Bismarck: some secret pages of his history [Vol. 3 of 3]

Early on the morning of Thursday, October 18th, I began to assort the papers. The numbering and packing away in envelopes was to follow later, after a thorough inspection of the whole lot. Out of doors a beautiful autumn day, the sun, in a blue sky, casting high lights on the stems and branches of the trees in the wood. During lunch, at which Schweninger again joined us, I handed the Chief the Crown Prince’s letter introducing Geffcken to him and his answer justifying his refusal by a description of Geffcken’s character. I had found this among the papers on the previous day. He was pleased at the discovery, and the letters were handed to Rottenburg to be copied and used. Immediately afterwards Schweinitz, our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, arrived—a grey-headed, portly gentleman with a moustache, who speaks little and in a low voice. We were joined at dinner, in addition to Schweinitz, by a big-bearded gentleman in a shooting jacket. This was Major von Goldammer of Frankfurt, the sportsman who recently—to the great regret of the head forester—shot the stag with fourteen antlers that had broken out from the Chief’s preserves on to the shooting which he had rented. “If it had only been Count Herbert!” Bleichröder is to present his respects to-morrow.

On Saturday I spent the whole forenoon and two hours after lunch in arranging the papers in order of date. Bleichröder and his Jewish-looking Secretary took lunch with us. The banker related anecdotes of Amschel Rothschild and Saphir, and spoke of Lehndorff’s businesses. At table I observed that since 1871 Bleichröder, whom I saw at dinner at Versailles, had hardly altered in the least. “Not in his person” rejoined the Chief, “but very considerably in his fortune.”

On Sunday, the 21st of October, I began to examine and number the papers, which were now in chronological order, whereby I found that a good deal of rearrangement was necessary. Here follow some particulars.

The documents begin with a letter dated Oct. 19, 1862, from Bismarck to King William. Then follows a short letter from the Crown Prince to the Minister, dated Nov. 21, in which he says: “I trust that, as you express it to me, success may, in the present difficult phase of the constitutional life of our country, attend your efforts to bring about what you yourself describe as the urgent and necessary understanding with the representatives of the nation. I am following the course of affairs with the greatest interest,” and so on. Letter from Bismarck to the King, in which Eulenburg and Selchow are proposed as Ministers. (I shall not quote unimportant letters from the King and the Crown Prince, nor in future any matters of only slight interest.) A letter from Bismarck to the King, dated 20th February, 1863, on the convention with Russia. Goltz communicated it to Napoleon, but without the secret article, with which he himself was not acquainted. (Probably the article by which Prussia was bound eventually to render assistance against the Polish rebellion.) The Minister wrote: “As matters stand in Poland we shall hardly be called upon for active co-operation there. By means of the convention we have, therefore, the advantage of securing at a cheap rate for the future the gratitude of the Emperor Alexander and the sympathies of the Russians.”

Writing to Bismarck, from Stettin, on the 30th of June, 1863, the Crown Prince says: “I see from your letter of the 10th instant that at his Majesty’s command you have omitted to communicate officially to the Ministry of State my protest respecting the rescript, restricting the liberty of the press, which I sent to you from Graudenz on the 8th of June. I can easily understand that the opportunity of treating as a personal matter an incident which, as you yourself have acknowledged, might, in its consequences, acquire widespread significance, was not unwelcome to you. It would serve no purpose for me to insist upon that communication being made, as I am justified in inferring from your own words that it will have been done unofficially. It is necessary for me, however, to speak plainly to you respecting the alternative which you place before me, namely, to lighten or to render more difficult the task which the Ministry has undertaken. I cannot lighten that task, as I find myself opposed to it in principle. A loyal administration of the laws and of the Constitution, respect and good will towards an easily led, intelligent and capable people—these are the principles which, in my opinion, should guide every Government in the treatment of the country. I cannot bring the policy which finds expression in the ordinance of the first of June into harmony with these principles. It is true you seek to prove to me the constitutional character of that rescript, and you assure me that you and your colleagues remember your oath. I think, however, that the Government requires a stronger basis than very dubious interpretations which do not appeal to the sound common sense of the people. You yourself call attention to the circumstance that even your opponents respect the honesty of your convictions. I will not inquire into that assertion” (Bismarck’s comment in pencil: “Not over courteous,”) “but if you attach any importance to the opinions of your opponents, the circumstance that the great majority of the educated classes among our people deny the constitutional character of the ordinance must necessarily awaken scruples in your mind. The Ministry knew beforehand that this would be the case. It was also aware that the Diet would never have approved the provisions of that rescript beforehand, and it therefore laid no Bill before the Diet, and in a few days promulgated the ordinance under Article 63 of the Constitution. If the country does not recognise in this course of action a loyal administration of the Constitution, I would ask what has the Ministry done to bring public opinion round to its own view? It found no other means of coming to an understanding with public opinion than to impose silence upon it. It would be idle to waste a single word as to how far this ordinance harmonises with the respect and good will due to a willing and loyal people that has been condemned to silence because the Government will not hear its voice.

