On the 10th of July, 1881, Bucher wrote me the following note in pencil:—

Glaser’s letter appeared in a small pamphlet, entitled, An Austrian Minister and his Father, published in Berlin, 1872, by Kerskes and Hohmann. It contained the following passage: “Another year, and the Chosen People shall have attained the object of the Holy Alliance,[1] which they concluded in Paris. We have no more ardent desire than to see the day arrive when we can bid him (Prince Adolph Auersberg) good-bye, and see his place taken by one from our midst” (the Jewish Liberals); and “then” (when the aristocratic party is suspected by the dynasty, and has fallen out of favour) “a really new and regenerated nobility, drawn from our people” (the Jews) “shall enter into power, and fulfil the mission to which God has called them.” I had this[p. 3] letter reproduced in the Grenzboten, with a few introductory remarks.

On the morning of the 11th of July I called upon Bucher, from whom I ascertained that he had collected the material for his pamphlet on the Cobden Club in the British Museum, about a fortnight previously. He had gone to London, under instructions from the Chief, giving a false name, and holding no intercourse with anybody.

On the 21st I called on Bucher at the Foreign Office, to remind him about the pamphlet and the proposed Grenzboten article. He had been unable to write the latter, as he could not obtain a book which he required for the purpose. (This was the Principles of Currency, a work by the Oxford Professor, Bonamy Price, which appeared in 1869.) He gave me his pamphlet, and a quantity of material for the article upon it, to which he made some additions during the following days. He also sent me a number of English and French publications, to be used for the same purpose. In the meantime, Glaser’s letter was emphatically declared to be a forgery by Glaser himself. Bucher, however, still held it to be “genuine in the main.”

I now wrote a series of five articles, entitled “Characteristics of the Manchester School,” based on Bucher’s pamphlet, and the notes and books with which he supplied me. These appeared in Nos. 33 to 37 of the Grenzboten.

On the 27th of July Bucher related to me “an anecdote illustrating the way in which the Secretary of State von Bülow carried on business.” Lasker called upon him one day to introduce a Frenchman, one Comte de Jolivar, who was going to Constantinople, and wished to have a letter of introduction to our Embassy there.[p. 4] Bülow had this letter prepared, and added in his own hand a few words of warm recommendation to Werther, who was our representative at the Porte at that time. The Comte proceeded on his journey with this document in his pocket, and one of the first things he did on his arrival at the Golden Horn was to swindle a German artisan out of a respectable sum of money. This was soon followed by similar operations, which speedily came to Werther’s ears, who probably had already felt surprised at the Frenchman having asked for and received recommendations from the Foreign Office in Berlin, instead of from that in Paris, or from the French Minister in Berlin. He reported these cases of swindling to the Wilhelmstrasse, and from there inquiries were addressed to the Foreign Office in Paris. The information received was to the following effect. Comte de Jolivar is not a Comte, but only a Chevalier, that is to say, chevalier d’industrie, who—as the police records show—has been condemned on several occasions for embezzlement and swindling, and was once prosecuted for forgery, but just managed to save his skin. “Tableau” in the office of our Secretary of State!

Bucher praised Hatzfeldt, who has entered upon the duties of his office in succession to Bülow, as a pleasant and easy chief. Speaking of Bunsen, Bucher said that he had written for the Secessionist Tribune. Bucher also referred to the controversy which he had recently fought out with Bunsen, in the columns of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

On the 29th of July I received the following note from Bucher:—

The enclosure mentioned in paragraph 1 ran as follows:—

On the morning of the 30th I forwarded this paragraph to the Daily Telegraph, stating that it came from the “very best source,” and adding that I should be thankful for its insertion. On the 31st, however, I received the following note from Bucher: “Herbert has just telegraphed to me to hold back the paragraph on the Anti-Nihilistic society for the present. Luckily[p. 6] Sunday has intervened. Will you please countermand it by telegraph, and charge me with the costs?” I accordingly telegraphed to London, and the paragraph did not appear.

The second enclosure was worked up for the Grenzboten, and published in No. 32, under the title of “The Genesis of the Anglo-French Commercial Treaty.” It was completed by an extract from Chevalier’s letter, which was published by the Pall Mall Gazette.

In the meantime, on the 30th, I received the following note from Bucher: “As your articles on the Manchester School in the Grenzboten will one day form material for the historian, I would suggest that after the reference to Schlesinger and his association with the Treasury, you should insert the words: ‘since the Macdonald affair at Bonn.’ I will give you the particulars for your memoirs. They are very curious.”

Bucher left for his holidays on the 1st of August.

On the 14th of September Bucher wrote to me that he was in Berlin, and on the 21st I called upon him. He told me that the Chief had again had “difficulties with the Emperor.” The latter now reads no more newspapers. Recently, however, some courtier must have called his attention to a paragraph which he represented to come from the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, to the effect that a Papal Nunciature was to be established in Berlin. The Emperor thereupon wrote the Chief a “snappish letter” which commenced somewhat in the style of Zwückanör (one of the comic figures in the Kladderadatsch): “I am much surprised.” The Chancellor first sent a short telegram, saying that he knew nothing of any such paragraph in the newspaper in question (which had contained nothing of the[p. 7] kind), and afterwards forwarded a memorandum on the subject, which filled three sheets of paper. “He was greatly incensed at the action of the Most Gracious.” Tiedemann, who has now been definitively replaced by Rottenburg, goes in the first place to Bromberg, in the capacity of Regierungspräsident, and not, as he had desired, and expected, to Kassel as Oberpräsident. The mention of Keudell in the first Grenzboten article on the Manchester School, which has been described by the Progressist press as a “violent attack,” has led that gentleman to state in the Morning Post that he had requested the President of the Cobden Club to remove his name from the list of members. He at the same time endeavoured to defend himself in Progressist journals, like the Vossische Zeitung and the Berliner Tageblatt, concluding, as usual, with self-praise. Bucher remarked: “These almost identic articles are written by himself. Only his signature at foot is wanting.” These productions were forwarded to the Chancellor at Varzin, who thereupon had the following statement published in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung:—

On the morning of the 25th of October I paid Bucher a visit at his lodgings. He complained that the Chief now occupied himself too much with press matters. Instructions of this description came from Varzin almost daily, and sometimes three or four together. No one in the office understood anything about them, neither the sons, nor Rantzau (who was paid for that purpose, but who, nevertheless, could only take down dictation from the Chief), nor Holstein, who was a mere “bungler,” and least of all Rudolf Lindau, who “is quite incapable, has had no political or journalistic training, and can merely play the amiable, tell good stories and go out walking.” He had been brought into the Office by family influence, which also kept him there. “In Japan he made the acquaintance of Brandt, our Chargé d’Affaires, through whom he obtained a connection with the Intelligence Department of the general staff. He afterwards (if I rightly understood) accompanied Brandt to St. Petersburg, where he was presented to the Grand Duchess Hélène, who recommended him to Bismarck. The latter sent him to Harry Arnim in Paris as a Press Attaché. He afterwards received an appointment at the Foreign Office—again on an exalted recommendation. The Prince knows that he is entirely unfit for the duties which he has to perform, but the Grand[p. 10] Duchess protects him; and so, although he has been virtually shelved, it has been done in such a way that he appears to have control of press affairs.”

Bucher said that Count Bill is on very intimate terms with Paul Lindau ... with whom he had been in Hungary. Herbert had yesterday, on the instructions of his father, written Bucher a four-page letter, which he showed me, asking him, Bucher, to make a “journalistic onslaught” upon the Progressist candidate Klotz on account of his election speech. Rantzau, however, had been unable to obtain the most indispensable of essentials, namely Klotz’s speech, and, in fact, knew nothing whatever about it. One of the Chancery attendants, however, was cleverer, and remembered that it had been printed in pamphlet form and distributed by the thousand. This man arranged to procure a copy.

“Sybel is another plague with which the Chancellor has afflicted me,” continued Bucher. “It is not so long since Sybel was fighting against the Chief; but he has now been taken once more into favour, and is to write a history of Germany from 1860 to 1870.” For this purpose the Chief had at first ordered that all diplomatic documents of this period should be laid before him. Bucher, however, pointed out that it would be necessary to make certain exceptions, some of which he mentioned, including those concerning the Hungarian Legion. The Prince agreed to this, and arranged that the documents mentioned by Bucher, as also the “Secreta,” should not be shown to Sybel. The latter is now carrying on his researches at the Foreign Office, which Bucher does not regard as dangerous. He has come upon references to the documents that have been withheld from him, and has asked to see them, stating[p. 11] that he would anyhow have possession of them some day as Director of the State Archives. Bucher was, however, obliged to refuse his request. He complained of the responsibility imposed upon him in this matter.

He then went on to say that it was much the same with one Herr Poschinger, a Bavarian, who had taken it upon himself to describe Bismarck’s work as Envoy to the Germanic Diet in Frankfurt. The Chief had given instructions that he was to see everything relating to this period in the first and second departments of the Foreign Office. Poschinger plunged into these, and then sent his opus to the Prince for revision. The Chief did not care to read it, and instructed Bucher to do so. “I then found that it was merely an endless string of extracts, and not a book but only materials for a book; and that while he dwelt discursively on insignificant details, he cursorily dismissed or overlooked altogether matters of real importance.” That was pointed out to Poschinger, who revised his work in accordance with the suggestions made to him, abbreviating some parts and amplifying others, and then returned it to the Chief, who again forwarded it to Bucher. “It was now better material,” continued the latter, “but it was still no book. I reported to the Chief in this sense, and he gave instructions to obtain Sybel’s opinion on it. His agreed in the main with my own, but Poschinger discovered that Sybel had criticised him.”

Bucher thought that the visit which the newspapers reported Gambetta to have paid to Varzin about ten days ago was possible, and indeed probable. He declared, on the other hand, that the discovery, made by the National Zeitung, that this visit took place at Friedrichsruh, was unfounded, because the Chief was at[p. 12] that time suffering from severe pain in the back, which made it impossible for him to travel. “I do not like to make inquiries on the subject,” he said, “and I therefore know nothing positive about it. We should have reason to be thankful, however, if the visit took place, as it would make Gambetta impossible in France.”

October 28th.—Met his Excellency von Thile to-day in the Potsdamer Platz. We first spoke about the elections. Thile had formerly abstained from voting, but this time—like Bucher and myself—had voted for Stöcker. He then asked what I thought of the report that Gambetta had visited the Chancellor. I replied that it appeared to me to be possible, and indeed probable. “I will tell you something,” he said. “One of my acquaintances was recently at Frankfurt, where he put up at the ‘Russischer Hof’—you know, ‘Auf der Zeil.’ In conversation with the landlord, with whom he was acquainted, he asked whether there was any news. ‘Yes, and something of importance, Excellency,’ replied the latter. Gambetta was here recently on his way home from Germany, and lodged with us. The head waiter asked his servant where they had been, and the man replied: ‘Nous avons été à la campagne dans les environs de Danzig.’”

November 9th.—Called this morning upon Bucher at his lodgings to inquire about the article in yesterday’s Post stating that the Chancellor proposed to resign. I fancied the article came from Varzin, and was intended to prepare for a dissolution of the Reichstag, and to give the country an opportunity to choose at the elections between the Chief and the Liberals. According to Bucher, no one would believe that a general election would induce him to retire, and as to the dissolution of the Reichstag, that could only take place[p. 13] if it perpetrated some piece of stupidity. The article was purposeless, merely an expression of ill-humour at Varzin, which Herbert, “with his usual ineptitude,” had made public. “But they have been in the backwoods for half a year, and do not know what is going on in the world. The elections would have turned out better in many respects if the press campaign had not been so foolishly conducted. But these things are shockingly ill-managed at present. We have now no less than four Secretaries of State: Busch, the real one, who is good; then Herbert at Varzin; and Rantzau and Holstein here. These know nothing, and are incapable of doing anything properly. None of them reads the papers or knows what is going on, and if the Chief gives violent instructions they are carried out with still greater violence. It is sad that the Chief should think so much of providing for his family and finding places for them. Virchow was right when he brought that charge against him. And the other gentlemen are no better. In addition to the Secretaries of State we have the gentlemen who spend their time strolling about, and who are more often to be found out shooting than in their office.” He then mentioned two, including Radolinski, ... and added: “After all it was just the same formerly, when, in addition to Thile, there were only two who really worked, yourself and Abeken. Hepke had hardly anything but trifles to deal with, and the aristocrats for the most part spent scarcely two hours in the office, just for a little gossip and a glance through the newspapers and despatches—Hatzfeldt, for instance, and Keudell, who was incapable to boot.”... “Hatzfeldt rarely came before two o’clock,” said Bucher, “and often went away again at three. While they lived upstairs he usually came to play a[p. 14] game of croquet. He would ask Wartensleben, ‘Now what do you think of a little game of croquet to-day?’ Wartensleben used then to say he would go up and see whether the Countess would care to join them, and when he came back with the message that the Countess begged to be excused as she had something else to do, Paul would remark, ‘Well, then, one may as well say good bye,’ and take himself off.... And Keudell could really do nothing. I suppose I have already told you the story about Taglioni and Keudell’s thirty arrears of work? Well, at Versailles I was told by Wiehr—you remember him, the fat, bald deciphering clerk—it was simply frightful how little Keudell managed to do. When he sat down he wrote two or three lines, then pulled out his watch, took the rings off his finger and played with them, put them on again, wrote another few lines, stopped once more, and finally rose, leaving his work unfinished. On one occasion Taglioni took pity on him and offered to assist the Councillor. The latter was delighted with such an amiable fellow, and Taglioni actually disposed of some thirty items of work which were in arrear. But in spite of that a number of even sensible people had a high opinion of his power of work and his intelligence—people such as Gneist, for example, whom I know well, as we studied together. I always meant to enlighten him, but have not done so yet. It is necessary, however, that people should know Keudell if he is to be a Minister one day.” Bucher then came to speak of Count Herbert again, and I said that the Prince had once observed to me that he had thought of promoting him to be Secretary of State, as he had worked for seven years under his own personal supervision, but that he was too young. “Yes,” rejoined[p. 15] Bucher, “and so he is still. Paul Hatzfeldt will not remain. Things will go on for the present in the same way. He comes at two o’clock and disappears again at five, attends to nothing beyond the interviews with foreign diplomatists, and troubles himself very little with the other business—which, for the matter of that, is no loss. But when the Prince comes back, and he is summoned to receive instructions two or three times a day, it will not be at all to his liking, and he will go back to Constantinople. He will be replaced by Herbert, that haughty and incapable fellow, and more than one of the officials will leave.”

I asked, in conclusion, if he knew what the Chief had intended by the article on the Anti-Nihilistic society which I forwarded to the Daily Telegraph, and afterwards countermanded. “The Holy Drujina?” he said. “That was true. Such a society had been formed under the protection of the Emperor, who had subscribed a million and a half to its funds. Despatches have been exchanged between ourselves and St. Petersburg on the subject, and one of the members of the society has called upon Rantzau. But I cannot conceive what the Chief can have intended by the publication of the paragraph in England. If one of those gentlemen were to go there and murder a Nihilist leader, he would be hanged as a matter of course. The affair should have been treated as a profound secret, yet in a few weeks’ time it appeared in full, with all manner of details and humorous comments, in the Berliner Tageblatt. When I mentioned this to Rantzau afterwards, he was simply terrified. Of course he had not read it, and wished to know where it had appeared. I told him the name of the paper, and let him hunt up the number himself. I[p. 16] used formerly to get him the paper on such occasions, but now leave that to him, so that he may have at least some occupation.”

As I left, Bucher said: “If anything happens, I will let you know.”

The Prince returned to Berlin in the afternoon of the 12th of November. At noon of the 15th a Chancery attendant brought me a letter from Sachse, saying that the Chief desired to see me at 1 o’clock on the following day, Wednesday. I arrived at the time appointed, and was shown in to the Prince at a quarter-past 1. He had been dictating to Count William before I went in. The Chancellor, who was in plain clothes, looked fresh and hearty, but began by complaining of his health. He had been ill, he said, during the whole five months of his holiday, even at Kissingen, but particularly at Varzin, where he had had to endure great pain. It was his old trouble.

He then spoke of the elections, and stated that in certain circumstances he would retire, as he had already intimated to the Emperor. “The centre of gravity has changed,” he continued. “The Progressist and Secessionist Jews, with their money, now form the Centre. At first I was not in favour of this agitation (for Stöcker as an Anti-Semite). It was inconvenient to me, and they went too far. Now, however, I am glad that the Court Chaplain has been elected. He is an energetic, fearless, and resolute man, and he cannot be muzzled. The elections have shown that the German Philistine still lives, and allows himself to be frightened and led astray by fine speeches and lies. He will not hear of the protection of labour against the foreigner, nor of insurance against accident and old age, nor of any reduction of[p. 17] school and poor rates, but wants direct taxation to be increased. Well, he can have that, but not while I am Chancellor.”

“Do you seriously mean that, Serene Highness?” I asked. “I believe they have only nibbled at the democratic bait just as they did formerly.”

“It may be that they do not quite know what they want. But they have taken this course at the elections, their representatives vote against me, and, in order to govern I must have a majority—which I cannot find under these conditions. In case of necessity it might be possible to manage with a coalition of Conservatives and Clericals and such like, but the Centre Party has been against us all through the elections, and there is no trusting them. Folly and ingratitude on all sides! I am made the target for every party and group, and they do everything they can to harass me, and would like me to serve as a whipping-boy for them. But when I disappear they will not know which way to turn, as none of them has a majority or any positive views and aims. They can only criticise and find fault—always say No. You are right in saying that they have turned the people’s heads with their fine phrases and lies. They make out that I am in favour of reaction, and want to restore the old régime. If I can get my monopoly, tobacco will cost three to five marks a pound, but cigars will be three times as dear as they are now. They have frightened the people by reviving the old stories of the past, Junker rule, the corvée, territorial jurisdiction, and even the jus primæ noctis, as, for instance, in Holstein and Lauenburg. There the Danish Kings had allowed all the ancient institutions to remain—unadulterated mediævalism. The Junkers ruled, and were decorated with the Order of the[p. 18] Elephant. They took all the best posts as if they had inherited them. They held the most remunerative offices up to ten thousand thalers a year, or at least four to five thousand thalers; and yet they neither did nor could do anything except pocket fees and impose heavy fines. They farmed the domains among themselves, on the lowest valuations, and lived on the fat of the land. When I came there the people were obliged to drink the abominable beer which the Junkers brewed on their estates, and no one could purchase a piece of ground because they did not wish the population to exceed two thousand to the square (German) mile. There the people still remember all this misrule, and emissaries of the Progressists and Secessionists—who are just the same—threaten them with its revival, and warn them against me. I am represented as desiring to restore that state of things, yet the contrary is the case, and it was I alone who abolished it.”

I reminded him of the homage of the Estates in Lauenburg, Bülow’s anxiety respecting the maintenance of the Compact of the nobility, and the scene in the Ratzeburg Cathedral, asking if that was a correct account of the incident. He then related it to me once more, the narrative agreeing in all important particulars with that already given. Returning to the agitation that preceded the elections, he continued as follows: “They do not, however, even believe what they preach. They hate and slander me because I am a Junker and not a Professor, and because I have been a Minister for twenty years. That has lasted too long for them—hence their vexation. They would like to come to power themselves, and form a Government. But that is mere covetousness, and not ability, and if I were to make way for them they would be desperately embarrassed, and would recognise[p. 19] that they could do nothing. I was born a Junker, but my policy was not that of the Junkers. I am a Royalist in the first place, and then a Prussian and a German. I will defend my King and the monarchy against revolution, both overt and covert, and I will establish and leave behind me a strong and healthy Germany. To me the parties are a matter of indifference. I am also not a Conservative in the sense of the Conservative party. My entire past as a Minister is evidence of that. They saw that in 1873 in the question of the Inspection of Schools Bill, when they turned their backs upon me, attacked me in their papers, and wrote me absurd letters.”

He took from the shelves near him a copy of a letter with which he had disposed of an old gentleman in Pomerania (Senfft-Pilsach), who had at that time warned him to reflect and pray. This letter, which he read to me, directed attention, inter alia, to the Psalms, chapter 12, verses 3 and 4: “The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: who have said, with our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?” He then returned to the last elections, and observed: “The defectiveness of our institutions is shown by the credulity of the electors. It may come to this, that we shall some day have to say of the German Constitution, after all attempts at government and reform under it have failed, as Schwarzenberg said at Olmütz: ‘This arrangement has not stood the test.’ But that must not be printed now. It is only for yourself.... They have now invented another calumny. They take advantage of my attachment to the Emperor, and pretend that I am clinging to office, that I am devoured by the love of power. It may turn out differently, however, and I[p. 20] may say to them: ‘Here you have it! Now let us see you govern!’ That, however, can only be after a division on some important question, not on the electoral returns. The Emperor is half inclined to try it and let me go, if only for one session. Things cannot go on as they are much longer. Of course, I am not going to desert the Emperor; it would be unfair to leave the old man in the lurch. But I cannot renounce my convictions, and I will not have a return to the period of conflict. I demand more appreciation and better treatment.”

Returning once more to the statement that the Liberal parties had been guilty of gross misrepresentation during the last election, he added that they had at the same time set the followers of the Government a good example by their excellent organisation, energy, and self-sacrifice. “Many people on our side, such as Herzog, for instance, have also given a great deal of money,” he said; “but the Progressists have done more. They had all the treasure of the Hebrews at their disposal, and were at the same time thoroughly drilled and well organised.”

“And now,” he asked, “have I anything else for you? Unruh has published various things that should be refuted.” He took up the October number of the sixth year’s issue of the Deutsche Revue, which lay before him, and continued: “He maintains that he has written for historians, but he obviously intended to influence the elections. A great deal of it is erroneous, other portions are electioneering lies, and some parts require to be supplemented. Here, for instance, on page 9, he states that while I was still a member of Parliament I had a conversation with him which I concluded with the words: ‘Now I tell you, if your party[p. 21] is victorious, you shall take me under your wing, and if my side gets the upper hand I will do as much for you. Shake hands on it!’ This offer was actually made. And curiously enough, a similar proposal was made to me by d’Ester, the Radical member of Parliament. In this case, however, I declined, and said: ‘If your party wins, life will no longer be worth living, and if we have the upper hand, then hanging shall be the order of the day—but with all politeness, up to the very foot of the gallows.’”

He turned over the leaves of the Revue, and continued: “There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the Opposition was not aware during the years 1862 to 1866 that I had a strong anti-Austrian policy in view. Besides, it is clear from Unruh’s own ‘Memoirs’ that they were fully informed respecting this policy, and only offered opposition through hatred to me, the Junker, and in consequence of their own dogmatism. Here, on page 11, it is stated that shortly after the outbreak of the Franco-Austrian War in 1859, he had an interview with me at the Hotel Royal, when I said to him that for Prussia to come to the assistance of Austria would be an act of political suicide. I had entirely lost my sympathy for Austria. If we did not succeed in driving Austria out of Germany proper, and if she kept the upper hand here, then our Kings would once more be mere Electors and vassals of the Hapsburgs. There could be no doubt as to the attitude of the individual German Governments in case of a crisis. With the exception perhaps of a few of the minor States that fell within the sphere of Prussian influence, all of them, if forced to make a choice, would decide in favour of Austria. Prussia would, therefore, be isolated, but there were circumstances in which[p. 22] she might have the entire German people as her allies.... Surely that was plain speaking, and it ought not to have been difficult afterwards to recognise the connection between such language and the increase of the army. They would not see it, however.... On page 13 is another proof that they knew what I had in view: ‘When the King went to Baden-Baden, accompanied by the Ministers Von Auerswald and Von Schleinitz, Bismarck followed him, evidently with the object of continuing his efforts to prevent assistance being rendered to Austria.’ And on the same page we read: ‘There is another circumstance which strikes one as an important piece of evidence to show that Bismarck’s anti-Austrian policy, in so far as Austrian influence in Germany was concerned, did not originate in 1859, but was of older date. After 1866, speaking in the House of Parliament to the former Landrath of the Teltower district, I related to him my conversation with Bismarck in 1859, whereupon he told me that Bismarck had expressed the same anti-Austrian views to him in 1854, and frankly confessed his anti-Austrian policy. It was not until 1866, that is to say, twelve years later, that it was practically applied. Bismarck had therefore kept this plan of driving Austria out of Germany before him all that time, and had resolutely pursued it. This is of some importance in forming an opinion upon the period of conflict.’ That is certainly correct. And is it possible that what that Landrath in 1854 and Unruh in 1859 ascertained from me personally had not also come to the knowledge of the others and been present to their minds when they—the Liberals—fought against me with the utmost violence from 1862 to 1866?”

The Chancellor turned over a few further pages, and[p. 23] then continued: “With regard to the situation in the autumn of 1862, Unruh was convinced (page 15) that ‘if Bismarck desired to put an end to dualism in Germany, it was obviously impossible to do so without a war with Austria, and that for this purpose it was necessary to make the Prussian army as strong as possible.’ That is therefore what I have already told you. In October (page 16), during a general meeting of the National Union at Coburg, he communicated the conversation of 1859 to a confidential circle. He writes: ‘I told my old Prussian and my new German friends that they were quite mistaken in regarding Bismarck as a simple Reactionary or indeed as an instrument of reaction. He was certainly not a Liberal, but he had quite different ideas and plans in his head to those entertained by Manteuffel and his colleagues.’ The gentlemen were in doubt, and wanted to wait and see how I acted. In 1863 they would appear to have acquired the conviction (page 18) that I had given up my schemes of foreign policy, and was now nothing more than a reactionary Minister—of foreign policy, because (as they inferred by a most extraordinary process of reasoning) in the interval there had been in domestic affairs political persecution, measures against Liberal officials, restrictions on the liberty of the press, and attacks upon the freedom of speech in Parliament. But what in the world had that to do with my foreign policy, and the belief in my anti-Austrian schemes? Moreover, on the next page, one ascertains that at this period Unruh & Co. had received an assurance from a trustworthy source that I had a struggle with the Austrians in view. The writer of the ‘Memoirs’ reports: ‘Seidel, who was at that time Chief Burgomaster of Berlin, made me a communication which he said came[p. 24] from the Military Cabinet, of which General von Manteuffel was the head. According to this communication either Manteuffel or some one who was in intimate relations with him had said that Bismarck was exceptionally well fitted for the task of stamping out the Opposition in Parliament, and that when he had succeeded in doing that and the military organisation was secured, he must be set aside as he would otherwise bring about a war with Austria, and would use our increased military forces for that purpose. A conflict with Austria and a successful war against her would again drive the Conservative party from office. In order to keep the Conservatives in power it was necessary that Prussia should remain on good terms with Austria, and for that purpose they should even, if necessary, make concessions. This statement (Unruh goes on to say) looked highly probable. General Manteuffel was known as the head of the extreme Conservative or so-called Austrian party at the Prussian Court, and was much esteemed in Vienna. Bismarck had given frequent expression to his anti-Austrian plans even before he became Premier, and had indeed submitted them to the King himself. If Bismarck were to bring about a compromise with Parliament, and to conclude a peace with the popular representatives, his services, in the opinion of the Manteuffel party, would be of no further use, and he ought then to go. It would be quite different if in spite of the violent struggle with Parliament, he succeeded in carrying through the military organisation scheme. So long as the conflict with the popular representatives continued, he remained indispensable, his value increasing with the fierceness of the struggle.’

“This is a tissue of mistakes and contradictions.[p. 25] In the first place there is no foundation whatever for the statement that Manteuffel wished to get rid of me, and that he was the head of the Austrian party. It was rather Schleinitz who held that position, and who afterwards was in frequent intercourse with the Austrians, his salon indeed being their rendezvous. Manteuffel was by no means a partisan of Austria, but on the contrary a Prussian officer of ardent Royalist patriotism. But in that case one would have thought that if the Opposition in the Diet had been imbued with Prussian patriotism, if they had desired to see the dualism in Germany put an end to and the German idea realised through Prussia, they ought to have supported me with all their might, knowing as they did that I had exactly the same object in view. And that would also have been wise from their Liberal standpoint, since it was of course known that a victory over Austria would drive the Conservatives from power. Finally, there was no reason to apprehend my overthrow by the Austrophil Conservatives, as, according to Unruh himself, it was known that I possessed the confidence of the King, who, it was indeed said, had himself called me his spiritual doctor. The Opposition, however, instead of acting on such considerations, adopted a diametrically opposite course. They acted in an unpractical, illogical, impolitic way, and against their own interests, blinded by their stupid animosity and pettifogging dogmatism. It was necessary for the Liberals, if they desired to pursue a practical policy, to win for their cause—which could not be promoted without driving Austria out of the Confederation—the support of the King of Prussia, who had scruples as to a conflict with Austria, scruples which were encouraged by a section of his entourage. King William should have been gradually convinced of the[p. 26] necessity of breaking with the Vienna policy, and of attempting to give Prussia alone the leading position in Germany. I pursued this end, and Parliament should have done the same. Instead of doing so, however, they flew in the face of the King by refusing him the means for the reorganisation of the army, and they therefore lacked the necessary leverage for promoting their own views. There they were, floating in the air, with nothing to sustain them but the wind of their own speeches and self-conceit which deluded them into a belief in their own importance.

“Finally, Unruh says here (page 19) that I aggravated the struggle over the Military Bills into a constitutional conflict, that I assumed an aggressive attitude towards the Opposition, and endeavoured in almost every speech to incense them by jibes and sneers, all this for the sole purpose of maintaining myself in power and office against the Austrophil Court party; and, on page 20, he repeats the same charge in the following words: ‘I am still of opinion that Bismarck used and took advantage of the conflict to maintain and strengthen his position.’ Now that is a gross slander, such as would render a man liable to prosecution—a falsehood arising from the same blindness as another on page 16, according to which the great men of the National Union regarded me merely as the representative of reaction. I desired no reaction, then as little as now, when I am again charged with doing so. Had I desired it I could have had it. Unruh and his colleagues would not have been able to prevent it, and ‘The People’ who elected them, could have done nothing. But it was not the people. The determined attitude I adopted towards the Opposition in Parliament was just as little due to the love of[p. 27] power, or to the desire to strengthen my ministerial position. It was rather due to my innate Royalism, which has always been a leading feature in my character. It was this which made me hold fast to my position. In doing so I was guided by my sense of duty towards my King, who, in the circumstances then obtaining, could not have found another Minister. I remember saying to him, ‘No one shall have it in his power to say that your Majesty cannot find a servant so long as there is one nobleman of the Altmark still surviving.’ Otherwise, at that time, it was, honestly speaking, no pleasure to be a Minister. A Legation in Paris, or even in Frankfurt, would have been much pleasanter. There one had a good salary with little work, little responsibility, and little worry, and was not attacked and reviled on all hands. The provocation and the sarcastic speeches in Parliament, of which Unruh complains, were not intended to prolong or aggravate the conflict, but were an exercise of the jus talionis. I am stated on page 17 to have often been most offensive. There is no denying that. But even when my expressions were offensive, they were not nearly so offensive as the language used against me and other members of the Government by speakers in the House. They were much coarser and more malicious than I ever was, indeed actually abusive and threatening, speaking of ‘a Ministry of tight-rope dancers,’ of ‘the reactionary brand of Cain,’ and other unflattering epithets. I was not the man to submit to that sort of thing. It was not in my nature to turn the left cheek to the smiter. On the contrary, I defended myself and paid them back in their own coin. Then, in addition to that, there was my contempt for the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and my disgust at the Byzantine veneration paid to it by the Opposition. That was an[p. 28] abomination to me, and revolted me even more than their venom.

“The passage here on page 22, as to the motives of my attitude on the question of the payment of members in the North German Diet is amusing, and indeed ludicrous. Unruh says: ‘At that time I was still in favour of payment, but said to Bennigsen I did not believe that Bismarck would give way; perhaps it was entirely out of his power to do so. It seemed to me as if he had entered into binding engagements with the Upper House, which he expected later on to swallow universal suffrage, when the several States had given their necessary approval to the North German Constitution.’ With the Upper House! A body which always stood apart from active politics, and had no influence of any importance. An absurd idea!

“On page 24 he recalls a remark made by Loewe, that one of the chief defects of the German Constitution is that it was made after my own heart. Now, that is a mere phrase which no amount of reiteration in party newspapers and speeches during the last few years has brought any nearer to truth.

“On page 25 he says: ‘As far back as 1867 it must have become clear to every person of insight that there was no possibility of Parliamentary government under Bismarck. An essential condition of such government is that in certain circumstances there should be a change of ministers and parties capable of furnishing and supporting a Cabinet.’ This is quite true. ‘Parties capable of furnishing and supporting a Cabinet’—where were they to be found during the past two decades? I have seen none, neither one with a majority nor one with a positive programme. And, least of all, in the Liberal camp. All their manifestoes and speeches[p. 29] have consisted merely of fault-finding criticism and negation. They have never brought forward anything positive. They have only a thirst for office, ambition and envy, but not the power which is essential to productive government.

“On the same page he says: ‘Almost all parties, in so far as they are not hostile to German unity, consider the Imperial Chancellor to be absolutely indispensable.’ And yet from 1877 onwards I have been subjected to the most bitter hostility even from the National Liberals, and before and during the last elections the Progressist party gave out the watchword ‘Away with Bismarck!’

“The statement which immediately follows is also a mere hackneyed phrase: ‘A party which has no principles of its own, but only aims at securing a majority for the Government, affords no reliable support in critical and dangerous times.’ One would like to know why. Does the Opposition with its Liberalism perhaps offer such support, with its untrustworthiness, its suspiciousness, and vacillation, its huckstering and knuckling down, and its petty criticism and dogmatism?

“On page 29 it is represented as a matter of indifference whether the idea of a Zollverein Parliament was originated by me or by Delbrück. I take it that this ought not to be a matter of indifference to Unruh, who claims to provide materials for future historians. The idea did not come from Delbrück, but from me. As can be seen from Hesekiel’s book, I mooted it as far back as the time when I was in St. Petersburg, and embodied it in the treaties of 1866, which secured its fulfilment.[p. 30][2] But he, as a Liberal and a member of the learned classes, must of course get the credit of having first originated it, not a Junker. I do not wish to say anything against Delbrück’s ability and merit, but it would never have occurred to him that the Zollverein could be turned to account in that way, for although he had a great deal of talent, he had no political instinct.

“On page 30 Unruh states: ‘During the debate on the Tobacco Taxation Bill, when Bismarck had declared a monopoly to be his ideal, Bennigsen informed me that he had broken off the negotiations into which he had entered with Bismarck in the autumn for joining the Ministry, and had told him that he could not commit himself to the monopoly.’ That is not true, or at least only half true. This is how the matter stood. In 1877 Eulenburg wished to retire. I offered his post to Bennigsen. He demanded that Forckenbeck and Stauffenberg should also be appointed Ministers, but there were no posts vacant for them. In the meantime Eulenburg hit upon another idea. He went to the King and incited him against me for having had anything to do with Bennigsen. His Most Gracious was offended, and in a brutal letter forbade me to treat any further with Bennigsen. Several months passed, during which time it transpired in the press that Lasker also counted upon a seat in the Cabinet. Bennigsen[p. 31] came to me subsequently in the Reichstag, an unusual thing for him to do, and inquired about the tobacco monopoly. I replied that I was in favour of it and would try to carry it, whereupon Bennigsen declared that he could not support the measure, and withdrew from the negotiations. Out of politeness I forbore to tell him that he was no longer in my mind, as I had been forbidden to think of him.

“Further on Unruh says: ‘From that time forward there was an obvious change in the attitude of the Imperial Chancellor towards the National Liberals.’ That is incorrect. The contrary is the case. From that time forward the National Liberals treated me with mingled coolness and hostility, withdrawing their support in the Diet and attacking me in their newspapers—chiefly in the National Zeitung, which is the most mendacious of them all, full of hypocrisy and trickery.

“On page 31 Delbrück’s free-trade system is spoken of as having been for a long time in force. The question here is what is meant by ‘a long time.’ The system which is here named after Delbrück has only been in existence since 1865, and we first began to entertain serious doubts respecting it in 1875. Up to the latter date I had had no time to think of its advantages or disadvantages, as I was obliged to devote my whole mind to watching and averting the serious danger of coalition which then existed.

“On page 32 there is a falsehood obviously calculated to influence the elections. I am made to say that I wished to ‘drive the National Liberals to the wall,’ while people heard at the same time that I intended to make a complete change in the previous customs and commercial policy. This is impossible. I[p. 32] first thought of the latter in November last; and to ‘drive to the wall’ is an expression which I have never used, either in this connection or in any other. It is not to be found in my lexicon. Every one knows whether he is apt to use a certain phrase or not, and I am quite satisfied that I have never used that phrase.

“The dissolution of the Reichstag after the Nobiling outrage is represented as a measure directed against the Liberals. It was in reality the very opposite, an act of complaisance on the part of the Government towards the Liberals. I wished to make the change of opinion with regard to the Anti-Socialist laws easy for them by means of a dissolution and new elections. But that is the way with these gentlemen and their excessive amour propre. If one does not always stand hat in hand before them, they regard one as their enemy, and full of arrogance. But I cannot do that. I do not set much store by criticisms and speeches intended for the newspapers. Indeed, I lack altogether the bump of veneration for my fellow man.”

At this moment Theiss announced the Minister Maybach. I rose, and putting under my arm the number of the Revue which he had given me with his grey, red, and blue pencil marks and comments, was about to leave. Before going, however, I said: “Might I venture to ask whether Gambetta has called upon you, Serene Highness?” “No,” he replied. “He has said so himself, and it is the fact. Of course it is evident from his journey to Danzig that he had thought of paying a visit to Varzin. He doubtless reconsidered the matter there, or they may have written to him from Paris that it would not make a good impression.” On Maybach coming in at this point the Chancellor said: “We were just speaking of Gambetta. It was not my business to deny the report of his visit to[p. 33] me. People might have thought that I had some grudge against him—that I wished to hold aloof from him, which was not at all the case.”

I took my leave and immediately wrote down what I had heard. The first part respecting the results of the elections was worked up into an article entitled “The Chancellor Crisis,” which appeared in No. 48 of the Grenzboten; the criticism of the Unruh Memoirs being utilised for an article in No. 49.

After I had received copies of these and of a third article, “The Imperial Chancellor and the Reichstag,” I handed over all three at the palace at noon on the 2nd of December for delivery to the Prince. An hour later I received the following letter from the Imperial Chancellerie, signed by Sachse:—

I presented myself at the palace at 3 o’clock, but could not see the Chancellor, as Prince William was with him, and Mittnacht, the Minister, was announced to follow. On my returning again at 4 o’clock Mittnacht was with the Chief, but left in about ten minutes. Immediately afterwards the Chancellor sent me word that he was waiting for me in the garden. On my passing through the door of the large antechamber, I found him standing outside with his dog. He shook hands in a friendly way, saying immediately afterwards, however: “But what have you been doing, Doctor? Why, that is all wrong, the very opposite of what I wanted. Surely the article is not yet printed?” I regretted that it was already published. “That is most[p. 34] unfortunate,” he rejoined. I asked which of the articles he meant. “Why, that about Unruh,” he answered. “You have said exactly what Bennigsen asserted. It might have been written by one of my worst enemies. And the other is also not correct—often pure nonsense. I remember it was just the same three years ago with the things you sent on to me to Kissingen and Gastein—in many places the direct contrary was the truth.” I replied that that was only the case in one instance, in the story about Rechberg, which was then left out. He would not agree to that, however, and continued: “You must submit these articles to me before they are printed. You now trust too much to your memory, which is not so good as it was formerly, or you have not listened attentively. I related it all to you quite differently.”

At this point we were interrupted by Count Bill, who brought a message. When he had gone the Chief took the article out of his pocket, and as it had grown dark we passed through another door into his study, where he looked through the passage once more. At the first, on page 395, where I—following Unruh’s statement—made the Chief say that in the year 1859 the German Governments “with the exception of a few minor States which fall within the sphere of influence of Prussia, would all join Austria. The former would, therefore, be completely isolated, yet she would have allies if she knew how to win and to treat them, namely the German people,” he said: “That’s pure nonsense. Directly contrary to history. Why, you should have known that.... But, no, I misunderstood the sentence. I read it wrongly in my hurry. The ‘former’ and ‘she’ referred to Prussia. There I have done little Busch (Büschchen) an injustice.... But further on, here (the passage on 398) where I say that the people could have done nothing against a reactionary policy during the period of conflict.[p. 35] That is unfounded. I cannot say that. It should have been ‘would have done nothing.’ No doubt they would have desired to do it. Well, on page 401, that is again an oversight on my part. Here I overlooked the first ‘not.’” (He referred to the passage: “The expression ‘drive them to the wall’ has not only not been used by me in this connection, but was never used by me at all.”) “But all this about Bennigsen is quite wrong—the second part of it. There you have written in his interest. If that were a correct account I should have told a lie. My main object in the article was to explain that point, and you ought to have known from the Norddeutsche how the matter really stood. You should know that the article in that paper was written at my instance. But I suppose you do not read the official journals. No further negotiations took place with him after the interview at Varzin, that is with Bennigsen respecting the ministerial post, although I did not break with him otherwise. It is true that my son wrote to him once more, but I knew nothing of this. And Eulenburg did not decide to remain. He had had enough of it. He went to the King, however, told him of my negotiations with Bennigsen, and incited him against me. I had been in treaty with these Liberals behind his back, &c. The King did not inform me that Eulenburg did not wish to retire, but wrote me an exceedingly rude and snappish letter somewhat to this effect: How dare I enter into negotiations with this rabid Radical, this arch-demagogue, and expressly forbade me to treat with him any further. That did not take place ‘several months,’ but only three or four days after the Varzin interview. The statement that Lasker reckoned on obtaining a portfolio is correct. On the other hand it is quite incorrect to say that out of politeness I abstained from telling Bennigsen that I did not think of him any more, as the[p. 36] post was no longer open. It was still open, as you might have seen in any calendar. Surely you know that Friedenthal only held it provisionally. The truth is I could not explain to Bennigsen that his Most Gracious had forbidden me to negotiate with him any further.”

While speaking thus the Chancellor underlined the passage referred to, page 400, lines 19 to 28, in so far as he had corrected them, adding notes of exclamation and remarks such as “No,” and “three days.” I expressed my regret at the harm that had been done and observed that it could be put right in the next number of the Grenzboten. He agreed to this and wished to see the correction before it appeared. I promised to submit it to him. Finding in the course of his examination, that the misfortune did not extend to more than some five lines in an article of nine pages, his excitement gradually subsided. Indeed, the “Büschchen” at the beginning had already sounded less severe, and at the close he said “I must have a breath of fresh air before dinner. Come along!”

We strolled up and down in the park for about an hour longer, and spoke of other matters. I congratulated the Prince on the success with which he had repelled the attacks of his opponents in the Reichstag three or four days previously. “Yes, successfully,” he rejoined. “That’s very fine, but what good has it done? They have, all the same, refused the 80,000 marks for an adviser on political economy; and the Government has now no means of keeping itself informed.” I remarked that they had obviously been influenced by their own ignorance of practical affairs, and particularly with industrial matters, as well as by jealousy and fear. Bamberger’s assertion that they knew enough themselves was no proof of the contrary. They wished to appear before the public as the only infallible wiseacres, and also being[p. 37] doctrinarians, they could afford to ignore economic facts.

We then spoke about Windthorst, of whom the Chief said: “His vote against the Government has destroyed the slight degree of confidence I was beginning to feel in him.” The conversation then turned upon Bennigsen’s Parliamentary activity, and I remarked on the striking circumstance that up to the present he had taken no part in any of the debates. The Prince rejoined: “It is very sensible on his part to keep silent, although he is a good speaker. He sent the others to the front—Benda, and he also voted against it—a further proof that he and his party are quite untrustworthy. He has no decided views, he is not frank, and he is afraid of Lasker. With him it is always vacillation and half measures. Do you play cards?” I replied in the negative. “But you know the cards?” “Yes.” “Now, at whist he always keeps three aces in his hand, and gives no indication that he holds them. He can no longer be counted upon, and besides his followers have been greatly reduced owing to their vague and vacillating policy. Nevertheless, he still sits there with the same high opinion of himself and the same dignified air as formerly when he commanded hundreds; and he will continue to do so even if they should be reduced to thirteen, like George Vincke’s Old Liberals. There is nothing to be done with the others either. It has now come to pass, through the absurdities of the Liberals, that the tag, rag and bobtail, the Guelphs, Poles, and Alsacians, the Social Democrats, and the People’s Party, turn the scale, putting those they support in the majority. Mittnacht, who was with me before you came, is of the same opinion. In future we shall have to count upon the Governments rather than upon the Reichstag, and,[p. 38] indeed, we may ultimately have to reckon upon the Governments alone.”

I said that the whole Parliamentary system would in time lose all credit, even with the public, through such senseless attacks and votes. It brought everything to a standstill, but was itself unable to produce anything better. “The effect of the recent debates,” I went on, “is already here and there observable. This morning I met Thile, who stopped me and asked what I thought of the Parliamentary struggle. He was immensely pleased with the attitude you had adopted. A friend of his, whom he did not wish to name, but who was an admirer of the new era, though up to the present by no means favourable to you, had said that the manner in which you spoke and repelled the attacks of the Opposition was simply magnificent, and excited universal admiration. And women speak with disgust of the way in which you were hounded down and personally insulted by the Progressists and Lasker. A Hanoverian lady, of Guelph sympathies, spoke to my wife yesterday in this sense. This disgust and this pity for you will gradually affect the men, and help to bring about a change in the present tendency. I myself feel no pity, I only foresee your triumph. Pray excuse me for comparing you to an animal, but you remind me of the picture of a noble stag, which time after time shakes off the snarling pack, and then, proud and unhurt, regains the shelter of his forest, crowned by his branching antlers.” “Yes,” he said, “one might take another animal, the wild boar, which gores the hounds and tosses them away from him.”

He was silent for a time, and as we walked up and down he hummed the tune “Wir hatten gebauet ein stattliches Haus.” He then remarked suddenly: “But[p. 39] if they go on in that style they will ultimately meet the fate to which I alluded—the Luck of Edenhall. You know Uhland’s poem? It will be a case of Bang! and snap goes the German Constitution! You spoke of Thile. Do you mean the former Secretary of State?” I said “Yes, I meet him sometimes as he lives in my neighbourhood.” “He is a dangerous man,” he observed. “He was quite incapable. He could do nothing, and wrote nothing, because he was afraid it would be corrected; and yet I kept him for ten years, although he conspired against me with Savigny. He is to blame for the Diest libels, which led to the prosecution. I heard the whole story and how it began from Rothschild. Savigny went to him about the promotion of the company in question, and asked him if he could not let him have a share in it. Rothschild said no, he had already been obliged to part with a large share, a million and a half—meaning to his branches, the houses with which he is associated. Savigny, however, thought he was alluding to me, and would appear to have hinted something of the kind, but Rothschild seems either not to have understood him, or not to have answered with sufficient clearness. Savigny then carried the tale further, telling it first to Thile, who mentioned it to his brother, the general, instead of speaking to me, his chief, and in this way Diest ultimately came to hear of it. But, as Minister, I have never done any business with Rothschild, and even as envoy at Frankfurt very little. I drew my salary through him, and on one occasion I exchanged some stock for Austrian securities. I have not found it necessary. My profession as Minister has brought me in something, and through the grants and the gift of the Lauenburg estates I have become a rich man. It is true that if I had[p. 40] gone into a business, or carried on a trade, and devoted to it the same amount of labour and intelligence, I should doubtless have made more money.”

We then returned once more to the recent debates in the Reichstag, and I again expressed in strong terms the contempt I felt for the Opposition. “You were always a gentleman pitted against vain and vulgar creatures,” I said, “and in saying that I am not thinking of your rank as a Prince.” “No, I understand—a gentleman in my way of thinking,” he rejoined. “Lasker’s Jewish forwardness and presumption,” I continued, “the Professors with their priggish airs of superiority, and their empty pathos; Hänel, the self-complacent and pathetic doctrinaire—it is impossible to imagine anything more repulsive. He wanted to be Minister of Justice in ‘sea-surrounded Schleswig-Holstein.’” “Yes,” said the Chancellor, interrupting me, “they had divided the parts among themselves before the piece had been secured, and they probably have done the same thing now. Nothing came of it, however, after the interview which our Most Gracious had with me upstairs in the yellow chamber, where he remained with me from 9 o’clock until near midnight.” “And where he heard the simile of the chickens in Low German,” I added. “And then that impudent, lying, clown Richter, and the whole tearing, snarling, sprawling pack face to face with simple, solid, positive greatness. It was as if you belonged to an entirely different species.” “Yes,” he said, “when I lie down in bed after such debates, I feel ashamed of ever having bandied words with them. You know the way one feels after a night’s drinking, if one has had a row and perhaps come to blows with vulgar people—when one begins to realise it next morning, one wonders how and[p. 41] why it all came about.” Then after I had promised to make the corrections immediately and send them to him, he took leave of me with the words “Good evening, Busch. Auf Wiedersehen.” Busch! Not “Herr Doctor” as usual.

In two hours I sent him the corrections, which I received back through a Chancery attendant before 10 P.M. There were only a few alterations in the second half.

On the 2nd of January, 1882, I again visited Bucher. He complained in general of the incapable entourage of the Prince, including his sons, and of Rudolf Lindau, whom they favoured because he gave card parties and made himself useful to them in other ways. (...) He was a mere tradesman without education or political knowledge. The Prince wished to make things comfortable for himself, and no blame to him, but he was mistaken if he thought the machine would still go on working as it ought to. In that respect the choice of the personnel was of importance, and those who were now engaged, particularly in the press department, were almost constantly blundering. The stuff which Paul Lindau wrote for the Kölnische Zeitung was also of little value.

We then spoke about the negotiations with the Curia, which were making satisfactory progress; of Held’s contribution to the social history of England; of Taine’s account of the Jacobins, in whom Bucher discovered some characteristics of the Progressist party; of Stirum, who had also left because he was not disposed to put up with the intrigues of the clique that surrounded the Prince, and who had told him, Bucher, that he “preferred in future to admire the Chancellor at a distance”; and of the Chief’s recent criticism of my[p. 42] article. I said that the Chief must be mistaken in asserting that after the visit to Varzin he had had no further negotiations with Bennigsen respecting his joining the Ministry, as he had himself told me that at that time Herbert had written to Bennigsen, which he would scarcely have ventured to do without his father’s knowledge. Bucher agreed with me, and added that some one had expressed the opinion that Bennigsen had acted like a gentleman with regard to the statements published by the semi-official press. Bucher arranged to send me Taine’s book when he had finished reading it, in order that I might write an article upon it. He is extracting passages which point to the similarity between the Jacobins and the Progressist party.

On the evening of the 8th of January, Count William Bismarck sent me an article for the Grenzboten on “Agricultural Credit in Prussia.”[3]

On Monday, the 16th of January, I took back the third volume of Taine’s History of the Revolution, La Conquête des Jacobins, to Bucher. He told me that according to a conversation with the Chief, a campaign would presently be opened in the press in order to clear up some points respecting Stockmar and Bunsen. He was to write a pamphlet on the latter in which various documents, of which only portions were given in Frau von Bunsen’s book, would be published in extenso. I could then make myself useful by utilising this information, in addition to which he would give me further material. We then spoke of the Coburg clique, of Abeken, who had been described on one occasion by Bunsen as the “magnificent Abeken,” of Max Müller of[p. 43] Oxford, with whom he had spent some pleasant hours, of Geffcken, and finally of Hepke. On my asking how it was that the latter had fallen into disfavour with the Prince, Bucher said that in 1862, shortly after the Chief had come into office, Hepke, who had charge of the German reports, reproduced, almost literally, in a brochure which he published under the title of “A Word from a Prussian,” a memorandum which Bismarck had submitted to the King. Although this pamphlet was anonymous, the Chief came to hear of it, and forbade Metzler to mention it in our papers. Then, again, shortly before the war of 1866, Hepke, “through vanity, in order to show how well informed he was,” communicated some scheme that was in hand against Austria to the Austrian Envoy, probably at dinner, and this came to the knowledge of the Chief later on, after our reconciliation with Austria, most likely through Rechberg.

I then turned the conversation on Thile, mentioning what the Prince recently said to me. Bucher still maintained that Thile is a gentleman and very good-hearted, and questioned whether he were as incapable as Bismarck had described him to me.

On the 26th of January, Bucher sent me the first and third volumes of Nippold’s edition of Bunsen’s biography, the proof sheets of a refutation by him of a letter from Prince Albert to Stockmar, explaining Bunsen’s “fall” (which was published first in the Münchener Nachrichten, and afterwards in the National Zeitung), and finally some rough notes for a Grenzboten article, which I prepared and published by the 2nd of February in No. 8, under the title “Bunsen’s Friends and the Truth.” Bucher’s refutation was to appear in the February number of the Deutsche Revue für das[p. 44] gesammte National-Leben der Gegenwart. In the rough notes he spoke as follows of Bunsen:—

On the 2nd of February I again called upon Bucher. He gave me various further particulars respecting the “great patriot and meritorious diplomatist,” Bunsen, and his sons. The old gentleman’s chief reason for tendering his resignation so hastily was that when[p. 46] about to take his holiday after the catastrophe, he was not paid his full salary as an envoy for six months, as he had demanded, but only for six weeks, as provided by the regulations. Theodore, whom Bunsen described to Thile as the most gifted of his sons, had made himself impossible at Lima, by his tactlessness in holding intercourse with the Opposition party, and using his influence on their behalf. He afterwards held the post of envoy at Stockholm, which he resigned when the Government refused him leave to marry a very wealthy German-Russian lady from the Baltic Provinces. He now enjoys possession of this lady. Another son has a fat benefice in England. “Frau Schwabe,” the “Elpi’s Melena” of the newspapers, who is frequently mentioned in the Nippold edition of the biography, is an enormously rich German Jewess, widow of a manufacturer, and a friend, not only of Bunsen, but also of Garibaldi, to whom she sent, after he was wounded at Aspromonte, an artistic armchair in “letter form,” that is to say, pasted all over with postage stamps. Bucher expects that George von Bunsen will reply to our articles. He, Bucher, will then write an answer from further official documents, for publication in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

On the 17th of February I left a proof of my Grenzboten article on Bunsen at the Imperial Chancellor’s palace for submission to the Prince. It was in an envelope and signed “Moritz Busch,” but was accompanied by no letter. I ascertained at the same time from the porter that the Chancellor had not been quite well for some time past. On my way back through the Leipzigerstrasse I met Bucher, who was delighted with “the fine goings-on in England now.” I asked what he meant, and he replied: “Why, the[p. 47] Standing Orders in Parliament, the Closure. Our people may well ask themselves whether they are equally pleased with this new feature in their ideal.”

The extracts from Taine, properly grouped and spiced with references to the German connections of the Jacobins, namely the Progressists, appeared in Nos. 7 and 9 of the Grenzboten under the title “The True Story of the Jacobins.” I also wrote an article on Gladstone’s measure referred to by Bucher. This was published in No. 10 of the Grenzboten under the title, “Gladstone, and Liberty of Speech in Parliament.”

On the 10th of March I received the news of the death of our son John, from Captain Alm of the Dora Ahrens at Falmouth. He had died at sea on the 19th of December last, on the return voyage from Corinto, in Nicaragua. Falling overboard during a violent storm in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands, he was unable to hold on to the rope which was thrown to him, and was swallowed up in the waves. With him, our only son, disappeared my best love, my energy and pleasure in work, my pride and my hope. Henceforth my life is overshadowed by this grief. He was only thirty-one years of age, had lived the hard life of the sailor, and passed two severe examinations, so that we had reason to hope that we should soon see him the captain of a handsome craft. Now he lies at the bottom of a distant sea, and all that remains of him is the memory of his dear face and his brave, high-minded nature. Fearless, truthful, and devoted to his duty, he died as he had lived in the service of his ship, as the soldier dies for his flag, his king and his country. He was a man, a character, and death has no power over such! God has further use of them. But we shall never see him again with mortal eyes, and can only wreathe his portrait with[p. 48] laurels and forget-me-nots on his birthday, the 13th of April.

All our friends manifested the greatest sympathy for us, in which the Imperial Chancellor also did not fail to join. He wrote me on the 16th of March:—

With this these notes may be concluded. Evening has set in.

The sense of duty as a chronicler awoke again before the pain of our loss had subsided. I again felt an interest in other things besides the portrait of our dear departed son, and so returned to my diary. The lines dedicated to his memory shall remain, however, as a monument to him, and a reminiscence of days full of sorrow, and weeks of deep prostration and melancholy.

