THE ARTICLE “THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ITALIAN BISHOPS”--LOTHAR BUCHER
ON HOHENLOHE, RADOWITZ AND THE TWO BÜLOWS--THE CHIEF WISHES TO
BE REPRESENTED IN THE “DAILY TELEGRAPH” AS A LEGITIMIST, THOUGH
THE FACT MUST BE REGRETTED--COURT INTRIGUES AND THE REQUEST TO
BE RELEASED FROM OFFICE--BUCHER ON THE SECESSIONISTS, AND THE
FUTURE MINISTERS--THE CHIEF ON THE MEANS OF SECURING THE FUTURE
OF THE WORKING MAN--THE OPPOSITION TO THIS REFORM--THE JEWS--THE
DEFECTION OF THE CONSERVATIVES AND NATIONAL LIBERALS--THE KING THE
SOLE MEMBER OF HIS PARTY--THE “GRENZBOTEN” REGARDED AS AN OFFICIAL
GAZETTE--THE DEBATE IN THE UPPER CHAMBER ON THE REMISSION OF TAXES,
AND A “GRENZBOTEN” ARTICLE ON THAT SUBJECT BY THE CHIEF--THE
BERLINERS IN PARLIAMENT--THE CHANCELLOR UPON THE JEWS ONCE MORE.
I was in rather frequent intercourse with Bucher during the summer
and autumn of 1880. On the 3rd of June he sent me the material for an
article on the attitude of the Curia towards the Italian Government,
which appeared in No. 24 of the _Grenzboten_, under the title “The
Government and the Bishops in Italy.” It concluded with the following
words: “It will be seen from the foregoing that the Pope (Leo’s
predecessor being also understood here) uses his discretionary power
in Italy in a less uncompromising fashion than he does in Germany, a
circumstance which we should keep in mind in the next phase of the
struggle between the Curia and the Prussian Government.” On the 14th
of June, in the course of a conversation with me at his house, Bucher
described several members of our diplomatic service. Hohenlohe, he
said, was a gentleman, and amiable, but was only of moderate ability,
and had in particular a weak memory. Besides, he had too great an
interest in matters other than politics, such as smart company, racing,
&c. Radowitz was talented, and well informed on Eastern affairs, but
he was an ambitious self-seeker and very pretentious, and maintained
relations with Court circles hostile to the Chief. On the other hand he
praised my namesake Busch very highly, as being not only intelligent
and well informed but also of straightforward character. Bülow, the
Councillor of Embassy, he described as an intriguing egotist, whose
true character the Chancellor recently discovered. He considered the
Chief had done the other Bülow, the deceased Secretary of State,
too much honour in describing him to me as exceptionally able and
loyal. He was a diligent and clever master of routine, somewhat like
Abeken. His illness had certainly not arisen through vexation at the
King’s self-will, his backbone was too flexible for that. Both before
and after this visit Bucher sent me various particulars respecting
Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary Jews, whom he--like myself and
other honest Germans--abominated most heartily, whether they belonged
to the baptised variety or not.
On the 28th of October he came to my lodgings and dictated to me--on
the instructions which he had received by letter from the Chief--the
following message for the _Daily Telegraph_:--
“A critical situation has arisen here. It is a question whether
the Imperial Chancellor will remain in office or not. The affair
is connected with the appointment of the Secretary of State in the
Foreign Office. The difficulties appear to be of a personal and not
of an official character. The leader of the opposition at Court is
said to be General Count Goltz, brother of the former Ambassador
in Paris, who appears to seek in another quarter the laurels which
he failed to win upon the battle-field; while von Radowitz, who is
now conducting the business of the Paris Embassy, is understood to
be the candidate for the post of Secretary of State. It would be an
extraordinary circumstance, which might have incalculable consequences
if the Chancellor, at the moment when he seems to possess exceptional
authority in European affairs, were forced to retire from office
through a Court intrigue. I should regard the news as highly improbable
if the source of my information were less trustworthy, and if it were
not confirmed by what is known of the principal personages of the
drama. Previous experience has shown that no other difficulties cause
the Chancellor to display such a morbid sensibility as the favour
manifested by the Court to certain intrigues, which are now directed
against him personally. This feature in his character was also evident
during the Kulturkampf, at the time of the trials for libel, and on his
tendering his resignation in 1877. It is impossible not to recognise in
this an element of weakness, due to the traditions of his early life
and to his attitude towards the monarchy, an element which partakes of
‘Carlism’ (exaggerated loyalty), rather than of statesmanship. (Here
the eyes of the two Augurs met, and exchanged a significant smile.) We
regret being forced to acknowledge that his devotion to his Fatherland
and his people is subordinated to the service of his King (the two
Augurs grinned again); and that even at the present day the greatness
of the task imposed upon him has not emancipated him from the pressure
of Court and dynastic influences. Had he been a Hanoverian or Bavarian
it is probable that owing to his attachment to the dynasty he would
have remained an inveterate Particularist. We should greatly regret,
not only on political grounds, but also in his own interest, to see him
at this time of day stumble over obstacles which are trivial enough,
though, we are sorry to say, he regards them as insurmountable.”
That was obviously not written by Bucher. The latter, however, added
that the old Emperor imagines he might personally intervene in the
Eastern question, and has already despatched telegrams behind the
Chief’s back. We have now achieved some success at Constantinople,
and the Prince wanted to recall Hatzfeldt, so that he might leave his
post with credit on being transferred to the Foreign Office. Later on
things would go wrong again, and the responsibility for that would fall
chiefly upon Hatzfeldt as the _doyen_ of the ambassadors. The Emperor,
however, allowed himself to be persuaded by Goltz that everything would
go on quite as satisfactorily as at present, and he therefore preferred
to leave Hatzfeldt permanently at Constantinople. The article was to be
published in the _Daily Telegraph_, not in the _Standard_, as in the
latter Radowitz might be able to interfere through his agents. Bucher
remarked that the term “Carlism” came from the Chief himself.
I wrote as follows to the _Daily Telegraph_:--
“Dear Sir,--The enclosed article comes from the very best
source, and, indeed, in great part literally--a circumstance which I
beg of you to keep secret. Kindly publish it as early as possible, and
without any alteration or addition--including the apparent reflection
upon the Prince, which is made for a special purpose. I expect this
message will cause a great and general sensation. Perhaps you will be
good enough to telegraph to me immediately on receipt that you will
publish it in full. The words ‘Request granted’ will be sufficient.”
The manuscript, which was sent off on Thursday evening, had not
appeared in the number of the paper which reached me on Tuesday. I had,
however, on Monday received the desired telegram, promising that it
should appear. On Wednesday, the 3rd of November, I took this telegram
to Bucher and explained to him how I had impressed upon the editor the
necessity of a speedy publication of the article without alteration.
At Bucher’s request I left him this telegram, in order that he should
send it to the Chief. I ascertained from him that the crisis had in
the meantime been solved. The Chancellor had submitted a long report
of seventeen pages to the King; and the old gentleman, who was then
shooting at Ludwigslust, had telegraphed to him: “Have read your
explanation and agree with you. R(adowitz) should go to A(thens).”
Bucher added: “I expect he will arrive here to-day. He has written
to Styrum that he must have more than the ordinary salary there. In
Paris he had certain allowances in addition to his salary as envoy. The
Audit Office does not consider this correct, but the amount will be
covered out of the Guelph fund. As nothing has come of the Secretary
of State idea, he would prefer to go direct to Constantinople.” I also
ascertained that Hatzfeldt had now been definitely selected for the
post of Secretary of State, and Busch for that of Under Secretary, the
latter with a salary of 6,000 thalers a year. All in all Bucher has
only 3,700. Finally Bucher suggested that, when I was next writing on
friction, I should bring in the passage from “Richard II.” (Act I.,
scene 3), where Gaunt, in reply to the King’s exclamation, “Why, uncle,
thou hast many years to live!” says:--
“But not a minute, King, that thou canst give:
Shorten my days thou canst with sullen sorrow,
And pluck nights from me, but not lend a morrow:
Thou canst help time to furrow me with age,
But stop no wrinkle in his pilgrimage:
Thy word is current with him for my death;
But dead, thy kingdom cannot buy my breath.”
