Transcriber's note: This is the third and final volume of a series,
of which Volume 1 (eBook number 68651) and Volume 2 (eBook number 70943)
have been previously published by Project Gutenberg.
Italic font is indicated by _underscores_.
Bolded words are indicated by =equals=.
BISMARCK
SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY
BISMARCK:
SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY
BEING A DIARY KEPT BY
DR. MORITZ BUSCH
DURING TWENTY-FIVE YEARS’ OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE
INTERCOURSE WITH THE GREAT CHANCELLOR
_IN THREE VOLUMES_
VOL. III
=London=
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1898
_All rights reserved_
Richard Clay and Sons, Limited
LONDON AND BUNGAY
_Copyright in the United States of America_
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PAGE
BUCHER, COBDEN, AND THE MANCHESTER SCHOOL--BÜLOW AND THE
COMTE DE JOLIVAR--THE HOLY DRUJINA--KEUDELL IN THE
PROGRESSIST PRESS--FOUR SECRETARIES OF STATE IN THE
FOREIGN OFFICE--KEUDELL AND HIS ARREARS OF WORK--THE CHIEF
AND THE PROGRESSIST ELECTIONEERING AGITATION--LIES IN
LAUENBURG--INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING UNRUH’S ARTICLE IN THE
“DEUTSCHE REVUE”--WHY BENNIGSEN WAS NOT MADE MINISTER--THE
CHANCELLOR ON THILE AND THE DIEST LIBEL--BUCHER ON
HOLSTEIN--BUNSEN’S FRIENDS AND TRUTH--A MONUMENT FOR MY
SON, WHO DIED AT SEA--THILE’S OPINION OF THE CHIEF--THE
CHANCELLOR ON THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION, THE OPPOSITION TO THE
TOBACCO MONOPOLY--THE EMPEROR, THE CROWN PRINCE, AND PRINCE
WILLIAM--PHILOPATER AND ANTIPATER AT POTSDAM--BUCHER TENDERS
HIS RESIGNATION--THE CROWN PRINCE AND THE PROGRESSISTS--THE
VICE-CHANCELLORSHIP--ARTICLES AGAINST THE EMPRESS 1
CHAPTER II
BLEICHRÖDER AND GERMAN DIPLOMACY IN CONSTANTINOPLE--FURTHER
INTERVIEWS WITH THE CHANCELLOR--RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND
AUSTRIA--THE GABLENTZ MISSION--QUEEN VICTORIA--AN UNPLEASANT
EPISTLE--A SEVERE REPRIMAND--BISMARCK COLLABORATES WITH
ME--BUCHER’S JOURNEY WITH SALAZAR--A PRESS CAMPAIGN AGAINST
ENGLAND--DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLES ON SOUTH AFRICAN QUESTIONS 70
CHAPTER III
THE CHANCELLOR ON BULGARIA AND SERVIA, AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA,
THE BATTENBERGER AND THE TSAR--HIS VIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF
THE RUSSIAN BALTIC PROVINCES--A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH
PARTIES AND OUR OWN--GERMANY AND ENGLAND IN AFRICA--THE
CHANCELLOR ON THE MILITARY QUESTION, AND THE THREATENED
CONFLICT IN THE REICHSTAG--WHAT HE SAID THERE WAS ADDRESSED
TO RUSSIA--THE TSAR’S CONFIDENCE IN THE CHANCELLOR--THE
CROWN PRINCE AND HIS CONSORT--BISMARCK AND HIS WORK--WHAT IS
GREATNESS?--THE CHIEF ON HIS OWN DEATH--INTERVIEW WITH THE
CHIEF ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE BATTENBERGER, AND INSTRUCTIONS
FOR THE “GRENZBOTEN” ARTICLE, “FOREIGN INFLUENCES IN THE
EMPIRE”--BEWARE OF THE PRESS LAWS--NOT TOO VENOMOUS--A
SURVEY OF BRITISH POLICY--THE CATALOGUE OF ENGLAND’S
SINS--TWO EMPRESSES AGAINST THE CHANCELLOR--QUEEN VICTORIA AT
CHARLOTTENBURG--DEATH OF THE “INCUBUS” 147
CHAPTER IV
THE EMPEROR FREDERICK’S DIARY--THE CHIEF ON THE DIARY AND ITS
AUTHOR--THE GERMAN QUESTION DURING THE WAR OF 1870--THE
EMPEROR FREDERICK AND HIS LEANING TOWARDS ENGLAND--THE
CHIEF PRAISES THE YOUNG EMPEROR--“BETTER TOO MUCH THAN
TOO LITTLE FIRE!”--I AM TO ARRANGE THE CHIEF’S PAPERS,
AND DO SO--LETTERS FROM FREDERICK-WILLIAM IV. AND FROM
WILLIAM I.--CORRESPONDENCE WITH AND CONCERNING THE CROWN
PRINCE (FREDERICK)--LETTERS TO AND FROM ANDRASSY DURING THE
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AUSTRO-GERMAN ALLIANCE--LETTERS FROM
THE EMPEROR ON THE SAME SUBJECT--WILLIAM I.’S RELUCTANCE TO
DESERT RUSSIA--CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE EMPEROR AND THE TSAR
AT ALEXANDROWO--WILLIAM I.’S FINAL INSTRUCTIONS--BISMARCK’S
ACCOUNT OF HIS RELATIONS WITH THE EMPEROR FREDERICK 190
CHAPTER V
SIGNS OF FRICTION BETWEEN THE CHANCELLOR AND THE YOUNG
EMPEROR--WITH THE CHIEF DURING THE CRISIS--HIS ANXIETY ABOUT
HIS PAPERS--HOW TO GET THEM AWAY--HIS RETIREMENT A FACT--THE
EMPEROR WANTS TO BE RID OF HIM IN ORDER TO GOVERN ALONE WITH
HIS OWN GENIUS--COURT FLUNKEYISM--HIS RETIREMENT IS NOT DUE
TO HIS HEALTH, NOR IS IT IN ANY SENSE VOLUNTARY--LETTERS
FROM BISMARCK TO WILLIAM I.--THE CHIEF ON THE INITIATION OF
PRINCE WILLIAM INTO PUBLIC AFFAIRS--THE GRAND DUKE OF BADEN’S
ADVICE TO THE EMPEROR FREDERICK--THE CHIEF TALKS OF WRITING
HIS OWN MEMOIRS--BUREAUCRATIC INGRATITUDE--FOREIGN OFFICE
APOSTATES--ACCORDING TO BUCHER THE NOTES DICTATED FOR THE
MEMOIRS ARE MERE FRAGMENTS, SOMETIMES ERRONEOUS--THE CHIEF’S
LIFE AT FRIEDRICHSRUH--SCHWENINGER’S APPREHENSIONS 305
CHAPTER VI
I AM INVITED TO FRIEDRICHSRUH--BUCHER AND THE PROPOSED
“MEMOIRS”--HE DOUBTS WHETHER THE LATTER WILL BE
COMPLETED--THE CHIEF--“BÜSCHLEIN” AS BEFORE--THE ANGLO-GERMAN
AGREEMENT--THE EMPEROR AND RUSSIA--THREE KINGS IN THEIR
NAKEDNESS--BÜSCHLEIN WILL WRITE THE SECRET HISTORY OF OUR
TIMES--THE PRINCE GIVES ME IMPORTANT PAPERS TO EXAMINE IN
MY ROOM: HIS RESIGNATION IN 1890, A DRAFT OF A CONFIDENTIAL
STATEMENT OF THE MOTIVES OF HIS RETIREMENT AND NOTES ON THE
ATTITUDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MINISTERS ON THAT OCCASION--STILL
ANOTHER BOOK ON BISMARCK IN VIEW; CORRESPONDENCE ON THE
SUBJECT WITH BUCHER AND THE CHIEF HIMSELF; THE PLAN
DROPPED--LAST VISIT TO BUCHER IN JANUARY, 1892--HIS
DEATH--LAST STAY AT FRIEDRICHSRUH IN MAY, 1893--“GOOD BYE,
DEAR OLD FRIEND.” 350
BISMARCK
SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY
CHAPTER I
BUCHER, COBDEN, AND THE MANCHESTER SCHOOL--BÜLOW AND THE COMTE DE
JOLIVAR--THE HOLY DRUJINA--KEUDELL IN THE PROGRESSIST PRESS--FOUR
SECRETARIES OF STATE IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE--KEUDELL AND HIS
ARREARS OF WORK--THE CHIEF AND THE PROGRESSIST ELECTIONEERING
AGITATION--LIES IN LAUENBURG--INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING UNRUH’S
ARTICLE IN THE “DEUTSCHE REVUE”--WHY BENNIGSEN WAS NOT MADE
MINISTER--THE CHANCELLOR ON THILE AND THE DIEST LIBEL--BUCHER ON
HOLSTEIN--BUNSEN’S FRIENDS AND TRUTH--A MONUMENT FOR MY SON, WHO
DIED AT SEA--THILE’S OPINION OF THE CHIEF--THE CHANCELLOR ON THE
EGYPTIAN QUESTION AND THE OPPOSITION TO THE TOBACCO MONOPOLY--THE
EMPEROR, THE CROWN PRINCE AND PRINCE WILLIAM--PHILOPATER AND
ANTIPATER AT POTSDAM--BUCHER TENDERS HIS RESIGNATION--THE CROWN
PRINCE AND THE PROGRESSISTS--THE VICE-CHANCELLORSHIP--ARTICLES
AGAINST THE EMPRESS
On the 10th of July, 1881, Bucher wrote me the following note in
pencil:--
“The Chief is having articles written on the played-out Liberals
in the Vienna Parliament, from which a moral is drawn for our own
people. It would certainly amuse him to see Glaser’s letter, a
precious production, which you will find in the enclosed book,
reprinted. What do you think of the idea?
“In a few days I shall send you a pamphlet on the Cobden Club
(written by me, of course secret). I would suggest that it should
not be discussed until after the silly season, somewhere about
the beginning of September, when we must again hammer away at the
subject. I shall then supply you with plenty of material. In the
meantime, it may be well to collect together the abusive language to
which the pamphlet has given rise.
“In eight or ten days I shall send you an article on the origin
of the Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce, which may be published
immediately.
“Bʀ.”
Glaser’s letter appeared in a small pamphlet, entitled, _An Austrian
Minister and his Father_, published in Berlin, 1872, by Kerskes
and Hohmann. It contained the following passage: “Another year,
and the Chosen People shall have attained the object of the Holy
Alliance,[1] which they concluded in Paris. We have no more ardent
desire than to see the day arrive when we can bid him (Prince Adolph
Auersberg) good-bye, and see his place taken by one from our midst”
(the Jewish Liberals); and “then” (when the aristocratic party is
suspected by the dynasty, and has fallen out of favour) “a really new
and regenerated nobility, drawn from our people” (the Jews) “shall
enter into power, and fulfil the mission to which God has called
them.” I had this letter reproduced in the _Grenzboten_, with a few
introductory remarks.
On the morning of the 11th of July I called upon Bucher, from whom I
ascertained that he had collected the material for his pamphlet on
the Cobden Club in the British Museum, about a fortnight previously.
He had gone to London, under instructions from the Chief, giving a
false name, and holding no intercourse with anybody.
On the 21st I called on Bucher at the Foreign Office, to remind him
about the pamphlet and the proposed _Grenzboten_ article. He had been
unable to write the latter, as he could not obtain a book which he
required for the purpose. (This was the _Principles of Currency_, a
work by the Oxford Professor, Bonamy Price, which appeared in 1869.)
He gave me his pamphlet, and a quantity of material for the article
upon it, to which he made some additions during the following days.
He also sent me a number of English and French publications, to be
used for the same purpose. In the meantime, Glaser’s letter was
emphatically declared to be a forgery by Glaser himself. Bucher,
however, still held it to be “genuine in the main.”
I now wrote a series of five articles, entitled “Characteristics of
the Manchester School,” based on Bucher’s pamphlet, and the notes and
books with which he supplied me. These appeared in Nos. 33 to 37 of
the _Grenzboten_.
On the 27th of July Bucher related to me “an anecdote illustrating
the way in which the Secretary of State von Bülow carried on
business.” Lasker called upon him one day to introduce a Frenchman,
one Comte de Jolivar, who was going to Constantinople, and wished
to have a letter of introduction to our Embassy there. Bülow had
this letter prepared, and added in his own hand a few words of
warm recommendation to Werther, who was our representative at the
Porte at that time. The Comte proceeded on his journey with this
document in his pocket, and one of the first things he did on his
arrival at the Golden Horn was to swindle a German artisan out
of a respectable sum of money. This was soon followed by similar
operations, which speedily came to Werther’s ears, who probably
had already felt surprised at the Frenchman having asked for and
received recommendations from the Foreign Office in Berlin, instead
of from that in Paris, or from the French Minister in Berlin. He
reported these cases of swindling to the Wilhelmstrasse, and from
there inquiries were addressed to the Foreign Office in Paris. The
information received was to the following effect. Comte de Jolivar
is not a Comte, but only a Chevalier, that is to say, _chevalier
d’industrie_, who--as the police records show--has been condemned
on several occasions for embezzlement and swindling, and was
once prosecuted for forgery, but just managed to save his skin.
