Bismarck

On the morning of the 30th of October, while taking a walk along the Avenue de Saint Cloud, I met Bennigsen, who was to start for home with Blankenburg in a few days. On my asking what progress had been made in Germany with the question of unity he said that the prospects were very good. The only point which the Bavarians still insisted upon was a certain degree of independence for their army. The feeling amongst the majority of the people was all that could be desired.

On my return to the house a little after 10 o’clock Engel told me that Thiers had arrived shortly before, but had left again almost immediately. He had come from Tours, and had only called to get a safe conduct through our lines, as he wished to go to Paris. Hatzfeldt had breakfasted with Thiers at the Hôtel des Reservoirs, and afterwards saw him into the carriage, in which, accompanied by Lieutenant von Winterfeldt, he was conducted to the French outposts. He told us at lunch that Thiers “still remained the same bright witty old gentleman, but was weak as a baby.” Hatzfeldt had been the first to recognise him on his calling at our place, and told him that the Chief was just getting up. He then showed him into the salon, and informed the Minister, who hastily finished his toilet and shortly afterwards came down. They were, however, only together alone for a few minutes, the Chief then instructing Hatzfeldt to make the necessary preparations for Thiers’ visit to Paris. The Minister afterwards told Hatzfeldt that Thiers said to him immediately after they had exchanged greetings, that he had not come to speak to him. “That strikes me as quite natural,” added Hatzfeldt, “as although Thiers would like to conclude peace with us (just because it would be Thiers’ peace, since he is terribly ambitious) he does not know what the people in Paris would say to it.”

In the meantime the Chief had ridden off with his cousin to the review of 9,000 Landwehr Guards which was being held this morning by the King. At lunch the Chief referred to the Landwehr, who had arrived that morning, and said they were tall, broad-shouldered fellows, who must have impressed the people of Versailles. “The front of one of their companies is at least five feet broader than that of a French company, particularly in the Pomeranian Landwehr.” The Minister then turned to Hatzfeldt, and said: “I hope you have not mentioned anything about Metz to Thiers.” “No, and he also said nothing about it, although there is no doubt that he knows.” “He certainly does, but I did not speak about it either.” Hatzfeldt then observed once more that Thiers was very charming in his manner, but had lost nothing of his old vanity and self-complacency. As evidence of this Hatzfeldt mentioned that Thiers had told him that a few days before he met a peasant whom he asked whether he desired to see peace concluded. “Certainly, very much.” “Whether he knew who he (Thiers) was?” “No,” the peasant replied, and appealed to a neighbour who had come on the scene, and who passed as the oldest inhabitant. This ancient was of opinion that M. Thiers must be a member of the Chamber. Hatzfeldt added, “It was obvious that Thiers was angry at not being better known.”

The Chief went out for a moment, and brought back a case containing a gold pen, which a jeweller of Pforzheim presented to him for the purpose of signing the Treaty of Peace.

At dinner the Chief again spoke at some length of the possibility of holding a Session of the German Reichstag at Versailles, while the French Legislative Chamber should at the same time meet at Cassel. Delbrück observed that the hall of the Diet at Cassel would not be large enough for such an assembly. “Well then,” said the Chief, “the Senate could meet somewhere else—in Marburg or Fritzlar, or some similar town.”

Monday, October 31st.—In the morning wrote some articles, one of which advocated the idea of an international court for the trial of those who had instigated this war against us. Also directed attention to the case of M. Hermieux, the commandant of a French battalion, who like Ducrot had broken his word by making his escape from hospital, and whose description was now published in the newspapers.

Gauthier called again at 12 o’clock, and had another long interview with the Chief.

Hatzfeldt announced at tea that on paying a visit early in the evening at the Hôtel des Reservoirs he learned by accident that M. Thiers had returned, and he had afterwards spoken to him. Thiers informed him that on the day before he had been engaged from 10 o’clock at night until 3 in the morning in negotiating with the members of the Provisional Government; he rose again at 6 A.M. and from that time until 2 in the afternoon received visitors of all descriptions, after which he drove back here. He wishes to have a conference with the Chancellor to-morrow. “He began to speak of disturbances having taken place yesterday in Paris,” continued Hatzfeldt, “but on an exclamation of surprise escaping me he immediately changed the subject.”

In the evening I was instructed to see that the decree addressed to Vogel von Falkenstein and published in the Staatsanzeiger of the 27th instant, was reproduced by our other papers. It was to be accompanied by a collection of newspaper reports respecting the ill-treatment of German prisoners by the French. I then began a second article against Beust’s intervention in our quarrel with the French, based on the suggestions of the Chief, who said it was to be “very sharply worded.” This however was not sent off, as the situation altered in the meantime. I reproduce the article here as being characteristic of the position of affairs at the moment. It ran as follows:—

“If in a struggle between two Powers, one of whom proves obviously weaker and is at length on the point of being defeated, a third Power, which has hitherto been neutral, urges an armistice, its motive must certainly be regarded less as a benevolent desire for the welfare of both parties than as anxiety for the weaker State and as evident partisanship in favour of the same. It is, in fact, an armistice in favour of the Power that is on the point of being defeated, and to the disadvantage of that which has won the upper hand. If this third Power furthermore endeavours to induce other neutral States to take similar action, thus strengthening and giving more weight to its own proposal, then it is clearly departing still further from a neutral attitude. Its one-sided warnings are transformed into partisan pressure, its proceedings become intrigues, and its whole action presents an appearance of threatened violence.

