DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING THE CAPITULATION OF PARIS
_Wednesday, January 25th._--Count Lehndorff dined with us, and talked
about hunting and hunting dinners, including a great banquet given
by some Baron which consisted of no less than twenty-four courses.
His brother was present and fell asleep propped on his elbows, while
a neighbour of his sunk into slumber on the shoulder of a governess
who was sitting next him. The dinner lasted over five hours and the
people were most horribly bored, as often happens in the country. The
Chief remarked: “I always know how to get over that difficulty. One
must put down a good bit of liquor right at the beginning, and under
its influence one’s neighbours to the left and right grow ever so much
cleverer and pleasanter.”
The Minister then spoke about his first journey to St. Petersburg.
He drove in a carriage, as at first there was no snow. It fell very
heavily later on, however, and progress was terribly slow. It took him
five full days and six nights to reach the first railway station, and
he spent the whole time cramped up in a narrow carriage without sleep
and with the thermometer at fifteen degrees Reaumur below zero. In the
train, however he fell so fast asleep that on their arrival in St.
Petersburg, after a ten hours’ run, he felt as if he had been only five
minutes in the railway carriage.
“The old times before the railways were completed had also their good
side,” continued the Minister. “There was not so much to do. The mail
only came in twice a week, and then one worked as if for a wager. But
when the mail was over we got on horseback, and had a good time of it
until its next arrival.” Somebody observed that the increased work,
both abroad and at the Foreign Office, was due more to the telegraph
than to the railways. This led the Chief to talk about diplomatic
reports in general, many of which, while written in a pleasant style,
were quite empty. “They are like feuilletons, written merely because
something has to be written. That was the case, for instance, with the
reports of Bamberg, our Consul in Paris. One read them through always
thinking: Now something is coming. But nothing ever came. They sounded
very well and one read on and on. But there was really nothing in them.
All barren and empty.” Another instance was then mentioned, Bernhardi,
our Military Plenipotentiary at Florence, of whom the Chief said: “He
passes for being a good writer on military subjects because of his work
on Toll. We do not know, however, how much of that he himself wrote.
Thereupon he was given the rank of major, although it is not certain
that he ever was an officer at all, and he was appointed Military
Plenipotentiary in Italy. Great things were expected of him there, and
in the matter of quantity he did a great deal--also in the matter of
style. He writes in an agreeable way, as if for a feuilleton, but when
I have got to the end of his closely-written reports in a small neat
hand, for all their length I have found nothing in them.”...
The Minister then returned to the subject of tiresome journeys and
long rides. He said: “I remember after the battle of Sadowa I was the
whole day in the saddle on a big horse. At first I did not want to ride
him as he was too high and it was too much trouble to mount. At last,
however, I did so, and I was not sorry for it. It was an excellent
animal! But the long waiting above the valley had exhausted me and my
seat and legs were very sore. The skin was not broken, that has never
happened to me, but afterwards when I sat down on a wooden bench I
had a feeling as if I were sitting on something that came between me
and the wood. It was only a blister. After Sadowa we arrived late at
night in the market-place of Horsitz. There we were told that we were
to seek out our own quarters. That, however, was much easier said than
done. The houses were bolted and barred, and the sappers, who might
have broken in the doors for us, were not to arrive before five in
the morning.” “His Excellency knew how to help himself in a similar
case at Gravelotte,” interrupted Delbrück. The Chief continued his
story: “Well, I went to several houses at Horsitz, three or four, and
at length I found a door open. After making a few steps into the dark
I fell into a kind of pit. Luckily it was not deep, and I was able
to satisfy myself that it was filled with horse-dung. I thought at
first, ‘How would it be to remain here,’--on the dung-heap, but I soon
recognised other smells. What curious things happen sometimes! If that
pit had been twenty feet deep, and full, they would have had a long
search next morning for their Minister, and doubtless there would be no
Chancellor of the Confederation to-day.” “I went out again and finally
found a corner for myself in an arcade on the market-place. I laid
a couple of carriage cushions on the ground and made a pillow of a
third, and then stretched myself out to sleep. Later on some one waked
me. It was Perponcher, who told me that the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg
had a room for me and an unoccupied bed. That turned out to be correct,
but the bed was only a child’s cot. I managed to fix it, however, by
arranging the back of a chair at the end of it. But in the morning I
could hardly stand, as my knees had been resting on the bare boards.”
“One can sleep quite comfortably if one has only a sackful of straw,
however small. You cut it open in the middle, push the straw to the
two ends, and let yourself into the hollow part. I used to do that in
Russia when out hunting. I ripped the bag open with my hunting knife,
crept into it and slept like a log.” “That was when the despatch from
Napoleon came,” observed Bohlen. The Chief replied: “Yes, the one at
which the King was so pleased, because it showed that he had won a
great battle--his first great battle.” “And you were also glad,” said
Bohlen, “and you swore an oath that you would one day requite the Gauls
when an opportunity offered.”...
Finally the Chief related: “Favre told me the day before yesterday
that the first shell that fell in the Pantheon cut off the head of the
statue of Henri IV.” “He doubtless thought that was a very pathetic
piece of news,” suggested Bohlen. “Oh, no,” replied the Chief, “I
rather fancy that, as a democrat, he was pleased that it should have
happened to a King.” Bohlen: “That is the second piece of bad luck that
Henri has had in Paris. First a Frenchman stabbed him there, and now we
have beheaded him.”
The dinner lasted very long this evening, from 5.30 till after 7.
Favre was expected back from Paris every moment. He came at length at
7.30, again accompanied by his son-in-law with the Spanish name. It is
understood that neither hesitated this time, as they did on the former
occasion, to take the food that was offered to them, but, like sensible
people, did justice to the good things that were laid before them. It
is doubtless to be inferred from this that they have also listened to
reason in the main point, or will do so. That will soon appear, as
Favre is again conferring with the Chancellor.
After dinner read drafts. Instructions have been sent to
Rosenberg-Grudcinski at Reims respecting the collection of taxes. The
Municipalities are to be called upon to pay five per cent. extra for
each day of arrears. Flying columns with artillery are to be sent to
districts where payment is obstinately refused. They are to summon the
inhabitants to pay up the taxes and if this is not done immediately
to shell the place and set it on fire. Three examples would render a
fourth unnecessary. It is not our business to win over the French by
considerate treatment or to take their welfare into account. On the
contrary, in view of their character, it is desirable to inspire them
with a greater fear of us than of their own Government, which, of
course, also enforces compulsory measures against them. According to a
report by the Minister of the Netherlands to his Government, the Red
Republicans in Paris attempted a rising the night before last, released
some of their leaders, and then provoked a riot outside the Hôtel de
Ville. The National Guard fired upon the Mobiles, and there were some
dead and wounded, but ultimately order was restored.
About 10 o’clock, while Favre was still here, there was heavy firing
from big guns which continued for perhaps an hour. I went to tea at
10.30 P.M., and found Hatzfeldt and Bismarck-Bohlen in conversation
with Del Rio in the dining-room. He is a man of medium height, dark
beard, slightly bald, and wears a pince-nez. Shortly after I came down,
he left for his quarters at Stieber’s house, accompanied by Mantey,
and he was followed a quarter of an hour later by Favre. Del Rio spoke
of Paris as being the “centre du monde,” so that the bombardment is a
kind of target practice at the centre of the world. He mentioned that
Favre has a villa at Reuil and a large cellar in Paris with all sorts
of wine, and that he himself has an estate in Mexico of six square
German miles in extent. After Favre’s departure the Chief came out to
us, ate some cold partridge, asked for some ham, and drank a bottle
of beer. After a while he sighed, and sitting up straight in his
chair, he exclaimed: “If one could only decide and order these things
one’s self! But to bring others to do it!” He paused for a minute and
then continued: “What surprises me is that they have not sent out
any general. And it is difficult to make Favre understand military
matters.” He then mentioned a couple of French technical terms of which
Favre did not know the meaning. “Well, it is to be hoped that he had a
proper meal to-day,” said Bohlen. The Chief replied in the affirmative,
and then Bohlen said he had heard it rumoured that this time Favre had
not despised the champagne. The Chief: “Yes, the day before yesterday
he refused to take any, but to-day he had several glasses. The first
time he had some scruples of conscience about eating, but I persuaded
him, and his hunger doubtless supported me, for he ate like one who had
had a long fast.”
Hatzfeldt reported that the Mayor, Rameau, had called about an hour
before and asked if M. Favre was here. He wanted to speak to him and
to place himself at his disposal. Might he do so? He, Hatzfeldt, had
replied that of course he did not know. The Chief: “For a man to come
in the night to a person who is returning to Paris is sufficient of
itself to bring him before a court-martial. The audacious fellow!”
Bohlen: “Mantey has doubtless already told Stieber. Probably this M.
Rameau is anxious to return to his cell.” (Rameau was obliged some time
since to study the interior of one of the cells in the prison in the
Rue Saint Pierre for a few days in company with some other members of
the corporation--if I am not mistaken, on account of some refusal or
some insolent reply about supplying provisions for Versailles.)
The Minister then related some particulars of his interview with Favre.
“I like him better now than at Ferrières,” he said. “He spoke a good
deal and in long, well-rounded periods. It was often not necessary to
pay attention or to answer. They were anecdotes of former times. He
is a very good _raconteur_.” “He was not at all offended at my recent
letter to him. On the contrary, he felt indebted to me for calling his
attention to what he owed to himself.” “He also spoke of having a villa
near Paris, which was, however, wrecked and pillaged. I had it on the
tip of my tongue to say, ‘But not by us!’ but he himself immediately
added that it had doubtless been done by the Mobiles.” “He then
complained that Saint Cloud had been burning for the last three days,
and wanted to persuade me that we had set the palace there on fire.”
“In speaking of the franctireurs and their misdeeds, he wished to call
my attention to our guerillas in 1813--they indeed had been much worse.
I said to him: ‘I don’t want to deny that, but you are also aware
that the French shot them whenever they caught them. And they did not
shoot them all in one place, but one batch on the spot where the act
was committed, another batch at the next halt, and so on, in order to
serve as a deterrent.’” “He maintained that in the last engagement, on
the 19th, the National Guard, recruited from the well-to-do classes,
fought best, while the battalions raised from the lower classes were
worthless.”
The Chief paused for a while and seemed to be reflecting. He then
continued: “If the Parisians first received a supply of provisions
and were then again put on half rations and once more obliged to
starve, that ought, I think, to work. It is like flogging. When it
is administered continuously it is not felt so much. But when it is
suspended for a time and then another dose inflicted, it hurts! I know
that from the criminal court where I was employed. Flogging was still
in use there.”
The subject of flogging in general was then discussed, and Bohlen, who
favours its retention, observed that the English had re-introduced it.
