Bismarck

Saturday, January 14th.—Count Lehndorff dined with us to-day. The Chief mentions that Jules Favre has written to him. He wishes to go to the Conference in London, and asserts that he only ascertained on the 10th inst. that a safe conduct was held in readiness for him. He desires to take with him an unmarried and a married daughter, together with her husband—who has a Spanish name—and a secretary. “He would doubtless prefer a pass for M. le Ministre et suite. He has the longing of a vagabond for a passport.” But he is not to receive one at all, the soldiers being simply instructed to let him through. Bucher is to write that it will be best for him to go by way of Corbeil, as he will not then have to leave the carriage which he brings from Paris and to walk for some way on foot, afterwards taking another carriage. His best route will also be by Lagny and Metz, and not by Amiens. If he does not wish to go by way of Corbeil he is to say so, and then the military authorities will be instructed accordingly. “One would be inclined to think,” added the Chief, “from his desire to take his family with him, that he wants to get out of harm’s way.”

In the further course of conversation the Minister observed: “Versailles is really the most unsuitable place that could have been chosen from the point of view of communications. We ought to have remained at Lagny or Ferrières. But I know well why it was selected. All our princely personages would have found it too dull there. It is true they are bored here too, and doubtless everywhere else.”

The Chief then went on to talk of German Princes in general, and said: “Originally they were all Counts, that is to say, officials of the Empire. The Zehringers, it is true, are an old princely family—apart from any fresh blood that has been infused into the stock. The Austrian Princes and Counts have only become rich and powerful through grants of confiscated estates. The Schwarzenbergs, for instance, through the property of a gentleman with a very unappetising name—Schmiersicki.” The Chancellor then went into further particulars, and continued: “They (the Hapsburgs) were grateful for services rendered to them, and rewarded their people with rich grants. It was different with us. Our nobles were squeezed. Any one who had large estates was forced to give them up or to make a bad exchange.”

The Chancellor afterwards spoke about Manteuffel, and said: “He is now heaping up coals of fire on my head by taking Bill with him. We were on bad terms during the last few years. One of the reasons was his extravagance in Schleswig. He kept a regular Court there, and gave great dinners of forty to fifty covers, spending three to four thousand thalers a month. That was all very well before the war, but later on, when I had to account for it to the Treasury Committee, it could not go on, and when I had to tell him so, he was angry.”

After dinner I wrote an article for the Moniteur, under instructions from the Chief, respecting the difficulty of provisioning Paris when it surrenders. It ran thus: “We find the following paragraph on the provisioning of Paris in the Journal Officiel: ‘According to a despatch from Bordeaux, dated January 3rd, the Government of National Defence has collected a large quantity of necessaries in view of furnishing Paris with a fresh supply of provisions. In addition to the markets now in course of erection there is already collected, near the means of transport and beyond the range of the enemy’s operations, a mass of supplies that only wait the first signal to be despatched.’ When this question of reprovisioning Paris is considered from a practical point of view, it will be seen that it bristles with serious difficulties. If the statement of the Journal Officiel that the stores are beyond the range of the German sphere of action be correct, it must be taken that they are some 200 miles away from Paris. Now the condition to which the railways leading to Paris have been reduced by the French themselves is such that it would require several weeks at least to transport such a quantity of provisions to Paris. There is another consideration which must also not be overlooked, namely, that in addition to the famishing population of Paris, the German army has a right to see that its supplies are replenished by the railways, and that consequently the German officials with the best will in the world can only spare a portion of the rolling stock to be employed in reprovisioning Paris. It follows that if the Parisians put off the surrender of the city until they have eaten their last mouthful of bread, believing that large supplies are within easy reach, a fatal blunder may be committed. We trust that the Government of National Defence will very seriously consider the circumstances, and weigh well the heavy responsibility it incurs in adopting the principle of resistance to the bitter end. Every day increases instead of lessening the distance between the capital and the provincial armies, whose approach is awaited with so much impatience in Paris, which is closely invested and entirely cut off from the outer world. Paris cannot be rescued by fictitious reports. To suppose that it can wait till the last moment, for the simple reason that neither the provinces nor the enemy could allow a city of two and a half million inhabitants to starve, might prove to be a terrible miscalculation, owing to the absolute impossibility of preventing it. The capitulation of Paris at the very last hour might—which God forbid!—be the commencement of a really great calamity.”

Sunday, January 15th.—Rather bright, cold weather. The firing is less vigorous than during the last few days. The Chief slept badly last night, and had Wollmann called up at 4 A.M. in order to telegraph to London respecting Favre. In the morning read despatches. Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, declared to our Ambassador in Vienna that he not only approved of Beust’s despatch of December 26th and shared the views therein expressed respecting the new Germany, but had desired and recommended such a policy all along. He had “always said we should reach out our hand to Germany and shake our fist at Russia.” The reservation at the commencement of the document in question might have been omitted, as the reorganisation of Germany does not affect the Treaty of Prague.

