path: root/73568-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 73568 ***





  Transcriber's note: This is the third and final volume of a series,
of which Volume 1 (eBook number 68651) and Volume 2 (eBook number 70943)
have been previously published by Project Gutenberg.

  Italic font is indicated by _underscores_.
  Bolded words are indicated by =equals=.




  BISMARCK

  SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY




                             BISMARCK:

                 SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY


                      BEING A DIARY KEPT BY

                         DR. MORITZ BUSCH

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


                        _IN THREE VOLUMES_

                             VOL. III


                             =London=

                    MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

                 NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

                               1898

                      _All rights reserved_




                 Richard Clay and Sons, Limited
                        LONDON AND BUNGAY

           _Copyright in the United States of America_




                            CONTENTS


                            CHAPTER I
                                                                   PAGE
BUCHER, COBDEN, AND THE MANCHESTER SCHOOL--BÜLOW AND THE
    COMTE DE JOLIVAR--THE HOLY DRUJINA--KEUDELL IN THE
    PROGRESSIST PRESS--FOUR SECRETARIES OF STATE IN THE
    FOREIGN OFFICE--KEUDELL AND HIS ARREARS OF WORK--THE CHIEF
    AND THE PROGRESSIST ELECTIONEERING AGITATION--LIES IN
    LAUENBURG--INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING UNRUH’S ARTICLE IN THE
    “DEUTSCHE REVUE”--WHY BENNIGSEN WAS NOT MADE MINISTER--THE
    CHANCELLOR ON THILE AND THE DIEST LIBEL--BUCHER ON
    HOLSTEIN--BUNSEN’S FRIENDS AND TRUTH--A MONUMENT FOR MY
    SON, WHO DIED AT SEA--THILE’S OPINION OF THE CHIEF--THE
    CHANCELLOR ON THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION, THE OPPOSITION TO THE
    TOBACCO MONOPOLY--THE EMPEROR, THE CROWN PRINCE, AND PRINCE
    WILLIAM--PHILOPATER AND ANTIPATER AT POTSDAM--BUCHER TENDERS
    HIS RESIGNATION--THE CROWN PRINCE AND THE PROGRESSISTS--THE
    VICE-CHANCELLORSHIP--ARTICLES AGAINST THE EMPRESS                 1


                            CHAPTER II

BLEICHRÖDER AND GERMAN DIPLOMACY IN CONSTANTINOPLE--FURTHER
    INTERVIEWS WITH THE CHANCELLOR--RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND
    AUSTRIA--THE GABLENTZ MISSION--QUEEN VICTORIA--AN UNPLEASANT
    EPISTLE--A SEVERE REPRIMAND--BISMARCK COLLABORATES WITH
    ME--BUCHER’S JOURNEY WITH SALAZAR--A PRESS CAMPAIGN AGAINST
    ENGLAND--DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLES ON SOUTH AFRICAN QUESTIONS       70


                           CHAPTER III

THE CHANCELLOR ON BULGARIA AND SERVIA, AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA,
    THE BATTENBERGER AND THE TSAR--HIS VIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF
    THE RUSSIAN BALTIC PROVINCES--A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH
    PARTIES AND OUR OWN--GERMANY AND ENGLAND IN AFRICA--THE
    CHANCELLOR ON THE MILITARY QUESTION, AND THE THREATENED
    CONFLICT IN THE REICHSTAG--WHAT HE SAID THERE WAS ADDRESSED
    TO RUSSIA--THE TSAR’S CONFIDENCE IN THE CHANCELLOR--THE
    CROWN PRINCE AND HIS CONSORT--BISMARCK AND HIS WORK--WHAT IS
    GREATNESS?--THE CHIEF ON HIS OWN DEATH--INTERVIEW WITH THE
    CHIEF ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE BATTENBERGER, AND INSTRUCTIONS
    FOR THE “GRENZBOTEN” ARTICLE, “FOREIGN INFLUENCES IN THE
    EMPIRE”--BEWARE OF THE PRESS LAWS--NOT TOO VENOMOUS--A
    SURVEY OF BRITISH POLICY--THE CATALOGUE OF ENGLAND’S
    SINS--TWO EMPRESSES AGAINST THE CHANCELLOR--QUEEN VICTORIA AT
    CHARLOTTENBURG--DEATH OF THE “INCUBUS”                          147


                            CHAPTER IV

THE EMPEROR FREDERICK’S DIARY--THE CHIEF ON THE DIARY AND ITS
    AUTHOR--THE GERMAN QUESTION DURING THE WAR OF 1870--THE
    EMPEROR FREDERICK AND HIS LEANING TOWARDS ENGLAND--THE
    CHIEF PRAISES THE YOUNG EMPEROR--“BETTER TOO MUCH THAN
    TOO LITTLE FIRE!”--I AM TO ARRANGE THE CHIEF’S PAPERS,
    AND DO SO--LETTERS FROM FREDERICK-WILLIAM IV. AND FROM
    WILLIAM I.--CORRESPONDENCE WITH AND CONCERNING THE CROWN
    PRINCE (FREDERICK)--LETTERS TO AND FROM ANDRASSY DURING THE
    NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AUSTRO-GERMAN ALLIANCE--LETTERS FROM
    THE EMPEROR ON THE SAME SUBJECT--WILLIAM I.’S RELUCTANCE TO
    DESERT RUSSIA--CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE EMPEROR AND THE TSAR
    AT ALEXANDROWO--WILLIAM I.’S FINAL INSTRUCTIONS--BISMARCK’S
    ACCOUNT OF HIS RELATIONS WITH THE EMPEROR FREDERICK             190


                            CHAPTER V

SIGNS OF FRICTION BETWEEN THE CHANCELLOR AND THE YOUNG
    EMPEROR--WITH THE CHIEF DURING THE CRISIS--HIS ANXIETY ABOUT
    HIS PAPERS--HOW TO GET THEM AWAY--HIS RETIREMENT A FACT--THE
    EMPEROR WANTS TO BE RID OF HIM IN ORDER TO GOVERN ALONE WITH
    HIS OWN GENIUS--COURT FLUNKEYISM--HIS RETIREMENT IS NOT DUE
    TO HIS HEALTH, NOR IS IT IN ANY SENSE VOLUNTARY--LETTERS
    FROM BISMARCK TO WILLIAM I.--THE CHIEF ON THE INITIATION OF
    PRINCE WILLIAM INTO PUBLIC AFFAIRS--THE GRAND DUKE OF BADEN’S
    ADVICE TO THE EMPEROR FREDERICK--THE CHIEF TALKS OF WRITING
    HIS OWN MEMOIRS--BUREAUCRATIC INGRATITUDE--FOREIGN OFFICE
    APOSTATES--ACCORDING TO BUCHER THE NOTES DICTATED FOR THE
    MEMOIRS ARE MERE FRAGMENTS, SOMETIMES ERRONEOUS--THE CHIEF’S
    LIFE AT FRIEDRICHSRUH--SCHWENINGER’S APPREHENSIONS              305


                            CHAPTER VI

I AM INVITED TO FRIEDRICHSRUH--BUCHER AND THE PROPOSED
    “MEMOIRS”--HE DOUBTS WHETHER THE LATTER WILL BE
    COMPLETED--THE CHIEF--“BÜSCHLEIN” AS BEFORE--THE ANGLO-GERMAN
    AGREEMENT--THE EMPEROR AND RUSSIA--THREE KINGS IN THEIR
    NAKEDNESS--BÜSCHLEIN WILL WRITE THE SECRET HISTORY OF OUR
    TIMES--THE PRINCE GIVES ME IMPORTANT PAPERS TO EXAMINE IN
    MY ROOM: HIS RESIGNATION IN 1890, A DRAFT OF A CONFIDENTIAL
    STATEMENT OF THE MOTIVES OF HIS RETIREMENT AND NOTES ON THE
    ATTITUDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MINISTERS ON THAT OCCASION--STILL
    ANOTHER BOOK ON BISMARCK IN VIEW; CORRESPONDENCE ON THE
    SUBJECT WITH BUCHER AND THE CHIEF HIMSELF; THE PLAN
    DROPPED--LAST VISIT TO BUCHER IN JANUARY, 1892--HIS
    DEATH--LAST STAY AT FRIEDRICHSRUH IN MAY, 1893--“GOOD BYE,
    DEAR OLD FRIEND.”                                               350




                            BISMARCK

                SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY




                            CHAPTER I

BUCHER, COBDEN, AND THE MANCHESTER SCHOOL--BÜLOW AND THE COMTE DE
    JOLIVAR--THE HOLY DRUJINA--KEUDELL IN THE PROGRESSIST PRESS--FOUR
    SECRETARIES OF STATE IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE--KEUDELL AND HIS
    ARREARS OF WORK--THE CHIEF AND THE PROGRESSIST ELECTIONEERING
    AGITATION--LIES IN LAUENBURG--INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING UNRUH’S
    ARTICLE IN THE “DEUTSCHE REVUE”--WHY BENNIGSEN WAS NOT MADE
    MINISTER--THE CHANCELLOR ON THILE AND THE DIEST LIBEL--BUCHER ON
    HOLSTEIN--BUNSEN’S FRIENDS AND TRUTH--A MONUMENT FOR MY SON, WHO
    DIED AT SEA--THILE’S OPINION OF THE CHIEF--THE CHANCELLOR ON THE
    EGYPTIAN QUESTION AND THE OPPOSITION TO THE TOBACCO MONOPOLY--THE
    EMPEROR, THE CROWN PRINCE AND PRINCE WILLIAM--PHILOPATER AND
    ANTIPATER AT POTSDAM--BUCHER TENDERS HIS RESIGNATION--THE CROWN
    PRINCE AND THE PROGRESSISTS--THE VICE-CHANCELLORSHIP--ARTICLES
    AGAINST THE EMPRESS


On the 10th of July, 1881, Bucher wrote me the following note in
pencil:--


“The Chief is having articles written on the played-out Liberals
in the Vienna Parliament, from which a moral is drawn for our own
people. It would certainly amuse him to see Glaser’s letter, a
precious production, which you will find in the enclosed book,
reprinted. What do you think of the idea?

“In a few days I shall send you a pamphlet on the Cobden Club
(written by me, of course secret). I would suggest that it should
not be discussed until after the silly season, somewhere about
the beginning of September, when we must again hammer away at the
subject. I shall then supply you with plenty of material. In the
meantime, it may be well to collect together the abusive language to
which the pamphlet has given rise.

“In eight or ten days I shall send you an article on the origin
of the Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce, which may be published
immediately.

                                                                 “Bʀ.”


Glaser’s letter appeared in a small pamphlet, entitled, _An Austrian
Minister and his Father_, published in Berlin, 1872, by Kerskes
and Hohmann. It contained the following passage: “Another year,
and the Chosen People shall have attained the object of the Holy
Alliance,[1] which they concluded in Paris. We have no more ardent
desire than to see the day arrive when we can bid him (Prince Adolph
Auersberg) good-bye, and see his place taken by one from our midst”
(the Jewish Liberals); and “then” (when the aristocratic party is
suspected by the dynasty, and has fallen out of favour) “a really new
and regenerated nobility, drawn from our people” (the Jews) “shall
enter into power, and fulfil the mission to which God has called
them.” I had this letter reproduced in the _Grenzboten_, with a few
introductory remarks.

On the morning of the 11th of July I called upon Bucher, from whom I
ascertained that he had collected the material for his pamphlet on
the Cobden Club in the British Museum, about a fortnight previously.
He had gone to London, under instructions from the Chief, giving a
false name, and holding no intercourse with anybody.

On the 21st I called on Bucher at the Foreign Office, to remind him
about the pamphlet and the proposed _Grenzboten_ article. He had been
unable to write the latter, as he could not obtain a book which he
required for the purpose. (This was the _Principles of Currency_, a
work by the Oxford Professor, Bonamy Price, which appeared in 1869.)
He gave me his pamphlet, and a quantity of material for the article
upon it, to which he made some additions during the following days.
He also sent me a number of English and French publications, to be
used for the same purpose. In the meantime, Glaser’s letter was
emphatically declared to be a forgery by Glaser himself. Bucher,
however, still held it to be “genuine in the main.”

I now wrote a series of five articles, entitled “Characteristics of
the Manchester School,” based on Bucher’s pamphlet, and the notes and
books with which he supplied me. These appeared in Nos. 33 to 37 of
the _Grenzboten_.

On the 27th of July Bucher related to me “an anecdote illustrating
the way in which the Secretary of State von Bülow carried on
business.” Lasker called upon him one day to introduce a Frenchman,
one Comte de Jolivar, who was going to Constantinople, and wished
to have a letter of introduction to our Embassy there. Bülow had
this letter prepared, and added in his own hand a few words of
warm recommendation to Werther, who was our representative at the
Porte at that time. The Comte proceeded on his journey with this
document in his pocket, and one of the first things he did on his
arrival at the Golden Horn was to swindle a German artisan out
of a respectable sum of money. This was soon followed by similar
operations, which speedily came to Werther’s ears, who probably
had already felt surprised at the Frenchman having asked for and
received recommendations from the Foreign Office in Berlin, instead
of from that in Paris, or from the French Minister in Berlin. He
reported these cases of swindling to the Wilhelmstrasse, and from
there inquiries were addressed to the Foreign Office in Paris. The
information received was to the following effect. Comte de Jolivar
is not a Comte, but only a Chevalier, that is to say, _chevalier
d’industrie_, who--as the police records show--has been condemned
on several occasions for embezzlement and swindling, and was
once prosecuted for forgery, but just managed to save his skin.
“_Tableau_” in the office of our Secretary of State!

Bucher praised Hatzfeldt, who has entered upon the duties of his
office in succession to Bülow, as a pleasant and easy chief. Speaking
of Bunsen, Bucher said that he had written for the Secessionist
_Tribune_. Bucher also referred to the controversy which he had
recently fought out with Bunsen, in the columns of the _Norddeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung_.

On the 29th of July I received the following note from Bucher:--


“1. Can you get the enclosed inserted in the _Daily Telegraph_, or
some other English newspaper, and send the Chief a copy?

“2. Herewith the draft of an article on the commercial treaty, of
which you must alter the introduction. The second edition of Bonamy
Price which I have received from Baden (whence he also obtained the
_Sophisms of Free Trade_, which he sent me for the ‘Characteristics
of the Manchester School’) does not contain the letter from
Chevalier. I have instructed Ascher to get the first edition at my
expense, and to forward it to you.

                                                          “Yours, Bʀ.”


The enclosure mentioned in paragraph 1 ran as follows:--


“It appears that a secret society has been formed in Russia, by
a number of determined and loyal subjects of the Tsar, which is
understood to be organised on the same lines as the associations
founded for the purpose of assassinating him. This new society
purposes to fight the Nihilists with their own weapons. Like the
latter, who seek to terrorise the sovereign by attempts upon his
life, the new society which has been constituted to oppose these
criminals, will endeavour to keep them in check by hunting out
and killing the chiefs of the band of assassins in Switzerland
and England. It is a regrettable circumstance that honourable
men in Russia should be obliged to resort to a kind of mediæval
_Vehmgericht_ as a means of protecting the monarch from these
miserable cut-throats.”


On the morning of the 30th I forwarded this paragraph to the _Daily
Telegraph_, stating that it came from the “very best source,” and
adding that I should be thankful for its insertion. On the 31st,
however, I received the following note from Bucher: “Herbert has just
telegraphed to me to hold back the paragraph on the Anti-Nihilistic
society for the present. Luckily Sunday has intervened. Will you
please countermand it by telegraph, and charge me with the costs?” I
accordingly telegraphed to London, and the paragraph did not appear.

The second enclosure was worked up for the _Grenzboten_, and
published in No. 32, under the title of “The Genesis of the
Anglo-French Commercial Treaty.” It was completed by an extract from
Chevalier’s letter, which was published by the _Pall Mall Gazette_.

In the meantime, on the 30th, I received the following note
from Bucher: “As your articles on the Manchester School in the
_Grenzboten_ will one day form material for the historian, I would
suggest that after the reference to Schlesinger and his association
with the Treasury, you should insert the words: ‘since the Macdonald
affair at Bonn.’ I will give you the particulars for your memoirs.
They are very curious.”

Bucher left for his holidays on the 1st of August.

On the 14th of September Bucher wrote to me that he was in Berlin,
and on the 21st I called upon him. He told me that the Chief had
again had “difficulties with the Emperor.” The latter now reads
no more newspapers. Recently, however, some courtier must have
called his attention to a paragraph which he represented to come
from the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, to the effect that
a Papal Nunciature was to be established in Berlin. The Emperor
thereupon wrote the Chief a “snappish letter” which commenced
somewhat in the style of Zwückanör (one of the comic figures in the
_Kladderadatsch_): “I am much surprised.” The Chancellor first sent
a short telegram, saying that he knew nothing of any such paragraph
in the newspaper in question (which had contained nothing of the
kind), and afterwards forwarded a memorandum on the subject, which
filled three sheets of paper. “He was greatly incensed at the action
of the Most Gracious.” Tiedemann, who has now been definitively
replaced by Rottenburg, goes in the first place to Bromberg, in the
capacity of _Regierungspräsident_, and not, as he had desired, and
expected, to Kassel as _Oberpräsident_. The mention of Keudell in the
first _Grenzboten_ article on the Manchester School, which has been
described by the Progressist press as a “violent attack,” has led
that gentleman to state in the _Morning Post_ that he had requested
the President of the Cobden Club to remove his name from the list
of members. He at the same time endeavoured to defend himself in
Progressist journals, like the _Vossische Zeitung_ and the _Berliner
Tageblatt_, concluding, as usual, with self-praise. Bucher remarked:
“These almost identic articles are written by himself. Only his
signature at foot is wanting.” These productions were forwarded to
the Chancellor at Varzin, who thereupon had the following statement
published in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_:--


“The _Berliner Tageblatt_, the _Schlesische Zeitung_ and the
_Vossische Zeitung_ publish articles respecting Herr von Keudell
which are similar in effect, and which all conclude with the phrase
that owing to his retirement from the Cobden Club the valuable
services of the German Ambassador in Rome still remain secured to the
State.

“It requires that complete ignorance of the customs prevailing in
the service of the State, and particularly in diplomacy, and of
the habits of the higher circles which distinguishes Progressist
writers, for any one to imagine that an Ambassador’s position could
ever be endangered by a matter of such trifling importance as the
circumstance that he had been nominated an honorary member of the
Cobden Club six or more years ago. We are in a position to assure
our readers that the matter has never been taken into consideration
either officially or confidentially at the Foreign Office, nor has
it ever called for any inquiry or exchange of views. The whole story
as to the position of Herr von Keudell being in the least affected
by that circumstance is simply an invention of Progressist writers,
suffering from a dearth of ‘copy.’

“We are not aware whether Herr von Keudell has resigned his honorary
membership. If such be the case he will probably have been led to
take that step by recent disclosures respecting the Cobden Club.
So far as his relations to the Imperial service and the Imperial
Chancellor are concerned, however, it is a matter of indifference
whether this purely private step has been taken or not. That
Progressist journalists believe the contrary is the consequence
in part of their ignorance as to the relations existing between
respectable people, and in part of their own sentiments, _i.e._, of
the furious rancour with which these partisan writers exaggerate and
garble the most insignificant incidents. They assume that an equal
degree of malice and violence prevails in circles to which they have
no access. In short, they are partisans who are accustomed to treat
with hatred and contempt every shade of difference from the party
standard. In their eyes whoever is not a free-trader is either a
knave or a fool. This is natural enough in those whose sole claim to
honesty and intelligence is that they are free-traders. It is not so
in higher circles, where there is more toleration, and less time for
matters of secondary importance.

“The Imperial Ambassador, moreover, can hardly care, we believe, to
find unauthorised representatives and advocates in just such papers
as the _Berliner Tageblatt_ and the _Vossische Zeitung_. No one who
does not belong to the political and social circles represented by
these papers would willingly be credited with any connections with
them, and this is doubtless sufficiently well-known in Rome for any
such connection to be shunned, and for such damaging advocacy to be
duly repudiated.”


On the morning of the 25th of October I paid Bucher a visit at his
lodgings. He complained that the Chief now occupied himself too
much with press matters. Instructions of this description came from
Varzin almost daily, and sometimes three or four together. No one
in the office understood anything about them, neither the sons,
nor Rantzau (who was paid for that purpose, but who, nevertheless,
could only take down dictation from the Chief), nor Holstein, who
was a mere “bungler,” and least of all Rudolf Lindau, who “is quite
incapable, has had no political or journalistic training, and can
merely play the amiable, tell good stories and go out walking.” He
had been brought into the Office by family influence, which also
kept him there. “In Japan he made the acquaintance of Brandt, our
Chargé d’Affaires, through whom he obtained a connection with the
Intelligence Department of the general staff. He afterwards (if I
rightly understood) accompanied Brandt to St. Petersburg, where he
was presented to the Grand Duchess Hélène, who recommended him to
Bismarck. The latter sent him to Harry Arnim in Paris as a Press
Attaché. He afterwards received an appointment at the Foreign
Office--again on an exalted recommendation. The Prince knows that he
is entirely unfit for the duties which he has to perform, but the
Grand Duchess protects him; and so, although he has been virtually
shelved, it has been done in such a way that he appears to have
control of press affairs.”

Bucher said that Count Bill is on very intimate terms with Paul
Lindau ... with whom he had been in Hungary. Herbert had yesterday,
on the instructions of his father, written Bucher a four-page letter,
which he showed me, asking him, Bucher, to make a “journalistic
onslaught” upon the Progressist candidate Klotz on account of his
election speech. Rantzau, however, had been unable to obtain the
most indispensable of essentials, namely Klotz’s speech, and, in
fact, knew nothing whatever about it. One of the Chancery attendants,
however, was cleverer, and remembered that it had been printed in
pamphlet form and distributed by the thousand. This man arranged to
procure a copy.

“Sybel is another plague with which the Chancellor has afflicted me,”
continued Bucher. “It is not so long since Sybel was fighting against
the Chief; but he has now been taken once more into favour, and is
to write a history of Germany from 1860 to 1870.” For this purpose
the Chief had at first ordered that _all_ diplomatic documents of
this period should be laid before him. Bucher, however, pointed out
that it would be necessary to make certain exceptions, some of which
he mentioned, including those concerning the Hungarian Legion. The
Prince agreed to this, and arranged that the documents mentioned by
Bucher, as also the “Secreta,” should not be shown to Sybel. The
latter is now carrying on his researches at the Foreign Office, which
Bucher does not regard as dangerous. He has come upon references to
the documents that have been withheld from him, and has asked to see
them, stating that he would anyhow have possession of them some day
as Director of the State Archives. Bucher was, however, obliged to
refuse his request. He complained of the responsibility imposed upon
him in this matter.

He then went on to say that it was much the same with one Herr
Poschinger, a Bavarian, who had taken it upon himself to describe
Bismarck’s work as Envoy to the Germanic Diet in Frankfurt. The Chief
had given instructions that he was to see everything relating to this
period in the first and second departments of the Foreign Office.
Poschinger plunged into these, and then sent his _opus_ to the Prince
for revision. The Chief did not care to read it, and instructed
Bucher to do so. “I then found that it was merely an endless string
of extracts, and not a book but only materials for a book; and that
while he dwelt discursively on insignificant details, he cursorily
dismissed or overlooked altogether matters of real importance.” That
was pointed out to Poschinger, who revised his work in accordance
with the suggestions made to him, abbreviating some parts and
amplifying others, and then returned it to the Chief, who again
forwarded it to Bucher. “It was now better material,” continued the
latter, “but it was still no book. I reported to the Chief in this
sense, and he gave instructions to obtain Sybel’s opinion on it. His
agreed in the main with my own, but Poschinger discovered that Sybel
had criticised him.”

Bucher thought that the visit which the newspapers reported Gambetta
to have paid to Varzin about ten days ago was possible, and indeed
probable. He declared, on the other hand, that the discovery, made by
the _National Zeitung_, that this visit took place at Friedrichsruh,
was unfounded, because the Chief was at that time suffering from
severe pain in the back, which made it impossible for him to travel.
“I do not like to make inquiries on the subject,” he said, “and I
therefore know nothing positive about it. We should have reason to be
thankful, however, if the visit took place, as it would make Gambetta
impossible in France.”

_October 28th._--Met his Excellency von Thile to-day in the Potsdamer
Platz. We first spoke about the elections. Thile had formerly
abstained from voting, but this time--like Bucher and myself--had
voted for Stöcker. He then asked what I thought of the report that
Gambetta had visited the Chancellor. I replied that it appeared to
me to be possible, and indeed probable. “I will tell you something,”
he said. “One of my acquaintances was recently at Frankfurt, where
he put up at the ‘Russischer Hof’--you know, ‘Auf der Zeil.’ In
conversation with the landlord, with whom he was acquainted, he
asked whether there was any news. ‘Yes, and something of importance,
Excellency,’ replied the latter. Gambetta was here recently on his
way home from Germany, and lodged with us. The head waiter asked his
servant where they had been, and the man replied: ‘_Nous avons été à
la campagne dans les environs de Danzig_.’”

_November 9th._--Called this morning upon Bucher at his lodgings
to inquire about the article in yesterday’s _Post_ stating that
the Chancellor proposed to resign. I fancied the article came
from Varzin, and was intended to prepare for a dissolution of the
Reichstag, and to give the country an opportunity to choose at the
elections between the Chief and the Liberals. According to Bucher,
no one would believe that a general election would induce him to
retire, and as to the dissolution of the Reichstag, that could only
take place if it perpetrated some piece of stupidity. The article
was purposeless, merely an expression of ill-humour at Varzin, which
Herbert, “with his usual ineptitude,” had made public. “But they have
been in the backwoods for half a year, and do not know what is going
on in the world. The elections would have turned out better in many
respects if the press campaign had not been so foolishly conducted.
But these things are shockingly ill-managed at present. We have now
no less than four Secretaries of State: Busch, the real one, who is
good; then Herbert at Varzin; and Rantzau and Holstein here. These
know nothing, and are incapable of doing anything properly. None of
them reads the papers or knows what is going on, and if the Chief
gives violent instructions they are carried out with still greater
violence. It is sad that the Chief should think so much of providing
for his family and finding places for them. Virchow was right when
he brought that charge against him. And the other gentlemen are no
better. In addition to the Secretaries of State we have the gentlemen
who spend their time strolling about, and who are more often to be
found out shooting than in their office.” He then mentioned two,
including Radolinski, ... and added: “After all it was just the same
formerly, when, in addition to Thile, there were only two who really
worked, yourself and Abeken. Hepke had hardly anything but trifles to
deal with, and the aristocrats for the most part spent scarcely two
hours in the office, just for a little gossip and a glance through
the newspapers and despatches--Hatzfeldt, for instance, and Keudell,
who was incapable to boot.”... “Hatzfeldt rarely came before two
o’clock,” said Bucher, “and often went away again at three. While
they lived upstairs he usually came to play a game of croquet. He
would ask Wartensleben, ‘Now what do you think of a little game of
croquet to-day?’ Wartensleben used then to say he would go up and see
whether the Countess would care to join them, and when he came back
with the message that the Countess begged to be excused as she had
something else to do, Paul would remark, ‘Well, then, one may as well
say good bye,’ and take himself off.... And Keudell could really do
nothing. I suppose I have already told you the story about Taglioni
and Keudell’s thirty arrears of work? Well, at Versailles I was told
by Wiehr--you remember him, the fat, bald deciphering clerk--it was
simply frightful how little Keudell managed to do. When he sat down
he wrote two or three lines, then pulled out his watch, took the
rings off his finger and played with them, put them on again, wrote
another few lines, stopped once more, and finally rose, leaving
his work unfinished. On one occasion Taglioni took pity on him and
offered to assist the Councillor. The latter was delighted with such
an amiable fellow, and Taglioni actually disposed of some thirty
items of work which were in arrear. But in spite of that a number
of even sensible people had a high opinion of his power of work and
his intelligence--people such as Gneist, for example, whom I know
well, as we studied together. I always meant to enlighten him, but
have not done so yet. It is necessary, however, that people should
know Keudell if he is to be a Minister one day.” Bucher then came to
speak of Count Herbert again, and I said that the Prince had once
observed to me that he had thought of promoting him to be Secretary
of State, as he had worked for seven years under his own personal
supervision, but that he was too young. “Yes,” rejoined Bucher,
“and so he is still. Paul Hatzfeldt will not remain. Things will
go on for the present in the same way. He comes at two o’clock and
disappears again at five, attends to nothing beyond the interviews
with foreign diplomatists, and troubles himself very little with the
other business--which, for the matter of that, is no loss. But when
the Prince comes back, and he is summoned to receive instructions two
or three times a day, it will not be at all to his liking, and he
will go back to Constantinople. He will be replaced by Herbert, that
haughty and incapable fellow, and more than one of the officials will
leave.”

I asked, in conclusion, if he knew what the Chief had intended by
the article on the Anti-Nihilistic society which I forwarded to the
_Daily Telegraph_, and afterwards countermanded. “The Holy Drujina?”
he said. “That was true. Such a society had been formed under the
protection of the Emperor, who had subscribed a million and a half
to its funds. Despatches have been exchanged between ourselves and
St. Petersburg on the subject, and one of the members of the society
has called upon Rantzau. But I cannot conceive what the Chief can
have intended by the publication of the paragraph in England. If one
of those gentlemen were to go there and murder a Nihilist leader, he
would be hanged as a matter of course. The affair should have been
treated as a profound secret, yet in a few weeks’ time it appeared
in full, with all manner of details and humorous comments, in the
_Berliner Tageblatt_. When I mentioned this to Rantzau afterwards,
he was simply terrified. Of course he had not read it, and wished to
know where it had appeared. I told him the name of the paper, and let
him hunt up the number himself. I used formerly to get him the paper
on such occasions, but now leave that to him, so that he may have at
least some occupation.”

As I left, Bucher said: “If anything happens, I will let you know.”

The Prince returned to Berlin in the afternoon of the 12th of
November. At noon of the 15th a Chancery attendant brought me a
letter from Sachse, saying that the Chief desired to see me at 1
o’clock on the following day, Wednesday. I arrived at the time
appointed, and was shown in to the Prince at a quarter-past 1. He had
been dictating to Count William before I went in. The Chancellor,
who was in plain clothes, looked fresh and hearty, but began by
complaining of his health. He had been ill, he said, during the whole
five months of his holiday, even at Kissingen, but particularly at
Varzin, where he had had to endure great pain. It was his old trouble.

He then spoke of the elections, and stated that in certain
circumstances he would retire, as he had already intimated to the
Emperor. “The centre of gravity has changed,” he continued. “The
Progressist and Secessionist Jews, with their money, now form the
Centre. At first I was not in favour of this agitation (for Stöcker
as an Anti-Semite). It was inconvenient to me, and they went too far.
Now, however, I am glad that the Court Chaplain has been elected.
He is an energetic, fearless, and resolute man, and he cannot be
muzzled. The elections have shown that the German Philistine still
lives, and allows himself to be frightened and led astray by fine
speeches and lies. He will not hear of the protection of labour
against the foreigner, nor of insurance against accident and old age,
nor of any reduction of school and poor rates, but wants direct
taxation to be increased. Well, he can have that, but not while I am
Chancellor.”

“Do you seriously mean that, Serene Highness?” I asked. “I believe
they have only nibbled at the democratic bait just as they did
formerly.”

“It may be that they do not quite know what they want. But they
have taken this course at the elections, their representatives vote
against me, and, in order to govern I must have a majority--which I
cannot find under these conditions. In case of necessity it might be
possible to manage with a coalition of Conservatives and Clericals
and such like, but the Centre Party has been against us all through
the elections, and there is no trusting them. Folly and ingratitude
on all sides! I am made the target for every party and group, and
they do everything they can to harass me, and would like me to serve
as a whipping-boy for them. But when I disappear they will not know
which way to turn, as none of them has a majority or any positive
views and aims. They can only criticise and find fault--always say
No. You are right in saying that they have turned the people’s heads
with their fine phrases and lies. They make out that I am in favour
of reaction, and want to restore the old _régime_. If I can get my
monopoly, tobacco will cost three to five marks a pound, but cigars
will be three times as dear as they are now. They have frightened
the people by reviving the old stories of the past, Junker rule, the
_corvée_, territorial jurisdiction, and even the _jus primæ noctis_,
as, for instance, in Holstein and Lauenburg. There the Danish Kings
had allowed all the ancient institutions to remain--unadulterated
mediævalism. The Junkers ruled, and were decorated with the Order of
the Elephant. They took all the best posts as if they had inherited
them. They held the most remunerative offices up to ten thousand
thalers a year, or at least four to five thousand thalers; and yet
they neither did nor could do anything except pocket fees and impose
heavy fines. They farmed the domains among themselves, on the lowest
valuations, and lived on the fat of the land. When I came there the
people were obliged to drink the abominable beer which the Junkers
brewed on their estates, and no one could purchase a piece of ground
because they did not wish the population to exceed two thousand to
the square (German) mile. There the people still remember all this
misrule, and emissaries of the Progressists and Secessionists--who
are just the same--threaten them with its revival, and warn them
against me. I am represented as desiring to restore that state
of things, yet the contrary is the case, and it was I alone who
abolished it.”

I reminded him of the homage of the Estates in Lauenburg, Bülow’s
anxiety respecting the maintenance of the Compact of the nobility,
and the scene in the Ratzeburg Cathedral, asking if that was a
correct account of the incident. He then related it to me once more,
the narrative agreeing in all important particulars with that already
given. Returning to the agitation that preceded the elections, he
continued as follows: “They do not, however, even believe what they
preach. They hate and slander me because I am a Junker and not a
Professor, and because I have been a Minister for twenty years. That
has lasted too long for them--hence their vexation. They would like
to come to power themselves, and form a Government. But that is mere
covetousness, and not ability, and if I were to make way for them
they would be desperately embarrassed, and would recognise that
they could do nothing. I was born a Junker, but my policy was not
that of the Junkers. I am a Royalist in the first place, and then
a Prussian and a German. I will defend my King and the monarchy
against revolution, both overt and covert, and I will establish and
leave behind me a strong and healthy Germany. To me the parties are
a matter of indifference. I am also not a Conservative in the sense
of the Conservative party. My entire past as a Minister is evidence
of that. They saw that in 1873 in the question of the Inspection of
Schools Bill, when they turned their backs upon me, attacked me in
their papers, and wrote me absurd letters.”

He took from the shelves near him a copy of a letter with which he
had disposed of an old gentleman in Pomerania (Senfft-Pilsach), who
had at that time warned him to reflect and pray. This letter, which
he read to me, directed attention, _inter alia_, to the Psalms,
chapter 12, verses 3 and 4: “The Lord shall cut off all flattering
lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: who have said, with
our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over
us?” He then returned to the last elections, and observed: “The
defectiveness of our institutions is shown by the credulity of the
electors. It may come to this, that we shall some day have to say
of the German Constitution, after all attempts at government and
reform under it have failed, as Schwarzenberg said at Olmütz: ‘This
arrangement has not stood the test.’ But that must not be printed
now. It is only for yourself.... They have now invented another
calumny. They take advantage of my attachment to the Emperor, and
pretend that I am clinging to office, that I am devoured by the love
of power. It may turn out differently, however, and I may say to
them: ‘Here you have it! Now let us see you govern!’ That, however,
can only be after a division on some important question, not on the
electoral returns. The Emperor is half inclined to try it and let me
go, if only for one session. Things cannot go on as they are much
longer. Of course, I am not going to desert the Emperor; it would be
unfair to leave the old man in the lurch. But I cannot renounce my
convictions, and I will not have a return to the period of conflict.
I demand more appreciation and better treatment.”

Returning once more to the statement that the Liberal parties had
been guilty of gross misrepresentation during the last election,
he added that they had at the same time set the followers of the
Government a good example by their excellent organisation, energy,
and self-sacrifice. “Many people on our side, such as Herzog, for
instance, have also given a great deal of money,” he said; “but the
Progressists have done more. They had all the treasure of the Hebrews
at their disposal, and were at the same time thoroughly drilled and
well organised.”

“And now,” he asked, “have I anything else for you? Unruh has
published various things that should be refuted.” He took up the
October number of the sixth year’s issue of the _Deutsche Revue_,
which lay before him, and continued: “He maintains that he has
written for historians, but he obviously intended to influence the
elections. A great deal of it is erroneous, other portions are
electioneering lies, and some parts require to be supplemented. Here,
for instance, on page 9, he states that while I was still a member of
Parliament I had a conversation with him which I concluded with the
words: ‘Now I tell you, if your party is victorious, you shall take
me under your wing, and if my side gets the upper hand I will do as
much for you. Shake hands on it!’ This offer was actually made. And
curiously enough, a similar proposal was made to me by d’Ester, the
Radical member of Parliament. In this case, however, I declined, and
said: ‘If your party wins, life will no longer be worth living, and
if we have the upper hand, then hanging shall be the order of the
day--but with all politeness, up to the very foot of the gallows.’”

He turned over the leaves of the _Revue_, and continued: “There is
no foundation whatever for the statement that the Opposition was not
aware during the years 1862 to 1866 that I had a strong anti-Austrian
policy in view. Besides, it is clear from Unruh’s own ‘Memoirs’ that
they were fully informed respecting this policy, and only offered
opposition through hatred to me, the Junker, and in consequence of
their own dogmatism. Here, on page 11, it is stated that shortly
after the outbreak of the Franco-Austrian War in 1859, he had an
interview with me at the Hotel Royal, when I said to him that for
Prussia to come to the assistance of Austria would be an act of
political suicide. I had entirely lost my sympathy for Austria. If
we did not succeed in driving Austria out of Germany proper, and
if she kept the upper hand here, then our Kings would once more be
mere Electors and vassals of the Hapsburgs. There could be no doubt
as to the attitude of the individual German Governments in case of
a crisis. With the exception perhaps of a few of the minor States
that fell within the sphere of Prussian influence, all of them, if
forced to make a choice, would decide in favour of Austria. Prussia
would, therefore, be isolated, but there were circumstances in which
she might have the entire German people as her allies.... Surely
that was plain speaking, and it ought not to have been difficult
afterwards to recognise the connection between such language and
the increase of the army. They would not see it, however.... On
page 13 is another proof that they knew what I had in view: ‘When
the King went to Baden-Baden, accompanied by the Ministers Von
Auerswald and Von Schleinitz, Bismarck followed him, evidently with
the object of continuing his efforts to prevent assistance being
rendered to Austria.’ And on the same page we read: ‘There is another
circumstance which strikes one as an important piece of evidence to
show that Bismarck’s anti-Austrian policy, in so far as Austrian
influence in Germany was concerned, did not originate in 1859, but
was of older date. After 1866, speaking in the House of Parliament
to the former Landrath of the Teltower district, I related to him
my conversation with Bismarck in 1859, whereupon he told me that
Bismarck had expressed the same anti-Austrian views to him in 1854,
and frankly confessed his anti-Austrian policy. It was not until
1866, that is to say, twelve years later, that it was practically
applied. Bismarck had therefore kept this plan of driving Austria
out of Germany before him all that time, and had resolutely pursued
it. This is of some importance in forming an opinion upon the period
of conflict.’ That is certainly correct. And is it possible that
what that Landrath in 1854 and Unruh in 1859 ascertained from me
personally had not also come to the knowledge of the others and been
present to their minds when they--the Liberals--fought against me
with the utmost violence from 1862 to 1866?”

The Chancellor turned over a few further pages, and then continued:
“With regard to the situation in the autumn of 1862, Unruh was
convinced (page 15) that ‘if Bismarck desired to put an end to
dualism in Germany, it was obviously impossible to do so without
a war with Austria, and that for this purpose it was necessary to
make the Prussian army as strong as possible.’ That is therefore
what I have already told you. In October (page 16), during a
general meeting of the National Union at Coburg, he communicated
the conversation of 1859 to a confidential circle. He writes: ‘I
told my old Prussian and my new German friends that they were quite
mistaken in regarding Bismarck as a simple Reactionary or indeed
as an instrument of reaction. He was certainly not a Liberal,
but he had quite different ideas and plans in his head to those
entertained by Manteuffel and his colleagues.’ The gentlemen were in
doubt, and wanted to wait and see how I acted. In 1863 they would
appear to have acquired the conviction (page 18) that I had given
up my schemes of foreign policy, and was now nothing more than a
reactionary Minister--of foreign policy, because (as they inferred
by a most extraordinary process of reasoning) in the interval there
had been in domestic affairs political persecution, measures against
Liberal officials, restrictions on the liberty of the press, and
attacks upon the freedom of speech in Parliament. But what in the
world had that to do with my foreign policy, and the belief in my
anti-Austrian schemes? Moreover, on the next page, one ascertains
that at this period Unruh & Co. had received an assurance from a
trustworthy source that I had a struggle with the Austrians in view.
The writer of the ‘Memoirs’ reports: ‘Seidel, who was at that time
Chief Burgomaster of Berlin, made me a communication which he said
came from the Military Cabinet, of which General von Manteuffel
was the head. According to this communication either Manteuffel
or some one who was in intimate relations with him had said that
Bismarck was exceptionally well fitted for the task of stamping out
the Opposition in Parliament, and that when he had succeeded in
doing that and the military organisation was secured, he must be
set aside as he would otherwise bring about a war with Austria, and
would use our increased military forces for that purpose. A conflict
with Austria and a successful war against her would again drive the
Conservative party from office. In order to keep the Conservatives
in power it was necessary that Prussia should remain on good terms
with Austria, and for that purpose they should even, if necessary,
make concessions. This statement (Unruh goes on to say) looked highly
probable. General Manteuffel was known as the head of the extreme
Conservative or so-called Austrian party at the Prussian Court, and
was much esteemed in Vienna. Bismarck had given frequent expression
to his anti-Austrian plans even before he became Premier, and had
indeed submitted them to the King himself. If Bismarck were to bring
about a compromise with Parliament, and to conclude a peace with
the popular representatives, his services, in the opinion of the
Manteuffel party, would be of no further use, and he ought then to
go. It would be quite different if in spite of the violent struggle
with Parliament, he succeeded in carrying through the military
organisation scheme. So long as the conflict with the popular
representatives continued, he remained indispensable, his value
increasing with the fierceness of the struggle.’

“This is a tissue of mistakes and contradictions. In the first place
there is no foundation whatever for the statement that Manteuffel
wished to get rid of me, and that he was the head of the Austrian
party. It was rather Schleinitz who held that position, and who
afterwards was in frequent intercourse with the Austrians, his salon
indeed being their rendezvous. Manteuffel was by no means a partisan
of Austria, but on the contrary a Prussian officer of ardent Royalist
patriotism. But in that case one would have thought that if the
Opposition in the Diet had been imbued with Prussian patriotism, if
they had desired to see the dualism in Germany put an end to and the
German idea realised through Prussia, they ought to have supported
me with all their might, knowing as they did that I had exactly the
same object in view. And that would also have been wise from their
Liberal standpoint, since it was of course known that a victory over
Austria would drive the Conservatives from power. Finally, there was
no reason to apprehend my overthrow by the Austrophil Conservatives,
as, according to Unruh himself, it was known that I possessed the
confidence of the King, who, it was indeed said, had himself called
me his spiritual doctor. The Opposition, however, instead of acting
on such considerations, adopted a diametrically opposite course. They
acted in an unpractical, illogical, impolitic way, and against their
own interests, blinded by their stupid animosity and pettifogging
dogmatism. It was necessary for the Liberals, if they desired to
pursue a practical policy, to win for their cause--which could not
be promoted without driving Austria out of the Confederation--the
support of the King of Prussia, who had scruples as to a conflict
with Austria, scruples which were encouraged by a section of his
_entourage_. King William should have been gradually convinced of
the necessity of breaking with the Vienna policy, and of attempting
to give Prussia alone the leading position in Germany. I pursued this
end, and Parliament should have done the same. Instead of doing so,
however, they flew in the face of the King by refusing him the means
for the reorganisation of the army, and they therefore lacked the
necessary leverage for promoting their own views. There they were,
floating in the air, with nothing to sustain them but the wind of
their own speeches and self-conceit which deluded them into a belief
in their own importance.

“Finally, Unruh says here (page 19) that I aggravated the struggle
over the Military Bills into a constitutional conflict, that
I assumed an aggressive attitude towards the Opposition, and
endeavoured in almost every speech to incense them by jibes and
sneers, all this for the sole purpose of maintaining myself in power
and office against the Austrophil Court party; and, on page 20,
he repeats the same charge in the following words: ‘I am still of
opinion that Bismarck used and took advantage of the conflict to
maintain and strengthen his position.’ Now that is a gross slander,
such as would render a man liable to prosecution--a falsehood
arising from the same blindness as another on page 16, according to
which the great men of the National Union regarded me merely as the
representative of reaction. I desired no reaction, then as little
as now, when I am again charged with doing so. Had I desired it I
could have had it. Unruh and his colleagues would not have been
able to prevent it, and ‘The People’ who elected them, could have
done nothing. But it was not the people. The determined attitude I
adopted towards the Opposition in Parliament was just as little due
to the love of power, or to the desire to strengthen my ministerial
position. It was rather due to my innate Royalism, which has always
been a leading feature in my character. It was this which made me
hold fast to my position. In doing so I was guided by my sense of
duty towards my King, who, in the circumstances then obtaining,
could not have found another Minister. I remember saying to him,
‘No one shall have it in his power to say that your Majesty cannot
find a servant so long as there is one nobleman of the Altmark still
surviving.’ Otherwise, at that time, it was, honestly speaking, no
pleasure to be a Minister. A Legation in Paris, or even in Frankfurt,
would have been much pleasanter. There one had a good salary with
little work, little responsibility, and little worry, and was not
attacked and reviled on all hands. The provocation and the sarcastic
speeches in Parliament, of which Unruh complains, were not intended
to prolong or aggravate the conflict, but were an exercise of the
_jus talionis_. I am stated on page 17 to have often been most
offensive. There is no denying that. But even when my expressions
were offensive, they were not nearly so offensive as the language
used against me and other members of the Government by speakers in
the House. They were much coarser and more malicious than I ever was,
indeed actually abusive and threatening, speaking of ‘a Ministry of
tight-rope dancers,’ of ‘the reactionary brand of Cain,’ and other
unflattering epithets. I was not the man to submit to that sort of
thing. It was not in my nature to turn the left cheek to the smiter.
On the contrary, I defended myself and paid them back in their own
coin. Then, in addition to that, there was my contempt for the
doctrine of popular sovereignty, and my disgust at the Byzantine
veneration paid to it by the Opposition. That was an abomination to
me, and revolted me even more than their venom.

“The passage here on page 22, as to the motives of my attitude on
the question of the payment of members in the North German Diet is
amusing, and indeed ludicrous. Unruh says: ‘At that time I was still
in favour of payment, but said to Bennigsen I did not believe that
Bismarck would give way; perhaps it was entirely out of his power to
do so. It seemed to me as if he had entered into binding engagements
with the Upper House, which he expected later on to swallow universal
suffrage, when the several States had given their necessary approval
to the North German Constitution.’ With the Upper House! A body which
always stood apart from active politics, and had no influence of any
importance. An absurd idea!

“On page 24 he recalls a remark made by Loewe, that one of the chief
defects of the German Constitution is that it was made after my own
heart. Now, that is a mere phrase which no amount of reiteration in
party newspapers and speeches during the last few years has brought
any nearer to truth.

“On page 25 he says: ‘As far back as 1867 it must have become
clear to every person of insight that there was no possibility of
Parliamentary government under Bismarck. An essential condition of
such government is that in certain circumstances there should be a
change of ministers and parties capable of furnishing and supporting
a Cabinet.’ This is quite true. ‘Parties capable of furnishing and
supporting a Cabinet’--where were they to be found during the past
two decades? I have seen none, neither one with a majority nor
one with a positive programme. And, least of all, in the Liberal
camp. All their manifestoes and speeches have consisted merely of
fault-finding criticism and negation. They have never brought forward
anything positive. They have only a thirst for office, ambition and
envy, but not the power which is essential to productive government.

“On the same page he says: ‘Almost all parties, in so far as they
are not hostile to German unity, consider the Imperial Chancellor
to be absolutely indispensable.’ And yet from 1877 onwards I have
been subjected to the most bitter hostility even from the National
Liberals, and before and during the last elections the Progressist
party gave out the watchword ‘Away with Bismarck!’

“The statement which immediately follows is also a mere hackneyed
phrase: ‘A party which has no principles of its own, but only aims at
securing a majority for the Government, affords no reliable support
in critical and dangerous times.’ One would like to know why. Does
the Opposition with its Liberalism perhaps offer such support, with
its untrustworthiness, its suspiciousness, and vacillation, its
huckstering and knuckling down, and its petty criticism and dogmatism?

“On page 29 it is represented as a matter of indifference whether the
idea of a Zollverein Parliament was originated by me or by Delbrück.
I take it that this ought not to be a matter of indifference to
Unruh, who claims to provide materials for future historians. The
idea did not come from Delbrück, but from me. As can be seen from
Hesekiel’s book, I mooted it as far back as the time when I was
in St. Petersburg, and embodied it in the treaties of 1866, which
secured its fulfilment.[2] But he, as a Liberal and a member of
the learned classes, must of course get the credit of having first
originated it, not a Junker. I do not wish to say anything against
Delbrück’s ability and merit, but it would never have occurred to
him that the Zollverein could be turned to account in that way, for
although he had a great deal of talent, he had no political instinct.

“On page 30 Unruh states: ‘During the debate on the Tobacco Taxation
Bill, when Bismarck had declared a monopoly to be his ideal,
Bennigsen informed me that he had broken off the negotiations into
which he had entered with Bismarck in the autumn for joining the
Ministry, and had told him that he could not commit himself to the
monopoly.’ That is not true, or at least only half true. This is how
the matter stood. In 1877 Eulenburg wished to retire. I offered his
post to Bennigsen. He demanded that Forckenbeck and Stauffenberg
should also be appointed Ministers, but there were no posts vacant
for them. In the meantime Eulenburg hit upon another idea. He went
to the King and incited him against me for having had anything to
do with Bennigsen. His Most Gracious was offended, and in a brutal
letter forbade me to treat any further with Bennigsen. Several months
passed, during which time it transpired in the press that Lasker
also counted upon a seat in the Cabinet. Bennigsen came to me
subsequently in the Reichstag, an unusual thing for him to do, and
inquired about the tobacco monopoly. I replied that I was in favour
of it and would try to carry it, whereupon Bennigsen declared that he
could not support the measure, and withdrew from the negotiations.
Out of politeness I forbore to tell him that he was no longer in my
mind, as I had been forbidden to think of him.

“Further on Unruh says: ‘From that time forward there was an obvious
change in the attitude of the Imperial Chancellor towards the
National Liberals.’ That is incorrect. The contrary is the case.
From that time forward the National Liberals treated me with mingled
coolness and hostility, withdrawing their support in the Diet and
attacking me in their newspapers--chiefly in the _National Zeitung_,
which is the most mendacious of them all, full of hypocrisy and
trickery.

“On page 31 Delbrück’s free-trade system is spoken of as having been
for a long time in force. The question here is what is meant by ‘a
long time.’ The system which is here named after Delbrück has only
been in existence since 1865, and we first began to entertain serious
doubts respecting it in 1875. Up to the latter date I had had no time
to think of its advantages or disadvantages, as I was obliged to
devote my whole mind to watching and averting the serious danger of
coalition which then existed.

“On page 32 there is a falsehood obviously calculated to influence
the elections. I am made to say that I wished to ‘drive the National
Liberals to the wall,’ while people heard at the same time that
I intended to make a complete change in the previous customs and
commercial policy. This is impossible. I first thought of the latter
in November last; and to ‘drive to the wall’ is an expression which I
have never used, either in this connection or in any other. It is not
to be found in my lexicon. Every one knows whether he is apt to use
a certain phrase or not, and I am quite satisfied that I have never
used that phrase.

“The dissolution of the Reichstag after the Nobiling outrage is
represented as a measure directed against the Liberals. It was in
reality the very opposite, an act of complaisance on the part of
the Government towards the Liberals. I wished to make the change of
opinion with regard to the Anti-Socialist laws easy for them by means
of a dissolution and new elections. But that is the way with these
gentlemen and their excessive _amour propre_. If one does not always
stand hat in hand before them, they regard one as their enemy, and
full of arrogance. But I cannot do that. I do not set much store by
criticisms and speeches intended for the newspapers. Indeed, I lack
altogether the bump of veneration for my fellow man.”

At this moment Theiss announced the Minister Maybach. I rose, and
putting under my arm the number of the _Revue_ which he had given me
with his grey, red, and blue pencil marks and comments, was about to
leave. Before going, however, I said: “Might I venture to ask whether
Gambetta has called upon you, Serene Highness?” “No,” he replied.
“He has said so himself, and it is the fact. Of course it is evident
from his journey to Danzig that he had thought of paying a visit to
Varzin. He doubtless reconsidered the matter there, or they may have
written to him from Paris that it would not make a good impression.”
On Maybach coming in at this point the Chancellor said: “We were just
speaking of Gambetta. It was not my business to deny the report of
his visit to me. People might have thought that I had some grudge
against him--that I wished to hold aloof from him, which was not at
all the case.”

I took my leave and immediately wrote down what I had heard. The
first part respecting the results of the elections was worked up
into an article entitled “The Chancellor Crisis,” which appeared in
No. 48 of the _Grenzboten_; the criticism of the Unruh Memoirs being
utilised for an article in No. 49.

After I had received copies of these and of a third article, “The
Imperial Chancellor and the Reichstag,” I handed over all three at
the palace at noon on the 2nd of December for delivery to the Prince.
An hour later I received the following letter from the Imperial
Chancellerie, signed by Sachse:--


“Under instructions from the Imperial Chancellor I have the honour
to request you to call upon his Serene Highness to-day at any time
up to 5 o’clock. The Imperial Chancellor mentioned at the same time
that the articles which you have submitted to him cannot possibly be
published in their present form.”


I presented myself at the palace at 3 o’clock, but could not see
the Chancellor, as Prince William was with him, and Mittnacht,
the Minister, was announced to follow. On my returning again at 4
o’clock Mittnacht was with the Chief, but left in about ten minutes.
Immediately afterwards the Chancellor sent me word that he was
waiting for me in the garden. On my passing through the door of
the large antechamber, I found him standing outside with his dog.
He shook hands in a friendly way, saying immediately afterwards,
however: “But what have you been doing, Doctor? Why, that is all
wrong, the very opposite of what I wanted. Surely the article is
not yet printed?” I regretted that it was already published. “That
is most unfortunate,” he rejoined. I asked which of the articles
he meant. “Why, that about Unruh,” he answered. “You have said
exactly what Bennigsen asserted. It might have been written by one
of my worst enemies. And the other is also not correct--often pure
nonsense. I remember it was just the same three years ago with the
things you sent on to me to Kissingen and Gastein--in many places the
direct contrary was the truth.” I replied that that was only the case
in one instance, in the story about Rechberg, which was then left
out. He would not agree to that, however, and continued: “You must
submit these articles to me before they are printed. You now trust
too much to your memory, which is not so good as it was formerly,
or you have not listened attentively. I related it all to you quite
differently.”

At this point we were interrupted by Count Bill, who brought a
message. When he had gone the Chief took the article out of his
pocket, and as it had grown dark we passed through another door
into his study, where he looked through the passage once more. At
the first, on page 395, where I--following Unruh’s statement--made
the Chief say that in the year 1859 the German Governments “with
the exception of a few minor States which fall within the sphere
of influence of Prussia, would all join Austria. The former would,
therefore, be completely isolated, yet she would have allies if she
knew how to win and to treat them, namely the German people,” he
said: “That’s pure nonsense. Directly contrary to history. Why, you
should have known that.... But, no, I misunderstood the sentence.
I read it wrongly in my hurry. The ‘former’ and ‘she’ referred to
Prussia. There I have done little Busch (Büschchen) an injustice....
But further on, here (the passage on 398) where I say that the people
could have done nothing against a reactionary policy during the
period of conflict. That is unfounded. I cannot say that. It should
have been ‘would have done nothing.’ No doubt they would have desired
to do it. Well, on page 401, that is again an oversight on my part.
Here I overlooked the first ‘not.’” (He referred to the passage: “The
expression ‘drive them to the wall’ has not only not been used by
me in this connection, but was never used by me at all.”) “But all
this about Bennigsen is quite wrong--the second part of it. There
you have written in his interest. If that were a correct account I
should have told a lie. My main object in the article was to explain
that point, and you ought to have known from the _Norddeutsche_ how
the matter really stood. You should know that the article in that
paper was written at my instance. But I suppose you do not read
the official journals. No further negotiations took place with him
after the interview at Varzin, that is with Bennigsen respecting
the ministerial post, although I did not break with him otherwise.
It is true that my son wrote to him once more, but I knew nothing
of this. And Eulenburg did not decide to remain. He had had enough
of it. He went to the King, however, told him of my negotiations
with Bennigsen, and incited him against me. I had been in treaty
with these Liberals behind his back, &c. The King did not inform me
that Eulenburg did not wish to retire, but wrote me an exceedingly
rude and snappish letter somewhat to this effect: How dare I enter
into negotiations with this rabid Radical, this arch-demagogue, and
expressly forbade me to treat with him any further. That did not
take place ‘several months,’ but only three or four days after the
Varzin interview. The statement that Lasker reckoned on obtaining a
portfolio is correct. On the other hand it is quite incorrect to say
that _out of politeness_ I abstained from telling Bennigsen that I
did not think of him any more, as the post was no longer open. It
was still open, as you might have seen in any calendar. Surely you
know that Friedenthal only held it provisionally. The truth is I
could not explain to Bennigsen that his Most Gracious had forbidden
me to negotiate with him any further.”

While speaking thus the Chancellor underlined the passage referred
to, page 400, lines 19 to 28, in so far as he had corrected them,
adding notes of exclamation and remarks such as “No,” and “three
days.” I expressed my regret at the harm that had been done and
observed that it could be put right in the next number of the
_Grenzboten_. He agreed to this and wished to see the correction
before it appeared. I promised to submit it to him. Finding in the
course of his examination, that the misfortune did not extend to more
than some five lines in an article of nine pages, his excitement
gradually subsided. Indeed, the “Büschchen” at the beginning had
already sounded less severe, and at the close he said “I must have a
breath of fresh air before dinner. Come along!”

We strolled up and down in the park for about an hour longer, and
spoke of other matters. I congratulated the Prince on the success
with which he had repelled the attacks of his opponents in the
Reichstag three or four days previously. “Yes, successfully,” he
rejoined. “That’s very fine, but what good has it done? They have,
all the same, refused the 80,000 marks for an adviser on political
economy; and the Government has now no means of keeping itself
informed.” I remarked that they had obviously been influenced by
their own ignorance of practical affairs, and particularly with
industrial matters, as well as by jealousy and fear. Bamberger’s
assertion that they knew enough themselves was no proof of the
contrary. They wished to appear before the public as the only
infallible wiseacres, and also being doctrinarians, they could
afford to ignore economic facts.

We then spoke about Windthorst, of whom the Chief said: “His vote
against the Government has destroyed the slight degree of confidence
I was beginning to feel in him.” The conversation then turned upon
Bennigsen’s Parliamentary activity, and I remarked on the striking
circumstance that up to the present he had taken no part in any of
the debates. The Prince rejoined: “It is very sensible on his part
to keep silent, although he is a good speaker. He sent the others
to the front--Benda, and he also voted against it--a further proof
that he and his party are quite untrustworthy. He has no decided
views, he is not frank, and he is afraid of Lasker. With him it is
always vacillation and half measures. Do you play cards?” I replied
in the negative. “But you know the cards?” “Yes.” “Now, at whist
he always keeps three aces in his hand, and gives no indication
that he holds them. He can no longer be counted upon, and besides
his followers have been greatly reduced owing to their vague and
vacillating policy. Nevertheless, he still sits there with the same
high opinion of himself and the same dignified air as formerly when
he commanded hundreds; and he will continue to do so even if they
should be reduced to thirteen, like George Vincke’s Old Liberals.
There is nothing to be done with the others either. It has now come
to pass, through the absurdities of the Liberals, that the tag, rag
and bobtail, the Guelphs, Poles, and Alsacians, the Social Democrats,
and the People’s Party, turn the scale, putting those they support in
the majority. Mittnacht, who was with me before you came, is of the
same opinion. In future we shall have to count upon the Governments
rather than upon the Reichstag, and, indeed, we may ultimately have
to reckon upon the Governments alone.”

I said that the whole Parliamentary system would in time lose all
credit, even with the public, through such senseless attacks and
votes. It brought everything to a standstill, but was itself unable
to produce anything better. “The effect of the recent debates,” I
went on, “is already here and there observable. This morning I met
Thile, who stopped me and asked what I thought of the Parliamentary
struggle. He was immensely pleased with the attitude you had
adopted. A friend of his, whom he did not wish to name, but who was
an admirer of the new era, though up to the present by no means
favourable to you, had said that the manner in which you spoke and
repelled the attacks of the Opposition was simply magnificent, and
excited universal admiration. And women speak with disgust of the
way in which you were hounded down and personally insulted by the
Progressists and Lasker. A Hanoverian lady, of Guelph sympathies,
spoke to my wife yesterday in this sense. This disgust and this pity
for you will gradually affect the men, and help to bring about a
change in the present tendency. I myself feel no pity, I only foresee
your triumph. Pray excuse me for comparing you to an animal, but
you remind me of the picture of a noble stag, which time after time
shakes off the snarling pack, and then, proud and unhurt, regains the
shelter of his forest, crowned by his branching antlers.” “Yes,” he
said, “one might take another animal, the wild boar, which gores the
hounds and tosses them away from him.”

He was silent for a time, and as we walked up and down he hummed the
tune “Wir hatten gebauet ein stattliches Haus.” He then remarked
suddenly: “But if they go on in that style they will ultimately
meet the fate to which I alluded--the Luck of Edenhall. You know
Uhland’s poem? It will be a case of Bang! and snap goes the German
Constitution! You spoke of Thile. Do you mean the former Secretary
of State?” I said “Yes, I meet him sometimes as he lives in my
neighbourhood.” “He is a dangerous man,” he observed. “He was quite
incapable. He could do nothing, and wrote nothing, because he was
afraid it would be corrected; and yet I kept him for ten years,
although he conspired against me with Savigny. He is to blame for
the Diest libels, which led to the prosecution. I heard the whole
story and how it began from Rothschild. Savigny went to him about the
promotion of the company in question, and asked him if he could not
let him have a share in it. Rothschild said no, he had already been
obliged to part with a large share, a million and a half--meaning
to his branches, the houses with which he is associated. Savigny,
however, thought he was alluding to me, and would appear to have
hinted something of the kind, but Rothschild seems either not to have
understood him, or not to have answered with sufficient clearness.
Savigny then carried the tale further, telling it first to Thile,
who mentioned it to his brother, the general, instead of speaking to
me, his chief, and in this way Diest ultimately came to hear of it.
But, as Minister, I have never done any business with Rothschild, and
even as envoy at Frankfurt very little. I drew my salary through him,
and on one occasion I exchanged some stock for Austrian securities.
I have not found it necessary. My profession as Minister has brought
me in something, and through the grants and the gift of the Lauenburg
estates I have become a rich man. It is true that if I had gone into
a business, or carried on a trade, and devoted to it the same amount
of labour and intelligence, I should doubtless have made more money.”

We then returned once more to the recent debates in the Reichstag,
and I again expressed in strong terms the contempt I felt for the
Opposition. “You were always a gentleman pitted against vain and
vulgar creatures,” I said, “and in saying that I am not thinking
of your rank as a Prince.” “No, I understand--a gentleman in my
way of thinking,” he rejoined. “Lasker’s Jewish forwardness and
presumption,” I continued, “the Professors with their priggish airs
of superiority, and their empty pathos; Hänel, the self-complacent
and pathetic doctrinaire--it is impossible to imagine anything more
repulsive. He wanted to be Minister of Justice in ‘sea-surrounded
Schleswig-Holstein.’” “Yes,” said the Chancellor, interrupting me,
“they had divided the parts among themselves before the piece had
been secured, and they probably have done the same thing now. Nothing
came of it, however, after the interview which our Most Gracious had
with me upstairs in the yellow chamber, where he remained with me
from 9 o’clock until near midnight.” “And where he heard the simile
of the chickens in Low German,” I added. “And then that impudent,
lying, clown Richter, and the whole tearing, snarling, sprawling pack
face to face with simple, solid, positive greatness. It was as if you
belonged to an entirely different species.” “Yes,” he said, “when I
lie down in bed after such debates, I feel ashamed of ever having
bandied words with them. You know the way one feels after a night’s
drinking, if one has had a row and perhaps come to blows with vulgar
people--when one begins to realise it next morning, one wonders how
and why it all came about.” Then after I had promised to make the
corrections immediately and send them to him, he took leave of me
with the words “Good evening, Busch. Auf Wiedersehen.” Busch! Not
“Herr Doctor” as usual.

In two hours I sent him the corrections, which I received back
through a Chancery attendant before 10 P.M. There were only a few
alterations in the second half.

On the 2nd of January, 1882, I again visited Bucher. He complained
in general of the incapable _entourage_ of the Prince, including
his sons, and of Rudolf Lindau, whom they favoured because he gave
card parties and made himself useful to them in other ways. (...) He
was a mere tradesman without education or political knowledge. The
Prince wished to make things comfortable for himself, and no blame to
him, but he was mistaken if he thought the machine would still go on
working as it ought to. In that respect the choice of the _personnel_
was of importance, and those who were now engaged, particularly in
the press department, were almost constantly blundering. The stuff
which Paul Lindau wrote for the _Kölnische Zeitung_ was also of
little value.

We then spoke about the negotiations with the Curia, which were
making satisfactory progress; of Held’s contribution to the social
history of England; of Taine’s account of the Jacobins, in whom
Bucher discovered some characteristics of the Progressist party;
of Stirum, who had also left because he was not disposed to put up
with the intrigues of the clique that surrounded the Prince, and
who had told him, Bucher, that he “preferred in future to admire
the Chancellor at a distance”; and of the Chief’s recent criticism
of my article. I said that the Chief must be mistaken in asserting
that after the visit to Varzin he had had no further negotiations
with Bennigsen respecting his joining the Ministry, as he had himself
told me that at that time Herbert had written to Bennigsen, which he
would scarcely have ventured to do without his father’s knowledge.
Bucher agreed with me, and added that some one had expressed the
opinion that Bennigsen had acted like a gentleman with regard to the
statements published by the semi-official press. Bucher arranged to
send me Taine’s book when he had finished reading it, in order that I
might write an article upon it. He is extracting passages which point
to the similarity between the Jacobins and the Progressist party.

On the evening of the 8th of January, Count William Bismarck sent
me an article for the _Grenzboten_ on “Agricultural Credit in
Prussia.”[3]

On Monday, the 16th of January, I took back the third volume of
Taine’s _History of the Revolution_, _La Conquête des Jacobins_, to
Bucher. He told me that according to a conversation with the Chief,
a campaign would presently be opened in the press in order to clear
up some points respecting Stockmar and Bunsen. He was to write a
pamphlet on the latter in which various documents, of which only
portions were given in Frau von Bunsen’s book, would be published
_in extenso_. I could then make myself useful by utilising this
information, in addition to which he would give me further material.
We then spoke of the Coburg clique, of Abeken, who had been described
on one occasion by Bunsen as the “magnificent Abeken,” of Max Müller
of Oxford, with whom he had spent some pleasant hours, of Geffcken,
and finally of Hepke. On my asking how it was that the latter had
fallen into disfavour with the Prince, Bucher said that in 1862,
shortly after the Chief had come into office, Hepke, who had charge
of the German reports, reproduced, almost literally, in a brochure
which he published under the title of “A Word from a Prussian,” a
memorandum which Bismarck had submitted to the King. Although this
pamphlet was anonymous, the Chief came to hear of it, and forbade
Metzler to mention it in our papers. Then, again, shortly before
the war of 1866, Hepke, “through vanity, in order to show how well
informed he was,” communicated some scheme that was in hand against
Austria to the Austrian Envoy, probably at dinner, and this came to
the knowledge of the Chief later on, after our reconciliation with
Austria, most likely through Rechberg.

I then turned the conversation on Thile, mentioning what the Prince
recently said to me. Bucher still maintained that Thile is a
gentleman and very good-hearted, and questioned whether he were as
incapable as Bismarck had described him to me.

On the 26th of January, Bucher sent me the first and third volumes
of Nippold’s edition of Bunsen’s biography, the proof sheets of
a refutation by him of a letter from Prince Albert to Stockmar,
explaining Bunsen’s “fall” (which was published first in the
_Münchener Nachrichten_, and afterwards in the _National Zeitung_),
and finally some rough notes for a _Grenzboten_ article, which I
prepared and published by the 2nd of February in No. 8, under the
title “Bunsen’s Friends and the Truth.” Bucher’s refutation was
to appear in the February number of the _Deutsche Revue für das
gesammte National-Leben der Gegenwart_. In the rough notes he spoke
as follows of Bunsen:--


“He took away with him copies of official documents, (just like
Arnim), which his family published in a mutilated and therefore
falsified shape. You may indeed without hesitation throw out the
suggestion whether he did not perhaps take the originals. He did, as
a matter of fact, take away at least three. This whole section of
the book (_i.e._, of the biography, so far as it relates to Bunsen’s
retirement) is a fable, written in despite of the author’s better
knowledge. That the King afterwards wrote him a friendly letter,
&c. is explained by the distinction which Frederick William IV. was
in the habit of drawing between the official and the friend, as in
the case of Radowitz. The Memorandum is a schoolboy’s exercise.
Austria to extend her borders as far as the Sea of Azof, Poland to
be restored--a terrible suggestion to be so coolly uttered--Prussia
to get Austrian Silesia, one of the Provinces most devoted to the
Imperial House, and Moravia!

“Vol. II. p. 557. His views concerning the proper preparatory
education for the diplomatic service. That did not succeed in the
case of Theodore (one of Bunsen’s sons). He must have achieved
something out of the common at Lima and Alexandria, since after a
short stay at these places he was on each occasion superseded, and
had ultimately to resign. If he had had the preliminary training
which he scoffed at, instead of a mere professorial education,
he would probably not have been guilty of the follies and
insubordination of the 1st and 4th of March 1854.

“You will find particulars as to the æsthetic International in the
index at the end of the third volume. You are better versed in the
religious type of humanity than I am. Every third word is God. Bunsen
seems to have considered that the _lieber Gott_ took quite a special
interest in him.

“A _bon mot_ which circulated in London: The learned regarded him as
a diplomat while the diplomatists believed him to be a _savant_. The
self-flattery in the account of the conversation with Clarendon, Part
III. Bunsen and Pourtales certify to each other’s excellences. The
source of Albert’s letter, Part III. page 356. Bunsen complains of
his Government to Albert.

“A popular explanation of the political side of the book will
doubtless be also necessary for the dull-witted Philistine. Prussia
should involve herself in war with Russia, and what was to be the
compensation? 1. That the English fleet should enter the Baltic. This
would mean at least, that the Prussian coasts would be protected
against the Russian fleet. 2. That the four Plenipotentiaries (of the
Vienna Conference) should announce Prussia’s community of interest
in the overthrow of Russian predominance. Much good that would have
done us! How often has the integrity of Turkey been declared to be
a European interest? And the idea of an Anglo-Prussian alliance
(the Old Liberal dogma) which so frequently crops up in the book is
equally absurd, and shows a complete ignorance of English policy,
which never enters into permanent alliances without positive and
limited aims. Part III. 201 and 207.”


On the 2nd of February I again called upon Bucher. He gave me various
further particulars respecting the “great patriot and meritorious
diplomatist,” Bunsen, and his sons. The old gentleman’s chief reason
for tendering his resignation so hastily was that when about to take
his holiday after the catastrophe, he was not paid his full salary as
an envoy for six months, as he had demanded, but only for six weeks,
as provided by the regulations. Theodore, whom Bunsen described to
Thile as the most gifted of his sons, had made himself impossible at
Lima, by his tactlessness in holding intercourse with the Opposition
party, and using his influence on their behalf. He afterwards held
the post of envoy at Stockholm, which he resigned when the Government
refused him leave to marry a very wealthy German-Russian lady from
the Baltic Provinces. He now enjoys possession of this lady. Another
son has a fat benefice in England. “Frau Schwabe,” the “Elpi’s
Melena” of the newspapers, who is frequently mentioned in the Nippold
edition of the biography, is an enormously rich German Jewess, widow
of a manufacturer, and a friend, not only of Bunsen, but also of
Garibaldi, to whom she sent, after he was wounded at Aspromonte, an
artistic armchair in “letter form,” that is to say, pasted all over
with postage stamps. Bucher expects that George von Bunsen will reply
to our articles. He, Bucher, will then write an answer from further
official documents, for publication in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine
Zeitung_.

On the 17th of February I left a proof of my _Grenzboten_ article
on Bunsen at the Imperial Chancellor’s palace for submission to the
Prince. It was in an envelope and signed “Moritz Busch,” but was
accompanied by no letter. I ascertained at the same time from the
porter that the Chancellor had not been quite well for some time
past. On my way back through the Leipzigerstrasse I met Bucher, who
was delighted with “the fine goings-on in England now.” I asked what
he meant, and he replied: “Why, the Standing Orders in Parliament,
the Closure. Our people may well ask themselves whether they are
equally pleased with this new feature in their ideal.”

The extracts from Taine, properly grouped and spiced with references
to the German connections of the Jacobins, namely the Progressists,
appeared in Nos. 7 and 9 of the _Grenzboten_ under the title “The
True Story of the Jacobins.” I also wrote an article on Gladstone’s
measure referred to by Bucher. This was published in No. 10 of the
_Grenzboten_ under the title, “Gladstone, and Liberty of Speech in
Parliament.”

On the 10th of March I received the news of the death of our son
John, from Captain Alm of the _Dora Ahrens_ at Falmouth. He had
died at sea on the 19th of December last, on the return voyage from
Corinto, in Nicaragua. Falling overboard during a violent storm in
the vicinity of the Falkland Islands, he was unable to hold on to the
rope which was thrown to him, and was swallowed up in the waves. With
him, our only son, disappeared my best love, my energy and pleasure
in work, my pride and my hope. Henceforth my life is overshadowed
by this grief. He was only thirty-one years of age, had lived the
hard life of the sailor, and passed two severe examinations, so that
we had reason to hope that we should soon see him the captain of a
handsome craft. Now he lies at the bottom of a distant sea, and all
that remains of him is the memory of his dear face and his brave,
high-minded nature. Fearless, truthful, and devoted to his duty, he
died as he had lived in the service of his ship, as the soldier dies
for his flag, his king and his country. He was a man, a character,
and death has no power over such! God has further use of them. But we
shall never see him again with mortal eyes, and can only wreathe his
portrait with laurels and forget-me-nots on his birthday, the 13th
of April.

  “Lass mich im düstern Reich,
  Mutter, mich nicht allein!”
  “Nicht allein! Wo Du auch weilest.
  Ach! Wenn Du dem Tag enteilest,
  Wird kein Herz von Dir sich trennen.”[4]

All our friends manifested the greatest sympathy for us, in which the
Imperial Chancellor also did not fail to join. He wrote me on the
16th of March:--


“My Dear Sir,--I have heard with sincere regret of the heavy loss
which you have suffered, and although I have no consolation to offer
in such circumstances, I cannot refrain from expressing to you my
heartfelt sympathy.

                                                           “Bismarck.”


With this these notes may be concluded. Evening has set in.


The sense of duty as a chronicler awoke again before the pain of
our loss had subsided. I again felt an interest in other things
besides the portrait of our dear departed son, and so returned to my
diary. The lines dedicated to his memory shall remain, however, as a
monument to him, and a reminiscence of days full of sorrow, and weeks
of deep prostration and melancholy.

On the morning of the 29th of March I called upon Bucher. He declared
that the anti-German party in Russia was growing dangerous, and
though the Emperor appeared to be our sincere well-wisher, he would
perhaps be unable to withstand it. It was true that he had spoken
very sharply to Skobeleff who told Schweinitz, as he was returning
with him from Gatshina, that the Emperor had severely reprimanded him
(il m’a donné un savon). The General actually looked depressed. A
Russian diplomatist (Nesselrode, if I understood rightly) once said
of Holstein when the latter was with Bismarck in Petersburg years
ago: “Ce jeune homme sait une foule de choses, mais il n’est pas
capable d’en faire une seule.”

Pope Leo has shown great readiness to meet us half way in personal
questions. Among other things, he had originally desired to appoint
to the bishopric of Osnabrück a former Jesuit and pupil of the
Collegium Germanicum, who had been recommended to him by Tarnassi.
But when our Government pointed out that the candidate referred to
had taken part in various forms of anti-German agitation, the Pope
unhesitatingly dropped him.

On the 12th of May I met Thile in the Linkstrasse, and accompanied
him part of the way to his house. He expressed his regret at our
loss and his pleasure that the Chief had likewise done so. The
conversation then turned on Hatzfeldt, and he said that Bismarck
had always favoured him, “pitying him for having such a mother,”
which, after all, was very nice on his part. He had also dispensed
with the diplomatic examination in his case. Besides Hatzfeldt had
talent and was good-hearted in addition. As evidence of the latter he
mentioned that he frequently visited Goltz, who was suffering from
cancer of the tongue, although it was scarcely possible to stand
the atmosphere of the sick room. He, Thile, had also repeatedly
visited the sufferer. Bismarck, on the other hand, had never gone
to see him, although they had been on very friendly terms formerly.
“It was enough to turn one’s stomach,” he said. It was true that
subsequently, just before Goltz had moved, the Chief called at the
old lodgings, and then gave as an excuse: “I was at his place but he
had left.” Thile then added the following characteristic anecdote:
“Of course you too are an old student of Goethe, and remember the
poem ‘Füllest wieder Busch and Thal, still mit Nebelglanz.’ This
was being recited on one occasion, and when the reader came to the
passage--

  ‘Selig wer sich vor der Welt
  Ohne Hass verschliesst,
  Einen Freund am Busen hält
  Und mit dem geniesst.’

(Blessed is he who retires, without hatred, from the world, and
enjoys his retreat in communion with a single friend.) Bismarck
exclaimed: ‘What! Without hatred? What a tailor’s soul he must
have!’” In reply to my inquiry whether this story was absolutely
authentic, he mentioned Keudell as his authority.

