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.

_July 16th._--After it had been whispered in the press for some time

that the Emperor Frederick had left a diary which did not throw a

very favourable light upon Bismarck, and that this was at present

in the hands of the Queen of England, a second version of the story

(_Berliner Boersenzeitung_, evening edition of the 13th) is now

reproduced from the _Matin_ and other French papers. This is to the

following effect. During the lifetime of the Emperor William I.

Prince Bismarck prepared a frank statement respecting the European

situation and his own political views, which he handed to the

Emperor, believing that the latter would survive his son, and that

the document would thus pass direct, without any intermediary, from

the grandfather to the grandson. Frederick ascended the throne, and

found the Bismarck memorandum. All the efforts made by the Chancellor

to recover possession of it were in vain, and on Frederick’s death it

was found that the document, which contained the most secret ideas

and schemes of the Chancellor, had come into the possession of Queen

Victoria, who declined to give it up. In this form the story is

doubtless akin to that of the sea-serpent, and yet it is perhaps not

entirely without foundation. Anyhow, it is possible that a diary by

the late Emperor may be in existence, and may have been put into a

place of safety by his consort or her mother.

On the 20th of September I received from Grunow the October number

of the _Deutsche Rundschau_, containing the diary of the Emperor

Frederick during the war. I reviewed it in No. 40 of the _Grenzboten_

without having any doubt as to its being in the main genuine. On the

24th Hedwig announced the arrival of one of the Chancery attendants

who had been sent by Rottenburg to request me to call upon him

at 2.30 P.M. I went, and he showed me a letter from the Imperial

Chancellor (written by an amanuensis) desiring him to request me to

come to Friedrichsruh, and to bring with me my notes taken during

the war, as the diary of the Emperor Frederick appeared to contain

inaccuracies. I promised to start next morning, whereupon Rottenburg

arranged to telegraph to Rantzau to stop the 8.30 A.M. train at

Friedrichsruh where it does not usually stop. Nothing was to be said

in the newspapers about my visit. I replied that that went without

saying so far as it depended upon me. I had always felt disgusted

at the merest mention of my name by that pack. On the same evening

Rottenburg sent me a letter requesting me not to leave Berlin, but

to come to the Imperial Chancellerie at 10 A.M. on the following

morning, as other arrangements had been made.

I appeared punctually at 10 A.M. in the Chancellor’s antechamber,

where I met the Secretary of State, Von Schelling (medium height, red

face, white hair and small white moustache) who was shown in to the

Prince before me. As Rottenburg informed me while I was waiting, the

Chancellor had arrived and wished to see me. He added, however, that

he might not be able to see me now, in which case I should return

at 2.30 P.M. Rottenburg also inquired if I had already found any

inaccuracies in the diary published in the _Rundschau_. I replied

that so far I had only noticed some trifling errors, and that on the

whole I considered it to be genuine, but not complete. Schelling

remained for half an hour. On his leaving, Rantzau came out and spoke

to Rottenburg, whereupon the latter again requested me to return at

2.30 P.M., as the Chief was too much occupied to be able to speak to

me now. On my return at the hour named he said that the Chancellor

had still no time to receive me and was going back to Friedrichsruh

that evening. There was, therefore, no alternative but for me to go

there likewise. It would be well if I were to start next morning

and telegraph to him shortly before my departure in order that he

might arrange for the train to stop at Friedrichsruh. I promised to

leave by the 8.30 train from the Lehrter station, which arrives at

Friedrichsruh about 1 P.M., and also to take with me my notes, of

which he again reminded me.

_September 26th._--About one o’clock I arrived at Friedrichsruh

station, where Rottenburg was waiting with a carriage for Count

Solms, our Ambassador in Rome--who travelled by the same train--and

myself. On our way to the house, the Privy Councillor told us that

the Prince had gone out for a walk in order to freshen himself up, as

he had done a great deal of work last night. At 2.15 P.M. I met him

at lunch, at which the Princess, Rantzau and his wife, his Excellency

von Solms, and a Prioress, whose name I have forgotten, were also

present. The Chief, as was his custom formerly at Varzin and here,

read through, signed and otherwise disposed of various documents.

After lunch Rottenburg, on his instructions, handed me a memorandum

on the diary published in the _Rundschau_. This was directed to the

Emperor and was to appear next day in the _Reichsanzeiger_. While

I was reading this through in his study, the Chief came in, asked

me to give it to him, and made a few corrections and additions in

it. I then read it through in my own room upstairs, after which

the Chancery attendant, Kleist, took it away. I then chatted with

the three little Rantzaus, who were trying their skill at archery

at an improvised target near the coach-house; advised them in the

matter, and in that way, apparently, won the good will of the still

very childlike and unaffected boys. Then a short walk with Solms in

the park on the banks of the Aue. On my return, I found a carriage

standing before the door of the house; and the Chief sent word to say

that he was going out for a drive, and would I like to come with him.

Of course I would. We then drove for about two hours, first to Silt,

afterwards to Schönau and finally to the Billenbrück, and then home

through the beech wood on the right bank of the Aue. On the way, the

Prince spoke to two gamekeepers about the scarcity of partridges and

the fish poachers; while he discussed the state of the crops, and the

condition of the cattle with a cowherd whose charges were feeding

in a field of vetches. Further on, he entered into conversation

with overseers who were looking after the potato digging and with

labourers who were ploughing with oxen. In the intervals he had a

long conversation with me on the manner in which the Crown Prince’s

diary should be dealt with. He introduced the subject by the remark

(in English): “I am afraid you have forgotten your English.” On my

answering, “No, sir, by no means,” he continued the conversation in

that language on account of the coachman. He began: “As you will

have seen from what you read, we must first treat it as a forgery,

a point of view from which a great deal may be said. Then, when it

is proved to be genuine by the production of the original it can

be dealt with further in another way.” I said that on the whole it

appeared to me to be genuine, but incomplete, on the one hand, while,

on the other, there were interpolations, probably by Victoria No. 2,

in support of which opinion I quoted examples. I also told him that,

in ignorance of his plans, I had already dealt with the matter in

the _Grenzboten_ a week before, according to my own views, and in

certain flagrant instances condemned it cautiously. Another course

was, however, still open to me. I then repeated to him, from memory,

the commencement of the article in question. He rejoined: “You were

quite right. I myself consider the diary even more genuine than

you do. It is quite insignificant, superficial stuff, without any

true conception of the situation, a medley of sentimental politics,

self-conceit and phrase-mongering. He was far from being as clever as

his father, and the latter was certainly not a first-rate politician.

It is just that which proves its genuineness to me. But at first

we must treat it as doubtful.” The conversation then turned on the

details of the diary. I asked if he had spoken to the Emperor on

the subject, and he replied in the affirmative, saying: “He was

quite in a rage and wishes to have strong measures taken against

the publication.” He then came to speak of the demand for Imperial

Ministers. We have them, of course, only without the title and name.

The Imperial Chancellor is their permanent President,--permanent,

because with us the power of the Emperor is greater under the

Constitution than in other countries which are ruled by alternating

Parliamentary majorities. I suggested that Gustav Freytag might

perhaps at the instance of the Empress Victoria have edited the diary

and arranged for its publication. I tried to show the probability

of this suggestion by a reference to his political views, to the

confidential position which he occupied towards the two Victorias,

and in particular to an instruction to Brater’s paper in Frankfurt

in the summer of 1863, during the conflict between the King and

the Crown Prince respecting the “Press Ordinances.” He considered,

however, that the trick would prove to have been done by Hengst, a

writer who serves the Court, and particularly its ladies, in the

press. He then repeated the main points of the memorandum which I

had previously read. I now ascertained for certain that this was a

report on the diary in the _Deutsche Rundschau_ which the Chancellor,

by the Emperor’s command, had submitted to the sovereign a few days

ago. He added various details: “In 1870 the Crown Prince was only

partially initiated into the negotiations, as the King feared that

he would write about them either to his consort, or direct to Queen

Victoria and her Court, whose sympathies were with the French. In

the second place, he might also have done harm, as his views with

regard to the demands upon our German allies went too far, and he

was thinking of coercive measures which were urged upon him by his

good friends at Baden and Coburg--as, for instance, Roggenbach, who

always was a fool. He had therefore only a superficial knowledge of

the course of affairs. It is, nevertheless, surprising that these

notes, which are supposed to have been written down day by day,

contain so many misconceptions, confusions and chronological errors.

A great deal of it cannot possibly have been written by the Crown

Prince, and must have come from his _entourage_ or the publisher.

Here it is said that, in the middle of July, I wanted to return to

Varzin because peace was no longer in danger, while he, of course,

knew that I considered war to be inevitable, and had declared my

intention to retire when the King showed a disposition to yield. It

is also inconceivable that the Crown Prince endeavoured at an early

date to secure the Iron Cross for non-Prussians, in view of the fact

that at Versailles he was opposed to it, and it was I who first

suggested it. He represents this as the beginning of the struggle

between him and me as to the future of Germany, although he must

surely have remembered former differences of opinion between us, that

led to some very lively discussions which one would not be likely

to forget. It was before or immediately after Sedan, at Beaumont or

Donchery, and the conversation took place in a long avenue through

which we rode side by side. We came to high words over our respective

views as to what was expedient and morally permissible, and when

he spoke of force and of coercive measures against the Bavarians I

reminded him of the Margrave Gero and the thirty Wendish Princes, and

also of the Sendling massacre. When he held to his opinion, however,

and suggested that I should carry it into execution, I said to him

(scarcely in so blunt and plain a fashion) that there were things

which a Prince, perhaps, might do, but no gentleman would attempt.

