Bismarck

I was in rather frequent intercourse with Bucher during the summer and autumn of 1880. On the 3rd of June he sent me the material for an article on the attitude of the Curia towards the Italian Government, which appeared in No. 24 of the Grenzboten, under the title “The Government and the Bishops in Italy.” It concluded with the following words: “It will be seen from the foregoing that the Pope (Leo’s predecessor being also understood here) uses his discretionary power in Italy in a less uncompromising fashion than he does in Germany, a circumstance which we should keep in mind in the next phase of the struggle between the Curia and the Prussian Government.” On the 14th of June, in the course of a conversation with me at his house, Bucher described several members of our diplomatic service. Hohenlohe, he said, was a gentleman, and amiable, but was only of moderate ability, and had in particular a weak memory. Besides, he had too great an interest in matters other than politics, such as smart company, racing, &c. Radowitz was talented, and well informed on Eastern affairs, but he was an ambitious self-seeker and very pretentious, and maintained relations with Court circles hostile to the Chief. On the other hand he praised my namesake Busch very highly, as being not only intelligent and well informed but also of straightforward character. Bülow, the Councillor of Embassy, he described as an intriguing egotist, whose true character the Chancellor recently discovered. He considered the Chief had done the other Bülow, the deceased Secretary of State, too much honour in describing him to me as exceptionally able and loyal. He was a diligent and clever master of routine, somewhat like Abeken. His illness had certainly not arisen through vexation at the King’s self-will, his backbone was too flexible for that. Both before and after this visit Bucher sent me various particulars respecting Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary Jews, whom he—like myself and other honest Germans—abominated most heartily, whether they belonged to the baptised variety or not.

On the 28th of October he came to my lodgings and dictated to me—on the instructions which he had received by letter from the Chief—the following message for the Daily Telegraph:—

“A critical situation has arisen here. It is a question whether the Imperial Chancellor will remain in office or not. The affair is connected with the appointment of the Secretary of State in the Foreign Office. The difficulties appear to be of a personal and not of an official character. The leader of the opposition at Court is said to be General Count Goltz, brother of the former Ambassador in Paris, who appears to seek in another quarter the laurels which he failed to win upon the battle-field; while von Radowitz, who is now conducting the business of the Paris Embassy, is understood to be the candidate for the post of Secretary of State. It would be an extraordinary circumstance, which might have incalculable consequences if the Chancellor, at the moment when he seems to possess exceptional authority in European affairs, were forced to retire from office through a Court intrigue. I should regard the news as highly improbable if the source of my information were less trustworthy, and if it were not confirmed by what is known of the principal personages of the drama. Previous experience has shown that no other difficulties cause the Chancellor to display such a morbid sensibility as the favour manifested by the Court to certain intrigues, which are now directed against him personally. This feature in his character was also evident during the Kulturkampf, at the time of the trials for libel, and on his tendering his resignation in 1877. It is impossible not to recognise in this an element of weakness, due to the traditions of his early life and to his attitude towards the monarchy, an element which partakes of ‘Carlism’ (exaggerated loyalty), rather than of statesmanship. (Here the eyes of the two Augurs met, and exchanged a significant smile.) We regret being forced to acknowledge that his devotion to his Fatherland and his people is subordinated to the service of his King (the two Augurs grinned again); and that even at the present day the greatness of the task imposed upon him has not emancipated him from the pressure of Court and dynastic influences. Had he been a Hanoverian or Bavarian it is probable that owing to his attachment to the dynasty he would have remained an inveterate Particularist. We should greatly regret, not only on political grounds, but also in his own interest, to see him at this time of day stumble over obstacles which are trivial enough, though, we are sorry to say, he regards them as insurmountable.”

That was obviously not written by Bucher. The latter, however, added that the old Emperor imagines he might personally intervene in the Eastern question, and has already despatched telegrams behind the Chief’s back. We have now achieved some success at Constantinople, and the Prince wanted to recall Hatzfeldt, so that he might leave his post with credit on being transferred to the Foreign Office. Later on things would go wrong again, and the responsibility for that would fall chiefly upon Hatzfeldt as the doyen of the ambassadors. The Emperor, however, allowed himself to be persuaded by Goltz that everything would go on quite as satisfactorily as at present, and he therefore preferred to leave Hatzfeldt permanently at Constantinople. The article was to be published in the Daily Telegraph, not in the Standard, as in the latter Radowitz might be able to interfere through his agents. Bucher remarked that the term “Carlism” came from the Chief himself.

I wrote as follows to the Daily Telegraph:—

The manuscript, which was sent off on Thursday evening, had not appeared in the number of the paper which reached me on Tuesday. I had, however, on Monday received the desired telegram, promising that it should appear. On Wednesday, the 3rd of November, I took this telegram to Bucher and explained to him how I had impressed upon the editor the necessity of a speedy publication of the article without alteration. At Bucher’s request I left him this telegram, in order that he should send it to the Chief. I ascertained from him that the crisis had in the meantime been solved. The Chancellor had submitted a long report of seventeen pages to the King; and the old gentleman, who was then shooting at Ludwigslust, had telegraphed to him: “Have read your explanation and agree with you. R(adowitz) should go to A(thens).” Bucher added: “I expect he will arrive here to-day. He has written to Styrum that he must have more than the ordinary salary there. In Paris he had certain allowances in addition to his salary as envoy. The Audit Office does not consider this correct, but the amount will be covered out of the Guelph fund. As nothing has come of the Secretary of State idea, he would prefer to go direct to Constantinople.” I also ascertained that Hatzfeldt had now been definitely selected for the post of Secretary of State, and Busch for that of Under Secretary, the latter with a salary of 6,000 thalers a year. All in all Bucher has only 3,700. Finally Bucher suggested that, when I was next writing on friction, I should bring in the passage from “Richard II.” (Act I., scene 3), where Gaunt, in reply to the King’s exclamation, “Why, uncle, thou hast many years to live!” says:—

At length, on the 4th of November, I received the Daily Telegraph of the 2nd, containing the article, which I took to Bucher, who immediately forwarded it to the Chief. He said that the latter would probably make use of it in the German press. It would be better, however, for me not to telegraph to him on the subject, as all telegrams are sent to the Secretary of State.