On the morning of the 29th of March I called upon Bucher. He declared that the anti-German party in Russia was growing dangerous, and though the Emperor[p. 49] appeared to be our sincere well-wisher, he would perhaps be unable to withstand it. It was true that he had spoken very sharply to Skobeleff who told Schweinitz, as he was returning with him from Gatshina, that the Emperor had severely reprimanded him (il m’a donné un savon). The General actually looked depressed. A Russian diplomatist (Nesselrode, if I understood rightly) once said of Holstein when the latter was with Bismarck in Petersburg years ago: “Ce jeune homme sait une foule de choses, mais il n’est pas capable d’en faire une seule.”

Pope Leo has shown great readiness to meet us half way in personal questions. Among other things, he had originally desired to appoint to the bishopric of Osnabrück a former Jesuit and pupil of the Collegium Germanicum, who had been recommended to him by Tarnassi. But when our Government pointed out that the candidate referred to had taken part in various forms of anti-German agitation, the Pope unhesitatingly dropped him.

On the 12th of May I met Thile in the Linkstrasse, and accompanied him part of the way to his house. He expressed his regret at our loss and his pleasure that the Chief had likewise done so. The conversation then turned on Hatzfeldt, and he said that Bismarck had always favoured him, “pitying him for having such a mother,” which, after all, was very nice on his part. He had also dispensed with the diplomatic examination in his case. Besides Hatzfeldt had talent and was good-hearted in addition. As evidence of the latter he mentioned that he frequently visited Goltz, who was suffering from cancer of the tongue, although it was scarcely possible to stand the atmosphere of the sick room. He, Thile, had also repeatedly visited the[p. 50] sufferer. Bismarck, on the other hand, had never gone to see him, although they had been on very friendly terms formerly. “It was enough to turn one’s stomach,” he said. It was true that subsequently, just before Goltz had moved, the Chief called at the old lodgings, and then gave as an excuse: “I was at his place but he had left.” Thile then added the following characteristic anecdote: “Of course you too are an old student of Goethe, and remember the poem ‘Füllest wieder Busch and Thal, still mit Nebelglanz.’ This was being recited on one occasion, and when the reader came to the passage—

(Blessed is he who retires, without hatred, from the world, and enjoys his retreat in communion with a single friend.) Bismarck exclaimed: ‘What! Without hatred? What a tailor’s soul he must have!’” In reply to my inquiry whether this story was absolutely authentic, he mentioned Keudell as his authority.

At 6 P.M. on the 8th of June, three days after the Chancellor’s return from Friedrichsruh, I left a note for him at the palace in the Wilhelmstrasse, requesting him if he had anything for me to do to name a day and hour on which I should call for the necessary information. At 8.30 P.M. I had a letter from Sachse stating that the Prince “wished to speak to me for a few moments,” and requested me to call upon him next day at 12.30 P.M. I called at the time appointed, and after waiting for about half an hour, while the Chief was dictating to one of his deciphering clerks who wrote shorthand, I was admitted to see him, and the “few[p. 51] minutes” extended to a full hour. The Prince was in plain clothes, with the exception of military trousers. He had grown thinner, so that his coat hung in folds over his shoulders. Otherwise, however, he looked well, and was evidently in good humour. He greeted me with a shake hands and “Good day, Büschlein.” Then, inviting me to sit down, he said: “You want fodder, but I have none. There is nothing going on either in domestic or foreign affairs. You recollect that little bit of a Herzegovina, and now we have that little bit of an Egypt. It is not of much concern to us, although it certainly is to the English and also to the French. They set about the affair in an awkward way, and have got on a wrong track by sending their ironclads to Alexandria, and now, finding that there is nothing to be done they want the rest of Europe to help them out of their difficulty by means of a conference. Nothing can be done with the fleet without a landing force, and this is not at hand, so that it will be merely a repetition of the demonstration before Dulcigno. In that case it was the rocks, here it is the European warehouses, otherwise they would in all probability have already bombarded the place. It is also a question whether they would not have come off second best, as the Egyptians have very heavy guns, and their artillery is not bad. But so far as a conference is concerned, it is like an inquiry round a board of green cloth, the interests of the Powers are not the same, and therefore it will not be easy to come to any practical conclusion. The Sultan too will not co-operate. He is not without justification in declining to do so. If he can put things right by writing letters and sending plenipotentiaries—which we shall know one of these days—the Western Powers will have reason to be[p. 52] thankful. If not there will be no alternative left but for the Padishah to send his Nizams to restore order there. That is due to the absurd policy which Professor Gladstone has pursued from the beginning. He tries to come to an understanding with France and Russia, forgetting the fact that their interests in the Levant are quite different to those of the English. He surrendered all the valuable results which English policy had tried to secure during the past eighty years in its dealings with the Porte and with Austria, and thought he could work miracles when he had offended them both. And in France they have also taken a wrong course out of consideration for public opinion. Egypt is of the utmost importance to England on account of the Suez Canal, the shortest line of communication between the eastern and western halves of the Empire. That is like the spinal cord which connects the backbone with the brain. Any increase of Turkish power does not affect England injuriously in this, or indeed in any other respect. France thinks more of the prestige to be gained by the Porte if it exercises a mediating and controlling influence in the Egyptian question, and fears that her own prestige in Africa might suffer. Nevertheless, France has also very important material interests there, since there are 14,000 Frenchmen in Egypt and only 3,000 English. It was in vain for me to point out to them that an Arabian Empire, such as Arabi may have in view, would be far more dangerous to their position in Africa than any strengthening of Turkish influence on the Nile. The Porte is an old European landowner who is deeply in debt, and who can always be reached and subjected to pressure if he becomes too exacting. It is impossible to foresee what effect an independent Egypt would have[p. 53] upon the French position in Africa. That is doubtless recognised by Freycinet, but he is afraid of the traditions, prejudices and vanity of the French, and of Gambetta, who manipulates them. It is true the division in the Chamber turned out favourably, indeed very much so, but even assuming that Gambetta cannot return to power shortly, the wind may soon blow from another quarter, and the understanding with England come to an end. A campaign in co-operation with the French, a military occupation, would be a hazardous undertaking for the English, as the French could always send more men than they, who require their soldiers in Ireland, and who have altogether none too many. If France had the larger force there she would of course exercise more influence and play the leading part, and it would perhaps be difficult to get her out of the country again. The rest of us would not co-operate in a military sense, as for the present the question is one of comparative indifference to us, and it is no business of ours to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for other people, particularly for the English. So there they are, with their ships, in a blind alley, and now they want a conference to put the matter right. Here also we are expected to come to their assistance, and bring pressure to bear on the Porte, thus embroiling ourselves with the Sultan—a suggestion which, of course, we must politely decline.”

“Much in the same way,” I said, “as the English before the last Russo-Turkish conflict wished you to forbid the Russians entering upon hostilities, merely because that did not suit England’s policy, and when Queen Victoria wrote to you and the Emperor to that effect.” “Yes,” he rejoined, “and it was the same before the Crimean war, when Bunsen pleaded their[p. 54] cause. They must manage to get out of the difficulties into which they have plunged by themselves—having made their bed they must lie on it.”

The dog, which had been standing behind me and occasionally made his presence known by snarling, now began to bark. “He notices that there is a stranger outside,” said the Prince, who rang the bell and ordered the attendant to keep the dog in the outer room. He then continued: “In home affairs there is also nothing of importance that you are not weary of. They will reject the tobacco monopoly. There is no other course open to them now.” “But, Serene Highness,” I said, “you will submit it to them again, and carry it through in three or four years’ time?” “That depends upon circumstances,” he replied, “upon the future elections. I have no intention of pressing the tobacco monopoly out of a mere liking for this particular method of fiscal reform. The monopoly is an evil, but it is still the best of all available means of reform.... I first want to get from them my certificate that I have done everything in my power to do away with an unfair form of taxation, but that they would not hear of it. Then they may settle the matter with their electors and justify their conduct, should it perhaps result in an increase of the class tax (a form of direct taxation), while other burdens cannot possibly be reduced.”

“Then one might as well emigrate,” I said.

“Certainly,” he rejoined. “The class tax, which at present is retained only in this country, is one of the chief causes of emigration. If you only knew for how many evictions it is responsible among the poorer and indeed even among the middle classes! It is like the Russian poll tax, and does not permit of any equitable distribution of the burden in accordance with the condition[p. 55] of those who have to bear it, while indirect taxation distributes itself automatically. My object was to provide a remedy for this and to lighten the burden of the poorer citizens. That ought also to have been the object of the Diet. But you have seen from the discussion on the Appropriation Bill how little disposed they are to do so; and Lingen’s motion, which was adopted by the Commission, will not even admit the necessity of a reserve.”

I observed: “The emphasis laid upon economy in his motion is quite after the manner of the pedagogue, and of the narrow-minded Philistine. It does not sound as if it came from the Parliament of a great empire, but rather as if the vestry of Little Peddlington were casting the light of its wisdom upon the subject. This petty huckstering spirit is characteristic of all Liberalism. The majority of them are ‘snobs’ with a sprinkling of ‘swells.’”[5]

“That is true,” he said. “They certainly have not much amplitude or breadth of view, and they are bent on obstinate resistance to the Emperor’s message, in which a far higher standpoint is adopted. But that is their nature. They only think of their joint stock companies, i.e., their Parliamentary parties, and whether their shares will rise or fall if this or that is done or left undone. They trouble their heads very little with anything beyond that. Besides they hope that the old Emperor will soon die and that his successor will give them a free hand. The Emperor, however, does not at all look as if he were going to oblige them. He may live for a long time yet and indeed reach a hundred. You should see how robust he is now, and how straight[p. 56] he holds himself! From what—(I understood, Lauer) says, the Nobiling phlebotomy has been of benefit to him, both physically and mentally, the old blood has been drawn off, and he looks much less flabby than formerly. We are now on good terms, better than we have been for years.” “And the Successor will have to follow the same course,” I said. “He cannot govern differently without doing mischief.” “Oh, yes,” he rejoined. “He also would like to retain me, but he is too indolent, too much devoted to his own comfort and thinks it would be easier to govern with majorities. I said to him: ‘Try it, but I will not join in the experiment!’ Perhaps they are out in their reckoning however, and a long-lived sovereign may be followed by a short-lived one. It seems to me as if this might be the case. He who would then ascend the throne is quite different. He wishes to take the government into his own hands; he is energetic and determined, not at all disposed to put up with Parliamentary co-regents, a regular guardsman!—Philopater and Antipater at Potsdam! He is not at all pleased at his father taking up with Professors, with Mommsen, Virchow and Forckenbeck. Perhaps he may one day develop into the rocher de bronze of which we stand in need.”

He then came to speak of his other schemes of reform, and observed: “The so-called Socialistic Bills are in a tolerably fair way. They will force themselves through, and develop further, even without me. The most pressing and necessary measures will in the main be soon carried. But it is unsatisfactory that they should want to bring the funds for the relief of the sick into too close connection with the insurance scheme. In this case it is not advisable that the payments in kind should be transformed into money payments.”[p. 57] He then gave a technical explanation, the details of which I was unable to understand, and was therefore unable to remember fully. I said: “But it is intended to drop the State subsidy, through which you hoped to reconcile the labouring classes, by getting them to recognise that the State not only makes demands upon them, but also comes to their assistance, procuring relief for them in case of need, and providing for their future as far as possible.”

“No, not dropped,” he replied, “but it is not immediately necessary in the new form which the Bill has taken. In about five or ten years it will be seen how far the contributions go, and in fifteen years’ time it may be asked whether, and to what extent, the State should contribute. It is sufficient for the present that all sums falling due are immediately paid, the State guaranteeing the amount.”

He again explained this in detail, and then said: “I am tired and ill, and should prefer to go, once I got my release from the Reichstag, but I do not like to leave the old Emperor alone. When he lay on his back after the outrage, I vowed to myself that I would not. Otherwise, I would rather be in the country at Friedrichsruh. I always felt better there; while here I get excited and angry, and become so weak that I can scarcely work for a couple of hours without losing hold of my ideas. How beautiful and fresh it was there in the country. I enjoyed every day, driving out and seeing how fine the rye looked, and how healthy the potatoes!”

This led him on to speak of the hope which he had of a good harvest, and that again to the price of corn in Germany and England. In this connection he observed, inter alia: “The opinion that low prices for[p. 58] corn mean happiness, welfare and content is a superstition. In that case the inhabitants of Lithuania and Rumania ought to be the most prosperous of all, while prosperity should decrease in proportion as you come west towards Aix la Chapelle. In England, the price of corn is now lower than here, and yet discontent prevails among the poorer classes, Radicalism is spreading, a revolution is approaching, and that democratic republic for which Gladstone and his friends and associates, Chamberlain and Dilke, have helped to pave the way, will come. It is just the same in Spain and Italy, where the dynasties, it is true, will offer resistance, but probably to no purpose. In France it remains to be seen whether the Republic will maintain itself, and if it does a condition of things will arise similar to that in America, where respectable people consider it disgraceful to have anything to do with practical politics, or to become a Senator, Congress man, or Minister.”

On my rising he walked about the room for a while, continuing to speak, but sat down again soon as if he felt tired. He mentioned Herbert, who is still in London, and from this I turned the conversation on to Hatzfeldt, remarking that his appointment as Secretary of State had not yet taken place. He rejoined: “That is due solely to the fact that he himself has not yet declared in favour of remaining. He has still to complete his arrangements, and settle with his brother about a mortgage. Moreover, I cannot blame him if he prefers to draw—(I did not catch the amount) in Constantinople, where things are cheaper, than 15,000 thalers here. He has a fortune of about 100,000 thalers. I wanted more for him, 60,000 marks, but the Federal Council rejected the proposal, as they could not give the Secretary of State more than the Imperial Chancellor,[p. 59] who receives only 54,000, but who has become wealthy thanks to public grants. You cannot expect everybody to be prepared to make sacrifices. Every one is not disposed to lead a simple life, cutting his coat according to his cloth, and to forego great entertainments and other expensive habits; and then it is a case of five into four won’t go, so I borrow one. He must, however, decide between this and July. Otherwise we shall have to ask Dr. Busch.”

“No, thank you,” I replied. He said: “There are two doctors of that name, and I mean the other, not Büschlein. But Busch has as poor health as Hatzfeldt, who is effeminate to boot, wraps himself up like a Frenchman, and goes to bed when he has a headache or cold, so that I have already been obliged to do their work instead of their taking over mine.”

From these invalids he passed on to the Empress. “She lives on and is again in good health, but a great deal of my illness comes from her intrigues. Schleinitz is also on his legs again, although he was very ill. Doubtless he thinks: ‘Perhaps there may be some more Jewish pourboires, so I must keep alive!’”

I asked if he would speak in the debate in the Reichstag on the monopoly. “Yes,” he said, “if my health permits it. Not for the purpose of convincing them, but to bear witness before the country, and then to demand my release.” I inquired whether he intended to go to Kissingen again this summer. “No,” he replied. “Although the waters have usually been very beneficial, they did me no good the last time. For nearly four months afterwards I was tormented with hæmorrhoids that were fearfully painful, burning like hell fire.” He then added a description of the symptoms.

Before leaving I also asked: “How do you like the[p. 60] Chevalier Poschinger,[6] Serene Highness? There is a great deal of interesting matter in the collection, but it seems to me that he might have made a better choice. But I suppose all the documents did not come into his hands?” He replied: “That, too, had something to do with it. But there is a great deal that has not got into the archives, such as my letters to the late King, which were retained by Gerlach and which his heirs will not easily part with. But even as it is, the book is very instructive, as it contains a great deal which was not known so accurately before; and it is perhaps well that those letters and other things should remain unpublished for the present.”

He had in the meantime shaken hands several times by way of taking leave of me, but each time started some new subject which caused me to remain. He now reached me his hand for the last time, and thanking him for giving me the pleasure of seeing him after such a long interval I took my leave. As usual after such interviews, I went straight home in order to write down what I had heard without delay, before anything else should chance to blur the impression.

On the 15th of July I again visited Bucher. He complained once more of the indifferent way in which business was done at the Foreign Office and in the Imperial Chancellerie. Herbert sent his father, Holstein or Rantzau private reports of what he picked up in London society, the clubs, &c.—mostly gossip—which was then forwarded to the Emperor and occasionally made use of in the press. The correct thing for him to do would be to communicate what he had heard to his Chief, the Ambassador, who could then forward it[p. 61] separately, or include it in his own despatches. Herbert reported recently that after the murder of Cavendish and Burke, Gladstone, when sitting in his place in Parliament, covered his face with his hands in order to show the depth of his affliction, although the event was in every way opportune for him. That evening, however, he was.... Rantzau then came to him, Bucher, to say that the Chief would like to see that mentioned in one of the papers, but not in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, and to ask whether he, Bucher, would see to it. Bucher replied that his instructions were to write only for the Post and the Norddeutsche. He would, however, prepare it for the press and Rantzau could then give it to Lindau, who might get it into the Kölnische Zeitung, or into one of the Hamburg papers. After a while Rantzau returned and said that in Lindau’s opinion one of the phrases would be better if translated into the oratio obliqua. “But,” said Bucher, smiling, “it was a quotation, yet neither of them recognised it, although it was taken from Schiller. I said to him they could do what they liked with it, and since then they have not pestered me with such matters.” Bucher confirmed what the Chancellor had told me respecting Prince William’s attitude and way of thinking in political matters. He added that the Prince had told some of his acquaintances how much he disapproved of his mother reading the Volkszeitung, and identifying herself with the views of the Progressist party. Bucher then mentioned that a member of the Crown Prince’s entourage had informed him that one of the leaders of the National Liberals had recently stated that they were not so very much opposed to the tobacco monopoly, but wished to “keep their consent to it as a gift for the next emperor.” He added[p. 62] “I was about to write that to the Chancellor, whom I now rarely see; but I saw from his speech on the monopoly that he had already been informed of it.” In Bucher’s opinion the most important feature in the Egyptian question is “that we may expect it to lead to a breach between France and England.... Our relations with Austria are excellent. What he was not able to tell you at the time is a fact. We have a formal alliance with the Austrians, and the Chief has also done something more, so that we are quite safe from war for several years to come.”

With regard to Hatzfeldt, Bucher said: “He wants to have the Secretaryship of State offered to him so that he may make his acceptance conditional upon exorbitant terms for himself. But the Chief, in order to avoid placing himself under any obligations, means to leave it to the Emperor to settle matters with him.”

We finally spoke about Eckart, whom it was intended at first to employ in the Literary Bureau, but who has now a prospect of an appointment in the Ministry of the Interior. Bucher thinks the affair is a demonstration of the Chief’s against the Russians, who “always fancied until now that we must run to answer the bell whenever they ring.” Eckart, by the way, no longer makes the extracts from the newspapers for the Foreign Office....

On the 19th of July, Bucher sent me an article from the Deutsches Tageblatt of the 16th of July, entitled “Hirsch-Bleichröder-Rothschild and Germany in Constantinople.” It disclosed the financial intrigues of this group of bankers, “choice members of the Chosen People,” who exploit Turkey under the pretence that they are protected by the German Government in the persons of its representatives. It energetically protests[p. 63] against this trio, and particularly against “Bleichröder, who knows how to take advantage of the credit which Germany enjoys at the Golden Horn in association with persons who only manifest their national sentiments and their patriotism when these can be turned to account for their own transactions.” Bucher wrote: “I send you this article for your Memorabilia. It will be frequently mentioned hereafter. Justizrath Primker of Berlin, is the agent of Bleichröder here referred to.”

On the 2nd of August I received a card from Bucher, in which he said: “I have to-day taken leave of absence, and at the same time tendered my resignation. I will tell you why at some future time. Auf Wiedersehen.”

I therefore called upon him (Bucher) on the 2nd of October, and at once inquired whether he decided to retire or to remain on. He replied that he would remain for the present. On the 1st of August he begged the Chief to obtain the Emperor’s consent to his retirement. In this letter the only motive which he gave was consideration for his health (growing nervousness), although, as I knew, he had other and stronger reasons. He then proceeded to Bormio, whither the Prince’s answer followed him. The Chief wrote that before regarding his request as final, he would like Bucher to come to Varzin to talk over the matter—he would doubtless also be pleased to see the place once more. He (Bucher) arranged to go there on his return from his holiday, and accordingly proceeded to Varzin on Tuesday last. There the Chancellor explained to him that he still required the services of his knowledge and ability, and although he could quite conceive that he was ailing and tired, he believed he could get over that difficulty[p. 64] by giving him as much holiday as he liked at all times, summer and winter. In future, also, he should be immediately under him. To this Bucher replied that he did not wish to retire altogether, but he had had a mind to take up some work of importance which he could have done at home in connection with documents in the Archives that had not yet been used. He believed he could do that work as well as the officials of the Archives (Poschinger and Sybel). That might also be done, the Chief said, but he must remain in the service; he was indispensable to him. Bucher then begged to be allowed two days to think the matter over, after the lapse of which time he acceded to the Prince’s wishes. He does not expect any good to come of the arrangement, however, as in his opinion there will be no change in the condition of affairs.

I then inquired how the Chief was getting on. Bucher replied: “Not very well. He suffers from faceache, which occurs constantly and is often very bad, but passes away again after a while. The doctor thinks it comes from a bad tooth, and has advised him to have it out or let the nerve be killed. But the Chief will not agree to this, as he does not believe in the doctor’s opinion. When this is not tormenting him he is still the same old amiable causeur, and he often has moments of inspiration too, when he speaks on political affairs with astounding far-sightedness. I shall hardly enjoy much more of it, however. During recent years I have seen him more seldom than yourself, sometimes not for two months at a time. But perhaps that may improve again later or indeed very soon. A few days ago when I was speaking to Rantzau about my resignation, he said that was surely not necessary. It was true that the Emperor might live to a great age, but he[p. 65] would probably not govern much longer and then it would be the turn of the Crown Prince, who had not altered since the conflict he had had with his father twenty years ago. (Freytag’s account of this conflict was handed over by me for publication to the Süddeutsche Zeitung in Frankfurt-on-the-Main somewhere about the summer of 1862. It made a great sensation at the time and caused no little anxiety.) He was a regular Progressist and already he made no secret of it.” While I was away he had accepted Ludwig Löwe’s invitation to inspect his revolver manufactory, and even deigned to take breakfast there. Recently, on entering a Court gathering at which Puttkamer and also three Progressists, including Mommsen and Virchow, were present he passed the Minister by and joined the Liberal trio, with whom he then conversed in a demonstrative fashion. It must be remembered that this took place at a time when an action was being brought against Mommsen for insulting the Chancellor. The Chief was quite aware of this and speaking of the future Emperor, he had said: “He will wish to retain me, but I shall lay down my conditions, which he will agree to, but he will not keep his promise.” Bucher continued as follows: “Then the Chief will resign and proceed to Varzin, which he even now does not wish to leave, and a sort of colony will be founded there in connection with which they doubtless have me also in view. It is then intended to write memoirs. Speaking to me about them in 1877, he said: ‘I have still a great deal to say to the world.’—The Progressists are aware of the Crown Prince’s views and they will then want to form a Ministry taken from their own ranks. Virchow has hinted as much in public speeches, adding that the entire policy of the country including foreign affairs[p. 66] would be different.—Bismarck was a gifted politician who represented a system of diplomacy which, except by himself, had long since been regarded as played out. That would lead to a pretty state of affairs, but would not last long. In the meantime, however, many blunders and an immense deal of harm might be done.”

I then asked what he thought of Bismarck’s religious sentiments, giving him my reasons for thinking that his wife had influenced him in this respect. He agreed with me and said that the views of the Moravian Brethren prevailed in her family. For the rest it was very difficult to form an opinion on those matters. He then observed that Bismarck also believed in ghosts. There is a castle in East Prussia which no one will inhabit as it is said to be haunted by the ghost of a lady who committed some crime. She is visible in broad daylight. On one occasion, when this story was told in Bismarck’s presence and some of the company spoke of it as folly, the Chief said there might very well be something in it, and that one ought not to laugh and jeer at such things, as he himself had had a similar experience.[7]

Bucher also considers such things possible. He said: “A very remarkable incident of that kind once occurred to myself. When I lived on the Lutzow Embankment—it was during the first years of my appointment when I had a great deal to do and was so tired in the evening that I used to fall asleep as soon as I lay down—one night I saw my mother stoop down over my bed and smile contentedly, as if she were pleased that I had now begun a regular life. I am quite certain that it was not a dream.”

[p. 67]

Finally I told him I intended to leave Berlin and return to Leipzig, as I had too little opportunity of seeing and being of use to the Chief, and found little society for my wife and myself. I would remain until February, in order to take leave of the Prince in person, and then proposed to come to Berlin a couple of times every year to visit him. In the meantime, I would now and then take the liberty of requesting him (Bucher) to furnish me with advice, explanations and materials in political affairs, while, on the other hand, I also should be at his disposal, as before 1878, whenever he wished to secure the insertion of anything in the press. Should the Chancellor retire at any time I would write him immediately, that he might count upon my services. Bucher approved of these suggestions.

On the 2nd and 3rd of November Bucher sent me a number of newspaper extracts referring to Bleichröder and his relations with Hatzfeldt, and Augusta’s intrigues against Bismarck, with which the latter in a pencil note had associated the Jesuit, Father Beckx. Bucher intends to write me further on the subject.

On the morning of the 6th of November I called on Bucher at his lodgings, and reminded him of this promise. He gave me the following information. “Hatzfeldt intends to become Vice-Chancellor. For that reason he has had himself made Minister of State, a measure which was unwelcome to the Chief, and which was managed with difficulty owing to the opposition of his colleagues. Hatzfeldt has had that represented in the press as necessary, supporting the contention by precedent. Hohenlohe was once Vice-Chancellor. I will cut out some of the newspaper articles and send them to you. He had a démenti of the article on the Hatzfeldt-Schapira affair (reproduced by the Volkszeitung[p. 68] from the Süddeutsche Post) published in the Deutsches Tageblatt, which the Chief reads. This article was written by Viereck, a Social Democrat, while the démenti was probably by Holstein or Fuchs. Hatzfeldt is gradually disclosing his Catholic sympathies, using his influence, for example, with the Minister of Public Worship for the appointment of certain Catholic clergymen. Bleichröder, senior, applied to the Parisian Rothschild and the Discontogesellschaft to co-operate in his great Turkish railway and tobacco monopoly scheme, as his own funds were not sufficient; without success, however, as the latter did not wish to have any dealings with such a corpse as Turkey. He had also been to Busch, the Under-Secretary of State, and had hoped to obtain his support for the scheme, as in the Rumanian affair, which was a disgrace to us. The support was given in that case owing to the pressing appeals of the old Hohenzollern, Prince Charles’ father.”

On one occasion in the sixties Corvin (Wiersbycki)[8] had at Bucher’s instance written in an English newspaper against the Empress Augusta. The Chief had instructed Bucher to get this done, as such attacks influenced the Court, which was afraid of the press. Corvin then borrowed a hundred thalers from Bucher, and only paid him back twenty-five. “He probably forgot the remainder. But the article was very well done.” Finally Bucher mentioned that Lindau was now ill. The Prince’s son had formerly begged in writing not to let it be noticed that Lindau was incapable, and he had retained the letter. “Heyking has now for a considerable time past been looking after the press; but,[p. 69] while you and I managed that alone, he has taken on a Count Henckel as an assistant. The latter, who reads the newspapers for him, has again appointed one of the men in the office to act as amanuensis, and do ‘the scissors and paste.’ They are fond of their ease, these aristocratic gentlemen!”

On the morning of Monday, the 27th of November, 1882, I called upon Bucher to hand him a packet with two articles and a letter to be forwarded to the Prince at Varzin, which he promised to do. The latter ran as follows:—

At 11.30 A.M. on the 1st of December, Bucher called upon me to return the two articles that had been sent to Varzin, namely, “Bismarck as a Junker” and “Bismarck and Religion.” He at the same time communicated to me the contents of a letter from Count Herbert, to the effect that the Prince had read the articles through, and had said with regard to the second that he could communicate nothing on a matter of so personal a character; and that he could not remember having made the statement on page 2 that he had “brought about three great wars.” It might be possible to insert the word “perhaps” in that sentence. His (Herbert’s) personal opinion was that nothing more ought to be written about his father, and if he had any influence with me he would use it in this direction. I explained to Bucher that if the Prince himself had asked me not to publish anything more about him, I should[p. 73] most probably forbear to do so, but that Herbert had no claim to any influence upon me. “What is Hecuba to me?” I concluded.

December 19th.—Received the following letter from Bucher:—

December 20th.—The day before yesterday I wrote to the Imperial Chancellor begging for an interview, and in case there were anything to mention in the press to supply me with the necessary information. At 1.30 P.M. to-day a Chancery attendant brought me a letter from Hofrath Sachse, marked “Urgent,” in which Bismarck “requested me to be good enough to visit him this afternoon at 4 o’clock.” I went to the palace at the time appointed. Theiss showed me in to the Prince, with whom I remained for three-quarters of an hour. He had a white beard, and was sitting at his writing-table. After reaching me his hand he said: “You have doubtless come with great expectations, and think I shall have something to say to you about the article in the Kölnische Zeitung—the one on Russian armaments.” I asked: “Did that come from here?”

He: “No, not from me; but from the military authorities.”

I: “And the statements are correct?”

He: “Certainly. They are constructing many more railways than they require for trade and traffic, and the garrisons in the western towns and fortresses have been placed almost upon a war footing. I should not[p. 76] be surprised if there were a war with them next year. The Bourse has also shown itself much concerned, but I believe that the fall in quotations arises rather from anxiety respecting France. But (he continued) you have been indiscreet in the Grenzboten in your reference to the alliance with Austria. It has been very awkward for them (in Austria), for the Hungarian Diet can now come and demand information on the subject.”

I replied: “I thought that the matter had gradually leaked out. Three or four months ago some one, I forget now who it was, said to me that everybody now knew that a formal alliance existed, and not a mere memorandum. Perhaps my informant had it from Vienna. I was therefore of opinion that it could do no harm, and might possibly be of use if I mentioned it incidentally, as I did in the Grenzboten article, and I was quite astounded when all the newspapers wrote leading articles upon it. I must be very much mistaken if I have not seen something similar elsewhere.”

“Yes,” he said; “but it was a State secret, and if you had only remembered from whom you had it, an inquiry might well be instituted. It is quite possible that something of the kind had already been said elsewhere; and if what you wrote had appeared in another paper, perhaps no one would have taken any notice of it. But you have given the Grenzboten such a nimbus that it is placed on a level with the Official Gazette. That is not good for you as a writer. You are regarded as, in the highest degree, inspired.”

I: “That is a matter of indifference to me. It only excites hatred and envy; and I have never associated with the local journalists.”

“Well,” he said, smiling, “you can destroy this nimbus if you will only write something thoroughly silly.”

[p. 77]

I: “And if you then have a vigorous démenti inflicted upon me.”

He: “But, seriously, you can to a certain extent correct the statement which you blurted out inadvertently, by saying that in doing so you believed you were only repeating what was already known; and you might go on to add a number of useful observations, as, for instance, that, if the alliance did not actually exist, it ought to be brought about, as it would be of great advantage and would fulfil the requirements of two peace-loving Powers—and, further, that we should very much regret the truth of the assertion made by the Kölnische Zeitung that it had only been concluded for five years; in that case it should be extended over a longer period. Finally, it would be in accordance with the interests of both Empires to strengthen and consolidate the good political relations existing between them by closer commercial relations on a treaty basis.”

He then returned to the question of the Russian armaments, and said, inter alia: “Now I am to assist! But they can settle the matter themselves. Three years ago I made proposals to them which they would not accept. Now let them settle it!”

He reflected for a while, and then suddenly exclaimed: “Can you find us money, and rid us of the bailiff?... Parliament will not agree to the licensing tax, not even the Conservatives, each one of whom is cleverer than the other, while they are all of them wiser than the Government. Here there is nothing but discord, and the majority are blockheads. What is the use of their Conservatism when they will not support us? A progressive income tax is unjust, and would not be of much assistance, but an equitable income tax would be good and useful. That can be obtained by self-assessment,[p. 78] and it would in a short time cover the deficit in the four classes. The higher classes—14,000—pay about seven million marks, and to double that amount would be oppressive, it would mean a tax of 26 per cent. The capitalist is either a mortgagee, and if his taxes are raised, he turns upon his debtor and raises his interest to 5 or 5½ per cent. interest, instead of 4; or a loan and debenture company, and then its securities would lose as much in value as the tax amounts to; or a holder of industrial shares, and then the tax might reduce or indeed destroy the export trade in the manufactured article. The State cannot tax its own securities, and therefore there only remain foreign securities and railway shares. People are not afraid of the capitalist, but only of the tobacconist, the wine merchant, and the brewer. Of the capitalist one may say:—

“If the Conservatives were at one with the Government all would be well. As it is, however, we shall doubtless be obliged to dissolve again in February, and then there will not be so many Conservatives returned. The King has so far committed himself that he can no longer govern with the bailiff. His position is most painful, and he will ultimately ask the country again and again whether the bailiff is to be retained.”

He then spoke about Wedell-Malchoff’s motion for taxing time bargains on the Bourse. In his opinion it was not a bad idea, but the phrase “time bargains” should be defined, and in such a way as not to include genuine transactions in rye and spirits or cash transactions.[p. 79] Furthermore, it should start, not with two per mille, but, as the Government had proposed, with one per mille. The latter would be feasible, and of course once a beginning had been made it could be raised. The mistake here was that they were trying to get at dishonest transactions, and thus to introduce a moral tax, whilst such transactions could not possibly be defined or reached. The Chancellor’s statements were somewhat to the foregoing effect. More I cannot say, as I did not understand all these financial explanations, in which he doubtless credited me with more technical knowledge and capacity than I possess to supplement their purport.

In the course of his remarks he mentioned Bleichröder’s name, and I asked whether he had noticed certain hints that Bleichröder’s schemes with regard to the Turkish tobacco monopoly and railways were being promoted by German diplomacy. He denied the fact. It was true, indeed, that in the Rumanian affair Bleichröder had been supported, because, in that instance, in addition to some distinguished gentlemen, a great number of small investors were concerned. Of the former he mentioned Ujest, and, if I am not mistaken, Lehndorff. There Bleichröder had really done good service, “gallantly risking his money, and it was for that reason that he had been ennobled by the King.” Primker, on the other hand, he described as “clever but unscrupulous.” As to the Austrian Government, he observed that they had committed themselves too far with Hirsch.

We finally came to speak about his neuralgia, which caused him a great deal of pain. I suggested that it probably came from a bad tooth.

He: “Others have thought the same, but the doctor has hammered at all my teeth, and says they are sound.[p. 80] No, it is a nervous affection, muscular pain, particularly when I am worried and excited. That is why I do not attend the Parliamentary sittings; for what a delight it would be to certain people if, in the middle of a speech, I suddenly made a wry face, and were unable to proceed!” He dismissed me with the words: “Adieu, Büschlein, auf Wiedersehen! But take care to avoid further indiscretions.”

January 14th, 1883.—Called this morning on Bucher to give him my new address.

Bucher then expressed a hope that the Bleichröder swindle, which was becoming more and more widely known, would ultimately be mentioned in the Reichstag. I told him that, in speaking to the Chief recently, I had referred to certain newspaper articles on the subjects, and that he declared he knew nothing of diplomatic influence having been exercised in that way at Constantinople, and had, moreover, praised Bleichröder’s action in the Rumanian affair. Bucher exclaimed angrily: “Well then, he lied to you in that matter.... It is true, indeed, that Bleichröder and the Disconto Bank plunged into the affair gallantly, but it was not for the sake of the poor tailors, cobblers and cooks that had blundered into it, but because the Prince of Hohenzollern was also involved.”

Bucher also denounced as “a lie” the Prince’s statement that the article in the Kölnische Zeitung which followed the paragraph in Grenzboten on the Austro-German Alliance, and emphasised, first its five years’ duration, and then the warlike preparations of the Russians, did not come from the Foreign Office, but from the military authorities. (Perhaps this assertion was intended to lead me into some “blunder” which would have deprived the Grenzboten of its “nimbus.”)...[p. 81] “The article is by Kruse, who as you are aware is here. I know also who corrected it.” (Probably Bismarck, or possibly Bucher himself under his instructions.) The fact that the Chief told me to advocate the renewal or prolongation of the treaty, with additional commercial provisions, (this was done subsequently in the Grenzboten and was noted and emphasised by the Post) tallies according to Bucher with a proposal which the Chancellor made in Vienna. He was, however, informed in reply that that would not do, as Austria-Hungary consisted of an industrial and an agricultural country, with different interests. Bucher condemned the proposal, saying: “He is in too great a hurry, because he thinks he has only a few more years to live.” I shall now take care to get away from Berlin as soon as I can, and thus avoid further risk of hearing and circulating untruths from the Chief’s mouth.

January 28th.—Wrote to the Chief yesterday, informing him that the editor of Harper’s Monthly (published in London) had asked me to write an article upon him, and if possible, also to send a photograph of the Prince with his new full beard. At the same time I added a request for an interview. On the same evening I received an answer from the Imperial Chancellerie that the Prince begged me to do him the honour of calling upon him to-morrow, Sunday, at two o’clock. I went accordingly to-day, and had to wait for a while, as the Minister of Justice was with the Chancellor, and Hatzfeldt was already waiting in the antechamber with Möller, the Under-Secretary of State. When Hatzfeldt was called in Möller dropped into conversation with me, and asked me whether I was the author of Count Bismarck and his People. He then turned out to be an admirer of my former books also. He had read, among others, the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and even[p. 82] the Wanderings between the Hudson and the Mississippi. When Hatzfeldt came out, the attendant immediately called me in. The Chief, who gave me a very friendly reception, had a particularly bright colour in the face. He asked: “Now then, what is it you want me to tell you for the article? All the principal facts are known.” I replied that I had come less on that account than for the photograph. They had written to me that thousands of Germans in America would be much interested in seeing his portrait with the new beard. “Yes,” he observed, “they now show their interest in the old country by overloading me with contributions for those who have suffered by the inundations on the Rhine. I have not the least idea what I am to do with them. I have talked over the matter with the people in the Reichstag, they must distribute the money. As to the photograph, however, the man suggested in your letter (Brasch, in the Wilhelmstrasse) cannot do it, as I have promised Löscher and Petsch, with whom I have always been satisfied. But I cannot go to them at present as I should catch cold in this weather, and also because I do not go to the Emperor, and he would be surprised if I were to be seen going to the photographer. But I should myself like to see a portrait with the beard, as I do not know how long I shall keep it.” I suggested that he should let Brasch take two photographs only, as he lived close by and would bring his camera here, one of them being for Harper and one for me. He could be forbidden to sell any copies. But the Chief considered that that would be a breach of his word, and showed a disposition to lose his temper, so I let the matter drop.

He spoke of the way in which they “hated him in Parliament,” although “he had done them no harm.” “I cannot understand it,” he continued. “It is not so with other Ministers, even with those who have done[p. 83] nothing but commit blunder after blunder, while I, at least, have maintained peace for them. Surely the present Ministry in France is a wretched concern, English policy has been an unbroken series of blunders for the last three years, and Gortschakoff, with his vanity, also makes all sorts of mistakes; yet no one in their own countries worries and hampers them in every direction. Nor in other respects have I ever given them ground for dissatisfaction. Other Ministers speculate on the Stock Exchange, and take advantage of their office and information to make money. It is asserted that several French Ministers do so, and such cases also occur in Austria, and particularly in Hungary, where the Zichys have made millions in railway shares. Manteuffel and Schleinitz took advantage of their position in the same way. No one can say anything of the kind against me. The Diest-Daber statements were slanders. I have never held speculative securities, but only regular dividend-bearing stock. It is only the national grants that have given me my competency. I have made nothing, but was, on the contrary, much better off formerly than I am now, in consequence of the low prices of corn and timber and unwise purchases of land.... Nor have I led a loose life, but have, on the contrary, been always a respectable father of a family. And nothing of the kind can be said of my sons either. (Really?) No charge can be brought against me, and nevertheless I am hated. But I am tired. I have lost my old passion for shooting and riding, and I fear I shall soon lose my liking for politics. I am sacrificing my health. I ought to live in the country, and the doctors say that if I were free from business, and could spend three or four hours a day in the open air, I should be well again. But I do not like to desert the Emperor, who will soon be eighty-seven, when he begs me with[p. 84] tears in his eyes to remain. Nor can I expect him to accustom himself to others.”

I inquired how he now stood with the Crown Prince, and he replied, “Latterly he has been very amiable to me, particularly at the various festivities.” Then returning, without any transition, to the subject of Parliament and its opposition to himself, he said: “I have maintained peace for them with a great deal of trouble. After 1870 everybody expected war in a couple of years; but so far it has not come, and perhaps, indeed, it may never come again. We are now on a better footing with Russia than we have ever been before, and with Austria we have concluded an alliance.” I asked him if he was still negotiating for an improvement of the treaty in a commercial direction. He rejoined: “I will not tell you that, as you have been indiscreet enough to let it be known that it was only concluded for a period of five years. The Kölnische Zeitung has reproduced that from the Grenzboten.”

I: “I beg your pardon, Serene Highness, but the converse was the case. I could not have said it before the Kölnische Zeitung, because I was not aware of the fact until I read it in that paper.” He maintained his opinion until I offered to prove to him that he was in error, by sending him the Grenzboten article. He then went on to relate: “They (the Austrians) thought they might satisfy their greed in that way. I imagine that I am doing them a good turn and making them a present, and then they come with their conditions. I have rejected them. A commercial treaty is possible in which we might grant them more favourable terms than to the others, and in which the tariff would not be raised, indeed perhaps reduced. The high duties which we have imposed upon Russia and America need not be applied to Austrian maize and barley. The importation[p. 85] of cattle may also be allowed, although that is scarcely feasible in view of the certificates given in Galicia and Hungary, where everything can be bought and everybody can be bribed. But commercial union and a common customs frontier are out of the question, for Germany takes plenty of imported goods, and superior foreign wines are consumed here in Germany, while even a groschen would be too much for a Slovak or a Raizen (i.e., a Servian of Slavonia or Lower Hungary), who uses nothing of the kind. Even here there is a great difference between the Elbe Duchies or the Rhenish provinces and East Prussia or Upper Silesia.”

He then came once more to speak of the peaceful times in which we are now living, and said: “You have only to look at the newspapers and see how empty they are, and how they fish out the ancient sea-serpent in order to have something to fill their columns. The feuilleton is spreading more and more, and if anything sensational occurs they rush at it furiously and write it to death for whole weeks. This low water in political affairs, this distress in the journalistic world, is the highest testimonial for a Minister of Foreign Affairs.”

After a moment’s silence he went on: “Then you propose to return to Leipzig?”

“Yes,” I replied, “since the death of my son, my wife requires amusement and society, which are not to be had here, but which she may find in her own native town.”

He: “Well, but surely any one who writes on politics ought to live in Berlin, where politics are now made.”

I: “But Leipzig is only three hours from here, and during the months when you are in town I can easily reside here.”

He: “That is not necessary, but you might come[p. 86] every fortnight, or when anything occurs, and ask me.”

He again complained of the neuralgic pains, at the same time dipping his finger, as he had already done frequently, in a wine glass containing some strong-smelling yellow liquid, with which he rubbed his right cheek bone. “That relieves me for a short time,” he said. He then continued: “But I am very tired. I have now been engaged in politics practically since 1847, nearly forty years, and that is exhausting. At first in Parliament, then at Frankfurt, where I was very busy, having work thrown upon me from Berlin also.”

I: “That can be seen from Poschinger’s book, which I am now reading and making extracts from.”

He: “Yes, but he does not say that I also wrote numerous letters to the King from Frankfurt,[9] and that I came no less than thirteen times in one year to Berlin to see him.”

I: “It looks almost as if already at Frankfurt you had been his Minister for Foreign Affairs—at least Manteuffel drew his inspiration from you in the principal questions.”

He: “Yes, the late King discussed all great questions with me, and Manteuffel put up with it.”

I mentioned that the extracts which I was making from the documents contained in Poschinger’s book were intended in the main for the chapter on “Bismarck and Austria,” in which I proposed to embody what I had personally gathered in 1870, as, for instance, Prince Luitpold’s abortive letter to the Emperor Francis Joseph.

He: “Certainly! But as long ago as 1866 I made an attempt to come to an understanding with them.[p. 87] I suppose I have already told you the Gablentz story?”

I: “No, but you have told me others from that period, as, for instance, how the King wanted to annex portions of Saxony, Bavaria and Bohemia, and how you persuaded him not to do so.”

He: “Well, it occurred in this way. Just after the first shot had been fired (in reality it must have been about a fortnight before) I sent Gablentz, the brother of the general, to the Emperor at Vienna with proposals for peace on a dualistic basis. I instructed him to point out that we had seven or eight hundred thousand men under arms, while they also had a great number. It would therefore be better for us both to come to an agreement, and making a change of front towards the West, unite our forces in attacking France, recapture Alsace, and turn Strassburg into a federal fortress. The French were weak as compared with us. There might be no just cause for war, but we could plead with the other Powers that France had also acted unjustly in taking Alsace and Strassburg, whence she had continually menaced South Germany ever since. If we were to bring these as a gift to the Germans they would accept our dualism. They, the Austrians, should rule in the South and have command of the seventh and eighth army corps, while we should have command of the ninth and tenth and the federal command in chief in the North.... Dualism is a very ancient institution, as old as the Ingævones and Istævones, Guelphs and Ghibellines.”

I observed: “Already under the Othos, indeed as long ago as Charlemagne with his Franks, and the Saxons.” “High German and Low German,” I said. “With a Celtic fringe below and a Slavonic fringe above.”

[p. 88]

“Well,” he continued, “Gablentz submitted his proposal to the Emperor, who seemed not disinclined to entertain it, but declared he must first hear the views of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mensdorff, you know. He, however, was a weak-minded mediocrity, unequal to ideas of that calibre, and he said he must first take counsel with the Ministers. They were in favour of war with us. The Minister of Finance said he believed they would beat us—and he must first of all get a war indemnity of five hundred millions out of us, or a good opportunity for declaring the insolvency of the State. The Minister of War was not displeased with my suggestion, but in his opinion we ought to have our own fight out first, and then we could come to an understanding and fall upon the French together. So Gablentz returned without having effected his purpose, and a day or two afterwards the King and myself started for the seat of war.”

I thanked him warmly for this important and startling communication, and asked him if I might use it in my book. He replied: “Yes, it is for that purpose that I have related it to you. But not in detail, merely the main features. Proposal for peace on the dualistic basis, united attack upon France, and the reconquest of Alsace.”

I then asked once more whether he wished to read the book before it went to press, and he said: “Yes, in order that you may not include anything false in my epitaph.”

I: “That would certainly not be done intentionally. You know that I worship you, and would let myself be cut into a thousand pieces for you.”

He: “Ah, no; not into so many! It is not necessary.”

I: “Well then, only into two pieces, so that one[p. 89] might see half a Büschlein (little Busch) fall to the right and half to the left!”

On my then begging him as soon as his health permitted to let Löscher and Petsch come to take his portrait, he promised to do so, adding: “If they do not care to come, then the other man can—what’s his name?”

I: “Brasch, here in the Wilhelmstrasse, at the corner of the Leipzigerstrasse.”

He: “But I must first keep my word.”

I: “I did not ask you to do anything contrary to it. I only thought of Brasch because he took a very good photograph of my late son.”

He: “How did the thing happen?” I then related shortly the circumstances of my son’s death.

He: “That is a sad case, and there are many to share your misfortune, all who had relatives on board the Cimbria.”

I: “But my son was engaged in his profession, in the fulfilment of his duty, and died bravely and conscientiously for his ship like a soldier for his flag.”

He reached me his hand, and said, “Auf Wiedersehen!” I had been with him fully three-quarters of an hour, and all this time good old Möller had to wait in the antechamber.

On returning home on the evening of the 3rd of February, I found lying on my table a letter from Count Bill, in which, at his father’s request, he enclosed a new photograph of the latter with a full white beard.

On the 24th of February I wrote to the Chancellor begging to be allowed to take leave of him personally, as I proposed to start for Leipzig on the following Thursday. I handed the letter to the porter at the palace at 11 A.M., and in about an hour and a half I received an invitation through Sachse to call upon the[p. 90] Prince at 3 o’clock. He was in the room behind his study, which opens on the garden. He was in an armchair, half sitting, half lying, and had beside him a small table covered with documents. After he had asked me how I was, he complained that he still felt very poorly. When one trouble left him another set in. The neuralgic faceache often prevented him from sleeping. If he could only go to the country, away from business, things might improve; but the King would not grant him leave, and “pestered him with all sorts of unimportant orders,” &c., as, for instance, with the question as to who should go to St. Petersburg to attend the coronation. “He thinks,” he continued, “that if I can manage to keep on my legs I shall live to be old,—and if not, why then I must die in the fulfilment of my duty.... And here in the Foreign Office I have no proper assistance. Look at that pile of documents which I must read through myself!” I said: “Of course there is not much to be done with Hatzfeldt. He has little ability, and still less inclination, to work. He only wants to amuse himself, and to draw a big salary for doing so.” “Yes,” he replied, “Hatzfeldt does little for his money, and has neither a good memory nor a taste for business.” He then continued: “The Crown Prince is also inconsiderate, and torments me with matters of no importance; and, in addition to that, the people in the Diet are committing all sorts of blunders. How abusive they have been during the past few days! But it is the same everywhere with Parliaments and Ministers.” I remarked: “Quite so, for instance in France.” “It is no better in England,” he rejoined. “The European is no longer making progress. There is nothing more to be done with him.” He repeated that he was sick of politics, and wanted quiet. He then spoke of the[p. 91] Kulturkampf, observing: “The Pope is really well disposed, but he is not so powerful and independent as one may think; he is dependent upon people who will have no peace. For some time it appeared as if a modus vivendi could be arrived at, but now that is at an end. On the signs of approaching fine weather Windthorst threatened to strike and resign the leadership of the Centre party. He wants a stormy sky for other purposes, for stirring up discontent and strife, and they on the other hand need him, or think they do. They accordingly became frightened in Rome, and now they are once more making themselves unpleasant.” I said: “Catholicism has always been a secondary consideration for Windthorst. He is, above everything else, the well-paid advocate of the Guelphs.”

He rejoined: “Ah, he believes in nothing whatever. He has absolutely no religion.”

He caught sight of an envelope which I had brought with me and laid on the table beside us containing an enlargement by Brasch of his photograph by Löscher. He asked: “What have you there?” I answered: “It usually happens that granting one request brings on another, and that is the case now. I have had your last portrait enlarged and mounted, and I would now beg your Serene Highness to write your name under it as a souvenir. Of course it can be done in pencil.” “No,” he said, “in ink.” He rang for the attendant and asked for “a pen to write my signature,” and then wrote under the photograph: “v. Bismarck, Berlin, 24 February, 1883.”

I thanked him and said: “It is then arranged, Serene Highness, that I may come here and address myself to you occasionally when anything of importance arises, particularly when there would seem to be anything on foot in which you might wish to have[p. 92] some one near you in whom you could repose special confidence? And as to the book, I may send you the proofs in a few months? We shall probably not begin printing before August.” He agreed to all this, and then said: “Well, good-bye, Busch. Auf Wiedersehen! Enjoy yourself in Leipzig ‘an der Pleisse.’” He pronounced these words with a true Saxon accent.

On the 13th of May I came from Leipzig to Berlin, and reported myself to the Chancellor by letter.... On the 15th Sachse sent me word that the Chancellor expected me at 3 o’clock. I presented myself punctually at the time appointed, and had to wait while the Chancellor had a short interview with Rottenburg.... The latter referred to Colonel Vogt’s Grenzboten article on Thibaudin, and mentioned that the Imperial Chancellor had remarked that it was no business of ours to point out to the French that their army was in bad hands. Count Rantzau also came across to shake hands with me. The Chief’s youngest grandchild, Heinrich, some five months old, was also in the antechamber, and he also gave me his little hand to shake.

I was then with the Prince from 3.5 to 4 P.M. He was in plain clothes, and sat at his ordinary double writing-table. He did not look ill, but complained as usual of his neuralgia. He said: “It now extends over the whole body, the chest and abdomen, and I can no longer exert myself to think or work for any length of time—two hours at the outside; then I must give up, or drink champagne or something of that kind to keep myself going for a while longer. I ought to get out of harness altogether, but the Emperor will not consent to this, and even when I go to the country, business and worry now follow at my heels.” I asked: “Worry with the gentlemen in Parliament?” “Ah, no,” he replied; “I no longer read their speeches and brawling.[p. 93] It is the Ministers. Scholz is all right, as also Bötticher and Maybach, although the latter is somewhat blunt,—but the others, and particularly those in the Foreign Office!” I said: “But surely Bucher and Busch are able and diligent.” “That is so,” he rejoined; “but Bucher is cross-tempered and soured, and Busch is sinking under his load of work. I was mistaken in Hatzfeldt. He is very good for negotiating with the King and the Crown Prince, but he thinks only of his own interest, and would like to be my successor; but he has no sense of duty and no love of work.” I added: “One or at most two hours’ work in the day, as formerly—and then to play a game of croquet or lawn tennis with Mrs. or Madame So-and-so.” “Yes,” he said, “that’s his way. Like Lucca. Unser Paulchen ist sehr faulchen (Our little Paul is very lazy). His Excellency Herr von Keudell also wanted to become Imperial Chancellor one day, and absurd as the notion was, he worked it through his friends in the press, who had to praise him up to the skies and represent him as your intimate adviser. But I always regarded him as quite insignificant in politics, and in addition to that he could never do any work. He found a difficulty in managing the most ordinary affairs. I was often obliged to do things for him, and once at Versailles Taglioni, the deciphering clerk, finished off no less than thirty documents for him with which he was in arrears. It is true that he was very clever in looking after his own interests.”

He: “Yes, and he also knew how to get himself a rich wife, and to take advantage of the position which he acquired through the friendship of my wife and his own musical talent. Moreover, he knew how to impress people with his importance—through his silence. But there was nothing behind it. He is stupid, empty and[p. 94] incapable. He was unable even to manage the Pay Department properly.”

I: “On going to Constantinople it is said that he left a deficit of 80,000 thalers.”

The Chief then spoke of Hohenlohe, and appeared to think more highly of him than he did of Hatzfeldt. He also referred to Radowitz and afterwards to Radowitz’s father, alleging that the “Jesuitic attitude of the latter was responsible for Olmütz.” “You know what sort of a man the late King was,” he continued. “For years, during which something might have been done, Radowitz kept him occupied with all sorts of tailoring and ornamental matters, with mediæval questions of costumes, uniforms and coats of arms. He acted as Keeper of the Wardrobe to his fancies: whether such and such counts were or were not received, and the Knights of St. John, and the Wetterau bench of Counts, and the absurd question whether Saxony and Hanover should retain the right to appoint envoys,—as if a barber could not have intrigued successfully against our policy so long as they had the power. He amused the King with such trifles as these until it was too late.”

He then came to speak of Lady Bloomfield’s Memoirs, the Tauchnitz edition of which he brought in from the next room, and asked me to review it in the Grenzboten. He said I should find “the genuine English arrogance in the lady,” who was “much pleased at the opposition of the Crown Princess (the present Empress Augusta); and full of the profoundest aversion to everything Prussian and German.” In 1866 she “had been anti-Prussian to the backbone,” and had “libelled our officers as the French did in 1870 with their story of the clock.” In this connection he referred to the merino goats which the Prussians were alleged to have driven away with[p. 95] them from Bohemia. This led him to speak of the Crown Princess and her “English self-conceit,” whereupon I reminded him of the story of the silver plate of the English shopkeepers and of the Prussian nobility which he then repeated to me as before. On my remarking that the Queen, her mother, was also unfriendly to us Germans, and had always sided with the Belgian-Coburg clique, &c., he denied that this was the case, and said that, on the contrary, she had “on the whole been favourable to us.”

