Part 2 — Chapter IV.—Of Provincial and Communal Institutions. (continued 4)

Bruno-Gebhardt, Lehrbuch der deutschen Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 2, pages 501-504.

"The Congress of Vienna created in 1815 a form of government for Germany which was very unsatisfactory in character. It was, however, so constituted that a national development at some future time was not rendered an utter impossibility. The German confederation was rather, on the whole, provisional in its character; this fact comes out more and more plainly with each thorough analysis and illustration of its constitution and of its institutions. The main thing was that the German confederation preserved unimpaired the dualism in Germany. Technically the emperor of Austria had the honorary direction of the confederation; practically he possessed as emperor of Germany little r no power. In point of fact the German imperial title was only a decoration for the ruler over a variegated mixture of peoples, in the midst of which German nationality was hard pressed by the national strivings of the other races. In reality the strongest member of the German confederation was the kingdom of Prussia, although according to the federal laws it stood on a like footing with Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover and Würtemberg. … This German confederation was only capable of eking out its existence in a long period of freedom from European disasters. … Only gradually, in the various heads, did the opinion begin to form of the historical vocation of Prussia to take her place at the head of the German confederation or, possibly, of a new German empire. Gradually this opinion ripened into a firmer and firmer conviction and gained more and more supporters. The more evidently impossible an actual guidance of Germany by Austria became, the more conscious did men grow of the danger of the whole situation should the dualism be allowed to continue. In consequence of this the idea of the Prussian hegemony began to be viewed with constantly increasing favor. A great step forward in this direction was taken by the Prussian government when it called into being the Zollverein [or customs-union]. The Zollverein laid iron bands around the separate parts of the German nation. It was utterly impossible to think of forming a customs-union with Austria, for all economic interests were as widely different as possible; on purely material grounds the division between Austria and Prussia showed itself to be a necessity. On the other hand the economic bonds between Prussia and the rest of the German lands grew stronger from day to day. This material union was the prelude to the political one: the Zollverein was the best and most effectual preparation for the German federal state or for the German empire of later days."

W. Maurenbrecher, Gründung des Deutschen Reichs, pages 4-5.

{3776}

"Paul Pfizer wrote in 1831 his 'Correspondence of Two Germans,' the first writing in the German language in which liberation from Austria and union with Prussia was put down as the solution of the German question and in which faith in Prussia was made a part of such love to the German fatherland as should be no longer a mere dream. … 'So little as the dead shall rise again this side the grave, so little will Austria, which once held the heritage of German fame and German glory, ever again become for Germany what she has once been.'"

W. Oncken, Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 69-70.

The formation of the Zollverein "was the most important occurrence since the wars of liberation: a deed of peace of more far-reaching consequences and productive of more lasting results than many a battle won. The economic blessings of the Zollverein soon began to show themselves in the increasing sum total of the amount of commerce and in the regularly growing customs revenues of the individual states. These revenues for example increased between 1834 and 1842 from 12 to 21 million thalers. Foreign countries began to look with respect and in part also with envy on this commercial unity of Germany and on the results which could not fail to come. … A second event happened in Germany in 1834, less marked in its beginnings and yet scarcely less important in its results than the Zollverein. Between Leipzig and Dresden the first large railroad in Germany was started, the first mesh in that network of roads that was soon to branch out in all directions and spread itself over all Germany. … A direct political occurrence, independent of the Zollverein and the railroads, was, in the course of the thirties, to assist in awakening and strengthening the idea of unity in the German people by making evident and plain the lack of such unity and its disastrous consequences. This was the Hanoverian 'coup d'etat' of the year 1837. … In that year William IV of England died without direct successors. … Hanover came into the hands of the Duke of Cumberland, Ernest Augustus. … The new king, soon after his inauguration, refused to recognize the constitution that had been given to Hanover in 1833, on the ground that his ratification as next heir to the throne had not been asked at that time. … By persistent efforts Ernest Augustus … in 1840 brought about a constitution that suited him. Still more than this constitutional struggle itself did a single incident connected with it occupy and excite public opinion far and wide. Seven professors of the Gottingen university protested against the abrogation of the constitution of 1833. … Without more ado they were dismissed from their positions. … The brave deed of the Gottingen professors and the new act of violence committed against them caused intense excitement throughout all Germany. … A committee composed both of conservatives and liberals was formed in Leipzig and raised collections, in order by honorable gift to replace at least the material losses of the banished professors. … In the course of the forties the idea of nationality penetrated more and more all the pores of German opinion and gave to it more and more, by pressure from all sides, the direction of a great and common goal. At first there were only isolated attempts at reform … but soon the national needs outgrew such single expressions of good will. … A tendency began to show itself in the public opinion of Germany to accept the plan of a Prussian leadership of all un-Austrian Germany."

K. Biedermann, Dreissig Jahre Deutscher Geschichte. volume 1, pages 9-91.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820, to 1819-1847 (pages 1531-1533).

GERMANY: A. D. 1862-1890. The Bismarck policy. "Blood and iron" speech of the Prussian Premier.

On the question of the reorganization of the army, which was brought forward early by Prince William (afterwards King and Emperor) after he assumed the Regency in 1858, the Prussian Diet placed itself in determined opposition to the government. At a session of the Budget Commission of the House of Representatives, September 30, 1862, Deputy Forckenbeck offered the following resolution: "Whereas it is also feared that after the declaration of the royal state government made the 29th inst. the same would continue the expenditures for the organization of the army on its own responsibility which have already been rejected by the House for the year 1862 and the rejection of which is likewise to be expected for 1863, according to the acknowledgment of the government itself, and Whereas a direct insistence of the prerogatives of the people's representatives is urgently required, the House of Representatives declares as follows:

1. The royal government is requested to lay the estimates for 1863 before the House as speedily as possible for their constitutional consideration, so that the amount of the same may be constitutionally fixed before January 1st 1863.

2. It is unconstitutional for the royal government to direct expenditures which were by resolution of the House of Representatives definitely and expressly rejected."

The Minister of State, Herr von Bismarck, spoke on these resolutions as follows: "I would willingly accept the estimates for 1862, if I could do so without entering upon explanations which might prove prejudicial. Either side might abuse its constitutional rights and be met by a reaction in kind from the opposite side. The crown, for instance, might decree dissolution twelve times in succession without violating the letter of the constitution, yet would it be an abuse of power. It may refuse to accept a striking out of estimates without measure. Where will you draw the line? At 6 millions? at 16? or at 60? There are members of the National Verein [National Union]—an organization highly respected for the well known fairness of its demands,—very estimable members—who declare all standing armies as superfluous. Well then, if the House of Representatives should hold such view must not the government repudiate it? The 'cool headedness' of the Prussian people has been referred to. Well, it is a fact, the great self-assertion of individuality among us makes constitutional government very hard in Prussia; in France, where this individual self-assertion is wanting, it is otherwise. There a constitutional conflict was no disgrace, but all honor. We are perhaps too 'cultured' to tolerate a constitution; we are too critical; the ability to pass judgment on measures of the government or acts of the legislature is too universal; there is a large number of 'Catilinarian Characters' [existences in the original] in the land whose chief interest is in revolutions. All this may sound paradoxical; yet it proves how hard constitutional life is in Prussia. {3777} The people are too sensitive about the faults of the government; as if the whole did not suffer when this or that individual minister blunders. Public opinion is changeable, the press is not public opinion; everyone knows how the press originates; the representatives have the higher task of directing opinion, of being above it. To return once more to our people: our blood is too hot, we are fond of bearing an armor too large for our small body; now let us utilize it. Germany does not look at Prussia's liberalism but at its power. Let Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden indulge in liberalism, yet no one will assign to them the rule of Prussia; Prussia must consolidate its might and hold it together for the favorable moment, which has been allowed to pass unheeded several times. Prussia's boundaries, as determined by the Congress of Vienna, are not conducive to its wholesome existence as a sovereign state. Not by speeches and resolutions of majorities the mighty problems of the age are solved—that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by Blood and Iron. Last year's grants have been made, no matter on what grounds; I am seeking sincerely for a road to harmony: the finding of it does not depend on me alone. It were better, the House of Representatives had not made an accomplished fact. When the appropriations are not passed, then the way is clear. The constitution affords no relief, for interpretation is opposed to interpretation, 'summum ius, summa iniuria' [the highest law, greatest injustice], 'the letter killeth.' I am glad that the chairman by certain turns of speech admits the possibility of an understanding, of a different vote of the house on a new proposition of the government; I am searching for the same bridge; when it will be found is uncertain. The establishment of a budget for this year is barely possible; the time is too short; our conditions are exceptional. The government concedes the principle of the earliest possible handing down of the estimates. But you say, this has been promised so often and has not been done. Well 'You must trust us for honest people.' I do not share in the interpretation that it was unconstitutional to make expenditures that have been denied, all three factors [i. e. Commons, Upper House and Crown] must agree upon an interpretation, before it stands."