On the 6th of November Bucher sent me the Daily Telegraph article which had been returned to him from Friedrichsruh, accompanied by a letter from Count Herbert Bismarck, in which he said, inter alia: “My father has read it with great pleasure and hopes it will have a good effect.”

On the previous day Bucher sent me Major Knorr’s book The Polish Insurrections since 1830 (Die polnischen Aufstände seit 1830—Berlin, 1880), with the following instruction, which doubtless came from the Chief: “The material respecting the priests to be utilised. Reference to be made to France and Belgium. Say nothing about Germany.” I wrote a lengthy article on the subject which was published in No. 24 of the Grenzboten under the title “The Ultramontane Clergy and their Hostility to the State.”

On the 18th of January, 1881, I wrote to the Chief reminding him of my readiness to place myself at his disposal in case he wished to have any matter of importance discussed in the German or English press, and requesting information. On the 20th I received the following answer from the Imperial Chancellerie: “The Imperial Chancellor begs Dr. Moritz Busch to do him the honour to call upon him to-morrow, Friday, at 1 o’clock.”

I went to the Chancellor’s palace at the appointed time, and I remained with him for an hour and a half. The Prince sat at his writing-table with his face towards the door, and looked particularly well and hearty. He said: “So you have come for material, but there is not much to give you. One thing occurs to me, however. I should be very thankful to you if you would discuss my working-class insurance scheme in a friendly spirit. The Liberals do not show much disposition to take it up and their newspapers attack my proposals. The Government should not interfere in such matters—laisser aller. The question must be raised, however, and the present proposal is only the beginning. I have more in view. I grant that there may be room for improvement in many respects, and that some portions of the scheme are perhaps unpractical and should therefore be dropped. But a beginning must be made with the task of reconciling the labouring classes with the State. Whoever has a pension assured to him for his old age is much more contented and easier to manage than the man who has no such prospect. Compare a servant in a private house and one attached to a Government office or to the Court; the latter, because he looks forward to a pension, will put up with a great deal more and show much more zeal than the former. In France all sensible members of the poorer classes, when they are in a position to lay by anything, make a provision for the future by investing in securities. Something of the kind should be arranged for our workers. People call this State Socialism, and having done so think they have disposed of the question. It may be State Socialism, but it is necessary. What then are the present provisions for municipal assistance to the poor? Municipal Socialism?”

He paused for a moment, and then continued: “Large sums of money would be required for carrying such schemes into execution, at least a hundred million marks, or more probably two hundred. But I should not be frightened by even three hundred millions. Means must be provided to enable the State to act generously towards the poor. The contentment of the disinherited, of all those who have no possessions, is not too dearly purchased even at a very high figure. They must learn that the State benefits them also, that it not only demands, but also bestows. If the question is taken up by the State, which does not want to make any profit, or to secure dividends, the thing can be done.”

He reflected again for a few seconds, and then said: “The tobacco monopoly might be applied in that way. The monopoly would thus permit of the creation of an entailed estate for the poor. You need not emphasise that point however. The monopoly is only a last resource, the highest trump. You might say it would be possible to relieve the poor of their anxiety for the future, and to provide them with a small inheritance by taxing luxuries such as tobacco, beer, and brandy. The English, the Americans, and even the Russians have no monopoly, and yet they raise large sums through a heavy tax upon these articles of luxury. We, as the country which is most lightly taxed in this respect, can bear a considerable increase, and if the sums thus acquired are used for securing the future of our working population, uncertainty as to which is the chief cause of their hatred to the State, we thereby at the same time secure our own future, and that is a good investment for our money. We should thus avert a revolution, which might break out fifty or perhaps ten years hence, and which, even if it were only successful for a few months, would swallow up very much larger sums, both directly and indirectly, through disturbance of trade, than our preventive measures would cost. The Liberals recognise the reasonableness of the proposals—in their hearts; but they grudge the credit of them to the man who initiated them, and would like to take up the question themselves, and so win popularity. They will, perhaps, try to bury the scheme in Committee, as they have done other Bills. Something must, however, be done speedily, and possibly they may approve of the general lines of the scheme, as they are already thinking of the elections. The worst of the lot are the Progressists and the Free-traders—the one party wants to manage things its own way, and the other is opposed to all State control, and wishes to let everything take its own course.”

“Yes,” I said, “certainly, the Free-traders, the Secessionists, and the Jews are the worst. Bamberger[21] and Rickert.”

