The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bismarck: some secret pages of his history (Vol. 1 of 3), by Moritz Busch

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Bismarck: some secret pages of his history (Vol. 1 of 3)

Author: Moritz Busch

Release Date: July 30, 2022 [eBook #68651]

Language: English

Produced by: Tim Lindell, Bryan Ness, Neil Mercer and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BISMARCK: SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY (VOL. 1 OF 3) ***

Transcriber's Note

The cover image was created by the transcriber, and is in the public domain.

BISMARCK

SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY

# BISMARCK
SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY

BEING A DIARY KEPT BY

Dr. MORITZ BUSCH

DURING TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE INTERCOURSE WITH THE GREAT CHANCELLOR

IN THREE VOLUMES

VOL. I

London

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1898

All rights reserved

Richard Clay and Sons, Limited,

LONDON AND BUNGAY.

Copyright in the United States of America.

## NOTE

The English edition of Dr. Busch’s work which we publish to-day has been translated from the original German text in the possession of the publishers. A few passages have, however, been omitted as defamatory, or otherwise unsuitable for publication. Dr. Busch contemplated incorporating bodily in the first volume a reproduction of his earlier work: Prince Bismarck and his People during the Franco-German War; but while the many valuable additions which he made to it have been preserved, such portions as would no longer have presented any special interest for English readers have been considerably abridged.

## PREFACE

The work which I now present to the German people contains a complete[1] account of all the events of which I was a witness during my intercourse of over twenty years with Prince Bismarck and his entourage. Part of it is not entirely new, as I have embodied in it portions of the book published by me in 1878, under the title: Prince Bismarck and his People during the Franco-German War. I have, however, restored the numerous passages which it was then deemed expedient to omit, and I have also dispensed with the many modifications by which, at that time, certain asperities of language had to be toned down. The bulk of the present work consists of a detailed narrative of the whole period of my intercourse with the Prince both before and after the French campaign. I collected and noted down all these particulars respecting Prince Bismarck and his immediate supporters and assistants, in the first place for my own use, and secondly as a contribution to the character and history of the Political Regenerator of Germany. The sole object of[p. viii] the diary which forms the basis of this work was to serve as a record of the whole truth so far as I had been able to ascertain it with my own eyes and ears. Any other object was out of the question, as it was impossible that I could desire to deceive myself. Subsequently, when I thought of publishing my notes, I was fully conscious of my responsibility towards history, the interests of which could not be promoted by material that had been coloured or garbled for party purposes. I wished neither to be an eulogist nor a censor. To my mind, panegyric was superfluous, and fault-finding was for me an impossibility. A tendency to the sensational is foreign to my nature, and I leave the pleasure to be derived from grand spectacular shows to lovers of the theatre. I desired to record the mental and other characteristics which our first Chancellor presented to me under such and such circumstances, thus helping to complete, and at times to rectify, the conception of his whole nature that has been formed in the public mind from his political activity. The profound reverence which I feel for the genius of the hero, and my patriotic gratitude for his achievements, have not deterred me from communicating numerous details which will be displeasing to many persons. These particulars, however, are part of the historic character of the personality whom I am describing. The gods alone are free from error, passion, and changes of disposition. They alone have no seamy side and no contradictions. Even the sun and moon show spots and blemishes, but notwithstanding these they remain magnificent celestial[p. ix] orbs. The picture produced out of the materials which I have here brought together may present harsh and rough features, but it has hardly a single ignoble trait. Its crudeness only adds to its truth to nature, its individuality, and its clearness of outline. This figure does not float in an ethereal atmosphere, it is firmly rooted in earth and breathes of real life, yet it conveys a sense of something superhuman. It must furthermore be remembered that many of the bitter remarks, such as those made previous to March, 1890, were the result of temporary irritation, while others were perfectly justified. The strong self-confidence manifested in some of these utterances, and the angry expression of that need for greater power and more liberty of action, common to all men of genius and energetic character, arose from the consciousness that, while he alone knew the true object to be pursued and the fitting means for its achievement, his knowledge could not be applied because the right of final decision on all occasions belonged by hereditary privilege to more or less mediocre and narrow minds.

I will allow the Prince himself to answer the question as to my authority for communicating to others without any reserve all that I ascertained during my intercourse with him. “Once I am dead you can tell everything you like, absolutely everything you know,” said Prince Bismarck to me in the course of a conversation I had with him on the 24th of February, 1879. I saw clearly in the way in which he looked at me that, in addition to the permission I had already[p. x] received on previous occasions, he wished that I should then consider myself entirely free and expressly released from certain former engagements, some of which had been assumed by myself, while others had been imposed upon me. Since then my knowledge increased owing to his growing confidence in me, while his authorisation and the desire that I should use what I knew to the advantage of his memory remained undiminished. On the 21st of March, 1891, during one of my last visits to Friedrichsruh, the Prince—apparently prompted by a notice which he had read in the newspapers—remarked, “Little Busch (Büschlein) will one day, long after my death, write the secret history of our time from the best sources of information.” I answered “Yes, Prince; but it will not be a history, properly speaking, as I am not capable of that. Nor will it be long after your death—which we naturally pray to be deferred as long as possible—but on the contrary very soon after, without any delay. In these corrupt times, the truth cannot be known too soon.” The Prince made no answer, but I understood his silence to indicate approval. Finally, in the preceding year he had affirmed the absolutely unrestricted character of my authority. On the 15th of March, 1890, when the measures for his dismissal were already in progress, and he himself was engaged in packing up a variety of papers preparatory to his journey (a work in which I was allowed to assist him), he asked me to copy a number of important documents for him and to retain the originals and copies in my possession. On his remarking[p. xi] that I could get these documents copied, I called his attention to the fact that a stranger might betray their contents to third parties. He replied, “Oh, I am not afraid of that! He can if he likes! I have no secrets amongst them—absolutely none.” That statement, “I have no secrets,” gave me liberty, at least for a later time, to publish those State papers the contents of which I had hitherto kept secret, as he must unquestionably have known better than I or the rest of the world who may have held other views on the subject.

So far respecting the essential point. That he whom I honour as the first of men sanctioned my undertaking is entirely sufficient for me. I do not ask whether others give it their blessing. The great majority of those referred to have since departed from this life and taken their places in the domain of history, where the claim for indulgent treatment is no longer valid. Those who are still with us may believe me when I assure them that in now publishing these pages I have no thought of causing them pain or of injuring them in any way. I simply consider that I am not at liberty to preserve silence on those matters which may prove unpleasant to them in view both of my own duty to tell the whole truth, and of the desire expressed by the Chancellor (to whom I still feel myself bound in obedience) that nothing should be concealed. The diplomatic world, in particular, must be represented here as it really is. In that respect this book may be described as a mirror for diplomatists.

I must leave the reader to form his own opinion as[p. xii] to my capacity for observation and the discovery of the truth. I may, however, be allowed to say that several long journeys in America and the East, a lengthy tour in Schleswig-Holstein during the Danish rule, undertaken for the purpose of reconnoitring that country, and a period of rather confidential intercourse with the Augustenburg Court at Kiel were calculated to sharpen my wits. A mission which I filled at Hanover during the year of transition, and, above all, my position in the Foreign Office in Berlin and the intimate relations in which I stood towards its Chief during the war with France, together with the renewal of that intercourse from 1877 onwards, gave me exceptional opportunities of developing both my memory and power of observation. For several years I was acquainted with everything that went on in the Central Bureau of the German Foreign Office, and later, in addition to what I ascertained through the confidence of the Prince, I obtained not a little information from Lothar Bucher which remained a secret, not only for private persons, but often for high officials of the Ministry.

The diary on which my work is based, and which is often reproduced literally, gives the truest possible account of the events and expressions which I have personally seen and heard in the presence and immediate vicinity of the Prince. The latter is everywhere the leading figure around which all the others are grouped. The task I set myself, as a close observer and chronicler who conscientiously sifted his facts, was to give a true account of what I had been commissioned to do as the[p. xiii] Prince’s Secretary in connection with press matters, and to describe how he and his entourage conducted themselves during the campaign in France, how he lived and worked, the opinions he expressed at the dinner and tea table, and on other occasions, respecting persons and things of that time, what he related of his past experiences, and finally, after our return from the great war, what I ascertained respecting the progress of diplomatic negotiations from the despatches which were then exchanged and of which I was at liberty to make use either immediately or at a later period. I was assisted in the fulfilment of this task by my faculty of concentration, which my reverence for the Prince and the practice which I had in the course of my official duties rendered gradually more intense, and by a memory which although not naturally above the average was also developed by constant exercise to such a degree that in a short time it enabled me to retain all the main points of long explanations and stories, both serious and humorous, from the Chancellor’s lips almost literally, until such time as I could commit them to paper—that is to say, unless anything special intervened, a mishap which I was usually able to avert. The particulars here given were accordingly, almost without exception, written down within an hour after the conversations therein referred to occurred. For the most part they were jotted down immediately on small slips of paper, only the points and principal catchwords being noted, but which made it easy, however, to complete the whole entry later on.

[p. xiv]

This sharp ear and faithful memory, joined with a quick eye, stood me in good stead in the years of welcome service which I undertook as a private individual for the Prince. To these and to the habit of putting all that I had experienced, seen, and heard in black on white without delay, I owe the accurate accounts of the memorable conversation of the 11th of April, 1877, of the visit to Varzin and the statements made by the Chancellor on that occasion, as well as the long list of detailed reports of pregnant and characteristic conversations that I had with him from the year 1878 up to 1890 in the palace and garden at Berlin when, at times of crisis or under other circumstances, I was either invited by the Prince or called on him without invitation for the purpose of obtaining news for the Grenzboten or foreign newspapers. I kept up the same habit of committing everything of moment to paper during my various visits of shorter or longer duration between the years 1883 and 1889 to Friedrichsruh, where in the year last mentioned I was engaged for several weeks in arranging the Prince’s private letters and other documents. This custom also served me well in that ever memorable week in March, 1890, when I spent some of the darkest days of that period in the Prince’s immediate vicinity, nor did it fail me when I again greeted him in the Sachsenwald in 1891 and 1893, and was able to convince myself that in the interval his confidence in me had as little diminished as had my loyalty towards him.

Whoever is familiar with the style in which the[p. xv] Prince was accustomed to express his thoughts when in the company of his intimate associates will be at once impressed with the genuineness of the instructions, conversations and anecdotes communicated in the following pages. He will find them almost without exception literally reproduced. In the anecdotes and stories, in particular, he will nearly always observe the characteristic ellipses, the unexpressed pre-suppositions, and the manner in which the Prince was apt to jump from point to point in his narratives, reminding one of the style of the old ballads. He will also at times note a humorous vein running through the Prince’s remarks and frequently become conscious of a thread of semi-naïve self irony. All these features were characteristic of the Chancellor’s manner of speaking. It is therefore hardly necessary for me to add that my reports, with all their roughness and sturdy ruggedness, are photographs that have not been retouched. In other words, I believe that I have not only been quick to observe, but I also feel that I have not intentionally omitted anything that was worth reproducing. I have neither blurred any features nor brought others into too sharp relief. I have put in no high lights, and above all I have added nothing of my own, nor tried to secure a place in history for my own wisdom by palming it off as Bismarck’s. Any omissions that now remain (there can hardly be more than a dozen in all of any importance) are indicated by dots or dashes. In cases where I have not quite understood a speaker, attention is called to the fact. Should any contradiction be discovered[p. xvi] between earlier and later statements my memory must not be held responsible for them. If I am blamed for the fragmentary character of my recital then all memoirs must be rejected. If I am reproached with not having produced a work of art, I believe I have already made it sufficiently clear that I never intended anything of the kind. I desired, on the contrary, so far as it was in my power, to serve the truth, and that alone. Nevertheless, my work may not only be utilised by historians, but may also possibly inspire a dramatist or a poet. Such a writer must, however, be no sentimentalist, and no idealist. It would be wise for him and for others to let themselves be guided by some counsels of experience which will be useful as a warning against certain misunderstandings both as to the sources of my information and the degree of my credulity. These counsels have always been present to my mind, although, perhaps, through a sense of politeness towards the public, or even, it may be, a real confidence in their common sense, I have rarely thought it necessary to call attention to the fact. This advice I propose to repeat here in a general form and without any special application. In the first place, then, there are people who sometimes really believe that they have actually said or done that which it was their duty to say or do in certain circumstances. Others, again, frequently leave their hearers to judge whether their remarks are meant to be sarcastic or serious. Furthermore, inter pocula and in foraging for news, the meanings of words must not be taken in altogether too literal a sense, if one does not[p. xvii] wish to make a fool of himself. Although truth may be found in the bowl, it usually contains more alcohol than accuracy; and the scribblers of the press very often thoughtlessly accept appearances for realities when they come from “well-informed circles.” Finally, even those who wilfully mislead serve the truth in so far as they enable the experienced to detect their falsehood.

A good deal of what I report and describe will appear to many persons trivial and external. My view of the matter, however, is this. The trifles with which the prætor does not trouble himself often illustrate the character of a man or his temper for the time being more clearly than fine speeches or great exploits. Now and then very unimportant occurrences and situations have been, as it were, the spark which lit up the mind and revealed a whole train of new and fruitful ideas pregnant with great consequences. In this connection I may recall the accidental, and apparently insignificant, origin of many epoch-making inventions and discoveries, such as the fall of an apple from a tree that gave Newton the first impulse towards his theory of gravitation, the greatest discovery of the eighteenth century; the steam from the boiling kettle which raised its lid and ultimately led to the transformation of the world by the locomotive; the brilliant reflection of the sun on a tin vessel which transported Jacob Boehme into a transcendental vision; and the spot of grease upon our table-cloth at Ferrières which formed the[p. xviii] starting-point of one of Prince Bismarck’s most remarkable conversations. The morning hours affect nervous constitutions differently to the evening, and changes of weather depress or raise the spirits of persons subject to rheumatism. Indeed it must be remembered that learned theories have been formed which, expressed in a plain and direct way, amount roughly to this—that a man is what he eats. However odd that may sound, we really cannot say how far such ideas are wrong. Finally, it appears to me that everything is of interest and should receive attention which has any relation to the prominent central figure of the great movement which resulted in the political regeneration of our country—to that powerful personality who, like the angel mentioned in the Scriptures, stirred the stagnant pool, and gave health and life after the lethargy and decay of centuries. I followed the Chancellor’s career with the eyes of a future generation. At great epochs trifles appear smaller than they actually are. In later decades and centuries the contrary is the case. The great events of the past bulk still larger in men’s minds, while things which were regarded as unimportant become full of significance. It is then often a matter for regret that it is impossible to form as clear and lifelike a picture of a personality or an event as one could wish for want of valuable material originally cast aside as of no account. There was no eye to see and no hand to collect and preserve those materials while it was yet time. Who would not now be glad to[p. xix] have fuller details respecting Luther in the great days and hours of his life?

In a hundred years the memory of Prince Bismarck will take a place in the minds of our people next to that occupied by the Wittenberg doctor. The liberator of our political life from dependence upon foreigners will stand by the side of the reformer who freed our consciences from the oppression of Rome—the founder of the German State by the side of him who created German Christianity. Our Chancellor already holds this place in the hearts of many of his countrymen; his portrait adorns their walls, and they inspire the growing generation with the reverence which they themselves feel. These will be followed by the masses, and therefore I imagine I may safely take the risk of being told that I have preserved, not only the pearls, but also the shells in which they were found.

Many of the Chancellor’s expressions respecting the French may be regarded as unfair and even occasionally inhuman. It must not be forgotten, however, that ordinary warfare is calculated to harden the feelings, and that Gambetta’s suicidal campaign, conducted with all the passionate ardour of his nature, the treacherous tactics of his franctireurs, and the bestiality of his Turcos, was bound to raise a spirit in our camp in which leniency and consideration could have no part. Of course, in reproducing and in adding other and still more bitter instances of this feeling, now that all these things have long ago passed away, there can be no intention to hurt any one’s feelings. They are merely[p. xx] vivid contributions to the history of the campaign, denoting the momentary temper of the Chancellor, who was at that time sorely tried and deeply wounded by these and other incidents.

I trust my reasons for including a number of newspaper articles will commend themselves to the reader I do so in the first place to show the gradual development and change which certain political ideas underwent, and the forms which they assumed at various times. Furthermore the greater part of them were directly inspired by Prince Bismarck, and some were even dictated by him. By mentioning the latter articles I hope to do the newspapers in question a pleasure in so far as they will now learn that they once had the honour of having the most eminent statesman of the century as a contributor. All these articles furnish material for forming an opinion upon the journalistic activity of the Prince, which hitherto only Wagener of the Kreuzzeitung, Zitelmann, the Prince’s amanuensis during the years he spent as Ambassador at Frankfurt, and Lothar Bucher were in a position to do. On the 22nd of January, 1871, the Chancellor himself remarked, referring to the importance of the press for historians: “One learns more from the newspapers than from official despatches, as, of course, Governments use the press in order frequently to say more clearly what they really mean. One must, however, know all about the connections of the different papers.” This knowledge will in great part be found in the present work.

The reason for reproducing certain portions of my[p. xxi] previous writings in this book is that they are essential for the purpose of completing the character portrait given in the diary. Without them it would be deficient in some parts, and unintelligible in others. The reproductions referred to are in almost every instance considerably altered and supplemented with additional matter, and they now occupy a more suitable position in the work than before.

MORITZ BUSCH.

Leipzig, July 30, 1898.

## CONTENTS

CHAPTER I | PAGE
--- | ---
MY APPOINTMENT AS AN OFFICIAL IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE, AND MY FIRST AUDIENCE WITH BISMARCK—WORK AND OBSERVATIONS UP TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE | 1
CHAPTER II |
DEPARTURE OF THE CHANCELLOR FOR THE SEAT OF WAR—I FOLLOW HIM, AT FIRST TO SAARBRÜCKEN—JOURNEY FROM THERE TO THE FRENCH FRONTIER—THE FOREIGN OFFICE FLYING COLUMN | 64
CHAPTER III |
FROM THE FRONTIER TO GRAVELOTTE | 76
CHAPTER IV |
COMMERCY—BAR LE DUC—CLERMONT EN ARGONNE | 103
CHAPTER V |
WE TURN TOWARDS THE NORTH—THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CONFEDERATION AT REZONVILLE—THE BATTLE AND BATTLEFIELD OF BEAUMONT | 126
CHAPTER VI |
SEDAN—BISMARCK AND NAPOLEON AT DONCHERY | 141
CHAPTER VII |
FROM THE MEUSE TO THE MARNE | 163
CHAPTER VIII |
BISMARCK AND FAVRE AT HAUTE-MAISON—A FORTNIGHT IN ROTHSCHILD’S CHÂTEAU | 191
CHAPTER IX[p. xxiv] |
THE JOURNEY TO VERSAILLES—MADAME JESSE’S HOUSE, AND OUR LIFE THERE | 227
CHAPTER X |
AUTUMN DAYS AT VERSAILLES | 235
CHAPTER XI |
THIERS AND THE FIRST NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN ARMISTICE AT VERSAILLES | 274
CHAPTER XII |
GROWING DESIRE FOR A DECISION IN VARIOUS DIRECTIONS | 310
CHAPTER XIII |
REMOVAL OF THE ANXIETY RESPECTING THE BAVARIAN TREATY IN THE REICHSTAG—THE BOMBARDMENT FURTHER POSTPONED | 330
CHAPTER XIV |
THE PROSPECTS OUTSIDE PARIS IMPROVE | 373
CHAPTER XV |
CHAUDORDY AND THE TRUTH—OFFICERS OF BAD FAITH—FRENCH GARBLING—THE CROWN PRINCE DINES WITH THE CHIEF | 392
CHAPTER XVI |
FIRST WEEK OF THE BOMBARDMENT | 427
CHAPTER XVII |
LAST WEEKS BEFORE THE CAPITULATION OF PARIS | 460
CHAPTER XVIII |
DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING THE CAPITULATION OF PARIS | 492
CHAPTER XIX |
FROM GAMBETTA’S RESIGNATION TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE | 553

[p. 1]

BISMARCK

SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY

## CHAPTER I

MY APPOINTMENT AS AN OFFICIAL IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE, AND MY FIRST AUDIENCE WITH BISMARCK—WORK AND OBSERVATIONS UP TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE

On February 1st, 1870, while living in Leipzig and engaged in literary work, I received—quite unexpectedly—from Dr. Metzler, Secretary in the Foreign Office of the North German Confederation, who was at that time occupied principally with press matters and with whom I had been in communication since 1867, a short note requesting me to come to Berlin in order to have a talk with him. On my arrival I ascertained, to my great surprise, that Dr. Metzler had recommended me to Herr von Keudell, Councillor of Embassy, who was then in charge of personal and finance matters in the Foreign Office, for a confidential position under the Chancellor of the Confederation, which he, Metzler himself, had previously held, and in which my chief duty would be to carry out the instructions of the Chancellor in press matters. I was to be in immediate communication with the Chancellor. My position for the time being would[p. 2] be what was called “diätarisch,” that is to say without any claim to a pension and without a title. Further details were to be arranged with Herr von Keudell on his return from his honeymoon. For the moment I was only required to declare my readiness in general to accept the offer, and later on I was to formulate my wishes and lay them in writing before Herr von Keudell.

This I did in a letter dated February 4th, in which I emphasised as the most important condition that I should be entirely independent of the Literary or Press Bureau, and that if my capacity for the position should not prove equal to the expectations formed of it I should not be appointed an official in that department. On February 19th I heard from Metzler that my conditions had been in the main agreed to, and that no objections had been raised with regard to that respecting the Literary Bureau. I was to discuss the further arrangements with Keudell himself, and to be prepared to enter upon my duties at once. On February 21st I had a satisfactory interview with the latter, in the course of which we came to an understanding as to terms. On the 23rd I was informed by Keudell that the Chancellor had agreed to my conditions, and that he had arranged for me to call upon Bismarck on the following evening. Next day I took the official oath, and on the same evening, shortly after 8 o’clock, I found myself in the presence of the Chancellor, whom I had only seen at a distance once before, namely, from the Press Gallery of the Reichstag. Now, two years later, I saw him again as he sat in a military uniform at his writing table with a bundle of documents before him. I was quite close to him this time, and felt as if I stood before the altar.

He gave me his hand, and motioned me to take a seat opposite him. He began by saying that although he desired to have a talk with me, he must for the moment[p. 3] content himself with just making my acquaintance, as he had very little time to spare. “I have been kept in the Reichstag to-day longer than I expected by a number of lengthy and tiresome speeches; then I have here (pointing to the documents before him) despatches to read, also as a rule not very amusing; and at 9 o’clock I must go to the palace, and that is not particularly entertaining either. What have you been doing up to the present?” I replied that I had edited the Grenzboten, an organ of practically National Liberal views, which I left, however, on one of the proprietors showing a disposition to adopt a Progressist policy on the Schleswig-Holstein question. The Chancellor: “Yes, I know that paper.” I then went on to say that I had at the instance of the Government taken a position at Hanover, where I assisted the Civil Commissioner, Herr von Hardenberg, in representing Prussian interests in the local press during the year of transition. I had subsequently, on instructions received from the Foreign Office, written a number of articles for different political journals, amongst others for the Preussische Jahrbuecher, to which I had also previously contributed. Bismarck: “Then you understand our politics and the German question in particular. I intend to get you to write notes and articles for the papers from such particulars and instructions as I may give you, for of course I cannot myself write leaders. You will also arrange for others doing so. At first these will naturally be by way of trial. I must have some one especially for this purpose, and not merely occasional assistance as at present, especially as I also receive very little useful help from the Literary Bureau. But how long do you remain here?” and as he looked at his watch I thought he desired to bring the conversation to a close. I replied that I had arranged to[p. 4] remain in Berlin. Bismarck: “Ah, very well then, I shall have a long talk with you one of these days. In the meantime see Herr von Keudell, and also Herr Bucher, Councillor of Embassy, who is well acquainted with all these matters.” I understood that I was now at liberty to go, and was about to rise from my seat when the Chancellor said: “Of course you know the question which was before the House to-day?” I replied in the negative, explaining that I had been too busy to read the reports in the newspapers. “Well,” he said, “it was respecting the admission of Baden into the North German Confederation. It is a pity that people cannot manage to wait, and that they treat everything from a party standpoint, and as furnishing opportunities for speech-making. Disagreeable business to have to answer such speeches, not to say such twaddle! These eloquent gentlemen are really like ladies with small feet. They force them into shoes that are too tight for them, and push them under our noses on all occasions in order that we may admire them. It is just the same with a man who has the misfortune to be eloquent. He speaks too often and too long. The question of German unity is making good progress; but it requires time—one year perhaps, or five, or indeed possibly even ten years. I cannot make it go any faster, nor can these gentlemen either. But they have no patience to wait.” With these words he rose, and again shaking hands I took leave of him for the time.

I was thus enlisted in the ranks of Bismarck’s fellow-workers. An opportunity for the general instructions which he proposed to give me never occurred. I had to enter upon my work at once. Next evening I was twice called in to him to receive instructions for articles. Later on I sometimes saw him still more[p. 5] frequently, and occasionally in the forenoon also—now and then as often as five or even eight times in one day. At these interviews I had to take good care to keep my ears well open, and to note everything with the closest attention, so that two pieces of information or two sets of instructions should not get mixed up. However, I soon found myself equal to this unusually trying task, as Bismarck’s opinions and instructions were always given in a striking form, which it was easy to remember. Besides, he was accustomed to repeat his principal points in other words. Then, again, I made myself all ears, so that, through practice, I gradually succeeded in retaining long sentences, and even whole speeches, practically without omissions, until I had an opportunity of committing them to paper. Bismarck used also to send me, by one of the messengers, documents and newspapers marked with the letter V and a cross, signs which indicated “Press Instructions.” When I found such papers on my desk I looked them through, and subsequently obtained the Chancellor’s directions with regard to them. Furthermore, when I had anything of importance to ask or to submit for his approval, I was allowed to call upon him without previous invitation. I thus practically occupied the position of a “Vortragender Rath” (i.e., an official having direct access to the Chancellor), excepting only that I had neither the title nor the sense of infallibility common to all such Councillors.

The newspapers to which the articles thus prepared were supplied were the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, then edited by Brass, which was the semi-official organ, properly speaking; the Spenersche Zeitung, and the Neue Preussische Zeitung. I also frequently sent letters to the Kölnische Zeitung, expressing[p. 6] the Chancellor’s views. During the first months of my appointment Metzler, who had previously contributed to that paper, served as the medium for communicating these articles. Subsequently they were sent direct to the editor, and were always accepted without alteration. In addition to this work I saw one of the writers from the Literary Bureau every forenoon, and gave him material which was sent to the Magdeburger Zeitung and some of the smaller newspapers; while other members of his department furnished portions of it to certain Silesian, East Prussian, and South German organs. I had similar weekly interviews with other, and somewhat more independent, writers. Amongst these I may mention Dr. Bock, who supplied articles to the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, and a number of papers in Hanover; Professor Constantine Roeszler, formerly Lecturer at Jena, who subsequently assisted Richthofen at Hamburg and afterwards edited the Staatsanzeiger; and finally Herr Heide, who had previously been a missionary in Australia and was at that time working for the North German Correspondence, which had been founded with a view to influencing the English press.

In addition to this my duties also included the reading of masses of German, Austrian and French newspapers, which were laid upon my table three times daily, and the management and purchase of books for the Ministerial Library. It will therefore be easily understood that while the Chancellor remained in Berlin I had more than enough to attend to. I was engaged not only on week-days, but also on Sundays, from 9 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon, and again from 5 till 10 and sometimes 11 o’clock at night. Indeed, it sometimes occurred that a[p. 7] messenger from the Chancellor came at midnight to call me away from a party of friends or out of my bed in order to receive pressing instructions.

I reproduce here in the form in which they appear in my diary the particulars of a number of more or less characteristic statements and instructions which I received from the Chancellor at that period. They show that the statesman whom I had the honour to serve thoroughly understood the business of journalism, and they further throw a welcome light upon many of the political events of that time.

Some days after the debate in the Reichstag respecting the entrance of Baden into the North German Confederation, to which reference has already been made, and while the matter was still occupying both the attention of the press and of the Chancellor, I find the following entry among my notes:—

February 27th, evening.—Called to see the Minister. I am to direct special attention to the nonsense written by the National Liberal Press on the last sitting of the Reichstag. The Chancellor said:—“The National Liberals are not a united party. They are merely two fractions. Amongst their leaders Bennigsen and Forckenbeck are sensible men, and there are also a couple of others. Miguel is inclined to be theatrical. Loewe, with his deep chest notes, does everything for effect. He has not made a single practical remark. Lasker is effective in destructive criticism, but is no politician. It sounded very odd to hear him declare that they were now too much occupied with Rome in Paris and Vienna to interfere with us in connection with the Baden affair. If it were possible to get those of really Progressist views to act independently, it would make the situation much clearer. Friedenthal’s speech was excellent. I[p. 8] must ask you also to emphasise the following points:—1. The unfairness of the National Zeitung in repeating misunderstandings which I explained and disposed of in my speech. 2. The make-believe support given to my policy by men who were elected for the express purpose of rendering me real assistance. 3. That such politicians either cannot see or intentionally overlook my principal motive, viz., that to admit Baden into the Confederation would bring pressure to bear upon Bavaria, and that it is therefore a hazardous step. Attention should be paid to the situation in France, so that nothing should be done which might endanger the Constitutional evolution of that country, an evolution hitherto promoted in every way from Berlin, as it signifies peace for us. The French Arcadians” (the party that supported Napoleon through thick and thin) “are watching the course of events in Germany, and waiting their opportunity. Napoleon is now well disposed to us, but he is very changeable. We could now fight France and beat her too, but that war would give rise to five or six others; and while we can gain our ends by peaceful means, it would be foolish, if not criminal, to take such a course. Events in France may take a warlike or revolutionary turn, which would render the present brittle metal there more malleable. There was an important point in my speech, which, however, these good people failed to recognise. That was the intimation that in certain circumstances we should pay no regard either to the views of Austria respecting South Germany as a whole, nor to those of France, who objected to the admission of any single South German State into the North German Confederation. That was a feeler. Further measures can only be considered when I know how that hint has been received in Vienna and Paris.”

[p. 9]

March 1st.—Count Bismarck wishes me to get the following inserted in the South German newspapers:—“The speech of von Freydorf, the Grand Ducal Minister, in the Baden Diet on the Jurisdiction Treaty with the North German Confederation, has been inspired by an absolutely correct view of the situation. Particular attention should be paid to that portion in which the Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy declared the policy of Baden to be in perfect accord with that of the Chancellor of the North German Confederation, and also to the manner in which he defined the position of the South German States towards the Treaty of Prague. Through the dissolution of the old Germanic Confederacy, those States have, as a matter of fact, become sovereign States. That treaty gives them liberty (to me: Underline those words!) to form a new union amongst themselves, a South German Confederation, by means of which they may take measures for bringing about a national union with the united North. That treaty involves no prescription, engagement or compulsion whatever to adopt such a course. Any insinuation of that kind with respect to States whose sovereignty has been emphatically recognised would be something absolutely unheard of. In the Swiss war of the Sonderbund, and also in the late American civil war, States were obliged against their own will to remain within a union which they had previously joined, but no one ever saw a sovereign State or Prince required to enter into confederation against their own judgment. The South German States, including half of Hesse, have unquestionably the right—acting either in concert or singly—to endeavour, in co-operation with the North, to advance the cause of national unity. The question is whether the present is a good time to choose. The Chancellor[p. 10] of the North German Confederation answers this question in the negative. But it is only possible by the most wilful garbling of his expressions to maintain that his final aim is not the union of Germany. Partition of German national territory! Calumny! Not a single word of the Chancellor’s justifies that conclusion. As Herr Lasker has not spoken at the instance of the Government of Baden, although his speech would almost convey the impression that he was a Minister of that State, it is difficult to understand where he got that idea. Perhaps it was merely the conceit of the honourable member that led him to make such a statement.”

March 3rd.—The Minister wishes the Kölnische Zeitung first, and afterwards the South German newspapers, to advocate the organisation into one great party of all men of national views in the South German States, so as to get rid of the particularism which had hitherto divided them. “The matter lies much more in their hands,” he said, “than in those of the North German National Liberals. The North German Governments will do all that is possible in a reasonable way in support of the efforts of South Germany. But the South Germans who wish to unite with us must act together and not singly. I want you to reiterate this point again and again. The article must then be printed in the Spenersche Zeitung and in other newspapers to which we have access, and it should be accompanied by expressions of deep regret at the particularism which prevents the union of the various Southern parties that gravitate towards North Germany. A union of the four Southern States is an impossibility, but there is nothing to hinder the formation of a Southern League composed of men of national sentiments. The National party in Baden, the German party in Würtemberg, and the[p. 11] Bavarian Progressist party are merely different names for the same thing. These groups have to deal with different Governments, and some persons maintain that they must consequently adopt different tactics. Their aims are nevertheless identical in all important points. With the best will in the world those three parties, while acting singly, produce but a slight impression. If they desire to go ahead and become an important factor in public affairs, they must combine to form a great and homogeneous South German National party which must be reckoned with on both sides of the Main.”

Read over to the Minister, at his request, an article which he ordered yesterday and for which he gave me the leading ideas. It was to be dated from Paris, and published in the Kölnische Zeitung. He said:—“Yes, you have correctly expressed my meaning. The composition is good both as regards its reasoning and the facts which it contains. But no Frenchman thinks in such logical and well-ordered fashion, yet the letter is understood to be written by a Frenchman. It must contain more gossip, and you must pass more lightly from point to point. In doing so you must adopt an altogether French standpoint. A Liberal Parisian writes the letter and gives his opinion as to the position of his party towards the German question, expressing himself in the manner usual in statements of that kind.” (Finally Count Bismarck dictated the greater part of the article, which was forwarded by Metzler in its altered form to the Rhenish newspaper.)

In connection with this task the Minister said to me the day before:—“I look at the matter in this way. A correspondent in Paris must give his opinion of my[p. 12] quarrel with Lasker and the others over the Baden question, and bring forward arguments which I did not think it desirable to use at that time. He must say that no one could deem it advisable in the present state of affairs in Bavaria, when the King seems to be so well disposed, to do anything calculated on the one hand to irritate him, and on the other to disturb the Constitutional movement in France—which movement tended to preserve peace while it would itself be promoted by the maintenance of peace. Those who desire to advance the cause of liberty do not wish to go to war with us, yet they could not swim against the stream if we took any action in South Germany which public opinion would regard as detrimental to the interests and prestige of France. Moreover, for the present the course of the Vatican Council should not be interfered with, as the result for Germany might possibly be a diversion. We must wait for these things,” he added. “I cannot explain that to them. If they were politicians they would see it for themselves. There are reasons for forbearance which every one should be able to recognise; but Members of Parliament who cross-question the Government do not usually regard that as their duty.”

The second portion of the article which the Minister dictated runs as follows:—“Whoever has had an opportunity of observing here in Paris how difficult the birth of the present Constitutional movement has been, what obstacles this latest development of French political life has to overcome if it is to strike deep roots, and how powerful are the influences of which the guiding spirit only awaits some pretext for smothering the infant in its cradle, will understand with what anxiety we watch the horizon abroad and what a profoundly depressing effect every little cloud there produces upon our hopes[p. 13] of a secure and peaceful development of the new régime. It is the ardent wish of every sincere adherent of the Constitutional cause in France that there should now be no diversion abroad, no change on the horizon of foreign politics, which might serve if not as a real motive at least as a pretext for crying down the youthful Constitutionalism of France, while at the same time directing public attention to foreign relations. We believe that the Emperor is in earnest, but his immediate entourage, and the creatures whom he has to employ, are watching anxiously for some event which shall enable them to compel the Sovereign to abandon a course which they resent. These people are very numerous, and have during the eighteen years of the Emperor’s reign grown more powerful than is perhaps believed outside France. Whoever has any regard for the Constitutional development of the country can only hope that no alteration, however slight, shall occur in the foreign relations of France to serve as a motive or pretext for that reaction which every opponent of the Constitution is striving to bring about.”

Between the directions for these articles, which I here bring together as they relate to the same subject, I received others, some of which I may also reproduce.

March 4th.—The Boersen Zeitung contained an article in which it was alleged that in Germany only nobles were considered competent to become Ministers. This the Count sent down to me to be refuted in a short article, expressing surprise at such a statement. “An absurd electioneering move!” the Chancellor said. “Whoever wishes to persuade the world that in Prussia the position of Minister is only open to the aristocracy, and that capable commoners have absolutely no chance of attaining to it, must have no memory and no eyes.[p. 14] Say that under Count Bismarck no less than three commoners have, on his recommendation, been appointed Ministers within a short period, namely Delbrück, Leonhard and Camphausen. Lasker, it is true, has not yet been appointed.”

I wrote this short article immediately; but the Chancellor was not pleased with it. “I told you expressly,” he said, “to mention the names of Delbrück, Leonhard and Camphausen, and that their appointments were due to my personal influence. Go straight to the point, and don’t wander round about it in that way! That is no use! A pointless article! They are just the cleverest of the present Ministers. The attack on Lasker is also out of place. We must not provoke people unnecessarily. They are right when they complain of bullying.” The reference to Lasker consisted merely of his own words as given above.

March 5th.—The Vossische Zeitung contained a bitter attack, which culminated in the following remark: “Exceptional circumstances—and such must be acknowledged to exist when working men are treated to breech-loaders, and Ministers are hanged on street lamps—cannot be taken as a rule for the regular conduct of affairs.” The Count received this article from the Literary Bureau of the Ministry of State (where extracts from the newspapers were made for him), although it might well have been withheld, as not much importance attaches to the scoldings of “Tante Voss.” The Count sent for me, read over the passage in question, and observed: “They speak of times when Ministers were hanged on street lamps. Unworthy language! Reply that such a thing never occurred in Prussia, and that there is no prospect of its occurring. In the meantime it shows towards what condition of[p. 15] affairs the efforts of that newspaper are tending, which (under the auspices of Jacoby and Company) supplies the Progressist middle classes of Berlin with their politics.”

Called in again later to the Count. I am to go to Geheimrath Hahn and call his attention to the question of capital punishment, which in view of the approaching elections should be dealt with in the Provinzial-Correspondenz in accordance with the policy of the Government, who desire its retention. The Minister said: “I am firmly convinced that the majority of the population is opposed to its abolition. Were it otherwise it would of course be possible to do away with it. It is a mere theory—the sentimentality of lawyers in the Reichstag—a party doctrine which has no connection with the life of the people, although its advocates are constantly referring to the people. Tell him that, but be cautious in dealing with him. He is somewhat conceited—bureaucratic. Do it in a diplomatic way. You must let him think that those are his own ideas. Otherwise we shall not get anything useful out of him. Let me know afterwards what he says.”

March 6th.—Have seen Hahn. He is of opinion that it is yet too early to deal with this matter. It will probably end in a compromise, capital punishment being only retained for murder. The attitude of the Liberals in the elections can only be influenced after the decision in the Reichstag. In the meantime he has instructed the Literary Bureau to refute the article in the National Zeitung, and to show how sterile the present Parliament would be if it allowed the long wished for Criminal Code to be wrecked upon this question of capital punishment. Report this to the Minister. He is of opinion that Hahn is mistaken.[p. 16] “It is necessary to act in a diplomatic way in this case,” he observed. “One must present an appearance of determination up to the last moment; and if one wants to secure a suitable compromise, show no disposition to give way; besides, Hahn must have no other policy than mine. I shall speak to Eulenburg, and get him to set Hahn straight. This must be put down at once. We must think in good time about the elections.”

March 7th.—Sent Brass (Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung) an article written by Bucher under instructions from the Minister, showing that the majority in the Reichstag does not represent public opinion nor the will of the people, but only the opinions and desires of the Parliamentary party.

Called to the Count in the evening, when he said: “I want you to secure the insertion in the press of an article somewhat to the following effect: For some time past vague rumours of war have been current throughout the world for which no sufficient ground exists in fact, or can be even suggested. The explanation is probably to be sought in Stock Exchange speculation for a fall which has been started in Paris. Confidential whispers are going about with regard to the presence of Archduke Albrecht in the French capital which are calculated to cause uneasiness; and then, naturally enough, these rumours are shouted aloud and multiplied by the windbags of the Guelph press.”

March 11th.—The Count wants an article in the National Zeitung to be answered in this sense: “The Liberals in Parliament always identify themselves with the people. They maintain, like Louis XIV. with his L’état c’est moi, that ‘We are the People.’ There could hardly be a more absurd piece of boasting and exaggeration.[p. 17] As if the other representatives, the Conservatives in the country, and the great numbers who belong to no party, were not also part of the nation, and had no opinions and interests to which regard should be paid!”

Evening.—The Minister, referring to a statement in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, remarked: “There is much ado about the decided attitude taken up by Beust against the Curia. According to the report published by Brass he has expressed himself very emphatically respecting its latest action, in a note which the Ambassador read to the Secretary of State. That must be refuted, weakened. Do it in a letter from Rome to the Kölnische Zeitung. Say: ‘We do not know if the analysis of the despatch in question (which has made the round of the papers, and which was first published by The Times) is correct,[2] but we have reason to doubt it.’ Trautmansdorf (the Austrian Ambassador to the Holy See) has read no note and has received no instructions to make any positive declaration, but is on the contrary acting in accordance with his own convictions—and it is known that he is very clerical and not at all disposed to radical measures. He has communicated to Cardinal Antonelli such parts of the information that reached him from Vienna as he thought proper, and he certainly made that communication in as considerate a form as possible. It cannot therefore have been very emphatic.”

Later.—Attention is to be directed, at first in a paper which has no connection with the Government, to the prolonged sojourn of Archduke Albrecht in Paris as a[p. 18] suspicious symptom. In connection with it rumours have been circulated in London of an understanding between France and Austria. Our papers should afterwards reproduce these hints.

March 12th.—In the afternoon Bucher gave me the chief’s instructions to order the Spanish newspaper, Imparcial. (This is of some importance, as it doubtless indicates that even then we had a hand in the question of electing the new King. On several occasions subsequently I secured the insertion in non-official German papers of translations which Bucher brought me of articles in that newspaper against the candidature of Montpensier.)

March 13th.—The Chancellor wishes to have it said in one of the “remote” journals (that is, not notoriously connected with the Government) that the Pope has paid no regard to the representations of France and Austria respecting the principal points which should be decided by the Council. He would not have done so even if those representations had been expressed in a more emphatic form than they actually were. Neither Banneville nor Trautmansdorf was inclined to heartily defend the cause of the State against the Ultramontanes. This disposes of the news of the Mémorial Diplomatique to the effect that at the suggestion of Count Daru the Curia has already given an affirmative answer. That report is absolutely false, as is nearly all the news published by the paper in question. It is much the same with Count Beust’s note to the Papal Government. (“Quote the word ‘note,’” added the Minister.) It was only a despatch, and, doubtless, a very tame one.

March 16th, evening.—Called up to the Minister, who lay on the sofa in his study. “Here,” he said (pointing to a newspaper). “They complain of the[p. 19] accumulation of labour imposed upon Parliament. Already eight months’ hard work! That must be answered. It is true that members of Parliament have a great deal to do, but Ministers are still worse off. In addition to their work in the two Diets the latter have an immense amount of business to transact for the King and the country both while Parliament is sitting and during the recess. Moreover, members have the remedy in their own hands. If those who do not belong to the Upper Chamber will abstain from standing for election both to the Prussian and the Federal Diet they will lighten their task sufficiently. They are not obliged to sit in both Houses.”

March 21st.—I am to call attention in the semi-official organs to the fact that the Reichstag is discussing the Criminal Code far too minutely and slowly. “The speakers,” observed the Count, “show too great a desire for mere talk, and are too fond of details and hair-splitting. If this continues the Bills will not be disposed of in the present Session, especially as the Budget has still to be discussed. The President might well exercise stricter control. Another unsatisfactory feature is that so many members absent themselves from the sittings. Our newspapers ought to publish regularly lists of such absentees. Please see that is done.”

Called up again later and commissioned to explain in the press the attitude of Prussia towards those Prelates who oppose the Curia in Rome. The Chancellor said: “The newspapers express a desire that the Government should support the German Bishops on the Council. You should ask if those writers have formed a clear idea as to how we should set about that task. Should Prussia perhaps send a Note to the Council, or[p. 20] to Antonelli, the Papal Minister, who does not belong to that body? or is she to secure representation in that assembly of Prelates, and protest (of course in vain) against what she objects to? Prussia will not desert those Bishops who do not submit themselves to the yoke, but it is for the Prelates in the first place to maintain a determined attitude. We cannot take preventive measures, as they would be of no value, but it is open to us to adopt a repressive policy in case a decision is come to in opposition to our wishes. If, after that decision has been arrived at, it should prove to be incompatible with the mission and interests of the State, then existing legislation, if found inadequate, can be easily supplemented and altered. The demand that the Prussian Government should support the more moderate Bishops is a mere empty phrase so long as no practical means of giving effect to it can be discovered. Moreover, the course which I now indicate will in any case be ultimately successful, although success may not at once be completely achieved.”

March 25th.—The Chief wishes Klaczko’s appointment in Vienna to be discussed. He said to me: “Beust intends in that way to revive the Polish question. Point to the journalistic activity of that indefatigable agitator, and to his bitter hatred both of ourselves and Russia. Quote Rechenberg’s confidential despatch of the 2nd of March from Warsaw, where he says that the Polish secret political societies which are engaged at Lemberg in preparing for a revolution, with the object of restoring Polish independence, have sent a deputation to Klaczko congratulating him on his appointment to a position where he is in direct communication with the Chancellor of the Empire. Send the article first to the Kölnische Zeitung, and afterwards arrange for similar[p. 21] articles in the provincial newspapers. We must finally see that this reaches Reuss (the Ambassador in St. Petersburg), in order that he may get it reproduced in the Russian press. It can also appear in the Kreuzzeitung, and it must be brought up again time after time in another form.”

Afternoon.—Geheimrath Abeken desires me, on the instructions of the Minister, to take note of the following document, which is apparently based on a despatch: “It is becoming more and more difficult to understand the attitude of the Austrian Government towards the Council. All the organs of public opinion are on the side of the Austrian Bishops, who are making such a dignified and decisive stand in Rome. The reports which the Government thought well to allow the press to publish respecting the steps which they have taken in Rome were in harmony with this attitude. The news from Rome, however, speaks only of the tameness and indecision with which the Government’s policy is being carried into execution. The most contradictory accounts are now coming in. It is said that the Austrian Ambassador has supported the action of the French Ambassador, which is known not to have been very effective. Expressions have been attributed to Count Beust showing that, in his opinion, the only effectual course would be for all the Powers to take common or collective action. On the other hand, it is asserted that he gave a negative answer, reciting different objections, to the proposal of another Catholic State (Bavaria) to join it in a decisive declaration in Rome. In presence of this indecision on the part of the Catholic Powers the Bishops will doubtless be obliged to follow their own consciences and decide for themselves what their course of action is to be. We are convinced however that if[p. 22] the Prelates themselves resolved to make a determined stand on behalf of their consciences the situation would immediately undergo a change in their favour, and that ultimately no Government would desert its own Bishops even if they were in a minority.

“Bismarck has already explained to the Prussian Ambassador in Paris that he is prepared to support every initiative taken on the Catholic side in the matter of the Council. He at the same time discussed the subject with Benedetti, expressing himself in a similar sense, but in the meantime making no positive proposal. On the other hand, he asked incidentally whether it might not be desirable to consider in a general conference the attitude to be adopted by the various Governments towards the Council. Benedetti replied that such a course would only hasten the Council’s decision. Bismarck urged that a conference might be useful, even were it no longer possible to influence the Council, and were the question to be considered merely how far the injurious effects of its decisions on the peace of Church and State could be minimised.

“Benedetti sent a report of this informal conversation to Paris, representing it as a proposal to hold a conference. Daru replied in a despatch which pointed out the difficulty of carrying that idea into execution. Who should take part in the conference? Russia maintained such an unfriendly attitude towards the Catholic Church, and Italy was so hostile to the Curia that they could hardly join in any common action. Spain wished to confine herself to the repression of any eventual breach of the laws of the country, and England ignored the official declarations of the Roman Church. Many Powers had Concordats, while others occupied a more independent position towards the Curia, therefore, in[p. 23] that respect also, an understanding would be difficult. Finally, Daru feared that Rome, on hearing of an intended conference, would reply with a fait accompli. For these reasons he declined the proposal. He would, however, like to afford the other Powers an opportunity of supporting the measures taken by France on her own initiative. In case he received a negative answer to his demand that France should be represented on the Council he would officially communicate to the other Governments his declaration to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli, that the rights and interests of the State would be defended against any encroachment on the part of the Spiritual Power, and urge them to support his action in Rome. Bismarck thanked Daru for this communication, and said that the Government at Berlin (when it had satisfied itself that such a course on the part of France was calculated to promote the interests of Prussian Catholics) would endeavour to strengthen the impression made thereby; and that further communications were awaited with interest.

“The French Government looks forward with anxiety to the consequences of the Council, but hesitates to take any serious and decisive measures, and is not disposed to enter upon any common action with the other Powers. Bray, at Munich, seemed less disinclined to such a course. He thought a declaration might possibly be made that the Government considered the œcumenical and authoritative character of the Council to be affected by the promulgation of the dogma of infallibility notwithstanding the opposition of a minority of the Bishops, as also the legal position assured to the Prelates under the Concordats, and that the dogma in question was to be regarded as null and void. Bray was anxious that[p. 24] Austria should join in this declaration. Beust, however, would not consent, as he believed that such a declaration would merely induce the Council to come to an unanimous decision which would then be binding upon the Governments. An unequivocal attitude of any kind is not to be expected from Vienna.

“If the Catholic Governments will not take the initiative the question remains what course the Bishops themselves will adopt. We hold to the principle of not acting directly and in our own name with the Roman See, while at the same time powerfully and steadfastly supporting every effort made by the Catholics themselves, and particularly by the German Bishops to prevent illegal changes being made in the constitution of the Catholic Church, and to preserve both Church and State from a disturbance of the peace. We do not find ourselves called upon to take up a prominent attitude towards the Council; but our readiness to support energetically every well-meant effort of the Catholic Powers, whose duty it is to intervene in the first place, or of the Bishops within the Council, remains unaltered.”

Evening.—I am to refer to England and the way in which the press is treated there. “The Liberals always appeal to English example when they want to secure some fresh liberty for the press. Such appeals, it is well known, rest largely upon mistaken notions. It would be desirable to examine more closely the Bill which has just been passed for the preservation of order in Ireland. What would public opinion in Germany, and particularly what would the people of Berlin say, if our Government could proceed against any of our democratic journals, even against the most violent, according to the following provisions, and that too without even[p. 25] a state of minor siege? Then quote the provisions, and add that the Bill was carried by a large majority.”[3]

March 28th.—The Chancellor desires that the question of the Council should be again dealt with somewhat to the following effect: “The press has repeatedly expressed a desire to know what position will be taken by Prussia towards the policy of the majority of the Council, and several proposals have been made in this connection. In our opinion the answer to that question is to be found in the character of Prussia as a Protestant Power. In that capacity Prussia must leave the initiative in this matter to the Catholic Governments who are more directly threatened. If these do not take action the question remains what course the Bishops who form the minority in the Council will adopt, a question which will be answered by the immediate future. If the Catholic Governments decide to take steps against the majority of the Council, Prussia ought to join in that action if she considers it to be in the interests of her Catholic subjects. But it is less the duty of Prussia than of any other State to rush into the breach.... If the Bishops defend the constitution of their Church, their episcopal rights, and peace between Church and State in a fearless and determined protest against the encroachments of the Ultramontane party in the Council, it may then be[p. 26] confidently hoped that the Prussian Government will extend to them a powerful support.”