At length, on the 4th of November, I received the _Daily Telegraph_
of the 2nd, containing the article, which I took to Bucher, who
immediately forwarded it to the Chief. He said that the latter would
probably make use of it in the German press. It would be better,
however, for me not to telegraph to him on the subject, as all
telegrams are sent to the Secretary of State.
On the 6th of November Bucher sent me the _Daily Telegraph_ article
which had been returned to him from Friedrichsruh, accompanied by a
letter from Count Herbert Bismarck, in which he said, _inter alia_: “My
father has read it with great pleasure and hopes it will have a good
effect.”
On the previous day Bucher sent me Major Knorr’s book _The
Polish Insurrections since 1830_ (_Die polnischen Aufstände seit
1830_--Berlin, 1880), with the following instruction, which doubtless
came from the Chief: “The material respecting the priests to be
utilised. Reference to be made to France and Belgium. Say nothing about
Germany.” I wrote a lengthy article on the subject which was published
in No. 24 of the _Grenzboten_ under the title “The Ultramontane Clergy
and their Hostility to the State.”
On the 18th of January, 1881, I wrote to the Chief reminding him of my
readiness to place myself at his disposal in case he wished to have
any matter of importance discussed in the German or English press, and
requesting information. On the 20th I received the following answer
from the Imperial Chancellerie: “The Imperial Chancellor begs Dr.
Moritz Busch to do him the honour to call upon him to-morrow, Friday,
at 1 o’clock.”
I went to the Chancellor’s palace at the appointed time, and I remained
with him for an hour and a half. The Prince sat at his writing-table
with his face towards the door, and looked particularly well and
hearty. He said: “So you have come for material, but there is not much
to give you. One thing occurs to me, however. I should be very thankful
to you if you would discuss my working-class insurance scheme in a
friendly spirit. The Liberals do not show much disposition to take it
up and their newspapers attack my proposals. The Government should
not interfere in such matters--_laisser aller_. The question must be
raised, however, and the present proposal is only the beginning. I have
more in view. I grant that there may be room for improvement in many
respects, and that some portions of the scheme are perhaps unpractical
and should therefore be dropped. But a beginning must be made with
the task of reconciling the labouring classes with the State. Whoever
has a pension assured to him for his old age is much more contented
and easier to manage than the man who has no such prospect. Compare a
servant in a private house and one attached to a Government office or
to the Court; the latter, because he looks forward to a pension, will
put up with a great deal more and show much more zeal than the former.
In France all sensible members of the poorer classes, when they are
in a position to lay by anything, make a provision for the future by
investing in securities. Something of the kind should be arranged for
our workers. People call this State Socialism, and having done so think
they have disposed of the question. It may be State Socialism, but
it is necessary. What then are the present provisions for municipal
assistance to the poor? Municipal Socialism?”
He paused for a moment, and then continued: “Large sums of money would
be required for carrying such schemes into execution, at least a
hundred million marks, or more probably two hundred. But I should not
be frightened by even three hundred millions. Means must be provided to
enable the State to act generously towards the poor. The contentment
of the disinherited, of all those who have no possessions, is not too
dearly purchased even at a very high figure. They must learn that the
State benefits them also, that it not only demands, but also bestows.
If the question is taken up by the State, which does not want to make
any profit, or to secure dividends, the thing can be done.”
He reflected again for a few seconds, and then said: “The tobacco
monopoly might be applied in that way. The monopoly would thus permit
of the creation of an entailed estate for the poor. You need not
emphasise that point however. The monopoly is only a last resource,
the highest trump. You might say it would be possible to relieve the
poor of their anxiety for the future, and to provide them with a small
inheritance by taxing luxuries such as tobacco, beer, and brandy. The
English, the Americans, and even the Russians have no monopoly, and
yet they raise large sums through a heavy tax upon these articles of
luxury. We, as the country which is most lightly taxed in this respect,
can bear a considerable increase, and if the sums thus acquired are
used for securing the future of our working population, uncertainty as
to which is the chief cause of their hatred to the State, we thereby
at the same time secure our own future, and that is a good investment
for our money. We should thus avert a revolution, which might break
out fifty or perhaps ten years hence, and which, even if it were
only successful for a few months, would swallow up very much larger
sums, both directly and indirectly, through disturbance of trade,
than our preventive measures would cost. The Liberals recognise the
reasonableness of the proposals--in their hearts; but they grudge
the credit of them to the man who initiated them, and would like to
take up the question themselves, and so win popularity. They will,
perhaps, try to bury the scheme in Committee, as they have done other
Bills. Something must, however, be done speedily, and possibly they
may approve of the general lines of the scheme, as they are already
thinking of the elections. The worst of the lot are the Progressists
and the Free-traders--the one party wants to manage things its own
way, and the other is opposed to all State control, and wishes to let
everything take its own course.”
“Yes,” I said, “certainly, the Free-traders, the Secessionists, and the
Jews are the worst. Bamberger[21] and Rickert.”
“Yes, the Jews,” he replied. “Bamberger has again told a mass of lies
in his book--that I broke with the National Liberals and turned towards
reaction. Yet while I have been Minister I have never belonged to
any party, either Liberal or Conservative. My party consisted solely
of the King and myself, and my only aims were the restoration and
aggrandisement of the German Empire, and the defence of monarchical
authority. That should also be emphasised and further developed on
some occasion. The Conservatives, in so far as they were in favour of
reaction, were always opposed to me, because I would not consent to
it. You remember the attacks of the _Kreuzzeitung_ at the time of the
Inspection of Schools Bill, afterwards during the great libel cases.”
“Diest-Daber and Co.,” I said.
“There they completely renounced me, and attacked me in every possible
way because I would not join them in their reactionary programme. It
was just the same in 1877 with the National Liberals. When Bennigsen
failed to form a Ministry because he put forward demands that I perhaps
could have agreed to, but to which the King would not consent, they
left me in the lurch, and their newspapers preached a crusade against
me. In the same way they entirely misrepresented the publication of
the Bülow letters, making all kinds of unfounded insinuations, as, for
instance, that they were directed against Bitter, whom I had not in my
mind at all.”
Returning again to the Jewish members of Parliament, he exclaimed:
“Yes, Bamberger, Lasker, and Rickert--self-seeking fellows!”
I remarked: “I suppose Lasker is now only working on the quiet, in
their conventicles. He has discovered that he is no longer as important
as he was. The great man has failed at three elections, on the first
two occasions in large Jewish towns, Breslau and Frankfurt, and then at
Magdeburg.”
He replied: “Yes, but I draw a distinction between Jew and Jew.
Those who have become rich are not dangerous. They will not put up
barricades, and they pay their taxes punctually. It is the enterprising
ones who have nothing, particularly those on the press. But after all,
it is the Christians and not the Jews who are the worst.”
I: “It is true that Rickert pretends he is not a Jew, but I should say
that he is one all the same. The ‘Parliamentary Almanac’ describes him
as an Evangelical.”
He: “Look up some of the older years, and there you will find that
they give no particulars of his place of birth or religion. I asked
Bleichröder, who told me that ---- (I could not catch the name) was not
a Jew, but that Rickert probably was.”
I: “Anyhow, his style of argument is sufficiently Hebraic.”
He (after a pause): “You have managed to give the _Grenzboten_ such
a character that it is regarded much as the Official Gazette. Hänel
asserts in the _Kieler Zeitung_ that it is out-and-out official, and
that you only say what I think and wish.”
