BISMARCK AND FAVRE AT HAUTE-MAISON--A FORTNIGHT IN ROTHSCHILD’S CHÂTEAU
Jules Favre not having arrived up to midday on the 19th of September,
our party started. The Minister, however, left a letter for Favre at
the Mairie, and told a servant to mention the fact to him in case he
came. The Chief and the Councillors rode on ahead of the carriages, of
which I had one entirely to myself. We first passed by the residence of
the King, who was quartered in a handsome château on the Promenade, and
between the villages of Mareuil and Montry we met a two-horse hackney,
in which a Prussian officer sat with three civilians. One of the latter
was an elderly gentleman with a grey beard and a protruding under lip.
“That’s Favre,” I said to Kruger, the Chancery attendant who sat behind
me. “Where is the Minister?” He was not to be seen, but had probably
gone on before us, and the long train of conveyances cut off our view
in front. We drove on rapidly, and after a while I met the Chief and
Keudell riding back in the opposite direction.
“Favre has driven by, Excellency,” I said.
“I know,” he replied, smiling, and trotted on.
Next day Count Hatzfeldt gave us some particulars of the meeting
between the Chancellor of the Confederation and the Parisian lawyer,
now one of the rulers of France. The Minister, Count Hatzfeldt and
Keudell were half an hour ahead of us when _Hofrath_ Taglioni, who
drove with the King’s suite, told them that Favre had passed by. He
had come by another route and had only reached its junction with our
road after the Chief had ridden by. The Minister was very angry at
not having been sooner informed of this. Hatzfeldt galloped after
Favre, with whom he returned, finally meeting the Chief at Montry.
Here the attention of the Minister was called to the little château of
Haute-Maison, situated on a height some ten minutes from the village,
as a suitable place for the interview with the Frenchman. There the
party found two Würtemberg dragoons, one of whom was instructed to take
his carbine and mount guard before the house. They also met there a
French peasant, who looked as if he had just received a good thrashing.
While our people were asking this man whether it was possible to get
anything to eat or drink, Favre, who had gone into the house with the
Chancellor, came out for a moment and addressed his countryman in a
speech full of pathos and noble sentiments. Disorderly attacks had been
made, he said, which must be stopped. He, Favre, was not a spy, but,
on the contrary, a member of the new government which had undertaken
to defend the interests of the country and which represented its
dignity. In the name of international law and of the honour of France
he called upon him to keep watch, and to see that the place was held
sacred. That was imperatively demanded by his, the statesman’s, honour,
as well as by that of the peasant, and so forth. The honest rustic
looked particularly silly as he listened open-mouthed to all this high
falutin, which he evidently understood as little as if it were so much
Greek. Keudell remarked, “If this is the individual who is to preserve
us from a surprise, I for my part prefer to trust to the sentry.”
On the same evening I learnt from another source that lodgings had been
taken for Favre in the village near the Château of Ferrières, as he
desired to have a further conference with the Chief. He was accompanied
by MM. Rink and Hell, formerly Secretaries of Embassy under Benedetti,
and Prince Biron. Keudell said, “As the Chancellor left the room where
his interview with Favre had taken place, he asked the dragoon who
was on guard before the door whence he came. The man replied, ‘From
Schwäbisch-Hall.’ ‘Well, then, you may be proud,’ he continued, ‘of
having stood guard over the first negotiation for peace in this war.’”
In the meantime the remainder of us had a long wait at Cheffy for the
return of the Chancellor, and then--probably with his permission--drove
on to Ferrières, which we reached in about two hours. On the way we
passed along the edge of the zone which the French had designedly laid
waste all round Paris. Here the destruction was not very marked, but
the population of the villages seemed to have been in great part driven
away by the Gardes Mobiles.
At length, just as it began to grow dark, we entered the village of
Ferrières, and shortly afterwards Rothschild’s estate. The King and the
first section of his suite took up their quarters for a considerable
time in this château. The Minister was to lodge in the last three rooms
on the first floor of the right wing, looking out on the meadows and
the park. A large drawing-room on the ground floor was selected for
the bureau, and a smaller one of the same corridor as a breakfast and
dining-room. Baron Rothschild was in Paris, and only left behind him
three or four female domestics and a housekeeper, who gave himself
great airs of importance.
It was already dark when the Chief arrived, and shortly after we sat
down to dinner. While we were still at table a message was received
from Favre, asking when he could come to continue the negotiations. He
had a conference _tête-à-tête_ with the Chancellor in our bureau from
9.30 P.M. until after 11. On leaving he looked distressed, crestfallen,
almost in despair--my diary remarks that possibly this expression was
assumed with the object of impressing the Minister.
In connection with the news that the King has gone to Clayes in order
to prevent an attack being made by our troops, the Chief, in the course
of conversation at dinner, said, amongst other things, that “many
of our generals have abused the devotion of the troops in order to
secure victory.” “Possibly,” he added, “the hard-hearted reprobates
of the general staff are right when they say that even if the whole
five hundred thousand men whom we have now in France were to be wiped
out, that should merely be regarded as the loss of so many pawns,
so long as we ultimately won the game. It is very simple strategy,
however, to plunge in head foremost in that way without counting the
cost. Altogether, those who conduct the operations are often not worth
much--armchair strategists. A plan is prepared in which the whole
calculation is based first of all upon the extraordinary qualities
of both soldiers and regimental officers. It is these who alone have
achieved everything. Our success is due to the fact that our soldiers
are physically stronger than the French, that they can march better,
have more patience and sense of duty, and are more impetuous in attack.
If MacMahon had commanded Prussian soldiers and Alvensleben Frenchmen,
the latter would have been defeated--although he is my friend.” “It
is no longer possible, as it was in the Seven Years’ War, to direct
a battle from the saddle--the armies are too large. There is also no
genuine co-operation and mutual assistance. Battles begin usually
like those described by Homer. Some of the men commence with small
provocations, and go on taunting each other, then they begin to shoot;
the others see this and rush forward, and so finally the engagement
becomes general.” “The plan of surrounding the enemy is the right one,
and properly speaking that was only adopted at Sedan. The engagement of
the 16th at Metz was quite correct, as it was necessary there at any
cost to prevent the French from escaping. The sacrifice of the guards
on the 18th however was not necessary. It was a piece of pure folly,
occasioned by jealousy of the Saxons. They ought to have waited at
Saint Privat until the Saxons had completed their manœuvre for cutting
off the enemy.”