Such conduct would be an act of perfidy, and an outrage upon allies

who had fulfilled their obligations, quite apart from the folly of

such an attempt at a time when we had further use for them. The

statements in the alleged diary as to my position in the Emperor

question in 1866, on my intentions in connection with the dogma of

infallibility, my idea of an Upper House and the Imperial Ministries,

can hardly have been written by the Crown Prince either. In 1870 he

could no longer doubt that the Empire, in the form which he had in

his mind in 1866, would have been neither useful nor feasible--in

fact it would not have been an Empire at all. What he desired in 1866

was not an Emperor but a King of Germany--the other Kings and Grand

Dukes being reduced to their former rank, merely Dukes--as if that

were an easy matter to bring about. We had already put an end to the

Upper House at Beaumont or Donchery, and had dealt with the Imperial

Ministers in like fashion. He, too, must have finally recognised

that the dogma of infallibility was of slight importance for us, and

that I regarded it as a blunder on the part of the Pope and advised

the King to let it rest during the continuance of the war. Even a

hasty thinker like the Crown Prince could scarcely have concluded

from that that I intended to oppose it after the war, and therefore

this passage was doubtless not written by him. At least for the

present we must continue to doubt the genuineness of this and other

statements.” He then spoke of Bray, who, as an Austrian sympathiser,

delayed the mobilisation of the Bavarian troops in 1870; and of King

Lewis, who--at that time of sound German principles--was “our sole

influential friend in Bavaria.” Returning to the Crown Prince’s

idea of 1866 and to his Upper Chamber, the Chancellor observed:

“An Emperor or King of North Germany would have created a division

between North and South Germany such as did not exist under the

Customs Union; and an Upper House with Princes and elected members

was impossible.” I then reminded him of the importunity of Baden

and Coburg, who at Versailles worried him with memorials and verbal

counsels, questions, &c., to that effect, and of his indignation

at the unexpected visit of the Grand Duke Frederick during dinner.

I then mentioned to him what Bucher had told me about the sensible

attitude adopted by the Queen of England at Charlottenburg, which

he confirmed, adding that at the interview which he had had with

her he had in part prompted the admonitions which she addressed to

her daughter. In this connection I asked whether the statement in

Bleichröder’s _Boersenzeitung_ as to his strong condemnation of my

article, “Foreign Influences in the Empire,” were true. I added that,

_rebus mutatis_, I should have considered it quite conceivable, and

had indeed said as much. He replied, smiling: “Nonsense! quite the

contrary. I have several times expressed my high appreciation of it.

The article was really quite first rate, and the Coburg pamphlet was

also very aptly applied.” Driving along in the dusk on the right bank

of the Aue, we passed a boarding school, and were greeted with cheers

three times repeated by a crowd of children (doubtless the pupils and

their teacher). “They will,” he said, “have taken the grey-bearded

gentleman seated by me for a Rumanian or Bulgarian Minister on a

visit.” “Then I too have had a share in the ovation,” I rejoined,

“and shall take it with me to Berlin as a souvenir.” He afterwards

requested me to look through my diary to-morrow, to see if there were

any further chronological or other mistakes in the publication of the

_Deutsche Rundschau_ and to report to him on the subject.

After dinner, which began at 7 o’clock and lasted for about an hour,

coffee and cognac were served in the next room, while the Prince

seated himself on a sofa in the corner, behind a table with a lamp.

There he read the newspapers and smoked a long pipe. We followed suit

with cigars. I had some conversation with Rantzau, who is now about

to leave for his post at Munich, concerning “Friedrich der Sachte,”

and my intercourse with him and his “Ministers,” as well as on the

old Schleswig-Holstein agitation. The Princess then brought me a

book kept by her, in which I had to write my name and the date. I

was preceded in this by various distinguished and eminent people,

celebrities of the day, Ministers, Ambassadors, Envoys, &c. It will

one day be an interesting collection. Afterwards met Solms upstairs

in the corridor leading to his and my room, and hastily gave him a

little (well deserved) praise for his sharp diplomatic scent in the

months preceding the French war. This moved him to invite me to his

room, where he gave me detailed particulars of his experiences and

achievements at that time, but unfortunately in French, whereby some

points were lost to me. (...)

On the morning of the 27th I again spoke to the Ambassador as he was

on the point of starting for Berlin and Rome. “Adieu, old friend, and

if you ever come to the Eternal City be sure to visit me. But what

I said to you last night about the Paris affairs must not appear in

your memoirs.” “No, Excellency, a mere reference to the conversation

without any details. I know how to respect your confidence as well as

that of other people.” “Yes, I am convinced that you have gathered a

great deal about our affairs which does not appear in your books.”

During the forenoon, in accordance with the Chief’s desire, I went

through my diary up to our stay at Ferrières. At lunch the Prince

observed, after first recommending me to take some herring: “They

are wholesome, and I always have some since Schweninger advised me

to take fish. Moreover, it is a very fine and good fish, and is

only looked down upon because it is so plentiful and cheap. Since

I began in 1883 I must have disposed of over a thousand of them.”

In the evening, after dinner, the Prince, while looking through

the newspapers, suddenly said: “Yes, since 1840 the Princes have

begun to degenerate. I will give you an example or two (looking

towards me). In 1858, before Prince William, afterwards Emperor,

acted as Regent for his brother, there was a reactionary intrigue on

foot with which Manteuffel was not unconnected, and in which they

also wanted me to join. Its object was to induce the sick King to

withdraw his authority, and to let Queen Elizabeth govern through

the Ministers. I did not join in that scheme, but on the contrary

started for Baden--or was it somewhere else in South Germany?--and

told the whole story to him (the Prince of Prussia). He was not at

all disconcerted by the plan, however, and declared himself ready to

retire immediately. It was therefore a matter of perfect indifference

to him. But I argued it out with him. What will be the result of

such a move? It is surely your duty to hold on! Send for Manteuffel

at once. And Manteuffel actually came, after having hesitated for

some little time, excusing himself on the ground of illness, and so

the affair went no further. Then at Babelsberg, when I was called

thither in order to be made Minister. In his despair he had the act

of abdication ready signed, and it was only when I offered to stand

by him in spite of Parliament and in spite of the majority that he

tore it up. This restored his courage and confidence and his sense of

royal duty, which in his unfortunate position had, until then, been a

matter of utter indifference to him. He afterwards held to it firmly

enough.” The Chancellor added that of late years the deceased monarch

through this sense of duty had sometimes caused him considerable

difficulties, as his knowledge of affairs was limited and he was

slow in comprehending anything new. Of the present Emperor he said:

“He has more understanding, more courage and greater independence

of Court influences, but in his leaning towards me he goes far. How

considerate he was the last time he came here! He was surprised that

I had waited for him till 11 o’clock, a thing which his grandfather

was incapable of saying. And in the morning he waited for me, and

although he is accustomed to rise much earlier he did not get up

until 9 o’clock, thinking that I slept till that hour. I was just

washing and only half dressed when he put his hand on my shoulder,

and I hurriedly pulled on my dressing gown in order to be to some

extent in a proper condition to receive him.” I said: “Yes, Serene

Highness, you now appear to have everything one could wish for you.

A docile and grateful pupil and warm admirer stands by your side as

ruler and chief authority in the State, and we, your people, rejoice

with all our hearts, and hope that it may long remain so.”

“It is only in trifles and matters of secondary importance that one

had occasionally some little reason to find fault with him, as for

instance in the form of his pronouncements. After all, that was a

little too much of a good thing when he said: ‘Forty-two millions and

eighteen army corps on the field.’ ‘If at last the whole nation lies

hushed in the silence of death.’ If every German soldier and civilian

is dead, what significance can the independence and inviolability

of Germany still have? And new-fangled words from the newspapers,

such as ‘_unentwegt_,’ ‘_voll und ganz_,’ to say nothing of

‘_diesbezüglich_,’ do not look well in his proclamation.” The Prince

rejoined: “In his reference to the battle-field it would certainly

have been enough had he said: ‘And if I were to be the last man upon

the field of battle nothing that we have conquered shall be lost!’

But that is youthful vivacity, which time will correct. Better too

much than too little fire!” I then conversed with Countess Rantzau,

and recommended to her a climatic cure, deep breathing in the open

air. He looked up from his paper and said: “Pulmonary gymnastics? I

too have tried that, and still do occasionally.”

Up to lunch time on the morning of the 28th I read through my diary,

and came upon a number of passages that seemed likely to be of use to

the Chief. On being called down to lunch I met a gentleman who was

paying a private visit. He was introduced to me as Privy Councillor

of Embassy Brauer, a portly man of about thirty-six, who has a slight

touch of the South-west German accent. The conversation turned on

the Crown Prince, and the shallowness and poverty of thought which

characterised his diary. From this the Chief again concluded that the

publication in the _Deutsche Rundschau_, or at least a great part of

it, might be genuine. He again spoke in English on account of the

servants. I took the liberty to remark that according to page 138 of

my diary it appeared after all that he had had a conversation on the

German question with his Royal Highness at Versailles on the 16th. He

rejoined: “Yes, but then he has mixed it up with a former one, and

moreover I cannot have advised him to propose to the King that the

Bavarians should be disarmed.” I added that that must have been said

ironically--a suggestion of such a monstrous description that no one

could take it seriously.

On his rising from table to go to his study, I followed him outside

in order to tell him privately that I had found some passages in my

diary which might be of interest to him, mentioning in particular

Fleming’s despatch on Mohl’s report. He said he would like to see

them in the afternoon, and would send for me for the purpose. “I

must now answer Augusta, who has once more administered to me one

of her gracious Model Letter-Writer epistles.” Later on, when I

brought him the diary with the passages of interest marked, he

praised Mohl’s description of the relations of parties in Bavaria

as apt and accurate. On my saying that it would doubtless have

been in the hands of the Grand Duke of Baden three months before

the differences at Versailles, and that he would certainly have

communicated its contents to the Crown Prince, he answered in a

tone of contempt: “Ah, that is mere talk on his part. He never took

anything seriously, or studied it thoroughly. Do you really think

that they were seriously concerned, to read despatches, and to think

over and note the contents of reports? They just met in order to

smoke and exchange ill-natured gossip.” He then related once more:

“It was before the conference at Donchery when he spoke of using

force against the Bavarians, and of eventually shooting down the

two army corps if necessary. I said to him that would be an act of

unheard-of treachery, which a Prince might decide upon, but which no

gentleman could perform. That would be a course similar to Gero’s,

in his treatment of the thirty Wendish Princes, a perfidy which had

such fatal consequences for the whole Ostmark.” On this occasion he

also repeated his plan of campaign with regard to the publication

in the _Rundschau_: “First assert it to be a forgery, and express

indignation at such a calumny upon the noble dead. Then, when they

prove it to be genuine, refute the errors and foolish ideas which it

contains, but cautiously, and bearing in mind that he was Emperor

and father to the present Emperor.” He then exclaimed suddenly:

“Well, he is gone! Made off with himself, with the Public Prosecutor

at his heels. Geffcken, I mean, who published it, and who for the

matter of that is no Democrat, but a Particularist.” I mentioned to

him that, during the latter half of the fifties, Geffcken, under

the _nom de plume_ of “Victor,” had, as a friend of Freytag’s and

a petty diplomat of the sniffing and spying order, supplied the

_Grenzboten_ with Opposition gossip inspired by the Crown Prince

and the Coburg clique; that he was afterwards a diligent promoter

of the Augustenburger’s cause, but that in 1877, as pointed out in

the “Friction” articles, his place-hunting propensities had been

recognised at Karlsruhe. I then asked whether he had read _Hofrath_

Schneider’s posthumous work on the Emperor William, and added, “he

did not appear to be well disposed towards you.” “Certainly not,” he

rejoined; “and he had good reason for it. He hated me because I had

spoilt a fine business for him. A cousin of mine, a Bismarck-Bohlen,

wanted to marry one of his daughters, his senior by eleven years,

who had driven him crazy by her coquetry. I pulled him away from

her by his coat-tails. She might have captured a big estate with

him.” I further expressed the opinion that the death of the Emperor

Frederick had saved us from an evil future, and in particular from

English influence on the foreign policy of Prussia and of the Empire,

and from an estrangement with Russia. “Yes,” he rejoined; “he was

in favour of the Orleans, used his influence for a daughter of

Nemours, was on the side of Poland, of Denmark, and against the war

of 1866,--always in favour of what fell in with the views of the

English.”