He then continued: “I wish you would some time or other refute the charge that I have acted inconsistently in the struggle with the Curia, and that I have changed my opinions and aims in the ecclesiastical question, and in others. That is the sort of criticism which can only proceed from some one who has never occupied the position of a leading Minister. Whoever has held such a post for any considerable time can never absolutely unalterably maintain and carry out his original opinions. He finds himself in presence of situations that are not always the same—of life and growth—in connection with which he must take one course one day, and then perhaps on the next another. I could not always run straight ahead like a cannon ball. (Doubtless a reminiscence of Schiller, ‘Piccolomini,’ I., 4.) Had I done so I should have knocked my head against a wall. When the situation changed I was obliged to alter my plans. Such changes in the situation were, moreover, chiefly due to the fickleness of parties, and, therefore, if any one is to blame they are. Their action, on the other hand, was in great part influenced by their envy. That is the national vice of the Germans. They cannot bear to see any one hold a high and leading position for any length of time. One of the most[p. 96] important changes was produced by the formation of the Catholic party, the founders of which might at the beginning have been expected to support the Government. Savigny, you know. It, however, weakened my position. The entire struggle with the Centre party would have taken another form, and have had a different issue, if I could have fought it out at the head of the Conservatives. I had risen from their ranks, but if I was to do justice to the requirements of the time it was impossible for me to continue in agreement with them on all points. This, and the long-suppressed hatred and envy of old comrades of my own class and faith, which very soon broke out, drove me over to the Liberal side. An understanding had to be come to with the latter if the Empire was to strike firm root, and so I was obliged to come to an agreement with the strongest party, a thing which I had tried in vain to do in 1866, when it was also desirable. It was particularly necessary in those years when Germany was threatened with a Triple Alliance like that of the Kaunitz period. The latest achievement of German diplomacy is to have prevented the formation of such a coalition against us for thirteen years. The Government was forced to appear at the head of the Liberals, at the head of the majority, in order to avert this coalition. The Conservatives fell away from me on that account. I would remind you of the Inspection of Schools Bill, and of the attitude of the Kreuzzeitung, and of the libels published in the Reichsglocke. And just as the situation was thus altered at that time, so it was again changed in 1878, through the defection of the Liberals. Here, too, it was envy and self-importance, and the desire to rule. I was no longer supported, or only in a lukewarm fashion. They were not sorry to see me weakened by the opposition[p. 97] of the Centre party, so that I should be forced to negotiate with them. The Progressists combined with the Centre against me. The Secessionists acted in very much the same way. From this time forward the National Liberals were silent in the struggle with Rome. They were pleased at the embarrassments to which it gave rise, and wished to have a weaker Government in order that they might appear stronger. When the Government had to strike the Liberals out of its reckoning, it naturally followed that I had to slacken my opposition to Rome. I cannot speak any longer now, or the faceache will return.”

He then rose, but continued to speak of his illness for a while as he walked up and down, describing it as very painful, “like shingles.” I further asked if I might in a few months send him the proofs of my book. “What book?” he said. I answered: “That which your Serene Highness has already twice promised me to read through.” He then thought for a moment, and promised once more to do so, whereupon I took my leave, with wishes for his speedy recovery. He said he had no longer any hope, and only expected to grow worse. (...)

On the 11th of July, after the Chancellor had left Berlin for Friedrichsruh, Grunow sent him the first sheets of my book, Unser Reichskanzler, to read through before they were sent to press. On the 16th of July, Count Bill returned me these proofs, with the following lines:—

The portion struck out appeared in the third sheet, (page 31, in the first volume of the work as afterwards printed, following the words “einmal zu Grunde gehen,”) and ran: “Then it will be Bang! and snap goes the German Constitution. There might be a repetition of Schwarzenberg’s saying, ‘This arrangement has not stood the test.’” The Prince has also corrected an oversight (Vol. I., p. 12, line 24), striking out the syllable “un,” where I had written “unmöglich” by mistake—evidence of the care with which he had read it through.

On the 18th of July, Count Bill returned more proofs which were accompanied with the following letter:—

[p. 99]

The enclosure here referred to was dictated to Count Bill, and appears in the book Unser Reichskanzler, Vol. I., pp. 54 and 55.

On the 20th of July further proofs, up to the end of the first chapter, arrived from Friedrichsruh. These again included alterations that had been dictated to Count Bill by his father.

When the Prince shortly afterwards proceeded to Kissingen, Grunow continued to send him the proofs, as he had received no orders to the contrary. They were not returned, and the printers had therefore to stop work. I, however, received the following long letter from the Chancellor, which was written by an amanuensis on official foolscap, like a State document, the two sheets being tied together with silk thread in the Imperial colours.

In reply to this communication, I excused myself for having sent the proofs, through my ignorance of his absolute need of rest, and by recalling the fact that, in 1878, I had been permitted to send him such proofs to Kissingen and Gastein. The printing was then postponed for about eight weeks, until the beginning of October. On the 5th of that month I wrote to Friedrichsruh to ask whether it was now agreeable to him to receive me for the purpose of the interview which he had mentioned as desirable in his letter of the 3rd of August. On the 6th of October Count Herbert wrote that his father would be glad to see me as soon as he had read the proofs sent to him in the summer. Owing to his journey and the state of his health he had not been able to do so up to the present.

[p. 102]

The work remained at a standstill for four weeks more. This was very disagreeable to Grunow, who repeatedly requested me to press the matter at Friedrichsruh. I declined to do so, as I could wait. He then wished to write to the Prince himself, describing his embarrassment. I tried to dissuade him, but as he nevertheless repeated the suggestion, I told him he might do so at his own risk, and also gave him a few ideas for his letter. Next day he told me that he had written. On the 9th of November I received the following letter from Friedrichsruh:—

I thereupon announced that I should arrive at Friedrichsruh on the 12th of November. I started on the 11th, and, travelling viâ Berlin, reached Friedrichsruh shortly after 12 o’clock on the following day. I was met at the station by a servant, who accompanied me to the Prince’s house and showed me to my room. Shortly afterwards I was called downstairs, where I had a friendly reception from the Chancellor and his wife. We then took lunch, Rantzau being also present, and immediately afterwards the Prince went with me into his study in order to discuss the matter that had brought me hither. He first gave expression to his indignation at Grunow’s letter, in which connection I also came in for my share. Among other things which he said was: “You have turned me into a bookseller’s hack; I am to be exploited like a Christmas speculation, and harnessed to his cart, the impudent fellow! He should have known nothing whatever of my assistance!” I explained to him that I had to inform Grunow owing to the possibility of a considerable delay in the return of my proofs, that I had previously mentioned this to him, the Chancellor, and that he had agreed, and that the same course had been adopted in the case of the first book. In his excitement he appeared to have overlooked what I had said, as he went on as follows:[p. 104] “That must remain between ourselves. I can trust you. You may write to me. But he! What right has a bookseller got to correspond with me, to warn and threaten me?” I tried in vain to appease him, endeavouring to show that the passage quoted by Rantzau when read in connection with the remainder of the letter was perhaps not a threat, but only a strong and not particularly felicitous expression of Grunow’s difficulty and embarrassment. The latter was a man of straightforward character, who knew how to keep his own counsel, and who was incapable of wishing to bring pressure of a threatening character to bear upon the Chancellor, for whom he entertained the highest regard. He then rang for Rantzau, and asked him to bring Grunow’s letter, which he handed to me to read. I could not see that it contained anything more than a cry of distress on the part of the publisher, who had promised the booksellers that a certain book would appear at a fixed date, and who feared he could not keep his word nor find any sufficient excuse to give them. I was as little affected by this embarrassment as I was by any loss which Grunow might suffer in case the book was not published at Christmas. I could have waited for a long time, and even if that were not the case it would never have occurred to me to press him. He said: “You acted in a perfectly proper way when the matter was postponed, and I had not expected anything different from you. But all the same that remains a threat on his part, and a piece of presumption, and I hesitated whether I should not decline to have anything further to do with the book, and afterwards publicly contradict erroneous passages in it. But then I thought of you, although I altogether object to having books written about me and to people trading with me[p. 105] and my affairs. Poschinger has done so, and sold my despatches and letters, forgetting even to send me any remuneration.” (Sometimes his humour does not desert him even in his anger.) “Besides, this new book is not so good as the preceding one. It does not contain much that is new, and what it does is false. You are not such a good observer as you were; you have grown older; and you want to divine and picture my inner man from fragmentary observations, which were mainly misconceptions. You draw conclusions from occasional utterances which you jotted down under the table-cloth. According to you I am always in deadly earnest, as if I were on oath, &c.”

I abstained from urging what could be said on the other side, and his excitement gradually subsided. Taking some of the proofs he sat down at his writing-table and invited me to take a place opposite, in order that I might note down his corrections and additions. He was rather impatient over it, said my hearing was not so good as formerly, and complained that I did not take down dictation as rapidly as his sons, and so on. On this occasion we went through the greater part of the third chapter, and he had very much less to object to and alter than I had apprehended from his letter of the 3rd of August. By far the greater part of these pages he turned over without any remarks. With respect to the others he made observations that had no reference to the book, as for instance: “Thadden, a narrow-minded fellow, who has no brains.” After about three-quarters of an hour he stood up and said: “I must now get some fresh air.” He strode up and down the room, however, for a while, as before, and began again to vent his anger at the presumption and threats of “this bookseller who wanted to harness me to his Christmas cart.”[p. 106] Ultimately, however, he quieted down, grew more friendly, and showed me over the apartments, including his bedroom. In one of the first of these was hung a portrait in oils of a Roman prelate of high rank. In reply to my inquiry he informed me that it was Cardinal Hohenlohe.

He then went out for a walk or drive, while I proceeded to my room and wrote out his observations and the corrections which he had dictated to me. This room, which contains pictures of Grant, Washington and Hamilton, looks out on the park. After 3 P.M. I paid a visit to the Head Forester, Lange, with whom I took a drive.

At a quarter-past six I was called to dinner. Among those present, in addition to the Prince and Princess, were the Rantzaus, Dr. Schweninger, of Munich, who was in attendance on the Chancellor, and Herr von Ohlen, another of the doctor’s patients. The Prince, as I now observed for the first time, suffered from a slight attack of jaundice. Schweninger (a man of lively temperament, with dark hair and beard, who seems to be very much at home here) diagnosed the Prince’s ailment as chronic catarrh of the stomach, and has been successful in his treatment. (...) While taking our coffee, which was served in the Princess’s room, the conversation was at first of little significance. It turned on Becker’s portrait of the Prince during the Frankfurt period, and on two groups of his male and female ancestors, who from their costumes would appear to have flourished in the time between the death of Luther and the Thirty Years’ War, and on the portrait of his sporting grandfather with the shot-gun, which was formerly in Berlin, but has now found a place here too. The conversation gradually grew more lively and[p. 107] interesting; and the Chancellor, who had remarked in the tête-à-tête with me at midday that he would henceforth be careful of what he said in my presence, had probably forgotten his intention. On my stating, among other things, that the war of 1870 appeared to have had an excellent effect upon the national feeling in Saxony, he added, “and still more so in Bavaria. I once said jestingly to Fabrice[10] that we should live to see order restored in Saxony one day by Bavarian troops.” Speaking of Court circles in Berlin, he complained: “Whenever I performed on the political tight-rope they hit me on the shins, and, if I had only fallen, how delighted they would have been! Particularly the eternal feminine (das ewig Weibliche).”

It was only after lunch on Tuesday, the 13th, and again before dinner, that the work with the Prince was resumed, when Chapter II., the remainder of Chapter III., and about half of Chapter IV. were weeded out, the weeds again proving much less abundant than I had anticipated. He maintained that in the second chapter I made him out to be a “hypocrite” in religious matters, an idea which he had no difficulty in entirely disproving, inasmuch as he justified his belief in God among other things by a reference to facts which could only be accounted for by the existence of a Deity.

In the second section he began to dictate to me an account of his attitude towards the Kulturkampf, which he broke off on our being called to dinner. Before that he again suddenly renewed his grumbling at Grunow, I, too, coming in for a small share. He was also displeased with my long full beard. “My wife asked me,” he said, “if you were older than I. ‘No,’ I said, ‘I thought you were four or five years younger.’ But she was right.[p. 108] It’s your beard. It should be cut shorter. As it is it makes you look fearfully ancient.”

On Wednesday, the 14th, the Chief set to work on the proofs with me after breakfast. At Chapter IV. he exclaimed: “Look here, you must have a thoroughly wicked heart. You are delighted every time you hear and can jot down a disagreeable remark about somebody.” I rejoined: “I cannot trust myself to give any opinion upon my own heart. But one thing I do know, it has always been devoted to you. I only hate your enemies.” He afterwards reflected for a moment, looked at the clock, and said: “I must now go out to receive Giers, who is coming from Berlin to discuss important matters with me. We shall introduce you and Schweninger to him as doctors of medicine, for if he ascertained that Dr. Busch belonged to another variety he would be afraid that he was being watched and that it would get into the newspapers. By the way, you have included him among the Jews in your diplomatic chapter, and that must be struck out. (I had referred to his name, Giers, as a russified form of Hirsch.) He may be a Jew, although he asserts that he is the son of a Finnish officer. But we must not write that, as he is well disposed, desires peace, and does what he can to secure it. He is quite indispensable to us.”

The Russian Minister arrived between 2 and 3 P.M. The Chancellor received him at the station, drove with him to the house, and then conferred with him until nearly 6 o’clock, when Giers dined with us, the company remaining together over their coffee until about 9 P.M. Giers is a man of medium height, and would seem to be well advanced in the fifties. He has somewhat of a stoop as he walks. His features are of a slightly Jewish cast, a characteristic which is also evident in his gestures[p. 109] and movements, there being something in the hands in particular which recalled our Semites. On this occasion he spoke only in French.

On Thursday, the 15th, I wrote in my diary: Giers went off again last night about 10 o’clock, and Schweninger and Ohlen left at noon to-day. I took lunch with the Prince’s family, Count William being also present. The Prince, who, by the way, now observes great moderation in diet and drinks only the lightest wines, read despatches, and gave Rantzau instructions for replying to them. The subjects were Bulgarian affairs, and the North Sea and Baltic Canal. I then retired to my room to work, and afterwards made an excursion to the Aumühl. As I was about to return I saw the Chief coming towards me in a carriage. When he recognised me he reached out both hands towards me from a distance, left the carriage, and walked back with me to the mill. (I therefore fancy that he cannot have been so very angry with me.) He described to me a pretty pathway through the woods on the other side of the streamlet, saying: “I know you are also a lover of lonely country walks.” Yesterday evening over our coffee, after Giers had left, he also said: “I always feel happiest in my top-boots, striding through the heart of the forest, where I hear nothing but the knocking and hammering of the woodpecker, far away from your civilisation.”

Again at work with the Chancellor from 4 o’clock onwards. He told me his wife had said: “The doctor may be very clever and amiable, but all the same you should be on your guard at table when he is present. He always sits there with his ears cocked, writes everything down, and then spreads it abroad.” She herself, however, in her simple way, forgot to keep on her guard[p. 110] to-day. While seated on her right at dinner my napkin accidentally dropped, and, lo and behold! her Serene Highness, the lady of the house, bent down for it before I could prevent her! I felt that I had been fearfully awkward.

On Friday, the 16th, the Chief dictated to me the conclusion of the long passage respecting his attitude towards the ecclesiastical struggle. He then gave me, for insertion in the fourth chapter, the following statement with regard to Bunsen:—“During the Crimean War, when he was Minister in London, he reported to Berlin that England offered us Schleswig-Holstein in return for our joining in the war against Russia, whilst he stated in London that Prussia would join if she received the Duchies. Both statements were false, and when the affair became known, he was dismissed. I had something to say in the matter. The King exclaimed: ‘Why, he has been my friend for twenty years, and now he acts in this way!’ Old General Rauch observed: ‘Yes, he has also lied and betrayed your Majesty for twenty years.’ ‘One cannot allow that to be said of a friend,’ rejoined the King.” He then proceeded to other matters, and on my asking whether there was any subject which I could deal with in the press, he at first replied in the negative, but then said: “Giers found the Emperor very frail, and perhaps he will not last much longer. Well, when he dies, I shall go too. He is a gallant old gentleman, who has always meant well, and whom I must not desert. But I will make no experiments with the Crown Prince. I am too old and weak for that. Things will not go on particularly well, and on the whole I am convinced that what we have built up since 1866 has no stability.” In the course of his further remarks he mentioned the[p. 111] Crown Princess, “a Liberal Englishwoman,” “a follower of Gladstone,” and maintained that she “has more influence upon her consort than is desirable.” He then spoke once more of his need of repose and a country life, referring to Berlin in very disparaging terms, and scarcely allowing it even to be a handsome city. He insisted that owing to the drainage there was already a bad smell in every house, and that in a short time, the place would become utterly intolerable. He said in conclusion: “I have always longed to get away from large cities and the stink of civilisation. Every time I return I feel that more and more, and I have earned my leisure.” I remarked that I could fully understand that feeling, and also his reluctance to serve the coming King, on account of his opinions; but surely he would not abandon a work which was so entirely his own, and retire altogether from the political stage. He would at least take his seat in the Upper Chamber and be elected to the Reichstag, where he could offer advice and admonition. He replied: “Yes, but not like the others in perpetual and uncompromising opposition.” I said, “Then please remember this little fellow when you want anything done in the press. I shall always be at your service.” “All right,” he replied, and reached me his hand. “You can then come to me and arrange my papers. (With a significant smile.) There is still a great deal of good stuff there.” I begged leave to remain the following day, as it was such a pleasure to me to be near him. “Oh, certainly!” he said; “but you must not ask me to play cards with you or otherwise entertain you.”

I remained over the 17th, made several excursions on foot through the woods to the east and west, and was present in the evening after dinner when Lange made[p. 112] his report as to the administration of the estate. I started for Berlin at noon on the 18th, and returned to Leipzig on the 19th. There I received in instalments from Rantzau the bulk of the remaining proofs. The Chief sent two more to Bucher in Berlin, whence I had to fetch them.

I immediately noted down the following particulars of the conversation I had with Bucher on this occasion. I praised the Countess Rantzau as being good-natured and unaffected. “Well,” he rejoined, “she is cleverer and more prudent than her mother. The Princess, for instance, is not fortunate in the selection of her acquaintances. First she had the little hunchback Obernitz. Then Babette, Meyer was her friend and confidant—an intelligent body, but.... She was often with her in Berlin and elsewhere, and as the Princess heard a great deal about political affairs and spoke of them to others, Babette, while she was with her, certainly overheard many things and then repeated them to others.... It was afterwards Frau von Wallenberg’s turn. She was the worst, and she it was who had most opportunity for eavesdropping and keeping other people informed. You know that the Prince generally goes through his official papers at lunch time, and gives instruction to his sons or to Rantzau as to the answers to be returned. She could hear all that, and take note of it for Holstein, who has recently developed, owing to his ambition, into a very dangerous intriguer. He is accustomed to communicate to Paulchen (Hatzfeldt, the Secretary of State), everything he ascertains in this and other ways.”

I turned the conversation on Bucher’s share in the negotiations respecting the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern for the Spanish throne. He gave me a detailed account of this. The first time he was in[p. 113] Madrid in connection with that affair was in Easter and then in June, 1870.[11] He gave the following particulars of his second journey: “It was a rush hither and thither in zigzag, accident playing a large part in delaying and hindering as well as in promoting my purpose. Salazar came to me on the Saturday, and wanted to have the final decision of the Prince by Monday. I replied that that would not be possible in such a short time, particularly as I did not know where the Prince was staying at the moment, and of course he would have to be consulted first. Nor was it an easy matter for me to get away at the time. He said he knew the Prince was in Reichenhall, and added, ‘Selon ce que vous me dites je renonce.’ I replied: ‘I assume that you will write a statement of what has passed between us, which will find its way into the Spanish archives; and as they will some day be open to historians, I should not wish to take this responsibility upon myself. I will travel with you, first to Madrid, (improbable, but so I heard it,) and then to the Prince of Hohenzollern.’ He said he would take one of his liegemen with him, a man who would fling himself out of the window without hesitation if he told him to do so. A curious condition of things still prevails there, the obedience of feudal vassals, the devotion of the age of chivalry. Well, we started for Reichenhall, travelling first in separate compartments so as to avoid notice in Paris, and afterwards together, as he did not understand German and his companion spoke only Spanish. On my making inquiries at the office of the baths, I found that the director was at a neighbouring village, and the others could give me no information[p. 114] respecting the Prince. They believed he was not there. I drove out to the village they mentioned and found that the director had left. On returning to Reichenhall I proceeded to the police station. As I was going up the steps I was met by a rather shabbily-dressed man, who stopped and said he supposed I wanted to go to the police office, but it was now closed. He, however, belonged to it, and would go back with me. I told him I was looking for the Prince of Hohenzollern, to whom I had a communication to make. He replied that the Prince was here, and lived at such-and-such a place, but under another name. I therefore proceeded thither with Salazar, but only found the Princess, who told us that her consort was now with his father at Sigmaringen. We packed up once more and made off for Sigmaringen, where we found them, and they agreed. They could, however, decide nothing without the consent of the King, who was at Ems. We then started for that place, and were received by the old gentleman, who was very gracious to me and agreed to what I submitted to him. I then went to Varzin to report to the Chief. It was a regular zigzag journey with obstacles.” Bucher added that he had taken shorthand notes of his conversation with Salazar, which he “still possessed.” At least, so I understood him.

On the whole the Prince in his collaboration with me struck out a little over seventeen pages out of a total of nearly 900, while he contributed some twenty-two pages to the two volumes. The first edition of 10,000 copies was issued at the end of February 1884, and by the autumn of 1885, 6,500 copies had been disposed of, although the Liberal press did its worst to run the book down. An English translation was published by Macmillan in April, and some months later arrangements[p. 115] were made for an Italian edition. (This translation, by Brandi, was only published at Milan in the spring of 1888.)

On the 14th of March, 1884, I again took up my residence in Berlin; and on the 16th I called upon Bucher, to present him with a handsomely bound copy of my book, Unser Reichskanzler. He had already got it, however, and had read it through without coming across any inaccuracies. He made three suggestions for some supplementary material on the issue of a new edition.

According to Bucher, the Chancellor had returned this time from Friedrichsruh in excellent condition, had already been twice out riding in the Thiergarten, and once for a walk there. He had drawn up a memorandum for the Emperor, showing that the home policy of Gladstone, the extension of the franchise, must lower the position of the English aristocracy and with it that of the Crown, which was of course only its head. The Emperor’s minute said that he was much struck with this statement, and suggested that it should be laid before the Crown Prince—a suggestion to which the Chief agreed. In Bucher’s opinion the Chancellor would on certain conditions consent to remain in office when the Crown Prince came to the throne, but the latter would not keep his promises, and then Bismarck would retire. A further communication of Bucher’s was also interesting, namely, that the “refutation of the absurd attack of the National Zeitung” (on my account of Gablentz’s mission), which was contained in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung was written by the Prince himself.

A few days after this visit to Bucher I wrote to the Imperial Chancellor, informing him that I was again a resident of Berlin, and begging him in case there[p. 116] was anything I could do for him in the press to kindly let me know when I might call upon him to take his instructions. I received no answer to this letter. My intercourse with Bucher continued. On the 3rd of July, he sent me a card informing me of his departure for Laubbach, near Coblenz.

On the 27th of July, I received the following letter which had been returned owing to an incorrect address and then re-despatched:—

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[p. 119] 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[p. 120] 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[p. 121] 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.

Supplementary.

Bucher frequently mentioned to me that South African affairs were also of importance to us. On my expressing my readiness to deal with the subject in the Grenzboten, he promised me material for the purpose, and twice I reminded him of his promise.

[p. 122]

On the 3rd of November, 1884, he wrote me: “I cannot yet spare the documents on South Africa, as they may be required for use any day. You will doubtless have noticed this from the articles in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. Besides, this is not the right moment. You must first know what the Boers have to say in reply to the accusations of the English.

“In the meantime another article would be desirable in No. 47 on the debate in The Times of the 1st instant. I have done some of the preparatory work for you in this matter, and send you herewith for perusal a bundle of papers in which you will find a variety of material. The subject of Protection in England must, it is true, be dealt with very cautiously, as it is in our interest that England should maintain her present tariff, and we must bear that in mind.

“It is absurd to believe that the tariff question is governed by any absolute principle which applies to all peoples and all times. Every nation must know or must learn from experience what is best for itself. We therefore do not dream of teaching the English, although they are so generously anxious to teach us, and although the change from the system of natural forces (by which, since 1815, the preceding generation of Prussian statesmen raised the country to prosperity) to the free-trade doctrines that have been accepted by the official world and the majority of the legislative bodies since 1850, must be ascribed in great part to English writers, and German journalists paid by England. Now of the complaints that are being raised in England, one has an obvious application to the condition of affairs in Germany, namely, that which relates to foreign competition in agricultural produce and cattle breeding. Then you can deal with the arguments of the other side[p. 123] that a return to Protection is impossible in England, recognising at the same time that there are sound reasons for this contention. Conclusion: we also can suggest no remedy; probably this extraordinary state of affairs must be a consequence of the peculiar development of England—on the Continent the Thirty Years’ War, the Spanish War of Succession and the Napoleonic Wars (1870 was also a ‘wonderful year for England’ in consequence of our war). The peoples of the Continent rend each other to pieces in wars and revolutions. England, which, with the exception of the unimportant French landing in Ireland, has seen no enemy on her soil since 1066, is ‘making money’ and helping herself to the best colonies. If, as there is every reason to believe, we are now on the eve of a long era of peace in Europe, those conditions will no longer exist under which the wealth of England has, as Gladstone says, increased by leaps and bounds.” I wrote this article immediately, on the lines laid down by Bucher, and basing it on his material. It appeared in No. 47 of the Grenzboten.

On the 16th of November Bucher again sent me material for an attack upon England. This I worked up into an article entitled “England and the Cholera,” which was published in No. 49 of the Grenzboten. This article argued that England had destroyed hand weaving in the East Indies by its customs legislation of 1817, thus depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood. This, together with the bad harvests, resulted in famine, which in turn weakened the population and made it less capable of resisting the cholera which arose through malaria, heat and overcrowding at the places of pilgrimage, and which accordingly assumed an epidemic form! England was also responsible for[p. 124] the extension of the scourge to West Africa and Europe, as, in order not to disturb her trade and shipping, she exercised no proper supervision.

On the 24th of November I again called upon Bucher to remind him of the promised documents from the Foreign Office respecting the struggle between the English and the Boers. He said that just now in particular it was impossible to spare them, or at least those of a later date than 1879, as the Chief and Hatzfeldt might want them for reference any day. He would, however, send me the earlier papers, though he really ought not to let any of them leave his hands. He is of opinion that England is afraid of a war with the Dutch element in South Africa, and that Warren would certainly not be able to recruit his volunteers except among the English settlers there. He then said: “Just keep a sharp look-out on the news from Afghanistan. Something will happen there soon.” I said: “I suppose the English expedition which left Quetta to take part in the settlement of the frontier has arrived?” He replied: “No, it has only got as far as Herat. But General Lumsden, who has gone by way of Teheran, is already on the frontier, and has discovered that an important point, Puli Khatun (the women’s bridge—the men ride through the stream beside it) a place as to which a decision had yet to be arrived at, was already in the possession of the Russians. The Daily News, the organ of the Government, is surprised at this, and complains of the action of the Russians. The Chief will probably have something on the subject written for the Grenzboten. Of course it cannot go into the Norddeutsche.”

I then asked if there was any truth in the report that Busch, who, by the way, is married to a Jewess, would[p. 125] shortly leave and be given a Legation. Bucher replied in the affirmative.

I: “Herbert will then be his successor?”

He: “Yes, certainly.”

I: “In that case Hatzfeldt’s position will be rather shaky.”

He: “Certainly, he will then be superfluous, and that is doubtless the Chief’s intention. Herbert will then read through the despatches with him at breakfast, and the Chief will explain what is to be done with them, so that Herbert will bring everything ready prepared for us to deal with.”

On the 28th of November Bucher’s servant brought me three thick bundles of Foreign Office documents on the Transvaal question. I made extracts from these, and returned them to him personally five days later. They consisted of English blue books, and of despatches from Münster, Count Herbert Bismarck, Alvensleben at the Hague, and the German Consul in Cape Town. They extended over the periods from the 16th July, 1881, to the 31st of March, 1882; from the 1st of April, 1882, to November of the same year; and from December, 1882, to the 15th of March, 1884. These I worked up into three articles, under the title of “England and the Boers,” which appeared in the first three numbers of the Grenzboten for the year 1885. These were followed immediately afterwards by an article on “Santa Lucia Bay,” in No. 4, which concluded with a statement by Bucher; and one on “England and Russia in Asia,” which was also suggested by him, and for which he had sent me extracts from the English newspapers, together with O’Donovan’s book on Merv. The latter article appeared in No. 6 of the Grenzboten. Together with the documents there was also a very violent appeal (in English, and printed on red paper) to[p. 126] the nations of Europe to help the Boers, on which Bucher had written, “You may keep this.”

(Here follow some letters exchanged between Dr. Busch and Herr A. Andrae-Roman, which led to the interview of the 18th of February.—The Translator.)

On the morning of the 18th of February I called upon Andrae, who was staying with Knak, the pastor of the Bohemian Lutheran community, at his residence, No. 29 Wilhelmstrasse. He introduced the pastor to me as his son-in-law. My visit lasted from 8.45 to 10 A.M. Andrae is a tall stately man, with a white full beard, apparently well on in the sixties. From his accent a Hanoverian, he himself said that he came from East Friesland. He first repeated that, owing to the unfortunate experience he had had he must be cautious in what he said, and that he doubted whether we could understand each other, as from my book I appeared to have a different religious standpoint to his. With regard to the first point, he referred to Bismarck’s letter to him, published by Hesekiel, of which he said: “I really do not know how it came to be published. I read and showed it to some intimate friends, but I never allowed it to go out of my own hands. But it impresses itself strongly on the memory, so that a Schleswig-Holstein ecclesiastic of high rank actually knew it by heart. It was moreover printed, not in the first place by Hesekiel, but by a democratic newspaper.” He likewise referred to Diest-Daber, who also went very thoroughly into things, and immediately noted down everything he ascertained; describing him as “clever and in reality honourable.” He had attacked Bismarck owing to a communication from Moritz von Blankenburg, which was based upon a misunderstanding. I endeavoured to dissipate Andrae’s mistrust, observing[p. 127] that anything he might now tell me on the subject in question was not intended for immediate use in the press, and should not be published at all without his permission, at least certainly not before Bismarck’s death. I was only collecting for history, which would ultimately claim its rights. As to the difference of our religious views, I told him that I had studied theology, and had adopted theosophical ideas, and in this connection mentioned Jacob Böhmen. Andrae was intimately acquainted with Bismarck many years ago, had visited him at Frankfurt-on-the-Main, and afterwards on several occasions in Berlin. He added: “Indeed I may go so far as to say that I was for a long time on terms of close friendship with him. Formerly he listened with pleasure and with great patience to the views of others. Of course whether he was guided by them was a different matter. Probably that is now no longer the case, which would be natural enough with one who has achieved such great things—and at the same time has had so much good fortune.” He then went on to speak with the greatest admiration of Bismarck’s extraordinary political genius, was convinced that he was a “sincere Christian,” and assured me that he “made no secret of the fact even as long since as the Frankfurt period. But then, and even before that time, he showed coolness towards the clergy and the Church.”

I: “I beg your pardon, but how do you mean that? What do you understand by the Church? The entire Christian community, the faithful, the community of saints; or the institution with certain observances and means of salvation, sacraments, public forms of divine service, sermons, &c.?”

He replied that the latter conception was what he had in mind. He then continued: “It is an old story with him, and connected with the manner of his conversion.[p. 128] At that time the clergy in Pomerania were not what they are at the present day. The majority of them were Rationalists, and when the change took place it did not originate with them, but with a few laymen, like Below, (not Below-Hohendorf, as I interrupted him to suggest,) Senfft-Pilsach, and Thadden. They came forward to a certain extent as preachers, and as the clergy held and preached rationalistic views, often in opposition to them—in sectarian opposition. Blankenburg, and Bismarck’s father-in-law in Reinfeld, an excellent old gentleman, were also of the number. Their views somewhat approached those of Gichtel. Others inclined to the old Lutheran doctrines. (Therefore not to those of the Moravian Brethren, as I had supposed.) Bismarck came under their influence and joined them. Hence his coolness towards the clergy and the Church. (Gichtel’s ‘Gott in uns,’ and Bismarck’s ‘Nicht durch Predigermund sich erbauen’—‘Seek not edification from the mouth of the preacher.’) It was not due to the clerical signatures at foot of the Declaration.”

He then went on to say that Bismarck misunderstood “the Declaration.” According to him, Holtz wrote to the Prince that he regretted having had a hand in it. Bismarck was greatly pleased at this, and wrote Holtz a long letter expressing his satisfaction. Andrae disapproved of the step taken by his friend Holtz, “as an individual demonstration,” and suggested that the signers of “the Declaration” should send a joint explanation of its real meaning to the Chancellor, and reject the false construction put upon it, namely, that they wished to express their approval of the articles in the Kreuzzeitung. They wanted to adopt this course, but Bismarck informed them, through Limburg Stirum, that he did not wish them to do so, and would prefer that they should write to him separately. In that way the idea of a collective[p. 129] explanation was dropped. Andrae is of opinion that the intercourse between Moritz von Blankenburg and the Prince still continues, although they only see each other on rare occasions. “There was never an absolute breach between them, as their wives continued to meet as they still do.”

We then spoke about the Kulturkampf, and Andrae expressed his surprise that Bismarck should have entered upon it, as he must have known that a struggle with a spiritual power had no prospect of success. His action was doubtless determined by the creation of the Centre party. I defended him on the lines of the statement dictated to me at Friedrichsruh.

The conversation then turned upon the relations between the Chief and the Emperor. Andrae said of the latter: “His merit lies in the creation of the new army, and in the fact that he recognised the right men and held firmly to them.” He added the following anecdote: “A Minister who could no longer endure his position by the side of Bismarck tendered his resignation to the Emperor. The latter urged him to remain. ‘We must all learn to be patient,’ he said. The Minister nevertheless resigned. The Emperor, on the other hand, did not part with Bismarck, considering it his duty to retain him.” I observed: “It was a case of necessity; it would have been impossible to get on without him.” Andrae replied: “Yes, but the Emperor’s merit was in recognising that fact.”

Andrae then talked a great deal about Hanover, saying that the clergy there “were willing to yield obedience to the authorities who had power over them.” He proceeded: “Before the war of 1866, we, the Conservatives, were divided into two parties—Gerlach and Marquart, and, on the other hand, those who[p. 130] considered a war with Austria inevitable. Ultimately an effort was made to bring about an understanding, and we invited Gerlach to attend a meeting, accompanied by a few others of his way of thinking, in order that he should not be alone. He agreed and came, when he made the following prophecy: ‘There are only two possible results: either we are defeated, and then it is all over with us, and there will be a partition of Prussia; or we are victorious, and then we must have a Liberal régime, as that is the only way in which, unification of Germany under Prussia can be brought about.’ And so it has come to pass. Bismarck demanded an indemnity, and then for many years worked in harmony with the Liberals, so far as that was possible.”

As I was leaving Andrae promised to give me further information later on in case I asked for it. “But not in writing. I frequently come to Berlin, and shall be glad to meet you again.”

I continued in regular communication with Bucher during the year 1885. I visited him on New Year’s Day; called at his house on the 11th of February to return O’Donovan’s Oasis of Merv, but could not see him, as he lay ill in bed; a few days later we had a short talk on the Lucia Bay question; and again on the 25th of February I had a long conversation with him at his lodgings. At first we spoke about the Chief, whose health, he said, was now thoroughly restored. He was “quite young and rosy,” and was “working fearfully hard.” The conversation then turned on Hatzfeldt, who “got sick with fear at the thought that he might have to take part in the West African Conference, and that the Chief might appoint him to represent the Foreign Office in the Reichstag, and so took a holiday.... There is really nothing the matter with him, but he has[p. 131] managed to obtain a long leave of absence. As Herbert is now there, it is a question whether he will return any more. And we shall not miss him, either. Business will be done as well, or better, in his absence. He would certainly have been removed from his post as Secretary of State before this if they only knew where to put him.” I said: “Keudell is probably not disposed to give up his sinecure in Rome to him.” Bucher replied: “Keudell really takes things too easy. We thought he would send in a report on the Italian expedition to the Red Sea, and he, in fact, promised one. But what was it when it came? A description of the ball recently given by him, how he danced a quadrille with the Queen, how the knights of the Order of the Annunziata danced vis-à-vis to him, and other fine and important matters of the kind, all in the fullest detail. The Princess is to blame for this. The other members of the family, including the Chief, have long since been convinced of his incapacity. At the beginning, during the first few months, I myself thought there was something in him. He played the part of the mysterious, reticent thinker, occasionally speaking very well, and with far-reaching and brilliant ideas. But one soon recognised that they were not his own, but were borrowed from the Chief.”

The inhuman pair of us then rejoiced at England’s misfortunes in the Soudan, and I expressed a hope that Wolseley’s head would soon arrive in Cairo, nicely pickled and packed. This led the conversation to Central Asia. Bucher was of opinion that although the Russians would not now occupy Herat, they would take up such a position that at the next opportunity they could annex it as they had done Merv. He then referred to the intention of the English to disband the[p. 132] native contingents of the Indian Princes, amounting in all to 300,000 men and 1,200 field guns, and to the “demonstrative review of the Rajah of Scinde.” I then mentioned the rising of the blacks at Kitteh against their English friends, and he said: “They are threatened by a conflict with the French in Burmah.” In reply to my question: “Have we given up South Africa, or is the Lucia Bay affair still open?” he said that the matter was still under consideration. (...)

At 1.30 P.M. on the 30th of March a Chancery attendant brought me the following pencil note from Bucher:—

Unfortunately I had not kept the number, as I told Bucher in a note which I sent back by the same messenger. This doubtless explains the Chief’s recent speech in answer to Richter’s allusion to the dynastic connection between England and ourselves.

On the morning of the 19th of April paid Bucher another visit. He wished me to draw a comparison between the bellicose attitude of The Times, and that which it observed previous to the outbreak of the Crimean War, particulars of which were to be found in Kinglake’s Invasion of the Crimea, Vol. III., p. 31. He believes that it is now inspired by Lord Dufferin. There can be no question of war, as England has not the necessary means at present, and Russia has for the[p. 133] moment no idea of seizing Herat, or even the mountain line beyond it. In the Afghan campaign of 1839 the English required for a force of 38,000 men no less than 100,000 camp followers and innumerable pack animals. Nothing of this kind is now ready. It was said that 20,000 men passed in review before Abdurrahman and Lord Dufferin at Rawal Pindi, but in reality they had only 11,000 men there altogether. The commissariat department was badly managed. Graham’s troops at Suakim had only one pair of boots each, and when an Irish regiment knelt down at mass one could see that the soles were all torn and were patched with pieces of the tin cans which had contained their preserved meats. The soldiers they have at home are for the most part too young to be employed in the tropics. The English would require four months to get from Quetta to Herat. The Russians could reach it much sooner. The ideas as to the prospects of the two parties which Münster had been hoaxed into believing were mere nonsense. Bucher put all these facts together for the Prince, who submitted them to the Emperor in the shape of a direct report. “The Crown Prince’s people,” said Bucher, “are very cross and very angry with the Chief because he will not act as mediator in St. Petersburg and help England out of her embarrassment, and because he opposes her schemes at Constantinople. The English have offered the Turks the occupation of Egypt in return for permission to pass through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. The Sultan was, however, informed from Berlin and Vienna that we too had a word to say in the matter, and our officers in Stamboul would take care that the passage was stopped by torpedoes.”

On the 20th, Bucher sent me the third volume of Kinglake’s book, and I wrote the article desired by him,[p. 134] which appeared in No. 18 of Grenzboten, under the title “Prospects of Peace and The Times.”

On the 22nd of April I called upon Secretary of State von Thile, whom I had met on the way home a few nights before, when I announced my visit. He was very friendly and communicative, and we conversed together from 11 to 1 o’clock. (...)

Thile gave me the following particulars of the agreement with Russia in 1863: “Bismarck risked a great deal thereby. We might have got ourselves into a war with France, who would have begun by attacking us. Napoleon was furious, because he had heard nothing beforehand. Goltz wrote that he might be pacified if the treaty were communicated to him. This was done. Bismarck sent the treaty to Goltz, with instructions to read it to the Emperor alone. Even the Ministers were to know nothing of it. Napoleon was astounded at its contents, and exclaimed, ‘Why, this is worse than I had anticipated!’ It had no further consequences however.”

On Sunday, the 31st of May, I found in the Daily Telegraph of the 29th a leading article on the Emperor’s indisposition, in which the alteration in the policy of Prussia which would result from the approaching change in the occupation of the throne was regarded as full of hope for England. It was asserted among other things that Prince Bismarck would no longer exercise the influence which he now did upon the Sovereign. I immediately called upon Bucher with the paper, which I handed to him in order that he might communicate the article to the Chief. He cast a glance at the principal passages underlined by me, and promised to cut out the article and send it to the Chancellor without delay, mentioning at the same time that I had brought it. He would doubtless deal with it in[p. 135] some way—probably get me to write an article on the subject in the Grenzboten. But he was going to leave Berlin on Tuesday (the 2nd of June). Bucher went on to say that it would really seem as if the Emperor were not at all well just now. I asked him what was the meaning of Lord Rosebery’s visit. He replied: “It is in the main as the newspapers represent it. He has been instructed to find out what the Chief’s views are on various questions. No negotiations have taken place. I was invited by the Prince to dine with them one day, and the conversation turned on indifferent matters, such as dogs, &c. Rosebery said nothing on the main question, namely, Afghanistan. It was the Chief who first turned the conversation on to it.” I suggested: “But the present understanding will doubtless be merely provisional?” He: “I believe the matter will come up again in about five years, when the railways are finished. The Russians expect to have the line from Kisil-Arwat to Askabad ready by 1886, and it will then be carried on to Merv and to the Oxus in the direction of Samarcand. The English are building their line from the Indus to Candahar, by a détour viâ Pishin, and not through the Bolan Pass, which is the shortest route, but where it would run for twelve (German) miles through defiles which the natives would be able to block by simply rolling rocks down. But on the Pishin route also they will meet with great difficulties, and will not be ready for a long time.... Rosebery’s visit was brought about by Herbert, who, by the way, has not shown particular skill in the recent African negotiations. He can be very offensive at times, which is useful, but he has not sufficiently mastered these colonial questions. He does not understand, for instance, that colonies require a coast if they are to prosper, and so he[p. 136] made concessions which we are now trying to alter. He allows himself to be won over too easily. Rosebery had been particularly successful in that, and has quite mesmerised him.”

Speaking of the Emperor once more, he said: “His death will be a bad thing for us. Rottenburg believes that the Chief will not retain office under the new Emperor, and in that case it is not impossible that Keudell may become Chancellor. He is in high favour at the Crown Prince’s. They stay with him in Rome, and people believe him far more capable than he really is. He has provided for that in the press; as, for instance, through Meding, at considerable cost to his own or the Embassy funds.” (...)

At 12 o’clock (I had called on Bucher with the Daily Telegraph article at 9 A.M.) a servant from the Chancellor’s palace came to my lodgings to inquire whether I could call upon the Prince at 3 o’clock. At a quarter past 3 I was shown into the Chancellor’s study, and did not leave until ten minutes past 4.

He was dressed in black with a military stock, and, as usual, sat at his writing-table. He first quieted Tiras, who sprang out and wanted to fly at me, shook hands with his accustomed friendliness, and after I had taken a seat opposite him, asked me how I was, observing: “You still look exactly the same, not a bit changed.” He mentioned that during the time he had not seen me he had been overloaded with work. “Even to-day I have been sitting here since 8 o’clock in the morning,” he continued; “and it is the same from week’s end to week’s end. The only break is at lunch time, and, as you know, I also work then, reading despatches and telegrams and giving instructions, &c. I must do almost everything myself. Hatzfeldt is an[p. 137] excellent ambassador, and he is also very good here at receiving the diplomatists,—clever and intelligent, but ailing and incapable of serious continuous work, impatient of routine, and in addition to that he is frivolous and has a poor memory. Busch is no longer of any use either, and must get out of harness. Bojanowski is ruined, and his Councillors are intriguing against him. My son is not yet sufficiently trained, and has much to learn.” I said: “But Busch was an excellent worker and knew the business!” “Yes,” he replied, “but that is no longer the case. The clock will no longer work. Latterly he has been constantly unwell.... Herbert is getting on very well in many things, but he must yet, as the French say, faire ses caravanes, or, as it is better expressed in English, ‘sow his wild oats.’ Faire ses caravanes, you know, originally meant to join one of the campaigns against the infidels, in which one had to take part before becoming a knight of Malta. It therefore signifies to get through one’s blundering as a beginner and to grow wise by experience.”

He then took up the Daily Telegraph article which Bucher had pasted on a sheet of paper and enclosed in a letter, which also lay on the table. He said: “You have sent me this. I thank you for it.”

I: “I thought it would interest you, particularly one passage, as Bucher asked me a few weeks ago for a leader of the same kind for you, as he knows I receive the paper. I had not kept that number, but I afterwards came across it elsewhere, and the article was translated for the Emperor. I therefore thought you would be glad to see this one immediately.”

He: “Yes, and it is of interest. But it would hardly do to write anything against or upon it just now. It would have to be done very cautiously,[p. 138] and at the present moment in particular it would not look at all well. The old gentleman is in a very critical state, and you know it seems to me almost like the case of a woman whose husband is dangerously ill, and who talks to people about what she will do afterwards; or, more correctly, as if my wife were dying and I were to say how I should act after her death, and whether I should marry again or not. We must wait until the hour has come for a decision to be taken. It appears that the Crown Prince wishes to retain me, but I must carefully consider whether I ought to remain with him. There are many arguments against it, and many also in favour of it; but at present I am more disposed to go and have no share in his experiments. But I might look at it as Götz von Berlichingen did when he joined the peasants—it will not be so bad; and if I remain many things can be prevented or rendered less harmful. But what if I were then not to have a free hand?—to have colleagues like Forckenbeck and George Bunsen, and ceaseless worries with them; while latterly the old gentleman allowed me to do what I thought proper, and even to select Ministers and replace them by others? Besides, there is the co-regency of the Crown Princess, who influences and completely governs him. Yet what will the result be if I leave them to themselves? The entire position of the Empire depends upon the confidence which I have acquired abroad. In France, for instance, where their attitude is based exclusively upon the faith they place in my word. The King of the Belgians said recently that a written and signed contract would do less to put his mind at ease than a verbal assurance from me that such and such a course would be followed. It is the same with Russia, where the Emperor trusts entirely to[p. 139] me. I still remember at the Danzig meeting how he conversed with me for a long time in his cabin and listened to my opinion. The Emperor (William) was not over pleased at his taking no notice of the parade and the various celebrations; but he left us alone all the same. And the Empress—the Danish Princess—said to me: ‘Our whole confidence rests upon you. We know that you tell the plain truth, and perform what you promise.’... Of course I could retire and see how they got on without me, and then when they called me back after their experiment had failed, I could bring things back into the old course. It would then have been proved that affairs could not be conducted in that way. He doubtless would not venture upon such experiments if he had not got me in reserve. It was just the same with the new era when the King gave Liberalism a trial, because he had me to turn to eventually. But I am an old man, over seventy, and for twenty-nine years I have exhausted my strength in the service of the State, and can no longer do what I once did. I can no longer accompany the King wherever he goes—on journeys, shooting parties and to watering places. I can no longer ride to manœuvres and parades, so as to prevent his being alone with others, and to take immediate measures against the intrigues and influence of opponents. If I were to persist in that sort of work my illness would return, and I should soon be dead.”

He drew out from among the books on his right a letter from Dr. Schweninger, who had written to him that he had escaped a dangerous illness through regular diet and the greatest possible abstinence from mental exertion; but that if a recurrence of it were to be averted he must continue to follow the same course. He then said: “The Crown Princess is an Englishwoman.[p. 140] That is always the case with us. When our Princesses marry abroad they doff the Prussian, and identify themselves with their new country,—as for example the Queen of Bavaria, who ultimately went so far as to become a Catholic; and the lady in Darmstadt (it is obvious that this was a slip of the tongue, and that he meant Karlsruhe), as well as the consort of the Emperor Nicholas. Here, however, they bring their nationality with them, and retain it, preserving their foreign interests.... Our policy must not necessarily be anti-English, but if it were to be English it might prove to be very much against our interest, as we have always to reckon with the Continental Powers.” He further observed that the Crown Prince would be influenced in his liking for England by consideration for Queen Victoria, and (here he mimicked the act of counting money) her generosity. He has but a slight knowledge of State affairs, and little interest in them, and he lacks courage. I reminded the Chief that he, too, had had to infuse courage into his father on the railway journey from Jueterbogk to Berlin during the period of conflict. He then related that incident once more, and added: “He said that I should first come to the scaffold—at that time I was called the Prussian Strafford; but I replied: ‘What finer death could a man have than to die for his King and his right?’”

He then came to speak of the Emperor’s illness, for which—as he asserted—“the women were to blame, with their desire to give themselves importance. He was already ill, hoarse, when they talked him over into driving with them to church. And then the Grand Duchess wants to play the loving daughter before people, and so she accompanies him when he, like every one who works a great deal, would prefer to drive[p. 141] out alone; and at the same time she argues with him, even when the wind is in their faces, so that he catches cold if he answers her. It was only his daughter’s persuasion that induced him to go to Hatzfeldt’s dinner. He ought not to have done that. (Probably according to Lauer’s opinion.) As he sits at work, Augusta sticks her head into the room and asks in a caressing voice, ‘Do I disturb you?’ When he, always gallant in his treatment of ladies, and particularly of Princesses, replies ‘No,’ she comes in and pours out all sorts of insignificant gossip to him, and scarcely has she at last gone away than she is back again knocking at the door with her, ‘I am again disturbing you’; and so she again wastes his time chattering. Now that he is ill—you know what his complaint is—she is a real embarrassment and plague to him. She sits there with him, and when he wants to be left alone he does not venture to tell her, so that in the end he gets quite red from pain and restraint; and she notices it. That is not love, however, but pure play-acting, conventional care and affection. There is nothing natural about her—everything is artificial, inwardly as well as outwardly.”

The conversation then turned upon Brunswick, and I said: “Surely we shall soon have that now? It will shortly be Prussian?” He replied in the negative, saying: “It must remain independent, because without the two votes of the Duchy the Federal Council would no longer be of the slightest importance—Prussia would always have a safe majority. The Brunswickers, too, are anxious to retain their independence. In order to maintain the present balance of voting power in the Federal Council, I have always rejected the overtures of the small fry such as Waldeck, &c., that wanted to be absorbed in Prussia. Things can be managed as[p. 142] they are, and we must give the larger States no reason to mistrust us. Their confidence also is part of my policy, and during recent years they have always trusted me.”

He was silent for a while and looked at me. I rose to go, and thanked him for this day’s invitation and the confidence in me which it manifested, adding that I was all the more pleased as I had been under the impression that he had been angry with me for my last book, and that I should not see him again. He clapped me on the shoulder in a friendly way and said: “No, Büschchen, everything remains as of old between us two. It is true that you contributed to my illness with your book, as it gave me a great deal of work.” I replied that nothing of the kind should occur again, and gave him my hand upon it.

On Tuesday, the 2nd of June, I went to Bucher to tell him that I had been with the Chief, and to read him my notes of the interview. He already knew that I had been called to see him. In connection with what I told him respecting the Chancellor’s resignation or retention of office under the future Sovereign, he said: “He has also given the French to understand ... that possibly the next Emperor may not continue his policy, so that in future it would be well for them in Egyptian affairs to keep their demands and actions within such limits as they thought they could, if left to themselves alone, assert and maintain against the English.” (...)

Bucher smiled at the apprehension which I now expressed that the Chief had been offended at my book. That, he said, was a mistake. With regard to the Prince’s remark that it had given him a great deal of work (he doubtless alluded chiefly to the revising of the[p. 143] proofs) Bucher observed: “Yes, I have had a good deal to write on the subject to Reuss, for Andrassy complained of various passages. But what he imagined he had read was not in the book at all; he had read it superficially, and we convinced him of that fact.” Finally Bucher thanked me for the account of my interview with the Chancellor, which he described as very interesting.

During the first half of June I made an excursion on foot from Dresden to North Bohemia, to Lausitz, then back to Dresden, and from there to Moritzburg and Meissen, in order to finally rid myself of a determination of blood to the head which had seriously troubled me all the winter. After my return to Berlin, I called upon Bucher on the 16th June to ask him, in the first place, what attitude should be adopted in the press towards the new Ministry in England. I observed that Gladstone had defended English interests although in an unskilful and feeble way, and that Salisbury would not suit our purposes any better, indeed, perhaps less, because they would be more energetic. He replied that Salisbury is blunt in manner, as he had himself experienced when he was in Berlin. He might, however, for the moment be more welcome to the Chief than Gladstone, who had been seeking a rapprochement with Russia in favour of which there seemed to be a party in that country. Salisbury, on the other hand, had spoken too strongly against Russia to leave much prospect of an understanding at the present time between the Tories and St. Petersburg. True, one could not say what might happen in this respect later on, and the new English Ministry would also seek an understanding with France.

He then mentioned Count Herbert’s second mission[p. 144] to London, which had not turned out so well as the first one respecting Angra Pequena and the Fiji Islands, in which he had taken up a very strong position with good results. The second mission should have appeared, as far as the public was concerned, merely a visit to Rosebery, with whom Herbert stayed. Its object, however, was to negotiate respecting Lucia Bay and the Benue district; and Herbert, who was not sufficiently well acquainted with the maps, &c., conceded too much to Rosebery, who was very sharp, so that the result was disadvantageous to us. We lost Lucia Bay. The English Minister argued that they could not abandon it to us, as it was impossible to allow the Cape Colony to be hemmed in on both sides. On the Benue, however, they have annexed a large piece of land, well situated for their purposes.

Bucher then complained of the “gross ineptitude” displayed by Gerhard Rohlfs in his mission to Zanzibar. “He got it,” he said, “through the ‘paidocracy,’ as Busch calls it,—through the influence of the Chancellor’s sons upon their father, and he has spoilt everything. Contrary to the regulations, which require an examination to be passed first, he was appointed Consul-General without any examination, although he is not particularly well informed.... The trap had been very cleverly prepared for Sultan Burgasch. He has a sister who is married to a German, a Hamburg merchant named Reute, and lives now in Germany. Burgasch had robbed her of her inheritance, and this was to be the starting point of the scheme. She was to go out to Zanzibar and press her claim, and an accident might possibly occur to the lady,—her brother might have her strangled. In the meantime Rohlfs was also to go out, quite quietly, by way of the Red Sea, and not on board a man-of-war.[p. 145] He, however, induced the Chief to let him travel viâ London and the Cape; and at Cape Town he talked imprudently about his mission and position to some officers of Warren’s expedition (to Bechuanaland), so that the English got wind of the matter, and were able to take their measures accordingly (this was under Gladstone’s Government, through their Consul, Kirk). And in Zanzibar itself he committed one blunder after another. When this came to the knowledge of the Chief he said in his own family circle that he would recall him. Paul Lindau, who constantly haunts the Chancellerie, got it into the newspapers, whereupon a démenti was issued. Later on, however, the Prince returned to his former intention, as Rohlfs proved quite useless.”... Bucher further related that Herbert had “provided himself with a deputy Under-Secretary of State in the person of Darenthall, who was to act for himself when he was absent. Darenthall is an admirer of Keudell, with whom he spent nine years in Rome, where there is nothing to do, as everything is sent there ready prepared. He cannot have gained much experience of the world there, while others sent to various posts became acquainted with different countries and conditions of life. He did not, however, turn out badly as Consul-General in Egypt. When he comes to the office I shall take a long leave of absence in order not to lose the last trace of my self-respect.... Bill, who will shortly get married and who is going to Hanau, has also picked out a successor, von Rheinbaben. It is true that he belongs to the old nobility, but he is quite incapable,”—a statement in support of which Bucher produced sundry evidence. Finally we rejoiced that the Emperor was quite well again, and Bucher added: “Yes, and in very good[p. 146] humour, as may be seen from the remarks which he makes on the matters submitted to him.” (...)

On the 16th of October Bucher called at my lodgings to inform me that on Hatzfeldt’s departure as Ambassador for London, Herbert Bismarck is to be appointed Secretary of State, and that the latter has selected Holstein as Under-Secretary. The Chief had some one else in view, apparently Berghen, but Herbert would probably be able to carry out his views with regard to Holstein. He had already made up the differences between the latter and the Princess. In these circumstances he, Bucher, meant to retire. He had already asked the Prince on several occasions to arrange for his retirement on the score of ill-health. Although the Chief had, through Herbert, declined to do this, and only granted him a six months’ leave of absence, he would probably on the conclusion of that period renew his request. He intends to leave on the 1st of November, and to spend his holiday on the Lake of Geneva. On parting he said: “Adieu! I must now return to the treadmill.”

THE CHANCELLOR ON BULGARIA AND SERVIA, AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA, THE BATTENBERGER AND THE TSAR—HIS VIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF THE RUSSIAN BALTIC PROVINCES—A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH PARTIES AND OUR OWN—GERMANY AND ENGLAND IN AFRICA—THE CHANCELLOR ON THE MILITARY QUESTION, AND THE THREATENED CONFLICT IN THE REICHSTAG—WHAT HE SAID THERE WAS ADDRESSED TO RUSSIA—THE TSAR’S CONFIDENCE IN THE CHANCELLOR—THE CROWN PRINCE AND HIS CONSORT—BISMARCK AND HIS WORK—WHAT IS GREATNESS?—THE CHIEF ON HIS OWN DEATH—INTERVIEW WITH THE CHIEF ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE BATTENBERGER, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE “GRENZBOTEN” ARTICLE, “FOREIGN INFLUENCES IN THE EMPIRE”—BEWARE OF THE PRESS LAWS—NOT TOO VENOMOUS—A SURVEY OF BRITISH POLICY—THE CATALOGUE OF ENGLAND’S SINS—TWO EMPRESSES AGAINST THE CHANCELLOR—QUEEN VICTORIA AT CHARLOTTENBURG—DEATH OF THE ‘INCUBUS.’