“Yes,” said Bucher, “but first for personal insult to the Queen, on the
occasion of an outrage against the Royal person, and afterwards for
garrotting.” The Chief then related that in 1863, when the garrotters
appeared in London, he was often obliged to go after twelve o’clock
at night through a solitary lane, containing only stables and full of
heaps of horse-dung, which led from Regent Street to his lodgings in
Park Street. To his terror, he read in the papers that a number of
these attacks had taken place on that very spot.
Then, after a pause, the Minister said: “This is really an unheard-of
proceeding on the part of the English. They want to send a gunboat up
the Seine” (Odo Russell put forward this demand, which the Chancellor
absolutely refused) “in order, they say, to remove the English families
there. They merely want to ascertain if we have laid down torpedoes and
then to let the French ships follow them. What swine! They are full
of vexation and envy because we have fought great battles here--and
won them. They cannot bear to think that shabby little Prussia should
prosper so. The Prussians are a people who should merely exist in
order to carry on war for them in their pay. This is the view taken by
all the upper classes in England. They have never been well disposed
towards us, and have always done their utmost to injure us.” “The
Crown Princess herself is an incarnation of this way of thinking. She
is full of her own great condescension in marrying into our country.
I remember her once telling me that two or three merchant families in
Liverpool had more silver-plate than the entire Prussian nobility.
‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘that is possibly true, your Royal Highness, but we
value ourselves for other things besides silver.’”
The Minister remained silent for a while. Then he said: “I have often
thought over what would have happened if we had gone to war about
Luxemburg--should I now be in Paris or would the French be in Berlin?
I think I did well to prevent war at that time. We should not have
been nearly so strong as we are to-day. At that time the Hanoverians
would not have made trustworthy soldiers. I will say nothing about
the Hessians--they would have done well. The Schleswig-Holstein men
have now fought like lions, but there was no army there then. Saxony
was also useless. The army had been disbanded and had to be recruited
over again. And there was little confidence to be placed in the
South Germans. The Würtembergers, what excellent fellows they are
now, quite first rate! But in 1866 they would have been laughed at by
every soldier as they marched into Frankfurt like so many militiamen.
The Baden troops were also not up to the mark. Beyer, and indeed
the Grand Duke, has since then done a great deal for them.” “It is
true that public opinion throughout Germany would have been on our
side had we wished to fight for Luxemburg. But that was not enough
to compensate for such deficiencies. Moreover, we had not right on
our side. I have never confessed it publicly, but I can say it here:
after the dissolution of the Confederation the Grand Duke had become
the sovereign of Luxemburg and could have done what he liked with the
country. It would have been mean of him to part with it for money, but
it was open to him to cede it to France. Our right of occupation was
also not well founded. Properly speaking, after the dissolution of the
Confederation we ought no longer to have occupied even Rastatt and
Mainz. I said that in the Council--I had at that time yet another
idea, namely, to hand over Luxemburg to Belgium. In that case we
should have united it to a country on behalf of whose neutrality, as
people then thought, England would intervene. That would also have
strengthened the German element there against the French speaking
inhabitants, and at the same time have secured a good frontier. My
proposal was not received with any favour, and it is just as well as it
has turned out.”
Bismarck-Bohlen drew attention to a capital cartoon in
_Kladderadatsch_: Napoleon waiting on the platform of the railway
station and saying “They have already given the signal to start.” He
has put on an ermine cloak for his journey to Paris, and is carrying
his portmanteau in his hand. The Chief, however, observed: “Doubtless
he thinks so, and he may be right. But I fear he will miss the train.
Yet, after all, there may be no other way left. He would be easier
to convince than Favre. But he would always require half the army to
maintain him on the throne.”
_Thursday, January 26th._--The Chief drove off to see the King at 10.30
A.M.
Herr Hans von Rochow and Count Lehndorff dined with us. The Chief
talked about Favre: “He told me that on Sundays the boulevards are
still full of fashionably dressed women with pretty children. I
remarked to him, ‘I am surprised at that. I wonder you have not yet
eaten them!’” As some one noticed that the firing was particularly
heavy to-day, the Minister observed: “I remember in the criminal
court we once had a subordinate official--I believe his name was
Stepki--whose business it was to administer the floggings. He was
accustomed to lay on the last three strokes with exceptional vigour--as
a wholesome memento!” The conversation then turned upon Strousberg,
whose bankruptcy was said to be imminent, and the Chief said: “He once
told me, ‘I know I shall not even die in my own house.’ But for the
war, it would not have happened so soon, perhaps not at all. He always
kept afloat by issuing new shares, and the game succeeded, although
other Jews, who had made money before him, did their best to spoil it.
But now comes the war, and his Rumanians have fallen lower and lower,
so that at present one might ask how much they cost per hundredweight.
For all that, he remains a clever man and indefatigable.” The mention
of Strousberg’s cleverness and restless activity led on to Gambetta,
who was said to have also “made his five millions out of the war.”
But doubts were expressed on this point, and I believe rightly. After
the Dictator of Bordeaux, it was Napoleon’s turn to be discussed,
and according to Bohlen, people said he had saved at least fifty
millions during the nineteen years of his reign. “Others say eighty
millions,” added the Chief, “but I doubt it. Louis Philippe spoiled
the business. He had riots arranged, and then bought stocks on the
Amsterdam Exchange, but at last business men saw through it.” Hatzfeldt
or Keudell then observed that this resourceful monarch used to fall ill
from time to time with a similar object.
Morny was then spoken of as having been specially ingenious in making
money in every possible way under the Empire. The Chief told us that
“when Morny was appointed Ambassador to St. Petersburg he appeared
with a whole collection of elegant carriages, some forty-three of them
altogether, and all his chests, trunks and boxes were full of laces,
silks, and feminine finery, upon which, as Ambassador, he had to pay
no customs duty. Every servant had his own carriage, and every attaché
and secretary had at least two. A few days after his arrival he sold
off the whole lot by auction, clearing at least 800,000 roubles. He
was a thief, but an amiable one.” The Chief then, pursuing the same
subject and quoting further instances, continued: “For the matter of
that, influential people in St. Petersburg understood this sort of
business--not that they were willing to take money directly. But when a
person wanted something, he went to a certain French shop, and bought
expensive laces, gloves or jewellery, perhaps for five or six thousand
roubles. The shop was run on behalf of some official or his wife.
This process repeated, say, twice a week, produced quite a respectable
amount in the course of the year.”
Bohlen called out across the table: “Do, please, tell that lovely
story about the Jew with the torn boots who got twenty-five lashes.”
The Chief: “It came about in this way. One day a Jew called at our
Chancellerie declaring that he was penniless, and wanted to be sent
back to Prussia. He was terribly tattered, and he had on in particular
a pair of boots that showed his naked toes. He was told that he would
be sent home, but then he wanted to get other boots as it was so cold.
He demanded them as a right, and became so forward and impudent,
screaming and calling names, that our people did not know what to do
with him. And the servants also could not trust themselves to deal with
the furious creature. At length, when the row had become intolerable,
I was called to render physical assistance. I told the man to be quiet
or I would have him locked up. He answered defiantly: ‘You can’t do
that. You have no right whatever to do that in Russia!’ ‘We shall
see!’ I replied. ‘I must send you home, but I am not called upon to
give you boots, although perhaps I might have done so. But first you
shall receive punishment for your abominable behaviour.’ He then
repeated that I could not touch him. Thereupon I opened the window
and beckoned to a Russian policeman, who was stationed a little way
off. My Jew continued to shriek and abuse us until the policeman, a
tall stout man, came in. I said, ‘Take him with you--lock him up till
to-morrow--twenty-five!’ The big policeman took the little Jew with
him, and locked him up. He came again next morning quite transformed,
very humble and submissive, and declared himself ready for the journey
without new boots. I asked how he had got on in the interval. Badly,
he said, very badly. But what had they done to him? They had--well,
they had--physically maltreated him. I thought that when he got home
he would enter a complaint against me, or get his case into the
newspapers--the _Volkszeitung_, or some such popular organ. The Jews
know how to make a row. But he must have decided otherwise, for nothing
more was heard of him.”
When I came down to tea at 10.30 P.M. I found the Chief in conversation
with the members of Parliament, Von Köller and Von Forckenbeck. The
Minister was just saying that more money would soon be required. “We
did not want to ask more from the Reichstag,” he said, “as we did
not anticipate that the war would last so long. I have written to
Camphausen, but he suggests requisitions and contributions. They are
very difficult to collect, as the immense area of country over which we
are dispersed requires more troops than we can spare for purposes of
coercion. Two million soldiers would be necessary to deal thoroughly
with a territory of 12,000 German square miles. Besides, everything
has grown dearer in consequence of the war. When we make a requisition
we get nothing. When we pay cash there is always enough to be had in
the market, and cheaper than in Germany. Here the bushel of oats costs
four francs, and if it is brought from Germany six francs. I thought
at first of getting the contributions of the different States paid in
advance. But that would only amount to twenty millions, as Bavaria will
keep her own accounts until 1872. Another way out of the difficulty
occurred to me, namely, to apply to our Diet for a sum on account.
But we must first find out what Moltke proposes to extort from the
Parisians, that is to say, from the city of Paris--for that is what
we are dealing with for the present.” Forckenbeck was of opinion that
the Chief’s plan would meet with no insurmountable resistance in the
Diet. It is true the doctrinaires would raise objections, and others
would complain that Prussia should again have to come to the rescue and
make sacrifices for the rest of the country, but in all probability
the majority would go with the Government. Köller could confirm that
opinion, which he did.
Afterwards an officer of the dark blue hussars, a Count Arnim who
had just arrived from Le Mans, came in and gave us a great deal of
interesting news. He said the inhabitants of the town appeared to
be very sensible people who disapproved of Gambetta’s policy, and
everywhere expressed their desire for peace. “Yes,” replied the Chief,
“that is very good of the people, but how does it help us if with all
their good sense they allow Gambetta, time after time, to stamp new
armies of 150,000 men out of the ground?” Arnim having further related
that they had again made great numbers of prisoners, the Minister
exclaimed: “That is most unsatisfactory! What shall we do with them all
in the end? Why make so many prisoners? Every one who makes prisoners
ought to be tried by court-martial.” This, like many other similar
expressions, must doubtless not be taken literally, and applies only to
the franctireurs.
_Friday, January 27th._--It is said that the bombardment ceased at
midnight. It was to have recommenced at 6 o’clock this morning in case
the Paris Government was not prepared to agree to our conditions for
a truce. As it has ceased, the Parisians have doubtless yielded. But
Gambetta?
Moltke arrives at 8.30 A.M., and remains in conference with the Chief
for about three-quarters of an hour. The Frenchmen put in an appearance
shortly before 11. Favre (who has had his grey Radical beard clipped)
with thick underlip, yellow complexion, and light grey eyes; General
Beaufort d’Hautpoule, with his aide-de-camp, Calvel; and Dürrbach, a
“Chief of the Engineers of the Eastern Railway.” Beaufort is understood
to have led the attack on the redoubt at Montretout on the 19th. Their
negotiations with the Chief appear to have come to a speedy conclusion,
or to have been broken off. Shortly after twelve o’clock, just as we
sit down to lunch, they drive off again in the carriages that brought
them here. Favre looks very depressed. The general is noticeably red
in the face, and does not seem to be quite steady on his legs. Shortly
after the French had gone the Chancellor came in to us and said: “I
only want a breath of fresh air. Please do not disturb yourselves.”
