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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.”
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
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
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.
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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)
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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....
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.”
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:—
“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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
“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
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
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
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
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.”
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,
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.”
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
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
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.
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:—
“‘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
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:—
“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
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
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.”
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.”
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.”
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!”
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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.”
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.”
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
“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.”
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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.”
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
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
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
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
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
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?”
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,
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,
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
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
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,
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.”
“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?”
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
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:
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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:—
“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
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
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
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
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
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?’
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.”
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
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,
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
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
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
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.”
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
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?”
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
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,
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
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
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
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:
“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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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.”
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
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
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.”
“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.”
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
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
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
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
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.”
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
“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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.”
“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
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.”