Keudell and Bohlen afterwards ascribed this unfavourable criticism to
a quarrel which the Chief had had with Moltke at Reims.
While still at table we had a specimen of the hospitality and
gentlemanly feeling of the Baron, whose house is honoured by the
presence of the King, and whose property has, in consequence, been
treated with every consideration. M. de Rothschild, the hundred-fold
millionaire, who, moreover, was, until recently, the Prussian
Consul-General in Paris, has declined, through his housekeeper, to
let us have the wine we require, although I informed that functionary
that it would be paid for, just as everything else was. When summoned
before the Chief, he had the audacity to persist in his refusal, first
denying absolutely that there was any wine in the house, and afterwards
admitting that there were a few hundred bottles of a common Bordeaux.
As a matter of fact, there were some seventeen thousand bottles. The
Minister, however, explained the situation to him in a few sharp words,
pointing out how niggardly and discourteous it was of his master to
requite the King in such manner for the honour done to him in taking
up his quarters there. As the fellow still seemed obstinate, the
Chancellor asked him sternly if he knew what a bundle of straw was.
The man made no answer, but seemed to suspect what it meant, as he
became deadly pale. He was then informed that it was a contrivance on
which obstinate and impudent housekeepers were laid face downwards--he
could imagine the rest for himself. Next day we got everything that
we required, and, so far as I am aware, there was no further cause of
complaint.
Next morning the Chief came into the _chambre de chasse_ of the
château, which we occupied as our bureau. Turning over the game
book which lay on the table he pointed out the entry for the 3rd of
November, 1856, which showed that he himself, with Galiffet and other
guests, had that day shot forty-two head of game--fourteen hares, one
rabbit, and twenty-seven pheasants. He is now engaged with Moltke and
others in chasing a nobler quarry--the bear to which he referred at
Grand Pré.
At 11 o’clock the Chief had his third meeting with Favre, after which
followed a conference with the King, at which Moltke and Roon were also
present.
In the evening I was called to the Chief, who had not appeared at
table, and who, it was understood, did not feel quite well. A narrow
stone winding stairs, which was distinguished with the title,
“Escalier particulier de M. le Baron,” led to a very elegantly
furnished room, where I found the Chancellor sitting on the sofa in his
dressing gown.
_Wednesday, September 21st._--As the Chief had recovered from his
indisposition, we had plenty to do, and though most of it cannot be
made public, I am now at liberty to quote the following passage from my
diary:--
“The imperial emigrants in London have established an organ, _La
Situation_, to represent their interests. Its contents are to be
reproduced in the newspapers we have founded in the eastern districts
of France, but the sources are to be so indicated as not to identify us
with the views therein expressed: _i.e._, it must be understood that
we are not endeavouring to promote the restoration of the Emperor.
Our object is merely to maintain the sense of insecurity and discord
between the various French parties, which are all equally hostile to
us. The retention of the imperial symbols and formulas in despatches
will prove of service in this respect; otherwise Napoleon or a Republic
is a matter of indifference to us. We merely desire to utilise the
existing chaos in France. The future of that country does not concern
us. It is the business of the French themselves to shape it as best
they can. It is only of importance to us in so far as it affects our
own interests, the furtherance of which must be the guiding principle
in politics generally.” Under instructions from the Chief I telegraphed
in the above sense to the principal officials at Nancy and Hagenau.
At tea some further particulars were given of the last conference
between the Chancellor and Jules Favre. Favre was, it seems, informed
that we could not communicate to him the exact conditions of peace
until they had been settled at a conference of the German Powers
engaged in the war. No arrangement could be come to, however, without
a cession of territory, as it was absolutely essential to us to have
a better frontier as security against French attack. The conference
turned less upon peace and its conditions than on the nature of French
concessions, in consideration of which we might agree to an armistice.
On the mention of a cession of territory Favre became terribly
excited, drew a deep sigh, raised his eyes to heaven, and even shed
some patriotic tears. The Chief does not expect that he will return.
Doubtless an answer in this sense has been forwarded to the Crown
Prince, who telegraphed this morning to ask whether he should attend
the negotiations.
_Thursday, September 22nd, evening._--The French are indefatigable in
denouncing us to the world as cruel and destructive barbarians; and
the English press--particularly the _Standard_, which is notoriously
hostile to us--willingly lends them its assistance. The grossest
calumnies respecting our conduct towards the French population and
the prisoners in our hands are circulated almost daily by that
newspaper, and always purport to come either from eye-witnesses or
other well-informed sources. Thus, for instance, the Duc de FitzJames
recently drew a horrible picture of the abominations of which we had
been guilty in Bazeilles, adding the assurance that he exaggerated
nothing; and a M. L., who represents himself to be a French officer
whom we had captured at Sedan and subjected to ill-treatment, complains
in a lamentable tone of Prussian inhumanity. Bernstorff sent the
article in question to the Chief, with the suggestion that the charges
should be refuted. The complaint of M. L. might, perhaps, be left to
answer itself, but that of the Duke is calculated to affect even those
across the Channel who are disposed in our favour. Besides, impudent
calumny is always apt to leave some traces behind it. A refutal of
these shameful slanders is accordingly being despatched to-day to
certain London newspapers that are friendly to us. As the greater
part of this communication was dictated by the Chief, it is worthy of
special attention.
“In this war, as in every other, a great number of villages have been
burned down, mostly by artillery fire, German as well as French. In
these cases women and children who had sought refuge in the cellars
and had not escaped in time, lost their lives in the flames. That was
also the case in Bazeilles, which was several times stormed by our
infantry. The Duc de FitzJames is only an eye-witness so far as the
ruins of the village are concerned, which he saw after the battle,
just as thousands more saw and regretted its fate. All the rest of
his report is based on the stories of the unfortunate and exasperated
villagers. In a country where even the Government has developed an
unexampled talent for systematic lying, it is not to be expected that
angry peasants, standing on the ruins of their homes, would bear
truthful witness against their enemies. It is established by official
reports that the inhabitants of Bazeilles, not in uniform but in their
blouses and shirt-sleeves, fired out of their windows at our troops
and wounded soldiers, and that they killed whole batches of the latter
in their houses. It has been likewise proved that women armed with
knives and guns were guilty of the greatest cruelty towards the fatally
wounded, and that other women, certainly not in the uniform of the
National Guards, took part in the fight with the male inhabitants,
loading their rifles and even firing themselves, and that, like the
other combatants, some of them were in these circumstances wounded or
killed. Naturally these particulars were not communicated to the Duc de
FitzJames by his informant. They would have fully excused the burning
of the village even if it had been done intentionally with the object
of forcing the enemy out of that position. But there is no evidence of
any such intention. That women and children were driven back into the
fire is one of those infamous lies with which the French terrorise the
population, and incite their hatred against us. In this way they cause
the peasants to fly on our approach. The latter return, however, as a
rule, a few days after the entrance of the Germans, and are astounded
to find that they are better treated by them than by the French troops.