“This is the case with Austria-Hungary if it be true, as the Vienna official organs boast, that it has taken the initiative in an attempt of the neutral Powers to negotiate an armistice between defeated France and victorious Germany. The conduct of Count Beust becomes more clearly offensive when it is known that it was suggested by M. Chaudordy, Favre’s representative at Tours, and originated in a previous understanding between the Vienna Cabinet and the Delegation of the Provisional Government in that city. The true character of this action on the part of Austro-Hungarian diplomacy as a hostile interference in our settlement with France becomes more manifest from the manner in which its representative in Berlin supports the English suggestions. The British Foreign Office adopts a tone of perfect impartiality, and of benevolence towards Germany; the Italians do the same, while the Russian representative has kept entirely aloof from all intervention. All three Powers have done their utmost at Tours to promote an unprejudiced and reasonable view of the situation on the part of the French. On the other hand, the despatches read by Herr von Wimpffen in Berlin (we do not know what Austria-Hungary has advised at Tours) speak in a tone which is anything but friendly. They emphasise the statement that Vienna still believes in general European interests. The authorities there fear that history would condemn the neutral Powers if the catastrophe which is threatening Paris were to occur without a voice being raised on their part to avert it. It is evidently intended as a severe and offensive censure when they say humanity demands that the conditions of peace should be made less onerous for the vanquished, but that Germany will not permit any voice to reach the ears of its defeated foe except that which proclaims the commands of the victor. The whole despatch is characterised throughout by a vein of irony which distinguishes it in a manner little to its advantage from that of the English Government.

“From all these circumstances it is as clear that the action of Count Beust is guided by hostile intentions towards us as that Lord Granville’s attitude is based on good will. We wonder if the Vienna Chancellor well considered the possible consequences of this new manœuvre. It is not probable after the fall of Metz that the attempt made by Austria to hinder Germany in the complete attainment of that peace which we have in view with the object of securing a safe Western frontier will be successful. But we shall remember that attempts to prejudice our interests and the good impression made in Germany by the previous neutrality of Austria-Hungary will be destroyed, and a friendly rapprochement with the dual monarchy, a basis for which was being laid, will be postponed—probably for a considerable time. But let us consider another possibility. Take it that through the intervention of Count Beust the demands which we make upon France are curtailed, and that we are actually obliged to renounce a portion of the old and new debts which we are on the point of collecting—does the Chancellor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire believe that we shall not remember at the first opportunity to make our ill-disposed neighbour on the South-East compensate us for what he helped to deprive us of in the West? Does he believe that we shall foolishly put off the day of reckoning with a neighbour who takes every opportunity of displaying his hostility, until his French protégé has recovered sufficiently to give him the support of a more valuable alliance in gratitude for the assistance given against Germany?”

Tuesday, November 1st.—At dinner Bohlen reported that the Coburger is doing his utmost to create a feeling of discontent—he says nothing happens, nothing is being done, no progress is being made. “What! He!” exclaimed the Chief, with an indescribable expression of contempt on his features. “He should be ashamed of himself. These Princes that follow the army like a flight of vultures! These carrion crows, who themselves do nothing whatever except inspect the battle-fields, &c.” Some one then spoke of the last engagement, and said that a portion of the 1200 prisoners that had been taken were franctireurs. “Prisoners!” broke in the Chief, who still seemed to be extremely angry. “Why do they continue to make prisoners? They should have shot down the whole 1200 one after the other.”

Mention was made of the decree of the Minister of War or of the Commandant of the Town, ordering that particulars should be published of all valuables found in houses deserted by their owners, and that if not reclaimed within a certain time they were to be confiscated for the benefit of the war chest. The Minister said that he considered this decree to be perfectly justified, adding: “As a matter of fact such houses should be burned to the ground, only that punishment would also fall in part on the sensible people who have remained behind; and so unfortunately it is out of the question.” The Chief then observed, after a pause, and apparently without any connection with what had been previously said: “After all, war is, properly speaking, the natural condition of humanity.” He remained silent for a while, and then remarked: “It just occurs to me that the Bavarian proposes to surprise me to-day,” by which he meant that Count Bray was about to visit him. This led the conversation to the Bavarian Ambassador in Berlin, Pergler von Perglas, of whom the Chief does not appear to have a high opinion. “He is as bad as he can be. I do not say that because he is a Particularist, as I do not know how I should think myself if I were a Bavarian. But he has always been in favour of the French.” (The Minister maintained, if I heard him rightly, that this was owing to his wife.) “I never tell him anything when he comes to me, or at least not the truth.”

Shortly afterwards the Chief told us that Thiers had been with him for about three hours to-day with the object of negotiating an armistice. Probably however it would not be possible to come to an understanding as to the conditions which he proposes or is prepared to grant. Once during the conversation Thiers wished to speak of the supply of provisions now in Paris; but the Minister interrupted him, saying, “Excuse me, but we know that better than you who have only been in the city for one day. Their store of provisions is sufficient to last until the end of January.” “What a look of surprise he gave me! My remark was only a feeler, and his astonishment showed that what I had said was not true.”

At dessert the Minister spoke of the large quantity he had eaten. “But then it is my only meal. It is true I take breakfast, but then it is merely a cup of tea without milk and two eggs,—and after that nothing till evening. Then I over-eat myself, like a boa-constrictor, and can’t sleep. Even as a child, and ever since that time, I have always gone to bed late, never before midnight. I usually fall asleep quickly, but wake soon again and find that it is not more than half-past 1 o’clock. All sorts of things then come into my head, particularly if I have been unfairly treated,—and that must be all thought out. I afterwards write letters, and even despatches, but of course without getting up—simply in my head. Formerly, for some time after my appointment as Minister, I used to get up and actually write them down. When I read them over next morning however they were worth nothing,—mere platitudes, confused trivial stuff such as might have appeared in the Vossische Zeitung, or might have been composed by his Serene Highness of Weimar. I do not want to, I should prefer to sleep. But the thinking and planning goes on. At the first glimmer of dawn I fall off again, and then sleep till 10 o’clock or even later.”

Wednesday, November 2nd.—On returning from a long walk at about 4.30 P.M. I heard that Thiers had remained with the Chief until a few minutes before, and looked rather pleased on taking his leave. During dinner the Minister observed, referring to his visitor of to-day: “He is a clever and amiable man, bright and witty, but with scarcely a trace of the diplomatist—too sentimental for that trade.” “He is unquestionably a finer nature than Favre. But he is no good as a negotiator (Unterhändler)—not even as a horsedealer (Pferdehändler).” “He is too easily bluffed, betrays his feelings, and allows himself to be pumped. Thus I have ascertained all sorts of things from him, amongst others that they have only full rations in Paris for three or four weeks.”