“_Tableau_” in the office of our Secretary of State!
Bucher praised Hatzfeldt, who has entered upon the duties of his
office in succession to Bülow, as a pleasant and easy chief. Speaking
of Bunsen, Bucher said that he had written for the Secessionist
_Tribune_. Bucher also referred to the controversy which he had
recently fought out with Bunsen, in the columns of the _Norddeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung_.
On the 29th of July I received the following note from Bucher:--
“1. Can you get the enclosed inserted in the _Daily Telegraph_, or
some other English newspaper, and send the Chief a copy?
“2. Herewith the draft of an article on the commercial treaty, of
which you must alter the introduction. The second edition of Bonamy
Price which I have received from Baden (whence he also obtained the
_Sophisms of Free Trade_, which he sent me for the ‘Characteristics
of the Manchester School’) does not contain the letter from
Chevalier. I have instructed Ascher to get the first edition at my
expense, and to forward it to you.
“Yours, Bʀ.”
The enclosure mentioned in paragraph 1 ran as follows:--
“It appears that a secret society has been formed in Russia, by
a number of determined and loyal subjects of the Tsar, which is
understood to be organised on the same lines as the associations
founded for the purpose of assassinating him. This new society
purposes to fight the Nihilists with their own weapons. Like the
latter, who seek to terrorise the sovereign by attempts upon his
life, the new society which has been constituted to oppose these
criminals, will endeavour to keep them in check by hunting out
and killing the chiefs of the band of assassins in Switzerland
and England. It is a regrettable circumstance that honourable
men in Russia should be obliged to resort to a kind of mediæval
_Vehmgericht_ as a means of protecting the monarch from these
miserable cut-throats.”
On the morning of the 30th I forwarded this paragraph to the _Daily
Telegraph_, stating that it came from the “very best source,” and
adding that I should be thankful for its insertion. On the 31st,
however, I received the following note from Bucher: “Herbert has just
telegraphed to me to hold back the paragraph on the Anti-Nihilistic
society for the present. Luckily Sunday has intervened. Will you
please countermand it by telegraph, and charge me with the costs?” I
accordingly telegraphed to London, and the paragraph did not appear.
The second enclosure was worked up for the _Grenzboten_, and
published in No. 32, under the title of “The Genesis of the
Anglo-French Commercial Treaty.” It was completed by an extract from
Chevalier’s letter, which was published by the _Pall Mall Gazette_.
In the meantime, on the 30th, I received the following note
from Bucher: “As your articles on the Manchester School in the
_Grenzboten_ will one day form material for the historian, I would
suggest that after the reference to Schlesinger and his association
with the Treasury, you should insert the words: ‘since the Macdonald
affair at Bonn.’ I will give you the particulars for your memoirs.
They are very curious.”
Bucher left for his holidays on the 1st of August.
On the 14th of September Bucher wrote to me that he was in Berlin,
and on the 21st I called upon him. He told me that the Chief had
again had “difficulties with the Emperor.” The latter now reads
no more newspapers. Recently, however, some courtier must have
called his attention to a paragraph which he represented to come
from the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, to the effect that
a Papal Nunciature was to be established in Berlin. The Emperor
thereupon wrote the Chief a “snappish letter” which commenced
somewhat in the style of Zwückanör (one of the comic figures in the
_Kladderadatsch_): “I am much surprised.” The Chancellor first sent
a short telegram, saying that he knew nothing of any such paragraph
in the newspaper in question (which had contained nothing of the
kind), and afterwards forwarded a memorandum on the subject, which
filled three sheets of paper. “He was greatly incensed at the action
of the Most Gracious.” Tiedemann, who has now been definitively
replaced by Rottenburg, goes in the first place to Bromberg, in the
capacity of _Regierungspräsident_, and not, as he had desired, and
expected, to Kassel as _Oberpräsident_. The mention of Keudell in the
first _Grenzboten_ article on the Manchester School, which has been
described by the Progressist press as a “violent attack,” has led
that gentleman to state in the _Morning Post_ that he had requested
the President of the Cobden Club to remove his name from the list
of members. He at the same time endeavoured to defend himself in
Progressist journals, like the _Vossische Zeitung_ and the _Berliner
Tageblatt_, concluding, as usual, with self-praise. Bucher remarked:
“These almost identic articles are written by himself. Only his
signature at foot is wanting.” These productions were forwarded to
the Chancellor at Varzin, who thereupon had the following statement
published in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_:--
“The _Berliner Tageblatt_, the _Schlesische Zeitung_ and the
_Vossische Zeitung_ publish articles respecting Herr von Keudell
which are similar in effect, and which all conclude with the phrase
that owing to his retirement from the Cobden Club the valuable
services of the German Ambassador in Rome still remain secured to the
State.
“It requires that complete ignorance of the customs prevailing in
the service of the State, and particularly in diplomacy, and of
the habits of the higher circles which distinguishes Progressist
writers, for any one to imagine that an Ambassador’s position could
ever be endangered by a matter of such trifling importance as the
circumstance that he had been nominated an honorary member of the
Cobden Club six or more years ago. We are in a position to assure
our readers that the matter has never been taken into consideration
either officially or confidentially at the Foreign Office, nor has
it ever called for any inquiry or exchange of views. The whole story
as to the position of Herr von Keudell being in the least affected
by that circumstance is simply an invention of Progressist writers,
suffering from a dearth of ‘copy.’
“We are not aware whether Herr von Keudell has resigned his honorary
membership. If such be the case he will probably have been led to
take that step by recent disclosures respecting the Cobden Club.
So far as his relations to the Imperial service and the Imperial
Chancellor are concerned, however, it is a matter of indifference
whether this purely private step has been taken or not. That
Progressist journalists believe the contrary is the consequence
in part of their ignorance as to the relations existing between
respectable people, and in part of their own sentiments, _i.e._, of
the furious rancour with which these partisan writers exaggerate and
garble the most insignificant incidents. They assume that an equal
degree of malice and violence prevails in circles to which they have
no access. In short, they are partisans who are accustomed to treat
with hatred and contempt every shade of difference from the party
standard. In their eyes whoever is not a free-trader is either a
knave or a fool. This is natural enough in those whose sole claim to
honesty and intelligence is that they are free-traders. It is not so
in higher circles, where there is more toleration, and less time for
matters of secondary importance.
“The Imperial Ambassador, moreover, can hardly care, we believe, to
find unauthorised representatives and advocates in just such papers
as the _Berliner Tageblatt_ and the _Vossische Zeitung_. No one who
does not belong to the political and social circles represented by
these papers would willingly be credited with any connections with
them, and this is doubtless sufficiently well-known in Rome for any
such connection to be shunned, and for such damaging advocacy to be
duly repudiated.”
On the morning of the 25th of October I paid Bucher a visit at his
lodgings. He complained that the Chief now occupied himself too
much with press matters. Instructions of this description came from
Varzin almost daily, and sometimes three or four together. No one
in the office understood anything about them, neither the sons,
nor Rantzau (who was paid for that purpose, but who, nevertheless,
could only take down dictation from the Chief), nor Holstein, who
was a mere “bungler,” and least of all Rudolf Lindau, who “is quite
incapable, has had no political or journalistic training, and can
merely play the amiable, tell good stories and go out walking.” He
had been brought into the Office by family influence, which also
kept him there. “In Japan he made the acquaintance of Brandt, our
Chargé d’Affaires, through whom he obtained a connection with the
Intelligence Department of the general staff. He afterwards (if I
rightly understood) accompanied Brandt to St. Petersburg, where he
was presented to the Grand Duchess Hélène, who recommended him to
Bismarck. The latter sent him to Harry Arnim in Paris as a Press
Attaché. He afterwards received an appointment at the Foreign
Office--again on an exalted recommendation. The Prince knows that he
is entirely unfit for the duties which he has to perform, but the
Grand Duchess protects him; and so, although he has been virtually
shelved, it has been done in such a way that he appears to have
control of press affairs.”
Bucher said that Count Bill is on very intimate terms with Paul
Lindau ... with whom he had been in Hungary. Herbert had yesterday,
on the instructions of his father, written Bucher a four-page letter,
which he showed me, asking him, Bucher, to make a “journalistic
onslaught” upon the Progressist candidate Klotz on account of his
election speech. Rantzau, however, had been unable to obtain the
most indispensable of essentials, namely Klotz’s speech, and, in
fact, knew nothing whatever about it. One of the Chancery attendants,
however, was cleverer, and remembered that it had been printed in
pamphlet form and distributed by the thousand. This man arranged to
procure a copy.
“Sybel is another plague with which the Chancellor has afflicted me,”
continued Bucher. “It is not so long since Sybel was fighting against
the Chief; but he has now been taken once more into favour, and is
to write a history of Germany from 1860 to 1870.” For this purpose
the Chief had at first ordered that _all_ diplomatic documents of
this period should be laid before him. Bucher, however, pointed out
that it would be necessary to make certain exceptions, some of which
he mentioned, including those concerning the Hungarian Legion. The
Prince agreed to this, and arranged that the documents mentioned by
Bucher, as also the “Secreta,” should not be shown to Sybel. The
latter is now carrying on his researches at the Foreign Office, which
Bucher does not regard as dangerous. He has come upon references to
the documents that have been withheld from him, and has asked to see
them, stating that he would anyhow have possession of them some day
as Director of the State Archives. Bucher was, however, obliged to
refuse his request. He complained of the responsibility imposed upon
him in this matter.
He then went on to say that it was much the same with one Herr
Poschinger, a Bavarian, who had taken it upon himself to describe
Bismarck’s work as Envoy to the Germanic Diet in Frankfurt. The Chief
had given instructions that he was to see everything relating to this
period in the first and second departments of the Foreign Office.
Poschinger plunged into these, and then sent his _opus_ to the Prince
for revision. The Chief did not care to read it, and instructed
Bucher to do so. “I then found that it was merely an endless string
of extracts, and not a book but only materials for a book; and that
while he dwelt discursively on insignificant details, he cursorily
dismissed or overlooked altogether matters of real importance.” That
was pointed out to Poschinger, who revised his work in accordance
with the suggestions made to him, abbreviating some parts and
amplifying others, and then returned it to the Chief, who again
forwarded it to Bucher. “It was now better material,” continued the
latter, “but it was still no book. I reported to the Chief in this
sense, and he gave instructions to obtain Sybel’s opinion on it. His
agreed in the main with my own, but Poschinger discovered that Sybel
had criticised him.”
Bucher thought that the visit which the newspapers reported Gambetta
to have paid to Varzin about ten days ago was possible, and indeed
probable. He declared, on the other hand, that the discovery, made by
the _National Zeitung_, that this visit took place at Friedrichsruh,
was unfounded, because the Chief was at that time suffering from
severe pain in the back, which made it impossible for him to travel.
“I do not like to make inquiries on the subject,” he said, “and I
therefore know nothing positive about it. We should have reason to be
thankful, however, if the visit took place, as it would make Gambetta
impossible in France.”
_October 28th._--Met his Excellency von Thile to-day in the Potsdamer
Platz. We first spoke about the elections. Thile had formerly
abstained from voting, but this time--like Bucher and myself--had
voted for Stöcker. He then asked what I thought of the report that
Gambetta had visited the Chancellor. I replied that it appeared to
me to be possible, and indeed probable. “I will tell you something,”
he said. “One of my acquaintances was recently at Frankfurt, where
he put up at the ‘Russischer Hof’--you know, ‘Auf der Zeil.’ In
conversation with the landlord, with whom he was acquainted, he
asked whether there was any news. ‘Yes, and something of importance,
Excellency,’ replied the latter. Gambetta was here recently on his
way home from Germany, and lodged with us. The head waiter asked his
servant where they had been, and the man replied: ‘_Nous avons été à
la campagne dans les environs de Danzig_.’”
_November 9th._--Called this morning upon Bucher at his lodgings
to inquire about the article in yesterday’s _Post_ stating that
the Chancellor proposed to resign. I fancied the article came
from Varzin, and was intended to prepare for a dissolution of the
Reichstag, and to give the country an opportunity to choose at the
elections between the Chief and the Liberals. According to Bucher,
no one would believe that a general election would induce him to
retire, and as to the dissolution of the Reichstag, that could only
take place if it perpetrated some piece of stupidity. The article
was purposeless, merely an expression of ill-humour at Varzin, which
Herbert, “with his usual ineptitude,” had made public. “But they have
been in the backwoods for half a year, and do not know what is going
on in the world. The elections would have turned out better in many
respects if the press campaign had not been so foolishly conducted.
