Chapter XVIII · (continued 2)

The election addresses posted on the walls by the candidates for the National Assembly were then discussed, and it was observed that, in general, they were still very aggressive, and promised to achieve wonders at Bordeaux. “Yes,” said the Chief; “I quite believe that. Favre also tried once or twice to ride the high horse. But it did not last long. I always brought him down with a jesting remark.”

Some one referred to the speech made by Klaczko on the 30th of January in the Delegation of the Reichsrath against Austria’s co-operation with Prussia, and to Giskra’s revelation in the morning edition of the National Zeitung of the 2nd of February. Giskra said that Bismarck wished to send him from Brünn to Vienna with proposals for peace. These were, in effect: Apart from the maintenance in Venetia of the status quo before the war, the Main line was to be recognised as the limit of Prussian ascendancy, there was to be no war indemnity, but French mediation was to be excluded. Giskra sent Baron Herring to Vienna with these proposals. The latter was, however, coolly received by Moritz Esterhazy, and after waiting for sixteen hours obtained only an evasive answer. On proceeding to Nikolsburg, Herring found Benedetti already there, and was told: “You come too late.” As Giskra points out, the French mediation accordingly cost Austria a war indemnity of thirty millions. It was observed that Prussia could have extorted more from Austria at that time, and also a cession of territory, for instance, Austrian Silesia, and perhaps Bohemia. The Chief replied: “Possibly, as for money, what more could the poor devils give? Bohemia would have been something and there were people who entertained the thought. But we should have created difficulties for ourselves in that way, and Austrian Silesia was not of much value to us; for just there the devotion to the Imperial house and the Austrian connection was greater than elsewhere. In such cases one must ask for what one really wants and not what one might be able to get.”

In this connection he related that on one occasion, as he was walking about in mufti at Nikolsburg, he met two policemen who wished to arrest a man. “I asked what he had done, but of course as a civilian I got no answer. I then inquired of the man himself, who told me that it was because he had spoken disrespectfully of Count Bismarck. They nearly took me along with him because I said that doubtless many others had done the same.”

“That reminds me that I was once obliged to join in a cheer for myself. It was in 1866, in the evening, after the entry of the troops. I was unwell just then, and my wife did not wish to let me go out. I went, however—on the sly—and as I was about to cross the street again near the palace of Prince Charles, there was a great crowd of people collected there, who desired to give me an ovation. I was in plain clothes, and with my broad brimmed hat pulled down over my eyes, I perhaps looked like a suspicious character—I don’t know why. As some of them seemed inclined to be unpleasant, I thought the best thing to do was to join in their hurrah.”

From 8 P.M. on read drafts and despatches, including Favre’s answer to the Chief in the matter of Gambetta’s electioneering manœuvre. It runs as follows:—

“You are right in appealing to my sense of rectitude. You shall never find it fail me in my dealings with you. It is perfectly true that your Excellency strongly urged upon me as the sole way out of the difficulty to convoke the former legislative bodies. I declined to adopt that course for various reasons which it is needless to recall, but which you will doubtless not have forgotten. In reply to your Excellency’s objections, I said I was convinced that my country only desired the free exercise of the suffrage, and that its sole resource lay in the popular sovereignty. That will make it clear to you that I cannot agree to the restrictions that have been imposed upon the franchise. I have not opposed the system of official candidatures in order to revive it now for the benefit of the present Government. Your Excellency may therefore rest assured that if the decree mentioned in your letter to me has been issued by the Delegation at Bordeaux, it will be withdrawn by the Government of National Defence. For this purpose I only require to obtain official evidence of the existence of the decree in question. This will be done by means of a telegram to be despatched to-day. There are, therefore, no differences of opinion between us, and we must both continue to co-operate in resolutely carrying into execution the Convention which we have signed.”

Called to the Chief at 9 P.M. He wants to have an article written pointing out that the entry of our troops into Paris is at present impracticable, but may be possible later on. This is in answer in the National Zeitung to an article criticising the terms of armistice.

With regard to an article in the Cologne Volkszeitung showing that the Ultramontanes have offered a subsidy to the leaders of the General Association of German Workers on condition that they promote the election of clerical candidates, the Minister says: “Look here. Please see that the newspapers speak of a ‘Savigny-Bebel party’ whenever an opportunity occurs, and that must be repeated.” And just as I am going out of the room he calls after me: “Or the ‘Liebknecht-Savigny party.’” We take note of that, and shall speak from time to time of this new party.

Sunday, February 5th.—We are joined at dinner by Favre, d’Hérisson, and the Director of the Western Railway, a man with a broad, comfortable, smiling face, apparently about thirty-six years of age. Favre, who sits next to the Chief, looks anxious, worried and depressed. His head hangs on one side, and sometimes for a change sinks on to his breast, his underlip following suit. When he is not eating, he lays his two hands on the table-cloth, one on top of the other, in submission to the decrees of fate, or he crosses his arms in the style of Napoleon the First, a sign that, on closer consideration, he still feels confident in himself. During dinner the Chief speaks only French, and mostly in a low voice, and I am too tired to follow the conversation.

The Chief instructs me to send the following short paragraph to one of our newspapers: The Kölnische Zeitung has made itself the organ, it is true with some reservations, of those who complain of the alleged destruction of French forests by our officials. One would think it could have found some other occupation than to scrutinise our administration of the public forests of France. We act in accordance with the principles of forestry, even if we do not follow the French system. Moreover, we should be within our rights if we exploited these resources of the enemy in the most ruthless manner, as that would render the French more disposed to conclude peace.

He also warmly praised the active part taken by the Duke of Meiningen in the conduct of the war. He concluded: “I wish that to be mentioned in the press. The background is ready to hand in the princely loafing and palace looting of the rest of them.”

