Bismarck

Jules Favre not having arrived up to midday on the 19th of September, our party started. The Minister, however, left a letter for Favre at the Mairie, and told a servant to mention the fact to him in case he came. The Chief and the Councillors rode on ahead of the carriages, of which I had one entirely to myself. We first passed by the residence of the King, who was quartered in a handsome château on the Promenade, and between the villages of Mareuil and Montry we met a two-horse hackney, in which a Prussian officer sat with three civilians. One of the latter was an elderly gentleman with a grey beard and a protruding under lip. “That’s Favre,” I said to Kruger, the Chancery attendant who sat behind me. “Where is the Minister?” He was not to be seen, but had probably gone on before us, and the long train of conveyances cut off our view in front. We drove on rapidly, and after a while I met the Chief and Keudell riding back in the opposite direction.

“Favre has driven by, Excellency,” I said.

“I know,” he replied, smiling, and trotted on.

Next day Count Hatzfeldt gave us some particulars of the meeting between the Chancellor of the Confederation and the Parisian lawyer, now one of the rulers of France. The Minister, Count Hatzfeldt and Keudell were half an hour ahead of us when Hofrath Taglioni, who drove with the King’s suite, told them that Favre had passed by. He had come by another route and had only reached its junction with our road after the Chief had ridden by. The Minister was very angry at not having been sooner informed of this. Hatzfeldt galloped after Favre, with whom he returned, finally meeting the Chief at Montry. Here the attention of the Minister was called to the little château of Haute-Maison, situated on a height some ten minutes from the village, as a suitable place for the interview with the Frenchman. There the party found two Würtemberg dragoons, one of whom was instructed to take his carbine and mount guard before the house. They also met there a French peasant, who looked as if he had just received a good thrashing. While our people were asking this man whether it was possible to get anything to eat or drink, Favre, who had gone into the house with the Chancellor, came out for a moment and addressed his countryman in a speech full of pathos and noble sentiments. Disorderly attacks had been made, he said, which must be stopped. He, Favre, was not a spy, but, on the contrary, a member of the new government which had undertaken to defend the interests of the country and which represented its dignity. In the name of international law and of the honour of France he called upon him to keep watch, and to see that the place was held sacred. That was imperatively demanded by his, the statesman’s, honour, as well as by that of the peasant, and so forth. The honest rustic looked particularly silly as he listened open-mouthed to all this high falutin, which he evidently understood as little as if it were so much Greek. Keudell remarked, “If this is the individual who is to preserve us from a surprise, I for my part prefer to trust to the sentry.”

On the same evening I learnt from another source that lodgings had been taken for Favre in the village near the Château of Ferrières, as he desired to have a further conference with the Chief. He was accompanied by MM. Rink and Hell, formerly Secretaries of Embassy under Benedetti, and Prince Biron. Keudell said, “As the Chancellor left the room where his interview with Favre had taken place, he asked the dragoon who was on guard before the door whence he came. The man replied, ‘From Schwäbisch-Hall.’ ‘Well, then, you may be proud,’ he continued, ‘of having stood guard over the first negotiation for peace in this war.’”

In the meantime the remainder of us had a long wait at Cheffy for the return of the Chancellor, and then—probably with his permission—drove on to Ferrières, which we reached in about two hours. On the way we passed along the edge of the zone which the French had designedly laid waste all round Paris. Here the destruction was not very marked, but the population of the villages seemed to have been in great part driven away by the Gardes Mobiles.

At length, just as it began to grow dark, we entered the village of Ferrières, and shortly afterwards Rothschild’s estate. The King and the first section of his suite took up their quarters for a considerable time in this château. The Minister was to lodge in the last three rooms on the first floor of the right wing, looking out on the meadows and the park. A large drawing-room on the ground floor was selected for the bureau, and a smaller one of the same corridor as a breakfast and dining-room. Baron Rothschild was in Paris, and only left behind him three or four female domestics and a housekeeper, who gave himself great airs of importance.

It was already dark when the Chief arrived, and shortly after we sat down to dinner. While we were still at table a message was received from Favre, asking when he could come to continue the negotiations. He had a conference tête-à-tête with the Chancellor in our bureau from 9.30 P.M. until after 11. On leaving he looked distressed, crestfallen, almost in despair—my diary remarks that possibly this expression was assumed with the object of impressing the Minister.

In connection with the news that the King has gone to Clayes in order to prevent an attack being made by our troops, the Chief, in the course of conversation at dinner, said, amongst other things, that “many of our generals have abused the devotion of the troops in order to secure victory.” “Possibly,” he added, “the hard-hearted reprobates of the general staff are right when they say that even if the whole five hundred thousand men whom we have now in France were to be wiped out, that should merely be regarded as the loss of so many pawns, so long as we ultimately won the game. It is very simple strategy, however, to plunge in head foremost in that way without counting the cost. Altogether, those who conduct the operations are often not worth much—armchair strategists. A plan is prepared in which the whole calculation is based first of all upon the extraordinary qualities of both soldiers and regimental officers. It is these who alone have achieved everything. Our success is due to the fact that our soldiers are physically stronger than the French, that they can march better, have more patience and sense of duty, and are more impetuous in attack. If MacMahon had commanded Prussian soldiers and Alvensleben Frenchmen, the latter would have been defeated—although he is my friend.” “It is no longer possible, as it was in the Seven Years’ War, to direct a battle from the saddle—the armies are too large. There is also no genuine co-operation and mutual assistance. Battles begin usually like those described by Homer. Some of the men commence with small provocations, and go on taunting each other, then they begin to shoot; the others see this and rush forward, and so finally the engagement becomes general.” “The plan of surrounding the enemy is the right one, and properly speaking that was only adopted at Sedan. The engagement of the 16th at Metz was quite correct, as it was necessary there at any cost to prevent the French from escaping. The sacrifice of the guards on the 18th however was not necessary. It was a piece of pure folly, occasioned by jealousy of the Saxons. They ought to have waited at Saint Privat until the Saxons had completed their manœuvre for cutting off the enemy.”