Before lunch on the 29th I begged Rottenburg to ask the Chief whether

our business was now at an end, and I might consider myself at

liberty to return home. I received no answer, however, although I

reminded Rottenburg of the matter. I spent the day in my room, in a

bad temper, having nothing to do and feeling bored, and could not

go for a walk, as it rained up to dusk. After dinner reference was

again made to the Crown Prince’s incapacity, of which the Chief

treated us to an exquisite example. He related: “We had at that time

a secret treaty with the St. Petersburg people which now no longer

exists. Under it we were to remain neutral in case of war breaking

out between England and Russia. On my mentioning the treaty to the

Crown Prince he remarked: ‘Of course England has been informed and

has agreed to it.’” Great laughter, in which the ladies also joined.

The deceased sovereign evidently stood badly in need of a wax candle

to light up his head--more so, indeed, than even a certain uncle in

Thuringia. (...)

On Sunday, the 30th of September, Rottenburg came up to my room about

noon, and said: “I have asked the Chief as to your going home, and

he wishes you to stay at least for a few days longer, so that it may

look like a visit, and not as if you had been specially summoned here

for a purpose. How do you spell _Commercy_?” I replied: “With two

‘m’s’ and a ‘y.’” “He will probably question you about their stay

there.” I looked it up, and found that we had arrived at that place

at 2 P.M. on the 23rd of August, 1870, and left it at noon on the

24th; that the Chief had had a conference with the King there, and

that Waldersee and Alvensleben dined with us. Mentioned that to the

Chief at lunch, when by the way, as on the previous day, he returned

my greeting with a “Guten Morgen, Büschlein”; and when, among the

other good things provided, a basin of peasoup with bacon was served

up to me by the Princess’s orders. This is a favourite dish of mine,

as I happened to let out on Friday in the course of conversation on

various delicacies. The Prince spoke of the Crown Prince’s inadequate

acquaintance with modern history, as shown by his reference in his

diary to the Emperor and Empire as new ideas emanating from himself

and his party. “That was the aspiration of many a German long before

he was born. The _Burschenschaft_ sang and drank to it immediately

after the War of Liberation, and when I went to Göttingen those were

the ideals I carried with me, and if those students had not fought

so shy of duelling and beer drinking I might have joined them and

got myself involved with them in the subsequent inquiry.” He then

related as further evidence of his political views at that time his

bet with Coffin, whom he, by the way, knew to be still alive. “As

far back as 1848 the idea of an Emperor was well to the front, but

it was unworkable, principally because people were thinking of other

things at the same time. The beginning of the Empire already existed

in the North German Confederation, only Bavaria did not want to come

in yet, as was indeed the case in 1870 also, when I had a great

deal of trouble to secure her adhesion. On the other hand, I had a

hard fight with our Most Gracious Master, who for a long time would

not hear of being Emperor. ‘But does your Majesty wish to remain a

neuter for ever?’ I said to him one day. ‘What do you mean by that?’

he said. ‘Why, that hitherto you have been the Presidency (das Sie

bis jetzt _das_ Präsidium sind.’)” If I rightly understood the Chief

at lunch the reason of his question as to Commercy was that it was

there he recommended the King to confer the Iron Cross upon the South

Germans. “Moltke,” he said, “was entirely against it, asking whether

he himself had any Bavarian Order.”

At dinner in the evening the guests included General Lesczinsky, who

was in uniform, as was also the Chief. In conversation on a variety

of subjects both at the table and afterwards, L. showed himself

to be a well-informed man of sound views. He was engaged in the

campaigns in Baden, Schleswig-Holstein, Bohemia and France, and has

in addition travelled a great deal. He is now stationed in Hamburg,

whither he returns to-day. Brauer leaves for home to-night, starting

for Berlin at 11 o’clock.

_Monday, October 1st._--At 9 A.M. Rottenburg came to my room, and

asked me once more the date of our stay at Commercy. I told him. It

actually turns out that the point in question is, that it was here

the Chief first spoke to the King about giving the Iron Cross to

non-Prussians and to the Bavarians in particular. In the evening,

Rottenburg and I took a long walk past the Aumühl into Holstein, and

arranged to make similar excursions in other directions, principally

through the Sachsenwald, where there are a number of good roads,

and which is now beginning to take on autumn tints. Rottenburg is a

frank and amiable man, with whom one is soon on good terms. He is

intelligent and well informed, particularly in social questions.

He has an extensive knowledge of public men, and would appear in

addition to be an excellent worker. He comes from Danzig, and spent

five years in London for the purpose of study.

After dinner something in the conversation led me to inform the

Prince of Andrae’s letter to me, and of my meeting with him. He

observed that Andrae was a vain intriguer, and that the story about

Stirum was not true. Moreover, not only Holtz, but the majority of

the others who signed the “Declaration” wrote to him, Bismarck,

separate letters of excuse. The Princess remarked that Andrae was one

of the worst of the “Deklaranten.” I ascertained at the same time

that her mother was a Gichtelite, and that Below-Hohendorf was their

Grand Lama--an epithet which the lady did not use, however. The Chief

then read a little of the book, _Bismarck unter drei Kaisern_, but

after looking through it for a while he soon laid it aside. In reply

to my question whether there was anything in it, he said: “Oh, no;

a mere hack’s work! Put together with scissors and paste from the

newspapers and such sources, without much knowledge of the subject or

real coherence.”

During our walk I had mentioned to Rottenburg my longing for some

work to do, and had sought refuge from my boredom in three volumes

of Hallberger’s _Ueber Land und Meer_, which I found in my room. He

promised to send me Schmidt’s work on the French Revolution, but

did not do so. In my despair I plucked up courage and applied to

the Chief himself, asking him if he could not give me something to

do, if it were only ciphering, deciphering or copying, perhaps some

matter of no importance,--“for my part it may be making out lists or

adding up accounts.” He smiled, and, after reflecting for a moment,

said: “Perhaps I can find some more interesting occupation for you

to-morrow. I will see.”

On Tuesday, October 2nd, took a walk through the wood to Dassendorf

and back, which occupied from 11 to 1 o’clock. The weather was very

fine. At lunch I ascertained from Rottenburg that the Prince wished

to give me a number of letters to look through. When the Chief got

up from table he whispered something to Rottenburg at the door,

whereupon the latter came back to me and said the Prince was now

going upstairs to look out the papers. In about a quarter of an hour

I was summoned to his study, where he had several large packets of

documents lying before him. He began: “I once promised you that

you should arrange my papers. Here are some of them--letters and

other things from the Frankfurt and St. Petersburg period. Here for

instance is the Gerlach correspondence, and there are letters from

Frederick William IV. to me.” He read over one of the latter to me,

and then said: “I think you will find other matters of interest among

them. I myself can no longer remember exactly all they contain. Take

these upstairs with you, and settle how you are going to arrange

them. I think the chronological order will be the best.” Was I not

delighted? Such confidence! and such a prospect of fresh information!

the fulfilment of a hope that had almost died. Pleased beyond measure

I hurried off with my burden and immediately set to work on them,

first glancing through the various papers at hazard. The sifting of

this treasure was to commence next morning, and to be continued on

the following days with as little interruption as possible.

On the 3rd of October we were joined at dinner by the Head Forester,

Lange, one of the Prince’s managers and an expert who was engaged in

laying down meadows. On the 4th the technical controller of one of

the Customs division at Hamburg dined with us. Schweninger arrived

on the 5th. He behaved very nicely, and was, indeed, almost tender

in his manner on my expressing my admiration of the unquestionable

service he had rendered in restoring the Chancellor’s health. He

wished to visit a patient of his in Mecklenburg, a lady of the

nobility, but on the 6th he was still at Friedrichsruh, where he was

treated by all the members of the family as a friend of the house.

On the 8th we again had the Head Forester at dinner, as well as a

prosperous timber merchant and coal-mine owner from Westphalia. In

two hours Minister von Bötticher was expected to arrive from Berlin.

At table the Prince related that formerly, and even since he became

Minister, he was sometimes obliged to dance with Princesses at Court

entertainments until the old gentleman (King William) expressed his

displeasure. He excused himself by saying: “What is one to do, your

Majesty, when Princesses command?” The Princesses were accordingly

informed of the prohibition. Keudell was also passionately fond of

dancing formerly, and Radowitz too, but the King also broke the

latter of this habit.

ADDENDUM.--Yesterday the Chancellor once more returned to the

subject of King William’s anxiety in 1866 to utilise his victories

in a different way to what he (Bismarck) advised. “His mind was

set on Northern Bohemia, half of Saxony, half of Hanover, Ansbach

and Bayreuth, &c., and it was difficult to get the idea out of his

head.” At lunch to-day I told the Chief (in English on account of the

servants) that I expected to finish my work in two or three days, and

to return the papers to him in linen envelopes, arranged according to

the years. He replied (also in English): “Then you have lost no time,

seeing what a quantity of them there were. But I have also a number

of others for you. The work is not yet over, as there is a lot more

there, more recent and perhaps more interesting for you. Have you

found anything of importance among the first batch?” I said I had.

He called attention to the contrast between Gerlach and Manteuffel,

the Minister, which was evident from their letters. He also mentioned

Niebuhr, of whom he remarked: “It is with him as with many pious

people of his sort: he has no tact, regards himself as the envoy of

an anointed King, and as his representative considers himself to be

also anointed.”

