Bismarck

The day after our arrival at Versailles I forwarded the following statement with regard to the measures taken against Jacoby, in accordance with the Chief’s views. It was an answer to the protests which had been made by the German press against his arrest, and not merely by the democratic and the progressist organs, which invariably criticise political and military affairs from the standpoint of private morals.

“We still hear a great deal about the alleged illegality committed in arresting Jacoby. That measure might have been inopportune; perhaps less importance might have been attached to his demonstrations. But there was nothing illegal in the course adopted, as we are now in a state of war, when the civil code must yield to military necessity. The imprisonment of Jacoby falls within the military jurisdiction, with which the police and the judicial authorities have nothing to do. It is in no sense to be regarded as a punishment. Jacoby is simply a prisoner of war, just as would be a spy arrested in Germany, with whom of course we do not wish otherwise to compare him. In other words, he was one of the forces that increased the difficulty of attaining the object of the war, and had accordingly to be rendered harmless.

“This will be made clear by a glance at the numerous instances in which those entrusted with the conduct of war are obliged to over-ride the rights of person and property recognised by the Constitution. For purposes of successful defence private property may be destroyed without previously arranging the terms of compensation, houses may be burned and trees cut down, an entrance may be forced into private residences, street traffic may be stopped and every other means of transport such as ships, carts, &c., can be either seized or destroyed without the previous permission of the owner, that rule applying to our own as well as to the enemy’s country. The removal of persons who afford the enemy either moral or material support, or who merely give rise to suspicion that they do so, comes under the same category of laws which apply to countries in a state of war.

“These principles are not contested in so far as they are applicable to the immediate seat of war. The idea upon which they are based is not, however, affected by the locality. Those who wield the power of the State must exercise the rights and fulfil the duties accorded to and imposed upon them for the purpose of securing the object of the war, without regard to the distance from the actual scene of warfare of the obstacles which require removal. They are bound to prevent the occurrence of such incidents as render the attainment of peace less easy. We are now carrying on a war for the purpose of enforcing conditions which will hinder the enemy from attacking us in future. Our opponents resist these conditions and will be greatly encouraged and strengthened in their resistance by a declaration on the part of Germans that these conditions are inexpedient and unjust. The Brunswick working class manifesto and the Königsberg resolution have been utilised to the utmost by the French press and have obviously confirmed the Republicans now holding power in Paris in the idea that they are right in rejecting those conditions. These French Republicans measure the influence of their German sympathisers on the Governments of Germany by the standard of their own experience. The impression which those demonstrations at Brunswick and Königsberg produced in Germany was probably little; but the point is, what effect did they have in Paris? The effect there is such that similar demonstrations must be rendered impossible in future, and their instigator must accordingly be put out of harm’s way.”

In the morning Keudell said to me we might remain in Versailles for about three weeks. Metz would soon be obliged to capitulate, as they now had only horseflesh to eat and no salt. They were still confident in Paris, although there was great mortality amongst their cattle, which were fed on compressed food. Burnside, who had been in the city, confirmed this news. The Minister was less sanguine. The question of uniforms for the secretaries was again brought up, and in this connection the Chief remarked that the war might yet continue for a considerable time, perhaps till Christmas, possibly till Easter, and probably a portion of the troops would remain in France for years to come. Paris should have been immediately stormed on the 19th of September, or left entirely on one side. He then told his valet to send to Berlin for his fur coats.

In the further course of conversation the Minister said: “I heard something really characteristic to-day. The host of Princes who have followed us and who are lodging at the Hôtel des Reservoirs are living at the expense of the town! They let the municipality feed them, though they have merely come out of curiosity, and are nothing more than distinguished loafers. It is particularly shabby of the Duke of Coburg, who is a rich man, with an annual revenue of a million thalers. Such a piece of meanness ought to be noticed in the press. It is shameful for a Prince to allow himself to be fed by a town already so impoverished.” The Chief again returned to this subject a little later, “The royal household is a very comprehensive conception, and so it is impossible to object to these gentlemen being fed. The King pays for the Crown Prince, and the Crown Prince for the other princely personages. But it is mean of the latter to help to suck the town dry, and the newspapers should not overlook it.”

I afterwards asked the Minister, who was alone with me in the drawing-room, where he remained behind after taking a cup of coffee, whether I should send the press particulars of the not very gentlemanly conduct of the Princes. “Certainly, why not?” he replied; “and you can also give the name of the Coburger—not in our own papers, however.” The bolt was accordingly despatched to Metzler, of the Foreign Office in Berlin, who was to pass it on to the Kölnische Zeitung.

“An Englishman at the headquarters at Meaux” wrote to the Daily Telegraph that the Chief on the conclusion of his interview with Malet said: “What gives myself and the King most anxiety is the influence of a French Republic in Germany. We are very well aware how American Republicanism has reacted upon Germany, and if the French oppose us with a republican propaganda it will do us more harm than their armies.” The Minister wrote on the margin of this statement: “An absurd lie.”

Friday, October 7th.—Hatzfeldt informed us at lunch that the Greek Minister in Paris, with a “family” of twenty-four or twenty-five persons, has come out to us on his way to Tours to join the delegation of the Government of National Defence. His boy told the Count that he did not at all like Paris. They got too little meat to eat there.

Prepared an article for the press from the following sketch: “We are carrying on war, not with a view to a permanent occupation of France, but to secure a peace on the conditions which we have laid down. For that reason we desire to negotiate with a Government which represents the will of France, and whose declarations and concessions will bind France as well as ourselves. The present Government has not that character. It must be confirmed by a National Assembly, or replaced by another Government. A general election is necessary for that purpose; and we are quite prepared to permit this to take place in those parts of the country which we occupy, so far as strategic considerations will allow. The present holders of power in Paris, however, have no disposition to adopt this course. For personal considerations they injure the interests of the country by inflicting upon it a continuance of the evils of war.”

Hatzfeldt complained at dinner that the Greeks, who are anxious to get away, pestered him with their lamentations. “Yes,” said the Chief, “they too must be regarded with suspicion. They must first be identified according to their descriptions, and it must then be seen whether they have been properly circumcised. But no, that is not customary among the Greeks. What seems to me, however, more suspicious even than this enormous diplomatic family, is Wittgenstein, who comes out at the risk of his life on pretence of having despatches for me, and who afterwards turns out to have none. I wonder do they fancy that we shall tolerate this running to and fro between Paris and Kutusow?”