Monday, February 6th.—The Chief desires to have an article against Gambetta published in the Moniteur. I write the following:—

“The Convention of the 28th of January, concluded between Count von Bismarck and M. Jules Favre, has revived the hopes of all sincere friends of peace. Since the events of the 4th of September the military honour of Germany has received sufficient satisfaction, so that it may now yield to the desire to enter into negotiations with a Government which truly represents the French nation for a peace that will guarantee the fruits of victory and secure our future. When the Governments represented at Versailles and Paris finally succeeded in coming to an understanding, of which the conditions were prescribed by the force of circumstances, and France was restored to herself, they were justified in expecting that these preliminaries of a new era in the relations of the two countries would be generally respected. The decree issued by M. Gambetta disqualifying all former functionaries and dignitaries, senators, and official candidates from election to the National Assembly was perhaps necessary to show France the abyss towards which it has been gravitating since the dictatorship, sacrificing the best blood of the country, refused to convoke the representatives of the nation in the regular way.

“The second article of the Convention of the 28th of January shows clearly and plainly that the freedom of the elections is one of the conditions of the Convention itself. In entering into such an arrangement for the elections, Germany only took into consideration the existing French laws, and not the good will and pleasure of this or that popular Tribune. It would be just as easy to call together a Rump Parliament in Bordeaux, and make it a tool for the subjection of the other half of France. We are convinced that all honourable and sincere French patriots will protest against the action of the Delegation at Bordeaux, which is entirely arbitrary and opposed to all sound reason. If there were any prospect that this action would be allowed to unite all the anarchical parties who tolerate the dictatorship in so far as it represents their favourite ideas, the most serious complications would inevitably ensue.

“Germany does not intend to interfere in any way in the domestic affairs of France. She has, however, through the agreement of the 28th of January, secured the right to see that a public authority is established which will possess the attributes necessary to enable it to negotiate peace in the name of France. If Germany is denied the right to negotiate for peace with the whole nation, if an attempt is made to substitute the representatives of a faction for the representatives of the nation, the armistice convention would thereby become null and void. We readily acknowledge that the Government of National Defence has immediately recognised the justice of the complaints made by Count von Bismarck in his despatch of the 3rd of February. That Government has addressed itself to the French nation in language marked by nobility and elevation of feeling, setting forth the difficulties of the situation and the efforts made to relieve the country from the last consequences of an unfortunate campaign. At the same time, it has cancelled the decree of the Delegation at Bordeaux. Let us hope, therefore, that the action of M. Gambetta will receive no support in the country, and that it will be possible to conduct the elections in perfect harmony with the spirit and letter of the Convention of the 28th of January.”

I am called to the Minister again at 11 o’clock, and instructed to defend Favre against the rabid attacks of some French newspapers. The Chief says: “They actually take him to task for having dined with me. I had much trouble in getting him to do so. But it is unfair to expect that, after working with me for eight or ten hours, he should either starve as a staunch Republican, or go out to a hotel where the people would run after him and stare at him.”

The Frenchmen are again here between 2 and 4 P.M. They are six or seven in number, including Favre and, if I rightly heard the name, General Leflô. The Chief’s eldest son and Count Dönhoff join us at dinner.

Subsequently I despatch a démenti of a Berlin telegram published by The Times, according to which we propose to demand the surrender of twenty ironclads and the colony of Pondicherry, together with a war indemnity of ten milliards of francs. This I describe as a gross invention which cannot possibly have been credited in England, or have created any anxiety there. I then hint at the probable source, namely, the clumsy imagination of an unfriendly and intriguing diplomatist. “That comes from Loftus,” says the Chief, as he gives me these instructions. “An ill-mannered fellow who was always seeking to make mischief with us.”

Tuesday, February 7th.—From Bucarest despatches it seems as if the reign of Prince Charles were really coming to a speedy end. With the retention of Dalwigk at Darmstadt, the old confederacy of opponents of German unity remains firmly entrenched, and the well-known intrigues continue unhindered. A telegram from Bordeaux brings the expected news. Gambetta yesterday announced in a circular to the Prefects that his Parisian colleagues having annulled his decree with regard to the elections, he has informed them of his resignation. A good sign. He can hardly have a strong party behind him or he would scarcely have resigned.

Wednesday, February 8th.—The Chief is up at an unusually early hour, and drives off at 9.45 to see the King. Favre arrives shortly before 1 o’clock, accompanied by a swarm of Frenchmen. There must be ten or twelve of them. He confers with the Minister after first lunching with us.

In the evening the Chief and his son dined with the Crown Prince, but first remained for a while with us. He again observed with satisfaction that Favre had not taken offence at his “spiteful letter,” but, on the contrary, had thanked him for it. The Chief had repeated to him verbally that it was his duty to share the dish which he had helped to cook. To-day they had discussed the way of raising the Paris war contribution; the French wanted to pay the greater part of it in bank notes, and we might lose in that way. “I do not know the value of what they offer,” he said; “but in any case it is to their advantage. They must, however, pay the whole amount agreed upon. I will not remit a single franc.”

Thursday, February 9th.—Speaking again of the Paris contribution, the Chancellor observed at dinner: “Stosch tells me he can dispose of fifty million francs in bank notes to pay for provisions, &c., in France. We must have proper security, however, for the remaining hundred and fifty millions.” Then alluding to the foolish story about our wanting Pondicherry, he continued: “I do not want any colonies at all. Their only use is to provide sinecures. That is all England at present gets out of her colonies, and Spain too. And as for us Germans, colonies would be exactly like the silks and sables of the Polish nobleman who had no shirt to wear under them.”