The letters in which the German Princes declare their approval of the King of Bavaria’s proposal for the restoration of the imperial dignity all express practically the same views. Only the elder line of the Reuss family was moved to base its consent upon different grounds. It regards the imperial title as “an ornamental badge of the dignity of the Federal Commander-in-Chief, and of the right of Presidency.” The letter then continues, literally: “I do this” (that is approve), “fully confident that the bestowal of this dignity upon his Majesty the King of Prussia will not affect the newly-established relations of the Confederation.” Oberregierungsrath Wagner drafted the answers to these letters of approval, as also the proclamation to the German people concerning the Emperor and the Empire, which is to be published shortly. I hear that he sometimes draws up the speech from the throne, as he has a certain loftiness of style which the Chief likes. Read a letter from King William to the Chancellor written in his own hand. Contents: On the 10th of January Prince Luitpold requested an audience of our Majesty. This was granted to him before dinner. The Prince then delivered a message from the King of Bavaria, suggesting that the Bavarian army should be relieved from taking the military oath of obedience to the Federal Commander-in-Chief, and that the stipulation to that effect should be struck out of the treaty with Bavaria. The Prince urged, as an argument in support of this proposal, that such a stipulation as that in question limited the sovereignty of the King of Bavaria. No such obligation had been imposed upon the South German States during the present war, and the obedience and loyalty of the Bavarian army might be taken as a matter of course in the united Germany of the future. He also observed incidentally that the reason why the dissatisfaction in Bavaria was so great was because it had been hoped that the imperial dignity would be held alternately by Bavaria and Prussia. The King replied that he could not give an immediate answer to this unforeseen demand; he must first look through the treaties. For the moment he could only say that by yielding in the matter of the military oath he would offend the other Princes, and that they might put forward a similar demand, which would loosen the ties that were to bind the new Germany together. That would necessarily damage the King of Bavaria’s position in particular, as the concessions made to Bavaria were already regarded with great disfavour by public opinion. King William writes that he said nothing whatever about the alternation of the imperial dignity. The Chief telegraphed to Werther (Minister at Munich) that the proposal respecting the military oath could not be entertained.

The Chief dined with the King to-day. Nothing worthy of note was said at our table. After dinner I again read drafts and despatches. Amongst the latter was a letter from King Lewis to the Chancellor, in which he thanks the Minister for his good wishes for the new year, and reciprocates them. He then claims an extension of territory on the ground of the importance of Bavaria and the gallant co-operation of her troops. From the construction of the sentence it is not quite clear whether this extension of territory is intended for Bavaria herself, but very probably it is.

Called to the Chief at 9 P.M. I am to write an article, based upon official documents, on our position towards American ships conveying contraband of war. In doing so I am to be guided by the 13th article of the Treaty of 1799. We cannot seize such vessels, but only detain them, or seize the contraband goods, for which a receipt must be given, and in both cases we must make fair compensation.

Monday, January 16th.—Thawing. A dull sky, with a strong south-west wind. It is again impossible to see far, but no further shots are heard since yesterday afternoon. Has the bombardment stopped? Or does the wind prevent the sound from reaching us?

In the morning I read Trochu’s letter to Moltke, in which he complains that our projectiles have struck the hospitals in the south of Paris, although flags were hung out indicating their character. He is of opinion that this cannot have been by accident, and calls attention to the international treaties according to which such institutions are to be held inviolable. Moltke strongly resented the idea of its having been in any way intentional. The humane manner in which we have conducted the war, “so far as the character which was given to it by the French since the 4th of September permitted,” secured us against any such suspicion. As soon as a clearer atmosphere and greater proximity to Paris enabled us to recognise the Geneva flag on the buildings in question it might be possible to avoid even accidental injury. Treitschke writes requesting me to ask the Chief if, in view of his deafness, he should allow himself to be elected for the Reichstag. I lay the letter before the Minister, who says: “He must know from experience how far his infirmity is a hindrance. For my part, I should be extremely pleased if he were elected. Write him to that effect. Only he should not speak too much.”

Prince Pless and Maltzahn dine with us. We learn that the proclamation to the German people is to be read the day after to-morrow, at the festival of the Orders, which will be held in the Gallerie des Glaces at the Palace. There, in the midst of a brilliant assembly, the King will be proclaimed Emperor. Detachments of troops with their flags, the generals, the Chancellor of the Confederation, and a number of princely personages will attend. The Chief has altered his mind as to letting Favre pass through our lines, and has written him a letter which amounts to a refusal. “Favre,” he said “with his demand to be allowed to attend the Conference in London, reminds me of the way children play the game of Fox in the Hole. They touch and then run off to a place where they cannot be caught. But he must swallow the potion he has brewed. His honour requires it, and, so I wrote him.” This change of view was due to Favre’s circular of the 12th of January. Later on, the Chief said he believed he was going to have an attack of gout. Altogether he was not in good humour. While he was reckoning up the fortresses taken by us, Holstein addressed a remark to him. The Chief looked straight at him with his large grey eyes, and said in a dry cutting tone: “One should not be interrupted when engaged in counting. I have now lost count altogether. What you want to say might be said later.”

I here introduce a survey of this incident, with particulars of documents which afterwards came to my knowledge.

