February 18th.—Bucher brings me instructions from the Chief for a long article on the anti-German attitude of the King of Sweden, together with material in the shape of despatches. This is to appear in a non-official paper. I sent it to the Grenzboten, which published it in No. 10 of the current year, under the title “Stockholmer Velleïtäten.” After an introduction in which the great European Powers, with the exception of France, were represented as tolerably satisfied with the establishment of the German Empire, and therefore favourable to us, or at least not exactly hostile, the article went on to say: “On the other hand Prussia and New Germany have, in some of the small States neighbours at whose Courts there prevails an obstinate ill-humour, not to say a bitter and lasting hatred, which, of course, is not openly manifested, but is for that reason none the less cordial. Among these neighbours we may mention, for example, the Queen of Holland and Prince Henry, who, as the representative of the Grand Duke, governs Luxemburg in a sense as hostile to Germany as possible. We must also include in this number his Majesty of Sweden and Norway, Charles XV., with whose position as regards Germany and France we now propose to deal, giving merely a few general indications, as it would not be desirable to speak more plainly, our intention being not to cause irritation, but only to give a useful hint.

“Considered from a political standpoint it is not easy to discover the cause of that exalted gentleman’s aversion to Germany. The interests of Sweden and Norway are in no way opposed to ours. On the contrary, what benefits us Germans, is almost invariably of advantage to our two neighbours in the North. A powerful Germany does not threaten the free development of the Scandinavian peoples, nor for the matter of that, any other of her neighbours. The German Empire is the great universal preserver of peace, the protector of international independence, armed only for defence; and whether, remembering old, half-forgotten quarrels, they like to hear it or not, it is, and remains connected with them by ties of close racial kinship. Nor can public opinion in Sweden be held responsible for royal prejudices, which would even go to the length of making military preparations against us in view of possible contingencies. The Schleswig-Holstein question at one time caused a great deal of anti-Prussian feeling, but to our knowledge that agitation was not so deep-seated as might have been inferred from a section of the Swedish press, and anyhow it has long since subsided, except in a few newspaper offices. It broke out once more in Stockholm and other large towns during our war with France, but in the newspapers rather than among the public, of whom the more thoughtful section soon realised which side was in the right and by whose victory those not immediately concerned would be the gainers. It may be safely asserted that only a small minority in Sweden now regrets the triumph of Germany.

“From this it would seem to follow that sentiment can alone explain the hostile sentiments of King Charles. His aversion to New Germany may probably be chiefly the corollary of his sympathies for France, which again may doubtless be traced to the recollection that the Bernadotte dynasty sprung from a French lawyer, a recollection which would however assume a questionable complexion if it were to lead the King to forget that his first duty is to consider the interests of the countries over which he now rules. But perhaps there may have been also another recollection, namely that there was once in Sweden, years ago, a Charles XII. But it would be a pity for such memories to cause forgetfulness of the changes produced by time.

“We can find no other explanation, and that which we have ventured to give is the more probable, as it is stated that his Swedish Majesty has up to a short time ago been addicted to habits better calculated at times to stimulate feelings, for instance, of vain glory than to sharpen the judgment, and that under such influences he has sometimes made statements which it would have been better to have left unmade. Be that as it may, the unfriendly sentiments of the King towards Germany are a fact, and if Sweden were still the dreaded power that enforced the Peace of Altranstädt, if she were still in a position to compel obedience to the pair of top-boots that Charles XII. once set up in the Prime Minister’s chair, it would be possible to conceive situations in which one would have good ground for regarding the North with anxiety, while the main front faced towards the West. As things have turned out, however, this is happily not the case. The top-boots of the last century have given way to a constitutional régime, and the Swedes have become peaceful agriculturists, sailors, and trades people, who would not plunge into a ruinous conflict for the sake of anybody’s French sympathies or longings for military glory, and who would know how to protect themselves by constitutional methods, if any attempt were made to translate such dangerous sympathies and longings into action. Let us consider the present Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose appointment to that post might be quoted in refutation of our complaint if it had not been mainly a necessary satisfaction given to the peaceful disposition of the Swedish people, the majority of whom are friendly to Germany. Count Platen, who has been in office since last autumn, was born at Stralsund, where his father was Governor in the time of the Swedes, and has been many years at sea. He is a man of frank and straightforward character, very popular in the country, in which he is one of the largest landed proprietors. He entertains no hostile feelings whatever towards Germany, but is, on the contrary, very well disposed towards us.