“Yes, the Jews,” he replied. “Bamberger has again told a mass of lies in his book—that I broke with the National Liberals and turned towards reaction. Yet while I have been Minister I have never belonged to any party, either Liberal or Conservative. My party consisted solely of the King and myself, and my only aims were the restoration and aggrandisement of the German Empire, and the defence of monarchical authority. That should also be emphasised and further developed on some occasion. The Conservatives, in so far as they were in favour of reaction, were always opposed to me, because I would not consent to it. You remember the attacks of the Kreuzzeitung at the time of the Inspection of Schools Bill, afterwards during the great libel cases.”

“Diest-Daber and Co.,” I said.

“There they completely renounced me, and attacked me in every possible way because I would not join them in their reactionary programme. It was just the same in 1877 with the National Liberals. When Bennigsen failed to form a Ministry because he put forward demands that I perhaps could have agreed to, but to which the King would not consent, they left me in the lurch, and their newspapers preached a crusade against me. In the same way they entirely misrepresented the publication of the Bülow letters, making all kinds of unfounded insinuations, as, for instance, that they were directed against Bitter, whom I had not in my mind at all.”

Returning again to the Jewish members of Parliament, he exclaimed: “Yes, Bamberger, Lasker, and Rickert—self-seeking fellows!”

I remarked: “I suppose Lasker is now only working on the quiet, in their conventicles. He has discovered that he is no longer as important as he was. The great man has failed at three elections, on the first two occasions in large Jewish towns, Breslau and Frankfurt, and then at Magdeburg.”

He replied: “Yes, but I draw a distinction between Jew and Jew. Those who have become rich are not dangerous. They will not put up barricades, and they pay their taxes punctually. It is the enterprising ones who have nothing, particularly those on the press. But after all, it is the Christians and not the Jews who are the worst.”

I: “It is true that Rickert pretends he is not a Jew, but I should say that he is one all the same. The ‘Parliamentary Almanac’ describes him as an Evangelical.”

He: “Look up some of the older years, and there you will find that they give no particulars of his place of birth or religion. I asked Bleichröder, who told me that —— (I could not catch the name) was not a Jew, but that Rickert probably was.”

I: “Anyhow, his style of argument is sufficiently Hebraic.”

He (after a pause): “You have managed to give the Grenzboten such a character that it is regarded much as the Official Gazette. Hänel asserts in the Kieler Zeitung that it is out-and-out official, and that you only say what I think and wish.”

I: “I have never boasted of it anywhere. It doubtless arises from the fact that some of your expressions and your style, which is different from that of others, are met with now and again in the articles. Nor is this at all welcome to me; for although I have influence upon them and can sometimes prevent the insertion of political articles that are submitted to me, articles do sometimes get published in it which are not to my liking. What did your Serene Highness think of Lindenau’s article?[22] I believe he told the truth. He asserts that Friesen was instructed from Dresden before the outbreak of the war with France to use his influence chiefly for the maintenance of peace, and probably he (Lindenau) was the Councillor entrusted with the delivery of that message.”

“Yes,” replied the Chief, “Saxony is worse than Bavaria.”

“With the latter,” I remarked, “a letter from you was all that was needed to get King Lewis on to the right track.”

He smiled and said: “But in Saxony things will be awkward when once Prince George, with his Ultramontane crew, comes to the throne.”[23]

“He!” I exclaimed. “In Leipzig we have always looked at it in this way. Should there be another great war with France or any other Power in which we were to lose one or two important battles, and should the people in Dresden then go over to the enemy, we should then hope to see what was not possible in 1866 forthwith take place and the country annexed—a fate from which the tutelary genius of the dynasty who sits in a cherry stone in the Gruene Gewölbe at Dresden would hardly be able to save them.”

“Yes, in such circumstances it would doubtless come to that,” he replied.

I then said: “Might I ask how things are going with regard to foreign affairs? What are our present relations with France?”

“Oh, quite good!” he said. “They desire peace, and so do we. And we oblige them in many ways—but not on the Rhine—that is not possible. We were on good terms with England, too, under Beaconsfield; but Professor Gladstone perpetrates one piece of stupidity after another. He has alienated the Turks; he commits follies in Afghanistan and at the Cape, and he does not know how to manage Ireland. There is nothing to be done with him.”

He then asked how I was getting on, and I inquired how he was. I said he looked better than I had seen him for a long time past.

“Yes,” he said; “I am really very well just at present, except that I have attacks of neuralgia which frequently deprive me of my rest—a nervous face-ache, toothache, and such things. I have not smoked for the last fortnight.”

I then took leave of him, and immediately wrote the first of the two articles he desired, which appeared in the Grenzboten, No. 5, of 1881, under the title “Working-class Insurance Bill.” I then proceeded with the second article, “The Imperial Chancellor and the Parties,” a proof of which I sent to the Chief for correction on the 17th of February. He returned it to me two hours later, after he had struck out certain passages and rewritten others. Tiedemann, who brought it, was at the same time instructed by the Chief to say that as the article might just then be misunderstood by the National Liberals, it should be held over for a week or a fortnight; he would himself again discuss the matter with me personally, when there might perhaps be some additions to make.

At 2.30 P.M. on the 19th of February I received a hasty summons from Sachse to call upon the Prince. I accordingly presented myself before him at 4 o’clock. He was in uniform, and seemed as if he intended to go out. He shook hands, and said: “Nothing can be done with the article on the National Liberals which we recently discussed, owing to a necessary change of front towards the party attacked in it.[24] The article was good, but we will not print it. You are now regarded as official. But there is another matter I should like to have discussed, that is to say, the debate on the remission of taxes in the Upper Chamber, and the unsuitable constitution of the latter. There are too many Berliners in it, and too many high officials, retired and otherwise.”