When this sort of terrorism is not sufficient to force the inhabitants
to flight, the Government sends a mob of armed civilians, sometimes
supported by African troops, to drive the peasants from their homes at
the point of the sword, and to burn down their houses as a punishment
for their want of patriotism. The letter of ‘an imprisoned officer’
(Bouillon, September 9th) also contains more falsehood than truth.
With respect to the treatment of the prisoners, Germany can call
150,000 better witnesses than this anonymous and mendacious officer,
whose whole communication is merely an expression of the vindictive
disposition which will for a long time to come inspire the vain and
arrogant elements of the French people, by whom, unfortunately, that
country allows itself to be ruled and led. From this spirit of revenge
arises the certainty of further attacks on the part of France, for
which Germany must be prepared. We are thus unquestionably compelled
to think solely of the security of our frontier in concluding peace.
It is true, as stated in the letter of this imprisoned officer, M. L.,
that there was a scarcity of provisions after the surrender of Sedan,
not only for the prisoners, but also for the victors, who shared with
them what they had. When their own stock was exhausted the prisoners
also had to do without. L.’s complaint that he had been obliged to
bivouac in the rain and mud furnishes the best evidence that he is no
officer, and has not even followed the campaign up to that point. He
is some hireling scribe who has never left his own room, and one must
therefore assume that the man’s whole story of his imprisonment is
an invention; as, had he been an officer in the field, he would have
known that most of his comrades (that is certainly the case with the
Germans) have spent at least thirty nights out of the forty or so that
have elapsed since the beginning of the war under similar conditions.
When it rained in the night they had to lie in the rain, and when the
ground was muddy they had to lie in the mud. Only one who had not
followed the campaign could have any doubt or manifest any surprise on
that score. That M. L. prides himself on having retained his leather
purse is the clearest proof that he was not plundered. There can hardly
be a single soldier, who, if he happens to have money, does not carry
it just as M. L. carried his, and in just such a purse; so that if our
men had wanted his money, they must have known very well where to find
it. The few Germans who fell into French hands can tell how quickly
their opponents could open a prisoner’s tunic, and if his purse was
a little too firmly fastened on, hack it off with their sabres or a
knife, without paying too much regard to his skin. We declare the
assertions respecting the ill-treatment of prisoners at Sedan to be
wilful and audacious lies. A great number of the French prisoners,
perhaps one-fourth, were in a state of bestial drunkenness, having
during the last few hours before the capitulation plundered the wine
and brandy stores in the town. It is obvious that it is not so easy to
manage men in a state of drunkenness as when they are sober, but such
ill-treatment as the article describes occurred neither at Sedan nor
elsewhere, owing to the discipline which prevails amongst the Prussian
troops. It is well known that this discipline has won the admiration
of the French officers themselves. Unfortunately one cannot speak as
highly of the French soldiers in this respect as with regard to their
gallantry in action. The French officers have on several occasions been
unable to prevent their men from murdering severely wounded soldiers,
even when individual officers of high rank endeavoured at the risk of
their own lives to defend the wounded, and that was not merely the
case with African regiments. It is known that the German prisoners who
were taken into Metz were spat upon and struck with sticks and stones
on their way through the streets, and on their release had to run the
gauntlet of a double line of African soldiers, who beat them with canes
and whips. We can prove these facts by official records, which have
more claim to credence than the anonymous letter of M. L. But are such
things to be wondered at when the newspapers of a city like Paris,
which now implores considerate treatment on the hypocritical plea of
civilisation, can propose, without eliciting the slightest protest,
that when the French troops are unable to take our wounded with them
they should split their heads open; and further, that the Germans
should be used like dead wolves to manure their fields? The utter
barbarism of the French nation, covered with a thin veneer of culture,
has been fully disclosed in this war. French insolence formerly said,
‘Grattez le Russe et vous trouverez le barbare.’ Whoever is in a
position to compare the conduct of the Russians towards their enemies
in the Crimean War with that of the French in the present campaign, can
have no doubt that this statement recoils upon its authors.”
When he had finished, the Minister added: “Write to Bernstorff that
I decline in future to notice any suggestion for entering into a
controversy with English newspapers. The Ambassador must act on his own
responsibility.”
Just as we sat down to table, one of the Court officials announced
that the Crown Prince proposed to come to dinner and to stay for the
night. The Prince’s secretary at the time asked that the bureau and the
large salon next the Chancellor’s room, should be prepared for the five
gentlemen who accompanied his Royal Highness. The Chief replied, “We
cannot give up the bureau, as we want it for our work.” He then placed
his dressing room at their disposal, and further proposed that either
Blumenthal or Eulenburg should sleep in his bedroom. He required the
salon for the reception of the French negotiators and any Princes who
might call upon him. The Court official went off, pulling a long face,
and was impertinent enough to make some remarks in the corridor about
“discourtesy” and so forth.
Count Lehndorff dined with us, and the conversation was very lively.
Some allusion having been made to Frederick the Great’s statue in
Unter den Linden, which had been decorated with black, red and yellow
flags, the Minister condemned Wurmb for allowing this controversy to
be stirred up. “This stupid quarrel about the colours should not have
been reopened, and it once more proves Wurmb’s incapacity. For me the
question is settled and done with since the North German flag has been
adopted. Otherwise this battle of colours is a matter of indifference
to me. As far as I am concerned they may be green, yellow, and all
the colours of a fancy dress ball, or they can take the banner of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Only the Prussian soldier will have nothing to do
with the black, red, and yellow.”
The Chief then spoke of the peace, which he still considered remote,
adding: “If they (the French Government) go to Orleans, we shall follow
them there, and further--right down to the sea shore.” He read out
some telegrams, including one giving a list of the troops in Paris.
