THE CONFLICT.
1862-1863.
The circumstances under which Bismarck accepted office were such as to
try the nerves of the strongest man. The King had not appealed to him so
long as there was anyone else who would carry on the Government; he was
the last resource, and had taken up a burden from which all others
shrunk. He had pledged himself to support the King in a conflict against
the whole nation; with the exception of the Upper House he had no
friends or supporters. The opinion in Europe was as decisively against
him as that in Prussia; he was scarcely looked on as a serious
politician; everyone believed that in a few weeks he would have to
retire, and the King to give up the useless conflict on which he was
staking his throne. Bismarck was under no illusion as to his position;
he had been summoned by the King, he depended for his office entirely on
the King, but would the King have the strength of will and courage to
resist? Only a few days after his appointment, the King had gone to
Baden-Baden for a week, where he met the Queen. When he came back, he
was completely disheartened. Bismarck, who had travelled part of the way
to meet him, got into the train at a small roadside station. He found
that the King, who was sitting alone in an ordinary first-class
carriage, was prepared to surrender. "What will come of it?" he said.
"Already I see the place before my castle on which your head will fall,
and then mine will fall too." "Well, as far as I am concerned," answered
Bismarck, "I cannot think of a finer death than one on the field of
battle or the scaffold. I would fall like Lord Strafford; and your
Majesty, not as Louis XVI., but as Charles I. That is a quite
respectable historical figure."
For the moment the centre of interest lay in the House. The new Minister
began by what he intended as an attempt at reconciliation: he announced
that the Budget for 1863 would be withdrawn; the object of this was to
limit as much as possible the immediate scope of difference; a fresh
Budget for the next year would be laid before them as soon as possible.
There would remain only the settlement of the Budget for the current
year. This announcement was badly received; the House was distrustful,
and they interpreted it as an attempt to return to the old practice of
deferring consideration of the Budget until the beginning of the year to
which it applied. The first discussion in which Bismarck took part was
not in the House itself, but in the Budget Committee. The Committee
proposed a resolution requiring the Government at once to lay before the
House the Budget for 1863, and declaring that it was unconstitutional
to spend any money which had been expressly and definitely refused by
the House of Representatives. On this there took place a long
discussion, in which Bismarck spoke repeatedly; for the discussions in
Committee, which consisted only of about thirty members, were
conversational in their nature. There was no verbatim report, but the
room was crowded with members who had come to hear the new Minister.
They were not disappointed. He spoke with a wit, incisiveness, and
versatility to which, as one observer remarked, they were not accustomed
from Prussian Ministers. He warned them not to exaggerate their powers.
The Prussian Constitution did not give the House of Representatives the
sole power of settling the Budget; it must be settled by arrangement
with the other House and the Crown. There was a difference of opinion in
the interpretation of the Constitution; all constitutional government
required compromise; a constitution was not something dead, it must be
enlivened; it was interpreted by custom and practice; it would be wiser
not to hasten this practice too quickly; then the question of law might
easily become one of power. It was not the fault of the Government that
they had got into this position; people took the situation too
tragically, especially in the press; they spoke as though the end of all
things was come; "but," he added, "a constitutional struggle is not a
disgrace, it is rather an honour; after all we are all children of the
same country." A true note, but one which he was not always able to
maintain in the struggle of the coming years. Then he expounded the
view of the German character which we have learnt from his letters: it
was customary to speak of the sobriety of the Prussian people; yes, but
the great independence of the individual made it difficult in Prussia to
govern with the Constitution; in France it was different; there this
individual independence was wanting; "we are perhaps too educated to
endure a constitution; we are too critical"; the capacity for judging
measures of the Government and acts of the Representatives was too
universal; there were in the country too many Catilinarian existences,
which had an interest in revolutions. He reminded them that Germany did
not care for the Liberalism of Prussia, but for its power; Bavaria,
Wurtemberg, Baden, might indulge in Liberalism; Prussia must concentrate
its power and hold itself ready for the favourable moment which had
already been passed over more than once; Prussia's boundaries, as fixed
by the Congress of Vienna, were not favourable to a sound political
life; "not by speeches and majority votes are the great questions of the
time decided--that was the great blunder of 1848 and 1849--but by blood
and iron." He appealed for confidence: "Do not force a quarrel; we are
honest people and you can trust us."