But these things are shockingly ill-managed at present. We have now
no less than four Secretaries of State: Busch, the real one, who is
good; then Herbert at Varzin; and Rantzau and Holstein here. These
know nothing, and are incapable of doing anything properly. None of
them reads the papers or knows what is going on, and if the Chief
gives violent instructions they are carried out with still greater
violence. It is sad that the Chief should think so much of providing
for his family and finding places for them. Virchow was right when
he brought that charge against him. And the other gentlemen are no
better. In addition to the Secretaries of State we have the gentlemen
who spend their time strolling about, and who are more often to be
found out shooting than in their office.” He then mentioned two,
including Radolinski, ... and added: “After all it was just the same
formerly, when, in addition to Thile, there were only two who really
worked, yourself and Abeken. Hepke had hardly anything but trifles to
deal with, and the aristocrats for the most part spent scarcely two
hours in the office, just for a little gossip and a glance through
the newspapers and despatches--Hatzfeldt, for instance, and Keudell,
who was incapable to boot.”... “Hatzfeldt rarely came before two
o’clock,” said Bucher, “and often went away again at three. While
they lived upstairs he usually came to play a game of croquet. He
would ask Wartensleben, ‘Now what do you think of a little game of
croquet to-day?’ Wartensleben used then to say he would go up and see
whether the Countess would care to join them, and when he came back
with the message that the Countess begged to be excused as she had
something else to do, Paul would remark, ‘Well, then, one may as well
say good bye,’ and take himself off.... And Keudell could really do
nothing. I suppose I have already told you the story about Taglioni
and Keudell’s thirty arrears of work? Well, at Versailles I was told
by Wiehr--you remember him, the fat, bald deciphering clerk--it was
simply frightful how little Keudell managed to do. When he sat down
he wrote two or three lines, then pulled out his watch, took the
rings off his finger and played with them, put them on again, wrote
another few lines, stopped once more, and finally rose, leaving
his work unfinished. On one occasion Taglioni took pity on him and
offered to assist the Councillor. The latter was delighted with such
an amiable fellow, and Taglioni actually disposed of some thirty
items of work which were in arrear. But in spite of that a number
of even sensible people had a high opinion of his power of work and
his intelligence--people such as Gneist, for example, whom I know
well, as we studied together. I always meant to enlighten him, but
have not done so yet. It is necessary, however, that people should
know Keudell if he is to be a Minister one day.” Bucher then came to
speak of Count Herbert again, and I said that the Prince had once
observed to me that he had thought of promoting him to be Secretary
of State, as he had worked for seven years under his own personal
supervision, but that he was too young. “Yes,” rejoined Bucher,
“and so he is still. Paul Hatzfeldt will not remain. Things will
go on for the present in the same way. He comes at two o’clock and
disappears again at five, attends to nothing beyond the interviews
with foreign diplomatists, and troubles himself very little with the
other business--which, for the matter of that, is no loss. But when
the Prince comes back, and he is summoned to receive instructions two
or three times a day, it will not be at all to his liking, and he
will go back to Constantinople. He will be replaced by Herbert, that
haughty and incapable fellow, and more than one of the officials will
leave.”
I asked, in conclusion, if he knew what the Chief had intended by
the article on the Anti-Nihilistic society which I forwarded to the
_Daily Telegraph_, and afterwards countermanded. “The Holy Drujina?”
he said. “That was true. Such a society had been formed under the
protection of the Emperor, who had subscribed a million and a half
to its funds. Despatches have been exchanged between ourselves and
St. Petersburg on the subject, and one of the members of the society
has called upon Rantzau. But I cannot conceive what the Chief can
have intended by the publication of the paragraph in England. If one
of those gentlemen were to go there and murder a Nihilist leader, he
would be hanged as a matter of course. The affair should have been
treated as a profound secret, yet in a few weeks’ time it appeared
in full, with all manner of details and humorous comments, in the
_Berliner Tageblatt_. When I mentioned this to Rantzau afterwards,
he was simply terrified. Of course he had not read it, and wished to
know where it had appeared. I told him the name of the paper, and let
him hunt up the number himself. I used formerly to get him the paper
on such occasions, but now leave that to him, so that he may have at
least some occupation.”
As I left, Bucher said: “If anything happens, I will let you know.”
The Prince returned to Berlin in the afternoon of the 12th of
November. At noon of the 15th a Chancery attendant brought me a
letter from Sachse, saying that the Chief desired to see me at 1
o’clock on the following day, Wednesday. I arrived at the time
appointed, and was shown in to the Prince at a quarter-past 1. He had
been dictating to Count William before I went in. The Chancellor,
who was in plain clothes, looked fresh and hearty, but began by
complaining of his health. He had been ill, he said, during the whole
five months of his holiday, even at Kissingen, but particularly at
Varzin, where he had had to endure great pain. It was his old trouble.
He then spoke of the elections, and stated that in certain
circumstances he would retire, as he had already intimated to the
Emperor. “The centre of gravity has changed,” he continued. “The
Progressist and Secessionist Jews, with their money, now form the
Centre. At first I was not in favour of this agitation (for Stöcker
as an Anti-Semite). It was inconvenient to me, and they went too far.
Now, however, I am glad that the Court Chaplain has been elected.
He is an energetic, fearless, and resolute man, and he cannot be
muzzled. The elections have shown that the German Philistine still
lives, and allows himself to be frightened and led astray by fine
speeches and lies. He will not hear of the protection of labour
against the foreigner, nor of insurance against accident and old age,
nor of any reduction of school and poor rates, but wants direct
taxation to be increased. Well, he can have that, but not while I am
Chancellor.”
“Do you seriously mean that, Serene Highness?” I asked. “I believe
they have only nibbled at the democratic bait just as they did
formerly.”
“It may be that they do not quite know what they want. But they
have taken this course at the elections, their representatives vote
against me, and, in order to govern I must have a majority--which I
cannot find under these conditions. In case of necessity it might be
possible to manage with a coalition of Conservatives and Clericals
and such like, but the Centre Party has been against us all through
the elections, and there is no trusting them. Folly and ingratitude
on all sides! I am made the target for every party and group, and
they do everything they can to harass me, and would like me to serve
as a whipping-boy for them. But when I disappear they will not know
which way to turn, as none of them has a majority or any positive
views and aims. They can only criticise and find fault--always say
No. You are right in saying that they have turned the people’s heads
with their fine phrases and lies. They make out that I am in favour
of reaction, and want to restore the old _régime_. If I can get my
monopoly, tobacco will cost three to five marks a pound, but cigars
will be three times as dear as they are now. They have frightened
the people by reviving the old stories of the past, Junker rule, the
_corvée_, territorial jurisdiction, and even the _jus primæ noctis_,
as, for instance, in Holstein and Lauenburg. There the Danish Kings
had allowed all the ancient institutions to remain--unadulterated
mediævalism. The Junkers ruled, and were decorated with the Order of
the Elephant. They took all the best posts as if they had inherited
them. They held the most remunerative offices up to ten thousand
thalers a year, or at least four to five thousand thalers; and yet
they neither did nor could do anything except pocket fees and impose
heavy fines. They farmed the domains among themselves, on the lowest
valuations, and lived on the fat of the land. When I came there the
people were obliged to drink the abominable beer which the Junkers
brewed on their estates, and no one could purchase a piece of ground
because they did not wish the population to exceed two thousand to
the square (German) mile. There the people still remember all this
misrule, and emissaries of the Progressists and Secessionists--who
are just the same--threaten them with its revival, and warn them
against me. I am represented as desiring to restore that state
of things, yet the contrary is the case, and it was I alone who
abolished it.”
I reminded him of the homage of the Estates in Lauenburg, Bülow’s
anxiety respecting the maintenance of the Compact of the nobility,
and the scene in the Ratzeburg Cathedral, asking if that was a
correct account of the incident. He then related it to me once more,
the narrative agreeing in all important particulars with that already
given. Returning to the agitation that preceded the elections, he
continued as follows: “They do not, however, even believe what they
preach. They hate and slander me because I am a Junker and not a
Professor, and because I have been a Minister for twenty years. That
has lasted too long for them--hence their vexation. They would like
to come to power themselves, and form a Government. But that is mere
covetousness, and not ability, and if I were to make way for them
they would be desperately embarrassed, and would recognise that
they could do nothing. I was born a Junker, but my policy was not
that of the Junkers. I am a Royalist in the first place, and then
a Prussian and a German. I will defend my King and the monarchy
against revolution, both overt and covert, and I will establish and
leave behind me a strong and healthy Germany. To me the parties are
a matter of indifference. I am also not a Conservative in the sense
of the Conservative party. My entire past as a Minister is evidence
of that. They saw that in 1873 in the question of the Inspection of
Schools Bill, when they turned their backs upon me, attacked me in
their papers, and wrote me absurd letters.”
He took from the shelves near him a copy of a letter with which he
had disposed of an old gentleman in Pomerania (Senfft-Pilsach), who
had at that time warned him to reflect and pray. This letter, which
he read to me, directed attention, _inter alia_, to the Psalms,
chapter 12, verses 3 and 4: “The Lord shall cut off all flattering
lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: who have said, with
our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over
us?” He then returned to the last elections, and observed: “The
defectiveness of our institutions is shown by the credulity of the
electors. It may come to this, that we shall some day have to say
of the German Constitution, after all attempts at government and
reform under it have failed, as Schwarzenberg said at Olmütz: ‘This
arrangement has not stood the test.’ But that must not be printed
now. It is only for yourself.... They have now invented another
calumny. They take advantage of my attachment to the Emperor, and
pretend that I am clinging to office, that I am devoured by the love
of power. It may turn out differently, however, and I may say to
them: ‘Here you have it! Now let us see you govern!’ That, however,
can only be after a division on some important question, not on the
electoral returns. The Emperor is half inclined to try it and let me
go, if only for one session. Things cannot go on as they are much
longer. Of course, I am not going to desert the Emperor; it would be
unfair to leave the old man in the lurch. But I cannot renounce my
convictions, and I will not have a return to the period of conflict.
I demand more appreciation and better treatment.”
Returning once more to the statement that the Liberal parties had
been guilty of gross misrepresentation during the last election,
he added that they had at the same time set the followers of the
Government a good example by their excellent organisation, energy,
and self-sacrifice. “Many people on our side, such as Herzog, for
instance, have also given a great deal of money,” he said; “but the
Progressists have done more. They had all the treasure of the Hebrews
at their disposal, and were at the same time thoroughly drilled and
well organised.”
“And now,” he asked, “have I anything else for you? Unruh has
published various things that should be refuted.” He took up the
October number of the sixth year’s issue of the _Deutsche Revue_,
which lay before him, and continued: “He maintains that he has
written for historians, but he obviously intended to influence the
elections. A great deal of it is erroneous, other portions are
electioneering lies, and some parts require to be supplemented. Here,
for instance, on page 9, he states that while I was still a member of
Parliament I had a conversation with him which I concluded with the
words: ‘Now I tell you, if your party is victorious, you shall take
me under your wing, and if my side gets the upper hand I will do as
much for you. Shake hands on it!’ This offer was actually made. And
curiously enough, a similar proposal was made to me by d’Ester, the
Radical member of Parliament. In this case, however, I declined, and
said: ‘If your party wins, life will no longer be worth living, and
if we have the upper hand, then hanging shall be the order of the
day--but with all politeness, up to the very foot of the gallows.’”
He turned over the leaves of the _Revue_, and continued: “There is
no foundation whatever for the statement that the Opposition was not
aware during the years 1862 to 1866 that I had a strong anti-Austrian
policy in view. Besides, it is clear from Unruh’s own ‘Memoirs’ that
they were fully informed respecting this policy, and only offered
opposition through hatred to me, the Junker, and in consequence of
their own dogmatism. Here, on page 11, it is stated that shortly
after the outbreak of the Franco-Austrian War in 1859, he had an
interview with me at the Hotel Royal, when I said to him that for
Prussia to come to the assistance of Austria would be an act of
political suicide. I had entirely lost my sympathy for Austria. If
we did not succeed in driving Austria out of Germany proper, and
if she kept the upper hand here, then our Kings would once more be
mere Electors and vassals of the Hapsburgs. There could be no doubt
as to the attitude of the individual German Governments in case of
a crisis. With the exception perhaps of a few of the minor States
that fell within the sphere of Prussian influence, all of them, if
forced to make a choice, would decide in favour of Austria. Prussia
would, therefore, be isolated, but there were circumstances in which
she might have the entire German people as her allies.... Surely
that was plain speaking, and it ought not to have been difficult
afterwards to recognise the connection between such language and
the increase of the army. They would not see it, however.... On
page 13 is another proof that they knew what I had in view: ‘When
the King went to Baden-Baden, accompanied by the Ministers Von
Auerswald and Von Schleinitz, Bismarck followed him, evidently with
the object of continuing his efforts to prevent assistance being
rendered to Austria.’ And on the same page we read: ‘There is another
circumstance which strikes one as an important piece of evidence to
show that Bismarck’s anti-Austrian policy, in so far as Austrian
influence in Germany was concerned, did not originate in 1859, but
was of older date. After 1866, speaking in the House of Parliament
to the former Landrath of the Teltower district, I related to him
my conversation with Bismarck in 1859, whereupon he told me that
Bismarck had expressed the same anti-Austrian views to him in 1854,
and frankly confessed his anti-Austrian policy. It was not until
1866, that is to say, twelve years later, that it was practically
applied. Bismarck had therefore kept this plan of driving Austria
out of Germany before him all that time, and had resolutely pursued
it. This is of some importance in forming an opinion upon the period
of conflict.’ That is certainly correct. And is it possible that
what that Landrath in 1854 and Unruh in 1859 ascertained from me
personally had not also come to the knowledge of the others and been
present to their minds when they--the Liberals--fought against me
with the utmost violence from 1862 to 1866?”