“There are supposed to be 180,000 men in all, but there are hardly
60,000 real soldiers amongst them. The mobile and national guards with
their snuffboxes (a reference to their obsolete weapons) are not to be
reckoned as soldiers.”
I asked if I should telegraph about the report of artillery and
rifle-fire in the streets of Paris, which people fancied they had
heard. He said I was to do so. “But not yet, I suppose, about the
negotiations with Favre?” “Yes,” he replied, and then went on as
follows: “First at Haute-Maison, near Montry, then the same evening at
Ferrières, and next day a third conversation, but without effect, as
regards the armistice and the peace. Other French parties have also
entered into negotiations with us,” he said, and gave some indications
from which I gathered that he referred to the Empress Eugénie.
Something else led him to speak of his skill in shooting. He said that
as a young man he could hit a sheet of paper with a pistol at a hundred
yards, and had shot off the heads of ducks in the pond.
He then mentioned that he had again complained to Treskow of the
“short commons at the Royal table,” at which Treskow pulled a long
face. “But if I am to work well I must have sufficient food. I cannot
make a proper peace if I do not get enough to eat and drink. That’s a
necessity of my trade, and therefore I prefer to dine at home.”
The conversation then turned on the dead languages--I cannot now say
how. “When I was in the first class at the high school,” he said,
“I was able to write and speak Latin very well. I should now find
it extremely difficult; and I have quite forgotten Greek. I cannot
understand why people take so much trouble with these languages. It
must be merely because learned men do not wish to lessen the value
of what they have themselves so laboriously acquired.” I ventured to
remind him of the mental discipline thus provided. The Chief replied,
“Yes; but if you think Greek is a _disciplina mentis_, the Russian
language is far better in that respect. It might be introduced instead
of Greek--and it has immediate practical value in addition.”
We then spoke of the way in which the Schleswig-Holstein question was
treated by the Bundestag in the fifties. Count Bismarck-Bohlen, who
had come in in the meantime, remarked that those debates must have
been dull enough to send every one to sleep. “Yes,” said the Chief,
“in Frankfurt they slept over the negotiations with their eyes open.
Altogether it was a sleepy and insipid crowd, and things only became
endurable after I had added the pepper.” He then told us a delightful
story about Count Rechberg, who was at that time Austrian Minister to
the Bundestag. “On one occasion he said something to me which I was
obliged to answer very roughly. He replied that unless I withdrew my
words it would be a case of going out on to the Bockenheimer Haide (a
place where it was customary to settle affairs of honour). ‘I never
withdraw my words,’ said I, carelessly, ‘so we must settle it in that
way, and it occurs to me that the garden down stairs would be a very
suitable place. But in order that people may not think that I represent
my King pistol in hand, without further ceremony I shall write down
here the cause of our quarrel. After you have read it over you will
sign it, and thus testify to its correctness. In the meantime there
is one of our officers lodging here who will oblige me, and you can
choose one of your own officers.’ I rang the bell and sent word to the
officer, requesting him to call upon me; and then went on writing while
Rechberg strode up and down the room--and gluck, gluck, gluck (here
the Minister mimicked the act of drinking) he swallowed one glass of
water after another. Of course not because he was afraid, but because
he was considering whether he ought not first to ask permission of
his Government. I quietly continued to write. The officer came and
said he would gladly oblige me. I begged him to wait a moment. On my
return Rechberg said he would think over the matter until morning,
to which I agreed. As I did not hear from him next day, however,
I sent the Mecklenburg Minister, old Oertzen, to deliver a formal
challenge. Oertzen was told he was not at home. He went again next
day, but Rechberg was still not to be seen. He had evidently written
to Vienna and was waiting for an answer. At length Oertzen came to me
after having spoken to him. Rechberg was prepared to withdraw what he
had said and offer an apology, either in writing or verbally, just as
I liked. He would also come to me if I wished. I went to his place,
however, and the affair was settled.”
I asked him then about the celebrated story of the cigars. “Which
do you mean?” “Why, about the cigar which you lit, Excellency, when
Rechberg was smoking in your presence.” “Thun, you mean. Yes, that
was very simple. I went to him while he was at work, and he was
smoking. He begged me to excuse him for a moment. I waited a while
and finding it rather slow, as he did not offer me a cigar, I took
one of my own and asked him for a light--which he gave me with rather
a surprised look. But I have another story of the same kind. At the
sittings of the Military Commission, when Rochow represented Prussia
at the Bundestag, Austria was the only one who smoked. Rochow, who was
passionately addicted to smoking, would gladly have done the same, but
had not sufficient confidence. When I came I also felt a longing for
a cigar, and as I could not see why I should deny myself I begged the
presiding power to give me a light, apparently much to his and the
other gentlemen’s astonishment and displeasure. It was evidently an
event for them all. For the time being only Austria and Prussia smoked.
But the remaining gentlemen obviously considered the matter of so much
importance that they wrote home for instructions as to how they were
to act in the circumstances. The authorities were in no hurry. The
affair was one that demanded careful consideration, and for nearly six
months the two great Powers smoked alone. Then Schrenkh, the Bavarian
Minister, began to assert the dignity of his office by lighting his
weed. Nostitz, the Saxon, had certainly a great desire to do the same,
but had probably not yet received the permission of his Minister.
On seeing Bothmer, of Hanover, however, allow himself that liberty,
Nostitz, who was strongly Austrian in his sympathies, having sons in
the Austrian army, must have come to an understanding with Rechberg,
with the result that he too at the next sitting pulled out his cigar
case and puffed away with the rest. Only the representatives of
Würtemberg and Darmstadt now remained, and they were non-smokers. The
honour and dignity of their States, however, imperiously demanded that
they should follow suit, and so as a matter of fact the Würtemberger
pulled out a cigar at the next sitting--I can still see it in my mind’s
eye, a long, thin, yellow thing of the colour of rye straw--and smoked
at least half of it as a burnt-offering on the altar of patriotism.
Hesse-Darmstadt was the only one who finally refrained--probably
conscious that he was not strong enough to enter into rivalry with the
others.”[9]
_Friday, September 23rd._--Beautiful weather this morning. I took a
walk in the park before the Chief got up. On my return I met Keudell,
who called out “War! A letter from Favre rejecting our demands.