The effect of these speeches was very unfavourable; the very quickness
of thought and originality of expression produced a bad impression; even
the free indulgence in long foreign words offended patriotic
journalists. They seemed to his audience reckless; what was this
reference to the Treaties of Vienna but an imitation of Napoleonic
statesmanship? They had the consciousness that they were making history,
that they were involved in a great and tragic conflict, and they
expected the Minister to play his part seriously and solemnly; instead
of that they had listened to a series of epigrams with no apparent
logical connection. We know how dangerous it is, even in England, for a
responsible statesman to allow himself to be epigrammatic in dealing
with serious affairs. Much more was it in Germany, where the Ministers
were nearly always officials by training. Bismarck had the dangerous
gift of framing pregnant and pithy sentences which would give a ready
handle to his opponents: _Macht geht vor Recht_; he had not said these
words, but he had said something very much like them, and they
undoubtedly represented what seemed to his audience the pith of his
speeches. And then these words, _blood and iron_. He has told us in
later years what he really meant:
"Put the strongest possible military power, in other words, as
much blood and iron as you can, into the hands of the King of
Prussia, then he will be able to carry out the policy you wish;
it cannot be done with speeches and celebrations and songs, it
can only be done by blood and iron." [7]
What everyone thought he meant was that blood must be shed and iron
used; and perhaps they were not so far wrong.
The attempt at conciliation failed; the report of the Committee was
adopted, and an amendment proposed by Vincke, which Bismarck was
prepared to accept, was rejected. Bismarck warned the House not to push
the conflict too far; the time would come when the prospect of a
peaceful solution would have disappeared; then the Government too would
be prepared to oppose theory to theory and interpretation to
interpretation.
He showed to the President of the House a twig of olive. "I gathered
this in Avignon to bring it to the House; it does not seem to be time
yet."
The Budget was sent up to the House of Lords in the amended form in
which the House of Representatives had passed it; the Lords unanimously
threw it out, as they were legally justified in doing; not content with
that, they altered it to the original form in which it had been proposed
by the Government and sent it down again to the Lower House. This was
clearly illegal. Their action, however, was most useful to the
Government. A conflict had now arisen between the two Houses, and
technically the responsibility for the failure to bring the conciliation
about was taken away from the Government; they could entrench themselves
behind the impregnable position that the law required the Budget to be
passed by both Houses; until this was done they could do nothing. The
Houses would not agree; the Government was helpless. The House of
Representatives at once passed a motion declaring the vote of the Upper
House for altering the Budget null and void, as indeed it was; in the
middle of the discussion a message was brought down by the President
announcing that the House was to be prorogued that afternoon; they had
just time to pass the resolution and to send it in a cab which was
waiting at the door to the Upper House, where it was read out amidst the
boisterous laughter of the Peers; then both Chambers were summoned to
the Palace, and the session closed. The first round in the conflict was
over.
The recess was short; the next session was by the Constitution obliged
to begin not later than January 15th; there were many who expected that
the Constitution would be ignored and the Parliament not summoned. This
was not Bismarck's plan; he fulfilled all the technical requirements in
the strictest way; he carefully abstained from any action which he could
not justify by an appeal to the letter of the Constitution; the
government of the country was carried on with vigour and success; he
allowed no loophole by which his opponents might injure his influence
with the King. It is true that they were spending money which had not
been voted, but then, as he explained, that was not his fault; the
provisions of the law were quite clear.
It was the duty of the Government to submit the Budget to the Lower
House, who could amend it; it had then to be passed in the form of a
law, and for this the assent of both Houses of Parliament and of the
Crown was required. The Upper House had not the right of proposing
amendments, but they had the right of rejecting them. In this case they
had made use of their right; no law had been passed the two Houses had
not agreed. What was to happen? The Constitution gave no help; there was
a gap in it. The Government therefore had to act as best they could.
They could not be expected to close the Government offices, cease to pay
the troops, and let the government of the country come to an end; they
must go on as best they could, taking all the responsibility until they
could come to some agreement.
As soon as the House met it began to vote an address to the King. They
adopted the obvious fiction, which, in fact, they could not well avoid,
that he was being misled by his Ministers, and the attitude of the
country misrepresented to him; even had they known as well as we do that
the Ministers were only carrying out the orders of the King, they could
not well have said so. Bismarck, however, did not attempt to conceal the
truth; the address, he said, touched the King; the acts complained of
were done in the name of the King; they were setting themselves against
him. The contest was, who was to rule in Prussia, the House of
Hohenzollern or the House of Parliament. He was at once accused of
disloyalty; he was, they said, protecting himself behind the person of
the sovereign, but, of course, it was impossible for him not to do so.