On the 9th of October I had been a fortnight at Friedrichsruh, and

on the 10th the last envelope would be filled, but other important

work intervened unexpectedly. Two documents arrived from the Ministry

of the Household, a short and a long war diary of the Crown Prince,

afterwards Emperor Frederick, both written in his own hand, the first

presumably an extract, or perhaps the original of the harmless part

of the latter, the second obviously written for the most part after

the war, and with many additions. Both are to be speedily examined,

and, as Rottenburg informed me on bringing me the documents, I was

to do part of the work, examining the latter portion of the first of

the two manuscripts, while the Chief dealt with the earlier portion

and he (Rottenburg) with the second. I also assisted Rottenburg

afterwards, as the papers had to be sent back to Berlin in two

days. The diary in the _Deutsche Rundschau_ is not from the shorter

version, but from the far more comprehensive one of the Ministry

of the Household, the interpolations of which are in great part of

a political nature, and are often highly characteristic, although

deficient in real statesmanship. The writer is in every respect

mediocre and superficial, no talent and no character, although he is

thoroughly at home in fault-finding and abuse. We collected and noted

down in our section some particularly fine specimens of his manner

of thought, and of these a small selection may be here given. They

do not include the finest of all, which I had to leave to Rottenburg

or for the Chief, who came into our bureau (at 11 o’clock at night)

while we were making the extracts, and was pleased to find that I was

so diligent in my efforts to be of use. On the 4th of January the

author of the interpolated diary had read “with great satisfaction”

the reflections upon the new year published by the _Volkszeitung_,

and was “horrified” that the Minister of War had forbidden the

circulation of the paper. On the 2nd of January an eulogy of the

Queen of England, “who stands up for us Germans at every opportunity,

knows very well what are the issues involved, and understands German

affairs.” On the 8th of January he notes Odo Russell’s satisfaction

at Bismarck’s having yielded in the matter of the English coal ships

(a matter which H.R.H. had much at heart).--On the 11th of January

Prince Luitpold’s “unworthy” proposal respecting the military oath

of allegiance of the Bavarians, had, like Bismarck’s irritability,

greatly worried his Majesty.--January 17th. Bismarck, speaking to

Schleinitz in the antechamber, had “peevishly” exclaimed that he

could not conceive why there should be a joint conference of the

Chancellor of the Confederation and the Minister of the Household in

presence of the King. Then a very detailed account of the interview

respecting the Emperor and Empire at the Prefecture. On that occasion

the King was very excited and vehement, and the Crown Prince was

afterwards so unwell that he had to take medicine.--February 1st.

Interesting addition respecting Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein,

“who, like myself (the Crown Prince) regrets the manner in which

the Empire has been brought into existence, &c.”--February 14th. A

somewhat lengthy account (an addition) of an interview between the

Crown Prince and Bonnechose.--16th. Conversation with Russell on the

consequences of English neutrality. (In another passage apprehensions

for beloved England, owing to Bismarck’s leaning towards Russia and

the United States). 22nd. Doubtless an interpolation of a much later

date. That “after the peace our next task must be the solution of

the social question.” It is certain that the good gentleman with

his narrow views and small brain never thought of that subject until

Bismarck found time to take the matter in hand, and discovered ways

and means for dealing with the evil which would never have occurred

to his Royal Highness and his _Volkszeitung_.--26th. Conversation

with Père Hyacinthe on the Catholic Church (and also on Döllinger).

As was to be expected, the Crown Prince has high praise for that

superficial and sentimental individual, and feels that his words

have actually given him a sense of exaltation and a feeling of deep

peace.--March 10th (pp. 351, 352 of the MS.). Lengthy statement of

political views, of which extracts have appeared in the _Deutsche

Rundschau_. The interpolated diary goes as far as the 17th of July,

1871, at Munich, and then a few pages follow respecting his stay in

England and at Wilhelmshöhe.

On the 10th of October his Excellency von Bötticher appeared at

lunch. Intelligent, practical looking face, tall figure, and a

moustache with a tuft trimmed after the fashion of Napoleon. On

going to the chimney piece for a light for his cigar brings me one

also. The Chief, who as usual occupied himself at lunch with reading

through and signing official documents, looking up from a paper,

suddenly remarked: “‘_Unentwegt_,’ Busch can’t bear that word.”

The Minister looked at me and smiled. “That is so,” I said, “and I

consider ‘_diesbezüglich_’ still more abominable. The former has

come to us from Switzerland, and the latter from Vienna.” The Chief

then sang the praises of the herring to Bötticher also, mentioning

that he eats it regularly, and adding some remarks on other means

of promoting health, as, for instance, that here when the weather

is favourable he rides or walks for two or even three hours daily,

his quantum in the latter case being five thousand paces, and not

infrequently more.

On the 12th of October the documents which the Chief had handed over

to me to arrange had all been read through, put into chronological

order, and numbered consecutively in red pencil from 1 to 308. These

were packed in eight large envelopes, each docketed with the year and

the dates and numbers of the first and last documents contained in

them. Further particulars of the contents, which I offered to give,

were declined by the Prince as superfluous. These papers consisted

for the most part of letters, the remainder being reports, memoranda,

drafts, and telegrams. The following is a survey of the contents.

First Envelope. The year 1851. (Also includes a letter from Prince

Charles, dated March 21st, 1848.) Nos. 1 to 29. They begin with the

5th of June and end with the 24th of December, and consist in great

part of letters from the Minister and General Manteuffel, from R.

Quehl, from Bismarck to Manteuffel, and from General L. von Gerlach.

Contents of the latter: That of the 23rd of November, against the

new Hamburg Constitution, Senator Hudtwalker’s mission, a scheme for

giving the Estates a position side by side with Constitutionalism.

That of the 4th of December, again on the Hamburg Constitution. That

of the 20th of December, considerations on Bonapartism, after the

_coup d’état_, request for an expression of opinion on the situation,

with the hope that their views coincide.

Second Envelope. 1852. Nos. 30 to 85. Begins with the 5th of January

and ends with the 30th of December. Principally letters from General

Gerlach and Minister Manteuffel, R. Quehl, King Frederick William,

a rescript by that sovereign, four almost illegible notes from

the Prince of Prussia, and, finally, a communication from Bismarck

to Gerlach, dated the 5th of January, reporting on the change of

Ministers in Nassau, the question of the fleet, the relations

of Austria to France, and possible anti-Prussian schemes of

Schwarzenberg, the views of the English Chargé d’Affaires, Edwardes,

on Bonapartism. The first letter from the King begins with the

words: “I would remind you, dearest Bismarck (theuerster Bismarck),

that I reckon upon you and your assistance in the approaching

debates in the Second Chamber respecting the shape to be given to

the First Chamber.” Further on there is a reference to “the low

intrigues of the conscious or unconscious coalition of scabby sheep

on the Right and stinking goats on the Left to defeat the Royal

intentions.” “A sad sight, and in any circumstances sufficient to

make one tear his hair, but on the field of the dearly-purchased,

lie-producing machine of French Constitutionalism! (Ein trauriger

Anblick, unter allen Verhältnissen zum Haare Ausraufen, aber auf

dem Felde der theuer angeschafften Lügenmaschine des französischen

Constitutionalismus).” The rescript (of the 3rd of June) appoints

Bismarck Chargé d’Affaires in Vienna, and summons him to Berlin

to receive instructions. The second royal letter (of the 5th of

June) introduces him to the Emperor Francis Joseph and says, _inter

alia_: “I am pleased that your Majesty will be able to make the

acquaintance of a man who is here honoured by many and hated by

others, on account of his chivalrous loyalty and his irreconcilable

opposition to revolution in every form. He is my friend and loyal

servant, and comes to your Majesty with the fresh and lively impress

of my principles, of my line of action, of my will, and, I may add,

of my love for Austria. If it be deemed worth while, he can inform

your Majesty, and your Majesty’s advisers on various matters as I

believe few are capable of doing, and if misunderstandings of an

old date have not struck too deep a root, which God in His mercy

forbid, his brief official sojourn in Vienna will truly be rich in

blessings. Herr von Bismarck comes from Frankfurt, where what the

middle States, with their leaning towards a Rhenish Confederation

(die rheinbundschwangeren Mittelstaaten) call the weak P. of P.

(Query--the weak points of Prussia) has always elicited a powerful

echo and has frequently made recruits. He has watched all this and

whatever was going on there with a sharp and penetrating eye. I have

commanded him to answer every question that may be addressed to him

by your Majesty and your Ministers as if I myself had addressed them

to him. If your Majesty should be pleased to ask for an explanation

of my views and my action in the matter of the Hessian Constitution,

I feel sure that the course taken by me, even if it should not

perhaps have the good fortune to meet with your approval, will at

least secure your respect. The presence of the beloved and glorious

Emperor Nicholas has been to me a real encouragement, and a certain

confirmation of the strong hope that your Majesty and myself are

at one in the truth that our triple, unswervingly loyal and active

union can alone save Europe and the froward, yet so beloved, German

Fatherland from the present crisis, fills me with gratitude to God,

and increases my old and faithful affection for your Majesty. Do

you also, my dearest Emperor, preserve for me your love from the

days at Tegernsee, and confirm your confidence and your weighty and

powerful friendship to me which are so indispensable to the common

Fatherland. From the bottom of my heart I commend myself to this

friendship as your Imperial Majesty’s true and most cordially devoted

Uncle, Brother and Friend.” Gerlach’s letter to Bismarck of the 9th

of March condemns the language used by B. in an interview with the

King respecting the First Chamber, and in particular that he had

not pointed out how his Majesty, “through the attitude which he had

adopted, had estranged the nobility, disorganised the parties, and

shaken the position of the Ministry.”--15th April. An inquiry at the

instance of the King concerning the truth of the rumour that Prince

Frederick of Baden was thinking of becoming a Catholic. Then an

announcement that Nesselrode was coming to Berlin and that Bismarck

was to be introduced to him. G. praises the excellent report on the

situation in Bismarck’s letter to Manteuffel on the representation

of the Confederacy in the Danish negotiations. He laments the death

of Schwarzenberg, and expects nothing better from Bach and Buol.

Reports that Rochow has arrived with very good news; regrets that

England and Austria should fraternise with Bonapartism and that the

Emperor Nicholas should have also allowed himself to be taken in by

its anti-Constitutionalism. According to an enclosure of the 21st of

April, the rumour respecting Prince Frederick was unfounded.--12th

April. Telegram: “There is no hurry with the answer in the (Baden)

religious affair.”--18th April. Bismarck was to come to the debate

on the First Chamber. The King counted upon his doing so. “We have

now assembled the publicans and sinners, ... and the speeches in the

Chamber will soon begin again.”--9th May. Gerlach agrees with what

Bismarck had said on the debates in the Chamber; reports that the

King was greatly incensed at Arnim’s speech, and that he doubtless

recognises that “his whole salvation lies in the hands of the Junker

party.” He does not anticipate that all will go well in Berlin,

although the Emperor of Russia remains there for twelve days, and

Francis Joseph has ordered a Prussian Grenadier uniform.--17th May.