At 6 P.M. on the 8th of June, three days after the Chancellor’s
return from Friedrichsruh, I left a note for him at the palace in
the Wilhelmstrasse, requesting him if he had anything for me to do
to name a day and hour on which I should call for the necessary
information. At 8.30 P.M. I had a letter from Sachse stating that
the Prince “wished to speak to me for a few moments,” and requested
me to call upon him next day at 12.30 P.M. I called at the time
appointed, and after waiting for about half an hour, while the Chief
was dictating to one of his deciphering clerks who wrote shorthand,
I was admitted to see him, and the “few minutes” extended to a full
hour. The Prince was in plain clothes, with the exception of military
trousers. He had grown thinner, so that his coat hung in folds over
his shoulders. Otherwise, however, he looked well, and was evidently
in good humour. He greeted me with a shake hands and “Good day,
Büschlein.” Then, inviting me to sit down, he said: “You want fodder,
but I have none. There is nothing going on either in domestic or
foreign affairs. You recollect that little bit of a Herzegovina, and
now we have that little bit of an Egypt. It is not of much concern to
us, although it certainly is to the English and also to the French.
They set about the affair in an awkward way, and have got on a wrong
track by sending their ironclads to Alexandria, and now, finding that
there is nothing to be done they want the rest of Europe to help them
out of their difficulty by means of a conference. Nothing can be done
with the fleet without a landing force, and this is not at hand,
so that it will be merely a repetition of the demonstration before
Dulcigno. In that case it was the rocks, here it is the European
warehouses, otherwise they would in all probability have already
bombarded the place. It is also a question whether they would not
have come off second best, as the Egyptians have very heavy guns, and
their artillery is not bad. But so far as a conference is concerned,
it is like an inquiry round a board of green cloth, the interests of
the Powers are not the same, and therefore it will not be easy to
come to any practical conclusion. The Sultan too will not co-operate.
He is not without justification in declining to do so. If he can put
things right by writing letters and sending plenipotentiaries--which
we shall know one of these days--the Western Powers will have reason
to be thankful. If not there will be no alternative left but for
the Padishah to send his Nizams to restore order there. That is due
to the absurd policy which Professor Gladstone has pursued from the
beginning. He tries to come to an understanding with France and
Russia, forgetting the fact that their interests in the Levant are
quite different to those of the English. He surrendered all the
valuable results which English policy had tried to secure during
the past eighty years in its dealings with the Porte and with
Austria, and thought he could work miracles when he had offended
them both. And in France they have also taken a wrong course out of
consideration for public opinion. Egypt is of the utmost importance
to England on account of the Suez Canal, the shortest line of
communication between the eastern and western halves of the Empire.
That is like the spinal cord which connects the backbone with
the brain. Any increase of Turkish power does not affect England
injuriously in this, or indeed in any other respect. France thinks
more of the prestige to be gained by the Porte if it exercises a
mediating and controlling influence in the Egyptian question, and
fears that her own prestige in Africa might suffer. Nevertheless,
France has also very important material interests there, since there
are 14,000 Frenchmen in Egypt and only 3,000 English. It was in vain
for me to point out to them that an Arabian Empire, such as Arabi may
have in view, would be far more dangerous to their position in Africa
than any strengthening of Turkish influence on the Nile. The Porte is
an old European landowner who is deeply in debt, and who can always
be reached and subjected to pressure if he becomes too exacting. It
is impossible to foresee what effect an independent Egypt would have
upon the French position in Africa. That is doubtless recognised by
Freycinet, but he is afraid of the traditions, prejudices and vanity
of the French, and of Gambetta, who manipulates them. It is true
the division in the Chamber turned out favourably, indeed very much
so, but even assuming that Gambetta cannot return to power shortly,
the wind may soon blow from another quarter, and the understanding
with England come to an end. A campaign in co-operation with the
French, a military occupation, would be a hazardous undertaking for
the English, as the French could always send more men than they,
who require their soldiers in Ireland, and who have altogether none
too many. If France had the larger force there she would of course
exercise more influence and play the leading part, and it would
perhaps be difficult to get her out of the country again. The rest
of us would not co-operate in a military sense, as for the present
the question is one of comparative indifference to us, and it is no
business of ours to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for other
people, particularly for the English. So there they are, with their
ships, in a blind alley, and now they want a conference to put the
matter right. Here also we are expected to come to their assistance,
and bring pressure to bear on the Porte, thus embroiling ourselves
with the Sultan--a suggestion which, of course, we must politely
decline.”

“Much in the same way,” I said, “as the English before the last
Russo-Turkish conflict wished you to forbid the Russians entering
upon hostilities, merely because that did not suit England’s policy,
and when Queen Victoria wrote to you and the Emperor to that effect.”
“Yes,” he rejoined, “and it was the same before the Crimean war,
when Bunsen pleaded their cause. They must manage to get out of the
difficulties into which they have plunged by themselves--having made
their bed they must lie on it.”

The dog, which had been standing behind me and occasionally made
his presence known by snarling, now began to bark. “He notices that
there is a stranger outside,” said the Prince, who rang the bell and
ordered the attendant to keep the dog in the outer room. He then
continued: “In home affairs there is also nothing of importance that
you are not weary of. They will reject the tobacco monopoly. There is
no other course open to them now.” “But, Serene Highness,” I said,
“you will submit it to them again, and carry it through in three or
four years’ time?” “That depends upon circumstances,” he replied,
“upon the future elections. I have no intention of pressing the
tobacco monopoly out of a mere liking for this particular method of
fiscal reform. The monopoly is an evil, but it is still the best of
all available means of reform.... I first want to get from them my
certificate that I have done everything in my power to do away with
an unfair form of taxation, but that they would not hear of it. Then
they may settle the matter with their electors and justify their
conduct, should it perhaps result in an increase of the class tax
(a form of direct taxation), while other burdens cannot possibly be
reduced.”

“Then one might as well emigrate,” I said.

“Certainly,” he rejoined. “The class tax, which at present is
retained only in this country, is one of the chief causes of
emigration. If you only knew for how many evictions it is responsible
among the poorer and indeed even among the middle classes! It is
like the Russian poll tax, and does not permit of any equitable
distribution of the burden in accordance with the condition of those
who have to bear it, while indirect taxation distributes itself
automatically. My object was to provide a remedy for this and to
lighten the burden of the poorer citizens. That ought also to have
been the object of the Diet. But you have seen from the discussion
on the Appropriation Bill how little disposed they are to do so; and
Lingen’s motion, which was adopted by the Commission, will not even
admit the necessity of a reserve.”

I observed: “The emphasis laid upon economy in his motion is
quite after the manner of the pedagogue, and of the narrow-minded
Philistine. It does not sound as if it came from the Parliament of
a great empire, but rather as if the vestry of Little Peddlington
were casting the light of its wisdom upon the subject. This petty
huckstering spirit is characteristic of all Liberalism. The majority
of them are ‘snobs’ with a sprinkling of ‘swells.’”[5]

“That is true,” he said. “They certainly have not much amplitude or
breadth of view, and they are bent on obstinate resistance to the
Emperor’s message, in which a far higher standpoint is adopted. But
that is their nature. They only think of their joint stock companies,
_i.e._, their Parliamentary parties, and whether their shares will
rise or fall if this or that is done or left undone. They trouble
their heads very little with anything beyond that. Besides they hope
that the old Emperor will soon die and that his successor will give
them a free hand. The Emperor, however, does not at all look as if
he were going to oblige them. He may live for a long time yet and
indeed reach a hundred. You should see how robust he is now, and how
straight he holds himself! From what--(I understood, Lauer) says,
the Nobiling phlebotomy has been of benefit to him, both physically
and mentally, the old blood has been drawn off, and he looks much
less flabby than formerly. We are now on good terms, better than we
have been for years.” “And the Successor will have to follow the
same course,” I said. “He cannot govern differently without doing
mischief.” “Oh, yes,” he rejoined. “He also would like to retain
me, but he is too indolent, too much devoted to his own comfort and
thinks it would be easier to govern with majorities. I said to him:
‘Try it, but I will not join in the experiment!’ Perhaps they are
out in their reckoning however, and a long-lived sovereign may be
followed by a short-lived one. It seems to me as if this might be
the case. He who would then ascend the throne is quite different. He
wishes to take the government into his own hands; he is energetic
and determined, not at all disposed to put up with Parliamentary
co-regents, a regular guardsman!--Philopater and Antipater at
Potsdam! He is not at all pleased at his father taking up with
Professors, with Mommsen, Virchow and Forckenbeck. Perhaps he may one
day develop into the _rocher de bronze_ of which we stand in need.”

He then came to speak of his other schemes of reform, and observed:
“The so-called Socialistic Bills are in a tolerably fair way. They
will force themselves through, and develop further, even without me.
The most pressing and necessary measures will in the main be soon
carried. But it is unsatisfactory that they should want to bring
the funds for the relief of the sick into too close connection with
the insurance scheme. In this case it is not advisable that the
payments in kind should be transformed into money payments.” He then
gave a technical explanation, the details of which I was unable to
understand, and was therefore unable to remember fully. I said: “But
it is intended to drop the State subsidy, through which you hoped to
reconcile the labouring classes, by getting them to recognise that
the State not only makes demands upon them, but also comes to their
assistance, procuring relief for them in case of need, and providing
for their future as far as possible.”

“No, not dropped,” he replied, “but it is not immediately necessary
in the new form which the Bill has taken. In about five or ten years
it will be seen how far the contributions go, and in fifteen years’
time it may be asked whether, and to what extent, the State should
contribute. It is sufficient for the present that all sums falling
due are immediately paid, the State guaranteeing the amount.”

He again explained this in detail, and then said: “I am tired
and ill, and should prefer to go, once I got my release from the
Reichstag, but I do not like to leave the old Emperor alone. When he
lay on his back after the outrage, I vowed to myself that I would
not. Otherwise, I would rather be in the country at Friedrichsruh.
I always felt better there; while here I get excited and angry, and
become so weak that I can scarcely work for a couple of hours without
losing hold of my ideas. How beautiful and fresh it was there in the
country. I enjoyed every day, driving out and seeing how fine the rye
looked, and how healthy the potatoes!”

This led him on to speak of the hope which he had of a good harvest,
and that again to the price of corn in Germany and England. In this
connection he observed, _inter alia_: “The opinion that low prices
for corn mean happiness, welfare and content is a superstition.
In that case the inhabitants of Lithuania and Rumania ought to be
the most prosperous of all, while prosperity should decrease in
proportion as you come west towards Aix la Chapelle. In England, the
price of corn is now lower than here, and yet discontent prevails
among the poorer classes, Radicalism is spreading, a revolution is
approaching, and that democratic republic for which Gladstone and his
friends and associates, Chamberlain and Dilke, have helped to pave
the way, will come. It is just the same in Spain and Italy, where
the dynasties, it is true, will offer resistance, but probably to no
purpose. In France it remains to be seen whether the Republic will
maintain itself, and if it does a condition of things will arise
similar to that in America, where respectable people consider it
disgraceful to have anything to do with practical politics, or to
become a Senator, Congress man, or Minister.”

On my rising he walked about the room for a while, continuing to
speak, but sat down again soon as if he felt tired. He mentioned
Herbert, who is still in London, and from this I turned the
conversation on to Hatzfeldt, remarking that his appointment as
Secretary of State had not yet taken place. He rejoined: “That is due
solely to the fact that he himself has not yet declared in favour
of remaining. He has still to complete his arrangements, and settle
with his brother about a mortgage. Moreover, I cannot blame him if
he prefers to draw--(I did not catch the amount) in Constantinople,
where things are cheaper, than 15,000 thalers here. He has a fortune
of about 100,000 thalers. I wanted more for him, 60,000 marks, but
the Federal Council rejected the proposal, as they could not give the
Secretary of State more than the Imperial Chancellor, who receives
only 54,000, but who has become wealthy thanks to public grants. You
cannot expect everybody to be prepared to make sacrifices. Every one
is not disposed to lead a simple life, cutting his coat according to
his cloth, and to forego great entertainments and other expensive
habits; and then it is a case of five into four won’t go, so I borrow
one. He must, however, decide between this and July. Otherwise we
shall have to ask Dr. Busch.”

“No, thank you,” I replied. He said: “There are two doctors of that
name, and I mean the other, not Büschlein. But Busch has as poor
health as Hatzfeldt, who is effeminate to boot, wraps himself up like
a Frenchman, and goes to bed when he has a headache or cold, so that
I have already been obliged to do their work instead of their taking
over mine.”

From these invalids he passed on to the Empress. “She lives on and
is again in good health, but a great deal of my illness comes from
her intrigues. Schleinitz is also on his legs again, although he was
very ill. Doubtless he thinks: ‘Perhaps there may be some more Jewish
_pourboires_, so I must keep alive!’”

I asked if he would speak in the debate in the Reichstag on the
monopoly. “Yes,” he said, “if my health permits it. Not for the
purpose of convincing them, but to bear witness before the country,
and then to demand my release.” I inquired whether he intended to
go to Kissingen again this summer. “No,” he replied. “Although the
waters have usually been very beneficial, they did me no good the
last time. For nearly four months afterwards I was tormented with
hæmorrhoids that were fearfully painful, burning like hell fire.” He
then added a description of the symptoms.

Before leaving I also asked: “How do you like the Chevalier
Poschinger,[6] Serene Highness? There is a great deal of interesting
matter in the collection, but it seems to me that he might have made
a better choice. But I suppose all the documents did not come into
his hands?” He replied: “That, too, had something to do with it. But
there is a great deal that has not got into the archives, such as my
letters to the late King, which were retained by Gerlach and which
his heirs will not easily part with. But even as it is, the book is
very instructive, as it contains a great deal which was not known
so accurately before; and it is perhaps well that those letters and
other things should remain unpublished for the present.”

He had in the meantime shaken hands several times by way of taking
leave of me, but each time started some new subject which caused
me to remain. He now reached me his hand for the last time, and
thanking him for giving me the pleasure of seeing him after such a
long interval I took my leave. As usual after such interviews, I went
straight home in order to write down what I had heard without delay,
before anything else should chance to blur the impression.

On the 15th of July I again visited Bucher. He complained once more
of the indifferent way in which business was done at the Foreign
Office and in the Imperial Chancellerie. Herbert sent his father,
Holstein or Rantzau private reports of what he picked up in London
society, the clubs, &c.--mostly gossip--which was then forwarded to
the Emperor and occasionally made use of in the press. The correct
thing for him to do would be to communicate what he had heard to
his Chief, the Ambassador, who could then forward it separately,
or include it in his own despatches. Herbert reported recently that
after the murder of Cavendish and Burke, Gladstone, when sitting in
his place in Parliament, covered his face with his hands in order to
show the depth of his affliction, although the event was in every
way opportune for him. That evening, however, he was.... Rantzau
then came to him, Bucher, to say that the Chief would like to see
that mentioned in one of the papers, but not in the _Norddeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung_, and to ask whether he, Bucher, would see to
it. Bucher replied that his instructions were to write only for the
_Post_ and the _Norddeutsche_. He would, however, prepare it for
the press and Rantzau could then give it to Lindau, who might get
it into the _Kölnische Zeitung_, or into one of the Hamburg papers.
After a while Rantzau returned and said that in Lindau’s opinion
one of the phrases would be better if translated into the _oratio
obliqua_. “But,” said Bucher, smiling, “it was a quotation, yet
neither of them recognised it, although it was taken from Schiller.
I said to him they could do what they liked with it, and since then
they have not pestered me with such matters.” Bucher confirmed what
the Chancellor had told me respecting Prince William’s attitude and
way of thinking in political matters. He added that the Prince had
told some of his acquaintances how much he disapproved of his mother
reading the _Volkszeitung_, and identifying herself with the views
of the Progressist party. Bucher then mentioned that a member of the
Crown Prince’s _entourage_ had informed him that one of the leaders
of the National Liberals had recently stated that they were not so
very much opposed to the tobacco monopoly, but wished to “keep their
consent to it as a gift for the next emperor.” He added “I was about
to write that to the Chancellor, whom I now rarely see; but I saw
from his speech on the monopoly that he had already been informed of
it.” In Bucher’s opinion the most important feature in the Egyptian
question is “that we may expect it to lead to a breach between France
and England.... Our relations with Austria are excellent. What he was
not able to tell you at the time is a fact. We have a formal alliance
with the Austrians, and the Chief has also done something more, so
that we are quite safe from war for several years to come.”

With regard to Hatzfeldt, Bucher said: “He wants to have the
Secretaryship of State offered to him so that he may make his
acceptance conditional upon exorbitant terms for himself. But the
Chief, in order to avoid placing himself under any obligations, means
to leave it to the Emperor to settle matters with him.”

We finally spoke about Eckart, whom it was intended at first to
employ in the Literary Bureau, but who has now a prospect of an
appointment in the Ministry of the Interior. Bucher thinks the affair
is a demonstration of the Chief’s against the Russians, who “always
fancied until now that we must run to answer the bell whenever they
ring.” Eckart, by the way, no longer makes the extracts from the
newspapers for the Foreign Office....

On the 19th of July, Bucher sent me an article from the
_Deutsches Tageblatt_ of the 16th of July, entitled
“Hirsch-Bleichröder-Rothschild and Germany in Constantinople.” It
disclosed the financial intrigues of this group of bankers, “choice
members of the Chosen People,” who exploit Turkey under the pretence
that they are protected by the German Government in the persons
of its representatives. It energetically protests against this
trio, and particularly against “Bleichröder, who knows how to take
advantage of the credit which Germany enjoys at the Golden Horn in
association with persons who only manifest their national sentiments
and their patriotism when these can be turned to account for their
own transactions.” Bucher wrote: “I send you this article for your
Memorabilia. It will be frequently mentioned hereafter. _Justizrath_
Primker of Berlin, is the agent of Bleichröder here referred to.”

On the 2nd of August I received a card from Bucher, in which he
said: “I have to-day taken leave of absence, and at the same time
tendered my resignation. I will tell you why at some future time. Auf
Wiedersehen.”

I therefore called upon him (Bucher) on the 2nd of October, and
at once inquired whether he decided to retire or to remain on. He
replied that he would remain for the present. On the 1st of August he
begged the Chief to obtain the Emperor’s consent to his retirement.
In this letter the only motive which he gave was consideration for
his health (growing nervousness), although, as I knew, he had other
and stronger reasons. He then proceeded to Bormio, whither the
Prince’s answer followed him. The Chief wrote that before regarding
his request as final, he would like Bucher to come to Varzin to
talk over the matter--he would doubtless also be pleased to see the
place once more. He (Bucher) arranged to go there on his return from
his holiday, and accordingly proceeded to Varzin on Tuesday last.
There the Chancellor explained to him that he still required the
services of his knowledge and ability, and although he could quite
conceive that he was ailing and tired, he believed he could get over
that difficulty by giving him as much holiday as he liked at all
times, summer and winter. In future, also, he should be immediately
under him. To this Bucher replied that he did not wish to retire
altogether, but he had had a mind to take up some work of importance
which he could have done at home in connection with documents in
the Archives that had not yet been used. He believed he could do
that work as well as the officials of the Archives (Poschinger and
Sybel). That might also be done, the Chief said, but he must remain
in the service; he was indispensable to him. Bucher then begged to be
allowed two days to think the matter over, after the lapse of which
time he acceded to the Prince’s wishes. He does not expect any good
to come of the arrangement, however, as in his opinion there will be
no change in the condition of affairs.

I then inquired how the Chief was getting on. Bucher replied: “Not
very well. He suffers from faceache, which occurs constantly and
is often very bad, but passes away again after a while. The doctor
thinks it comes from a bad tooth, and has advised him to have it out
or let the nerve be killed. But the Chief will not agree to this,
as he does not believe in the doctor’s opinion. When this is not
tormenting him he is still the same old amiable _causeur_, and he
often has moments of inspiration too, when he speaks on political
affairs with astounding far-sightedness. I shall hardly enjoy much
more of it, however. During recent years I have seen him more seldom
than yourself, sometimes not for two months at a time. But perhaps
that may improve again later or indeed very soon. A few days ago
when I was speaking to Rantzau about my resignation, he said that
was surely not necessary. It was true that the Emperor might live to
a great age, but he would probably not govern much longer and then
it would be the turn of the Crown Prince, who had not altered since
the conflict he had had with his father twenty years ago. (Freytag’s
account of this conflict was handed over by me for publication to
the _Süddeutsche Zeitung_ in Frankfurt-on-the-Main somewhere about
the summer of 1862. It made a great sensation at the time and caused
no little anxiety.) He was a regular Progressist and already he made
no secret of it.” While I was away he had accepted Ludwig Löwe’s
invitation to inspect his revolver manufactory, and even deigned
to take breakfast there. Recently, on entering a Court gathering
at which Puttkamer and also three Progressists, including Mommsen
and Virchow, were present he passed the Minister by and joined the
Liberal trio, with whom he then conversed in a demonstrative fashion.
It must be remembered that this took place at a time when an action
was being brought against Mommsen for insulting the Chancellor. The
Chief was quite aware of this and speaking of the future Emperor,
he had said: “He will wish to retain me, but I shall lay down
my conditions, which he will agree to, but he will not keep his
promise.” Bucher continued as follows: “Then the Chief will resign
and proceed to Varzin, which he even now does not wish to leave,
and a sort of colony will be founded there in connection with which
they doubtless have me also in view. It is then intended to write
memoirs. Speaking to me about them in 1877, he said: ‘I have still a
great deal to say to the world.’--The Progressists are aware of the
Crown Prince’s views and they will then want to form a Ministry taken
from their own ranks. Virchow has hinted as much in public speeches,
adding that the entire policy of the country including foreign
affairs would be different.--Bismarck was a gifted politician who
represented a system of diplomacy which, except by himself, had long
since been regarded as played out. That would lead to a pretty state
of affairs, but would not last long. In the meantime, however, many
blunders and an immense deal of harm might be done.”

I then asked what he thought of Bismarck’s religious sentiments,
giving him my reasons for thinking that his wife had influenced him
in this respect. He agreed with me and said that the views of the
Moravian Brethren prevailed in her family. For the rest it was very
difficult to form an opinion on those matters. He then observed that
Bismarck also believed in ghosts. There is a castle in East Prussia
which no one will inhabit as it is said to be haunted by the ghost of
a lady who committed some crime. She is visible in broad daylight.
On one occasion, when this story was told in Bismarck’s presence and
some of the company spoke of it as folly, the Chief said there might
very well be something in it, and that one ought not to laugh and
jeer at such things, as he himself had had a similar experience.[7]

Bucher also considers such things possible. He said: “A very
remarkable incident of that kind once occurred to myself. When I
lived on the Lutzow Embankment--it was during the first years of my
appointment when I had a great deal to do and was so tired in the
evening that I used to fall asleep as soon as I lay down--one night I
saw my mother stoop down over my bed and smile contentedly, as if she
were pleased that I had now begun a regular life. I am quite certain
that it was not a dream.”

Finally I told him I intended to leave Berlin and return to Leipzig,
as I had too little opportunity of seeing and being of use to the
Chief, and found little society for my wife and myself. I would
remain until February, in order to take leave of the Prince in
person, and then proposed to come to Berlin a couple of times every
year to visit him. In the meantime, I would now and then take the
liberty of requesting him (Bucher) to furnish me with advice,
explanations and materials in political affairs, while, on the other
hand, I also should be at his disposal, as before 1878, whenever he
wished to secure the insertion of anything in the press. Should the
Chancellor retire at any time I would write him immediately, that he
might count upon my services. Bucher approved of these suggestions.

On the 2nd and 3rd of November Bucher sent me a number of newspaper
extracts referring to Bleichröder and his relations with Hatzfeldt,
and Augusta’s intrigues against Bismarck, with which the latter in a
pencil note had associated the Jesuit, Father Beckx. Bucher intends
to write me further on the subject.

On the morning of the 6th of November I called on Bucher at his
lodgings, and reminded him of this promise. He gave me the following
information. “Hatzfeldt intends to become Vice-Chancellor. For that
reason he has had himself made Minister of State, a measure which
was unwelcome to the Chief, and which was managed with difficulty
owing to the opposition of his colleagues. Hatzfeldt has had that
represented in the press as necessary, supporting the contention by
precedent. Hohenlohe was once Vice-Chancellor. I will cut out some
of the newspaper articles and send them to you. He had a _démenti_
of the article on the Hatzfeldt-Schapira affair (reproduced by
the _Volkszeitung_ from the _Süddeutsche Post_) published in the
_Deutsches Tageblatt_, which the Chief reads. This article was
written by Viereck, a Social Democrat, while the _démenti_ was
probably by Holstein or Fuchs. Hatzfeldt is gradually disclosing
his Catholic sympathies, using his influence, for example, with the
Minister of Public Worship for the appointment of certain Catholic
clergymen. Bleichröder, senior, applied to the Parisian Rothschild
and the _Discontogesellschaft_ to co-operate in his great Turkish
railway and tobacco monopoly scheme, as his own funds were not
sufficient; without success, however, as the latter did not wish to
have any dealings with such a corpse as Turkey. He had also been
to Busch, the Under-Secretary of State, and had hoped to obtain
his support for the scheme, as in the Rumanian affair, which was
a disgrace to us. The support was given in that case owing to the
pressing appeals of the old Hohenzollern, Prince Charles’ father.”

On one occasion in the sixties Corvin (Wiersbycki)[8] had at Bucher’s
instance written in an English newspaper against the Empress Augusta.
The Chief had instructed Bucher to get this done, as such attacks
influenced the Court, which was afraid of the press. Corvin then
borrowed a hundred thalers from Bucher, and only paid him back
twenty-five. “He probably forgot the remainder. But the article was
very well done.” Finally Bucher mentioned that Lindau was now ill.
The Prince’s son had formerly begged in writing not to let it be
noticed that Lindau was incapable, and he had retained the letter.
“Heyking has now for a considerable time past been looking after the
press; but, while you and I managed that alone, he has taken on a
Count Henckel as an assistant. The latter, who reads the newspapers
for him, has again appointed one of the men in the office to act as
amanuensis, and do ‘the scissors and paste.’ They are fond of their
ease, these aristocratic gentlemen!”




                            CHAPTER II

BLEICHRÖDER AND GERMAN DIPLOMACY IN CONSTANTINOPLE--FURTHER
    INTERVIEWS WITH THE CHANCELLOR--RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND
    AUSTRIA--THE GABLENTZ MISSION--QUEEN VICTORIA--AN UNPLEASANT
    EPISTLE--A SEVERE REPRIMAND--BISMARCK COLLABORATES WITH
    ME--BUCHER’S JOURNEY WITH SALAZAR--A PRESS CAMPAIGN AGAINST
    ENGLAND--DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLES ON SOUTH AFRICAN QUESTIONS.


On the morning of Monday, the 27th of November, 1882, I called upon
Bucher to hand him a packet with two articles and a letter to be
forwarded to the Prince at Varzin, which he promised to do. The
latter ran as follows:--


  “Hochverehrter Herr Reichskanzler,

    “Every man has his own ambition. Mine consists in studying and
giving as true as possible a picture of your Serene Highness. I am
accordingly about to write a new book respecting you in which the
more important material scattered through my previous book will
be brought together and supplemented from my own observation, and
such sources as the letters in Hesekiel’s work, and the despatches
published by Poschinger and in Hahn’s collection. It will not be
a biography, but only a detailed character sketch, in a number
of chapters, such as Bismarck and Parliamentarism, Bismarck and
the German Question, Bismarck and Religion, the Legend of Junker
Bismarck, Bismarck and the Diplomatists, Bismarck and the Social
Problem, Bismarck as Public Speaker and Humorist, Bismarck and
Austria, France, Russia and the Poles, and, finally, Bismarck in
Private Life. The way in which I propose to treat the subject will
appear from the two articles herewith enclosed, which I would beg you
to regard as mere preliminary studies. The first of these, ‘Bismarck
as a Junker,’ being a harmless sketch, has already been published
in the monthly periodical, _Aus Allen Zeiten und Landen_, and the
second, ‘Bismarck and Religion,’ is to appear in the _Grenzboten_.
In case of new material coming into my possession both shall be
re-written for the book, the object of which is to assist the future
historian, and at the same time to be useful to yourself. Everything
calculated to interfere with the latter purpose shall be omitted. It
is highly desirable that I should receive your Serene Highness’s help
in the course of the work. I therefore venture most respectfully to
recall the fact that Hesekiel was greatly assisted in this way, and
that your Serene Highness in 1873 held out hopes to me of similar
assistance. Moreover, as many parts of the book will certainly
produce the impression that the author is well informed, it is to be
feared that should it at the same time contain errors, the public may
also accept them as true.

“I therefore beg in the first place that the two specimen articles
may be kindly revised and returned to me, supplemented with as much
new material as possible, and, where needful, corrected. I would
afterwards, with your permission, send in from time to time legibly
written copies of other chapters, and crave the same consideration
for them.

“It may be said that such books should not be written during the
lifetime of the person described. I take the liberty of rejoining
that they can be best done at that time, if confidence is reposed
in the writer, as he can then obtain fuller information than can be
found in archives, the contents of which are not always, later on,
rightly understood by every one.

“Should your Serene Highness desire to communicate verbally with me
on the matter, I am ready at all times to obey your commands without
delay.

“Your Serene Highness’s most respectful and devoted

                                                   “Dr. Moritz Busch.

  “Berlin, _November 26th, 1882_.”


At 11.30 A.M. on the 1st of December, Bucher called upon me to return
the two articles that had been sent to Varzin, namely, “Bismarck as a
Junker” and “Bismarck and Religion.” He at the same time communicated
to me the contents of a letter from Count Herbert, to the effect that
the Prince had read the articles through, and had said with regard
to the second that he could communicate nothing on a matter of so
personal a character; and that he could not remember having made the
statement on page 2 that he had “brought about three great wars.”
It might be possible to insert the word “perhaps” in that sentence.
His (Herbert’s) personal opinion was that nothing more ought to be
written about his father, and if he had any influence with me he
would use it in this direction. I explained to Bucher that if the
Prince himself had asked me not to publish anything more about him,
I should most _probably_ forbear to do so, but that Herbert had no
claim to any influence upon me. “What is Hecuba to me?” I concluded.

_December 19th._--Received the following letter from Bucher:--


“A horrible cough has deprived me of my night’s rest for the past
fortnight, but I am a little better since yesterday. As you do not
read many of the newspapers, I send you two extracts which will
furnish material for the history of the morals of our time.

“1. _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, of the 15th instant.--The
following in print:--‘_Herr Justizrath_ Primker is returning to
Constantinople in order to join the Council for the administration
of the Turkish State Debt in connection with the establishment of
the tobacco monopoly and the unification of the Debt. The reports
received from various correspondents respecting that gentleman’s
failure or success in connection with any other financial mission are
all erroneous. How far the investigations made by _Herr Justizrath_
Primker respecting matters of commerce and means of communication
in the East may be utilised in the interest of German capital
remains a question for the future.’” Bucher then goes on to say:
“Unquestionably prepared by Bleichröder, and intended to serve as
a kind of official credentials for his agent. You are sufficiently
acquainted with the position of that newspaper to know that such an
article would not have been accepted unless some one in the Foreign
Office (Hatzfeldt) had had the matter in hand.

“2. _Deutsches Tageblatt_ of the 19th instant.--The following also
in print:--‘We are pleased to learn from an incidental paragraph in
the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_ that _Justizrath_ Primker, one
of Messrs. Bleichröder’s agents for international transactions,
has had and has no other financial mission in Constantinople
than to represent their firm. We are glad to see this statement
in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, because--as one of our
well-informed Vienna correspondents has shown--_Justizrath_ Primker
has contrived in Constantinople to make it appear as if he were on
the staff of the German Embassy, and as if the German Government were
backing him up with all its influence and approval, a circumstance
which we should deeply regret, as Primker’s efforts are directed to
promoting the interests of Bleichröder and of the notorious Baron
Hirsch, and do not tend to the furtherance of the general interests
of the German Empire on the Bosphorus. Herr Primker is again going to
Constantinople, ostensibly to take part in the work of the Council
of the Turkish Public Debt in introducing the tobacco monopoly
administration and unifying the State Debt. The Council, as is
well known, has charge of the interests of the European creditors
of Turkey, and with this object supervises the administration of
the Turkish Public Debt. It protects, however, only the interests
of the larger creditors, as is shown by the attitude adopted by
Herr Primker, who knew how to secure all the advantages for Herr
Bleichröder and his partners, while entirely neglecting the claims
of the poorer holders of Turkish securities in Germany, so that they
actually came off worst of all in the arrangements ultimately made.
And yet it was these who ought to have been considered in the very
first place, as the net receipts of the Turkish railways amounted
to about four million francs, a sum which was sufficient to provide
for a fair interest on the securities. It is well known, however,
that Baron Hirsch is still able to withhold these receipts from the
Turkish Administration, and is assisted in doing so by his business
friend, Herr Bleichröder, who is quite indifferent as to whether
the interests of others and particularly of German creditors suffer
thereby. One hawk does not peck out another hawk’s eyes. Even if we
can do nothing to remedy this state of affairs, we can at least help
people to recognise the bird by its feathers.’ (Bucher’s letter now
follows once more.) I am sufficiently acquainted with the management
of this paper to know that such an article must at least have been
sanctioned in a higher quarter (Bismarck).”


_December 20th._--The day before yesterday I wrote to the Imperial
Chancellor begging for an interview, and in case there were anything
to mention in the press to supply me with the necessary information.
At 1.30 P.M. to-day a Chancery attendant brought me a letter from
_Hofrath_ Sachse, marked “Urgent,” in which Bismarck “requested me to
be good enough to visit him this afternoon at 4 o’clock.” I went to
the palace at the time appointed. Theiss showed me in to the Prince,
with whom I remained for three-quarters of an hour. He had a white
beard, and was sitting at his writing-table. After reaching me his
hand he said: “You have doubtless come with great expectations, and
think I shall have something to say to you about the article in the
_Kölnische Zeitung_--the one on Russian armaments.” I asked: “Did
that come from here?”

He: “No, not from me; but from the military authorities.”

I: “And the statements are correct?”

He: “Certainly. They are constructing many more railways than they
require for trade and traffic, and the garrisons in the western
towns and fortresses have been placed almost upon a war footing. I
should not be surprised if there were a war with them next year. The
Bourse has also shown itself much concerned, but I believe that the
fall in quotations arises rather from anxiety respecting France. But
(he continued) you have been indiscreet in the _Grenzboten_ in your
reference to the alliance with Austria. It has been very awkward for
them (in Austria), for the Hungarian Diet can now come and demand
information on the subject.”

I replied: “I thought that the matter had gradually leaked out. Three
or four months ago some one, I forget now who it was, said to me that
everybody now knew that a formal alliance existed, and not a mere
memorandum. Perhaps my informant had it from Vienna. I was therefore
of opinion that it could do no harm, and might possibly be of use if
I mentioned it incidentally, as I did in the _Grenzboten_ article,
and I was quite astounded when all the newspapers wrote leading
articles upon it. I must be very much mistaken if I have not seen
something similar elsewhere.”

“Yes,” he said; “but it was a State secret, and if you had only
remembered from whom you had it, an inquiry might well be instituted.
It is quite possible that something of the kind had already been
said elsewhere; and if what you wrote had appeared in another paper,
perhaps no one would have taken any notice of it. But you have given
the _Grenzboten_ such a nimbus that it is placed on a level with
the Official Gazette. That is not good for you as a writer. You are
regarded as, in the highest degree, inspired.”

I: “That is a matter of indifference to me. It only excites hatred
and envy; and I have never associated with the local journalists.”

“Well,” he said, smiling, “you can destroy this nimbus if you will
only write something thoroughly silly.”

I: “And if you then have a vigorous _démenti_ inflicted upon me.”

He: “But, seriously, you can to a certain extent correct the
statement which you blurted out inadvertently, by saying that in
doing so you believed you were only repeating what was already known;
and you might go on to add a number of useful observations, as, for
instance, that, if the alliance did not actually exist, it ought to
be brought about, as it would be of great advantage and would fulfil
the requirements of two peace-loving Powers--and, further, that
we should very much regret the truth of the assertion made by the
_Kölnische Zeitung_ that it had only been concluded for five years;
in that case it should be extended over a longer period. Finally,
it would be in accordance with the interests of both Empires to
strengthen and consolidate the good political relations existing
between them by closer commercial relations on a treaty basis.”

He then returned to the question of the Russian armaments, and said,
_inter alia_: “Now I am to assist! But they can settle the matter
themselves. Three years ago I made proposals to them which they would
not accept. Now let _them_ settle it!”

He reflected for a while, and then suddenly exclaimed: “Can you find
us money, and rid us of the bailiff?... Parliament will not agree
to the licensing tax, not even the Conservatives, each one of whom
is cleverer than the other, while they are all of them wiser than
the Government. Here there is nothing but discord, and the majority
are blockheads. What is the use of their Conservatism when they will
not support us? A progressive income tax is unjust, and would not
be of much assistance, but an equitable income tax would be good
and useful. That can be obtained by self-assessment, and it would
in a short time cover the deficit in the four classes. The higher
classes--14,000--pay about seven million marks, and to double that
amount would be oppressive, it would mean a tax of 26 per cent. The
capitalist is either a mortgagee, and if his taxes are raised, he
turns upon his debtor and raises his interest to 5 or 5½ per cent.
interest, instead of 4; or a loan and debenture company, and then
its securities would lose as much in value as the tax amounts to;
or a holder of industrial shares, and then the tax might reduce or
indeed destroy the export trade in the manufactured article. The
State cannot tax its own securities, and therefore there only remain
foreign securities and railway shares. People are not afraid of the
capitalist, but only of the tobacconist, the wine merchant, and the
brewer. Of the capitalist one may say:--

  “‘I prithee take thy fingers from my throat;
  For though I am not splenetive and rash,
  Yet have I in me something dangerous,
  Which let thy wisdom fear!’

“If the Conservatives were at one with the Government all would be
well. As it is, however, we shall doubtless be obliged to dissolve
again in February, and then there will not be so many Conservatives
returned. The King has so far committed himself that he can no longer
govern with the bailiff. His position is most painful, and he will
ultimately ask the country again and again whether the bailiff is to
be retained.”

He then spoke about Wedell-Malchoff’s motion for taxing time
bargains on the Bourse. In his opinion it was not a bad idea, but
the phrase “time bargains” should be defined, and in such a way
as not to include genuine transactions in rye and spirits or cash
transactions. Furthermore, it should start, not with two per mille,
but, as the Government had proposed, with one per mille. The latter
would be feasible, and of course once a beginning had been made it
could be raised. The mistake here was that they were trying to get
at dishonest transactions, and thus to introduce a moral tax, whilst
such transactions could not possibly be defined or reached. The
Chancellor’s statements were somewhat to the foregoing effect. More I
cannot say, as I did not understand all these financial explanations,
in which he doubtless credited me with more technical knowledge and
capacity than I possess to supplement their purport.

In the course of his remarks he mentioned Bleichröder’s name, and
I asked whether he had noticed certain hints that Bleichröder’s
schemes with regard to the Turkish tobacco monopoly and railways were
being promoted by German diplomacy. He denied the fact. It was true,
indeed, that in the Rumanian affair Bleichröder had been supported,
because, in that instance, in addition to some distinguished
gentlemen, a great number of small investors were concerned. Of the
former he mentioned Ujest, and, if I am not mistaken, Lehndorff.
There Bleichröder had really done good service, “gallantly risking
his money, and it was for that reason that he had been ennobled by
the King.” Primker, on the other hand, he described as “clever but
unscrupulous.” As to the Austrian Government, he observed that they
had committed themselves too far with Hirsch.

We finally came to speak about his neuralgia, which caused him a
great deal of pain. I suggested that it probably came from a bad
tooth.

He: “Others have thought the same, but the doctor has hammered at all
my teeth, and says they are sound. No, it is a nervous affection,
muscular pain, particularly when I am worried and excited. That is
why I do not attend the Parliamentary sittings; for what a delight it
would be to certain people if, in the middle of a speech, I suddenly
made a wry face, and were unable to proceed!” He dismissed me with
the words: “Adieu, Büschlein, auf Wiedersehen! But take care to avoid
further indiscretions.”

_January 14th, 1883._--Called this morning on Bucher to give him my
new address.

Bucher then expressed a hope that the Bleichröder swindle, which was
becoming more and more widely known, would ultimately be mentioned in
the Reichstag. I told him that, in speaking to the Chief recently,
I had referred to certain newspaper articles on the subjects, and
that he declared he knew nothing of diplomatic influence having
been exercised in that way at Constantinople, and had, moreover,
praised Bleichröder’s action in the Rumanian affair. Bucher exclaimed
angrily: “Well then, he lied to you in that matter.... It is true,
indeed, that Bleichröder and the Disconto Bank plunged into the
affair gallantly, but it was not for the sake of the poor tailors,
cobblers and cooks that had blundered into it, but because the Prince
of Hohenzollern was also involved.”

Bucher also denounced as “a lie” the Prince’s statement that the
article in the _Kölnische Zeitung_ which followed the paragraph in
_Grenzboten_ on the Austro-German Alliance, and emphasised, first
its five years’ duration, and then the warlike preparations of the
Russians, did not come from the Foreign Office, but from the military
authorities. (Perhaps this assertion was intended to lead me into
some “blunder” which would have deprived the _Grenzboten_ of its
“nimbus.”)... “The article is by Kruse, who as you are aware is
here. I know also who corrected it.” (Probably Bismarck, or possibly
Bucher himself under his instructions.) The fact that the Chief
told me to advocate the renewal or prolongation of the treaty, with
additional commercial provisions, (this was done subsequently in the
_Grenzboten_ and was noted and emphasised by the _Post_) tallies
according to Bucher with a proposal which the Chancellor made in
Vienna. He was, however, informed in reply that that would not do,
as Austria-Hungary consisted of an industrial and an agricultural
country, with different interests. Bucher condemned the proposal,
saying: “He is in too great a hurry, because he thinks he has only
a few more years to live.” I shall now take care to get away from
Berlin as soon as I can, and thus avoid further risk of hearing and
circulating untruths from the Chief’s mouth.

_January 28th._--Wrote to the Chief yesterday, informing him that the
editor of _Harper’s Monthly_ (published in London) had asked me to
write an article upon him, and if possible, also to send a photograph
of the Prince with his new full beard. At the same time I added a
request for an interview. On the same evening I received an answer
from the Imperial Chancellerie that the Prince begged me to do him
the honour of calling upon him to-morrow, Sunday, at two o’clock. I
went accordingly to-day, and had to wait for a while, as the Minister
of Justice was with the Chancellor, and Hatzfeldt was already waiting
in the antechamber with Möller, the Under-Secretary of State. When
Hatzfeldt was called in Möller dropped into conversation with me, and
asked me whether I was the author of _Count Bismarck and his People_.
He then turned out to be an admirer of my former books also. He had
read, among others, the _Pilgrimage to Jerusalem_ and even the
_Wanderings between the Hudson and the Mississippi_. When Hatzfeldt
came out, the attendant immediately called me in. The Chief, who gave
me a very friendly reception, had a particularly bright colour in the
face. He asked: “Now then, what is it you want me to tell you for the
article? All the principal facts are known.” I replied that I had
come less on that account than for the photograph. They had written
to me that thousands of Germans in America would be much interested
in seeing his portrait with the new beard. “Yes,” he observed, “they
now show their interest in the old country by overloading me with
contributions for those who have suffered by the inundations on
the Rhine. I have not the least idea what I am to do with them. I
have talked over the matter with the people in the Reichstag, they
must distribute the money. As to the photograph, however, the man
suggested in your letter (Brasch, in the Wilhelmstrasse) cannot do
it, as I have promised Löscher and Petsch, with whom I have always
been satisfied. But I cannot go to them at present as I should
catch cold in this weather, and also because I do not go to the
Emperor, and he would be surprised if I were to be seen going to the
photographer. But I should myself like to see a portrait with the
beard, as I do not know how long I shall keep it.” I suggested that
he should let Brasch take two photographs only, as he lived close by
and would bring his camera here, one of them being for _Harper_ and
one for me. He could be forbidden to sell any copies. But the Chief
considered that that would be a breach of his word, and showed a
disposition to lose his temper, so I let the matter drop.

He spoke of the way in which they “hated him in Parliament,” although
“he had done them no harm.” “I cannot understand it,” he continued.
“It is not so with other Ministers, even with those who have done
nothing but commit blunder after blunder, while I, at least, have
maintained peace for them. Surely the present Ministry in France
is a wretched concern, English policy has been an unbroken series
of blunders for the last three years, and Gortschakoff, with his
vanity, also makes all sorts of mistakes; yet no one in their own
countries worries and hampers them in every direction. Nor in other
respects have I ever given them ground for dissatisfaction. Other
Ministers speculate on the Stock Exchange, and take advantage of
their office and information to make money. It is asserted that
several French Ministers do so, and such cases also occur in Austria,
and particularly in Hungary, where the Zichys have made millions in
railway shares. Manteuffel and Schleinitz took advantage of their
position in the same way. No one can say anything of the kind against
me. The Diest-Daber statements were slanders. I have never held
speculative securities, but only regular dividend-bearing stock. It
is only the national grants that have given me my competency. I have
made nothing, but was, on the contrary, much better off formerly
than I am now, in consequence of the low prices of corn and timber
and unwise purchases of land.... Nor have I led a loose life, but
have, on the contrary, been always a respectable father of a family.
And nothing of the kind can be said of my sons either. (Really?) No
charge can be brought against me, and nevertheless I am hated. But I
am tired. I have lost my old passion for shooting and riding, and I
fear I shall soon lose my liking for politics. I am sacrificing my
health. I ought to live in the country, and the doctors say that if I
were free from business, and could spend three or four hours a day in
the open air, I should be well again. But I do not like to desert the
Emperor, who will soon be eighty-seven, when he begs me with tears
in his eyes to remain. Nor can I expect him to accustom himself to
others.”

I inquired how he now stood with the Crown Prince, and he replied,
“Latterly he has been very amiable to me, particularly at the
various festivities.” Then returning, without any transition, to the
subject of Parliament and its opposition to himself, he said: “I
have maintained peace for them with a great deal of trouble. After
1870 everybody expected war in a couple of years; but so far it has
not come, and perhaps, indeed, it may never come again. We are now
on a better footing with Russia than we have ever been before, and
with Austria we have concluded an alliance.” I asked him if he was
still negotiating for an improvement of the treaty in a commercial
direction. He rejoined: “I will not tell you that, as you have been
indiscreet enough to let it be known that it was only concluded for
a period of five years. The _Kölnische Zeitung_ has reproduced that
from the _Grenzboten_.”

I: “I beg your pardon, Serene Highness, but the converse was the
case. I could not have said it before the _Kölnische Zeitung_,
because I was not aware of the fact until I read it in that paper.”
He maintained his opinion until I offered to prove to him that he
was in error, by sending him the _Grenzboten_ article. He then went
on to relate: “They (the Austrians) thought they might satisfy their
greed in that way. I imagine that I am doing them a good turn and
making them a present, and then they come with their conditions.
I have rejected them. A commercial treaty is possible in which we
might grant them more favourable terms than to the others, and in
which the tariff would not be raised, indeed perhaps reduced. The
high duties which we have imposed upon Russia and America need not be
applied to Austrian maize and barley. The importation of cattle may
also be allowed, although that is scarcely feasible in view of the
certificates given in Galicia and Hungary, where everything can be
bought and everybody can be bribed. But commercial union and a common
customs frontier are out of the question, for Germany takes plenty
of imported goods, and superior foreign wines are consumed here in
Germany, while even a groschen would be too much for a Slovak or a
Raizen (_i.e._, a Servian of Slavonia or Lower Hungary), who uses
nothing of the kind. Even here there is a great difference between
the Elbe Duchies or the Rhenish provinces and East Prussia or Upper
Silesia.”

He then came once more to speak of the peaceful times in which we are
now living, and said: “You have only to look at the newspapers and
see how empty they are, and how they fish out the ancient sea-serpent
in order to have something to fill their columns. The feuilleton is
spreading more and more, and if anything sensational occurs they rush
at it furiously and write it to death for whole weeks. This low water
in political affairs, this distress in the journalistic world, is the
highest testimonial for a Minister of Foreign Affairs.”

After a moment’s silence he went on: “Then you propose to return to
Leipzig?”

“Yes,” I replied, “since the death of my son, my wife requires
amusement and society, which are not to be had here, but which she
may find in her own native town.”

He: “Well, but surely any one who writes on politics ought to live in
Berlin, where politics are now made.”

I: “But Leipzig is only three hours from here, and during the months
when you are in town I can easily reside here.”

He: “That is not necessary, but you might come every fortnight, or
when anything occurs, and ask me.”

He again complained of the neuralgic pains, at the same time dipping
his finger, as he had already done frequently, in a wine glass
containing some strong-smelling yellow liquid, with which he rubbed
his right cheek bone. “That relieves me for a short time,” he said.
He then continued: “But I am very tired. I have now been engaged in
politics practically since 1847, nearly forty years, and that is
exhausting. At first in Parliament, then at Frankfurt, where I was
very busy, having work thrown upon me from Berlin also.”

I: “That can be seen from Poschinger’s book, which I am now reading
and making extracts from.”

He: “Yes, but he does not say that I also wrote numerous letters to
the King from Frankfurt,[9] and that I came no less than thirteen
times in one year to Berlin to see him.”

I: “It looks almost as if already at Frankfurt you had been
his Minister for Foreign Affairs--at least Manteuffel drew his
inspiration from you in the principal questions.”

He: “Yes, the late King discussed all great questions with me, and
Manteuffel put up with it.”

I mentioned that the extracts which I was making from the documents
contained in Poschinger’s book were intended in the main for the
chapter on “Bismarck and Austria,” in which I proposed to embody
what I had personally gathered in 1870, as, for instance, Prince
Luitpold’s abortive letter to the Emperor Francis Joseph.

He: “Certainly! But as long ago as 1866 I made an attempt to come to
an understanding with them. I suppose I have already told you the
Gablentz story?”

I: “No, but you have told me others from that period, as, for
instance, how the King wanted to annex portions of Saxony, Bavaria
and Bohemia, and how you persuaded him not to do so.”

He: “Well, it occurred in this way. Just after the first shot had
been fired (in reality it must have been about a fortnight before) I
sent Gablentz, the brother of the general, to the Emperor at Vienna
with proposals for peace on a dualistic basis. I instructed him to
point out that we had seven or eight hundred thousand men under arms,
while they also had a great number. It would therefore be better for
us both to come to an agreement, and making a change of front towards
the West, unite our forces in attacking France, recapture Alsace,
and turn Strassburg into a federal fortress. The French were weak as
compared with us. There might be no just cause for war, but we could
plead with the other Powers that France had also acted unjustly in
taking Alsace and Strassburg, whence she had continually menaced
South Germany ever since. If we were to bring these as a gift to the
Germans they would accept our dualism. They, the Austrians, should
rule in the South and have command of the seventh and eighth army
corps, while we should have command of the ninth and tenth and the
federal command in chief in the North.... Dualism is a very ancient
institution, as old as the Ingævones and Istævones, Guelphs and
Ghibellines.”

I observed: “Already under the Othos, indeed as long ago as
Charlemagne with his Franks, and the Saxons.” “High German and Low
German,” I said. “With a Celtic fringe below and a Slavonic fringe
above.”

“Well,” he continued, “Gablentz submitted his proposal to the
Emperor, who seemed not disinclined to entertain it, but declared
he must first hear the views of the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Mensdorff, you know. He, however, was a weak-minded mediocrity,
unequal to ideas of that calibre, and he said he must first take
counsel with the Ministers. They were in favour of war with us. The
Minister of Finance said he believed they would beat us--and he must
first of all get a war indemnity of five hundred millions out of us,
or a good opportunity for declaring the insolvency of the State.
The Minister of War was not displeased with my suggestion, but in
his opinion we ought to have our own fight out first, and then we
could come to an understanding and fall upon the French together. So
Gablentz returned without having effected his purpose, and a day or
two afterwards the King and myself started for the seat of war.”

I thanked him warmly for this important and startling communication,
and asked him if I might use it in my book. He replied: “Yes, it is
for that purpose that I have related it to you. But not in detail,
merely the main features. Proposal for peace on the dualistic basis,
united attack upon France, and the reconquest of Alsace.”

I then asked once more whether he wished to read the book before it
went to press, and he said: “Yes, in order that you may not include
anything false in my epitaph.”

I: “That would certainly not be done intentionally. You know that I
worship you, and would let myself be cut into a thousand pieces for
you.”

He: “Ah, no; not into so many! It is not necessary.”

I: “Well then, only into two pieces, so that one might see half a
Büschlein (little Busch) fall to the right and half to the left!”

On my then begging him as soon as his health permitted to let Löscher
and Petsch come to take his portrait, he promised to do so, adding:
“If they do not care to come, then the other man can--what’s his
name?”

I: “Brasch, here in the Wilhelmstrasse, at the corner of the
Leipzigerstrasse.”

He: “But I must first keep my word.”

I: “I did not ask you to do anything contrary to it. I only thought
of Brasch because he took a very good photograph of my late son.”

He: “How did the thing happen?” I then related shortly the
circumstances of my son’s death.

He: “That is a sad case, and there are many to share your misfortune,
all who had relatives on board the _Cimbria_.”

I: “But my son was engaged in his profession, in the fulfilment of
his duty, and died bravely and conscientiously for his ship like a
soldier for his flag.”

He reached me his hand, and said, “Auf Wiedersehen!” I had been with
him fully three-quarters of an hour, and all this time good old
Möller had to wait in the antechamber.

On returning home on the evening of the 3rd of February, I found
lying on my table a letter from Count Bill, in which, at his father’s
request, he enclosed a new photograph of the latter with a full white
beard.

On the 24th of February I wrote to the Chancellor begging to be
allowed to take leave of him personally, as I proposed to start
for Leipzig on the following Thursday. I handed the letter to the
porter at the palace at 11 A.M., and in about an hour and a half I
received an invitation through Sachse to call upon the Prince at
3 o’clock. He was in the room behind his study, which opens on the
garden. He was in an armchair, half sitting, half lying, and had
beside him a small table covered with documents. After he had asked
me how I was, he complained that he still felt very poorly. When
one trouble left him another set in. The neuralgic faceache often
prevented him from sleeping. If he could only go to the country, away
from business, things might improve; but the King would not grant
him leave, and “pestered him with all sorts of unimportant orders,”
&c., as, for instance, with the question as to who should go to St.
Petersburg to attend the coronation. “He thinks,” he continued, “that
if I can manage to keep on my legs I shall live to be old,--and if
not, why then I must die in the fulfilment of my duty.... And here
in the Foreign Office I have no proper assistance. Look at that
pile of documents which I must read through myself!” I said: “Of
course there is not much to be done with Hatzfeldt. He has little
ability, and still less inclination, to work. He only wants to amuse
himself, and to draw a big salary for doing so.” “Yes,” he replied,
“Hatzfeldt does little for his money, and has neither a good memory
nor a taste for business.” He then continued: “The Crown Prince is
also inconsiderate, and torments me with matters of no importance;
and, in addition to that, the people in the Diet are committing all
sorts of blunders. How abusive they have been during the past few
days! But it is the same everywhere with Parliaments and Ministers.”
I remarked: “Quite so, for instance in France.” “It is no better in
England,” he rejoined. “The European is no longer making progress.
There is nothing more to be done with him.” He repeated that he
was sick of politics, and wanted quiet. He then spoke of the
Kulturkampf, observing: “The Pope is really well disposed, but he is
not so powerful and independent as one may think; he is dependent
upon people who will have no peace. For some time it appeared as if
a _modus vivendi_ could be arrived at, but now that is at an end. On
the signs of approaching fine weather Windthorst threatened to strike
and resign the leadership of the Centre party. He wants a stormy sky
for other purposes, for stirring up discontent and strife, and they
on the other hand need him, or think they do. They accordingly became
frightened in Rome, and now they are once more making themselves
unpleasant.” I said: “Catholicism has always been a secondary
consideration for Windthorst. He is, above everything else, the
well-paid advocate of the Guelphs.”

He rejoined: “Ah, he believes in nothing whatever. He has absolutely
no religion.”

He caught sight of an envelope which I had brought with me and laid
on the table beside us containing an enlargement by Brasch of his
photograph by Löscher. He asked: “What have you there?” I answered:
“It usually happens that granting one request brings on another,
and that is the case now. I have had your last portrait enlarged
and mounted, and I would now beg your Serene Highness to write your
name under it as a souvenir. Of course it can be done in pencil.”
“No,” he said, “in ink.” He rang for the attendant and asked for “a
pen to write my signature,” and then wrote under the photograph: “v.
Bismarck, Berlin, 24 February, 1883.”

I thanked him and said: “It is then arranged, Serene Highness, that
I may come here and address myself to you occasionally when anything
of importance arises, particularly when there would seem to be
anything on foot in which you might wish to have some one near you
in whom you could repose special confidence? And as to the book, I
may send you the proofs in a few months? We shall probably not begin
printing before August.” He agreed to all this, and then said: “Well,
good-bye, Busch. Auf Wiedersehen! Enjoy yourself in Leipzig ‘an der
Pleisse.’” He pronounced these words with a true Saxon accent.

On the 13th of May I came from Leipzig to Berlin, and reported
myself to the Chancellor by letter.... On the 15th Sachse sent me
word that the Chancellor expected me at 3 o’clock. I presented
myself punctually at the time appointed, and had to wait while the
Chancellor had a short interview with Rottenburg.... The latter
referred to Colonel Vogt’s _Grenzboten_ article on Thibaudin, and
mentioned that the Imperial Chancellor had remarked that it was no
business of ours to point out to the French that their army was in
bad hands. Count Rantzau also came across to shake hands with me. The
Chief’s youngest grandchild, Heinrich, some five months old, was also
in the antechamber, and he also gave me his little hand to shake.

I was then with the Prince from 3.5 to 4 P.M. He was in plain
clothes, and sat at his ordinary double writing-table. He did not
look ill, but complained as usual of his neuralgia. He said: “It
now extends over the whole body, the chest and abdomen, and I can
no longer exert myself to think or work for any length of time--two
hours at the outside; then I must give up, or drink champagne or
something of that kind to keep myself going for a while longer. I
ought to get out of harness altogether, but the Emperor will not
consent to this, and even when I go to the country, business and
worry now follow at my heels.” I asked: “Worry with the gentlemen in
Parliament?” “Ah, no,” he replied; “I no longer read their speeches
and brawling. It is the Ministers. Scholz is all right, as also
Bötticher and Maybach, although the latter is somewhat blunt,--but
the others, and particularly those in the Foreign Office!” I said:
“But surely Bucher and Busch are able and diligent.” “That is so,”
he rejoined; “but Bucher is cross-tempered and soured, and Busch is
sinking under his load of work. I was mistaken in Hatzfeldt. He is
very good for negotiating with the King and the Crown Prince, but he
thinks only of his own interest, and would like to be my successor;
but he has no sense of duty and no love of work.” I added: “One or
at most two hours’ work in the day, as formerly--and then to play
a game of croquet or lawn tennis with Mrs. or Madame So-and-so.”
“Yes,” he said, “that’s his way. Like Lucca. _Unser Paulchen ist sehr
faulchen_ (Our little Paul is very lazy). His Excellency Herr von
Keudell also wanted to become Imperial Chancellor one day, and absurd
as the notion was, he worked it through his friends in the press,
who had to praise him up to the skies and represent him as your
intimate adviser. But I always regarded him as quite insignificant
in politics, and in addition to that he could never do any work. He
found a difficulty in managing the most ordinary affairs. I was often
obliged to do things for him, and once at Versailles Taglioni, the
deciphering clerk, finished off no less than thirty documents for him
with which he was in arrears. It is true that he was very clever in
looking after his own interests.”

He: “Yes, and he also knew how to get himself a rich wife, and
to take advantage of the position which he acquired through the
friendship of my wife and his own musical talent. Moreover, he knew
how to impress people with his importance--through his silence. But
there was nothing behind it. He is stupid, empty and incapable. He
was unable even to manage the Pay Department properly.”

I: “On going to Constantinople it is said that he left a deficit of
80,000 thalers.”

The Chief then spoke of Hohenlohe, and appeared to think more highly
of him than he did of Hatzfeldt. He also referred to Radowitz and
afterwards to Radowitz’s father, alleging that the “Jesuitic attitude
of the latter was responsible for Olmütz.” “You know what sort of
a man the late King was,” he continued. “For years, during which
something might have been done, Radowitz kept him occupied with all
sorts of tailoring and ornamental matters, with mediæval questions
of costumes, uniforms and coats of arms. He acted as Keeper of the
Wardrobe to his fancies: whether such and such counts were or were
not received, and the Knights of St. John, and the Wetterau bench of
Counts, and the absurd question whether Saxony and Hanover should
retain the right to appoint envoys,--as if a barber could not have
intrigued successfully against our policy so long as they had the
power. He amused the King with such trifles as these until it was too
late.”

He then came to speak of Lady Bloomfield’s Memoirs, the Tauchnitz
edition of which he brought in from the next room, and asked me to
review it in the _Grenzboten_. He said I should find “the genuine
English arrogance in the lady,” who was “much pleased at the
opposition of the Crown Princess (the present Empress Augusta);
and full of the profoundest aversion to everything Prussian and
German.” In 1866 she “had been anti-Prussian to the backbone,” and
had “libelled our officers as the French did in 1870 with their story
of the clock.” In this connection he referred to the merino goats
which the Prussians were alleged to have driven away with them from
Bohemia. This led him to speak of the Crown Princess and her “English
self-conceit,” whereupon I reminded him of the story of the silver
plate of the English shopkeepers and of the Prussian nobility which
he then repeated to me as before. On my remarking that the Queen, her
mother, was also unfriendly to us Germans, and had always sided with
the Belgian-Coburg clique, &c., he denied that this was the case, and
said that, on the contrary, she had “on the whole been favourable to
us.”

He then continued: “I wish you would some time or other refute
the charge that I have acted inconsistently in the struggle with
the Curia, and that I have changed my opinions and aims in the
ecclesiastical question, and in others. That is the sort of criticism
which can only proceed from some one who has never occupied the
position of a leading Minister. Whoever has held such a post for any
considerable time can never absolutely unalterably maintain and carry
out his original opinions. He finds himself in presence of situations
that are not always the same--of life and growth--in connection
with which he must take one course one day, and then perhaps on the
next another. I could not always run straight ahead like a cannon
ball. (Doubtless a reminiscence of Schiller, ‘Piccolomini,’ I., 4.)
Had I done so I should have knocked my head against a wall. When
the situation changed I was obliged to alter my plans. Such changes
in the situation were, moreover, chiefly due to the fickleness of
parties, and, therefore, if any one is to blame they are. Their
action, on the other hand, was in great part influenced by their
envy. That is the national vice of the Germans. They cannot bear to
see any one hold a high and leading position for any length of time.
One of the most important changes was produced by the formation of
the Catholic party, the founders of which might at the beginning
have been expected to support the Government. Savigny, you know. It,
however, weakened my position. The entire struggle with the Centre
party would have taken another form, and have had a different issue,
if I could have fought it out at the head of the Conservatives.
I had risen from their ranks, but if I was to do justice to the
requirements of the time it was impossible for me to continue in
agreement with them on all points. This, and the long-suppressed
hatred and envy of old comrades of my own class and faith, which very
soon broke out, drove me over to the Liberal side. An understanding
had to be come to with the latter if the Empire was to strike firm
root, and so I was obliged to come to an agreement with the strongest
party, a thing which I had tried in vain to do in 1866, when it
was also desirable. It was particularly necessary in those years
when Germany was threatened with a Triple Alliance like that of
the Kaunitz period. The latest achievement of German diplomacy is
to have prevented the formation of such a coalition against us for
thirteen years. The Government was forced to appear at the head of
the Liberals, at the head of the majority, in order to avert this
coalition. The Conservatives fell away from me on that account.
I would remind you of the Inspection of Schools Bill, and of the
attitude of the _Kreuzzeitung_, and of the libels published in the
_Reichsglocke_. And just as the situation was thus altered at that
time, so it was again changed in 1878, through the defection of the
Liberals. Here, too, it was envy and self-importance, and the desire
to rule. I was no longer supported, or only in a lukewarm fashion.
They were not sorry to see me weakened by the opposition of the
Centre party, so that I should be forced to negotiate with them. The
Progressists combined with the Centre against me. The Secessionists
acted in very much the same way. From this time forward the National
Liberals were silent in the struggle with Rome. They were pleased
at the embarrassments to which it gave rise, and wished to have a
weaker Government in order that they might appear stronger. When
the Government had to strike the Liberals out of its reckoning, it
naturally followed that I had to slacken my opposition to Rome. I
cannot speak any longer now, or the faceache will return.”

He then rose, but continued to speak of his illness for a while as he
walked up and down, describing it as very painful, “like shingles.”
I further asked if I might in a few months send him the proofs of
my book. “What book?” he said. I answered: “That which your Serene
Highness has already twice promised me to read through.” He then
thought for a moment, and promised once more to do so, whereupon I
took my leave, with wishes for his speedy recovery. He said he had no
longer any hope, and only expected to grow worse. (...)

On the 11th of July, after the Chancellor had left Berlin for
Friedrichsruh, Grunow sent him the first sheets of my book, _Unser
Reichskanzler_, to read through before they were sent to press. On
the 16th of July, Count Bill returned me these proofs, with the
following lines:--


                                          “Friedrichsruh, 16/7, 1883.

  “Dear Sir,

    “I enclose the proofs herewith. All that has been struck
out is a passage in a private conversation. It would be better
to omit altogether expressions of a similar character made in
conversations of a confidential nature. (Of course, here and in
what follows it is not the writer, but the Chancellor who speaks.)
Many things may be said that are not suitable for publication; among
these are animadversions upon Imperial institutions, such as the
Constitution, for example.

                                                “With much esteem,

                                                  “Count W. Bismarck.”


The portion struck out appeared in the third sheet, (page 31, in
the first volume of the work as afterwards printed, following the
words “einmal zu Grunde gehen,”) and ran: “Then it will be Bang! and
snap goes the German Constitution. There might be a repetition of
Schwarzenberg’s saying, ‘This arrangement has not stood the test.’”
The Prince has also corrected an oversight (Vol. I., p. 12, line 24),
striking out the syllable “_un_,” where I had written “_unmöglich_”
by mistake--evidence of the care with which he had read it through.

On the 18th of July, Count Bill returned more proofs which were
accompanied with the following letter:--


  “Dear Sir,

    “Although my father cannot act as collaborator but must
confine himself to a more negative part, suggesting to you the
suppression of incorrect or unsuitable passages, he nevertheless
requests you to replace the portion within brackets on page 6, by the
enclosed, as the latter is more in harmony with the facts.

                                                “With much esteem,

                                                  “Count W. Bismarck.”


The enclosure here referred to was dictated to Count Bill, and
appears in the book _Unser Reichskanzler_, Vol. I., pp. 54 and 55.

On the 20th of July further proofs, up to the end of the first
chapter, arrived from Friedrichsruh. These again included alterations
that had been dictated to Count Bill by his father.

When the Prince shortly afterwards proceeded to Kissingen, Grunow
continued to send him the proofs, as he had received no orders to the
contrary. They were not returned, and the printers had therefore to
stop work. I, however, received the following long letter from the
Chancellor, which was written by an amanuensis on official foolscap,
like a State document, the two sheets being tied together with silk
thread in the Imperial colours.


                                      “Kissingen, _August 3rd, 1883_.

  “Dear Sir,

    “You probably have no adequate conception of the state of my health
and of my need of rest or you would doubtless not be the only person
who begrudges me the latter, while the Emperor and the Empire and
all their officials respect it. Possibly you have also no notion of
the difficulties of the work which you expect me to do. On former
occasions of a similar kind I have corrected all errors of fact which
had arisen through mistakes on your part or on that of others. Now,
however, you wish to submit to the public with regard to my way of
thinking and my inner man inferences drawn from observations made
by yourself and others, which in great part are actually incorrect.
(He had then in his hands Chapters II. and III., and a considerable
portion of Chapter IV.) It is, therefore, not surprising that your
conclusions do not correspond with the facts, so that if you were to
publish them I should be forced to controvert and refute them. There
are a number of gross errors of fact, and confusions of jest and
earnest, in the expressions and incidents upon which you base your
view of my supposed way of thinking. You assume that in everything
that I have ever said in your presence for the entertainment of my
guests at table, or in my own home, or in what you have gathered from
the unreliable accounts of third persons, I have invariably given
serious expression to my inmost feelings with the conscientiousness
of a witness giving evidence on oath before a Court.

“In view of the pedantry with which you utilise scattered fragments
of conversation, a man in my position would be obliged never to
depart for a moment from a formal mode of expressing himself or step
down from his official stilts. Everything you say in particular
respecting my attitude towards Christianity and the question of
the Jews is not only monstrously indiscreet, but thoroughly false.
(Everything?) The jokes about my superstition have already appeared
in print, and in so far as there is any truth in them are just mere
jokes or consideration for the feelings of other people. I will make
one of a dinner party of thirteen as often as you like, and am ready
to undertake the most important and delicate business on a Friday.

“At the present moment I am particularly interested in setting public
opinion right as to my share in the Catholic question. What you give
on the subject is incomplete and superficial, and as soon as my
health has improved I should like to supply you with better material.
For that purpose it would be necessary that I should see you
personally as soon as I have finished my cure. If I were to correct
this and other points by correspondence I should have to myself
rewrite your book. But I must be left absolutely in peace for the
duration of my Kissingen cure, and cannot occupy myself editorially
with such difficult and delicate questions as those you touch upon.

“I would suggest to you to recast your book altogether, as in its
present form I do not believe it will be favourably received. The
work is far too lengthy, and, in particular, it contains too much
material published long since by yourself and others. What is new in
it is in part of little interest, while other portions are incorrect,
so that I should be obliged publicly to dispute their accuracy.

“I shall be very pleased to read the further proofs in order to form
an idea of the whole. When I have done that, I can afterwards give
you my opinion in Berlin or Friedrichsruh, but while I remain here I
must decline every description of critical or editorial work.

                                               “(Signed) v. Bismarck.”


In reply to this communication, I excused myself for having sent the
proofs, through my ignorance of his absolute need of rest, and by
recalling the fact that, in 1878, I had been permitted to send him
such proofs to Kissingen and Gastein. The printing was then postponed
for about eight weeks, until the beginning of October. On the 5th
of that month I wrote to Friedrichsruh to ask whether it was now
agreeable to him to receive me for the purpose of the interview which
he had mentioned as desirable in his letter of the 3rd of August.
On the 6th of October Count Herbert wrote that his father would be
glad to see me as soon as he had read the proofs sent to him in the
summer. Owing to his journey and the state of his health he had not
been able to do so up to the present.

The work remained at a standstill for four weeks more. This was
very disagreeable to Grunow, who repeatedly requested me to press
the matter at Friedrichsruh. I declined to do so, as _I_ could
wait. He then wished to write to the Prince himself, describing
his embarrassment. I tried to dissuade him, but as he nevertheless
repeated the suggestion, I told him he might do so at his own risk,
and also gave him a few ideas for his letter. Next day he told me
that he had written. On the 9th of November I received the following
letter from Friedrichsruh:--


                                “Friedrichsruh, _November 8th, 1883_.

  “Dear Sir,

    “The Imperial Chancellor has received a letter dated the 5th
instant from Johannes Grunow, publisher, of Leipzig, in which he
urges despatch in the supervision of the proofs of your work. The
letter contains the following sentence:--

“‘The manuscript was ready and in my hands eight weeks ago, and I
do not know what excuses to make without prejudice to the truth
unless I can communicate to those who are pressing me the real cause
of the delay. This has not been done up to the present, but if the
delay should continue for any length of time it will, to my great
regret, be scarcely possible to avoid it, unless I receive some other
explanation.’

“It is obvious that the Imperial Chancellor cannot continue a
correspondence with a person who even now threatens him with
disclosures. On the contrary, he is disposed to leave this gentleman
to publish your work, if he should think proper so to do, reserving
to himself the right of criticising it afterwards. Before he comes
to any decision on this point, however, he desires to discuss
the matter with you verbally, and requests you to visit him at
Friedrichsruh, bringing with you your copy of the proofs of your work.

“I beg of you to be good enough to let me know shortly beforehand the
day and hour of your arrival.

                            “I am, honoured Sir, with profound esteem,

                                                  “Your most obedient,

                                                         “F. Rantzau.”


I thereupon announced that I should arrive at Friedrichsruh on the
12th of November. I started on the 11th, and, travelling _viâ_
Berlin, reached Friedrichsruh shortly after 12 o’clock on the
following day. I was met at the station by a servant, who accompanied
me to the Prince’s house and showed me to my room. Shortly afterwards
I was called downstairs, where I had a friendly reception from the
Chancellor and his wife. We then took lunch, Rantzau being also
present, and immediately afterwards the Prince went with me into his
study in order to discuss the matter that had brought me hither. He
first gave expression to his indignation at Grunow’s letter, in which
connection I also came in for my share. Among other things which he
said was: “You have turned me into a bookseller’s hack; I am to be
exploited like a Christmas speculation, and harnessed to his cart,
the impudent fellow! He should have known nothing whatever of my
assistance!” I explained to him that I had to inform Grunow owing to
the possibility of a considerable delay in the return of my proofs,
that I had previously mentioned this to him, the Chancellor, and that
he had agreed, and that the same course had been adopted in the case
of the first book. In his excitement he appeared to have overlooked
what I had said, as he went on as follows: “That must remain
between ourselves. I can trust you. You may write to me. But he!
What right has a bookseller got to correspond with me, to warn and
threaten me?” I tried in vain to appease him, endeavouring to show
that the passage quoted by Rantzau when read in connection with the
remainder of the letter was perhaps not a threat, but only a strong
and not particularly felicitous expression of Grunow’s difficulty and
embarrassment. The latter was a man of straightforward character,
who knew how to keep his own counsel, and who was incapable of
wishing to bring pressure of a threatening character to bear upon
the Chancellor, for whom he entertained the highest regard. He then
rang for Rantzau, and asked him to bring Grunow’s letter, which he
handed to me to read. I could not see that it contained anything
more than a cry of distress on the part of the publisher, who had
promised the booksellers that a certain book would appear at a
fixed date, and who feared he could not keep his word nor find any
sufficient excuse to give them. I was as little affected by this
embarrassment as I was by any loss which Grunow might suffer in case
the book was not published at Christmas. I could have waited for a
long time, and even if that were not the case it would never have
occurred to me to press him. He said: “You acted in a perfectly
proper way when the matter was postponed, and I had not expected
anything different from you. But all the same that remains a threat
on his part, and a piece of presumption, and I hesitated whether I
should not decline to have anything further to do with the book, and
afterwards publicly contradict erroneous passages in it. But then I
thought of you, although I altogether object to having books written
about me and to people trading with me and my affairs. Poschinger
has done so, and sold my despatches and letters, forgetting even to
send me any remuneration.” (Sometimes his humour does not desert him
even in his anger.) “Besides, this new book is not so good as the
preceding one. It does not contain much that is new, and what it does
is false. You are not such a good observer as you were; you have
grown older; and you want to divine and picture my inner man from
fragmentary observations, which were mainly misconceptions. You draw
conclusions from occasional utterances which you jotted down under
the table-cloth. According to you I am always in deadly earnest, as
if I were on oath, &c.”

I abstained from urging what could be said on the other side, and
his excitement gradually subsided. Taking some of the proofs he sat
down at his writing-table and invited me to take a place opposite,
in order that I might note down his corrections and additions. He
was rather impatient over it, said my hearing was not so good as
formerly, and complained that I did not take down dictation as
rapidly as his sons, and so on. On this occasion we went through
the greater part of the third chapter, and he had very much less to
object to and alter than I had apprehended from his letter of the
3rd of August. By far the greater part of these pages he turned over
without any remarks. With respect to the others he made observations
that had no reference to the book, as for instance: “Thadden, a
narrow-minded fellow, who has no brains.” After about three-quarters
of an hour he stood up and said: “I must now get some fresh air.”
He strode up and down the room, however, for a while, as before,
and began again to vent his anger at the presumption and threats of
“this bookseller who wanted to harness me to his Christmas cart.”
Ultimately, however, he quieted down, grew more friendly, and showed
me over the apartments, including his bedroom. In one of the first of
these was hung a portrait in oils of a Roman prelate of high rank. In
reply to my inquiry he informed me that it was Cardinal Hohenlohe.

He then went out for a walk or drive, while I proceeded to my
room and wrote out his observations and the corrections which he
had dictated to me. This room, which contains pictures of Grant,
Washington and Hamilton, looks out on the park. After 3 P.M. I paid a
visit to the Head Forester, Lange, with whom I took a drive.

At a quarter-past six I was called to dinner. Among those present,
in addition to the Prince and Princess, were the Rantzaus, Dr.
Schweninger, of Munich, who was in attendance on the Chancellor, and
Herr von Ohlen, another of the doctor’s patients. The Prince, as I
now observed for the first time, suffered from a slight attack of
jaundice. Schweninger (a man of lively temperament, with dark hair
and beard, who seems to be very much at home here) diagnosed the
Prince’s ailment as chronic catarrh of the stomach, and has been
successful in his treatment. (...) While taking our coffee, which
was served in the Princess’s room, the conversation was at first of
little significance. It turned on Becker’s portrait of the Prince
during the Frankfurt period, and on two groups of his male and female
ancestors, who from their costumes would appear to have flourished
in the time between the death of Luther and the Thirty Years’ War,
and on the portrait of his sporting grandfather with the shot-gun,
which was formerly in Berlin, but has now found a place here too. The
conversation gradually grew more lively and interesting; and the
Chancellor, who had remarked in the _tête-à-tête_ with me at midday
that he would henceforth be careful of what he said in my presence,
had probably forgotten his intention. On my stating, among other
things, that the war of 1870 appeared to have had an excellent effect
upon the national feeling in Saxony, he added, “and still more so in
Bavaria. I once said jestingly to Fabrice[10] that we should live to
see order restored in Saxony one day by Bavarian troops.” Speaking
of Court circles in Berlin, he complained: “Whenever I performed on
the political tight-rope they hit me on the shins, and, if I had only
fallen, how delighted they would have been! Particularly the eternal
feminine (das ewig Weibliche).”

It was only after lunch on Tuesday, the 13th, and again before
dinner, that the work with the Prince was resumed, when Chapter II.,
the remainder of Chapter III., and about half of Chapter IV. were
weeded out, the weeds again proving much less abundant than I had
anticipated. He maintained that in the second chapter I made him
out to be a “hypocrite” in religious matters, an idea which he had
no difficulty in entirely disproving, inasmuch as he justified his
belief in God among other things by a reference to facts which could
only be accounted for by the existence of a Deity.

In the second section he began to dictate to me an account of
his attitude towards the Kulturkampf, which he broke off on our
being called to dinner. Before that he again suddenly renewed his
grumbling at Grunow, I, too, coming in for a small share. He was also
displeased with my long full beard. “My wife asked me,” he said, “if
you were older than I. ‘No,’ I said, ‘I thought you were four or five
years younger.’ But she was right. It’s your beard. It should be cut
shorter. As it is it makes you look fearfully ancient.”

On Wednesday, the 14th, the Chief set to work on the proofs with me
after breakfast. At Chapter IV. he exclaimed: “Look here, you must
have a thoroughly wicked heart. You are delighted every time you hear
and can jot down a disagreeable remark about somebody.” I rejoined:
“I cannot trust myself to give any opinion upon my own heart. But one
thing I do know, it has always been devoted to you. I only hate your
enemies.” He afterwards reflected for a moment, looked at the clock,
and said: “I must now go out to receive Giers, who is coming from
Berlin to discuss important matters with me. We shall introduce you
and Schweninger to him as doctors of medicine, for if he ascertained
that Dr. Busch belonged to another variety he would be afraid that he
was being watched and that it would get into the newspapers. By the
way, you have included him among the Jews in your diplomatic chapter,
and that must be struck out. (I had referred to his name, Giers, as a
russified form of Hirsch.) He may be a Jew, although he asserts that
he is the son of a Finnish officer. But we must not write that, as he
is well disposed, desires peace, and does what he can to secure it.
He is quite indispensable to us.”

The Russian Minister arrived between 2 and 3 P.M. The Chancellor
received him at the station, drove with him to the house, and then
conferred with him until nearly 6 o’clock, when Giers dined with us,
the company remaining together over their coffee until about 9 P.M.
Giers is a man of medium height, and would seem to be well advanced
in the fifties. He has somewhat of a stoop as he walks. His features
are of a slightly Jewish cast, a characteristic which is also evident
in his gestures and movements, there being something in the hands in
particular which recalled our Semites. On this occasion he spoke only
in French.

On Thursday, the 15th, I wrote in my diary: Giers went off again
last night about 10 o’clock, and Schweninger and Ohlen left at
noon to-day. I took lunch with the Prince’s family, Count William
being also present. The Prince, who, by the way, now observes
great moderation in diet and drinks only the lightest wines, read
despatches, and gave Rantzau instructions for replying to them. The
subjects were Bulgarian affairs, and the North Sea and Baltic Canal.
I then retired to my room to work, and afterwards made an excursion
to the Aumühl. As I was about to return I saw the Chief coming
towards me in a carriage. When he recognised me he reached out both
hands towards me from a distance, left the carriage, and walked back
with me to the mill. (I therefore fancy that he cannot have been so
very angry with me.) He described to me a pretty pathway through the
woods on the other side of the streamlet, saying: “I know you are
also a lover of lonely country walks.” Yesterday evening over our
coffee, after Giers had left, he also said: “I always feel happiest
in my top-boots, striding through the heart of the forest, where I
hear nothing but the knocking and hammering of the woodpecker, far
away from your civilisation.”

Again at work with the Chancellor from 4 o’clock onwards. He told me
his wife had said: “The doctor may be very clever and amiable, but
all the same you should be on your guard at table when he is present.
He always sits there with his ears cocked, writes everything down,
and then spreads it abroad.” She herself, however, in her simple way,
forgot to keep on her guard to-day. While seated on her right at
dinner my napkin accidentally dropped, and, lo and behold! her Serene
Highness, the lady of the house, bent down for it before I could
prevent her! I felt that I had been fearfully awkward.