With respect to our attitude towards the approaching French elections, I called attention in the press to the following example, which may decide us to exclude Alsace-Lorraine from the voting, and to which we can refer those who allege such an exclusion to be unprecedented. An American informs us that in the last war between the United States and Mexico an armistice was agreed upon with the object of giving the Mexicans time to choose a new Government, which should conclude peace with the United States. The provinces, the cession of which was demanded by the United States, were not permitted to take part in this election. This is the sole precedent, but it entirely covers the present case.

Thursday, November 3rd.—A fine bright morning. Already at 7 A.M. the iron lions on Mont Valérien began to fill the surrounding wooded valleys with their roaring.

I make abstracts for the King of two articles that appeared in the Morning Post of the 28th and 29th of October, which are understood to have come from Persigny or Prince Napoleon. The assertion in these articles that in the negotiations with the delegate of the Empress our demand extended only to Strassburg, and a narrow strip of land in the Saar district, with about a quarter of a million inhabitants, is (the Chief tells me) based on a misunderstanding.

I am instructed to telegraph that in consequence of yesterday’s negotiations the Chancellor has offered M. Thiers a truce of twenty-five days on the basis of the military status quo. Thiers returned at 12 o’clock, and negotiated with the Chief until 2.30 P.M. The demands of the French are exorbitant. At lunch we hear that in addition to a twenty-eight days’ armistice for the elections and the meeting of the National Assembly thus chosen to determine the position of the Provisional Government, they demand nothing less than the right to provision Paris and all other fortresses held by them and besieged by us, and the participation of the Eastern provinces, of which we require the cession in the elections. Ordinary logic finds it difficult to conceive how the provisioning of fortresses can be deemed consistent with the maintenance of the military status quo.

Amongst other subjects discussed at dinner were the elections in Berlin. Delbrück was of opinion that they would be more favourable than hitherto. Jacoby, at any rate, would not be re-elected. Count Bismarck-Bohlen thought otherwise. He anticipated no change. The Chancellor said: “The Berliners must always be in opposition and have their own ideas. They have their virtues—many and highly estimable ones—they fight well, but they would not consider themselves to be as clever as they ought to be unless they knew everything better than the Government.” That failing, however, was not confined to Berliners, the Chief added. All great cities were much the same in that respect, and many were even worse than Berlin. They were in general more unpractical than the rural districts, where people were in closer contact with nature, and thus not only got into a more natural and practical way of thinking. “Where great numbers of men are crowded together they easily lose their individuality and dissolve into one mass. All sorts of opinions are in the air, they arise from hearsay and repetition, and are little or not at all founded on facts, but are propagated by the newspapers, popular meetings and conversations over beer, and then remain firmly, immutably rooted. It is a sort of false second nature, a faith or superstition held collectively by the masses. They reason themselves into believing in something that does not exist, consider themselves in duty bound to hold to that belief, and wax enthusiastic over narrow-minded and grotesque ideas. That is the case in all great cities, in London for instance, where the cockneys are quite a different race to other Englishmen—in Copenhagen, in New York, and above all in Paris. The Parisians, with their political superstitions, are quite a distinct people in France,—they are caught and bound up in a circle of ideas which are a sacred tradition to them, although when closely examined they turn out to be mere empty phrases.”

So far as Thiers was concerned, the Minister only told us that shortly after the commencement of their conference to-day he suddenly asked him whether he had obtained the authority necessary for the continuance of the negotiations. “He looked at me in astonishment, on which I said that news had been received at our outposts of a revolution having broken out in Paris since his departure, and that a new Government had been proclaimed. He was visibly perturbed, from which it may be inferred that he considers a victory of the Red Republicans as possible, and the position of Favre and Trochu as insecure.”

Thiers was again with the Chief from 9 o’clock till after 10.

Friday, November 4th.—Beautiful bright morning. At the desire of the Minister I send the Daily News an account of his conversation with Napoleon at Donchery. He had principally conversed with the Emperor within the weaver’s house, upstairs—for about three-quarters of an hour—and spent but a short time with him in the open air, as the Minister himself stated in his official report to the King. Furthermore, in speaking to Napoleon, he had not pointed the forefinger of the left hand into the palm of his right, which was not at all a habit of his. He had not once made use of the German language in speaking to the Emperor—he had never done so, and also not on that occasion. “I did, however,” the Minister continued, “speak German to the people of the house, as the man understood a little and the woman spoke it very well.”

From 11 o’clock onwards Thiers conferred once more with the Chancellor. He yesterday sent his companion, a M. Cochery, back to Paris, to ascertain if the Government of the 4th of September still existed. The answer appears to have been in the affirmative.

Bamberger dined with us. The Chief said, amongst other things: “I see that some newspapers hold me responsible that Paris has not yet been bombarded. I do not want anything serious to be done, I object to a bombardment. Nonsense! They will ultimately make me responsible for our losses during the siege, which are certainly already considerable, as we have probably lost more men in these small engagements than a general attack would have cost us. I wanted the city to be stormed at once, and have all along desired that to be done—or it would have been still better to have left Paris on one side and continued our march.”

Thiers was once more with the Chief from 9 P.M. until after 11 o’clock. While they were conferring a telegram arrived announcing that Beust has abandoned his former attitude in so far as he declares that if Russia raises objections to the Prussian demands upon France, Austria will do the same, but otherwise not. This telegram was at once sent in to the Chief.

Saturday, November 5th.—About 1 o’clock there was a short conference between the Chancellor, Delbrück, and other German Ministers. We afterwards ascertained that the Chief reported the result of his negotiations with Thiers, and also announced the impending arrival of the German Sovereigns not yet represented at Versailles.