I: “I have never boasted of it anywhere. It doubtless arises from the
fact that some of your expressions and your style, which is different
from that of others, are met with now and again in the articles. Nor
is this at all welcome to me; for although I have influence upon them
and can sometimes prevent the insertion of political articles that are
submitted to me, articles do sometimes get published in it which are
not to my liking. What did your Serene Highness think of Lindenau’s
article?[22] I believe he told the truth. He asserts that Friesen was
instructed from Dresden before the outbreak of the war with France to
use his influence chiefly for the maintenance of peace, and probably
he (Lindenau) was the Councillor entrusted with the delivery of that
message.”
“Yes,” replied the Chief, “Saxony is worse than Bavaria.”
“With the latter,” I remarked, “a letter from you was all that was
needed to get King Lewis on to the right track.”
He smiled and said: “But in Saxony things will be awkward when once
Prince George, with his Ultramontane crew, comes to the throne.”[23]
“He!” I exclaimed. “In Leipzig we have always looked at it in this
way. Should there be another great war with France or any other Power
in which we were to lose one or two important battles, and should the
people in Dresden then go over to the enemy, we should then hope to
see what was not possible in 1866 forthwith take place and the country
annexed--a fate from which the tutelary genius of the dynasty who sits
in a cherry stone in the Gruene Gewölbe at Dresden would hardly be able
to save them.”
“Yes, in such circumstances it would doubtless come to that,” he
replied.
I then said: “Might I ask how things are going with regard to foreign
affairs? What are our present relations with France?”
“Oh, quite good!” he said. “They desire peace, and so do we. And we
oblige them in many ways--but not on the Rhine--that is not possible.
We were on good terms with England, too, under Beaconsfield; but
Professor Gladstone perpetrates one piece of stupidity after another.
He has alienated the Turks; he commits follies in Afghanistan and at
the Cape, and he does not know how to manage Ireland. There is nothing
to be done with him.”
He then asked how I was getting on, and I inquired how he was. I said
he looked better than I had seen him for a long time past.
“Yes,” he said; “I am really very well just at present, except that I
have attacks of neuralgia which frequently deprive me of my rest--a
nervous face-ache, toothache, and such things. I have not smoked for
the last fortnight.”
I then took leave of him, and immediately wrote the first of the two
articles he desired, which appeared in the _Grenzboten_, No. 5, of
1881, under the title “Working-class Insurance Bill.” I then proceeded
with the second article, “The Imperial Chancellor and the Parties,”
a proof of which I sent to the Chief for correction on the 17th of
February. He returned it to me two hours later, after he had struck out
certain passages and rewritten others. Tiedemann, who brought it, was
at the same time instructed by the Chief to say that as the article
might just then be misunderstood by the National Liberals, it should be
held over for a week or a fortnight; he would himself again discuss the
matter with me personally, when there might perhaps be some additions
to make.
At 2.30 P.M. on the 19th of February I received a hasty
summons from Sachse to call upon the Prince. I accordingly presented
myself before him at 4 o’clock. He was in uniform, and seemed as if
he intended to go out. He shook hands, and said: “Nothing can be done
with the article on the National Liberals which we recently discussed,
owing to a necessary change of front towards the party attacked in
it.[24] The article was good, but we will not print it. You are now
regarded as official. But there is another matter I should like to have
discussed, that is to say, the debate on the remission of taxes in the
Upper Chamber, and the unsuitable constitution of the latter. There
are too many Berliners in it, and too many high officials, retired and
otherwise.”
He then took up a list of members, and read: “Ex-Minister Bernuth--it
is true he held office in Hanover, not here; the two Camphausens, the
one with the handle to his name and the other without; Friedenthal,
Patow, Lippe, Manteuffel, Rabe, Rittberg--I cannot rightly remember
whether he was a Minister; then Sulzer, Under Secretary of State,
seventeen or eighteen Actual, and Privy Councillors and other high
officials; together with some sixty-nine or seventy members who were
nominated owing to special Royal favour. I have jotted down something
on that head--let Rantzau give it to you, and use it, but not
literally, otherwise my style may be recognised. Turn it into your
own style.” I promised to do so; and then expressed the pleasure I
felt at his obtaining such a large majority and routing Camphausen so
thoroughly in the debate.
He smiled and said: “You should have seen him and his whole crowd--the
sour faces they made. And Camphausen, who kept me waiting for seven
years, because he was unable to manage anything except with the
milliards which remained in his hands after paying the cost of the
war--there was still a surplus of a few hundred millions which he did
not know how to invest. When a couple of millions were mentioned at a
meeting of the Cabinet he merely smiled. When a hundred millions were
spoken of, however, he laughed so heartily that you could see the two
teeth in his mouth. The ‘man of milliards,’ he was so lazy that I had
to beg and pray him to draft the Fiscal Reforms Bill; and he never
produced it until just at the end, and then it was not fit for use!”
I reminded him that I had already mentioned this in the _Grenzboten_ as
long ago as 1877 (in one of the friction articles).
“Ah!” he said, “have that reprinted. It will be useful as confirming
what I have said to him. It is true that at length he produced
something and wanted to proceed with his unworkable tobacco tax, and
to take some steps in the railway question. But he stumbled over
Bamberger, instead of treating him with contempt. Camphausen was the
leader of the storming party in the Upper House. He had worked up the
whole affair, joining with other archplotters and rabid free-traders.
But I must go. Speak to Rantzau, and he will give you the notes. But
you must not show them to any one.”
He rang the bell, and Count Rantzau brought the paper. He said it
was written very illegibly and with many abbreviations; he would,
therefore, like to read it over with me upstairs. The Chancellor
remarked, smiling: “Never mind if it is rather illegible. If the doctor
cannot quite decipher it he will not be able to reproduce it word for
word.”
I was, however, able to make it out at home, although with some
trouble, and then based the following article upon it, which appeared
in No. 9 of the _Grenzboten_, under the title of “The Upper Chamber.”
The portions within brackets are by me as also the first paragraph,
the remainder is the Chief’s, in great part the form as well as the
substance. The alterations are very slight, and such as are usually
made in correcting dictation. The article ran as follows:--
“(Public attention has been once more attracted to the Upper House
of the Prussian Diet, whose proceedings usually excite very little
interest, by the three days’ debate on the question of taxation that
took place in that Chamber last week, when the Opposition, organised
and led by the Ex-Minister Camphausen, was finally defeated, after its
leader had been roughly handled by the Chancellor. The occasion affords
an opportunity for casting a glance at the constitution of this body,
and indicating the changes which should, in our opinion, be made in its
composition, and in its treatment by the Government.)
“A strange impression is made by the circumstance that the Upper House,
which should be a factor in the Prussian Legislature of equal authority
with the Lower House, has again this session been summoned as usual
to hurriedly consider, under great pressure of time, questions of the
utmost importance, including the Settlement Bill in addition to the
most essential of all, namely, the Budget. The discussion of the Budget
is the only opportunity which the Upper House has for expressing,
like the Lower House, its views on important political affairs. It
is true that, under the Constitution, it has a more restricted share
in the settlement of its details than the other Chamber. But it is
precisely the general character of its right of intervention respecting
the Budget which shows that, under the Constitution, the Upper House
is expected to discuss, not the individual items, but the general
political significance of the whole Budget under its various heads,
thus giving public expression to the views on State affairs prevailing
in the classes represented by that body. Not a single complaint has yet
been heard from members of the Upper House that, owing to the manner
in which business has been conducted up to the present, the influence
which they are entitled to exercise upon the policy of the Government
has been unduly restricted. Nowhere in the Upper House does any one
seem to have been struck with the fact that, while the discussion of
the Budget occupies many weeks in the Lower House, it is disposed
of in a few hours in the other half of the Legislature, although
time had previously been found to devote three whole sittings to the
comparatively subordinate question of the remission of taxes.