He then took up a list of members, and read: “Ex-Minister Bernuth—it is true he held office in Hanover, not here; the two Camphausens, the one with the handle to his name and the other without; Friedenthal, Patow, Lippe, Manteuffel, Rabe, Rittberg—I cannot rightly remember whether he was a Minister; then Sulzer, Under Secretary of State, seventeen or eighteen Actual, and Privy Councillors and other high officials; together with some sixty-nine or seventy members who were nominated owing to special Royal favour. I have jotted down something on that head—let Rantzau give it to you, and use it, but not literally, otherwise my style may be recognised. Turn it into your own style.” I promised to do so; and then expressed the pleasure I felt at his obtaining such a large majority and routing Camphausen so thoroughly in the debate.

He smiled and said: “You should have seen him and his whole crowd—the sour faces they made. And Camphausen, who kept me waiting for seven years, because he was unable to manage anything except with the milliards which remained in his hands after paying the cost of the war—there was still a surplus of a few hundred millions which he did not know how to invest. When a couple of millions were mentioned at a meeting of the Cabinet he merely smiled. When a hundred millions were spoken of, however, he laughed so heartily that you could see the two teeth in his mouth. The ‘man of milliards,’ he was so lazy that I had to beg and pray him to draft the Fiscal Reforms Bill; and he never produced it until just at the end, and then it was not fit for use!”

I reminded him that I had already mentioned this in the Grenzboten as long ago as 1877 (in one of the friction articles).

“Ah!” he said, “have that reprinted. It will be useful as confirming what I have said to him. It is true that at length he produced something and wanted to proceed with his unworkable tobacco tax, and to take some steps in the railway question. But he stumbled over Bamberger, instead of treating him with contempt. Camphausen was the leader of the storming party in the Upper House. He had worked up the whole affair, joining with other archplotters and rabid free-traders. But I must go. Speak to Rantzau, and he will give you the notes. But you must not show them to any one.”

He rang the bell, and Count Rantzau brought the paper. He said it was written very illegibly and with many abbreviations; he would, therefore, like to read it over with me upstairs. The Chancellor remarked, smiling: “Never mind if it is rather illegible. If the doctor cannot quite decipher it he will not be able to reproduce it word for word.”

I was, however, able to make it out at home, although with some trouble, and then based the following article upon it, which appeared in No. 9 of the Grenzboten, under the title of “The Upper Chamber.” The portions within brackets are by me as also the first paragraph, the remainder is the Chief’s, in great part the form as well as the substance. The alterations are very slight, and such as are usually made in correcting dictation. The article ran as follows:—

On the 27th of April, 1881, I reminded the Chief of my readiness to be of use in case he should have anything for me to do after the reassembly of the Reichstag.

On the same day I paid Bucher a visit at his lodgings. He told me that the “Foreign Office Ring,” of which the ambitious and intriguing Bülow had been the leading spirit, was broken up. Bülow would be removed, getting some small post as envoy at Weimar or Stuttgart. Tiedemann was also nearing the end of his tether, and would doubtless have been set aside before now if his pretensions had not been extravagant; he wanted the post of Oberpräsident at any cost, while the utmost that could be done for him was to make him a Regierungspräsident. The Prince was aware of these pretensions and had made some ironical remarks on the subject. Lindau, who looks after press matters and has now the rank of Vortragender Rath, does not do much, as he has had “no regular training.” He, Bucher, has therefore often to do the newspaper work. Among other things he has, upon instructions and information conveyed to him by the Chief, written several long articles for the Deutsche revue über das gesammte National Leben der Gegenwart (edited by R. Fleischer, and published by O. Fanke in Berlin), which he gave me. One, entitled “Power without Responsibility,” a proof of which was given to me, was intended for the May number, and was principally devoted to a discussion of the recent policy of Gladstone and Gambetta. The other, entitled “Prince Bismarck in the Ministry of State,” published in the April number of the sixth year, contained some interesting matter respecting the retirement of Count Eulenburg, the Minister of the Interior, which was not due solely to the conflict that took place between himself and the Chief in the Upper House on the 19th of February.

On the 3rd of May I received from the Imperial Chancellerie an answer to my note of the 27th of April, in the form of an invitation to pay the Prince a visit next day. In the antechamber I met Bucher, who had been called to him before me, and who remained with him for about a quarter of an hour. On receiving me afterwards the Prince said: “You want fodder, but I have none at present. I was thinking in the garden of what to tell you, but found there was nothing to say. Of course I could talk to you about the speech I am going to make in the Reichstag one of these days, but then people would say: ‘He has been reading the Grenzboten to some purpose.’ All the same one might deal once more with what I recently said respecting the municipality of Berlin and the Progressist clique, and about the inhabited house tax and valuation. Also as to the removal of the Reichstag, which it is not absolutely necessary should meet in Berlin. They object to my regarding myself as the champion of the lesser folk, of the poor. I have, they say, no right and no need to do so, although recently people have again died of starvation here. The speech on the inhabited house tax defended the interests of this class of the population, and also that of fair play. The Progressist party and the Manchester clique, the representatives of the ruthless money-bags, have always been unjust to the poor, and have invariably done everything in their power to prevent the State from protecting them. Laissez faire, the largest possible measure of self-government, unlimited opportunities for the great capitalists to swallow up the small business men, and for the exploitation of the ignorant and inexperienced by the clever and cunning. The State should merely act as policemen, chiefly for the protection of the exploiters.”

