Chapter VII · (continued 2)

The Chief then, after referring to Hohenlohe, “who also does not wish to injure himself with the upper circles,” came to talk of the appointment of the Secretary of State in the Foreign Office. There were great difficulties in the way of this appointment, he said, as the pecuniary position of those in view was such that they could not take the post.

I asked: “Was Hatzfeldt really thought of in this connection?” “Yes, but he cannot take it. He is in financial difficulties. He can manage to get on as Minister in Constantinople, but not here. He would have been capable enough. Hohenlohe cannot do so either. He has a great château at Schillingsfuerst which costs him a great deal and brings him in nothing. Radowitz, who is even more capable than Hatzfeldt, is no better off in money matters. Moreover he has a Russian wife and six children, which is also not quite the thing. Solms, in Madrid, is too servile,—he would do everything that the Most Gracious desired.”

I: “How about Werther, in Munich, who used to write those brilliant despatches with so little in them?”

He: “He, too, has not enough money.”

I: “He is understood to have a large estate in Thuringia, Beichlingen, near Eckartsberg.”

He: “First of all that is not the place; then it is an entailed estate, and his father has impressed upon him to live economically and extend the property.”

I: “In that case I do not know any other who would be suitable.”

He: “Keudell, in Rome might be nominated.”

I: “He has a rich wife, but has he the ability?”

He: “Your question shows that you have formed a more accurate opinion of him than others have done. He has a reputation for ability because he knows how to hold his tongue, and people fancy that his silence covers ideas and knowledge. I thought so too, but have convinced myself that he has neither. Moreover, he is too hasty in judgment, sanguine, and thoughtless. Finally, he would be unfair to his subordinates, which would also be the case with Radowitz, who, it is true, is not a German. Both are vain, and want admiration and obsequiousness. Whoever is not prepared for that sort of thing will find himself overlooked and treated with disfavour.”

I asked: “How is it now with the Empress, Serene Highness? Does she still cause you difficulties?”

He: “Exactly the same as ever. She is still intriguing with the Ultramontanes, and I know that the coarse and brutal notes which I have received are due to her.”

He paused for a moment and then said: “Now if you have anything further to say to me or to ask——”

I stood up, thanked him for giving me the pleasure of seeing him once more, and took my leave, meeting Philippsborn in the first antechamber on my way out.

I took the first part of this interview as the subject of an article which appeared in No. 12 of the Grenzboten under the heading “The History of the German-Austrian Alliance.” This caused as great a sensation in the German and foreign press as the previous articles on Gortschakoff’s policy and the Fresh Friction.

The same number of the Grenzboten contained another article by me, which dealt with the second principal topic of the conversation of the 9th of March. I had received, on the 10th of that month, further materials for it from Count Herbert, on behalf of his father. It was simply entitled “From the Reichstag.” The second half of this article was also commented upon at great length in the Berlin newspapers....

About 12 o’clock on the 20th of March I received the following note from Count Herbert:—

“My Dear Sir,—My father would be glad to see you, either immediately if you have time, or at 2.30 P.M. He is going to the palace at 1.45 to offer his congratulations. Therefore, if you cannot come before 1 o’clock, 2.30 will be better.

“Respectfully,

“Count Bismarck.”

I was at No. 77 Wilhelmstrasse at 2.15, just as the Chief returned from seeing the Emperor. In the hall I met Bucher, who looked very poorly and complained of overwork. On my entering the Prince’s room I found him sitting at his writing-table, which this time was so placed that the Chief had his back towards the window opening on the garden. He had on a grey coat, white trousers, and varnished top-boots, and wore an order round his neck. He said, after shaking hands as usual, and while he drew from an envelope the articles on the Treaty with Austria, and on Stosch, which I had sent him on the previous day: “Did you send me these?” I replied in the affirmative.

He: “H’m, I suppose, then, they are already printed?”

I: “Yes, already copied into the other papers and telegraphed to London.”

He: “That’s a pity. On the whole, the article is very good—you have a powerful memory—but there are some things in it which I should have liked to see modified. It is somewhat too highly seasoned—too blunt.”

He then read aloud the passage in which it was stated that even towards the end the Emperor still manifested great reluctance, and said: “That is true, but it is too strongly expressed.” He then went on reading, and on coming to the part in which the trickery and mendacity of Russia were mentioned, he observed: “That is also true, but it ought to have been expressed with more diplomatic tact, now that they struck a different chord. Of course, what we now want is peace, after we have buckled on our armour, or our revolver. And it would also have been better if both articles had not appeared in the same number. Then a great deal is mentioned which was not intended for the public, but only for your own private information. They will now mark these passages and send them to him—she (the Empress) or Prince Charles, who always tries to injure me, and who has always been very Russophil, like his sister, Alexandrine of Mecklenburg. He also knows why!”—and he made a motion as if he were counting out money.

“Money, Serene Highness?” I asked.

“Well, or——Surely you know—the old rake!”