Some of the last sentences repeated almost literally the conclusion of the document brought to me by Abeken.

March 30th.—The Count sent down a report from Rome for use in the press. This report says: “The tourists who visited St. Peter’s on the 22nd instant were several times disturbed by a dull noise which rolled through the aisles like a storm, proceeding from the direction of the Council Chamber. Those who remained a little longer saw individual Bishops, with anxious looks, hurriedly leave the church. There had been a terrible scene amongst the reverend fathers. The theme de erroribus, which was laid before the Council about three weeks ago and then returned to the Commission, was again being discussed in an amended form. This discussion had now lasted five or six (eight) days. Strossmayer criticised one of the paragraphs of the Proemium which characterised Protestantism as the source of all the evils which now infect the world in the forms of pantheism, materialism, and atheism. He declared that this Proemium contained historical untruths, as the errors of our time were much older than Protestantism. The Humanist movement, which had been imprudently protected by the highest authority (Pope Leo X.) was in part responsible for them. The Proemium lacked the charity due to Protestants. (First uproar.) It was, on the contrary, amongst Protestants that Christianity had found its most powerful defenders, such as Leibnitz and Guizot, whose meditations he should wish to see in the hands of every Christian. (Renewed and increased uproar, while closed fists are shown at the speaker, and cries are heard of ‘Hæreticus[p. 27] es! Taceas! Descendas! Omnes te condemnamus!’ and now and then ‘Ego eum non condemno!’) This storm also subsided, and Strossmayer was able to proceed to another point, namely, the question to which the Bishops referred in their protest, that is to say, that a unanimous vote is indispensable for decisions on dogma. Strossmayer’s remarks on this theme caused the indignation of the majority to boil over. Cardinal Capalti interrupted him. The assembly raged like a hurricane. After a wordy war of a quarter of an hour’s duration between the speaker and the Legates, Strossmayer retired, three times repeating the words: ‘Protestor non est concilium.’ It is worthy of note that a Congregation has been held to-day at which the Bishop of Halifax and others are understood to have expressed views similar to those of Strossmayer and that no attempt was made to interrupt them. It would therefore appear as if the storm raised against the Bishop of Bosnia were a party manœuvre with the object of ruining the most important of the Princes of the Church.”

March 31st.—Commissioned by the Chief to tell Zitelmann (an official of the Ministry of State in charge of press matters) that the newspaper extracts which his office prepares for submission to the King (through the Minister) should be better sifted and arranged. Those that are suitable for the King are to be gummed on to separate sheets and detached from those that are not suitable for him. Particularistic lies and stupidities, such as those from Kiel of the 25th and Cassel of the 28th, belong to the latter category and must not be laid before him. If he sees that kind of thing printed in black on white he is apt to believe it. He does not know the character of those papers.

[p. 28]

I am to secure the insertion in the press of the following particulars, which have reference to a paragraph in a newspaper which the Minister did not name to me. It is a well-known fact that Howard, the English representative at Munich, although he is married to a Prussian lady (Schulenberg), exercises, in opposition to the views of his own Government, a decidedly anti-Prussian influence, not so much in a pro-Austrian as in a Guelph sense. He was Minister at Hanover up to the events of 1866.

April 1st.—The Minister’s birthday. When I was called to him in the evening his room was perfumed with flowers presented to him. He lay on the sofa, booted and spurred, smoking a cigar, and reading newspaper extracts. After receiving my instructions, I offered my congratulations, for which he thanked me, reaching me his hand. “I hope,” he said, “we shall remain together for a very long time.” I replied that I hoped so too, that I could find no words to say how happy I felt to be near him, and to be able to work for him. “Well,” he answered, smiling, “it is not always so pleasant, but you must not notice every little thing.”

My instructions referred to Lasker and Hoverbeck. They were as follows:—“Just take Lippe and Lasker as your subject for once. Lasker has, it is true, been taken to task for one of his latest utterances by Bennigsen, the chief of his fraction, but it can do no harm to deal with the affair once more in the press—and repeatedly. He, like Lippe, wants the Constitution to be placed above our national requirements. Les extrêmes se touchent. Lippe is the representative of the Particularistic Junkers with the tendency to absolutism, Lasker that of the Parliamentary Junkers[p. 29] with Particularistic leanings. Vincke, who was just such another, succeeded, with his eternal dogmatism, in ruining and nearly destroying a great party in a few months, notwithstanding favourable circumstances. Please send the article to the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung for publication, and let it be afterwards reproduced in another form by the Literary Bureau.” (...)

April 4th.—It was well that I carried out the Minister’s orders at once. On being called to him this morning he received me with the words: “I asked you recently to write an article on the subject of Lippe and Lasker. Have you done so?” I replied “Yes, Excellency, and it has already appeared. I did not submit it to you as I know that you see the Norddeutsche daily.” He then said, “I have had no time as yet, I will look it up immediately.”

In a quarter of an hour I was again sent for, and on appearing before him the Minister said: “I have now read the article—it was amongst the extracts. It is excellent, exactly what I wished. Let it now be circulated and reproduced in the provincial journals. In doing so it may be further remarked that if Count Bismarck were to charge Lasker and his fraction with Particularism—I do not mean all the National Liberals, but principally the Prussians, the Lasker group—the accusation would be well founded. Lippe has also laid down the principle that the Prussian Diet is independent of the Federal Diet.”

The Minister then continued: “Here is the Kölnische Zeitung talking of excitability. It alleges that I have manifested an excitability which recalls the period of ‘conflict.’ That is not true. I have merely repelled passionate attacks in the same tone in which they were delivered, according to the usual practice in[p. 30] Parliament. It was not Bismarck but Lasker and Hoverbeck who took the initiative. They began again with offensive personal attacks, and I begged of them in a friendly way not to return to that style. Ask whether the writer had not read the report of the sitting, as it showed that it was not Count Bismarck who picked this quarrel. Apart from its pleadings on behalf of the claims of Denmark, the Kölnische Zeitung was a sensible newspaper. What had Count Bismarck done to it that it should allow its correspondents to send such a garbled account of the facts? Moreover, Bennigsen had reprimanded Lasker. They now themselves recognised that the tone they adopted was wrong, as Lasker came to me on Saturday to excuse himself.”

April 6th.—Under instructions from the Minister I dictated the following paragraph to Doerr for circulation through the Literary Bureau: “The position of the Bishops who form the opposition in the Council does not appear to be satisfactory, if one may judge from the attitude of the Catholic Governments and particularly of the Vienna Cabinet. Probably Count Beust has not yet made up his mind in this matter. He seems to have sent somewhat energetic remonstrances to the Ambassador in Rome, but it is obvious that Count Trautmansdorf has delivered them in a very diluted form. According to certain newspapers the Austrian Chancellor has also endeavoured to bring about a common action of the Powers, while others report an incident which renders it doubtful whether any such attempt has been made. The French also maintain an attitude of exceptional prudence and reserve, and the Bishops would thus appear to stand well nigh alone.... The initiative must come from the Bishops themselves.”

Between the 6th and the 10th of April I wrote an[p. 31] article on the question of North Schleswig from the Minister’s instructions. This attracted great attention on its publication in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, principally on the ground that there seemed to be no occasion for its appearance at a time when the political horizon was absolutely clear. (It may possibly have arisen through a Russian reminder and approval of the pretended claims of Denmark.) The article was to the following effect: “It is a wilful falsehood to maintain that according to the peace of Prague the population of North Schleswig has to decide the question of the frontier. Prussia alone, and no one else, is authorised to do that. Moreover, the Treaty of Prague does not mention North Schleswig at all, but only refers, quite vaguely, to the northern districts of Schleswig, which is something quite different. The parties to the treaty were not called upon, and, as the wording selected by them proves, never intended to deal with any such conception as ‘North Schleswig,’ and have not even used that term. But the Danes and their friends have so long and so persistently endeavoured to make the world believe that paragraph 5 of the treaty stipulated for the cession of North Schleswig, that they have come to believe it themselves.

“The Prussians alone have to decide as to the extent of those districts. Prussia has no further political interest in negotiating with Denmark if the latter is not content with the concessions which the former is prepared to make. Finally, only Austria has a right to demand that the matter shall be settled in any form.... If Prussia and Austria,” so concluded the Minister’s directions, “now come to an understanding as to cancelling that paragraph of the treaty—probably[p. 32] on the basis of further concessions on the part of Prussia—absolutely no one has any right to object.” Two articles were to be written on this subject, one for the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, in which the reference to Austria was to be omitted, and one for the Spenersche Zeitung, which was to contain it.

April 12th.—The Count desires to have an article written for the Kölnische Zeitung, part of which he dictated to me. It ran as follows: “The Constitutionnel speaks of the way in which French manners are being corrupted by foreign elements, and in this connection it mentions Princess Metternich and Madame Rimsky-Korsakow. It would require more space than we can afford to this subject to show in its true light all the ignorance and prejudice exhibited by the writer of this article, who has probably never left Paris. Princess Metternich would not act in Vienna as she is represented by the Constitutionnel to have acted in Paris; and Madame Rimsky-Korsakow is not a leader of society in St. Petersburg. The contrary must be the case. Paris must be responsible if the two ladies so conduct themselves, and exercise such an influence as the French journal asserts they do. As a matter of fact the idea that Paris is the home and school of good manners is now only to be met with in other countries, in old novels, and amongst elderly people in the most remote parts of the provinces. It has long since been observed, and not in European Courts alone, that the present generation of Frenchmen do not know how to behave themselves. In other circles it has also been remarked that the young Frenchman does not compare favourably with the youth of other nations, or with those few countrymen of his own who have, far from[p. 33] Paris, preserved the traditions of good French society. Travellers who have visited the country at long intervals are agreed in declaring that the forms of polite intercourse, and even the conventional expressions for which the French language so long served as a model, are steadily falling into disuse. It is therefore quite conceivable that the Empress Eugénie, as a sensitive Spaniard, has been painfully affected by the tone and character of Parisian society, but it would show a lack of judgment on her part if, as stated by the Constitutionnel, she sought for the origin of that evil abroad. But we believe we are justified in directly contradicting that statement, as we know that the Empress has repeatedly recommended young Germans as models for the youth of France. The French show themselves to be a decadent nation, and not least in their manners. It will require generations to recover the ground they have lost. Unfortunately, so far as manners are concerned, all Europe has retrograded.”

From the 13th of April to the 28th of May I did not see the Minister. He was unwell, and left for Varzin on Easter Eve. It was said at the Ministry that his illness was of a bilious character, and was due to the mortification he felt at the conduct of the Lasker fraction, together with the fact that he had spoilt his digestion at a dinner at Camphausen’s.

On the 21st of May the Minister returned to Berlin, but it was not until seven days later that I was called to him. He then gave me the following instructions: “Brass (the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung) must not plead so strongly for the Austrians nor speak so warmly of the Government of Napoleon. In the case of Austria we have to adopt a benevolently expectant attitude, yet the appointment of Klaczko and his connection[p. 34] with the Ministry is for us a suspicious symptom. The appointment of Grammont to the French Foreign Office is not exactly agreeable to us. The Czechs must be treated with all possible consideration; but, on the other hand, we must deal with the Poles as with enemies.”

I afterwards asked as to his health. He said he still felt weak, and would not have left Varzin if things had not looked so critical in Parliament. As soon as matters were once more in order there, he would be off again, if possible on an early day, in order to undertake a cure with Karlsbad water, going to some seaside resort.

On being called to the Count on Whit Sunday I found him highly indignant at the statement of a correspondent of the Kölnische Zeitung, who reported that there was a scarcity of labour in the Spandau cartridge factory. “Therefore unusual activity in the preparation of war material!” he said. “If I were to have paid two visits to the King at Ems it would not cause so much anxiety abroad as thoughtless reports of this kind. Please go to Wehrmann and let him ascertain at the Ministry of War if they are responsible for that article, and if possible get them to insert a correction in the Kölnische Zeitung or in the Norddeutsche, as it must appear in an influential paper.”

A diary entry on an undated slip of paper, but written in May: “Bohlen yesterday bantered Bucher about his ‘Easter mission,’ which appears to have been to Spain.”

On the 8th of June the Minister again left Berlin for Varzin.

Immediately on the commencement of the difficulties with France respecting the election to the Spanish throne of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern, letters[p. 35] and telegrams began to arrive which were forwarded by Bucher under instructions from the Chief. These consisted in part of short paragraphs and drafts of articles, as well as some complete articles which only required to be retouched in the matter of style, or to have references inserted with regard to matters of fact. These directions accumulated, but owing to the spirit and energy inspired by the consciousness that we were on the eve of great events, and that it was an honour to co-operate in the work, they were promptly dealt with, almost all being disposed of on the day of their arrival. I here reproduce some of these instructions, the order of the words and expressions in the deciphered telegrams being slightly altered, while the remainder are given exactly as they reached me.

July 7th, evening.—A telegram to me from Varzin: “The semi-official organs should indicate that this does not seem to be the proper time for a discussion of the succession to the Spanish throne, as the Cortes, who are alone entitled to decide the question, have not yet spoken. German Governments have always respected Spanish independence in such matters, and will do so in future, as they have no claim or authority to interfere and lay down regulations for the Spaniards. Then, in the non-official press, great surprise should be expressed at the presumption of the French, who have discussed the question very fully in the Chamber, speaking as if that assembly had a right to dispose of the Spanish throne, and apparently forgetting that such a course was as offensive to Spanish national pride as it was conducive to the encouragement of Republican tendencies. This may be safely construed into a further proof of the false direction which the personal régime is taking. It would appear as if the Emperor, who has instigated this[p. 36] action, wanted to see the outbreak of a new war of succession.”

A letter from Bucher, which was handed to me on the evening of the 8th of July, further developed the idea contained in the last sentence of the foregoing telegram. This letter ran: “Previous to 1868 Eugénie was pleased to play the part of an obedient subject to Isabella, and since the September revolution that of a gracious protectress. She unquestionably arranged the farce of the abdication, and now, in her rage, she incites her consort and the Ministers. As a member of a Spanish party she would sacrifice the peace and welfare of Europe to the intrigues and aspirations of a corrupt dynasty.

“Please see that this theme, a new war of succession in the nineteenth century, is thoroughly threshed out in the press. The subject is inviting, especially in the hands of a correspondent disposed to draw historical parallels, and more particularly parallels ex averso. Have the French not had experience enough of Spain with Louis XIV. and Napoleon, and with the Duc d’Angoulême’s campaign for the execution of the decrees of the Verona Congress? Have they not excited sufficient hatred by all those wars and by the Spanish marriage of 1846?

“Bring personal influence to bear as far as possible on the editors who have been intimidated by the Stock Exchange, representing to them that if the German press takes up a timid and hesitating attitude in presence of the rhodomontades of the French, the latter will become more insolent and put forward intolerable demands in other questions affecting Germany still more closely. A cool and determined attitude, with a touch of contempt for those excited gentlemen who would like to slaughter[p. 37] somebody, but do not exactly know whom, would be the most fitting means for putting an end to this uproar and preventing serious complications.”

Bucher added: “Protestants were still sent to the galleys under the Spanish Government which was overthrown in 1868.”

Another communication of Bucher’s from Varzin of the same date runs: “The precedents furnished by Louis Philippe’s refusal of the Belgian throne on behalf of the Duc de Nemours in 1831, on the ground that it would create uneasiness, and by the protest which England would have entered against the marriage of the Duc de Montpensier to the sister of Queen Isabella, are neither of them very applicable, as the Prince of Hohenzollern is not a son of King William, but only a remote connection, and Spain does not border on Prussia.”

The following was a third subject received from Varzin on the same day: “Is Spain to inquire submissively at the Tuileries whether the King whom she desires to take is considered satisfactory? Is the Spanish throne a French dependency? It has already been stated in the Prussian speech from the throne that our sole desire in connection with the events in Spain was that the Spanish people should arrive at an independent decision for the maintenance of their own prosperity and power. In France, where on other occasions so much is said of national independence, the attempt of the Spanish people to decide for themselves has immediately revived the old diplomatic traditions which led to the Spanish war of succession 160 years ago.”

On the same day, the 8th of July, a telegram was also received from the Chancellor by the Secretary of State, and it was handed to me for my information. It was to[p. 38] the following effect: “I have now before me in the despatch of Count Solms the official text of the Duc de Grammont’s speech, and I find his language more brusque and presumptuous than I had anticipated. I am in doubt whether that is due to stupidity or the result of a decision taken beforehand. The probability of the latter alternative seems to be confirmed by the noisy demonstrations which will most likely render it impossible for them to draw back. I am reluctant to protest officially against Grammont’s speech on international grounds, but our press should attack it very severely, and this should be done in as many newspapers as possible.”

July 9th.—A telegram from Bucher to the Secretary of State, saying that the direction to the press to deal with Grammont’s speech in very strong language is not to apply to the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

Another telegram of the same date to Thile, which he brought to me: “Any one intending to summon a Congress to deal with a debatable question ought not first to threaten a warlike solution in case the opposite party should not agree to his wishes.”

Further, the Secretary of State handed me a telegram from Berlin to the Chancellor, which was returned by the latter with comments. I was to get these circulated in the non-official journals. The telegram was to the effect that Grammont had stated, in reply to an interpellation by Cochery, that Prim had offered the Spanish throne to the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern, (Remark: “He can do nothing of the kind. Only the Cortes,”) and that the Prince had accepted it. (Remark: “He will only declare himself after he has been elected.”) The Spanish people has not yet, however, expressed its wishes. (Remark: “That is the main point.”) The French Government do not recognise the[p. 39] negotiations in question. (Remark: “There are no negotiations excepting those between Spain and the eventual candidates for the throne.”) Grammont therefore begged that the discussion might be postponed, as it was purposeless for the moment. (Remark: “Very.”) The French Government would maintain the neutral attitude which they had observed up to the present, but would not permit a foreign Power to place a Prince upon the Spanish throne, (“Hardly any power entertains such an intention, except perhaps France,”) and endanger the honour and dignity of France. They trusted to the wisdom of the Germans, (Remark: “Has nothing to do with it,”) and to the friendship of the Spanish people. (Remark: “That is the main point.”) Should they be deceived in their hopes they would do their duty without hesitation or weakness. (Remark: “We also.”)

Bucher sent me a whole packet of sketches for articles:—

1. “If Spain records her decision to establish a government which shall be peaceful, and tolerant in religious matters, and which may be expected to be friendly to Germany, who is also devoted to peace, can it be in our interest to prevent the execution of that resolve, and for that purpose to take measures of doubtful legality? Shall we, because of a threat of war made in pursuit of an arbitrary and dynastic object, take steps to frustrate a reorganisation of Spanish affairs advantageous to Germany? Is it not rather an act of insolent presumption on the part of France to address such a demand to Germany? Obviously France lacks either the courage or the means to enforce her views at Madrid; and it appears from Grammont’s speech of the 4th of July that in her[p. 40] anger at what has happened in Spain she is prepared to throw herself upon Germany in a blind fit of rage. That speech is to a certain extent a declaration of war against the person of the Prince of Hohenzollern, in case he should decide to accept the offer of the Spanish people. France demands that Prussia shall undertake the office of policeman in case a German Prince who has attained his majority shows a disposition to meet the wishes of the Spaniards. For a North German Government to interfere with a citizen who should wish to exercise his right to emigrate and adopt the Spanish nationality would raise a very questionable point of law from a constitutional standpoint. Even if such a power existed, the dignity of Germany would demand that it should only be applied in her own interests. The calm consideration of those interests is not in the least affected by the warlike threats of a neighbouring State, which, instead of arguments, appeals to its 400,000 soldiers. If France lays claim in this manner to the guardianship of adjoining nations, the maintenance of peace can for the latter be only a question of time, which may be decided at any moment. On Grammont’s appointment to the French Foreign Office it was feared in many quarters that the choice by the Emperor Napoleon of a statesman who was only remarkable for his personal impetuosity and his hostility to Germany indicated a desire to secure for himself greater liberty in breaking the peace. Unfortunately the haughty and aggressive tone of the Duke’s speech is not calculated to remove the apprehensions entertained at that time. He is not a minister of peace, but rather the instrument of a personal policy which shrinks from no responsibility. In itself the question as to who is to be the ruler of Spain is not one for[p. 41] which Germany would go to war. But the French demand that the German Government, in opposition to its own interests, should put artificial difficulties in the way of the Spaniards manifests a depth of self-conceit which scarcely any government amongst the independent States of Europe could submit to at the present day. We seek no quarrel, but if any one tries to force one upon us he will find us ready to go through with it to the bitter end.”

2. In another article (there was too much material to be disposed of in one) the following considerations were to be developed. This was not to be communicated to the official organs, but either to the Kölnische Zeitung or the Spenersche Zeitung, while it was to be given in a curtailed form to Hahn’s Literary Bureau. “If the candidature of Alphonso had up to the present any prospect of success in Spain, it would have been most prejudicially affected by the foolish uproar raised in France, which stamped it with a French official character. No worse service could be done to that Prince than to represent him as a French candidate. Montpensier had already suffered under the reproach that he was a Frenchman. The Bourbons had formerly been imposed upon the Spaniards, and had proved themselves no blessing. The manner in which the succession to the throne is now discussed in France would offend a nation even less proud than the Spaniards.”

3. “Between the years 1866 and 1868, and particularly before the fall of Isabella, France schemed a great deal against Germany with Austria, Italy, and also with Spain. Those intrigues were set at nought by the Revolution of September, to which Count Bismarck referred when he said at that time in Parliament that[p. 42] the danger of war, which had been very imminent, had been dispelled by an unforeseen event. So long as France maintains her warlike intentions towards Germany, she will desire to see on the Spanish throne a dynasty favourable to those schemes, possibly an Ultramontane one, as in case of an attack on Germany it would make a difference of about 50,000 men to France whether she had a benevolent, or at least a neutral neighbour on the other side of the Pyrenees or one whose attitude might be suspected. It is true that France has nothing to fear directly from Spain if the French, who for the past eighty years have been unable to make up their own minds, and who cannot govern themselves, would give up the attempt to play the part of tutor to other nations. Let the period 1848–1850 in France be compared with that of 1868–1870 in Spain, and the comparison will not be to the advantage of the nation qui marche à la tête de la civilisation.”

4. “England is accustomed to look upon the Peninsula as a dependency of her own, and doubtless believes that her influence can be more easily made to prevail in a state of insecurity than under the rule of a powerful dynasty. It is not wise of the English to recall certain incidents of Spanish history, a course in which they are followed by the French newspapers. The Spanish version of the history of the wars against the First Napoleon is very different to the English one. In Buen Retiro every traveller is shown the site of a once prosperous porcelain manufactory, which was needlessly burned to the ground by the British allies of Spain.”

5. Still another subject. “Very pleased with the article in the Spenersche Zeitung (this was addressed to me). Please again call attention in a somewhat similar manner to the impetuosity of Grammont therein referred[p. 43] to. What is the real ground for all this alarm? A paragraph in the Agence Havas to the effect that the affair had been settled without the concurrence of the Cortes. It is probable that the French Government itself had this paragraph inserted, and it was, moreover, concocted in complete ignorance of the Spanish Constitution and of the laws governing the election of a King. This, which was the only new feature, was a barefaced invention. It had already been mentioned in all the papers that Prim’s speech of the 11th of June referred to the Prince of Hohenzollern, and that had caused no excitement in France. Is the present agitation then a coup monté? Does the French Government insist upon a ‘row’? Has Louis Napoleon chosen Grammont in order to pick a quarrel with us? At any rate he has been unskilful in his treatment of this question. The general moral to be drawn as often as possible is: the French Government is, after all, not quite so shrewd as people believe. The French have succeeded in many things with the assistance of 300,000 soldiers, and owing to that success they are regarded as immensely clever. Is that really so? Circumstances show that it is not.”

July 10th, evening.—Received further series of sketches and drafts for articles from Bucher, who acts as the mouthpiece of the Chancellor’s views and intentions.

1. For the Spenersche or Kölnische:—“Those foreign Powers that are not concerned in the differences respecting the Spanish throne are as desirous to maintain peace as Germany herself. Their influence will, however, be neutralised by Grammont’s ill-considered threats. Should the German Governments consider the security of our frontier to be seriously threatened, they would scarcely come to a decision without convoking Parliament.”

[p. 44]

2. “The French are running amuck like a Malay who has got into a rage and rushes through the streets dagger in hand, foaming at the mouth, stabbing every one who happens to cross his path. If France is mad enough to regard Germany as a fit object for a vicarious whipping, nothing will restrain her, and the result will be that she will herself receive a personal castigation.”

3. “The semi-official journals in Paris pretend that attention has been attracted there by the numerous cipher despatches exchanged between Berlin and Madrid, and that they have been clever enough to decipher them. We do not know whether many despatches have passed between the two capitals mentioned, but we remember a communication which was made to Parliament some time ago by Count Bismarck, according to which the cipher system of our Foreign Office is based on a vocabulary of about 20,000 words, each one of which is represented by a group of figures arbitrarily chosen. It is impossible to ‘decipher’ such a system in the same way as those based on an altered alphabet and other old methods. In order to read such a despatch, it is essential to have the vocabulary. Does the cleverness on which the Parisians pride themselves consist in having stolen the key to our ciphers? This would be in contradiction with the original statement that the Prince of Hohenzollern’s candidature first became known through a communication from Prim. It would, therefore, appear that the official press wants to clear the Government of the reproach of incapacity by a subsequent invention, acting, on the maxim that it is better to be taken for a rogue than a fool.”

4. “According to a private telegram from Paris to the Berliner Boersen Zeitung, our Ambassador there, together with the second Secretary of Embassy, left for[p. 45] Ems on receipt of a Note delivered to him immediately after the Cabinet Council at Saint Cloud. We have made inquiries in the proper quarter as to the accuracy of this report, and have received the following answer: Note delivered. ‘Not a shadow of truth. Werther’s journey was decided upon and announced in Paris long before the agitation began.’”

5. “As was already known, Prim intended this year, as on previous occasions, to visit Vichy. This would have led to a meeting between himself and the Emperor Napoleon and a discussion of the succession to the Spanish throne. It is also reported that the Prince of Hohenzollern was not indisposed to try confidentially to bring about an understanding with the Emperor. All this has been rendered impossible by the abrupt tone of the Duc de Grammont. As Prim’s visit to Vichy has long since been announced in the newspapers, and the near relationship as well as the personal friendship which hitherto existed between the Prince of Hohenzollern and the Emperor rendered both meetings probable, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the French Government, dreading insurmountable domestic difficulties, desires to inflame French vanity in favour of a war, which would at the same time promote the dynastic views of the Empress Eugénie.”

July 12th.—Received from Secretary Wollmann a note from Bucher in Varzin which is intended for me. It has been sent to the Secretary of State, in order that he should say whether there is any objection to its being used in the press. He has no objection, and so it goes to the newspapers. It runs as follows: “The Imparcial publishes a letter from Paris to the effect that the furious article in the Constitutionnel reproaching Prince Hohenzollern with his relationship[p. 46] to Murat, has been revised by the Emperor himself.”

In the evening the Minister returned. He is dressed in plain clothes and looks very well.

July 13th.—Called early to the Chief. I am to wait until a statement appears in the press to the effect that the renunciation of Prince Hohenzollern was in consequence of pressure from Ems, and then to contradict it. “In the meantime (said the Minister) the Norddeutsche should only say that the Prince’s present decision has not been altogether unexpected. When he accepted the throne which had been offered to him he had obviously not foreseen that his decision would occasion so much excitement in Paris. For more than thirty years past the best relations existed between Napoleon and the Hohenzollern family. Prince Leopold could not, therefore, have apprehended any antipathy to his candidature on the part of the Emperor. As his candidature suddenly became known after the Cortes had been adjourned till November, it may well have been assumed that there would be time enough in the interval to sound the Emperor as to his views. Now that this assumption (here the Chancellor began to speak more slowly as if he were dictating), which, up to the acceptance of the Crown by the Prince, was still quite legitimate, had proved to be partly erroneous, it was scarcely probable that the Prince would, on his own responsibility, be disposed to cope single handed with the storm which his decision had raised, and might yet raise, in view of the apprehensions of war of the whole European world, and the influence brought to bear upon him from London and Brussels. Even a portion of the responsibility of involving the great European nations, not only in one war, but possibly in[p. 47] a series of wars, would weigh very heavily upon a man who could not claim to have assumed it as part of the duty of the Royal office which he had already accepted. That was more than could well be expected of a Prince who only occupied a private position. It was the offensive tone of Grammont that alone prevented Prussia from exercising her influence with the Prince.”

The following is to be published in other papers: “It cannot be denied that a Spanish Government disposed to promote the cause of peace and to abstain from conspiring with France would be of considerable value to us. But if, some fourteen days ago, the Emperor Napoleon had addressed himself confidentially to Berlin, or indicated that the affair was attracting attention, Prussia, instead of adopting an indifferent attitude, would have co-operated in pacifying public opinion in Paris. The situation has been entirely altered through the aggressive tone of Grammont’s speech, and the direct demands addressed to the King, who is staying in privacy at Ems for the benefit of his health, unaccompanied by a single Minister. His Majesty rightly declined to accede to these demands. That incident has created so much indignation in Germany, that many people feel disappointed at Prince Leopold’s renunciation. At any rate, the confidence in the peaceful intentions of France has been so thoroughly shaken that it will take a considerable time to restore it. If commerce and trade have been injured by the evidence which has shown us what a den of brigands we have to deal with in France, the people of that country must fasten the responsibility on the personal régime under which they at present live.”

The Minister also desires it to be incidentally remarked in the non-official press that of the South[p. 48] German Courts those of Munich and Carlsruhe had given the most satisfactory declarations in this affair, while on the other hand that of Stuttgart had expressed itself evasively.

Finally, I am to communicate to one of the local papers that Count Bismarck has been sent for to Ems to consult with the King as to summoning Parliament. Breaking off a cure which he was undergoing, the Chancellor has remained in Berlin in order to await there the further instructions of his Majesty, or ultimately to return to Varzin. The Count then added: “Later on I will call for you several times, as there is something more to be prepared for the Norddeutsche. We shall now be shortly interrupted.” The Crown Prince arrived five minutes afterwards and had a long interview with the Minister.

July 14th.—Our newspapers to call attention to the loyal attitude of Würtemberg, “which in consequence of a misunderstanding has been represented in some journals as evasive.”

July 15th.—I am to send the following démenti to Wolf’s Telegraphic Agency for circulation: “The news published by the Spenersche Zeitung respecting the opening of Parliament is not quite accurate. It was proposed a week ago by the Chancellor while in Varzin that it should be convoked as soon as the Government Bills were ready for submission to it. His Majesty shares this view, and the Federal Council has accordingly been summoned for to-morrow, Saturday, morning to consider those measures.”

In the evening the Chancellor dictated an article for the Kreuzzeitung on the confusion by the public between personal and private proceedings of the King and his official acts. It ran as follows: “It appears[p. 49] from the Mazaredo pamphlet that the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern informed the King at Ems of his acceptance of the offer of the Spanish throne, probably towards the end of June. His Majesty was then at Ems for the purpose of taking the waters, and certainly not with the intention of carrying on business of State, as none of his Ministers had been summoned thither. As a matter of fact, only so much has become public respecting the King’s reply to the communication of the Hereditary Prince (it was in the form of a letter written in his Majesty’s own hand) that the Sovereign was not pleased at the news, although he did not feel called upon to offer any opposition. In the whole affair no State action of any kind has been taken. This constitutional aspect of the situation does not appear to have been properly appreciated up to the present in public discussions of the question. The position of the King in his private correspondence was confounded with his position as head of the State, and it was forgotten that in the latter capacity, according to the Constitution, the co-operation of the Ministry is necessary to constitute a State action. It is only the French Cabinet that appears to have thoroughly realised this distinction, inasmuch as it brought the whole force of its diplomacy to bear upon the person of the Sovereign, who was staying at a watering-place for the sake of his health, and whose private life was not protected by the usual etiquette, in order to force him under official pressure into private negotiations which might afterwards be represented as arrangements with the Government.”

July 19th.—About an hour after the opening of Parliament in the Royal Palace (1.45 P.M.) Le Sourd, the French Chargé d’Affaires, delivered Napoleon’s declaration of war at the Foreign Office.

[p. 50]

Towards 5 o’clock in the evening I was called to the Minister, who was in his garden. After searching for him for some time I saw him coming through one of the long shady alleys to the left which led to the entrance in the Königgrätzer Strasse. He was brandishing a big stick. His figure stood out against the yellow evening sunshine like a picture painted on a gold ground. He stopped in his walk as I came up to him, and said: “I wish you to write something in the Kreuzzeitung against the Hanoverian nobles. It must come from the provinces, from a nobleman living in the country, an Old Prussian—very blunt, somewhat in this style: It is reported that certain Hanoverian nobles have endeavoured to find pilots and spies in the North Sea for French men-of-war. The arrests made within the last few days with the assistance of the military authorities are understood to be connected with this affair. The conduct of those Hanoverians is infamous, and I certainly express the sentiments of all my neighbours when I put the following questions to the Hanoverian nobles who sympathise with those traitors. Have they any doubt, I would ask them, that a man of honour could not now regard such men as entitled to demand honourable satisfaction by arms whether their unpatriotic action was or was not undertaken at the bidding of King George? Do they not, as a matter of course, consider that an affair of honour with them is altogether out of the question, and should one of them be impudent enough to propose such a thing, would they not have him turned out of the house by the servants or eject him propriæ manu after having, of course, put on a pair of gloves to handle him with? Are they not convinced that such miscreants can only be properly described by the good old Prussian word[p. 51] Hundsvott (scurvy, infamous rogues), and that their treason has branded their posterity to the third and fourth generations with indelible disgrace? I beg them to answer these questions.”

Evening.—In an article in the Liberté of the 18th instant, that paper reminds Italy that she owes her liberation to France, and that in 1866 it was France who brought about the Italian alliance with the Berlin Cabinet. It then maintains that, in view of the seriousness of approaching events, Victor Emmanuel, with truly chivalrous sentiment, has not for a moment hesitated to assure the French of his unconditional support. With reference to this article our papers should observe: “Up to the present the French have played the part of masters to the whole world, and Belgium, Spain, and the King of Prussia have in turn experienced their arrogance. Their behaviour was somewhat like that of the Sultan towards his Khedive, it was a kind of megalomania based upon the bayonet. Their presumption is now beginning to waver, so they court the assistance of those good friends whom they pretend to have placed under obligations to them.”

The Minister subsequently dictated the following, to be worked up for the German newspapers outside Berlin, such as the Kölnische Zeitung, and for the English and Belgium journals: “According to confidential communications from loyal Hanoverian circles, amongst other decisive factors which led the French to the declaration of war, were the reports sent to Paris by Colonel Stoffel, the Military Plenipotentiary in Berlin. Stoffel’s information was, it appears, less accurate than abundant, as none of those who supplied him with it being prepared to forego the payments they received from him merely because they had nothing to say, they occasionally[p. 52] invented the news of which they warranted the correctness. The Plenipotentiary had, it is said, been informed that the arming of the Prussian infantry, both as regards rifles and ammunition, was at present undergoing a thorough transformation, and that consequently a moment so favourable as the present for attacking Prussia would hardly occur again, inasmuch as on the completion of this change the Prussian armaments would have been unassailable.”[4]

2. “It now appears to be beyond all doubt that the French Government was aware of the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern for months past, that they carefully promoted it and foolishly imagined it would serve as a means of isolating Prussia and creating a division in Germany. No trustworthy information has been received as yet as to whether and how far Marshal Prim had prepared the way for this intrigue, in agreement with the Emperor Napoleon. But doubtless that point will ultimately be cleared up by history. The sudden disappearance of Spain from the political field as soon as the differences between France and Prussia broke out gives matter for reflection and suspicion. It cannot but be regarded as strange that after the zeal shown by the Spanish Government in the matter of the Hohenzollern candidature had been raised to boiling point it should have suddenly fallen below zero, and that the relations of Marshal Prim to the French Cabinet should now appear to be of the most friendly character, while the Spaniards seem no longer to feel any irritation at the interference of France in their internal affairs.”

3. “Rumours were circulated this afternoon to the[p. 53] effect that the former French Military Plenipotentiary, Baron Stoffel, had been insulted in the street. On closer inquiry it was ascertained that some individuals who knew Stoffel followed him in the street, and on his reaching his house struck the door with their sticks. The police intervened energetically on the first report of this matter and have taken measures to prevent a repetition of such conduct and to provide that Baron Stoffel shall not be interfered with on his departure this evening. Excesses of this description are, however, highly reprehensible, even when they are confined to words. The former representatives of France are under the protection of international law and of the honour of Germany until they have crossed the frontier.”

July 21st.—Keudell asked me this morning if I knew Rasch, the journalist, and if I could say where he was now to be found, in Berlin or elsewhere. I replied that I had seen him in Schleswig in 1864, afterwards at a table d’hôte at the Hotel Weissberg, in the Dessauer Strasse, where he lodged at the end of February. I knew nothing more about him, but had heard that he was extremely conceited, almost to the point of madness—a political visionary who desired to convert the whole world to republicanism. I was not aware of his whereabouts in Berlin, but would make inquiries at Weissberg’s. Keudell told me to hunt him up and ask him whether he would go to Garibaldi and urge him to undertake an expedition against Rome, at the same time carrying him money from us. I pointed out that Rasch was perhaps too vain to keep his own counsel. Keudell consoled himself with the idea that he would doubtless prove a good patriot. I declined to treat with Rasch in the matter, as I could not speak to him in my own name but in that of the Foreign Office, and that could be better[p. 54] done by some official of higher rank, who would make a greater impression upon Rasch. Keudell seemed to recognise the justice of this view. I made inquiries and was able to report on the same evening that Rasch was staying at Weissberg’s.

Called to the Minister in the evening. He showed me an extract from the National Zeitung, and observed: “They say here that the English would not allow the French to attack Belgium. Well and good, but how does that help the Belgians if the protection comes too late? If Germany were once defeated (which God forbid!) the English would not be able to assist the Belgians in the least, but might, on the contrary, be thankful if they themselves remained safe in London.”

I am further to call attention to the “manner in which France is begging for help on all sides—that great warlike nation which makes so much parade of its victories, representing them as having always been won solely by the force of its own arms. They go begging (use that expression) to Italy, to Denmark, to Sweden, and above all to the German States, to whom they promise the same brilliant destiny which they have already prepared for Italy—political independence and financial ruin.”

Called up to the Minister again later. I am to secure the insertion of the following in the non-official German papers and in the Belgian and English press: “The English Government observe their neutrality in connection with the war that has now broken out in a liberal and conscientious spirit. They impartially permit both sides to purchase horses and munitions of war in England. It is unfortunate, however, that France alone can avail herself of this liberality, as will appear from a glance at the geographical position of the[p. 55] two countries and from the superiority of the French at sea. Then quote what Heffter (the book must be in the library) has to say on this kind of neutrality, and observe that the English jurists describe it more tersely as ‘fraudulent neutrality.’”

July 23rd.—Called to the Minister five times to-day. The press should urge the prosecution and seizure of Rothan, an Alsacian who speaks German, hitherto French Chargé d’Affaires at Hamburg, who has been a zealous spy and instrument of French intrigue in North Germany, and who is now understood to be wandering along the coast between the Elbe and Ems, as also that of the ex-Hanoverian officer, Adolf von Kielmansegg, respecting whom further particulars are to be obtained from the Ministry of the Interior. The Count further wants the press to give a list of the names of the Bavarian members of Parliament who voted for the neutrality of that State in the national war, mentioning their professions but without any further remarks. “Give it first in Brass,” (i.e., Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung,) he added. “You will find such a list amongst the documents. The complaints as to the manner in which England understands neutrality must be continually renewed. The English Government does not forbid the export of horses, though only France can avail herself of that facility. Colliers are allowed to load at Newcastle and to supply fuel for the French men-of-war cruising in the North Sea. English cartridge factories are working for the French army under the eyes of the Government. In Germany the painful feeling has become more and more widespread that, under Lord Granville, England, while nominally maintaining neutrality, favours France in the manner in which it is really observed.”

[p. 56]

About 11 P.M. I was again called to the Minister. The reports respecting the English coal ships to be at once sent by a Chancery attendant to Wolf’s Telegraphic Agency for circulation to the newspapers.

In this connection may be mentioned an Embassy report from London, dated the 30th of July, to the following effect: Lord Granville had asked the Ambassador if he had not stirred up the authorities in Berlin against the English Government. The reply was in the negative. The Ambassador had only carried out his instructions. Public opinion in Germany influenced the Government, just as the German press influenced public opinion. The manner in which neutrality was observed on the part of England had excited the greatest indignation in Germany. The action of the English Government, which indeed recognised that France was in the wrong, but failed to give expression to that conviction, was also bitterly resented there. Granville replied that once it had been decided to remain neutral that neutrality must be maintained in every respect. If the export of contraband of war were forbidden, the French would regard it as an act of one-sided hostility, while at the same time it would ruin English trade in the branches affected by such prohibition, and favour American manufacturers. For the present, every one in England approved of the maintenance of neutrality, and therefore in a general way no change was possible in these matters. At the same time, the English Government was ready, in case of complaints reaching them in an official way respecting any acts of illegality, to institute an inquiry into the facts and secure the punishment of the guilty parties. It did not seem impossible to prevent the supply of English coal to French men-of-war. Next Monday a Bill was to be[p. 57] submitted to Parliament for the amendment of the laws regulating neutrality. The report concluded as follows: “England is in many respects well disposed towards us, but will for the present remain neutral. If we make further attacks upon English public opinion through our official press in connection with these grievances, it will serve no purpose but to conjure up future difficulties. Granville is not what we might desire, but he is not prejudiced against us. He may become so, however, if he is further provoked by us. We can hardly succeed in overthrowing him, and if we did his probable successor would in all likelihood be much worse than himself.”

July 24th.—I am instructed by the Count to send an article to the Kölnische Zeitung respecting the Dutch coal question. He gave me the following information on this subject: “Holland asked us to again permit the passage of Prussian coal down the Rhine, and requested that a large transport of Rhenish coal intended for Holland should be allowed to pass the frontier. It was only to be used in factories, and the Government of the Netherlands would prohibit its re-exportation. Prussia willingly agreed to this, but shortly afterwards it was ascertained that foreign vessels were being loaded with coal in Dutch ports, and the Government of the Netherlands subsequently informed us that in promising to prevent the re-exportation they had overlooked the circumstance that their treaty with France did not permit this. Thereupon as a matter of course the export of Prussian coal to Holland was prohibited. In the interval, however, they seem to have secured a sufficient supply in Holland to provide the French fleet for a considerable time. That is a very[p. 58] suspicious method of observing the neutrality promised by the gentlemen at the Hague.”

Bucher brings me the following paragraph from the Chief, which is to be inserted in the Spenersche Zeitung, or some other non-official organ, and afterwards in the North German Correspondence: “In 1851 a literary gamin in Paris was commissioned to conjure up the Red Terror in a pamphlet, which proved very useful to the President Louis Napoleon, enabling him to escape from a debtors’ prison and ascend the Imperial throne. The Duc de Grammont now tries to raise the Spanish Terror in order to save the Emperor from the necessity of accounting for the hundred millions which he diverted from the State Treasury into his private purse. The literary gentleman in question was made a Prefect. What reward can Grammont have had in view?”

Evening.—The Minister wishes an article to be prepared for circulation in the German press describing the French and French policy under the Emperor Napoleon. This is to be first sent to the Spenersche Zeitung, while the Literary Bureau is to secure the insertion of the principal points in a condensed form in the Magdeburg papers and a number of the smaller journals to-morrow. The Count said (literally): “The French are not so astute as people generally think. As a nation they resemble certain individuals amongst our lower classes. They are narrow-minded and brutal,—great physical force, boastful and insolent, winning the admiration of men of their own stamp through their audacity and violence. Here in Germany the French are also considered clever by persons who do not think deeply, and their Ministers are regarded as great statesmen because of their insolent interference[p. 59] in the affairs of the whole world, and their desire to rule everywhere. Audacity is always impressive. People think their success is due to shrewd political calculation, but it is actually due to nothing else than the fact that they always keep 300,000 soldiers ready to back up their policy. That alone, and not their political intelligence, has enabled them to carry things with such a high hand. We must get rid of this fiction.... In political affairs the French are in the fullest sense of the word a narrow-minded nation. They have no idea how things look outside of France, and learn nothing about it in their schools. The French educational establishments, for the greater glory of France, leave their pupils in the crassest ignorance as to everything beyond her frontiers, and so they have not the slightest knowledge of their neighbours; that is the case with the Emperor, or at least he is not much better, to say nothing of Grammont, who is an ass (Rindvieh). Napoleon is ignorant at bottom, although he has been educated in German schools. His ‘Cæsar’ was intended to conceal that fact. He has forgotten everything. His policy was always stupid. The Crimean War was against the interests of France, which demanded an alliance or at least a good understanding with Russia. It was the same with the war in Italy. There he created a rival in the Mediterranean, North Africa, Tunis, &c., who may one day prove dangerous. The Italian people are much more gifted than the French, only less numerous. The war in Mexico and the attitude adopted in 1866 were blunders, and doubtless in storming about as they do at present the French feel conscious that they have committed another blunder.”

July 25th.—At 11 o’clock this morning Count[p. 60] Bismarck and his family took the Holy Communion at their residence. He asked whether any one in our bureau desired to join them, but no one offered to do so. I was for a moment tempted, but reconsidered the matter. It might look as if I wished to recommend myself.

Copies of the Benedetti draft treaty are sent to Auber (the French Press Agency) and Heide.

July 27th.—It is to be stated either in the Norddeutsche or the Spenersche Zeitung that secrecy respecting confidential communications between great States is, as a rule, more carefully observed and maintained than the public imagines. Nevertheless, the French misrepresentation of Prussia’s attitude in the affair of the candidature for the Spanish throne (in Grammont’s despatch of the 21st of July) obliged the authorities here to disregard these considerations of discretion. Benedetti’s proposal has therefore been published and it may be followed by other documents of the same description. The Count concluded his directions as follows: “We are at least entitled to tell the truth with discretion in presence of such indiscreet lies.”

Bucher brings me from the Minister the following sketch of a paragraph for the press: “The despatch of the Duc de Grammont, the full text of which now lies before us, is a desperate attempt to prove that the origin of the situation which they have themselves created was the Hohenzollern candidature, and to conceal the motive which they confessed on many other occasions—namely, the conquest by France of the left bank of the Rhine and of Belgium. The inconsistency of the whole assertion is made clear by the circumstance that the offer of the Spanish throne to the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern was first made in a letter dated[p. 61] the 14th of February of the present year. Therefore, there can be no connection between this offer and the conversations in March, 1869, between Benedetti and Von Thile, which were the outcome of aspirations or proposals frequently ventilated in the press (also with reference to Prince Frederick Charles). In 1851 the President Louis Napoleon succeeded in obtaining credence both at home and abroad for certain fictions, so long as that was necessary for the attainment of his object. The fiction which is now circulated, at a somewhat late hour, to the effect that the Prince of Hohenzollern was the candidate of Prussia is refuted in advance by the fact, which has been well known for a long time, that the Prussian Government as well as the officials of the Confederation, had absolutely no knowledge of, or connection with, the Spanish proposal. It was resolutely opposed by his Majesty the King, as the head of the Hohenzollern family, until last June, when at Ems he reluctantly withdrew his opposition when it was represented to him that otherwise Spain would fall into the hands of the Republicans. We find it difficult to understand what interest the French Government can have in circulating such lies now that war has actually broken out. The attempt of the Duc de Grammont to conjure up the spectre of a restoration of Charles V.’s monarchy can only be explained by the complete isolation of the French mind. That apparition had no sooner manifested itself than it vanished before the angry contempt of public opinion, which resented being supposed capable of such credulity.”

The Chancellor desires to see the following considerations reproduced in the evening papers: “The Benedetti document is by no means the only one dealing with the matter in question. Negotiations were also[p. 62] carried on by others, as, for instance, by Prince Napoleon during his stay in Berlin. Since French diplomacy was ignorant enough to believe that a German Minister who followed a national policy could for a moment think of entertaining such proposals, it had only itself to thank if it was befooled with its own schemes so long as such fooling appeared calculated to promote the maintenance of peace. Even those who pursue the most ignorant and narrow-minded policy must ultimately come to recognise that they have hoped for and demanded impossibilities. The bellicose temper which now prevails in Paris dates from such recognition. The hopes of German statesmen that they would be able to befool the French until a peaceful régime was established in France by some transformation of her despotic constitution have unfortunately not been realised. Providence willed it otherwise. Since we can no longer maintain peace it is not necessary now to preserve silence. For we preserved silence solely in order to promote the continuance, and, if possible, the permanency, of peaceful relations.”... The Minister concluded: “You can add, too, that the question of French Switzerland was also mentioned in the negotiations, and that it was hinted that in Piedmont they knew quite well where the French districts begin and the Italian districts leave off.”

July 28th.—I see the original of Benedetti’s draft treaty, and I am to receive a photographic copy of it similar to that which has been prepared for distribution amongst foreign Governments.

Bucher handed me the following sketch of an article, received by him from the Minister, which is to be inserted in some organ not apparently connected with the Government: “Those who now hold power in Spain[p. 63] declare that they do not wish to interfere in the conflict between Germany and France, because the latter might create internal difficulties for them. They allow Bonaparte to prohibit their election of the King of their own choice. They look on calmly with folded arms while other nations go to war over a difference that has arisen out of a question of Spanish domestic interest. We had formed quite another opinion of the Castilian gentilhomme. The Spanish temper seems to resemble that of Gil Blas, who wanted to fight a duel with the army surgeon but observed that the latter had an unusually long rapier.”

July 30th, 10 p.m.—The Minister desires that attention should be again called to the manner in which the French are looking about for foreign assistance, and he once more gives a few points: “France is begging in all directions, and wants in particular to take Italy into her pay. Here, as everywhere, she speculates upon the worst elements, while the better elements will have nothing to do with her. How does that harmonise with the greatness of the nation which ‘stands at the head of civilisation,’ and whose historians always point out that it was only defeated at Leipzig because its opponents were four to one? At that time they had half Germany, Italy, Holland, and the present Belgium on their side. To-day, when they stand alone, they go round hat in hand to every door, and seek mercenaries to reinforce their own army, in which they can therefore have but very little confidence.”

July 31st.—This morning received from Roland one of the photographic copies of the Benedetti draft.