On our sitting down to dinner Delbrück was at first the only Minister present. Later on we were joined by the Chancellor, who had dined with the King. While Engel was pouring him out a glass of spirits the Chief recalled a pretty dictum. Recently a general (if I am not mistaken it was at Ferrières, and I fancy I heard the name of the great thinker, Moltke), speaking of the various beverages of mankind, laid down the following principle:—“Red wine for children, champagne for men, and brandy for generals.”

The Chancellor, who had been dining with the King, joined us in the evening and complained to Delbrück of the way in which he had been beset at the King’s quarters by the Princes, who prevented him from discussing something of importance with Kutusow. “I really could not talk to him properly. The Serene Highnesses fluttered about me like crows round a screech-owl, and tore me away from him. Each of them seemed to delight in being able to buttonhole me longer than the others. At length I asked Prince Charles if he could not get his brother-in-law to wait until I had finished what I had to say to Kutusow, as it was an important matter of State. But although I have often spoken to him previously in the same sense he did not seem to understand me, and the end of it was that he took offence.”... “At last they heard that the leg or the back of the old coronation chair had been discovered in one of the other rooms, and they all trooped off to inspect the wonder, while I took this opportunity to bolt.” At that moment a despatch was delivered stating that Favre and the other members of the Government in Paris had once more got on the high horse, and proclaimed that they would not hear of a cession of territory, and that their sole task was the defence of the fatherland. The Chief observed: “Well, then, we need not negotiate any further with Thiers.”

Later on the Minister said that Thiers probably still intended to write another historical work. “Time after time he spins out our negotiation by introducing irrelevant matters. He relates what has occurred or been advised here and there, inquires as to the attitude of this or that person, and what would have happened in such and such circumstances. He reminded me of a conversation I had with the Duc de Bauffremont in the year 1867, in the course of which I said that in 1866 the Emperor had not understood how to take advantage of the situation, that he could have done a good stroke of business although not on German soil, &c. Roughly that is quite correct. I remember it very well. It was in the gardens of the Tuileries, and a military band was playing. In the summer of 1866 Napoleon lacked courage to do what he ought to have done from his point of view. When we attacked Austria he should have occupied ——, the object of the Benedetti proposal, and held it as a pledge. We could not have prevented him at that time, and most probably England would not have stirred—in any case he could have waited. If the coup succeeded he might have placed himself back to back with us, encouraging us to further aggression. But (turning to Delbrück, first leaning a little forward and then sitting straight upright, a habit of his on such occasions), he is and remains a muddle-headed fellow.”

Thiers, after having had a conversation with Favre and Ducrot on the bridge of Sèvres, returned and had another conference with the Chief which lasted from 8.30 to 9.30. Favre and Ducrot had declared that our conditions for an armistice could not be accepted, but that they would ascertain the opinions of their colleagues, and bring Thiers a definite answer to-morrow.

Sunday, November 6th.—The Chief read to us at dinner a portion of his wife’s letter which was to the following effect:—“I fear you will not be able to find a Bible in France, and so I shall shortly send you the Psalms in order that you may read the prophecies against the French—‘I tell thee, the godless shall be destroyed!’” The Minister had also received a “despairing letter” from Count Herbert, whose wound was now healed, because he had been transferred to a depôt. “He says that all he has had out of the whole war has been a fortnight’s ride with his regiment and then three months on his back. I wished to see whether anything could be done, and to-day I met the Minister of War. He dissuaded me, however, with tears in his eyes—he had once interfered in a similar way and lost his son in consequence.”

Monday, November 7th.—Early in the morning the Chief instructs me to telegraph to London: “In the negotiations with M. Thiers, which lasted for five days, he was offered an armistice of any duration up to twenty-eight days on the basis of the military status quo, for the purpose of holding elections, which should also be allowed to take place in the portions of France occupied by the German troops; or, as an alternative, our assistance and sanction for holding the elections without a truce. After a renewed conference with the Paris Government at the outposts, M. Thiers was not authorised to accept either of these offers. He demanded first of all permission to provision Paris, without offering any military equivalent. As this proposal could not be accepted by the Germans on military grounds, M. Thiers yesterday received instructions from Paris to break off the negotiations.”

The following particulars have been ascertained from other sources: The instruction referred to, was received by Thiers in the form of a curt letter from Favre desiring him to return to Tours, whither he has gone, to-day. The Chancellor tells me that Thiers was very depressed at the foolish obstinacy of the Paris Government, of which both he himself and several of the Ministers disapprove. Favre and Picard, particularly the latter, are desirous of peace, but are too weak to withstand the opposition of the others. Gambetta and Trochu will not hear of the elections, which would in all probability put an end to their rule.

I write articles to the following effect: We were prepared to do everything possible, but all our concessions were rejected owing to the ambition of MM. Favre and Trochu, who do not want to be forced by the true representatives of the French people to give up the power which fell into their hands through an insurrection. It is that ambition alone which prolongs the war. We, on the other hand, have shown that we desire peace, by carrying our complaisance to the utmost point.

The postponement of the bombardment was again discussed at dinner. The Chancellor said he could not understand the absurd rumour circulated in the newspapers, to the effect that he was opposed to the bombardment while the military authorities were pressing for it. “Exactly the contrary is the case. No one is more urgent in favour of it than I am, and it is the military authorities who hesitate. A great deal of my correspondence is taken up in dispelling the scruples and excessive circumspection of the military people. It appears that the artillery are constantly requiring more time for preparation and particularly a larger supply of ammunition. At Strassburg, they also asked for much more than was necessary, as notwithstanding the foolish waste of powder and shell, two-thirds of the supply collected was never used.” Alten objected that even if the forts in question were captured they would be then subjected to the fire from the enceinte, and we should have to begin over again. “That may be,” said the Minister, “but they ought to have known that sooner, as there was no fortress we knew so much about from the commencement as Paris.”