I observed: “Perhaps it would interest your Serene Highness to see how an English correspondent has telegraphed the whole article at full length to the Daily Telegraph in London, so that it appeared there simultaneously with the publication in the Grenzboten. In many instances he has toned down the original.”

“Yes, I should be glad to see that,” he said. I gave him the newspaper. He read the beginning, and then said: “Leave it with me, and I will return it later.”

I now said: “Might I ask what is the attitude of England towards the alliance?”

He replied: “They are entirely engrossed in the elections. A great deal will depend upon the result. The Italians hope that Gladstone will be victorious. You have doubtless read their assurance that they wish to retain friendly relations with all the Powers, but reserve the right to act in accordance with their own interests? They are like carrion crows on the battle-field that let others provide their food. They were prepared in 1870 to fall upon us with the others, if they were promised a piece of the Tyrol. At that time a Russian diplomat said: ‘What! they are asking for something again, although they have not yet lost a battle!’”

I said: “Of these it is only the Piedmontese who seem to be any good as soldiers. Always covetous and always weak. Look at Lissa, where their powerful fleet was shamefully beaten, and their admiral fled like a coward. If they would only seek to strengthen their position at home, where no Ministry lasts more than a few months, and where the people are crushed by taxation and debt!”

“Yes,” he replied, “that is the real irredenta Italia. They ought to take that in hand instead of thinking of conquests. But one day they will find themselves in the same case as Spain under Isabella, and the Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples will be once more restored. Russia and Italy are the only Powers opposed to peace. Russia who is not satisfied with her 400,000 square (German) miles of territory and wants further conquests. Well, I don’t know of anything else to tell you.”

I suggested: “I thought I might at the same time get instructions to write about the Pope.”

“Yes,” he said, “it might be pointed out that Leo’s conciliatory attitude should not be over-estimated. Not only the Germania, but also the Progressist journals exaggerate it, but only for the sake of opposition, in order that they may be able to say, ‘The Curia desires peace, but the Imperial Chancellor will not have it.’ The present Pope is, it is true, more reasonable, and, perhaps, more moderate than his predecessor, but the utterances in his letter are after all capable of many interpretations, and on the whole are more academic than practical. Of what good is it for him to say: ‘I believe I shall be able to consent to this or to that?’” He then quoted a Latin sentence, and continued: “And who will vouch for the accuracy of the interpretation which is now being placed upon it? Who will guarantee that his successor will think in the same way? The Church has been putting forward the same claims for a thousand years, and will continue to do so. One Pope may carry out the old policy in a more peaceful, or in a bolder and more imperious fashion than another, but at bottom the policy itself is always the same. The May laws remain, but if they show moderation in Rome we can administer them in a less rigorous way—a modus vivendi. There are many people, however, who desire to have peace at any price, and would even go to Canossa—to save themselves trouble. These include, for example, the Minister of the Interior and the Crown Prince. He wants above everything to have peace and a quiet life, and nothing to trouble him. He will not go into battle. It is just like the septennate with regard to the army. He wanted a permanent grant in order to avoid fresh struggles, as he thought his turn would come within the next few years, and he thinks so now, for the old gentleman can hardly live to be ninety.”

At this moment the Princess entered the room and showed him a paper that seemed to refer to to-day’s birthday celebration. She asked if they were to illuminate. He said: “No, but it would perhaps be better to ascertain first whether any of the other Ministers were inclined to disobey the order,” which was probably contained in the paper. “In that case I shall also disobey—i.e., disobey myself for it was I who issued the order. I suppose the flags have been hung up, however?” The Princess replied in the affirmative.

When she had left I remarked: “What your Serene Highness has just said about the Crown Prince bears out the description of him which you gave me in 1870 during the drive from Beaumont to Vendresse—a pleasant life without much thought or care, plenty of money, and praise from the newspapers.”

“Yes, that is his character,” he replied. “Like his grandfather Frederick William III., whom he resembles in other respects also. Of course you have read the Memoirs of Caroline Bauer?” “Yes,” I replied. “And those of old Hofrath Schneider.” “Ah, quite so; he also tells similar stories, but in his innocence does not know what injury they do him. The old King used to drive seven times a week from the Pfaueninsel or the palace at Potsdam to the theatre in Berlin, in order to see worthless commonplace pieces, and afterwards to go behind the scenes and chuck the actresses under the chin, and then drive back the long dusty road he came. That is also the Crown Prince’s style—he wants to amuse himself, not to govern. It may turn out badly some day when I am too weak to do anything more, and we may lose ground again in many ways. It is true he wishes to keep me, but I shall go. In future, a Great Elector or a Frederick the Great, will not be required. A Frederick William I. would suffice, or even a Frederick William II., for he would not have been so bad had he not been rendered effeminate by the women.”

I said: “But you were satisfied with the article on Stosch, Serene Highness?”