“But,” said Hatzfeldt, “he might be able to bring us news from the city.”

The Chief: “For that purpose he should bear a character that inspires confidence, and that he does not do.”

The conversation then turned on the exhausted condition of the town of Versailles, which has had heavy expenses to bear during the last fortnight. The new Mayor, a M. Rameau, was granted an audience with the Chief to-day. Referring to this the Minister said: “I told him that they should raise a loan. ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘that would be possible, but then he must ask permission to go to Tours, as he required the authority of his Government for such a measure.’ Of course I could not promise him that, and besides they would hardly give him the necessary authority there. Probably they think at Tours that it is the duty of the Versailles people to starve in order that we may be starved with them. But they forget that we are the stronger and take what we want. They have absolutely no idea what war is.”

A reference to the neighbourhood between the palace and the Hôtel des Reservoirs brought up the subject of the distinguished guests who are staying at the latter house. Amongst other remarks upon the “troop of princes,” the Chancellor said: “They have nothing decent to eat at that hotel, possibly because the people think their highnesses wish to have it gratis.”

Finally some one broached the question of tolerance, and at first the Chancellor expressed himself much in the same sense as he had done at St. Avold. He declared in decided terms for tolerance in matters of faith. “But,” he added, “the Freethinkers are also not tolerant. They persecute believers, not indeed with the stake, since that is impossible, but with insult and mockery in the press. Amongst the people, so far as they are non-believers, there has also not been much progress. What pleasure it would afford them to see Pastor Knack hanged!”

Somebody having mentioned that early Protestantism had shown no tolerance, Bucher called attention to the fact that, according to Buckle, the Huguenots were zealous reactionaries, as was, indeed, the case with all the reformers of that period. “They were not exactly reactionaries,” replied the Chief, “but petty tyrants—each parson was a small Pope.” He then referred to the course taken by Calvin against Servetus, and added “Luther was just the same.” I ventured to recall Luther’s treatment of the followers of Karlstadt and Munzer, as well as the case of the Wittenberg theologians after him, and Chancellor Krell. Bucher related that towards the end of the last century the Scottish Presbyterians punished a person for merely lending Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man with twenty-one years’ transportation, the offender being immediately cast into chains. I pointed to the rigid intolerance of the New England States towards the members of other religious communions and to their tyrannical liquor law. “And the Sabbath-keeping,” said the Chief, “that is a horrible tyranny. I remember the first time I went to England on landing at Hull I whistled in the street. An Englishman, whose acquaintance I had made on board said to me, ‘Pray, sir, don’t whistle!’ I asked ‘Why not? is it forbidden here?’ ‘No,’ he said, ‘but it is the Sabbath.’ That made me so angry that I immediately took a ticket on another steamer for Edinburgh, as it did not at all suit me not to be able to whistle when I had a mind to.” Bucher remarked that in general the Sunday in England was not so bad. He himself had always greatly enjoyed the stillness after the rush and roar of the working day in London, where the noise began early in the morning. The Chancellor then continued: “In other respects I am not at all opposed to keeping the Sabbath holy. On the contrary, as a landed proprietor, I promote it as much as possible. Only I will not force the people. Every one must know best for himself how to prepare for the future life. No work should be done on Sunday, because it is wrong as being a breach of the Divine commandment, and unfair to man, who requires rest. That of course does not apply to the service of the State and in particular to the diplomatic service, in which despatches and telegrams are delivered on Sundays which must be dealt with at once. There can also be no objection to our country people saving their hay or corn on a fine Sunday after a long spell of bad weather. I could not bring myself to coerce my farmers in those things.... I can afford to do as I think right myself, as the damage done by a possible rainy Monday would not affect me. Our landed proprietors consider that it is not respectable to allow their people to work on Sunday even in such an emergency!” I mentioned that pious families in America do not even cook on the Sabbath, and that on being once invited to dinner in New York on a Sunday there was only cold meat on the table. “In Frankfurt,” said the Chief, “when I had more liberty we always dined very simply on Sundays, and I never ordered the carriage out on account of the servants.” I ventured to remark that in Leipzig all shops were closed on Sunday, with the exception of the bakers’ and some tobacconists. “Yes, that is as it should be; but I do not want to put pressure on anybody. I might possibly do it in the country by not buying from a tradesman—that is if his goods were not of exceptionally high quality, for then I do not know whether I should be able to stand firm. Care should be taken, however, that noisy trades, such as that of the blacksmith, should not be carried on in the neighbourhood of a church on Sunday.”

I was summoned to the Minister in the evening. “Thile[12] writes to me,” he said, “that the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung has a terrible article against the Catholics. Is it by you?” “I do not know which he alludes to, as I have recently called attention on several occasions to the proceedings of the Ultramontanes.” He then searched for the extract, which he read over half aloud. “But that is perfectly true and correct. Yes, that’s quite right. Our good Thile has been thoroughly taken in by Savigny. He has gone out of his wits and howls because we have not rescued the Pope and his whole family.”

We were thirteen at table to-day, Dr. Lauer being one of the number. I pointed this out to Bucher, who sat near me. “Don’t speak so loud,” he replied. “The Chief has a very sharp ear, and he is superstitious on that point.”[13]

Monday, October 10th.—Called to the Chief twice during the morning. He went subsequently to the Crown Prince’s quarters, where he remained for lunch.

The conversation at dinner at first turned on the interview of the King with Napoleon at Bellevue, near Sedan, respecting which Russell sent a full report to The Times, although the two Sovereigns were alone and the Chancellor himself was only aware of what had passed in so far as the King had assured him that there had been absolutely no reference to politics. “As a matter of fact,” said the Chancellor, “it would not have been nice of ‘our Most Gracious’ to have maintained silence only towards his Ministers. Russell must unquestionably have received his news from the Crown Prince.”

I now forgot how and by whom the subject of dangerous touring expeditions was introduced, but the Minister himself related some daring enterprises of his own. “I remember,” he said, “being once with a party, amongst whom were the Orloffs, in South France, near the Pont du Gard. An old Roman aqueduct of several stories crossed the valley. Princess Orloff, a very spirited lady, proposed that we should go across over it. There was a very narrow path, about a foot and a half wide, along one side of the old water channel, and on the other side a wall of big slabs of stone. It looked a very hazardous undertaking, but I could not allow myself to be beaten by a woman. We two accordingly started on this enterprise, Orloff going with the rest of the company down by the valley. For some time we walked on all right along the stone wall, from which we could see a depth of several hundred feet beneath us. Further on, however, the stones had fallen off and we had to pick our way along the narrow ledge. Then we came to another stretch of relatively easy going, but after there was another very bad bit on an unsafe ledge. Screwing up my courage I stepped out quickly after the Princess, and grasping her with one arm, jumped down with her into the channel some four to five feet deep. Our companions below, who had suddenly lost sight of us, were in the greatest anxiety until at length we came out on the other side.”