Then, turning to Delbrück and shaking his head, he said: “There is
nothing to be done with him. Mentally incapable--drunk, I believe. I
told him to think it over until half-past one. Perhaps he will have
recovered by that time. Muddle-headed and ill-mannered. What is his
name? Something like Bouffre or Pauvre?” Keudell said: “Beaufort.” The
Chief: “A distinguished name, but not at all distinguished manners.”
It appears, then, that the general has actually taken more than he was
able to carry, perhaps in consequence of his natural capacity having
been weakened by hunger.
At lunch it was mentioned that on his way here, Forckenbeck saw the
village of Fontenay still in flames. It had been fired by our troops as
a punishment for the destruction of the railway bridges by the mutinous
peasantry. Delbrück rejoiced with us “that at last adequate punishment
had been once more inflicted.”
In the afternoon we heard that the Chancellor drove off shortly before
1 o’clock, first to see the Emperor, and then to Moltke’s, where he
and Podbielski again met the Frenchmen. The latter afterwards left
for Paris, about 4 o’clock, and will return to-morrow at noon for the
purpose of completing the capitulation.
At dinner, the Chief, speaking of Beaufort, said he had behaved like
a man without any breeding. “He blustered and shouted and swore like
a trooper, and with his ‘moi, général de l’armée française,’ he was
almost unendurable. Favre, who is not very well bred either, said to
me: ‘J’en suis humilié!’ Besides, he was not so very drunk; it was,
rather, his vulgar manners. At the General Staff they were of opinion
that a man of that sort had been chosen in order that no arrangement
should be come to. I said that, on the contrary, they had selected him
because it did not matter for such a person to lose credit with the
public by signing the capitulation.”
The Chief then continued: “I said to Favre during our last interview:
‘Vous avez été trahi--par la fortune.’ He saw the point clearly, but
only said: ‘A qui le dites-vous! Dans trois fois vingt quatre heures
je serai aussi compté au nombre des traîtres.’ He added that his
position in Paris was very critical. I proposed to him: ‘Provoquez donc
une émeute pendant que vous avez encore une armée pour l’etouffer.’
He looked at me quite terror-stricken, as if he wished to say, How
bloodthirsty you are. I explained to him, however, that that was the
only right way to manage the mob.” “Then, again, he has no idea of how
things are with us. He mentioned several times that France was the
land of liberty, while Germany was governed by a despotism. I told
him, for instance, that we wanted money and that Paris must supply
some. He suggested that we should raise a loan. I replied that that
could not be done without the approval of the Diet. ‘Ah’ he said, ‘you
can surely get five hundred million francs without the Chamber.’ I
answered: ‘No, not five francs.’ But he would not believe it. I told
him that I had been at loggerheads with the popular representatives
for four whole years, but that the raising of a loan without the Diet
was the limit to which I went, and which it never occurred to me to
overstep. That seemed to disconcert him somewhat, but he only said
that in France ‘on ne se gênerait pas.’ And yet he returned afterwards
to the immense freedom which they enjoy in France. It is really funny
to hear a Frenchman talk in that way, and particularly Favre, who has
always been a member of the Opposition. But that’s their way. You can
give a Frenchman twenty-five lashes, and if you only make a fine speech
to him about the freedom and dignity of man of which those lashes are
the expression, and at the same time strike a fitting attitude, he will
persuade himself that he is not being thrashed.”
“Ah, Keudell,” said the Chief suddenly, “it just occurs to me. I must
have my full powers drawn up for to-morrow, of course in German. The
German Emperor must only write German. The Minister can be guided by
circumstances. Official communications must be written in the language
of the country, not in a foreign tongue. Bernstorff was the first to
try to introduce that system in our case, but he went too far with it.
He wrote to all the diplomatists in German, and they replied, of course
by agreement, each in his own language, Russian, Spanish, Swedish and
what not, so that he had to have a whole army of translators in the
office. That was how I found matters when I came into power. Budberg
(the Russian Ambassador in Berlin) sent me a note in Russian. That was
too much for me. If they wanted to have their revenge Gortschakoff
should have written in Russian to our Ambassador in St. Petersburg.
That would have been the right way. It is only fair to ask that the
representatives of foreign countries should understand and speak the
language of the State to which they are accredited. But it was unfair
to send me in Berlin a reply in Russian to a note in German. I decided
that all communications received in other languages than German,
French, English and Italian should be left unnoticed and put away
in the archives. Budberg then wrote screed after screed, always in
Russian. No answer was returned and the documents were all laid by with
the State papers. At last he came himself and asked why he had received
no reply. ‘Reply!’ I exclaimed. ‘To what?’ Why, he had written a month
ago and had afterwards sent me several reminders. ‘Ah, quite so!’ I
said. ‘There is a great pile of documents in Russian down stairs, and
yours are probably amongst them. But we have no one who understands
Russian, and I have given instructions for all documents written in
a language we do not understand to be put away in the archives.’” It
was then arranged that Budberg should write in French, and the Foreign
Office also when it suited them.
The Chief then talked about the French negotiators and said: “M.
Dürrbach introduced himself as ‘membre de l’administration du Chemin
de fer de l’Est; j’y suis beaucoup intéressé.’--If he only knew what
we intend.” (Probably the cession of the Eastern Railway.) Hatzfeldt:
“He threw up his hands in dismay when the General Staff pointed out
to him on the map the tunnels, bridges, &c., destroyed by the French
themselves. ‘I have always been against that’ he said, ‘and I pointed
out to them that a bridge could be repaired in three hours--but they
would not listen to me.’” The Chief: “Repaired after a fashion,
certainly, but not a railway bridge capable of carrying a train. They
will find it hard now to bring up provisions to Paris, particularly if
they have committed the same stupid destruction in the west. I think
they rely upon drawing supplies from Brittany and Normandy, where there
are large flocks of sheep, and from the ports. To my knowledge there
are plenty of bridges and tunnels in those parts too, and if they have
destroyed them they will find themselves in great straits. I hope,
moreover, that people in London will only send them hams and not bread!”
_Saturday, January 28th._--At 11 o’clock the French negotiators again
arrived--Favre, Dürrbach and two others, who are understood to be also
leading railway officials; and two officers, another general, and an
aide-de-camp, both men with a good presence. They take lunch with us.
Then follows a lengthy negotiation at Moltke’s lodgings. The Chief
afterwards dictates to the Secretaries Willisch and Saint Blanquart
the treaties of capitulation and armistice, which are drawn up in
duplicate. They are afterwards signed and sealed by Bismarck and Favre,
at twenty minutes past seven, in the green room next to the Minister’s
study up stairs.
The Frenchmen dined with us. The general (Valden is his name) ate
little and hardly spoke at all. Favre was also dejected and taciturn.
The aide-de-camp, M. d’Hérisson, did not appear to be so much affected,
and the railway officials, after their long privations, devoted
themselves with considerable gusto to the pleasures of the table.
According to what I can gather from the latter they have, as a matter
of fact, been on very short commons in Paris for some time past,
and the death rate last week amounted to about five thousand. The
mortality was especially heavy amongst children up to two years of
age, and coffins for these tiny French citizens were to be seen in all
directions. Delbrück declared afterwards that “Favre and the General
looked like two condemned prisoners who were going to the gallows next
morning. I pitied them.”
Keudell expects that peace will soon be concluded and that we shall
be back in Berlin within a month. Shortly before 10 o’clock a bearded
gentleman apparently about forty-five, who gave his name as Duparc,
called and was immediately conducted to the Chief, with whom he spent
about two hours. He is understood to be the former French Minister
Duvernois, coming from Wilhelmshöhe with proposals for peace. The
capitulation and armistice do not yet mean the end of the war with
France.
_Sunday, January 29th._--Our troops moved forward to occupy the forts.
In the morning read despatches respecting the London Conference,
and other subjects, as well as the treaties for the armistice and
capitulation signed yesterday. Bernstorff reported that Musurus became
very violent at one of the sittings of the Conference. He could not
conceive why the stipulation closing the Dardanelles against Russian
men-of-war should not be worded in an indirect and therefore less
offensive form for Russia, and at the same time quite as acceptable to
the Porte. From another of Bernstorff’s despatches the Chief appears
to have hinted that Napoleon should not miss the right moment. It is
also stated that Palikao, who was of the same opinion, thought it would
be dangerous to agree in the capitulation to leave the National Guard
under arms. Vinoy and Roncière, being in favour of the Emperor, would
doubtless be the right men to assume command of the troops in the city.
Our copy of the capitulation fills ten folio pages, and is stitched
together with silk in the French colours, on the end of which Favre has
impressed his seal.
We were joined at lunch by Count Henckel, who has been appointed
Prefect at Metz. He maintained that in about five years the elections
in his department would be favourable to the Government; indeed, he was
confident even now of being able to bring about that result. In Alsace,
however, the prospect was not so good, as Germans are not so docile
to authority as the French. He also mentioned that his department had
really suffered severely. At the commencement of the war it had some
thirty-two to thirty-five thousand horses, and now he believed there
were not more than five thousand left.
Before dinner I read further drafts, including a memorandum, in which
the Chief explained to the King that it was impossible to demand from
Favre, after the conclusion of the capitulation, the surrender of the
flags of the French regiments in Paris.
We were joined at dinner by Count Henckel and the French aide-de-camp
who was here yesterday. The latter, whose full name is d’Hérisson de
Saulnier, wore a black hussar uniform, with yellow shoulder straps and
embroidery on the sleeves. He is said to understand and speak German,
yet the conversation, into which the Chief entered with zest, was
for the most part carried on in French. In the absence of Favre and
the General (the former was still in the house, but as he was very
busy he had his dinner sent up to him in the small drawing-room) the
aide-de-camp was more lively and amusing than yesterday. He bore the
whole burden of the conversation for a considerable time, with a series
of droll anecdotes. The scarcity of food in the city had become of
late very painfully perceptible, but his experience would appear to
have been more with the amusing, than with the serious, side of the
question. He said that for him the most interesting period of their
fast was “while they were eating up the Jardin des Plantes.” Elephant
meat cost twenty francs per kilogramme and tasted like coarse beef, and
they had really had “filets de chameau” and “côtelettes de tigre.” A
dog flesh market was held in the Rue Saint Honoré, the price being two
francs fifty per kilo. There were hardly any more dogs to be seen in
Paris, and whenever people caught sight of one, they immediately hunted
it down. It was the same with cats. If a pigeon alighted on a roof a
view holloa was at once raised in the street. Only the carrier pigeons
were spared. The despatches were fastened in the middle of their tail
feathers, of which they ought to have nine. If one of them happened
to have only eight, they said: “ce n’est qu’un civil” and it had to
go the way of all flesh. A lady is said to have remarked: “Jamais je
ne mangerai plus de pigeon, car je croirais toujours avoir mangé un
facteur.”