“The astonishment aroused by the character of the attack made upon
the Government on this occasion is considerably increased when it is
remembered how little time was left to the House for the consideration
of the important measures mentioned above. The real explanation of
this opposition is unquestionably to be sought in the restlessness and
desire for occupation of ex-officials of high rank who have obtained
seats in the Upper House. Former Ministers who, like von Bernuth,
Count Lippe, Friedenthal and Camphausen, voluntarily retired from
office, are disposed, on the one hand, to continue their accustomed
Ministerial activity in a Parliamentary form, and, on the other, to
give vent to their ill-humour at not having been again entrusted with
a Ministerial or other appointment. It would require an exceptional
degree of magnanimity on their part to regard entirely without jealousy
the success of those who now hold the posts which they formerly filled,
to say nothing of promoting that success. Indeed it is only human,
natural, and customary that all higher patriotic considerations should
fail to enable persons of merely average character to overcome the
temptation to represent their own retirement as an irretrievable loss
to the machinery of government.
“(As already stated at the commencement) the plan of campaign in
the Upper House against Prince Bismarck’s Bill for the Remission
of Taxation was drawn up by Herr Camphausen, and the same former
colleague of the Chancellor had prepared the principal operations
by bringing his influence to bear upon the members in Committee.
The intention obviously was to bring once more to the front the
well-nigh forgotten friends of the somnolent old Liberal party,
through whom Herr Camphausen had acquired a certain importance, and
to recall their services. This could only be done by making the task
of the present Government as difficult as possible, and by drawing
disparaging comparisons between the present and former administrations,
the Government now in office being represented as unequal to the
performance of the duties entrusted to it....
“Count Lippe was the first to yield to the temptation of venting his
anger against the Government to which he formerly belonged, doing so
in the most violent, bitter and rancorous terms. He was followed in
a similar strain by the ex-Minister of Finance, Von Bodelschwingh, a
gentleman who has secured himself a place in the memory of the public
by his statement at the outbreak of the war with Austria that there
was only enough money in hand to provide for the pay of the army to
the end of the following week. A similar line was followed by the
ex-Premier Manteuffel, while former Under-Secretaries of State tried to
make clear to the Government, by the vehemence of their attack, that
their qualifications for still higher functions had not been properly
recognised. This traditional method has been most deplorably revived
by the Ministers Camphausen and Friedenthal, although both voluntarily
withdrew from the present Cabinet at a difficult juncture, the latter
leaving to others the further execution of the work which he had
himself commenced, as well as the responsibility for its success.
“Such behaviour invites severe censure (but the public may be left to
stigmatise such methods according to their deserts), for it is not
generally regarded as the sign of a noble nature to wilfully obstruct
those who have to perform a difficult task, to which the authors of
such obstruction felt themselves unequal.
“The minority of thirty-nine members of the Upper Chamber in the
division on the Remission of Taxes, setting aside a few irascible
old gentlemen who always vote against every proposal, was composed
of Reactionaries of the extreme Right like Count Lippe, Count Brühl,
Baron von Tettau, Herr von Rochow, and Herr von Oldenburg; infatuated
Progressists like Herr von Forckenbeck and Herr Forchhammer; and
then, as already stated, malcontent officials of high rank and their
abettors, and finally a number of fanatical Free-traders (led by
the Burgomasters), who from their doctrinaire standpoint consider
themselves bound to oppose what they regard as a Protectionist
Government.
“The minority is therefore a conglomerate of heterogeneous elements.
They are united solely by their hostility to the Prince[25] and his
policy, a hostility which arises from the most various motives. The
strongest and most emphatic expression was given to this feeling by
those members of the Upper House whose appointment and position in the
House are due to the exceptional confidence reposed in them by the
sovereign. Strange to say, they imagine that they can most fittingly
justify this confidence by putting as many difficulties as possible in
the way of the Government of the King to whom they owe their seats.
“That an Opposition of this kind, which from its very nature was bound
to be ineffectual, was allowed to monopolise three whole days out of
the only week remaining for the discussion of the important questions
already mentioned, shows a degree of consideration on the part of
the majority which illustrates one of the causes of the inadequate
practical co-operation of that body in our political life. In the
short interval thus left, the House had to dispose of the Budget and
the Settlement Bill. In our opinion, however, the Upper House is not
to blame for the fact that it must remain inactive up to the two last
weeks of the session, while the other House is engaged in often lively
debates, or at least we must not seek for the origin of the evil there
alone. That many members of the Upper House display but slight interest
in the affairs of the State is doubtless an important contributory
cause. We consider, however, that the Government is chiefly to blame,
inasmuch as it not only submits first to the Lower House all financial
bills, but also all other important and interesting proposals and
measures. The Constitution provides that this shall be done in the case
of financial bills, but not in other cases.
“To quote an instance in support of what we have just said, we do
not know (and cannot even imagine) what considerations induced the
Government to lay all bills relating to questions of organisation,
those dealing with the whole Monarchy as well as those affecting
individual provinces, regularly and exclusively before the Lower House,
which either left them lying in their Committees or did not allow them
to reach the Upper Chamber before the last week of the session. (...)
Are we to explain this by assuming that the Government is afraid of the
Lower House, but not of the Upper House?
“We are of opinion that such a method is neither very dignified nor
very practical. Indeed, one can scarcely describe this course as a
method, since that term is usually applied to a form of activity which
has something more in view than an easy and comfortable provision for
the individual requirements of the administration. We cannot help
fearing that succeeding Governments will have to suffer for the mistake
committed by that now in office, which amounts to little less than
reducing the Upper House to a cipher.
“The lack of interest in public affairs which is characteristic of
most members of the Upper House is unquestionably due in part to the
unsuitable conditions which governed the foundation and development of
that body. As a consequence most members of the House have no active
connection with the public life of the country, and are never in
close sympathy with it. There are politicians who still remember the
energetic and effective part which was taken in State affairs by the
old First Chamber, which has now been replaced by the Upper House, and
the corresponding interest thus aroused among the public of that day
by its debates, which were really of greater importance, and showed
greater intellectual capacity than the proceedings in the Lower House.
Whoever remembers this cannot see without regret how little of that
importance and influence now remains to the Upper House in its present
form.
“This defect does not lie solely in the inadequacy of the ties which
connect the Upper House since its extension with the country at large,
for even in its present shape and composition the Prussian Senate
would still enjoy greater consideration if the Government would only
give it more importance. As it is, the Government contributes by
the arrangements which it makes for conducting the business of the
Legislature, as well as by the selection of members, to restrict the
share taken by the Upper House in the work of legislation, and to
render that restriction permanent. Under this system, the preliminary
discussions in the Committees and current affairs are for the most
part dealt with by members who reside in the capital, the majority
of whom are retired officials, more or less dissatisfied on account
of their retirement. We believe we do not over-estimate when we
reckon that these Berlin members, together with a few representatives
of the larger towns, make up the necessary quorum of sixty. The
representatives of the great landowning classes in the provinces, who
were intended to exercise the chief influence in this Assembly, put
in an appearance only on the rarest occasions when a formal vote has
hastily to be taken on the results of the session’s labours. This is
decidedly a drawback.
“The first question of many of those who come to Berlin for this
purpose usually is, ‘When shall we get home again?’ On the discussion
of the Protection of Game Bill, a measure of the highest importance to
the landed proprietors in particular, and which threatened them with
intolerable vexations, there were, if we are not mistaken, only some
eighty members of the Upper House present, and of these hardly twenty
belonged to the class of provincial landowners whose interests were
threatened by this measure.
“(We must now conclude by pointing the moral of these considerations.)
If the Government wishes to carry on an effective policy, and not
merely to administer separate departments, it must recognise the
necessity of trying whether a better treatment of the Upper House,
putting it on a more equal footing with the Lower House, would not
induce its members to take a more active and regular part in the work
of the Diet. Business cannot continue to be thus conducted if the
desired regeneration of the House is to be brought about. For who can
offer any sound and convincing objection to the excuse which might be
alleged by the majority of the 133 members of the Upper House who,
out of a total of 300, attended the last division, for not having put
in an appearance until the last fortnight of the session? That excuse
might have been framed as follows: ‘What should we have done here had
we come earlier? Perhaps wait at the door of the Lower House until the
gentlemen there were pleased to send us up their leavings? Or wait
until the Ministers found time to attend to us? We could do that quite
as well at home.’
