FROM GAMBETTA’S RESIGNATION TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARIES OF
PEACE
_Friday, February 10th._ Fresh complaints respecting the intrigues
of Dalwigk, and especially the measures for depriving the national
constituencies in Hesse of their representatives and securing the
victory of the Ultramontane and Democratic coalition. The Chief desires
me to see that an “immediate and energetic campaign in the press” is
organised against these and other mischievous proceedings inspired by
Beust’s friends. He also wishes the _Moniteur_ to reprint the long
list of French officers who have broken their parole and escaped from
Germany.
We were joined at dinner by the Duke of Ratibor and a Herr von Kotze,
the husband of the Chief’s niece. Strousberg, a business friend of
the Duke’s, was mentioned, and the Chief observed that nearly all, or
at least very many of the members of the Provisional Government were
Jews: Simon, Cremieux, Magnin, also Picard, whose Semitic origin he
would hardly have suspected, and “very probably Gambetta also, from his
features.” “For the same reason, I suspect even Favre,” he added.
_Saturday, February 11th._--In the morning I read the newspapers,
and particularly certain debates in the English Parliament at the
end of last month. It really looks as if our good friends across the
Channel had a suspicious leaning towards France, and as if they were
not at all disinclined to interfere once more--indeed, in certain
circumstances, an Anglo-French alliance would appear quite possible.
It is a question, however, whether they might not fall between two
stools. A very different result might well ensue. From what one hears
and reads in the newspapers, the feeling in this country is almost as
hostile to the English as to ourselves, and in certain circles more
so. It may well happen that if England adopts a threatening attitude
towards us, we may surprise our cousins in London with the very reverse
of a Franco-English alliance against Germany. We may even be obliged to
seriously consider the forcible restoration of Napoleon, which we have
not hitherto contemplated. According to a telegram of the 2nd inst.,
Bernstorff is to see that these ideas are cautiously ventilated in the
press.
Count Henckel and Bleichröder dined with us. It seems that in the
negotiations with the French financiers, Scheidtmann described them
to their faces in language more vigorous than flattering, talking of
them as pigs, dogs, rabble, &c., in ignorance of the fact that some of
them understood German. The Chief then spoke of the insolence of the
Parisian press, which behaved as if the city were not in our power:
“If that goes on we must tell them that we will no longer stand it. It
must cease, or we shall answer their articles by a few shells from the
forts.” Henckel having alluded to the unsatisfactory state of public
opinion in Alsace, the Chief said that, properly speaking, no elections
ought to have been allowed there at all, and he had not intended to
allow them. But inadvertently the same instructions were sent to the
German officials there as elsewhere. The melancholy situation of the
Prince of Rumania was then referred to, and from the Rumanian Radicals
the conversation turned to Rumanian stocks. Bleichröder said that
financiers always speculated on the ignorance of the masses, and upon
their blind cupidity. This was confirmed by Henckel, who said: “I had a
quantity of Rumanian securities, but after I had made about 8 per cent.
I got rid of them, as I knew they could not yield 15 per cent, and that
alone could have saved them.” The Chief then related that the French
were committing all sorts of fraud in the revictualling of Paris. It
was not out of pride that they refused our contributions, but merely
because they could make no profit out of them. Even members of the
Government were involved, and Magnin was understood to have recently
made 700,000 francs on the purchase of sheep. “We must let them see
that we know that,” said the Chief, glancing at me; “it will be useful
in the peace negotiations.” This was done without delay.
After dinner I wrote some paragraphs on the instructions of the Chief.
The first was to the effect that we ought no longer to tolerate the
insolence of the Parisian journalists. However generous and patient we
might be, it was past endurance that the French press should venture
to deride and insult to his face the victor who stood before the walls
of the capital which he had absolutely in his power. Moreover, such
mendacity and violence would prove an obstacle to the conclusion of
peace, by producing bitterness on both sides and delaying the advent
of a calmer spirit. This could not be foreseen when the armistice
Convention was concluded, and in discussing any prolongation of the
truce, effective means would have to be found for preventing further
provocation of the kind. Undoubtedly the best way would be the
occupation of the city itself by our troops. We should thus relieve
the French Government of a source of grave anxiety, and avert the evil
consequences of inflammatory articles in the press, which they are
perhaps not in a position to repress.