He reflected for a moment, and then continued: “I am not against a considerable degree of municipal self-government as opposed to State administration. It has its good points, but also its disadvantages. If it does not always display as great a sense of justice as State officials do, that is only human nature, which is imperfect. People will always be disposed to favour relatives, customers, friends and members of their own party, even when they intend to act impartially; in these circumstances men and things look different to what they really are. It is therefore quite conceivable that in making valuations a shopkeeper will, in spite of himself, apply a different measure to his customers and to others, and if to this be added party and religious rancour it is scarcely possible to prevent injustice. That may lead to very serious evils in a large town where one party has got hold of the administration, particularly as party spirit does not as a rule restrict itself to unfair valuations, but also disposes of municipal offices and work. Municipal self-government must therefore be restricted, and the State must protect those who do not belong to the party in power from the arbitrary and unfair treatment with which they are constantly threatened by the municipal administration elected, and continually influenced by that party. It was therefore a mistake on the part of Eulenburg—I mean the late one—to give the Berlin Corporation such wide powers. He was really a Conservative, but wished to make himself popular, and you will see from the newspapers that he has succeeded in doing so. Moreover, he was a friend of Forckenbeck’s, and that also will have influenced him in making concessions to the Progressist clique. This did not concern Berlin alone. In general we held different views on the district and provincial regulations. I wanted to have them reconsidered and partially altered, as they contained some dangerous concessions. Eulenburg, however, was in a hurry, and wanted to finish the general outlines, which were to apply to all the provinces. I should have refused my signature if the draft had been submitted to me. The King was also displeased with these concessions, which affected his prerogatives and whittled down the authority of the State. Thus, for example, on the occasion of the recent solemn re-entry of the King (on his return to Berlin after his recovery from the effects of the Nobiling outrage), the municipal authorities made arrangements without previously consulting Madai, to ascertain what was thought on the subject by the King, whose ideas were quite different. That also accounts to some extent for Eulenburg’s retirement. He took advantage of the incident in the Upper House to withdraw from a position which had become untenable. The democratic clique which rules Berlin noisily enforced the rights granted to them, and acted as if they could do whatever they liked. Even the streets, since they have become the property of the town, must serve their purposes to the disadvantage of many people, as, for instance, with regard to the tramways. Since the rights of the State over the streets of the city have been transferred to the municipality, one may say that the mediæval ‘right of convoy and escort’ has practically been revived. But when the railway had to be carried across the Jerusalemstrasse, Maybach showed them once more what was what.”

He was silent for a moment and then observed: “I therefore will not have the State made omnipotent, but on the other hand I will not permit its disintegration, its division into communal republics after the style of Richter and Virchow. We have seen in Paris what such self-government leads to. At present an attempt of the kind is again being made. Just read the speeches which Andrieux, the Prefect of Police, has delivered in the Chamber and before his electors at Arbresle. That shows that men of sense and character are not in favour of unrestricted self-government, even in Republican towns. You will find it in the last numbers of the French newspapers. There are many good points in it which are also applicable to our own circumstances.

“And then as to the rumours about the Reichstag and its removal from Berlin, a great deal more might be said. Say that it was no mere threat, but an idea that is seriously entertained. It has many things to recommend it. The Emperor can summon the Reichstag wherever he chooses, as the Constitution has made no provision respecting the place where it is to meet. The old Emperors of Germany had no imperial capital; they assembled the representatives of the Empire, the Princes and Estates, wherever it was most convenient to them, sometimes in the north and sometimes in the south and west. In case of danger from the west at the present day, Berlin or Breslau would be a convenient place for the sittings of the Reichstag, while disturbances in the east would render a Bavarian, Rhenish or Hessian town, such, for instance, as Cologne, Nuremberg, Augsburg or Cassel, more desirable. In certain circumstances there would also be no objection to Hamburg or Hanover. The members of the Reichstag would be heartily welcomed in all these places, while they would have the further advantage of a change of air. Moreover, they would as a whole come into contact with other sections of the population, other people, and other conditions, and would be subjected to other influences than those which they have hitherto experienced. It would be as great a mistake to confound the Berliner with the German as it would be to confound the Parisians with the French people—in both countries they represent quite a different people. There are also other important considerations in favour of this plan. The independence of the members and liberty of speech is better guaranteed in towns of medium size than in a great city with over a million inhabitants. That was proved in 1848, when the Radicals and Democrats, who now style themselves the Progressist party, had seized power. The mob threatened, and indeed besieged, those members of Parliament whose attitude they disapproved of. An Auerswald or a Lichnowski[26] might well be done to death here, and indeed with still greater ease. Away from the capital the members of the Reichstag need have no fear of the scandal-mongering press of Berlin. How many of them have the courage to despise that journalistic rabble? In revolutionary times how many of them would have the courage to hold their ground against intimidation and threats directed against their life and honour? Such times may possibly return. In smaller towns it is much easier to protect them than here, where, in future, the Progressists, the Jacobins and the Socialists will enter into a close alliance, with the object of promoting the democratic aims which they have in common. Their fellows in Paris concluded such an alliance in 1871. But if these parties were to come to an understanding in Berlin, the friends of order and of monarchical institutions would find themselves in a minority, and could not enforce their views, even if all the shades of opinion into which they are divided were to unite. That has been also recognised elsewhere. In the United States, Congress does not meet in New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis or Chicago, but in Washington, a town of medium size, which is usually very quiet. The Legislative Assemblies of the different States also meet in towns of medium size, or, indeed, sometimes in quite small places. There were good reasons for the continuance of the French Chambers at Versailles, and it will be almost a miracle if they do not one day have cause to regret their return to Paris. Even the removal of Parliament from Berlin to Potsdam would offer a certain guarantee against the disadvantages and dangers which I have described. Finally if the Reichstag were not domiciled in Berlin, it would not have such an enormous crowd of Berliners among its members.”