Keudell and Bohlen afterwards ascribed this unfavourable criticism to a quarrel which the Chief had had with Moltke at Reims.

While still at table we had a specimen of the hospitality and gentlemanly feeling of the Baron, whose house is honoured by the presence of the King, and whose property has, in consequence, been treated with every consideration. M. de Rothschild, the hundred-fold millionaire, who, moreover, was, until recently, the Prussian Consul-General in Paris, has declined, through his housekeeper, to let us have the wine we require, although I informed that functionary that it would be paid for, just as everything else was. When summoned before the Chief, he had the audacity to persist in his refusal, first denying absolutely that there was any wine in the house, and afterwards admitting that there were a few hundred bottles of a common Bordeaux. As a matter of fact, there were some seventeen thousand bottles. The Minister, however, explained the situation to him in a few sharp words, pointing out how niggardly and discourteous it was of his master to requite the King in such manner for the honour done to him in taking up his quarters there. As the fellow still seemed obstinate, the Chancellor asked him sternly if he knew what a bundle of straw was. The man made no answer, but seemed to suspect what it meant, as he became deadly pale. He was then informed that it was a contrivance on which obstinate and impudent housekeepers were laid face downwards—he could imagine the rest for himself. Next day we got everything that we required, and, so far as I am aware, there was no further cause of complaint.

Next morning the Chief came into the chambre de chasse of the château, which we occupied as our bureau. Turning over the game book which lay on the table he pointed out the entry for the 3rd of November, 1856, which showed that he himself, with Galiffet and other guests, had that day shot forty-two head of game—fourteen hares, one rabbit, and twenty-seven pheasants. He is now engaged with Moltke and others in chasing a nobler quarry—the bear to which he referred at Grand Pré.

At 11 o’clock the Chief had his third meeting with Favre, after which followed a conference with the King, at which Moltke and Roon were also present.

In the evening I was called to the Chief, who had not appeared at table, and who, it was understood, did not feel quite well. A narrow stone winding stairs, which was distinguished with the title, “Escalier particulier de M. le Baron,” led to a very elegantly furnished room, where I found the Chancellor sitting on the sofa in his dressing gown.

Wednesday, September 21st.—As the Chief had recovered from his indisposition, we had plenty to do, and though most of it cannot be made public, I am now at liberty to quote the following passage from my diary:—

“The imperial emigrants in London have established an organ, La Situation, to represent their interests. Its contents are to be reproduced in the newspapers we have founded in the eastern districts of France, but the sources are to be so indicated as not to identify us with the views therein expressed: i.e., it must be understood that we are not endeavouring to promote the restoration of the Emperor. Our object is merely to maintain the sense of insecurity and discord between the various French parties, which are all equally hostile to us. The retention of the imperial symbols and formulas in despatches will prove of service in this respect; otherwise Napoleon or a Republic is a matter of indifference to us. We merely desire to utilise the existing chaos in France. The future of that country does not concern us. It is the business of the French themselves to shape it as best they can. It is only of importance to us in so far as it affects our own interests, the furtherance of which must be the guiding principle in politics generally.” Under instructions from the Chief I telegraphed in the above sense to the principal officials at Nancy and Hagenau.

At tea some further particulars were given of the last conference between the Chancellor and Jules Favre. Favre was, it seems, informed that we could not communicate to him the exact conditions of peace until they had been settled at a conference of the German Powers engaged in the war. No arrangement could be come to, however, without a cession of territory, as it was absolutely essential to us to have a better frontier as security against French attack. The conference turned less upon peace and its conditions than on the nature of French concessions, in consideration of which we might agree to an armistice. On the mention of a cession of territory Favre became terribly excited, drew a deep sigh, raised his eyes to heaven, and even shed some patriotic tears. The Chief does not expect that he will return. Doubtless an answer in this sense has been forwarded to the Crown Prince, who telegraphed this morning to ask whether he should attend the negotiations.

Thursday, September 22nd, evening.—The French are indefatigable in denouncing us to the world as cruel and destructive barbarians; and the English press—particularly the Standard, which is notoriously hostile to us—willingly lends them its assistance. The grossest calumnies respecting our conduct towards the French population and the prisoners in our hands are circulated almost daily by that newspaper, and always purport to come either from eye-witnesses or other well-informed sources. Thus, for instance, the Duc de FitzJames recently drew a horrible picture of the abominations of which we had been guilty in Bazeilles, adding the assurance that he exaggerated nothing; and a M. L., who represents himself to be a French officer whom we had captured at Sedan and subjected to ill-treatment, complains in a lamentable tone of Prussian inhumanity. Bernstorff sent the article in question to the Chief, with the suggestion that the charges should be refuted. The complaint of M. L. might, perhaps, be left to answer itself, but that of the Duke is calculated to affect even those across the Channel who are disposed in our favour. Besides, impudent calumny is always apt to leave some traces behind it. A refutal of these shameful slanders is accordingly being despatched to-day to certain London newspapers that are friendly to us. As the greater part of this communication was dictated by the Chief, it is worthy of special attention.