On Friday, the 16th, the Chief dictated to me the conclusion of the
long passage respecting his attitude towards the ecclesiastical
struggle. He then gave me, for insertion in the fourth chapter, the
following statement with regard to Bunsen:--“During the Crimean War,
when he was Minister in London, he reported to Berlin that England
offered us Schleswig-Holstein in return for our joining in the war
against Russia, whilst he stated in London that Prussia would join if
she received the Duchies. Both statements were false, and when the
affair became known, he was dismissed. I had something to say in the
matter. The King exclaimed: ‘Why, he has been my friend for twenty
years, and now he acts in this way!’ Old General Rauch observed:
‘Yes, he has also lied and betrayed your Majesty for twenty years.’
‘One cannot allow that to be said of a friend,’ rejoined the King.”
He then proceeded to other matters, and on my asking whether there
was any subject which I could deal with in the press, he at first
replied in the negative, but then said: “Giers found the Emperor very
frail, and perhaps he will not last much longer. Well, when he dies,
I shall go too. He is a gallant old gentleman, who has always meant
well, and whom I must not desert. But I will make no experiments
with the Crown Prince. I am too old and weak for that. Things will
not go on particularly well, and on the whole I am convinced that
what we have built up since 1866 has no stability.” In the course
of his further remarks he mentioned the Crown Princess, “a Liberal
Englishwoman,” “a follower of Gladstone,” and maintained that she
“has more influence upon her consort than is desirable.” He then
spoke once more of his need of repose and a country life, referring
to Berlin in very disparaging terms, and scarcely allowing it even
to be a handsome city. He insisted that owing to the drainage there
was already a bad smell in every house, and that in a short time,
the place would become utterly intolerable. He said in conclusion:
“I have always longed to get away from large cities and the stink
of civilisation. Every time I return I feel that more and more, and
I have earned my leisure.” I remarked that I could fully understand
that feeling, and also his reluctance to serve the coming King, on
account of his opinions; but surely he would not abandon a work which
was so entirely his own, and retire altogether from the political
stage. He would at least take his seat in the Upper Chamber and be
elected to the Reichstag, where he could offer advice and admonition.
He replied: “Yes, but not like the others in perpetual and
uncompromising opposition.” I said, “Then please remember this little
fellow when you want anything done in the press. I shall always be
at your service.” “All right,” he replied, and reached me his hand.
“You can then come to me and arrange my papers. (With a significant
smile.) There is still a great deal of good stuff there.” I begged
leave to remain the following day, as it was such a pleasure to me to
be near him. “Oh, certainly!” he said; “but you must not ask me to
play cards with you or otherwise entertain you.”

I remained over the 17th, made several excursions on foot through
the woods to the east and west, and was present in the evening after
dinner when Lange made his report as to the administration of the
estate. I started for Berlin at noon on the 18th, and returned to
Leipzig on the 19th. There I received in instalments from Rantzau the
bulk of the remaining proofs. The Chief sent two more to Bucher in
Berlin, whence I had to fetch them.

I immediately noted down the following particulars of the
conversation I had with Bucher on this occasion. I praised the
Countess Rantzau as being good-natured and unaffected. “Well,” he
rejoined, “she is cleverer and more prudent than her mother. The
Princess, for instance, is not fortunate in the selection of her
acquaintances. First she had the little hunchback Obernitz. Then
Babette, Meyer was her friend and confidant--an intelligent body,
but.... She was often with her in Berlin and elsewhere, and as the
Princess heard a great deal about political affairs and spoke of them
to others, Babette, while she was with her, certainly overheard many
things and then repeated them to others.... It was afterwards Frau
von Wallenberg’s turn. She was the worst, and she it was who had most
opportunity for eavesdropping and keeping other people informed. You
know that the Prince generally goes through his official papers at
lunch time, and gives instruction to his sons or to Rantzau as to the
answers to be returned. She could hear all that, and take note of
it for Holstein, who has recently developed, owing to his ambition,
into a very dangerous intriguer. He is accustomed to communicate
to Paulchen (Hatzfeldt, the Secretary of State), everything he
ascertains in this and other ways.”

I turned the conversation on Bucher’s share in the negotiations
respecting the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern for the
Spanish throne. He gave me a detailed account of this. The first
time he was in Madrid in connection with that affair was in Easter
and then in June, 1870.[11] He gave the following particulars of
his second journey: “It was a rush hither and thither in zigzag,
accident playing a large part in delaying and hindering as well as
in promoting my purpose. Salazar came to me on the Saturday, and
wanted to have the final decision of the Prince by Monday. I replied
that that would not be possible in such a short time, particularly
as I did not know where the Prince was staying at the moment, and
of course he would have to be consulted first. Nor was it an easy
matter for me to get away at the time. He said he knew the Prince
was in Reichenhall, and added, ‘_Selon ce que vous me dites je
renonce_.’ I replied: ‘I assume that you will write a statement of
what has passed between us, which will find its way into the Spanish
archives; and as they will some day be open to historians, I should
not wish to take this responsibility upon myself. I will travel with
you, first to Madrid, (improbable, but so I heard it,) and then
to the Prince of Hohenzollern.’ He said he would take one of his
liegemen with him, a man who would fling himself out of the window
without hesitation if he told him to do so. A curious condition of
things still prevails there, the obedience of feudal vassals, the
devotion of the age of chivalry. Well, we started for Reichenhall,
travelling first in separate compartments so as to avoid notice in
Paris, and afterwards together, as he did not understand German and
his companion spoke only Spanish. On my making inquiries at the
office of the baths, I found that the director was at a neighbouring
village, and the others could give me no information respecting the
Prince. They believed he was not there. I drove out to the village
they mentioned and found that the director had left. On returning
to Reichenhall I proceeded to the police station. As I was going up
the steps I was met by a rather shabbily-dressed man, who stopped
and said he supposed I wanted to go to the police office, but it was
now closed. He, however, belonged to it, and would go back with me.
I told him I was looking for the Prince of Hohenzollern, to whom I
had a communication to make. He replied that the Prince was here, and
lived at such-and-such a place, but under another name. I therefore
proceeded thither with Salazar, but only found the Princess, who told
us that her consort was now with his father at Sigmaringen. We packed
up once more and made off for Sigmaringen, where we found them, and
they agreed. They could, however, decide nothing without the consent
of the King, who was at Ems. We then started for that place, and were
received by the old gentleman, who was very gracious to me and agreed
to what I submitted to him. I then went to Varzin to report to the
Chief. It was a regular zigzag journey with obstacles.” Bucher added
that he had taken shorthand notes of his conversation with Salazar,
which he “still possessed.” At least, so I understood him.

On the whole the Prince in his collaboration with me struck out a
little over seventeen pages out of a total of nearly 900, while he
contributed some twenty-two pages to the two volumes. The first
edition of 10,000 copies was issued at the end of February 1884,
and by the autumn of 1885, 6,500 copies had been disposed of,
although the Liberal press did its worst to run the book down. An
English translation was published by Macmillan in April, and some
months later arrangements were made for an Italian edition. (This
translation, by Brandi, was only published at Milan in the spring of
1888.)

On the 14th of March, 1884, I again took up my residence in
Berlin; and on the 16th I called upon Bucher, to present him
with a handsomely bound copy of my book, _Unser Reichskanzler_.
He had already got it, however, and had read it through without
coming across any inaccuracies. He made three suggestions for some
supplementary material on the issue of a new edition.

According to Bucher, the Chancellor had returned this time from
Friedrichsruh in excellent condition, had already been twice out
riding in the Thiergarten, and once for a walk there. He had drawn
up a memorandum for the Emperor, showing that the home policy of
Gladstone, the extension of the franchise, must lower the position
of the English aristocracy and with it that of the Crown, which was
of course only its head. The Emperor’s minute said that he was much
struck with this statement, and suggested that it should be laid
before the Crown Prince--a suggestion to which the Chief agreed. In
Bucher’s opinion the Chancellor would on certain conditions consent
to remain in office when the Crown Prince came to the throne, but the
latter would not keep his promises, and then Bismarck would retire.
A further communication of Bucher’s was also interesting, namely,
that the “refutation of the absurd attack of the _National Zeitung_”
(on my account of Gablentz’s mission), which was contained in the
_Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_ was written by the Prince himself.

A few days after this visit to Bucher I wrote to the Imperial
Chancellor, informing him that I was again a resident of Berlin, and
begging him in case there was anything I could do for him in the
press to kindly let me know when I might call upon him to take his
instructions. I received no answer to this letter. My intercourse
with Bucher continued. On the 3rd of July, he sent me a card
informing me of his departure for Laubbach, near Coblenz.

On the 27th of July, I received the following letter which had been
returned owing to an incorrect address and then re-despatched:--


                                       “Kissingen, _June 30th, 1884_.

  “Dear Sir,

    “Rarely has a book excited my interest to such a degree as your
_Unser Reichskanzler_, which I have perused whilst taking the waters
here. As it will have produced a like impression upon others a new
edition will soon be required. I therefore consider it my duty to
call your attention to an error which I have also noticed in the
French and English newspapers. The letter of the Minister President
of the 26th of December, 1865, which was made public entirely against
my will and in consequence of a gross indiscretion which has not
yet been quite cleared up, was not addressed to the clergyman,
Roman von André, but to the _Rittergutsbesitzer_, Andrae-Roman.
In addition to this you will allow me to correct a few of the
following observations, as, for instance, that on page 158. I have
always spoken and written to Prince Bismarck not from a clergyman’s
standpoint, but with the consciousness that in matters of faith our
views were identical, and with a feeling of hearty affection for his
powerful individuality, having fully recognised his greatness long
before he became a public character.

“Allow me to add one further remark. The somewhat cool attitude
adopted by Bismarck towards the clergy as such did not originate in
the conflict with the _Kreuzzeitung_. It existed long before that
date, and was closely connected with a similar attitude towards the
Church, and arises from entirely different causes, which I need not
enter into here. That clergymen, or, indeed, laymen, in signing
‘the Declaration’ made themselves sponsors for any of the vile and
malicious calumnies, which--I regret to say--were at that time heaped
upon the great man, I must dispute until that charge has been proved
in some specific case. I speak only of those Conservatives who hold
the same religious belief as Bismarck. I was pained and surprised to
find for the first time in a letter addressed by the Prince to my
friend von Holtz during the General Synod, that he entertained this
view. I immediately put myself in communication with a considerable
number of my co-signatories to the declaration who were present in
Berlin at that time, and _all_ those with whom I spoke on the subject
agreed with me that the public declaration by Bismarck (I have
neither this nor the text of the declaration itself with me at the
present moment)--his declaration, namely, that ‘after the unfortunate
articles in question no _respectable_ person _could_ continue to read
the _Kreuzzeitung_,’ was the sole cause of the counter-declaration,
that we considered ourselves to be respectable persons, although we
continued to read the _Kreuzzeitung_. It does not contain a word of
approval of any ‘vile and malicious calumnies.’ I have never read
nor approved of the _Reichsglocke_. The statements respecting the
death of my relative, Herr von Wedemeyer, are also very hazardous,
and would be difficult to prove. It was at that time decided to send
to the Prince a joint statement, which was to be drawn up by me. At
the desire, however, of a person closely connected with the Prince
this decision was altered, and it was arranged that each should
write separately to him in the sense indicated above. This was done
in a great number of cases. There are, however, different kinds of
Conservatives. The most reliable, if not always the most pliant,
those who hold the same religious belief as the Prince, have always
been and will ever remain on his side.

                                      “With the most profound respect,

                                                    “A. Andrae-Roman.”


On the 23rd September I called upon Bucher, who had undergone a
course of massage and hygienic gymnastics at Laubbach, and had been
back in Berlin for about five weeks. He again complained of the
“shocking way in which business was conducted in the Foreign Office”;
and in particular of Hatzfeldt and Holstein. For a long time past
he had given up saluting the latter. He would “like best of all
to leave the place, if that were only possible.” He praised Count
Herbert as “very diligent and not unskilful,” and was of opinion
that the Prince intended to make him Secretary of State at some
future time. Münster, “who is more English than German, and does
very little,” having allowed some question to hang fire, the Chief
sent Herbert to London, where he at once took it into his own hands,
pressed it through, and finally settled it satisfactorily. “Another
person placed in the position of the Ambassador would have resigned
in such circumstances.” I suggested: “Angra Pequena, and the long
delay in answering the Chancellor’s inquiries?” Bucher replied in the
affirmative. He then said: “It will not be pleasant to work under the
young man, but work will be done, and things will not be allowed
to drag on in such a slow and slovenly way. Herbert has also a good
memory, and has been a great deal with his father. He was often
present at interviews with important personages, at which matters
of great moment were discussed that do not appear in the official
documents, and in that way he has had splendid opportunities for
learning.” Bucher agreed with me regarding the meeting at Skiernevice
as a “spectacle intended to show Europe the good understanding which
exists between the three Emperors.” He added, however, that “the
relations between Austria and Russia leave much to be desired in many
respects.” He furthermore confirmed the fact that the Chief, “in view
of the cool and repellent attitude of Gladstone, has for a long time
past been working towards a better understanding with France, and not
without success.” After speaking of the Balkan Peninsula, and hinting
at an understanding respecting it, Bucher said he had a mind to
write something on the despatch of an English Commission to Sarakhs
for the purpose of settling the question of the frontier between
Afghanistan and Russia, but he had not yet been able to collect the
geographical materials. These remarks showed that he had been busy
with this question recently. I offered to publish something of the
kind in the _Grenzboten_, and he promised the necessary materials
from the library of the Foreign Office, and in particular the account
of O’Donovan’s travels. He saw the Prince (who has now returned
to Friedrichsruh) a short time ago; he thinks that the journey to
Skiernevice has done him good, as he is much less stout, feels
thoroughly well and also works hard.

Bucher called at my house at 8.45 A.M. on the following morning with
a collection of newspaper extracts on various subjects for my use.
I had, however, gone out. On my returning the bundle of papers given
to me on the 28th of September he gave me some further particulars
of the way in which Herbert had dealt with the English. On Lord
Granville asking him in the course of the negotiations respecting
Angra Pequena whether we were not contemplating an ultimate expansion
of territory towards the interior (Query, towards the East, in the
direction of Bechuanaland and the Boer Republic), he retorted, not
over politely, that that was “a question of mere curiosity,” and
indeed finally, “a matter that does not concern you.” The Chief
showed him the letter in which that was reported, and was pleased
with his son’s sturdiness. The English have now so far yielded in
the matter that the Ministry has not confirmed the resolution of the
Cape Government to annex the country around Angra Pequena. “Münster,”
he said, “must leave London, but I doubt whether there is any truth
in the report that Herbert has been selected as his successor.”
He afterwards said: “When the Germans, a short time before the
conclusion of the Preliminary Peace at Versailles, sank some English
coal ships on the Lower Seine and the English made a row on the
subject, the Chief asked me, ‘What can we say in reply?’ Well, I
had brought with me some old fogies on the Law of Nations and such
matters. I hunted up what the old writers called the _jus angariæ_,
that is to say, the right to destroy the property of neutrals on
payment of full compensation, and showed it to the Chief. He sent
me with it to Russell, who allowed himself to be convinced by this
‘good authority.’ Shortly afterwards the whole affair with the _jus
angariæ_ appeared in _The Times_. We wrote in the same sense to
London, and the matter was settled. A short time ago, when I had to
look up something in the documents of the war period, I found that
the two papers which I had written in this matter were gone. They had
been removed by our mutual friend Abeken through jealousy of me.”
I reminded him of O’Donovan’s work, but he said that just now the
_Grenzboten_ article would be premature. In this connection he gave
me a short survey of the relations of the English and the Russians in
Afghanistan, which showed that he was fully informed on that subject.
I finally suggested that I should now give a description in the
_Grenzboten_ of the scandalous treatment of Ireland by England, based
upon Lecky’s book, which he promised to get for me from the Foreign
Office library, but which I already had. I wrote the article which
appeared shortly afterwards.

The Prince having returned from Friedrichsruh, I wrote to him (on the
27th of October), requesting him, in case he wished anything said in
the press respecting the Brunswick question or any other topic of
the day, to let me know when I might have the honour of receiving
information as to his intentions in the matter.

This letter also remained unanswered. It would therefore appear that
the Chancellor will have no further intercourse with me, having
apparently taken offence at something or other. His will be done! And
so we bring the diary to a close.


                           SUPPLEMENTARY.

Bucher frequently mentioned to me that South African affairs were
also of importance to us. On my expressing my readiness to deal with
the subject in the _Grenzboten_, he promised me material for the
purpose, and twice I reminded him of his promise.

On the 3rd of November, 1884, he wrote me: “I cannot yet spare the
documents on South Africa, as they may be required for use any
day. You will doubtless have noticed this from the articles in the
_Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_. Besides, this is not the right
moment. You must first know what the Boers have to say in reply to
the accusations of the English.

“In the meantime another article would be desirable in No. 47 on
the debate in _The Times_ of the 1st instant. I have done some of
the preparatory work for you in this matter, and send you herewith
for perusal a bundle of papers in which you will find a variety of
material. The subject of Protection in England must, it is true, be
dealt with very cautiously, as it is in our interest that England
should maintain her present tariff, and we must bear that in mind.

“It is absurd to believe that the tariff question is governed by
any absolute principle which applies to all peoples and all times.
Every nation must know or must learn from experience what is best
for itself. We therefore do not dream of teaching the English,
although they are so generously anxious to teach us, and although
the change from the system of natural forces (by which, since 1815,
the preceding generation of Prussian statesmen raised the country
to prosperity) to the free-trade doctrines that have been accepted
by the official world and the majority of the legislative bodies
since 1850, must be ascribed in great part to English writers, and
German journalists paid by England. Now of the complaints that are
being raised in England, one has an obvious application to the
condition of affairs in Germany, namely, that which relates to
foreign competition in agricultural produce and cattle breeding. Then
you can deal with the arguments of the other side that a return to
Protection is impossible in England, recognising at the same time
that there are sound reasons for this contention. Conclusion: we also
can suggest no remedy; probably this extraordinary state of affairs
must be a consequence of the peculiar development of England--on the
Continent the Thirty Years’ War, the Spanish War of Succession and
the Napoleonic Wars (1870 was also a ‘wonderful year for England’
in consequence of our war). The peoples of the Continent rend each
other to pieces in wars and revolutions. England, which, with the
exception of the unimportant French landing in Ireland, has seen no
enemy on her soil since 1066, is ‘making money’ and helping herself
to the best colonies. If, as there is every reason to believe, we are
now on the eve of a long era of peace in Europe, those conditions
will no longer exist under which the wealth of England has, as
Gladstone says, increased by leaps and bounds.” I wrote this article
immediately, on the lines laid down by Bucher, and basing it on his
material. It appeared in No. 47 of the _Grenzboten_.

On the 16th of November Bucher again sent me material for an attack
upon England. This I worked up into an article entitled “England and
the Cholera,” which was published in No. 49 of the _Grenzboten_.
This article argued that England had destroyed hand weaving in the
East Indies by its customs legislation of 1817, thus depriving large
numbers of people of their livelihood. This, together with the bad
harvests, resulted in famine, which in turn weakened the population
and made it less capable of resisting the cholera which arose through
malaria, heat and overcrowding at the places of pilgrimage, and which
accordingly assumed an epidemic form! England was also responsible
for the extension of the scourge to West Africa and Europe, as, in
order not to disturb her trade and shipping, she exercised no proper
supervision.

On the 24th of November I again called upon Bucher to remind him
of the promised documents from the Foreign Office respecting the
struggle between the English and the Boers. He said that just now in
particular it was impossible to spare them, or at least those of a
later date than 1879, as the Chief and Hatzfeldt might want them for
reference any day. He would, however, send me the earlier papers,
though he really ought not to let any of them leave his hands. He is
of opinion that England is afraid of a war with the Dutch element in
South Africa, and that Warren would certainly not be able to recruit
his volunteers except among the English settlers there. He then said:
“Just keep a sharp look-out on the news from Afghanistan. Something
will happen there soon.” I said: “I suppose the English expedition
which left Quetta to take part in the settlement of the frontier
has arrived?” He replied: “No, it has only got as far as Herat. But
General Lumsden, who has gone by way of Teheran, is already on the
frontier, and has discovered that an important point, Puli Khatun
(the women’s bridge--the men ride through the stream beside it) a
place as to which a decision had yet to be arrived at, was already
in the possession of the Russians. The _Daily News_, the organ of
the Government, is surprised at this, and complains of the action
of the Russians. The Chief will probably have something on the
subject written for the _Grenzboten_. Of course it cannot go into the
_Norddeutsche_.”

I then asked if there was any truth in the report that Busch, who, by
the way, is married to a Jewess, would shortly leave and be given a
Legation. Bucher replied in the affirmative.

I: “Herbert will then be his successor?”

He: “Yes, certainly.”

I: “In that case Hatzfeldt’s position will be rather shaky.”

He: “Certainly, he will then be superfluous, and that is doubtless
the Chief’s intention. Herbert will then read through the despatches
with him at breakfast, and the Chief will explain what is to be done
with them, so that Herbert will bring everything ready prepared for
us to deal with.”

On the 28th of November Bucher’s servant brought me three thick
bundles of Foreign Office documents on the Transvaal question. I made
extracts from these, and returned them to him personally five days
later. They consisted of English blue books, and of despatches from
Münster, Count Herbert Bismarck, Alvensleben at the Hague, and the
German Consul in Cape Town. They extended over the periods from the
16th July, 1881, to the 31st of March, 1882; from the 1st of April,
1882, to November of the same year; and from December, 1882, to the
15th of March, 1884. These I worked up into three articles, under the
title of “England and the Boers,” which appeared in the first three
numbers of the _Grenzboten_ for the year 1885. These were followed
immediately afterwards by an article on “Santa Lucia Bay,” in No.
4, which concluded with a statement by Bucher; and one on “England
and Russia in Asia,” which was also suggested by him, and for which
he had sent me extracts from the English newspapers, together with
O’Donovan’s book on Merv. The latter article appeared in No. 6 of
the _Grenzboten_. Together with the documents there was also a very
violent appeal (in English, and printed on red paper) to the nations
of Europe to help the Boers, on which Bucher had written, “You may
keep this.”

(Here follow some letters exchanged between Dr. Busch and Herr
A. Andrae-Roman, which led to the interview of the 18th of
February.--The Translator.)

On the morning of the 18th of February I called upon Andrae, who was
staying with Knak, the pastor of the Bohemian Lutheran community, at
his residence, No. 29 Wilhelmstrasse. He introduced the pastor to
me as his son-in-law. My visit lasted from 8.45 to 10 A.M. Andrae
is a tall stately man, with a white full beard, apparently well on
in the sixties. From his accent a Hanoverian, he himself said that
he came from East Friesland. He first repeated that, owing to the
unfortunate experience he had had he must be cautious in what he
said, and that he doubted whether we could understand each other,
as from my book I appeared to have a different religious standpoint
to his. With regard to the first point, he referred to Bismarck’s
letter to him, published by Hesekiel, of which he said: “I really
do not know how it came to be published. I read and showed it to
some intimate friends, but I never allowed it to go out of my own
hands. But it impresses itself strongly on the memory, so that a
Schleswig-Holstein ecclesiastic of high rank actually knew it by
heart. It was moreover printed, not in the first place by Hesekiel,
but by a democratic newspaper.” He likewise referred to Diest-Daber,
who also went very thoroughly into things, and immediately noted down
everything he ascertained; describing him as “clever and in reality
honourable.” He had attacked Bismarck owing to a communication from
Moritz von Blankenburg, which was based upon a misunderstanding. I
endeavoured to dissipate Andrae’s mistrust, observing that anything
he might now tell me on the subject in question was not intended
for immediate use in the press, and should not be published at all
without his permission, at least certainly not before Bismarck’s
death. I was only collecting for history, which would ultimately
claim its rights. As to the difference of our religious views, I told
him that I had studied theology, and had adopted theosophical ideas,
and in this connection mentioned Jacob Böhmen. Andrae was intimately
acquainted with Bismarck many years ago, had visited him at
Frankfurt-on-the-Main, and afterwards on several occasions in Berlin.
He added: “Indeed I may go so far as to say that I was for a long
time on terms of close friendship with him. Formerly he listened with
pleasure and with great patience to the views of others. Of course
whether he was guided by them was a different matter. Probably that
is now no longer the case, which would be natural enough with one who
has achieved such great things--and at the same time has had so much
good fortune.” He then went on to speak with the greatest admiration
of Bismarck’s extraordinary political genius, was convinced that he
was a “sincere Christian,” and assured me that he “made no secret of
the fact even as long since as the Frankfurt period. But then, and
even before that time, he showed coolness towards the clergy and the
Church.”

I: “I beg your pardon, but how do you mean that? What do you
understand by the Church? The entire Christian community, the
faithful, the community of saints; or the institution with certain
observances and means of salvation, sacraments, public forms of
divine service, sermons, &c.?”

He replied that the latter conception was what he had in mind. He
then continued: “It is an old story with him, and connected with
the manner of his conversion. At that time the clergy in Pomerania
were not what they are at the present day. The majority of them were
Rationalists, and when the change took place it did not originate
with them, but with a few laymen, like Below, (not Below-Hohendorf,
as I interrupted him to suggest,) Senfft-Pilsach, and Thadden. They
came forward to a certain extent as preachers, and as the clergy held
and preached rationalistic views, often in opposition to them--in
sectarian opposition. Blankenburg, and Bismarck’s father-in-law
in Reinfeld, an excellent old gentleman, were also of the number.
Their views somewhat approached those of Gichtel. Others inclined
to the old Lutheran doctrines. (Therefore not to those of the
Moravian Brethren, as I had supposed.) Bismarck came under their
influence and joined them. Hence his coolness towards the clergy and
the Church. (Gichtel’s ‘Gott in uns,’ and Bismarck’s ‘Nicht durch
Predigermund sich erbauen’--‘Seek not edification from the mouth of
the preacher.’) It was not due to the clerical signatures at foot of
the Declaration.”

He then went on to say that Bismarck misunderstood “the Declaration.”
According to him, Holtz wrote to the Prince that he regretted
having had a hand in it. Bismarck was greatly pleased at this,
and wrote Holtz a long letter expressing his satisfaction.
Andrae disapproved of the step taken by his friend Holtz, “as an
individual demonstration,” and suggested that the signers of “the
Declaration” should send a joint explanation of its real meaning
to the Chancellor, and reject the false construction put upon it,
namely, that they wished to express their approval of the articles in
the _Kreuzzeitung_. They wanted to adopt this course, but Bismarck
informed them, through Limburg Stirum, that he did not wish them to
do so, and would prefer that they should write to him separately. In
that way the idea of a collective explanation was dropped. Andrae is
of opinion that the intercourse between Moritz von Blankenburg and
the Prince still continues, although they only see each other on rare
occasions. “There was never an absolute breach between them, as their
wives continued to meet as they still do.”

We then spoke about the Kulturkampf, and Andrae expressed his
surprise that Bismarck should have entered upon it, as he must have
known that a struggle with a spiritual power had no prospect of
success. His action was doubtless determined by the creation of the
Centre party. I defended him on the lines of the statement dictated
to me at Friedrichsruh.

The conversation then turned upon the relations between the Chief
and the Emperor. Andrae said of the latter: “His merit lies in the
creation of the new army, and in the fact that he recognised the
right men and held firmly to them.” He added the following anecdote:
“A Minister who could no longer endure his position by the side of
Bismarck tendered his resignation to the Emperor. The latter urged
him to remain. ‘We must all learn to be patient,’ he said. The
Minister nevertheless resigned. The Emperor, on the other hand, did
not part with Bismarck, considering it his duty to retain him.” I
observed: “It was a case of necessity; it would have been impossible
to get on without him.” Andrae replied: “Yes, but the Emperor’s merit
was in recognising that fact.”

Andrae then talked a great deal about Hanover, saying that the
clergy there “were willing to yield obedience to the authorities
who had power over them.” He proceeded: “Before the war of 1866,
we, the Conservatives, were divided into two parties--Gerlach and
Marquart, and, on the other hand, those who considered a war with
Austria inevitable. Ultimately an effort was made to bring about
an understanding, and we invited Gerlach to attend a meeting,
accompanied by a few others of his way of thinking, in order that
he should not be alone. He agreed and came, when he made the
following prophecy: ‘There are only two possible results: either we
are defeated, and then it is all over with us, and there will be a
partition of Prussia; or we are victorious, and then we must have a
Liberal _régime_, as that is the only way in which, unification of
Germany under Prussia can be brought about.’ And so it has come to
pass. Bismarck demanded an indemnity, and then for many years worked
in harmony with the Liberals, so far as that was possible.”

As I was leaving Andrae promised to give me further information later
on in case I asked for it. “But not in writing. I frequently come to
Berlin, and shall be glad to meet you again.”

I continued in regular communication with Bucher during the year
1885. I visited him on New Year’s Day; called at his house on the
11th of February to return O’Donovan’s _Oasis of Merv_, but could
not see him, as he lay ill in bed; a few days later we had a short
talk on the Lucia Bay question; and again on the 25th of February I
had a long conversation with him at his lodgings. At first we spoke
about the Chief, whose health, he said, was now thoroughly restored.
He was “quite young and rosy,” and was “working fearfully hard.”
The conversation then turned on Hatzfeldt, who “got sick with fear
at the thought that he might have to take part in the West African
Conference, and that the Chief might appoint him to represent the
Foreign Office in the Reichstag, and so took a holiday.... There is
really nothing the matter with him, but he has managed to obtain
a long leave of absence. As Herbert is now there, it is a question
whether he will return any more. And we shall not miss him, either.
Business will be done as well, or better, in his absence. He would
certainly have been removed from his post as Secretary of State
before this if they only knew where to put him.” I said: “Keudell is
probably not disposed to give up his sinecure in Rome to him.” Bucher
replied: “Keudell really takes things too easy. We thought he would
send in a report on the Italian expedition to the Red Sea, and he,
in fact, promised one. But what was it when it came? A description
of the ball recently given by him, how he danced a quadrille with
the Queen, how the knights of the Order of the Annunziata danced
_vis-à-vis_ to him, and other fine and important matters of the kind,
all in the fullest detail. The Princess is to blame for this. The
other members of the family, including the Chief, have long since
been convinced of his incapacity. At the beginning, during the first
few months, I myself thought there was something in him. He played
the part of the mysterious, reticent thinker, occasionally speaking
very well, and with far-reaching and brilliant ideas. But one soon
recognised that they were not his own, but were borrowed from the
Chief.”

The inhuman pair of us then rejoiced at England’s misfortunes in the
Soudan, and I expressed a hope that Wolseley’s head would soon arrive
in Cairo, nicely pickled and packed. This led the conversation to
Central Asia. Bucher was of opinion that although the Russians would
not now occupy Herat, they would take up such a position that at
the next opportunity they could annex it as they had done Merv. He
then referred to the intention of the English to disband the native
contingents of the Indian Princes, amounting in all to 300,000 men
and 1,200 field guns, and to the “demonstrative review of the Rajah
of Scinde.” I then mentioned the rising of the blacks at Kitteh
against their English friends, and he said: “They are threatened by a
conflict with the French in Burmah.” In reply to my question: “Have
we given up South Africa, or is the Lucia Bay affair still open?” he
said that the matter was still under consideration. (...)

At 1.30 P.M. on the 30th of March a Chancery attendant brought me the
following pencil note from Bucher:--


“His Highness would like to have an article which appeared in the
_Daily Telegraph_ of the 15th of January (or a few days earlier)
dealing with the question of the different aspect things would assume
if an English Princess were Empress of Germany. Perhaps you have this
number?

                                                          “Yours, Bʀ.”


Unfortunately I had not kept the number, as I told Bucher in a note
which I sent back by the same messenger. This doubtless explains the
Chief’s recent speech in answer to Richter’s allusion to the dynastic
connection between England and ourselves.

On the morning of the 19th of April paid Bucher another visit. He
wished me to draw a comparison between the bellicose attitude of
_The Times_, and that which it observed previous to the outbreak of
the Crimean War, particulars of which were to be found in Kinglake’s
_Invasion of the Crimea_, Vol. III., p. 31. He believes that it is
now inspired by Lord Dufferin. There can be no question of war, as
England has not the necessary means at present, and Russia has for
the moment no idea of seizing Herat, or even the mountain line
beyond it. In the Afghan campaign of 1839 the English required
for a force of 38,000 men no less than 100,000 camp followers and
innumerable pack animals. Nothing of this kind is now ready. It was
said that 20,000 men passed in review before Abdurrahman and Lord
Dufferin at Rawal Pindi, but in reality they had only 11,000 men
there altogether. The commissariat department was badly managed.
Graham’s troops at Suakim had only one pair of boots each, and when
an Irish regiment knelt down at mass one could see that the soles
were all torn and were patched with pieces of the tin cans which
had contained their preserved meats. The soldiers they have at home
are for the most part too young to be employed in the tropics. The
English would require four months to get from Quetta to Herat. The
Russians could reach it much sooner. The ideas as to the prospects
of the two parties which Münster had been hoaxed into believing were
mere nonsense. Bucher put all these facts together for the Prince,
who submitted them to the Emperor in the shape of a direct report.
“The Crown Prince’s people,” said Bucher, “are very cross and very
angry with the Chief because he will not act as mediator in St.
Petersburg and help England out of her embarrassment, and because
he opposes her schemes at Constantinople. The English have offered
the Turks the occupation of Egypt in return for permission to pass
through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. The Sultan was, however,
informed from Berlin and Vienna that we too had a word to say in the
matter, and our officers in Stamboul would take care that the passage
was stopped by torpedoes.”

On the 20th, Bucher sent me the third volume of Kinglake’s book, and
I wrote the article desired by him, which appeared in No. 18 of
_Grenzboten_, under the title “Prospects of Peace and _The Times_.”

On the 22nd of April I called upon Secretary of State von Thile,
whom I had met on the way home a few nights before, when I announced
my visit. He was very friendly and communicative, and we conversed
together from 11 to 1 o’clock. (...)

Thile gave me the following particulars of the agreement with Russia
in 1863: “Bismarck risked a great deal thereby. We might have got
ourselves into a war with France, who would have begun by attacking
us. Napoleon was furious, because he had heard nothing beforehand.
Goltz wrote that he might be pacified if the treaty were communicated
to him. This was done. Bismarck sent the treaty to Goltz, with
instructions to read it to the Emperor alone. Even the Ministers were
to know nothing of it. Napoleon was astounded at its contents, and
exclaimed, ‘Why, this is worse than I had anticipated!’ It had no
further consequences however.”

On Sunday, the 31st of May, I found in the _Daily Telegraph_ of the
29th a leading article on the Emperor’s indisposition, in which the
alteration in the policy of Prussia which would result from the
approaching change in the occupation of the throne was regarded as
full of hope for England. It was asserted among other things that
Prince Bismarck would no longer exercise the influence which he now
did upon the Sovereign. I immediately called upon Bucher with the
paper, which I handed to him in order that he might communicate the
article to the Chief. He cast a glance at the principal passages
underlined by me, and promised to cut out the article and send it to
the Chancellor without delay, mentioning at the same time that I had
brought it. He would doubtless deal with it in some way--probably
get me to write an article on the subject in the _Grenzboten_. But he
was going to leave Berlin on Tuesday (the 2nd of June). Bucher went
on to say that it would really seem as if the Emperor were not at all
well just now. I asked him what was the meaning of Lord Rosebery’s
visit. He replied: “It is in the main as the newspapers represent
it. He has been instructed to find out what the Chief’s views are on
various questions. No negotiations have taken place. I was invited
by the Prince to dine with them one day, and the conversation turned
on indifferent matters, such as dogs, &c. Rosebery said nothing on
the main question, namely, Afghanistan. It was the Chief who first
turned the conversation on to it.” I suggested: “But the present
understanding will doubtless be merely provisional?” He: “I believe
the matter will come up again in about five years, when the railways
are finished. The Russians expect to have the line from Kisil-Arwat
to Askabad ready by 1886, and it will then be carried on to Merv and
to the Oxus in the direction of Samarcand. The English are building
their line from the Indus to Candahar, by a détour _viâ_ Pishin, and
not through the Bolan Pass, which is the shortest route, but where
it would run for twelve (German) miles through defiles which the
natives would be able to block by simply rolling rocks down. But on
the Pishin route also they will meet with great difficulties, and
will not be ready for a long time.... Rosebery’s visit was brought
about by Herbert, who, by the way, has not shown particular skill in
the recent African negotiations. He can be very offensive at times,
which is useful, but he has not sufficiently mastered these colonial
questions. He does not understand, for instance, that colonies
require a coast if they are to prosper, and so he made concessions
which we are now trying to alter. He allows himself to be won over
too easily. Rosebery had been particularly successful in that, and
has quite mesmerised him.”

Speaking of the Emperor once more, he said: “His death will be a bad
thing for us. Rottenburg believes that the Chief will not retain
office under the new Emperor, and in that case it is not impossible
that Keudell may become Chancellor. He is in high favour at the Crown
Prince’s. They stay with him in Rome, and people believe him far more
capable than he really is. He has provided for that in the press; as,
for instance, through Meding, at considerable cost to his own or the
Embassy funds.” (...)

At 12 o’clock (I had called on Bucher with the _Daily Telegraph_
article at 9 A.M.) a servant from the Chancellor’s palace came to
my lodgings to inquire whether I could call upon the Prince at 3
o’clock. At a quarter past 3 I was shown into the Chancellor’s study,
and did not leave until ten minutes past 4.

He was dressed in black with a military stock, and, as usual, sat
at his writing-table. He first quieted Tiras, who sprang out and
wanted to fly at me, shook hands with his accustomed friendliness,
and after I had taken a seat opposite him, asked me how I was,
observing: “You still look exactly the same, not a bit changed.”
He mentioned that during the time he had not seen me he had been
overloaded with work. “Even to-day I have been sitting here since
8 o’clock in the morning,” he continued; “and it is the same from
week’s end to week’s end. The only break is at lunch time, and,
as you know, I also work then, reading despatches and telegrams
and giving instructions, &c. I must do almost everything myself.
Hatzfeldt is an excellent ambassador, and he is also very good here
at receiving the diplomatists,--clever and intelligent, but ailing
and incapable of serious continuous work, impatient of routine, and
in addition to that he is frivolous and has a poor memory. Busch is
no longer of any use either, and must get out of harness. Bojanowski
is ruined, and his Councillors are intriguing against him. My son
is not yet sufficiently trained, and has much to learn.” I said:
“But Busch was an excellent worker and knew the business!” “Yes,” he
replied, “but that is no longer the case. The clock will no longer
work. Latterly he has been constantly unwell.... Herbert is getting
on very well in many things, but he must yet, as the French say,
_faire ses caravanes_, or, as it is better expressed in English, ‘sow
his wild oats.’ _Faire ses caravanes_, you know, originally meant to
join one of the campaigns against the infidels, in which one had to
take part before becoming a knight of Malta. It therefore signifies
to get through one’s blundering as a beginner and to grow wise by
experience.”

He then took up the _Daily Telegraph_ article which Bucher had pasted
on a sheet of paper and enclosed in a letter, which also lay on the
table. He said: “You have sent me this. I thank you for it.”

I: “I thought it would interest you, particularly one passage, as
Bucher asked me a few weeks ago for a leader of the same kind for
you, as he knows I receive the paper. I had not kept that number, but
I afterwards came across it elsewhere, and the article was translated
for the Emperor. I therefore thought you would be glad to see this
one immediately.”

He: “Yes, and it is of interest. But it would hardly do to write
anything against or upon it just now. It would have to be done very
cautiously, and at the present moment in particular it would not
look at all well. The old gentleman is in a very critical state, and
you know it seems to me almost like the case of a woman whose husband
is dangerously ill, and who talks to people about what she will do
afterwards; or, more correctly, as if my wife were dying and I were
to say how I should act after her death, and whether I should marry
again or not. We must wait until the hour has come for a decision
to be taken. It appears that the Crown Prince wishes to retain me,
but I must carefully consider whether I ought to remain with him.
There are many arguments against it, and many also in favour of it;
but at present I am more disposed to go and have no share in his
experiments. But I might look at it as Götz von Berlichingen did
when he joined the peasants--it will not be so bad; and if I remain
many things can be prevented or rendered less harmful. But what
if I were then not to have a free hand?--to have colleagues like
Forckenbeck and George Bunsen, and ceaseless worries with them; while
latterly the old gentleman allowed me to do what I thought proper,
and even to select Ministers and replace them by others? Besides,
there is the co-regency of the Crown Princess, who influences and
completely governs him. Yet what will the result be if I leave them
to themselves? The entire position of the Empire depends upon the
confidence which I have acquired abroad. In France, for instance,
where their attitude is based exclusively upon the faith they place
in my word. The King of the Belgians said recently that a written and
signed contract would do less to put his mind at ease than a verbal
assurance from me that such and such a course would be followed. It
is the same with Russia, where the Emperor trusts entirely to me.
I still remember at the Danzig meeting how he conversed with me for
a long time in his cabin and listened to my opinion. The Emperor
(William) was not over pleased at his taking no notice of the parade
and the various celebrations; but he left us alone all the same. And
the Empress--the Danish Princess--said to me: ‘Our whole confidence
rests upon you. We know that you tell the plain truth, and perform
what you promise.’... Of course I could retire and see how they
got on without me, and then when they called me back after their
experiment had failed, I could bring things back into the old course.
It would then have been proved that affairs could not be conducted
in that way. He doubtless would not venture upon such experiments if
he had not got me in reserve. It was just the same with the new era
when the King gave Liberalism a trial, because he had me to turn to
eventually. But I am an old man, over seventy, and for twenty-nine
years I have exhausted my strength in the service of the State, and
can no longer do what I once did. I can no longer accompany the King
wherever he goes--on journeys, shooting parties and to watering
places. I can no longer ride to manœuvres and parades, so as to
prevent his being alone with others, and to take immediate measures
against the intrigues and influence of opponents. If I were to
persist in that sort of work my illness would return, and I should
soon be dead.”

He drew out from among the books on his right a letter from Dr.
Schweninger, who had written to him that he had escaped a dangerous
illness through regular diet and the greatest possible abstinence
from mental exertion; but that if a recurrence of it were to be
averted he must continue to follow the same course. He then said:
“The Crown Princess is an Englishwoman. That is always the case
with us. When our Princesses marry abroad they doff the Prussian,
and identify themselves with their new country,--as for example the
Queen of Bavaria, who ultimately went so far as to become a Catholic;
and the lady in Darmstadt (it is obvious that this was a slip of
the tongue, and that he meant Karlsruhe), as well as the consort of
the Emperor Nicholas. Here, however, they bring their nationality
with them, and retain it, preserving their foreign interests....
Our policy must not necessarily be anti-English, but if it were to
be English it might prove to be very much against our interest, as
we have always to reckon with the Continental Powers.” He further
observed that the Crown Prince would be influenced in his liking for
England by consideration for Queen Victoria, and (here he mimicked
the act of counting money) her generosity. He has but a slight
knowledge of State affairs, and little interest in them, and he
lacks courage. I reminded the Chief that he, too, had had to infuse
courage into his father on the railway journey from Jueterbogk to
Berlin during the period of conflict. He then related that incident
once more, and added: “He said that I should first come to the
scaffold--at that time I was called the Prussian Strafford; but I
replied: ‘What finer death could a man have than to die for his King
and his right?’”

He then came to speak of the Emperor’s illness, for which--as he
asserted--“the women were to blame, with their desire to give
themselves importance. He was already ill, hoarse, when they talked
him over into driving with them to church. And then the Grand
Duchess wants to play the loving daughter before people, and so she
accompanies him when he, like every one who works a great deal, would
prefer to drive out alone; and at the same time she argues with him,
even when the wind is in their faces, so that he catches cold if
he answers her. It was only his daughter’s persuasion that induced
him to go to Hatzfeldt’s dinner. He ought not to have done that.
(Probably according to Lauer’s opinion.) As he sits at work, Augusta
sticks her head into the room and asks in a caressing voice, ‘Do I
disturb you?’ When he, always gallant in his treatment of ladies,
and particularly of Princesses, replies ‘No,’ she comes in and pours
out all sorts of insignificant gossip to him, and scarcely has she
at last gone away than she is back again knocking at the door with
her, ‘I am again disturbing you’; and so she again wastes his time
chattering. Now that he is ill--you know what his complaint is--she
is a real embarrassment and plague to him. She sits there with him,
and when he wants to be left alone he does not venture to tell her,
so that in the end he gets quite red from pain and restraint; and
she notices it. That is not love, however, but pure play-acting,
conventional care and affection. There is nothing natural about
her--everything is artificial, inwardly as well as outwardly.”

The conversation then turned upon Brunswick, and I said: “Surely we
shall soon have that now? It will shortly be Prussian?” He replied in
the negative, saying: “It must remain independent, because without
the two votes of the Duchy the Federal Council would no longer be of
the slightest importance--Prussia would always have a safe majority.
The Brunswickers, too, are anxious to retain their independence. In
order to maintain the present balance of voting power in the Federal
Council, I have always rejected the overtures of the small fry such
as Waldeck, &c., that wanted to be absorbed in Prussia. Things can be
managed as they are, and we must give the larger States no reason to
mistrust us. _Their_ confidence also is part of my policy, and during
recent years they have always trusted me.”

He was silent for a while and looked at me. I rose to go, and thanked
him for this day’s invitation and the confidence in me which it
manifested, adding that I was all the more pleased as I had been
under the impression that he had been angry with me for my last book,
and that I should not see him again. He clapped me on the shoulder
in a friendly way and said: “No, Büschchen, everything remains as of
old between us two. It is true that you contributed to my illness
with your book, as it gave me a great deal of work.” I replied that
nothing of the kind should occur again, and gave him my hand upon it.

On Tuesday, the 2nd of June, I went to Bucher to tell him that I had
been with the Chief, and to read him my notes of the interview. He
already knew that I had been called to see him. In connection with
what I told him respecting the Chancellor’s resignation or retention
of office under the future Sovereign, he said: “He has also given
the French to understand ... that possibly the next Emperor may not
continue his policy, so that in future it would be well for them in
Egyptian affairs to keep their demands and actions within such limits
as they thought they could, if left to themselves alone, assert and
maintain against the English.” (...)

Bucher smiled at the apprehension which I now expressed that the
Chief had been offended at my book. That, he said, was a mistake.
With regard to the Prince’s remark that it had given him a great
deal of work (he doubtless alluded chiefly to the revising of the
proofs) Bucher observed: “Yes, I have had a good deal to write on the
subject to Reuss, for Andrassy complained of various passages. But
what he imagined he had read was not in the book at all; he had read
it superficially, and we convinced him of that fact.” Finally Bucher
thanked me for the account of my interview with the Chancellor, which
he described as very interesting.

During the first half of June I made an excursion on foot from
Dresden to North Bohemia, to Lausitz, then back to Dresden, and from
there to Moritzburg and Meissen, in order to finally rid myself of a
determination of blood to the head which had seriously troubled me
all the winter. After my return to Berlin, I called upon Bucher on
the 16th June to ask him, in the first place, what attitude should
be adopted in the press towards the new Ministry in England. I
observed that Gladstone had defended English interests although in
an unskilful and feeble way, and that Salisbury would not suit our
purposes any better, indeed, perhaps less, because they would be
more energetic. He replied that Salisbury is blunt in manner, as he
had himself experienced when he was in Berlin. He might, however,
for the moment be more welcome to the Chief than Gladstone, who
had been seeking a _rapprochement_ with Russia in favour of which
there seemed to be a party in that country. Salisbury, on the other
hand, had spoken too strongly against Russia to leave much prospect
of an understanding at the present time between the Tories and
St. Petersburg. True, one could not say what might happen in this
respect later on, and the new English Ministry would also seek an
understanding with France.

He then mentioned Count Herbert’s second mission to London, which
had not turned out so well as the first one respecting Angra Pequena
and the Fiji Islands, in which he had taken up a very strong
position with good results. The second mission should have appeared,
as far as the public was concerned, merely a visit to Rosebery,
with whom Herbert stayed. Its object, however, was to negotiate
respecting Lucia Bay and the Benue district; and Herbert, who was not
sufficiently well acquainted with the maps, &c., conceded too much to
Rosebery, who was very sharp, so that the result was disadvantageous
to us. We lost Lucia Bay. The English Minister argued that they could
not abandon it to us, as it was impossible to allow the Cape Colony
to be hemmed in on both sides. On the Benue, however, they have
annexed a large piece of land, well situated for their purposes.

Bucher then complained of the “gross ineptitude” displayed by
Gerhard Rohlfs in his mission to Zanzibar. “He got it,” he said,
“through the ‘paidocracy,’ as Busch calls it,--through the influence
of the Chancellor’s sons upon their father, and he has spoilt
everything. Contrary to the regulations, which require an examination
to be passed first, he was appointed Consul-General without any
examination, although he is not particularly well informed.... The
trap had been very cleverly prepared for Sultan Burgasch. He has a
sister who is married to a German, a Hamburg merchant named Reute,
and lives now in Germany. Burgasch had robbed her of her inheritance,
and this was to be the starting point of the scheme. She was to go
out to Zanzibar and press her claim, and an accident might possibly
occur to the lady,--her brother might have her strangled. In the
meantime Rohlfs was also to go out, quite quietly, by way of the Red
Sea, and not on board a man-of-war. He, however, induced the Chief
to let him travel _viâ_ London and the Cape; and at Cape Town he
talked imprudently about his mission and position to some officers
of Warren’s expedition (to Bechuanaland), so that the English got
wind of the matter, and were able to take their measures accordingly
(this was under Gladstone’s Government, through their Consul, Kirk).
And in Zanzibar itself he committed one blunder after another. When
this came to the knowledge of the Chief he said in his own family
circle that he would recall him. Paul Lindau, who constantly haunts
the Chancellerie, got it into the newspapers, whereupon a _démenti_
was issued. Later on, however, the Prince returned to his former
intention, as Rohlfs proved quite useless.”... Bucher further related
that Herbert had “provided himself with a deputy Under-Secretary of
State in the person of Darenthall, who was to act for himself when he
was absent. Darenthall is an admirer of Keudell, with whom he spent
nine years in Rome, where there is nothing to do, as everything is
sent there ready prepared. He cannot have gained much experience of
the world there, while others sent to various posts became acquainted
with different countries and conditions of life. He did not, however,
turn out badly as Consul-General in Egypt. When he comes to the
office I shall take a long leave of absence in order not to lose the
last trace of my self-respect.... Bill, who will shortly get married
and who is going to Hanau, has also picked out a successor, von
Rheinbaben. It is true that he belongs to the old nobility, but he is
quite incapable,”--a statement in support of which Bucher produced
sundry evidence. Finally we rejoiced that the Emperor was quite well
again, and Bucher added: “Yes, and in very good humour, as may be
seen from the remarks which he makes on the matters submitted to
him.” (...)

On the 16th of October Bucher called at my lodgings to inform me
that on Hatzfeldt’s departure as Ambassador for London, Herbert
Bismarck is to be appointed Secretary of State, and that the latter
has selected Holstein as Under-Secretary. The Chief had some one
else in view, apparently Berghen, but Herbert would probably be able
to carry out his views with regard to Holstein. He had already made
up the differences between the latter and the Princess. In these
circumstances he, Bucher, meant to retire. He had already asked
the Prince on several occasions to arrange for his retirement on
the score of ill-health. Although the Chief had, through Herbert,
declined to do this, and only granted him a six months’ leave of
absence, he would probably on the conclusion of that period renew his
request. He intends to leave on the 1st of November, and to spend his
holiday on the Lake of Geneva. On parting he said: “Adieu! I must now
return to the treadmill.”




                           CHAPTER III

THE CHANCELLOR ON BULGARIA AND SERVIA, AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA, THE
    BATTENBERGER AND THE TSAR--HIS VIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF THE
    RUSSIAN BALTIC PROVINCES--A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH PARTIES
    AND OUR OWN--GERMANY AND ENGLAND IN AFRICA--THE CHANCELLOR
    ON THE MILITARY QUESTION, AND THE THREATENED CONFLICT IN THE
    REICHSTAG--WHAT HE SAID THERE WAS ADDRESSED TO RUSSIA--THE
    TSAR’S CONFIDENCE IN THE CHANCELLOR--THE CROWN PRINCE AND HIS
    CONSORT--BISMARCK AND HIS WORK--WHAT IS GREATNESS?--THE CHIEF
    ON HIS OWN DEATH--INTERVIEW WITH THE CHIEF ON THE MARRIAGE OF
    THE BATTENBERGER, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE “GRENZBOTEN” ARTICLE,
    “FOREIGN INFLUENCES IN THE EMPIRE”--BEWARE OF THE PRESS LAWS--NOT
    TOO VENOMOUS--A SURVEY OF BRITISH POLICY--THE CATALOGUE OF
    ENGLAND’S SINS--TWO EMPRESSES AGAINST THE CHANCELLOR--QUEEN
    VICTORIA AT CHARLOTTENBURG--DEATH OF THE ‘INCUBUS.’


At 11 A.M., on the morning of the 5th of January, 1886, I handed
in at the Imperial Chancellor’s residence in the Wilhelmstrasse a
letter offering, as usual, my services and requesting an interview.
Having received a favourable reply, I was at the palace punctually
at 3 P.M., and was at once shown in to the Prince. He shook hands
saying: “How do you do, Büschlein?” I sat down at the writing-table
opposite to him. On my remarking that he looked exceptionally well,
he complained of the continuance of his faceache, which did not arise
from a bad tooth, as I had supposed, and for which Schweninger could
do nothing. His cure had only prevented him from getting stouter and
relieved his biliousness. He then said: “There is nothing going on in
politics just now.”

I: “One sees that from the newspapers. You take care that they shall
have nothing of importance to write about. You have again preserved
the peace for us.”

He: “In Bulgaria, where the Austrian policy was inconceivably bad.
It was as if they had no agents whatever there, no one to observe
and report. They were of opinion that the Rumelian business was
instigated by the Russians and in their interest, and so they thought
‘If you let your Bulgarians loose we will march out our Servians.’
They obviously promised the latter more than they could perform,
and when the war went against Milan made enemies of both sides.
Khevenhüller acted too roughly. He threatened the Prince that if he
did not call a halt within twenty-four hours the Austrians would
march against him. And the Servians were also obliged to stop and
their action crippled. Now the Bulgarians complain, ‘If you had
not crossed our path we should be in Belgrade by this time,’ and
the Servians, on the other hand, assert that if they had not been
ordered to keep the peace they would have renewed the struggle with
fresh forces, and wiped out their defeat. The policy which they
are carrying on in Vienna is that of the father confessor and the
banker. The Länderbank, which advanced the Servians the money for the
war, is acting like the Caisse d’Escompte in Paris, and exercises
similar influence. It is as if Cohn, the banker at Dresden, wanted to
influence our policy. They ought to know in Vienna that the events
in Rumelia are the result of English wire-pulling, and that it is
England who supports the Prince. He has been on bad terms with the
Emperor Alexander for years past. He is a man of intelligence, but
false and untrustworthy, and that is known in St. Petersburg. At the
present moment the Battenberger is the main hindrance in the way of a
satisfactory settlement of the Bulgarian question. The Emperor does
not trust him even after his recent praise of the Russian officers.
Order must be re-established from the outside, through an occupation
by foreign troops--but who is to supply them? It would not do for the
Russians to undertake the job, and just as little for the Austrians.”

I: “Might I ask what is your opinion of the character of the Emperor
Alexander?”

He: “He is better than his reputation in our newspapers, more
sensible, a simpler nature, and above all more honourable. Quite
different to his father, more manly, and neither imaginative
nor sentimental. He is a respectable father of a family, has no
_liaisons_ and makes no debts. Having nothing to conceal, it is not
necessary for him to trouble his head with vain imaginings and tricky
deceptions. But he is subject to ecclesiastical influences.”

I: “Pobedonoszeff?”

He: “Yes, and others.” He then related: “He was in Copenhagen during
the complications with the English respecting Afghanistan, and Giers
telegraphed to him repeatedly begging him to return. He remained,
however, saying, ‘Giers has his hands full (hat die Hosen voll) but
he must see for himself how he is going to put the matter straight.’”

I: “He has been described to me as stupid, exceedingly stupid; but
that was from a Baltic source.”

He: “In a general way that is saying too much, but of course
allowance must be made for the inhabitants of the Baltic Provinces.
Poor people! But we cannot help them. History furnishes many
instances in which Divine Providence has permitted such nobler
communities and peoples to be swallowed up by a larger but less noble
nation. In this case it is unwise on the part of the Government,
and it does more harm to Russia than to us, when they allow such a
breeding establishment for good generals, like Todtleben, and for
capable diplomatists as they possess in the nobility of the Baltic
Provinces to be ruined. They have in view the unity of the Empire and
not without reason, as is shown in the case of the Poles, but that
they should carry it so far and go to work in such a crude way, and
in particular that they should incite the populace against the upper
classes! I have often wondered why more of them do not sell out and
emigrate. But this oppression is more damaging to the Russians than
to us, and, moreover, the Baltic Germans never formed part of the
German Empire, although they have always been closely associated with
the popular life of Germany.”

I asked: “Might I inquire on what footing your Serene Highness now
stands with the Crown Prince? You have recently been dining with
him.”

He: “Oh, quite satisfactory, and for several months past, as also
with _her_. When the Emperor seemed to be drawing near his latter
end, he approached me, as he saw that the time was at hand when he
must plunge into the water and swim on his own account. Ever since we
have been on good terms. He wishes to retain me, and when he commands
as King I must remain, although I am ill and require rest--but we
must come to an understanding first. The main point for him is to get
some one to conduct the foreign policy. Domestic affairs would go on
all right under Bötticher, who manages them quite well, except that
he is rather too vehement, so that water must sometimes be poured
into his wine.” He then spoke against the “collegial system”[12] and
in favour of a homogeneous administration.

I mentioned the Emperor and the jubilee of his reign, observing
that a good text for a sermon on that occasion would be found in
Ecclesiasticus, where it is said “The work praiseth the master, and
his hands do honour to a wise prince”; and in particular the further
passage “the prosperity of a ruler resteth with God; he giveth him a
worthy Chancellor;” and again, “A wise servant shall be ministered
unto by his master, and a master that hath understanding murmureth
not thereat.” (I had already directed attention to these passages[13]
in the _Grenzboten_ of the 31st of December of the previous year.) He
smiled; after remarking that the Emperor had acted conscientiously
in State affairs and knew how to subordinate his _amour propre_ to
the interests of the country, he said: “He always gave me to a great
extent a free hand, although he had been accustomed previously to
command, while his brother, on the other hand, could never have got
on with any independent Minister.”

I then referred to the Irish crisis and the English parties,
observing that there one saw plainly what Parliamentarism resulted
in, and whither it led a State. Our Liberals would have had a similar
experience in Posen and in Polish affairs generally, but, happily,
they had not the same influence here as they have in England. He
said: “Parliamentarism only works where there are merely two rival
parties that come to power alternately, and where the members of the
Legislature are well off and unselfish, and do not find it necessary
to struggle for their personal advancement. I am no advocate of
absolutism. Parliamentarism is good even here, as a veto upon the
resolutions of unwise Governments and bad monarchs--for purposes of
criticism. In England, up to the present, there have been two great
parties, whose principles have latterly not differed very widely, and
both desired the welfare of the country and nothing for themselves.
They were the representatives of a few hundred families who were
well enough off not to want more, and who could therefore study
exclusively the welfare of the whole community--a remark which at
bottom also applies to Kings, who should be under no necessity to
think of their own interests. The Irish are now coming in as a third
party, together with the Radicals, who are still more dangerous.
It is worse here in Germany. We have eight or ten parties and the
leaders are place hunters, who want to improve their own positions
and become Ministers, and who also put themselves at the service of
the capitalists--not without a consideration.”

He then spoke about the Kulturkampf, and mentioned that the Pope was
now thoroughly well disposed. I said: “Of course you have done him
a great pleasure in asking for his mediation in the difference with
Spain, and given him an importance for which he has every reason to
be grateful.” He smiled and said: “Well, he has invested me with his
highest Order, and has at the same time written me a very flattering
letter.” We then spoke of other Orders and I asked him how many he
had now. In 1872 he had, I believed, already sixty-four.

He: “There can hardly have been so many. Since then, however, the
Siamese and other Asiatics have added theirs.”

I: “Japan was also included with the two great razors, the case
containing the swords with which you were raised to the rank of
Daimio.”

He: “Even the Emperor of China has made me a present, a great
elephant tusk with carved figures, flowers, houses and birds, all
so deeply cut out that you almost see through the carving. It is
believed that the carving took eight years. You ought to have a
look at it some time. It stands in the corner on the black chimney
piece in the second room upstairs, near the large _salon_.” He rang
the bell and instructed the servant to show me upstairs when I was
leaving.

“Why have we not been able to secure the Santa Lucia Bay?” I asked.
“Ah!” he replied, “it is not so valuable as it seemed to be at first.
People who were pursuing their own interests on the spot represented
it to be of greater importance than it really was. And then the Boers
were not disposed to take any proper action in the matter. The bay
would have been valuable to us if the distance from the Transvaal
were not so great. And the English attached so much importance to it
that they declared it was impossible for them to give it up, and they
ultimately conceded a great deal to us in New Guinea and Zanzibar.
In colonial matters we must not take too much in hand at a time, and
we already have enough for a beginning. We must now hold rather with
the English, while, as you know, we were formerly more on the French
side. But, as the last elections in France show, every one of any
importance there had to make a show of hostility to us.”

I inquired as to the spirit monopoly, and he replied: “They will
scarcely pass it, but we shall introduce it. They will look upon
us as people who have evil intentions against the country, and in
particular against themselves, their rights and powers, and who must,
therefore, be kept in check and taught to entertain proper respect
towards the representatives of the people, to which category, of
course, we do not belong. But after all we are only fulfilling the
duties of our office, part of which is to promote the interests of
the State to the best of our ability.”

On my saying, “Well, Münster is now in Paris,” he observed: “A change
has taken place in him. He is now less phlegmatic, more diligent, and
sends fuller reports, which, moreover, have something in them.” (...)

“Bucher is also away,” I observed, “on a long leave of absence, for
the present.”

He: “Yes, because he has begged me, I should say ten times, to allow
him to retire on account of his health. I have at length given
him leave for six months on full pay. He was an excellent book of
reference for all occasions, as his good memory had enabled him to
read and collect a great deal of information. In addition to that he
is a good and worthy man”--a statement in which I heartily concurred.

By this time it was nearly 4 o’clock, and on his pausing for a moment
I rose to go. Before leaving I begged him to let me know when he
thought I could be of any active use in the press, and he promised
to do this. The servant then showed me upstairs through the large
_salon_ (in which a Christmas tree was still standing, as well as
a table covered with presents), and from this into a room opening
on the garden. Here were large full length portraits in oils of the
Emperor William, in ermine robes, and the Emperors of Austria and
Russia, an oil painting of the proclamation of the German Empire at
Versailles (at that time only the frame, the picture having been
removed to be varnished), and on the black chimney piece the Chinese
elephant tusk, almost two metres in length. In another room I saw
an excellent new portrait of the Chancellor (painted by Angeli,
according to the servant), and, leaning against a sofa, a half length
portrait of Pope Leo XIII., by Lenbach. (...)

_May 29th._--I called on Bucher ... who told me he had received the
Emperor’s order placing him on the retired list, together with the
instructions of the Imperial Chancellor, by which it was accompanied.
In conclusion the Chancellor thanked him for his long service, and
added “hearty” good wishes for his future....

We remained good friends, and Bucher frequently joined Hehn and
myself at our Wednesday evening meetings at Trarbach’s. I visited him
repeatedly in the autumn and winter of 1886 and in January, 1887,
on his return from the visit to Stirum. On the 13th of January I
took him the payment for an article which he had written for the
_Grenzboten_ and which was published in No. 41 of that paper, on “Two
Diminishers of the Realm.” (These were Gladstone and Windthorst,
the comparison having been drawn at the suggestion of Bismarck.)
On this occasion Bucher told me that he prepared the draft of the
Constitution of the North German Confederation. At that time (after
the return from Nikolsburg in the autumn of 1866) Bismarck lay
seriously ill at Putbus. Savigny, who as Secretary of State should
have attended to the matter, took Keudell into his counsels and they
thought the thing could be done by introducing a few alterations
into the old Constitution of the German Bund. Bucher had to draft
the preamble for it. On his return he was summoned to the Chief, who
declared Savigny’s performance to be worthless, and dictated to him,
Bucher, with the assistance of “a little book,” probably Pölitz’s
work on the various Constitutions, the main lines of a Constitution
for the new Federal State, which he then wrote out with the help of
a clerk, and--when the latter was unable to write any longer--in his
own hand. He began work in the afternoon and went on with it all
night through and until next morning. After the Chief had made a few
alterations he immediately had twelve copies of the Constitution
written out in the Foreign Office. Bucher also gave me some
particulars of Keudell’s stupidity. When he was going to Rome the
Chief, for his personal information, explained to him his views about
Italy, saying that we should not tolerate a move towards France.
Keudell thought he should mention this to Visconti-Venosta, and did
so. The Chief disapproved, and instructed him to take the first
opportunity of stating to the Italian Minister that what he had said
was merely the expression of his personal views. He has, however,
omitted to report whether he had carried out these instructions.

On the 15th I wrote to the Prince asking for an appointment, and in
accordance with the reply, called at the palace in the Wilhelmstrasse
on the 27th of January, 1887. While I was waiting, first Rottenburg
and then three little Rantzaus with their nurserymaid passed through
the antechamber. (...) At 2.15 P.M. Theiss called me in to the
Prince. He came towards me, reached out his hand and asked how I was.
I replied: “Well, and as one sees from the newspapers it is the same
with yourself.”

He: “Not during the last few days. I have an oppression and pains
here (he passed his hand over his chest), I fancy something like
inflammation of the lungs”--a statement which was open to grave
doubt, as he looked quite healthy and rosy.

When Tiras had been driven away and I had taken a seat opposite him
at the writing-table, he asked: “Now then, what have you been doing
in the press recently?”

I replied: “A variety of things in the _Grenzboten_ on the situation.
But you yourself have said the last word on the subject in the
Reichstag, fully and convincingly--for sensible people. But I fear it
will not last long. The stupid people will not die out in the land,
and no sooner have you enlightened them, than somebody will take
pains to put the light out again. The clerical press continues to
pile up misrepresentations and lies, and the large and small sheets
of the Progressist party do the same to the best of their ability;
while the judicial luminaries of the provinces help to stir up
discontent.”

He: “Yes, and all the pettifogging attorneys. I fancy, too, from the
credulity of the public there is little improvement to be hoped for
from the new elections.”

I: “It is a pity that the representatives of the people, as they call
themselves--the representatives of the cliques--were not excluded
by the Constitution from all interference in military and foreign
affairs. It should only have been allowed in exceptional cases, and
on the special invitation of the Government. Such a provision had
been unfortunately omitted from the North German Constitution.”
He said that was not quite the case, but it was true that at that
time mistakes had been made, as he was ill at the beginning, and
the “Ministry of War,” which was jealous of the “Military Cabinet,”
introduced various unpractical provisions. He then explained to
me the present legal position, much as he had already done in
the Reichstag, reading and commenting upon the paragraphs in the
Constitution which affected this question, beginning with § 60. He
concluded with the words: “Things may again develop into a conflict,
if the three Powers which have equal authority cannot come to an
understanding in the hour of danger. Our first and greatest necessity
is a strong and steadfast army, as that secures our external freedom,
our existence, our possessions against the foes that threaten us
from without. Of course we could defend these without the present
Constitution, and could certainly do so more successfully without
a Reichstag like the last one, which was much less an expression
of our unity than of our divisions and Particularism and which was
little else than a hindrance in the defence of our most important
interests. I could immediately secure the sanction of the Emperor to
a change in this respect, and that of the Federal Governments also.
But that must wait yet awhile--until we see how these and perhaps
the next elections turn out. If no better Reichstag is elected, when
the compromise, _i.e._, the septennate, has run out, the first thing
will be to put into force the provision which allows the Emperor
to call out contingents proportionate to the population, the only
restriction arising from financial considerations. He has always
the right to raise as many soldiers as he considers necessary, and
of course the expense thus incurred must be voted.--But what I
wanted to say to you is this. I have used reassuring language in the
Reichstag with regard to the present attitude of Russia towards us.
But many considerations had to be passed over in silence to which
it would not have served my purpose to give utterance, but which
may be indicated in the press--cautiously. There, I was speaking
not only to the members of the Reichstag and the German public,
but also to foreign countries, and to a particular quarter where I
wished to let it be seen that I trusted to their insight, good will
and love of peace, and where such confidence is appreciated--the
Emperor Alexander--especially when it comes from a quarter in which
he himself may and really does repose unlimited confidence. That is
quite true. The Emperor and Giers now anticipate no danger for Russia
from Germany, and consequently do not think of attacking us; and so
far as the immediate future is concerned they will in all probability
not adopt a hostile attitude towards us, if things remain as they now
are in Germany and Russia. At the same time a change may occur in the
situation. There is, in addition to the Emperor, a kind of public
opinion, parties that must be reckoned with even now, and which in
a war between Germany and France would exercise all the greater
influence on the decisions of the Crown, in that their views and
demands would appear to coincide with the real interests of Russia.
There you have the pan-Slavists, with their hatred of the Germans
and their leaning towards France. And then there are the Poles and
the Liberal Russians, who desire a war with us in the hope that it
would result in the defeat of Russia and secure their ultimate aim,
namely, independence for the Poles and a Constitution for the others.
In case of a conflict between Germany and France, these parties would
exert a stronger pressure in exalted regions than they have ever been
able to do up to the present, through their newspapers, and their
allies in the army, in the Ministries, and in Court circles. Even
the possibility of their efforts ultimately affecting the judgment
and love of peace prevailing there--as did actually occur under
the late Emperor, before the last Russo-Turkish war--would force
us to send an army of observation of at least 100,000 men to our
eastern frontier to watch the 200,000 soldiers stationed by Russia
in her western provinces, thus considerably weakening our available
forces against France. Moreover, supposing that, in spite of this,
we were victorious, public opinion in St. Petersburg and Moscow,
and ultimately the Government under its pressure, would scarcely
suffer us to turn our victory to sufficiently good account in order
to thoroughly weaken France for the next thirty or forty years,
as that would be a strengthening of the German Empire which might
arouse serious apprehension in Russia. Finally, it may be regarded as
well-nigh certain that while we were engaged in the west the Russians
would attack Austria, as her armaments, even more than ours, require
strengthening--a duty which she has hitherto with culpable levity
neglected--and in the long run we should doubtless be obliged to
come to her assistance. Of course I could not say all that, and even
in the press it must be very cautiously dealt with.”

I observed: “I do not know whether I am right, but I fear a war with
Russia less from any apprehension of defeat, than because, in case
of victory, I do not see what we could take to compensate us for the
great sacrifices incurred.”

He: “Certainly, and for the great number of troops we should lose.
That keeps me from a war with France also. In that case, too, it is a
question of ‘Was kannst Du, armer Teufel, geben?’ (Thou, poor devil,
what canst thou give?)”

I: “In the long run the milliards were also no blessing, at least not
for our manufacturers, as they led to over-production. It was merely
the bankers who benefited, and of these only the big ones.” From
this we came to speak of the Stock Exchange and the present fall of
prices, whereupon he remarked: “Bleichröder told me recently that he
too has mobilised his forces, and at the right moment, some time ago.”

I mentioned having read in the _Boersenzeitung_ that, according to
a small South German newspaper, the Emperor had been much incensed
at the rejection of the Army Bill, and had spoken in the presence
of Bismarck and the Crown Prince of a step which, if carried into
effect, would have aroused the deepest regret. People thought that
this referred to his abdication. But who could have circulated
and made public the account of such an incident? He said: “The
only element of truth in the story is that he was very angry with
the Opposition. There was no question of abdicating. But he might
very well be induced to agree to a step which would put an end
to all the difficulties that the Reichstag can raise in military
matters.” He then spoke once more of the Opposition parties, and
their mendacity and fictions; as that he (Bismarck) wants to abolish
or to restrict universal suffrage, and with the assistance of an
accommodating Parliament, to introduce tobacco and spirit monopolies,
and what not besides, even to the revival of serfdom. “That is
only credited by the stupid voters. They themselves, Richter and
his apostles, do not for a moment imagine that anything of the
kind is intended. It is a mere electioneering dodge of a gross and
audacious description, according to Goethe’s recipe: ‘_Willst Du
sie betrügen, so mach es nur nicht fein_.’ And it is the same with
that lying rascal Windthorst, and his priestly followers. At one
moment liberty is threatened, and then the Church, and all this
merely to hide the fact that he will not let the Empire have peace,
and wants to pave the way for the return of the Guelphs to Hanover.
The whole crowd are hypocrites, and wear masks, and in all this
Parliamentary mummery I am the only one who shows his face. They are
Particularists one and all, in spite of their professions. The German
Liberals are Particularists for their party, and the others are
territorial Particularists. They are all striving for disintegration
and dissolution. But when all is said and done, a Prussian King of
to-day can, if they don’t want him, renounce the Empire and exist for
himself alone.”

I asked: “How do you stand with the old gentleman at present?”

He: “With the Pope? Excellently, and in this question, too. He also
trusts me and has reason to believe in my fair play. I told him I was
prepared to go still further, meaning that I should even be pleased
to see a Papal Nuncio in Berlin. But the King will not have it. He
thinks in that case he would have to become a Catholic in his old
age. The Ministers are also against it, but without reason. I am not
afraid of it. On the contrary, things would go better. At present,
Windthorst is the Nuncio, the Father of Lies. We know now exactly
how he carries on with Rome. We have letters of his in our hands.
A real Nuncio could not lie in that fashion to us and to the Pope,
who is well disposed and reasonable. He would be an ecclesiastical
diplomatist, whose aims would be purely ecclesiastical, and who
would not wish to lose credit with the Government and render himself
impossible. He would have to carry out the instructions of his
superiors in Rome--not at Gmunden--and those instructions would
be imbued with a peace-loving spirit and would be favourable to
the maintenance of the Empire--as may now be seen from the desire
expressed by the Pope that the Centre party should vote for the Army
Bill.”

I: “What I was really thinking of was the Emperor and your relations
to him.”

He: “I have also been on the best of terms with him for a long time
past. Apart from the question of the Nunciature we are in perfect
agreement upon all points. The Crown Prince, too, is at present
everything I could wish him to be, _she_ is likewise thoroughly well
disposed towards me.”

I: “Mr. Gladstone’s admirer? Why, that is most satisfactory.”

He: “They are now quite reasonable. They have no intention of
introducing any change when the old gentleman goes, and they have
repeatedly told me so. They are still afraid that I may not remain.
And really I often wish it were otherwise, as I would rather go and
spend my last days at Friedrichsruh, as a mere spectator.”

I: “And have Dr. Busch to arrange your papers, as your Serene
Highness suggested three years ago.”

He: “Yes, that too. But I must remain as long as a Prussian King
wants my services and wishes to retain me.”

I: “And after all you would not like to desert your work and let it
fall into the hands of people like Virchow and Forckenbeck. You once
spoke to me about Götz von Berlichingen and Metzler, the ringleader
of the peasants.”

He: “That by remaining I could at least prevent the worst from
happening. Such an eventuality is no longer to be apprehended.
People deceive themselves greatly if they imagine there will be
any considerable difference under the new King. But my position is
difficult enough now that I no longer have the strength to work
continuously at all manner of things, although there is always so
much to be done. All the Ministers come to consult me upon subjects
which, properly speaking, do not concern me, and make me responsible
for them. That is the case even with the Ministry of the Household,
where Schleinitz, the lazy fellow, neglected everything, and Stolberg
is often away. But one must do his duty. As to what you say about my
work, it looks great, but after all it is of the earth and transient.
Besides, what is the meaning of ‘great?’ Germany is great, but the
earth is greater, and how small the earth is in comparison with the
solar system, to say nothing of the whole universe. And how long will
it last?”

I: “Hegel maintained that the earth was the sole planet with
intellectual life, thought and history.”

He: “Yes, because it was upon the earth he philosophised. Certainly
there are worlds where things of much greater importance are thought
and done. But that is the way of these professors (he mentioned
Virchow, Du Bois Reymond, and then asked what was the name of the
third natural philosopher--I suggested ‘Helmholtz’), they speak as
if they knew everything; while they undoubtedly know a great deal in
their own science, even there they are ignorant of the real root of
things, to say nothing of other matters. They go as far as the cell,
but what causes the cell?”

I: “I picture the world to myself as a point, that may be termed the
first cause of God, which then extends itself to a ball, filling the
void.”

He: “And yet permits it to exist for ever.” I rose to take leave. He
gave me his hand and said: “I am glad to see you look so well and
not in the least changed. And such a lot of hair still. Let me see.”
I bent down in order that he might see the crown of my head, and he
said: “Yes, it’s your own. I thought you wore a wig. But the beard
is growing white. You should get it cut off and have your moustache
dyed. Then you would be quite young.”

The most important part of this interview, which finished at 3
o’clock, was worked up into the article, “War Clouds in the West,”
which appeared in No. 6 of the _Grenzboten_, and was forwarded to the
Prince.

_March 25th._--For about a week past various newspapers have
published a statement to the effect that Keudell has tendered his
resignation on the ground that the alliance between Germany and Italy
which was concluded a short time since was not drawn up through
him but through the Italian Ambassador in Berlin. A diplomatic
negotiation of the highest importance had therefore been carried on
over his head, and he had been merely instructed quite at the end to
hand over to Robilant the reward for his good offices in the shape
of the Black Eagle. In other words, Bismarck had looked upon him as
fit only to fulfil representative functions of a formal order, and
had acted accordingly. At last! How often does the pitcher go to the
well before it is broken, said I to myself, as I read a _démenti_ in
the _Kreuzzeitung_. So not yet awhile? (...)

At 10 A.M. on the 28th of April one of the Chancery attendants
brought me the following note: “The Imperial Chancellor would feel
obliged if Dr. Busch would do him the honour to call upon him to-day
at 2.30 P.M. Berlin, April 28th, 1887.” (No signature.) I went at
the hour appointed and was told by the porter that Rottenburg wished
to see me first. The latter said that the Prince had two commissions
for me: one a description of the League of Patriots, and the other
an article on the Hammerstein motion (respecting the Evangelical
Church). At 3 o’clock Theiss showed me into the Prince, with whom I
remained until 3.45 P.M. He again complained a great deal about his
ailments and insomnia, as well as of being overburdened with work
by all the Ministries. “Nevertheless,” I remarked, “on your last
birthday you outlived the year in which you prophesied you were to
die,” and I reminded him of what he had said at Versailles and at
Varzin, adding that I now took the liberty for the first time of
congratulating him on his birthday, because the last one marked an
important division of his life. He smiled and said: “Yes, a division.
I had observed that there were certain divisions in my life, with
changes and alterations physical and mental, a certain recurrent
cycle of years (I believe he said eleven) and from that and some
cabalistic figures I had reckoned that I should reach the age of
seventy-one years and die in 1886. As that has not happened I shall
now probably live to the age of eighty-three or eighty-four.” He
then came to speak of the subject which had led him to send for me.
It appeared that he was not thinking so much of Hammerstein and Co.,
as of the embarrassment of the Ultramontanes in dealing with their
“priestocracy,” the demagogues of the middle and lower clergy, whom
they had summoned to their assistance against the Government, and who
had now cast off discipline and were disinclined to follow the Pope’s
instructions. He compared their embarrassment to that of the wizard’s
apprentice in Goethe, and spoke of the “Anti-Papal Catholics.” He
concluded: “I should not like to have that said in one of our papers.
We still want the Centre party for the sugar and spirit taxes.”

I then mentioned the League of Patriots, and afterwards turned
the conversation on to Alsace-Lorraine. On my observing that it
might, perhaps, be possible to annex it to Prussia, or divide it
between Bavaria and Baden, he replied: “To unite it to Prussia would
strengthen by thirty votes the Opposition in the Lower House of the
Prussian Diet, where things are now very tolerable. The Bavarians
will not hear of it either, and still less the people in Baden, who
are in absolute terror of such a change. If we were only living in
the time of Charlemagne we could remove the Alsacians to Posen, and
place the inhabitants of the latter country between the Rhine and
the Vosges, or form an uninhabited desert between ourselves and the
French. As it is, however, we must try some other method.” We then
spoke about the Crown Prince, who, he said, was understood to have a
polypus in the throat. It would be no wonder if he did not recover,
as “she” never allowed him to have more than eleven degrees (Réaumur)
of warmth in his room, and obliged him at Ems to go into the cold
and windy mountain districts, and to cross the Rhine in storm and
rain, &c.