Favre, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, was informed on the 17th of November (in a despatch from Chaudordy, dated from Tours, on the 11th of the month), that it had been reported from Vienna, that the Russian Government no longer considered itself bound by the stipulations of the Treaty of 1856. Favre replied immediately. While recommending the strictest reserve, until the receipt of official information, he said that no opportunity should be neglected of emphasising the right of France, to take part in such international deliberations as the Russian declaration might provoke. Negotiations were then conducted, both verbally, and in writing, between the various Powers and the French Provisional Government, in which the French endeavoured to induce the representatives of those Powers to admit the justice of their contention, that the representatives of France “would be bound in duty to bring up at the same time for discussion another matter of entirely different import.” The Delegation at Tours, while giving expression to these views, was of opinion that any invitation given by Europe should be accepted, even, should no promise be obtained beforehand, nor even an armistice. On the 31st of December, Gambetta wrote to Favre: “You must be prepared to leave Paris, to attend the London Conference if, as is stated, England has succeeded in obtaining a passport.” Before this communication arrived, Favre had announced to Chaudordy that the Government had decided that France, “if called upon in regular form,” would send a representative to the London Conference, provided its Parisian representatives, who were verbally invited by England, were supplied with the necessary passport. To this the English Cabinet agreed, and Chaudordy informed Favre in a despatch which arrived in Paris on the 8th of January, and also contained the announcement, that he, Favre, had been appointed by the Government to represent France at the Conference. This communication was confirmed in a letter from Lord Granville to Favre, dated the 29th of December, and received in Paris, on the 10th of January, which ran as follows:

“M. de Chaudordy has informed Lord Lyons that your Excellency has been proposed as the representative of France at the Conference. He has at the same time requested that I should procure a passport permitting your Excellency to go through the Prussian lines. I immediately requested Count Bernstorff to ask for such a passport, and to send it to you by a German officer with a flag of truce. I was informed yesterday by Count Bernstorff that a passport will be at your Excellency’s disposal on its being demanded at the German headquarters by an officer despatched from Paris for the purpose. He added that it cannot be delivered by a German officer, so long as satisfaction is not given to the officer who was fired at while acting as the bearer of a flag of truce. I am informed by M. Tissot, that much time would be lost before this communication could be forwarded to you by the delegation at Bordeaux, and I have accordingly proposed to Count Bernstorff another way in which it may be transmitted to you. Requesting your Excellency to permit me to take this opportunity of expressing my satisfaction at entering into personal communication with you, &c.”

Favre regarded the last sentence in this letter as a recognition of the present French Government, and an invitation that he might take advantage of to address the Powers in London on French affairs. In the circular of the 12th of January which he addressed to the French Ministers, he says:—

“The Government, directly invited in this despatch, cannot, without surrendering the rights of France, refuse the invitation thus conveyed to her. It may certainly be objected that the time for a discussion concerning the neutralisation of the Black Sea has not been happily chosen. But the very fact that the European Powers should thus have entered into relations with the French Republic at the present decisive moment when France is fighting single-handled for her honour and existence, lends it an exceptional significance. It is the commencement of a tardy exercise of justice, an obligation which cannot again be renounced. It endues the change of Government with the authority of international law, and leaves a nation which is free notwithstanding its wounds to appear in an independent position upon the stage of the world’s history, face to face with the ruler who led it to its ruin, and the Pretenders who desire to reduce it into subjection to themselves. Furthermore, who does not feel that France, admitted to a place amongst the representatives of Europe, has an unquestionable right to raise her voice in that council? Who can prevent her, supported by the eternal laws of justice, from defending the principles that secure her independence and dignity? She will surrender none of those principles. Our programme remains unaltered, and Europe, who has invited the man who promulgated that programme, knows very well that it is his determination and duty to maintain it. There should, therefore, be no hesitation, and the Government would have committed a grave error if it had declined the overtures made to it.

“While recognising that fact, however, the Government consider, as I do, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should not leave Paris during the bombardment of the city by the enemy, unless greater interests were at stake.” (Then follows a long sentimental lamentation as to the damage caused by the “rage of the aggressor” in throwing bombs into churches, hospitals, nurseries, &c., with the intention of “spreading terror.” The document then proceeds): “Our brave Parisian population feels its courage rise as the danger increases. Thus exasperated and indignant, but animated by a firm resolve, it will not yield. The people are more determined than ever to fight and conquer, and we also. I cannot think of separating myself from them during this crisis. Perhaps it will soon be brought to a close by the protests addressed to Europe and to the members of the Corps Diplomatique present in Paris. England will understand that until then my place is in the midst of my fellow citizens.”

Favre made the same declaration, or rather the first half of it, two days before in the reply sent to Granville’s despatch, in which he says: “I cannot assume the right to leave my fellow citizens at a moment when they are subjected to such acts of violence” (against “an unarmed population,” as—in the line immediately preceding—he describes a strong fortress with a garrison of about 200,000 soldiers and militia). He then continues: “Communications between Paris and London, thanks to those in command of the besieging forces” (what naïveté!) “are so slow and uncertain that with the best will I cannot act in accordance with the terms of the invitation contained in your despatch. You have given me to understand that the Conference will meet on the 3rd of February, and will then probably adjourn for a week. Having received this information on the evening of the 10th of January, I should not be able to avail myself in time of your invitation. Besides, M. de Bismarck, in forwarding the despatch, did not enclose the passport, which, nevertheless, is absolutely essential. He demands that a French officer shall proceed to the German headquarters to receive it, on the plea of a complaint addressed to the Governor of Paris with regard to the treatment of the bearer of a flag of truce, an incident which occurred on the 23rd of December. M. de Bismarck adds that the Prussian Commander-in-Chief has forbidden all communication under flags of truce until satisfaction is given for the incident in question. I do not inquire whether such a decision, contrary to the laws of war, is not an absolute denial of a higher right, always hitherto maintained in the conduct of hostilities, which recognises the exigencies of a situation and the claims of humane feeling. I confine myself to informing your Excellency that the Governor of Paris hastened to order an inquiry into the incident referred to by M. de Bismarck, and that this inquiry brought to his knowledge much more numerous instances of similar conduct on the part of Prussian sentries which had never been made a pretext for interrupting the usual exchange of communications. M. de Bismarck appears to have acknowledged the accuracy of these remarks, at least in part, as he has to-day commissioned the United States Minister to inform me that, with the reservation of inquiries on both sides, he to-day re-establishes communications under flags of truce. There is, therefore, no necessity for a French officer to go to the Prussian headquarters. I will put myself in communication with the Minister of the United States for the purpose of receiving the passport which you have obtained for me. As soon as it reaches my hands, and the situation in Paris permits me, I shall proceed to London, confident that I shall not appeal in vain in the name of my Government to the principles of justice and morality, in securing due regard for which Europe has such a great interest.”