The whole justification for his action was that he was carrying out the
King's orders. What was at the root of the conflict but the question,
whether in the last resort the will of the King or the majority of the
House should prevail? To have adopted the English practice, to have
refrained from mentioning the King's name, would have been to adopt the
very theory of the Constitution for which the House was contending, the
English theory that the sovereign has neither the right of deciding nor
responsibility; it would have been to undermine the monarchical side of
the Constitution which Bismarck was expressly defending. The King
himself never attempted to avoid the responsibility; in a public speech
he had already said that the army organisation was his own work: "It is
my own and I am proud of it; I will hold firmly to it and carry it
through with all my energy." In his answer to the address from the
House, both on this and on later occasions, he expressly withdrew the
assumption that he was not well informed or that he did not approve of
his Ministers' action.
The address was carried by a majority of 255 to 68; the King refused to
receive it in person. The House then proceeded to throw out a Bill for
military reorganisation which was laid before them; they adopted a
resolution that they reserved for later discussion the question, for
what part of the money illegally spent in 1862 they would hold the
Ministry personally responsible. They then proceeded to the Budget of
1863, and again rejected the army estimates; they refused the money
asked for raising the salaries of the ambassadors (Bismarck himself,
while at St. Petersburg, had suffered much owing to the insufficiency of
his salary, and he wished to spare his successors a similar
inconvenience); and they brought in Bills for the responsibility of
Ministers. The public attention, however was soon directed from these
internal matters to even more serious questions of foreign policy.
At the beginning of February the Poles had once more risen in revolt
against the Russian Government. Much sympathy was felt for them in
Western Europe. England, France, and Austria joined in representations
and remonstrances to the Czar; they expected that Prussia would join
them.
Nothing could have been more inconvenient to Bismarck; he was at the
time fully occupied in negotiations about German affairs, and he was
probably anxious to bring to a speedy issue the questions between
Prussia and Austria; it was therefore most important to him to be on
good terms with France and England, for he would not challenge Austria
unless he was sure that Austria would have no allies; now he must
quarrel with either Russia or with France. An insurrection in Poland
was, however, a danger to which everything else must be postponed; on
this his opinion never varied, here there could be no compromise. He was
perfectly open: "The Polish question is to us a question of life and
death," he said to Sir Andrew Buchanan. There were two parties among the
Poles; the one, the extreme Republican, wished for the institution of an
independent republic; the other would be content with self-government
and national institutions under the Russian Crown; they were supported
by a considerable party in Russia itself. Either party if successful
would not be content with Russian Poland; they would demand Posen, they
would never rest until they had gained again the coast of the Baltic and
deprived Prussia of her eastern provinces. The danger to Prussia would
be greatest, as Bismarck well knew, if the Poles became reconciled to
the Russians; an independent republic on their eastern frontier would
have been dangerous, but Polish aspirations supported by the Panslavonic
party and the Russian army would have been fatal. Russia and Poland
might be reconciled, Prussia and Poland never can be. Prussia therefore
was obliged to separate itself from the other Powers; instead of sending
remonstrances to the Czar, the King wrote an autograph letter proposing
that the two Governments should take common steps to meet the common
danger; General von Alvensleben, who took the letter, at once concluded
a convention in which it was agreed that Prussian and Russian troops
should be allowed to cross the frontier in pursuit of the insurgents; at
the same time two of the Prussian army corps were mobilised and drawn up
along the Polish frontier.
The convention soon became known and it is easy to imagine the
indignation with which the Prussian people and the House of
Representatives heard of what their Government had done. The feeling was
akin to that which would have prevailed in America had the President
offered his help to the Spanish Government to suppress the insurrection
in Cuba. The answers to questions were unsatisfactory, and on February
26th Heinrich von Sybel rose to move that the interests of Prussia
required absolute neutrality. It was indeed evident that Bismarck's
action had completely isolated Prussia; except the Czar, she had now
not a single friend in Europe and scarcely a friend in Germany. Bismarck
began his answer by the taunt that the tendency to enthusiasm for
foreign nationalities, even when their objects could only be realised at
the cost of one's own country, was a political disease unfortunately
limited to Germany. It was, however, an unjust taunt, for no one had
done more than Sybel himself in his historical work to point out the
necessity, though he recognised the injustice, of the part Prussia had
taken in the partition of Poland; nobody had painted so convincingly as
he had, the political and social demoralisation of Poland. Bismarck then
dwelt on the want of patriotism in the House, which in the middle of
complicated negotiations did not scruple to embarrass their own
Government. "No English House of Commons," he said, "would have acted as
they did," a statement to which we cannot assent; an English Opposition
would have acted exactly as the majority of the Prussian Parliament did.