“And what is the success which you anticipate from this policy? The tranquillisation of the public mind and the restoration of peace? Do you believe that you can appease public sentiment by again offending its sense of justice? It seems to me contrary to human nature to expect a change when the existing feeling is being constantly confirmed and aggravated by the action of the Government. I will tell you what results I anticipate from your policy. You will go on quibbling with the Constitution until it loses all value in the eyes of the people. In that way you will on the one hand arouse anarchical movements that go beyond the bounds of the Constitution; while on the other hand, whether you intend it or not, you will pass from one venturesome interpretation to another until you are finally driven into an open breach of the Constitution.” (Bismarck’s comment: “Perhaps.”) “I regard those who lead his Majesty the King, my most gracious father, into such courses as the most dangerous advisers for Crown and country.” (Bismarck quotes in pencil: “Leicht fertig ist die Jugend mit dem Wort” = Youth is hasty in its judgments.) “P.S.—Already before the 1st of June of this year I but rarely made use of my right to attend the sittings of the Ministry of State. From the foregoing statement of my convictions you will understand my requesting his Majesty the King to allow me to abstain altogether from attending them at present. A continuous public and personal manifestation of the differences between myself and the Ministry” (Bismarck’s pencil remarks on this point: “Absalom!”) “would be in keeping neither with my position nor my inclination. In every other respect, however, I shall impose no restrictions upon the expression of my views; and the Ministry may rest assured that it will depend upon themselves and their own future action whether, in spite of my own strong reluctance, I find myself forced into further public steps, when duty appears to call for them.” (In face of the menacing attitude assumed in these threats, Bismarck’s undaunted pencil shouts out, “Come on!” “Nur zu!”)

On the 3rd of September the Crown Prince writes to Bismarck: “I have to-day communicated to his Majesty the views which I set forth to you in my letter from Putbus, and which I begged you not to submit to the King until I myself had done so. A decision which will have serious consequences was yesterday taken in the Council. I did not wish to reply to his Majesty in the presence of the Ministers. I have done so to-day, and have given expression to my misgivings—my serious misgivings—for the future. The King now knows that I am a decided opponent of the Ministry.” At the end of the letter Bismarck added, apparently as part of a draft reply: “I can only hope that your Royal Highness will one day find servants as faithful as I am to your father. I do not intend to be of the number.”