He: “Up to the present I have looked chiefly at the first one. Moreover, anything one likes may be said about him. That is a matter of indifference to me. He cannot come in my way. He speculates upon the Successor, and owing to his position among the Freemasons, he has managed to give some people the idea that he has a certain prestige with the Crown Prince. There are some others also who dined together recently and divided the duchies amongst themselves as at Wallenstein’s banquet. How does that passage run? Ah, I can’t remember.” I quoted it. “Sie theilen dort am Tische Fuerstenhuete aus. Des Eggenberg, Slawata, Lichtenstein, des Sternbergs Gueter werden ausgeboten. Wenn er hurtig macht, fällt auch für ihn was ab.”

The Chief smiled and said: “Friedenthal was also one of them, a vain, intriguing fellow, whom I was glad to see go. Then Gneist—of whom I had rather a good opinion formerly, but who lacks character, and is a trimmer—Delbrück and Falk, and also Rickert. Falk has spoken about my relations with him in a way that cannot be reconciled with the truth. I have always taken his part, and acted as mediator between him and our Most Gracious, causing myself thereby a great deal of worry. Hohenlohe is apparently to preside over this new Ministry, in order to secure it some prestige. He has been selected as their Chancellor.”

“And,” I said, “who has not already wished to be Chancellor? Even Münster, the Cloud-compeller!”

“Yes,” he replied, “and others too, because it is such an easy task. That reminds me how the Elector of Hesse sent his own doctor to Bernburg to make inquiries as to the mental condition of the last Duke. He reported that he had found him worse than he had expected, quite imbecile. ‘But, good Heavens! he cannot govern in that case!’ exclaimed the Elector. ‘Govern?’ replied the doctor, ‘Why, that will not prevent him.’”

The Chief then came to speak of his conduct of affairs and of the trouble and cares and dangers he had gone through, and of the opponents who had declaimed and worked against him during the past eighteen years. “I had frequently to apprehend danger and ill-will from several directions at the same time, and occasionally from all quarters of the compass.” He smiled and then continued: “That reminds me of Gerstäcker, of whom a comic paper once gave a picture in which he was simultaneously attacked by a boa constrictor, a lion, a crocodile and a bear, while he was exclaiming: ‘Why, what a fine article this will make for the Augsburger Zeitung!’ But seriously, I am not good enough for this company, who know everything better, and think that a successor would manage things so much more cleverly. But, contenti estote, rest satisfied with your daily ration.”

On his referring again to Friedenthal and his disposition to intrigue, I said: “Why, there we have three or four Jews in combination—Friedenthal, Falk, and Rickert. In future it will be just the same here as in England and in France—Beaconsfield and Gambetta, with the Hebrew tail of the 1870 Government. Andrassy is also understood to have Jewish blood in his veins.”

“No,” he replied, “they say it is gipsy blood, and he looks as if he had that. But Rickert? Is he also one of the chosen people?”

I said: “I do not know him personally, but I have heard so, and indeed he is believed to belong to the unbaptised variety.”

“I should really like to know that for certain,” he said. “Please make inquiries.”

I promised to do so. He rang the bell, and asked for the Parliamentary Almanac, and looking up Rickert’s name, found that he was described as belonging to the Evangelical Church. His birthplace and indeed all closer particulars were omitted, and this the Chief considered “suspicious.” He then observed: “Friedenthal has even come forward as a National Jew. He will not permit the Post to attack Lasker or the Jews. Treitschke wrote good articles for it, in fact the most brilliant they had ever had. But when he began to attack Lasker, Friedenthal, who is one of the principal shareholders, intervened with his veto.”

He then spoke once more about his future retirement, and said: “How difficult it is to replace even Bülow! The gentlemen sit in their comfortable embassies and will not come here to undertake the heavy work. Hatzfeldt would do. He is intelligent and serviceable, but has no proper income, and might be tempted to associate himself with the financiers. It would be necessary to give him a grant. In that way the thing could be managed. Hohenlohe also is clever, but he allows others to use him for their own purposes. There is my eldest son, who has been working under my guidance for seven years, and who promises well—but that would not do, as he is only thirty.”

With these words he rose and gave me his hand. As I was leaving he called after me: “Quite gently and diplomatically—I mean your writing.” I had been with him over fifty minutes. In the second antechamber I met the Privy Councillor of Embassy, Von Bülow, who had been waiting there and who exchanged a few friendly words with me.

From what the Prince had told me of his attitude towards the Curia, I wrote an article, which appeared in No. 13 of the Grenzboten, entitled “The Conciliatory Pope.”

