Chapter I (2)

“On page 31 Delbrück’s free-trade system is spoken of as having been for a long time in force. The question here is what is meant by ‘a long time.’ The system which is here named after Delbrück has only been in existence since 1865, and we first began to entertain serious doubts respecting it in 1875. Up to the latter date I had had no time to think of its advantages or disadvantages, as I was obliged to devote my whole mind to watching and averting the serious danger of coalition which then existed.

“On page 32 there is a falsehood obviously calculated to influence the elections. I am made to say that I wished to ‘drive the National Liberals to the wall,’ while people heard at the same time that I intended to make a complete change in the previous customs and commercial policy. This is impossible. I first thought of the latter in November last; and to ‘drive to the wall’ is an expression which I have never used, either in this connection or in any other. It is not to be found in my lexicon. Every one knows whether he is apt to use a certain phrase or not, and I am quite satisfied that I have never used that phrase.

“The dissolution of the Reichstag after the Nobiling outrage is represented as a measure directed against the Liberals. It was in reality the very opposite, an act of complaisance on the part of the Government towards the Liberals. I wished to make the change of opinion with regard to the Anti-Socialist laws easy for them by means of a dissolution and new elections. But that is the way with these gentlemen and their excessive _amour propre_. If one does not always stand hat in hand before them, they regard one as their enemy, and full of arrogance. But I cannot do that. I do not set much store by criticisms and speeches intended for the newspapers. Indeed, I lack altogether the bump of veneration for my fellow man.”

At this moment Theiss announced the Minister Maybach. I rose, and putting under my arm the number of the _Revue_ which he had given me with his grey, red, and blue pencil marks and comments, was about to leave. Before going, however, I said: “Might I venture to ask whether Gambetta has called upon you, Serene Highness?” “No,” he replied. “He has said so himself, and it is the fact. Of course it is evident from his journey to Danzig that he had thought of paying a visit to Varzin. He doubtless reconsidered the matter there, or they may have written to him from Paris that it would not make a good impression.” On Maybach coming in at this point the Chancellor said: “We were just speaking of Gambetta. It was not my business to deny the report of his visit to me. People might have thought that I had some grudge against him--that I wished to hold aloof from him, which was not at all the case.”

I took my leave and immediately wrote down what I had heard. The first part respecting the results of the elections was worked up into an article entitled “The Chancellor Crisis,” which appeared in No. 48 of the _Grenzboten_; the criticism of the Unruh Memoirs being utilised for an article in No. 49.

After I had received copies of these and of a third article, “The Imperial Chancellor and the Reichstag,” I handed over all three at the palace at noon on the 2nd of December for delivery to the Prince. An hour later I received the following letter from the Imperial Chancellerie, signed by Sachse:--

“Under instructions from the Imperial Chancellor I have the honour to request you to call upon his Serene Highness to-day at any time up to 5 o’clock. The Imperial Chancellor mentioned at the same time that the articles which you have submitted to him cannot possibly be published in their present form.”

I presented myself at the palace at 3 o’clock, but could not see the Chancellor, as Prince William was with him, and Mittnacht, the Minister, was announced to follow. On my returning again at 4 o’clock Mittnacht was with the Chief, but left in about ten minutes. Immediately afterwards the Chancellor sent me word that he was waiting for me in the garden. On my passing through the door of the large antechamber, I found him standing outside with his dog. He shook hands in a friendly way, saying immediately afterwards, however: “But what have you been doing, Doctor? Why, that is all wrong, the very opposite of what I wanted. Surely the article is not yet printed?” I regretted that it was already published. “That is most unfortunate,” he rejoined. I asked which of the articles he meant. “Why, that about Unruh,” he answered. “You have said exactly what Bennigsen asserted. It might have been written by one of my worst enemies. And the other is also not correct--often pure nonsense. I remember it was just the same three years ago with the things you sent on to me to Kissingen and Gastein--in many places the direct contrary was the truth.” I replied that that was only the case in one instance, in the story about Rechberg, which was then left out. He would not agree to that, however, and continued: “You must submit these articles to me before they are printed. You now trust too much to your memory, which is not so good as it was formerly, or you have not listened attentively. I related it all to you quite differently.”