In the evening I was called to the Chief to receive instructions respecting Garibaldi, who, according to a telegram from Tours, had arrived there and offered his services to the French Republic. The Chancellor said: “But just tell me why you sometimes write in such a sledge-hammer style? It is true I have not seen the text of your telegram about Russell, but your recent article on the Ultramontanes in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung was very strongly worded. Surely the Saxons are usually regarded as a very polite race, and if you have any ambition to become Court Historian to the Foreign Office, you must not be so violent.” I ventured to reply that I could also be polite, and was capable of irony without rudeness. “Well, then,” he said, “be polite but without irony. Write diplomatically. Even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.”

Tuesday, October 11th.—It appears from the conversation at dinner that an assembly of a congress of German Princes at Versailles has been for some time past under consideration. It is hoped that the King of Bavaria will also come. In that case Delbrück thinks “it would be well to place at his disposal one of the historic apartments in the palace—possibly the bedroom of Louis XIV. With his character he would be certainly delighted at such an arrangement, and would not be too exacting in the matter of comfort.” The Chief dined to-day with the Crown Prince, and did not return until 10 o’clock, when he had an interview with Burnside.

Wednesday, October 12th.—Amongst other things I wrote to-day another article on the hostile attitude assumed by the Ultramontanes towards us in this war.

It was directed against the Schlesische Haus-Blätter, and concluded as follows: “We should have thought that it was impossible at this time of day to be misunderstood in using the terms ‘ultramontane’ and ‘ultramontanism.’ We should have thought that honest Catholics would as clearly understood what was meant thereby as do other Christians, and that as honest Catholics they could not possibly take offence at strictures upon ultramontane agitation and attacks. Acting on this supposition, we called attention to the resistance offered by that party to the latest development of German affairs. To our great astonishment, however, we learn through a Silesian journal that our article, in which the party in question was described as ultramontane, has actually given offence, and been regarded as a censure and impeachment of Catholicism itself. We deprecate any such interpretation of our meaning. Nothing was more remote from our intention. From our standpoint Ultramontanism has just as little in common with the faith of the Catholic Church as Atheism and Nihilism have with the Protestant Church. Ultramontanism is of a purely political character. It is the spirit of a sect with exclusively worldly aims, namely, the restoration as far as possible of universal empire on a mediæval theocratic basis. It does not recognise the claims of patriotism, and it considers the end to justify the means. In speaking of the Ultramontanes as zealous opponents of Germany in the present war, the examples which we gave made it sufficiently clear to whom we referred. For the purpose of removing all doubt on this point, however, and to prevent the possibility in future of circles for whom we entertain feelings of respect taking unnecessary offence at remarks which were not intended for them, we will here add a few further examples.

“When we complained of the hostility of the Ultramontanes we were thinking of those French priests who were convicted upon trustworthy evidence of having fired upon our soldiers. In repeating these charges we have other priests in mind who, a few days ago, under the pretext of bringing the last consolation to the dying, sneaked through our camp outside Paris as spies; and to the manifesto of the former ultramontane deputy, Keller, an Alsacian, published in the Union, which declares that the war against us is a ‘holy war,’ and that every shot fired at a German is an œuvre sainte. We imagine that after this explanation our Silesian contemporary will no longer doubt our respect for the Catholic Church, and will not itself desire to identify the Catholic cause with those who thus act and speak, and are guilty of such a gross abuse of the conception of ‘holiness.’”

On my submitting the article to the Chief he said: “You still write too bluntly for me. But you told me that you were capable of delicate irony. Here, however, there is much more irony than delicacy.” (I had only reproduced his own expressions, which, however, shall be avoided in future.) “Write it all in a different strain. You must write politically, and in politics the object is not to give offence.” The Chief then altered the article in part, the first paragraph assuming the following form: “We had not believed that at this time of day the use of the expressions ‘ultramontane’ and ‘ultramontanism’ could lead to any misunderstanding. We imagined that Catholics had as clear a conception of the meanings of those words as the members of other Christian communities, and that they would understand that no offence was intended to them in complaining of the attacks of the Ultramontanes. It was on this supposition that we dealt with the opposition of the party in question to the latest development of German affairs, and we are surprised to find that a Silesian newspaper, notorious for its violence of language, has inverted our meaning, substituting the Catholic Christian world for the coterie which we attacked.” The Minister struck out the adjective “zealous” before “opponents of Germany,” and also the following sentence beginning with the words “For the purpose of removing.” The concluding passage read as follows after the Minister had corrected it: “In complaining of the Ultramontanes we were thinking, as we expressly stated, of the party of the Münchener Volksboten and similar organs, whose slanderous jibes stir up the Germans against each other, and who encouraged the French to attack Germany and are partly responsible for the present war, inasmuch as they represented French victory to be easy and certain, and the German people to be disunited; we had in mind the priests of Upper Alsace and the French priests who instigated the country population to murderous attacks upon our troops in which they themselves took part; we had further in view those priests who sullied the cloth, sneaking into our camp as spies under pretence of bringing the last consolation to the dying, and who are at the present moment being tried by court-martial for this conduct; and we were also thinking of a manifesto published in the Union by the former ultramontane deputy, Keller, an Alsacian, in which the present war was represented as a crusade, and every shot fired at a German as an œuvre sainte. We imagine that the Silesian journal in question will hardly succeed in obtaining credence when it casts doubt upon our respect for the Catholic Church. It will not desire to identify the cause of Catholicism with that of men who have been guilty of such a wicked abuse of sacred things and of genuine faith.”

The Chief dined with the King to-day, but afterwards joined us at table, where he complained of the way in which the smaller potentates worried “their” Chancellor with all sorts of questions and counsels, “until Prince Charles noticed my appealing glance and saved me from their clutches.”