The Chancellor turned over a few further pages, and then continued:
“With regard to the situation in the autumn of 1862, Unruh was
convinced (page 15) that ‘if Bismarck desired to put an end to
dualism in Germany, it was obviously impossible to do so without
a war with Austria, and that for this purpose it was necessary to
make the Prussian army as strong as possible.’ That is therefore
what I have already told you. In October (page 16), during a
general meeting of the National Union at Coburg, he communicated
the conversation of 1859 to a confidential circle. He writes: ‘I
told my old Prussian and my new German friends that they were quite
mistaken in regarding Bismarck as a simple Reactionary or indeed
as an instrument of reaction. He was certainly not a Liberal,
but he had quite different ideas and plans in his head to those
entertained by Manteuffel and his colleagues.’ The gentlemen were in
doubt, and wanted to wait and see how I acted. In 1863 they would
appear to have acquired the conviction (page 18) that I had given
up my schemes of foreign policy, and was now nothing more than a
reactionary Minister--of foreign policy, because (as they inferred
by a most extraordinary process of reasoning) in the interval there
had been in domestic affairs political persecution, measures against
Liberal officials, restrictions on the liberty of the press, and
attacks upon the freedom of speech in Parliament. But what in the
world had that to do with my foreign policy, and the belief in my
anti-Austrian schemes? Moreover, on the next page, one ascertains
that at this period Unruh & Co. had received an assurance from a
trustworthy source that I had a struggle with the Austrians in view.
The writer of the ‘Memoirs’ reports: ‘Seidel, who was at that time
Chief Burgomaster of Berlin, made me a communication which he said
came from the Military Cabinet, of which General von Manteuffel
was the head. According to this communication either Manteuffel
or some one who was in intimate relations with him had said that
Bismarck was exceptionally well fitted for the task of stamping out
the Opposition in Parliament, and that when he had succeeded in
doing that and the military organisation was secured, he must be
set aside as he would otherwise bring about a war with Austria, and
would use our increased military forces for that purpose. A conflict
with Austria and a successful war against her would again drive the
Conservative party from office. In order to keep the Conservatives
in power it was necessary that Prussia should remain on good terms
with Austria, and for that purpose they should even, if necessary,
make concessions. This statement (Unruh goes on to say) looked highly
probable. General Manteuffel was known as the head of the extreme
Conservative or so-called Austrian party at the Prussian Court, and
was much esteemed in Vienna. Bismarck had given frequent expression
to his anti-Austrian plans even before he became Premier, and had
indeed submitted them to the King himself. If Bismarck were to bring
about a compromise with Parliament, and to conclude a peace with
the popular representatives, his services, in the opinion of the
Manteuffel party, would be of no further use, and he ought then to
go. It would be quite different if in spite of the violent struggle
with Parliament, he succeeded in carrying through the military
organisation scheme. So long as the conflict with the popular
representatives continued, he remained indispensable, his value
increasing with the fierceness of the struggle.’
“This is a tissue of mistakes and contradictions. In the first place
there is no foundation whatever for the statement that Manteuffel
wished to get rid of me, and that he was the head of the Austrian
party. It was rather Schleinitz who held that position, and who
afterwards was in frequent intercourse with the Austrians, his salon
indeed being their rendezvous. Manteuffel was by no means a partisan
of Austria, but on the contrary a Prussian officer of ardent Royalist
patriotism. But in that case one would have thought that if the
Opposition in the Diet had been imbued with Prussian patriotism, if
they had desired to see the dualism in Germany put an end to and the
German idea realised through Prussia, they ought to have supported
me with all their might, knowing as they did that I had exactly the
same object in view. And that would also have been wise from their
Liberal standpoint, since it was of course known that a victory over
Austria would drive the Conservatives from power. Finally, there was
no reason to apprehend my overthrow by the Austrophil Conservatives,
as, according to Unruh himself, it was known that I possessed the
confidence of the King, who, it was indeed said, had himself called
me his spiritual doctor. The Opposition, however, instead of acting
on such considerations, adopted a diametrically opposite course. They
acted in an unpractical, illogical, impolitic way, and against their
own interests, blinded by their stupid animosity and pettifogging
dogmatism. It was necessary for the Liberals, if they desired to
pursue a practical policy, to win for their cause--which could not
be promoted without driving Austria out of the Confederation--the
support of the King of Prussia, who had scruples as to a conflict
with Austria, scruples which were encouraged by a section of his
_entourage_. King William should have been gradually convinced of
the necessity of breaking with the Vienna policy, and of attempting
to give Prussia alone the leading position in Germany. I pursued this
end, and Parliament should have done the same. Instead of doing so,
however, they flew in the face of the King by refusing him the means
for the reorganisation of the army, and they therefore lacked the
necessary leverage for promoting their own views. There they were,
floating in the air, with nothing to sustain them but the wind of
their own speeches and self-conceit which deluded them into a belief
in their own importance.
“Finally, Unruh says here (page 19) that I aggravated the struggle
over the Military Bills into a constitutional conflict, that
I assumed an aggressive attitude towards the Opposition, and
endeavoured in almost every speech to incense them by jibes and
sneers, all this for the sole purpose of maintaining myself in power
and office against the Austrophil Court party; and, on page 20,
he repeats the same charge in the following words: ‘I am still of
opinion that Bismarck used and took advantage of the conflict to
maintain and strengthen his position.’ Now that is a gross slander,
such as would render a man liable to prosecution--a falsehood
arising from the same blindness as another on page 16, according to
which the great men of the National Union regarded me merely as the
representative of reaction. I desired no reaction, then as little
as now, when I am again charged with doing so. Had I desired it I
could have had it. Unruh and his colleagues would not have been
able to prevent it, and ‘The People’ who elected them, could have
done nothing. But it was not the people. The determined attitude I
adopted towards the Opposition in Parliament was just as little due
to the love of power, or to the desire to strengthen my ministerial
position. It was rather due to my innate Royalism, which has always
been a leading feature in my character. It was this which made me
hold fast to my position. In doing so I was guided by my sense of
duty towards my King, who, in the circumstances then obtaining,
could not have found another Minister. I remember saying to him,
‘No one shall have it in his power to say that your Majesty cannot
find a servant so long as there is one nobleman of the Altmark still
surviving.’ Otherwise, at that time, it was, honestly speaking, no
pleasure to be a Minister. A Legation in Paris, or even in Frankfurt,
would have been much pleasanter. There one had a good salary with
little work, little responsibility, and little worry, and was not
attacked and reviled on all hands. The provocation and the sarcastic
speeches in Parliament, of which Unruh complains, were not intended
to prolong or aggravate the conflict, but were an exercise of the
_jus talionis_. I am stated on page 17 to have often been most
offensive. There is no denying that. But even when my expressions
were offensive, they were not nearly so offensive as the language
used against me and other members of the Government by speakers in
the House. They were much coarser and more malicious than I ever was,
indeed actually abusive and threatening, speaking of ‘a Ministry of
tight-rope dancers,’ of ‘the reactionary brand of Cain,’ and other
unflattering epithets. I was not the man to submit to that sort of
thing. It was not in my nature to turn the left cheek to the smiter.
On the contrary, I defended myself and paid them back in their own
coin. Then, in addition to that, there was my contempt for the
doctrine of popular sovereignty, and my disgust at the Byzantine
veneration paid to it by the Opposition. That was an abomination to
me, and revolted me even more than their venom.
“The passage here on page 22, as to the motives of my attitude on
the question of the payment of members in the North German Diet is
amusing, and indeed ludicrous. Unruh says: ‘At that time I was still
in favour of payment, but said to Bennigsen I did not believe that
Bismarck would give way; perhaps it was entirely out of his power to
do so. It seemed to me as if he had entered into binding engagements
with the Upper House, which he expected later on to swallow universal
suffrage, when the several States had given their necessary approval
to the North German Constitution.’ With the Upper House! A body which
always stood apart from active politics, and had no influence of any
importance. An absurd idea!
“On page 24 he recalls a remark made by Loewe, that one of the chief
defects of the German Constitution is that it was made after my own
heart. Now, that is a mere phrase which no amount of reiteration in
party newspapers and speeches during the last few years has brought
any nearer to truth.
“On page 25 he says: ‘As far back as 1867 it must have become
clear to every person of insight that there was no possibility of
Parliamentary government under Bismarck. An essential condition of
such government is that in certain circumstances there should be a
change of ministers and parties capable of furnishing and supporting
a Cabinet.’ This is quite true. ‘Parties capable of furnishing and
supporting a Cabinet’--where were they to be found during the past
two decades? I have seen none, neither one with a majority nor
one with a positive programme. And, least of all, in the Liberal
camp. All their manifestoes and speeches have consisted merely of
fault-finding criticism and negation. They have never brought forward
anything positive. They have only a thirst for office, ambition and
envy, but not the power which is essential to productive government.
“On the same page he says: ‘Almost all parties, in so far as they
are not hostile to German unity, consider the Imperial Chancellor
to be absolutely indispensable.’ And yet from 1877 onwards I have
been subjected to the most bitter hostility even from the National
Liberals, and before and during the last elections the Progressist
party gave out the watchword ‘Away with Bismarck!’
“The statement which immediately follows is also a mere hackneyed
phrase: ‘A party which has no principles of its own, but only aims at
securing a majority for the Government, affords no reliable support
in critical and dangerous times.’ One would like to know why. Does
the Opposition with its Liberalism perhaps offer such support, with
its untrustworthiness, its suspiciousness, and vacillation, its
huckstering and knuckling down, and its petty criticism and dogmatism?
“On page 29 it is represented as a matter of indifference whether the
idea of a Zollverein Parliament was originated by me or by Delbrück.
I take it that this ought not to be a matter of indifference to
Unruh, who claims to provide materials for future historians. The
idea did not come from Delbrück, but from me. As can be seen from
Hesekiel’s book, I mooted it as far back as the time when I was
in St. Petersburg, and embodied it in the treaties of 1866, which
secured its fulfilment.[2] But he, as a Liberal and a member of
the learned classes, must of course get the credit of having first
originated it, not a Junker. I do not wish to say anything against
Delbrück’s ability and merit, but it would never have occurred to
him that the Zollverein could be turned to account in that way, for
although he had a great deal of talent, he had no political instinct.
“On page 30 Unruh states: ‘During the debate on the Tobacco Taxation
Bill, when Bismarck had declared a monopoly to be his ideal,
Bennigsen informed me that he had broken off the negotiations into
which he had entered with Bismarck in the autumn for joining the
Ministry, and had told him that he could not commit himself to the
monopoly.’ That is not true, or at least only half true. This is how
the matter stood. In 1877 Eulenburg wished to retire. I offered his
post to Bennigsen. He demanded that Forckenbeck and Stauffenberg
should also be appointed Ministers, but there were no posts vacant
for them. In the meantime Eulenburg hit upon another idea. He went
to the King and incited him against me for having had anything to
do with Bennigsen. His Most Gracious was offended, and in a brutal
letter forbade me to treat any further with Bennigsen. Several months
passed, during which time it transpired in the press that Lasker
also counted upon a seat in the Cabinet. Bennigsen came to me
subsequently in the Reichstag, an unusual thing for him to do, and
inquired about the tobacco monopoly. I replied that I was in favour
of it and would try to carry it, whereupon Bennigsen declared that he
could not support the measure, and withdrew from the negotiations.
Out of politeness I forbore to tell him that he was no longer in my
mind, as I had been forbidden to think of him.
“Further on Unruh says: ‘From that time forward there was an obvious
change in the attitude of the Imperial Chancellor towards the
National Liberals.’ That is incorrect. The contrary is the case.
From that time forward the National Liberals treated me with mingled
coolness and hostility, withdrawing their support in the Diet and
attacking me in their newspapers--chiefly in the _National Zeitung_,
which is the most mendacious of them all, full of hypocrisy and
trickery.
“On page 31 Delbrück’s free-trade system is spoken of as having been
for a long time in force. The question here is what is meant by ‘a
long time.’ The system which is here named after Delbrück has only
been in existence since 1865, and we first began to entertain serious
doubts respecting it in 1875. Up to the latter date I had had no time
to think of its advantages or disadvantages, as I was obliged to
devote my whole mind to watching and averting the serious danger of
coalition which then existed.
“On page 32 there is a falsehood obviously calculated to influence
the elections. I am made to say that I wished to ‘drive the National
Liberals to the wall,’ while people heard at the same time that
I intended to make a complete change in the previous customs and
commercial policy. This is impossible. I first thought of the latter
in November last; and to ‘drive to the wall’ is an expression which I
have never used, either in this connection or in any other. It is not
to be found in my lexicon. Every one knows whether he is apt to use
a certain phrase or not, and I am quite satisfied that I have never
used that phrase.
“The dissolution of the Reichstag after the Nobiling outrage is
represented as a measure directed against the Liberals. It was in
reality the very opposite, an act of complaisance on the part of
the Government towards the Liberals. I wished to make the change of
opinion with regard to the Anti-Socialist laws easy for them by means
of a dissolution and new elections. But that is the way with these
gentlemen and their excessive _amour propre_. If one does not always
stand hat in hand before them, they regard one as their enemy, and
full of arrogance. But I cannot do that. I do not set much store by
criticisms and speeches intended for the newspapers. Indeed, I lack
altogether the bump of veneration for my fellow man.”