The Chief has given instructions to communicate the letter to the
press with certain comments, hinting that the present occupant of
Wilhelmshöhe is after all not so bad and might be of use to us.”
The conversation afterwards turned on Pomeranian affairs, and the Chief
spoke amongst other things of the great estate of Schmoldin. The former
proprietor had become bankrupt through treating the people on the
estate--mostly Slav fishermen and sailors--with too much consideration.
The place, which consisted of about 8,000 acres of arable land, and
12,000 to 16,000 acres of forest and downs, worth at least 200,000
thalers, was purchased by the Royal Treasury for 80,000 thalers. The
change of proprietors had not benefited the tenants, as there was no
question of forbearance or abatements. Many of them have fallen into
a state of pauperism, and instead of being provided for by the Royal
Treasury, they have become a burden on the local authorities. That is
not as it ought to be. It was believed that Obstfelder was to blame for
this hard and unfair treatment.
_Saturday, September 24th._--The Minister spoke at dinner about the
ostentatious decorations of the great hall of the château, which he
had now seen for the first time. Amongst other things it contains a
throne or table which some French marshal or general inadvertently
packed up with his baggage somewhere in China, or Cochin China, and
afterwards sold to our Baron. The Chief’s verdict was:--“All extremely
costly, but not particularly beautiful, and still less comfortable.”
He then continued:--“A ready-made property like this would not give me
any genuine satisfaction. It was made by others, and not by myself.
True, there are many things in it really beautiful, but one misses the
pleasure of creating and altering. It is also quite a different thing
when I have to ask myself if I can afford to spend five or ten thousand
thalers on this or that improvement, and when there is no need to think
about the cost. In the end it must become tiresome to have always
enough and more than enough.”
In an article written this evening we returned to our good friends
the French Ultramontanes, who are as active in war as they had been
in peace in opposing the German cause, inciting people against us,
circulating lies about us in the newspapers, and even leading the
peasants to take up arms against our troops, as at Beaumont and
Bazeilles.
_Sunday, September 25th._--At table we somehow came to discuss
the Jews. “They have no real home,” said the Chief. “They are
international--Europeans, cosmopolitans, nomads. Their fatherland is
Zion, Jerusalem. Otherwise they are citizens of the whole world, and
hold together everywhere. There are amongst them some good, honest
people, as for instance one at our own place in Pomerania, who traded
in hides and such things. Business cannot have prospered with him,
as he became bankrupt. He begged of me not to press my claim, and
promised that he would pay by instalments, when he could. Yielding to
my old habit, I agreed, and he actually paid off the debt. I received
instalments from him while I was still in Frankfurt as Minister to the
Bundestag, and I believe that if I lost anything at all, I must have
lost less than his other creditors. Certainly not many such Jews are
to be met with in our large towns. They have also their own special
virtues. They are credited with respect for their parents, faithfulness
in marriage, and benevolence.”
_Monday, September 26th._--In the morning wrote various paragraphs for
the press on the following theme: It is urged that we cannot be allowed
to bombard Paris, with its numerous museums, beautiful public buildings
and monuments; that to do so would be a crime against civilisation.
But why not? Paris is a fortress, and if it has been filled with
treasures of art, if it possesses magnificent palaces and other
beautiful structures, that does not alter this character. A fortress is
an instrument for warlike operations which must be rendered powerless
without regard to whatever else may be bound up with it. If the French
wanted to preserve their monuments and collections of books and
pictures from the dangers of war they should not have surrounded them
with fortifications. Besides, the French themselves did not hesitate
for a moment to bombard Rome, which contained monuments of far greater
value, the destruction of which would be an irretrievable loss. Also
sent off an article on the bellicose tendencies of the French Radicals
previous to the declaration of war, for use in our newspapers in Alsace.
At dinner, as we were discussing military matters, the Chief declared,
_inter alia_, that the uhlans were the best cavalry. The lance gave
the men great self-confidence. It was urged that it was a hindrance in
getting through underwood, but that was a mistake. On the contrary,
the lance was useful in moving aside the branches. He knew that
from experience, as, although he first served in the rifles, he was
afterwards in the Landwehr cavalry. The abolition of the lance in the
entire mounted Landwehr was a blunder. The curved sabre was not much
use, particularly as it was often blunt. The straight thrusting sword
was much more practical.
After dinner a letter was received from Favre, in which he requested,
first, that notice should be given of the commencement of the
bombardment of Paris, in order that the diplomatic corps might
remove; and, second, that the city should be permitted to remain in
communication with the outer world by letter. Abeken said, as he
brought the letter down from the Chief’s room, that the answer would be
sent by way of Brussels. “But then the letter will arrive late or not
at all, and be returned to us,” observed Keudell. “Well, that does not
matter,” answered Abeken. From the further conversation it appears that
the answer agrees to the French proposals under certain conditions.
In the evening I was again called to the Chief on several occasions
to take instructions. Amongst other things, I ascertained that,
“while Favre’s report respecting his interviews with the Chancellor
shows, it is true, a desire to give a faithful account of what
passed, it is not quite accurate, which is not surprising in the
circumstances, especially as there were three different meetings.”
In his statement the question of an armistice occupies a secondary
position, whereas, in fact, it was the chief point. Favre was prepared
to pay a considerable cash indemnity. In the matter of a truce two
alternatives were discussed. First, the surrender to us of a portion
of the fortifications of Paris, namely, at a point which would give us
the command of the city, we on our part to allow free communication
with the outer world. The second was that we should forego that
condition, but that Strassburg and Toul should be surrendered to us.
We put forward the latter demand because the retention of these towns
in the hands of the French increases our difficulties of commissariat
transport. The Chancellor stated that with respect to a cession of
territory, he could only disclose its extent and frontiers when our
demand had been accepted in principle. On Favre requesting to have
at least an indication of what we proposed in this respect, he was
informed that for our security in the future we required Strassburg,
“the key of our house,” the departments of the Upper and Lower Rhine,
Metz, and a portion of the Moselle department. The object of the
armistice was to submit the question of peace to a National Assembly to
be summoned for the purpose.
Again called to the Chief. “The King wishes to see some of the
newspapers, and he desires to have the most important passages marked.
I have proposed Brass to him, and when the papers come, put that one
(the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_) always aside for him.” He
added, smiling, “Just mark some places for the sake of appearances, it
does not much matter what, and send me up the paper.”