When a Minister is in agreement with the House on the general principles
of policy, then indeed there rests on them the obligation not to
embarrass the Government by constant interpolation with regard to each
diplomatic step; self-restraint must be exercised, confidence shewn.
This was not the case here; the House had every reason to believe that
the objects of Bismarck were completely opposed to what they wished;
they could not be expected to repose confidence in him. They used this,
as every other opportunity, to attempt to get rid of him.
The question of Poland is one on which Bismarck never altered his
attitude. His first public expression of opinion on foreign affairs was
an attack on the Polish policy of the Prussian Government in 1848.
"No one then," he wrote, "could doubt that an independent Poland
would be the irreconcilable enemy of Prussia and would remain so
till they had conquered the mouth of the Vistula and every
Polish-speaking village in West and East Prussia, Pomerania, and
Silesia."
Forty years later one of the last of his great speeches in the Reichstag
was devoted to attacking the Polish sympathies of the Catholic party in
Prussia. He was never tired of laughing at the characteristic German
romanticism which was so enthusiastic for the welfare of other nations.
He recalled the memories of his boyhood when, after the rebellion of
1831, Polish refugees were received in every German town with honours
and enthusiasm greater than those paid to the men who had fought for
Germany, when German children would sing Polish national airs as though
they were their own.
Nothing shews the change which he has been able to bring about in German
thought better than the attitude of the nation towards Poland. In the
old days the Germans recollected only that the partition of Poland had
been a great crime; it was their hope and determination that they might
be able to make amends for it. In those days the Poles were to be found
in every country in Europe, foremost in fighting on the barricades; they
helped the Germans to fight for their liberty, and the Germans were to
help them to recover independence. In 1848, Mieroslawski had been
carried like a triumphant hero through the streets of Berlin; the Baden
rebels put themselves under the leadership of a Pole, and it was a Pole
who commanded the Viennese in their resistance to the Austrian army; a
Pole led the Italians to disaster on the field of Novara. At a time when
poets still were political leaders, and the memory and influence of
Byron had not been effaced, there was scarcely a German poet, Platen,
Uhland, Heine, who had not stirred up the enthusiasm for Poland. It was
against this attitude of mind that Bismarck had to struggle and he has
done so successfully. He has taught that it is the duty of Germany to
use all the power of the State for crushing and destroying the Polish
language and nationality; the Poles in Prussia are to become Prussian,
as those in Russia have to become Russian. A hundred years ago the
Polish State was destroyed; now the language and the nation must cease
to exist.
It is a natural result of the predominance of Prussia in Germany. The
enthusiasm for Poland was not unnatural when the centre of gravity of
Germany was still far towards the West. Germany could be great,
prosperous, and happy, even if a revived Poland spread to the shores of
the Baltic, but Prussia would then cease to exist and Bismarck has
taught the Germans to feel as Prussians.
The danger during these weeks was real; Napoleon proposed that Austria,
England, and France should present identical notes to Prussia
remonstrating with and threatening her. Lord Russell refused; it was, as
Bismarck said in later years, only the friendly disposition of Lord
Russell to Germany which saved Prussia from this danger. Bismarck's own
position was very insecure; but he withstood this attack as he did all
others, though few knew at what expense to his nerves and health; he
used to attribute the frequent illnesses of his later years to the
constant anxiety of these months; he had a very nervous temperament,
self-control was difficult to him, and we must remember that all the
time when he was defending the King's Government against this public
criticism he had to maintain himself against those who at Court were
attempting to undermine his influence with the King.
He had, however, secured the firm friendship of Russia. When he was in
St. Petersburg he had gained the regard of the Czar; now to this
personal feeling was added a great debt of gratitude. What a contrast
between the action of Austria and Prussia! The late Czar had saved
Austria from dissolution, and what had been the reward? Opposition in
the East, and now Austria in the Polish affair was again supporting the
Western Powers. On the other hand Prussia, and Prussia alone, it was
which had saved Russia from the active intervention of France and
England. Napoleon had proposed that a landing should he made in
Lithuania in order to effect a junction with the Poles; Bismarck had
immediately declared that if this were done he should regard it as a
declaration of war against Prussia. So deep was the indignation of
Alexander that he wrote himself to the King of Prussia, proposing an
alliance and a joint attack on France and Austria. It must have been a
great temptation to Bismarck, but he now shewed the prudence which was
his great characteristic as a diplomatist; he feared that in a war of
this kind the brunt would fall upon Prussia, and that when peace was
made the control of negotiations would be with the Czar. He wished for
war with Austria, but he was determined that when war came he should
have the arrangement of the terms of peace. On his advice the King
refused the offer.