I said: “It appears that Diest-Daber wishes to proceed with his
action once more.”

He: “But how can he do that?” He then gave me an account of the
affair, which originated in an action against Diest for libel. This
was afterwards transformed by Klotz into a prosecution against him,
Bismarck, which resulted in his vindication. He concluded: “Diest
is suffering from the mania of persecution, that is to say, in its
active form--he must persecute somebody. It would now seem to have
turned into megalomania.” On our coming to speak of his fortune,
I said: “To show what superstitions prevail on this subject, a
tradesman, who is otherwise a sensible man, told me recently that you
possess a fortune of at least a hundred millions.” He thereupon gave
me a detailed account of his circumstances, and spoke of the value of
his various estates, adding that he was not thinking--“as his sons
wished him to do”--of increasing his capital, but rather of rounding
off and improving his property. He mentioned Chorow and Sedlitz, and
the purchases of land in the Sachsenwald, and similar matters. “I
cannot help it,” he said. “When a neighbour’s property wedges itself
into mine, and I see a fine clump of trees on it that are going to be
cut down, I must buy that piece of ground.” In making such purchases
he often paid too much, and frequently the estates were not well
managed by those to whom they were entrusted. Thus, although in good
years, when high prices were to be had for timber, &c., his profits
might amount to about 100,000 thalers, he had, on several occasions,
had no surplus whatever over his expenses. “Moreover,” he continued,
“it costs me more to live in the country than in Berlin; and in
Varzin my horses, with their fodder, cost me more than here. If I
could sell my estates at what is probably their real value, I might
doubtless get four millions for them.” He referred me to Rottenburg
for the material for the articles. The latter handed me for use in
the article on the League of Patriots the indictment drawn up by
Tessendorf of Leipzig, the Imperial Chief Prosecutor (21st April,
1887), against ten inhabitants of the Reichsland (beginning with
Köchlin-Claudon of Mülhausen, and winding up with Humbert of Metz),
giving the history and description of the association. For the second
article on the “Anti-Papal Catholics,” he sent me a few days later,
by a Chancery messenger, a report of the Oberpräsident of Westphalia
to the Minister of Public Worship, together with about a dozen
newspaper extracts. The article on Deroulede’s horde appeared in No.
19 of the _Grenzboten_ under the title of “The League of Patriots,”
and the other, “Embarrassments of the Centre Party,” in No. 20 (of
the 12th of May). I personally left both at the palace for the
Chancellor.

During May and June Bucher met Hehn and myself regularly every
Wednesday evening, sometimes at Huth’s and sometimes at Trarbach’s.
He wrote for me the _Grenzboten_ article on “Maharajah Dhuleep
Singh,” which appeared in No. 26. He also promised a further article
for that paper, drawing a comparison between the reigns of Queen
Victoria and Queen Bess, of course not to the advantage or credit
of the former, as, according to him, the Chief, with whom he had
recently dined, and who had invited him to pay him shortly a visit at
Friedrichsruh, wished to see something of the kind done in connection
with the Queen’s jubilee. On the 28th of June Bucher started for
the dragon’s lair in the Sachsenwald, having sent me a card on the
previous day to let me know. He was back in Berlin in about ten
days. Five of these were spent at Friedrichsruh, and the remainder
of the time with Kusseroff in Hamburg. He told me that the Chief was
not disposed to let him fire off the articles on the two English
Queens. He would think over the matter, but in any case it should not
appear in the _Grenzboten_, as that paper’s connection with him was
suspected.

On the 1st of March, 1888, I received a letter from Rottenburg
requesting me to call upon him, as the Imperial Chancellor had
instructed him to discuss a certain matter with me. I went to
him on the morning of the 2nd of March, and he told me that
the Prince wished to have a portion of Beust’s book, _Aus drei
Viertel-Jahrhunderten_, beginning on page 346 of the second volume,
dealt with in the press, and for that purpose he would give me verbal
instructions. I should first, however, read up the book in order to
inform myself on the subject. When I had done so I was to send him,
Rottenburg, a few lines, and he would then report to the Chancellor
and let me know the day and hour on which the latter would receive
me. I borrowed Beust’s book from Hehn on the same day, and carefully
read over the part in question several times. This referred to the
attitude of Austria before and during our last war with France,
together with the differences it produced between Beust and Grammont.
On the 5th I wrote to Rottenburg that I now believed myself to be
sufficiently acquainted with the subject to understand and turn to
good account any further information which the Imperial Chancellor
might give me. I received no answer, however, inviting me to see the
Chief. He was occupied with more important matters than Beust’s
former policy, the illness and death of the Emperor William, and the
accession of his son to the throne.

On the evening of the 28th of March at Knoop’s Bucher related the
following particulars to myself and Hehn. (Casually foreseeing what
was generally known a few days later, or informed of and prepared for
it.)

“Princess Victoria, the daughter of our new Emperor and Empress,
now about twenty-two years of age, was to have been married some
time since to the Battenberger, who at that time was still Prince
of Bulgaria, but already a tool of English policy. He made the
acquaintance of the Queen of England’s granddaughter during his
European tour. The thought of a marriage was probably suggested by
the grandmother in London, who wished to see the position of her
servant secured against Russia by an alliance with our Court. The
scheme leaked out, and came to the ears of the Chief. Of course he
was anything but pleased, and did not conceal his objections from the
Emperor, but on the contrary expressed them both verbally and in a
statement which I had to prepare. It would show us in a bad light at
St. Petersburg, and it was not right to subject a Prussian Princess
to the eventuality of a compulsory departure from Sofia. The Emperor
recognised this and issued his veto, which must have been very
unpleasant for the Crown Princess.” (...)

_April 6th._--On the Chief’s birthday Prince William, now the Crown
Prince, while offering his congratulations in person, invited
himself to dine with the Chancellor. During dinner, according to
the newspapers, he proposed a toast to the following effect: “The
Empire is like an army corps that has lost its commander-in-chief
in the field, while the officer who stands next to him in rank lies
severely wounded. At this critical moment forty-six million loyal
German hearts turn with solicitude and hope towards the standard and
the standard bearer in whom all their expectations are centred. The
standard bearer is our illustrious Prince, our great Chancellor.
Let him lead us. We will follow him. Long may he live!” Coming from
a member of the reigning house such language should mean a great
deal. “Our great Chancellor”--words already used a short time ago by
his Imperial and Royal Highness--“let him lead us; we will follow
him!” What high appreciation and what modest self-suppression and
honourable subordination on the part of the future Emperor! May God
reward him for it, and grant him victory under that standard! But
what does his mother think of it? Yesterday a Vienna telegram in
the _Kölnische Zeitung_, which was greeted with scarcely concealed
satisfaction by the Progressist newspapers, reported that Bismarck
intended to retire. This leads one to think of the “Englishwoman”
on the throne of the Hohenzollerns, and of “Friedrich der Britte”
(Frederick the Briton) who is to govern according to her views. Has
the toast of the 1st instant given offence to Guelphish self-conceit?
Or has the Chief again advised against the suitor with the Bulgarian
kalpak, who may have pressed his suit again and with a better
prospect of success after the death of the Emperor William? At 10.45
A.M. this morning I handed the following letter to the porter at the
palace to be immediately forwarded to the Chief: “In presence of
the extraordinary report of the _Kölnische Zeitung_, which is now
being circulated in the newspapers, I would beg your Serene Highness
kindly to remember that in the future as in the past I hold myself
absolutely and unconditionally at your disposal, and shall always
continue to do so.”

_April 7th._--At 11 A.M. a Chancery attendant brought me a letter of
this day’s date from the Imperial Chancellerie, with an appointment
to call upon the Prince at 2 o’clock. I was punctually in attendance;
but on entering the antechamber, Friedberg, the Minister of Justice,
arrived and was shown in to the Chief before me, remaining for
about three-quarters of an hour. During this time Minister von
Puttkamer also came in, and went away again after a conversation with
Rottenburg. Thereupon the latter came to me and said it was doubtful
if the Prince could receive me to-day, as he was very much exhausted.
He had, however, informed him that I should be there at 2 o’clock.
When he called me in, would I “make short work of it?” I replied that
that depended upon the Chancellor and not upon me, but I would offer
to come on another day if he were not disposed for the interview at
present. At 2.45 P.M. Theiss showed me in to him. He was in undress
uniform, and looked quite well, although, after he had shaken hands
and asked how I was, he complained of his nervous excitement and
insomnia. “I can only get a little sleep with the help of opium and
morphia. I am over-worked, and, in addition to that, as you have
read in the newspapers, I have latterly been worried by the people
at Charlottenburg--by the women. The doctors insist that I should go
to the country. Schweninger prophesies that otherwise I shall suffer
from all possible forms of nervous diseases, together with typhoid.
Besides, I ought to go to Varzin, to see after the damage done by the
inundations. The Wipper has carried away all my mills, and to rebuild
them may cost hundreds of thousands; but I cannot leave, for who
knows what they would do when my back is turned--the women who want
to have a share in the government--the Englishwomen? You have seen in
the papers that I am thinking of retiring on account of conflicts and
Court influence--not with the Emperor, who is much more reasonable
and shares my views. The question now is as to the marriage of the
Battenberger to Princess Victoria, which the Queen of England has in
view. Three years and more ago, under the old master, it was actively
promoted by her daughter, the present Empress, at first in secret. As
soon as I then heard of it, I made representations to the Emperor,
verbally and in writing. He allowed himself to be convinced by the
reasons I adduced, and refused to give his consent, although she said
the Princess loved him. Of course, he is a handsome man, with a fine
presence; but I believe her nature is such that she would accept any
other suitor, providing he were manly. Moreover, that is entirely
beside the question. We must look at the political objections and
dangers. The old Queen is fond of match-making, like all old women,
and she may have selected Prince Alexander for her granddaughter,
because he is a brother of her son-in-law, the husband of her
favourite daughter, Beatrice. But obviously her main objects are
political--a permanent estrangement between ourselves and Russia--and
if she were to come here for the Princess’s birthday, there would be
the greatest danger that she would get her way. In family matters
she is not accustomed to contradiction, and would immediately bring
the parson with her in her travelling bag and the bridegroom in
her trunk, and the marriage would come off at once. Probably the
Battenberger, too, would have been here by this time if I had not
stepped in, for they are in a mighty hurry over there in London.”

I asked: “What is the actual condition of his Majesty at
Charlottenburg? Is it really cancer, and how long is it likely to
last?” He: “Cancer, and Bergmann has already given his opinion,
some time ago: it is a question of three weeks or three months.
Externally it is not very noticeable. He holds himself upright, and
walks with a quick step. But his face (he pointed with his fingers
between the cheekbones and the nose) has during the last few days
become thinner, and he looks tired and depressed from the excitement.
They actually ill-treated, abused and martyred him when he declined.
He is glad that I have come to his assistance, as she is too much
for him in argument. It is true that so far only a postponement has
been secured. If the marriage nevertheless takes place, I can no
longer remain in office, for I should then have lost all confidence
in the future. That young and impetuous woman’s will would prevail
more or less in other things too, while I should lose at St.
Petersburg that reliance on my straightforwardness which I have so
laboriously regained with the Emperor Alexander in spite of all
sorts of incitements against me. It is true that in Charlottenburg
they are most anxious to retain me--she also. They wrap me up in
cotton wool and velvet. That also found expression in the rescript;
but as the recognition was of too generous a character it aroused
in my mind less pleasure and hope than doubt as to its sincerity,
and as to whether something was not concealed behind it. If I can
merely postpone and not entirely prevent these English influences
upon our policy, if my remonstrances are no longer successful, and my
voice not listened to, why should I continue to torment and overwork
myself? I will not be a mere cloak for the follies of other people.
If it were still the old Emperor with whom I was called upon to
blunder along in this way--but to allow myself to be made use of by
this Englishwoman, for her whims, for foreign interests, with danger
and detriment to ourselves!”

I said: “The Emperor was after all a splendid old gentleman, a real
King, with a high sense of duty and well-intentioned, and who knew
how to appreciate you.”

He: “A trustworthy comrade, who would not leave one in the lurch.”

I: “It is true that he sometimes made your life a burden, and did not
always treat you well.”

He: “Yes, but that was not done through ill-will, but through
misunderstandings and insufficient knowledge of the matter in hand.
When anything of importance was going on he usually began by taking
the wrong road, but in the end he always allowed himself to be put
straight again. Thus during the period of conflict when he could no
longer get any Ministers, he wished to abdicate. When I was summoned
to him at Babelsberg he had the act of abdication ready signed. He
said: ‘If I cannot find any Ministers who will govern as I think
right then my son had better try his hand.’ I assured him that I was
prepared to be the Minister he wanted. ‘Even against the majority?’
he asked. ‘Yes, even against the majority,’ I replied. ‘Well then,
that’s all right,’ he said, and tore up the document, and with it a
whole sheet of concessions to the Liberals, which he had previously
read to me.”

I: “Then afterwards when you travelled to Jueterbogk to meet him.
The ladies at Baden had filled him with apprehensions as to an
impending revolution, and he already saw the scaffold awaiting him,
and you--you infused courage into him by appealing to his honour and
grasping his sword knot, as you once expressed it to me?”

He: “Yes, and on other occasions he had too much courage, and wished
to move too rapidly and take too much. Thus in 1864 he wished to
march into Jutland without Austria, and at Nikolsburg to continue the
war as far as Vienna.” I recalled the attack of hysterical weeping
there. “Then at first he wanted to have half of Saxony, half of
Hanover, Ansbach and Bayreuth, and a piece of Bohemia from Austria,
until I persuaded him how unpractical that was.”

“And in 1870 the military conspiracy at Mainz before the march into
France, and afterwards at Versailles his attitude towards the claims
of the Bavarians?” I added.

He: “Certainly, when they actually proposed to proceed to violence
against Bavaria and afterwards intended to deny her rights which she
was entitled to claim.”

I said: “The expression ‘cloak’ reminds me of its converse. Monarchs
are often adorned with other people’s feathers. If a battle is won at
which one of them happens to be present as a spectator, he is said to
have won it, although of course the staff has really won it; and so
it is in your case in the field of politics.”

“Why, yes,” he replied; “but if the work is done and succeeds that is
the main point. It is a matter of indifference who did it.”

He reflected for a moment, and then continued: “The new Empress has
always been an Englishwoman, a channel for English influence here, an
instrument for the furtherance of English interests. In her present
position she is more than ever so, and the Battenberger is to be
another tool of the same kind. In England they do not tolerate any
foreign influence--you know how Palmerston and the others accused,
opposed and persecuted the Prince Consort for his alleged or real
influence over the Queen. We however are expected to submit to
that sort of thing, and regard it as a matter of course. We are an
inferior race, ordained to serve them. So the Queen thinks too, and
her daughter is of exactly the same opinion. They are working in
partnership. I would suggest to you to take the present opportunity
of treating this subject fully, dealing with it from a diplomatic and
historical standpoint, showing how England has at all times sought
and still seeks to influence us for her own ends, and often against
our interest, to use us for promoting her own security and the
extension of her power, lately through women, daughters and friends
of Queen Victoria. In doing so, please to make use of a small work
that was published a few years ago in Switzerland under the title
of _Co-Regents and Foreign Influence in Germany_ (_Mitregenten und
fremde Hände in Deutschland_). The anonymous author is not unknown
to me. It is Duke Ernst of Coburg, and his account is on the whole
correct.”

I said: “Doubtless it must be, since he belongs to the clique:
Leopold of Belgium, Victoria in London, Victoria in Berlin, Stockmar,
and also Josias Bunsen in the heyday of his career.”

He: “Yes, but that is no longer the case, as you will see when you
read the pamphlet. You can go further back, however. Give a survey of
English policy during the last couple of centuries.”

I: “Something of the kind must have existed even previously. An
Englishman was once even German Emperor, Richard of Cornwall, before
Rudolf of Hapsburg.”

He: “Yes, but confine yourself to modern history, going back as far
as the beginning of the last century. Throughout that period the
policy of England has constantly been to sow dissensions between
the Continental Powers or to maintain existing discord, on the
principle of _Duobus litigantibus tertius gaudens_, and to use the
one against the other so that they should be weakened and damaged for
the benefit of England. These efforts were first directed against
France, then against Russia. First it was the Emperor in Vienna
who had to wage war on their behalf, and then we were to take up
the cudgels for them. Remember the Spanish War of Succession and
the Battle of Dettingen. At that time it is true every State in
Europe was threatened in its liberty and existence by the universal
monarchy which was then in course of development in France, but none
so much as England herself. And then think of the Seven Years’ War
in which the English took the lion’s share of the booty, although
they had ventured and accomplished comparatively little, while we
conquered the French colonies for them. Latterly they have tried to
play us off against the Russians who have become a danger for them
on the Bosphorus, and still more on their Indian frontier. We are
expected to make good the deficiencies of their military forces,
threaten the Russian flank, and hold them back when they propose
to march. First, during the Crimean War, in which by the way the
French had little reason to join, we were urged, quite against our
own interests, to co-operate with the Western Powers in opposing
the Emperor Nicholas. I assisted in preventing that. Later on, in
1863, England wanted to see the Polish insurrection supported, as a
means of weakening Russia, a course whereby we should have forfeited
an old friend who might prove a still better friend to us in the
future, and have gained no trustworthy friendship in the West by
way of compensation; while in the Poles we should have strengthened
an ancient foe, and created a natural ally for France. In 1877, when
it was seen that a Russo-Turkish war was imminent, we were expected
to exert our influence at St. Petersburg to prevent it--in the
interest of humanity--as _The Times_ demonstrated. Queen Victoria
urged us to do so in a letter to the Emperor, which was handed to
him by Augusta, who added her own intercession, and in two letters
to myself. Humanity, peace and liberty,--those are always their
pretexts when they cannot by way of a change invoke Christianity
and the extension of the blessings of civilisation to savage and
semi-barbarous peoples. In reality, however, _The Times_ and the
Queen wrote in the interests of England, which had nothing in common
with ours. It is in the interest of England that the German Empire
should be on bad terms with Russia. Our interest is that we should
be on as good terms with Russia as the situation allows. Latterly I
have directed my endeavours towards this end, and I have succeeded,
in spite of various opposing influences;--and now the Battenberger
is to be called in to nullify my success, to inspire the Emperor
Alexander with fresh suspicions, and to supply the Moscow press
with plausible grounds, which would have at least appearances in
their favour, for asserting that we entertain secret designs. Prince
Alexander, who has been selected as bridegroom for the daughter of
the German Emperor, would, if that marriage were to take place, not
only appear but actually be a permanent channel for English influence
with us--that is the essence of the scheme--emphasise and repeat
that--so far as this influence is directed against Russia. He is
really a Pole, through his mother, who married, as a Fräulein Hauke,
a member of a family which is neither old nor illustrious. (...) Such
a relationship is decidedly not suitable for the Prussian Royal House
and a daughter of the German Emperor. The Emperor Frederick sees and
feels that too, perhaps even more than we do, for he has a very high
opinion of his family and its dignity. But apart from that the more
important point is that the Emperor Alexander hates the Battenberger
with his whole heart, indeed there is perhaps no one else whom he
knows and hates so thoroughly.”

I said: “The unheard-of rudeness of the letter striking his name
off the Army List, a communication well nigh unparalleled in the
intercourse of Princes.”

He rejoined: “Yes, and other things too. But he richly deserved it
through his falsehood and treachery. As a nephew of the deceased
Empress he was regarded in St. Petersburg as a fitting instrument
for advancing Russian interests as Prince of Bulgaria; and that was
quite legitimate in view of the gratitude which the Bulgarians owed
to Russia for their liberation, while it was also the ultimate and
real object of the war of 1877. At first he governed in this sense,
but he afterwards took up with the English, who wished to create a
Greater Bulgaria to serve their purposes, and like Rumania be under
obligations to them. It was to be developed into a new kingdom,
which should stand in the way of Russia. That had been planned long
beforehand, and the way had been prepared by various measures; but
the Prince always tried to dispel any uneasiness by beautifully
reassuring speeches and categorical promises. Finally he pledged
himself to Giers not to make any kind of change in Eastern Rumelia;
and yet shortly afterwards the revolution broke out in Philippopolis,
with his previous knowledge and co-operation. It would be a miracle,
and utterly opposed to human nature, if the Emperor Alexander did
not hate him with a deadly hatred for this dishonourable conduct,
this breach of faith. He will never forgive him, and will always
look upon him as a sworn enemy, embittered moreover by having been
driven out. If he were accepted as a member of the German Imperial
House, it would fill the Emperor with a suspicion which nothing could
dissipate. It would be a permanent threat to peace. He would not on
that account declare war upon us immediately and without more ado, as
Napoleon did in similar circumstances in 1870; but he would hold it
to be a confirmation of all the old doubts as to our sincerity which
we had proved to be unfounded, and the Russian press would renew its
agitation with the same violence and malice as formerly, and with
more success. It is not yet certain that Russia would take up arms
against us if we were to be again attacked by the French; but if the
Russians were to declare war upon us the French would certainly join
them immediately. And after all in such a war we should not be so
very certain to win, while it would be a great misfortune even if we
were victorious, as in any case we should lose a great deal of blood
and treasure, and also suffer considerable indirect damage through
the interruption of work and trade, and we should never be able to
take anything from the French or Russians that would compensate us
for our losses. It is only the English who would benefit by it. It
would be an English war if the Battenberg marriage led Russia to join
the French attack on us. We are well armed, but at all events large
masses of troops would be put into the field against us, and Austria
has not yet developed her defensive forces as she could and should
do; and no real confidence could be placed in Italy. It is possible
that the French may regain their footing there and win back the
Italian friendship, if other parties came into power. Indeed even a
Republic is possible, and Italy may resume her irredentist schemes
and claims against Austria.”

I said: “I shall keep all that in mind, and write the article as well
as I can. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention the influence brought
to bear by the English ladies against the bombardment of Paris. You
remember: ‘Schurze und Schürzen’” (aprons and petticoats; that is to
say, freemasons and women).

“Yes, do that,” he replied; “but at the same time remember the
press laws. Be very cautious, diplomatic, and not too venomous; and
always emphasise the fact that it is foreign influences that are
working against me; not the Emperor, but the reigning lady and her
mother.”... “But,” I said, “will it not throw an unfavourable light
on the Emperor, making him appear weak and pitiable, if one says that
he is opposed to the Battenberg project, but may be brought to give
in to the demands of the ladies?” He replied: “It is not necessary
to say that in so many words; but it is nevertheless a fact--and it
was much the same with the late Emperor, who had also to struggle
against feminine influence, and was thankful to me when I stiffened
him against it. In these cases he used to say to me: ‘Do it in such a
manner that they may fancy they have had their way, while we really
manage as it should be.’ On the whole, I got on well with him.”

After I had been with him somewhat over three-quarters of an hour, he
called my attention to a very curious little work of art which stood
on his writing-table. It consisted of a large grey pearl mounted with
diamonds and rubies, representing the head of a greyhound with a
golden tobacco pipe in its mouth. This, he explained, was “a present
from Mexico.” I then took my leave, and he was about to lie down to
sleep. In the antechamber Theiss told me that while I had been with
the Chancellor the Grand Duke of Baden called to see him. He had told
him, however, that the Prince “had a conference,” and he accordingly
went away. I proceeded direct to Bucher’s in order to repeat to him
as literally as possible my conversation with the Chief, and thus
to impress it more firmly on my mind. He had the Duke of Coburg’s
pamphlet, which he lent me. He also gave me the following example of
the manner in which the feminine half of the present Imperial family
have been anglicised. “Princess Victoria, the Battenbergerin _in
spe_, had a difference with her brother on one occasion respecting
some household arrangement. ‘After all, that is much better managed
at home,’ she said. ‘At home? What do you mean?’ he asked. ‘Why, at
home in England,’ she replied. The particular epithet which Prince
William applied to her is not known for certain, but it was either
‘goose’ or ‘sheep’”. (...)

On my return home at 6 o’clock I found the following note, enclosing
an extract from the _Deutsches Tageblatt_, lying on my table:--“Dear
Sir,--Prince Bismarck begs you to kindly introduce the article
discussed to-day by a reference to the enclosed statements of _The
Times_, in order that it should not appear to be written without any
immediate occasion.--Yours truly, Rottenburg.”

On the 8th of April, having again been summoned to the Chief, I
called at the Chancellor’s palace, and was shown in without much
delay. The Prince, who was reclining in a _chaise longue_ near the
window, was reading the _Kölnische Zeitung_. I had to draw up an
armchair close to him. He said: “Here is the _Kölnische Zeitung_
writing against _The Times_, and also the _Frankfurter Zeitung_. You
might also mention this in the article of which we were speaking
yesterday, and correct them where necessary. The main point is that
the Emperor is on my side. A syllable must be added here” (he pointed
to the word “Kaiser,” which was underlined in red)--“Kaiser_in_.
It is a struggle between the Emperor and Empress. She, as an
Englishwoman, is in favour of the Battenberger; he will not have
him, first for political reasons, like myself, and then because he
actually hates him, for he dislikes the idea of a _mésalliance_,
as he is very proud of his dynasty and position. Two Empresses are
fighting against his opinion and mine,--those of India and Germany;
and Victoria the daughter simply talks him down. She can make
much better use of her tongue than he can. It has always been so,
and now more than ever, owing to his illness and the way in which
worry affects him. Besides, he is deeply devoted to his family. I
was present on one occasion when she set at him so violently with
her feminine logic and volubility that at last he sat there quite
silent and depressed. He is delighted every time that I come to his
assistance against his combative wife.” I related Bucher’s story
about Victoria No. 3 and her brother. “Yes,” he said, “that is quite
credible. At home with her daughters, she, the German Empress, only
speaks English, the language of the Chosen People, and the Princesses
write English letters to their father.”

He continued: “Look here! There they talk of my attachment to the
dynasty. Well, that is quite correct, but it was more so under
the father, the old master. I had all along wanted to retire at
his death, and if I remain it may be taken as certain that I do
so only on an understanding that I continue the old policy I have
followed hitherto, and am protected from foreign influence and
from the interference and misgovernment of women, which was never
carried to such lengths as it is at present. I would therefore beg
of you to call attention to the Progressist journals, to these
Court Jacobins--use that word--who receive their orders from
Charlottenburg, through the women whose names figure at the head
of the Address, Frau Helmholtz, Schrader, and Stockmar, whose
late husband was Secretary to the Englishwoman when she was Crown
Princess. These Byzantine hypocrites, these democrats who wag their
tails and crawl more abjectly than the most extravagant absolutist,
would like to degrade me from being a servant of the State and of its
head into a Court menial, although of course it is both my right and
my duty to form my own opinion and maintain it like anybody else,
all the more as I bear the responsibility for the mistakes, or, as
in the present instance, the obvious follies that are committed in
important matters.” He continued to dilate on this theme for a few
minutes; and then again suggested that I should make use of the
pamphlet of Duke Ernst of Coburg. He sent for Rottenburg, and told
him that in using it elsewhere the passages which I should quote were
not to be employed. When Rottenburg had gone I asked: “Are you quite
sure that it was he who wrote it? It is very strong for him, although
from the style, which is rather vulgar and careless, it might well
be his work, besides which he is acquainted with the facts through
being closely connected with the Queen.” He replied, smiling: “He
himself told me so” (in English). I then spoke of his autobiography,
which I described as badly arranged and prolix. “Yes,” he said, “he
has somewhat the same failing as Beust. He can suppress nothing--not
the most trifling circumstance respecting what he has done or tried
to do, and collected.” I inquired as to the instructions respecting
Beust’s book. He replied: “That must wait. We have now more important
matters to deal with. Later on, perhaps. For the present you might
get them to give you the book. I have underlined a few things which
appear to me to be incorrect. But now I must try to get some sleep.
At present my pulse goes on an average fifteen beats in the minute
faster than it did during the preceding reign.” I took my leave,
with good wishes for his speedy improvement. I had been with him
about twenty minutes. In the following three days I wrote the desired
article, and sent it to the _Grenzboten_, where it appeared in No.
17, under the title, “Foreign Influences in the Empire.”

_April 25th._--This evening at Knoop’s, Bucher described the
candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern, in which he himself had
taken a part, as a “trap for Napoleon.” He added that neither the
Emperor William nor the Crown Prince had the least idea of this
feature of Bismarck’s manœuvre, of which he, Bucher, also gave
particulars to the Crown Prince after his journey. They both regarded
the candidature as a means of exalting the glory of their House.

_April 28th._--This afternoon met Bucher in the Königin Augusta
Strasse.... He said, smiling: “I have just heard a surprising piece
of news. Grandmamma behaved quite sensibly at Charlottenburg. She
declared the attitude of the Chief in the Battenberg marriage scheme
to be quite correct, and urged her daughter to change her ways. Of
course it was very nice of her not to forget her own country and to
wish to benefit it where it was possible for her to do so, but she
needed the attachment of the Germans, and should endeavour to secure
it; and finally she brought about a reconciliation between Prince
William and his mother.” I asked, “Have you that on good authority?”
“On very good authority,” he replied. “Well,” I said, “that is
highly satisfactory, and we shall act accordingly in the immediate
future, for, of course, we do not hate Victoria II. on account of her
extraction, but because she feels as an Englishwoman and wishes to
promote English interests at our expense, and because she despises us
Germans. The question is whether in the long run she will heed this
maternal admonition. It is not easy to rid one’s self of a habit of
thought of such long standing.” He agreed with me in this.

_April 29th._--I read this morning in the _Berliner Boersenzeitung_:
“We are in a position to state that the Imperial Chancellor, as was
indeed to be expected, is most indignant at the notorious article
in the _Grenzboten_ slandering the Empress Victoria, and that he
has given expression to his condemnation in very strong terms. In
this connection exceptional importance is to be attached to the
sympathetic article in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_ on
the Queen of England’s visit.” Doubtless as that paper is in the
Bleichröder’s service, this utterance has been inspired by that firm,
over which floats the flag of the British Consulate General. Well
informed? Possibly, indeed probably. A disclaimer? Why not! Quite
in order! _Tempora mutantur_? But I shall never change towards him,
nor he doubtless towards me. He will once more call for his little
archer when he again wants an arrow shot into the face of this or
that sun, and “Büschlein’s” bow shall never fail him. My “libellous
article” was, I see, indignantly denounced in the _Daily Telegraph_
and the _Neue Freie Presse_. In doing so the former described the
_Grenzboten_ as “a publication which, for well-known reasons, is
read with attention throughout Germany.” The _Neue Freie Presse_
spoke of a want of tact which would be regarded as impossible if it
were not in evidence in black on white. Excellent! In this manner
what I had written secured a wide circulation, particularly as other
journalistic hacks will probably without wishing it have recommended
the article in a similar way. (...)

After the death of the Emperor Frederick, I wrote to Bucher a few
lines expressing the satisfaction I felt that we were relieved of
that incubus, and that his place was now to be taken by a disciple
and admirer of the Chief.




                            CHAPTER IV

THE EMPEROR FREDERICK’S DIARY--THE CHIEF ON THE DIARY AND ITS
    AUTHOR--THE GERMAN QUESTION DURING THE WAR OF 1870--THE EMPEROR
    FREDERICK AND HIS LEANING TOWARDS ENGLAND--THE CHIEF PRAISES
    THE YOUNG EMPEROR--“BETTER TOO MUCH THAN TOO LITTLE FIRE!”--I
    AM TO ARRANGE THE CHIEF’S PAPERS, AND DO SO--LETTERS FROM
    FREDERICK WILLIAM IV. AND FROM WILLIAM I.--CORRESPONDENCE WITH
    AND CONCERNING THE CROWN PRINCE (FREDERICK)--LETTERS TO AND
    FROM ANDRASSY DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AUSTRO-GERMAN
    ALLIANCE--LETTERS FROM THE EMPEROR ON THE SAME SUBJECT--WILLIAM
    I.’S RELUCTANCE TO DESERT RUSSIA--CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE
    EMPEROR AND THE TSAR AT ALEXANDROWO--WILLIAM I.’S FINAL
    INSTRUCTIONS--BISMARCK’S ACCOUNT OF HIS RELATIONS WITH THE
    EMPEROR FREDERICK.


_July 16th._--After it had been whispered in the press for some time
that the Emperor Frederick had left a diary which did not throw a
very favourable light upon Bismarck, and that this was at present
in the hands of the Queen of England, a second version of the story
(_Berliner Boersenzeitung_, evening edition of the 13th) is now
reproduced from the _Matin_ and other French papers. This is to the
following effect. During the lifetime of the Emperor William I.
Prince Bismarck prepared a frank statement respecting the European
situation and his own political views, which he handed to the
Emperor, believing that the latter would survive his son, and that
the document would thus pass direct, without any intermediary, from
the grandfather to the grandson. Frederick ascended the throne, and
found the Bismarck memorandum. All the efforts made by the Chancellor
to recover possession of it were in vain, and on Frederick’s death it
was found that the document, which contained the most secret ideas
and schemes of the Chancellor, had come into the possession of Queen
Victoria, who declined to give it up. In this form the story is
doubtless akin to that of the sea-serpent, and yet it is perhaps not
entirely without foundation. Anyhow, it is possible that a diary by
the late Emperor may be in existence, and may have been put into a
place of safety by his consort or her mother.

On the 20th of September I received from Grunow the October number
of the _Deutsche Rundschau_, containing the diary of the Emperor
Frederick during the war. I reviewed it in No. 40 of the _Grenzboten_
without having any doubt as to its being in the main genuine. On the
24th Hedwig announced the arrival of one of the Chancery attendants
who had been sent by Rottenburg to request me to call upon him
at 2.30 P.M. I went, and he showed me a letter from the Imperial
Chancellor (written by an amanuensis) desiring him to request me to
come to Friedrichsruh, and to bring with me my notes taken during
the war, as the diary of the Emperor Frederick appeared to contain
inaccuracies. I promised to start next morning, whereupon Rottenburg
arranged to telegraph to Rantzau to stop the 8.30 A.M. train at
Friedrichsruh where it does not usually stop. Nothing was to be said
in the newspapers about my visit. I replied that that went without
saying so far as it depended upon me. I had always felt disgusted
at the merest mention of my name by that pack. On the same evening
Rottenburg sent me a letter requesting me not to leave Berlin, but
to come to the Imperial Chancellerie at 10 A.M. on the following
morning, as other arrangements had been made.

I appeared punctually at 10 A.M. in the Chancellor’s antechamber,
where I met the Secretary of State, Von Schelling (medium height, red
face, white hair and small white moustache) who was shown in to the
Prince before me. As Rottenburg informed me while I was waiting, the
Chancellor had arrived and wished to see me. He added, however, that
he might not be able to see me now, in which case I should return
at 2.30 P.M. Rottenburg also inquired if I had already found any
inaccuracies in the diary published in the _Rundschau_. I replied
that so far I had only noticed some trifling errors, and that on the
whole I considered it to be genuine, but not complete. Schelling
remained for half an hour. On his leaving, Rantzau came out and spoke
to Rottenburg, whereupon the latter again requested me to return at
2.30 P.M., as the Chief was too much occupied to be able to speak to
me now. On my return at the hour named he said that the Chancellor
had still no time to receive me and was going back to Friedrichsruh
that evening. There was, therefore, no alternative but for me to go
there likewise. It would be well if I were to start next morning
and telegraph to him shortly before my departure in order that he
might arrange for the train to stop at Friedrichsruh. I promised to
leave by the 8.30 train from the Lehrter station, which arrives at
Friedrichsruh about 1 P.M., and also to take with me my notes, of
which he again reminded me.

_September 26th._--About one o’clock I arrived at Friedrichsruh
station, where Rottenburg was waiting with a carriage for Count
Solms, our Ambassador in Rome--who travelled by the same train--and
myself. On our way to the house, the Privy Councillor told us that
the Prince had gone out for a walk in order to freshen himself up, as
he had done a great deal of work last night. At 2.15 P.M. I met him
at lunch, at which the Princess, Rantzau and his wife, his Excellency
von Solms, and a Prioress, whose name I have forgotten, were also
present. The Chief, as was his custom formerly at Varzin and here,
read through, signed and otherwise disposed of various documents.
After lunch Rottenburg, on his instructions, handed me a memorandum
on the diary published in the _Rundschau_. This was directed to the
Emperor and was to appear next day in the _Reichsanzeiger_. While
I was reading this through in his study, the Chief came in, asked
me to give it to him, and made a few corrections and additions in
it. I then read it through in my own room upstairs, after which
the Chancery attendant, Kleist, took it away. I then chatted with
the three little Rantzaus, who were trying their skill at archery
at an improvised target near the coach-house; advised them in the
matter, and in that way, apparently, won the good will of the still
very childlike and unaffected boys. Then a short walk with Solms in
the park on the banks of the Aue. On my return, I found a carriage
standing before the door of the house; and the Chief sent word to say
that he was going out for a drive, and would I like to come with him.
Of course I would. We then drove for about two hours, first to Silt,
afterwards to Schönau and finally to the Billenbrück, and then home
through the beech wood on the right bank of the Aue. On the way, the
Prince spoke to two gamekeepers about the scarcity of partridges and
the fish poachers; while he discussed the state of the crops, and the
condition of the cattle with a cowherd whose charges were feeding
in a field of vetches. Further on, he entered into conversation
with overseers who were looking after the potato digging and with
labourers who were ploughing with oxen. In the intervals he had a
long conversation with me on the manner in which the Crown Prince’s
diary should be dealt with. He introduced the subject by the remark
(in English): “I am afraid you have forgotten your English.” On my
answering, “No, sir, by no means,” he continued the conversation in
that language on account of the coachman. He began: “As you will
have seen from what you read, we must first treat it as a forgery,
a point of view from which a great deal may be said. Then, when it
is proved to be genuine by the production of the original it can
be dealt with further in another way.” I said that on the whole it
appeared to me to be genuine, but incomplete, on the one hand, while,
on the other, there were interpolations, probably by Victoria No. 2,
in support of which opinion I quoted examples. I also told him that,
in ignorance of his plans, I had already dealt with the matter in
the _Grenzboten_ a week before, according to my own views, and in
certain flagrant instances condemned it cautiously. Another course
was, however, still open to me. I then repeated to him, from memory,
the commencement of the article in question. He rejoined: “You were
quite right. I myself consider the diary even more genuine than
you do. It is quite insignificant, superficial stuff, without any
true conception of the situation, a medley of sentimental politics,
self-conceit and phrase-mongering. He was far from being as clever as
his father, and the latter was certainly not a first-rate politician.
It is just that which proves its genuineness to me. But at first
we must treat it as doubtful.” The conversation then turned on the
details of the diary. I asked if he had spoken to the Emperor on
the subject, and he replied in the affirmative, saying: “He was
quite in a rage and wishes to have strong measures taken against
the publication.” He then came to speak of the demand for Imperial
Ministers. We have them, of course, only without the title and name.
The Imperial Chancellor is their permanent President,--permanent,
because with us the power of the Emperor is greater under the
Constitution than in other countries which are ruled by alternating
Parliamentary majorities. I suggested that Gustav Freytag might
perhaps at the instance of the Empress Victoria have edited the diary
and arranged for its publication. I tried to show the probability
of this suggestion by a reference to his political views, to the
confidential position which he occupied towards the two Victorias,
and in particular to an instruction to Brater’s paper in Frankfurt
in the summer of 1863, during the conflict between the King and
the Crown Prince respecting the “Press Ordinances.” He considered,
however, that the trick would prove to have been done by Hengst, a
writer who serves the Court, and particularly its ladies, in the
press. He then repeated the main points of the memorandum which I
had previously read. I now ascertained for certain that this was a
report on the diary in the _Deutsche Rundschau_ which the Chancellor,
by the Emperor’s command, had submitted to the sovereign a few days
ago. He added various details: “In 1870 the Crown Prince was only
partially initiated into the negotiations, as the King feared that
he would write about them either to his consort, or direct to Queen
Victoria and her Court, whose sympathies were with the French. In
the second place, he might also have done harm, as his views with
regard to the demands upon our German allies went too far, and he
was thinking of coercive measures which were urged upon him by his
good friends at Baden and Coburg--as, for instance, Roggenbach, who
always was a fool. He had therefore only a superficial knowledge of
the course of affairs. It is, nevertheless, surprising that these
notes, which are supposed to have been written down day by day,
contain so many misconceptions, confusions and chronological errors.
A great deal of it cannot possibly have been written by the Crown
Prince, and must have come from his _entourage_ or the publisher.
Here it is said that, in the middle of July, I wanted to return to
Varzin because peace was no longer in danger, while he, of course,
knew that I considered war to be inevitable, and had declared my
intention to retire when the King showed a disposition to yield. It
is also inconceivable that the Crown Prince endeavoured at an early
date to secure the Iron Cross for non-Prussians, in view of the fact
that at Versailles he was opposed to it, and it was I who first
suggested it. He represents this as the beginning of the struggle
between him and me as to the future of Germany, although he must
surely have remembered former differences of opinion between us, that
led to some very lively discussions which one would not be likely
to forget. It was before or immediately after Sedan, at Beaumont or
Donchery, and the conversation took place in a long avenue through
which we rode side by side. We came to high words over our respective
views as to what was expedient and morally permissible, and when
he spoke of force and of coercive measures against the Bavarians I
reminded him of the Margrave Gero and the thirty Wendish Princes, and
also of the Sendling massacre. When he held to his opinion, however,
and suggested that I should carry it into execution, I said to him
(scarcely in so blunt and plain a fashion) that there were things
which a Prince, perhaps, might do, but no gentleman would attempt.
Such conduct would be an act of perfidy, and an outrage upon allies
who had fulfilled their obligations, quite apart from the folly of
such an attempt at a time when we had further use for them. The
statements in the alleged diary as to my position in the Emperor
question in 1866, on my intentions in connection with the dogma of
infallibility, my idea of an Upper House and the Imperial Ministries,
can hardly have been written by the Crown Prince either. In 1870 he
could no longer doubt that the Empire, in the form which he had in
his mind in 1866, would have been neither useful nor feasible--in
fact it would not have been an Empire at all. What he desired in 1866
was not an Emperor but a King of Germany--the other Kings and Grand
Dukes being reduced to their former rank, merely Dukes--as if that
were an easy matter to bring about. We had already put an end to the
Upper House at Beaumont or Donchery, and had dealt with the Imperial
Ministers in like fashion. He, too, must have finally recognised
that the dogma of infallibility was of slight importance for us, and
that I regarded it as a blunder on the part of the Pope and advised
the King to let it rest during the continuance of the war. Even a
hasty thinker like the Crown Prince could scarcely have concluded
from that that I intended to oppose it after the war, and therefore
this passage was doubtless not written by him. At least for the
present we must continue to doubt the genuineness of this and other
statements.” He then spoke of Bray, who, as an Austrian sympathiser,
delayed the mobilisation of the Bavarian troops in 1870; and of King
Lewis, who--at that time of sound German principles--was “our sole
influential friend in Bavaria.” Returning to the Crown Prince’s
idea of 1866 and to his Upper Chamber, the Chancellor observed:
“An Emperor or King of North Germany would have created a division
between North and South Germany such as did not exist under the
Customs Union; and an Upper House with Princes and elected members
was impossible.” I then reminded him of the importunity of Baden
and Coburg, who at Versailles worried him with memorials and verbal
counsels, questions, &c., to that effect, and of his indignation
at the unexpected visit of the Grand Duke Frederick during dinner.
I then mentioned to him what Bucher had told me about the sensible
attitude adopted by the Queen of England at Charlottenburg, which
he confirmed, adding that at the interview which he had had with
her he had in part prompted the admonitions which she addressed to
her daughter. In this connection I asked whether the statement in
Bleichröder’s _Boersenzeitung_ as to his strong condemnation of my
article, “Foreign Influences in the Empire,” were true. I added that,
_rebus mutatis_, I should have considered it quite conceivable, and
had indeed said as much. He replied, smiling: “Nonsense! quite the
contrary. I have several times expressed my high appreciation of it.
The article was really quite first rate, and the Coburg pamphlet was
also very aptly applied.” Driving along in the dusk on the right bank
of the Aue, we passed a boarding school, and were greeted with cheers
three times repeated by a crowd of children (doubtless the pupils and
their teacher). “They will,” he said, “have taken the grey-bearded
gentleman seated by me for a Rumanian or Bulgarian Minister on a
visit.” “Then I too have had a share in the ovation,” I rejoined,
“and shall take it with me to Berlin as a souvenir.” He afterwards
requested me to look through my diary to-morrow, to see if there were
any further chronological or other mistakes in the publication of the
_Deutsche Rundschau_ and to report to him on the subject.

After dinner, which began at 7 o’clock and lasted for about an hour,
coffee and cognac were served in the next room, while the Prince
seated himself on a sofa in the corner, behind a table with a lamp.
There he read the newspapers and smoked a long pipe. We followed suit
with cigars. I had some conversation with Rantzau, who is now about
to leave for his post at Munich, concerning “Friedrich der Sachte,”
and my intercourse with him and his “Ministers,” as well as on the
old Schleswig-Holstein agitation. The Princess then brought me a
book kept by her, in which I had to write my name and the date. I
was preceded in this by various distinguished and eminent people,
celebrities of the day, Ministers, Ambassadors, Envoys, &c. It will
one day be an interesting collection. Afterwards met Solms upstairs
in the corridor leading to his and my room, and hastily gave him a
little (well deserved) praise for his sharp diplomatic scent in the
months preceding the French war. This moved him to invite me to his
room, where he gave me detailed particulars of his experiences and
achievements at that time, but unfortunately in French, whereby some
points were lost to me. (...)

On the morning of the 27th I again spoke to the Ambassador as he was
on the point of starting for Berlin and Rome. “Adieu, old friend, and
if you ever come to the Eternal City be sure to visit me. But what
I said to you last night about the Paris affairs must not appear in
your memoirs.” “No, Excellency, a mere reference to the conversation
without any details. I know how to respect your confidence as well as
that of other people.” “Yes, I am convinced that you have gathered a
great deal about our affairs which does not appear in your books.”

During the forenoon, in accordance with the Chief’s desire, I went
through my diary up to our stay at Ferrières. At lunch the Prince
observed, after first recommending me to take some herring: “They
are wholesome, and I always have some since Schweninger advised me
to take fish. Moreover, it is a very fine and good fish, and is
only looked down upon because it is so plentiful and cheap. Since
I began in 1883 I must have disposed of over a thousand of them.”
In the evening, after dinner, the Prince, while looking through
the newspapers, suddenly said: “Yes, since 1840 the Princes have
begun to degenerate. I will give you an example or two (looking
towards me). In 1858, before Prince William, afterwards Emperor,
acted as Regent for his brother, there was a reactionary intrigue on
foot with which Manteuffel was not unconnected, and in which they
also wanted me to join. Its object was to induce the sick King to
withdraw his authority, and to let Queen Elizabeth govern through
the Ministers. I did not join in that scheme, but on the contrary
started for Baden--or was it somewhere else in South Germany?--and
told the whole story to him (the Prince of Prussia). He was not at
all disconcerted by the plan, however, and declared himself ready to
retire immediately. It was therefore a matter of perfect indifference
to him. But I argued it out with him. What will be the result of
such a move? It is surely your duty to hold on! Send for Manteuffel
at once. And Manteuffel actually came, after having hesitated for
some little time, excusing himself on the ground of illness, and so
the affair went no further. Then at Babelsberg, when I was called
thither in order to be made Minister. In his despair he had the act
of abdication ready signed, and it was only when I offered to stand
by him in spite of Parliament and in spite of the majority that he
tore it up. This restored his courage and confidence and his sense of
royal duty, which in his unfortunate position had, until then, been a
matter of utter indifference to him. He afterwards held to it firmly
enough.” The Chancellor added that of late years the deceased monarch
through this sense of duty had sometimes caused him considerable
difficulties, as his knowledge of affairs was limited and he was
slow in comprehending anything new. Of the present Emperor he said:
“He has more understanding, more courage and greater independence
of Court influences, but in his leaning towards me he goes far. How
considerate he was the last time he came here! He was surprised that
I had waited for him till 11 o’clock, a thing which his grandfather
was incapable of saying. And in the morning he waited for me, and
although he is accustomed to rise much earlier he did not get up
until 9 o’clock, thinking that I slept till that hour. I was just
washing and only half dressed when he put his hand on my shoulder,
and I hurriedly pulled on my dressing gown in order to be to some
extent in a proper condition to receive him.” I said: “Yes, Serene
Highness, you now appear to have everything one could wish for you.
A docile and grateful pupil and warm admirer stands by your side as
ruler and chief authority in the State, and we, your people, rejoice
with all our hearts, and hope that it may long remain so.”

“It is only in trifles and matters of secondary importance that one
had occasionally some little reason to find fault with him, as for
instance in the form of his pronouncements. After all, that was a
little too much of a good thing when he said: ‘Forty-two millions and
eighteen army corps on the field.’ ‘If at last the whole nation lies
hushed in the silence of death.’ If every German soldier and civilian
is dead, what significance can the independence and inviolability
of Germany still have? And new-fangled words from the newspapers,
such as ‘_unentwegt_,’ ‘_voll und ganz_,’ to say nothing of
‘_diesbezüglich_,’ do not look well in his proclamation.” The Prince
rejoined: “In his reference to the battle-field it would certainly
have been enough had he said: ‘And if I were to be the last man upon
the field of battle nothing that we have conquered shall be lost!’
But that is youthful vivacity, which time will correct. Better too
much than too little fire!” I then conversed with Countess Rantzau,
and recommended to her a climatic cure, deep breathing in the open
air. He looked up from his paper and said: “Pulmonary gymnastics? I
too have tried that, and still do occasionally.”

Up to lunch time on the morning of the 28th I read through my diary,
and came upon a number of passages that seemed likely to be of use to
the Chief. On being called down to lunch I met a gentleman who was
paying a private visit. He was introduced to me as Privy Councillor
of Embassy Brauer, a portly man of about thirty-six, who has a slight
touch of the South-west German accent. The conversation turned on
the Crown Prince, and the shallowness and poverty of thought which
characterised his diary. From this the Chief again concluded that the
publication in the _Deutsche Rundschau_, or at least a great part of
it, might be genuine. He again spoke in English on account of the
servants. I took the liberty to remark that according to page 138 of
my diary it appeared after all that he had had a conversation on the
German question with his Royal Highness at Versailles on the 16th. He
rejoined: “Yes, but then he has mixed it up with a former one, and
moreover I cannot have advised him to propose to the King that the
Bavarians should be disarmed.” I added that that must have been said
ironically--a suggestion of such a monstrous description that no one
could take it seriously.

On his rising from table to go to his study, I followed him outside
in order to tell him privately that I had found some passages in my
diary which might be of interest to him, mentioning in particular
Fleming’s despatch on Mohl’s report. He said he would like to see
them in the afternoon, and would send for me for the purpose. “I
must now answer Augusta, who has once more administered to me one
of her gracious Model Letter-Writer epistles.” Later on, when I
brought him the diary with the passages of interest marked, he
praised Mohl’s description of the relations of parties in Bavaria
as apt and accurate. On my saying that it would doubtless have
been in the hands of the Grand Duke of Baden three months before
the differences at Versailles, and that he would certainly have
communicated its contents to the Crown Prince, he answered in a
tone of contempt: “Ah, that is mere talk on his part. He never took
anything seriously, or studied it thoroughly. Do you really think
that they were seriously concerned, to read despatches, and to think
over and note the contents of reports? They just met in order to
smoke and exchange ill-natured gossip.” He then related once more:
“It was before the conference at Donchery when he spoke of using
force against the Bavarians, and of eventually shooting down the
two army corps if necessary. I said to him that would be an act of
unheard-of treachery, which a Prince might decide upon, but which no
gentleman could perform. That would be a course similar to Gero’s,
in his treatment of the thirty Wendish Princes, a perfidy which had
such fatal consequences for the whole Ostmark.” On this occasion he
also repeated his plan of campaign with regard to the publication
in the _Rundschau_: “First assert it to be a forgery, and express
indignation at such a calumny upon the noble dead. Then, when they
prove it to be genuine, refute the errors and foolish ideas which it
contains, but cautiously, and bearing in mind that he was Emperor
and father to the present Emperor.” He then exclaimed suddenly:
“Well, he is gone! Made off with himself, with the Public Prosecutor
at his heels. Geffcken, I mean, who published it, and who for the
matter of that is no Democrat, but a Particularist.” I mentioned to
him that, during the latter half of the fifties, Geffcken, under
the _nom de plume_ of “Victor,” had, as a friend of Freytag’s and
a petty diplomat of the sniffing and spying order, supplied the
_Grenzboten_ with Opposition gossip inspired by the Crown Prince
and the Coburg clique; that he was afterwards a diligent promoter
of the Augustenburger’s cause, but that in 1877, as pointed out in
the “Friction” articles, his place-hunting propensities had been
recognised at Karlsruhe. I then asked whether he had read _Hofrath_
Schneider’s posthumous work on the Emperor William, and added, “he
did not appear to be well disposed towards you.” “Certainly not,” he
rejoined; “and he had good reason for it. He hated me because I had
spoilt a fine business for him. A cousin of mine, a Bismarck-Bohlen,
wanted to marry one of his daughters, his senior by eleven years,
who had driven him crazy by her coquetry. I pulled him away from
her by his coat-tails. She might have captured a big estate with
him.” I further expressed the opinion that the death of the Emperor
Frederick had saved us from an evil future, and in particular from
English influence on the foreign policy of Prussia and of the Empire,
and from an estrangement with Russia. “Yes,” he rejoined; “he was
in favour of the Orleans, used his influence for a daughter of
Nemours, was on the side of Poland, of Denmark, and against the war
of 1866,--always in favour of what fell in with the views of the
English.”

Before lunch on the 29th I begged Rottenburg to ask the Chief whether
our business was now at an end, and I might consider myself at
liberty to return home. I received no answer, however, although I
reminded Rottenburg of the matter. I spent the day in my room, in a
bad temper, having nothing to do and feeling bored, and could not
go for a walk, as it rained up to dusk. After dinner reference was
again made to the Crown Prince’s incapacity, of which the Chief
treated us to an exquisite example. He related: “We had at that time
a secret treaty with the St. Petersburg people which now no longer
exists. Under it we were to remain neutral in case of war breaking
out between England and Russia. On my mentioning the treaty to the
Crown Prince he remarked: ‘Of course England has been informed and
has agreed to it.’” Great laughter, in which the ladies also joined.
The deceased sovereign evidently stood badly in need of a wax candle
to light up his head--more so, indeed, than even a certain uncle in
Thuringia. (...)

On Sunday, the 30th of September, Rottenburg came up to my room about
noon, and said: “I have asked the Chief as to your going home, and
he wishes you to stay at least for a few days longer, so that it may
look like a visit, and not as if you had been specially summoned here
for a purpose. How do you spell _Commercy_?” I replied: “With two
‘m’s’ and a ‘y.’” “He will probably question you about their stay
there.” I looked it up, and found that we had arrived at that place
at 2 P.M. on the 23rd of August, 1870, and left it at noon on the
24th; that the Chief had had a conference with the King there, and
that Waldersee and Alvensleben dined with us. Mentioned that to the
Chief at lunch, when by the way, as on the previous day, he returned
my greeting with a “Guten Morgen, Büschlein”; and when, among the
other good things provided, a basin of peasoup with bacon was served
up to me by the Princess’s orders. This is a favourite dish of mine,
as I happened to let out on Friday in the course of conversation on
various delicacies. The Prince spoke of the Crown Prince’s inadequate
acquaintance with modern history, as shown by his reference in his
diary to the Emperor and Empire as new ideas emanating from himself
and his party. “That was the aspiration of many a German long before
he was born. The _Burschenschaft_ sang and drank to it immediately
after the War of Liberation, and when I went to Göttingen those were
the ideals I carried with me, and if those students had not fought
so shy of duelling and beer drinking I might have joined them and
got myself involved with them in the subsequent inquiry.” He then
related as further evidence of his political views at that time his
bet with Coffin, whom he, by the way, knew to be still alive. “As
far back as 1848 the idea of an Emperor was well to the front, but
it was unworkable, principally because people were thinking of other
things at the same time. The beginning of the Empire already existed
in the North German Confederation, only Bavaria did not want to come
in yet, as was indeed the case in 1870 also, when I had a great
deal of trouble to secure her adhesion. On the other hand, I had a
hard fight with our Most Gracious Master, who for a long time would
not hear of being Emperor. ‘But does your Majesty wish to remain a
neuter for ever?’ I said to him one day. ‘What do you mean by that?’
he said. ‘Why, that hitherto you have been the Presidency (das Sie
bis jetzt _das_ Präsidium sind.’)” If I rightly understood the Chief
at lunch the reason of his question as to Commercy was that it was
there he recommended the King to confer the Iron Cross upon the South
Germans. “Moltke,” he said, “was entirely against it, asking whether
he himself had any Bavarian Order.”

At dinner in the evening the guests included General Lesczinsky, who
was in uniform, as was also the Chief. In conversation on a variety
of subjects both at the table and afterwards, L. showed himself
to be a well-informed man of sound views. He was engaged in the
campaigns in Baden, Schleswig-Holstein, Bohemia and France, and has
in addition travelled a great deal. He is now stationed in Hamburg,
whither he returns to-day. Brauer leaves for home to-night, starting
for Berlin at 11 o’clock.

_Monday, October 1st._--At 9 A.M. Rottenburg came to my room, and
asked me once more the date of our stay at Commercy. I told him. It
actually turns out that the point in question is, that it was here
the Chief first spoke to the King about giving the Iron Cross to
non-Prussians and to the Bavarians in particular. In the evening,
Rottenburg and I took a long walk past the Aumühl into Holstein, and
arranged to make similar excursions in other directions, principally
through the Sachsenwald, where there are a number of good roads,
and which is now beginning to take on autumn tints. Rottenburg is a
frank and amiable man, with whom one is soon on good terms. He is
intelligent and well informed, particularly in social questions.
He has an extensive knowledge of public men, and would appear in
addition to be an excellent worker. He comes from Danzig, and spent
five years in London for the purpose of study.

After dinner something in the conversation led me to inform the
Prince of Andrae’s letter to me, and of my meeting with him. He
observed that Andrae was a vain intriguer, and that the story about
Stirum was not true. Moreover, not only Holtz, but the majority of
the others who signed the “Declaration” wrote to him, Bismarck,
separate letters of excuse. The Princess remarked that Andrae was one
of the worst of the “Deklaranten.” I ascertained at the same time
that her mother was a Gichtelite, and that Below-Hohendorf was their
Grand Lama--an epithet which the lady did not use, however. The Chief
then read a little of the book, _Bismarck unter drei Kaisern_, but
after looking through it for a while he soon laid it aside. In reply
to my question whether there was anything in it, he said: “Oh, no;
a mere hack’s work! Put together with scissors and paste from the
newspapers and such sources, without much knowledge of the subject or
real coherence.”

During our walk I had mentioned to Rottenburg my longing for some
work to do, and had sought refuge from my boredom in three volumes
of Hallberger’s _Ueber Land und Meer_, which I found in my room. He
promised to send me Schmidt’s work on the French Revolution, but
did not do so. In my despair I plucked up courage and applied to
the Chief himself, asking him if he could not give me something to
do, if it were only ciphering, deciphering or copying, perhaps some
matter of no importance,--“for my part it may be making out lists or
adding up accounts.” He smiled, and, after reflecting for a moment,
said: “Perhaps I can find some more interesting occupation for you
to-morrow. I will see.”

On Tuesday, October 2nd, took a walk through the wood to Dassendorf
and back, which occupied from 11 to 1 o’clock. The weather was very
fine. At lunch I ascertained from Rottenburg that the Prince wished
to give me a number of letters to look through. When the Chief got
up from table he whispered something to Rottenburg at the door,
whereupon the latter came back to me and said the Prince was now
going upstairs to look out the papers. In about a quarter of an hour
I was summoned to his study, where he had several large packets of
documents lying before him. He began: “I once promised you that
you should arrange my papers. Here are some of them--letters and
other things from the Frankfurt and St. Petersburg period. Here for
instance is the Gerlach correspondence, and there are letters from
Frederick William IV. to me.” He read over one of the latter to me,
and then said: “I think you will find other matters of interest among
them. I myself can no longer remember exactly all they contain. Take
these upstairs with you, and settle how you are going to arrange
them. I think the chronological order will be the best.” Was I not
delighted? Such confidence! and such a prospect of fresh information!
the fulfilment of a hope that had almost died. Pleased beyond measure
I hurried off with my burden and immediately set to work on them,
first glancing through the various papers at hazard. The sifting of
this treasure was to commence next morning, and to be continued on
the following days with as little interruption as possible.

On the 3rd of October we were joined at dinner by the Head Forester,
Lange, one of the Prince’s managers and an expert who was engaged in
laying down meadows. On the 4th the technical controller of one of
the Customs division at Hamburg dined with us. Schweninger arrived
on the 5th. He behaved very nicely, and was, indeed, almost tender
in his manner on my expressing my admiration of the unquestionable
service he had rendered in restoring the Chancellor’s health. He
wished to visit a patient of his in Mecklenburg, a lady of the
nobility, but on the 6th he was still at Friedrichsruh, where he was
treated by all the members of the family as a friend of the house.
On the 8th we again had the Head Forester at dinner, as well as a
prosperous timber merchant and coal-mine owner from Westphalia. In
two hours Minister von Bötticher was expected to arrive from Berlin.
At table the Prince related that formerly, and even since he became
Minister, he was sometimes obliged to dance with Princesses at Court
entertainments until the old gentleman (King William) expressed his
displeasure. He excused himself by saying: “What is one to do, your
Majesty, when Princesses command?” The Princesses were accordingly
informed of the prohibition. Keudell was also passionately fond of
dancing formerly, and Radowitz too, but the King also broke the
latter of this habit.

ADDENDUM.--Yesterday the Chancellor once more returned to the
subject of King William’s anxiety in 1866 to utilise his victories
in a different way to what he (Bismarck) advised. “His mind was
set on Northern Bohemia, half of Saxony, half of Hanover, Ansbach
and Bayreuth, &c., and it was difficult to get the idea out of his
head.” At lunch to-day I told the Chief (in English on account of the
servants) that I expected to finish my work in two or three days, and
to return the papers to him in linen envelopes, arranged according to
the years. He replied (also in English): “Then you have lost no time,
seeing what a quantity of them there were. But I have also a number
of others for you. The work is not yet over, as there is a lot more
there, more recent and perhaps more interesting for you. Have you
found anything of importance among the first batch?” I said I had.
He called attention to the contrast between Gerlach and Manteuffel,
the Minister, which was evident from their letters. He also mentioned
Niebuhr, of whom he remarked: “It is with him as with many pious
people of his sort: he has no tact, regards himself as the envoy of
an anointed King, and as his representative considers himself to be
also anointed.”

On the 9th of October I had been a fortnight at Friedrichsruh, and
on the 10th the last envelope would be filled, but other important
work intervened unexpectedly. Two documents arrived from the Ministry
of the Household, a short and a long war diary of the Crown Prince,
afterwards Emperor Frederick, both written in his own hand, the first
presumably an extract, or perhaps the original of the harmless part
of the latter, the second obviously written for the most part after
the war, and with many additions. Both are to be speedily examined,
and, as Rottenburg informed me on bringing me the documents, I was
to do part of the work, examining the latter portion of the first of
the two manuscripts, while the Chief dealt with the earlier portion
and he (Rottenburg) with the second. I also assisted Rottenburg
afterwards, as the papers had to be sent back to Berlin in two
days. The diary in the _Deutsche Rundschau_ is not from the shorter
version, but from the far more comprehensive one of the Ministry
of the Household, the interpolations of which are in great part of
a political nature, and are often highly characteristic, although
deficient in real statesmanship. The writer is in every respect
mediocre and superficial, no talent and no character, although he is
thoroughly at home in fault-finding and abuse. We collected and noted
down in our section some particularly fine specimens of his manner
of thought, and of these a small selection may be here given. They
do not include the finest of all, which I had to leave to Rottenburg
or for the Chief, who came into our bureau (at 11 o’clock at night)
while we were making the extracts, and was pleased to find that I was
so diligent in my efforts to be of use. On the 4th of January the
author of the interpolated diary had read “with great satisfaction”
the reflections upon the new year published by the _Volkszeitung_,
and was “horrified” that the Minister of War had forbidden the
circulation of the paper. On the 2nd of January an eulogy of the
Queen of England, “who stands up for us Germans at every opportunity,
knows very well what are the issues involved, and understands German
affairs.” On the 8th of January he notes Odo Russell’s satisfaction
at Bismarck’s having yielded in the matter of the English coal ships
(a matter which H.R.H. had much at heart).--On the 11th of January
Prince Luitpold’s “unworthy” proposal respecting the military oath
of allegiance of the Bavarians, had, like Bismarck’s irritability,
greatly worried his Majesty.--January 17th. Bismarck, speaking to
Schleinitz in the antechamber, had “peevishly” exclaimed that he
could not conceive why there should be a joint conference of the
Chancellor of the Confederation and the Minister of the Household in
presence of the King. Then a very detailed account of the interview
respecting the Emperor and Empire at the Prefecture. On that occasion
the King was very excited and vehement, and the Crown Prince was
afterwards so unwell that he had to take medicine.--February 1st.
Interesting addition respecting Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein,
“who, like myself (the Crown Prince) regrets the manner in which
the Empire has been brought into existence, &c.”--February 14th. A
somewhat lengthy account (an addition) of an interview between the
Crown Prince and Bonnechose.--16th. Conversation with Russell on the
consequences of English neutrality. (In another passage apprehensions
for beloved England, owing to Bismarck’s leaning towards Russia and
the United States). 22nd. Doubtless an interpolation of a much later
date. That “after the peace our next task must be the solution of
the social question.” It is certain that the good gentleman with
his narrow views and small brain never thought of that subject until
Bismarck found time to take the matter in hand, and discovered ways
and means for dealing with the evil which would never have occurred
to his Royal Highness and his _Volkszeitung_.--26th. Conversation
with Père Hyacinthe on the Catholic Church (and also on Döllinger).
As was to be expected, the Crown Prince has high praise for that
superficial and sentimental individual, and feels that his words
have actually given him a sense of exaltation and a feeling of deep
peace.--March 10th (pp. 351, 352 of the MS.). Lengthy statement of
political views, of which extracts have appeared in the _Deutsche
Rundschau_. The interpolated diary goes as far as the 17th of July,
1871, at Munich, and then a few pages follow respecting his stay in
England and at Wilhelmshöhe.

On the 10th of October his Excellency von Bötticher appeared at
lunch. Intelligent, practical looking face, tall figure, and a
moustache with a tuft trimmed after the fashion of Napoleon. On
going to the chimney piece for a light for his cigar brings me one
also. The Chief, who as usual occupied himself at lunch with reading
through and signing official documents, looking up from a paper,
suddenly remarked: “‘_Unentwegt_,’ Busch can’t bear that word.”
The Minister looked at me and smiled. “That is so,” I said, “and I
consider ‘_diesbezüglich_’ still more abominable. The former has
come to us from Switzerland, and the latter from Vienna.” The Chief
then sang the praises of the herring to Bötticher also, mentioning
that he eats it regularly, and adding some remarks on other means
of promoting health, as, for instance, that here when the weather
is favourable he rides or walks for two or even three hours daily,
his quantum in the latter case being five thousand paces, and not
infrequently more.

On the 12th of October the documents which the Chief had handed over
to me to arrange had all been read through, put into chronological
order, and numbered consecutively in red pencil from 1 to 308. These
were packed in eight large envelopes, each docketed with the year and
the dates and numbers of the first and last documents contained in
them. Further particulars of the contents, which I offered to give,
were declined by the Prince as superfluous. These papers consisted
for the most part of letters, the remainder being reports, memoranda,
drafts, and telegrams. The following is a survey of the contents.

First Envelope. The year 1851. (Also includes a letter from Prince
Charles, dated March 21st, 1848.) Nos. 1 to 29. They begin with the
5th of June and end with the 24th of December, and consist in great
part of letters from the Minister and General Manteuffel, from R.
Quehl, from Bismarck to Manteuffel, and from General L. von Gerlach.
Contents of the latter: That of the 23rd of November, against the
new Hamburg Constitution, Senator Hudtwalker’s mission, a scheme for
giving the Estates a position side by side with Constitutionalism.
That of the 4th of December, again on the Hamburg Constitution. That
of the 20th of December, considerations on Bonapartism, after the
_coup d’état_, request for an expression of opinion on the situation,
with the hope that their views coincide.

Second Envelope. 1852. Nos. 30 to 85. Begins with the 5th of January
and ends with the 30th of December. Principally letters from General
Gerlach and Minister Manteuffel, R. Quehl, King Frederick William,
a rescript by that sovereign, four almost illegible notes from
the Prince of Prussia, and, finally, a communication from Bismarck
to Gerlach, dated the 5th of January, reporting on the change of
Ministers in Nassau, the question of the fleet, the relations
of Austria to France, and possible anti-Prussian schemes of
Schwarzenberg, the views of the English Chargé d’Affaires, Edwardes,
on Bonapartism. The first letter from the King begins with the
words: “I would remind you, dearest Bismarck (theuerster Bismarck),
that I reckon upon you and your assistance in the approaching
debates in the Second Chamber respecting the shape to be given to
the First Chamber.” Further on there is a reference to “the low
intrigues of the conscious or unconscious coalition of scabby sheep
on the Right and stinking goats on the Left to defeat the Royal
intentions.” “A sad sight, and in any circumstances sufficient to
make one tear his hair, but on the field of the dearly-purchased,
lie-producing machine of French Constitutionalism! (Ein trauriger
Anblick, unter allen Verhältnissen zum Haare Ausraufen, aber auf
dem Felde der theuer angeschafften Lügenmaschine des französischen
Constitutionalismus).” The rescript (of the 3rd of June) appoints
Bismarck Chargé d’Affaires in Vienna, and summons him to Berlin
to receive instructions. The second royal letter (of the 5th of
June) introduces him to the Emperor Francis Joseph and says, _inter
alia_: “I am pleased that your Majesty will be able to make the
acquaintance of a man who is here honoured by many and hated by
others, on account of his chivalrous loyalty and his irreconcilable
opposition to revolution in every form. He is my friend and loyal
servant, and comes to your Majesty with the fresh and lively impress
of my principles, of my line of action, of my will, and, I may add,
of my love for Austria. If it be deemed worth while, he can inform
your Majesty, and your Majesty’s advisers on various matters as I
believe few are capable of doing, and if misunderstandings of an
old date have not struck too deep a root, which God in His mercy
forbid, his brief official sojourn in Vienna will truly be rich in
blessings. Herr von Bismarck comes from Frankfurt, where what the
middle States, with their leaning towards a Rhenish Confederation
(die rheinbundschwangeren Mittelstaaten) call the weak P. of P.
(Query--the weak points of Prussia) has always elicited a powerful
echo and has frequently made recruits. He has watched all this and
whatever was going on there with a sharp and penetrating eye. I have
commanded him to answer every question that may be addressed to him
by your Majesty and your Ministers as if I myself had addressed them
to him. If your Majesty should be pleased to ask for an explanation
of my views and my action in the matter of the Hessian Constitution,
I feel sure that the course taken by me, even if it should not
perhaps have the good fortune to meet with your approval, will at
least secure your respect. The presence of the beloved and glorious
Emperor Nicholas has been to me a real encouragement, and a certain
confirmation of the strong hope that your Majesty and myself are
at one in the truth that our triple, unswervingly loyal and active
union can alone save Europe and the froward, yet so beloved, German
Fatherland from the present crisis, fills me with gratitude to God,
and increases my old and faithful affection for your Majesty. Do
you also, my dearest Emperor, preserve for me your love from the
days at Tegernsee, and confirm your confidence and your weighty and
powerful friendship to me which are so indispensable to the common
Fatherland. From the bottom of my heart I commend myself to this
friendship as your Imperial Majesty’s true and most cordially devoted
Uncle, Brother and Friend.” Gerlach’s letter to Bismarck of the 9th
of March condemns the language used by B. in an interview with the
King respecting the First Chamber, and in particular that he had
not pointed out how his Majesty, “through the attitude which he had
adopted, had estranged the nobility, disorganised the parties, and
shaken the position of the Ministry.”--15th April. An inquiry at the
instance of the King concerning the truth of the rumour that Prince
Frederick of Baden was thinking of becoming a Catholic. Then an
announcement that Nesselrode was coming to Berlin and that Bismarck
was to be introduced to him. G. praises the excellent report on the
situation in Bismarck’s letter to Manteuffel on the representation
of the Confederacy in the Danish negotiations. He laments the death
of Schwarzenberg, and expects nothing better from Bach and Buol.
Reports that Rochow has arrived with very good news; regrets that
England and Austria should fraternise with Bonapartism and that the
Emperor Nicholas should have also allowed himself to be taken in by
its anti-Constitutionalism. According to an enclosure of the 21st of
April, the rumour respecting Prince Frederick was unfounded.--12th
April. Telegram: “There is no hurry with the answer in the (Baden)
religious affair.”--18th April. Bismarck was to come to the debate
on the First Chamber. The King counted upon his doing so. “We have
now assembled the publicans and sinners, ... and the speeches in the
Chamber will soon begin again.”--9th May. Gerlach agrees with what
Bismarck had said on the debates in the Chamber; reports that the
King was greatly incensed at Arnim’s speech, and that he doubtless
recognises that “his whole salvation lies in the hands of the Junker
party.” He does not anticipate that all will go well in Berlin,
although the Emperor of Russia remains there for twelve days, and
Francis Joseph has ordered a Prussian Grenadier uniform.--17th May.
Gerlach shares Bismarck’s indignation at a newspaper article which
was probably inspired by Manteuffel; considers M. to be an honest
man, but he has had a singular political past, and cannot come to a
good end, unless he sends Quehl about his business. Examples of his
inconsistency. “M. has a yearning towards Bonapartism,” “which, after
all, has no future.” All is going well with the Emperor and Empress
of Russia, “but when they see these things one cannot expect them to
entertain much respect for our policy.” Alludes further on to the
Zollverein and the opening of direct negotiations for a commercial
treaty with Austria; and concludes with a suggestion that Bismarck
should come to Berlin, remaining there while the Chamber was sitting
and until the departure of the Russians, “in order that one might
consider what should and what could be done.”--May 19th. Gerlach
reports that Manteuffel, in speaking to him, had defended Quehl,
and declared that he would rather resign than part with him. Quehl
asserts that he has received a very reassuring letter from Bismarck.
Manteuffel is considered indispensable, and so the only course would
be to take Westphalen, who deserves it “for sticking to a principle
and for his high-mindedness.” His fall would signify a renunciation
of the principle of restoring vitality to the Estates as against
Constitutionalism. A marked opposition was now developing between
Absolutism and the liberty of the Estates, between the atheistic and
the Christian State, and the Manteuffels inclined towards Absolutism
and political atheism.--May 29th. Under instructions from the King
Gerlach calls attention to the circulation of Dulong’s pamphlet,
“Der Tag ist angebrochen,” and observes that his Majesty wishes
action to be taken against this state of things in the press.--July
21st. Gerlach censures Wagner’s attitude towards Manteuffel, whose
position, it is true, is scarcely tenable “unless he decides to enter
into alliances with respectable people.” G. regards the future with
apprehension, “not that a revolutionary Parliament is now probable,
but owing to fear of the rising bureaucracy with its measures of
police and its weakness in the days of trial,” days which must come,
as Bonaparte will be driven into action abroad by the failure of
his internal policy. Bismarck ought to “carry on a positive federal
policy” in order that the others should not take the wind out of
Prussia’s sails. After the probable victory in the matter of the
Zollverein, our dull-witted opponents will presumably lack material
for fresh attacks. We should then assume the offensive.--July
23rd. Gerlach begs Bismarck to take up the question of the Hamburg
Constitution (against the proposed reform of the new Constitution).
Further on, the news that Gerlach has written to Manteuffel that he
should not allow himself to be governed by the Conservative party
but that he should show himself their master, “and once under the
yoke, govern with them.”--July 26th. The Conservatives of Hamburg
have begun to move and are anxiously awaiting the note of the Federal
Diet; and Bismarck should meet this desire. “The position of affairs
in Berlin is an extraordinary one.” Gerlach spoke very strongly
to the Premier but without any hope of success. Manteuffel “must
be retained at all costs, as his probable successors are simply a
terror.” Gerlach’s brother in Magdeburg wishes to visit Bismarck
at Frankfurt.--July 29th. Gerlach was highly pleased at Bismarck’s
letter of justification, and communicated its contents to the
King, who has not entertained the suspicion therein mentioned. The
Zollverein business promises to go well. In dealing with it Austria
has “behaved in a miserably intriguing fashion. What a pitiful
policy in presence of the revolution, and of the sovereignty of the
people, of which Bonaparte is the incarnation! On a smaller scale,
however, our own policy is just the same.” In connection with the
Hamburg affair, Bismarck should publish the Notes and Rescripts of
the Confederacy to the Senate by an indiscretion. “This, which has
hitherto been a mild request on my part, is now a strong expression
of the King’s desire.”--August 3rd. Renewed request that Bismarck
should take up the cause of the Hamburg Conservatives. It has now
come to such a pass with Manteuffel that no one trusts him, and
he trusts nobody. If this mistrust is to be removed, the Ministry
must be supported in every possible way.--October 8th. Gerlach
complains of Manteuffel and Wagner, and at the instance of the King
urges intervention in the Hamburg affair. Hübbe, the leader of the
Conservative party there, has been to see him and the King.--November
13th. Gerlach is of opinion that the internal situation is good,
if Bismarck “will remain at his post as sentinel on the Rhine
(not become Minister?) and keep a sharp eye on the inception and
development of the Rhenish Confederation.” If he comes to the
Chambers he should get elected to the First “where there is a lack of
talent.” G. thinks him better off with Rechberg as a colleague rather
than Hübener, because the former is opposed to Bonapartism, while the
latter is in favour of it. There is nothing to be done in Hamburg
except to procrastinate. The idea of revising the draft prepared
by the nine deputies, instead of the old existing Constitution, is
absurd.

Third Envelope. 1853. Begins with the 2nd of January and ends with
the 14th of December. The first is a letter from Frederick William
to Manteuffel on the Danish detachment in the Holstein federal
contingent. It says: “In my opinion this should not be tolerated by
the German Confederacy if it still retains a spark of honour. We must
speak at Frankfurt like honourable Germans, even if they through
their ingrained dishonesty will not listen to us. Germany, however,
shall and will hear us. If the particulars given by the newspapers
should be confirmed, I authorise you to send this little note, in
the original, to Bismarck, and to consult details with him.” The
following letters are chiefly from Gerlach, Minister Manteuffel,
and the Prince of Prussia, and include a further communication from
King Frederick William to Bismarck, dated the 12th of September: “My
dearest Bismarck, a misunderstanding prevails in my brother William’s
circles, a solution of which is necessary to the satisfaction of
everybody concerned. At Doberan I received a letter from him, in
which he loudly laments Manteuffel’s now certain retirement, which
he rightly characterises as a calamity. I asked William for a
solution of this riddle, as, of course, everything had been settled
three weeks ago, and my perseverance had been crowned with success.
He wrote to me in reply about a week since, that he was glad of
this, but you, my good Bismarck, had received a letter from Putbus,
from the contents of which you, like himself, could draw no other
conclusion. From Sans-souci I asked him who was the writer of this
letter. He told me Gerlach (Polte); to-day I questioned Gerlach,
and he assures me most positively that he has written nothing of
the kind to you from Putbus. Here you have the puzzle Schlemassl,
in the German-Jewish dialect. Unravel it for me and William as soon
as possible. Let your pen be guided by the purest truth.” Bismarck
replied to this that Gerlach had written him that he wished to induce
Manteuffel to remain, as it appeared impossible to replace him. He
had only received this letter however on the 17th or 18th of August,
at Ostend. The following letters from Gerlach are worth mentioning.
January 8th. (Report of a conversation which Gerlach has had with
Ex-Minister v. d. Decken on constitutional changes in Hanover, in
which the King of Prussia should assist. The letter desires Bismarck
to take up this matter, but first of all to write and give his
opinion.) Another of the 28th of January. (For the present Bismarck
is not to trouble himself about the Hanoverian affair. Opinion of
Prokesch. Gerlach would like to have Bismarck in Berlin, as he
fears grave crises, and, according to him, the people should be
given clearly to understand that Bonapartism is our worst foe....
Bonaparte will direct his lust of conquest against Spain.) Finally,
Gerlach’s letters on his conflict with Manteuffel. This conflict was
clearly indicated in the letter of the 23rd of February, in which
it is stated, _inter alia_, that Manteuffel had through Quehl taken
a turn downwards, because he doubted the truth of what came to him
from above; he wants to see the Conservative party destroyed, and
he allows himself to be tempted by Quehl into secret opposition to
Westphalen’s measures.