So far M. Favre. The condition of Paris had not altered, the protests addressed to Europe had not put an end to the crisis, nor could they have done so, when Favre, on January 13th, that is, three days after the letter to Granville, and on the day of the issue of his circular to the representatives of France abroad, sent the following despatch to the Chancellor of the Confederation:—

“M. le Comte,—Lord Granville informs me in his despatch of December 29th, which I received on the evening of January 10th, that your Excellency, at the request of the English Cabinet, holds a passport at my disposal which is necessary to enable the French Plenipotentiary to the London Conference to pass through the Prussian lines. As I have been appointed to that office, I have the honour to request your Excellency to give instructions to have this passport, made out in my name, sent to me as speedily as possible.”

I reproduce all these solely with the object of illustrating the great difference between the character and capacity of Favre and of Bismarck. Compare the foregoing documents with those which the Chancellor drafted. In the former, indecision, equivocation, affectation, and fine phrases, ending in the very opposite of what had been emphatically laid down a few lines or a few days previously. In the latter, on the contrary, decision, simplicity, and a natural and purely business-like manner. On January 16th the Chancellor replied to Favre as follows (omitting the introductory phrases):—

“Your Excellency understands that, at the suggestion of the Government of Great Britain, I hold a passport at your disposal for the purpose of enabling you to take part in the London Conference. That supposition is, however, not correct. I could not enter into official negotiations, which would be based on the presupposition that the Government of National Defence is, according to international law, in a position to act in the name of France, so long at least as it has not been recognised by the French nation itself.

“I presume that the officer in command of our outposts would have granted your Excellency permission to pass through the German lines if your Excellency had applied for the same at the headquarters of the besieging forces. The latter would have had no reason to take your Excellency’s political position and the object of your journey into consideration, and the authorisation granted by the military authorities to pass through our lines, which, from their standpoint, they need not have hesitated to grant, would have left the Ambassador of his Majesty the King in London a free hand to deal without prejudice with the question whether, according to international law, your Excellency’s declarations could be accepted as the declarations of France. Your Excellency has rendered the adoption of such a course impossible by officially communicating to me the object of your journey, and the official request for a passport for the purpose of representing France at the Conference. The above-mentioned political considerations, in support of which I must adduce the declaration which your Excellency has published, forbid me to accede to your request for such a document.

“In addressing this communication to you, I must leave it to yourself and your Government to consider whether it is possible to find another way in which the scruples above mentioned may be overcome, and all prejudice arising from your presence in London may be avoided.

“But even if some such way should be discovered, I take the liberty to question whether it is advisable for your Excellency at the present moment to leave Paris and your post as a member of the Government there, in order to take part in a Conference on the question of the Black Sea, at a time when interests of much greater importance to France and Germany than Article XI. of the Treaty of 1856 are at stake in Paris. Your Excellency would also leave behind you in Paris the agents of neutral States and the members of their staffs who have remained there, or rather been kept there, notwithstanding the fact that they have long since obtained permission to pass through the German lines, and are therefore the more specially committed to the protection and care of your Excellency as the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the de facto Government.

“I can hardly believe that in a critical situation, to the creation of which you have so largely contributed, your Excellency will deprive yourself of the possibility of co-operating towards that solution, for which you are equally responsible.”

I now let the diary resume its narrative.

Tuesday, January 17th.—We were joined at dinner by the Saxon, Count Nostitz-Wallwitz, who, it is understood, is to take up an administrative appointment here, and a Herr Winter, or von Winter, who is to be Prefect at Chartres. On some one referring to the future military operations, the Chief observed: “I think that when, with God’s help, we have taken Paris, we shall not occupy it with our troops. That work may be left to the National Guard in the city. Also a French commandant. We shall occupy merely the forts and walls. Everybody will be permitted to enter, but nobody to leave. It will, therefore, be a great prison until they consent to make peace.”