At this moment Theiss announced the Minister Maybach. I rose, and
putting under my arm the number of the _Revue_ which he had given me
with his grey, red, and blue pencil marks and comments, was about to
leave. Before going, however, I said: “Might I venture to ask whether
Gambetta has called upon you, Serene Highness?” “No,” he replied.
“He has said so himself, and it is the fact. Of course it is evident
from his journey to Danzig that he had thought of paying a visit to
Varzin. He doubtless reconsidered the matter there, or they may have
written to him from Paris that it would not make a good impression.”
On Maybach coming in at this point the Chancellor said: “We were just
speaking of Gambetta. It was not my business to deny the report of
his visit to me. People might have thought that I had some grudge
against him--that I wished to hold aloof from him, which was not at
all the case.”
I took my leave and immediately wrote down what I had heard. The
first part respecting the results of the elections was worked up
into an article entitled “The Chancellor Crisis,” which appeared in
No. 48 of the _Grenzboten_; the criticism of the Unruh Memoirs being
utilised for an article in No. 49.
After I had received copies of these and of a third article, “The
Imperial Chancellor and the Reichstag,” I handed over all three at
the palace at noon on the 2nd of December for delivery to the Prince.
An hour later I received the following letter from the Imperial
Chancellerie, signed by Sachse:--
“Under instructions from the Imperial Chancellor I have the honour
to request you to call upon his Serene Highness to-day at any time
up to 5 o’clock. The Imperial Chancellor mentioned at the same time
that the articles which you have submitted to him cannot possibly be
published in their present form.”
I presented myself at the palace at 3 o’clock, but could not see
the Chancellor, as Prince William was with him, and Mittnacht,
the Minister, was announced to follow. On my returning again at 4
o’clock Mittnacht was with the Chief, but left in about ten minutes.
Immediately afterwards the Chancellor sent me word that he was
waiting for me in the garden. On my passing through the door of
the large antechamber, I found him standing outside with his dog.
He shook hands in a friendly way, saying immediately afterwards,
however: “But what have you been doing, Doctor? Why, that is all
wrong, the very opposite of what I wanted. Surely the article is
not yet printed?” I regretted that it was already published. “That
is most unfortunate,” he rejoined. I asked which of the articles
he meant. “Why, that about Unruh,” he answered. “You have said
exactly what Bennigsen asserted. It might have been written by one
of my worst enemies. And the other is also not correct--often pure
nonsense. I remember it was just the same three years ago with the
things you sent on to me to Kissingen and Gastein--in many places the
direct contrary was the truth.” I replied that that was only the case
in one instance, in the story about Rechberg, which was then left
out. He would not agree to that, however, and continued: “You must
submit these articles to me before they are printed. You now trust
too much to your memory, which is not so good as it was formerly,
or you have not listened attentively. I related it all to you quite
differently.”
At this point we were interrupted by Count Bill, who brought a
message. When he had gone the Chief took the article out of his
pocket, and as it had grown dark we passed through another door
into his study, where he looked through the passage once more. At
the first, on page 395, where I--following Unruh’s statement--made
the Chief say that in the year 1859 the German Governments “with
the exception of a few minor States which fall within the sphere
of influence of Prussia, would all join Austria. The former would,
therefore, be completely isolated, yet she would have allies if she
knew how to win and to treat them, namely the German people,” he
said: “That’s pure nonsense. Directly contrary to history. Why, you
should have known that.... But, no, I misunderstood the sentence.
I read it wrongly in my hurry. The ‘former’ and ‘she’ referred to
Prussia. There I have done little Busch (Büschchen) an injustice....
But further on, here (the passage on 398) where I say that the people
could have done nothing against a reactionary policy during the
period of conflict. That is unfounded. I cannot say that. It should
have been ‘would have done nothing.’ No doubt they would have desired
to do it. Well, on page 401, that is again an oversight on my part.
Here I overlooked the first ‘not.’” (He referred to the passage: “The
expression ‘drive them to the wall’ has not only not been used by
me in this connection, but was never used by me at all.”) “But all
this about Bennigsen is quite wrong--the second part of it. There
you have written in his interest. If that were a correct account I
should have told a lie. My main object in the article was to explain
that point, and you ought to have known from the _Norddeutsche_ how
the matter really stood. You should know that the article in that
paper was written at my instance. But I suppose you do not read
the official journals. No further negotiations took place with him
after the interview at Varzin, that is with Bennigsen respecting
the ministerial post, although I did not break with him otherwise.
It is true that my son wrote to him once more, but I knew nothing
of this. And Eulenburg did not decide to remain. He had had enough
of it. He went to the King, however, told him of my negotiations
with Bennigsen, and incited him against me. I had been in treaty
with these Liberals behind his back, &c. The King did not inform me
that Eulenburg did not wish to retire, but wrote me an exceedingly
rude and snappish letter somewhat to this effect: How dare I enter
into negotiations with this rabid Radical, this arch-demagogue, and
expressly forbade me to treat with him any further. That did not
take place ‘several months,’ but only three or four days after the
Varzin interview. The statement that Lasker reckoned on obtaining a
portfolio is correct. On the other hand it is quite incorrect to say
that _out of politeness_ I abstained from telling Bennigsen that I
did not think of him any more, as the post was no longer open. It
was still open, as you might have seen in any calendar. Surely you
know that Friedenthal only held it provisionally. The truth is I
could not explain to Bennigsen that his Most Gracious had forbidden
me to negotiate with him any further.”
While speaking thus the Chancellor underlined the passage referred
to, page 400, lines 19 to 28, in so far as he had corrected them,
adding notes of exclamation and remarks such as “No,” and “three
days.” I expressed my regret at the harm that had been done and
observed that it could be put right in the next number of the
_Grenzboten_. He agreed to this and wished to see the correction
before it appeared. I promised to submit it to him. Finding in the
course of his examination, that the misfortune did not extend to more
than some five lines in an article of nine pages, his excitement
gradually subsided. Indeed, the “Büschchen” at the beginning had
already sounded less severe, and at the close he said “I must have a
breath of fresh air before dinner. Come along!”
We strolled up and down in the park for about an hour longer, and
spoke of other matters. I congratulated the Prince on the success
with which he had repelled the attacks of his opponents in the
Reichstag three or four days previously. “Yes, successfully,” he
rejoined. “That’s very fine, but what good has it done? They have,
all the same, refused the 80,000 marks for an adviser on political
economy; and the Government has now no means of keeping itself
informed.” I remarked that they had obviously been influenced by
their own ignorance of practical affairs, and particularly with
industrial matters, as well as by jealousy and fear. Bamberger’s
assertion that they knew enough themselves was no proof of the
contrary. They wished to appear before the public as the only
infallible wiseacres, and also being doctrinarians, they could
afford to ignore economic facts.
We then spoke about Windthorst, of whom the Chief said: “His vote
against the Government has destroyed the slight degree of confidence
I was beginning to feel in him.” The conversation then turned upon
Bennigsen’s Parliamentary activity, and I remarked on the striking
circumstance that up to the present he had taken no part in any of
the debates. The Prince rejoined: “It is very sensible on his part
to keep silent, although he is a good speaker. He sent the others
to the front--Benda, and he also voted against it--a further proof
that he and his party are quite untrustworthy. He has no decided
views, he is not frank, and he is afraid of Lasker. With him it is
always vacillation and half measures. Do you play cards?” I replied
in the negative. “But you know the cards?” “Yes.” “Now, at whist
he always keeps three aces in his hand, and gives no indication
that he holds them. He can no longer be counted upon, and besides
his followers have been greatly reduced owing to their vague and
vacillating policy. Nevertheless, he still sits there with the same
high opinion of himself and the same dignified air as formerly when
he commanded hundreds; and he will continue to do so even if they
should be reduced to thirteen, like George Vincke’s Old Liberals.
There is nothing to be done with the others either. It has now come
to pass, through the absurdities of the Liberals, that the tag, rag
and bobtail, the Guelphs, Poles, and Alsacians, the Social Democrats,
and the People’s Party, turn the scale, putting those they support in
the majority. Mittnacht, who was with me before you came, is of the
same opinion. In future we shall have to count upon the Governments
rather than upon the Reichstag, and, indeed, we may ultimately have
to reckon upon the Governments alone.”
I said that the whole Parliamentary system would in time lose all
credit, even with the public, through such senseless attacks and
votes. It brought everything to a standstill, but was itself unable
to produce anything better. “The effect of the recent debates,” I
went on, “is already here and there observable. This morning I met
Thile, who stopped me and asked what I thought of the Parliamentary
struggle. He was immensely pleased with the attitude you had
adopted. A friend of his, whom he did not wish to name, but who was
an admirer of the new era, though up to the present by no means
favourable to you, had said that the manner in which you spoke and
repelled the attacks of the Opposition was simply magnificent, and
excited universal admiration. And women speak with disgust of the
way in which you were hounded down and personally insulted by the
Progressists and Lasker. A Hanoverian lady, of Guelph sympathies,
spoke to my wife yesterday in this sense. This disgust and this pity
for you will gradually affect the men, and help to bring about a
change in the present tendency. I myself feel no pity, I only foresee
your triumph. Pray excuse me for comparing you to an animal, but
you remind me of the picture of a noble stag, which time after time
shakes off the snarling pack, and then, proud and unhurt, regains the
shelter of his forest, crowned by his branching antlers.” “Yes,” he
said, “one might take another animal, the wild boar, which gores the
hounds and tosses them away from him.”
He was silent for a time, and as we walked up and down he hummed the
tune “Wir hatten gebauet ein stattliches Haus.” He then remarked
suddenly: “But if they go on in that style they will ultimately
meet the fate to which I alluded--the Luck of Edenhall. You know
Uhland’s poem? It will be a case of Bang! and snap goes the German
Constitution! You spoke of Thile. Do you mean the former Secretary
of State?” I said “Yes, I meet him sometimes as he lives in my
neighbourhood.” “He is a dangerous man,” he observed. “He was quite
incapable. He could do nothing, and wrote nothing, because he was
afraid it would be corrected; and yet I kept him for ten years,
although he conspired against me with Savigny. He is to blame for
the Diest libels, which led to the prosecution. I heard the whole
story and how it began from Rothschild. Savigny went to him about the
promotion of the company in question, and asked him if he could not
let him have a share in it. Rothschild said no, he had already been
obliged to part with a large share, a million and a half--meaning
to his branches, the houses with which he is associated. Savigny,
however, thought he was alluding to me, and would appear to have
hinted something of the kind, but Rothschild seems either not to have
understood him, or not to have answered with sufficient clearness.
Savigny then carried the tale further, telling it first to Thile,
who mentioned it to his brother, the general, instead of speaking to
me, his chief, and in this way Diest ultimately came to hear of it.
But, as Minister, I have never done any business with Rothschild, and
even as envoy at Frankfurt very little. I drew my salary through him,
and on one occasion I exchanged some stock for Austrian securities.
I have not found it necessary. My profession as Minister has brought
me in something, and through the grants and the gift of the Lauenburg
estates I have become a rich man. It is true that if I had gone into
a business, or carried on a trade, and devoted to it the same amount
of labour and intelligence, I should doubtless have made more money.”
We then returned once more to the recent debates in the Reichstag,
and I again expressed in strong terms the contempt I felt for the
Opposition. “You were always a gentleman pitted against vain and
vulgar creatures,” I said, “and in saying that I am not thinking
of your rank as a Prince.” “No, I understand--a gentleman in my
way of thinking,” he rejoined. “Lasker’s Jewish forwardness and
presumption,” I continued, “the Professors with their priggish airs
of superiority, and their empty pathos; Hänel, the self-complacent
and pathetic doctrinaire--it is impossible to imagine anything more
repulsive. He wanted to be Minister of Justice in ‘sea-surrounded
Schleswig-Holstein.’” “Yes,” said the Chancellor, interrupting me,
“they had divided the parts among themselves before the piece had
been secured, and they probably have done the same thing now. Nothing
came of it, however, after the interview which our Most Gracious had
with me upstairs in the yellow chamber, where he remained with me
from 9 o’clock until near midnight.” “And where he heard the simile
of the chickens in Low German,” I added. “And then that impudent,
lying, clown Richter, and the whole tearing, snarling, sprawling pack
face to face with simple, solid, positive greatness. It was as if you
belonged to an entirely different species.” “Yes,” he said, “when I
lie down in bed after such debates, I feel ashamed of ever having
bandied words with them. You know the way one feels after a night’s
drinking, if one has had a row and perhaps come to blows with vulgar
people--when one begins to realise it next morning, one wonders how
and why it all came about.” Then after I had promised to make the
corrections immediately and send them to him, he took leave of me
with the words “Good evening, Busch. Auf Wiedersehen.” Busch! Not
“Herr Doctor” as usual.
In two hours I sent him the corrections, which I received back
through a Chancery attendant before 10 P.M. There were only a few
alterations in the second half.