“In this war, as in every other, a great number of villages have been burned down, mostly by artillery fire, German as well as French. In these cases women and children who had sought refuge in the cellars and had not escaped in time, lost their lives in the flames. That was also the case in Bazeilles, which was several times stormed by our infantry. The Duc de FitzJames is only an eye-witness so far as the ruins of the village are concerned, which he saw after the battle, just as thousands more saw and regretted its fate. All the rest of his report is based on the stories of the unfortunate and exasperated villagers. In a country where even the Government has developed an unexampled talent for systematic lying, it is not to be expected that angry peasants, standing on the ruins of their homes, would bear truthful witness against their enemies. It is established by official reports that the inhabitants of Bazeilles, not in uniform but in their blouses and shirt-sleeves, fired out of their windows at our troops and wounded soldiers, and that they killed whole batches of the latter in their houses. It has been likewise proved that women armed with knives and guns were guilty of the greatest cruelty towards the fatally wounded, and that other women, certainly not in the uniform of the National Guards, took part in the fight with the male inhabitants, loading their rifles and even firing themselves, and that, like the other combatants, some of them were in these circumstances wounded or killed. Naturally these particulars were not communicated to the Duc de FitzJames by his informant. They would have fully excused the burning of the village even if it had been done intentionally with the object of forcing the enemy out of that position. But there is no evidence of any such intention. That women and children were driven back into the fire is one of those infamous lies with which the French terrorise the population, and incite their hatred against us. In this way they cause the peasants to fly on our approach. The latter return, however, as a rule, a few days after the entrance of the Germans, and are astounded to find that they are better treated by them than by the French troops. When this sort of terrorism is not sufficient to force the inhabitants to flight, the Government sends a mob of armed civilians, sometimes supported by African troops, to drive the peasants from their homes at the point of the sword, and to burn down their houses as a punishment for their want of patriotism. The letter of ‘an imprisoned officer’ (Bouillon, September 9th) also contains more falsehood than truth. With respect to the treatment of the prisoners, Germany can call 150,000 better witnesses than this anonymous and mendacious officer, whose whole communication is merely an expression of the vindictive disposition which will for a long time to come inspire the vain and arrogant elements of the French people, by whom, unfortunately, that country allows itself to be ruled and led. From this spirit of revenge arises the certainty of further attacks on the part of France, for which Germany must be prepared. We are thus unquestionably compelled to think solely of the security of our frontier in concluding peace. It is true, as stated in the letter of this imprisoned officer, M. L., that there was a scarcity of provisions after the surrender of Sedan, not only for the prisoners, but also for the victors, who shared with them what they had. When their own stock was exhausted the prisoners also had to do without. L.’s complaint that he had been obliged to bivouac in the rain and mud furnishes the best evidence that he is no officer, and has not even followed the campaign up to that point. He is some hireling scribe who has never left his own room, and one must therefore assume that the man’s whole story of his imprisonment is an invention; as, had he been an officer in the field, he would have known that most of his comrades (that is certainly the case with the Germans) have spent at least thirty nights out of the forty or so that have elapsed since the beginning of the war under similar conditions. When it rained in the night they had to lie in the rain, and when the ground was muddy they had to lie in the mud. Only one who had not followed the campaign could have any doubt or manifest any surprise on that score. That M. L. prides himself on having retained his leather purse is the clearest proof that he was not plundered. There can hardly be a single soldier, who, if he happens to have money, does not carry it just as M. L. carried his, and in just such a purse; so that if our men had wanted his money, they must have known very well where to find it. The few Germans who fell into French hands can tell how quickly their opponents could open a prisoner’s tunic, and if his purse was a little too firmly fastened on, hack it off with their sabres or a knife, without paying too much regard to his skin. We declare the assertions respecting the ill-treatment of prisoners at Sedan to be wilful and audacious lies. A great number of the French prisoners, perhaps one-fourth, were in a state of bestial drunkenness, having during the last few hours before the capitulation plundered the wine and brandy stores in the town. It is obvious that it is not so easy to manage men in a state of drunkenness as when they are sober, but such ill-treatment as the article describes occurred neither at Sedan nor elsewhere, owing to the discipline which prevails amongst the Prussian troops. It is well known that this discipline has won the admiration of the French officers themselves. Unfortunately one cannot speak as highly of the French soldiers in this respect as with regard to their gallantry in action. The French officers have on several occasions been unable to prevent their men from murdering severely wounded soldiers, even when individual officers of high rank endeavoured at the risk of their own lives to defend the wounded, and that was not merely the case with African regiments. It is known that the German prisoners who were taken into Metz were spat upon and struck with sticks and stones on their way through the streets, and on their release had to run the gauntlet of a double line of African soldiers, who beat them with canes and whips. We can prove these facts by official records, which have more claim to credence than the anonymous letter of M. L. But are such things to be wondered at when the newspapers of a city like Paris, which now implores considerate treatment on the hypocritical plea of civilisation, can propose, without eliciting the slightest protest, that when the French troops are unable to take our wounded with them they should split their heads open; and further, that the Germans should be used like dead wolves to manure their fields? The utter barbarism of the French nation, covered with a thin veneer of culture, has been fully disclosed in this war. French insolence formerly said, ‘Grattez le Russe et vous trouverez le barbare.’ Whoever is in a position to compare the conduct of the Russians towards their enemies in the Crimean War with that of the French in the present campaign, can have no doubt that this statement recoils upon its authors.”

When he had finished, the Minister added: “Write to Bernstorff that I decline in future to notice any suggestion for entering into a controversy with English newspapers. The Ambassador must act on his own responsibility.”

Just as we sat down to table, one of the Court officials announced that the Crown Prince proposed to come to dinner and to stay for the night. The Prince’s secretary at the time asked that the bureau and the large salon next the Chancellor’s room, should be prepared for the five gentlemen who accompanied his Royal Highness. The Chief replied, “We cannot give up the bureau, as we want it for our work.” He then placed his dressing room at their disposal, and further proposed that either Blumenthal or Eulenburg should sleep in his bedroom. He required the salon for the reception of the French negotiators and any Princes who might call upon him. The Court official went off, pulling a long face, and was impertinent enough to make some remarks in the corridor about “discourtesy” and so forth.

Count Lehndorff dined with us, and the conversation was very lively. Some allusion having been made to Frederick the Great’s statue in Unter den Linden, which had been decorated with black, red and yellow flags, the Minister condemned Wurmb for allowing this controversy to be stirred up. “This stupid quarrel about the colours should not have been reopened, and it once more proves Wurmb’s incapacity. For me the question is settled and done with since the North German flag has been adopted. Otherwise this battle of colours is a matter of indifference to me. As far as I am concerned they may be green, yellow, and all the colours of a fancy dress ball, or they can take the banner of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Only the Prussian soldier will have nothing to do with the black, red, and yellow.”

The Chief then spoke of the peace, which he still considered remote, adding: “If they (the French Government) go to Orleans, we shall follow them there, and further—right down to the sea shore.” He read out some telegrams, including one giving a list of the troops in Paris. “There are supposed to be 180,000 men in all, but there are hardly 60,000 real soldiers amongst them. The mobile and national guards with their snuffboxes (a reference to their obsolete weapons) are not to be reckoned as soldiers.”