[p. 64]

## CHAPTER II

DEPARTURE OF THE CHANCELLOR FOR THE SEAT OF WAR—I FOLLOW HIM, AT FIRST TO SAARBRÜCKEN—JOURNEY FROM THERE TO THE FRENCH FRONTIER—THE FOREIGN OFFICE FLYING COLUMN

On the 31st of July, 1870, at 5.30 P.M., the Chancellor, accompanied by his wife and his daughter, the Countess Marie, left his residence in the Wilhelmstrasse to take the train for Mainz, on his way to join King William at the seat of war. He was to be followed by some Councillors of the Foreign Office, a Secretary of the Central Bureau, two deciphering clerks and three or four Chancery attendants. The remainder of us only accompanied him with our good wishes, as, with his helmet on his head, he passed out between the two sphinxes that guard the door steps, and entered his carriage. I also had resigned myself to the idea of following the course of the army on the map and in the newspapers. A few days after the declaration of war, on my begging the Minister to take me with him in case I could be of use, he replied that that depended on the arrangements at headquarters. At the moment there was no room for me. My luck, however, soon improved.

On the evening of the 6th of August a telegram was[p. 65] received at the Ministry giving news of the victory at Wörth. Half an hour later I took the good tidings still fresh and warm to a group of acquaintances who waited in a restaurant to hear how things were going. Everybody knows how willingly Germans celebrate the receipt of good news. My tidings were very good indeed, and many (perhaps most) of my friends celebrated them too long. The result was that next morning I was still in bed when the Foreign Office messenger Lorenz brought me a copy of a telegraphic despatch, according to which I was to start for headquarters immediately. Privy Councillor Hepke wrote: “Dear Doctor,—Get ready to leave for headquarters in the course of the day.” The telegram ran as follows: “Mainz, 6th of August, 7.36 P.M. Let Dr. Busch come here and bring with him a Correspondent for the National Zeitung and one for the Kreuzzeitung. Bismarck.” Hepke allowed me to select these correspondents.

I had therefore after all attained to the very height of good fortune. In a short time I had provided for all essentials, and by midday I had received my pass legitimation, and free ticket for all military trains. That evening a little after 8 o’clock I left Berlin together with the two correspondents whom the Minister wished to accompany me, namely, Herr von Ungarn-Sternberg, for the Kreuzzeitung, and Professor Constantine Roeszler for the National Zeitung. In the beginning we travelled first class, afterwards third, and finally in a freight car. There were numerous long halts, which in our impatience seemed still longer. It was only at 6 o’clock on the morning of the 9th of August that we reached Frankfurt. As we had to wait here for some hours we had time to inquire where the headquarters were now established. The local Commandant was unable to inform us, nor[p. 66] could the Telegraph Director say anything positive on the subject. He thought they might be still in Homburg, but more probably they had moved on to Saarbrücken.

It was midday before we again started, in a goods train, by way of Darmstadt, past the Odenwald, whose peaks were covered with heavy white fog, by Mannheim and towards Neustadt. As we proceeded our pace became gradually slower, and the stoppages, which were occasioned by seemingly endless lines of carriages transporting troops, became more and more frequent. Wherever a pause occurred in the rush of this onward wave of modern national migration, crowds hurried to the train, cheering and flourishing their hats and handkerchiefs. Food and drink were brought to the soldiers by people of all sorts and conditions, including poor old women—needy but good-hearted creatures whose poverty only allowed them to offer coffee and dry black bread.

We crossed the Rhine during the night. As day began to break we noticed a well-dressed gentleman lying near us on the floor who was speaking English to a man whom we took to be his servant. We discovered that he was a London banker named Deichmann. He also was anxious to get to headquarters in order to beg Roon’s permission to serve as a volunteer in a cavalry regiment, for which purpose he had brought his horses with him. The line being blocked near Hosbach, on Deichmann’s advice we took a country cart to Neustadt, a little town which was swarming with soldiers—Bavarian riflemen, Prussian Red Hussars, Saxon and other troops.

It was here that we took our first warm meal since our departure from Berlin. Hitherto we had had to content ourselves with cold meat, while at night our[p. 67] attempts to sleep on the bare wooden benches with a portmanteau for a pillow were not particularly successful. However, we were proceeding to the seat of war, and I had experienced still greater discomforts on a tour of far less importance.

After a halt of one hour at Neustadt, the train crossed the Hardt through narrow valleys and a number of tunnels, passing the defile in which Kaiserslautern lies. From this point until we reached Homburg it poured in torrents almost without cessation, so that when we arrived at that station at 10 o’clock the little place seemed to be merely a picture of night and water. As we stepped out of the train and waded through swamp and pool with our luggage on our shoulders, we stumbled over the rails and rather felt than saw our way to the inn “Zur Post.” There we found every bed occupied and not a mouthful left to eat. We ascertained however, that had even the conditions been more favourable we could not have availed ourselves of them, as we were informed that the Count had gone on with the King, and was at that moment probably in Saarbrücken. There was no time to be lost if we were to overtake him before he left Germany.

It was far from pleasant to have to turn out once more into the deluge, but we were encouraged to take our fate philosophically by considering the still worse fate of others. In the tap-room of the “Post” the guests slept on chairs enveloped in a thick steam redolent of tobacco, beer, and smoking lamps and the still more pungent odour of damp clothes and leather. In a hollow near the station we saw the watchfire of a large camp half quenched by the rain—Saxon countrymen of ours, if we were rightly informed. While wading our way back to the train we caught the gleam[p. 68] of the helmets and arms of a Prussian battalion which stood in the pouring rain opposite the railway hotel. Thoroughly drenched and not a little tired, we at length found shelter in a waggon, where Deichmann cleared a corner of the floor on which we too could lie, and found a few handfuls of straw to serve us as a pillow. My other two companions were not so fortunate. They had to manage as best they could on the top of boxes and packages with the postmen and transport soldiers. It was evident that the poor Professor, who had grown very quiet, was considerably affected by these hardships.

About 1 o’clock the train set itself slowly in motion. By daybreak, after several stoppages, we reached the outskirts of a small town with a beautiful old church. A mill lay in the valley through which we could also see the windings of the road that led to Saarbrücken. We were told that this town was only two or three miles off, so that we were near our journey’s end. Our locomotive, however, seemed to be quite out of breath, and as the headquarters might at any moment leave Saarbrücken and cross the frontier, where we could get no railway transport and in all probability no other means of conveyance, our impatience and anxiety increased, and our tempers were not improved by a clouded sky and drizzling rain. Having waited in vain nearly two hours for the train to start, Deichmann again came to our rescue. After a short disappearance he returned with a miller who had arranged to carry us to the town in his own trap. The prudent fellow, however, made Deichmann promise that the soldiers should not take his horses from him.

During the drive the miller told us that the Prussians were understood to have already pushed on their outposts as far as the neighbourhood of Metz. Between 9 and 10[p. 69] o’clock we reached Sanct Johann, a suburb of Saarbrücken, where we noticed very few signs of the French cannonade a few days ago, although it otherwise presented a lively and varied picture of war times. A huddled and confused mass of canteen carts, baggage waggons, soldiers on horse and foot, and ambulance attendants with their red crosses, &c., filled the streets. Some Hessian dragoon and artillery regiments marched through, the cavalrymen singing, “Morgenroth leuchtest mir zum fruehen Tod!” (Dawn, thou lightest me to an early grave).

At the hotel where we put up I heard that the Chancellor was still in the town, and lodged at the house of a merchant and manufacturer named Haldy. I had therefore missed nothing by all our delays, and had fortunately at length reached harbour. Not a minute too soon, however, as on going to report my arrival I was informed by Count Bismarck-Bohlen, the Minister’s cousin, that they intended to move on shortly after midday. I bade good-bye to my companions from Berlin, as there was no room for them in the Chancellor’s suite, and also to our London friend, whose patriotic offer General Roon was regretfully obliged to decline. After providing for the safety of my luggage, I presented myself to the Count, who was just leaving to call upon the King. I then went to the Bureau to ascertain if I could be of any assistance. There was plenty to do. Every one had his hands full, and I was immediately told off to make a translation for the King of Queen Victoria’s Speech from the Throne, which had just arrived. I was highly interested by a declaration contained in a despatch to St. Petersburg, which I had to dictate to one of our deciphering clerks, although at the time I could not quite understand it. It was to the[p. 70] effect that we should not be satisfied with the mere fall of Napoleon.

That looked like a foreshadowing of some miracle.

Strassburg! and perhaps the Vosges as our frontier! Who could have dreamed of it three weeks before?

In the meantime the weather had cleared up. Shortly before one o’clock, under a broiling sun, three four-horse carriages drew up before our door, with soldiers riding as postilions. One was for the Chancellor, another for the Councillors and Count Bismarck-Bohlen, and the third for the Secretaries and Decipherers. The two Councillors and the Count having decided to ride, I took a place in their carriage, as I also did subsequently whenever they went on horseback. Five minutes later we crossed the stream and entered the Saarbrücken high road, which led past the battle-field of the 6th of August. Within half an hour of our departure from Sanct Johann we were on French soil. There were still many traces of the sanguinary struggle that had raged there five days ago—branches torn from the trees by artillery fire, fragments of accoutrements and uniforms, the crops trampled into the earth, broken wheels, pits dug in the ground by exploding shells, and small wooden crosses roughly tied together, probably marking the graves of officers and others. So far as one could observe all the dead had been already buried.

Here at the commencement of our journey through France I will break off my narrative for a while in order to say a few words about the Foreign Office Field Bureau and the way in which the Chancellor and his people travelled, lodged, worked and lived. The Minister had selected to accompany him Herr Abeken and Herr von Keudell, Count Hatzfeldt, who had previously spent several years at the Embassy in Paris, and Count[p. 71] Bismarck-Bohlen, all four Privy Councillors of Legation. After these came the Geheim-Sekretär, Bölsing, of the Centralbureau, the two deciphering clerks, Willisch and St. Blanquart, and finally myself. At Ferrières our list of Councillors was completed by Lothar Bucher, and a new deciphering clerk, Herr Wiehr, also joined us. At Versailles the number was further increased by Herr von Holstein, subsequently Councillor of Embassy, the young Count Wartensleben, and Privy Councillor Wagner, the latter, however, not being employed on Foreign Office work. Herr Bölsing who had fallen ill, was replaced by Geheim-Sekretär Wollmann, and the accumulation of work afterwards required a fourth deciphering clerk. Our “Chief,” as the Chancellor was usually called by the staff, had kindly arranged that all his fellow-workers, Secretaries as well as Councillors, should in a certain sense be members of his household. When circumstances permitted we lodged in the same house, and had the honour of dining at his table.

Throughout the whole war the Chancellor wore uniform. It was generally the well-known undress of the yellow regiment of heavy Landwehr cavalry. During the early months of the campaign he as a rule only wore the Commander’s Cross of the Order of the Red Eagle, to which he afterwards added the Iron Cross. I only saw him a couple of times in a dressing gown. That was at Versailles, when he was unwell, the only time, as far as I know, that anything ailed him throughout the whole war. When travelling he was usually accompanied in the carriage by Herr Abeken, but on some occasions he took me with him for several days in succession. He was very easy to please in the matter of his quarters, and was willing to put up with[p. 72] the most modest shelter when better was not to be had. Indeed, it once happened that there was no bedstead and that his bed had to be made upon the floor.

Our carriages usually followed immediately after those of the King’s suite. We started generally about 10 o’clock in the morning, and sometimes covered as much as sixty kilometres in the day. On reaching our quarters for the night our first duty was to set about preparing an office, in which there was seldom any lack of work, especially when we had the Field Telegraph at our disposal. When communications were thus established, the Chancellor again became what, with short intervals, he had been throughout this entire period, namely, the central figure of the whole civilised European world. Even in those places where we only stayed for one night he, incessantly active himself, kept his assistants almost continuously engaged until a late hour. Messengers were constantly going and coming with telegrams and letters. Councillors were drawing up notes, orders and directions under instructions from their chief, and these were being copied, registered, ciphered and deciphered in the Chancellerie. Reports, questions, newspaper articles, &c., streamed in from every direction, most of them requiring instant attention.

Never, perhaps, was the well nigh superhuman power of work shown by the Chancellor, his creative, receptive and critical activity, his ability to deal with the most difficult problems, always finding the right and the only solution, more strikingly evident than during this period. The inexhaustible nature of his powers was all the more astounding, as he took but little sleep. Except when a battle was expected and he rose at daybreak to join the King and the army, the[p. 73] Chancellor rose rather late, as had been his custom at home, usually about 10 o’clock. On the other hand, he spent the night at work, and only fell asleep as daylight began to appear. He was often hardly out of bed and dressed before he commenced work again, reading despatches and making notes upon them, looking through newspapers, giving instructions to his Councillors and others, and setting them their various tasks, or even writing or dictating. Later on there were visits to be received, audiences to be granted, explanations to be given to the King. Then followed a further study of despatches and maps, the correction of articles, drafts hurriedly prepared with his well-known big pencil, letters to be written, information to be telegraphed, or published in the newspapers, and in the midst of it all the reception of visitors who could not be refused a hearing yet must occasionally have been unwelcome. It was only after 2, or even 3 o’clock, in places where we made a longer stay, that the Chancellor allowed himself a little recreation by taking a ride in the neighbourhood. On his return he set to work again, continuing until dinner time, between 5.30 and 6 P.M. In an hour and a half at latest, he went back to his writing-desk, where he frequently remained till midnight.

In his manner of taking his meals, as in his sleep, the Count differed from the general run of mankind. Early in the day he took a cup of tea and one or two eggs, and from that time until evening he, as a rule, tasted nothing more. He seldom took any luncheon and rarely came to tea, which was usually served between 10 and 11 at night. With some exceptions, he therefore had practically but one meal in the twenty-four hours, but, like Frederick the Great, he[p. 74] then ate with appetite. Diplomats are proverbially fond of a good table, being scarcely surpassed in this respect by the clergy. It is part of their business, as they often have important guests who, for one reason or another, must be put in good humour, and it is universally recognised that nothing is better calculated to that end than a well-filled cellar and a dinner which shows the skill of a highly trained chef. Count Bismarck also kept a good table, which, when circumstances permitted, became quite excellent. That was the case for instance at Reims, Meaux, Ferrières and Versailles, where the genius of our cook in the Commissariat uniform created breakfasts and dinners that made any one accustomed to a homely fare feel, as he did justice to them, that he was at length resting in Abraham’s bosom, particularly when some specially fine brand of champagne was added to the other gracious gifts of Providence. During the last five months our table was also enriched by presents from home where, as was only right and proper, our people showed how fondly they remembered the Chancellor, by sending him plentiful supplies of good things, both fluid and solid, geese, venison, fish, pheasants, monumental pastry, excellent beer, rare wines, and other acceptable delicacies.

At first only the Councillors wore uniform, Herr von Keudell that of the Cuirassiers, and Count Bismarck-Bohlen that of the Dragoon Guards, while Count Hatzfeldt and Herr Abeken wore the undress uniform of the Foreign Office. It was afterwards suggested that the whole of the Minister’s personnel, with the exception of the two gentlemen first mentioned, who were also officers, should be allowed the same privilege. The Chief gave his consent, so the people of Versailles[p. 75] had an opportunity of seeing our Chancery attendants in a dark blue tunic with two rows of buttons, black collar trimmed with velvet, and a cap of the same colour, while our Councillors, Secretaries and Decipherers carried swords with a gold sword-knot. The elderly Privy Councillor Abeken, who could make his horse prance as proudly as any cavalry officer, looked wonderfully warlike in this costume, in which, I fancy, he delighted not a little. It was to him just as great a pleasure to show off in all this military bravery as it had been to travel through the Holy Land dressed up as an Oriental, although he did not understand a word of Turkish or Arabic.

[p. 76]

## CHAPTER III

FROM THE FRONTIER TO GRAVELOTTE

In the preceding chapter I broke off my narrative at the French frontier. We recognised that we had crossed it by the notices posted in the villages, “Département de la Moselle.” The white roads were thronged with conveyances, and in every hamlet troops were billeted. In these hilly and partially wooded districts we saw small camps being pitched here and there. After about two hours’ drive we reached Forbach, which we passed through without stopping. In the streets through which we drove the signboards were almost entirely French, although the names were chiefly German. Some of the inhabitants who were standing at their doors greeted us in passing. Most of them, however, looked sulky, which, although it did not add to their beauty, was natural enough, as they had evidently plenty of soldiers to provide quarters for. The windows were all full of Prussians in blue uniforms. We thus jogged on, up hill and down dale, reaching Saint Avold about half-past four. Here we took up lodgings, Chancellor and all, with a M. Laity, at No. 301 Rue des Charrons. It was a one-storey house, but rather roomy, with a well-kept fruit and vegetable garden at the back. The proprietor, who was said to[p. 77] be a retired officer, and appeared to be well to do, had gone away with his wife the day before, leaving only a maid and an old woman, who spoke nothing but French. In half an hour we had fixed up our office and chosen our sleeping quarters. Work began without delay. As there was nothing to be done in my department, I tried to assist in deciphering the despatches, an operation which offers no particular difficulties.

At seven o’clock we dined with the Chancellor in a little room looking out on a small courtyard with some flower beds. The conversation at table was very lively, the Minister having most to say. He did not consider a surprise impossible, as he had satisfied himself during his walk that our outposts were only three-quarters of an hour from the town and very wide apart. He had asked at one post where the next was stationed, but the men did not know. He said: “While I was out I saw a man with an axe on his shoulder following close at my heels. I kept my hand on my sword, as one cannot tell in certain circumstances what may happen; but in any case I should have been ready first.” He remarked later on that our landlord had left all his cupboards full of underclothing, adding: “If this house should be turned into an ambulance hospital, his wife’s fine underlinen will be torn up for lint and bandages, and quite properly. But then they will say that Count Bismarck took the things away with him.”

We came to speak of the disposal of the troops in action. The Minister said that General Steinmetz had shown himself on that occasion to be self-willed and disobedient. “Like Vogel von Falkenstein, his habit of taking the law into his own hands will do him harm in spite of the laurels he won at Skalitz.”

There was cognac, red wine, and a sparkling Mainz[p. 78] wine on the table. Somebody mentioned beer, saying that probably we should be unable to obtain it. The Minister replied: “That is no loss! The excessive consumption of beer is deplorable. It makes men stupid, lazy and useless. It is responsible for the democratic nonsense spouted over the tavern tables. A good rye whiskey is very much better.”

I cannot now remember how or in what connection we came to speak about the Mormons. The Minister was surprised at their polygamy, “as the German race is not equal to so much—Orientals seem to be more potent.” He wondered how the United States could tolerate the existence of such a polygamous sect. The Count took this opportunity of speaking of religious liberty in general, declaring himself very strongly in favour of it. But, he added, it must be exercised in an impartial spirit. “Every one must be allowed to seek salvation in his own way. I shall propose that one day, and Parliament will certainly approve. As a matter of course, however, the property of the Church must remain with the old churches that acquired it. Whoever retires must make a sacrifice for his conviction, or rather his unbelief.” “People think little the worse of Catholics for being orthodox, and have no objection whatever to Jews being so. It is altogether different with Lutherans, however, and that church is constantly charged with a spirit of persecution, if it rejects unorthodox members. But it is considered quite in order that the orthodox should be persecuted and scoffed at in the press and in daily life.”

After dinner the Chancellor and Councillors took a walk in the garden from which a large building distinguished by a flag with the Geneva Cross was visible at a little distance to the right. We could see a[p. 79] number of nuns at the windows who were watching us through opera glasses. It was evidently a convent that had been turned into a hospital. In the evening one of the deciphering clerks expressed great anxiety as to the possibility of a surprise, and we discussed what should be done with the portfolios containing State papers and ciphers in such circumstances. I tried to reassure them, promising to do my utmost either to save or destroy the papers, should necessity arise.

There was no occasion for anxiety. The night passed quietly. Next morning as we were at lunch a green Feldjäger, or Royal Courier, arrived with dispatches from Berlin. Although such messengers usually make rapid progress, this one had not travelled any quicker than I had done in my fear to arrive too late. He left on Monday, the 8th of August, and had several times taken a special conveyance, yet he had spent nearly four days on the way, as it was now the 12th. I again assisted the Decipherers. Afterwards, while the Minister was with the King, I visited the large and beautiful town church with the Councillors, the chaplain showing us round. In the afternoon, while the Minister was out for a ride, we inspected the Prussian artillery park on a neighbouring height.

We dined at four, on the Chancellor’s return. He had ridden a long way in order to see his two sons, who were serving as privates in a regiment of dragoon guards, but found that the German cavalry had already pushed forward towards the upper reaches of the Moselle. He was in excellent spirits, evidently owing to the good fortune which continued to favour our cause. In the course of the conversation, which turned on mythology, the Chief said he could never endure Apollo, who flayed Marsyas out of conceit and envy, and slew the children of Niobe[p. 80] for similar reasons. “He is the genuine type of a Frenchman, one who cannot bear that another should play the flute better than, or as well as, himself.” Nor was Apollo’s manner of dealing with the Trojans to the Count’s taste. The straightforward Vulcan would have been his man, or, better still, Neptune—perhaps because of the Quos ego!—but he did not say.

After rising from table we had good news to telegraph to Berlin for circulation throughout the whole country, namely, that there were ten thousand prisoners in our hands on the 7th of August, and that a great effect had been produced on the enemy by the victory at Saarbrücken. Somewhat later we had further satisfactory particulars to send home. The Minister of Finance in Paris, evidently in consequence of the rapid advance of the German forces, had invited the French people to deposit their gold in the Bank of France instead of keeping it in their houses.

There was also some talk of a proposed proclamation forbidding and finally abolishing the conscription in the districts occupied by the German troops. We also heard from Madrid that the Montpensier party, some politicians belonging to the Liberal Union such as Rios Rosas and Topete, as well as various other party leaders, were exerting every effort to bring about the immediate convocation of the representative assembly in order that the Provisional Government should be put an end to by the election of a King. The Duc de Montpensier, whom they had in view as a candidate, was already in the Spanish capital. The Government, however, obstinately opposed this plan.

Early next morning we broke up our quarters and started for the small town of Falquemont, which we now call Falkenberg. The road was thronged with long[p. 81] lines of carts, artillery, ambulances, military police, and couriers. While some detachments of infantry marched along the highway, others crossed the stubble fields to the right, being guided by wisps of straw tied to poles stuck in the ground. Now and then we saw men fall out of the ranks and others lying in the furrows, fagged out, while a pitiless August sun glared down from a cloudless sky. Thick yellow clouds of dust raised by the marching of the troops followed us into Falkenberg, a place of about two thousand inhabitants, where I put up at the house of the baker, Schmidt. We lost sight of the Minister in the crowd and dust, and I only afterwards ascertained that he had gone on to see the King at the village of Herny. The march of the troops through the town continued almost uninterruptedly the whole day. A Saxon regiment, which was stationed quite near us, frequently sent their caterers to our baker for bread, but the supply was soon exhausted owing to the enormous demand.

In the afternoon some Prussian hussars brought in a number of prisoners in a cart, including a Turco who had exchanged his fez for a civilian’s hat. In another part of the town we witnessed a brawl between a shopman and one of the female camp-followers who had stolen some of his goods, which she was obliged to restore. So far as I could see, our people always paid for what they asked, sometimes doing even more.

The people where I lodged were very polite and good humoured. Both husband and wife spoke a German dialect, which was occasionally helped out with French words. From the sacred pictures which were hung on the walls they appeared to be Catholics. I had an opportunity later on of doing them a small service, when some of our soldiers insisted willy nilly upon[p. 82] a supply of bread, which the baker was unable to give them, as there were only two or three loaves in the shop. But I must do my countrymen the justice to say that they wanted the food badly, and were willing to pay for it. I proposed a compromise, which was accepted; each soldier was at once to get a good slice and as much as ever he required next morning.

On Sunday, the 14th of August, after luncheon, we followed the Minister to Herny. He had taken up his quarters in a whitewashed peasant’s house, a little off the High Street, where his window opened upon a dung-hill. As the house was pretty large we all joined him there. Count Hatzfeldt’s room also served as our office. The King had his quarters at the parish priest’s, opposite the venerable old church. The village consisted of one long wide street, with some good municipal buildings. At the railway station we found everything in the wildest confusion, the whole place littered with torn books, papers, &c. Some soldiers kept watch over two French prisoners. For several hours after 4 P.M. we heard the heavy thunder of cannon in the direction of Metz. At tea the Minister said: “I little thought a month ago that I should be taking tea with you, gentlemen, to-day in a farmhouse at Herny.” Coming to speak of the Duc de Grammont, the Count wondered that, on seeing the failure of his stupid policy against us, he had not joined the army in order to expiate his blunders. He was quite big and strong enough to serve as a soldier. “I should have acted differently in 1866 if things had not gone so well. I should have at once enlisted. Otherwise I could never have shown myself to the world again.”

I was frequently called to the Minister’s room to receive instructions. Our illustrated papers were to[p. 83] publish pictures of the charge at Spichernberg, and also to deny the statement of the Constitutionnel that the Prussians had burnt down everything on their march, leaving nothing but ruins behind them. We could say with a clear conscience that we had not observed the least sign of this. It was also thought well to reply to the Neue Freie Presse, which had hitherto been well disposed towards us, but had now adopted another policy, possibly because it had lost some subscribers who objected to its Prussophile tone, or perhaps there was something in the rumour that the Franco-Hungarian party intended to purchase it. The Chancellor, in giving instructions respecting another article of the Constitutionnel, concluded as follows: “Say that there never was any question in the Cabinet Council of a cession of Saarbrücken to France. The matter never went beyond the stage of confidential inquiries, and it is self-evident that a national Minister, inspired by the national spirit, could never have dreamt of such a course. There might, however, have been some slight basis for the rumour. A misunderstanding or a distortion of the fact that previous to 1864 the question was raised whether it would not be desirable to sell the coal mines at Saarbrücken, which are State property, to a company. I wanted to meet the expenses of the Schleswig-Holstein war in this way. But the proposal came to nothing, owing to the King’s objections to the transaction.”

On Monday, August 15th, about 6 A.M., the Minister drove off in his carriage, accompanied by Count Bismarck-Bohlen, and followed on horseback by Herr Abeken, Herr von Keudell, and Count Hatzfeldt. The rest of us remained behind, where we had plenty of work on hand, and could make ourselves useful in other ways. Several detachments of infantry passed through[p. 84] the village during the day, amongst them being three Prussian regiments and a number of Pomeranians, for the most part tall, handsome men. The bands played “Heil dir im Siegerkranz,” and “Ich bin ein Preusse.” One could see in the men’s eyes the fearful thirst from which they were suffering. We speedily organised a fire brigade with pails and jugs and gave as many as possible a drink of water as they marched by. They could not stop. Some took a mouthful in the palms of their hands, whilst others filled the tin cans which they carried with them, so that at least a few had some momentary relief.

Our landlord, Matthiote, knew a little German, but his wife only spoke the somewhat unintelligible French dialect of this part of Lorraine. They were thought not to be too friendly towards us, but the Minister had not observed it. He had only seen the husband, and said he was not a bad fellow. “He asked me as he brought in the dinner if I would try his wine. I found it very tolerable, but on my offering to pay for it he declined, and would only accept payment for the food. He inquired as to the future frontier, and expected that they would be better off in the matter of taxation.”

We saw little of the other inhabitants of the village. Those we met were polite and communicative. An old peasant woman whom I asked for a light for my cigar led me into her room and showed me a photograph of her son in a French uniform. Bursting into tears she reproached the Emperor with the war. Her pauvre garçon was certainly dead, and she was inconsolable.

The Councillors returned after 3 o’clock, the Minister himself coming in a little later. In the meantime we were joined by Count Henckel, a portly gentleman with a dark beard, Herr Bamberger, a member[p. 85] of the Reichstag whom Count Bohlen was accustomed to call the “Red Jew,” and a Herr von Olberg, who was to be appointed to an administrative position of some kind. We began to feel ourselves masters of the conquered country and to make our arrangements accordingly. As to the portion which we at that time proposed to retain permanently a telegram to St. Petersburg which I helped to cipher said that if it were the will of Providence we intended to annex Alsace.

We heard at dinner that the King and the Chancellor, accompanied by General Steinmetz, had made a reconnaissance which took them within about three English miles of Metz. The French troops outside the fortress had been driven into the city and forts on the previous day by Steinmetz’s impetuous attack at Courcelles.

In the evening, as we sat on a bench outside the door, the Minister joined us for a moment. He asked me for a cigar, but Councillor Taglioni, the King’s decipherer, was quicker than I, which was a pity, as mine were much better. At tea the Chancellor mentioned in the course of conversation that on two occasions he had been in danger of being shot by a sentry, once at San Sebastian and another time at Schluesselburg. From this we learned that he also understood a little Spanish. Passing from the Schluesselburg story, he came to relate the following anecdote, which, however, I was unable to hear quite clearly, and so cannot vouch whether it occurred to the Minister himself or to some one else. One day the Count was walking in the Summer Garden at St. Petersburg, and met the Emperor, with whom, as a Minister in high favour, his relations were somewhat unreserved. The[p. 86] two, after strolling on together for awhile, saw a sentry posted in the middle of a grass plot. Bismarck took the liberty to ask what he was doing there. The Emperor did not know, and questioned the aide-de-camp, who was also unable to explain. The aide-de-camp was then sent to ask the sentry. His answer was, “It has been ordered,” a reply which was repeated by every one of whom the aide-de-camp inquired. The archives were searched in vain—a sentry had always been posted there. At last an old footman remembered that his father had told him that the Empress Catherine had once seen an early snowdrop on that spot, and had given instructions that it should not be plucked. They could find no better way of preserving it than by placing a sentry to guard it, who was afterwards kept on as a matter of habit. The anti-German feeling in Holland and its causes was then referred to. It was thought to be partly due to the circumstance that Van Zuylen, when he was Dutch Minister at Berlin, had made himself unpleasant, and consequently did not receive as much consideration as he desired, so that he possibly left us in ill-humour.

On the 16th of August, at 9.30 A.M., we started for Pont à Mousson. On the excellent high road to that town we passed through several villages with fine buildings, containing the public offices and schools. The whole way was brightened by detachments of soldiers, horse and foot, and a great variety of vehicles. Here and there we also saw small encampments. A little after 3 o’clock we reached our destination, a town of about eight thousand inhabitants. Passing the market-place, where a regiment of Saxon infantry were bivouacked, some of them lying on the ground on bundles of straw, we turned into the Rue St. Laurent. Here the Chancellor,[p. 87] with three of the Councillors, took up their residence at the corner of Rue Raugraf in a little château overgrown with red creepers. The rest of the party lived a few doors off. I slept with Saint Blanquart in a room which was a veritable museum of natural history and ethnology, being filled with the most varied trophies from all parts of the world.

After a hasty toilette we returned to the office. On our way we observed a number of notices posted on the walls, one announcing our victory of the fourteenth, another respecting the abolition of the conscription, and a third by the Mayor, apparently in connection with some attacks by civilians on our troops, warning the inhabitants to maintain a prudent attitude. There was also an order issued by our people strictly enjoining the population to keep lights in their windows at night, and to leave the doors of houses and shops open, and to deliver up all arms at the Town Hall.

During the greater part of the afternoon we again heard the distant roar of cannon, and ascertained at dinner that there had been renewed fighting near Metz. Some one remarked that perhaps it would not be possible to prevent the French retiring to Verdun. The Minister replied, smiling, “That hardened reprobate Molk (Moltke) says it would be no misfortune, as they would then be delivered all the more surely into our hands”—which must mean that we could surround and annihilate them while they were retreating. Of the other remarks made by the Chancellor on this occasion I may mention his reference to the “small black Saxons, who looked so intelligent” and who pleased him so much on his paying them a visit the day before. These were either the dark green Chasseurs or the 108th Regiment which wore the same coloured uniform. “They seem to be sharp,[p. 88] ready fellows,” he added, “and the fact ought to be mentioned in the newspapers.”

On the following night we were awakened several times by the steady tramp of infantry and the rumbling of heavy wheels as they rolled over the rough pavement. We heard next morning that they were Hessians. The Minister started shortly after 4 A.M., intending to proceed towards Metz, where an important battle was expected either that day or the next. As it appeared probable that I should have little to do I availed myself of the opportunity to take a walk in the environs with Willisch. Going up stream we came upon a pontoon bridge erected by the Saxons, who had collected there a large number of conveyances, amongst others some carts from villages near Dresden. We swam across the clear deep river and back again.

On returning to the bureau in the Rue Raugraf we found that the Chancellor had not yet arrived. We had news, however, of the battle which had been fought the day before to the west of Metz. There were heavy losses on our side, and it was only with great difficulty that Bazaine was prevented from breaking through our lines. It was understood that the village of Mars la Tour was the point at which the conflict had raged most violently. The leaden rain of the chassepots was literally like a hailstorm. One of the cuirassier regiments, we were told, with the exaggeration which is not unusual in such cases, was almost utterly destroyed and the dragoon guards had also suffered severely. Not a single division escaped without heavy losses. To-day, however, we had superior numbers as the French had had yesterday, and if the latter attempted another sortie we might expect to be victorious.

It did not, however, appear certain, and we were[p. 89] accordingly somewhat uneasy. We could not sit still or think steadily, and, as in fever, we were oppressed by the same ideas, which returned again and again. We walked to the market and then to the bridge, where we saw the wounded, who were now gradually coming in, those with light injuries on foot and the others in ambulance cars. On the road towards Metz we met a batch of over 120 prisoners. They were for the most part small, poor-looking specimens; but there were also amongst them some tall, broad-shouldered fellows from the guards, who could be recognised by the white facings of their tunics. Then once more to the market-place and around the garden behind the house, where a dog lies buried under a tombstone with the following touching inscription:—

Girard Aubert épitaphe à sa chienne.
Ici tu gis, ma vieille amie,
Tu n’es donc plus pour mes vieux jours.
O toi, ma Diane chérie,
Je te pleurerai toujours.

At length, about 6 o’clock, the Chancellor returned. No great battle had taken place that day, but it was highly probable that an engagement would occur on the morrow. The Chief told us at dinner that he had visited his eldest son, Count Herbert, in the field ambulance at Mariaville, where he was lying in consequence of a bullet wound in the thigh, which he had received during the general cavalry charge at Mars la Tour. After riding about for some time the Minister at length found his son in a farmhouse with a considerable number of other wounded soldiers. They were in charge of a surgeon, who was unable to obtain a supply of water, and who scrupled to take the turkeys and chickens that were running about the yard for the use[p. 90] of his patients. “He said he could not,” added the Minister, “and all our arguments were in vain. I then threatened to shoot the poultry with my revolver and afterwards gave him twenty francs to pay for fifteen. At last I remembered that I was a Prussian General, and ordered him to do as I told him, whereupon he obeyed me. I had, however, to look for the water myself and to have it fetched in barrels.”

In the meantime the American General Sheridan had arrived in the town and asked for an interview with the Chancellor. He had come from Chicago, and lodged at the Croix Blanc in the market-place. At the desire of the Minister I called upon General Sheridan and informed him that Count Bismarck would be pleased to see him in the course of the evening. The general was a small, corpulent gentleman of about forty-five, with dark moustache and chin tuft, and spoke the purest Yankee dialect. He was accompanied by his aide-de-camp, Forsythe, and a journalist named MacLean, who served as an interpreter, acting at the same time as war correspondent for the New York World.

During the night further strong contingents of troops marched through the town—Saxons, as we ascertained next day. In the morning we heard that the King and Chancellor had gone off at 3 A.M. A battle was being fought on about the same ground as that of the 16th, and it appears as if this engagement were to prove decisive. It will be easily understood that we were still more excited than we had been during the last few days. Uneasy, and impatient for particulars of what was passing, we started in the direction of Metz, going some four kilometres from Pont à Mousson, suffering both mentally and physically, from our[p. 91] anxiety and suspense as well as from the sweltering heat of a windless day and a blazing sky. We met numbers of the less severely wounded coming towards the town, singly, in couples, and in large companies. Some still carried their rifles, while others leant upon sticks. One had the red cape of a French cavalryman thrown over his shoulders. They had fought two days before at Mars la Tour and Gorze. They had only heard rumours of this day’s battle, and these, good and bad as they happened to be, were soon circulated in an exaggerated form throughout the town. The good news at length seemed to get the upper hand, although late in the evening we had still heard nothing definite. We dined without our Chief, for whom we waited in vain until midnight. Later on we heard that he, accompanied by Sheridan and Count Bismarck-Bohlen, was with the King at Rezonville.

On Friday, August the 19th, when we ascertained for certain that the Germans had been victorious, Abeken, Keudell, Hatzfeldt and I drove to the battle-field. At Gorze the Councillors got out, intending to proceed further on horseback. The narrow road was blocked with all sorts of conveyances, so that it was impossible for our carriage to pass. From the same direction as ourselves came carts with hay, straw, wood, and baggage, while ammunition waggons and vehicles conveying the wounded were coming the other way. The latter were being moved into the houses, nearly all of which were turned into hospitals and were distinguished by the Geneva cross. At almost every window we could see men with their heads or arms in bandages.

After about an hour’s delay we were able to move slowly forward. The road to the right not far from[p. 92] Gorze would have taken us in little over half an hour to Rezonville, where I was to meet the Minister and our horsemen. My map, however, failed to give me any guidance, and I was afraid of going too near Metz. I therefore followed the high road further, and passing a farm where the house, barn and stables were full of wounded, we came to the village of Mars la Tour.

Immediately behind Gorze we had already met traces of the battle,—pits dug in the earth by shells, branches torn off by shot and some dead horses. As we went on we came upon the latter more frequently, occasionally two or three together, and at one place a group of eight carcases. Most of them were fearfully swollen, with their legs in the air, while their heads lay slack on the ground. There was an encampment of Saxon troops in Mars la Tour. The village seemed to have suffered little from the engagement of the 16th. Only one house was burned down. I asked a lieutenant of Uhlans where Rezonville was. He did not know. Where was the King? “At a place about two hours from here,” he said, “in that direction,”—pointing towards the east. A peasant woman having directed us the same way, we took that road, which brought us after a time to the village of Vionville. Shortly before reaching this place I saw for the first time one of the soldiers who had fallen in the late battle, a Prussian musketeer. His features were as dark as those of a Turco, and were fearfully bloated. All the houses in the village were full of men who were severely wounded. German and French assistant-surgeons and hospital attendants, all wearing the Geneva cross, were busy moving from place to place.

I decided to wait there for the Minister and the Councillors, as I believed they must certainly pass that[p. 93] way soon. As I went towards the battle-field through a side street I saw a human leg lying in a ditch, half covered with a bundle of blood-stained rags. Some four hundred paces from the village were two parallel pits about three hundred feet in length, and neither wide nor deep, at which the grave diggers were still working. Near by had been collected a great mass of German and French dead. Some of the bodies were half naked, but most of them were still in uniform. All were of a dark grey colour and were fearfully swollen from the heat. There might have been one hundred and fifty corpses in all, and others were being constantly unloaded from the carts. Doubtless, many had already been buried. Further on in the direction of Metz the ground rose slightly, and there in particular great numbers appeared to have fallen. The ground was everywhere covered with French caps, Prussian helmets, knapsacks, arms, uniforms, underclothing, shoes, and paper. Here and there in the furrows of a potato field lay single bodies, one with a whole leg torn away, another with half the head blown off, while some had the right hand stretched out stiffly pointing towards the sky. There were also a few single graves, marked with a chassepot stuck in the ground or with a cross made from the wood of a cigar box roughly tied together. The effluvium was very noticeable, and at times, when the wind came from the direction of a heap of dead horses, it became unendurable.

It was time to return to the carriage, and besides I had seen quite enough of the battle-field. I took another way back, but I was again obliged to pass further masses of the dead, this time all French. Near some of the bodies lay packets of letters that had been carried in[p. 94] their knapsacks. I brought some of these with me as a memento, amongst them being two letters in German from one Anastasia Stampf, of Scherrweiler, near Schlettstadt. These I found lying by a French soldier who had been stationed at Caen shortly before the outbreak of the war. One of them, in indifferent spelling, was dated “The 25th of the Hay Month, 1870,” and concluded with the words, “We constantly commend thee to the protection of the Blessed Virgin!”

It was 4 o’clock when I got back, and as the Minister had not arrived, we returned to Gorze. Here we met Keudell, who, with Abeken and Count Hatzfeldt had called upon the Chief at Rezonville. During the battle of the 18th instant, which was decided at Gravelotte, the Minister had, together with the King, ventured a considerable distance towards the front, so that for a time both of them were in some danger. Bismarck had afterwards with his own hands taken water to the wounded. At 9 P.M. I saw him again safe and sound at Pont à Mousson, where we all took supper with him. Naturally, the conversation turned for the most part on the last two battles and the resulting gains and losses. The French had fallen in huge masses. The Minister had seen our artillery mow down whole lines of their guards near Gravelotte. We had also suffered severely. Only the losses of the 16th of August were known up to the present. “A great many noble Prussian families will go into mourning,” the Chief said. “Wesdehlen and Reuss lie in their graves, Wedell and Finkenstein are dead, Rahden (Lucca’s husband) is shot through both cheeks, and a crowd of officers commanding regiments or battalions have either fallen or are severely wounded. The whole field near Mars la Tour was[p. 95] yesterday still white and blue with the bodies of cuirassiers and dragoons.” In explanation of this statement, we were informed that near the village referred to there had been a great cavalry charge upon the French, who were pressing forward in the direction of Verdun. This charge was repelled by the enemy’s infantry in Balaclava fashion, but had so far served its purpose that the French were kept in check until reinforcements arrived. The Chancellor’s two sons had also gallantly ridden into that leaden hailstorm, the elder receiving no less than three bullets, one passing through the breast of his tunic, another hitting his watch, and the third lodging in his thigh. The younger appears to have escaped unhurt. The Chief related, evidently with some pride, how Count Bill rescued two comrades who had lost their horses, dragging them out of the mêlée in his powerful grasp and riding off with them. Still more German blood was shed on the 18th, but we secured the victory, and obtained the object of our sacrifices. That evening Bazaine’s army had finally retired to Metz, and even French officers whom we had captured admitted that they now believed their cause was lost. The Saxons, who had made long marches on the two previous days, were able to take an important part in the battle near the village of Saint Privat. They now occupied the road to Thionville, so that Metz was entirely surrounded by our troops.

It appeared that the Chancellor did not quite approve of the course taken by the military authorities in both battles. Among other things he said that Steinmetz had abused the really astounding gallantry of our men—“he was a spendthrift of blood.” The Minister spoke with violent indignation of the barbarous manner in which the French conducted the war; they were said to[p. 96] have fired upon the Geneva cross and even upon a flag of truce.

Sheridan seemed to have speedily got on a friendly footing with the Minister, as I was instructed to invite him and his two companions to dinner on the following evening.

At 11 o’clock on the 20th of August the Chancellor received a visit from the Crown Prince, who was stationed with his troops about twenty-five English miles from Pont à Mousson on the road from Nancy to Châlons. In the afternoon some twelve hundred prisoners, including two carts conveying officers, passed through the Rue Notre Dame in charge of a detachment of Prussian cuirassiers. Sheridan, Forsythe and MacLean dined that evening with the Minister, who kept up a lively conversation in good English with the American general. The Chief and his American guests had champagne and porter. The latter was drunk out of pewter mugs, one of which the Minister filled for me. I mention this because no one else at table had porter, and the gift was particularly welcome, as since we left Saarbrücken we had had no beer. Sheridan, who was known as a successful soldier on the Federal side in the last year of the American Civil War, spoke a good deal. He told us of the hardships he and his companions had undergone during the ride from the Rocky Mountains to Chicago, of the fearful swarms of mosquitoes, of a great heap of bones in California or thereabouts in which fossils were found, and of buffalo and bear hunting, &c. The Chancellor also told some hunting stories. One day in Finland he found himself in dangerous proximity to a big bear. It was white with snow, and he had barely been able to see it. “At last I fired, however, and the bear fell some six paces from me. But it was not killed, and[p. 97] might get up again. I knew what I had to expect, and so without stirring I quietly reloaded, and as soon as it stirred I shot it dead.”

We were very busy on the forenoon of the 21st of August, preparing reports and leading articles to be forwarded to Germany. We heard that the bearer of a flag of truce who was fired upon by the French was Captain or Major Verdy, of Moltke’s general staff, and that the trumpeter who accompanied him was wounded. Trustworthy information was received from Florence to the effect that Victor Emmanuel and his Ministers had, in consequence of our victories, decided to observe neutrality, which up to that time was anything but certain. Now it was at last possible to estimate, at least approximately, the losses of the French at Courcelles, Mars la Tour, and Gravelotte. The Minister put them at about 50,000 men during the three days, of whom about 12,000 were killed. He added: “The ambition and mutual jealousy of some of our generals was to blame for the severity of our losses. That the guards charged too soon was entirely due to their jealousy of the Saxons who were coming up behind them.”

That afternoon I had some talk with one of the dragoon guards who had been in the charge on the French battery on the 16th. He maintained that besides Finkenstein and Reuss, the two Treskows were also dead and buried; and that after the battle one squadron had been formed out of the three squadrons of his regiment that had been in action, and one regiment out of the two dragoon regiments that had been engaged. He spoke very modestly about that gallant deed. “We had to charge,” he said, “in order to prevent our artillery being taken by the enemy.” While I was talking to him some Saxon infantry passed by with a batch of[p. 98] about 150 prisoners. I ascertained from the escort that after their long march the Saxons had fought in the battle near Roncourt and Saint Privat. Once they had charged with the bayonet and the butt ends of their rifles. They had lost a good many officers, including General Krausshaar.

As I entered the room that evening at tea time the Chief said: “How are you, doctor?”

“I thank your Excellency, quite well.”

“Have you seen something of what has been going on?”

“Yes, your Excellency, the battle-field near Vionville.”

“It is a pity you were not with us to share our adventures on the 18th.”

The Chancellor then went on to give us a full account of his experiences during the last hours of the battle and the following night. I shall give these and other particulars later on, as I heard them from the Minister. Here I will only mention that the King had ventured too far to the front, which Bismarck thought was not right. Referring to our men, the American General Sheridan said: “Your infantry is the best in the world; but it was wrong of your generals to advance their cavalry as they did.” I may further mention that Bohlen in the course of the conversation said to the Chancellor: “Did you hear how the Bavarian muttered when the result seemed doubtful—‘Things look bad! It’s a bad case!’—and was obviously delighted to think we were going to be beaten?” The Bavarian referred to was Prince Luitpold. The name of General Steinmetz then came up. The Chancellor said that he was brave, but self-willed and excessively vain. Small and slight of figure, when he came into the Diet he always stood near the President’s chair so as to be noticed. He used[p. 99] to attract attention by pretending to be very busy taking notes of what went on, as if he were following the debate with great care. “He evidently thought the newspapers would mention it, and praise his zeal. If I am not mistaken his calculation proved correct.”

On Monday, the 22nd of August, I wrote in my diary: “Called to the Chief at 10.30 A.M. He asked first after my health and whether I also had been attacked by dysentery. He had had a bad time of it the night before. The Count down with dysentery! God save him from it! It would be worse than the loss of a battle. Without him our whole cause would be reduced to uncertainty and vacillation.”

On the instructions of the Chief I sent the Kölnische Zeitung the translation of part of a confidential report according to which the Emperor Alexander was favourably disposed towards the French. I also wired to Berlin respecting the closing of some small telegraph offices the officials of which were required for the field service.

There is no longer any doubt that we shall retain Alsace and Metz, with its environs, in case of a final victory over France. The considerations that have led the Chancellor to this conclusion, and which have already been discussed in an academic way in the English press, are somewhat as follows:

A war indemnity, however great it may be, would not compensate us for the enormous sacrifices we have made. We must protect South Germany with its exposed position against French attacks, and thus put an end to the pressure exercised upon it by France during two centuries, especially as this pressure has during the whole time greatly contributed to German disorganisation and confusion. Baden, Würtemberg, and the other[p. 100] south-western districts must not in future be threatened by Strassburg and subject to attack from that point. This also applies to Bavaria. Within 150 years the French have made war upon South-west Germany more than a dozen times. Efforts were made in 1814 and 1815 in a forbearing spirit to secure guarantees against a renewal of such attacks. That forbearance, however, was without effect, and it would now also remain fruitless. The danger lies in the incurable arrogance and lust of power which is part of the French character, qualities that might be abused by every ruler—not by any means by the Bonapartes alone—for the purpose of attacking peaceful neighbours. Our protection against this evil does not lie in vain attempts periodically to soothe French susceptibilities, but rather in securing a well-defended frontier. France, by repeatedly annexing German territory and all the natural defences on our western frontier, has put herself in a position to force her way into South Germany with a comparatively small force before assistance can be brought from the north. Such invasions have repeatedly occurred under Louis XIV. and his successor, as well as under the Republic and the First Empire, and the sense of insecurity obliges the German States to reckon constantly with France. That the annexation of a piece of territory will produce bitter feelings amongst the French is a matter of no consequence. Such feelings would exist in any case, even without any cession of territory. Austria did not lose an acre of soil in 1866, and yet what thanks have we had? Our victory at Sadowa had already filled the French with hatred and vexation. How much stronger must that sentiment be after our victories at Wörth and Metz! Revenge for those defeats will continue to be the war cry in Paris even[p. 101] without any annexation, and will spread to influential circles in the provinces, just as the idea of revenge for Waterloo was kept alive there for decades. An enemy who cannot be turned into a friend by considerate treatment must be rendered thoroughly and permanently harmless. Not the demolition, but the surrender, of the eastern fortresses of France can alone serve our purpose. Whoever desires disarmament must wish to see France’s neighbours adopt this course, as France is the sole disturber of European peace, and will remain so as long as she can.

It is astonishing how freely this idea of the Chief’s now flows from one’s pen. What looked like a miracle ten days ago seems now quite natural and a matter of course. Perhaps the suggestion as to a German Empire which is understood to have been mentioned during the visit of the Crown Prince is also an idea of the same kind. Blessings follow closely upon each other’s heels. We may now regard everything as probable.

At dinner the Minister complained of the excessive frugality with which the principal officials of the Royal Household catered for the King’s table. “There is seldom any champagne, and in the matter of food also short commons is the rule. When I glance at the number of cutlets I only take one, as I am afraid that otherwise somebody else would have to go without.” These remarks, like similar hints given recently, were intended for one or other of the gentlemen from the Court, with a view to their being repeated in the proper quarter. The conversation then turned on the improper, not to say disgraceful, manner in which the French soldiers carried on the war. The Minister said they had killed one of our officers near Mars la Tour (Finkenstein, I believe it was) while he was sitting wounded by the[p. 102] roadside. One of the company maintained that he had been shot, but another said that an examination of the body by a doctor showed that the officer had been stabbed. The Chief remarked that if he had to choose, he should prefer being stabbed to being shot.

Count Herbert has been brought in from the Field Hospital, and a bed has been prepared for him on the floor in his father’s room. I was talking to him to-day. His wound is painful, but up to the present it does not appear to be dangerous. He is to return to Germany one of these days, where he will remain until he has recovered.

[p. 103]

## CHAPTER IV

COMMERCY—BAR LE DUC—CLERMONT EN ARGONNE

On Tuesday, August 23rd, we were to continue our journey westwards. Sheridan and his companions were to accompany us or to follow without delay. Regierungspräsident von Kühlwetter remained behind as Prefect; Count Henckel went to Saargemund, and Count Renard, a huge figure with a beard of corresponding amplitude, went to Nancy in a similar capacity. Bamberger, the member of Parliament, visited us again. I also noticed Herr Stieber on one occasion in the neighbourhood of the house at the corner of the Rue Raugraf, and as I was walking about the town to take a last look at the place before leaving, I saw the fine-drawn, wrinkled, clean shaven face of Moltke, whom I had last seen as he entered the Foreign Office in company with the Minister of War five or six days before the declaration of hostilities. It seemed to me that his features wore to-day an expression of perfect content and satisfaction.