On the 5th of June, while at Danzig, during a tour in the performance of his military duties, the Crown Prince, speaking in public to the Chief Burgomaster Von Winter, declared himself to be opposed to the policy of his father. The latter wrote demanding a recantation, and stating that otherwise the Prince would be deprived of his dignity and position. The Crown Prince declined to retract anything, offered to lay down his command and other offices, and begged to be allowed to retire with his family to some place where he would be under no suspicion of interfering in State affairs. Intimations as to the contents of this correspondence were published (of course, first of all) in The Times, then in the Grenzboten (through Gustav Freytag) and in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (through me, at Freytag’s instance). A memorandum, dated Gastein, the 2nd of August, in Zitelmann’s handwriting, and probably dictated by Bismarck, expresses the belief that the publication was due to the Crown Princess, “whether it be that she has herself attained to definite views of her own as to the form of government most advantageous for Prussia, or that she has succumbed to the concerted influences of the Anglo-Coburg combination. However this may be, it is asserted that she has decided upon a course of opposition to the present Government, and has taken advantage of the Danzig incident and the excitement to which it has given rise in the highest circles, in order to bring her consort more and more into prominence by these revelations, and to acquaint public opinion with the Crown Prince’s way of thinking. All this out of anxiety for the future of her consort.” It is then stated that the Crown Princess’s most powerful supporter is Queen Augusta, who is extremely anxious as to her own position towards the country. They have had a memorandum drawn up by President Camphausen on the internal situation in Prussia, attacking the present Government, which was laid before the King. In a marginal note the King observes that the principles therein recommended would lead to revolution. Meyer, the Councillor of Embassy, is Augusta’s instrument, and it is beyond question that he is associated with the Anglo-Coburg party. The participation of Professor Duncker[17] as also of Baron Stockmar, would appear to be less certain. The memorandum dictated to Zitelmann is accompanied by comments in the Chief’s handwriting—either a long letter or a pro memoriâ for the King—in which the views expressed by the Crown Prince are refuted point by point. In the course of his criticism the writer says, inter alia: “The pretension that a warning from his Royal Highness should outweigh royal decisions, come to after serious and careful consideration, attributes undue importance to his own position and experience as compared to those of his sovereign and father. No one could believe that H.R.H. had any share in these acts of personal authority, as everybody knows that the Prince has no vote in the Ministry.... The démenti at Danzig was therefore superfluous. The liberty of H.R.H. to form his own conclusions was not affected by his attendance at the sittings, where he can keep himself in touch with the affairs of State and hear the views of others and express his own, which we hold to be the duty of the heir to the throne. The performance of this duty, when it becomes known through the newspapers, can only elicit on all sides approval of the diligence and conscientiousness with which the Crown Prince prepares himself for his high and serious vocation. The words ‘with my hands tied’ have no meaning. It is utterly impossible that the country should identify H.R.H. with the Ministry, as the country knows that the Crown Prince is not called upon to take any official part in its decisions.

“Unfortunately, the attitude which H.R.H. has adopted towards the Crown is sufficiently known in the country, and is condemned by every father of a family, to whatever path he may belong, as a disavowal of that paternal authority which it is an offence to our feelings and traditions to ignore. Even now clergymen are preaching from the text 2 Samuel, ch. xv., verses 3 and 4. H.R.H. could not be more seriously damaged in the eyes of public opinion than by the publication of this answer.” (That of the Prince to his father’s letter.)

Page 2 (of the answer). “It is true that H.R.H.’s situation is a thoroughly false one, because it is not the business of the heir to the throne to raise the banner of opposition to his King and father. He can only fulfil his ‘duty’ by retiring from that position and again adopting a proper attitude.”

Page 3. “There is no conflict of duties, as the first of these duties is self-imposed. It rests with the King, and not with the Crown Prince, to provide for the future of Prussia, and the future will show whether ‘mistakes’ have been made, and on which side. In cases where the ‘judgment’ of his Majesty is opposed to that of the Crown Prince, the former must always be preponderant, and there is therefore no conflict. H.R.H. himself recognises that in our Constitution there is ‘no place for the opposition of the heir to the throne.’ Opposition within the Council does not exclude obedience to his Majesty once a matter has been decided. Ministers also oppose when they hold different views, but they nevertheless obey” (The last three words are underlined in pencil by the King, who added on the margin: ‘When it is not opposed to their consciences,’) “the will of the King, although it may be part of their duty to carry into execution the measures they opposed.”

Page 4. “If H.R.H. knows that the Ministers act in accordance with the will of the King, he cannot fail to see that the opposition of the heir to the throne is directed against the reigning King himself.”

Page 5. “The Crown Prince has no call and no justification to enter upon a ‘struggle’ (Kampf) against the will of the King, for the precise reason that his Royal Highness has no official status. Each Prince of the Royal House would be equally justified in ‘laying claim’ to the duty of offering public opposition to the King, where his views differed from those of the sovereign, and thus defending the eventual rights of ‘himself and his children’ against the effects of alleged mistakes by the Government of the King, that is to say, in order to secure the succession, after the manner of Louis Philippe, if the King were to be deposed by a revolution.”

Page 6. “The Minister President is to give a more detailed explanation of the words used by him at Gastein.”