_Sunday, February 12th._--It is announced in a telegram from Cassel
that Napoleon has issued a proclamation to the French. The Minister
handed it to me, saying: “Please have this published in our local
paper. It is in order to lead them astray, so that they may not know
where they stand. But for God’s sake don’t date it from Wilhelmshöhe,
or they will think that we are in communication with him. ‘_Le bureau
Wolff télégraphie._’” The Chief seems to be unwell. He does not come to
dinner.
_Wednesday, February 15th._--I again draw attention in the _Moniteur_
to the disgraceful tone of the Parisian press. I intimate that this
agitation is delaying the conclusion of peace, and that the most
certain way of putting an end to it would be the occupation of Paris.
_Wednesday, February 22nd._--During the last week I have written
a number of articles and paragraphs, and despatched about a dozen
telegrams.
The Assembly at Bordeaux shows a proper appreciation of the position.
It has declined to support Gambetta, and has elected Thiers as chief
of the Executive and spokesman on behalf of France in the negotiations
for peace which began here yesterday. At dinner yesterday, at which we
were joined by Henckel, the Chief remarked, with reference to these
negotiations, “If they were to give us another milliard we might
perhaps leave them Metz, and build a fortress a few miles further back,
in the neighbourhood of Falkenberg or towards Saarbrücken--there must
be some suitable position there. I do not want so many Frenchmen in our
house. It is the same with Belfort, which is entirely French. But the
soldiers will not hear of giving up Metz, and perhaps they are right.”
Generals von Kameke and von Treskow dined with us to-day. The Chief
spoke about his second meeting with Thiers to-day: “On my making that
demand” (what the demand was escaped me), “he jumped up, although he
is otherwise quite capable of controlling himself, and said, ‘Mais
c’est une indignité!’ I did not allow that to put me out, however,
but began to speak to him in German. He listened for a while, and
evidently did not know what to make of it. He then said in a querulous
voice, ‘Mais, Monsieur le Comte, vows savez bien que je ne sais point
l’allemand.’ I replied, speaking in French again, ‘When you spoke just
now of _indignité_ I found that I did not know enough French, and so
preferred to use German, in which I understand what I say and hear.’
He immediately caught my meaning, and wrote down as a concession the
demand which he had previously resented as an _indignité_.”
The Chief continued: “Yesterday he spoke of Europe, which would
intervene if we did not moderate our demands. But I replied, ‘If you
speak to me of Europe I shall speak to you of Napoleon.’ He would not
believe that they had anything to fear from him. I proved the contrary
to him, however. He should remember the plebiscite and the peasantry,
together with the officers and soldiers. It was only under the Emperor
that the Guards could again have the position which they formerly
occupied; and with a little cleverness it could not be difficult
for Napoleon to win over 100,000 soldiers among the prisoners in
Germany. We should then only have to arm them and let them cross the
frontier, and France would be his once more. If they would concede
good conditions of peace we might even put up with one of the Orleans,
though we knew that that would mean another war within two or three
years. If not, we should have to interfere, which we had avoided doing
up to the present, and they would have to take Napoleon back again.
That, after all, must have produced a certain effect upon him, as,
to-day, just as he was going to talk about Europe again, he suddenly
broke off and said, ‘Excuse me.’ For the rest, I like him very well. He
is at least highly intelligent, has good manners, and is an excellent
story-teller. Besides, I often pity him, for he is in an extremely
awkward position. But all that can’t help him in the least.”
With regard to the war indemnity, the Chief said: “Thiers insisted that
fifteen hundred million francs was the maximum, as it was incredible
how much the war had cost them. And in addition to that everything
supplied to them was of bad quality. If a soldier only slipped and fell
down, his trousers went to pieces, the cloth was so wretched. It was
the same with the shoes which had pasteboard soles, and also with the
rifles, particularly those from America.” I replied: “But just imagine,
you are suddenly pounced upon by a man who wants to thrash you, and
after defending yourself and getting the better of him, you demand
compensation--what would you say if he asked you to bear in mind how
much he had had to pay for the stick with which he had intended to beat
you, and how worthless the stick had proved to be? However there is a
very wide margin between fifteen hundred and six thousand millions.”
The conversation then lost itself--I can no longer remember how--in the
depths of the Polish forests and marshes, turning for a while on the
large solitary farm houses in those districts and upon colonisation in
the “backwoods of the east.” The Chief said: “Formerly when so many
things were going wrong--even in private affairs--I often thought that
if the worst came to the worst I would take my last thousand thalers
and buy one of those farms out there and set up as a farmer. But things
turned out differently.”