On my return to the office I was much interested by a report of the views recently expressed by Thiers as to the immediate future of France. He regarded it as certain that in case of victory we should retain Alsace. The defeat of Napoleon would be followed by the loss[p. 104] of his throne. He would be succeeded for a few months by a Republic, and then probably by one of the Orleans family, or perhaps by Leopold of Belgium, who, according to the source from which our informant obtained his news (one of Rothschild’s confidants), was known on the best authority to be extremely ambitious.

We left Pont à Mousson at 10 o’clock. In the villages along the road the houses stood side by side as in a town. Most of them possessed handsome municipal buildings and schools, and some had seemingly ancient Gothic churches. On the other side of Gironville the road passes a steep hill, with a wide prospect of the plain beneath. Here we left the carriages in order to ease the load for the horses. The Chancellor who drove at the head of our party with Abeken also got out and walked for a quarter of an hour, his big boots reminding one of pictures of the thirty years’ war. Moltke walked beside him; the greatest strategist of our days striding along towards Paris on a country road near the French frontier in company with the greatest statesman of our time!

After we had returned to the carriages we saw a number of soldiers to the right putting up a telegraph line. Shortly after 2 o’clock we came to Commercy, a bright little town with about 6,000 inhabitants. The white blinds in the better class houses were for the most part drawn down, as if the occupants did not wish to see the hated Prussians. The people in blouses were more curious and less hostile.

The Chief, together with Abeken and Keudell, took up their quarters in the château of Count Macore de Gaucourt in the Rue des Fontaines, where a Prince von Schwarzburg had lodged, and which was now occupied by the lady of the house. Her husband was in the[p. 105] French army and was accordingly with his regiment in the field. He was a very distinguished gentleman, being descended from the old Dukes of Lorraine. There was a pretty flower garden near the house, and behind it was a large wooded park. I put up not far from the Minister’s quarters at No. 1 Rue Heurtebise, where I had a friendly and obliging landlord and an excellent fourpost bed. I called afterwards on the Chancellor, whom I found in the garden, and asked if there was anything for me to do. After thinking for a moment, he said there was, and an hour later I provided work both for the Field Post and the new telegraph line.

Amongst other things I wrote the following paragraph: “It is now quite clear that the Princes of the Orleans family consider that their time has come, as they expect to see the star of the Napoleons sink lower and lower. In order to emphasise the fact that they are Frenchmen, they have placed their swords in the present crisis at the service of their country. The Orleans lost their throne in great part through their own sluggishness and their indifference to the development of neighbouring States. They would now appear determined to regain it by energy, and to maintain their position by flattering French chauvinism, and love of glory and universal dominion. Our work is not yet done. A decisive victory is probable, but is not yet certain. The fall of Napoleon seems near at hand, but it is not yet accomplished. Even should it occur, could we, in view of the considerations already mentioned, rest content with it and accept it as the sole result of our exertions, could we feel confident of having attained our principal object, namely, to secure peace with France for many years to come? No one can answer that question in the affirmative. A peace with the Orleans[p. 106] on the French throne would be still more a mockery than one with Napoleon, who must already have had enough of ‘la gloire.’ Sooner or later we should be again challenged by France, who probably would be then better prepared and would have secured more powerful allies.”

Three reserve army corps are to be formed in Germany. One, and the strongest, near Berlin; one on the Rhine; and a third at Glogau in Silesia, in consequence of the equivocal attitude of Austria. That would be a purely defensive measure. The troops on the Rhine are to be commanded by the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg, those near Berlin by General von Canstein, and those at Glogau by General von Löwenfeld.

Towards evening the military band played before the residence of the King, the street urchins holding their notes for the musicians in the friendliest possible manner. The King had also stopped at Commercy during the war against the First Napoleon.

Counts Waldersee and Lehndorff, and Lieutenant-General von Alvensleben (from Magdeburg) were amongst the Chief’s guests at dinner. Alvensleben told us the story of a so-called “Marl-Major” who was accustomed to attribute all sorts of occurrences to geognostic causes. He reasoned somewhat in this style: “It follows from the character and conduct of the Maid of Orleans that she could only have been born on a fertile marly soil, that she was fated to gain a victory in a limestone country, and to die in a sandstone district.”

Speaking of the barbarous way in which the French conducted the war, Alvensleben said that they had also fired upon a flag of truce at Toul. On the other hand, an officer who for a joke rode along the glacis had a friendly chat with the gentlemen on the walls. The[p. 107] question whether it would be possible to take Paris by storm in spite of its fortifications was answered in the affirmative by the military guests. General Alvensleben said: “A great city of that kind cannot be successfully defended if it is attacked by a sufficiently numerous force.” Count Waldersee wished to “see Babel utterly destroyed,” and brought forward arguments in favour of that measure with which I was immensely pleased. The Minister, however, replied: “Yes, that would be a very good thing, but it is impossible for many reasons. One of these is that numbers of Germans in Cologne and Frankfurt have considerable sums invested there.”

The conversation then turned upon our conquests in France and those still to be made. Alvensleben was in favour of keeping the country up to the Marne. Bismarck had another idea, which, however, he seemed to think it impossible to realise. “My ideal would be,” he said, “a kind of German colony, a neutral State of eight or ten million inhabitants, free from the conscription and whose taxes should flow to Germany so far as they were not required for domestic purposes. France would thus lose a district from which she draws her best soldiers, and would be rendered harmless. In the rest of France no Bourbon, no Orleans, and probably no Bonaparte, neither Lulu (the Prince Imperial) nor the fat Jerome, nor the old one. I did not wish for war in connection with the Luxemburg affair, as I knew that it would lead to six others. But we must now put an end to all this. However, we must not sell the bear’s skin before we have killed it. I confess I am superstitious in that respect.” “Never mind,” said Count Waldersee, “our bear is already badly hit.”

The Chief then again referred to the royal table and to the frugal manner in which food was doled out[p. 108] to the guests, his remarks being probably intended for Count Lehndorff, who was expected to repeat them. “We had cutlets there recently, and I could not take two, as there was only one apiece for us. Rabbit followed, and I debated with myself whether I should take a second portion, although I could easily have managed four. At length hunger overcame my politeness, and I seized a second piece, though I am sure I was robbing somebody else.”

The Chancellor then went on to speak of his sons. “I hope,” he said, “I shall be able to keep at least one of my youngsters—I mean Herbert, who is on his way to Germany. He got to feel himself quite at home in camp. Formerly he was apt to be haughty, but as he lay wounded at Pont à Mousson he was almost more friendly with the common troopers who visited him than with the officers.”

At tea we were told that in 1814 the King had his quarters in the same street where he now lives, next door to the house he occupies at present. The Chief seems to have spoken to him to-day about decorating Bavarian soldiers with the Iron Cross. The Minister said: “My further plan of campaign for his Majesty is that part of his escort should be sent on ahead. The country must be scoured by a company to the right and left of the road, and the Royal party must remain together. Pickets must be posted at stated intervals. The King approved when I told him that this had been done also in 1814. The Sovereigns did not drive on that occasion, but went on horseback, and Russian soldiers, twenty paces apart, lined the whole route.” Somebody suggested the possibility that peasants or franctireurs might fire at the King. “Certainly,” added the Chief, “and what makes it so[p. 109] important a point is that the personage in question, if he is ill or wounded or otherwise out of sorts, has only to say ‘Go back!’ and we must all of us go back.”

We left Commercy next day at noon, passing several military detachments and a number of encampments on our way. The measures of precaution mentioned by the Chief had been adopted. We were preceded by a squadron of uhlans and escorted by the Stabswache, which formed a bright picture of many colours, being recruited from the various cavalry regiments, such as green, red, and blue hussars, Saxon and Prussian dragoons, &c. The carriages of the Chancellor’s party followed close behind those of the King’s. For a long time we did not come across any villages. Then we passed through St. Aubin, and soon after came to a milestone by the roadside with the words “Paris 241 kilometres,” so that we were only a distance of some thirty-two German miles from Babel. We afterwards passed a long line of transport carts belonging to the regiments of King John of Saxony, the Grand Duke of Hesse, &c., which showed that we were now in the district occupied by the Crown Prince’s army.

Shortly afterwards we entered the small town of Ligny, which was thronged with Bavarian and other soldiers. We waited for about three-quarters of an hour in the market-place, which was crowded with all sorts of conveyances, while the Chief paid a visit to the Crown Prince. On our starting once more we met further masses of blue Bavarian infantry, some light horse collected round their camp fires, then a second squadron with a herd of cattle guarded by soldiers, and finally a third larger encampment within a circle of baggage waggons.

Bar le Duc, the largest town in which we have[p. 110] stayed up to the present, may have a population of some 15,000. The streets and squares presented a lively picture as we drove through, and we caught glimpses of curious female faces watching us through the blinds. On the arrival of the King the Bavarian band played “Heil dir im Siegerkranz.” He took up his quarters in the house occupied by the local branch of the Bank of France, in the Rue de la Banque. The Chancellor and his party lodged on the other side of the street, in the house of a M. Pernay, who had gone off leaving an old woman in charge.

Dr. Lauer, the King’s physician, dined with the Minister that evening. The Chief was very communicative as usual, and appeared to be in particularly good humour. He renewed his complaints as to the “short commons” at the royal table, evidently intending the doctor to repeat them to Count Puckler or Perponcher. During his visit at Ligny he had to take breakfast, which he said was excellent, with the Crown Prince and the Princes and chief officers of his suite. He had a seat near the fire, however, which was not quite to his taste, and otherwise it was in many ways less comfortable than in his own quarters. “There were too many Princes there for an ordinary mortal to be able to find a place. Amongst them was Frederick the Gentle (Friedrich der Sachte—Frederick VIII. of Schleswig-Holstein). He wore a Bavarian uniform, so that I hardly knew him at first. He looked somewhat embarrassed when he recognised me.” We also gathered from what the Chief said that Count Hatzfeldt was to act as a kind of Prefect while we remained here, a position for which probably his thorough knowledge of French and of the habits of the country had recommended him. We also heard that the headquarters might remain here[p. 111] for several days,—“as at Capua,” added the Count, laughing.

Before tea some articles were despatched to Germany, including one on the part played by the Saxons at Gravelotte, which the Chancellor praised repeatedly.

By way of change I will here again quote from my diary:—

Thursday, August 25th.—Took a walk early this morning in the upper, and evidently the older, part of the town. The shops are almost all open. The people answer politely when we ask to be shown the way. Not far from our quarters there is an old stone bridge over the river which was unquestionably built before Lorraine and the Duchy of Bar belonged to France. Towards 9 o’clock the Bavarians began their march through the town, passing in front of the King’s quarters. More French spectators had collected on both sides of the street than was quite comfortable for us. For hours together light horse with green uniforms and red facings, dark blue cuirassiers, lancers, artillery and infantry, regiment after regiment marched before the Commander-in-Chief of the German forces. As they passed the King the troops cheered lustily, the cavalry swinging their sabres, and the foot soldiers lifting up their right hands. The colours were lowered before the Sovereign, the cavalry trumpets blew an ear-splitting fanfare, while the infantry bands played stirring airs, one of them giving the beautiful Hohenfriedberg march. First came General von Hartmann’s Army Corps, followed by that of Von der Tann, who afterwards took breakfast with us. Who could have thought, immediately after the war of 1866, or even three months ago, of the possibility of such a scene?

Wrote several articles for post and others for the[p. 112] wire. Our people are pressing forward rapidly. The vanguards of the German columns are already between Châlons and Epernay. The formation of three reserve armies in Germany, which has been already mentioned, began a few days ago. The neutral Powers raise some objections to our intended annexation of French territory for the purpose of securing an advantageous western frontier, especially England, who up to the present has shown a disposition to tie our hands. The reports from St. Petersburg appear to be more favourable, the Tsar being well disposed to us, although he by no means unreservedly accepts the proposed measures, while we are assured of the active sympathy of the Grand Duchess Hélène. We hold fast to our intention to enforce the cession of territory, that intention being based upon the necessity of at length securing South Germany from French attack and thus rendering it independent of French policy. When our intentions are made public they will certainly be energetically endorsed by the national sentiment, which it will be difficult to oppose.

It is reported that a variety of revolting acts have been committed by the bands of franctireurs that are now being formed. Their uniform is such that they can hardly be recognised as soldiers, and the badges by which they are distinguished can be easily laid aside. One of these young fellows lies in a ditch near a wood, apparently sunning himself, while a troop of cavalry rides by. When they have passed he takes a rifle which has been concealed in a bush, fires at them and runs into the wood. Knowing the way he again appears a little further on as a harmless peasant. I am inclined to think that these are not defenders of their country but rather assassins who should be strung up without ceremony whenever they are caught.

[p. 113]

Count Seckendorf, of the Crown Prince’s staff, was the Chief’s guest at dinner. The Augustenburger (Frederick VIII. of Schleswig-Holstein), who has joined the Bavarians, was spoken of, and not to his advantage.... (The opinions expressed were practically identical with those given in a letter which I received a few months later from a patriotic friend, Herr Noeldeke, who lived in Kiel at that time as a professor. He wrote: “We all know that he was not born for heroic deeds. He cannot help that. If he waits persistently for his inheritance to be restored to him by some miraculous means, that is a family trait. But he might at least have made an effort to appear heroic. Instead of loafing around with the army he might have led a company or a battalion of the soldiers whom at one time he was nearly calling his own,—or for my part he might have led Bavarians. In all probability the result would not have been very remarkable, but at any rate he would have shown his good will.”)

Reference was made to the rumour that the Bavarian battalions did not appear particularly anxious to advance at the battle of Wörth (or was it Weissenburg?), and that Major von Freiberg called upon them to show themselves equal to “those gallant Prussians.” Seckendorf, if I am not mistaken, confirmed this report. On the other hand, he denied that the Crown Prince had ordered treacherous French peasants to be shot. He had, on the contrary, acted with great leniency and forbearance, especially towards unmannerly French officers.

Count Bohlen, who is always ready with amusing anecdotes and flashes of fun, said: “On the 18th von Breintz’s battery was subjected to such a heavy fire that in a short time nearly all his horses and most of[p. 114] his men lay dead or wounded. As he was mustering the survivors, the captain remarked, ‘A very fine fight, is it not?’”

The Chief said: “Last night I asked the sentry at the door how he was off for food, and I found that the man had had nothing to eat for twenty-four hours. I went to the kitchen and brought him a good chunk of bread, at which he seemed highly pleased.”

Hatzfeldt’s appointment as Prefect led to the mention of other Prefects and Commissaries in spe. Doubt having been expressed as to the capacity of some of them, the Minister remarked: “Our officials in France may commit a few blunders, but they will be soon forgotten if the administration in general is conducted energetically.”

The conversation having turned on the telegraph lines which were being so rapidly erected in our rear, somebody told the following story. The workmen who found that their poles were stolen and their wires cut, asked the peasants to keep guard over them during the night. The latter, however, refused to do this, although they were offered payment for it. At length they were promised that the name of each watchman should be painted upon every pole. This speculation on French vanity succeeded. After that the fellows in the long nightcaps kept faithful watch, and no further damage was done.

Friday, August 26th.—We are to move forward to Saint Ménehould, where our troops have captured 800 mobile guards. Early in the day I wrote an article about the franctireurs, dealing in detail with the false view which they take of what is permissible in war.

We moved forward on the 26th, not to Saint Ménehould, however, which was still unsafe, being[p. 115] infested by franctireurs and mobile guards, but to Clermont en Argonne, where we arrived at 7 o’clock in the evening. On our way we passed through several rather large villages with handsome old churches. For the last couple of hours military policemen were stationed along the road at intervals of about 200 paces. The houses, which were built of grey sandstone and not whitewashed, stood close together. The whole population shuffled about in clumsy wooden shoes, and the features of the men and women, of whom we saw great numbers standing before the doors, were, so far as I could observe in a passing glance, almost invariably ugly. Probably the people thought it necessary to remove the prettier girls to a place of safety out of the way of the German birds of prey.

We met some Bavarian troops with a line of transport waggons. The troops loudly cheered the King, and afterwards the Chancellor. Later on we overtook three regiments of infantry, some hussars, uhlans, and a Saxon commissariat detachment. Near a village, which was called Triaucourt if I am not mistaken, we met a cartful of franctireurs who had been captured by our people. Most of these young fellows hung their heads, and one of them was weeping. The Chief stopped and spoke to them. What he said did not appear to please them particularly. An officer of higher rank who came over to the carriage of the Councillors and was treated to a friendly glass of cognac told us that these fellows or comrades of theirs had on the previous day treacherously shot a captain or major of the uhlans, named Von Fries or Friesen. On being taken prisoners they had not behaved themselves like soldiers, but had run away from their escort. The cavalry and rifles, however, arranged a kind of battue in the vineyards, so[p. 116] that some of them were again seized, while others were shot or cut down. It was evident that the war was becoming barbarous and inhuman, owing to these guerilla bands. Our soldiers were prejudiced against them from the beginning, even apart from the possibility of their lying treacherously in ambush, as they looked upon them as busybodies who were interfering in what was not their business, and as bunglers who did not understand their work.

We took up our residence at Clermont in the town schoolhouse in the main street, the King’s quarters being over the way. On our arrival, the Grande Rue was full of carts and carriages, and one saw here and there a few Saxon rifles. While Abeken and I were visiting the church we could hear in the stillness the steady tramp of the troops and their hurrahs as they marched past the King’s quarters.

On our return we were told that the Minister had left word that we were to dine with him in the Hôtel des Voyageurs. We found a place at the Chief’s table in a back room of the hotel, which was full of noise and tobacco smoke. Amongst the guests was an officer with a long black beard, who wore the Geneva cross on his arm. This was Prince Pless. He said that the captured French officers at Pont à Mousson had behaved in an insolent manner, and had spent the whole night drinking and playing cards. A general had insisted that he was entitled to have a separate carriage, and been very obstreperous when his demand was naturally rejected. We then went on to speak of the franctireurs and their odious modes of warfare. The Minister confirmed what I had already heard from Abeken, namely, that he had spoken very sharply to the prisoners we had met in the afternoon. “I told them, ‘Vous serez tous pendus,—vous[p. 117] n’êtes pas des soldats, vous êtes des assassins!’ On my saying this one of them began to howl.” We have already seen that the Chancellor is anything but unfeeling, and further proof of this will be given later on.

In our quarters the Chief’s chamber was on the first floor, Abeken, I believe, having a back room on the same landing. The remainder of us were lodged on the second floor in a dormitory or kind of hall which at first only contained two chairs and two bedsteads with mattresses but without quilts. The night was bitterly cold, and I only with my waterproof to cover me. Still it was quite endurable, especially when one fell asleep thinking of the poor soldiers who have to lie outside in the muddy fields.

In the morning we were busy rearranging our apartment to suit our needs. Without depriving it of its original character we turned it into an office and dining-room. Theiss’s cleverness conjured up a magnificent table out of a sawing bench and a baker’s trough, a barrel, a small box and a door which we took off its hinges. This work of art served as breakfast and dining table for the Chancellor of the Confederation and ourselves, and in the intervals between those meals was used as a desk by the Councillors and Secretaries, who neatly committed to paper and reproduced in the form of despatches, instructions, telegrams, and newspaper articles the pregnant ideas which the Count thought out in our midst. The scarcity of chairs was to a certain extent overcome by requisitioning a bench from the kitchen, while some of the party contented themselves with boxes as seats. Wine bottles that had been emptied by the Minister served as candlesticks—experience proved that champagne bottles were the fittest[p. 118] for this purpose and as a matter of fact good wax candles burned as brightly in these as in a silver chandelier. It was more difficult to secure the necessary supply of water for washing, and sometimes it was hard even to get enough for drinking purposes, the soldiers having during the last two days almost drained the wells for themselves and their horses. Only one of our party lamented his lot and grumbled at these and other slight discomforts. The rest of us, including the far-travelled Abeken, accepted them all with good humour, as welcome and characteristic features of our expedition.

The office of the Minister of War, or rather of the general staff, was on the ground floor, where Fouriere and a number of soldiers sat at the desks and rostrums in the two schoolrooms. The walls were covered with maps, &c., and with mottoes, one of which was particularly applicable to the present bad times: “Faites-vous une étude de la patience, et sachez céder par raison.”

The Chief came in while we were taking our coffee. He was in a bad temper, and asked why the proclamation threatening to punish with death a number of offences by the population against the laws of war had not been posted up. On his instructions I inquired of Stieber, who told me that Abeken had handed over the proclamation to the general staff, and that he (Stieber), as director of the military police, could only put up such notices when they came from his Majesty.

On going to the Chancellor’s room to inform him of the result of my inquiries, I found that he was little better off than myself in the way of sleeping accommodation. He had passed the night on a mattress on the floor with his revolver by his side, and he was working at a little table which was hardly large enough to rest[p. 119] his two elbows on. The apartment was almost bare of furniture and there was not a sofa or armchair, &c. He, who for years past had so largely influenced the history of the world, and in whose mind all the great movements of our time were concentrated and being shaped anew, had hardly a place on which to lay his head; while stupid Court parasites rested from their busy idleness in luxurious beds, and even Monsieur Stieber managed to provide for himself a more comfortable resting-place than our Master.

On this occasion I saw a letter that had fallen into our hands. It came from Paris, and was addressed to a French officer of high rank. From this communication it appeared that little hope was entertained of further successful resistance, and just as little of the maintenance of the dynasty. The writer did not know what to expect or desire for the immediate future. The choice seemed to lie between a Republic without republicans, and a Monarchy without monarchists. The republicans were a feeble set and the monarchists were too selfish. There was great enthusiasm about the army, but nobody was in a hurry to join it and assist in repelling the enemy.

The Chief again said that attention should be called to the services of the Saxons at Gravelotte. “The small black fellows should in particular be praised. Their own newspapers have expressed themselves very modestly, and yet the Saxons were exceptionally gallant. Try to get some details of the excellent work they did on the 18th.”

They were very busy in the office in the meantime. Councillors and Secretaries were writing and deciphering at full pressure, sealing despatches at the lights stuck into the champagne-bottle-candlesticks, and all around[p. 120] portfolios and documents, waterproofs and shoe-brushes, torn papers and empty envelopes, were strewn about in picturesque confusion. Orderlies, couriers and attendants came and went. Every one was talking at the same time, and was too occupied to pay the least attention to his neighbours. Abeken was particularly active in rushing about between the improvised table and the messengers, and his voice was louder than ever. I believe that this morning his ready hand turned out a fresh document every half hour; at least, one heard him constantly pushing back his chair and calling a messenger. In addition to all this noise came the incessant tramp, tramp, tramp of the soldiers, the rolling of the drums and the rattle of the carts over the pavement. In this confusion it was no light task to collect one’s thoughts and to carry out properly the instructions received, but with plenty of good will it could be done.

After dinner, at which the Chancellor and some of the Councillors were not present, as they dined with the King, I took a walk with Willisch to the chapel of St. Anne on the top of the hill. There we found a number of our countrymen, soldiers belonging to the Freiberg Rifle Battalion, at supper under a tree. They have been engaged in the battle of the 18th. I tried to obtain some particulars of the fight, but could not get much more out of them than that they had given it with a will to the Frenchmen.

By the side of the chapel a pathway led between a row of trees to a delightful prospect, whence we could see at our feet the little town, and beyond it to the north and east an extensive plain, with stubble fields, villages, steeples, groups of trees and stretches of wood, and to the south and west a forest that spread out to[p. 121] the horizon, changing from dark green to the misty blue of the far distance. This plain is intersected by three roads, one of which goes direct to Varennes. On this road not far from the town a Bavarian regiment was stationed, whose camp fires added a picturesque note to the scene. In the distance to the right was a wooded hill with the village of Faucoix, while the small town of Montfaucon was visible further off. The second road, more towards the east, leads to Verdun. Still further to the right, not far from a camp of Saxon troops, was the road to Bar le Duc, on which we noticed a detachment of soldiers. We caught the glint of their bayonets in the evening sunshine and heard the sound of their drums softened by the distance.

Here we remained a good while gazing at this pleasing picture, which in the west was glowing with the light of the setting sun, and watching the shadows of the mountain spread slowly over the fields until all was dark. On our way back we again looked in at the church of St. Didier, in which some Hessians were now quartered. They lay on straw in the choir and before the altar, and lit their pipes at the lamps which burned before the sanctuary—without, however, intending any disrespect, as they were decent, harmless fellows.

On Sunday, August 28th, we were greeted with a dull grey sky and a soft steady rain that reminded one of the weather experienced by Goethe not far from here in September, 1792, during the days preceding and following the artillery engagement at Valmy. At the Chief’s request I took General Sheridan a copy of the Pall Mall Gazette, and afterwards tried to hunt up some Saxons who could give me particulars of the battle of the 18th. At length I found an officer of the Landwehr, a landed proprietor named Fuchs-Nordhof,[p. 122] from Moeckern, near Leipzig. He was not able to add much to what I knew. The Saxons had fought principally at Sainte Marie aux Chênes and Saint Privat, and protected the retreat of the guards, who had fallen into some disorder. The Freiberg Rifles took the position held by the French at the point of the bayonet without firing a shot. The Leipzig Regiment (the 107th) in particular had lost a great many men and nearly all its officers. That was all he could tell me, except that he confirmed the news as to Krausshaar’s death.

When the Minister got up we were again provided with plenty of work. Our cause was making excellent progress. I was in a position to telegraph that the Saxon cavalry had routed the 12th Chasseurs at Voussières and Beaumont. I was informed (and was at liberty to state) that we held to our determination to compel France to a cession of territory, and that we should conclude peace on no other conditions.

The arguments in support of this decision were given in the following article which was sanctioned by the Chief:—

“Since the victories of Mars la Tour and Gravelotte the German forces have been constantly pressing forward. The time would, therefore, appear to have come for considering the conditions on which Germany can conclude peace with France. In this matter we must be guided neither by a passion for glory or conquest, nor by that generosity which is frequently recommended to us by the foreign press. Our sole object must be to guarantee the security of South Germany from fresh attacks on the part of France such as have been renewed more than a dozen times from the reign of Louis XIV. to our own days, and which will be repeated as often as France feels strong enough. The[p. 123] enormous sacrifices, in blood and treasure which the German people have made in this war, together with all our present victories, would be in vain if the power of the French were not weakened for attack and the defensive strength of Germany were not increased. Our people have a right to demand that this shall be done. Were we to content ourselves with a change of dynasty and an indemnity the position of affairs would not be improved, and there would be nothing to prevent this war leading to a number of others, especially as the present defeat would spur on the French to revenge. France with her comparatively great wealth would soon forget the indemnity, and any new dynasty would, in order to fortify its own position, endeavour to secure a victory over us and thus compensate for the present misfortunes of the country. Generosity is a highly respectable virtue, but as a rule in politics it secures no gratitude. In 1866 we did not take a single inch of ground from the Austrians, but have we received any thanks in Vienna for this self-restraint? Do they not feel a bitter longing for revenge simply because they have been defeated? Besides the French already bore us a grudge for our victory at Sadowa, though it was not won over them but over another foreign Power. Whether we now generously forego a cession of territory or not, how will they feel towards us after the victories of Wörth and Metz, and how will they seek revenge for their own defeat?

“The consequences of the other course adopted in 1814 and 1815, when France was treated with great consideration, prove it to have been bad policy. If at that time the French had been weakened to the extent which the interests of general peace required, the present war would not have been necessary.

[p. 124]

“The danger does not lie in Bonapartism, although the latter must rely chiefly upon Chauvinist sentiment. It consists in the incurable arrogance of that portion of the French people which gives the tone to the whole country. This trait in the French national character, which will guide the policy of every dynasty, whatever name it may bear, and even of a Republic, will constantly lead to encroachments upon peaceful neighbours. Our victories, to bear fruit, must lead to an actual improvement of our frontier defences against this restless neighbour. Whoever wishes to see the diminution of military burdens in Europe, or desires such a peace as would permit thereof, must look not to moral but to material guarantees as a solid and permanent barrier against the French lust of conquest; in other words, it should in future be made as difficult as possible for France to invade South Germany with a comparatively small force, and even in peace to compel the South Germans, through the apprehension of such attack, to be always reckoning with the French Government. Our present task is to secure South Germany by providing it with a defensible frontier. To fulfil that task is to liberate Germany, that is to complete the work of the War of Liberation in 1813 and 1814.

“The least, therefore, that we can demand and that the German people, and particularly our comrades across the Main, can accept is, the cession of the French gateways into Germany, namely Strassburg and Metz. It would be just as short-sighted to expect any permanent peace from the mere demolition of these fortresses as to trust in the possibility of winning over the French by considerate treatment. Besides, it must not be forgotten that this territory which we now demand was originally German and in great part still remains German, and[p. 125] that its inhabitants will perhaps in time learn to feel that they belong to one race with ourselves.

“We may regard a change of dynasty with indifference. An indemnity will only temporarily weaken France financially. What we require is increased security for our frontiers. This is only attainable, however, by changing the two fortresses that threaten us into bulwarks for our protection. Strassburg and Metz must cease to be points of support for French attacks and be transformed into German defences.

“Whoever sincerely desires a general European peace and disarmament, and wants to see the ploughshare replace the sword, must first wish to see the eastern neighbours of France secure peace for themselves, as France is the sole disturber of public tranquillity and will so remain as long as she has the power.”

[p. 126]

## CHAPTER V

WE TURN TOWARDS THE NORTH—THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CONFEDERATION AT REZONVILLE—THE BATTLE AND BATTLEFIELD OF BEAUMONT

Sunday, August 28th.—At tea we receive an important piece of news. We ourselves and the whole army (with the exception of that portion which remains behind for the investment of Metz) are to alter our line of march, and instead of going westwards in the direction of Châlons, we are to turn northwards, following the edge of the Argonne forest towards the Ardennes and the Meuse district. Our next halt will, it is believed, be at Grand Pré. This move is made for the purpose of intercepting Marshal MacMahon, who has collected a large force and is marching towards Metz for the relief of Bazaine.

We start at 10 o’clock on the 29th, passing through several villages and occasionally by handsome châteaux and parks, a camp of Bavarian soldiers, some line regiments, rifles, light horse and cuirassiers. In driving through the small town of Varennes we notice the house where Louis XVI. was arrested by the postman of Saint Ménehould. It is now occupied by a firm of scythe manufacturers. The whole place is full of soldiers, horse and foot, with waggons and[p. 127] artillery. After extricating ourselves from this crowd of vehicles and men, we push rapidly forward through villages and past other camps, until we reach Grand Pré. Here the Chancellor takes up his quarters in the Grande Rue, a little way from the market, the King lodging at an apothecary’s not far off. The second section of the King’s suite, including Prince Charles, Prince Luitpold of Bavaria, and the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, was quartered in the neighbouring village of Juvin. I am billeted at a milliner’s opposite the Chief’s quarters. I have a nice clean room, but my landlady is invisible. We saw a number of French prisoners in the market-place on our arrival. I am informed that an encounter with MacMahon’s army is expected to-morrow morning.

At Grande Pré the Chief again showed that he never thought of the possibility of an attempt being made to assassinate him. He walked about in the twilight alone and without any constraint, going even through narrow and lonely streets that offered special opportunities for attack. I say this from personal experience, because I followed him with my revolver at a little distance. It seemed to me possible that an occasion might arise when I might be of assistance to him.

On my hearing next morning that the King and the Chancellor were going off together in order to be present at the great battue of the second French army I thought of a favourite proverb of the Chief’s which he repeated to me on his return from Rezonville:—“Wer sich grün macht, den fressen die Ziegen,” and plucking up heart I begged him to take me with him. He answered, “But if we remain there for the night what will you do?” I replied, “That doesn’t matter,[p. 128] Excellency; I shall know how to take care of myself.” “Well, then, come along!” said he, laughing. The Minister took a walk in the market-place while I, in high good humour, fetched my travelling bag, waterproof and faithful diary. On his return he entered his carriage and motioned to me to join him, when I took my place at his side. One must have luck to secure such a piece of good fortune, and one must also follow it up.

We started shortly after 9 o’clock. At first we retraced our steps along yesterday’s road. Then to the left through vineyards and past several villages in a hilly district. We met some parks of artillery and troops on the march or resting by the way. About 11 o’clock we reached the little town of Busancy, where we stopped in the market-place to wait for the King.

The Chief was very communicative. He complained that he was frequently disturbed at his work by persons talking outside his door, “particularly as some of the gentlemen have such loud voices. An ordinary inarticulate noise does not annoy me. I am not put out by music or the rattle of waggons, but what irritates me is a conversation in which I can distinguish the words. I then want to know what it is about, and so I lose the thread of my own ideas.”

He then pointed out to me that when officers saluted our carriage, it was not for me to return the salute. He himself was not saluted as Minister or Chancellor, but solely as a general officer, and soldiers might feel offended if a civilian seemed to think that the salute was also intended for him.

He was afraid that nothing in particular would occur that day, an opinion which was shared by some Prussian[p. 129] artillery officers who were standing by their guns immediately opposite Busancy, and with whom he spoke. “It will be just as it was occasionally when I was out wolf shooting in the Ardennes. After wandering about for days in the snow, we used to hear that a track had been discovered, but when we followed it up the wolf had disappeared. It will be the same with the French to-day.”

After expressing a hope that he might meet his second son, respecting whom he repeatedly inquired of officers along the route, the Minister added:—“You can see from his case how little nepotism there is in our army. He has already served twelve months and has obtained no promotion, while others are recommended for the rank of ensign in little more than a month.” I took the liberty to ask how that was possible. “I do not know,” he answered. “I have made close inquiries as to whether he had been guilty of any slight breaches of discipline; but no, his conduct has been quite satisfactory, and in the engagement at Mars la Tour he charged as gallantly on the French square as any of his comrades. On the return ride he dragged with him out of the fight two dragoons who had been unhorsed, grasping one of them in each hand.[5] It is certainly well to avoid favouritism, but it is bitter to be slighted.”

A few weeks later both his sons were promoted to the rank of officers.

Subsequently, amongst many other things, the Chief once more gave me an account of his experiences on the evening of the 18th of August. They had sent their horses to water, and were standing near a battery which had opened fire. This was not returned by the French, but,[p. 130] he continued, “while we thought their cannon had been dismounted, they were for the last hour concentrating their guns and mitrailleuses for a last great effort. Suddenly they began a fearful fire with shells and smaller projectiles, filling the whole air with an incessant crashing and roaring, howling and whistling. We were cut off from the King, whom Roon had sent to the rear. I remained by the battery, and thought that if we had to retire I could jump on to the next ammunition cart. We expected that this attack would be supported by French infantry, who might take me prisoner, even if I were to treat them to a steady revolver fire. I had six bullets ready for them, and another half-dozen in reserve. At length our horses returned, and I started off to join the King. That, however, was jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The shells that passed over our heads fell exactly in the space across which we had to ride. Next morning we saw the pits which they dug in the ground. It was therefore necessary for the King to retire still further to the rear. I told him this after the officers had mentioned it to me. It was now night. The King said he was hungry, and wished to have something to eat. Drink was to be had from one of the sutlers, wine and bad rum, but there was nothing to eat except dry bread. At last they managed to hunt up a couple of cutlets in the village, just enough for the King, but nothing for his companions, so that I was obliged to look out for something else. His Majesty wished to sleep in the carriage between dead horses and severely wounded soldiers. Later on he found shelter in a miserable hut. The Chancellor of the Confederation was obliged to seek cover elsewhere. Leaving the heir of one of our mighty German potentates (the young Hereditary Grand Duke[p. 131] of Mecklenburg) to keep watch over the carriage and see that nothing was stolen, I went with Sheridan on a reconnoitring tour in search of a sleeping place. We came to a house which was still burning, but that was too hot for us. I inquired at another, it was full of wounded; at a third, and got the same answer, and still a fourth was also full of wounded. Here, however, I refused to budge. I saw a top window in which there was no light, and asked who was there. ‘Only wounded soldiers,’ was the reply. ‘Well, we are just going up to see,’ I said, and marched upstairs. There we found three beds with good and tolerably clean straw mattresses, where we took up our quarters and slept capitally.”

When the Minister first told this story at Pont à Mousson, with less detail, his cousin, Count Bismarck-Bohlen, added: “Yes, you fell asleep immediately, as also did Sheridan, who rolled himself up in a white linen sheet—where he found it I cannot imagine—and seemed to dream of you all night, as I heard him murmur to himself several times, ‘O dear Count!’” “Yes,” said the Minister, “and the Hereditary Grand Duke, who took the affair in very good part, and was altogether a very pleasant and amiable young gentleman.” “Moreover,” continued Bohlen, “the best of it was that there really was no such scarcity of shelter. In the meantime a fine country house had been discovered that had been prepared for the reception of Bazaine, with good beds, excellent wine, and I know not what besides, all first rate. The Minister of War quartered himself there, and had a luxurious supper with his staff.”

On the way to Busancy the Chancellor further said: “The whole day I had nothing to eat but army bread and bacon fat. In the evening we got five or six eggs. The others wanted them cooked, but I like them raw,[p. 132] and so I stole a couple, and cracking the shells on the hilt of my sword, I swallowed them, and felt much refreshed. Early next morning I had the first warm food for thirty-six hours. It was only some pea-soup with bacon, which I got from General Goeben, but I enjoyed it immensely.”

The market-place at Busancy, a small country town, was crowded with officers, hussars, uhlans, couriers, and all sorts of conveyances. After a while Sheridan and Forsythe also arrived. At 11.30 the King appeared, and immediately afterwards we heard the unexpected news that the French were standing their ground. At about four kilometres from Busancy we came to a height beneath which to the left and right a small open valley lay between us and another height. Suddenly we heard the muffled sound of a discharge in the distance. “Artillery fire,” said the Minister. A little further on I saw two columns of infantry stationed on the other side of a hollow to the left on a piece of rising ground bare of trees. They had two guns which were being fired. It was so far off however that one could hardly hear the report. The Chief was surprised at the sharpness of my sight and put on his glasses, which I for the first time learned were necessary to him when he wished to see at a distance. Small white clouds like balloons at a great height floated for three or four seconds above the hollow and then disappeared in a flash. These were shrapnel shells. The guns must have been German, and seemed to throw their shot from a declivity on the other side of the hollow. Over this hollow was a wood, in front of which I could observe several dark lines, perhaps French troops. Still further off was the spur of a hill, with three or four large trees. This, according to my map, was the village of Stonn, from which, as I[p. 133] afterwards heard, the Emperor Napoleon watched the fight.

The firing to the left soon ceased. Bavarian artillery, blue cuirassiers, and green light horse, passed us on the road, going at a trot. A little further on, just as we drove by a small thicket, we heard a rattle, as of a slow and badly delivered volley. “A mitrailleuse,” said Engel, turning round on the box. Not far off, at a place where the Bavarian rifles were resting in the ditch by the road, the Minister got on horseback in order to ride with the King, who was ahead of us. We ourselves, after following the road for a time, turned towards the right across a stubble field. The ground gradually rose to a low height on which the King stood with the Chief and a number of Princes, generals and other officers of high rank. I followed them across the ploughed fields, and standing a little to one side I watched the battle of Beaumont till nearly sunset.

It began to grow dark. The King sat on a chair near which a straw fire had been lit, as there was a strong wind. He was following the course of the battle through a field-glass. The Chancellor, who was similarly occupied, stood on a ridge, from which Sheridan also watched the spectacle. It was now possible to catch the flash of the bursting shells and the flames that were rising from the burning houses at Beaumont. The French continued to retire rapidly, and the combatants disappeared over the crest of the treeless height that closed the horizon to the left behind the wood over the burning village. The battle was won.

It was growing dark when we returned towards Busancy, and when we reached it it was surrounded by hundreds of small fires that threw the silhouettes of men, horses, and baggage waggons into high relief. We[p. 134] got down at the house of a doctor who lived at the end of the main street, in which the King had also taken up his quarters. Those of our party who had been left behind at Grand Pré had arrived before us. I slept here on a straw mattress on the floor of an almost empty room, under a coverlet which had been brought from the hospital in the town by one of our soldiers. That, however, did not in the least prevent my sleeping the sleep of the just.

On Wednesday, August the 31st, between 9 and 10 A.M., the King and the Chancellor drove out to visit the battle-field of the previous day. I was again permitted to accompany the Minister. At first we followed the road taken the day before through Bar de Busancy and Sommauthe. Between these two villages we passed some squadrons of Bavarian uhlans, who heartily cheered the King. Behind Sommauthe, which was full of wounded, we drove through a beautiful wood that lay between that village and Beaumont, where we arrived after 11 o’clock. King William and our Chancellor then got on horseback and rode to the right over the fields. I followed in the same direction on foot. The carriages went on to the town, where they were to wait for us.

The Chancellor remarked that the French had not offered a particularly steady resistance yesterday, or shown much prudence in their arrangements. “At Beaumont a battery of heavy artillery surprised them in their camp in broad daylight. Horses were shot tethered, many of the dead are in their shirt-sleeves, and plates are still lying about with boiled potatoes, pots with half-cooked meat, and so forth.”

During the drive the Chief came to speak of “people who have the King’s ear and abuse his good[p. 135] nature,” thinking in the first place of the “fat Borck, the holder of the King’s Privy Purse;” and afterwards referring to Count Bernstorff, our then Ambassador in London, who, when he gave up the Foreign Office in Berlin, “knew very well how to take care of himself.” In fact, “he was so long weighing the respective advantages of the two Embassies—London and Paris—that he delayed entering upon his duties much longer than was decent or proper.”

I ventured to ask what sort of a person Von der Goltz was, as one heard such different opinions about him, and whether he really was a man of importance and intellect as was maintained. “Intelligent? yes, in a certain sense,” replied the Minister; “a quick worker, well informed, but changeable in his views of men and things,—to-day in favour of this man or this project, to-morrow for another and sometimes for the very opposite. Then he was always in love with the Princesses to whose Courts he was accredited, first with Amelia of Greece and then with Eugénie. He believed that what I had the good fortune to carry through, he, with his exceptional intelligence, could have also done and even better. Therefore he was constantly intriguing against me, although we had been good friends in our youth. He wrote letters to the King complaining of me and warning his Majesty against me. That did not help him much, as the King handed over the letters to me, and I replied to them by reprimanding him. But in this respect he was persevering, and continued to write indefatigably. He was very little liked by his subordinates, indeed they actually detested him. On my visit to Paris in 1862 I called upon him to report myself just as he had settled down to a siesta. I did not wish to have him disturbed, but his secretaries were[p. 136] evidently delighted that he should be obliged to get up, and one of them immediately went in to announce me. It would have been so easy for him to secure the good will and attachment of his people. It is not difficult for an Ambassador, and I too would do it gladly. But as a Minister one has no time, one has too many other things to think of and to do. So I have had to adopt a more military style.” It will be seen from this description that Von der Goltz was Arnim’s forerunner and kindred spirit.

The Minister went on to speak of Radowitz, saying he did not feel quite certain whether it was dulness or treachery on Radowitz’s part that was to blame for the diplomatic defeat at Olmütz. The army ought to have been brought into line before Olmütz, but Radowitz had intrigued against it. “I would leave it an open question whether he did so as an Austrian ultramontane Jesuit, or as an impracticable dreamer who thought he knew everything. Instead of looking to our armaments he occupied the King with constitutional trifles, of mediæval follies, questions of etiquette and such like. On one occasion we heard that Austria had collected 80,000 men in Bohemia, and was buying great numbers of horses. This was mentioned before the King in Radowitz’s presence. He suddenly stepped forward, looking as if he knew much more about it than anybody else, and said, ‘Austria has 22,493 men and 2,005 horses in Bohemia,’ and then turned away, conscious that he had once more impressed the King with a sense of his importance.”

The King and the Chancellor first rode to the field where the heavy artillery had been at work. I followed them after I had jotted down my notes. This field lies about 800 to 1000 paces to the right of the road that[p. 137] brought us here. In front of it towards the wood at the bottom of the valley were some fields surrounded by hedges in which lay about a thousand German dead, Thuringians of the 31st Regiment. The camp itself presented a horrible appearance, all blue and red from the French dead, most of them being killed by the shells of the 4th Corps, and fearfully disfigured.

The Chancellor, as he afterwards told me, noticed among some prisoners in a quarry a priest who was believed to have fired at our men. “On my charging him with having done so he denied it. ‘Take care,’ I said to him, ‘for if it is proved against you, you will certainly be hanged.’ In the meantime I gave instructions to remove his cassock.” Near the church the King saw a wounded musketeer, with whom he shook hands, although the man was rather tattered and dirty from the work of the previous day, doubtless to the surprise of the French officers who were present. The King asked him what his business was. He replied that he was a Doctor of Philosophy. “Well, then, you will have learnt to bear your wounds in a philosophical spirit,” said the King. “Yes,” answered the musketeer, “I have already made up my mind to do so.”

Near the second village we overtook some common soldiers, Bavarians, who had broken down on the march, and were dragging themselves slowly along in the burning sun. “Hullo, countryman!” called out the Minister to one of these, “will you have some brandy?” “Why, certainly;” and so would a second and a third, to judge from their looks. All three, and a few more, after they had had a pull at the Minister’s flask and at mine, received a decent cigar in addition. At the village of Crehanges, where the princely personages of the second[p. 138] section of the King’s suite were quartered, together with some gentlemen of the Crown Prince’s retinue, the King ordered a lunch, to which Bismarck was also invited. In the meantime I sat on a stone by the roadside and wrote up my diary, and afterwards assisted the Dutch Ambulance corps, who had erected a bright green tent for the wounded in the vicinity of the village. When the Minister returned he asked me what I had been doing, which I told him. “I would rather have been there than in the company I was in,” he said, breathing deeply, and then quoted the line from Schiller’s Diver, “Unter Larven die einzige fühlende Brust” (the only feeling heart amongst all those masks).

During the rest of the drive the conversation moved for a considerable time in exalted regions, and the Chief readily gave me full information in answer to my inquiries. I regret, however, that I cannot for various reasons publish all I heard.

A certain Thuringian Serene Highness appeared to be particularly objectionable to him. He spoke of his “stupid self-importance as a Prince, regarding me as his Chancellor also;” of his empty head, and his trivial conventional style of talk. “To some extent, however, that is due to his education, which trained him to the use of such empty phrases. Goethe is also partly to blame for that. The Queen has been brought up much in the same style. One of the chairs in the Palace would be taken to represent the Burgomaster of Apolda, who was coming to present his homage. ‘Ah!’ she was taught to say, ‘very pleased to see you, Herr Burgomaster!’ (Here the Chancellor leant his head a little to one side, pouted his lips, and assumed a most condescending smile.) ‘How are things going on in the good town of Apolda? In Apolda you make socks and[p. 139] tobacco and such things, which do not require much thinking or feeling.’”

I ventured to ask how he now stood with the Crown Prince? “Excellently,” he answered. “We are quite good friends since he has come to recognise that I am not on the side of the French, as he had previously fancied—I do not know on what grounds.” I remarked that the day before the Crown Prince had looked very pleased. “Why should he not be pleased?” replied the Count. “The Heir Apparent of one of the most powerful kingdoms in the world, and with the best prospects. He will be reasonable later on and allow his Ministers to govern more, and not put himself too much forward, and in general he will get rid of many bad habits that render old gentlemen of his trade sometimes rather troublesome. For the rest, he is unaffected and straightforward; but he does not care to work much, and is quite happy if he has plenty of money and amusements, and if the newspapers praise him.”

I took the liberty to ask further what sort of woman the Crown Princess was, and whether she had much influence over her husband. “I think not,” the Count said; “and as to her intelligence, she is a clever woman; clever in a womanly way. She is not able to disguise her feelings, or at least not always. I have cost her many tears, and she could not conceal how angry she was with me after the annexations (that is to say of Schleswig and Hanover). She could hardly bear the sight of me, but that feeling has now somewhat subsided. She once asked me to bring her a glass of water, and as I handed it to her she said to a lady-in-waiting who sat near and whose name I forget, ‘He has cost me as many tears as there is water in this glass.’ But that is all over now.”

[p. 140]

Finally we descended from the sphere of the gods to that of ordinary humanity. After I had referred to the Coburg-Belgian-English clique, the conversation turned on the Augustenburger in his Bavarian uniform. “He’s an idiot,” said the Chancellor. “He might have secured much better terms. At first I did not want from him more than the smaller Princes were obliged to concede in 1866. Thanks, however, to Divine Providence and the pettifogging wisdom of Samwer, he would agree to nothing. I remember an interview I had with him in 1864, in the billiard-room near my study, which lasted until late in the night. I called him ‘Highness’ for the first time, and was altogether specially polite. When, however, I mentioned Kiel Harbour, which we wanted, he remarked that that might mean something like a square mile, or perhaps even several square miles, a remark to which I was of course obliged to assent; and when he also refused to listen to our demands with regard to the army, I assumed a different tone, and addressed him merely as ‘Prince.’ Finally, I told him quite coolly in Low German that we could wring the necks of the chickens we had hatched. At Ligny he basely tricked me the other day into shaking hands with him. I did not know who the Bavarian general was who held out his hand to me, or I should have gone out of his way.”

After an unusually long drive up hill and down dale, we arrived at 7 o’clock at the small town or market-place of Vendresse, there the Chancellor put up at the house of a Widow Baudelot, with the rest of his party, who had already taken possession of their quarters.

[p. 141]

## CHAPTER VI

SEDAN—BISMARCK AND NAPOLEON AT DONCHERY

On the 1st of September Moltke’s chase after the French in the Meuse district was, from all we could hear, evidently approaching its close. I had the good fortune to be present at it next day. After rising very early in order to write up my diary from the hasty notes taken on the previous day in the carriage and by the roadside at Chemery, I went to the house of widow Baudelot. As I entered, a large cavalry detachment, formed of five Prussian hussar regiments, green, brown, black and red, rode past under the Chief’s window. These were to accompany the King to a point near Sedan, whence he could witness the catastrophe which was now confidently expected. When the carriage came and the Chancellor appeared he looked about him. Seeing me he said, “Can you decipher, doctor?” I answered, “Yes,” and he added, “Then get a cipher and come along.” I did not wait to be asked twice. We started soon afterwards, Count Bismarck-Bohlen this time occupying the seat next to the Minister.

We first passed through Chemery and Chehery, halting in a stubble field near a third village which lay in a hollow to the left of the road at foot of a bare hillock. Here the King, with his suite of Princes,[p. 142] generals, and courtiers, got on horseback, as did also the Chief, and the whole party moved towards the crest of the height. The distant roar of the cannon announced that the battle was in full progress. It was a bright sunny day, with a cloudless sky.

Leaving Engel in charge of the carriage I after a while followed the horsemen, whom I found in a ploughed field from which one had an extensive view of the district. Beneath was a deep wide valley, mostly green, with patches of wood on the heights that surrounded it. The blue stream of the Meuse flowed past a town of moderate size, the fortress of Sedan. On the crest of the hill next us, at about the distance of a rifle shot, is a wood, and there are also some trees to the left. To the right in the foreground, which sloped obliquely, in a series of steps as it were, towards the bottom of the valley, was stationed a Bavarian battery, which kept up a sharp fire at and over the town. Behind the battery were dark columns of infantry and cavalry. Still farther to the right, from a hollow, rose a thick column of smoke. It comes, we are told, from the burning village of Bazeilles. We are only about an English mile in a beeline from Sedan, and in the clear atmosphere one can easily distinguish the houses and churches. In the distance, to the left and right, three or four villages, and beyond them all towards the horizon, a range of hills covered throughout with what appears to be a pine forest, serves as a frame for the whole picture. It is the Ardennes, on the Belgian frontier.