He rang the bell and asked for the Parliamentary Guide, and then went through the alphabetical list of members, from Bamberger, Benda, Bernuth and Beseler to Weber and Wehrenpfenig, in order to find out the Berliners, I writing down the names as he gave them to me. “Now count them,” he said. “How many are there?” There were forty-six. “You must not mention their names, however, as there are a number of good friends of ours, and strong monarchists among them.”

He then spoke more slowly, as if dictating, at the same time walking up and down the room. I wrote down what he said. “The number of those who regularly attend is close on two hundred, and of these the forty-six Berliners are probably always present. We thus arrive at this monstrous condition of affairs that this city Berlin has no less than a fifth, indeed nearly a fourth, of the entire effective representation of Germany, including Alsace-Lorraine; and even in the largest attendance—which may be put at about 310—the Berliners form 15 per cent. of the whole. There is one Berliner for every million inhabitants of the German Empire, and if the sense of intolerable boredom created among many members by the infliction of speeches from Messrs. Richter and Lasker, lasting often more than two hours, continues to increase at the same rate as it has done recently, it may be taken for granted that in future Berliners will form one-fifth of the representatives of the Empire who are in regular attendance. They are always in their places, and when the democrats among them find themselves supported by an equal number of their fellows from the Provinces they have almost a certain majority on the average attendance of 200 members. Moreover, there is in this city a considerable number who make a business of their Parliamentary activity, combining it with the editorship of newspapers. Both occupations dovetail into each other, and help to give the industrially unproductive classes, the fruges consumere nati, preponderance in the law makers’ establishment. With the assistance of the officials who live on their salaries in Berlin and elsewhere, and for whom the Parliamentary Session is a pleasant holiday in comparison to their other work—.” He did not complete the sentence, but smiled, and said: “When they are here they are just like youngsters who are glad not to have to go to school, and who hang their heads when they are obliged to return there after the holidays. Here in the Reichstag, and in the Lower House of the Diet, there is no strict discipline, no stern masters, no subordination and no reprimands. They are the representatives of the popular will, can enjoy the sense of their own importance, and win admiration by their speeches. All these together make exactly that kind of a majority which should not exist. That must be done away with. The German people has a right to demand that the Reichstag should not be Berlinised.”

He then reflected for a while and said: “Foreign affairs? There is also not much to write about on that subject at present.”

I suggested: “Tunis? I have written a long article on this subject for the Grenzboten, but it is for the most part geographical and historical, and contains very little politics.”

He promptly exclaimed: “That’s dangerous! Please let it be! It is better not to touch it. You know people think when you write anything that it has been inspired by me.”

I explained to him that I had only dealt with facts and suppositions, and that the article hinted that he regarded the French enterprise with sincere good will, and would be pleased if they were satisfied.

He replied: “Ah, that is all right. You have put it very well. You might also say that we should be pleased to see those neglected districts that had formerly been fertile and well cultivated come into the hands of a great civilised people who would restore them to civilisation. But do not show too much good will, or the French will take offence at us for giving them permission to undertake hostilities. Say nothing about England and Italy. It is in our interest if they should fall out with the French, and when the latter are busy in Tunis they cease to think of the Rhine frontier. But all that must not be as much as insinuated—write something about Russia in preference. There the peasants must be converted into private owners of their lands, of personal and hereditable property. Now when the land is held in common by the entire village, and is divided up from time to time, the drone and the drunkard have the same right as the diligent labourer who does not spend his time in the public-house. This common ownership must cease. Those, however, who desire to bring about revolution and to set the peasantry against the Emperor fight tooth and nail for the retention of this communism, as if it were a palladium. It is said to be a genuinely national and primitive Russian institution. In doing so, however, the gentlemen manifest gross ignorance. The common ownership of the land was formerly a traditional custom here, except in a few districts, as, for instance, in parts of Westphalia up to the Stein-Hardenberg legislation. A similar custom prevailed in France up to the First Revolution. The Russians, however, have probably received it from us, from the Germanic Rurik, as they afterwards received other European institutions.”

At this juncture von Bötticher, the Minister, was announced; and the Prince took leave of me with the words, “I must break off here, as I cannot keep him waiting. Auf Wiedersehen. But be very careful in dealing with Tunis.” I had been with him over half an hour.

The Chancellor’s suggestions with respect to the Tunisian question and Russia were incorporated in the articles on those subjects. The communication he made to me at the interview on the 4th of May was embodied, for the most part literally, in an article entitled “Prince Bismarck and Berlin,” in No. 20 of the Grenzboten, of which I sent him a copy after publication. I enclosed at the same time an extract from a leading article of the Daily Telegraph eulogising the recently deceased Count Harry Arnim, and asserting among other things that in 1870, when he was envoy to the Curia, he had a plan which, if carried into effect, would have entirely averted the struggle between Prussia and the Vatican. This magnificent idea was that Prussia should persuade her bishops to found a German National Church, and in alliance with them fight the Pope. The Berliner Tageblatt put somewhat similar stories and views on the market. I therefore asked the Prince whether these statements should not be refuted. The letter and enclosure was despatched on the evening of the 22nd of May, and on the evening of the 24th the letter was returned to me, accompanied by a few lines from Tiedemann, in which he said, inter alia: “His Serene Highness said he would have been better pleased if the article ‘Prince Bismarck and Berlin’ had been submitted to him before publication, as several passages must cause offence in the most exalted regions. With reference to the article in the Daily Telegraph, the Prince said it did not appear to him to be worth while to refute it.”