“In our opinion it will not be easy to refute the criticisms directed
on such grounds against the attitude hitherto adopted by the Government
towards the Upper House (and this leads us back to our demand that a
remedy should be found for the evil, and that speedily).”
On the 27th of April, 1881, I reminded the Chief of my readiness to
be of use in case he should have anything for me to do after the
reassembly of the Reichstag.
On the same day I paid Bucher a visit at his lodgings. He told me that
the “Foreign Office Ring,” of which the ambitious and intriguing Bülow
had been the leading spirit, was broken up. Bülow would be removed,
getting some small post as envoy at Weimar or Stuttgart. Tiedemann was
also nearing the end of his tether, and would doubtless have been set
aside before now if his pretensions had not been extravagant; he wanted
the post of _Oberpräsident_ at any cost, while the utmost that could be
done for him was to make him a _Regierungspräsident_. The Prince was
aware of these pretensions and had made some ironical remarks on the
subject. Lindau, who looks after press matters and has now the rank
of _Vortragender Rath_, does not do much, as he has had “no regular
training.” He, Bucher, has therefore often to do the newspaper work.
Among other things he has, upon instructions and information conveyed
to him by the Chief, written several long articles for the _Deutsche
revue über das gesammte National Leben der Gegenwart_ (edited by R.
Fleischer, and published by O. Fanke in Berlin), which he gave me. One,
entitled “Power without Responsibility,” a proof of which was given
to me, was intended for the May number, and was principally devoted
to a discussion of the recent policy of Gladstone and Gambetta. The
other, entitled “Prince Bismarck in the Ministry of State,” published
in the April number of the sixth year, contained some interesting
matter respecting the retirement of Count Eulenburg, the Minister
of the Interior, which was not due solely to the conflict that took
place between himself and the Chief in the Upper House on the 19th of
February.
On the 3rd of May I received from the Imperial Chancellerie an answer
to my note of the 27th of April, in the form of an invitation to pay
the Prince a visit next day. In the antechamber I met Bucher, who had
been called to him before me, and who remained with him for about a
quarter of an hour. On receiving me afterwards the Prince said: “You
want fodder, but I have none at present. I was thinking in the garden
of what to tell you, but found there was nothing to say. Of course I
could talk to you about the speech I am going to make in the Reichstag
one of these days, but then people would say: ‘He has been reading the
_Grenzboten_ to some purpose.’ All the same one might deal once more
with what I recently said respecting the municipality of Berlin and the
Progressist clique, and about the inhabited house tax and valuation.
Also as to the removal of the Reichstag, which it is not absolutely
necessary should meet in Berlin. They object to my regarding myself
as the champion of the lesser folk, of the poor. I have, they say, no
right and no need to do so, although recently people have again died
of starvation here. The speech on the inhabited house tax defended the
interests of this class of the population, and also that of fair play.
The Progressist party and the Manchester clique, the representatives
of the ruthless money-bags, have always been unjust to the poor, and
have invariably done everything in their power to prevent the State
from protecting them. _Laissez faire_, the largest possible measure
of self-government, unlimited opportunities for the great capitalists
to swallow up the small business men, and for the exploitation of the
ignorant and inexperienced by the clever and cunning. The State should
merely act as policemen, chiefly for the protection of the exploiters.”
He reflected for a moment, and then continued: “I am not against a
considerable degree of municipal self-government as opposed to State
administration. It has its good points, but also its disadvantages.
If it does not always display as great a sense of justice as State
officials do, that is only human nature, which is imperfect. People
will always be disposed to favour relatives, customers, friends and
members of their own party, even when they intend to act impartially;
in these circumstances men and things look different to what they
really are. It is therefore quite conceivable that in making valuations
a shopkeeper will, in spite of himself, apply a different measure
to his customers and to others, and if to this be added party and
religious rancour it is scarcely possible to prevent injustice. That
may lead to very serious evils in a large town where one party has
got hold of the administration, particularly as party spirit does not
as a rule restrict itself to unfair valuations, but also disposes of
municipal offices and work. Municipal self-government must therefore
be restricted, and the State must protect those who do not belong to
the party in power from the arbitrary and unfair treatment with which
they are constantly threatened by the municipal administration elected,
and continually influenced by that party. It was therefore a mistake
on the part of Eulenburg--I mean the late one--to give the Berlin
Corporation such wide powers. He was really a Conservative, but wished
to make himself popular, and you will see from the newspapers that he
has succeeded in doing so. Moreover, he was a friend of Forckenbeck’s,
and that also will have influenced him in making concessions to the
Progressist clique. This did not concern Berlin alone. In general
we held different views on the district and provincial regulations.
I wanted to have them reconsidered and partially altered, as they
contained some dangerous concessions. Eulenburg, however, was in a
hurry, and wanted to finish the general outlines, which were to apply
to all the provinces. I should have refused my signature if the draft
had been submitted to me. The King was also displeased with these
concessions, which affected his prerogatives and whittled down the
authority of the State. Thus, for example, on the occasion of the
recent solemn re-entry of the King (on his return to Berlin after his
recovery from the effects of the Nobiling outrage), the municipal
authorities made arrangements without previously consulting Madai, to
ascertain what was thought on the subject by the King, whose ideas were
quite different. That also accounts to some extent for Eulenburg’s
retirement. He took advantage of the incident in the Upper House to
withdraw from a position which had become untenable. The democratic
clique which rules Berlin noisily enforced the rights granted to them,
and acted as if they could do whatever they liked. Even the streets,
since they have become the property of the town, must serve their
purposes to the disadvantage of many people, as, for instance, with
regard to the tramways. Since the rights of the State over the streets
of the city have been transferred to the municipality, one may say that
the mediæval ‘right of convoy and escort’ has practically been revived.
But when the railway had to be carried across the Jerusalemstrasse,
Maybach showed them once more what was what.”
He was silent for a moment and then observed: “I therefore will not
have the State made omnipotent, but on the other hand I will not
permit its disintegration, its division into communal republics
after the style of Richter and Virchow. We have seen in Paris what
such self-government leads to. At present an attempt of the kind is
again being made. Just read the speeches which Andrieux, the Prefect
of Police, has delivered in the Chamber and before his electors at
Arbresle. That shows that men of sense and character are not in favour
of unrestricted self-government, even in Republican towns. You will
find it in the last numbers of the French newspapers. There are many
good points in it which are also applicable to our own circumstances.
“And then as to the rumours about the Reichstag and its removal from
Berlin, a great deal more might be said. Say that it was no mere
threat, but an idea that is seriously entertained. It has many things
to recommend it. The Emperor can summon the Reichstag wherever he
chooses, as the Constitution has made no provision respecting the
place where it is to meet. The old Emperors of Germany had no imperial
capital; they assembled the representatives of the Empire, the Princes
and Estates, wherever it was most convenient to them, sometimes in
the north and sometimes in the south and west. In case of danger from
the west at the present day, Berlin or Breslau would be a convenient
place for the sittings of the Reichstag, while disturbances in the
east would render a Bavarian, Rhenish or Hessian town, such, for
instance, as Cologne, Nuremberg, Augsburg or Cassel, more desirable.