Gerlach shares Bismarck’s indignation at a newspaper article which

was probably inspired by Manteuffel; considers M. to be an honest

man, but he has had a singular political past, and cannot come to a

good end, unless he sends Quehl about his business. Examples of his

inconsistency. “M. has a yearning towards Bonapartism,” “which, after

all, has no future.” All is going well with the Emperor and Empress

of Russia, “but when they see these things one cannot expect them to

entertain much respect for our policy.” Alludes further on to the

Zollverein and the opening of direct negotiations for a commercial

treaty with Austria; and concludes with a suggestion that Bismarck

should come to Berlin, remaining there while the Chamber was sitting

and until the departure of the Russians, “in order that one might

consider what should and what could be done.”--May 19th. Gerlach

reports that Manteuffel, in speaking to him, had defended Quehl,

and declared that he would rather resign than part with him. Quehl

asserts that he has received a very reassuring letter from Bismarck.

Manteuffel is considered indispensable, and so the only course would

be to take Westphalen, who deserves it “for sticking to a principle

and for his high-mindedness.” His fall would signify a renunciation

of the principle of restoring vitality to the Estates as against

Constitutionalism. A marked opposition was now developing between

Absolutism and the liberty of the Estates, between the atheistic and

the Christian State, and the Manteuffels inclined towards Absolutism

and political atheism.--May 29th. Under instructions from the King

Gerlach calls attention to the circulation of Dulong’s pamphlet,

“Der Tag ist angebrochen,” and observes that his Majesty wishes

action to be taken against this state of things in the press.--July

21st. Gerlach censures Wagner’s attitude towards Manteuffel, whose

position, it is true, is scarcely tenable “unless he decides to enter

into alliances with respectable people.” G. regards the future with

apprehension, “not that a revolutionary Parliament is now probable,

but owing to fear of the rising bureaucracy with its measures of

police and its weakness in the days of trial,” days which must come,

as Bonaparte will be driven into action abroad by the failure of

his internal policy. Bismarck ought to “carry on a positive federal

policy” in order that the others should not take the wind out of

Prussia’s sails. After the probable victory in the matter of the

Zollverein, our dull-witted opponents will presumably lack material

for fresh attacks. We should then assume the offensive.--July

23rd. Gerlach begs Bismarck to take up the question of the Hamburg

Constitution (against the proposed reform of the new Constitution).

Further on, the news that Gerlach has written to Manteuffel that he

should not allow himself to be governed by the Conservative party

but that he should show himself their master, “and once under the

yoke, govern with them.”--July 26th. The Conservatives of Hamburg

have begun to move and are anxiously awaiting the note of the Federal

Diet; and Bismarck should meet this desire. “The position of affairs

in Berlin is an extraordinary one.” Gerlach spoke very strongly

to the Premier but without any hope of success. Manteuffel “must

be retained at all costs, as his probable successors are simply a

terror.” Gerlach’s brother in Magdeburg wishes to visit Bismarck

at Frankfurt.--July 29th. Gerlach was highly pleased at Bismarck’s

letter of justification, and communicated its contents to the

King, who has not entertained the suspicion therein mentioned. The

Zollverein business promises to go well. In dealing with it Austria

has “behaved in a miserably intriguing fashion. What a pitiful

policy in presence of the revolution, and of the sovereignty of the

people, of which Bonaparte is the incarnation! On a smaller scale,

however, our own policy is just the same.” In connection with the

Hamburg affair, Bismarck should publish the Notes and Rescripts of

the Confederacy to the Senate by an indiscretion. “This, which has

hitherto been a mild request on my part, is now a strong expression

of the King’s desire.”--August 3rd. Renewed request that Bismarck

should take up the cause of the Hamburg Conservatives. It has now

come to such a pass with Manteuffel that no one trusts him, and

he trusts nobody. If this mistrust is to be removed, the Ministry

must be supported in every possible way.--October 8th. Gerlach

complains of Manteuffel and Wagner, and at the instance of the King

urges intervention in the Hamburg affair. Hübbe, the leader of the

Conservative party there, has been to see him and the King.--November

13th. Gerlach is of opinion that the internal situation is good,

if Bismarck “will remain at his post as sentinel on the Rhine

(not become Minister?) and keep a sharp eye on the inception and

development of the Rhenish Confederation.” If he comes to the

Chambers he should get elected to the First “where there is a lack of

talent.” G. thinks him better off with Rechberg as a colleague rather

than Hübener, because the former is opposed to Bonapartism, while the

latter is in favour of it. There is nothing to be done in Hamburg

except to procrastinate. The idea of revising the draft prepared

by the nine deputies, instead of the old existing Constitution, is

absurd.

Third Envelope. 1853. Begins with the 2nd of January and ends with

the 14th of December. The first is a letter from Frederick William

to Manteuffel on the Danish detachment in the Holstein federal

contingent. It says: “In my opinion this should not be tolerated by

the German Confederacy if it still retains a spark of honour. We must

speak at Frankfurt like honourable Germans, even if they through

their ingrained dishonesty will not listen to us. Germany, however,

shall and will hear us. If the particulars given by the newspapers

should be confirmed, I authorise you to send this little note, in

the original, to Bismarck, and to consult details with him.” The

following letters are chiefly from Gerlach, Minister Manteuffel,

and the Prince of Prussia, and include a further communication from

King Frederick William to Bismarck, dated the 12th of September: “My

dearest Bismarck, a misunderstanding prevails in my brother William’s

circles, a solution of which is necessary to the satisfaction of

everybody concerned. At Doberan I received a letter from him, in

which he loudly laments Manteuffel’s now certain retirement, which

he rightly characterises as a calamity. I asked William for a

solution of this riddle, as, of course, everything had been settled

three weeks ago, and my perseverance had been crowned with success.

He wrote to me in reply about a week since, that he was glad of

this, but you, my good Bismarck, had received a letter from Putbus,

from the contents of which you, like himself, could draw no other

conclusion. From Sans-souci I asked him who was the writer of this

letter. He told me Gerlach (Polte); to-day I questioned Gerlach,

and he assures me most positively that he has written nothing of

the kind to you from Putbus. Here you have the puzzle Schlemassl,

in the German-Jewish dialect. Unravel it for me and William as soon

as possible. Let your pen be guided by the purest truth.” Bismarck

replied to this that Gerlach had written him that he wished to induce

Manteuffel to remain, as it appeared impossible to replace him. He

had only received this letter however on the 17th or 18th of August,

at Ostend. The following letters from Gerlach are worth mentioning.

January 8th. (Report of a conversation which Gerlach has had with

Ex-Minister v. d. Decken on constitutional changes in Hanover, in

which the King of Prussia should assist. The letter desires Bismarck

to take up this matter, but first of all to write and give his

opinion.) Another of the 28th of January. (For the present Bismarck

is not to trouble himself about the Hanoverian affair. Opinion of

Prokesch. Gerlach would like to have Bismarck in Berlin, as he

fears grave crises, and, according to him, the people should be

given clearly to understand that Bonapartism is our worst foe....

Bonaparte will direct his lust of conquest against Spain.) Finally,

Gerlach’s letters on his conflict with Manteuffel. This conflict was

clearly indicated in the letter of the 23rd of February, in which

it is stated, _inter alia_, that Manteuffel had through Quehl taken

a turn downwards, because he doubted the truth of what came to him

from above; he wants to see the Conservative party destroyed, and

he allows himself to be tempted by Quehl into secret opposition to

Westphalen’s measures.

Fourth Envelope. First half of the year 1854. Begins with an undated

letter from Gerlach, probably written in January; it is followed by

one from Manteuffel dated the 4th of January, while the remainder are

mostly letters from the latter to Gerlach, together with reports by

Bismarck, and finally, two letters of Seckendorff’s from Stuttgart,

the second of which is dated the 27th of June. The following are of

special interest. A note of the 17th of March, from the Prince of

Prussia, asking Bismarck for information on the Eastern Question,

and the reply thereto, a rather lengthy draft by Bismarck; then his

report as to an interview which he had with the Prince at Baden,

with the result that the latter yields to the royal will, though

opposed to his own convictions; a letter from Bismarck to Gerlach

on the Bamberg results; an exhaustive report by Bismarck on Buol’s

view of the Eastern Question, which the former considers to be

correct--doubtless addressed to Manteuffel; another report to the

latter on the Bamberg Governments, Bismarck wanting apparently to

keep them in check, and also respecting Bunsen and Gagern.

Fifth Envelope. Second half of the year 1854. Begins with a letter of

the 1st of July from Gerlach (who finds that Manteuffel is now taking

a proper course) and ends with a letter of the 31st of December. The

intervening papers include among other things a confidential report

by Bismarck to Manteuffel on the abstention of Würtemberg from the

existing agreement between the other Governments in favour of the

alliance of April 20th; letters from Manteuffel and Gerlach; an

(autograph) memorandum by Bismarck on the attitude of the Bamberg

people, and of Buol towards Prussia. It says: “We cannot consent

to an aggrandisement of Austria, because the importance of Prussia

in respect of physical force would be approximated thereby to that

of Bavaria. The Western Powers will want to restore Poland, which

would be less against the interests of Austria than against those

of Prussia and Russia.” The remaining papers include letters from

Alvensleben, Bunsen, Pückler, Wolzogen and Schulenburg.