At 11 A.M., on the morning of the 5th of January, 1886, I handed in at the Imperial Chancellor’s residence in the Wilhelmstrasse a letter offering, as usual, my services[p. 148] and requesting an interview. Having received a favourable reply, I was at the palace punctually at 3 P.M., and was at once shown in to the Prince. He shook hands saying: “How do you do, Büschlein?” I sat down at the writing-table opposite to him. On my remarking that he looked exceptionally well, he complained of the continuance of his faceache, which did not arise from a bad tooth, as I had supposed, and for which Schweninger could do nothing. His cure had only prevented him from getting stouter and relieved his biliousness. He then said: “There is nothing going on in politics just now.”

I: “One sees that from the newspapers. You take care that they shall have nothing of importance to write about. You have again preserved the peace for us.”

He: “In Bulgaria, where the Austrian policy was inconceivably bad. It was as if they had no agents whatever there, no one to observe and report. They were of opinion that the Rumelian business was instigated by the Russians and in their interest, and so they thought ‘If you let your Bulgarians loose we will march out our Servians.’ They obviously promised the latter more than they could perform, and when the war went against Milan made enemies of both sides. Khevenhüller acted too roughly. He threatened the Prince that if he did not call a halt within twenty-four hours the Austrians would march against him. And the Servians were also obliged to stop and their action crippled. Now the Bulgarians complain, ‘If you had not crossed our path we should be in Belgrade by this time,’ and the Servians, on the other hand, assert that if they had not been ordered to keep the peace they[p. 149] would have renewed the struggle with fresh forces, and wiped out their defeat. The policy which they are carrying on in Vienna is that of the father confessor and the banker. The Länderbank, which advanced the Servians the money for the war, is acting like the Caisse d’Escompte in Paris, and exercises similar influence. It is as if Cohn, the banker at Dresden, wanted to influence our policy. They ought to know in Vienna that the events in Rumelia are the result of English wire-pulling, and that it is England who supports the Prince. He has been on bad terms with the Emperor Alexander for years past. He is a man of intelligence, but false and untrustworthy, and that is known in St. Petersburg. At the present moment the Battenberger is the main hindrance in the way of a satisfactory settlement of the Bulgarian question. The Emperor does not trust him even after his recent praise of the Russian officers. Order must be re-established from the outside, through an occupation by foreign troops—but who is to supply them? It would not do for the Russians to undertake the job, and just as little for the Austrians.”

I: “Might I ask what is your opinion of the character of the Emperor Alexander?”

He: “He is better than his reputation in our newspapers, more sensible, a simpler nature, and above all more honourable. Quite different to his father, more manly, and neither imaginative nor sentimental. He is a respectable father of a family, has no liaisons and makes no debts. Having nothing to conceal, it is not necessary for him to trouble his head with vain imaginings and tricky deceptions. But he is subject to ecclesiastical influences.”

I: “Pobedonoszeff?”

[p. 150]

He: “Yes, and others.” He then related: “He was in Copenhagen during the complications with the English respecting Afghanistan, and Giers telegraphed to him repeatedly begging him to return. He remained, however, saying, ‘Giers has his hands full (hat die Hosen voll) but he must see for himself how he is going to put the matter straight.’”

I: “He has been described to me as stupid, exceedingly stupid; but that was from a Baltic source.”

He: “In a general way that is saying too much, but of course allowance must be made for the inhabitants of the Baltic Provinces. Poor people! But we cannot help them. History furnishes many instances in which Divine Providence has permitted such nobler communities and peoples to be swallowed up by a larger but less noble nation. In this case it is unwise on the part of the Government, and it does more harm to Russia than to us, when they allow such a breeding establishment for good generals, like Todtleben, and for capable diplomatists as they possess in the nobility of the Baltic Provinces to be ruined. They have in view the unity of the Empire and not without reason, as is shown in the case of the Poles, but that they should carry it so far and go to work in such a crude way, and in particular that they should incite the populace against the upper classes! I have often wondered why more of them do not sell out and emigrate. But this oppression is more damaging to the Russians than to us, and, moreover, the Baltic Germans never formed part of the German Empire, although they have always been closely associated with the popular life of Germany.”

I asked: “Might I inquire on what footing your Serene Highness now stands with the Crown Prince? You have recently been dining with him.”

[p. 151]

He: “Oh, quite satisfactory, and for several months past, as also with her. When the Emperor seemed to be drawing near his latter end, he approached me, as he saw that the time was at hand when he must plunge into the water and swim on his own account. Ever since we have been on good terms. He wishes to retain me, and when he commands as King I must remain, although I am ill and require rest—but we must come to an understanding first. The main point for him is to get some one to conduct the foreign policy. Domestic affairs would go on all right under Bötticher, who manages them quite well, except that he is rather too vehement, so that water must sometimes be poured into his wine.” He then spoke against the “collegial system”[12] and in favour of a homogeneous administration.

I mentioned the Emperor and the jubilee of his reign, observing that a good text for a sermon on that occasion would be found in Ecclesiasticus, where it is said “The work praiseth the master, and his hands do honour to a wise prince”; and in particular the further passage “the prosperity of a ruler resteth with God; he giveth him a worthy Chancellor;” and again, “A wise servant shall be ministered unto by his master, and a master that hath understanding murmureth not thereat.” (I had already directed attention to these passages[13] in the Grenzboten of the 31st of December of the previous year.) He smiled; after remarking that the Emperor had acted conscientiously in State affairs and knew[p. 152] how to subordinate his amour propre to the interests of the country, he said: “He always gave me to a great extent a free hand, although he had been accustomed previously to command, while his brother, on the other hand, could never have got on with any independent Minister.”

I then referred to the Irish crisis and the English parties, observing that there one saw plainly what Parliamentarism resulted in, and whither it led a State. Our Liberals would have had a similar experience in Posen and in Polish affairs generally, but, happily, they had not the same influence here as they have in England. He said: “Parliamentarism only works where there are merely two rival parties that come to power alternately, and where the members of the Legislature are well off and unselfish, and do not find it necessary to struggle for their personal advancement. I am no advocate of absolutism. Parliamentarism is good even here, as a veto upon the resolutions of unwise Governments and bad monarchs—for purposes of criticism. In England, up to the present, there have been two great parties, whose principles have latterly not differed very widely, and both desired the welfare of the country and nothing for themselves. They were the representatives of a few hundred families who were well enough off not to want more, and who could therefore study exclusively the welfare of the whole community—a remark which at bottom also applies to Kings, who should be under no necessity to think of their own interests. The Irish are now coming in as a third party, together with the Radicals, who are still more dangerous. It is worse here in Germany. We have eight or ten parties and the leaders are place hunters, who want to improve their own positions and become Ministers, and who also[p. 153] put themselves at the service of the capitalists—not without a consideration.”

He then spoke about the Kulturkampf, and mentioned that the Pope was now thoroughly well disposed. I said: “Of course you have done him a great pleasure in asking for his mediation in the difference with Spain, and given him an importance for which he has every reason to be grateful.” He smiled and said: “Well, he has invested me with his highest Order, and has at the same time written me a very flattering letter.” We then spoke of other Orders and I asked him how many he had now. In 1872 he had, I believed, already sixty-four.

He: “There can hardly have been so many. Since then, however, the Siamese and other Asiatics have added theirs.”

I: “Japan was also included with the two great razors, the case containing the swords with which you were raised to the rank of Daimio.”

He: “Even the Emperor of China has made me a present, a great elephant tusk with carved figures, flowers, houses and birds, all so deeply cut out that you almost see through the carving. It is believed that the carving took eight years. You ought to have a look at it some time. It stands in the corner on the black chimney piece in the second room upstairs, near the large salon.” He rang the bell and instructed the servant to show me upstairs when I was leaving.

“Why have we not been able to secure the Santa Lucia Bay?” I asked. “Ah!” he replied, “it is not so valuable as it seemed to be at first. People who were pursuing their own interests on the spot represented it to be of greater importance than it really was. And then the Boers were not disposed to take any[p. 154] proper action in the matter. The bay would have been valuable to us if the distance from the Transvaal were not so great. And the English attached so much importance to it that they declared it was impossible for them to give it up, and they ultimately conceded a great deal to us in New Guinea and Zanzibar. In colonial matters we must not take too much in hand at a time, and we already have enough for a beginning. We must now hold rather with the English, while, as you know, we were formerly more on the French side. But, as the last elections in France show, every one of any importance there had to make a show of hostility to us.”

I inquired as to the spirit monopoly, and he replied: “They will scarcely pass it, but we shall introduce it. They will look upon us as people who have evil intentions against the country, and in particular against themselves, their rights and powers, and who must, therefore, be kept in check and taught to entertain proper respect towards the representatives of the people, to which category, of course, we do not belong. But after all we are only fulfilling the duties of our office, part of which is to promote the interests of the State to the best of our ability.”

On my saying, “Well, Münster is now in Paris,” he observed: “A change has taken place in him. He is now less phlegmatic, more diligent, and sends fuller reports, which, moreover, have something in them.” (...)

“Bucher is also away,” I observed, “on a long leave of absence, for the present.”

He: “Yes, because he has begged me, I should say ten times, to allow him to retire on account of his health. I have at length given him leave for six months on full pay. He was an excellent book of reference for all occasions, as his good memory had enabled[p. 155] him to read and collect a great deal of information. In addition to that he is a good and worthy man”—a statement in which I heartily concurred.

By this time it was nearly 4 o’clock, and on his pausing for a moment I rose to go. Before leaving I begged him to let me know when he thought I could be of any active use in the press, and he promised to do this. The servant then showed me upstairs through the large salon (in which a Christmas tree was still standing, as well as a table covered with presents), and from this into a room opening on the garden. Here were large full length portraits in oils of the Emperor William, in ermine robes, and the Emperors of Austria and Russia, an oil painting of the proclamation of the German Empire at Versailles (at that time only the frame, the picture having been removed to be varnished), and on the black chimney piece the Chinese elephant tusk, almost two metres in length. In another room I saw an excellent new portrait of the Chancellor (painted by Angeli, according to the servant), and, leaning against a sofa, a half length portrait of Pope Leo XIII., by Lenbach. (...)

May 29th.—I called on Bucher ... who told me he had received the Emperor’s order placing him on the retired list, together with the instructions of the Imperial Chancellor, by which it was accompanied. In conclusion the Chancellor thanked him for his long service, and added “hearty” good wishes for his future....

We remained good friends, and Bucher frequently joined Hehn and myself at our Wednesday evening meetings at Trarbach’s. I visited him repeatedly in the autumn and winter of 1886 and in January, 1887, on his return from the visit to Stirum. On the 13th of January I took him the payment for an article which he[p. 156] had written for the Grenzboten and which was published in No. 41 of that paper, on “Two Diminishers of the Realm.” (These were Gladstone and Windthorst, the comparison having been drawn at the suggestion of Bismarck.) On this occasion Bucher told me that he prepared the draft of the Constitution of the North German Confederation. At that time (after the return from Nikolsburg in the autumn of 1866) Bismarck lay seriously ill at Putbus. Savigny, who as Secretary of State should have attended to the matter, took Keudell into his counsels and they thought the thing could be done by introducing a few alterations into the old Constitution of the German Bund. Bucher had to draft the preamble for it. On his return he was summoned to the Chief, who declared Savigny’s performance to be worthless, and dictated to him, Bucher, with the assistance of “a little book,” probably Pölitz’s work on the various Constitutions, the main lines of a Constitution for the new Federal State, which he then wrote out with the help of a clerk, and—when the latter was unable to write any longer—in his own hand. He began work in the afternoon and went on with it all night through and until next morning. After the Chief had made a few alterations he immediately had twelve copies of the Constitution written out in the Foreign Office. Bucher also gave me some particulars of Keudell’s stupidity. When he was going to Rome the Chief, for his personal information, explained to him his views about Italy, saying that we should not tolerate a move towards France. Keudell thought he should mention this to Visconti-Venosta, and did so. The Chief disapproved, and instructed him to take the first opportunity of stating to the Italian Minister that what he had said was merely the expression of his personal views. He[p. 157] has, however, omitted to report whether he had carried out these instructions.

On the 15th I wrote to the Prince asking for an appointment, and in accordance with the reply, called at the palace in the Wilhelmstrasse on the 27th of January, 1887. While I was waiting, first Rottenburg and then three little Rantzaus with their nurserymaid passed through the antechamber. (...) At 2.15 P.M. Theiss called me in to the Prince. He came towards me, reached out his hand and asked how I was. I replied: “Well, and as one sees from the newspapers it is the same with yourself.”

He: “Not during the last few days. I have an oppression and pains here (he passed his hand over his chest), I fancy something like inflammation of the lungs”—a statement which was open to grave doubt, as he looked quite healthy and rosy.

When Tiras had been driven away and I had taken a seat opposite him at the writing-table, he asked: “Now then, what have you been doing in the press recently?”

I replied: “A variety of things in the Grenzboten on the situation. But you yourself have said the last word on the subject in the Reichstag, fully and convincingly—for sensible people. But I fear it will not last long. The stupid people will not die out in the land, and no sooner have you enlightened them, than somebody will take pains to put the light out again. The clerical press continues to pile up misrepresentations and lies, and the large and small sheets of the Progressist party do the same to the best of their ability; while the judicial luminaries of the provinces help to stir up discontent.”

He: “Yes, and all the pettifogging attorneys. I[p. 158] fancy, too, from the credulity of the public there is little improvement to be hoped for from the new elections.”

I: “It is a pity that the representatives of the people, as they call themselves—the representatives of the cliques—were not excluded by the Constitution from all interference in military and foreign affairs. It should only have been allowed in exceptional cases, and on the special invitation of the Government. Such a provision had been unfortunately omitted from the North German Constitution.” He said that was not quite the case, but it was true that at that time mistakes had been made, as he was ill at the beginning, and the “Ministry of War,” which was jealous of the “Military Cabinet,” introduced various unpractical provisions. He then explained to me the present legal position, much as he had already done in the Reichstag, reading and commenting upon the paragraphs in the Constitution which affected this question, beginning with § 60. He concluded with the words: “Things may again develop into a conflict, if the three Powers which have equal authority cannot come to an understanding in the hour of danger. Our first and greatest necessity is a strong and steadfast army, as that secures our external freedom, our existence, our possessions against the foes that threaten us from without. Of course we could defend these without the present Constitution, and could certainly do so more successfully without a Reichstag like the last one, which was much less an expression of our unity than of our divisions and Particularism and which was little else than a hindrance in the defence of our most important interests. I could immediately secure the sanction of the Emperor to a change in this respect, and that of the Federal[p. 159] Governments also. But that must wait yet awhile—until we see how these and perhaps the next elections turn out. If no better Reichstag is elected, when the compromise, i.e., the septennate, has run out, the first thing will be to put into force the provision which allows the Emperor to call out contingents proportionate to the population, the only restriction arising from financial considerations. He has always the right to raise as many soldiers as he considers necessary, and of course the expense thus incurred must be voted.—But what I wanted to say to you is this. I have used reassuring language in the Reichstag with regard to the present attitude of Russia towards us. But many considerations had to be passed over in silence to which it would not have served my purpose to give utterance, but which may be indicated in the press—cautiously. There, I was speaking not only to the members of the Reichstag and the German public, but also to foreign countries, and to a particular quarter where I wished to let it be seen that I trusted to their insight, good will and love of peace, and where such confidence is appreciated—the Emperor Alexander—especially when it comes from a quarter in which he himself may and really does repose unlimited confidence. That is quite true. The Emperor and Giers now anticipate no danger for Russia from Germany, and consequently do not think of attacking us; and so far as the immediate future is concerned they will in all probability not adopt a hostile attitude towards us, if things remain as they now are in Germany and Russia. At the same time a change may occur in the situation. There is, in addition to the Emperor, a kind of public opinion, parties that must be reckoned with even now, and which in a war between Germany and France would exercise all the greater influence on[p. 160] the decisions of the Crown, in that their views and demands would appear to coincide with the real interests of Russia. There you have the pan-Slavists, with their hatred of the Germans and their leaning towards France. And then there are the Poles and the Liberal Russians, who desire a war with us in the hope that it would result in the defeat of Russia and secure their ultimate aim, namely, independence for the Poles and a Constitution for the others. In case of a conflict between Germany and France, these parties would exert a stronger pressure in exalted regions than they have ever been able to do up to the present, through their newspapers, and their allies in the army, in the Ministries, and in Court circles. Even the possibility of their efforts ultimately affecting the judgment and love of peace prevailing there—as did actually occur under the late Emperor, before the last Russo-Turkish war—would force us to send an army of observation of at least 100,000 men to our eastern frontier to watch the 200,000 soldiers stationed by Russia in her western provinces, thus considerably weakening our available forces against France. Moreover, supposing that, in spite of this, we were victorious, public opinion in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and ultimately the Government under its pressure, would scarcely suffer us to turn our victory to sufficiently good account in order to thoroughly weaken France for the next thirty or forty years, as that would be a strengthening of the German Empire which might arouse serious apprehension in Russia. Finally, it may be regarded as well-nigh certain that while we were engaged in the west the Russians would attack Austria, as her armaments, even more than ours, require strengthening—a duty which she has hitherto with culpable levity neglected—and in the long run we should doubtless be obliged to[p. 161] come to her assistance. Of course I could not say all that, and even in the press it must be very cautiously dealt with.”

I observed: “I do not know whether I am right, but I fear a war with Russia less from any apprehension of defeat, than because, in case of victory, I do not see what we could take to compensate us for the great sacrifices incurred.”

He: “Certainly, and for the great number of troops we should lose. That keeps me from a war with France also. In that case, too, it is a question of ‘Was kannst Du, armer Teufel, geben?’ (Thou, poor devil, what canst thou give?)”

I: “In the long run the milliards were also no blessing, at least not for our manufacturers, as they led to over-production. It was merely the bankers who benefited, and of these only the big ones.” From this we came to speak of the Stock Exchange and the present fall of prices, whereupon he remarked: “Bleichröder told me recently that he too has mobilised his forces, and at the right moment, some time ago.”

I mentioned having read in the Boersenzeitung that, according to a small South German newspaper, the Emperor had been much incensed at the rejection of the Army Bill, and had spoken in the presence of Bismarck and the Crown Prince of a step which, if carried into effect, would have aroused the deepest regret. People thought that this referred to his abdication. But who could have circulated and made public the account of such an incident? He said: “The only element of truth in the story is that he was very angry with the Opposition. There was no question of abdicating. But he might very well be induced to agree to a step[p. 162] which would put an end to all the difficulties that the Reichstag can raise in military matters.” He then spoke once more of the Opposition parties, and their mendacity and fictions; as that he (Bismarck) wants to abolish or to restrict universal suffrage, and with the assistance of an accommodating Parliament, to introduce tobacco and spirit monopolies, and what not besides, even to the revival of serfdom. “That is only credited by the stupid voters. They themselves, Richter and his apostles, do not for a moment imagine that anything of the kind is intended. It is a mere electioneering dodge of a gross and audacious description, according to Goethe’s recipe: ‘Willst Du sie betrügen, so mach es nur nicht fein.’ And it is the same with that lying rascal Windthorst, and his priestly followers. At one moment liberty is threatened, and then the Church, and all this merely to hide the fact that he will not let the Empire have peace, and wants to pave the way for the return of the Guelphs to Hanover. The whole crowd are hypocrites, and wear masks, and in all this Parliamentary mummery I am the only one who shows his face. They are Particularists one and all, in spite of their professions. The German Liberals are Particularists for their party, and the others are territorial Particularists. They are all striving for disintegration and dissolution. But when all is said and done, a Prussian King of to-day can, if they don’t want him, renounce the Empire and exist for himself alone.”

I asked: “How do you stand with the old gentleman at present?”

He: “With the Pope? Excellently, and in this question, too. He also trusts me and has reason to believe in my fair play. I told him I was prepared to go still further, meaning that I should even be pleased to[p. 163] see a Papal Nuncio in Berlin. But the King will not have it. He thinks in that case he would have to become a Catholic in his old age. The Ministers are also against it, but without reason. I am not afraid of it. On the contrary, things would go better. At present, Windthorst is the Nuncio, the Father of Lies. We know now exactly how he carries on with Rome. We have letters of his in our hands. A real Nuncio could not lie in that fashion to us and to the Pope, who is well disposed and reasonable. He would be an ecclesiastical diplomatist, whose aims would be purely ecclesiastical, and who would not wish to lose credit with the Government and render himself impossible. He would have to carry out the instructions of his superiors in Rome—not at Gmunden—and those instructions would be imbued with a peace-loving spirit and would be favourable to the maintenance of the Empire—as may now be seen from the desire expressed by the Pope that the Centre party should vote for the Army Bill.”

I: “What I was really thinking of was the Emperor and your relations to him.”

He: “I have also been on the best of terms with him for a long time past. Apart from the question of the Nunciature we are in perfect agreement upon all points. The Crown Prince, too, is at present everything I could wish him to be, she is likewise thoroughly well disposed towards me.”

I: “Mr. Gladstone’s admirer? Why, that is most satisfactory.”

He: “They are now quite reasonable. They have no intention of introducing any change when the old gentleman goes, and they have repeatedly told me so. They are still afraid that I may not remain. And really I often wish it were otherwise, as I would rather go and[p. 164] spend my last days at Friedrichsruh, as a mere spectator.”

I: “And have Dr. Busch to arrange your papers, as your Serene Highness suggested three years ago.”

He: “Yes, that too. But I must remain as long as a Prussian King wants my services and wishes to retain me.”

I: “And after all you would not like to desert your work and let it fall into the hands of people like Virchow and Forckenbeck. You once spoke to me about Götz von Berlichingen and Metzler, the ringleader of the peasants.”

He: “That by remaining I could at least prevent the worst from happening. Such an eventuality is no longer to be apprehended. People deceive themselves greatly if they imagine there will be any considerable difference under the new King. But my position is difficult enough now that I no longer have the strength to work continuously at all manner of things, although there is always so much to be done. All the Ministers come to consult me upon subjects which, properly speaking, do not concern me, and make me responsible for them. That is the case even with the Ministry of the Household, where Schleinitz, the lazy fellow, neglected everything, and Stolberg is often away. But one must do his duty. As to what you say about my work, it looks great, but after all it is of the earth and transient. Besides, what is the meaning of ‘great?’ Germany is great, but the earth is greater, and how small the earth is in comparison with the solar system, to say nothing of the whole universe. And how long will it last?”

I: “Hegel maintained that the earth was the sole planet with intellectual life, thought and history.”

He: “Yes, because it was upon the earth he philosophised. Certainly there are worlds where things of much greater importance are thought and done. But[p. 165] that is the way of these professors (he mentioned Virchow, Du Bois Reymond, and then asked what was the name of the third natural philosopher—I suggested ‘Helmholtz’), they speak as if they knew everything; while they undoubtedly know a great deal in their own science, even there they are ignorant of the real root of things, to say nothing of other matters. They go as far as the cell, but what causes the cell?”

I: “I picture the world to myself as a point, that may be termed the first cause of God, which then extends itself to a ball, filling the void.”

He: “And yet permits it to exist for ever.” I rose to take leave. He gave me his hand and said: “I am glad to see you look so well and not in the least changed. And such a lot of hair still. Let me see.” I bent down in order that he might see the crown of my head, and he said: “Yes, it’s your own. I thought you wore a wig. But the beard is growing white. You should get it cut off and have your moustache dyed. Then you would be quite young.”

The most important part of this interview, which finished at 3 o’clock, was worked up into the article, “War Clouds in the West,” which appeared in No. 6 of the Grenzboten, and was forwarded to the Prince.

March 25th.—For about a week past various newspapers have published a statement to the effect that Keudell has tendered his resignation on the ground that the alliance between Germany and Italy which was concluded a short time since was not drawn up through him but through the Italian Ambassador in Berlin. A diplomatic negotiation of the highest importance had therefore been carried on over his head, and he had been merely instructed quite at the end to hand over to Robilant the reward for his good offices in the[p. 166] shape of the Black Eagle. In other words, Bismarck had looked upon him as fit only to fulfil representative functions of a formal order, and had acted accordingly. At last! How often does the pitcher go to the well before it is broken, said I to myself, as I read a démenti in the Kreuzzeitung. So not yet awhile? (...)

At 10 A.M. on the 28th of April one of the Chancery attendants brought me the following note: “The Imperial Chancellor would feel obliged if Dr. Busch would do him the honour to call upon him to-day at 2.30 P.M. Berlin, April 28th, 1887.” (No signature.) I went at the hour appointed and was told by the porter that Rottenburg wished to see me first. The latter said that the Prince had two commissions for me: one a description of the League of Patriots, and the other an article on the Hammerstein motion (respecting the Evangelical Church). At 3 o’clock Theiss showed me into the Prince, with whom I remained until 3.45 P.M. He again complained a great deal about his ailments and insomnia, as well as of being overburdened with work by all the Ministries. “Nevertheless,” I remarked, “on your last birthday you outlived the year in which you prophesied you were to die,” and I reminded him of what he had said at Versailles and at Varzin, adding that I now took the liberty for the first time of congratulating him on his birthday, because the last one marked an important division of his life. He smiled and said: “Yes, a division. I had observed that there were certain divisions in my life, with changes and alterations physical and mental, a certain recurrent cycle of years (I believe he said eleven) and from that and some cabalistic figures I had reckoned that I should reach the age of seventy-one years and die in 1886. As that[p. 167] has not happened I shall now probably live to the age of eighty-three or eighty-four.” He then came to speak of the subject which had led him to send for me. It appeared that he was not thinking so much of Hammerstein and Co., as of the embarrassment of the Ultramontanes in dealing with their “priestocracy,” the demagogues of the middle and lower clergy, whom they had summoned to their assistance against the Government, and who had now cast off discipline and were disinclined to follow the Pope’s instructions. He compared their embarrassment to that of the wizard’s apprentice in Goethe, and spoke of the “Anti-Papal Catholics.” He concluded: “I should not like to have that said in one of our papers. We still want the Centre party for the sugar and spirit taxes.”

I then mentioned the League of Patriots, and afterwards turned the conversation on to Alsace-Lorraine. On my observing that it might, perhaps, be possible to annex it to Prussia, or divide it between Bavaria and Baden, he replied: “To unite it to Prussia would strengthen by thirty votes the Opposition in the Lower House of the Prussian Diet, where things are now very tolerable. The Bavarians will not hear of it either, and still less the people in Baden, who are in absolute terror of such a change. If we were only living in the time of Charlemagne we could remove the Alsacians to Posen, and place the inhabitants of the latter country between the Rhine and the Vosges, or form an uninhabited desert between ourselves and the French. As it is, however, we must try some other method.” We then spoke about the Crown Prince, who, he said, was understood to have a polypus in the throat. It would be no wonder if he did not recover, as “she” never allowed him to have more than eleven degrees (Réaumur) of[p. 168] warmth in his room, and obliged him at Ems to go into the cold and windy mountain districts, and to cross the Rhine in storm and rain, &c.

I said: “It appears that Diest-Daber wishes to proceed with his action once more.”

He: “But how can he do that?” He then gave me an account of the affair, which originated in an action against Diest for libel. This was afterwards transformed by Klotz into a prosecution against him, Bismarck, which resulted in his vindication. He concluded: “Diest is suffering from the mania of persecution, that is to say, in its active form—he must persecute somebody. It would now seem to have turned into megalomania.” On our coming to speak of his fortune, I said: “To show what superstitions prevail on this subject, a tradesman, who is otherwise a sensible man, told me recently that you possess a fortune of at least a hundred millions.” He thereupon gave me a detailed account of his circumstances, and spoke of the value of his various estates, adding that he was not thinking—“as his sons wished him to do”—of increasing his capital, but rather of rounding off and improving his property. He mentioned Chorow and Sedlitz, and the purchases of land in the Sachsenwald, and similar matters. “I cannot help it,” he said. “When a neighbour’s property wedges itself into mine, and I see a fine clump of trees on it that are going to be cut down, I must buy that piece of ground.” In making such purchases he often paid too much, and frequently the estates were not well managed by those to whom they were entrusted. Thus, although in good years, when high prices were to be had for timber, &c., his profits might amount to about 100,000 thalers, he had, on several occasions, had no surplus whatever over his expenses.[p. 169] “Moreover,” he continued, “it costs me more to live in the country than in Berlin; and in Varzin my horses, with their fodder, cost me more than here. If I could sell my estates at what is probably their real value, I might doubtless get four millions for them.” He referred me to Rottenburg for the material for the articles. The latter handed me for use in the article on the League of Patriots the indictment drawn up by Tessendorf of Leipzig, the Imperial Chief Prosecutor (21st April, 1887), against ten inhabitants of the Reichsland (beginning with Köchlin-Claudon of Mülhausen, and winding up with Humbert of Metz), giving the history and description of the association. For the second article on the “Anti-Papal Catholics,” he sent me a few days later, by a Chancery messenger, a report of the Oberpräsident of Westphalia to the Minister of Public Worship, together with about a dozen newspaper extracts. The article on Deroulede’s horde appeared in No. 19 of the Grenzboten under the title of “The League of Patriots,” and the other, “Embarrassments of the Centre Party,” in No. 20 (of the 12th of May). I personally left both at the palace for the Chancellor.

During May and June Bucher met Hehn and myself regularly every Wednesday evening, sometimes at Huth’s and sometimes at Trarbach’s. He wrote for me the Grenzboten article on “Maharajah Dhuleep Singh,” which appeared in No. 26. He also promised a further article for that paper, drawing a comparison between the reigns of Queen Victoria and Queen Bess, of course not to the advantage or credit of the former, as, according to him, the Chief, with whom he had recently dined, and who had invited him to pay him shortly a visit at Friedrichsruh, wished to see something of the kind done in connection with the Queen’s jubilee. On[p. 170] the 28th of June Bucher started for the dragon’s lair in the Sachsenwald, having sent me a card on the previous day to let me know. He was back in Berlin in about ten days. Five of these were spent at Friedrichsruh, and the remainder of the time with Kusseroff in Hamburg. He told me that the Chief was not disposed to let him fire off the articles on the two English Queens. He would think over the matter, but in any case it should not appear in the Grenzboten, as that paper’s connection with him was suspected.

On the 1st of March, 1888, I received a letter from Rottenburg requesting me to call upon him, as the Imperial Chancellor had instructed him to discuss a certain matter with me. I went to him on the morning of the 2nd of March, and he told me that the Prince wished to have a portion of Beust’s book, Aus drei Viertel-Jahrhunderten, beginning on page 346 of the second volume, dealt with in the press, and for that purpose he would give me verbal instructions. I should first, however, read up the book in order to inform myself on the subject. When I had done so I was to send him, Rottenburg, a few lines, and he would then report to the Chancellor and let me know the day and hour on which the latter would receive me. I borrowed Beust’s book from Hehn on the same day, and carefully read over the part in question several times. This referred to the attitude of Austria before and during our last war with France, together with the differences it produced between Beust and Grammont. On the 5th I wrote to Rottenburg that I now believed myself to be sufficiently acquainted with the subject to understand and turn to good account any further information which the Imperial Chancellor might give me. I received no answer, however, inviting me to see the Chief. He was[p. 171] occupied with more important matters than Beust’s former policy, the illness and death of the Emperor William, and the accession of his son to the throne.

On the evening of the 28th of March at Knoop’s Bucher related the following particulars to myself and Hehn. (Casually foreseeing what was generally known a few days later, or informed of and prepared for it.)

“Princess Victoria, the daughter of our new Emperor and Empress, now about twenty-two years of age, was to have been married some time since to the Battenberger, who at that time was still Prince of Bulgaria, but already a tool of English policy. He made the acquaintance of the Queen of England’s granddaughter during his European tour. The thought of a marriage was probably suggested by the grandmother in London, who wished to see the position of her servant secured against Russia by an alliance with our Court. The scheme leaked out, and came to the ears of the Chief. Of course he was anything but pleased, and did not conceal his objections from the Emperor, but on the contrary expressed them both verbally and in a statement which I had to prepare. It would show us in a bad light at St. Petersburg, and it was not right to subject a Prussian Princess to the eventuality of a compulsory departure from Sofia. The Emperor recognised this and issued his veto, which must have been very unpleasant for the Crown Princess.” (...)

April 6th.—On the Chief’s birthday Prince William, now the Crown Prince, while offering his congratulations in person, invited himself to dine with the Chancellor. During dinner, according to the newspapers, he proposed a toast to the following effect: “The Empire is like an army corps that has lost its commander-in-chief[p. 172] in the field, while the officer who stands next to him in rank lies severely wounded. At this critical moment forty-six million loyal German hearts turn with solicitude and hope towards the standard and the standard bearer in whom all their expectations are centred. The standard bearer is our illustrious Prince, our great Chancellor. Let him lead us. We will follow him. Long may he live!” Coming from a member of the reigning house such language should mean a great deal. “Our great Chancellor”—words already used a short time ago by his Imperial and Royal Highness—“let him lead us; we will follow him!” What high appreciation and what modest self-suppression and honourable subordination on the part of the future Emperor! May God reward him for it, and grant him victory under that standard! But what does his mother think of it? Yesterday a Vienna telegram in the Kölnische Zeitung, which was greeted with scarcely concealed satisfaction by the Progressist newspapers, reported that Bismarck intended to retire. This leads one to think of the “Englishwoman” on the throne of the Hohenzollerns, and of “Friedrich der Britte” (Frederick the Briton) who is to govern according to her views. Has the toast of the 1st instant given offence to Guelphish self-conceit? Or has the Chief again advised against the suitor with the Bulgarian kalpak, who may have pressed his suit again and with a better prospect of success after the death of the Emperor William? At 10.45 A.M. this morning I handed the following letter to the porter at the palace to be immediately forwarded to the Chief: “In presence of the extraordinary report of the Kölnische Zeitung, which is now being circulated in the newspapers, I would beg your Serene Highness kindly to remember that in the future as in the past I hold myself absolutely and[p. 173] unconditionally at your disposal, and shall always continue to do so.”

April 7th.—At 11 A.M. a Chancery attendant brought me a letter of this day’s date from the Imperial Chancellerie, with an appointment to call upon the Prince at 2 o’clock. I was punctually in attendance; but on entering the antechamber, Friedberg, the Minister of Justice, arrived and was shown in to the Chief before me, remaining for about three-quarters of an hour. During this time Minister von Puttkamer also came in, and went away again after a conversation with Rottenburg. Thereupon the latter came to me and said it was doubtful if the Prince could receive me to-day, as he was very much exhausted. He had, however, informed him that I should be there at 2 o’clock. When he called me in, would I “make short work of it?” I replied that that depended upon the Chancellor and not upon me, but I would offer to come on another day if he were not disposed for the interview at present. At 2.45 P.M. Theiss showed me in to him. He was in undress uniform, and looked quite well, although, after he had shaken hands and asked how I was, he complained of his nervous excitement and insomnia. “I can only get a little sleep with the help of opium and morphia. I am over-worked, and, in addition to that, as you have read in the newspapers, I have latterly been worried by the people at Charlottenburg—by the women. The doctors insist that I should go to the country. Schweninger prophesies that otherwise I shall suffer from all possible forms of nervous diseases, together with typhoid. Besides, I ought to go to Varzin, to see after the damage done by the inundations. The Wipper has carried away all my mills, and to rebuild them may[p. 174] cost hundreds of thousands; but I cannot leave, for who knows what they would do when my back is turned—the women who want to have a share in the government—the Englishwomen? You have seen in the papers that I am thinking of retiring on account of conflicts and Court influence—not with the Emperor, who is much more reasonable and shares my views. The question now is as to the marriage of the Battenberger to Princess Victoria, which the Queen of England has in view. Three years and more ago, under the old master, it was actively promoted by her daughter, the present Empress, at first in secret. As soon as I then heard of it, I made representations to the Emperor, verbally and in writing. He allowed himself to be convinced by the reasons I adduced, and refused to give his consent, although she said the Princess loved him. Of course, he is a handsome man, with a fine presence; but I believe her nature is such that she would accept any other suitor, providing he were manly. Moreover, that is entirely beside the question. We must look at the political objections and dangers. The old Queen is fond of match-making, like all old women, and she may have selected Prince Alexander for her granddaughter, because he is a brother of her son-in-law, the husband of her favourite daughter, Beatrice. But obviously her main objects are political—a permanent estrangement between ourselves and Russia—and if she were to come here for the Princess’s birthday, there would be the greatest danger that she would get her way. In family matters she is not accustomed to contradiction, and would immediately bring the parson with her in her travelling bag and the bridegroom in her trunk, and the marriage would come off at once. Probably the Battenberger, too, would have been here by this time if I had[p. 175] not stepped in, for they are in a mighty hurry over there in London.”

I asked: “What is the actual condition of his Majesty at Charlottenburg? Is it really cancer, and how long is it likely to last?” He: “Cancer, and Bergmann has already given his opinion, some time ago: it is a question of three weeks or three months. Externally it is not very noticeable. He holds himself upright, and walks with a quick step. But his face (he pointed with his fingers between the cheekbones and the nose) has during the last few days become thinner, and he looks tired and depressed from the excitement. They actually ill-treated, abused and martyred him when he declined. He is glad that I have come to his assistance, as she is too much for him in argument. It is true that so far only a postponement has been secured. If the marriage nevertheless takes place, I can no longer remain in office, for I should then have lost all confidence in the future. That young and impetuous woman’s will would prevail more or less in other things too, while I should lose at St. Petersburg that reliance on my straightforwardness which I have so laboriously regained with the Emperor Alexander in spite of all sorts of incitements against me. It is true that in Charlottenburg they are most anxious to retain me—she also. They wrap me up in cotton wool and velvet. That also found expression in the rescript; but as the recognition was of too generous a character it aroused in my mind less pleasure and hope than doubt as to its sincerity, and as to whether something was not concealed behind it. If I can merely postpone and not entirely prevent these English influences upon our policy, if my remonstrances are no longer successful, and my voice not listened to, why should I continue to torment and overwork myself? I will not be a mere[p. 176] cloak for the follies of other people. If it were still the old Emperor with whom I was called upon to blunder along in this way—but to allow myself to be made use of by this Englishwoman, for her whims, for foreign interests, with danger and detriment to ourselves!”

I said: “The Emperor was after all a splendid old gentleman, a real King, with a high sense of duty and well-intentioned, and who knew how to appreciate you.”

He: “A trustworthy comrade, who would not leave one in the lurch.”

I: “It is true that he sometimes made your life a burden, and did not always treat you well.”

He: “Yes, but that was not done through ill-will, but through misunderstandings and insufficient knowledge of the matter in hand. When anything of importance was going on he usually began by taking the wrong road, but in the end he always allowed himself to be put straight again. Thus during the period of conflict when he could no longer get any Ministers, he wished to abdicate. When I was summoned to him at Babelsberg he had the act of abdication ready signed. He said: ‘If I cannot find any Ministers who will govern as I think right then my son had better try his hand.’ I assured him that I was prepared to be the Minister he wanted. ‘Even against the majority?’ he asked. ‘Yes, even against the majority,’ I replied. ‘Well then, that’s all right,’ he said, and tore up the document, and with it a whole sheet of concessions to the Liberals, which he had previously read to me.”

I: “Then afterwards when you travelled to Jueterbogk to meet him. The ladies at Baden had filled him with apprehensions as to an impending revolution, and he already saw the scaffold awaiting him, and you—you infused courage into him by appealing to his honour[p. 177] and grasping his sword knot, as you once expressed it to me?”

He: “Yes, and on other occasions he had too much courage, and wished to move too rapidly and take too much. Thus in 1864 he wished to march into Jutland without Austria, and at Nikolsburg to continue the war as far as Vienna.” I recalled the attack of hysterical weeping there. “Then at first he wanted to have half of Saxony, half of Hanover, Ansbach and Bayreuth, and a piece of Bohemia from Austria, until I persuaded him how unpractical that was.”

“And in 1870 the military conspiracy at Mainz before the march into France, and afterwards at Versailles his attitude towards the claims of the Bavarians?” I added.

He: “Certainly, when they actually proposed to proceed to violence against Bavaria and afterwards intended to deny her rights which she was entitled to claim.”

I said: “The expression ‘cloak’ reminds me of its converse. Monarchs are often adorned with other people’s feathers. If a battle is won at which one of them happens to be present as a spectator, he is said to have won it, although of course the staff has really won it; and so it is in your case in the field of politics.”

“Why, yes,” he replied; “but if the work is done and succeeds that is the main point. It is a matter of indifference who did it.”

He reflected for a moment, and then continued: “The new Empress has always been an Englishwoman, a channel for English influence here, an instrument for the furtherance of English interests. In her present position she is more than ever so, and the Battenberger is to be another tool of the same kind. In England they do not tolerate any foreign influence—you know[p. 178] how Palmerston and the others accused, opposed and persecuted the Prince Consort for his alleged or real influence over the Queen. We however are expected to submit to that sort of thing, and regard it as a matter of course. We are an inferior race, ordained to serve them. So the Queen thinks too, and her daughter is of exactly the same opinion. They are working in partnership. I would suggest to you to take the present opportunity of treating this subject fully, dealing with it from a diplomatic and historical standpoint, showing how England has at all times sought and still seeks to influence us for her own ends, and often against our interest, to use us for promoting her own security and the extension of her power, lately through women, daughters and friends of Queen Victoria. In doing so, please to make use of a small work that was published a few years ago in Switzerland under the title of Co-Regents and Foreign Influence in Germany (Mitregenten und fremde Hände in Deutschland). The anonymous author is not unknown to me. It is Duke Ernst of Coburg, and his account is on the whole correct.”

I said: “Doubtless it must be, since he belongs to the clique: Leopold of Belgium, Victoria in London, Victoria in Berlin, Stockmar, and also Josias Bunsen in the heyday of his career.”

He: “Yes, but that is no longer the case, as you will see when you read the pamphlet. You can go further back, however. Give a survey of English policy during the last couple of centuries.”

I: “Something of the kind must have existed even previously. An Englishman was once even German Emperor, Richard of Cornwall, before Rudolf of Hapsburg.”

He: “Yes, but confine yourself to modern history, going back as far as the beginning of the[p. 179] last century. Throughout that period the policy of England has constantly been to sow dissensions between the Continental Powers or to maintain existing discord, on the principle of Duobus litigantibus tertius gaudens, and to use the one against the other so that they should be weakened and damaged for the benefit of England. These efforts were first directed against France, then against Russia. First it was the Emperor in Vienna who had to wage war on their behalf, and then we were to take up the cudgels for them. Remember the Spanish War of Succession and the Battle of Dettingen. At that time it is true every State in Europe was threatened in its liberty and existence by the universal monarchy which was then in course of development in France, but none so much as England herself. And then think of the Seven Years’ War in which the English took the lion’s share of the booty, although they had ventured and accomplished comparatively little, while we conquered the French colonies for them. Latterly they have tried to play us off against the Russians who have become a danger for them on the Bosphorus, and still more on their Indian frontier. We are expected to make good the deficiencies of their military forces, threaten the Russian flank, and hold them back when they propose to march. First, during the Crimean War, in which by the way the French had little reason to join, we were urged, quite against our own interests, to co-operate with the Western Powers in opposing the Emperor Nicholas. I assisted in preventing that. Later on, in 1863, England wanted to see the Polish insurrection supported, as a means of weakening Russia, a course whereby we should have forfeited an old friend who might prove a still better friend to us in the future, and have gained no trustworthy[p. 180] friendship in the West by way of compensation; while in the Poles we should have strengthened an ancient foe, and created a natural ally for France. In 1877, when it was seen that a Russo-Turkish war was imminent, we were expected to exert our influence at St. Petersburg to prevent it—in the interest of humanity—as The Times demonstrated. Queen Victoria urged us to do so in a letter to the Emperor, which was handed to him by Augusta, who added her own intercession, and in two letters to myself. Humanity, peace and liberty,—those are always their pretexts when they cannot by way of a change invoke Christianity and the extension of the blessings of civilisation to savage and semi-barbarous peoples. In reality, however, The Times and the Queen wrote in the interests of England, which had nothing in common with ours. It is in the interest of England that the German Empire should be on bad terms with Russia. Our interest is that we should be on as good terms with Russia as the situation allows. Latterly I have directed my endeavours towards this end, and I have succeeded, in spite of various opposing influences;—and now the Battenberger is to be called in to nullify my success, to inspire the Emperor Alexander with fresh suspicions, and to supply the Moscow press with plausible grounds, which would have at least appearances in their favour, for asserting that we entertain secret designs. Prince Alexander, who has been selected as bridegroom for the daughter of the German Emperor, would, if that marriage were to take place, not only appear but actually be a permanent channel for English influence with us—that is the essence of the scheme—emphasise and repeat that—so far as this influence is directed against Russia. He is really a Pole, through his mother, who married, as a Fräulein[p. 181] Hauke, a member of a family which is neither old nor illustrious. (...) Such a relationship is decidedly not suitable for the Prussian Royal House and a daughter of the German Emperor. The Emperor Frederick sees and feels that too, perhaps even more than we do, for he has a very high opinion of his family and its dignity. But apart from that the more important point is that the Emperor Alexander hates the Battenberger with his whole heart, indeed there is perhaps no one else whom he knows and hates so thoroughly.”

I said: “The unheard-of rudeness of the letter striking his name off the Army List, a communication well nigh unparalleled in the intercourse of Princes.”

He rejoined: “Yes, and other things too. But he richly deserved it through his falsehood and treachery. As a nephew of the deceased Empress he was regarded in St. Petersburg as a fitting instrument for advancing Russian interests as Prince of Bulgaria; and that was quite legitimate in view of the gratitude which the Bulgarians owed to Russia for their liberation, while it was also the ultimate and real object of the war of 1877. At first he governed in this sense, but he afterwards took up with the English, who wished to create a Greater Bulgaria to serve their purposes, and like Rumania be under obligations to them. It was to be developed into a new kingdom, which should stand in the way of Russia. That had been planned long beforehand, and the way had been prepared by various measures; but the Prince always tried to dispel any uneasiness by beautifully reassuring speeches and categorical promises. Finally he pledged himself to Giers not to make any kind of change in Eastern Rumelia; and yet shortly afterwards the revolution broke out in Philippopolis, with his previous knowledge and co-operation. It would be a miracle, and[p. 182] utterly opposed to human nature, if the Emperor Alexander did not hate him with a deadly hatred for this dishonourable conduct, this breach of faith. He will never forgive him, and will always look upon him as a sworn enemy, embittered moreover by having been driven out. If he were accepted as a member of the German Imperial House, it would fill the Emperor with a suspicion which nothing could dissipate. It would be a permanent threat to peace. He would not on that account declare war upon us immediately and without more ado, as Napoleon did in similar circumstances in 1870; but he would hold it to be a confirmation of all the old doubts as to our sincerity which we had proved to be unfounded, and the Russian press would renew its agitation with the same violence and malice as formerly, and with more success. It is not yet certain that Russia would take up arms against us if we were to be again attacked by the French; but if the Russians were to declare war upon us the French would certainly join them immediately. And after all in such a war we should not be so very certain to win, while it would be a great misfortune even if we were victorious, as in any case we should lose a great deal of blood and treasure, and also suffer considerable indirect damage through the interruption of work and trade, and we should never be able to take anything from the French or Russians that would compensate us for our losses. It is only the English who would benefit by it. It would be an English war if the Battenberg marriage led Russia to join the French attack on us. We are well armed, but at all events large masses of troops would be put into the field against us, and Austria has not yet developed her defensive forces as she could and should do; and no real confidence could be placed in Italy. It is possible that the French may[p. 183] regain their footing there and win back the Italian friendship, if other parties came into power. Indeed even a Republic is possible, and Italy may resume her irredentist schemes and claims against Austria.”

I said: “I shall keep all that in mind, and write the article as well as I can. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention the influence brought to bear by the English ladies against the bombardment of Paris. You remember: ‘Schurze und Schürzen’” (aprons and petticoats; that is to say, freemasons and women).

“Yes, do that,” he replied; “but at the same time remember the press laws. Be very cautious, diplomatic, and not too venomous; and always emphasise the fact that it is foreign influences that are working against me; not the Emperor, but the reigning lady and her mother.”... “But,” I said, “will it not throw an unfavourable light on the Emperor, making him appear weak and pitiable, if one says that he is opposed to the Battenberg project, but may be brought to give in to the demands of the ladies?” He replied: “It is not necessary to say that in so many words; but it is nevertheless a fact—and it was much the same with the late Emperor, who had also to struggle against feminine influence, and was thankful to me when I stiffened him against it. In these cases he used to say to me: ‘Do it in such a manner that they may fancy they have had their way, while we really manage as it should be.’ On the whole, I got on well with him.”

After I had been with him somewhat over three-quarters of an hour, he called my attention to a very curious little work of art which stood on his writing-table. It consisted of a large grey pearl mounted with diamonds and rubies, representing the head of a greyhound with a golden tobacco pipe in its mouth. This,[p. 184] he explained, was “a present from Mexico.” I then took my leave, and he was about to lie down to sleep. In the antechamber Theiss told me that while I had been with the Chancellor the Grand Duke of Baden called to see him. He had told him, however, that the Prince “had a conference,” and he accordingly went away. I proceeded direct to Bucher’s in order to repeat to him as literally as possible my conversation with the Chief, and thus to impress it more firmly on my mind. He had the Duke of Coburg’s pamphlet, which he lent me. He also gave me the following example of the manner in which the feminine half of the present Imperial family have been anglicised. “Princess Victoria, the Battenbergerin in spe, had a difference with her brother on one occasion respecting some household arrangement. ‘After all, that is much better managed at home,’ she said. ‘At home? What do you mean?’ he asked. ‘Why, at home in England,’ she replied. The particular epithet which Prince William applied to her is not known for certain, but it was either ‘goose’ or ‘sheep’”. (...)

On my return home at 6 o’clock I found the following note, enclosing an extract from the Deutsches Tageblatt, lying on my table:—“Dear Sir,—Prince Bismarck begs you to kindly introduce the article discussed to-day by a reference to the enclosed statements of The Times, in order that it should not appear to be written without any immediate occasion.—Yours truly, Rottenburg.”

On the 8th of April, having again been summoned to the Chief, I called at the Chancellor’s palace, and was shown in without much delay. The Prince, who was reclining in a chaise longue near the window, was reading the Kölnische Zeitung. I had to draw up an[p. 185] armchair close to him. He said: “Here is the Kölnische Zeitung writing against The Times, and also the Frankfurter Zeitung. You might also mention this in the article of which we were speaking yesterday, and correct them where necessary. The main point is that the Emperor is on my side. A syllable must be added here” (he pointed to the word “Kaiser,” which was underlined in red)—“Kaiserin. It is a struggle between the Emperor and Empress. She, as an Englishwoman, is in favour of the Battenberger; he will not have him, first for political reasons, like myself, and then because he actually hates him, for he dislikes the idea of a mésalliance, as he is very proud of his dynasty and position. Two Empresses are fighting against his opinion and mine,—those of India and Germany; and Victoria the daughter simply talks him down. She can make much better use of her tongue than he can. It has always been so, and now more than ever, owing to his illness and the way in which worry affects him. Besides, he is deeply devoted to his family. I was present on one occasion when she set at him so violently with her feminine logic and volubility that at last he sat there quite silent and depressed. He is delighted every time that I come to his assistance against his combative wife.” I related Bucher’s story about Victoria No. 3 and her brother. “Yes,” he said, “that is quite credible. At home with her daughters, she, the German Empress, only speaks English, the language of the Chosen People, and the Princesses write English letters to their father.”

He continued: “Look here! There they talk of my attachment to the dynasty. Well, that is quite correct, but it was more so under the father, the old master. I had all along wanted to retire at his death, and if I[p. 186] remain it may be taken as certain that I do so only on an understanding that I continue the old policy I have followed hitherto, and am protected from foreign influence and from the interference and misgovernment of women, which was never carried to such lengths as it is at present. I would therefore beg of you to call attention to the Progressist journals, to these Court Jacobins—use that word—who receive their orders from Charlottenburg, through the women whose names figure at the head of the Address, Frau Helmholtz, Schrader, and Stockmar, whose late husband was Secretary to the Englishwoman when she was Crown Princess. These Byzantine hypocrites, these democrats who wag their tails and crawl more abjectly than the most extravagant absolutist, would like to degrade me from being a servant of the State and of its head into a Court menial, although of course it is both my right and my duty to form my own opinion and maintain it like anybody else, all the more as I bear the responsibility for the mistakes, or, as in the present instance, the obvious follies that are committed in important matters.” He continued to dilate on this theme for a few minutes; and then again suggested that I should make use of the pamphlet of Duke Ernst of Coburg. He sent for Rottenburg, and told him that in using it elsewhere the passages which I should quote were not to be employed. When Rottenburg had gone I asked: “Are you quite sure that it was he who wrote it? It is very strong for him, although from the style, which is rather vulgar and careless, it might well be his work, besides which he is acquainted with the facts through being closely connected with the Queen.” He replied, smiling: “He himself told me so” (in English). I then spoke of his autobiography, which I described as badly arranged and[p. 187] prolix. “Yes,” he said, “he has somewhat the same failing as Beust. He can suppress nothing—not the most trifling circumstance respecting what he has done or tried to do, and collected.” I inquired as to the instructions respecting Beust’s book. He replied: “That must wait. We have now more important matters to deal with. Later on, perhaps. For the present you might get them to give you the book. I have underlined a few things which appear to me to be incorrect. But now I must try to get some sleep. At present my pulse goes on an average fifteen beats in the minute faster than it did during the preceding reign.” I took my leave, with good wishes for his speedy improvement. I had been with him about twenty minutes. In the following three days I wrote the desired article, and sent it to the Grenzboten, where it appeared in No. 17, under the title, “Foreign Influences in the Empire.”

April 25th.—This evening at Knoop’s, Bucher described the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern, in which he himself had taken a part, as a “trap for Napoleon.” He added that neither the Emperor William nor the Crown Prince had the least idea of this feature of Bismarck’s manœuvre, of which he, Bucher, also gave particulars to the Crown Prince after his journey. They both regarded the candidature as a means of exalting the glory of their House.

April 28th.—This afternoon met Bucher in the Königin Augusta Strasse.... He said, smiling: “I have just heard a surprising piece of news. Grandmamma behaved quite sensibly at Charlottenburg. She declared the attitude of the Chief in the Battenberg marriage scheme to be quite correct, and urged her daughter to change her ways. Of course it was very[p. 188] nice of her not to forget her own country and to wish to benefit it where it was possible for her to do so, but she needed the attachment of the Germans, and should endeavour to secure it; and finally she brought about a reconciliation between Prince William and his mother.” I asked, “Have you that on good authority?” “On very good authority,” he replied. “Well,” I said, “that is highly satisfactory, and we shall act accordingly in the immediate future, for, of course, we do not hate Victoria II. on account of her extraction, but because she feels as an Englishwoman and wishes to promote English interests at our expense, and because she despises us Germans. The question is whether in the long run she will heed this maternal admonition. It is not easy to rid one’s self of a habit of thought of such long standing.” He agreed with me in this.

April 29th.—I read this morning in the Berliner Boersenzeitung: “We are in a position to state that the Imperial Chancellor, as was indeed to be expected, is most indignant at the notorious article in the Grenzboten slandering the Empress Victoria, and that he has given expression to his condemnation in very strong terms. In this connection exceptional importance is to be attached to the sympathetic article in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on the Queen of England’s visit.” Doubtless as that paper is in the Bleichröder’s service, this utterance has been inspired by that firm, over which floats the flag of the British Consulate General. Well informed? Possibly, indeed probably. A disclaimer? Why not! Quite in order! Tempora mutantur? But I shall never change towards him, nor he doubtless towards me. He will once more call for his little archer when he again wants an arrow shot into the face of this or that sun, and “Büschlein’s” bow shall never fail him. My[p. 189] “libellous article” was, I see, indignantly denounced in the Daily Telegraph and the Neue Freie Presse. In doing so the former described the Grenzboten as “a publication which, for well-known reasons, is read with attention throughout Germany.” The Neue Freie Presse spoke of a want of tact which would be regarded as impossible if it were not in evidence in black on white. Excellent! In this manner what I had written secured a wide circulation, particularly as other journalistic hacks will probably without wishing it have recommended the article in a similar way. (...)