“The King, on the other hand, holds different views, and has frequently felt impelled to give expression to them. This is done in the first place by displaying so marked a partiality for the representatives of France accredited to the Court at Stockholm over all other diplomatists, that it has not even escaped public notice. The intercourse of these gentlemen—Count Montholon, the Chargé d’Affaires, and the Attachés Benedetti and Hauterive—with the King is like that of intimate friends. At balls and soirées they are distinguished by him in every possible way. The monarch converses with them almost exclusively at every opportunity, withdrawing with them from the remainder of the company. A few weeks ago, at a ball given by Prince Oscar, one of the Attachés appeared in the uniform of a Parisian garde mobile, and it is presumed, doubtless not without reason, that this was done with the approval, if not at the express desire, of his Majesty.

“During the last few weeks of the Franco-German war reports were circulated in the German and Swedish press that King Charles had written a letter to one of the French prisoners of war containing expressions not particularly favourable to us. Denials of the existence of this letter were received from Sweden, and among others a Stockholm correspondent of the National Zeitung wrote that the story was apocryphal, and had given much offence to the King. Our information from Sweden is very different, so different indeed that we do not hesitate for a moment to quote, and to lay special stress upon this ‘apocryphal’ letter, as evidence of the anti-German sentiments of the King, and of his ardent sympathy for France, to which he is only too anxious to give tangible expression.

“One last proof will be conclusive. The King sometimes writes poems, which he does not withhold from publication, and which he is accustomed to sign with the initial letter of his name. Over the same signature he not infrequently writes and publishes military and other articles. Everybody in Stockholm knows this nom de plume. Now a few weeks ago, shortly after the scheme of army reorganisation was rejected by the Swedish Diet, the Aftonblad, a journal which is generally known to have intimate relations with the Court, and which is perhaps the most zealous and vehement preacher of the anti-German crusade in the Swedish press, published three articles under the title of ‘After-Considerations.’ These consisted of arguments by ‘C.’ in defence of the rejected Bill, together with sallies against Prussia, from which—if, as is generally assumed, they were the product of the Royal pen—we must naturally infer that King Charles regretted the failure of his favourite scheme, principally because it deprived him of the opportunity of preparing for a future attack upon Germany. It is true that the articles tried to repudiate the aggressive ideas concealed behind the Bill. But this certainly did not convince the party which, in the Diet and in the press, rejected the reorganisation scheme, principally on the ground of such aggressive tendencies.

“And now, in order to give some idea of the tenour and tone of this remarkable piece of military penmanship, so far as it affects us Germans, we here reproduce a few of the sallies referred to. ‘C.’ says, inter alia, ‘Just as we condemn all partisan misrepresentations of the history and position of our native land, however eloquent these may be, whether they be intended either to excite arrogance or to produce a sluggish sense of security, instead of a noble patriotism and an active spirit of independence, we also denounce the cowardice which shrinks from every danger, the lack of enterprise and endurance which will not struggle to overcome difficulties, the selfishness which will not submit to any sacrifice.’

“Mention is then made of Xerxes, who scourged the waves of the Hellespont, of Napoleon’s painful reflections at St. Helena, and of the fearful awakening of France in 1870–71. ‘C.’ then proceeds:—

“‘In like manner the Prussian policy of conquest and its sanguinary ambition will pave the way for its fall, and bring about its own punishment when peoples recognise that community of language does not form a common nationality, and that the yoke may prove a heavy one even to those who speak the same tongue. At the present moment, however, Prussia is a source of apprehension for all those who are not prepared to be enslaved, and who are not willing to be made subjects, either direct or indirect, of the King of Prussia. Russia shows that she has a mission, while England has betrayed us with a selfishness as inhuman as it is sordid. Russia will certainly have a great future. Russia, hated and despised at the bidding of England, may one day become a necessary bulwark against the arrogance of Western Europe or the covetousness of a certain great Power. England, on the contrary, already reaps, in the mistrust and contempt of other nations, the fruit of its hypocritical love of liberty, its calculating policy of peace, and its too successful efforts to tear open the wounds of Poland, in order to distract attention from its greed of conquest in India and its oppression of Ireland.

“‘The Emperor William has recently shown not only how to establish one’s self in a conquered country, but at the same time how to fill up deficiencies in the Treasury with German blood.

“‘If we consider the magnitude of the forces that are now being armed to sow and manure the battle-fields, and compare them with those of former times, taking also into account the enormous resources of the present day, and the five milliards which Prussia demanded as compensation for her trouble in maintaining the balance of power in Europe, it becomes evident that Prussia, working indefatigably and ruthlessly to assure her military ascendancy, will only too soon be able to throw hundreds of thousands of soldiers on our coasts with ease, rapidity, and certainty.

