This speech is certainly a Prussian-Royalist confession of faith as opposed to the constitutional doctrine, and was so accepted at times with cheers, at other times with murmurs, and, finally with a flood of personal opposition.
The political side of Bismarck’s attitude is clear enough from this speech. We will signalize another aspect of it by the following passages from a speech delivered by Bismarck on the occasion of that debate known as the Jews’ Debate, on the 15th of June.
“On ascending this place to-day, it is with greater hesitation than usual, as I am sensible that by what I am about to utter, some few remarks of the speakers of yesterday, of no very flattering tone, will have in a certain sense to be reviewed. I must openly confess that I am attached to a certain tendency, yesterday characterized by the Honorable Deputy from Crefeld as dark and mediæval; this tendency which again dares to oppose the freer development of Christianity in the way the Deputy from Crefeld regards as the only true one. Nor can I further deny that I belong to that great mass, which, as was remarked by the Honorable Deputy from Posen, stands in opposition to the more intelligent portion of the nation, and, if my memory do not betray me, was held in considerable scorn by that intelligent section—the great mass that still clings to the convictions imbibed at the breast,—the great mass to which a Christianity superior to the State is too elevated. If I find myself in the line of fire of such sharp sarcasms without a murmur, I believe I may throw myself upon the indulgence of the Honorable Assembly, if I confess, with the same frankness which distinguished my opponents, that yesterday, at times of inattention, it did not quite appear certain to me whether I was in an assembly for which the law had provided, in reference to its election, the condition of communion with some one of the Christian churches. I will pass at once to the question itself. Most of the speakers have spoken less upon the bill than upon emancipation in general. I will follow their example. I am no enemy to the Jews, and if they are enemies to me, I forgive them. Under certain circumstances I even love them. I would grant them every right, save that of holding superior official posts in Christian countries.
“We have heard from the Minister of Finance, and from other gentlemen on the ministerial bench, sentiments as to the definition of a Christian State, to which I almost entirely subscribe; but, on the other hand, we were yesterday told that Christian supremacy is an idle fiction, an invention of recent State philosophers. I am of opinion that the idea of Christian supremacy is as ancient as the ci-devant Holy Roman Empire—as ancient as the great family of European States; that it is, in fact, the very soil in which these states have taken root, and that every state which wishes to have its existence enduring, if it desires to point to any justification for that existence, when called in question, must be constituted on a religious basis. For me, the words ‘by the grace of God’ affixed by Christian rulers to their names form no empty sound; but I see in the phrase the acknowledgment that princes desire to sway the sceptres intrusted to them by the Almighty according to God’s will on earth. I, however, can only recognize as the will of God that which is contained in the Christian Gospels, and I believe I am within my right when I call such a State Christian, whose problem is to realize and verify the doctrine of Christianity. That our State does not in all ways succeed in this, the Honorable Deputy from the county of Mark yesterday demonstrated in a parallel he drew between the truths of the Gospel and the paragraphs of national jurisprudence, in a way rather clever than consonant with my religious feelings. But although the solution of the problem is not always successful, I am still convinced that the aim of the State is the realization of Christian doctrine; however, I do not think we shall approach this aim more closely with the aid of the Jews. If the religious basis of the State be acknowledged, I am sure that among ourselves the basis can only be that of Christianity. If we withdraw from the State this religious basis, our State becomes nothing more than a fortuitous aggregation of rights, a sort of bulwark against the universal war of each against all, such as an elder philosophy instituted. Its legislation then would no longer recreate itself from the original fountain of eternal truth, but only from the vague and mutable ideas of humanity taking shape only from the conceptions formed in the brains of those who occupy the apex. How such states could deny the right of the practical application of such ideas—as, for instance, those of the communists on the immorality of property, the high moral value of theft, as an experiment for the rehabilitation of the native rights of man—is not clear to me; for these very ideas are entertained by their advocates as humane, and, indeed, as constituting the very flower of humanitarianism. Therefore, gentlemen, let us not diminish the Christianity of the people by showing that it is superfluous to the legislature; let us not deprive the people of the belief that our legislation is derived from the fountain of Christianity, and that the State seeks to promote the realization of Christianity, though that end may not always be attained.
...
“Besides this, several speakers, as in almost every question, have referred to the examples of England and France as models worthy of imitation. This question is of much less consequence there, because the Jews are so much less numerous than here. But I would recommend to the gentlemen who are so fond of seeking their ideas beyond the Vosges, a guide-line distinguishing the English and the French. That consists in the proud feeling of national honor, which does not so easily and commonly seek for models worthy of imitation and wonderful patterns, as we do here, in foreign lands.”
It will be understood that this speech was much criticised; but it became a regular armory for his opponents; it was taken for granted that Bismarck himself had stated that he stood in “the dark ages,” that he had “imbibed reactionary ideas with his mother’s milk,” and other similar things, although he was only ridiculing the ideas of his opponents; there was seldom an opportunity lost, when he was twitted with “the dark ages” and the “prejudices imbibed at the breast.” Bismarck possessed humor enough to laugh at this pitiful trick, and once exclaimed very well: “Deputy Krause rode in the lists against me on a horse, in front the dark ages, behind mother’s milk!” What a picture Herr Krause, the Burgomaster of Elbing (if we are not misinformed), would make upon such a fabulous steed!
Bismarck left the United Diet with a thorn in his breast. He had lost many of the youthful illusions he had carried thither; the Prussia he found in the White Saloon was as remote as heaven from the Prussia he had hitherto believed in, and his patriotic heart was sorrowful. He perceived that the sovereignty of Prussia was about to encounter severe contests; that his duty lay with the monarch’s idea, and that his native land must be rescued from the insolent pretensions of the modern parliamentary spirit, from the most dangerous of all paper governments. In short, he arrived with hazy, but somewhat liberal, views, and he returned a politician thoroughly acquainted with his duty and his work, which consisted in aiding the King to restore the Estates’ Monarchy. It was a gift, but he received it with a sigh. His youth was at an end.
Bismarck has ever remained true to his patriotic duties, everywhere in earnestness, and at no time has he withdrawn his hand from the plough; he went bravely on, when so many cast their weapons away and fled.