reactionary, must be fatally confounded together. The friends of the new order of things, whose aims have been to a certain extent achieved, and who would therefore be glad to make common cause with Conservatives in securing and consolidating the existing order, cannot go hand in hand with reaction. They therefore occupy an unstable position between the reactionary element and those who want to go still further; but they remain at all times in closer sympathy with the latter than with the former. Thus the State at every new stage is deprived of the requisite steadying influences, and drifts into a current which can only favour a determined reaction.

“Who will deny that the forces which promote change gave a salutary and necessary impulse to public life? It is, however, an old political axiom that the State also requires, and to as great an extent, those forces that tend towards permanence and moderation. As a rule, however, their chief service is considered to be to oppose change; and such opposition is, indeed,[p. 203] frequently beneficial; but their most useful work should be an entirely different character. The true strength of the Conservative element in a State is to recognise at the proper moment the essential features of the situation, to exercise its judgment with an open mind and absolute freedom from visionary aspirations, to acknowledge the rights and the true inwardness of the living present, to keep immediately practical objects in view, and, as a party devoted to the maintenance of what exists, to secure for every stage of development a period of consolidation. Not in opposition to the new era, but rather in union with its moral and positive forces, can Conservatism find its true mission. By counteracting vain tendencies to return towards the past, as well as to anticipate the future, the Conservatives should consider themselves as the party of the immediate present, and endeavour to secure for it the fulness of its rights.”

Bucher, writing under yesterday’s date, requests me to secure the insertion in one of the papers of a paragraph stating that he is engaged with the Prince at Varzin, as he has been on similar occasions during the past three years. He added: “This has been ignored on the present occasion by the tame press, doubtless not unintentionally.” (This, no doubt, means at the instance of Aegidi, who would like to replace Bucher at Varzin.) Bucher reports that the Chief is in “very good humour, rides a great deal, and enjoys his plantations.”

June 16th.—A despatch addressed to the Imperial Chancellor from St. Petersburg on the 10th instant says: “I have only been able to have a very short conversation with Count P. Schuvaloff since his return from Karlsbad. He thanked me once more for having been the means of obtaining for him the very interesting interview which he had with your Serene Highness.[p. 204] According to what he said on this subject, he received the impression that your Serene Highness quite dissociated the labour question from the treatment of the International. The former should be thoroughly studied, and regulated as far as possible by legislative action. At the same time, he did not think your Serene Highness considered it desirable to take energetic measures against the latter just now. Your whole attention was absorbed in the struggle with the Catholic Church, and it appeared to him that your Serene Highness did not wish unnecessarily to turn against the Government so useful a weapon as the Socialist movement might ultimately prove to be against clerical encroachments. Count Schuvaloff found no confirmation whatever in the conversation which he had with your Serene Highness for the supposition circulated here by Prince Gortschakoff that your Serene Highness was opposed to a friendly understanding between Rome and Russia.”

According to another report of the same date, “Gortschakoff had accepted Antonelli’s assurances (see above), and had not signed the protest proposed by Prussia against the title of Primate” (Ledochowski’s), Tolstoi, the Minister of Education, had “remonstrated” with him for not doing so, and “most strongly urged him to act in concert with Prussia.”

July 10th.—Bucher sends me from Varzin the following sketch of an article: “A South German newspaper recently called attention to the expediency, in view of the Pope’s state of health, of an understanding between the Governments to promote the election of a successor of moderate views. We hear that a suggestion to this effect has been made by the German Imperial Government, but that it has up to the present been received with favour by only two of the great[p. 205] Powers. The reserve manifested by the others may in several cases be explained by the circumstance that they consider their relations with the Catholic Church to be so settled and assured by law that they may regard the action of the Curia with indifference, while others, perhaps, believe Germany to be in greater difficulties than themselves. This view is only so far correct that the ecclesia militans, which is in a latent state of war against every country with a regular system of government, is engaged at the present moment in attacking Germany with exceptional fury. But Germany, even if left isolated, would be able to repel these attacks, and would be in no embarrassment if it became necessary to put an end to the intimate relations which have hitherto existed between Church and State, and to substitute for them the relations which obtain in England and the United States. Pessimists might even say that it would be all the better if the present Pope, who chastises with rods, were followed by one who would scourge us with scorpions. The German Government, however, desires to be at peace with the Catholics, and desires the Catholics to be at peace among themselves.”

This sketch, “which is the result of this morning’s conversation at the breakfast-table,” is to be used for an article in the Weser or the Magdeburger Zeitung. For the rest there will not be much journalistic work just now, as the Prince is displaying a rather marked indifference to newspaper business. Aegidi has been at Varzin for a few days, and expressed a strong desire to relieve Bucher there. The Princess, however, does not like him, and he therefore left on the 8th instant for his father-in-law’s, without having improved his[p. 206] opportunities for spying and eavesdropping on behalf of Keudell.

July 11th.—This afternoon received two communications from Bucher. (1) A suggestion for an article referring to that of Bamberger, “The Genius of the Imperial Chancellor and the Genius of the Imperial Diet” (Lindau’s Gegenwart, No. 24). It must be pointed out that “probably the reason why the Jews, the former Jewish members of the Reichstag, Lasker, Bamberger, Friedenthal, the representatives of Hamburg, and perhaps a few more, have spoken and voted against the Jesuit laws, was because they felt a dim presentiment that, in an outburst of general indignation against themselves and their race, a demand may be made for exceptional measures against them and their tactics,” (2) “The Prince is now held responsible for the weakness of the Jesuit Bill, but very unjustly. He only demanded the introduction of such a Bill, but had nothing to do with the drafting of it. The first draft, which was made in the Imperial Chancellerie, was modified and weakened in the Ministry of State, and we believe we are correct in saying that the Chancellor was by no means pleased with it, and made no secret of his displeasure during Herr Wagner’s visit to Varzin after the Cabinet Council. The Chancellor, however, declined to prepare a draft himself, on the ground that at Varzin he had neither the necessary materials nor the opportunity of personal communication with his colleagues, and also because he relied upon the Reichstag to put backbone into it. The result proved that he was right in his calculations.” Sent No. 1 to the Weser Zeitung, and No. 2 to the Kölnische Zeitung. The former was not printed, which is not to[p. 207] be wondered at, considering the influence of the Jews in the journalistic world....

July 13th.—Sent to the Kölnische Zeitung the following letter, based upon a report from Paris: “Hopes are entertained in the Orleanist camp that, after the indirect abdication contained in the manifesto of the Comte de Chambord, they will be able to proclaim the Comte de Paris as King. This hope is not, however, shared by the more thoughtful members of the party, although MacMahon is understood to show a leaning towards the Duc d’Aumale, and many persons are even of opinion that when Thiers hands over the reins of power his successor will not be an Orleans, but some one very different—namely, Léon Gambetta. If all signs are not deceptive, the cause of the sons of Louis Philippe is just as certainly lost as that of the Comte de Chambord. They can make no further progress by legal means in presence of the very considerable accession of strength which the Republican minority in the National Assembly obtained at the elections, and they have hardly courage enough for an attempt to use force, which might, perhaps, have succeeded two months ago. The centre of gravity now lies in the Republican party, with whose assistance Thiers has hitherto held his ground, and which the recent elections have further strengthened, as against the monarchical parties. But Thiers’ position is very seriously menaced by the reappearance on the scene of Gambetta, who will probably in a short time induce the Left to desert him. Gambetta’s first object would then be to form a purely Republican Cabinet, and that may be expected to develop into a Grévy régime, which would one day suddenly give place to a Gambetta dictatorship. Such a turn of affairs would not be favourable for German[p. 208] interests. Thiers and Favre (of whom the latter would be the first to fall a victim to the Parliamentary Left) are unquestionably the statesmen who now and in the future would suit us best. As to Gambetta, we know that he observed recently to an acquaintance that the Republic would enable France to prosecute a successful war of revenge against the Germans, and that he intended to promote this end by every means in his power; and that even to-day France was in a position to wage such a war if it were conducted in a more revolutionary spirit. Of course he will not immediately proclaim such views and intentions in the National Assembly. On the other hand, it is expected that his support of the income tax will win for him the gratitude of the poorer classes, the artisans, the small bourgeoisie, and the peasants, amongst all of whom he has even now a large following. By such means he and his friends will find their way into the Paris Municipal Council, which is to be elected on the 23rd instant. He has also no little influence with the army. In the first place, the leading officers, like Faidherbe, are on his side; while all those who were appointed by him during the war regard him as their natural champion against the reductions in rank which the Government contemplates; and, finally, he must have numerous friends among the soldiers themselves, to judge from the voting of the troops stationed in Paris at the last elections, when he received 1,700 of their votes, while Cissey, the Minister of War, who had formerly been in command of an army corps, got no more than 1,200 to 1,300.”

Bucher sends me the following paragraph from Varzin for circulation in the press: “It is stated in a quarter, which, from its proximity, might be expected[p. 209] to know better, that the domains granted to Prince Bismarck in the Duchy of Lauenburg now return an annual income of 40,000 thalers, which may be easily increased to three times that amount when the leases fall in. The truth is that the domains in question now yield an annual return of 34,016 thalers, inclusive of 3,500 thalers for the rent of some shooting, and over 2,000 thalers for the rent of certain manorial privileges which will lapse later on; and that there is absolutely no land from which an important increase of returns is to be expected, as the whole estate consists of forest, which, after the deductions to be made on the cessation of the rights above mentioned, will yield only an annual income of about 28,000 thalers.”

July 18th.—R. had a conversation with Schuvaloff on the 30th ultimo, respecting the social question, and is to continue the discussion of the subject. The Chief has made marginal notes on several of the Count’s observations, and amongst other things he calls attention to the fact that savings banks founded by employers have existed for a long time past in Germany, those established by Krupp and other large manufacturers being particularly worthy of note. The Government would be glad to do everything in its power to promote such institutions, which indeed have already occupied the attention of the Legislature. It is true that these savings banks are not a preventive against strikes. They exercise, however, a very beneficial influence on the more sensible section of the labouring classes. Courts of arbitration were also useful. Finally, the Government has long had the intention of supplementing the criminal law, particularly with respect to associations under foreign control, and to the intimidation of workers who do not wish to[p. 210] join a strike. These questions must however be treated in a systematic way, which has been impossible up to the present, owing to the protracted illness of the Minister of Justice. The Prince himself does not wish to enter upon this task in the amateur fashion common in Russia.... A thorough preliminary study on the part of the various Ministries concerned will also be necessary in connection with the proposed conference between ourselves and Austria, if they are to lead to any practical result. The Ministries in question include that of Justice, as well as those of the Interior, of Commerce and Industry, and of Public Works. The latter has already discussed the social-political question with certain authorities on the basis that the State can only undertake to deal with the labour difficulty so far as it may be rightly considered to come within its province. Questions that lie within the competency of the Legislature are first to be considered in the Ministries of the Interior and of Justice. The position of the preliminary inquiries renders it impossible to fix a date for the meeting of the German and Austrian Commissioners, although there is every desire to hasten it. For the rest, the Prussian Legislature has already adopted various measures for the better maintenance and regulation of the institutions and funds for the relief of the working classes. Tribunals of commerce and arbitration for settling differences between employers and employed are also under consideration, and indeed have been provided in certain instances by means, in particular, of the Prussian Trade Regulations and the other laws extending the same, such as the Mines Act and the Roads and Canals Construction Act.

July 19th.—Received the following letter from Bucher:—

[p. 211]

“Verehrtester Herr Doctor,—No chance for you up to the present. (I had asked for more work.) He reads the newspapers with the impartiality of a rentier, amuses himself and sometimes gets a little angry, but does not show the slightest inclination to interfere. (A circumstance which does not worry me.) When the Karlsbad cure is finished and I am relieved by Wartensleben on the 1st of August, the prospect will improve. The letters are becoming intolerable, and he is thinking of issuing a sort of proclamation against them. Perhaps you could spare him that trouble if you could secure the insertion in some remote but widely circulated paper of a communication to the following effect which should be dated from Stolp:—

“‘Notwithstanding the notice in the N. A. Z. that, &c., there is a rapid increase in the number of private letters addressed to Prince B. with requests for assistance, loans, appointments, purchases of estates, redemption of pawned goods, recommendations of all descriptions and proposals of the most various kinds for the improvement of the world, together with offers of manuscripts for which it has been impossible to find a publisher, &c. Attempts are made to force the Imperial Chancellor to open and read these letters himself by registering them, or marking the envelopes “Private,” “Important,” “Please to read personally,” or by claiming special introductions. Others address themselves to the Councillor of Embassy Bucher, and expect him to disturb the repose which is so necessary for the cure by communicating the contents of epistles, which usually begin with the stereotyped formula: “Although I know that you have little time and the Prince still less, I trust it will nevertheless be possible to make an exception in the present instance.” The[p. 212] Prince has therefore given instructions recently that no letters addressed to him privately are to be taken in, unless they can be recognised as coming from relations or friends.’

“The communication should be given as if coming from an inhabitant of Stolp who had been here on a visit, but without exactly saying this. Yours very truly,” (In English.) This was immediately prepared for the Kölnische Zeitung, in which it appeared a few days later.

July 29th.—A report of the 27th instant contains the following passage: “Count Tauffkirchen, who recently arrived at Munich on leave from Rome, gave W. some particulars of what he had ascertained shortly before his departure respecting the alleged Bull ‘Præsenti cadavere.’ As already known, a Bull of Pius VI. of the year 1797 prescribes a term of ten days which must elapse before the election of a new Pope can be proceeded with. On the other hand, the Bullarium Romanum, volume xiii., page 92, contains a Bull of Pius VII., dated the 6th of February, 1807, which modifies this provision and prescribes formalities to be observed in the election of a Pope in case of political disturbances. It provides that the interval of ten days need not be kept if more than half the Cardinals (that is, at the present time, 125) decide otherwise. It is not necessary to wait for the foreign Cardinals, although they must be invited. The Cardinal Dean (Patrizzi), the Capi d’Ordini (de Angelis and Antonelli), as well as the Camerlengo, have to decide where the election is to be held. It is probable that the next election will take place in accordance with these directions.”

August 10th.—Sent the Kölnische Zeitung the following letter, dated from Rome, which I wrote from[p. 213] information contained in a despatch: “The Nazione publishes a series of articles entitled ‘L’Esclusiva al Conclave,’ which proves that the civil powers—and not only Austria, France, Spain and Portugal as hitherto, but also the King of Italy and the German Emperor, have an unquestionable right to enter an effective protest against the election of candidates for the Papal dignity who do not appear to them to be suitable. In the course of this argument, the journal in question alluded to the Emperor William as follows: The creed professed by the bearer of the supreme authority in a State can exercise no influence upon the relations of that State, or upon his own relations with the Church. The Emperor is a Protestant, but as the ruler of several millions of Catholics, and as their lawful representative, he would be perfectly within his right if he desired to exercise his influence on the election of a new Pope. It would be unnatural to deny him this right while not contesting it to the King of Spain, whose rule does not extend over a larger number of Catholic subjects; or to the King of Portugal, who has much fewer Catholic subjects than the German Emperor. The latter’s position does not involve any sacramental or dogmatic question, but simply and solely a civil and legal relation, namely, the representation of his Catholic subjects. Besides, after the Reformation, the electors who took part in the election of the Catholic German Emperor included three Protestant princes. On the consecration of the Emperor by the Bishops of Mainz, Cologne, and Trèves, the Protestant electoral princes joined in the symbolic rites. Indeed, the bishops received from their hands the crown which they placed upon the Emperor’s head, and those princes attended the Catholic Mass on the occasion. They thus took[p. 214] part with Catholic bishops in Catholic rites. Every one must recognise that the German Emperor, in exercising by means of his veto an indirect influence upon the election of the Pope by the Conclave, performs an act which has far less of a spiritual character than the direct co-operation of the Protestant electors in the coronation of the old Catholic Emperors. Towards the end of the article, the writer says that Pius IX. has already repeatedly violated ancient and venerable principles of the Church. If he questions the right to reject unpopular candidates, which is based upon the fundamental laws of the Church, he runs the risk of his successor not being recognised, and of thus giving rise to a ruinous schism. So far the Italian organ. It is quite another matter whether the German Emperor and his counsellors propose to take advantage of the Esclusiva in question.”

August 15th.—On the 12th instant Eckart, of Hamburg, again sent the Foreign Office a report of the contents of some of the Russian periodicals. This includes a reference to an article by an “American,” or, more correctly, an Englishman, named Dixon, who indulges in a number of silly statements as to the intentions of Germany respecting the Baltic Provinces of Russia. These are to be refuted, and I am doing so in a communication to the Kölnische Zeitung, which runs as follows: “In the July number of the Russian monthly Besseda, we find an article by the much talked-of and prolific writer Hepworth Dixon, in which the Russians are urgently warned against the German agitation for the Baltic Provinces, which must necessarily lead to the next European war. According to Dixon it resembles the former agitation for the separation of Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark, which[p. 215] after modest beginnings ultimately swept German statesmen forward in spite of themselves. It is true that up to the present the more sensible section of the German people will not hear of it. The leading statesmen in particular, including Prince Bismarck, are thoroughly and in principle opposed to it. Experience teaches, however, that fanatics are always more energetic and active than those who weigh the consequences of their acts; and it may therefore be regarded as certain that the agitation in Germany, which is maintained by skilful agents from the Baltic, will continue to spread and lead finally to a war with Russia. The Golos finds it incumbent to commend to the consideration of the Russian public these silly lucubrations of a writer who obviously knows still less of Germany, its requirements and aspirations, than he does of Switzerland, upon which he recently published some few hundred pages of moonshine. That is really quite unnecessary. The only grain of truth in Mr. Dixon’s wisdom is that no leading German statesmen and no sensible people in Germany give a moment’s thought to Curland and Livonia in the same sense as they once did to Schleswig-Holstein. The agitation, which was not initiated with much skill, and was from the very beginning hollow, has not increased, but on the contrary has long since died out, with the exception of some faint echoes in opposition newspapers, whose faith in the cause they plead is itself slender. Every one with the least insight into the facts knows that ‘German’ Russia, with its one German to every ten inhabitants, cannot for an instant be assimilated to Schleswig-Holstein, nor Russia herself to Denmark; and furthermore, that we have not the least right to interfere in the administration of those provinces, nor the slightest interest in their conquest,[p. 216] which would only extend our straggling Eastern frontier, and render it less capable of defence. We have entirely omitted from our consideration the circumstance that we have in Russia a friendly neighbour, whose good will, which has been of great advantage to us in a recent very critical period, we desire to cultivate further. It might, however, have occurred to Mr. Dixon, if he were not a lightning thinker of superficial judgment and meagre knowledge.”

August 18th.—A few days ago Balan, who now performs the functions of Secretary of State, wrote to Prince Reuss, who is at present staying at Nordernay, respecting the approaching visit to Berlin of the Emperors Alexander and Francis Joseph. “As Prince Bismarck had let him know that he considered it desirable to ascertain the views of the German Ambassadors to both Courts respecting the manner in which the question of precedence was regarded by the Courts of St. Petersburg and Vienna,” he begged Prince Reuss to inform him. Reuss replied as follows under yesterday’s date: “As your Excellency is aware, the Emperor Alexander had at first fixed upon the 6th of September as the date of his arrival. This plan was altered, and the Emperor told me that if it were agreeable to his Majesty he would arrive in Berlin on the evening of the 5th. Count Schuvaloff explained to me that the motive of this alteration was the desire of the Emperor to arrive somewhat earlier than the Emperor Francis Joseph. That the question of precedence was involved was evident from the statement of the Count that whilst he was at Stuttgart the Emperor Alexander had also arrived somewhat earlier, in order to secure precedence of the Emperor Napoleon. I also gather that the Emperor Alexander attributes a certain importance[p. 217] to his earlier appearance, as indicating that he is the older friend. I do not believe however that he would be inclined to insist upon having precedence during the whole period of his visit.”

A letter of the 16th instant from Berne says: “My assumption that the appointment of Herr von Niethhammer as (Bavarian) Envoy to Switzerland may be regarded as a kind of demonstration against the Imperial Government seems to be confirmed. That gentleman hopes for a Gasser Ministry, and in competent quarters here he praises the King of Bavaria, who is not disposed to sink to the level of the small Princes who come to Berlin. Moreover, he expresses views of such an absurdly Particularist and Ultramontane character that he frequently excites somewhat contemptuous surprise, and gets snubbed for his pains. As to Prince Gortschakoff, who has been elsewhere described as the ‘garrulous’ Chancellor, he gives it to be understood everywhere that he considers it desirable for Russia to draw nearer to the Vatican in the same measure as others draw away from it, and that he seems to have already succeeded in this policy.”

Bucher, writing from Varzin, sends me the following paragraph for Brass: “In case the Prince’s health permits him to travel, he will proceed to Berlin at the beginning of September, going from there to Marienburg, and returning thence to Varzin.”

August 27th.—This evening read the answer of the Emperor Alexander to the invitation to meet the German and Austrian Emperors in Berlin. It is written in very cordial terms, and runs as follows:—

“Mon cher Oncle,—Votre lettre si amicale du 16/28 juillet, pour laquelle je Vous ai dejà remercié par[p. 218] télégraphe, m’a fait un plaisir véritable. J’avais effectivement l’intention d’employer la fin du mois d’août à des courses d’inspection dans le midi de la Russie, mais ayant appris par le Prince Reuss, que ma présence à Berlin, simultanée avec celle de l’Empereur d’Autriche, était desirée par Vous, je me suis empressé de m’arranger de façon à pouvoir me rendre à Votre aimable invitation.

“Je pense comme Vous, mon cher Oncle, que notre entrevue à trois pourra avoir une importance fort grave pour l’interêt du bien-être de Nos états et de la paix du monde. Que Dieu nous vienne en aide!

“Quant à la joie immense de Vous revoir je crois n’avoir besoin de vous en parler, car l’affection que je Vous porte n’est pas chose nouvelle pour Vous.

“Je me fais aussi une véritable fête de revoir Votre brave et belle garde à laquelle je suis fier d’appartenir grâce à Votre constante amitié, dont Vous m’avez donné une si belle preuve sous les murs mêmes de Paris.

“Je Vous demande la permission d’amener avec moi mes fils Alexandre et Wladimir, car je tiens, comme Vous le savez, à ce que les sentiments qui nous unissent et que nous avons hérités de Nos Parents puissent se conserver et se perpétuer aussi dans la nouvelle génération.

“Le Prince Reuss ayant communiqué Votre gracieuse invitation à mon frère Nicolas, il en a été très heureux et me précédera à Berlin de quelques jours, si Vous le permettez.

“La presence de Vos officiers distingués à nos occupations, en camp de Krasnoe-Selo, fût une grande satisfaction pour moi, et j’espère qu’ils en auront emporté un aussi bon souvenir que celui qu’ils ont laissé parmi nous.

“Oh! que je me réjouis de la perspective de Vous[p. 219] répéter de vive voix l’assurance de l’amitié sincère avec laquelle je suis, mon cher Oncle, Votre tout devoué neveu et ami,

“Alexandre.”

September 8th.—To-day the Chief gave a great diplomatic dinner in honour of the members of the suites accompanying the Russian and Austrian Emperors. Of our people, Von Thile, Von Keudell, Von Bülow, Philippsborn, and Bucher were present. The latter, with whom I had a long tête-à-tête in the evening, said: “I have seldom seen such a collection of weird faces as those Russians. The Hamburger is a regular Stock Exchange Jew. Jomini looks like a professor—you know there are professors who understand how to make themselves agreeable to ladies. There were also some strange specimens among the Austrians. I said so afterwards to the son, Herbert (so I understood him, but Bucher always speaks in a whisper and not very clearly), and he replied: ‘Yes, you are right, although many people would not trust themselves to say it aloud—but it is true all the same.’”

This evening we remained till 11 o’clock at the Ministry, where I had to write another article for the Kölnische Zeitung on the election of the Pope, which was directed, amongst other things, against the assertion of the Catholique that this election was of world-wide significance. Afterwards Bucher and I had a bottle of red wine at Friedrich’s, when he gave me a great deal of interesting news. Keudell, he said, had long been on the look-out for a substantial embassy, and the Chief has now given him Constantinople. He, Bucher, fancied that this was done because Keudell was of little further use to the Prince, as he was taking leave at every[p. 220] moment—town leave while the Reichstag was sitting. Constantinople was selected because a great luminary was not required there. Keudell would not do much as an Ambassador, as he had no ideas of his own. Here he frequently borrowed one from the Chief, and made use of it for his own purposes; but on the Bosphorus, far away from the Wilhelmstrasse, he would have to stand on his own legs, and, in any emergency, he would hardly be equal to it. He could hold his tongue, and that was of some value; but his political acumen was confined to his own personal affairs, in regard to which he always knew how to improve his opportunities. I then mentioned that on one occasion when I was speaking of the East Prussians, Keudell’s fellow countrymen, and said that all those with whom I had had any dealings were thoroughly selfish, the Chancellor tersely added: “Jewish horse dealers” (Pferde Juden). Referring to Aegidi, Bucher repeated what he had formerly said, namely, that he was brought to us by Keudell in order to act as his correspondent, spy, and intermediary after his departure, keeping him posted in current affairs and in the ideas of the Chief, and getting his praises sung in the newspapers as often as possible....

Bucher then mentioned that during the last week at Varzin the Chief had almost given up riding, but had, on the other hand, driven about the country a great deal, and that, too, in a basket carriage without springs, a very unpleasant conveyance when it bumped over the roots of fir trees which project across the paths. He had never seen the Prince look so cheerful as on the day of his silver wedding. In the morning, as they were about to go to church, they could not find a dress-coat for his Highness, but, just as he was preparing good-humouredly to submit to his fate, they discovered a very[p. 221] ancient garment of the kind required in some forgotten wardrobe, which he then donned for the festive occasion. Finally, in the evening, he brewed for himself and the company a potent beverage, composed of two bottles of port, one of old arrack, and one of champagne, which he quaffed gaily long after Bucher had had more than enough, and gone off to bed. After the second glass the Countess fell so fast asleep in her rocking-chair that she could be heard—breathing aloud....

September 15th.—A Ministerial crisis has been in progress in Munich for weeks past, and it is said that Gasser has a fair prospect of becoming Premier. His wife, a Von Radowitz and a friend of the King with whom his Majesty is in constant correspondence, is credited in a report of the 1st instant with “no inconsiderable share in the Cabinet crisis which the Sovereign has provoked.” According to a report from B. of about the same date, Von Daxenberger, the Councillor of State, is disposed to support Gasser’s candidature. At least it is said there that “he is in closer agreement both in political and religious questions with Bray than with the present Minister”; that in speaking to B. he had “endeavoured to represent Gasser as a man of moderate views, whilst he was inclined to depreciate Lutz.”

To-day I forwarded to the Kölnische Zeitung a letter dated from Munich for which Bucher conveyed to me the Chief’s instructions. It stated that the Ministerial crisis was not yet at an end, and asserted positively that the Secretary of State, von Lobkowitz, the prospective Minister of Finance, was especially active in promoting a Gasser Cabinet. On the other hand, the report that the Councillor of State, Von Daxenberger, is also working in the same direction seems less worthy of[p. 222] credence. “No argument on the subject,” was the Chief’s instruction.

October 10th.—Arnim recently (date not noted) sent the Chancellor a rather lengthy statement of his opinion that Thiers should not be supported any longer, as he was only strengthening France for the benefit of Gambetta. He also hinted that we might give our support to others, in which case there would be plenty to make overtures to us. The Ambassador said he had severed his connection with B., who had shown himself quite incapable, but he was now employing another agent of the same description, who seemed in general to justify the confidence placed in his cleverness and powers of hearing. Prince Czartoryski had recommended to his political friends in the province of Posen, as Parliamentary candidate, the parish priest of Zduny, a man of strong clerical and nationalist sentiments, and a friend of Kozmian. Further, a French political agent, named Orlowski, was stationed at Dantzig, where he passed himself off as a commercial traveller. Samuel, the Chief of the French Secret Police, was now staying at Lunéville. Ladislaus Witkowski, a Jesuit, who spent several years in Rome, and who was made a Knight of the Legion of Honour on Czartoryski’s recommendation, had been sent by the Prince to the Grand Duchy of Posen, in order to promote an agitation among the peasantry. Witkowski was thirty-eight years of age, tall and stout, grows a beard, and wears plain clothes. He would probably put up at Kozmian’s. In Paris, he resided with the Jesuit, Jelowicki, who has recently paid several visits to Posen, and appeared to act as a channel for communication between Rome and the Grand Duchy. Witkowski might also have instructions from Samuel.

[p. 223]

November 8th.—This evening received from Bucher, who has returned to Varzin with the Chief, the outline of a communication to be dated from Stolp, and sent to the Kölnische Zeitung, and which should run somewhat as follows: “Permit me to constitute myself ‘An Occasional Correspondent’ from Pomerania, as I have accidentally come into possession of more detailed information than the professional correspondents seem to possess. There are no indications at Varzin of an approaching departure. I cannot say whether a very active correspondence is maintained with Berlin, but when the Prince, in speaking at his own fireside of a reform of the Upper Chamber, declares it to be of necessity for our public life, it is hardly likely that his colleagues will be unacquainted with his views in this respect. Furthermore, if one bears in mind certain conversations which are understood to have taken place, at the Parliamentary soirées, during the debate on the Inspection of Schools Bill, some idea can be formed of the direction of the intended changes. It may therefore be assumed that, as the Upper Chamber is only a poor imitation of the English House of Lords, for which neither our history nor the position of our landed aristocracy affords any justification, its future character will have to be rather that of a Senate or Council of State combining greater intelligence and usefulness.”

November 22nd.—Last week a local paper—I think it was Glasbrenner’s Montagszeitung—and the Deutsche Presse of Frankfurt, published a paragraph, which was in all probability inspired by Aegidi, stating on good authority that Herr von Keudell would shortly be recalled from Constantinople in order to take over the post of Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, as Herr[p. 224] von Balan must sooner or later return to Brussels. I sent this to Bucher, who would seem to have laid it before the Prince, as Aegidi said to me to-day that the Chief had asked for information respecting its origin. He added: “I will write to the Montagszeitung, but I have little hope of ascertaining anything.” At that moment I had in my pocket the following rough draft of a paragraph which I had received from Bucher: “The long absence of the Prince from Berlin, and the unfavourable reports as to his health that have been circulated by enemies of his, and also under the cloak of regret by certain friends who hanker after his inheritance, have encouraged the hopes of those who desire a change, which it is well known would not be unwelcome to a certain exalted lady.” Bucher added: “If you cannot get this into a (non-official) paper you may perhaps mention it, unintentionally as it were, to some one who will circulate it in the Press.” I secured its insertion, expanded to a somewhat greater length, in the Hannoverscher Courier, from which it was copied by other newspapers, such as the Schwaebischer Mercur (of the 16th inst.)...

December 16th.—During the past few weeks wrote a number of minor newspaper paragraphs upon the Chief’s instructions, as transmitted to me by Bucher from Varzin, and latterly from here. To-day again I wrote a somewhat longer article for the Kölnische Zeitung, for which Bucher brought me down directions. It ran as follows: “Last week a number of obscure and confused reports were circulated in a portion of the press respecting the intentions of the Imperial Chancellor on his return from Varzin. According to one of these rumours, Prince Bismarck proposes to resign the office of President of the Ministry of State,[p. 225] and, of course, also that of Minister for Foreign Affairs. Another declares that he is thinking of withdrawing from all co-operation in Prussian internal affairs. It should be pointed out in reply that the foregoing ‘of course’ is in direct contradiction to the facts. We have it on the best authority that the Prince has no idea of resigning the office of Minister for Foreign Affairs, and, consequently, does not intend to retire from the Prussian Ministry of State. In view of the close connection existing between Prussia and Germany, such a course would be inconceivable, unless he were at the same time to give up the Chancellorship of the Empire. On the other hand, the rumour in question is correct to the extent that the Prince desires to be relieved of the Presidency of the Prussian Council of Ministers. Therefore, in future, if the Emperor approves, the Prince will hold the positions, first of German Imperial Chancellor, together with that of Chief Prussian Representative in the Federal Council, and will remain Minister for Foreign Affairs, and as such retain his seat in the Prussian Ministry. The Prince’s reasons for resigning the Presidency of the Prussian Council of Ministers and restricting his share in the administration of Prussia are, in the first place, the absolute impossibility of continuing to devote the necessary energy to the duties of the various offices which he has hitherto held without danger to his health, which, by the way, is now happily restored. Under the ‘collegial’ system which prevails in the Prussian Ministry, the Presidency requires the undivided attention of a statesman in robust health. The same applies equally to the office of Foreign Minister for the Empire, as well as to the other duties devolving upon the Prince as Imperial Chancellor. As it is, it will be a severe effort for him to perform the[p. 226] duties of those offices which he proposes to retain, and he could scarcely continue to do so in a satisfactory manner if he were not so ably assisted and represented, as he has hitherto been, by the leading officials of the Empire. Another reason, which may have decided the Prince to ask to be relieved of the Presidency of the Prussian Council of Ministers may be the desire to bear, in future, a smaller share of responsibility than he has hitherto done, for the policy and decisions of the departmental Ministers, who, in consequence of the collegial system[7] above mentioned, are very largely independent of the President. The Mühler Ministry may be remembered as illustrating the drawbacks of this system. It allowed an official department to be utilised for the furtherance of ultramontane interests, and its real character was only detected by the Minister President after it had placed all sorts of difficulties in the way of his policy. The relations between Prussia and Germany will not be rendered less intimate by the alteration which the Prince has in view. As Foreign Minister, he has hitherto been the intermediary between Prussia and the rest of Germany. In that capacity, he has held direct communication with the King as German Emperor and has instructed the Prussian representatives in the Federal Council. All these duties and powers must unquestionably, and will, therefore, continue to be, performed and exercised by him after his resignation of the Presidency of the Prussian Council of Ministers.”

December 18th.—According to a letter from a trustworthy source in Munich, King Lewis recently sent Prince Adalbert a note, of which the following is[p. 227] the substance: The Prince had taken the initiative in the matter of the Gasser Ministry, therefore the discredit attaching to the failure of that attempt must fall upon him. Consequently, his Majesty must in future imperatively forbid all interference by the Prince in State affairs.

1873.

January 1st.—I note the following from a communication from Stuttgart, based upon a conversation with Mittnacht respecting the cause of the dismissal of Baron von Egloffstein (till recently President of King Charles’s Cabinet), and the situation created thereby. The King is determined to fulfil his duties towards the Empire, but Egloffstein had constantly endeavoured to influence him in a Particularist direction. Since 1870 Queen Olga has been apprehensive for the existence of Würtemberg, and is confirmed in these apprehensions by the ladies of her entourage, and in particular by the Baroness von Massenbach as well as by Von Egloffstein, who, at the instance of the Queen, has also been endeavouring to influence the King. The Ministry was therefore obliged to demand the removal of Egloffstein from his post, and to this the King at once consented....

January 21st.—An instructive and entertaining dissertation on the “history of a semi-official newspaper article” might be written from the following entries in my diary. I content myself with providing the material for it, and adding a few words calculated to give a true idea of the origin and value of this much debated work. Rumour had already been busy for a considerable time[p. 228] when the Kölnische Zeitung on the 10th instant published the following “disclosures”:—

“When the Upper Chamber resumed the consideration of the District Regulations last autumn, the necessity of the reform was so fully recognised in the highest quarters that not only Count Eulenburg, the Minister of the Interior, but the Sovereign also had committed himself to that measure. As far back as February, 1872, the Ministry, in view of the attitude of the Upper House, passed a resolution declaring its approval in principle of a reform of the Chamber—a reform which was, indeed, to be based solely on the idea of a Council of State, and not on that of a real Chamber of Peers in the English sense.[8] Naturally such a radical change found many opponents in exalted circles, and even the Liberal party received the proposed reform with relative coolness, being much more interested in an energetic handling of the District Regulations question. At this juncture they regarded the District Regulations as the ‘bird in the hand,’ and showed little appreciation for the reform of the Upper Chamber, which they looked upon rather as the ‘two in the bush.’

“The leading statesman thought differently. He was of opinion that if one secured a twenty mark piece (the reform of the Upper House) it would be an easy matter to get change for it and secure also the thaler (the District Regulations). When, therefore, in the autumn the Upper House again showed itself recalcitrant, its attitude was by no means unwelcome at Varzin, though there was no particular enthusiasm for a creation of peers. In fact something more was desired. Hence the hints given to individual members of the Upper House that the Prince, who was then away on leave, was not[p. 229] at all keen about the District Regulations. In short it looked as if the then President of the Prussian Council of Ministers had no objection to an amendment of the Bill in the direction proposed by the Upper House, and did not want any secret made of his views to certain of his colleagues who were members of that Chamber. If this is an accurate statement of facts it is easy to conjecture what plans were being laid. The Prince would have had an opportunity of intervening, and ultimately the Upper House would have been confined to that consultative position which he regards as indispensable, if it is to be retained as a living factor in the State. It will be remembered that this scheme was frustrated by a creation of peers. The latter measure was opposed in a memorandum from Varzin, which declared in favour of an immediate reform of the House of Peers. But this proposal was supported only by one member of the Ministry, namely Count Roon. Count Eulenburg carried the day with the majority of the Cabinet, the hints given to certain members of the Upper House with regard to amendments of the District Regulations Bill having in the meantime reached the ears of the Sovereign.

“Prince Bismarck and Count Roon were therefore left together in the minority, although the former, as Minister President, still bore in the eyes of the public the responsibility for a policy which he had expressly opposed within the Cabinet. This was very little to the taste of the Imperial Chancellor, for whom it was a fresh illustration of the drawbacks of the collegial system obtaining in the Prussian Council of Ministers.

“Here, therefore, he hoped to find an opportunity for intervention and reform, while taking up once more the question of reorganising the Upper House, which always occupied the first place in his thoughts. When[p. 230] he left Varzin he was already preceded by a swarm of rumours, all of which turned upon his relations with the Prussian Ministry and an extension of the Imperial Ministries. It almost appeared as if henceforth Prussia’s task was to be confined to her domestic affairs. Like the navy, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Communications, the army seemed fated to fall within the jurisdiction of the Imperial Chancellor, so that the head of the War Office would, as a Minister of State, occupy about the same position towards the Imperial Chancellor as General Stosch in his capacity of chief of the Admiralty, and Herr Delbrück as President of the Federal Chancellerie. The Emperor’s decrees on military matters would never again be countersigned by the Prussian Minister of War, but by the Imperial Chancellor, &c. Concurrently with these changes the Constitution would become more homogeneous, and the formation of a real Cabinet would ensue, with a chief who would be able to pursue an independent, and, indeed, a personal policy, and, through the members of the Cabinet, extend it even beyond the limits of that body.

“This plan, however, seems to have never yet been developed officially to its full extent. When it became known in exalted quarters (where the remembrance was still fresh of the hints conveyed to the Upper House respecting the District Regulations) that, in existing circumstances, the Minister President was as such no longer disposed to allow himself to be outvoted and saddled with a policy which was not his own, the question of filling the gap was bound to arise. Count Eulenburg, who had just carried off the victory, and who once before, within the last year, had been selected for a similar position, was naturally one of the first to be considered in the Royal deliberations. At the same[p. 231] time it was beyond doubt that, under the Presidency of Count Eulenburg, who had just secured a victory over Prince Bismarck in the Cabinet on the question of the creation of peers, further co-operation on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in matters of specifically Prussian interest could not be expected. Count Roon’s position was different. He had also tendered his resignation on the ground that he had been outvoted, and the Sovereign was strongly indisposed to part from him. His appointment as President of the Council of Ministers in succession to the Prince would by no means constitute a disavowal by the King of the Chancellor’s views with regard to the reform of the Upper House, as Count Roon had gone hand in hand with Prince Bismarck in this respect. Both men, who had had intimate personal relations with each other for years, speedily came to an understanding. Count Roon, notwithstanding his Conservative leanings, had long since frankly adopted the policy of the Imperial Chancellor. He had already proved his determination in the struggle with the clergy over the Old Catholic army chaplaincies and the encroachments of the military Bishop, Nanczonowski, and he now made no difficulty about adopting in every particular the programme of the retiring Prussian Prime Minister with regard to the fight against Rome. Both statesmen were in the most perfect agreement in the question of the Upper House. The Civil Marriage Bill had to be set aside for a time without going into its merits, as the Ministers had not yet decided what compensation should be given to the Evangelical clergy in return for the perquisites and fees which they would lose. On the other hand, the Imperial Chancellor was in a position to promise his support for an ultimate increase in the demands made upon the Reichstag for the Army[p. 232] Budget of the Empire, in the event of a second chief of the military administration, whom it was proposed to appoint, being more closely connected as Minister of State with the Imperial Chancellor. In short an intimate alliance and a cordial understanding were arrived at by which part of Bismarck’s original programme was immediately realised, the rest being postponed, without prejudice, to a future time.”

This article was followed on the 14th of January by the following explanation, which appeared in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung:—

“The Kölnische Zeitung of the 10th instant contains an article on the secret history of the Prussian crisis, which it prefaces with the assurance that it has been derived from trustworthy sources. We are unable to say how far this assurance is justified in every particular, but we must contradict the statement that the Imperial Chancellor ever encouraged the opposition against the District Regulations Bill in the Upper House, or that any attempt whatever was made from Varzin to open up communications with the existing Opposition.

“After the Upper House had amended certain paragraphs in contradiction to the spirit of the Bill, and to the report of the Lower House, the Prince gave it to be understood that the constitutional procedure should be followed, namely, that the amendments of the Upper House should be dealt with once more in the Lower House, and opposed the idea of closing the session of the Diet after this first hostile vote of the Upper House, and forcing the position by a creation of peers.

“It is true that, on the unexpected resolution of the Upper House rescinding its own amendments, the Prince urged strongly that the reform of the Upper Chamber should be taken in hand at once, before proceeding[p. 233] further with the District Regulations Bill, and he still considers this reform to be one of pressing necessity, though it should not take the form of a consultative Council of State, but rather that of a two chamber system, under which the Upper House, however, must strike root and carry weight in the country.”

On the 20th of January the same organ went still farther in its comments on the disclosures of the Kölnische Zeitung:—

“We have already specified some inaccuracies in this article without entering into a complete contradiction of it. We are now in a position to assert that, in our humble opinion, this article contains about a dozen statements of very doubtful accuracy.... As, however, the Minister President has expressed in the Diet a wish that the discussion of this subject in the press should be brought to a close, and as we do not intend to run counter to a desire uttered in such a quarter, nor care to enter into a polemic with the Rhenish organ, which usually obtains its information from better sources, we forego all further correction of the contents of the article, to which—as we are in a position to state—official circles are entirely foreign.”

And now, what was the real truth of the matter? Let the reader form his own opinion from the following diary entries, remembering, in addition, that Aegidi was intimately connected with the journal last mentioned through Eckart: “January 12th.—This evening Bucher told me in reply to my question that the disclosures of the Kölnische Zeitung were correct, and that he had himself prepared the memorandum referred to therein.” “January 15th.—Wollmann informed me this evening that Aegidi had sent the article in the Kölnische Zeitung of the 10th instant to the Prince at[p. 234] Friedrichsruh, adding that he was aware who the author was, and giving an assurance that he had had no part in it.” “January 21st.—Bucher told me this morning that the article in the Kölnische Zeitung was written by Kruse, the chief editor of the paper, who is now in Berlin, from information given to him by Aegidi, and contains only a few unimportant errors. He, Bucher, had, under instructions from the Chief, written the mild démenti published by the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on the 14th instant. The sharper démenti that followed, calling the attention of the Kölnische Zeitung to the fact that no people had a right to demand a chronique scandaleuse from their journals, was dictated by the Chief and written by Aegidi, who was thus obliged to ply the rod on his own back.”

On reading these various communications, one can hardly help agreeing in some measure with the National Zeitung, which wrote as follows on the 20th of January: “We would strongly urge upon the Government the desirability of accepting the advice which we tendered to them recently, namely, that, instead of blaming the press, Ministers should keep their own motley throng of Privy Councillors and semi-official satellites in order. It is notorious that some of our Ministers are at loggerheads, and desire each other’s overthrow, and no denials will persuade people of the contrary. They may fight out their battles within the Ministry and in the proper place, but they should not bring their quarrels under the notice of the general public by mysterious insinuations, conveyed through persons who are dependent upon them, and whom they disavow at every opportunity. Altogether we would urgently request the Government to exercise a closer supervision over their semi-official mouthpieces, and not permit them to[p. 235] convert the performance of their official duties into a public nuisance which is steadily growing worse.”...

February 15th.—Among the documents which I read to-day I found one of last month that was of exceptional interest, as Bucher had added a number of marginal notes, obviously for the purposes of the Chief’s reply. It was a despatch from Arnim excusing himself to the Chancellor, who had charged him with giving utterance in his communications to opinions at variance with the fundamental principles of German policy. The Ambassador asserted that no divergency of views existed between them. The Prince had laid it down that the first task of Germany in connection with France was to prevent the latter being in a position to form alliances, and “he (Arnim) had also kept that end constantly in view.” It was only with respect to the means towards that end that he had expressed an opinion differing from the views of the Chief (who regards the maintenance of the Republic and of Thiers as the best course). The quotations from previous despatches show that there is as little truth in this statement as there was in the assertion that on his return to Paris in October last he had “found the President’s position strengthened to a greater degree than was desirable.” In reply to this assertion Bucher quotes the following sentences: “It is even now questionable whether Thiers, who imagines that he has come to terms with the agitator (Gambetta) is still a match for him” (Report of the 3rd of October), and “the continuance of the present régime only benefits the Radical extremists, in whose programme the revanche goes hand in hand with their campaign against the monarchies and the entire social system of Europe.” (Report of the 13th of November.) Finally, in his present defence, Arnim tries to show that he had[p. 236] formerly “observed, not without uneasiness, that Thiers was making arrangements intended to secure his own power for a number of years.” Thereupon the Chief had remarked: “He can hardly have observed that,” and Bucher quoted the following passage from a despatch of the Ambassador’s, dated the 30th of November: “The power which he is accumulating will pass into other hands (Gambetta’s).” Finally, the Count now asserts that he had only recommended “that M. Thiers’s prestige should no longer be promoted through the inspired German press.” In his report of the 29th of November the Ambassador persists in his opinion that “the President’s Government must be regarded as a source of serious anxiety for monarchical Europe.” In the despatch of the 30th of November Count Arnim recommends that we should bring about a crisis which should result in bringing either Gambetta to power or a Government which would seek support from Germany. We should then be justified in overthrowing Gambetta, and indeed obliged to do so (according to Arnim’s view of the case, on account of his propaganda). He would advise us to withdraw our support from Thiers. In conclusion, according to Bucher’s notes, Arnim says, in a report of the 6th of December: “It may be taken for granted that the President will find it very difficult to govern if he does not make up his mind to lean on the Conservative majority.”

February 20th.—It appears from a report of Arnim’s of the 17th of last month that he has engaged a certain Lindau[9] to furnish him with detailed reports from the French press. In a despatch of the 8th instant, the Ambassador states that Lindau has asked not to be[p. 237] deprived of the assistance of Beckmann (who was probably objected to as a suspicious character, or otherwise unsuitable). Arnim strongly supported this request, “in the interests of the service.” Lindau must have some one at his disposal who would undertake the more compromising portion of the whole arrangement.... Besides, neither Herr Lindau, nor any other official at the Embassy, was in a position to deal with all the material and to furnish full and satisfactory reports on the press, and at the same time to write articles himself for German, Italian, and Russian newspapers. According to Arnim, Lindau also proposed to start a publication for Russia, probably a news agency.

March 3rd.—All these suggestions were rejected by the Chief in a despatch of yesterday’s date. He will have no formal Press Bureau, no Russian news agency, and no influence exercised upon the German papers by the Paris Embassy.