I asked if I should telegraph about the report of artillery and rifle-fire in the streets of Paris, which people fancied they had heard. He said I was to do so. “But not yet, I suppose, about the negotiations with Favre?” “Yes,” he replied, and then went on as follows: “First at Haute-Maison, near Montry, then the same evening at Ferrières, and next day a third conversation, but without effect, as regards the armistice and the peace. Other French parties have also entered into negotiations with us,” he said, and gave some indications from which I gathered that he referred to the Empress Eugénie.

Something else led him to speak of his skill in shooting. He said that as a young man he could hit a sheet of paper with a pistol at a hundred yards, and had shot off the heads of ducks in the pond.

He then mentioned that he had again complained to Treskow of the “short commons at the Royal table,” at which Treskow pulled a long face. “But if I am to work well I must have sufficient food. I cannot make a proper peace if I do not get enough to eat and drink. That’s a necessity of my trade, and therefore I prefer to dine at home.”

The conversation then turned on the dead languages—I cannot now say how. “When I was in the first class at the high school,” he said, “I was able to write and speak Latin very well. I should now find it extremely difficult; and I have quite forgotten Greek. I cannot understand why people take so much trouble with these languages. It must be merely because learned men do not wish to lessen the value of what they have themselves so laboriously acquired.” I ventured to remind him of the mental discipline thus provided. The Chief replied, “Yes; but if you think Greek is a disciplina mentis, the Russian language is far better in that respect. It might be introduced instead of Greek—and it has immediate practical value in addition.”

We then spoke of the way in which the Schleswig-Holstein question was treated by the Bundestag in the fifties. Count Bismarck-Bohlen, who had come in in the meantime, remarked that those debates must have been dull enough to send every one to sleep. “Yes,” said the Chief, “in Frankfurt they slept over the negotiations with their eyes open. Altogether it was a sleepy and insipid crowd, and things only became endurable after I had added the pepper.” He then told us a delightful story about Count Rechberg, who was at that time Austrian Minister to the Bundestag. “On one occasion he said something to me which I was obliged to answer very roughly. He replied that unless I withdrew my words it would be a case of going out on to the Bockenheimer Haide (a place where it was customary to settle affairs of honour). ‘I never withdraw my words,’ said I, carelessly, ‘so we must settle it in that way, and it occurs to me that the garden down stairs would be a very suitable place. But in order that people may not think that I represent my King pistol in hand, without further ceremony I shall write down here the cause of our quarrel. After you have read it over you will sign it, and thus testify to its correctness. In the meantime there is one of our officers lodging here who will oblige me, and you can choose one of your own officers.’ I rang the bell and sent word to the officer, requesting him to call upon me; and then went on writing while Rechberg strode up and down the room—and gluck, gluck, gluck (here the Minister mimicked the act of drinking) he swallowed one glass of water after another. Of course not because he was afraid, but because he was considering whether he ought not first to ask permission of his Government. I quietly continued to write. The officer came and said he would gladly oblige me. I begged him to wait a moment. On my return Rechberg said he would think over the matter until morning, to which I agreed. As I did not hear from him next day, however, I sent the Mecklenburg Minister, old Oertzen, to deliver a formal challenge. Oertzen was told he was not at home. He went again next day, but Rechberg was still not to be seen. He had evidently written to Vienna and was waiting for an answer. At length Oertzen came to me after having spoken to him. Rechberg was prepared to withdraw what he had said and offer an apology, either in writing or verbally, just as I liked. He would also come to me if I wished. I went to his place, however, and the affair was settled.”

I asked him then about the celebrated story of the cigars. “Which do you mean?” “Why, about the cigar which you lit, Excellency, when Rechberg was smoking in your presence.” “Thun, you mean. Yes, that was very simple. I went to him while he was at work, and he was smoking. He begged me to excuse him for a moment. I waited a while and finding it rather slow, as he did not offer me a cigar, I took one of my own and asked him for a light—which he gave me with rather a surprised look. But I have another story of the same kind. At the sittings of the Military Commission, when Rochow represented Prussia at the Bundestag, Austria was the only one who smoked. Rochow, who was passionately addicted to smoking, would gladly have done the same, but had not sufficient confidence. When I came I also felt a longing for a cigar, and as I could not see why I should deny myself I begged the presiding power to give me a light, apparently much to his and the other gentlemen’s astonishment and displeasure. It was evidently an event for them all. For the time being only Austria and Prussia smoked. But the remaining gentlemen obviously considered the matter of so much importance that they wrote home for instructions as to how they were to act in the circumstances. The authorities were in no hurry. The affair was one that demanded careful consideration, and for nearly six months the two great Powers smoked alone. Then Schrenkh, the Bavarian Minister, began to assert the dignity of his office by lighting his weed. Nostitz, the Saxon, had certainly a great desire to do the same, but had probably not yet received the permission of his Minister. On seeing Bothmer, of Hanover, however, allow himself that liberty, Nostitz, who was strongly Austrian in his sympathies, having sons in the Austrian army, must have come to an understanding with Rechberg, with the result that he too at the next sitting pulled out his cigar case and puffed away with the rest. Only the representatives of Würtemberg and Darmstadt now remained, and they were non-smokers. The honour and dignity of their States, however, imperiously demanded that they should follow suit, and so as a matter of fact the Würtemberger pulled out a cigar at the next sitting—I can still see it in my mind’s eye, a long, thin, yellow thing of the colour of rye straw—and smoked at least half of it as a burnt-offering on the altar of patriotism. Hesse-Darmstadt was the only one who finally refrained—probably conscious that he was not strong enough to enter into rivalry with the others.”[9]

Friday, September 23rd.—Beautiful weather this morning. I took a walk in the park before the Chief got up. On my return I met Keudell, who called out “War! A letter from Favre rejecting our demands. The Chief has given instructions to communicate the letter to the press with certain comments, hinting that the present occupant of Wilhelmshöhe is after all not so bad and might be of use to us.”