In return for these and other stories the Chief related a number of
things which were not yet known in the drawing-rooms and clubs of
Paris, and which people there might be glad to hear, as for instance
the shabby behaviour of Rothschild at Ferrières, and the way in which
the Elector of Hesse transformed Rothschild’s grandfather Amschel from
a little Jew into a great one. The Chancellor repeatedly referred to
the latter as the “Juif de cour,” and afterwards gave a description of
the domesticated Jews of the Polish nobility.
On Bohlen reporting later on that he had, in accordance with
instructions, sent certain papers to “the Emperor,” the Chief observed:
“The Emperor? I envy those to whom the new title already comes so
trippingly.” Abeken returned from his Majesty’s and announced that “The
matter of the flags was settled.” The Chief: “Have you also fired off
my revolver letter?” Abeken: “Yes, Excellency, it has been discharged.”
After dinner read drafts and reports, amongst the latter a very
interesting one in which Russia advises us to leave Metz and German
Lorraine to the French, and to annex a neighbouring piece of
territory instead. According to a recent despatch from St. Petersburg
Gortschakoff has suggested that Germany might take Luxemburg and leave
the French a corresponding portion of Lorraine. The geographical
position of the Grand Duchy indicated that it should form part of
Germany, and Prince Henry, who is devotedly attached to his separate
Court, alone stood in the way. King William wrote on the margin of the
despatch that this suggestion was to be absolutely rejected. The Chief
then replied as follows: The future position of Luxemburg would, it
is true, be an unpleasant one--not for us, but rather for the Grand
Duchy itself. We must not, however, exercise any compulsion, nor take
the property of others. We must therefore adhere to the programme
communicated five months ago to St. Petersburg, especially as we have
since then made great sacrifices. The realisation of that programme
is indispensable for the security of Germany. We must have Metz. The
German people would not tolerate any alteration of the programme.
Favre did not leave till 10.15 P.M., and then not for Paris, but for
his quarters here in the Boulevard du Roi. He will come again to-morrow
at noon.
The Chief afterwards joined us at tea. In speaking of the capitulation
and the armistice, Bohlen asked: “But what if the others do not
agree--Gambetta and the Prefects in the south?” “Well, in that case
we have the forts which give us the control of the city,” replied the
Chief. “The King also could not understand that, and inquired what was
to happen if the people at Bordeaux did not ratify the arrangement.
‘Well,’ I replied, ‘then we remain in the forts and keep the Parisians
shut up, and perhaps in that case we may refuse to prolong the
armistice on the 19th of February. In the meantime they have delivered
up their arms, and they must pay the contribution. Those who have given
a material pledge under a treaty are all the worse off if they cannot
fulfil its conditions.’”
Favre had, it seems, confessed to the Chief that he had proceeded “un
peu témérairement” in the matter of the revictualling of Paris. He
really did not know whether he would be able to provide in good time
for the hundreds of thousands in the city. Somebody observed: “In case
of necessity Stosch could supply them with live stock and flour.” The
Chief: “Yes, so long as he can do so without injury to ourselves.”
Bismarck-Bohlen was of opinion that we need not give them anything; let
them see for themselves where they could get supplies, &c. The Chief:
“Well, then, you would let them starve?” Bohlen: “Certainly.” The
Chief: “But then how are we to get our contribution?”
Later on the Minister said: “Business of State, negotiations with the
enemy, do not irritate me. Their objections to my ideas and demands,
even when they are unreasonable, leave me quite cool. But the petty
grumbling and meddling of the military authorities in political
questions, and their ignorance of what is possible and not possible
in such matters! One of them comes and wants this, another one that,
and when you have got rid of the first two, a third one turns up--an
aide-de-camp or aide-de-camp general--who says: ‘But, your Excellency,
surely that is impossible,’ or ‘We must have this too in addition, else
we shall be in danger of our lives.’ And yesterday they went so far as
to insist that a condition (_i.e._, for the surrender of the flags),
which was not mentioned in the negotiations, should be introduced into
a document that was already signed. I said to them, however: ‘We have
committed many a crime in this war--but falsification of deeds! No,
gentlemen, really that cannot be done.’”
Bernstorff, it was mentioned, reports that he had informed the
Conference that from this time forward he represented the German Empire
and Emperor; and that the other members received this announcement
with approval. Thereupon the Chief remarked: “Bernstorff is after all
a man who has had business experience. How can he do such things? His
wife--what’s her name? Augusta--no, Anna--will have a fine opinion of
herself now. Imperial Ambassadress! I cannot lay much store by such
titles. A prosperous and powerful King is better than a weak Emperor,
and a rich Baron better than a poor Count.” “Such an Emperor as that
of Brazil or Mexico!” “With a salary of 800,000 florins,” interjected
Holstein. The Chief: “Well, that would be enough to get on with. They
require no firing and no winter clothes.”
Hatzfeldt mentioned that a Spanish secretary of embassy had called.
He had come from Bordeaux and wanted to enter Paris in order to bring
away his countrymen. He also had a letter from Chaudordy for Favre,
and was in great haste. What answer should be given to him? The Chief
stooped down a little over the table, then sat bolt upright again, and
said: “Attempting to carry a despatch from one member of the enemy’s
Government to another through our lines--that is a case exactly suited
for a court-martial. When he comes back you will treat the matter in
a very serious way: receive him coolly, look surprised, and say that
we must complain to the new King of Spain with regard to such a breach
of neutrality and demand satisfaction. Besides, I am astonished that
Stiehle should have let the fellow pass. These soldiers always pay too
much deference to diplomats. And even if he had been an ambassador,
Metternich for instance, he should have been turned back even if he
had to freeze and starve in consequence. Indeed, such carrier service
borders closely on spying.”
The rush of people to and out of Paris that was now to be apprehended
then came up for discussion. The Chief: “Well, the French will not let
so very many out, and we shall only let those pass who have a permit
from the authorities inside, and perhaps not all of those.”
Some one said that Rothschild, who had been supplied with a safe
conduct, wanted to come out; upon which the Chief: “It would be well to
detain him--as a franctireur, and include him amongst the prisoners of
war. (To Keudell) Just inquire into the matter. I mean it seriously.”
Bohlen exclaimed: “Then Bleichröder will come rushing over here and
prostrate himself in the name of all the Rothschild family.” The
Chief: “In that case we will send him in to join them in Paris, where
he can have his share of the dog hunting.”
Astonishment was then expressed that the _Daily Telegraph_ should
have already published a detailed epitome of the convention signed
yesterday, and in this connection Stieber, Favre’s fellow lodger, was
mentioned. The English correspondent had acknowledged, according to
Bucher, that he had received the news from Stieber, and the Minister
added: “I am convinced that Stieber opened Favre’s writing-desk with
a picklock, and then made extracts from his papers which he gave to
the Englishman.” This is scarcely probable, as Stieber’s knowledge of
French is inadequate for that purpose. He much more probably received
the news from his patron Bohlen, or perhaps from some officer who
heard it from the General Staff, who--as the Chancellor recently
remarked--“are very obliging and communicative in such matters.”
_Monday, January 30th._--Favre and other Frenchmen, including the
Chief or Prefect of the Paris police, were busily engaged with the
Chief during the afternoon, and dined with him at 5.30 P.M. The
secretaries and I were to go to the Hôtel des Reservoirs, as there was
not room enough at table. I remained at home, however, and translated
Granville’s latest peace proposals for the Emperor.
Abeken came up to me after dinner to get the translation, and was sorry
I had not been present as the conversation was specially interesting.
The Chief had told the Frenchmen, amongst other things, that to be
consistent in one’s policy was frequently a mistake, and only showed
obstinacy and narrow-mindedness. One must modify his course of action
in accordance with events, with the situation of affairs, with the
possibilities of the case, taking the relations of things into account
and serving his country as the opportunity offers and not according
to his opinions, which are often prejudices. When he first entered
into political life, as a young and inexperienced man, he had very
different views and aims to those which he had at present. He had,
however, altered and reconsidered his opinions, and had not hesitated
to sacrifice his wishes, either partially or wholly to the requirements
of the day, in order to be of service. One must not impose his own
leanings and desires upon his country. “La patrie veut être servie et
pas dominée.” This remark greatly impressed the Parisian gentlemen, of
course principally because of its striking form. Favre replied: “C’est
bien juste, Monsieur le Comte, c’est profond.” Another of the Frenchmen
also declared enthusiastically: “Oui, Messieurs, c’est un mot profond.”
Bucher, when I went down to tea, confirmed the above particulars,
and related that Favre after praising the truth and profundity of
the Chief’s remark--which, of course, was made for the edification
of the Parisians, just as in general his table talk is intended for
the benefit of his guests--must needs add the following _bêtise_:
“Néanmoins c’est un beau spectacle de voir un homme, qui n’a jamais
changé ses principes.” The railway director, who appeared to Bucher
to be more intelligent than Favre, added, in reference to the “servie
et pas dominée,” that that amounted to men of genius subordinating
themselves to the will and opinions of the majority, and that
majorities were always deficient in intelligence, knowledge, and
character. The Chief made a lofty reply to this objection, stating that
with him (_i.e._, with the man of genius, the hero) the consciousness
of his responsibility before God was one of his guiding stars. He
opposed to the _droit du génie_, to which his interlocutor had given
such a high place, the sense of duty (doubtless meaning what Kant
describes as the categorical imperative), which he maintained to be
nobler and more powerful.
A little after 11 o’clock the Chancellor joined us at tea. “I am really
curious,” he said, “to see what Gambetta will do. It looks as if he
wanted to think over the matter further, as he has not yet replied. I
think, too, he will ultimately give way. Besides, if not it will be
all right. I should have no objection to a little ‘Main line’ across
France. These Frenchmen are really very funny people. Favre comes to
me with a face like a martyred saint, and looks as if he had some
most important communication to make. So I say to him, ‘Shall we go
up stairs?’ ‘Yes,’ he says, ‘let us do so.’ But when we are there he
sits down and writes letter after letter, and I wait in vain for any
important statement or piece of news from him. As a matter of fact, he
had nothing to say. What he has done for us would go into two pages
of note-paper.” “And this Prefect of Police! I have never in my whole
life met such an unpractical man. We are expected to advise and help
them in everything. In the course of half an hour he fires all sorts
of requests into me, so that at last I nearly lost patience, and said
to him, ‘But, my good sir, would it not be better to let me have all
this in writing? Otherwise it cannot be properly attended to, for it is
impossible for me to carry it all in my head.’ Thousands of things pass
through one’s mind, and when I think seriously of one matter I lose
sight of all others.”