I closed my diary at the last-mentioned date to let it rest for some years. The period which I had set myself, on the cessation of my direct intercourse with the Prince, for my further continuance at the Foreign Office was at an end; and this intercourse had not been renewed. I therefore, on the 28th of February, wrote to the Chief, as follows:—

“Most Noble Prince, Most Mighty Chancellor, Most Gracious Chief and Master.

“A few days ago I completed my third year of service at the Foreign Office. In connection therewith I venture dutifully to beg that your Serene Highness will allow me to retire from that service at the end of March, and to return, at first, to Leipzig; and at the same time to take into consideration the concluding sentence in the[p. 238] order of the 15th of March, 1870. The sentence in question says: ‘I would add that, in case your present occupation should sooner or later cease, you will be granted an annuity of 1,200 thalers, on condition that you still devote your literary activity to the support of our policy, as you have done during recent years.’

“The employment for which I was engaged here, according to your Serene Highness’s verbal instructions on my presentation to your Serene Highness on the 24th of February, 1870, ceased on the 1st of July, 1871, and with it, gradually, everything in the way of duty that was associated therewith. Notwithstanding this, I have honestly endeavoured to make myself useful; but I must confess to myself that these endeavours would be more fruitful in a different position to that which I now hold.

“In view of the circumstances, I ought perhaps to have sent in the foregoing dutiful petition immediately after the change which deprived me of the honour of direct intercourse with your Serene Highness. Had I taken such a step at that time, however, it might have been misunderstood; and I moreover had still to inform myself fully as to the purport of the instruction to ‘support our policy,’ in order to avoid possible mistakes; and, furthermore, I was anxious to be able to bequeath to future generations a picture of your Serene Highness’s life, painted not only with affection but also with knowledge. The latter has been for years past, and will remain, my sole ambition. It will at the same time afford me compensation for the loss of personal intercourse with your Serene Highness to renew it more actively in the spirit.

“Although during the three years which I have spent here I have certainly not acquired nearly sufficient positive[p. 239] information, I hope I have made considerable progress in freeing myself from political prejudices, as well as in matter-of-factness. One can, moreover, never leave off learning, although in other studies a triennium is considered sufficient.

“I may, therefore, confidently hope that your Serene Highness will kindly grant my dutiful petition; and perhaps I may not be disappointed if I add the fainter hope that when I begin the larger biography which I have in view, your Serene Highness will give me assistance similar to that which others would appear to have had before me.

“However that may be, I shall leave here with the same deep sense of veneration for the regenerator of our nation with which I came, and will act accordingly. With this feeling will always be associated a grateful recollection of the days, so happy for me, when I was permitted to have personal intercourse with your Serene Highness, and particularly of the seven months of the great war, when that intercourse was most direct, and when I sometimes believed myself justified in thinking that I enjoyed your Serene Highness’s good will.

“Your Serene Highness’s

“Dutiful and devoted

“Dr. Moritz Busch.”

I read over this paper first of all to Bucher, who approved of it as being “perfectly dignified,” and who, on his own suggestion, laid it before the Chief in an open envelope. The Prince read it through carefully, and then said, “I suppose he cannot get on with Aegidi.” Bucher replied that he was not acquainted with our relations, and only knew that I was not satisfied with my present position. The Chief then finally ordered:[p. 240] “Do not let it go through the office, but hand it direct to Bülow, who should see me about it.”

No reply was received for nearly three weeks. Finally, on the 20th of March, Aegidi informed me that he was instructed by the Prince to say that he wished to speak to me, and that he had fixed 2 P.M. on the 21st for that purpose. When I went upstairs to the Chief’s residence at the hour named, I had to wait for about ten minutes in the Chinese Salon while Bülow was with him. (The following was written down immediately after this audience, and gives a literal reproduction of all that was said by the Imperial Chancellor.) Mantey, the Chancery attendant, then announced me. As I entered, the Prince, who looked very well and greeted me with a friendly smile, was seated at his writing-table dressed in his blue silk dressing gown. He shook hands, and invited me to take a seat opposite him, the same place which I occupied at my first interview in February, 1870. The following conversation then began:—

He: “So you wish to leave? You have written me a letter. (He opened out the letter which lay before him, and I saw that he had marked one passage in blue pencil.) Excuse me for not answering it sooner. You referred to an arrangement which I could not recall to mind. I therefore had the letter sent to Keudell, and his answer on the subject only arrived yesterday. From that it appears that you are within your rights, and I have instructed Bülow to arrange the matter accordingly. You will receive what has been promised to you, but according to the understanding, the services to be rendered by you in return will be slight and purely voluntary.”

I replied that I would nevertheless be as diligent as[p. 241] possible. I was chiefly taken up with politics, and in supporting his policy I should only be obeying a moral imperative. I could not possibly act otherwise, had written in support of his views long before I was paid for it, and so forth. I not only wished to be, but should be soon, in a position to serve him, as in a few months I should take over the chief editorship of the Hannoverscher Courier, a newspaper with a circulation of about 10,000. I would only ask for good information.

He: “You will doubtless not wish to receive it through Aegidi, yet it must be so. There must be only one source from which information goes forth.”

I: “Well, there is another man here who, if I may take the liberty to express an opinion, is the best of all those who work under you, in character, ability, and knowledge.”

He: “And who might that be?”

I: “Bucher. If your Serene Highness would only sometimes let me know through him what you desire and intend. One is accustomed to some extent to your Serene Highness’s way of thinking, and can guess a great deal; nevertheless, new and unexpected ideas may frequently arise of which some indication should be given me.”

He: “Yes, Bucher. A real pearl! Well, put yourself in communication with him. A very able man, if I can only keep him; but he seems to me to be in anything but good health.”

I said that was certainly true, but when he was exhausted he was always able to recuperate by sleep, so that in spite of his hard work he could keep up to the mark. The Prince then continued:—

“But now to come to the second point. You have[p. 242] said in your letter that you wish to write my biography. I have nothing to say against that, and it may even prove very useful. It is not a matter of indifference to me who writes it. A great deal has already been written, but it includes a lot of rubbish. I will assist you in it, although it will not be easy. I am ready to answer all the questions you put to me and to give you every possible information. But first read what has already been written on the subject, and then send me a sheet or two of questions. Or, better still, write the history of the headquarters in France. You were there. That may prove very useful to me, and also to history. I will give you every possible information. You can also question my sons, and my cousin Charles, whom you know. By the way, an attempt has been already made to levy blackmail upon me. A Leipzig bookseller wrote me that you had kept a diary in which you had written down everything that I had said about the King. Five copies of it were deposited in five different places, and would be published unless I sent him a hundred thousand thalers. I considered you to be a man of honour incapable of that kind of thing, so I wrote: ‘Not five groschen!’ nor would I set a single policeman in motion on that account. It would certainly not be a matter of indifference to me if it were printed and published, and if all that I had said in my own way about the King and other exalted personages when I was excited and indignant—rightly indignant—were to become known. But the King knows that I had already said much worse things of him. Besides, now that I have resigned the Presidency of the Council of Ministers I am on a much better footing with him. He thinks now that I can no longer stand in his way and prevent him carrying out his wishes when he has some unpractical[p. 243] idea in his head, or when prejudice makes him reluctant to sanction some necessary measure. But my influence over the other Ministers has only increased with the change. I have never had so much influence upon them as now, and since then I have been able to carry through much more. My health, however, is not good. I was almost six months away last year, and it was not of the least benefit. I am no longer what I was—only a Ziska drum,[10] you know, nothing but the skin.”

He paused for a moment, and then returning to the attempt at blackmail, said: “The bookseller wrote once more on the subject, and this time he said he would be satisfied with fifty thousand thalers. I kept to my former decision, however. ‘Not five groschen, and not a single policeman.’” With the exception of my own family and a few old friends, I had spoken to no one about the diary I kept during the war, and least of all to a bookseller, at Leipzig or elsewhere. I was quite certain of that; it was utterly impossible; and I was, therefore, absolutely dumbfounded at these remarks. This, then, was obviously the reason—which I had so long sought vainly to discover—why he had broken off all direct intercourse with me. I had been calumniated, and he mistrusted me. I was more than once on the point of saying that this bookseller was a myth, and, what was more, a gross and palpable invention by some malignant fellow, who found me in his way because he could not use me for the advancement of his own selfish ambition. I checked myself, however, and only said I was thankful to him for his confidence. It was not[p. 244] unjustified. The diary certainly existed, but I had never intended to publish it. It was only for myself, and it by no means consisted merely of what he had said respecting the King and other Princes. “And besides,” I concluded, “it was no secret for the Foreign Office. At Versailles Abeken had called attention to it at table, and you observed that it would one day be quoted, ‘Conferas Buschii,’ &c.”

“Yes,” he observed, “that is quite right. I remember now. By the way, you will hardly have cared much for Abeken either.”

I replied: “Well, not very much.”

“Nor did I,” he added. “He was only happy in the atmosphere of the Court and at the Radziwills; and when he had his nephews with him, ‘my nephews, the Counts York,’ he was quite beside himself with delight. He was useful, however, in his own red-tape fashion. He had such a sackful of phrases that, when I wanted some, he had only to shake it out, and there I had a whole pile.”

He then referred for the third time to the fabulous bookseller, who still seemed to cause him some anxiety; and I again assured him that I had no idea of publishing my notes. “After my death,” I said, “some fifty years hence, perhaps.” “It need not be so long,” he replied. “You may even now write on the subject; and, indeed, I should be pleased if you did. And just ask me when there is anything you do not know or are in doubt about. It should be my epitaph. I should not like to have it done by Hesekiel, though. But you will proceed with tact and discrimination, and in this respect I must trust entirely to you. But you must not let Decker publish it, but some other publisher, or people will notice that I have had a hand in it.”

[p. 245]

I again observed that the matter was not so simple, as all the material had to be properly collected, sifted, and arranged if it were to be done as it ought to be, and that in the immediate future I should not have the necessary leisure for this purpose. Besides, when I wrote the book I would beg leave to submit the proofs to him sheet by sheet for revision and correction. He agreed, imposing one condition—that I should observe silence respecting his collaboration, “for, of course, that would be to collaborate.” I called his attention to the fact that letters with questions and envelopes with proofs would be opened in the Central Bureau downstairs. “Register them, then; writing ‘Personal’ on the cover, and in that way they will reach me unopened,” he replied. With these words he stood up and gave me his hand, said he had been glad to see me again, hoped I would visit him later when I came to Berlin, and repeated that I was right in what I said respecting my promised pension, which I should receive. He then shook hands with me once more, and I took leave, delighted with his amiability, and determined to do everything possible to please him. In the evening I gave Bucher an account of my interview, and on the following Monday I dined with him at a restaurant in Unter den Linden, when we made all the necessary arrangements for the supply of information to me. He had as little faith as myself in the mythical bookseller, but thought it quite possible that some one had tried to palm off that fiction on the Chief, and imagined that in that case it was probably Keudell who had instigated the intrigue.

A day or two later Balan came to my desk, and said: “I congratulate you, Herr Doctor. A pension of 1,200 thalers, and thanks for your services in addition. That is a great deal.” Thanking him for his congratulation,[p. 246] I replied that the amount was payable under an old contract, and that if I had not earned it up to the present I should try to do so in the future. A few hours later I received the order, signed by the Imperial Chancellor; and on my going again to the Ministry next morning to take leave of my colleagues, I found the following letter on my writing-table: “The Imperial Chancellor and Princess Bismarck request the honour of Dr. Busch’s company on Saturday, the 29th of March, at 9 P.M.” Of course I accepted the invitation. It was one of the Chief’s Parliamentary evenings, which I had never yet attended. Next day, at noon, I left Berlin, half sad, half glad. Sad, because I was leaving him in whom all my thoughts were centred, and glad because I had recovered my liberty, and should henceforth no longer pace those floors where intrigue crawls at the feet of the honest and unsuspecting, causing them, by knavish and underhand trickery, to stumble and to fall.

[p. 247]

## CHAPTER IV

HERR VON KEUDELL IN THE PRESS AND IN REALITY

The chief reason why I have not modelled the bust or, now that he is an Ambassador, the statue of Herr von Keudell, which I announced in a preceding chapter, is that I have no taste for such work. It may, however, suffice if I arrange the necessary material for this purpose in proper order. Deficiencies can mostly be supplied from the entries in my diary already, or still to be, quoted. With the exception of a few comments I refrain from expressing any opinion, and allow others to speak—first the press which entertained friendly relations with him, and then such persons as appear to me to be impartial and well informed.

In October, 1872, the German Reichscorrespondenz, the organ of the Aegidi group, published the following sapient commentary on Herr von Keudell’s mission to Stamboul: “It is well known that Herr von Keudell is one of Bismarck’s most intimate and confidential friends. He always has the entrée to that statesman’s inner circle, which he enlivens with his exceptional musical talent. When such a man (such a talented musician!) is appointed Envoy to Turkey it may be fairly concluded that at this moment we have most important interests there, which can best be safeguarded by one who has[p. 248] been allowed to obtain an insight into Prince Bismarck’s masterly plans. In a word the present political situation offers a good opportunity for preparing an energetic solution of the Eastern question. The wounds received by Russia in the Crimean war have long since healed; France has suffered such military, political and financial disaster that she cannot realise her aspirations to the possession of Egypt; and the conflicting interests of Austria and Russia in the East have been reconciled by the meeting of the three Emperors. If therefore Germany, Russia and Austria are now prepared to solve the Eastern question there can hardly be a single statesman in Europe capable of preventing them. If war be ever justifiable, surely it is when it opens up a new field for civilisation. The Turks, in their manners, customs and religious views, have remained hostile to modern civilisation, and it would therefore be an important gain for the progress of civilising influences towards the East if they were to be expelled from Europe and driven back into Asia. It would therefore almost seem as if an Eastern war were impending, and as soon as the Sick Man’s heirs had entered upon their inheritance the time might be at hand for the countries which now bristle with military preparations to disarm and enjoy an era of peace. The recent hostilities between Montenegro and the Turks were the flaming beacons, heralding an Oriental war. Russia, bearing in mind the (apocryphal) will of Peter the Great, was already endeavouring to induce the Powers with which she stood in a friendly relation to join in a collective note against the Sublime Porte. Thanks to her inborn tenacity in political affairs, she will not rest until she has attained her ends in the East, where presumably she will be found ready to divide the anticipated spoils with[p. 249] her allies. Our present envoy (this is the real gist of this shockingly written and almost idiotic lucubration) is one of Prince Bismarck’s most trusted assistants, and he must be regarded as specially suited for the task of securing our interests in the impeding division of the inheritance.”

At that time a similar opinion of the importance of the gentleman in question was expressed in most of the German newspapers, which I happened to see, those that had no opinions of their own adopting the high estimate contained in the other papers. Foreign journals also, and in particular those of Vienna and Paris, and indeed even the President of the French Republic, regarded Keudell’s mission as an event. Gambetta’s organ, the République Française, wrote: “We announced a few days ago that it was probable Herr von Keudell, Councillor of Embassy, would be nominated to the post of German Envoy at Constantinople, and we called attention at the same time to the great political significance of this appointment. A Berlin correspondent of the Vienna Fremden-Blatt confirms the importance of this news. The selection of Herr von Keudell for the post in question, and its acceptance by such a personage, is in fact regarded in Berlin as a political event. Doubts were entertained whether Herr von Keudell would accept this post, which had been frequently offered to him, but which he had always declined. The fact of his now accepting it at the urgent desire of the Imperial Chancellor, proves that he must in this instance have yielded solely to considerations of duty of the highest moment. The importance which is generally ascribed to this incident is due to the circumstance that Herr von Keudell is the statesman who has perhaps most frankly supported the policy of a good[p. 250] understanding between Germany and Austria-Hungary in all great questions, and furthermore that he considers every danger to which Turkey is exposed at the hands of Russia as being not only a danger for the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, but also for Germany, her commerce and her future. He is therefore of opinion that Austria has to keep watch on the Danube, and Germany on the Rhine and Moselle. The Fremden-Blatt correspondent adds: ‘The choice by Prince Bismarck of this particular diplomatist for Constantinople is a clear indication that he intends to pursue the same policy in the East as Austria-Hungary, and that in view of a conflict he considers an understanding with the Austrian Empire to be necessary for Germany and in harmony with her interests.’”

Arnim, in a despatch dated from Paris on the 9th of January, 1873, writes: “M. Thiers, with whom I was talking a few days ago of the importance of the Constantinople post in the days of M. de Varennes, compared to the present time, observed, ‘Maintenant c’est vous qui rendez ce poste important.’” The Ambassador had no doubt that this observation was made under the impression that German policy in the East had entered upon a more active phase, and added, “It is impossible to decide whether this impression has been gathered from certain mysterious utterances in the press (respecting Keudell’s importance and his mission) or from the reports of the French Ambassadors in St. Petersburg, Vienna, and elsewhere.”

It was little more than a month after Keudell’s departure for Constantinople before the press, doubtless inspired by Aegidi, struck up a new tune in Keudell’s honour, which was intended also to promote certain aspirations of a more practical character.

[p. 251]

On the 22nd of November, 1872, I sent the following note to Bucher at Varzin: “The Deutsche Presse of Frankfurt-on-the-Main publishes in its issue of the 20th instant the following paragraph: ‘Berlin, November 18. It is understood here that it has now been decided to recall Herr von Keudell shortly from Constantinople, in order that he should take up the position of Under Secretary of State in the Foreign Office, as Herr von Balan is believed to have been again selected for the Brussels Legation.’ To my certain knowledge, Engelmann, the editor of this paper, used to receive a subvention from us when he was in Stuttgart, and was up to a few months ago in communication with Aegidi, and visited him in Berlin.”

I replied as follows, in the Hannoverscher Courier, upon information received from Bucher: “Fresh rumours of an alleged aggravation of the Imperial Chancellor’s condition are constantly circulated in the press. I am assured on good authority that the Prince’s health is by no mean worse, but on the contrary much better than it was some months ago, although in order to complete his recovery he must still rest for some time to come, and avoid the overwork which may await him in Berlin. In the meantime, as I learn from another quarter, the long absence of the Chancellor from the Ministry in the Wilhelmstrasse, and the unfavourable reports respecting his health, which are spread not only by his enemies, but also by certain friends who, whilst affecting regret are longing for his inheritance, encourages the hopes of those who desire to see a change, which, as is doubtless well known, would not be unwelcome to a certain exalted lady. I have reason to believe that this statement also comes from a trustworthy source.” At the same time the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung[p. 252] denied the report of Balan’s impending return to Brussels, and of Keudell’s intended appointment in terms which were to make it appear that the question was still under consideration. The Deutsche Zeitung of Vienna on the 25th of November called attention to this circumstance, observing that the language used amounted to a partial confirmation of the rumour. This was probably written by Aegidi, or suggested by him to one of his journalistic hacks. A more positive statement was now issued from Varzin. On the 21st of December I received from Bucher, through the Central Bureau, the following explanation, which was not to be published in the Kölnische Zeitung; and which appeared in the Hannoverscher Courier, whence it was copied by other papers: “Herr von Keudell has experienced in his own person the truth of the proverb respecting over-zealous friends. In the Casino (in Berlin) it is well known that he regards the next stage in his career to be the Secretaryship of State in the Foreign Office, and that he has retained his residence here. It will hardly have been in accordance with his wishes, however, that a weekly newspaper should have circulated a report, afterwards widely reproduced in usually well-informed papers, that he is to be the successor of Herr von Thile, and that Vienna papers should declare the démenti of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung to be a partial confirmation of this report. In view of the trustworthy source from which that démenti is understood to have come (for your information, from the Chief), the terms in which it was drafted may be held rather to indicate a desire to contradict in the friendliest form possible, a rumour, which bore the appearance of an advertisement. Outsiders are the less called upon to busy themselves with the interests of the statesman in question, as the[p. 253] position he occupied at the Foreign Office for many years must have provided him with sufficient connections in the home and foreign press to secure the publication of anything which he himself considers useful.”

This was sufficiently plain for those who knew how to read between the lines. Nevertheless fresh indications appeared from time to time in the papers, even late in the year 1873, that Herr von Keudell had renounced none of his aspirations and endeavours in this direction.

So far the materials for an estimate of the statesman in question are furnished by his friends. Let us now hear some of the opinions held in other quarters, and in connection therewith a few facts respecting his diplomatic achievements. There are diary entries reserved for this purpose, which, however, only reach up to March, 1873. Some other particulars will be found in the subsequent chapters.

On the 25th of October, 1872, after 6 o’clock in the evening, in Hepke’s room, Bucher told me that Keudell (through his protégés in the press, whose number was legion, particularly in South German and Austrian newspapers) gave it to be understood that he was a man of great diplomatic talent, and was designated to succeed the Imperial Chancellor. I gave vent to surprise at such boundless self-esteem. “No,” replied Bucher, “it is after all not quite impossible—in the future. He has cast his lines in the Court of the Crown Prince, and no one knows what she (the Crown Princess) may not be able to do some day. When Thile resigned, he (Keudell) greatly regretted having taken the post at Constantinople. He might have become Secretary of State. Moreover, it was not family considerations that induced Thile to go. Keudell induced him to sign something he had written which offended the Chief, so that Thile was[p. 254] sharply reprimanded. Keudell was the real instigator of the incident which, it seems, tripped up the future Secretary of State. It would be well to call the Chief’s attention to such manœuvres through the press. Nothing of the kind appears in the newspapers which he usually reads, nor in the extracts laid before him. Aegidi takes care of that. You know that he has been brought here in order to direct the press in Keudell’s interest, and to prevent anything that might damage him becoming known upstairs. But there is one paper which the Chief reads carefully, and which Aegidi has not yet gathered into his net. That is the Figaro (he referred to the Berlin journal). If one were to send to that paper one or other of those articles, such as that of the République Française, for instance! It would be well to bring such things to the Chief’s notice, as I am afraid he does not yet quite understand our esteemed friend. He does, no doubt, so far as his ability is concerned, but not, I think, his ambition and capacity for intrigue; and he believes in his devotion. He has obviously given him the Constantinople post, which is not very important now, because he was no longer of any use to him here. Some years ago, when he applied for an Embassy and his request was refused, he got himself elected to Parliament, and since then he has had one leave of absence after another. His mother-in-law has also said, ‘What good is it for them to make permanent arrangements now? He will soon be an Ambassador.’ He has no political ideas, and, I fancy, not the necessary knowledge or adroitness to carry out the more brilliant ideas of others. He has now secured Radowitz to supply him with the ideas for his Oriental reports. But, in spite of that, I am afraid they will not amount to much.”

[p. 255]

On Thursday, the 21st of November, I wrote as follows in my diary: This morning Wollmann came to me and read a passage from a letter which he had received from Count von der Goltz, Attaché to the Embassy at Constantinople, to whom he had formerly given lessons. The Count informed him that his chief, Keudell, had instructed him to prepare a memorandum on Turkish finances, and in particular on the tobacco monopoly, within two months. He, Goltz, however, had not the slightest information on the subject. Could Wollmann not send him something of the kind? That doubtless means that our Ambassador at Stamboul wishes to send a report to the Chief in Berlin, probably as his own work. He then orders it from a young inexperienced attaché, who again requests a subordinate official in the office of the Imperial Chancellor to help him out of his difficulty, and to give information on the matters in question; which will then—as the production of the Ambassador—be returned to its place of origin, Wilhelmstrasse, Berlin, ten weeks after the newspapers here had already published all that was wanted on the subject.

On the 21st of December, I wrote as follows: This evening about 8 o’clock Bucher communicated to me ... the welcome news that the Chief has at length had his eyes opened to the manner in which Keudell managed the press. When Bülow, who has now taken over the administration of the secret service fund in succession to Keudell, reported to the Minister on the condition in which he found it, the latter’s “hair almost stood on end with fright.” “No detailed accounts whatever,” he continued. “Everything jotted down in the loosest way. People with whom the Chief had expressly desired to break off all relations continued to[p. 256] receive their money, five or six hundred thalers a year, indeed often more than that, or they got a lump sum, up to three thousand thalers, in settlement. The deficit which arose in this way amounts to about eighteen thousand thalers.[11] Several of these fellows are not known to any one. Aegidi was questioned, but he declares he does not know them either. They must have been Keudell’s own secret and semi-official mouthpieces, whose sole and only business was to promote his private interests by dirty press intrigues.”

On the morning of the 15th of January, Bucher showed me the Spenersche Zeitung, with Lasker’s speech on the trade done by Wagner and certain noblemen in railway concessions. In the conversation that followed Bucher observed that Keudell, like other members of our nobility, such as Prince Biron and Prince Putbus, speculated in railways, and that the direct line between —— (I could not catch the name) and Stargard was generally called the Keudell railway.

On the 7th of March Bucher again mentioned “our former esteemed friend and colleague.” Keudell, he said, wanted by hook or by crook to get away from Constantinople and take Balan’s place. That, however, now seemed to have been averted, as the Chief had said he was not a suitable man for the post, and he would also be unwelcome to the higher officials in the office. He would, however, probably be removed to Rome. Furthermore, Keudell had boasted to a landed proprietor in Neumark, where his wife has an estate, that he would one day be Minister or even Imperial Chancellor. (I am inclined to doubt this, as he is not the kind of man to talk about his plans and hopes.) Recently in a circle which included none[p. 257] of the Foreign Office officials, but a number of other officials, amongst others a Councillor of Finance, Aegidi was bragging about his patron’s prospects of obtaining the Secretaryship of State, and prophesied the creation of an Imperial Ministry in which Keudell would have a post. The Financial Councillor shook his head, however, and as Aegidi went on in the same boastful tone, told him plainly that Keudell was not fit for the position of Secretary of State, as he had no political judgment; that he was still less suitable for the Imperial Chancellorship, in which position he would within a month “drive the cart into the ditch”; and that he was about equally unsuitable for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as there he would intrigue with all his might against the Prince. “Aegidi, it seems, was astounded at hearing these views,” said Bucher, in concluding his report.

I should observe that Bucher had no reason personally to dislike Keudell. He had suffered nothing at his hands, and had nothing to apprehend from him. He simply loathed his selfishness and love of intrigue, and the impotent conceit with which he flattered himself that he might one day become Imperial Chancellor, whereas he had none of the necessary qualifications for the post.

[p. 258]

## CHAPTER V

ARNIM’S HAND—VISIT TO THE PRINCE IN BERLIN—I RECEIVE MY INSTRUCTIONS FOR A PRESS CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE EMPRESS AUGUSTA—THE “FRICTION ARTICLES” IN THE “GRENZBOTEN”—VISITS AT VARZIN, SCHOENHAUSEN AND FRIEDRICHSRUH

During the years 1873 to 1875 I edited the Hannoverscher Courier. I then returned to Leipzig, where I was chiefly engaged on the Grenzboten, which was published there. At first my connection with the Foreign Office was not very close, and I only occasionally applied to it for information, which always reached me through Bucher, as arranged. At the end of May or the beginning of June, 1873, the latter wrote me that MacMahon was causing a great deal of work, so that he had been engaged until late at night on the three holidays. A few weeks later it seemed to me that there were signs of an approaching crisis, and I accordingly begged him to let me know how I could best serve the Chief in my paper. On the 27th of June I received the following answer:—

“Honoured Friend,—I have succeeded, during the last half hour before the departure for Varzin, in smuggling your letter of the 25th into the Chief’s hands. Here is his answer:—

[p. 259]

“‘The most timely topic is the friction to which I am subjected, and which has undermined my health. We have the traditions of absolutism existing side by side with the constitutional machine, and, since 1866, in duplicate. The absolute King has the will, or at least imagines that he has, to decide everything for himself. He was formerly, and still is, however, practically restricted by the lack of indispensable knowledge, and the consequent independence of the departments which sometimes takes the shape of passive resistance (to the Chancellor). The State and Imperial Diets also want to determine what is to be done. And then there are Court influences. The members of the Reichstag are utterly exhausted, and yet they call upon the Ministers, who are no less exhausted than themselves, to immediately set about preparing Bills for the next Session. In the last resort, all the friction arising from this complicated machinery falls upon the main wheel, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor.’

“So far the Chief. I venture to add a few ideas which I imagine will be in accordance with his views. In order to avoid irritating the King, it would be wise to speak of the ‘absolute monarchy,’ and to add a few words in recognition of his former services, suggesting that the old gentleman, who from the traditions of his whole life and from his military training is thoroughly devoted to his duty and very strict in the transaction of business, will not give his approval until he has thoroughly mastered the subject under consideration. As to Parliament you might say that it contains no stable majority upon which a Government could rely or which could furnish a Ministry. The reasons are: the immaturity of our Parliamentary life; the after effects of a merely theoretical knowledge of politics; conflicting[p. 260] elements produced by the course of events—the Guelphs, Particularism, Ultramontanism; the influence of the University Students’ Associations; consequently a crumbling into fractions—a Holy Roman Empire split up into three hundred territories. Perhaps a reference to England. There are some points in my pamphlet on Parliamentarism which deal with Ireland. Conclusion, perhaps: That we have to make up in a few years the leeway lost by our forefathers during centuries.

“If you like, I will look through the manuscript. Please in that case to send it to the Wilhelmstrasse.

“With friendly greetings,

“Bucher.”

“P.S.—I have thought of another conclusion, and would suggest the following: What is to be done? The public calls for Imperial Ministers. They will doubtless come in time, but it is very questionable whether, cæteris paribus, the friction will be less when the Chairman and the Directors of the Imperial Chancellerie are more independent of each other. Two or three people are under the impression that everything would go on better if they were to succeed the Prince. It is true that nobody believes it except themselves. Therefore, long live the Chief! The Pretenders are Keudell and Arnim. The first bides his time; the second is engaged in active intrigues.”

In 1874, when the differences broke out between the Prince and Arnim, I immediately applied to Bucher, and asked for directions as to the way in which I could make myself most useful. I received an answer without delay, and during the month of May various communications reached me. On the 3rd of May, for instance, I received the following sketch of an article for the Courier:—

[p. 261]

“The opposition of Count Arnim, whom many newspapers puff by heading their articles, ‘Arnim and Bismarck,’ recalls the condition of things which prevailed under Frederick William III. and Frederick William IV., and which was believed to have entirely passed away to the great benefit of the country. Although it is a popular error to think that the title of Minister Plenipotentiary, which is borne by our Ambassadors, puts them on an equality with the Minister of State, yet, as a matter of fact, Prussian diplomatists have in the past not infrequently behaved as if they were the colleagues of their Chief, and carried on discussions with him such as take place between two Councillors of a Government or members of the bench of Judges. Prussian diplomacy was noted for its lack of discipline. Cases are known in which an envoy returned to Berlin without asking leave, in order to advocate his own views at Court, and to secure support for them in the newspapers. It was not his love of power which led the Imperial Chancellor to set aside a number of Excellencies of that old school, but rather the recognition that such a method of doing business might have suited a time when Prussia was a fifth wheel to the coach of European politics, but was entirely incompatible with the execution of the programme which Herr von Bismarck brought with him in 1862, and has already carried out in a way that will immortalise him long after the names of the malcontent Excellencies may have ceased to figure even in an encyclopædia. It is said that Herr von Blankenburg, a military writer, descended from a Pomeranian family with which Count Arnim is related on the mother’s side, makes insinuations in the Schlesische Zeitung against Bismarck’s character as a colleague. Our representatives abroad are not the[p. 262] colleagues of the Minister, but rather his agents. In their reports they have sufficient opportunity for expressing their views, but when a decision has been arrived at they have to carry out their instructions in a willing spirit. In a Cabinet (Collegium) any differences can be easily settled without damage to the interests of the country by putting the question to the vote. But when a difference arises between a Minister in authority and a subordinate who does not follow the instructions of his departmental chief it is difficult to find any other solution in a well-ordered State than the retirement of one or other of them from the service. This may possibly now be the case, and in the interests of the service it may be regretted that it did not occur before.”

Shortly afterwards followed a translation of the final passage of an article in the Hour, which it may be taken for granted was either written by Bucher or at least inspired by him. It ran:—

“The fact that the Imperial Chancellor has so long tolerated such a censorious and contumacious attitude on the part of a subordinate shows with what serious internal difficulties this statesman has had to contend during his whole career, difficulties which in their full extent will never become known to the public. These were the consequences of a transition from an absolute to a constitutional system of government. Even after the Constitution had been proclaimed under Frederick William IV. many diplomatists continued to follow the traditions of the former absolute régime, opposing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and endeavouring to obtain the approval of the King for their own policy. Such a condition of affairs, which brought Prussian diplomacy into disrepute, so far as its discipline and success were[p. 263] concerned, could not possibly be tolerated by a Minister who entered office with such far-reaching plans as those of Prince Bismarck. Behaviour of this description is also little calculated to succeed with a man of such a straightforward and resolute character as the Emperor William. The efforts made by Count Goltz, and others whom we will not here specify, as they are still living, to play the part of Ministers, met with no success. There is every reason to hope that Count Arnim’s endeavours will be equally unsuccessful, even if they be favoured by certain influences at Court, as thus only can the Minister’s policy overcome the machinations of ambitious and self-seeking intriguers. It is in the interest not only of Germany, but of all Europe, that this consummation should be achieved, and we have good reason to hope that it will be.”

On the 29th of May I received from Bucher the following short letter of the previous day’s date:—

“Honoured Friend,—A little piece of news that will give you pleasure. I said to the Chief to-day, ‘Busch has reported himself, and wishes to join in the fray. I have gladly taken advantage of this offer, and here are two extracts from his newspaper.’ Answer: ‘Ah, our little Saxon! Leave the extracts here.’

“When I find any more material I will send it to you, of course, salva redactione.

“I am not going to Varzin this time, and with such abominable weather as we are having now, I am not at all sorry. Besides, it will do no harm if some of the young bloods who have an ambition to go there, try it for once.

“Yours ever.”

[p. 264]

A few months later I received the following from Bucher: “Harry (Count Arnim) has taken away with him from Paris a number of Foreign Office despatches, and asserts that they are private letters. In the spring the Berlin semi-official journals hinted that he had become a rich man.”

On the 28th of August Bucher wrote me from Varzin: “The Chief has received diplomas of honorary membership from two Italian lodges, and instructed me to ascertain from some trustworthy person acquainted with the subject what sort of connection he would enter into by a tacit acceptance (he will not send an answer), and what future obligations he might be considered to have assumed. I mentioned you, and received his permission to ask you. Please, therefore, to inform us. The Chief is better than he has been for ten years.”

I gave the desired information, and on the 16th of September received the following answer:—

“The Chief desires me to thank you for your prompt reply, which has induced him to pigeon-hole the hocus-pocus” (from Livorno and some little place the name of which I have forgotten). “The news about my eyes was something more than mere newspaper gossip. It was part of the press campaign which Delponte (Delbrück), the statesman with the youthful knee-breeches, organised and set in motion in the spring. In 1873 I underwent treatment for the purpose of relieving the pressure of blood to the eyes. There is nothing the matter with me now, thank goodness! but last year’s cure is worked up again, as they would like to get rid of me. I do not hold with the Manchester principles that have made England so wonderfully prosperous. I do not sniff the Court atmosphere, have no aspirations, and will not join the Camorra of Ministers and Privy[p. 265] Councillors who are constantly engaged in conspiracy against the Chief, but am on the contrary content to serve him. But it is exactly because I have no aspirations that I can say, ‘Je m’en fiche.’ Auf Wiedersehen in Berlin in October.

“With best greetings, &c.”

The visit here referred to was postponed till the 3rd of November, when I called upon Bucher at his lodgings, No. 39 Lutzowstrasse. I made the following notes at the time of what I considered the interesting parts of our conversation. (...) Bucher further remarked ... that the Imperial Chancellor now appears to have also seen through Delbrück. He now takes into his own hands much that was formerly left to him. In the same way the Chief has for some time past taken Keudell’s measure. In his departmental connection with press affairs, Keudell had left a deficit not of 18,000 thalers as he had formerly told me, but of 80,000,[12] through the payment of remuneration and pensions to writers of all sorts, in some cases without the knowledge, and in one instance (Bucher mentioned an Englishman named ——, as the person in question), against the express instructions of the Prince. This deficit is now being made good by the suspension of similar subsidies for a period of two years. He was not much of a success in Rome either. He had together with Lonyay, the Austro-Hungarian envoy in Rome, started the project of a visit to be paid by the Emperor William to the Italian Court, by announcing that Francis Joseph intended to visit Victor Emmanuel. Bucher added: “Both gentlemen hoped in this way to obtain the rank of Ambassador.[p. 266] But when inquiries were made into the matter in Vienna it was ascertained that Francis Joseph did not dream of such a thing, and so the plan was dropped in Berlin.” I also now obtained a further explanation of Thile’s retirement. This was due to an intrigue of Keudell’s. According to Bucher the facts were as follows. On the occasion of the meeting of the three Emperors in 1872, Gortschakoff and Andrassy gave Keudell to understand that they would like to receive the Order of the Black Eagle. The Chief however was opposed to this, partly on the ground that he did not wish to diminish the value of this high Order by conferring it too frequently, and partly because he wanted to save it up as a reward for future services on the part of those statesmen. Notwithstanding this Keudell used his influence in favour of its immediate bestowal; and when the Emperor had issued the patent or decree to that effect he induced Thile to countersign it. When Keudell afterwards reported this to the Chief, the latter fell into a fearful rage and indulged in violent language against the unsuspecting Secretary of State. Keudell then let Thile know what had been said, with the remark that it was quite impossible for him to repeat some of the worst expressions. Thile thereupon immediately tendered his resignation to the Emperor. Bucher added: “When it was now suggested that Thile should be summoned as an expert in the Arnim trial, I pointed out that he bore the Prince a grudge.” The Chief replied: “He has no reason to be angry with me, although he may well be with Keudell. In spite of this and other instances, however, Keudell will still be maintained by the ladies.”

On my removal from Hanover to Leipzig in October, 1875, the correspondence between Bucher and myself gradually increased in frequency. In reply to a request[p. 267] of mine for particulars respecting the Prince’s family, which I required for an article that the editors of the Illustrirte Zeitung wished me to supply, Bucher wrote as follows from Varzin on the 31st of October:—

“It is very possible that your pen can do welcome service. Further particulars when you are in Berlin. Even now it would be very useful and agreeable to Gamaliel (this was the name under which, as a measure of precaution, we referred in our correspondence to the Chief, at whose feet we had studied politics), if you were to show up the manœuvre of representing Camphausen as the leader and the chief sinner, and Delbrück as following or being influenced by him, while the contrary is, and must be, the case, in view of the character of the two men. D. is cunning, C. blunt. Delbrück allows his bosom friend to be sacrificed as a scapegoat, in order to propitiate the raging waters.” And in a letter of the 7th of November also dated from Varzin, Bucher suggested the following: “A newspaper chorus is trying to make Herr Camphausen responsible for the financial policy of the German Empire. We fancy, however, that Herr Delbrück is both Minister of Finance and Minister of Commerce for the German Empire, and that in these departments he has been given a free hand by the Imperial Chancellor. He too has invariably had all the laurels so long as there were any to be plucked. Herr Camphausen has enough to bear in his responsibility for the financial policy of Prussia.”

Shortly after I had fulfilled these instructions, the publication of Arnim’s pamphlet, “Pro Nihilo,” afforded an opportunity for unmasking its author in the Grenzboten.

My relations with the Prince assumed a still more[p. 268] satisfactory form in 1877. Keil of the Gartenlaube wished to publish a large portrait of the Chancellor, and I was to supply the text. I therefore applied direct to the Prince in a letter, in the course of which I said: “It is not to be a biography, but only one side of your Serene Highness’s life and character, treated in a bright sketchy style. I have asked for time to consider the proposal, and was at first indisposed to undertake the work. But then the following considerations occurred to me. The Gartenlaube has at present 300,000 subscribers, and therefore at least a million and a half of readers; and if your Serene Highness should have any idea which you might think it desirable to launch into the world, or anything in the past which you might wish to recall to memory, this periodical would serve as a capital hoarding for purposes of advertisement, particularly as it is not a daily paper, but remains for permanent reference. And then there was another point which seemed to me worthy of consideration, namely, that if I declined the proposal, Herr Keil would probably instruct some one else to prepare the article who might be less devoted to your Serene Highness. Finally, to meet the wishes of the publisher of the Gartenlaube in this respect would confirm the good sentiments which he now entertains, and enable me to gain influence with him for future contingencies.

“If these considerations meet with your Serene Highness’s approval, I may, perhaps, hope that you will have a hint conveyed to me as to the treatment of the subject, and at the same time assist me with some materials for my work.

“I did not wish to apply to your Serene Highness before, as I took it for granted that it would be only in Varzin, if anywhere, that you would have leisure to[p. 269] give any serious attention to such matters. If your Serene Highness has no purpose in view which might be promoted by such an undertaking, I shall let it drop, as my only desire in the matter is to meet your wishes, and advance your interests.”

I then went on to say that Keil would probably be prepared to accept a series of sketches of the houses and estates occupied by the Prince in the course of the year, and one might combine various political matters with the descriptive part.

Nothing came of the article to accompany the portrait. On the other hand, the series last mentioned was carried out, although in a different form to that which was at first intended. In the meantime, however, I had something more important to occupy me.

On the 4th of April Bucher wrote: “Your request was received in a very friendly way by the Chief, who will give the necessary instructions and see you when you are here. He is going. It is not a question of leave of absence, but a peremptory demand to be allowed to retire. The reason: Augusta, who influences her ageing consort, and conspires with Victoria (the Crown Princess), works up the priests through the Radziwills and others, travels incognito from Baden-Baden to Switzerland in order to have tête-à-têtes with Mermillod and other rabid Ultramontanes—an incident which is discussed in every tap-room in Switzerland, and which we know from other sources to be a fact. The successor who seems to have the best prospect, because Augusta desires his appointment, is Schleinitz, the Minister of the Household. You can make use of this, but with that prudence which is imposed by the Press Laws.”

Of course I wrote to Bucher by return of post, that in these circumstances I held myself at the Prince’s[p. 270] disposal to do everything and anything which lay in my power, and that I would proceed to Berlin within the next few days. At the same time I wrote the first of the so-called “Friction Articles” of the Grenzboten. Advance copies were sent to the principal Berlin papers, and were reproduced by them. They caused a general sensation, and excited much discussion and comment, favourable and otherwise, even in the foreign press. This first article ran:—

“The Resignation of the Imperial Chancellor.

“Berlin, April 7th.

“The following sets forth the present position of affairs in the Wilhelmstrasse. It is not possible to say whether it will be the same when your next issue leaves the press a week hence, as it lies solely with the highest authority in the land to modify it.

“The only point that is quite certain is that it is not a question of a longer or shorter leave of absence of our Imperial Chancellor, but rather of his actual retirement from the chief control both of Imperial and Prussian affairs, of a resignation of all his offices which has long been under consideration by the Prince, and has finally been tendered in unmistakable terms. All other accounts of the affair are mere myths and baseless conjectures. The Imperial Chancellor leaves, not, as people say, for a longer holiday than usual, not for a year, but for ever. The only hope, therefore, is that the cause of this decision may yet be removed.

“That cause is not the Prince’s condition of health, which might certainly be better than it is, but cannot at least be regarded as worse than it has generally been during recent years. Furthermore, it was not in consequence of the Stosch affair that he tendered his resignation,[p. 271] though it can hardly have been a matter of particular satisfaction to him. Finally—and this ought to be understood as a matter of course—Prince Bismarck does not surrender the helm in order to retire from politics and to devote himself to the occupations and pleasures of a country life, although he thoroughly appreciates them, and has during recent years sought to enjoy them as frequently as State affairs permitted. A man of his character and his past knows that he cannot follow his own inclinations, but belongs to his country and his people as long as he has the strength and the untrammelled opportunity to serve them.

“These last words give a clue to the true and only cause which induced the Chancellor to ask for his release from office. It consists in the ‘friction’—emphasised by him on several occasions, both in public and in private—which has arisen out of the efforts of certain Court circles to use their influence in supporting the Ultramontanes and others, to the grave embarrassment of the Chancellor’s policy and action. This friction, exhausting as it is, could and would have been borne, were it not that it threatens from year to year to become a greater hindrance, and that it has already on several occasions prevented the Chancellor from using, as he considers essential, the authority vested in him for the welfare of the country, and in particular for the necessary measures of defence against the pretensions and intrigues of Rome. If the Prince retires, it is the Ultramontanes who will triumph most. Their success will be for us a national misfortune. I shall certainly be in agreement with all true and enlightened patriots in describing as I have the resignation of the statesman who has called New Germany into existence, and who alone appears fitted to complete the edifice he has[p. 272] founded. It will also be due in the main to the influence of a certain exalted lady and of certain circles with which she has so willingly allied herself for years past.

“The Press Law stays my pen. Perhaps you would at some future time accept an article on Petticoat Politics, a subject which, I am sorry to say, is no laughing matter, but deals, on the contrary, with influences more or less successfully active in every Court. Before 1870 people spoke of certain Rhenish influences; during the war there were rumours of communications with a French Monsignor; and meetings with a Prince of the Roman Church, who is one of the leaders of the Ultramontanes in West Switzerland, are discussed by people who must have received their information on the subject from sources other than Swiss tap-rooms. Finally, every one knows the influence exercised, even in the highest circles in the capital, by a distinguished Polish family in Berlin, whose palace is the rallying point for all the aspirations of the Church Militant.

“But enough for the present. Perhaps even too much. God grant that there may be an improvement! Prince Bismarck goes, if, during this week, things do not take a turn for the better,—a change that does not lie in his hands, and which is hardly to be expected. Prince Bismarck retires to Varzin because he cannot prevent, and does not wish to witness, the preparations that are being slowly made for a pilgrimage to Canossa. What has public opinion, what have the parliamentary representatives of the nation, to say on this subject?”

On Wednesday, the 11th April, I left Leipzig for Berlin by the first train in the morning. I put up at Toepfer’s Hotel in the Karl Strasse, and proceeded to Bucher’s at 9.30 A.M. At the corner of Dorotheen[p. 273] Strasse, while on my way thither, some one tapped me on the shoulder. Turning round I saw it was Wollmann, who was greatly surprised at meeting me there.... I ascertained from him that the crisis on the first floor of No. 76 Wilhelmstrasse was at an end, and that the Chief would remain and only take a long holiday.

We then took a glance in passing at the now-completed Column of Victory, whereupon I took leave of Wollmann, saying that I had to visit a friend, and went on to Bucher’s. He was as usual friendly and communicative. His view of the situation differed from that of Wollmann, however. According to him the crisis was only postponed. The Prince had for the present yielded to the desire of the Emperor that he should continue to hold the offices of Chancellor and Minister, and had only requested leave of absence for an indefinite period. He had been quite serious in wishing to resign all his offices, and it was doubtful whether he would return. Count Stolberg had been selected by him as his successor, as he is a distinguished and independent man, who enjoys a certain authority at Court. Bülow, the Mecklenburger, and Hoffmann have been selected as the representatives of the Chief during his absence.

Bucher further related that the condition of affairs at the Baden Court was also “rotten.” The Grand Duke, well-meaning, but of somewhat limited intelligence, had, during his Italian journey, “fallen under the influence of some of the shrewdest of the Cardinals, and had allowed himself almost to be persuaded into perpetrating a huge blunder by visiting Pio Nono.” The Grand Duchess held with the priests in Alsace, and with orthodox place-hunters like Geffcken and Max Müller, and was disposed to conclude peace with the Ultramontanes. This was one of the causes of Jolly’s retirement. Bucher[p. 274] went on to say: “The Grand Duchess has also written a letter to papa (the Emperor William), in which she begged that the alleged oppression of the Catholics in Alsace should be stopped. This suggestion was, however, declined.”