At this point we were interrupted by Count Bill, who brought a message. When he had gone the Chief took the article out of his pocket, and as it had grown dark we passed through another door into his study, where he looked through the passage once more. At the first, on page 395, where I--following Unruh’s statement--made the Chief say that in the year 1859 the German Governments “with the exception of a few minor States which fall within the sphere of influence of Prussia, would all join Austria. The former would, therefore, be completely isolated, yet she would have allies if she knew how to win and to treat them, namely the German people,” he said: “That’s pure nonsense. Directly contrary to history. Why, you should have known that.... But, no, I misunderstood the sentence. I read it wrongly in my hurry. The ‘former’ and ‘she’ referred to Prussia. There I have done little Busch (Büschchen) an injustice.... But further on, here (the passage on 398) where I say that the people could have done nothing against a reactionary policy during the period of conflict. That is unfounded. I cannot say that. It should have been ‘would have done nothing.’ No doubt they would have desired to do it. Well, on page 401, that is again an oversight on my part. Here I overlooked the first ‘not.’” (He referred to the passage: “The expression ‘drive them to the wall’ has not only not been used by me in this connection, but was never used by me at all.”) “But all this about Bennigsen is quite wrong--the second part of it. There you have written in his interest. If that were a correct account I should have told a lie. My main object in the article was to explain that point, and you ought to have known from the _Norddeutsche_ how the matter really stood. You should know that the article in that paper was written at my instance. But I suppose you do not read the official journals. No further negotiations took place with him after the interview at Varzin, that is with Bennigsen respecting the ministerial post, although I did not break with him otherwise. It is true that my son wrote to him once more, but I knew nothing of this. And Eulenburg did not decide to remain. He had had enough of it. He went to the King, however, told him of my negotiations with Bennigsen, and incited him against me. I had been in treaty with these Liberals behind his back, &c. The King did not inform me that Eulenburg did not wish to retire, but wrote me an exceedingly rude and snappish letter somewhat to this effect: How dare I enter into negotiations with this rabid Radical, this arch-demagogue, and expressly forbade me to treat with him any further. That did not take place ‘several months,’ but only three or four days after the Varzin interview. The statement that Lasker reckoned on obtaining a portfolio is correct. On the other hand it is quite incorrect to say that _out of politeness_ I abstained from telling Bennigsen that I did not think of him any more, as the post was no longer open. It was still open, as you might have seen in any calendar. Surely you know that Friedenthal only held it provisionally. The truth is I could not explain to Bennigsen that his Most Gracious had forbidden me to negotiate with him any further.”

While speaking thus the Chancellor underlined the passage referred to, page 400, lines 19 to 28, in so far as he had corrected them, adding notes of exclamation and remarks such as “No,” and “three days.” I expressed my regret at the harm that had been done and observed that it could be put right in the next number of the _Grenzboten_. He agreed to this and wished to see the correction before it appeared. I promised to submit it to him. Finding in the course of his examination, that the misfortune did not extend to more than some five lines in an article of nine pages, his excitement gradually subsided. Indeed, the “Büschchen” at the beginning had already sounded less severe, and at the close he said “I must have a breath of fresh air before dinner. Come along!”

We strolled up and down in the park for about an hour longer, and spoke of other matters. I congratulated the Prince on the success with which he had repelled the attacks of his opponents in the Reichstag three or four days previously. “Yes, successfully,” he rejoined. “That’s very fine, but what good has it done? They have, all the same, refused the 80,000 marks for an adviser on political economy; and the Government has now no means of keeping itself informed.” I remarked that they had obviously been influenced by their own ignorance of practical affairs, and particularly with industrial matters, as well as by jealousy and fear. Bamberger’s assertion that they knew enough themselves was no proof of the contrary. They wished to appear before the public as the only infallible wiseacres, and also being doctrinarians, they could afford to ignore economic facts.

We then spoke about Windthorst, of whom the Chief said: “His vote against the Government has destroyed the slight degree of confidence I was beginning to feel in him.” The conversation then turned upon Bennigsen’s Parliamentary activity, and I remarked on the striking circumstance that up to the present he had taken no part in any of the debates. The Prince rejoined: “It is very sensible on his part to keep silent, although he is a good speaker. He sent the others to the front--Benda, and he also voted against it--a further proof that he and his party are quite untrustworthy. He has no decided views, he is not frank, and he is afraid of Lasker. With him it is always vacillation and half measures. Do you play cards?” I replied in the negative. “But you know the cards?” “Yes.” “Now, at whist he always keeps three aces in his hand, and gives no indication that he holds them. He can no longer be counted upon, and besides his followers have been greatly reduced owing to their vague and vacillating policy. Nevertheless, he still sits there with the same high opinion of himself and the same dignified air as formerly when he commanded hundreds; and he will continue to do so even if they should be reduced to thirteen, like George Vincke’s Old Liberals. There is nothing to be done with the others either. It has now come to pass, through the absurdities of the Liberals, that the tag, rag and bobtail, the Guelphs, Poles, and Alsacians, the Social Democrats, and the People’s Party, turn the scale, putting those they support in the majority. Mittnacht, who was with me before you came, is of the same opinion. In future we shall have to count upon the Governments rather than upon the Reichstag, and, indeed, we may ultimately have to reckon upon the Governments alone.”

I said that the whole Parliamentary system would in time lose all credit, even with the public, through such senseless attacks and votes. It brought everything to a standstill, but was itself unable to produce anything better. “The effect of the recent debates,” I went on, “is already here and there observable. This morning I met Thile, who stopped me and asked what I thought of the Parliamentary struggle. He was immensely pleased with the attitude you had adopted. A friend of his, whom he did not wish to name, but who was an admirer of the new era, though up to the present by no means favourable to you, had said that the manner in which you spoke and repelled the attacks of the Opposition was simply magnificent, and excited universal admiration. And women speak with disgust of the way in which you were hounded down and personally insulted by the Progressists and Lasker. A Hanoverian lady, of Guelph sympathies, spoke to my wife yesterday in this sense. This disgust and this pity for you will gradually affect the men, and help to bring about a change in the present tendency. I myself feel no pity, I only foresee your triumph. Pray excuse me for comparing you to an animal, but you remind me of the picture of a noble stag, which time after time shakes off the snarling pack, and then, proud and unhurt, regains the shelter of his forest, crowned by his branching antlers.” “Yes,” he said, “one might take another animal, the wild boar, which gores the hounds and tosses them away from him.”