On the 2nd of January, 1882, I again visited Bucher. He complained
in general of the incapable _entourage_ of the Prince, including
his sons, and of Rudolf Lindau, whom they favoured because he gave
card parties and made himself useful to them in other ways. (...) He
was a mere tradesman without education or political knowledge. The
Prince wished to make things comfortable for himself, and no blame to
him, but he was mistaken if he thought the machine would still go on
working as it ought to. In that respect the choice of the _personnel_
was of importance, and those who were now engaged, particularly in
the press department, were almost constantly blundering. The stuff
which Paul Lindau wrote for the _Kölnische Zeitung_ was also of
little value.
We then spoke about the negotiations with the Curia, which were
making satisfactory progress; of Held’s contribution to the social
history of England; of Taine’s account of the Jacobins, in whom
Bucher discovered some characteristics of the Progressist party;
of Stirum, who had also left because he was not disposed to put up
with the intrigues of the clique that surrounded the Prince, and
who had told him, Bucher, that he “preferred in future to admire
the Chancellor at a distance”; and of the Chief’s recent criticism
of my article. I said that the Chief must be mistaken in asserting
that after the visit to Varzin he had had no further negotiations
with Bennigsen respecting his joining the Ministry, as he had himself
told me that at that time Herbert had written to Bennigsen, which he
would scarcely have ventured to do without his father’s knowledge.
Bucher agreed with me, and added that some one had expressed the
opinion that Bennigsen had acted like a gentleman with regard to the
statements published by the semi-official press. Bucher arranged to
send me Taine’s book when he had finished reading it, in order that I
might write an article upon it. He is extracting passages which point
to the similarity between the Jacobins and the Progressist party.
On the evening of the 8th of January, Count William Bismarck sent
me an article for the _Grenzboten_ on “Agricultural Credit in
Prussia.”[3]
On Monday, the 16th of January, I took back the third volume of
Taine’s _History of the Revolution_, _La Conquête des Jacobins_, to
Bucher. He told me that according to a conversation with the Chief,
a campaign would presently be opened in the press in order to clear
up some points respecting Stockmar and Bunsen. He was to write a
pamphlet on the latter in which various documents, of which only
portions were given in Frau von Bunsen’s book, would be published
_in extenso_. I could then make myself useful by utilising this
information, in addition to which he would give me further material.
We then spoke of the Coburg clique, of Abeken, who had been described
on one occasion by Bunsen as the “magnificent Abeken,” of Max Müller
of Oxford, with whom he had spent some pleasant hours, of Geffcken,
and finally of Hepke. On my asking how it was that the latter had
fallen into disfavour with the Prince, Bucher said that in 1862,
shortly after the Chief had come into office, Hepke, who had charge
of the German reports, reproduced, almost literally, in a brochure
which he published under the title of “A Word from a Prussian,” a
memorandum which Bismarck had submitted to the King. Although this
pamphlet was anonymous, the Chief came to hear of it, and forbade
Metzler to mention it in our papers. Then, again, shortly before
the war of 1866, Hepke, “through vanity, in order to show how well
informed he was,” communicated some scheme that was in hand against
Austria to the Austrian Envoy, probably at dinner, and this came to
the knowledge of the Chief later on, after our reconciliation with
Austria, most likely through Rechberg.
I then turned the conversation on Thile, mentioning what the Prince
recently said to me. Bucher still maintained that Thile is a
gentleman and very good-hearted, and questioned whether he were as
incapable as Bismarck had described him to me.
On the 26th of January, Bucher sent me the first and third volumes
of Nippold’s edition of Bunsen’s biography, the proof sheets of
a refutation by him of a letter from Prince Albert to Stockmar,
explaining Bunsen’s “fall” (which was published first in the
_Münchener Nachrichten_, and afterwards in the _National Zeitung_),
and finally some rough notes for a _Grenzboten_ article, which I
prepared and published by the 2nd of February in No. 8, under the
title “Bunsen’s Friends and the Truth.” Bucher’s refutation was
to appear in the February number of the _Deutsche Revue für das
gesammte National-Leben der Gegenwart_. In the rough notes he spoke
as follows of Bunsen:--
“He took away with him copies of official documents, (just like
Arnim), which his family published in a mutilated and therefore
falsified shape. You may indeed without hesitation throw out the
suggestion whether he did not perhaps take the originals. He did, as
a matter of fact, take away at least three. This whole section of
the book (_i.e._, of the biography, so far as it relates to Bunsen’s
retirement) is a fable, written in despite of the author’s better
knowledge. That the King afterwards wrote him a friendly letter,
&c. is explained by the distinction which Frederick William IV. was
in the habit of drawing between the official and the friend, as in
the case of Radowitz. The Memorandum is a schoolboy’s exercise.
Austria to extend her borders as far as the Sea of Azof, Poland to
be restored--a terrible suggestion to be so coolly uttered--Prussia
to get Austrian Silesia, one of the Provinces most devoted to the
Imperial House, and Moravia!
“Vol. II. p. 557. His views concerning the proper preparatory
education for the diplomatic service. That did not succeed in the
case of Theodore (one of Bunsen’s sons). He must have achieved
something out of the common at Lima and Alexandria, since after a
short stay at these places he was on each occasion superseded, and
had ultimately to resign. If he had had the preliminary training
which he scoffed at, instead of a mere professorial education,
he would probably not have been guilty of the follies and
insubordination of the 1st and 4th of March 1854.
“You will find particulars as to the æsthetic International in the
index at the end of the third volume. You are better versed in the
religious type of humanity than I am. Every third word is God. Bunsen
seems to have considered that the _lieber Gott_ took quite a special
interest in him.
“A _bon mot_ which circulated in London: The learned regarded him as
a diplomat while the diplomatists believed him to be a _savant_. The
self-flattery in the account of the conversation with Clarendon, Part
III. Bunsen and Pourtales certify to each other’s excellences. The
source of Albert’s letter, Part III. page 356. Bunsen complains of
his Government to Albert.
“A popular explanation of the political side of the book will
doubtless be also necessary for the dull-witted Philistine. Prussia
should involve herself in war with Russia, and what was to be the
compensation? 1. That the English fleet should enter the Baltic. This
would mean at least, that the Prussian coasts would be protected
against the Russian fleet. 2. That the four Plenipotentiaries (of the
Vienna Conference) should announce Prussia’s community of interest
in the overthrow of Russian predominance. Much good that would have
done us! How often has the integrity of Turkey been declared to be
a European interest? And the idea of an Anglo-Prussian alliance
(the Old Liberal dogma) which so frequently crops up in the book is
equally absurd, and shows a complete ignorance of English policy,
which never enters into permanent alliances without positive and
limited aims. Part III. 201 and 207.”
On the 2nd of February I again called upon Bucher. He gave me various
further particulars respecting the “great patriot and meritorious
diplomatist,” Bunsen, and his sons. The old gentleman’s chief reason
for tendering his resignation so hastily was that when about to take
his holiday after the catastrophe, he was not paid his full salary as
an envoy for six months, as he had demanded, but only for six weeks,
as provided by the regulations. Theodore, whom Bunsen described to
Thile as the most gifted of his sons, had made himself impossible at
Lima, by his tactlessness in holding intercourse with the Opposition
party, and using his influence on their behalf. He afterwards held
the post of envoy at Stockholm, which he resigned when the Government
refused him leave to marry a very wealthy German-Russian lady from
the Baltic Provinces. He now enjoys possession of this lady. Another
son has a fat benefice in England. “Frau Schwabe,” the “Elpi’s
Melena” of the newspapers, who is frequently mentioned in the Nippold
edition of the biography, is an enormously rich German Jewess, widow
of a manufacturer, and a friend, not only of Bunsen, but also of
Garibaldi, to whom she sent, after he was wounded at Aspromonte, an
artistic armchair in “letter form,” that is to say, pasted all over
with postage stamps. Bucher expects that George von Bunsen will reply
to our articles. He, Bucher, will then write an answer from further
official documents, for publication in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine
Zeitung_.
On the 17th of February I left a proof of my _Grenzboten_ article
on Bunsen at the Imperial Chancellor’s palace for submission to the
Prince. It was in an envelope and signed “Moritz Busch,” but was
accompanied by no letter. I ascertained at the same time from the
porter that the Chancellor had not been quite well for some time
past. On my way back through the Leipzigerstrasse I met Bucher, who
was delighted with “the fine goings-on in England now.” I asked what
he meant, and he replied: “Why, the Standing Orders in Parliament,
the Closure. Our people may well ask themselves whether they are
equally pleased with this new feature in their ideal.”
The extracts from Taine, properly grouped and spiced with references
to the German connections of the Jacobins, namely the Progressists,
appeared in Nos. 7 and 9 of the _Grenzboten_ under the title “The
True Story of the Jacobins.” I also wrote an article on Gladstone’s
measure referred to by Bucher. This was published in No. 10 of the
_Grenzboten_ under the title, “Gladstone, and Liberty of Speech in
Parliament.”
On the 10th of March I received the news of the death of our son
John, from Captain Alm of the _Dora Ahrens_ at Falmouth. He had
died at sea on the 19th of December last, on the return voyage from
Corinto, in Nicaragua. Falling overboard during a violent storm in
the vicinity of the Falkland Islands, he was unable to hold on to the
rope which was thrown to him, and was swallowed up in the waves. With
him, our only son, disappeared my best love, my energy and pleasure
in work, my pride and my hope. Henceforth my life is overshadowed
by this grief. He was only thirty-one years of age, had lived the
hard life of the sailor, and passed two severe examinations, so that
we had reason to hope that we should soon see him the captain of a
handsome craft. Now he lies at the bottom of a distant sea, and all
that remains of him is the memory of his dear face and his brave,
high-minded nature. Fearless, truthful, and devoted to his duty, he
died as he had lived in the service of his ship, as the soldier dies
for his flag, his king and his country. He was a man, a character,
and death has no power over such! God has further use of them. But we
shall never see him again with mortal eyes, and can only wreathe his
portrait with laurels and forget-me-nots on his birthday, the 13th
of April.
“Lass mich im düstern Reich,
Mutter, mich nicht allein!”
“Nicht allein! Wo Du auch weilest.
Ach! Wenn Du dem Tag enteilest,
Wird kein Herz von Dir sich trennen.”[4]
All our friends manifested the greatest sympathy for us, in which the
Imperial Chancellor also did not fail to join. He wrote me on the
16th of March:--
“My Dear Sir,--I have heard with sincere regret of the heavy loss
which you have suffered, and although I have no consolation to offer
in such circumstances, I cannot refrain from expressing to you my
heartfelt sympathy.
“Bismarck.”
With this these notes may be concluded. Evening has set in.
The sense of duty as a chronicler awoke again before the pain of
our loss had subsided. I again felt an interest in other things
besides the portrait of our dear departed son, and so returned to my
diary. The lines dedicated to his memory shall remain, however, as a
monument to him, and a reminiscence of days full of sorrow, and weeks
of deep prostration and melancholy.
On the morning of the 29th of March I called upon Bucher. He declared
that the anti-German party in Russia was growing dangerous, and
though the Emperor appeared to be our sincere well-wisher, he would
perhaps be unable to withstand it. It was true that he had spoken
very sharply to Skobeleff who told Schweinitz, as he was returning
with him from Gatshina, that the Emperor had severely reprimanded him
(il m’a donné un savon). The General actually looked depressed. A
Russian diplomatist (Nesselrode, if I understood rightly) once said
of Holstein when the latter was with Bismarck in Petersburg years
ago: “Ce jeune homme sait une foule de choses, mais il n’est pas
capable d’en faire une seule.”
Pope Leo has shown great readiness to meet us half way in personal
questions. Among other things, he had originally desired to appoint
to the bishopric of Osnabrück a former Jesuit and pupil of the
Collegium Germanicum, who had been recommended to him by Tarnassi.
But when our Government pointed out that the candidate referred to
had taken part in various forms of anti-German agitation, the Pope
unhesitatingly dropped him.
On the 12th of May I met Thile in the Linkstrasse, and accompanied
him part of the way to his house. He expressed his regret at our
loss and his pleasure that the Chief had likewise done so. The
conversation then turned on Hatzfeldt, and he said that Bismarck
had always favoured him, “pitying him for having such a mother,”
which, after all, was very nice on his part. He had also dispensed
with the diplomatic examination in his case. Besides Hatzfeldt had
talent and was good-hearted in addition. As evidence of the latter he
mentioned that he frequently visited Goltz, who was suffering from
cancer of the tongue, although it was scarcely possible to stand
the atmosphere of the sick room. He, Thile, had also repeatedly
visited the sufferer. Bismarck, on the other hand, had never gone
to see him, although they had been on very friendly terms formerly.
“It was enough to turn one’s stomach,” he said. It was true that
subsequently, just before Goltz had moved, the Chief called at the
old lodgings, and then gave as an excuse: “I was at his place but he
had left.” Thile then added the following characteristic anecdote:
“Of course you too are an old student of Goethe, and remember the
poem ‘Füllest wieder Busch and Thal, still mit Nebelglanz.’ This
was being recited on one occasion, and when the reader came to the
passage--
‘Selig wer sich vor der Welt
Ohne Hass verschliesst,
Einen Freund am Busen hält
Und mit dem geniesst.’
(Blessed is he who retires, without hatred, from the world, and
enjoys his retreat in communion with a single friend.) Bismarck
exclaimed: ‘What! Without hatred? What a tailor’s soul he must
have!’” In reply to my inquiry whether this story was absolutely
authentic, he mentioned Keudell as his authority.