He confirmed what he had said in this letter respecting the Empress, and added: “In the spring of 1871 our troops should have returned much sooner, but Augusta wished to be present at their entry and yet to complete her course of baths before she came back. So there was a postponement of four or five weeks, which cost the Treasury nine millions in hard cash. The losses suffered by agriculture in consequence of this delay are incalculable. The promotion of Gruner as Wirklicher Geheimrath (‘Real’ Privy Councillor), which was given by the old Emperor in a note written in his own hand, without counter-signature, was also her work. Gruner is quite incapable, but is a member of the Bonbonnière Fronde.[13] It is just the same with Schleinitz, who is also quite devoid of talent and smartness, and of whom she was thinking as successor to the Chief.”

According to Bucher, the Prince’s health was again anything but satisfactory. When Bucher told the Chief that if he retired he himself would not remain, the Prince replied that that was a matter he should first consider well, but if he nevertheless decided to resign he should come to him at Varzin. With regard to my visit to the Chief, he feared nothing would come of it at present, as to-day was his wife’s birthday, and he would perhaps leave to-morrow evening. At the same time he wanted to report my arrival, even if he were not summoned to the Chief.

[p. 275]

I returned to my hotel at 3 o’clock. Leverstroem and his black horse were standing at the door. He handed me a card from Bucher, with the words: “The Prince expects you at 4 o’clock.” I hastily donned evening dress and white gloves, and, jumping into a cab, drove to 76 Wilhelmstrasse. Then upstairs and through the old familiar rooms. I had to wait about five minutes in the billiard-room, where the billiard table was quite covered with huge bouquets of flowers. Then into his chamber. He came forward a few paces to meet me with a most friendly smile, shook hands, and said he was glad to see his “old war comrade” once more. I had then to take a seat opposite him, while he sat with his back to the first window. Our conversation lasted till 5.30, that is to say, nearly an hour and a half.

He first thanked me for the Grenzboten article, and then said: “It would be well, however, if such communications were repeated, and the origin of the crisis discussed at length.”

I replied: “That is my chief reason for coming here—to get materials and information for such articles. The more I get the better. The Grenzboten is absolutely and unconditionally at the disposal of your Serene Highness.”

He then gave me various particulars concerning the Court clique and its aristocratic followers in the Kreuzzeitung, and among the high officials who had been shelved as well as others who were still in office, and their manifold machinations, intrigues and cabals against him, at the same time giving me an account of his own measures. He drew a detailed picture of the Empress, who opposed him not only in his struggle with the Clericals, but also in purely political questions. “She has always desired to play a part,” he said, “first[p. 276] with the Liberals and the friends of enlightenment, now with the Ultramontanes and the orthodox Court preachers. She has become pious now that she is growing old, and has in consequence taken up with the Clerical circles on the Rhine. If she is not already a Catholic, she will be so very soon. We know that she has negotiated with Mermillod in person, and formerly—during the war—with Dupanloup by letter. She has written to Catholic associations that she disapproves of the ecclesiastical laws, and these letters have been published. And then the defence of the Ursulines. Like Eugen, i.e., in 1870, she has, as I subsequently ascertained, issued direct instructions to officials. The Emperor is old, and allows himself to be influenced by her more and more. He has never had that strength of character with which many people credit him. I remember in the period of conflict when things were at the worst that he returned once from a summer resort, where his wife had been frightening him about the Opposition. I went to meet him at Jueterbogk, joining him there in his carriage. He was very depressed, was thinking of the scaffold, and wanted to abdicate. I told him I did not believe things were so bad. Prussians were not Frenchmen, and instead of thinking of Louis XVI. he should remember Charles I., who died for his honour and his rights. If he were to be beheaded, he would also die for his honour and his rights. So far as I was concerned I too would willingly suffer death in case it were necessary. There I had caught him by the sword-knot and appealed to him as to a King and an officer. He became more cheerful, and by the time we reached Berlin he was again quite reasonable. In the evening he joined a large company, and was in excellent spirits. This time when I asked to resign he did not wish me to do so[p. 277] But in acting in this way he only pities himself—what should he do then?—and has no pity for me. I have yielded—for the present—but before I come back I will put my conditions.”

I said: “And they must agree to them. They cannot get on without you. That would only lead to follies and blunders and misfortunes, and they would have to crawl to you on their knees to beg you to return.”

He then came back to the subject of the Empress, and said: “She also interferes in foreign politics, having taken it into her head that it is her vocation to plead everywhere in favour of peace—to be an Angel of Peace. She therefore writes letters to foreign Sovereigns, to the Queen of England for instance, which she afterwards mentions to her consort, who, however, says nothing about them to me. Part of this correspondence is carried on through one of the minor officials of the household. Schleinitz, the Minister of the Household, after having proved his utter incapacity in foreign affairs, has obtained his present post through her Majesty’s favour. But there, also, his success leaves much to be desired. As he knows nothing of the administration of property he only manages to secure very insignificant revenues from the Royal estates. But as he has always been a member of the Court opposition, of the Bonbonnière, he is in high favour with Augusta. In 1866 his salon was the gathering place of the Austrians, and in 1870 the French were constantly at his house, and made it their rendezvous. Whenever an intrigue against me was on foot he was certain to be in it. Gruner is another member of the clique, a man who is not only incapable but passionate. She obtained his promotion on the Emperor’s birthday by a mere written note without the counter-signature of a Minister as a[p. 278] reward for his hostility to me. Then we have Stillfried, Count Goltz and Nesselrode, who all belong to the Bonbonnière, and intrigue with Augusta against me and my policy, and seek to turn our Most Gracious against me. Goltz, a general of cavalry, is a brother of the former Prussian Minister in Paris, whose legacy of hatred he has entered upon without any beneficium inventarii. Nesselrode, the Master of the Household, is a well-known Ultramontane, whose relations with Gehlsen’s Reichsglocke came to light on the prosecution of the latter, and who had a seat and a vote at the editorial conferences held at Olbrich’s.[14] Immediately after that miserable scandal he received one of the highest Orders, thus confirming the fact that that disreputable sheet was favoured by the palace. Stillfried, the great authority on heraldic and ceremonial matters, also a Catholic, was at first moderate, but later—probably in consequence of the Empress’s lectures—went over to the fanatics. And finally, you should not forget the two Radziwills, the former secretary to Ledochowski, and the chaplain. Both belong to the Centre party, and both are welcome guests at the Bonbonnière. The newspaper in which they now deposit their poison—I mean the Evangelical section of the clique—is the Kreuzzeitung. Nathusius, the editor, who for a long time past has tried to turn his readers against the Government and the Emperor, has at length been condemned for libel against Ministers.[15] He has been pardoned by his Majesty on the intervention of the offended parties—certainly in consequence of the Empress’s intercession. You can say[p. 279] that in view of these facts it may be taken for granted that I actually made the statement attributed to me, namely, that my greatest difficulties have arisen from having to undertake a diplomatic mission to our own Court. And you may add that Prince Charles is not well disposed towards me, and exercises an unfavourable influence upon his brother. When you speak of the Evangelical section of the Bonbonnière you may use the expression: ‘The dregs of the Kreuzzeitung faction and of the irreconcilable Opposition in the Upper House.’” We went on to discuss his opponents, and in particular the Privy Councillors and diplomatists who had been retired. In the course of conversation he dealt fully with Arnim, his opinion of him being very similar to that expressed by Bucher.

At this moment his wife entered the room, and handed him some medicine in a cup which she held in her hand. He introduced me as a “fellow campaigner at Versailles.”

When she had gone he continued his explanation: “Then in addition to the Court there are other causes, of friction that hamper and worry me. The Ministers will not modify their views in harmony with my plans—in matters affecting customs and taxation, and in the railway question—particularly Camphausen and Delbrück. They will not take up my ideas, but twist and turn and procrastinate. I must, forsooth, draw up Bills for them and the Reichstag to criticise. Let them do it; in the first place it is their business, and they have the necessary technical knowledge, so they should show what they are capable of. There is in this respect a great deal to be altered, which has been postponed up to now, as other matters took precedence.”

Finally he mentioned the Reichstag as a source of[p. 280] friction. The National Liberals, he said, meant well, and in this connection he mentioned Wehrenpfenig, but they could never forego criticism.

I said everything he had told me would be carefully stored in my retentive memory, and gradually made public in an explicit, vigorous and prudent way. I then put forward my plan for a sketch of his houses and estates for the Gartenlaube, begging permission to inspect Varzin, Schoenhausen and Friedrichsruh, and requesting introductions to the Prince’s officials at those places. He consented to everything, and said, “You must come to Varzin when I am there myself. I will there give you letters for Schoenhausen, and Friedrichsruh, and also for Kniephof, to my cousin who now owns the place, as you should see it too.”

I remarked that he looked in better health than I had expected. “Yes,” he replied, “others think so, too. People misjudge me in three respects: they consider me healthier, wealthier, and more powerful than I really am,—particularly more powerful; but you know how much truth, or rather how little truth, there is in that.” He seemed to have exhausted all the necessary topics, so I rose to take leave, when he accompanied me through the two salons to the room occupied by the attendants, who must have been surprised at seeing this. At least that was the effect made upon good old Theiss, who was on duty there, and who whispered as he helped me on with my overcoat: “Good Heavens, Doctor, an hour and a half with his Serene Highness, who then sees you as far as the door of the antechamber!”

Next morning I paid a visit to the Central Bureau, where my acquaintances were exceptionally friendly—of course I again enjoyed the Prince’s favour. Holstein[p. 281] begged me to come to him, and had a long conversation with me. He said I had been quite different to Aegidi; every one had read about me; and yet I had never pushed myself forward. Little influence was exercised over the press now. In the long run, however, that would not do, and it had already occurred to him whether I might not return. But Bucher was of opinion that I should not be willing to do so. I replied that, as a matter of fact, I did not wish to; but if the Prince desired it I would regard that as a command. Finally, he was good enough to give me a “partout” card of admission to the Reichstag. I went there, heard Hänel and Bennigsen speak on the crisis, and then strolled off to Ritter Schulze’s, where I took lunch. On returning to my hotel the porter handed me a note from the Prince, inviting me to dine with him at 6 P.M. Went there in a frock coat, as requested in the note but wearing a smart white tie and white gloves, while etiquette prescribed a black tie and coloured gloves with a frock coat. I was soon to be reminded of this breach of propriety.

The table was laid in the first of the two back rooms. When I entered only the Princess, Countess Marie, Count Bill, and a lady with a Polish name were present. The Russian General Erkert came afterwards. The Princess, noticing my white necktie, exclaimed, “Herr Doctor, how smart you have made yourself!” I do not remember what I said in reply, as I suddenly became conscious of my sin and felt somewhat out of countenance. Luckily the Prince soon appeared, and we went to table, the general taking in the lady of the house, while I had the honour to give my arm to the daughter. A beautiful silver vase set with old and new silver coins stood in the centre of the round table. I sat between[p. 282] the Princess and the Countess, the Russian being on the other side of the Princess, while the Prince sat opposite me. Then came the dainty little Polish lady and Count Bill, next his sister. We drank Bordeaux, Burgundy, Rhine wine, champagne, beer, and finally chartreuse, which the Prince praised as being very wholesome. The conversation was lively and unconstrained. The general related some pretty stories of the simplicity of the Russian soldiers. The subject of the last war then came up, and I reminded the Chancellor of Herny, where he was quartered in the garret of a farmhouse; of Clermont, where in the absence of a bedstead he was obliged to sleep on the floor; of Madame Jesse’s house, the goblin clock and the historical table. He related a number of anecdotes on the same subject, among other things his interview with madame, and the way in which Hatzfeldt had “rescued” the table, replacing it by one exactly similar.

The Prince then turned the conversation upon Kings and Princes, and the way in which they regarded the world.

“They live above the clouds,” I said.

“How do you mean?” he asked.

“Above the cloud of courtiers and other menials,” I replied, “separated by them from the ideas and feelings of other mortals, whose wishes and opinions only reach them in a mutilated or adapted form, and sometimes not at all.”

“The comparison is a good one,” said the Prince. “Gods, and yet very human. They ought to be better educated, so that they should know how things look here below, how they really are. Not appearances, but truth. The great Kings have always clung to truth, and yet have suffered no loss of dignity.”

Education in general was then discussed, and the[p. 283] Prince observed, inter alia: “I was not properly educated. My mother was fond of society, and did not trouble much about me. Afterwards I was sent to an educational establishment, where too severe a system prevailed, insufficient and poor food, plenty of hardening, thin jackets in the winter, too much compulsion and routine, and unnatural training.” I said that too much severity in schools was not good, as after the restraint was removed young people were apt to abuse their liberty, and even while the restraint lasted nature sought relief in underhand ways. The Saxon Fuerstenschulen were an example of this, their pupils turning out the wildest of all University students. He replied that was so; it had been the case with him too, when he went to the University at the age of seventeen. “It was different,” he continued, “with my sons. They, on the contrary, have had too good a time. They were too well fed, as is customary in the houses of diplomatists, Herbert also afterwards, as he spent his apprenticeship in such houses.” Herbert had, in the meantime, joined the party, when his father introduced me to him; he remembered very well having met me at Pont-à-Mousson and Versailles.

Between 8 and 9 o’clock the Princess, the Countess and Count Herbert retired, returning after a while, the ladies in evening toilette and the Count in a dragoon uniform, as they were going to a Court soirée. The Polish lady disappeared with them. At the desire of the Prince the rest of us remained and continued the conversation, smoking the while, the Chancellor using a long pipe, while another waited ready filled alongside his chair.

At 10 o’clock the general rose, and I followed his example. When we had reached the door, however, the Chief said: “Please wait for a minute, doctor, there is[p. 284] something more I would like to tell you.” He then added a few particulars to what he had said on the previous afternoon respecting the Empress and her Bonbonnière. I asked, “How has Thile acted in this affair? I have always considered him a decent sort of man.” He replied: “That is not quite the case. He did not behave very well in the Diest-Daber matter;” which he then proceeded to explain. I again promised to make diligent use of what he had communicated to me on the previous day. It would be necessary to keep on constantly repeating it, and not to let it drop too soon—it should have young ones, as he had said formerly to me respecting one of my articles. “I shall be very grateful to you for doing so,” he added. I then thanked him once more for his confidence, and said I would let myself be cut to pieces for his sake, as for me he was like one of God’s prophets upon earth. He pressed my hand, and dismissed me with the words, “Auf Wiedersehen in Varzin!” Blessings on his head!

Immediately on my return to Leipzig I wrote the second “friction article,” based on the information I had received in Berlin.

“The Imperial Chancellor on Leave.

“Berlin, April 19th.

“The Imperial Chancellor has taken leave of absence. His resignation has not been accepted, and he has not insisted upon it. The crisis is, therefore, at an end. The Prince will return, although probably somewhat later than usual. Restored by his course of baths, country air, and release from current affairs, he will again take the helm, and all will be as it was before. Let us be thankful that it is so!

“The foregoing is roughly the view of the situation which finds expression in the press. Permit me to submit[p. 285] another view. The crisis is not at an end, but only postponed. The question whether Prince Bismarck is to retire from the service of Prussia and the Empire has, to the relief of all who wished well to both, been answered in the negative, but that answer is only for the time being. Those who are acquainted with the situation still regard the future with anxiety. It is by no means certain that the Imperial Chancellor will return in that capacity, and if he does it may be taken as certain that things will not remain as they were before. In other words, the Prince will lay down his conditions before he resumes his official duties, with their aims and burdens, and these conditions must be agreed to if we are to see him again at work as of old.

“Public opinion can render some assistance here. It will do well not to rest content with the present situation, but, on the contrary, to show a clearer perception than it has hitherto done of the grave causes which have mainly produced this lingering and protracted crisis; and to give it unremitting and persistent expression in the press, at the same time urging the removal of those strangely abnormal conditions under which even a Bismarck cannot work effectively; much less any such successor as has been suggested within the past few weeks, however distinguished, independent and tactful he may be. The press may do good service if it will pay attention to the following hints, and give them the widest possible publicity.

“Erroneous views are held of the Chancellor’s position in many respects. Just as he is considered from his appearance to be more healthy, and from his extensive estates to be more wealthy than he is in reality, so there is a widespread misconception as to the influence which he exercises, inasmuch as it is usually thought to be[p. 286] unlimited. That is not at all the case. The Prince has to reckon with the Ministers, over whom he has not the authority which he ought to enjoy as their Chief, and whose opposition has already on several occasions hampered his schemes. It has also happened that high officials in his own department have entertained entirely conflicting views, and have both openly and secretly opposed him, and indeed even tried to undermine his authority. Count Arnim, who, after having shunned his earthly judge, seems to have suddenly fallen under the judgment of God (he was already suffering severely from diabetes, of which he died in 1881), was the worst of this melancholy species of diplomatists, but was by no means the only specimen of his class. A whole series of Excellencies and others who had been shelved owing to incapacity or some other failing, or for reactionary or ultramontane leanings, &c., made opposition, conspired and intrigued, always zealously, often with the foulest weapons, and sometimes in combination with the lowest associates, against the greatness which overshadowed them. They attempted to cross the Chancellor’s plans and to blacken his character, or, at least, to irritate him, and thus to injure his health. A section of the party in the Reichstag upon which the Prince relies to support his measures, made difficulties and curtailed his influence inasmuch as—certainly with the best intentions—they regarded criticism as the pride and first duty of a popular representative. But the main obstacle is that which I pointed out a fortnight ago, and it will perhaps remain the Prince’s chief difficulty, unless public opinion opens its eyes and takes more vigorous and persistent action. That obstacle is the anomalous condition of affairs at Court, where, in a certain exalted quarter, the dregs of the Kreuzzeitung clique, and the irreconcilable opposition in[p. 287] the Upper House have combined with ultramontane poison out of the sewers of Rome. There fresh troubles are constantly being prepared for the Chancellor, fresh difficulties are being placed in his path, now at one point and then at another, and the constant encouragement given to his opponents retards the victory which otherwise would doubtless have been his before now.

“We must forego for the present a more minute description of this Bonbonnière full of Kreuzzeitung comfits and Jesuit sweetmeats. Nevertheless attentive newspaper readers may be reminded by a few instances (which shall be indicated with as much indulgence as possible) of the manner in which the forces, aims, and intrigues of this Court faction have made themselves felt during the last few months. It should be mentioned, by the way, that its mines have been laid for a considerable time past. The chief editor of an important reactionary paper, which has endeavoured for many years to alienate public opinion from the Government and the Emperor, was at length prosecuted and condemned for libel against Ministers. (Incorrect. See last note.) This man has been pardoned on the petition of the offended Ministers, owing to the intercession—well, let us say—of an exalted lady. (According to another version, at least released.) The same exalted lady wrote letters to Catholic associations, which were afterwards published, in disapproval of the ecclesiastical laws. Two members of the distinguished Polish family recently mentioned, both belonging to the Centre fraction, one a former secretary to Ledochowski, and the other a priest who was engaged in the notorious Marping farce, are welcome guests in the circles that gather around this lady. According to all appearances direct instructions were issued by her to the authorities in the affair of the[p. 288] Ursulines. This may perhaps recall to many of your readers Eugénie’s action during the war. A Count and Master of the Household who is known as a zealous Ultramontane, whose relations to the Reichsglocke[16] were disclosed during the prosecution of that paper, and who took part in the conferences of the editorial staff at Olbrich’s, received immediately after that scandal one of the highest Prussian Orders—a recognition which few can explain, and which, of course, no loyal reader can account for, except by supposing that the achievements of the Reichsglocke were regarded with extreme favour in certain circles.

“How does the reader like these incidents, to which many others equally striking might be added? That they were distasteful to the Imperial Chancellor must, of course, be obvious. It is, indeed, quite possible that he may have made use of the expression attributed to him, namely, ‘that his greatest difficulties arise out of his having to undertake a diplomatic mission to our own Court.’”

On the 21st of April Bucher, to whom I had communicated an outline of this article, wrote as follows respecting the former article:—

“In the opinion of the prescribing physician all the ingredients should not be administered in one dose. I fear the elixir may be too potent, and would suggest, if it is still possible, that two doses should be made of it, and that a different medicine should be given in the interval. The latter could be prepared from the article in the Kölnische Zeitung of the 15th (‘Plans of Reform’) which was written by Camphausen, and the answer in[p. 289] the Post, which I wrote from instructions received upstairs. Camphausen, it may be mentioned, is a very many-sided man. He not only belongs to the Manchester School, but has relations with the Castle at Coblenz, and is at the same time in high favour with a Liberal and enlightened circle, (that of the Crown Princess Victoria,) where he is regarded as a corner-stone of Constitutionalism and a sound Protestant. You will shortly receive the flaying (of Schleinitz) and the paragraphs on the branch (of the Berlin Bonbonnière) at Karlsruhe. P.S.—Speaking in the Reichstag two years ago Camphausen said: ‘The word impossible is printed in very small characters in my dictionary.’”

I based the third article of our series upon this and another letter from Bucher of the 26th of April. This article, which appeared in No. 19 of the Grenzboten, ran as follows:—

“Further Friction.

“Berlin, April 26th.

“In the article ‘The Imperial Chancellor on Leave’ attention was called to the fact that besides the opposition of the Court there were other sources of friction that worried and wearied the Prince, exhausting his powers, hampering his work, and thus stimulating his anxiety to be released from office. We select for consideration to-day those that lie in the attitude of certain authorities working immediately under him, or more correctly associated with his work, in respect of various important reforms which the Prince has greatly at heart, but which are making no progress towards fulfilment. In other words the Imperial Chancellor when he sought to resign had been disappointed of the co-operation and support which he had expected from one of his colleagues[p. 290] (Camphausen was meant) in connection with some measures affecting the Customs and commercial policy and taxation—measures which he regards as indispensable, but which have hitherto not been dealt with.

“‘When a sportsman becomes faint and weary,’ said the Prince a few months ago, in conversation with a party of friends, ‘and is about to go home, he will not alter his mind because he is told there is a covey of partridges near at hand. It would perhaps be different if he were told that there was some pig in the next glen. The chance of a boar hunt would revive his strength and courage.’ So goes the story (not quite accurately, by the way), according to an article in the Kölnische Zeitung, written apparently by a member of the Minister’s immediate entourage, and certainly emphasised by the sarcastic tone in which it frequently deals with the difficulties in the way of reform. The simile is so far to the point, that the wild boar referred to represented certain reforms in the Customs, and in the fiscal and railway system. But the correspondent omitted the real moral of the story. When he says, ‘As soon as Prince Bismarck is in a position to submit complete and well-founded schemes calculated to withstand criticism, there will be no longer in our opinion any difficulty in finding in the Reichstag a large and resolute party, in favour of such reforms of our commercial policy;’ and when he makes a similar assertion respecting the taxation laws, and the railway system, he transposes the actual relations of things and circumstances. There is no question of the Imperial Chancellor submitting measures which would have to run the gauntlet, first, of the Minister to whose department they properly belong, and then, of the Reichstag. The Prince has no intention of preparing such measures[p. 291] himself. He is anxious for these reforms, but he has no idea of embodying them himself in Parliamentary measures to be submitted to the Legislature. He expects his colleagues to undertake that work, and has informed them so. That he has failed to induce them to take any such initiative is, as the Post of the 19th assures us—we believe on the best authority—one of the reasons that have led the Chancellor to send in his resignation.

“According to the Post, the true moral of the above story is to be found in the words which the Prince added on that occasion: ‘He could only remain in office if his colleagues took up the reforms in question of their own motion, and independently.’ Otherwise, he wished to retire, as he did not feel strong enough to bear the strain of Ministerial crises, together with a breach with his old colleagues, and the necessity of accustoming himself to new men. It was unfair to ask him to do all the work, and submit it to the criticism of a departmental chief bent on another course. (The ‘other course’ referred to was doubtless that of the Manchester School.) He had laid his own course in the railway question, and had ostensibly received the approval of all his colleagues. When it came, however, to the carrying out of his proposals he met with the customary passive resistance, and the usual refusal—just like the Progressive party, whose invariable reply was, ‘No, not in that way, but in another way’—that is to say, in some way that would never work. On that occasion the Chancellor said: ‘What I have to do is to ascertain whether my present colleagues will, of their own initiative and free conviction, carry out those reforms which I regard as indispensable, in such a manner that they will take the responsibility for me, and not I for them. If they[p. 292] would only do so I would willingly continue my credit and my name to the firm, in order to carry through these reforms.’

“The writer in the Kölnische Zeitung has expressed himself so confident with regard to the reforms desired by the Prince, that one may perhaps inquire why the same success which he promises if the Chancellor submits them to the criticism of Ministers and of the parties in the Reichstag should not attend them if the colleagues, whose business it is, were to draft these measures and recommend them to the acceptance of the Legislature. The particular colleague who, as already observed, had no small share in preparing the article in question, is as self-confident as he is many-sided. He seems to possess power and influence. Two years ago he said in the Reichstag: ‘The word impossible is printed in very small characters in my dictionary.’ He has connections with the Castle at Coblenz, and is at the same time highly appreciated in certain exalted circles in Berlin, where people are most liberal and enlightened, as a corner-stone of Constitutionalism and a pillar of Protestantism. Why does a man of so much importance and ability decline to take the initiative of the reforms which the Chancellor has at heart? Is it, perhaps, that he fears to jeopardise one side of his many-sidedness, or to renounce thereby his past, his principles, and his connections as a member of the Manchester School?

“And now to another point, which requires refutation, viz., the rumour mentioned in a leading Berlin paper of friction with another department. The National Zeitung of yesterday, in an article on Moltke’s speech, says it doubtless referred to a conflict between considerations of military and political[p. 293] necessity. It might be inferred from this insinuation that the Imperial Chancellor was opposed to the strengthening of the German garrisons in the neighbourhood of Metz. Such a supposition would, however, be erroneous. On the contrary the Prince has, in this respect, not only been in complete agreement with the highest military authorities, but has done everything in his power to support and promote their views. For years past they have asked for better railway communications with Lorraine and more troops in that part of the Empire. It was impossible to do anything in the former direction until the Chancellor had exercised sufficient pressure to overcome the obstruction of the Ministry of Commerce, and compelled the Minister to proceed with the construction of the line between St. Ingbert and Saarbrücken, a connection which the spiritus rector of the Prussian railway system had postponed for years out of consideration for petty trading interests. The Prince has also done all he could to secure an increase of the garrison in Lorraine. This increase is, however, understood to have remained in abeyance, as it still does, because in a non-official, but exalted and influential quarter, it is feared that the French might feel hurt or offended—i.e. the gentlemen who speak that language so fluently, who for the most part have beautiful black whiskers and profess the Catholic religion, which, of course, is much more distinguished than the Evangelical!

“P.S.—A member of the Reichstag, who is at the same time an intimate friend of the Imperial Chancellor, has felt constrained to issue a warning in the Magdeburger Zeitung against our articles. He would be surprised if he knew with what composure[p. 294] we have read his communication. Of course, ignoring all further contradictions of this kind, we shall continue to say what we know, and we shall obtain credence for it.”

I may add that the member of the Reichstag and friend of the Prince here referred to was Amtsrath Dietze (Barby), and that he certainly issued his warning against the “friction articles” without previous communication with the Chief. Of course he acted in good faith.

A few days after the publication of the Grenzboten article Bucher wrote me:—

“Exception has been taken in a quarter upon whose approval everything depends to the closing words of the ‘P.S.’ It is thought that they sound as if the Chancellor had spoken through the writer of the article. It would be well to avoid such an authoritative tone. Thus far the message I have to deliver. I fancy such an impression would not have been made if the Magdeburger Zeitung could have been read at the same time, but I could not lay my hands upon it. Of course it would not be desirable to state expressly that such an impression is incorrect. Perhaps it may be possible to efface it indirectly by saying something to the following effect.” He then gave me a recipe, in accordance with which I prepared as follows the fourth article of our series, which appeared in the next number of the Grenzboten.

“In Explanation.

“Berlin, May 6th.

“We observe that the second of our articles on the Chancellor crisis has been judged in very different ways by the press. The Germania has discovered amongst[p. 295] other things that it is directed against the Empress Eugénie. Other papers were astounded at information which they received from us for the first time. Others, again, considered themselves so fully acquainted with the truth, which is generally known to lie at the bottom of a deep well, that they declare the contents of the article to be untrue, or—as some with discourteous indignation chose to express themselves—invented. Finally, another section of the press, including the chief organ of public opinion in a small German capital (this referred to the Weimar Zeitung), found that the bulk of what we had stated was long since known. In spite of its unfriendly tone towards us, we must do that organ the justice of acknowledging that its statement is correct. In other words, we do not enjoy the power of slipping through keyholes, we cannot make ourselves invisible in order to spy out what happens in otherwise inaccessible spheres, and finally we have no devil upon two sticks at our disposal to remove for us the roofs of palaces and clubs. We have nothing more than a tolerably good memory and the habit of collecting material. In dealing with what we have read in the press and heard in conversation, we act pretty much as the botanist does when collecting specimens in upland meadows and lowland marshes—we place carefully side by side the specimens we have found scattered in various directions and examine their affinities, noting how they complement each other. To our great surprise we now find that the result of this surely very simple process has produced here and there the impression that we possess magical powers, and that we had brought profound secrets to light. It is certainly quite true, however, that we have said nothing that attentive readers with a certain capacity for comparative analysis and sound deductions[p. 296] have not been long ago aware of. Why, then, all this excitement?

“In conclusion, if we trusted too much to our memory in some details of minor importance, and misunderstood insult for libel or Ministers for members of a High Consistory, we must in future be more careful to label correctly the various specimens in our collection.”

During this week I received from Bucher nearly a dozen letters with suggestions, warnings, explanations and supplementary matter, but principally with raw material for further articles connected with the three subjects treated above. On the 27th of April he sent me over two sheets of material for the article, “A Branch of the Bonbonnière, or the Causes of the Change at Baden.” He added: “I can only give you the ideas without any indication of the style in which they should be expressed. I feel that it will be difficult to put it into proper shape.” On the 30th I received from him the warning: “Do not on any account take up with the Post. It is intimately connected with R. D. Z. (Radowitz), one of the Bonbonnière circle.” On the 3rd of May he presented me in the person of the widowed Queen of Bavaria with “still another flower to be added to your garland of ladies.” On the 6th he wrote: “I would strongly advise you not to publish the article (‘The Angel of Peace’) in the next number, 1. Gamaliel (the Chief) will be here on the 10th, and will stay for some days, and he would thus find himself right in the heart of the excitement which it is sure to cause, and that would certainly be unpleasant for him. From here he will proceed to his watering place, where he will be quite out of touch with the world. 2. In a few days an incident will become known which seems as if it were[p. 297] specially made to account for the publication of such an article, and which will surprise many who might otherwise feel disposed to criticise it. Perhaps in the meantime as a stopgap you can use the suggestions in my last letter and some older materials. Or it might be better still to have a pause. One should not spoil the public, or it may easily grow too exacting and look for the same spicy fare every week, which you would not be able to provide.” On the 13th he reported: “The patient (he meant the Chief) proposes to go direct to the watering place without touching at B. (Berlin). This I consider to be certain. He thinks of starting on Thursday, but that is uncertain. If I ascertain any change by Tuesday I will telegraph to your wife: ‘Fritz better, is to go out on such and such a day for the first time. Anna’—or, ‘Fritz must remain here during his holidays.’”

The Grenzboten now published the fifth “friction article,” which ran as follows:—

“The Angel of Peace.

“We learn for the first time through an Austrian journal that the Czas (which is known to be the organ of the Polish aristocratic ultramontane party, and which occasionally, through its patrons the Radziwills, the Czartoryskis, &c., receives very good information indeed respecting sentiments, intentions and occurrences in Court circles and in the upper regions of society) has published the following comparatively colourless statement respecting the Chancellor crisis in Berlin. Some time ago Queen Victoria wrote direct to Prince Bismarck, urging upon him to prevent the war between Russia and the Porte. The answer was evasive. Then[p. 298] followed a second letter from her Britannic Majesty to the Imperial Chancellor, repeating her request more urgently. This time the reply was somewhat more positive in form, but was still not to the taste of the Queen, who then turned to the Emperor, and made him and Germany responsible for the outbreak of war.

“We do not know what truth there is in this report, but we do not consider it incredible. Moreover, this remarkable suggestion that it is our duty to compel our faithful neighbour Russia to maintain peace, not because we have any special cause or reason to do so, but solely to oblige the English by relieving them from all anxiety as to their interests on the Bosphorus, and by enabling them to continue their huckstering in all tranquillity of mind, has, we believe, reached the Emperor through another channel (which the readers of these articles will be able to guess), and has received warm support here. It must be borne in mind that his Majesty is thoroughly devoted to peace, and sincerely desires that he himself, the German people, and the whole world, may be saved from fresh wars. These being his sentiments, he is disposed to consider the wishes and counsels which, in the opinion of those who submitted them to him, are calculated to serve the cause of peace. But such counsels, if they do not emanate from a great and far-seeing mind, which takes all the circumstances and possibilities into account, may lead to the exact contrary of what is desired, that is to say to war. In January The Times implored the Imperial Chancellor to give orders for the maintenance of peace. Somewhat later it addressed a similar affecting appeal to the Emperor, and we may take it for certain that Queen Victoria was induced by[p. 299] her cunning Semitic adviser to use her influence in the same direction through the channel indicated above.

“Let us suppose that Germany had allowed herself to be ‘nobbled’—indeed, it is hardly possible to use any other expression—had struck an attitude, and shouted ‘Peace in Europe!’ and that Russia had not halted at the word of command, but let her troops advance—what would have happened then? Why, we should then, for the maintenance of peace, have been obliged to wage war against Russia, which at the best would serve to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for magnanimous Albion, or our word of command would have proved to be impotent, and we should have made ourselves ridiculous—and ridiculous merely in the service of England, a Power that has never honestly wished us well, and has only accepted our position in Europe in the hope that it may some day be utilised for the furtherance of its own mercenary policy.

“The case of the Paris Exhibition is quite similar. This affair also excited warm sympathy in the quarter which we have in view, where it has become a second nature to ‘work for peace.’ When the Government, in spite of all such representations and appeals, declined to take part in the Exhibition, MacMahon sent the Marquis d’Abzac, an amiable gentleman upon whom exalted eyes had rested with special favour on a former occasion, to Berlin in order to make a last attempt. The marquis sung a hymn to peace in the most melting accents. We can hear him whisper with a winning smile that in this invitation France reached out her hand to Germany in reconciliation, that the Exhibition would be at the same time a peace congress. Why rudely reject the proffered hand of a former opponent who had now become a friend? How wonderfully an[p. 300] olive wreath would adorn the brow of a certain august lady! And other graceful speeches calculated to flatter and to touch the feelings. Then another appeal in the highest quarter on behalf of France, so unsuspicious, so well-meaning, so prettily persuasive, warmer and more urgent than before, and, at last, offensively persistent. It was all to no purpose. M. le Marquis did not, after all, succeed in securing anything more than one of the highest Orders for himself.

“But let us again in this instance suppose that the affair had been decided differently, and that, in spite of wiser counsels and a truer insight into the nature of the circumstances, the messenger sent by the President of the French Republic had returned to Paris with the acceptance of the invitation to the would-be festival of peace, what would the probable consequences have been? Germany would have co-operated in the Exhibition, and her exhibitors would have found themselves, to say the least, in an exceedingly uncomfortable position. They would have been exposed to dangers of all kinds—we have had ample experience of what the vindictiveness of French Chauvinism means, even in more harmless circumstances—and incidents might and probably would have occurred, resulting at least in irritation, perhaps in an exchange of hostile notes, and conceivably even in something worse.

“The same idea of a special mission to maintain and promote peace—our readers will, of course, read between the lines—governs similar relations with the Ultramontanes, and has, together with other motives, led to advances which would be otherwise inexplicable. After having opposed the Government during the elections with almost unexampled violence, and indulged in the vilest slanders and the most malignant intrigues against[p. 301] all loyal candidates, these worthy people hide the cloven hoof in patent leather shoes, and join the circles to which we have referred with an air of innocent cheerfulness as if butter would not melt in their mouth, and sun themselves in the radiance of the most exalted graciousness and favour. Indeed it is even said that in the council which is usually held to consider the lists of invitations, the faithful adherents of Rome who condescend to come—this is not done by all of them—are never omitted, but those who are loyal to the King are generally struck out.

“It may be permitted, perhaps, to draw the moral of these communications as follows:—

“In itself a love of peace is always a becoming feature, and particularly in a woman. But in our humble opinion such love of peace should not lead to a desire to play the part of ‘Angel of Peace,’ to take pleasure in hearing one’s self so styled, and to act up to it by thwarting the Chancellor’s plans, opposing wise counsels, and persistently promoting a course calculated to bring on war, and to perpetuate existing feuds, inasmuch as it encourages the enemy to regard the ‘Angel of Peace’ as an ally and to construe her efforts as a fresh stimulus to resistance.

“Heaven is the true home of such angels of peace, and there doubtless their sentimental politics will afford them a plentiful supply of beautiful emotions. We, however, live upon the earth, and the hard necessities of this life can only be properly estimated and dealt with by the understanding.”

On the 21st of May Bucher wrote respecting this article:—“The doctor considers that the medicine prescribed is too strong and has been administered too rapidly. The patient will now require a longer rest. I[p. 302] should like to see the next prescription before it is sent to the apothecary’s.”

In my reply, I asked what the Foreign Office thought of the new Cabinet in Paris, and whether anything should be said on the subject. Bucher answered on the 23rd:—“I have nothing to say with regard to the new French Ministry except what the entire press says: that we view it with mistrust. It might be mentioned in rectification, that though the statement that Jules Simon’s fall has been promoted from Berlin is quite incorrect, this does not exclude the co-operation of G. B. (Gontaut-Biron) in the matter, which is indeed very probable.”

On the 25th of May Bucher sent various supplementary items for the article dealing with Baden which I had forwarded to him for inspection previous to sending it to the press. On the 11th of June he sent me a sketch of another prominent member of the Bonbonnière, in an article in which I found little to alter, and which therefore appeared in the Grenzboten in all important particulars, both of form and substance, as it left his hands. It ran as follows:—

“A Minister in partibus.

“Berlin, June 9th.

“A few weeks ago a Berlin local newspaper (he was thinking of the Tribune) published a statement that Baron von Schleinitz, the Minister of the Royal Household, has felt it his duty to submit the notorious Grenzboten articles—it is not said where or to whom—and to propose that an inquiry should be instituted with the object of ascertaining whether they issued from the Press Bureau—which Press Bureau is not[p. 303] specified. The business of the Minister in question, apart from Court functions with which we are not very well acquainted, consists in the administration of the property of the Royal House. According to Rönne members of the Ministry of the Household are not State officials, and questions affecting the press and the administration of the laws do not in any way fall within their jurisdiction. Perhaps this piece of news is only meant as a humorous reminder to us that one portrait was missing from the little gallery we recently presented of persons whom the achievements of the Chancellor have had the misfortune to displease. We certainly passed over the gentleman in question, but had by no means forgotten him,—any more than many others; but we thought that to each day sufficed the evil thereof. Herr von Schleinitz when he held the seals of the Foreign Office, certainly pursued quite a different policy to that of Prince Bismarck, and, therefore, it is after all small blame to him that he does not approve of the Bismarckian policy. We refrain from an analysis and discussion of the nature and success of the Schleinitz method, which was known in its time as the policy of moral conquests. We leave that task to history, where we are inclined to believe the name of Schleinitz will hardly figure except in a parenthesis descriptive of Court life. We take the liberty, however, of asserting openly that he has had no luck as a diplomatist.

“We hear it said that the property of the Royal House would yield a considerably larger income if it were differently administered. That may be the case, and yet we should not blame Herr von Schleinitz. A diplomat is not called upon to understand the administration of great estates and forests, and if he has no[p. 304] knowledge of the subject he may regard it as a misfortune that he should have been appointed to such duties.

“That is not the only misfortune which has befallen Herr von Schleinitz. Diest-Daber heard, and related at the trial, that the Reichsglocke had been sent to the Emperor by a lady named Schleinitz. Herr von Schleinitz has denied this statement in the Reichsanzeiger, but malicious journalists are now asking whether the evidence of a husband in favour of his wife is conclusive. A contributor to another paper (the Tribune) comes to his rescue with another supposition. The gossip might have originated in the circumstance that a former subordinate of the Minister of the Household, who is still frequently to be seen at his residence, the Geheimer Rechnungsrath Bernhardt (who had been mentioned by the Chief as the channel through which the Empress corresponded with certain foreign Sovereigns) took in ten copies of the Reichsglocke. Certainly Herr von Schleinitz has good reason to exclaim, ‘Heaven defend me from my friends!’

“He has reasons for this prayer in other respects also. When the war between ourselves and Austria was at hand the Austrians selected his residence as their rendezvous, as did the French at a later period, after they had waged against us a war which they have not yet forgotten. And in that quarter—our readers know the place—where every form of hostility to Prince Bismarck centres, Herr von Schleinitz has always been regarded as the future Chancellor or Minister for Foreign Affairs, or, to express it more suitably in a phrase borrowed from the Curia, as Minister in partibus. We credit his Excellency with too much self-knowledge to believe that he personally entertained the hope of[p. 305] being Prince Bismarck’s successor. And now he is understood to have actually received no other than Herr von Gruner as coadjutor designate! Surely the man may bewail his misfortunes!”

The information contained in the seventh and last “friction” article was supplied exclusively by Bucher, who also wrote the greater part of it. It was as follows, published on the 28th of June in No. 27 of the Grenzboten.

“Causes of the Change at Baden.

“Strassburg, June 24th.

“A Baden correspondent of your journal has repeatedly expressed his anxiety at the attitude towards the struggle between the State and the Ultramontanes which the ruling circles at Karlsruhe have for some time past shown a disposition to adopt, and indeed which they have actually begun to adopt, since the change of Ministry last September. This attitude, although for the present it is manifested rather in desire than in deed, means a retreat before Rome and her allies. The last time such indications became evident was some two months ago. I immediately made inquiries as to what truth was in them. It is only now however that I have received trustworthy explanations. It requires a closer knowledge of those circles than can be obtained here to say exactly in what way the change of sentiment referred to has come about, whether through influences that have gradually insinuated themselves there, or in consequence of tendencies which already existed and which those influences divined and afterwards developed. It is regarded as certain, however, by persons who are in a position to know, that the change of weather in the[p. 306] upper regions is associated with certain influences proceeding from Strassburg.

“Frequent visits are paid to Karlsruhe, among others by a gentleman of this city who has lately received an appointment at our University—experts assert less for his scientific attainments than through the recommendations of a coterie whose ramifications extend across the Channel. The following may serve to identify him. M. (I mention no name) formerly had charge of the interests of certain small Republics as Minister Resident in Berlin. There was not much work for him to do there, and as he was of an enterprising turn of mind and felt the necessity of playing a part in the world, he was impelled to dabble in politics more or less openly on his own account. He acted chiefly as letter carrier and newsmonger to the diplomacy of the smaller States (this refers to Professor Geffcken, who was associated with the Coburger, Samwer and Freytag), and endeavoured to promote the ends of the clique which he had joined by means of articles in the newspapers. As a matter of course, he was a zealous free-trader, and equally of course he was strongly in favour of the Augustenburger, at the time when the Schleswig-Holstein question was approaching its final solution. If things had followed the course he desired, Hamburg would have taken the field against Prussia in 1866, and would to-day be a Prussian city. People ought, therefore, to have been thankful to him in Berlin, but were not, and on the contrary refused to have anything to do with him. The Senate then sent him as Minister Resident to London, where many doors were opened for him by his enthusiasm for the House of Augustenburg. (It will be remembered that Queen Victoria is the mother-in-law of a brother of the[p. 307] Hereditary Prince of that day, now Duke of Augustenburg.) He therefore always had news to send, but the Senate ultimately found that it cost them too dear, and abolished the post. M. thereupon took a position in the administration of his native State, but seems to have himself soon realised that his work was not quite up to his pretensions. It was, therefore, necessary to devise ways and means in some other direction, and this was done. His Manchester principles recommended him to the official then at the head of the Imperial Chancellerie (Delbrück), who appointed him his assistant, (miracles, you see, still happen!) and his friends converted the unsuccessful diplomatist into a Professor in Ordinary at the High School of the Reichsland. In 1875 he launched a book entitled ‘State and Church,’ which is almost as thick as the Bible. The bulky proportions so essential to a professorial production were attained by a superficial historical compilation of some six hundred pages. The last chapter contained an unfavourable criticism of the Falk laws, written—to put it politely—in a very popular style, somewhat as if it were intended to be read by ladies. The real significance of the work,—of course not expressed in so many words, but clearly to be read between the lines,—is: ‘I am a model Minister of Public Worship!’ It is said that the author received further recommendations from Baden, which, however, failed to produce the intended effect in official circles, owing to a knowledge of his past, and to the accurate estimate formed of the same. Since then, M. has been delivering public lectures on all sorts of subjects, some with a political flavour, so much to the taste of the Francophil Philistines that they flock to hear the professor.

“Another professor found his way across the Kehl[p. 308] Bridge, and to the district which may be described as the handle of the Karlsruhe Fan.[17] I also forbear to give his name. (Max Müller is the professor here alluded to.) For the moment I will merely mention that he belongs to the Bunsen Club, and that—as far as I know—he is one of those German savants who are most indebted to an energetic and persistent system of advertisement. He is a member of the Berlin Academy of Science, and also of the French Institute, and is understood to be a capable Sanscrit scholar, which I do not question, although I certainly question the good taste of his friends in the Augsburger Zeitung, who seldom mention his name without describing him as ‘our celebrated countryman.’ The publication of Indian texts, which he is bringing out under the patronage of one of the Orleans Princes, has brought him into communication with that interesting family. In addition to his lectures at Oxford he occasionally delivers others in London, where he holds forth before a fashionable and feminine audience upon the growth of language, the origin of religion, and similar subjects. His numerous admirers in Germany announced a few years ago that he had been induced to deliver lectures here in Strassburg also. It is true that his friends in England put a different complexion on the affair. They say that British soil is no longer so congenial to him as it used to be, or, as they express it, England has become too hot for him. Be that as it may, he put in occasional appearances here, and read lectures. It is asserted that he was at the same time occupied with other matters also, great expectations and desires, which I will now merely indicate. Notwithstanding the skill[p. 309] which he displayed in his lectures on the origin of religion, in harmonising the demands of science with the devout respectability which is indispensable in England, he did not consider himself qualified for the post of Prussian Minister of Public Worship. But, after all, it is no new idea that Falk’s inheritance might be divided between two individuals, and he would probably not consider it beneath his dignity to accept the Department of Education (first, perhaps, at Karlsruhe, and then in Berlin). But for this purpose, of course, Falk must first be got rid of. Hereditas viventis non datur.

“A reaction from the East upon the West, from the right bank of the Rhine upon the left, is understood to have taken place since the winter of 1874–75. This is said to be manifested in the lively interest taken in the rights of the French language, which are alleged to be infringed in the teaching of French and in the teaching of religious and theological instruction at the girls’ schools in Alsace-Lorraine. It is related in official circles that in this matter there has been developed a sort of voluntary system reaching up to the most exalted authority in the State, and down again to the lowest. It is true that all these endeavours have, fortunately, been fruitless so far as my information goes.