The Minister then spoke to Nostitz about the French Conseils Généraux, and said we should try to come to an understanding with them. They would form a good field here for further political operations. “So far as the military side of the affair is concerned,” he continued, “I am in favour of greater concentration. We should not go beyond a certain line, but deal with that portion thoroughly, making the administration effectual, and in particular collect the taxes. The military authorities are always for advancing. They have a centrifugal plan of operations and I a centripetal. It is a question whether we ought to hold Orleans, and even whether it would not be better to retire also from Rouen and Amiens. In the south-east—I do not know why—they want to go as far as Dijon. And if we cannot supply garrisons for every place within our sphere of occupation, we should from time to time send a flying column wherever they show themselves recalcitrant, and shoot, hang and burn. When that has been done a couple of times they will learn sense.” Winter was of opinion that the mere appearance of a detachment of troops entrusted with the task of restoring order, would be sufficient in such districts. The Chief: “I am not so sure. A little hanging would certainly have a better effect, and a few shells thrown in and a couple of houses burned down. That reminds me of the Bavarian who said to a Prussian officer of artillery: ‘What do you think, comrade; shall we set that little village on fire, or only knock it about a little?’ but they decided after all to set it on fire.”

I do not now remember how it was that the Chief came to speak again of his letter he wrote yesterday to Favre. “I have given him clearly to understand that it would not do, and that I could not believe that he who had taken part in the affair of the 4th of September would fail to await the issue. I wrote the letter in French, first because I do not regard the correspondence as official but rather as private, and then in order that every one may be able to read it in the French lines until it reaches him.” Nostitz asked how diplomatic correspondence in general was now conducted. The Chief: “In German. Formerly it was in French. But I have introduced German—only, however, with Cabinets whose language is understood in our own Foreign Office. England, Italy and also Spain—even Spanish can be read in case of need. Not with Russia, as I am the only one in the Foreign Office who understands Russian. Also not with Holland, Denmark and Sweden—people do not learn those languages as a rule. They write in French and we reply in the same language.” “At Ferrières I spoke to Thiers” (he meant Favre) “in French. But I told him that was only because I was not treating with him officially. He laughed, whereupon I said to him: ‘You will see that we shall talk plain German to you in the negotiations for peace.’”

At tea we hear from Holstein that the bombardment on the south side has been stopped, Blumenthal, who was always against it, having got his way. It is hoped, however, that the Crown Prince of Saxony will proceed vigorously with the bombardment on the north side. One would like to tell this to our own Crown Prince, and to ask him what would be said when it was known that the Saxons had forced Paris to capitulate? “Unless you are quite certain of that,” said Wagener, “and have it on absolutely trustworthy authority, do not let the Chief hear of it. I should not like to guarantee that in that case he would not be off to-morrow. He is a volcano whose action is incalculable, and he does not stand jokes in such matters.” Holstein, however, appears to have been misinformed. At least Count Dönhoff, who came in afterwards, declared that our siege guns in the south were also at work, but that owing to the south-west wind we did not hear the firing, and, moreover, it was not so heavy as during the preceding days. Fire would probably be opened to-morrow from St. Denis upon the city, a pleasant surprise for the inhabitants of the northern quarters.

Wednesday, January 18th.—In the morning read despatches and newspapers. Wollmann tells me that an order has been issued promoting our Chief to the rank of Lieutenant-General. When Wollmann took the order up to him and congratulated him, the Chancellor threw it angrily on the bed and said: “What is the good of that to me?” (“Wat ik mich davor koofe?”—low German dialect.) Doubtless imagination, but it appears to be correct that the Minister is to-day in very bad humour and exceptionally irritable.

The festival of the Orders and the Proclamation of the German Empire and Emperor took place in the great hall of the palace between 12 and 1.30 P.M. It was held with much military pomp and ceremony, and is said to have been a very magnificent and imposing spectacle. In the meantime I took a long walk with Wollmann.

The Chief did not dine with us, as he was bidden to the Emperor’s table. On his return I was called to him twice to receive instructions. His voice was an unusually weak voice, and looked very tired and worn out.

The Chief has received a communication from a number of diplomats who have remained behind in Paris. Kern, the Swiss Minister, who is their spokesman, requests the Chancellor to use his influence in order to obtain permission for the persons committed to their protection to leave the city. At the same time our right to bombard Paris is questioned, and it is insinuated that we intentionally fire at buildings that ought to be respected. The reply is to point out that we have already repeatedly, through their diplomatic representatives, called the attention of the citizens of neutral states living in Paris to the consequences of the city’s prolonged resistance. This was done as early as the end of September, and again several times in October. Furthermore, we have for months past allowed every citizen of a neutral State, who was able to give evidence of his nationality, to pass through our lines without any difficulty. At the present time, for military reasons, we can only extend that permission to members of the Corps Diplomatique. It is not our fault if subjects of neutral states have not hitherto availed themselves of the permission to seek a place of safety for their persons and their property. Either they have not wished to leave, or they have not been allowed to do so by those who at present hold power in Paris. We are fully justified by international law in bombarding Paris, as it is a fortress, the principal fortress of France—an entrenched camp which serves the enemy as a base of offensive and defensive action against our armies. Our generals cannot, therefore, be expected to refrain from attacking it, or to handle it with velvet gloves. Furthermore, the object of the bombardment is not to destroy the city, but to capture the fortress. If our fire renders residence in Paris uncomfortable and dangerous, those who recognise that fact ought not to have gone to live in a fortified town, or should not have remained there. They may, therefore, address their complaints not to us, but to those who transformed Paris into a fortress, and who now use its fortifications as an instrument of war against us. Finally, our artillery does not intentionally fire at private houses and benevolent institutions, such as hospitals, &c. That should be understood as a matter of course from the care with which we have observed the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Such accidents as do occur are due to the great distance at which we are firing. It cannot, however, be tolerated that Paris, which has been and still is the chief centre of military resistance, should bring forward these cases as an argument for forbidding the vigorous bombardment which is intended to render the city untenable. Wrote articles to the above effect.