Sixth Envelope. The year 1855, but only from the 2nd of January to

the 14th of August. Then come breaks in the correspondence up to

November 1858. Chiefly letters from Gerlach and Manteuffel. Also a

letter from Frederick William to King John of Saxony (dated 18th

January); five or six from Savigny (in one of which he laments that

Prussia has missed an excellent opportunity of placing herself

at the head of Germany) and from Schulenburg, &c. There is a

characteristic letter from Gerlach, dated the 4th of January, in

which he writes: “I believe that we should be in agreement if you

were here, that is to say, as to the measures to be taken, if not

also as to principles--for I hold to the Holy Scriptures, which

teach that we must not do evil in order that good may come of it,

because those who act in that way are very properly damned. Now to

coquet with Bonapartism and Liberalism is to do evil, and moreover,

to my thinking, it is unwise in the present case. This you forget

(a mistake into which every one falls who has been away from here

for some time).... How can you go on finessing indirectly with

such an utterly unprincipled and untrustworthy Minister, who is

involuntarily lured into the wrong path, and with a master whose

peculiarities, to put it mildly, defy calculation? Just remember

that F. D. (Fra Diavolo, pseudonym for Manteuffel) is a Bonapartist

on principle; think of his behaviour in connection with the _coup

d’état_, and of what Quehl wrote under his patronage--and if you

want to know something new I can tell you that he has now written

to Werther expressing the foolish opinion that if one wanted to be

useful to Russia the way would be to adhere to the treaty of the 2nd

of December in order to have a voice in the negotiations; indeed I

believe that F. D. has actually advised the King to adhere to the

treaty of the 2nd of December, that is to say, with modifications,

these, according to the way in which things are done here, being of

the nature of reservations which our adversaries would afterwards

ignore, without paying any attention to us in the event of their

non-observance. Our policy moves along a very narrow path, upon

a tight rope, and so far one may say that it has maintained its

equilibrium, _i.e._, it has not fallen into the abyss on either

side, yet its course remains anything but secure.... The King, and

you also, appear to attribute an exaggerated importance to our

participation in the conferences. What good is this gloriole to us,

as we can turn it to no account so long as Austria (as is clear

from Gortschakoff’s reports) is frightened into hobbling after the

Western Powers? Shall we hobble with her, or shall we join England

and France in the chorus against Russia, or shall we alone take

Russia’s part, a course that would require more courage and skill

than can be expected of our deaf and invalid envoy in Vienna. I

consider it more dignified, effective, and successful for us to

take up an entirely independent attitude towards Austria and the

Western Powers. We have met with a rebuff in Paris and London. (The

_züffliche_[14] Usedom and his Radical wife ought never to have been

sent there; but that has now been done, however.) Austria has treated

us with consistent perfidy. We are, therefore, released from all

ties. France, with 300,000 men beyond her frontiers, and England,

without an army, will not begin war with us. I do not fear Austria in

the least, first because she fears us, while, in addition to that,

she has not a man to spare. It would be mere madness to irritate

us, should she really want to pick a quarrel with Russia. She now

demands with her usual impudence and recklessness that 100,000 men be

raised as soon as possible, under the military convention which Hesse

has concluded with her. (I shudder at the thought of the foolish

and puerile proceedings of April of last year.) To this the reply

is curt and bold; there is a firm conviction, based on assurances

as well as information received, that the Emperor of Russia has no

idea of attacking Austria, either on her own territories or in the

Principalities, so that no _casus fœderis_ arises either for Prussia

or for the Germanic Confederation. The Prussian army is ready for

war, and can be brought into a still greater state of readiness. It

is true that Austria has provoked Russia by the treaty concluded on

the 2nd of December without the concurrence of Prussia and the Bund,

but one is convinced that Russia nevertheless contemplates no attack.

I certainly believed that, in face of this declaration on the part of

Prussia, Austria would hardly secure her two-thirds majority, and,

indeed, that she would probably not even try to force the matter

through. Unquestionably, nothing can be done very speedily now. If,

however, the negotiations in Vienna take such a turn that their

success may be anticipated, they will come to us, and not ignore our

300,000 men. That would be impossible, even now, if all confidence,

as well as all sense of fear, had not been destroyed by swaying, not

merely to and fro, as frequently happens, but in three different

directions, which is of rarer occurrence. I am very anxious that

you should come here, if only for a few days, in order to discuss

matters.... Do, please, write soon, and criticise this my letter.

Write also, if it can possibly be managed, that you are coming....

I yearn for political death. A man who has grown old and blunt and

peevish is no longer the right man to wriggle his way through between

such a singular master (for whom, all the same, I have an affection

of forty years’ standing) and such a premier. Indeed, my bodily

conformation is a symbolic warning against doing anything of the

kind.”[15]

Seventh Envelope. Documents of the period extending from the 7th

of November, 1858, to the 21st of June, 1861, chiefly letters from

Minister Schleinitz to Bismarck, and from the latter to the former

from St. Petersburg, including a very long one of the 12th of May,

1859, in which B. deals with the improvement of Prussia’s position in

Germany as opposed to Austria, indicating ways and means of bringing

it about.... Then a very interesting communication, dated the 14th of

May, from Bismarck to Alvensleben, which was accompanied by a copy

of the letter of the 12th. According to this, the latter was really

intended for the then Minister President, the Prince of Hohenzollern,

yet the writer is “in the end in a state of doubt as to how his

Highness is in his heart likely to regard this matter.” The letter

to Alvensleben then goes on to say: “I believe too that Schleinitz

will not withhold my letter from H.R.H. the Regent, although I

scarcely hope that it will be received with favour there. If you

are so disposed and have an opportunity of kindling in the Prince a

spark of royal ambition in this sense, I beg of you to make use of

the contents of the enclosure, as if I had written to you privately

on the same subjects upon which I wrote to Schleinitz. Of course,

the only difference is in the head and tail of it, and to whether

in your case the title of Excellency already connotes externally

the excellences of the inward man. There is almost always an element

of mistrust and discontent when I write to Schleinitz, sending you

at the same time a copy of my letter, and the Prince allows it to

leak out.” On the 29th of May, 1859, Bismarck gives his Minister a

serio-comic description of the petty proceedings of the envoys of

the German Middle States at St. Petersburg, with whom Gortschakoff

has little intercourse, and who worry the more fortunate Prussian

representative in their efforts to obtain some material to satisfy

their love of gossip. The Hanoverian, Münster, is particularly

active and importunate. The Saxon, Könneritz, manifests the warmest

enthusiasm for Prussia, abuses Beust and Austria, and “speaks as

if he were serving under a Carlowitz Ministry; but we have an old

and good proverb[16] that teaches us never to trust a Saxon from

Meissen. Montgelas is most profoundly depressed at the fall in the

value of Austrian securities, and seems to think, strangely enough,

that the remedy to this evil lies in bringing about a general war.”

Schleinitz’s letters are almost always full of praise and thanks

for Bismarck’s excellent reports. Yet on one occasion (June 24) he

acknowledges that many insinuations against him personally, and

against his official conduct have reached Berlin. But he adds: “With

your reports in my hand I have, however, succeeded in effectually

repelling them;” and continues: “if, nevertheless, I take the liberty

of requesting you to conform as far as possible to the views of your

Government in your non-official conversations and relations, that

request is perhaps entirely superfluous, but I am induced to make it

by a desire to prevent your laying yourself open in any direction to

the attacks of opponents.”

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

of uncertain date.

On Friday, the 12th of October, we were joined first at lunch and

then again at dinner by a plump lady in black silk, a Frau von

Patkowski from East Prussia, a daughter of Kaiserlingk, an old friend

of the Chief’s. I begged the Prince’s permission to absent myself for

three days, and took leave of him and of the ladies of the house.

I started for Berlin at 12.45 P.M. on Saturday, the 13th.

On my going down to his bureau to see Rottenburg, who wished to

accompany me to the train, I met the Chief in the antechamber. He

said, smiling, “It is lucky that I have met you before you leave.

Frau von Patkowski is travelling with you, so please take care not to

lay siege to the pretty plump little lady on the way!” “Those times

are over, Serene Highness, and besides, she travels first class and I

second.” “Well, in that case she will no doubt be safe.” I expressed

a hope that during my absence he would have good weather, as it is

necessary for his health, so that he may get his walks and rides.

“I do what I can,” he said, “to keep illness at a distance, but it

will come all the same, and probably soon. It will be a sudden break

down, just as I stand.” Thanks be to God, his appearance in no way

justified such a foreboding, as he proceeded to the station with the

lady on his arm, walking erect and the very picture of health.

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

Friedrichsruh.

I had previously been accustomed every evening after dinner to spend

some time romping in the next room with the three little Rantzaus.

When I asked their mother at lunch how the boys were, she asked me

not to let them have their usual game to-day as a punishment, the two

elder lads having been rude and insolent to their governess in the

morning. The Prince said they must be whipped for that. The Countess

replied that she had deprived them of their bath and slapped them on

the cheek for it. He rejoined, however, “That is not enough for such

naughtiness. They ought to be well whipped.” He then related how he

had chastised Herbert and Bill on one occasion, when they took some

hazel nuts and then ran away from the ranger. “It was not on account

of the nuts, but because they had obliged the old man to run after

them through bush and briar until I caught them and gave them a good

trouncing, at which the ranger seemed to be greatly surprised.” I

inquired of him whether governesses and other persons entrusted with

the education of princes were at liberty to chastise them when they

were naughty, or whether they had to tell the parents, who decided

as to their punishment. He answered the first part of my question in

the affirmative, and went on to say that the governess of the Emperor

William II. said as she was administering physical chastisement to

him on one occasion: “Believe me, Royal Highness, that it hurts me as

much as it does you to do this.” “Ah!” exclaimed the little Prince,

“and does it hurt you in the same place?” Everybody laughed heartily

at the queer form taken by the boy’s curiosity. As we rose from table

and Lindau was taking leave before returning home, the Prince asked

me: “Are you going to your room now?” “Yes, Serene Highness.” “I will

send for you there. I have something I should like to show you.” In

about a quarter of an hour I was summoned to the Prince’s study,

where the Chief handed me a large packet of letters. “These are from

the old Emperor,” he said, and then read me some passages from

them. He wished to have them arranged like the former papers. “Again

in mere chronological order, according to the dates.” He asked:

“But will not that be too much for you?” I replied with an emphatic

negative. I was there for that purpose, and it was a pleasure to me

to serve him, and at the same time to have something to read and take

with me for my information. He continued: “And here, too, is one

from old Bodelschwingh-Schwindelbod. And there are others (pointing

to a second packet), the correspondence with Andrassy, for instance,

in the summer of 1879. You will find information enough there.” He

took up the third pile. “These are from the Emperor Frederick when

he was Crown Prince, and also one from _her_ from the villa Zivio.”

He was about to return them to the drawer of his writing-table,

but I begged him to let me have them also. He said smiling, “But,

Büschlein, haven’t you already enough?”--“It will be better for me to

have everything there is at once, so that I may have a general idea

of all the documents and arrange them more rapidly.”--“But there are

still plenty more, and that pile is already heavy enough to carry!” I

took all he had by him, however, and carried them upstairs in order

to begin my inspection of them next morning. But I could not rest

until I had read through some of them as specimens in the afternoon.