Somebody remarked that in the two balloons that had been seized five persons had been taken prisoners. The Chief considered that they ought to be treated as spies without any lengthy deliberation. Alten said they would be brought up before a court-martial, whereupon the Minister exclaimed, “Well, nothing will happen to them there!” He then observed how stout and strong Count Bill was. At his age he himself was slight and thin. “At Göttingen I was as thin as a knitting-needle.” Mention having been made of the circumstance that the sentry posted outside the villa occupied by the Crown Prince had been shot at and wounded the night before, and that the town would be obliged to pay him five thousand francs as compensation, the Chief said that in going out in the evening he would not take his sword but rather a revolver—“as although in certain circumstances I should be quite willing to let myself be murdered, I should not like to die unavenged.”

After dinner I was instructed by the Chancellor to again telegraph an account of the negotiations with Thiers, only in a somewhat different form. On my venturing to observe that the contents of the despatch had been telegraphed in the morning he replied, “Not quite accurately; you see here ‘Count Bismarck proposed, &c.’ You must notice such fine shades if you want to work in the first Foreign Office of the world.”

Tuesday, November 8th.—In the morning I sent off a telegram stating that the prisoners taken in the balloons have been transported to a Prussian fortress in order to be tried there by court-martial. Furthermore that the confiscated letters compromised diplomats and other personages who have been permitted to remain in communication with the outer world out of consideration for their position and sense of honour. Such communication would no longer be tolerated.

At about 12.30 P.M., while we were at lunch, the Chief received a visit from Archbishop Ledochowski of Posen, and it was understood that his business was to submit an offer of the Pope to intervene with the French Government. They probably hope in this way to purchase the intervention of the German Government on behalf of the Holy Father. The Archbishop remained till nearly 3 o’clock, and on his leaving the Chief went to see the King. He subsequently took dinner at the Crown Prince’s, where the Grand Duke of Baden, who had arrived in the meantime, also dined.

Delbrück, General Chauvin, and Colonel Meidam, the officer in command of the Field Telegraph, were the Chief’s guests at dinner. Mention was made of the improper use of the telegraph wire by distinguished personages for their private purposes.

After a while the Chancellor remarked: “I hear that the Augustenburger also telegraphs. That really should not be. Nor has the Coburger any right to do so. The telegraph is for military and diplomatic purposes, and not for minor potentates to use for inquiries respecting their kitchens, stables and theatres. None of them has any rights here. Their rights ceased on passing the German frontier.”

On some one referring to the destruction of the telegraph wires and other similar misconduct on the part of franctireurs and peasants near Epernay, the Minister said: “They should have immediately sent three or four battalions there, and transported six thousand peasants to Germany until the conclusion of the war.”

Amongst other subjects discussed at tea was the rumour that the postponement of the bombardment was in part due to the influence of ladies, the Queen and the Crown Princess being mentioned in this connection. The Chief was in the drawing-room engaged in conference with the Bavarian General von Bothmer on the military question in connection with the closer unification of Germany now in progress. The Minister joined us afterwards, remaining for about an hour. On sitting down he breathed a deep sigh and said: “I was thinking just now, what I have indeed often thought before—If I could only for five minutes have the power to say: ‘That must be done thus and in no other way!’—If one were only not compelled to bother about the ‘why’ and the ‘wherefore,’ and to argue and plead for the simplest things!—Things made much more rapid progress under men like Frederick the Great, who were generals themselves and also knew something about administration, acting as their own Ministers. It was the same with Napoleon. But here, this eternal talking and begging!”

After a while the Chief said, with a laugh: “I have been busy to-day educating princes.”

“How so, Excellency?” asked Hatzfeldt.

“Well, I have explained to various gentlemen at the Hôtel des Reservoirs what is and what is not proper. I have given the Meininger to understand through Stein that he is not to be allowed to use the Field Telegraph for giving instructions about his kitchen garden and theatre. And the Coburger is still worse. Never mind, the Reichstag will set that right and put a stop to all that kind of thing. But only I shall not be there.”

Hatzfeldt asked: “Has your Excellency seen that the Italians have broken into the Quirinal?”

“Yes, and I am curious to know what the Pope will now do. Leave the country? But where can he go? He has already requested us to ask the Italians whether he would be allowed to leave and with fitting dignity. We did so, and they replied that the utmost respect would be paid to his position, and that their attitude would be governed by that determination in case he desired to depart.”

“They would not like to see him go,” added Hatzfeldt; “it is in their interests that he should remain in Rome.”

The Chief: “Yes, certainly. But perhaps he may be obliged to leave. But where could he go? Not to France, because Garibaldi is there. He would not like to go to Austria. To Spain? I suggested to him Bavaria.” The Minister then reflected for a moment, after which he continued: “There remains nothing for him but Belgium or North Germany. As a matter of fact he has already asked whether we could grant him asylum. I have no objection to it—Cologne or Fulda. It would be passing strange, but after all not so very inexplicable, and it would be very useful to us to be recognised by Catholics as what we really are, that is to say, the sole power now existing that is capable of protecting the head of their Church. Stofflet and Charette, together with their Zouaves, could then go about their business. We should have the Poles on our side. The opposition of the Ultramontanes would cease in Belgium and Bavaria. Malinkrott would come over to the Government side. But the King will not consent. He is terribly afraid. He thinks all Prussia would be perverted, and he himself would be obliged to become a Catholic. I told him, however, that if the Pope begged for asylum he could not refuse it. He would have to grant it as ruler over ten million Catholic subjects who would desire to see the head of their Church protected. Besides, imaginative people, particularly women, may possibly feel drawn towards Catholicism by the pomp and ritual of St. Peter’s, with the Pope seated upon his throne and bestowing his benediction. The danger would not be so great, however, in Germany, where the people would see the Pope amongst them as a poor old man seeking assistance—a good old gentleman, one of the Bishops, who ate and drank like the rest, took his pinch of snuff, and even perhaps smoked a cigar. And after all even if a few people in Germany became Catholic again (I should certainly not do so) it would not matter much so long as they remained believing Christians. The particular sect is of no consequence, only the faith. People ought to be more tolerant in their way of thinking.” The Chief then dilated on the comic aspect of this migration of the Pope and his Cardinals to Fulda, and concluded: “Of course the King could not see the humorous side of the affair. But (smiling) if only the Pope remains true to me I shall know how to bring his Majesty round.”