He was silent for a time, and as we walked up and down he hummed the tune “Wir hatten gebauet ein stattliches Haus.” He then remarked suddenly: “But if they go on in that style they will ultimately meet the fate to which I alluded--the Luck of Edenhall. You know Uhland’s poem? It will be a case of Bang! and snap goes the German Constitution! You spoke of Thile. Do you mean the former Secretary of State?” I said “Yes, I meet him sometimes as he lives in my neighbourhood.” “He is a dangerous man,” he observed. “He was quite incapable. He could do nothing, and wrote nothing, because he was afraid it would be corrected; and yet I kept him for ten years, although he conspired against me with Savigny. He is to blame for the Diest libels, which led to the prosecution. I heard the whole story and how it began from Rothschild. Savigny went to him about the promotion of the company in question, and asked him if he could not let him have a share in it. Rothschild said no, he had already been obliged to part with a large share, a million and a half--meaning to his branches, the houses with which he is associated. Savigny, however, thought he was alluding to me, and would appear to have hinted something of the kind, but Rothschild seems either not to have understood him, or not to have answered with sufficient clearness. Savigny then carried the tale further, telling it first to Thile, who mentioned it to his brother, the general, instead of speaking to me, his chief, and in this way Diest ultimately came to hear of it. But, as Minister, I have never done any business with Rothschild, and even as envoy at Frankfurt very little. I drew my salary through him, and on one occasion I exchanged some stock for Austrian securities. I have not found it necessary. My profession as Minister has brought me in something, and through the grants and the gift of the Lauenburg estates I have become a rich man. It is true that if I had gone into a business, or carried on a trade, and devoted to it the same amount of labour and intelligence, I should doubtless have made more money.”

We then returned once more to the recent debates in the Reichstag, and I again expressed in strong terms the contempt I felt for the Opposition. “You were always a gentleman pitted against vain and vulgar creatures,” I said, “and in saying that I am not thinking of your rank as a Prince.” “No, I understand--a gentleman in my way of thinking,” he rejoined. “Lasker’s Jewish forwardness and presumption,” I continued, “the Professors with their priggish airs of superiority, and their empty pathos; Hänel, the self-complacent and pathetic doctrinaire--it is impossible to imagine anything more repulsive. He wanted to be Minister of Justice in ‘sea-surrounded Schleswig-Holstein.’” “Yes,” said the Chancellor, interrupting me, “they had divided the parts among themselves before the piece had been secured, and they probably have done the same thing now. Nothing came of it, however, after the interview which our Most Gracious had with me upstairs in the yellow chamber, where he remained with me from 9 o’clock until near midnight.” “And where he heard the simile of the chickens in Low German,” I added. “And then that impudent, lying, clown Richter, and the whole tearing, snarling, sprawling pack face to face with simple, solid, positive greatness. It was as if you belonged to an entirely different species.” “Yes,” he said, “when I lie down in bed after such debates, I feel ashamed of ever having bandied words with them. You know the way one feels after a night’s drinking, if one has had a row and perhaps come to blows with vulgar people--when one begins to realise it next morning, one wonders how and why it all came about.” Then after I had promised to make the corrections immediately and send them to him, he took leave of me with the words “Good evening, Busch. Auf Wiedersehen.” Busch! Not “Herr Doctor” as usual.

In two hours I sent him the corrections, which I received back through a Chancery attendant before 10 P.M. There were only a few alterations in the second half.

On the 2nd of January, 1882, I again visited Bucher. He complained in general of the incapable _entourage_ of the Prince, including his sons, and of Rudolf Lindau, whom they favoured because he gave card parties and made himself useful to them in other ways. (...) He was a mere tradesman without education or political knowledge. The Prince wished to make things comfortable for himself, and no blame to him, but he was mistaken if he thought the machine would still go on working as it ought to. In that respect the choice of the _personnel_ was of importance, and those who were now engaged, particularly in the press department, were almost constantly blundering. The stuff which Paul Lindau wrote for the _Kölnische Zeitung_ was also of little value.

We then spoke about the negotiations with the Curia, which were making satisfactory progress; of Held’s contribution to the social history of England; of Taine’s account of the Jacobins, in whom Bucher discovered some characteristics of the Progressist party; of Stirum, who had also left because he was not disposed to put up with the intrigues of the clique that surrounded the Prince, and who had told him, Bucher, that he “preferred in future to admire the Chancellor at a distance”; and of the Chief’s recent criticism of my article. I said that the Chief must be mistaken in asserting that after the visit to Varzin he had had no further negotiations with Bennigsen respecting his joining the Ministry, as he had himself told me that at that time Herbert had written to Bennigsen, which he would scarcely have ventured to do without his father’s knowledge. Bucher agreed with me, and added that some one had expressed the opinion that Bennigsen had acted like a gentleman with regard to the statements published by the semi-official press. Bucher arranged to send me Taine’s book when he had finished reading it, in order that I might write an article upon it. He is extracting passages which point to the similarity between the Jacobins and the Progressist party.