“Finally, a journey was made to Rome. Between this incident and the commencement of the change at Karlsruhe, there must have been a number of connecting links which I cannot specify. Possibly, although it may not seem quite credible, one may be allowed to associate with this change a certain exalted lady, a widow of ripe years, who allowed herself to be converted to the only True Church by a fascinating priest,[p. 310] and who now, with the customary zeal of converts, considers it her duty to promote the restoration of peace with Rome, ignorant of the fact that Rome will never hear of peace, but only of complete subjection or of a truce. It may be taken as tolerably certain that bodily and mental conditions, a feeling of discontent, and numerous other more interesting visits than those of the two professors, have helped to place a noble nature in the service of schemes the significance of which such a nature is less able to appreciate than others. Those who are acquainted with the circumstances and persons concerned can easily imagine that in this instance Rome has exercised its influence, not as in the case of Luther, but rather as in that of Mortimer, although not with such striking effect, and that its acute Monsignors knew how to take advantage of their opportunity, even had no Vienna newspaper given a hint of a similar occurrence in that capital. It is perhaps fortunate that the peaceful assurances of ‘persons of high position at the Vatican’ were illustrated on the 12th of March by the allocution of the Holy Father in favour of a crusade.

“All this is very sad for men of patriotic sentiment, but it will be all the more welcome in another quarter where similar views have been entertained and a like influence has been exerted for years past, and where such assistance ‘in the cause of peace’ will be utilised to the utmost.”

[p. 311]

## CHAPTER VI

AT VARZIN AND FRIEDRICHSRUH

At the beginning of June, 1877, I had completed my plans for the Gartenlaube article. These had, in the interval, undergone a considerable change, inasmuch as I now proposed to give reminiscences from my diary during the campaign, and then to add a description of the houses and estates belonging to the Prince. I wrote to Bucher in Berlin respecting the visits I proposed to pay to the latter, and on the 6th of July received from him the following answer: “At the beginning of August the Prince will go to a watering place for about six weeks. Your visit should therefore be arranged for the latter half of the month of September. It would not be advisable to mention the matter now. Report yourself about a week in advance, addressing yourself not to the amanuensis who may happen to be at Varzin, but to the Chief personally.”

Seeing from the newspapers in the early part of October that the Chancellor had returned from Gastein to Varzin, I wrote to him and begged to be informed whether and when my visit would be agreeable. By return of post I received the following, dated Varzin October 11th:—

“Dear Sir,—My father has received your friendly letter of the 10th, for which he returns his best thanks. [p. 312]He has instructed me to inform you in reply that he will be pleased to see you here in the course of next week. He begs of you to let him know the time of your arrival, if possible on the previous day, as otherwise we may not be at home. Next Sunday or Monday, for example, we propose to drive out to one of my father’s farms about four (German) miles from here, which will occupy the whole day.

“With the most profound esteem,

“your devoted

“Count Herbert Bismarck.”

I acted on these suggestions. Before my departure, however, I requested Bucher to make an appointment for me to see him in Berlin, so that he might explain to me the customs of the house at Varzin, and the proper way of behaving there. He replied on the 14th of October: “Owing to the absence of the Secretary of State I must spend practically the whole day at No. 76. A meeting there would, however, not be desirable. As you may perhaps bring back instructions from Varzin, it will be better that your journey thither should not be known. I will be at the confectioner’s at the corner of the Leipzigerstrasse and Wilhelmstrasse on Monday at 4 o’clock.” He had not arrived, however, when I went to meet him, having been detained by business; but I was able to obtain from him later on the necessary information.

On the 16th of October, shortly before 1 P.M., I started from Berlin, first to Stettin, and from there to the little town of Schlawe, in Further Pomerania, whence at that time one proceeded in the post cart or in a private conveyance, whereas later on a connection was established by railway viâ Stolp.

[p. 313]

In the period of nine years from the autumn of 1867 to spring 1877 the Imperial Chancellor spent the greater part of his time at Varzin, from the budding of the leaves until their fall, and sometimes well into the winter. It was, therefore, a celebrated place to which the eyes of the whole nation were directed. It was also to be expected that later on the Prince would seldom, if ever, go there, as Friedrichsruh, his estate in the Sachsenwald, was more convenient as a summer resort.

Varzin may accordingly undergo considerable change, and it therefore seemed to me that it would be well to draw, for future generations, a picture of it as it then appeared.

On the way to Schlawe, which I reached at 10 o’clock at night, there was little to note, as I only proposed to occupy myself with the Chancellor and his immediate surroundings. All that I found worth recording were some pretty anecdotes. They belonged to Bismarck’s Storm and Stress period, myths that had gathered in Pomerania about the Kniephof estate and the “mad squire” who lived there from 1838 on. The young Fräuleins and their mothers and cousins at the neighbouring country seats shuddered, while their fathers and uncles shook their heads and prophesied a horrible end, as they heard of extravagant drinking bouts, of floods of champagne and porter mixed in “war bowls,” of furious rides as if the wild huntsman were tearing past, of the routing up of guests by pistol shots in the middle of the night, and of all kinds of mischief and wantonness perpetrated in audacious mockery of traditional usage. The old manor house of Kniephof, not inappropriately rechristened “Kneiphof” by the boon companions, as well as by the censors of the Junker (it has long ago been replaced by a more[p. 314] elegant structure), could doubtless bear witness that a great many of these stories were true, but also that many of them were largely the product of imaginative neighbours. The misfortunes predicted by staid folks have also remained mere fancy. As the world knows, in spite of all the froth and foam of that period of ferment, the young wine cleared itself in due time.

The old legends of the “wild Junker,” however, still wander up and down the country, and one of them took a seat by me in the railway carriage at a station between Koeslin and Schlawe, in the form of a sturdy peasant. Among various other stories he told me that Bismarck, on one occasion, instead of having a rickety old building at Kniephof removed in the ordinary way, brought it down with cannon shot. A reader of a critical turn will probably inquire where he could have obtained possession of this piece of ordnance. I reply with the counter-question: Whether my honest peasant had not merely heard the sound though he did not see the shot fired? and whether the popular legend which speaks through him had not, in the obscure impulses of its creative activity, confounded the Minister Bismarck with the Junker? We all dwelt with the latter in an old and rickety house known as the “Germanic Confederation,” and that, indeed, as it could not be removed otherwise, he was forced to bring down with the cannon of Königgrätz (Sadowa).

On the 17th of October, at 9.30 A.M., a cold, wet morning, which afterwards cleared up, I continued my journey to Varzin in a hired conveyance. We reached the village in about three hours, and another few hundred yards along the paved road brought us to the centre of a group of buildings which formed the principal courtyard of the Varzin country seat. The postilion wished to stop[p. 315] here. I told him, however, to drive further on to the inn, in order that I might change my clothes and send word of my arrival. I found quartered in this miserable hut some Berlin policemen, who kindly vacated their room for me, and reported my advent. After a while, their chief, a man with a long beard, whom I had met at Versailles, came back and said: “His Serene Highness begs you to come.” I had in the meantime pulled on a dress-coat which I had brought with me, and now drove back to the door of the house, where I was received by two servants, who took me and my travelling bag to a room on the first floor. It was a large and handsome chamber, divided into a sitting and bedroom by a curtain which reached to the ceiling.

In a quarter of an hour I was called to lunch, which was laid in a salon downstairs. Here I met, at first, only Count Herbert, General Erkert, Geheimer-Regierungsrath Tiedemann, and a Miss Jenny Fatio, a Frenchwoman from Orb, in West Switzerland, who had been for years in the Prince’s service, and who now managed the house in the absence of his wife, who was taking the waters at Toelz.

After a few minutes he himself came, having just returned from his morning walk. He wore plain clothes, in which I had not previously seen him—black coat, waistcoat, and trousers, and a white necktie with blue and red spots. He shook hands, and was very friendly. After he had sat down and eaten a few mouthfuls he observed: “As I was walking in the wood and heard your horn, doctor, I thought to myself, that is certainly some Croat or Magyar who wishes to discuss politics with me, and come to my assistance with his advice. I was just on the point of making myself scarce when I remembered that you had written from Leipzig that you[p. 316] were coming. Once a man came to see me who sent word that if I would not receive him he would hang himself. My reply was, that if he must needs do so, I would have the newest and strongest rope brought down from the garret for his use. He did not get to see me all the same, and went off again without, so far as I am aware, doing himself any harm.”

While he drank his milk and black coffee he read the letters, reports, and telegrams received that morning, and instructed his son as to the replies, at the same time discussing matters with Tiedemann, who, as I afterwards learned, acted as kind of second amanuensis, principally in administrative affairs. The Prince looked fresh and strong, and seemed also to be in good humour. In reply to my question how Gastein had agreed with him, he said that up to the present it was highly satisfactory, and in particular that he slept better than formerly. “It would have been still better,” he continued, “if a great deal had not happened between Gastein and here. The next time I have to go to Gastein, I shall let the King do what he likes afterwards, and come straight back here, where I have no need to worry myself over preconceived notions that cannot be altered.” As we stood up, observing that I was in evening dress, he smiled and said: “Dress clothes!” and then invited me to accompany him to the new wing that had been added to the house, and in which he had taken up his own residence. After he had shown me those rooms, I asked if he had received the “friction” articles in the Grenzboten, and if he was satisfied with them. He replied: “Yes; only they followed each other too rapidly, and in one of them you allowed it to be seen too clearly in what quarter you had received your information.” I expressed my regret, excusing myself by stating that Dietze’s communication[p. 317] in the Magdeburger Zeitung would have considerably weakened their effect upon the public if I had passed it over in silence.

In the afternoon Erkert started for St. Petersburg. After he had gone the Prince asked me, “Do you ride, doctor?” “I do not fall off, your Serene Highness,” I said, “and in the East I have repeatedly, for a fortnight at a time, spent eight to ten hours daily on horseback; but I am afraid I should not cut too good a figure, and I should not like to make an exhibition of myself before you.” He then gave orders that I should be taken over part of his estate in a carriage. He himself and Count Herbert proceeded on horseback in another direction, the Prince wearing a soft green-grey felt hat with a very broad brim, a grey jacket lined with fur, which made him look stouter than he really is, and a quilted silk vest.

We went to dinner between 5 and 6, and were afterwards joined by the Councillor of Embassy, von Holstein. The Chief was in high good humour and very talkative. He first spoke about Moritz von Blankenburg, whom he described as “my oldest and dearest friend” (I now forget how his name came up), asserting that he had “acted very imprudently in the affair with that shabby Diest.” “I had told him,” he said, “in the course of conversation on the Bodencredit shares, that possibly Bleichröder, who had the administration of my money, might have bought some such securities for me on one occasion. I could not really know, however, as all my surplus income went to Bleichröder, who made all large payments on my behalf, and acted on his own discretion in these matters. There would therefore be nothing wrong in it if he made some money for me without my knowledge in securities of this kind. Blankenburg had related what I had said[p. 318] as a fact, and Diest made use of this in Court. Bleichröder ultimately proved from his books that no such purchase was ever made. That was of course very satisfactory, but in the meantime Blankenburg’s clumsiness had thrown a temporary slur upon my good name, and that led to our falling out.”

This reminded him of an attempt that had been made by one Löwenstein to bribe him after he had been appointed Minister at St. Petersburg and was about to start for his post. The Prince said: “He was an agent who worked at the same time for Buol and Manteuffel, spying, carrying out commissions, &c. He came to me with a letter of introduction from Buol. On my asking what I could do for him, he said he had come to tell me how I could do a good business whereby I might make 20,000 thalers or even more. I replied that I did not speculate, and, moreover, had no money for that purpose. Oh! I did not need any, I could manage it in another way. I said I could not follow him—what was I to do? If I would use my influence in St. Petersburg to bring about good relations between Russia and Austria. I pretended that I wished to consider the proposal, but did not trust him. Löwenstein pointed to his letter of introduction. I considered that insufficient, and wished to have a promise in writing. The Jew, however, was too sharp for that, and said the letter was a sufficient guarantee. I then turned rough, and as he was leaving told him the truth, viz., that I never dreamt of accepting his offer, and threatened to pitch him down the stairs. He thereupon took himself off, but not before he had threatened me with the anger of Austria. His proposal was better appreciated by Manteuffel and Schleinitz, who doubtless may still be receiving subventions from Vienna.”

[p. 319]

There was then some question of telegraphing to the Crown Prince, congratulating him on his birthday, the Chief being in favour of doing so “for form’s sake.” He then added, “I purposely omitted to do that in his mother’s case—from a feeling of what is due to my personal honour—(turning to me, who sat at his right) for Augusta’s intrigues against me still continue, and that is one of the reasons why I have no wish to return to Berlin.”

Afterwards, at tea, we were joined by the Prince, who spoke on a variety of subjects, and particularly of his estates and their relatively poor returns. Apart from the mills, Varzin brought him in nothing. It was hardly possible to dispose of the grain, as the railway tariffs for foreign corn were too low. It was just the same with timber, which realised very little, owing to competition, and even the neighbourhood of Hamburg to the Sachsenwald was of little use to him at present. He then spoke about the powder factory which a Würtemberger had established on a piece of ground belonging to him on the banks of the Elbe, describing it and the manner in which it was worked. He said that the Würtemberger paid him an annual rent of 12,000 marks, and that after a certain number of years the factory would become his, the Prince’s, property. The lessee was doing a very good business during the present war, as he was earning 150 per cent.

The time passed in this way up to 11 o’clock, when the Prince, looking at his watch said, “The gentlemen will excuse a sleepy man,” and went off to bed. Count Herbert, Holstein and I remained sitting for some time longer over a glass of grog; and I handed the Count, for his father, Nos. 1 and 2 of the “Reminiscences,” which had in the meantime appeared in the[p. 320] Gartenlaube, after the Chief had seen them in proof, made a few alterations, and struck out about a dozen lines.

On Thursday, the 18th of October, we had bright sunshine in the morning, then rain, and finally, towards 10 o’clock, a heavy fall of snow, which came down in thick flakes, covering the ground three inches deep in less than half an hour. I thus had an opportunity of seeing Varzin in its winter dress.

When the snow had stopped I inspected the exterior of the house and the buildings annexed to it, taking a walk round the whole premises.

Internally as well as externally, there is no pretension, no love of luxury about the residence of the Chancellor and his family, though it is at the same time pleasant and comfortable throughout. It is the house of a prosperous country gentleman, rather than the château of a Prince. The floors, it is true, are almost all inlaid, but the ceilings of the smaller rooms are simply whitewashed. There are no luxurious carpets, portières or curtains, or artistic carving, or clocks of great value. Gilt chairs covered with silk, marble tables and consoles are only to be found in the reception-rooms and in the apartment of the Princess. There are very few oil paintings, but on the other hand, there are numerous comfortable niches affording a pleasant prospect from the windows. Nearly all the sitting-rooms are well supplied with cushioned seats, rocking-chairs, divans and sofas, and all have earthenware stoves with chimney-pieces. These are heated on the first approach of even moderately cool weather, as the Prince—like all nervous people—is fond of warmth, which is probably necessary for his health. The autumn here is also considerably colder than in Central Germany.

[p. 321]

Having returned to the ground floor, let us first visit the dining-room. This is of medium size. The wall-paper shows a design in brown and dark blue arabesques on a grey-blue ground. The furniture consists of a yellow table over which hangs a lamp with a shade and globe in opalescent glass; a carpet with a design in black and red; a leather armchair, in which the Prince presides at dinner; about a dozen plain yellow cane-bottom chairs; two ancient-looking cupboards in dark oak, and a buffet of the same material. An owl perched on the corner of one cupboard, and another bird of prey that occupies a similar position on the second, watch the guests at the table with their glassy eyes. On the wall opposite the two windows hang a number of framed lithographs of scenes in the North American prairies.

Dinner was served here at 5 to 6 o’clock in the evening, and during my stay at Varzin it usually lasted till after 7, the conversation being for the most part very lively, and sometimes of memorable interest. At the end of the dinner the Prince used to feed his dogs with his own hands, giving them cooked meat from a plate. If I confess that the tall figure in the armchair at the head of the table and the two big dogs on the right and left with their eyes fixed upon his face recalled to my mind pictures which I had seen of the god Odin and his two wolves, I shall possibly incur the censure of severe critics with “masculine souls” and hyper-serious (or hyper-comical) self-conceit, who are accustomed to fling about such polite terms as “flunkeyism” and so forth. Their disapproval will disturb or affect me as little as the chatter of our literary financiers in the less distinguished organs of the daily press about my views of the Chancellor. First plunder, and then abuse—such[p. 322] is their wont. Let them clap their hands or hiss, it will always remain a matter of complete indifference to me!

So far as possible nothing was consumed at table that was not bred, grown or shot on the property. The Prince himself said to me one evening: “Almost everything that is eaten here comes from my estates, including Schönhausen—meat, fowl, game and fish, the vegetables, the artichokes, which of course do not thrive so well here as in the south, the peaches, the walnuts and the hazel nuts. But I must occasionally buy a sheep from the farmers, and my household is not large enough for me to kill an ox. It is only Dietze who can do that, as he employs so many people in his distillery and sugar factory, and feeds them.” It is scarcely necessary to add that the cellar at Varzin is well stocked.

We now continue our stroll through the house. Passing through the folding doors in the wall with the pictures of prairie life we enter the drawing-room, which is about the same size as the dining-room. The wall-paper, which is surrounded by a narrow gold border, shows a flowered design of a conventional pattern, in reddish-brown and gold upon a fawn-coloured ground. The furniture consists of tables with marble tops and gilt legs, cushioned chairs and divans covered in bright red silk, a large mirror in a gold frame, and a marble console. On the latter stands a lamp with a bronze figure of one of the soldiers that stormed the Danish redoubts at Düppel in Schleswig, a present from the King, and two rose-coloured porcelain vases encircled by white serpents. In a corner stands a large vase in blue and gold porcelain, with a half-length picture of the Emperor William, who presented it to the Prince[p. 323] on the occasion of his silver wedding. In another corner there is a terra-cotta statue of the Emperor. On the walls are a few oil paintings, a woodland scene from the Varzin district, a view of Gastein, two types of female beauty, an incident of the battle of Mars la Tour, and near it a full-length figure of a soldier of the last century, in a yellowish-white uniform, cuirass, three-cornered hat and jack boots, holding a musket in his hand. If I rightly understood, this is a great grandfather of the Chancellor’s, who met his death at Czaslau as a colonel of dragoons. In the corner of the breakfast- and billiard-room, where the conservatory joins on to the verandah, there is a bronze statue, a copy of Rand’s goddess of victory, also presented by the old Emperor.

I do not know how it came to pass that on seeing this statue I thought less of its beauty than of an instance of the Prince’s graciousness. In the summer of 1871, when the triumphal procession of the German army passed the stand that had been erected in the Königgrätzer Strasse against the wall of the garden attached to the Foreign Office for the officials of the Ministry, the Imperial Chancellor looked up to us as he was riding by, and taking one of three laurel wreaths that were hanging on the pommel of his saddle, threw it across to us.

Another work of art in the room also evoked strange memories. On the wall opposite the windows in a niche between the two stoves, a bright-coloured porcelain vase on a pedestal draped in red attracts the eye. It is about four or five feet high. The front shows a seated female figure, a Germania, perhaps, and the back some trophies in gold. As the Prince himself explained, this figure has a history with a certain[p. 324] symbolic significance. It was presented to the Chancellor in 1870, having been at first intended for Hardenberg, for some reason or through some dispensation of fate to whom it was never given. Looked at more closely, the trophies turned out to be French arms captured in the war of liberation from 1813 to 1815. The female figure at that time represented Borussia.

Near the second stove against the wall by which this historic vase stands, and opposite one end of the billiard table, begins a large recess, three sides of which are occupied by a rather lengthy divan, while opposite to it stands a piano of the Princess, who has the reputation of being an excellent player. During my stay the Chancellor was accustomed to seat himself in a large easy chair when taking his coffee, which was served immediately after dinner, and lighting one of his long student’s pipes, while another was held ready in reserve, he smoked and conversed with his guests, making—as was almost always the case on such occasions—many memorable remarks and statements. I will here reproduce some of these which I noted down before going to bed on the evenings upon which they were made.

On the 18th of October, on my remarking that one of his first services had been to keep the King from attending the Congress of Princes at Frankfurt, the Chancellor’s reply agreed in all important particulars with the statement he made to us during the campaign in France. “Yes,” he said, “that was a difficult task. The Most Gracious insisted on going (to Frankfurt) at any cost; a crowned head, the King of Saxony, had come to him as a messenger, and there was now no help for it. I managed to talk him out of the idea, but with the greatest difficulty, and he was quite nervous about it.[p. 325] I said to Beust, however, ‘If you do not leave us in peace now, I will send to Rastatt for a detachment and post a sentry outside the King’s door, who will let no one in.’”

I then turned the conversation to the portraits in the Chief’s study in Berlin, and he related first how he came into possession of that of King Victor Emmanuel. When the later visited Berlin he brought as a present for him, the Chancellor, a snuff-box set with diamonds, but first made inquiry as to whether he would be prepared to accept it. “Of course I declined,” he continued, “as if it had become known it would have looked like bribery. The snuff-box, with the brilliants, was believed to be worth about fifty thousand francs. He then merely gave me a small picture, writing his name and a few friendly words under it. The King of Bavaria, however, is grateful to me for having saved him from a loss of territory in 1866. Our most gracious master would insist upon having Ansbach and Bayreuth, because they had been in the possession of his ancestors. I said to him that the people there had long since forgotten that, and had grown accustomed to the union with Bavaria. The King wished that each (of the defeated German Princes) should cede a slice of territory—as a punishment. He wanted to play the part of divine justice. I remarked to him that that would not do, it must be left to God, and that no more territory should be taken than was required. He then wanted to take Northern Bohemia—Reichenberg—Karlsbad—or Austrian Silesia from Austria, and, on military grounds, to take Lausitz from Saxony. I said, however, that either the whole country should be kept, or, if that was impossible, none of it. For a long time he was not at all disposed to agree to this. Saxony[p. 326] owes her preservation to the Austrians, who for once behaved in a decent way. The Ultramontane sentiments at Court, and the friendship between the Emperor Francis Joseph and the then Crown Prince Albert doubtless also contributed to this result. But I am not to blame for the terms of peace. At that time I lay dangerously ill at Putbus. Savigny is responsible, having, as an Ultramontane, spared the Ultramontane Dresden Court as much as he possibly could, and in particular allowed them more military independence than was desirable. When I heard roughly what had been agreed I offered him my congratulations, but when I read the paragraphs more closely I withdrew them.”

We then spoke of the Bohemian campaign, and in the course of the conversation the Chief, among other things, recalled the following characteristic episodes: “In the council of war at Nikolsburg, which was held in my room, the others wished to continue the campaign, proceeding right into Hungary. I was, however, against this. The cholera, the Hungarian steppes, the questionable change of front, as well as political and other considerations, gave me pause. But they held to their plan, and it was in vain that I spoke once more against it. I then left them and went into the bedroom, which was only divided from where they sat by a wooden partition, closed the door and threw myself on the bed, where I sobbed aloud from nervous excitement. After a while they became quite silent in the other room, and their plan was subsequently dropped. When it was feared that the French would intervene, Moltke wished to retire to the Elbe, let the Austrians be, and turn upon the French, who were then weak. I convinced him, however, that that would be a mistake, as[p. 327] 100,000 South Germans, with at least 25,000 red-breeches, might prove extremely inconvenient to us.”

The Imperial Chancellor is regarded as a man of iron character, whose self-confidence never fails. Many will think that he must look back upon his deeds and creations with something of the feeling with which God the Father on the seventh day regarded the world He had made. I am not disposed to question that. But he has also softer moments—moments of apparent or real dissatisfaction with his achievements and his fate—a vein of melancholy or, perhaps we should say, pensive sentiment, that finds expression as Weltschmerz. He sometimes recalls Achilles in his tent, sometimes Solomon, exclaiming: “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.” Many of these expressions also recall the spirit in which Hamlet sadly meditates:—

“How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fye on’t! O fye! ’Tis an unweeded garden
That grows to seed: things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely.”

Perhaps it is some mystic change in his spirit, or possibly it may be an affection of the nerves, arising from bodily conditions such as over-excitement and fatigue.

Thus on Sunday, the 21st of October, while seated in the position I have already described, and after gazing for a while into space, he complained to us that he had had little pleasure or satisfaction from his political life. He had made no one happy thereby, neither himself, nor[p. 328] his family, nor others. We protested, but he continued as follows:—

“There is no doubt, however, that I have caused unhappiness to great numbers. But for me three great wars would not have taken place, eighty thousand men would not have been killed and would not now be mourned by parents, brothers, sisters, and widows.” “And sweethearts,” I added, somewhat prosaically and inconsiderately. “And sweethearts,” he repeated. “I have settled that with God, however. But I have had little if any pleasure from all that I have done, while on the other hand I have had a great deal of worry, anxiety, and trouble,” a theme upon which he then dwelt at some length.

We kept silent, and I was greatly surprised. I afterwards heard from Holstein and Bucher that during the last few years he frequently expressed himself in a similar strain. But I would repeat that such utterances can surely be but symptoms of a temporary and sentimental estimate of his mission and success. He is nevertheless a man of deep feeling, as Fräulein Jenny told me on the morning after this outburst that the “tears ran down his cheeks” when he first spoke of his falling out with Moritz von Blankenburg.... The principal room in the new building is a large hexagonal chamber, used by the Chancellor when he is working by himself. Here also the prevailing characteristic of the arrangements is a refined simplicity. The most prominent object in the room is a huge fireplace, nearly four metres in width and about five in height. It consists of green glazed earthenware, and, according to the Prince, was manufactured at the Friedenthal Pottery Works at Gussmansdorf in Silesia. It is adorned on both sides with fluted columns, over which two small[p. 329] coats of arms have been placed. In the middle of the chimney piece appears the motto: “In trinitate robur”; and over this, in a yellow field, the eagle of the new German Empire; while the whole is surmounted by a white plaster bust of the Emperor William. The cornice upon which it rests is supported upon each side by eagles on laurel branches which form part of the chimney piece itself. The arms and motto have a history of their own. The former are the escutcheons of Alsace and Lorraine. When the Imperial Chancellor was raised to the rank of Prince, the Emperor thought of having these emblems embodied in his new arms. “But,” as the Prince informed me while standing before this chimney piece, “I considered the title of Duke of Lorraine too grand for me. His Majesty then wished to put the eagle in my escutcheon. But that too seemed to me a questionable measure. I feared that the eagle might devour my clover. A way out of the difficulty was then found by giving me supporters with the banners of Alsace and Lorraine.”

The motto, on the other hand, dates from an earlier period, though it is not that of the Bismarcks. When Bismarck was at Frankfurt as Minister to the Diet, the King of Denmark invested him with the Grand Cross of the Danebrog. Now, it is customary to have the names and arms of the holders of this decoration set up in the Cathedral at Copenhagen, with a device which each member is to select for himself. “I then pitched upon this one, ‘In trinitate robur,’”—said the Chancellor “the oak in the trefoil, the old blazon of our family.” “And ‘my trust is in the Triune God’” I suggested. “Quite right, I meant it so,” he added, thus confirming my suggestion in a friendly but serious tone.

Near the fire, in which huge beech logs splutter and[p. 330] blaze, stand a number of high cushioned chairs. In the next wall is a door which opens into the Chancellor’s bedroom. Between this and the window there is a glass case with arms and antiquities, its most noteworthy contents being, to my mind, a collection of prehistoric lance heads and a heavy gold arm ring of spiral form with a green patina, which had been found in a barrow; a rifled pistol with which the Prince, while he was still a Junker, performed all sorts of miracles of marksmanship; a hunting knife which used to accompany him when out bear hunting in Russia, and two large Japanese Daimio swords of the finest steel, with which the Chancellor was invested by the Mikado in the year 1872—invested, inasmuch as these took the place of the decorations bestowed by other potentates upon those whom they desire to honour. Near the swords lay a scimitar in a violet velvet sheath. The Prince took it out and drew it from its cover. It was a genuine Damascus blade. “This was presented to me by the Bey of Tunis,” he said. “It is believed to be a fine old weapon of the time of the Crusades. I have also received an Order from him, but not the right one. He sent two, one for the Emperor and the other for me. The one was set with brilliants as large as hazel nuts, the other was common tinsel. Curiously enough he had not said to whom they should be given. I mentioned it to my gracious master, and asked what he thought. He said that of course the one with the brilliants was for him. It was doubtless worth some 50,000 thalers.”

The large window that now follows has double curtains—white on the outside, and lined with the same flowered chintz with which the furniture in the room is covered. In this bay window stand a walnut writing-table,[p. 331] inlaid with designs in ivory, and a small sofa and easy chair; while on the wall hangs a plan of Varzin and of the estates attached thereto. This is said to be one of the Chief’s favourite haunts. It is easy to believe it, as it offers a pleasant prospect—a pond in the foreground, on one side a corner of the park with two fine trees, an oak and a beech, standing alone, and under them a bench which invites to rest, while in the background a stretch of rising arable land, which in summer delights the eye with waving fields of corn, leads to dark wooded heights beyond.

Opposite the bay window, and with its back turned towards it, there is a large sofa with a number of cushions. Among them is one of light blue velvet, on which the following is embroidered in silver thread: “Exodus xxxiii. 12; Psalms xviii. 28.” Beneath this inscription is a crown, and a monogram formed of the letters O, B and E, with the date “28 July, 1847–1872.” It is a gift presented to the Chancellor on his silver wedding. As I can hardly expect all my gentle readers to have a Bible at hand, I quote the passages referred to: “And Moses said unto the Lord, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast found grace in my sight.” “For thou wilt light my candle: the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness.”

A narrow dark passage leads from the Chancellor’s bedroom, which also opens on to the park, down a few steps on the right to the bathroom. On the same side, through a mysterious little doorway at the head of a narrow winding staircase, the eye loses itself in the darkness of what seems to be a bottomless abyss. Inspired by the spirit of George Louis Hesekiel, I suggested[p. 332] “The dungeon keep?” The Prince smiled as he replied, “Only a postern gate.” And he then explained it enables him to retreat unobserved when he is threatened with tiresome visits. The prospect of such visits suggested the idea of providing an escape when the house was being built. “When unwelcome acquaintances make their appearance,” he said, “I slip out here, and bring myself in safety to a certain bench in the park, where I wait till I am told that the danger is over. We have named this door after Senfft-Pilsach, a loquacious bore; but you must not publish that, as he is still living.” The length of this subterranean passage, the exit from it, and the place of safety to which the pursued makes his escape, must remain untold so long as the Prince spends part of his time at Varzin, as otherwise the object of the contrivance would be frustrated. The particulars now given are intended to warn those who may consider this contrivance to be directed against them.

I now continue the notes of my stay at Varzin....

Friday, October 19th.—At lunch while the Chief was reading his letters and despatches, he mentioned to us among other things that his wife had written to him from Toelz that King Lewis had recently sent her a magnificent bouquet, at least three-quarters of a metre in diameter. We learnt at the same time that the Ruler of all the Bavarias still sends the Chancellor letters, expressing his anxiety about the continued existence of his country by the side of or incorporated with the German Empire. Hermann von Arnim was then mentioned, and the Chief said: “Yes, the Commercial Court at Leipzig (sitting as a Disciplinary Court) has had the case before it for an age without coming to any decision, although he does not deny the authorship (of[p. 333] the insulting pamphlet against the Prince, which he published whilst holding an appointment at the Foreign Office). That, however, is conceivable. Pape (the President of the Court at Leipzig), now that he feels himself safe in harbour, displays his Westphalian Ultramontanism. Formerly he affected great loyalty to the Empire, and was a stout radical.” The Prince’s remarks on the Russian campaign against Turkey were also deserving of notice. On mention being made of the unfavourable turn which things had taken for Russia, he said: “If I were the Emperor Alexander I should now withdraw my troops to the left bank of the Danube and remain there for the winter, at the same time announcing in a manifesto to the Powers that if necessary I should continue the war for seven years, even if I were obliged in the end to carry it on with peasants armed with pitchforks and flails. I could depend upon my Russians. Next spring I should seize a few of the large fortifications on the Danube and then gradually push forward.”

In the evening the Prince had four other guests in addition to Holstein and myself, Tiedemann having departed in the meantime. These were Regierungspräsident von Auerswald, a landed proprietor, a high Post Office official from Köslin, and the Post and Telegraph clerk from Wussow. Among other things we drank some Rhine wine of the year 1811, which came from Borchard’s in Berlin. In conversation with the Köslin gentlemen the Chief spoke chiefly of a redistribution of districts in Pomerania—a subject which I did not understand, with the result that I failed to remember what was said. He then mentioned that in a short time he would probably make similar arrangements in the Sachsenwald to those which now existed at Varzin, as[p. 334] Friedrichsruh was nearer Berlin and the climate there was milder than that of Further Pomerania, while his private interests and business there were also of more importance. He then again complained of the small returns he received from Varzin. In the course of the subsequent conversation he remarked: “I have a mind to get the King to appoint me Aide-de-Camp General. That would be quite constitutional, and I should exercise more influence in that position than as Minister. How was it under Frederick William IV.? At that time Manteuffel could do nothing against the will of Gerlach, who was Aide-de-Camp General.”

While taking our coffee after the Köslin gentlemen had left, the Chief gave a somewhat different version to that which he related at Ferrières of the cigar incident at Frankfurt. He said: “It was in the Military Commission. At first only Buol smoked. Then one day I pulled a cigar out of my case, and asked him to give me a light. With a look of surprise at my audacity he gave it to me, to the profound astonishment of the other Powers. The incident was reported to the various Courts and also to Berlin. Then followed an inquiry from the late King, who did not smoke himself, and probably did not appreciate the thing. Thereupon the two Great Powers alone smoked for perhaps six months. Then suddenly Bavaria also appeared with a cigar, and after a time Saxony followed suit. Finally, Würtemberg also felt it necessary not to remain behind, but this was obviously compulsory sacrifice to dignity, for he puffed his yellow weed with an air of surly determination, and afterwards laid it down half smoked. It was only Hesse-Darmstadt that abstained altogether, probably not feeling equal to such competition.”

At tea, which was served in the Princess’s room, the[p. 335] Prince suddenly stood up, went to his wife’s writing-table, and began to scribble away on a large sheet of paper. He then came to me, handed me the writing, and said, “There, but take care, it is still wet.” It was the letter of introduction to Schönhausen and Friedrichsruh which I had asked for on the previous afternoon, as I wished to start next morning. I was very pleased, and thanked him. “I find it very difficult to write with a pen,” he said; “but then you wished to have it in my own hand.” “All the more honour for me, your Serene Highness,” I replied. “Now I have the souvenir I desire.” “But why do you wish to leave so soon?” he said. “Stay a little longer. You are not at all in the way, and you should see a little more of Varzin.” I thanked him and said I should be delighted to remain a day or two longer, as I was only too happy to be near him. He said: “But you must allow me sometimes to go out walking or riding alone.”

Saturday, October 20th.—The snow still lies to a considerable depth about the house and grounds, but it is thawing. In the morning I took another turn through the park, going farther and in a different direction. Back to lunch early, and finding only Fräulein Fatio, had a chat with her. She said the Prince was very pleased at my visit. She related part of her own biography, and gave me some particulars of the Princess, who is very simple in her habits, dresses herself, and is a diligent housekeeper, &c. Her mother was greatly opposed to her marriage with Bismarck, and said one day she would rather see her daughter married to a swineherd than to him. She then spoke of the Countess Marie, who, according to her account, was very musical, but did not play as well as her mother. She had also other accomplishments, but was somewhat phlegmatic, and[p. 336] neglected many things, as, for instance, languages. But she could be extremely energetic when she took anything into her head. For example, once when they refused to let her have the carriage in which she was accustomed to drive to the future mother-in-law’s, she immediately jumped into a cab.

After lunch another run through the park as far as the large pond on the edge of the big clearing. After that an excursion with Holstein beyond the clearing and into the beechwood on the Schwarzenberg. The Baron told me that at present the Chief was not on good terms with the King, but that, on the other hand, he was on an excellent footing with the Crown Prince and also with the Princess. It was desirable that this should continue, as the Prince intended to resign on the death of the Emperor. He did not believe the Chancellor’s statement that he would then return as the Leader of the Opposition was meant seriously. If he ever saw one stone after another of the structure he had raised crumbling away he would soon die of grief—quod Deus bene vertat!

On our return we learnt that the Chief had intended to take a drive with us. At dinner we mentioned where we had been, and I praised the park for its great extent and variety. The Prince said: “It is certainly beautiful, and formerly it was even larger than it is now. My predecessor could wander for seven or eight miles through his own forests, mostly deciduous trees. He had those great clearings made and turned into arable land, as it was believed that where beeches had grown the soil would prove good. But the wind dried up the thin layer of mould and blew it away, and I am now replanting it.”

He then spoke of the Chorow farm, which Count[p. 337] Blumenthal had bought “out of the heart of the estate,” and which had now been repurchased by him. “I afterwards let it,” he said, “to the woman who had previously farmed it. She is also one of those by whose death I should benefit, as I am receiving a thousand thalers less rent from her than I could get if she died and I were no longer bound to her, as I have been for fourteen years.”

Of his further remarks during dinner the following are of special interest. We were talking of the result of the war with France, and the Chief said: “When I was made Prince, the King wished to put Alsace and Lorraine into my armorial bearings. I should have preferred Schleswig-Holstein, as that is the diplomatic campaign of which I am most proud.” Holstein asked: “You wished that from the beginning?” “Yes, certainly,” replied the Prince, “immediately after the death of the King of Denmark. But it was difficult. Everything was against me—the Crown Prince and Princess on account of the relationship, the King himself at first and, indeed, for a long time, Austria, the small German States, and the English, who grudged us such an acquisition. It would have been possible to arrange matters with Napoleon,—he thought he could place us under an obligation to him in that way. And finally at home the Liberals were opposed to it, suddenly discovering the legitimacy of princely rights—but that was only their hatred and envy of me—and the Schleswig-Holsteiners themselves would not hear of it either. All these, and I know not who else besides. At that time we had a sitting of the Council of State, at which I made one of the longest speeches of which I ever delivered myself, and said a great deal that to my audience must have seemed unheard of and impossible. I pointed out to[p. 338] the King, for instance, that all his predecessors, with the exception of his late brother, had added to their territories, and asked him whether he wished to follow that brother’s example. To judge from the amazement depicted on their faces they evidently thought I had made too free with the bottle that morning. Costenoble drew up the protocol, and when I looked through it afterwards I found that the passages in which I had expressed myself most clearly and forcibly were omitted. They contained precisely my best arguments. I called his attention to this and protested. Yes, he said, that was so, but he thought I should be glad if he left it out. I replied, ‘Not at all. You must have thought, I suppose, that I had taken a little too much. But I insist upon all that I said appearing exactly as I said it.’”

It is true, the Minister observed, as we were afterwards talking of our adventures in France, that he has no longer a good memory, except for matters of business. (“If I have read anything in a despatch or elsewhere in the course of business, I remember it,” he said, “but in other things I am not sure of myself.”) The foregoing statement, however, agrees in all important particulars with what he told me at Reims on the 11th of September, 1870, about those events.

Including the time spent over our coffee in the billiard-room, this sitting was an exceptionally long one. We sat together for nearly two and a half hours, and the Prince spoke on a great number of interesting topics, especially political movements, events, and personages. He described exhaustively the way in which Manteuffel (the Minister, not the general) tried to make money on the Stock Exchange, utilising his official position for that purpose. “The Embassies had to send him the[p. 339] Bourse quotations or something of that kind, extracts, reports on special securities, which he received from the telegraph office with the despatches earlier than the bankers. He then got his agent—Löwenstein, who tried to bribe me on behalf of Buol—to make use of this information without delay. He also wished to employ me in these manœuvres when I was at Frankfurt, but I took no part in them.” He then repeated his former statement that Manteuffel was bribed by foreign Governments, and asserted the same of Schleinitz, whom he had always regarded with disgust, as an individual who was physically unclean, with dirty linen, a face that was never properly washed, “the grease oozing out of his pores.” Speaking of the corruptibility of mankind, he suspected that there were also some rotten fish of that description on the press. He said: “I have never had any doubt so far as Brass is concerned. He took whatever was offered to him by friend and foe. And doubtless the Kölnische Zeitung was not much better. It was in favour of the Danes because the English were on their side; and Kruse, who was formerly a private tutor at Palmerston’s, was drawing a pension from Broadlands. Now it was in favour of the Turks, because Oppenheim had Turkish securities which he wished to unload on to other people.”

At tea he spoke again of the “conflict” and his conversation with the King at that time, which he had related to me on my last visit to him in Berlin. He now said: “During the ‘conflict’ they thought out a variety of measures which they intended to take against me—the scaffold, or at least the confiscation of my property. I consequently raised as much money as I possibly could upon my estates. I was then called the[p. 340] Prussian Strafford—you remember Parliament condemned him to the block in the Revolution of 1641. The King was also afraid of being beheaded—the women had talked him into it at Baden. He wished to abdicate if he could not find any one who would govern with him. When I went to meet him on the railway he was quite discouraged and depressed. At length he asked me: ‘But what if they were to send us both to the scaffold?’ At first I merely said, ‘What then?’ but I afterwards added, ‘You are thinking of Louis XVI., but I would remind you of Charles I. He died with honour, at all events.’ That produced a very sobering effect upon him. I had touched his conscience as an officer.”

From this incident he came to speak of the behaviour of the King at Ems in presence of the attacks of Benedetti, and said: “I soon noticed that he was beginning to take fright and was ready to pocket another Olmütz. I was at that time in Varzin, and as I drove through Wussow, on the way to Berlin, the Pastor stood outside his house and saluted me as I passed. I described a sabre cut in the air to show that we meant business. But the news in Berlin was by no means good. I accordingly telegraphed to him (the King) that I requested my dismissal from office if he received Benedetti again. No answer came, and I telegraphed once more that if he had now received Benedetti I should regard it as an acceptance of my resignation and return to Varzin. Then came a telegram of two hundred lines (doubtless words) from Abeken. I thereupon invited Moltke and Roon to a dinner of three, and told them how the matter stood. Roon was beside himself, and so was Moltke. I asked if we were quite prepared for such a war. He replied that so far as it was humanly possible to foresee we might hope for[p. 341] victory. I then took the two hundred lines, and, without altering a word of the King’s, reduced them to twenty, which I read over to them. They said it would do in that form. I then had it sent to all our Embassies, with the exception of Paris, of course, and got it inserted in the Berlin papers. And it really did do. The French took it excessively ill.”

Sunday, October 21st.—A beautiful bright day. The snow has disappeared. At lunch the Chief, while reading through despatches and telegrams as usual, said to Holstein: “Write that it would be desirable for the press to let it be understood that it is intended, in case of a French coup d’état, to recommend the Emperor to convoke the Reichstag for the consideration of such eventualities as may then arise.”

Towards 12 o’clock there appeared before the door a carriage for Holstein and myself, and two saddle horses for the Chancellor and his son. We were to make an excursion to the south-eastern part of the estate towards the long chain of hills which I noticed on the horizon as I drove here from Schlawe. We first drove through a beech wood, then through fields and meadows, afterwards through more beeches with some marshy ground, and finally, after crossing old and new fir plantations, we reached a bare height in the neighbourhood of Annenhof, the ranger’s house. From this point it is possible to see the château of Crangen with its four towers and blue lake nestling in the valley beneath: while on turning to the other side one has a view of the entire estate of Varzin. On my saying that this was quite a magnificent little realm, the Prince replied: “Why, yes. If I had bought Varzin merely for riding and driving it would have been a good acquisition; but as it is—potato land!”

[p. 342]

It was 4 o’clock when we got back from Annenhof to Varzin. The proofs of No. 3 of the “Reminiscences” had in the meantime been received from Kiel. After a while the Chief called me to his room and explained some of the corrections he had made. Among other things he had struck out some of the opinions he had expressed with regard to Radowitz, and the passage about the six shots and the six cartridges in reserve of which he had spoken in his account of the battle of Gravelotte. “I certainly said that,” he observed, “and the remarks about Radowitz are also quite accurate. But please omit them all the same. His son is now serving under me.”

As I wished to leave next morning I took this opportunity of thanking him for having allowed me to spend some days with him, which had been a source of great happiness to me. He reached me his hand and said: “I hope we have not seen each other for the last time. I have a great regard for honourable men.” “You have placed a great deal of confidence in me,” I replied, “and I beg of you to continue to do so, and to remember me should there be anything to do in the press that ought not to be generally known.” I also added: “Your Serene Highness has imparted to me a great number of important facts. These must all be kept secret for the present, but nevertheless will not be lost for the future. You make history, but do not write any, perhaps not even memoirs.[18] Bucher also seems to have made no notes.” He was silent. Then he spoke of the power of the press, which had done a great deal of harm. “It[p. 343] was the cause of the last three wars,” he said, “the Danish press forced the King and the Government to annex Schleswig; the Austrian and South German press agitated against us; and the French press contributed to the prolongation of the campaign in France.”

I broached another subject. “Your Serene Highness believed once at Versailles that you knew how long you would live. You mentioned various figures, seven and nine, but I cannot now remember the year. I fancy it was seventy-six—the year of your life, I mean.” “Seventy-one,” he replied; “but God alone knows that.”

When dinner was announced he let me go in front of him, and as he walked behind patted me a couple of times on the back, caressingly, evidently in the humour in which he was at Ferrières, when he called me “Büschlein,” his little Busch.

Of what he said this evening at dinner and afterwards over our coffee I have only retained one delightful anecdote. Once upon a time the Junker of Kniephof had a visit from a lieutenant of hussars who was about to call upon an uncle in the neighbourhood. The uncle was particularly punctilious in the matter of etiquette and good manners, and he was next day to give an entertainment that would be attended by a number of guests of similar character and opinions. Overnight Bismarck induced the lieutenant to drink freely, and primed him so well with good liquor (if I remember rightly it was “Kriegsbohle”—war-bowl—composed of champagne and porter) that in the end he had considerably more than he could carry. Next morning Bismarck drove his guest to his uncle’s country-house in a car without springs. The roads were not good, the rain having transformed them into seas of mud, so that the two young gentlemen were badly bespattered[p. 344] when they arrived, while in addition to this the lieutenant was decidedly sea-sick. As they entered the drawing-room, the company of some forty persons (the ladies en grande toilette, the gentlemen in evening dress) regarded them with mixed amazement and disgust. The hussar presently disappeared. Bismarck, however, sat down to table with an air of careless gaiety, in spite of the evident disgust which the good people manifested, and acted as if there were nothing in his appearance that anybody could object to. People wondered at the time how it was he failed to have any idea of the unpleasant impression he had made.

I left Varzin on Monday morning at 11 o’clock, again taking the post to Schlawe, proceeding thence by rail to Berlin and to Schönhausen.

Before I ask the reader to accompany me further, I wish to make a few more remarks on the Varzin estate which I noted down on various occasions from statements made by the Imperial Chancellor. First, a few words as to its history, and then as to the manner in which it is administered and governed by its owner, and as to the life he led there in other respects, in 1877, and shortly before and after that year.

In former times Varzin formed part of a much larger and more valuable group of estates, some of which were originally held by the Zitzewitz family, the greater portion, however, being in the possession of the Counts Podewils, who, up to the year 1805, were large landed proprietors here. Tradition has it that this old family of Pomeranian nobles obtained the nucleus of their possessions through an act of bravery. According to an account given to us by the Chancellor, a Duke of Pomerania was attacked by Saracen pirates during a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. They had boarded his[p. 345] ship, and one of them was on the point of making an end of the Duke, when the faithful Ritter von Podewils rushed from the kitchen, spit in hand, and transfixed the heathen with the weapon in question. He was then told that he might ask a favour, and he begged to be invested with the land surrounding Crangen Castle (about four kilometres from Varzin as the crow flies), in the vicinity of which, at that time, there was a great deal of forest and game. Subsequently this estate was considerably enlarged, per fas et nefas, by the Counts Podewils, who repeatedly held the helm of State, and were consequently powerful and influential. At the commencement of the present century, however, the estate, which had dwindled away again, passed into the possession of Herr von Blumenthal, who, in 1814, received the title of Count. The estate, further reduced in the interval by the sale of Chorow, was purchased from a member of this family by the Imperial Chancellor in the spring of 1867, out of the national grant bestowed upon him by the Prussian Diet for his services in the reorganisation of German affairs.