The conversation then turned on the difficulty of supplying the
Parisians with provisions. Several railways were useless, at least
for the time being; to allow supplies to be drawn from those parts
of France immediately adjoining the districts we occupy might result
in scarcity and embarrassment to ourselves; and the port of Dieppe,
where they count upon receiving consignments from abroad, could only
hold a few vessels. The Chief reckoned out how many rations would be
required daily, and how much could be transported in moderately normal
circumstances. He found that the supply would be a very scanty one, and
that possibly large numbers might still have to starve. He then added:
“Favre himself said to me that they had held out too long. That was,
however, as he confessed, merely because they knew we had provisions
stored for them at Lagny. They had exact particulars on that point. At
one time we had collected for them there 1,400 loaded waggons.”
The levying of taxes and contributions was then discussed, and the
Chief explained to Maltzahn the arrangements he wished to see made.
Instead of scattering our forces they should in general be massed in
the chief town of the department or arrondissement, and from these
centres flying columns should be despatched against those who refused
to pay taxes, as well as against the guerillas and their aiders and
abettors.
With regard to the ten million francs contribution imposed upon the
district of Fontenay for the destruction of the railway bridges,
Henckel declared, as an expert, that that was an impossible
demand--they could not squeeze even two millions out of the people.
“Probably not one million,” remarked the Chief. “But that is our way of
doing things. All sorts of terrible threats are constantly uttered, and
then afterwards they cannot be carried out. The people end by seeing
through that sort of thing, and get accustomed to the threats.”
Then followed a highly interesting and detailed review of the various
phases in the development of the scheme for the accession of the South
German states to the Northern Confederation. “While we were still in
Mainz,” related the Chancellor, “the King of Bavaria wrote a letter to
our most gracious master in which he expressed a hope that he would not
be mediatised. As a matter of course, his mind was set at ease on that
point. But the King did not want the answer to be quite so categorical.
That was the first conflict between the King and myself during the war.
I told him that King Lewis would probably in that case withdraw his
troops, and that he would be within his right in doing so. I remember
it was in the corner room. It was a hard struggle, and finally he left
me still in doubt as to what he was going to do. After the first great
victories and before Sedan, there was another idea, namely, that of
a military revolution and a military Emperor of Germany, who should
be proclaimed by the troops, including the Bavarians. That idea was
not to my liking. Subsequently, when Bray came here, they had thought
out a plan of their own in Munich. They felt themselves to be safe,
and wished for something more. Bray brought with him the plan of
the alternating imperial dignity. As Bray said to me, an agreement
could be come to between the North German Confederation and Bavaria
or between Germany and Bavaria. In the meantime we might very well
conclude treaties with Baden and Würtemberg, and afterwards come to an
understanding with Bavaria. I was quite satisfied with that. But when
I told it to Delbrück, he looked as if he were going to faint. I said
to him, ‘For Heaven’s sake, why not accept it? It is exactly what we
want.’ And so it was too. For when I informed Suckow and Mittnacht,
they were beside themselves with rage, and immediately came to terms
with me. Later on, however, the King (of Würtemberg) was induced to
strike out again in a new line. It was through Frau von Gasser, who had
great influence at the Court in Stuttgart. He wanted to act once more
with Bavaria. The Ministers, however, remained firm, and assured me
they would rather resign, and thus it came about that the Treaty with
Würtemberg was not concluded until afterwards in Berlin. Finally, after
all sorts of difficulties on both sides, the arrangement with Bavaria
was also settled. Now there was only one thing wanting--but that was
the most important of all! I saw a way, and wrote a letter--and after
that the credit belongs to a Bavarian Court official. He achieved an
almost impossible feat. In six days he made the journey there and
back, eighteen German miles, without a railway, to the palace in the
mountains where the King was staying--and in addition to that his
wife was ill at the time. It was really a great deal for him to do.
He arrives at the palace, finds the King unwell--suffering from a
tumour in the gum, or from the after effects of an operation under
chloroform. He is not to be seen. Well, but he had a letter from me to
deliver--very pressing. In vain; the King will not be disturbed; he
will do no business to-day. At last his Majesty’s curiosity is aroused,
and he wants to know what I have to communicate to him--and the letter
is well received. But there is no ink, no paper, no writing materials.
They send off a groom, who ultimately comes back with some coarse
letter paper; the King writes his answer, just as he is, in bed--and
the German Empire is made!”
Jacoby’s arrest having been mentioned, the Chief observed: “Otherwise,
Falkenstein acted quite sensibly, but thanks to that measure of his and
to his refusal to release Jacoby when I requested him to do so, we were
unable to convoke the Diet for a whole month. As far as I am concerned,
he might have had Jacoby carved up for himself into rhinoceros cutlets,
but he ought not to have locked him up! All he had to show for his
pains was the possession of a dried up old Jew. The King, too, would
not at first listen to my representations. We were accordingly obliged
to wait, as the Diet would have been within its right in demanding his
liberation.”
Jacoby’s name brought up that of another congenial mind, viz., Waldeck
(the Radical leader in the Prussian Diet), of whom the Chief gave the
following description: “Something like Favre, always consistent, his
views and decisions cut and dried in advance, and, in addition to that,
a stately presence and a venerable white beard, fine speeches delivered
with the earnestness of deep-toned conviction, even on trifling
matters, that is so impressive! He makes a speech in a voice throbbing
with devotion to principle in order to prove to you that this spoon is
in the glass, and he proclaims that any one who refuses to accept that
statement is a scoundrel! And all the world believes him, and praises
him for his staunchness in every key from treble to bass.”
_Tuesday, January 31st._--The King of Sweden has delivered a bellicose
speech from the throne. Why, ye gods? I write two paragraphs under
instructions from the Chief, and then a third, which calls attention to
the sufferings during the bombardment of a number of inoffensive German
families who, for various reasons, remained behind in Paris after the
expulsion of their fellow countrymen, and commend Washburne, the
United States Minister, for the efforts he made to alleviate the lot
of these unfortunate people. In this respect he has really acted in a
manner that deserves our warmest thanks, and has been loyally assisted
by his subordinates.
The Parisian gentlemen are again here, including Favre, who has sent
a telegram to Gambetta urgently requesting him to yield. It is to be
feared he will not do so. At least the Prefect of Marseilles is showing
his teeth and snarling at poor Favre with the patriotic declaration:
“Je n’obéis plus le capitule de Bismarck. Je ne le connais plus.” Proud
and staunch--but danger is best at a distance.
At tea I hear from Bucher that the Chief has been speaking very
strongly about Garibaldi, that old dreamer, whom Favre declares to be
a hero.
Subsequently Duparc had an interview with the Minister. Shortly after
ten the Chief joined us at tea. He first spoke of the unpractical
character of the Frenchmen who have been working with him during
the past few days. Two Ministers, Favre and Magnin, the Minister of
Finance who has accompanied him this time, spent half an hour to-day
worrying over one telegram. This led him to speak of the French in
general and of the entire Latin race, and to compare them with the
Germanic peoples. “The Germans, the Germanic race,” he said, “is,
so to speak, the male principle throughout Europe--the fructifying
principle. The Celtic and Slav peoples represent the female sex. That
principle extends as far as the North Sea and then across to England.”
I ventured to add: “And also as far as America and the Western States
of the Union, where some of our people form the best part of the
population and influence the manners of the rest.” “Yes,” he replied,
“those are their children, the fruit they bear.” “But that was to
be seen in France while the Franks had still the upper hand. The
Revolution of 1789 was the overthrow of the Germanic element by the
Celtic. And what have we seen since then? And this held good in Spain
so long as the Gothic blood predominated. And also in Italy, where in
the North the Germans also played a leading part. When that element
had exhausted itself, there was nothing decent left. It was much the
same thing in Russia, where the Germanic Waräger, the Ruriks, first
bound them together. As soon as the natives there prevail over the
German immigrants and the Germans of the Baltic Provinces, they fall
asunder into mere communes.” “It is true that the unmixed Germans are
not of much account either. In the south and west where they were
left to themselves, there were only Knights of the Empire, Imperial
Towns, and Immediate Villages of the Empire, each for itself, and all
tumbling to pieces. The Germans are all right when they are forced to
unite--excellent, irresistible, invincible--otherwise each one will
act according to his own ideas.” “Really, after all, an intelligent
absolutism is the best form of government. Without a certain amount
of it everything falls asunder. One wishes this thing and another
that, there is eternal vacillation, eternal delays.” “But we have no
longer any genuine absolutists--that is to say, no kings. They have
disappeared. The variety has died out.” “A Republic is perhaps after
all the right form of government, and it will doubtless come in the
future; but I dislike our Republicans. Formerly things were different,
when princes still appeared in brocaded coats and covered with stars.
They are declining everywhere, and that decline will be much greater in
future. One sees that in the younger generation. It is the case with
us also. No more _rocher de bronce._ They no longer want to govern,
and are glad when some one relieves them of the trouble. All they
care for is to be praised in the newspapers, and to get as much money
as possible for their personal requirements. The only one who still
conducts his business properly is the old King of Saxony.” “And when
they sit at the _table d’hôte_ in the Hôtel des Reservoirs, here near
the Palace of Louis XIV., and every one sees that they are ordinary
human beings--and how ordinary!--why, the halo is quite lost. And then
one fine morning three Grand Dukes pay their respects to me, and find
me in my dressing gown!”
I ventured to relate that as a little child I pictured to myself the
King of Saxony, who was the only monarch I knew of at that time, as
resembling the king in the pack of cards--clad in ermine, and wearing
a crown with orb and sceptre, stiff, gorgeous, and imperturbable:
and that it was a fearful disappointment for me when my nurse once
pointed out to me a gentleman in the passage between the palace and
the Catholic church in Dresden, and told me that that little, crooked,
frail, old man, whose uniform became him so badly, was King Anton. The
Chief said:--“Our peasants also had very curious conceptions, and the
following story was current amongst them. It was to the effect that on
one occasion, when a number of us young people were gathered together
in some public place, we said something against the King, who happened
to be close to us, but was unknown to us. He suddenly stood up,
opened his mantle and showed the star on his breast. The others were
terrified, but it did not affect me, and I pitched him down the stairs.
I received ten years imprisonment for it and was not allowed to shave
myself. As I wore a beard at that time, a habit which I had acquired
in France (1842) where it was then the fashion, it was said that the
executioner came once every year on St. Sylvester’s night to shave it
off. Those who told this story were rich peasants and otherwise not at
all stupid, and they repeated it, not because they had anything against
me but quite in a friendly way, and full of sympathy for a young man’s
rashness. The pitching down stairs was rather a coarse invention, but
I was pleased all the same that it was only to me they gave credit for
not being intimidated by the star.”