“‘The world desires to be deceived. Bismarck has known how to take advantage of this fact. Peoples and Governments have spared no trouble gradually to augment the power of Prussia and their own danger. Austria helped Prussia against Denmark, and was rewarded with Sadowa, and an impotence that makes her now powerless before the minority of her own population. France, or rather Napoleon III., at that time reckoned on being paid for his neutrality. The payment consisted in Sedan, the Paris Commune, and the International. England and Russia permitted the dismemberment of France. The former performs an act of penance in the Alabama affair, bows down before the ex-Emperor, and, placing herself under the orders of Prussia, sulkily pockets or hides under her petticoat (a delicate reference to the circumstance that a lady sits upon the throne of Great Britain) her defeat in the Black Sea question. Russia, by her readiness to fall in with the views of Prussia, has either dealt a deadly wound to the Slavonic cause, or incurred the necessity of an ultimate war to the knife in its defence.’

“We do not propose to gather all the flowers in this garden for the delectation of our readers. Those already submitted will suffice. It was thought in Sweden that the King, even if he were really not the author of this article, at least shared the views to which it gave expression, and therefore took no steps against the abuse of his nom de plume. This opinion has never been contradicted. It is true that about a week after the 7th of December, when the first article from ‘C.’ appeared, the Swedish newspapers denied that it had been written by the King; and on the 20th of December the correspondent of the National Zeitung (who is, of course, semi-official) mentioned that a man so well informed on military affairs, and doubtless also on the military constitution of Germany, as King Charles XV. could not have written such nonsense. But for a whole fortnight there was no official démenti, and even then, so far as we are aware, it only appeared in England. It was only on the 16th of January in the present year that Baron Hochschild, the Swedish Minister in London, declared that the statement of a correspondent of The Times, to the effect that the article in question emanated from the King of Sweden, was entirely unfounded.... We, of course, accept the démenti as we know that diplomatists never lie, but we are none the less glad to think that Sweden is no longer an absolute monarchy.”

February 20th.—In the morning again read despatches and made extracts for future use. Queen Olga, who was in Berlin about eight days ago, on her way to St. Petersburg, in writing to her consort, said she was very pleased with the political interview which she had had with the Imperial Chancellor, and with the reception given to her in Berlin, which was as cordial as it was brilliant. A letter from Paris of the 9th instant states that General Fleury has had an interview with Orloff, speaking to him exactly in the sense of the well-known memorandum (previously mentioned). Thiers must be called upon to summon the nation to a plebiscite, as Europe was interested in seeing the monarchical system firmly re-established in France. At the same time General Fleury did not conceal from the Prince that Napoleon was much pained to see Russia accredit an Ambassador to the Republican Government. It would almost seem as if the Imperial Government regarded President Thiers as the definitive ruler. Prince Orloff surprised the general by replying that Russia certainly regarded every Government in France as definitive so long as it existed. Fleury, in taking leave of the Prince, was disappointed, if not piqued. A report of the 13th instant from Rome states that the health of the Crown Princess is a source of anxiety to her immediate entourage. She is understood to be in the first stage of disease of the chest, against which the old school can do nothing. Furthermore that next summer she will perhaps visit Germany with her consort; and that a personage occupying a prominent position in Roman society had remarked confidentially: “In case the Crown Princess, the Pearl of the House of Savoy, should be lost to the country, it may be confidently expected that the Orleans family will strain every effort to place a Princess of their House upon the Italian throne. It would therefore be desirable to at once take that eventuality into consideration, and in order to prevent the success of a plan which would be most prejudicial to Italy, a Princess should be sought in Germany who, at least politically, might compensate such a loss.”