Towards the first week in April the newspapers began to talk of a Chancellor crisis. After that had gone on for a few days I wrote to the Chief (on Friday, the 9th of April) suggesting that if I could be of use to him he should give me information in the matter. On the 11th I received a letter from Sachse in which I was requested to visit the Chancellor on Monday at 4 o’clock. I kept the appointment punctually, and had to wait a quarter of an hour, as the Prince had disappeared in the garden. At length I saw him walking in the grounds attached to the Foreign Office. He was in plain clothes, carried a big stick in his hand and was accompanied by his two dogs. Theiss went out to him and informed him that I had come. In a few minutes I was summoned to him in his study. “How are you, doctor?” he said. “Things have again been going badly with me during the last few days. I have been worrying over our officials—over the clownishness of Stephan—and others are just the same. The newspapers give a false account of the origin of the present crisis, and I would request you to rectify it. It has not turned solely or even chiefly on the attitude of the non-Prussian Governments in the question of taxing receipt stamps on Post Office Orders and advances, but to fully as great an extent on the improper behaviour of our officials. You know I have repeatedly complained in public of Prussian Particularism in regard to the arrangements and requirements of the Empire. During my frequent long absences one arbitrary proceeding has followed another, so that a kind of Republic of the Polish type has grown up, in which each departmental chief insists not only upon having views of his own, but also upon putting them into execution. Vortragende Räthe (Councillors who have the privilege of direct intercourse with their chief), whose views are not in agreement with those of the heads of their department, and even Ministers who differ from me in their opinions, endeavour to give practical effect to their ideas, and that too as if it were a matter of course. But it is nothing of the kind, and it is obvious that that cannot be permitted by the head of the Government of the Emperor and King.”

He paused and seemed to expect that I would write down what he had said. Before I had come in he had placed a fold of blotting paper, several sheets of foolscap, and two freshly-pointed pencils at the side of the writing-table where I usually sat. I began by making a note of a few of the principal points, but I now wrote down everything he said literally, he speaking more slowly and in tolerably regular sentences. The following, therefore, after a few introductory words referring to what had been previously communicated, was published in the form of an article entitled “The Cause of the Chancellor Crisis,” in the Grenzboten of the 15th of April. In this way the Grenzboten had the honour of having the German Imperial Chancellor as one of its contributors. He said or dictated:—

“So far as we know (I afterwards added: ‘and we believe ourselves to be well informed’) there is absolutely nothing in the Chancellor crisis that tends towards any change in the Constitution. Nothing is farther from the Prince’s mind. He considers the Federal Constitution fully sufficient if the rights which it accords to the individual States are exercised with moderation. Any irregularities or stoppages of the machinery have been due in part to the procedure of the Federal Council, and in part to the circumstance that many Governments have not attached sufficient value to the exercise of their right to vote. According to the practice hitherto followed, too much importance has been given to the committees and too little to the general meetings. The former have discussed matters at great length, while on the other hand, the plenary sittings have been almost exclusively devoted to questions which had been so far settled by the committees that nothing remained to be done beyond taking the simple decision, Yes or No. It was, therefore, not possible for those Governments that had not been included in the committees in question, or had found themselves in a minority there, to secure consideration for their views at the plenary meeting, and to bring about a timely understanding, without causing great delay either by asking for fresh instructions or by referring the matter back to the Committee. The balance of parties is not the same in the committees and in the plenary Council. If the committees’ majorities carry their resolutions into effect they deprive the unrepresented Governments of their due influence. If on the other hand, the negotiations and discussions of these matters were transferred from the committees to the plenary meeting the views of all parties would receive timely consideration.

“We must here repeat what we said at the commencement” (this sentence was mine), “namely, that during the frequent absences of the Chancellor there has arisen among a section of the Prussian officials a condition which borders on absolute indiscipline; and, if it be true that the Prince has stated that he hardly ever succeeds in securing due regard for his legitimate authority without raising the Cabinet question, it is quite certain that a remedy is absolutely indispensable unless the prestige of the Federal Council and of its chief is to suffer irreparable damage. The Federal Council cannot become a public meeting, at which each official of the Ministry may, without authority and at his own good will and pleasure, give expression to his personal opinions on every question, and endeavour to secure their adoption.

“If the Royal decree lays stress on the conflict of duties in which the Imperial Chancellor may be involved under the Constitution, that difficulty can scarcely be overcome by an alteration of the Constitution in a manner acceptable to all concerned, but rather by a statesmanlike and prudent exercise on the part of all concerned of the rights bestowed by the Constitution. This does not mean that the Chancellor would be justified in declining to co-operate in the execution of a decision taken by the Federal Council. But assuming that he is bound to carry out such a decision and is therefore the immediate official representative of a decision for the consequences or the principle of which he may find himself unable to accept responsibility, it could hardly be contended any longer that he occupied a responsible position, but on the contrary that the post could be filled equally well by any subordinate official who would have simply to carry out the instructions given to him.

“It can scarcely contribute to strengthen the constitutional organisation of the Empire, to force the Imperial Chancellor, and with him the three largest Federal States, into a position in which they must appeal to the lawful privileges of the minority. For the Chancellor, on his own initiative, to refuse to carry out a formal decision of the Federal Council would be a course barely compatible with the consideration which he owes in his official capacity to the majority of the Federal Governments. A sense of official propriety would probably lead the Chancellor in such circumstances to avoid having to execute a resolution for which he could not accept the responsibility, by tendering his resignation, thereby announcing his readiness to co-operate in the selection of a successor whose convictions should not stand in the way of the Federal resolution. Anyhow, the best solution would be not to drive things to extremities.”