At that time the property, the area of which had been reduced from over 100,000 acres to something more than a fifth of that extent, included, in addition to Varzin, the estates of Wussow, Pudiger, and Misdow, together with the farm manor of Charlottenthal. Since then the Prince has been at pains to gradually extend it by purchase. In 1868 he acquired the Selitz estate, and in 1874 he bought back Chorow, which had been sold by his predecessor, so that the total extent of his landed property here, at the present time, is some 30,000 acres.

But the Prince has not only added to his little realm, but he has also been an active and circumspect[p. 346] reformer. He always was and still is a capable landlord, displaying in agricultural pursuits the same qualities which have marked his creative work in politics. As his early management of Kniephof showed, in spite of youthful excesses, Bismarck always understood how to make a neglected estate prosper, and his administration of Varzin is a fresh proof. Whoever can do that will in favourable circumstances, that is to say, given the necessary political education, knowledge, and position, generally be found equally capable of restoring the prosperity and dignity of nations.

In what follows, many analogies may possibly be traced between his work as a landowner and his last two campaigns in the Reichstag, as well as earlier indications of his bent without expressly directing attention to them in each instance. Before his time, for example, the beautiful woods were cut down and transformed into bad arable land, which, in spite of all the theory upon which these proceedings were based, yielded no returns or only very poor ones.

The present owner of Varzin, who has been careful to remedy this mistake, has also in other places planted fir trees in light sandy soil, which previously grew nothing but bushes and heather. If Nature be not disposed to assist his work, he compels her to do so, a thing which, by the way, as Imperial Chancellor, he has repeatedly done in other fields, viz., in those of political and economic reform. He forces Nature’s will to bend before his own by skilful strategy and stubborn perseverance. In several places I saw fir plantations in which the young trees were of different heights, nearly three-fourths of the plants having failed in the first year, owing to the sand and wind, while scarcely half of those planted in the second year ever throve. Perseverance,[p. 347] however, and persistent replanting got over the difficulty, and now the third and fourth years’ seedlings gave every promise of as healthy and fine a plantation as any of those in the neighbourhood occupying a more sheltered situation and better soil.

The forest is at present rather a plantation than a game preserve. There has, however, been a considerable improvement in the latter respect also during the decade 1866–77. Formerly deer were very scarce here, indeed had almost disappeared. But the new owner of the Varzin forest, in co-operation with his neighbours on all sides, succeeded in maintaining a close season, and now there is a fair number along the course of the Wipper and the Grabow and on the wooded heights, where a stag is also met with occasionally, as well as wild boar. The herons, large numbers of which formerly decimated the fish in the ponds, have been mostly destroyed or have left a district no longer safe for them. It would appear that efforts to check the devastation caused by the otter have not yet met with the desired success.

The Chancellor has also devoted a great deal of attention to the arable land which he acquired. Whole tracts that hitherto lay fallow have now been cultivated and made tolerably productive. Thanks to the system of drainage he has introduced, marshy ground has been turned into good meadow land; and irrigation has also been provided where it was necessary and possible. Nevertheless, the agricultural returns from the estate remain small compared with its extent, and the surplus left after the indispensable outlay is probably not very considerable. The Prince’s territory with its hills and uplands (rising, in one instance, over 500 feet above the level of the Baltic), with its dells and valleys, its beech[p. 348] groves, forest glades, and clear streams, is, on the whole, more picturesque than profitable.

Up to 1878 it was hardly possible to dispose of such corn as was grown, the railways conveying the crops raised in South Poland and in Hungary with cheaper labour to our markets for less than it costs our farmers to grow their own.

Timber is also very low in price—the Varzin forest consisting of not more than one-quarter beech to three-quarters fir trees. This timber was formerly floated down the Wipper to the Baltic, where it was cut into railway sleepers and shipped to England. This trade, however, did not yield much to the landlord. The same may be said of the glass works at Chomitz and Misdow, which are now closed. They turned out excellent window-glass, but swallowed up huge quantities of wood, so that the profit realised was very small.

The owner of Varzin has found a better use for his timber and at the same time more profitable employment for his water-power in the three paper mills on the Wipper. The railway between Stolp and Rummelsburg, which was in course of construction in 1877, now sends its goods trains through the Varzin district, and it is intended to form a connection between Further Pomerania and Posen. This has, of course, somewhat increased the value of a portion of the agricultural and industrial products of this district. At a not very distant date the paper mills, in connection with which the Prince already draws a considerable rent from his water-power and to which he sells a not inconsiderable proportion of his timber, will, under the contract with the present holder, come into his possession, together with all their appurtenances. It is this rent, I was told, which alone forms the annual surplus income of the[p. 349] whole estate. This, doubtless, means that the other profits, which are indeed comparatively slight, are swallowed up by the cost of improvements, drainage, irrigation, plantations, &c. The present owner, therefore, as a matter of fact, derives probably little or no direct profit from the estate, though he is making it more productive and valuable for his successors.

The village of Varzin lies for the most part to the north and east of the Prince’s residence. It consists merely of a double row of houses along the highway, and, if I rightly understood, there are only five farmers among the inhabitants. The rest of the population consists of “small people,” as they are usually called—tenants of a house and garden, day labourers and village artisans. The policemen, who live in the village inn, are there for the protection of the Prince, and only remain while he is at Varzin. Of course Varzin is connected by telegraph with the capital of the Empire, and there is a Post Office official in the place or in the neighbouring village of Wussow. I was told that recently, in the course of one year, no less than some 6,500 letters and packets, and over 10,000 telegrams passed through this man’s hands, and it should be remembered that, with very few exceptions, these were all received during the five or six months which the Chancellor spent here in that year.

There is no church in the village. Whoever wants to hear the sermon must go to Wussow, which is at a distance of about three-quarters of an hour. Although the Prince, as I have already indicated, is a God-fearing man, whose strength and sense of duty are based on religion, and who regards death as the janua vitæ, he seldom attends divine service—possibly out of consideration for his health.

[p. 350]

The Chancellor’s life, during his retirement at Varzin, is very simple. It is devoted largely to recuperating in a good climate, amid green woods and fields, from overwork, Parliamentary speeches, and the strain of notorious and deplorable friction; also to the active pursuit of his favourite occupation of farming, and finally to the enjoyment of Nature, by which he has also felt himself strongly attracted. It is generally known that he has for years past suffered from insomnia. His Gastein cure in the summer of 1877 produced a great improvement in this and other respects. Consequently the Chancellor rose earlier than he had been accustomed to do, and went for a walk about 9 o’clock in the morning, a habit which a little wind and rain did not appear to interrupt. On these occasions he was accompanied by his two Ulmar dogs, Sultel and Floerchen, the former a present from Count Holnstein, Master of the Horse to the King of Bavaria. Shortly after my visit to Varzin, the newspapers reported that some ill-disposed fellow, who remained undiscovered, injured the dog, to which the Prince was very much attached, in such a way that it died soon afterwards. Since then, however, it has been replaced by another of the same breed, only less good-natured, or perhaps one should say, more suspicious. Many of our members of Parliament will have met it (I only speak from hearsay) at the Saturday receptions in the Wilhelmstrasse.

The order of the day at Varzin is somewhat as follows: Between 10 and 11 A.M. the Prince sits down to an English breakfast with his family and any guest who may be staying with him. I have, however, only seen him take milk, one or two cups of black coffee, a little dry toast, and a couple of soft boiled eggs. He takes this opportunity of reading the letters and important[p. 351] communications that reach him by post or wire, respecting which, as a rule, he immediately gives the necessary instructions. Shortly before or after this meal personal affairs are discussed with officials of the estate, farmers and peasants of Varzin, and any workpeople engaged on the premises, important political questions being subsequently considered and disposed of. Between 1 and 2 P.M., if the weather is favourable, he usually takes a drive in an open carriage or a long ride sometimes to inspect a new building or plantation, to see the progress made by the labourers, to watch the fishing in one of the ponds in the wood, or to look in at the paper mills, and frequently also for the mere sake of exercise and fresh air. Visits to or from the neighbours seem to occur very rarely, perhaps because of political differences.

Before his stay at Varzin in the summer and autumn of 1877 the Chancellor found it difficult to ride far, and galloping in particular affected him very much. The Gastein waters brought about an improvement in this respect. In the expedition to Annenhof on Sunday, the two horsemen galloped for a considerable distance both at the beginning and end of the ride. With the exception of a few short breaks they were nearly four hours in the saddle.

Dinner begins between 5 and 6 in the evening, and during my stay at Varzin it usually continued up to 7 o’clock, the conversation being as a rule very bright and sometimes most memorable. When dinner was over the Prince would join his hands together as if he were offering up a short prayer. After dinner nearly an hour is spent in the billiard-room over a cup of coffee. Here the Chancellor, as already mentioned, generally sits by the stove, smokes a couple of pipes of tobacco,[p. 352] and occasionally feeds the fire with some fir cones from the basket, which stands ready at his side. At about 10 o’clock tea is served in the Princess’s boudoir. The Prince himself, however, did not partake of it while I was at Varzin, but took a glass of milk instead. Generally at about half-past 11 every one retires for the night.

The Chancellor has given up shooting for some time past, leaving it to his sons. On the other hand, he still enjoys taking long strolls through his park, which indeed fully deserves his affection. It is as extensive as it is beautiful, full of secrecy, variety and forest music. Stately beeches and oaks, and in some places red-stemmed firs raise their crowns high over the underwood on the hills and the grass and moss of the open glades. All the heights and hollows are connected by winding bridle paths, in addition to the narrower footpaths that pierce the woods. On the edge of that part of the park which adjoins the large clearing made by the Chancellor’s predecessor—with its dark green furrows and its ditches overgrown with heather—is a broad still fish-pond which reflects the tree-tops and the clouds above them, the reeds and the water-lilies. Here and there a bench under a beech tree, adorned with mementoes, initials, &c., invites the wanderer to rest and meditate. The Prince knows every beautiful tree in his park, which he seems to have studied thoroughly. The moon and stars have seen him wandering here, and doubtless during these solitary walks many pregnant ideas have arisen and many a plan ripened which have afterwards borne fruit for us, his people. He unconsciously takes his favourite haunts with him wherever he goes—even during the campaign in France, when they appeared to him in dreams with the glint of the sunshine on the trees. At[p. 353] Varzin he spoke repeatedly of what he had noticed in the park, and could tell many pleasant stories about the rooks in the tree-tops, how they “taught their children to fly,” and how they afterwards “took them to the sea-side in order to give them a diet of worms,” and how, “like people of position, they take a town residence during the winter in the church towers of Stolp and Schlawe.”

I have finished my account of Varzin, and take leave of that hospitable country seat in order to show the reader over some other possessions of the Prince. In taking their departure, I hope they will join with me in calling down blessings and prosperity upon the house and its master—Slawa and Wawrezin—fame and laurels for evermore!

We will omit the visit to Schönhausen, as the Chancellor himself was not there at the time, and has indeed for many years past been seldom seen there, and then only for short periods.

I proceeded from Schönhausen by way of Stendal and Wittenberg to the third large estate of the Prince, the extensive domain of forest land known as the Sachsenwald in Lauenburg, of which the little village of Friedrichsruh forms the centre. Owing to my letter of recommendation from the Prince, I met with a good reception at the hands of the head forester Lange, who showed me through the Chancellor’s residence, the nearest parts of the forest, and some adjoining farms that had been recently purchased. Here, however, a great deal was still in a preparatory stage. The little château was being altered and extended, the park behind it was being embellished, and the small stream that flowed at one side of it was being dredged and regulated. I therefore stayed but a short time and was[p. 354] able to note but little of permanent interest.... So I shall draw my picture of Friedrichsruh and the life there from materials collected during a later visit to the Prince when everything which was in course of preparation in 1877 had gradually been completed. But I will first relate a characteristic anecdote as it was told to me in Berlin by Lothar Bucher, who also published it in the New York Tribune.

When Bismarck was in the United Diet and afterwards in the Prussian and Erfurt Parliaments the opponents of the principles which he then represented denounced him as a “Junker,” and George von Vinke went so far as to declare in a debate in the Lower Chamber that he regarded Bismarck as the “incarnation of Junkerdom,” i.e., an extreme adherent of the party which was at that time opposing desperate resistance to the efforts made by the Prussian National Assembly and its Parliamentary successors to abolish feudal rights, aristocratic privileges and other relics of the middle ages. Our anecdote will show how little there was left even in 1865 of the fine old Junker. Under the Gastein Convention the Duchy of Lauenburg passed to the Prussian Crown. This little country was a judicial curiosity, and in comparison with the neighbouring States including even Mecklenburg, a monstrosity. It was a petrified specimen of the Germany of the seventeenth century, and well deserved to find a place in the Museum of the German antiquities. It had never occurred to any one to make a clearance of the mass of feudal lumber under which all the relations of life were smothered. From whatever point of view the institutions of the Duchy were examined, the observer saw the genuine spirit of the mediævalism holding unrestricted and unmitigated sway under the sun of the nineteenth[p. 355] century, and witnessed the exploitation of the majority by a small privileged minority. Lauenburg was the Pompeii of German constitutional history, or, what amounts practically to the same thing, it was the paradise of Junkerdom. The monstrous privileges of the nobility which were set forth in a certain parchment entitled “The Compact” (“Der Recess”) had been confirmed without examination by successive sovereigns at Copenhagen on their accession to the throne. The German Confederation, which occupied the little country in 1863, and the Austro-Prussian Commissioners by which it was afterwards administered, had been unable to provide any remedy for these evils. Their time had been too short, and the difficulties of the situation too great, as it was still uncertain to whom the territory would eventually fall. Therefore up to the final occupation of the Duchy by Prussia, apart from the chaotic condition of laws which no attempt had ever been made to codify, it was the custom to fill the numerous overpaid official positions with members of certain “fine families,” of course for the most part aristocratic, who farm out the extensive domains amongst themselves, naturally at a rent far below their real value, thus monopolising a great part of the wealth of the country.

On the 25th of September, 1865, King William went to Ratzeburg, the chief town of the Duchy, in order to receive the oath of homage and allegiance of his new subjects. He was met at Buchen, on the frontier, by a deputation of the Estates, who delivered an address, in which they said, inter alia: “We have your Majesty’s word that you will rule over us justly, according to the customs and laws of the country.” By this they unquestionably meant the preservation of their feudal privileges rather than reasonable justice. In his reply the King made no[p. 356] reference whatever to that passage. This was in itself enough to cause uneasiness, and a change was indeed at hand.

On the afternoon of the 25th, the day preceding the ceremony of homage, which was to take place at the Church of St. Peter at Ratzeburg, Bismarck, who had accompanied the monarch, was enjoying the freshness of the evening on the banks of the beautiful little lake near the town, in company with a Herr von Bülow, Hereditary Marshal of the Duchy, a typical Junker of those parts. As the latter had as yet heard nothing to show that the new ruler of the country intended to confirm the privileges, and was much concerned at this uncertainty, he at length took heart and said:—

“À propos, Excellency, how is it with our Compact? I hope his Majesty will confirm it before he demands our homage.”

“I imagine that the King will not do so,” observed Bismarck.

“In that case,” replied the Junker von Bülow, “we shall refuse to take the oath to-morrow in the church.”

“In that case,” retorted the Minister, coolly, “you shall hear to-morrow in the church that you have been incorporated in the nearest Prussian province.”

The two gentlemen then continued their conversation on the beauties of the district, the Hereditary Marshal being probably ill at ease and out of humour, as was to be gathered from the slight acrimony of his subsequent remarks. Immediately on his return to his quarters, Bismarck drew up a decree announcing the incorporation of Lauenburg with the province of Brandenburg, so that in case the aristocratic Estate really had the audacity to refuse the oath and the lawful hereditary homage, it should be read next day in[p. 357] the church, when a demand would be addressed to all present to take the oath of allegiance en masse, a demand which the popular Estate would immediately comply with. He assured himself of the approval of the King, and with this little torpedo in his pocket he entered the church next day. First a hymn is sung. A sermon by the pastor follows. Then the vassals are called upon to take the oath, and Bülow has to make a start. He steps forward hesitatingly, pauses for an instant, and glances at Bismarck, meets, however, with a look of determination probably not unmixed with just a shade of contempt, and then proceeds to the altar and swears allegiance. All the other members of the Estates do the same. No confirmation of the Compact! Bucher had this delightful little story from the best imaginable source—the Chief himself.

And now for a description of Friedrichsruh as I came to know it during my somewhat lengthy visits to the Prince between 1883 and 1893, together with a few words respecting its history....

When the railway station was opened at Friedrichsruh, and it had thus become a favourite Sunday excursion and summer resort for the inhabitants of Hamburg, a man named Specht, from the neighbouring town of Bergedorf, erected, at a short distance from the local inn, a lodging-house, or hotel, somewhat in the Swiss cottage style, which he called “The Frascati.” This venture failed, however, in a few years, when the building was purchased by the Chancellor, to whom the Emperor William—who was at that time still exercising absolute rule as Duke of Lauenburg—had shortly after the war with France made a present of the Sachsenwald domains. The Chancellor, by means of additions and alterations, converted it into the present not very[p. 358] stately but pleasant and comfortable residence for the summer and autumn.

The forest presents a great variety of timber, including many members of the pine family, deciduous trees, beeches (of which there are several very beautiful groves, with tall stems like pillars in a cathedral) oak, ash, and birch. There are also some peat bogs, one of which, lying along the road to Dassendorf, has been turned into a preserve for deer and wild boar. In other parts the shooting has been let. The returns from the forest in the way of timber vary with the prices received. The wood is not only sent to the market to be sold for firing and other purposes, but a portion of it is also used in the powder manufactory that has been erected by a Würtemberger on that part of the Elbe that flows through the Prince’s estate, and in the steam saw mills. I was told in 1877 by the head forester Lange, who, with seven assistants, administers and has charge of the Sachsenwald, that if there were an improvement in the low prices then prevailing he would feel justified in cutting down trees to the annual value of over 300,000 marks. In each of the twelve years preceding 1891 he must have felled timber to three times that value. There is good fish to be had in the two rivers of the district, trout being also found in the Bille. Agriculture and cattle breeding are only carried on at the two small farms of Silk and Schönau, situated on the edge of the forest across the Bille, which, together with their farmhouses and outbuildings, were purchased by the Prince in the seventies.

The Chancellor’s residence is a two-storied building, painted yellow, and consists of two parts—the old Specht inn and the new building. These meet at right angles and have the stairs in common. The upper story[p. 359] in the old building has for the most part remained much as it formerly was when it was an inn, and, indeed, still serves for the reception of the Prince’s guests. At the top of the stairs one enters a long, gloomy corridor, to the right and left of which are rooms of various sizes, more or less elegantly furnished. At the further end, to the right, is another staircase. On the ground floor are a number of family rooms, which contain among other things the handsome “grandfather’s” clock, and the large oak cupboard with writing materials, paper of all sorts and sizes, envelopes, pens, penholders, and pencils, &c., presented to the Prince a short time ago by the manufacturers of Germany as a token of their veneration. Here also is a good-sized room opening on to the park, in which the meals are usually served. The kitchen and appurtenances are situated in the basement beneath. The Chancellor’s apartments are on the ground floor of the new building. Passing from the hall up a few steps we enter an antechamber, to the left of which is a room used as an office by the clerks, while on the right a second antechamber leads into the very roomy study, and beyond it again to the Prince’s bedroom. The Princess’s apartments are on the first floor, where her daughter, the Countess Rantzau, and her three little sons also occupy a few rooms occasionally. Even the corridors are provided with Berlin stoves, those in the rooms being so constructed that the fire can be seen as in an open fireplace, for the Prince is fond of warmth and of the visible living flame. Doubtless this thorough heating of his residence is no longer a necessary of health. At least his physical condition during the three years preceding 1890, and particularly in the autumn of 1888, when I was his guest for nearly five weeks, was very much better than in the late autumn of 1883,[p. 360] when I also spent a few days with him here. He was then obliged, in accordance with the instructions of his doctor, to follow a strict diet, and to give up, not only shooting, to which he was formerly much addicted, but even long walks in the open air, and in particular riding. So far as I am aware, he is not at present obliged to impose any such restrictions upon himself.

When the Chancellor took a holiday, his object was to find recreation in the solitude of Nature, to feel himself once more a country gentleman, and to seek daily in the stillness of the wood “a nook in which only the woodpecker is heard.” It is true that he never quite succeeded in securing this isolation, and indeed still less at Friedrichsruh than in Varzin, which is far from cities and the great lines of communication. The world followed him by railway and over the telegraph lines, for it needed him as its Atlas, even when he did not want the burden and would rather have shaken it from off his shoulders. It came to him in letters and bundles of telegrams, and in the form of visits from native and foreign Ministers, Ambassadors and Councillors, who all brought with them questions of greater or less importance, and who were mostly in a great hurry. There was therefore at all times work to be done here, not so much, and in particular not such a load of petty matters, as in Berlin, but more than enough all the same. He was accompanied by Privy Councillor von Rottenburg, Chief Clerk of the Imperial Chancellerie, and a secretary, to assist in disposing of this work, which often gave them plenty to do. And the hours of labour which were not claimed by the great Empire were wanted for the Prince’s own smaller realm, with its needs and cares, its creations and developments. The duties of a great landed proprietor are performed by the Prince with[p. 361] intelligence and diligence, while he is no less strict in insisting upon the corresponding rights of his position. He receives regular reports on the administration of his forests and arable land, and when riding, driving and walking through his property, he sees personally how things are going on and what is lacking, what progress is being made with this or that improvement, how the crops are prospering, how their new pasture agrees with the cows, and so on.

The Imperial Chancellor’s daily life in Friedrichsruh, as at Varzin, was somewhat as follows. In the morning at work at his desk, then, if the weather were fine, a walk or ride, or a drive in the neighbourhood, where the roads are for the most part good, many being kept like public roads. Then luncheon, at two o’clock, with the family, Rottenburg, the secretary, and any guests who might have arrived. During this meal the Chancellor would read his letters and telegrams, and give Rottenburg instructions as to dealing with them. The Prince then retired once more to his study, or, sometimes, he went on a second excursion alone, or with a guest. Dinner was served at 7 o’clock, followed by coffee in the next room, and while the guests smoked their cigars, the Prince retired to the little sofa behind the table, and selected one of the three long porcelain-headed pipes prepared for him. He took little or no part in the conversation of the others, which was mostly carried on in a whisper, but read the papers, including the leading Hamburg journals. He retired after about an hour (instead of coming in to tea, which was served at 10 o’clock), as he now went to bed early.

[p. 362]

## CHAPTER VII

I RETURN TO BERLIN AND RENEW MY INTERCOURSE WITH THE CHANCELLOR—THE HISTORY OF MY BOOK—BISMARCK ON THE OPPOSITION OF THE FREE TRADERS AND THE HOSTILITY OF THE NATIONAL LIBERALS—HIS OPINION OF THE EMPEROR AND OF THE CROWN PRINCE AND PRINCESS—HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO ATTACK GORTSCHAKOFF’S POLICY—MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OF REAL LIFE—CONVERSATION WITH VON THILE RESPECTING HIS RETIREMENT—THE TURNING AWAY FROM RUSSIA AND TOWARDS AUSTRIA-HUNGARY—MATERIAL FOR THE HISTORY OF THE ALLIANCE WITH THE AUSTRIANS—THE PRINCE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY FRACTIONS—HE DESCRIBES BÜLOW’S POSSIBLE SUCCESSORS: HATZFELDT, HOHENLOHE, RADOWITZ, SOLMS, WERTHER, AND KEUDELL—THE CHANCELLOR’S REMARKABLE OPINION OF STOSCH—ITALIAN POLITICS—POPE LEO—THE PRINCE ON THE CROWN PRINCE—THE ENVIOUS AND AMBITIOUS IN PARLIAMENT—THE CAUSES OF THE CHANCELLOR CRISIS IN APRIL—KING STEPHAN AGAINST KING WILLIAM—THE NEW MINISTRY IN ENGLAND—DELBRÜCK’S ILLNESS AND THE PRINCE’S OPPONENTS IN THE REICHSTAG—THE CENTRE PARTY DESCRIBED—THORNDIKE RICE’S REQUEST.

The “Reminiscences” in the Gartenlaube were in great part fragments from the first half of the diary which I kept in France in 1870 and 1871. During[p. 363] their preparation I bethought myself that at the audience in which I took leave of the Prince in March 1873 he had said it would be useful and desirable if the whole of the diary were published with the exception of those passages which tact and prudence rendered it advisable to suppress. Therefore when I set about carrying his desire into effect the only question was whether he was still of the same opinion and would assist me in the work by looking through the proofs sheet by sheet, striking out what he considered questionable, correcting and possibly making additions. In order to be certain on this point I proceeded to Berlin in the first week of April 1878, and, giving a short account of my plan, I requested an audience for the purpose of talking over the matter. On the same day, the 6th of April, I received the following letter:—

“Verehrter Herr Doctor,—My father desires me to inform you that he will be at home all day to-day, and would be glad to see you. If you have time, he would beg you to come to dinner at 5 o’clock; if not, to call at any hour convenient to you.

“With the profoundest esteem,

“Your most humble,

“Count Bismarck.”

I accepted this invitation, dined with the family, and afterwards negotiated with the Prince respecting my proposal. He immediately gave his consent, only pointing out with regard to the co-operation which I requested, that if he were to read through and make alterations and occasional additions in the proofs he would be regarded by the public as one of the authors of the book. I overcame his scruples on this head by assuring him that, during his lifetime, no one except the publisher, a[p. 364] friend upon whose discretion I could rely, would know that he had permitted and assisted the publication within the limits laid down—not even the printing office, as I would have two proofs sent me, one for him and one for myself, and would reproduce in my own copy any excisions, corrections, and additions which he might make in his, and only send the former to the printer. On these conditions he also agreed to this part of my request. As the manuscript was so far complete that it could be sent to press, the work was taken in hand in accordance with the terms arranged.

On the 5th of July, 1878, the proofs of the first two sheets were sent by the publisher to the Prince in Berlin, and the subsequent ones to Kissingen, where the Chancellor—who was undergoing a cure—remained till the third week in August; then to Gastein, where he again took the waters up to the 16th of September; afterwards to Varzin, and finally once more to Berlin, where I had once more taken up my residence. The proofs were returned to me with the Chancellor’s corrections, for the most part in a few days after they had been despatched by the publisher, in order that I should reproduce the alterations in the copy intended for the printer. No arrangement having been made for their destruction I considered myself at liberty to retain them as a memento of my intercourse with the Prince, and I still preserve them. In some sheets there were no corrections, in others a few, while considerable excisions were made in a number of them—the portions struck out, however, not exceeding in all more than one-fiftieth of the whole. At the same time it was evident that the Prince had read the whole very carefully, as he had corrected even unimportant printer’s errors. My princely censor had justified some of the larger excisions by marginal explanations, and also in the letters sent[p. 365] through the Imperial Chancellerie with which the proofs were accompanied. These refer for the most part to statements made by the Prince respecting personages still living whom he was anxious not to offend. My princely “collaborator” also made occasional short additions to my text. It is hardly necessary to say that all alterations were conscientiously reproduced by me and included in the work.

So far everything seemed to be in proper order. Up to his return to Varzin the Prince had apparently no objection to my undertaking beyond those to which he gave expression in the excisions and marginal notes, as well as in the accompanying letters already mentioned, written by his secretary, Sachse, and which might be regarded as disposed of by myself and the printing office. Now, however, some further objections must have occurred to him. On the 27th of September I received the following letter:—

“Varzin, September 26th.

“My dear Sir,—I take the liberty of sending you herewith the proof-sheets as corrected. My father would like to speak to you once more about the whole work and its contents before you allow it to be published, as he believes that, after verbal communication with him, you may perhaps make a few further abbreviations. Possibly you may be able, at the beginning of next month, to come to Berlin, where my father will be very pleased to see you. In this case I would beg of you to send word a little in advance, to me or to Baron Holstein. We shall be in Berlin from Sunday on.

“With the profoundest esteem,

“Your most humble,

“Count Herbert Bismarck.”

[p. 366]

Having at that time again taken up my residence in Berlin, I called upon the Prince at his new palace, No. 77 Wilhelmstrasse, on the 4th of October, and had an interview with him in his study looking out upon the garden, which lasted from 4.15 to 5.15 P.M. He received me in a very friendly way, gave me his hand, and, after inviting me to sit down opposite him at the other side of his large writing-table, said:—

“Well, then, you have once more become a Berliner?”

“Yes, Serene Highness; I found Leipzig too dull in the long run, and, besides, I wished to be near you in order to offer you my services as occasion arose.”

He: “And you have broken with the Gartenlaube?”

I: “Keil (the publisher) died six or seven months ago, and the new editors considered many things to be trivial, and wished to have them struck out. I was of a different opinion, however, and, as the gentlemen held to their own view, I took back my manuscript. I shall, however, in future have the Grenzboten entirely at my disposal, or at least the whole political part of it, which, at present, is not what it ought to be. The article in question was that on Varzin, which, it is true, I treated in great detail. But I look on these things with the eyes of the next century, and I therefore find nothing which concerns you trivial and insignificant; and I feel sure that posterity will be of the same opinion.”

He: “But not the present day. That also applies to the book, which has grown too bulky owing to the numerous details, and you will not make any profit on it. Besides, there are passages that could be turned into ridicule, and the comic papers will not fail to take advantage of that opportunity. And I, too, should[p. 367] come in for my share. I do not mind that, however, but you?”

I: “It is also a matter of indifference to me. I have no fear, either of them or of the other critics, if I only know that I have not lost your good will thereby.”

He: “Oh! certainly; but you have given the remarks made by others at my table—what was said over the wine, and should not be made public. You will make yourself many enemies in that way. I have not struck out much, and have left in a great deal that really ought to have gone out. Other things, however, had to go.”

He took up two of the proof-sheets and looked them over. “For instance, that my poor father ate bad oysters. And here, where Lehndorf tells the story about Princess Pless and the Crown Prince. What will Lehndorf think when he sees what he said at my table published by some one?”

I replied that I was not aware he had meant the Princess Pless, and that she had not been named by me.

He: “Yes, but that would be inferred from what preceded. And here again, that I drink freely in order to mitigate the weariness of tiresome company. The Germania and the Socialist papers will seize on that and make me out to be a drunkard. And that story about Rechberg. What would he say? Besides, the affair was quite different to the account you give in the first eight or ten lines. It was not he who had given the provocation, but I, and it was he who first spoke of a challenge.”[19]

The Prince then came to speak of other matters in the sheets before him which he considered unsuitable for[p. 368] publication, as for instance a passage in the second volume, page 262, of which he remarked: “H’m, ‘That is boiling thought to rags—mere flatulence,’ I know I said that, but everybody must recognise that that applies to the King. And Augusta will read the book—carefully—underline it for him, and comment upon it. Of course I know I had a hard time of it with him at Versailles for whole weeks. I wished to retire, and there was nothing to be done with him. Even now I have often a great deal of trouble with him. One writes an important note or despatch, revises it, rewrites it six or even seven times, and then when he comes to see it he adds things that are entirely unsuitable—the very opposite of what one means and wishes to attain—and what is more, it is not even grammatical. Indeed, one might almost say that the Nobiling affair was a piece of good luck—on account of the Congress. If that had not happened I should not have secured anything at the Congress; for he is always in favour of schemes that will not work, and is wilful and opinionated in maintaining them. Others too in his most intimate entourage have to suffer from this aggravating peculiarity of his which he calls conscientiousness. You should see them when they no longer have to deal with him—they look quite changed, just as if they had returned from a holiday. But the Crown Prince is entirely different.”

In reply to my question he then expressed himself favourably respecting the Crown Prince and his Consort. On my leading the conversation on to the Duke of Coburg, the Chief observed: “I have also been obliged to strike out some passages here, as that would cause great offence, seeing that he is the ‘dear uncle.’” He chiefly referred to one or two passages respecting the efforts of his Highness to represent himself as resolute and fearless.[p. 369] In this connection he mentioned the Eckernförde picture, and I related to him the true story of the affair according to Tims’s account. On my observing that the exalted gentleman had no courage whatever he said: “He cannot help that, it’s his nature—but that he should have had himself painted as a hero—a stage hero!”

I inquired how he now stood with the Empress. He replied: “Just as before. She does what she can against me, and she is not always unsuccessful with the Emperor. She will ultimately drive Falk from office. The Court Chaplain? Christianity by all means, but no sectarianism! It just occurs to me,” he went on to say, “that in the Horsitz affair you write that Prince Charles sent Perponcher to offer me a bed. It was not he who did that, but the Duke of Mecklenburg. Such an idea would never occur to the Prince. He hates me and has already caused me plenty of heartburning.”

I then expressed the hope that he would not attribute the passages that had been struck out to any bad will on my part but rather to thoughtlessness, as I had intended the whole work to serve and not to injure him. He replied: “A great deal of it is good and quite satisfactory, as for instance the portion dealing with the Pope and the Catholics. I only wish you had made it fuller. But that perhaps can be done later, when a good many things might be added. But could you not now abbreviate some parts of it?”

I replied in the negative, as thousands of the forty or forty-one pages which we had read through were now printed, and any alteration would occasion great expense. When a second edition was being issued I would beg him to let me know what he wished to add. I could also be of service to him in the Grenzboten, which, it was true, was a small newspaper, but still enjoyed a certain prestige.[p. 370] Besides, we could get its more important articles reproduced in the daily papers, as has been done with success during the previous year. He seemed disposed to consider this suggestion.

On my asking after his health, and whether Kissingen and Gastein had done him good, he replied: “Gastein, yes—but the waters are dangerous. They oblige one to be very careful afterwards, particularly with regard to worry and excitement. Otherwise they make one quite dull and heavy. I have now found that out. I suppose you know about my last illness?”

“Yes, it was another attack of shingles.”

“No, it was something else. The shorthand writers turned against me in connection with my last speech. So long as I was popular that was not the case. They garbled what I said so that there was no sense in it. When murmurs were heard from the Left or Centre they omitted the word ‘Left,’ and when there was applause they forgot to mention it. The whole Bureau acts in the same way. But I have complained to the President. It was that which made me ill. It was like the illness produced by over-smoking, a stuffiness in the head, giddiness, a disposition to vomit, &c.” He then gave a full description of this ailment, as also of the shingles.

I inquired whether he was returning to Varzin or would go to Friedrichsruh, adding “or perhaps to the new Bavarian estate which is mentioned in the newspapers.”

He smiled and said: “Bavarian estate! I have not the least idea of buying one. I lose enough on the one I bought in Lauenburg, where the purchase money eats up the income of the whole property. How can an estate yield anything when the bushel of corn is sold at[p. 371] the present low price?” He explained this point fully, and then continued: “I told them that long ago and tried to find a remedy. It is ruining our entire agriculture.”

I mentioned that I had heard the farmers at Wurzen and farther up in Muldenthal complain of the intolerable competition of the Polish and Hungarian corn, in view of the high wages they have to pay, and that people looked to him for assistance. “Yes,” he said, “there will be no improvement until there is an increase in the railway rates or a duty on corn.”

I then turned the conversation once more on the Grenzboten, remarking that the publisher put it at his disposal unconditionally, and that I should be able to say whatever I liked in it. I should not, however, be in a position to do this before January or the beginning of February. If he would permit, I then proposed to come from time to time and ascertain his wishes.

“That will be a very good arrangement,” he said, “but I do not know whether I shall be back in February. We must first marry our daughter.” I congratulated him. “It is time,” he replied. “She has already had several good offers, but she is an obstinate, capricious creature. You know there was formerly Count Eulenburg, who had absolutely nothing but his salary, and the present one also does not draw more than a thousand thalers a year from his property, which after all is not exactly a large income.” I interjected: “But the Rantzaus were formerly very rich! I believe I read somewhere that they had about seventy estates and houses.” “Formerly,” he replied, “but not now—and moreover he is not the eldest son. But I fancy they can live very well on what they now have and will receive later on.”

[p. 372]

As we did not appear to have quite settled about the Grenzboten scheme, I returned to it once more, pointing out that my idea was to report myself and request his instructions on occasions of particular importance, domestic crises, foreign complications, &c. I must draw my information from the fountain head, as, although I was on friendly terms with Bucher, I understood that he had no longer much intercourse with the Prince. “Bucher!” he said, “yes; but it is the same with the others since I have got a representative—and Bülow. Altogether I am, in fact, no longer anything more than a Ziska drum.” I suggested: “But I can come at night, like Nicodemus.” “Certainly come. I shall be very glad. But why like Nicodemus? You can also come in the day time.”

He then repeated that the comic papers would turn the book into ridicule, that the Ultramontanes and Socialists would make capital out of it against him, and that I, too, would make myself many enemies by it. It was a matter of indifference to him, but I ought to be on my guard. I repeated that I was not in the least anxious on the subject, as his opinion was the only thing I cared about. He then stood up, came with me as far as the door of the antechamber, and shook hands with me on parting.

About a fortnight later I read in the papers an account of the death of Bismarck-Bohlen, our comrade during the French campaign. The news was doubly sad. The merry Count had become a melancholy man and had taken his own life. Italian papers gave the following particulars of his last days. In consequence of a distressing complaint he had for the past five years spent the winter in Venice, where he occupied a handsomely furnished flat in the Zattere. This year he[p. 373] had arrived on the 7th of October, accompanied by his valet. He seemed to be utterly prostrate in health, and had not gone out for several days previous to the catastrophe, nor seen any one except his servant and the doctor. The report proceeds as follows: “On the evening of the 15th he retired to his bedroom. As, up to 10 o’clock next morning, he had not rung the bell the servant came to his door, listened, and then knocked. Receiving no answer he opened the door, when he saw his master lying on the bed, covered with blood, and holding a revolver in his hand. The doctor and the German Consul were sent for. The former certified that the Count was dead, and that his death took place under peculiarly ghastly circumstances. The track of blood showed that he had, in his dressing-room, opened the veins of both arms and both legs, at the same time giving himself two gashes in the throat. All this was not sufficient to kill him, and so he had dragged himself, streaming with blood, from the dressing-room into the bedroom, seized a revolver and fired a bullet into his head between the ear and eye.”

The book, Count Bismarck and his People (Graf Bismarck und seine Leute) was published at the beginning of November. It immediately attracted universal attention, and was reviewed in the German, and soon afterwards in the foreign press from the most varied points of view, forming for several weeks a general subject of conversation. All the opinions agreed in one particular, namely, that the author was in a position to tell the truth, and had desired to do so. For the rest, there was a wide divergency of views, both as to the intention and justification of the author in making his revelations, and as to the literary value of his work. A remarkable circumstance was that there seemed to be a[p. 374] certain fixed relation between the favour shown by the critics, and the distance between Berlin and the place where the reviews appeared, these growing more favourable as the distance increased. It was amusing to note that many formed their opinion of the book without having read anything beyond a number of sensational extracts from it; and several papers showed questionable taste in treating it in an unfriendly fashion after having filled column after column with what struck them as its most interesting passages.

The views expressed by most of the large newspapers in Germany were depreciatory, and, with a few exceptions, the smaller journals copied the others in the usual way. The author met with a kindly and appreciative treatment from only a few organs of the press, which also, to a certain extent, recognised the real meaning and object of his work. The Weser Zeitung recommended it as “a collection, a real treasury of impressive and pregnant details.” The Hamburger Correspondent wrote: “The figure of the famous Chancellor rises before our eyes in Busch’s pages with a life-like vigour and colour which surpasses that of all the biographies that have hitherto appeared; while the surroundings and the historical background are drawn with equal skill.” The Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung described the book as being “readable and in a high degree instructive,” and observed: “Notwithstanding the numerous publications on the events of 1870–71 that have already appeared, none of them is equal in interest to the book now before us. It gives not only an insight into the private and, we may say, family life of the then Chancellor of the Confederation and his entourage, but it abounds in passages dealing with political matters, some of which[p. 375] are of great importance.” A critic in the Berliner Boersen Zeitung said: “Every one is talking of Moritz Busch’s collection of episodes and memorable utterances from the life of the Imperial Chancellor.... These will be read throughout the whole world. In itself the book would constitute a literary achievement of first rank, even if its hero were a purely fictitious character, and not the most powerful personality among the great politicians of our century. Readers who have no appreciation for what is characteristic, hold that the experiences and utterances of Prince Bismarck which have been selected by Moritz Busch with great discrimination, include many passages that are trivial and frivolous. Among these they often reckon those strong characteristics which most strikingly reveal the Chancellor’s nature, with its spontaneity, sober-mindedness, and impartiality, and its almost plebeian unpretentiousness and simplicity. Whoever admires the typical featureless hero of the German novelist, a concoction of undiluted magnanimity and sentiment, will turn from the portrait drawn by Moritz Busch with a feeling of embarrassment and repulsion; but those who have educated their taste by a study of the realistic authors will be enchanted with a picture the minutest details of which are vivid and characteristic, even if their views do not agree with those of the Imperial Chancellor.” The Scientific Supplement to the Leipziger Zeitung, which was otherwise by no means well disposed towards me, and had indeed taken a variety of exceptions to the book and to its author, honestly and impartially recognised the true tendency and significance of the work, saying that it contained “records which may prove of the highest value to future historians, indeed a great deal for which it will one day be the only trustworthy[p. 376] source.” “As evidence of its value as a mine of historical materials which is in some respects unique,” the critic then gave a number of well-chosen extracts.

A few other organs of the German daily press expressed themselves in a similar sense. As already mentioned, however, the great majority of the newspapers were more or less decidedly unfavourable. This was partly through a lack of political and general education, then because the critics in question were incapable of appreciating the historical significance of the work and lacked moral seriousness, while obviously it was also due in part to low motives, hatred of the principal subject of the work, wounded vanity, resentment against the author for having published expressions of the Chancellor which referred slightingly to party catchwords and party heroes, gave evidence of little sympathy with the Jews, and—in the opinion of the critics—did less than justice to certain belletristic products of recent decades. Finally, it was evident that envy of the prospective success of the book was also one of the influences at work. The author was indiscreet, and his gift was a mere collection of trivialities, spicy stories, gossip, and scandal. He was tedious, he had the soul of a flunkey, he had neither taste nor literary ability, &c.

Quite comical was the position taken up by the Post, an otherwise sensible, well-meaning, and sometimes well-informed paper. In an article entitled “Indiscreet Books,” which appeared on the 10th of November, it established, “by means of sound logic,” the genesis of the work. Referring to the remarks made by the Prince at Versailles when he ascertained the existence of my diary, the Post (or its contributor, Professor Constantine Rössler?) came to the following conclusions: “Whoever[p. 377] is acquainted with the character of the Chancellor will agree with us that he must have said to himself on that occasion, ‘If this diary be in existence it must be published at the first opportunity.’ That is the method which the Chancellor has followed in the case of diplomatic documents which have come into improper hands. Owing to the difference between the position of the persons concerned, what called for legal compulsion in the one case only required a mere hint in the other. What is the characteristic feature of this method? We believe it lies in the consciousness that there can be nothing more absurd than secrets which have leaked out and which have passed, whether in the shape of documents or as mere matters of memory, into the possession of other men. The seal will be broken sooner or later, with greater or less ease and skill, if the secret be worth the trouble, and it is not in our power to dictate the time of disclosure, which may happen at a very inconvenient moment. Therefore, break the seal, or rather, never attempt to keep secrets that have once reached the outer world in any form.... Prince Bismarck does not and cannot desire that there should be any such secrets respecting himself. This is our explanation of the reason why the present diary has been published, an explanation which is as soundly established as any logical conclusion can be.” This explanation (the author of which seemed to know nothing of secret documents and archives, and to have overlooked the circumstance that the diary had remained unpublished for nearly eight years) did not hold water very long. Two days later it gave place to the following correction: “Our attention is called to the fact that in the efforts made to prevent the publication of these diary entries, Prince Bismarck had no legal remedy to[p. 378] hand. Remonstrance, which was the only course open to him, having failed, the Prince is obliged to count upon the good sense of the reader of these utterances, which have been divorced from their natural setting.” This correction probably came from the Imperial Chancellerie. An idea can be formed of its value from what has been related previously. The circumstance that I let it pass unanswered and did not state the true facts of the case, will perhaps not be regarded as a mere matter of course by all persons, but the Prince knew that it was so considered by me.

Let us now turn to the opinions of the foreign press. As was to be expected, the book did not meet with approval in France, where its hero as well as the author were made the subjects of embittered attacks. But so far as my knowledge goes, it occurred to no one even in France to question the truth of the work. The Mémorial Diplomatique, among others, wrote that “the book is thoroughly imbued with a spirit of uncouth frankness, and the conversations and opinions which it contains are expressed in a form of crude simplicity which does not belong to the domain of the creative imagination.”

The work excited the greatest interest in the English press. The Times wrote a leading article upon it, and then devoted no less than six of its huge columns in small print to extracts from it. It was received with exceptional favour by most of the chief organs of American criticism.

We have seen that the great majority of the German papers expressed an unfavourable opinion on the Bismarck book, and that the action of our press in many other ways was calculated to restrict its circulation. Bismarck’s name, however, was too strong for them.[p. 379] The public practically declared that their verdict was unfounded and did not follow their leading, and for once the newspapers were not the great power which they imagine themselves to be. Two editions, amounting together to seven thousand copies, were exhausted within two months. A third and fourth followed rapidly, and before the end of the first year it was necessary to issue a fifth edition of the novelty which had made so many enemies. There were at this time fourteen thousand copies of the book in circulation, certainly a very considerable success in view of the fact that times were not particularly good and the price of the two volumes by no means moderate. Even then the run continued. A sixth edition appeared after a certain interval, and subsequently a seventh, a popular issue of ten thousand copies in another and cheaper form.

That was not all. In a few months after the first publication of the book in German there were nine translations on the market. That was nine translations in as many months, and an entire circulation at home and abroad of about 50,000 copies. Moreover, the German literary hacks who occupied themselves with Bismarck lived upon fragments of my work and drew their supplies from it for years, frequently without mentioning their authority. As to the domestic circulation of the book, I may mention that about a thousand copies were sold in Berlin, where the Vossische Zeitung, and the National Zeitung had spoken so slightingly of it and warned so strongly against it; and that of all our cities Cologne was the largest purchaser in proportion to its population.

Towards the end of November, 1878, I informed the Chief that if he desired to see any additions made to[p. 380] portions of the book an opportunity would be afforded by the preparation of the third edition which the publisher had in view. I concluded this letter with the words: “If I have left unanswered the gross falsehoods that have been circulated respecting the book and its author by a portion of the German press, and do not intend in future to make any reply, however sharply I may be attacked, I trust I may flatter myself that I am acting in accordance with your wishes. If I have not deceived myself in this respect, all these insinuations and insults are a matter of indifference to me, particularly as I see from the better German newspapers, as well as from The Times and the Perseveranza, that my intention that the book should be of service to you has in the main been realised.”

If it were no longer intended to extend certain portions of the work, this letter required no answer, and as none came I took it for granted that the intention referred to had been renounced. We now proceeded to reorganise the Grenzboten, and I wrote several articles for it, strongly supporting the Customs policy of the Imperial Chancellor, and opposing equally strongly the champions of unqualified free-trade; being actively assisted by Bucher with verbal and written advice. On the 15th of January, 1879, however, I applied directly to the Chief himself for further information, and received the following letter, dated the 15th, from his younger son:—

“My dear Sir,—In reply to your friendly letter of the 10th instant, I have the honour, as instructed by my father, to inform you that he is just now very much occupied, and regrets being unable to spare time for an interview with you.

[p. 381]

“He hopes, however, that this load of work will shortly be reduced, and he will then be very pleased to see you.

“With profoundest esteem,

“Your very devoted,

“Count W. Bismarck.”