At tea we hear a great piece of news:--the Italians have occupied Rome,
the Pope and the diplomatists remaining in the Vatican.
_Tuesday, September 27th._--Bölsing, on the Chief’s instructions, shows
me the answer to Favre’s letter, which the Minister has rewritten in
a shorter and more positive form. It says, 1. It is not usual in war
to announce the commencement of an attack; 2. A besieged fortress
does not appear to be a suitable residence for diplomatists; open
letters containing nothing objectionable will be allowed to pass. It
is hoped that the _corps diplomatique_ will agree with this view of
the matter. They can go to Tours, whither it would appear the French
Government also intends to remove. The answer is written in German,
a course already begun by Bernstorff, but which was carried out more
consistently by Bismarck. “Formerly,” said Bölsing, “most of the
Secretaries in the Foreign Office belonged to the French colony, of
which Roland and Delacroix still remain. Almost all the Councillors
also wrote in that language. Even the register of the despatches was
kept in French, and the Ambassadors usually reported in that language.”
Now the speech of the “vile Gaul,” as Count Bohlen calls the French,
is only used in exceptional cases, that is, in communicating with
Governments and Ambassadors to whom we cannot write or reply in their
mother tongue. The registers have for years past been kept in German.
The Chief has been at work since 8 o’clock in the morning--unusually
early for him. He has again been unable to sleep.
Prince Radziwill and Knobelsdorff, of the general staff, joined us at
dinner. In speaking of that part of Favre’s report in which he says
that he wept, the Minister thinks he can only have pretended to do so.
“It is true,” he said, “that he looked as if he had done so, and I
tried to some extent to console him. On my observing him more closely,
however, I felt quite certain that he had not succeeded in squeezing
out a single tear. It was all merely a piece of acting on his part.
He thought to work upon me in the same manner as a Parisian lawyer
tries to move a jury. I am perfectly convinced that he was painted at
Ferrières--particularly at the second interview. That morning he looked
much greyer and quite green under the eyes--I am prepared to bet that
it was paint--grey and green, to give himself an appearance of deep
suffering. It is, of course, possible that he was deeply affected; but
then he can be no politician or he would know that pity has nothing to
do with politics.” After a while the Minister added: “When I hinted
something about Strassburg and Metz, he assumed a look as if he thought
I was jesting. I could have given him, the answer which the great fur
dealer of Unter den Linden in Berlin once gave me. I went there to
choose a fur coat, and on his naming a very high price for one to which
I had taken a fancy, I said, ‘Surely you are joking.’ ‘No,’ he replied,
‘I never make jokes in business.’”
The conversation then turned upon the occupation of Rome and the Pope’s
position in the Vatican, on which point the Chief said, amongst other
things: “He must remain a Sovereign. The only question is, how? It
would be possible to do more for him if the Ultramontanes were not so
much opposed to us everywhere. I am accustomed to pay people back in
their own coin. I should like to know how our Harry (von Arnim, the
North German Ambassador to the Holy See) now feels. Probably, like
his reports, his feelings change three times within the twenty-four
hours. He is really too distinguished an Ambassador for such a small
Sovereign. The Pope, however, is not merely the ruler of the Papal
States, he is also the head of the Catholic Church.”
After dinner, just as we had finished our coffee, the American general,
Burnside, who had called whilst we were at table, presented himself
again, accompanied by an elderly gentleman who wore a red woollen shirt
and a paper collar. The general, a rather tall, portly gentleman, with
thick, bushy eyebrows, and an exceptionally fine set of beautifully
white teeth and close-cut, mutton-chop whiskers, might pass for an
elderly Prussian major in plain clothes. The Chief sat with him on the
sofa, and had a lively conversation in English over a couple of glasses
of kirschwasser, which were afterwards replenished. Prince Radziwill,
in the meantime, had a talk with the general’s companion.
After the Minister had observed to his visitor that he had come rather
late to see the fighting, he went on to say that in July we had not
the least desire for war, and that when we were surprised by the
declaration of hostilities, no one, neither the King nor the people,
had thought of any conquests. Our army was an excellent one for a
war of defence, but it would be difficult to use it for schemes of
aggrandisement, because with us the army was the people itself, which
did not lust after glory, as it required and wished for peace. But for
that very reason both popular sentiment and the press now demanded
a better frontier. For the sake of the maintenance of peace we must
secure ourselves in future against attack from a vainglorious and
covetous nation, and that security could only be found in a better
defensive position than we had hitherto had. Burnside seemed inclined
to agree, and he praised very highly our excellent organisation and the
gallantry of our troops.
_Wednesday, September 28th_.--The general conversation at dinner
gradually adopted a more serious tone. The Chancellor began by
complaining that Voigts-Rhetz in his report had not said a single word
about the gallant charge of the two regiments of dragoon guards at Mars
la Tour, which nevertheless he himself had ordered, and which had saved
the 10th Army Corps. “It was necessary--I grant that; but then it ought
not to have been passed over in silence.”
The Minister then began a lengthy speech, which ultimately assumed the
character of a dialogue between himself and Katt. Pointing to a spot of
grease on the table-cloth, the Chief remarked: “Just in the same way
as that spot spreads and spreads, so the feeling that it is beautiful
to die for one’s country and honour, even without recognition, sinks
deeper into the skin of the people now that it has been bathed in
blood--it spreads wider and wider.... Yes, yes, the non-commissioned
officer has the same views and the same sense of duty as the lieutenant
and the colonel--with us Germans. That feeling in general goes very
deep through all classes of the nation.... The French are a mass that
can easily be brought under one influence, and then they produce a
great effect. Amongst our people everybody has his own opinion. But
when once a large number of Germans come to hold the same opinion,
great things can be done with them. If they were all agreed they
would be all-powerful.... The French have not that sense of duty which
enables a man to allow himself to be shot dead alone in the dark. And
that comes from the remnant of faith which still abides in our people;
it comes from the knowledge that there is Someone there Who sees me
even if my lieutenant does not see me.”
“Do you believe that the soldiers reflect on such things, Excellency?”
asked Fürstenstein.
“‘Reflect?’ no. It is a feeling--a frame of mind; an instinct, if
you like. When once they reflect they lose that feeling; they argue
themselves out of it.... I cannot conceive how men can live together
in an orderly manner, how one can do his duty and allow others to do
theirs without faith in a revealed religion, in God, Who wills what is
right, in a higher Judge and a future life.”