I thereupon asked the Chief if there was any truth in the story of the
beer glass he was said to have broken on some one’s head in a Berlin
restaurant because he had insulted the Queen or refused to drink her
health. “It was quite different,” he replied, “and had no political
significance whatever. As I was going home late one evening--it must
have been in the year 1847--I met some one who tried to pick a quarrel
with me. As I pulled him up on account of his language, I discovered
that he was an old acquaintance. We had not seen each other for a
long time, and on his proposing to me, ‘Come, let’s go to ----’ (he
mentioned a name), I went with him, although I really had had enough
already. But after getting our beer he fell asleep. Now there were a
lot of people sitting near us, one of whom had also taken more than he
could carry, and who was attracting attention by his noisy behaviour.
I quietly drank my beer, and this man got angry at my being so quiet
and began to taunt me. I took no notice, and that made him only the
more angry and his language grew more and more violent. I did not want
to have any quarrel, nor did I like to go away, as people would have
thought I was afraid. At last, however, he came over to my table and
threatened to throw the beer in my face. That was too much for me. I
stood up and told him to go away, and as he made a motion to throw
the beer at me, I gave him a blow under the chin, so that he fell
backwards, breaking the chair and the glass, and rolled across the
room right on to the wall. The landlady then came and I told her she
need not worry, as I would pay for the chair and the beer glass. I
said to the others: ‘You are witnesses, gentlemen, that I did not seek
a quarrel, and that I endured it as long as possible. But I cannot
be expected to allow a glass of beer to be poured on my head simply
because I was quietly drinking my glass. If the gentleman has lost a
tooth in consequence I shall be sorry. But I was obliged to defend
myself. Besides, if anybody wishes to know more, here is my card.’ It
turned out that they were quite sensible people and took my view of the
case. They were annoyed with their comrade and acknowledged that I was
in the right. I afterwards met two of them at the Brandenburg Gate. I
said: ‘I think, gentlemen; you were present when I had that affair in
the beer house in the Jägerstrasse. What has happened to my adversary?
I should be sorry if he had been hurt.’ I must explain to you that
he had to be carried away on that occasion. ‘Oh,’ they replied; ‘he
is all right, and his teeth are quite sound again. He is altogether
subdued, and extremely sorry for what he did. He had just entered the
army to serve his year, as he is a doctor, and it would have been very
unpleasant for him if people had heard of the affair, and especially
if it had come to the knowledge of his superiors.’”
The Chief then related that when he was attending the University at
Göttingen he fought twenty-eight students’ duels in three terms,
and was always lucky enough to escape with a whole skin. Once his
opponent’s blade flew off, probably because it was badly screwed in,
and caught him in the face, where it remained sticking. Otherwise he
had never received a scar. “I had one very narrow escape, though, at
Greifswald. There they had introduced an extraordinary head-dress, a
white felt, sugar-loaf hat, and I took it into my head that I must snip
off the top of the sugar-loaf, and thus I exposed myself so that his
blade whizzed by close to my face. I bent back, however, in good time.”
_Wednesday, February 1st._--It was stated at lunch that Gambetta
had approved of the armistice, but expressed surprise that we still
continued to attack the French in the south-east. Favre, with his
unbusinesslike habits, had omitted to telegraph to him that operations
were not suspended there. This, by the way, was at his own request.
There were no guests at lunch. The Minister, speaking about Favre,
said: “I believe he came here to-day merely in consequence of our
conversation of yesterday, when I would not acknowledge that Garibaldi
was a hero. He was evidently anxious about him, because I would not
include him in the armistice. He pointed to the first article like a
thorough lawyer. I said: ‘Yes, that was the rule, but the exceptions
followed, and Garibaldi comes under them.’ I quite understood that a
Frenchman should bear arms against us--he defended his country, and
had a right to do so; but I could not recognise the right of this
foreign adventurer with his cosmopolitan Republic and his band of
revolutionaries from every corner of the earth. He asked me then what
we should do with Garibaldi in case we took him prisoner. ‘Oh,’ I said,
‘we will exhibit him for money, and hang a placard round his neck
bearing the word “Ingratitude.”’”
The Chief then asked: “But where is Scheidtmann?” Somebody told him.
“He will have, I think, to give me legal advice in the matter” (viz.,
the war contribution of two hundred millions to be paid by Paris).
“Is he not a lawyer?” Bucher said no, he had not studied at all, was
originally a tradesman, &c. The Chief: “Well, then, Bleichröder must
first go into action. He must go into Paris immediately, smell and be
smelt at by his brethren in the faith, and discuss with the bankers
how it is to be done. Surely he is coming?” Keudell: “Yes, in a few
days.” The Chief: “Please telegraph him at once, that we want him
immediately--then it will be Scheidtmann’s turn. I suppose he can
speak French?” No one could say. “I am disposed to select Henckel as
the third string. He is well acquainted with Paris, and knows the
financiers. A member of the _haute finance_ once said to me: ‘On the
Stock Exchange we always lay our money on lucky players,’ and if we are
to follow that rule Count Henckel is our man.”
_À propos_ of German unity, the Minister told us that thirty years ago,
at Göttingen, he had made a bet with an American as to whether Germany
would be united within twenty-five years. “The winner was to provide
twenty-five bottles of champagne, and the loser was to cross the ocean
to drink them. The American wagered against union, and I in favour. The
interesting point is that, as far back as 1833, I must have had the
idea which has now, with God’s help, been realised, although at that
time I was opposed to all those who professed to desire such a change.”
Finally, the Chief declared his belief in the influence of the moon on
the growth of the hair and of plants. This subject came up through his
jocularly congratulating Abeken on the style in which his locks had
been trimmed. “You look twice as young, Herr Geheimrath,” he said. “If
I were only your wife! You have had it cut exactly at the right time,
under a crescent moon. It is just the same as with trees. When they are
intended to shoot again they are felled when the moon is in the first
quarter, but when they are to be rooted up then it is done in the last
quarter, as in that case the stump decays sooner. There are people who
will not believe it, learned men, but the State itself acts on this
belief, although it will not openly confess to it. No woodman will
think of felling a birch tree which is intended to throw out shoots
when the moon is waning.”
After dinner I read a number of documents relating to the armistice and
the revictualling of Paris, including several letters in Favre’s own
hand, which is neat and legible. One of the letters states that Paris
has only flour enough to last up to the 4th of February, and after that
nothing but horseflesh. Moltke is requested by the Chief not to treat
Garibaldi on the same footing as the French, and in any case to demand
that he and his followers shall lay down their arms--the Minister
desires this to be done on political grounds. Instructions have been
sent to Alsace that the elections for the Assembly at Bordeaux, which
is to decide as to the continuance of the war, or peace, and eventually
as to the conditions on which the latter is to be concluded, are not to
be hindered, but rather ignored. The elections are to be conducted by
the Maires and not by the Prefects in the districts we occupy.
_Thursday, February 2nd._--We were joined at dinner by Odo Russell,
and a tall stout young gentleman in a dark blue uniform, who, I was
told, was Count Bray, a son of the Minister, and formerly attached
to the Bavarian Embassy in Berlin. The Chief said to Russell: “The
English newspapers and also some German ones have censured my letter
to Favre and consider it too sharply worded. He himself, however, does
not appear to be of that opinion. He said of his own accord: ‘You were
right in reminding me of my duty. I ought not to leave before this is
finished.’ The Minister praised this self-abnegation. He then repeated
that our Parisians were unpractical people and that we had constantly
to counsel and assist them. He added that they now wished apparently to
ask for alterations in the Convention of the 28th of January. Outside
Paris little disposition was shown to help in reprovisioning the city.
The directors of the Rouen-Dieppe railway, for instance, upon whom
they had relied for assistance, declared there was not enough rolling
stock, as the locomotives had been taken to pieces and sent to England.
Gambetta’s attitude was still doubtful, and he seemed to contemplate a
continuation of the war. It was necessary that France should soon have
a proper Government.” “If one is not speedily established I shall give
them a sovereign. Everything is already prepared. Amadeus arrived in
Madrid with a travelling bag in his hand as King of Spain, and he seems
to get on all right. My sovereign will come immediately with a retinue,
Ministers, cooks, chamberlains, and an army.”
With regard to Napoleon’s fortune, very different opinions were
expressed. Some said it was large, others that it was inconsiderable.
Russell doubted if he had much. He thought the Empress at least could
not have much, as she had only deposited £6,000 in the Bank of England.
The Chancellor then related that on the way to Saint Cloud to-day he
met many people removing their furniture and bedding. Probably they
were inhabitants of neighbouring villages, who had nevertheless been
unable to leave Paris. “The women looked quite friendly,” he said,
“but on catching sight of the uniforms the men began to scowl and
struck heroic attitudes. That reminds me that in the old Neapolitan
army they had a word of command, when we say, ‘Prepare to charge,
right!’ the command was ‘Faccia feroce!’ (Look ferocious!). A fine
presence, a pompous style of speech, and a theatrical attitude are
everything with the French. So long as it sounds right and looks well
the substance is a matter of indifference. It reminds me of a citizen
of Potsdam who once told me he had been deeply impressed by a speech of
Radowitz’s. I asked him to show me the passage that had particularly
stirred his feelings. He could not mention one. I then took the speech
itself and read it through to him in order to discover its beauties,
but it turned out that there was nothing in it either pathetic or
sublime. As a matter of fact it was merely the air and attitude of
Radowitz, who looked as if he were speaking of something most profound
and significant and thrillingly impressive,--the thoughtful mien,
the contemplative eye, and the sonorous and weighty voice. It was
much the same with Waldeck, although he was not nearly such a clever
man nor so distinguished looking. In his case it was more the white
beard and the staunch convictions. The gift of eloquence has greatly
spoilt Parliamentary life. A great deal of time is consumed as every
one who thinks he has anything in him wants to speak, even when he
has nothing new to say. There are far too many speeches that simply
float in the air and pass out through the windows, and too few that
go straight to the point. The parties have already settled everything
beforehand, and the set speeches are merely intended for the public,
to show what members can do, and more especially for the newspapers
that are expected to praise them. It will come to this in the end, that
eloquence will be regarded as dangerous to the public welfare, and that
people will be punished for making long speeches. We have one body,”
he continued, “that is not in the least eloquent, and has nevertheless
done more for the German cause than any other, that is the Federal
Council. I remember, indeed, that at first some attempts were made in
that direction. I cut them short, however, though as a matter of fact I
had no right to do so, albeit I was President. I addressed them much as
follows: ‘Gentlemen, eloquence and speeches intended to affect people’s
convictions are of no use here, as every one brings his own convictions
with him in his pocket--that is to say, his instructions. It is merely
waste of time. I think we had better restrict ourselves to statements
of fact.’ And so we did. No one made a big speech after that, business
was speedily transacted, and the Federal Council has really done a
great deal of good.”