Die Politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 2, pages 20, 28-30.

"Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, born April 1, 1815, was a Junker [squire, aristocrat] from top to toe, but from the very first, as was the case with all the Junkers of Prussia, Pomerania and the Mark, his life had been thoroughly merged in that of the Prussian state. He had first called attention to himself in 1847 at the general diet (Vereinigter Landtag]. In 1849 he came forward in the chamber of deputies, in 1850 in the Union Parliament at Frankfort—always as the goad of the extreme right, and each time his appearance gave the signal for a violent conflict. Perfectly unsparing of all his opponents, very anti-liberal but very Prussian, very national-minded, in spite of being such a Junker, Bismarck flared up with especial violence against the democratic attacks on the army and the monarchy. … To Frankfort Bismarck came as the sworn defender of the policy of reaction. The Austrian party, thinking him to be a man of no consequence, greeted his coming with joy. He soon made himself unpleasant enough, especially to the Austrian presidents of the federal diet. … He refused to accept the servile role which Austria had apportioned to him; his objections in matters of form and on unimportant occasions prepared the great fundamental anti-Austrian uprising. A feeling of pain came over him at the sight of the Prussian submission to Austria, but at the same time he was seized with a thirst for vengeance. … In Frankfort, too, he learned thoroughly to know German affairs: the utter weakness of the Confederation and the misery of having so many petty states. … To his mind the goal of Prussian policy was to drive Austria out of Germany and then to bring about a subordination of the other German states to Prussia. … Nor did he make the least secret of his warlike attitude towards Austria. When an Austrian arch-duke, who was passing through, once asked him maliciously whether all the many decorations which he wore on his breast had been won by bravery in battle: 'All gained before the enemy, all gained here in Frankfort,' was the ready answer. In the year 1859 came the complications between Austria and Italy, the latter being joined by France. This Italian war between Austria and France thoroughly roused the German nation. … Many wanted to protect Austria, others showed a disinclination to enter the lists for Austria's rule over Italy. … Bismarck's advice at this time was that Prussia should side against Austria and should join Italy. In the spring of 1859, however, he was transferred from Frankfort on the Main to St. Petersburg: 'put on ice on the Neva,' as he said himself, 'like champagne for future use.' … In June 1859, in view of the Italian war, it had been decreed in Prussia that the army should be mobilized and kept in readiness to fight. … When, later, in the summer of this year, the probability of war had gone by, the Landwehr was not dismissed but, on the contrary, a beginning was made with a new formation of regiments which had already been planned and talked over. … On February 10, 1860, the question of the military reorganization was laid before the diet, where doubts and objections were raised against it. … On the 4th of May, at the same time when the law about civil marriages was rejected, the land-tax, by which the cost of the army-reorganization was to have been covered, was refused by the Upper House. The liberals were disappointed and angered. The ministry was soon in a bad dilemma: should it give way to the liberal opposition and dissolve the newly formed regiments? The expedient that was thought of seemed clever enough but it led in reality to a blind alley and was productive of the most baneful consequences. The ministry moved a single grant of 9,000,000 thalers for the purpose of completing the army and maintaining its efficiency on the former footing. The motion was carried on May 15, 1860, by a vote of 315 against two. … The new elections for the house of deputies in December 1861 produced a diet of an entirely different stamp from that of 1858. … The moderate majority was now to atone for the sin of not having come to any real arrangement with the ministry on the army question; for the new majority came to Berlin with the full intention of crushing the army-reform. … The chief task of the newly formed ministry of 1862 was to solve the military question, for the longer it had remained in abeyance the more complicated had the matter become. {3778} The newly-elected diet had been in session since the 19th of May. The majority was determined to draw the conclusion from the provisional nature of the army-reorganization grants that no such grants were any longer to be made. The battle cry of the majority of the diet was that all further demands of the government for the military reform were to be refused. … But how would this result? … The new officers had an actionable, legal claim to their salaries; who was to pay them? The budget for 1862 was already in great part expended. … Were the ministers themselves to pay the damages? Such seems to have been the idea of the fanatics in the parliament. … By September 1862 the belligerent and uncompromising attitude of the liberal majority had induced King William to lay aside his earlier distrust of Bismarck. He allowed him to be summoned and placed him at the head of the ministry. Most stirring was the first audience which Bismarck had with his king in the Park of Babelsberg on September 23. The king first of all laid before Bismarck the declaration of his abdication. Very much startled, Bismarck said: 'To that it should never be allowed to come!' The king replied that he had tried everything and knew no other alternative. His convictions, contrary to which he could not act, contrary to which he could not reign, forbade him to relinquish the army-reorganization. Thereupon Bismarck explained to the king his own different view of the matter and closed with the request that his Majesty might abandon all thoughts of abdication. The king then asked the minister if he would undertake to carry on the government without a majority and without a budget. Bismarck answered both questions in the affirmative and with the utmost decision. … The alliance between the king and his minister was closed and cemented on that 23rd of September in Babelsberg to endure for all time. … To this bond of allegiance which joined king and minister, Prussia and Germany owe all the glory that has fallen to their share. … In the summer of 1863 was originated the famous Austrian project of reform. … The proposals of Prussia that there should be one central head of Germany with popular representation from the whole nation was entirely thrust aside and, on the contrary, a federal directory was recommended with a parliament of delegates from the separate diets. … In spite of Prussia's absence the assembly of princes took place at Frankfort. King John of Saxony again travelled to Baden to urge King William to attend but the latter again declined. Not but that this refusal cost him a great struggle. … Bismarck had to threaten with his resignation before he could make the king remain firm; … he did not breathe freely again until the Saxon king had taken his leave. Then with his powerful hand he demolished a plate of glasses that stood before him; that cooled his anger and his excitement and he was once more the polished courtier. … Bismarck's policy now met with a great piece of good fortune. Through the death of the king of Denmark, namely, the Schleswig-Holstein question was forced to a final solution and this offered Bismarck an opportunity of trying his diplomatic skill, while at the same time it gave the Prussian army a brilliant occasion for showing what it could accomplish. In a series of bold moves Bismarck steered through the complications of the Schleswig-Holstein question; it is the first stage in his great career of victory. … But in spite of all the successes of the Danish war the diet continued in its opposition. A loan for the war was refused; any loan made without the consent of the diet was declared unconstitutional and not binding. … The subsequent grant for the costs of the war was refused. … Naturally the Prussian war-budget could not be made up, and the land continued to be governed without a budget. The details of the debates on these subjects are today only of minor interest. Much time was lost in mutual insults between Bismarck on the one hand and Virchow and Gneist on the other. Bismarck challenged Virchow to a duel, Virchow refused the challenge. … By April 1866 Bismarck had cleared the political field for his war against Austria; the necessity for that war had long been apparent to him. … That the German question could only be settled by the separation of Austria from Germany and that this separation could only be brought about by a war between Prussia and Austria had, in the course of years, become clear to all patriots who knew anything of history. With incomparable perspicuity the statesman who had led Prussia's policy since the autumn of 1862 had grasped the idea and had seen to carrying it out with the whole force of his iron will. Already in the autumn of 1863 he had drawn up the program of what he intended that the German Confederation should be. … The history of the world had not for centuries seen such a war as 1866. … It was then that King William and his minister, crowned with victories, asked the Prussian diet for indemnity: i. e. for an acknowledgment of their good purposes in spite of their illegal acts. … In point of fact the diet had been wrong and the king and his minister had acted wisely and well; in point of form they had broken the letter of the law. … In the years 1862-1866 Bismarck had held off Napoleon with incomparable political skill. He had always refused the French demands, but so that Napoleon in each case could cherish some hope and could venture again and again to approach Prussia with some new lure. Not until August 1866 did Napoleon receive a thorough and open repulse. Bismarck then answered every threat of the French with the counter-threat of a German war. The refusal of Bismarck and his king brought Napoleon into a very bad position as regarded the French people. In the minds of the latter a war against Germany was a foregone conclusion since 1866. … On the 8th of July (1870) the French envoy came to King William in Ems and demanded that he should forbid Prince Leopold to accept the crown of Spain. … It is a popular fiction that the king turned his back on Benedetti, or that he answered that he 'had nothing more to say to him,' or that he out and out refused him an audience. An extra of the German papers of July 14th did indeed read to that effect: Bismarck himself had drawn up the notice for the papers. He had made no false additions, but here and there he had erased and omitted some of the words spoken at Ems, thus rendering possible at least the whole false conception of the matter. Bismarck ventured on such a step, having clearly counted the costs; the result showed how closely he had made his calculations. … {3779} It was the war of 1870 that fundamentally changed the relations of the chancellor to the mass of the people. After 1871 he was immensely popular. … People believed that he could do anything, that he could make possible what was impossible for other men. … Bismarck was very soon surrounded with an almost mythical halo."