The conflict between the Kreuzzeitung party and the Chief is now a matter of public notoriety. For some time past these gentlemen have opposed the Prince, sharing Herr Windthorst’s views as to the necessity for a staunch opposition, and choosing for their watchwords the “vindication of the monarchical principle against the rule of a Parliamentary majority,” and “the defence of the Christian character of our State.” According to their organ the Prince, in his speech of the 30th of January, deliberately attacked or abandoned the principle which the Conservative party in Prussia had constantly proclaimed and defended during twenty years as one of the fundamental articles of their programme. The passage which led to this discovery runs as follows: “But as things stand at the present moment we, the Ministry in a Constitutional State, require a majority which is in agreement with the general direction of our policy.” This is represented as a “frank recognition of that Constitutionalism which the Kreuzzeitung has opposed with success, on the ground that it is not in harmony with the Prussian Constitution.” In a double article drafted by Aegidi, with liberal corrections and additions by the Chief, and which was published in the Spenersche Zeitung after it had been declined by the National Zeitung, the following considerations were very justly urged in reply: “Not Constitutional? Are we then not living in a Constitutional State? Have we not a popular representation? Do not our laws to be valid require its consent? Is not that consent given by a majority? Surely then it follows inexorably that the Counsellors of the Throne must seek a majority for their measures, so far at least that if it does not approve of every Bill, it shall at least support the general line of policy adopted by the Ministry. The man whom the Kreuzzeitung criticises with such an air of superiority has proved in times of storm and stress that he is willing to sacrifice a Parliamentary majority for what he recognises to be essential. But the same statesman once said that conflict cannot be made a regular part of the machinery of State. Where popular representation exists and there is no desire to see conflicts become a permanent feature of public life, it will be necessary to secure a Parliamentary majority. If those on the Right refuse their support, the Government, whose duty it is to keep the machine working, may have to look further to the Left for a Government majority whose support may be relied upon. The Prime Minister has already called the attention of the Right to the fact that their wanton opposition must forcibly transfer the centre of gravity to the other side. This warning has lost nothing of its significance. The majority can be regarded with indifference only in those countries where the approval of the popular representatives is not required for the validity of the laws, that is to say, in those States that are governed on absolutist principles.”

February 24th.—Read a variety of documents received. It is reported from Brussels on the 22nd instant, that the Comte de Chambord desired to go to Malines, but that the Archbishop advised him not, as public opinion was suspicious of religious motives. The Pretender has therefore remained at the Hôtel St. Antoine, in Antwerp, whither the King sent his greetings through the Chief Chamberlain. He will shortly pay the King a visit at Brussels, as he did last year. Great influx of Legitimists, who did not, however, remain long. Chambord entirely avoids publicity, and only goes out to hear Mass. The Précurseur, the most widely circulated newspaper in Antwerp, welcomed him on the 19th instant with a leading article which betrayed very little sympathy for him.

A fruitseller at Versailles had addressed a letter to the Empress Augusta, in which she asserts that the Marquise de la Torre (previously mentioned) had during the occupation of that town by the Prussians frequently ordered fruit from her which were intended for the Crown Prince—“pour le Prince Fritz.” These were not paid for, however, and she now begs the Empress to settle the account on behalf of her son. The enclosed account amounted to 75 francs. Probably the fruit was sent to the Coburger, but Wollmann declares that Bohlen also received some of it, including the beautiful grapes and pears which we had once or twice as dessert.

Bucher says he has ascertained that it is proposed to remove Abeken to the Chamber of Peers, “together with other deserving statesmen like Roon and Moltke.” (Surely not by the Chief.) This is an arrangement intended to compensate him for having been disappointed of the grant which was originally contemplated. He is therefore to be “Lord Abeken” in future.

Evening.—Read further documents received and despatched. On the 17th of February the Chancellor sent the Emperor an abstract of a letter addressed by Count Ladislaus Plater, a leader of the emigrant Poles who is residing in Zurich, to the editor of the Dzennik Poznanski (the Polish Journal), urging the most active agitation possible. This abstract, which the Chancellor received from a Polish agent, states, inter alia: “Germany, whose unification is hardly yet complete, is undermined by two very determined parties, the Catholics and the Socialists, neither of which will abate one jot of its demand, nor shrink from any means to promote its cause.” The Count goes on to say that it is the sacred duty of the Poles to support both parties in word and deed. Should a Socialist revolution break out in Germany, which may very shortly be expected with tolerable certainty, the Poles must assist it with all their might. Writing on the 20th Arnim reports various particulars with regard to parties in the National Assembly at Versailles, and adds: “The President considers the Monarchists to be powerless, and said to me yesterday that he had no anxiety on that ground. He at the same time clearly manifested his intention to establish the Republic as the definitive form of French Government.”

February 26th.—Bucher brought me instructions from the Chief to write an article for the Kölnische Zeitung, which was to be based on a report of the 17th instant on the anti-German agitation carried on by certain Orleanist officials of the French Embassy at Brussels. This was immediately done....

Addendum.—Yesterday morning Doerr brought the news that Dr. Beuthner, the chief editor of the Kreuzzeitung, was so greatly affected by the thunderbolt hurled at his party in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, and the charge of incapacity levelled at him personally, that it brought on an attack of apoplexy. That is the inevitable fate of such stupid conceit as he showed last spring, when he declined in the following words to accede to a desire of the Chancellor which I communicated to him: “We will not do that, and we shall see who will prove to be right in the end. The Kreuzzeitung party is older than Bismarck, and it will last longer than his Government.” The article in question, which is certainly very strongly written, was in great part the work of the Chief himself.