For example, a long letter from the Crown Princess, dated San Remo,

the 22nd of November, 1887, giving the Chancellor particulars of

her consort’s illness and of the doctors; and also Bodelschwingh’s

communication, on the top of which the Chief had written in pencil

“Old hypocrite.” Then before dinner a further walk with Rottenburg

in the wood where it is cut through by the road leading to Möhnsen.

Lively conversation on a variety of matters serious and amusing, as

for instance on Darwin and the high esteem in which he is held by the

Chief.

Early on the morning of Thursday, October 18th, I began to assort

the papers. The numbering and packing away in envelopes was to

follow later, after a thorough inspection of the whole lot. Out of

doors a beautiful autumn day, the sun, in a blue sky, casting high

lights on the stems and branches of the trees in the wood. During

lunch, at which Schweninger again joined us, I handed the Chief the

Crown Prince’s letter introducing Geffcken to him and his answer

justifying his refusal by a description of Geffcken’s character. I

had found this among the papers on the previous day. He was pleased

at the discovery, and the letters were handed to Rottenburg to be

copied and used. Immediately afterwards Schweinitz, our Ambassador

at St. Petersburg, arrived--a grey-headed, portly gentleman with

a moustache, who speaks little and in a low voice. We were joined

at dinner, in addition to Schweinitz, by a big-bearded gentleman

in a shooting jacket. This was Major von Goldammer of Frankfurt,

the sportsman who recently--to the great regret of the head

forester--shot the stag with fourteen antlers that had broken out

from the Chief’s preserves on to the shooting which he had rented.

“If it had only been Count Herbert!” Bleichröder is to present his

respects to-morrow.

On Saturday I spent the whole forenoon and two hours after lunch

in arranging the papers in order of date. Bleichröder and his

Jewish-looking Secretary took lunch with us. The banker related

anecdotes of Amschel Rothschild and Saphir, and spoke of Lehndorff’s

businesses. At table I observed that since 1871 Bleichröder, whom I

saw at dinner at Versailles, had hardly altered in the least. “Not

in his person” rejoined the Chief, “but very considerably in his

fortune.”

On Sunday, the 21st of October, I began to examine and number the

papers, which were now in chronological order, whereby I found

that a good deal of rearrangement was necessary. Here follow some

particulars.

The documents begin with a letter dated Oct. 19, 1862, from Bismarck

to King William. Then follows a short letter from the Crown Prince

to the Minister, dated Nov. 21, in which he says: “I trust that, as

you express it to me, success may, in the present difficult phase

of the constitutional life of our country, attend your efforts to

bring about what you yourself describe as the urgent and necessary

understanding with the representatives of the nation. I am following

the course of affairs with the greatest interest,” and so on. Letter

from Bismarck to the King, in which Eulenburg and Selchow are

proposed as Ministers. (I shall not quote unimportant letters from

the King and the Crown Prince, nor in future any matters of only

slight interest.) A letter from Bismarck to the King, dated 20th

February, 1863, on the convention with Russia. Goltz communicated it

to Napoleon, but without the secret article, with which he himself

was not acquainted. (Probably the article by which Prussia was bound

eventually to render assistance against the Polish rebellion.) The

Minister wrote: “As matters stand in Poland we shall hardly be called

upon for active co-operation there. By means of the convention we

have, therefore, the advantage of securing at a cheap rate for the

future the gratitude of the Emperor Alexander and the sympathies of

the Russians.”

Writing to Bismarck, from Stettin, on the 30th of June, 1863, the

Crown Prince says: “I see from your letter of the 10th instant

that at his Majesty’s command you have omitted to communicate

officially to the Ministry of State my protest respecting the

rescript, restricting the liberty of the press, which I sent to you

from Graudenz on the 8th of June. I can easily understand that the

opportunity of treating as a personal matter an incident which, as

you yourself have acknowledged, might, in its consequences, acquire

widespread significance, was not unwelcome to you. It would serve

no purpose for me to insist upon that communication being made, as

I am justified in inferring from your own words that it will have

been done unofficially. It is necessary for me, however, to speak

plainly to you respecting the alternative which you place before me,

namely, to lighten or to render more difficult the task which the

Ministry has undertaken. I cannot lighten that task, as I find myself

opposed to it in principle. A loyal administration of the laws and

of the Constitution, respect and good will towards an easily led,

intelligent and capable people--these are the principles which, in

my opinion, should guide every Government in the treatment of the

country. I cannot bring the policy which finds expression in the

ordinance of the first of June into harmony with these principles. It

is true you seek to prove to me the constitutional character of that

rescript, and you assure me that you and your colleagues remember

your oath. I think, however, that the Government requires a stronger

basis than very dubious interpretations which do not appeal to the

sound common sense of the people. You yourself call attention to the

circumstance that even your opponents respect the honesty of your

convictions. I will not inquire into that assertion” (Bismarck’s

comment in pencil: “Not over courteous,”) “but if you attach any

importance to the opinions of your opponents, the circumstance that

the great majority of the educated classes among our people deny

the constitutional character of the ordinance must necessarily

awaken scruples in your mind. The Ministry knew beforehand that this

would be the case. It was also aware that the Diet would never have

approved the provisions of that rescript beforehand, and it therefore

laid no Bill before the Diet, and in a few days promulgated the

ordinance under Article 63 of the Constitution. If the country does

not recognise in this course of action a loyal administration of the

Constitution, I would ask what has the Ministry done to bring public

opinion round to its own view? It found no other means of coming to

an understanding with public opinion than to impose silence upon it.

It would be idle to waste a single word as to how far this ordinance

harmonises with the respect and good will due to a willing and loyal

people that has been condemned to silence because the Government will

not hear its voice.

“And what is the success which you anticipate from this policy? The

tranquillisation of the public mind and the restoration of peace? Do

you believe that you can appease public sentiment by again offending

its sense of justice? It seems to me contrary to human nature to

expect a change when the existing feeling is being constantly

confirmed and aggravated by the action of the Government. I will

tell you what results I anticipate from your policy. You will go on

quibbling with the Constitution until it loses all value in the eyes

of the people. In that way you will on the one hand arouse anarchical

movements that go beyond the bounds of the Constitution; while on

the other hand, whether you intend it or not, you will pass from

one venturesome interpretation to another until you are finally

driven into an open breach of the Constitution.” (Bismarck’s comment:

“Perhaps.”) “I regard those who lead his Majesty the King, my most

gracious father, into such courses as the most dangerous advisers

for Crown and country.” (Bismarck quotes in pencil: “Leicht fertig

ist die Jugend mit dem Wort” = Youth is hasty in its judgments.)

“P.S.--Already before the 1st of June of this year I but rarely made

use of my right to attend the sittings of the Ministry of State.

From the foregoing statement of my convictions you will understand

my requesting his Majesty the King to allow me to abstain altogether

from attending them at present. A continuous public and personal

manifestation of the differences between myself and the Ministry”

(Bismarck’s pencil remarks on this point: “Absalom!”) “would be in

keeping neither with my position nor my inclination. In every other

respect, however, I shall impose no restrictions upon the expression

of my views; and the Ministry may rest assured that it will depend

upon themselves and their own future action whether, in spite of

my own strong reluctance, I find myself forced into further public

steps, when duty appears to call for them.” (In face of the menacing

attitude assumed in these threats, Bismarck’s undaunted pencil shouts

out, “Come on!” “Nur zu!”)

On the 3rd of September the Crown Prince writes to Bismarck: “I have

to-day communicated to his Majesty the views which I set forth to you

in my letter from Putbus, and which I begged you not to submit to the

King until I myself had done so. A decision which will have serious

consequences was yesterday taken in the Council. I did not wish to

reply to his Majesty in the presence of the Ministers. I have done

so to-day, and have given expression to my misgivings--my serious

misgivings--for the future. The King now knows that I am a decided

opponent of the Ministry.” At the end of the letter Bismarck added,

apparently as part of a draft reply: “I can only hope that your Royal

Highness will one day find servants as faithful as I am to your

father. I do not intend to be of the number.”

On the 5th of June, while at Danzig, during a tour in the performance

of his military duties, the Crown Prince, speaking in public to the

Chief Burgomaster Von Winter, declared himself to be opposed to the

policy of his father. The latter wrote demanding a recantation,

and stating that otherwise the Prince would be deprived of his

dignity and position. The Crown Prince declined to retract anything,

offered to lay down his command and other offices, and begged to be

allowed to retire with his family to some place where he would be

under no suspicion of interfering in State affairs. Intimations as

to the contents of this correspondence were published (of course,

first of all) in _The Times_, then in the _Grenzboten_ (through

Gustav Freytag) and in the _Süddeutsche Zeitung_ (through me, at

Freytag’s instance). A memorandum, dated Gastein, the 2nd of August,

in Zitelmann’s handwriting, and probably dictated by Bismarck,

expresses the belief that the publication was due to the Crown

Princess, “whether it be that she has herself attained to definite

views of her own as to the form of government most advantageous for

Prussia, or that she has succumbed to the concerted influences of

the Anglo-Coburg combination. However this may be, it is asserted

that she has decided upon a course of opposition to the present

Government, and has taken advantage of the Danzig incident and the

excitement to which it has given rise in the highest circles, in

order to bring her consort more and more into prominence by these

revelations, and to acquaint public opinion with the Crown Prince’s

way of thinking. All this out of anxiety for the future of her

consort.” It is then stated that the Crown Princess’s most powerful

supporter is Queen Augusta, who is extremely anxious as to her own

position towards the country. They have had a memorandum drawn up by

President Camphausen on the internal situation in Prussia, attacking

the present Government, which was laid before the King. In a marginal

note the King observes that the principles therein recommended would

lead to revolution. Meyer, the Councillor of Embassy, is Augusta’s

instrument, and it is beyond question that he is associated with

the Anglo-Coburg party. The participation of Professor Duncker[17]

as also of Baron Stockmar, would appear to be less certain. The

memorandum dictated to Zitelmann is accompanied by comments in the

Chief’s handwriting--either a long letter or a _pro memoriâ_ for the

King--in which the views expressed by the Crown Prince are refuted

point by point. In the course of his criticism the writer says,

_inter alia_: “The pretension that a warning from his Royal Highness

should outweigh royal decisions, come to after serious and careful

consideration, attributes undue importance to his own position and

experience as compared to those of his sovereign and father. No one

could believe that H.R.H. had any share in these acts of personal

authority, as everybody knows that the Prince has no vote in the

Ministry.... The _démenti_ at Danzig was therefore superfluous. The

liberty of H.R.H. to form his own conclusions was not affected by

his attendance at the sittings, where he can keep himself in touch

with the affairs of State and hear the views of others and express

his own, which we hold to be the duty of the heir to the throne.