W. Maurenbrecher, Gründung des Deutschen Reichs (translated from the German), pages 13-258.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and after (pages 1537-1548).

GERMANY: A. D. 1863. Formation of the first Socialist party by Lassalle.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864 (page 2949).

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874. The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages. Speeches of Bismarck.

"For reasons relating to its own internal affairs the state, even though it took no special attitude to the dogma of infallibility in itself, could not avoid being drawn into the conflicts which that dogma was bound to call forth between its upholders and its opponents. It was the duty of the state to prevent the evil results to its citizens of the anathema which the bishops hurled at those who denied the infallibility; it was necessary for it to interfere and, by introducing civil marriages, to render marriage possible to those apostates who were not allowed to receive the sacraments; it was necessary for it to protect in the exercise of their office those of its public teachers who rejected the new dogma, even if their spiritual superiors should declare them unfit to hold such office. In cases, finally, where whole congregations, or majorities of them, remained true to the old teachings it was necessary for the state to protect them in the possession of their churches of which the bishops tried to deprive them. Already in November and December 1870 the first cases had occurred with regard to which the Prussian minister of education had been obliged to draw these conclusions. Professors of the Bonn and Breslau universities who, because they denied the infallibility, had been forbidden to lecture by Archbishop Melchers of Cologne and Prince-bishop Forster of Breslau, appealed to the protection of the minister. Certain pastors and teachers of gymnasiums, who had joined in a declaration drawn up at Nuremberg (August 25, 1870) against the new dogma, and who had in consequence been threatened with ecclesiastical punishments, did the same. Mühler had no other course than to declare that, so far as officials appointed by the state were concerned, the state must maintain its exclusive disciplinary power, and that he would continue in future to regard as catholics those whom he had so regarded before the decree of infallibility was passed, even if they saw fit to reject that dogma. Similar conflicts broke out in Bavaria where the minister, Lutz, upheld the pastor Renftle, of Mering near Augsburg, in the enjoyment of his benefices in the face of the bishop, and where the Munich professors, Döllinger, Friedrich, Huber and others courageously refused such assent to the dogma as the Archbishop Scherr, on October 20, 1870, demanded from them. Döllinger's written justification of himself, published on March 20, 1871, seemed to give a firm basis and a distinguished leader to the whole movement. … Twelve thousand signatures were collected in a few weeks for an address to the king of Bavaria and an appeal was made to the catholics of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in favor of common action. … Meanwhile the other party had been busy enough. Hundreds and hundreds of ecclesiastics protested against Döllinger's assertion that thousands of the clergy thought as he did. A lay assembly in Munich, held on April 23, which expressed itself in favor of infallibility, was the forerunner of countless similar ones. … Already some weeks earlier the archbishop of Munich had ventured to excommunicate Döllinger. … On August 27 Lutz sent a writing to Archbishop Scherr claiming the right to regulate afresh the relations with the church as the dogma of infallibility was something essentially new: at the same time he announced that the government would do its utmost to protect the upholders of the old teachings and to secure the independence of civil affairs from ecclesiastical right of compulsion. In Munich such decisive measures would probably not have been adopted had not matters in Prussia taken a similar turn. The conflict had been brought to a climax here by the demand of Bishops Krementz and Ermeland that two teachers in Braunsberg, Wollmann and Treibel, should be dismissed for denying the infallibility. This demand the minister had refused on March 18, 1871, and on June 29 had even given his approval to the regulation that scholars who should obey the orders of the bishop to absent themselves from the class in religious instruction of these teachers should be expelled from the gymnasium. The bishop had retaliated by excommunicating the two teachers in question, as well as Professor Michelis, one of the chief opponents of infallibility. In the dioceses of Cologne, Paderborn and Breslau also, the conflicts had become more fierce on account of excommunications imposed by the bishops. Still more important was it that the chancellor of the empire had now personally entered the lists. As his cool attitude already before the council had given reason to expect, the Vatican dogma did not much trouble him. All the more alarming seemed to him the agitation which the clergy were stirring up among the Polish nobles, and the league of Guelphism and Catholicism as illustrated by Windhorst's position in the Centre. … He [Bismarck] caused the announcement to be made in an article of the Kreuzzeitung that the government would not only continue on the defensive against the Centre, but in turn would proceed to attack it. The ultramontanes had better consider whether such a struggle could turn out to the advantage of the Roman Church. If, he concluded, three hundred years ago Teutonism in Germany was stronger than Romanism, how much stronger would it be now when Rome is no longer the capital of the world, but on the point of becoming the capital of Italy, and when the German imperial crown no longer rests on the head of a Spaniard but of a German prince. … In the Federal Council Lutz moved an amendment to the criminal code which should threaten any clergyman with imprisonment up to two years if he should misuse his office and discuss state affairs so as to disturb the peace. … This 'pulpit-paragraph' was accepted with 179 to 108 votes and became law December 14th 1871. … The Prussian diet was opened on November 27, 1871, with the announcement of four new laws which should regulate marriages, the registration of civil personal matters, the withdrawal from existing churches, and the supervision of schools. … {3780} The conservative party was in wild excitement over these measures and the Kreuzzeitung became the organ of decided opposition, especially against the school-supervision law which was chosen as the first object of attack. The conservatives collected petitions from all parts of the land to kill this law which they prophesied would make the schools a tool of atheism, a hot-bed of revolution, unnationality and immorality. They succeeded in getting together more than 300,000 signatures. … At the first reading in the House of Deputies the school-supervision law was passed, although by a majority of only 25 votes. … At the second reading the majority increased to 52. … The chief struggle was expected in the House of Lords. … The vote here was favorable beyond all hopes, resulting on March 8th in a majority in favor of the law almost as great as that in the House of Deputies. … By no means calm was the attitude of the pope towards the increasing complications, and when, a few weeks later, on June 24th, 1872, he received the German 'Leseverein' in Rome he complained bitterly of the prime minister of a powerful government who, after marvellous successes in war, should have placed himself at the head of a long-planned persecution of the church; a step which would undoubtedly tarnish the glory of his former triumphs. 'Who knows if the little stone shall not soon be loosened from above that shall destroy the foot of the Colossus!' The chief cause of this embitterment lay in the expulsion of the Jesuits which had meanwhile been decreed by the diet. … The more the national opposition to the Roman claims increased, the more passionate did the frame of mind of the ultramontanes become; and also, in no small degree, of the pope. An allocution addressed to the cardinals on December 22, 1872, surpassed in violence anything that had yet been heard. … Even Reichensperger found it advisable in excusing a vehemence that thus went beyond all bounds to call to mind that the Latinized style of the papal chancery was not to be taken too literally. The German government, after such a demonstration, had no other alternative than to recall the last representative of its embassy to the papal court. … Already in November Minister Falk had laid before the House a draft of a law concerning the limits of ecclesiastical punishments and disciplinary measures; on January 9, 1873, followed the drafts of three new laws. … Still more passionately than in the debate concerning the change in the Constitution did Bismarck come forward in the discussion of April 24-28. … Windhorst and Schorlemer-Alst answered him back in kind. … With violent attacks on Bismarck they prophesied that these Draconic laws would rebound against the passive opposition of the people; that dawn was glimmering in men's minds and that the victory of the Church was near. To the great majority of the German people, who had followed the political-ecclesiastical debates with the liveliest interest, such assurances seemed almost laughable. They felt sure of victory now that Bismarck himself had seized the standard with such decision. The 'May Laws' which the king signed on May 11, 1873, were considered a weapon sure to be effectual, and even the advanced-liberals, who had followed many of the steps of the Government with hesitation and doubt, declared in an appeal to their electors on March 23 that the conflict had assumed the proportions of a great struggle for enlightenment (Kulturkampf) in which all mankind were concerned, and that they themselves, in junction with the other liberal parties, would accordingly support the Government. … On August 7 (1873) Pius IX sent a letter to the emperor under pretext of having heard that the latter did not sympathize with the latest measures of his government. He declared that such measures seemed to aim at the annihilation of Catholicism and warned him that their final result would be to undermine the throne. He deduced his right to issue this warning from the fact that he was bound to tell the truth to all, even to non-catholics: for in one way or another—exactly how this was not the place to make clear—everyone who had received baptism belonged to the pope. The emperor answered on September 3rd in a most dignified tone. … 'We can not pass over in silence the remark that everyone who has been baptized belongs to the pope. The evangelical faith which I, as your Holiness must know, like my forefathers and together with the majority of my subjects, confess, does not allow us to accept any other Mediator in our relations with God save our Lord Jesus Christ.' … Among protestants this royal answer was greeted with jubilant acclamations and even in foreign lands it found a loud echo. The aged Earl Russell organized a great meeting in London on January 27, 1874. … Soon after the opening of the Prussian diet Falk could bring forward the draft of a law which handed over to state-officials [Standesbeamte] all matters referring to the celebration of marriages and the registration of civil personal matters. This draft was sure from the first of a good majority. … On March 9th 1874 the law could be proclaimed. In the same month still the deputies Hinschius and Völk made a motion in the diet to introduce civil marriages throughout the whole empire. … It furthermore seemed necessary to take stronger measures against bishops and priests unlawfully appointed and whom the state had either deposed or refused to recognize. The mildest measure was to remove them from their dioceses or parishes, to banish them to certain fixed places and, in the worst cases, to expel them altogether from the lands of the empire. … The draft of the law (to this effect) was warmly supported and at last, April 25, 1874, was accepted by a vote of 214 to 208. … On July 13th, 1874, as Prince Bismarck, who had gone to take the cure in Kissingen, was driving to the Saline the twenty-one year old cooper's-apprentice Kullmann, of Magdeburg, fired a pistol at him, and wounded him in his right hand which he had just raised for the purpose of saluting. At once arrested, Kullmann declared to the chancellor, who visited him an hour later in his prison, that he had wished to murder him on account of the laws against the church. … The reading of ultramontane papers and the violent discourses of the catholic clergy had driven him to the deed. He atoned for it with fourteen years in the House of Correction. Not alone did public opinion make ultramontanism accountable for the deed, but Bismarck himself laid very strong emphasis on the fact that the criminal had spoken of the Centre as 'his party.' 'You may try as hard as you please to rid yourselves of this murderer,' he cried out in the diet of December 4th, 'he none the less holds fast to your coat-tails!'"