Bucher informed me that the article in No. 41 of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on the concessions made to the Poles in Galicia also emanated from the Minister himself.

February 27th.—Bucher told me this evening that since yesterday the Chief has been “exceptionally irritable,” and treated Roland Boelsing and, again to-day, Alvensleben (who has now taken Bohlen’s place and does all sorts of subordinate work for him) with the greatest harshness. His irritation is no doubt due to the circumstance that Camphausen did not wish to draw up the Taxation Bill for which the Chief was most anxious, and that the latter had no power to enforce his views upon his colleague.

February 29th.—Read and noted the principal points of three documents received on the 26th. A report from Stockholm states that King Charles is still very weak, and that his doctors have ordered him “six weeks’ retirement for the purpose of undergoing special treatment as a measure of precaution against the increasing induration of the internal organs.” The Russian General Lewascheff, who was recently in Paris, is understood to have said to certain Galician Poles that a scheme was under consideration at St. Petersburg for reviving the Wielopolski system, and granting Poland a larger measure of independence. Orloff, on being questioned upon the subject, said it was a misunderstanding on the part of the Poles. On the 26th instant Abeken prepared for the Chief an abstract of a report from Pera dated the 14th of February. It states that “Russia favours the aspirations of the Bulgarians, and General Ignatieff has actively promoted them. The Greeks, whose influence in the Balkan Peninsula will be seriously diminished thereby, are greatly embittered against Russia. Herr von Radowitz himself considers it ‘an extraordinary change that Russia should have for the first time sacrificed the Greek element to the Slavic.’ Russia had previously relied chiefly upon the Greek element, and the Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey had received its death blow from the new measure, the Patriarch of Constantinople being deprived of almost all his former influence.”

Bucher called my attention to this article, and added the following commentary: “The article in the Kreuzzeitung is written by no other than our mutual friend Abeken, while the answer has come from the Chief. Abeken undertook the defence of the Radziwills against the charge that their palace has become the centre of Berlin Ultramontanism owing to the fact that he is accustomed to visit them, and because they are related to the Court and therefore sacred in his eyes.”[5]... “Doubtless the idea of raising Abeken to a seat in Olympus, or the Chamber of Peers, will now come to nothing, as the Chief has discovered his intrigues with the Ultramontanes. So it will not be ‘Lord Abeken,’ after all.”

March 8th.—To-day wrote the following article for the Kölnische Zeitung, from the Chief’s instructions as communicated to me by Bucher: “In the speech made by the Imperial Chancellor in the Upper House the day before yesterday he spoke of petitions in favour of the Pope which, during the session of the Reichstag, were ordered or countermanded just as the members of the Centre Party found convenient. Then proceeding to the seizures of papers by the police authorities in Posen, the Prince said that among these he had seen certain letters ‘which the police considered it necessary to bring to the knowledge of the highest authorities in order to put them on the right track with a view to subsequent investigations in another direction.’ The speaker further remarked that one of these letters was from a prominent member of the Centre Party to a priest of high position, a canon in Posen who has recently been much talked of. If I rightly remember, it said: ‘Do not send us any more petitions to the Reichstag.’ A similar instruction, in the French language, was despatched at the same time to the Province of Posen by a well-known German bishop, who also said: ‘Stop sending petitions for the present. They do no good in the Reichstag, and only lead to unpleasant discussions.’ ‘But,’ continues the former writer, ‘do not fail to forward these petitions later on at regular intervals, only address them not to the Reichstag but to the Sovereigns direct, upon whom they will in any case produce a greater impression. Although we may have nothing to hope for from the German Princes, it is nevertheless certain that sooner or later the Catholic Powers will intervene on behalf of his Holiness, and such intervention the German Princes will not venture to oppose if these petitions impress them with the idea that opposition would cause serious dissatisfaction among the Catholic population.’ The eventuality which the two gentlemen, whose statements I here intentionally reproduce in full, have in view is a French crusade against Italy, in expectation of which Germany must be rendered powerless. It is understood on good authority that the writers referred to by the Chancellor are Herr Windthorst and Bishop von Ketteler; while the canon to whom Windthorst communicated his plan for intimidating the German Princes is, as will have been surmised, the Polish prelate Kozmian.” (...)