Thursday, January 19th.—Dull weather. The post has not been delivered, and it is ascertained on inquiry that the railway line has been destroyed at a place called Vitry la Ville, near Châlons. From 10 A.M. we hear a rather vigorous cannonade, in which field guns ultimately join. I write two articles on the sentimental report of the Journal des Débats, according to which our shells only strike ambulances, mothers with their daughters, and babies in swaddling clothes. What evil-minded shells!

Keudell tells us at lunch that to-day’s cannonade was directed against a great sortie with twenty-four battalions and numerous guns in the direction of La Celle and Saint Cloud. In my room after lunch Wollmann treats me to a number of anecdotes of doubtful authenticity. According to him the Chief yesterday remarked to the King, when his Majesty changed the Minister’s title to that of Chancellor of the Empire, that this new title brought him into bad company. To which the King replied that the bad company would be transformed into good company on his joining it. (From whom can Wollmann have heard that?) My gossip also informs me that the King made a slip of the tongue yesterday at the palace, when in announcing his assumption of the title of Emperor he added the words “by the Grace of God.” This requires to be confirmed by some more trustworthy authority. Another story of Wollmann’s seems more probable, namely, that the Minister sends in a written request to the King, almost every day, to be supplied with the reports of the General Staff respecting the English coal ships sunk by our people near Rouen. He used in the same way to telegraph day after day to Eulenburg who has always been very dilatory: “What about Villiers?” And before that in Berlin he had a request addressed to Eulenburg at least once every week: Would he kindly have the draft of the district regulations sent forward as early as possible?

Towards 2 o’clock, when the rattle of the mitrailleuse could be clearly distinguished, and the French artillery was at the outside only half a German mile in a straight line from Versailles, the Chief rode out to the aqueduct at Marly, whither the King and the Crown Prince were understood to have gone.

The affair must have caused some anxiety at Versailles in the meantime, as we see that the Bavarian troops have been called out. They are posted in large masses in the Place d’Armes and the Avenue de Paris. The French are camped, sixty thousand strong it is said, beneath Mont Valérien and in the fields to the east of it. They are understood to have captured the Montretout redoubt, and the village of Garches to the west of Saint Cloud, which is not much more than three-quarters of an hour from here, is also in their hands. They may, it is feared, advance further to-morrow and oblige us to withdraw from Versailles, but this seems to be at least an exaggeration. At dinner there is scarcely any talk of immediate danger. Geheimrath von Löper, who is understood to be Under Secretary in the Ministry of the Royal Household, dines with us. We hear that there is no longer any danger for our communications in the south-east, as Bourbaki, after pressing Werder very hard for three days without however being able to defeat him, has given up the attempt to relieve Belfort and is now in full retreat, probably owing to the approach of Manteuffel. The Chief then refers to a report that the taxes cannot be collected in various districts of the occupied territory. He says it is difficult, indeed impossible, to garrison every place where the population must be made to pay the taxes. “Nor,” he adds, “is it necessary to do so? Flying columns of infantry accompanied by a couple of guns are all that is needed. Without even entering into the places, the people should be simply told, ‘If you do not produce the taxes in arrear within two hours we shall pitch some shells in amongst you.’ If they see that we are in earnest they will pay. If not the place should be bombarded, and that would help in other cases. They must learn what war means.”

The conversation afterwards turned on the grants that were to be expected after the conclusion of peace, and alluding to those made in 1866, the Chief said, inter alia: “They should not be grants of money. I at least was reluctant for a long time to accept one, but at length I yielded to the temptation. Besides, it was worse still in my case, as I received it not from the King but from the Diet. I did not want to take any money from people with whom I had fought so bitterly for years.

“Moreover, the King was to some extent in my debt, as I had sent him forty pounds of fine fresh caviare—a present for which he made me no return. It is true that perhaps he never received it. Probably that fat rascal Borck intercepted it.” “These rewards ought to have taken the form of grants of land, as in 1815; and there was a good opportunity of doing so, particularly in the corner of Bavaria which we acquired, and which consisted almost entirely of State property.”

While we were alone at tea, Bucher told me that “before the war he had a good deal to do with the Spanish affair.” (This was not exactly news to me, as I remembered that long before that he suddenly ordered the Imparcial, and gave directions for various articles directed against Montpensier.) He had negotiated in the matter with the Hohenzollerns, father and son, and had also spoken to the King on the affair in an audience of one hour’s duration which he had had with him at Ems.

Friday, January 20th.—I am called to the Chief at 12 o’clock. He wishes to have his reply to Kern’s communication, and the letter in which he declined to supply Favre with a passport, published in the Moniteur.

Bohlen again came to dinner, at which we were also joined by Lauer and von Knobelsdorff. The Chief was very cheerful and talkative. He related, amongst other things, that while he was at Frankfurt he frequently received and accepted invitations from the Grand Ducal Court at Darmstadt. They had excellent shooting there. “But,” he added, “I have reason to believe that the Grand Duchess Mathilde did not like me. She said to some one at that time: ‘He always stands there and looks as important as if he were the Grand Duke himself.’”