C. Bulle, Geschichte der neuesten Zeit (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 20-41.

{3781}

At the Session of the Lower House of the Prussian Diet January 30, 1872, Deputy Windthorst spoke in opposition to the royal order for the abolition of the separate Roman Catholic section of the department of worship and public instruction and Prince Bismarck, in reply, said: "The party to which the gentleman belongs has contributed its share to the difficulty of obliterating the denominational standpoint in matters political. I have always considered it one of the most monstrous manifestations in politics, that a religious faction should convert itself into a political party. If all the other creeds were to adopt the same principle, it would bring theology into the parliamentary sessions and would make it a matter of public debate. … It has always been one of my fundamental principles that every creed ought to have full liberty of development, perfect liberty of conscience. But for all that I did not think it was a necessary corollary that a census of each denomination be taken merely for the purpose of giving each its proportional share in the Civil Service. … Where will you stop? You begin with a Cabinet; then you count the Chiefs of Division. I do not know what your ratio is—I think you claim four to seven—nor do I care to know. The subordinates in the Civil Service follow next. It is a fact, moreover, that the Evangelicals are by no means united in one denomination. The contrast is not merely between Protestants and Catholics. The United Prussian Established Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, all have claims analogous to those of the Catholics. As soon as we cut up the state into denominational sections, giving each creed its proportional share, then the large Jewish population will come in for its part, a majority of which, distinguished by its special capacity, skill and intelligence, is peculiarly fitted for the business of the State. … We cannot admit the claim of the ecclesiastical authorities to a further share in the administration and in the interest of peace we are obliged to restrict the share they already have; so that we may have room beside each other and be obliged, as little as possible, to trouble ourselves about theology in this place."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 231-240.

In the German Parliament, May 14, 1872, on the question of a grant of 19,350 thalers for the German embassy at the See of Rome, Prince Bismarck spoke as follows: "I can easily understand how in considering this item of the estimates, the opinion may be held that the expenditure for this embassy was superfluous, as it does no longer consider the protection of German citizens in foreign parts. Still I am glad that no motion for the striking out of this post was made, which would be unpleasant to the Government. The duties of an embassy consist not merely in affording protection to their countrymen, but also in keeping up the political relations of the Government which it represents with that to which it is accredited. Now there is no foreign sovereign, who, in the present state of our laws, might be called upon to exercise, in accordance with those laws, prerogatives in the German empire like those of His Holiness, approaching almost to sovereignty, limited by no constitutional responsibility. There is therefore great importance for the German empire in the character that is given to our diplomatic relations with the head of the Roman Church, wielding, as he does, an influence in this country unusually extensive for a foreign potentate. I scarcely believe, considering the spirit dominant at present in the leading circles of the Catholic Church, that any ambassador of the German empire could succeed, by the most skilful diplomacy, or by persuasion (comminatory attitudes conceivable between secular powers are out of the question here)—I say no one could succeed by persuasion in exerting an influence to bring about a modification of the position assumed by His Holiness the Pope towards things secular. The dogmas of the Catholic Church recently announced and publicly promulgated make it impossible for any secular power to come to an understanding with the church without its own effacement, which the German empire, at least, cannot accept. Have no fear; we shall not go to Canossa, either in body or in spirit. Nevertheless it cannot be concealed that the state of the German empire (it is not my task here to investigate the motives and determine how much blame attaches to one party or the other; I am only defending an item in the Budget)—that the feeling within the German empire in regard to religious peace, is one of disquietude. The governments of the German empire are seeking, with all the solicitude they owe to their Catholic as well as Lutheran subjects for the best way, the most acceptable means, of changing the present unpleasant state of affairs in matters of religion to a more agreeable one, without disturbing to any degree the creedal relations of the empire. This can only be done by way of legislation—of general imperial legislation—for which the governments have to rely upon the assistance of the Reichstag. That this legislation must not in the least infringe upon the liberty of conscience,—must proceed in the gentlest, most conciliatory manner; that the government must bend all its energies in order to prevent unnecessary retardation of its work, from incorrect recording or errors in form, you all will admit. That the governments must spare no efforts for the establishment of our internal peace, in a manner least offensive even to the religious sensitiveness of those whose creed we do not share, you will also admit. To this end, however, it is before all things needful that the Roman See be at all times well informed of the intentions of the German governments, much better than it has been hitherto. The reports made in the past to His Holiness, the Pope, on the state of affairs in Germany, and on the intentions of the German governments, I consider as one of the chief causes of the present disturbances of denominational relations; for those presentations were both incorrect and perverted, either by personal bias, or by baser motives. I had hoped that the choice of an ambassador, who had the full confidence of both parties, both on account of his love of truth and reliability, and on account of the nature of his views and his attitude—that the choice of such an ambassador as His Majesty had made in the person of a distinguished prince of the church [Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe] would be welcomed at Rome; that it would be taken as an earnest of our peaceable and conciliatory intentions; that it would be utilized as a means to our mutual understanding. {3782} I had hoped that it would afford the assurance that we would never ask anything of His Holiness, but what a prince of the church, sustaining the most intimate relations to the Pope, could present before him; that the forms with which one sacerdotal dignitary confers with another would continue to prevail and that all unnecessary friction in a matter so difficult in itself would be avoided. … All this we had hoped to attain. But alas! for reasons which have not yet been submitted to us, a curt refusal on the part of the Papal See frustrated the intentions of His Majesty. I dare say such an incident does not often occur. It is customary, when a sovereign has made choice of an ambassador, out of courtesy to make inquiry at the court to which the chosen ambassador is to be accredited, whether he be persona grata or not. The case of a negative reply, however, is extremely rare, bringing about, as it must, a revocation of the appointment made not provisionally, but definitely, before the inquiry. Such a negative reply is equal to a demand to annul what has been done, to a declaration: 'You have chosen unwisely.' I have now been Foreign Minister for ten years; have been busy in matters of higher diplomacy for twenty-one years; and I can positively assert that this is the first and only case in my experience of such an inquiry receiving a negative reply." Deputy Windthorst, in reply, criticised the procedure of the German Government in this affair, and justified the position taken by the papal court, saying: "I believe, gentlemen, for my part, that it was the duty of the Cardinal to ask the permission of his master, the Pope, before accepting the post. The Cardinal was the servant of the Pope, and as such, could not accept an office from another government without previous inquiry. … The case would be the same if His Holiness had appointed an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, only more flagrant, for you will admit that a Cardinal is quite a different person from an adjutant general." Prince Bismarck replied: "I do not wish to discuss here the personal criticism which the gentleman made on His Eminence, the Cardinal, but I would say a word about the expression 'master' which was used. The gentleman is certainly well versed in history, especially ecclesiastical history, and I wish to ask him, who was the master of Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin. Both of these dignitaries were engaged in controversies and had to settle important differences with the See of Rome, in the service of their sovereign, the king of France; and yet they were Cardinals. … If it should please His Holiness to appoint an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, I should unconditionally advise His Majesty to accept him. … I am an enemy to all conjectural politics and all prophesies. That will take care of itself. But I can assure the gentleman that we will maintain the full integral sovereignty of the law with all means at our disposal, against assumptions of individual subjects of His Majesty, the king of Prussia, be they priests or laymen, that there could be laws of the land not binding upon them; and we are sure of the entire support of a great majority of the members of all religious confessions. The sovereignty can and must be one and integral,—the sovereignty of the law; and he who declares the laws of his country as not binding upon himself, places himself outside the pale of the law."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 337-344.