The bitterness of the feeling created by these debates on Poland
threatened to make it impossible for Ministers any longer to attend in
the House; Bismarck did his part in increasing it.
"You ask me," he said, "why, if we disagree with you, we do not
dissolve; it is that we wish the country to have an opportunity
of becoming thoroughly acquainted with you."
He was tired and angry when during one of these sittings he writes to
Motley:
"I am obliged to listen to particularly tasteless speeches out of
the mouths of uncommonly childish and excited politicians, and I
have therefore a moment of unwilling leisure which I cannot use
better than in giving you news of my welfare. I never thought
that in my riper years I should be obliged to carry on such an
unworthy trade as that of a Parliamentary Minister. As envoy,
although an official, I still had the feeling of being a
gentleman; as [Parliamentary] Minister one is a helot. I have
come down in the world, and hardly know how.
"April 18th. I wrote as far as this yesterday, then the sitting
came to an end; five hours' Chamber until three o'clock; one
hour's report to his Majesty; three hours at an incredibly dull
dinner, old important Whigs; then two hours' work; finally, a
supper with a colleague, who would have been hurt if I had
slighted his fish. This morning, I had hardly breakfasted, before
Karolyi was sitting opposite to me; he was followed without
interruption by Denmark, England, Portugal, Russia, France, whose
Ambassador I was obliged to remind at one o'clock that it was
time for me to go to the House of phrases. I am sitting again in
the latter; hear people talk nonsense, and end my letter. All
these people have agreed to approve our treaties with Belgium, in
spite of which twenty speakers scold each other with the greatest
vehemence, as if each wished to make an end of the other; they
are not agreed about the motives which make them unanimous,
hence, alas! a regular German squabble about the Emperor's beard;
_querelle d'Allemand_. You Anglo-Saxon Yankees have something of
the same kind also.... Your battles are bloody; ours wordy; these
chatterers really cannot govern Prussia. I must bring some
opposition to bear against them; they have too little wit and too
much self-complacency--stupid and audacious. Stupid, in all its
meanings, is not the right word; considered individually, these
people are sometimes very clever, generally educated--the
regulation German university culture; but of politics, beyond the
interests of their own church tower, they know as little as we
knew as students, and even less; as far as external politics go,
they are also, taken separately, like children. In all other
questions they become childish as soon as they stand together _in
corpore_. In the mass stupid, individually intelligent."
Recalling these days, Bismarck said in later years:
"I shall never forget how I had every morning to receive the
visit of Sir Andrew Buchanan, the English Ambassador, and
Talleyrand, the representative of France, who made hell hot for
me over the inexcusable leanings of Prussian policy towards
Russia, and held threatening language towards us, and then at
midday I had the pleasure of hearing in the Prussian Parliament
pretty much the same arguments and attacks which in the morning
the foreign Ambassadors had made against me."
Of course the language used in the House weakened his influence abroad,
and the foreign Governments shewed more insistence when they found out
that the Prussian Parliament supported their demands. It was noticed
with satisfaction in the English Parliament that the nation had
dissociated itself from the mean and disgraceful policy of the
Government.