Page 7. “His Majesty has not caused the Crown Prince to attend the sittings as one of the King’s advisers, but only for the Prince’s own information, and as a means of preparing him for his future calling. The attempt to ‘neutralise’ the measures of the Government would mean a struggle and rebellion against the Crown. More dangerous than all the attacks of the democracy and all ‘gnawing’ at the roots of the monarchy is the loosening of the bonds that still unite the people with the dynasty through the example of open and avowed opposition on the part of the heir to the throne, through the intentional disclosure of discord in the Royal House itself. If the son and heir to the throne revolts against the authority of the father and King, to whom can that authority still remain sacred? If a premium is set by ambition for the future upon present desertion from the Sovereign, every bond will be loosened, to the detriment of the future King, and the damage done to the authority of the present Government will bear evil fruit for its successors. Any Government is better than one which is divided against itself and paralysed. The shocks which the Crown Prince may provoke affect the foundations of the structure over which he himself will hereafter have to preside as King.

“According to the constitutional law hitherto in force, it is the King who governs in Prussia and not the Ministers. Legislative and not governmental power is alone shared with the Chambers, and before them the Ministers represent the King. Therefore now, as before the Constitution, the Ministers are legally the servants of the King, and his Majesty’s authorised advisers, but they are not the regents of the Prussian State. Even since the Constitution, the Prussian monarchy does not stand on the same level as the Belgian or English monarchy. On the contrary, in Prussia the King still governs personally, and commands according to his own discretion, in so far as the Constitution has not otherwise provided, and it has only so provided in matters of legislation.”

Page 8. “The publication of State secrets is an offence against the criminal law. What is to be treated as a State secret depends upon the King’s command respecting official secrecy. Why is so much importance attached to giving ‘outside’ publicity to these matters? If his Royal Highness, as in duty bound, gives expression to his opinions in Council, he has satisfied his conscience. The Crown Prince has no official position whatever in State affairs, and no call to express himself publicly upon them. No one who has even a superficial knowledge of the system under which our State affairs are conducted would conclude that the Crown Prince agreed with the decisions of the Government merely because he (without a vote, and therefore without the possibility of effectual opposition) had listened to the discussions in Council.

“‘Not appear better.’ The mistake lies in the exaggerated importance attached to ‘appearances.’ The important point is what a man is and what he can do, and that is only the fruit of serious and well-directed labour.

“The participation of his Royal Highness in the Council is not ‘active,’ and no ‘votes’ are cast by the Crown Prince. The communication to ‘responsible’ (?) persons without the authorisation of his Majesty would be an offence against the criminal law. Of course, there is no limitation of his Royal Highness’s right to express his views; on the contrary, it is desirable that he should do so, but only in the Council, where, as a matter of fact, they can alone have any influence on the decisions that are about to be taken. The contrary course, ‘to express them openly before the country,’ can only be adopted as a means of gratifying his Royal Highness’s amour propre, and must result in promoting discontent and disaffection, and thereby paving the way for revolution.”

Page 10. “Unquestionably H.R.H. will render their work more difficult for the Ministers, and their task would be lighter if he did not attend the sittings. But can his Majesty shirk the duty of doing everything that is humanly possible to enable the Crown Prince to learn the business of State, and to become acquainted with the laws of the country? Is it not a dangerous experiment to leave the future King a stranger to the affairs of State, while the welfare of millions is dependent upon his familiarity with them? H.R.H. shows himself in the present memorandum unacquainted with the fact that the participation of the Crown Prince never involves any responsibility, and is only for the purpose of information, and that H.R.H. can never be asked to give a vote. The whole argument is based upon a misconception of this fact. If the Crown Prince had been more familiar with State affairs H.R.H. could not have thought of publishing the proceedings of the Council in case the King did not accede to his wishes, i.e., of committing an offence against the law, and what is more, the criminal law, and that too a few weeks after H.R.H. had himself severely censured the publication of the correspondence with his Majesty.”

Page 11. “Certainly the reproach mentioned may naturally occur to every one in the country. No one charges H.R.H. with such an intention, but it is said that others, who do entertain such an intention, hope to see it realised through the unconscious co-operation of the Crown Prince; and that such wicked attempts now afford those who originated them a better prospect than formerly of a change of system.”