The main positions of the French appear to be on the hillocks immediately beyond the fortress, and it looks as if our troops intended to surround them there. For the moment we can only see their advance on the[p. 143] right, as the lines of our artillery, with the exception of the Bavarians, who are posted under us, are lost behind the heights as they slowly move forward. Gradually the smoke of the guns is seen beyond the rising ground already mentioned, with the defile in the middle. The corps that are advancing in half circle to enclose the enemy are steadily endeavouring to complete the circle. To the left all is still. At 11 o’clock a dark grey pillar of smoke with yellow edges rises from the fortress, which has hardly taken any part in the firing. The French troops beyond Sedan deliver an energetic fire, and at the same time, over the wood in the defile, rise numbers of small white clouds from the shells—whether French or German we cannot say. Sometimes, also, we hear the rattle of the mitrailleuse.

There was a brilliant assembly upon the hill. The King, Bismarck, Moltke, Roon, a number of Princes, Prince Charles, their Highnesses of Weimar and Coburg, the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg, generals, aides-de-camp, Court officials, Count Hatzfeldt, who disappeared after a while, Kutusow, the Russian, and Colonel Walker, the English Military Plenipotentiary, together with General Sheridan and his aide-de-camp, all in uniform, and all looking through field-glasses. The King stood, while others sat on a ridge at the edge of the field, as did the Chancellor also at times. I hear that the King sent word round that it was better not to gather into large groups, as the French in the fortress might in that case fire at us.

After 11 o’clock our line of attack advanced further on the right bank of the Meuse towards the main position of the French, who were thus more closely invested. In my eagerness I began to express my views to Count Puckler, probably somewhat louder[p. 144] than was necessary or quite fitting in the circumstances, and so attracted the attention of the Chief, who has sharp ears. He turned round and beckoned to me to come to him. “If you have strategic ideas to communicate to the Count it would be well if you managed to do so somewhat more quietly, doctor, as otherwise the King might ask who is speaking, and I should be obliged to present you to him.” Shortly afterwards he received telegrams, six of which he gave me to decipher, so that for the time I had to resign my part as a spectator.

On returning to the carriage I found in Count Hatzfeldt a companion who had also been obliged to combine business with pleasure. The Chief had instructed him to copy out a French letter of four pages which had been intercepted by our troops. I mounted the box and set to work deciphering, while the battle roared like half-a-dozen thunderstorms on the other side of the height. In my eagerness to get done I did not feel the scorching midday sun, which raised blisters on one of my ears.

It was now 1 o’clock. By this time our line of fire encircled the greater part of the enemy’s position on the heights beyond the town. Clouds of smoke rose in a wide arch, while the well-known small puff-balls of the shrapnels appeared for an instant and burst in the air. Only to the left there yet remained a space where all was still. The Chancellor now sat on a chair, studying a document of several pages. I asked if he would like to have something to eat or drink, as we had come provided. He declined, however, saying, “I should be very glad, but the King has also had nothing.”

The opposing forces on the other side of the river must be very near each other, as we hear oftener than[p. 145] before the hateful rattle of the mitrailleuse. Its bark, however, we are told, is worse than its bite. Between 2 and 3 o’clock, according to my watch, the King passed near where I stood. After looking for a while through his glass towards the suburbs of Sedan, he said to those who accompanied him, “There, to the left, they are pushing forward large masses of troops; I think it is a sortie.” It was, as a matter of fact, an advance of some columns of infantry, which, however, soon retired, probably because they found that although this place was quiet it was by no means open. Shortly afterwards, with the assistance of the field-glass, one could see the French cavalry deliver several attacks on the crest of the hill to the left of the wood near the defile, which were repelled by volleys from our side. After these charges it could be seen, even with the naked eye, that the ground was covered with white objects, horses or soldiers’ cloaks. Soon afterwards the artillery fire grew weaker at all points, and there was a general retreat of the French towards the town and its immediate vicinity. As already mentioned, they had for some time past been closed in on the left, where the Würtemberg troops had a couple of batteries not far from our hill, and where, as we were informed, the 5th and 11th Army Corps had cut off all escape, with the exception of a small gap towards the Belgian frontier. After half-past 4 all their guns were silent, and somewhat later ours also ceased firing.

Once again the scene becomes more animated. Suddenly bluish white clouds rise first in one and then in a second part of the town, showing that it is burning in two places. Bazeilles also is still in flames, and is sending up a pillar of dense grey, yellow vapour into the clear evening air. The soft radiance of the declining sun is[p. 146] spreading more and more over the valley at our feet, like burnished gold. The hillocks of the battle-field, the ravine in the midst, the villages, the houses, the towers of the fortress, the suburb of Torcy, and the broken bridge in the distance to the left, stand out in clear relief, from moment to moment more distinct as if seen through stronger and stronger glasses.

Towards 5 o’clock General Hindersin speaks to the King, and I fancy I catch the words, “Bombard the town,” and a “heap of ruins.” A quarter of an hour later a Bavarian officer gallops up the height towards us. General von Bothmer sends word to the King that General Mailinger, who is stationed at Torcy with the chasseurs, reports that the French desire to capitulate, and that their unconditional surrender has been demanded. The King replied, “No one can negotiate this matter except myself. Tell the general that the bearer of the flag of truce must come to me.”

The Bavarian rides back into the valley. The King then speaks to Bismarck, and together they join the Crown Prince (who had arrived a little before), Moltke and Roon. Their Highnesses of Weimar and Coburg are also with them, standing a little to one side. After a while a Prussian aide-de-camp appears, and reports that our losses, so far as they can be ascertained up to the present, are not great—those of the Guards being moderate, of the Saxons somewhat more, while the remaining corps engaged suffered less. Only a small proportion of the French have escaped into the woods in the direction of the Belgian frontier, where search is now being made for them. All the rest have been driven towards Sedan.

“And the Emperor?” questioned the King.

“We do not know,” answered the officer.

[p. 147]

Towards 6 o’clock, however, another aide-de-camp appeared, and reported that the Emperor was in the town, and would immediately send out a parlementaire. “That is a grand success!” said the King, turning to the company. “I thank thee (he added to the Crown Prince) for thy share in it.” With these words he gave his hand to his son, and the latter kissed it. He then held out his hand to Moltke, who also kissed it. Finally he likewise shook hands with the Chancellor, and spoke to him alone for some time. This seemed to excite the displeasure of some of their Highnesses.

Towards half-past 6, after a detachment of cuirassiers had been posted near the King as a guard of honour, the French General Reille, Napoleon’s parlementaire, rode slowly up the hill. He dismounted at a distance of some ten paces from the King, and after approaching his Majesty took off his cap and handed over a letter of large size with a red seal. The general is an elderly gentleman of medium height and slender figure, in an unbuttoned black tunic with epaulettes and shoulder straps, black vest, red trousers and polished riding boots. He has no sword, but carries a walking stick in his hand. All the company move away from the King, who opens and reads the letter, afterwards communicating the contents, which are now generally known, to Bismarck, Moltke, the Crown Prince and the other personages. Reille stands a little further off, at first alone, and later in conversation with some Prussian generals. The Crown Prince, Moltke and his Highness of Coburg also speak to him while the King takes counsel with the Chancellor, who then commissions Hatzfeldt to prepare a draft of the answer to the imperial letter. Hatzfeldt brings it in a few minutes and the King copies it, sitting on one chair, while the seat of[p. 148] another, held by Major von Alten, who kneels before him, serves as a desk.

Shortly before 7 o’clock the French general rides back towards Sedan in the twilight, accompanied by an officer and a uhlan trumpeter carrying a white flag. The town is now in flames in three places, and the lurid columns of smoke that rise from Bazeilles shows it to be still burning. The tragedy of Sedan is over, and night lets down the curtain.

There might be an epilogue on the following day, but for the present every one returned home. The King went back to Vendresse, the Chief, Count Bismarck-Bohlen and I drove to the little town of Donchery, where it was quite dark when we arrived. We put up at the house of a Dr. Jeanjot. The town was full of Würtemberg soldiers, who were camped in the market-place. Our reason for coming here was that an arrangement had been made according to which the Chancellor and Moltke were this evening to meet the French plenipotentiary to try to settle the conditions of the capitulation of the four French army corps now confined in Sedan.

I slept here in an alcove near the back room on the first floor, with only the wall between me and the Minister, who had the large front room. Towards 6 o’clock in the morning I was awakened by hasty footsteps, and heard Engel say: “Excellency, Excellency, there is a French general at the door. I cannot understand what he wants.” The Minister would appear to have got up hurriedly and spoken a few words to the French officer, who turned out to be General Reille. The consequence was that he dressed immediately, and without waiting either for breakfast or to have his clothes brushed, mounted his horse and[p. 149] rode rapidly off. I rushed to his window to see in what direction he went. I saw him trot off towards the market-place. In the room everything was lying about in disorder. On the floor lay the “Täglich Losungen und Lehrtexte der Brüdergemeinde für 1870” (Daily Watchwords and Texts of the Moravian Brethren for 1870), and on the toilette stand was another manual of devotion, “Die tägliche Erquickung für gläubige Christen” (Daily Spiritual Refreshment for Believing Christians), which Engel told me the Chancellor was accustomed to read at night.

I now hastily dressed myself also, and after I had informed them downstairs that the Chief had gone off to Sedan to meet the Emperor Napoleon, who had left the fortress, I followed him as fast as I could. Some 800 paces from the bridge across the Meuse at Donchery to the right of the road, planted with poplars, stands a single house, then the residence of a Belgian weaver. It is painted yellow, is but one story high, and has four windows on the front. There are white shutters to the windows on the ground floor; the venetian blinds on those of the first floor are also painted white, and it has a slate roof, like most of the houses at Donchery. Near it to the left is a potato field, now full of white blossoms, while to the right, across the path that leads to the house, stand some bushes. I see here that the Chancellor has already met the Emperor. In front of the house are six French officers of high rank, of whom five have caps with gold trimmings, while that worn by the sixth is black. What appears to be a hackney coach with four seats is waiting on the road. Bismarck and his cousin, Count Bohlen, are standing opposite the Frenchmen, while a little way off is Leverström, as well as two hussars, one brown and one black. At 8[p. 150] o’clock Moltke arrives with a few officers of the general staff, but leaves again after a short stay. Soon afterwards a short, thick-set man, in a red cap braided with gold lace, and wearing red trousers and a hooded cape lined with red, steps from behind the house and speaks at first to the French officers, some of whom are sitting under the hedge by the potato field. He has white kid gloves, and smokes a cigarette. It is the Emperor. At the short distance at which I stand from him I can clearly distinguish his features. There is something soft and dreamy in the look of his light grey eyes, which resemble those of people who have lived fast. His cap is set a little to the right, in which direction the head is also bent. The short legs do not seem in proportion with the long upper part of the body. His whole appearance has something unmilitary about it. The man is too soft, I am inclined to think too pulpy, for the uniform he wears. One could even fancy that he is capable of becoming sentimental at times. Those ideas, which are mere impressions, force themselves upon one all the more when one glances at the tall, well-set figure of our Chancellor. Napoleon seems fatigued, but not very much depressed. Nor does he look so old as I had expected. He might pass for a tolerably well-preserved man of fifty. After a while he goes over to the Chief, and speaks to him for about three minutes, and then—still smoking and with his hands behind his back—walks up and down by the potato garden. A further short conversation follows between the Chancellor and the Emperor, begun by Bismarck, after which Napoleon once more converses with his French suite. About a quarter to 9 o’clock Bismarck and his cousin leave, going in the direction of Donchery, whither I follow them.

[p. 151]

The Minister repeatedly related the occurrences of this morning and the preceding night. In the following paragraphs I unite all these various statements into a connected whole. The sense of what the Chancellor said is faithfully given throughout, and his own words are in great part reproduced.

“After the battle of the 1st of September, Moltke and I went to Donchery, about five kilometres from Sedan, for the purpose of carrying on the negotiations with the French. We spent the night there, the King and his suite returning to Vendresse. The negotiations lasted until midnight, without, however, leading to an understanding. In addition to Moltke and myself, Blumenthal and three or four other officers of the general staff were present. General Wimpffen was the French spokesman. Moltke’s demand was very short. The whole French army must surrender as prisoners of war. Wimpffen considered that too hard. The army had deserved better treatment by the gallantry it had shown in action. We ought to be content to let them go on condition that they took no further part in the war, and removed to some district in France to be fixed upon by us, or to Algiers. Moltke quietly maintained his demand. Wimpffen dwelt upon his own unfortunate position. He had joined the troops two days before on his return from Africa, and only took over the command when MacMahon was wounded towards the close of the battle—and yet he must now put his signature to such a capitulation. He would rather try to hold the fortress or venture a sortie. Moltke regretted that it was impossible for him to make allowance for the position of the general, the hardship of which he appreciated. He recognised the gallantry of the French troops, but they could not possibly[p. 152] hold Sedan, and a sortie was out of the question. He was prepared to allow one of the general’s officers to inspect our positions, in order that he might convince himself of that fact. Wimpffen then urged that from a political standpoint it was advisable to grant better terms. We must desire a speedy and permanent peace, and we could now secure it if we acted generously. A considerate treatment of the army would put both the soldiers and the whole people under an obligation of gratitude, and would inspire friendly feelings towards us. An opposite course would lead to endless war. I intervened at this point, as my trade came into question here. I told Wimpffen it was possible to trust to the gratitude of a Prince but not to that of a people, and least of all to that of the French. They had no permanent institutions, they were constantly changing governments and dynasties, which were not bound by what their predecessors had undertaken. If the Emperor’s throne were secure it would be possible to count upon his gratitude in return for more favourable conditions. As matters stood it would be foolish not to avail themselves to the full of the advantages of our success. The French were an envious, jealous people. They were angry with us for our victory at Sadowa, and could not forgive us for it, although it had not injured them. How then could any generosity on our part prevent them from bearing us a grudge for Sedan? Wimpffen could not agree to that. The French had changed latterly, and had learnt under the Empire to think more of peaceful interests than of the glory of war. They were ready to proclaim the brotherhood of nations, and so on. It was not difficult to prove the contrary, and to show that the acceptance of his proposals would lead rather to a prolongation of the[p. 153] war, than to its termination. I finished by saying that we must maintain our conditions. Castelneau then spoke, explaining on behalf of the Emperor that the latter had only given up his sword on the previous day in the hope of an honourable capitulation. I asked, ‘Whose sword was that? The Emperor’s, or that of France?’ He replied, ‘Merely the Emperor’s.’ ‘Well then,’ interjected Moltke, sharp as lightning—a gleam of satisfaction overspreading his hawk-like features—‘There can be no further question of any other conditions.’ ‘Very well,’ declared Wimpffen, ‘in that case we shall renew the fight to-morrow.’ ‘I will see that our fire commences at 4 o’clock,’ said Moltke, on which the French expressed a wish to retire. I induced them, however, to remain a little longer and to consider the matter once more. The result was that they ultimately begged for an extension of the armistice, in order to consult with their people in Sedan. At first Moltke did not wish to agree to this, but finally consented on my pointing out to him that it could do no harm.

“Towards 6 o’clock on the morning of the 2nd of September, General Reille appeared before my lodging at Donchery, and said the Emperor wished to speak to me. I dressed immediately and got on horseback, dirty, unwashed, and dusty as I was, to ride to Sedan, where I expected to see the Emperor. I met him, however, on the road near Fresnois, three kilometres from Donchery. He sat with three officers in a two-horse carriage, three others accompanying him on horseback. Of these officers I only knew Reille, Castelneau, Moscowa, and Vaubert. I had my revolver buckled round my waist, and as I found myself alone in the presence of the six officers I may have glanced at it involuntarily. I may perhaps even have instinctively[p. 154] laid my hand upon it. Napoleon probably noticed that, as his face turned an ashy grey. Possibly he thought that history might repeat itself—I think it was a Prince de Condé who was murdered while a prisoner after a battle.[6]

“I saluted in military fashion. The Emperor took off his cap, the officers following his example, whereupon I also removed mine, although it was contrary to the regulations to do so. He said, ‘Couvrez-vous, donc.’ I treated him exactly as if we were at Saint Cloud, and asked him what his commands were. He wished to know whether he could speak to the King. I said that was impossible, as his Majesty’s quarters were about two German miles away. I did not wish him to see the King before we had come to an understanding as to the capitulation. He then asked where he could wait, which indicated that he could not return to Sedan, as he had either experienced or apprehended some unpleasantness there. The town was full of drunken soldiers, which was a great hardship for the inhabitants. I offered him my quarters at Donchery, which I was prepared to leave immediately. He accepted the offer, but when we had come within a few hundred yards of the town he asked whether he could not stay in a house which he saw by the road. I sent my cousin, who had followed me, to view the house. On his report I told the Emperor that it was a very poor place. He replied that it did not matter. After he had gone over to the house and come back again, having probably been unable to find the stairs which were at the back, I accompanied him to the first floor,[p. 155] where we entered a small room with one window. It was the best in the house, but its only furniture was a deal table and two rush-bottomed chairs.

“Here I had a conversation with him which lasted for nearly three-quarters of an hour. He complained first of this fatal war, which he had not desired. He was forced into it by the pressure of public opinion. I replied that in Germany nobody had wished for war, and the King least of all. We had regarded the Spanish question as a matter concerning Spain and not Germany, and we were justified in expecting from the good relations between the princely house of Hohenzollern and himself that an understanding could be easily come to with the Hereditary Prince. We then went on to speak of the present situation. He wished above all to obtain more favourable terms of capitulation. I explained that I could not go into that question, as it was a purely military one, with which Moltke would have to deal. On the other hand it was open to us to discuss an eventual peace. He replied that he was a prisoner, and therefore not in a position to decide. On my asking him whom he regarded as competent to treat, he referred me to the Government in Paris. I observed that the situation had therefore not changed since yesterday, and that we must maintain our demand respecting the army in Sedan, as a guarantee that we should not lose the benefits of our victory. Moltke, to whom I had sent word, and who had arrived in the meantime, was of the same opinion, and went to the King in order to tell him so.

“Standing before the house the Emperor praised our army and the manner in which it had been led. On my acknowledging that the French had also fought[p. 156] well, he came back to the conditions of the capitulation, and asked whether we could not allow the troops shut up in Sedan to cross the Belgian frontier, there to be disarmed and held as prisoners. I tried again to make it clear to him that that was a question for the military authorities, and could not be settled without the concurrence of Moltke. Besides, he himself had just declared that as a prisoner he was not able to exercise his authority, and that accordingly negotiations respecting questions of that kind should be carried on with the principal officer in command at Sedan.

“In the meantime a search had been made for a better lodging for the Emperor, and the officers of the general staff found that the little château of Bellevue near Fresnois, where I first met him, was suitable for his reception, and was not yet requisitioned for the wounded. I advised him to remove there, as it would be more comfortable than the weaver’s house, and that possibly he wanted rest. We would let the King know that he was there. He agreed to this, and I rode back to Donchery to change my clothes. I then accompanied him to Bellevue with a squadron of the 1st Cuirassier Regiment as a guard of honour. The Emperor wished the King to be present at the negotiations which began here—doubtless counting on his soft-heartedness and good nature—but he also desired me to take part in them. I had however decided that the soldiers, who were made of sterner stuff, should settle the affair by themselves; and so I whispered to an officer as I went up the stairs to call me in five minutes and say that the King wanted to speak to me. This was accordingly done. Napoleon was informed that he could only see the King after the conclusion of the capitulation. The[p. 157] matter was therefore arranged between Moltke and Wimpffen, much on the lines that were laid down the evening before. Then the two monarchs met. As the Emperor came out after the interview his eyes were filled with heavy tears. In speaking to me he was much less affected, and was perfectly dignified.”

We had no detailed particulars of these events on the forenoon of the 2nd of September; and from the moment when the Chief, in a fresh uniform and cuirassier’s helmet, rode off from Donchery until late at night, we only heard vague rumours of what was going on. About 10.30 A.M. a detachment of Würtemberg artillery drove past our house at a trot. In every direction clouds of dust rose from the hoofs of the cavalry, while the bayonets of long columns of infantry glistened in the sun. The road at our feet was filled with a procession of waggons loaded with baggage and forage. Presently we met Lieutenant von Czernicki, who wanted to go into Sedan, and invited us to drive with him in his little carriage. We had accompanied him nearly as far as Fresnois when, at about 1 o’clock, we met the King with a large suite on horseback, including the Chancellor, coming in the opposite direction. As it was probable that the Chief was going to Donchery we got out and followed him. The party, however, which included Hatzfeldt and Abeken, rode through the town, and we heard that they were viewing the battle-field. As we did not know how long the Minister would remain away we did not venture to leave Donchery.

About 1.30 P.M. some thousands of prisoners marched through the town on their way to Germany. Most of them were on foot, but some of them were in carts. They included about sixty to seventy officers,[p. 158] and a general who was on horseback. Amongst the prisoners were cuirassiers in white helmets, blue hussars with white facings, and infantrymen of the 22nd, 52nd and 58th regiments. They were escorted by Würtemberg infantry. At 2 o’clock followed a second batch of about 2000 prisoners, amongst whom were negroes in Arab costume—tall, broad-shouldered fellows, with savage, ape-like features, and some old soldiers wearing the Crimean and Mexican medals.

A little after 3 o’clock two French guns, with their ammunition waggons and still drawn by French horses, passed through our street. The words “5, Jäger, Görlitz” were written in chalk on one of the guns. Shortly afterwards a fire broke out in one of the streets to the left of our quarters. Würtemberg soldiers had opened a cask of brandy and had imprudently made a fire near it.

Considerable distress prevailed in the town, and even our landlord (he and his wife were good souls) suffered from a scarcity of bread. The place was overcrowded with soldiers, who were quartered on the inhabitants, and with the wounded who were sometimes put up in stables. Some of the people attached to the Court tried to secure our house for the Hereditary Grand Duke of Weimar, but we held out successfully against them. Then an officer wanted to quarter a Prince of Mecklenburg upon us, but we also sent him packing, telling him it was out of the question, as the Chancellor of the Confederation lodged there. After a short absence, however, I found that the Weimar gentlemen had forced themselves into the house. We had reason to be thankful that they did not turn our Chief out of his bed.

The Minister only returned after 11 o’clock and I[p. 159] had supper with him, the party also including the Hereditary Grand Duke of Weimar, in the uniform of the Light Blue Hussars, and Count Solms-Sonnenwalde, formerly attached to the Embassy in Paris, and now properly speaking a member of our staff, although we had seen very little of him recently.

The Chancellor gave us very full particulars of his ride over the battle-field. He had been nearly twelve hours in the saddle, with short intervals. They had been over the whole field, and were received with great enthusiasm in all the camps and bivouacs. It was said that during the battle our troops had taken over 25,000 prisoners, while 40,000 who were in Sedan surrendered under the capitulation, which was concluded about noon.

The Minister told us that Napoleon was to leave for Germany, that is to say for Wilhelmshöhe, on the following morning. “The question is,” said the Chief, “whether he is to go by way of Stenay and Bar le Duc or through Belgium.” “In Belgium he would no longer be a prisoner,” said Solms. “Well, that would not matter,” replied the Chief, “and it would not even do any harm if he took another direction. I was in favour of his going through Belgium, and he seemed also inclined to take that route. If he failed to keep his word it would not injure us. But it would be necessary to communicate beforehand with Brussels, and we could not have an answer in less than two days.”

About 8 o’clock on the following morning, just as I was at breakfast, we heard a noise which sounded like heavy firing. It was only the horses in a neighbouring stable stamping on the wooden floor, probably out of temper that they also should have been put on short commons, as the drivers had only been able to give them half measures of oats. As a matter of fact there[p. 160] was a general scarcity. I heard subsequently that Hatzfeldt had been commissioned by the Chief to go to Brussels. Shortly afterwards the Chancellor called me to his bedside. He had received 500 cigars, and wished me to divide them among the wounded. I accordingly betook myself to the barracks, which had been transformed into a hospital, and to the bedrooms, barns and stables in the street behind our house. At first I only wished to divide my stock amongst the Prussians; but the Frenchmen who were sitting by cast such longing glances at them, and their German neighbours on the straw pleaded so warmly on their behalf—“We can’t let them look on while we are smoking, they too have shared everything with us”—that I regarded it as no robbery to give them some too. They all complained of hunger, and asked how long they were going to be kept there. Later on they were supplied with soup, bread and sausages, and some of those in the barns and stables were even treated to bouillon and chocolate by a Bavarian volunteer hospital attendant.

The morning was cold, dull and rainy. The masses of Prussian and Würtemberg troops who marched through the town seemed however in the best of spirits. They sang to the music of their bands. In all probability the feelings of the prisoners who sat in the long line of carts that passed in the opposite direction at the same time were more in harmony with the disagreeable weather and the clouded sky. About 10 o’clock, as I waded in the drizzling rain through the deep mud of the market-place in fulfilment of my mission to the wounded, I met a long procession of conveyances coming from the Meuse bridge under the escort of the black death’s-head hussars. Most of them were covered coaches, the remainder being baggage and commissariat[p. 161] carts. They were followed by a number of saddle horses. In a closed coupé immediately behind the hussars sat the “Prisoner of Sedan,” the Emperor Napoleon, on his way to Wilhelmshöhe through Belgium. General Castelneau had a seat in his carriage. He was followed in an open waggonette by the infantry general, Adjutant-General von Boyen, who had been selected by the King as the Emperor’s travelling companion, and by Prince Lynar and some of the officers who had been present at Napoleon’s meeting with the Chancellor on the previous day. “Boyen is capitally suited for that mission,” said the Chief to us the night before; “he can be extremely rude in the most polite way.” The Minister was probably thinking of the possibility that some of the officers in the entourage of the august prisoner might take liberties.

We learned afterwards that an indirect route through Donchery had been taken, as the Emperor was particularly anxious not to pass through Sedan. The hussars went as far as the frontier near Bouillon, the nearest Belgian town. The Emperor was not treated with disrespect by the French prisoners whom the party passed on the way. The officers on the other hand had occasionally to listen to some unpleasant remarks. Naturally they were “traitors,” as indeed from this time forward everybody was who lost a battle or suffered any other mishap. It seems to have been a particularly painful moment for these gentlemen when they passed a great number of French field pieces that had fallen into our hands. Boyen related the following anecdote. One of the Emperor’s aides-de-camp, I believe it was the Prince de la Moscowa, thought the guns belonged to us, as they were drawn[p. 162] by our horses, yet was apparently struck by something in their appearance. He asked:—

“Quoi, est-ce que vous avez deux systèmes d’artillerie?”

“Non, monsieur, nous n’avons qu’un seul,” was the reply.

“Mais ces canons-là?”

“Ils ne sont pas les nôtres, monsieur.”

[p. 163]

## CHAPTER VII

FROM THE MEUSE TO THE MARNE

I again quote from my diary.

Saturday, September 3rd.—We left Donchery shortly before 1 o’clock. On the way we were overtaken by a short but severe storm, the thunder echoing along the valleys. This was followed by a heavy rain, which thoroughly drenched the Chancellor, who sat in an open carriage, as he told us in the evening at table. Happily it had no serious consequences: it depends more on diplomacy, and if the Chief were to fall ill who could replace him?

I drove with the Councillors. Count Bohlen gave us numerous details of the events of yesterday. Napoleon had left Sedan at such an early hour it must have been before or shortly after daybreak—because he felt it was unsafe to remain in the midst of the furious soldiery, who were packed into the fortress like herrings in a barrel, and who burst into paroxysms of rage, breaking their rifles and swords on hearing of the capitulation. During the first interview at Donchery the Minister had, amongst other things, told Wimpffen he must be well aware that the arrogance and quarrelsomeness of the French, and their jealousy at the success of neighbouring peoples, did not originate with the working and[p. 164] industrial classes, but with the journalists and the mob. These elements, however, swayed public opinion, constraining it to their will. For that reason the moral guarantees to which the general had referred would be of no value. We must have material guarantees, at present by the capitulation of the army in Sedan, and then by the cession of the great fortresses in the East. The surrender of the French troops took place on a kind of peninsula formed by a bend of the Meuse. Moltke had ridden out some distance from Vendresse to meet the King. The interview between the two Sovereigns took place in the drawing-room of the château of Bellevue. They were alone together for about ten minutes. Subsequently the King summoned the officers of his suite, ordered the capitulation to be read to him, and, with tears in his eyes, thanked them for their assistance. The Crown Prince is understood to have informed the Hessian regiments that the King had selected Cassel for the internment of the Emperor Napoleon, in recognition of their gallantry.

The Minister dined with the King at Vendresse, where we once more put up for the night, but he nevertheless took some refreshment with us afterwards. He read over to us a portion of a letter from his wife, energetically expressing in biblical terms her hope that the French would be destroyed. He then added meditatively, “Well, in 1866—seven days. This time possibly seven times seven. Yes—when did we cross the frontier? On the 4th? No, on the 10th of August. Five weeks ago. Seven times seven—it may be possible.”

I again send off a couple of articles to Germany, amongst them being one on the results of the battle of the 1st September.

We are to start for Reims to-morrow, our first halt to be at Rethel.

[p. 165]

Rethel, September 4th, evening.—Early this morning before we left Vendresse I was called to the Chief, to receive instructions respecting reports for the newspapers of his meeting with Napoleon. Towards the close he practically dictated what I was to say.[7] Shortly afterwards, about half-past 10, the carriages arrived, and we began our journey into the champagne country. The way was at first somewhat hilly, then we came to a softly undulating plain, with numerous fruit gardens, and finally to a poor district with very few villages. We passed some large detachments of troops, at first Bavarians, and afterwards the 6th and 50th Prussian regiments. Amongst the latter Willisch saw his brother, who had been in battle, and had escaped unwounded. A little further on the carriage of Prince Charles had to be left behind at a village, as the axle had caught fire. We took Count Dönhoff, the Prince’s master of the horse, and Major von Freyberg, aide-de-camp to Prince Luitpold of Bavaria, into our conveyance. The tragedy at Bazeilles was mentioned, and the major gave an account of the circumstances, which differed considerably from that of Count Bohlen. According to him twenty peasants, including one woman, lost their lives, but they were killed in fight while opposing the soldiers, who stormed the place. A priest was afterwards shot by court-martial. The Major however does not appear to have been a witness of the occurrences which he relates, so that his account of the affair may also prove to be inaccurate. He knew nothing of the hangings mentioned by Bohlen. There are some people whose tongues are more cruel than their dispositions.

We arrived at Rethel about 5.30 P.M. The quarter-master had chosen a lodging for us in the roomy and well-furnished[p. 166] residence of one M. Duval, in the Rue Grand Pont. The entire field bureau of the Foreign Office was quartered in this house. After dinner I was summoned three times to receive instructions from the Chief. Amongst other things he said: “Metz and Strassburg are what we require and what we wish to take—that is the fortresses. Alsace is a professorial idea.” He evidently referred to the strong emphasis laid upon the German past of that province and the circumstance that the inhabitants still retained the use of the German language.

In the meantime the German newspapers were delivered. It was highly satisfactory to observe that the South German press also began to oppose the efforts of foreign diplomacy which desired to mediate in the negotiations for peace between ourselves and France. In this respect the Schwäbische Merkur was perfectly in accord with the Chief’s views in saying: “When the German peoples marched to the Rhine in order to defend their native land, European diplomacy said the two antagonists must be allowed to fight out their own quarrel, and that the war must be thus localised. Well, we have carried on that war alone against those who threatened all Europe, and we now also desire to localise the conclusion of peace. In Paris we shall ourselves dictate the conditions which must protect the German people from a renewal of such predaceous invasion as the war of 1870, and the diplomats of foreign Powers who looked on as spectators shall not be allowed to have anything to say in the matter. Those who took no part in the fight shall have no voice in the negotiations.” “We must breed other articles from this one,” said the Chief, and it did.

Reims, September 5th.—During the whole forenoon[p. 167] great masses of troops marched along a road not far from our quarters at Rethel Bridge. The procession was closed by four regiments of Prussian infantry. It was very noticeable how few officers there were. Several companies were under the command of young lieutenants or ensigns. This was the case with the 6th and 46th, one battalion of which carried a captured French eagle. Although the day was stiflingly hot, and the men were covered with the white dust of the limestone roads, they marched steadily and well. Our coachman placed a bucket of water by the way, so that they could fill their tin cans and glasses, and sometimes their helmets, as they passed.

Between 12 and 1 o’clock we started for Reims; the district through which the road runs is in great part an undulating plain with few villages.

At length we see the towers of the Cathedral of Reims rising over the glistening plains, and beyond the town the blue heights that change to green as we approach them, and show white villages along their sides. We drive at first through poor outskirts and then through better streets, and across a square with a monument, to the Rue de Cloître, where we take up our quarters, opposite the Cathedral, in a handsome house, which belongs to a M. Dauphinot. The Chief lodged on the first floor, while the office was set up on the ground floor. The streets are crowded with Prussian and Würtemberg soldiers. The King has done the Archbishop the honour of taking up his quarters in his Palace. I hear that our landlord is the Maire of Reims. Keudell understands that the territory to be retained by us at the close of the war will probably not be incorporated with any one State or divided between several, but will become the collective possession of all Germany.

[p. 168]

In the evening the Chief dined with us, and as we are here in the centre of the champagne country we try several brands. In the course of conversation the Chief mentions that he is usually bored at the royal table. “When there are but few guests I sit near the King, and then it is tolerable. But when there are a great number present I am placed between the Bavarian Prince and the Grand Duke of Weimar, and then the conversation is inexpressibly tedious.” Some one remarked that yesterday a shot was fired out of a café, at a squadron of our hussars. The Minister said the house must be immediately destroyed, and the proprietor tried by court-martial. Stieber should be instructed to inquire into the matter.

I understand we are to remain here for ten or twelve days.

Tuesday, September 6th.—I have been working hard from 10 to 3 o’clock without interruption in preparing, amongst other things, exhaustive, and also shorter, articles respecting the conditions upon which Germany should make peace. The Chief found an article that appeared in the Volkszeitung of the 31st of August “very sensible and well worth calling attention to.” The writer argued against the annexation to Prussia of the conquered French territory; and after endeavouring to show that such a course would rather weaken than strengthen Prussia, concluded with the words: “Our aim ought to be, not the aggrandisement of Prussia, but the unification of Germany, and to put it out of the power of France to harm us.” Bamberger has established a French newspaper at Nancy, to which we are to send reports from time to time.

At dinner Count Bohlen remarked, as he counted[p. 169] the places, “I hope we are not thirteen.” “No.” “That’s right, as the Minister does not like that number.” Bohlen, who seems to be charged with the supervision of the fleshpots, has to-day evidently inspired the genius of our chef-de-cuisine to one of his greatest achievements. The dinner is magnificent. Amongst the guests are Von Knobelsdorff, a captain in the Guards; Count York, and one Count Brühl, a somewhat bashful young man, in the uniform of a lieutenant of dragoons. The latter brought the great news that a Republic had been proclaimed in Paris and a Provisional Government appointed, in which Gambetta, hitherto one of the orators of the Opposition, and Favre have portfolios. Rochefort, the editor of La Lanterne, is also a member of the Cabinet. It is said that they wish to continue the war against us. The position has, therefore, not improved in so far as peace is concerned; but it is also by no means worse, especially if the Republic lasts, and it becomes, later on, a question of gaining friends at foreign Courts. For the present it is all over with Napoleon and Lulu. Like Louis Philippe in 1848, the Empress has fled. We shall soon discover what the lawyers and literary men, who have now taken over the conduct of affairs, can do. Whether France will recognise their authority remains to be seen.

Our uhlans are now at Château Thierry; in two days they may reach Paris. It is now certain, however, that we shall remain another week at Reims. Count Bohlen reported to the Chief the result of his inquiries respecting the café from which our cavalry were fired at. Yielding to the entreaties of the proprietor, who is believed to be innocent, the house has not been destroyed. Moreover, the treacherous shot failed of its[p. 170] effect. The proprietor has been let off with a fine of two hundred or two hundred and fifty bottles of champagne, to be presented to the squadron; and this he gladly paid.

At tea somebody (I now forget who it was) referred to the exceptional position accorded to the Saxons in the North German Confederation as regards military arrangements. The Chancellor did not consider the matter of much importance. “Moreover, that arrangement was not made on my initiative,” he observed; “Savigny concluded the treaty, as I was seriously ill at the time. I am disposed to regard even less narrowly the arrangements respecting the foreign relations of the smaller States. Many people lay too much stress on this point, and apprehend danger from the retention of their diplomatic representatives besides those of the Confederation. If such States were in other respects powerful, they could, even without official representatives, exchange letters with foreign Courts and intrigue by word of mouth against our policy. That could be managed by a dentist or any other personage of that description. Moreover, the Diets will soon refuse to grant the sums required for all such luxuries.”

Thursday, September 8th.—The Chancellor gives a great dinner, the guests including the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Herr Stephan the Chief Director of the Post Office, and the three Americans. Amongst other matters mentioned at table were the various reports as to the affair at Bazeilles. The Minister said that peasants could not be permitted to take part in the defence of a position. Not being in uniform they could not be recognised as combatants—they were able to throw away their arms unnoticed. The chances must be equal for both sides.[p. 171] Abeken considered that Bazeilles was hardly treated, and thought the war ought to be conducted in a more humane manner. Sheridan, to whom MacLean has translated these remarks, is of a different opinion. He considers that in war it is expedient, even from the political point of view, to treat the population with the utmost rigour also. He expressed himself roughly as follows: “The proper strategy consists in the first place in inflicting as telling blows as possible upon the enemy’s army, and then in causing the inhabitants so much suffering that they must long for peace, and force their Government to demand it. The people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.” Somewhat heartless it seems to me, but perhaps worthy of consideration.

Friday, September 9th.—Engaged all the forenoon and until 3 o’clock in writing various articles, amongst others one on the inconceivable attachment of the Alsacians to France, their voluntary helotry, and the blindness which will not permit them to see and feel that the Gauls only regard them as a kind of second-rate Frenchmen, and in many respects treat them accordingly. News has arrived that Paris is not to be defended against us nor regarded as a fortress. This is very questionable, as, according to other reports, the French have still some regular troops at their disposal, although not many.

Saturday, September 10th.—The Chief dined with the King to-day, but also joined us at table for half an hour. Bohlen, who had visited the Imperial château at Mourmelon, near Châlons, told us how the people had wrecked the whole place, breaking the furniture, mirrors, &c. After dinner the Chancellor had a long talk alone with Boyen and Delbrück, who were amongst[p. 172] the guests. I was afterwards summoned to the Minister to receive instructions respecting a communiqué to the two French newspapers published here, namely the Courier de la Champagne and the Indépendant Rémois. It was to the following effect: “If the Reims press were to declare itself in favour of the proclamation of a French Republic, and recognise the new Government by publishing its decrees, it might be inferred that as the town is occupied by German troops the organs in question were acting in harmony with the views of the German Government. This is not the case. The German Government respects the liberty of the press here as at home. It has however up to the present recognised no Government in France except that of the Emperor Napoleon. Therefore until further notice it can only recognise the Imperial Government as authorised to enter upon international negotiations.”

I give the following from my diary merely to show the genuine kindness and simple good-heartedness of our Chief. After giving me my instructions he remarked that I had not been looking well; and when I told him I had been rather unwell for the last few days, he inquired minutely into the details, and asked me whether I had consulted any doctor. I said I had not much faith in physicians.

“Well,” he replied, “they certainly are not of much use as a rule, and often only make us worse. But this is no laughing matter. Send to Lauer—he is really a good man. I cannot tell you how much my health owes to him during this campaign. Go to bed for a couple of days and you will be all right again. Otherwise you will have a relapse and may not be able to stir for three weeks. I often suffer in the same way, and[p. 173] then I take thirty to thirty-five drops from that little bottle on the chimney-piece. Take it with you, but bring it back again. And when I send for you tell me if you are not able to come and I will go to you. You can perhaps write in bed.”

Sunday, September 11th.—The Chief’s bottle has had an excellent effect. I was again able to rise early and work with ease. The contents of the communiqué were forwarded to the newspaper at Nancy as well as to the German press. It was pointed out, in correction of the remarks of the Kieler Zeitung and the Berlin Volkszeitung, that Prussia did not conclude the Peace of Prague with France, but with Austria, and that, consequently, the French have as little to do with paragraph 5 as with any other paragraph of that treaty.

In the course of the day one M. Werle called upon the Chief. He was a tall, haggard man, with the red ribbon in his button-hole which appears to be indispensable to every well-dressed Frenchman. He is understood to be a member of the Legislative Chamber, and a partner in the firm of Veuve Clicquot. He wished to speak to the Chief as to measures for mitigating the distress which prevailed in the town, and for providing against popular riots. It was feared that the working classes here, being in a state of ferment, would declare in favour of a Red Republic. As Reims was an industrial centre, with ten or twelve thousand ouvriers within its walls, there might be general ground for apprehension on the withdrawal of our troops. That also was a thing one could have hardly dreamed of a month ago—German soldiers protecting the French from Communism!

After dinner I was summoned several times to the Chief to receive instructions. In Belgium and Luxemburg our wounded were received in an unfriendly[p. 174] manner, and it is suspected, probably not without reason, that ultramontane influence is at the bottom of this conduct. Favre, “who does not exist for us,” as the Chief declared to-day, has asked, indirectly through London, whether we are disposed to grant an armistice and to enter into negotiations. Favre seems to consider this question as very pressing. The Chancellor, however, does not.

When Bölsing brought in the despatch from Bernstorff, stating that Lord Granville requested an early reply from the Chancellor of the Confederation to Favre’s inquiry, the Minister simply remarked, “There is no hurry to answer this rubbish.”

After 10 P.M. the Chief joined us at tea.

The conversation ultimately turned on the politics of recent years. The Chancellor said: “What I am proudest of, however, is our success in the Schleswig-Holstein affair, in which the diplomatic intrigues would furnish matter for a play. In the first place, Austria could not well have sided with the Augustenburger in presence of her previous attitude as recorded in the proceedings of the Germanic Diet, for which she was bound to show some regard. Then she wanted to find some tolerable way out of the embarrassment in which she had involved herself with the Congress of Princes at Frankfurt. Immediately after the death of the King of Denmark I explained what I wanted in a long speech at a sitting of the Council of State. The official who drew up the minutes of the sitting omitted the most important part of my speech; he must have thought that I had lunched too well, and would be glad if he left it out. But I took care that it was again inserted. It was difficult, however, to carry my idea into execution. Everything was against it—Austria, the English, the[p. 175] small States—both Liberal and anti-Liberal, the Opposition in the Diet, influential personages at Court, and the majority of the Press.

“Yes, at that time there was some hard fighting, the hardest being with the Court, and it demanded stronger nerves than mine. It was about the same at Baden-Baden before the Congress at Frankfurt, when the King of Saxony was in Baden, and wanted our King to go to that Assembly. It was literally in the sweat of my brow that I prevented him from doing so.” I asked the Chief, after some further remarks, if the King had really wished to join the other Princes. “He certainly did,” replied the Minister, “and I only succeeded with the utmost difficulty in preventing him, literally hanging on to his coat-tails.” The Chief then continued to the following effect: “His Majesty said he could not well do otherwise when a King had come to him as a courier to bring the invitation. All the women were in favour of his going, the Dowager Queen, the reigning Queen, and the Grand Duchess of Baden. I declared to the Dowager that I would not remain Minister nor return to Berlin if the King allowed himself to be persuaded. She said she was very sorry, but if I seriously meant that, she must surrender her own view and use her influence with the King in the other direction, although it was greatly opposed to her own convictions. The affair was, however, still made quite disagreeable enough for me. After the King of Saxony and Beust had been with him, his Majesty lay on the sofa and had an attack of hysterical weeping; and when at length I had succeeded in wringing from him the letter of refusal, I was myself so weak and exhausted that I could scarcely stand. Indeed, I actually reeled as I left the room, and was so nervous and unhinged[p. 176] that in closing the outer door I tore off the handle. The aide-de-camp asked me if I was unwell. I said, ‘No, I am all right again now.’ I told Beust, however, that I would have the regiment stationed at Rastatt brought over to guard the house, and to prevent anybody else having access to the King in order to put fresh pressure upon him.” Keudell also mentioned that the Minister had intended to get Beust arrested. It was getting late when the Chief had finished his narrative of those events, so he retired, saying: “Yes, gentlemen, a delicate nervous system has to endure a good deal. I shall therefore be off to bed. Good night.”

Monday, September 12th.—Engaged writing various paragraphs till noon.

According to some of the German papers the Chief had declared that in the battle of Sedan, Prussia’s allies fought best. What he said, however, was only that they co-operated in the best possible way. “The Belgians,” said the Minister, “display such hatred towards us and such warm attachment for the French, that perhaps after all something might be done to satisfy them. It might at any rate be well to suggest that arrangements even with the present French Government are not entirely out of the question, which would gratify Belgian yearnings towards France. Call attention,” added the Chief, “to the fact that the present animosity in Belgium is due chiefly to ultramontane agitation.”

The Bavarian Count Luxburg, who is staying with Kühlwetter, has distinguished himself by his talent and zeal. In future he is to take part in the consideration of all important questions.

A report has been received to the effect that America has offered her services as a mediator between ourselves[p. 177] and the new French Republic. This mediation will not be declined, and as a matter of fact would be preferred to that of any other State. It may be assumed that the authorities at Washington are not disposed to interfere with our necessary military operations, which would however probably be the consequence of such mediation. The Chief appears to have been for a considerable time past well disposed towards the Americans, and not long ago it was understood that he hoped to secure permission to fit out ships in the American harbours against the French navy. Doubtless there is no longer any probability of this being done.

To conclude from a communication which he has forwarded to Carlsruhe, the Minister regards the general situation as follows:—“Peace seems to be still very remote, as the Government in Paris does not promise to be permanent. When the proper moment for negotiations has arrived, the King will summon his allies to consider our demands. Our principal object is and remains to secure the South-Western German frontier against the danger of a French invasion, to which it has now been subjected for centuries. A neutral buffer State like Belgium or Switzerland would not serve our purpose, as it would unquestionably join France in case of a fresh outbreak of war. Metz and Strassburg, with an adequate portion of surrounding territory, must belong to all Germany, to serve as a protective barrier against the French. The partition of this territory between single States is inexpedient. The fact that this war has been waged in common cannot fail to have exercised a healthy influence in other respects on the cause of German unity; but nevertheless Prussia will, as a matter of course, after the war as before it, respect the views of the South, and avoid even the suspicion of any kind of[p. 178] pressure. In this matter a great deal will depend upon the personal disposition and determination of the King of Bavaria.”

Before dinner to-day Prince Luitpold of Bavaria had a long interview with the Chief. In the evening at tea the Minister, referring to this interview, said: “The Prince is certainly a good fellow, but I rather doubt whether he understood the historical and political statements which I made to him to-day.”

I have reason to believe that this interview was the beginning of negotiations (which were several times interrupted) between the Chancellor of the Confederation and the Emperors of Austria and Russia, which gradually led to an understanding and finally resulted in the so-called Drei Kaiser Bündniss, or Three Emperors’ Alliance. The object of these “historical and political statements” was to induce Prince Luitpold to write a letter to his brother-in-law, the Archduke Albrecht, submitting certain views to the personal consideration of the Emperor Francis Joseph. This was one of the few ways in which it appeared possible for those considerations to reach the Emperor’s own ear in an ungarbled form. They were as follows: The turn which events have taken in Paris renders it possible to regard the present war between Germany and France as a defence of monarchical conservative principles against the republican and socialistic tenets adopted by the present holders of power in France. The proclamation of the Republic in Paris has been welcomed with warm approval in Spain, and it is to be expected that it will obtain a like reception in Italy. In that circumstance lies the great danger for those European States that are governed on a monarchical system. The best security for the cause of order and civilisation against this[p. 179] solidarity of the revolutionary and republican elements would be a closer union of those countries which, like Germany, Russia, and Austria, still afford a firm support to the monarchical principle. Austria, however, can only be included in such an understanding when it is recognised in that country that the attempts hitherto made in the Cisleithan half of the monarchy to introduce a liberal system are based on a mistaken policy, as are also the national experiments in a Polish direction. The appointment of Klaczko, a Polish literary man, to a position in which he is in close relations with Beust, the Chancellor of the Empire, whose policy and tendency are well known, together with the latest declarations of Klaczko, must be regarded as indications of Beust’s own views and intentions. This co-operation with the Polish revolutionists, together with the hostility to Russia which is manifested thereby, is for the Chancellor of the German Confederation a serious hindrance to good relations with Austria, and must at the same time be regarded as an indication of hostility to ourselves. In connection with the above the position of the Cisleithan half of the dual State must be taken into consideration, and the difficulties which it presents cannot be overcome except by a conservative régime. It is only through the frank adoption of relations of mutual confidence towards united Germany and Russia that Austria can find the support which she requires against revolutionary and centrifugal forces, a support which she has lost through the disastrous policy of Count Beust.

Prince Luitpold’s letter giving expression to these views failed to produce the desired result. It is true the Archduke Albrecht submitted it to the Emperor,[p. 180] but he showed it at the same time to Beust. His answer, which was inspired by Beust, was in the main to the effect that Austria, so long as no special political advantages were offered by us, did not feel any need of support. If Prussia, as it would appear, regarded a rapprochement with Austria as desirable or requisite, nothing had been heard so far as to what she had to offer in return to the dual monarchy, whose interests were complex. The Emperor would gladly consider any suggestions that reached him in a direct way.

The Tsar Alexander was informed of the attempt made in Vienna through the Bavarian Prince, his attention being at the same time called to the notorious understanding which existed between the present Government in Paris and the revolutionary propagandists throughout Europe. The desirability of a close co-operation of the Eastern Powers against this movement was urged upon him on the one hand, while on the other the necessity was pointed out for Germany to avoid, when concluding peace, anything which might look like disregard for the real requirements of the country in the matter of frontier protection and security, and thus give the German revolutionary party an opportunity of poisoning the public mind. The Tsar declared himself in perfect agreement with these views, and expressed a strong desire for the realisation of the proposed union of the monarchical elements against the revolutionary movement.

Subsequently, after the insurrection of the Communists in Paris, the progress of the International, upon which considerable stress was also laid in the Press, was used as a further argument for the combination of the conservative Powers against the republican and[p. 181] socialistic propaganda. This time the representations in question met with more success in Vienna.

Tuesday, September 13th.—In the course of the forenoon I was called in to the Chancellor six times, and wrote as many paragraphs for the press. Amongst them were two for the local French papers, which also received some information from us yesterday. Arrangements were made to secure the insertion of the portrait and biography of General von Blumenthal in the illustrated papers with which we entertain friendly relations, a distinction which he has well deserved. “So far as one can see,” said the Chief, “the papers make no mention of him, although he is chief of the staff to the Crown Prince, and, next after Moltke, deserves most credit for the conduct of the war.