On the 23rd of February the Prince sent me word to call upon him next day, when I had an interview with him extending from 2.45 to 3.45 P.M., which was in many respects very remarkable.

Theiss announced my arrival and Mantey showed me out. The Chancellor looked very well and was friendly, as he always is. He came a few steps to meet me, gave me his hand and asked, smiling: “Well, are you still of opinion that you have done me a service with the book?” “Yes, Serene Highness,” I replied, “with all right minded and sensible people.”

We then sat down at the writing-table, and he said: “Yes, but they are not numerous. It must give others the impression that I am a bitter, censorious, envious creature, who cannot bear the vicinity of any greatness. Humboldt—well, I give him up, he was really an envious creature—Heise, Gagern. It’s well I struck out what I said about Moltke. That would have been still worse, for when effrontery succeeds it is all right. You have also come off badly—just as I told you.”

I: “Oh! certainly. They have made me out to be a fearful cur: narrow-minded, indiscreet, tactless, tedious, and what’s more, a flunkey and an Epicurean. All that is wanting is that they should say I am accustomed to devour a couple of babies for breakfast. The Jewish press in particular. But I despise this stuff too much to pay any attention to it.”

[p. 382]

He: “The Jews were angry at your letting me say they are not painters. Meyerheim let me know that he is not a Jew, not even his grandfather. All the same, I do appear in the book to be bitter and envious, and I think I am not that. I know very well that you did not intend it. We both knew the reasons why I was often angry and bitter, and I knew still more about it. Such shameful things had happened that I wished to retire—at Versailles.”

I: “Dupanloup?”

He: “Still worse.... Then in the diary form the whole thing was bound to be fragmentary, and many connecting links had to be omitted.”

I: “I regret that it gives many persons that impression, but my intention was only to show how Count Bismarck felt, thought and lived at a certain period—during the war with France. It was not to be a delineation of character, but only a photograph of an important period in your life, so far as I could see it—a contribution to history. I have not merely reproduced the scoffing remarks, but also the appreciative opinions, and have communicated traits which, if I may so express myself, show that you are good-natured and humane, and, in particular, that you sympathise with the feelings of the common people.”

He: “H’m, and pray what might those traits be?”

I: “The sentinel at Bar le Duc, for example, and the Bavarian stragglers after the battle of Beaumont, together with the first sentence of the remarks you made at Ferrières, which began with reference to the spot of grease on the table-cloth. Also your opinion of Dietze, when the politesse de cœur was discussed. You praised him very highly.”

He: “Yes: but after all he is of no importance, not[p. 383] a politician. A good deal that would have been useful to me ought to have been given more fully, and other things should have been omitted. It was not possible to do that, however, owing to the fragmentary form.”

“But that can be remedied in the fifth edition,” I replied. “You were thinking of doing so the last time I had the honour of speaking to you on the subject. You can give me additions, for instance what you have said on various occasions respecting the Pope and the Catholics.” “I would not recommend that now,” he replied, “in your interest and in mine. The indignation aroused by the book has now subsided, and anything of the kind would revive the discussion of the whole subject in the entire press.”

I observed: “The book has also been praised by papers of high standing in Germany, and more particularly in England and America. The Times published three long articles on it, and it has been described as a eulogy, but one which is based solely upon truth.”

“Yes, in England,” he said; “but here at home, that is the main point.”

I continued: “And then I have not given merely conversations, but also newspaper articles which contained not my ideas but yours. I am heartily sorry that it has injured you. I was pleased with everything you said. I am quite indifferent to what people say about myself. Every word of abuse was an advertisement. I do not care for the esteem of our journalists or of those who accept their views. I have no fear, because I have no hope.”

“No hope?” he asked, as if he had not quite understood me.

“Yes, Serene Highness,” I replied; “no hope—that[p. 384] is to say, I am not ambitious and have no personal aspirations. I do my duty as I understand it. For the rest, I hold to the principle which has been described as the ninth beatitude: Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed. I know too that I am not what they, in their envy and wounded vanity, describe me to be. And finally, in issuing this book I have not depended at all upon my own judgment, but submitted it to you before it was printed.”

“That is true,” he replied; “but out of consideration for you I did not strike out as much as I ought to have done. Arrangements had already been made, and a good deal of it was printed. It would have lost in interest if much had been omitted, and I did not wish to diminish your success.”

“I thank your Serene Highness for that,” I said. “But I have myself also left out a great deal of what appeared to me to be questionable matter respecting princely personages, the Emperor and others. One passage which some people think refers to the Emperor was overlooked. I myself had not thought of him in giving the passage.”

He asked: “Why, what was that?”

I replied: “That in which the flags are referred to which were not mentioned in the treaty and which they afterward desired to have delivered up—the Parisian flags, Serene Highness.”

“Ah, that was less the King than Podbielski. Well, you must omit that passage in future editions. For the rest, once I am dead you can say whatever you like, everything you know.” I replied: “May that day be far distant! and in the meantime the book shall remain as it is, unless you wish to make any additions yourself.[p. 385] I have no idea whatever of taking any independent action in the matter.” “How old are you, doctor?” he asked. “Fifty-eight, Serene Highness.” “Well then, I am six years older than you.”

He then spoke of the opposition of the free-traders in the Reichstag who denounced his schemes of Customs reform. “It is remarkable,” he said, “how they, Richter and Bamberger, in their speeches always attack me personally instead of dealing with the question under discussion. The personality is of course a matter of indifference. My former ideas? How I have come to hold such views? Whether I have been consistent? I formerly consented to that which I now oppose; I have been playing a part; I am an amateur of genius, full of contradictions and always disposed to experiment at random. That is the main point for them. It is only incidentally that they refer to the matter itself. Whether I have a system? Richter at length said the only sensible and correct thing, that I doubtless had no system whatever. That statement is quite true, if it be limited to economic affairs—people are eventually forced to admit that I have one in politics. When I entered office my task was mainly a political one: the unification of Germany under Prussia. I was obliged to subordinate economic considerations, in so far as they were in any way affected, to that end. Otherwise I should have had no time. I had Delbrück for economic affairs, with which he was thoroughly acquainted, having administered them for years and being the first authority in his department. I reposed confidence in him, and when I was of a different opinion I sacrificed my opinions for political reasons, and also because I still wanted him for the founding of the Empire, after 1866 and 1870. If I was of a[p. 386] different opinion I did not enforce it officially. He has therefore acted for years by my side with perfect independence. It is true that afterwards my attention was called to the fact that we were not on the right track, at first through the complaints and admonitions of the public. But it was only when political questions no longer occupied the first place that I was able to consider the matter on its merits and not in connection with those questions. And it was not until Delbrück had retired in consequence of ill health—perhaps he had himself recognised that things could no longer go on as they had been doing—that I was obliged to form my own opinion, since I had no one to replace him. His two councillors were unsuitable. Michaelis is quite insignificant, and the other is only useful for certain things. In that way I was actually forced to take the matter in hand myself, and then I found that it must be managed differently. Moreover the entire current of affairs had changed, the other Powers being about to adopt a different policy or having already done so: Austria and Russia had suddenly taken the plunge by providing that in future the Customs dues must be paid in gold, while France, in spite of the payment of the milliards to us, was continuing to prosper, but not under a free-trade system. Then the Americans, who, by an increase of the tariff, had been enabled to drive others out of the market! Only two countries were constantly losing ground: Rich, burly, full-blooded England, with its old industry favoured in so many different ways; and poor, weakly Germany, which was still engaged in making a beginning—the latter being the worse off of the two. It was therefore necessary to follow suit and speedily.”

I said that the Opposition did not appear to feel any[p. 387] confidence in their cause. A National Liberal member of Parliament, Roemer of Hildesheim, had agreed with me when I told him the day before that the Prince would certainly be victorious, and had added: “Why, in his speech he threatened us with a dissolution, and if that were to take place many of us would not come back after the elections.” The Chief replied: “I have not exactly done that, but it may come to it. If only the manufacturers would not isolate themselves, split up into fractions, and cut themselves off from the agricultural classes! They would like to negotiate respecting individual items, the iron tariff, and so forth,—every one for himself. But that will not work. They must hold together. If you can remember that as well as you did the bitter remarks at Versailles I shall be very pleased.”

I suggested that it might perhaps be well for me to get some materials for articles out of the documents that had already been drawn up on the question in order to prepare the public mind. He replied: “Yes, but these are not yet ready. There is great procrastination. I do not mean that the officials are badly disposed, but they do not make any progress, and the Commission is waiting for the necessary data. I have taken this load upon my shoulders in addition to the others, and should like to do it all myself. And then one has all sorts of vexation and worry, which does not tend to improve the health, any more than the enormous quantities of work I have been doing recently. I have been busier at Friedrichsruh than in Berlin.”

I asked how his health in general now was. “Not what it should be,” he replied. “I am weak in the legs and cannot stand for any length of time. Leyden said to me: ‘If this weakness in the legs is to be remedied,[p. 388] the head must do no work for three months.’ I ought to have resigned, and I had intended doing so two years ago. But what is a man to do when he cannot resist tears? Still I should have gone; but the National Liberals began their attacks, and I was obliged to remain. And then there was the outrage in addition: the old man with his bandaged arm lying there, and hardly able to say ‘Yes’ at the Council respecting the Regency—I thought to myself that it would be a sin against God if I left him. And then the National Liberals were no politicians in the autumn of 1877. Bamberger has recently declared, in an elegiac tone, that they were justified in expecting consideration, or even gratitude, from me. As if they had co-operated with me for sentimental reasons, and not because of their Nationalist principles! I am represented as having disowned them, while it was they who turned from me because I could not be as liberal as they were. If their leaders had been real politicians, they might have secured a great deal from me then, and more still in the course of time. But the maintenance of the party was of greater importance to them than the prospect of practical benefit. When Bennigsen returned from Varzin they said: ‘He cannot work with this Minister, but after him.’ It would be well if the fifteen or eighteen members of the party, who by rights belong to the Progressists, were to withdraw—but they remain. And now I am attacked by their newspapers, the Kölnische, the National Zeitung, the Hannoverscher Courier, quite in the style of the Progressist press. I am opposed in the Reichstag on all questions—obviously to prove that I require the support of these gentlemen—in connection with the tobacco monopoly, the tobacco tax as I intended it, and the Anti-Socialist laws.”

[p. 389]

I remarked that doubtless this was also, to some extent, due to their juridical turn of mind and their idea of a legal state, which, in reality, would be nothing but a state of lawyers and County Court judges, where they would rule and arrange everything according to their own theories—a state which would have no more claim to exist than a theologians’ or traders’ state.

“Yes,” he replied, “that is true; but the chief cause is their enmity to me. And how ungrateful they were to the King about the Anti-Socialist laws! The old man who had boldly risked his crown for Prussia and Germany in 1866 and 1870 struck down by the hand of an assassin—and even in 1864, when a coalition of the Powers on behalf of Denmark (Schleswig-Holstein affair) was by no means impossible, they did not wish to protect him because I proposed it.”

The conversation then turned on the condition of the Emperor. The Prince observed: “He has lost in energy and intellectual power, and has thus become more open to improper influences.”

I inquired about the Successor, and how the Chancellor now stood with him.

“Well,” he said, “quite well. He is more human, so to speak, more upright and modest—his character resembling that of his grandfather and of Frederick William I. He does not say: ‘I have won the battle, I have conducted the campaign,’ but ‘I know that I am not capable of doing it; the Chief of my General Staff has done it, and he therefore deserves his rewards.’ The Most Gracious thinks quite differently. He also cannot tell exactly an untruth, but he will have it that he has done everything himself; he likes to be in the foreground; he loves posing and the appearance of authority. The Crown Princess also is unaffected and[p. 390] sincere, which her mother-in-law is not. It is only family considerations that make her troublesome, formerly more than at present.”

“The uncle in Hanover?” I suggested.

“No, not so much as the Coburger and the Augustenburger; but she is honourable, and has no great pretensions.”

On leaving I said: “If your Serene Highness should want me at any time, and should require anything in which I could be useful, I would beg to be remembered.”

He replied: “Well, what I said to you just now about the Free-traders, the National Liberals and Delbrück was intended in that way. Make it public, and I should be glad if you would send me a copy.”

I accordingly wrote an article “On the Genesis of the Imperial Chancellor’s Customs Reform,” which was intended to appear in No. 10 of the Grenzboten, and sent him a proof for revision on the 28th. It was returned to me in three hours. The Chief had struck out nothing except the following. After the words “when Delbrück retired at this time, owing to the condition of his health,” he crossed out the passage: “and none of his fellow-workers in the department of political economy was capable of replacing him;” as also the word “absolutely” in the phrase: “The Chancellor was absolutely compelled to prepare himself by a thorough study of the facts to take the matter into his own hands.” It would therefore appear that I had actually retained what he had communicated to me, nearly as well as the bitter remarks he had let fall at Versailles.

In the meantime I had a further interview with the Chief. On the forenoon of the 27th of February I received a letter from his Secretary, Sachse, saying[p. 391] that the Prince requested me to call upon him, if possible, some time before 5 o’clock. At 3 P.M. I went to his palace. After waiting in the antechamber for a quarter of an hour, a slight, thin elderly gentleman came out, being accompanied by the Prince as far as the antechamber. This was Lord Dufferin, the English Ambassador at St. Petersburg. I then went with the Prince into his study, where we sat down facing each other across his writing-table as usual.

“You recently told me,” he began, “that when I had anything to say you could get it into the Grenzboten.” I replied: “Certainly, Serene Highness; it shall be done without delay.”

“Well, then, I would beg of you to write something on the policy which Gortschakoff is promoting in the Russian press, and particularly in the Golos, and to draw a comparison between what we have done for the Russians and what they have done for us. It must, however, be written with tact, in a diplomatic way.”

“I will try to do so,” I replied. “I am acquainted with the articles in the Golos through the German Petersburger Zeitung. It shall be done at once, as was the article on the subject of our last conversation. With your permission, I will send you a proof of it to-morrow, in case you should wish to add or strike out anything.”

“Please do so,” he said. “And now as to Gortschakoff. You know how the Golos incessantly attacks our policy and me personally, asserts that we were ungrateful at the Berlin Congress, and recommends joint action with France. That is the work of Gortschakoff and Jomini, and this fact must be got into our press. Gortschakoff must be shown what we have owed or have not owed to Russia during the past fifty or[p. 392] sixty years, and what we have done for her in this period. Russia helped us in 1813, but in her own interest. In 1815, the Russian’s policy was in a general way a good one, but at the same time it injured us by frustrating any organisation of Germany which might not have fitted in with the Emperor Alexander’s plans for rearranging the world; our demand for compensation also received but very lukewarm support from the Russians. Finally, their gains were greater than ours, although we had risked and achieved more, and made greater sacrifices than they had done. You know that in 1828 we did them good service during the Turkish war by Muffling’s mission for example, which helped them out of a great embarrassment. In 1830, they wanted to attack us in co-operation with France, for whom we were anxious to secure the left bank of the Rhine. The execution of this plan was only prevented by the outbreak of the July Revolution. Shortly before the February Revolution a similar plan was being developed. In 1847 we suppressed the rising in Posen in the interest of Russia. During the first war with Denmark they ran counter to us. Of course, you know what took place at Warsaw, in 1850, when the Union was under consideration. We have in great part to thank the Emperor Nicholas for our pilgrimage to Olmütz. During the Crimean war in 1854, we, who had been badly treated shortly before, remained neutral, while Austria, who had been well treated, joined the Western Powers; and in 1863, when the insurrection broke out in Poland, and was supported by Austria and the Western Powers in their Notes, we took the part of Russia, and the diplomatic intervention failed.—It should only be a short balance sheet, giving the debit and credit sides—you will have to read the subject up.—In[p. 393] 1866 and 1870 Russia did not attack us—on the contrary. But that, after all, was in Russia’s interest too. In 1866, Prussia was an instrument for venting the anger of Russia upon Austria; and in 1870 also it was only sound policy on her part to side with us, as it was undesirable for the Russians that Austria should join against us, and that a victorious Franco-Austrian force should approach the frontiers of Poland, it being a traditional policy in Paris to support Poland at the expense of Russia, a policy which was also followed in Vienna, at least of recent years. And then, if we had reason to be thankful to them, we returned the compliment in London in 1870. We secured for them the freedom of the Black Sea. But for us they would not have obtained it from England and France.”

After a short pause he continued, while I, with one of his big pencils, noted down what he said: “Gortschakoff is not carrying on a Russian policy, which takes us into account as friends, but a personal policy. He always wants to cut a figure, and to be praised by the foreign press, and in particular by the Parisian newspapers. He sympathises with France, which cannot be said of the Emperor. He would like to posture as the friend and supporter of that country. The Dreikaiserbund only satisfied him for a short time. As far back as 1874 the threads of the Gortschakoff-Jomini policy are to be found in the foreign press—oglings and advances towards an intimacy between Russia and France of ‘la revanche.’ The rejection of these addresses is due rather to France than to Russia. This policy does not appear to have originated with the Emperor Alexander. It culminated in the period 1875–77, when the rumour was circulated[p. 394] that Gortschakoff had saved France from us, and when he began one of his circular despatches with the words: ‘Maintenant la paix est assurée.’ You remember Blowitz’s report in The Times. Read it again, and mention the matter. His account was correct, except where he spoke of an anti-French military party in Prussia. No such party existed. The same policy, which must be distinguished from that of the Emperor, is now being carried on in the Golos, which was formerly Gortschakoff’s official organ. Whether, in spite of all signs of disfavour this is not still the case, and whether Jomini does not still inspire it, is doubtful. At any rate it is Gortschakoff’s policy which it represents. People are now talking of his retirement, and that Lobanoff, the Ambassador at Constantinople, is selected to be his successor. Those who are well informed, however, do not believe this, nor do they think he will retire from office as long as he lives.”

I said: “Lobánoff? How are these Russian names really pronounced? Górtschakoff and Lobánoff?”

“He is called, Górtschakoff, but otherwise the position of the accent is quite uncertain—sometimes before, sometimes after, and sometimes on the middle syllable. He is now old, feeble, and decrepit; yet, notwithstanding his failing powers, the anti-German publications are placed to his credit—and not without reason. They also account in part for his popularity in Russia—and his vanity has not decreased. After 1874 it seemed as if his thirst for fame would give him no peace. At the time of the Reichstadt Convention he is understood to have said: ‘Je ne veux pas filer comme une lampe qui s’éteint; il faut que je me couche comme un astre.’”

I had not rightly understood him, and asked: “How did you say that, Serene Highness?”

[p. 395]

He then repeated the French phrase more slowly, and said afterwards: “Please show it to me. You will have written it correctly, I suppose?”

I handed him the paper, and he observed: “The ‘e’ is missing in ‘comme,’ and the accent in ‘éteint.’” He then continued: “You might bring in, at the same time, that he has really been stupid as a politician. He has only acted for himself during the last four years—that was in the preparations for the Turkish war, and no one can say that he displayed any particular skill in bringing it about. The relations with Austria—or, indeed, even with Rumania—were not skilfully managed. What did he do during the six months which he spent at Bucharest? The old fop was more occupied with the fair sex than with business. The relations with Austria and Germany were also not properly cleared up, although it ought to have been his chief task to assure himself definitely of the position of Austria towards the aims of Russia.” In the further course of conversation, Schuvaloff’s name came up, and I said he was regarded by many persons as Gortschakoff’s successor. The Chancellor replied: “Schuvaloff is a clever man, but he has no chance. There is too much Court intrigue against him, and the Emperor Alexander will not have about him a man of real weight. Otherwise Schuvaloff would be excellent from the point of view of peace.”

The interview had lasted over half an hour. The Prince went out for a drive immediately after—probably to return Lord Dufferin’s visit. I went to the Foreign Office, where Bucher enabled me to take a copy of the documents, and of Blowitz’s article in The Times. Three days later the article desired by the Chief, to which I gave the title, “The Gortschakoff Policy,” was ready. On the 6th of March I sent a proof of it to the Prince,[p. 396] and was pleased to find that he only struck out some seventeen lines from the nine pages of which it consisted. It then appeared in No. 11 of the Grenzboten, and extracts were reproduced in the entire European press. It gave rise to a particularly lively controversy in the English and Russian newspapers, and some of them discussed it in long leading articles as an event of the first magnitude; so that it may be assumed that the object the Chief had in view was satisfactorily attained.

After the first volume of the fifth edition of Count Bismarck and His People had been printed, Captain Derosne’s French translation appeared in May, 1879. The translator made some additions to the passages respecting Madame Jesse, which began with the words: “We are in a position to add to Dr. Busch’s diary some particulars which were noted down at the time by Madame Jesse, who owned the house occupied by M. de Bismarck and his suite from the 6th of October, 1870, to the 5th of March, 1871.” I showed these to the Prince, who, after reading them over, declared them to be mostly fables, and very poor fables. He observed, in conclusion:—

“And as to this clock: ‘Je ne veux pas—je ne cède pas.’ On the contrary, she let me know that if I would give her 5,000 francs in compensation for the damage done to her house and property, she would let me have the clock.”

I now informed him that the book had been translated by Derosne, a captain attached to the general staff in Paris; that, on the whole, his version read very well; and that, from his letters, the translator appeared to be an ardent Bonapartist, who placed the Republic on a level with cholera and the plague. I then mentioned,[p. 397] as I had already informed him by letter, that Derosne also proposed to translate Letters to Malwine, and that I had promised him an introduction and explanatory notes, in case he (the Chief) gave his permission. He said: “Yes, with pleasure.” I replied: “I had hoped as much; as it is evident that, although the French do not love your Serene Highness, they take an interest in you, and, indeed, a deep interest. The translation, which was published on the 8th instant, was sold out in five or six days, although the edition consisted of 3,000 copies; and an advance collection of quotations from it (of which 10,000 copies are said to have been issued) is also understood to have been very speedily disposed of. Dentu is now printing the book itself. Six translations have already been published—in England and America, as well as in the Dutch and Russian languages. There has also been some talk of a Swedish translation. The Dutch sounds very queer in some parts.”

“I can easily believe that,” he said. “Have you ever read a Dutch play?”

“No,” I replied, “but I have seen some passages from the Dutch Bible.” “It sounds very strange to our ears; but,” he added, “one must not tell them so, as they would feel greatly offended.”

He then said: “But tell me what you think of the last debates in the Reichstag, and the position of the Customs Reform.”

I replied: “Well, I think one may congratulate you on the commencement of victory in the matter. The manner in which you disposed of Delbrück, in the debate on the corn tariff was simply delightful. Why, that was a refutation, point by point.”

“Yes,” he replied, smiling, “but we cannot yet say[p. 398] how things will go at the third reading. If it is not passed, I shall make a Cabinet question of it; and, as the King will not let me go, we shall dissolve. They, however, would seem inclined to procrastinate; and, in that case, I am not yet certain whether we ought to dissolve. Another year can, perhaps, do no harm, and the elections may in the meantime turn out better. The Ultramontanes, with whom it is altogether impossible to come to any permanent understanding, will hardly support the revenue taxes. Then we must have a dissolution, as we regard the reform as a whole, from which no part can be dissevered.”

I asked if I might say that in the press. He said: “I think not. Emphasise in detail the position of the Eighty-eight (the Opposition) in their private and business capacities, to the iron tariff. How most of these gentlemen—lawyers, journalists, holders of funded property—are people who live upon fees, salaries, pensions, dividends; and, having no immediate connection with agriculture, are not personally affected, and have no experience, yet have most to say in the matter.”

“Who neither sow, nor reap, nor spin, as you said to Lasker,” I observed, “and who are nevertheless fed and clad. Of course, you did not refer to them alone, but to the whole class.”

“Certainly,” he replied. “Write that, and hunt up the necessary personal information. That may prove useful as a means of clearing up the situation for the elections. It must be shown that the majority of our legislators are the people who have nothing to do with practical affairs, and have no eye, no ear, no sympathy for the interests which the Government, in this case, defends. Learned men, particularly the leaders and principal speakers. Men of theory, who have no proper[p. 399] feeling for realities, and who have acquired their knowledge, not from experience, but from books, must no longer have the sole power and chief influence in the Legislature.”

He then made a move, as though the interview were at an end. I rose, and he gave me his hand, and then asked: “How are things in general going with you? You look rather poorly!”

I replied: “Much obliged to your Serene Highness, but thank God I have nothing to complain of. There is only one thing I want, viz., that you should make more use of my willingness to serve you. The article on Gortschakoff, for example, did its work in the press fairly well.” “I know that,” he said, “but I have so much to do just now. Even as it is I want five or six more hours in the day to get through my work,” “And how is your Serene Highness’s health?” “Not good. It was better, but the overwork and worry! I must shortly get out of harness again.”

I then went across to Bucher to get materials for the article which the Chief desired me to write. On this occasion, Bucher told me that “the stout fellow” (von Bülow, the Secretary of State) proposed to the Prince that “Press-Hahn” should be taken into the Foreign Office as First Councillor. Bucher added: “Bülow, who is a Mecklenburger, has no thorough knowledge of Prussian affairs, and so Hahn would assist him. The Chief also wished it, but Hahn had been gossiping, and so it got into the newspapers. This was reported to the Chief, who then said: ‘A man who cannot keep his own counsel cannot be employed by me here,’ and so the appointment was not made. Bülow, however, declares that it has only been postponed.”

On my calling upon Bucher again in the afternoon,[p. 400] he said: “I would beg one favour of you. There has been talk of somebody being again appointed here in connection with the press. I was to take over the work in the meantime, as he wrote me from Friedrichsruh. I said to Bülow, however, that that would not do, as it would first be necessary for me to arrange for the necessary information, and prepare the files, and that that would take some weeks. Probably Bülow has thereupon simply written to the Chief that I declined. Now, I would request you, when you are next called to the Prince, to take an opportunity of mentioning that you got part of the material for your last article from me, and that I have also been of assistance to you occasionally in other ways.” I promised to do this.

The article which the Chief had ordered appeared in No. 22 of the Grenzboten, under the title of “Some Characteristics of the Minority in the Question of Tariff Reform.”

During the next few months I was actively engaged in the Grenzboten in supporting the Chief’s policy and attacking his Free Trade and Progressist opponents. I almost always took counsel with Bucher, who sometimes suggested the articles, and between us the Prince’s opponents came to hear many a bitter truth.

On the 9th of June I met von Thile at the corner of the Flottwellstrasse and Lutzowstrasse. He stopped as he returned my greeting, and we dropped into conversation, in the course of which I also mentioned his retirement, and pointed to Keudell as the immediate cause of it. “He wished to be Secretary of State,” I said, “and then Minister.” “Your Excellency knows better than I do how incapable he was of filling such a post. He had an excellent eye for his own advantage, but he had no political ability.”

[p. 401]

“He was a maid of all work,” replied Thile, who then related to me the story of his resignation. “I sent a request to the Minister to let me know whether I should tender my resignation to him, which was the usual course, or to the Emperor. Keudell took this message to him. He then came to tell me, under instructions from the Minister, that I should apply to the Emperor in order to spare him, the Chief, the sight of my hateful countenance. The story then got abroad, and Bancroft repeated it to me, adding that it was ‘a message which no gentleman would have carried to another gentleman,’—and you know what a high regard he has for the Minister otherwise.” In conclusion, I begged Thile to permit me to call upon him at some future time. He said it would afford him great pleasure, and he gave me his address, No. 3, Flottwellstrasse.

Next day I sent him a copy of the French translation of the Bismarck book, for which he thanked me in a very amiable letter. After careful consideration, I postponed my visit for a time. It would not have looked well had the Prince heard of it, as he is suspicious, and certainly not without reason, even of his friends.

It was not until the 6th of October that I again saw the Prince, having on the previous day received a letter from Sachse inviting me to call upon him. When I entered the antechamber Philippsborn was with the Chief. At six minutes past one he sent Theiss to call me in to him. I remained for about three-quarters of an hour. He was in plain clothes and in evident good humour. On reaching me his hand he said: “Well, doctor, how are you? How are the patients getting on?”

I: “The patients? Whom do you mean, Serene Highness?”

[p. 402]

He: “Why, the newspapers.”

I: “They are as ill as ever, or I should rather say, as stupid.”

He: “Well, just at present we could also find use for a doctor in the Foreign Office. Things are getting very dull there. Bülow is seriously ill, and is hardly likely to recover. I shall not see him again after his holiday. And Gastein has not done me any good either. I was obliged to work too much there, and yet to no purpose. I felt very well at Kissingen, but now—my health was better when I left Berlin on the closing of the Reichstag than it is at present. It was just the same as long ago as 1877. I then took a longer holiday than usual, but business followed me like my shadow. Radowitz is also not well. He, too, complains, and requires some rest. There is now some talk of looking for assistance to one of our Ministers abroad, Alvensleben and Stirum being mentioned, as well as Schlözer, who is in favour with the Crown Prince. With us the trade of a Minister is exhausting, and they sometimes even die of it, as Brandenburg did after the Warsaw-Olmütz events. A vast amount of nerve power is used up, particularly in the Foreign Office among the elderly gentlemen. Fresh friction continually arises. It was the same in former times, when three Ministers went out of their minds.” He named them, Kernitz was one, and then continued: “He (the King) has been wearing out others besides, for instance, Falk, who retired solely on account of exhaustion and worry. He (Falk) has no reason to complain of me, I took his part in all questions. The King was always against him whenever he wanted to carry something through. I advised him not to take it so much to heart. When the Most Gracious, who is[p. 403] entirely under the influence of the Queen and the Court Chaplains, sent him an order which he had to execute, he should have pointed out that it must have his counter-signature if the King wanted to keep up constitutional appearances, but that his own convictions made it impossible for him to sign it, and he should then have waited to see what would happen. But he is too easily offended, and so he tendered his resignation—really on account of a mere trifle, because a Herr von Hagen (so I understood him to say), an utterly insignificant creature, a blockhead, a coarse, stupid Junker, who had collected signatures to an address against him, had been elected on to the Managing Committee of the General Synod. (?) But the real reason was exhaustion, and vexation at not being able to make any headway with the King. It was somewhat different in Friedenthal’s case. He was an intriguer whom I was glad to see the last of. They would have been pleased to retain him—at Court, where his wife was very thick with the Empress, and the Emperor interfered very little in his affairs. Hobrecht’s case was again different. He retired, doubtless because he himself recognised his inefficiency. He was not at all equal to his position, and was, besides, of too weak a character to deal with the numerous obstructive forces in his Ministry. With us, however, the Foreign Ministry is the worst of all. There the friction never ceases. My nature is such that I have been able to stand it for seventeen years; but Bülow, who conducted affairs during my absence, and who, when he thought he was through with something, constantly met with fresh hindrances and senseless and obstinate objections—he is suffering from spinal disease and will die of it.”

He paused for a moment and then continued:[p. 404] “That comes chiefly of the Emperor’s infatuation for Russia. I am also Russian in my sympathies, but not blindly, like the Emperor, who, with the exception of his brother, Prince Charles, and of Princess Alexandrine—is quite alone in this respect at Court. He sees and hears nothing, and no argument or evidence makes any impression upon him. He went to Alexandrowo in spite of the fact that I repeatedly protested in the most positive way against his doing so. They are making immense preparations in Russia, have increased their forces by 400,000 men, as much as the peace footing of the German Army. They can now put twenty-four new divisions into the field, that is, twelve army corps. And a mass of cavalry is stationed near the western frontier which could pour in upon us in three days. The reports are reliable and the Emperor is acquainted with the facts, but will not credit them. At Alexandrowo they turned his head with sentimental talk and reminiscences of Queen Louise, so that he does not recognise the danger, and nothing can be done with him. And yet it is so evident. Against whom are those armaments directed? They say in St. Petersburg that Constantinople must be conquered through Berlin. Others say that the road lies through Vienna, but that Vienna must be reached through Berlin. We must therefore seek support, and the direction in which it is to be found is indicated. The sensible portion of the 42,000,000 Germans would prefer to have a good understanding with both Russia and Austria. But if one is obliged to choose between them, then everything points to Austria, national reasons and others. In that country there are some nine or ten millions of Germans, and the Hungarians are also decidedly upon our side; indeed, even the Czechs (with the exception of a dozen or so of[p. 405] irreconcilables who are of no account) are at least disinclined to become Russians. But let us suppose that Austria were a purely Slav country. Russia is strong enough alone, and we cannot be of much assistance to her. Austria is the weaker of the two, although at the same time a valuable ally, and we can be of great assistance to her. She can also strengthen us in our policy of peace. When we are united, with our two million soldiers back to back, they, with their Nihilism, will doubtless think twice before they disturb the peace. The idea of such an alliance has been very favourably received by the German Princes; and they are in thorough agreement with it in England also. France, too, is at present obviously in favour of the maintenance of peace, but for how long? The Crown Prince is quite of my opinion; it was a matter of course, he said, that we should unite with Austria. It is only the Emperor—he has recovered physically from the great loss of blood in the last attempt upon his life, but his mental powers have been weakened.”

I remarked that the old gentleman’s age, his eighty-two years, must doubtless also have some effect. Water on the brain was apt to set in at that age.

“That too,” he added, “and consequently he does not understand what is said to him, even when it is very simple, and will not adopt any measures that are proposed to him. He and his brother and Princess Alexandrine are the Russian Rütli. (An allusion to Schiller’s Wilhelm Tell.) You must not say anything about this in the press—at least, not as yet; nor of the intention to bring about an alliance for the maintenance of peace either, as that is still in course of development. But you may speak of the condition of affairs in the Foreign Office, how one’s ideas and decisions are affected[p. 406] by consideration for the political requirements of the Empire, by responsibility to the Reichstag, and by the views of the Sovereign; and that the friction thus arising wears some Ministers to death, and invariably injures their health. Refer to Brandenburg as an instance which the present situation recalls. Bülow has been destroyed in that way. It is our Most Gracious who has done for him. The doctors say that the pain in the hip indicates a dangerous spinal disease. He is to be brought in now from Potsdam to Berlin, but I shall go out with my wife to see him. If he goes to Italy, who knows if we shall meet again? I must not stay longer than a quarter of an hour with him, as the excitement would be too much for him. I am extremely sorry to lose him.”

I said: “I have heard him described as a particularly capable worker.”

“Yes,” he replied, “and adroit, sensible, and loyal; not like Thile, who was the Empress’s messenger, and whom she kept here for a long time after I had made up my mind to get rid of him, owing to his incapacity. I learned to know and esteem him at Frankfurt (he was now referring again to Bülow), whilst he still held the post of Danish Envoy to the Germanic Diet. And when he had become Minister for Mecklenburg he also showed great ability in the Federal Council, so that I was determined to have him.”

He then recurred to the alliance with Austria, repeating in other words what he had said to me, inter alia. With the exception of the Emperor and the two other personages, almost the only people in Germany who were still in favour of Russia were the East Prussian corn-dealers. In reply to an inquiry as to the attitude of the Emperor Francis Joseph, he said: “Very[p. 407] fair and reasonable. He came specially on my account to Vienna from his shooting-box, adopted all my ideas, and was prepared to do everything I proposed in the interest of peace.”

He observed, in conclusion, that he was leaving for Varzin in a few days. “Friedrichsruh is too near,” he explained, “and I shall not take any official with me.” He then rang the bell, and asked the servant if the carriage which was to take him to the Potsdam railway station was ready; and I took my leave, with good wishes for his health.

This interview resulted in an article, “Fresh Friction,” in No. 42 of the Grenzboten, which was also discussed and commented upon at length in the home and foreign press.

I did not see the Chief again that year. We continued, however, as best we could to promote his ideas in the Grenzboten, Bucher, as before, helping us faithfully and indefatigably with his counsel and assistance as long as he was in Berlin. In these articles the party Philistines were now and again treated to some pretty energetic castigation, which is believed to have affected them rather painfully. The Prince returned from his holiday late in the winter, and it was only on the 9th of March, 1880, that I received an invitation from the Imperial Chancellerie to pay him a visit. I went to his palace at the time appointed, 1 o’clock, and had to wait for a quarter of an hour in the large pillared antechamber. Whilst I was sitting there, Tiedemann and the “Cerberus” (Geheimer Hofrath Roland of the Foreign Office) passed through the room. The latter seemed not to have been aware of my renewed intercourse with the Chancellor, spoke a few words to me, perhaps to satisfy himself that I was[p. 408] really the same person whom he probably regarded as having fallen into permanent disfavour and oblivion on account of my book, and had an opportunity of hearing the Chancery attendant in a loud clear voice call me in to the Prince. If he then further ascertained that I remained for nearly a full hour with the Chief he will certainly have looked upon it as a miracle, and the next time I meet him in the street I shall have the happiness of being honoured by a friendly greeting from him. O these little bonzes!

So I wrote in my diary, which also contains the following particulars of this interview with the Chief.

The Chancellor wore a dark grey coat (plain clothes) with a military stock. During our interview he drank first a glass of beer, then some Vichy water, which the attendant had to bring him. On my making my bow, he reached me his hand across the table, and said: “I really have not much to say to you to-day, but I was anxious to see you again. My health is still indifferent. It is true I have nothing in particular to complain of, and sleep well enough—nine hours last night—and eat with appetite, but I tire immediately. I must not walk or stand for any length of time, as it brings on neuralgic pains. That comes from the overwork of last year, and from the violent excitement. You know that that does not at all agree with the Gastein waters—it may even prove dangerous.

“At that time I was extremely anxious on account of Russia, and feared an alliance between her and Austria, which the French would also have joined. Latterly the Russians had written us brutal letters, threatening us in case we did not support them in the Eastern question, and I thought they could never act in that way, unless[p. 409] they had in Austria a good friend, who might become an ally. They had also endeavoured to bring about an alliance in Paris, through Obrutscheff. He is the adjutant and confidant of Miljutin, the Minister of War. But the French did not want it, and informed us through our Ambassador and others—just as a virtuous woman tells her husband when somebody makes improper overtures to her. That worried me a great deal. I had always desired to come to an understanding with Austria. As far back as 1852 I had an idea of the kind. It was—while the German Confederation still existed—that Austria should not want to have the sole authority in Germany, nor always hamper and coerce Prussia; she should grant Prussia a position in the Bund, which would allow her to use her whole strength in repelling the threatened attacks and pretensions of neighbouring Powers. They would not hear of this in Vienna, however; thought it was unnecessary. They held that Prussia had most to fear from such pretensions, and required Austria’s good will and assistance more than Austria required her’s. We had, therefore, to submit to being treated as an inferior, and indeed treated abominably. You know the Schwarzenberg policy, which was continued up to the Congress of Princes. They refused to share, and insisted upon having everything for themselves. We were therefore obliged, for our own self-preservation, to give them a practical proof that they were mistaken in thinking we must always lean upon them, and therefore give way to them, being unable to do anything for ourselves. So we took the opportunity in 1866, pitched them out of doors, and came to an understanding with the others—on fair terms. I then again thought of a reconciliation with them, for instance in 1870; but it was impossible to do anything with Beust, and so the[p. 410] preparatory steps came to nothing. Andrassy seemed better disposed. It was necessary, however, to put my old idea into a new shape, in consequence of the altered situation. I wanted an open constitutional alliance against a coalition, indissoluble, i.e., only to be dissolved on our side by the Emperor, the Federal Council, and the Reichstag, and on theirs by the Emperor and Trans- and Cis-Leithania. Then came the Turkish War, the Berlin Congress, and the execution of what had been there agreed upon. In St. Petersburg they expected us to look after their interests unconditionally, and to support all their demands. We could not do that, however, as some of them were unfair and dangerous. They began with imperious and arrogant warnings, and finally proceeded to threats. I could only explain that by the supposition either that an understanding had already been arrived at between Vienna and St. Petersburg, or was being negotiated. Andrassy’s Russian journey and various other circumstances seemed to confirm these apprehensions, and so last summer I was in a state of great anxiety. France would doubtless have soon joined the other two. In these circumstances, it was questionable whether England would have stood by Germany, as that country can never be easily induced to take sides with a Power which does not seem to have the upper hand. It was, therefore, with a heavy heart that I went from Kissingen to Gastein, and when Andrassy came I was very curious to hear what he would say. I then ascertained, however, that nothing of the kind existed. No understanding had been come to with Russia. I then brought forward my idea, which he immediately accepted, that is to say, he was in favour of the alliance, but not of a constitutional one. He would not hear of that, nor of publicity; and,[p. 411] indeed, in the end, it was as well not, as their Reichstag would have picked holes in it from their ignorance, and wanted this or that to be altered. Their Parliament is even worse than our own.”

“Yes,” I said; “the Constitutional party there are still more pettifogging than our Parliamentarians.”

“You are quite right,” he added. “With that exception Andrassy quite agreed with me, and the Emperor in Vienna was perhaps even more strongly in favour of the alliance. But our Emperor was not. He raised really brutal objections, and wished to sacrifice the welfare of the Fatherland upon the high altar of his Russian friendship, although the Russians had been as perfidious and insolent as it was possible for them to be—also towards Austria, so that the unquestionably russophil Archduke Albrecht afterwards said to Andrassy: ‘I rejoice now in the alliance with Germany, as the Russians are the most untrustworthy intriguers.’ At that time I may have written I should say a thousand pages, working day and night, using all sorts of arguments, and begging and praying, but without the slightest result. And yet there was no time to lose. Andrassy wished to retire. He, like myself, was tired, and he could afford to rest and be lazy. He had already provided himself with a successor, but considered it an honour to conclude the treaty himself. Nor could I remain for ever in Vienna. Yet if it were not now concluded with Andrassy, I felt the treaty would come to nothing, as the others had no heart in it. Moreover, the Russians might after all be able to come to terms with them against us. But the Most Gracious did not understand this. Even in Berlin he continued to hang back. At length he appeared to yield. I begged for leave of absence, and[p. 412] it was granted in a particularly official tone. Hardly had I turned my back when he issued a variety of contradictory orders, and I was obliged to send Stolberg to him in order to bring him round again. Stolberg behaved very well, and was not at all servile. And so the thing was at length done, and I believe it will last. The Austrians cannot help themselves now, and taken altogether the Emperor Francis Joseph is honourable and trustworthy.”

“So he—I mean our Emperor—did finally sign it?” I remarked. “Until now I thought, in spite of what the press said, that he had not done so.”

“Yes, he has signed it,” he replied.

“And it is a formal treaty, no mere protocol, as was stated?” I further inquired.

He smiled as he answered in low German: “Dat kann ik Se nich seggen.” (I cannot tell you that.)

“Well, I observed that your Serene Highness referred to it several times as the ‘treaty.’”

“Yes,” he replied, “but that must not be written. You must not let that be known. It would be all the same to me. I even wanted a public treaty.”

He was silent for a few seconds, and then spoke about the weather. “A very fine day. Last night we had three degrees of cold, and now I should fancy there are fifteen degrees of heat. Can you see the thermometer there? How high is it?”

“Nineteen degrees.”

He held his spectacles before his eyes and said: “Eighteen, no, you are right, nineteen. I cannot go out, although I should like to; I am afraid of catching cold. And yet I ought to show myself in the Reichstag for once, and honour them with my presence. I have no mind to it. I do not love their students’ club ways.[p. 413] For them the Party is always the first consideration, and everything hinges upon that. It is the case with the Conservatives as well as the Liberals. Instead of working with the National Liberals, where it is obvious that the leaders of the Left Wing no longer exercise their former influence, instead of at least approaching them, the Conservatives prefer to go with the Ultramontane Centre. And yet there is no trusting the latter. I, too, desire peace, but they are not to be gained over by any concessions whatever, so long as a Protestant Imperial House rules here. Bennigsen manages his people very well. It is true that nothing can be done with Rickert and the little Jew, Lasker. All the same he acted sensibly with regard to Stosch. And Hänel, too, who is otherwise accustomed to look up to the Court (the Crown Prince). He ought to have been treated quite differently—I mean Stosch, a vain, incapable fellow. But they are a servile lot. It is true that the Free Conservative section is the party of the distinguished and the wealthy, and it was their duty and that of the other Conservatives to oppose anything that was really unwise or bad, otherwise they would have forfeited their position. But they are all servile, Court Conservatives in secret, and Court Liberals in public. They spare him because they believe he is in favour with the successor, which is really not the case, however.”

I observed that the same sort of thing happened in England, where they all kneel and crawl on their stomachs before the Queen, and even look up with devotion to the Prince of Wales.

He replied: “Perhaps, but it is harmless there. She has little to say in matters of State, and cannot modify the policy of the Ministry of the day. In that[p. 414] particular they do not hold with the Court, and do not, as here, spare incapables because they are in favour there. And he is not even liked by the future Master. He is only retained because he is a Freemason of high degree. I have had that experience also with others who were incompetent, but held high Masonic rank. He concluded that mischievous military agreement with Saxony. I knew nothing whatever about it until the Saxons appealed to its provisions, and it was then too late. He did us harm also in France in 1871, when we were negotiating respecting compensation for the troops that remained behind, making us lose at least sixty millions. I do not want to bring any charge against him, but one cannot help wondering what he got from the Saxons and from Thiers. And our fleet, which has cost us such a fearful amount of money, is quite worthless, because the right man has never been put at the head of it. I thought it ought to be at least equal to the Russian fleet, but it is not—the Russian is better. He is a servile creature, and deceived the Emperor at the review. The sailors had to show themselves smart well-drilled infantry men; and so the Emperor, who is himself a foot soldier, thought everything was all right. But they pass it over in the Reichstag because they do not wish to offend the Court, and want orders and titles. It is just the same with our press. Pindter, for example (the editor of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung), begged to be invested with a higher official title. Well, he can have it. Those sort of people place their paper at the disposal of the Government whenever it is wanted. But I should prefer to be plain Herr Pindter, rather than Commissionsrath Pindter.”

The Chief then, after referring to Hohenlohe, “who also does not wish to injure himself with the upper[p. 415] circles,” came to talk of the appointment of the Secretary of State in the Foreign Office. There were great difficulties in the way of this appointment, he said, as the pecuniary position of those in view was such that they could not take the post.

I asked: “Was Hatzfeldt really thought of in this connection?” “Yes, but he cannot take it. He is in financial difficulties. He can manage to get on as Minister in Constantinople, but not here. He would have been capable enough. Hohenlohe cannot do so either. He has a great château at Schillingsfuerst which costs him a great deal and brings him in nothing. Radowitz, who is even more capable than Hatzfeldt, is no better off in money matters. Moreover he has a Russian wife and six children, which is also not quite the thing. Solms, in Madrid, is too servile,—he would do everything that the Most Gracious desired.”

I: “How about Werther, in Munich, who used to write those brilliant despatches with so little in them?”

He: “He, too, has not enough money.”

I: “He is understood to have a large estate in Thuringia, Beichlingen, near Eckartsberg.”

He: “First of all that is not the place; then it is an entailed estate, and his father has impressed upon him to live economically and extend the property.”

I: “In that case I do not know any other who would be suitable.”

He: “Keudell, in Rome might be nominated.”

I: “He has a rich wife, but has he the ability?”

He: “Your question shows that you have formed a more accurate opinion of him than others have done. He has a reputation for ability because he knows how to hold his tongue, and people fancy that his silence covers ideas and knowledge. I thought so too, but have convinced[p. 416] myself that he has neither. Moreover, he is too hasty in judgment, sanguine, and thoughtless. Finally, he would be unfair to his subordinates, which would also be the case with Radowitz, who, it is true, is not a German. Both are vain, and want admiration and obsequiousness. Whoever is not prepared for that sort of thing will find himself overlooked and treated with disfavour.”

I asked: “How is it now with the Empress, Serene Highness? Does she still cause you difficulties?”

He: “Exactly the same as ever. She is still intriguing with the Ultramontanes, and I know that the coarse and brutal notes which I have received are due to her.”

He paused for a moment and then said: “Now if you have anything further to say to me or to ask——”

I stood up, thanked him for giving me the pleasure of seeing him once more, and took my leave, meeting Philippsborn in the first antechamber on my way out.