After the death of the Emperor Frederick, I wrote to Bucher a few lines expressing the satisfaction I felt that we were relieved of that incubus, and that his place was now to be taken by a disciple and admirer of the Chief.

THE EMPEROR FREDERICK’S DIARY—THE CHIEF ON THE DIARY AND ITS AUTHOR—THE GERMAN QUESTION DURING THE WAR OF 1870—THE EMPEROR FREDERICK AND HIS LEANING TOWARDS ENGLAND—THE CHIEF PRAISES THE YOUNG EMPEROR—“BETTER TOO MUCH THAN TOO LITTLE FIRE!”—I AM TO ARRANGE THE CHIEF’S PAPERS, AND DO SO—LETTERS FROM FREDERICK WILLIAM IV. AND FROM WILLIAM I.—CORRESPONDENCE WITH AND CONCERNING THE CROWN PRINCE (FREDERICK)—LETTERS TO AND FROM ANDRASSY DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AUSTRO-GERMAN ALLIANCE—LETTERS FROM THE EMPEROR ON THE SAME SUBJECT—WILLIAM I.’S RELUCTANCE TO DESERT RUSSIA—CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE EMPEROR AND THE TSAR AT ALEXANDROWO—WILLIAM I.’S FINAL INSTRUCTIONS—BISMARCK’S ACCOUNT OF HIS RELATIONS WITH THE EMPEROR FREDERICK.

July 16th.—After it had been whispered in the press for some time that the Emperor Frederick had left a diary which did not throw a very favourable light upon Bismarck, and that this was at present in the hands of the Queen of England, a second version of the story (Berliner Boersenzeitung, evening edition of the 13th) is[p. 191] now reproduced from the Matin and other French papers. This is to the following effect. During the lifetime of the Emperor William I. Prince Bismarck prepared a frank statement respecting the European situation and his own political views, which he handed to the Emperor, believing that the latter would survive his son, and that the document would thus pass direct, without any intermediary, from the grandfather to the grandson. Frederick ascended the throne, and found the Bismarck memorandum. All the efforts made by the Chancellor to recover possession of it were in vain, and on Frederick’s death it was found that the document, which contained the most secret ideas and schemes of the Chancellor, had come into the possession of Queen Victoria, who declined to give it up. In this form the story is doubtless akin to that of the sea-serpent, and yet it is perhaps not entirely without foundation. Anyhow, it is possible that a diary by the late Emperor may be in existence, and may have been put into a place of safety by his consort or her mother.

On the 20th of September I received from Grunow the October number of the Deutsche Rundschau, containing the diary of the Emperor Frederick during the war. I reviewed it in No. 40 of the Grenzboten without having any doubt as to its being in the main genuine. On the 24th Hedwig announced the arrival of one of the Chancery attendants who had been sent by Rottenburg to request me to call upon him at 2.30 P.M. I went, and he showed me a letter from the Imperial Chancellor (written by an amanuensis) desiring him to request me to come to Friedrichsruh, and to bring with me my notes taken during the war, as the diary of the Emperor Frederick appeared to contain[p. 192] inaccuracies. I promised to start next morning, whereupon Rottenburg arranged to telegraph to Rantzau to stop the 8.30 A.M. train at Friedrichsruh where it does not usually stop. Nothing was to be said in the newspapers about my visit. I replied that that went without saying so far as it depended upon me. I had always felt disgusted at the merest mention of my name by that pack. On the same evening Rottenburg sent me a letter requesting me not to leave Berlin, but to come to the Imperial Chancellerie at 10 A.M. on the following morning, as other arrangements had been made.

I appeared punctually at 10 A.M. in the Chancellor’s antechamber, where I met the Secretary of State, Von Schelling (medium height, red face, white hair and small white moustache) who was shown in to the Prince before me. As Rottenburg informed me while I was waiting, the Chancellor had arrived and wished to see me. He added, however, that he might not be able to see me now, in which case I should return at 2.30 P.M. Rottenburg also inquired if I had already found any inaccuracies in the diary published in the Rundschau. I replied that so far I had only noticed some trifling errors, and that on the whole I considered it to be genuine, but not complete. Schelling remained for half an hour. On his leaving, Rantzau came out and spoke to Rottenburg, whereupon the latter again requested me to return at 2.30 P.M., as the Chief was too much occupied to be able to speak to me now. On my return at the hour named he said that the Chancellor had still no time to receive me and was going back to Friedrichsruh that evening. There was, therefore, no alternative but for me to go there likewise. It would be well if I were to start next morning and telegraph[p. 193] to him shortly before my departure in order that he might arrange for the train to stop at Friedrichsruh. I promised to leave by the 8.30 train from the Lehrter station, which arrives at Friedrichsruh about 1 P.M., and also to take with me my notes, of which he again reminded me.

September 26th.—About one o’clock I arrived at Friedrichsruh station, where Rottenburg was waiting with a carriage for Count Solms, our Ambassador in Rome—who travelled by the same train—and myself. On our way to the house, the Privy Councillor told us that the Prince had gone out for a walk in order to freshen himself up, as he had done a great deal of work last night. At 2.15 P.M. I met him at lunch, at which the Princess, Rantzau and his wife, his Excellency von Solms, and a Prioress, whose name I have forgotten, were also present. The Chief, as was his custom formerly at Varzin and here, read through, signed and otherwise disposed of various documents. After lunch Rottenburg, on his instructions, handed me a memorandum on the diary published in the Rundschau. This was directed to the Emperor and was to appear next day in the Reichsanzeiger. While I was reading this through in his study, the Chief came in, asked me to give it to him, and made a few corrections and additions in it. I then read it through in my own room upstairs, after which the Chancery attendant, Kleist, took it away. I then chatted with the three little Rantzaus, who were trying their skill at archery at an improvised target near the coach-house; advised them in the matter, and in that way, apparently, won the good will of the still very childlike and unaffected boys. Then a short walk with Solms in the park on the banks of the Aue. On[p. 194] my return, I found a carriage standing before the door of the house; and the Chief sent word to say that he was going out for a drive, and would I like to come with him. Of course I would. We then drove for about two hours, first to Silt, afterwards to Schönau and finally to the Billenbrück, and then home through the beech wood on the right bank of the Aue. On the way, the Prince spoke to two gamekeepers about the scarcity of partridges and the fish poachers; while he discussed the state of the crops, and the condition of the cattle with a cowherd whose charges were feeding in a field of vetches. Further on, he entered into conversation with overseers who were looking after the potato digging and with labourers who were ploughing with oxen. In the intervals he had a long conversation with me on the manner in which the Crown Prince’s diary should be dealt with. He introduced the subject by the remark (in English): “I am afraid you have forgotten your English.” On my answering, “No, sir, by no means,” he continued the conversation in that language on account of the coachman. He began: “As you will have seen from what you read, we must first treat it as a forgery, a point of view from which a great deal may be said. Then, when it is proved to be genuine by the production of the original it can be dealt with further in another way.” I said that on the whole it appeared to me to be genuine, but incomplete, on the one hand, while, on the other, there were interpolations, probably by Victoria No. 2, in support of which opinion I quoted examples. I also told him that, in ignorance of his plans, I had already dealt with the matter in the Grenzboten a week before, according to my own views, and in certain flagrant instances condemned it cautiously.[p. 195] Another course was, however, still open to me. I then repeated to him, from memory, the commencement of the article in question. He rejoined: “You were quite right. I myself consider the diary even more genuine than you do. It is quite insignificant, superficial stuff, without any true conception of the situation, a medley of sentimental politics, self-conceit and phrase-mongering. He was far from being as clever as his father, and the latter was certainly not a first-rate politician. It is just that which proves its genuineness to me. But at first we must treat it as doubtful.” The conversation then turned on the details of the diary. I asked if he had spoken to the Emperor on the subject, and he replied in the affirmative, saying: “He was quite in a rage and wishes to have strong measures taken against the publication.” He then came to speak of the demand for Imperial Ministers. We have them, of course, only without the title and name. The Imperial Chancellor is their permanent President,—permanent, because with us the power of the Emperor is greater under the Constitution than in other countries which are ruled by alternating Parliamentary majorities. I suggested that Gustav Freytag might perhaps at the instance of the Empress Victoria have edited the diary and arranged for its publication. I tried to show the probability of this suggestion by a reference to his political views, to the confidential position which he occupied towards the two Victorias, and in particular to an instruction to Brater’s paper in Frankfurt in the summer of 1863, during the conflict between the King and the Crown Prince respecting the “Press Ordinances.” He considered, however, that the trick would prove to have been done by Hengst, a writer who serves the Court, and particularly its ladies,[p. 196] in the press. He then repeated the main points of the memorandum which I had previously read. I now ascertained for certain that this was a report on the diary in the Deutsche Rundschau which the Chancellor, by the Emperor’s command, had submitted to the sovereign a few days ago. He added various details: “In 1870 the Crown Prince was only partially initiated into the negotiations, as the King feared that he would write about them either to his consort, or direct to Queen Victoria and her Court, whose sympathies were with the French. In the second place, he might also have done harm, as his views with regard to the demands upon our German allies went too far, and he was thinking of coercive measures which were urged upon him by his good friends at Baden and Coburg—as, for instance, Roggenbach, who always was a fool. He had therefore only a superficial knowledge of the course of affairs. It is, nevertheless, surprising that these notes, which are supposed to have been written down day by day, contain so many misconceptions, confusions and chronological errors. A great deal of it cannot possibly have been written by the Crown Prince, and must have come from his entourage or the publisher. Here it is said that, in the middle of July, I wanted to return to Varzin because peace was no longer in danger, while he, of course, knew that I considered war to be inevitable, and had declared my intention to retire when the King showed a disposition to yield. It is also inconceivable that the Crown Prince endeavoured at an early date to secure the Iron Cross for non-Prussians, in view of the fact that at Versailles he was opposed to it, and it was I who first suggested it. He represents this as the beginning of the struggle between him and me as to the future of Germany, although he[p. 197] must surely have remembered former differences of opinion between us, that led to some very lively discussions which one would not be likely to forget. It was before or immediately after Sedan, at Beaumont or Donchery, and the conversation took place in a long avenue through which we rode side by side. We came to high words over our respective views as to what was expedient and morally permissible, and when he spoke of force and of coercive measures against the Bavarians I reminded him of the Margrave Gero and the thirty Wendish Princes, and also of the Sendling massacre. When he held to his opinion, however, and suggested that I should carry it into execution, I said to him (scarcely in so blunt and plain a fashion) that there were things which a Prince, perhaps, might do, but no gentleman would attempt. Such conduct would be an act of perfidy, and an outrage upon allies who had fulfilled their obligations, quite apart from the folly of such an attempt at a time when we had further use for them. The statements in the alleged diary as to my position in the Emperor question in 1866, on my intentions in connection with the dogma of infallibility, my idea of an Upper House and the Imperial Ministries, can hardly have been written by the Crown Prince either. In 1870 he could no longer doubt that the Empire, in the form which he had in his mind in 1866, would have been neither useful nor feasible—in fact it would not have been an Empire at all. What he desired in 1866 was not an Emperor but a King of Germany—the other Kings and Grand Dukes being reduced to their former rank, merely Dukes—as if that were an easy matter to bring about. We had already put an end to the Upper House at Beaumont or Donchery, and had dealt with the Imperial Ministers in like fashion. He, too, must[p. 198] have finally recognised that the dogma of infallibility was of slight importance for us, and that I regarded it as a blunder on the part of the Pope and advised the King to let it rest during the continuance of the war. Even a hasty thinker like the Crown Prince could scarcely have concluded from that that I intended to oppose it after the war, and therefore this passage was doubtless not written by him. At least for the present we must continue to doubt the genuineness of this and other statements.” He then spoke of Bray, who, as an Austrian sympathiser, delayed the mobilisation of the Bavarian troops in 1870; and of King Lewis, who—at that time of sound German principles—was “our sole influential friend in Bavaria.” Returning to the Crown Prince’s idea of 1866 and to his Upper Chamber, the Chancellor observed: “An Emperor or King of North Germany would have created a division between North and South Germany such as did not exist under the Customs Union; and an Upper House with Princes and elected members was impossible.” I then reminded him of the importunity of Baden and Coburg, who at Versailles worried him with memorials and verbal counsels, questions, &c., to that effect, and of his indignation at the unexpected visit of the Grand Duke Frederick during dinner. I then mentioned to him what Bucher had told me about the sensible attitude adopted by the Queen of England at Charlottenburg, which he confirmed, adding that at the interview which he had had with her he had in part prompted the admonitions which she addressed to her daughter. In this connection I asked whether the statement in Bleichröder’s Boersenzeitung as to his strong condemnation of my article, “Foreign Influences in the Empire,” were true. I added that, rebus mutatis, I should have[p. 199] considered it quite conceivable, and had indeed said as much. He replied, smiling: “Nonsense! quite the contrary. I have several times expressed my high appreciation of it. The article was really quite first rate, and the Coburg pamphlet was also very aptly applied.” Driving along in the dusk on the right bank of the Aue, we passed a boarding school, and were greeted with cheers three times repeated by a crowd of children (doubtless the pupils and their teacher). “They will,” he said, “have taken the grey-bearded gentleman seated by me for a Rumanian or Bulgarian Minister on a visit.” “Then I too have had a share in the ovation,” I rejoined, “and shall take it with me to Berlin as a souvenir.” He afterwards requested me to look through my diary to-morrow, to see if there were any further chronological or other mistakes in the publication of the Deutsche Rundschau and to report to him on the subject.

After dinner, which began at 7 o’clock and lasted for about an hour, coffee and cognac were served in the next room, while the Prince seated himself on a sofa in the corner, behind a table with a lamp. There he read the newspapers and smoked a long pipe. We followed suit with cigars. I had some conversation with Rantzau, who is now about to leave for his post at Munich, concerning “Friedrich der Sachte,” and my intercourse with him and his “Ministers,” as well as on the old Schleswig-Holstein agitation. The Princess then brought me a book kept by her, in which I had to write my name and the date. I was preceded in this by various distinguished and eminent people, celebrities of the day, Ministers, Ambassadors, Envoys, &c. It will one day be an interesting collection. Afterwards met Solms upstairs in the corridor leading to his and my room, and[p. 200] hastily gave him a little (well deserved) praise for his sharp diplomatic scent in the months preceding the French war. This moved him to invite me to his room, where he gave me detailed particulars of his experiences and achievements at that time, but unfortunately in French, whereby some points were lost to me. (...)

On the morning of the 27th I again spoke to the Ambassador as he was on the point of starting for Berlin and Rome. “Adieu, old friend, and if you ever come to the Eternal City be sure to visit me. But what I said to you last night about the Paris affairs must not appear in your memoirs.” “No, Excellency, a mere reference to the conversation without any details. I know how to respect your confidence as well as that of other people.” “Yes, I am convinced that you have gathered a great deal about our affairs which does not appear in your books.”

During the forenoon, in accordance with the Chief’s desire, I went through my diary up to our stay at Ferrières. At lunch the Prince observed, after first recommending me to take some herring: “They are wholesome, and I always have some since Schweninger advised me to take fish. Moreover, it is a very fine and good fish, and is only looked down upon because it is so plentiful and cheap. Since I began in 1883 I must have disposed of over a thousand of them.” In the evening, after dinner, the Prince, while looking through the newspapers, suddenly said: “Yes, since 1840 the Princes have begun to degenerate. I will give you an example or two (looking towards me). In 1858, before Prince William, afterwards Emperor, acted as Regent for his brother, there was a reactionary intrigue on foot with which Manteuffel was not unconnected, and in which they also wanted me to join. Its object was to[p. 201] induce the sick King to withdraw his authority, and to let Queen Elizabeth govern through the Ministers. I did not join in that scheme, but on the contrary started for Baden—or was it somewhere else in South Germany?—and told the whole story to him (the Prince of Prussia). He was not at all disconcerted by the plan, however, and declared himself ready to retire immediately. It was therefore a matter of perfect indifference to him. But I argued it out with him. What will be the result of such a move? It is surely your duty to hold on! Send for Manteuffel at once. And Manteuffel actually came, after having hesitated for some little time, excusing himself on the ground of illness, and so the affair went no further. Then at Babelsberg, when I was called thither in order to be made Minister. In his despair he had the act of abdication ready signed, and it was only when I offered to stand by him in spite of Parliament and in spite of the majority that he tore it up. This restored his courage and confidence and his sense of royal duty, which in his unfortunate position had, until then, been a matter of utter indifference to him. He afterwards held to it firmly enough.” The Chancellor added that of late years the deceased monarch through this sense of duty had sometimes caused him considerable difficulties, as his knowledge of affairs was limited and he was slow in comprehending anything new. Of the present Emperor he said: “He has more understanding, more courage and greater independence of Court influences, but in his leaning towards me he goes far. How considerate he was the last time he came here! He was surprised that I had waited for him till 11 o’clock, a thing which his grandfather was incapable of saying. And in the morning he waited for me, and although he is accustomed to rise much earlier[p. 202] he did not get up until 9 o’clock, thinking that I slept till that hour. I was just washing and only half dressed when he put his hand on my shoulder, and I hurriedly pulled on my dressing gown in order to be to some extent in a proper condition to receive him.” I said: “Yes, Serene Highness, you now appear to have everything one could wish for you. A docile and grateful pupil and warm admirer stands by your side as ruler and chief authority in the State, and we, your people, rejoice with all our hearts, and hope that it may long remain so.”

“It is only in trifles and matters of secondary importance that one had occasionally some little reason to find fault with him, as for instance in the form of his pronouncements. After all, that was a little too much of a good thing when he said: ‘Forty-two millions and eighteen army corps on the field.’ ‘If at last the whole nation lies hushed in the silence of death.’ If every German soldier and civilian is dead, what significance can the independence and inviolability of Germany still have? And new-fangled words from the newspapers, such as ‘unentwegt,’ ‘voll und ganz,’ to say nothing of ‘diesbezüglich,’ do not look well in his proclamation.” The Prince rejoined: “In his reference to the battle-field it would certainly have been enough had he said: ‘And if I were to be the last man upon the field of battle nothing that we have conquered shall be lost!’ But that is youthful vivacity, which time will correct. Better too much than too little fire!” I then conversed with Countess Rantzau, and recommended to her a climatic cure, deep breathing in the open air. He looked up from his paper and said: “Pulmonary gymnastics? I too have tried that, and still do occasionally.”

[p. 203]

Up to lunch time on the morning of the 28th I read through my diary, and came upon a number of passages that seemed likely to be of use to the Chief. On being called down to lunch I met a gentleman who was paying a private visit. He was introduced to me as Privy Councillor of Embassy Brauer, a portly man of about thirty-six, who has a slight touch of the South-west German accent. The conversation turned on the Crown Prince, and the shallowness and poverty of thought which characterised his diary. From this the Chief again concluded that the publication in the Deutsche Rundschau, or at least a great part of it, might be genuine. He again spoke in English on account of the servants. I took the liberty to remark that according to page 138 of my diary it appeared after all that he had had a conversation on the German question with his Royal Highness at Versailles on the 16th. He rejoined: “Yes, but then he has mixed it up with a former one, and moreover I cannot have advised him to propose to the King that the Bavarians should be disarmed.” I added that that must have been said ironically—a suggestion of such a monstrous description that no one could take it seriously.

On his rising from table to go to his study, I followed him outside in order to tell him privately that I had found some passages in my diary which might be of interest to him, mentioning in particular Fleming’s despatch on Mohl’s report. He said he would like to see them in the afternoon, and would send for me for the purpose. “I must now answer Augusta, who has once more administered to me one of her gracious Model Letter-Writer epistles.” Later on, when I brought him the diary with the passages of interest marked, he praised Mohl’s description of the[p. 204] relations of parties in Bavaria as apt and accurate. On my saying that it would doubtless have been in the hands of the Grand Duke of Baden three months before the differences at Versailles, and that he would certainly have communicated its contents to the Crown Prince, he answered in a tone of contempt: “Ah, that is mere talk on his part. He never took anything seriously, or studied it thoroughly. Do you really think that they were seriously concerned, to read despatches, and to think over and note the contents of reports? They just met in order to smoke and exchange ill-natured gossip.” He then related once more: “It was before the conference at Donchery when he spoke of using force against the Bavarians, and of eventually shooting down the two army corps if necessary. I said to him that would be an act of unheard-of treachery, which a Prince might decide upon, but which no gentleman could perform. That would be a course similar to Gero’s, in his treatment of the thirty Wendish Princes, a perfidy which had such fatal consequences for the whole Ostmark.” On this occasion he also repeated his plan of campaign with regard to the publication in the Rundschau: “First assert it to be a forgery, and express indignation at such a calumny upon the noble dead. Then, when they prove it to be genuine, refute the errors and foolish ideas which it contains, but cautiously, and bearing in mind that he was Emperor and father to the present Emperor.” He then exclaimed suddenly: “Well, he is gone! Made off with himself, with the Public Prosecutor at his heels. Geffcken, I mean, who published it, and who for the matter of that is no Democrat, but a Particularist.” I mentioned to him that, during the latter half of the fifties, Geffcken, under the nom de plume of “Victor,”[p. 205] had, as a friend of Freytag’s and a petty diplomat of the sniffing and spying order, supplied the Grenzboten with Opposition gossip inspired by the Crown Prince and the Coburg clique; that he was afterwards a diligent promoter of the Augustenburger’s cause, but that in 1877, as pointed out in the “Friction” articles, his place-hunting propensities had been recognised at Karlsruhe. I then asked whether he had read Hofrath Schneider’s posthumous work on the Emperor William, and added, “he did not appear to be well disposed towards you.” “Certainly not,” he rejoined; “and he had good reason for it. He hated me because I had spoilt a fine business for him. A cousin of mine, a Bismarck-Bohlen, wanted to marry one of his daughters, his senior by eleven years, who had driven him crazy by her coquetry. I pulled him away from her by his coat-tails. She might have captured a big estate with him.” I further expressed the opinion that the death of the Emperor Frederick had saved us from an evil future, and in particular from English influence on the foreign policy of Prussia and of the Empire, and from an estrangement with Russia. “Yes,” he rejoined; “he was in favour of the Orleans, used his influence for a daughter of Nemours, was on the side of Poland, of Denmark, and against the war of 1866,—always in favour of what fell in with the views of the English.”

Before lunch on the 29th I begged Rottenburg to ask the Chief whether our business was now at an end, and I might consider myself at liberty to return home. I received no answer, however, although I reminded Rottenburg of the matter. I spent the day in my room, in a bad temper, having nothing to do and feeling bored, and could not go for a walk, as it rained up to dusk. After dinner reference was again made to the Crown[p. 206] Prince’s incapacity, of which the Chief treated us to an exquisite example. He related: “We had at that time a secret treaty with the St. Petersburg people which now no longer exists. Under it we were to remain neutral in case of war breaking out between England and Russia. On my mentioning the treaty to the Crown Prince he remarked: ‘Of course England has been informed and has agreed to it.’” Great laughter, in which the ladies also joined. The deceased sovereign evidently stood badly in need of a wax candle to light up his head—more so, indeed, than even a certain uncle in Thuringia. (...)

On Sunday, the 30th of September, Rottenburg came up to my room about noon, and said: “I have asked the Chief as to your going home, and he wishes you to stay at least for a few days longer, so that it may look like a visit, and not as if you had been specially summoned here for a purpose. How do you spell Commercy?” I replied: “With two ‘m’s’ and a ‘y.’” “He will probably question you about their stay there.” I looked it up, and found that we had arrived at that place at 2 P.M. on the 23rd of August, 1870, and left it at noon on the 24th; that the Chief had had a conference with the King there, and that Waldersee and Alvensleben dined with us. Mentioned that to the Chief at lunch, when by the way, as on the previous day, he returned my greeting with a “Guten Morgen, Büschlein”; and when, among the other good things provided, a basin of peasoup with bacon was served up to me by the Princess’s orders. This is a favourite dish of mine, as I happened to let out on Friday in the course of conversation on various delicacies. The Prince spoke of the Crown Prince’s inadequate acquaintance with modern history, as shown by his reference in his[p. 207] diary to the Emperor and Empire as new ideas emanating from himself and his party. “That was the aspiration of many a German long before he was born. The Burschenschaft sang and drank to it immediately after the War of Liberation, and when I went to Göttingen those were the ideals I carried with me, and if those students had not fought so shy of duelling and beer drinking I might have joined them and got myself involved with them in the subsequent inquiry.” He then related as further evidence of his political views at that time his bet with Coffin, whom he, by the way, knew to be still alive. “As far back as 1848 the idea of an Emperor was well to the front, but it was unworkable, principally because people were thinking of other things at the same time. The beginning of the Empire already existed in the North German Confederation, only Bavaria did not want to come in yet, as was indeed the case in 1870 also, when I had a great deal of trouble to secure her adhesion. On the other hand, I had a hard fight with our Most Gracious Master, who for a long time would not hear of being Emperor. ‘But does your Majesty wish to remain a neuter for ever?’ I said to him one day. ‘What do you mean by that?’ he said. ‘Why, that hitherto you have been the Presidency (das Sie bis jetzt das Präsidium sind.’)” If I rightly understood the Chief at lunch the reason of his question as to Commercy was that it was there he recommended the King to confer the Iron Cross upon the South Germans. “Moltke,” he said, “was entirely against it, asking whether he himself had any Bavarian Order.”

At dinner in the evening the guests included General Lesczinsky, who was in uniform, as was also the Chief. In conversation on a variety of subjects both at[p. 208] the table and afterwards, L. showed himself to be a well-informed man of sound views. He was engaged in the campaigns in Baden, Schleswig-Holstein, Bohemia and France, and has in addition travelled a great deal. He is now stationed in Hamburg, whither he returns to-day. Brauer leaves for home to-night, starting for Berlin at 11 o’clock.

Monday, October 1st.—At 9 A.M. Rottenburg came to my room, and asked me once more the date of our stay at Commercy. I told him. It actually turns out that the point in question is, that it was here the Chief first spoke to the King about giving the Iron Cross to non-Prussians and to the Bavarians in particular. In the evening, Rottenburg and I took a long walk past the Aumühl into Holstein, and arranged to make similar excursions in other directions, principally through the Sachsenwald, where there are a number of good roads, and which is now beginning to take on autumn tints. Rottenburg is a frank and amiable man, with whom one is soon on good terms. He is intelligent and well informed, particularly in social questions. He has an extensive knowledge of public men, and would appear in addition to be an excellent worker. He comes from Danzig, and spent five years in London for the purpose of study.

After dinner something in the conversation led me to inform the Prince of Andrae’s letter to me, and of my meeting with him. He observed that Andrae was a vain intriguer, and that the story about Stirum was not true. Moreover, not only Holtz, but the majority of the others who signed the “Declaration” wrote to him, Bismarck, separate letters of excuse. The Princess remarked that Andrae was one of the worst of the “Deklaranten.” I ascertained at the same time that[p. 209] her mother was a Gichtelite, and that Below-Hohendorf was their Grand Lama—an epithet which the lady did not use, however. The Chief then read a little of the book, Bismarck unter drei Kaisern, but after looking through it for a while he soon laid it aside. In reply to my question whether there was anything in it, he said: “Oh, no; a mere hack’s work! Put together with scissors and paste from the newspapers and such sources, without much knowledge of the subject or real coherence.”

During our walk I had mentioned to Rottenburg my longing for some work to do, and had sought refuge from my boredom in three volumes of Hallberger’s Ueber Land und Meer, which I found in my room. He promised to send me Schmidt’s work on the French Revolution, but did not do so. In my despair I plucked up courage and applied to the Chief himself, asking him if he could not give me something to do, if it were only ciphering, deciphering or copying, perhaps some matter of no importance,—“for my part it may be making out lists or adding up accounts.” He smiled, and, after reflecting for a moment, said: “Perhaps I can find some more interesting occupation for you to-morrow. I will see.”

On Tuesday, October 2nd, took a walk through the wood to Dassendorf and back, which occupied from 11 to 1 o’clock. The weather was very fine. At lunch I ascertained from Rottenburg that the Prince wished to give me a number of letters to look through. When the Chief got up from table he whispered something to Rottenburg at the door, whereupon the latter came back to me and said the Prince was now going upstairs to look out the papers. In about a quarter of an hour I was summoned to his study, where he had several large packets of documents lying before him. He began: “I once[p. 210] promised you that you should arrange my papers. Here are some of them—letters and other things from the Frankfurt and St. Petersburg period. Here for instance is the Gerlach correspondence, and there are letters from Frederick William IV. to me.” He read over one of the latter to me, and then said: “I think you will find other matters of interest among them. I myself can no longer remember exactly all they contain. Take these upstairs with you, and settle how you are going to arrange them. I think the chronological order will be the best.” Was I not delighted? Such confidence! and such a prospect of fresh information! the fulfilment of a hope that had almost died. Pleased beyond measure I hurried off with my burden and immediately set to work on them, first glancing through the various papers at hazard. The sifting of this treasure was to commence next morning, and to be continued on the following days with as little interruption as possible.

On the 3rd of October we were joined at dinner by the Head Forester, Lange, one of the Prince’s managers and an expert who was engaged in laying down meadows. On the 4th the technical controller of one of the Customs division at Hamburg dined with us. Schweninger arrived on the 5th. He behaved very nicely, and was, indeed, almost tender in his manner on my expressing my admiration of the unquestionable service he had rendered in restoring the Chancellor’s health. He wished to visit a patient of his in Mecklenburg, a lady of the nobility, but on the 6th he was still at Friedrichsruh, where he was treated by all the members of the family as a friend of the house. On the 8th we again had the Head Forester at dinner, as well as a prosperous timber merchant and coal-mine owner from Westphalia. In two hours Minister von Bötticher was expected to arrive[p. 211] from Berlin. At table the Prince related that formerly, and even since he became Minister, he was sometimes obliged to dance with Princesses at Court entertainments until the old gentleman (King William) expressed his displeasure. He excused himself by saying: “What is one to do, your Majesty, when Princesses command?” The Princesses were accordingly informed of the prohibition. Keudell was also passionately fond of dancing formerly, and Radowitz too, but the King also broke the latter of this habit.

Addendum.—Yesterday the Chancellor once more returned to the subject of King William’s anxiety in 1866 to utilise his victories in a different way to what he (Bismarck) advised. “His mind was set on Northern Bohemia, half of Saxony, half of Hanover, Ansbach and Bayreuth, &c., and it was difficult to get the idea out of his head.” At lunch to-day I told the Chief (in English on account of the servants) that I expected to finish my work in two or three days, and to return the papers to him in linen envelopes, arranged according to the years. He replied (also in English): “Then you have lost no time, seeing what a quantity of them there were. But I have also a number of others for you. The work is not yet over, as there is a lot more there, more recent and perhaps more interesting for you. Have you found anything of importance among the first batch?” I said I had. He called attention to the contrast between Gerlach and Manteuffel, the Minister, which was evident from their letters. He also mentioned Niebuhr, of whom he remarked: “It is with him as with many pious people of his sort: he has no tact, regards himself as the envoy of an anointed King, and as his representative considers himself to be also anointed.”

On the 9th of October I had been a fortnight at[p. 212] Friedrichsruh, and on the 10th the last envelope would be filled, but other important work intervened unexpectedly. Two documents arrived from the Ministry of the Household, a short and a long war diary of the Crown Prince, afterwards Emperor Frederick, both written in his own hand, the first presumably an extract, or perhaps the original of the harmless part of the latter, the second obviously written for the most part after the war, and with many additions. Both are to be speedily examined, and, as Rottenburg informed me on bringing me the documents, I was to do part of the work, examining the latter portion of the first of the two manuscripts, while the Chief dealt with the earlier portion and he (Rottenburg) with the second. I also assisted Rottenburg afterwards, as the papers had to be sent back to Berlin in two days. The diary in the Deutsche Rundschau is not from the shorter version, but from the far more comprehensive one of the Ministry of the Household, the interpolations of which are in great part of a political nature, and are often highly characteristic, although deficient in real statesmanship. The writer is in every respect mediocre and superficial, no talent and no character, although he is thoroughly at home in fault-finding and abuse. We collected and noted down in our section some particularly fine specimens of his manner of thought, and of these a small selection may be here given. They do not include the finest of all, which I had to leave to Rottenburg or for the Chief, who came into our bureau (at 11 o’clock at night) while we were making the extracts, and was pleased to find that I was so diligent in my efforts to be of use. On the 4th of January the author of the interpolated diary had read “with great satisfaction” the reflections upon the new year published[p. 213] by the Volkszeitung, and was “horrified” that the Minister of War had forbidden the circulation of the paper. On the 2nd of January an eulogy of the Queen of England, “who stands up for us Germans at every opportunity, knows very well what are the issues involved, and understands German affairs.” On the 8th of January he notes Odo Russell’s satisfaction at Bismarck’s having yielded in the matter of the English coal ships (a matter which H.R.H. had much at heart).—On the 11th of January Prince Luitpold’s “unworthy” proposal respecting the military oath of allegiance of the Bavarians, had, like Bismarck’s irritability, greatly worried his Majesty.—January 17th. Bismarck, speaking to Schleinitz in the antechamber, had “peevishly” exclaimed that he could not conceive why there should be a joint conference of the Chancellor of the Confederation and the Minister of the Household in presence of the King. Then a very detailed account of the interview respecting the Emperor and Empire at the Prefecture. On that occasion the King was very excited and vehement, and the Crown Prince was afterwards so unwell that he had to take medicine.—February 1st. Interesting addition respecting Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein, “who, like myself (the Crown Prince) regrets the manner in which the Empire has been brought into existence, &c.”—February 14th. A somewhat lengthy account (an addition) of an interview between the Crown Prince and Bonnechose.—16th. Conversation with Russell on the consequences of English neutrality. (In another passage apprehensions for beloved England, owing to Bismarck’s leaning towards Russia and the United States). 22nd. Doubtless an interpolation of a much later date. That “after the peace our next task must be the solution of the social question.” It is[p. 214] certain that the good gentleman with his narrow views and small brain never thought of that subject until Bismarck found time to take the matter in hand, and discovered ways and means for dealing with the evil which would never have occurred to his Royal Highness and his Volkszeitung.—26th. Conversation with Père Hyacinthe on the Catholic Church (and also on Döllinger). As was to be expected, the Crown Prince has high praise for that superficial and sentimental individual, and feels that his words have actually given him a sense of exaltation and a feeling of deep peace.—March 10th (pp. 351, 352 of the MS.). Lengthy statement of political views, of which extracts have appeared in the Deutsche Rundschau. The interpolated diary goes as far as the 17th of July, 1871, at Munich, and then a few pages follow respecting his stay in England and at Wilhelmshöhe.

On the 10th of October his Excellency von Bötticher appeared at lunch. Intelligent, practical looking face, tall figure, and a moustache with a tuft trimmed after the fashion of Napoleon. On going to the chimney piece for a light for his cigar brings me one also. The Chief, who as usual occupied himself at lunch with reading through and signing official documents, looking up from a paper, suddenly remarked: “‘Unentwegt,’ Busch can’t bear that word.” The Minister looked at me and smiled. “That is so,” I said, “and I consider ‘diesbezüglich’ still more abominable. The former has come to us from Switzerland, and the latter from Vienna.” The Chief then sang the praises of the herring to Bötticher also, mentioning that he eats it regularly, and adding some remarks on other means of promoting health, as, for instance, that here when the weather is favourable he rides or walks for two or even[p. 215] three hours daily, his quantum in the latter case being five thousand paces, and not infrequently more.

On the 12th of October the documents which the Chief had handed over to me to arrange had all been read through, put into chronological order, and numbered consecutively in red pencil from 1 to 308. These were packed in eight large envelopes, each docketed with the year and the dates and numbers of the first and last documents contained in them. Further particulars of the contents, which I offered to give, were declined by the Prince as superfluous. These papers consisted for the most part of letters, the remainder being reports, memoranda, drafts, and telegrams. The following is a survey of the contents.

First Envelope. The year 1851. (Also includes a letter from Prince Charles, dated March 21st, 1848.) Nos. 1 to 29. They begin with the 5th of June and end with the 24th of December, and consist in great part of letters from the Minister and General Manteuffel, from R. Quehl, from Bismarck to Manteuffel, and from General L. von Gerlach. Contents of the latter: That of the 23rd of November, against the new Hamburg Constitution, Senator Hudtwalker’s mission, a scheme for giving the Estates a position side by side with Constitutionalism. That of the 4th of December, again on the Hamburg Constitution. That of the 20th of December, considerations on Bonapartism, after the coup d’état, request for an expression of opinion on the situation, with the hope that their views coincide.

Second Envelope. 1852. Nos. 30 to 85. Begins with the 5th of January and ends with the 30th of December. Principally letters from General Gerlach and Minister Manteuffel, R. Quehl, King Frederick William, a rescript by that sovereign, four almost illegible notes[p. 216] from the Prince of Prussia, and, finally, a communication from Bismarck to Gerlach, dated the 5th of January, reporting on the change of Ministers in Nassau, the question of the fleet, the relations of Austria to France, and possible anti-Prussian schemes of Schwarzenberg, the views of the English Chargé d’Affaires, Edwardes, on Bonapartism. The first letter from the King begins with the words: “I would remind you, dearest Bismarck (theuerster Bismarck), that I reckon upon you and your assistance in the approaching debates in the Second Chamber respecting the shape to be given to the First Chamber.” Further on there is a reference to “the low intrigues of the conscious or unconscious coalition of scabby sheep on the Right and stinking goats on the Left to defeat the Royal intentions.” “A sad sight, and in any circumstances sufficient to make one tear his hair, but on the field of the dearly-purchased, lie-producing machine of French Constitutionalism! (Ein trauriger Anblick, unter allen Verhältnissen zum Haare Ausraufen, aber auf dem Felde der theuer angeschafften Lügenmaschine des französischen Constitutionalismus).” The rescript (of the 3rd of June) appoints Bismarck Chargé d’Affaires in Vienna, and summons him to Berlin to receive instructions. The second royal letter (of the 5th of June) introduces him to the Emperor Francis Joseph and says, inter alia: “I am pleased that your Majesty will be able to make the acquaintance of a man who is here honoured by many and hated by others, on account of his chivalrous loyalty and his irreconcilable opposition to revolution in every form. He is my friend and loyal servant, and comes to your Majesty with the fresh and lively impress of my principles, of my line of action, of my will, and, I may add, of my love for Austria. If it be deemed worth while, he can inform your Majesty, and[p. 217] your Majesty’s advisers on various matters as I believe few are capable of doing, and if misunderstandings of an old date have not struck too deep a root, which God in His mercy forbid, his brief official sojourn in Vienna will truly be rich in blessings. Herr von Bismarck comes from Frankfurt, where what the middle States, with their leaning towards a Rhenish Confederation (die rheinbundschwangeren Mittelstaaten) call the weak P. of P. (Query—the weak points of Prussia) has always elicited a powerful echo and has frequently made recruits. He has watched all this and whatever was going on there with a sharp and penetrating eye. I have commanded him to answer every question that may be addressed to him by your Majesty and your Ministers as if I myself had addressed them to him. If your Majesty should be pleased to ask for an explanation of my views and my action in the matter of the Hessian Constitution, I feel sure that the course taken by me, even if it should not perhaps have the good fortune to meet with your approval, will at least secure your respect. The presence of the beloved and glorious Emperor Nicholas has been to me a real encouragement, and a certain confirmation of the strong hope that your Majesty and myself are at one in the truth that our triple, unswervingly loyal and active union can alone save Europe and the froward, yet so beloved, German Fatherland from the present crisis, fills me with gratitude to God, and increases my old and faithful affection for your Majesty. Do you also, my dearest Emperor, preserve for me your love from the days at Tegernsee, and confirm your confidence and your weighty and powerful friendship to me which are so indispensable to the common Fatherland. From the bottom of my heart I commend myself to this[p. 218] friendship as your Imperial Majesty’s true and most cordially devoted Uncle, Brother and Friend.” Gerlach’s letter to Bismarck of the 9th of March condemns the language used by B. in an interview with the King respecting the First Chamber, and in particular that he had not pointed out how his Majesty, “through the attitude which he had adopted, had estranged the nobility, disorganised the parties, and shaken the position of the Ministry.”—15th April. An inquiry at the instance of the King concerning the truth of the rumour that Prince Frederick of Baden was thinking of becoming a Catholic. Then an announcement that Nesselrode was coming to Berlin and that Bismarck was to be introduced to him. G. praises the excellent report on the situation in Bismarck’s letter to Manteuffel on the representation of the Confederacy in the Danish negotiations. He laments the death of Schwarzenberg, and expects nothing better from Bach and Buol. Reports that Rochow has arrived with very good news; regrets that England and Austria should fraternise with Bonapartism and that the Emperor Nicholas should have also allowed himself to be taken in by its anti-Constitutionalism. According to an enclosure of the 21st of April, the rumour respecting Prince Frederick was unfounded.—12th April. Telegram: “There is no hurry with the answer in the (Baden) religious affair.”—18th April. Bismarck was to come to the debate on the First Chamber. The King counted upon his doing so. “We have now assembled the publicans and sinners, ... and the speeches in the Chamber will soon begin again.”—9th May. Gerlach agrees with what Bismarck had said on the debates in the Chamber; reports that the King was greatly incensed at Arnim’s speech, and that he doubtless recognises that “his whole salvation lies in the hands[p. 219] of the Junker party.” He does not anticipate that all will go well in Berlin, although the Emperor of Russia remains there for twelve days, and Francis Joseph has ordered a Prussian Grenadier uniform.—17th May. Gerlach shares Bismarck’s indignation at a newspaper article which was probably inspired by Manteuffel; considers M. to be an honest man, but he has had a singular political past, and cannot come to a good end, unless he sends Quehl about his business. Examples of his inconsistency. “M. has a yearning towards Bonapartism,” “which, after all, has no future.” All is going well with the Emperor and Empress of Russia, “but when they see these things one cannot expect them to entertain much respect for our policy.” Alludes further on to the Zollverein and the opening of direct negotiations for a commercial treaty with Austria; and concludes with a suggestion that Bismarck should come to Berlin, remaining there while the Chamber was sitting and until the departure of the Russians, “in order that one might consider what should and what could be done.”—May 19th. Gerlach reports that Manteuffel, in speaking to him, had defended Quehl, and declared that he would rather resign than part with him. Quehl asserts that he has received a very reassuring letter from Bismarck. Manteuffel is considered indispensable, and so the only course would be to take Westphalen, who deserves it “for sticking to a principle and for his high-mindedness.” His fall would signify a renunciation of the principle of restoring vitality to the Estates as against Constitutionalism. A marked opposition was now developing between Absolutism and the liberty of the Estates, between the atheistic and the Christian State, and the Manteuffels inclined towards Absolutism and political atheism.—May 29th. Under[p. 220] instructions from the King Gerlach calls attention to the circulation of Dulong’s pamphlet, “Der Tag ist angebrochen,” and observes that his Majesty wishes action to be taken against this state of things in the press.—July 21st. Gerlach censures Wagner’s attitude towards Manteuffel, whose position, it is true, is scarcely tenable “unless he decides to enter into alliances with respectable people.” G. regards the future with apprehension, “not that a revolutionary Parliament is now probable, but owing to fear of the rising bureaucracy with its measures of police and its weakness in the days of trial,” days which must come, as Bonaparte will be driven into action abroad by the failure of his internal policy. Bismarck ought to “carry on a positive federal policy” in order that the others should not take the wind out of Prussia’s sails. After the probable victory in the matter of the Zollverein, our dull-witted opponents will presumably lack material for fresh attacks. We should then assume the offensive.—July 23rd. Gerlach begs Bismarck to take up the question of the Hamburg Constitution (against the proposed reform of the new Constitution). Further on, the news that Gerlach has written to Manteuffel that he should not allow himself to be governed by the Conservative party but that he should show himself their master, “and once under the yoke, govern with them.”—July 26th. The Conservatives of Hamburg have begun to move and are anxiously awaiting the note of the Federal Diet; and Bismarck should meet this desire. “The position of affairs in Berlin is an extraordinary one.” Gerlach spoke very strongly to the Premier but without any hope of success. Manteuffel “must be retained at all costs, as his probable successors are simply a terror.” Gerlach’s brother in Magdeburg wishes to visit Bismarck at[p. 221] Frankfurt.—July 29th. Gerlach was highly pleased at Bismarck’s letter of justification, and communicated its contents to the King, who has not entertained the suspicion therein mentioned. The Zollverein business promises to go well. In dealing with it Austria has “behaved in a miserably intriguing fashion. What a pitiful policy in presence of the revolution, and of the sovereignty of the people, of which Bonaparte is the incarnation! On a smaller scale, however, our own policy is just the same.” In connection with the Hamburg affair, Bismarck should publish the Notes and Rescripts of the Confederacy to the Senate by an indiscretion. “This, which has hitherto been a mild request on my part, is now a strong expression of the King’s desire.”—August 3rd. Renewed request that Bismarck should take up the cause of the Hamburg Conservatives. It has now come to such a pass with Manteuffel that no one trusts him, and he trusts nobody. If this mistrust is to be removed, the Ministry must be supported in every possible way.—October 8th. Gerlach complains of Manteuffel and Wagner, and at the instance of the King urges intervention in the Hamburg affair. Hübbe, the leader of the Conservative party there, has been to see him and the King.—November 13th. Gerlach is of opinion that the internal situation is good, if Bismarck “will remain at his post as sentinel on the Rhine (not become Minister?) and keep a sharp eye on the inception and development of the Rhenish Confederation.” If he comes to the Chambers he should get elected to the First “where there is a lack of talent.” G. thinks him better off with Rechberg as a colleague rather than Hübener, because the former is opposed to Bonapartism, while the latter is in favour of it. There is nothing to be done in Hamburg except to procrastinate. The idea[p. 222] of revising the draft prepared by the nine deputies, instead of the old existing Constitution, is absurd.

Third Envelope. 1853. Begins with the 2nd of January and ends with the 14th of December. The first is a letter from Frederick William to Manteuffel on the Danish detachment in the Holstein federal contingent. It says: “In my opinion this should not be tolerated by the German Confederacy if it still retains a spark of honour. We must speak at Frankfurt like honourable Germans, even if they through their ingrained dishonesty will not listen to us. Germany, however, shall and will hear us. If the particulars given by the newspapers should be confirmed, I authorise you to send this little note, in the original, to Bismarck, and to consult details with him.” The following letters are chiefly from Gerlach, Minister Manteuffel, and the Prince of Prussia, and include a further communication from King Frederick William to Bismarck, dated the 12th of September: “My dearest Bismarck, a misunderstanding prevails in my brother William’s circles, a solution of which is necessary to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. At Doberan I received a letter from him, in which he loudly laments Manteuffel’s now certain retirement, which he rightly characterises as a calamity. I asked William for a solution of this riddle, as, of course, everything had been settled three weeks ago, and my perseverance had been crowned with success. He wrote to me in reply about a week since, that he was glad of this, but you, my good Bismarck, had received a letter from Putbus, from the contents of which you, like himself, could draw no other conclusion. From Sans-souci I asked him who was the writer of this letter. He told me Gerlach (Polte); to-day I questioned Gerlach, and he assures me most positively that he has written nothing[p. 223] of the kind to you from Putbus. Here you have the puzzle Schlemassl, in the German-Jewish dialect. Unravel it for me and William as soon as possible. Let your pen be guided by the purest truth.” Bismarck replied to this that Gerlach had written him that he wished to induce Manteuffel to remain, as it appeared impossible to replace him. He had only received this letter however on the 17th or 18th of August, at Ostend. The following letters from Gerlach are worth mentioning. January 8th. (Report of a conversation which Gerlach has had with Ex-Minister v. d. Decken on constitutional changes in Hanover, in which the King of Prussia should assist. The letter desires Bismarck to take up this matter, but first of all to write and give his opinion.) Another of the 28th of January. (For the present Bismarck is not to trouble himself about the Hanoverian affair. Opinion of Prokesch. Gerlach would like to have Bismarck in Berlin, as he fears grave crises, and, according to him, the people should be given clearly to understand that Bonapartism is our worst foe.... Bonaparte will direct his lust of conquest against Spain.) Finally, Gerlach’s letters on his conflict with Manteuffel. This conflict was clearly indicated in the letter of the 23rd of February, in which it is stated, inter alia, that Manteuffel had through Quehl taken a turn downwards, because he doubted the truth of what came to him from above; he wants to see the Conservative party destroyed, and he allows himself to be tempted by Quehl into secret opposition to Westphalen’s measures.

Fourth Envelope. First half of the year 1854. Begins with an undated letter from Gerlach, probably written in January; it is followed by one from Manteuffel dated the 4th of January, while the remainder are mostly[p. 224] letters from the latter to Gerlach, together with reports by Bismarck, and finally, two letters of Seckendorff’s from Stuttgart, the second of which is dated the 27th of June. The following are of special interest. A note of the 17th of March, from the Prince of Prussia, asking Bismarck for information on the Eastern Question, and the reply thereto, a rather lengthy draft by Bismarck; then his report as to an interview which he had with the Prince at Baden, with the result that the latter yields to the royal will, though opposed to his own convictions; a letter from Bismarck to Gerlach on the Bamberg results; an exhaustive report by Bismarck on Buol’s view of the Eastern Question, which the former considers to be correct—doubtless addressed to Manteuffel; another report to the latter on the Bamberg Governments, Bismarck wanting apparently to keep them in check, and also respecting Bunsen and Gagern.

Fifth Envelope. Second half of the year 1854. Begins with a letter of the 1st of July from Gerlach (who finds that Manteuffel is now taking a proper course) and ends with a letter of the 31st of December. The intervening papers include among other things a confidential report by Bismarck to Manteuffel on the abstention of Würtemberg from the existing agreement between the other Governments in favour of the alliance of April 20th; letters from Manteuffel and Gerlach; an (autograph) memorandum by Bismarck on the attitude of the Bamberg people, and of Buol towards Prussia. It says: “We cannot consent to an aggrandisement of Austria, because the importance of Prussia in respect of physical force would be approximated thereby to that of Bavaria. The Western Powers will want to restore Poland, which would be less against the interests of Austria than against those of Prussia[p. 225] and Russia.” The remaining papers include letters from Alvensleben, Bunsen, Pückler, Wolzogen and Schulenburg.

Sixth Envelope. The year 1855, but only from the 2nd of January to the 14th of August. Then come breaks in the correspondence up to November 1858. Chiefly letters from Gerlach and Manteuffel. Also a letter from Frederick William to King John of Saxony (dated 18th January); five or six from Savigny (in one of which he laments that Prussia has missed an excellent opportunity of placing herself at the head of Germany) and from Schulenburg, &c. There is a characteristic letter from Gerlach, dated the 4th of January, in which he writes: “I believe that we should be in agreement if you were here, that is to say, as to the measures to be taken, if not also as to principles—for I hold to the Holy Scriptures, which teach that we must not do evil in order that good may come of it, because those who act in that way are very properly damned. Now to coquet with Bonapartism and Liberalism is to do evil, and moreover, to my thinking, it is unwise in the present case. This you forget (a mistake into which every one falls who has been away from here for some time).... How can you go on finessing indirectly with such an utterly unprincipled and untrustworthy Minister, who is involuntarily lured into the wrong path, and with a master whose peculiarities, to put it mildly, defy calculation? Just remember that F. D. (Fra Diavolo, pseudonym for Manteuffel) is a Bonapartist on principle; think of his behaviour in connection with the coup d’état, and of what Quehl wrote under his patronage—and if you want to know something new I can tell you that he has now written to Werther expressing the foolish opinion that if one wanted to be useful to Russia the way would be to adhere to the treaty of the 2nd of December in order to have a voice[p. 226] in the negotiations; indeed I believe that F. D. has actually advised the King to adhere to the treaty of the 2nd of December, that is to say, with modifications, these, according to the way in which things are done here, being of the nature of reservations which our adversaries would afterwards ignore, without paying any attention to us in the event of their non-observance. Our policy moves along a very narrow path, upon a tight rope, and so far one may say that it has maintained its equilibrium, i.e., it has not fallen into the abyss on either side, yet its course remains anything but secure.... The King, and you also, appear to attribute an exaggerated importance to our participation in the conferences. What good is this gloriole to us, as we can turn it to no account so long as Austria (as is clear from Gortschakoff’s reports) is frightened into hobbling after the Western Powers? Shall we hobble with her, or shall we join England and France in the chorus against Russia, or shall we alone take Russia’s part, a course that would require more courage and skill than can be expected of our deaf and invalid envoy in Vienna. I consider it more dignified, effective, and successful for us to take up an entirely independent attitude towards Austria and the Western Powers. We have met with a rebuff in Paris and London. (The züffliche[14] Usedom and his Radical wife ought never to have been sent there; but that has now been done, however.) Austria has treated us with consistent perfidy. We are, therefore, released from all ties. France, with 300,000 men beyond her frontiers, and England, without an army, will not begin war with us. I do not fear Austria in the least, first because she fears us, while, in addition to that, she has[p. 227] not a man to spare. It would be mere madness to irritate us, should she really want to pick a quarrel with Russia. She now demands with her usual impudence and recklessness that 100,000 men be raised as soon as possible, under the military convention which Hesse has concluded with her. (I shudder at the thought of the foolish and puerile proceedings of April of last year.) To this the reply is curt and bold; there is a firm conviction, based on assurances as well as information received, that the Emperor of Russia has no idea of attacking Austria, either on her own territories or in the Principalities, so that no casus fœderis arises either for Prussia or for the Germanic Confederation. The Prussian army is ready for war, and can be brought into a still greater state of readiness. It is true that Austria has provoked Russia by the treaty concluded on the 2nd of December without the concurrence of Prussia and the Bund, but one is convinced that Russia nevertheless contemplates no attack. I certainly believed that, in face of this declaration on the part of Prussia, Austria would hardly secure her two-thirds majority, and, indeed, that she would probably not even try to force the matter through. Unquestionably, nothing can be done very speedily now. If, however, the negotiations in Vienna take such a turn that their success may be anticipated, they will come to us, and not ignore our 300,000 men. That would be impossible, even now, if all confidence, as well as all sense of fear, had not been destroyed by swaying, not merely to and fro, as frequently happens, but in three different directions, which is of rarer occurrence. I am very anxious that you should come here, if only for a few days, in order to discuss matters.... Do, please, write soon, and criticise this my letter. Write also, if it[p. 228] can possibly be managed, that you are coming.... I yearn for political death. A man who has grown old and blunt and peevish is no longer the right man to wriggle his way through between such a singular master (for whom, all the same, I have an affection of forty years’ standing) and such a premier. Indeed, my bodily conformation is a symbolic warning against doing anything of the kind.”[15]

Seventh Envelope. Documents of the period extending from the 7th of November, 1858, to the 21st of June, 1861, chiefly letters from Minister Schleinitz to Bismarck, and from the latter to the former from St. Petersburg, including a very long one of the 12th of May, 1859, in which B. deals with the improvement of Prussia’s position in Germany as opposed to Austria, indicating ways and means of bringing it about.... Then a very interesting communication, dated the 14th of May, from Bismarck to Alvensleben, which was accompanied by a copy of the letter of the 12th. According to this, the latter was really intended for the then Minister President, the Prince of Hohenzollern, yet the writer is “in the end in a state of doubt as to how his Highness is in his heart likely to regard this matter.” The letter to Alvensleben then goes on to say: “I believe too that Schleinitz will not withhold my letter from H.R.H. the Regent, although I scarcely hope that it will be received with favour there. If you are so disposed and have an opportunity of kindling in the Prince a spark of royal ambition in this sense, I beg of you to make use of the contents of the enclosure, as if I had written to you privately on the same subjects upon which I wrote to Schleinitz. Of course, the only difference is in the head and tail of it, and to whether in your case the title of Excellency[p. 229] already connotes externally the excellences of the inward man. There is almost always an element of mistrust and discontent when I write to Schleinitz, sending you at the same time a copy of my letter, and the Prince allows it to leak out.” On the 29th of May, 1859, Bismarck gives his Minister a serio-comic description of the petty proceedings of the envoys of the German Middle States at St. Petersburg, with whom Gortschakoff has little intercourse, and who worry the more fortunate Prussian representative in their efforts to obtain some material to satisfy their love of gossip. The Hanoverian, Münster, is particularly active and importunate. The Saxon, Könneritz, manifests the warmest enthusiasm for Prussia, abuses Beust and Austria, and “speaks as if he were serving under a Carlowitz Ministry; but we have an old and good proverb[16] that teaches us never to trust a Saxon from Meissen. Montgelas is most profoundly depressed at the fall in the value of Austrian securities, and seems to think, strangely enough, that the remedy to this evil lies in bringing about a general war.” Schleinitz’s letters are almost always full of praise and thanks for Bismarck’s excellent reports. Yet on one occasion (June 24) he acknowledges that many insinuations against him personally, and against his official conduct have reached Berlin. But he adds: “With your reports in my hand I have, however, succeeded in effectually repelling them;” and continues: “if, nevertheless, I take the liberty of requesting you to conform as far as possible to the views of your Government in your non-official conversations and relations, that request is perhaps entirely superfluous, but I am induced to make it by a desire to prevent your laying yourself open in any direction to the attacks of opponents.”