“I should like a grant to be made to him. He won the battles of Weissenburg and Wörth, and afterwards those of Beaumont and Sedan, as the Crown Prince was not always interfering with his plans, as Prince Frederick Charles did in 1866. The latter fancied that he understood a great deal about these matters.”

In the evening the Count sent for me once more. It was merely to show me a telegram, which he handed to me with a smile. It was a message from the Grand Duke of Weimar to the Grand Duchess, couched in the style of the King’s despatches to the Queen, in which the Duke reported, “My army has fought very bravely.” Greatness, like murder, will out. But still there are cases in which imitation had better be avoided.

On the 14th of September, shortly before 10 o’clock, we started for Château Thierry, and reached Meaux on the next day.

Before dinner we heard that a parlementaire has arrived from Paris, a slight dark-haired young gentleman,[p. 182] who is now standing in the courtyard before the Chief’s house. From his language he would appear to be an Englishman. In the evening he has a long conversation with the Chief over a bottle of kirschwasser, and turns out to be Mr. Edward Malet, an attaché of the British Embassy in Paris. As I had to pass through the antechamber I noticed the attendant, Engel, with his ear to the keyhole, curious to know what they were talking about. He had brought a letter from Lord Lyons asking whether the Count would enter into negotiations with Favre as to the conditions of an armistice. The Chancellor is understood to have replied: “As to conditions of peace, yes; but not for an armistice.”[8]

I see from the letters of some Berlin friends that many well-meaning and patriotic persons cannot bring themselves to accept the idea that the conquered territory is not to be annexed to Prussia. According to a communication from Heinrich von Treitschke, of Freiburg, it is feared that Alsace and Lorraine may be handed over to Bavaria, and that a new dual system may thus arise. In a letter to the Chief he says: “It is obvious that Prussia alone is capable of once more Germanising the Teutonic provinces of France.” He refers to a “circumstance to which too little attention is paid in the North—namely, that all sensible men in South Germany desire to see Alsace handed over to Prussia;” and declares that “it is a great mistake if it is thought in the North that the South must be rewarded by an increase of territory and population.” I cannot imagine where Treitschke can have heard such erroneous views. So far as I am aware they are held by none of[p. 183] our people. I fancy it is thought here that the South will be sufficiently rewarded in being at length secured against French lust of conquest. Other ideas of the writer can only be regarded as sound in certain circumstances. Our Chief’s plan, to which I have previously referred, is unquestionably more just and better adapted to the existing situation—namely, to make those provinces the common property of all Germany. By taking that course the conquered territory would not become an object of envy and a cause of dissatisfaction to Prussia’s allies; but, on the contrary, would serve as a bond of union between North and South.

I hear from Willisch that certain apprehensions are entertained in Berlin, which are understood to originate in the entourage of the Queen. Owing to the anxiety occasioned by the blowing-up of the citadel at Laon, objections are raised to the King entering Paris, where, it is apprehended, something might happen to him. Wrangel has telegraphed in this sense to the King, and it is stated that as a matter of fact his Majesty is now no longer inclined to go to Paris, and is disposed to await the further development of affairs at Rothschild’s place in Ferrières, which lies about half-way between Meaux and Paris.

Prince Hohenlohe dines at our table, where the Chief also joins us after returning from dinner with the King. We learn that Reims will be the administrative centre of the French provinces occupied by our troops, with the exception of Alsace and Lorraine. The Grand Duke of Mecklenburg is Governor-General, and will be at the head of the administration, and Hohenlohe will take a position under him.

The Chief remarked to his cousin, who complained of not feeling well: “At your age” (Bohlen is now[p. 184] thirty-eight) “I was still as sound as a bell, and could take all sorts of liberties with myself. It was at St. Petersburg that my health first sprang a leak.”

Somebody turned the conversation on Paris and the subject of the French and the Alsacians. The Chief gave his views on this matter very fully, addressing his remarks to me at the close, which I took to be a permission, or a hint, that I should either get his words or their purport into the newspapers. The Alsacians and the Germans of Lorraine, he declared, supply France with numbers of capable men, especially for the army, but they are not held of much account by the French, and seldom attain to high positions in the service of the State, while they are laughed at by the Parisians, who make caricatures and stories out of them, just as the Irish are laughed at in London. “Other French provincials are treated in the same way,” added the Minister, “if not quite so badly. To a certain extent, France is divided into two nations, the Parisians and the Provincials, and the latter are the voluntary helots of the former. The object to be aimed at now is the emancipation, the liberation of France from Parisian rule. When a provincial feels that he is capable of making a future for himself he comes to Paris, and is there adopted into, and becomes one of, the ruling caste. It is a question whether we should not oblige them to take back the Emperor as a punishment. That is still possible, as the peasants do not wish to be tyrannised from Paris. France is a nation of ciphers—a mere herd. The French are wealthy and elegant, but they have no individuality, no consciousness as individuals, but only as a mass. They are like thirty million obedient Kaffirs, each one of whom is in himself featureless and worthless, not fit to be compared with[p. 185] Russians and Italians, to say nothing of ourselves. It was an easy task to recruit out of this impersonal, invertebrate mass a phalanx ready to oppress the remainder of the country so long as it was not united.”

After dinner wrote several paragraphs in accordance with the Chief’s instructions and explanations. The subjects were: The German friends of the Republic—men like Jacoby, the Socialistic Democrats, and others holding similar views—will not hear of the annexation of French territory, being in the first place Republicans, and only in a secondary sense, to a certain extent, German. The security afforded to Germany by the seizure of Strassburg and Metz is detestable to them, as it is a bulwark against the Republic which they want to see established, weakening their propaganda, and injuring their prospects on our side of the Rhine. They place their party higher than their country. They welcomed the opposition to Napoleon, because he was an opponent of their doctrines, but since he has been replaced by the Republic they have become Frenchmen in sentiment and disposition. Russia has expressed a desire for a revision of the treaty entered into as the result of her defeat in the Crimean war. The alterations proposed in certain points of that instrument must be regarded as just. The Peace of Paris includes conditions respecting the Black Sea which are unfair, in view of the fact that a great part of the coast belongs to Russia. This must, however, be cautiously expressed.

The conjecture that the Crown Prince is of opinion that the Bavarians and Suabians, if they are not disposed willingly to form part of united Germany, must be compelled to do so, is correct. He is inclined to act on the maxim, Der Bien muss. I hear that at Donchery, or near that town, he had a long conversation[p. 186] on the subject with the Chancellor, who declared himself strongly against this idea.

Saturday, September 17th.—I did a good deal of work this morning and afternoon from instructions received yesterday. Amongst other things, I embodied in an article the following ideas, which are very characteristic of the Chancellor’s manner of thinking:

“The morning edition of the National Zeitung of September 11th contains a paragraph entitled ‘From Wilhelmshöhe,’ in which the writer, after lamenting the considerate treatment of the Prisoner of Sedan, falls into further errors. Nemesis should have shown no indulgence towards the man of December 2nd, the author of the laws of public safety, the prime mover in the Mexican tragedy, and the instigator of the present terrible war. The victor has been ‘far too chivalrous.’ That is the way in which the matter is regarded by ‘public opinion,’ as endorsed apparently by the writer. We do not in any way share those views. Public opinion is only too much disposed to treat political relations and events from the standpoint of private morals, and, amongst other things, to demand that in international conflicts the victor, guided by the moral code, should sit in judgment upon the vanquished, and impose penalties not only for the transgressions of the latter towards himself, but also, if possible, towards others. Such a demand is entirely unjustifiable. To advance it shows an utter misapprehension of the nature of political affairs, with which the conceptions of punishment, reward, and revenge have nothing in common. To accede to it would be to pervert the whole character of politics. Politics must leave to Divine Providence and to the God of Battles the punishment of princes and peoples for breaches of the[p. 187] moral law. The statesman has neither the authority nor the obligation to assume the office of judge. In all circumstances the sole question he has to consider is what, under the conditions given, is to the advantage of the country, and how that advantage is to be best secured. The kindlier affections have as little place in the calculations of politics as they have in those of trade. It is not the business of politics to seek vengeance for what has been done, but to take precautions that it shall not be done again. Applying these principles to our case, and to our conduct towards the vanquished and imprisoned Emperor of the French, we take the liberty to ask by what right are we to punish him for the 2nd of December, the law of public safety, and the occurrences in Mexico, however much we may disapprove of those acts? Political principles do not even permit us to think of taking revenge for the present war, of which he was the author. Were we to entertain such an idea, then it is not alone on Napoleon but almost on every single Frenchman that we should wreak the Blücher-like vengeance mentioned by the National Zeitung; for the whole of France, with her thirty-five million inhabitants, showed just as much approval of, and enthusiasm for, this war as for the Mexican expedition. Germany has simply to ask herself the further question, Which is more advantageous in the present circumstances, to treat Napoleon well or ill? And that, we believe, is not difficult to answer. Upon the same principles we also acted in 1866. If certain of the measures taken in that year and certain provisions in the Treaty of Prague could be regarded as acts of revenge for former affronts, and punishment for the offences that led to the war in question, the parties affected by those measures and[p. 188] conditions were not exactly those who had deserved the severest punishment or had done most to excite a desire for vengeance. Herr von Beust’s Saxony suffered no reduction of territory in consequence of that crisis, and Austria just as little.” This last sentence, which appeared literally as it now stands in the Chief’s instructions, was afterwards struck out by him. He remarked with a smile, “It is better not to mention names.”

Sunday, September 18th.—Early in the day wrote paragraphs for Berlin, Hagenau, and Reims, dealing, inter alia, with Favre’s declaration that “La République c’est la paix.” It was in the main to the following effect. During the last forty years France has always declared herself in favour of peace in every form, and has invariably acted in an entirely contrary spirit. Twenty years ago the Empire declared peace to be its ideal, and now the Republic does the same. In 1829 Legitimacy made a similar declaration, and at the same time a Franco-Russian alliance was concluded with the object of attacking Germany; and the execution of that plan was only prevented by the Revolution of 1830. It is also known that the “peaceful” administration of the “Citizen King” desired to seize the Rhine in 1840; and it will be remembered that under the Empire France has conducted more wars than under any other form of government. These facts show what we have to expect from M. Favre’s assurances respecting his Republic. Germany has one answer to all these representations, namely, “La France c’est la guerre!” and will act in accordance with that conviction in demanding the cession of Metz and Strassburg.

The Minister joined as at lunch to-day, at which two[p. 189] dragoon guardsmen were also present. Both wore the Iron Cross. One of them, Lieutenant Philip von Bismarck, was the Chancellor’s nephew, an official of the Supreme Court of Judicature in times of peace. The Chief asked him whether the Prince of Hohenzollern, who was attached to the lieutenant’s regiment, was “also a soldier, or merely a Prince?” The answer was favourable. The Minister replied: “I am glad of that. The fact of his having announced his election as King of Spain to his superior officer, in accordance with the regulations, impressed me in his favour.”

The conversation turned upon the cost of maintaining Napoleon at Wilhelmshöhe, which is stated to be something enormous. On this the Chief remarked: “It is at the Queen’s instance that Napoleon has been allowed to maintain a Court at the King’s expense. His Majesty had only proposed to give him one domestic who was to keep watch over him. But he himself observed to me that women are always addicted to extravagance.”

Mention was made of General Ducrot, who was taken prisoner at Sedan, and who, being allowed greater liberty on pledging his word not to escape, disgraced himself by absconding on the way to Germany. The Chief remarked: “When one catches scoundrels of that kind who have broken their word (of course, I don’t blame those who get away without it) they ought to be strung up in their red breeches with the word Parjure written on one leg, and Infâme on the other. In the meantime that must be put in its proper light in the press. The fellow must be shown up.” The barbarous manner in which the French were conducting the war having been again referred to, the Minister said: “If you peel the white hide off that sort of Gaul you will find a Turco under it.”

[p. 190]

Added later.—Von Suckow, the Würtemberg Minister of war, has been a considerable time with the Chief to-day, and it is understood that the German cause is making excellent progress amongst the Suabians. Things appear to be going less well in Bavaria, where the Minister, Bray, seems to be as hostile to the national cause as he well can be in the present circumstances.

Monday, September 19th.—It is said to be certain that Favre will arrive here to-day at noon for the purpose of negotiating with the Chief. He will have fine weather for his business. About 10 o’clock Count Bismarck-Bohlen comes from the Chief. We are to start immediately for the Château of Ferrières, four or five hours’ journey from here. So we pack up in all haste.

[p. 191]

## CHAPTER VIII

BISMARCK AND FAVRE AT HAUTE-MAISON—A FORTNIGHT IN ROTHSCHILD’S CHÂTEAU

Jules Favre not having arrived up to midday on the 19th of September, our party started. The Minister, however, left a letter for Favre at the Mairie, and told a servant to mention the fact to him in case he came. The Chief and the Councillors rode on ahead of the carriages, of which I had one entirely to myself. We first passed by the residence of the King, who was quartered in a handsome château on the Promenade, and between the villages of Mareuil and Montry we met a two-horse hackney, in which a Prussian officer sat with three civilians. One of the latter was an elderly gentleman with a grey beard and a protruding under lip. “That’s Favre,” I said to Kruger, the Chancery attendant who sat behind me. “Where is the Minister?” He was not to be seen, but had probably gone on before us, and the long train of conveyances cut off our view in front. We drove on rapidly, and after a while I met the Chief and Keudell riding back in the opposite direction.

“Favre has driven by, Excellency,” I said.

“I know,” he replied, smiling, and trotted on.

[p. 192]

Next day Count Hatzfeldt gave us some particulars of the meeting between the Chancellor of the Confederation and the Parisian lawyer, now one of the rulers of France. The Minister, Count Hatzfeldt and Keudell were half an hour ahead of us when Hofrath Taglioni, who drove with the King’s suite, told them that Favre had passed by. He had come by another route and had only reached its junction with our road after the Chief had ridden by. The Minister was very angry at not having been sooner informed of this. Hatzfeldt galloped after Favre, with whom he returned, finally meeting the Chief at Montry. Here the attention of the Minister was called to the little château of Haute-Maison, situated on a height some ten minutes from the village, as a suitable place for the interview with the Frenchman. There the party found two Würtemberg dragoons, one of whom was instructed to take his carbine and mount guard before the house. They also met there a French peasant, who looked as if he had just received a good thrashing. While our people were asking this man whether it was possible to get anything to eat or drink, Favre, who had gone into the house with the Chancellor, came out for a moment and addressed his countryman in a speech full of pathos and noble sentiments. Disorderly attacks had been made, he said, which must be stopped. He, Favre, was not a spy, but, on the contrary, a member of the new government which had undertaken to defend the interests of the country and which represented its dignity. In the name of international law and of the honour of France he called upon him to keep watch, and to see that the place was held sacred. That was imperatively demanded by his, the statesman’s, honour, as well as by that of the peasant, and so forth. The honest rustic looked particularly[p. 193] silly as he listened open-mouthed to all this high falutin, which he evidently understood as little as if it were so much Greek. Keudell remarked, “If this is the individual who is to preserve us from a surprise, I for my part prefer to trust to the sentry.”

On the same evening I learnt from another source that lodgings had been taken for Favre in the village near the Château of Ferrières, as he desired to have a further conference with the Chief. He was accompanied by MM. Rink and Hell, formerly Secretaries of Embassy under Benedetti, and Prince Biron. Keudell said, “As the Chancellor left the room where his interview with Favre had taken place, he asked the dragoon who was on guard before the door whence he came. The man replied, ‘From Schwäbisch-Hall.’ ‘Well, then, you may be proud,’ he continued, ‘of having stood guard over the first negotiation for peace in this war.’”

In the meantime the remainder of us had a long wait at Cheffy for the return of the Chancellor, and then—probably with his permission—drove on to Ferrières, which we reached in about two hours. On the way we passed along the edge of the zone which the French had designedly laid waste all round Paris. Here the destruction was not very marked, but the population of the villages seemed to have been in great part driven away by the Gardes Mobiles.

At length, just as it began to grow dark, we entered the village of Ferrières, and shortly afterwards Rothschild’s estate. The King and the first section of his suite took up their quarters for a considerable time in this château. The Minister was to lodge in the last three rooms on the first floor of the right wing, looking out on the meadows and the park. A large drawing-room[p. 194] on the ground floor was selected for the bureau, and a smaller one of the same corridor as a breakfast and dining-room. Baron Rothschild was in Paris, and only left behind him three or four female domestics and a housekeeper, who gave himself great airs of importance.

It was already dark when the Chief arrived, and shortly after we sat down to dinner. While we were still at table a message was received from Favre, asking when he could come to continue the negotiations. He had a conference tête-à-tête with the Chancellor in our bureau from 9.30 P.M. until after 11. On leaving he looked distressed, crestfallen, almost in despair—my diary remarks that possibly this expression was assumed with the object of impressing the Minister.

In connection with the news that the King has gone to Clayes in order to prevent an attack being made by our troops, the Chief, in the course of conversation at dinner, said, amongst other things, that “many of our generals have abused the devotion of the troops in order to secure victory.” “Possibly,” he added, “the hard-hearted reprobates of the general staff are right when they say that even if the whole five hundred thousand men whom we have now in France were to be wiped out, that should merely be regarded as the loss of so many pawns, so long as we ultimately won the game. It is very simple strategy, however, to plunge in head foremost in that way without counting the cost. Altogether, those who conduct the operations are often not worth much—armchair strategists. A plan is prepared in which the whole calculation is based first of all upon the extraordinary qualities of both soldiers and regimental officers. It is these who alone have achieved everything. Our success is due to the fact that our soldiers are physically stronger than the French, that[p. 195] they can march better, have more patience and sense of duty, and are more impetuous in attack. If MacMahon had commanded Prussian soldiers and Alvensleben Frenchmen, the latter would have been defeated—although he is my friend.” “It is no longer possible, as it was in the Seven Years’ War, to direct a battle from the saddle—the armies are too large. There is also no genuine co-operation and mutual assistance. Battles begin usually like those described by Homer. Some of the men commence with small provocations, and go on taunting each other, then they begin to shoot; the others see this and rush forward, and so finally the engagement becomes general.” “The plan of surrounding the enemy is the right one, and properly speaking that was only adopted at Sedan. The engagement of the 16th at Metz was quite correct, as it was necessary there at any cost to prevent the French from escaping. The sacrifice of the guards on the 18th however was not necessary. It was a piece of pure folly, occasioned by jealousy of the Saxons. They ought to have waited at Saint Privat until the Saxons had completed their manœuvre for cutting off the enemy.”

Keudell and Bohlen afterwards ascribed this unfavourable criticism to a quarrel which the Chief had had with Moltke at Reims.

While still at table we had a specimen of the hospitality and gentlemanly feeling of the Baron, whose house is honoured by the presence of the King, and whose property has, in consequence, been treated with every consideration. M. de Rothschild, the hundred-fold millionaire, who, moreover, was, until recently, the Prussian Consul-General in Paris, has declined, through his housekeeper, to let us have the wine we require, although I informed that functionary that it would be paid for, just as everything else was. When summoned[p. 196] before the Chief, he had the audacity to persist in his refusal, first denying absolutely that there was any wine in the house, and afterwards admitting that there were a few hundred bottles of a common Bordeaux. As a matter of fact, there were some seventeen thousand bottles. The Minister, however, explained the situation to him in a few sharp words, pointing out how niggardly and discourteous it was of his master to requite the King in such manner for the honour done to him in taking up his quarters there. As the fellow still seemed obstinate, the Chancellor asked him sternly if he knew what a bundle of straw was. The man made no answer, but seemed to suspect what it meant, as he became deadly pale. He was then informed that it was a contrivance on which obstinate and impudent housekeepers were laid face downwards—he could imagine the rest for himself. Next day we got everything that we required, and, so far as I am aware, there was no further cause of complaint.

Next morning the Chief came into the chambre de chasse of the château, which we occupied as our bureau. Turning over the game book which lay on the table he pointed out the entry for the 3rd of November, 1856, which showed that he himself, with Galiffet and other guests, had that day shot forty-two head of game—fourteen hares, one rabbit, and twenty-seven pheasants. He is now engaged with Moltke and others in chasing a nobler quarry—the bear to which he referred at Grand Pré.

At 11 o’clock the Chief had his third meeting with Favre, after which followed a conference with the King, at which Moltke and Roon were also present.

In the evening I was called to the Chief, who had not appeared at table, and who, it was understood, did not feel quite well. A narrow stone winding stairs, which[p. 197] was distinguished with the title, “Escalier particulier de M. le Baron,” led to a very elegantly furnished room, where I found the Chancellor sitting on the sofa in his dressing gown.

Wednesday, September 21st.—As the Chief had recovered from his indisposition, we had plenty to do, and though most of it cannot be made public, I am now at liberty to quote the following passage from my diary:—

“The imperial emigrants in London have established an organ, La Situation, to represent their interests. Its contents are to be reproduced in the newspapers we have founded in the eastern districts of France, but the sources are to be so indicated as not to identify us with the views therein expressed: i.e., it must be understood that we are not endeavouring to promote the restoration of the Emperor. Our object is merely to maintain the sense of insecurity and discord between the various French parties, which are all equally hostile to us. The retention of the imperial symbols and formulas in despatches will prove of service in this respect; otherwise Napoleon or a Republic is a matter of indifference to us. We merely desire to utilise the existing chaos in France. The future of that country does not concern us. It is the business of the French themselves to shape it as best they can. It is only of importance to us in so far as it affects our own interests, the furtherance of which must be the guiding principle in politics generally.” Under instructions from the Chief I telegraphed in the above sense to the principal officials at Nancy and Hagenau.

At tea some further particulars were given of the last conference between the Chancellor and Jules Favre. Favre was, it seems, informed that we could not communicate to him the exact conditions of peace until they[p. 198] had been settled at a conference of the German Powers engaged in the war. No arrangement could be come to, however, without a cession of territory, as it was absolutely essential to us to have a better frontier as security against French attack. The conference turned less upon peace and its conditions than on the nature of French concessions, in consideration of which we might agree to an armistice. On the mention of a cession of territory Favre became terribly excited, drew a deep sigh, raised his eyes to heaven, and even shed some patriotic tears. The Chief does not expect that he will return. Doubtless an answer in this sense has been forwarded to the Crown Prince, who telegraphed this morning to ask whether he should attend the negotiations.

Thursday, September 22nd, evening.—The French are indefatigable in denouncing us to the world as cruel and destructive barbarians; and the English press—particularly the Standard, which is notoriously hostile to us—willingly lends them its assistance. The grossest calumnies respecting our conduct towards the French population and the prisoners in our hands are circulated almost daily by that newspaper, and always purport to come either from eye-witnesses or other well-informed sources. Thus, for instance, the Duc de FitzJames recently drew a horrible picture of the abominations of which we had been guilty in Bazeilles, adding the assurance that he exaggerated nothing; and a M. L., who represents himself to be a French officer whom we had captured at Sedan and subjected to ill-treatment, complains in a lamentable tone of Prussian inhumanity. Bernstorff sent the article in question to the Chief, with the suggestion that the charges should be refuted. The complaint of M. L. might, perhaps, be left to answer itself, but that of the Duke is calculated to affect even[p. 199] those across the Channel who are disposed in our favour. Besides, impudent calumny is always apt to leave some traces behind it. A refutal of these shameful slanders is accordingly being despatched to-day to certain London newspapers that are friendly to us. As the greater part of this communication was dictated by the Chief, it is worthy of special attention.

“In this war, as in every other, a great number of villages have been burned down, mostly by artillery fire, German as well as French. In these cases women and children who had sought refuge in the cellars and had not escaped in time, lost their lives in the flames. That was also the case in Bazeilles, which was several times stormed by our infantry. The Duc de FitzJames is only an eye-witness so far as the ruins of the village are concerned, which he saw after the battle, just as thousands more saw and regretted its fate. All the rest of his report is based on the stories of the unfortunate and exasperated villagers. In a country where even the Government has developed an unexampled talent for systematic lying, it is not to be expected that angry peasants, standing on the ruins of their homes, would bear truthful witness against their enemies. It is established by official reports that the inhabitants of Bazeilles, not in uniform but in their blouses and shirt-sleeves, fired out of their windows at our troops and wounded soldiers, and that they killed whole batches of the latter in their houses. It has been likewise proved that women armed with knives and guns were guilty of the greatest cruelty towards the fatally wounded, and that other women, certainly not in the uniform of the National Guards, took part in the fight with the male inhabitants, loading their rifles and even firing themselves, and that, like the other combatants, some of them were in these[p. 200] circumstances wounded or killed. Naturally these particulars were not communicated to the Duc de FitzJames by his informant. They would have fully excused the burning of the village even if it had been done intentionally with the object of forcing the enemy out of that position. But there is no evidence of any such intention. That women and children were driven back into the fire is one of those infamous lies with which the French terrorise the population, and incite their hatred against us. In this way they cause the peasants to fly on our approach. The latter return, however, as a rule, a few days after the entrance of the Germans, and are astounded to find that they are better treated by them than by the French troops. When this sort of terrorism is not sufficient to force the inhabitants to flight, the Government sends a mob of armed civilians, sometimes supported by African troops, to drive the peasants from their homes at the point of the sword, and to burn down their houses as a punishment for their want of patriotism. The letter of ‘an imprisoned officer’ (Bouillon, September 9th) also contains more falsehood than truth. With respect to the treatment of the prisoners, Germany can call 150,000 better witnesses than this anonymous and mendacious officer, whose whole communication is merely an expression of the vindictive disposition which will for a long time to come inspire the vain and arrogant elements of the French people, by whom, unfortunately, that country allows itself to be ruled and led. From this spirit of revenge arises the certainty of further attacks on the part of France, for which Germany must be prepared. We are thus unquestionably compelled to think solely of the security of our frontier in concluding peace. It is true, as stated in the letter of this imprisoned officer, M. L., that there was a scarcity of provisions[p. 201] after the surrender of Sedan, not only for the prisoners, but also for the victors, who shared with them what they had. When their own stock was exhausted the prisoners also had to do without. L.’s complaint that he had been obliged to bivouac in the rain and mud furnishes the best evidence that he is no officer, and has not even followed the campaign up to that point. He is some hireling scribe who has never left his own room, and one must therefore assume that the man’s whole story of his imprisonment is an invention; as, had he been an officer in the field, he would have known that most of his comrades (that is certainly the case with the Germans) have spent at least thirty nights out of the forty or so that have elapsed since the beginning of the war under similar conditions. When it rained in the night they had to lie in the rain, and when the ground was muddy they had to lie in the mud. Only one who had not followed the campaign could have any doubt or manifest any surprise on that score. That M. L. prides himself on having retained his leather purse is the clearest proof that he was not plundered. There can hardly be a single soldier, who, if he happens to have money, does not carry it just as M. L. carried his, and in just such a purse; so that if our men had wanted his money, they must have known very well where to find it. The few Germans who fell into French hands can tell how quickly their opponents could open a prisoner’s tunic, and if his purse was a little too firmly fastened on, hack it off with their sabres or a knife, without paying too much regard to his skin. We declare the assertions respecting the ill-treatment of prisoners at Sedan to be wilful and audacious lies. A great number of the French prisoners, perhaps one-fourth, were in a state of bestial drunkenness, having[p. 202] during the last few hours before the capitulation plundered the wine and brandy stores in the town. It is obvious that it is not so easy to manage men in a state of drunkenness as when they are sober, but such ill-treatment as the article describes occurred neither at Sedan nor elsewhere, owing to the discipline which prevails amongst the Prussian troops. It is well known that this discipline has won the admiration of the French officers themselves. Unfortunately one cannot speak as highly of the French soldiers in this respect as with regard to their gallantry in action. The French officers have on several occasions been unable to prevent their men from murdering severely wounded soldiers, even when individual officers of high rank endeavoured at the risk of their own lives to defend the wounded, and that was not merely the case with African regiments. It is known that the German prisoners who were taken into Metz were spat upon and struck with sticks and stones on their way through the streets, and on their release had to run the gauntlet of a double line of African soldiers, who beat them with canes and whips. We can prove these facts by official records, which have more claim to credence than the anonymous letter of M. L. But are such things to be wondered at when the newspapers of a city like Paris, which now implores considerate treatment on the hypocritical plea of civilisation, can propose, without eliciting the slightest protest, that when the French troops are unable to take our wounded with them they should split their heads open; and further, that the Germans should be used like dead wolves to manure their fields? The utter barbarism of the French nation, covered with a thin veneer of culture, has been fully disclosed in this war. French insolence formerly said, ‘Grattez le Russe et vous[p. 203] trouverez le barbare.’ Whoever is in a position to compare the conduct of the Russians towards their enemies in the Crimean War with that of the French in the present campaign, can have no doubt that this statement recoils upon its authors.”

When he had finished, the Minister added: “Write to Bernstorff that I decline in future to notice any suggestion for entering into a controversy with English newspapers. The Ambassador must act on his own responsibility.”

Just as we sat down to table, one of the Court officials announced that the Crown Prince proposed to come to dinner and to stay for the night. The Prince’s secretary at the time asked that the bureau and the large salon next the Chancellor’s room, should be prepared for the five gentlemen who accompanied his Royal Highness. The Chief replied, “We cannot give up the bureau, as we want it for our work.” He then placed his dressing room at their disposal, and further proposed that either Blumenthal or Eulenburg should sleep in his bedroom. He required the salon for the reception of the French negotiators and any Princes who might call upon him. The Court official went off, pulling a long face, and was impertinent enough to make some remarks in the corridor about “discourtesy” and so forth.

Count Lehndorff dined with us, and the conversation was very lively. Some allusion having been made to Frederick the Great’s statue in Unter den Linden, which had been decorated with black, red and yellow flags, the Minister condemned Wurmb for allowing this controversy to be stirred up. “This stupid quarrel about the colours should not have been reopened, and it once more proves Wurmb’s incapacity. For me the question is settled and done with since the North German flag has been[p. 204] adopted. Otherwise this battle of colours is a matter of indifference to me. As far as I am concerned they may be green, yellow, and all the colours of a fancy dress ball, or they can take the banner of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Only the Prussian soldier will have nothing to do with the black, red, and yellow.”

The Chief then spoke of the peace, which he still considered remote, adding: “If they (the French Government) go to Orleans, we shall follow them there, and further—right down to the sea shore.” He read out some telegrams, including one giving a list of the troops in Paris. “There are supposed to be 180,000 men in all, but there are hardly 60,000 real soldiers amongst them. The mobile and national guards with their snuffboxes (a reference to their obsolete weapons) are not to be reckoned as soldiers.”

I asked if I should telegraph about the report of artillery and rifle-fire in the streets of Paris, which people fancied they had heard. He said I was to do so. “But not yet, I suppose, about the negotiations with Favre?” “Yes,” he replied, and then went on as follows: “First at Haute-Maison, near Montry, then the same evening at Ferrières, and next day a third conversation, but without effect, as regards the armistice and the peace. Other French parties have also entered into negotiations with us,” he said, and gave some indications from which I gathered that he referred to the Empress Eugénie.

Something else led him to speak of his skill in shooting. He said that as a young man he could hit a sheet of paper with a pistol at a hundred yards, and had shot off the heads of ducks in the pond.

He then mentioned that he had again complained to Treskow of the “short commons at the Royal table,” at[p. 205] which Treskow pulled a long face. “But if I am to work well I must have sufficient food. I cannot make a proper peace if I do not get enough to eat and drink. That’s a necessity of my trade, and therefore I prefer to dine at home.”

The conversation then turned on the dead languages—I cannot now say how. “When I was in the first class at the high school,” he said, “I was able to write and speak Latin very well. I should now find it extremely difficult; and I have quite forgotten Greek. I cannot understand why people take so much trouble with these languages. It must be merely because learned men do not wish to lessen the value of what they have themselves so laboriously acquired.” I ventured to remind him of the mental discipline thus provided. The Chief replied, “Yes; but if you think Greek is a disciplina mentis, the Russian language is far better in that respect. It might be introduced instead of Greek—and it has immediate practical value in addition.”

We then spoke of the way in which the Schleswig-Holstein question was treated by the Bundestag in the fifties. Count Bismarck-Bohlen, who had come in in the meantime, remarked that those debates must have been dull enough to send every one to sleep. “Yes,” said the Chief, “in Frankfurt they slept over the negotiations with their eyes open. Altogether it was a sleepy and insipid crowd, and things only became endurable after I had added the pepper.” He then told us a delightful story about Count Rechberg, who was at that time Austrian Minister to the Bundestag. “On one occasion he said something to me which I was obliged to answer very roughly. He replied that unless I withdrew my words it would be a case of going out on to the Bockenheimer Haide (a place where it was customary[p. 206] to settle affairs of honour). ‘I never withdraw my words,’ said I, carelessly, ‘so we must settle it in that way, and it occurs to me that the garden down stairs would be a very suitable place. But in order that people may not think that I represent my King pistol in hand, without further ceremony I shall write down here the cause of our quarrel. After you have read it over you will sign it, and thus testify to its correctness. In the meantime there is one of our officers lodging here who will oblige me, and you can choose one of your own officers.’ I rang the bell and sent word to the officer, requesting him to call upon me; and then went on writing while Rechberg strode up and down the room—and gluck, gluck, gluck (here the Minister mimicked the act of drinking) he swallowed one glass of water after another. Of course not because he was afraid, but because he was considering whether he ought not first to ask permission of his Government. I quietly continued to write. The officer came and said he would gladly oblige me. I begged him to wait a moment. On my return Rechberg said he would think over the matter until morning, to which I agreed. As I did not hear from him next day, however, I sent the Mecklenburg Minister, old Oertzen, to deliver a formal challenge. Oertzen was told he was not at home. He went again next day, but Rechberg was still not to be seen. He had evidently written to Vienna and was waiting for an answer. At length Oertzen came to me after having spoken to him. Rechberg was prepared to withdraw what he had said and offer an apology, either in writing or verbally, just as I liked. He would also come to me if I wished. I went to his place, however, and the affair was settled.”

I asked him then about the celebrated story of the[p. 207] cigars. “Which do you mean?” “Why, about the cigar which you lit, Excellency, when Rechberg was smoking in your presence.” “Thun, you mean. Yes, that was very simple. I went to him while he was at work, and he was smoking. He begged me to excuse him for a moment. I waited a while and finding it rather slow, as he did not offer me a cigar, I took one of my own and asked him for a light—which he gave me with rather a surprised look. But I have another story of the same kind. At the sittings of the Military Commission, when Rochow represented Prussia at the Bundestag, Austria was the only one who smoked. Rochow, who was passionately addicted to smoking, would gladly have done the same, but had not sufficient confidence. When I came I also felt a longing for a cigar, and as I could not see why I should deny myself I begged the presiding power to give me a light, apparently much to his and the other gentlemen’s astonishment and displeasure. It was evidently an event for them all. For the time being only Austria and Prussia smoked. But the remaining gentlemen obviously considered the matter of so much importance that they wrote home for instructions as to how they were to act in the circumstances. The authorities were in no hurry. The affair was one that demanded careful consideration, and for nearly six months the two great Powers smoked alone. Then Schrenkh, the Bavarian Minister, began to assert the dignity of his office by lighting his weed. Nostitz, the Saxon, had certainly a great desire to do the same, but had probably not yet received the permission of his Minister. On seeing Bothmer, of Hanover, however, allow himself that liberty, Nostitz, who was strongly Austrian in his sympathies, having sons in the Austrian army, must have[p. 208] come to an understanding with Rechberg, with the result that he too at the next sitting pulled out his cigar case and puffed away with the rest. Only the representatives of Würtemberg and Darmstadt now remained, and they were non-smokers. The honour and dignity of their States, however, imperiously demanded that they should follow suit, and so as a matter of fact the Würtemberger pulled out a cigar at the next sitting—I can still see it in my mind’s eye, a long, thin, yellow thing of the colour of rye straw—and smoked at least half of it as a burnt-offering on the altar of patriotism. Hesse-Darmstadt was the only one who finally refrained—probably conscious that he was not strong enough to enter into rivalry with the others.”[9]

Friday, September 23rd.—Beautiful weather this morning. I took a walk in the park before the Chief got up. On my return I met Keudell, who called out “War! A letter from Favre rejecting our demands. The Chief has given instructions to communicate the letter to the press with certain comments, hinting that the present occupant of Wilhelmshöhe is after all not so bad and might be of use to us.”

The conversation afterwards turned on Pomeranian affairs, and the Chief spoke amongst other things of the great estate of Schmoldin. The former proprietor had become bankrupt through treating the people on the estate—mostly Slav fishermen and sailors—with too much consideration. The place, which consisted of about 8,000 acres of arable land, and 12,000 to 16,000 acres of forest and downs, worth at least 200,000 thalers, was purchased by the Royal Treasury for 80,000 thalers. The change of proprietors had not[p. 209] benefited the tenants, as there was no question of forbearance or abatements. Many of them have fallen into a state of pauperism, and instead of being provided for by the Royal Treasury, they have become a burden on the local authorities. That is not as it ought to be. It was believed that Obstfelder was to blame for this hard and unfair treatment.

Saturday, September 24th.—The Minister spoke at dinner about the ostentatious decorations of the great hall of the château, which he had now seen for the first time. Amongst other things it contains a throne or table which some French marshal or general inadvertently packed up with his baggage somewhere in China, or Cochin China, and afterwards sold to our Baron. The Chief’s verdict was:—“All extremely costly, but not particularly beautiful, and still less comfortable.” He then continued:—“A ready-made property like this would not give me any genuine satisfaction. It was made by others, and not by myself. True, there are many things in it really beautiful, but one misses the pleasure of creating and altering. It is also quite a different thing when I have to ask myself if I can afford to spend five or ten thousand thalers on this or that improvement, and when there is no need to think about the cost. In the end it must become tiresome to have always enough and more than enough.”

In an article written this evening we returned to our good friends the French Ultramontanes, who are as active in war as they had been in peace in opposing the German cause, inciting people against us, circulating lies about us in the newspapers, and even leading the peasants to take up arms against our troops, as at Beaumont and Bazeilles.

Sunday, September 25th.—At table we somehow[p. 210] came to discuss the Jews. “They have no real home,” said the Chief. “They are international—Europeans, cosmopolitans, nomads. Their fatherland is Zion, Jerusalem. Otherwise they are citizens of the whole world, and hold together everywhere. There are amongst them some good, honest people, as for instance one at our own place in Pomerania, who traded in hides and such things. Business cannot have prospered with him, as he became bankrupt. He begged of me not to press my claim, and promised that he would pay by instalments, when he could. Yielding to my old habit, I agreed, and he actually paid off the debt. I received instalments from him while I was still in Frankfurt as Minister to the Bundestag, and I believe that if I lost anything at all, I must have lost less than his other creditors. Certainly not many such Jews are to be met with in our large towns. They have also their own special virtues. They are credited with respect for their parents, faithfulness in marriage, and benevolence.”

Monday, September 26th.—In the morning wrote various paragraphs for the press on the following theme: It is urged that we cannot be allowed to bombard Paris, with its numerous museums, beautiful public buildings and monuments; that to do so would be a crime against civilisation. But why not? Paris is a fortress, and if it has been filled with treasures of art, if it possesses magnificent palaces and other beautiful structures, that does not alter this character. A fortress is an instrument for warlike operations which must be rendered powerless without regard to whatever else may be bound up with it. If the French wanted to preserve their monuments and collections of books and pictures from the dangers of war they should not have surrounded them with[p. 211] fortifications. Besides, the French themselves did not hesitate for a moment to bombard Rome, which contained monuments of far greater value, the destruction of which would be an irretrievable loss. Also sent off an article on the bellicose tendencies of the French Radicals previous to the declaration of war, for use in our newspapers in Alsace.

At dinner, as we were discussing military matters, the Chief declared, inter alia, that the uhlans were the best cavalry. The lance gave the men great self-confidence. It was urged that it was a hindrance in getting through underwood, but that was a mistake. On the contrary, the lance was useful in moving aside the branches. He knew that from experience, as, although he first served in the rifles, he was afterwards in the Landwehr cavalry. The abolition of the lance in the entire mounted Landwehr was a blunder. The curved sabre was not much use, particularly as it was often blunt. The straight thrusting sword was much more practical.

After dinner a letter was received from Favre, in which he requested, first, that notice should be given of the commencement of the bombardment of Paris, in order that the diplomatic corps might remove; and, second, that the city should be permitted to remain in communication with the outer world by letter. Abeken said, as he brought the letter down from the Chief’s room, that the answer would be sent by way of Brussels. “But then the letter will arrive late or not at all, and be returned to us,” observed Keudell. “Well, that does not matter,” answered Abeken. From the further conversation it appears that the answer agrees to the French proposals under certain conditions.

In the evening I was again called to the Chief on[p. 212] several occasions to take instructions. Amongst other things, I ascertained that, “while Favre’s report respecting his interviews with the Chancellor shows, it is true, a desire to give a faithful account of what passed, it is not quite accurate, which is not surprising in the circumstances, especially as there were three different meetings.” In his statement the question of an armistice occupies a secondary position, whereas, in fact, it was the chief point. Favre was prepared to pay a considerable cash indemnity. In the matter of a truce two alternatives were discussed. First, the surrender to us of a portion of the fortifications of Paris, namely, at a point which would give us the command of the city, we on our part to allow free communication with the outer world. The second was that we should forego that condition, but that Strassburg and Toul should be surrendered to us. We put forward the latter demand because the retention of these towns in the hands of the French increases our difficulties of commissariat transport. The Chancellor stated that with respect to a cession of territory, he could only disclose its extent and frontiers when our demand had been accepted in principle. On Favre requesting to have at least an indication of what we proposed in this respect, he was informed that for our security in the future we required Strassburg, “the key of our house,” the departments of the Upper and Lower Rhine, Metz, and a portion of the Moselle department. The object of the armistice was to submit the question of peace to a National Assembly to be summoned for the purpose.

Again called to the Chief. “The King wishes to see some of the newspapers, and he desires to have the most important passages marked. I have proposed Brass to him, and when the papers come, put that one[p. 213] (the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung) always aside for him.” He added, smiling, “Just mark some places for the sake of appearances, it does not much matter what, and send me up the paper.”

At tea we hear a great piece of news:—the Italians have occupied Rome, the Pope and the diplomatists remaining in the Vatican.

Tuesday, September 27th.—Bölsing, on the Chief’s instructions, shows me the answer to Favre’s letter, which the Minister has rewritten in a shorter and more positive form. It says, 1. It is not usual in war to announce the commencement of an attack; 2. A besieged fortress does not appear to be a suitable residence for diplomatists; open letters containing nothing objectionable will be allowed to pass. It is hoped that the corps diplomatique will agree with this view of the matter. They can go to Tours, whither it would appear the French Government also intends to remove. The answer is written in German, a course already begun by Bernstorff, but which was carried out more consistently by Bismarck. “Formerly,” said Bölsing, “most of the Secretaries in the Foreign Office belonged to the French colony, of which Roland and Delacroix still remain. Almost all the Councillors also wrote in that language. Even the register of the despatches was kept in French, and the Ambassadors usually reported in that language.” Now the speech of the “vile Gaul,” as Count Bohlen calls the French, is only used in exceptional cases, that is, in communicating with Governments and Ambassadors to whom we cannot write or reply in their mother tongue. The registers have for years past been kept in German.

The Chief has been at work since 8 o’clock in the[p. 214] morning—unusually early for him. He has again been unable to sleep.

Prince Radziwill and Knobelsdorff, of the general staff, joined us at dinner. In speaking of that part of Favre’s report in which he says that he wept, the Minister thinks he can only have pretended to do so. “It is true,” he said, “that he looked as if he had done so, and I tried to some extent to console him. On my observing him more closely, however, I felt quite certain that he had not succeeded in squeezing out a single tear. It was all merely a piece of acting on his part. He thought to work upon me in the same manner as a Parisian lawyer tries to move a jury. I am perfectly convinced that he was painted at Ferrières—particularly at the second interview. That morning he looked much greyer and quite green under the eyes—I am prepared to bet that it was paint—grey and green, to give himself an appearance of deep suffering. It is, of course, possible that he was deeply affected; but then he can be no politician or he would know that pity has nothing to do with politics.” After a while the Minister added: “When I hinted something about Strassburg and Metz, he assumed a look as if he thought I was jesting. I could have given him, the answer which the great fur dealer of Unter den Linden in Berlin once gave me. I went there to choose a fur coat, and on his naming a very high price for one to which I had taken a fancy, I said, ‘Surely you are joking.’ ‘No,’ he replied, ‘I never make jokes in business.’”

The conversation then turned upon the occupation of Rome and the Pope’s position in the Vatican, on which point the Chief said, amongst other things: “He must remain a Sovereign. The only question is, how?[p. 215] It would be possible to do more for him if the Ultramontanes were not so much opposed to us everywhere. I am accustomed to pay people back in their own coin. I should like to know how our Harry (von Arnim, the North German Ambassador to the Holy See) now feels. Probably, like his reports, his feelings change three times within the twenty-four hours. He is really too distinguished an Ambassador for such a small Sovereign. The Pope, however, is not merely the ruler of the Papal States, he is also the head of the Catholic Church.”

After dinner, just as we had finished our coffee, the American general, Burnside, who had called whilst we were at table, presented himself again, accompanied by an elderly gentleman who wore a red woollen shirt and a paper collar. The general, a rather tall, portly gentleman, with thick, bushy eyebrows, and an exceptionally fine set of beautifully white teeth and close-cut, mutton-chop whiskers, might pass for an elderly Prussian major in plain clothes. The Chief sat with him on the sofa, and had a lively conversation in English over a couple of glasses of kirschwasser, which were afterwards replenished. Prince Radziwill, in the meantime, had a talk with the general’s companion.

After the Minister had observed to his visitor that he had come rather late to see the fighting, he went on to say that in July we had not the least desire for war, and that when we were surprised by the declaration of hostilities, no one, neither the King nor the people, had thought of any conquests. Our army was an excellent one for a war of defence, but it would be difficult to use it for schemes of aggrandisement, because with us the army was the people itself, which did not lust after glory, as it required and wished for peace. But for that very reason both popular sentiment and the press now[p. 216] demanded a better frontier. For the sake of the maintenance of peace we must secure ourselves in future against attack from a vainglorious and covetous nation, and that security could only be found in a better defensive position than we had hitherto had. Burnside seemed inclined to agree, and he praised very highly our excellent organisation and the gallantry of our troops.

Wednesday, September 28th.—The general conversation at dinner gradually adopted a more serious tone. The Chancellor began by complaining that Voigts-Rhetz in his report had not said a single word about the gallant charge of the two regiments of dragoon guards at Mars la Tour, which nevertheless he himself had ordered, and which had saved the 10th Army Corps. “It was necessary—I grant that; but then it ought not to have been passed over in silence.”

The Minister then began a lengthy speech, which ultimately assumed the character of a dialogue between himself and Katt. Pointing to a spot of grease on the table-cloth, the Chief remarked: “Just in the same way as that spot spreads and spreads, so the feeling that it is beautiful to die for one’s country and honour, even without recognition, sinks deeper into the skin of the people now that it has been bathed in blood—it spreads wider and wider.... Yes, yes, the non-commissioned officer has the same views and the same sense of duty as the lieutenant and the colonel—with us Germans. That feeling in general goes very deep through all classes of the nation.... The French are a mass that can easily be brought under one influence, and then they produce a great effect. Amongst our people everybody has his own opinion. But when once a large number of Germans come to hold the same opinion, great things can be done with them. If they were all agreed they[p. 217] would be all-powerful.... The French have not that sense of duty which enables a man to allow himself to be shot dead alone in the dark. And that comes from the remnant of faith which still abides in our people; it comes from the knowledge that there is Someone there Who sees me even if my lieutenant does not see me.”

“Do you believe that the soldiers reflect on such things, Excellency?” asked Fürstenstein.

“‘Reflect?’ no. It is a feeling—a frame of mind; an instinct, if you like. When once they reflect they lose that feeling; they argue themselves out of it.... I cannot conceive how men can live together in an orderly manner, how one can do his duty and allow others to do theirs without faith in a revealed religion, in God, Who wills what is right, in a higher Judge and a future life.”

The Grand Duke of Weimar was announced. But the Minister continued, it might well be for a quarter of an hour longer, at times suddenly departing from his proper theme, and frequently repeating the same idea in other words: “If I were no longer a Christian I would not serve the King another hour.

“If I did not put my trust in God I should certainly place none in any earthly masters. Why, I had quite enough to live on, and had a sufficiently distinguished position. Why should I labour and toil unceasingly in this world, and expose myself to worry and vexation if I did not feel that I must do my duty towards God?[p. 218][10] If I did not believe in a Divine Providence which has ordained this German nation to something good and great, I would at once give up my trade as a Statesman or I should never have gone into the business. Orders and titles have no attraction for me. A resolute faith in a life after death—for that reason I am a Royalist, otherwise I am by nature a Republican. Yes, I am a Republican in the highest degree; and the firm determination which I have displayed for ten long years in presence of all possible forms of absurdity at Court is solely due to my resolute faith. Deprive me of this faith and you deprive me of my fatherland. If I were not a firm believer in Christianity, if I had not the wonderful basis of religion, you would never have had such a Chancellor of the Confederation. If I had not the wonderful basis of religion I should have turned my back to the whole Court—and if you are able to find me a successor who has that basis I will retire at once. But I am living amongst heathens. I do not want to make any proselytes, but I feel a necessity to confess this faith.”

Katt said that the ancients had also shown much self-sacrifice and devotion. They also had the love of country, which had spurred them on to great deeds. He was convinced that many people nowadays acted in[p. 219] the same way through devotion to the State, and a sense of duty to society.

The Chief replied that this self-sacrifice and devotion to duty towards the State and the King amongst us was merely a remnant of the faith of our fathers and grandfathers in an altered form,—“more confused, and yet active, no longer faith, but nevertheless faithful.” “How willingly would I go away! I enjoy country life, the woods and nature. Sever my connection with God and I am a man who would pack up to-morrow and be off to Varzin, and say ‘Kiss my ——,’ and cultivate his oats. You would then deprive me of my King, because why?—if there is no Divine commandment, why should I subordinate myself to these Hohenzollerns? They are a Suabian family, no better than my own, and in that case no concern of mine. Why, I should be worse than Jacoby, who might then be accepted as President or even as King. He would be in many ways more sensible, and at all events cheaper.”

Keudell told me this evening that the Chief had already, while standing outside the château, several times expressed himself in a similar manner.

After dinner the Chancellor received in his own salon the Grand Duke of Weimar, as also Reynier, and subsequently Burnside and his companion of the day before.

Thursday, September 29th.—In the morning wrote articles on the folly of certain German newspapers that warned us against laying claim to Metz and the surrounding district because the inhabitants spoke French, and on Ducrot’s unpardonable escape during the transport of prisoners to Germany. The second article was also sent to England.

The newspapers contain a report on the prevailing[p. 220] public sentiment in Bavaria, which evidently comes from a thoroughly reliable and highly competent source.[11] We are accordingly to note the principal points contained therein. The news given in the report is for the most part satisfactory—in some particulars only is it possible to wish it were better. The idea of German unity has evidently been strengthened and extended by the war, but the specific Bavarian amour propre has also increased. The part taken by the army in the victories of the German forces at Wörth and Sedan, as well as the severe losses which it has suffered, has not failed to excite enthusiasm throughout all classes of the population, and to fill them with pride at the achievements of their countrymen. They are convinced that their King sincerely desires the victory of the German arms, and has used every effort to secure that end. His immediate entourage is well disposed. That cannot however be said of all his Ministers. The Minister of War is without doubt sincerely anxious, and is doing his utmost to see the campaign brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He is in that respect thoroughly reliable, and he will no doubt be found on the right side in the matter of the conditions of peace. Count Bray, on the other hand, is and remains ultramontane and Austrian in his views. In his heart of hearts he is opposed to the war, and for him our successes have been too rapid, and our victories too complete. He would like to see the neutral Powers take steps to restrain us, and if he could he would support such measures.