Fourth Envelope. First half of the year 1854. Begins with an undated
letter from Gerlach, probably written in January; it is followed by
one from Manteuffel dated the 4th of January, while the remainder are
mostly letters from the latter to Gerlach, together with reports by
Bismarck, and finally, two letters of Seckendorff’s from Stuttgart,
the second of which is dated the 27th of June. The following are of
special interest. A note of the 17th of March, from the Prince of
Prussia, asking Bismarck for information on the Eastern Question,
and the reply thereto, a rather lengthy draft by Bismarck; then his
report as to an interview which he had with the Prince at Baden,
with the result that the latter yields to the royal will, though
opposed to his own convictions; a letter from Bismarck to Gerlach
on the Bamberg results; an exhaustive report by Bismarck on Buol’s
view of the Eastern Question, which the former considers to be
correct--doubtless addressed to Manteuffel; another report to the
latter on the Bamberg Governments, Bismarck wanting apparently to
keep them in check, and also respecting Bunsen and Gagern.

Fifth Envelope. Second half of the year 1854. Begins with a letter of
the 1st of July from Gerlach (who finds that Manteuffel is now taking
a proper course) and ends with a letter of the 31st of December. The
intervening papers include among other things a confidential report
by Bismarck to Manteuffel on the abstention of Würtemberg from the
existing agreement between the other Governments in favour of the
alliance of April 20th; letters from Manteuffel and Gerlach; an
(autograph) memorandum by Bismarck on the attitude of the Bamberg
people, and of Buol towards Prussia. It says: “We cannot consent
to an aggrandisement of Austria, because the importance of Prussia
in respect of physical force would be approximated thereby to that
of Bavaria. The Western Powers will want to restore Poland, which
would be less against the interests of Austria than against those
of Prussia and Russia.” The remaining papers include letters from
Alvensleben, Bunsen, Pückler, Wolzogen and Schulenburg.

Sixth Envelope. The year 1855, but only from the 2nd of January to
the 14th of August. Then come breaks in the correspondence up to
November 1858. Chiefly letters from Gerlach and Manteuffel. Also a
letter from Frederick William to King John of Saxony (dated 18th
January); five or six from Savigny (in one of which he laments that
Prussia has missed an excellent opportunity of placing herself
at the head of Germany) and from Schulenburg, &c. There is a
characteristic letter from Gerlach, dated the 4th of January, in
which he writes: “I believe that we should be in agreement if you
were here, that is to say, as to the measures to be taken, if not
also as to principles--for I hold to the Holy Scriptures, which
teach that we must not do evil in order that good may come of it,
because those who act in that way are very properly damned. Now to
coquet with Bonapartism and Liberalism is to do evil, and moreover,
to my thinking, it is unwise in the present case. This you forget
(a mistake into which every one falls who has been away from here
for some time).... How can you go on finessing indirectly with
such an utterly unprincipled and untrustworthy Minister, who is
involuntarily lured into the wrong path, and with a master whose
peculiarities, to put it mildly, defy calculation? Just remember
that F. D. (Fra Diavolo, pseudonym for Manteuffel) is a Bonapartist
on principle; think of his behaviour in connection with the _coup
d’état_, and of what Quehl wrote under his patronage--and if you
want to know something new I can tell you that he has now written
to Werther expressing the foolish opinion that if one wanted to be
useful to Russia the way would be to adhere to the treaty of the 2nd
of December in order to have a voice in the negotiations; indeed I
believe that F. D. has actually advised the King to adhere to the
treaty of the 2nd of December, that is to say, with modifications,
these, according to the way in which things are done here, being of
the nature of reservations which our adversaries would afterwards
ignore, without paying any attention to us in the event of their
non-observance. Our policy moves along a very narrow path, upon
a tight rope, and so far one may say that it has maintained its
equilibrium, _i.e._, it has not fallen into the abyss on either
side, yet its course remains anything but secure.... The King, and
you also, appear to attribute an exaggerated importance to our
participation in the conferences. What good is this gloriole to us,
as we can turn it to no account so long as Austria (as is clear
from Gortschakoff’s reports) is frightened into hobbling after the
Western Powers? Shall we hobble with her, or shall we join England
and France in the chorus against Russia, or shall we alone take
Russia’s part, a course that would require more courage and skill
than can be expected of our deaf and invalid envoy in Vienna. I
consider it more dignified, effective, and successful for us to
take up an entirely independent attitude towards Austria and the
Western Powers. We have met with a rebuff in Paris and London. (The
_züffliche_[14] Usedom and his Radical wife ought never to have been
sent there; but that has now been done, however.) Austria has treated
us with consistent perfidy. We are, therefore, released from all
ties. France, with 300,000 men beyond her frontiers, and England,
without an army, will not begin war with us. I do not fear Austria in
the least, first because she fears us, while, in addition to that,
she has not a man to spare. It would be mere madness to irritate
us, should she really want to pick a quarrel with Russia. She now
demands with her usual impudence and recklessness that 100,000 men be
raised as soon as possible, under the military convention which Hesse
has concluded with her. (I shudder at the thought of the foolish
and puerile proceedings of April of last year.) To this the reply
is curt and bold; there is a firm conviction, based on assurances
as well as information received, that the Emperor of Russia has no
idea of attacking Austria, either on her own territories or in the
Principalities, so that no _casus fœderis_ arises either for Prussia
or for the Germanic Confederation. The Prussian army is ready for
war, and can be brought into a still greater state of readiness. It
is true that Austria has provoked Russia by the treaty concluded on
the 2nd of December without the concurrence of Prussia and the Bund,
but one is convinced that Russia nevertheless contemplates no attack.
I certainly believed that, in face of this declaration on the part of
Prussia, Austria would hardly secure her two-thirds majority, and,
indeed, that she would probably not even try to force the matter
through. Unquestionably, nothing can be done very speedily now. If,
however, the negotiations in Vienna take such a turn that their
success may be anticipated, they will come to us, and not ignore our
300,000 men. That would be impossible, even now, if all confidence,
as well as all sense of fear, had not been destroyed by swaying, not
merely to and fro, as frequently happens, but in three different
directions, which is of rarer occurrence. I am very anxious that
you should come here, if only for a few days, in order to discuss
matters.... Do, please, write soon, and criticise this my letter.
Write also, if it can possibly be managed, that you are coming....
I yearn for political death. A man who has grown old and blunt and
peevish is no longer the right man to wriggle his way through between
such a singular master (for whom, all the same, I have an affection
of forty years’ standing) and such a premier. Indeed, my bodily
conformation is a symbolic warning against doing anything of the
kind.”[15]

Seventh Envelope. Documents of the period extending from the 7th
of November, 1858, to the 21st of June, 1861, chiefly letters from
Minister Schleinitz to Bismarck, and from the latter to the former
from St. Petersburg, including a very long one of the 12th of May,
1859, in which B. deals with the improvement of Prussia’s position in
Germany as opposed to Austria, indicating ways and means of bringing
it about.... Then a very interesting communication, dated the 14th of
May, from Bismarck to Alvensleben, which was accompanied by a copy
of the letter of the 12th. According to this, the latter was really
intended for the then Minister President, the Prince of Hohenzollern,
yet the writer is “in the end in a state of doubt as to how his
Highness is in his heart likely to regard this matter.” The letter
to Alvensleben then goes on to say: “I believe too that Schleinitz
will not withhold my letter from H.R.H. the Regent, although I
scarcely hope that it will be received with favour there. If you
are so disposed and have an opportunity of kindling in the Prince a
spark of royal ambition in this sense, I beg of you to make use of
the contents of the enclosure, as if I had written to you privately
on the same subjects upon which I wrote to Schleinitz. Of course,
the only difference is in the head and tail of it, and to whether
in your case the title of Excellency already connotes externally
the excellences of the inward man. There is almost always an element
of mistrust and discontent when I write to Schleinitz, sending you
at the same time a copy of my letter, and the Prince allows it to
leak out.” On the 29th of May, 1859, Bismarck gives his Minister a
serio-comic description of the petty proceedings of the envoys of
the German Middle States at St. Petersburg, with whom Gortschakoff
has little intercourse, and who worry the more fortunate Prussian
representative in their efforts to obtain some material to satisfy
their love of gossip. The Hanoverian, Münster, is particularly
active and importunate. The Saxon, Könneritz, manifests the warmest
enthusiasm for Prussia, abuses Beust and Austria, and “speaks as
if he were serving under a Carlowitz Ministry; but we have an old
and good proverb[16] that teaches us never to trust a Saxon from
Meissen. Montgelas is most profoundly depressed at the fall in the
value of Austrian securities, and seems to think, strangely enough,
that the remedy to this evil lies in bringing about a general war.”
Schleinitz’s letters are almost always full of praise and thanks
for Bismarck’s excellent reports. Yet on one occasion (June 24) he
acknowledges that many insinuations against him personally, and
against his official conduct have reached Berlin. But he adds: “With
your reports in my hand I have, however, succeeded in effectually
repelling them;” and continues: “if, nevertheless, I take the liberty
of requesting you to conform as far as possible to the views of your
Government in your non-official conversations and relations, that
request is perhaps entirely superfluous, but I am induced to make it
by a desire to prevent your laying yourself open in any direction to
the attacks of opponents.”

Eighth Envelope. Undated letters and other documents, as well as some
of uncertain date.

On Friday, the 12th of October, we were joined first at lunch and
then again at dinner by a plump lady in black silk, a Frau von
Patkowski from East Prussia, a daughter of Kaiserlingk, an old friend
of the Chief’s. I begged the Prince’s permission to absent myself for
three days, and took leave of him and of the ladies of the house.

I started for Berlin at 12.45 P.M. on Saturday, the 13th.
On my going down to his bureau to see Rottenburg, who wished to
accompany me to the train, I met the Chief in the antechamber. He
said, smiling, “It is lucky that I have met you before you leave.
Frau von Patkowski is travelling with you, so please take care not to
lay siege to the pretty plump little lady on the way!” “Those times
are over, Serene Highness, and besides, she travels first class and I
second.” “Well, in that case she will no doubt be safe.” I expressed
a hope that during my absence he would have good weather, as it is
necessary for his health, so that he may get his walks and rides.
“I do what I can,” he said, “to keep illness at a distance, but it
will come all the same, and probably soon. It will be a sudden break
down, just as I stand.” Thanks be to God, his appearance in no way
justified such a foreboding, as he proceeded to the station with the
lady on his arm, walking erect and the very picture of health.

On Wednesday, the 17th October, at 8.30 A.M., I again left Berlin for
Friedrichsruh.

I had previously been accustomed every evening after dinner to spend
some time romping in the next room with the three little Rantzaus.
When I asked their mother at lunch how the boys were, she asked me
not to let them have their usual game to-day as a punishment, the two
elder lads having been rude and insolent to their governess in the
morning. The Prince said they must be whipped for that. The Countess
replied that she had deprived them of their bath and slapped them on
the cheek for it. He rejoined, however, “That is not enough for such
naughtiness. They ought to be well whipped.” He then related how he
had chastised Herbert and Bill on one occasion, when they took some
hazel nuts and then ran away from the ranger. “It was not on account
of the nuts, but because they had obliged the old man to run after
them through bush and briar until I caught them and gave them a good
trouncing, at which the ranger seemed to be greatly surprised.” I
inquired of him whether governesses and other persons entrusted with
the education of princes were at liberty to chastise them when they
were naughty, or whether they had to tell the parents, who decided
as to their punishment. He answered the first part of my question in
the affirmative, and went on to say that the governess of the Emperor
William II. said as she was administering physical chastisement to
him on one occasion: “Believe me, Royal Highness, that it hurts me as
much as it does you to do this.” “Ah!” exclaimed the little Prince,
“and does it hurt you in the same place?” Everybody laughed heartily
at the queer form taken by the boy’s curiosity. As we rose from table
and Lindau was taking leave before returning home, the Prince asked
me: “Are you going to your room now?” “Yes, Serene Highness.” “I will
send for you there. I have something I should like to show you.” In
about a quarter of an hour I was summoned to the Prince’s study,
where the Chief handed me a large packet of letters. “These are from
the old Emperor,” he said, and then read me some passages from
them. He wished to have them arranged like the former papers. “Again
in mere chronological order, according to the dates.” He asked:
“But will not that be too much for you?” I replied with an emphatic
negative. I was there for that purpose, and it was a pleasure to me
to serve him, and at the same time to have something to read and take
with me for my information. He continued: “And here, too, is one
from old Bodelschwingh-Schwindelbod. And there are others (pointing
to a second packet), the correspondence with Andrassy, for instance,
in the summer of 1879. You will find information enough there.” He
took up the third pile. “These are from the Emperor Frederick when
he was Crown Prince, and also one from _her_ from the villa Zivio.”
He was about to return them to the drawer of his writing-table,
but I begged him to let me have them also. He said smiling, “But,
Büschlein, haven’t you already enough?”--“It will be better for me to
have everything there is at once, so that I may have a general idea
of all the documents and arrange them more rapidly.”--“But there are
still plenty more, and that pile is already heavy enough to carry!” I
took all he had by him, however, and carried them upstairs in order
to begin my inspection of them next morning. But I could not rest
until I had read through some of them as specimens in the afternoon.
For example, a long letter from the Crown Princess, dated San Remo,
the 22nd of November, 1887, giving the Chancellor particulars of
her consort’s illness and of the doctors; and also Bodelschwingh’s
communication, on the top of which the Chief had written in pencil
“Old hypocrite.” Then before dinner a further walk with Rottenburg
in the wood where it is cut through by the road leading to Möhnsen.
Lively conversation on a variety of matters serious and amusing, as
for instance on Darwin and the high esteem in which he is held by the
Chief.

Early on the morning of Thursday, October 18th, I began to assort
the papers. The numbering and packing away in envelopes was to
follow later, after a thorough inspection of the whole lot. Out of
doors a beautiful autumn day, the sun, in a blue sky, casting high
lights on the stems and branches of the trees in the wood. During
lunch, at which Schweninger again joined us, I handed the Chief the
Crown Prince’s letter introducing Geffcken to him and his answer
justifying his refusal by a description of Geffcken’s character. I
had found this among the papers on the previous day. He was pleased
at the discovery, and the letters were handed to Rottenburg to be
copied and used. Immediately afterwards Schweinitz, our Ambassador
at St. Petersburg, arrived--a grey-headed, portly gentleman with
a moustache, who speaks little and in a low voice. We were joined
at dinner, in addition to Schweinitz, by a big-bearded gentleman
in a shooting jacket. This was Major von Goldammer of Frankfurt,
the sportsman who recently--to the great regret of the head
forester--shot the stag with fourteen antlers that had broken out
from the Chief’s preserves on to the shooting which he had rented.
“If it had only been Count Herbert!” Bleichröder is to present his
respects to-morrow.

On Saturday I spent the whole forenoon and two hours after lunch
in arranging the papers in order of date. Bleichröder and his
Jewish-looking Secretary took lunch with us. The banker related
anecdotes of Amschel Rothschild and Saphir, and spoke of Lehndorff’s
businesses. At table I observed that since 1871 Bleichröder, whom I
saw at dinner at Versailles, had hardly altered in the least. “Not
in his person” rejoined the Chief, “but very considerably in his
fortune.”

On Sunday, the 21st of October, I began to examine and number the
papers, which were now in chronological order, whereby I found
that a good deal of rearrangement was necessary. Here follow some
particulars.

The documents begin with a letter dated Oct. 19, 1862, from Bismarck
to King William. Then follows a short letter from the Crown Prince
to the Minister, dated Nov. 21, in which he says: “I trust that, as
you express it to me, success may, in the present difficult phase
of the constitutional life of our country, attend your efforts to
bring about what you yourself describe as the urgent and necessary
understanding with the representatives of the nation. I am following
the course of affairs with the greatest interest,” and so on. Letter
from Bismarck to the King, in which Eulenburg and Selchow are
proposed as Ministers. (I shall not quote unimportant letters from
the King and the Crown Prince, nor in future any matters of only
slight interest.) A letter from Bismarck to the King, dated 20th
February, 1863, on the convention with Russia. Goltz communicated it
to Napoleon, but without the secret article, with which he himself
was not acquainted. (Probably the article by which Prussia was bound
eventually to render assistance against the Polish rebellion.) The
Minister wrote: “As matters stand in Poland we shall hardly be called
upon for active co-operation there. By means of the convention we
have, therefore, the advantage of securing at a cheap rate for the
future the gratitude of the Emperor Alexander and the sympathies of
the Russians.”

Writing to Bismarck, from Stettin, on the 30th of June, 1863, the
Crown Prince says: “I see from your letter of the 10th instant
that at his Majesty’s command you have omitted to communicate
officially to the Ministry of State my protest respecting the
rescript, restricting the liberty of the press, which I sent to you
from Graudenz on the 8th of June. I can easily understand that the
opportunity of treating as a personal matter an incident which, as
you yourself have acknowledged, might, in its consequences, acquire
widespread significance, was not unwelcome to you. It would serve
no purpose for me to insist upon that communication being made, as
I am justified in inferring from your own words that it will have
been done unofficially. It is necessary for me, however, to speak
plainly to you respecting the alternative which you place before me,
namely, to lighten or to render more difficult the task which the
Ministry has undertaken. I cannot lighten that task, as I find myself
opposed to it in principle. A loyal administration of the laws and
of the Constitution, respect and good will towards an easily led,
intelligent and capable people--these are the principles which, in
my opinion, should guide every Government in the treatment of the
country. I cannot bring the policy which finds expression in the
ordinance of the first of June into harmony with these principles. It
is true you seek to prove to me the constitutional character of that
rescript, and you assure me that you and your colleagues remember
your oath. I think, however, that the Government requires a stronger
basis than very dubious interpretations which do not appeal to the
sound common sense of the people. You yourself call attention to the
circumstance that even your opponents respect the honesty of your
convictions. I will not inquire into that assertion” (Bismarck’s
comment in pencil: “Not over courteous,”) “but if you attach any
importance to the opinions of your opponents, the circumstance that
the great majority of the educated classes among our people deny
the constitutional character of the ordinance must necessarily
awaken scruples in your mind. The Ministry knew beforehand that this
would be the case. It was also aware that the Diet would never have
approved the provisions of that rescript beforehand, and it therefore
laid no Bill before the Diet, and in a few days promulgated the
ordinance under Article 63 of the Constitution. If the country does
not recognise in this course of action a loyal administration of the
Constitution, I would ask what has the Ministry done to bring public
opinion round to its own view? It found no other means of coming to
an understanding with public opinion than to impose silence upon it.
It would be idle to waste a single word as to how far this ordinance
harmonises with the respect and good will due to a willing and loyal
people that has been condemned to silence because the Government will
not hear its voice.

“And what is the success which you anticipate from this policy? The
tranquillisation of the public mind and the restoration of peace? Do
you believe that you can appease public sentiment by again offending
its sense of justice? It seems to me contrary to human nature to
expect a change when the existing feeling is being constantly
confirmed and aggravated by the action of the Government. I will
tell you what results I anticipate from your policy. You will go on
quibbling with the Constitution until it loses all value in the eyes
of the people. In that way you will on the one hand arouse anarchical
movements that go beyond the bounds of the Constitution; while on
the other hand, whether you intend it or not, you will pass from
one venturesome interpretation to another until you are finally
driven into an open breach of the Constitution.” (Bismarck’s comment:
“Perhaps.”) “I regard those who lead his Majesty the King, my most
gracious father, into such courses as the most dangerous advisers
for Crown and country.” (Bismarck quotes in pencil: “Leicht fertig
ist die Jugend mit dem Wort” = Youth is hasty in its judgments.)
“P.S.--Already before the 1st of June of this year I but rarely made
use of my right to attend the sittings of the Ministry of State.
From the foregoing statement of my convictions you will understand
my requesting his Majesty the King to allow me to abstain altogether
from attending them at present. A continuous public and personal
manifestation of the differences between myself and the Ministry”
(Bismarck’s pencil remarks on this point: “Absalom!”) “would be in
keeping neither with my position nor my inclination. In every other
respect, however, I shall impose no restrictions upon the expression
of my views; and the Ministry may rest assured that it will depend
upon themselves and their own future action whether, in spite of
my own strong reluctance, I find myself forced into further public
steps, when duty appears to call for them.” (In face of the menacing
attitude assumed in these threats, Bismarck’s undaunted pencil shouts
out, “Come on!” “Nur zu!”)

On the 3rd of September the Crown Prince writes to Bismarck: “I have
to-day communicated to his Majesty the views which I set forth to you
in my letter from Putbus, and which I begged you not to submit to the
King until I myself had done so. A decision which will have serious
consequences was yesterday taken in the Council. I did not wish to
reply to his Majesty in the presence of the Ministers. I have done
so to-day, and have given expression to my misgivings--my serious
misgivings--for the future. The King now knows that I am a decided
opponent of the Ministry.” At the end of the letter Bismarck added,
apparently as part of a draft reply: “I can only hope that your Royal
Highness will one day find servants as faithful as I am to your
father. I do not intend to be of the number.”

On the 5th of June, while at Danzig, during a tour in the performance
of his military duties, the Crown Prince, speaking in public to the
Chief Burgomaster Von Winter, declared himself to be opposed to the
policy of his father. The latter wrote demanding a recantation,
and stating that otherwise the Prince would be deprived of his
dignity and position. The Crown Prince declined to retract anything,
offered to lay down his command and other offices, and begged to be
allowed to retire with his family to some place where he would be
under no suspicion of interfering in State affairs. Intimations as
to the contents of this correspondence were published (of course,
first of all) in _The Times_, then in the _Grenzboten_ (through
Gustav Freytag) and in the _Süddeutsche Zeitung_ (through me, at
Freytag’s instance). A memorandum, dated Gastein, the 2nd of August,
in Zitelmann’s handwriting, and probably dictated by Bismarck,
expresses the belief that the publication was due to the Crown
Princess, “whether it be that she has herself attained to definite
views of her own as to the form of government most advantageous for
Prussia, or that she has succumbed to the concerted influences of
the Anglo-Coburg combination. However this may be, it is asserted
that she has decided upon a course of opposition to the present
Government, and has taken advantage of the Danzig incident and the
excitement to which it has given rise in the highest circles, in
order to bring her consort more and more into prominence by these
revelations, and to acquaint public opinion with the Crown Prince’s
way of thinking. All this out of anxiety for the future of her
consort.” It is then stated that the Crown Princess’s most powerful
supporter is Queen Augusta, who is extremely anxious as to her own
position towards the country. They have had a memorandum drawn up by
President Camphausen on the internal situation in Prussia, attacking
the present Government, which was laid before the King. In a marginal
note the King observes that the principles therein recommended would
lead to revolution. Meyer, the Councillor of Embassy, is Augusta’s
instrument, and it is beyond question that he is associated with
the Anglo-Coburg party. The participation of Professor Duncker[17]
as also of Baron Stockmar, would appear to be less certain. The
memorandum dictated to Zitelmann is accompanied by comments in the
Chief’s handwriting--either a long letter or a _pro memoriâ_ for the
King--in which the views expressed by the Crown Prince are refuted
point by point. In the course of his criticism the writer says,
_inter alia_: “The pretension that a warning from his Royal Highness
should outweigh royal decisions, come to after serious and careful
consideration, attributes undue importance to his own position and
experience as compared to those of his sovereign and father. No one
could believe that H.R.H. had any share in these acts of personal
authority, as everybody knows that the Prince has no vote in the
Ministry.... The _démenti_ at Danzig was therefore superfluous. The
liberty of H.R.H. to form his own conclusions was not affected by
his attendance at the sittings, where he can keep himself in touch
with the affairs of State and hear the views of others and express
his own, which we hold to be the duty of the heir to the throne.
The performance of this duty, when it becomes known through the
newspapers, can only elicit on all sides approval of the diligence
and conscientiousness with which the Crown Prince prepares himself
for his high and serious vocation. The words ‘with my hands tied’
have no meaning. It is utterly impossible that the country should
identify H.R.H. with the Ministry, as the country knows that the
Crown Prince is not called upon to take any official part in its
decisions.

“Unfortunately, the attitude which H.R.H. has adopted towards the
Crown is sufficiently known in the country, and is condemned by every
father of a family, to whatever path he may belong, as a disavowal of
that paternal authority which it is an offence to our feelings and
traditions to ignore. Even now clergymen are preaching from the text
2 Samuel, ch. xv., verses 3 and 4. H.R.H. could not be more seriously
damaged in the eyes of public opinion than by the publication of this
answer.” (That of the Prince to his father’s letter.)

Page 2 (of the answer). “It is true that H.R.H.’s situation is a
thoroughly false one, because it is not the business of the heir to
the throne to raise the banner of opposition to his King and father.
He can only fulfil his ‘duty’ by retiring from that position and
again adopting a proper attitude.”

Page 3. “There is no conflict of duties, as the first of these
duties is self-imposed. It rests with the King, and not with the
Crown Prince, to provide for the future of Prussia, and the future
will show whether ‘mistakes’ have been made, and on which side. In
cases where the ‘judgment’ of his Majesty is opposed to that of the
Crown Prince, the former must always be preponderant, and there
is therefore no conflict. H.R.H. himself recognises that in our
Constitution there is ‘no place for the opposition of the heir to the
throne.’ Opposition within the Council does not exclude obedience to
his Majesty once a matter has been decided. Ministers also oppose
when they hold different views, but they nevertheless obey” (The last
three words are underlined in pencil by the King, who added on the
margin: ‘When it is not opposed to their consciences,’) “the will
of the King, although it may be part of their duty to carry into
execution the measures they opposed.”

Page 4. “If H.R.H. knows that the Ministers act in accordance with
the will of the King, he cannot fail to see that the opposition of
the heir to the throne is directed against the reigning King himself.”

Page 5. “The Crown Prince has no call and no justification to enter
upon a ‘struggle’ (Kampf) against the will of the King, for the
precise reason that his Royal Highness has no official status. Each
Prince of the Royal House would be equally justified in ‘laying
claim’ to the duty of offering public opposition to the King, where
his views differed from those of the sovereign, and thus defending
the eventual rights of ‘himself and his children’ against the effects
of alleged mistakes by the Government of the King, that is to say, in
order to secure the succession, after the manner of Louis Philippe,
if the King were to be deposed by a revolution.”

Page 6. “The Minister President is to give a more detailed
explanation of the words used by him at Gastein.”

Page 7. “His Majesty has not caused the Crown Prince to attend the
sittings as one of the King’s advisers, but only for the Prince’s own
information, and as a means of preparing him for his future calling.
The attempt to ‘neutralise’ the measures of the Government would mean
a struggle and rebellion against the Crown. More dangerous than all
the attacks of the democracy and all ‘gnawing’ at the roots of the
monarchy is the loosening of the bonds that still unite the people
with the dynasty through the example of open and avowed opposition
on the part of the heir to the throne, through the intentional
disclosure of discord in the Royal House itself. If the son and
heir to the throne revolts against the authority of the father and
King, to whom can that authority still remain sacred? If a premium
is set by ambition for the _future_ upon present desertion from the
Sovereign, every bond will be loosened, to the detriment of the
future King, and the damage done to the authority of the present
Government will bear evil fruit for its successors. Any Government is
better than one which is divided against itself and paralysed. The
shocks which the Crown Prince may provoke affect the foundations of
the structure over which he himself will hereafter have to preside as
King.

“According to the constitutional law hitherto in force, it is the
King who _governs_ in Prussia and not the Ministers. Legislative and
not governmental power is alone shared with the Chambers, and before
them the Ministers represent the King. Therefore now, as _before_
the Constitution, the Ministers are legally the servants of the
King, and his Majesty’s authorised advisers, but they are not the
regents of the Prussian State. Even since the Constitution, the
Prussian monarchy does not stand on the same level as the Belgian or
English monarchy. On the contrary, in Prussia the King still governs
personally, and _commands_ according to his own discretion, in so far
as the Constitution has not otherwise provided, and it has only so
provided in matters of legislation.”

Page 8. “The publication of State secrets is an offence against
the criminal law. What is to be treated as a State secret depends
upon the King’s command respecting official secrecy. Why is so much
importance attached to giving ‘outside’ publicity to these matters?
If his Royal Highness, as in duty bound, gives expression to his
opinions in Council, he has satisfied his conscience. The Crown
Prince has no official position whatever in State affairs, and no
call to express himself publicly upon them. No one who has even a
superficial knowledge of the system under which our State affairs
are conducted would conclude that the Crown Prince agreed with the
decisions of the Government merely because he (without a vote, and
therefore without the possibility of effectual opposition) had
listened to the discussions in Council.

“‘Not appear better.’ The mistake lies in the exaggerated importance
attached to ‘appearances.’ The important point is what a man is
and what he can do, and that is only the fruit of serious and
well-directed labour.

“The participation of his Royal Highness in the Council is not
‘active,’ and no ‘votes’ are cast by the Crown Prince. The
communication to ‘responsible’ (?) persons without the authorisation
of his Majesty would be an offence against the criminal law. Of
course, there is no limitation of his Royal Highness’s right to
express his views; on the contrary, it is desirable that he should
do so, but only in the Council, where, as a matter of fact, they can
alone have any influence on the decisions that are about to be taken.
The contrary course, ‘to express them openly before the country,’ can
only be adopted as a means of gratifying his Royal Highness’s _amour
propre_, and must result in promoting discontent and disaffection,
and thereby paving the way for revolution.”

Page 10. “Unquestionably H.R.H. will render their work more difficult
for the Ministers, and their task would be lighter if he did not
attend the sittings. But can his Majesty shirk the duty of doing
everything that is humanly possible to enable the Crown Prince to
learn the business of State, and to become acquainted with the
laws of the country? Is it not a dangerous experiment to leave the
future King a stranger to the affairs of State, while the welfare
of millions is dependent upon his familiarity with them? H.R.H.
shows himself in the present memorandum unacquainted with the fact
that the participation of the Crown Prince never involves any
responsibility, and is only for the purpose of information, and
that H.R.H. can never be asked to give a vote. The whole argument
is based upon a misconception of this fact. If the Crown Prince had
been more familiar with State affairs H.R.H. could not have thought
of publishing the proceedings of the Council in case the King did not
accede to his wishes, _i.e._, of committing an offence against the
law, and what is more, the criminal law, and that too a few weeks
after H.R.H. had himself severely censured the publication of the
correspondence with his Majesty.”

Page 11. “Certainly the reproach mentioned may naturally occur
to every one in the country. No one charges H.R.H. with such an
intention, but it is said that _others_, who do entertain such
an intention, hope to see it realised through the unconscious
co-operation of the Crown Prince; and that such wicked attempts now
afford those who originated them a better prospect than formerly of a
change of system.”

Page 12. “The demand to have timely information of the business to
be transacted at the sittings is perfectly legitimate, has always
been recognised, and shall continue to be so. Indeed a desire has
been expressed that H.R.H. should do his part in keeping himself more
_au courant_ than was hitherto possible. For this purpose H.R.H.’s
whereabouts must always be known and within reach, the Ministers must
have access to the Crown Prince, and discretion must be secured. But
it is necessary that the _Vortragende Räthe_ (Councillors who have
the privilege of direct audience), with whom alone H.R.H. can be
authorised to transact current State affairs, should be not opponents
but friends of the Government, or at least impartial critics having
no _intimate_ relations with the Opposition in the Diet and the
press. The most difficult point of all is _discretion_, particularly
towards foreign countries, so long as H.R.H. and the Crown Princess
are not thoroughly conscious that in reigning houses the nearest
relations are not always fellow countrymen, but, on the contrary,
must necessarily, and as in duty bound, represent other than Prussian
interests. It is hard that a frontier should create a division of
interest between mother and daughter, brother and sister, but to
forget this fact is always a danger for the State. The ‘last sitting
of the Council’ (on the 3rd) was not a regular sitting but only a
meeting of the Ministers who had been summoned by his Majesty without
their own previous knowledge.”

Page 13. “Communication to the Ministers would give the memorandum
an official character which the Prince’s effusions do not in
themselves possess.”

On Monday, the 22nd of October, Count Herbert was present at lunch
and dinner, returning to Berlin on the Tuesday. On Monday, after we
had had our coffee, I told the Chief that the sorting of the papers
was now well advanced. There was a great deal more to do, however,
than had appeared at first, and it might take eight or ten days more
before I could hand them over to him in good order like the previous
set. He replied: “Take plenty of time. But the Emperor will be here
in a few days and you must not let yourself be seen then; or, better
still, go to Hamburg while he is here, as otherwise he will ask who
you are and what you are doing. I should then be obliged to tell him,
and as he is curious he would eventually seize the whole lot, which
would not suit me at all.”

On Tuesday and Wednesday I was very busy sorting, numbering and
taking extracts. In the evening I took a walk with the Privy
Councillor until an hour before dinner. We were joined at dinner
on Wednesday by the Hamburg merchant, Merck, and his wife--she
very pretty, twenty-seven years of age, and he between forty and
fifty. On Thursday I was again hard at work on the Chief’s treasury
of letters. At lunch the Chief said that formerly the rich and
influential Hamburgers were strongly Austrian in their sympathies,
and he referred to the millions advanced to the politicians of
Vienna in 1857, and also condemned the unamiable and stupid policy
of Prussia in those days. The Princess observed that even now these
circles do not care much for Prussia, but are impressed, and indeed
very strongly, by Bismarck. She then explained to me that the Mercks
were neighbours of theirs, and occupied a country house with forty
acres of ground on the edge of the forest, the remainder of an estate
which a Saxon officer had acquired by marriage, and of which the
Prince afterwards bought six hundred acres. In reply to my question,
the Chief informed me that the Emperor would arrive on Monday evening
and leave after lunch on Tuesday. I must therefore make myself scarce
for thirty hours. To-day, however, we shall return to our anthology,
and continue it to-morrow. Here follow some further specimens of the
selection.

Letter from Bismarck to the King on the 1st of December, 1863:
“Your Majesty has been gracious enough to send me Herr von Gruner’s
communication of the 28th ultimo, and to observe that it reproduces
the views adopted by your Majesty. Herr von Gruner’s opinions are
based on the same general principles as those of Herr von Vincke
and Herr von Roggenbach, and the latter have found expression in
the letter of H.R.H. the Grand Duke of Baden. These gentlemen, in
addressing their proposals to your Majesty, doubtless proceed on the
assumption that if your Majesty were to accept their advice another
Ministry would be summoned to office. Other influences are also
being set in motion for this purpose even outside _public_ life,
to which Herr von Schleinitz and other persons closely connected
with the Court have either voluntarily or involuntarily devoted
their services. When I entered into the Ministry I ventured to
explain to your Majesty that I did not regard my position as that
of a Constitutional Minister in the usual sense of the word, but
considered myself rather as your Majesty’s servant, and that in the
last resort I would obey your Majesty’s commands even if contrary to
my own views. I still maintain that standpoint, but this should not
deter me from explaining my views with the candour I owe to your
Majesty and to the interests of the country. Speaking in this sense,
I must first declare that I consider it would be of advantage for
your Majesty’s service, in carrying out a policy consonant with the
views of Herr von Gruner, to select another Ministry, or at least
another Minister for Foreign Affairs, who would enjoy in a higher
degree the confidence of those upon whose support such a policy must
mainly rely. Count Goltz has as yet had no occasion to come into
conflict with those elements, and owing to his other qualifications
may be regarded as best suited to take over the conduct of affairs.”

From a letter of the Crown Prince to Bismarck, dated Headquarters,
Flensburg, April 17th, 1864: “I thank you heartily for your two
letters of the 11th and 12th of April. I found the communication
of the 11th very interesting; but I could not gather from it such
a view of the objects of our policy as would enable me, from my
standpoint, to support any particular measure with conviction. I do
not agree that it is too early to come forward openly with a positive
programme, and I fear that we shall gain _nothing_ by protracting
the solution of the question, but, on the contrary, thereby increase
European complications. However that may be, we should at least have
a positive programme _for ourselves_, the realisation of which it
is true would still remain dependent upon circumstances. Instead
of this, however, I find in your communication only the programme
‘to act according to circumstances,’ unless I am to infer from some
isolated suggestions certain secret views which are ascribed to
you, and which certainly appear to tally with many of your former
utterances, particularly at the last Council which I attended before
my departure for the army. With regard to any such _arrière-pensées_
of Prussian aggrandisement, I may state briefly my opinion, namely,
that to pursue them would entirely falsify our whole German policy,
and would probably lead to our defeat by Europe. It would not be the
first time that Prussia sought to outwit the world, with the result
that she ultimately fell between two stools.”

A letter from Bismarck to the King, dated April 3rd, 1866: “Your
Majesty has deigned to command me, through Abeken, to express
my opinion whether the letter from the Duke of Coburg, which I
respectfully return herewith, should be answered.

“I take the liberty to recall the fact that the Duke of Coburg has
during the past four years shared in every intrigue against your
Majesty’s internal and foreign policy. His Highness has largely
contributed to the return of democratic representatives in Prussia
through his money and influence; he has associated himself with
societies for arming the people (Büchsen-Groschen Vereine), and has
adopted such an attitude towards the monarchy that your Majesty made
strong representations to him on the subject in a long letter, and
declined a visit from him on account of the bad impression it would
make on the army. The Duke, together with his officials, Samwer and
Francke, is the leader of the anti-Prussian Augustenburg movement;
and but for him the hereditary Prince would have listened to reason.
The Duke brought about the recall of Lord Napier, a diplomatist who
was regarded as too Prussophil. I respectfully take the liberty of
indicating the influence of the Duke upon H.R.H. the Crown Prince.
I certainly do not go too far when I describe his Highness as one
of the most irreconcilable opponents of your Majesty’s policy, and
state that no devotion to your Majesty’s honour and interest is to be
expected from him. The present letter from the Duke, and that from
Count Mensdorff, which was obviously ordered for the special purpose
of being communicated to your Majesty, and which is utterly untrue,
betray their connection with the communications from Queen Victoria
which have reached your Majesty through H.R.H. the Crown Prince;
and it is certain that similar insinuations will have been made to
your Majesty in other quarters. There can be no doubt that all these
steps are based upon a well-laid plan, according to which the open
and secret opponents of your Majesty endeavour to persuade your
Majesty to yield to Austria, and thus to pave the way for another
policy, your Majesty’s present Ministry and myself in particular
being for this purpose represented in the first place as the root of
all evil. Your Majesty is certainly convinced without any assurance
from me that even if my health had remained unaffected during the
past few years, I would at any moment willingly, and with lifelong
gratitude to your Majesty for the many favours which I have enjoyed,
retire into private life even if my continuance in office involved
_no_ detriment to your Majesty. How much more willingly would I do
so, therefore, if my retirement could be of any benefit to my King
and country. I see, however, no possibility of another Minister of
your Majesty being able honestly to recommend a policy different to
that which has hitherto been followed, and which was sanctioned in
the Council of the 28th of February; for this policy is independent
of all partisan tendencies, is enjoined solely by the interests of
Prussia, and is rendered inevitable by the situation. If the Duke of
Coburg recommends another policy, such as would be in agreement with
what Vienna prescribes, I beg respectfully to point out that the same
gentleman has for the last four years recommended _everything_ that
was opposed to monarchical interests, and in particular to those of
the Prussian Monarchy. Notwithstanding this your Majesty has done
him the honour of answering his letter of the 22nd. If your Majesty
were to answer the present letter, with its offensive and untruthful
enclosure, that would be an encouragement to your opponents and
a discouragement to your servants. My most humble advice is that
your Majesty should leave the letter of the Duke unanswered, and
not conceal from his aide-de-camp that you have been disagreeably
affected by the enclosure. If the aide-de-camp is a person to whom
such a communication might be properly made, it would perhaps be well
to signify to him verbally that your Majesty has clearly seen through
the intention underlying the whole manœuvre with the Mensdorff
letter, and that the tone of the latter is not to your liking.”

Letter from the King to Bismarck, dated April 8th, 1866: “Numbers
78 and 79 of the _Kreuzzeitung_ have just been laid before me
by an unknown hand (as I have not taken in this paper since
1861--Coronation article in June) on account of the abusive article
against the Duke of Coburg. It is most unpleasant to me, as only
you, the Queen and the Crown Prince had a knowledge of the Duke’s
letters to me, and therefore the source of the article is immediately
betrayed. Although you have always told me that the Government has
no influence upon the _Kreuzzeitung_, this appears to be an instance
which contradicts that statement. The manner in which I replied to
the Duke, and the fact that on the second occasion I sent no reply,
showed him that I did not desire to continue the correspondence. But
articles like that in question must render him still more hostile to
us. From a political point of view this is not right, and on that
account I request you to put a stop to these improper proceedings of
the _Kreuzzeitung_ towards the Duke.

                                                            “William.”


In reply to this Bismarck wrote as follows: “I humbly beg your
Majesty’s pardon if I have called down upon myself your Majesty’s
dissatisfaction through the article on the intervention of the Duke
of Coburg, which was based, not on his letter, but upon a number of
other newspaper reports on this intervention. I would never venture
to deceive your Majesty, and I frankly confess that the main part of
this article was written at my instance, as I--like every one of my
colleagues--while having indeed no influence over the _Kreuzzeitung_
to prevent the insertion of matters to which I object, have yet
enough to secure the insertion of what is not directly opposed to its
own tendencies. The same connection exists with the _Spenersche_, the
_National Zeitung_ and many others, and I believe I have never denied
the existence of influence of this description.

“It appeared to me as if your Majesty were yourself indignant at the
insincerity of the Duke and of Count Mensdorff; but your Majesty
generously pardons the disrespect manifested in such conduct, as also
the former hostility of the Duke, who has done more harm to your
Majesty and the Prussian State through the favour which he has shown
to the democracy, and the disturbance of the relations with England,
than he can ever make good through a military convention, and who
gave evidence of his real sentiments towards your Majesty at the time
of the Congress of Princes. Your Majesty, while entertaining no doubt
as to my devotion and obedience, will not expect me to be superior
to every human weakness and to preserve my composure at all times
when I see how my heavy, and I may fairly say exhausting, duties are
intentionally rendered more difficult by the displeasure of such
highly placed personages, in whose hearts the success of Prussian
policy and the renown of your Majesty and of the Royal House should
naturally be expected to hold a first place. And why am I subjected
to this implacable displeasure and forced into this struggle with
powerful influences which I have to meet at every step I take? Merely
because I will not consent to serve two masters, nor carry out
another policy than your Majesty’s, nor reckon with other influences
than your Majesty’s commands. My offence is that I was ready to serve
your Majesty according to your own will when others declined to do
so, and that I did not hesitate to obey your Majesty at the risk of
drawing down upon myself the displeasure of those who stand nearest
to your Majesty. I could have peace if, like many of my predecessors,
I were prepared to submit to your Majesty as my own convictions what
was suggested to me in other quarters; and if, in particular, I were
to advise you to give way in matters of internal policy and military
organisation, as of course nothing is really being done in foreign
affairs except what was formerly desired by those who now oppose me.
I beg your Majesty to forgive me if in this struggle, owing to the
feeling that I have been unjustly attacked for the sole reason that I
have tried to do my duty towards your Majesty without looking to the
right or to the left, I have lost that composure which I myself am
desirous of preserving.”

A letter from Bismarck to the King on the 1st of May, 1866: “I submit
the enclosure to your Majesty in support of my urgent and respectful
plea that your Majesty’s kingdom be no longer left exposed to the
danger which, in my most humble opinion, at present threatens it
from the warlike preparations of Austria, whose forces are already
superior to ours and are being daily increased notwithstanding all
pacific assurances. The Minister of War will to-morrow submit to your
Majesty a report of the Ministry of State and proposals for further
precautionary measures. If your Majesty will give me credit for not
being easily accessible to unfounded apprehensions I may venture to
hope that your Majesty will graciously consider my request that the
measures to be taken as a result of my legitimate anxiety may be
speedily carried out.”

Letter from Bismarck to the King, dated 2nd May, 1866: “I
respectfully submit to your Majesty the communication which has just
been received from Vienna. It vouchsafes no prospect that Austria
will disarm, but seems to indicate that she merely wants to put
us off for a few days in order to complete her armaments before
adopting another tone towards your Majesty, in the belief that she
will then have secured a start of us which we could no longer make
up. Information reaches me from the Bourse that it is intended to
adopt financial measures of a ruinous character (forced loans?)
and that the trading community here, including its representative
bodies, regard the inactivity of the Royal House in presence of the
superior armaments of Austria, as inconceivable, and in the highest
degree alarming and detrimental to the country. This feeling, which
has prevailed among your Majesty’s Ministers before to-day, has now
become general in the city since the facts which were previously
known to the Government have found their way into publicity. This
feeling would certainly find violent expression should the event
show, which God forbid, that there had been any actual negligence in
providing for the protection of the country.”

On Friday at lunch the Chief asked me: “What is your opinion, Busch,
of Goethe’s tragedies, and of his dramas altogether?” I replied that
he was less of a dramatist than a lyric poet, but that “Faust,”
setting aside the second part, was after all a most wonderful
production. “Yes, certainly,” he said, “and ‘Götz’ too, but ‘Egmont,’
the man in ‘Stella,’ Tasso, and the leading characters in the others,
are all Weislingens--weak soft, sentimental creatures--not men as in
Shakespeare, always repetitions of himself, for he too had something
feminine in him, and could only realise and portray the feelings of
women.” I finally recommended Victor Hehn’s “Gedanken über Goethe,”
and referred him in particular to the first and second chapters.
Towards evening another long walk with Rottenburg, while the Prince
went to Schwarzenbeck and the Princess to Hamburg, probably to
make purchases in view of the Emperor’s visit. Both were back for
dinner, at which the Ranger or Chief Ranger of Schleswig-Holstein,
and the Head Forester Lange were also present. The conversation at
table turned chiefly on forestry, the various species of trees,
and other wooden subjects. A further selection from the Chief’s
papers, the arrangement of which will be complete in four or five
days. A letter of the 5th of January, 1876, from the Crown Prince
introduces Professor Geffcken, who has been to see him, and with
whom he has been speaking about his book, _Staat und Kirche_ (State
and Church), as a man “of ripe thought and great experience.” The
Chief replied on the 8th: “Dr. Geffcken belongs to that party in
the Evangelical Church which, like President von Gerlach and some
other Protestants, is in alliance with the Centre party and the
Jesuits, and which has been and still is hostile to every phase of
the German Empire’s development.” The letter goes on to say that his
book is a superficial compilation; that his criticism of the Falk
laws gives evidence of audacious presumption rather than of impartial
consideration; and that his Augustenburg and Hanseatic Particularism
has not been overcome by the restoration of the Empire, whose
interests he opposes in Alsace. “If I were to see him without the
presence of witnesses (which the Crown Prince seemed from his letter
to desire) I should have reason to apprehend that my intercourse with
such a tool of sectarian intrigue would arouse the mistrust of my
colleagues and of public opinion.”

The Crown Prince thinks otherwise. He replied on the 12th of January:
“During the many years of my acquaintance with Dr. Geffcken I have
never seen any leaning on his part to Catholicism, nor any opposition
to Prussia as a matter of principle. On the contrary I could see from
his whole attitude, as well as from the statements frequently made by
him, that there is as little reason to doubt his ardent Protestantism
as there is to question his patriotism.”

In a letter of the 12th of May, 1876, H.R.H. cannot too strongly urge
the Chancellor to give Friedberg the Imperial Secretaryship of State
for Justice, which it was proposed to establish. He at the same time
tried to meet the objections which Bismarck supposed the Emperor to
entertain. According to a letter of the 30th of June from the Crown
Prince to Bismarck Friedberg had acquired a claim upon his gratitude
by his long service, which frequently involved difficulties and
sacrifices, but was always marked with the same devotion.

On the 13th of June, 1878, the Crown Prince writing to the Chief
on the death of King George of Hanover, says _inter alia_: “I am of
opinion that now, the unfortunate Prince being dead, we must above
all things adopt a generous attitude towards his relatives.”

The Crown Prince now writes to the Chancellor more frequently than
before. From the 6th of July, 1879, onwards, the project of marrying
Prince William to the daughter of the Augustenburger was repeatedly
mentioned, Bismarck being asked to promote it. Bismarck submitted
his opinion of the scheme. (Professor Schulz prepared a similar
statement, in which he proved the Augustenburger’s equality of birth,
which had been strongly questioned.) In this opinion the Chief
recommends as indispensable a previous renunciation by Duke Frederick.


  CORRESPONDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING THE
                    GERMAN ALLIANCE WITH AUSTRIA.

Andrassy writes to Bismarck (neat handwriting in Latin characters):
“Schönbrunn, 1st September, 1879. Honoured Prince! Before leaving
Gastein I communicated _in nuce_ by telegraph to my most gracious
master, who went direct from Prague to Bruck, the tendency and the
result so far of our conferences. I laid special stress on the fact
that in view of the warlike preparations and the threatening language
which was heard alternately, both in Vienna and in Germany, the
question we had to deal with was that of a defensive understanding,
a sort of guarantee of insurance, between our two sovereigns, in
the sense that any attack upon either of the two empires should
be repelled by their united forces, and that the _casus fœderis_
should also arise in the event of an attack upon either by a third
Power with the co-operation of Russia. I afterwards emphasised the
circumstance that I was strongly in favour of this combination, but
nevertheless had not in any way pledged his Majesty. Hereupon I
received on my arrival a telegram from Prague, in which the Emperor
declares that he approves of the tendency and present results of
our meeting from the _fullest conviction_, and invites me to go
to see him in camp at Bruck. I was at Bruck yesterday, and had
an opportunity of submitting a detailed report on the subject. I
found the Emperor so fully convinced of the usefulness and, indeed,
necessity of such an arrangement, that further argument in its favour
proved to be superfluous. His Majesty sees therein not only no
departure from the determination to maintain peace between the three
empires, but the only possible way at the present moment of removing
the sword of Damocles which constantly hangs over our relations, and
of securing peace for the benefit of both States, and, indeed, for
the welfare of the _third_. As a matter of course, my Emperor is
always glad to see you here, and will be particularly glad to do so
on the present occasion. In the meantime, I am authorised as soon
as you are in a position to inform me that you have obtained the
approval in principle of the Emperor William to receive your draft
text and to prepare one myself. I am to remain in office until this
matter is completed, my successor only taking over the conduct of
affairs after the understanding has been concluded. Besides, I have
initiated him into the question, and he is in perfect agreement.

“Thus far as to what concerns his Majesty. The following is personal
and quite confidential. I have not ceased to think over the matter
for myself from all points of view, and my conviction has thereby
been strengthened. If immediately after a war for which no one in
Russia will to-day accept the responsibility and which has weakened
the Empire both from a financial and military standpoint, and at a
time when the Nihilist movement is momentarily suppressed and there
is nothing to force the Government to seek a diversion abroad,
Germany is to be threatened with France, and ourselves with an
increase of the army, and that in connection with such questions
as Merkovitch and the post offices of Eastern Rumelia, what is
to be expected when the wounds of war are healed, when internal
difficulties again make themselves felt, and when a foreign diversion
may seem the only means of escape?

“I must confess that I can have no ease of mind so long as I do
not see the torch extinguished which the Emperor Alexander half
unconsciously swings about over the European powder barrel, and
while I know the peace of Europe to rest in the hands of a Milutin,
a Jomini, and doubtless presently of an Ignatieff. I believe that
to-day every State (although our own less than others) has enough to
do to protect its authority against the subversive elements in its
midst. How is that to be done, however, and who will be able to do
it if the State is constantly obliged to devote half its power and
attention to dangers which are not of an internal but of a foreign
character, and which come not from below but from above? I entertain
no doubt as to the personal intentions of the Emperor Alexander. I
am convinced that he does not wish for war at present. But as the
Minister of a neighbouring State I cannot forget that he had also no
desire for the war just concluded, and that from the beginning to the
end of it he was trying to master the movement which had originated
in his immediate _entourage_. I consider it a European necessity to
provide in some way against this danger, and however difficult I
find it now to postpone my retirement which is already widely known
to be impending, it would be an immense gratification to me, as a
servant of my Emperor and country, to be able to join with you,
honoured Prince, in signing this guarantee for the future of our two
realms. Austria once committed the mistake of declining the overtures
of Germany which would have secured our mutual interests. It is a
satisfaction to me to be able to state that the same mistake will not
be committed by us this time.

                       “In sincere friendship and genuine respect,

                                                 “Your most devoted,

                                                           “Andrassy.”


To this Bismarck replied on the 3rd of September: “Honoured
Count,--Yesterday evening I received your letter of the 1st instant,
which is a source of much pleasure and satisfaction to me. I hasten
to send you a provisional answer. And, first, I beg you to convey to
his Majesty the Emperor my respectful thanks for the gracious manner
in which he has referred to my intention to come to Vienna. I am
pleased to see from your letter that his Majesty (unser Herr) has
one foot in the stirrup, and do not doubt that our united efforts
will succeed in placing him firmly in the saddle. Unfortunately, from
the nature of things, geographical and political, my task cannot be
so speedily completed as yours. A verbal report has not only the
advantage of saving time, but also that of confining the replies to
such questions as are actually raised in the most exalted quarter.
In a written report I must, as a measure of precaution, discuss
all the misunderstandings of which I may apprehend the possibility.
It has, therefore, come to pass that I have been obliged to dictate
to my son (who, with your kind permission, also writes this letter)
sixty pages, the contents of which I was further obliged to expand
in detail by telegraphic and other additions. Nevertheless, I have
not succeeded, in spite of all my pains, in entirely removing the
apprehension that our peaceful scheme may conceal some secret views
of an aggressive character. This idea is unwelcome to a gentleman
of over eighty-two years of age, but I hope I may be able to dispel
it altogether, even if it costs me a somewhat lengthy postscript to
those sixty pages. My master’s disinclination to a speedy acceptance
of new situations, which is a feature of his character, offers less
scope for my activity. For his Majesty, the attitude recently adopted
by the Emperor Alexander has for the first time illuminated, as with
a lightning flash, a situation which I have been repeatedly obliged
to recognise during the past few years. It will be a matter of
extreme difficulty for his Majesty to find himself forced into making
a choice between the two neighbouring empires, and he will therefore
close his mind as long as possible to the conviction that the moment
has come for such a course. In our Royal House habit exercises an
enormous power, and the instinct of persistence grows stronger with
age, and resists the recognition of undoubted changes in the outer
world. Besides, the Emperor Alexander (I do not know whether it be
due to the influence of others, or to his own determination) now
endeavours to force the Jupiter Tonans into the background by a
rapid transition to sunshine. In this sense the last threatening
utterances were followed within a week by a friendly invitation to
send a Prussian officer to Warsaw. This was accepted by my Emperor,
who announced the despatch of Field-Marshal Manteuffel and suite,
without my previous knowledge of this step, as a military measure.
Baron Manteuffel met at Warsaw with very considerable readiness to
make advances, in the sincerity and permanence of which however,
after all that has passed, I cannot place any confidence. I am not
as yet aware whether the meeting which is to take place to-day at
Alexandrowo, was suggested by him or by the Russians. The objections
on this side against a meeting on Russian soil have been disposed of
by a reference to the difficulty of taking with equal promptitude
outside of Russia the necessary precautions for the safety of the
Emperor Alexander. So far as I know this meeting takes place to-day,
our Emperor being accompanied by an aide-de-camp. According to a
report of Minister von Bülow it is mainly inspired by a desire to
obtain from the Emperor Alexander an explanation of his threatening
attitude. Before this has taken place I cannot expect an answer to
my report, which was first communicated to the Emperor on the 2nd,
and to which I have up to the present only received a telegraphic
reply through Bülow. From Bülow’s telegram, however, it appears
that even now the Emperor approves of my re-opening at Vienna the
conferences with you, upon which I have already reported to him (--At
first he was opposed even to Bismarck’s returning home by way of
Vienna--), but that nothing must be settled without his approval.
Of course that goes without saying and you will not be impatient if
my master requires before coming to a decision the time which his
years, his habits, and the novelty of the outlook demand. There is
also a further circumstance which indeed is favourable to our plans,
namely that H.R.H. the Crown Prince was consulted, and therefore
that an exchange of ideas must have taken place between the exalted
gentlemen. From my experience of my Sovereign for years past I had
hardly hoped that, within twenty-four hours after taking cognisance
for the first time of such a comprehensive and novel statement of
the situation, he would without more ado agree to the continuation
of our conferences. As I shall not remain inactive in the meantime I
hope before I leave Gastein to obtain fuller powers. Like you, every
day’s further consideration confirms my conviction of the usefulness
and necessity of the work which we have undertaken, and I trust God
will grant us to secure for our two great States the guarantee of
external and internal peace towards which our efforts are directed.
I have considered it my duty to inform you of the stage at which I
have arrived in my work, and I shall continue to do so as soon as I
receive the more detailed expression of my master’s views which has
been promised. Should his Majesty commit this to paper at Königsberg
on the 4th it would come to my hands on the 7th or at latest the 8th
instant. I was greatly tempted after your departure to go personally
to Berlin in order to plead our cause verbally, but the state of my
health and strength was too indifferent to permit of such a strain.
Moreover, experience has taught me that in explaining important
and difficult matters to my master I attain my object, not more
rapidly, it is true, but more certainly, by writing than in verbal
intercourse, as, in the latter, difficulties occasionally arise which
have no real connection with the matter under consideration. I hope
to complete my cure here by the 15th or 16th, and to be then once
more equal to the demands of the coming winter. Trusting that we
shall soon meet again, I remain, with friendly and cordial respect,

                                                 “Your most devoted,

                                                           “Bismarck.”


Stolberg writes to Bismarck from Berlin on the 17th of September:
“In continuation of my official communication of to-day, I have the
honour dutifully to inform your Serene Highness of the following.
As the Emperor was almost on the point of giving his approval he
suddenly became embarrassed, and said there was still another
obstacle, which he had mentioned to you in his last letter, and
which obliged him to attach importance to the exclusion of every
possibility of our being placed under an obligation to support
Austria in a war of aggression against Russia. After some hesitation
his Majesty made me pledge my word that, with the exception of your
Serene Highness, I would speak to no one on the subject, and then
referred to an understanding entered into by the two Emperors at St.
Petersburg in 1873 (with your previous knowledge, but without your
counter-signature), by which each was bound to render assistance
to the other in certain circumstances. This has obviously been the
chief stumbling-block, and has given rise to the notion of treachery
towards the Emperor Alexander to which Herr von Bülow alluded from
Stettin. Although this statement was too vague for me, in ignorance
of the matter in question, to thoroughly appreciate the weight of
the objection, I considered it my duty, in view of the approaching
decision, to seize hold of the statement made by the Emperor, namely,
that if the possibility above mentioned were excluded, his objection
would cease, and therefore to propose the addition.

“Although this objection would be thus obviated, his Majesty
nevertheless wishes to hear what your Serene Highness has to say upon
that point, and desires me to inform you to that effect. After giving
his sanction the Emperor was somewhat affected, and told me that
this decision had cost him a great effort. He believed, however,
that he ought to follow the advice of a tried counsellor like your
Serene Highness.--I am, with the profoundest respect, &c.”

Stolberg’s suggested addition ran as follows:--

“The sanction of the Emperor William to the signature of the treaty
with Austria would be obtained on condition that the Emperor might
write to the Emperor Alexander: ‘His Majesty is satisfied with
the assurances given in Berlin by Saburoff as to Russia’s love of
peace, and desires, as an evidence of his loyalty and frankness,
to communicate the fact that he _was on the point_ (underlined in
pencil by Bismarck) of concluding a treaty with Austria, in which
the careful cultivation of good relations was promised, and mutual
assistance was only provided for in cases of attack.’”

The letter from the Emperor to Bismarck, which Stolberg refers to in
the above communication, is dated Stettin, September 15th, and runs
as follows: “After I had completed my last letter to you, which you
will have received to-day, Field-Marshal Manteuffel forwarded to me
your telegram to him of the 7th instant, with which I am greatly
pleased, as I can see from it that it will be possible to bring about
an understanding between us. Fortunately this opinion is confirmed
by your fourth report, which reached me yesterday. But an important
point has occurred to me in connection with the pourparlers which you
will hold in Vienna. That is the Convention dated St. Petersburg,
1873, which was only signed by the two Field-Marshals, Moltke and
Barjatinsky, and was ratified by the Emperor Alexander and myself,
while you declined to sign. A circumstance which goes to confirm the
---- (illegible) which you then and so often raised against _binding_
Conventions, in circumstances where there was as yet no positive
object in view, for which reason I found much difficulty in making up
my mind to sign the St. Petersburg Convention. How can you now desire
to enter into a convention without giving notice of withdrawal from
that concluded at St. Petersburg? Both are intended to be defensive
conventions. Now, that of St. Petersburg binds Prussia and Russia to
render each other _assistance_ in case either should be attacked. The
projected Convention is to contain the same stipulation, but against
Russia. How are these two to be reconciled? It therefore appears to
me that Bülow’s idea (?) of leaving out the ‘against Russia’ would
afford us an opportunity of drawing Russia into the new Convention,
and thereby fulfilling that of St. Petersburg. As I do not believe
Bülow junior to be initiated into the secret of the St. Petersburg
Convention, I have not been able to speak of it to him, all the more
so as from his silence on the subject when stating his views he
seemed to have no knowledge of it.

                                                            “William.”


To this was added a postscript of no particular importance: review of
troops, inspection of fleet, patriotic reception, &c.

Bismarck to Andrassy from Gastein, on the 20th of September:
“Honoured Count,--In continuation of my humble communication of the
3rd instant, I have the honour now to complete the answer therein
begun to your Excellency’s kind letter of the 1st instant. I have,
in accordance with our conferences here, sent repeated and detailed
reports on the situation to the Emperor, my most gracious master.
The conformity between my views, which are known to your Excellency,
and those of my colleagues who represent me, have made it possible
for me to overcome the difficulties which were created by distance
and opposing influences from other quarters in so far that I am
now in a position to state that the Emperor agrees in principle
with the views by which I was guided at our recent conferences.
According to an official communication from my substitute, Count
Stolberg-Wernigerode, the Emperor is prepared to sanction an
agreement under which both Powers mutually undertake to continue to
promote the maintenance of peace, and in particular to cultivate
peaceful relations between both States and Russia, but, in the event
of either of them being attacked by one or more Powers, to jointly
repel such attack with their entire united strength. According
to this I am empowered by my most gracious master to propose an
unconditional defensive alliance between Austria-Hungary and the
German Empire, either with or without a limit of time. I humbly beg
your Excellency to enter upon a verbal discussion of this proposal.
I shall have to submit the result of our negotiations to my most
gracious master for approval. I entertain no doubt as to my being
able to obtain this sanction, if your Excellency be in a position
to agree in the name of the Emperor Francis Joseph to the proposal
made on our side, in the same simple and general terms in which it
is submitted. In any case I shall consider myself fortunate if our
conferences lead to this or other results calculated to promote the
mutual interests of both Empires and the peace of Europe.

                               “With friendly and cordial respect,

                                        “I remain your most devoted,

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


Letter from the King to Bismarck, dated Baden-Baden, October 2nd,
1879: “I regret to see from your letter of the 24th ultimo, as
also from the memorandum enclosed therewith, from the protocols of
your negotiations in Vienna, and from the draft treaty which has
been based upon them, that my views with regard to the latter have
not found acceptance on any side. As I expressed these views in
my letters from Danzig and Stettin of the 10th and 12th ultimo as
clearly as it was possible for me to do, you can see for yourself
how far they differ from the results arrived at, so that there is no
necessity for me to repeat them. Notwithstanding this circumstance,
however, I return herewith your letter of the 24th in order that you
may form an idea from my marginal notes (which, I regret to say, are
only in pencil) of the impression which it has made upon me.

“Germany and Austria are desirous of attaining the same end--security
against unprovoked attacks by foreign foes. But owing to the special
mention of Russia as the foe in question, I cannot agree to the
present proposals nor to the immediate conclusion of a treaty. After
again extending the hand in friendship to the Emperor Alexander
after the removal of misunderstandings (at Alexandrowo), am I now to
conclude an alliance against him, even of a defensive character, in
which he alone is referred to as the presumable aggressor, and keep
this intention a secret from him? I cannot be guilty of such an act
of disloyalty. In mitigation of this objection it has been urged
that, _le cas échéant_, Russia would be informed of the existence
of an alliance, if indications of a war against us became evident.
This very uncertain expression is so elastic that the notice would
either come too late or would only cause still greater irritation.
It was further argued that in the state of ferment now prevailing
in the internal affairs of Russia the knowledge of the alliance in
question would give her the leverage and self-command necessary to
master that ferment. But surely for that purpose official knowledge
of that honourable intention is necessary. And yet it is of course
impossible to give official knowledge of the fact that Russia is
regarded as the sole enemy. Therefore in order that it may be
possible to communicate the treaty to Russia, the reference to her
must be omitted from it, and the enemy be only described in general
terms, while it must be incidentally mentioned that in entering upon
it the parties have this honourable intention in view. That is what
I desire. I am opposed to an immediate ratification of the treaty,
because there is at the present moment absolutely nothing which
could lead to a war against Germany and Austria, and it is notorious
that binding treaties entered into without urgent necessity are
double-edged weapons. Austria urges the immediate ratification on
the ground that the favourable situation which for the moment exists
in France may be endangered, and that the intimacy between Austria
and England may cool down. I cannot conceive how such far-reaching
political combinations can possibly be made to depend upon the hazard
of a Minister of the French Republic who is on the point of being
overthrown. The Anglo-Austrian intimacy must after all be very shaky
if it depends upon the date of the ratification of a treaty. In view
of the consideration shown by Austria for the susceptibilities of
France and her apprehensions as to a coolness with England, Milutin’s
opinion as to the possibility of a Triple Alliance may after all not
be entirely unfounded.

“Now, another circumstance has arisen which may open a way out of
the dilemma in which I find myself between my conscience and honour
so far as Russia is concerned, and the objections raised to my views
on the Austrian side. In reply to my telegraphic inquiry, you have
informed me by wire of what Saburoff told you under instructions
from the Emperor. You infer from these communications that Russia
has already got wind of our Austrian negotiations (as is quite
natural), and you wish to conclude from the defensive attitude,
which, according to Saburoff’s assurance, Russia intends in future
to maintain that this assurance must have been a consequence of
the knowledge obtained respecting our negotiations. In these
circumstances it might be possible to immediately carry out the
suggestion made by me on page 3 as to the manner of communicating
our proposed arrangement with Austria, and to give the treaty a
general character, not only by omitting the name of Russia, but
by inviting her to join in the treaty. You yourself have said to
Saburoff that you are thoroughly in favour of the maintenance of the
Three Emperors’ Alliance; and the same idea occurs in the memorandum,
the protocol, and the treaty. What, then, could be simpler than to
confirm in a real written treaty the Drei Kaiser Bündniss which has
hitherto been merely verbal, or, at most, only had a written basis in
the St. Petersburg-Vienna arrangement? You yourself have further told
Saburoff that you would not be able to co-operate in any policy by
which Austria would be endangered. It is as right as it is important
that Russia should thus receive the first official intimation of
that of which it has already got wind. Inasmuch as our Ambassador at
St. Petersburg will have informed Minister Giers of your interview
with Saburoff, I would ask whether his assurance that Russia would
henceforth only pursue a defensive policy based on the Treaty of
Berlin is authentic, and whether it signifies a defensive policy as
against Germany and Austria. If a satisfactory answer were received,
and this were immediately communicated to Austria, there would be no
further obstacle in the way of ourselves and Austria acquainting the
Emperor Alexander in the manner above mentioned (page 3) with the
projected treaty, and inviting his adhesion.

“This would render necessary a modification of section 1; section 2
would drop out entirely; section 4 would be redrafted in accordance
with my marginal notes, should it be considered desirable that the
draft itself should constitute the first invitation to Russia to
join in the treaty, as the whole treaty would be submitted as an
instrument affecting so far only Germany and Austria. I consider
the omission of section 2 to be necessary, because it is directed
exclusively against Russia; and furthermore because it is specially
stated in your letter of the 24th ultimo that in case of an attack by
France upon Germany, Austria would be dispensed from supporting the
latter, and only bound to observe a benevolent neutrality. That is as
much as to say that we should support Austria against Russia with our
whole power (section 1), while Austria is dispensed from rendering a
like service if France should attack us. But the latter eventuality
is unquestionably more possible and indeed more probable than a
Russian attack, at least up to the present, since there the desire
for the _revanche_ is only slumbering, has never been abandoned, and
will show itself again directly a suitable opportunity arises. With
regard to our--Germany’s--position in a war with France I differ from
Field-Marshal Moltke, inasmuch as I cannot endorse his view that our
forces are sufficient to enable us to carry on such a war without
allies. In that event we should find ourselves in presence of an army
entirely different to that of 1870, as the progress which it has made
is undeniable. Besides, there is a further consideration, namely, the
almost hermetically sealed French frontier, extending from the Swiss
to the Belgian frontiers, a continuous line of fortresses and forts,
which--even if broken through--would render it impossible to send
reinforcements to the front, and would, moreover, enormously hamper
the strategic advance of our forces. It is on this restricted field
that, according to Field-Marshal Moltke, we are to deliver battle. If
we are victorious we cannot pursue the defeated enemy as we did in
1870, being stopped by this girdle of fortresses, to which, instead
of engaging in a pursuit, we should immediately have to lay siege.
Months might pass before we could capture any of them, and this would
give the defeated army time to refit at its leisure behind this line
and to meet us well prepared in the event of our breaking through it
at the risk of our communications with our base. But if the German
army is defeated in the first battle then the left bank of the Rhine
is immediately lost and we must withdraw across the river.

“For this reason Austria ought not to remain neutral in such a war,
but, on the contrary, must be bound by treaty to support us with her
whole power, in the same way as the treaty binds us to do with regard
to Russia.”

Continuation of this Imperial communication to the Chancellor, dated
Baden, October 4th: “I had not finished the enclosed letter to you
yesterday when your long telegram arrived, so that I had still to
add the last three-quarters of a page. The standpoint taken by me
in this letter has not been affected by my resolve to approve
_conditionally_ of the Vienna proposal. But I again ask you what are
we to reply if, in reference to the Memorandum to be communicated
to him, the Emperor Alexander should ask: ‘What, then, have you
decided to do in connection with this Memorandum? most probably
concluded an agreement? Until I am acquainted with it, I can come to
no decision, therefore show me this agreement.’ But as the agreement
in its present form cannot be shown to Russia, we must decline to
produce it; and what impression must this refusal make upon the
Emperor Alexander? Certainly the very worst. The wording of section
2 is, to my mind, so very strange that I merely wanted to sum up the
enclosure by proposing that the neutrality of Austria in case of our
being attacked by France be struck out, and Austria be called upon to
assume the same obligation to stand by us with her entire strength
that we undertake towards Austria in section 1, in case of a Russian
attack. Otherwise the conditions are not equal. Strongly impress this
upon Andrassy once more.

                                                            “William.”


Letter from Andrassy to Bismarck, dated 3rd October, 1879: “I have
received your much esteemed letter of the 29th of September, for
which I return my warmest thanks. I have since then received through
Prince Reuss some communications referring to the position of the
negotiations. I enclose them herewith in the form in which they were
written down by Prince Reuss himself. I am in a position to declare
myself in agreement with the intention manifested in this proposal,
but I have nevertheless some scruples as to two points. The first is
that a treaty is spoken of, and the second that the conclusion of the
treaty is described as impending _in the future_. My objection to
the first is that, if the intention to conclude a treaty is expressly
emphasised in the letter of his Majesty the Emperor William,
it follows necessarily that they will ask for the text at St.
Petersburg, and this will afford the Russian Cabinet, before things
are settled between us, an opportunity to commence negotiations _à
trois_ from which I do not anticipate a satisfactory result for any
of the parties. For this reason I venture to submit a counter, or,
more correctly, a parallel proposal, the adoption of which would, it
seems to me, be of advantage to both sides. This is:--

“_After having sanctioned the signature of the Treaty_ (underlined by
Bismarck in pencil) his Majesty the Emperor William can _communicate
the entire contents_ (underlined in pencil by Bismarck) of the
Memorandum agreed upon and signed by us, which, of course, implies
an agreement, adding on his own part the explanation that this
agreement at the same time involves a tacit understanding by both
Governments that an attack upon either Empire will be regarded as
directed against both, and will also be construed by his Majesty
in that sense. His Majesty, satisfied with the statement made by
Saburoff, respecting Russia’s love of peace, makes this communication
as a proof of his loyalty and frankness. His Majesty may, perhaps,
add that this understanding is of an entirely defensive character,
and that there is nothing to prevent Russia from removing any
antagonistic tendency by herself adhering to the principles laid down
in the Memorandum. (Pencil-marked in the margin by Bismarck.) By this
means the object of the Emperor William would be fully attained,
namely, to communicate the significance of our understanding, while,
on the other hand, no mention would be made of the existence
of a more precise agreement, and, therefore, the necessity of
communicating it would be avoided.

“Such a communication of the text would have among other things the
disadvantage, first, that the adhesion of Russia to this text is
inconceivable; secondly, that the passage in it referring to France
and Italy would become known there almost immediately, and would, at
the present time, give rise to quite unnecessary combinations; and,
thirdly, that the affair might transpire in Parliament, and lead to
undesirable discussions. These considerations commend my proposal.
Should you not be able to secure its acceptance in the competent
quarter, I could agree to any other method, including the suggestion
made by Stolberg, my most gracious master having before his departure
declared that he would not make a _conditio sine quâ non_ of
preserving secrecy as to the Treaty _after signature_.

“There is, on the other hand, one point which I would regard as
entirely out of the question, namely, any communication of the
existence and contents of the Treaty before the sanction of his
Majesty, the Emperor William, is actually given or is assured.
(Bismarck added in pencil: ‘Quite right.’) Without desiring to
forestall the decision upon this point of my most gracious master,
I should prefer to _renounce altogether the conclusion of an
agreement_, and in any case I should be obliged to forego for my own
part any further share in the negotiations upon such basis. Pray
excuse, dear Prince, the somewhat abrupt tone of this statement, but
as the matter appeared to me to be pressing, I desired to let Prince
Reuss have the letter to-day. Begging you to present my respects to
the Princess, I remain, with unalterable and cordial respect,

                                            “Your sincerely devoted,

                                                           “Andrassy.”


The Crown Prince writes to Bismarck (quite confidentially) from
Baden-Baden, on the 4th of October, 1879: “Count Stolberg will
have already informed you prior to the receipt of these lines of
the course of affairs up to the signing of the draft Treaty by the
Emperor. I therefore say nothing more about this very exciting
crisis, the result of which I confidently anticipate will be of
far-reaching importance for the position of Germany. I must point
out, however, that his Majesty is quite miserable, and keeps on
repeating that he has dishonoured himself by his decision, and has
been disloyal to his friend the Tsar; so that one clearly sees how
fearfully difficult the decision was for him, with his extreme
conscientiousness.”

Draft (dated Varzin, October 30th, 1879) of a verbal answer to be
made to the Emperor Alexander in reply to any question which he might
ultimately put: “An institution which arose under the influence of
Alexander I. and which preserved the peace of central Europe for half
a century, had to be sacrificed in 1866 to irresistible necessity.
The German Confederation was an excessive burden to us Prussians,
while it did not satisfy the aspirations of the other Germans. The
discontent thus created was utilised by the revolutionary party, for
the purpose of threatening every German Prince. It was necessary to
deprive them of this weapon, and to satisfy the national sentiment.
This was done at the expense of the security which the Confederation
afforded, almost without cost, to its weaker members.

“That the breach caused by the secession of Austria, which extended
from the Carpathians to the Lake of Constance, would have to be
filled up was recognised even in the _Paulskirche_. Later on, after
the war of 1866, attempts were unceasingly made to bind Austria to
the States, with which it had been formerly united in the German
Confederation, so as to prevent her from allying herself with
France against them. This object has now been attained without
any obligation on our part to defend Trient, Trieste, or, indeed,
Bosnia, against Italians, or Turks, or Southern Slavs. Our agreement
with Austria no more involves anything in the nature of a threat
to our neighbours than would do the erection of a fortress on the
frontier, which, of course, has never been regarded in that light,
and it is even less of a menace for instance, than the construction
of strategic railways. It has, indeed, the character of a mutual
assurance society, which every one having similar interests is at
liberty to join.”

Report of the Emperor William to Bismarck of his interview at
Alexandrowo, from a copy made for the Crown Prince:--

1. _September 5th._--“The Emperor Alexander began the conversation
by an explanation of his letter to me. Nobody knew anything of it.”
(Marginal note by Bismarck: “Gortschakoff revised it.”) (1) He
had shown it to no one _before_ it was despatched, and _after_ it
had been sent he only communicated it verbally without naming the
persons. If, therefore, I had found anything offensive in the letter,
as he saw from my answer, he alone was to blame, and he recognised
that it was possible for me to have misunderstood him. (2) He was
_very sorry_ for that, and since it had had such a serious result as
to cause me personal offence, he wished it to be regarded as if it
had never been written. Nothing was farther from his intention than
the idea of a threat. He had only wished to call my attention to the
fact, which was perfectly true, that if the press of both countries
continued to rail at each other it must lead in the course of time to
a feeling of hostility between the two States, and his sole object
was to avoid that. (3) He considered that the preservation of the
peace of Europe was only possible in the future, as it had been in
the past, so long as good relations between Prussia and Russia were
maintained under all circumstances. (3A) The votes given, mostly
against Russia, by my Commissioners in the proceedings of the
European Commissions in the East had betrayed a hostile attitude on
the part of Germany towards Russia, which had caused great irritation
in the latter country, and gave rise to the excited comments of the
press. (4) In these Commissions Russia was pursuing the object which
she had had exclusively in view during the war, namely, to improve
and render more assured the fate of the Christian populations, but
not to make conquests. If opposition were now offered thereto in
the delimitation of the frontier, and more or more Christians were
restored against his wish to Turkish sovereignty, the Commissioners
must have received instructions to that effect. (5) The German
votes had already produced a bad effect in Turkey also, inasmuch as
the disagreement which was there seen to exist between Germany and
Russia rendered the Turks more obstinate, and caused work to drag
on interminably. (6) Prince Bismarck, whom he had hitherto known
only as the friend of the Russo-Prussian relations, seemed unable
to forget Prince Gortschakoff’s--stupid--circular of 1875. _He_ had
strongly advised Prince Gortschakoff _against sending this circular_,
and pointed out to him the evil consequences (of his vanity, _en
parenthese_) because if there actually were anything to smooth over,
that was not the way to set about it. Prince Gortschakoff had his
way, however. Bismarck’s grudge, and his inability to forget, which
began with this irritation against Gortschakoff, appeared to him to
have been transferred to Russia, and it was to this that he referred
in his letter to me when he said that he could not reconcile such
conduct with the character of so eminent a statesman. This expression
of his in the letter to me did not refer to the instructions given
to the Commissioners with respect to Eastern affairs. Moreover
(7), Prince Gortschakoff is a man who has outlived his usefulness,
and whom he hardly ever consults now. “In reply to No. 1, I said I
could not deny that I had been painfully affected by his letter,
particularly because I had considered that his remarks referred only
to the votes in question, and they seemed to me a matter of such
slight consequence that I could not understand his irritation on that
score. It was only through his declaration to the effect that his
expression referred to the subject dealt with in No. 7 (doubtless
No. 6 is meant) that I now for the first time understood it. I
could assure him that Prince Bismarck still regards the relations
between Prussia, Germany, and Russia as he always did, but that he
saw a feeling gaining ground in Russia, chiefly owing to the press,
which he could not understand, in view of the existing laws there,
especially as semi-official organs contributed to this detrimental
state of feeling. I added that I was prepared to admit that our
press was also guilty of similar excesses, but, after all, these
were mainly in self-defence against the Russian attacks. We are
so tied by our press laws that we can only intervene in the way of
personal _appeal_ to the editors of the newspapers, but not legally
unless a state of siege were proclaimed in certain districts. Nos. 2
and 3. If the words in question were to be understood as containing
no threat I should feel reassured, as the interpretation which the
Emperor gave to this passage of his letter was in perfect accord
with my own convictions. As his Government had quite recently
issued a serious reprimand with regard to improper articles in the
newspapers, it was to be expected and hoped, from the power with
which the Governor-General was invested, that energetic action would
be taken. I, on my part, had caused certain _advice_ to be given to
the editors, the law did not _permit_ any more. 3A. Our instructions
to the Commissioners in question had remained the same from the very
beginning: if Russia and Austria were in agreement always to vote
with them; when points arose where that was not the case to vote
with the majority, where the Russian proposal was not flagrantly
untenable. That had been the case in the matter of Silistria, where
I was entirely in favour of the Russian proposal to appoint a
Commission to inquire into the question of the bridge on the spot,
and also with regard to the military road through Eastern Rumelia. 4.
This view was quite new to me, as nothing of the kind had previously
been brought to my notice. At the same time, these little frontier
details were after all so trifling that they could hardly affect the
question of the Christians to any important extent. Unfortunately,
the Greek frontier question had only been mentioned at the Congress
as the expression of a desire, and not as a _demand_, and I foresaw,
from the first, how it would be, _mais pendant le congrès je n’avais
pas voix au chapitre_. I regarded in the same way the Jewish
question in Rumania, the broader solution desired being, to my mind,
impracticable, and therefore I wished to see the Greek modification
adopted.”