Some other subjects then came up. Hatzfeldt mentioned that his Highness of Coburg had fallen from his horse. “Happily, however, without being hurt,” hastily added Abeken, with a pleased expression. This led the Chief to speak of similar accidents that had happened to himself.

“I believe I shall be more than within the mark in saying that I must have fallen from horseback fifty times. It is nothing to be thrown from your horse, but when the horse lies on top of you, then it’s a bad case. The last time was at Varzin, when I broke three ribs. I thought it was all up with me. It was not, however, so dangerous as it seemed, but it was terribly painful.... But as a young man I had a remarkable accident, which shows how our thinking powers are dependent upon the brain. I was riding home one evening with my brother, and we were both galloping as hard as our horses could go. Suddenly my brother, who was in front, heard a fearful bang. It was my head that had struck against the road. My horse had shied at a lantern in a cart coming in the opposite direction, and reared so that he fell backwards, and I tumbled on my head. At first I lost consciousness, and on returning to my senses my power of thinking remained on some points quite clear, but had quite deserted me on others. I examined my horse and found that the saddle was broken, so I called the groom and rode home on his horse. When the dogs there barked at me by way of greeting, I thought they did not belong to us, got cross with them and drove them away. Then I said the groom had fallen from his horse and they should send a stretcher to bring in; and I got very angry when, taking their cue from my brother, they showed no disposition to move. Were they going to leave the unfortunate man lying in the road? I did not know that I was myself and was at home, or rather I was both myself and the groom. I asked for something to eat and afterwards went to bed. After having slept through the night I woke up next morning all right again. It was a strange case. I had examined the saddle, taken another horse, and so forth. I had done everything that was practically required. In that respect the fall had produced no confusion in my ideas. A singular example which shows that the brain harbours various intellectual powers—only one of these had remained stupefied by my fall for a somewhat longer time.

“I well remember another incident of the kind. I was riding rapidly through some young timber in a large wood a considerable distance from home. As I was crossing over a hollow road the horse stumbled and fell, and I lost consciousness. I must have lain there senseless for about three hours, as it was already twilight by the time I stirred. The horse was standing near me. As I said, the place was at a great distance from our estate, and I was entirely unacquainted with the district. I had not yet quite recovered my senses, but on this occasion also I did what was necessary. I took off the martingale, which was broken, and followed the road across a rather long bridge which, as I then ascertained, was the nearest way to a farm in the neighbourhood. The farmer’s wife ran away on seeing a big man standing before her with his face all covered with blood. Her husband, however, came to me and wiped away the blood. I told him who I was, and as I was hardly fit for such a long ride home I asked him to drive me there, which he accordingly did. I must have been shot fifteen feet out of the saddle and fallen against the root of a tree. On the doctor examining my injuries, he said it was against all the rules of his art that I had not broken my neck.

“I have also been a couple of other times in danger of my life,” continued the Chief. “For instance, before the Semmering railway was finished (I believe it was in 1852) I went with a party through one of the tunnels. It was quite dark inside. I went ahead with a lantern. Now right across the floor of the tunnel was a rift or gully, which must have been about fifteen feet deep and half as wide again as this table. A plank was laid across it, with a raised skirting board on both sides to prevent the wheelbarrows from slipping off. This plank must have been rotten, as when I reached the middle it broke in two and I fell down; but having probably involuntarily stretched out my arms, I remained hanging on the skirting. The lantern having gone out, those behind thought I had fallen into the gully, and were not a little surprised when the reply to their question, ‘Are you still alive?’ instead of coming from the depths below came from just under their feet. I answered, ‘Yes, here I am.’ I had in the meantime recovered hold also with my feet, and I asked whether I should go on or come back. The guide thought I had better go on to the other side, and so I worked my way over. The workman who acted as our guide then struck a light, got another plank, and brought the party across. That plank was a good example of the slovenly way in which such things were managed in Austria at that time; because I cannot believe that it was intentional. I was not hated in Vienna then as I am now—on the contrary.”

Thursday, November 10th.—In the morning I am instructed by the Chief to telegraph that great distress has been occasioned in France, and that still more is to be anticipated, in consequence of the application by the Provisional Government of Savings Bank funds for the relief of the poor, and of the property of corporations, to military purposes. I had permission to study the documents connected with the abortive negotiations for an armistice.

Thiers had stated in a memorandum the principles which he, and the French Government which he represented, regarded as a basis for the proposed armistice. It was to the following effect: The object of the understanding was to put an end as soon as possible to the bloodshed, and to permit the convocation of a National Assembly which would represent the will of France in dealing with the European Powers, and be in a position sooner or later to conclude peace with Prussia and her allies. The armistice must last for twenty-eight days, of which twelve would be required for canvassing the constituencies, one for the polling, five for the elected deputies to meet in some given place, and ten for examining the returns and appointing the bureau of the Assembly. Tours might for the present remain the seat of such an Assembly. The elections must be allowed to take place free and unhindered in all parts of France, including those occupied by the Prussians. Military operations on both sides to cease, although both parties would be at liberty to enlist recruits and proceed with works of defence. The armies to be at liberty to obtain for themselves supplies of provisions, but requisitions on the other hand to be suspended as “constituting a military operation which should cease together with other hostilities.” Moreover fortified places were to be provisioned for the duration of the truce in proportion to the strength of the population and garrison. For this purpose Paris to be allowed to receive the following live stock and other provisions over four railway lines to be determined: 34,000 bullocks, 80,000 sheep, 8,000 pigs, 5,000 calves, 100,000 metric centals of corned meat, 8,000,000 metric centals of hay or straw as fodder for the cattle in question, 200,000 metric centals of flour, 30,000 metric centals of dried vegetables, 100,000 tons of coal, and 500,000 cubic metres of fire-wood. In these calculations the population of Paris and its suburbs, including the garrison of 400,000 men, was estimated at 2,700,000 to 2,800,000 inhabitants.