March 10th.—Yesterday Bucher brought me down the outline of an article which I am to get Rössler to write for the Grenzboten, whose editor must then arrange for its reproduction by Biedermann in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. Bucher’s shorthand notes ran as follows: “One of the newspapers has expressed the opinion that Windthorst would appear from his letter to Kozmian to expect an intervention by France on behalf of the Pope. The member for Meppen, however, is doubtless more far-seeing, and recognises that if France were to take such a course the natural ally of the French and ultramontane policy would be found in Vienna. An Ultramontane-French-Austrian alliance would, of course, be directed chiefly against Germany, but would also find it an exceptionally easy task to revolutionise Poland in the direction desired by the Pope—if an inference is to be drawn from the concessions which it is proposed to make in Galicia. At present the relations between Germany and Austria are good, but mainly owing to the personality of the Sovereign. Nevertheless, there is danger under a Hohenwart Ministry of a return to the so-called ‘Father Confessor’ policy. That would also entirely paralyse free development of every kind in Austria. This is to be first inserted in a weekly paper and then circulated further.”

Hints of a similar effect to the remarks here made respecting the Poles were already given by the Chief in Brass’s paper on the 17th of February. The article caused a great sensation in Vienna, and afterwards formed the subject of despatches between Schweinitz and our Chancellor.

March 13th.—This morning Bucher handed me a copy of Windthorst’s letter to Kozmian, with the remark that the Chief wished “it to appear in the press as coming from Parliamentary circles.” I sent the document, with a few words of suitable introduction, to the Kölnische Zeitung, from which it was copied into all the other papers.

This publication of Windthorst’s letter produced an immense sensation. The Liberal organs condemned the letter, while the Clericals poured out the vials of their wrath upon those to whom they ascribed “the outrage” of its publication. One of the most amusing features of the whole affair was the manner in which they vented their anger upon the “learned dwarf,” as the Germania was accustomed to call our little Aegidi, who was as innocent as a new-born babe of any share in our stratagem.

March 22nd.—R. reports under date of the 17th instant: “The Polish emigrants are making great efforts to bring about a reconciliation with Russia.... Reports to this effect are received not only from the Russian Ministers abroad, but also from the Governors-General of Wilna, Warsaw, Kieff, and Odessa.... At the command of the Emperor the most positive instructions have been sent to the Imperial officials to avoid everything that would look like negotiations with the emigrants. The Imperial Government can in no circumstances negotiate with the latter. It must also be positively declared everywhere that the Imperial Government will have nothing to do with pan-Slavism, but on the contrary regards it as one of the greatest dangers for Russia. His Majesty the Emperor appears to hold immutably to this opinion.”

March 24th.—Among the documents received is a report from Darmstadt giving particulars of an interview with the Grand Duke which is worth noting. It took place at a dinner which was given in honour of the Emperor’s birthday. In the course of conversation the Grand Duke had expressed himself strongly on the anti-national attitude, and almost exclusively selfish aims, of the Ultramontane Party, and upon the untrustworthiness and Jesuitism of Bishop von Ketteler in particular. (...)

April 2nd.—This evening between 8 and 9 o’clock the Secretary of State came to my desk. He first asked if I was always obliged to remain so late in order to see if anything was wanted upstairs. I replied in the affirmative, explaining at the same time that Bucher conveyed the Chief’s orders to me, and supplied me with material. He then observed: “He has stated to diplomatists that he wishes the war to be waged in a milder form. The English representative told me so, and I should be glad to know if any instructions to this effect have been received here. Has anything of the kind been done?... After all he cannot mean to go so far as the papers say. Why, that would amount to a Thirty Years’ War.” I said that would hardly be possible, and the Chief would scarcely think of going beyond a certain point. “I do not believe it either,” he said; “but in that case the semi-official journals should not give rise to such apprehensions as seem to be entertained by the other papers; and he should not have given such directions. If you should happen to hear that a milder tone is to be adopted, please let me know, so that I may be informed when the diplomatists question me on the subject.”

During this conversation I remembered a letter which I had seen on the floor of his room the day before yesterday, which was dated from Brussels, and would appear from the handwriting to have come from Balan. It contained the following passage: “It would seem as if the ecclesiastical question would more and more dominate all other relations with us, and in this respect as well as in many others would postpone for a long time to come the return of that idyllic peace of former times which we were accustomed to in our youth.... The main difficulties have scarcely begun. In my opinion they will inevitably arise when it becomes necessary to check the fanatics of the movement that has now been started.”

April 3rd.—Bucher dictated to me to-day the following ideas for an article for the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which he had taken down in shorthand from the Chief: “Naturally very many persons in Alsace-Lorraine wish to remain French citizens, through fear of the conscription and for other similar reasons. That was clearly foreseen by us, but we were obliged to keep that strip of land as military cover against new filibustering raids such as the French have attempted fifty to sixty times during the past two centuries. It is obvious that we could not permit those who elected for the French nationality to continue to reside in Alsace-Lorraine, as possibly the majority would then adopt that course. As to the threat of expelling the Germans from France, all those who are not absolutely necessary for the maintenance of industry and commerce in France are already being driven away. Life is made so unendurable to the others that they leave of their own accord.”