The following is from a speech of Prince Bismarck in the Upper House, March 10, 1873, during the discussion of the May Laws: "The gentleman who spoke before me has entered on the same path which the opponents of these bills followed in the other house by ascribing to them a confessional, I might say, an ecclesiastical character. The question we are considering is, according to my view, misconstrued, and the light in which we consider it, a false light if we look upon it as a confessional, a church question. It is essentially a political one; it is not, as our catholic fellow citizens are made to believe, a contest of an evangelical dynasty against the Catholic Church; it is not a struggle between faith and unbelief; it is the perennial contest, as old as the human race, between royalty and priestcraft, older than the appearance of our Savior on earth. This contest was carried on by Agamemnon at Aulis, which cost him his daughter and hindered the Grecian fleet from going to sea. This contest has filled the German history of the Middle Ages even to the disintegration of the German Empire. It is known as the struggles of the popes with the emperors, closing for the Middle Ages when the last representative of the noble Suabian imperial dynasty died on the block beneath the axe of the French conqueror, that French conqueror being in league with the then ruling pope. We were very near an analogous solution of this question, translated into the manners of our own time. Had the French war of conquest been successful, the outbreak of which coincided with the publication of the Vatican Decrees, I know not what would have been narrated in Church circles of Germany of 'gestis Dei per Francos' ['Gesta Dei per Francos,' 'Deeds of God by the French' is the title of a collection by Bongars, containing the sources of the history of the crusades.—Footnote]. … It is in my opinion a falsification of history and politics, this attitude of considering His Holiness, the Pope, exclusively as the high priest of a religious denomination, or the Catholic Church as the representative of Churchdom merely. The papacy has at all times been a political power, interfering in the most resolute manner and with the greatest success in the secular affairs of this world, which interference it contended for and made its program. These programs are well known. The aim which was constantly present in its mind's eye, the program which in the Middle Ages was near its realization, was the subjection of the secular powers to the Church, an eminently political aim, a striving as old as mankind itself. For there have always been either some wise men, or some real priests who set up the claim, that the will of God was better known to them than to their fellow beings and in consequence of this claim they had the right to rule over their fellowmen. And it cannot be denied that this proposition contains the basis of the papal claims for the exercise of sovereign rights. … {3783} The contention of priesthood against royalty, in our case, of the Pope against the German Emperor, … is to be judged like every other struggle; it has its alliances, its peace conventions, its pauses, its armistices. There have been peaceful popes, there have been popes militant, popes conquerors. There have been even peace-loving kings of France, though Louis XVI. was forced to carry on wars; so that even our French neighbors have had monarchs who preferred peace to war. Moreover in the struggles of the papal power it has not always been the call that Catholic powers have been exclusively the allies of the pope; nor have the priests always sided with the pope. We have had cardinals as ministers of great powers at a time when those great powers followed an antipapal policy even to acts of violence. We have found bishops in the military retinue of the German emperors, when moving against the popes. This contest for power therefore is subject to the same condition as every other political contest, and it is a misrepresentation of the issue, calculated to impress people without judgment of their own, when it is characterized as aiming at the oppression of the church. Its object is the defense of the State, to determine the limits of priestly rule, of royal power, and this limit must secure the existence of the State. For in the kingdom of this world the rule and the precedence is the State's. We in Prussia have not always been the pre-eminent object of this struggle. The papal court for a long time did not consider us as its principal opponent. Frederic the Great was at perfect peace with the Roman See while the contemporary emperor of Catholic Austria [Joseph II.] was engaged in the most violent contention with the Catholic Church. I wish to prove thereby that the question is entirely independent of creed. I will further add that at the Vienna Congress it was King Frederic William III., thoroughly and most strictly evangelical, nay, it might be said, anticatholic in his belief, that it was he who insisted upon and carried through the restoration of the secular rule of the pope; nevertheless he departed this world while engaged in a struggle with the Catholic Church. In the paragraphs of the constitution we have under consideration we found a 'modus vivendi,' an armistice, concluded at a time when the State was in need of help and thought to obtain this help or at least some support in the Catholic Church. This hope was based upon the fact that at the election for the national assembly of 1848 the districts in which the Catholic population preponderated elected, if not royalists, yet friends of order,—which was not the case in evangelical districts. Under this impression the compromise between the ecclesiastical and secular arms was concluded, though, as subsequent events proved, in miscalculation as to its practical effects. For it was not the support of the electors who had thus voted but the Brandenburg ministry and the royal army that restored order. In the end the State was obliged to help itself; the aid that might have been given by the different churches did not pull it through. But at that time originated the 'modus vivendi' under which we lived in peace for a number of years. To be sure, this peace was bought only by an uninterrupted yielding of the State, by placing its rights in regard to the Catholic Church, without reservation, in the hands of a magistracy which was originally intended to be the guardian of the royal Prussian prerogatives against the Catholic Church, but which in fact ultimately became a magistracy in the service of the pope, in order to guard the rights of the church against the encroachments of the Prussian State. Of course, I refer to the Catholic section in the Supreme Church Council [the Church Council is a Protestant body.—Foot-note]. I mean of the Ministry of worship. … When we were yet in Versailles I was somewhat surprised to learn, that Catholic members of parliamentary bodies were asked to declare whether they were ready to join a religious party, such as we have now in the Party of the Center, and whether they would agree to vote and agitate for the insertion of the paragraphs we are at present considering into the constitution of the Empire. I was not much alarmed then at that program; I was a lover of peace to such a degree. I knew from whom it emanated; partly from an eminent prince of the church [Bishop Ketteler of Mayence] whose chief task it was to do for the papal policy what he could. … I was completely deceived. … When I returned here I saw how strong was the organization of this party of the church militant, against the state. … What, was this program? Read it. There are pamphlets in everybody's hand, written with spirit, pleasant to read. Its object was the introduction of a state dualism in Prussia, the erection of a state within the state to bring it about that all Catholics should follow the guidance of this Party of the Center in their private as well as their political conduct, a dualism of the worst kind. Under different conditions a dualistic constitution might work well in an empire. Witness the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. But yonder it is no religious dualism. With us the construction of two denominational states is aimed at, to be engaged in a dualistic struggle, one of which was to have for its supreme ruler a foreign church potentate, whose seat is in Home, a potentate who by the latest changes in the constitution of the Catholic Church has become more powerful than ever before. If this program were carried out, we were to have instead of the one formerly integral state of Prussia, instead of the German Empire then at the point of realization—we were to have two state organizations, running side by side in parallel lines; one with the Party of the Center as its general staff, the other with its general staff in the guiding secular principle, in the government and the person of his Majesty the Emperor. This situation was absolutely unacceptable for the government whose very duty it was to defend the state against such a danger. It would have misunderstood and neglected this duty if it had looked on calmly at the astounding progress which a closer examination of the affair brought to light. … The Government was obliged to terminate the armistice, based upon the constitution of 1848, and create a new 'modus vivendi' between the secular and sacerdotal power. The State cannot allow this situation to continue without being driven into internal struggles that may endanger its very existence. The question is simply this: Are those paragraphs of the constitution [of 1848] dangerous to the State, as is contended for by the government of His Majesty, or are they not? {3784} If they are, then it is your duty as conservatives to vote against the retention of those paragraphs. If you think them entirely harmless then you hold a conviction which the government of His Majesty does not share, and as it is not able to assume the responsibility for the administration of the affairs of the State with these articles of the constitution in force, it must surrender it to those who consider them harmless. The Government, in its struggle for the defense of the State, applies to the Upper House for aid and assistance for the strengthening of the State and its defense against attacks and machinations that undermine its peace and endanger its future. We trust and believe that this assistance will not fail us with the majority of the Upper House."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 384-391.

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1873. Adoption of the gold standard.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873 (page 2220).

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1895. The organization of the modern German Empire.