At this point it seemed as if something pressing had suddenly occurred to him. He rang the bell, and asked the Chancery attendant to call Privy Councillor Tiedemann, whom he then requested to ascertain at the palace what had been done in connection with the pro memoria, which ought to be dealt with promptly and without delay. He was to go immediately and make inquiries. When Tiedemann had left, he said: “The pro memoria concerns the matter on which we are engaged. But where was I?” I read him the last sentence, and he then continued: “Oh yes! The prevention of such crises as the present will be facilitated if less importance is given to the discussions in Committee, and more to those in the plenary sittings, and if the custom which has recently arisen, for half and even more than half of the Federal Governments not to be individually represented at these plenary sittings, is abandoned. The practice of appointing proxies is based solely upon the rules of procedure, and not upon the terms of the Constitution. The matter would take a very different complexion if the decisive plenary sittings took place only during a relatively short period within the Parliamentary Session, instead of being spread over the greater part of the year, according to daily requirements, as has hitherto been the case.”

He then, without giving any indication that the interview was at an end, took up a document on which the word “Memorandum” was written, made a few corrections in it, had Sachse called and gave him instructions to “have that copied in the same hand.”

He then turned to me again, asked me to read over the last sentence he had dictated, and said: “That will be enough. Do you wish to know anything further?”

I: “What does your Serene Highness think of the result of the elections in England?”

He: “The matter is not one of importance for us. The Russians, however, expect a great deal from it. But the Liberals must in general follow the same lines as Beaconsfield. That is always the case here too. If the National Liberals were to come into office, they would find that affairs could not be carried on as they imagine.”

I: “It is just the same with Crown Princes. They almost always hold different views to the reigning sovereign, or act as if they did. They are for the most part Liberal, and yet when they themselves assume responsibility they must follow the same course as their predecessors. I say they act in that way, as doubtless the difference is often only apparent. It seems to me that modern Princes have no self-reliance, no real belief in themselves, and feel dependent upon public opinion, or the party doctrines which pass themselves off as public opinion. Our dynasties consider it necessary to win the sympathies of all parties, and therefore Crown Princes take credit to themselves for being of a different political or religious opinion to the reigning sovereign, Liberal when he is Conservative, or very advanced when he is only a moderate Liberal. When they ascend the throne and have to assume the responsibility of their actions, they throw their theories overboard, if they ever seriously believed in them, and enter into the hard world of reality where facts and not aspirations are the determining forces, and where one is met by impossibilities which it is necessary to reckon with or submit to.”

He listened to me attentively, and when I had finished, said: “You are quite right. That was a very just observation. But even if the English were to come to an understanding with the Russians, and were to be joined by Italy, which has always been coquetting with the English Liberals, that would not lead to any great danger, and might turn out badly for the Italians. The closer England draws to Russia the more she drifts away from France. A combination would then arise in the East which would threaten French interests in that quarter, and particularly in the Mediterranean, where they are different from those of Russia and England. The same remark applies to England’s relations with Italy. In certain circumstances the result might be an understanding between France and Austria and ourselves. As yet we cannot positively say what we should have to offer in return—certainly not Alsace-Lorraine, but perhaps something else. Italy, however, would fare badly in the matter, as in that case Austria and France could easily come to terms. Italy is like the woman in the fairy tale who had caught the golden fish—what was her name? Ilsebill—and could never catch enough. The fish may have to go back to their old places. Naples and the States of the Church may be restored.”

I said: “In speaking to Tiedemann your Serene Highness mentioned a memorandum on the causes of the present crisis, which had been submitted to the King. What is his attitude in the affair?”

He replied: “Oh, satisfactory. Only he has not yet read the pro memoria, as it is too long. He laid it on one side.... And Wilmowski interferes. He considers it his duty and his right to put a finger in the pie, and advise him—of course against me, for he is a Liberal. So I have had a warning conveyed to him.” He stood up and said again: “The clownishness of Stephan, who is quite insubordinate! That comes of his self-assurance. King Stephan versus King William! (smiling)—that will never do, and you might say as much on some opportunity.”

I promised to do so at an early date, and then left. I had been with him for about three-quarters of an hour. In the large antechamber I saw Bleichröder’s birthday present to the Chief—a pipe-rack in carved oak, and seven long cherrywood pipes with painted porcelain bowls representing game, together with two large vases containing azaleas in blossom.

I incorporated what the Chancellor had said to me respecting the English elections and a possible co-operation between England, Russia and Italy, in a Grenzboten article, entitled, “The New Ministry in England.” This was commented upon in leading articles in London, Paris and Italy.