The performance of this duty, when it becomes known through the

newspapers, can only elicit on all sides approval of the diligence

and conscientiousness with which the Crown Prince prepares himself

for his high and serious vocation. The words ‘with my hands tied’

have no meaning. It is utterly impossible that the country should

identify H.R.H. with the Ministry, as the country knows that the

Crown Prince is not called upon to take any official part in its

decisions.

“Unfortunately, the attitude which H.R.H. has adopted towards the

Crown is sufficiently known in the country, and is condemned by every

father of a family, to whatever path he may belong, as a disavowal of

that paternal authority which it is an offence to our feelings and

traditions to ignore. Even now clergymen are preaching from the text

2 Samuel, ch. xv., verses 3 and 4. H.R.H. could not be more seriously

damaged in the eyes of public opinion than by the publication of this

answer.” (That of the Prince to his father’s letter.)

Page 2 (of the answer). “It is true that H.R.H.’s situation is a

thoroughly false one, because it is not the business of the heir to

the throne to raise the banner of opposition to his King and father.

He can only fulfil his ‘duty’ by retiring from that position and

again adopting a proper attitude.”

Page 3. “There is no conflict of duties, as the first of these

duties is self-imposed. It rests with the King, and not with the

Crown Prince, to provide for the future of Prussia, and the future

will show whether ‘mistakes’ have been made, and on which side. In

cases where the ‘judgment’ of his Majesty is opposed to that of the

Crown Prince, the former must always be preponderant, and there

is therefore no conflict. H.R.H. himself recognises that in our

Constitution there is ‘no place for the opposition of the heir to the

throne.’ Opposition within the Council does not exclude obedience to

his Majesty once a matter has been decided. Ministers also oppose

when they hold different views, but they nevertheless obey” (The last

three words are underlined in pencil by the King, who added on the

margin: ‘When it is not opposed to their consciences,’) “the will

of the King, although it may be part of their duty to carry into

execution the measures they opposed.”

Page 4. “If H.R.H. knows that the Ministers act in accordance with

the will of the King, he cannot fail to see that the opposition of

the heir to the throne is directed against the reigning King himself.”

Page 5. “The Crown Prince has no call and no justification to enter

upon a ‘struggle’ (Kampf) against the will of the King, for the

precise reason that his Royal Highness has no official status. Each

Prince of the Royal House would be equally justified in ‘laying

claim’ to the duty of offering public opposition to the King, where

his views differed from those of the sovereign, and thus defending

the eventual rights of ‘himself and his children’ against the effects

of alleged mistakes by the Government of the King, that is to say, in

order to secure the succession, after the manner of Louis Philippe,

if the King were to be deposed by a revolution.”

Page 6. “The Minister President is to give a more detailed

explanation of the words used by him at Gastein.”

Page 7. “His Majesty has not caused the Crown Prince to attend the

sittings as one of the King’s advisers, but only for the Prince’s own

information, and as a means of preparing him for his future calling.

The attempt to ‘neutralise’ the measures of the Government would mean

a struggle and rebellion against the Crown. More dangerous than all

the attacks of the democracy and all ‘gnawing’ at the roots of the

monarchy is the loosening of the bonds that still unite the people

with the dynasty through the example of open and avowed opposition

on the part of the heir to the throne, through the intentional

disclosure of discord in the Royal House itself. If the son and

heir to the throne revolts against the authority of the father and

King, to whom can that authority still remain sacred? If a premium

is set by ambition for the _future_ upon present desertion from the

Sovereign, every bond will be loosened, to the detriment of the

future King, and the damage done to the authority of the present

Government will bear evil fruit for its successors. Any Government is

better than one which is divided against itself and paralysed. The

shocks which the Crown Prince may provoke affect the foundations of

the structure over which he himself will hereafter have to preside as

King.

“According to the constitutional law hitherto in force, it is the

King who _governs_ in Prussia and not the Ministers. Legislative and

not governmental power is alone shared with the Chambers, and before

them the Ministers represent the King. Therefore now, as _before_

the Constitution, the Ministers are legally the servants of the

King, and his Majesty’s authorised advisers, but they are not the

regents of the Prussian State. Even since the Constitution, the

Prussian monarchy does not stand on the same level as the Belgian or

English monarchy. On the contrary, in Prussia the King still governs

personally, and _commands_ according to his own discretion, in so far

as the Constitution has not otherwise provided, and it has only so

provided in matters of legislation.”

Page 8. “The publication of State secrets is an offence against

the criminal law. What is to be treated as a State secret depends

upon the King’s command respecting official secrecy. Why is so much

importance attached to giving ‘outside’ publicity to these matters?

If his Royal Highness, as in duty bound, gives expression to his

opinions in Council, he has satisfied his conscience. The Crown

Prince has no official position whatever in State affairs, and no

call to express himself publicly upon them. No one who has even a

superficial knowledge of the system under which our State affairs

are conducted would conclude that the Crown Prince agreed with the

decisions of the Government merely because he (without a vote, and

therefore without the possibility of effectual opposition) had

listened to the discussions in Council.

“‘Not appear better.’ The mistake lies in the exaggerated importance

attached to ‘appearances.’ The important point is what a man is

and what he can do, and that is only the fruit of serious and

well-directed labour.

“The participation of his Royal Highness in the Council is not

‘active,’ and no ‘votes’ are cast by the Crown Prince. The

communication to ‘responsible’ (?) persons without the authorisation

of his Majesty would be an offence against the criminal law. Of

course, there is no limitation of his Royal Highness’s right to

express his views; on the contrary, it is desirable that he should

do so, but only in the Council, where, as a matter of fact, they can

alone have any influence on the decisions that are about to be taken.

The contrary course, ‘to express them openly before the country,’ can

only be adopted as a means of gratifying his Royal Highness’s _amour

propre_, and must result in promoting discontent and disaffection,

and thereby paving the way for revolution.”

Page 10. “Unquestionably H.R.H. will render their work more difficult

for the Ministers, and their task would be lighter if he did not

attend the sittings. But can his Majesty shirk the duty of doing

everything that is humanly possible to enable the Crown Prince to

learn the business of State, and to become acquainted with the

laws of the country? Is it not a dangerous experiment to leave the

future King a stranger to the affairs of State, while the welfare

of millions is dependent upon his familiarity with them? H.R.H.

shows himself in the present memorandum unacquainted with the fact

that the participation of the Crown Prince never involves any

responsibility, and is only for the purpose of information, and

that H.R.H. can never be asked to give a vote. The whole argument

is based upon a misconception of this fact. If the Crown Prince had

been more familiar with State affairs H.R.H. could not have thought

of publishing the proceedings of the Council in case the King did not

accede to his wishes, _i.e._, of committing an offence against the

law, and what is more, the criminal law, and that too a few weeks

after H.R.H. had himself severely censured the publication of the

correspondence with his Majesty.”

Page 11. “Certainly the reproach mentioned may naturally occur

to every one in the country. No one charges H.R.H. with such an

intention, but it is said that _others_, who do entertain such

an intention, hope to see it realised through the unconscious

co-operation of the Crown Prince; and that such wicked attempts now

afford those who originated them a better prospect than formerly of a

change of system.”

Page 12. “The demand to have timely information of the business to

be transacted at the sittings is perfectly legitimate, has always

been recognised, and shall continue to be so. Indeed a desire has

been expressed that H.R.H. should do his part in keeping himself more

_au courant_ than was hitherto possible. For this purpose H.R.H.’s

whereabouts must always be known and within reach, the Ministers must

have access to the Crown Prince, and discretion must be secured. But

it is necessary that the _Vortragende Räthe_ (Councillors who have

the privilege of direct audience), with whom alone H.R.H. can be

authorised to transact current State affairs, should be not opponents

but friends of the Government, or at least impartial critics having

no _intimate_ relations with the Opposition in the Diet and the

press. The most difficult point of all is _discretion_, particularly

towards foreign countries, so long as H.R.H. and the Crown Princess

are not thoroughly conscious that in reigning houses the nearest

relations are not always fellow countrymen, but, on the contrary,

must necessarily, and as in duty bound, represent other than Prussian

interests. It is hard that a frontier should create a division of

interest between mother and daughter, brother and sister, but to

forget this fact is always a danger for the State. The ‘last sitting

of the Council’ (on the 3rd) was not a regular sitting but only a

meeting of the Ministers who had been summoned by his Majesty without

their own previous knowledge.”

Page 13. “Communication to the Ministers would give the memorandum

an official character which the Prince’s effusions do not in

themselves possess.”

On Monday, the 22nd of October, Count Herbert was present at lunch

and dinner, returning to Berlin on the Tuesday. On Monday, after we

had had our coffee, I told the Chief that the sorting of the papers

was now well advanced. There was a great deal more to do, however,

than had appeared at first, and it might take eight or ten days more

before I could hand them over to him in good order like the previous

set. He replied: “Take plenty of time. But the Emperor will be here

in a few days and you must not let yourself be seen then; or, better

still, go to Hamburg while he is here, as otherwise he will ask who

you are and what you are doing. I should then be obliged to tell him,

and as he is curious he would eventually seize the whole lot, which

would not suit me at all.”

On Tuesday and Wednesday I was very busy sorting, numbering and

taking extracts. In the evening I took a walk with the Privy

Councillor until an hour before dinner. We were joined at dinner

on Wednesday by the Hamburg merchant, Merck, and his wife--she

very pretty, twenty-seven years of age, and he between forty and

fifty. On Thursday I was again hard at work on the Chief’s treasury

of letters. At lunch the Chief said that formerly the rich and

influential Hamburgers were strongly Austrian in their sympathies,

and he referred to the millions advanced to the politicians of

Vienna in 1857, and also condemned the unamiable and stupid policy

of Prussia in those days. The Princess observed that even now these

circles do not care much for Prussia, but are impressed, and indeed

very strongly, by Bismarck. She then explained to me that the Mercks

were neighbours of theirs, and occupied a country house with forty

acres of ground on the edge of the forest, the remainder of an estate

which a Saxon officer had acquired by marriage, and of which the

Prince afterwards bought six hundred acres. In reply to my question,

the Chief informed me that the Emperor would arrive on Monday evening

and leave after lunch on Tuesday. I must therefore make myself scarce

for thirty hours. To-day, however, we shall return to our anthology,

and continue it to-morrow. Here follow some further specimens of the

selection.