I took the first part of this interview as the subject of an article which appeared in No. 12 of the Grenzboten under the heading “The History of the German-Austrian Alliance.” This caused as great a sensation in the German and foreign press as the previous articles on Gortschakoff’s policy and the Fresh Friction.

The same number of the Grenzboten contained another article by me, which dealt with the second principal topic of the conversation of the 9th of March. I had received, on the 10th of that month, further materials for it from Count Herbert, on behalf of his father. It was simply entitled “From the Reichstag.” The second half of this article was also commented upon at great length in the Berlin newspapers....

About 12 o’clock on the 20th of March I received the following note from Count Herbert:—

[p. 417]

“My Dear Sir,—My father would be glad to see you, either immediately if you have time, or at 2.30 P.M. He is going to the palace at 1.45 to offer his congratulations. Therefore, if you cannot come before 1 o’clock, 2.30 will be better.

“Respectfully,

“Count Bismarck.”

I was at No. 77 Wilhelmstrasse at 2.15, just as the Chief returned from seeing the Emperor. In the hall I met Bucher, who looked very poorly and complained of overwork. On my entering the Prince’s room I found him sitting at his writing-table, which this time was so placed that the Chief had his back towards the window opening on the garden. He had on a grey coat, white trousers, and varnished top-boots, and wore an order round his neck. He said, after shaking hands as usual, and while he drew from an envelope the articles on the Treaty with Austria, and on Stosch, which I had sent him on the previous day: “Did you send me these?” I replied in the affirmative.

He: “H’m, I suppose, then, they are already printed?”

I: “Yes, already copied into the other papers and telegraphed to London.”

He: “That’s a pity. On the whole, the article is very good—you have a powerful memory—but there are some things in it which I should have liked to see modified. It is somewhat too highly seasoned—too blunt.”

He then read aloud the passage in which it was stated that even towards the end the Emperor still manifested great reluctance, and said: “That is true, but it is too strongly expressed.” He then went on reading, and[p. 418] on coming to the part in which the trickery and mendacity of Russia were mentioned, he observed: “That is also true, but it ought to have been expressed with more diplomatic tact, now that they struck a different chord. Of course, what we now want is peace, after we have buckled on our armour, or our revolver. And it would also have been better if both articles had not appeared in the same number. Then a great deal is mentioned which was not intended for the public, but only for your own private information. They will now mark these passages and send them to him—she (the Empress) or Prince Charles, who always tries to injure me, and who has always been very Russophil, like his sister, Alexandrine of Mecklenburg. He also knows why!”—and he made a motion as if he were counting out money.

“Money, Serene Highness?” I asked.

“Well, or——Surely you know—the old rake!”

I observed: “Perhaps it would interest your Serene Highness to see how an English correspondent has telegraphed the whole article at full length to the Daily Telegraph in London, so that it appeared there simultaneously with the publication in the Grenzboten. In many instances he has toned down the original.”

“Yes, I should be glad to see that,” he said. I gave him the newspaper. He read the beginning, and then said: “Leave it with me, and I will return it later.”

I now said: “Might I ask what is the attitude of England towards the alliance?”

He replied: “They are entirely engrossed in the elections. A great deal will depend upon the result. The Italians hope that Gladstone will be victorious. You have doubtless read their assurance that they wish to retain friendly relations with all the Powers, but reserve[p. 419] the right to act in accordance with their own interests? They are like carrion crows on the battle-field that let others provide their food. They were prepared in 1870 to fall upon us with the others, if they were promised a piece of the Tyrol. At that time a Russian diplomat said: ‘What! they are asking for something again, although they have not yet lost a battle!’”

I said: “Of these it is only the Piedmontese who seem to be any good as soldiers. Always covetous and always weak. Look at Lissa, where their powerful fleet was shamefully beaten, and their admiral fled like a coward. If they would only seek to strengthen their position at home, where no Ministry lasts more than a few months, and where the people are crushed by taxation and debt!”

“Yes,” he replied, “that is the real irredenta Italia. They ought to take that in hand instead of thinking of conquests. But one day they will find themselves in the same case as Spain under Isabella, and the Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples will be once more restored. Russia and Italy are the only Powers opposed to peace. Russia who is not satisfied with her 400,000 square (German) miles of territory and wants further conquests. Well, I don’t know of anything else to tell you.”

I suggested: “I thought I might at the same time get instructions to write about the Pope.”

“Yes,” he said, “it might be pointed out that Leo’s conciliatory attitude should not be over-estimated. Not only the Germania, but also the Progressist journals exaggerate it, but only for the sake of opposition, in order that they may be able to say, ‘The Curia desires peace, but the Imperial Chancellor will not have it.’ The present Pope is, it is true, more[p. 420] reasonable, and, perhaps, more moderate than his predecessor, but the utterances in his letter are after all capable of many interpretations, and on the whole are more academic than practical. Of what good is it for him to say: ‘I believe I shall be able to consent to this or to that?’” He then quoted a Latin sentence, and continued: “And who will vouch for the accuracy of the interpretation which is now being placed upon it? Who will guarantee that his successor will think in the same way? The Church has been putting forward the same claims for a thousand years, and will continue to do so. One Pope may carry out the old policy in a more peaceful, or in a bolder and more imperious fashion than another, but at bottom the policy itself is always the same. The May laws remain, but if they show moderation in Rome we can administer them in a less rigorous way—a modus vivendi. There are many people, however, who desire to have peace at any price, and would even go to Canossa—to save themselves trouble. These include, for example, the Minister of the Interior and the Crown Prince. He wants above everything to have peace and a quiet life, and nothing to trouble him. He will not go into battle. It is just like the septennate with regard to the army. He wanted a permanent grant in order to avoid fresh struggles, as he thought his turn would come within the next few years, and he thinks so now, for the old gentleman can hardly live to be ninety.”

At this moment the Princess entered the room and showed him a paper that seemed to refer to to-day’s birthday celebration. She asked if they were to illuminate. He said: “No, but it would perhaps be better to ascertain first whether any of the other Ministers were inclined to disobey the order,” which was probably contained in[p. 421] the paper. “In that case I shall also disobey—i.e., disobey myself for it was I who issued the order. I suppose the flags have been hung up, however?” The Princess replied in the affirmative.

When she had left I remarked: “What your Serene Highness has just said about the Crown Prince bears out the description of him which you gave me in 1870 during the drive from Beaumont to Vendresse—a pleasant life without much thought or care, plenty of money, and praise from the newspapers.”

“Yes, that is his character,” he replied. “Like his grandfather Frederick William III., whom he resembles in other respects also. Of course you have read the Memoirs of Caroline Bauer?” “Yes,” I replied. “And those of old Hofrath Schneider.” “Ah, quite so; he also tells similar stories, but in his innocence does not know what injury they do him. The old King used to drive seven times a week from the Pfaueninsel or the palace at Potsdam to the theatre in Berlin, in order to see worthless commonplace pieces, and afterwards to go behind the scenes and chuck the actresses under the chin, and then drive back the long dusty road he came. That is also the Crown Prince’s style—he wants to amuse himself, not to govern. It may turn out badly some day when I am too weak to do anything more, and we may lose ground again in many ways. It is true he wishes to keep me, but I shall go. In future, a Great Elector or a Frederick the Great, will not be required. A Frederick William I. would suffice, or even a Frederick William II., for he would not have been so bad had he not been rendered effeminate by the women.”

I said: “But you were satisfied with the article on Stosch, Serene Highness?”

He: “Up to the present I have looked chiefly at[p. 422] the first one. Moreover, anything one likes may be said about him. That is a matter of indifference to me. He cannot come in my way. He speculates upon the Successor, and owing to his position among the Freemasons, he has managed to give some people the idea that he has a certain prestige with the Crown Prince. There are some others also who dined together recently and divided the duchies amongst themselves as at Wallenstein’s banquet. How does that passage run? Ah, I can’t remember.” I quoted it. “Sie theilen dort am Tische Fuerstenhuete aus. Des Eggenberg, Slawata, Lichtenstein, des Sternbergs Gueter werden ausgeboten. Wenn er hurtig macht, fällt auch für ihn was ab.”

The Chief smiled and said: “Friedenthal was also one of them, a vain, intriguing fellow, whom I was glad to see go. Then Gneist—of whom I had rather a good opinion formerly, but who lacks character, and is a trimmer—Delbrück and Falk, and also Rickert. Falk has spoken about my relations with him in a way that cannot be reconciled with the truth. I have always taken his part, and acted as mediator between him and our Most Gracious, causing myself thereby a great deal of worry. Hohenlohe is apparently to preside over this new Ministry, in order to secure it some prestige. He has been selected as their Chancellor.”

“And,” I said, “who has not already wished to be Chancellor? Even Münster, the Cloud-compeller!”

“Yes,” he replied, “and others too, because it is such an easy task. That reminds me how the Elector of Hesse sent his own doctor to Bernburg to make inquiries as to the mental condition of the last Duke. He reported that he had found him worse than he had expected, quite imbecile. ‘But, good Heavens! he cannot govern in that case!’ exclaimed the Elector. ‘Govern?’[p. 423] replied the doctor, ‘Why, that will not prevent him.’”

The Chief then came to speak of his conduct of affairs and of the trouble and cares and dangers he had gone through, and of the opponents who had declaimed and worked against him during the past eighteen years. “I had frequently to apprehend danger and ill-will from several directions at the same time, and occasionally from all quarters of the compass.” He smiled and then continued: “That reminds me of Gerstäcker, of whom a comic paper once gave a picture in which he was simultaneously attacked by a boa constrictor, a lion, a crocodile and a bear, while he was exclaiming: ‘Why, what a fine article this will make for the Augsburger Zeitung!’ But seriously, I am not good enough for this company, who know everything better, and think that a successor would manage things so much more cleverly. But, contenti estote, rest satisfied with your daily ration.”

On his referring again to Friedenthal and his disposition to intrigue, I said: “Why, there we have three or four Jews in combination—Friedenthal, Falk, and Rickert. In future it will be just the same here as in England and in France—Beaconsfield and Gambetta, with the Hebrew tail of the 1870 Government. Andrassy is also understood to have Jewish blood in his veins.”

“No,” he replied, “they say it is gipsy blood, and he looks as if he had that. But Rickert? Is he also one of the chosen people?”

I said: “I do not know him personally, but I have heard so, and indeed he is believed to belong to the unbaptised variety.”

“I should really like to know that for certain,” he said. “Please make inquiries.”

[p. 424]

I promised to do so. He rang the bell, and asked for the Parliamentary Almanac, and looking up Rickert’s name, found that he was described as belonging to the Evangelical Church. His birthplace and indeed all closer particulars were omitted, and this the Chief considered “suspicious.” He then observed: “Friedenthal has even come forward as a National Jew. He will not permit the Post to attack Lasker or the Jews. Treitschke wrote good articles for it, in fact the most brilliant they had ever had. But when he began to attack Lasker, Friedenthal, who is one of the principal shareholders, intervened with his veto.”

He then spoke once more about his future retirement, and said: “How difficult it is to replace even Bülow! The gentlemen sit in their comfortable embassies and will not come here to undertake the heavy work. Hatzfeldt would do. He is intelligent and serviceable, but has no proper income, and might be tempted to associate himself with the financiers. It would be necessary to give him a grant. In that way the thing could be managed. Hohenlohe also is clever, but he allows others to use him for their own purposes. There is my eldest son, who has been working under my guidance for seven years, and who promises well—but that would not do, as he is only thirty.”

With these words he rose and gave me his hand. As I was leaving he called after me: “Quite gently and diplomatically—I mean your writing.” I had been with him over fifty minutes. In the second antechamber I met the Privy Councillor of Embassy, Von Bülow, who had been waiting there and who exchanged a few friendly words with me.

From what the Prince had told me of his attitude towards the Curia, I wrote an article, which appeared[p. 425] in No. 13 of the Grenzboten, entitled “The Conciliatory Pope.”

Towards the first week in April the newspapers began to talk of a Chancellor crisis. After that had gone on for a few days I wrote to the Chief (on Friday, the 9th of April) suggesting that if I could be of use to him he should give me information in the matter. On the 11th I received a letter from Sachse in which I was requested to visit the Chancellor on Monday at 4 o’clock. I kept the appointment punctually, and had to wait a quarter of an hour, as the Prince had disappeared in the garden. At length I saw him walking in the grounds attached to the Foreign Office. He was in plain clothes, carried a big stick in his hand and was accompanied by his two dogs. Theiss went out to him and informed him that I had come. In a few minutes I was summoned to him in his study. “How are you, doctor?” he said. “Things have again been going badly with me during the last few days. I have been worrying over our officials—over the clownishness of Stephan—and others are just the same. The newspapers give a false account of the origin of the present crisis, and I would request you to rectify it. It has not turned solely or even chiefly on the attitude of the non-Prussian Governments in the question of taxing receipt stamps on Post Office Orders and advances, but to fully as great an extent on the improper behaviour of our officials. You know I have repeatedly complained in public of Prussian Particularism in regard to the arrangements and requirements of the Empire. During my frequent long absences one arbitrary proceeding has followed another, so that a kind of Republic of the Polish type has grown up, in which each departmental chief insists not only upon having views of his own,[p. 426] but also upon putting them into execution. Vortragende Räthe (Councillors who have the privilege of direct intercourse with their chief), whose views are not in agreement with those of the heads of their department, and even Ministers who differ from me in their opinions, endeavour to give practical effect to their ideas, and that too as if it were a matter of course. But it is nothing of the kind, and it is obvious that that cannot be permitted by the head of the Government of the Emperor and King.”

He paused and seemed to expect that I would write down what he had said. Before I had come in he had placed a fold of blotting paper, several sheets of foolscap, and two freshly-pointed pencils at the side of the writing-table where I usually sat. I began by making a note of a few of the principal points, but I now wrote down everything he said literally, he speaking more slowly and in tolerably regular sentences. The following, therefore, after a few introductory words referring to what had been previously communicated, was published in the form of an article entitled “The Cause of the Chancellor Crisis,” in the Grenzboten of the 15th of April. In this way the Grenzboten had the honour of having the German Imperial Chancellor as one of its contributors. He said or dictated:—

“So far as we know (I afterwards added: ‘and we believe ourselves to be well informed’) there is absolutely nothing in the Chancellor crisis that tends towards any change in the Constitution. Nothing is farther from the Prince’s mind. He considers the Federal Constitution fully sufficient if the rights which it accords to the individual States are exercised with moderation. Any irregularities or stoppages of the machinery have been due in part to the procedure of the Federal Council, and[p. 427] in part to the circumstance that many Governments have not attached sufficient value to the exercise of their right to vote. According to the practice hitherto followed, too much importance has been given to the committees and too little to the general meetings. The former have discussed matters at great length, while on the other hand, the plenary sittings have been almost exclusively devoted to questions which had been so far settled by the committees that nothing remained to be done beyond taking the simple decision, Yes or No. It was, therefore, not possible for those Governments that had not been included in the committees in question, or had found themselves in a minority there, to secure consideration for their views at the plenary meeting, and to bring about a timely understanding, without causing great delay either by asking for fresh instructions or by referring the matter back to the Committee. The balance of parties is not the same in the committees and in the plenary Council. If the committees’ majorities carry their resolutions into effect they deprive the unrepresented Governments of their due influence. If on the other hand, the negotiations and discussions of these matters were transferred from the committees to the plenary meeting the views of all parties would receive timely consideration.

“We must here repeat what we said at the commencement” (this sentence was mine), “namely, that during the frequent absences of the Chancellor there has arisen among a section of the Prussian officials a condition which borders on absolute indiscipline; and, if it be true that the Prince has stated that he hardly ever succeeds in securing due regard for his legitimate authority without raising the Cabinet question, it is quite certain that a remedy is absolutely indispensable[p. 428] unless the prestige of the Federal Council and of its chief is to suffer irreparable damage. The Federal Council cannot become a public meeting, at which each official of the Ministry may, without authority and at his own good will and pleasure, give expression to his personal opinions on every question, and endeavour to secure their adoption.

“If the Royal decree lays stress on the conflict of duties in which the Imperial Chancellor may be involved under the Constitution, that difficulty can scarcely be overcome by an alteration of the Constitution in a manner acceptable to all concerned, but rather by a statesmanlike and prudent exercise on the part of all concerned of the rights bestowed by the Constitution. This does not mean that the Chancellor would be justified in declining to co-operate in the execution of a decision taken by the Federal Council. But assuming that he is bound to carry out such a decision and is therefore the immediate official representative of a decision for the consequences or the principle of which he may find himself unable to accept responsibility, it could hardly be contended any longer that he occupied a responsible position, but on the contrary that the post could be filled equally well by any subordinate official who would have simply to carry out the instructions given to him.

“It can scarcely contribute to strengthen the constitutional organisation of the Empire, to force the Imperial Chancellor, and with him the three largest Federal States, into a position in which they must appeal to the lawful privileges of the minority. For the Chancellor, on his own initiative, to refuse to carry out a formal decision of the Federal Council would be a course barely compatible with the consideration which he owes in his official capacity to the majority of the[p. 429] Federal Governments. A sense of official propriety would probably lead the Chancellor in such circumstances to avoid having to execute a resolution for which he could not accept the responsibility, by tendering his resignation, thereby announcing his readiness to co-operate in the selection of a successor whose convictions should not stand in the way of the Federal resolution. Anyhow, the best solution would be not to drive things to extremities.”

At this point it seemed as if something pressing had suddenly occurred to him. He rang the bell, and asked the Chancery attendant to call Privy Councillor Tiedemann, whom he then requested to ascertain at the palace what had been done in connection with the pro memoria, which ought to be dealt with promptly and without delay. He was to go immediately and make inquiries. When Tiedemann had left, he said: “The pro memoria concerns the matter on which we are engaged. But where was I?” I read him the last sentence, and he then continued: “Oh yes! The prevention of such crises as the present will be facilitated if less importance is given to the discussions in Committee, and more to those in the plenary sittings, and if the custom which has recently arisen, for half and even more than half of the Federal Governments not to be individually represented at these plenary sittings, is abandoned. The practice of appointing proxies is based solely upon the rules of procedure, and not upon the terms of the Constitution. The matter would take a very different complexion if the decisive plenary sittings took place only during a relatively short period within the Parliamentary Session, instead of being spread over the greater part of the year, according to daily requirements, as has hitherto been the case.”

[p. 430]

He then, without giving any indication that the interview was at an end, took up a document on which the word “Memorandum” was written, made a few corrections in it, had Sachse called and gave him instructions to “have that copied in the same hand.”

He then turned to me again, asked me to read over the last sentence he had dictated, and said: “That will be enough. Do you wish to know anything further?”

I: “What does your Serene Highness think of the result of the elections in England?”

He: “The matter is not one of importance for us. The Russians, however, expect a great deal from it. But the Liberals must in general follow the same lines as Beaconsfield. That is always the case here too. If the National Liberals were to come into office, they would find that affairs could not be carried on as they imagine.”

I: “It is just the same with Crown Princes. They almost always hold different views to the reigning sovereign, or act as if they did. They are for the most part Liberal, and yet when they themselves assume responsibility they must follow the same course as their predecessors. I say they act in that way, as doubtless the difference is often only apparent. It seems to me that modern Princes have no self-reliance, no real belief in themselves, and feel dependent upon public opinion, or the party doctrines which pass themselves off as public opinion. Our dynasties consider it necessary to win the sympathies of all parties, and therefore Crown Princes take credit to themselves for being of a different political or religious opinion to the reigning sovereign, Liberal when he is Conservative, or very advanced when he is only a moderate Liberal. When they ascend the throne and have to assume the responsibility of their[p. 431] actions, they throw their theories overboard, if they ever seriously believed in them, and enter into the hard world of reality where facts and not aspirations are the determining forces, and where one is met by impossibilities which it is necessary to reckon with or submit to.”

He listened to me attentively, and when I had finished, said: “You are quite right. That was a very just observation. But even if the English were to come to an understanding with the Russians, and were to be joined by Italy, which has always been coquetting with the English Liberals, that would not lead to any great danger, and might turn out badly for the Italians. The closer England draws to Russia the more she drifts away from France. A combination would then arise in the East which would threaten French interests in that quarter, and particularly in the Mediterranean, where they are different from those of Russia and England. The same remark applies to England’s relations with Italy. In certain circumstances the result might be an understanding between France and Austria and ourselves. As yet we cannot positively say what we should have to offer in return—certainly not Alsace-Lorraine, but perhaps something else. Italy, however, would fare badly in the matter, as in that case Austria and France could easily come to terms. Italy is like the woman in the fairy tale who had caught the golden fish—what was her name? Ilsebill—and could never catch enough. The fish may have to go back to their old places. Naples and the States of the Church may be restored.”

I said: “In speaking to Tiedemann your Serene Highness mentioned a memorandum on the causes of the present crisis, which had been submitted to the King. What is his attitude in the affair?”

[p. 432]

He replied: “Oh, satisfactory. Only he has not yet read the pro memoria, as it is too long. He laid it on one side.... And Wilmowski interferes. He considers it his duty and his right to put a finger in the pie, and advise him—of course against me, for he is a Liberal. So I have had a warning conveyed to him.” He stood up and said again: “The clownishness of Stephan, who is quite insubordinate! That comes of his self-assurance. King Stephan versus King William! (smiling)—that will never do, and you might say as much on some opportunity.”

I promised to do so at an early date, and then left. I had been with him for about three-quarters of an hour. In the large antechamber I saw Bleichröder’s birthday present to the Chief—a pipe-rack in carved oak, and seven long cherrywood pipes with painted porcelain bowls representing game, together with two large vases containing azaleas in blossom.

I incorporated what the Chancellor had said to me respecting the English elections and a possible co-operation between England, Russia and Italy, in a Grenzboten article, entitled, “The New Ministry in England.” This was commented upon in leading articles in London, Paris and Italy.

On the 25th of April, Lowe of The Times called upon me, and wished to have the same favours as Lavino “on the same conditions.” I told him there was no other condition than that the copy should be telegraphed across. He said he had a special wire. I promised to consider the matter and let him know in a fortnight, after I had consulted the publisher, who would have to send him proofs of the articles in advance. Abel came to me on the 1st of May with a request that I should oblige the Standard in a similar way. He received the[p. 433] same answer. On the 7th of May I concluded an arrangement with Lavino,[20] who had in the meantime received authority from London by telegraph, and thus became an “Occasional Correspondent” for his paper.

In the meantime, I had, on the 28th of April, received the following letter from Bucher:—

“Esteemed Friend,—Kindly commit the indiscretion of handing the enclosed to the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. You must not tell him anything more about it than appears in the introductory part. For your information I may tell you that the affair is a (very full) extract from an existing despatch. He has therefore no reason to fear a démenti. Perhaps it would be well if you immediately took a copy, so that you could publish it in the Grenzboten as a retranslation directly it arrives here in English, if you are not forestalled by other newspapers. But the D. T. must have priority.

“Yours, Br.”

The enclosure was the text of a despatch by the Chief in which he stated the position of the Prussian Government in the negotiations for the settlement of the differences with the Curia and its German allies. Only a few sentences were omitted from the original, which was published in full a few weeks later. Lavino translated the document into English, and it occupied a whole column of the Daily Telegraph of the 3rd of May, appearing in the Grenzboten two days later. So far as I remember it was only noticed by the German press after the document had been published in full,[p. 434] some of them then remembering that they had seen the most important parts of it in the Grenzboten.

I now proceeded to Leipzig, but on Thursday, the 10th of May, received a telegram from home stating that the Chancellor wished to see me that evening at 9.30 P.M. I therefore returned to Berlin next morning, announced my arrival in a letter to Sachse, and was received at 9.5 A.M. by the Chief in his study, and had an interview with him which lasted an hour and a half.

He began: “You were on a holiday?”

“Yes, Serene Highness, I was in Leipzig for a few days, but had left word at home to telegraph if you sent for me, and so I am here.”

He: “That was too much. I only wished to speak to you on some matters of principle. I would commend two subjects to your consideration. First the exceptionally outspoken and cordial pleasure which the Liberals manifest in their papers at the circumstance that in future I shall let internal questions alone, and restrict myself to foreign affairs. They argue that I know nothing about internal questions, and have accomplished nothing. On that point you might read up Hahn’s book, in which you will find detailed particulars. Who, then, proposed the May laws, and persuaded Falk to agree to them in spite of innumerable judicial scruples, which he only surrendered after long hesitation? Now they extol them as a kind of Palladium, and so does he. But he showed by no means as much energy against the Clericals in his administrative capacity, as he does now in his Parliamentary speeches. And who carried through the scheme for the purchase of the railways by the State? Surely not their Camphausen, who, on the contrary, fought against it, and tried with all his might to create delay. And yet it has turned[p. 435] out well, even now, since Maybach is making money, and will cover the deficit for us. Moreover, the gentlemen who—as they assert—wish to strengthen the Empire by the development of the constitutional system, forget that I twice carried the military septennate, and thus avoided a dangerous conflict by acting as a mediator between the Crown, which wanted the military budget to be permanently fixed, in order to get rid of the differences once for all, and the Reichstag, which insisted upon its constitutional right of supply,—avoided it twice, as the conflict which formerly threatened would now have broken out afresh. This time it was managed by an increase of the army, which the Crown accepted as an equivalent, and which the Liberals in the Reichstag consented to more readily than they would have done to a renunciation of their constitutional rights. You may then refer to the anti-Socialist laws which I proposed, and to which the Liberals raised all sorts of objections. But I may regard as my chief service the new Customs policy, which I forced through in spite of Delbrück, and in dealing with which, I was not only opposed by the free-traders in the Reichstag, but also by the Governments that held free-trade views, and by their Councillors. As you know, in this case the initiative has been taken by me, and I have also done most of the work in curing this Delbrück disease.”

I took the liberty of interrupting him with the remark: “This Bright’s disease in the economic body of the nation.”

“Yes,” he replied, smiling, “that’s what I mean—this Bright’s disease! In the course of years we have become more and more pulled down by it—grown poorer and poorer—and it was time that something should be done in the matter. But for the five[p. 436] milliards of 1871 we should have been close upon bankruptcy a few years sooner. It is true people will not see that, but the nation knows it, for it feels the consequences. The representatives of the learned classes, the lawyers and the holders of invested property are not conscious of it. I have repeatedly received addresses from the lower classes, as for instance, from Westphalian miners, congratulating and thanking me. But my opponents will have to open their minds still further, when I come to them with my war tariffs, which they will of course fight against, and first of all with the tariffs against Russia. Besides, I have been the only champion of the national interests against Hamburg Particularism in the free harbour question. In this matter the National Liberals, and especially the Left wing, are rather Liberal and Particularistic than National. Lasker, Bamberger, Wolfssohn, Rickert,—also a Jew, although baptised a Protestant—are in this matter no better than Sonnemann, the Socialists, the Poles and the Guelphs. They are only national when it comes to opposing the pretensions of a monarch, as for instance the King of Bavaria. But when, as in this case, it is the Particularism of a Social Democratic republic where the Socialists have the upper hand at the elections—that is quite another thing. Then Particularism must be supported, and I must be opposed. That I have always taken a determined stand against these people is a point upon which I may well take credit to myself in connection with internal affairs.”

He paused for a moment and then continued: “It is I and I alone who have taken up the struggle against the Centre party and its wire-pullers, and gone through with it in spite of all the intrigues of the Court. If a few paragraphs in the Ecclesiastical Bills should be thought to give evidence of yielding, that is a mere[p. 437] optical delusion. We make no terms with Rome, and will not go to Canossa, but we shall endeavour to restore peace independently between ourselves and our Prussian Catholics. It is better that Bishops should return accompanied by triumphal processions than with wailings and complaints. In that way they recognise that something has been conceded to them—a great deal if they like to put it so. But if they do not then manage to get on with us, why, we have the discretionary powers in our hands and can remove them once more, or render them harmless in some other way. They do not, however, understand that at the Dönhofplatz, nor do the Free Conservatives either. That is the reason why I do not go there, as I do not care to speak to deaf ears. It may yet come to my being obliged to retire without the King’s permission. And then—a Bavarian painter, Lenbach, made a good remark recently: ‘To deliver a good speech there, is like letting off fireworks before the blind.’ Their policy is party policy. Bennigsen and Miquel called on me a few days ago and wanted to talk me into abandoning the Bill, but allowed themselves to be persuaded by my arguments. A meeting of the party was held the same evening and there they returned to their former position. You must, however, say nothing about this in the press—as to our attitude towards the Bill and the parties, that is only for your private information. They must not think that we wish to influence them, and if you were to say anything on the subject it would be immediately regarded as a communiqué. Of course you are aware that Windthorst recently described you as the leading official mouthpiece. We shall first see what they make of the Bill. Perhaps that will suffice for us, perhaps not.”

He again made a short pause, and afterwards continued:[p. 438] “And now as to the second subject which you might treat. I should like to have a sketch of the Centre party, showing that we should gain little from its dissolution or reorganisation. The Conservatives would not be largely reinforced thereby—that is through concessions on the part of the Government with regard to the ecclesiastical laws.” He was silent for a moment, and then, turning from this train of thought, he said:

“You know how Russia would never willingly permit us to grow too strong as against France, lest the value of her own friendship and possible assistance should be reduced. Her notion is that we should remain dependent upon her, and under an obligation to render her equivalent services. It is just the same with the Liberals, including the Right wing. They think of themselves and of their party, first of all, and want the Government to regard them as a power whose good will has its price. They really look upon themselves as outsiders, and—so far as the Government is concerned—as an opposition which must be won over by concessions, and whose support must be duly appreciated and paid for at the highest possible rate, and as promptly as may be. I must always be made to feel that they are indispensable, in order that I may be obliged to come to terms with them. For that reason the Government must not be too strong, must have no secure majority, and therefore in their hearts they are pleased at the existence of the Centre party. Its numerical strength suits their views, however little they may have in common with them as Ultramontanes. The Government should constantly feel its weakness in presence of this opposition of 95 or 100 members, and bear in mind the possibility of the Liberals refusing their support. They, the Liberals, must be reckoned and negotiated with, and their good will must be purchased. That is a party[p. 439] policy, and not one which keeps in view the welfare of the State.”

He then returned to the Centre party, and explained to me that only about one-third of its members could be won over by concessions on the part of the Government to oppose the pretensions of the Curia and to reinforce the supporters of the Ministry. “These are the Bavarian nobles,” he continued, “and the South German nobles in general, as well as those of Silesia. Not the Westphalians. The latter were never reconciled to Prussian rule, and have always opposed the Government, even before the Empire came into existence—even when the Pope himself seemed to be quite satisfied with Prussia—I mean Pius IX., who said that the Catholic Church was better off in Prussia than anywhere else. The Westphalian nobles are sulking like the Guelphs out of sheer Particularism. They cannot forget the old episcopal régime and the advantages,—the fleshpots of Egypt—which they lost when it disappeared. It is different again with another group of the Centre party, with the Rhenish members, for example. They are, in the first place, Liberal or Democratic Catholics, and only in a secondary sense Ultramontane, Catholic Progressists, anti-Imperialists. Most of them would not have got in on their Liberal programme. They were returned to Parliament because they had promised to support the demands of the Bishops and the Pope. They, like the Particularists of the Centre, could not be won over by any concessions, however great, as they are really Progressists, or little less.”

I was now about to leave, but he made a motion as if he wished me to remain, rang the bell, and ordered a bottle of seltzer water. On this being brought in by[p. 440] the attendant, he pointed to it and to a full bottle of cognac which stood on the table, saying, “Now, old Yankee, is that to your taste? Brandy and water. Help yourself! It is very good cognac, or, at least, I have been told so. It is a present, and may have cost twenty to thirty francs a bottle. I have some, however, which is still better, although it only costs a thousand francs the hectolitre.”

Whilst I inquired as to his own health and whether he intended to go to Gastein this summer, and learnt in reply that his health was tolerable but that he slept badly and felt fatigued, he had brought a large box of cigarettes from which he asked me to help myself, at the same time taking one himself, and remarking that he no longer found any real enjoyment in smoking. It was the same with riding for the last year and a half. He had to give it up, as it brought on a pain in the back. I asked him whether he had received the book on the Jews which I had handed to the Chancery attendant for him about a week before. “What book?” he asked. Israel and the Gentiles, I replied. No, he had not. I explained that I had sent a letter with it saying that it was written by me, and that a glance at the preface might perhaps induce his Serene Highness to look it through more carefully at Varzin or Friedrichsruh. He remembered the letter, looked for the book on the writing-table and the shelves near it, and said at last “Probably I have taken it upstairs to read in bed, or Tiedemann has taken it.”

I then turned the conversation upon Lenbach, and remarked that the picture representing the Chief in profile looking upwards was to my mind the best portrait of him which I had seen.

He replied: “He has painted a whole crowd of[p. 441] them. The one you mean came about in this way. I was looking up at a flight of birds in Friedrichsruh. ‘Hold hard,’ Lenbach exclaimed, ‘that’s good. Please stand still and I will sketch it in at once.’”

I then mentioned the photograph of the other portrait in which the hair of his eyebrows was twisted upwards and he had a romantically curled moustache, observing that I did not quite like it, as it was not natural.

“No,” he said, “it is natural. It grows in that way until I shorten it with the scissors.”

We then spoke of the enterprising Thorndike Rice, an American, who published the New York monthly, The North American Review, I having asked the Prince whether he had read Blowitz’s account of Rice’s alleged visit and request. A few weeks previously Rice paid me several visits, and after having first ordered an article on Bismarck, introduced a further request by saying “You must not be offended, but you know that we Yankees are bold enough when we have something in view.” He then asked whether I could not procure for him an article by Bismarck himself to be published in his periodical. He was quite prepared to pay £500, half of it in advance, if I could manage that. I said that it was “utterly impossible,” even if he were to give me £1000, and explained the reasons. He then suggested that I should write the article, to which the Prince need only put his name. Of course, I also declined that proposal. He then contented himself with my promise to write the article in question, and send it after him to Paris, and to let him have further contributions later on. In about three weeks he received the Bismarck article, which appeared in the July and August numbers of his review under the title “Prince[p. 442] Bismarck as a friend of America, and as a Statesman. By Moritz Busch.” I was paid at the rate of 500 marks a sheet, an enormous sum according to German ideas, and had moreover the honour of figuring with Gladstone as a contributor to the American Revue des Deux Mondes. From a message sent by Blowitz to The Times it would appear that Rice, after his last visit to me, called at the Chief’s to request him to contribute to his periodical, and, of course, there also received a negative answer.

“The account is correct,” the Chief replied; “but he only spoke to my son, through whom I informed him that I was too much occupied to be able to gratify my strong taste for journalism, and to earn the large sum of money which he had offered me.”

I then gave him an account of my conversations with Mr. Rice, and afterwards asked him once more about Gastein. No, he replied, he must rest himself, and wished to be quite alone away from everybody. He then came to speak of his household, which costs him a great deal of money. A successor could not make both ends meet if he were not also assisted by a grant, the salary as Imperial Chancellor not being sufficient.

I said I had always been under the impression that he drew a salary merely as Prussian Minister.

“It is the other way about,” he answered. “As Imperial Chancellor I receive 18,000 thalers; as Premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs I get nothing, and my expenses now come to 60,000 thalers a year. In this house alone the lighting costs me 2,000 extra. It is most unpractically built, full of dark passages and back-stairs, and it is only the offices down stairs that I do not need to light myself. They have also increased the inhabited house tax, the rent being reckoned at 5,000[p. 443] thalers, which I consider unfair, although it is better than the other house, the poor accommodation of which you know.” After I had made a few remarks in reply, we both rose, an example which was followed by his dog. This animal at first seemed to entertain evil intentions respecting my coat or throat, but had grown quiet on his master ordering him to lie down, when he crouched under the table and put his head between my knees. The Prince told him to jump on the sofa, from which he fetched a piece of wood. The Chief then took it from him and pitched it into the niche between the two windows, the dog springing after it. It is a savage animal which has already severely bitten and torn the clothes of people well known in the house such as Chancery attendants. In spite of the chastisement inflicted upon him with the heavy leather whip that lies on the table, he has not considered the error of his ways nor assumed politer manners. He appeared to take a liking to me, however, and I had also later on occasion to congratulate myself on his good will.

[p. 444]

## CHAPTER VIII

THE ARTICLE “THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ITALIAN BISHOPS”—LOTHAR BUCHER ON HOHENLOHE, RADOWITZ AND THE TWO BÜLOWS—THE CHIEF WISHES TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE “DAILY TELEGRAPH” AS A LEGITIMIST, THOUGH THE FACT MUST BE REGRETTED—COURT INTRIGUES AND THE REQUEST TO BE RELEASED FROM OFFICE—BUCHER ON THE SECESSIONISTS, AND THE FUTURE MINISTERS—THE CHIEF ON THE MEANS OF SECURING THE FUTURE OF THE WORKING MAN—THE OPPOSITION TO THIS REFORM—THE JEWS—THE DEFECTION OF THE CONSERVATIVES AND NATIONAL LIBERALS—THE KING THE SOLE MEMBER OF HIS PARTY—THE “GRENZBOTEN” REGARDED AS AN OFFICIAL GAZETTE—THE DEBATE IN THE UPPER CHAMBER ON THE REMISSION OF TAXES, AND A “GRENZBOTEN” ARTICLE ON THAT SUBJECT BY THE CHIEF—THE BERLINERS IN PARLIAMENT—THE CHANCELLOR UPON THE JEWS ONCE MORE.

I was in rather frequent intercourse with Bucher during the summer and autumn of 1880. On the 3rd of June he sent me the material for an article on the attitude of the Curia towards the Italian Government,[p. 445] which appeared in No. 24 of the Grenzboten, under the title “The Government and the Bishops in Italy.” It concluded with the following words: “It will be seen from the foregoing that the Pope (Leo’s predecessor being also understood here) uses his discretionary power in Italy in a less uncompromising fashion than he does in Germany, a circumstance which we should keep in mind in the next phase of the struggle between the Curia and the Prussian Government.” On the 14th of June, in the course of a conversation with me at his house, Bucher described several members of our diplomatic service. Hohenlohe, he said, was a gentleman, and amiable, but was only of moderate ability, and had in particular a weak memory. Besides, he had too great an interest in matters other than politics, such as smart company, racing, &c. Radowitz was talented, and well informed on Eastern affairs, but he was an ambitious self-seeker and very pretentious, and maintained relations with Court circles hostile to the Chief. On the other hand he praised my namesake Busch very highly, as being not only intelligent and well informed but also of straightforward character. Bülow, the Councillor of Embassy, he described as an intriguing egotist, whose true character the Chancellor recently discovered. He considered the Chief had done the other Bülow, the deceased Secretary of State, too much honour in describing him to me as exceptionally able and loyal. He was a diligent and clever master of routine, somewhat like Abeken. His illness had certainly not arisen through vexation at the King’s self-will, his backbone was too flexible for that. Both before and after this visit Bucher sent me various particulars respecting Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary Jews, whom he—like myself and other honest Germans—abominated[p. 446] most heartily, whether they belonged to the baptised variety or not.

On the 28th of October he came to my lodgings and dictated to me—on the instructions which he had received by letter from the Chief—the following message for the Daily Telegraph:—

“A critical situation has arisen here. It is a question whether the Imperial Chancellor will remain in office or not. The affair is connected with the appointment of the Secretary of State in the Foreign Office. The difficulties appear to be of a personal and not of an official character. The leader of the opposition at Court is said to be General Count Goltz, brother of the former Ambassador in Paris, who appears to seek in another quarter the laurels which he failed to win upon the battle-field; while von Radowitz, who is now conducting the business of the Paris Embassy, is understood to be the candidate for the post of Secretary of State. It would be an extraordinary circumstance, which might have incalculable consequences if the Chancellor, at the moment when he seems to possess exceptional authority in European affairs, were forced to retire from office through a Court intrigue. I should regard the news as highly improbable if the source of my information were less trustworthy, and if it were not confirmed by what is known of the principal personages of the drama. Previous experience has shown that no other difficulties cause the Chancellor to display such a morbid sensibility as the favour manifested by the Court to certain intrigues, which are now directed against him personally. This feature in his character was also evident during the Kulturkampf, at the time of the trials for libel, and on his tendering his resignation in 1877. It is impossible not to recognise in this an[p. 447] element of weakness, due to the traditions of his early life and to his attitude towards the monarchy, an element which partakes of ‘Carlism’ (exaggerated loyalty), rather than of statesmanship. (Here the eyes of the two Augurs met, and exchanged a significant smile.) We regret being forced to acknowledge that his devotion to his Fatherland and his people is subordinated to the service of his King (the two Augurs grinned again); and that even at the present day the greatness of the task imposed upon him has not emancipated him from the pressure of Court and dynastic influences. Had he been a Hanoverian or Bavarian it is probable that owing to his attachment to the dynasty he would have remained an inveterate Particularist. We should greatly regret, not only on political grounds, but also in his own interest, to see him at this time of day stumble over obstacles which are trivial enough, though, we are sorry to say, he regards them as insurmountable.”

That was obviously not written by Bucher. The latter, however, added that the old Emperor imagines he might personally intervene in the Eastern question, and has already despatched telegrams behind the Chief’s back. We have now achieved some success at Constantinople, and the Prince wanted to recall Hatzfeldt, so that he might leave his post with credit on being transferred to the Foreign Office. Later on things would go wrong again, and the responsibility for that would fall chiefly upon Hatzfeldt as the doyen of the ambassadors. The Emperor, however, allowed himself to be persuaded by Goltz that everything would go on quite as satisfactorily as at present, and he therefore preferred to leave Hatzfeldt permanently at Constantinople. The article was to be published in the Daily[p. 448] Telegraph, not in the Standard, as in the latter Radowitz might be able to interfere through his agents. Bucher remarked that the term “Carlism” came from the Chief himself.

I wrote as follows to the Daily Telegraph:—

“Dear Sir,—The enclosed article comes from the very best source, and, indeed, in great part literally—a circumstance which I beg of you to keep secret. Kindly publish it as early as possible, and without any alteration or addition—including the apparent reflection upon the Prince, which is made for a special purpose. I expect this message will cause a great and general sensation. Perhaps you will be good enough to telegraph to me immediately on receipt that you will publish it in full. The words ‘Request granted’ will be sufficient.”

The manuscript, which was sent off on Thursday evening, had not appeared in the number of the paper which reached me on Tuesday. I had, however, on Monday received the desired telegram, promising that it should appear. On Wednesday, the 3rd of November, I took this telegram to Bucher and explained to him how I had impressed upon the editor the necessity of a speedy publication of the article without alteration. At Bucher’s request I left him this telegram, in order that he should send it to the Chief. I ascertained from him that the crisis had in the meantime been solved. The Chancellor had submitted a long report of seventeen pages to the King; and the old gentleman, who was then shooting at Ludwigslust, had telegraphed to him: “Have read your explanation and agree with you. R(adowitz) should go to A(thens).” Bucher added: “I expect he will arrive here to-day. He has written to[p. 449] Styrum that he must have more than the ordinary salary there. In Paris he had certain allowances in addition to his salary as envoy. The Audit Office does not consider this correct, but the amount will be covered out of the Guelph fund. As nothing has come of the Secretary of State idea, he would prefer to go direct to Constantinople.” I also ascertained that Hatzfeldt had now been definitely selected for the post of Secretary of State, and Busch for that of Under Secretary, the latter with a salary of 6,000 thalers a year. All in all Bucher has only 3,700. Finally Bucher suggested that, when I was next writing on friction, I should bring in the passage from “Richard II.” (Act I., scene 3), where Gaunt, in reply to the King’s exclamation, “Why, uncle, thou hast many years to live!” says:—

“But not a minute, King, that thou canst give:
Shorten my days thou canst with sullen sorrow,
And pluck nights from me, but not lend a morrow:
Thou canst help time to furrow me with age,
But stop no wrinkle in his pilgrimage:
Thy word is current with him for my death;
But dead, thy kingdom cannot buy my breath.”

At length, on the 4th of November, I received the Daily Telegraph of the 2nd, containing the article, which I took to Bucher, who immediately forwarded it to the Chief. He said that the latter would probably make use of it in the German press. It would be better, however, for me not to telegraph to him on the subject, as all telegrams are sent to the Secretary of State.

On the 6th of November Bucher sent me the Daily Telegraph article which had been returned to him from Friedrichsruh, accompanied by a letter from Count Herbert Bismarck, in which he said, inter alia: “My father has read it with great pleasure and hopes it will have a good effect.”

[p. 450]

On the previous day Bucher sent me Major Knorr’s book The Polish Insurrections since 1830 (Die polnischen Aufstände seit 1830—Berlin, 1880), with the following instruction, which doubtless came from the Chief: “The material respecting the priests to be utilised. Reference to be made to France and Belgium. Say nothing about Germany.” I wrote a lengthy article on the subject which was published in No. 24 of the Grenzboten under the title “The Ultramontane Clergy and their Hostility to the State.”

On the 18th of January, 1881, I wrote to the Chief reminding him of my readiness to place myself at his disposal in case he wished to have any matter of importance discussed in the German or English press, and requesting information. On the 20th I received the following answer from the Imperial Chancellerie: “The Imperial Chancellor begs Dr. Moritz Busch to do him the honour to call upon him to-morrow, Friday, at 1 o’clock.”

I went to the Chancellor’s palace at the appointed time, and I remained with him for an hour and a half. The Prince sat at his writing-table with his face towards the door, and looked particularly well and hearty. He said: “So you have come for material, but there is not much to give you. One thing occurs to me, however. I should be very thankful to you if you would discuss my working-class insurance scheme in a friendly spirit. The Liberals do not show much disposition to take it up and their newspapers attack my proposals. The Government should not interfere in such matters—laisser aller. The question must be raised, however, and the present proposal is only the beginning. I have more in view. I grant that there may be room for improvement in many respects, and that some portions of the scheme are perhaps unpractical and should therefore[p. 451] be dropped. But a beginning must be made with the task of reconciling the labouring classes with the State. Whoever has a pension assured to him for his old age is much more contented and easier to manage than the man who has no such prospect. Compare a servant in a private house and one attached to a Government office or to the Court; the latter, because he looks forward to a pension, will put up with a great deal more and show much more zeal than the former. In France all sensible members of the poorer classes, when they are in a position to lay by anything, make a provision for the future by investing in securities. Something of the kind should be arranged for our workers. People call this State Socialism, and having done so think they have disposed of the question. It may be State Socialism, but it is necessary. What then are the present provisions for municipal assistance to the poor? Municipal Socialism?”

He paused for a moment, and then continued: “Large sums of money would be required for carrying such schemes into execution, at least a hundred million marks, or more probably two hundred. But I should not be frightened by even three hundred millions. Means must be provided to enable the State to act generously towards the poor. The contentment of the disinherited, of all those who have no possessions, is not too dearly purchased even at a very high figure. They must learn that the State benefits them also, that it not only demands, but also bestows. If the question is taken up by the State, which does not want to make any profit, or to secure dividends, the thing can be done.”

He reflected again for a few seconds, and then said: “The tobacco monopoly might be applied in that way. The monopoly would thus permit of the creation of an[p. 452] entailed estate for the poor. You need not emphasise that point however. The monopoly is only a last resource, the highest trump. You might say it would be possible to relieve the poor of their anxiety for the future, and to provide them with a small inheritance by taxing luxuries such as tobacco, beer, and brandy. The English, the Americans, and even the Russians have no monopoly, and yet they raise large sums through a heavy tax upon these articles of luxury. We, as the country which is most lightly taxed in this respect, can bear a considerable increase, and if the sums thus acquired are used for securing the future of our working population, uncertainty as to which is the chief cause of their hatred to the State, we thereby at the same time secure our own future, and that is a good investment for our money. We should thus avert a revolution, which might break out fifty or perhaps ten years hence, and which, even if it were only successful for a few months, would swallow up very much larger sums, both directly and indirectly, through disturbance of trade, than our preventive measures would cost. The Liberals recognise the reasonableness of the proposals—in their hearts; but they grudge the credit of them to the man who initiated them, and would like to take up the question themselves, and so win popularity. They will, perhaps, try to bury the scheme in Committee, as they have done other Bills. Something must, however, be done speedily, and possibly they may approve of the general lines of the scheme, as they are already thinking of the elections. The worst of the lot are the Progressists and the Free-traders—the one party wants to manage things its own way, and the other is opposed to all State control, and wishes to let everything take its own course.”