The Grand Duke of Weimar was announced. But the Minister continued,
it might well be for a quarter of an hour longer, at times suddenly
departing from his proper theme, and frequently repeating the same idea
in other words: “If I were no longer a Christian I would not serve the
King another hour.
“If I did not put my trust in God I should certainly place none in
any earthly masters. Why, I had quite enough to live on, and had a
sufficiently distinguished position. Why should I labour and toil
unceasingly in this world, and expose myself to worry and vexation if
I did not feel that I must do my duty towards God?[10] If I did not
believe in a Divine Providence which has ordained this German nation
to something good and great, I would at once give up my trade as a
Statesman or I should never have gone into the business. Orders and
titles have no attraction for me. A resolute faith in a life after
death--for that reason I am a Royalist, otherwise I am by nature a
Republican. Yes, I am a Republican in the highest degree; and the firm
determination which I have displayed for ten long years in presence of
all possible forms of absurdity at Court is solely due to my resolute
faith. Deprive me of this faith and you deprive me of my fatherland. If
I were not a firm believer in Christianity, if I had not the wonderful
basis of religion, you would never have had such a Chancellor of the
Confederation. If I had not the wonderful basis of religion I should
have turned my back to the whole Court--and if you are able to find me
a successor who has that basis I will retire at once. But I am living
amongst heathens. I do not want to make any proselytes, but I feel a
necessity to confess this faith.”
Katt said that the ancients had also shown much self-sacrifice and
devotion. They also had the love of country, which had spurred them
on to great deeds. He was convinced that many people nowadays acted
in the same way through devotion to the State, and a sense of duty to
society.
The Chief replied that this self-sacrifice and devotion to duty towards
the State and the King amongst us was merely a remnant of the faith of
our fathers and grandfathers in an altered form,--“more confused, and
yet active, no longer faith, but nevertheless faithful.” “How willingly
would I go away! I enjoy country life, the woods and nature. Sever my
connection with God and I am a man who would pack up to-morrow and be
off to Varzin, and say ‘Kiss my ----,’ and cultivate his oats. You
would then deprive me of my King, because why?--if there is no Divine
commandment, why should I subordinate myself to these Hohenzollerns?
They are a Suabian family, no better than my own, and in that case no
concern of mine. Why, I should be worse than Jacoby, who might then be
accepted as President or even as King. He would be in many ways more
sensible, and at all events cheaper.”
Keudell told me this evening that the Chief had already, while standing
outside the château, several times expressed himself in a similar
manner.
After dinner the Chancellor received in his own salon the Grand Duke of
Weimar, as also Reynier, and subsequently Burnside and his companion of
the day before.
_Thursday, September 29th._--In the morning wrote articles on the folly
of certain German newspapers that warned us against laying claim to
Metz and the surrounding district because the inhabitants spoke French,
and on Ducrot’s unpardonable escape during the transport of prisoners
to Germany. The second article was also sent to England.
The newspapers contain a report on the prevailing public sentiment in
Bavaria, which evidently comes from a thoroughly reliable and highly
competent source.[11] We are accordingly to note the principal points
contained therein. The news given in the report is for the most part
satisfactory--in some particulars only is it possible to wish it were
better. The idea of German unity has evidently been strengthened and
extended by the war, but the specific Bavarian _amour propre_ has also
increased. The part taken by the army in the victories of the German
forces at Wörth and Sedan, as well as the severe losses which it has
suffered, has not failed to excite enthusiasm throughout all classes
of the population, and to fill them with pride at the achievements of
their countrymen. They are convinced that their King sincerely desires
the victory of the German arms, and has used every effort to secure
that end. His immediate _entourage_ is well disposed. That cannot
however be said of all his Ministers. The Minister of War is without
doubt sincerely anxious, and is doing his utmost to see the campaign
brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He is in that respect thoroughly
reliable, and he will no doubt be found on the right side in the matter
of the conditions of peace. Count Bray, on the other hand, is and
remains ultramontane and Austrian in his views. In his heart of hearts
he is opposed to the war, and for him our successes have been too
rapid, and our victories too complete. He would like to see the neutral
Powers take steps to restrain us, and if he could he would support such
measures.
No conclusion is to be drawn from the very confident tone of the press
as to an eventual rearrangement of German relations which, through
the brotherhood in arms during the war, might develop into a permanent
and closer union also in times of peace. As a matter of course Bray
would be opposed to the entrance of Bavaria into the North German
Confederation. But there are also other influential personages who do
not contemplate such a course, or who regard the effective co-operation
of the Bavarians in the German victories less as a means to promote the
closer union of Germany than as a proof of the power of Bavaria and
an assertion of her independence. The non-ultramontane particularists
take up a somewhat similar position. They are pleased at our victories
and proud of Bavaria’s share in them. They admire the manner in which
the Prussians conduct the war, and, like us, they desire to secure
Germany against future attack from the West. But they will not hear of
Bavaria joining the North German Confederation. The partition of the
conquered French territory is also much discussed in such circles. They
would like to see Alsace annexed to Baden on condition that the Baden
Palatinate were ceded to Bavaria. The more penetrating minds amongst
them are forced to reckon with the probability that Baden, and in all
likelihood also Würtemberg, will after the peace demand admission into
the Federal State already formed by the North. The Ultramontanes remain
what they always were, although they are now silent through fear.
Fortunately they have lost all confidence in Austria, so that they
lack support, while, on the other hand, the Bavarians, who are now in
the field, have an entirely different opinion of the Prussians to that
which they entertained before the war. They are full of the highest
praise for their northern comrades, and not merely for their military
qualities and achievements, but also for their readiness to help the
Bavarians when they have earlier or better supplies than the latter.
More than one of them has written home that their priests have maligned
the Prussians. It is not true that they are all Lutherans. Many of them
are Catholics, and they had even seen some Catholic military chaplains
with them. As the officers share these feelings the army on its
return will carry on an effective propaganda against Ultramontanism,
and probably also against extreme particularism. It will be easily
understood that men of national sentiment in Bavaria should feel more
confident than ever. They will also do what they can for the cause. But
they are a minority in the Lower Chamber, and in the Upper House they
have scarcely two or three representatives.