These demands on the part of the French could not be accepted. Had we agreed to them we should have surrendered the greater and more important portion of the advantages we had gained in the last seven weeks, at the cost of great sacrifices and severe exertions. In other words, we should in the main have returned to the position in which we were on the 19th of September, the day on which our troops completed the investment of Paris. We are asked to allow Paris to provision itself, when even now it suffers from scarcity and will shortly be obliged to starve or surrender. We are to suspend our military operations just at the moment when the fall of Metz and the release of the army of Prince Frederick Charles enable us to extend and render them more effective. We are quietly to permit recruiting and organisation, by means of which the French Republic is to create a new field force, while we require no recruits. At the same time that we are to allow Paris and the other French fortresses to supply themselves with provisions, we are to provide for our own troops without the requisitions which are necessary in an enemy’s country. We are to make all these concessions without any military equivalent—such, for instance, as the evacuation of one or two of the Paris forts in return for the liberty to provision the city—and without being offered any clear prospect of peace. The first object of the armistice according to the Thiers memorandum, namely, the restoration of an orderly state of affairs by the lawful election of a Constituent Assembly, is unquestionably more in the interest of the French themselves than in ours; and, considering the constant excitement maintained by the inflammatory proclamations of the Provisional Government, it may possibly not be secured even under a new administration. More orderly conditions could be brought about even now without a truce if the present Government were seriously disposed to work in that direction. It was absolutely impossible on the German side to have anything to do with such proposals. A different arrangement altogether was needful, and therefore the Chancellor of the Confederation offered M. Thiers a truce of twenty-five to twenty-eight days on the basis of the maintenance of the military status quo, which would enable the French to carry on the elections in peace, and to convoke the Assembly thus constituted. This also was a concession on our part in which the advantages were all on the French side. If, as Thiers asserted, Paris was supplied with provisions and other necessaries for several months, it is not easy to see why the Provisional Government broke off the negotiations which, at the outside, would have prevented the Parisians from making useless sorties. France, on the other hand, would have had the great advantage of having a line of demarcation drawn which would have arrested the advance of the German forces, restricting the unopposed occupation of further districts by our army that had been set free by the fall of Metz. In the meantime Thiers refused this very acceptable offer, and maintained that the provisioning of Paris was an indispensable condition for an understanding, while he was not empowered to give any prospect of a military equivalent for the same, such as the evacuation of one of the Paris forts.

On coming in to dinner, the Chief mentioned that the Minister of War is seriously ill. He feels very weak, and will scarcely be able to rise from his bed for a fortnight. The Count afterwards made some jokes about the water supplied to us for washing. “The inhabitants of the local reservoir,” he said, “seem to have their seasons. First came the scolopendria, which are particularly distasteful to me, ‘moving their thousand limbs together’ (Schiller’s Diver). Then followed the wood lice, which I cannot bear to touch, although they are perfectly harmless. I’d sooner grasp a snake. Now the leeches have arrived. I found quite a small specimen to-day, doubled up into a button. I tried to induce him to deploy, but he declined—remained a button. I then poured some well water over him, and he stretched out straight, long and thin like a needle, and made off with himself.” The conversation then turned on a variety of simple but nevertheless estimable delicacies, such as fresh and salt herrings, new potatoes, spring butter, &c. The Minister observed to Delbrück, who also approved of those good things: “The sturgeon is a fish which is also to be found here, but it is not appreciated as it ought to be. In Russia they recognise its good qualities. It is often caught in the Elbe in the Magdeburg district, but is only eaten by fishermen and poor people.” He then explained its good points, and thus came to speak of caviare, and treated of the several varieties with the knowledge of a connoisseur.

“The fresh caviare which we now get in Berlin is very good,” he said, “since it can be brought by rail from St. Petersburg in forty hours. I have had it several times, and one of my principal complaints against that fat Borck is that he intercepted forty pounds of this caviare which I once sent to the King. I suspected something of the kind, as the King made no mention of it, and did not send me any present in return. Later on Perponcher or some one told me that on dropping in to Borck’s room he saw there a barrel of caviare with a spoon standing in it. That made me wild with him (Das hat mir sehr verdrossen).”

The Chief remarked at dinner: “To-day, again, I noticed when it snowed how many points of resemblance there are between the Gauls and the Slavs. The same broad streets, with the houses standing close together, the same low roofs, as in Russia. The only thing wanting here is the green onion-shaped steeple. But, on the other hand, the versts and kilometres, the arsheens and metres are the same. And then the tendency to centralisation, the uniformity of views of the whole population and the communistic trait in the popular character.”

He then spoke of the wonderful “topsy turvy” world we live in nowadays. “When one thinks that perhaps the Pope will shortly be residing in a small town of Protestant Germany, that the Reichstag may meet in Versailles, and the Corps Législatif in Cassel, that Garibaldi has become a French general in spite of Mentana, and that Papal Zouaves are fighting side by side with him!” He followed up this train of ideas for some little time.

The Minister then remarked suddenly: “Metternich has also written to me to-day. He wants me to allow Hoyos to enter Paris, in order that he may bring away the Austrians. I replied that since the 25th of October they have had permission to come out, but that we could allow no more people to enter, not even diplomats. We also receive none in Versailles, but I would make an exception in his favour. He will then perhaps again raise the Austrians’ claims respecting the property of the old Bund in the German fortresses.”