It would appear, however, that the Chancellor ultimately came to think that after all the articles in the Daily Telegraph called for a correction, as a few days, after the receipt by me of Tiedemann’s letter the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung published the following communication, evidently inspired, which was afterwards copied by the other newspapers:—

“Certainly such a development (as that which Count Arnim is alleged to have proposed) would have been desirable from the point of view of the State. Its only defect was that not a single bishop, not even the most moderate, was disposed to listen to such an appeal from the State to enter upon a conflict with the Pope. Even the bishops of those nations whose national sentiment is much more highly developed, such as the French, English, and Slav, have rejected all such temptations a limine. But the idea of the Government putting itself at the head of the Prussian bishops, or being supported by Ledochowski, Melchers, and Martin in the creation of a German National Church against the will of the Pope is so utterly puerile that it could certainly never have occurred to a man of such intelligence as Count Harry Arnim. He was too well acquainted with the bishops, some of whom were like wax in the hands of the Pope, while the rest were Jesuits, or waverers, for him to have ever believed for a moment that they could be induced to storm the Papal stronghold. So far as we are aware he never entertained such an idea, and never gave expression to it.”

On Sunday, the 26th of June, at 1.30 P.M., the Prince sent a message requesting me to call upon him at 4 o’clock. He was in plain clothes, and looked very poorly, with dark lines under his eyes. He had allowed his beard to grow, as he usually does when his nervous affection is exceptionally tormenting. He asked how I was getting on. I answered: “Well, Serene Highness; but it is not necessary to ask you, as one knows from the newspapers that your health has of late been very indifferent.”

“Yes,” he replied, “very bad. Weakness and oppression, and pains all over, in the body, chest, and face. Up to my sixty-sixth year I had good teeth, but now they all pain me, tugging and tearing above and below and all round.” He drew his hand down one cheek and then up the other. “But that comes from the great excitement, which is due this time, not to political affairs, but to other matters of which we will not speak,” (he doubtless referred to certain family affairs ... of which some hints had appeared in the newspapers) “and one must keep on working all the same—incessantly. The King is pitiless. He knows how I am, and yet every day he sends me notes that must be answered. I have had this illness already several times; first, in St. Petersburg, when I heard that they were thinking of committing the blunder of mobilising in favour of Austria in the Italian question, in which case Austria would have left them in the lurch; then before and after the war in 1866 at Putbus; again at Versailles; and in ’74, on the occasion of the libels (Diest-Dabers), when I was deserted by old friends, and when the Minister of the Household subscribed for ten copies of the Reichsglocke; and in 1877 when Augusta’s entourage intrigued against me. But what I would like you to do is this. The Progressist party now speak as if they had done everything, and as if we had to thank them for the unification of Germany and the foundation of the Empire. I should like to have a historic survey prepared which would show that, on the contrary, they have used every possible means to defeat that end. As long ago as 1848 and the following year they so far injured the good position held by Prussia, that as a result we had the miserable Manteuffel régime (die elende Manteuffelei), Olmütz, and afterwards to the Canossa days in Paris, where our plenipotentiary was obliged to wait for hours in the antechamber before he was admitted, and where Prussia was altogether left out of account. Then under the Ministers of the new era when they, with their dogmatism and their opposition to the reorganisation of the army, brought on the appointment of a Bismarck Ministry. At that time they were in favour of a mere militia, although they entertained far-reaching schemes against the Confederation and Austria—or rather, great aspirations. They expected no doubt to blow them down with their unwholesome breath as the walls of Jericho were brought down by the blast of the trumpet. That is not mine—the breath—but Shakespeare’s.”

“Julius Cæsar?” I suggested.

“No,” he replied, “Coriolanus” (Act iv. scene 6). “Menenius, the breath of the garlic eaters which ‘made the air unwholesome’ as they threw their greasy caps in the air and shouted for the banishment of Coriolanus. And then their attitude towards me. They always wished me ill, wished me even to the scaffold. Their one desire always was to upset the Ministry, and take its place. In the course which they pursued they never took the condition of Germany into consideration—that is to say, they often alluded to it in their speeches, but never seriously thought of it. And their action was always directed towards promoting the objects of our opponents abroad. They were in favour of Austria, when I was against her, and vice versâ. They worked into the hands of France, like Mayer and Sonnemann, who held similar views, and who could scarcely be regarded as anything else than French officials. They would not have an army or a fleet, or a strong Prussia, and only wanted to establish democratic rule. They fought against my plans in the Schleswig-Holstein question—‘not a Groschen to the Ministry’—although I have reason to be particularly proud of my share in it, seeing that it was a drama of intrigue, equal to Scribe’s ‘Le Verre d’Eau.’ For the sake of the Augustenburger’s rights, as they said, Schleswig-Holstein should be formed into a new minor State, which would have voted against Prussia at every opportunity. Kiel is still one of their chief strongholds, from which the movement is directed.”