Page 12. “The demand to have timely information of the business to be transacted at the sittings is perfectly legitimate, has always been recognised, and shall continue to be so. Indeed a desire has been expressed that H.R.H. should do his part in keeping himself more au courant than was hitherto possible. For this purpose H.R.H.’s whereabouts must always be known and within reach, the Ministers must have access to the Crown Prince, and discretion must be secured. But it is necessary that the Vortragende Räthe (Councillors who have the privilege of direct audience), with whom alone H.R.H. can be authorised to transact current State affairs, should be not opponents but friends of the Government, or at least impartial critics having no intimate relations with the Opposition in the Diet and the press. The most difficult point of all is discretion, particularly towards foreign countries, so long as H.R.H. and the Crown Princess are not thoroughly conscious that in reigning houses the nearest relations are not always fellow countrymen, but, on the contrary, must necessarily, and as in duty bound, represent other than Prussian interests. It is hard that a frontier should create a division of interest between mother and daughter, brother and sister, but to forget this fact is always a danger for the State. The ‘last sitting of the Council’ (on the 3rd) was not a regular sitting but only a meeting of the Ministers who had been summoned by his Majesty without their own previous knowledge.”

Page 13. “Communication to the Ministers would give the memorandum an official character which the Prince’s effusions do not in themselves possess.”

On Monday, the 22nd of October, Count Herbert was present at lunch and dinner, returning to Berlin on the Tuesday. On Monday, after we had had our coffee, I told the Chief that the sorting of the papers was now well advanced. There was a great deal more to do, however, than had appeared at first, and it might take eight or ten days more before I could hand them over to him in good order like the previous set. He replied: “Take plenty of time. But the Emperor will be here in a few days and you must not let yourself be seen then; or, better still, go to Hamburg while he is here, as otherwise he will ask who you are and what you are doing. I should then be obliged to tell him, and as he is curious he would eventually seize the whole lot, which would not suit me at all.”

On Tuesday and Wednesday I was very busy sorting, numbering and taking extracts. In the evening I took a walk with the Privy Councillor until an hour before dinner. We were joined at dinner on Wednesday by the Hamburg merchant, Merck, and his wife—she very pretty, twenty-seven years of age, and he between forty and fifty. On Thursday I was again hard at work on the Chief’s treasury of letters. At lunch the Chief said that formerly the rich and influential Hamburgers were strongly Austrian in their sympathies, and he referred to the millions advanced to the politicians of Vienna in 1857, and also condemned the unamiable and stupid policy of Prussia in those days. The Princess observed that even now these circles do not care much for Prussia, but are impressed, and indeed very strongly, by Bismarck. She then explained to me that the Mercks were neighbours of theirs, and occupied a country house with forty acres of ground on the edge of the forest, the remainder of an estate which a Saxon officer had acquired by marriage, and of which the Prince afterwards bought six hundred acres. In reply to my question, the Chief informed me that the Emperor would arrive on Monday evening and leave after lunch on Tuesday. I must therefore make myself scarce for thirty hours. To-day, however, we shall return to our anthology, and continue it to-morrow. Here follow some further specimens of the selection.

Letter from Bismarck to the King on the 1st of December, 1863: “Your Majesty has been gracious enough to send me Herr von Gruner’s communication of the 28th ultimo, and to observe that it reproduces the views adopted by your Majesty. Herr von Gruner’s opinions are based on the same general principles as those of Herr von Vincke and Herr von Roggenbach, and the latter have found expression in the letter of H.R.H. the Grand Duke of Baden. These gentlemen, in addressing their proposals to your Majesty, doubtless proceed on the assumption that if your Majesty were to accept their advice another Ministry would be summoned to office. Other influences are also being set in motion for this purpose even outside public life, to which Herr von Schleinitz and other persons closely connected with the Court have either voluntarily or involuntarily devoted their services. When I entered into the Ministry I ventured to explain to your Majesty that I did not regard my position as that of a Constitutional Minister in the usual sense of the word, but considered myself rather as your Majesty’s servant, and that in the last resort I would obey your Majesty’s commands even if contrary to my own views. I still maintain that standpoint, but this should not deter me from explaining my views with the candour I owe to your Majesty and to the interests of the country. Speaking in this sense, I must first declare that I consider it would be of advantage for your Majesty’s service, in carrying out a policy consonant with the views of Herr von Gruner, to select another Ministry, or at least another Minister for Foreign Affairs, who would enjoy in a higher degree the confidence of those upon whose support such a policy must mainly rely. Count Goltz has as yet had no occasion to come into conflict with those elements, and owing to his other qualifications may be regarded as best suited to take over the conduct of affairs.”