Later on, diplomatic reports were again discussed, and the Chief, who
seems in general to have a poor opinion of them said: “For the most
part, they are just paper smeared with ink. The worst of it is that
they are so lengthy. In Bernstorff’s case, for instance, when he sends
a ream of paper filled with stale newspaper extracts--why, one gets
accustomed to it! But when some one else writes at interminable length,
and as a rule there is nothing in it, one becomes exasperated. As for
using them some day as material for history, nothing of any value will
be found in them. I believe the archives are open to the public at
the end of thirty years--but it might be done much sooner. Even the
despatches which do contain information are scarcely intelligible to
those who do not know the people and their relations to each other. In
thirty years time who will know what sort of a man the writer himself
was, how he looked at things, and how his individuality affected the
manner in which he presented them? And who has really an intimate
knowledge of the people mentioned in his reports? One must know what
Gortschakoff, or Gladstone, or Granville had in his own mind when
making the statements reported in the despatch. It is easier to find
out something from the newspapers, of which indeed governments also
make use, and in which they frequently say much more clearly what they
want. But that also requires a knowledge of the circumstances. The most
important points, however, are always dealt with in private letters
and confidential communications, also verbal ones, and these are not
included in the archives.
“The Emperor of Russia, for instance, is on the whole very friendly to
us--from tradition, for family reasons, and so on--and also the Grand
Duchesse Hélène, who influences him and watches him on our behalf. The
Empress, on the other hand, is not our friend. But that is only to be
ascertained through confidential channels and not officially.”
_Thursday, February 23rd._--We retain Metz, but not Belfort. It has
been practically decided that a portion of our army shall enter Paris.
And I write the following intimation for the _Moniteur_:--
“The arrogance with which the Parisian press insults and abuses the
victorious German army that stands outside the gates of the capital
has been frequently stigmatised by us as it deserves. We have likewise
pointed out that the occupation of Paris by our troops would be the
most effectual means of putting an end to this sort of insolence. At
the present moment these lies and calumnies and provocations know
no bounds. For instance, the _Figaro_ of the 21st of February, in
a feuilleton entitled ‘Les Prussiens en France,’ and signed Alfred
d’Aunay, charges German officers and the Germans in general with the
most disgraceful conduct such as theft and pillage. We learn that these
proceedings, which we forbear to characterise, have entirely frustrated
the efforts made by the Parisian negotiators to prevent the German
army entering into Paris. We are positively assured that the entry of
the German forces into the French capital will take place immediately
after the expiration of the armistice.”
_Friday, February 24th._--Thiers and Favre were here from 1 to 5.30
P.M. After they left, the Duc de Mouchy and the Comte de Gobineau were
announced. The object of their visit was to complain of the oppressive
action of the German Prefect at Beauvais, who is apparently rather
harsh, or at least not very conciliatory or indulgent. The Chief came
to dinner in plain clothes for the first time during the war. Is
this a sign that peace has been concluded? He again complained that
when he went to see the King, the Grand Dukes, “with their feminine
curiosity, pestered him with questions.” With regard to the deputation
from Beauvais, Hatzfeldt said that Mouchy and Gobineau were both
sensible men and Conservatives, and that our Prefect, Schwarzkoppen,
bullied them and the other notables of the town and neighbourhood in an
unpardonable way. Amongst other things, two days before the expiration
of the term on which a contribution of two millions was to be paid,
they brought him a million and a half and said that the balance would
follow shortly, whereupon he told them brutally that he was there for
the purpose of ruining them and meant to do so, and he threatened to
have them locked up in order to “coerce” them, which was not in the
least necessary. The Chief was very angry and called Schwarzkoppen a
“blockhead.”
_Saturday, February 25th._--Unpleasant news has again been received
from Bavaria. Werther (who, it is true, is described by Bucher as
unreliable and a visionary) writes that Count Holnstein regards the
condition of King Lewis with very great anxiety. Prince Adalbert, who
combines “the Wittelsbach haughtiness with Jesuitry,” is inciting him
against us. He asserts that he signed the treaties under pressure.
Before every Court dinner and even before every audience he drinks
large quantities of the strongest wines, and then says the most
extraordinary things to every one without distinction of persons.
He wants to abdicate and leave the crown to his brother Otto, who,
however, has no wish for it, and he is always inquiring about deadly
poisons, &c. The Ultramontanes are aware of all this, and their
candidate for the Reichstag, Prince Luitpold, is also their candidate
for the throne, and they mean to get him chosen in spite of Prince
Otto’s claims.