Continuation of this report, dated September 12th, 1879:--

“Nos. 6 and 7. I had never noticed that Prince Bismarck was inspired
by particularly hostile feelings towards Prince Gortschakoff on
account of the latter’s circular of 1875. My opinion and his upon
that note was exactly the same as that of the Emperor Alexander
himself; but at the Berlin Congress the same view with regard to
Prince Gortschakoff was manifested as was expressed above by the
Emperor, and I therefore understood the peculiar position which was
now assigned to him. I believe that in my answer to the Emperor I
adequately emphasised how little change there has been in Prince
Bismarck’s political views so far as Russia is concerned. He had
always agreed with me that, remembering the attitude adopted by
Russia towards us in 1870, we for two whole years, 1876 and 1877,
tried to manifest our gratitude to the Emperor by our _neutralité
bienveillante_, and actually succeeded in preventing a coalition of
the Western Powers, including Austria. This seemed to me to disprove
the suspicion of the Emperor that Prince Bismarck had out of spite
against Prince Gortschakoff changed his political views, and on that
account had adopted towards Russia an attitude to which expression
had been given in such trifling questions. Up to the present Prince
Bismarck’s sentiments towards Russia remained unaltered.

“On the forenoon of the 4th the Emperor came to see me again in order
to take leave of me after lunch. He had received a telegram from
Jugenheim, from the Empress Marie, who desired to be remembered to
me, and was very pleased at our meeting at Alexandrowo. He added:
‘C’est à elle que j’ai communiqué la première ma lettre à Vous dont
le brouillon était par differentes correctures presque illisible. I
afterwards showed my letter and your answer to Adlerberg, Milutin and
Giers; they know exactly what my political opinions are concerning
Prussia and Germany, and being in perfect agreement with me on
this subject, they are pleased that erroneous impressions will be
dispelled by our meeting.’ The Emperor then read me a letter from the
Russian envoy reporting a conversation which he had had at Kissingen
with Prince Bismarck on the political situation; and a great deal had
in particular been said about Prussia and Russia acting together. The
envoy found that Prince Bismarck’s former view of the Three Emperors’
Alliance had remained entirely unchanged. The Emperor repeated,
_en aperçu_, the views which we had exchanged, and was heartily
glad the misunderstandings had been cleared up and that the old
friendship would be maintained between the two States in association
with Austria. As to the latter, he now added for the first time:
‘Certainly I had reason to be dissatisfied with her, as her attitude
towards me during the war was _louche_ as usual. Without firing a
shot she occupied two Turkish provinces, of course never to surrender
them again, as the English will never give up Cyprus, respecting
which they entered into a separate treaty during the Congress without
making any communication to the Great Powers.’ I interrupted him
here, saying I believed there had been negotiations at Reichstadt
respecting the occupation of Bosnia and the Herzegovina. ‘Yes,’ said
the Emperor, ‘but under quite different conditions, that Austria
should take part in the war in some way or other. All the same, the
main point is that we should hold together _à trois_.’ Of course I
could only confirm that view as my own conviction.

“On the same morning I spoke to General Count Adlerberg, Minister
Giers, and Minister of War Milutin, one after the other. The first
two spoke with equal warmth in favour of the old relations. They were
aware of the Emperor’s letter and of my answer, which I mentioned as
_entrée de conversation_, and they were at one with the Emperor in
his satisfaction at the removal of the misunderstandings which they
would have thought to be impossible, knowing, as they did, exactly
the views to which the Emperor desired to give expression in his
letter. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of these sentiments.
I nevertheless told them quite plainly that it was the press that
led to an estrangement between our countries. As a strongly worded
rescript had now been issued in Russia decidedly disapproving of the
hostile attitude adopted by the press towards Germany, an improvement
was to be anticipated, that is, if the Governors by whom a state of
siege had been proclaimed throughout almost all Russia--a measure to
which I could only wish every success--made use of their power to
immediately seize all newspapers, pamphlets, &c., which published
inflammatory matter. If that were not done the dangerous consequences
which the Emperor had foreseen would certainly follow, namely,
discord between the two States. In dealing with our own free press,
my hands were tied by the law and our representative Constitution,
and hence the defensive attitude against the Russian press taken up
in our newspaper articles. I had, however, given orders that the
editors should be advised to exercise greater restraint themselves,
should an improvement take place in the Russian press. The gentlemen
in question agreed with me in all this, and hoped for an improvement.

“The conversation with General Milutin began with the subject
described above. I then expressed my appreciation of the new
organisation introduced during the war, and said I could not
understand where the money was found for it. But all Europe had
been alarmed at seeing the efforts and the monetary sacrifices made
for carrying on the war suddenly retained on a peace footing. He
replied: ‘It was precisely the war which proved that the Russian
army was not strong enough even to overcome the power of Turkey, its
enormous forces being dispersed over the whole empire from Siberia to
the Vistula. Therefore a nucleus must be maintained which shall be
equal to European requirements. This cost can be met out of Russian
resources that are unknown to other countries. We have war frontiers
against China, against the countries on the Indian border, against
Persia and against Turkey. We have received news that a coalition
is being formed between Austria, England, and perhaps France. That
points to a new conflict in the East. England is organising and
arming Asia Minor, which is being inundated with State officials,
generals, and officers in the guise of consuls, a sure indication of
hostile intentions upon our position in the Caucasus. The Eastern
conflict is near at hand.’ I demurred to the latter statement, and
asserted that if once the decisions of the Berlin Congress were
carried out in their entirety, no fresh war was to be anticipated
there, as Turkey required peace above everything else.

                                           “(Signed) William, 9/9/79.”


“While the Emperor was with me on the 4th a telegram from London was
brought to him, according to which England declared that, although
not in favour of the appointment of a technical commission _ad hoc_
for the settlement of the bridge question at Silistria, she would
be pleased to see the Servian Frontier Commission entrusted with
that task. The Emperor said he could agree to that, and that only
technical members should be appointed to the Commission.”

These papers also include the letter from the Emperor William to
Bismarck, dated 10/9/79, which accompanied the foregoing report:
“Herewith I send you the conclusion of the notes of my conversation
with the Emperor Alexander. My letter from Berlin, which crossed
your memorandum No. 1, showed you that your views, which you now
repeat with more detail in No. 2, are in contradiction--first in
principle, and then that an answer could not be given until I had
spoken with the Emperor Alexander. Your premises in the memoranda
could be transformed into truth for me only after I had spoken to the
Emperor, and--as I wrote you through Minister von Bülow--after light
had been thrown upon the correspondence. Up to that time I regarded
your memoranda _comme non avenus_. For me my notes have brought this
light. The Emperor regrets having written the letter, as it has
given rise to misunderstandings; as the words ‘ce qui doit avoir des
suites fâcheuses et dangereuses’ should absolutely not be regarded as
threatening a rupture, but only as directing my attention to the fact
that if some restraint were not placed upon the press, ill feeling
might arise between our two countries, which neither of us desired,
and therefore that measures should be taken accordingly. That being
as true as anything in this world can be, I could only express my
complete approval, all the more so as the Russian Government had
already taken such steps, and I had ordered similar measures prior to
my departure. As you will see from the notes, I corrected the view
taken by the Emperor Alexander of the votes given by my Commissioners
in the East, and he fully understood this, although he stated that he
had already received news of the unfavourable consequences of these
votes, which was quite new to me, but which explained the Emperor’s
dissatisfaction on that score. You will also read how I defended you
against the passage in the Emperor’s letter. He fully agreed that
our policy during the war in the East was of the greatest benefit to
Russia, which involves the highest recognition for yourself. I could
assure him that _till now_ you had maintained your old sentiments
towards Russia, as was sufficiently proved in 1877 and 1878. On this
occasion the Emperor expressed his conviction that peace could only
be preserved for Europe by our holding together _à trois_, as we had
done since the meeting in Berlin in 1872. Having hitherto held the
same conviction myself, I could only agree with him. As the three
persons, Adlerberg, Giers, and Milutin, spoke in exactly the same
sense, the light which I looked for at this meeting at Alexandrowo
respecting the sentiments of the Emperor and those persons who
stand highest in his confidence has been forthcoming _so far as I
am concerned_. None of them has the slightest wish to wage war upon
us. The great additions to the Russian army which were raised as a
reserve during the Turkish war, are retained as a permanent increase
because they believe themselves to be threatened by a European
coalition, and therefore must be in a state of preparation which
would enable them to meet this _alone_.

“Since therefore, for me, the premises in your memoranda fall
to the ground, namely, that owing to the danger threatened from
Russia we should give up the policy we have hitherto pursued in our
relations with that country and not only seek but actually conclude
a European coalition of a defensive nature against Russia, I cannot
lend myself to this project in its present extension. In view of
the explanation given by the Emperor Alexander of his letter to me,
which _I_ originally did not regard as a threat but only as a desire
to see the existing good relations between our States maintained by
means of restrictions upon the press, it could _only be a source
of satisfaction to me_ to see the milder tone which prevailed in
your answer sent by me to the Emperor, the moderate pressure and
the truths which it contained being sufficiently intelligible _and
also understood_. The words ‘une entente séculaire, les legs de
nos pères de glorieuse mémoire’ were written according to my own
heart, and went to the heart of the Emperor, so that he repeated
them to me twice. I could not therefore understand your hostility to
Russia, which increases with each memorandum, nor could I see how the
expressions quoted above could be interpreted as a mere empty phrase!
I was just as deeply affected by the words that we should outwardly
maintain a friendly attitude towards Russia while at the same time
concluding a coalition against her with Austria, with England, and
perhaps with France. And you have its conclusion already so fixedly
in view that you have not only communicated your whole project to
Count Andrassy, but have also permitted him to speak of it to his
Emperor (seinem Kaiser), who also immediately accepts it. Then you
invite me to send you instructions, on your way back through Vienna,
to conclude a defensive alliance there with Austria against Russia,
which would be followed by the larger coalition. Put yourself in my
place for a moment. I am in presence of a personal friend, a near
relative and an ally, in order to come to an understanding as to
some hasty and indeed misunderstood passages in a letter, and our
interview leads to a satisfactory result. Shall I now at the same
time join a hostile coalition against this sovereign, that is to say,
act behind his back in a manner contrary to that in which I spoke to
him?

“I will not absolutely deny that the dangers set forth in your
memoranda may arise one day, particularly on a change of rulers in
St. Petersburg. I am, however, utterly unable to see that there is
any imminent danger. How often have you warned me against treaties
with other Powers, which tied one’s hands, when there is no positive
object in view, and there is only room for conjecture as to an
uncertain future. My brother and Minister Manteuffel in particular
burnt their fingers over the Three Years’ Treaty with Austria which
was concluded after Olmütz, and impatiently awaited the expiry of
that term. The present case is quite similar. It is against my
political convictions and my conscience to bind my hands for the sake
of a _possible eventuality_.

“At the same time, I must not disavow you and the steps which you
have already taken in dealing with Andrassy and his master. Therefore
in Vienna, whither all the newspapers already say you are going, you
may speak of the _eventuality_ of disagreement with Russia developing
into a possible breach, and enter into _pourparlers_ respecting the
joint measures to be then taken with Austria. But, following my
conscience, I do not authorise you to conclude a convention, to say
nothing of a treaty.

“In this way I hope our views will again agree. If it be God’s will
that this should be the case, I can look forward with confidence to
the future, which would otherwise for me be very dark, and anticipate
a genuine continuance of the relations with Russia, which are growing
more friendly. I cannot tell you how painful the episode has been to
me, when it seemed, for the first time in seventeen years, as if we
could not come to an understanding. I impatiently await your answer
to the above authorisation, and am convinced that we shall be able to
come to an agreement. God grant that it may be so!

                                         “Your faithful and devoted,

                                                             “William.

“Finished at Stettin, 12/9/79.”

“As Herr von Bülow, after taking a copy of my additions to the
Alexandrowo notes, had the original immediately despatched to you,
there is a corresponding change in the opening words of this letter.”

Letter from Bismarck to Prince Reuss, dated Varzin, 28th January
1880 (on the left top corner, the note: “Copied a second time in the
interest of history”--doubtless in Holstein’s handwriting):--

“In connection with your report, No. 11 of the 10th, I take the
liberty to send your Serene Highness a few words confidentially, and
only for your personal information, on the relations between Austria
and Italy.

“I consider it natural that Baron Haymerle should have made no
official complaint respecting Urezzana, and furthermore, that he
was tactically right in taking that course. I should not regard
it as good policy however to adopt a purely passive attitude
towards similar permanent threats. Such a course would, I fear,
only encourage Italian Chauvinism, and the semi-complicity of the
Government therewith. According to my political convictions a
purely defensive attitude, _i.e._, one of mere complaint, is not an
effective weapon against such permanent threats or incitement. It is
open to Austria to parry such attacks, by assuming the offensive,
on similar lines to the Italian demonstrations. It is not the
Italian Government which adopts a threatening attitude. It only
suffers Italian subjects to do so. Now I am convinced that there are
elements and movements in Austria that favour the restoration of
the Papal States, and of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, just as
the Irredentists work for the acquisition of the Trentino. If these
elements in the press and public life of Austria were to come or to
be drawn into greater prominence, that would involve a counteraction
against the Irredenta, which would compel the Italians to fall
back upon the defensive, without being able to make any complaint.
Even the plea that Austria, in view of such threatening movements,
requires a better line of defence than that which she now possesses
would be quite as legitimate as a craving for the Trentino, Trieste,
and Dalmatia. Italy by herself would scarcely venture to attack
Austria, but her present attitude is a constant encouragement to
the war party in Russia. For about twelve months I have had the
impression that Italy is inclined to place herself at the disposal of
a Russian policy of war if in return she were offered an accession
of territory and a stretch of the Adriatic coast. The relations
which it has been sought to establish between the two armies, the
Italian and the Russian, and the shifting of the centre of gravity
of the Italian army towards the north support this impression, not
less than the indications furnished by various votes which the Great
Powers have respectively given. This whole attitude shows that Italy
must not be numbered to-day among the peace-loving and conservative
Powers, who must reckon with this fact. I beg your Serene Highness
also to think over this matter for yourself, and to kindly send me
your views in an autograph private letter. Of course any initiative
in opening up this subject must be carefully avoided, but Baron
Haymerle, or Count Andrassy when he comes to Vienna, can hardly fail
to bring it up in conversation with your Serene Highness, and thus
give you an opportunity of introducing observations in the sense of
the foregoing remarks, not as the expression of German policy, but as
your own opinion in the character of a friendly expert. In certain
circumstances the Nuncio also might afford an opportunity for an
expression of opinion in this sense which would excite no suspicion.
It would in any case be of interest to assure one’s self of the
present feelings of the Italian Prelacy with regard to strategic
moves of this description.

“I cannot deny that, to my mind, the Italy of to-day offers Germany
small prospect of useful co-operation with us in the possible crises
of the future. On the contrary, we have much more ground to fear that
Italy will join our adversaries than to hope that she will unite
with us, seeing that we have no more inducements to offer her. Every
encouragement to Italian policy to join the bellicose and predatory
Powers in Europe is contrary to _German_ interests, and in the
present instance still more contrary to those of Austria. For the
protection of the latter it would, I think, be useful to call the
attention of the English Cabinet to the encouragement to breaches of
the peace which the attitude of Italy involves. Perhaps your Serene
Highness can ascertain whether anything has been done or is intended
in this direction.

                                                           “Bismarck.”


The Emperor William to the Imperial Chancellor, Berlin, November
13th, 1885: “Enclosed I return you _brevi manu_, your two extremely
important and interesting letters, with my observations. I beg you to
excuse me for selecting this method of answering them, but you know
how badly I write long explanations, and from the marginal notes you
will see my complete agreement with your views, so that I believe I
may adopt this shorter form of answer. I may mention to you at the
same time that I consider the moment has now come to lay before my
son the views with which it was all along intended to acquaint him,
as to the utter inexpediency, now no less than formerly, of the
marriage in question, which, of course, he himself has also always
held to be impossible. Now, however, that Prince Alexander has come
forward as a rebel against the peace of Paris (doubtless Berlin was
meant), and the signatories thereto, whether he remains in Bulgaria
or not, a marriage of this kind has become more than ever impossible.
Your political explanations are quite to the point.

                                                      “Your grateful

                                                            “William.”


I left for Hamburg at 12.20 on the 29th of October, shortly after
the Emperor passed through that city. On the evening of the 30th I
returned to Friedrichsruh, where I arrived about 5.30 P.M. At dinner,
the Prince, who was in excellent spirits, said that the most gracious
Master had in all taken up five hours of his time. Afterwards, over
our coffee, he observed to me: “This afternoon he let me talk to him
for three hours on end. I stood as if in the pulpit, and I am tired
out.” Everybody said that the Emperor was extremely unaffected and
amiable, and the Princess noticed in particular that he could laugh
most heartily. I heard that Minister Mittnacht would arrive next day.
By 12 o’clock on the day of my journey to Hamburg I had read through
the last of the Bismarck papers, which went as far as the year 1887
and concluded with No. 735. Among the most recent of the papers are
three letters of the year 1880 from King Lewis of Bavaria, full of
recognition for Bismarck, the second expressing regret at his wish
to retire, and the hope that he would remain. A letter from the
Emperor William to the Chief dated May 31, 1886, on the “horrifying
news from Munich,” says towards the close that there is little to be
hoped from Prince Luitpold, while King Lewis is credited with having
“shown more good will ... for the German cause.” Then two autograph
letters from the Crown Princess (the present Dowager Empress). One is
dated December 23, 1885, and accompanied a present of Moselle wine
which he had liked at her table; while the other, dated from Villa
Zivio, November 22, 1887, deals with the illness of her consort,
and reports the unanimous opinion of the German doctors. Finally,
a letter of November 23, 1887, from the Emperor William, which is
very illegibly written and runs somewhat as follows: “Enclosed I
send you the nomination of your son as _Wirklicher Geheimrath_ with
the title of Excellency, in order that you may hand it to him, a
pleasure which I would not deny you. I imagine that this pleasure
will be threefold, for yourself, for your son, and for me! I take
this opportunity (to explain) to you the silence which I have
observed up to the present respecting your proposal, in view of the
sad condition of health of my son the Crown Prince, to initiate my
grandson, Prince William, more fully into State affairs. In principle
I entirely agree with you that this must be done, but it is a very
difficult matter to carry into execution. You will of course know
that the very natural decision, which I took on your advice, that,
in case of my being prevented, my grandson William should sign the
current Cabinet rescripts in civil and military affairs with the
superscription ‘By Order of his Majesty’ greatly irritated the Crown
Prince, as if, in Berlin, a substitute were already being thought
of. On considering the matter quietly my son will doubtless have
reassured himself. But such reflection would be more difficult if
he ascertained that his son were allowed a still greater insight
into State affairs, and were even given a Civil aide-de-camp as I
used to call my _Vortragende Räthe_. Things were, however, quite
(different) then. As there was nothing that could induce my Royal
father to appoint a substitute for the then Crown Prince (although my
succession to the throne could be anticipated long beforehand), my
introduction to State affairs was put off till I was forty-four years
old, when my brother suddenly nominated me a member of the Ministry
of State with the title of Prince of Prussia. It was necessary in
this position that an experienced man of business should be appointed
to prepare me for each sitting of the Council of Ministers. At the
same time I received the diplomatic despatches every day, after
they had passed through four, five, or six hands--according to the
seals! A mere _conversation_, such as you propose, the appointment
of a statesman in attendance on my grandson, would not have the
character of a preparation, as in my case, for a _specific object_,
and would certainly still further irritate my son, a thing which must
absolutely be avoided. I would therefore suggest that the course of
occupation hitherto followed--learning the manner of dealing with
State affairs--should be continued, that is to say that (my grandson)
should be attached to single Ministries or perhaps to two at a time,
as during this winter, when my grandson was attached in a voluntary
capacity to the Foreign Office as well as to the Ministry of Finance.
This voluntary course should cease with the New Year, and perhaps
(be replaced) by the Ministry of the Interior, my grandson being
permitted in special cases to obtain information at the Foreign
Office. This _continuation_ of the course hitherto followed may
cause my son less irritation, although you will remember that he was
strongly opposed even to this. I therefore beg you to let me have
your opinion on the matter. Wishing you all a pleasant festival,

                                                  “Your grateful

                                                        “William.”[18]


On Thursday, November 1st, I told the Prince, at lunch, that I would
either immediately or next morning return him the papers, sorted
and arranged. He replied, however, that he had found some more
which belonged to the collection. He took me with him to his study,
and handed them to me for arrangement, adding that there were very
many more at Varzin, a whole box full, including private letters of
historic significance. I should also go through these later on, and
put them into chronological order.

On the morning of Friday, the 2nd of November, I read, sorted,
and numbered new documents, which were afterwards put into a fresh
envelope. Among these was the announcement of March, 1877, by the
Emperor William, that he had appointed Bismarck Hereditary Grand
Huntsman of Pomerania, reports respecting the illness of the Crown
Prince, afterwards Emperor Frederick, from San Remo, Charlottenburg,
and Potsdam, a letter from the Emperor William II. to Bismarck,
transferring him to the second regiment of Guards, a telegram from
the same, dated October 21, 1888, expressing his satisfaction at
his journey to South Germany, Vienna, and Rome, whence he had just
returned, and his thanks for the Chief’s counsels, which had been
justified by his experience while away, and, finally, the letter
already alluded to from the Empress Augusta. Nothing of importance
among them.

At midday, before lunch, I personally handed over to the Chief the
envelopes containing the papers. He appeared to have looked through
them in the afternoon, as, when he was passing by in the evening,
before dinner, as usual, with his two dogs, he gave me his hand and
thanked me, expressing his surprise that I had been able to deal with
such a mass of letters and papers in so short a time. I said if he
wished to have those at Varzin also arranged, and could find no more
suitable person to do it, I should be glad if he would let me know
when he was next going to his estate in Further Pomerania, so that I
might come there and complete my task. I should be delighted to serve
him and learn something for myself at the same time. Rottenburg was
absent from dinner. He had gone to Hamburg to meet some relatives.
During dinner there was some talk of a Herr von Bülow, who had been
the Chief’s guest at lunch. I ascertained that in this gentleman I
had had before me the famous leader of the Lauenburg nobility, to
whom Bismarck had clearly explained his standpoint, first on the
Ratzeburg Lake, and again on taking the oath of allegiance in the
church there. He is much more harmless than I had fancied him. The
Chief said: “I should have invited him to remain to dinner, and he
doubtless expected it, but he is so tedious that I did not know what
to do with him during the five hours before dinner.” Then, after
referring to the letters of the Crown Prince in 1863, which I had
arranged, and to his own pencil notes, he came to speak of the Crown
Prince himself. I said: “Absalom! And from what you wrote on the back
you doubtless wrote him in reply that you did not intend to be ever
included among his Ministers.” “Yes,” he rejoined, and the quotation
_Leicht fertig ist die Jugend mit dem Wort_! (Youth is hasty in its
judgments). He then gave a survey of the various phases of the Crown
Prince’s attitude towards himself in the course of his life. “First,
in 1848 or 1849. At that time he was still very thin and lanky. He
showed great attachment to me, and, when they forbade him to do so
at Potsdam, he used to try to meet me in the dusk of the evening and
shake hands with me. Then the rude letter of 1863; afterwards, since
1864, in Flensburg, better. Then again Liberal counsels, Augustenburg
sympathies, the Geffcken and Friedberg introductions, and his siding
with Cumberland.” I said: “The Englishwoman, the Guelph.” We then
spoke of the latter, also over our coffee, when the Princess said she
could be very amiable when she liked, as she herself had experienced;
a statement which the Chief also confirmed from his own experience.
(...)

On Saturday I took leave of the Prince and Princess in the
dining-room, after I had fulfilled my promise to the little Rantzaus
to go with them to see a “house” that they had begun to build on
the roadside leading to Dassendorf. I suggested some architectural
improvements, and the eldest one, with childlike politeness, thanked
me for the “good advice I had given them,” and hoped I would soon
come back again. A prospect of doing so was held out to me on my
taking leave at the house. The Chief said, as he was shaking hands:
“Adieu, Büschlein, perhaps we shall resume our business soon at
Varzin. But I must first return to Berlin.” The Princess asked me
to present her compliments to Bucher, and the Countess came down to
accompany me to the station with her children. But first she showed
me the handsome clock and writing-table presented to her father by
the German manufacturers, and gave me a porcelain penholder from one
of the drawers as a souvenir.

On Sunday, the 10th of February, 1889, I received through a Chancery
attendant an appointment to call upon the Chief at 3 P.M. I appeared
punctually at the hour named, in his antechamber. Minister Bötticher
was called into the Prince before me, and I talked to Rottenburg
until my turn came. On entering the room I found the Prince in
uniform. He asked about my health, and I inquired as to his. He
complained of insomnia, and said he could no longer get any sleep
without artificial means. On his then asking me what I had been
doing in the interval, I mentioned the _Grenzboten_ article on his
attitude and that of the Crown Prince at the Versailles negotiations
with the Bavarians, and he expressed a wish to see it, and said: “I
should like you to add something to it, and to return to Geffcken’s
extracts from the diary of the Crown Prince, or more correctly from
one of the three or four diaries of the war, and of later years. A
diary is a series of daily notes in which one writes down immediately
afterwards what he has ascertained and experienced, just as a tourist
does; and that too is the character of the first original diary. It
is short, and as was natural enough in war time, it deals mainly with
military affairs, and contains scarcely any political considerations.
The others are interpolated later, from conversations which he had
with good friends, or those whom he considered to be such--Geffcken,
Roggenbach, &c. Thus he imagined that he had thought of all these
things himself, as far back as 1870. English letters and influences
will also have affected him. I say he imagined that and believed it,
because he was a man who was very devoted to the truth. The good
friends were malcontents, ambitious place hunters, and intriguers,
people who felt that they had a vocation for great things, who
knew more and could do better than the Government, and who would
very willingly have lent a hand if they had only been allowed to
do so. They were men of unappreciated talent, the wallflowers, the
pettifogging attorneys and quacks of politics. He showed them the
diary, and they made their observations upon it, which he then
inserted. They found that in this shape it would come in usefully
in the future. That accounts for the various transformations it
underwent. The Crown Prince, like all mediocrities, liked copying,
and other occupations of the same sort, such as sealing letters, &c.
And he had time enough for it, as the King kept him apart from almost
all political work, seldom or never spoke to him on such matters,
and would not allow me to make any communication to him on subjects
of the kind. From 1863 onward there was an uninterrupted struggle
between the two, in the course of which there were several violent
scenes when the Crown Prince was pulled up sharply, and he (imitating
the gesture) cast up his eyes and raised his hands in despair. It
was the same at Versailles in connection with the Emperor question,
where the most gracious Master would not at first hear a word of our
proposals, and got so angry on one occasion that he brought down
his fist violently upon the table and the inkstand nearly flew out
of the window. And here you may supplement the report in the diary
as to this incident. Fragmentary and incomplete in every respect,
it leaves out the first act in the negotiations, in which I had to
wean the Crown Prince of the notion, which doubtless originated at
Baden, that the Emperor idea was un-German and would damage the
country. He was thinking only of the mediæval emperors, the Roman
expeditions, and Charles V. For that reason he wished to have only
a King of Germany or of the Germans, while the other three kings
were to resume the title of Dukes--Duke of Bavaria, of Suabia and
of Saxony. And to this he added the idea of coercion--they should
be invited to Versailles and once we had got him there it was to be
a case of needs must when the devil drives (_jetzt friss Vogel oder
stirb_). I replied to him that that would be treacherous, disloyal
and ungrateful, and that I would not lend myself to it, as, moreover,
it would have no permanency. No friendly persuasion could possibly
induce the Kings to submit to this degradation. I then pointed out
to him the advantages of the Emperor idea, somewhat in the same way
as I did afterwards in my letter to the King of Bavaria. The Kings
would prefer to subordinate themselves to a fellow-countryman, who
bore the title of German Emperor and to grant him certain rights
in war and peace, than to a King of Prussia, who would only be a
somewhat more powerful neighbour. Among the people, however, the
Emperors had left a deeper impression than had the few princes, who,
after the time of Charlemagne, called themselves, like Henry the
Fowler, German Kings. In the restoration of the Empire they looked
forward to the Emperor as the keystone of the arch. The Emperor still
sits enthroned in Kyffhäuser in North Germany, and in the South
German Untersberge. This idea should not be connected with that of
a Roman Emperor, Roman expeditions or any pretensions to universal
sovereignty would be against the true interests of the nation. It
was, on the contrary, a purely national idea which the Emperor would
represent and which we also had in view, the idea of unification
after discord and decay, of new power and security through unity, of
the concentration of the whole people upon the same objects. As far
back as 1818 such ideas were held by the students’ associations, and
in 1848 they found expression in the _Paulskirche_. In 1863 Austria
had something similar in view with her draft constitution to be
laid before the Congress of Princes, only her first thought was for
her own interests.” “Later, on the foundation of the North German
Confederation there was some talk of an Emperor of the Confederation,
and the idea was only dropped because it would have led to a
division and because in such circumstances Bavaria and Würtemberg
would certainly not have joined us then, nor probably later on. For
similar reasons I declined Lasker’s suggestion, in February, 1870, to
admit Baden into the Confederation, because that would have been an
attempt to exercise pressure upon her South German neighbours. The
excessive number of Kings gradually convinced him, and he was then
in favour of the Emperor idea. In the diary he has forgotten this
whole first act. He writes as if he had discovered the idea and had
been the first to put it forward, while it had long been kept alive,
as a hope among the people, and he himself at first would not hear
of it. Then came the second act, when it is true we acted together
at the Prefecture in order to win over the old Master to our view.
He at first vehemently rejected our proposal, and fell into a rage
when we insisted. I asked if he wished to remain a neuter for ever.
‘What do you mean?’ he said crossly, ‘what sort of a neuter?’ ‘Why,
the Presidency’ (_Nun das Präsidium_), I replied. But that also was
of no avail. Then he agreed to it up to a certain point, if he were
allowed to bear the title of Emperor of Germany. I explained to
him that this would be opposed to the treaties, and would express
territorial sovereignty over all Germany. He said the Tsar called
himself Emperor of Russia. I denied this, and stated that his title
was Russian Emperor. (He quoted the Russian term.) He maintained
his opinion, however, until he asked Schneider, who was obliged to
acknowledge that I was right.” On one occasion he mentioned in a
report that Schleinitz had been present at these negotiations. I now
asked: “What was he doing there? In what capacity was he present, as
Minister of the Household, or as former chief of the Foreign Office,
or in what other capacity?” He smiled and said: “As confidant of the
Queen, who had sent him to oppose the bombardment and to persuade the
King against it. He had nothing to do with the Emperor question. He
had always been Augusta’s favourite, and while he was still a poor
man she had on several occasions sent him money, 300 thalers, in
order to enable him to visit her at Coblenz. It was solely through
her favour that he became Minister.”

We then spoke of Sybel’s “Die deutsche Nation und das Kaiserreich”
(The German Nation and the Empire), which he gave me; of Morier’s
rude letter to Count Herbert, which was quite uncalled for, as there
had been no charge made against that gentleman of having given direct
information to Bazaine respecting the movements of the German troops;
then of the wretched attitude of the German Liberal press, which in
this--as in the Mackenzie, Geffcken, and other questions--took the
side of every enemy of Germany and of German interests, whose hand
was against him too; and finally about Samoa, in which connection
the Chief censured the arbitrary conduct of the German Consul
there. The conversation had lasted for about half an hour, and the
Chancellor said as I was leaving that he would now try to get a
little sleep. The article desired by him was written in the course of
the following week, and was to appear in No. 8 of the _Grenzboten_
under the title “The Emperor Question and Geffcken’s Diary Extracts.”
I, however, first submitted a proof to the Chancellor for revision,
and he made a number of alterations which Rottenburg dictated to
me in his bureau in order that I might reproduce them in my copy.
Thereupon I despatched the latter to Grunow (Saturday, February
16th), but a few hours later Rottenburg, with whom I had dined at
Professor Scheibler’s, came back there with a message from the Chief
requesting me to telegraph that the article should be returned for
the present. Even after it had been toned down it was too dangerous
for publication.

At noon on Sunday, the 17th of February, a Chancery attendant brought
me a note from Rottenburg (begging me to call upon him at 3 o’clock
at the Imperial Chancellerie. He had important instructions to give
me).

On my going to see him at 3 o’clock he told me that the Chief now
wished to have the article printed, but with a further slight change.
We therefore telegraphed to Grunow to forward me that evening the
proofs I had sent him, which I would return to him immediately. They
arrived at 10 o’clock, when I at once took them to Rottenburg. We
then inserted the last alterations of the Chief, and sent back the
proofs to Grunow in a registered letter so that the article should
appear in No. 8. _Per tot discrimina rerum._




                            CHAPTER V

SIGNS OF FRICTION BETWEEN THE CHANCELLOR AND THE YOUNG
    EMPEROR--WITH THE CHIEF DURING THE CRISIS--HIS ANXIETY ABOUT
    HIS PAPERS--HOW TO GET THEM AWAY--HIS RETIREMENT A FACT--THE
    EMPEROR WANTS TO BE RID OF HIM IN ORDER TO GOVERN ALONE WITH
    HIS OWN GENIUS--COURT FLUNKEYISM--HIS RETIREMENT IS NOT DUE
    TO HIS HEALTH, NOR IS IT IN ANY SENSE VOLUNTARY--LETTERS
    FROM BISMARCK TO WILLIAM I.--THE CHIEF ON THE INITIATION OF
    PRINCE WILLIAM INTO PUBLIC AFFAIRS--THE GRAND DUKE OF BADEN’S
    ADVICE TO THE EMPEROR FREDERICK--THE CHIEF TALKS OF WRITING
    HIS OWN MEMOIRS--BUREAUCRATIC INGRATITUDE--FOREIGN OFFICE
    APOSTATES--ACCORDING TO BUCHER THE NOTES DICTATED FOR THE MEMOIRS
    ARE MERE FRAGMENTS, SOMETIMES ERRONEOUS--THE CHIEF’S LIFE AT
    FRIEDRICHSRUH--SCHWENINGER’S APPREHENSIONS.


In February, 1890, a few days after the promulgation of the Imperial
Rescript on the labour question, Bucher had already pointed out to
me in conversation the difficulties in the way of an international
settlement of the question, and said he imagined the Emperor was
going further in this matter than the Chancellor could approve of.

Monday, February 24th, he said to me: “I have a commission for you
which I must carry out before the Chancellor of State arrives. The
‘dragon’ sent for me to-day and asked if I still had any connection
with English newspapers, as he wished to get them to insert an
article on the elections. I was sorry that I had no longer any such
connection, but I thought perhaps you might write to the _Daily
Telegraph_ and get it to publish the desired article. He said:
‘Busch! Why, how is he getting on? I understand he has had an
apoplectic attack.’ I replied: ‘Oh! no, he only caught a bad cold
last Whitsuntide, and suffered in particular from great hoarseness,
but he is quite well again now.’ You will observe that the apoplectic
attack comes from friend Holstein.” (Probably reached the Chief’s
ears in quite a harmless way from Scheibler through Rottenburg.)
I replied: “As a matter of fact I have not written for that paper
for years, but they still send it to me daily, and Kingston, one of
their editorial staff and a leader writer, has translated my book
_Unser Reichskanzler_ into English. I fancy, therefore, they would
take an article from me on the subject suggested by the Prince.” He
then drew an envelope from his pocket and said: “I have here jotted
down our conversation on the subject. They are for the main part
his own words, pointing out the chief cause of the way in which the
elections turned out, the result of which he attributes chiefly to
the Rescript. Work them up into an article and see that you get it
published in London. He attaches great importance to it and would
like to see a copy when it appears.” I promised to write and send
off the article next morning, and if it were accepted, to hand in a
copy of it personally to the Chief, when I should ask him whether
I could be of any further use in the matter. He then mentioned to
me that the Prince was not at all satisfied with the Rescript, nor
was he pleased in other respects with the intentions of the young
Majesty, who had become very self-confident and arbitrary, and that
he had only remained in office up to the present because he had hoped
that the Emperor would appoint Herbert to be his successor. He knew
already, however, that this desire would not be fulfilled, as the
Emperor objects to Herbert on personal grounds. (...)

“By the way, when you next visit the Chief, you should speak in
a loud clear voice, as his hearing is not so good as it was. You
should also avoid contradicting him in any way, as, according to
Rottenburg, he is now very short-tempered and irritable.” Bucher’s
notes (the original of which I have retained) ran as follows:
“Explain the influence of the Imperial Rescript on the elections. The
old Social Democrats (Republicans) acted as if the Rescript were a
victory for their efforts. Many malcontents--and who in this world
is contented?--who were hitherto deterred from joining the Social
Democracy by their monarchical sentiments (and at bottom the bulk of
our people are monarchical), now believe that they can vote for them
with an easy conscience. The Emperor has offended the bourgeoisie,
and has actually embittered the large manufacturers who regard the
Rescript as an incitement to their workmen. The lower middle classes,
middlemen and shopkeepers, do not see that their own interests are
directly threatened, as they know how to shift from their own
shoulders any increase in the price of goods, but they see their
political position threatened by the fourth estate. Many of them have
therefore fallen away from the _cartel_ candidates who were in favour
of the Government, and for whom they had formerly voted, and took up
with the Progressists, whose leaders are double faced. The experience
obtained during the period of conflict showed the importance of the
sentiments entertained by the bourgeoisie. At that time they wished
to seize the reins of power, _à la_ Louis Philippe. The masses did
not care, or did not see, yet repeated elections always yielded the
same results. The Emperor does not understand that, he has had no
experience of it; and it is difficult to make him recognise it as
he is surrounded by too many servile flatterers (_Byzantinern_) who
confirm his self-confidence. Among the ‘Sunday’ polling cards in the
eastern provinces there were a great number with the name of the
Emperor William. Conclusion: Had it not been for the Rescript the
elections would have turned out much as they did three years ago.”
I worked this up into an article for the _Daily Telegraph_, and
forwarded it to the office in Fleet Street on the 26th of February.

It was not accepted, however, probably because they considered
themselves to be better informed by their regular correspondent,
or did not think themselves justified in taking sides against the
Emperor.

On reaching home on the evening of the 15th of March I found waiting
for me an invitation to do Prince Bismarck the honour of visiting
him on the following morning at 11.30. (Original retained.) I went
to the palace, No. 77 Wilhelmstrasse, at the time appointed, and
was speedily shown in. The Chief, who was in undress uniform,
was sitting in the front study. He shook hands with me: “Good
morning, Büschlein,” and added with a smile, “you still keep your
fine beard.” Proceeding to the large back room he called me in to
him. There were several boxes and also a big trunk with papers,
while a large cupboard containing documents was half emptied. He
drew out one drawer of the writing-table and took out a dark green
portfolio in which the correspondence with Andrassy had been kept at
Friedrichsruh, as also the envelopes containing the papers which I
had sorted for him, and said: “I wish you would look through these
for me, first glance through those from Friedrichsruh once more, and
then those from Varzin and other new ones; there is still a great
number of them. I said to you at the time that we would resume the
business. Do you still care to do so?”

I: “Most certainly, Serene Highness; I am only too happy to have the
opportunity. I thought several times of reminding you, but I did
not like to appear importunate and so preferred to wait for your
invitation.”

He: “Well, there are others (pointing to the trunk) and here in the
green portfolio are more recent ones. You should look through these
from Friedrichsruh once more and make a note of those that are of
importance from an historical standpoint, then number all the rest in
chronological order and add a list of the important ones. I now want
to write my memoirs, and you can help me with them. That means I am
going to retire. You see I am already packing. My papers are going to
be sent off immediately, for if they remain here much longer, it will
end in his seizing them.” I expressed my amazement.

He: “Yes, I cannot remain here any longer and the sooner I go the
better.”

I: “But surely not immediately, Serene Highness?”

He: “It is a question of three days, perhaps of three weeks, but I
am going for certain. I cannot stand him any longer. He wants even
to know whom I see, and has spies set to watch those who come in and
go out. For that reason, too, I do not well see how I am to get the
papers away. They might be sent to you, but how?” I replied: “I could
take the more important ones away with me, a few small packets at a
time, carrying them in the first place to Hehn’s and then perhaps to
Leipzig.”

He: “Hehn? Who is he?”

I told him, and that he was perfectly trustworthy.

He: “I could also have sent them to Schönhausen, and you could go
there from Friedrichsruh to fetch them. I want you to have the most
important of them copied and to keep the copies for the present.”

I: “But if a stranger were to copy them he might betray the contents
to others.”

He: “Ah, I am not afraid of that. Of course he might, but I have no
secrets among them--none whatever. Come to Friedrichsruh when I am
there and we will work together. But I should like you first to get
a letter from Frederick William IV. into the press. I saw it at the
end of a new book, of which I do not remember the title, but it was
a fabricated version, inaccurate in form and full of impossibilities
and absurdities. I have a correct copy of the original, but I cannot
find it in your envelopes. (Searched in that for 1852.) Ah, yes, here
it is. Take it with you, copy it, and then return me the original.”

I suggested that it should be printed in the _Grenzboten_.

He: “All right, but it must be given as coming from Vienna, and
the publication of the false version must serve as a reason for
publishing it.”

While I was helping him to pack the papers in one of the boxes
he came to speak about the Rescript, and said: “It comes of an
over-estimate of himself, and of his inexperience of affairs, and
that can lead to no good. He is much too conceited, however, to
believe me that it will merely cause confusion and do harm.”

I: “It is the disgusting ---- of the press and of the Court menials
that are to blame for his self-deception.” He laughed. I told him
that the article on the influence exercised by the Rescript on the
elections had been written and sent off, but was not published by the
_Daily Telegraph_.

He: “It was quite correct, however, as reports reached us from
all sides as to the bad effect which the Rescript produced on the
electors.” He then asked how old I was.

I: “Sixty-nine, but my father was eighty-six and my mother
eighty-four.”

He: “Well, I should not mind living till I am eighty, out in the
country.” He promised when I left to send me the latest papers (those
in the green portfolio) to look through, arrange in chronological
order, and copy. I thanked him for his great confidence in me, which
was justified, for as I had already said to him on one occasion in
1870, he was my Master, and my Messiah.

He: “Blasphemy! But you have deserved my confidence.”

At 11 A.M. on the 17th of March a Chancery attendant arrived
in a cab with a message that the Prince requested me to come to
him immediately. On my entering the antechamber, Bleichröder was
with him, and afterwards Herbert, and so I had to wait. At length
Rottenburg, who had already declared that he, too, would retire,
told me that they had gone upstairs to lunch, but that he would
immediately again announce my arrival to the Prince. He returned
in a few minutes with an invitation from the Chief to take lunch
with him. At table upstairs I met a nephew or cousin of the Prince,
to whom I was introduced as “Büschlein,” and who remembered having
seen me at dinner in Versailles--doubtless the then lieutenant of
dragoons with the red collar. The Princess and Count Herbert came in
later. The conversation first turned on a foreign diplomatist, who
would have married Countess Marie if her father had not been warned
against him as a spendthrift. “Besides, I am altogether against
marriages with foreigners,” said the Chief, “and particularly in the
case of diplomatists.” He then spoke of the alleged second visit
of Windthorst. It had displeased the Emperor, but it was merely a
newspaper invention and ought to be contradicted. “Such intercourse,
however, is useful,” he said. “It is well that I should in that way
keep in touch with the parties, and for that reason I have always
been accessible to them. Every member of Parliament could come to me
at any time, day or night, and be received immediately. But they have
taken little advantage of this. They do not want to be considered
by their party as having Government sympathies, and prefer to be
able to abuse me for having no relations with them. It is only the
Ultramontanes who come sometimes, such as Windthorst, Schorlemer and
Hüne, also Frankenstein, who is now dead. The _cartel_ parties hardly
ever put in an appearance.” He recommended me to try the caviar.
“It has been sent to me by the Minister of the Imperial Household at
St. Petersburg, and I take it that it is the same as that which is
served to the Emperor Alexander. It is the best I have ever had.”
He also praised the Moselle and Yquem. On Herbert coming in he laid
before the Chief a portfolio connected with the negotiations in
progress respecting a partition of East Africa, and the latter gave
his opinion as to the frontiers. I accompanied him downstairs, and he
handed me out of the green portfolio on the table in the large room
nine or ten copies in his own handwriting of letters addressed by him
to the Emperor William I., during the years 1872 to 1887. “Copy these
and keep the copies by you, and bring me back the originals, as well
as that of the letter of introduction of 1852.”

He also gave me a large envelope containing more recent letters and
reports to be arranged in chronological order, with dockets on the
more important ones for the purpose of the memoirs. “Return me these
to-morrow or the day after,” he said; and I promised to bring them
back on Thursday. We then went into the other study, and I said that
even now I could not bring myself to realise that he was retiring; it
seemed to me utterly impossible. He: “Impossible? It is now a fact.
Things have gone more rapidly than I imagined they would. I thought
he would be thankful if I were to remain with him for a few years,
but I find that, on the contrary, he is simply longing with his whole
heart to be rid of me in order that he may govern alone--with his
own genius--and be able to cover himself with glory. He does not
want the old mentor any longer, but only docile tools. But I cannot
make genuflexions (Ich aber kann nicht mit Proskynesis dienen), nor
crouch under the table like a dog. He wants to break with Russia,
and yet he has not the courage to demand the increase of the army
from the Liberals in the Reichstag. I have succeeded in winning their
confidence at St. Petersburg, and obtain proofs of it every day.
Their Emperor is guided by my wishes in what he does and in what he
refrains from doing. What will they think there now? And also other
expectations which I cannot fulfil, together with the intrigues
of Courtiers, rudeness and spying, watching with whom I hold
intercourse! My retirement is certain. I cannot tack on as a tail to
my career the failures of arbitrary and inexperienced self-conceit
for which I should be responsible.”

I: “When he falls into distress and difficulty he will himself come
and fetch you back, Serene Highness! He will have to beg and implore
you.”

He: “No, he is too proud for that. But he would like to keep
Herbert, only that would not do--that would be a sort of mixed goods
train, and I should always have to bear part of the responsibility.
Moreover, although Herbert would doubtless stand being lectured
and censured by me, he would not stand it from Imperial Chancellor
Bötticher.” (He therefore seemed to think that the latter had been
selected as his successor, and knew nothing as yet of the choice
of Caprivi). “Besides they have treated his father badly.” I said:
“The Emperor William seems to have the same notion as King Frederick
William IV. had, according to Sybel, namely, that Kings in virtue of
their office know everything better than their best servants.” He:
“Yes, obedient Ministers! He has altogether a great deal in common
with him.”... I proposed to publish the letters of William I., or at
least a few of them, and mentioned the _Grenzboten_ as a paper from
which they would be largely quoted. He seemed to like the idea. “I
will see about it when you bring me back the originals. If you do
not then see me, report yourself at Friedrichsruh in a short time.
I shall now go out riding for a while.” As I was leaving the room,
he clapped me on the shoulder in a friendly way. In the antechamber,
Rottenburg again said he would also retire. His nerves could no
longer stand it. Very nice of him, but we shall see how the cat jumps.

On Thursday, March 20th, I took back to the Chief the originals of
his letters to William I. He looked through them and sanctioned
the publication in the _Grenzboten_ of the first three, adding at
the same time: “We shall first publish these which refer to family
matters, and see what impression they make. Then we can let the
others follow, and perhaps later on still more from the collection.”

I: “Perhaps articles also?”

He (smiling): “Yes, perhaps. Hamburg newspapers would also accept
something of the kind. I have recommended the _Norddeutsche
Allgemeine_, which the company that owns it placed at my disposal, to
the Conservatives (doubtless those belonging to the Free Conservative
wing) as their organ.”

On Saturday, March 22nd, I returned to him in an envelope the
thirty-nine new papers chronologically arranged and numbered, the
most important ones being specially docketed. The latter were: No.
14, letter written by William I. in 1884; on the Battenberger and his
projected marriage, 16, 18, 21, 31, and 33; a letter to the Chief
from the Crown Prince Frederick at Portofino, describing his eldest
son as inexperienced, extremely boastful and self-conceited; a letter
from Crown Prince William to Bismarck in 1888 on the “Battenberger”
business and Albedyll’s plan for “nailing down” Prince Alexander by a
written declaration; a letter of the Battenberger from Sofia to the
Queen of England, sent to the Chancellor with a letter from the Crown
Princess Victoria (two copies); a report by Professor von Bergmann
on the illness of the Emperor Frederick; a letter from the Grand
Duke of Baden respecting an interview with the sick monarch, which
had taken place according to arrangement with him alone (without the
Englishwoman) when the Emperor listened with deep seriousness to the
statement made to him by the Grand Duke: “You cannot govern without
Prince Bismarck (Ohne Fürst Bismarck kannst Du nicht regieren).” The
Chief looked through the particulars of the contents which I had
written on the envelope, and observed: “Those are really important
papers, but take them back with you and keep them at your house for
the present.” He then reflected, however, and said: “I am being
watched, and you also, and if you are seen coming and going with a
large envelope--this will be better. Come here!” He then went into
the back study to a large trunk standing in the middle of the room.
I followed him, and he raised the cover of a green portfolio which
was packed up in it under a round box. “Those are maps,” he said.
“Lay these papers between them, and remember where they are in case I
should forget it, when we proceed with the Memoirs at Friedrichsruh.
I am sending about 300 cases and other things away, and 13,000
bottles of wine. That is a great deal, but it includes many presents.
Besides, while I still had money I bought several lots of good
sherry, which will come in for my children. Write to me a fortnight
after I reach Friedrichsruh and ask when you can come on a long visit
and help me with the Memoirs. I must have a private secretary so
that I may be able to dictate and dispose of minor affairs by letter.
That is not for you, however, as I intend to employ you on something
better. I have accordingly asked Schweninger to find a young doctor
for this purpose, who would also be at hand in case of indisposition
and accident, as, for instance, if I were to hurt myself out riding.
It would be something for him, too, as it would in any case bring him
in a couple of thousand marks. Keep yourself free for our business.”
I replied that I would arrange for the present to remain with him for
six months, and if necessary for a further period later on, after
a short holiday. We then returned to the front room and sat down,
when he said: “There is one thing I would ask you to do now if you
still have any influence in the press, that is, to correct a mistake
which I have repeatedly noticed in newspaper articles within the last
few days, as also in communications from exalted places, as, for
instance, from England--with suppositions and reproaches--namely,
that I had sent in my resignation owing to my apprehension of
great crises, and left the Emperor in the lurch through fear of
the increased Opposition in the new Reichstag. A glance at my past
history and character ought to have discredited that notion, and a
remembrance of the conflict of 1866, when the Opposition was much
stronger, and more dangerous, and of my loyalty to my royal master,
which I likewise showed and proved on later occasions. But, as a
matter of fact, it is quite wrong. On the contrary, I did not want to
retire until the summer, and, in the meantime, offered to defend the
Imperial policy in the Reichstag, and to take up the struggle with
the Opposition. I was not permitted to do so however.... He wants to
do everything himself, and he fancies that he can.” He then spoke
once more of spying, and of the Emperor setting a watch upon him to
see with whom he held intercourse. (Probably Windthorst’s visit.)
“That is one of the final reasons that have induced me to tender my
resignation.” He stood up, bent across the table, resting on his two
hands, and smiling as he looked me straight in the face, said: “But,
tell me, do you drink much wine?” I replied: “During the daytime no
spirituous liquors whatever, not even at table. In the evening two
pints of thin, sour Moselle.” “So!” he rejoined. “You certainly gave
me the impression of having stowed away a bottle of Burgundy, and yet
a short time ago you had some little trouble. (Apoplectic attack?)
Otherwise I do not in the least disapprove of it, as I myself drink
my share. But take care of yourself, for I wish to keep you with us
for a long time yet.” It was then arranged once more that I should
write to him a fortnight after his arrival at Friedrichsruh, but in
the first only to arrange for a shorter visit, during which we should
talk over and settle about a longer stay later on.

On Monday, March 24th, the Chief again sent, by a Chancery attendant,
to fetch me in a cab. I had to wait in the antechamber from 11.45 to
1 P.M. as Caprivi was taking lunch upstairs with the Prince. I then
saw the new Imperial Chancellor, as he was going away. Scheibler
congratulated Rottenburg on a second quality Red Eagle and oakleaf,
which may possibly soothe his nerves. On being called in I found
the Chief seated in a _causeuse_ before his writing-table. I handed
him to-day’s _Post_, which Rottenburg had given me for him. He read
out to me the short leader of the 23rd (which I have kept), and
said: “They, too, want to curry favour. That comes from gentlemen
at Court, who want to hush up things. Please say something against
that! Could the Liberals themselves abuse me worse? Not the worst,
but, on the contrary, the best service that could be done to me would
be to give a correct answer to the question whether my retirement
has been voluntary or involuntary; and that answer is: involuntary.
It is a patriotic duty not to maintain the utmost reserve, but,
on the contrary, to tell the truth. The young man would, however,
like to have it hushed up. Indeed, he has gone so far as to summon
Schweninger, and to try to make him believe that it was due to
considerations of health. Yes, there is a great deal of flunkeyism
(_Byzantinerthum_) here, and they all crawl on their bellies before
him, in order to attract one gracious look upon themselves.” I asked
if he would stay on much longer. He said: “No, to-morrow or the next
day.”

I: “Then I am to write to your Serene Highness in fourteen or fifteen
days about my visit?”

He: “You can write even earlier, and come very soon.”

The desired article was despatched to the _Grenzboten_ as an appendix
to that recently ordered. It appeared in No. 14, immediately
following a longer article (probably by Kayser) which preached from
the same text as the _Post_. The first three letters from Bismarck to
William I. appeared at the head of No. 14. They ran as follows:--


                                 1.

                                         “Varzin, _August 1st, 1872_.

“Your Majesty has given my wife and myself great pleasure by sharing
in our family festival, and we beg your Majesty graciously to accept
our respectful thanks. Your Majesty is right in giving the first
place among the blessings for which I have to thank God to my
domestic happiness, but happily in my house that happiness both for
my wife and for myself includes the consciousness of your Majesty’s
satisfaction; and the extremely gracious and friendly words of
recognition contained in your Majesty’s letter do more to soothe
disordered nerves than all the art of the physician. In looking back
upon my life I have had such inexhaustible reasons to thank God for
His unmerited mercies that I often fear I cannot remain so fortunate
to the end. I regard it as a particularly happy dispensation of
Providence that my vocation on earth should be the service of a
master for whom I can work with pleasure and affection, as--under
your Majesty’s guidance--the inborn loyalty of the subject need never
fear to find itself in opposition to a hearty devotion to the honour
and welfare of the Fatherland. May God continue to grant me strength,
as well as will, to serve your Majesty in such a manner that I may
preserve your Majesty’s satisfaction with my efforts, of which such
a gracious evidence now lies before me in the shape of the letter of
the 26th. The vase, which arrived in good time, is a truly monumental
expression of royal favour, and is at the same time so substantial
that I may hope that not the ‘fragments’ only, but the whole, will
go down to my descendants as a proof of your Majesty’s gracious
participation in our silver wedding.

“The officers of the 54th Regiment, in a spirit of comradeship and
friendliness, sent their band from Kolberg. Otherwise, as usually
happens in the country, we were restricted to the more intimate
family circle, with the exception that Motley, the former American
Minister in London, a friend of my youth, chanced to be here on a
visit. In addition to her Majesty the Empress, his Majesty the
King of Bavaria and their Royal Highnesses Prince Charles and
Frederick Charles, and H.I.H. the Crown Prince have honoured me with
telegraphic congratulations.

“My health is slowly improving. It is true I have done no work
whatever, yet I hope to be able to report myself to your Majesty as
fit for service in time for the Imperial visit.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 2.

                                        “Varzin, _November 13, 1872_.

“Most gracious King and Master,

“I am greatly depressed at being unable, on receipt of your
Majesty’s gracious communication of the 9th instant, to proceed to
Berlin at once and place myself at your Majesty’s disposal in the
present crisis, all the more so as towards the end of last month I
believed I should soon be sufficiently restored to do so. Since my
return from Berlin I found my strength constantly increasing, and for
that reason and also through my interest in the matter, I allowed
myself to be tempted, in opposition to the urgent warnings of the
doctor, to yield to Count Eulenburg’s frequent appeals, and endeavour
to influence the course of affairs by communications to your Majesty,
and correspondence with the Ministers and with Members of the Upper
House. That is certainly very hazardous to proceed in such a fashion,
and at such a distance, in the absence of discussions which might
throw light upon the questions at issue, without knowledge of the
opposing views, and also without sufficient assistance. I had hoped,
however, that it would only last a few days and that things would
soon again enter upon a more peaceful course. Unfortunately, this
attempt only too speedily convinced me that my doctor was right,
and that my store of newly-recovered strength was very slight. I am
greatly discouraged, as my intervention will have exercised rather
a disturbing influence than otherwise, while the few days’ work
and excitement, with the nervous irritability which it involves,
have sufficed once more to prove to me clearly the lassitude of my
intellectual powers. I fear I am more exhausted than I should like to
confess to myself. This anxiety, as well as the feeling of shame that
I am unable to be at my post and at your Majesty’s service at such an
important moment, is a source of great depression, even when I say
to myself that I must humbly submit to the will of God, who does not
require my co-operation and puts limits to my strength. My uneasiness
is counterbalanced by the confidence which your Majesty expresses at
the close of your letter, and which I fully share, that the grace
of God which has hitherto blessed your Majesty’s Government will
continue to assist it. The course which your Majesty has sanctioned
in Council can lead to the same ends just as well as that proposed
by me, provided there is no breach with the present Parliament and
my colleagues remain united among themselves. They will do that for
your Majesty’s sake, although up to the present there have been
many indications of differences. I fear that my correspondence
with some of them individually, in reply to questions addressed to
me, may have sometimes increased the elements of discord, and that
misunderstandings may have arisen with respect to myself owing to the
fact that the contents of my reports were fully known only to those
to whom they were addressed. I have therefore requested Roon only to
consult me at your Majesty’s express command, and I have informed
him that I shall no longer correspond with my colleagues individually.

“In this manner my co-operation, so long as God does not give me
better strength, will rest in your Majesty’s gracious and considerate
hands. My hope and my prayer to God is that it may be soon granted to
me once more to do my duty in person under your Majesty’s eyes, and
to again find that peace which lies in work.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 3.

                                        “Berlin, _December 24, 1872_.

“I thank your Majesty respectfully and heartily for the beautiful
Christmas present, conferring fresh distinction upon me.

“My father entered the regiment of Carabineers of the Life Guard in
1783, and also had the honour, at the review, of being presented to
Frederick the Great as a Junker, on which occasion the great king
condescended in gracious recognition to hold up to him as a model
his grandfather, Major von Bismarck (of the Schulenberg, afterwards
Bayreuth, Dragoons), who fell at Czaslau.

“This and many other impressive reminiscences, which my father handed
down to me from the time of Frederick the Great, as reproduced in
the work of art now standing before me, and which I can supplement
with a well-preserved series of letters from my grandfather in the
field during the Seven Years’ War, form the permanent impressions
of my childhood. I have always regretted that, by the will of my
parents, I was not allowed to prove my devotion to the Royal House
and my enthusiasm for the greatness and renown of the Fatherland
in the fighting ranks of the army, rather than behind the writing
desk. Even to-day, after your Majesty has raised me to the highest
honours as a statesman, I cannot entirely suppress my regret at not
having been able to win similar advancement as a soldier. I beg
your Majesty, as it is Christmas Eve, to forgive this expression of
personal feelings in a man who is accustomed on Christian festivals
to look back upon his past. I might have been, perhaps, a worthless
general, but I should have preferred to win battles for your Majesty,
like those generals who adorn the monument, rather than diplomatic
campaigns. By the will of God, and your Majesty’s favour, I have
a prospect of seeing my name recorded in books and in bronze when
posterity immortalises the memory of your Majesty’s glorious reign.
But, independently of the loyalty of every honourable nobleman to
his sovereign, the cordial attachment which I entertain for your
Majesty’s person, and the pain and anxiety which I feel at not being
always able to serve your Majesty as I wish, and no longer with my
whole strength, can find expression in no monument. Yet in the last
resort it is only this personal feeling which makes the servant
follow his monarch and the soldier his leader with uncalculating
devotion on such paths as under Divine Providence Frederick II. and
your Majesty have entered upon. My strength for work is no longer
equal to my will, but up to my last breath the latter shall be
devoted to your Majesty.

                                                       “von Bismarck.”


The letter from Frederick William IV. was also published, in No. 13,
and all were reproduced by numerous other papers.

I insert here, first the remaining letters from Bismarck to William
I. which I copied at his desire, and then some of the more important
papers in the new batch.


         FURTHER LETTERS FROM BISMARCK TO EMPEROR WILLIAM I.


                                 4.

                                          “Varzin, _August 13, 1875_.

“I have received with respectful thanks your Majesty’s gracious
letter of the 8th instant, and am pleased above all things to see
that the cure has agreed with your Majesty in spite of the run of
bad weather in the Alps. With respect to the letter from Queen
Victoria I have the honour to add again that it would have been very
interesting if her Majesty had expressed herself more fully as to the
origin of the rumours of war circulated at that time. The sources
must have been regarded as very trustworthy by that exalted lady,
as otherwise her Majesty would not have again referred to them, and
the English Government would also not have taken in connection with
them measures of such an important character and such an unfriendly
nature towards us. I do not know whether your Majesty considers it
possible to take Queen Victoria at her word when her Majesty asserts
that ‘it is an easy matter for her to prove that her apprehensions
were not exaggerated.’ It would also be doubtless of importance to
ascertain from what quarter such ‘serious errors’ could have been
despatched to Windsor. The hints as to persons who must be regarded
as ‘representatives’ of your Majesty’s Government would appear to
refer to Count Münster. He, like Count Moltke, may very well have
spoken academically of the usefulness of a timely attack upon France,
although I do not know that he has, and he was never instructed to
do so. It may indeed be said that it is not calculated to promote
the maintenance of peace for France to have the assurance that she
will never be attacked under _any_ circumstances, do what she may.
Now, as in 1867 in the Luxemburg question, I would never advise your
Majesty to begin hostilities at once, merely because it was probable
that the enemy would shortly enter upon them. One can never foresee
the ways of Providence with sufficient clearness to do that. But it
is also of no use to give the opponent the _assurance_ that one will
wait for his attack _under all circumstances_. I should therefore
not blame Münster if he had spoken in that sense occasionally, and
the English Government would have no right to take official steps
upon non-official remarks of our Ambassador, and, _sans vous dire
gare_, to invite the other Powers to bring pressure to bear. Such
a serious and unfriendly course of action gives reason to suspect
that Queen Victoria had yet other grounds for believing in warlike
intentions than incidental remarks by Count Münster, the authenticity
of which I do not even credit. Lord (Odo) Russell declares he has
always reported his firm belief in our peaceful intentions. On the
other hand, all the Ultramontanes and their friends have charged us
secretly, and openly in the press, with wishing to bring on war in a
short time, and the French Ambassador, who moves in these circles,
sent these lies to Paris as trustworthy information. But at bottom
that too would not be sufficient to inspire Queen Victoria with such
trust and confidence in falsehoods that had been denied by _your
Majesty_ in person, as she still expresses in her letter of the
20th of June. I am too little acquainted with the idiosyncrasies of
the Queen to be able to form an opinion as to whether the phrase
about its being ‘easy to prove’ may possibly be intended merely to
conceal, instead of openly confessing, a hastiness of action which
could no longer be recalled. I beg your Majesty to excuse me if my
‘professional’ interest has led me, after three months’ forbearance,
to dwell at such length upon an incident which has already been
settled.

“The Turkish question can hardly assume large proportions if the
three Imperial Courts remain united; and that end can be promoted
most successfully by your Majesty, because we are the only Power that
has now, and for a long time to come will have, no direct interests
at stake. Moreover, it can only be of advantage to us if public
attention and the policy of other Powers should, for a while, be
directed elsewhere than to the Franco-German question.

“As your Majesty has been gracious enough to mention my health, I
beg respectfully to report that the six weeks’ cure at Kissingen
has affected me more than that of last year. I feel very exhausted,
can walk little, and cannot ride at all as yet. This is now to be
remedied by a course of malt and brine baths, and, as a matter of
fact, the first four have had a good effect. I therefore hope that
the next six weeks will render me more fit for work, though I fear
that I must rely upon your Majesty’s consideration more largely than
my sense of duty would fain allow. My wife and daughter thank your
Majesty respectfully for your gracious remembrance of them, and
commend themselves to your Majesty’s favour.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 5.

                                  “Friedrichsruh, _December 3, 1878_.

“I am deeply afflicted at not being in a position to offer my
respectful greetings to your Majesty the day after to-morrow, in
common with my colleagues. I can only lay before your Majesty’s
feet, in writing, the heartfelt wish that, in resuming the reins of
Government your Majesty may find, in God’s blessing, consolation and
satisfaction for the crime and ingratitude of mankind, which must
have cut as deeply into your Majesty’s heart as the wound externally
inflicted.

“The sudden transition from the cure at Gastein to the work in the
Reichstag appears to have hindered my recovery, so that even to-day
I am not as well as I was in September. But if your Majesty will
be gracious enough to allow me four to six weeks’ further leave of
absence and forest air, I may hope, with the help of God, that in
January I can, with fresh strength, place myself at your Majesty’s
disposal for the preparing the work in the Reichstag. This year,
owing to the necessity for far-reaching financial and economic
reforms, the proceedings in the Reichstag will be particularly
laborious; and it is to be foreseen that they will be accompanied by
severe struggles between the parties themselves, and against your
Majesty’s Government. I do not, however, doubt that, in the financial
and economic questions, the result will ultimately be favourable, if
concord can be maintained in the Ministry of State and with the more
important Federal Governments, and if the Ministry preserves that
firmness and decision which your Majesty’s leadership has secured to
us in all difficult situations, and to which, next to God, we owe all
our great success.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 6.

                                 “Friedrichsruh, _December 25, 1883_.

“I thank your Majesty respectfully and cordially for the gracious
Christmas present, and in particular for the gracious wishes that
accompanied it. They afford me that full gratification which I
should have felt in the Niederwald, had I been able to attend the
festival. For me your Majesty’s satisfaction has a higher value than
the approval of _all_ others. I thank God that He has so disposed my
heart that I have been able to secure your Majesty’s commendation,
while I seldom obtain the approval of others, and then only
temporarily. I also thank your Majesty for the immutable confidence
always reposed in me for the long period of over twenty years, and
for your Majesty’s constant graciousness to me as a master, in spite
of the attacks of my opponents and my own well-known failings, in the
most arduous as well as in quiet times. I require nothing more in
this world, in addition to peace with my own conscience before God.
God’s blessing has rested upon your Majesty’s rule, and has favoured
your Majesty above other monarchs who have achieved great things, in
so far as your Majesty’s servants can look back on their service with
gratitude to your Majesty. The loyalty of the ruler generates and
maintains the loyalty of his servants.[19]

“My wife returns her respectful thanks for your Majesty’s gracious
greetings in the gracious letter of the 21st instant, to which I send
a separate reply. She is slowly improving in health after a few weeks
during which I was very anxious as to her condition. She requests me
to lay her most humble respects and good wishes for the new year at
your Majesty’s feet. At the present moment I myself am physically
stronger than I have been for many years, and yesterday was able to
take a ride of several hours in the woods with my two sons, who are
staying here on a holiday. Although I may not as yet strain my nerves
in intellectual work to the extent demanded by my position, I hope
for a further improvement in this direction also if your Majesty
will graciously permit me to remain here until the end of next month.
God grant your Majesty a happy Christmas, health, and contentment.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 7.

                                        “Varzin, _September 2, 1884_.

“Your Majesty has made the anniversary of Sedan a day of exceptional
joy and honour to me by graciously investing me with the Order _Pour
le Mérite_, at the same time increasing the significance of the
distinction by the exceedingly gracious words which accompanied it
yesterday. I am happy to see from this, and to realise on looking
backwards over a long series of years, that your Majesty’s favour
and confidence have been my constant and unalterable support, and
that your Majesty’s consideration also compensates for my failing
strength. Your Majesty’s recognition and good will is in itself the
highest satisfaction to which I aspire in this world, but it is
also a pleasure to me when the world ascertains that I have always
been, and still am, in possession of the boon for which I have
ever striven, viz., the favour of my earthly master. I will always
faithfully and zealously endeavour to deserve it, so that your
Majesty, as the highest and most competent authority, may recognise
in me the heart and sentiments of a Prussian soldier. I desire no
higher praise than that contained in those words, when they bear your
Majesty’s signature.

“On the 11th I hope to lay my renewed thanks personally at your
Majesty’s feet, and to see your Majesty in good health.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 8.

                                        “Berlin, _December 25, 1884_.

“I respectfully thank your Majesty for the beautiful Christmas
present. The work of art reminds me to some extent of my own
position. While the centaur has both hands engaged in lifting the
huge horn to his shoulder, the woman hangs on to his beard with her
whole weight. So it is with me! While I have my hands full in the
service of your Majesty and the country, the Opposition in Parliament
pulls and drags at me, at the risk of overthrowing me while bearing
the burden of affairs. Moreover, the Opposition is unfortunately much
uglier than the female form that clings to the centaur’s beard. I
will not, however, allow this to prevent me from gladly and firmly
carrying the burden on my shoulders, so long as God gives me strength
to do so, and I enjoy your Majesty’s favour. With the heartiest and
most respectful wishes for your Majesty’s Christmas, I unite those
for the coming year, reserving to myself the pleasure of reiterating
them verbally.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 9.

                                 “Friedrichsruh, _September 26, 1887_.

“I thank your Majesty respectfully for the gracious letter of the
23rd instant, and for the gracious present of the picture of the
palace, in which I had the honour for so many years to make my
reports to, and to receive my orders from, your Majesty. For me
the day received a special consecration, through the greeting with
which I was honoured at your Majesty’s bidding, by their Royal
Highnesses Prince William and Prince Henry. But even without this
further evidence of favour, the feeling with which I greeted the
twenty-fifth anniversary of my appointment as Minister was one of
the heartiest and most respectful gratitude towards your Majesty.
Every monarch appoints Ministers, but there is scarcely an instance
in recent times of a monarch retaining and protecting his Prime
Minister, against every kind of hostility and intrigue, during
twenty-five long years of vicissitudes, when not every measure
succeeds. During this lapse of time, I have seen many former friends
change into opponents, but your Majesty’s favour and confidence in
me has remained immutably the same. In this thought I find a rich
reward for all my work and consolation in sickness and solitude. I
love my Fatherland, the German as well as the Prussian, but I could
not have served it joyfully if it had not been granted to me to do so
to the satisfaction of my King. The foundation and the indestructible
core of the high position which I owe to the favour of your Majesty
is the Brandenburg liegeman and the Prussian officer, and therefore
your Majesty’s satisfaction is a source of happiness to me, without
which every form of popularity would be worthless and distressing.
In addition to numerous telegrams and letters received by me on the
23rd, from Germany and abroad, I have had very gracious greetings
and congratulations from their Majesties of Saxony and Würtemberg,
H.R.H. the Regent of Bavaria, the Grand Dukes of Weimar, Baden and
Oldenburg, and other reigning personages, as also from his Majesty
the King of Italy, and Minister Crispi. The two latter communications
touched on politics, and were difficult to answer. As your Majesty
may perhaps be interested in the text, I have instructed the Foreign
Office to submit them.

“I pray God to grant me the pleasure of continuing my service to your
Majesty’s satisfaction.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


                                 10.

                                 “Friedrichsruh, _December 30, 1887_.

“I thank your Majesty respectfully for the gracious letter of the
23rd, and for the evidence of favour with which it was accompanied,
and first for the drinking horn with the hunting trophies, which I
regard as intended for your Majesty’s Grand Huntsman of Pomerania,
and shall keep at Varzin. But my chief happiness arises from the
recognition accorded to my son by his official promotion, which
shows me that your Majesty is satisfied with his work, and therefore
that he fulfils the end for which I have educated him. I crave your
Majesty’s further indulgence towards him, feeling certain that he
will deserve it by his attachment even in those matters in which he
still lacks experience.

“With reference to my most humble suggestion respecting the further
preparation of H.R.H. Prince William for State affairs, I appreciate
and share the anxiety with which your Majesty is inspired by your
solicitude for the health of his Imperial Highness (the Crown
Prince). I considered it my duty to raise the question, but I do
not venture to urge it any further, not wishing to make myself
responsible for the consequences upon the health of H.I.H. which any
irritation might produce. Perhaps the object which it is sought to
attain in the interests of the State may be approached in a manner
less calculated to attract attention; and this would not be difficult
if the Prince resided in Berlin instead of at Potsdam. I therefore
respectfully beg your Majesty’s permission to submit my views on
the subject when I return to Berlin, which I hope to do next month.
In the meantime, I humbly beg your Majesty to allow me to try and
move H.I.H. to submit to your Majesty, on his own initiative, the
proposed scheme for a Civil Adlatus to be attached to the Prince.
Count Radolinski, who called upon me to-day, thinks there is some
prospect of this attempt being successful, as the Crown Prince’s
irritation in the matter was connected with the question whether
his parental authority would be taken into consideration or not. If
H.I.H. could be moved himself to propose the object in view, which
would be of advantage to the State, the entire difficulty would be at
an end. Should the attempt fail, no great harm would be done, as the
Crown Prince could easily give _me_ a negative answer, which he could
not give to your Majesty. Meanwhile, the present system of giving
the Prince occupation at some of the Ministries may be continued as
heretofore, in accordance with your Majesty’s intention.

“I have ascertained through Count Stolberg that H.I.H. has suggested
the promotion of Count Radolinski to the title of Excellency. I beg
respectfully to recommend this proposal of the Crown Prince, in
the first place because granting it would have a favourable, and
refusing it an unfavourable, effect upon the sentiments and health
of H.I.H.; and then furthermore because Count Radolinski is worthy
of such a distinction. With a large fortune and very considerable
private interests, he has given up an easy position in the diplomatic
service, and, solely in obedience to your Majesty’s wishes, has
willingly undertaken his present duties, which, often very onerous,
are rendered specially difficult by the rivalries to which they
expose him; and it is desirable that a nobleman of his prestige and
uprightness should continue to discharge them. Moreover, he is one
of the few Polish noblemen who, like the deceased Count Raczinski,
may be relied upon with perfect safety by your Majesty and the
Prussian State, and in my opinion this attribute alone deserves to be
recognised by a distinction. Indeed, custom alone would have secured
him such a distinction even if, without being a Court official,
he had lived on his estates in Posen as a magnate loyal to the
Government.

“I beg your Majesty graciously to accept my hearty and respectful
good wishes for the New Year. I hope to renew them verbally in the
course of January, and to be permitted to report myself to your
Majesty, at the same time as the Reichstag, in as good health as I
have any prospect of enjoying in this life.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


           SPECIMENS OF THE NEW (BERLIN) SERIES OF PAPERS.

... No. 31.--Letter from Prince William to the Imperial Chancellor,
dated Berlin, April 2nd, 1888:--

“Albedyll has been to see me and talked over the whole Battenberg
affair (die ganze Battenbergerei) once more. On this occasion a
letter was also mentioned, which the Empress is understood to have
received yesterday, in which the Battenberger informs her that he
would only marry with my consent--a point deserving mention. In this
connection Albedyll was of opinion that a positive acknowledgment,
repeating this phrase, should be demanded from the Battenberger
in order to have a more certain hold over him. Would your Serene
Highness approve of my sending a cipher telegram ordering Henry to
go to him and demand from him for me a note containing the above
declaration? If that were in my hands, and the Battenberger were
nevertheless to take any steps or to enter into any intrigues, we
could prove by documentary evidence that he had been guilty of a
direct breach of his word.

“Awaiting your Serene Highness’s kind decision, and hoping that you
enjoyed your birthday celebration, I remain always,

                                       “Your faithful and devoted,

                                                           “William,

                                                       “Crown Prince.”


No. 33.--The Grand Duke of Baden to the Imperial Chancellor:--

“Serene Highness,--I hasten to let you know in this inadequate form
that I had occasion to-day to speak to the Emperor Frederick _alone_.
In the manner arranged yesterday I explained to him how I came to
know your sentiments and state of health. My explanation greatly
impressed the Emperor, and I took advantage of this to proceed to the
general situation of political affairs in Europe, and--referring to
the firmly established position of Germany during the reign of the
Emperor William, as compared to the troubles and confusion in the
rest of the world--emphasised the necessity for us and for Europe of
perseverance in the course adopted.

“The Emperor manifested a friendly disposition, and warmly approved
of my statement. He is anxiously expecting your visit. His features
wore an expression of deep seriousness when I said to him: ‘You
cannot possibly govern without Prince Bismarck.’

“This, in bare outline, is the result of my weak endeavours.

                                            “Your cordially devoted,

                                              “Friedrich Gr. v. Baden.

  “Charlottenburg, _March 31st, 1888_.”


A few days after our last interview, the Chief left for
Friedrichsruh. On the 11th of April I wrote him (respecting
my proposed stay there). I received no answer for a week. The
newspapers, however, published a report that the Prince had selected
as his private secretary a Dr. Chrysander, who had hitherto been
Professor Schweninger’s assistant, and who would help him in
preparing his memoirs. According to a second press notice, he was
also to be assisted by a member of the editorial staff of the
_Hamburger Nachrichten_. Bucher ultimately wrote me that he was going
to Friedrichsruh, and hoped we “should be harnessed together.” (...)

I called upon him the same day to congratulate him, and mentioned
to him my fear that nothing would now come of my proposed visit
to Friedrichsruh. Perhaps my letter of the 11th had not reached
the Chief’s hands; or perhaps he had been turned against me by an
article on his retirement, published in the _Grenzboten_, which was,
however, written by Kayser, and reached Grunow just before mine.
Bucher reassured me as to this supposition, but said that Kayser,
like Lindau and Holstein, had actually gone over into the other camp.
(...) Although he considered it quite impossible that the Prince
could now give up the idea of employing me in connection with the
papers, I did not feel sure of this, and so a few days afterwards I
wrote again to the Prince, and registered my letter. Count Herbert
replied that “the Prince intends to invite you here in order to sort
some papers. In the meantime, however, he is too much occupied by
visits and the arrangements rendered necessary by his removal to take
these papers in hand immediately.”

A fortnight later, after I had received a post card from Bucher
informing me that he had started for Friedrichsruh, I wrote to him
there (as to the proposed visit, and giving him an account of my
future movements). This crossed the following letter, which Bucher
sent to me under cover to Frau Hedwig Hämmerling:--


                                      “Friedrichsruh, _May 15, 1890_.

