Bismarck in 1847-1848.
It is not intelligible to us at the present day, how the casual statement of a simple opinion, which, even had it been untrue, need have offended no one, could raise such a storm. Nor had Bismarck personally offended any one, but he had protested against liberalism, and at once the Mamelukes of this most evil despot pounced upon him—upon this unfortunate member of the chivalry of the province of Saxony. The elder gentlemen were especially offended, who had voluntarily taken the field in 1813, and had now attributed the motive they thought then actuated them, and perhaps they really entertained, to the nation. It was curious, too, that they flatly denied the right of criticism to this member, on the ground that he was not in existence in those great days. When, with loud clamor, these gentlemen had given vent to their moral indignation, Bismarck again ascended the tribune; but the anger of the liberals was so great that the Marshal had to use all his authority to protect him during his speech.
Bismarck now spoke fluently, in the manner since so familiar to us, but coldly and sarcastically: “I can certainly not deny that I did not as yet exist in those days, and I am truly sorry not to have been permitted to take part in that movement; my regret for this is certainly diminished by the explanations I have received just now upon the movements of that epoch. I always thought the servitude against which the sword was then used was a foreign servitude; I now learn that it lay at home. For this correction I am not by any means grateful!”
The hisses of the liberals were now met by many voices with “Hear, hear!” From this moment the hatred of the press was concentrated upon Bismarck; being without exception in the hands of the liberals, it governed public opinion entirely, and it assailed Bismarck even more unscrupulously and unconscientiously than it had attacked Von Thadden and Von Manteuffel. As contradiction was impossible, the world probably thought Bismarck was still one of the wild Junkers who, armed to the teeth in steel, considered village tyranny and dissoluteness to be the best kind of constitution, and in deep political ignorance was still standing at about the mental mark of Dietrich von Quitzow,[36] or at the most of one of the Junkers of the time of Frederick I. The liberal press certainly succeeded in producing a caricature of Bismarck, composed of a kind of a black bogy and a ridiculous bugbear; the latter they were speedily obliged to drop, but the bogy they have the more firmly retained, and frightened political babies with it until very recent days.
No one has any idea at the present time how the liberal press of those days assailed men who were obnoxious to them. In the year 1849, two gentlemen were introduced to each other in society; as ordinarily happens, they mistook their several names on a hurried introduction. The elder gentleman spoke in an intellectual, remarkable, exhaustive, and instructive manner concerning the affairs of Hungary, whence he had recently returned, and showed himself to be a person of thought, information, and politeness. His interlocutor for a long time could not believe that this was Herr von Thadden-Triglaff; the ridiculous caricature the liberal press had sent broadcast into society of this eminent and singular man was so firmly fixed in his convictions.
We have laid some emphasis on this point, as it forms an explanation of the obstinate suspicion with which, for many after years, Bismarck was regarded by a section of the public. It is also plainly evident that the young politician often defended himself against this “world of scorn” with equal and biting scorn, and covered himself with the shield of contempt against mockery he did not deserve. He was continually assailed, sometimes in the rudest manner, and sometimes with poisonous acumen; and he could not have been Bismarck had he borne it with patience.
Thus it befell that he soon found himself in full battle array against liberalism, and his speeches at the time show that he took a serious view of the matter. He gave utterance to his convictions and opinions in conformity with his natural fearless nature; he adhered closely to the matter at issue, but the form in which he did so was that of the most cutting attack, whetted in general by a cloud of contempt for his opponent, or of bitter ridicule.