_Wednesday, March 1st._--In the morning I crossed the bridge of boats
at Suresnes to the Bois de Boulogne where, from the half-ruined stand
on the racecourse, I saw the Emperor review the troops before they
marched into Paris.
We were joined at dinner by Mittnacht, and the Würtemberg Minister,
von Wächter, who was formerly attached to the Embassy in Paris, and
while there did his utmost against Prussia. The Chief said he had
ridden in to Paris, and was recognised by the populace, but there
was no demonstration against him. He rode up to one man who looked
particularly vicious, and asked him for a light, which he willingly
gave.
The Chancellor afterwards took occasion once more to speak his mind out
on the obtrusiveness of certain princely personages. “They are like
flies,” he said, “there is no getting rid of them. But Weimar is the
worst of the lot. He said to me to-day, ‘Please tell me where did you
disappear to so quickly yesterday? I should have been glad to put some
further questions to you.’ I replied, ‘That was exactly it, your Royal
Highness. I had business to do, and could not enter into a lengthy
conversation.’ He fancies that the whole world has been created merely
for his sake, for his amusement, the improvement of his education,
and the satisfaction of his curiosity, which is insatiable, and he has
absolutely no tact.” Somebody observed that as a rule when he talks
he does not think of what he says, but rather repeats phrases that he
has learnt by rote. Mittnacht told another story about this august
personage. “Some one was introduced to him: ‘Ah, very pleased indeed, I
have heard so much to your credit. Let me see, what was it I heard?’”
_Thursday, March 2nd._--Favre arrived this morning at 7.30 A.M., and
wished to be shown in to the Chief. Wollmann declined to wake him,
however, at which the Parisian Excellency was very indignant. Favre
wanted to inform the Chancellor of the news he had received during
the night that the National Assembly at Bordeaux had ratified the
preliminaries of peace, and thereupon to ask that Paris and the forts
on the left bank of the Seine should be evacuated. This request was
submitted in a letter which he left behind him.
_Sunday, March 5th._--We leave to-morrow, first going to Lagny and
thence to Metz. The Chief is present at dinner. The conversation first
turned upon our landlady, Madame Jesse, who put in an appearance either
to-day or yesterday and made a variety of complaints to the Minister as
to the damage we are supposed to have done to her property. He replied
that was the way in war, particularly when people deserted their homes.
Besides she had reasons to be thankful that she had got off so easily.
The little table on which the Treaty of Peace was signed is to be
taken with us to Germany. Taglioni, who is to remain behind a few days
with the King, is instructed to have it replaced by an exactly similar
piece of furniture. In speaking of the preparations for our departure
the Chief says: “Kühnel thinks we ought not to travel by night, as
Lorraine will be haunted, and they might lay something on the rails.”
I replied, “Then I will travel incognito as the Duke of Coburg. Nobody
owes him a grudge. He is regarded as perfectly innocent--and with
justice.”
_Monday, March 6th._--A lovely morning. Thrushes and finches warble the
signal for our departure. At 1 o’clock the carriages get under way,
and with light hearts we drive off towards the gate that we entered
five months ago, and passed Villa Coublay, Villeneuve Saint Georges,
Charenton, and La Fasanerie to Lagny, where we take up our quarters for
the night.
We leave here next day by a special train for Metz, where we arrive
late at night. We put up at an hotel, while the Chief stays with Count
Henckel at the Prefecture. Next morning we stroll through the town,
visit the cathedral, and survey the neighbourhood from the bastions of
the fortress. Shortly before 11 o’clock we are again in the train, and
travel by Saarbrücken and Kreuznach to Mainz, and thence to Frankfurt.
The Chief has an enthusiastic reception everywhere along the line
and particularly at Saarbrücken and Mainz. Frankfurt is the only
exception. We arrive there at a late hour, and start again in the
night. At 7.30 on the following morning we reach Berlin, after exactly
seven months’ absence. All things considered, everything has been done
during those seven months which it was possible to do.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Strictly speaking, _almost_ complete, as some passages must still
be omitted for the present.
[2] The despatch was understood to contain a sentence to the effect
that Rome should take care not to challenge Europe, and that whatever
the Church might say, the Austrian Courts of Justice would not allow
themselves to be influenced into according any indulgence towards those
who broke the laws or instigated others to do so.