At last personal friction reached such a point that the session had to
be closed. In order to understand the cause of this we must remember
that in Prussia the Ministers are not necessarily members of either
House; they enjoy, however, by the Constitution, the right of attending
the debates and may at any time demand to be heard; they do not sit in
the House among the other members, but on a raised bench to the right of
the President, facing the members. They have not, therefore, any feeling
of _esprit de corps_ as members of the assembly; Bismarck and his
colleagues when they addressed the House spoke not as members, not as
the representatives of even a small minority, but as strangers, as the
representatives of a rival and hostile authority; it is this which
alone explains the almost unanimous opposition to him; he was the
opponent not of one party in the House but of the Parliament itself and
of every other Parliament. In the course of a debate he came into
conflict with the Chair; the President pointed out that some of his
remarks had nothing to do with the subject; Bismarck at once protested:
"I cannot allow the President the right to a disciplinary interruption
in my speech. I have not the honour of being a member of this assembly;
I have not helped to vote your standing orders; I have not joined in
electing the President; I am not subject to the disciplinary power of
the Chamber. The authority of the President ends at this barrier. I have
one superior only, his Majesty the King." This led to a sharp passage
with the President, who maintained that his power extended as far as the
four walls; he could not indeed withdraw the right of speech from a
Minister, but could interrupt him. Bismarck at once repeated word for
word the obnoxious passage of his speech. The President threatened, if
he did so again, to close the sitting; Bismarck practically gave way; "I
cannot," he said, "prevent the President adjourning the House; what I
have said twice I need not repeat a third time"; and the debate
continued without further interruption. A few weeks later a similar
scene occurred, but this time it was not Bismarck but Roon, and Roon had
not the same quick feeling for Parliamentary form; Bismarck had defied
the President up to the extreme point where his legal powers went, Roon
passed beyond them. The President wished to interrupt the Minister;
Roon refused to stop speaking; the President rang his bell. "When I
interrupt the Minister," he said, "he must be silent. For that purpose I
use my bell, and, if the Minister does not obey, I must have my hat
brought me." When the Chairman put on his hat the House would be
adjourned. Roon answered, "I do not mind if the President has his hat
brought; according to the Constitution I can speak if I wish, and no one
has the right to interrupt me." After a few more angry words on either
side, as Roon continued to dispute the right of the President, the
latter rose from his seat and asked for his hat, which he placed on his
head. All the members rose and the House was adjourned. Unfortunately
the hat handed to him was not his own; it was much too large and
completely covered his head and face, so that the strain of the
situation was relieved by loud laughter. After this the Ministers
refused to attend the House unless they received an assurance that the
President no longer claimed disciplinary authority over them; a series
of memoranda were exchanged between the House and the Ministry; the
actual point in dispute was really a very small one; it is not even
clear that there was _any_ difference of opinion; everyone acknowledged
that the Ministers might make as many speeches as they liked, and that
the Chairman could not require them to stop speaking. The only question
was whether he might interrupt them in order to make any remarks
himself; but neither side was prepared to come to an understanding. The
King, to whom the House appealed, supported the Ministry, and a few
days later the House was prorogued. The second session was over.
Three days later, by Royal proclamation, a series of ordinances was
published creating very stringent regulations for the control of the
Press; they gave the police the right of forbidding a newspaper to
appear for no other reason except disapproval of its general tendency.
It was a power more extreme than in the worst days of the Carlsbad
decrees had ever been claimed by any German Government. The ordinances
were based on a clause in the Constitution which gave the Government at
times of crisis, if Parliament were not sitting, the power of making
special regulations for the government of the Press. The reference to
the Constitution seemed almost an insult; the kind of crisis which was
meant was obviously a period of civil war or invasion; it seemed as
though the Government had taken the first pretext for proroguing
Parliament to be able to avail themselves of this clause. The ordinances
reminded men of those of Charles X.; surely, they said, this was the
beginning of a reign of violence.
The struggle was now no longer confined to Parliament. Parliament indeed
was clearly impotent; all that could be done by speeches and votes and
addresses had been done and had failed; the King still supported the
Ministry. It was now the time for the people at large; the natural
leaders were the corporations of the large towns; the Liberal policy of
the Prussian Government had given them considerable independence; they
were elected by the people, and in nearly every town there was a large
majority opposed to the Government. Headed by the capital, they began a
series of addresses to the King; public meetings were organised; at
Cologne a great festival was arranged to welcome Sybel and the other
representatives from the Rhine. It was more serious that in so
monarchical a country the discontent with the personal action of the
King found public expression. The Crown Prince was at this time on a
tour of military inspection in East Prussia; town after town refused the
ordinary loyal addresses; they would not welcome him or take part in the
usual ceremonies; the ordinary loyal addresses to the King and other
members of the Royal Family were refused. It was no longer a conflict
between the Ministry and the Parliament, but between the King and the
country.
Suddenly the country learned that the Crown Prince himself, the Heir
Apparent to the throne, was on their side. He had always disliked
Bismarck; he was offended by the brusqueness of his manner. He disliked
the genial and careless _bonhommie_ with which Bismarck, who hated
affectation, discussed the most serious subjects; he had opposed his
appointment, and he now held a position towards his father's Government
similar to that which ten years before his father had held towards his
own brother. He was much influenced by his English relations, and the
opinion of the English Court was strongly unfavourable to Bismarck.