_Friday, February 3rd._--In addition to a violently warlike
proclamation, Gambetta has issued a decree declaring a number of
persons ineligible for the new Representative Assembly. “Justice
demands that all those who have been accessory to the acts of the
Government which began with the outrage of the 2nd of December, and
ended with the capitulation of Sedan, should now be reduced to the
same political impotence as the dynasty whose accomplices and tools
they were. That is a necessary consequence of the responsibility which
they assumed in carrying out the Emperor’s measures. These include
all persons who have occupied the positions of Minister, Senator,
Councillor of State, or Prefect from the 2nd of December, 1851, to the
4th of September, 1870. Furthermore, all persons who, in the elections
to the legislative bodies during the period from the 2nd of December,
1851, to the 4th of September, 1870, have been put forward in any way
as Government candidates, as well as the members of those families that
have reigned in France since 1789, are ineligible for election.”
The Chief instructs me to telegraph to London and Cologne with respect
to this decree, that the Government at Bordeaux has declared whole
classes of the population--Ministers, Senators, Councillors of State,
and all who have formerly been official candidates--as ineligible for
election. The apprehension expressed by Count Bismarck during the
negotiations for the Convention of the 28th of January, that freedom of
suffrage could not be secured, has thus been confirmed. In consequence
of that apprehension the Chancellor of the Confederation at that time
proposed the convocation of the Corps Législatif, but Favre would not
agree to it. The Chancellor has now protested in a Note against the
exclusion of these classes. Only an Assembly that has been freely
elected, as provided by the Convention, will be recognised by Germany
as representing France.
Count Herbert Bismarck arrived this evening from Germany.
_Saturday, February 4th._--The Chief has protested against Gambetta’s
decree in a telegram to Gambetta himself and in a note to Favre.
The telegram runs: “In the name of the freedom guaranteed by the
Armistice Convention, I protest against the decree issued in your
name which robs numerous classes of French citizens of the right to
be elected to the Assembly. The rights guaranteed by that Convention
to the freely elected representatives of the country cannot be
acquired through elections conducted under an oppressive and arbitrary
rule.” The despatch to Favre after giving an epitome of Gambetta’s
decree, goes on to say: “I have the honour to ask your Excellency
if you consider this to be in harmony with the stipulation of the
Convention that the Assembly is to be freely elected? Allow me to
recall to your Excellency’s memory the negotiations which preceded the
arrangement of the 28th of January. Already at that time I expressed
the apprehension that in presence of the conditions then prevailing
it would be difficult to secure the entire freedom of the elections,
and to prevent attempts being made to restrict it. In consequence of
that apprehension, the justice of which M. Gambetta’s circular of
to-day seems to confirm, I raised the question whether it would not be
better to convoke the Corps Législatif, which would constitute a legal
authority returned by universal suffrage. Your Excellency declined to
adopt that suggestion and expressly promised that no pressure should
be exercised upon the electors, and that perfect freedom of voting
should be secured. I appeal to your Excellency’s sense of rectitude in
requesting you to say whether the exclusion of whole categories laid
down as a matter of principle in the decree in question is in harmony
with the freedom of election guaranteed in the Convention of the 28th
of January? I believe I may confidently express the hope that the
decree in question, the application of which would appear to be an
infraction of the stipulations of that Convention, will be immediately
withdrawn and that the Government of National Defence will take the
necessary measures to ensure the freedom of election guaranteed by
Article II. We could not grant to persons elected in pursuance of the
Bordeaux decree the rights secured by the Armistice to the members of
the Assembly.”
After 10 o’clock I was called to the Chief, who said: “They complain
in Berlin that the English papers are much better informed than ours,
and that we have communicated so little to our journals respecting the
negotiations for the armistice. How has that come about?” I replied:
“The fact is, Excellency, that the English have more money and go
everywhere to get information. Besides, they stand well with certain
august personages who know everything, and finally the military
authorities are not always very reserved with regard to matters that
ought, for the time being, to be kept secret. I, of course, can
only make public what it is proper that the public should know.”
“Well, then,” he said, “just write and explain how it is that the
extraordinary state of affairs here is to blame, and not we.”
I then took the opportunity of congratulating him on the freedom of the
city of Leipzig, which has been conferred upon him within the last few
days, and I added that it was a good city, the best in Saxony, and one
for which I had always had a great regard. “Yes,” he replied. “Now I
am a Saxon, too, and a Hamburger, for they have also presented me with
the freedom of Hamburg. One would hardly have expected that from them
in 1866.”
As I was leaving he said: “That reminds me--it is also one of
the wonders of our time--please write an article showing up the
extraordinary action of Gambetta, who after posing so long as the
champion of liberty and denouncing the Government for influencing the
elections, is now laying violent hands on the freedom of suffrage. He
wants to disqualify all those who differ from him, _i.e._, the whole
official world of France with the exception of thirteen Republicans.
It is certainly very odd that I should have to defend such a principle
against Gambetta and his associate and ally Garibaldi.” I said: “I do
not know whether it was intended, but in your despatch to Gambetta the
contrast is very striking where you protest, _au nom de la liberté
des élections_ against _les dispositions en votre nom pour priver des
catégories nombreuses du droit d’être élues_.” “Yes,” he replied,
“you might also mention that Thiers, after his negotiations with me,
described me as an amiable barbarian--_un barbare aimable_. Now they
call me in Paris a crafty barbarian--_un barbare astutieux_, and
perhaps to-morrow I shall be _un barbare constitutionnel_.”
The Chief had more time and interest for the newspapers this morning
than during the past few days. I was called to him six times before
midday. On one occasion he handed me a lying French pamphlet, “_La
Guerre comme la font les Prussiens_,” and observed: “Please write to
Berlin that they should put together something of this description
from our point of view, quoting all the cruelties, barbarities, and
breaches of the Geneva Convention committed by the French. Not too much
however, or no one will read it, and it must be done speedily.” Later
on the Minister handed me a small journal published by a certain Armand
le Chevalier at 61 Rue Richelieu, with a woodcut of the Chancellor of
the Confederation as frontispiece. The Chief said: “Look at this.
Here is a man who refers to the attempt by Blind, and recommends that
I should be murdered, and at the same time gives my portrait--like the
photographs carried by the franctireurs. You know that in the forests
of the Ardennes the portraits of our rangers were found in the pockets
of the franctireurs who were to shoot them. Luckily it cannot be said
that this is a particularly good likeness of me--and the biography is
no better.” Then reading over a passage and handing me the paper, he
said: “This portion should be made use of in the press, and afterwards
be introduced in the pamphlet.”
Finally he gave me some more French newspapers saying: “Look through
these and see if there is anything in them for me or for the King.
I must manage to get away or I shall be caught by our Paris friends
again.”
Prince Putbus and Count Lehndorff joined us at dinner. The Chief
related how he had called Favre’s attention to the singular
circumstance that he, Count von Bismarck, who had been denounced as
a tyrant and a despot, had to protest in the name of liberty against
Gambetta’s proclamation. Favre agreed, with a “_Oui, c’est bien
drôle._” The restriction on the freedom of election decreed by Gambetta
has, however, now been withdrawn by the Paris section of the French
Government. “He announced that to me this morning in writing, and he
had previously given me a verbal assurance.”
It was then mentioned that several German newspapers were dissatisfied
with the capitulation, as they expected our troops to march into Paris
at once. “That comes,” said the Chief, “of a complete misapprehension
of the situation here and in Paris. I could have managed Favre, but
the population! They have strong barricades and 300,000 men of whom
certainly 100,000 would have fought. Blood enough has been shed in this
war--enough German blood. Had we appealed to force much more would
have been spilt--in the excited condition of the people. And merely to
inflict one additional humiliation upon them--that would have been too
dearly bought.” After reflecting for a moment, he continued: “And who
told them that we shall not still enter Paris and occupy a portion of
it? Or at least march through, when they have cooled down and come to
reason. The armistice will probably be prolonged, and then, in return
for our readiness to make concessions, we can demand the occupation of
the city on the right bank of the river. I think we shall be there in
about three weeks.” “The 24th”--he reflected for a moment--“yes, it was
on the 24th that the Constitution of the North German Confederation
was made public. It was also on the 24th of February, 1859, that we
had to submit to certain particularly mean treatment. I told them that
it would have to be expiated. _Exoriare aliquis._ I am only sorry that
the Würtemberg Minister to the Bundestag, old Reinhard, has not lived
to see it. Prokesch has though, and I am glad of that, because he was
the worst. According to a despatch from Constantinople, which I read
this morning, Prokesch is now quite in agreement with us, praises the
energies and intelligence of Prussia’s policy, and (here the Minister
smiled scornfully) has always, or at least for a long time past,
recommended co-operation with us.”
The Chief had been to Mont Valérien to-day. “I was never there before,”
he said, “and when one sees the strong works and the numerous
contrivances for defence--we should have terrible losses in storming
it. One dares not even think of it.”
The Minister said one of the objects of Favre’s visit to-day was to
request that the masses of country people who had fled to Paris in
September should be allowed to leave. They were mostly inhabitants of
the environs and there must be nearly 300,000 of them, “I declined
permission,” he continued, “explaining to him that our soldiers now
occupied their houses. If the owners came out and saw how their
property had been wrecked and ruined they would be furious, and no
blame to them, and they would upbraid our people and then there might
be dangerous brawls and perhaps something still worse.” The Chancellor
had also been to St. Cloud, and whilst he was looking at the burnt
palace and recalling to mind the condition of the room in which he had
dined with Napoleon, there was a well-dressed Frenchman there--probably
from Paris--who was being shown round by a man in a blouse. “I could
catch every word they said, as they spoke aloud, and I have sharp ears.
‘C’est l’œuvre de Bismarck,’ said the man in the blouse, but the other
merely replied ‘C’est la guerre.’ If they had only known that I was
listening to them!”
Count Bismarck-Bohlen mentioned that the Landwehr, somewhere in this
neighbourhood, gave a refractory Frenchman, who tried to stab an
officer with a penknife, seventy-five blows with the flat of the sword.
“Seventy-five!” said the Chief. “H’m, that, after all, is somewhat
too much.” Somebody related a similar instance that had occurred in
the neighbourhood of Meaux. As Count Herbert was passing recently, a
miller, who had abused Count Bismarck and said he wished he had him
between two millstones, was laid flat by the soldiers and so fearfully
beaten that he was not able to stir for a couple of hours.
The election addresses posted on the walls by the candidates for the
National Assembly were then discussed, and it was observed that, in
general, they were still very aggressive, and promised to achieve
wonders at Bordeaux. “Yes,” said the Chief; “I quite believe that.
Favre also tried once or twice to ride the high horse. But it did not
last long. I always brought him down with a jesting remark.”