“I have two reasons for sending you this letter under cover to
another person; first, because you have not informed me of your
whereabouts, and secondly, because there is some reason to suspect
the existence of a Dark Cabinet. Therefore be prudent when you write
to me here. I have had a large bundle to sort and register, and in
doing so have satisfied myself that you have exhausted the materials.
What came into my hands was very unimportant,--congratulations,
letters of thanks, telegrams, reports from aides-de-camp and such
like. (...) I am expected to remain until H. returns from England,
probably towards the end of this month. He (the Chief) is physically
well, and is gradually quieting down.”

I immediately acknowledged the receipt of Bucher’s note, and reminded
him of the concluding request in my former letter. He replied on the
17th of May, 1890, again under cover to Hedwig Hämmerling: “To enable
me to answer your questions I should be obliged to ask him, and up to
the present I have had no opportunity of doing so. (...) After your
registered letter and the reply thereto, it seems to me not to be in
your interest that I should also press the matter. Besides, he talks
of presently starting on a lengthy tour to countries[20] which he
has not yet visited--certainly a very happy idea. I take it that he
will not begin work before his return in the autumn; and then he will
doubtless remember his arrangement with you. I will write you as soon
as the departure is approximately settled.”

On the 20th of May I had an attack of apoplexy combined with
paralysis, from which it took me six months to make an almost
complete recovery; that is to say, with the exception that my
handwriting had changed and my voice remained hoarse.

On the 10th of July, Frau Hämmerling received a note from
Friedrichsruh (from Bucher, inquiring as to my illness). On Frau
Hämmerling informing him of the truth he wrote me as follows:--


“Dear Busch,--I need not tell you how heartily I sympathise with you.
I now write to put your mind at rest on one point, to tell you that
you have missed nothing here, and will not miss anything during the
next few weeks. I have had five or six thousand letters, extending
from the fifties to the present day, to arrange in chronological
order. They were all mixed up anyhow, both as regards dates and
matter. They contain little on politics, and of that little again
but a small portion refers to foreign affairs. He was not prepared
to accept my suggestion that it would be well to put the begging
letters, medical counsels, schemes for the improvement of the world
at large, thundering hurrahs and fiery ‘salamanders’ into the fire.
Therefore, when the preliminary work begins you will have to wander
through a desert from which I have only removed tradesmen’s bills,
&c. It is as yet impossible to say when that will be. He complains,
with that humorous self-mocking air of desperation which you
know, that he has now no time to set about anything. His excuse
for the present is that of course the whole material must first be
chronologically arranged, which will doubtless take a fortnight
longer, although I am keeping hard at it. And then he will certainly
be obliged to make some change in his way of living and in the
apportionment of his time. The projected journeys will hardly come to
anything; but even if he remains here he will not begin work before
you are recovered--according to what F. H. (Frau Hämmerling) writes
me. There is no idea of calling in Poschinger. He knows that the man
is incapable of giving shape or form to anything of the kind.

“He himself and Herbert desire me to express their sympathy to you.
With good wishes for your improvement,

                                          “Truly yours (in English),

                                                             “Bucher.”


In the days immediately preceding and following this letter, the
newspapers published many things from Friedrichsruh which were
anything but pleasant reading to me, or were at least at variance
with my conception of the greatness and distinguished character of
the Prince, and also to some extent with the opinions which he had
himself formerly expressed. He allowed it to be seen too often and
too plainly, for the benefit of the Court and to the delight of the
Radical Thersites, how mortified he felt at his base dismissal; he
expressed himself, as I thought, too confidentially, and indeed
it would appear sometimes with conscious untruth, in speaking to
importunate Jew press spies and other eavesdroppers and talebearers
from the newspaper factories. The most inexplicable of all to me
was what he was represented as having said to Kingston, of the
_Daily Telegraph_, concerning the excellence of the late Emperor
Frederick--which was diametrically the opposite of what he had said
to me in Berlin and at Friedrichsruh. The principal passage in the
Englishman’s report runs as follows: “Finally, the conversation
turned on the Emperor Frederick, of whom Prince Bismarck spoke with
the profoundest admiration. He was in truth a man of rare and most
estimable character, thoroughly amiable, exceptionally good-hearted,
and at the same time intelligent, clear-sighted and determined. He
knew exactly what he wanted, and when once he had come to a decision
he held to it immutably. If he had only lived he would, as German
Emperor, have amazed the world.” (Retranslation--translator’s note.)
Really! That would then be a case of a farthing candle developing
into a first-class lighthouse! Was it Bismarck or Kingston who said
that? If the former he must have had some particular object in view.
But what could it be? To elevate Frederick III. at the expense of
William II.? (...)

I afterwards received from Bucher the following letter from Berlin:--

“I must send you another short contribution to your Memorabilia.
When Count Herbert gave a farewell dinner to the officials, four of
them--Holstein, Lindau, Kayser and Raschdau--declined the invitation.
All four owed everything to the Prince. Not a word has been heard
from Keudell since the 20th of March. Lehndorff, Stirum, Krupp,
Stumm and Kardorff have defied the royal displeasure by visiting
Friedrichsruh. After Bötticher, who owes his promotion to the Prince,
had told the Emperor that Bismarck was a slave to morphia, his
Majesty sent for Schweninger, and questioned him on the subject.
Schweninger answered: ‘Your Majesty, that is a wretched calumny, and
I know the curs with whom it originated.’ (...)

“As a contrast to this pretty set! Shortly before my departure from
Friedrichsruh, Bismarck, while out driving, dropped into conversation
with an old peasant on the bad weather. ‘Yes,’ the latter remarked,
in Low German, ‘the good God has forgotten us altogether. He gives us
no summer, and takes away our Chancellor.’”

On the 5th of September I had a visit from Bucher, who had returned
from Laubbach on the 3rd or 4th, and on the 6th I called upon him.
Of his communications the most noteworthy is that at Friedrichsruh
he found a letter from Hermann Wagener to the Prince, from which it
appeared that, as far back as 1876, W. was instructed to draw up a
memorandum on working class insurance. At that time, when Bismarck
doubtless first seriously took up the labour question and thought
of positive measures for opposing the Social Democracy, it was the
old _Kreuzzeitung_ man who was his assistant and counsellor, and not
Bucher, who belonged to the school of Lassalle and Rodbertus, as
alleged by Poschinger. Bucher expressly denied that the Chancellor
had ever discussed this question with him. On the 20th of September
Bucher wrote to me that he had received an invitation to visit
Bismarck at Varzin.

Shortly afterwards I received the following letter:--


                                              “Varzin, _October 3rd_.

“Dear Busch,--I have delivered your message. He is glad you are
better, and wishes you permanent recovery. Here the condition of
affairs is the same as at Friedrichsruh. Nothing is being done and
much time is spent over the newspapers. Owing to the articles in
Nos. 431 and 433 of the _Boersenzeitung_, referred to in No. 459,
a desire has been expressed to see the numbers of the _Grenzboten_
which started the controversy--reproaching the bourgeoisie with
opposing the paternal intentions of the Sovereign. Can you lend us
the numbers in question from your file, or, if you have not got
them, procure copies from Grunow? Lord Rosebery, who ran across from
Scotland, was here for a few days, and is now visiting Danzig and
Marienburg. With lots of good wishes,

                                                             “Bucher.”


... In another letter from Bucher of October 14th, the following
passage occurs: “The Chief still occupies himself far too much with
the press. In the meantime he has begun to dictate during the past
few days, but without any real coherence, alternately from various
years. It is, therefore, for the present, only raw material. Now and
again news reaches here from the Foreign Office. Holstein, who for
ten years was taken seriously by nobody, now does everything. He not
only slanders the Prince, which he did twelve months since, but also
abuses Herbert, who, with inconceivable blindness, had supported
him up to the last. Paul Hatzfeldt too, Sardanapalus as his cousin
Landsberg christened him, has proclaimed his apostacy in London. But
I will also mention a decent man, Count Arco, Minister at Washington,
who is here on a visit for a few days. _Rara avis!_”

I sent him a long jocular epistle congratulating him on his birthday
on the 25th of October. But I received no answer for over seven
weeks, and was already worrying myself with all sorts of fancies,
when on the morning of the 22nd of December he himself called upon
me. He told me that physically the Prince was in excellent health,
and, as it appeared, took exercise, had a good appetite, and at table
drank rather too much than too little, and besides he no longer
complained of insomnia. Mentally, however, and in particular so far
as his memory is concerned, “he is falling to pieces.” By this Bucher
meant that he could no longer concentrate his thoughts sufficiently,
had no longer a firm hold of the details in a narrative, and was
easily turned aside from his subject. He also tells a story one way
to-day, and quite differently to-morrow. “He wished me to go to
Friedrichsruh for Christmas, but they gave me to understand--and
indeed very plainly--that that would not be agreeable to them; and
so I am my own master for a couple of weeks.” “Urged by Schweninger
he has at length decided to dictate his reminiscences to me for an
hour daily, when I take them down in shorthand. But they are merely
disconnected fragments, and contain many errors, particularly in
the matter of dates. For instance, there were some very interesting
particulars respecting 1848, but they must first be compared with
Wolf’s ‘Chronik’ and corrected. Chrysander is making himself very
useful, also in his capacity of doctor, and has, for instance, done
me good service with my gout. The Prince has ascertained on good
authority that Lindau has been to the _Korrespondenten_ (or the
_Nachrichten_) in Hamburg, and the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ in Munich,
setting them against his old Chief and patron, and ‘threatening’
the latter paper with disciplinary measures if it continued to
take the Chancellor’s part. The Princess’s ‘dear Rudchen,’ who for
other people is a shameless Judas! Kayser, his countryman from
the East, who is indeed less of a stock jobber and less worthless
for official purposes, was recommended to the Foreign Office by
Herbert, while Raschdau, also one of the children of Israel, who has
married a millionairess of his tribe, was--if I understood Bucher
rightly--introduced by Bill. (...) I asked what the Prince thought
of Caprivi. He only knew that the Chief had had an interview with
his successor (doubtless while he was still in Berlin--at lunch),
when Caprivi said that if the Emperor sent him with an army corps
into a position where its destruction might be anticipated, he would
remonstrate; if the order were then repeated, he would remain at
his post and await events. Bucher feared that nothing would come of
the projected autobiography. ‘He has indeed dictated quite a pile
of notes, which of course include a great deal of new and valuable
matter; but his account is not always reliable, and in particular
he often believes that he said or did something which he ought to
have said or done but omitted to do, or at least could not have said
or done in the manner alleged by him. And in the most important
matters he sometimes stops, like a well that runs dry, and does not
return to the subject. In that way he recently began to speak of his
relations with Napoleon previous to 1870, but then let the subject
drop, and since then I have never been able to bring him to give
a coherent account of it. There is yet another drawback. In these
notes he might think of history, of a legacy for the future, and
that would certainly be most praiseworthy and useful, as there are
many things of which he alone has a complete and accurate knowledge.
But he seems to be thinking rather of something else. His thoughts
are still with the present, which he desires to influence. He
wishes to warn and to teach, and for that reason he often selects
a subject that has nothing whatever to do with his own life, and
sometimes one of which he has not a thorough knowledge, but which
seems to him to offer a suitable opportunity for introducing his
own reflections. For instance, he is afraid that the Emperor will
not be careful and thoughtful enough in tacking between Vienna and
St. Petersburg, and may, perhaps, on some occasion forget himself
and draw too near to the Austrians; all the more, as of course he is
aware that the gentleman in Berlin cannot endure the other in St.
Petersburg, because the latter had treated him somewhat _de haut en
bas_. Now Bismarck does not want to say that straight out and give a
plain warning, but tries to work it into a survey of the treaty of
Reichenbach, as the relations were then somewhat similar, the people
in Berlin not rightly knowing what they wanted or with whom they
really had to deal. The idea was merely to show that one was also a
power--(in English) a mere show of power! I have now read it up in
Ranke, however, and according to him the situation was not all as
the Chief represented it. At that time, Herzberg still had charge of
the conduct of affairs, and he knew exactly what he wanted, namely,
Danzig and other towns on the Vistula, in order to round off West
Prussia.’”

Bucher continued: “What I have done up to the present could be done
equally well by any shorthand writer, the only difference being that
yet another stranger would have to be taken into his confidence. But
I have no taste for criticising and editing, however much Schweninger
may beg and urge me to do so. That would be too much trouble and
responsibility. Besides, there are not the necessary books for
reference and comparison. It is true that for twenty-five years
hardly a historical or political book has been published of which a
copy has not been sent to him, but she has acted as librarian and
has divided them between the different rooms, putting some of them
in the cellar, where they rot and fall to pieces, and others in the
visitors’ apartments, so that nothing can be found when it is wanted.”

Bucher agreed with me that the Chief was not prudent in his dealings
with the eavesdroppers of the press; that his attitude towards the
Court was not sufficiently dignified, and that he let his anger be
too easily seen. At the same time, Bucher, speaking of those who
came to question the Prince, observed, not inaptly: “Whoever wants
to know much learns a great deal, even though it be not always
unadulterated truth, and that applies with particular force to
the commercial travellers for newspaper firms, who, of course, do
not deal in truth.” As to the Prince’s state of feeling, Bucher
said: “He diligently reads the newspapers, but on the whole he is
indifferent to politics. ‘I am no longer so very much interested
even in the management of my own estate.’ There is no longer the
old devil-may-care spirit arising from that high sense of easy
superiority and ready power of mastery--no longer the unconcerned
glance cast down as from a great height, but only apathetic
indifference, weary satiety.”

_January 2nd, 1891._--Called on Bucher this morning. Schweninger is
trying to provide the Prince with occupation on hygienic grounds. He
fears that otherwise he would become still more sulky, cross-grained,
and peevish, and, indeed, might in the end become mentally affected.
(...)

In the course of conversation on the Prince’s notes, Bucher, in
speaking of their didactic aim, referred to Nicoll’s “Recollections
and Reflections” as a model for that kind of writing. He believes he
must soon return to Friedrichsruh, “although it will probably lead
to nothing.” “God grant that there may be an improvement!” he sighed
on our parting at the door. I heartily joined in that prayer.

It was not until the 21st of February that I again received a sign of
life from Bucher, and then in the form of an unsigned note enclosed
in an envelope to Hedwig. It ran: “You will probably soon receive
an invitation to the place from which I write. The enclosure is for
publication, with an introduction or note to the effect that the
letter was read to the guests on the 28/7/72, and that several of
them took copies of it. Do not forget to write to G. to impress upon
the sub-editorial ass and on the proof-readers that not a single
letter is to be omitted, and that the abbreviations, &c., and the
Latin characters in ‘Borussia’ and ‘Material’ are to be retained. The
Chief will have it so. If you happen to write to me, remember the
Dark Cabinet.”

The “enclosure,” a letter from the Emperor William I., ran as
follows:--


                                           “Coblenz, _July 26, 1872_.

“On the 28th instant you will celebrate a beautiful family festival
which God in His mercy has granted to you. I may not, and cannot,
withhold my sympathy on this occasion, and therefore you and the
Princess, your consort, will accept my heartiest and warmest
congratulations on this elevating festival. That your domestic
happiness should always have held the first place among the numerous
blessings which Providence has elected to bestow upon you both--it
is for this that your prayers of thanksgiving should rise to Heaven!
But our and my prayers of thanksgiving go further, inasmuch as they
include thanks to God for having placed you at my side at a decisive
moment, and thereby opened up a path for my Government far beyond
imagination and understanding. But you will return thanks to Heaven
for this also--that God granted you to achieve such great things. And
in and after all your labours you have constantly found recreation
and peace in your home. It is that which sustains you in your
difficult vocation. My constant anxiety for you is that you should
preserve and strengthen yourself for this vocation, and I am pleased
to learn from your letter, through Count Lehndorff, and personally
from the Count, that you now think more of _yourself_ than of the
documents.

“As a souvenir of your silver wedding you will receive a vase
representing a grateful Borussia, of which--however fragile its
material may be--every fragment will nevertheless express what
Prussia owes to you for her elevation to the pinnacle on which she
now stands.

                          “Your faithful, devoted and grateful King,

                                                            “William.”




                             CHAPTER VI

I AM INVITED TO FRIEDRICHSRUH--BUCHER AND THE PROPOSED
    “MEMOIRS”--HE DOUBTS WHETHER THE LATTER WILL BE COMPLETED--THE
    CHIEF--“BÜSCHLEIN” AS BEFORE--THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT--THE
    EMPEROR AND RUSSIA--THREE KINGS IN THEIR NAKEDNESS--BÜSCHLEIN
    WILL WRITE THE SECRET HISTORY OF OUR TIMES--THE PRINCE GIVES
    ME IMPORTANT PAPERS TO EXAMINE IN MY ROOM: HIS RESIGNATION IN
    1890, A DRAFT OF A CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF THE MOTIVES OF HIS
    RETIREMENT AND NOTES ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MINISTERS
    ON THAT OCCASION--STILL ANOTHER BOOK ON BISMARCK IN VIEW;
    CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT WITH BUCHER AND THE CHIEF HIMSELF;
    THE PLAN DROPPED--LAST VISIT TO BUCHER IN JANUARY, 1892--HIS
    DEATH--LAST STAY AT FRIEDRICHSRUH IN MAY, 1893--GOOD-BYE, DEAR
    OLD FRIEND.


On the 23rd of February I again received a letter from Bucher, also
under cover to Frau Hedwig Hämmerling: “23/2/91. He says he would
like to see you once more, and requests you to visit him. You may
choose the time most convenient to yourself, but give two days’
notice in advance, so as to avoid clashing with an invitation to
Hamburg. Be sure to bring your sleeping garments with you, if you are
as little in favour with the lady of the house as I am.”

I replied that I should have preferred to go the day after to-morrow,
but that as I was at liberty to name my own time, and was now engaged
in reading over papers, arranging and packing for my removal on the
16th of March, I would come on the 18th. I further requested him to
say by what train I should come, and called attention to the fine
cartoon and verses, “Dropping the Pilot,” in _Punch_, of the 29th of
March, 1890, which an acquaintance had sent me the previous day, and
which I should bring with me if they had not already seen it.

Bucher replied that they had the “Pilot” from _Punch_ at
Friedrichsruh; and that he himself had travelled by the slow train.
I arrived at Friedrichsruh at 3 P.M. on the 18th of March. The
Prince had gone out for a drive with Buhl, the member of Parliament,
who had come on a visit. A servant showed me upstairs to No. 4 as
my room, where Grant, Bancroft, and the busts of Washington and
Hamilton kept me company. I immediately visited Bucher, whose room
was opposite mine. He complained that the work of the “Memoirs”
stood exactly where it did before. In dictating, the Prince wandered
from one point to another, told many things several times, and
almost always differently, &c. A huge pile of dictated notes had
already been transcribed, he calculated some sixty printed sheets.
It would, however, have to be sifted and worked up, and the Chief
had not as yet looked through a line of it. Hardly anything would
come of it, and, in any case, he had not as yet decided whether it
should be published during his lifetime or after his death. Bucher
intends to leave again for a time at the end of the month, and is
very dissatisfied with his occupation hitherto. He showed me in
the pile on the chair a thick packet, endorsed, “Nikolsburg,” and
observed that it dealt less with the important events that took place
there than with a variety of other matters. He had seen few of the
papers arranged by me in 1888, none at all of those relating to the
alliance with Austria, only two or three letters from the Gerlach
correspondence, and he had also seen nothing of the correspondence
with Manteuffel and Schleinitz. He believes that the Chief has sent
all those that are missing to a bank in England for safety. But a few
days later he modified this surmise, and said he thought the papers
were in the keeping of some trusty friend.

Downstairs before dinner, Buhl, a lean old gentleman with a grey
beard, introduced himself to me. I now made the acquaintance also
of Dr. Chrysander, a slight young man. The Chief appeared shortly
afterwards with the Princess. He greeted me with the customary
“Büschlein,” was pleased to see from my appearance that I was well
again, and said I must sit next to him at table on his right, while
President Buhl sat on his left between himself and his consort. The
Prince looked very well, was most good-humoured and talkative during
dinner, was surprised that I still had so much hair, told amusing
stories and expatiated with knowledge on various fine wines and
judges thereof. (...)

Dinner was followed by some more serious conversation in the
coffee-room. In reply to a question by Buhl the Prince disapproved
of Caprivi’s East African policy: “Zanzibar ought not to have
been left to the English. It would have been better to maintain
the old arrangement. We could then have had it at some later time
when England required our good offices against France or Russia.
In the meantime our merchants, who are cleverer, and, like the
Jews, are satisfied with smaller profits, would have kept the upper
hand in business. To regard Heligoland as an equivalent shows more
imagination than sound calculation. In the event of war it would be
better for us that it should be in the hands of a neutral Power. It
is difficult and most expensive to fortify”--a point which he then
explained in detail. “That does not make one an ‘extender of the
realm,’ not even to the extent that I was in the old days when I
travelled back to Berlin with the cession of a strip of land on the
Jahde in my pocket, thinking not a little of my achievement!” The
Prince is also opposed to building any more large ships: “rather
two small vessels than one big one; the North Sea and Baltic Canal
doubles our naval strength.” (...)

On Friday, March 20th, after lunch, at which the Chief was again very
bright and communicative, Bucher at my request allowed me to read the
chapter on Nikolsburg from the material dictated for the “Memoirs,”
in the first place that I should note the numerous digressions from
the real subject. These excursions included, among other things,
references to the anti-German Queen of Holland, intended annexations,
Frederick the Great, an intrigue during the Regency, the indemnity,
the impression made in Russia by the events of the summer of 1866,
the Danzig Pronunciamento, the German question in 1848, dynastic
sentiments, a lost opportunity in 1848, factions, the _Wochenblatt_
party, Augusta, the removal to St. Petersburg and the Italian war.
In doing this I ran through the greater part of the manuscript, and
found some new and interesting matter respecting the King’s desire
for annexation, Bismarck’s reasons for moderation, and a speedy
conclusion of peace; Moltke’s strategic plans; a visit of the Crown
Prince, who comes to Bismarck and promises to support him at a time
when he was almost despairing of carrying through his scheme; and
the final consent of the King, who complains, however, that it is
an “ignominious peace.” Further matters of interest are: Augusta’s
influence on the Regent, Bismarck’s audience before his transfer to
St. Petersburg, his condemnation of the Ministers of the new era, as
for instance of Schwerin, and afterwards of Usedom and his English
wife; the remarkable allegation that Frederick the Great was also
vain, supported by references to the King’s own judgment of a poem
written by himself immediately after the battle (“_n’est pas trop mal
après une bataille_”), and to his flute playing. In conclusion, the
views expressed as to our relations with Austria and Russia, and the
policy which they impose upon us, well deserve to be taken to heart.
Irritation against the Russians has arisen (this doubtless refers to
the Emperor William) out of personal impressions (due to inadequate
appreciation); yet we cannot be quite certain of Austria, as the
possibility of a breach with her depends upon one person. Bucher
says that the Chief would doubtless speak to me about Windthorst,
as to whom there were still many things to be said, and suggested
that I should start the subject when opportunity offered. This was
done indirectly over our coffee after dinner, but the Prince did not
take it up. Later on, however, it was suggested that such excessive
honours would never have been paid to the old Guelph advocate at
his death if the Emperor had not set the example. To-day the Chief
dictated to Bucher on “questions of State rights,” but was unable to
get properly under way and could not verify or complete what he had
to say, as he had not got his books, “his tools.” (...)

At noon on Saturday, the 21st of March, the Chief sent Bucher, to
whom he had again been dictating in the morning on questions of State
rights, to ask if I would go for a walk with him. (...)

I took an opportunity of inquiring how his “Memoirs” were getting
on, mentioning that I knew he had begun to dictate his reminiscences
and views. “That is so,” he rejoined; “but it is probable that in
the end it will come to nothing. I have no documents, and even if I
remember the main points--quite clearly--one cannot after all carry
in his head every detail of what has happened in the course of thirty
years. Then as to the publication during my lifetime. Ever since 1847
I have constantly represented the monarchical principle, and held
it aloft like a banner. Now I have seen three Kings in a state of
nakedness, and frequently these three exalted gentlemen did not make
altogether a very good show. Still it would not do to say that openly
before the world--it would be inconsistent--opposed to principle. And
yet I can just as little keep silent when once I come to deal with
that point, to say nothing of asserting the contrary. And if it (the
publication) takes place after my death, then they will say: ‘There
you have it! Even from his grave! What a detestable old wretch!’” I
could only reply that one has duties towards himself, and his own
honour,--duties towards that which one has created; that one ought
as a man of experience and judgment to warn the country against
wrong courses into which it may be led through the impetuousness or
thoughtlessness and excessive self-confidence of new politicians;
and furthermore that one has duties towards history, to dispel
misunderstandings and chimeras, and the falsehoods of flattering
courtiers; and that truth, which stands above all things, must have
its rights--truth of which Jesus said that it will make us free. He
listened in silence to this eager and audacious outburst; and I then
spoke of another subject--namely, Kingston’s report in the _Daily
Telegraph_ of an interview with him, and in particular of the very
favourable opinion of the Emperor Frederick, therein ascribed to him,
which could not be reconciled with the views I had heard him express.
He replied: “I know nothing of any Kingston, or of any interview in
an English newspaper. The report must be an invention (_Schwindel_).”
He then mentioned the picture (in _Punch_), “Dropping the Pilot,” and
said: “The Emperor was delighted with it. He saw in it a recognition
of his right to smash the pot--you know as in the witches’ kitchen:
‘_Entzwei, entzwei, da liegt der Brei_.’”

At lunch among other things the Prince related the history of some
excellent old Jamaica rum, of which a bottle stood on the table. The
conversation then led to a few corrections. It was Kayser and not
Rudchen Lindau who had warned and threatened the _Allgemeine Zeitung_
in Munich; and Bötticher had not told the lie about the morphiomania
of the Chancellor direct to the Emperor, but to the Grand Duke of
Baden, who then related it to his Majesty. The statement that the
latter questioned Schweninger is true, as also the rough answer given
by the doctor. “And as a matter of fact,” said the Chief, “I have
only taken morphia when in great pain, and it has never done me any
harm; although Bötticher asserted that he found me quite deranged
mentally and irresponsible for my actions.”

After dinner while reading the papers the Chief remarked, I now
forget in what connection: “One day, long after my death, Büschlein
will write the secret history of our times from good sources.” “Yes,
Serene Highness,” I replied, “but not a real history--I cannot
do that--rather a compilation of good materials, conscientiously
collected and placed in a proper light. Nor shall it be long after
your death, which of course we pray may be as remote as possible,
but immediately, without delay, as in these corrupt times one
cannot too soon vindicate the rights of truth.” He then came to
speak of the newspaper reports to the effect that more friendly
relations were gradually growing up between himself and the Emperor,
a statement which he denied as something obviously impossible. He
referred to the new communal regulations, which he disapproved of.
He said they had offended the farmers, whom they put on a level with
the small traders and artisans in communal affairs. He then spoke
at some length of Minister Herrfurth, addressing himself for the
most part to me, much to the following effect (Bucher afterwards
recapitulated his statement to me upstairs): while the Emperor was
still Prince and lived at Potsdam, he, Bismarck, desired to prepare
him for the government, and to provide him, so to say, with tuition
in the various branches of the art of governing. Up to that time
he knew little, and indeed did not trouble himself much about it,
but preferred to enjoy himself in the society of young officers and
suchlike. The plan was to get him to remove to Berlin, somewhere near
Bellevue. But the financial authorities at Court were of opinion that
that would be too expensive. The Prince was then to hear lectures
at Potsdam, and Bismarck proposed Herrfurth, the Under-Secretary
of State,--who was reputed to be well informed, particularly in
statistics--as his tutor on internal questions. The Prince agreed
and invited Herrfurth to lunch with him, and then told the Chancellor
he could not stand him, with his bristly beard, his dryness and
tediousness, and asked whether the Prince could not suggest some
one else. Yes, he would send him _Regierungsrath_ von Brandenstein.
The Prince had nothing to say against that, so Brandenstein was
written to. But H.R.H., although it is true he lunched with him
several times, paid so little attention to his explanations that
Herr von Brandenstein lost patience, and begged to be given some
other employment. In the meantime, shortly before the death of the
Emperor Frederick, Minister Puttkamer was dismissed. When Prince
William ascended the throne Bismarck spoke to him on the subject,
and he said he would of course make Puttkamer Minister again,
but a certain interval must be allowed to elapse--for appearance
sake. Bismarck proposed that Herrfurth should hold the post in
the interval, and told him that he must carry on the policy which
Puttkamer had adopted, and resign his place to the latter after a
certain time, receiving in return a post of Chief President. Would
he agree to that? Yes, he would; he had always followed the course
laid down by his superior, Puttkamer, and would willingly make way
for him when the time came. But when Bismarck, after a few weeks or
months, observed to his Majesty that the time had come to reinstate
Puttkamer, the Emperor replied, no, he did not think of doing so any
longer, as he had in the meantime grown accustomed to Herrfurth, and
was now quite satisfied with him. The change had come about in this
way. Herrfurth had, without previous consultation with the Prime
Minister, put himself in direct communication with the Emperor, and
taking advantage of the Sovereign’s wishes, recommended a liberal
reform of the Communal Regulations, as a measure by which he could
gain numerous friends and secure imperishable fame. “After a few
days,” concluded the Prince, “my Schönhausen people came to me and
asked, ‘What does this mean?’ They had received papers, and were,
it would seem, to report whether they desired to have all the old
arrangements upset, and every one put on the same level. And this
was done throughout the seven old provinces, much to the surprise
and dissatisfaction of the peasantry. That too was one of the causes
of my retirement.” The Chief afterwards said that when I left he
wished to give me some papers to take with me and keep for him. I
was to make copies of them, which I could publish at a future day.
I promised to remind him, and also offered my services for other
purposes in the future; “I had always regarded myself as his little
archer, who at his call would even shoot my bolt at the sun himself.”
He smiled, and said: “Many thanks, perhaps.”

_Sunday, March 22nd._--During the forenoon the Chief dictated to
Bucher some notes on the question as to how the German Constitution
might be altered in case it should no longer work. He also told him
that he wished to give me certain important documents to take with
me. (...)

_Monday, March 23rd._--(...) I had waited yesterday in vain to
see the Chief on his return from lunch to his study, in order to
remind him of the documents which I was to take with me. To-day,
after lunch, I called upon him in his own room for this purpose. I
apologised for disturbing him, but, as I intended to leave to-morrow,
I thought it was of importance to him that I should take the papers
with me. “So it is,” he rejoined, “and it is well that you have
reminded me of it while I am alone. But why are you going away so
soon?” “I do not wish to be any longer a burden to you, Serene
Highness.” “But you are nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I
am glad to see such a faithful old comrade of the war time; and,
moreover, you are so quiet that you disturb no one.” We then agreed
that I should remain for a few days longer, and remind him of the
papers once more later on. (...)

During the day workmen were engaged unpacking large cases of
silver plate--a valuable treasure which German manufacturers had
presented to the Prince as a token of their esteem. At dinner the old
gentleman, who still remains the same lover of nature and of animals,
had a great deal to tell about the starlings, for whom he had had a
few dozen small wooden shelters put up in the trees behind the house.
“They held a public meeting to-day,” he said, “probably in connection
with the approach of spring. As I was going for my walk I first saw
seven of them sitting together in one place and making music. Shortly
after their numbers increased, and finally there were thirty of them
sitting together, wing to wing.” He then cast a glance at the grey
bull-dog waltzing round the room, and observed, “That reminds me of
the funeral honours paid to Windthorst. I should never have thought
of getting him (the dog), but the Emperor presented him to me. If it
had not been for the Emperor’s intervention at the beginning, they
would never have made such a fuss about Windthorst.” After dinner the
conversation turned on newspaper tattle, as, for instance, that he
had sent twelve cases full of important papers to an English bank to
keep for him. “Twelve!” he exclaimed, smiling, “I wish I had even one
such case full.” The gossips of the press also reported that he had
recently purchased a house in Berlin, such and such a number in the
Königgrätzerstrasse--better informed authorities had it that it was
two houses--at a very high price. From this he went on to say that
they once assessed the rent of his palace (the Palais Radziwill) in
the Wilhelmstrasse (for the inhabited house duty) at 50,000 marks.
On his remonstrating, they replied that the English Ambassador had
assessed his own house, which was not so large, at as high a figure.

In the forenoon of Tuesday, March 24th, the Chief sent upstairs for
me and handed me, first, three metallographic copies of documents,
with two letters and a memorandum. All these were from the year 1885,
and referred to the protection of municipalities against arbitrary
school rates. “They are metallographs,” he said, “and as such I dare
say I may publish them at some future time. You can take them with
you for that purpose, but they should be returned to me afterwards.”
“Then I will copy them.” “Yes, but that means a great deal of work,
twenty or more pages, in parts closely written.” “That does not
matter, it shall be done.” “And then here is my resignation, and
this is the statement of my motives. You may read that through--”
(and, as I boldly assume, with tacit permission to take a copy away
with me, at present merely for my own information). “This is about
Herbert--you can read that also, and then bring them all back to
me.” I went immediately to my room and began to copy the resignation
and the statement of motives, as well as the answer of the Chief to
the Imperial acceptance thereof, which he had given me instead of
the paper referring to Herbert. The metallographic documents will be
dealt with later on.


                            RESIGNATION.

“B(erlin) 18.3.90.--On the occasion of my respectful report of the
15th instant, your Majesty commanded me to submit the draft of an
Order which should revoke the Royal Order of the 8th of September,
1852, by which the relations between the Minister President and his
colleagues have hitherto been regulated.

“I take the liberty most humbly to submit the following statement
of the origin and significance of this Order. Under the absolute
Monarchy the office of a President of the Ministry of State was
not required; and it was in 1847, in the United Diet, that the
Liberal members of that time (Mevissen) first pointed to the
necessity of paving the way for constitutional arrangements by the
appointment of a ‘Prime Minister’ (‘Premier Minister’), whose task
it should be to take charge of and provide for the maintenance of
a uniform policy by the responsible Ministry, and to undertake
responsibility for the entire results of the policy of the Cabinet.
This constitutional arrangement came into force with us in 1848,
and the ‘President of the Ministry of State,’--in succession Count
Arnim, Camphausen, Count Brandenburg, Baron von Manteuffel, and
the Prince of Hohenzollern,--was responsible in the first place
not for any single department, but for the entire policy of the
Cabinet, and, therefore, for the departments, as a whole. Most of
these gentlemen had no separate department but only the Presidency,
as for instance, prior to my entrance into office, the Prince of
Hohenzollern, Minister von Auerswald and Prince von Hohenlohe. It
was their duty, however, to maintain that unity and continuity in
the Ministry of State itself and in the relations between the latter
and the monarchy without which Ministerial responsibility, such as
arises under a constitutional system, would be an impossibility. The
relations of the Ministry of State and its individual members to
their newly instituted Minister President, however, soon required to
be regulated in more strict accordance with the Constitution. This
was done, in concurrence with the Ministry of State, in the Order of
the 8th of September, 1852. Since that time this Order had governed
the relations of the Minister President to the Ministry of State,
and through it alone the Minister President was invested with the
authority which enabled him to assume that degree of responsibility
for the policy of the Cabinet as a whole which was attributed to him
in the Diet and by public opinion. If each individual Minister can
receive commands from the Sovereign without previous arrangement
with his colleagues, a coherent policy in the Cabinet, for which
some one is to be responsible, is an impossibility. It would be
impossible for any of the Ministers, and especially for the Minister
President, to bear the constitutional responsibility for the Cabinet
as a whole. Such a provision as that contained in the Order of 1852
could be dispensed with under the absolute monarchy, and could
also be dispensed with to-day if we returned to absolutism without
Ministerial responsibility. But according to the constitutional
arrangements now legally in force, the control of the Cabinet
by a President under the Order of 1852 is indispensable. All my
colleagues agree with me upon this point, as is shown by yesterday’s
sitting of the Ministry of State, and also that no one who succeeds
me as Minister President can assume responsibility for his office
if he lacks the authority vested in him by the Order of 1852.
This necessity will be felt even more strongly by any succeeding
Minister than by me, as he will not be immediately sustained by that
authority which I have hitherto enjoyed, owing to my long tenure of
the Presidency and to the confidence reposed in me by the two late
Emperors. Up to the present it has never been necessary for me, in
dealing with my colleagues, to expressly appeal to the Order of 1852.
Its existence and the certainty that I possessed the confidence of
the two late Emperors, William and Frederick, was sufficient to
secure my authority in the Cabinet. To-day, however, this certainty
exists neither for my colleagues nor myself. I have therefore been
obliged to fall back upon that Order for the purpose of securing the
necessary unity in your Majesty’s service. For the reasons stated
above, I am not in a position to carry out your Majesty’s command in
accordance with which I should myself introduce and countersign the
revocation of the Order of 1852 (to which I myself recently called
attention), and nevertheless continue to hold the Presidency of the
Ministry of State.

“According to the communications made to me yesterday by
Lieutenant-General Hahnke and _Geheimer Kabinetsrath_ von Lucanus, I
can entertain no doubt that your Majesty knows and believes that it
is not possible for me to revoke the Order and yet remain Minister
President. Notwithstanding that fact your Majesty has maintained the
command given on the 15th instant and indicated that my resignation,
which is thereby rendered necessary, would be accepted. From previous
conferences which I had with your Majesty on the question whether
your Majesty desired my continuance in office, I gathered that it
would be agreeable to your Majesty that I should resign my position
in the service of Prussia, but continue in that of the Empire. After
considering this matter more closely I took the liberty to call
attention to some critical consequences of such a division of my
offices, particularly so far as the future action of the Chancellor
in the Imperial Diet is concerned, and therefore refrain from
repeating here all the consequences which would attend such a divorce
between Prussia and the Imperial Chancellor. Thereupon your Majesty
deigned to agree that for the present everything should remain as it
was.

“As I have had the honour to explain, however, it is not possible
for me to retain the post of Minister President after your Majesty
has repeatedly ordered it to be subjected to the _capitis diminutio_
involved in the revocation of the fundamental Order of 1852.

“On the occasion of my respectful report of the 15th instant your
Majesty was pleased to confine me, as regards the extent of my
official authority, within limits which do not allow me that degree
of participation in the affairs of State, that supervision of the
latter, and that freedom in my Ministerial decisions and in my
intercourse with the Imperial Diet and its members, which I require
if I am to accept constitutional responsibility for my official acts.

“But even if it were possible to carry on our foreign policy so
independently of our home policy, and our Imperial policy so
independently of Prussian policy, as would be the case if the
Imperial Chancellor had as little share in the policy of Prussia
as in that of Bavaria and Saxony, and had nothing to do in the
Imperial Diet with the decision as to the Prussian vote in the
Federal Council, it would nevertheless--after your Majesty’s recent
decisions on the direction of our foreign policy, as laid down in the
confidential letter with which your Majesty yesterday accompanied
the report of the Consul at Kieff--be impossible for me to undertake
to carry out the instructions respecting foreign affairs contained
therein. I should thereby endanger all the important results for
the German Empire, which our foreign policy, in agreement with the
views of your Majesty’s two predecessors, has for decades past under
difficult circumstances secured in our relations with Russia, results
that have attained a significance beyond all expectations great for
the present and for the future, a circumstance which was confirmed by
Count Schuvaloff after his return from St. Petersburg.

“Attached as I am to the service of the Royal House and of your
Majesty, and accustomed for many years to conditions which I have
hitherto regarded as permanent, it is very painful to me to sever my
wonted relations with your Majesty, and to break off my connection
with the entire policy of the Empire of Prussia. Nevertheless, after
conscientiously weighing your Majesty’s intentions, which I should
have to be prepared to carry out if I were to remain in office, I
have no alternative but most humbly to beg your Majesty graciously
to relieve me of the offices of Imperial Chancellor and of Minister
President, and Prussian Minister for Foreign Affairs, under the usual
regulations as to pension.

“From my impressions of the last few weeks and the communications
made to me yesterday by your Majesty’s Civil and Military Cabinet, I
may respectfully take it for granted that I meet your Majesty’s views
in thus tendering my resignation, and therefore that I may reckon
with certainty upon its being graciously accepted.

“I would have submitted to your Majesty the petition to be relieved
of my offices a year ago if I had not been under the impression that
your Majesty desired to take advantage of the experience and capacity
of a faithful servant of your predecessors. Now that I am assured
your Majesty does not require them, I may retire from political life
without fearing that public opinion will condemn my decision as
untimely.

                                              (Signed) “von Bismarck.”


At the present stage of international affairs I consider it hazardous
to publish the “Draft of confidential statement as to the motives of
my retirement from office.” The interest of Germany in keeping it
secret for the immediate future seems to me to be greater than the
interest of history in its publication now.


                      “NOTES ON MY RETIREMENT.

“The Vice-President of the Ministry of State (von Bötticher) declared
that he and his colleagues were deeply grieved at my retirement.
He had hitherto hoped that the only differences of opinion between
his Majesty and myself were connected with home domestic policy,
and therefore that the arrangement indicated by me, namely, that I
should confine myself to the control of foreign affairs, would prove
a satisfactory solution. My withdrawal from all my offices involved
incalculable difficulties; and although he could understand my
displeasure, he could only beg me urgently to come to a compromise.

“I replied: The expedient of withdrawing from the Prussian service
and confining myself to the position of Imperial Chancellor had
met with objections from the Federal Governments and the Imperial
Diet. It is felt to be desirable that the Chancellor should have an
official position in which he can control the casting of the Prussian
vote; and I, too, could not accept a position in which I should be
obliged to take from the Prussian Ministers instructions in the
preparation of which I had had no part. Therefore this expedient also
would not be free from difficulties.

“The Minister of Finance declared that the Order of the 8th of
September, 1852, by no means went beyond what was necessary, and
could not form an insurmountable difficulty. And also so far as the
difficulties in the matter of foreign affairs were concerned, he
could only agree with the Minister of State, von Bötticher, that a
compromise ought to be sought. Besides, if the retirement took place
not for reasons of health, but on political grounds, and from all
offices, then the Ministry of State itself would have to consider
whether it should not take part in this step. Perhaps that would
contribute to avert the fatal event.

“The Ministers of Public Worship and of Justice considered that the
differences referred to were due solely to a misunderstanding, which
it might be possible to clear up for his Majesty. The Minister of
War added, that for a long time past his Majesty had not let fall
a single word that had any reference to warlike complications with
Russia.

“The Minister of Public Works (Maybach) described my retirement
as a misfortune for the security of the country and the peace
of Europe. Every possible effort should be made to avert it. In
these circumstances he considered that the Ministers should place
their offices at the disposal of his Majesty, and he at least was
determined to do so.

“The Minister for Agriculture declared that if I were convinced that
my retirement was desired in the highest quarter I could not be
dissuaded from this step. But in any case the Ministry would then
have to consider what course it should adopt.”


            ANSWER TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESIGNATION.

             (_From Bismarck’s autograph pencil draft._)


  “Most august Emperor, King and Master,

    “I thank your Majesty respectfully for the gracious words with
which your Majesty has accompanied my discharge; and I am highly
gratified at the bestowal of the likeness, which ---- (illegible)
will remain an honourable souvenir of the time during which your
Majesty permitted me to devote my strength to your Majesty’s service.

“Your Majesty has at the same time graciously invested me with the
dignity of Duke of Lauenburg. I have respectfully taken the liberty
to explain verbally to _Geheimer Kabinetsrath_ von Lucanus the
reasons which render it difficult for me to use such a title, and at
the same time requested him not to make public this second act of
grace. The fulfilment of this request was not possible, as at the
time when I expressed my scruples on the subject the publication had
already taken place--on the 17th of March. I venture, however, most
humbly to beg your Majesty graciously to allow me in future to bear
the name and title which I have hitherto borne. I beg to be allowed
to lay at your Majesty’s feet my most respectful thanks for the high
honour bestowed upon me by my military promotion as soon as I am able
to report myself, which at the present moment I am prevented from
doing through indisposition.

                                 “With the most profound respect, &c.”


_Wednesday, March 25th._--The Chief started for Hamburg to-day, first
to pay a return visit to Waldersee at Altona, and afterwards to make
a few calls in Hamburg. He had not left, however, before lunch, at
which he joined us, in undress uniform and wearing an order. He was
back again in time for dinner. He had not found Waldersee at home,
and at the other houses also had only met the ladies. At table there
was a great deal of talk about the torchlight procession with which
the Prince’s Hamburg admirers wished to celebrate his birthday here
on the 1st of April. It was anticipated that 3,000 to 4,000 persons
would come to Friedrichsruh by special trains to take part in the
procession. They could marshal their torches and go through their
evolutions with tolerable ease in the meadows on the right bank of
the Aue.

At lunch the Chief said that after all it was not necessary that I
should copy the metallographic documents here. I could do that at my
leisure in Leipzig--a blessing, as it would, otherwise, take me three
days to do it, and the Princess expects some visitors on the 28th,
for whom she wants my room. Therefore off and away at noon to-morrow!
Baron Merck and his wife, whom I have known since 1888, were with
us at dinner to-day. Among other things the Prince spoke of his new
silver-plate. It was very rich and beautiful, but his household was
not at all prepared for it, and silver-plate and dishes had never
been used at his table. He would, perhaps, have the chandeliers hung
up, but the other things would doubtless be sent to the bank for safe
keeping.

_Friday, March 27th._--Took lunch alone, and somewhat earlier than
usual on account of my departure. After a while the Princess, who
was on this occasion particularly good-humoured and communicative,
came. Among other things she related that Schweninger’s predecessor,
a celebrated doctor recommended by Bleichröder, had once treated
the Prince for cancer of the stomach; and that it is Versen and the
“detestable Hinzpeter” who have most influence with the Emperor
and who stimulate the high opinion he has of his own capacity and
encourage his arbitrary tendencies. Finally the Prince also came in
to say good-bye, and invited me to report myself again shortly at
Friedrichsruh. Then back to Berlin, and a few days later, on the 2nd
of April, to Leipzig, my new home. (...)

I had hoped that at length I might rest, but it was not to be. The
mill must still grind on! Indeed, there is no alternative, as people
would not otherwise know how I came to the extraordinary notion of
writing yet another book on Bismarck, and how that scheme fared. On
the 23rd of June _Kommerzienrath_ Kröner, of Stuttgart, previously
only known to me by name, called upon me and proposed that I should
write for him a biography of the Prince. I agreed to do so in case
the latter approved. With this object I next wrote the following
letter to Bucher, who was again at Friedrichsruh with the old
gentleman:--


“Dear Friend,

“I yesterday had a visit from a Stuttgart gentleman, hitherto
unknown to me, who asked if I would write a biography of the Prince,
three or four volumes; I could speak out exactly as I liked, and
also lay down such other conditions as were convenient to me. As he
came direct from Friedrichsruh, and had there spoken to the Prince
and also to you, his intention in putting this question to me was
possibly known and approved of at Friedrichsruh. If that be the case,
and if the Prince gives his permission, I am disposed to make the
attempt, particularly as I may then hope also to be assisted with
contributions on doubtful points. I would take time and provide for
complete freedom from interference on the part of the publisher and
would serve the truth so far as it is known to me.

“Please, therefore, inquire to-day or to-morrow whether he gives his
blessing to the affair or not, and let me know the result.” (...)


The following answer came from Bucher:--


                                                        “Fr. 26/7/91.

“Dr. Fr,--Your letter of the 24th, which curiously enough bears the
Leipzig postmark of the 26th, reached me last evening, and I have
this morning communicated its contents. The reply ran literally: ‘I
have nothing whatever against it. I have sometimes a feeling that
the end will come suddenly for me one day. I should like to have
the opportunity of correcting many errors _viva voce_, as Busch has
a great deal of material. Things are going badly with me. I have
pains in my hand, and other pains which I cannot write about. When I
have pushed the stone a little way uphill it rolls back again to the
bottom. I wish you better luck.’”


On receipt of this information I finally agreed with Kröner to write
the book, and entered into a contract with him. A few weeks later,
however, in thinking over the prospect, I was half sorry that I had
done so, and wrote to Bucher (pointing out certain objections in
the event of the Prince’s “Memoirs” being published, and competing
with the book: and suggesting that in case they were not to appear
until after Bismarck’s death, judicious extracts from them might be
included in the biography, &c.)

Bucher’s reply:


                          “Laubbach bei Coblenz, _September 1, 1891_.

“Dear Friend,--Nothing will ever come of the ‘Memoirs,’ even if
He[21] and I were to live for ten years to come. The chief hindrance
is laziness, as He himself expresses it. My work can only consist
in dividing up the chaos of dictated material, and uniting the
pieces into mosaics, as also in correcting his chronology, which is
quite untrustworthy, and of course falsifies the casual relations
of things. What He has to do is to read over the chapters which I
have put together, and at the same time the letters referring to
the subject, which I put with them. He cannot, however, be brought
to do that. Of the fourteen chapters which I have submitted to him
since last September he had on my departure from Kissingen read one
through, and a portion of another! In correcting his chronology
in four important instances I have forced him to acknowledge that
the affair cannot really have happened in the way in which he had
dictated it; but it was impossible for me to squeeze out of him any
statement as to what actually had occurred. I am well-nigh desperate,
and should be very pleased if my work were stopped and the whole
thing handed over to you. I do not know what he will think, but in
any case make the attempt.

“Schweninger, who is very anxious to get him to take up some serious,
continuous occupation, persuaded me to go to Kissingen, assuring
me that he would keep the two disturbing elements, the Princess
and Herbert, at a distance; we two should have him to ourselves,
and he would therefore begin a new life. Nothing of the kind has
occurred. It was the old lazy life in the Castle of Indolence
(Schlaraffenleben)--guests and drinking every day. And, as I had
suspected, the baths did me no good whatever. My right hand is
greatly swollen, and it is only since I repeated my former cure here
that a slight improvement is perceptible. In any case I shall be back
in Berlin at the beginning of October, although He has expressed a
wish that I should go direct from here to Varzin. For months together
last year there was a temperature of 12 degrees in my room there, and
that has ruined me.

                                           “Ever yours (in English),

                                                                  “B.”


I wrote in reply from Leipzig, on September 2nd, 1891, _inter alia_:
that if the “Memoirs” were never to be completed but remain mere
materials, there was all the more reason for rescuing at least a
portion from destruction.... I would do nothing in the matter before
consulting him, but I was not without hope that the Chief would allow
himself to be persuaded by my arguments, and would assist me with the
dictated matter in my otherwise desperate undertaking. (...)

After some consideration, however, I addressed my request to the
Prince direct, ... and in the course of a week, on the 17th of
September, the following answer came by post:--


                                       “Varzin, _September 14, 1891_.

“I have received your letter, and will willingly accede to your
wish that I should--before its publication--look through the work
which you have arranged to write. I cannot, however, as yet place
what I have myself written and dictated at your disposal. It is not
possible for the present to publish any part of it either directly or
indirectly. Even if made public in an indirect way its accuracy would
be questioned, and I should be challenged to produce my proofs.

“I should be glad to receive a short provisional communication,
either written or verbal, as to the plan and contents of the work.

                                                        “v. Bismarck.”


(Probably written by Chrysander, but signed by the Prince in his own
hand. Not the most favourable answer, still the “as yet” and “for the
present” leaves room for hope.) (...)

On the 5th of October I paid Bucher a visit in Berlin in connection
with this matter. I showed him the draft of a reply I had sent within
the course of a week to the Chief, and he told me he had already
been informed by Schweninger. He said I ought first to have arranged
with him before writing to the Prince, and mentioning his name.
As it was, Bismarck would believe that he had suggested my plan
respecting the “Memoirs.” I was mistaken in thinking that Kröner
had come to me about the biography with the knowledge and at the
instance of the Prince. Kröner (who hoped to secure the publication
of the “Memoirs”) probably thought I would enter into competition
with him, and therefore decided to come to me, and thus become his
own competitor. Not very clear! As publisher of the “Memoirs” that
will never be completed, and which according to Bismarck’s verbal
and written assurances are never to be published? It did not tally
either with Bucher’s present statement that the Prince was thinking
of leaving two copies of the “Memoirs,” one for the Emperor and one
for his own sons. Moreover, the text of these two could not be the
same. One of them would have to be first trimmed and Bowdlerised,
_in usum Delphini_, as--according to Bucher’s own assertion--it
contained a variety of things calculated to give offence. Referring
to the differences between the Prince and the Emperor, Bucher stated
that their origin was to be sought in the following incident, as
well as in the demand with regard to the Order of 1852, and the
steps which--according to Bismarck’s statement--had been taken in
connection with Windthorst’s visit. (The Prince’s account of the
Windthorst incident appeared to him, Bucher, not to be credible, at
least so far as the date was concerned.) On the 15th of March, as
the Emperor was returning home from a drive with Bismarck, he told
the latter that he wished to inform the Tsar that he intended paying
him a visit of some days’ duration at his estate--(I have forgotten
the name of it). Bismarck dissuaded him on the ground that the Tsar
liked to be alone there, and because the Emperor had not made a very
favourable impression in St. Petersburg. His Majesty asked how he
came to know that. B. replied through a private letter; whereupon the
Emperor desired to see it. B. at first did not wish to show it; but
finally, yielding to further pressure, drew it out of his pocket. The
Emperor, after he had read it, ordered the carriage to stop, and set
down the Chancellor at his residence.

It was evident from the foregoing that in my affair the Prince
wanted to know--and in certain circumstances to alter, and probably
to a great extent--whether I was in a position, and what I might
perhaps be inclined to say about himself, and indeed generally. Hence
Kröner’s proposition. In that case, however, I could not, as I had
hoped, do a service to the truth and to history, and therefore could
only write an empty book. I therefore informed Bucher I would tell
Kröner that an alteration in my health would prevent me from carrying
out our contract, and beg him to cancel it. This was done in a letter
from Leipzig on the 11th of October; and I was relieved from that
burden and anxiety.

On the morning of the 5th of January, 1892, I again spent an hour
with Bucher at his place in Berlin, and found him the same dear
old friend. His hopeless feeling with regard to the “Memoirs” had
only grown deeper since I saw him last. In the interval he had
paid a further long visit to Friedrichsruh, where he remained
till shortly before Christmas. He was to return again soon on the
Prince’s invitation, although the gout in his hands had begun again
on the previous Sunday to give him great trouble, and the outlook
and condition of affairs in the Sachsenwald pleased him less than
ever. “Thank your stars that you are not in my place with these
‘Memoirs,’” he said. “One’s work is in every respect void of profit
and pleasure. One exhausts himself on an utterly hopeless task, which
will yield nothing for history. It is not alone that his memory is
defective, and he has little interest in what we have done--up to the
present he has looked through very few of my packets--but he begins
also intentionally to misrepresent even plain and well-established
matters of fact and occurrences. He will not admit his own share in
anything that has failed, and he will acknowledge no one to be of
any consequence compared to himself, except perhaps the old Emperor
(to whom he now, as a foil to the young Emperor, gives a much higher
place than he is fairly entitled to) and General Alvensleben--I
cannot say why--who concluded the treaty with Russia and commanded
at Vionville. Falk also is now praised, perhaps because he fears
he might otherwise retort with disclosures. (But of course these
‘Memoirs’ are not to be published at all.) He insists that he is
in no way responsible for the Kulturkampf, that he did nothing to
oppose Pio Nono’s views respecting the Infallibility, and just as
little against Arnim’s mischievous ambition--although everybody
knows the contrary to be the fact. As if he and his work did not
shed enough light to enable men to overlook such shadows! Even in
cases where his policy was brilliantly successful he will not hear
of acknowledging anything, as for instance the trap which he set for
Napoleon in the Spanish affair. He denied the letter to Prim until
I reminded him that I myself handed it to the general in Madrid,
and that the world is now well aware of it through Rothan.” (So I
understood the name, but perhaps he meant Grammont.) On this occasion
Bucher also referred once more to his zigzag journey with Salazar
and his audience with King Wilhelm at Ems. “The whole candidature
of the Prince of Hohenzollern,” said Bucher, “is now represented
by Bismarck as having been a purely private affair of the Court,
a mere family matter, although he was obliged to confess that it
was discussed at a sitting of the entire Ministry.”--I also added
some reminiscences, but observed in conclusion that in spite of all
that, the Chief remained the great political genius and saviour of
the Germans. But he was not qualified to be a historian. He was to
such a large extent the author of the history of the past decades
that it might be called his history, but he did not understand how
to relate it. Bucher, of course, agreed with me, and then continued
his account of the last few weeks. Bismarck wanted to attend the
Reichstag at all costs, in order to speak against the Commercial
Treaties. It was in vain to point out to him the danger of malicious
and coarse attacks from the Richter and Bebel corners of the House,
and to warn him that the President would now be at liberty to call
him also to order. “In that case I would answer him ironically”
was the laughing reply. It was only Schweninger who succeeded in
dissuading him on medical grounds.--“Hoffmann, of the _Hamburger
Nachrichten_, comes every week, and prints whatever the Prince says
to him, quite indifferent to the fact whether it is a well-considered
statement, or the contrary.” “An old copying clerk has now been set
to work on the ‘Memoirs,’ as Chrysander, to whom I dictate my notes,
is overburdened with other things, and can no longer manage all the
copying.” “They are to be left as a bequest to the sons, but will
hardly be published by them,”--because they know that they contain
too many misrepresentations of a kind which people could detect
and easily disprove, and because they are full of unjust judgments
on prominent personages, as, for instance, on most of the Prince’s
former colleagues. At the very most, a last chapter might ultimately
be published on the preliminary stages of his disgrace, and ultimate
retirement. Herbert has made copious and reliable notes on this
subject, in which, however, the old gentleman has made all sorts of
inaccurate and false corrections. The Princess is still the same....
On my asking after the daughter, Bucher fetched a bottle of old
Hungarian wine from behind the green curtain of a bookcase. Countess
Rantzau had brought it with her from Hamburg for him, and we drank a
glass of it to the health of the honest and excellent lady who had
always been a friend to him. “And not forgetting our old master,” I
added. “How is he getting on?” “Our old lion is well,” he replied,
“and is always in good humour at table; eats and drinks heartily,
cracks a joke, and is equal to the youngest of them in paying court
to the fair ones.”

In the course of his remarks Bucher mentioned as “not inconceivable”
that the Prince might return one day to his old place in Berlin.--He
did not give his reasons for thinking so. In the absence of such
reasons, and they would have to be very good ones, I cannot believe
in such a possibility, so far as he personally is concerned. It
is not impossible, after the ill-success of the present _régime_,
that the spirit of his policy may return to the palace in the
Wilhelmstrasse.

We were not destined to meet again. Bucher died on the 12th of
October, 1892, after he had lived away from the Prince for a few
months. I gave a sketch of his life and character in the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of the 29th of October, which was accompanied by a good
portrait.

Next spring I could find no rest until I greeted the Prince once
more; and I was permitted to do so. I arrived at Friedrichsruh at
1.30 P.M. on the 1st of May. Chrysander and a servant waited for me
at the station, and conducted me to the house where I was lodged in
room No. 4. After a snack, which took the place of lunch, I went for
a walk with Chrysander, who then showed me in one of the ground floor
rooms a number of presents and beautiful addresses from Costa Rica
and California, which had come to the Prince on his birthday a month
previously. Before dinner I met the old gentleman in the coffee-room,
where hung the portraits of his ancestors. He has changed very
little. I must sit down with him on the sofa, and am “Büschlein” as
before. Had I written anything lately, and what about? Complained of
faceache, “which, however, comes no doubt from the sharp atmosphere
out of doors during my walk this morning.”--At dinner, at which we
were joined by the Princess, Countess Rantzau, Dr. Schweninger, Count
Herbert and von Kardorff, member of the Reichstag, my place is again
next the Prince on his right. As is almost invariably the case on
such occasions, he is amiable, lively and good-humoured. (...)

_May 2nd, at 11 a.m._--Schweninger called at my room as he was going
away. We spoke once more about Bucher, whom he praised highly.
Long before the 15th of March the doctor had known, “through his
connections at Court” of the Emperor’s intention to get rid of
Bismarck, and had informed the latter. At 12 o’clock Chrysander
summoned me to the Prince, whom I met alone in the dining-room,
where he was waiting for me. I first handed him back the three
metallographic copies, which I should get published in some weekly
paper as they were still of interest. After I had turned the
conversation on Bucher I mentioned his mission to Madrid and the
letter to Prim, giving him clearly to understand that I had been
fully informed by my deceased friend of every detail of his Spanish
journey, and also knew that at one time he wished to deny the letter
to Prim and the trap set for Napoleon, which he had baited afresh by
condensing the Ems despatch. But to repudiate that would be to remove
the finest leaf from his wreath of laurels, and so on. These details
recalled to him the whole circumstances, and he no longer denied
anything. He brought the conversation to a close with the words: “We
will talk it over some other time. Of course you will remain for a
while yet, and I must now speak to Kardorff.” No opportunity however
occurred of returning to the subject. (...)

After dinner in the evening, _Kommerzienrath_ Kröner, over our
coffee, recommended the Prince to pay an early visit to Leipzig.
The Chief Burgomaster Georgi had told him that they longed to see
the Prince there, and that he would be received with universal
enthusiasm. I considered it right to tone down the effect of this
statement by pointing out that, in addition to sincere but silent
veneration for the Prince, there was also a great deal of loud and
obtrusive fustian and party self-seeking, whose sole object was its
own advancement; that, together with a certain understanding for
Bismarck’s methods and aims, there was also a great deal of unreason;
and that the great lights of the National Liberal persuasion, who
held the upper hand at Leipzig, would think less of manifesting their
gratitude to him than of once more giving prominence to themselves
and their party, and gaining popularity for future elections to the
Municipal Council or the Reichstag. Our _Geheimer Kommerzienrath_ was
obviously unable to appreciate such an unbusinesslike argument. What
I said was, however, perfectly true.

_May 3rd._--Took a walk in the morning. In the garden, near the
road leading to the station, was a block of sandstone with the
inscription: “From Grotenburg, near the site of the monument to
Arminius in the Teutoburger Wald,” which was recently presented
to Bismarck “by a German,” a bookbinder of Detmold. He doubtless
knows no more than the learned themselves where the Teutoburger
Wald was really situated, but he certainly knows better than many
of the learned that Bismarck is the founder of the German Empire.
In addition to the Chief and his wife and daughter, only Chrysander
and myself were present at lunch. Conversation: On the newspaper
report that Rottenburg was about to pay the Prince a visit, of
which, however, the latter knew nothing, and which is all the
more improbable, as Rottenburg is just engaged to Miss Phelps, the
daughter of the American Minister. The Chief mentioned that Mr.
Phelps wrote to him recently, and asked for an expression of opinion
on the World’s Fair at Chicago--of course a favourable one. The
Prince, however, does not seem inclined to do this. He said: “If I
were to give an honest expression of my view it would not be what
he requires. These exhibitions are of little value for industry and
art, and are more for the benefit of hotel keepers and such people.
They are good for those who feel bored, who want a new sensation, new
amusements, and who have money enough to gratify their inclinations
and afford themselves such pleasures.” The most gracious and his
intimates were then discussed--a General von Versen is one of the
favourites. The conversation then turned on the diplomatic world, and
first on Marschall, who has little capacity, but has been recommended
by his Grand Duke and a relative (or an official); on von Schweinitz,
who has nine children, and also on “Sardanapaul” Hatzfeldt. The
Chief afterwards referred to Maximilian Harden (Witkowski), whom
he praised as “a quiet unpretentious man of great tact; not at all
like a Jew--and also not like my intimate friend Blum,” he added,
laughingly, as he looked towards the Princess. On the mention of the
Grand Duke of Baden I reminded him of his letter with the words, “You
cannot govern without Bismarck,” and of the letter written by the
Crown Prince Frederick from Portofino in which he described his son.
The Chief said that he no longer had the original, and asked me to
send him a copy of it. “But not direct through the post, and also not
to Dr. Chrysander,” suggested Countess Rantzau. “No, he will also be
watched. Send it to Baron Merck, Sachsenwald bei Reinbeck; I shall
then get it safely.” I further referred to the King of Saxony and
his regard for Bismarck, and I mentioned that a doctor, who at the
time acted as Physician in Ordinary to the King at Pillnitz, told me
how, immediately after the Prince’s dismissal, the King travelled
alone by night from Pillnitz to Berlin, probably for the purpose of a
conference with the Emperor or Caprivi.

On Bötticher’s name coming up after the diplomatists, the Prince
placed him even below Caprivi, and concluded as follows: “Moreover,
he is under petticoat government.” Of Marschall he said: “He writes
bad French, even in official documents, speaking for instance in a
recent communication to Italy of ‘_l’empereur et l’empereuse_.’”

_May 4th._--At lunch we were joined by Baroness Merck and a professor
from Giessen, who plied the Prince with all sorts of questions, and
whom we shall here entitle Herr Y. In the course of this inquisition
we ascertained, among other things, that “Dutken Sommer” (in
Hesekiel’s book), whom I had hitherto taken to be a countrywoman,
is in reality of the masculine gender, and the son of the Pastor at
Reinfeld. The Prince said he was blind, and somewhat of a simpleton,
while the Princess described him as musical. Y. hastily jotted
that and other facts down in his pocket book while discussing his
cutlet and omelette. Phelps, Chicago, and the Prince’s opinion of
these “World Fairs” once more. The Chief then spoke of Prince and
Princess Reuss at Vienna, and of the position she took up towards
the notorious rescript. (“The Uriah Letters.”) She said: “My husband
is a (public) servant. I am not.” Somebody brought up Ahlwardt’s
name, and the Prince said: “He too has one merit. He brings a change
into the commonplace tediousness of the Reichstag.” He observed with
regard to the good reception accorded to the Emperor by the Swiss:
“They do nothing gratis. We shall be made to pay for it with a higher
customs duty.” The professor informed us that he was a vegetarian,
and that it was an illness which had converted him. I mentioned the
approaching advent of the editor of the _Kladderadatsch_ and his
friend Jacobsen, praising both of them highly. After a glance at
his pocket book, Y. inquired about the attitude of France in 1866,
mentioning Moustier. The Prince corrected his pronunciation of the
name, and then went on to say: “Once in the course of conversation
he reminded me in a threatening way of Jena. I said to him, ‘If you
talk to me of Jena I will talk to you of Leipzig.’ I might also have
mentioned Waterloo. Moustier then complained to Manteuffel, and
he reported the matter to the King, who, however, said that I had
acted rightly.” Coming in the further course of the conversation to
speak of the policy which was at that time pursued by the Italians,
he said: “La Marmora was a scoundrel, and was paid by France,
but Govone was a respectable man.” He gave his reasons for both
opinions in detail. The Prince then added, having perhaps noticed
the eavesdropping publicist: “I would not have said that to Sybel if
I had had any idea that he would publish it--a remark which applies
to other matters mentioned to other good people, such as my worthy
friend Blum, whose statements are very indiscreet and mostly false.”

At 4 P.M. the professor came to my room, “in order to become better
acquainted with his neighbour”; that is, thought I to myself, to
pump me too for his own purposes, _de omnibus rebus et quibusdam
aliis_, according to all the rules of the art. And so it proved.
He suggested a walk, and I proposed that we should go to the mill
on the Aue. We had not gone a hundred yards before he set to work
as I had anticipated, with a hardihood which was only equalled by
its many-sidedness. Truly a thirst for knowledge of the most naïve
kind, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, although
it was only two hours since he set eyes on me for the first time.
As at lunch, the result was in each instance immediately committed
to his pocket book. What a lingual pumping apparatus that was! Now
here, now there, sounding and boring, screwing and sucking! First
about myself, then as to Bucher, his character as an official and
in social life, &c. The Prince’s turn came next, and after him the
Princess, the sons, the daughter and the grandchildren. What did
I think of Schweninger? How did I like Lange, who, by the way,
also took lunch with us; in short, his inquiries, conducted with a
peculiar thoroughness and charm, extended to everything upstairs and
downstairs, chick and child, _ad infinitum_. I was even expected
to give information respecting Baroness Merck. Had I observed at
table that her eyes looked as if she had been crying, and that she
sobbed a couple of times? And whether I knew or suspected why? In
return he spontaneously revealed his own inner man unasked, and as
a reward for my patience I ascertained a variety of things about
himself, and also obtained some information which appeared to me
to be of importance. He is to write an obituary of the Prince for
the _Kölnische Zeitung_--now? He will publish an account of his
visit to him--where? He had been to see him last year, if I rightly
understood, at Varzin, and had been for a walk with him for nearly
two hours. He is an intimate friend of Aegidi, whom, doubtless as a
congenial soul, he praises to the skies, and who, he says, once gave
him a document from the archives of the Foreign Office for perusal.
He is a vocalist, and intends to sing something to the Princess, &c.
I answered his questions, for the most part with an expression of
regret at my ignorance, and where this was not possible with that
description of truth which is alone expedient in the presence of
embarrassing or dangerous curiosity: _Sanheden ved modification_,
truth with modifications, as the Danes jestingly define lies. I took
an opportunity before dinner to speak to Chrysander about this odd
fish. He was, however, just on the point of fetching him to see the
Prince. I thought to myself that Bucher ought to have postponed his
death for a while. At dinner Y., who again diligently pumped the
Prince for the benefit of his note-book, strongly urged him soon
to pay a visit to South Germany and the Rhine, and held out a very
tempting prospect there. The Chief, however, replied that, like
Parson Primrose, he now preferred the journey from the brown bed into
the blue to all others. “Were I to go, however,” he continued, “I
should prepare a speech once for all and learn it by heart.” He added
an experience of his at the time of the Erfurt Parliament: “There was
one of them there who spoke often and well, and who, on one occasion,
delivered a speech which I heard and liked. On my mentioning it to an
acquaintance, however, he said: ‘Yes, but you should have heard it
last year; it was much finer then!’”

_May 5th._--In the morning a letter from my little Gretchen, with
greetings to the dear Prince and the whole princely family. Y. called
for me again and we took a walk through the wood along the road
leading to Möhnsen. The octopus again applies a new sucker: he wants
to know about the “Memoirs.” Had formerly on one occasion (I believe
he said in 1891) seen the Prince over a pile of folio sheets. Could
these have been the “Memoirs?” I did not know, but doubted it. “I
did not wish to ask him,” observed the good creature. At lunch he
cheerfully proceeded with the work of extracting information from
the Chief. He had evidently turned a deaf ear to the indirect warning
as to “indiscreet friends,” or considered that full-blown professors
formed an exception.

I delivered Gretchen’s greetings, and was instructed to thank her
very kindly. In the afternoon Chrysander came to my room and begged
me to send him from Leipzig my opinion of the professor and the
“intimate friend.” “It is my duty,” he said, “to protect his Serene
Highness against tactlessness.”

After dinner, when the Mercks, who had also been present, had
withdrawn, there was a scene in the coffee room. The indefatigable
Y. once more addressed a series of questions to the Prince, whose
newspaper hour had arrived, but who nevertheless listened to him
politely, until suddenly--I did not notice to what special point
the sucker had been applied, but it must have been an exceptionally
tender spot--he exclaimed angrily: “You should not put such
questions, professor. I cannot imagine how any one can put such
idiotic questions.” Tableau! A thunderbolt! Silence for a moment, and
then the conversation is resumed with the ladies on matters of no
importance, while the Chief studies his paper. On Y. rising to leave,
the Countess makes a sign to me to remain, and I talk for some time
to her and the Princess. On taking leave I kiss the Chief’s hand for
the first time, and doubtless also for the last. He says: “Good-bye,
dear old friend, but come back again soon.”

In the meantime may God protect our dear old master from his new
friends--his business friends! Amen!