Hitherto the Crown Prince had refrained from any public active
opposition; he had, however, not been asked his opinion concerning the
Press ordinances, nor had he even received an invitation to the council
at which they were passed. Bitterly offended at this slight upon
himself, seriously alarmed lest the action of the Government might even
endanger the dynasty, on his entry into Danzig he took occasion to
dissociate himself from the action of the Government. He had not, he
said, been asked; he had known nothing about it; he was not responsible.
The words were few and they were moderate, but they served to shew the
whole of Germany what hitherto only those about the Court had known,
that the Crown Prince was to be counted among the opponents of the
Government.
An incident followed a few days later which could only serve to increase
the breach. After his speech at Danzig, the Crown Prince had offered to
surrender all his official positions; the King had not required this of
him, but had strictly ordered him not again to come into opposition to
his Government. The Crown Prince had promised obedience, but continued
his private protests against "these rude and insolent Ministers." The
letters on both sides had been affectionate and dignified. A few days
later, however, the Berlin correspondent of the _Times_ was enabled to
publish the contents of them. It is not known who was to blame for this
very serious breach of confidence; but the publication must have been
brought about by someone very closely connected with the Crown Prince;
suspicion was naturally directed towards the Court of Coburg. It was not
the last time that the confidence of the Crown Prince was to be abused
in a similar manner.
The event naturally much increased Bismarck's dislike to the entourage
of the Prince. There was indeed a considerable number of men, half men
of letters, half politicians, who were glad to play a part by attaching
themselves to a Liberal Prince; they did not scruple to call in the help
of the Press of the foreign countries, especially of England, and use
its influence for the decision of Prussian affairs. Unfortunately their
connections were largely with England; they had a great admiration for
English liberty, and they were often known as the English party. This
want of discretion, which afterwards caused a strong prejudice against
them in Germany, was used to create a prejudice also against England.
People in Germany confused with the English nation, which was supremely
indifferent to Continental affairs, the opinions of a few writers who
were nearly always German. For many years after this, the relations
between Bismarck and the Crown Prince were very distant, and the breach
was to be increased by the very decided line which the Crown Prince
afterwards took with regard to the Schleswig-Holstein affair.
The event shewed that Bismarck knew well the country with which he was
dealing; the Press ordinances were not actually illegal, they were
strictly enforced; many papers were warned, others were suppressed; the
majority at once changed their tone and moderated their expression of
hostility to the Government. In England, under similar circumstances, a
host of scurrilous pamphlets have always appeared; the Prussian police
were too prompt for this to be possible. The King refused to receive the
addresses; an order from the Home Office forbade town councils to
discuss political matters; a Bürgermeister who disregarded the order was
suspended from his office; public meetings were suppressed. These
measures were successful; the discontent remained and increased, but
there was no disorder and there were no riots. Great courage was
required to defy public opinion, but with courage it could be defied
with as much impunity as that of the Parliament. Englishmen at the time
asked why the people did not refuse to pay the taxes; the answer is
easy: there would have been no legal justification for this, for though,
until the estimates had been passed, the Ministers were not legally
enabled to spend a farthing of public money, the taxes could still be
levied; they were not voted annually; once imposed, they continued until
a law was passed withdrawing them. The situation, in fact, was this,
that the Ministry were obliged to collect the money though they were not
authorised in spending it. To this we must add that the country was very
prosperous; the revenue was constantly increasing; there was no
distress. The socialist agitation which was just beginning was directed
not against the Government but against society; Lassalle found more
sympathy in Bismarck than he did with the Liberal leaders. He publicly
exhorted his followers to support the Monarchy against these miserable
Bourgeois, as he called the Liberals. Except on the one ground of the
constitutional conflict, the country was well governed; there was no
other interference with liberty of thought or action.
Moreover, there was a general feeling that things could not last long;
the Liberals believed that the future was with them; time itself would
bring revenge. At the worst they would wait till the death of the King;
he was already nearly seventy years of age; the political difficulties
had much injured his health. When he was gone, then with the Crown
Prince the constitutional cause would triumph.
How different was the future to be! Year after year the conflict
continued. Each year the House was summoned and the Budget laid before
it; each year the House rejected the Budget; they threw out Government
measures, they refused the loans, and they addressed the King to dismiss
his Ministers. The sessions, however, were very short; that of 1864
lasted only a few weeks.