The conversation afterwards turned on Pomeranian affairs, and the Chief spoke amongst other things of the great estate of Schmoldin. The former proprietor had become bankrupt through treating the people on the estate—mostly Slav fishermen and sailors—with too much consideration. The place, which consisted of about 8,000 acres of arable land, and 12,000 to 16,000 acres of forest and downs, worth at least 200,000 thalers, was purchased by the Royal Treasury for 80,000 thalers. The change of proprietors had not benefited the tenants, as there was no question of forbearance or abatements. Many of them have fallen into a state of pauperism, and instead of being provided for by the Royal Treasury, they have become a burden on the local authorities. That is not as it ought to be. It was believed that Obstfelder was to blame for this hard and unfair treatment.

Saturday, September 24th.—The Minister spoke at dinner about the ostentatious decorations of the great hall of the château, which he had now seen for the first time. Amongst other things it contains a throne or table which some French marshal or general inadvertently packed up with his baggage somewhere in China, or Cochin China, and afterwards sold to our Baron. The Chief’s verdict was:—“All extremely costly, but not particularly beautiful, and still less comfortable.” He then continued:—“A ready-made property like this would not give me any genuine satisfaction. It was made by others, and not by myself. True, there are many things in it really beautiful, but one misses the pleasure of creating and altering. It is also quite a different thing when I have to ask myself if I can afford to spend five or ten thousand thalers on this or that improvement, and when there is no need to think about the cost. In the end it must become tiresome to have always enough and more than enough.”

In an article written this evening we returned to our good friends the French Ultramontanes, who are as active in war as they had been in peace in opposing the German cause, inciting people against us, circulating lies about us in the newspapers, and even leading the peasants to take up arms against our troops, as at Beaumont and Bazeilles.

Sunday, September 25th.—At table we somehow came to discuss the Jews. “They have no real home,” said the Chief. “They are international—Europeans, cosmopolitans, nomads. Their fatherland is Zion, Jerusalem. Otherwise they are citizens of the whole world, and hold together everywhere. There are amongst them some good, honest people, as for instance one at our own place in Pomerania, who traded in hides and such things. Business cannot have prospered with him, as he became bankrupt. He begged of me not to press my claim, and promised that he would pay by instalments, when he could. Yielding to my old habit, I agreed, and he actually paid off the debt. I received instalments from him while I was still in Frankfurt as Minister to the Bundestag, and I believe that if I lost anything at all, I must have lost less than his other creditors. Certainly not many such Jews are to be met with in our large towns. They have also their own special virtues. They are credited with respect for their parents, faithfulness in marriage, and benevolence.”

Monday, September 26th.—In the morning wrote various paragraphs for the press on the following theme: It is urged that we cannot be allowed to bombard Paris, with its numerous museums, beautiful public buildings and monuments; that to do so would be a crime against civilisation. But why not? Paris is a fortress, and if it has been filled with treasures of art, if it possesses magnificent palaces and other beautiful structures, that does not alter this character. A fortress is an instrument for warlike operations which must be rendered powerless without regard to whatever else may be bound up with it. If the French wanted to preserve their monuments and collections of books and pictures from the dangers of war they should not have surrounded them with fortifications. Besides, the French themselves did not hesitate for a moment to bombard Rome, which contained monuments of far greater value, the destruction of which would be an irretrievable loss. Also sent off an article on the bellicose tendencies of the French Radicals previous to the declaration of war, for use in our newspapers in Alsace.

At dinner, as we were discussing military matters, the Chief declared, inter alia, that the uhlans were the best cavalry. The lance gave the men great self-confidence. It was urged that it was a hindrance in getting through underwood, but that was a mistake. On the contrary, the lance was useful in moving aside the branches. He knew that from experience, as, although he first served in the rifles, he was afterwards in the Landwehr cavalry. The abolition of the lance in the entire mounted Landwehr was a blunder. The curved sabre was not much use, particularly as it was often blunt. The straight thrusting sword was much more practical.

After dinner a letter was received from Favre, in which he requested, first, that notice should be given of the commencement of the bombardment of Paris, in order that the diplomatic corps might remove; and, second, that the city should be permitted to remain in communication with the outer world by letter. Abeken said, as he brought the letter down from the Chief’s room, that the answer would be sent by way of Brussels. “But then the letter will arrive late or not at all, and be returned to us,” observed Keudell. “Well, that does not matter,” answered Abeken. From the further conversation it appears that the answer agrees to the French proposals under certain conditions.

In the evening I was again called to the Chief on several occasions to take instructions. Amongst other things, I ascertained that, “while Favre’s report respecting his interviews with the Chancellor shows, it is true, a desire to give a faithful account of what passed, it is not quite accurate, which is not surprising in the circumstances, especially as there were three different meetings.” In his statement the question of an armistice occupies a secondary position, whereas, in fact, it was the chief point. Favre was prepared to pay a considerable cash indemnity. In the matter of a truce two alternatives were discussed. First, the surrender to us of a portion of the fortifications of Paris, namely, at a point which would give us the command of the city, we on our part to allow free communication with the outer world. The second was that we should forego that condition, but that Strassburg and Toul should be surrendered to us. We put forward the latter demand because the retention of these towns in the hands of the French increases our difficulties of commissariat transport. The Chancellor stated that with respect to a cession of territory, he could only disclose its extent and frontiers when our demand had been accepted in principle. On Favre requesting to have at least an indication of what we proposed in this respect, he was informed that for our security in the future we required Strassburg, “the key of our house,” the departments of the Upper and Lower Rhine, Metz, and a portion of the Moselle department. The object of the armistice was to submit the question of peace to a National Assembly to be summoned for the purpose.

Again called to the Chief. “The King wishes to see some of the newspapers, and he desires to have the most important passages marked. I have proposed Brass to him, and when the papers come, put that one (the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung) always aside for him.” He added, smiling, “Just mark some places for the sake of appearances, it does not much matter what, and send me up the paper.”

