Bismarck: some secret pages of his history (Vol. 3 of 3). Being a diary kept by Dr. Moritz Busch during twenty-five years' official and private intercourse with the great Chancellor

by Moritz Busch

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, Br.”

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)—“Kaiserin. 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.