April 6th.—At midday to-day Bucher brought me instructions and material from the Chief for a long article on the Bohemian party of autonomy, which was to be dated from Prague and sent to the Grenzboten. It was afterwards reproduced in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung at the instance of the Chief. It ran as follows, the portions within brackets being a literal reproduction of the Prince’s own words: “I take the liberty to return once more to a subject which it is desirable should be clearly understood in Germany, namely, the character of our great landed proprietors, an important element in the opposition to the cis-Leithan Constitution. In this respect many organs of the German press give expression again and again to erroneous views, although the gentlemen in question have been repeatedly exposed in their true colours in this as well as in other journals. At the decisive moment our great Bohemian landowners will play the principal part. It is now asserted that the voting in both electoral sections may be expected to be in favour of the Government and the Constitutional party. Nevertheless, we think it best not to shout before we are out of the wood. At all events, a few weeks ago the landed aristocracy of Bohemia still belonged to the party which declared in favour of a Federal and anti-Constitutional policy. It would be a great mistake, however, to confound these magnates with the bulk of the nationalists and to fancy that they support the agitation of the Czechs from a genuine enthusiasm for the Crown of St. Wenceslas, and an autonomous kingdom of Bohemia.

“Who are these gentlemen that assume such a Bohemian air? A national nobility of Czech blood? By no means, or, at least, not in the great majority of cases. They are, on the contrary, an element which by birth and descent are not only foreign, but even hostile to the Czechs. [Precisely the most active members of their party are the descendants of the generals and statesmen who during the first decade of the Thirty Years’ War were most energetic in suppressing and destroying the national State, and in exterminating the native nobility of Bohemia and confiscating their lands. They are the grandchildren and heirs of those who, in return for the services they rendered to Father Lamormain’s imperial penitent, and for their assistance in suppressing the Bohemian nationality on the one hand and Protestantism on the other, were rewarded by the Jesuitic policy of the Hapsburgs with the estates of the national Czech nobles who had been sent to the scaffold or banished from the country.]

“The representatives of our landed aristocracy who now vie with the rabid Czech nationalists in their enthusiasm for Bohemian autonomy are almost without exception Germans. [In thus assuming the part of Czechs they make themselves as ridiculous as the gallant Junker von Krauthofer from the banks of the Vistula when he dons the embroidered Pekesche of the Poles with their white or red ‘Confederatka’ cap, and christens himself Pan Krutowski. Not one of them uses the Bohemian language in speaking to his equals; indeed few of them are able to read or understand it at all, while hardly a couple out of the whole lot could stand the test of pronouncing the famous vowelless shibboleth ‘Strcz prst skrz krk.’ (These words signify: Put your thumb down your throat.) They speak as their mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers spoke, they think and feel as their grandfathers and great-grandfathers thought and felt, that is to say, neither German nor Bohemian, but rather in as un-national and anti-national a spirit as their most intimate friends and allies, the Clericals and Ultramontanes.]

April 14th.—Andrassy has again raised, through the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Berlin, the question of taking action against the International, remarking incidentally that although at the interview in Gastein nothing positive had been settled with regard to the measures to be taken, yet there was every reason to believe that both sides were in agreement, and that the German Government wished to take the initiative in the matter. The communication of the Spanish Government now afforded an opportunity of returning to the subject. It was known through Schweinitz that the German Government was not prepared to let the matter drop, but, on the contrary, intended to take it into serious consideration, and that it was disposed in particular to complete the existing extradition treaties by adding provisions respecting the International. It is then suggested that a conference of Austro-Hungarian and German authorities on the subject should take place in Berlin, the results of which might be submitted to both Governments. The document goes on to say:—

Later in the day I returned to this outrageous proposal, and told Aegidi once more that I did not understand how such an individual could imagine that a respectable literary man would have any connection with a periodical edited by him. Roessler would be beside himself if such a thing were suggested to him, and I really had good reason to be angry at such a proposal being made to me. “You are right,” replied Aegidi, “and I beg your pardon for having done so. I really did not know at first that he was the same Oscar Meding.[6] (Stinking fish!) I cannot understand how Keudell could have recommended him to me.” (...)