After dinner a gentleman who has come from Paris, supposed to be a Spanish diplomat, succeeded in obtaining an interview with the Chancellor, and remained with him for a long time. Like other gentlemen who have come from the city he will not be allowed to return. Some of us considered the visit rather suspicious.

Burnside came in while we were at tea. He wishes to leave here and go to Brussels, in order to find apartments for his wife, who is now at Geneva. He says that Sheridan has left for Switzerland and Italy. Apparently the Americans can do nothing further in the way of negotiations. The general wished to see the Chief again this evening. I dissuaded him, pointing out that although, owing to his great regard for the Americans, the Chancellor would receive him if he were announced, yet consideration ought to be paid to the heavy pressure upon his time. This was quite in accord with the Chief’s wishes, as on my being summoned to him at 10.30 P.M. he said: “As you know Burnside, please point out to him how much I am occupied, but in such a way that he will not think I have prompted you. He never quite finishes what he has got to say, but always keeps back something for another time. It is only fair that he should know how busy I am, and that I am a matter of fact man. I have a weakness for these Americans, and they know it, but they ought to have some consideration for me. Point that out to him, and say that I must make short work of it, even with crowned heads. Besides, I require six or seven hours daily for my work, and must therefore remain at it until late into the night.”

Thursday, October 13th.—Read and made use of a report from Rome giving the result of the plebiscite, which shows that there is no longer any Papal party there. It would appear as if the whole political organisation of the Papal State has fallen into dust, like a corpse that, after remaining unchanged for a thousand years in its leaden shell, has been suddenly exposed to the air. There is nothing left of it—not a memory nor even a void which it had filled. The voting, which had to be conducted according to the Italian Constitution, is a voluntary manifestation of opinions which either involve no sacrifice or a very slight one, except, of course, to the emigrants. So far as those opinions indicate an antipathy to the political régime of the Papacy, there can be no possibility of a reaction. On the other hand, whether the Romans will desire to be and to remain subjects of the King of Italy will depend, so far as the permanence of his rule is concerned, upon the manner in which they are governed.

I received this report from the Chancellor, with instructions to utilise it in the press. The statistical information, however, was all that was to be taken. “It would appear therefrom,” he added, “that there has been some trickery. But do not draw any moral against either the Pope or Italy.”

To judge by a letter from Saint Louis, dated the 13th of September, national sentiment amongst the Germans in America would seem to have been greatly stimulated by the success of the war, and to be now much stronger than their republican leanings. “A German who has lived here for twenty years, who was formerly your deadly foe, but whose ideal you now are,” thus enthusiastically addresses the Chancellor: “Forward, Bismarck! Hurrah for Germany! Hurrah for William the First, Emperor of Germany!” Bravo! But it appears that our Democrats must emigrate before they can be brought to entertain such feelings.

The conversation at dinner was not of particular interest to-day. While taking our coffee, the Chancellor again read us a portion of a letter from “Johanna” (his wife), which contained some very severe judgments upon the French, referring, amongst other things, to Paris as an “abominable Babel.”

Friday, October 14th.—Busy working for the post up to midday. Telegraphed afterwards to London and Brussels respecting the false assertions of Ducrot in the Liberté. Also reported that General Boyer, Bazaine’s first adjutant, had arrived at Versailles from Metz for the purpose of negotiating with us. The Chief, however, does not seem to wish to treat seriously with him, at least to-day. He said in the bureau: “What day of the month is it?” “The 14th, Excellency.” “Ah, that was Hochkirchen and Jena, days of disaster for Prussia. We must not begin any business to-day.” It may also be observed that to-day is a Friday.

At dinner the Chief, after thinking for a moment, said, smiling: “I have a lovely idea in connection with the conclusion of peace. It is to appoint an International Court for the trial of all those who have instigated the war, newspaper writers, deputies, senators, and ministers.” Abeken added that Thiers would also be indirectly involved, especially on account of his Chauvinistic History of the Consulate and Empire. “The Emperor also,” said the Chief. “He is not quite so innocent as he wants to make out. My idea was that each of the great Powers should appoint an equal number of judges, America, England, Russia and so forth, and that we should be the prosecutors. But the English and the Russians would of course not agree to it, so that the Court might after all be composed of the two nations who have suffered most from the war, that is to say, of Frenchmen and Germans.” The Minister also said: “I have read the article in the Indépendance Belge, which Grammont is believed to have written. He blames us for not having set Napoleon at liberty at Sedan, and he is not pleased at our marching on Paris, instead of merely occupying Alsace and Lorraine as a pledge. I thought at first it might have come from Beust or some other good friend in Austria, but I am now convinced that it must have been written by a Frenchman.” He gave his reasons for this opinion, and then continued: “His argument would be just if his assumption were correct, namely, that we really did not want Alsace, but only an indemnity. But as it is it will be better to have Paris as well as Alsace as pledges. When one wants something decent the pledge can never be of too great value.”

A reference was made to Boyer, who created a great sensation in the town, where the uniform of a French general has not been seen for a long time past, and who was greeted by the crowd with shouts of “Vive la France!” He declared, it is said, that the army in Metz remained faithful to the Emperor, and would have nothing to do with the republic of Parisian lawyers. The Chancellor also expressed himself to this effect, adding: “The General is one of those people who become suddenly lean when they grow excited. Unquestionably he is also a thorough scoundrel, but he can still blush.” In reading the following further remarks by the Minister, it must be remembered that Gambetta had already preached war à outrance, and that the Parisian press almost daily recommended some new infamy.

The Chancellor referred to various horrors that had again been committed recently by bands of guerillas. He quoted the proverb, Wie es in den Wald schallt, so schallt es wieder heraus, (The wood re-echoes what is shouted into it,) and said that to show any consideration to these treacherous franctireurs was a “culpable laziness in killing.” “It is treason to our country.” “Our people are very good marksmen, but bad executioners. Every village in which an act of treachery has been committed should be burnt to the ground, and all the male inhabitants hanged.”

Count Bismarck-Bohlen then related that the village of Hably, where a squadron of Silesian hussars was set upon by franctireurs with the knowledge of the inhabitants so that they only succeeded in bringing away eleven horses, was actually burnt to the ground. The Chief, as was only right and proper, commended this act of energy.

Bohlen further stated that sixty Bavarian infantrymen who were with the cavalry detachment had not kept proper watch, and that when the franctireurs poured in from all sides at 3 o’clock in the morning they took to their heels. The Chief said: “That fact should be published in order that we may take proper precautions later when we enter into a military convention with Bavaria.”