"The idea of the unity of the empire in its purest and most unadulterated form is most clearly typified by the German diet. This assembly, resulting from general elections of the whole people, shows all the clefts and schisms which partisanship and the spirit of faction have simultaneously brought about among the different classes of the people and among their representatives. But there is not one among all the prominent factions of the German diet which owes its formation to territorial differences. The changing majorities and minorities have assumed their form more curiously in our parliament than in any other in the world, but there never has been a single case where in taking a vote North Germans have come forward in a body against South Germans or vice versa, or where small and medium states have been pitted against the one large state. If the constitution of the empire reminds each deputy that he is a representative of the whole people, the best part of the provision is that it comes to be looked upon as a matter of course; it belongs to the very essence of a parliamentary assembly that it should see in a particular constellation of opposing factions only something exceptional. How indispensable a parliamentary organ which actually represents the unity of the people is to every state in a confederation is best shown by the energy with which the Prussian government again and again demanded a German parliament at the very time when it fairly despaired about coming to an understanding with its own body of representatives. In the middle between the head of the empire and such a diet as we have described is the place occupied by the Federal Council (Bundesrath): not until we have made this clear to ourselves can we fully understand the nature of this latter institution. Each of its members is the plenipotentiary of his sovereign just as were the old Regensburg and Frankfort envoys. It is a duty, for instance, for Bavaria's representative to investigate each measure proposed and to see whether it is advantageous or not for the land of Bavaria. The Federal Council is and is meant to be the speaking-tube by which the voice of the separate interests shall reach the ear of the legislator. But all the same, held together as it is by the firm stability of the seventeen votes which it holds itself and by the balancing power of the emperor and of the diet, it is the place where daily habit educates the representatives of the individual states to see that by furthering the welfare of the common fatherland they take the best means of furthering their own local interests. Taken each by himself the plenipotentiaries represent their own individual states; taken as a whole the assembly represents a conglomeration of all the German states. It is the upholder of the sovereignty of the empire. If, then, the federal council already represents the whole empire, still more is this true of the general body of officials, constituted through appointment by the emperor although with a considerable amount of co-operation on the part of the federal council. The imperial chancellor is the responsible minister of the emperor for the whole of the empire. At his side is the imperial chancery, a body of officials who, in turn, have to do in each department with the affairs of the whole empire. The imperial court, too, in spite of all its limitations, is none the less a court for the whole empire. Not less clearly is the territorial unity expressed in the unity of legislation. In the circumstances in which we left the old empire there could scarcely be any question any longer of real imperial legislation. Under the confederation beginnings were made, nor were they unsuccessful; but once again it was primarily the struggle against the strivings for unity that chiefly impelled the princes to united action. The 'Carlsbad decrees' placed limits to separate territorial legislation to an extent that even the imperial legislation of to-day would not venture upon in many ways. The empire of the year 1848 at once took up the idea of imperial legislation; a 'Reichsgesetzblatt' [imperial legislative gazette] was issued. In this the imperial ministry, after first passing them in the form of a decree, published among other things a set of rules regulating exchange. The plan was broached of drawing up a code of commercial law for all Germany for the benefit of that class of the population to which a uniform regulation of its legal relationships was an actual question of life and death. So firmly rooted was such legislation in the national needs that even the reaction of the fifties did not venture to undo what had been done. Indeed the idea of a universal code of commercial law was carried on by most of the governments with the best will in the world. A number of conferences were called and by the end of the decade a plan had been drawn up, thoroughly worked out and adopted. It has remained up to this very day the legal basis for commercial intercourse. It is true it was not the general decrees of these conferences that gave legal authority to this code, but rather its subsequent acceptance by the governments of the individual states. But the practical result nevertheless was that, in one important branch of law, the same code was in use in all German states. Never before, so long as Germany had had a history, had a codification of private law been introduced by means of legislation into the German states in common; for the first time princes and subjects learned by its fruits the blessing of united legislation. But a few years later they were ready enough to give over to the newly established empire all actual power of legislation: only, indeed, for such matters as were adapted for common regulation, but, so far as these were concerned, so fully and freely that no local territorial law can in any way interfere. {3785} What the lawgiver of the German empire announces as his will must be accepted from the foot of the Alps to the waves of the German Ocean. Thus after long national striving the view had made a way for itself that, without threatening the existence of the individual states, the soil of the empire nevertheless formed a united territorial whole. But not only the soil, its inhabitants also had to be welded together into one organization. The old empire had lost all touch with its subjects—a very much graver evil than the disintegration of its territory. So formidable an array of intermediate powers had thrust itself in between the emperor and his subjects that at last the citizen and the peasant never by any chance any more heard the voice of their imperial master. … In three ways the German emperor now found the way to his subjects. Already as king of Prussia the emperor of the future had been obeyed by 19 millions of the whole German population as his immediate subjects. By the entrance of a further 8 millions into the same relationship on the resignation of their own territorial lords by far the majority of all Germans became immediate subjects of the emperor. The German empire, secondly, in those branches of the administration which it created anew or at least reorganized, made it a rule to preserve from the very beginning the most immediate contact with its subjects: so in the army, so in the department of foreign affairs. The empire, finally, even where it left the administration to the individual states, exercised the wholesome pressure of a supreme national authoritative organization by setting up certain general rules to be observed. The empire, for instance, will not allow any distinctions to be made among its subjects which would interfere with national unity. If the Swabian comes to Hesse, the Hessian to Bavaria, the Bavarian to Oldenburg, his inborn right of citizenship gives him a claim to all the privileges of one born within those limits. For all Germany there is a common right of citizenship; and this common bond receives its true significance through numerous actual migrations from one state to another, the right of choosing a domicile being guaranteed. … It belongs in the nature of a federative state that it should not claim for itself all state-duties but should content itself with exercising only such functions as demand a centralized organization. In consequence we see the individual states unfolding great activity in the field of internal administration, in the furtherance of education, art and science, in the care of the poor: matters with which the empire as a whole has practically nothing to do. All those affairs of the states, on the other hand, which by their nature demand a centralized administration have been taken in hand by the empire, and the unity of public interests to which the activity of the empire gives utterance is shown in the most different ways. There are certain affairs administered by the empire which it has brought as much under a central organization as ever the Prussian state did the affairs of the amalgamated territories within its limits. With regard to others the empire has preserved for itself nothing more than the chief superintendence; with regard to others still it is content to set up principles which are to be generally followed and to exercise a right of supervision. It would be wrong, however, to imagine that the two last-mentioned prerogatives are only of secondary importance. The superintendence which the German emperor exercises over the affairs of the army, the chief part of which, indeed, is under his direction as king of Prussia, is sufficient in its workings to make the land-army, in time of war, as much of a unit as is the consolidated navy. … Customs' matters form a third category, with regard to which the empire possesses only the beginnings of an administrative apparatus: all the same we have seen in the last years how the right of general supervision was sufficient in this field to bring about a change in the direction of centralization, the importance of which is recognizable from the loud expressions of approval of its supporters and also in equal measure from the loud opposition of its antagonists. … In the field of finance the empire has advanced with caution and consideration and at the same time with vigor. In general the separate states have retained their systems of direct and indirect taxation. Only that amount of consolidation without which the unity of the empire as a whole would have been illusory was firmly decreed: 'Germany forms one customs and commercial unit bounded by common customs limits.' The internal inter-state customs were abolished. The finances that remained continued to belong to the individual states—the direct taxes in their entirety, the indirect to a great extent. The administration of the customs on the borders even remained in the hands of the local customs-officials, only that when collected they were placed to the general account. But the unconditional right of the empire to lay down the principles of customs legislation gave it more and more of an opportunity to create finances of its own and to become more and more independent of the scheduled contributions from the separate states. … Judicial matters are the affair of the individual state. With his complaints and with his accusations the citizen whose rights have been infringed turns to the court established by his territorial lord. But already it has been found possible to organize a common mode of procedure for this court throughout the whole empire; the rules of court, the forms for criminal as well as civil suits are everywhere the same. … The general German commercial code and the exchange regulations, which almost all the states had proclaimed law on the ground of the conferences under the confederation, were proclaimed again in the name of the empire and were supplemented in certain particulars. As to criminal law a general German criminal code has unified the more important matters and, with regard to those of less importance, has legally fixed the limits to be observed by the individual states. Work is constantly going on at a civil code which is to be drawn up much on the same lines. The German nation is busily engaged in creating a German legal system according to which the Prussian as well as the Bavarian, Saxon or Swabian judge is to render his decisions. Furthermore, a century-long development in our civilized states has brought it about that a supervision, itself in the form of legal decisions, should be exercised over the legality of judicial sentences. Here again it was in commercial matters that the jurisdiction of a supreme court first showed itself to be an unavoidable necessity. {3786} Then it was, however, that after a slumber of seventy years the old imperial court rose again from the dead, not entirely without limitations, but absolutely without the power to make exceptions. The imperial court at Leipzig is a court for the whole empire and for one and all of its subjects. If we turn to the internal administration it is chiefly matters concerning traffic and intercommunication which call by their very nature for regulation under one system. Although the management of local and to some extent also of provincial postal affairs is left as far as possible to the individual states themselves, the German post is nevertheless imperial, all the higher officials are appointed by the emperor, the imperial post office passes its rules and regulations and sees that they are carried out with reference to the whole empire. Just this branch of the administration indeed has had to halt at the Würtemberg and Bavarian frontiers, but in these two states also the legal foundations of the postal system have been adopted in all essential points. And if in the actual administration the differences likewise begin to vanish, the reason for this is more gratifying than is the fact itself: the extraordinary triumphs, namely, of our imperial post, which of themselves invite imitation and a breaking down of barriers. The introduction of the penny tariff has increased the amount of mail matter to four or five times what it was before. Postcards, invented by the director of our postal system, are already [1885], issued annually by the 150 million. The parcels-post, made cheaper and more convenient, has attained such importance that it has actually come to serve as a regulator of prices for the retail business of mercantile houses. Great differences of price in different parts of the empire become more and more an impossibility so soon as one only has to pay ten pfennigs per kilo (2 pounds) to procure the same goods in two or three days from the cheapest place, be it ever so far off. What is true of the post is true also of the telegraph which has come again to be one with it. Here, too, we can observe how the centralization in the empire has been of especial advantage to just those places which lie most out of the way. Chiefly in connection with existing or newly created post offices, the imperial post office, in the first five years after the direction of the telegraph came into its hands, opened more than four thousand telegraph counters—on an average two new counters a day! Through an extended system of treaties the German imperial post has regulated its relations to foreign lands and paved the way for the World-postal-association, the first such association in the history of the world to take in states from all four quarters of the globe. … Compared with the postal system the other branches of inter-communication and of internal administration seem to be only in the first stages of centralization; but here, too, much has been accomplished. The railroads stand under the direction or supervisory administration of the individual states, but unity with regard to time-tables, connections, fares and forwarding has been in so far preserved that differences which might interrupt traffic are avoided as far as possible. The governments of the confederated states are under obligations 'to allow the German railroads, in the interests of general communication, to be administered as one unbroken network.' A separate Imperial Railroad Bureau watches over the fulfillment of this agreement. Nothing, however, has given clearer expression to a unified system of intercommunication in Germany than the equalization of the coinage. In old times, when all or at least the chief territorial lords possessed the unrestricted right of coinage, each state did not, indeed, have its own standard, for how would it have been possible to invent several hundred standards of coinage? But when the territorial lord did make up his mind to adopt some existing system he usually chose one that was not in vogue in the state next to him, so that the boundaries of his own state might be the more clearly defined. That was how it came about that a map of the coinage standards of Germany looked almost as variegated as the map of its states. … Still worse than with regard to coined money—which, after all, always had a natural regulator in the actual market value of the silver or gold—did the want of unity show itself in the matter of paper money. Not only did the various states have different principles on which they issued it, and a different system of securities in funding it, but one and the same state would continue to use its old paper money even when issuing new on another principle. Hundreds of different bank-notes were in use, many which had long been called in continued still to circulate until some unfortunate last holder had to pay the costs. He who had thus learned a lesson at his own expense became very cautious and would refuse even the best paper money. The black Schwarzburg notes looked so grimy that the petty folk in their own land considered them out of date and preferred Prussian money. … In the matter of coins the empire found no general European model to go by. The mark, which was finally chosen as the unit of coinage, had the double advantage of facilitating a transition from the old thaler days and of inaugurating a firm relationship to the franc of the Romanic coinage system, the pound of the English world, the gulden of the Austrian empire (so soon as the latter power resumed metal coinage). The introduction of a gold basis gave the young coinage system a solid basis on the most precious metal. The mints remained in the hands of the separate states, but the coin was issued 'on account with the empire.' The coins accordingly bear on one side the image of the territorial lord who issues them, on the other, to give them general validity, the coat of arms of the empire. … Founded thus on a system of firm finances, on the uniform administration of justice in all lands, on an internal administration which, however varied, nevertheless fulfills the necessary demands of unity, the German empire shows a measure of consolidation the best outward expression to which is given by its army. Among the two million men on land and on sea who are ready to protect the Fatherland's boundaries there is not one who has not sworn fidelity to his imperial master: among the generals, not one who has not been appointed by the emperor. The most cherished of all duties binds the German to his German Fatherland. If, as regards the land-army, the princes still have a certain right of administration over their own contingents: on the man-of-war, where the sons of all the states that border on the sea come together, every possible distinction vanishes. The German navy knows no other flag, no other cockade, than the black-white-and-red."