April 20th.—In a report from Pesth, dated the 17th instant, I find that Andrassy fancies, from various symptoms, that dissatisfaction is felt at St. Petersburg at Austria’s disposition to enter into more intimate relations with us. This does not apply, however, to the Emperor Alexander himself. It would appear that the symptoms referred to are to be found in communications from Lieutenant-Colonel Baron Bechtoldsheim, the Austrian Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, and from Lieutenant-General von Tornau, the Russian Military Agent in Vienna. The latter, a meritorious old soldier, belongs to that class of Russian politicians who look upon the Prussian conquest of the Baltic Provinces as inevitable. During the war of 1870, General Tornau was so francophil that it was impossible to comply with the wish of the Emperor Alexander, that full information should be given to his military agent concerning Austrian armaments.

The same writer reports, under the same address and date: “I again called Andrassy’s attention to the principle that has repeatedly been laid down before as one of the preliminary conditions of our mutual rapprochement—namely, that it must not in the slightest degree impair the relations between Germany and Russia. In addition to the reasons already mentioned, I gave the following. In political affairs national and revolutionary passions have now associated themselves more closely than ever before with sectarian feeling. This circumstance increases the value of our orthodox friend. Andrassy took this opportunity to give me the grounds on which he bases his conviction that any action on behalf of Rome was an impossibility in Austria-Hungary.... Not only there (in Hungary) but also in Cisleithania, a Papal policy could not be carried into effect. ‘Even the Thuns, and the members of their party,’ continued the Count, in allusion to the notorious Clerical deputation, ‘entertain no such hope, and no thought of it exists in those quarters with whom the decision must lie.’ Therefore, if in the next war between Germany and France, the latter seeks to secure allies on a Catholic basis, she will have nothing to hope for here in Austria-Hungary. It is more probable, added Andrassy, that she would turn to the Slavs, who form the majority of the Austro-Hungarian population, and are connected with kindred races on the southern and eastern frontiers of the Empire.”

April 21st.—Brass to-day publishes an article (the greater part of which was dictated by the Chief to Bucher) on the language used by the Pope in bestowing his benediction upon a large deputation of Catholics last Saturday. I quote the following passages: “Until we are assured of the contrary on more definite information, we are disposed to think that those four hundred persons did not all come to Rome from their different countries merely to deliver the address, but rather that those who have charge of the Vatican policy considered it desirable to give the Pope an opportunity of expressing his views, and that the real pilgrims were reinforced with contingents from the tourists and foreign residents who are always to be found in Rome and the other Italian cities. We shall hardly do the Papal advisers an injustice in crediting them with this little stratagem, when the Pope’s own speech proves that they did not hesitate to impose upon him with the grossest inaccuracies, and when they induced so truth-loving a man to say that a spirit of hostility to the Church had provoked the struggle in Germany. The Pope does not understand the German language, and the Germans who encompass him are no friends of Germany. It is, therefore, no wonder that he is unable to control the statements made to him by his counsellors. Are we not, indeed, accustomed to find the grossest errors respecting Germany prevalent in leading circles in France, a neighbouring country which is in active, personal and literary intercourse with us? Every one in Germany who is capable of forming an independent opinion knows, and every one, with the exception of the party of the Germania, will acknowledge, that it was the Catholic reaction which began the quarrel with a Government whose dispositions towards the Catholic Church were most friendly. Every Government, including those of Catholic countries like Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Italy and France, must defend itself against a reactionary movement which now, through the mouth of the Pope, summons to its assistance the elements of opposition in Ireland, Poland, and Holland, in the same way as it must defend itself against the revolutionary democracy. This is confirmed by the Pope himself, so far as France is concerned; as the ‘party’ which fears the Pope so much must, we presume, be held to include the Government that has curbed the zeal of the ultramontane deputies. For the Papal politicians even France is not sufficiently Catholic; France, where for centuries the keenest Papal propaganda has been carried on, where Roman discipline has been maintained by the St. Bartholomew massacres, the dragonnades, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and whose first care, after stealing Strassburg from us, was to hand over the Protestant Cathedral to the Catholic bishops. The Pope admonishes the party which in France fears him to cultivate a humble spirit. If he knew the real condition of affairs there, as in all other Christian countries, he would rather have addressed that admonition to the arrogant priests who, unlike the Protestant clergy, instead of being the servants of the community desire to become its masters; and to those members of the laity who, for the purposes of their own ambition, abuse the prestige which he rightly enjoys, who terrify him with the lie that the Catholic Church in Germany will undergo similar material losses to those which it has suffered in Italy, who take allies wherever they are to be found, and who—as in certain election addresses—instigate the spoliation of the rich in the name of a religion of love.”