The Chancellor’s policy appears to be hampered by other influences. He said at table: “It is really a great nuisance that I must first discuss every plan I form with five or six persons, who as a rule know nothing about the matter. I must listen to their objections, and am forced to refute them politely. In this way I have been recently obliged to spend three whole days over an affair that I could otherwise have settled in three minutes. It is exactly as if I began to give my opinion on the position of a battery, and the officer—whose business I do not understand—were obliged to reply to my argument.”

The Chief afterwards related the following: “Moltke and Roon were with me yesterday, and I explained to them my ideas. Roon, who is accustomed to Parliamentary procedure, was silent and let me speak, and then agreed with what I said. ‘Molk,’ whose profile resembles more and more every day that of a bird of prey, also appeared to be listening. But when I had finished he came out with something utterly different, and I saw that he had not paid the least attention to my explanation, but had on the contrary been spinning out some ideas of his own which had nothing to do with the matter. ‘Molk’ is an exceedingly able man, and I am convinced that whatever he gave his attention to he would do well. But for years past he has devoted himself to one single subject, and he has come to have no head and no interest for anything else. It put me in a temper to find I had been talking to deaf ears, but I took my revenge. Instead of repeating my explanation I observed to Roon: ‘You have given me your opinion, therefore you have followed what I said. Will you now have the kindness to explain the matter once more?’”

Sunday, October 16th.—This morning I received another letter from Bamberger, who writes from Lausanne. He thinks Bismarck can do what he likes if he will only follow a sound German policy, that is to say, “if a United German State is now firmly established.” “In Germany people are convinced that this solution rests with the Chancellor of the Confederation, and all opposition offered to it is attributed by public opinion to the Minister. People say to themselves that if Count Bismarck did not secretly encourage that opposition it would not dare to manifest itself in such a great crisis.” Finally Bamberger asked whether he should come here. At his request I submitted a number of points in his letter to the Minister. The Chief said he would be very pleased to see Bamberger here, as his local knowledge of Paris would be very useful once we got in the city. “Then he can also on his return explain many things in his own circles which it would be difficult to write. It is strange, though, that they should think I do not desire to see Germany united. The cause is not progressing as it ought to do, owing to the constant tergiversation of Bavaria and Würtemberg, and because we do not know exactly what King Lewis thinks. For the same reasons, if this unity is at length secured, many things to which many people look forward will still be wanting.”

Monday, October 17th.—In the evening we were told to pack our boxes, and that the carriages were to take their place behind those of the King’s suite opposite the Prefecture, in case of an alarm in the night. A sortie has been expected since yesterday.

Tuesday, October 18th.—The Chief took lunch with us to-day, a thing which has seldom happened recently.

The Chief then read a number of particularly edifying private letters to the Emperor Napoleon which had been published by the Provisional Government, his comments upon them also containing occasional references to personages in Berlin. The Minister said, with reference to a letter from Pourtales: “Schleinitz was very discreet in speaking of his colleagues, but being a vain old coxcomb he was exceedingly loquacious with women of all sorts and conditions.” (Turning to Delbrück:) “You should just have a glance at the police reports which Manteuffel had prepared on this subject.”

The Minister afterwards referred to a statement in the Kraj, and in connection therewith to the Poles in general. He spoke a good deal about the victories of the Great Elector in the East, and the alliance with Charles the Tenth of Sweden, which had promised him great advantages. It was a pity, however, that his relations with Holland prevented him from following up those advantages and fully availing himself of them. He would otherwise have had a good prospect of extending his power in Western Poland. On Delbrück remarking that then Prussia would not have remained a German State, the Chief replied: “It would not have done any great harm. In that case there would have been a northern State somewhat similar to Austria in the South. Poland would have been for us what Hungary is to Austria.” This observation reminded me of what he had previously said on one occasion, namely, that he had advised the Crown Prince to have his son taught the Polish language, which, however, to his regret, was not done.

Wednesday, October 19th.—At dinner, at which Count Waldersee joined us, the Minister remarked: “It would be a good plan if the inhabitants of a few square miles of those districts where our troops are fired at from behind hedges, and where the rails are loosened and stones laid upon the railway lines, were transported to Germany and kept under close watch there.” Bucher related how, on his journey hither, an officer had borrowed his revolver and played with it ostentatiously while they were passing under a bridge from which French scamps were accustomed to spit down upon our people. The Chief exclaimed: “Why play? He should have waited till they had done it, and then fired at them.”

If I rightly understand, Weimar had “commanded” the Chancellor to call upon him this evening, as he wished to obtain information on some subject. The Chief said: “I sent him word that I was detained by my health and the business of State.”

Waldersee understands that, during the burning of the Palace of Saint Cloud, some of the minor Princes had “saved for themselves” various “souvenirs,” such as vases, trinkets and books, but were forced to return them by order of the Crown Prince. Bohlen made some outrageous jokes upon the Weimar Order of the White Falcon, which led to a discussion on Orders in general, and the plentiful crop of this species of fruit which many people have already harvested. “Yes,” said the Chief, “such quantities of tinplate! If it were only possible to give away the Orders of which one has too many! To you, for instance, Dr. Busch. How would you like it?” “No, thank you, Excellency,” I replied; “very many thanks. But, yes; if I could have one of those that you have worn yourself, as a memento, that would be something different. Otherwise I do not want any.”

Thursday, October 20th.—Morning and afternoon busy writing various articles and telegrams.

The arrest of Jacoby by the military authorities was one of the subjects discussed at dinner, and the Chief once more expressed great doubts as to its expediency. Bismarck-Bohlen was highly pleased that “the chattering scoundrel had been locked up!” The Chancellor’s reply was very characteristic. He said: “I am not at all pleased. A party man might be, because it would gratify his vindictiveness. A statesman knows no such feeling. In politics the only question is, what good result will it do to ill-treat a political opponent?”