No conclusion is to be drawn from the very confident tone of the press as to an eventual rearrangement of[p. 221] German relations which, through the brotherhood in arms during the war, might develop into a permanent and closer union also in times of peace. As a matter of course Bray would be opposed to the entrance of Bavaria into the North German Confederation. But there are also other influential personages who do not contemplate such a course, or who regard the effective co-operation of the Bavarians in the German victories less as a means to promote the closer union of Germany than as a proof of the power of Bavaria and an assertion of her independence. The non-ultramontane particularists take up a somewhat similar position. They are pleased at our victories and proud of Bavaria’s share in them. They admire the manner in which the Prussians conduct the war, and, like us, they desire to secure Germany against future attack from the West. But they will not hear of Bavaria joining the North German Confederation. The partition of the conquered French territory is also much discussed in such circles. They would like to see Alsace annexed to Baden on condition that the Baden Palatinate were ceded to Bavaria. The more penetrating minds amongst them are forced to reckon with the probability that Baden, and in all likelihood also Würtemberg, will after the peace demand admission into the Federal State already formed by the North. The Ultramontanes remain what they always were, although they are now silent through fear. Fortunately they have lost all confidence in Austria, so that they lack support, while, on the other hand, the Bavarians, who are now in the field, have an entirely different opinion of the Prussians to that which they entertained before the war. They are full of the highest praise for their northern comrades, and not merely for their military qualities and achievements, but also for[p. 222] their readiness to help the Bavarians when they have earlier or better supplies than the latter. More than one of them has written home that their priests have maligned the Prussians. It is not true that they are all Lutherans. Many of them are Catholics, and they had even seen some Catholic military chaplains with them. As the officers share these feelings the army on its return will carry on an effective propaganda against Ultramontanism, and probably also against extreme particularism. It will be easily understood that men of national sentiment in Bavaria should feel more confident than ever. They will also do what they can for the cause. But they are a minority in the Lower Chamber, and in the Upper House they have scarcely two or three representatives.

At dinner the conversation turned on the Grand Duke of Weimar and such matters. The Minister said that the Grand Duke had been to see him the evening before, and wished to obtain some information which he (the Chief) was unable to give him. “He thinks that I am also his Chancellor. On my politely declining, he said he must then apply to the King. ‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘but in that case his Majesty will have to refer in the first place to his Minister.’ ‘And the Minister?’ (Here the Chief bent his head a little to one side and smiled sweetly.) ‘He will maintain an impenetrable silence.”’

The Chancellor then said that he had been asked what was to be done with the Garde Mobiles captured at Strassburg. They were disposed to set them at liberty and let them go home. “God forbid,” said I; “send them to Upper Silesia.”

Friday, September 30th.—Received another letter from Bamberger, who is in Baden-Baden. He continues to use his talents and influence in the press to[p. 223] advance the Chancellor’s views. In my answer I begged him to counteract the ill-considered arguments of certain German journalists who now, while we are still at war, and have hardly done the heaviest part of our task, are already strongly urging moderation. The worst of these is Dr. Kruse, of the Kölnische Zeitung, with whom the idea that Metz must not be annexed because the inhabitants speak French has become almost a monomania. These gentlemen offer their advice as to how far we can or may go in our demands, and plead in favour of France, while they would do much better to insist upon still heavier demands, “in order,” as the Minister said in complaining of this being “preposterous” behaviour, “that we may at least get something decent, if not all that we ask for. They will compel me in the end to claim the Meuse as our frontier. Write also to Bamberger that I had credited him with more political acumen than to imagine that we really want to replace Napoleon on the French throne.”

Sunday, October 2nd.—At teatime to a remark that the poorer classes suffered comparatively more than the upper and wealthier, the Chief replied that this reminded him of Sheridan’s observation at Reims, for it was perhaps after all as well it should be so, as there were more poor people than well-to-do, and we must always keep in mind the object of the war, which was to secure an advantageous peace. The more Frenchmen suffered from the war the greater would be the number of those who would long for peace, whatever our conditions might be. “And their treacherous franctireurs,” he continued, “who now stand in blouses with their hands in their pockets, and in the next moment when our soldiers have passed by take their rifles out of the ditch and fire at[p. 224] them. It will come to this, that we will shoot down every male inhabitant. Really that would be no worse than in battle, where they fire at a distance of 2,000 yards, and cannot recognise each other’s faces.”

The conversation then turned on Russia, on the communistic measure of dividing the land between the village communities, on the minor nobility, “who had invested their savings in the purchase of peasants, out of whom they squeezed their interest in the form of Obrok,” and of the incredible wealth of many of the old Boyar families. The Chief mentioned several examples, and gave a full account of the Yussupoffs, whose fortune, although nearly half of it had been several times confiscated on account of their complicity in conspiracies, was still much larger than that of most German Princes. It was so great that “two serfs, father and son, who had acted in succession as managers of the estate, were able to bleed it of three millions without the loss being felt.” “The palace of these princes in St. Petersburg contained a large theatre in the style of the Weisser Saal in the palace at Berlin, and had magnificent rooms in which 300 to 400 persons could dine with comfort. Forty years ago the old Yussupoff kept open table daily. A poor old officer on the retired list had dined there almost every day for years, although no one knew who he was. The name and rank of their constant guest was only discovered on inquiries being made of the police when on one occasion he had remained away for a considerable time.”

Monday, October 3rd.—We were joined at table by the Grand Chamberlain, Perponcher, and a Herr von Thadden, who was to be appointed a member of the Administration at Reims. The Chief told several anecdotes of the old Rothschild of Frankfurt. He had on[p. 225] one occasion heard Rothschild talking to a corn-dealer who wanted to buy some wheat. The latter said that such a rich man ought not to put the price of wheat so high. “What have my riches got to do with it?” replied the old gentleman. “Is my wheat any the worse because I am rich?” “He gave dinners however which did all honour to his wealth. I remember once when the present King, then Prince of Prussia, was in Frankfurt and I invited him to dinner. Rothschild had also intended to invite him. The Prince told him, however, that he must settle that with me, otherwise he would be quite as pleased to dine with him as with me. Rothschild then wanted me to give up his Royal Highness to him. I refused, whereupon he had the naïveté to propose that his dinner should be brought to my house, as of course he did not partake of it himself—he only ate meat prepared in Jewish fashion. Naturally I also declined this proposal, although there can be no doubt that his dinner would have been better than mine.” The Chief was once told by old Metternich,—“who, by the way, was very well disposed towards me,”—that at one time when he had lodged with Rothschild, on his way to Johannisberg (Metternich’s estate), his host had put six bottles of Johannisberg wine into his lunch basket for the road. These were taken out unopened on Metternich’s arrival at Johannisberg, where the Prince asked his chief cellarer what they cost per bottle. “Twelve florins,” was the answer. “Well then,” said Metternich, “send these six bottles back to Baron Rothschild when he gives his next order, but charge him fifteen florins a piece for them then, as they will have grown older by that time.”

Tuesday, October 4th.—In the forenoon again called to the Chief Bucher, Councillor of Embassy; and Wiehr,[p. 226] a decipherer, arrived after lunch. Bucher appears to have been summoned here in order to replace Abeken, who has been ill and ought to have gone home, but who has now nearly recovered. No one could have filled his place better than Bucher, who is unquestionably the best informed, most intelligent and unprejudiced of all the principal workers by whom the Chief is surrounded, and who help to propagate his ideas. In the evening the Chancellor talked about Moltke, remarking how gallantly he had attacked the punch bowl on a recent occasion, and in what excellent spirits he was. “I have not seen him looking so well for a long time past. That is the result of the war. It is his trade. I remember, when the Spanish question became acute, he looked ten years younger. Afterwards, when I told him that the Hohenzollern had withdrawn, he suddenly looked quite old and infirm. And when the French showed their teeth again ‘Molk’ was once more fresh and young. The matter finally ended in a diner à trois—Molk, Roon and I—which resulted (here the Chancellor smiled a cunning smile) in the Ems telegram.”

We start early to-morrow morning, as we have a long journey to make. Our next halt will be at Versailles.

[p. 227]

## CHAPTER IX

THE JOURNEY TO VERSAILLES—MADAME JESSE’S HOUSE, AND OUR LIFE THERE

We left Ferrières about 7 o’clock on the morning of the 5th of October. At first we drove along by-roads, which were however in excellent condition, passing a large wood, several parks and châteaux and a number of respectable villages that appeared to be entirely deserted by their inhabitants and were now occupied solely by German soldiers. Everywhere an appearance of exceptional prosperity. Later on we reached a pontoon bridge decorated with the Prussian colours, which took us over the Seine. On the other side we met the Crown Prince and his suite, who had ridden out to welcome the King. The latter, accompanied by the Chancellor, was to proceed from this point on horseback to a review of troops. We then drove on alone, turning into a high road which led to the village of Villeneuve le Roi.

I had long been looking forward to my first glimpse of Paris. It was however out off on the right by a rather high range of wooded hills, on the sides of which we now and then, noticed a village or small white town. At length we come to an opening, a little valley, and we observe the blue outline of a great cupola—the Pantheon! Hurrah! we are at last outside Paris.

[p. 228]

We shortly afterwards turned into a broad paved highway where a Bavarian picket was stationed to watch a road which crossed it at this point and led towards Paris. To the left an extensive plain, and on the right a continuation of the chain of wooded heights. A white town half way up the slope, then, lower down, two other villages, and we finally pass through an iron gateway partially gilt, traverse some busy streets, and a straight avenue with old trees, and then find ourselves in front of our quarters in Versailles.

On the 6th of October, the day after our arrival in the old royal town of France, Keudell remarked that we might possibly remain here for some three weeks. Nor did I think it improbable, as the course of the war up to that time had accustomed us to speedy success. We remained however five long months. But, as will be seen later on, the Minister must have suspected that our stay would not be a short one. For this reason, and as our lodging was the scene of very important events, a fuller description of it will probably be welcome.

The house which was occupied by the Chancellor of the Confederation belonged to one Madame Jesse, widow of a wealthy cloth manufacturer, who shortly before our arrival fled to Picardy with her two sons, leaving her property to the care of her gardener and his wife. It is No. 14 in Rue de Provence, which connects the Avenue de St. Cloud with the Boulevard de la Reine. The Rue de Provence is one of the quietest in Versailles. Many of the houses are surrounded by gardens. Ours is a slate-roofed house of three stories, the third of these being a garret. From the entrance in the courtyard a flight of stone steps leads up to the hall door. On the right of this hall is the principal staircase, and the following rooms open on to it; the dining-room looking[p. 229] out on the garden, the salon, a billiard-room, a conservatory, and the library of the deceased M. Jesse.

On the table in the salon stood an old-fashioned chimney clock with a fiendish figure in bronze biting his thumb. This demon grinned sarcastically at all the negotiations which led to the treaties with the South German States, the proclamation of the German Emperor and Empire, and afterwards to the surrender of Paris and the preliminaries of peace, all of which were signed in this salon, thus securing it a place in the world’s history.

The billiard-room was arranged as an office for the councillors, secretaries, and decipherers. In January, when there was a severe frost, a portion of the winter garden was assigned to the officers on guard. The library was occupied by orderlies and Chancery attendants.

The principal staircase led to a second hall, which received a dim light from a square flat window let into the roof. The doors of the Minister’s two rooms opened off this hall. Neither of them was more than ten paces by seven. One of these, the window of which opened on the garden, served at the same time as study and bed-chamber, and was very scantily furnished.

The other chamber, which was somewhat better furnished, although not at all luxuriously, served, in addition to the salon on the ground floor, for the reception of visitors. During the negotiations for the capitulation of Paris it was put at the disposal of Jules Favre for his meditations and correspondence.

Count Bismarck-Bohlen had a room to the left of the Chancellor’s, which also opened on the park and garden, Abeken having the opposite room looking on the street. Bölsing had a small chamber near the back-stairs,[p. 230] while I was lodged on the second floor over Bohlen’s room.

The park behind the house, though not large, was very pretty, and there during the bright autumn nights the tall figure and white cap of the Chancellor was frequently to be seen passing from the shade into the moonlight as he slowly strolled about. What was the sleepless man pondering over? What ideas were revolving through the mind of that solitary wanderer? What plans were forming or ripening in his brain during those still midnight hours?

It will be seen that the whole Field Foreign Office was not quartered at Madame Jesse’s. Lothar Bucher had a handsome apartment in the Avenue de Paris, Keudell and the decipherers were lodged in a house somewhat higher up than ours in the Rue de Provence, and Count Hatzfeldt lived in the last house on the opposite side of the way. There was some talk on several occasions of providing the Chancellor with more roomy and better furnished lodgings, but the matter went no further, possibly because he himself felt no great desire for such a change, and perhaps also because he liked the quiet which prevailed in the comparatively retired Rue de Provence.

During the day, however, this stillness was less idyllic than many newspaper correspondents described it at the time. I am not thinking of the fifes and drums of the troops that marched through the town and which reached our ears almost daily, nor of the noise which resulted from two sorties made by the Parisians in our direction, nor even of the hottest day of the bombardment, as we had become accustomed to all that, much as the miller does to the roar and rattle of his wheels. I refer principally to the numerous[p. 231] visitors of all kinds, many of them unwelcome, who were received by the Chancellor during those eventful months. Our quarters was often like a pigeon house from the constant flow of strangers and acquaintances in and out. At first non-official eavesdroppers and messengers came from Paris, followed later by official negotiators in the persons of Favre and Thiers, accompanied by a larger or smaller retinue. There were princely visitors from the Hôtel des Reservoirs. The Crown Prince came several times, and the King once. The Church was also represented amongst the callers by high dignitaries, archbishops, and other prelates. Deputations from the Reichstag, individual party leaders, higher officials, and bankers arrived from Berlin, while Ministers came from Bavaria and other South German States for the purpose of concluding treaties. American generals, members of the foreign diplomatic body in Paris, including a “coloured gentleman,” and envoys of the Imperialist party wished to speak to the busy statesman in his small room upstairs, and, as a matter of course, English newspaper correspondents eagerly tried to force their way into his presence. Then there were Government couriers with their despatch bags, Chancery attendants with telegrams, orderlies with messages from the general staff, and besides all these a superfluity of work which was as difficult as it was important. In short, what with deliberating on old schemes and forming new ones, seeking how to overcome difficulties, vexation and trouble, the disappointment of well-grounded expectations, now and then a lack of support and readiness to meet his views, the foolish opinions of the Berlin press and their dissatisfaction notwithstanding our undreamt of success, together with the agitation of the Ultramontanes, it[p. 232] was often hard to understand how the Chancellor, with all these calls upon his activity and patience, and with all this disturbance and friction, was, on the whole, able to preserve his health and maintain that freshness which he showed so frequently late in the evening in conversations both serious and humorous. During his stay at Versailles he was only once or twice unwell for three or four days.

The Minister allowed himself little recreation—a ride between 3 and 4 o’clock, an hour at table with half an hour for the cup of coffee which followed it in the drawing-room, and now and then, after 10 P.M., a longer or shorter chat at the tea-table with whoever happened to be there, and a couple of hours sleep after daybreak. The whole remainder of the day was devoted to business, studying or writing in his room, or in conversations and negotiations,—unless a sortie of the French or some other important military operation called him to the side of the King, or alone to some post of observation.

Nearly every day the Chancellor had guests to dinner, and in this way we came to see and hear almost all the well-known and celebrated men prominently connected in the war. Favre repeatedly dined with us, reluctantly at first, “because his countrymen within the walls were starving,” but afterwards listening to wise counsel and exhortation and doing justice like the rest of us to the good things of the kitchen and cellar. Thiers, with his keen intelligent features, was on one occasion amongst the guests, and the Crown Prince once did us the honour to dine at our table, when such of the Chief’s assistants as were not previously known to him were presented. At another time Prince Albrecht was present. Of the Minister’s further guests, I will here[p. 233] only mention Delbrück, President of the Bundeskanzleiamt, who was frequently in Versailles for weeks at a time, the Duke of Ratibor, Prince Putbus, von Bennigsen, Simson, Bamberger, Friedenthal and von Blankenburg, the Bavarian Ministers Count Bray and von Lutz, the Würtemberg Ministers von Wächter and Mittnacht, von Roggenbach, Prince Radziwill, and finally Odo Russell, who was subsequently British Ambassador to the German Empire. When the Chief was present the conversation was always lively and varied, while it was frequently instructive as illustrating his manner of regarding men and things, or as throwing light upon certain episodes and incidents of his past life.

Madame Jesse put in an appearance a few days before our departure and, as previously observed, did not produce a good impression. She seems to have made charges against us which the French press, even papers that lay claim to some respectability, circulated with manifest pleasure. Amongst other things we are alleged to have packed up her plate and table linen. Furthermore, Count Bismarck tried to compel her to give him a valuable clock.

The first assertion was simply an absurdity, as there was no silver in the house, unless it was in a corner of the cellar which was walled up, and which—on the express directions of the Chief—was left unopened. The true story about the clock was quite different to that circulated by Madame Jesse. The article in question was the timepiece in the drawing-room with the small bronze demon. Madame Jesse offered the Chancellor this piece of furniture, which in itself was of comparatively little value, at an exorbitant price, on the assumption that he prized it as a witness to the important negotiations that had taken place in her room. I believe she asked[p. 234] 5,000 francs for it. But she overreached herself, and her offer was declined. “I remember,” said the Minister afterwards in Berlin, “observing at the time that possibly the impish figure on the clock, which made such faces, might be particularly dear to her as a family portrait, and that I should be sorry to deprive her of it.”

[p. 235]

## CHAPTER X

AUTUMN DAYS AT VERSAILLES

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

“We still hear a great deal about the alleged illegality committed in arresting Jacoby. That measure might have been inopportune; perhaps less importance might have been attached to his demonstrations. But there was nothing illegal in the course adopted, as we are now in a state of war, when the civil code must yield to military necessity. The imprisonment of Jacoby falls within the military jurisdiction, with which the police and the judicial authorities have nothing to do. It is in no sense to be regarded as a punishment. Jacoby is simply a prisoner of war, just as would be a spy arrested in Germany, with whom of course we do not wish otherwise to compare him. In other words, he was one of the forces that increased the difficulty of[p. 236] attaining the object of the war, and had accordingly to be rendered harmless.

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

“These principles are not contested in so far as they are applicable to the immediate seat of war. The idea upon which they are based is not, however, affected by the locality. Those who wield the power of the State must exercise the rights and fulfil the duties accorded to and imposed upon them for the purpose of securing the object of the war, without regard to the distance from the actual scene of warfare of the obstacles which require removal. They are bound to prevent the occurrence of such incidents as render the attainment of peace less easy. We are now carrying on a war for the purpose of enforcing conditions which will hinder the enemy from attacking us in future. Our opponents resist these conditions and will be greatly encouraged and strengthened in[p. 237] their resistance by a declaration on the part of Germans that these conditions are inexpedient and unjust. The Brunswick working class manifesto and the Königsberg resolution have been utilised to the utmost by the French press and have obviously confirmed the Republicans now holding power in Paris in the idea that they are right in rejecting those conditions. These French Republicans measure the influence of their German sympathisers on the Governments of Germany by the standard of their own experience. The impression which those demonstrations at Brunswick and Königsberg produced in Germany was probably little; but the point is, what effect did they have in Paris? The effect there is such that similar demonstrations must be rendered impossible in future, and their instigator must accordingly be put out of harm’s way.”

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

In the further course of conversation the Minister said: “I heard something really characteristic to-day.[p. 238] The host of Princes who have followed us and who are lodging at the Hôtel des Reservoirs are living at the expense of the town! They let the municipality feed them, though they have merely come out of curiosity, and are nothing more than distinguished loafers. It is particularly shabby of the Duke of Coburg, who is a rich man, with an annual revenue of a million thalers. Such a piece of meanness ought to be noticed in the press. It is shameful for a Prince to allow himself to be fed by a town already so impoverished.” The Chief again returned to this subject a little later, “The royal household is a very comprehensive conception, and so it is impossible to object to these gentlemen being fed. The King pays for the Crown Prince, and the Crown Prince for the other princely personages. But it is mean of the latter to help to suck the town dry, and the newspapers should not overlook it.”

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

“An Englishman at the headquarters at Meaux” wrote to the Daily Telegraph that the Chief on the conclusion of his interview with Malet said: “What gives myself and the King most anxiety is the influence of a French Republic in Germany. We are very well aware how American Republicanism has reacted upon Germany, and if the French oppose us with a republican propaganda it will do us more harm than their armies.”[p. 239] The Minister wrote on the margin of this statement: “An absurd lie.”

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

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

Hatzfeldt complained at dinner that the Greeks, who are anxious to get away, pestered him with their lamentations. “Yes,” said the Chief, “they too must be regarded with suspicion. They must first be identified according to their descriptions, and it must then be seen whether they have been properly circumcised. But no, that is not customary among the Greeks. What seems to me, however, more suspicious even than[p. 240] this enormous diplomatic family, is Wittgenstein, who comes out at the risk of his life on pretence of having despatches for me, and who afterwards turns out to have none. I wonder do they fancy that we shall tolerate this running to and fro between Paris and Kutusow?”

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

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

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

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

[p. 241]

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

Somebody having mentioned that early Protestantism had shown no tolerance, Bucher called attention to the fact that, according to Buckle, the Huguenots were zealous reactionaries, as was, indeed, the case with all the reformers of that period. “They were not exactly reactionaries,” replied the Chief, “but petty tyrants—each parson was a small Pope.” He then referred to the course taken by Calvin against Servetus, and added “Luther was just the same.” I ventured to recall Luther’s treatment of the followers of Karlstadt and Munzer, as well as the case of the Wittenberg theologians after him, and Chancellor Krell. Bucher related that towards the end of the last century the Scottish Presbyterians punished a person for merely lending Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man with twenty-one years’ transportation, the offender being immediately cast into chains. I pointed to the rigid intolerance of the New England States towards the members of other religious communions and to their tyrannical liquor law. “And the Sabbath-keeping,” said the Chief, “that is a horrible tyranny. I remember the first time I went to England on landing at Hull I whistled in the street. An Englishman, whose acquaintance I had made on board[p. 242] said to me, ‘Pray, sir, don’t whistle!’ I asked ‘Why not? is it forbidden here?’ ‘No,’ he said, ‘but it is the Sabbath.’ That made me so angry that I immediately took a ticket on another steamer for Edinburgh, as it did not at all suit me not to be able to whistle when I had a mind to.” Bucher remarked that in general the Sunday in England was not so bad. He himself had always greatly enjoyed the stillness after the rush and roar of the working day in London, where the noise began early in the morning. The Chancellor then continued: “In other respects I am not at all opposed to keeping the Sabbath holy. On the contrary, as a landed proprietor, I promote it as much as possible. Only I will not force the people. Every one must know best for himself how to prepare for the future life. No work should be done on Sunday, because it is wrong as being a breach of the Divine commandment, and unfair to man, who requires rest. That of course does not apply to the service of the State and in particular to the diplomatic service, in which despatches and telegrams are delivered on Sundays which must be dealt with at once. There can also be no objection to our country people saving their hay or corn on a fine Sunday after a long spell of bad weather. I could not bring myself to coerce my farmers in those things.... I can afford to do as I think right myself, as the damage done by a possible rainy Monday would not affect me. Our landed proprietors consider that it is not respectable to allow their people to work on Sunday even in such an emergency!” I mentioned that pious families in America do not even cook on the Sabbath, and that on being once invited to dinner in New York on a Sunday there was only cold meat on the table. “In Frankfurt,” said the Chief, “when I had more liberty[p. 243] we always dined very simply on Sundays, and I never ordered the carriage out on account of the servants.” I ventured to remark that in Leipzig all shops were closed on Sunday, with the exception of the bakers’ and some tobacconists. “Yes, that is as it should be; but I do not want to put pressure on anybody. I might possibly do it in the country by not buying from a tradesman—that is if his goods were not of exceptionally high quality, for then I do not know whether I should be able to stand firm. Care should be taken, however, that noisy trades, such as that of the blacksmith, should not be carried on in the neighbourhood of a church on Sunday.”

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

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

[p. 244]

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

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

I now forgot how and by whom the subject of dangerous touring expeditions was introduced, but the Minister himself related some daring enterprises of his own. “I remember,” he said, “being once with a party, amongst whom were the Orloffs, in South France, near the Pont du Gard. An old Roman aqueduct of several stories crossed the valley. Princess Orloff, a[p. 245] very spirited lady, proposed that we should go across over it. There was a very narrow path, about a foot and a half wide, along one side of the old water channel, and on the other side a wall of big slabs of stone. It looked a very hazardous undertaking, but I could not allow myself to be beaten by a woman. We two accordingly started on this enterprise, Orloff going with the rest of the company down by the valley. For some time we walked on all right along the stone wall, from which we could see a depth of several hundred feet beneath us. Further on, however, the stones had fallen off and we had to pick our way along the narrow ledge. Then we came to another stretch of relatively easy going, but after there was another very bad bit on an unsafe ledge. Screwing up my courage I stepped out quickly after the Princess, and grasping her with one arm, jumped down with her into the channel some four to five feet deep. Our companions below, who had suddenly lost sight of us, were in the greatest anxiety until at length we came out on the other side.”

In the evening I was called to the Chief to receive instructions respecting Garibaldi, who, according to a telegram from Tours, had arrived there and offered his services to the French Republic. The Chancellor said: “But just tell me why you sometimes write in such a sledge-hammer style? It is true I have not seen the text of your telegram about Russell, but your recent article on the Ultramontanes in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung was very strongly worded. Surely the Saxons are usually regarded as a very polite race, and if you have any ambition to become Court Historian to the Foreign Office, you must not be so violent.” I ventured to reply that I could also be polite, and was capable of irony without rudeness. “Well, then,” he[p. 246] said, “be polite but without irony. Write diplomatically. Even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.”

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

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

It was directed against the Schlesische Haus-Blätter, and concluded as follows: “We should have thought that it was impossible at this time of day to be misunderstood in using the terms ‘ultramontane’ and ‘ultramontanism.’ We should have thought that honest Catholics would as clearly understood what was meant thereby as do other Christians, and that as honest Catholics they could not possibly take offence at strictures upon ultramontane agitation and attacks. Acting on this supposition, we called attention to the resistance offered by that party to the latest development of German affairs. To our great astonishment, however, we learn through a Silesian journal that our article, in which the party in question was described as ultramontane, has actually given offence, and been regarded as a censure and impeachment of Catholicism itself.[p. 247] We deprecate any such interpretation of our meaning. Nothing was more remote from our intention. From our standpoint Ultramontanism has just as little in common with the faith of the Catholic Church as Atheism and Nihilism have with the Protestant Church. Ultramontanism is of a purely political character. It is the spirit of a sect with exclusively worldly aims, namely, the restoration as far as possible of universal empire on a mediæval theocratic basis. It does not recognise the claims of patriotism, and it considers the end to justify the means. In speaking of the Ultramontanes as zealous opponents of Germany in the present war, the examples which we gave made it sufficiently clear to whom we referred. For the purpose of removing all doubt on this point, however, and to prevent the possibility in future of circles for whom we entertain feelings of respect taking unnecessary offence at remarks which were not intended for them, we will here add a few further examples.

“When we complained of the hostility of the Ultramontanes we were thinking of those French priests who were convicted upon trustworthy evidence of having fired upon our soldiers. In repeating these charges we have other priests in mind who, a few days ago, under the pretext of bringing the last consolation to the dying, sneaked through our camp outside Paris as spies; and to the manifesto of the former ultramontane deputy, Keller, an Alsacian, published in the Union, which declares that the war against us is a ‘holy war,’ and that every shot fired at a German is an œuvre sainte. We imagine that after this explanation our Silesian contemporary will no longer doubt our respect for the Catholic Church, and will not itself desire to identify the Catholic cause with those who thus act and[p. 248] speak, and are guilty of such a gross abuse of the conception of ‘holiness.’”

On my submitting the article to the Chief he said: “You still write too bluntly for me. But you told me that you were capable of delicate irony. Here, however, there is much more irony than delicacy.” (I had only reproduced his own expressions, which, however, shall be avoided in future.) “Write it all in a different strain. You must write politically, and in politics the object is not to give offence.” The Chief then altered the article in part, the first paragraph assuming the following form: “We had not believed that at this time of day the use of the expressions ‘ultramontane’ and ‘ultramontanism’ could lead to any misunderstanding. We imagined that Catholics had as clear a conception of the meanings of those words as the members of other Christian communities, and that they would understand that no offence was intended to them in complaining of the attacks of the Ultramontanes. It was on this supposition that we dealt with the opposition of the party in question to the latest development of German affairs, and we are surprised to find that a Silesian newspaper, notorious for its violence of language, has inverted our meaning, substituting the Catholic Christian world for the coterie which we attacked.” The Minister struck out the adjective “zealous” before “opponents of Germany,” and also the following sentence beginning with the words “For the purpose of removing.” The concluding passage read as follows after the Minister had corrected it: “In complaining of the Ultramontanes we were thinking, as we expressly stated, of the party of the Münchener Volksboten and similar organs, whose slanderous jibes stir up the Germans against each[p. 249] other, and who encouraged the French to attack Germany and are partly responsible for the present war, inasmuch as they represented French victory to be easy and certain, and the German people to be disunited; we had in mind the priests of Upper Alsace and the French priests who instigated the country population to murderous attacks upon our troops in which they themselves took part; we had further in view those priests who sullied the cloth, sneaking into our camp as spies under pretence of bringing the last consolation to the dying, and who are at the present moment being tried by court-martial for this conduct; and we were also thinking of a manifesto published in the Union by the former ultramontane deputy, Keller, an Alsacian, in which the present war was represented as a crusade, and every shot fired at a German as an œuvre sainte. We imagine that the Silesian journal in question will hardly succeed in obtaining credence when it casts doubt upon our respect for the Catholic Church. It will not desire to identify the cause of Catholicism with that of men who have been guilty of such a wicked abuse of sacred things and of genuine faith.”

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

After dinner a gentleman who has come from Paris, supposed to be a Spanish diplomat, succeeded in obtaining an interview with the Chancellor, and remained with him for a long time. Like other gentlemen who have come from the city he will not be[p. 250] allowed to return. Some of us considered the visit rather suspicious.

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

Thursday, October 13th.—Read and made use of a report from Rome giving the result of the plebiscite, which shows that there is no longer any Papal party there. It would appear as if the whole political organisation of the Papal State has fallen into dust, like a corpse that, after remaining unchanged for a thousand years in its leaden shell, has been suddenly exposed to[p. 251] the air. There is nothing left of it—not a memory nor even a void which it had filled. The voting, which had to be conducted according to the Italian Constitution, is a voluntary manifestation of opinions which either involve no sacrifice or a very slight one, except, of course, to the emigrants. So far as those opinions indicate an antipathy to the political régime of the Papacy, there can be no possibility of a reaction. On the other hand, whether the Romans will desire to be and to remain subjects of the King of Italy will depend, so far as the permanence of his rule is concerned, upon the manner in which they are governed.

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

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

The conversation at dinner was not of particular interest to-day. While taking our coffee, the Chancellor again read us a portion of a letter from “Johanna” (his wife), which contained some very severe judgments[p. 252] upon the French, referring, amongst other things, to Paris as an “abominable Babel.”

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

At dinner the Chief, after thinking for a moment, said, smiling: “I have a lovely idea in connection with the conclusion of peace. It is to appoint an International Court for the trial of all those who have instigated the war, newspaper writers, deputies, senators, and ministers.” Abeken added that Thiers would also be indirectly involved, especially on account of his Chauvinistic History of the Consulate and Empire. “The Emperor also,” said the Chief. “He is not quite so innocent as he wants to make out. My idea was that each of the great Powers should appoint an equal number of judges, America, England, Russia and so forth, and that we should be the prosecutors. But the English and the Russians would of course not agree to it, so that the Court might after all be composed of the two nations who have suffered most from the war, that is to say, of Frenchmen and Germans.” The Minister also said: “I have read the article in the Indépendance Belge, which Grammont is believed to have written.[p. 253] He blames us for not having set Napoleon at liberty at Sedan, and he is not pleased at our marching on Paris, instead of merely occupying Alsace and Lorraine as a pledge. I thought at first it might have come from Beust or some other good friend in Austria, but I am now convinced that it must have been written by a Frenchman.” He gave his reasons for this opinion, and then continued: “His argument would be just if his assumption were correct, namely, that we really did not want Alsace, but only an indemnity. But as it is it will be better to have Paris as well as Alsace as pledges. When one wants something decent the pledge can never be of too great value.”

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

The Chancellor referred to various horrors that had again been committed recently by bands of guerillas. He quoted the proverb, Wie es in den Wald schallt, so schallt es wieder heraus, (The wood re-echoes what is shouted into it,) and said that to show any consideration[p. 254] to these treacherous franctireurs was a “culpable laziness in killing.” “It is treason to our country.” “Our people are very good marksmen, but bad executioners. Every village in which an act of treachery has been committed should be burnt to the ground, and all the male inhabitants hanged.”

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

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

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

The Chief afterwards related the following: “Moltke[p. 255] and Roon were with me yesterday, and I explained to them my ideas. Roon, who is accustomed to Parliamentary procedure, was silent and let me speak, and then agreed with what I said. ‘Molk,’ whose profile resembles more and more every day that of a bird of prey, also appeared to be listening. But when I had finished he came out with something utterly different, and I saw that he had not paid the least attention to my explanation, but had on the contrary been spinning out some ideas of his own which had nothing to do with the matter. ‘Molk’ is an exceedingly able man, and I am convinced that whatever he gave his attention to he would do well. But for years past he has devoted himself to one single subject, and he has come to have no head and no interest for anything else. It put me in a temper to find I had been talking to deaf ears, but I took my revenge. Instead of repeating my explanation I observed to Roon: ‘You have given me your opinion, therefore you have followed what I said. Will you now have the kindness to explain the matter once more?’”

Sunday, October 16th.—This morning I received another letter from Bamberger, who writes from Lausanne. He thinks Bismarck can do what he likes if he will only follow a sound German policy, that is to say, “if a United German State is now firmly established.” “In Germany people are convinced that this solution rests with the Chancellor of the Confederation, and all opposition offered to it is attributed by public opinion to the Minister. People say to themselves that if Count Bismarck did not secretly encourage that opposition it would not dare to manifest itself in such a great crisis.” Finally Bamberger asked whether he should come here. At his request I submitted a number of points in his letter to the Minister. The[p. 256] Chief said he would be very pleased to see Bamberger here, as his local knowledge of Paris would be very useful once we got in the city. “Then he can also on his return explain many things in his own circles which it would be difficult to write. It is strange, though, that they should think I do not desire to see Germany united. The cause is not progressing as it ought to do, owing to the constant tergiversation of Bavaria and Würtemberg, and because we do not know exactly what King Lewis thinks. For the same reasons, if this unity is at length secured, many things to which many people look forward will still be wanting.”

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

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

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

The Minister afterwards referred to a statement in the Kraj, and in connection therewith to the Poles in general. He spoke a good deal about the victories of the Great Elector in the East, and the alliance with[p. 257] Charles the Tenth of Sweden, which had promised him great advantages. It was a pity, however, that his relations with Holland prevented him from following up those advantages and fully availing himself of them. He would otherwise have had a good prospect of extending his power in Western Poland. On Delbrück remarking that then Prussia would not have remained a German State, the Chief replied: “It would not have done any great harm. In that case there would have been a northern State somewhat similar to Austria in the South. Poland would have been for us what Hungary is to Austria.” This observation reminded me of what he had previously said on one occasion, namely, that he had advised the Crown Prince to have his son taught the Polish language, which, however, to his regret, was not done.

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

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

[p. 258]

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

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

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

Some one remarked that the Grand Duke of Weimar was very angry because the Chief had not gone to see him as desired, whereupon the Minister turned to Keudell, and said rather sharply: “Tell —— (I could not catch the name) immediately that I was indignant[p. 259] at his Gracious Master making such claims upon my time and health, and that he should have such an erroneous idea of the duties which I have to discharge.” “I can now understand how poor Wartsdorf came to die so young.” “The Coburger worries me almost as much. He has written me a twelve-page letter on German politics, but I have given him a proper answer. I told him that of all the points he mentioned there was only one which had not been long since dealt with, and that one was not worth discussing. He did us a good service, however, in 1866. It is true that previously he was bad enough—when he wished to be Emperor of Germany, and put himself at the head of a secret shooting club. At that time I seriously intended to have him kidnapped by a regiment of hussars and brought to Magdeburg, and I submitted my proposal to the King. He is eaten up with vanity.” The Minister then related that the Duke had ordered a picture to be painted of himself as the victor of Eckernförde, seated on a prancing charger with a bombshell exploding at his feet; while, as a matter of fact, “he did not on that occasion display any heroism, but, on the contrary, kept at a respectable distance from gunshot—which was quite a sensible thing for him to do.”

The German liberal press is still uneasy with respect to the arrest of Jacoby. The Chief seems to consider it of great importance that his view of the affair should not be misunderstood, and that it should be generally adopted. The Weser Zeitung of the 16th instant, which arrived to-day, has an article which criticises the Minister’s previous declarations on this subject in a hostile spirit. It concludes as follows: “To sum up, we must hold to our view that Jacoby has been treated unjustly, and although we anticipate no fearful consequences[p. 260] from this action, we nevertheless regret this episode in the history of a glorious epoch.”

The Chief dictated the following reply:—

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

“Either the authorities entrusted with the conduct of the military operations must, notwithstanding the actual outbreak of hostilities, be bound by the Constitution and the law, or they must be held at liberty to take[p. 261] such reasonable measures as they consider necessary with a view to the fulfilment of their task. Theoretically, this question must be answered with a bare affirmative or negative. If it be answered in the negative it is hard to say by how many judicial officials every detachment of the fighting force on native soil would have to be accompanied, and what legal formalities gone through in the case of each separate house and person before the military authorities could feel that they were constitutionally within their rights in the course they desired to adopt. If the question is answered in the affirmative, then it must be recognised that it is impossible to codify the regulations governing the discretionary power which must be vested in the military commander in war, in such a manner that the general or soldier who executes his orders on native soil can in every instance refer to the particular paragraph of the Constitution or the law justifying his action.

“The Chancellor of the Confederation cannot possibly have had any other intention than to lay down the principles just stated theoretically, since, as a constitutional Prussian Minister of State, it is not competent for him to express any opinion as to whether the military commander has acted rightly in exercising the power vested in him, or as to the extent to which he may have exercised it. The military governors, who are appointed before the outbreak of war, are neither nominated by the Minister nor are they under his control. They are, on the contrary, appointed without his concurrence on the authority of the commander-in-chief, like all other military commanders. The Chancellor of the Confederation and the other Ministers of State are not the superiors of the military governors, and the latter would not obey the directions of the Ministers, but only those[p. 262] of the military authorities which reach them without any Ministerial co-operation.

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

“Stated in these general terms, the question can hardly be answered in the negative by practical politicians and soldiers, although they may entertain many scruples both on theoretical and judicial grounds against martial law as a whole. The concrete question, however, whether this right, if it exists, was properly exercised in the case of Jacoby, is as much beyond the competence of the Ministry as, say, the question whether it is necessary or desirable in delivering battle on native soil to set a particular village on fire, or to arrest without legal process a private person at a distance of fifty miles from the battle-field because he is suspected of favouring the enemy. A discussion of the means by which the military commander could be rendered responsible for what the parties concerned may consider a false, hasty or improper course is foreign to our[p. 263] purpose. We have merely been at pains to show that the constitutional attributes of the Ministry do not give it any authority to interfere directly in such cases.”

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

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

Between 1 and 2 o’clock the firing seemed to have approached the woods to the north of the town. The artillery fire was severe, the reports following each other in rapid succession, while the rattle of the mitrailleuse could also be recognised. It gave the impression that a regular battle had developed, and was drawing nearer to us. The Chief ordered his horse to be saddled, and rode off. The rest of us also followed in the direction in which the fight seemed to be raging. We saw the familiar white clouds that accompany shell fire rise and burst in the air to the left, over the wood through which the road to Jardy and Vaucresson leads. Orderlies were galloping along the road thither, and a battalion was marching towards the point where the engagement was taking place. The fight continued until after 4 o’clock, and then one only heard isolated discharges from the[p. 264] large fort on Mont Valérien, and finally they too ceased. As was only natural, great excitement prevailed during the afternoon amongst the French in the town, and the groups who stood before the houses probably expected every moment, as the noise of the firing came nearer and nearer, to see our troops in full flight before the red breeches. They afterwards drew long faces and shrugged their shoulders.

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

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

The Parisian Prefect of Police, Keratry, has appeared in Madrid with the object of submitting two proposals to General Prim. The first is that France and Spain should enter into an offensive and defensive alliance, under which the latter country should send an army of fifty thousand men to the assistance of the French. The object of the alliance would be the common defence of the nations of the Latin race against the supremacy of the Germanic race. On Prim declining this strange offer (strange inasmuch as the Spanish support of France, which but three months before had in the most arrogant manner forced its own policy upon Spain, would be an unexampled piece of self-renunciation and a misconception of the clearest interests of the Spanish[p. 265] people), the French intermediary asked that at least a decree should be issued permitting the import of arms into France. This suggestion was also rejected by Prim.

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

The Chief said yesterday to the Mayor of Versailles: “No elections, no peace. But the gentlemen of Paris will not hear of them. The American generals who were in Paris with the object of inducing them to hold the elections tell me that there is no getting them to consider the matter. Only Trochu said they were not yet so hard pressed that they need enter into negotiations,—the others would not hear of them, not even of submitting the question to the country.” “I told him finally,” said the Minister, “that we should have no alternative but to come to an understanding with Napoleon, and to force him back upon the French again. He did not believe we would do that, as it would be the grossest insult we could offer them. I replied that it was nevertheless in the interests of the victor to leave the defeated nation under a régime which would have to rely solely upon the army. In such circumstances it would be impossible to think of foreign wars. In conclusion, I advised him not to make the mistake of thinking that Napoleon had no hold upon the people. He had the army on his side. Boyer had negotiated with me in the name of the Emperor. How far the present Government in Paris had the support of the[p. 266] people remained to be seen. The rural population could hardly share the opinion that peace was not to be thought of. He then gave his own view respecting the conditions of peace, namely, the razing of their fortresses and ours, and the disarmament of both countries in proportion to the population, &c. As I told him at the commencement, these people have no right conception of what war really is.”

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

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

The Nouvelliste will shortly publish the following ideas in a French dress: “At the present moment in France, events are constantly occurring which are not only opposed to common sense, but are frequently an[p. 267] outrage on all moral feeling. Former Papal Zouaves, and not alone Frenchmen, serve without scruple in the army of a Republic which is governed by Voltairians. Garibaldi comes to Tours, and offers, as he says, what remains of his life to the service of France. He can hardly have forgotten that this same France, twenty years before, destroyed the Roman Republic, while the wounds which it inflicted upon his country at Mentana must be still fresh in his memory. Nor can we have forgotten how his native town of Nice was filched from the Italian fatherland by this same France, and that it is at the present moment only restrained by a state of siege from throwing off the French yoke.”

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

Monday, October 24th.—Strange news comes from Marseilles. It appears that the Red Republicans have there gained the upper hand. Esquiros, the Prefect of the Mouths of the Rhone, belongs to this variety of French Republicans. He has suppressed the Gazette du Midi, because the clubs of his party maintain that it favours the candidature of the Comte de Chambord, whose[p. 268] proclamation it has published. He has also expelled the Jesuits. A decree has been issued by Gambetta, declaring the Prefect to be dismissed, and his measures against the newspaper mentioned and the Jesuits to be abrogated. Esquiros, however, supported by the working classes, has declined to obey this order of the Government Delegation at Tours, and continues to hold his post. The Gazette du Midi is still suppressed, and the Jesuits are expelled. Just as little heed was paid to Gambetta’s decree disbanding the Civic Guard, which was recruited from Red Republicans, and is not to be confounded with the Marseilles National Guard. The Chief remarked with reference to this news: “It looks as if things were tending towards civil war; and it is possible that we may shortly have a Republic of South France.” I worked up this news into paragraphs, written in the sense of the foregoing comment.

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

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

During dinner the subject of “William Tell” was introduced, I cannot now remember how, and the Minister confessed that, even as a boy, he could not endure that character; first, because he shot at his own son, and secondly, because he killed Gessler in a treacherous way. “It would have been more natural and noble to my mind if, instead of shooting at the boy, for after all the best archer might hit him instead of the apple, he had immediately shot down the Governor. That would have been legitimate wrath provoked by a cruel command. But the lurking and[p. 269] skulking is not to my taste. It is not the proper style for a hero, not even for franctireurs.”

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

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

In the evening I wrote another article on the instructions of the Chief to the following effect. It is rumoured that Vienna diplomacy has again taken steps to induce the Germans to grant an armistice. We find it difficult to credit this report. The only advantage to the French of an armistice at the present moment would be to strengthen their resistance and to render it more difficult for us to enforce the conditions which we recognise as essential. Can that be the object Austria has in view in taking this measure? The[p. 270] following considerations are of an obvious nature. If the authorities in Vienna deprive us of the fruits of our victory, if we are prevented from securing that safe western frontier which we are striving to win, a new war with France is unavoidable, or rather the continuation of the one thus interrupted. It is quite clear where in such circumstances France would seek allies and probably find them. It is equally certain that in that case Germany would not wait until the recovery of France from her present chaotic condition, which would be promoted by a cessation of the war now in progress. Germany would be obliged to deal first with this future ally of France and to seek to render it powerless, and the latter standing alone would have to bear the cost of its own act in preventing us from attaining our present object. In other words, it might then happen that Austria would have to compensate us by the cession of Bohemia for the loss of Lorraine, which it once before alienated from the German Empire.

Friday, October 28th.—In the afternoon Moltke sent the Chief a telegram which reported that the capitulation of Metz was signed to-day at 12.45 P.M. The French army thus made prisoners number in all 173,000 men, including 16,000 sick and wounded. Bennigsen, Friedenthal, and Von Blankenburg, a friend of the Chancellor’s in his youth, joined us at dinner. From the French officers captured at Metz and their approaching transportation to Germany, the conversation turned upon General Ducrot and his disgraceful escape from Pont à Mousson. The Minister said: “He has written me a long letter explaining that there is no foundation for the charge of breach of faith we have brought against him, but he has not materially modified my view of the case.” The Chief then related[p. 271] that recently an “intermediary of Gambetta’s” had called upon him, and that towards the close of the conversation he asked whether we would recognise the Republic. “I replied,” continued the Chief, “certainly, without any doubt or hesitation. Not only the Republic, but, if you like, a Gambetta dynasty; only it must secure us the advantages of a safe peace.” “Or for the matter of that any dynasty, whether it be a Bleichröder or a Rothschild one.”

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

Saturday, October 29th.—At dinner our great success at Metz was discussed. “That exactly doubles the number of our prisoners,” said the Minister—“no, it does more. We now have in Germany the army which Napoleon had in the field at the time of the battles of Weissenburg, Wörth, and Saarbrücken, with the exception of those whom we killed. The troops which the French now have were afterwards brought from Algiers and Rome, and newly recruited, together with a few thousand men under Vinoy who made off before Sedan. We have also nearly all their generals.” The Chief then said Napoleon had requested that Marshals Bazaine, Lebœuf, and Canrobert, who had been taken at Metz, should be sent to him at Wilhelmshöhe. The Minister added: “That would make a whist party. I have no objection, and shall recommend the King to do so.” He then went on to say that so many extraordinary events which no one could have imagined previously were now of daily occurrence that one might regard the most wonderful as being within the range of possibility. “Amongst other things it might well[p. 272] happen that we should hold a German Reichstag in Versailles, while Napoleon might summon the Legislative Chamber and the Senate to Cassel to consider the terms of peace. Napoleon is convinced that the former representative body is still legally in existence, an opinion against which there is little to be said, and that he could summon it to meet wherever he liked—of course, however, only in France. Cassel would be a debatable question.” The Chief then said that he had invited the representatives of the parties “with whom it is possible to discuss matters”—Friedenthal, Bennigsen, and Blankenburg—to come here in order to ascertain their views respecting a session of our Parliament at Versailles. “I was obliged to omit the Progressist party, as they only desire what is not possible. They are like Russians, who eat cherries in winter and want oysters in summer. When a Russian goes into a shop he asks for Kaknje bud, that is to say, for what does not exist.”

After the first course Prince Albrecht, the father, came in and took a seat on the Chief’s right. The old gentleman, like a genuine Prussian Prince, always gallant and loyal to his duty, has pressed forward with his cavalry beyond Orleans. He tells us that the engagement in Châteaudun was “horrible.” He warmly praised the Duke of Meiningen, who had also shirked no danger or privation. On this the Chief remarked: “I have nothing to say against Princes who go with the army and as officers and leaders share the dangers and hardships of the soldiers. But I should prefer to see those who loaf around here at Pückler’s expense, and who are mere spectators of the man-hunt, anywhere rather than at headquarters. It is all the more unpleasant to me to have them here, as they storm me[p. 273] with questions and force wise counsels upon me respecting matters that are in course of development and which are now being worked out.”... “May I ask,” said the Prince (doubtless to get away from this subject), “how the Countess is?” “Oh, she is quite well,” replied the Chief, “now that our son is better. She still suffers from her ferocious hatred of the Gauls, all of whom she would wish to see shot and stabbed to death, down to the little babies—who after all cannot help having such abominable parents.”

[p. 274]

## CHAPTER XI

THIERS AND THE FIRST NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN ARMISTICE AT VERSAILLES

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

On my return to the house a little after 10 o’clock Engel told me that Thiers had arrived shortly before, but had left again almost immediately. He had come from Tours, and had only called to get a safe conduct through our lines, as he wished to go to Paris. Hatzfeldt had breakfasted with Thiers at the Hôtel des Reservoirs, and afterwards saw him into the carriage, in which, accompanied by Lieutenant von Winterfeldt, he was conducted to the French outposts. He told us at lunch that Thiers “still remained the same bright witty old gentleman, but was weak as a baby.” Hatzfeldt had been the first to recognise him on his calling at our place,[p. 275] and told him that the Chief was just getting up. He then showed him into the salon, and informed the Minister, who hastily finished his toilet and shortly afterwards came down. They were, however, only together alone for a few minutes, the Chief then instructing Hatzfeldt to make the necessary preparations for Thiers’ visit to Paris. The Minister afterwards told Hatzfeldt that Thiers said to him immediately after they had exchanged greetings, that he had not come to speak to him. “That strikes me as quite natural,” added Hatzfeldt, “as although Thiers would like to conclude peace with us (just because it would be Thiers’ peace, since he is terribly ambitious) he does not know what the people in Paris would say to it.”