At tea we hear a great piece of news:—the Italians have occupied Rome, the Pope and the diplomatists remaining in the Vatican.

Tuesday, September 27th.—Bölsing, on the Chief’s instructions, shows me the answer to Favre’s letter, which the Minister has rewritten in a shorter and more positive form. It says, 1. It is not usual in war to announce the commencement of an attack; 2. A besieged fortress does not appear to be a suitable residence for diplomatists; open letters containing nothing objectionable will be allowed to pass. It is hoped that the corps diplomatique will agree with this view of the matter. They can go to Tours, whither it would appear the French Government also intends to remove. The answer is written in German, a course already begun by Bernstorff, but which was carried out more consistently by Bismarck. “Formerly,” said Bölsing, “most of the Secretaries in the Foreign Office belonged to the French colony, of which Roland and Delacroix still remain. Almost all the Councillors also wrote in that language. Even the register of the despatches was kept in French, and the Ambassadors usually reported in that language.” Now the speech of the “vile Gaul,” as Count Bohlen calls the French, is only used in exceptional cases, that is, in communicating with Governments and Ambassadors to whom we cannot write or reply in their mother tongue. The registers have for years past been kept in German.

The Chief has been at work since 8 o’clock in the morning—unusually early for him. He has again been unable to sleep.

Prince Radziwill and Knobelsdorff, of the general staff, joined us at dinner. In speaking of that part of Favre’s report in which he says that he wept, the Minister thinks he can only have pretended to do so. “It is true,” he said, “that he looked as if he had done so, and I tried to some extent to console him. On my observing him more closely, however, I felt quite certain that he had not succeeded in squeezing out a single tear. It was all merely a piece of acting on his part. He thought to work upon me in the same manner as a Parisian lawyer tries to move a jury. I am perfectly convinced that he was painted at Ferrières—particularly at the second interview. That morning he looked much greyer and quite green under the eyes—I am prepared to bet that it was paint—grey and green, to give himself an appearance of deep suffering. It is, of course, possible that he was deeply affected; but then he can be no politician or he would know that pity has nothing to do with politics.” After a while the Minister added: “When I hinted something about Strassburg and Metz, he assumed a look as if he thought I was jesting. I could have given him, the answer which the great fur dealer of Unter den Linden in Berlin once gave me. I went there to choose a fur coat, and on his naming a very high price for one to which I had taken a fancy, I said, ‘Surely you are joking.’ ‘No,’ he replied, ‘I never make jokes in business.’”

The conversation then turned upon the occupation of Rome and the Pope’s position in the Vatican, on which point the Chief said, amongst other things: “He must remain a Sovereign. The only question is, how? It would be possible to do more for him if the Ultramontanes were not so much opposed to us everywhere. I am accustomed to pay people back in their own coin. I should like to know how our Harry (von Arnim, the North German Ambassador to the Holy See) now feels. Probably, like his reports, his feelings change three times within the twenty-four hours. He is really too distinguished an Ambassador for such a small Sovereign. The Pope, however, is not merely the ruler of the Papal States, he is also the head of the Catholic Church.”

After dinner, just as we had finished our coffee, the American general, Burnside, who had called whilst we were at table, presented himself again, accompanied by an elderly gentleman who wore a red woollen shirt and a paper collar. The general, a rather tall, portly gentleman, with thick, bushy eyebrows, and an exceptionally fine set of beautifully white teeth and close-cut, mutton-chop whiskers, might pass for an elderly Prussian major in plain clothes. The Chief sat with him on the sofa, and had a lively conversation in English over a couple of glasses of kirschwasser, which were afterwards replenished. Prince Radziwill, in the meantime, had a talk with the general’s companion.

After the Minister had observed to his visitor that he had come rather late to see the fighting, he went on to say that in July we had not the least desire for war, and that when we were surprised by the declaration of hostilities, no one, neither the King nor the people, had thought of any conquests. Our army was an excellent one for a war of defence, but it would be difficult to use it for schemes of aggrandisement, because with us the army was the people itself, which did not lust after glory, as it required and wished for peace. But for that very reason both popular sentiment and the press now demanded a better frontier. For the sake of the maintenance of peace we must secure ourselves in future against attack from a vainglorious and covetous nation, and that security could only be found in a better defensive position than we had hitherto had. Burnside seemed inclined to agree, and he praised very highly our excellent organisation and the gallantry of our troops.

Wednesday, September 28th.—The general conversation at dinner gradually adopted a more serious tone. The Chancellor began by complaining that Voigts-Rhetz in his report had not said a single word about the gallant charge of the two regiments of dragoon guards at Mars la Tour, which nevertheless he himself had ordered, and which had saved the 10th Army Corps. “It was necessary—I grant that; but then it ought not to have been passed over in silence.”

The Minister then began a lengthy speech, which ultimately assumed the character of a dialogue between himself and Katt. Pointing to a spot of grease on the table-cloth, the Chief remarked: “Just in the same way as that spot spreads and spreads, so the feeling that it is beautiful to die for one’s country and honour, even without recognition, sinks deeper into the skin of the people now that it has been bathed in blood—it spreads wider and wider.... Yes, yes, the non-commissioned officer has the same views and the same sense of duty as the lieutenant and the colonel—with us Germans. That feeling in general goes very deep through all classes of the nation.... The French are a mass that can easily be brought under one influence, and then they produce a great effect. Amongst our people everybody has his own opinion. But when once a large number of Germans come to hold the same opinion, great things can be done with them. If they were all agreed they would be all-powerful.... The French have not that sense of duty which enables a man to allow himself to be shot dead alone in the dark. And that comes from the remnant of faith which still abides in our people; it comes from the knowledge that there is Someone there Who sees me even if my lieutenant does not see me.”

“Do you believe that the soldiers reflect on such things, Excellency?” asked Fürstenstein.

“‘Reflect?’ no. It is a feeling—a frame of mind; an instinct, if you like. When once they reflect they lose that feeling; they argue themselves out of it.... I cannot conceive how men can live together in an orderly manner, how one can do his duty and allow others to do theirs without faith in a revealed religion, in God, Who wills what is right, in a higher Judge and a future life.”