Some one remarked that the Grand Duke of Weimar was very angry because the Chief had not gone to see him as desired, whereupon the Minister turned to Keudell, and said rather sharply: “Tell —— (I could not catch the name) immediately that I was indignant at his Gracious Master making such claims upon my time and health, and that he should have such an erroneous idea of the duties which I have to discharge.” “I can now understand how poor Wartsdorf came to die so young.” “The Coburger worries me almost as much. He has written me a twelve-page letter on German politics, but I have given him a proper answer. I told him that of all the points he mentioned there was only one which had not been long since dealt with, and that one was not worth discussing. He did us a good service, however, in 1866. It is true that previously he was bad enough—when he wished to be Emperor of Germany, and put himself at the head of a secret shooting club. At that time I seriously intended to have him kidnapped by a regiment of hussars and brought to Magdeburg, and I submitted my proposal to the King. He is eaten up with vanity.” The Minister then related that the Duke had ordered a picture to be painted of himself as the victor of Eckernförde, seated on a prancing charger with a bombshell exploding at his feet; while, as a matter of fact, “he did not on that occasion display any heroism, but, on the contrary, kept at a respectable distance from gunshot—which was quite a sensible thing for him to do.”

The German liberal press is still uneasy with respect to the arrest of Jacoby. The Chief seems to consider it of great importance that his view of the affair should not be misunderstood, and that it should be generally adopted. The Weser Zeitung of the 16th instant, which arrived to-day, has an article which criticises the Minister’s previous declarations on this subject in a hostile spirit. It concludes as follows: “To sum up, we must hold to our view that Jacoby has been treated unjustly, and although we anticipate no fearful consequences from this action, we nevertheless regret this episode in the history of a glorious epoch.”

The Chief dictated the following reply:—

“The Weser Zeitung of the 16th instant heads its columns with an article which speaks of the advice forwarded to the Königsberg magistrates by the Chancellor of the Confederation, through the Chief President von Horn, respecting the Jacoby affair. Be good enough to permit a few words of explanation in connection with that criticism. The remarks of the Weser Zeitung refer to two different subjects. The statement of the Chancellor in his communication to the Chief President is a purely theoretical discussion as to whether action inadmissible in peace may not be taken by military authorities after war has actually broken out. The opinions therein expressed are almost the same as these which must have been entertained by the Weser Zeitung itself when it remarked, ‘We can easily conceive cases in which we should be prepared with all our hearts to grant not only an indemnity but a vote of thanks for the somewhat illegal arrest of any worthless individual who obstructed this holy war.’ That is exactly the opinion of the Chancellor. If that much were not granted, it would then be impossible on an invasion of North German territory to deliver battle on our own soil, unless some extensive and entirely uninhabited heath were discovered and retained for the purpose, and even then the proprietor of that piece of ground would be afterwards able to claim compensation for the damage done to his property.

“Either the authorities entrusted with the conduct of the military operations must, notwithstanding the actual outbreak of hostilities, be bound by the Constitution and the law, or they must be held at liberty to take such reasonable measures as they consider necessary with a view to the fulfilment of their task. Theoretically, this question must be answered with a bare affirmative or negative. If it be answered in the negative it is hard to say by how many judicial officials every detachment of the fighting force on native soil would have to be accompanied, and what legal formalities gone through in the case of each separate house and person before the military authorities could feel that they were constitutionally within their rights in the course they desired to adopt. If the question is answered in the affirmative, then it must be recognised that it is impossible to codify the regulations governing the discretionary power which must be vested in the military commander in war, in such a manner that the general or soldier who executes his orders on native soil can in every instance refer to the particular paragraph of the Constitution or the law justifying his action.

“The Chancellor of the Confederation cannot possibly have had any other intention than to lay down the principles just stated theoretically, since, as a constitutional Prussian Minister of State, it is not competent for him to express any opinion as to whether the military commander has acted rightly in exercising the power vested in him, or as to the extent to which he may have exercised it. The military governors, who are appointed before the outbreak of war, are neither nominated by the Minister nor are they under his control. They are, on the contrary, appointed without his concurrence on the authority of the commander-in-chief, like all other military commanders. The Chancellor of the Confederation and the other Ministers of State are not the superiors of the military governors, and the latter would not obey the directions of the Ministers, but only those of the military authorities which reach them without any Ministerial co-operation.

“It is therefore an entirely unpractical course for those who consider themselves unjustly treated under the orders of the military authorities to direct their complaints to the Ministers of State. They can only demand redress from the military superiors of those against whom they enter complaint. It may therefore be taken for granted that the Chancellor of the Confederation has not considered himself to be in a position to officially express an opinion on the expediency of the course adopted in a single instance, such as that of Jacoby, but has, on the contrary, merely dealt from a theoretical standpoint, with the question whether, during war and in the interest of its successful prosecution, the arrest of individuals whose action in the judgment of the military authorities is injurious to us and advantageous to the enemy is temporarily permissible.

“Stated in these general terms, the question can hardly be answered in the negative by practical politicians and soldiers, although they may entertain many scruples both on theoretical and judicial grounds against martial law as a whole. The concrete question, however, whether this right, if it exists, was properly exercised in the case of Jacoby, is as much beyond the competence of the Ministry as, say, the question whether it is necessary or desirable in delivering battle on native soil to set a particular village on fire, or to arrest without legal process a private person at a distance of fifty miles from the battle-field because he is suspected of favouring the enemy. A discussion of the means by which the military commander could be rendered responsible for what the parties concerned may consider a false, hasty or improper course is foreign to our purpose. We have merely been at pains to show that the constitutional attributes of the Ministry do not give it any authority to interfere directly in such cases.”

Friday, October 21st.—The heavy firing which began early this morning increased as the day wore on. We did not allow this to disturb us, however. Various articles were completed, including one on the departure of the Nuncio and other diplomats from Paris.

At lunch Keudell stated that the French artillery had destroyed the porcelain factory at Sèvres. Hatzfeldt told us that his mother-in-law, an American lady who had remained in Paris, had sent him good news respecting the ponies of which he had often spoken to us. They were fine and fat. The question was whether she should now eat them. He was about to answer, “Yes, in God’s name!” but he intended to get the price of these animals included in the indemnity to be paid by the French Government.

Between 1 and 2 o’clock the firing seemed to have approached the woods to the north of the town. The artillery fire was severe, the reports following each other in rapid succession, while the rattle of the mitrailleuse could also be recognised. It gave the impression that a regular battle had developed, and was drawing nearer to us. The Chief ordered his horse to be saddled, and rode off. The rest of us also followed in the direction in which the fight seemed to be raging. We saw the familiar white clouds that accompany shell fire rise and burst in the air to the left, over the wood through which the road to Jardy and Vaucresson leads. Orderlies were galloping along the road thither, and a battalion was marching towards the point where the engagement was taking place. The fight continued until after 4 o’clock, and then one only heard isolated discharges from the large fort on Mont Valérien, and finally they too ceased. As was only natural, great excitement prevailed during the afternoon amongst the French in the town, and the groups who stood before the houses probably expected every moment, as the noise of the firing came nearer and nearer, to see our troops in full flight before the red breeches. They afterwards drew long faces and shrugged their shoulders.

