“Dear Sir,
“Rarely has a book excited my interest to such a degree as your Unser Reichskanzler, which I have perused whilst taking the waters here. As it will have produced a like impression upon others a new edition will soon be required. I therefore consider it my duty to call your attention to an error which I have also noticed in the French and English newspapers. The letter of the Minister President of the 26th of December, 1865, which was made public entirely against my will and in consequence of a gross indiscretion which has not yet been quite cleared up, was not addressed to the clergyman, Roman von André, but to the Rittergutsbesitzer, Andrae-Roman. In addition to this you will allow me to correct a few of the following observations, as, for instance, that on page 158. I have always spoken and written to Prince Bismarck not from a clergyman’s standpoint, but with the consciousness that in matters of faith our views were identical, and with a feeling of hearty affection for his powerful individuality, having fully recognised his greatness long before he became a public character.
“Allow me to add one further remark. The somewhat cool attitude adopted by Bismarck towards the clergy as such did not originate in the conflict with the Kreuzzeitung. It existed long before that date, and was closely connected with a similar attitude towards the Church, and arises from entirely different causes, which I need not enter into here. That clergymen, or, indeed, laymen, in signing ‘the Declaration’ made themselves sponsors for any of the vile and malicious calumnies, which—I regret to say—were at that time heaped upon the great man, I must dispute until that charge has been proved in some specific case. I speak only of those Conservatives who hold the same religious belief as Bismarck. I was pained and surprised to find for the first time in a letter addressed by the Prince to my friend von Holtz during the General Synod, that he entertained this view. I immediately put myself in communication with a considerable number of my co-signatories to the declaration who were present in Berlin at that time, and all those with whom I spoke on the subject agreed with me that the public declaration by Bismarck (I have neither this nor the text of the declaration itself with me at the present moment)—his declaration, namely, that ‘after the unfortunate articles in question no respectable person could continue to read the Kreuzzeitung,’ was the sole cause of the counter-declaration, that we considered ourselves to be respectable persons, although we continued to read the Kreuzzeitung. It does not contain a word of approval of any ‘vile and malicious calumnies.’ I have never read nor approved of the Reichsglocke. The statements respecting the death of my relative, Herr von Wedemeyer, are also very hazardous, and would be difficult to prove. It was at that time decided to send to the Prince a joint statement, which was to be drawn up by me. At the desire, however, of a person closely connected with the Prince this decision was altered, and it was arranged that each should write separately to him in the sense indicated above. This was done in a great number of cases. There are, however, different kinds of Conservatives. The most reliable, if not always the most pliant, those who hold the same religious belief as the Prince, have always been and will ever remain on his side.
“With the most profound respect,
“A. Andrae-Roman.”
On the 23rd September I called upon Bucher, who had undergone a course of massage and hygienic gymnastics at Laubbach, and had been back in Berlin for about five weeks. He again complained of the “shocking way in which business was conducted in the Foreign Office”; and in particular of Hatzfeldt and Holstein. For a long time past he had given up saluting the latter. He would “like best of all to leave the place, if that were only possible.” He praised Count Herbert as “very diligent and not unskilful,” and was of opinion that the Prince intended to make him Secretary of State at some future time. Münster, “who is more English than German, and does very little,” having allowed some question to hang fire, the Chief sent Herbert to London, where he at once took it into his own hands, pressed it through, and finally settled it satisfactorily. “Another person placed in the position of the Ambassador would have resigned in such circumstances.” I suggested: “Angra Pequena, and the long delay in answering the Chancellor’s inquiries?” Bucher replied in the affirmative. He then said: “It will not be pleasant to work under the young man, but work will be done, and things will not be allowed to drag on in such a slow and slovenly way. Herbert has also a good memory, and has been a great deal with his father. He was often present at interviews with important personages, at which matters of great moment were discussed that do not appear in the official documents, and in that way he has had splendid opportunities for learning.” Bucher agreed with me regarding the meeting at Skiernevice as a “spectacle intended to show Europe the good understanding which exists between the three Emperors.” He added, however, that “the relations between Austria and Russia leave much to be desired in many respects.” He furthermore confirmed the fact that the Chief, “in view of the cool and repellent attitude of Gladstone, has for a long time past been working towards a better understanding with France, and not without success.” After speaking of the Balkan Peninsula, and hinting at an understanding respecting it, Bucher said he had a mind to write something on the despatch of an English Commission to Sarakhs for the purpose of settling the question of the frontier between Afghanistan and Russia, but he had not yet been able to collect the geographical materials. These remarks showed that he had been busy with this question recently. I offered to publish something of the kind in the Grenzboten, and he promised the necessary materials from the library of the Foreign Office, and in particular the account of O’Donovan’s travels. He saw the Prince (who has now returned to Friedrichsruh) a short time ago; he thinks that the journey to Skiernevice has done him good, as he is much less stout, feels thoroughly well and also works hard.
Bucher called at my house at 8.45 A.M. on the following morning with a collection of newspaper extracts on various subjects for my use. I had, however, gone out. On my returning the bundle of papers given to me on the 28th of September he gave me some further particulars of the way in which Herbert had dealt with the English. On Lord Granville asking him in the course of the negotiations respecting Angra Pequena whether we were not contemplating an ultimate expansion of territory towards the interior (Query, towards the East, in the direction of Bechuanaland and the Boer Republic), he retorted, not over politely, that that was “a question of mere curiosity,” and indeed finally, “a matter that does not concern you.” The Chief showed him the letter in which that was reported, and was pleased with his son’s sturdiness. The English have now so far yielded in the matter that the Ministry has not confirmed the resolution of the Cape Government to annex the country around Angra Pequena. “Münster,” he said, “must leave London, but I doubt whether there is any truth in the report that Herbert has been selected as his successor.” He afterwards said: “When the Germans, a short time before the conclusion of the Preliminary Peace at Versailles, sank some English coal ships on the Lower Seine and the English made a row on the subject, the Chief asked me, ‘What can we say in reply?’ Well, I had brought with me some old fogies on the Law of Nations and such matters. I hunted up what the old writers called the jus angariæ, that is to say, the right to destroy the property of neutrals on payment of full compensation, and showed it to the Chief. He sent me with it to Russell, who allowed himself to be convinced by this ‘good authority.’ Shortly afterwards the whole affair with the jus angariæ appeared in The Times. We wrote in the same sense to London, and the matter was settled. A short time ago, when I had to look up something in the documents of the war period, I found that the two papers which I had written in this matter were gone. They had been removed by our mutual friend Abeken through jealousy of me.” I reminded him of O’Donovan’s work, but he said that just now the Grenzboten article would be premature. In this connection he gave me a short survey of the relations of the English and the Russians in Afghanistan, which showed that he was fully informed on that subject. I finally suggested that I should now give a description in the Grenzboten of the scandalous treatment of Ireland by England, based upon Lecky’s book, which he promised to get for me from the Foreign Office library, but which I already had. I wrote the article which appeared shortly afterwards.
The Prince having returned from Friedrichsruh, I wrote to him (on the 27th of October), requesting him, in case he wished anything said in the press respecting the Brunswick question or any other topic of the day, to let me know when I might have the honour of receiving information as to his intentions in the matter.
This letter also remained unanswered. It would therefore appear that the Chancellor will have no further intercourse with me, having apparently taken offence at something or other. His will be done! And so we bring the diary to a close.