I. Jastrow, Geschichte des deutschen Einheitstraumes und seiner Erfüllung (translated from the German), pages 285-303.

{3787}

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1889. Bismarck's Sickness, Accident and Old-Age Insurance Laws.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889 (page 2955).

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1894. Acquisitions in Africa.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1883, and after.

GERMANY: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2010).

—————GERMANY: End————

GHENT, Treaty of (the text).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (pages 3355-3358).

GIRTON COLLEGE.

See EDUCATION (page 745).

GODIN, and his Social Palace at Guise.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

GODOY, The Ministry of.

See (in this Supplement) SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808.

GOLD AND SILVER, Production of.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893 (page 2217).

GORTON, Samuel, in Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647 (page 2641).

GRANGERS, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875 (page 2951).

GRANT, General U. S.: Report on affairs in the South.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

GREAT SEAL, Lord Keeper of the.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1538 (page 1990).

GREECE: Outline Sketch of ancient history.

See EUROPE (pages 991-996).

GREECE: Commerce, ancient.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GREECE: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2002.)

GREECE: Medical Science.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2124).

GREECE: Money and Banking.

See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2201 and 2202).

GREELEY, Lieutenant, Polar expedition of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881-1884.

GREGORY I., Pope (called the Great).

See PAPACY: A. D. 461-604 (page 2422).

GREGORY VII., Pope, and the Empire.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (page 2427); GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122 (page 1441); and CANOSSA (page 386).

GRINNELL EXPEDITIONS.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851, 1853-1855.

GRIPPE, La, Early appearances of.

See PLAGUE, ETC.; A. D. 1485-1593, and 18TH CENTURY (page 2542).

GUILDS, OR GILDS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800 (page 2933).

GUNBOATS, Jefferson's.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

H.

HABEAS CORPUS, President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1863 (page 3447).

HAHNEMANN, and the system of Homœopathy.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HALL, Captain Charles F., Arctic explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862; 1864-1869; and 1871-1872.

HALLER, Albrecht von, The medical system of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2141).

HANSA, The.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL; and GERMANY: 13-15TH, and 15-17TH CENTURIES. Also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624).

HAPSBURG, Early fortunes of the family of.

See (in this Supplement) AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349.

HARMONY SOCIETY, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

HARVEY, and the discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HAYES, Dr. Isaac I., Arctic explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1861, and 1869.

HELMONT, John Baptist, The medical system of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HENRY, Professor Joseph, Invention of the electric telegraph.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1825-1874 (page 772).

For other work of Henry;

HERCULANEUM, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2005).

HIGHER-LAW SPEECH, Seward's.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

HINDU MEDICAL SCIENCE.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, HINDU (page 2123).

HIPPOCRATES. The Hippocratic Oath.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2125).

HOFFMANN, Frederic, and Humoral Pathology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2136).

HOLLAND: Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

HOLLAND: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

HOLT, Lord, and the Law of Bailments.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1698-1710 (page 1971).

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 9)62; also, page 2652.

HOMŒOPATHY, Origin of the system of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HUDSON, Henry, Northern voyages of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1607, and after.

HUNTER, Dr. John, The work of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2139).

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas. Conversation with King George.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

{3788}

I.

ICARIA.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883 (page 2943).

ICILIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C.456 (page 2665).

INDIA, Ancient Commerce.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, The question of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807. and 1816-1817 (pages 3335 and 3360).

INTERNATIONAL, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872, and 1872-1886 (pages 2950 and 2953).

INVESTITURES, The question of.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: 11-12TH CENTURIES; also page 2427.

—————ITALY: Start————

ITALY: 11-15th Centuries. Commerce of the city republics.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190. Invasions of Frederick Barbarossa.