[p. 230]

Eighth Envelope. Undated letters and other documents, as well as some of uncertain date.

On Friday, the 12th of October, we were joined first at lunch and then again at dinner by a plump lady in black silk, a Frau von Patkowski from East Prussia, a daughter of Kaiserlingk, an old friend of the Chief’s. I begged the Prince’s permission to absent myself for three days, and took leave of him and of the ladies of the house.

I started for Berlin at 12.45 P.M. on Saturday, the 13th. On my going down to his bureau to see Rottenburg, who wished to accompany me to the train, I met the Chief in the antechamber. He said, smiling, “It is lucky that I have met you before you leave. Frau von Patkowski is travelling with you, so please take care not to lay siege to the pretty plump little lady on the way!” “Those times are over, Serene Highness, and besides, she travels first class and I second.” “Well, in that case she will no doubt be safe.” I expressed a hope that during my absence he would have good weather, as it is necessary for his health, so that he may get his walks and rides. “I do what I can,” he said, “to keep illness at a distance, but it will come all the same, and probably soon. It will be a sudden break down, just as I stand.” Thanks be to God, his appearance in no way justified such a foreboding, as he proceeded to the station with the lady on his arm, walking erect and the very picture of health.

On Wednesday, the 17th October, at 8.30 A.M., I again left Berlin for Friedrichsruh.

I had previously been accustomed every evening after dinner to spend some time romping in the next room with the three little Rantzaus. When I asked their mother at lunch how the boys were, she asked me[p. 231] not to let them have their usual game to-day as a punishment, the two elder lads having been rude and insolent to their governess in the morning. The Prince said they must be whipped for that. The Countess replied that she had deprived them of their bath and slapped them on the cheek for it. He rejoined, however, “That is not enough for such naughtiness. They ought to be well whipped.” He then related how he had chastised Herbert and Bill on one occasion, when they took some hazel nuts and then ran away from the ranger. “It was not on account of the nuts, but because they had obliged the old man to run after them through bush and briar until I caught them and gave them a good trouncing, at which the ranger seemed to be greatly surprised.” I inquired of him whether governesses and other persons entrusted with the education of princes were at liberty to chastise them when they were naughty, or whether they had to tell the parents, who decided as to their punishment. He answered the first part of my question in the affirmative, and went on to say that the governess of the Emperor William II. said as she was administering physical chastisement to him on one occasion: “Believe me, Royal Highness, that it hurts me as much as it does you to do this.” “Ah!” exclaimed the little Prince, “and does it hurt you in the same place?” Everybody laughed heartily at the queer form taken by the boy’s curiosity. As we rose from table and Lindau was taking leave before returning home, the Prince asked me: “Are you going to your room now?” “Yes, Serene Highness.” “I will send for you there. I have something I should like to show you.” In about a quarter of an hour I was summoned to the Prince’s study, where the Chief handed me a large packet of letters. “These are from the old Emperor,”[p. 232] he said, and then read me some passages from them. He wished to have them arranged like the former papers. “Again in mere chronological order, according to the dates.” He asked: “But will not that be too much for you?” I replied with an emphatic negative. I was there for that purpose, and it was a pleasure to me to serve him, and at the same time to have something to read and take with me for my information. He continued: “And here, too, is one from old Bodelschwingh-Schwindelbod. And there are others (pointing to a second packet), the correspondence with Andrassy, for instance, in the summer of 1879. You will find information enough there.” He took up the third pile. “These are from the Emperor Frederick when he was Crown Prince, and also one from her from the villa Zivio.” He was about to return them to the drawer of his writing-table, but I begged him to let me have them also. He said smiling, “But, Büschlein, haven’t you already enough?”—“It will be better for me to have everything there is at once, so that I may have a general idea of all the documents and arrange them more rapidly.”—“But there are still plenty more, and that pile is already heavy enough to carry!” I took all he had by him, however, and carried them upstairs in order to begin my inspection of them next morning. But I could not rest until I had read through some of them as specimens in the afternoon. For example, a long letter from the Crown Princess, dated San Remo, the 22nd of November, 1887, giving the Chancellor particulars of her consort’s illness and of the doctors; and also Bodelschwingh’s communication, on the top of which the Chief had written in pencil “Old hypocrite.” Then before dinner a further walk with Rottenburg in the wood where it is cut through by the road leading to[p. 233] Möhnsen. Lively conversation on a variety of matters serious and amusing, as for instance on Darwin and the high esteem in which he is held by the Chief.

Early on the morning of Thursday, October 18th, I began to assort the papers. The numbering and packing away in envelopes was to follow later, after a thorough inspection of the whole lot. Out of doors a beautiful autumn day, the sun, in a blue sky, casting high lights on the stems and branches of the trees in the wood. During lunch, at which Schweninger again joined us, I handed the Chief the Crown Prince’s letter introducing Geffcken to him and his answer justifying his refusal by a description of Geffcken’s character. I had found this among the papers on the previous day. He was pleased at the discovery, and the letters were handed to Rottenburg to be copied and used. Immediately afterwards Schweinitz, our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, arrived—a grey-headed, portly gentleman with a moustache, who speaks little and in a low voice. We were joined at dinner, in addition to Schweinitz, by a big-bearded gentleman in a shooting jacket. This was Major von Goldammer of Frankfurt, the sportsman who recently—to the great regret of the head forester—shot the stag with fourteen antlers that had broken out from the Chief’s preserves on to the shooting which he had rented. “If it had only been Count Herbert!” Bleichröder is to present his respects to-morrow.

On Saturday I spent the whole forenoon and two hours after lunch in arranging the papers in order of date. Bleichröder and his Jewish-looking Secretary took lunch with us. The banker related anecdotes of Amschel Rothschild and Saphir, and spoke of Lehndorff’s businesses. At table I observed that since 1871 Bleichröder, whom I saw at dinner at Versailles, had hardly altered[p. 234] in the least. “Not in his person” rejoined the Chief, “but very considerably in his fortune.”

On Sunday, the 21st of October, I began to examine and number the papers, which were now in chronological order, whereby I found that a good deal of rearrangement was necessary. Here follow some particulars.

The documents begin with a letter dated Oct. 19, 1862, from Bismarck to King William. Then follows a short letter from the Crown Prince to the Minister, dated Nov. 21, in which he says: “I trust that, as you express it to me, success may, in the present difficult phase of the constitutional life of our country, attend your efforts to bring about what you yourself describe as the urgent and necessary understanding with the representatives of the nation. I am following the course of affairs with the greatest interest,” and so on. Letter from Bismarck to the King, in which Eulenburg and Selchow are proposed as Ministers. (I shall not quote unimportant letters from the King and the Crown Prince, nor in future any matters of only slight interest.) A letter from Bismarck to the King, dated 20th February, 1863, on the convention with Russia. Goltz communicated it to Napoleon, but without the secret article, with which he himself was not acquainted. (Probably the article by which Prussia was bound eventually to render assistance against the Polish rebellion.) The Minister wrote: “As matters stand in Poland we shall hardly be called upon for active co-operation there. By means of the convention we have, therefore, the advantage of securing at a cheap rate for the future the gratitude of the Emperor Alexander and the sympathies of the Russians.”

On the 3rd of September the Crown Prince writes to Bismarck: “I have to-day communicated to his Majesty the views which I set forth to you in my letter from Putbus, and which I begged you not to submit to the King until I myself had done so. A decision which will have serious consequences was yesterday taken in the Council. I did not wish to reply to his Majesty in the[p. 238] presence of the Ministers. I have done so to-day, and have given expression to my misgivings—my serious misgivings—for the future. The King now knows that I am a decided opponent of the Ministry.” At the end of the letter Bismarck added, apparently as part of a draft reply: “I can only hope that your Royal Highness will one day find servants as faithful as I am to your father. I do not intend to be of the number.”

On the 5th of June, while at Danzig, during a tour in the performance of his military duties, the Crown Prince, speaking in public to the Chief Burgomaster Von Winter, declared himself to be opposed to the policy of his father. The latter wrote demanding a recantation, and stating that otherwise the Prince would be deprived of his dignity and position. The Crown Prince declined to retract anything, offered to lay down his command and other offices, and begged to be allowed to retire with his family to some place where he would be under no suspicion of interfering in State affairs. Intimations as to the contents of this correspondence were published (of course, first of all) in The Times, then in the Grenzboten (through Gustav Freytag) and in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (through me, at Freytag’s instance). A memorandum, dated Gastein, the 2nd of August, in Zitelmann’s handwriting, and probably dictated by Bismarck, expresses the belief that the publication was due to the Crown Princess, “whether it be that she has herself attained to definite views of her own as to the form of government most advantageous for Prussia, or that she has succumbed to the concerted influences of the Anglo-Coburg combination. However this may be, it is asserted that she has decided upon a course of opposition to the present Government,[p. 239] and has taken advantage of the Danzig incident and the excitement to which it has given rise in the highest circles, in order to bring her consort more and more into prominence by these revelations, and to acquaint public opinion with the Crown Prince’s way of thinking. All this out of anxiety for the future of her consort.” It is then stated that the Crown Princess’s most powerful supporter is Queen Augusta, who is extremely anxious as to her own position towards the country. They have had a memorandum drawn up by President Camphausen on the internal situation in Prussia, attacking the present Government, which was laid before the King. In a marginal note the King observes that the principles therein recommended would lead to revolution. Meyer, the Councillor of Embassy, is Augusta’s instrument, and it is beyond question that he is associated with the Anglo-Coburg party. The participation of Professor Duncker[17] as also of Baron Stockmar, would appear to be less certain. The memorandum dictated to Zitelmann is accompanied by comments in the Chief’s handwriting—either a long letter or a pro memoriâ for the King—in which the views expressed by the Crown Prince are refuted point by point. In the course of his criticism the writer says, inter alia: “The pretension that a warning from his Royal Highness should outweigh royal decisions, come to after serious and careful consideration, attributes undue importance to his own position and experience as compared to those of his sovereign and father. No one could believe that H.R.H. had any share in these acts of personal authority, as everybody knows that the Prince has no vote in the Ministry.... The démenti at Danzig was[p. 240] therefore superfluous. The liberty of H.R.H. to form his own conclusions was not affected by his attendance at the sittings, where he can keep himself in touch with the affairs of State and hear the views of others and express his own, which we hold to be the duty of the heir to the throne. The performance of this duty, when it becomes known through the newspapers, can only elicit on all sides approval of the diligence and conscientiousness with which the Crown Prince prepares himself for his high and serious vocation. The words ‘with my hands tied’ have no meaning. It is utterly impossible that the country should identify H.R.H. with the Ministry, as the country knows that the Crown Prince is not called upon to take any official part in its decisions.

“Unfortunately, the attitude which H.R.H. has adopted towards the Crown is sufficiently known in the country, and is condemned by every father of a family, to whatever path he may belong, as a disavowal of that paternal authority which it is an offence to our feelings and traditions to ignore. Even now clergymen are preaching from the text 2 Samuel, ch. xv., verses 3 and 4. H.R.H. could not be more seriously damaged in the eyes of public opinion than by the publication of this answer.” (That of the Prince to his father’s letter.)

Page 2 (of the answer). “It is true that H.R.H.’s situation is a thoroughly false one, because it is not the business of the heir to the throne to raise the banner of opposition to his King and father. He can only fulfil his ‘duty’ by retiring from that position and again adopting a proper attitude.”

Page 3. “There is no conflict of duties, as the first of these duties is self-imposed. It rests with the King,[p. 241] and not with the Crown Prince, to provide for the future of Prussia, and the future will show whether ‘mistakes’ have been made, and on which side. In cases where the ‘judgment’ of his Majesty is opposed to that of the Crown Prince, the former must always be preponderant, and there is therefore no conflict. H.R.H. himself recognises that in our Constitution there is ‘no place for the opposition of the heir to the throne.’ Opposition within the Council does not exclude obedience to his Majesty once a matter has been decided. Ministers also oppose when they hold different views, but they nevertheless obey” (The last three words are underlined in pencil by the King, who added on the margin: ‘When it is not opposed to their consciences,’) “the will of the King, although it may be part of their duty to carry into execution the measures they opposed.”

Page 4. “If H.R.H. knows that the Ministers act in accordance with the will of the King, he cannot fail to see that the opposition of the heir to the throne is directed against the reigning King himself.”

Page 5. “The Crown Prince has no call and no justification to enter upon a ‘struggle’ (Kampf) against the will of the King, for the precise reason that his Royal Highness has no official status. Each Prince of the Royal House would be equally justified in ‘laying claim’ to the duty of offering public opposition to the King, where his views differed from those of the sovereign, and thus defending the eventual rights of ‘himself and his children’ against the effects of alleged mistakes by the Government of the King, that is to say, in order to secure the succession, after the manner of Louis Philippe, if the King were to be deposed by a revolution.”

Page 6. “The Minister President is to give a more[p. 242] detailed explanation of the words used by him at Gastein.”

Page 7. “His Majesty has not caused the Crown Prince to attend the sittings as one of the King’s advisers, but only for the Prince’s own information, and as a means of preparing him for his future calling. The attempt to ‘neutralise’ the measures of the Government would mean a struggle and rebellion against the Crown. More dangerous than all the attacks of the democracy and all ‘gnawing’ at the roots of the monarchy is the loosening of the bonds that still unite the people with the dynasty through the example of open and avowed opposition on the part of the heir to the throne, through the intentional disclosure of discord in the Royal House itself. If the son and heir to the throne revolts against the authority of the father and King, to whom can that authority still remain sacred? If a premium is set by ambition for the future upon present desertion from the Sovereign, every bond will be loosened, to the detriment of the future King, and the damage done to the authority of the present Government will bear evil fruit for its successors. Any Government is better than one which is divided against itself and paralysed. The shocks which the Crown Prince may provoke affect the foundations of the structure over which he himself will hereafter have to preside as King.

“According to the constitutional law hitherto in force, it is the King who governs in Prussia and not the Ministers. Legislative and not governmental power is alone shared with the Chambers, and before them the Ministers represent the King. Therefore now, as before the Constitution, the Ministers are legally the servants of the King, and his Majesty’s authorised advisers, but they are not the regents of the Prussian State. Even[p. 243] since the Constitution, the Prussian monarchy does not stand on the same level as the Belgian or English monarchy. On the contrary, in Prussia the King still governs personally, and commands according to his own discretion, in so far as the Constitution has not otherwise provided, and it has only so provided in matters of legislation.”

Page 8. “The publication of State secrets is an offence against the criminal law. What is to be treated as a State secret depends upon the King’s command respecting official secrecy. Why is so much importance attached to giving ‘outside’ publicity to these matters? If his Royal Highness, as in duty bound, gives expression to his opinions in Council, he has satisfied his conscience. The Crown Prince has no official position whatever in State affairs, and no call to express himself publicly upon them. No one who has even a superficial knowledge of the system under which our State affairs are conducted would conclude that the Crown Prince agreed with the decisions of the Government merely because he (without a vote, and therefore without the possibility of effectual opposition) had listened to the discussions in Council.

“‘Not appear better.’ The mistake lies in the exaggerated importance attached to ‘appearances.’ The important point is what a man is and what he can do, and that is only the fruit of serious and well-directed labour.

“The participation of his Royal Highness in the Council is not ‘active,’ and no ‘votes’ are cast by the Crown Prince. The communication to ‘responsible’ (?) persons without the authorisation of his Majesty would be an offence against the criminal law. Of course, there is no limitation of his Royal Highness’s right to express[p. 244] his views; on the contrary, it is desirable that he should do so, but only in the Council, where, as a matter of fact, they can alone have any influence on the decisions that are about to be taken. The contrary course, ‘to express them openly before the country,’ can only be adopted as a means of gratifying his Royal Highness’s amour propre, and must result in promoting discontent and disaffection, and thereby paving the way for revolution.”

Page 10. “Unquestionably H.R.H. will render their work more difficult for the Ministers, and their task would be lighter if he did not attend the sittings. But can his Majesty shirk the duty of doing everything that is humanly possible to enable the Crown Prince to learn the business of State, and to become acquainted with the laws of the country? Is it not a dangerous experiment to leave the future King a stranger to the affairs of State, while the welfare of millions is dependent upon his familiarity with them? H.R.H. shows himself in the present memorandum unacquainted with the fact that the participation of the Crown Prince never involves any responsibility, and is only for the purpose of information, and that H.R.H. can never be asked to give a vote. The whole argument is based upon a misconception of this fact. If the Crown Prince had been more familiar with State affairs H.R.H. could not have thought of publishing the proceedings of the Council in case the King did not accede to his wishes, i.e., of committing an offence against the law, and what is more, the criminal law, and that too a few weeks after H.R.H. had himself severely censured the publication of the correspondence with his Majesty.”

Page 11. “Certainly the reproach mentioned may naturally occur to every one in the country. No one charges H.R.H. with such an intention, but it is said[p. 245] that others, who do entertain such an intention, hope to see it realised through the unconscious co-operation of the Crown Prince; and that such wicked attempts now afford those who originated them a better prospect than formerly of a change of system.”

Page 12. “The demand to have timely information of the business to be transacted at the sittings is perfectly legitimate, has always been recognised, and shall continue to be so. Indeed a desire has been expressed that H.R.H. should do his part in keeping himself more au courant than was hitherto possible. For this purpose H.R.H.’s whereabouts must always be known and within reach, the Ministers must have access to the Crown Prince, and discretion must be secured. But it is necessary that the Vortragende Räthe (Councillors who have the privilege of direct audience), with whom alone H.R.H. can be authorised to transact current State affairs, should be not opponents but friends of the Government, or at least impartial critics having no intimate relations with the Opposition in the Diet and the press. The most difficult point of all is discretion, particularly towards foreign countries, so long as H.R.H. and the Crown Princess are not thoroughly conscious that in reigning houses the nearest relations are not always fellow countrymen, but, on the contrary, must necessarily, and as in duty bound, represent other than Prussian interests. It is hard that a frontier should create a division of interest between mother and daughter, brother and sister, but to forget this fact is always a danger for the State. The ‘last sitting of the Council’ (on the 3rd) was not a regular sitting but only a meeting of the Ministers who had been summoned by his Majesty without their own previous knowledge.”

Page 13. “Communication to the Ministers would give[p. 246] the memorandum an official character which the Prince’s effusions do not in themselves possess.”

On Monday, the 22nd of October, Count Herbert was present at lunch and dinner, returning to Berlin on the Tuesday. On Monday, after we had had our coffee, I told the Chief that the sorting of the papers was now well advanced. There was a great deal more to do, however, than had appeared at first, and it might take eight or ten days more before I could hand them over to him in good order like the previous set. He replied: “Take plenty of time. But the Emperor will be here in a few days and you must not let yourself be seen then; or, better still, go to Hamburg while he is here, as otherwise he will ask who you are and what you are doing. I should then be obliged to tell him, and as he is curious he would eventually seize the whole lot, which would not suit me at all.”

On Tuesday and Wednesday I was very busy sorting, numbering and taking extracts. In the evening I took a walk with the Privy Councillor until an hour before dinner. We were joined at dinner on Wednesday by the Hamburg merchant, Merck, and his wife—she very pretty, twenty-seven years of age, and he between forty and fifty. On Thursday I was again hard at work on the Chief’s treasury of letters. At lunch the Chief said that formerly the rich and influential Hamburgers were strongly Austrian in their sympathies, and he referred to the millions advanced to the politicians of Vienna in 1857, and also condemned the unamiable and stupid policy of Prussia in those days. The Princess observed that even now these circles do not care much for Prussia, but are impressed, and indeed very strongly, by Bismarck. She then explained to me that the Mercks were neighbours of theirs, and occupied a country house[p. 247] with forty acres of ground on the edge of the forest, the remainder of an estate which a Saxon officer had acquired by marriage, and of which the Prince afterwards bought six hundred acres. In reply to my question, the Chief informed me that the Emperor would arrive on Monday evening and leave after lunch on Tuesday. I must therefore make myself scarce for thirty hours. To-day, however, we shall return to our anthology, and continue it to-morrow. Here follow some further specimens of the selection.

On Friday at lunch the Chief asked me: “What is your opinion, Busch, of Goethe’s tragedies, and of his dramas altogether?” I replied that he was less of a dramatist than a lyric poet, but that “Faust,” setting aside the second part, was after all a most wonderful production. “Yes, certainly,” he said, “and ‘Götz’ too, but ‘Egmont,’ the man in ‘Stella,’ Tasso, and the leading characters in the others, are all Weislingens—weak soft, sentimental creatures—not men as in Shakespeare, always repetitions of himself, for he too had something feminine in him, and could only realise and portray the feelings of women.” I finally recommended Victor Hehn’s “Gedanken über Goethe,” and referred him in particular to the first and second chapters. Towards evening another long walk with Rottenburg, while the Prince went to Schwarzenbeck and the Princess to Hamburg, probably to make purchases in view of the Emperor’s visit. Both were back for dinner, at which the Ranger or Chief Ranger of Schleswig-Holstein, and the Head Forester Lange were also present. The conversation at table turned chiefly on forestry, the various species of trees, and other wooden subjects. A further selection from the Chief’s papers, the arrangement of which will be complete in four or five days. A letter of the 5th of January, 1876, from the Crown Prince introduces Professor Geffcken, who has been to see him, and with whom he has been speaking about his book, Staat und Kirche (State and Church), as a man “of ripe thought and great experience.” The Chief replied on the 8th: “Dr. Geffcken belongs to that party in the Evangelical Church which, like President von Gerlach and some other Protestants, is in alliance with the[p. 256] Centre party and the Jesuits, and which has been and still is hostile to every phase of the German Empire’s development.” The letter goes on to say that his book is a superficial compilation; that his criticism of the Falk laws gives evidence of audacious presumption rather than of impartial consideration; and that his Augustenburg and Hanseatic Particularism has not been overcome by the restoration of the Empire, whose interests he opposes in Alsace. “If I were to see him without the presence of witnesses (which the Crown Prince seemed from his letter to desire) I should have reason to apprehend that my intercourse with such a tool of sectarian intrigue would arouse the mistrust of my colleagues and of public opinion.”

The Crown Prince thinks otherwise. He replied on the 12th of January: “During the many years of my acquaintance with Dr. Geffcken I have never seen any leaning on his part to Catholicism, nor any opposition to Prussia as a matter of principle. On the contrary I could see from his whole attitude, as well as from the statements frequently made by him, that there is as little reason to doubt his ardent Protestantism as there is to question his patriotism.”

In a letter of the 12th of May, 1876, H.R.H. cannot too strongly urge the Chancellor to give Friedberg the Imperial Secretaryship of State for Justice, which it was proposed to establish. He at the same time tried to meet the objections which Bismarck supposed the Emperor to entertain. According to a letter of the 30th of June from the Crown Prince to Bismarck Friedberg had acquired a claim upon his gratitude by his long service, which frequently involved difficulties and sacrifices, but was always marked with the same devotion.

On the 13th of June, 1878, the Crown Prince[p. 257] writing to the Chief on the death of King George of Hanover, says inter alia: “I am of opinion that now, the unfortunate Prince being dead, we must above all things adopt a generous attitude towards his relatives.”

The Crown Prince now writes to the Chancellor more frequently than before. From the 6th of July, 1879, onwards, the project of marrying Prince William to the daughter of the Augustenburger was repeatedly mentioned, Bismarck being asked to promote it. Bismarck submitted his opinion of the scheme. (Professor Schulz prepared a similar statement, in which he proved the Augustenburger’s equality of birth, which had been strongly questioned.) In this opinion the Chief recommends as indispensable a previous renunciation by Duke Frederick.

Correspondence in connection with the Negotiations respecting the German Alliance with Austria.

In February, 1890, a few days after the promulgation of the Imperial Rescript on the labour question, Bucher had already pointed out to me in conversation the difficulties in the way of an international settlement of the question, and said he imagined the Emperor was[p. 306] going further in this matter than the Chancellor could approve of.

Monday, February 24th, he said to me: “I have a commission for you which I must carry out before the Chancellor of State arrives. The ‘dragon’ sent for me to-day and asked if I still had any connection with English newspapers, as he wished to get them to insert an article on the elections. I was sorry that I had no longer any such connection, but I thought perhaps you might write to the Daily Telegraph and get it to publish the desired article. He said: ‘Busch! Why, how is he getting on? I understand he has had an apoplectic attack.’ I replied: ‘Oh! no, he only caught a bad cold last Whitsuntide, and suffered in particular from great hoarseness, but he is quite well again now.’ You will observe that the apoplectic attack comes from friend Holstein.” (Probably reached the Chief’s ears in quite a harmless way from Scheibler through Rottenburg.) I replied: “As a matter of fact I have not written for that paper for years, but they still send it to me daily, and Kingston, one of their editorial staff and a leader writer, has translated my book Unser Reichskanzler into English. I fancy, therefore, they would take an article from me on the subject suggested by the Prince.” He then drew an envelope from his pocket and said: “I have here jotted down our conversation on the subject. They are for the main part his own words, pointing out the chief cause of the way in which the elections turned out, the result of which he attributes chiefly to the Rescript. Work them up into an article and see that you get it published in London. He attaches great importance to it and would like to see a copy when it appears.” I promised to write and[p. 307] send off the article next morning, and if it were accepted, to hand in a copy of it personally to the Chief, when I should ask him whether I could be of any further use in the matter. He then mentioned to me that the Prince was not at all satisfied with the Rescript, nor was he pleased in other respects with the intentions of the young Majesty, who had become very self-confident and arbitrary, and that he had only remained in office up to the present because he had hoped that the Emperor would appoint Herbert to be his successor. He knew already, however, that this desire would not be fulfilled, as the Emperor objects to Herbert on personal grounds. (...)

“By the way, when you next visit the Chief, you should speak in a loud clear voice, as his hearing is not so good as it was. You should also avoid contradicting him in any way, as, according to Rottenburg, he is now very short-tempered and irritable.” Bucher’s notes (the original of which I have retained) ran as follows: “Explain the influence of the Imperial Rescript on the elections. The old Social Democrats (Republicans) acted as if the Rescript were a victory for their efforts. Many malcontents—and who in this world is contented?—who were hitherto deterred from joining the Social Democracy by their monarchical sentiments (and at bottom the bulk of our people are monarchical), now believe that they can vote for them with an easy conscience. The Emperor has offended the bourgeoisie, and has actually embittered the large manufacturers who regard the Rescript as an incitement to their workmen. The lower middle classes, middlemen and shopkeepers, do not see that their own interests are directly threatened, as they know how to shift from their own[p. 308] shoulders any increase in the price of goods, but they see their political position threatened by the fourth estate. Many of them have therefore fallen away from the cartel candidates who were in favour of the Government, and for whom they had formerly voted, and took up with the Progressists, whose leaders are double faced. The experience obtained during the period of conflict showed the importance of the sentiments entertained by the bourgeoisie. At that time they wished to seize the reins of power, à la Louis Philippe. The masses did not care, or did not see, yet repeated elections always yielded the same results. The Emperor does not understand that, he has had no experience of it; and it is difficult to make him recognise it as he is surrounded by too many servile flatterers (Byzantinern) who confirm his self-confidence. Among the ‘Sunday’ polling cards in the eastern provinces there were a great number with the name of the Emperor William. Conclusion: Had it not been for the Rescript the elections would have turned out much as they did three years ago.” I worked this up into an article for the Daily Telegraph, and forwarded it to the office in Fleet Street on the 26th of February.

It was not accepted, however, probably because they considered themselves to be better informed by their regular correspondent, or did not think themselves justified in taking sides against the Emperor.

On reaching home on the evening of the 15th of March I found waiting for me an invitation to do Prince Bismarck the honour of visiting him on the following morning at 11.30. (Original retained.) I went to the palace, No. 77 Wilhelmstrasse, at the time appointed, and was speedily shown in. The Chief,[p. 309] who was in undress uniform, was sitting in the front study. He shook hands with me: “Good morning, Büschlein,” and added with a smile, “you still keep your fine beard.” Proceeding to the large back room he called me in to him. There were several boxes and also a big trunk with papers, while a large cupboard containing documents was half emptied. He drew out one drawer of the writing-table and took out a dark green portfolio in which the correspondence with Andrassy had been kept at Friedrichsruh, as also the envelopes containing the papers which I had sorted for him, and said: “I wish you would look through these for me, first glance through those from Friedrichsruh once more, and then those from Varzin and other new ones; there is still a great number of them. I said to you at the time that we would resume the business. Do you still care to do so?”

I: “Most certainly, Serene Highness; I am only too happy to have the opportunity. I thought several times of reminding you, but I did not like to appear importunate and so preferred to wait for your invitation.”

He: “Well, there are others (pointing to the trunk) and here in the green portfolio are more recent ones. You should look through these from Friedrichsruh once more and make a note of those that are of importance from an historical standpoint, then number all the rest in chronological order and add a list of the important ones. I now want to write my memoirs, and you can help me with them. That means I am going to retire. You see I am already packing. My papers are going to be sent off immediately, for if they remain here much longer, it will end in his seizing them.” I expressed my amazement.

[p. 310]

He: “Yes, I cannot remain here any longer and the sooner I go the better.”

I: “But surely not immediately, Serene Highness?”

He: “It is a question of three days, perhaps of three weeks, but I am going for certain. I cannot stand him any longer. He wants even to know whom I see, and has spies set to watch those who come in and go out. For that reason, too, I do not well see how I am to get the papers away. They might be sent to you, but how?” I replied: “I could take the more important ones away with me, a few small packets at a time, carrying them in the first place to Hehn’s and then perhaps to Leipzig.”

He: “Hehn? Who is he?”

I told him, and that he was perfectly trustworthy.

He: “I could also have sent them to Schönhausen, and you could go there from Friedrichsruh to fetch them. I want you to have the most important of them copied and to keep the copies for the present.”

I: “But if a stranger were to copy them he might betray the contents to others.”

He: “Ah, I am not afraid of that. Of course he might, but I have no secrets among them—none whatever. Come to Friedrichsruh when I am there and we will work together. But I should like you first to get a letter from Frederick William IV. into the press. I saw it at the end of a new book, of which I do not remember the title, but it was a fabricated version, inaccurate in form and full of impossibilities and absurdities. I have a correct copy of the original, but I cannot find it in your envelopes. (Searched in that for 1852.) Ah, yes, here it is. Take it with you, copy it, and then return me the original.”

[p. 311]

I suggested that it should be printed in the Grenzboten.

He: “All right, but it must be given as coming from Vienna, and the publication of the false version must serve as a reason for publishing it.”

While I was helping him to pack the papers in one of the boxes he came to speak about the Rescript, and said: “It comes of an over-estimate of himself, and of his inexperience of affairs, and that can lead to no good. He is much too conceited, however, to believe me that it will merely cause confusion and do harm.”

I: “It is the disgusting —— of the press and of the Court menials that are to blame for his self-deception.” He laughed. I told him that the article on the influence exercised by the Rescript on the elections had been written and sent off, but was not published by the Daily Telegraph.

He: “It was quite correct, however, as reports reached us from all sides as to the bad effect which the Rescript produced on the electors.” He then asked how old I was.

I: “Sixty-nine, but my father was eighty-six and my mother eighty-four.”

He: “Well, I should not mind living till I am eighty, out in the country.” He promised when I left to send me the latest papers (those in the green portfolio) to look through, arrange in chronological order, and copy. I thanked him for his great confidence in me, which was justified, for as I had already said to him on one occasion in 1870, he was my Master, and my Messiah.

He: “Blasphemy! But you have deserved my confidence.”

At 11 A.M. on the 17th of March a Chancery attendant[p. 312] arrived in a cab with a message that the Prince requested me to come to him immediately. On my entering the antechamber, Bleichröder was with him, and afterwards Herbert, and so I had to wait. At length Rottenburg, who had already declared that he, too, would retire, told me that they had gone upstairs to lunch, but that he would immediately again announce my arrival to the Prince. He returned in a few minutes with an invitation from the Chief to take lunch with him. At table upstairs I met a nephew or cousin of the Prince, to whom I was introduced as “Büschlein,” and who remembered having seen me at dinner in Versailles—doubtless the then lieutenant of dragoons with the red collar. The Princess and Count Herbert came in later. The conversation first turned on a foreign diplomatist, who would have married Countess Marie if her father had not been warned against him as a spendthrift. “Besides, I am altogether against marriages with foreigners,” said the Chief, “and particularly in the case of diplomatists.” He then spoke of the alleged second visit of Windthorst. It had displeased the Emperor, but it was merely a newspaper invention and ought to be contradicted. “Such intercourse, however, is useful,” he said. “It is well that I should in that way keep in touch with the parties, and for that reason I have always been accessible to them. Every member of Parliament could come to me at any time, day or night, and be received immediately. But they have taken little advantage of this. They do not want to be considered by their party as having Government sympathies, and prefer to be able to abuse me for having no relations with them. It is only the Ultramontanes who come sometimes, such as Windthorst, Schorlemer and Hüne, also Frankenstein, who is now dead. The cartel parties hardly ever put in an appearance.”[p. 313] He recommended me to try the caviar. “It has been sent to me by the Minister of the Imperial Household at St. Petersburg, and I take it that it is the same as that which is served to the Emperor Alexander. It is the best I have ever had.” He also praised the Moselle and Yquem. On Herbert coming in he laid before the Chief a portfolio connected with the negotiations in progress respecting a partition of East Africa, and the latter gave his opinion as to the frontiers. I accompanied him downstairs, and he handed me out of the green portfolio on the table in the large room nine or ten copies in his own handwriting of letters addressed by him to the Emperor William I., during the years 1872 to 1887. “Copy these and keep the copies by you, and bring me back the originals, as well as that of the letter of introduction of 1852.”

He also gave me a large envelope containing more recent letters and reports to be arranged in chronological order, with dockets on the more important ones for the purpose of the memoirs. “Return me these to-morrow or the day after,” he said; and I promised to bring them back on Thursday. We then went into the other study, and I said that even now I could not bring myself to realise that he was retiring; it seemed to me utterly impossible. He: “Impossible? It is now a fact. Things have gone more rapidly than I imagined they would. I thought he would be thankful if I were to remain with him for a few years, but I find that, on the contrary, he is simply longing with his whole heart to be rid of me in order that he may govern alone—with his own genius—and be able to cover himself with glory. He does not want the old mentor any longer, but only docile tools. But I cannot make genuflexions (Ich aber kann nicht mit Proskynesis dienen), nor[p. 314] crouch under the table like a dog. He wants to break with Russia, and yet he has not the courage to demand the increase of the army from the Liberals in the Reichstag. I have succeeded in winning their confidence at St. Petersburg, and obtain proofs of it every day. Their Emperor is guided by my wishes in what he does and in what he refrains from doing. What will they think there now? And also other expectations which I cannot fulfil, together with the intrigues of Courtiers, rudeness and spying, watching with whom I hold intercourse! My retirement is certain. I cannot tack on as a tail to my career the failures of arbitrary and inexperienced self-conceit for which I should be responsible.”

I: “When he falls into distress and difficulty he will himself come and fetch you back, Serene Highness! He will have to beg and implore you.”

He: “No, he is too proud for that. But he would like to keep Herbert, only that would not do—that would be a sort of mixed goods train, and I should always have to bear part of the responsibility. Moreover, although Herbert would doubtless stand being lectured and censured by me, he would not stand it from Imperial Chancellor Bötticher.” (He therefore seemed to think that the latter had been selected as his successor, and knew nothing as yet of the choice of Caprivi). “Besides they have treated his father badly.” I said: “The Emperor William seems to have the same notion as King Frederick William IV. had, according to Sybel, namely, that Kings in virtue of their office know everything better than their best servants.” He: “Yes, obedient Ministers! He has altogether a great deal in common with him.”... I proposed to publish the letters of William I., or at least a few of[p. 315] them, and mentioned the Grenzboten as a paper from which they would be largely quoted. He seemed to like the idea. “I will see about it when you bring me back the originals. If you do not then see me, report yourself at Friedrichsruh in a short time. I shall now go out riding for a while.” As I was leaving the room, he clapped me on the shoulder in a friendly way. In the antechamber, Rottenburg again said he would also retire. His nerves could no longer stand it. Very nice of him, but we shall see how the cat jumps.

On Thursday, March 20th, I took back to the Chief the originals of his letters to William I. He looked through them and sanctioned the publication in the Grenzboten of the first three, adding at the same time: “We shall first publish these which refer to family matters, and see what impression they make. Then we can let the others follow, and perhaps later on still more from the collection.”

I: “Perhaps articles also?”

He (smiling): “Yes, perhaps. Hamburg newspapers would also accept something of the kind. I have recommended the Norddeutsche Allgemeine, which the company that owns it placed at my disposal, to the Conservatives (doubtless those belonging to the Free Conservative wing) as their organ.”

On Saturday, March 22nd, I returned to him in an envelope the thirty-nine new papers chronologically arranged and numbered, the most important ones being specially docketed. The latter were: No. 14, letter written by William I. in 1884; on the Battenberger and his projected marriage, 16, 18, 21, 31, and 33; a letter to the Chief from the Crown Prince Frederick at Portofino, describing his eldest son as inexperienced, extremely boastful and self-conceited; a letter from Crown Prince[p. 316] William to Bismarck in 1888 on the “Battenberger” business and Albedyll’s plan for “nailing down” Prince Alexander by a written declaration; a letter of the Battenberger from Sofia to the Queen of England, sent to the Chancellor with a letter from the Crown Princess Victoria (two copies); a report by Professor von Bergmann on the illness of the Emperor Frederick; a letter from the Grand Duke of Baden respecting an interview with the sick monarch, which had taken place according to arrangement with him alone (without the Englishwoman) when the Emperor listened with deep seriousness to the statement made to him by the Grand Duke: “You cannot govern without Prince Bismarck (Ohne Fürst Bismarck kannst Du nicht regieren).” The Chief looked through the particulars of the contents which I had written on the envelope, and observed: “Those are really important papers, but take them back with you and keep them at your house for the present.” He then reflected, however, and said: “I am being watched, and you also, and if you are seen coming and going with a large envelope—this will be better. Come here!” He then went into the back study to a large trunk standing in the middle of the room. I followed him, and he raised the cover of a green portfolio which was packed up in it under a round box. “Those are maps,” he said. “Lay these papers between them, and remember where they are in case I should forget it, when we proceed with the Memoirs at Friedrichsruh. I am sending about 300 cases and other things away, and 13,000 bottles of wine. That is a great deal, but it includes many presents. Besides, while I still had money I bought several lots of good sherry, which will come in for my children. Write to me a fortnight after I reach Friedrichsruh and ask when you can come on a long visit and help me with the Memoirs. I must have[p. 317] a private secretary so that I may be able to dictate and dispose of minor affairs by letter. That is not for you, however, as I intend to employ you on something better. I have accordingly asked Schweninger to find a young doctor for this purpose, who would also be at hand in case of indisposition and accident, as, for instance, if I were to hurt myself out riding. It would be something for him, too, as it would in any case bring him in a couple of thousand marks. Keep yourself free for our business.” I replied that I would arrange for the present to remain with him for six months, and if necessary for a further period later on, after a short holiday. We then returned to the front room and sat down, when he said: “There is one thing I would ask you to do now if you still have any influence in the press, that is, to correct a mistake which I have repeatedly noticed in newspaper articles within the last few days, as also in communications from exalted places, as, for instance, from England—with suppositions and reproaches—namely, that I had sent in my resignation owing to my apprehension of great crises, and left the Emperor in the lurch through fear of the increased Opposition in the new Reichstag. A glance at my past history and character ought to have discredited that notion, and a remembrance of the conflict of 1866, when the Opposition was much stronger, and more dangerous, and of my loyalty to my royal master, which I likewise showed and proved on later occasions. But, as a matter of fact, it is quite wrong. On the contrary, I did not want to retire until the summer, and, in the meantime, offered to defend the Imperial policy in the Reichstag, and to take up the struggle with the Opposition. I was not permitted to do so however.... He wants to do everything himself, and he fancies that he[p. 318] can.” He then spoke once more of spying, and of the Emperor setting a watch upon him to see with whom he held intercourse. (Probably Windthorst’s visit.) “That is one of the final reasons that have induced me to tender my resignation.” He stood up, bent across the table, resting on his two hands, and smiling as he looked me straight in the face, said: “But, tell me, do you drink much wine?” I replied: “During the daytime no spirituous liquors whatever, not even at table. In the evening two pints of thin, sour Moselle.” “So!” he rejoined. “You certainly gave me the impression of having stowed away a bottle of Burgundy, and yet a short time ago you had some little trouble. (Apoplectic attack?) Otherwise I do not in the least disapprove of it, as I myself drink my share. But take care of yourself, for I wish to keep you with us for a long time yet.” It was then arranged once more that I should write to him a fortnight after his arrival at Friedrichsruh, but in the first only to arrange for a shorter visit, during which we should talk over and settle about a longer stay later on.

On Monday, March 24th, the Chief again sent, by a Chancery attendant, to fetch me in a cab. I had to wait in the antechamber from 11.45 to 1 P.M. as Caprivi was taking lunch upstairs with the Prince. I then saw the new Imperial Chancellor, as he was going away. Scheibler congratulated Rottenburg on a second quality Red Eagle and oakleaf, which may possibly soothe his nerves. On being called in I found the Chief seated in a causeuse before his writing-table. I handed him to-day’s Post, which Rottenburg had given me for him. He read out to me the short leader of the 23rd (which I have kept), and said: “They, too, want to curry favour. That comes from gentlemen at Court,[p. 319] who want to hush up things. Please say something against that! Could the Liberals themselves abuse me worse? Not the worst, but, on the contrary, the best service that could be done to me would be to give a correct answer to the question whether my retirement has been voluntary or involuntary; and that answer is: involuntary. It is a patriotic duty not to maintain the utmost reserve, but, on the contrary, to tell the truth. The young man would, however, like to have it hushed up. Indeed, he has gone so far as to summon Schweninger, and to try to make him believe that it was due to considerations of health. Yes, there is a great deal of flunkeyism (Byzantinerthum) here, and they all crawl on their bellies before him, in order to attract one gracious look upon themselves.” I asked if he would stay on much longer. He said: “No, to-morrow or the next day.”

I: “Then I am to write to your Serene Highness in fourteen or fifteen days about my visit?”

He: “You can write even earlier, and come very soon.”

The desired article was despatched to the Grenzboten as an appendix to that recently ordered. It appeared in No. 14, immediately following a longer article (probably by Kayser) which preached from the same text as the Post. The first three letters from Bismarck to William I. appeared at the head of No. 14. They ran as follows:—

The letter from Frederick William IV. was also published, in No. 13, and all were reproduced by numerous other papers.

I insert here, first the remaining letters from Bismarck to William I. which I copied at his desire, and then some of the more important papers in the new batch.

[p. 325]

Further Letters from Bismarck to Emperor William I.

On the 23rd of February I again received a letter from Bucher, also under cover to Frau Hedwig Hämmerling: “23/2/91. He says he would like to see you once more, and requests you to visit him. You may choose the time most convenient to yourself, but give two days’[p. 351] notice in advance, so as to avoid clashing with an invitation to Hamburg. Be sure to bring your sleeping garments with you, if you are as little in favour with the lady of the house as I am.”

I replied that I should have preferred to go the day after to-morrow, but that as I was at liberty to name my own time, and was now engaged in reading over papers, arranging and packing for my removal on the 16th of March, I would come on the 18th. I further requested him to say by what train I should come, and called attention to the fine cartoon and verses, “Dropping the Pilot,” in Punch, of the 29th of March, 1890, which an acquaintance had sent me the previous day, and which I should bring with me if they had not already seen it.

Bucher replied that they had the “Pilot” from Punch at Friedrichsruh; and that he himself had travelled by the slow train. I arrived at Friedrichsruh at 3 P.M. on the 18th of March. The Prince had gone out for a drive with Buhl, the member of Parliament, who had come on a visit. A servant showed me upstairs to No. 4 as my room, where Grant, Bancroft, and the busts of Washington and Hamilton kept me company. I immediately visited Bucher, whose room was opposite mine. He complained that the work of the “Memoirs” stood exactly where it did before. In dictating, the Prince wandered from one point to another, told many things several times, and almost always differently, &c. A huge pile of dictated notes had already been transcribed, he calculated some sixty printed sheets. It would, however, have to be sifted and worked up, and the Chief had not as yet looked through a line of it. Hardly anything would come of it, and, in any case, he had not as yet decided whether it[p. 352] should be published during his lifetime or after his death. Bucher intends to leave again for a time at the end of the month, and is very dissatisfied with his occupation hitherto. He showed me in the pile on the chair a thick packet, endorsed, “Nikolsburg,” and observed that it dealt less with the important events that took place there than with a variety of other matters. He had seen few of the papers arranged by me in 1888, none at all of those relating to the alliance with Austria, only two or three letters from the Gerlach correspondence, and he had also seen nothing of the correspondence with Manteuffel and Schleinitz. He believes that the Chief has sent all those that are missing to a bank in England for safety. But a few days later he modified this surmise, and said he thought the papers were in the keeping of some trusty friend.

Downstairs before dinner, Buhl, a lean old gentleman with a grey beard, introduced himself to me. I now made the acquaintance also of Dr. Chrysander, a slight young man. The Chief appeared shortly afterwards with the Princess. He greeted me with the customary “Büschlein,” was pleased to see from my appearance that I was well again, and said I must sit next to him at table on his right, while President Buhl sat on his left between himself and his consort. The Prince looked very well, was most good-humoured and talkative during dinner, was surprised that I still had so much hair, told amusing stories and expatiated with knowledge on various fine wines and judges thereof. (...)

Dinner was followed by some more serious conversation in the coffee-room. In reply to a question by Buhl the Prince disapproved of Caprivi’s East African policy:[p. 353] “Zanzibar ought not to have been left to the English. It would have been better to maintain the old arrangement. We could then have had it at some later time when England required our good offices against France or Russia. In the meantime our merchants, who are cleverer, and, like the Jews, are satisfied with smaller profits, would have kept the upper hand in business. To regard Heligoland as an equivalent shows more imagination than sound calculation. In the event of war it would be better for us that it should be in the hands of a neutral Power. It is difficult and most expensive to fortify”—a point which he then explained in detail. “That does not make one an ‘extender of the realm,’ not even to the extent that I was in the old days when I travelled back to Berlin with the cession of a strip of land on the Jahde in my pocket, thinking not a little of my achievement!” The Prince is also opposed to building any more large ships: “rather two small vessels than one big one; the North Sea and Baltic Canal doubles our naval strength.” (...)

On Friday, March 20th, after lunch, at which the Chief was again very bright and communicative, Bucher at my request allowed me to read the chapter on Nikolsburg from the material dictated for the “Memoirs,” in the first place that I should note the numerous digressions from the real subject. These excursions included, among other things, references to the anti-German Queen of Holland, intended annexations, Frederick the Great, an intrigue during the Regency, the indemnity, the impression made in Russia by the events of the summer of 1866, the Danzig Pronunciamento, the German question in 1848, dynastic sentiments, a lost opportunity in 1848, factions, the Wochenblatt party, Augusta, the removal to St. Petersburg and the Italian war. In doing this I[p. 354] ran through the greater part of the manuscript, and found some new and interesting matter respecting the King’s desire for annexation, Bismarck’s reasons for moderation, and a speedy conclusion of peace; Moltke’s strategic plans; a visit of the Crown Prince, who comes to Bismarck and promises to support him at a time when he was almost despairing of carrying through his scheme; and the final consent of the King, who complains, however, that it is an “ignominious peace.” Further matters of interest are: Augusta’s influence on the Regent, Bismarck’s audience before his transfer to St. Petersburg, his condemnation of the Ministers of the new era, as for instance of Schwerin, and afterwards of Usedom and his English wife; the remarkable allegation that Frederick the Great was also vain, supported by references to the King’s own judgment of a poem written by himself immediately after the battle (“n’est pas trop mal après une bataille”), and to his flute playing. In conclusion, the views expressed as to our relations with Austria and Russia, and the policy which they impose upon us, well deserve to be taken to heart. Irritation against the Russians has arisen (this doubtless refers to the Emperor William) out of personal impressions (due to inadequate appreciation); yet we cannot be quite certain of Austria, as the possibility of a breach with her depends upon one person. Bucher says that the Chief would doubtless speak to me about Windthorst, as to whom there were still many things to be said, and suggested that I should start the subject when opportunity offered. This was done indirectly over our coffee after dinner, but the Prince did not take it up. Later on, however, it was suggested that such excessive honours would never have been paid to the old Guelph advocate at his death if the Emperor had not set the example.[p. 355] To-day the Chief dictated to Bucher on “questions of State rights,” but was unable to get properly under way and could not verify or complete what he had to say, as he had not got his books, “his tools.” (...)

At noon on Saturday, the 21st of March, the Chief sent Bucher, to whom he had again been dictating in the morning on questions of State rights, to ask if I would go for a walk with him. (...)

I took an opportunity of inquiring how his “Memoirs” were getting on, mentioning that I knew he had begun to dictate his reminiscences and views. “That is so,” he rejoined; “but it is probable that in the end it will come to nothing. I have no documents, and even if I remember the main points—quite clearly—one cannot after all carry in his head every detail of what has happened in the course of thirty years. Then as to the publication during my lifetime. Ever since 1847 I have constantly represented the monarchical principle, and held it aloft like a banner. Now I have seen three Kings in a state of nakedness, and frequently these three exalted gentlemen did not make altogether a very good show. Still it would not do to say that openly before the world—it would be inconsistent—opposed to principle. And yet I can just as little keep silent when once I come to deal with that point, to say nothing of asserting the contrary. And if it (the publication) takes place after my death, then they will say: ‘There you have it! Even from his grave! What a detestable old wretch!’” I could only reply that one has duties towards himself, and his own honour,—duties towards that which one has created; that one ought as a man of experience and judgment to warn the country against wrong courses into which it may be led through the impetuousness or thoughtlessness and excessive self-confidence of new[p. 356] politicians; and furthermore that one has duties towards history, to dispel misunderstandings and chimeras, and the falsehoods of flattering courtiers; and that truth, which stands above all things, must have its rights—truth of which Jesus said that it will make us free. He listened in silence to this eager and audacious outburst; and I then spoke of another subject—namely, Kingston’s report in the Daily Telegraph of an interview with him, and in particular of the very favourable opinion of the Emperor Frederick, therein ascribed to him, which could not be reconciled with the views I had heard him express. He replied: “I know nothing of any Kingston, or of any interview in an English newspaper. The report must be an invention (Schwindel).” He then mentioned the picture (in Punch), “Dropping the Pilot,” and said: “The Emperor was delighted with it. He saw in it a recognition of his right to smash the pot—you know as in the witches’ kitchen: ‘Entzwei, entzwei, da liegt der Brei.’”

At lunch among other things the Prince related the history of some excellent old Jamaica rum, of which a bottle stood on the table. The conversation then led to a few corrections. It was Kayser and not Rudchen Lindau who had warned and threatened the Allgemeine Zeitung in Munich; and Bötticher had not told the lie about the morphiomania of the Chancellor direct to the Emperor, but to the Grand Duke of Baden, who then related it to his Majesty. The statement that the latter questioned Schweninger is true, as also the rough answer given by the doctor. “And as a matter of fact,” said the Chief, “I have only taken morphia when in great pain, and it has never done me any harm; although Bötticher asserted that he found me quite deranged mentally and irresponsible for my actions.”

After dinner while reading the papers the Chief[p. 357] remarked, I now forget in what connection: “One day, long after my death, Büschlein will write the secret history of our times from good sources.” “Yes, Serene Highness,” I replied, “but not a real history—I cannot do that—rather a compilation of good materials, conscientiously collected and placed in a proper light. Nor shall it be long after your death, which of course we pray may be as remote as possible, but immediately, without delay, as in these corrupt times one cannot too soon vindicate the rights of truth.” He then came to speak of the newspaper reports to the effect that more friendly relations were gradually growing up between himself and the Emperor, a statement which he denied as something obviously impossible. He referred to the new communal regulations, which he disapproved of. He said they had offended the farmers, whom they put on a level with the small traders and artisans in communal affairs. He then spoke at some length of Minister Herrfurth, addressing himself for the most part to me, much to the following effect (Bucher afterwards recapitulated his statement to me upstairs): while the Emperor was still Prince and lived at Potsdam, he, Bismarck, desired to prepare him for the government, and to provide him, so to say, with tuition in the various branches of the art of governing. Up to that time he knew little, and indeed did not trouble himself much about it, but preferred to enjoy himself in the society of young officers and suchlike. The plan was to get him to remove to Berlin, somewhere near Bellevue. But the financial authorities at Court were of opinion that that would be too expensive. The Prince was then to hear lectures at Potsdam, and Bismarck proposed Herrfurth, the Under-Secretary of State,—who was reputed to be well informed, particularly in statistics—as[p. 358] his tutor on internal questions. The Prince agreed and invited Herrfurth to lunch with him, and then told the Chancellor he could not stand him, with his bristly beard, his dryness and tediousness, and asked whether the Prince could not suggest some one else. Yes, he would send him Regierungsrath von Brandenstein. The Prince had nothing to say against that, so Brandenstein was written to. But H.R.H., although it is true he lunched with him several times, paid so little attention to his explanations that Herr von Brandenstein lost patience, and begged to be given some other employment. In the meantime, shortly before the death of the Emperor Frederick, Minister Puttkamer was dismissed. When Prince William ascended the throne Bismarck spoke to him on the subject, and he said he would of course make Puttkamer Minister again, but a certain interval must be allowed to elapse—for appearance sake. Bismarck proposed that Herrfurth should hold the post in the interval, and told him that he must carry on the policy which Puttkamer had adopted, and resign his place to the latter after a certain time, receiving in return a post of Chief President. Would he agree to that? Yes, he would; he had always followed the course laid down by his superior, Puttkamer, and would willingly make way for him when the time came. But when Bismarck, after a few weeks or months, observed to his Majesty that the time had come to reinstate Puttkamer, the Emperor replied, no, he did not think of doing so any longer, as he had in the meantime grown accustomed to Herrfurth, and was now quite satisfied with him. The change had come about in this way. Herrfurth had, without previous consultation with the Prime Minister, put himself in direct communication with the Emperor, and taking advantage of the[p. 359] Sovereign’s wishes, recommended a liberal reform of the Communal Regulations, as a measure by which he could gain numerous friends and secure imperishable fame. “After a few days,” concluded the Prince, “my Schönhausen people came to me and asked, ‘What does this mean?’ They had received papers, and were, it would seem, to report whether they desired to have all the old arrangements upset, and every one put on the same level. And this was done throughout the seven old provinces, much to the surprise and dissatisfaction of the peasantry. That too was one of the causes of my retirement.” The Chief afterwards said that when I left he wished to give me some papers to take with me and keep for him. I was to make copies of them, which I could publish at a future day. I promised to remind him, and also offered my services for other purposes in the future; “I had always regarded myself as his little archer, who at his call would even shoot my bolt at the sun himself.” He smiled, and said: “Many thanks, perhaps.”

Sunday, March 22nd.—During the forenoon the Chief dictated to Bucher some notes on the question as to how the German Constitution might be altered in case it should no longer work. He also told him that he wished to give me certain important documents to take with me. (...)

Monday, March 23rd.—(...) I had waited yesterday in vain to see the Chief on his return from lunch to his study, in order to remind him of the documents which I was to take with me. To-day, after lunch, I called upon him in his own room for this purpose. I apologised for disturbing him, but, as I intended to leave to-morrow, I thought it was of importance to him that I should take the papers with me. “So it is,” he[p. 360] rejoined, “and it is well that you have reminded me of it while I am alone. But why are you going away so soon?” “I do not wish to be any longer a burden to you, Serene Highness.” “But you are nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I am glad to see such a faithful old comrade of the war time; and, moreover, you are so quiet that you disturb no one.” We then agreed that I should remain for a few days longer, and remind him of the papers once more later on. (...)

During the day workmen were engaged unpacking large cases of silver plate—a valuable treasure which German manufacturers had presented to the Prince as a token of their esteem. At dinner the old gentleman, who still remains the same lover of nature and of animals, had a great deal to tell about the starlings, for whom he had had a few dozen small wooden shelters put up in the trees behind the house. “They held a public meeting to-day,” he said, “probably in connection with the approach of spring. As I was going for my walk I first saw seven of them sitting together in one place and making music. Shortly after their numbers increased, and finally there were thirty of them sitting together, wing to wing.” He then cast a glance at the grey bull-dog waltzing round the room, and observed, “That reminds me of the funeral honours paid to Windthorst. I should never have thought of getting him (the dog), but the Emperor presented him to me. If it had not been for the Emperor’s intervention at the beginning, they would never have made such a fuss about Windthorst.” After dinner the conversation turned on newspaper tattle, as, for instance, that he had sent twelve cases full of important papers to an English bank to keep for him. “Twelve!” he exclaimed, smiling, “I wish I had even one such case[p. 361] full.” The gossips of the press also reported that he had recently purchased a house in Berlin, such and such a number in the Königgrätzerstrasse—better informed authorities had it that it was two houses—at a very high price. From this he went on to say that they once assessed the rent of his palace (the Palais Radziwill) in the Wilhelmstrasse (for the inhabited house duty) at 50,000 marks. On his remonstrating, they replied that the English Ambassador had assessed his own house, which was not so large, at as high a figure.

