"The boundaries between the powers of the State and the Church are to be regulated by legislation in Berlin. This problem may possibly be solved in theory, but never in practice. When my opinion was asked, I advised the Emperor to decide each concrete case with the utmost rigour, but never to embark upon disputes about theoretical dogmas—history teaches that in such struggles the State invariably comes off the worst. The introduction of civil marriage, the separation of the schools from the Church, and the establishment of State examinations for the clergy are alone excepted from this. The Church must be left to herself; the State has nothing to do with dogmas, which depend entirely upon the conscience of Catholics.
"You have no idea of the agitation which these questions are causing just now, or of the prevailing misconceptions.
"It is well that the Jesuit law is, so to speak, an already surmounted vantage-point; but those who expect improvement from it are mistaken; the greater part of the Catholic priesthood of to-day has been educated by the Jesuits. The whole struggle is grievous.
"If the contending parties had long ago arrived at an understanding, particularly in the time of King Frederick William IV., that the Throne and the Altar are two irreconcilable conceptions, it might have been possible to regulate their relation without the intervention of force. But that ruler's absolutist tendencies sought and found in the absolutism of Rome an alliance which is still a heavy burden upon our national development.
"You will certainly have followed the debates on the 'Kreisordnung' in the Upper House with interest. To myself it is a brilliant satisfaction for the wrongs suffered in 1859 and 1860; what I then prophesied has happened to-day—the Upper House is an institution whose entire composition stands in urgent need of reform.
"The situation in Bavaria and Württemberg, especially in the dynastic spheres, is scarcely yet intelligible. Particularism is as obstinate as possible. The unification of the Empire from a military point of view is proceeding smoothly, and will not recede; but the minor Sovereigns take it very ill that they are to be mediatised in a military and diplomatic sense at once...."
The unexpected news of the death of Napoleon III. was received at Bucharest on January 10, 1873. Prince Charles and the Roumanian nation were deeply moved by this sad event, for the dead Emperor had been the champion and protector of the national existence of Roumania in its darkest days. Throughout the whole land memorial services were held, though the Metropolitan at first objected on the ground that the late Emperor was not a member of the Orthodox Church. The universal expression of sympathy with the widowed Empress and the Prince Imperial created a certain friction with the Republican Government, and the Foreign Minister reminded M. Strat that the Roumanians ought not to forget that, after all, "it was to France, and not the Emperor, that gratitude was due"! M. Thiers, the President, also expressed his vexation that the Roumanian Chambers should have sent messages of condolence to the Prince Imperial as well as to the Empress, since the former had never had anything to do with Roumania. This measure was considered to indicate that Roumania held the French Republic "nul et non avenu." M. Thiers concluded with the remark: "If I had acted strictly in accordance with the rules of international custom, I should have recalled all my agents and broken off all communication with you!" M. Strat was able, however, to convince the President that Roumania had only paid a debt of gratitude to a benefactor, and had no intention of insulting France.
The situation in Paris at the commencement of 1873 was described by M. Strat as "the same struggles, the same defiance in every camp, and the same uncertainty about the future as in the past." A sort of armistice existed between M. Thiers and the Majority of the National Assembly, who were anxious to foist a King upon France, whilst the adherents of the Republic were divided into two camps. "Those who desire a moderate and conservative republic do nothing to bring it to pass, and those who wish for a régime on the lines of Gambetta & Co. do everything in their power to render it permanently impossible." Gambetta's school, which unfortunately had made proselytes throughout the whole of Europe, aimed at "governing by inane discourses, banquets, harangues, demonstrations in the streets, and all the customary trappings of a vulgar democracy." Hampered by all these conflicting elements, M. Thiers was confronted by the task of maintaining order, paying milliards, and raising the commerce of the country. He would only secure peace with the National Assembly if he gave it complete liberty "to play upon that instrument which they call universal suffrage."