“Yes, Hänel,” I said, “Ex-Minister of Justice to Duke Frederick, who wished to come to an arrangement with Napoleon against Prussia. I am pretty well acquainted with the condition of affairs at that period. When I was disclosing the Kiel intrigues in the Preussische Jahrbücher I explained the situation to a company, consisting of members of the Progressist party gathered at Mommsen’s, who was at that time beginning to entertain more sensible ideas on the subject. All I could say, however, was perfectly idle. They held to their standpoint that it was unjust.”

“Mommsen?” said the Chief. “He has always proved himself a greenhorn when he mixed in politics, and most of all at the present time.”

“One of those awfully clever Professors who know everything better than every one else,” I remarked.

“They were also opposed to the acquisition of Lauenburg,” continued the Chancellor, “and when the war with Austria was imminent they desired to ‘rid Prussia of the itch to be a great Power,’ and organised popular meetings all over the country at which resolutions were passed against ‘a fratricidal war.’ It is an unquestionable fact that at that time they traitorously hoped and prayed that the enemy might be victorious. Their ideas were most clearly represented by that member of Parliament who afterwards conducted an anti-Prussian agitation in the Vienna press—What’s his name?—the man with the broad, smooth face?”

“Frese,” I suggested.

“Yes, that’s the man I mean” he replied, “They afterwards said, ‘If we had only known that!’ But that was merely a lying excuse. What they desired was not unity but freedom, as it was understood by their party, and radical rule. After 1866 and 1870 they were always the friends or enemies of every foreign Power according to the side which I took against it or for it. In all great questions the position they adopted was determined by their hatred of me. They urged that peace was threatened by the disfavour with which the Powers regarded the latest reorganisation of Germany, and yet in dealing with the military question they endeavoured, in combination with the Centre party, to weaken rather than to strengthen our power of resistance. They opposed the consolidation of the Empire in every way. First, they were against Russia, particularly in 1863; then, when our relations with that country became less satisfactory, they took up the Russian side; and when we were once more on a better footing with St. Petersburg they again turned against Russia. They opposed the Socialists at first, but when the Anti-Socialist laws came up for discussion they assisted them. Finally, when I came forward with State Socialism they fought it tooth and nail, because it is a weapon against the revolution which they desire. What they require is discontent. That is their element, and the means by which they promote their ends. They sacrifice everything to that. It was the case in the question of customs and taxation, and with regard to the more lenient application of the May Laws which they also opposed in the commencement, as well as in the Hamburg affair in which they were thorough Particularists, as they had formerly been in the Schleswig-Holstein question. It was the same in the purchase of the railways by the State, which has given exceptionally good results and with which the public is perfectly satisfied. Throughout the whole history of the Empire the Progressist party has been the advocatus diaboli. Happily however they were invariably mere firework devils,” he added, smiling.

“Bellows,” (Püstriche) I said, “as Mephisto called them, when he assembled the devils with straight and crooked horns over to the grave of Dr. Faust.”

“Yes,” he replied, “they can only lie like the Father of Lies. But they will not succeed in the long run. Here in Germany lies have a short life, and the Germans do not allow themselves to be taken in for any length of time, as other nations such as the French are apt to do, who attach too much importance to fine speeches.”

I then inquired how he expected the next elections to turn out. He said: “The moderate parties will be weakened, while the Progressists will probably increase their numbers, the Conservatives, however, doing the same. This time, however, we will not stand by and see our plans wrecked. We shall dissolve if we cannot carry our State Socialism—our practical Christianity! At present it is not worth while for the sake of three months.”

“Practical Christianity?” I asked. “Did I rightly understand your Serene Highness?”

“Certainly,” he replied. “Compassion, a helping hand in distress. The State which can raise money with the least trouble must take the matter in hand. Not as alms, but as a right to maintenance, where not the readiness but the power to work fails. Why should only those who have in battle become incapable of earning a livelihood be entitled to a pension, and not also the rank and file of the army of labour? This question will force its way; it has a future. It is possible that our policy may be reversed at some future time when I am dead; but State Socialism will make its way. Whoever takes up this idea again will come to power. And we have the means, as, for instance, out of a heavier tobacco tax. That reminds me. My son had recently to deliver a speech against the Progressists before some association, and I advised him to introduce the phrase, ‘The voting cattle from the Richter stables, with the Progressist winkers’ (Das Stimmvieh aus den Richterschen Ställen mit dem Fortschrittsbrete vor dem Kopfe), but he considered it too strong.”

We then spoke about the Deutsches Tageblatt, which he had taken up while he was speaking. He said it was well edited. I observed that the publisher, whose acquaintance I had made at the last book fair in Leipzig, had told me that he had nearly 8,000 subscribers. The Chief said: “10,000, I am told.” I observed: “It is now stated that the National Zeitung, that dreary organ of the Secessionists, Bamberger & Co., has hardly 7,000 subscribers still left.” “That was always a Jewish sheet,” he replied. “The proprietor and editor are both Semites.” “And inflated pedagogues,” I took the liberty of adding.

This led the conversation to the Jews, and their connection with the Progressist party. He said he was surprised at their being so hostile to him, and so ungrateful, as after all they owed to him the political position which they held in the Empire. “At least through my signature,” he continued. “They ought to be satisfied with me, but they will one day force me to defend myself against them.”

“As you did against the Ultramontanes,” I said. “In that case, Serene Highness, you would become more popular even than you now are, as you would have with you not merely the sixty or the hundred thousand who signed the petition, but the millions who loathe the Jews and their politics.”