From a letter of the Crown Prince to Bismarck, dated Headquarters, Flensburg, April 17th, 1864: “I thank you heartily for your two letters of the 11th and 12th of April. I found the communication of the 11th very interesting; but I could not gather from it such a view of the objects of our policy as would enable me, from my standpoint, to support any particular measure with conviction. I do not agree that it is too early to come forward openly with a positive programme, and I fear that we shall gain nothing by protracting the solution of the question, but, on the contrary, thereby increase European complications. However that may be, we should at least have a positive programme for ourselves, the realisation of which it is true would still remain dependent upon circumstances. Instead of this, however, I find in your communication only the programme ‘to act according to circumstances,’ unless I am to infer from some isolated suggestions certain secret views which are ascribed to you, and which certainly appear to tally with many of your former utterances, particularly at the last Council which I attended before my departure for the army. With regard to any such arrière-pensées of Prussian aggrandisement, I may state briefly my opinion, namely, that to pursue them would entirely falsify our whole German policy, and would probably lead to our defeat by Europe. It would not be the first time that Prussia sought to outwit the world, with the result that she ultimately fell between two stools.”

A letter from Bismarck to the King, dated April 3rd, 1866: “Your Majesty has deigned to command me, through Abeken, to express my opinion whether the letter from the Duke of Coburg, which I respectfully return herewith, should be answered.

“I take the liberty to recall the fact that the Duke of Coburg has during the past four years shared in every intrigue against your Majesty’s internal and foreign policy. His Highness has largely contributed to the return of democratic representatives in Prussia through his money and influence; he has associated himself with societies for arming the people (Büchsen-Groschen Vereine), and has adopted such an attitude towards the monarchy that your Majesty made strong representations to him on the subject in a long letter, and declined a visit from him on account of the bad impression it would make on the army. The Duke, together with his officials, Samwer and Francke, is the leader of the anti-Prussian Augustenburg movement; and but for him the hereditary Prince would have listened to reason. The Duke brought about the recall of Lord Napier, a diplomatist who was regarded as too Prussophil. I respectfully take the liberty of indicating the influence of the Duke upon H.R.H. the Crown Prince. I certainly do not go too far when I describe his Highness as one of the most irreconcilable opponents of your Majesty’s policy, and state that no devotion to your Majesty’s honour and interest is to be expected from him. The present letter from the Duke, and that from Count Mensdorff, which was obviously ordered for the special purpose of being communicated to your Majesty, and which is utterly untrue, betray their connection with the communications from Queen Victoria which have reached your Majesty through H.R.H. the Crown Prince; and it is certain that similar insinuations will have been made to your Majesty in other quarters. There can be no doubt that all these steps are based upon a well-laid plan, according to which the open and secret opponents of your Majesty endeavour to persuade your Majesty to yield to Austria, and thus to pave the way for another policy, your Majesty’s present Ministry and myself in particular being for this purpose represented in the first place as the root of all evil. Your Majesty is certainly convinced without any assurance from me that even if my health had remained unaffected during the past few years, I would at any moment willingly, and with lifelong gratitude to your Majesty for the many favours which I have enjoyed, retire into private life even if my continuance in office involved no detriment to your Majesty. How much more willingly would I do so, therefore, if my retirement could be of any benefit to my King and country. I see, however, no possibility of another Minister of your Majesty being able honestly to recommend a policy different to that which has hitherto been followed, and which was sanctioned in the Council of the 28th of February; for this policy is independent of all partisan tendencies, is enjoined solely by the interests of Prussia, and is rendered inevitable by the situation. If the Duke of Coburg recommends another policy, such as would be in agreement with what Vienna prescribes, I beg respectfully to point out that the same gentleman has for the last four years recommended everything that was opposed to monarchical interests, and in particular to those of the Prussian Monarchy. Notwithstanding this your Majesty has done him the honour of answering his letter of the 22nd. If your Majesty were to answer the present letter, with its offensive and untruthful enclosure, that would be an encouragement to your opponents and a discouragement to your servants. My most humble advice is that your Majesty should leave the letter of the Duke unanswered, and not conceal from his aide-de-camp that you have been disagreeably affected by the enclosure. If the aide-de-camp is a person to whom such a communication might be properly made, it would perhaps be well to signify to him verbally that your Majesty has clearly seen through the intention underlying the whole manœuvre with the Mensdorff letter, and that the tone of the latter is not to your liking.”