While we were smoking our cigars, the Crown Prince’s aide-de-camp suddenly appeared, and reported that Count —— (I could not catch the name) had come, ostensibly on behalf of, and under instructions from, Trochu, to ask for a two days’ armistice in order to remove the wounded and bury those who fell in yesterday’s engagement. The Chief replied that the request should be refused. A few hours would be sufficient for the removal of the wounded and the burial of the dead; and, besides, the latter were just as well off lying on the ground as they would be under it. The Major returned shortly afterwards and announced that the King would come here; and, hardly a quarter of an hour later, his Majesty arrived with the Crown Prince. They went with the Chancellor into the drawing-room, where a negative answer was prepared for Trochu’s messenger.

About 9 P.M. Bucher sent me up a couple of lines in pencil to the effect that the letter to Kern should be published in the Moniteur to-morrow, but that the communication to Favre should be held over for the present.

Saturday, January 21st.—At 9.30 A.M. the Moniteur is delivered, and contains the Chief’s letter to Favre. Very disagreeable; but I suppose my letter to Bamberg only arrived after the paper was printed. At 10 o’clock I am called to the Minister, who says nothing about this mishap, although he has the newspaper before him. He is still in bed, and wishes the protest of the Comte de Chambord against the bombardment cut out for the King. I then write an article for the Kölnische Zeitung, and a paragraph for the local journal.

Voigts-Rhetz, Prince Putbus, and the Bavarian Count Berghem were the Chancellor’s guests at dinner. The Bavarian brought the pleasant news that the Versailles treaties were carried in the second chamber at Munich by two votes over the necessary two-thirds majority. The German Empire was, therefore, complete in every respect. Thereupon the Chief invited the company to drink the health of the King of Bavaria, “who, after all, has really helped us through to a successful conclusion.” “I always thought that it would be carried,” he added, “if only by one vote—but I had not hoped for two. The last good news from the seat of war will doubtless have contributed to the result.”

It was then mentioned that in the engagement the day before yesterday the French brought a much larger force against us than was thought at first, probably over 80,000 men. The Montretout redoubt was actually in their hands for some hours, and also a portion of Garches and Saint Cloud. The French had lost enormously in storming the position—it was said 1,200 dead and 4,000 wounded. The Chancellor observed: “The capitulation must follow soon. I imagine it may be even next week. After the capitulation we shall supply them with provisions as a matter of course. But before they deliver up 700,000 rifles and 4,000 guns they shall not get a single mouthful of bread—and then no one shall be allowed to leave. We shall occupy the forts and the walls and keep them on short commons until they accommodate themselves to a peace satisfactory to us. After all there are still many persons of intelligence and consideration in Paris with whom it must be possible to come to some arrangement.”

Then followed a learned discussion on the difference between the titles “German Emperor” and “Emperor of Germany,” and that of “Emperor of the Germans” was also mooted. After this had gone on for a while the Chief, who had taken no part in it, asked: “Does any one know the Latin word for sausage (Wurscht)?” Abeken answered “Farcimentum,” and I said “Farcimen.” The Chief, smiling: “Farcimentum or farcimen, it is all the same to me. Nescio quid mihi magis farcimentum esset.” (“Es ist mir Wurst” is student’s slang, and means “It is a matter of the utmost indifference to me.”)

Sunday, January 22nd.—In the forenoon I wrote two paragraphs for the German newspapers, and one for the Moniteur, in connection with which I was twice called to see the Chief.

Von Könneritz, a Saxon, General von Stosch, and Löper joined us at dinner. There was nothing worth noting in the conversation except that the Minister again insisted that it would be only fair to invest the wounded with the Iron Cross. “The Coburger,” he went on, “said to me the other day, ‘It would really be a satisfaction if the soldiers also got the Cross now.’ I replied, ‘Yes, but it is less satisfactory that we two should have received it.’”

Monday, January 23rd.—I telegraph that the bombardment on the north side has made good progress, that the fort at Saint Denis has been silenced, and that an outbreak of fire has been observed in Saint Denis itself as well as in Paris. All our batteries are firing vigorously, although one cannot hear them. So we are told by Lieutenant von Uslar, of the Hussars, who brings a letter to the Chief from Favre. What can he want?

Shortly after 7 P.M. Favre arrived, and the Chancellor had an interview with him, which lasted about two and a half hours. In the meantime Hatzfeldt and Bismarck-Bohlen conversed down stairs in the drawing-room with the gentleman who accompanied Favre, and who is understood to be his son-in-law, del Rio. He is a portrait painter by profession, but came with his father-in-law in the capacity of secretary. Both were treated to a hastily improvised meal, consisting of cutlets, scrambled eggs, ham, &c., which will doubtless have been welcome to these poor martyrs to their own obstinacy. Shortly after 10 o’clock they drove off, accompanied by Hatzfeldt, to the lodgings assigned to them in a house on the Boulevard du Roi, where Stieber and the military police also happen to have their quarters. Hatzfeldt accompanied the gentlemen there. Favre looked very depressed.