On the 25th of April, Lowe of The Times called upon me, and wished to have the same favours as Lavino “on the same conditions.” I told him there was no other condition than that the copy should be telegraphed across. He said he had a special wire. I promised to consider the matter and let him know in a fortnight, after I had consulted the publisher, who would have to send him proofs of the articles in advance. Abel came to me on the 1st of May with a request that I should oblige the Standard in a similar way. He received the same answer. On the 7th of May I concluded an arrangement with Lavino,[20] who had in the meantime received authority from London by telegraph, and thus became an “Occasional Correspondent” for his paper.

In the meantime, I had, on the 28th of April, received the following letter from Bucher:—

“Esteemed Friend,—Kindly commit the indiscretion of handing the enclosed to the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. You must not tell him anything more about it than appears in the introductory part. For your information I may tell you that the affair is a (very full) extract from an existing despatch. He has therefore no reason to fear a démenti. Perhaps it would be well if you immediately took a copy, so that you could publish it in the Grenzboten as a retranslation directly it arrives here in English, if you are not forestalled by other newspapers. But the D. T. must have priority.

“Yours, Br.”

The enclosure was the text of a despatch by the Chief in which he stated the position of the Prussian Government in the negotiations for the settlement of the differences with the Curia and its German allies. Only a few sentences were omitted from the original, which was published in full a few weeks later. Lavino translated the document into English, and it occupied a whole column of the Daily Telegraph of the 3rd of May, appearing in the Grenzboten two days later. So far as I remember it was only noticed by the German press after the document had been published in full, some of them then remembering that they had seen the most important parts of it in the Grenzboten.

I now proceeded to Leipzig, but on Thursday, the 10th of May, received a telegram from home stating that the Chancellor wished to see me that evening at 9.30 P.M. I therefore returned to Berlin next morning, announced my arrival in a letter to Sachse, and was received at 9.5 A.M. by the Chief in his study, and had an interview with him which lasted an hour and a half.

He began: “You were on a holiday?”

“Yes, Serene Highness, I was in Leipzig for a few days, but had left word at home to telegraph if you sent for me, and so I am here.”

He: “That was too much. I only wished to speak to you on some matters of principle. I would commend two subjects to your consideration. First the exceptionally outspoken and cordial pleasure which the Liberals manifest in their papers at the circumstance that in future I shall let internal questions alone, and restrict myself to foreign affairs. They argue that I know nothing about internal questions, and have accomplished nothing. On that point you might read up Hahn’s book, in which you will find detailed particulars. Who, then, proposed the May laws, and persuaded Falk to agree to them in spite of innumerable judicial scruples, which he only surrendered after long hesitation? Now they extol them as a kind of Palladium, and so does he. But he showed by no means as much energy against the Clericals in his administrative capacity, as he does now in his Parliamentary speeches. And who carried through the scheme for the purchase of the railways by the State? Surely not their Camphausen, who, on the contrary, fought against it, and tried with all his might to create delay. And yet it has turned out well, even now, since Maybach is making money, and will cover the deficit for us. Moreover, the gentlemen who—as they assert—wish to strengthen the Empire by the development of the constitutional system, forget that I twice carried the military septennate, and thus avoided a dangerous conflict by acting as a mediator between the Crown, which wanted the military budget to be permanently fixed, in order to get rid of the differences once for all, and the Reichstag, which insisted upon its constitutional right of supply,—avoided it twice, as the conflict which formerly threatened would now have broken out afresh. This time it was managed by an increase of the army, which the Crown accepted as an equivalent, and which the Liberals in the Reichstag consented to more readily than they would have done to a renunciation of their constitutional rights. You may then refer to the anti-Socialist laws which I proposed, and to which the Liberals raised all sorts of objections. But I may regard as my chief service the new Customs policy, which I forced through in spite of Delbrück, and in dealing with which, I was not only opposed by the free-traders in the Reichstag, but also by the Governments that held free-trade views, and by their Councillors. As you know, in this case the initiative has been taken by me, and I have also done most of the work in curing this Delbrück disease.”

I took the liberty of interrupting him with the remark: “This Bright’s disease in the economic body of the nation.”

“Yes,” he replied, smiling, “that’s what I mean—this Bright’s disease! In the course of years we have become more and more pulled down by it—grown poorer and poorer—and it was time that something should be done in the matter. But for the five milliards of 1871 we should have been close upon bankruptcy a few years sooner. It is true people will not see that, but the nation knows it, for it feels the consequences. The representatives of the learned classes, the lawyers and the holders of invested property are not conscious of it. I have repeatedly received addresses from the lower classes, as for instance, from Westphalian miners, congratulating and thanking me. But my opponents will have to open their minds still further, when I come to them with my war tariffs, which they will of course fight against, and first of all with the tariffs against Russia. Besides, I have been the only champion of the national interests against Hamburg Particularism in the free harbour question. In this matter the National Liberals, and especially the Left wing, are rather Liberal and Particularistic than National. Lasker, Bamberger, Wolfssohn, Rickert,—also a Jew, although baptised a Protestant—are in this matter no better than Sonnemann, the Socialists, the Poles and the Guelphs. They are only national when it comes to opposing the pretensions of a monarch, as for instance the King of Bavaria. But when, as in this case, it is the Particularism of a Social Democratic republic where the Socialists have the upper hand at the elections—that is quite another thing. Then Particularism must be supported, and I must be opposed. That I have always taken a determined stand against these people is a point upon which I may well take credit to myself in connection with internal affairs.”