At 6 P.M. on the 8th of June, three days after the Chancellor’s
return from Friedrichsruh, I left a note for him at the palace in
the Wilhelmstrasse, requesting him if he had anything for me to do
to name a day and hour on which I should call for the necessary
information. At 8.30 P.M. I had a letter from Sachse stating that
the Prince “wished to speak to me for a few moments,” and requested
me to call upon him next day at 12.30 P.M. I called at the time
appointed, and after waiting for about half an hour, while the Chief
was dictating to one of his deciphering clerks who wrote shorthand,
I was admitted to see him, and the “few minutes” extended to a full
hour. The Prince was in plain clothes, with the exception of military
trousers. He had grown thinner, so that his coat hung in folds over
his shoulders. Otherwise, however, he looked well, and was evidently
in good humour. He greeted me with a shake hands and “Good day,
Büschlein.” Then, inviting me to sit down, he said: “You want fodder,
but I have none. There is nothing going on either in domestic or
foreign affairs. You recollect that little bit of a Herzegovina, and
now we have that little bit of an Egypt. It is not of much concern to
us, although it certainly is to the English and also to the French.
They set about the affair in an awkward way, and have got on a wrong
track by sending their ironclads to Alexandria, and now, finding that
there is nothing to be done they want the rest of Europe to help them
out of their difficulty by means of a conference. Nothing can be done
with the fleet without a landing force, and this is not at hand,
so that it will be merely a repetition of the demonstration before
Dulcigno. In that case it was the rocks, here it is the European
warehouses, otherwise they would in all probability have already
bombarded the place. It is also a question whether they would not
have come off second best, as the Egyptians have very heavy guns, and
their artillery is not bad. But so far as a conference is concerned,
it is like an inquiry round a board of green cloth, the interests of
the Powers are not the same, and therefore it will not be easy to
come to any practical conclusion. The Sultan too will not co-operate.
He is not without justification in declining to do so. If he can put
things right by writing letters and sending plenipotentiaries--which
we shall know one of these days--the Western Powers will have reason
to be thankful. If not there will be no alternative left but for
the Padishah to send his Nizams to restore order there. That is due
to the absurd policy which Professor Gladstone has pursued from the
beginning. He tries to come to an understanding with France and
Russia, forgetting the fact that their interests in the Levant are
quite different to those of the English. He surrendered all the
valuable results which English policy had tried to secure during
the past eighty years in its dealings with the Porte and with
Austria, and thought he could work miracles when he had offended
them both. And in France they have also taken a wrong course out of
consideration for public opinion. Egypt is of the utmost importance
to England on account of the Suez Canal, the shortest line of
communication between the eastern and western halves of the Empire.
That is like the spinal cord which connects the backbone with
the brain. Any increase of Turkish power does not affect England
injuriously in this, or indeed in any other respect. France thinks
more of the prestige to be gained by the Porte if it exercises a
mediating and controlling influence in the Egyptian question, and
fears that her own prestige in Africa might suffer. Nevertheless,
France has also very important material interests there, since there
are 14,000 Frenchmen in Egypt and only 3,000 English. It was in vain
for me to point out to them that an Arabian Empire, such as Arabi may
have in view, would be far more dangerous to their position in Africa
than any strengthening of Turkish influence on the Nile. The Porte is
an old European landowner who is deeply in debt, and who can always
be reached and subjected to pressure if he becomes too exacting. It
is impossible to foresee what effect an independent Egypt would have
upon the French position in Africa. That is doubtless recognised by
Freycinet, but he is afraid of the traditions, prejudices and vanity
of the French, and of Gambetta, who manipulates them. It is true
the division in the Chamber turned out favourably, indeed very much
so, but even assuming that Gambetta cannot return to power shortly,
the wind may soon blow from another quarter, and the understanding
with England come to an end. A campaign in co-operation with the
French, a military occupation, would be a hazardous undertaking for
the English, as the French could always send more men than they,
who require their soldiers in Ireland, and who have altogether none
too many. If France had the larger force there she would of course
exercise more influence and play the leading part, and it would
perhaps be difficult to get her out of the country again. The rest
of us would not co-operate in a military sense, as for the present
the question is one of comparative indifference to us, and it is no
business of ours to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for other
people, particularly for the English. So there they are, with their
ships, in a blind alley, and now they want a conference to put the
matter right. Here also we are expected to come to their assistance,
and bring pressure to bear on the Porte, thus embroiling ourselves
with the Sultan--a suggestion which, of course, we must politely
decline.”
“Much in the same way,” I said, “as the English before the last
Russo-Turkish conflict wished you to forbid the Russians entering
upon hostilities, merely because that did not suit England’s policy,
and when Queen Victoria wrote to you and the Emperor to that effect.”
“Yes,” he rejoined, “and it was the same before the Crimean war,
when Bunsen pleaded their cause. They must manage to get out of the
difficulties into which they have plunged by themselves--having made
their bed they must lie on it.”
The dog, which had been standing behind me and occasionally made
his presence known by snarling, now began to bark. “He notices that
there is a stranger outside,” said the Prince, who rang the bell and
ordered the attendant to keep the dog in the outer room. He then
continued: “In home affairs there is also nothing of importance that
you are not weary of. They will reject the tobacco monopoly. There is
no other course open to them now.” “But, Serene Highness,” I said,
“you will submit it to them again, and carry it through in three or
four years’ time?” “That depends upon circumstances,” he replied,
“upon the future elections. I have no intention of pressing the
tobacco monopoly out of a mere liking for this particular method of
fiscal reform. The monopoly is an evil, but it is still the best of
all available means of reform.... I first want to get from them my
certificate that I have done everything in my power to do away with
an unfair form of taxation, but that they would not hear of it. Then
they may settle the matter with their electors and justify their
conduct, should it perhaps result in an increase of the class tax
(a form of direct taxation), while other burdens cannot possibly be
reduced.”
“Then one might as well emigrate,” I said.
“Certainly,” he rejoined. “The class tax, which at present is
retained only in this country, is one of the chief causes of
emigration. If you only knew for how many evictions it is responsible
among the poorer and indeed even among the middle classes! It is
like the Russian poll tax, and does not permit of any equitable
distribution of the burden in accordance with the condition of those
who have to bear it, while indirect taxation distributes itself
automatically. My object was to provide a remedy for this and to
lighten the burden of the poorer citizens. That ought also to have
been the object of the Diet. But you have seen from the discussion
on the Appropriation Bill how little disposed they are to do so; and
Lingen’s motion, which was adopted by the Commission, will not even
admit the necessity of a reserve.”
I observed: “The emphasis laid upon economy in his motion is
quite after the manner of the pedagogue, and of the narrow-minded
Philistine. It does not sound as if it came from the Parliament of
a great empire, but rather as if the vestry of Little Peddlington
were casting the light of its wisdom upon the subject. This petty
huckstering spirit is characteristic of all Liberalism. The majority
of them are ‘snobs’ with a sprinkling of ‘swells.’”[5]
“That is true,” he said. “They certainly have not much amplitude or
breadth of view, and they are bent on obstinate resistance to the
Emperor’s message, in which a far higher standpoint is adopted. But
that is their nature. They only think of their joint stock companies,
_i.e._, their Parliamentary parties, and whether their shares will
rise or fall if this or that is done or left undone. They trouble
their heads very little with anything beyond that. Besides they hope
that the old Emperor will soon die and that his successor will give
them a free hand. The Emperor, however, does not at all look as if
he were going to oblige them. He may live for a long time yet and
indeed reach a hundred. You should see how robust he is now, and how
straight he holds himself! From what--(I understood, Lauer) says,
the Nobiling phlebotomy has been of benefit to him, both physically
and mentally, the old blood has been drawn off, and he looks much
less flabby than formerly. We are now on good terms, better than we
have been for years.” “And the Successor will have to follow the
same course,” I said. “He cannot govern differently without doing
mischief.” “Oh, yes,” he rejoined. “He also would like to retain
me, but he is too indolent, too much devoted to his own comfort and
thinks it would be easier to govern with majorities. I said to him:
‘Try it, but I will not join in the experiment!’ Perhaps they are
out in their reckoning however, and a long-lived sovereign may be
followed by a short-lived one. It seems to me as if this might be
the case. He who would then ascend the throne is quite different. He
wishes to take the government into his own hands; he is energetic
and determined, not at all disposed to put up with Parliamentary
co-regents, a regular guardsman!--Philopater and Antipater at
Potsdam! He is not at all pleased at his father taking up with
Professors, with Mommsen, Virchow and Forckenbeck. Perhaps he may one
day develop into the _rocher de bronze_ of which we stand in need.”
He then came to speak of his other schemes of reform, and observed:
“The so-called Socialistic Bills are in a tolerably fair way. They
will force themselves through, and develop further, even without me.
The most pressing and necessary measures will in the main be soon
carried. But it is unsatisfactory that they should want to bring
the funds for the relief of the sick into too close connection with
the insurance scheme. In this case it is not advisable that the
payments in kind should be transformed into money payments.” He then
gave a technical explanation, the details of which I was unable to
understand, and was therefore unable to remember fully. I said: “But
it is intended to drop the State subsidy, through which you hoped to
reconcile the labouring classes, by getting them to recognise that
the State not only makes demands upon them, but also comes to their
assistance, procuring relief for them in case of need, and providing
for their future as far as possible.”
“No, not dropped,” he replied, “but it is not immediately necessary
in the new form which the Bill has taken. In about five or ten years
it will be seen how far the contributions go, and in fifteen years’
time it may be asked whether, and to what extent, the State should
contribute. It is sufficient for the present that all sums falling
due are immediately paid, the State guaranteeing the amount.”
He again explained this in detail, and then said: “I am tired
and ill, and should prefer to go, once I got my release from the
Reichstag, but I do not like to leave the old Emperor alone. When he
lay on his back after the outrage, I vowed to myself that I would
not. Otherwise, I would rather be in the country at Friedrichsruh.
I always felt better there; while here I get excited and angry, and
become so weak that I can scarcely work for a couple of hours without
losing hold of my ideas. How beautiful and fresh it was there in the
country. I enjoyed every day, driving out and seeing how fine the rye
looked, and how healthy the potatoes!”
This led him on to speak of the hope which he had of a good harvest,
and that again to the price of corn in Germany and England. In this
connection he observed, _inter alia_: “The opinion that low prices
for corn mean happiness, welfare and content is a superstition.
In that case the inhabitants of Lithuania and Rumania ought to be
the most prosperous of all, while prosperity should decrease in
proportion as you come west towards Aix la Chapelle. In England, the
price of corn is now lower than here, and yet discontent prevails
among the poorer classes, Radicalism is spreading, a revolution is
approaching, and that democratic republic for which Gladstone and his
friends and associates, Chamberlain and Dilke, have helped to pave
the way, will come. It is just the same in Spain and Italy, where
the dynasties, it is true, will offer resistance, but probably to no
purpose. In France it remains to be seen whether the Republic will
maintain itself, and if it does a condition of things will arise
similar to that in America, where respectable people consider it
disgraceful to have anything to do with practical politics, or to
become a Senator, Congress man, or Minister.”
On my rising he walked about the room for a while, continuing to
speak, but sat down again soon as if he felt tired. He mentioned
Herbert, who is still in London, and from this I turned the
conversation on to Hatzfeldt, remarking that his appointment as
Secretary of State had not yet taken place. He rejoined: “That is due
solely to the fact that he himself has not yet declared in favour
of remaining. He has still to complete his arrangements, and settle
with his brother about a mortgage. Moreover, I cannot blame him if
he prefers to draw--(I did not catch the amount) in Constantinople,
where things are cheaper, than 15,000 thalers here. He has a fortune
of about 100,000 thalers. I wanted more for him, 60,000 marks, but
the Federal Council rejected the proposal, as they could not give the
Secretary of State more than the Imperial Chancellor, who receives
only 54,000, but who has become wealthy thanks to public grants. You
cannot expect everybody to be prepared to make sacrifices. Every one
is not disposed to lead a simple life, cutting his coat according to
his cloth, and to forego great entertainments and other expensive
habits; and then it is a case of five into four won’t go, so I borrow
one. He must, however, decide between this and July. Otherwise we
shall have to ask Dr. Busch.”
“No, thank you,” I replied. He said: “There are two doctors of that
name, and I mean the other, not Büschlein. But Busch has as poor
health as Hatzfeldt, who is effeminate to boot, wraps himself up like
a Frenchman, and goes to bed when he has a headache or cold, so that
I have already been obliged to do their work instead of their taking
over mine.”
From these invalids he passed on to the Empress. “She lives on and
is again in good health, but a great deal of my illness comes from
her intrigues. Schleinitz is also on his legs again, although he was
very ill. Doubtless he thinks: ‘Perhaps there may be some more Jewish
_pourboires_, so I must keep alive!’”
I asked if he would speak in the debate in the Reichstag on the
monopoly. “Yes,” he said, “if my health permits it. Not for the
purpose of convincing them, but to bear witness before the country,
and then to demand my release.” I inquired whether he intended to
go to Kissingen again this summer. “No,” he replied. “Although the
waters have usually been very beneficial, they did me no good the
last time. For nearly four months afterwards I was tormented with
hæmorrhoids that were fearfully painful, burning like hell fire.” He
then added a description of the symptoms.