In certain circumstances there would also be no objection to Hamburg
or Hanover. The members of the Reichstag would be heartily welcomed
in all these places, while they would have the further advantage of a
change of air. Moreover, they would as a whole come into contact with
other sections of the population, other people, and other conditions,
and would be subjected to other influences than those which they have
hitherto experienced. It would be as great a mistake to confound the
Berliner with the German as it would be to confound the Parisians with
the French people--in both countries they represent quite a different
people. There are also other important considerations in favour of
this plan. The independence of the members and liberty of speech is
better guaranteed in towns of medium size than in a great city with
over a million inhabitants. That was proved in 1848, when the Radicals
and Democrats, who now style themselves the Progressist party, had
seized power. The mob threatened, and indeed besieged, those members
of Parliament whose attitude they disapproved of. An Auerswald or a
Lichnowski[26] might well be done to death here, and indeed with still
greater ease. Away from the capital the members of the Reichstag need
have no fear of the scandal-mongering press of Berlin. How many of them
have the courage to despise that journalistic rabble? In revolutionary
times how many of them would have the courage to hold their ground
against intimidation and threats directed against their life and
honour? Such times may possibly return. In smaller towns it is much
easier to protect them than here, where, in future, the Progressists,
the Jacobins and the Socialists will enter into a close alliance, with
the object of promoting the democratic aims which they have in common.
Their fellows in Paris concluded such an alliance in 1871. But if
these parties were to come to an understanding in Berlin, the friends
of order and of monarchical institutions would find themselves in a
minority, and could not enforce their views, even if all the shades of
opinion into which they are divided were to unite. That has been also
recognised elsewhere. In the United States, Congress does not meet
in New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis or Chicago, but in Washington,
a town of medium size, which is usually very quiet. The Legislative
Assemblies of the different States also meet in towns of medium size,
or, indeed, sometimes in quite small places. There were good reasons
for the continuance of the French Chambers at Versailles, and it will
be almost a miracle if they do not one day have cause to regret their
return to Paris. Even the removal of Parliament from Berlin to Potsdam
would offer a certain guarantee against the disadvantages and dangers
which I have described. Finally if the Reichstag were not domiciled in
Berlin, it would not have such an enormous crowd of Berliners among its
members.”
He rang the bell and asked for the Parliamentary Guide, and then went
through the alphabetical list of members, from Bamberger, Benda,
Bernuth and Beseler to Weber and Wehrenpfenig, in order to find out the
Berliners, I writing down the names as he gave them to me. “Now count
them,” he said. “How many are there?” There were forty-six. “You must
not mention their names, however, as there are a number of good friends
of ours, and strong monarchists among them.”
He then spoke more slowly, as if dictating, at the same time walking
up and down the room. I wrote down what he said. “The number of
those who regularly attend is close on two hundred, and of these the
forty-six Berliners are probably always present. We thus arrive at this
monstrous condition of affairs that this city Berlin has no less than
a fifth, indeed nearly a fourth, of the entire effective representation
of Germany, including Alsace-Lorraine; and even in the largest
attendance--which may be put at about 310--the Berliners form 15 per
cent. of the whole. There is one Berliner for every million inhabitants
of the German Empire, and if the sense of intolerable boredom created
among many members by the infliction of speeches from Messrs. Richter
and Lasker, lasting often more than two hours, continues to increase
at the same rate as it has done recently, it may be taken for granted
that in future Berliners will form one-fifth of the representatives
of the Empire who are in regular attendance. They are always in their
places, and when the democrats among them find themselves supported by
an equal number of their fellows from the Provinces they have almost a
certain majority on the average attendance of 200 members. Moreover,
there is in this city a considerable number who make a business of
their Parliamentary activity, combining it with the editorship of
newspapers. Both occupations dovetail into each other, and help to
give the industrially unproductive classes, the _fruges consumere nati_,
preponderance in the law makers’ establishment. With the assistance of
the officials who live on their salaries in Berlin and elsewhere, and
for whom the Parliamentary Session is a pleasant holiday in comparison
to their other work--.” He did not complete the sentence, but smiled,
and said: “When they are here they are just like youngsters who are
glad not to have to go to school, and who hang their heads when they
are obliged to return there after the holidays. Here in the Reichstag,
and in the Lower House of the Diet, there is no strict discipline,
no stern masters, no subordination and no reprimands. They are the
representatives of the popular will, can enjoy the sense of their own
importance, and win admiration by their speeches. All these together
make exactly that kind of a majority which should not exist. That must
be done away with. The German people has a right to demand that the
Reichstag should not be Berlinised.”
He then reflected for a while and said: “Foreign affairs? There is also
not much to write about on that subject at present.”
I suggested: “Tunis? I have written a long article on this subject
for the _Grenzboten_, but it is for the most part geographical and
historical, and contains very little politics.”
He promptly exclaimed: “That’s dangerous! Please let it be! It is
better not to touch it. You know people think when you write anything
that it has been inspired by me.”
I explained to him that I had only dealt with facts and suppositions,
and that the article hinted that he regarded the French enterprise with
sincere good will, and would be pleased if they were satisfied.
He replied: “Ah, that is all right. You have put it very well. You
might also say that we should be pleased to see those neglected
districts that had formerly been fertile and well cultivated come
into the hands of a great civilised people who would restore them to
civilisation. But do not show too much good will, or the French will
take offence at us for giving them permission to undertake hostilities.
Say nothing about England and Italy. It is in our interest if they
should fall out with the French, and when the latter are busy in Tunis
they cease to think of the Rhine frontier. But all that must not be as
much as insinuated--write something about Russia in preference. There
the peasants must be converted into private owners of their lands,
of personal and hereditable property. Now when the land is held in
common by the entire village, and is divided up from time to time, the
drone and the drunkard have the same right as the diligent labourer
who does not spend his time in the public-house. This common ownership
must cease. Those, however, who desire to bring about revolution and
to set the peasantry against the Emperor fight tooth and nail for
the retention of this communism, as if it were a palladium. It is
said to be a genuinely national and primitive Russian institution. In
doing so, however, the gentlemen manifest gross ignorance. The common
ownership of the land was formerly a traditional custom here, except
in a few districts, as, for instance, in parts of Westphalia up to the
Stein-Hardenberg legislation. A similar custom prevailed in France up
to the First Revolution. The Russians, however, have probably received
it from us, from the Germanic Rurik, as they afterwards received other
European institutions.”
At this juncture von Bötticher, the Minister, was announced; and the
Prince took leave of me with the words, “I must break off here, as
I cannot keep him waiting. Auf Wiedersehen. But be very careful in
dealing with Tunis.” I had been with him over half an hour.
The Chancellor’s suggestions with respect to the Tunisian question
and Russia were incorporated in the articles on those subjects. The
communication he made to me at the interview on the 4th of May was
embodied, for the most part literally, in an article entitled “Prince
Bismarck and Berlin,” in No. 20 of the _Grenzboten_, of which I sent
him a copy after publication. I enclosed at the same time an extract
from a leading article of the _Daily Telegraph_ eulogising the recently
deceased Count Harry Arnim, and asserting among other things that in
1870, when he was envoy to the Curia, he had a plan which, if carried
into effect, would have entirely averted the struggle between Prussia
and the Vatican. This magnificent idea was that Prussia should persuade
her bishops to found a German National Church, and in alliance with
them fight the Pope. The _Berliner Tageblatt_ put somewhat similar
stories and views on the market. I therefore asked the Prince whether
these statements should not be refuted. The letter and enclosure was
despatched on the evening of the 22nd of May, and on the evening of
the 24th the letter was returned to me, accompanied by a few lines
from Tiedemann, in which he said, _inter alia_: “His Serene Highness
said he would have been better pleased if the article ‘Prince Bismarck
and Berlin’ had been submitted to him before publication, as several
passages must cause offence in the most exalted regions. With reference
to the article in the _Daily Telegraph_, the Prince said it did not
appear to him to be worth while to refute it.”