The Grand Duke of Weimar was announced. But the Minister continued, it might well be for a quarter of an hour longer, at times suddenly departing from his proper theme, and frequently repeating the same idea in other words: “If I were no longer a Christian I would not serve the King another hour.

“If I did not put my trust in God I should certainly place none in any earthly masters. Why, I had quite enough to live on, and had a sufficiently distinguished position. Why should I labour and toil unceasingly in this world, and expose myself to worry and vexation if I did not feel that I must do my duty towards God?[10] If I did not believe in a Divine Providence which has ordained this German nation to something good and great, I would at once give up my trade as a Statesman or I should never have gone into the business. Orders and titles have no attraction for me. A resolute faith in a life after death—for that reason I am a Royalist, otherwise I am by nature a Republican. Yes, I am a Republican in the highest degree; and the firm determination which I have displayed for ten long years in presence of all possible forms of absurdity at Court is solely due to my resolute faith. Deprive me of this faith and you deprive me of my fatherland. If I were not a firm believer in Christianity, if I had not the wonderful basis of religion, you would never have had such a Chancellor of the Confederation. If I had not the wonderful basis of religion I should have turned my back to the whole Court—and if you are able to find me a successor who has that basis I will retire at once. But I am living amongst heathens. I do not want to make any proselytes, but I feel a necessity to confess this faith.”

Katt said that the ancients had also shown much self-sacrifice and devotion. They also had the love of country, which had spurred them on to great deeds. He was convinced that many people nowadays acted in the same way through devotion to the State, and a sense of duty to society.

The Chief replied that this self-sacrifice and devotion to duty towards the State and the King amongst us was merely a remnant of the faith of our fathers and grandfathers in an altered form,—“more confused, and yet active, no longer faith, but nevertheless faithful.” “How willingly would I go away! I enjoy country life, the woods and nature. Sever my connection with God and I am a man who would pack up to-morrow and be off to Varzin, and say ‘Kiss my ——,’ and cultivate his oats. You would then deprive me of my King, because why?—if there is no Divine commandment, why should I subordinate myself to these Hohenzollerns? They are a Suabian family, no better than my own, and in that case no concern of mine. Why, I should be worse than Jacoby, who might then be accepted as President or even as King. He would be in many ways more sensible, and at all events cheaper.”

Keudell told me this evening that the Chief had already, while standing outside the château, several times expressed himself in a similar manner.

After dinner the Chancellor received in his own salon the Grand Duke of Weimar, as also Reynier, and subsequently Burnside and his companion of the day before.

Thursday, September 29th.—In the morning wrote articles on the folly of certain German newspapers that warned us against laying claim to Metz and the surrounding district because the inhabitants spoke French, and on Ducrot’s unpardonable escape during the transport of prisoners to Germany. The second article was also sent to England.

The newspapers contain a report on the prevailing public sentiment in Bavaria, which evidently comes from a thoroughly reliable and highly competent source.[11] We are accordingly to note the principal points contained therein. The news given in the report is for the most part satisfactory—in some particulars only is it possible to wish it were better. The idea of German unity has evidently been strengthened and extended by the war, but the specific Bavarian amour propre has also increased. The part taken by the army in the victories of the German forces at Wörth and Sedan, as well as the severe losses which it has suffered, has not failed to excite enthusiasm throughout all classes of the population, and to fill them with pride at the achievements of their countrymen. They are convinced that their King sincerely desires the victory of the German arms, and has used every effort to secure that end. His immediate entourage is well disposed. That cannot however be said of all his Ministers. The Minister of War is without doubt sincerely anxious, and is doing his utmost to see the campaign brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He is in that respect thoroughly reliable, and he will no doubt be found on the right side in the matter of the conditions of peace. Count Bray, on the other hand, is and remains ultramontane and Austrian in his views. In his heart of hearts he is opposed to the war, and for him our successes have been too rapid, and our victories too complete. He would like to see the neutral Powers take steps to restrain us, and if he could he would support such measures.

No conclusion is to be drawn from the very confident tone of the press as to an eventual rearrangement of German relations which, through the brotherhood in arms during the war, might develop into a permanent and closer union also in times of peace. As a matter of course Bray would be opposed to the entrance of Bavaria into the North German Confederation. But there are also other influential personages who do not contemplate such a course, or who regard the effective co-operation of the Bavarians in the German victories less as a means to promote the closer union of Germany than as a proof of the power of Bavaria and an assertion of her independence. The non-ultramontane particularists take up a somewhat similar position. They are pleased at our victories and proud of Bavaria’s share in them. They admire the manner in which the Prussians conduct the war, and, like us, they desire to secure Germany against future attack from the West. But they will not hear of Bavaria joining the North German Confederation. The partition of the conquered French territory is also much discussed in such circles. They would like to see Alsace annexed to Baden on condition that the Baden Palatinate were ceded to Bavaria. The more penetrating minds amongst them are forced to reckon with the probability that Baden, and in all likelihood also Würtemberg, will after the peace demand admission into the Federal State already formed by the North. The Ultramontanes remain what they always were, although they are now silent through fear. Fortunately they have lost all confidence in Austria, so that they lack support, while, on the other hand, the Bavarians, who are now in the field, have an entirely different opinion of the Prussians to that which they entertained before the war. They are full of the highest praise for their northern comrades, and not merely for their military qualities and achievements, but also for their readiness to help the Bavarians when they have earlier or better supplies than the latter. More than one of them has written home that their priests have maligned the Prussians. It is not true that they are all Lutherans. Many of them are Catholics, and they had even seen some Catholic military chaplains with them. As the officers share these feelings the army on its return will carry on an effective propaganda against Ultramontanism, and probably also against extreme particularism. It will be easily understood that men of national sentiment in Bavaria should feel more confident than ever. They will also do what they can for the cause. But they are a minority in the Lower Chamber, and in the Upper House they have scarcely two or three representatives.