Before leaving I also asked: “How do you like the Chevalier
Poschinger,[6] Serene Highness? There is a great deal of interesting
matter in the collection, but it seems to me that he might have made
a better choice. But I suppose all the documents did not come into
his hands?” He replied: “That, too, had something to do with it. But
there is a great deal that has not got into the archives, such as my
letters to the late King, which were retained by Gerlach and which
his heirs will not easily part with. But even as it is, the book is
very instructive, as it contains a great deal which was not known
so accurately before; and it is perhaps well that those letters and
other things should remain unpublished for the present.”
He had in the meantime shaken hands several times by way of taking
leave of me, but each time started some new subject which caused
me to remain. He now reached me his hand for the last time, and
thanking him for giving me the pleasure of seeing him after such a
long interval I took my leave. As usual after such interviews, I went
straight home in order to write down what I had heard without delay,
before anything else should chance to blur the impression.
On the 15th of July I again visited Bucher. He complained once more
of the indifferent way in which business was done at the Foreign
Office and in the Imperial Chancellerie. Herbert sent his father,
Holstein or Rantzau private reports of what he picked up in London
society, the clubs, &c.--mostly gossip--which was then forwarded to
the Emperor and occasionally made use of in the press. The correct
thing for him to do would be to communicate what he had heard to
his Chief, the Ambassador, who could then forward it separately,
or include it in his own despatches. Herbert reported recently that
after the murder of Cavendish and Burke, Gladstone, when sitting in
his place in Parliament, covered his face with his hands in order to
show the depth of his affliction, although the event was in every
way opportune for him. That evening, however, he was.... Rantzau
then came to him, Bucher, to say that the Chief would like to see
that mentioned in one of the papers, but not in the _Norddeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung_, and to ask whether he, Bucher, would see to
it. Bucher replied that his instructions were to write only for the
_Post_ and the _Norddeutsche_. He would, however, prepare it for
the press and Rantzau could then give it to Lindau, who might get
it into the _Kölnische Zeitung_, or into one of the Hamburg papers.
After a while Rantzau returned and said that in Lindau’s opinion
one of the phrases would be better if translated into the _oratio
obliqua_. “But,” said Bucher, smiling, “it was a quotation, yet
neither of them recognised it, although it was taken from Schiller.
I said to him they could do what they liked with it, and since then
they have not pestered me with such matters.” Bucher confirmed what
the Chancellor had told me respecting Prince William’s attitude and
way of thinking in political matters. He added that the Prince had
told some of his acquaintances how much he disapproved of his mother
reading the _Volkszeitung_, and identifying herself with the views
of the Progressist party. Bucher then mentioned that a member of the
Crown Prince’s _entourage_ had informed him that one of the leaders
of the National Liberals had recently stated that they were not so
very much opposed to the tobacco monopoly, but wished to “keep their
consent to it as a gift for the next emperor.” He added “I was about
to write that to the Chancellor, whom I now rarely see; but I saw
from his speech on the monopoly that he had already been informed of
it.” In Bucher’s opinion the most important feature in the Egyptian
question is “that we may expect it to lead to a breach between France
and England.... Our relations with Austria are excellent. What he was
not able to tell you at the time is a fact. We have a formal alliance
with the Austrians, and the Chief has also done something more, so
that we are quite safe from war for several years to come.”
With regard to Hatzfeldt, Bucher said: “He wants to have the
Secretaryship of State offered to him so that he may make his
acceptance conditional upon exorbitant terms for himself. But the
Chief, in order to avoid placing himself under any obligations, means
to leave it to the Emperor to settle matters with him.”
We finally spoke about Eckart, whom it was intended at first to
employ in the Literary Bureau, but who has now a prospect of an
appointment in the Ministry of the Interior. Bucher thinks the affair
is a demonstration of the Chief’s against the Russians, who “always
fancied until now that we must run to answer the bell whenever they
ring.” Eckart, by the way, no longer makes the extracts from the
newspapers for the Foreign Office....
On the 19th of July, Bucher sent me an article from the
_Deutsches Tageblatt_ of the 16th of July, entitled
“Hirsch-Bleichröder-Rothschild and Germany in Constantinople.” It
disclosed the financial intrigues of this group of bankers, “choice
members of the Chosen People,” who exploit Turkey under the pretence
that they are protected by the German Government in the persons
of its representatives. It energetically protests against this
trio, and particularly against “Bleichröder, who knows how to take
advantage of the credit which Germany enjoys at the Golden Horn in
association with persons who only manifest their national sentiments
and their patriotism when these can be turned to account for their
own transactions.” Bucher wrote: “I send you this article for your
Memorabilia. It will be frequently mentioned hereafter. _Justizrath_
Primker of Berlin, is the agent of Bleichröder here referred to.”
On the 2nd of August I received a card from Bucher, in which he
said: “I have to-day taken leave of absence, and at the same time
tendered my resignation. I will tell you why at some future time. Auf
Wiedersehen.”
I therefore called upon him (Bucher) on the 2nd of October, and
at once inquired whether he decided to retire or to remain on. He
replied that he would remain for the present. On the 1st of August he
begged the Chief to obtain the Emperor’s consent to his retirement.
In this letter the only motive which he gave was consideration for
his health (growing nervousness), although, as I knew, he had other
and stronger reasons. He then proceeded to Bormio, whither the
Prince’s answer followed him. The Chief wrote that before regarding
his request as final, he would like Bucher to come to Varzin to
talk over the matter--he would doubtless also be pleased to see the
place once more. He (Bucher) arranged to go there on his return from
his holiday, and accordingly proceeded to Varzin on Tuesday last.
There the Chancellor explained to him that he still required the
services of his knowledge and ability, and although he could quite
conceive that he was ailing and tired, he believed he could get over
that difficulty by giving him as much holiday as he liked at all
times, summer and winter. In future, also, he should be immediately
under him. To this Bucher replied that he did not wish to retire
altogether, but he had had a mind to take up some work of importance
which he could have done at home in connection with documents in
the Archives that had not yet been used. He believed he could do
that work as well as the officials of the Archives (Poschinger and
Sybel). That might also be done, the Chief said, but he must remain
in the service; he was indispensable to him. Bucher then begged to be
allowed two days to think the matter over, after the lapse of which
time he acceded to the Prince’s wishes. He does not expect any good
to come of the arrangement, however, as in his opinion there will be
no change in the condition of affairs.
I then inquired how the Chief was getting on. Bucher replied: “Not
very well. He suffers from faceache, which occurs constantly and
is often very bad, but passes away again after a while. The doctor
thinks it comes from a bad tooth, and has advised him to have it out
or let the nerve be killed. But the Chief will not agree to this,
as he does not believe in the doctor’s opinion. When this is not
tormenting him he is still the same old amiable _causeur_, and he
often has moments of inspiration too, when he speaks on political
affairs with astounding far-sightedness. I shall hardly enjoy much
more of it, however. During recent years I have seen him more seldom
than yourself, sometimes not for two months at a time. But perhaps
that may improve again later or indeed very soon. A few days ago
when I was speaking to Rantzau about my resignation, he said that
was surely not necessary. It was true that the Emperor might live to
a great age, but he would probably not govern much longer and then
it would be the turn of the Crown Prince, who had not altered since
the conflict he had had with his father twenty years ago. (Freytag’s
account of this conflict was handed over by me for publication to
the _Süddeutsche Zeitung_ in Frankfurt-on-the-Main somewhere about
the summer of 1862. It made a great sensation at the time and caused
no little anxiety.) He was a regular Progressist and already he made
no secret of it.” While I was away he had accepted Ludwig Löwe’s
invitation to inspect his revolver manufactory, and even deigned
to take breakfast there. Recently, on entering a Court gathering
at which Puttkamer and also three Progressists, including Mommsen
and Virchow, were present he passed the Minister by and joined the
Liberal trio, with whom he then conversed in a demonstrative fashion.
It must be remembered that this took place at a time when an action
was being brought against Mommsen for insulting the Chancellor. The
Chief was quite aware of this and speaking of the future Emperor,
he had said: “He will wish to retain me, but I shall lay down
my conditions, which he will agree to, but he will not keep his
promise.” Bucher continued as follows: “Then the Chief will resign
and proceed to Varzin, which he even now does not wish to leave,
and a sort of colony will be founded there in connection with which
they doubtless have me also in view. It is then intended to write
memoirs. Speaking to me about them in 1877, he said: ‘I have still a
great deal to say to the world.’--The Progressists are aware of the
Crown Prince’s views and they will then want to form a Ministry taken
from their own ranks. Virchow has hinted as much in public speeches,
adding that the entire policy of the country including foreign
affairs would be different.--Bismarck was a gifted politician who
represented a system of diplomacy which, except by himself, had long
since been regarded as played out. That would lead to a pretty state
of affairs, but would not last long. In the meantime, however, many
blunders and an immense deal of harm might be done.”
I then asked what he thought of Bismarck’s religious sentiments,
giving him my reasons for thinking that his wife had influenced him
in this respect. He agreed with me and said that the views of the
Moravian Brethren prevailed in her family. For the rest it was very
difficult to form an opinion on those matters. He then observed that
Bismarck also believed in ghosts. There is a castle in East Prussia
which no one will inhabit as it is said to be haunted by the ghost of
a lady who committed some crime. She is visible in broad daylight.
On one occasion, when this story was told in Bismarck’s presence and
some of the company spoke of it as folly, the Chief said there might
very well be something in it, and that one ought not to laugh and
jeer at such things, as he himself had had a similar experience.[7]
Bucher also considers such things possible. He said: “A very
remarkable incident of that kind once occurred to myself. When I
lived on the Lutzow Embankment--it was during the first years of my
appointment when I had a great deal to do and was so tired in the
evening that I used to fall asleep as soon as I lay down--one night I
saw my mother stoop down over my bed and smile contentedly, as if she
were pleased that I had now begun a regular life. I am quite certain
that it was not a dream.”
Finally I told him I intended to leave Berlin and return to Leipzig,
as I had too little opportunity of seeing and being of use to the
Chief, and found little society for my wife and myself. I would
remain until February, in order to take leave of the Prince in
person, and then proposed to come to Berlin a couple of times every
year to visit him. In the meantime, I would now and then take the
liberty of requesting him (Bucher) to furnish me with advice,
explanations and materials in political affairs, while, on the other
hand, I also should be at his disposal, as before 1878, whenever he
wished to secure the insertion of anything in the press. Should the
Chancellor retire at any time I would write him immediately, that he
might count upon my services. Bucher approved of these suggestions.
On the 2nd and 3rd of November Bucher sent me a number of newspaper
extracts referring to Bleichröder and his relations with Hatzfeldt,
and Augusta’s intrigues against Bismarck, with which the latter in a
pencil note had associated the Jesuit, Father Beckx. Bucher intends
to write me further on the subject.
On the morning of the 6th of November I called on Bucher at his
lodgings, and reminded him of this promise. He gave me the following
information. “Hatzfeldt intends to become Vice-Chancellor. For that
reason he has had himself made Minister of State, a measure which
was unwelcome to the Chief, and which was managed with difficulty
owing to the opposition of his colleagues. Hatzfeldt has had that
represented in the press as necessary, supporting the contention by
precedent. Hohenlohe was once Vice-Chancellor. I will cut out some
of the newspaper articles and send them to you. He had a _démenti_
of the article on the Hatzfeldt-Schapira affair (reproduced by
the _Volkszeitung_ from the _Süddeutsche Post_) published in the
_Deutsches Tageblatt_, which the Chief reads. This article was
written by Viereck, a Social Democrat, while the _démenti_ was
probably by Holstein or Fuchs. Hatzfeldt is gradually disclosing
his Catholic sympathies, using his influence, for example, with the
Minister of Public Worship for the appointment of certain Catholic
clergymen. Bleichröder, senior, applied to the Parisian Rothschild
and the _Discontogesellschaft_ to co-operate in his great Turkish
railway and tobacco monopoly scheme, as his own funds were not
sufficient; without success, however, as the latter did not wish to
have any dealings with such a corpse as Turkey. He had also been
to Busch, the Under-Secretary of State, and had hoped to obtain
his support for the scheme, as in the Rumanian affair, which was
a disgrace to us. The support was given in that case owing to the
pressing appeals of the old Hohenzollern, Prince Charles’ father.”
On one occasion in the sixties Corvin (Wiersbycki)[8] had at Bucher’s
instance written in an English newspaper against the Empress Augusta.
The Chief had instructed Bucher to get this done, as such attacks
influenced the Court, which was afraid of the press. Corvin then
borrowed a hundred thalers from Bucher, and only paid him back
twenty-five. “He probably forgot the remainder. But the article was
very well done.” Finally Bucher mentioned that Lindau was now ill.
The Prince’s son had formerly begged in writing not to let it be
noticed that Lindau was incapable, and he had retained the letter.
“Heyking has now for a considerable time past been looking after the
press; but, while you and I managed that alone, he has taken on a
Count Henckel as an assistant. The latter, who reads the newspapers
for him, has again appointed one of the men in the office to act as
amanuensis, and do ‘the scissors and paste.’ They are fond of their
ease, these aristocratic gentlemen!”