On the evening of the 8th of January, Count William Bismarck sent me an article for the _Grenzboten_ on “Agricultural Credit in Prussia.”[3]

On Monday, the 16th of January, I took back the third volume of Taine’s _History of the Revolution_, _La Conquête des Jacobins_, to Bucher. He told me that according to a conversation with the Chief, a campaign would presently be opened in the press in order to clear up some points respecting Stockmar and Bunsen. He was to write a pamphlet on the latter in which various documents, of which only portions were given in Frau von Bunsen’s book, would be published _in extenso_. I could then make myself useful by utilising this information, in addition to which he would give me further material. We then spoke of the Coburg clique, of Abeken, who had been described on one occasion by Bunsen as the “magnificent Abeken,” of Max Müller of Oxford, with whom he had spent some pleasant hours, of Geffcken, and finally of Hepke. On my asking how it was that the latter had fallen into disfavour with the Prince, Bucher said that in 1862, shortly after the Chief had come into office, Hepke, who had charge of the German reports, reproduced, almost literally, in a brochure which he published under the title of “A Word from a Prussian,” a memorandum which Bismarck had submitted to the King. Although this pamphlet was anonymous, the Chief came to hear of it, and forbade Metzler to mention it in our papers. Then, again, shortly before the war of 1866, Hepke, “through vanity, in order to show how well informed he was,” communicated some scheme that was in hand against Austria to the Austrian Envoy, probably at dinner, and this came to the knowledge of the Chief later on, after our reconciliation with Austria, most likely through Rechberg.

I then turned the conversation on Thile, mentioning what the Prince recently said to me. Bucher still maintained that Thile is a gentleman and very good-hearted, and questioned whether he were as incapable as Bismarck had described him to me.

On the 26th of January, Bucher sent me the first and third volumes of Nippold’s edition of Bunsen’s biography, the proof sheets of a refutation by him of a letter from Prince Albert to Stockmar, explaining Bunsen’s “fall” (which was published first in the _Münchener Nachrichten_, and afterwards in the _National Zeitung_), and finally some rough notes for a _Grenzboten_ article, which I prepared and published by the 2nd of February in No. 8, under the title “Bunsen’s Friends and the Truth.” Bucher’s refutation was to appear in the February number of the _Deutsche Revue für das gesammte National-Leben der Gegenwart_. In the rough notes he spoke as follows of Bunsen:--

“He took away with him copies of official documents, (just like Arnim), which his family published in a mutilated and therefore falsified shape. You may indeed without hesitation throw out the suggestion whether he did not perhaps take the originals. He did, as a matter of fact, take away at least three. This whole section of the book (_i.e._, of the biography, so far as it relates to Bunsen’s retirement) is a fable, written in despite of the author’s better knowledge. That the King afterwards wrote him a friendly letter, &c. is explained by the distinction which Frederick William IV. was in the habit of drawing between the official and the friend, as in the case of Radowitz. The Memorandum is a schoolboy’s exercise. Austria to extend her borders as far as the Sea of Azof, Poland to be restored--a terrible suggestion to be so coolly uttered--Prussia to get Austrian Silesia, one of the Provinces most devoted to the Imperial House, and Moravia!

“Vol. II. p. 557. His views concerning the proper preparatory education for the diplomatic service. That did not succeed in the case of Theodore (one of Bunsen’s sons). He must have achieved something out of the common at Lima and Alexandria, since after a short stay at these places he was on each occasion superseded, and had ultimately to resign. If he had had the preliminary training which he scoffed at, instead of a mere professorial education, he would probably not have been guilty of the follies and insubordination of the 1st and 4th of March 1854.

“You will find particulars as to the æsthetic International in the index at the end of the third volume. You are better versed in the religious type of humanity than I am. Every third word is God. Bunsen seems to have considered that the _lieber Gott_ took quite a special interest in him.

“A _bon mot_ which circulated in London: The learned regarded him as a diplomat while the diplomatists believed him to be a _savant_. The self-flattery in the account of the conversation with Clarendon, Part III. Bunsen and Pourtales certify to each other’s excellences. The source of Albert’s letter, Part III. page 356. Bunsen complains of his Government to Albert.

“A popular explanation of the political side of the book will doubtless be also necessary for the dull-witted Philistine. Prussia should involve herself in war with Russia, and what was to be the compensation? 1. That the English fleet should enter the Baltic. This would mean at least, that the Prussian coasts would be protected against the Russian fleet. 2. That the four Plenipotentiaries (of the Vienna Conference) should announce Prussia’s community of interest in the overthrow of Russian predominance. Much good that would have done us! How often has the integrity of Turkey been declared to be a European interest? And the idea of an Anglo-Prussian alliance (the Old Liberal dogma) which so frequently crops up in the book is equally absurd, and shows a complete ignorance of English policy, which never enters into permanent alliances without positive and limited aims. Part III. 201 and 207.”