On the subject of doctors, and the way in which nature sometimes comes to its own assistance, the Chief related that he was once with a shooting party for two days at the Duke of ——. “I was thoroughly out of sorts. Even the two days’ shooting and fresh air did me no good. On the third day I visited the Cuirassiers at Brandenburg, who had received a new cup. I was to be the first one to drink out of it, thus dedicating it, and then it was to go the round of the table. It held nearly a bottle. I made my speech, however, drank and set it down empty, to the great surprise of the officers, who had but a poor opinion of mere quill-drivers. That was the result of my Göttingen training. And strangely, or perhaps naturally enough, it set me all right again. On another occasion, when I was shooting at Letzlingen in the time of Frederick William IV. the guests were asked to drink from an old puzzle goblet. It was a stag’s horn, which contained about three-quarters of a bottle of wine, and was so made that one could not bring it close to the lips, yet one was not allowed to spill a drop. I took it and drank it off at a draught, although it was very cold champagne, and not a single drop fell on my white waistcoat. Everybody was immensely surprised; but I said, ‘Give me another.’ The King, however, who evidently did not appreciate my success, called out ‘No, no more.’ Such tricks were formerly an indispensable part of the diplomat’s trade. They drank the weaker vessels under the table, wormed all they wanted to know out of them, made them agree to things which were contrary to their instructions, or for which, at least, they had no authority. Then they were compelled to put their signatures at once, and afterwards when they got sober they could not imagine how they had done it.”

Bismarck-Bohlen, who seemed to be particularly communicative to-day, told the following anecdote about the Chief. At Commercy a woman came to him to complain that her husband, who had tried to strike a hussar with a spade, had been arrested. “The Minister listened to her very amiably, and when she had done he replied in the kindliest manner possible, ‘Well, my good woman, you can be quite sure that your husband’ (drawing a line round his neck with his finger) ‘will be presently hanged.’”

Saturday, November 12th.—While we were at lunch the Chief was out. He shortly afterwards passed through the dining-room into the saloon, accompanied by a bearded officer in a Prussian uniform, the Grand Duke of Baden.

In about ten minutes the Chief returned to table. He was very angry and indignant, and said: “This is really too bad! No peace from these Grand Dukes even at one’s meals. They will eventually force their way into one’s bedroom. That must be put a stop to. It is not so in Berlin. There the people who want something from me announce their visits in writing, and I fix a suitable time for them to call. Why should it not be the same here?”

After a while the Chief said to one of the attendants who was waiting upon us, “Remember in future in such cases to say that I am not at home. Whoever brings any visitor to me unannounced will be put under arrest and sent off to Berlin;” and after eating a few mouthfuls more, he went on: “As if it were anything of importance! But merely curiosity and a desire to kill time. He shall see, however, I will shortly pay him a surprise visit on some official matter, so that he cannot send me away....”

The conversation then turned on Roon’s asthma, which according to Lauer is now improving. His rage at the appearance of the Grand Duke during the dinner hour still visibly affected the Chief, who asked Lauer, “What should one drink with marena when in a bad temper?” and on Lauer recommending something the name of which I could not catch, the Minister continued: “It upsets my digestion when anything exasperates me at meals; and here I have had good reason to be angry. They think that one is only made for their use.” Then addressing the servant again the Chief said: “Mind you send away the red lackeys, and say that I am not at home. Remember that! And you, Karl (to Bohlen), must take care that this is done.”

The name of Arnim Boitzenburg, the former Minister, then came up. The Chancellor said he had been his chief at Aix-la-Chapelle, and he went on to describe him as “amiable, clever, but unstable and incapable of persistent or energetic action. He was like an india-rubber ball that bounces again and again, but each time with diminishing force until at length it ceases to move. He first had an opinion, then weakened it by arguing against it himself, and went on criticising his own criticism, until at last there was nothing left and nothing done.”

Delbrück praised the son-in-law (Harry Arnim) as being well-informed and intelligent, though unsympathetic and unambitious. This was confirmed by the Chief, who said: “Yes, he is a rocket in which they forgot to put in the powder. He has, however, a good head, but his reports are not the same on any two successive days—often on the same day two thoroughly contradictory views. No reliance can be placed upon him.”

Arnim’s lack of ambition led some one to speak of orders and titles, and the Chief said his first decoration was a medal for saving life, which he received for having rescued a servant from drowning. “I was made an ‘Excellency’ at the palace in Königsberg in 1861. I however, already had the title in Frankfurt, only there I was not a Prussian but a Federal Excellency. The German Princes had decided that each Minister to the Diet should have that title. For the matter of that I did not trouble myself much about it—nor afterwards either—I was a distinguished man without it.”

Sunday, November 13th.—The Chancellor, in a general’s uniform and helmet, and wearing several orders, went to-day to dine with the King. As he was leaving, Bohlen said to him: “But you ought to have the ribbon of the Iron Cross in your button-hole.”

“It is there already,” replied the Minister. “In other circumstances I should not wear it. I am ashamed before my own sons and many others who have earned it but not got it, while all the loafers at headquarters swagger about with it.”

In the evening the Chancellor desired me to send a démenti of a false report published by the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung, to the effect that Count Arnim paid a visit to headquarters before his departure for Rome. The Chief at the same time remarked: “I have told you more than once that you must not write so violently. Here you are again, speaking of ‘hallucination’ (in correction of an article by Archibald Forbes in the Daily News). Why not be civil? I, too, have to be civil. Always this carping, malignant style! You must learn to write differently if you want to work in such a distinguished Foreign Office, or we must make other arrangements. And such a bullying style! Just like Brass, who might have had a brilliant position if he were not so brutal.” “Hallucination” was the word used by the Minister himself; but in future I shall be careful to sift my phrases so as to eliminate all rough words and only let soft ones find their way into the press.

Hatzfeldt told me at tea that the Chief had also “carried on awfully” with him, adding that if he remained in such a temper for long he (Hatzfeldt) would think of leaving. The Count will, however, in all probability, take plenty of time to reconsider this matter.

Tuesday, November 15th.—The Chief is still unwell. Theiss reports that the Court have their things ready packed to-day, and this is confirmed at lunch. The position of affairs between here and Orleans is not as good as it might be. The Minister also on sitting down to table mentions the possibility of our having to retire, and evacuate Versailles for a time. There might be an attack from Dreux combined with a sortie on a large scale from Paris. He had repeatedly spoken of that possibility to members of the general staff. Even a layman could see that a successful attempt of that kind in which not only the Court and general staff but also the heavy siege guns would be in danger of falling into the hands of the enemy, must be the sole chance of relieving Paris, and that the French, therefore, may well hazard the attempt.