[p. 453]

“Yes,” I said, “certainly, the Free-traders, the Secessionists, and the Jews are the worst. Bamberger[21] and Rickert.”

“Yes, the Jews,” he replied. “Bamberger has again told a mass of lies in his book—that I broke with the National Liberals and turned towards reaction. Yet while I have been Minister I have never belonged to any party, either Liberal or Conservative. My party consisted solely of the King and myself, and my only aims were the restoration and aggrandisement of the German Empire, and the defence of monarchical authority. That should also be emphasised and further developed on some occasion. The Conservatives, in so far as they were in favour of reaction, were always opposed to me, because I would not consent to it. You remember the attacks of the Kreuzzeitung at the time of the Inspection of Schools Bill, afterwards during the great libel cases.”

“Diest-Daber and Co.,” I said.

“There they completely renounced me, and attacked me in every possible way because I would not join them in their reactionary programme. It was just the same in 1877 with the National Liberals. When Bennigsen failed to form a Ministry because he put forward demands that I perhaps could have agreed to, but to which the King would not consent, they left me in the lurch, and their newspapers preached a crusade against me. In the same way they entirely misrepresented the publication of the Bülow letters, making all kinds of unfounded insinuations, as, for instance, that they were directed against Bitter, whom I had not in my mind at all.”

[p. 454]

Returning again to the Jewish members of Parliament, he exclaimed: “Yes, Bamberger, Lasker, and Rickert—self-seeking fellows!”

I remarked: “I suppose Lasker is now only working on the quiet, in their conventicles. He has discovered that he is no longer as important as he was. The great man has failed at three elections, on the first two occasions in large Jewish towns, Breslau and Frankfurt, and then at Magdeburg.”

He replied: “Yes, but I draw a distinction between Jew and Jew. Those who have become rich are not dangerous. They will not put up barricades, and they pay their taxes punctually. It is the enterprising ones who have nothing, particularly those on the press. But after all, it is the Christians and not the Jews who are the worst.”

I: “It is true that Rickert pretends he is not a Jew, but I should say that he is one all the same. The ‘Parliamentary Almanac’ describes him as an Evangelical.”

He: “Look up some of the older years, and there you will find that they give no particulars of his place of birth or religion. I asked Bleichröder, who told me that —— (I could not catch the name) was not a Jew, but that Rickert probably was.”

I: “Anyhow, his style of argument is sufficiently Hebraic.”

He (after a pause): “You have managed to give the Grenzboten such a character that it is regarded much as the Official Gazette. Hänel asserts in the Kieler Zeitung that it is out-and-out official, and that you only say what I think and wish.”

I: “I have never boasted of it anywhere. It doubtless arises from the fact that some of your[p. 455] expressions and your style, which is different from that of others, are met with now and again in the articles. Nor is this at all welcome to me; for although I have influence upon them and can sometimes prevent the insertion of political articles that are submitted to me, articles do sometimes get published in it which are not to my liking. What did your Serene Highness think of Lindenau’s article?[22] I believe he told the truth. He asserts that Friesen was instructed from Dresden before the outbreak of the war with France to use his influence chiefly for the maintenance of peace, and probably he (Lindenau) was the Councillor entrusted with the delivery of that message.”

“Yes,” replied the Chief, “Saxony is worse than Bavaria.”

“With the latter,” I remarked, “a letter from you was all that was needed to get King Lewis on to the right track.”

He smiled and said: “But in Saxony things will be awkward when once Prince George, with his Ultramontane crew, comes to the throne.”[23]

“He!” I exclaimed. “In Leipzig we have always looked at it in this way. Should there be another great war with France or any other Power in which we were to lose one or two important battles, and should the people in Dresden then go over to the enemy, we should then hope to see what was not possible in 1866 forthwith take place and the country annexed—a fate from which the tutelary genius of the dynasty who sits[p. 456] in a cherry stone in the Gruene Gewölbe at Dresden would hardly be able to save them.”

“Yes, in such circumstances it would doubtless come to that,” he replied.

I then said: “Might I ask how things are going with regard to foreign affairs? What are our present relations with France?”

“Oh, quite good!” he said. “They desire peace, and so do we. And we oblige them in many ways—but not on the Rhine—that is not possible. We were on good terms with England, too, under Beaconsfield; but Professor Gladstone perpetrates one piece of stupidity after another. He has alienated the Turks; he commits follies in Afghanistan and at the Cape, and he does not know how to manage Ireland. There is nothing to be done with him.”

He then asked how I was getting on, and I inquired how he was. I said he looked better than I had seen him for a long time past.

“Yes,” he said; “I am really very well just at present, except that I have attacks of neuralgia which frequently deprive me of my rest—a nervous face-ache, toothache, and such things. I have not smoked for the last fortnight.”

I then took leave of him, and immediately wrote the first of the two articles he desired, which appeared in the Grenzboten, No. 5, of 1881, under the title “Working-class Insurance Bill.” I then proceeded with the second article, “The Imperial Chancellor and the Parties,” a proof of which I sent to the Chief for correction on the 17th of February. He returned it to me two hours later, after he had struck out certain passages and rewritten others. Tiedemann, who brought it, was at the same time instructed by the Chief to say[p. 457] that as the article might just then be misunderstood by the National Liberals, it should be held over for a week or a fortnight; he would himself again discuss the matter with me personally, when there might perhaps be some additions to make.

At 2.30 P.M. on the 19th of February I received a hasty summons from Sachse to call upon the Prince. I accordingly presented myself before him at 4 o’clock. He was in uniform, and seemed as if he intended to go out. He shook hands, and said: “Nothing can be done with the article on the National Liberals which we recently discussed, owing to a necessary change of front towards the party attacked in it.[24] The article was good, but we will not print it. You are now regarded as official. But there is another matter I should like to have discussed, that is to say, the debate on the remission of taxes in the Upper Chamber, and the unsuitable constitution of the latter. There are too many Berliners in it, and too many high officials, retired and otherwise.”

He then took up a list of members, and read: “Ex-Minister Bernuth—it is true he held office in Hanover, not here; the two Camphausens, the one with the handle to his name and the other without; Friedenthal, Patow, Lippe, Manteuffel, Rabe, Rittberg—I cannot rightly remember whether he was a Minister; then Sulzer, Under Secretary of State, seventeen or eighteen Actual, and Privy Councillors and other high officials; together with some sixty-nine or seventy members who were nominated owing to special Royal favour. I have jotted down something on that head—let Rantzau give[p. 458] it to you, and use it, but not literally, otherwise my style may be recognised. Turn it into your own style.” I promised to do so; and then expressed the pleasure I felt at his obtaining such a large majority and routing Camphausen so thoroughly in the debate.

He smiled and said: “You should have seen him and his whole crowd—the sour faces they made. And Camphausen, who kept me waiting for seven years, because he was unable to manage anything except with the milliards which remained in his hands after paying the cost of the war—there was still a surplus of a few hundred millions which he did not know how to invest. When a couple of millions were mentioned at a meeting of the Cabinet he merely smiled. When a hundred millions were spoken of, however, he laughed so heartily that you could see the two teeth in his mouth. The ‘man of milliards,’ he was so lazy that I had to beg and pray him to draft the Fiscal Reforms Bill; and he never produced it until just at the end, and then it was not fit for use!”

I reminded him that I had already mentioned this in the Grenzboten as long ago as 1877 (in one of the friction articles).

“Ah!” he said, “have that reprinted. It will be useful as confirming what I have said to him. It is true that at length he produced something and wanted to proceed with his unworkable tobacco tax, and to take some steps in the railway question. But he stumbled over Bamberger, instead of treating him with contempt. Camphausen was the leader of the storming party in the Upper House. He had worked up the whole affair, joining with other archplotters and rabid free-traders. But I must go. Speak to Rantzau, and he will give you the notes. But you must not show them to any one.”

[p. 459]

He rang the bell, and Count Rantzau brought the paper. He said it was written very illegibly and with many abbreviations; he would, therefore, like to read it over with me upstairs. The Chancellor remarked, smiling: “Never mind if it is rather illegible. If the doctor cannot quite decipher it he will not be able to reproduce it word for word.”

I was, however, able to make it out at home, although with some trouble, and then based the following article upon it, which appeared in No. 9 of the Grenzboten, under the title of “The Upper Chamber.” The portions within brackets are by me as also the first paragraph, the remainder is the Chief’s, in great part the form as well as the substance. The alterations are very slight, and such as are usually made in correcting dictation. The article ran as follows:—

“(Public attention has been once more attracted to the Upper House of the Prussian Diet, whose proceedings usually excite very little interest, by the three days’ debate on the question of taxation that took place in that Chamber last week, when the Opposition, organised and led by the Ex-Minister Camphausen, was finally defeated, after its leader had been roughly handled by the Chancellor. The occasion affords an opportunity for casting a glance at the constitution of this body, and indicating the changes which should, in our opinion, be made in its composition, and in its treatment by the Government.)

“A strange impression is made by the circumstance that the Upper House, which should be a factor in the Prussian Legislature of equal authority with the Lower House, has again this session been summoned as usual to hurriedly consider, under great pressure of time, questions of the utmost importance, including the Settlement Bill[p. 460] in addition to the most essential of all, namely, the Budget. The discussion of the Budget is the only opportunity which the Upper House has for expressing, like the Lower House, its views on important political affairs. It is true that, under the Constitution, it has a more restricted share in the settlement of its details than the other Chamber. But it is precisely the general character of its right of intervention respecting the Budget which shows that, under the Constitution, the Upper House is expected to discuss, not the individual items, but the general political significance of the whole Budget under its various heads, thus giving public expression to the views on State affairs prevailing in the classes represented by that body. Not a single complaint has yet been heard from members of the Upper House that, owing to the manner in which business has been conducted up to the present, the influence which they are entitled to exercise upon the policy of the Government has been unduly restricted. Nowhere in the Upper House does any one seem to have been struck with the fact that, while the discussion of the Budget occupies many weeks in the Lower House, it is disposed of in a few hours in the other half of the Legislature, although time had previously been found to devote three whole sittings to the comparatively subordinate question of the remission of taxes.

“The astonishment aroused by the character of the attack made upon the Government on this occasion is considerably increased when it is remembered how little time was left to the House for the consideration of the important measures mentioned above. The real explanation of this opposition is unquestionably to be sought in the restlessness and desire for occupation of ex-officials of high rank who have obtained seats in the Upper House.[p. 461] Former Ministers who, like von Bernuth, Count Lippe, Friedenthal and Camphausen, voluntarily retired from office, are disposed, on the one hand, to continue their accustomed Ministerial activity in a Parliamentary form, and, on the other, to give vent to their ill-humour at not having been again entrusted with a Ministerial or other appointment. It would require an exceptional degree of magnanimity on their part to regard entirely without jealousy the success of those who now hold the posts which they formerly filled, to say nothing of promoting that success. Indeed it is only human, natural, and customary that all higher patriotic considerations should fail to enable persons of merely average character to overcome the temptation to represent their own retirement as an irretrievable loss to the machinery of government.

“(As already stated at the commencement) the plan of campaign in the Upper House against Prince Bismarck’s Bill for the Remission of Taxation was drawn up by Herr Camphausen, and the same former colleague of the Chancellor had prepared the principal operations by bringing his influence to bear upon the members in Committee. The intention obviously was to bring once more to the front the well-nigh forgotten friends of the somnolent old Liberal party, through whom Herr Camphausen had acquired a certain importance, and to recall their services. This could only be done by making the task of the present Government as difficult as possible, and by drawing disparaging comparisons between the present and former administrations, the Government now in office being represented as unequal to the performance of the duties entrusted to it....

“Count Lippe was the first to yield to the temptation[p. 462] of venting his anger against the Government to which he formerly belonged, doing so in the most violent, bitter and rancorous terms. He was followed in a similar strain by the ex-Minister of Finance, Von Bodelschwingh, a gentleman who has secured himself a place in the memory of the public by his statement at the outbreak of the war with Austria that there was only enough money in hand to provide for the pay of the army to the end of the following week. A similar line was followed by the ex-Premier Manteuffel, while former Under-Secretaries of State tried to make clear to the Government, by the vehemence of their attack, that their qualifications for still higher functions had not been properly recognised. This traditional method has been most deplorably revived by the Ministers Camphausen and Friedenthal, although both voluntarily withdrew from the present Cabinet at a difficult juncture, the latter leaving to others the further execution of the work which he had himself commenced, as well as the responsibility for its success.

“Such behaviour invites severe censure (but the public may be left to stigmatise such methods according to their deserts), for it is not generally regarded as the sign of a noble nature to wilfully obstruct those who have to perform a difficult task, to which the authors of such obstruction felt themselves unequal.

“The minority of thirty-nine members of the Upper Chamber in the division on the Remission of Taxes, setting aside a few irascible old gentlemen who always vote against every proposal, was composed of Reactionaries of the extreme Right like Count Lippe, Count Brühl, Baron von Tettau, Herr von Rochow, and Herr von Oldenburg; infatuated Progressists like Herr von Forckenbeck and Herr Forchhammer; and then, as[p. 463] already stated, malcontent officials of high rank and their abettors, and finally a number of fanatical Free-traders (led by the Burgomasters), who from their doctrinaire standpoint consider themselves bound to oppose what they regard as a Protectionist Government.

“The minority is therefore a conglomerate of heterogeneous elements. They are united solely by their hostility to the Prince[25] and his policy, a hostility which arises from the most various motives. The strongest and most emphatic expression was given to this feeling by those members of the Upper House whose appointment and position in the House are due to the exceptional confidence reposed in them by the sovereign. Strange to say, they imagine that they can most fittingly justify this confidence by putting as many difficulties as possible in the way of the Government of the King to whom they owe their seats.

“That an Opposition of this kind, which from its very nature was bound to be ineffectual, was allowed to monopolise three whole days out of the only week remaining for the discussion of the important questions already mentioned, shows a degree of consideration on the part of the majority which illustrates one of the causes of the inadequate practical co-operation of that body in our political life. In the short interval thus left, the House had to dispose of the Budget and the Settlement Bill. In our opinion, however, the Upper[p. 464] House is not to blame for the fact that it must remain inactive up to the two last weeks of the session, while the other House is engaged in often lively debates, or at least we must not seek for the origin of the evil there alone. That many members of the Upper House display but slight interest in the affairs of the State is doubtless an important contributory cause. We consider, however, that the Government is chiefly to blame, inasmuch as it not only submits first to the Lower House all financial bills, but also all other important and interesting proposals and measures. The Constitution provides that this shall be done in the case of financial bills, but not in other cases.

“To quote an instance in support of what we have just said, we do not know (and cannot even imagine) what considerations induced the Government to lay all bills relating to questions of organisation, those dealing with the whole Monarchy as well as those affecting individual provinces, regularly and exclusively before the Lower House, which either left them lying in their Committees or did not allow them to reach the Upper Chamber before the last week of the session. (...) Are we to explain this by assuming that the Government is afraid of the Lower House, but not of the Upper House?

“We are of opinion that such a method is neither very dignified nor very practical. Indeed, one can scarcely describe this course as a method, since that term is usually applied to a form of activity which has something more in view than an easy and comfortable provision for the individual requirements of the administration. We cannot help fearing that succeeding Governments will have to suffer for the mistake committed by that now in office, which amounts to little less than reducing the Upper House to a cipher.

[p. 465]

“The lack of interest in public affairs which is characteristic of most members of the Upper House is unquestionably due in part to the unsuitable conditions which governed the foundation and development of that body. As a consequence most members of the House have no active connection with the public life of the country, and are never in close sympathy with it. There are politicians who still remember the energetic and effective part which was taken in State affairs by the old First Chamber, which has now been replaced by the Upper House, and the corresponding interest thus aroused among the public of that day by its debates, which were really of greater importance, and showed greater intellectual capacity than the proceedings in the Lower House. Whoever remembers this cannot see without regret how little of that importance and influence now remains to the Upper House in its present form.

“This defect does not lie solely in the inadequacy of the ties which connect the Upper House since its extension with the country at large, for even in its present shape and composition the Prussian Senate would still enjoy greater consideration if the Government would only give it more importance. As it is, the Government contributes by the arrangements which it makes for conducting the business of the Legislature, as well as by the selection of members, to restrict the share taken by the Upper House in the work of legislation, and to render that restriction permanent. Under this system, the preliminary discussions in the Committees and current affairs are for the most part dealt with by members who reside in the capital, the majority of whom are retired officials, more or less dissatisfied on account of their retirement. We believe we do not over-estimate when we reckon that these Berlin members, together with a few representatives of the larger[p. 466] towns, make up the necessary quorum of sixty. The representatives of the great landowning classes in the provinces, who were intended to exercise the chief influence in this Assembly, put in an appearance only on the rarest occasions when a formal vote has hastily to be taken on the results of the session’s labours. This is decidedly a drawback.

“The first question of many of those who come to Berlin for this purpose usually is, ‘When shall we get home again?’ On the discussion of the Protection of Game Bill, a measure of the highest importance to the landed proprietors in particular, and which threatened them with intolerable vexations, there were, if we are not mistaken, only some eighty members of the Upper House present, and of these hardly twenty belonged to the class of provincial landowners whose interests were threatened by this measure.

“(We must now conclude by pointing the moral of these considerations.) If the Government wishes to carry on an effective policy, and not merely to administer separate departments, it must recognise the necessity of trying whether a better treatment of the Upper House, putting it on a more equal footing with the Lower House, would not induce its members to take a more active and regular part in the work of the Diet. Business cannot continue to be thus conducted if the desired regeneration of the House is to be brought about. For who can offer any sound and convincing objection to the excuse which might be alleged by the majority of the 133 members of the Upper House who, out of a total of 300, attended the last division, for not having put in an appearance until the last fortnight of the session? That excuse might have been framed as follows: ‘What should we have done here had we come earlier? Perhaps wait at the door of the Lower House until the[p. 467] gentlemen there were pleased to send us up their leavings? Or wait until the Ministers found time to attend to us? We could do that quite as well at home.’

“In our opinion it will not be easy to refute the criticisms directed on such grounds against the attitude hitherto adopted by the Government towards the Upper House (and this leads us back to our demand that a remedy should be found for the evil, and that speedily).”

On the 27th of April, 1881, I reminded the Chief of my readiness to be of use in case he should have anything for me to do after the reassembly of the Reichstag.

On the same day I paid Bucher a visit at his lodgings. He told me that the “Foreign Office Ring,” of which the ambitious and intriguing Bülow had been the leading spirit, was broken up. Bülow would be removed, getting some small post as envoy at Weimar or Stuttgart. Tiedemann was also nearing the end of his tether, and would doubtless have been set aside before now if his pretensions had not been extravagant; he wanted the post of Oberpräsident at any cost, while the utmost that could be done for him was to make him a Regierungspräsident. The Prince was aware of these pretensions and had made some ironical remarks on the subject. Lindau, who looks after press matters and has now the rank of Vortragender Rath, does not do much, as he has had “no regular training.” He, Bucher, has therefore often to do the newspaper work. Among other things he has, upon instructions and information conveyed to him by the Chief, written several long articles for the Deutsche revue über das gesammte National Leben der Gegenwart (edited by R. Fleischer, and published by O. Fanke in Berlin), which he gave me. One, entitled “Power without Responsibility,” a proof of which was given to me, was intended for the[p. 468] May number, and was principally devoted to a discussion of the recent policy of Gladstone and Gambetta. The other, entitled “Prince Bismarck in the Ministry of State,” published in the April number of the sixth year, contained some interesting matter respecting the retirement of Count Eulenburg, the Minister of the Interior, which was not due solely to the conflict that took place between himself and the Chief in the Upper House on the 19th of February.

On the 3rd of May I received from the Imperial Chancellerie an answer to my note of the 27th of April, in the form of an invitation to pay the Prince a visit next day. In the antechamber I met Bucher, who had been called to him before me, and who remained with him for about a quarter of an hour. On receiving me afterwards the Prince said: “You want fodder, but I have none at present. I was thinking in the garden of what to tell you, but found there was nothing to say. Of course I could talk to you about the speech I am going to make in the Reichstag one of these days, but then people would say: ‘He has been reading the Grenzboten to some purpose.’ All the same one might deal once more with what I recently said respecting the municipality of Berlin and the Progressist clique, and about the inhabited house tax and valuation. Also as to the removal of the Reichstag, which it is not absolutely necessary should meet in Berlin. They object to my regarding myself as the champion of the lesser folk, of the poor. I have, they say, no right and no need to do so, although recently people have again died of starvation here. The speech on the inhabited house tax defended the interests of this class of the population, and also that of fair play. The Progressist party and the Manchester clique, the representatives of the ruthless money-bags, have always been unjust to the poor,[p. 469] and have invariably done everything in their power to prevent the State from protecting them. Laissez faire, the largest possible measure of self-government, unlimited opportunities for the great capitalists to swallow up the small business men, and for the exploitation of the ignorant and inexperienced by the clever and cunning. The State should merely act as policemen, chiefly for the protection of the exploiters.”

He reflected for a moment, and then continued: “I am not against a considerable degree of municipal self-government as opposed to State administration. It has its good points, but also its disadvantages. If it does not always display as great a sense of justice as State officials do, that is only human nature, which is imperfect. People will always be disposed to favour relatives, customers, friends and members of their own party, even when they intend to act impartially; in these circumstances men and things look different to what they really are. It is therefore quite conceivable that in making valuations a shopkeeper will, in spite of himself, apply a different measure to his customers and to others, and if to this be added party and religious rancour it is scarcely possible to prevent injustice. That may lead to very serious evils in a large town where one party has got hold of the administration, particularly as party spirit does not as a rule restrict itself to unfair valuations, but also disposes of municipal offices and work. Municipal self-government must therefore be restricted, and the State must protect those who do not belong to the party in power from the arbitrary and unfair treatment with which they are constantly threatened by the municipal administration elected, and continually influenced by that party. It was therefore a mistake on the part of Eulenburg—I mean the late one—to give the Berlin Corporation such wide powers.[p. 470] He was really a Conservative, but wished to make himself popular, and you will see from the newspapers that he has succeeded in doing so. Moreover, he was a friend of Forckenbeck’s, and that also will have influenced him in making concessions to the Progressist clique. This did not concern Berlin alone. In general we held different views on the district and provincial regulations. I wanted to have them reconsidered and partially altered, as they contained some dangerous concessions. Eulenburg, however, was in a hurry, and wanted to finish the general outlines, which were to apply to all the provinces. I should have refused my signature if the draft had been submitted to me. The King was also displeased with these concessions, which affected his prerogatives and whittled down the authority of the State. Thus, for example, on the occasion of the recent solemn re-entry of the King (on his return to Berlin after his recovery from the effects of the Nobiling outrage), the municipal authorities made arrangements without previously consulting Madai, to ascertain what was thought on the subject by the King, whose ideas were quite different. That also accounts to some extent for Eulenburg’s retirement. He took advantage of the incident in the Upper House to withdraw from a position which had become untenable. The democratic clique which rules Berlin noisily enforced the rights granted to them, and acted as if they could do whatever they liked. Even the streets, since they have become the property of the town, must serve their purposes to the disadvantage of many people, as, for instance, with regard to the tramways. Since the rights of the State over the streets of the city have been transferred to the municipality, one may say that the mediæval ‘right of convoy and escort’ has practically been revived. But when the railway had to be carried[p. 471] across the Jerusalemstrasse, Maybach showed them once more what was what.”

He was silent for a moment and then observed: “I therefore will not have the State made omnipotent, but on the other hand I will not permit its disintegration, its division into communal republics after the style of Richter and Virchow. We have seen in Paris what such self-government leads to. At present an attempt of the kind is again being made. Just read the speeches which Andrieux, the Prefect of Police, has delivered in the Chamber and before his electors at Arbresle. That shows that men of sense and character are not in favour of unrestricted self-government, even in Republican towns. You will find it in the last numbers of the French newspapers. There are many good points in it which are also applicable to our own circumstances.

“And then as to the rumours about the Reichstag and its removal from Berlin, a great deal more might be said. Say that it was no mere threat, but an idea that is seriously entertained. It has many things to recommend it. The Emperor can summon the Reichstag wherever he chooses, as the Constitution has made no provision respecting the place where it is to meet. The old Emperors of Germany had no imperial capital; they assembled the representatives of the Empire, the Princes and Estates, wherever it was most convenient to them, sometimes in the north and sometimes in the south and west. In case of danger from the west at the present day, Berlin or Breslau would be a convenient place for the sittings of the Reichstag, while disturbances in the east would render a Bavarian, Rhenish or Hessian town, such, for instance, as Cologne, Nuremberg, Augsburg or Cassel, more desirable. In certain circumstances there would also be no objection to Hamburg or Hanover. The members of the Reichstag would be[p. 472] heartily welcomed in all these places, while they would have the further advantage of a change of air. Moreover, they would as a whole come into contact with other sections of the population, other people, and other conditions, and would be subjected to other influences than those which they have hitherto experienced. It would be as great a mistake to confound the Berliner with the German as it would be to confound the Parisians with the French people—in both countries they represent quite a different people. There are also other important considerations in favour of this plan. The independence of the members and liberty of speech is better guaranteed in towns of medium size than in a great city with over a million inhabitants. That was proved in 1848, when the Radicals and Democrats, who now style themselves the Progressist party, had seized power. The mob threatened, and indeed besieged, those members of Parliament whose attitude they disapproved of. An Auerswald or a Lichnowski[26] might well be done to death here, and indeed with still greater ease. Away from the capital the members of the Reichstag need have no fear of the scandal-mongering press of Berlin. How many of them have the courage to despise that journalistic rabble? In revolutionary times how many of them would have the courage to hold their ground against intimidation and threats directed against their life and honour? Such times may possibly return. In smaller towns it is much easier to protect them than here, where, in future, the Progressists, the Jacobins and the Socialists will enter into a close alliance, with the object of promoting the democratic aims which they have in common. Their fellows in Paris concluded such an alliance in 1871. But if these parties were to come to an understanding[p. 473] in Berlin, the friends of order and of monarchical institutions would find themselves in a minority, and could not enforce their views, even if all the shades of opinion into which they are divided were to unite. That has been also recognised elsewhere. In the United States, Congress does not meet in New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis or Chicago, but in Washington, a town of medium size, which is usually very quiet. The Legislative Assemblies of the different States also meet in towns of medium size, or, indeed, sometimes in quite small places. There were good reasons for the continuance of the French Chambers at Versailles, and it will be almost a miracle if they do not one day have cause to regret their return to Paris. Even the removal of Parliament from Berlin to Potsdam would offer a certain guarantee against the disadvantages and dangers which I have described. Finally if the Reichstag were not domiciled in Berlin, it would not have such an enormous crowd of Berliners among its members.”

He rang the bell and asked for the Parliamentary Guide, and then went through the alphabetical list of members, from Bamberger, Benda, Bernuth and Beseler to Weber and Wehrenpfenig, in order to find out the Berliners, I writing down the names as he gave them to me. “Now count them,” he said. “How many are there?” There were forty-six. “You must not mention their names, however, as there are a number of good friends of ours, and strong monarchists among them.”

He then spoke more slowly, as if dictating, at the same time walking up and down the room. I wrote down what he said. “The number of those who regularly attend is close on two hundred, and of these the forty-six Berliners are probably always present. We thus arrive at this monstrous condition of affairs[p. 474] that this city Berlin has no less than a fifth, indeed nearly a fourth, of the entire effective representation of Germany, including Alsace-Lorraine; and even in the largest attendance—which may be put at about 310—the Berliners form 15 per cent. of the whole. There is one Berliner for every million inhabitants of the German Empire, and if the sense of intolerable boredom created among many members by the infliction of speeches from Messrs. Richter and Lasker, lasting often more than two hours, continues to increase at the same rate as it has done recently, it may be taken for granted that in future Berliners will form one-fifth of the representatives of the Empire who are in regular attendance. They are always in their places, and when the democrats among them find themselves supported by an equal number of their fellows from the Provinces they have almost a certain majority on the average attendance of 200 members. Moreover, there is in this city a considerable number who make a business of their Parliamentary activity, combining it with the editorship of newspapers. Both occupations dovetail into each other, and help to give the industrially unproductive classes, the fruges consumere nati, preponderance in the law makers’ establishment. With the assistance of the officials who live on their salaries in Berlin and elsewhere, and for whom the Parliamentary Session is a pleasant holiday in comparison to their other work—.” He did not complete the sentence, but smiled, and said: “When they are here they are just like youngsters who are glad not to have to go to school, and who hang their heads when they are obliged to return there after the holidays. Here in the Reichstag, and in the Lower House of the Diet, there is no strict discipline, no stern masters, no subordination and no reprimands. They are the representatives of the popular will, can enjoy the sense of[p. 475] their own importance, and win admiration by their speeches. All these together make exactly that kind of a majority which should not exist. That must be done away with. The German people has a right to demand that the Reichstag should not be Berlinised.”

He then reflected for a while and said: “Foreign affairs? There is also not much to write about on that subject at present.”

I suggested: “Tunis? I have written a long article on this subject for the Grenzboten, but it is for the most part geographical and historical, and contains very little politics.”

He promptly exclaimed: “That’s dangerous! Please let it be! It is better not to touch it. You know people think when you write anything that it has been inspired by me.”

I explained to him that I had only dealt with facts and suppositions, and that the article hinted that he regarded the French enterprise with sincere good will, and would be pleased if they were satisfied.

He replied: “Ah, that is all right. You have put it very well. You might also say that we should be pleased to see those neglected districts that had formerly been fertile and well cultivated come into the hands of a great civilised people who would restore them to civilisation. But do not show too much good will, or the French will take offence at us for giving them permission to undertake hostilities. Say nothing about England and Italy. It is in our interest if they should fall out with the French, and when the latter are busy in Tunis they cease to think of the Rhine frontier. But all that must not be as much as insinuated—write something about Russia in preference. There the peasants must be converted into private owners of their lands, of personal and hereditable property. Now when[p. 476] the land is held in common by the entire village, and is divided up from time to time, the drone and the drunkard have the same right as the diligent labourer who does not spend his time in the public-house. This common ownership must cease. Those, however, who desire to bring about revolution and to set the peasantry against the Emperor fight tooth and nail for the retention of this communism, as if it were a palladium. It is said to be a genuinely national and primitive Russian institution. In doing so, however, the gentlemen manifest gross ignorance. The common ownership of the land was formerly a traditional custom here, except in a few districts, as, for instance, in parts of Westphalia up to the Stein-Hardenberg legislation. A similar custom prevailed in France up to the First Revolution. The Russians, however, have probably received it from us, from the Germanic Rurik, as they afterwards received other European institutions.”

At this juncture von Bötticher, the Minister, was announced; and the Prince took leave of me with the words, “I must break off here, as I cannot keep him waiting. Auf Wiedersehen. But be very careful in dealing with Tunis.” I had been with him over half an hour.

The Chancellor’s suggestions with respect to the Tunisian question and Russia were incorporated in the articles on those subjects. The communication he made to me at the interview on the 4th of May was embodied, for the most part literally, in an article entitled “Prince Bismarck and Berlin,” in No. 20 of the Grenzboten, of which I sent him a copy after publication. I enclosed at the same time an extract from a leading article of the Daily Telegraph eulogising the recently deceased Count Harry Arnim, and asserting among other things that in 1870, when he was envoy to the Curia, he had[p. 477] a plan which, if carried into effect, would have entirely averted the struggle between Prussia and the Vatican. This magnificent idea was that Prussia should persuade her bishops to found a German National Church, and in alliance with them fight the Pope. The Berliner Tageblatt put somewhat similar stories and views on the market. I therefore asked the Prince whether these statements should not be refuted. The letter and enclosure was despatched on the evening of the 22nd of May, and on the evening of the 24th the letter was returned to me, accompanied by a few lines from Tiedemann, in which he said, inter alia: “His Serene Highness said he would have been better pleased if the article ‘Prince Bismarck and Berlin’ had been submitted to him before publication, as several passages must cause offence in the most exalted regions. With reference to the article in the Daily Telegraph, the Prince said it did not appear to him to be worth while to refute it.”

It would appear, however, that the Chancellor ultimately came to think that after all the articles in the Daily Telegraph called for a correction, as a few days, after the receipt by me of Tiedemann’s letter the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung published the following communication, evidently inspired, which was afterwards copied by the other newspapers:—

“Certainly such a development (as that which Count Arnim is alleged to have proposed) would have been desirable from the point of view of the State. Its only defect was that not a single bishop, not even the most moderate, was disposed to listen to such an appeal from the State to enter upon a conflict with the Pope. Even the bishops of those nations whose national sentiment is much more highly developed, such as the French, English, and Slav, have rejected all such temptations a[p. 478] limine. But the idea of the Government putting itself at the head of the Prussian bishops, or being supported by Ledochowski, Melchers, and Martin in the creation of a German National Church against the will of the Pope is so utterly puerile that it could certainly never have occurred to a man of such intelligence as Count Harry Arnim. He was too well acquainted with the bishops, some of whom were like wax in the hands of the Pope, while the rest were Jesuits, or waverers, for him to have ever believed for a moment that they could be induced to storm the Papal stronghold. So far as we are aware he never entertained such an idea, and never gave expression to it.”

On Sunday, the 26th of June, at 1.30 P.M., the Prince sent a message requesting me to call upon him at 4 o’clock. He was in plain clothes, and looked very poorly, with dark lines under his eyes. He had allowed his beard to grow, as he usually does when his nervous affection is exceptionally tormenting. He asked how I was getting on. I answered: “Well, Serene Highness; but it is not necessary to ask you, as one knows from the newspapers that your health has of late been very indifferent.”

“Yes,” he replied, “very bad. Weakness and oppression, and pains all over, in the body, chest, and face. Up to my sixty-sixth year I had good teeth, but now they all pain me, tugging and tearing above and below and all round.” He drew his hand down one cheek and then up the other. “But that comes from the great excitement, which is due this time, not to political affairs, but to other matters of which we will not speak,” (he doubtless referred to certain family affairs ... of which some hints had appeared in the newspapers) “and one must keep on working all the same—incessantly. The King is pitiless. He knows[p. 479] how I am, and yet every day he sends me notes that must be answered. I have had this illness already several times; first, in St. Petersburg, when I heard that they were thinking of committing the blunder of mobilising in favour of Austria in the Italian question, in which case Austria would have left them in the lurch; then before and after the war in 1866 at Putbus; again at Versailles; and in ’74, on the occasion of the libels (Diest-Dabers), when I was deserted by old friends, and when the Minister of the Household subscribed for ten copies of the Reichsglocke; and in 1877 when Augusta’s entourage intrigued against me. But what I would like you to do is this. The Progressist party now speak as if they had done everything, and as if we had to thank them for the unification of Germany and the foundation of the Empire. I should like to have a historic survey prepared which would show that, on the contrary, they have used every possible means to defeat that end. As long ago as 1848 and the following year they so far injured the good position held by Prussia, that as a result we had the miserable Manteuffel régime (die elende Manteuffelei), Olmütz, and afterwards to the Canossa days in Paris, where our plenipotentiary was obliged to wait for hours in the antechamber before he was admitted, and where Prussia was altogether left out of account. Then under the Ministers of the new era when they, with their dogmatism and their opposition to the reorganisation of the army, brought on the appointment of a Bismarck Ministry. At that time they were in favour of a mere militia, although they entertained far-reaching schemes against the Confederation and Austria—or rather, great aspirations. They expected no doubt to blow them down with their unwholesome breath as the walls of Jericho were brought[p. 480] down by the blast of the trumpet. That is not mine—the breath—but Shakespeare’s.”

“Julius Cæsar?” I suggested.

“No,” he replied, “Coriolanus” (Act iv. scene 6). “Menenius, the breath of the garlic eaters which ‘made the air unwholesome’ as they threw their greasy caps in the air and shouted for the banishment of Coriolanus. And then their attitude towards me. They always wished me ill, wished me even to the scaffold. Their one desire always was to upset the Ministry, and take its place. In the course which they pursued they never took the condition of Germany into consideration—that is to say, they often alluded to it in their speeches, but never seriously thought of it. And their action was always directed towards promoting the objects of our opponents abroad. They were in favour of Austria, when I was against her, and vice versâ. They worked into the hands of France, like Mayer and Sonnemann, who held similar views, and who could scarcely be regarded as anything else than French officials. They would not have an army or a fleet, or a strong Prussia, and only wanted to establish democratic rule. They fought against my plans in the Schleswig-Holstein question—‘not a Groschen to the Ministry’—although I have reason to be particularly proud of my share in it, seeing that it was a drama of intrigue, equal to Scribe’s ‘Le Verre d’Eau.’ For the sake of the Augustenburger’s rights, as they said, Schleswig-Holstein should be formed into a new minor State, which would have voted against Prussia at every opportunity. Kiel is still one of their chief strongholds, from which the movement is directed.”

“Yes, Hänel,” I said, “Ex-Minister of Justice to Duke Frederick, who wished to come to an arrangement[p. 481] with Napoleon against Prussia. I am pretty well acquainted with the condition of affairs at that period. When I was disclosing the Kiel intrigues in the Preussische Jahrbücher I explained the situation to a company, consisting of members of the Progressist party gathered at Mommsen’s, who was at that time beginning to entertain more sensible ideas on the subject. All I could say, however, was perfectly idle. They held to their standpoint that it was unjust.”

“Mommsen?” said the Chief. “He has always proved himself a greenhorn when he mixed in politics, and most of all at the present time.”

“One of those awfully clever Professors who know everything better than every one else,” I remarked.

“They were also opposed to the acquisition of Lauenburg,” continued the Chancellor, “and when the war with Austria was imminent they desired to ‘rid Prussia of the itch to be a great Power,’ and organised popular meetings all over the country at which resolutions were passed against ‘a fratricidal war.’ It is an unquestionable fact that at that time they traitorously hoped and prayed that the enemy might be victorious. Their ideas were most clearly represented by that member of Parliament who afterwards conducted an anti-Prussian agitation in the Vienna press—What’s his name?—the man with the broad, smooth face?”

“Frese,” I suggested.

“Yes, that’s the man I mean” he replied, “They afterwards said, ‘If we had only known that!’ But that was merely a lying excuse. What they desired was not unity but freedom, as it was understood by their party, and radical rule. After 1866 and 1870 they were always the friends or enemies of every foreign Power according to the side which I took against it or for it. In all great questions the position they adopted was determined[p. 482] by their hatred of me. They urged that peace was threatened by the disfavour with which the Powers regarded the latest reorganisation of Germany, and yet in dealing with the military question they endeavoured, in combination with the Centre party, to weaken rather than to strengthen our power of resistance. They opposed the consolidation of the Empire in every way. First, they were against Russia, particularly in 1863; then, when our relations with that country became less satisfactory, they took up the Russian side; and when we were once more on a better footing with St. Petersburg they again turned against Russia. They opposed the Socialists at first, but when the Anti-Socialist laws came up for discussion they assisted them. Finally, when I came forward with State Socialism they fought it tooth and nail, because it is a weapon against the revolution which they desire. What they require is discontent. That is their element, and the means by which they promote their ends. They sacrifice everything to that. It was the case in the question of customs and taxation, and with regard to the more lenient application of the May Laws which they also opposed in the commencement, as well as in the Hamburg affair in which they were thorough Particularists, as they had formerly been in the Schleswig-Holstein question. It was the same in the purchase of the railways by the State, which has given exceptionally good results and with which the public is perfectly satisfied. Throughout the whole history of the Empire the Progressist party has been the advocatus diaboli. Happily however they were invariably mere firework devils,” he added, smiling.

“Bellows,” (Püstriche) I said, “as Mephisto called them, when he assembled the devils with straight and crooked horns over to the grave of Dr. Faust.”

[p. 483]

“Yes,” he replied, “they can only lie like the Father of Lies. But they will not succeed in the long run. Here in Germany lies have a short life, and the Germans do not allow themselves to be taken in for any length of time, as other nations such as the French are apt to do, who attach too much importance to fine speeches.”

I then inquired how he expected the next elections to turn out. He said: “The moderate parties will be weakened, while the Progressists will probably increase their numbers, the Conservatives, however, doing the same. This time, however, we will not stand by and see our plans wrecked. We shall dissolve if we cannot carry our State Socialism—our practical Christianity! At present it is not worth while for the sake of three months.”

“Practical Christianity?” I asked. “Did I rightly understand your Serene Highness?”

“Certainly,” he replied. “Compassion, a helping hand in distress. The State which can raise money with the least trouble must take the matter in hand. Not as alms, but as a right to maintenance, where not the readiness but the power to work fails. Why should only those who have in battle become incapable of earning a livelihood be entitled to a pension, and not also the rank and file of the army of labour? This question will force its way; it has a future. It is possible that our policy may be reversed at some future time when I am dead; but State Socialism will make its way. Whoever takes up this idea again will come to power. And we have the means, as, for instance, out of a heavier tobacco tax. That reminds me. My son had recently to deliver a speech against the Progressists before some association, and I advised him to introduce the phrase, ‘The voting cattle from the Richter stables, with the Progressist winkers’ (Das[p. 484] Stimmvieh aus den Richterschen Ställen mit dem Fortschrittsbrete vor dem Kopfe), but he considered it too strong.”

We then spoke about the Deutsches Tageblatt, which he had taken up while he was speaking. He said it was well edited. I observed that the publisher, whose acquaintance I had made at the last book fair in Leipzig, had told me that he had nearly 8,000 subscribers. The Chief said: “10,000, I am told.” I observed: “It is now stated that the National Zeitung, that dreary organ of the Secessionists, Bamberger & Co., has hardly 7,000 subscribers still left.” “That was always a Jewish sheet,” he replied. “The proprietor and editor are both Semites.” “And inflated pedagogues,” I took the liberty of adding.

This led the conversation to the Jews, and their connection with the Progressist party. He said he was surprised at their being so hostile to him, and so ungrateful, as after all they owed to him the political position which they held in the Empire. “At least through my signature,” he continued. “They ought to be satisfied with me, but they will one day force me to defend myself against them.”

“As you did against the Ultramontanes,” I said. “In that case, Serene Highness, you would become more popular even than you now are, as you would have with you not merely the sixty or the hundred thousand who signed the petition, but the millions who loathe the Jews and their politics.”

## FOOTNOTES

[1] These articles formed the basis of the book Der Parlamentarismus wie er ist, a second edition of which appeared in 1881; while others were utilised for a second volume, Bilder aus der Fremde, für die Heimath gezeichnet (“Pictures from Abroad painted for those at Home”).

[2] He was subsequently Ambassador to the Italian Court.

[3] In the late autumn of 1878 I found the library of the Foreign Office installed here.

[4] Editor of the North German Gazette.

[5] It may here be mentioned, for the benefit of the uninitiated in these matters, that the family in question is related to the Hohenzollerns through the marriage of Prince Anton Heinrich Radziwill in 1796 to Friederike Dorothée Louise, daughter of Prince Ferdinand of Prussia.

[6] Meding, a born Prussian, had originally been in the Prussian service, but subsequently went over into the Hanoverian service and was employed by King George, whose confidence he won by the violence of his anti-Prussian sentiments in connection with the official press.... After the war of 1866 he accompanied the ex-King of Hanover to Vienna, and then acted until 1870 as a Guelph agent in Paris. He then made his peace with the Prussian Government and received a pension.... He published, under the pseudonym of George Samarow, several so-called historical romances....

[7] Under this system the Ministers are on a footing of equality, and independent of each other.

[8] Compare with entry for the 8th of November, 1872.

[9] Brother of the dramatist and critic, afterwards Councillor of Embassy in Berlin.

[10] A reference to the drum which Ziska, the Hussite commander, ordered his followers to make of his skin, so that he might still terrify the enemy after his death.

[11] So I understood him to say, but it must have been very much more. See later.

[12] I should not be disposed to take the responsibility for this 80,000 without good evidence in support of the statement.

[13] The Bonbonnière was a nickname for the Opposition, composed of the favourites of the Empress Augusta.

[14] Olbrich’s, a Berlin beerhouse, where the editors of the Reichsglocke and their distinguished patrons were accustomed to meet for the purpose of preparing their articles against Bismarck.

[15] An error on the part of the Chief, as I subsequently learned. The offence in question was not the libelling of Ministers, but insults to the Consistory.

[16] A newspaper edited by Joachim Gehlsen, a decayed journalist, in co-operation with certain distinguished reactionaries. Its main object was to lampoon and calumniate the Imperial Chancellor.

[17] Karlsruhe is laid out somewhat in the form of a fan, the streets radiating from the “handle,” which is occupied by the palace.

[18] When I mentioned this to Bucher he said: “Well, that is not quite the case. Recently, when he wished to resign, he said to me that if I did not like to remain on I should come to him at Varzin; he had some important matters to dictate to me concerning the past from notes which he had taken down.”

[19] The passage in question has now been corrected in accordance with the above statement.

[20] Then Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph in Berlin, now The Times Correspondent in Vienna.

[21] Bangbersché, the French pronunciation of Bamberger. The latter formerly resided in Paris.

[22] This article, which was written by Von Lindenau, a rather eccentric gentleman formerly in the service of Saxony as Councillor of Embassy, was published in No. 48 of the Grenzboten of 1880, and dealt with the attitude of Saxony immediately before the war with France.

[23] So it appeared to many persons at that time. But tempora mutantur; and to-day, thank Heaven, all anxiety on that point has vanished.

[24] This doubtless referred to the intention to which the Chancellor gave public expression a few weeks later in his appeal to Herr von Bennigsen.

[25] How widespread this feeling is, may be gathered from the attitude of the Post, which has published sweet-sour articles on the subject.—This remark was added at the request of the Chief, which was communicated to me by Count Rantzau on the 21st of February. The Prince at the same time wished to have Friedenthal mentioned as “a future minister,” and as responsible for the attitude adopted by the Post. Rantzau and Holstein, however, advised against this, as Friedenthal had no longer any influence on the paper.

[26] General Auerswald and Prince Lichnowski lost their lives in the disturbances at Frankfurt in 1848.

END OF VOL. II.

RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.

## Transcriber's Notes

The following changes have been made to the text as printed. In cases of doubt, recourse has been had to the original German work (Tagebuchblätter).

1. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.

2. Errors in use of quote marks and other punctuation have been corrected.

3. In cases of inconsistent spelling of German and French names, the spelling used in the original language has been preferred. Examples include changing "Frankfort" to "Frankfurt", "Mayence" to "Mainz", "Rheims" to "Reims", "Delbruck" to "Delbrück". However, where the English text is consistent in spelling, that spelling has been retained ("Cologne", "Munich").

4. Where a word is used repeatedly in the same way, hyphenation has been made consistent, preferring the form most often used in the printed work, or failing that the more usual form in general use at the time of publication.

5. Page 85: making capital out it has been changed to making capital out of it.

6. Page 89: at the same recommending has been changed to at the same time recommending.

7. Page 165: sacrificed the Greek element to the slaves. has been changed to sacrificed the Greek element to the Slavic..

8. Page 177: pan-Krutowski has been changed to Pan Krutowski.

9. Page 253: They are diary entries ... has been changed to There are diary entries ....

10. Page 274: Bucher went on say has been changed to Bucher went on to say.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BISMARCK: SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY, VOLUME II (OF 3) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.