On the 2nd of February I again called upon Bucher. He gave me various further particulars respecting the “great patriot and meritorious diplomatist,” Bunsen, and his sons. The old gentleman’s chief reason for tendering his resignation so hastily was that when about to take his holiday after the catastrophe, he was not paid his full salary as an envoy for six months, as he had demanded, but only for six weeks, as provided by the regulations. Theodore, whom Bunsen described to Thile as the most gifted of his sons, had made himself impossible at Lima, by his tactlessness in holding intercourse with the Opposition party, and using his influence on their behalf. He afterwards held the post of envoy at Stockholm, which he resigned when the Government refused him leave to marry a very wealthy German-Russian lady from the Baltic Provinces. He now enjoys possession of this lady. Another son has a fat benefice in England. “Frau Schwabe,” the “Elpi’s Melena” of the newspapers, who is frequently mentioned in the Nippold edition of the biography, is an enormously rich German Jewess, widow of a manufacturer, and a friend, not only of Bunsen, but also of Garibaldi, to whom she sent, after he was wounded at Aspromonte, an artistic armchair in “letter form,” that is to say, pasted all over with postage stamps. Bucher expects that George von Bunsen will reply to our articles. He, Bucher, will then write an answer from further official documents, for publication in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_.

On the 17th of February I left a proof of my _Grenzboten_ article on Bunsen at the Imperial Chancellor’s palace for submission to the Prince. It was in an envelope and signed “Moritz Busch,” but was accompanied by no letter. I ascertained at the same time from the porter that the Chancellor had not been quite well for some time past. On my way back through the Leipzigerstrasse I met Bucher, who was delighted with “the fine goings-on in England now.” I asked what he meant, and he replied: “Why, the Standing Orders in Parliament, the Closure. Our people may well ask themselves whether they are equally pleased with this new feature in their ideal.”

The extracts from Taine, properly grouped and spiced with references to the German connections of the Jacobins, namely the Progressists, appeared in Nos. 7 and 9 of the _Grenzboten_ under the title “The True Story of the Jacobins.” I also wrote an article on Gladstone’s measure referred to by Bucher. This was published in No. 10 of the _Grenzboten_ under the title, “Gladstone, and Liberty of Speech in Parliament.”

On the 10th of March I received the news of the death of our son John, from Captain Alm of the _Dora Ahrens_ at Falmouth. He had died at sea on the 19th of December last, on the return voyage from Corinto, in Nicaragua. Falling overboard during a violent storm in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands, he was unable to hold on to the rope which was thrown to him, and was swallowed up in the waves. With him, our only son, disappeared my best love, my energy and pleasure in work, my pride and my hope. Henceforth my life is overshadowed by this grief. He was only thirty-one years of age, had lived the hard life of the sailor, and passed two severe examinations, so that we had reason to hope that we should soon see him the captain of a handsome craft. Now he lies at the bottom of a distant sea, and all that remains of him is the memory of his dear face and his brave, high-minded nature. Fearless, truthful, and devoted to his duty, he died as he had lived in the service of his ship, as the soldier dies for his flag, his king and his country. He was a man, a character, and death has no power over such! God has further use of them. But we shall never see him again with mortal eyes, and can only wreathe his portrait with laurels and forget-me-nots on his birthday, the 13th of April.

“Lass mich im düstern Reich,
Mutter, mich nicht allein!”
“Nicht allein! Wo Du auch weilest.
Ach! Wenn Du dem Tag enteilest,
Wird kein Herz von Dir sich trennen.”[4]

All our friends manifested the greatest sympathy for us, in which the Imperial Chancellor also did not fail to join. He wrote me on the 16th of March:--

“My Dear Sir,--I have heard with sincere regret of the heavy loss which you have suffered, and although I have no consolation to offer in such circumstances, I cannot refrain from expressing to you my heartfelt sympathy.

“Bismarck.”

With this these notes may be concluded. Evening has set in.

The sense of duty as a chronicler awoke again before the pain of our loss had subsided. I again felt an interest in other things besides the portrait of our dear departed son, and so returned to my diary. The lines dedicated to his memory shall remain, however, as a monument to him, and a reminiscence of days full of sorrow, and weeks of deep prostration and melancholy.

On the morning of the 29th of March I called upon Bucher. He declared that the anti-German party in Russia was growing dangerous, and though the Emperor appeared to be our sincere well-wisher, he would perhaps be unable to withstand it. It was true that he had spoken very sharply to Skobeleff who told Schweinitz, as he was returning with him from Gatshina, that the Emperor had severely reprimanded him (il m’a donné un savon). The General actually looked depressed. A Russian diplomatist (Nesselrode, if I understood rightly) once said of Holstein when the latter was with Bismarck in Petersburg years ago: “Ce jeune homme sait une foule de choses, mais il n’est pas capable d’en faire une seule.”

Pope Leo has shown great readiness to meet us half way in personal questions. Among other things, he had originally desired to appoint to the bishopric of Osnabrück a former Jesuit and pupil of the Collegium Germanicum, who had been recommended to him by Tarnassi. But when our Government pointed out that the candidate referred to had taken part in various forms of anti-German agitation, the Pope unhesitatingly dropped him.