Letter from the King to Bismarck, dated April 8th, 1866: “Numbers 78 and 79 of the Kreuzzeitung have just been laid before me by an unknown hand (as I have not taken in this paper since 1861—Coronation article in June) on account of the abusive article against the Duke of Coburg. It is most unpleasant to me, as only you, the Queen and the Crown Prince had a knowledge of the Duke’s letters to me, and therefore the source of the article is immediately betrayed. Although you have always told me that the Government has no influence upon the Kreuzzeitung, this appears to be an instance which contradicts that statement. The manner in which I replied to the Duke, and the fact that on the second occasion I sent no reply, showed him that I did not desire to continue the correspondence. But articles like that in question must render him still more hostile to us. From a political point of view this is not right, and on that account I request you to put a stop to these improper proceedings of the Kreuzzeitung towards the Duke.

“William.”

In reply to this Bismarck wrote as follows: “I humbly beg your Majesty’s pardon if I have called down upon myself your Majesty’s dissatisfaction through the article on the intervention of the Duke of Coburg, which was based, not on his letter, but upon a number of other newspaper reports on this intervention. I would never venture to deceive your Majesty, and I frankly confess that the main part of this article was written at my instance, as I—like every one of my colleagues—while having indeed no influence over the Kreuzzeitung to prevent the insertion of matters to which I object, have yet enough to secure the insertion of what is not directly opposed to its own tendencies. The same connection exists with the Spenersche, the National Zeitung and many others, and I believe I have never denied the existence of influence of this description.

“It appeared to me as if your Majesty were yourself indignant at the insincerity of the Duke and of Count Mensdorff; but your Majesty generously pardons the disrespect manifested in such conduct, as also the former hostility of the Duke, who has done more harm to your Majesty and the Prussian State through the favour which he has shown to the democracy, and the disturbance of the relations with England, than he can ever make good through a military convention, and who gave evidence of his real sentiments towards your Majesty at the time of the Congress of Princes. Your Majesty, while entertaining no doubt as to my devotion and obedience, will not expect me to be superior to every human weakness and to preserve my composure at all times when I see how my heavy, and I may fairly say exhausting, duties are intentionally rendered more difficult by the displeasure of such highly placed personages, in whose hearts the success of Prussian policy and the renown of your Majesty and of the Royal House should naturally be expected to hold a first place. And why am I subjected to this implacable displeasure and forced into this struggle with powerful influences which I have to meet at every step I take? Merely because I will not consent to serve two masters, nor carry out another policy than your Majesty’s, nor reckon with other influences than your Majesty’s commands. My offence is that I was ready to serve your Majesty according to your own will when others declined to do so, and that I did not hesitate to obey your Majesty at the risk of drawing down upon myself the displeasure of those who stand nearest to your Majesty. I could have peace if, like many of my predecessors, I were prepared to submit to your Majesty as my own convictions what was suggested to me in other quarters; and if, in particular, I were to advise you to give way in matters of internal policy and military organisation, as of course nothing is really being done in foreign affairs except what was formerly desired by those who now oppose me. I beg your Majesty to forgive me if in this struggle, owing to the feeling that I have been unjustly attacked for the sole reason that I have tried to do my duty towards your Majesty without looking to the right or to the left, I have lost that composure which I myself am desirous of preserving.”

A letter from Bismarck to the King on the 1st of May, 1866: “I submit the enclosure to your Majesty in support of my urgent and respectful plea that your Majesty’s kingdom be no longer left exposed to the danger which, in my most humble opinion, at present threatens it from the warlike preparations of Austria, whose forces are already superior to ours and are being daily increased notwithstanding all pacific assurances. The Minister of War will to-morrow submit to your Majesty a report of the Ministry of State and proposals for further precautionary measures. If your Majesty will give me credit for not being easily accessible to unfounded apprehensions I may venture to hope that your Majesty will graciously consider my request that the measures to be taken as a result of my legitimate anxiety may be speedily carried out.”