[3] At that time it had only been accepted by the Committee of the
House of Commons,--without any important amendments however, and its
adoption on a third reading was assured. It is true, objections were
raised. Gladstone very characteristically observed that the law now
only empowered the Administration to proceed against incitements to
treasonable _action_; it was, however, necessary to provide for the
punishment of attempts by the press to create a “treasonable state of
mind” amongst the people. The sole concession made by the Government
was that the threatened measures should not be put into execution until
warning (once only) had been given.
[4] The loyal Hanoverian circles did not tell the truth in this matter.
Stoffel’s reports were, on the whole, good, and he himself was a man of
respectable character.
[5] Not quite correct, according to a subsequent statement of the
Minister’s and Count Bill’s own account.
[6] Louis de Condé was treacherously murdered on the 12th of March,
1569, after the engagement at Jarnac, just as he had delivered up his
sword to an officer of the royal army, being shot by one Montesquieu,
a captain of the Guards.
[7] These particulars are worked up into the preceding chapter.
[8] In presence of later events he can hardly have expressed himself in
this way.
[9] The Würtemberger was Von Reinhard, and the Darmstadter Von
Munch-Bellinghausen, both determined opponents of Prussia.
[10] Compare this passage with the speech delivered by Bismarck in the
United Diet on the 15th of June, 1847. On that occasion he said, “I
am of opinion that the conception of the Christian state is as old as
the so-called Holy Roman Empire, as old as all the European States,
and that it is exactly the ground in which those States have struck
deep roots; and further, that each State that wishes to secure its
own permanence, or even if it merely desires to prove its right to
existence, must act upon religious principles. The words ‘By the grace
of God,’ which Christian rulers add to their names, are for me no mere
empty sound. On the contrary, I recognise in them the confession that
Princes desire to wield the sceptre with which God has invested them
in accordance with His Will.” Certain remarks made by the Chancellor
in his speech of the 9th of October, 1878, during the debate on the
Anti-Socialist Bill, should also be remembered in this connection. He
said, _inter alia_: “If I had come to believe as these men (the Social
Democrats) do--yes, I live a full and busy life and am in opulent
circumstances--but that would not be sufficient to make me wish to
live another day if I had not, in the words of the poet, ‘an Gott und
bessere Zukunft Glauben’ (faith in God and a better future).”
[11] It was a report from Mohl, originally intended, for his Government
at Carlsruhe, which was communicated to the Chief, under whose
instructions extracts therefrom were utilised in the press.
[12] At that time Secretary of State in the Foreign Office. He was not
a Catholic.
[13] Bucher afterwards told me that the Chancellor was affected both
by the superstition respecting the number thirteen and that relating
to Friday. Other diplomats, as, for instance, the French, seem to
entertain the same objection both to the number and the day. The
following anecdote, which I was assured was perfectly genuine, may
serve as an example. After the negotiations respecting the duty payable
by ships passing through the Sound had been completed, it was arranged
that the treaty containing the terms agreed upon should be signed at
Copenhagen on the 13th of March, 1587. It turned out that the day thus
chosen was not only the thirteenth of the month, but was also a Friday,
and that there were thirteen Plenipotentiaries to sign the document. “A
threefold misfortune!” exclaimed the French Ambassador Dotezac. To his
delight, however, the addition of the signatures was postponed for some
days owing to difficulties occasioned by the difference in the rate of
exchange of Danish and Prussian thalers. The number of representatives
still caused him so much anxiety, however, that it made him ill, and
it was only on the decease of the Hanoverian Plenipotentiary a few
weeks later that the French Ambassador and the other signatories of the
treaty felt that they were no longer in danger of sudden death.
[14] Walker, the English Kutusow of Count Bismarck-Bohlen, H. B.
M.’s Military Plenipotentiary at headquarters, was not held in much
estimation by the Chancellor and his _entourage_.
[15] These suspicions, though fully justified by appearances, were
subsequently shown to be for the greater part unfounded, except that
there was inadequate provision for the requirements of the wounded.
I reproduce the episode as evidence of the Minister’s usual humane
feeling and love of justice.
[16] A reference to the popular Thuringian ballad of “The Landgrave and
the Smith.”
[17] His greeting to those who brought him the news of his election as
Emperor while he was netting birds in the forest.
[18] Thun, Rechberg and Prokesch held in succession the position of
Austrian Minister to the Bundestag.