On the 12th of May I met Thile in the Linkstrasse, and accompanied him part of the way to his house. He expressed his regret at our loss and his pleasure that the Chief had likewise done so. The conversation then turned on Hatzfeldt, and he said that Bismarck had always favoured him, “pitying him for having such a mother,” which, after all, was very nice on his part. He had also dispensed with the diplomatic examination in his case. Besides Hatzfeldt had talent and was good-hearted in addition. As evidence of the latter he mentioned that he frequently visited Goltz, who was suffering from cancer of the tongue, although it was scarcely possible to stand the atmosphere of the sick room. He, Thile, had also repeatedly visited the sufferer. Bismarck, on the other hand, had never gone to see him, although they had been on very friendly terms formerly. “It was enough to turn one’s stomach,” he said. It was true that subsequently, just before Goltz had moved, the Chief called at the old lodgings, and then gave as an excuse: “I was at his place but he had left.” Thile then added the following characteristic anecdote: “Of course you too are an old student of Goethe, and remember the poem ‘Füllest wieder Busch and Thal, still mit Nebelglanz.’ This was being recited on one occasion, and when the reader came to the passage--

‘Selig wer sich vor der Welt
Ohne Hass verschliesst,
Einen Freund am Busen hält
Und mit dem geniesst.’

(Blessed is he who retires, without hatred, from the world, and enjoys his retreat in communion with a single friend.) Bismarck exclaimed: ‘What! Without hatred? What a tailor’s soul he must have!’” In reply to my inquiry whether this story was absolutely authentic, he mentioned Keudell as his authority.

At 6 P.M. on the 8th of June, three days after the Chancellor’s return from Friedrichsruh, I left a note for him at the palace in the Wilhelmstrasse, requesting him if he had anything for me to do to name a day and hour on which I should call for the necessary information. At 8.30 P.M. I had a letter from Sachse stating that the Prince “wished to speak to me for a few moments,” and requested me to call upon him next day at 12.30 P.M. I called at the time appointed, and after waiting for about half an hour, while the Chief was dictating to one of his deciphering clerks who wrote shorthand, I was admitted to see him, and the “few minutes” extended to a full hour. The Prince was in plain clothes, with the exception of military trousers. He had grown thinner, so that his coat hung in folds over his shoulders. Otherwise, however, he looked well, and was evidently in good humour. He greeted me with a shake hands and “Good day, Büschlein.” Then, inviting me to sit down, he said: “You want fodder, but I have none. There is nothing going on either in domestic or foreign affairs. You recollect that little bit of a Herzegovina, and now we have that little bit of an Egypt. It is not of much concern to us, although it certainly is to the English and also to the French. They set about the affair in an awkward way, and have got on a wrong track by sending their ironclads to Alexandria, and now, finding that there is nothing to be done they want the rest of Europe to help them out of their difficulty by means of a conference. Nothing can be done with the fleet without a landing force, and this is not at hand, so that it will be merely a repetition of the demonstration before Dulcigno. In that case it was the rocks, here it is the European warehouses, otherwise they would in all probability have already bombarded the place. It is also a question whether they would not have come off second best, as the Egyptians have very heavy guns, and their artillery is not bad. But so far as a conference is concerned, it is like an inquiry round a board of green cloth, the interests of the Powers are not the same, and therefore it will not be easy to come to any practical conclusion. The Sultan too will not co-operate. He is not without justification in declining to do so. If he can put things right by writing letters and sending plenipotentiaries--which we shall know one of these days--the Western Powers will have reason to be thankful. If not there will be no alternative left but for the Padishah to send his Nizams to restore order there. That is due to the absurd policy which Professor Gladstone has pursued from the beginning. He tries to come to an understanding with France and Russia, forgetting the fact that their interests in the Levant are quite different to those of the English. He surrendered all the valuable results which English policy had tried to secure during the past eighty years in its dealings with the Porte and with Austria, and thought he could work miracles when he had offended them both. And in France they have also taken a wrong course out of consideration for public opinion. Egypt is of the utmost importance to England on account of the Suez Canal, the shortest line of communication between the eastern and western halves of the Empire. That is like the spinal cord which connects the backbone with the brain. Any increase of Turkish power does not affect England injuriously in this, or indeed in any other respect. France thinks more of the prestige to be gained by the Porte if it exercises a mediating and controlling influence in the Egyptian question, and fears that her own prestige in Africa might suffer. Nevertheless, France has also very important material interests there, since there are 14,000 Frenchmen in Egypt and only 3,000 English. It was in vain for me to point out to them that an Arabian Empire, such as Arabi may have in view, would be far more dangerous to their position in Africa than any strengthening of Turkish influence on the Nile. The Porte is an old European landowner who is deeply in debt, and who can always be reached and subjected to pressure if he becomes too exacting. It is impossible to foresee what effect an independent Egypt would have upon the French position in Africa. That is doubtless recognised by Freycinet, but he is afraid of the traditions, prejudices and vanity of the French, and of Gambetta, who manipulates them. It is true the division in the Chamber turned out favourably, indeed very much so, but even assuming that Gambetta cannot return to power shortly, the wind may soon blow from another quarter, and the understanding with England come to an end. A campaign in co-operation with the French, a military occupation, would be a hazardous undertaking for the English, as the French could always send more men than they, who require their soldiers in Ireland, and who have altogether none too many. If France had the larger force there she would of course exercise more influence and play the leading part, and it would perhaps be difficult to get her out of the country again. The rest of us would not co-operate in a military sense, as for the present the question is one of comparative indifference to us, and it is no business of ours to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for other people, particularly for the English. So there they are, with their ships, in a blind alley, and now they want a conference to put the matter right. Here also we are expected to come to their assistance, and bring pressure to bear on the Porte, thus embroiling ourselves with the Sultan--a suggestion which, of course, we must politely decline.”