Each year Bismarck's open contempt for the Parliament and their
unqualified hatred of him increased. The people still continued to
support their representatives. The cities still continued to withhold
their loyal addresses to the King. With each year, however, the
Government gained confidence. It was easy to see that the final result
would depend on the success of the Government in external affairs. To
these we must now turn.
English opinion at that time was unanimously opposed to the King; it is
difficult even now to judge the issue. It was natural for Englishmen to
sympathise with those who wished to imitate them. Their pride was
pleased when they found the ablest Parliamentary leaders, the most
learned historians and keenest jurists desirous to assimilate the
institutions of Prussia to those which existed in England. It is just
this which ought to make us pause. What do we think of politicians who
try to introduce among us the institutions and the faults of foreign
countries? "Why will not the King of Prussia be content with the
position which the Queen of England holds, or the King of the
Belgians,--then all his unpopularity would be gone?" was a question
asked at the time by an English writer. We may ask, on the other hand,
why should the King of Prussia sacrifice his power and prerogative? The
question is really as absurd as it would be to ask, why is not an
English Parliament content with the power enjoyed by the Prussian
Parliament? It was a commonplace of the time, that the continued
conflict shewed a want of statesmanship; so it did, if it is
statesmanship always to court popularity and always to surrender one's
cause when one believes it to be right, even at the risk of ruining
one's country. It must be remembered that through all these years the
existence of Prussia was at stake. If the Prussian Government insisted
on the necessity for a large and efficient army, they were accused of
reckless militarism. People forgot that the Prussian Monarchy could no
more maintain itself without a large army than the British Empire could
without a large navy. In all the secret diplomatic negotiations of the
time, the dismemberment of Prussia was a policy to be considered. France
wished to acquire part of the left bank of the Rhine, Austria had never
quite given up hope of regaining part of Silesia; it was not fifty years
since Prussia had acquired half the kingdom of Saxony; might not a
hostile coalition restore this territory? And then the philanthropy of
England and the intrigues of France were still considering the
possibility of a revived Poland, but in Poland would have to be included
part of the territory which Prussia had acquired.
It is often said that from this conflict must be dated the great growth
of militarism in Europe; it is to the victory of the King and Bismarck
that we are to attribute the wars which followed and the immense
armaments which since then have been built up in Europe. To a certain
extent, of course, this is true, though it is not clear that the
presence of these immense armies is an unmixed evil. It is, however,
only half the truth; the Prussian Government was not solely responsible.
It was not they who began arming, it was not they who first broke the
peace which had been maintained in Europe since 1815. Their fault seems
to have been, not that they armed first, but that when they put their
hand to the work, they did it better than other nations. If they are
exposed to any criticism in the matter, it must rather be this, that the
Government of the late King had unduly neglected the army; they began to
prepare not too soon but almost too late. It was in Austria in 1848 that
the new military dominion began; Austria was supported by Russia and
imitated by France; Prussia, surrounded by these empires, each at least
double herself in population, was compelled to arm in self-defence. By
not doing so sooner she had incurred the disgrace of Olmütz; her whole
policy had been weak and vacillating, because the Government was
frightened at stirring up a conflict in which they would almost
certainly be defeated.
There is one other matter with regard to the conflict so far as regards
Bismarck personally. We must always remember that he was not responsible
for it. It had originated at a time when he was absent from Germany, and
had very little influence on the conduct of affairs. Had he been
Minister two years before, there probably would have been no conflict at
all. The responsibility for it lies partly with the leaders of the
Liberal party, who, as we know from memoirs that have since been
published, were acting against their own convictions, in opposing the
military demands of the Government, for they feared that otherwise the
party would not follow them. Much of the responsibility also rests with
the Ministry of the _new era_; they had mismanaged affairs; the
mismanagement arose from the want of union among them, for the Liberal
majority were in many matters opposed to the King and the throne. It was
this want of cordial co-operation in the Ministry which led to the great
blunder by which the Minister of War acted in a way which seemed to be,
and in fact was, a breach of an engagement made by the Minister of
Finance. Had Bismarck been in authority at the time, we can hardly doubt
that he would have found some way of effecting a compromise between the
Government and the leaders of the Moderate Liberal party. At least no
blame attached to him for what had happened. Still less can we afford
him anything but the highest commendation, that, when the King had got
into an absolutely untenable position, he came forward, and at the risk
of his reputation, his future, perhaps his life, stood by his side.