Letter from Bismarck to the King, dated 2nd May, 1866: “I respectfully submit to your Majesty the communication which has just been received from Vienna. It vouchsafes no prospect that Austria will disarm, but seems to indicate that she merely wants to put us off for a few days in order to complete her armaments before adopting another tone towards your Majesty, in the belief that she will then have secured a start of us which we could no longer make up. Information reaches me from the Bourse that it is intended to adopt financial measures of a ruinous character (forced loans?) and that the trading community here, including its representative bodies, regard the inactivity of the Royal House in presence of the superior armaments of Austria, as inconceivable, and in the highest degree alarming and detrimental to the country. This feeling, which has prevailed among your Majesty’s Ministers before to-day, has now become general in the city since the facts which were previously known to the Government have found their way into publicity. This feeling would certainly find violent expression should the event show, which God forbid, that there had been any actual negligence in providing for the protection of the country.”

On Friday at lunch the Chief asked me: “What is your opinion, Busch, of Goethe’s tragedies, and of his dramas altogether?” I replied that he was less of a dramatist than a lyric poet, but that “Faust,” setting aside the second part, was after all a most wonderful production. “Yes, certainly,” he said, “and ‘Götz’ too, but ‘Egmont,’ the man in ‘Stella,’ Tasso, and the leading characters in the others, are all Weislingens—weak soft, sentimental creatures—not men as in Shakespeare, always repetitions of himself, for he too had something feminine in him, and could only realise and portray the feelings of women.” I finally recommended Victor Hehn’s “Gedanken über Goethe,” and referred him in particular to the first and second chapters. Towards evening another long walk with Rottenburg, while the Prince went to Schwarzenbeck and the Princess to Hamburg, probably to make purchases in view of the Emperor’s visit. Both were back for dinner, at which the Ranger or Chief Ranger of Schleswig-Holstein, and the Head Forester Lange were also present. The conversation at table turned chiefly on forestry, the various species of trees, and other wooden subjects. A further selection from the Chief’s papers, the arrangement of which will be complete in four or five days. A letter of the 5th of January, 1876, from the Crown Prince introduces Professor Geffcken, who has been to see him, and with whom he has been speaking about his book, Staat und Kirche (State and Church), as a man “of ripe thought and great experience.” The Chief replied on the 8th: “Dr. Geffcken belongs to that party in the Evangelical Church which, like President von Gerlach and some other Protestants, is in alliance with the Centre party and the Jesuits, and which has been and still is hostile to every phase of the German Empire’s development.” The letter goes on to say that his book is a superficial compilation; that his criticism of the Falk laws gives evidence of audacious presumption rather than of impartial consideration; and that his Augustenburg and Hanseatic Particularism has not been overcome by the restoration of the Empire, whose interests he opposes in Alsace. “If I were to see him without the presence of witnesses (which the Crown Prince seemed from his letter to desire) I should have reason to apprehend that my intercourse with such a tool of sectarian intrigue would arouse the mistrust of my colleagues and of public opinion.”

The Crown Prince thinks otherwise. He replied on the 12th of January: “During the many years of my acquaintance with Dr. Geffcken I have never seen any leaning on his part to Catholicism, nor any opposition to Prussia as a matter of principle. On the contrary I could see from his whole attitude, as well as from the statements frequently made by him, that there is as little reason to doubt his ardent Protestantism as there is to question his patriotism.”

In a letter of the 12th of May, 1876, H.R.H. cannot too strongly urge the Chancellor to give Friedberg the Imperial Secretaryship of State for Justice, which it was proposed to establish. He at the same time tried to meet the objections which Bismarck supposed the Emperor to entertain. According to a letter of the 30th of June from the Crown Prince to Bismarck Friedberg had acquired a claim upon his gratitude by his long service, which frequently involved difficulties and sacrifices, but was always marked with the same devotion.

On the 13th of June, 1878, the Crown Prince writing to the Chief on the death of King George of Hanover, says inter alia: “I am of opinion that now, the unfortunate Prince being dead, we must above all things adopt a generous attitude towards his relatives.”

The Crown Prince now writes to the Chancellor more frequently than before. From the 6th of July, 1879, onwards, the project of marrying Prince William to the daughter of the Augustenburger was repeatedly mentioned, Bismarck being asked to promote it. Bismarck submitted his opinion of the scheme. (Professor Schulz prepared a similar statement, in which he proved the Augustenburger’s equality of birth, which had been strongly questioned.) In this opinion the Chief recommends as indispensable a previous renunciation by Duke Frederick.

Correspondence in connection with the Negotiations respecting the German Alliance with Austria.