He paused for a moment and then continued: “It is I and I alone who have taken up the struggle against the Centre party and its wire-pullers, and gone through with it in spite of all the intrigues of the Court. If a few paragraphs in the Ecclesiastical Bills should be thought to give evidence of yielding, that is a mere optical delusion. We make no terms with Rome, and will not go to Canossa, but we shall endeavour to restore peace independently between ourselves and our Prussian Catholics. It is better that Bishops should return accompanied by triumphal processions than with wailings and complaints. In that way they recognise that something has been conceded to them—a great deal if they like to put it so. But if they do not then manage to get on with us, why, we have the discretionary powers in our hands and can remove them once more, or render them harmless in some other way. They do not, however, understand that at the Dönhofplatz, nor do the Free Conservatives either. That is the reason why I do not go there, as I do not care to speak to deaf ears. It may yet come to my being obliged to retire without the King’s permission. And then—a Bavarian painter, Lenbach, made a good remark recently: ‘To deliver a good speech there, is like letting off fireworks before the blind.’ Their policy is party policy. Bennigsen and Miquel called on me a few days ago and wanted to talk me into abandoning the Bill, but allowed themselves to be persuaded by my arguments. A meeting of the party was held the same evening and there they returned to their former position. You must, however, say nothing about this in the press—as to our attitude towards the Bill and the parties, that is only for your private information. They must not think that we wish to influence them, and if you were to say anything on the subject it would be immediately regarded as a communiqué. Of course you are aware that Windthorst recently described you as the leading official mouthpiece. We shall first see what they make of the Bill. Perhaps that will suffice for us, perhaps not.”

He again made a short pause, and afterwards continued: “And now as to the second subject which you might treat. I should like to have a sketch of the Centre party, showing that we should gain little from its dissolution or reorganisation. The Conservatives would not be largely reinforced thereby—that is through concessions on the part of the Government with regard to the ecclesiastical laws.” He was silent for a moment, and then, turning from this train of thought, he said:

“You know how Russia would never willingly permit us to grow too strong as against France, lest the value of her own friendship and possible assistance should be reduced. Her notion is that we should remain dependent upon her, and under an obligation to render her equivalent services. It is just the same with the Liberals, including the Right wing. They think of themselves and of their party, first of all, and want the Government to regard them as a power whose good will has its price. They really look upon themselves as outsiders, and—so far as the Government is concerned—as an opposition which must be won over by concessions, and whose support must be duly appreciated and paid for at the highest possible rate, and as promptly as may be. I must always be made to feel that they are indispensable, in order that I may be obliged to come to terms with them. For that reason the Government must not be too strong, must have no secure majority, and therefore in their hearts they are pleased at the existence of the Centre party. Its numerical strength suits their views, however little they may have in common with them as Ultramontanes. The Government should constantly feel its weakness in presence of this opposition of 95 or 100 members, and bear in mind the possibility of the Liberals refusing their support. They, the Liberals, must be reckoned and negotiated with, and their good will must be purchased. That is a party policy, and not one which keeps in view the welfare of the State.”

He then returned to the Centre party, and explained to me that only about one-third of its members could be won over by concessions on the part of the Government to oppose the pretensions of the Curia and to reinforce the supporters of the Ministry. “These are the Bavarian nobles,” he continued, “and the South German nobles in general, as well as those of Silesia. Not the Westphalians. The latter were never reconciled to Prussian rule, and have always opposed the Government, even before the Empire came into existence—even when the Pope himself seemed to be quite satisfied with Prussia—I mean Pius IX., who said that the Catholic Church was better off in Prussia than anywhere else. The Westphalian nobles are sulking like the Guelphs out of sheer Particularism. They cannot forget the old episcopal régime and the advantages,—the fleshpots of Egypt—which they lost when it disappeared. It is different again with another group of the Centre party, with the Rhenish members, for example. They are, in the first place, Liberal or Democratic Catholics, and only in a secondary sense Ultramontane, Catholic Progressists, anti-Imperialists. Most of them would not have got in on their Liberal programme. They were returned to Parliament because they had promised to support the demands of the Bishops and the Pope. They, like the Particularists of the Centre, could not be won over by any concessions, however great, as they are really Progressists, or little less.”