At dinner the conversation turned on the Grand Duke of Weimar and such
matters. The Minister said that the Grand Duke had been to see him
the evening before, and wished to obtain some information which he
(the Chief) was unable to give him. “He thinks that I am also _his_
Chancellor. On my politely declining, he said he must then apply to
the King. ‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘but in that case his Majesty will have to
refer in the first place to his Minister.’ ‘And the Minister?’ (Here
the Chief bent his head a little to one side and smiled sweetly.) ‘He
will maintain an impenetrable silence.”’
The Chancellor then said that he had been asked what was to be done
with the Garde Mobiles captured at Strassburg. They were disposed to
set them at liberty and let them go home. “God forbid,” said I; “send
them to Upper Silesia.”
_Friday, September 30th._--Received another letter from Bamberger, who
is in Baden-Baden. He continues to use his talents and influence in the
press to advance the Chancellor’s views. In my answer I begged him to
counteract the ill-considered arguments of certain German journalists
who now, while we are still at war, and have hardly done the heaviest
part of our task, are already strongly urging moderation. The worst
of these is Dr. Kruse, of the _Kölnische Zeitung_, with whom the idea
that Metz must not be annexed because the inhabitants speak French
has become almost a monomania. These gentlemen offer their advice as
to how far we can or may go in our demands, and plead in favour of
France, while they would do much better to insist upon still heavier
demands, “in order,” as the Minister said in complaining of this being
“preposterous” behaviour, “that we may at least get something decent,
if not all that we ask for. They will compel me in the end to claim
the Meuse as our frontier. Write also to Bamberger that I had credited
him with more political acumen than to imagine that we really want to
replace Napoleon on the French throne.”
_Sunday, October 2nd._--At teatime to a remark that the poorer classes
suffered comparatively more than the upper and wealthier, the Chief
replied that this reminded him of Sheridan’s observation at Reims,
for it was perhaps after all as well it should be so, as there were
more poor people than well-to-do, and we must always keep in mind the
object of the war, which was to secure an advantageous peace. The
more Frenchmen suffered from the war the greater would be the number
of those who would long for peace, whatever our conditions might be.
“And their treacherous franctireurs,” he continued, “who now stand in
blouses with their hands in their pockets, and in the next moment when
our soldiers have passed by take their rifles out of the ditch and fire
at them. It will come to this, that we will shoot down every male
inhabitant. Really that would be no worse than in battle, where they
fire at a distance of 2,000 yards, and cannot recognise each other’s
faces.”
The conversation then turned on Russia, on the communistic measure
of dividing the land between the village communities, on the minor
nobility, “who had invested their savings in the purchase of peasants,
out of whom they squeezed their interest in the form of Obrok,” and
of the incredible wealth of many of the old Boyar families. The Chief
mentioned several examples, and gave a full account of the Yussupoffs,
whose fortune, although nearly half of it had been several times
confiscated on account of their complicity in conspiracies, was still
much larger than that of most German Princes. It was so great that
“two serfs, father and son, who had acted in succession as managers of
the estate, were able to bleed it of three millions without the loss
being felt.” “The palace of these princes in St. Petersburg contained
a large theatre in the style of the Weisser Saal in the palace at
Berlin, and had magnificent rooms in which 300 to 400 persons could
dine with comfort. Forty years ago the old Yussupoff kept open table
daily. A poor old officer on the retired list had dined there almost
every day for years, although no one knew who he was. The name and rank
of their constant guest was only discovered on inquiries being made of
the police when on one occasion he had remained away for a considerable
time.”
_Monday, October 3rd._--We were joined at table by the Grand
Chamberlain, Perponcher, and a Herr von Thadden, who was to be
appointed a member of the Administration at Reims. The Chief told
several anecdotes of the old Rothschild of Frankfurt. He had on one
occasion heard Rothschild talking to a corn-dealer who wanted to buy
some wheat. The latter said that such a rich man ought not to put
the price of wheat so high. “What have my riches got to do with it?”
replied the old gentleman. “Is my wheat any the worse because I am
rich?” “He gave dinners however which did all honour to his wealth. I
remember once when the present King, then Prince of Prussia, was in
Frankfurt and I invited him to dinner. Rothschild had also intended
to invite him. The Prince told him, however, that he must settle that
with me, otherwise he would be quite as pleased to dine with him as
with me. Rothschild then wanted me to give up his Royal Highness to
him. I refused, whereupon he had the _naïveté_ to propose that his
dinner should be brought to my house, as of course he did not partake
of it himself--he only ate meat prepared in Jewish fashion. Naturally
I also declined this proposal, although there can be no doubt that
his dinner would have been better than mine.” The Chief was once told
by old Metternich,--“who, by the way, was very well disposed towards
me,”--that at one time when he had lodged with Rothschild, on his way
to Johannisberg (Metternich’s estate), his host had put six bottles of
Johannisberg wine into his lunch basket for the road. These were taken
out unopened on Metternich’s arrival at Johannisberg, where the Prince
asked his chief cellarer what they cost per bottle. “Twelve florins,”
was the answer. “Well then,” said Metternich, “send these six bottles
back to Baron Rothschild when he gives his next order, but charge him
fifteen florins a piece for them then, as they will have grown older by
that time.”
_Tuesday, October 4th._--In the forenoon again called to the Chief
Bucher, Councillor of Embassy; and Wiehr, a decipherer, arrived after
lunch. Bucher appears to have been summoned here in order to replace
Abeken, who has been ill and ought to have gone home, but who has
now nearly recovered. No one could have filled his place better than
Bucher, who is unquestionably the best informed, most intelligent
and unprejudiced of all the principal workers by whom the Chief is
surrounded, and who help to propagate his ideas. In the evening the
Chancellor talked about Moltke, remarking how gallantly he had attacked
the punch bowl on a recent occasion, and in what excellent spirits he
was. “I have not seen him looking so well for a long time past. That is
the result of the war. It is his trade. I remember, when the Spanish
question became acute, he looked ten years younger. Afterwards, when I
told him that the Hohenzollern had withdrawn, he suddenly looked quite
old and infirm. And when the French showed their teeth again ‘Molk’
was once more fresh and young. The matter finally ended in a _diner à
trois_--Molk, Roon and I--which resulted (here the Chancellor smiled a
cunning smile) in the Ems telegram.”
We start early to-morrow morning, as we have a long journey to make.
Our next halt will be at Versailles.