Some one referred to the speech made by Klaczko on the 30th of January
in the Delegation of the Reichsrath against Austria’s co-operation
with Prussia, and to Giskra’s revelation in the morning edition of the
_National Zeitung_ of the 2nd of February. Giskra said that Bismarck
wished to send him from Brünn to Vienna with proposals for peace. These
were, in effect: Apart from the maintenance in Venetia of the _status
quo_ before the war, the Main line was to be recognised as the limit
of Prussian ascendancy, there was to be no war indemnity, but French
mediation was to be excluded. Giskra sent Baron Herring to Vienna with
these proposals. The latter was, however, coolly received by Moritz
Esterhazy, and after waiting for sixteen hours obtained only an evasive
answer. On proceeding to Nikolsburg, Herring found Benedetti already
there, and was told: “You come too late.” As Giskra points out, the
French mediation accordingly cost Austria a war indemnity of thirty
millions. It was observed that Prussia could have extorted more from
Austria at that time, and also a cession of territory, for instance,
Austrian Silesia, and perhaps Bohemia. The Chief replied: “Possibly,
as for money, what more could the poor devils give? Bohemia would
have been something and there were people who entertained the thought.
But we should have created difficulties for ourselves in that way,
and Austrian Silesia was not of much value to us; for just there the
devotion to the Imperial house and the Austrian connection was greater
than elsewhere. In such cases one must ask for what one really wants
and not what one might be able to get.”
In this connection he related that on one occasion, as he was walking
about in mufti at Nikolsburg, he met two policemen who wished to arrest
a man. “I asked what he had done, but of course as a civilian I got no
answer. I then inquired of the man himself, who told me that it was
because he had spoken disrespectfully of Count Bismarck. They nearly
took me along with him because I said that doubtless many others had
done the same.”
“That reminds me that I was once obliged to join in a cheer for myself.
It was in 1866, in the evening, after the entry of the troops. I was
unwell just then, and my wife did not wish to let me go out. I went,
however--on the sly--and as I was about to cross the street again
near the palace of Prince Charles, there was a great crowd of people
collected there, who desired to give me an ovation. I was in plain
clothes, and with my broad brimmed hat pulled down over my eyes, I
perhaps looked like a suspicious character--I don’t know why. As some
of them seemed inclined to be unpleasant, I thought the best thing to
do was to join in their hurrah.”
From 8 P.M. on read drafts and despatches, including Favre’s answer to
the Chief in the matter of Gambetta’s electioneering manœuvre. It runs
as follows:--
“You are right in appealing to my sense of rectitude. You shall never
find it fail me in my dealings with you. It is perfectly true that your
Excellency strongly urged upon me as the sole way out of the difficulty
to convoke the former legislative bodies. I declined to adopt that
course for various reasons which it is needless to recall, but which
you will doubtless not have forgotten. In reply to your Excellency’s
objections, I said I was convinced that my country only desired the
free exercise of the suffrage, and that its sole resource lay in the
popular sovereignty. That will make it clear to you that I cannot agree
to the restrictions that have been imposed upon the franchise. I have
not opposed the system of official candidatures in order to revive it
now for the benefit of the present Government. Your Excellency may
therefore rest assured that if the decree mentioned in your letter to
me has been issued by the Delegation at Bordeaux, it will be withdrawn
by the Government of National Defence. For this purpose I only require
to obtain official evidence of the existence of the decree in question.
This will be done by means of a telegram to be despatched to-day. There
are, therefore, no differences of opinion between us, and we must
both continue to co-operate in resolutely carrying into execution the
Convention which we have signed.”
Called to the Chief at 9 P.M. He wants to have an article written
pointing out that the entry of our troops into Paris is at present
impracticable, but may be possible later on. This is in answer in the
_National Zeitung_ to an article criticising the terms of armistice.
With regard to an article in the _Cologne Volkszeitung_ showing that
the Ultramontanes have offered a subsidy to the leaders of the General
Association of German Workers on condition that they promote the
election of clerical candidates, the Minister says: “Look here. Please
see that the newspapers speak of a ‘Savigny-Bebel party’ whenever an
opportunity occurs, and that must be repeated.” And just as I am going
out of the room he calls after me: “Or the ‘Liebknecht-Savigny party.’”
We take note of that, and shall speak from time to time of this new
party.
_Sunday, February 5th._--We are joined at dinner by Favre, d’Hérisson,
and the Director of the Western Railway, a man with a broad,
comfortable, smiling face, apparently about thirty-six years of
age. Favre, who sits next to the Chief, looks anxious, worried and
depressed. His head hangs on one side, and sometimes for a change sinks
on to his breast, his underlip following suit. When he is not eating,
he lays his two hands on the table-cloth, one on top of the other,
in submission to the decrees of fate, or he crosses his arms in the
style of Napoleon the First, a sign that, on closer consideration, he
still feels confident in himself. During dinner the Chief speaks only
French, and mostly in a low voice, and I am too tired to follow the
conversation.
The Chief instructs me to send the following short paragraph to
one of our newspapers: The _Kölnische Zeitung_ has made itself the
organ, it is true with some reservations, of those who complain of
the alleged destruction of French forests by our officials. One would
think it could have found some other occupation than to scrutinise our
administration of the public forests of France. We act in accordance
with the principles of forestry, even if we do not follow the French
system. Moreover, we should be within our rights if we exploited these
resources of the enemy in the most ruthless manner, as that would
render the French more disposed to conclude peace.
He also warmly praised the active part taken by the Duke of Meiningen
in the conduct of the war. He concluded: “I wish that to be mentioned
in the press. The background is ready to hand in the princely loafing
and palace looting of the rest of them.”
_Monday, February 6th._--The Chief desires to have an article against
Gambetta published in the _Moniteur_. I write the following:--
“The Convention of the 28th of January, concluded between Count von
Bismarck and M. Jules Favre, has revived the hopes of all sincere
friends of peace. Since the events of the 4th of September the
military honour of Germany has received sufficient satisfaction, so
that it may now yield to the desire to enter into negotiations with a
Government which truly represents the French nation for a peace that
will guarantee the fruits of victory and secure our future. When the
Governments represented at Versailles and Paris finally succeeded in
coming to an understanding, of which the conditions were prescribed by
the force of circumstances, and France was restored to herself, they
were justified in expecting that these preliminaries of a new era in
the relations of the two countries would be generally respected. The
decree issued by M. Gambetta disqualifying all former functionaries
and dignitaries, senators, and official candidates from election
to the National Assembly was perhaps necessary to show France the
abyss towards which it has been gravitating since the dictatorship,
sacrificing the best blood of the country, refused to convoke the
representatives of the nation in the regular way.
“The second article of the Convention of the 28th of January shows
clearly and plainly that the freedom of the elections is one of
the conditions of the Convention itself. In entering into such an
arrangement for the elections, Germany only took into consideration the
existing French laws, and not the good will and pleasure of this or
that popular Tribune. It would be just as easy to call together a Rump
Parliament in Bordeaux, and make it a tool for the subjection of the
other half of France. We are convinced that all honourable and sincere
French patriots will protest against the action of the Delegation at
Bordeaux, which is entirely arbitrary and opposed to all sound reason.
If there were any prospect that this action would be allowed to unite
all the anarchical parties who tolerate the dictatorship in so far as
it represents their favourite ideas, the most serious complications
would inevitably ensue.
“Germany does not intend to interfere in any way in the domestic
affairs of France. She has, however, through the agreement of the
28th of January, secured the right to see that a public authority is
established which will possess the attributes necessary to enable it to
negotiate peace in the name of France. If Germany is denied the right
to negotiate for peace with the whole nation, if an attempt is made to
substitute the representatives of a faction for the representatives
of the nation, the armistice convention would thereby become null and
void. We readily acknowledge that the Government of National Defence
has immediately recognised the justice of the complaints made by Count
von Bismarck in his despatch of the 3rd of February. That Government
has addressed itself to the French nation in language marked by
nobility and elevation of feeling, setting forth the difficulties of
the situation and the efforts made to relieve the country from the
last consequences of an unfortunate campaign. At the same time, it
has cancelled the decree of the Delegation at Bordeaux. Let us hope,
therefore, that the action of M. Gambetta will receive no support in
the country, and that it will be possible to conduct the elections in
perfect harmony with the spirit and letter of the Convention of the
28th of January.”
I am called to the Minister again at 11 o’clock, and instructed to
defend Favre against the rabid attacks of some French newspapers. The
Chief says: “They actually take him to task for having dined with me.
I had much trouble in getting him to do so. But it is unfair to expect
that, after working with me for eight or ten hours, he should either
starve as a staunch Republican, or go out to a hotel where the people
would run after him and stare at him.”
The Frenchmen are again here between 2 and 4 P.M. They are six or seven
in number, including Favre and, if I rightly heard the name, General
Leflô. The Chief’s eldest son and Count Dönhoff join us at dinner.
Subsequently I despatch a _démenti_ of a Berlin telegram published by
_The Times_, according to which we propose to demand the surrender
of twenty ironclads and the colony of Pondicherry, together with a
war indemnity of ten milliards of francs. This I describe as a gross
invention which cannot possibly have been credited in England, or have
created any anxiety there. I then hint at the probable source, namely,
the clumsy imagination of an unfriendly and intriguing diplomatist.
“That comes from Loftus,” says the Chief, as he gives me these
instructions. “An ill-mannered fellow who was always seeking to make
mischief with us.”
_Tuesday, February 7th._--From Bucarest despatches it seems as if the
reign of Prince Charles were really coming to a speedy end. With the
retention of Dalwigk at Darmstadt, the old confederacy of opponents of
German unity remains firmly entrenched, and the well-known intrigues
continue unhindered. A telegram from Bordeaux brings the expected
news. Gambetta yesterday announced in a circular to the Prefects that
his Parisian colleagues having annulled his decree with regard to the
elections, he has informed them of his resignation. A good sign. He
can hardly have a strong party behind him or he would scarcely have
resigned.
_Wednesday, February 8th._--The Chief is up at an unusually early hour,
and drives off at 9.45 to see the King. Favre arrives shortly before
1 o’clock, accompanied by a swarm of Frenchmen. There must be ten or
twelve of them. He confers with the Minister after first lunching with
us.
In the evening the Chief and his son dined with the Crown Prince, but
first remained for a while with us. He again observed with satisfaction
that Favre had not taken offence at his “spiteful letter,” but, on
the contrary, had thanked him for it. The Chief had repeated to him
verbally that it was his duty to share the dish which he had helped
to cook. To-day they had discussed the way of raising the Paris war
contribution; the French wanted to pay the greater part of it in bank
notes, and we might lose in that way. “I do not know the value of what
they offer,” he said; “but in any case it is to their advantage. They
must, however, pay the whole amount agreed upon. I will not remit a
single franc.”
_Thursday, February 9th._--Speaking again of the Paris contribution,
the Chancellor observed at dinner: “Stosch tells me he can dispose
of fifty million francs in bank notes to pay for provisions, &c., in
France. We must have proper security, however, for the remaining
hundred and fifty millions.” Then alluding to the foolish story about
our wanting Pondicherry, he continued: “I do not want any colonies at
all. Their only use is to provide sinecures. That is all England at
present gets out of her colonies, and Spain too. And as for us Germans,
colonies would be exactly like the silks and sables of the Polish
nobleman who had no shirt to wear under them.”