In the evening the Chief said we ought not to permit groups of people to collect in the streets on the occasion of an engagement, and that the inhabitants should be ordered in such circumstances to remain within doors, the patrols being instructed to fire upon those refusing obedience.

Sunday, October 22nd.—This has now been done, Voigts-Rhetz, the Commandant of Versailles, having issued an order to the effect that on the alarm signal being given, all the inhabitants must immediately return to their houses, failing which the troops had received instructions to fire upon them.

The Parisian Prefect of Police, Keratry, has appeared in Madrid with the object of submitting two proposals to General Prim. The first is that France and Spain should enter into an offensive and defensive alliance, under which the latter country should send an army of fifty thousand men to the assistance of the French. The object of the alliance would be the common defence of the nations of the Latin race against the supremacy of the Germanic race. On Prim declining this strange offer (strange inasmuch as the Spanish support of France, which but three months before had in the most arrogant manner forced its own policy upon Spain, would be an unexampled piece of self-renunciation and a misconception of the clearest interests of the Spanish people), the French intermediary asked that at least a decree should be issued permitting the import of arms into France. This suggestion was also rejected by Prim.

The surrender of Metz is expected within the next week. Prince Frederick Charles desires, if I rightly understand, a capitulation on the same conditions as at Sedan and Toul; while the Chancellor, for political reasons, is in favour of a more considerate treatment of the garrison. The King seems to hesitate between the two courses.

The Chief said yesterday to the Mayor of Versailles: “No elections, no peace. But the gentlemen of Paris will not hear of them. The American generals who were in Paris with the object of inducing them to hold the elections tell me that there is no getting them to consider the matter. Only Trochu said they were not yet so hard pressed that they need enter into negotiations,—the others would not hear of them, not even of submitting the question to the country.” “I told him finally,” said the Minister, “that we should have no alternative but to come to an understanding with Napoleon, and to force him back upon the French again. He did not believe we would do that, as it would be the grossest insult we could offer them. I replied that it was nevertheless in the interests of the victor to leave the defeated nation under a régime which would have to rely solely upon the army. In such circumstances it would be impossible to think of foreign wars. In conclusion, I advised him not to make the mistake of thinking that Napoleon had no hold upon the people. He had the army on his side. Boyer had negotiated with me in the name of the Emperor. How far the present Government in Paris had the support of the people remained to be seen. The rural population could hardly share the opinion that peace was not to be thought of. He then gave his own view respecting the conditions of peace, namely, the razing of their fortresses and ours, and the disarmament of both countries in proportion to the population, &c. As I told him at the commencement, these people have no right conception of what war really is.”

The Nouvelliste being now the only newspaper in Versailles, and as it sensibly avoids unnecessarily hurting the patriotic sentiments of the French, the people here take some account of it. Löwinsohn tells us that the number of copies sold varies, some issues have been quite cleared out, while of others he has only thirty to fifty, and of yesterday’s 150 copies on hand. Up to the present his weekly balance shows no loss.

In the evening wrote an article for the Norddeutsche in which the following ideas are developed. The first condition upon which the Chancellor of the Confederation insisted in speaking to the various persons who have desired to negotiate with him respecting peace was the election of an Assembly representing the will of France. He addressed the same demand to the emissaries of the Republicans and to the Imperialists, and to another third party. He desires to grant all possible facilities for thus consulting the wishes of the population. The form of government is a matter of entire indifference to us. But we can only deal with a real Government recognised by the nation.

The Nouvelliste will shortly publish the following ideas in a French dress: “At the present moment in France, events are constantly occurring which are not only opposed to common sense, but are frequently an outrage on all moral feeling. Former Papal Zouaves, and not alone Frenchmen, serve without scruple in the army of a Republic which is governed by Voltairians. Garibaldi comes to Tours, and offers, as he says, what remains of his life to the service of France. He can hardly have forgotten that this same France, twenty years before, destroyed the Roman Republic, while the wounds which it inflicted upon his country at Mentana must be still fresh in his memory. Nor can we have forgotten how his native town of Nice was filched from the Italian fatherland by this same France, and that it is at the present moment only restrained by a state of siege from throwing off the French yoke.”

Delbrück mentioned that during the preliminary negotiations for the reorganisation of Germany, Bavaria laid claim to a kind of joint participation in the representation of the Federal State in foreign countries, the Bavarian idea being that when the Prussian, or rather the German, Minister or Ambassador was absent, the Bavarian representative should have the conduct of affairs. The Chief said: “No, whatever they like, but that is really impossible. The question is not what Ambassador we are to have, but what instructions he is to receive, and under that arrangement there would be two Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Germany.” The Count then proceeded to further develop this point of view, illustrating it by examples.

Monday, October 24th.—Strange news comes from Marseilles. It appears that the Red Republicans have there gained the upper hand. Esquiros, the Prefect of the Mouths of the Rhone, belongs to this variety of French Republicans. He has suppressed the Gazette du Midi, because the clubs of his party maintain that it favours the candidature of the Comte de Chambord, whose proclamation it has published. He has also expelled the Jesuits. A decree has been issued by Gambetta, declaring the Prefect to be dismissed, and his measures against the newspaper mentioned and the Jesuits to be abrogated. Esquiros, however, supported by the working classes, has declined to obey this order of the Government Delegation at Tours, and continues to hold his post. The Gazette du Midi is still suppressed, and the Jesuits are expelled. Just as little heed was paid to Gambetta’s decree disbanding the Civic Guard, which was recruited from Red Republicans, and is not to be confounded with the Marseilles National Guard. The Chief remarked with reference to this news: “It looks as if things were tending towards civil war; and it is possible that we may shortly have a Republic of South France.” I worked up this news into paragraphs, written in the sense of the foregoing comment.

At 4 o’clock M. Gauthier, who comes from Chislehurst, called upon the Chancellor.

Tuesday, October 25th.—This morning the Chief said, in reference to a statement in the Pays mentioning an indemnity of three and a half milliards: “Nonsense! I shall demand much more than that!”