[19] The communication referred to is a letter by Thomas Carlyle
published in _The Times_ of November 18, in which it occupied two and a
half columns. The passages quoted by Dr. Busch are here reproduced from
the original:--
“The question for the Germans, in this crisis, is not one of
‘magnanimity,’ of ‘heroic pity and forgiveness to a fallen foe,’ but of
solid prudence and practical consideration what the fallen foe will, in
all likelihood, do when once on his feet again. Written on her memory,
in a distinctly instructive manner, Germany has an experience of 400
years on this point; of which on the English memory, if it ever was
recorded there, there is now little or no trace visible.... No nation
ever had so bad a neighbour as Germany has had in France for the last
400 years; bad in all manner of ways; insolent, rapacious, insatiable,
unappeasable, continually aggressive.... Germany, I do clearly believe,
would be a foolish nation not to think of raising up some secure
boundary fence between herself and such a neighbour now that she has
the chance. There is no law of nature that I know of, no Heavens Act
of Parliament whereby France, alone of terrestrial beings, shall not
restore any portion of her plundered goods when the owners they were
wrenched from have an opportunity upon them.... The French complain
dreadfully of threatened ‘loss of honour’; and lamentable bystanders
plead earnestly, ‘Don’t dishonour France; leave poor France’s honour
bright.’ But will it save the _honour_ of France to refuse paying for
the glass she has voluntarily broken in her neighbour’s windows. The
attack upon the windows was her dishonour. Signally disgraceful to
any nation was her late assault on Germany; equally signal has been
the ignominy of its execution on the part of France. The honour of
France can be saved only by the deep repentance of France, and by
the serious determination never to do so again--to do the reverse
of so for ever henceforth.... For the present, I must say, France
looks more and more delirious, miserable, blamable, pitiable and even
contemptible. She refuses to see the facts that are lying palpably
before her face, and the penalties she has brought upon herself. A
France scattered into anarchic ruin, without recognisable head; _head_,
or chief, indistinguishable from _feet_, or rabble; Ministers flying
up in balloons ballasted with nothing else but outrageous public
lies, proclamations of victories that were creatures of the fancy; a
Government subsisting altogether on mendacity, willing that horrid
bloodshed should continue and increase rather than that they, beautiful
Republican creatures, should cease to have the guidance of it; I know
not when and where there was seen a nation so covering itself with
_dis_honour.... The quantity of conscious mendacity that France,
official and other, has perpetrated latterly, especially since July
last, is something wonderful and fearful. And, alas! perhaps even that
is small compared to the self-delusion and _un_conscious mendacity long
prevalent among the French.... To me at times the mournfullest symptom
in France is the figure its ‘men of genius,’ its highest literary
speakers, who should be prophets and seers to it, make at present, and,
indeed, for a generation back have been making. It is evidently their
belief that new celestial wisdom is radiating out of France upon all
the other overshadowed nations; that France is the new Mount Zion of
the universe; and that all this sad, sordid, semi-delirious, and, in
good part, _infernal_ stuff which French literature has been preaching
to us for the last fifty years is a veritable new Gospel out of Heaven,
pregnant with blessedness for all the sons of men.... I believe
Bismarck (_sic_) will get his Alsace and what he wants of Lorraine,
and likewise that it will do him, and us, and all the world, and even
France itself by and by, a great deal of good.... (Bismarck) in fact
seems to me to be striving with strong faculty, by patient, grand and
successful steps, towards an object beneficial to Germans and to all
other men. That noble, patient, deep, and solid Germany should be at
length welded into a nation and become Queen of the Continent, instead
of vapouring, vain-glorious, gesticulating, quarrelsome, restless and
over-sensitive France, seems to me the hopefullest public fact that has
occurred in my time.”--THE TRANSLATOR.
[20] The King.
[21] The Crown Prince.
END OF VOL. I.
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.
Transcriber's Notes
The following changes have been made to the text as printed. In
cases of doubt, recourse has been had to the original German work
(_Tagebuchblätter_).
1. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
2. Errors in use of quote marks and other punctuation have been
corrected.
3. In cases of inconsistent spelling of German and French names, the
spelling used in the original language has been preferred. Examples
include changing "Frankfort" to "Frankfurt", "Mayence" to "Mainz",
"Rheims" to "Reims", "Delbruck" to "Delbrück". However, where the
English text is consistent in spelling, that spelling has been retained
("Cologne", "Munich", "Jahrbuecher").
4. Where a word is used repeatedly in the same way, hyphenation has
been made consistent, preferring the form most often used in the printed
work, or failing that the more usual form in general use at the time of
publication.
5. Page 113: "the result would not been" has been changed to "the
result would not have been".