It would appear, however, that the Chancellor ultimately came to
think that after all the articles in the _Daily Telegraph_ called for
a correction, as a few days, after the receipt by me of Tiedemann’s
letter the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_ published the following
communication, evidently inspired, which was afterwards copied by the
other newspapers:--
“Certainly such a development (as that which Count Arnim is alleged
to have proposed) would have been desirable from the point of view
of the State. Its only defect was that not a single bishop, not even
the most moderate, was disposed to listen to such an appeal from the
State to enter upon a conflict with the Pope. Even the bishops of those
nations whose national sentiment is much more highly developed, such
as the French, English, and Slav, have rejected all such temptations
_a limine_. But the idea of the Government putting itself at the head
of the Prussian bishops, or being supported by Ledochowski, Melchers,
and Martin in the creation of a German National Church against the will
of the Pope is so utterly puerile that it could certainly never have
occurred to a man of such intelligence as Count Harry Arnim. He was too
well acquainted with the bishops, some of whom were like wax in the
hands of the Pope, while the rest were Jesuits, or waverers, for him to
have ever believed for a moment that they could be induced to storm the
Papal stronghold. So far as we are aware he never entertained such an
idea, and never gave expression to it.”
On Sunday, the 26th of June, at 1.30 P.M., the Prince sent a
message requesting me to call upon him at 4 o’clock. He was in plain
clothes, and looked very poorly, with dark lines under his eyes. He
had allowed his beard to grow, as he usually does when his nervous
affection is exceptionally tormenting. He asked how I was getting on. I
answered: “Well, Serene Highness; but it is not necessary to ask you,
as one knows from the newspapers that your health has of late been very
indifferent.”
“Yes,” he replied, “very bad. Weakness and oppression, and pains all
over, in the body, chest, and face. Up to my sixty-sixth year I had
good teeth, but now they all pain me, tugging and tearing above and
below and all round.” He drew his hand down one cheek and then up the
other. “But that comes from the great excitement, which is due this
time, not to political affairs, but to other matters of which we will
not speak,” (he doubtless referred to certain family affairs ... of
which some hints had appeared in the newspapers) “and one must keep
on working all the same--incessantly. The King is pitiless. He knows
how I am, and yet every day he sends me notes that must be answered. I
have had this illness already several times; first, in St. Petersburg,
when I heard that they were thinking of committing the blunder of
mobilising in favour of Austria in the Italian question, in which case
Austria would have left them in the lurch; then before and after the
war in 1866 at Putbus; again at Versailles; and in ’74, on the occasion
of the libels (Diest-Dabers), when I was deserted by old friends,
and when the Minister of the Household subscribed for ten copies of
the _Reichsglocke_; and in 1877 when Augusta’s _entourage_ intrigued
against me. But what I would like you to do is this. The Progressist
party now speak as if they had done everything, and as if we had to
thank them for the unification of Germany and the foundation of the
Empire. I should like to have a historic survey prepared which would
show that, on the contrary, they have used every possible means to
defeat that end. As long ago as 1848 and the following year they so far
injured the good position held by Prussia, that as a result we had the
miserable Manteuffel _régime_ (_die elende Manteuffelei_), Olmütz, and
afterwards to the Canossa days in Paris, where our plenipotentiary was
obliged to wait for hours in the antechamber before he was admitted,
and where Prussia was altogether left out of account. Then under
the Ministers of the new era when they, with their dogmatism and
their opposition to the reorganisation of the army, brought on the
appointment of a Bismarck Ministry. At that time they were in favour of
a mere militia, although they entertained far-reaching schemes against
the Confederation and Austria--or rather, great aspirations. They
expected no doubt to blow them down with their unwholesome breath as
the walls of Jericho were brought down by the blast of the trumpet.
That is not mine--the breath--but Shakespeare’s.”
“Julius Cæsar?” I suggested.
“No,” he replied, “Coriolanus” (Act iv. scene 6). “Menenius, the
breath of the garlic eaters which ‘made the air unwholesome’ as they
threw their greasy caps in the air and shouted for the banishment
of Coriolanus. And then their attitude towards me. They always
wished me ill, wished me even to the scaffold. Their one desire
always was to upset the Ministry, and take its place. In the course
which they pursued they never took the condition of Germany into
consideration--that is to say, they often alluded to it in their
speeches, but never seriously thought of it. And their action was
always directed towards promoting the objects of our opponents abroad.
They were in favour of Austria, when I was against her, and _vice
versâ_. They worked into the hands of France, like Mayer and Sonnemann,
who held similar views, and who could scarcely be regarded as anything
else than French officials. They would not have an army or a fleet, or
a strong Prussia, and only wanted to establish democratic rule. They
fought against my plans in the Schleswig-Holstein question--‘not a
Groschen to the Ministry’--although I have reason to be particularly
proud of my share in it, seeing that it was a drama of intrigue, equal
to Scribe’s ‘_Le Verre d’Eau_.’ For the sake of the Augustenburger’s
rights, as they said, Schleswig-Holstein should be formed into a
new minor State, which would have voted against Prussia at every
opportunity. Kiel is still one of their chief strongholds, from which
the movement is directed.”
“Yes, Hänel,” I said, “Ex-Minister of Justice to Duke Frederick, who
wished to come to an arrangement with Napoleon against Prussia.
I am pretty well acquainted with the condition of affairs at that
period. When I was disclosing the Kiel intrigues in the _Preussische
Jahrbücher_ I explained the situation to a company, consisting of
members of the Progressist party gathered at Mommsen’s, who was at that
time beginning to entertain more sensible ideas on the subject. All I
could say, however, was perfectly idle. They held to their standpoint
that it was unjust.”
“Mommsen?” said the Chief. “He has always proved himself a greenhorn
when he mixed in politics, and most of all at the present time.”
“One of those awfully clever Professors who know everything better than
every one else,” I remarked.
“They were also opposed to the acquisition of Lauenburg,” continued the
Chancellor, “and when the war with Austria was imminent they desired to
‘rid Prussia of the itch to be a great Power,’ and organised popular
meetings all over the country at which resolutions were passed against
‘a fratricidal war.’ It is an unquestionable fact that at that time
they traitorously hoped and prayed that the enemy might be victorious.
Their ideas were most clearly represented by that member of Parliament
who afterwards conducted an anti-Prussian agitation in the Vienna
press--What’s his name?--the man with the broad, smooth face?”
“Frese,” I suggested.
“Yes, that’s the man I mean” he replied, “They afterwards said, ‘If
we had only known that!’ But that was merely a lying excuse. What
they desired was not unity but freedom, as it was understood by their
party, and radical rule. After 1866 and 1870 they were always the
friends or enemies of every foreign Power according to the side which
I took against it or for it. In all great questions the position they
adopted was determined by their hatred of me. They urged that peace
was threatened by the disfavour with which the Powers regarded the
latest reorganisation of Germany, and yet in dealing with the military
question they endeavoured, in combination with the Centre party, to
weaken rather than to strengthen our power of resistance. They opposed
the consolidation of the Empire in every way. First, they were against
Russia, particularly in 1863; then, when our relations with that
country became less satisfactory, they took up the Russian side; and
when we were once more on a better footing with St. Petersburg they
again turned against Russia. They opposed the Socialists at first, but
when the Anti-Socialist laws came up for discussion they assisted them.
Finally, when I came forward with State Socialism they fought it tooth
and nail, because it is a weapon against the revolution which they
desire. What they require is discontent. That is their element, and
the means by which they promote their ends. They sacrifice everything
to that. It was the case in the question of customs and taxation, and
with regard to the more lenient application of the May Laws which they
also opposed in the commencement, as well as in the Hamburg affair in
which they were thorough Particularists, as they had formerly been in
the Schleswig-Holstein question. It was the same in the purchase of
the railways by the State, which has given exceptionally good results
and with which the public is perfectly satisfied. Throughout the whole
history of the Empire the Progressist party has been the _advocatus
diaboli_. Happily however they were invariably mere firework devils,”
he added, smiling.
“Bellows,” (_Püstriche_) I said, “as Mephisto called them, when he
assembled the devils with straight and crooked horns over to the grave
of Dr. Faust.”
“Yes,” he replied, “they can only lie like the Father of Lies. But they
will not succeed in the long run. Here in Germany lies have a short
life, and the Germans do not allow themselves to be taken in for any
length of time, as other nations such as the French are apt to do, who
attach too much importance to fine speeches.”
