Madame Jesse put in an appearance a few days before our departure and, as previously observed, did not produce a good impression. She seems to have made charges against us which the French press, even papers that lay claim to some respectability, circulated with manifest pleasure. Amongst other things we are alleged to have packed up her plate and table linen. Furthermore, Count Bismarck tried to compel her to give him a valuable clock.
The first assertion was simply an absurdity, as there was no silver in the house, unless it was in a corner of the cellar which was walled up, and which—on the express directions of the Chief—was left unopened. The true story about the clock was quite different to that circulated by Madame Jesse. The article in question was the timepiece in the drawing-room with the small bronze demon. Madame Jesse offered the Chancellor this piece of furniture, which in itself was of comparatively little value, at an exorbitant price, on the assumption that he prized it as a witness to the important negotiations that had taken place in her room. I believe she asked 5,000 francs for it. But she overreached herself, and her offer was declined. “I remember,” said the Minister afterwards in Berlin, “observing at the time that possibly the impish figure on the clock, which made such faces, might be particularly dear to her as a family portrait, and that I should be sorry to deprive her of it.”
CHAPTER X
AUTUMN DAYS AT VERSAILLES
The day after our arrival at Versailles I forwarded the following statement with regard to the measures taken against Jacoby, in accordance with the Chief’s views. It was an answer to the protests which had been made by the German press against his arrest, and not merely by the democratic and the progressist organs, which invariably criticise political and military affairs from the standpoint of private morals.
“We still hear a great deal about the alleged illegality committed in arresting Jacoby. That measure might have been inopportune; perhaps less importance might have been attached to his demonstrations. But there was nothing illegal in the course adopted, as we are now in a state of war, when the civil code must yield to military necessity. The imprisonment of Jacoby falls within the military jurisdiction, with which the police and the judicial authorities have nothing to do. It is in no sense to be regarded as a punishment. Jacoby is simply a prisoner of war, just as would be a spy arrested in Germany, with whom of course we do not wish otherwise to compare him. In other words, he was one of the forces that increased the difficulty of attaining the object of the war, and had accordingly to be rendered harmless.
“This will be made clear by a glance at the numerous instances in which those entrusted with the conduct of war are obliged to over-ride the rights of person and property recognised by the Constitution. For purposes of successful defence private property may be destroyed without previously arranging the terms of compensation, houses may be burned and trees cut down, an entrance may be forced into private residences, street traffic may be stopped and every other means of transport such as ships, carts, &c., can be either seized or destroyed without the previous permission of the owner, that rule applying to our own as well as to the enemy’s country. The removal of persons who afford the enemy either moral or material support, or who merely give rise to suspicion that they do so, comes under the same category of laws which apply to countries in a state of war.
“These principles are not contested in so far as they are applicable to the immediate seat of war. The idea upon which they are based is not, however, affected by the locality. Those who wield the power of the State must exercise the rights and fulfil the duties accorded to and imposed upon them for the purpose of securing the object of the war, without regard to the distance from the actual scene of warfare of the obstacles which require removal. They are bound to prevent the occurrence of such incidents as render the attainment of peace less easy. We are now carrying on a war for the purpose of enforcing conditions which will hinder the enemy from attacking us in future. Our opponents resist these conditions and will be greatly encouraged and strengthened in their resistance by a declaration on the part of Germans that these conditions are inexpedient and unjust. The Brunswick working class manifesto and the Königsberg resolution have been utilised to the utmost by the French press and have obviously confirmed the Republicans now holding power in Paris in the idea that they are right in rejecting those conditions. These French Republicans measure the influence of their German sympathisers on the Governments of Germany by the standard of their own experience. The impression which those demonstrations at Brunswick and Königsberg produced in Germany was probably little; but the point is, what effect did they have in Paris? The effect there is such that similar demonstrations must be rendered impossible in future, and their instigator must accordingly be put out of harm’s way.”
In the morning Keudell said to me we might remain in Versailles for about three weeks. Metz would soon be obliged to capitulate, as they now had only horseflesh to eat and no salt. They were still confident in Paris, although there was great mortality amongst their cattle, which were fed on compressed food. Burnside, who had been in the city, confirmed this news. The Minister was less sanguine. The question of uniforms for the secretaries was again brought up, and in this connection the Chief remarked that the war might yet continue for a considerable time, perhaps till Christmas, possibly till Easter, and probably a portion of the troops would remain in France for years to come. Paris should have been immediately stormed on the 19th of September, or left entirely on one side. He then told his valet to send to Berlin for his fur coats.
In the further course of conversation the Minister said: “I heard something really characteristic to-day. The host of Princes who have followed us and who are lodging at the Hôtel des Reservoirs are living at the expense of the town! They let the municipality feed them, though they have merely come out of curiosity, and are nothing more than distinguished loafers. It is particularly shabby of the Duke of Coburg, who is a rich man, with an annual revenue of a million thalers. Such a piece of meanness ought to be noticed in the press. It is shameful for a Prince to allow himself to be fed by a town already so impoverished.” The Chief again returned to this subject a little later, “The royal household is a very comprehensive conception, and so it is impossible to object to these gentlemen being fed. The King pays for the Crown Prince, and the Crown Prince for the other princely personages. But it is mean of the latter to help to suck the town dry, and the newspapers should not overlook it.”