"In November Frederick appeared in Lombardy and hung up his shield on a high post as a token that he was to hold a review of the army and a general court. The most of the complaints of the cities were directed against Milan, but on complaint of Pavia the emperor first attacked Tortona. … A horrible chastisement was inflicted on the city; … the inhabitants were driven away. … Now at length Frederick turned his attention to Rome. On June 18, 1155, he marched into the Leonine City and was at once crowned in St. Peter's. … The results of this first Italian expedition were nevertheless small. The emperor had not conquered Rome; William I of Naples was more independent than ever; in northern Italy after Frederick's departure Milan was pre-eminent. By her authority Tortona was built up again. The Milanese sent the city a brass trumpet with which to call her inhabitants together once more. … The emperor was determined to put an end forever to all this opposition. In July 1158 an immeasurably greater expedition started with the express purpose of restoring the authority of the empire in Italy. … The Milanese in addition (having after a short siege recognized the emperor's claims) paid a fine, gave 300 hostages, … and afterwards made their submission in the humblest manner: the nobles with drawn swords across their shoulders, the people with cords around their necks, fell down before the emperor and did him homage. … It was in pursuance of Frederick's intention, and of his desire to settle the matter once and for all, that to his purposed diet in the Roncaglian plains he also summoned some teachers of law from Bologna. … Enough, in the assembly at Roncaglia through a well authorized judicial sentence, those regalia [royal rights] which had gone over to the civic communes were adjudged to the emperor, save in cases where by special privilege they had been relinquished to special cities. The emperor was recognized as the highest legislative power. … Frederick had set himself the great problem of uniting together authority and freedom. In the best possible monarchical spirit he expressed it that he wished an empire resting on a legal foundation in order to maintain every man in his freedom. But it is none the less evident that he wished the centre of gravity to lie in his own authority. It was not the demand of the regalia alone that caused the trouble, but just this principle, and it comes to the fore in the clearest manner in his relations with Milan. The agreement on the occasion of the peace with Milan had been that the civic authorities should be freely elected but should be invested by the emperor. In Roncaglia on the other hand it was decreed that the emperor should nominate the authorities subject to the assent of the people. A slight change, but one which in reality betokened an immense difference. Thus at the diet of Roncaglia did the empire unfold once more its full glory. But in the carrying out of these decrees, and especially in the matter of nominating the authorities; immeasurable difficulties now showed themselves. … On this matter, then, it had to come to blows. At the very first attempt in Milan a popular tumult arose. Frederick instituted proceedings which ended with a new banning of the city. … Large as the city was a way was found of cutting off from it all supplies. Through extreme want it was at last compelled to surrender and to beg for mercy. … The city was actually made to cease to exist. It was to be divided into four different places. If every trace of it was not completely obliterated this was solely due to regard for certain churches. The Milanese were treated like a tributary people on conquered territory. … In November 1166 the emperor started out to drive Pope Alexander from Rome. But already under his eyes the Lombard cities were bestirring themselves against him. They were discontented on account of oppressions which they were obliged to suffer more through the violence of the imperial officials than from any fault of the laws. … The Lombards considered that if the pope were again to be beaten they should find no more help against the power which was holding them down. What especially goaded them on was the firmness of the imperial rule, its methodical and stern manner of proceeding against every one who opposed it. … It was after the imperial governors in consequence of the growing disaffection had claimed and received new hostages that the representatives of Cremona, Brescia, Ferrara and Mantua came together in Pontida (April 1167). … The decision of the Lombards was, not to consider due to the emperor any more than had been considered due to him at the death of Henry V and to oppose him by force should he demand more. They restored Milan, which joined them, compelled Lodi to go over to their side and captured, as they had once done before, the treasure of the emperor which was in Trezzo. … Frederick thought to crush all opposition in Upper Italy if he could only withdraw from it the help of the Greeks and of the pope. He therefore turned first against Ancona which the emperor Manuel had captured and compelled the city to give him hostages. … He then attacked Rome. … They (the Germans) conquered the Leonine City after a bloody fight. The emperor himself appeared, installed his own pope and caused his queen to be crowned (August 1, 1167). Alexander fled, the city of Rome consented to make peace. … Thus had the main point been gained and the emperor prepared to renew the struggle against the Lombards. {3789} It was then that his brilliant army, beyond a doubt the most efficient of its age, was struck down by the hand of fate. A plague broke out which ravaged the city as well as the army, but which almost annihilated the latter. … He could no longer strike an effective blow at the Lombards. But he did not on that account lose his head. In Pavia he pronounced the bann against the cities; they answered by now first strengthening their bonds of union on a large scale. The cities which had previously been allied with Venice, and all the others, entered into a league which all were to swear to uphold; at the head of it was Venice. They were to make common cause in war and peace and to perform no services other than the customary ones. … The emperor felt that he could not cope with this new development and left Pavia. Only after great perils did he escape. They strove quite openly to take his life. With only a few companions he rescued himself. … In March 1172 the emperor represented to the princes that the contagion of faithlessness with which Italy had contaminated herself was seeking to spread itself out over Greece and Sicily. The term for the imperial campaign nevertheless was only set for two years later. … In July 1174 the emperor with his army crossed the Alps over the Mt Cenis. At this very time the Italians had opposed to him a new bulwark—a new city which they called Allessandria in honor of the pope. The emperor first attacked this but met with an opposition similar to that which Archbishop Christian experienced before Ancona. … Many conferences took place between the imperial plenipotentiaries, the delegates of the cities and the papal legates. But these latter, standing as they did at the same time in league with the Greek emperor and the king of Sicily, felt themselves to be the stronger. … Everything depended on his [Frederick's] procuring new help. … The great all-deciding question was whether Frederick would have Henry the Lion on his side; not indeed exclusively on account of the actual help that he would render but because his name in itself would increase the prestige of the emperor. … The power of an emperor in its full development seemed unbearable to Henry the Lion, even as in earlier times it had been unbearable to the German princes. … Henry's defection gave courage to the Italian cities. … On May 29, 1176, a battle took place near Legnano. … Brave as the emperor was he nevertheless suffered a complete defeat. … The letter is extant which the Milanese wrote to the Bolognese concerning the battle. Countless, so they exclaim, are the slain, the drowned, the prisoners. We have the shield, the standard, the lance and the cross of the emperor. Incalculable is the booty. … It is the battle through which the freedom and the progress of Italian nationality were founded. … Here [in Venice] now, with the pope and the king of Sicily a peace, with the Lombards a truce of six years was brought about. Then took place that famous meeting of the pope and the emperor in Venice, on the 24th of July 1177. … With the cities the emperor closed the peace of Constance in the year 1183. He acknowledged therein the extension of their jurisdiction over the surrounding territory and sanctioned their league but retained for himself three things:

1. his regalia, of which however an estimate was to be made according to their value and which were to be compensated for by payment of a fixed sum from each city;

2. the investiture of the consuls; …

3. the right that appeals should be made within Italy to imperial representatives.

It does not appear that these reservations greatly interfered with the liberty of the cities. … In a word, the two opponents of the empire in Italy had achieved great victories. The emperor had abandoned the idea of maintaining the old supremacy of the empire over the church and of subjecting the cities to his administration; he did not however on that account break off his connection with them. In 1184 he again came to Italy; for a yearly sum of 300 lire he abandoned all the rights that he had hitherto claimed from the cities and allied himself with them. … Meanwhile the emperor succeeded in making the greatest possible acquisition in Lower Italy. For that Norman kingdom which the Germans had so often attacked in vain there was only an heiress left, Constance, aunt of the ruling king. Bitterly as the pope opposed it the emperor was nevertheless able to bring about a marriage between her and his son Henry VI. and thus to secure for him the sure prospect of succeeding to Naples and Sicily. … Without knowing it Frederick thus tied a new knot which was to be decisive for the fate of his house and, we might even say, of Germany itself."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte (translated from the German). volume 8. pages 171-209.

ALSO IN: K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183 (pages 1811-1813).

ITALY: A. D. 1644. First publication of gazettes, or newspapers.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650 (page 2592).

ITALY: A. D. 1870. Law of the Papal Guarantees.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1870 (page 2477).

ITALY: A. D. 1882-1895. Acquisitions in Abyssinia.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1882, 1885, 1889, 1889-1890, 1890-1891, 1894-1895.

ITALY: Constitution.

For a translation of the text, see (in this Supplement) CONSTITUTION OF ITALY.

ITALY: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE, and MODERN (page 2012).

—————ITALY: End————

J.

JAPAN: A. D. 1894-1895. War with China.

See (in this Supplement) COREA.

JAPAN: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: JAPAN (page 2024).

JEANNE D'ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429; also, page 1175.

JEANNETTE, Polar voyage of the.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1882.

JEFFERSON'S GUNBOATS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

JENNER, Dr. Edward, and the discovery of Vaccination.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2140).

{3790}

JEWS: Ancient commerce. Connection with the Phœnicians.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

JEWS: Ancient money.

See MONEY AND BANKING: JEWS (page 2203).

JEWS: Medical Science.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, JEWISH (page 2124).

JOAN OF ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429; also, page 1175.