                              INDEX


                    _INDEX TO PROPER NAMES._

_William I.--Prince Bismarck--Busch, the Author--France--Germany and
smaller German States occur so frequently that they have not been
indexed. The prefixes “von” and “de” have been generally omitted._


A

Aali Pasha, vol. i. 417

Abeken, vol. i. 21, 26, 70, 71, 74, 75, 83, 91, 94, 104, 116 to 118,
      157, 171, 211, 226, 229, 252, 296, 323, 337, 342, 344, 358, 377,
      386, 388, 389, 404, 405, 409, 412, 415, 416, 419, 421, 425, 427,
      428, 447, 453, 456, 458, 486, 488, 490, 515, 519, 533;
    vol. ii. 24, 25, 26, 28, 44, 72, 79, 80, 81, 113, 124, 126, 143,
      147, 162, 165, 170, 244, 340, 445;
    vol. iii. 13, 42, 43, 121, 249

Abel, vol. ii. 432

Abzac, d’, vol. ii. 299, 300

Adalbert, Prince, vol. i. 402, 561;
    vol. ii. 226

Adelebsen, vol. ii. 110

Adlerberg, vol. i. 411;
    vol. iii. 282, 283, 286

Aegidi, vol. ii. 13, 78, 79, 105, 106, 115, 116, 119, 123, 148, 149,
      161, 173, 183, 188, 189, 194, 195, 197, 202, 203, 205, 220, 223,
      224, 233, 239 to 241, 247, 250, 252, 254, 256, 257, 281;
    vol. iii. 386

AFGHANISTAN, vol. ii. 456;
    vol. iii. 119, 121, 124, 133, 135, 150

Aftonblad, vol. ii. 155

_Agence Havas_, vol. i. 43

Ahlwardt, vol. iii. 384

Albedinski, vol. ii. 43

Albedyll, vol. iii. 316, 335

Albert, Prince Consort of England, vol. iii. 43, 45, 177

Albrecht, Archduke, vol. i. 16, 17, 178, 179, 232, 272;
    vol. ii. 411

Alençon, Duc d’, vol. i. 365

Alexander II., Emperor. _See_ Russia, Tsar of

Alexander III., Emperor. _See_ Russia, Tsar of

Alexandrine, Princess, vol. ii. 404, 405, 418

_Allgemeine Zeitung_, vol. i. 308;
    vol. ii. 172;
    vol. iii. 356

Alopaeus, vol. ii. 4, 32

Alphonso, vol. i. 41

Alten, Major v., vol. i. 148, 291, 311, 318, 319, 350, 352

Altvater, vol. i. 442

Alvensleben, Count, vol. i. 106, 107, 195;
    vol. ii. 143, 164, 402;
    vol. iii. 125, 206, 225, 228, 378

Amelia, Queen of Greece, vol. i. 135

AMERICA, vol. i. 9, 176, 238, 241, 242, 250 to 252, 265, 283, 354, 386,
      429, 465, 472, 526, 558;
    vol. ii. 46, 76, 205, 378, 383, 386, 397, 450, 473;
    vol. iii. 82, 85, 213

Andrae-Roman, vol. iii. 116 to 118, 126, 208

Andrassy, vol. i. 463;
    vol. ii. 83, 122, 128, 129, 132, 181, 182, 190, 191, 197, 198,
      202, 410, 411, 423;
    vol. iii. 143, 257 to 260, 266, 273 to 276, 287, 288, 291, 309

Anethan, d’, vol. ii. 81, 85

Angelis, vol. ii. 212;
    vol. iii. 155

Angoulème, Duc d’, vol. i. 36

Antonelli, Cardinal, vol. i. 17, 417;
    vol. ii. 103, 204, 212

Aosta, Duke of, vol. i. 313

Apponyi, vol. ii. 181

Arabi Pasha, vol. iii. 52

Archbishop of Reims, vol. i. 167

Arco, vol. iii. 343

Armand le Chevalier, vol. i. 540

Arnim, Harry, vol. i. 136 to 215, 307, 416, 417, 431, 457, 506;
    vol. ii. 29, 30, 74, 117, 127, 133, 147, 163, 166, 222, 235, 236,
      237, 260 to 266, 279, 286, 332, 476, 477, 478;
    vol. iii. 9, 44, 218, 362, 378

Arnim, Boitzenburg, vol. i. 306

Arnim, Heinrich, vol. ii. 25

Arnim, Krochlendorff, vol. i. 402

Ascher, vol. iii. 5

Auber, vol. i. 60

Auersberg, Adolph, vol. iii. 2

Auerswald, vol. ii. 333;
    vol. iii. 22

_Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung_, vol. i. 6;
    vol. ii. 197, 308, 423

Augustenburger. _See_ Frederick VIII of Schleswig-Holstein

Aumale, Duc d’, vol. ii. 199, 207

Aunay, d’, vol. i. 560

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, vol. i. 21, 24, 30, 31, 32, 41, 136, 174, 179, 180,
      207, 220, 257, 270, 278, 279, 288, 299, 310, 329, 334, 335, 339,
      341, 351, 363, 366, 373, 374, 382, 410, 431, 432, 434, 452, 544;
    vol. ii. 42, 52, 57, 82, 89, 102, 110, 112, 114, 119, 123, 127,
      128, 137, 142, 147, 148, 158, 172, 180 to 182, 190, 191, 197, 200,
      201, 210, 213, 248, 250, 304, 318, 326, 337, 343, 348, 386, 392,
      393, 395, 404 to 406, 408, 409, 411, 412, 431, 479 to 481;
    vol. iii. 21 to 26, 43, 44, 52, 62, 76, 79, 81, 83 to 85, 87,
      119, 130, 148, 149, 160, 170, 182, 216, 218, 224, 226, 227, 246,
      250, 254, 258 to 292, 301, 352, 354

Austria, Emperor of, vol. i. 178;
    vol. ii. 85, 113 to 115, 119, 122, 216 to 219, 265, 266, 326,
      407, 412;
    vol. iii. 87, 216, 219

Archduchess Gisela of, vol. ii. 194

Archduchess Sophia of, vol. ii. 115

_Avenir de Loire et Cher_, vol. ii. 46


B

Bach, vol. ii. 179;
    vol. iii. 218

Back, vol. ii. 97

Baden, Grand Duchess of, vol. i. 175;
    vol. ii. 273, 274;
    vol. iii. 140

Baden, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 292, 305, 403, 501;
    vol. ii. 273;
    vol. iii. 183, 198, 204, 247, 316, 332, 336, 356

Balan, vol. ii. 27, 73, 80, 124, 175, 216, 224, 245, 251, 252, 256

Bamberger, vol. i. 84, 103, 168, 222, 223, 233, 255, 286, 350, 361,
      362, 484, 493;
    vol. ii. 86, 87, 187, 206, 385, 388, 436, 453, 454, 458, 473, 484;
    vol. iii. 36

Bancroft, vol. ii. 401

Banneville, vol. i. 18

Barjatinsky, vol. iii. 265

Barral, vol. i. 400

Barrot, vol. i. 440

Bastide, vol. ii. 76

Battenberg, Alex., vol. iii. 149, 171 to 174, 180 to 182, 292, 315,
      316, 335

Baude, vol. ii. 81

Baudelot, Widow, vol. i. 140, 141

Bauer, vol. ii. 119

Bauer, Caroline, vol. ii. 421

Bauffremont, Duc de, vol. i. 288

Bavaria, King of, vol. i. 178, 246, 256, 319, 323, 348, 357, 359, 400,
      431, 463, 464, 465, 523, 561;
    vol. ii. 50, 138, 142, 169, 217, 226, 325, 332;
    vol. iii. 198, 293, 300, 321, 332
  Prince Luitpold of, vol. i. 98, 127, 165, 168, 178, 179, 180, 329,
      360, 464, 562;
    vol. ii. 126, 194;
    vol. iii. 87, 213, 293
  Prince Otto of, vol. i. 331, 562;
    vol. ii. 126, 143
  Prince Charles of, vol. i. 410, 431
  Queen of, vol. ii. 296;
    vol. iii. 140

Bazaine, Marshal, vol. i. 95, 126, 131, 271, 319;
    vol. iii. 303

Beaconsfield, Lord, vol. ii. 423, 430, 456

Beatrice, Princess of England, vol. iii. 174

Beaufort, d’Hautpoule, vol. i. 507, 508

Bebel, vol. ii. 57, 81;
    vol. iii. 379

Bechtoldsheim, vol. ii. 190

Beckedorff, vol. i. 422

Becker, vol. iii. 106

Beckmann, vol. ii. 237

Beckx, vol. iii. 67

Belgians, King of the, vol. i. 430;
    vol. iii. 138, 178

BELGIUM, vol. i. 60, 63, 142, 176, 177, 295, 430, 501;
    vol. ii. 54, 57, 81, 82, 85, 124, 126, 166, 192;
    vol. iii. 272

Below, vol. iii. 128

Benda, vol. ii. 473

Benedetti, vol. i. 22, 60, 61 to 63, 193, 288, 544;
    vol. ii. 33, 117, 118, 154, 340

Bennigsen, vol. i. 7, 30, 233, 270, 272, 274;
    vol. ii. 281, 388, 437, 453;
    vol. iii. 28, 30, 31, 34 to 37, 142

Berg, vol. ii. 44

Berghen, vol. i. 485;
    vol. iii. 146

Bergmann, vol. iii. 175, 316

Berlichingen, vol. iii. 164

Bernhardi, vol. i. 493

Bernhardt, vol. ii. 304

Bernstorff, Count, vol. i. 135, 198, 203, 213, 319, 342, 345, 386, 417,
      428, 443, 455, 458, 469, 489, 509, 512, 517, 554, 559;
    vol. ii. 43, 83, 90, 138

Bernus, vol. ii. 52

Bernuth, vol. ii. 457, 461, 473

Beseler, vol. ii. 473

_Besseda_, vol. ii. 214

Beust, vol. i. 17, 18, 20, 30, 175, 176, 179, 188, 253, 277 to 279,
      286, 314, 339, 434, 453, 463, 553;
    vol. ii. 42, 52, 83 to 85, 88, 117, 120 to 122, 126, 129,
      131 to 133, 137, 138;
    vol. iii. 170, 171, 186, 187

Beuthner, vol. ii. 164

Beyer, vol. i. 501

Biedermann, vol. ii. 172

Biegeleben, vol. i. 314;
    vol. ii. 89

Biron, vol. i. 193;
    vol. ii. 256

Bismarck, Princess (Countess Johanna), vol. i. 251, 273, 289, 384, 387,
      411;
    vol. ii. 32, 205, 221, 246, 281 to 283, 324, 332, 335, 359, 420;
    vol. iii. 14, 66, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 131, 199, 206, 208,
      231, 246, 255, 293, 297, 298, 312, 320, 329, 344, 348, 352, 370,
      374, 379, 381 to 384, 386, 388

Bismarck, Herbert, vol. i. 89, 102, 108, 289, 537, 543, 550, 551;
    vol. ii. 219, 283, 312, 315, 317, 319, 363, 365, 416, 424, 449,
      483;
    vol. iii. 5, 10, 13 to 15, 42, 58, 60, 73, 101, 118 to 120, 125,
      131, 135, 137, 143, 146, 231, 233, 246, 293, 303, 307, 312 to 314,
      333, 337 to 341, 343, 344, 361, 374, 379, 381
  William, vol. i. 95, 129, 291, 389, 444, 447, 448, 453, 454;
    vol. ii. 281, 282, 381;
    vol. iii. 10, 16, 33, 34, 42, 89, 97 to 99, 109, 145, 231, 345
  Heinrich, vol. iii. 92
  Philip, vol. i. 189
  -Bohlen, vol. i. 34, 69, 70, 71, 74, 83, 91, 98, 113, 131, 141, 148,
      149, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 183, 190, 195, 205, 213, 229, 254,
      258, 280, 284, 305 to 307, 314, 318, 321, 322, 330, 349, 351,
      354, 358 to 360, 396, 425, 435, 483, 487 to 489, 495, 498, 499,
      501, 503, 504, 515, 516, 518, 519, 543;
    vol. ii. 27, 123, 162, 372;
    vol. iii. 205
  Marie. _See_ Rantzau, Countess

Bissinger, vol. i. 387

Bitter, vol. ii. 453

Blankenburg, vol. i. 233, 270, 272, 274;
    vol. ii. 261, 317, 318, 328;
    vol. iii. 126, 128, 129

Bleibtreu, vol. i. 321

Bleichröder, vol. i. 271, 518, 532, 554;
    vol. ii. 317, 318, 432, 454;
    vol. iii. 62, 63, 67, 68, 74, 75, 79, 80, 161, 188, 198, 233,
      312, 371

Blind, vol. i. 541

Blome, vol. i. 451

Bloomfield (Lady), vol. iii. 94

Blowitz, vol. ii. 394, 395, 441, 442

Blum, vol. iii. 383, 385

Blumenthal, Gen., vol. i. 151, 181, 203, 354, 477;
    vol. ii. 337, 345

Bock, Dr., vol. i. 6

Bockh, vol. ii. 19

Bodelschwingh, vol. ii. 462;
    vol. iii. 232

_Boersenzeitung_, vol. i. 13, 44;
    vol. ii. 375;
    vol. iii. 161, 188, 198, 343

BOHEMIA, vol. i. 34, 270;
    vol. ii. 112, 114, 120, 122, 147, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 326,
      405

Böhmen, vol. iii. 127

Bojanowski, vol. iii. 137

Bölsing, Sec., vol. i. 71, 174, 213, 229;
    vol. ii. 12, 164

“Bonbonnière,” vol. ii. 274 to 279, 284, 287, 296

Bonnechose, vol. i. 417, 424, 428, 439;
    vol. iii. 213

Borck, vol. i. 135, 303, 483

Borel, vol. ii. 76, 77, 79

Bose, vol. ii. 117

BOSNIA, vol. iii. 277

Bothmer, Gen. v., vol. i. 146, 207, 293

Bötticher, vol. ii. 476;
    vol. iii. 93, 151, 210, 214, 298, 314, 341, 356, 367, 368

Bourbaki, vol. i. 383, 447, 482

Bouterweck, vol. ii. 111

Boyen, Gen. v., vol. i. 161, 171

Boyer, Gen., vol. i. 252, 253, 265

Brandenburg, vol. iii. 362

Brandenstein, vol. iii. 358

Brandt, vol. ii. 15;
    vol. iii. 9

Brass, vol. i. 16, 17, 33, 55, 213, 308;
    vol. ii. 48, 86 to 88, 101, 103, 105, 173, 191, 217, 339

Brater, vol. iii. 195

Bratiano, vol. ii. 129

Brauer, vol. iii. 203, 208

Braun, vol. ii. 52, 127

Bray, vol. i. 23, 190, 220, 221, 233, 360, 410, 428, 431, 523, 534;
    vol. ii. 53, 117, 221;
    vol. iii. 198

Breintz, v., vol. i. 113

Bright, vol. ii. 435

Brincourt, vol. ii. 43

Bronsart, vol. i. 349

Brühl, Count, vol. i. 169;
    vol. ii. 462

Brunnow, vol. i. 418;
    vol. ii. 90

Buch, L. v., vol. i. 415

Buchanan, Sir A., vol. i. 343

Bucher, Lothar, vol. i. 4, 16, 18, 34 to 37, 39, 43, 45, 60, 62, 71,
      225, 226, 230, 241 to 243, 257, 319, 328, 335, 340, 349, 366, 371,
      377, 383, 388, 391, 422, 431, 440, 448, 460, 483, 484, 499, 519,
      520, 532, 561;
    vol. ii. 12, 13, 15 to 23, 25, 28, 41, 44, 48, 71, 72, 78, 79,
      82, 96, 105, 108, 117, 123, 137, 138, 144, 151, 162 to 164, 166,
      167, 170, 172 to 176, 183, 191, 193, 199, 202 to 206, 209 to 211,
      217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 233 to 235, 239, 241, 245,
      251 to 253, 255 to 258, 260, 263 to 266, 272 to 275, 279, 281,
      288, 294, 296, 301, 302, 305, 311, 312, 328, 342, 354, 357, 372,
      395, 399, 400, 433, 444, 445, 448, 449, 467;
    vol. iii. 1, 3 to 6, 9 to 13, 15, 16, 41 to 43, 45 to 48,
      60 to 68, 70 to 75, 80, 93, 112 to 116, 118, 119, 121, 123 to 125,
      130 to 137, 142 to 146, 154 to 156, 169, 171, 184, 185, 187, 189,
      198, 298, 306, 307, 337 to 348, 350 to 355, 357, 359, 372 to 381,
      386, 387

Budberg, vol. i. 510

Buhl, vol. iii. 352

BULGARIA, vol. ii. 165;
    vol. iii. 148, 149, 171

Bülow, vol. ii. 11, 21, 22, 219, 240, 255, 356, 357, 372, 399, 400,
      402, 403, 406, 424, 453, 467;
    vol. iii. 4, 18, 262, 264, 266, 285, 289, 296

Bülow of Mecklenburg, vol. ii. 27, 273

Bunsen, George, vol. iii. 46, 138

Bunsen, Josias, vol. ii. 24;
    vol. iii. 4, 42 to 46, 53, 110, 178, 225

Bunsen, Theodore, vol. iii. 44, 46, 224

Buol, vol. ii. 318, 334, 339;
    vol. iii. 218, 224

Burgomaster of Apolda, vol. i. 138

Burnaki, vol. ii. 57

Burnside, Gen., vol. i. 215, 216, 219, 237, 246, 250, 269

Busch (Under Sec.), vol. ii. 445, 449;
    vol. iii. 13, 59, 68, 93, 124, 137, 144, 306

Byglewski, vol. ii. 126


C

Cahn, vol. ii. 68, 69

Calonne, vol. ii. 130, 131

Calvel, vol. i. 507

Cambriel, vol. i. 400

Camphausen, vol. i. 14, 33, 505;
    vol. ii. 164, 267, 279, 288, 289, 290, 457, 458, 459, 461, 462;
    vol. iii. 239, 362

Canrobert, vol. i. 271

Canstein, Gen., vol. i. 106

Capalti, Cardinal, vol. i. 27

Caprivi, vol. ii. 22;
    vol. iii. 214, 318, 345, 352, 384

Carlyle, Thomas, vol. i. 378

Casimir-Perier. _See_ Perier

Castelneau, Gen., vol. i. 153, 161

CENTRAL ASIA, vol. iii. 131

Chamberlain, J., vol. iii. 58

Chambord, Comte de, vol. i. 267, 269, 484;
    vol. ii. 74, 81, 90, 162, 207

Chanzy, Gen., vol. i. 383

Charette, vol. i. 295

Chaudordy, vol. i. 278, 392, 393, 395, 399, 467, 468, 469, 518

Chauvin, Gen., vol. i. 292

CHINA, vol. iii. 153, 284

Chrysander, vol. iii. 337, 344, 352, 375, 379 to 383, 387, 388

Cissey, vol. ii. 208

Clam-Martinitz, vol. ii. 121

Clary, vol. ii. 43

Cluseret, vol. ii. 58, 59, 60, 61, 69

Cobden, vol. ii. 18;
    vol. iii. 2, 3, 7, 8

Coburg, Duke Ernst of, vol. iii. 178, 184, 186

Coburg, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 143, 146, 147, 238, 259, 280, 293, 294,
      296, 397, 403, 428, 486, 564;
    vol. ii. 162, 306, 368, 390;
    vol. iii. 198, 249 to 252

Cochery, vol. i. 38, 296

Cockerell, vol. i. 454, 455

Coffin, vol. iii. 207

Cogalniceano, vol. ii. 129

_Constitutionnel_, vol. i. 32, 45, 83

Coppet, vol. i. 269

Costenoble, vol. ii. 338

_Courier_, vol. ii. 260

_Courier de la Champagne_, vol. i. 172

Cousa, vol. ii. 129

Cremieux, vol. i. 382, 553

Crimean War, vol. i. 59, 203, 407;
    vol. ii. 248;
    vol. iii. 132, 179

Crispi, vol. iii. 332

Crown Prince. _See_ German Emperors

Crown Princess. _See_ German Empress

Cumberland, Duke of. _See_ Hanover, King of

Curia. _See_ Pope

Czartoryski, vol. ii. 128, 147, 222, 297

_Czas_, vol. ii. 297

Czechs. _See_ Bohemia

Czernicki, vol. i. 157


D

_Daily News_, vol. i. 285, 308;
    vol. iii. 124

_Daily Telegraph_, vol. i. 238, 379, 519;
    vol. ii. 418, 433, 446, 448, 449, 476, 477;
    vol. iii. 4, 5, 15, 132, 134, 136, 137, 188, 306, 308, 310, 341, 356

Dalwigk, vol. i. 430, 443

Danton, vol. i. 383

Darboy, vol. ii. 145

Darenthall, vol. iii. 145

Darmstadt, Grand Duchess Mathilde of, vol. i. 484
  Grand Duke of, vol. ii. 174

Daru, vol. i. 22, 23;
    vol. ii. 144, 145

Darwin, vol. iii. 233

Dauphinot, vol. i. 167

Daxenberger, vol. ii. 221

Decker, vol. ii. 244

Deichmann, vol. i. 66, 68

Delacroix, vol. i. 213

Delbrück, vol. i. 14, 171, 233, 246, 256, 257, 267, 276, 284, 287, 289,
      292, 302, 307, 325, 339, 383, 390, 391, 415, 430, 450, 451, 494,
      507, 512, 523;
    vol. ii. 6, 75, 130, 230, 265, 267, 279, 307, 385, 386, 397, 422,
      435;
    vol. iii. 29 to 31

DENMARK, vol. i. 30, 31, 54, 477, 526;
    vol. ii. 214, 215, 343, 389, 392;
    vol. iii. 205

Denmark, King of, vol. i. 174;
    vol. ii. 69, 329, 337

Derosne, vol. ii. 396

Dessau, Duke of, vol. i. 414

_Deutsche Presse_, vol. ii. 223, 251

_Deutsche Reichszeitung_, vol. ii. 147

_Deutsche Revue_, vol. ii. 467;
    vol. iii. 20, 21, 32, 44

_Deutsche Rundschau_, vol. iii. 191 to 193, 196, 199, 203, 204, 212, 214

_Deutsche Zeitung_ (Vienna), vol. ii. 252

Dewitz, vol. i. 388

Dhuleep-Singh, vol. iii. 169

Diest, vol. ii. 284, 304, 317, 318, 453;
    vol. iii. 39, 83, 126, 168

Dietze, vol. i. 337;
    vol. ii. 294, 322, 382

Dilke, Sir C., vol. iii. 58

Dixon, Hepworth, vol. ii. 214, 215, 216

Doerr, vol. i. 30;
    vol. ii. 124, 164

Döllinger, vol. ii. 51, 52;
    vol. iii. 214

Dombrowski, vol. ii. 54, 55, 57

Dönhoff, Count, vol. i. 165, 478, 550;
    vol. ii. 117

Drei-Kaiser Bund, vol. i. 178;
    vol. ii. 393

_Droits de l’Homme_, vol. i. 381

Ducrot, Gen., vol. i. 189, 219, 252, 270, 276, 289, 352, 383, 397,
      400, 443

Dufferin, Lord, vol. ii. 391, 395;
    vol. iii. 132, 133

Duncker, vol. iii. 239

Dupanloup, Bishop, vol. i. 332;
    vol. ii. 276, 382

Duparc, vol. i. 526

Düring, vol. ii. 109

Dürrbach, vol. i. 507, 510, 511

Dusch, vol. ii. 119

Duval, vol. i. 166

Duvernois, vol. i. 417, 455, 512;
    vol. ii. 125

_Dzennik Poznanski_, vol. ii. 163


E

Ebers, vol. ii. 110

Eckart, vol. ii. 137, 214, 233;
    vol. iii. 62

Edwardes, vol. iii. 216

Egloffstein, vol. ii. 227

EGYPT, vol. iii. 51 to 53, 62, 131, 133, 142

Eichmann, vol. i. 440;
    vol. ii. 117

Eisenhart, vol. i. 431;
    vol. ii. 51, 142, 143

Engel, vol. i. 142, 148, 149, 182, 274, 287, 389

Engelmann, vol. ii. 251

ENGLAND, vol. i. 24, 42, 54 to 57, 140, 174, 199, 241, 242, 252, 278,
      312, 317, 319, 323, 329, 330, 334, 343, 358, 371, 376, 384, 385,
      416, 419, 432, 438, 452, 454, 458, 467 to 469, 471 to 474, 477,
      481, 499, 500, 526, 538, 550, 552, 554;
    vol. ii. 18, 47, 49, 54, 82, 84, 85, 126, 139, 148, 157, 158,
      205, 260, 291, 292, 297 to 299, 308, 309, 337, 339, 348, 383, 386,
      393, 396, 397, 405, 410, 418, 431, 450, 456;
    vol. iii. 5, 45, 51 to 53, 57, 58, 62, 83, 95, 110, 115, 116,
      119 to 125, 131 to 136, 140, 142 to 146, 149, 150, 152, 154, 171,
      174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 183 to 186, 205, 206, 213, 218, 226, 252,
      269, 282, 284, 285, 287, 291, 317, 325 to 327, 352, 353
  Queen Victoria, vol. i. 69, 315, 338, 354;
    vol. ii. 139, 158, 277, 297, 298, 306, 413;
    vol. iii. 53, 95, 140, 169, 171, 174, 178, 180 to 183, 185 to 191,
      196, 198, 213, 250, 316, 325, 326
  Prince of Wales, vol. ii. 116, 413
  Princess of Wales, vol. ii. 116
  Princess Beatrice, vol. iii. 174

Erkert, vol. ii. 281, 315, 317

Ernsthausen, vol. i. 458

Esquiros, vol. i. 267, 268

Ester, d’, vol. iii. 21

Esterhazy, vol. i. 363, 364, 544

Eugénie, Empress, vol. i. 33, 36, 45, 135, 169, 204, 283, 417, 428,
      490, 535;
    vol. ii. 90, 142, 144 to 146, 186, 276, 288, 295

Eulenburg, vol. i. 16, 203, 481;
    vol. ii. 228 to 231, 371, 468 to 470;
    vol. iii. 30, 35, 234, 321


F

Fabrice, vol. ii. 45, 53, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 74, 75, 79, 80, 90, 91,
      92, 93;
    vol. iii. 107

Faidherbe, vol. i. 383;
    vol. ii. 208

Falk, vol. ii. 309, 369, 402, 422, 423

Falkenstein, Vogel v., vol. i. 77, 277, 324, 525;
    vol. ii. 186

Fatio, Miss Jenny, vol. ii. 315, 328, 335

Favre, Jules, vol. i. 169, 174, 182, 188, 190, 191 to 193, 196, 197,
      204, 208, 211 to 214, 229, 231, 269, 282, 285, 288, 290, 356, 362,
      400, 421, 443, 460, 467 to 469, 471 to 473, 477, 483, 484,
      486 to 490, 495 to 497, 498, 502, 507 to 509, 511 to 513, 516,
      518, 519, 521, 525, 526, 531, 533, 534, 537, 541 to 545, 547, 548,
      550, 551, 553, 563;
    vol. ii. 56, 57, 61, 63, 65, 68, 71, 73 to 75, 84, 88, 90,
      93 to 95, 97 to 99, 208

_Figaro_, vol. i. 326, 560

_Figaro_ (Berlin), vol. ii. 254

Finkenstein, vol. i. 94, 97, 101

FitzJames, Duc de, vol. i. 198 to 200

Fleming, vol. iii. 203

Fleury, vol. ii. 125, 126, 165

Forbes, Archibald, vol. i. 308

Forchhammer, vol. ii. 462

Forckenbeck, vol. i. 7, 505 to 507;
    vol. ii. 462, 470;
    vol. iii. 30, 56, 138, 163

Forsythe, vol. i. 90, 96, 132

Fourichon, vol. i. 382

Fouriere, vol. i. 118

Franchi, vol. i. 417

Francke, vol. iii. 249

Franco-German War (Declaration), vol. i. 49
  Battle of Wörth, vol. i. 65
  Gravelotte, vol. i. 85, 102
  Beaumont, vol. i. 132, 138
  Sedan, vol. i. 141 to 162
  Bombardment of Paris, vol. i. 427
  Prelim. Treaty Peace, vol. ii. 40

Frankenberg, Count, vol. i. 320, 389, 390

Frankenstein, vol. iii. 312

_Frankfurter Zeitung_, vol. ii. 115, 116, 122;
    vol. iii. 184

Frederick VIII. of Schleswig-Holstein, vol. i. 110, 113, 140, 174,
      293, 354;
    vol. ii. 33, 306, 307, 390;
    vol. iii. 205, 213, 257

Frederick the Great, vol. i. 73, 203, 293, 338, 412;
    vol. ii., 3

Frederick William III., vol. i., 370;
    vol. ii., 261

Frederick William IV., vol. i. 304;
    vol. ii. 186, 261, 262, 334;
    vol. iii. 44, 210, 215, 225, 310, 314, 324

Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor; _see_ Germany

Freiberg, Maj., vol. i. 113, 165

_Fremden-Blatt_, vol. ii. 249, 250

Frese, vol. ii. 52, 113, 481

Freycinet, vol. iii. 53

Freydorf, v., vol. i. 9

Freytag, vol. ii. 306;
    vol. iii. 65, 195, 205, 238

Friedberg, vol. iii. 173, 256, 297

Friedenthal, vol. i. 7, 233, 270, 272;
    vol. ii. 422, 423, 424, 457, 461, 462

Friederich, vol. ii. 141

Friedländer, vol. i. 353

Fries, v., vol. i. 115

Friesen, vol. ii. 117

Fröbel, vol. ii. 123

Fuchs-Nordhof, vol. i. 121

Fürstenstein, vol. i. 217


G

Gablentz, vol. ii. 85;
    vol. iii. 87, 88, 115

Gabriac, vol. i. 413;
    vol. ii. 70, 127

Gagern, vol. i. 314;
    vol. ii. 89, 381;
    vol. iii. 224

Galiffet, vol. i. 196

Gambetta, vol. i. 169, 253, 268, 271, 290, 380, 400, 408, 409, 413,
      414, 415, 417, 433, 459, 468, 506, 516, 521, 526, 531, 536, 537,
      538, 540, 541, 545, 548, 550, 551, 553, 556;
    vol. ii. 55, 199, 207, 208, 222, 235, 236, 249, 423, 468;
    vol. iii. 11, 12, 32, 53

Gans, vol. ii. 14

Garibaldi, vol. i. 53, 245, 267, 294, 304, 311, 330, 380, 399, 526,
      532, 533;
    vol. ii. 49, 55, 79, 118;
    vol. iii. 46

_Gartenlaube_, vol. ii. 268, 280, 311, 320, 362, 366

Gasser, vol. ii. 217, 221, 227
  Fr. v., vol. i. 524

_Gaulois_, vol. i. 371

Gauthier, vol. i. 268, 276

_Gazette du Midi_, vol. i. 267, 268

Geffcken, vol. ii. 273, 306;
    vol. iii. 43, 204, 233, 255, 256, 297 to 299, 303

_Gegenwart_, vol. ii. 206

Georgi, vol. iii. 382

Gerlach, vol. i. 368;
    vol. ii. 187, 334;
    vol. iii. 60, 129, 130, 210, 211, 215, 216, 218 to 225, 352

_Germania_, vol. ii. 173, 192, 294, 367, 419

German Emperor, Frederick, vol. i. 101, 109, 110, 113, 139, 146, 147,
      164, 181, 185, 198, 203, 227, 231, 232, 238, 244, 246, 257, 291,
      292, 315, 328, 330, 332, 333, 338, 344, 354, 356, 360, 399, 402,
      403, 408 to 413, 459, 477, 484, 551;
    vol. ii. 116, 253, 319, 336, 337, 367, 368, 389, 405, 413, 421;
    vol. iii. 56, 65, 84, 90, 93, 110, 115, 133, 136, 138, 140, 150,
      151, 161, 163, 167, 172, 175 to 177, 181, 185, 187 to 192,
      194 to 198, 203 to 206, 212 to 214, 232, 234 to 245, 248 to 251,
      255 to 257, 262 to 276, 292 to 301, 315 to 321, 334, 341, 354,
      358, 364, 383

German Emperor William II., vol. iii. 56, 61, 171, 172, 184, 188, 201,
      202, 231, 257, 294 to 296, 310, 314, 315, 318, 331, 333 to 336,
      346, 356 to 358, 362 to 367, 376, 377, 383 to 385

German Empress Augusta, vol. i. 138, 164, 175, 187, 293, 320, 332, 335,
      338, 367, 368, 422, 448, 458, 499, 529;
    vol. ii. 162, 183 to 187, 269, 274, 275, 277, 278, 284, 287, 319,
      368, 369, 416, 479;
    vol. iii. 59, 67, 68, 94, 141, 180, 203, 239, 251, 296, 302, 321,
      353, 354

German Empress Frederick (Victoria), vol. i. 139, 293, 315, 325, 354,
      397, 422, 458, 500;
    vol. ii. 116, 253, 269, 289, 336, 337, 368, 389;
    vol. iii. 95, 111, 132, 138, 139, 151, 171, 172, 177, 183, 185,
      188, 194 to 196, 198, 232, 238, 239, 245, 293, 297, 316

Gerstäcker, vol. ii. 423

Ghika, vol. ii. 129

Gichtel, vol. iii. 128

Giers, vol. iii. 108 to 110, 150, 159, 181, 282, 283, 286

Giskra, vol. i. 544

Gladstone, vol. i. 559;
    vol. ii. 18, 418, 442, 456, 468;
    vol. iii. 47, 52, 58, 61, 111, 115, 119, 123, 143, 145, 156, 163

Glais-Bizoins, vol. i. 382

Glasbrenner, vol. ii. 223

Glaser, vol. iii. 2

Gletty, vol. i. 327

Gneist, vol. ii. 422;
    vol. iii. 14

Gobineau, vol. i. 561

Goeben, Gen., vol. i. 132

Goethe, vol. i. 138, 337;
    vol. ii. 185

Goldammer, vol. iii. 233

_Golos_, vol. ii. 215, 391, 394

Goltz, vol. i. 135, 136, 416, 489;
    vol. ii. 255, 263, 278, 446, 447;
    vol. iii. 49, 50, 134, 248

Gontaut-Biron, vol. ii. 302

Gortschakoff, vol. i. 312, 325, 350, 358, 384, 413, 510, 515, 559;
    vol. ii. 70, 122, 135, 136, 148, 187, 201, 204, 391, 393 to 395;
    vol. iii. 277, 279, 281

Goulard, vol. ii. 73, 74

Govone, vol. iii. 385

Graham, Sir G., vol. iii. 133

Grammont, Duc de, vol. i. 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 58, 60, 61, 82, 343,
      353, 371;
    vol. ii. 80, 81;
    vol. iii. 170, 378

Granville, Lord, vol. i. 55, 56, 57, 174, 269, 279, 312, 350, 430, 468,
      471, 473, 519, 559;
    vol. iii. 120

Grävenitz, vol. i. 402

_Grenzboten_, vol. i. 3;
    vol. ii. 148, 151, 172, 176, 258, 270, 275, 289, 294, 297, 302,
      305, 316, 366, 369, 371, 372, 380, 390, 391, 396, 400, 407, 416,
      418, 425, 426, 432, 433, 434, 445, 450, 454, 468, 475, 476;
    vol. iii. 3, 6, 7, 33, 36, 42, 43, 46, 47, 71, 76, 77, 81, 84,
      85, 92, 94, 119, 121, 123 to 125, 134, 135, 151, 156, 157, 165,
      169, 170, 187, 188, 195, 205, 238, 298, 303, 311, 315, 319, 337,
      343

Greppi, vol. ii. 138

Grevy, vol. ii. 199, 207

Grimm, vol. i. 366

Gruner, vol. ii. 274, 277, 305;
    vol. iii. 247, 248

Grunow, vol. iii. 97, 99, 102 to 104, 107, 191, 303, 304, 343

Guisolphe, vol. ii. 43

Guizot, vol. i. 26

Gundlach, vol. ii. 27, 28


H

Haber, vol. i. 440

Hagen, vol. ii. 403

Hahn, vol. i. 15, 16;
    vol. ii. 124, 399, 434;
    vol. iii. 71

_Hahn’s Literary Bureau_, vol. i. 41

Hahnke, vol. iii. 364

Haldy, vol. i. 69

Halifax, Bishop of, vol. i. 27

Hallberger, vol. ii. 188, 189

_Hamburger Correspondenten_, vol. ii. 196, 374;
    vol. iii. 344

_Hamburger Nachrichten_, vol. iii. 337, 344, 379

Hämmerling, vol. iii. 338 to 340, 350

Hammerstein, vol. iii. 166, 167

Hänel, vol. ii. 281, 413, 454, 480;
    vol. iii. 40

_Hannoverscher Courier_, vol. ii. 224, 241, 251, 252, 258, 388

Hanover, King of, vol. i. 50;
    vol. ii. 109, 110, 390;
    vol. iii. 297

Hansemann, vol. ii. 22

Hapsburgs, vol. i. 365, 461

Harcourt, vol. ii. 127

Harden, vol. iii. 383

Hardenberg, vol. i. 3

_Harper’s Monthly_, vol. iii. 81, 83

Hartmann, Gen. v., vol. i. 111

Hartrott, Gen. v., vol. i. 336

Hatzfeldt, Count, vol. i. 70, 74, 82, 83, 91, 94, 110, 114, 143, 144,
      147, 157, 160, 192, 230, 239, 240, 263, 274 to 277, 294, 296,
      308, 322, 349, 366, 371, 383, 396, 413, 424, 487, 488, 497, 498,
      503, 510, 518, 561;
    vol. ii. 21, 23, 71, 282, 415, 424, 447, 449;
    vol. iii. 4, 13, 15, 49, 58, 59, 62, 67, 68, 82, 90, 93, 94, 112,
      118, 124, 125, 130, 136, 141, 343, 383

Hauke, Fr., vol. iii. 180

Hausmann, vol. i. 414;
    vol. ii. 58, 59

Haussonville, d’, vol. i. 406 to 408

Hauterive, vol. ii. 154

_Havas_, vol. i. 43

Haye, de la, vol. ii. 65

Haymerle, vol. iii. 289, 296

Hedwig, vol. iii. 191, 348

Heffter, vol. i. 55

Hegel, vol. ii. 14, 19

Hegnenberg, vol. ii. 142

Hehn, vol. ii. 22;
    vol. iii. 155, 169, 310

Heide, vol. i. 6, 60

Heise, vol. ii. 381

Held, vol. iii. 41

Hélène, Grand Duchess, _see_ Russia

Hell, vol. i. 193

Helmholtz, vol. iii. 165, 186

Henckel, Count, vol. i. 84, 103, 513, 522, 554 to 556, 564;
    vol. iii. 69

Hengst, vol. iii. 195

Hepke, vol. i. 65;
    vol. ii. 22, 23, 253;
    vol. iii. 13, 43

Hérisson de Saulnier, vol. i. 511, 513, 547

Hermieux, vol. i. 276

Herrfurth, vol. iii. 357, 358

Herring, vol. i. 544

Herzberg, vol. iii. 346

Herzen, vol. ii. 17

Herzog, vol. iii. 20

Hesekiel, vol. ii. 244, 331;
    vol. iii. 29, 71, 72, 126, 384

Hesse, vol. ii. 12

Hesse, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 109, 430

Heyking, vol. iii. 69

Hietzing, vol. ii. 110

Hill, Major, vol. i. 324

Hindersin, Gen., vol. i. 146, 315

Hinzpeter, vol. iii. 371

Hirsch, vol. iii. 62, 80

Hobrecht, vol. ii. 403

Hochschild, vol. ii. 159

Hoff, vol. i. 327

Hoffmann, vol. ii. 273;
    vol. iii. 379

Hohenlohe, Cardinal, vol. ii. 195, 196;
    vol. iii. 106

Hohenlohe, Prince, vol. i. 183, 490;
    vol. ii. 415, 422, 445;
    vol. iii. 67

Hohenwart, vol. ii. 52, 112, 119, 127

Hohenzollern, Prince of, vol. i. 34, 37, 38, 40, 43 to 47, 52, 60, 155,
      226, 313, 483;
    vol. iii. 112 to 114, 117, 228, 362, 378

HOLLAND, vol. i. 57, 63, 257, 413, 477, 496;
    vol. ii. 192, 397

Holland, King of, vol. i. 384

Holland, Queen of, vol. ii. 151

Holnstein, Count, vol. i. 71, 328, 329, 354, 359, 360, 374, 387, 396,
      431, 561;
    vol. ii. 350

Holstein, Baron v., vol. i. 437, 445, 454, 467, 477, 478, 517;
    vol. ii. 59, 92, 117, 317, 319, 328, 333, 336, 337, 341, 365, 463;
    vol. iii. 9, 13, 49, 60, 112, 118, 126, 146, 289, 306, 337, 341,
      343

Holtz, vol. iii. 117, 128, 208

Home, vol. i. 330

Horn, vol. i. 260

Horsitz, vol. ii. 369

Hory, vol. ii. 139

_Hour_, vol. ii. 262

Hoverbeck, vol. i. 28, 30;
    vol. ii. 87

Howard, Sir. H., vol. i. 28;
    vol. ii. 138, 139

Hoyos, vol. i. 304

Hübbe, vol. iii. 221

Hübener, vol. iii. 221

Hudtwalker, vol. iii. 215

Humboldt, vol. i. 368, 369;
    vol. ii. 185, 381

Hüne, vol. iii. 312

Huster, vol. ii. 120

Hyacinthe, vol. iii. 214


I

Ignatieff, vol. ii. 165;
    vol. iii. 259

_Illustrirte Zeitung_, vol. i. 454;
    vol. ii. 267;
    vol. iii. 380

_Im Neuen Reich_, vol. ii. 169

_Imparcial_, vol. i. 18, 45, 483

_Indépendance Belge_, vol. i. 252, 311, 365, 399, 415

_Indépendant Rémois_, vol. i. 172

_Italie_, vol. ii. 197

ITALY, vol. i. 41, 51, 54, 63, 178, 294, 329, 330, 340, 382, 416, 419,
      457, 477, 527, 544;
    vol. ii. 82, 84, 102, 123, 142, 144, 167, 172, 180, 187, 192, 204,
      213, 237, 419, 431;
    vol. iii. 165, 182, 275, 277, 289 to 291, 385
  King of, vol. i. 51, 97, 251, 429, 457;
    vol. ii. 103, 265, 325;
    vol. iii. 332
  Crown Princess of, vol. ii. 159, 160

Itzenplitz, vol. ii. 183


J

Jacobsen, vol. iii. 385

Jacoby, vol. i. 15, 185, 219, 235, 258, 259, 260, 262, 284, 324

Jahn, vol. ii. 14

Jeanjot, vol. i. 148

Jelowicki, vol. ii. 222

Jerald, Col., vol. i. 433

Jesse, Mme., vol. i. 228, 230, 233, 350, 563;
    vol. ii. 46, 282, 396

Joinville, Duc de, vol. i. 365

Jolivar, vol. iii. 3

Jomini, vol. ii. 391;
    vol. iii. 259

_Journal des Débats_, vol. i. 480;
    vol. ii. 28

_Journal Officiel_, vol. i. 462


K

Kaiserlingk, vol. iii. 230

Kallay, vol. ii. 197, 198

Kameke, vol. i. 557

Kapnist, vol. ii. 196, 197

Kardorff, vol. iii. 341, 381

Karlstadt, vol. i. 241

Katt, vol. i. 216, 218

Kaunitz, vol. i. 366

Kayser, vol. iii. 319, 337, 341, 344, 356

Keil, vol. ii. 268, 269

Keller, vol. i. 247, 249

Keratry, vol. i. 264

Kerl, vol. i. 414

Kern, vol. i. 479, 483, 484

Kernitz, vol. ii. 402

Ketteler, v., vol. ii. 172, 174

Keudell, vol. i. 1, 4, 53, 54, 70, 74, 83, 91, 94, 104, 167, 176,
      191 to 193, 195, 208, 211, 228, 230, 237, 258, 263, 344, 366, 369,
      376, 383, 396, 408, 440, 480, 503, 509, 512, 532;
    vol. ii. 11, 79, 104 to 108, 110, 117, 183, 189, 190, 206, 219,
      220, 223, 240, 245, 247 to 257, 260, 265, 266, 401, 415;
    vol. iii. 8, 13, 14, 50, 93, 131, 136, 145, 156, 165, 211, 341

Khevenhüller, vol. iii. 148

_Kieler Zeitung_, vol. i. 173;
    vol. ii. 454

Kielmansegg, vol. i. 55

Kingston, vol. iii. 306, 341, 356

Kirk, Sir J., vol. iii. 145

Klaczko, vol. i. 20, 33, 179, 544

_Kladderadatsch_, vol. i. 428, 501;
    vol. iii. 6, 385

Klapka, vol. i. 311

Kleist-Retzow. _See_ Retzow

Klerhalm, vol. ii. 52

Klotz, vol. iii. 10, 168

Knak, vol. iii. 126

Knobelsdorff, vol. i. 169, 214, 483

Köller, v., vol. i. 505, 506

_Kölnische Zeitung_, vol. i. 5, 10, 11, 17, 20, 29, 30, 32, 34, 41, 43,
      51, 57, 99, 223, 238, 356, 399, 432, 434, 435, 485, 546, 547;
    vol. ii. 46, 54, 58, 66, 70, 88, 115, 133, 138, 139, 141, 144,
      148, 149, 163, 166, 167, 170, 173, 206, 207, 212, 214, 219, 221,
      223, 224, 228, 232 to 234, 288, 290, 292, 339, 388;
    vol. iii. 41, 61, 76, 77, 80, 84, 172, 184, 386

Könneritz, vol. i. 486

Kotze, vol. i. 553

Kozmian, vol. ii. 172, 173, 187, 222

_Kraj_, vol. i. 256

Krausshaar, vol. i. 122

Krauthofer, vol. ii. 177

Kreiss, vol. ii. 110

Krell, Chancellor, vol. i. 241

_Kreuzzeitung_, vol. i. 21, 48, 50, 65;
    vol. ii. 47, 147, 150, 160, 161, 164, 169, 170, 187, 275, 278,
      279, 286, 287, 453;
    vol. iii. 96, 117, 166, 251, 252, 342

Krohn, Col., vol. i. 324, 418

Kröner, vol. iii. 371, 372, 375 to 377, 381

Krüger, vol. i. 191

Krupp, vol. ii. 209;
    vol. iii. 341

Kruse, vol. i. 223;
    vol. ii. 234, 339;
    vol. iii. 81

Kühlwetter, vol. i. 103

Kühnel, vol. i. 563

Kusserow, vol. ii. 22

Kutusow, vol. i. 143, 240, 287


L

Laity, vol. i. 76

La Marmora, vol. iii. 385

Landsberg, vol. iii. 343

Landuski, vol. ii. 57

Lange, vol. ii. 353;
    vol. iii. 106, 210, 255, 386

_Lanterne, La_, vol. i. 169

Lasker, vol. i. 7, 10, 12, 14, 28, 29, 30, 33, 383;
    vol. ii. 86, 256, 398, 424, 436, 454, 474;
    vol. iii. 3, 30, 35, 37, 38, 40, 301

Lassalle, vol. ii. 19;
    vol. iii. 342

Lauer, vol. i. 172, 243, 306, 371, 378, 483;
    vol. iii. 56, 141

Laurier, vol. i. 409

Lavino, vol. ii. 432, 433

Lebœuf, vol. i. 271

Lecky, vol. iii. 121

Ledochowski, Archbishop, vol. i. 292;
    vol. ii. 187, 200, 204, 278, 287, 478

Leflô, vol. i. 550

Lehndorff, Count, vol. i. 106, 108, 203, 328, 350, 367, 389, 420, 444,
      460, 492, 502, 541;
    vol. ii. 367;
    vol. iii. 79, 233, 341, 349

Leibnitz, vol. i. 26

_Leipziger Zeitung_, vol. ii. 375

Lemberg, Archbishop of, vol. ii. 200

Lemwitz, vol. ii. 147

Lenbach, vol. ii. 437, 440;
    vol. iii. 155

Leonhard, vol. i. 14

Leopold, King of Belgians. _See_ Belgium

Lepsius, vol. ii. 24

Lesczinsky, vol. iii. 207

Le Sourd, vol. i. 49

Lessing, vol. ii. 48

Leverström, vol. i. 149;
    vol. ii. 5, 275

Lewascheff, vol. ii. 165, 169

Leyden, vol. ii. 387

_Liberté_, vol. i. 51, 252

Lindau, vol. ii. 206, 236, 237, 455, 467;
    vol. iii. 9, 10, 41, 68, 145, 231, 337, 341, 344, 356

Lindelhof, vol. ii. 89

Linstedt, vol. ii. 6

Lippe, vol. i. 28, 29, 400;
    vol. ii. 187, 457, 461, 462

Lobanoff, vol. ii. 394

Lobkowitz, vol. ii. 221

Loewe, vol. i. 7, 388;
    vol. iii. 28

Loftus, vol. i. 343, 430, 454, 455, 550;
    vol. ii. 43

Lonyay, vol. ii. 265

Löper, vol. i. 482, 486

Lorenz, vol. i. 65

Louis Philippe, vol. i. 37

Lowe, vol. ii. 432

Löwenfeld, Gen., vol. i. 106

Löwenstein, vol. ii. 103, 318, 339

Löwinsohn, vol. i. 266, 350, 398, 399, 415

Lucanus, vol. iii. 364, 369

Ludolf, vol. ii. 197

Luitpold, Prince. _See_ Bavaria

Lumsden, Sir P., vol. iii. 124

Lundy, vol. i. 319

Lutz, vol. i. 233, 431;
    vol. ii. 51, 121, 148, 221

Luxburg, Count, vol. i. 176

Luxemburg, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 515
  Prince Henry of, vol. ii. 151

Lynar, Prince, vol. i. 161

Lyons, Lord, vol. i. 182, 469


M

M. L., vol. i. 198 to 202

Mackenzie, vol. iii. 303

MacLean, vol. i. 90, 96, 171

MacMahon, Marshal, vol. i. 126, 127, 151, 195;
    vol. ii. 76, 77, 94, 207, 258, 299, 300

Macore de Gaucourt, vol. i. 104

_Magdeburger Zeitung_, vol. i. 6;
    vol. ii. 196, 205, 293, 294

Magnin, vol. i. 526, 553, 555

Mailinger, Gen., vol. i. 146

Maire of Reims, vol. i. 167

Maire of Versailles, vol. i. 265

Malet, Sir E., vol. i. 182, 238

Malinkrott, vol. i. 295

Malortie, vol. ii. 110

Maltzahn, Count, vol. i. 330, 466, 522

Manteuffel, vol. i. 256, 314, 315, 326, 334, 417, 428, 447, 448, 450,
      461, 482;
    vol. ii. 115, 318, 334, 338, 339, 457, 462;
    vol. iii. 23, 24, 25, 83, 86, 200, 201, 211, 215, 218 to 225,
      262, 265, 288, 352, 362, 385

Mantey, vol. i. 497, 498;
    vol. ii. 240, 381

Marquart, vol. iii. 129

Marschall, vol. iii. 383, 384

Martin, vol. ii. 478

Marx, vol. i. 448

Massenbach, Baroness, vol. ii. 227

_Matin_, vol. iii. 191

Matthiote, vol. i. 84

Maucler, vol. ii. 133

May, vol. ii. 113

Maybach, vol. ii. 435, 471;
    vol. iii. 32, 93, 368

Mayer, vol. ii. 480

Mazzini, vol. i. 380;
    vol. ii. 17

Mecklenburg, G. Duke of, vol. i. 106, 127, 131, 143, 158, 170, 183, 495;
    vol. ii. 369

Mecklenburg-Strelitz, G. Duchess of, vol. ii. 115

Meding, vol. ii. 109, 110, 189, 190;
    vol. iii. 136

Meidam, Col., vol. i. 292

Meiningen, Duke of, vol. i. 272, 294, 403, 548

Melchers, vol. ii. 478

_Mémorial Diplomatique_, vol. i. 18;
    vol. ii. 378

Mendelssohn, vol. i. 404

Mengerssen, vol. ii. 111

Mensdorff, vol. iii. 88, 250 to 252

Merck, vol. iii. 246, 370, 383, 384, 386, 388

Mermillod, vol. ii. 166, 269, 276

Metternich, vol. i. 32, 225, 304, 366, 370, 518;
    vol. ii. 132, 180

Metzler, vol. i. 1, 2, 238;
    vol. iii. 43, 164

Meulan, vol. ii. 43

MEXICO, vol. i. 59, 187, 283

Meyendorff, vol. i. 420

Meyer, vol. iii. 112, 239

Meyerheim, vol. i. 404;
    vol. ii. 382

Michaelis, vol. ii. 193, 386

Milutin, vol. iii. 259, 282, 283, 284, 286

Miquel, vol. i. 7;
    vol. ii. 437

Mirbach v., vol. ii. 75

Mittnacht, vol. i. 233, 524, 562, 563;
    vol. ii. 148, 227;
    vol. iii. 33, 37, 293

Mohl, vol. i. 220;
    vol. iii. 203

Möllendorff, Gen., vol. i. 315, 316

Möller, vol. iii. 81, 89

Moltke, vol. i. 87, 97, 103, 104, 141, 143, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151,
      153, 155, 156, 164, 181, 195, 196, 226, 254, 255, 270, 287, 349,
      350, 371, 405, 458, 466, 505, 506, 533;
    vol. ii. 74, 75, 136, 162, 292, 326, 340, 381;
    vol. iii. 56, 207, 265, 271, 272, 325, 354

Mommsen, vol. ii. 481;
    vol. iii. 65

_Moniteur_, vol. i. 371, 379, 383, 414, 419, 433, 462, 483, 484, 486,
      548, 553, 557, 560

_Moniteur Official de Seine et Oise_, vol. i. 271

_Montagszeitung_, vol. ii. 223, 224

Montbrisson, vol. i. 326

Montgelas, vol. iii. 229

Montholon, vol. ii. 154

Montpensier, Duc de, vol. i. 18, 37, 41, 80, 483

Morier, Sir R., vol. ii. 138;
    vol. iii. 303

_Morning Post_, vol. i. 283;
    vol. iii. 7

Morny, vol. i. 503

Moscowa, Prince de la, vol. i. 153, 161

Motley, vol. iii. 320

Mouchy, vol. i. 561

Moustier, vol. i. 353;
    vol. iii. 385

Muffling, vol. ii. 392

Mühler, vol. ii. 226

Müller, Max, vol. ii. 273, 308;
    vol. iii. 43

Munch-Bellinghausen, vol. i. 208

_Münchener Nachrichten_, vol. iii. 43

_Münchener Volksboten_, vol. i. 248

Münster, vol. ii. 422;
    vol. iii. 118, 120, 133, 154, 325, 326

Münzer, vol. i. 241

Murat, vol. i. 46

Musurus, vol. i. 512


N

Nanczonowski, vol. ii. 231

Napier, vol. i. 343;
    vol. iii. 249

Napoleon I., vol. i. 36, 42, 43, 420

Napoleon III., vol. i. 33, 45 to 47, 52, 58, 59, 61 to 63, 70, 103,
      104, 133, 146, 147, 149, 150, 153, 154, 156, 159, 161, 164, 165,
      169, 172, 184, 187, 189, 244, 252, 253, 256, 265, 271, 272, 285,
      311, 313, 321, 322, 331, 341, 343, 407, 420, 490, 501, 503, 512,
      535, 543, 554, 556, 557, 558;
    vol. ii. 43, 81, 90, 101, 103, 105, 116, 125, 138, 140, 141, 142,
      156, 158, 337;
    vol. iii. 134, 381
  Jerome, Prince, vol. i. 107, 439, 443;
    vol. ii. 33, 159, 216
  Louis, Prince Imperial, vol. i. 107, 169, 283

Nathusius, vol. ii. 278

_National Zeitung_, vol. i., 8, 15, 16, 54, 65, 186, 187, 356, 436,
      544, 546;
    vol. ii. 1, 17, 19, 20, 47, 86, 97, 155, 158, 161, 195, 234, 292,
      379, 388, 484;
    vol. iii. 11, 31, 43, 115, 252

_Nazione_, vol. ii. 213

Neininger, vol. i. 350

Nemours, Duc de, vol. i. 37

Nesselrode, vol. ii. 278;
    vol. iii. 49, 218

_Neue Freie Presse_, vol. i. 83, 326;
    vol. iii. 188, 189

_Neue Preussische Zeitung_, vol. i. 5

_New York Tribune_, vol. ii. 354

_New York World_, vol. i. 90

Nicholas, Tsar. _See_ Russia

Niethammer, vol. i. 355;
    vol. ii. 217

Nippold, vol. iii. 43

Nobiling, vol. iii. 32, 56

Noeldeke, vol. i. 113

_Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, vol. i. 5, 16, 17, 29, 31 to 34,
      38, 48, 55, 60, 243, 244, 266, 334;
    vol. ii. 48, 50, 74, 86, 88, 99, 104, 106, 124, 137, 164, 175,
      176, 195, 198, 202, 211, 232, 234, 251, 252, 374, 414, 477;
    vol. iii. 4, 6, 7, 35, 42, 46, 61, 73, 74, 115, 122, 124, 188, 315

_North American Review_, vol. ii. 441

_North German Gazette_, vol. i. 6

Nostitz-Wallwitz, vol. i. 207, 475, 476, 477

_Nouvelliste_, vol. i. 266, 269, 271


O

Obermüller, vol. ii. 120

Obernitz, vol. iii. 112

Obrutscheff, vol. ii. 409

Obstfelder, vol. i. 209

O’Donovan, vol. iii. 119, 121, 125, 130

Oertzen, vol. i. 206

Ohlen, vol. iii. 106, 109

Okolowitch, vol. ii. 55, 57

Olberg, vol. i. 85

Oldenburg, G. Duke of, vol. i. 403;
    vol. iii. 332

Oldenburg, Peter, Prince of, vol. ii. 72

Ollivier, vol. i. 343, 372, 383;
    vol. ii. 144

Oppenheim, vol. ii. 339

Orloff, vol. ii. 43, 159, 165

Orloff, Princess, vol. i. 244

Orlowski, vol. ii. 222

Oubril, vol. ii. 43


P

Paine, Thomas, vol. i. 241

Palikao, vol. i. 428, 513

_Pall Mall Gazette_, vol. i. 121;
    vol. iii. 6

Palmerston, Lord, vol. ii. 18, 339;
    vol. iii. 177

Pape, v., vol. ii. 75, 333

Paris, Archbishop of, vol. ii. 60, 69

Paris, Comte de, vol. i. 269;
    vol. ii. 207

Patkowski, vol. iii. 230

Patow, vol. ii. 457

Patrizzi, vol. ii. 212

_Pays_, vol. i. 268

Perglas, Pergler v., vol. i. 281

Perier, vol. ii. 130, 131, 165, 199

Pernay, vol. i. 110

Perponcher, vol. i. 110, 224, 303, 495;
    vol. ii. 369

_Perseveranza_, vol. ii. 380

PERSIA, vol. iii. 284

Persigny, vol. i. 283, 417, 424, 428, 439

_Pester Lloyd_, vol. ii. 106, 107, 183

_Petersburger Zeitung_, vol. ii. 391

Phelps, vol. iii. 383, 384

Phelps (Miss), vol. iii. 383

Philippsborn, vol. ii. 219, 401, 416

Picard, vol. i. 290, 553

Pietri, vol. ii. 59

Pindter, vol. ii. 414

Platen, vol. ii. 154

Plater, vol. ii. 49, 163

Pless, Prince, vol. i. 116, 318, 319, 330, 389, 390, 396, 397, 466
  Princess, vol. ii. 367

Pobedonoszeff, vol. iii. 149

Podbielski, vol. i. 315, 508;
    vol. ii. 384

Podlewski, vol. ii. 126

POLAND, vol. i. 34, 257, 382, 411, 412;
    vol. ii. 49, 55, 57,126, 128, 136, 147, 150, 157, 163 to 165,
      173, 192, 200, 201, 348, 371;
    vol. iii. 37, 44, 160, 205, 224
  Archd. Karl Ludwig, vol. ii. 200

Pölitz, vol. iii. 156

Pope, the, vol. i. 12, 18, 19, to 23, 26, 213, 214, 215, 251, 293, 294,
      295, 296, 303, 336, 417, 431, 457;
    vol. ii. 88, 102, 127, 141, 142, 144, 146, 166, 167, 171, 172,
      180, 183, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 204, 205, 212, 213, 214, 219,
      270, 271, 272, 273, 301, 304, 305, 309, 310, 369, 383, 419, 424,
      425, 437, 439, 476, 477;
    vol. iii. 6, 41, 49, 91, 95, 97, 153, 162, 163, 167, 198, 291, 378

PORTUGAL, vol. ii. 122, 192, 213

Poschinger, vol. iii. 11, 60, 64, 71, 86, 105, 340, 342

Post, vol. ii. 289, 290, 296, 376, 463;
    vol. iii. 12, 61, 81, 319

Pourtales, vol. i. 256;
    vol. iii. 45

Pouyer-Quertier, vol. ii. 73, 94, 95

_Précurseur_, vol. ii. 162

_Presse_, vol. i. 436

_Preussische Jahrbücher_, vol. i. 3;
    vol. ii. 123, 481

Price, vol. iii. 3, 5

Prim, vol. i. 38, 43, 44, 45, 52, 264, 265;
    vol. iii. 378, 381

Primker, vol. iii. 63, 73 to 75

Prokesch, vol. i. 373, 374, 542;
    vol. iii. 223

_Provincial-Correspondenz_, vol. i. 15, 413;
    vol. ii. 124

Prussia, Charles, Prince of, vol. i. 127, 143, 165, 249, 287, 338, 402;
    vol. ii. 279, 369, 404, 405, 418;
    vol. iii. 321
  Queen of. _See_ German Empress
  Frederick Charles, Prince of, vol. i. 61, 181, 265, 300, 414;
    vol. ii. 75, 125;
    vol. iii. 321
  Henry, Prince of, vol. iii. 331, 335
  Victoria, Princess of, vol. iii. 171 to 174, 184, 185

Przemysl, vol. ii. 200

Pückler, Count, vol. i. 110, 143, 272

Puffka, vol. ii. 120

_Punch_, vol. iii. 351, 356

Putbus, Prince, vol. i. 233, 320, 341, 374, 376, 377, 396, 397, 398,
      422, 485, 541;
    vol. ii. 256

Puttkamer, vol. iii. 65, 173, 358


Q

Quadt, vol. ii. 80

Quehl, vol. iii. 215, 219, 223, 225


R

Rabe, vol. ii. 457

Raczinski, vol. iii. 335

Radolinski, vol. iii. 334

Radowitz, vol. i. 136, 367, 535;
    vol. ii. 165, 197, 198, 254, 296, 342, 402, 415, 416, 445, 446,
      448;
    vol. iii. 44, 94, 211

Radziwill, Prince, vol. i. 214, 215, 233, 311, 352;
    vol. ii. 4, 170, 244, 269, 278, 299

Rahden, vol. i. 94

Rameau, vol. i. 240, 497, 498

Rantzau, Count, vol. ii. 371, 457, 458, 459, 463;
    vol. iii. 9, 13, 15, 60, 61, 64, 92, 103, 104, 106, 109, 112,
      157, 192, 193, 199
  Countess, vol. i. 64;
    vol. ii. 281 to 283, 335, 359;
    vol. iii. 112, 202, 298, 312, 379, 381, 382, 383, 388

Rasch, vol. i. 53, 54;
    vol. ii. 79, 118

Raschdau, vol. iii. 341, 344

Ratibor, Duke of, vol. i. 233, 553

Rauch, vol. iii. 110

Rechberg, Count, vol. i. 205, 206, 207, 373;
    vol. ii. 367;
    vol. iii. 34, 221

Rechenberg, vol. i. 20

_Reichsanzeiger_, vol. ii. 22, 124;
    vol. iii. 193

_Reichscorrespondenz_, vol. ii. 247

_Reichsglocke_, vol. ii. 288, 304, 479;
    vol. iii. 96, 117

Reille, Gen., vol. i. 147, 148, 153, 321, 331

Reinhard, vol. i. 208, 542

Reitlinger, vol. i. 443

Remusat, vol. ii. 134

Renard, Count, vol. i. 103

_République Française_, vol. ii. 249, 254

Retzow, vol. ii. 186, 187

Reuss, vol. i. 21, 94, 97, 386, 413, 444;
    vol. ii. 216, 218;
    vol. iii. 143, 273, 275, 289, 384

Reute, vol. iii. 144

Reuter, vol. i. 447

_Revue des Deux Mondes_, vol. i. 367, 414;
    vol. ii. 46, 189

Reymond, vol. iii. 165

Reynier, vol. i. 219

Rheinbaben, vol. iii. 145

Ribeaupierre, vol. i. 491

Rice, vol. ii. 441

Richter, vol. ii. 385, 471, 474, 483;
    vol. iii. 40, 132, 162, 379

Rickert, vol. ii. 422, 423, 424, 436, 453, 454

Rilvas, vol. ii. 122

Rimsky-Korsakow, Mme., vol. i. 32

Rink, vol. i. 193

Rio, del, vol. i. 487, 488, 497

Rios Rosas, vol. i. 80

Rittberg, vol. ii. 457

Robespierre, vol. i. 383

Rochefort, vol. i. 169

Rochow, vol. i. 207, 502;
    vol. ii. 462

Rodbertus, vol. ii. 19;
    vol. iii. 342

Roemer, vol. ii. 387

Roessler, Prof., vol. i. 6, 65;
    vol. ii. 188, 189

Rogge, vol. i. 404

Roggenbach, vol. i. 233, 355, 356, 359;
    vol. iii. 196, 247, 299

Rohlfs, vol. iii. 144, 145

Rohrschütz, vol. ii. 139

Roland, vol. i. 63, 213;
    vol. ii. 11, 143, 407

Rollin, vol. ii. 17

Roncière, vol. i. 513

Roon, Gen., vol. i. 66, 69, 130, 143, 146, 196, 226, 255, 302, 306,
      345, 390, 405;
    vol. ii. 162, 229, 231, 340;
    vol. iii. 322

Rosebery, Lord, vol. iii. 135, 136, 144, 343

Rosen, vol. ii. 181, 197, 198

Rosenberg-Grudcinski, vol. i. 496

Rossel, vol. ii. 69

Rössler, vol. ii. 172, 376

Rothan, vol. i. 55;
    vol. iii. 378

Rothschild, vol. i. 104, 183, 193, 194, 195, 224, 225, 271, 341, 445,
      446, 514, 518;
    vol. iii. 39, 62, 68, 233

Rottenburg, vol. ii. 360, 361;
    vol. iii. 7, 136, 157, 166, 169, 170, 173, 184, 186, 191 to 193,
      205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 230 to 232, 255, 296, 303, 304, 306, 307,
      312, 315, 318, 338, 382

Rudchen, vol. iii. 344, 356

Rudhard, vol. ii. 134

Ruestow, vol. ii. 135

RUMANIA, vol. i. 439, 452, 453;
    vol. ii. 129, 395;
    vol. iii. 58, 80, 181, 281
  Charles, Prince, afterwards King of, vol. i. 439, 452, 453, 550, 555;
    vol. ii. 4, 129

Rumbold, Sir H., vol. ii. 43

RUMELIA, vol. iii. 148, 149, 181, 259, 280

Russell, Odo, vol. i. 233, 327, 337, 341, 342, 343, 353, 371, 384, 420,
      500, 534, 535;
    vol. iii. 120, 213, 326

Russell, W. H., vol. i. 244, 245

RUSSIA, vol. i. 22, 31, 112, 179, 185, 203, 224, 252, 272, 312, 317,
      328, 329, 334, 358, 386, 413, 415, 417, 440, 457, 463, 468, 477,
      495, 503, 504, 510, 512, 515;
    vol. ii. 136, 137, 148, 157, 159, 165, 166, 173, 174, 181, 182,
      187, 190, 196, 201, 204, 214, 215, 237, 248, 250, 297 to 299, 318,
      333, 386, 392, 393, 396, 397, 404, 405, 408, 411, 430, 431, 450,
      476, 482;
    vol. iii. 5, 45, 48, 52, 53, 76, 77, 84, 85, 119, 121, 124, 133,
      138, 149, 150, 159, 160, 161, 170, 179, 180, 182, 206, 213, 217,
      226, 227, 234, 258 to 292, 302, 354, 366, 367
  Grand Duchess Hélène of, vol. i. 112, 560;
    vol. ii. 43, 69, 70;
    vol. iii. 9, 10
  Grand Duke Nicholas of, vol. ii. 218
  Prince Alexander of, vol. ii. 218
  Prince Wladimir of, vol. ii. 218
  Tsar, The, vol. i. 99, 112, 178, 180, 316, 317, 327, 331, 340, 358,
      385, 453, 560;
    vol. ii. 42, 43, 69, 70, 72, 82, 95, 125, 135, 141, 148, 169, 190,
      216, 217, 219, 333, 392, 393, 395;
    vol. iii. 49, 138, 139, 149, 159, 175, 180 to 184, 219, 234, 313,
      314, 376


S

Saburoff, vol. iii. 265, 270, 274

Sachse, vol. ii. 365, 430, 434, 457;
    vol. iii. 16, 33, 50, 75, 89

_Saechsische Zeitung_, vol. ii. 120

St. Blanquart, vol. i. 71, 87, 511

St. Simon, vol. ii. 83

St. Vallier, vol. ii. 120, 168

Salazar, vol. iii. 114

Saldern, von, vol. i. 344

Salisbury, Lord, vol. iii. 143

Samuel, vol. ii. 222

Samwer, vol. i. 140;
    vol. ii. 306;
    vol. iii. 249

Saphir, vol. iii. 233

Sapieha, vol. ii. 147

Sauer, vol. i. 431

Savigny, vol. i. 170, 243, 547;
    vol. ii. 14, 44, 45, 326;
    vol. iii. 39, 96, 156, 225

Saxony, Crown Prince of, vol. i. 477;
    vol. ii. 326

Saxony, Dowager Queen of, vol. i. 440

Saxony, King of, vol. i. 109, 175, 528;
    vol. ii. 324;
    vol. iii. 225, 332, 384

Saxony, Prince George of, vol. ii. 455

Schaeffle, vol. ii. 113

Schapira, vol. iii. 67

Scheibler, vol. iii. 303, 306, 318, 338

Scheidtmann, vol. i. 532, 554

Schelling, vol. iii. 192

Schiller, vol. i. 138;
    vol. ii. 185

Schleinitz, vol. i. 256;
    vol. ii. 269, 274, 277, 289, 302 to 304, 318, 339;
    vol. iii. 22, 25, 59, 83, 164, 213, 228, 229, 247, 302, 352

_Schlesische Haus Blätter_, vol. i. 246

_Schlesische Zeitung_, vol. ii. 261;
    vol. iii. 7

SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN, vol. i. 83;
    vol. ii. 33, 152, 337;
    vol. iii. 40

Schlotheim, vol. ii. 76

Schlözer, vol. ii. 22, 402

Schmidt, vol. i. 340

Schneider, vol. ii. 421;
    vol. iii. 205, 302

Scholz, vol. iii. 93

Schorlemer, vol. iii. 312

Schrader, vol. iii. 186

Schraps, vol. ii. 57

Schrenkh, vol. i. 207

Schuckmann, vol. i. 370, 490

Schulenburg, vol. i. 28;
    vol. iii. 225

Schulte, vol. ii. 119

Schulze, vol. ii. 281;
    vol. iii. 257

Schuster, vol. i. 350

Schuvaloff, vol. ii. 201, 203, 204, 209, 216, 395;
    vol. iii. 366

_Schwäbischer Merkur_, vol. i. 166;
    vol. ii. 224

Schwarzburg, Prince, vol. i. 104

Schwarzenberg, vol. ii. 179, 180;
    vol. iii. 19, 218

Schwarzkoppen, vol. i. 561

Schweinitz, vol. ii. 81, 83, 173, 182;
    vol. iii. 49, 233, 383

Schweninger, vol. iii. 106, 108, 109, 139, 148, 173, 200, 210, 233,
      317, 319, 337, 341, 342, 344, 346, 347, 356, 371, 373, 375, 379,
      381, 386

Schwerin, vol. iii. 354

Seckendorf, Count, vol. i. 113;
    vol. iii. 224

Seidel, vol. iii. 23

Selchow, vol. iii. 234

Senfft-Pilsach, vol. ii. 187, 332;
    vol. iii. 19, 128

SERVIA, vol. ii. 197, 198;
    vol. iii. 148

Sheridan, Gen., vol. i. 90, 91, 96, 98, 103, 121, 131, 132, 143, 171,
      223, 250

Sick, vol. ii. 149

Siemens, vol. ii. 22

Simon, vol. i. 553;
    vol. ii. 302

Simson, vol. i. 233, 387, 400, 403, 446

_Situation, La_, vol. i. 197;
    vol. ii. 109

Skobeleff, vol. iii. 49

Smolka, vol. ii. 147

Solms, Count, vol. i. 38, 159, 428;
    vol. ii. 28, 123, 415;
    vol. iii. 193, 194, 199

Sonnemann, vol. ii. 480

SOUTH AFRICA, vol. iii. 120, 124, 125, 132, 144, 145, 153, 154, 313

SPAIN, vol. i. 22, 34 to 48, 80, 155, 178, 226, 249, 264, 313, 382,
      477, 527;
    vol. ii. 182, 192, 213;
    vol. iii. 153, 381
  Hohenzollern candidature, vol. i. 35 to 52, 63, 483;
    vol. ii. 76, 122
  King of, vol. i. 518, 534
  Queen Isabella of, vol. i. 36, 37, 41

_Spenersche Zeitung_, vol. i. 5, 10, 32, 41, 42, 43, 48, 58, 60, 363,
      432;
    vol. ii. 106, 161, 256;
    vol. iii. 252

_Staatsanzeiger_, vol. i. 6, 277;
    vol. ii. 197

_Staatsbuergerzeitung_, vol. i. 426

Stampf, Anastasia, vol. i. 94

_Standard, The_, vol. i. 198;
    vol. ii. 47, 448

Stauffenberg, vol. iii. 30

Stein, vol. i. 294

Steinmetz, Gen., vol. i. 77, 85, 95, 98, 394, 420

Stephan, vol. i. 170;
    vol. ii. 425, 432

Stepki, vol. i. 502

_Sternsche Correspondenz_, vol. ii. 124

Stieber, vol. i. 103, 118, 119, 269, 487, 498, 519;
    vol. ii. 27, 120, 121

Stieglitz, vol. i. 411

Stiehle, vol. i. 518

Stillfried, vol. i. 359;
    vol. ii. 278

Stirum, vol. ii. 22, 402;
    vol. iii. 128, 341

Stöcker, vol. iii. 16

Stockmar, vol. iii. 42, 43, 178, 186, 239

Stoffel, Col., vol. i. 51, 53

Stofflet, vol. i. 295

Stolberg, Count, vol. i. 318;
    vol. ii. 273, 412;
    vol. iii. 164, 264, 265, 267, 275, 276, 334

Stolle, vol. ii. 121

Stosch, vol. i. 315, 486, 516, 551;
    vol. ii. 230, 270, 413, 421

Strantz, Capt. von, vol. i. 444

Strenavukoff, vol. ii. 147

Strossmayer, vol. i. 26, 27

Strousberg, vol. i. 502, 553

Stumm, vol. ii. 117;
    vol. iii. 341

Stupny, vol. ii. 57

Suckow, vol. i. 190, 524;
    vol. ii. 168

_Süddeutsche Post_, vol. iii. 68
  _Presse_, vol. ii. 123
  _Zeitung_, vol. iii. 238

Sulzer, vol. ii. 457

SWEDEN, vol. i. 54, 477, 552;
    vol. ii. 43, 153 to 155
  Charles, King of, vol. i. 257, 439, 525;
    vol. ii. 43, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 164
  Oscar, Prince of, vol. ii. 154, 159

SWITZERLAND, vol. i. 9, 62, 177, 479;
    vol. ii. 51, 69, 110, 139, 272;
    vol. iii. 5, 214, 272

Sybel, vol. iii. 10, 11, 64, 303, 314, 385


T

_Tageblatt, Berliner_, vol. ii. 477;
    vol. iii. 7, 9, 15
  _Deutsches_, vol. ii. 484;
    vol. iii. 42, 62, 68, 74, 184
  _Leipziger_, vol. i. 444
  _Wiener_, vol. i. 432

Taglioni, Councillor, vol. i. 85, 192, 563;
    vol. iii. 14, 93

Taine, vol. iii. 41, 42, 47

Tann, vol. i. 111, 332, 334

Tarnassi, vol. iii. 49

Tarnau, vol. ii. 200

Tauffkirchen, vol. ii. 102, 103, 127, 212

Tettau, vol. ii. 462

Thadden, vol. i. 224, 350;
    vol. iii. 105, 128

Theiss, vol. i. 308, 427;
    vol. ii. 280, 381, 399, 425;
    vol. iii. 32, 75, 173, 183

_The Times_, vol. i. 17, 244, 350, 378, 379, 447, 550;
    vol. ii. 28, 84, 159, 298, 378, 380, 383, 394, 395, 432, 433, 442;
    vol. iii. 120, 122, 132, 134, 180, 184, 238

Thibaudin, vol. iii. 92

Thiers, vol. i. 103, 231, 252, 269, 271, 275, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284,
      285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 299, 301, 477, 488, 556, 557,
      558, 561;
    vol. ii. 56, 57, 63, 65, 67, 71, 90, 94, 95, 103, 104, 129, 130,
      132, 159, 165, 166, 181, 187, 199, 207, 208, 222, 235, 236, 250,
      414

Thile, vol. i. 38, 61, 243, 457;
    vol. ii. 75, 111, 113, 219, 252, 253, 266, 284, 400, 401, 406;
    vol. iii. 12, 13, 38, 39, 43, 46, 49, 50, 134

Thuengen, vol. i. 396

Thun, vol. i. 370;
    vol. ii. 112, 120

Tiedemann, vol. ii. 315, 316, 333, 407, 429, 431, 440, 477;
    vol. iii. 7

Tilly, Col., vol. i. 324

Tims, vol. ii. 369

Tissier, Col., vol. i. 433

Tissot, vol. i. 469

Tolstoi, vol. ii. 204

Topete, vol. i. 80

Tornau, V., vol. ii. 190

Torre, de la, vol. ii. 162

Trautmansdorf, vol. i. 18, 30

Treitschke, H., vol. i. 182, 340, 386, 466

Treskow, vol. i. 97, 204, 315, 557

_Tribune_ (Berlin), vol. ii. 302, 304

Trochu, vol. i. 265, 285, 290, 326, 356, 365, 371, 383, 408, 414, 415,
      429, 466, 484, 488;
    vol. ii. 101

Tsar. _See_ Russia

TURKEY, vol. i. 329, 386, 417, 512;
    vol. ii. 46, 124, 165, 197, 248, 250, 297, 333, 339, 456;
    vol. iii. 45, 51, 52, 53, 62, 68, 74, 75, 80, 133, 160, 277,
      278, 282, 284, 327


U

Ujest, vol. iii. 79

Ungarn-Sternberg, vol. i. 65

Unger, Gen. von, vol. i. 418

_Union, The_, vol. i. 247, 249

UNITED STATES, the. _See_ America

Unruh, vol. i. 459;
    vol. iii. 20 to 31, 33, 34

Urezzana, vol. iii. 289

Urquhart, vol. ii. 17

Usedom, vol. iii. 226, 354

Uslar, vol. i. 486


V

Valden, vol. i. 511, 512

Vallon, vol. ii. 97, 98

Van Zuylen, vol. i. 86, 413

Varennes, vol. ii. 250

Varnbüler, vol. ii. 148, 149

Varnhagen, vol. i. 369

_Vaterland_, vol. ii. 120, 121

Vatican. _See_ Pope

Vaubert, vol. i. 153

Verdy, Major, vol. i. 97, 340, 349

Verrier, Comm., vol. i. 439

Versen, vol. iii. 371, 383

Victor Emmanuel. _See_ Italy

Victoria, Queen. _See_ England

Viereck, vol. iii. 68

Villiard, vol. i. 394, 395

Vincent, vol. ii. 76

Vincke, vol. i. 29;
    vol. iii. 247

Vinoy, vol. i. 271, 383, 443, 488, 513

Virchow, vol. ii. 471;
    vol. iii. 13, 56, 65, 164, 165

Visconti-Venosta, vol. iii. 156

Vogt, vol. iii. 92

Voigts-Rhetz, vol. i. 216, 264, 418, 485

_Volkszeitung_, vol. i. 168, 173, 361, 505;
    vol. ii. 96;
    vol. iii. 61, 68, 213, 214

_Vossische Zeitung_, vol. i. 14, 282, 335;
    vol. ii. 379;
    vol. iii. 7, 9


W

Wächter, vol. i. 233, 562;
    vol. ii. 80

Wagener, vol. i. 428, 437, 442, 477;
    vol. iii. 342

Wagner, vol. i. 71;
    vol. ii. 206, 256;
    vol. iii. 220, 221

Wagner, Richard, vol. ii. 169

Waldeck, vol. i. 525, 535;
    vol. ii. 15;
    vol. iii. 141

Waldersee, Count, vol. i. 106, 107, 257, 258, 310, 425, 432;
    vol. ii. 84, 93, 94, 95, 103, 116, 117;
    vol. iii. 206, 370

Walker, Col., vol. i. 143, 330

Wallenberg, vol. iii. 112

Walujeff, vol. ii. 43

Warren, Sir C., vol. iii. 124, 145

Wartensleben, Count, vol. i. 71;
    vol. ii. 28, 71, 73, 211;
    vol. iii. 14

Wartsdorf, vol. i. 259

Washburne, vol. i. 413, 526;
    vol. ii. 46, 92

Weber, vol. ii. 473

Wedell, vol. i. 94, 344

Wedell-Malchoff, vol. iii. 78

Wedemeyer, vol. iii. 117

Wehrenpfenig, vol. ii. 473

Wehrmann, vol. i. 34

Weimar, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 143, 146, 158, 159, 168, 181, 217, 219,
      257, 258, 282, 327, 331, 332, 397, 403, 562;
    vol. ii. 44;
    vol. iii. 332
  Grand Duchess of, vol. i. 181
  Princess of, vol. ii. 185

_Weimar Zeitung_, vol. ii. 295

Welti, vol. ii. 139

Werder, Gen., vol. i. 313, 316, 317, 482

Werle, vol. i. 173

Werther, vol. i. 360, 465, 490, 561;
    vol. ii. 123, 142, 143;
    vol. iii. 225

Wesdehlen, vol. i. 94

_Weser Zeitung_, vol. i. 259, 260, 335, 356;
    vol. ii. 196, 205, 206, 374

Wiehr, vol. i. 71, 225

Wiersbycki (Corvin), vol. iii. 68

William II. _See_ German Emperor

Willisch, vol. i. 71, 120, 165, 183, 511;
    vol. ii. 37

Wilmowski, vol. ii. 432

Wimpffen, Gen., vol. i. 151, 152, 153, 157, 163

Wimpffen, vol. i. 278

Windthorst, vol. i. 390;
    vol. ii. 160, 172, 173;
    vol. iii. 37, 91, 156, 162, 163, 312, 318, 354, 360, 376

Winter, vol. i. 475, 476

Winterfeldt, vol. i. 274

Witkowski, vol. ii. 222;
    vol. iii. 383

Wittgenstein, vol. i. 240, 352

_Wolf’s Telegraphic Agency_, vol. i. 48, 56, 556;
    vol. ii. 22

Wolfssohn, vol. ii. 436

Wollmann, Sec., vol. i. 45, 71, 324, 326, 400, 403, 463, 478, 480,
      481, 563;
    vol. ii. 12, 45, 72, 111, 123, 162, 233, 255

Wolseley, Lord, vol. iii. 131

Wolzogen, vol. iii. 225

Wrangel, vol. i. 183

Wurmb, vol. i. 203

Würtemberg, King of, vol. i. 524;
    vol. ii. 80, 119, 133, 168, 227;
    vol. iii. 332
  Prince W. of, vol. i. 403
  Queen of, vol. i. 168, 227

Wuttke, vol. ii. 96


Y

York, Count, vol. i. 169;
    vol. ii. 244

Yussupoff, vol. i. 224


Z

Zabel, vol. ii. 195

ZANZIBAR, vol. iii. 144, 154, 353

Zichy, vol. iii. 83

Ziemialkowski, vol. ii. 200

Zitelmann, vol. i. 27;
    vol. iii. 238, 239

_Zur Geschichte der Internationale_, vol. ii. 86




  FOOTNOTES


[1] The _Alliance Israelite_ is here referred to. Glaser, the
ex-Minister of Justice, was a baptised Jew from Bohemia.

[2] As far back as the 2nd of April, 1858, he wrote from Frankfurt to
a friend (see Hesekiel, page 183): “I believe that the Zollverein,
which must be reorganised after 1865 ... will provide an opportunity
of securing the exercise of the right of federal consent in customs
matters on the lines of the Union scheme of 1849, and establishing
a kind of customs parliament.” On the 18th of September, 1861, in a
letter to a friend, which was written at Stolpmunde on the way from St.
Petersburg to Berlin (same work, page 189), he said: “I do not see why
we should be so coy and reserved with regard to the idea of popular
representation, whether in the form of a confederation or of a customs
parliament. An institution which enjoys legitimate authority in every
German State, and which even the Conservatives in Prussia would not
willingly dispense with, cannot be opposed as revolutionary.... In that
way one might create a thoroughly Conservative national representation,
and at the same time secure the gratitude of even the Liberals.”

[3] This article was published in the _Grenzboten_ without delay.
Articles in the same sense appeared later in No. 33 of the _Deutsches
Tageblatt_ (Feb. 2) and a few days previously in the _Norddeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung_.

[4] “_Euphorian._--Leave me not in the gloomy realm, mother, not alone!

“_Chorus._--Not alone, wherever thou biddest.... Ah, if from the day
thou hastenest, still each heart will cling to thee!”

--_Faust_, Part II. These lines are from the lament on the
death of Byron which Goethe incorporated in his poem.--Translator.

[5] The author is responsible for this use of the words “snob” and
“swell.”--Translator.

[6] The editor of a collection of Bismarckian documents of the
Frankfurt period.

[7] Probably at Schönhausen. See Hesekiel’s _Buch vom Grafen Bismarck_,
p. 19.

[8] Formerly a lieutenant in the Prussian army, then an officer of the
revolutionary forces in Baden, and finally a democratic writer.

[9] These, doubtless, included those contained in the fourth volume of
_Preussen im Bundestage_, which had not been published at that time.

[10] The Saxon General and Minister of War.

[11] On the 13th of September, 1883, Bucher’s brother, Bruno, who is
settled in Vienna, told us at Helbig’s in Leipzig, that Lothar Bucher
had also been at Sigmaringen with Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern in the
spring of 1870. Grunow was present on this occasion.

[12] In this system the Ministers are on a footing of equality with
each other.

[13] These passages would seem to come from the tenth chapter of
Ecclesiasticus, but the English version does not appear to contain any
reference to the “löblichen Kanzler.” The version given above is, of
course, translated from Dr. Busch’s quotation.--The Translator.

[14] The word “züfflich” is given in the original letter. Dr. Busch
himself has never met with it before, and does not know what it
signifies.--The Translator.

[15] Gerlach was very stout.

[16] “Meissner sind Gleissner.” The people of Meissen are
double-dealers.

[17] As a matter of fact, he was not concerned in it. See Haym’s work,
_Das Leben Max Dunckers_, pp. 294, 295.

[18] The text of this letter is very confused as well as incomplete,
and parts of the foregoing version cannot pretend to be more than an
attempt to convey its probable meaning.--Translator.

[19] On the 20th of March, the Chief called my attention to this
sentence in particular, in view of the present situation.

[20] To the United States--according to what Rottenburg told me at
lunch at Scheibler’s on Sunday, the 18th of May. He added: “In that
case you should accompany him.”

[21] “He” is given with a capital letter in original.--The Translator.


                               THE END.


          RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.




  Transcriber's Notes


The following changes have been made to the text as printed. In
cases of doubt, recourse has been had to the original German work
(_Tagebuchblätter_).

1. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.

2. Errors in use of quote marks and other punctuation have been
corrected.

3. In cases of inconsistent spelling of German and French names, the
spelling used in the original language has been preferred. Examples
include changing "Frankfort" to "Frankfurt", "Mayence" to "Mainz",
"Rheims" to "Reims", "Delbruck" to "Delbrück". However, where the
English text is consistent in spelling, that spelling has been retained
("Cologne", "Munich").

4. Where a word is used repeatedly in the same way, hyphenation has
been made consistent, preferring the form most often used in the
printed work, or failing that the more usual form in general use at the
time of publication.

5. Some entries in the Index have been amended for consistency with the
reference in the main text.

6. Page 170: "Aus drei Viertel jahrhunderte" has been changed to "Aus
drei Viertel-Jahrhunderten".

7. Page 207: "Leczinsky" has been changed to "Lesczinsky".

8. Page 258: "Brück" has been changed to "Bruck" (Bruck an der Leitha).

9. Page 282: "C’est à elle que j’ai communiquée" has been changed
to "C’est à elle que j’ai communiqué".

10. Page 310: "I could not take" has been changed to "I could take".






*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 73568 ***