The Chief drove off to see the King at 10.30 P.M., returning in about three-quarters of an hour. He looks exceedingly pleased as he enters the room where we are sitting at tea. He first asks me to pour him out a cup of tea, and he eats a few mouthfuls of bread with it. After a while he says to his cousin, “Do you know this?” and then whistled a short tune, the signal of the hunter that he has brought down the deer. Bohlen replies, “Yes, in at the death.” The Chief: “No, this way,” and he whistled again. “A hallali,” he adds. “I think the thing is finished.” Bohlen remarked that Favre looked “awfully shabby.” The Chief said: “I find he has grown much greyer than when I saw him at Ferrières—also stouter, probably on horseflesh. Otherwise he looks like one who has been through a great deal of trouble and excitement lately, and to whom everything is now indifferent. Moreover, he was very frank, and confessed that things are not going on well in Paris. I also ascertained from him that Trochu has been superseded. Vinoy is now in command of the city.” Bohlen then related that Martinez del Rio was exceedingly reserved. They, for their part, had not tried to pump him; but they once inquired how things were going on at the Villa Rothschild in the Bois de Boulogne, where Thiers said the General Staff of the Paris army was quartered. Del Rio answered curtly that he did not know. For the rest, they had talked solely about high-class restaurants in Paris, which, they acknowledged, was an unmannerly thing to do. Hatzfeldt on his return, after conducting the two Parisians to their lodgings, reported that Favre was glad to have arrived after dark, and that he does not wish to go out in the daytime in order not to create a sensation, and to avoid being pestered by the Versailles people.

Tuesday, January 24th.—The Chief gets up before 9 o’clock and works with Abeken. Shortly before 10 he drives off to see the King, or, let us now say, the Emperor. It is nearly 1 o’clock when he returns. We are still at lunch, and he sits down and takes some roast ham and a glass of Tivoli beer. After a while he heaves a sigh and says: “Until now I always thought that Parliamentary negotiations were the slowest of all, but I no longer think so. There was at least one way of escape there—to move ‘that the question should be now put.’ But here everybody says whatever occurs to him, and when one imagines the matter is finally settled, somebody brings forward an argument that has already been disposed of, and so the whole thing has to be gone over again, which is quite hopeless. That is stewing thought to rags—mere flatulence which people ought really to be able to restrain. Well, it’s all the same to me! I even prefer that nothing should have been yet decided or shall be decided till to-morrow. It is merely the waste of time in having to listen to them, but of course such people do not think of that.” The Chief then said that he expected Favre to call upon him again, and that he had advised him to leave at 3 o’clock (Favre wishes to return to Paris) “on account of the soldiers who would challenge him after dark, and to whom he could not reply.”

Favre arrived at 1.30 P.M. and spent nearly two hours in negotiation with the Chancellor. He afterwards drove off towards Paris, being accompanied by Bismarck-Bohlen as far as the bridge at Sèvres.

These negotiations were not mentioned at dinner. It would appear, however, to be a matter of course that the preliminaries of the capitulation were discussed. The Chief spoke at first of Bernstorff, and said: “Anyhow, that is a thing I have never yet been able to manage—to fill page after page of foolscap with the most insignificant twaddle. A pile so high has come in again to-day”—he pointed with his hand—“and then the back references: ‘As I had the honour to report in my despatch of January 3rd, 1863, No. so-and-so; as I announced most obediently in my telegram No. 1666.’ I send them to the King, and he wants to know what Bernstorff means, and always writes in pencil on the margin, ‘Don’t understand this. This is awful!’” Somebody observed that it was only Goltz who wrote as much as Bernstorff: “Yes,” said the Chief, “and in addition he often sent me private letters that filled six to eight closely-written sheets. He must have had a terrible amount of spare time. Fortunately I fell out with him, and then that blessing ceased.” One of the company wondered, what Goltz would say if he now heard that the Emperor was a prisoner, and the Empress in London, while Paris was being besieged and bombarded by us. “Well,” replied the Chief, “he was not so desperately attached to the Emperor—but the Empress in London! Nevertheless, in spite of his devotion to her, he would not have given himself away as Werther did.”

The death of a Belgian Princess having been mentioned, Abeken, as in duty bound, expressed his grief at the event. The Chief said: “How can that affect you so much? To my knowledge, there is no Belgian here at table, nor even a cousin.”

The Minister then related that Favre complained of our firing at the sick and blind—that is to say, the blind asylum. “I said to him, ‘I really do not see what you have to complain about. You yourselves do much worse, seeing that you shoot at our sound and healthy men.’ He will have thought: What a barbarian!” Hohenlohe’s name was then mentioned, and it was said that much of the success of the bombardment was due to him. The Chief: “I shall propose for him the title of Poliorketes.” The conversation then turned on the statues and paintings of the Restoration, and their artificiality and bad taste. “I remember,” said the Chief, “that Schuckmann, the Minister, was painted by his wife, en coquille I think it was called at that time, that is, in a rose-coloured shell, and wearing a kind of antique costume. He was naked down to the waist—I had never seen him like that.” “That is one of my earliest remembrances. They often gave what used to be called assemblées, and are now known as routs—a ball without supper. My parents usually went there.” Thereupon, the Chief once more described his mother’s costume, and then continued: “There was afterwards a Russian Minister in Berlin, Ribeaupierre, who also gave balls, where people danced till 2 o’clock in the morning, and there was nothing to eat. I know that, because I and a couple of good friends were often there. At length we got tired of it, and played them a trick. When it got late, we pulled out some bread and butter from our pockets, and after we had finished, we pitched the paper on the drawing-room floor. Refreshments were provided next time, but we were not invited any more.”