At dinner the conversation turned on the Grand Duke of Weimar and such matters. The Minister said that the Grand Duke had been to see him the evening before, and wished to obtain some information which he (the Chief) was unable to give him. “He thinks that I am also his Chancellor. On my politely declining, he said he must then apply to the King. ‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘but in that case his Majesty will have to refer in the first place to his Minister.’ ‘And the Minister?’ (Here the Chief bent his head a little to one side and smiled sweetly.) ‘He will maintain an impenetrable silence.”’

The Chancellor then said that he had been asked what was to be done with the Garde Mobiles captured at Strassburg. They were disposed to set them at liberty and let them go home. “God forbid,” said I; “send them to Upper Silesia.”

Friday, September 30th.—Received another letter from Bamberger, who is in Baden-Baden. He continues to use his talents and influence in the press to advance the Chancellor’s views. In my answer I begged him to counteract the ill-considered arguments of certain German journalists who now, while we are still at war, and have hardly done the heaviest part of our task, are already strongly urging moderation. The worst of these is Dr. Kruse, of the Kölnische Zeitung, with whom the idea that Metz must not be annexed because the inhabitants speak French has become almost a monomania. These gentlemen offer their advice as to how far we can or may go in our demands, and plead in favour of France, while they would do much better to insist upon still heavier demands, “in order,” as the Minister said in complaining of this being “preposterous” behaviour, “that we may at least get something decent, if not all that we ask for. They will compel me in the end to claim the Meuse as our frontier. Write also to Bamberger that I had credited him with more political acumen than to imagine that we really want to replace Napoleon on the French throne.”

Sunday, October 2nd.—At teatime to a remark that the poorer classes suffered comparatively more than the upper and wealthier, the Chief replied that this reminded him of Sheridan’s observation at Reims, for it was perhaps after all as well it should be so, as there were more poor people than well-to-do, and we must always keep in mind the object of the war, which was to secure an advantageous peace. The more Frenchmen suffered from the war the greater would be the number of those who would long for peace, whatever our conditions might be. “And their treacherous franctireurs,” he continued, “who now stand in blouses with their hands in their pockets, and in the next moment when our soldiers have passed by take their rifles out of the ditch and fire at them. It will come to this, that we will shoot down every male inhabitant. Really that would be no worse than in battle, where they fire at a distance of 2,000 yards, and cannot recognise each other’s faces.”

The conversation then turned on Russia, on the communistic measure of dividing the land between the village communities, on the minor nobility, “who had invested their savings in the purchase of peasants, out of whom they squeezed their interest in the form of Obrok,” and of the incredible wealth of many of the old Boyar families. The Chief mentioned several examples, and gave a full account of the Yussupoffs, whose fortune, although nearly half of it had been several times confiscated on account of their complicity in conspiracies, was still much larger than that of most German Princes. It was so great that “two serfs, father and son, who had acted in succession as managers of the estate, were able to bleed it of three millions without the loss being felt.” “The palace of these princes in St. Petersburg contained a large theatre in the style of the Weisser Saal in the palace at Berlin, and had magnificent rooms in which 300 to 400 persons could dine with comfort. Forty years ago the old Yussupoff kept open table daily. A poor old officer on the retired list had dined there almost every day for years, although no one knew who he was. The name and rank of their constant guest was only discovered on inquiries being made of the police when on one occasion he had remained away for a considerable time.”

Monday, October 3rd.—We were joined at table by the Grand Chamberlain, Perponcher, and a Herr von Thadden, who was to be appointed a member of the Administration at Reims. The Chief told several anecdotes of the old Rothschild of Frankfurt. He had on one occasion heard Rothschild talking to a corn-dealer who wanted to buy some wheat. The latter said that such a rich man ought not to put the price of wheat so high. “What have my riches got to do with it?” replied the old gentleman. “Is my wheat any the worse because I am rich?” “He gave dinners however which did all honour to his wealth. I remember once when the present King, then Prince of Prussia, was in Frankfurt and I invited him to dinner. Rothschild had also intended to invite him. The Prince told him, however, that he must settle that with me, otherwise he would be quite as pleased to dine with him as with me. Rothschild then wanted me to give up his Royal Highness to him. I refused, whereupon he had the naïveté to propose that his dinner should be brought to my house, as of course he did not partake of it himself—he only ate meat prepared in Jewish fashion. Naturally I also declined this proposal, although there can be no doubt that his dinner would have been better than mine.” The Chief was once told by old Metternich,—“who, by the way, was very well disposed towards me,”—that at one time when he had lodged with Rothschild, on his way to Johannisberg (Metternich’s estate), his host had put six bottles of Johannisberg wine into his lunch basket for the road. These were taken out unopened on Metternich’s arrival at Johannisberg, where the Prince asked his chief cellarer what they cost per bottle. “Twelve florins,” was the answer. “Well then,” said Metternich, “send these six bottles back to Baron Rothschild when he gives his next order, but charge him fifteen florins a piece for them then, as they will have grown older by that time.”

Tuesday, October 4th.—In the forenoon again called to the Chief Bucher, Councillor of Embassy; and Wiehr, a decipherer, arrived after lunch. Bucher appears to have been summoned here in order to replace Abeken, who has been ill and ought to have gone home, but who has now nearly recovered. No one could have filled his place better than Bucher, who is unquestionably the best informed, most intelligent and unprejudiced of all the principal workers by whom the Chief is surrounded, and who help to propagate his ideas. In the evening the Chancellor talked about Moltke, remarking how gallantly he had attacked the punch bowl on a recent occasion, and in what excellent spirits he was. “I have not seen him looking so well for a long time past. That is the result of the war. It is his trade. I remember, when the Spanish question became acute, he looked ten years younger. Afterwards, when I told him that the Hohenzollern had withdrawn, he suddenly looked quite old and infirm. And when the French showed their teeth again ‘Molk’ was once more fresh and young. The matter finally ended in a diner à trois—Molk, Roon and I—which resulted (here the Chancellor smiled a cunning smile) in the Ems telegram.”

We start early to-morrow morning, as we have a long journey to make. Our next halt will be at Versailles.