“Much in the same way,” I said, “as the English before the last Russo-Turkish conflict wished you to forbid the Russians entering upon hostilities, merely because that did not suit England’s policy, and when Queen Victoria wrote to you and the Emperor to that effect.” “Yes,” he rejoined, “and it was the same before the Crimean war, when Bunsen pleaded their cause. They must manage to get out of the difficulties into which they have plunged by themselves--having made their bed they must lie on it.”

The dog, which had been standing behind me and occasionally made his presence known by snarling, now began to bark. “He notices that there is a stranger outside,” said the Prince, who rang the bell and ordered the attendant to keep the dog in the outer room. He then continued: “In home affairs there is also nothing of importance that you are not weary of. They will reject the tobacco monopoly. There is no other course open to them now.” “But, Serene Highness,” I said, “you will submit it to them again, and carry it through in three or four years’ time?” “That depends upon circumstances,” he replied, “upon the future elections. I have no intention of pressing the tobacco monopoly out of a mere liking for this particular method of fiscal reform. The monopoly is an evil, but it is still the best of all available means of reform.... I first want to get from them my certificate that I have done everything in my power to do away with an unfair form of taxation, but that they would not hear of it. Then they may settle the matter with their electors and justify their conduct, should it perhaps result in an increase of the class tax (a form of direct taxation), while other burdens cannot possibly be reduced.”

“Then one might as well emigrate,” I said.

“Certainly,” he rejoined. “The class tax, which at present is retained only in this country, is one of the chief causes of emigration. If you only knew for how many evictions it is responsible among the poorer and indeed even among the middle classes! It is like the Russian poll tax, and does not permit of any equitable distribution of the burden in accordance with the condition of those who have to bear it, while indirect taxation distributes itself automatically. My object was to provide a remedy for this and to lighten the burden of the poorer citizens. That ought also to have been the object of the Diet. But you have seen from the discussion on the Appropriation Bill how little disposed they are to do so; and Lingen’s motion, which was adopted by the Commission, will not even admit the necessity of a reserve.”

I observed: “The emphasis laid upon economy in his motion is quite after the manner of the pedagogue, and of the narrow-minded Philistine. It does not sound as if it came from the Parliament of a great empire, but rather as if the vestry of Little Peddlington were casting the light of its wisdom upon the subject. This petty huckstering spirit is characteristic of all Liberalism. The majority of them are ‘snobs’ with a sprinkling of ‘swells.’”[5]

“That is true,” he said. “They certainly have not much amplitude or breadth of view, and they are bent on obstinate resistance to the Emperor’s message, in which a far higher standpoint is adopted. But that is their nature. They only think of their joint stock companies, _i.e._, their Parliamentary parties, and whether their shares will rise or fall if this or that is done or left undone. They trouble their heads very little with anything beyond that. Besides they hope that the old Emperor will soon die and that his successor will give them a free hand. The Emperor, however, does not at all look as if he were going to oblige them. He may live for a long time yet and indeed reach a hundred. You should see how robust he is now, and how straight he holds himself! From what--(I understood, Lauer) says, the Nobiling phlebotomy has been of benefit to him, both physically and mentally, the old blood has been drawn off, and he looks much less flabby than formerly. We are now on good terms, better than we have been for years.” “And the Successor will have to follow the same course,” I said. “He cannot govern differently without doing mischief.” “Oh, yes,” he rejoined. “He also would like to retain me, but he is too indolent, too much devoted to his own comfort and thinks it would be easier to govern with majorities. I said to him: ‘Try it, but I will not join in the experiment!’ Perhaps they are out in their reckoning however, and a long-lived sovereign may be followed by a short-lived one. It seems to me as if this might be the case. He who would then ascend the throne is quite different. He wishes to take the government into his own hands; he is energetic and determined, not at all disposed to put up with Parliamentary co-regents, a regular guardsman!--Philopater and Antipater at Potsdam! He is not at all pleased at his father taking up with Professors, with Mommsen, Virchow and Forckenbeck. Perhaps he may one day develop into the _rocher de bronze_ of which we stand in need.”