I was now about to leave, but he made a motion as if he wished me to remain, rang the bell, and ordered a bottle of seltzer water. On this being brought in by the attendant, he pointed to it and to a full bottle of cognac which stood on the table, saying, “Now, old Yankee, is that to your taste? Brandy and water. Help yourself! It is very good cognac, or, at least, I have been told so. It is a present, and may have cost twenty to thirty francs a bottle. I have some, however, which is still better, although it only costs a thousand francs the hectolitre.”

Whilst I inquired as to his own health and whether he intended to go to Gastein this summer, and learnt in reply that his health was tolerable but that he slept badly and felt fatigued, he had brought a large box of cigarettes from which he asked me to help myself, at the same time taking one himself, and remarking that he no longer found any real enjoyment in smoking. It was the same with riding for the last year and a half. He had to give it up, as it brought on a pain in the back. I asked him whether he had received the book on the Jews which I had handed to the Chancery attendant for him about a week before. “What book?” he asked. Israel and the Gentiles, I replied. No, he had not. I explained that I had sent a letter with it saying that it was written by me, and that a glance at the preface might perhaps induce his Serene Highness to look it through more carefully at Varzin or Friedrichsruh. He remembered the letter, looked for the book on the writing-table and the shelves near it, and said at last “Probably I have taken it upstairs to read in bed, or Tiedemann has taken it.”

I then turned the conversation upon Lenbach, and remarked that the picture representing the Chief in profile looking upwards was to my mind the best portrait of him which I had seen.

He replied: “He has painted a whole crowd of them. The one you mean came about in this way. I was looking up at a flight of birds in Friedrichsruh. ‘Hold hard,’ Lenbach exclaimed, ‘that’s good. Please stand still and I will sketch it in at once.’”

I then mentioned the photograph of the other portrait in which the hair of his eyebrows was twisted upwards and he had a romantically curled moustache, observing that I did not quite like it, as it was not natural.

“No,” he said, “it is natural. It grows in that way until I shorten it with the scissors.”

We then spoke of the enterprising Thorndike Rice, an American, who published the New York monthly, The North American Review, I having asked the Prince whether he had read Blowitz’s account of Rice’s alleged visit and request. A few weeks previously Rice paid me several visits, and after having first ordered an article on Bismarck, introduced a further request by saying “You must not be offended, but you know that we Yankees are bold enough when we have something in view.” He then asked whether I could not procure for him an article by Bismarck himself to be published in his periodical. He was quite prepared to pay £500, half of it in advance, if I could manage that. I said that it was “utterly impossible,” even if he were to give me £1000, and explained the reasons. He then suggested that I should write the article, to which the Prince need only put his name. Of course, I also declined that proposal. He then contented himself with my promise to write the article in question, and send it after him to Paris, and to let him have further contributions later on. In about three weeks he received the Bismarck article, which appeared in the July and August numbers of his review under the title “Prince Bismarck as a friend of America, and as a Statesman. By Moritz Busch.” I was paid at the rate of 500 marks a sheet, an enormous sum according to German ideas, and had moreover the honour of figuring with Gladstone as a contributor to the American Revue des Deux Mondes. From a message sent by Blowitz to The Times it would appear that Rice, after his last visit to me, called at the Chief’s to request him to contribute to his periodical, and, of course, there also received a negative answer.

“The account is correct,” the Chief replied; “but he only spoke to my son, through whom I informed him that I was too much occupied to be able to gratify my strong taste for journalism, and to earn the large sum of money which he had offered me.”

I then gave him an account of my conversations with Mr. Rice, and afterwards asked him once more about Gastein. No, he replied, he must rest himself, and wished to be quite alone away from everybody. He then came to speak of his household, which costs him a great deal of money. A successor could not make both ends meet if he were not also assisted by a grant, the salary as Imperial Chancellor not being sufficient.

I said I had always been under the impression that he drew a salary merely as Prussian Minister.

“It is the other way about,” he answered. “As Imperial Chancellor I receive 18,000 thalers; as Premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs I get nothing, and my expenses now come to 60,000 thalers a year. In this house alone the lighting costs me 2,000 extra. It is most unpractically built, full of dark passages and back-stairs, and it is only the offices down stairs that I do not need to light myself. They have also increased the inhabited house tax, the rent being reckoned at 5,000 thalers, which I consider unfair, although it is better than the other house, the poor accommodation of which you know.” After I had made a few remarks in reply, we both rose, an example which was followed by his dog. This animal at first seemed to entertain evil intentions respecting my coat or throat, but had grown quiet on his master ordering him to lie down, when he crouched under the table and put his head between my knees. The Prince told him to jump on the sofa, from which he fetched a piece of wood. The Chief then took it from him and pitched it into the niche between the two windows, the dog springing after it. It is a savage animal which has already severely bitten and torn the clothes of people well known in the house such as Chancery attendants. In spite of the chastisement inflicted upon him with the heavy leather whip that lies on the table, he has not considered the error of his ways nor assumed politer manners. He appeared to take a liking to me, however, and I had also later on occasion to congratulate myself on his good will.