In the debate of the Three Estates of the 1st of June, 1847, known as the Periodicity Debate, Bismarck spoke as follows:
“I will not take the trouble to examine the solidity of the various grounds of right, on which each of us presumes himself to stand; but, I believe, it has become certain, from the debate and from every thing which I have gathered from the discussion of the question, that a different construction and interpretation of the older estates legislation was possible and practically existent—not among laymen only, but also among weighty jurists—and that it would be very doubtful what a court of justice, if such a question were before it, would decree concerning it. Under such circumstances, the declaration would, according to general principles of law, afford a solution. This declaration has become implicit upon us, implicit by the patent of the 3d of February of this year; by this the King has declared that the general promises of former laws have been no other than those fulfilled by the present law. It appears that this declaration has been regarded by a portion of this Assembly as inaccurate, but such is a fate to which every declaration is equally subject. Every declaration is considered by those whose opinions it does not confirm, to be wrong, or the previous conviction could not have been sincere. The question really is, in whom the right resides to issue an authentic and legally binding declaration. In my opinion, the King alone; and this conviction, I believe, lies in the conscience of the people. For when yesterday an Honorable Deputy from Königsberg asserted that there was a dull dissatisfaction among the people on the proclamation of the patent of the 3d of February, I must reply, on the contrary, that I do not find the majority of the Prussian nation represented in the meetings which take place in the Böttchershöfchen. (Murmurs.) In inarticulate sounds I really can not discover any refutation of what I have said, nor do I find it in the goose-quills of the newspaper correspondents; no! not even in a fraction of the population of some of the large provincial towns. It is difficult to ascertain public opinion; I think I find it in some of the middle provinces, and it is the old Prussian conviction that a royal word is worth more than all the constructions and quirks applied to the letter of the law. (Some voices: Bravo!) Yesterday a parallel was drawn between the method employed by the English people in 1688, after the abdication of James II., for the preservation of its rights, and that by which the Prussian nation should now attain a similar end. There is always something suspicious in parallels with foreign countries. Russia had been held up to us as a model of religious toleration; the French and Danish exchequers have been recommended as examples of proper finances. To return to the year 1688 in England, I must really beg this august assembly, and especially an honorable deputy from Silesia, to pardon me if I again speak of a circumstance which I did not personally perceive. The English people was then in a different position to that of the Prussian people now; a century of revolution and civil war had invested it with the right to dispose of a crown, and bind up with it conditions accepted by William of Orange. On the other hand, the Prussian sovereigns were in possession of a crown, not by grace of the people, but by God’s grace; an actually unconditional crown, some of the rights of which they voluntarily conceded to the people—an example rare in history. I will leave the question of right, and proceed to that concerning the utility and desirability of asking or suggesting any change in the legislation as it actually now exists. I adhere to the conviction, which I assume to be that of the majority of the Assembly, that periodicity is necessary to a real vitality of this Assembly; but it is another matter whether we should seek this by way of petition. Since the emanation of the patent of the 3d of February, I do not believe that it would be consonant with the royal pleasure, or that it is inherent with the position of ourselves as estates, to approach His Majesty already with a petition for an amendment of it. At any rate let us allow the grass of this summer to grow over it. The King has repeatedly said, that he did not wish to be coerced and driven; but I ask the Assembly what should we be doing otherwise than coercing and driving him, if we already approached the throne with requests for changes in the legislation? To the gravity of this view I ask permission of the Assembly to add another reason. It is certainly well known how many sad predictions have been made by the opponents of our polity connected with the fact that the Government would find itself forced by the estates into a position which it would not have willingly taken up. But although I do not assume the Government would allow itself to be coerced, I still think that it is in the interests of the Government to avoid the slightest trace of unwillingness as to concessions, and that it is in all our interests not to concede to the enemies of Prussia the delight of witnessing the fact that, by a petition—a vote—presented by us as the representatives of sixteen millions of subjects, we should throw a shade of unwillingness upon such a concession. It has been said that His Majesty the King and the Commissioner of the Diet have themselves pointed out this path. For myself, I could not otherwise understand this than that, as the King has done, so also the Commissioner of the Diet indicated this as the legal way we should pursue in case we found ourselves aggrieved; but that it would be acceptable to His Majesty the King and the Government that we should make use of this right, I have not been able to perceive. If, however, we did so, it would be believed that urgent grounds existed for it—that there was immediate danger in the future; but of this I can not convince myself. The next session of the Assembly is assured; the Crown, also, is thereby in the advantageous position, that within four years, or even a shorter period, it can with perfect voluntariness, and without asking, take the initiative as to that which is now desired. Now, I ask, is not the edifice of our State firmer towards foreign countries?—will not the feeling of satisfaction be greater at home, if the continuation of our national polity be inaugurated by the initiative of the Crown, than by petition from ourselves? Should the Crown not find it good to take the initiative, no time is lost. The third Diet will not follow so rapidly upon the second, that the King would have no time to reply to a petition presented under such circumstances by the second. Yesterday a deputy from Prussia—I think from the circle of Neustadt—uttered a speech which I could only comprehend as meaning that it was our interest to pull up the flower of confidence as a weed preventing us from seeing the bare ground, and cast it out. I say with pride that I can not agree with such an opinion. If I look back for ten years, and compare that which was written and said in the year 1837 with that which is proclaimed from the steps of the throne to the whole nation, I believe we have great reason to have confidence in the intentions of His Majesty. In this confidence I beg to recommend this august assembly to adopt the amendment of the Honorable Deputy from Westphalia—not that of the Honorable Deputy from the county of Mark—but that of Herr von Lilien.”