I then inquired how he expected the next elections to turn out. He
said: “The moderate parties will be weakened, while the Progressists
will probably increase their numbers, the Conservatives, however, doing
the same. This time, however, we will not stand by and see our plans
wrecked. We shall dissolve if we cannot carry our State Socialism--our
practical Christianity! At present it is not worth while for the sake
of three months.”
“Practical Christianity?” I asked. “Did I rightly understand your
Serene Highness?”
“Certainly,” he replied. “Compassion, a helping hand in distress.
The State which can raise money with the least trouble must take the
matter in hand. Not as alms, but as a right to maintenance, where not
the readiness but the power to work fails. Why should only those who
have in battle become incapable of earning a livelihood be entitled to
a pension, and not also the rank and file of the army of labour? This
question will force its way; it has a future. It is possible that our
policy may be reversed at some future time when I am dead; but State
Socialism will make its way. Whoever takes up this idea again will come
to power. And we have the means, as, for instance, out of a heavier
tobacco tax. That reminds me. My son had recently to deliver a speech
against the Progressists before some association, and I advised him to
introduce the phrase, ‘The voting cattle from the Richter stables, with
the Progressist winkers’ (Das Stimmvieh aus den Richterschen Ställen
mit dem Fortschrittsbrete vor dem Kopfe), but he considered it too
strong.”
We then spoke about the _Deutsches Tageblatt_, which he had taken up
while he was speaking. He said it was well edited. I observed that
the publisher, whose acquaintance I had made at the last book fair in
Leipzig, had told me that he had nearly 8,000 subscribers. The Chief
said: “10,000, I am told.” I observed: “It is now stated that the
_National Zeitung_, that dreary organ of the Secessionists, Bamberger
& Co., has hardly 7,000 subscribers still left.” “That was always
a Jewish sheet,” he replied. “The proprietor and editor are both
Semites.” “And inflated pedagogues,” I took the liberty of adding.
This led the conversation to the Jews, and their connection with
the Progressist party. He said he was surprised at their being so
hostile to him, and so ungrateful, as after all they owed to him the
political position which they held in the Empire. “At least through my
signature,” he continued. “They ought to be satisfied with me, but they
will one day force me to defend myself against them.”
“As you did against the Ultramontanes,” I said. “In that case, Serene
Highness, you would become more popular even than you now are, as you
would have with you not merely the sixty or the hundred thousand who
signed the petition, but the millions who loathe the Jews and their
politics.”
FOOTNOTES
[1] These articles formed the basis of the book _Der Parlamentarismus
wie er ist_, a second edition of which appeared in 1881; while others
were utilised for a second volume, _Bilder aus der Fremde, für die
Heimath gezeichnet_ (“Pictures from Abroad painted for those at Home”).
[2] He was subsequently Ambassador to the Italian Court.
[3] In the late autumn of 1878 I found the library of the Foreign
Office installed here.
[4] Editor of the _North German Gazette_.
[5] It may here be mentioned, for the benefit of the uninitiated
in these matters, that the family in question is related to the
Hohenzollerns through the marriage of Prince Anton Heinrich Radziwill
in 1796 to Friederike Dorothée Louise, daughter of Prince Ferdinand of
Prussia.
[6] Meding, a born Prussian, had originally been in the Prussian
service, but subsequently went over into the Hanoverian service and was
employed by King George, whose confidence he won by the violence of
his anti-Prussian sentiments in connection with the official press....
After the war of 1866 he accompanied the ex-King of Hanover to Vienna,
and then acted until 1870 as a Guelph agent in Paris. He then made
his peace with the Prussian Government and received a pension.... He
published, under the pseudonym of George Samarow, several so-called
historical romances....
[7] Under this system the Ministers are on a footing of equality, and
independent of each other.
[8] Compare with entry for the 8th of November, 1872.
[9] Brother of the dramatist and critic, afterwards Councillor of
Embassy in Berlin.
[10] A reference to the drum which Ziska, the Hussite commander,
ordered his followers to make of his skin, so that he might still
terrify the enemy after his death.
[11] So I understood him to say, but it must have been very much more.
See later.
[12] I should not be disposed to take the responsibility for this
80,000 without good evidence in support of the statement.
[13] The _Bonbonnière_ was a nickname for the Opposition, composed of
the favourites of the Empress Augusta.
[14] Olbrich’s, a Berlin beerhouse, where the editors of the
_Reichsglocke_ and their distinguished patrons were accustomed to meet
for the purpose of preparing their articles against Bismarck.
[15] An error on the part of the Chief, as I subsequently learned. The
offence in question was not the libelling of Ministers, but insults to
the Consistory.
[16] A newspaper edited by Joachim Gehlsen, a decayed journalist, in
co-operation with certain distinguished reactionaries. Its main object
was to lampoon and calumniate the Imperial Chancellor.
[17] Karlsruhe is laid out somewhat in the form of a fan, the streets
radiating from the “handle,” which is occupied by the palace.
[18] When I mentioned this to Bucher he said: “Well, that is not quite
the case. Recently, when he wished to resign, he said to me that if I
did not like to remain on I should come to him at Varzin; he had some
important matters to dictate to me concerning the past from notes which
he had taken down.”
[19] The passage in question has now been corrected in accordance with
the above statement.
[20] Then Correspondent of the _Daily Telegraph_ in Berlin, now _The
Times_ Correspondent in Vienna.
[21] _Bangbersché_, the French pronunciation of Bamberger. The latter
formerly resided in Paris.
[22] This article, which was written by Von Lindenau, a rather
eccentric gentleman formerly in the service of Saxony as Councillor of
Embassy, was published in No. 48 of the _Grenzboten_ of 1880, and dealt
with the attitude of Saxony immediately before the war with France.
[23] So it appeared to many persons at that time. But _tempora
mutantur_; and to-day, thank Heaven, all anxiety on that point has
vanished.
[24] This doubtless referred to the intention to which the Chancellor
gave public expression a few weeks later in his appeal to Herr von
Bennigsen.
[25] How widespread this feeling is, may be gathered from the attitude
of the _Post_, which has published sweet-sour articles on the
subject.--This remark was added at the request of the Chief, which was
communicated to me by Count Rantzau on the 21st of February. The Prince
at the same time wished to have Friedenthal mentioned as “a future
minister,” and as responsible for the attitude adopted by the _Post_.
Rantzau and Holstein, however, advised against this, as Friedenthal had
no longer any influence on the paper.
[26] General Auerswald and Prince Lichnowski lost their lives in the
disturbances at Frankfurt in 1848.
END OF VOL. II.
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.
Transcriber's Notes
The following changes have been made to the text as printed. In
cases of doubt, recourse has been had to the original German work
(_Tagebuchblätter_).
1. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
2. Errors in use of quote marks and other punctuation have been
corrected.
3. In cases of inconsistent spelling of German and French names, the
spelling used in the original language has been preferred. Examples
include changing "Frankfort" to "Frankfurt", "Mayence" to "Mainz",
"Rheims" to "Reims", "Delbruck" to "Delbrück". However, where the
English text is consistent in spelling, that spelling has been retained
("Cologne", "Munich").
4. Where a word is used repeatedly in the same way, hyphenation has
been made consistent, preferring the form most often used in the
printed work, or failing that the more usual form in general use at the
time of publication.
5. Page 85: "making capital out it" has been changed to "making capital
out of it".
6. Page 89: "at the same recommending" has been changed to "at the same
time recommending".
7. Page 165: "sacrificed the Greek element to the slaves." has been
changed to "sacrificed the Greek element to the Slavic.".
8. Page 177: "pan-Krutowski" has been changed to "Pan Krutowski".
9. Page 253: "They are diary entries ..." has been changed to "There
are diary entries ...".
10. Page 274: "Bucher went on say" has been changed to "Bucher went on
to say".