In the forenoon of Tuesday, March 24th, the Chief sent upstairs for me and handed me, first, three metallographic copies of documents, with two letters and a memorandum. All these were from the year 1885, and referred to the protection of municipalities against arbitrary school rates. “They are metallographs,” he said, “and as such I dare say I may publish them at some future time. You can take them with you for that purpose, but they should be returned to me afterwards.” “Then I will copy them.” “Yes, but that means a great deal of work, twenty or more pages, in parts closely written.” “That does not matter, it shall be done.” “And then here is my resignation, and this is the statement of my motives. You may read that through—” (and, as I boldly assume, with tacit permission to take a copy away with me, at present merely for my own information). “This is about Herbert—you can read that also, and then bring them all back to me.” I went immediately to my room and began to copy the resignation and the statement of motives, as well as the answer of the Chief to the Imperial acceptance thereof, which he had given me instead of the paper referring to Herbert. The metallographic documents will be dealt with later on.

[p. 362]

Resignation.

At the present stage of international affairs I consider it hazardous to publish the “Draft of confidential statement as to the motives of my retirement from office.” The interest of Germany in keeping it secret for the immediate future seems to me to be greater than the interest of history in its publication now.

“Notes on my Retirement.

“The Vice-President of the Ministry of State (von Bötticher) declared that he and his colleagues were deeply grieved at my retirement. He had hitherto hoped that the only differences of opinion between his Majesty and myself were connected with home domestic policy, and therefore that the arrangement indicated by me, namely, that I should confine myself to the control of foreign affairs, would prove a satisfactory solution. My withdrawal from all my offices involved incalculable difficulties; and although he could understand my displeasure, he could only beg me urgently to come to a compromise.

“I replied: The expedient of withdrawing from the Prussian service and confining myself to the position of Imperial Chancellor had met with objections from the Federal Governments and the Imperial Diet. It is felt to be desirable that the Chancellor should have an[p. 368] official position in which he can control the casting of the Prussian vote; and I, too, could not accept a position in which I should be obliged to take from the Prussian Ministers instructions in the preparation of which I had had no part. Therefore this expedient also would not be free from difficulties.

“The Minister of Finance declared that the Order of the 8th of September, 1852, by no means went beyond what was necessary, and could not form an insurmountable difficulty. And also so far as the difficulties in the matter of foreign affairs were concerned, he could only agree with the Minister of State, von Bötticher, that a compromise ought to be sought. Besides, if the retirement took place not for reasons of health, but on political grounds, and from all offices, then the Ministry of State itself would have to consider whether it should not take part in this step. Perhaps that would contribute to avert the fatal event.

“The Ministers of Public Worship and of Justice considered that the differences referred to were due solely to a misunderstanding, which it might be possible to clear up for his Majesty. The Minister of War added, that for a long time past his Majesty had not let fall a single word that had any reference to warlike complications with Russia.

“The Minister of Public Works (Maybach) described my retirement as a misfortune for the security of the country and the peace of Europe. Every possible effort should be made to avert it. In these circumstances he considered that the Ministers should place their offices at the disposal of his Majesty, and he at least was determined to do so.

“The Minister for Agriculture declared that if I were convinced that my retirement was desired in the[p. 369] highest quarter I could not be dissuaded from this step. But in any case the Ministry would then have to consider what course it should adopt.”

Answer to the Acceptance of the Resignation.

(From Bismarck’s autograph pencil draft.)

[p. 370]

Wednesday, March 25th.—The Chief started for Hamburg to-day, first to pay a return visit to Waldersee at Altona, and afterwards to make a few calls in Hamburg. He had not left, however, before lunch, at which he joined us, in undress uniform and wearing an order. He was back again in time for dinner. He had not found Waldersee at home, and at the other houses also had only met the ladies. At table there was a great deal of talk about the torchlight procession with which the Prince’s Hamburg admirers wished to celebrate his birthday here on the 1st of April. It was anticipated that 3,000 to 4,000 persons would come to Friedrichsruh by special trains to take part in the procession. They could marshal their torches and go through their evolutions with tolerable ease in the meadows on the right bank of the Aue.

At lunch the Chief said that after all it was not necessary that I should copy the metallographic documents here. I could do that at my leisure in Leipzig—a blessing, as it would, otherwise, take me three days to do it, and the Princess expects some visitors on the 28th, for whom she wants my room. Therefore off and away at noon to-morrow! Baron Merck and his wife, whom I have known since 1888, were with us at dinner to-day. Among other things the Prince spoke of his new silver-plate. It was very rich and beautiful, but his household was not at all prepared for it, and silver-plate and dishes had never been used at his table. He would, perhaps, have the chandeliers hung up, but the other things would doubtless be sent to the bank for safe keeping.

Friday, March 27th.—Took lunch alone, and somewhat earlier than usual on account of my departure. After a while the Princess, who was on this occasion particularly good-humoured and communicative, came.[p. 371] Among other things she related that Schweninger’s predecessor, a celebrated doctor recommended by Bleichröder, had once treated the Prince for cancer of the stomach; and that it is Versen and the “detestable Hinzpeter” who have most influence with the Emperor and who stimulate the high opinion he has of his own capacity and encourage his arbitrary tendencies. Finally the Prince also came in to say good-bye, and invited me to report myself again shortly at Friedrichsruh. Then back to Berlin, and a few days later, on the 2nd of April, to Leipzig, my new home. (...)

I had hoped that at length I might rest, but it was not to be. The mill must still grind on! Indeed, there is no alternative, as people would not otherwise know how I came to the extraordinary notion of writing yet another book on Bismarck, and how that scheme fared. On the 23rd of June Kommerzienrath Kröner, of Stuttgart, previously only known to me by name, called upon me and proposed that I should write for him a biography of the Prince. I agreed to do so in case the latter approved. With this object I next wrote the following letter to Bucher, who was again at Friedrichsruh with the old gentleman:—

The following answer came from Bucher:—

On receipt of this information I finally agreed with Kröner to write the book, and entered into a contract with him. A few weeks later, however, in thinking over the prospect, I was half sorry that I had done so, and wrote to Bucher (pointing out certain objections in the event of the Prince’s “Memoirs” being published, and competing with the book: and suggesting that in case[p. 373] they were not to appear until after Bismarck’s death, judicious extracts from them might be included in the biography, &c.)

Bucher’s reply:

I wrote in reply from Leipzig, on September 2nd, 1891, inter alia: that if the “Memoirs” were never to be completed but remain mere materials, there was all the more reason for rescuing at least a portion from destruction.... I would do nothing in the matter before consulting him, but I was not without hope that the Chief would allow himself to be persuaded by my arguments, and would assist me with the dictated matter in my otherwise desperate undertaking. (...)

After some consideration, however, I addressed my request to the Prince direct, ... and in the course of a week, on the 17th of September, the following answer came by post:—

(Probably written by Chrysander, but signed by the Prince in his own hand. Not the most favourable answer, still the “as yet” and “for the present” leaves room for hope.) (...)

On the 5th of October I paid Bucher a visit in Berlin in connection with this matter. I showed him the draft of a reply I had sent within the course of a week to the Chief, and he told me he had already been informed by Schweninger. He said I ought first to have arranged with him before writing to the Prince, and mentioning his name. As it was, Bismarck would believe that he had suggested my plan respecting the “Memoirs.” I was mistaken in thinking that Kröner had come to me about the biography with the knowledge and at the instance of the Prince. Kröner (who hoped to secure the publication of the “Memoirs”) probably thought I would enter into competition with him, and therefore decided to come to me, and thus become his own competitor. Not very clear! As publisher of the “Memoirs” that will never be completed, and which according to Bismarck’s verbal and written assurances are never to be published? It did not tally either with Bucher’s present statement that the Prince was thinking of leaving two copies of the “Memoirs,” one for the Emperor and one for his own sons.[p. 376] Moreover, the text of these two could not be the same. One of them would have to be first trimmed and Bowdlerised, in usum Delphini, as—according to Bucher’s own assertion—it contained a variety of things calculated to give offence. Referring to the differences between the Prince and the Emperor, Bucher stated that their origin was to be sought in the following incident, as well as in the demand with regard to the Order of 1852, and the steps which—according to Bismarck’s statement—had been taken in connection with Windthorst’s visit. (The Prince’s account of the Windthorst incident appeared to him, Bucher, not to be credible, at least so far as the date was concerned.) On the 15th of March, as the Emperor was returning home from a drive with Bismarck, he told the latter that he wished to inform the Tsar that he intended paying him a visit of some days’ duration at his estate—(I have forgotten the name of it). Bismarck dissuaded him on the ground that the Tsar liked to be alone there, and because the Emperor had not made a very favourable impression in St. Petersburg. His Majesty asked how he came to know that. B. replied through a private letter; whereupon the Emperor desired to see it. B. at first did not wish to show it; but finally, yielding to further pressure, drew it out of his pocket. The Emperor, after he had read it, ordered the carriage to stop, and set down the Chancellor at his residence.

It was evident from the foregoing that in my affair the Prince wanted to know—and in certain circumstances to alter, and probably to a great extent—whether I was in a position, and what I might perhaps be inclined to say about himself, and indeed generally. Hence Kröner’s proposition. In that case, however, I could not, as I had hoped, do a service to the truth and to history, and[p. 377] therefore could only write an empty book. I therefore informed Bucher I would tell Kröner that an alteration in my health would prevent me from carrying out our contract, and beg him to cancel it. This was done in a letter from Leipzig on the 11th of October; and I was relieved from that burden and anxiety.

On the morning of the 5th of January, 1892, I again spent an hour with Bucher at his place in Berlin, and found him the same dear old friend. His hopeless feeling with regard to the “Memoirs” had only grown deeper since I saw him last. In the interval he had paid a further long visit to Friedrichsruh, where he remained till shortly before Christmas. He was to return again soon on the Prince’s invitation, although the gout in his hands had begun again on the previous Sunday to give him great trouble, and the outlook and condition of affairs in the Sachsenwald pleased him less than ever. “Thank your stars that you are not in my place with these ‘Memoirs,’” he said. “One’s work is in every respect void of profit and pleasure. One exhausts himself on an utterly hopeless task, which will yield nothing for history. It is not alone that his memory is defective, and he has little interest in what we have done—up to the present he has looked through very few of my packets—but he begins also intentionally to misrepresent even plain and well-established matters of fact and occurrences. He will not admit his own share in anything that has failed, and he will acknowledge no one to be of any consequence compared to himself, except perhaps the old Emperor (to whom he now, as a foil to the young Emperor, gives a much higher place than he is fairly entitled to) and General Alvensleben—I cannot say why—who concluded the treaty with Russia and commanded at Vionville. Falk also is now praised, perhaps because he fears he[p. 378] might otherwise retort with disclosures. (But of course these ‘Memoirs’ are not to be published at all.) He insists that he is in no way responsible for the Kulturkampf, that he did nothing to oppose Pio Nono’s views respecting the Infallibility, and just as little against Arnim’s mischievous ambition—although everybody knows the contrary to be the fact. As if he and his work did not shed enough light to enable men to overlook such shadows! Even in cases where his policy was brilliantly successful he will not hear of acknowledging anything, as for instance the trap which he set for Napoleon in the Spanish affair. He denied the letter to Prim until I reminded him that I myself handed it to the general in Madrid, and that the world is now well aware of it through Rothan.” (So I understood the name, but perhaps he meant Grammont.) On this occasion Bucher also referred once more to his zigzag journey with Salazar and his audience with King Wilhelm at Ems. “The whole candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern,” said Bucher, “is now represented by Bismarck as having been a purely private affair of the Court, a mere family matter, although he was obliged to confess that it was discussed at a sitting of the entire Ministry.”—I also added some reminiscences, but observed in conclusion that in spite of all that, the Chief remained the great political genius and saviour of the Germans. But he was not qualified to be a historian. He was to such a large extent the author of the history of the past decades that it might be called his history, but he did not understand how to relate it. Bucher, of course, agreed with me, and then continued his account of the last few weeks. Bismarck wanted to attend the Reichstag at all costs, in order to speak against the Commercial Treaties. It was in vain to point out to[p. 379] him the danger of malicious and coarse attacks from the Richter and Bebel corners of the House, and to warn him that the President would now be at liberty to call him also to order. “In that case I would answer him ironically” was the laughing reply. It was only Schweninger who succeeded in dissuading him on medical grounds.—“Hoffmann, of the Hamburger Nachrichten, comes every week, and prints whatever the Prince says to him, quite indifferent to the fact whether it is a well-considered statement, or the contrary.” “An old copying clerk has now been set to work on the ‘Memoirs,’ as Chrysander, to whom I dictate my notes, is overburdened with other things, and can no longer manage all the copying.” “They are to be left as a bequest to the sons, but will hardly be published by them,”—because they know that they contain too many misrepresentations of a kind which people could detect and easily disprove, and because they are full of unjust judgments on prominent personages, as, for instance, on most of the Prince’s former colleagues. At the very most, a last chapter might ultimately be published on the preliminary stages of his disgrace, and ultimate retirement. Herbert has made copious and reliable notes on this subject, in which, however, the old gentleman has made all sorts of inaccurate and false corrections. The Princess is still the same.... On my asking after the daughter, Bucher fetched a bottle of old Hungarian wine from behind the green curtain of a bookcase. Countess Rantzau had brought it with her from Hamburg for him, and we drank a glass of it to the health of the honest and excellent lady who had always been a friend to him. “And not forgetting our old master,” I added. “How is he getting on?” “Our old lion is well,” he replied, “and is always in[p. 380] good humour at table; eats and drinks heartily, cracks a joke, and is equal to the youngest of them in paying court to the fair ones.”

In the course of his remarks Bucher mentioned as “not inconceivable” that the Prince might return one day to his old place in Berlin.—He did not give his reasons for thinking so. In the absence of such reasons, and they would have to be very good ones, I cannot believe in such a possibility, so far as he personally is concerned. It is not impossible, after the ill-success of the present régime, that the spirit of his policy may return to the palace in the Wilhelmstrasse.

We were not destined to meet again. Bucher died on the 12th of October, 1892, after he had lived away from the Prince for a few months. I gave a sketch of his life and character in the Illustrirte Zeitung of the 29th of October, which was accompanied by a good portrait.

Next spring I could find no rest until I greeted the Prince once more; and I was permitted to do so. I arrived at Friedrichsruh at 1.30 P.M. on the 1st of May. Chrysander and a servant waited for me at the station, and conducted me to the house where I was lodged in room No. 4. After a snack, which took the place of lunch, I went for a walk with Chrysander, who then showed me in one of the ground floor rooms a number of presents and beautiful addresses from Costa Rica and California, which had come to the Prince on his birthday a month previously. Before dinner I met the old gentleman in the coffee-room, where hung the portraits of his ancestors. He has changed very little. I must sit down with him on the sofa, and am “Büschlein” as before. Had I written anything lately, and what about? Complained of faceache, “which, however, comes no[p. 381] doubt from the sharp atmosphere out of doors during my walk this morning.”—At dinner, at which we were joined by the Princess, Countess Rantzau, Dr. Schweninger, Count Herbert and von Kardorff, member of the Reichstag, my place is again next the Prince on his right. As is almost invariably the case on such occasions, he is amiable, lively and good-humoured. (...)

May 2nd, at 11 a.m.—Schweninger called at my room as he was going away. We spoke once more about Bucher, whom he praised highly. Long before the 15th of March the doctor had known, “through his connections at Court” of the Emperor’s intention to get rid of Bismarck, and had informed the latter. At 12 o’clock Chrysander summoned me to the Prince, whom I met alone in the dining-room, where he was waiting for me. I first handed him back the three metallographic copies, which I should get published in some weekly paper as they were still of interest. After I had turned the conversation on Bucher I mentioned his mission to Madrid and the letter to Prim, giving him clearly to understand that I had been fully informed by my deceased friend of every detail of his Spanish journey, and also knew that at one time he wished to deny the letter to Prim and the trap set for Napoleon, which he had baited afresh by condensing the Ems despatch. But to repudiate that would be to remove the finest leaf from his wreath of laurels, and so on. These details recalled to him the whole circumstances, and he no longer denied anything. He brought the conversation to a close with the words: “We will talk it over some other time. Of course you will remain for a while yet, and I must now speak to Kardorff.” No opportunity however occurred of returning to the subject. (...)

After dinner in the evening, Kommerzienrath Kröner,[p. 382] over our coffee, recommended the Prince to pay an early visit to Leipzig. The Chief Burgomaster Georgi had told him that they longed to see the Prince there, and that he would be received with universal enthusiasm. I considered it right to tone down the effect of this statement by pointing out that, in addition to sincere but silent veneration for the Prince, there was also a great deal of loud and obtrusive fustian and party self-seeking, whose sole object was its own advancement; that, together with a certain understanding for Bismarck’s methods and aims, there was also a great deal of unreason; and that the great lights of the National Liberal persuasion, who held the upper hand at Leipzig, would think less of manifesting their gratitude to him than of once more giving prominence to themselves and their party, and gaining popularity for future elections to the Municipal Council or the Reichstag. Our Geheimer Kommerzienrath was obviously unable to appreciate such an unbusinesslike argument. What I said was, however, perfectly true.

May 3rd.—Took a walk in the morning. In the garden, near the road leading to the station, was a block of sandstone with the inscription: “From Grotenburg, near the site of the monument to Arminius in the Teutoburger Wald,” which was recently presented to Bismarck “by a German,” a bookbinder of Detmold. He doubtless knows no more than the learned themselves where the Teutoburger Wald was really situated, but he certainly knows better than many of the learned that Bismarck is the founder of the German Empire. In addition to the Chief and his wife and daughter, only Chrysander and myself were present at lunch. Conversation: On the newspaper report that Rottenburg was about to pay the Prince a visit, of which, however, the latter knew nothing,[p. 383] and which is all the more improbable, as Rottenburg is just engaged to Miss Phelps, the daughter of the American Minister. The Chief mentioned that Mr. Phelps wrote to him recently, and asked for an expression of opinion on the World’s Fair at Chicago—of course a favourable one. The Prince, however, does not seem inclined to do this. He said: “If I were to give an honest expression of my view it would not be what he requires. These exhibitions are of little value for industry and art, and are more for the benefit of hotel keepers and such people. They are good for those who feel bored, who want a new sensation, new amusements, and who have money enough to gratify their inclinations and afford themselves such pleasures.” The most gracious and his intimates were then discussed—a General von Versen is one of the favourites. The conversation then turned on the diplomatic world, and first on Marschall, who has little capacity, but has been recommended by his Grand Duke and a relative (or an official); on von Schweinitz, who has nine children, and also on “Sardanapaul” Hatzfeldt. The Chief afterwards referred to Maximilian Harden (Witkowski), whom he praised as “a quiet unpretentious man of great tact; not at all like a Jew—and also not like my intimate friend Blum,” he added, laughingly, as he looked towards the Princess. On the mention of the Grand Duke of Baden I reminded him of his letter with the words, “You cannot govern without Bismarck,” and of the letter written by the Crown Prince Frederick from Portofino in which he described his son. The Chief said that he no longer had the original, and asked me to send him a copy of it. “But not direct through the post, and also not to Dr. Chrysander,” suggested Countess Rantzau. “No, he will also be watched. Send it to Baron Merck, Sachsenwald bei Reinbeck; I shall then[p. 384] get it safely.” I further referred to the King of Saxony and his regard for Bismarck, and I mentioned that a doctor, who at the time acted as Physician in Ordinary to the King at Pillnitz, told me how, immediately after the Prince’s dismissal, the King travelled alone by night from Pillnitz to Berlin, probably for the purpose of a conference with the Emperor or Caprivi.

On Bötticher’s name coming up after the diplomatists, the Prince placed him even below Caprivi, and concluded as follows: “Moreover, he is under petticoat government.” Of Marschall he said: “He writes bad French, even in official documents, speaking for instance in a recent communication to Italy of ‘l’empereur et l’empereuse.’”

May 4th.—At lunch we were joined by Baroness Merck and a professor from Giessen, who plied the Prince with all sorts of questions, and whom we shall here entitle Herr Y. In the course of this inquisition we ascertained, among other things, that “Dutken Sommer” (in Hesekiel’s book), whom I had hitherto taken to be a countrywoman, is in reality of the masculine gender, and the son of the Pastor at Reinfeld. The Prince said he was blind, and somewhat of a simpleton, while the Princess described him as musical. Y. hastily jotted that and other facts down in his pocket book while discussing his cutlet and omelette. Phelps, Chicago, and the Prince’s opinion of these “World Fairs” once more. The Chief then spoke of Prince and Princess Reuss at Vienna, and of the position she took up towards the notorious rescript. (“The Uriah Letters.”) She said: “My husband is a (public) servant. I am not.” Somebody brought up Ahlwardt’s name, and the Prince said: “He too has one merit. He brings a change into the commonplace tediousness of the Reichstag.” He observed with regard to the good reception[p. 385] accorded to the Emperor by the Swiss: “They do nothing gratis. We shall be made to pay for it with a higher customs duty.” The professor informed us that he was a vegetarian, and that it was an illness which had converted him. I mentioned the approaching advent of the editor of the Kladderadatsch and his friend Jacobsen, praising both of them highly. After a glance at his pocket book, Y. inquired about the attitude of France in 1866, mentioning Moustier. The Prince corrected his pronunciation of the name, and then went on to say: “Once in the course of conversation he reminded me in a threatening way of Jena. I said to him, ‘If you talk to me of Jena I will talk to you of Leipzig.’ I might also have mentioned Waterloo. Moustier then complained to Manteuffel, and he reported the matter to the King, who, however, said that I had acted rightly.” Coming in the further course of the conversation to speak of the policy which was at that time pursued by the Italians, he said: “La Marmora was a scoundrel, and was paid by France, but Govone was a respectable man.” He gave his reasons for both opinions in detail. The Prince then added, having perhaps noticed the eavesdropping publicist: “I would not have said that to Sybel if I had had any idea that he would publish it—a remark which applies to other matters mentioned to other good people, such as my worthy friend Blum, whose statements are very indiscreet and mostly false.”

At 4 P.M. the professor came to my room, “in order to become better acquainted with his neighbour”; that is, thought I to myself, to pump me too for his own purposes, de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis, according to all the rules of the art. And so it proved. He suggested a walk, and I proposed that we should go to the mill on the Aue. We had not gone a hundred yards before he set to work as I had anticipated, with a hardihood[p. 386] which was only equalled by its many-sidedness. Truly a thirst for knowledge of the most naïve kind, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, although it was only two hours since he set eyes on me for the first time. As at lunch, the result was in each instance immediately committed to his pocket book. What a lingual pumping apparatus that was! Now here, now there, sounding and boring, screwing and sucking! First about myself, then as to Bucher, his character as an official and in social life, &c. The Prince’s turn came next, and after him the Princess, the sons, the daughter and the grandchildren. What did I think of Schweninger? How did I like Lange, who, by the way, also took lunch with us; in short, his inquiries, conducted with a peculiar thoroughness and charm, extended to everything upstairs and downstairs, chick and child, ad infinitum. I was even expected to give information respecting Baroness Merck. Had I observed at table that her eyes looked as if she had been crying, and that she sobbed a couple of times? And whether I knew or suspected why? In return he spontaneously revealed his own inner man unasked, and as a reward for my patience I ascertained a variety of things about himself, and also obtained some information which appeared to me to be of importance. He is to write an obituary of the Prince for the Kölnische Zeitung—now? He will publish an account of his visit to him—where? He had been to see him last year, if I rightly understood, at Varzin, and had been for a walk with him for nearly two hours. He is an intimate friend of Aegidi, whom, doubtless as a congenial soul, he praises to the skies, and who, he says, once gave him a document from the archives of the Foreign Office for perusal. He is a vocalist, and intends to sing something to the Princess, &c. I answered his questions, for the most part with an[p. 387] expression of regret at my ignorance, and where this was not possible with that description of truth which is alone expedient in the presence of embarrassing or dangerous curiosity: Sanheden ved modification, truth with modifications, as the Danes jestingly define lies. I took an opportunity before dinner to speak to Chrysander about this odd fish. He was, however, just on the point of fetching him to see the Prince. I thought to myself that Bucher ought to have postponed his death for a while. At dinner Y., who again diligently pumped the Prince for the benefit of his note-book, strongly urged him soon to pay a visit to South Germany and the Rhine, and held out a very tempting prospect there. The Chief, however, replied that, like Parson Primrose, he now preferred the journey from the brown bed into the blue to all others. “Were I to go, however,” he continued, “I should prepare a speech once for all and learn it by heart.” He added an experience of his at the time of the Erfurt Parliament: “There was one of them there who spoke often and well, and who, on one occasion, delivered a speech which I heard and liked. On my mentioning it to an acquaintance, however, he said: ‘Yes, but you should have heard it last year; it was much finer then!’”

May 5th.—In the morning a letter from my little Gretchen, with greetings to the dear Prince and the whole princely family. Y. called for me again and we took a walk through the wood along the road leading to Möhnsen. The octopus again applies a new sucker: he wants to know about the “Memoirs.” Had formerly on one occasion (I believe he said in 1891) seen the Prince over a pile of folio sheets. Could these have been the “Memoirs?” I did not know, but doubted it. “I did not wish to ask him,” observed the good creature. At lunch he cheerfully proceeded with the work of extracting[p. 388] information from the Chief. He had evidently turned a deaf ear to the indirect warning as to “indiscreet friends,” or considered that full-blown professors formed an exception.

I delivered Gretchen’s greetings, and was instructed to thank her very kindly. In the afternoon Chrysander came to my room and begged me to send him from Leipzig my opinion of the professor and the “intimate friend.” “It is my duty,” he said, “to protect his Serene Highness against tactlessness.”

After dinner, when the Mercks, who had also been present, had withdrawn, there was a scene in the coffee room. The indefatigable Y. once more addressed a series of questions to the Prince, whose newspaper hour had arrived, but who nevertheless listened to him politely, until suddenly—I did not notice to what special point the sucker had been applied, but it must have been an exceptionally tender spot—he exclaimed angrily: “You should not put such questions, professor. I cannot imagine how any one can put such idiotic questions.” Tableau! A thunderbolt! Silence for a moment, and then the conversation is resumed with the ladies on matters of no importance, while the Chief studies his paper. On Y. rising to leave, the Countess makes a sign to me to remain, and I talk for some time to her and the Princess. On taking leave I kiss the Chief’s hand for the first time, and doubtless also for the last. He says: “Good-bye, dear old friend, but come back again soon.”

In the meantime may God protect our dear old master from his new friends—his business friends! Amen!

INDEX TO PROPER NAMES.

William I.—Prince Bismarck—Busch, the Author—France—Germany and smaller German States occur so frequently that they have not been indexed. The prefixes “von” and “de” have been generally omitted.