During dinner the subject of “William Tell” was introduced, I cannot now remember how, and the Minister confessed that, even as a boy, he could not endure that character; first, because he shot at his own son, and secondly, because he killed Gessler in a treacherous way. “It would have been more natural and noble to my mind if, instead of shooting at the boy, for after all the best archer might hit him instead of the apple, he had immediately shot down the Governor. That would have been legitimate wrath provoked by a cruel command. But the lurking and skulking is not to my taste. It is not the proper style for a hero, not even for franctireurs.”

Two copies of the Nouvelliste are pasted up daily in different parts of the town, and are read by the people, although, when a German passes by, the group engaged in perusing them greets him with such criticisms as, “Mensonges!” or “Impossible!” One of Stieber’s attendant spirits, or some other guardian of the truth, caught a working man to-day in the act of writing the word “Blague” on one of the copies posted up in the neighbourhood of the Prefecture. It is said that he is to be transported to Germany.

Wednesday, October 26th.—In the morning I translated Granville’s despatch for the King, and afterwards prepared an abstract of it for the press. The latter was accompanied by the remark that we had already twice offered the French an armistice on favourable terms, once through Favre, and again, on the 9th of October, through Burnside, but that they would not accept it because we desired it. Then telegraphed to London that Thiers is receiving a safe conduct to our headquarters and permission to proceed thence to Paris. Also that the Comte de Chambord had a meeting at Coppet with the Comte de Paris.

In the evening I wrote another article on the instructions of the Chief to the following effect. It is rumoured that Vienna diplomacy has again taken steps to induce the Germans to grant an armistice. We find it difficult to credit this report. The only advantage to the French of an armistice at the present moment would be to strengthen their resistance and to render it more difficult for us to enforce the conditions which we recognise as essential. Can that be the object Austria has in view in taking this measure? The following considerations are of an obvious nature. If the authorities in Vienna deprive us of the fruits of our victory, if we are prevented from securing that safe western frontier which we are striving to win, a new war with France is unavoidable, or rather the continuation of the one thus interrupted. It is quite clear where in such circumstances France would seek allies and probably find them. It is equally certain that in that case Germany would not wait until the recovery of France from her present chaotic condition, which would be promoted by a cessation of the war now in progress. Germany would be obliged to deal first with this future ally of France and to seek to render it powerless, and the latter standing alone would have to bear the cost of its own act in preventing us from attaining our present object. In other words, it might then happen that Austria would have to compensate us by the cession of Bohemia for the loss of Lorraine, which it once before alienated from the German Empire.

Friday, October 28th.—In the afternoon Moltke sent the Chief a telegram which reported that the capitulation of Metz was signed to-day at 12.45 P.M. The French army thus made prisoners number in all 173,000 men, including 16,000 sick and wounded. Bennigsen, Friedenthal, and Von Blankenburg, a friend of the Chancellor’s in his youth, joined us at dinner. From the French officers captured at Metz and their approaching transportation to Germany, the conversation turned upon General Ducrot and his disgraceful escape from Pont à Mousson. The Minister said: “He has written me a long letter explaining that there is no foundation for the charge of breach of faith we have brought against him, but he has not materially modified my view of the case.” The Chief then related that recently an “intermediary of Gambetta’s” had called upon him, and that towards the close of the conversation he asked whether we would recognise the Republic. “I replied,” continued the Chief, “certainly, without any doubt or hesitation. Not only the Republic, but, if you like, a Gambetta dynasty; only it must secure us the advantages of a safe peace.” “Or for the matter of that any dynasty, whether it be a Bleichröder or a Rothschild one.”

The Nouvelliste is to be stopped, and to be replaced by a journal of larger size bearing the title, Moniteur Officiel de Seine et Oise, which will be published at the expense of the Government.

Saturday, October 29th.—At dinner our great success at Metz was discussed. “That exactly doubles the number of our prisoners,” said the Minister—“no, it does more. We now have in Germany the army which Napoleon had in the field at the time of the battles of Weissenburg, Wörth, and Saarbrücken, with the exception of those whom we killed. The troops which the French now have were afterwards brought from Algiers and Rome, and newly recruited, together with a few thousand men under Vinoy who made off before Sedan. We have also nearly all their generals.” The Chief then said Napoleon had requested that Marshals Bazaine, Lebœuf, and Canrobert, who had been taken at Metz, should be sent to him at Wilhelmshöhe. The Minister added: “That would make a whist party. I have no objection, and shall recommend the King to do so.” He then went on to say that so many extraordinary events which no one could have imagined previously were now of daily occurrence that one might regard the most wonderful as being within the range of possibility. “Amongst other things it might well happen that we should hold a German Reichstag in Versailles, while Napoleon might summon the Legislative Chamber and the Senate to Cassel to consider the terms of peace. Napoleon is convinced that the former representative body is still legally in existence, an opinion against which there is little to be said, and that he could summon it to meet wherever he liked—of course, however, only in France. Cassel would be a debatable question.” The Chief then said that he had invited the representatives of the parties “with whom it is possible to discuss matters”—Friedenthal, Bennigsen, and Blankenburg—to come here in order to ascertain their views respecting a session of our Parliament at Versailles. “I was obliged to omit the Progressist party, as they only desire what is not possible. They are like Russians, who eat cherries in winter and want oysters in summer. When a Russian goes into a shop he asks for Kaknje bud, that is to say, for what does not exist.”

After the first course Prince Albrecht, the father, came in and took a seat on the Chief’s right. The old gentleman, like a genuine Prussian Prince, always gallant and loyal to his duty, has pressed forward with his cavalry beyond Orleans. He tells us that the engagement in Châteaudun was “horrible.” He warmly praised the Duke of Meiningen, who had also shirked no danger or privation. On this the Chief remarked: “I have nothing to say against Princes who go with the army and as officers and leaders share the dangers and hardships of the soldiers. But I should prefer to see those who loaf around here at Pückler’s expense, and who are mere spectators of the man-hunt, anywhere rather than at headquarters. It is all the more unpleasant to me to have them here, as they storm me with questions and force wise counsels upon me respecting matters that are in course of development and which are now being worked out.”... “May I ask,” said the Prince (doubtless to get away from this subject), “how the Countess is?” “Oh, she is quite well,” replied the Chief, “now that our son is better. She still suffers from her ferocious hatred of the Gauls, all of whom she would wish to see shot and stabbed to death, down to the little babies—who after all cannot help having such abominable parents.”