He then came to speak of his other schemes of reform, and observed: “The so-called Socialistic Bills are in a tolerably fair way. They will force themselves through, and develop further, even without me. The most pressing and necessary measures will in the main be soon carried. But it is unsatisfactory that they should want to bring the funds for the relief of the sick into too close connection with the insurance scheme. In this case it is not advisable that the payments in kind should be transformed into money payments.” He then gave a technical explanation, the details of which I was unable to understand, and was therefore unable to remember fully. I said: “But it is intended to drop the State subsidy, through which you hoped to reconcile the labouring classes, by getting them to recognise that the State not only makes demands upon them, but also comes to their assistance, procuring relief for them in case of need, and providing for their future as far as possible.”

“No, not dropped,” he replied, “but it is not immediately necessary in the new form which the Bill has taken. In about five or ten years it will be seen how far the contributions go, and in fifteen years’ time it may be asked whether, and to what extent, the State should contribute. It is sufficient for the present that all sums falling due are immediately paid, the State guaranteeing the amount.”

He again explained this in detail, and then said: “I am tired and ill, and should prefer to go, once I got my release from the Reichstag, but I do not like to leave the old Emperor alone. When he lay on his back after the outrage, I vowed to myself that I would not. Otherwise, I would rather be in the country at Friedrichsruh. I always felt better there; while here I get excited and angry, and become so weak that I can scarcely work for a couple of hours without losing hold of my ideas. How beautiful and fresh it was there in the country. I enjoyed every day, driving out and seeing how fine the rye looked, and how healthy the potatoes!”

This led him on to speak of the hope which he had of a good harvest, and that again to the price of corn in Germany and England. In this connection he observed, _inter alia_: “The opinion that low prices for corn mean happiness, welfare and content is a superstition. In that case the inhabitants of Lithuania and Rumania ought to be the most prosperous of all, while prosperity should decrease in proportion as you come west towards Aix la Chapelle. In England, the price of corn is now lower than here, and yet discontent prevails among the poorer classes, Radicalism is spreading, a revolution is approaching, and that democratic republic for which Gladstone and his friends and associates, Chamberlain and Dilke, have helped to pave the way, will come. It is just the same in Spain and Italy, where the dynasties, it is true, will offer resistance, but probably to no purpose. In France it remains to be seen whether the Republic will maintain itself, and if it does a condition of things will arise similar to that in America, where respectable people consider it disgraceful to have anything to do with practical politics, or to become a Senator, Congress man, or Minister.”

On my rising he walked about the room for a while, continuing to speak, but sat down again soon as if he felt tired. He mentioned Herbert, who is still in London, and from this I turned the conversation on to Hatzfeldt, remarking that his appointment as Secretary of State had not yet taken place. He rejoined: “That is due solely to the fact that he himself has not yet declared in favour of remaining. He has still to complete his arrangements, and settle with his brother about a mortgage. Moreover, I cannot blame him if he prefers to draw--(I did not catch the amount) in Constantinople, where things are cheaper, than 15,000 thalers here. He has a fortune of about 100,000 thalers. I wanted more for him, 60,000 marks, but the Federal Council rejected the proposal, as they could not give the Secretary of State more than the Imperial Chancellor, who receives only 54,000, but who has become wealthy thanks to public grants. You cannot expect everybody to be prepared to make sacrifices. Every one is not disposed to lead a simple life, cutting his coat according to his cloth, and to forego great entertainments and other expensive habits; and then it is a case of five into four won’t go, so I borrow one. He must, however, decide between this and July. Otherwise we shall have to ask Dr. Busch.”

“No, thank you,” I replied. He said: “There are two doctors of that name, and I mean the other, not Büschlein. But Busch has as poor health as Hatzfeldt, who is effeminate to boot, wraps himself up like a Frenchman, and goes to bed when he has a headache or cold, so that I have already been obliged to do their work instead of their taking over mine.”

From these invalids he passed on to the Empress. “She lives on and is again in good health, but a great deal of my illness comes from her intrigues. Schleinitz is also on his legs again, although he was very ill. Doubtless he thinks: ‘Perhaps there may be some more Jewish _pourboires_, so I must keep alive!’”

I asked if he would speak in the debate in the Reichstag on the monopoly. “Yes,” he said, “if my health permits it. Not for the purpose of convincing them, but to bear witness before the country, and then to demand my release.” I inquired whether he intended to go to Kissingen again this summer. “No,” he replied. “Although the waters have usually been very beneficial, they did me no good the last time. For nearly four months afterwards I was tormented with hæmorrhoids that were fearfully painful, burning like hell fire.” He then added a description of the symptoms.

Before leaving I also asked: “How do you like the Chevalier Poschinger,[6] Serene Highness? There is a great deal of interesting matter in the collection, but it seems to me that he might have made a better choice. But I suppose all the documents did not come into his hands?” He replied: “That, too, had something to do with it. But there is a great deal that has not got into the archives, such as my letters to the late King, which were retained by Gerlach and which his heirs will not easily part with. But even as it is, the book is very instructive, as it contains a great deal which was not known so accurately before; and it is perhaps well that those letters and other things should remain unpublished for the present.”

He had in the meantime shaken hands several times by way of taking leave of me, but each time started some new subject which caused me to remain. He now reached me his hand for the last time, and thanking him for giving me the pleasure of seeing him after such a long interval I took my leave. As usual after such interviews, I went straight home in order to write down what I had heard without delay, before anything else should chance to blur the impression.