• A
• Aali Pasha, vol. i. 417
• Abeken, vol. i. 21, 26, 70, 71, 74, 75, 83, 91, 94, 104, 116 to 118, 157, 171, 211, 226, 229, 252, 296, 323, 337, 342, 344, 358, 377, 386, 388, 389, 404, 405, 409, 412, 415, 416, 419, 421, 425, 427, 428, 447, 453, 456, 458, 486, 488, 490, 515, 519, 533;
• vol. ii. 24, 25, 26, 28, 44, 72, 79, 80, 81, 113, 124, 126, 143, 147, 162, 165, 170, 244, 340, 445;
• vol. iii. 13, 42, 43, 121, 249
• Abel, vol. ii. 432
• Abzac, d’, vol. ii. 299, 300
• Adalbert, Prince, vol. i. 402, 561;
• vol. ii. 226
• Adelebsen, vol. ii. 110
• Adlerberg, vol. i. 411;
• vol. iii. 282, 283, 286
• Aegidi, vol. ii. 13, 78, 79, 105, 106, 115, 116, 119, 123, 148, 149, 161, 173, 183, 188, 189, 194, 195, 197, 202, 203, 205, 220, 223, 224, 233, 239 to 241, 247, 250, 252, 254, 256, 257, 281;
• vol. iii. 386
• Afghanistan, vol. ii. 456;
• vol. iii. 119, 121, 124, 133, 135, 150
• Aftonblad, vol. ii. 155
• Agence Havas, vol. i. 43
• Ahlwardt, vol. iii. 384
• Albedinski, vol. ii. 43
• Albedyll, vol. iii. 316, 335
• Albert, Prince Consort of England, vol. iii. 43, 45, 177
• Albrecht, Archduke, vol. i. 16, 17, 178, 179, 232, 272;
• vol. ii. 411
• Alençon, Duc d’, vol. i. 365
• Alexander II., Emperor. See Russia, Tsar of
• Alexander III., Emperor. See Russia, Tsar of
• Alexandrine, Princess, vol. ii. 404, 405, 418
• Allgemeine Zeitung, vol. i. 308;
• vol. ii. 172;
• vol. iii. 356
• Alopaeus, vol. ii. 4, 32
• Alphonso, vol. i. 41
• Alten, Major v., vol. i. 148, 291, 311, 318, 319, 350, 352
• Altvater, vol. i. 442
• Alvensleben, Count, vol. i. 106, 107, 195;
• vol. ii. 143, 164, 402;
• vol. iii. 125, 206, 225, 228, 378
• Amelia, Queen of Greece, vol. i. 135
• America, vol. i. 9, 176, 238, 241, 242, 250 to 252, 265, 283, 354, 386, 429, 465, 472, 526, 558;
• vol. ii. 46, 76, 205, 378, 383, 386, 397, 450, 473;
• vol. iii. 82, 85, 213
• Andrae-Roman, vol. iii. 116 to 118, 126, 208
• Andrassy, vol. i. 463;
• vol. ii. 83, 122, 128, 129, 132, 181, 182, 190, 191, 197, 198, 202, 410, 411, 423;
• vol. iii. 143, 257 to 260, 266, 273 to 276, 287, 288, 291, 309
• Anethan, d’, vol. ii. 81, 85
• Angelis, vol. ii. 212;
• vol. iii. 155
• Angoulème, Duc d’, vol. i. 36[p. 390]
• Antonelli, Cardinal, vol. i. 17, 417;
• vol. ii. 103, 204, 212
• Aosta, Duke of, vol. i. 313
• Apponyi, vol. ii. 181
• Arabi Pasha, vol. iii. 52
• Archbishop of Reims, vol. i. 167
• Arco, vol. iii. 343
• Armand le Chevalier, vol. i. 540
• Arnim, Harry, vol. i. 136 to 215, 307, 416, 417, 431, 457, 506;
• vol. ii. 29, 30, 74, 117, 127, 133, 147, 163, 166, 222, 235, 236, 237, 260 to 266, 279, 286, 332, 476, 477, 478;
• vol. iii. 9, 44, 218, 362, 378
• Arnim, Boitzenburg, vol. i. 306
• Arnim, Heinrich, vol. ii. 25
• Arnim, Krochlendorff, vol. i. 402
• Ascher, vol. iii. 5
• Auber, vol. i. 60
• Auersberg, Adolph, vol. iii. 2
• Auerswald, vol. ii. 333;
• vol. iii. 22
• Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, vol. i. 6;
• vol. ii. 197, 308, 423
• Augustenburger. See Frederick VIII of Schleswig-Holstein
• Aumale, Duc d’, vol. ii. 199, 207
• Aunay, d’, vol. i. 560
• Austria-Hungary, vol. i. 21, 24, 30, 31, 32, 41, 136, 174, 179, 180, 207, 220, 257, 270, 278, 279, 288, 299, 310, 329, 334, 335, 339, 341, 351, 363, 366, 373, 374, 382, 410, 431, 432, 434, 452, 544;
• vol. ii. 42, 52, 57, 82, 89, 102, 110, 112, 114, 119, 123, 127, 128, 137, 142, 147, 148, 158, 172, 180 to 182, 190, 191, 197, 200, 201, 210, 213, 248, 250, 304, 318, 326, 337, 343, 348, 386, 392, 393, 395, 404 to 406, 408, 409, 411, 412, 431, 479 to 481;
• vol. iii. 21 to 26, 43, 44, 52, 62, 76, 79, 81, 83 to 85, 87, 119, 130, 148, 149, 160, 170, 182, 216, 218, 224, 226, 227, 246, 250, 254, 258 to 292, 301, 352, 354
• Austria, Emperor of, vol. i. 178;
• vol. ii. 85, 113 to 115, 119, 122, 216 to 219, 265, 266, 326, 407, 412;
• vol. iii. 87, 216, 219
• Archduchess Gisela of, vol. ii. 194
• Archduchess Sophia of, vol. ii. 115
• Avenir de Loire et Cher, vol. ii. 46
• B
• Bach, vol. ii. 179;
• vol. iii. 218
• Back, vol. ii. 97
• Baden, Grand Duchess of, vol. i. 175;
• vol. ii. 273, 274;
• vol. iii. 140
• Baden, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 292, 305, 403, 501;
• vol. ii. 273;
• vol. iii. 183, 198, 204, 247, 316, 332, 336, 356
• Balan, vol. ii. 27, 73, 80, 124, 175, 216, 224, 245, 251, 252, 256
• Bamberger, vol. i. 84, 103, 168, 222, 223, 233, 255, 286, 350, 361, 362, 484, 493;
• vol. ii. 86, 87, 187, 206, 385, 388, 436, 453, 454, 458, 473, 484;
• vol. iii. 36
• Bancroft, vol. ii. 401
• Banneville, vol. i. 18
• Barjatinsky, vol. iii. 265
• Barral, vol. i. 400
• Barrot, vol. i. 440
• Bastide, vol. ii. 76
• Battenberg, Alex., vol. iii. 149, 171 to 174, 180 to 182, 292, 315, 316, 335
• Baude, vol. ii. 81
• Baudelot, Widow, vol. i. 140, 141
• Bauer, vol. ii. 119
• Bauer, Caroline, vol. ii. 421
• Bauffremont, Duc de, vol. i. 288
• Bavaria, King of, vol. i. 178, 246, 256, 319, 323, 348, 357, 359, 400, 431, 463, 464, 465, 523, 561;
• vol. ii. 50, 138, 142, 169, 217, 226, 325, 332;
• vol. iii. 198, 293, 300, 321, 332
• Prince Luitpold of, vol. i. 98, 127, 165, 168, 178, 179, 180, 329, 360, 464, 562;
• vol. ii. 126, 194;
• vol. iii. 87, 213, 293
• Prince Otto of, vol. i. 331, 562;
• vol. ii. 126, 143
• Prince Charles of, vol. i. 410, 431
• Queen of, vol. ii. 296;
• vol. iii. 140
• Bazaine, Marshal, vol. i. 95, 126, 131, 271, 319;
• vol. iii. 303
• Beaconsfield, Lord, vol. ii. 423, 430, 456
• Beatrice, Princess of England, vol. iii. 174
• Beaufort, d’Hautpoule, vol. i. 507, 508
• Bebel, vol. ii. 57, 81;
• [p. 391]vol. iii. 379
• Bechtoldsheim, vol. ii. 190
• Beckedorff, vol. i. 422
• Becker, vol. iii. 106
• Beckmann, vol. ii. 237
• Beckx, vol. iii. 67
• Belgians, King of the, vol. i. 430;
• vol. iii. 138, 178
• Belgium, vol. i. 60, 63, 142, 176, 177, 295, 430, 501;
• vol. ii. 54, 57, 81, 82, 85, 124, 126, 166, 192;
• vol. iii. 272
• Below, vol. iii. 128
• Benda, vol. ii. 473
• Benedetti, vol. i. 22, 60, 61 to 63, 193, 288, 544;
• vol. ii. 33, 117, 118, 154, 340
• Bennigsen, vol. i. 7, 30, 233, 270, 272, 274;
• vol. ii. 281, 388, 437, 453;
• vol. iii. 28, 30, 31, 34 to 37, 142
• Berg, vol. ii. 44
• Berghen, vol. i. 485;
• vol. iii. 146
• Bergmann, vol. iii. 175, 316
• Berlichingen, vol. iii. 164
• Bernhardi, vol. i. 493
• Bernhardt, vol. ii. 304
• Bernstorff, Count, vol. i. 135, 198, 203, 213, 319, 342, 345, 386, 417, 428, 443, 455, 458, 469, 489, 509, 512, 517, 554, 559;
• vol. ii. 43, 83, 90, 138
• Bernus, vol. ii. 52
• Bernuth, vol. ii. 457, 461, 473
• Beseler, vol. ii. 473
• Besseda, vol. ii. 214
• Beust, vol. i. 17, 18, 20, 30, 175, 176, 179, 188, 253, 277 to 279, 286, 314, 339, 434, 453, 463, 553;
• vol. ii. 42, 52, 83 to 85, 88, 117, 120 to 122, 126, 129, 131 to 133, 137, 138;
• vol. iii. 170, 171, 186, 187
• Beuthner, vol. ii. 164
• Beyer, vol. i. 501
• Biedermann, vol. ii. 172
• Biegeleben, vol. i. 314;
• vol. ii. 89
• Biron, vol. i. 193;
• vol. ii. 256
• Bismarck, Princess (Countess Johanna), vol. i. 251, 273, 289, 384, 387, 411;
• vol. ii. 32, 205, 221, 246, 281 to 283, 324, 332, 335, 359, 420;
• vol. iii. 14, 66, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 131, 199, 206, 208, 231, 246, 255, 293, 297, 298, 312, 320, 329, 344, 348, 352, 370, 374, 379, 381 to 384, 386, 388
• Bismarck, Herbert, vol. i. 89, 102, 108, 289, 537, 543, 550, 551;
• vol. ii. 219, 283, 312, 315, 317, 319, 363, 365, 416, 424, 449, 483;
• vol. iii. 5, 10, 13 to 15, 42, 58, 60, 73, 101, 118 to 120, 125, 131, 135, 137, 143, 146, 231, 233, 246, 293, 303, 307, 312 to 314, 333, 337 to 341, 343, 344, 361, 374, 379, 381
• William, vol. i. 95, 129, 291, 389, 444, 447, 448, 453, 454;
• vol. ii. 281, 282, 381;
• vol. iii. 10, 16, 33, 34, 42, 89, 97 to 99, 109, 145, 231, 345
• Heinrich, vol. iii. 92
• Philip, vol. i. 189
• -Bohlen, vol. i. 34, 69, 70, 71, 74, 83, 91, 98, 113, 131, 141, 148, 149, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 183, 190, 195, 205, 213, 229, 254, 258, 280, 284, 305 to 307, 314, 318, 321, 322, 330, 349, 351, 354, 358 to 360, 396, 425, 435, 483, 487 to 489, 495, 498, 499, 501, 503, 504, 515, 516, 518, 519, 543;
• vol. ii. 27, 123, 162, 372;
• vol. iii. 205
• Marie. See Rantzau, Countess
• Bissinger, vol. i. 387
• Bitter, vol. ii. 453
• Blankenburg, vol. i. 233, 270, 272, 274;
• vol. ii. 261, 317, 318, 328;
• vol. iii. 126, 128, 129
• Bleibtreu, vol. i. 321
• Bleichröder, vol. i. 271, 518, 532, 554;
• vol. ii. 317, 318, 432, 454;
• vol. iii. 62, 63, 67, 68, 74, 75, 79, 80, 161, 188, 198, 233, 312, 371
• Blind, vol. i. 541
• Blome, vol. i. 451
• Bloomfield (Lady), vol. iii. 94
• Blowitz, vol. ii. 394, 395, 441, 442
• Blum, vol. iii. 383, 385
• Blumenthal, Gen., vol. i. 151, 181, 203, 354, 477;
• vol. ii. 337, 345
• Bock, Dr., vol. i. 6
• Bockh, vol. ii. 19
• Bodelschwingh, vol. ii. 462;
• vol. iii. 232
• Boersenzeitung, vol. i. 13, 44;
• vol. ii. 375;
• [p. 392]vol. iii. 161, 188, 198, 343
• Bohemia, vol. i. 34, 270;
• vol. ii. 112, 114, 120, 122, 147, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 326, 405
• Böhmen, vol. iii. 127
• Bojanowski, vol. iii. 137
• Bölsing, Sec., vol. i. 71, 174, 213, 229;
• vol. ii. 12, 164
• “Bonbonnière,” vol. ii. 274 to 279, 284, 287, 296
• Bonnechose, vol. i. 417, 424, 428, 439;
• vol. iii. 213
• Borck, vol. i. 135, 303, 483
• Borel, vol. ii. 76, 77, 79
• Bose, vol. ii. 117
• Bosnia, vol. iii. 277
• Bothmer, Gen. v., vol. i. 146, 207, 293
• Bötticher, vol. ii. 476;
• vol. iii. 93, 151, 210, 214, 298, 314, 341, 356, 367, 368
• Bourbaki, vol. i. 383, 447, 482
• Bouterweck, vol. ii. 111
• Boyen, Gen. v., vol. i. 161, 171
• Boyer, Gen., vol. i. 252, 253, 265
• Brandenburg, vol. iii. 362
• Brandenstein, vol. iii. 358
• Brandt, vol. ii. 15;
• vol. iii. 9
• Brass, vol. i. 16, 17, 33, 55, 213, 308;
• vol. ii. 48, 86 to 88, 101, 103, 105, 173, 191, 217, 339
• Brater, vol. iii. 195
• Bratiano, vol. ii. 129
• Brauer, vol. iii. 203, 208
• Braun, vol. ii. 52, 127
• Bray, vol. i. 23, 190, 220, 221, 233, 360, 410, 428, 431, 523, 534;
• vol. ii. 53, 117, 221;
• vol. iii. 198
• Breintz, v., vol. i. 113
• Bright, vol. ii. 435
• Brincourt, vol. ii. 43
• Bronsart, vol. i. 349
• Brühl, Count, vol. i. 169;
• vol. ii. 462
• Brunnow, vol. i. 418;
• vol. ii. 90
• Buch, L. v., vol. i. 415
• Buchanan, Sir A., vol. i. 343
• Bucher, Lothar, vol. i. 4, 16, 18, 34 to 37, 39, 43, 45, 60, 62, 71, 225, 226, 230, 241 to 243, 257, 319, 328, 335, 340, 349, 366, 371, 377, 383, 388, 391, 422, 431, 440, 448, 460, 483, 484, 499, 519, 520, 532, 561;
• vol. ii. 12, 13, 15 to 23, 25, 28, 41, 44, 48, 71, 72, 78, 79, 82, 96, 105, 108, 117, 123, 137, 138, 144, 151, 162 to 164, 166, 167, 170, 172 to 176, 183, 191, 193, 199, 202 to 206, 209 to 211, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 233 to 235, 239, 241, 245, 251 to 253, 255 to 258, 260, 263 to 266, 272 to 275, 279, 281, 288, 294, 296, 301, 302, 305, 311, 312, 328, 342, 354, 357, 372, 395, 399, 400, 433, 444, 445, 448, 449, 467;
• vol. iii. 1, 3 to 6, 9 to 13, 15, 16, 41 to 43, 45 to 48, 60 to 68, 70 to 75, 80, 93, 112 to 116, 118, 119, 121, 123 to 125, 130 to 137, 142 to 146, 154 to 156, 169, 171, 184, 185, 187, 189, 198, 298, 306, 307, 337 to 348, 350 to 355, 357, 359, 372 to 381, 386, 387
• Budberg, vol. i. 510
• Buhl, vol. iii. 352
• Bulgaria, vol. ii. 165;
• vol. iii. 148, 149, 171
• Bülow, vol. ii. 11, 21, 22, 219, 240, 255, 356, 357, 372, 399, 400, 402, 403, 406, 424, 453, 467;
• vol. iii. 4, 18, 262, 264, 266, 285, 289, 296
• Bülow of Mecklenburg, vol. ii. 27, 273
• Bunsen, George, vol. iii. 46, 138
• Bunsen, Josias, vol. ii. 24;
• vol. iii. 4, 42 to 46, 53, 110, 178, 225
• Bunsen, Theodore, vol. iii. 44, 46, 224
• Buol, vol. ii. 318, 334, 339;
• vol. iii. 218, 224
• Burgomaster of Apolda, vol. i. 138
• Burnaki, vol. ii. 57
• Burnside, Gen., vol. i. 215, 216, 219, 237, 246, 250, 269
• Busch (Under Sec.), vol. ii. 445, 449;
• vol. iii. 13, 59, 68, 93, 124, 137, 144, 306
• Byglewski, vol. ii. 126
• C
• Cahn, vol. ii. 68, 69
• Calonne, vol. ii. 130, 131
• Calvel, vol. i. 507
• Cambriel, vol. i. 400[p. 393]
• Camphausen, vol. i. 14, 33, 505;
• vol. ii. 164, 267, 279, 288, 289, 290, 457, 458, 459, 461, 462;
• vol. iii. 239, 362
• Canrobert, vol. i. 271
• Canstein, Gen., vol. i. 106
• Capalti, Cardinal, vol. i. 27
• Caprivi, vol. ii. 22;
• vol. iii. 214, 318, 345, 352, 384
• Carlyle, Thomas, vol. i. 378
• Casimir-Perier. See Perier
• Castelneau, Gen., vol. i. 153, 161
• Central Asia, vol. iii. 131
• Chamberlain, J., vol. iii. 58
• Chambord, Comte de, vol. i. 267, 269, 484;
• vol. ii. 74, 81, 90, 162, 207
• Chanzy, Gen., vol. i. 383
• Charette, vol. i. 295
• Chaudordy, vol. i. 278, 392, 393, 395, 399, 467, 468, 469, 518
• Chauvin, Gen., vol. i. 292
• China, vol. iii. 153, 284
• Chrysander, vol. iii. 337, 344, 352, 375, 379 to 383, 387, 388
• Cissey, vol. ii. 208
• Clam-Martinitz, vol. ii. 121
• Clary, vol. ii. 43
• Cluseret, vol. ii. 58, 59, 60, 61, 69
• Cobden, vol. ii. 18;
• vol. iii. 2, 3, 7, 8
• Coburg, Duke Ernst of, vol. iii. 178, 184, 186
• Coburg, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 143, 146, 147, 238, 259, 280, 293, 294, 296, 397, 403, 428, 486, 564;
• vol. ii. 162, 306, 368, 390;
• vol. iii. 198, 249 to 252
• Cochery, vol. i. 38, 296
• Cockerell, vol. i. 454, 455
• Coffin, vol. iii. 207
• Cogalniceano, vol. ii. 129
• Constitutionnel, vol. i. 32, 45, 83
• Coppet, vol. i. 269
• Costenoble, vol. ii. 338
• Courier, vol. ii. 260
• Courier de la Champagne, vol. i. 172
• Cousa, vol. ii. 129
• Cremieux, vol. i. 382, 553
• Crimean War, vol. i. 59, 203, 407;
• vol. ii. 248;
• vol. iii. 132, 179
• Crispi, vol. iii. 332
• Crown Prince. See German Emperors
• Crown Princess. See German Empress
• Cumberland, Duke of. See Hanover, King of
• Curia. See Pope
• Czartoryski, vol. ii. 128, 147, 222, 297
• Czas, vol. ii. 297
• Czechs. See Bohemia
• Czernicki, vol. i. 157
• D
• Daily News, vol. i. 285, 308;
• vol. iii. 124
• Daily Telegraph, vol. i. 238, 379, 519;
• vol. ii. 418, 433, 446, 448, 449, 476, 477;
• vol. iii. 4, 5, 15, 132, 134, 136, 137, 188, 306, 308, 310, 341, 356
• Dalwigk, vol. i. 430, 443
• Danton, vol. i. 383
• Darboy, vol. ii. 145
• Darenthall, vol. iii. 145
• Darmstadt, Grand Duchess Mathilde of, vol. i. 484
• Grand Duke of, vol. ii. 174
• Daru, vol. i. 22, 23;
• vol. ii. 144, 145
• Darwin, vol. iii. 233
• Dauphinot, vol. i. 167
• Daxenberger, vol. ii. 221
• Decker, vol. ii. 244
• Deichmann, vol. i. 66, 68
• Delacroix, vol. i. 213
• Delbrück, vol. i. 14, 171, 233, 246, 256, 257, 267, 276, 284, 287, 289, 292, 302, 307, 325, 339, 383, 390, 391, 415, 430, 450, 451, 494, 507, 512, 523;
• vol. ii. 6, 75, 130, 230, 265, 267, 279, 307, 385, 386, 397, 422, 435;
• vol. iii. 29 to 31
• Denmark, vol. i. 30, 31, 54, 477, 526;
• vol. ii. 214, 215, 343, 389, 392;
• vol. iii. 205
• Denmark, King of, vol. i. 174;
• vol. ii. 69, 329, 337
• Derosne, vol. ii. 396
• Dessau, Duke of, vol. i. 414
• Deutsche Presse, vol. ii. 223, 251
• Deutsche Reichszeitung, vol. ii. 147
• Deutsche Revue, vol. ii. 467;
• vol. iii. 20, 21, 32, 44
• Deutsche Rundschau, vol. iii. 191 to 193, 196, 199, 203, 204, 212, 214
• Deutsche Zeitung (Vienna), vol. ii. 252[p. 394]
• Dewitz, vol. i. 388
• Dhuleep-Singh, vol. iii. 169
• Diest, vol. ii. 284, 304, 317, 318, 453;
• vol. iii. 39, 83, 126, 168
• Dietze, vol. i. 337;
• vol. ii. 294, 322, 382
• Dilke, Sir C., vol. iii. 58
• Dixon, Hepworth, vol. ii. 214, 215, 216
• Doerr, vol. i. 30;
• vol. ii. 124, 164
• Döllinger, vol. ii. 51, 52;
• vol. iii. 214
• Dombrowski, vol. ii. 54, 55, 57
• Dönhoff, Count, vol. i. 165, 478, 550;
• vol. ii. 117
• Drei-Kaiser Bund, vol. i. 178;
• vol. ii. 393
• Droits de l’Homme, vol. i. 381
• Ducrot, Gen., vol. i. 189, 219, 252, 270, 276, 289, 352, 383, 397, 400, 443
• Dufferin, Lord, vol. ii. 391, 395;
• vol. iii. 132, 133
• Duncker, vol. iii. 239
• Dupanloup, Bishop, vol. i. 332;
• vol. ii. 276, 382
• Duparc, vol. i. 526
• Düring, vol. ii. 109
• Dürrbach, vol. i. 507, 510, 511
• Dusch, vol. ii. 119
• Duval, vol. i. 166
• Duvernois, vol. i. 417, 455, 512;
• vol. ii. 125
• Dzennik Poznanski, vol. ii. 163
• E
• Ebers, vol. ii. 110
• Eckart, vol. ii. 137, 214, 233;
• vol. iii. 62
• Edwardes, vol. iii. 216
• Egloffstein, vol. ii. 227
• Egypt, vol. iii. 51 to 53, 62, 131, 133, 142
• Eichmann, vol. i. 440;
• vol. ii. 117
• Eisenhart, vol. i. 431;
• vol. ii. 51, 142, 143
• Engel, vol. i. 142, 148, 149, 182, 274, 287, 389
• Engelmann, vol. ii. 251
• England, vol. i. 24, 42, 54 to 57, 140, 174, 199, 241, 242, 252, 278, 312, 317, 319, 323, 329, 330, 334, 343, 358, 371, 376, 384, 385, 416, 419, 432, 438, 452, 454, 458, 467 to 469, 471 to 474, 477, 481, 499, 500, 526, 538, 550, 552, 554;
• vol. ii. 18, 47, 49, 54, 82, 84, 85, 126, 139, 148, 157, 158, 205, 260, 291, 292, 297 to 299, 308, 309, 337, 339, 348, 383, 386, 393, 396, 397, 405, 410, 418, 431, 450, 456;
• vol. iii. 5, 45, 51 to 53, 57, 58, 62, 83, 95, 110, 115, 116, 119 to 125, 131 to 136, 140, 142 to 146, 149, 150, 152, 154, 171, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 183 to 186, 205, 206, 213, 218, 226, 252, 269, 282, 284, 285, 287, 291, 317, 325 to 327, 352, 353
• Queen Victoria, vol. i. 69, 315, 338, 354;
• vol. ii. 139, 158, 277, 297, 298, 306, 413;
• vol. iii. 53, 95, 140, 169, 171, 174, 178, 180 to 183, 185 to 191, 196, 198, 213, 250, 316, 325, 326
• Prince of Wales, vol. ii. 116, 413
• Princess of Wales, vol. ii. 116
• Princess Beatrice, vol. iii. 174
• Erkert, vol. ii. 281, 315, 317
• Ernsthausen, vol. i. 458
• Esquiros, vol. i. 267, 268
• Ester, d’, vol. iii. 21
• Esterhazy, vol. i. 363, 364, 544
• Eugénie, Empress, vol. i. 33, 36, 45, 135, 169, 204, 283, 417, 428, 490, 535;
• vol. ii. 90, 142, 144 to 146, 186, 276, 288, 295
• Eulenburg, vol. i. 16, 203, 481;
• vol. ii. 228 to 231, 371, 468 to 470;
• vol. iii. 30, 35, 234, 321
• F
• Fabrice, vol. ii. 45, 53, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 74, 75, 79, 80, 90, 91, 92, 93;
• vol. iii. 107
• Faidherbe, vol. i. 383;
• vol. ii. 208
• Falk, vol. ii. 309, 369, 402, 422, 423
• Falkenstein, Vogel v., vol. i. 77, 277, 324, 525;
• vol. ii. 186
• Fatio, Miss Jenny, vol. ii. 315, 328, 335
• Favre, Jules, vol. i. 169, 174, 182, 188, 190, 191 to 193, 196, 197, 204, 208, 211 to 214, 229, 231,[p. 395] 269, 282, 285, 288, 290, 356, 362, 400, 421, 443, 460, 467 to 469, 471 to 473, 477, 483, 484, 486 to 490, 495 to 497, 498, 502, 507 to 509, 511 to 513, 516, 518, 519, 521, 525, 526, 531, 533, 534, 537, 541 to 545, 547, 548, 550, 551, 553, 563;
• vol. ii. 56, 57, 61, 63, 65, 68, 71, 73 to 75, 84, 88, 90, 93 to 95, 97 to 99, 208
• Figaro, vol. i. 326, 560
• Figaro (Berlin), vol. ii. 254
• Finkenstein, vol. i. 94, 97, 101
• FitzJames, Duc de, vol. i. 198 to 200
• Fleming, vol. iii. 203
• Fleury, vol. ii. 125, 126, 165
• Forbes, Archibald, vol. i. 308
• Forchhammer, vol. ii. 462
• Forckenbeck, vol. i. 7, 505 to 507;
• vol. ii. 462, 470;
• vol. iii. 30, 56, 138, 163
• Forsythe, vol. i. 90, 96, 132
• Fourichon, vol. i. 382
• Fouriere, vol. i. 118
• Franchi, vol. i. 417
• Francke, vol. iii. 249
• Franco-German War (Declaration), vol. i. 49
• Battle of Wörth, vol. i. 65
• Gravelotte, vol. i. 85, 102
• Beaumont, vol. i. 132, 138
• Sedan, vol. i. 141 to 162
• Bombardment of Paris, vol. i. 427
• Prelim. Treaty Peace, vol. ii. 40
• Frankenberg, Count, vol. i. 320, 389, 390
• Frankenstein, vol. iii. 312
• Frankfurter Zeitung, vol. ii. 115, 116, 122;
• vol. iii. 184
• Frederick VIII. of Schleswig-Holstein, vol. i. 110, 113, 140, 174, 293, 354;
• vol. ii. 33, 306, 307, 390;
• vol. iii. 205, 213, 257
• Frederick the Great, vol. i. 73, 203, 293, 338, 412;
• vol. ii., 3
• Frederick William III., vol. i., 370;
• vol. ii., 261
• Frederick William IV., vol. i. 304;
• vol. ii. 186, 261, 262, 334;
• vol. iii. 44, 210, 215, 225, 310, 314, 324
• Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor; see Germany
• Freiberg, Maj., vol. i. 113, 165
• Fremden-Blatt, vol. ii. 249, 250
• Frese, vol. ii. 52, 113, 481
• Freycinet, vol. iii. 53
• Freydorf, v., vol. i. 9
• Freytag, vol. ii. 306;
• vol. iii. 65, 195, 205, 238
• Friedberg, vol. iii. 173, 256, 297
• Friedenthal, vol. i. 7, 233, 270, 272;
• vol. ii. 422, 423, 424, 457, 461, 462
• Friederich, vol. ii. 141
• Friedländer, vol. i. 353
• Fries, v., vol. i. 115
• Friesen, vol. ii. 117
• Fröbel, vol. ii. 123
• Fuchs-Nordhof, vol. i. 121
• Fürstenstein, vol. i. 217
• G
• Gablentz, vol. ii. 85;
• vol. iii. 87, 88, 115
• Gabriac, vol. i. 413;
• vol. ii. 70, 127
• Gagern, vol. i. 314;
• vol. ii. 89, 381;
• vol. iii. 224
• Galiffet, vol. i. 196
• Gambetta, vol. i. 169, 253, 268, 271, 290, 380, 400, 408, 409, 413, 414, 415, 417, 433, 459, 468, 506, 516, 521, 526, 531, 536, 537, 538, 540, 541, 545, 548, 550, 551, 553, 556;
• vol. ii. 55, 199, 207, 208, 222, 235, 236, 249, 423, 468;
• vol. iii. 11, 12, 32, 53
• Gans, vol. ii. 14
• Garibaldi, vol. i. 53, 245, 267, 294, 304, 311, 330, 380, 399, 526, 532, 533;
• vol. ii. 49, 55, 79, 118;
• vol. iii. 46
• Gartenlaube, vol. ii. 268, 280, 311, 320, 362, 366
• Gasser, vol. ii. 217, 221, 227
• Fr. v., vol. i. 524
• Gaulois, vol. i. 371
• Gauthier, vol. i. 268, 276
• Gazette du Midi, vol. i. 267, 268
• Geffcken, vol. ii. 273, 306;
• vol. iii. 43, 204, 233, 255, 256, 297 to 299, 303
• Gegenwart, vol. ii. 206
• Georgi, vol. iii. 382
• Gerlach, vol. i. 368;
• vol. ii. 187, 334;
• [p. 396]vol. iii. 60, 129, 130, 210, 211, 215, 216, 218 to 225, 352
• Germania, vol. ii. 173, 192, 294, 367, 419
• German Emperor, Frederick, vol. i. 101, 109, 110, 113, 139, 146, 147, 164, 181, 185, 198, 203, 227, 231, 232, 238, 244, 246, 257, 291, 292, 315, 328, 330, 332, 333, 338, 344, 354, 356, 360, 399, 402, 403, 408 to 413, 459, 477, 484, 551;
• vol. ii. 116, 253, 319, 336, 337, 367, 368, 389, 405, 413, 421;
• vol. iii. 56, 65, 84, 90, 93, 110, 115, 133, 136, 138, 140, 150, 151, 161, 163, 167, 172, 175 to 177, 181, 185, 187 to 192, 194 to 198, 203 to 206, 212 to 214, 232, 234 to 245, 248 to 251, 255 to 257, 262 to 276, 292 to 301, 315 to 321, 334, 341, 354, 358, 364, 383
• German Emperor William II., vol. iii. 56, 61, 171, 172, 184, 188, 201, 202, 231, 257, 294 to 296, 310, 314, 315, 318, 331, 333 to 336, 346, 356 to 358, 362 to 367, 376, 377, 383 to 385
• German Empress Augusta, vol. i. 138, 164, 175, 187, 293, 320, 332, 335, 338, 367, 368, 422, 448, 458, 499, 529;
• vol. ii. 162, 183 to 187, 269, 274, 275, 277, 278, 284, 287, 319, 368, 369, 416, 479;
• vol. iii. 59, 67, 68, 94, 141, 180, 203, 239, 251, 296, 302, 321, 353, 354
• German Empress Frederick (Victoria), vol. i. 139, 293, 315, 325, 354, 397, 422, 458, 500;
• vol. ii. 116, 253, 269, 289, 336, 337, 368, 389;
• vol. iii. 95, 111, 132, 138, 139, 151, 171, 172, 177, 183, 185, 188, 194 to 196, 198, 232, 238, 239, 245, 293, 297, 316
• Gerstäcker, vol. ii. 423
• Ghika, vol. ii. 129
• Gichtel, vol. iii. 128
• Giers, vol. iii. 108 to 110, 150, 159, 181, 282, 283, 286
• Giskra, vol. i. 544
• Gladstone, vol. i. 559;
• vol. ii. 18, 418, 442, 456, 468;
• vol. iii. 47, 52, 58, 61, 111, 115, 119, 123, 143, 145, 156, 163
• Glais-Bizoins, vol. i. 382
• Glasbrenner, vol. ii. 223
• Glaser, vol. iii. 2
• Gletty, vol. i. 327
• Gneist, vol. ii. 422;
• vol. iii. 14
• Gobineau, vol. i. 561
• Goeben, Gen., vol. i. 132
• Goethe, vol. i. 138, 337;
• vol. ii. 185
• Goldammer, vol. iii. 233
• Golos, vol. ii. 215, 391, 394
• Goltz, vol. i. 135, 136, 416, 489;
• vol. ii. 255, 263, 278, 446, 447;
• vol. iii. 49, 50, 134, 248
• Gontaut-Biron, vol. ii. 302
• Gortschakoff, vol. i. 312, 325, 350, 358, 384, 413, 510, 515, 559;
• vol. ii. 70, 122, 135, 136, 148, 187, 201, 204, 391, 393 to 395;
• vol. iii. 277, 279, 281
• Goulard, vol. ii. 73, 74
• Govone, vol. iii. 385
• Graham, Sir G., vol. iii. 133
• Grammont, Duc de, vol. i. 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 58, 60, 61, 82, 343, 353, 371;
• vol. ii. 80, 81;
• vol. iii. 170, 378
• Granville, Lord, vol. i. 55, 56, 57, 174, 269, 279, 312, 350, 430, 468, 471, 473, 519, 559;
• vol. iii. 120
• Grävenitz, vol. i. 402
• Grenzboten, vol. i. 3;
• vol. ii. 148, 151, 172, 176, 258, 270, 275, 289, 294, 297, 302, 305, 316, 366, 369, 371, 372, 380, 390, 391, 396, 400, 407, 416, 418, 425, 426, 432, 433, 434, 445, 450, 454, 468, 475, 476;
• vol. iii. 3, 6, 7, 33, 36, 42, 43, 46, 47, 71, 76, 77, 81, 84, 85, 92, 94, 119, 121, 123 to 125, 134, 135, 151, 156, 157, 165, 169, 170, 187, 188, 195, 205, 238, 298, 303, 311, 315, 319, 337, 343
• Greppi, vol. ii. 138
• Grevy, vol. ii. 199, 207
• Grimm, vol. i. 366
• Gruner, vol. ii. 274, 277, 305;
• vol. iii. 247, 248
• Grunow, vol. iii. 97, 99, 102 to 104, 107, 191, 303, 304, 343
• Guisolphe, vol. ii. 43
• Guizot, vol. i. 26
• Gundlach, vol. ii. 27, 28
• H
• Haber, vol. i. 440
• Hagen, vol. ii. 403[p. 397]
• Hahn, vol. i. 15, 16;
• vol. ii. 124, 399, 434;
• vol. iii. 71
• Hahn’s Literary Bureau, vol. i. 41
• Hahnke, vol. iii. 364
• Haldy, vol. i. 69
• Halifax, Bishop of, vol. i. 27
• Hallberger, vol. ii. 188, 189
• Hamburger Correspondenten, vol. ii. 196, 374;
• vol. iii. 344
• Hamburger Nachrichten, vol. iii. 337, 344, 379
• Hämmerling, vol. iii. 338 to 340, 350
• Hammerstein, vol. iii. 166, 167
• Hänel, vol. ii. 281, 413, 454, 480;
• vol. iii. 40
• Hannoverscher Courier, vol. ii. 224, 241, 251, 252, 258, 388
• Hanover, King of, vol. i. 50;
• vol. ii. 109, 110, 390;
• vol. iii. 297
• Hansemann, vol. ii. 22
• Hapsburgs, vol. i. 365, 461
• Harcourt, vol. ii. 127
• Harden, vol. iii. 383
• Hardenberg, vol. i. 3
• Harper’s Monthly, vol. iii. 81, 83
• Hartmann, Gen. v., vol. i. 111
• Hartrott, Gen. v., vol. i. 336
• Hatzfeldt, Count, vol. i. 70, 74, 82, 83, 91, 94, 110, 114, 143, 144, 147, 157, 160, 192, 230, 239, 240, 263, 274 to 277, 294, 296, 308, 322, 349, 366, 371, 383, 396, 413, 424, 487, 488, 497, 498, 503, 510, 518, 561;
• vol. ii. 21, 23, 71, 282, 415, 424, 447, 449;
• vol. iii. 4, 13, 15, 49, 58, 59, 62, 67, 68, 82, 90, 93, 94, 112, 118, 124, 125, 130, 136, 141, 343, 383
• Hauke, Fr., vol. iii. 180
• Hausmann, vol. i. 414;
• vol. ii. 58, 59
• Haussonville, d’, vol. i. 406 to 408
• Hauterive, vol. ii. 154
• Havas, vol. i. 43
• Haye, de la, vol. ii. 65
• Haymerle, vol. iii. 289, 296
• Hedwig, vol. iii. 191, 348
• Heffter, vol. i. 55
• Hegel, vol. ii. 14, 19
• Hegnenberg, vol. ii. 142
• Hehn, vol. ii. 22;
• vol. iii. 155, 169, 310
• Heide, vol. i. 6, 60
• Heise, vol. ii. 381
• Held, vol. iii. 41
• Hélène, Grand Duchess, see Russia
• Hell, vol. i. 193
• Helmholtz, vol. iii. 165, 186
• Henckel, Count, vol. i. 84, 103, 513, 522, 554 to 556, 564;
• vol. iii. 69
• Hengst, vol. iii. 195
• Hepke, vol. i. 65;
• vol. ii. 22, 23, 253;
• vol. iii. 13, 43
• Hérisson de Saulnier, vol. i. 511, 513, 547
• Hermieux, vol. i. 276
• Herrfurth, vol. iii. 357, 358
• Herring, vol. i. 544
• Herzberg, vol. iii. 346
• Herzen, vol. ii. 17
• Herzog, vol. iii. 20
• Hesekiel, vol. ii. 244, 331;
• vol. iii. 29, 71, 72, 126, 384
• Hesse, vol. ii. 12
• Hesse, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 109, 430
• Heyking, vol. iii. 69
• Hietzing, vol. ii. 110
• Hill, Major, vol. i. 324
• Hindersin, Gen., vol. i. 146, 315
• Hinzpeter, vol. iii. 371
• Hirsch, vol. iii. 62, 80
• Hobrecht, vol. ii. 403
• Hochschild, vol. ii. 159
• Hoff, vol. i. 327
• Hoffmann, vol. ii. 273;
• vol. iii. 379
• Hohenlohe, Cardinal, vol. ii. 195, 196;
• vol. iii. 106
• Hohenlohe, Prince, vol. i. 183, 490;
• vol. ii. 415, 422, 445;
• vol. iii. 67
• Hohenwart, vol. ii. 52, 112, 119, 127
• Hohenzollern, Prince of, vol. i. 34, 37, 38, 40, 43 to 47, 52, 60, 155, 226, 313, 483;
• vol. iii. 112 to 114, 117, 228, 362, 378
• Holland, vol. i. 57, 63, 257, 413, 477, 496;
• vol. ii. 192, 397
• Holland, King of, vol. i. 384
• Holland, Queen of, vol. ii. 151
• Holnstein, Count, vol. i. 71, 328, 329, 354, 359, 360, 374, 387, 396, 431, 561;
• vol. ii. 350
• Holstein, Baron v., vol. i. 437, 445, 454, 467, 477, 478, 517;
• vol. ii. 59, 92, 117, 317, 319, 328, 333, 336, 337, 341, 365, 463;
• [p. 398]vol. iii. 9, 13, 49, 60, 112, 118, 126, 146, 289, 306, 337, 341, 343
• Holtz, vol. iii. 117, 128, 208
• Home, vol. i. 330
• Horn, vol. i. 260
• Horsitz, vol. ii. 369
• Hory, vol. ii. 139
• Hour, vol. ii. 262
• Hoverbeck, vol. i. 28, 30;
• vol. ii. 87
• Howard, Sir. H., vol. i. 28;
• vol. ii. 138, 139
• Hoyos, vol. i. 304
• Hübbe, vol. iii. 221
• Hübener, vol. iii. 221
• Hudtwalker, vol. iii. 215
• Humboldt, vol. i. 368, 369;
• vol. ii. 185, 381
• Hüne, vol. iii. 312
• Huster, vol. ii. 120
• Hyacinthe, vol. iii. 214
• I
• Ignatieff, vol. ii. 165;
• vol. iii. 259
• Illustrirte Zeitung, vol. i. 454;
• vol. ii. 267;
• vol. iii. 380
• Im Neuen Reich, vol. ii. 169
• Imparcial, vol. i. 18, 45, 483
• Indépendance Belge, vol. i. 252, 311, 365, 399, 415
• Indépendant Rémois, vol. i. 172
• Italie, vol. ii. 197
• Italy, vol. i. 41, 51, 54, 63, 178, 294, 329, 330, 340, 382, 416, 419, 457, 477, 527, 544;
• vol. ii. 82, 84, 102, 123, 142, 144, 167, 172, 180, 187, 192, 204, 213, 237, 419, 431;
• vol. iii. 165, 182, 275, 277, 289 to 291, 385
• King of, vol. i. 51, 97, 251, 429, 457;
• vol. ii. 103, 265, 325;
• vol. iii. 332
• Crown Princess of, vol. ii. 159, 160
• Itzenplitz, vol. ii. 183
• J
• Jacobsen, vol. iii. 385
• Jacoby, vol. i. 15, 185, 219, 235, 258, 259, 260, 262, 284, 324
• Jahn, vol. ii. 14
• Jeanjot, vol. i. 148
• Jelowicki, vol. ii. 222
• Jerald, Col., vol. i. 433
• Jesse, Mme., vol. i. 228, 230, 233, 350, 563;
• vol. ii. 46, 282, 396
• Joinville, Duc de, vol. i. 365
• Jolivar, vol. iii. 3
• Jomini, vol. ii. 391;
• vol. iii. 259
• Journal des Débats, vol. i. 480;
• vol. ii. 28
• Journal Officiel, vol. i. 462
• K
• Kaiserlingk, vol. iii. 230
• Kallay, vol. ii. 197, 198
• Kameke, vol. i. 557
• Kapnist, vol. ii. 196, 197
• Kardorff, vol. iii. 341, 381
• Karlstadt, vol. i. 241
• Katt, vol. i. 216, 218
• Kaunitz, vol. i. 366
• Kayser, vol. iii. 319, 337, 341, 344, 356
• Keil, vol. ii. 268, 269
• Keller, vol. i. 247, 249
• Keratry, vol. i. 264
• Kerl, vol. i. 414
• Kern, vol. i. 479, 483, 484
• Kernitz, vol. ii. 402
• Ketteler, v., vol. ii. 172, 174
• Keudell, vol. i. 1, 4, 53, 54, 70, 74, 83, 91, 94, 104, 167, 176, 191 to 193, 195, 208, 211, 228, 230, 237, 258, 263, 344, 366, 369, 376, 383, 396, 408, 440, 480, 503, 509, 512, 532;
• vol. ii. 11, 79, 104 to 108, 110, 117, 183, 189, 190, 206, 219, 220, 223, 240, 245, 247 to 257, 260, 265, 266, 401, 415;
• vol. iii. 8, 13, 14, 50, 93, 131, 136, 145, 156, 165, 211, 341
• Khevenhüller, vol. iii. 148
• Kieler Zeitung, vol. i. 173;
• vol. ii. 454
• Kielmansegg, vol. i. 55
• Kingston, vol. iii. 306, 341, 356
• Kirk, Sir J., vol. iii. 145
• Klaczko, vol. i. 20, 33, 179, 544
• Kladderadatsch, vol. i. 428, 501;
• vol. iii. 6, 385
• Klapka, vol. i. 311
• Kleist-Retzow. See Retzow
• Klerhalm, vol. ii. 52
• Klotz, vol. iii. 10, 168
• Knak, vol. iii. 126[p. 399]
• Knobelsdorff, vol. i. 169, 214, 483
• Köller, v., vol. i. 505, 506
• Kölnische Zeitung, vol. i. 5, 10, 11, 17, 20, 29, 30, 32, 34, 41, 43, 51, 57, 99, 223, 238, 356, 399, 432, 434, 435, 485, 546, 547;
• vol. ii. 46, 54, 58, 66, 70, 88, 115, 133, 138, 139, 141, 144, 148, 149, 163, 166, 167, 170, 173, 206, 207, 212, 214, 219, 221, 223, 224, 228, 232 to 234, 288, 290, 292, 339, 388;
• vol. iii. 41, 61, 76, 77, 80, 84, 172, 184, 386
• Könneritz, vol. i. 486
• Kotze, vol. i. 553
• Kozmian, vol. ii. 172, 173, 187, 222
• Kraj, vol. i. 256
• Krausshaar, vol. i. 122
• Krauthofer, vol. ii. 177
• Kreiss, vol. ii. 110
• Krell, Chancellor, vol. i. 241
• Kreuzzeitung, vol. i. 21, 48, 50, 65;
• vol. ii. 47, 147, 150, 160, 161, 164, 169, 170, 187, 275, 278, 279, 286, 287, 453;
• vol. iii. 96, 117, 166, 251, 252, 342
• Krohn, Col., vol. i. 324, 418
• Kröner, vol. iii. 371, 372, 375 to 377, 381
• Krüger, vol. i. 191
• Krupp, vol. ii. 209;
• vol. iii. 341
• Kruse, vol. i. 223;
• vol. ii. 234, 339;
• vol. iii. 81
• Kühlwetter, vol. i. 103
• Kühnel, vol. i. 563
• Kusserow, vol. ii. 22
• Kutusow, vol. i. 143, 240, 287
• L
• Laity, vol. i. 76
• La Marmora, vol. iii. 385
• Landsberg, vol. iii. 343
• Landuski, vol. ii. 57
• Lange, vol. ii. 353;
• vol. iii. 106, 210, 255, 386
• Lanterne, La, vol. i. 169
• Lasker, vol. i. 7, 10, 12, 14, 28, 29, 30, 33, 383;
• vol. ii. 86, 256, 398, 424, 436, 454, 474;
• vol. iii. 3, 30, 35, 37, 38, 40, 301
• Lassalle, vol. ii. 19;
• vol. iii. 342
• Lauer, vol. i. 172, 243, 306, 371, 378, 483;
• vol. iii. 56, 141
• Laurier, vol. i. 409
• Lavino, vol. ii. 432, 433
• Lebœuf, vol. i. 271
• Lecky, vol. iii. 121
• Ledochowski, Archbishop, vol. i. 292;
• vol. ii. 187, 200, 204, 278, 287, 478
• Leflô, vol. i. 550
• Lehndorff, Count, vol. i. 106, 108, 203, 328, 350, 367, 389, 420, 444, 460, 492, 502, 541;
• vol. ii. 367;
• vol. iii. 79, 233, 341, 349
• Leibnitz, vol. i. 26
• Leipziger Zeitung, vol. ii. 375
• Lemberg, Archbishop of, vol. ii. 200
• Lemwitz, vol. ii. 147
• Lenbach, vol. ii. 437, 440;
• vol. iii. 155
• Leonhard, vol. i. 14
• Leopold, King of Belgians. See Belgium
• Lepsius, vol. ii. 24
• Lesczinsky, vol. iii. 207
• Le Sourd, vol. i. 49
• Lessing, vol. ii. 48
• Leverström, vol. i. 149;
• vol. ii. 5, 275
• Lewascheff, vol. ii. 165, 169
• Leyden, vol. ii. 387
• Liberté, vol. i. 51, 252
• Lindau, vol. ii. 206, 236, 237, 455, 467;
• vol. iii. 9, 10, 41, 68, 145, 231, 337, 341, 344, 356
• Lindelhof, vol. ii. 89
• Linstedt, vol. ii. 6
• Lippe, vol. i. 28, 29, 400;
• vol. ii. 187, 457, 461, 462
• Lobanoff, vol. ii. 394
• Lobkowitz, vol. ii. 221
• Loewe, vol. i. 7, 388;
• vol. iii. 28
• Loftus, vol. i. 343, 430, 454, 455, 550;
• vol. ii. 43
• Lonyay, vol. ii. 265
• Löper, vol. i. 482, 486
• Lorenz, vol. i. 65
• Louis Philippe, vol. i. 37
• Lowe, vol. ii. 432
• Löwenfeld, Gen., vol. i. 106
• Löwenstein, vol. ii. 103, 318, 339
• Löwinsohn, vol. i. 266, 350, 398, 399, 415
• Lucanus, vol. iii. 364, 369
• Ludolf, vol. ii. 197
• Luitpold, Prince. See Bavaria
• Lumsden, Sir P., vol. iii. 124
• Lundy, vol. i. 319[p. 400]
• Lutz, vol. i. 233, 431;
• vol. ii. 51, 121, 148, 221
• Luxburg, Count, vol. i. 176
• Luxemburg, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 515
• Prince Henry of, vol. ii. 151
• Lynar, Prince, vol. i. 161
• Lyons, Lord, vol. i. 182, 469
• M
• M. L., vol. i. 198 to 202
• Mackenzie, vol. iii. 303
• MacLean, vol. i. 90, 96, 171
• MacMahon, Marshal, vol. i. 126, 127, 151, 195;
• vol. ii. 76, 77, 94, 207, 258, 299, 300
• Macore de Gaucourt, vol. i. 104
• Magdeburger Zeitung, vol. i. 6;
• vol. ii. 196, 205, 293, 294
• Magnin, vol. i. 526, 553, 555
• Mailinger, Gen., vol. i. 146
• Maire of Reims, vol. i. 167
• Maire of Versailles, vol. i. 265
• Malet, Sir E., vol. i. 182, 238
• Malinkrott, vol. i. 295
• Malortie, vol. ii. 110
• Maltzahn, Count, vol. i. 330, 466, 522
• Manteuffel, vol. i. 256, 314, 315, 326, 334, 417, 428, 447, 448, 450, 461, 482;
• vol. ii. 115, 318, 334, 338, 339, 457, 462;
• vol. iii. 23, 24, 25, 83, 86, 200, 201, 211, 215, 218 to 225, 262, 265, 288, 352, 362, 385
• Mantey, vol. i. 497, 498;
• vol. ii. 240, 381
• Marquart, vol. iii. 129
• Marschall, vol. iii. 383, 384
• Martin, vol. ii. 478
• Marx, vol. i. 448
• Massenbach, Baroness, vol. ii. 227
• Matin, vol. iii. 191
• Matthiote, vol. i. 84
• Maucler, vol. ii. 133
• May, vol. ii. 113
• Maybach, vol. ii. 435, 471;
• vol. iii. 32, 93, 368
• Mayer, vol. ii. 480
• Mazzini, vol. i. 380;
• vol. ii. 17
• Mecklenburg, G. Duke of, vol. i. 106, 127, 131, 143, 158, 170, 183, 495;
• vol. ii. 369
• Mecklenburg-Strelitz, G. Duchess of, vol. ii. 115
• Meding, vol. ii. 109, 110, 189, 190;
• vol. iii. 136
• Meidam, Col., vol. i. 292
• Meiningen, Duke of, vol. i. 272, 294, 403, 548
• Melchers, vol. ii. 478
• Mémorial Diplomatique, vol. i. 18;
• vol. ii. 378
• Mendelssohn, vol. i. 404
• Mengerssen, vol. ii. 111
• Mensdorff, vol. iii. 88, 250 to 252
• Merck, vol. iii. 246, 370, 383, 384, 386, 388
• Mermillod, vol. ii. 166, 269, 276
• Metternich, vol. i. 32, 225, 304, 366, 370, 518;
• vol. ii. 132, 180
• Metzler, vol. i. 1, 2, 238;
• vol. iii. 43, 164
• Meulan, vol. ii. 43
• Mexico, vol. i. 59, 187, 283
• Meyendorff, vol. i. 420
• Meyer, vol. iii. 112, 239
• Meyerheim, vol. i. 404;
• vol. ii. 382
• Michaelis, vol. ii. 193, 386
• Milutin, vol. iii. 259, 282, 283, 284, 286
• Miquel, vol. i. 7;
• vol. ii. 437
• Mirbach v., vol. ii. 75
• Mittnacht, vol. i. 233, 524, 562, 563;
• vol. ii. 148, 227;
• vol. iii. 33, 37, 293
• Mohl, vol. i. 220;
• vol. iii. 203
• Möllendorff, Gen., vol. i. 315, 316
• Möller, vol. iii. 81, 89
• Moltke, vol. i. 87, 97, 103, 104, 141, 143, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 155, 156, 164, 181, 195, 196, 226, 254, 255, 270, 287, 349, 350, 371, 405, 458, 466, 505, 506, 533;
• vol. ii. 74, 75, 136, 162, 292, 326, 340, 381;
• vol. iii. 56, 207, 265, 271, 272, 325, 354
• Mommsen, vol. ii. 481;
• vol. iii. 65
• Moniteur, vol. i. 371, 379, 383, 414, 419, 433, 462, 483, 484, 486, 548, 553, 557, 560
• Moniteur Official de Seine et Oise, vol. i. 271
• Montagszeitung, vol. ii. 223, 224
• Montbrisson, vol. i. 326
• Montgelas, vol. iii. 229
• Montholon, vol. ii. 154
• Montpensier, Duc de, vol. i. 18, 37, 41, 80, 483[p. 401]
• Morier, Sir R., vol. ii. 138;
• vol. iii. 303
• Morning Post, vol. i. 283;
• vol. iii. 7
• Morny, vol. i. 503
• Moscowa, Prince de la, vol. i. 153, 161
• Motley, vol. iii. 320
• Mouchy, vol. i. 561
• Moustier, vol. i. 353;
• vol. iii. 385
• Muffling, vol. ii. 392
• Mühler, vol. ii. 226
• Müller, Max, vol. ii. 273, 308;
• vol. iii. 43
• Munch-Bellinghausen, vol. i. 208
• Münchener Nachrichten, vol. iii. 43
• Münchener Volksboten, vol. i. 248
• Münster, vol. ii. 422;
• vol. iii. 118, 120, 133, 154, 325, 326
• Münzer, vol. i. 241
• Murat, vol. i. 46
• Musurus, vol. i. 512
• N
• Nanczonowski, vol. ii. 231
• Napier, vol. i. 343;
• vol. iii. 249
• Napoleon I., vol. i. 36, 42, 43, 420
• Napoleon III., vol. i. 33, 45 to 47, 52, 58, 59, 61 to 63, 70, 103, 104, 133, 146, 147, 149, 150, 153, 154, 156, 159, 161, 164, 165, 169, 172, 184, 187, 189, 244, 252, 253, 256, 265, 271, 272, 285, 311, 313, 321, 322, 331, 341, 343, 407, 420, 490, 501, 503, 512, 535, 543, 554, 556, 557, 558;
• vol. ii. 43, 81, 90, 101, 103, 105, 116, 125, 138, 140, 141, 142, 156, 158, 337;
• vol. iii. 134, 381
• Jerome, Prince, vol. i. 107, 439, 443;
• vol. ii. 33, 159, 216
• Louis, Prince Imperial, vol. i. 107, 169, 283
• Nathusius, vol. ii. 278
• National Zeitung, vol. i., 8, 15, 16, 54, 65, 186, 187, 356, 436, 544, 546;
• vol. ii. 1, 17, 19, 20, 47, 86, 97, 155, 158, 161, 195, 234, 292, 379, 388, 484;
• vol. iii. 11, 31, 43, 115, 252
• Nazione, vol. ii. 213
• Neininger, vol. i. 350
• Nemours, Duc de, vol. i. 37
• Nesselrode, vol. ii. 278;
• vol. iii. 49, 218
• Neue Freie Presse, vol. i. 83, 326;
• vol. iii. 188, 189
• Neue Preussische Zeitung, vol. i. 5
• New York Tribune, vol. ii. 354
• New York World, vol. i. 90
• Nicholas, Tsar. See Russia
• Niethammer, vol. i. 355;
• vol. ii. 217
• Nippold, vol. iii. 43
• Nobiling, vol. iii. 32, 56
• Noeldeke, vol. i. 113
• Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, vol. i. 5, 16, 17, 29, 31 to 34, 38, 48, 55, 60, 243, 244, 266, 334;
• vol. ii. 48, 50, 74, 86, 88, 99, 104, 106, 124, 137, 164, 175, 176, 195, 198, 202, 211, 232, 234, 251, 252, 374, 414, 477;
• vol. iii. 4, 6, 7, 35, 42, 46, 61, 73, 74, 115, 122, 124, 188, 315
• North American Review, vol. ii. 441
• North German Gazette, vol. i. 6
• Nostitz-Wallwitz, vol. i. 207, 475, 476, 477
• Nouvelliste, vol. i. 266, 269, 271
• O
• Obermüller, vol. ii. 120
• Obernitz, vol. iii. 112
• Obrutscheff, vol. ii. 409
• Obstfelder, vol. i. 209
• O’Donovan, vol. iii. 119, 121, 125, 130
• Oertzen, vol. i. 206
• Ohlen, vol. iii. 106, 109
• Okolowitch, vol. ii. 55, 57
• Olberg, vol. i. 85
• Oldenburg, G. Duke of, vol. i. 403;
• vol. iii. 332
• Oldenburg, Peter, Prince of, vol. ii. 72
• Ollivier, vol. i. 343, 372, 383;
• vol. ii. 144
• Oppenheim, vol. ii. 339
• Orloff, vol. ii. 43, 159, 165
• Orloff, Princess, vol. i. 244
• Orlowski, vol. ii. 222
• Oubril, vol. ii. 43
• P
• Paine, Thomas, vol. i. 241
• Palikao, vol. i. 428, 513
• Pall Mall Gazette, vol. i. 121;
• [p. 402]vol. iii. 6
• Palmerston, Lord, vol. ii. 18, 339;
• vol. iii. 177
• Pape, v., vol. ii. 75, 333
• Paris, Archbishop of, vol. ii. 60, 69
• Paris, Comte de, vol. i. 269;
• vol. ii. 207
• Patkowski, vol. iii. 230
• Patow, vol. ii. 457
• Patrizzi, vol. ii. 212
• Pays, vol. i. 268
• Perglas, Pergler v., vol. i. 281
• Perier, vol. ii. 130, 131, 165, 199
• Pernay, vol. i. 110
• Perponcher, vol. i. 110, 224, 303, 495;
• vol. ii. 369
• Perseveranza, vol. ii. 380
• Persia, vol. iii. 284
• Persigny, vol. i. 283, 417, 424, 428, 439
• Pester Lloyd, vol. ii. 106, 107, 183
• Petersburger Zeitung, vol. ii. 391
• Phelps, vol. iii. 383, 384
• Phelps (Miss), vol. iii. 383
• Philippsborn, vol. ii. 219, 401, 416
• Picard, vol. i. 290, 553
• Pietri, vol. ii. 59
• Pindter, vol. ii. 414
• Platen, vol. ii. 154
• Plater, vol. ii. 49, 163
• Pless, Prince, vol. i. 116, 318, 319, 330, 389, 390, 396, 397, 466
• Princess, vol. ii. 367
• Pobedonoszeff, vol. iii. 149
• Podbielski, vol. i. 315, 508;
• vol. ii. 384
• Podlewski, vol. ii. 126
• Poland, vol. i. 34, 257, 382, 411, 412;
• vol. ii. 49, 55, 57,126, 128, 136, 147, 150, 157, 163 to 165, 173, 192, 200, 201, 348, 371;
• vol. iii. 37, 44, 160, 205, 224
• Archd. Karl Ludwig, vol. ii. 200
• Pölitz, vol. iii. 156
• Pope, the, vol. i. 12, 18, 19, to 23, 26, 213, 214, 215, 251, 293, 294, 295, 296, 303, 336, 417, 431, 457;
• vol. ii. 88, 102, 127, 141, 142, 144, 146, 166, 167, 171, 172, 180, 183, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 204, 205, 212, 213, 214, 219, 270, 271, 272, 273, 301, 304, 305, 309, 310, 369, 383, 419, 424, 425, 437, 439, 476, 477;
• vol. iii. 6, 41, 49, 91, 95, 97, 153, 162, 163, 167, 198, 291, 378
• Portugal, vol. ii. 122, 192, 213
• Poschinger, vol. iii. 11, 60, 64, 71, 86, 105, 340, 342
• Post, vol. ii. 289, 290, 296, 376, 463;
• vol. iii. 12, 61, 81, 319
• Pourtales, vol. i. 256;
• vol. iii. 45
• Pouyer-Quertier, vol. ii. 73, 94, 95
• Précurseur, vol. ii. 162
• Presse, vol. i. 436
• Preussische Jahrbücher, vol. i. 3;
• vol. ii. 123, 481
• Price, vol. iii. 3, 5
• Prim, vol. i. 38, 43, 44, 45, 52, 264, 265;
• vol. iii. 378, 381
• Primker, vol. iii. 63, 73 to 75
• Prokesch, vol. i. 373, 374, 542;
• vol. iii. 223
• Provincial-Correspondenz, vol. i. 15, 413;
• vol. ii. 124
• Prussia, Charles, Prince of, vol. i. 127, 143, 165, 249, 287, 338, 402;
• vol. ii. 279, 369, 404, 405, 418;
• vol. iii. 321
• Queen of. See German Empress
• Frederick Charles, Prince of, vol. i. 61, 181, 265, 300, 414;
• vol. ii. 75, 125;
• vol. iii. 321
• Henry, Prince of, vol. iii. 331, 335
• Victoria, Princess of, vol. iii. 171 to 174, 184, 185
• Przemysl, vol. ii. 200
• Pückler, Count, vol. i. 110, 143, 272
• Puffka, vol. ii. 120
• Punch, vol. iii. 351, 356
• Putbus, Prince, vol. i. 233, 320, 341, 374, 376, 377, 396, 397, 398, 422, 485, 541;
• vol. ii. 256
• Puttkamer, vol. iii. 65, 173, 358
• Q
• Quadt, vol. ii. 80
• Quehl, vol. iii. 215, 219, 223, 225
• R
• Rabe, vol. ii. 457
• Raczinski, vol. iii. 335
• Radolinski, vol. iii. 334
• Radowitz, vol. i. 136, 367, 535;
• vol. ii. 165, 197, 198, 254, 296, 342, 402, 415, 416, 445, 446, 448;
• [p. 403]vol. iii. 44, 94, 211
• Radziwill, Prince, vol. i. 214, 215, 233, 311, 352;
• vol. ii. 4, 170, 244, 269, 278, 299
• Rahden, vol. i. 94
• Rameau, vol. i. 240, 497, 498
• Rantzau, Count, vol. ii. 371, 457, 458, 459, 463;
• vol. iii. 9, 13, 15, 60, 61, 64, 92, 103, 104, 106, 109, 112, 157, 192, 193, 199
• Countess, vol. i. 64;
• vol. ii. 281 to 283, 335, 359;
• vol. iii. 112, 202, 298, 312, 379, 381, 382, 383, 388
• Rasch, vol. i. 53, 54;
• vol. ii. 79, 118
• Raschdau, vol. iii. 341, 344
• Ratibor, Duke of, vol. i. 233, 553
• Rauch, vol. iii. 110
• Rechberg, Count, vol. i. 205, 206, 207, 373;
• vol. ii. 367;
• vol. iii. 34, 221
• Rechenberg, vol. i. 20
• Reichsanzeiger, vol. ii. 22, 124;
• vol. iii. 193
• Reichscorrespondenz, vol. ii. 247
• Reichsglocke, vol. ii. 288, 304, 479;
• vol. iii. 96, 117
• Reille, Gen., vol. i. 147, 148, 153, 321, 331
• Reinhard, vol. i. 208, 542
• Reitlinger, vol. i. 443
• Remusat, vol. ii. 134
• Renard, Count, vol. i. 103
• République Française, vol. ii. 249, 254
• Retzow, vol. ii. 186, 187
• Reuss, vol. i. 21, 94, 97, 386, 413, 444;
• vol. ii. 216, 218;
• vol. iii. 143, 273, 275, 289, 384
• Reute, vol. iii. 144
• Reuter, vol. i. 447
• Revue des Deux Mondes, vol. i. 367, 414;
• vol. ii. 46, 189
• Reymond, vol. iii. 165
• Reynier, vol. i. 219
• Rheinbaben, vol. iii. 145
• Ribeaupierre, vol. i. 491
• Rice, vol. ii. 441
• Richter, vol. ii. 385, 471, 474, 483;
• vol. iii. 40, 132, 162, 379
• Rickert, vol. ii. 422, 423, 424, 436, 453, 454
• Rilvas, vol. ii. 122
• Rimsky-Korsakow, Mme., vol. i. 32
• Rink, vol. i. 193
• Rio, del, vol. i. 487, 488, 497
• Rios Rosas, vol. i. 80
• Rittberg, vol. ii. 457
• Robespierre, vol. i. 383
• Rochefort, vol. i. 169
• Rochow, vol. i. 207, 502;
• vol. ii. 462
• Rodbertus, vol. ii. 19;
• vol. iii. 342
• Roemer, vol. ii. 387
• Roessler, Prof., vol. i. 6, 65;
• vol. ii. 188, 189
• Rogge, vol. i. 404
• Roggenbach, vol. i. 233, 355, 356, 359;
• vol. iii. 196, 247, 299
• Rohlfs, vol. iii. 144, 145
• Rohrschütz, vol. ii. 139
• Roland, vol. i. 63, 213;
• vol. ii. 11, 143, 407
• Rollin, vol. ii. 17
• Roncière, vol. i. 513
• Roon, Gen., vol. i. 66, 69, 130, 143, 146, 196, 226, 255, 302, 306, 345, 390, 405;
• vol. ii. 162, 229, 231, 340;
• vol. iii. 322
• Rosebery, Lord, vol. iii. 135, 136, 144, 343
• Rosen, vol. ii. 181, 197, 198
• Rosenberg-Grudcinski, vol. i. 496
• Rossel, vol. ii. 69
• Rössler, vol. ii. 172, 376
• Rothan, vol. i. 55;
• vol. iii. 378
• Rothschild, vol. i. 104, 183, 193, 194, 195, 224, 225, 271, 341, 445, 446, 514, 518;
• vol. iii. 39, 62, 68, 233
• Rottenburg, vol. ii. 360, 361;
• vol. iii. 7, 136, 157, 166, 169, 170, 173, 184, 186, 191 to 193, 205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 230 to 232, 255, 296, 303, 304, 306, 307, 312, 315, 318, 338, 382
• Rudchen, vol. iii. 344, 356
• Rudhard, vol. ii. 134
• Ruestow, vol. ii. 135
• Rumania, vol. i. 439, 452, 453;
• vol. ii. 129, 395;
• vol. iii. 58, 80, 181, 281
• Charles, Prince, afterwards King of, vol. i. 439, 452, 453, 550, 555;
• vol. ii. 4, 129
• Rumbold, Sir H., vol. ii. 43
• Rumelia, vol. iii. 148, 149, 181, 259, 280
• Russell, Odo, vol. i. 233, 327, 337, 341, 342, 343, 353, 371, 384, 420, 500, 534, 535;
• vol. iii. 120, 213, 326
• Russell, W. H., vol. i. 244, 245[p. 404]
• Russia, vol. i. 22, 31, 112, 179, 185, 203, 224, 252, 272, 312, 317, 328, 329, 334, 358, 386, 413, 415, 417, 440, 457, 463, 468, 477, 495, 503, 504, 510, 512, 515;
• vol. ii. 136, 137, 148, 157, 159, 165, 166, 173, 174, 181, 182, 187, 190, 196, 201, 204, 214, 215, 237, 248, 250, 297 to 299, 318, 333, 386, 392, 393, 396, 397, 404, 405, 408, 411, 430, 431, 450, 476, 482;
• vol. iii. 5, 45, 48, 52, 53, 76, 77, 84, 85, 119, 121, 124, 133, 138, 149, 150, 159, 160, 161, 170, 179, 180, 182, 206, 213, 217, 226, 227, 234, 258 to 292, 302, 354, 366, 367
• Grand Duchess Hélène of, vol. i. 112, 560;
• vol. ii. 43, 69, 70;
• vol. iii. 9, 10
• Grand Duke Nicholas of, vol. ii. 218
• Prince Alexander of, vol. ii. 218
• Prince Wladimir of, vol. ii. 218
• Tsar, The, vol. i. 99, 112, 178, 180, 316, 317, 327, 331, 340, 358, 385, 453, 560;
• vol. ii. 42, 43, 69, 70, 72, 82, 95, 125, 135, 141, 148, 169, 190, 216, 217, 219, 333, 392, 393, 395;
• vol. iii. 49, 138, 139, 149, 159, 175, 180 to 184, 219, 234, 313, 314, 376
• S
• Saburoff, vol. iii. 265, 270, 274
• Sachse, vol. ii. 365, 430, 434, 457;
• vol. iii. 16, 33, 50, 75, 89
• Saechsische Zeitung, vol. ii. 120
• St. Blanquart, vol. i. 71, 87, 511
• St. Simon, vol. ii. 83
• St. Vallier, vol. ii. 120, 168
• Salazar, vol. iii. 114
• Saldern, von, vol. i. 344
• Salisbury, Lord, vol. iii. 143
• Samuel, vol. ii. 222
• Samwer, vol. i. 140;
• vol. ii. 306;
• vol. iii. 249
• Saphir, vol. iii. 233
• Sapieha, vol. ii. 147
• Sauer, vol. i. 431
• Savigny, vol. i. 170, 243, 547;
• vol. ii. 14, 44, 45, 326;
• vol. iii. 39, 96, 156, 225
• Saxony, Crown Prince of, vol. i. 477;
• vol. ii. 326
• Saxony, Dowager Queen of, vol. i. 440
• Saxony, King of, vol. i. 109, 175, 528;
• vol. ii. 324;
• vol. iii. 225, 332, 384
• Saxony, Prince George of, vol. ii. 455
• Schaeffle, vol. ii. 113
• Schapira, vol. iii. 67
• Scheibler, vol. iii. 303, 306, 318, 338
• Scheidtmann, vol. i. 532, 554
• Schelling, vol. iii. 192
• Schiller, vol. i. 138;
• vol. ii. 185
• Schleinitz, vol. i. 256;
• vol. ii. 269, 274, 277, 289, 302 to 304, 318, 339;
• vol. iii. 22, 25, 59, 83, 164, 213, 228, 229, 247, 302, 352
• Schlesische Haus Blätter, vol. i. 246
• Schlesische Zeitung, vol. ii. 261;
• vol. iii. 7
• Schleswig-Holstein, vol. i. 83;
• vol. ii. 33, 152, 337;
• vol. iii. 40
• Schlotheim, vol. ii. 76
• Schlözer, vol. ii. 22, 402
• Schmidt, vol. i. 340
• Schneider, vol. ii. 421;
• vol. iii. 205, 302
• Scholz, vol. iii. 93
• Schorlemer, vol. iii. 312
• Schrader, vol. iii. 186
• Schraps, vol. ii. 57
• Schrenkh, vol. i. 207
• Schuckmann, vol. i. 370, 490
• Schulenburg, vol. i. 28;
• vol. iii. 225
• Schulte, vol. ii. 119
• Schulze, vol. ii. 281;
• vol. iii. 257
• Schuster, vol. i. 350
• Schuvaloff, vol. ii. 201, 203, 204, 209, 216, 395;
• vol. iii. 366
• Schwäbischer Merkur, vol. i. 166;
• vol. ii. 224
• Schwarzburg, Prince, vol. i. 104
• Schwarzenberg, vol. ii. 179, 180;
• vol. iii. 19, 218
• Schwarzkoppen, vol. i. 561
• Schweinitz, vol. ii. 81, 83, 173, 182;
• vol. iii. 49, 233, 383
• Schweninger, vol. iii. 106, 108, 109, 139, 148, 173, 200, 210, 233, 317, 319, 337, 341, 342, 344, 346, 347, 356, 371, 373, 375, 379, 381, 386
• Schwerin, vol. iii. 354[p. 405]
• Seckendorf, Count, vol. i. 113;
• vol. iii. 224
• Seidel, vol. iii. 23
• Selchow, vol. iii. 234
• Senfft-Pilsach, vol. ii. 187, 332;
• vol. iii. 19, 128
• Servia, vol. ii. 197, 198;
• vol. iii. 148
• Sheridan, Gen., vol. i. 90, 91, 96, 98, 103, 121, 131, 132, 143, 171, 223, 250
• Sick, vol. ii. 149
• Siemens, vol. ii. 22
• Simon, vol. i. 553;
• vol. ii. 302
• Simson, vol. i. 233, 387, 400, 403, 446
• Situation, La, vol. i. 197;
• vol. ii. 109
• Skobeleff, vol. iii. 49
• Smolka, vol. ii. 147
• Solms, Count, vol. i. 38, 159, 428;
• vol. ii. 28, 123, 415;
• vol. iii. 193, 194, 199
• Sonnemann, vol. ii. 480
• South Africa, vol. iii. 120, 124, 125, 132, 144, 145, 153, 154, 313
• Spain, vol. i. 22, 34 to 48, 80, 155, 178, 226, 249, 264, 313, 382, 477, 527;
• vol. ii. 182, 192, 213;
• vol. iii. 153, 381
• Hohenzollern candidature, vol. i. 35 to 52, 63, 483;
• vol. ii. 76, 122
• King of, vol. i. 518, 534
• Queen Isabella of, vol. i. 36, 37, 41
• Spenersche Zeitung, vol. i. 5, 10, 32, 41, 42, 43, 48, 58, 60, 363, 432;
• vol. ii. 106, 161, 256;
• vol. iii. 252
• Staatsanzeiger, vol. i. 6, 277;
• vol. ii. 197
• Staatsbuergerzeitung, vol. i. 426
• Stampf, Anastasia, vol. i. 94
• Standard, The, vol. i. 198;
• vol. ii. 47, 448
• Stauffenberg, vol. iii. 30
• Stein, vol. i. 294
• Steinmetz, Gen., vol. i. 77, 85, 95, 98, 394, 420
• Stephan, vol. i. 170;
• vol. ii. 425, 432
• Stepki, vol. i. 502
• Sternsche Correspondenz, vol. ii. 124
• Stieber, vol. i. 103, 118, 119, 269, 487, 498, 519;
• vol. ii. 27, 120, 121
• Stieglitz, vol. i. 411
• Stiehle, vol. i. 518
• Stillfried, vol. i. 359;
• vol. ii. 278
• Stirum, vol. ii. 22, 402;
• vol. iii. 128, 341
• Stöcker, vol. iii. 16
• Stockmar, vol. iii. 42, 43, 178, 186, 239
• Stoffel, Col., vol. i. 51, 53
• Stofflet, vol. i. 295
• Stolberg, Count, vol. i. 318;
• vol. ii. 273, 412;
• vol. iii. 164, 264, 265, 267, 275, 276, 334
• Stolle, vol. ii. 121
• Stosch, vol. i. 315, 486, 516, 551;
• vol. ii. 230, 270, 413, 421
• Strantz, Capt. von, vol. i. 444
• Strenavukoff, vol. ii. 147
• Strossmayer, vol. i. 26, 27
• Strousberg, vol. i. 502, 553
• Stumm, vol. ii. 117;
• vol. iii. 341
• Stupny, vol. ii. 57
• Suckow, vol. i. 190, 524;
• vol. ii. 168
• Süddeutsche Post, vol. iii. 68
• Presse, vol. ii. 123
• Zeitung, vol. iii. 238
• Sulzer, vol. ii. 457
• Sweden, vol. i. 54, 477, 552;
• vol. ii. 43, 153 to 155
• Charles, King of, vol. i. 257, 439, 525;
• vol. ii. 43, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 164
• Oscar, Prince of, vol. ii. 154, 159
• Switzerland, vol. i. 9, 62, 177, 479;
• vol. ii. 51, 69, 110, 139, 272;
• vol. iii. 5, 214, 272
• Sybel, vol. iii. 10, 11, 64, 303, 314, 385
• T
• Tageblatt, Berliner, vol. ii. 477;
• vol. iii. 7, 9, 15
• Deutsches, vol. ii. 484;
• vol. iii. 42, 62, 68, 74, 184
• Leipziger, vol. i. 444
• Wiener, vol. i. 432
• Taglioni, Councillor, vol. i. 85, 192, 563;
• vol. iii. 14, 93
• Taine, vol. iii. 41, 42, 47
• Tann, vol. i. 111, 332, 334
• Tarnassi, vol. iii. 49
• Tarnau, vol. ii. 200
• Tauffkirchen, vol. ii. 102, 103, 127, 212[p. 406]
• Tettau, vol. ii. 462
• Thadden, vol. i. 224, 350;
• vol. iii. 105, 128
• Theiss, vol. i. 308, 427;
• vol. ii. 280, 381, 399, 425;
• vol. iii. 32, 75, 173, 183
• The Times, vol. i. 17, 244, 350, 378, 379, 447, 550;
• vol. ii. 28, 84, 159, 298, 378, 380, 383, 394, 395, 432, 433, 442;
• vol. iii. 120, 122, 132, 134, 180, 184, 238
• Thibaudin, vol. iii. 92
• Thiers, vol. i. 103, 231, 252, 269, 271, 275, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 299, 301, 477, 488, 556, 557, 558, 561;
• vol. ii. 56, 57, 63, 65, 67, 71, 90, 94, 95, 103, 104, 129, 130, 132, 159, 165, 166, 181, 187, 199, 207, 208, 222, 235, 236, 250, 414
• Thile, vol. i. 38, 61, 243, 457;
• vol. ii. 75, 111, 113, 219, 252, 253, 266, 284, 400, 401, 406;
• vol. iii. 12, 13, 38, 39, 43, 46, 49, 50, 134
• Thuengen, vol. i. 396
• Thun, vol. i. 370;
• vol. ii. 112, 120
• Tiedemann, vol. ii. 315, 316, 333, 407, 429, 431, 440, 477;
• vol. iii. 7
• Tilly, Col., vol. i. 324
• Tims, vol. ii. 369
• Tissier, Col., vol. i. 433
• Tissot, vol. i. 469
• Tolstoi, vol. ii. 204
• Topete, vol. i. 80
• Tornau, V., vol. ii. 190
• Torre, de la, vol. ii. 162
• Trautmansdorf, vol. i. 18, 30
• Treitschke, H., vol. i. 182, 340, 386, 466
• Treskow, vol. i. 97, 204, 315, 557
• Tribune (Berlin), vol. ii. 302, 304
• Trochu, vol. i. 265, 285, 290, 326, 356, 365, 371, 383, 408, 414, 415, 429, 466, 484, 488;
• vol. ii. 101
• Tsar. See Russia
• Turkey, vol. i. 329, 386, 417, 512;
• vol. ii. 46, 124, 165, 197, 248, 250, 297, 333, 339, 456;
• vol. iii. 45, 51, 52, 53, 62, 68, 74, 75, 80, 133, 160, 277, 278, 282, 284, 327
• U
• Ujest, vol. iii. 79
• Ungarn-Sternberg, vol. i. 65
• Unger, Gen. von, vol. i. 418
• Union, The, vol. i. 247, 249
• United States, the. See America
• Unruh, vol. i. 459;
• vol. iii. 20 to 31, 33, 34
• Urezzana, vol. iii. 289
• Urquhart, vol. ii. 17
• Usedom, vol. iii. 226, 354
• Uslar, vol. i. 486
• V
• Valden, vol. i. 511, 512
• Vallon, vol. ii. 97, 98
• Van Zuylen, vol. i. 86, 413
• Varennes, vol. ii. 250
• Varnbüler, vol. ii. 148, 149
• Varnhagen, vol. i. 369
• Vaterland, vol. ii. 120, 121
• Vatican. See Pope
• Vaubert, vol. i. 153
• Verdy, Major, vol. i. 97, 340, 349
• Verrier, Comm., vol. i. 439
• Versen, vol. iii. 371, 383
• Victor Emmanuel. See Italy
• Victoria, Queen. See England
• Viereck, vol. iii. 68
• Villiard, vol. i. 394, 395
• Vincent, vol. ii. 76
• Vincke, vol. i. 29;
• vol. iii. 247
• Vinoy, vol. i. 271, 383, 443, 488, 513
• Virchow, vol. ii. 471;
• vol. iii. 13, 56, 65, 164, 165
• Visconti-Venosta, vol. iii. 156
• Vogt, vol. iii. 92
• Voigts-Rhetz, vol. i. 216, 264, 418, 485
• Volkszeitung, vol. i. 168, 173, 361, 505;
• vol. ii. 96;
• vol. iii. 61, 68, 213, 214
• Vossische Zeitung, vol. i. 14, 282, 335;
• vol. ii. 379;
• vol. iii. 7, 9
• W
• Wächter, vol. i. 233, 562;
• vol. ii. 80
• Wagener, vol. i. 428, 437, 442, 477;
• [p. 407]vol. iii. 342
• Wagner, vol. i. 71;
• vol. ii. 206, 256;
• vol. iii. 220, 221
• Wagner, Richard, vol. ii. 169
• Waldeck, vol. i. 525, 535;
• vol. ii. 15;
• vol. iii. 141
• Waldersee, Count, vol. i. 106, 107, 257, 258, 310, 425, 432;
• vol. ii. 84, 93, 94, 95, 103, 116, 117;
• vol. iii. 206, 370
• Walker, Col., vol. i. 143, 330
• Wallenberg, vol. iii. 112
• Walujeff, vol. ii. 43
• Warren, Sir C., vol. iii. 124, 145
• Wartensleben, Count, vol. i. 71;
• vol. ii. 28, 71, 73, 211;
• vol. iii. 14
• Wartsdorf, vol. i. 259
• Washburne, vol. i. 413, 526;
• vol. ii. 46, 92
• Weber, vol. ii. 473
• Wedell, vol. i. 94, 344
• Wedell-Malchoff, vol. iii. 78
• Wedemeyer, vol. iii. 117
• Wehrenpfenig, vol. ii. 473
• Wehrmann, vol. i. 34
• Weimar, Grand Duke of, vol. i. 143, 146, 158, 159, 168, 181, 217, 219, 257, 258, 282, 327, 331, 332, 397, 403, 562;
• vol. ii. 44;
• vol. iii. 332
• Grand Duchess of, vol. i. 181
• Princess of, vol. ii. 185
• Weimar Zeitung, vol. ii. 295
• Welti, vol. ii. 139
• Werder, Gen., vol. i. 313, 316, 317, 482
• Werle, vol. i. 173
• Werther, vol. i. 360, 465, 490, 561;
• vol. ii. 123, 142, 143;
• vol. iii. 225
• Wesdehlen, vol. i. 94
• Weser Zeitung, vol. i. 259, 260, 335, 356;
• vol. ii. 196, 205, 206, 374
• Wiehr, vol. i. 71, 225
• Wiersbycki (Corvin), vol. iii. 68
• William II. See German Emperor
• Willisch, vol. i. 71, 120, 165, 183, 511;
• vol. ii. 37
• Wilmowski, vol. ii. 432
• Wimpffen, Gen., vol. i. 151, 152, 153, 157, 163
• Wimpffen, vol. i. 278
• Windthorst, vol. i. 390;
• vol. ii. 160, 172, 173;
• vol. iii. 37, 91, 156, 162, 163, 312, 318, 354, 360, 376
• Winter, vol. i. 475, 476
• Winterfeldt, vol. i. 274
• Witkowski, vol. ii. 222;
• vol. iii. 383
• Wittgenstein, vol. i. 240, 352
• Wolf’s Telegraphic Agency, vol. i. 48, 56, 556;
• vol. ii. 22
• Wolfssohn, vol. ii. 436
• Wollmann, Sec., vol. i. 45, 71, 324, 326, 400, 403, 463, 478, 480, 481, 563;
• vol. ii. 12, 45, 72, 111, 123, 162, 233, 255
• Wolseley, Lord, vol. iii. 131
• Wolzogen, vol. iii. 225
• Wrangel, vol. i. 183
• Wurmb, vol. i. 203
• Würtemberg, King of, vol. i. 524;
• vol. ii. 80, 119, 133, 168, 227;
• vol. iii. 332
• Prince W. of, vol. i. 403
• Queen of, vol. i. 168, 227
• Wuttke, vol. ii. 96
• Y
• York, Count, vol. i. 169;
• vol. ii. 244
• Yussupoff, vol. i. 224
• Z
• Zabel, vol. ii. 195
• Zanzibar, vol. iii. 144, 154, 353
• Zichy, vol. iii. 83
• Ziemialkowski, vol. ii. 200
• Zitelmann, vol. i. 27;
• vol. iii. 238, 239
• Zur Geschichte der Internationale, vol. ii. 86