In the meantime the Chief had ridden off with his cousin to the review of 9,000 Landwehr Guards which was being held this morning by the King. At lunch the Chief referred to the Landwehr, who had arrived that morning, and said they were tall, broad-shouldered fellows, who must have impressed the people of Versailles. “The front of one of their companies is at least five feet broader than that of a French company, particularly in the Pomeranian Landwehr.” The Minister then turned to Hatzfeldt, and said: “I hope you have not mentioned anything about Metz to Thiers.” “No, and he also said nothing about it, although there is no doubt that he knows.” “He certainly does, but I did not speak about it either.” Hatzfeldt then observed once more that Thiers was very charming in his manner, but had lost nothing of his old vanity and self-complacency. As evidence of this Hatzfeldt mentioned that Thiers had told him that a few days before he met a peasant whom he asked whether he desired to see peace concluded. “Certainly, very much.”[p. 276] “Whether he knew who he (Thiers) was?” “No,” the peasant replied, and appealed to a neighbour who had come on the scene, and who passed as the oldest inhabitant. This ancient was of opinion that M. Thiers must be a member of the Chamber. Hatzfeldt added, “It was obvious that Thiers was angry at not being better known.”

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

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

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

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

Hatzfeldt announced at tea that on paying a visit early in the evening at the Hôtel des Reservoirs he learned by accident that M. Thiers had returned, and he had afterwards spoken to him. Thiers informed[p. 277] him that on the day before he had been engaged from 10 o’clock at night until 3 in the morning in negotiating with the members of the Provisional Government; he rose again at 6 A.M. and from that time until 2 in the afternoon received visitors of all descriptions, after which he drove back here. He wishes to have a conference with the Chancellor to-morrow. “He began to speak of disturbances having taken place yesterday in Paris,” continued Hatzfeldt, “but on an exclamation of surprise escaping me he immediately changed the subject.”

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

“If in a struggle between two Powers, one of whom proves obviously weaker and is at length on the point of being defeated, a third Power, which has hitherto been neutral, urges an armistice, its motive must certainly be regarded less as a benevolent desire for the welfare of both parties than as anxiety for the weaker State and as evident partisanship in favour of the same. It is, in fact, an armistice in favour of the Power that is on the point of being defeated, and to the disadvantage of that which has won the upper hand. If this third[p. 278] Power furthermore endeavours to induce other neutral States to take similar action, thus strengthening and giving more weight to its own proposal, then it is clearly departing still further from a neutral attitude. Its one-sided warnings are transformed into partisan pressure, its proceedings become intrigues, and its whole action presents an appearance of threatened violence.

“This is the case with Austria-Hungary if it be true, as the Vienna official organs boast, that it has taken the initiative in an attempt of the neutral Powers to negotiate an armistice between defeated France and victorious Germany. The conduct of Count Beust becomes more clearly offensive when it is known that it was suggested by M. Chaudordy, Favre’s representative at Tours, and originated in a previous understanding between the Vienna Cabinet and the Delegation of the Provisional Government in that city. The true character of this action on the part of Austro-Hungarian diplomacy as a hostile interference in our settlement with France becomes more manifest from the manner in which its representative in Berlin supports the English suggestions. The British Foreign Office adopts a tone of perfect impartiality, and of benevolence towards Germany; the Italians do the same, while the Russian representative has kept entirely aloof from all intervention. All three Powers have done their utmost at Tours to promote an unprejudiced and reasonable view of the situation on the part of the French. On the other hand, the despatches read by Herr von Wimpffen in Berlin (we do not know what Austria-Hungary has advised at Tours) speak in a tone which is anything but friendly. They emphasise the statement that Vienna still believes in general European interests. The authorities there fear that history would condemn the[p. 279] neutral Powers if the catastrophe which is threatening Paris were to occur without a voice being raised on their part to avert it. It is evidently intended as a severe and offensive censure when they say humanity demands that the conditions of peace should be made less onerous for the vanquished, but that Germany will not permit any voice to reach the ears of its defeated foe except that which proclaims the commands of the victor. The whole despatch is characterised throughout by a vein of irony which distinguishes it in a manner little to its advantage from that of the English Government.

“From all these circumstances it is as clear that the action of Count Beust is guided by hostile intentions towards us as that Lord Granville’s attitude is based on good will. We wonder if the Vienna Chancellor well considered the possible consequences of this new manœuvre. It is not probable after the fall of Metz that the attempt made by Austria to hinder Germany in the complete attainment of that peace which we have in view with the object of securing a safe Western frontier will be successful. But we shall remember that attempts to prejudice our interests and the good impression made in Germany by the previous neutrality of Austria-Hungary will be destroyed, and a friendly rapprochement with the dual monarchy, a basis for which was being laid, will be postponed—probably for a considerable time. But let us consider another possibility. Take it that through the intervention of Count Beust the demands which we make upon France are curtailed, and that we are actually obliged to renounce a portion of the old and new debts which we are on the point of collecting—does the Chancellor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire believe that we shall not[p. 280] remember at the first opportunity to make our ill-disposed neighbour on the South-East compensate us for what he helped to deprive us of in the West? Does he believe that we shall foolishly put off the day of reckoning with a neighbour who takes every opportunity of displaying his hostility, until his French protégé has recovered sufficiently to give him the support of a more valuable alliance in gratitude for the assistance given against Germany?”

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

Mention was made of the decree of the Minister of War or of the Commandant of the Town, ordering that particulars should be published of all valuables found in houses deserted by their owners, and that if not reclaimed within a certain time they were to be confiscated for the benefit of the war chest. The Minister said that he considered this decree to be perfectly justified, adding: “As a matter of fact such houses should be burned to the ground, only that punishment[p. 281] would also fall in part on the sensible people who have remained behind; and so unfortunately it is out of the question.” The Chief then observed, after a pause, and apparently without any connection with what had been previously said: “After all, war is, properly speaking, the natural condition of humanity.” He remained silent for a while, and then remarked: “It just occurs to me that the Bavarian proposes to surprise me to-day,” by which he meant that Count Bray was about to visit him. This led the conversation to the Bavarian Ambassador in Berlin, Pergler von Perglas, of whom the Chief does not appear to have a high opinion. “He is as bad as he can be. I do not say that because he is a Particularist, as I do not know how I should think myself if I were a Bavarian. But he has always been in favour of the French.” (The Minister maintained, if I heard him rightly, that this was owing to his wife.) “I never tell him anything when he comes to me, or at least not the truth.”

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

At dessert the Minister spoke of the large quantity[p. 282] he had eaten. “But then it is my only meal. It is true I take breakfast, but then it is merely a cup of tea without milk and two eggs,—and after that nothing till evening. Then I over-eat myself, like a boa-constrictor, and can’t sleep. Even as a child, and ever since that time, I have always gone to bed late, never before midnight. I usually fall asleep quickly, but wake soon again and find that it is not more than half-past 1 o’clock. All sorts of things then come into my head, particularly if I have been unfairly treated,—and that must be all thought out. I afterwards write letters, and even despatches, but of course without getting up—simply in my head. Formerly, for some time after my appointment as Minister, I used to get up and actually write them down. When I read them over next morning however they were worth nothing,—mere platitudes, confused trivial stuff such as might have appeared in the Vossische Zeitung, or might have been composed by his Serene Highness of Weimar. I do not want to, I should prefer to sleep. But the thinking and planning goes on. At the first glimmer of dawn I fall off again, and then sleep till 10 o’clock or even later.”

Wednesday, November 2nd.—On returning from a long walk at about 4.30 P.M. I heard that Thiers had remained with the Chief until a few minutes before, and looked rather pleased on taking his leave. During dinner the Minister observed, referring to his visitor of to-day: “He is a clever and amiable man, bright and witty, but with scarcely a trace of the diplomatist—too sentimental for that trade.” “He is unquestionably a finer nature than Favre. But he is no good as a negotiator (Unterhändler)—not even as a horsedealer (Pferdehändler).” “He is too easily bluffed, betrays[p. 283] his feelings, and allows himself to be pumped. Thus I have ascertained all sorts of things from him, amongst others that they have only full rations in Paris for three or four weeks.”

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

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

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

I am instructed to telegraph that in consequence of yesterday’s negotiations the Chancellor has offered M. Thiers a truce of twenty-five days on the basis of the[p. 284] military status quo. Thiers returned at 12 o’clock, and negotiated with the Chief until 2.30 P.M. The demands of the French are exorbitant. At lunch we hear that in addition to a twenty-eight days’ armistice for the elections and the meeting of the National Assembly thus chosen to determine the position of the Provisional Government, they demand nothing less than the right to provision Paris and all other fortresses held by them and besieged by us, and the participation of the Eastern provinces, of which we require the cession in the elections. Ordinary logic finds it difficult to conceive how the provisioning of fortresses can be deemed consistent with the maintenance of the military status quo.

Amongst other subjects discussed at dinner were the elections in Berlin. Delbrück was of opinion that they would be more favourable than hitherto. Jacoby, at any rate, would not be re-elected. Count Bismarck-Bohlen thought otherwise. He anticipated no change. The Chancellor said: “The Berliners must always be in opposition and have their own ideas. They have their virtues—many and highly estimable ones—they fight well, but they would not consider themselves to be as clever as they ought to be unless they knew everything better than the Government.” That failing, however, was not confined to Berliners, the Chief added. All great cities were much the same in that respect, and many were even worse than Berlin. They were in general more unpractical than the rural districts, where people were in closer contact with nature, and thus not only got into a more natural and practical way of thinking. “Where great numbers of men are crowded together they easily lose their individuality and dissolve into one mass. All sorts of opinions are in the air, they arise from hearsay and repetition, and are little or not at all founded on facts,[p. 285] but are propagated by the newspapers, popular meetings and conversations over beer, and then remain firmly, immutably rooted. It is a sort of false second nature, a faith or superstition held collectively by the masses. They reason themselves into believing in something that does not exist, consider themselves in duty bound to hold to that belief, and wax enthusiastic over narrow-minded and grotesque ideas. That is the case in all great cities, in London for instance, where the cockneys are quite a different race to other Englishmen—in Copenhagen, in New York, and above all in Paris. The Parisians, with their political superstitions, are quite a distinct people in France,—they are caught and bound up in a circle of ideas which are a sacred tradition to them, although when closely examined they turn out to be mere empty phrases.”

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

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

Friday, November 4th.—Beautiful bright morning. At the desire of the Minister I send the Daily News an account of his conversation with Napoleon at Donchery. He had principally conversed with the Emperor within[p. 286] the weaver’s house, upstairs—for about three-quarters of an hour—and spent but a short time with him in the open air, as the Minister himself stated in his official report to the King. Furthermore, in speaking to Napoleon, he had not pointed the forefinger of the left hand into the palm of his right, which was not at all a habit of his. He had not once made use of the German language in speaking to the Emperor—he had never done so, and also not on that occasion. “I did, however,” the Minister continued, “speak German to the people of the house, as the man understood a little and the woman spoke it very well.”

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

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

Thiers was once more with the Chief from 9 P.M. until after 11 o’clock. While they were conferring a telegram arrived announcing that Beust has abandoned his former attitude in so far as he declares that if Russia raises objections to the Prussian demands upon France,[p. 287] Austria will do the same, but otherwise not. This telegram was at once sent in to the Chief.

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

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

The Chancellor, who had been dining with the King, joined us in the evening and complained to Delbrück of the way in which he had been beset at the King’s quarters by the Princes, who prevented him from discussing something of importance with Kutusow. “I really could not talk to him properly. The Serene Highnesses fluttered about me like crows round a screech-owl, and tore me away from him. Each of them seemed to delight in being able to buttonhole me longer than the others. At length I asked Prince Charles if he could not get his brother-in-law to wait until I had finished what I had to say to Kutusow, as it was an important matter of State. But although I have often spoken to him previously in the same sense he did not seem to understand me, and the end of it[p. 288] was that he took offence.”... “At last they heard that the leg or the back of the old coronation chair had been discovered in one of the other rooms, and they all trooped off to inspect the wonder, while I took this opportunity to bolt.” At that moment a despatch was delivered stating that Favre and the other members of the Government in Paris had once more got on the high horse, and proclaimed that they would not hear of a cession of territory, and that their sole task was the defence of the fatherland. The Chief observed: “Well, then, we need not negotiate any further with Thiers.”

Later on the Minister said that Thiers probably still intended to write another historical work. “Time after time he spins out our negotiation by introducing irrelevant matters. He relates what has occurred or been advised here and there, inquires as to the attitude of this or that person, and what would have happened in such and such circumstances. He reminded me of a conversation I had with the Duc de Bauffremont in the year 1867, in the course of which I said that in 1866 the Emperor had not understood how to take advantage of the situation, that he could have done a good stroke of business although not on German soil, &c. Roughly that is quite correct. I remember it very well. It was in the gardens of the Tuileries, and a military band was playing. In the summer of 1866 Napoleon lacked courage to do what he ought to have done from his point of view. When we attacked Austria he should have occupied ——, the object of the Benedetti proposal, and held it as a pledge. We could not have prevented him at that time, and most probably England would not have stirred—in any case he could have waited. If the coup succeeded he might have placed himself back[p. 289] to back with us, encouraging us to further aggression. But (turning to Delbrück, first leaning a little forward and then sitting straight upright, a habit of his on such occasions), he is and remains a muddle-headed fellow.”

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

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

Monday, November 7th.—Early in the morning the Chief instructs me to telegraph to London: “In the negotiations with M. Thiers, which lasted for five days, he was offered an armistice of any duration up to twenty-eight days on the basis of the military status quo, for the purpose of holding elections, which should also be allowed to take place in the portions of France occupied[p. 290] by the German troops; or, as an alternative, our assistance and sanction for holding the elections without a truce. After a renewed conference with the Paris Government at the outposts, M. Thiers was not authorised to accept either of these offers. He demanded first of all permission to provision Paris, without offering any military equivalent. As this proposal could not be accepted by the Germans on military grounds, M. Thiers yesterday received instructions from Paris to break off the negotiations.”

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

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

The postponement of the bombardment was again discussed at dinner. The Chancellor said he could not[p. 291] understand the absurd rumour circulated in the newspapers, to the effect that he was opposed to the bombardment while the military authorities were pressing for it. “Exactly the contrary is the case. No one is more urgent in favour of it than I am, and it is the military authorities who hesitate. A great deal of my correspondence is taken up in dispelling the scruples and excessive circumspection of the military people. It appears that the artillery are constantly requiring more time for preparation and particularly a larger supply of ammunition. At Strassburg, they also asked for much more than was necessary, as notwithstanding the foolish waste of powder and shell, two-thirds of the supply collected was never used.” Alten objected that even if the forts in question were captured they would be then subjected to the fire from the enceinte, and we should have to begin over again. “That may be,” said the Minister, “but they ought to have known that sooner, as there was no fortress we knew so much about from the commencement as Paris.”

Somebody remarked that in the two balloons that had been seized five persons had been taken prisoners. The Chief considered that they ought to be treated as spies without any lengthy deliberation. Alten said they would be brought up before a court-martial, whereupon the Minister exclaimed, “Well, nothing will happen to them there!” He then observed how stout and strong Count Bill was. At his age he himself was slight and thin. “At Göttingen I was as thin as a knitting-needle.” Mention having been made of the circumstance that the sentry posted outside the villa occupied by the Crown Prince had been shot at and wounded the night before, and that the town would be obliged to pay him five thousand francs as compensation, the Chief said that[p. 292] in going out in the evening he would not take his sword but rather a revolver—“as although in certain circumstances I should be quite willing to let myself be murdered, I should not like to die unavenged.”

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

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

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

Delbrück, General Chauvin, and Colonel Meidam, the officer in command of the Field Telegraph, were the[p. 293] Chief’s guests at dinner. Mention was made of the improper use of the telegraph wire by distinguished personages for their private purposes.

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

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

Amongst other subjects discussed at tea was the rumour that the postponement of the bombardment was in part due to the influence of ladies, the Queen and the Crown Princess being mentioned in this connection. The Chief was in the drawing-room engaged in conference with the Bavarian General von Bothmer on the military question in connection with the closer unification of Germany now in progress. The Minister joined us afterwards, remaining for about an hour. On sitting down he breathed a deep sigh and said: “I was thinking just now, what I have indeed often thought before—If I could only for five minutes have the power to say: ‘That must be done thus and in no other way!’—If one were only not compelled to bother about the ‘why’ and the ‘wherefore,’ and to argue and plead for the simplest things!—Things made much more rapid progress under men like Frederick the Great, who were generals[p. 294] themselves and also knew something about administration, acting as their own Ministers. It was the same with Napoleon. But here, this eternal talking and begging!”

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

“How so, Excellency?” asked Hatzfeldt.

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

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

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

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

The Chief: “Yes, certainly. But perhaps he may be obliged to leave. But where could he go? Not to France, because Garibaldi is there. He would not like to go to Austria. To Spain? I suggested to him Bavaria.” The Minister then reflected for a moment,[p. 295] after which he continued: “There remains nothing for him but Belgium or North Germany. As a matter of fact he has already asked whether we could grant him asylum. I have no objection to it—Cologne or Fulda. It would be passing strange, but after all not so very inexplicable, and it would be very useful to us to be recognised by Catholics as what we really are, that is to say, the sole power now existing that is capable of protecting the head of their Church. Stofflet and Charette, together with their Zouaves, could then go about their business. We should have the Poles on our side. The opposition of the Ultramontanes would cease in Belgium and Bavaria. Malinkrott would come over to the Government side. But the King will not consent. He is terribly afraid. He thinks all Prussia would be perverted, and he himself would be obliged to become a Catholic. I told him, however, that if the Pope begged for asylum he could not refuse it. He would have to grant it as ruler over ten million Catholic subjects who would desire to see the head of their Church protected. Besides, imaginative people, particularly women, may possibly feel drawn towards Catholicism by the pomp and ritual of St. Peter’s, with the Pope seated upon his throne and bestowing his benediction. The danger would not be so great, however, in Germany, where the people would see the Pope amongst them as a poor old man seeking assistance—a good old gentleman, one of the Bishops, who ate and drank like the rest, took his pinch of snuff, and even perhaps smoked a cigar. And after all even if a few people in Germany became Catholic again (I should certainly not do so) it would not matter much so long as they remained believing Christians. The particular sect is of no consequence, only the faith. People ought to be more tolerant in[p. 296] their way of thinking.” The Chief then dilated on the comic aspect of this migration of the Pope and his Cardinals to Fulda, and concluded: “Of course the King could not see the humorous side of the affair. But (smiling) if only the Pope remains true to me I shall know how to bring his Majesty round.”

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

“I believe I shall be more than within the mark in saying that I must have fallen from horseback fifty times. It is nothing to be thrown from your horse, but when the horse lies on top of you, then it’s a bad case. The last time was at Varzin, when I broke three ribs. I thought it was all up with me. It was not, however, so dangerous as it seemed, but it was terribly painful.... But as a young man I had a remarkable accident, which shows how our thinking powers are dependent upon the brain. I was riding home one evening with my brother, and we were both galloping as hard as our horses could go. Suddenly my brother, who was in front, heard a fearful bang. It was my head that had struck against the road. My horse had shied at a lantern in a cart coming in the opposite direction, and reared so that he fell backwards, and I tumbled on my head. At first I lost consciousness, and on returning to my senses my power of thinking remained on some points quite clear, but had quite deserted me on others. I examined my horse and found that the saddle was broken, so I called the groom and rode home on his horse. When the dogs there barked[p. 297] at me by way of greeting, I thought they did not belong to us, got cross with them and drove them away. Then I said the groom had fallen from his horse and they should send a stretcher to bring in; and I got very angry when, taking their cue from my brother, they showed no disposition to move. Were they going to leave the unfortunate man lying in the road? I did not know that I was myself and was at home, or rather I was both myself and the groom. I asked for something to eat and afterwards went to bed. After having slept through the night I woke up next morning all right again. It was a strange case. I had examined the saddle, taken another horse, and so forth. I had done everything that was practically required. In that respect the fall had produced no confusion in my ideas. A singular example which shows that the brain harbours various intellectual powers—only one of these had remained stupefied by my fall for a somewhat longer time.

“I well remember another incident of the kind. I was riding rapidly through some young timber in a large wood a considerable distance from home. As I was crossing over a hollow road the horse stumbled and fell, and I lost consciousness. I must have lain there senseless for about three hours, as it was already twilight by the time I stirred. The horse was standing near me. As I said, the place was at a great distance from our estate, and I was entirely unacquainted with the district. I had not yet quite recovered my senses, but on this occasion also I did what was necessary. I took off the martingale, which was broken, and followed the road across a rather long bridge which, as I then ascertained, was the nearest way to a farm in the neighbourhood. The farmer’s wife ran away on seeing a big[p. 298] man standing before her with his face all covered with blood. Her husband, however, came to me and wiped away the blood. I told him who I was, and as I was hardly fit for such a long ride home I asked him to drive me there, which he accordingly did. I must have been shot fifteen feet out of the saddle and fallen against the root of a tree. On the doctor examining my injuries, he said it was against all the rules of his art that I had not broken my neck.

“I have also been a couple of other times in danger of my life,” continued the Chief. “For instance, before the Semmering railway was finished (I believe it was in 1852) I went with a party through one of the tunnels. It was quite dark inside. I went ahead with a lantern. Now right across the floor of the tunnel was a rift or gully, which must have been about fifteen feet deep and half as wide again as this table. A plank was laid across it, with a raised skirting board on both sides to prevent the wheelbarrows from slipping off. This plank must have been rotten, as when I reached the middle it broke in two and I fell down; but having probably involuntarily stretched out my arms, I remained hanging on the skirting. The lantern having gone out, those behind thought I had fallen into the gully, and were not a little surprised when the reply to their question, ‘Are you still alive?’ instead of coming from the depths below came from just under their feet. I answered, ‘Yes, here I am.’ I had in the meantime recovered hold also with my feet, and I asked whether I should go on or come back. The guide thought I had better go on to the other side, and so I worked my way over. The workman who acted as our guide then struck a light, got another plank, and brought the party across. That plank was a good[p. 299] example of the slovenly way in which such things were managed in Austria at that time; because I cannot believe that it was intentional. I was not hated in Vienna then as I am now—on the contrary.”

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

Thiers had stated in a memorandum the principles which he, and the French Government which he represented, regarded as a basis for the proposed armistice. It was to the following effect: The object of the understanding was to put an end as soon as possible to the bloodshed, and to permit the convocation of a National Assembly which would represent the will of France in dealing with the European Powers, and be in a position sooner or later to conclude peace with Prussia and her allies. The armistice must last for twenty-eight days, of which twelve would be required for canvassing the constituencies, one for the polling, five for the elected deputies to meet in some given place, and ten for examining the returns and appointing the bureau of the Assembly. Tours might for the present remain the seat of such an Assembly. The elections must be allowed to take place free and unhindered in all parts of France, including those occupied by the Prussians. Military operations on both sides to cease, although both parties would be at liberty to enlist recruits and proceed with works of defence. The armies to be at liberty to[p. 300] obtain for themselves supplies of provisions, but requisitions on the other hand to be suspended as “constituting a military operation which should cease together with other hostilities.” Moreover fortified places were to be provisioned for the duration of the truce in proportion to the strength of the population and garrison. For this purpose Paris to be allowed to receive the following live stock and other provisions over four railway lines to be determined: 34,000 bullocks, 80,000 sheep, 8,000 pigs, 5,000 calves, 100,000 metric centals of corned meat, 8,000,000 metric centals of hay or straw as fodder for the cattle in question, 200,000 metric centals of flour, 30,000 metric centals of dried vegetables, 100,000 tons of coal, and 500,000 cubic metres of fire-wood. In these calculations the population of Paris and its suburbs, including the garrison of 400,000 men, was estimated at 2,700,000 to 2,800,000 inhabitants.

These demands on the part of the French could not be accepted. Had we agreed to them we should have surrendered the greater and more important portion of the advantages we had gained in the last seven weeks, at the cost of great sacrifices and severe exertions. In other words, we should in the main have returned to the position in which we were on the 19th of September, the day on which our troops completed the investment of Paris. We are asked to allow Paris to provision itself, when even now it suffers from scarcity and will shortly be obliged to starve or surrender. We are to suspend our military operations just at the moment when the fall of Metz and the release of the army of Prince Frederick Charles enable us to extend and render them more effective. We are quietly to permit recruiting and organisation, by means of which the French Republic is to create a new field force, while we require[p. 301] no recruits. At the same time that we are to allow Paris and the other French fortresses to supply themselves with provisions, we are to provide for our own troops without the requisitions which are necessary in an enemy’s country. We are to make all these concessions without any military equivalent—such, for instance, as the evacuation of one or two of the Paris forts in return for the liberty to provision the city—and without being offered any clear prospect of peace. The first object of the armistice according to the Thiers memorandum, namely, the restoration of an orderly state of affairs by the lawful election of a Constituent Assembly, is unquestionably more in the interest of the French themselves than in ours; and, considering the constant excitement maintained by the inflammatory proclamations of the Provisional Government, it may possibly not be secured even under a new administration. More orderly conditions could be brought about even now without a truce if the present Government were seriously disposed to work in that direction. It was absolutely impossible on the German side to have anything to do with such proposals. A different arrangement altogether was needful, and therefore the Chancellor of the Confederation offered M. Thiers a truce of twenty-five to twenty-eight days on the basis of the maintenance of the military status quo, which would enable the French to carry on the elections in peace, and to convoke the Assembly thus constituted. This also was a concession on our part in which the advantages were all on the French side. If, as Thiers asserted, Paris was supplied with provisions and other necessaries for several months, it is not easy to see why the Provisional Government broke off the negotiations which, at the outside, would have prevented the[p. 302] Parisians from making useless sorties. France, on the other hand, would have had the great advantage of having a line of demarcation drawn which would have arrested the advance of the German forces, restricting the unopposed occupation of further districts by our army that had been set free by the fall of Metz. In the meantime Thiers refused this very acceptable offer, and maintained that the provisioning of Paris was an indispensable condition for an understanding, while he was not empowered to give any prospect of a military equivalent for the same, such as the evacuation of one of the Paris forts.

On coming in to dinner, the Chief mentioned that the Minister of War is seriously ill. He feels very weak, and will scarcely be able to rise from his bed for a fortnight. The Count afterwards made some jokes about the water supplied to us for washing. “The inhabitants of the local reservoir,” he said, “seem to have their seasons. First came the scolopendria, which are particularly distasteful to me, ‘moving their thousand limbs together’ (Schiller’s Diver). Then followed the wood lice, which I cannot bear to touch, although they are perfectly harmless. I’d sooner grasp a snake. Now the leeches have arrived. I found quite a small specimen to-day, doubled up into a button. I tried to induce him to deploy, but he declined—remained a button. I then poured some well water over him, and he stretched out straight, long and thin like a needle, and made off with himself.” The conversation then turned on a variety of simple but nevertheless estimable delicacies, such as fresh and salt herrings, new potatoes, spring butter, &c. The Minister observed to Delbrück, who also approved of those good things: “The sturgeon is a fish which is also to be found here, but it is not appreciated[p. 303] as it ought to be. In Russia they recognise its good qualities. It is often caught in the Elbe in the Magdeburg district, but is only eaten by fishermen and poor people.” He then explained its good points, and thus came to speak of caviare, and treated of the several varieties with the knowledge of a connoisseur.

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

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

He then spoke of the wonderful “topsy turvy” world we live in nowadays. “When one thinks that perhaps the Pope will shortly be residing in a small town of Protestant Germany, that the Reichstag may meet in Versailles, and the Corps Législatif in Cassel, that[p. 304] Garibaldi has become a French general in spite of Mentana, and that Papal Zouaves are fighting side by side with him!” He followed up this train of ideas for some little time.

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

On the subject of doctors, and the way in which nature sometimes comes to its own assistance, the Chief related that he was once with a shooting party for two days at the Duke of ——. “I was thoroughly out of sorts. Even the two days’ shooting and fresh air did me no good. On the third day I visited the Cuirassiers at Brandenburg, who had received a new cup. I was to be the first one to drink out of it, thus dedicating it, and then it was to go the round of the table. It held nearly a bottle. I made my speech, however, drank and set it down empty, to the great surprise of the officers, who had but a poor opinion of mere quill-drivers. That was the result of my Göttingen training. And strangely, or perhaps naturally enough, it set me all right again. On another occasion, when I was shooting at Letzlingen in the time of Frederick William IV. the guests were asked to drink from an old puzzle goblet. It was a stag’s horn, which contained about three-quarters of a bottle of wine, and was so made that one could not bring it close to the lips, yet one was not allowed to[p. 305] spill a drop. I took it and drank it off at a draught, although it was very cold champagne, and not a single drop fell on my white waistcoat. Everybody was immensely surprised; but I said, ‘Give me another.’ The King, however, who evidently did not appreciate my success, called out ‘No, no more.’ Such tricks were formerly an indispensable part of the diplomat’s trade. They drank the weaker vessels under the table, wormed all they wanted to know out of them, made them agree to things which were contrary to their instructions, or for which, at least, they had no authority. Then they were compelled to put their signatures at once, and afterwards when they got sober they could not imagine how they had done it.”

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

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

In about ten minutes the Chief returned to table. He was very angry and indignant, and said: “This is really too bad! No peace from these Grand Dukes even at one’s meals. They will eventually force their way into one’s bedroom. That must be put a stop to. It is[p. 306] not so in Berlin. There the people who want something from me announce their visits in writing, and I fix a suitable time for them to call. Why should it not be the same here?”

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

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

The name of Arnim Boitzenburg, the former Minister, then came up. The Chancellor said he had been his chief at Aix-la-Chapelle, and he went on to describe him as “amiable, clever, but unstable and incapable of persistent or energetic action. He was like an india-rubber ball that bounces again and again, but each time with diminishing[p. 307] force until at length it ceases to move. He first had an opinion, then weakened it by arguing against it himself, and went on criticising his own criticism, until at last there was nothing left and nothing done.”

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

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

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

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

[p. 308]

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

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

Tuesday, November 15th.—The Chief is still unwell. Theiss reports that the Court have their things ready packed to-day, and this is confirmed at lunch. The position of affairs between here and Orleans is not as good as it might be. The Minister also on sitting down to table mentions the possibility of our having to retire, and evacuate Versailles for a time. There might be an attack from Dreux combined with a sortie on a large scale from Paris. He had repeatedly spoken of that[p. 309] possibility to members of the general staff. Even a layman could see that a successful attempt of that kind in which not only the Court and general staff but also the heavy siege guns would be in danger of falling into the hands of the enemy, must be the sole chance of relieving Paris, and that the French, therefore, may well hazard the attempt.

[p. 310]

## CHAPTER XII

GROWING DESIRE FOR A DECISION IN VARIOUS DIRECTIONS

Wednesday, November 16th.—The Chief is still unwell. One of the causes is supposed to be his mortification at the course of the negotiations with the South German States (which once more seem as if they would come to a standstill) and at the conduct of the military authorities, who have on various occasions neglected to consult him, although the matters dealt with were not merely military questions.

Count Waldersee dines with us. The Chief complains once more that the military authorities are proceeding too slowly for him, and do not inform him of all matters of importance. He had only succeeded, “after repeated requests,” in getting them to send him at least those particulars which they telegraph to the German newspapers. It was different in 1866. He was then present at all councils, and his view was frequently accepted. For instance, it was due to him that a direct attack upon Vienna was given up, and that the army marched on to the Hungarian frontier. “And that is only as it should be. It is necessary for my business. I must be informed of the course of military operations, in order that I may know the proper time at which to conclude peace.”

[p. 311]

Thursday, November 17th.—Alten and Prince Radziwill are the Chief’s guests at dinner. A rumour is mentioned to the effect that Garibaldi and 13,000 of his volunteers have been made prisoners. The Minister observed: “That is really disheartening—to make prisoners of 13,000 franctireurs who are not even Frenchmen! Why have they not been shot?”

He then complained that the military authorities so seldom consulted him. “This capitulation of Verdun, for instance—I should certainly not have advised that. To undertake to return their arms after peace had been concluded, and still more to let French officials continue the administration as they please. The first condition might pass, as the conditions of peace might provide that the weapons should not be returned. But that librement! It ties our hands in the interval, even should they place all kinds of obstacles in our way and act as if there were absolutely no war. They can openly stir up a rising in favour of the Republic, and under this agreement we can do nothing to prevent them.” After dwelling upon this topic for some time, the Minister concluded by saying: “At all events, such a capitulation is unprecedented in history.”

Some one referred to the article written by a diplomat in the Indépendance Belge prophesying the restoration of Napoleon. “No doubt,” observed the Chancellor, “Napoleon fancies something of the kind will happen. Moreover, it is not entirely impossible. If he made peace with us he might return with the troops he has now in Germany. Something in the style of Klapka’s Hungarian Legion on a grand scale, to work in co-operation with us. And then his Government is still the legal one. Order being once restored, he would at the outside require an army of 200,000 men for its[p. 312] maintenance. With the exception of Paris, it would not be necessary to garrison the large towns with troops. Perhaps Lyons and Marseilles. The National Guards would be sufficient for the protection of the others. If the republicans were to rise in rebellion they could be bombarded and shelled out.”

A telegram reporting Granville’s statement with regard to the Russian declaration concerning the Peace of Paris was sent by the King to the Chief, who read it over to us. It was to the effect that Russia, in taking upon herself to denounce a portion of the Treaty of 1856, assumed the right to set aside the whole on her own initiative, a right which was only possessed by the signatory Powers collectively. England could not tolerate such an arbitrary course, which threatened the validity of all treaties. Future complications were to be apprehended. The Minister smiled, and said: “Future complications! Parliamentary speech-makers! They are not going to venture. The whole tone is also in the future. That is the way in which one speaks when he does not mean to do anything. No, there is nothing to be feared from them now, as there was nothing to be hoped from them four months ago. If at the beginning of the war the English had said to Napoleon, ‘There must be no war,’ there would have been none.”

After a while the Minister continued: “Gortschakoff is not carrying on in this matter a real Russian policy (that is, one in the true interests of Russia), but rather a policy of violent aggression. People still believe that Russian diplomats are particularly crafty and clever, full of artifices and stratagems, but that is not the case. If the people at St. Petersburg were clever they would not make any declaration of the kind, but would quietly[p. 313] build men-of-war in the Black Sea and wait until they were questioned on the subject. Then they might reply that they knew nothing about it, but would make inquiries, and so let the matter drag on. That might continue for a long time, and finally people would get accustomed to it.”

Another telegram announced the election of the Duke of Aosta as King of Spain. The Chief said: “I pity him—and them. He is, moreover, elected by a small majority—not by the two-thirds originally intended. There were 190 votes for him and 115 against.” Alten was pleased that the monarchical sentiments of the Spaniards had ultimately prevailed. “Ah, those Spaniards!” exclaimed the Chief. “They have no sense of what is honourable or becoming! They showed that on the outbreak of this war. If only one of those Castilians who pretend to have a monopoly of the sense of honour had but expressed his indignation at the cause of the present war, which was after all Napoleon’s intervention in their previous election of a king, interfering with their free choice and treating them as vassals!... As a matter of fact, these Spaniards are all mere Angelo de Mirandas,—he was formerly a card sharper, and then confidant of Prim’s and probably also of the King’s.” After the Chief had made some further remarks, some one said that it was now all over with the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern. “Yes,” replied the Chief, “but only because he wishes it to be so. A couple of weeks ago I told him that it was still time. But he no longer wanted to go on.”

Saturday, November 19th.—We were joined at dinner by General von Werder, the Prussian Military Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg. The Chief, who[p. 314] looked very pleased, said, shortly after entering the dining-room: “Well, we shall probably be able to come to an understanding with Bavaria.” “Yes,” exclaimed Bohlen, “something of that kind has already been telegraphed to one of the Berlin papers.” “I am sorry for that,” replied the Minister; “it is premature. But of course, wherever there is a mob of princes who have nothing to do and who feel bored, nothing can be kept secret!”

The conversation then turned on Vienna and Count Beust. The Chief said Beust had apologised for the recent discourteous note. It was written by Biegeleben, and not by himself. The reference to Biegeleben led to the discussion of the Gagern family and to the once celebrated Heinrich von Gagern (President of the Reichstag in the Paulskirche at Frankfurt). “I remember,” the Chief said, “in 1850 or 1851, Manteuffel was instructed to bring about an understanding between the Gagern and the Conservative sections of the Prussian party—at least, as far as the King was disposed to go in the cause of German unity. Manteuffel selected Gagern and myself for this purpose, and so we were both invited one day to a souper à trois at his place. At first there was little or no mention of politics, but Manteuffel afterwards made some excuse for leaving us alone. When he left I immediately began to talk politics, explaining my standpoint to Gagern in a plain, business-like way. You should have heard Gagern! He assumed his Jove-like aspect, lifted his eyebrows, ran his fingers through his hair, rolled his eyes and cast them up to heaven so perpendicularly that you could hear the joints in his neck crack, and poured out his grand phrases to me as if I were a public meeting. Of course, that did not help him much with me.[p. 315] I replied coolly, and we remained divided as before. When Jupiter had retired, Manteuffel asked, ‘Well, what arrangement have you come to together?’ ‘Oh,’ I replied, ‘no arrangement at all. The man is a fool. He takes me for a public meeting! A mere watering-can of fine phrases! Nothing can be done with him.’”

The subject of the bombardment having been introduced, the Chief said: “I told the King again yesterday that it was time to begin, and he had no objection to make. He replied that he had given orders to begin, but that the generals said they could not. I know exactly how it is. It is Stosch, Treskow, and Podbielski.”

Some one asked: “And Hindersin?”

“He is also against it,” said the Chief. “Podbielski” (so I understood him to say) “could be brought round. But the other two are influenced by considerations affecting their own future.”

It appeared from some further remarks of the Minister that, in his opinion, first Queen Victoria, and then, at her instance the Crown Princess, and, finally, the Crown Prince, persuaded by his consort, will not have Paris bombarded; while the generals “cannot” bombard the city out of consideration for the views of the Crown Prince, who will, of course, be the future King, and will have the appointment of Ministers of War, commandants of army corps, and field marshals.

The late General von Möllendorff having been mentioned, the Minister related the following anecdote: “I remember after the March rising, when the King and the troops were at Potsdam, I went there too. A council was being held as to what was to be done. Möllendorff was present, and sat not far from me. He seemed to be in pain, and could scarcely sit down for the beating he[p. 316] had received. All kinds of suggestions were made, but no one knew exactly what was to be done. I sat near the piano and said nothing, but played a few bars” (he hummed the opening of the infantry march for the charge). “Old Möllendorff suddenly stood up, his face beaming with pleasure, and, hobbling over, threw his arms round my neck, and said: ‘That’s right. I know what you mean. March on Berlin!’ There was nothing to be done with the King, however, and the others had not the pluck.”

After a while the Chancellor asked Werder: “How much does each visit to the Tsar cost you?” I do not know what Werder’s answer was, but the Chief went on: “It was always a rather costly business for me—particularly in Zarskoje. There I had always to pay from 15 to 20 and sometimes 25 roubles, according as I drove out to see the Emperor with or without an invitation. It was always more expensive in the former case. I had to fee the coachman and footman who brought me, the majordomo who received me—he wore a sword when I came on invitation, and then the running footman who conducted me through the whole length of the castle—it must be about a thousand yards—to the Emperor’s apartments. Well, he really earned his five roubles. And one never got the same coachman twice. I could never recover these expenses. We Prussians were altogether badly paid. Twenty-five thousand thalers salary and 8,000 thalers for rent. For that sum I certainly had a house as large and fine as any palace in Berlin. But all the furniture was old, shabby, and faded, and when I had paid for repairs and other odds and ends it cost me 9,000 a year. I found, however, that I was not obliged to spend more than my salary, and so I helped myself out of the difficulty by not entertaining.[p. 317] The French Minister had 300,000 francs, and was in addition allowed to charge his Government with the expense of any receptions which he chose to look upon as official.”

“But you had at least free firing,” said Werder, “and at St. Petersburg that amounts to something considerable in the course of the year.”

“Excuse me, but I had not,” replied the Chief, “I was obliged to pay for that too. Food would not have been so dear if the officials had not made it so. I remember once seeing some very good timber in a Finnish boat. I asked the peasants what the price was and they mentioned a very moderate figure. But when I wanted to buy it they asked if it was for the Treasury (he used the Russian term). I was imprudent enough to reply that it was not for the Imperial Treasury (he again used the Russian words) but for the Royal Prussian Legation. When I came back to have the wood removed they had disappeared. Had I given them the address of a tradesman, with whom I could afterwards have made an arrangement, I might have got the wood at a third of the price I usually paid. They evidently regarded the Prussian Minister as one of the Tsar’s officials and thought to themselves: ‘No, when it comes to payment he will say that we have stolen the wood, and have us locked up until we give it to him for nothing.’” The Chief then gave some instances of the way in which the Tschinowniks harassed and exploited the peasantry, and afterwards returned to the subject of the poor pay of Prussian Ministers as compared with those of other countries. “It is just the same in Berlin,” he said. “The Prussian Minister has 10,000 thalers, but the English Ambassador has 63,000, and the Russian 44,000, while the latter’s Government bears the cost of[p. 318] all entertainments, and if the Tsar stays with him he usually receives a full year’s salary as compensation. Of course, in such circumstances, we cannot keep pace with them.”

Tuesday, November 22nd.—Prince Pless, Major von Alten, and a Count Stolberg dine with us. Mention is made of a great discovery of first-rate wine in a cellar near Bougival, which has been confiscated in accordance with the laws of war. Bohlen complains that none of it has reached us. Altogether the Foreign Office is as badly provided as possible. Care is always taken to set apart the most uncomfortable lodgings for the Chief, and they have been invariably lucky in finding such. “Yes,” said the Chancellor, laughing, “it is pure churlishness on their part to treat me like that. And so ungrateful, as I have always looked after their interests in the Diet. But they shall see me thoroughly transformed. I started for the war devoted to the military, but I shall go home a convinced Parliamentarian. No more military budgets.”

Prince Pless praises the Würtemberg troops. They make an excellent impression and come next to our own in the matter of military bearing. The Chancellor agrees but thinks the Bavarians also deserve commendation. He appears to be particularly pleased at the summary way in which they shoot down the “franc-voleurs.” “Our North German soldiers follow orders too literally. When one of those footpads fires at a Holstein dragoon he gets off his horse, runs after the fellow with his heavy sword and catches him. He then brings him to his lieutenant, who either lets him go or hands him over to his superior officer—which comes to the same thing, as he is then set free. The Bavarian acts differently. He knows that war is war, and keeps up[p. 319] the good old customs. He does not wait until he is shot at from behind, but shoots first himself.”

In the evening I prepared Bernstorff’s despatch respecting the capture of a German ship in English waters by the French frigate Desaix for our press; also the letter to Lundy on the export of arms from England to France; and finally arranged that our papers should no longer defend Bazaine against the charge of treason, “as it does him harm.”

Wednesday, November 23rd.—This morning I asked Bucher how the Bavarian Treaties were getting on and whether they would not be finally settled this evening. “Yes,” was the reply, “if nothing happens in the meantime—and it need not be anything very important. Could you imagine what it was that recently nearly wrecked the negotiations? The question of collars or epaulettes! The King of Bavaria wanted to retain the Bavarian collar, while his Majesty wished to have it replaced by ours. The Chief, however, finally brought him round by saying: ‘But, your Majesty, if the Treaty is not concluded now, and in ten years’ time perhaps the Bavarians are arrayed against us in battle, what will history say when it becomes known that the negotiations miscarried owing to these collars?’ Moreover, the King is not the worst—but rather the Minister of War.” As I was then called away I could not for the moment unriddle this mystery. I afterwards learned that the question was whether the Bavarian officers should in future wear the badge of their rank on their collars as hitherto, or on their shoulder straps like the North German troops. Bucher having alluded to the strong Republican sympathies which Alten had yesterday displayed, Pless also observed: “Really if we had known what sort of people these Princes were at the time[p. 320] we were discussing the Criminal Code in the Diet we should not have helped to make the provisions respecting lèse-majesté so severe.” The Chief remarked, with a laugh: “Every one of us has already deserved ten years’ penal servitude if all our jibbing at princes during the campaign were proved against us.”

We were joined at dinner by Count Frankenberg and Prince Putbus. Both wore the Iron Cross. The guests mentioned that people were very anxious in Berlin for the bombardment to begin and grumbled a great deal at its postponement. The rumour as to the influence of certain great ladies being one of the causes of the delay appears to be very widespread. “I have often told the King so,” said the Chief, “but it cannot be done; they will not have it.” “The Queen?” suggested some one. “Several queens,” corrected the Chancellor, “and princesses. I believe also that Masonic influences and scruples have helped.” He then again declared that he regarded the investment of Paris as a blunder. “I have never been in favour of it. If they had left it alone we should have made more progress, or at least we should have had a better position before Europe. We have certainly not added to our prestige by spending eight weeks outside Paris. We ought to have left Paris alone and sought the French in the open country. But otherwise the bombardment ought to have begun at once. If a thing has to be done, do it!”

The conversation then turned upon the treatment of the French rural population, and Putbus related that a Bavarian officer had ordered a whole village to be burned to the ground and the wine in the cellars to be poured out into the gutter because the inhabitants of the place had acted treacherously. Some one else observed that the soldiers at some other place had given[p. 321] a fearful dressing to a curé who had been caught in an act of treachery. The Minister again praised the energy of the Bavarians, but said with regard to the second case: “One ought either to treat people as considerately as possible or to put it out of their power to do mischief—one or the other.” After reflecting for a moment, he added: “Be civil to the very last step of the gallows, but hang all the same. One should only be rude to a friend when one feels sure that he will not take it amiss. How rude one is to his wife, for instance! That reminds me, by the way, Herr von Keudell, will you please telegraph to Reinfeld, ‘If a letter comes from Count Bismarck hold it back, and forward it to the Poste Restante or to Berlin’? I have written various things to my wife which are not overflowing with loyal reverence. My father-in-law is an old gentleman of eighty-one, and as the Countess has now left Reinfeld, where she was on a visit to him, he would open and read the letter and show it to the pastor, who would tell his gossips about it, and presently it would get into the newspapers.”

Bleibtreu’s sketch representing General Reille as he came up the hill at Sedan to deliver Napoleon’s letter to the King was then mentioned, and some one remarked that from the way in which the general was taking off his cap, he looked as if he were going to shout Hurrah! The Chief said: “His demeanour was thoroughly dignified and correct. I spoke to him alone while the King was writing his reply. He urged that hard conditions should not be imposed upon a great army which had fought so bravely. I shrugged my shoulders. He then said rather than submit they would blow up the fortress. I said, ‘Well, do so—faites sauter!’ I asked him then if the Emperor could still depend upon[p. 322] the army and the officers. He said yes. And whether his instructions and orders still held good in Metz? Reille answered this question also in the affirmative, and, as we saw, he was right at the time.... If Napoleon had only made peace then I believe he would still be a respected ruler. But he is a silly fool! I said so sixteen years ago when no one would believe me. Stupid and sentimental. The King also thought for the moment that it would be peace, and wanted me to say what conditions we should propose. But I said to him ‘Your Majesty, we can hardly have got as far as that yet.’ Their Highnesses and Serene Highnesses then pressed so close to us that I had twice to beg the King to move further off. I should have preferred to tell them plainly, ‘Gentlemen, leave us alone; you have nothing to do here.’ The one thing which prevented me from being rude to them was that the brother of our Most Gracious was the ringleader and chief offender of the whole prying mob.”

About 10 o’clock I went down to tea, and found Bismarck-Bohlen and Hatzfeldt still there. The Chief was in the salon with the three Bavarian Plenipotentiaries. In about a quarter of an hour he opened one side of the door, bent his head forward with his friendliest look, and came in with a glass in his hand and took a seat at the table.

“Well,” he said, his voice and looks betraying his emotion, “the Bavarian Treaty is made and signed. German unity is secure, and the German Emperor too.” We were all silent for a moment. I then begged to be allowed to bring away the pen with which he had signed it. “In God’s name, bring all three,” he said; “but the gold one is not amongst them.” I went and took the three pens that lay near the document. Two of[p. 323] them were still wet. Two empty champagne bottles stood close by. “Bring us another bottle,” said the Chief to the servant. “It is an event.” Then, after reflecting for a while, he observed: “The newspapers will not be satisfied, and he who writes history in the usual way may criticise our agreement. He may possibly say, ‘The stupid fellow should have asked for more; he would have got it, as they would have been compelled to yield.’ And he may be right so far as the ‘compelled’ is concerned. But what I attached more importance to was that they should be thoroughly pleased with the thing. What are treaties when people are compelled to enter into them! And I know that they went away pleased.... I did not want to squeeze them or to make capital out of the situation. The Treaty has its deficiencies, but it is for that reason all the more durable. The future can supply those deficiencies.... The King also was not satisfied. He was of opinion that such a Treaty was not worth much. My opinion is quite different. I consider it one of the most important results which we have attained during recent years. I finally succeeded in carrying it through by exciting apprehensions of English intervention unless the matter were speedily settled.... As to the question of the Emperor, I made that proposal palatable to them in the course of the negotiations by representing that it must be easier and more satisfactory for their sovereign to concede certain rights to the German Emperor than to the neighbouring King of Prussia.”

On the Minister then speaking somewhat slightingly of the King of Bavaria, he was like a boy, did not know his own mind, lived in “dreams,” and so on—Abeken (who had entered in the meantime, and was naturally aggrieved at these remarks) said: “But surely the young[p. 324] King is a very nice man!” “So are all of us here,” said the Chief, as he looked round at the whole company one after another. Loud laughter from the Centre and the Left. Over a second bottle of champagne which he drank with us, the Chief came (I forget how the subject was introduced) to speak of his own death. He asserted that he should die in his 71st year, a conclusion which he arrived at from some combination of figures which I could not understand. I said: “Excellency must not do that. It would be too early. One must drive away the Angel of Death!”

“No,” he replied. “In 1886—still fifteen years. I know it. It is a mystic number.”

Thursday, November 24th.—Busily engaged all the morning with various articles on the Treaty with Bavaria, written in the sense of the Chief’s utterances of last night. Wollmann told me that a Colonel Krohn had arrested a lawyer at a place in the Ardennes for having treacherously entered into communication with a band of franctireurs, and the court-martial having sentenced the man to death, he had presented a petition for pardon. The Chief had, however, written to the Minister of War to-day that he would advise the King to let justice take its course.

Colonel Tilly, of the General Staff, and Major Hill are the Chief’s guests at dinner to-day. The Minister again complained that the military authorities do not communicate sufficient information to him and too seldom consult him. “It was just the same with the appointment of Vogel von Falkenstein, who has now locked up Jacoby. If I have to speak on that subject in the Reichstag, I shall wash my hands of the matter. They could not possibly have done more to spoil the broth for me.” “I came to the war,” he repeated,[p. 325] “disposed to do everything for the military authorities, but in future I shall go over to the advocates of Parliamentary government, and if they worry me much more, I shall have a chair placed for myself on the extreme Left.”

The Treaty with Bavaria was then mentioned, and it was said that the difficulties which had been encountered arose partly on the National side, on which the Minister observed, “It is really remarkable how many clever people there are who, nevertheless, understand nothing about politics. For instance, the man who always sat on my right here (Delbrück). A very clever man, but no politician.”

Suddenly changing the subject, he said: “The English are beside themselves, and their newspapers demand war on account of a note which is nothing more than a statement of opinion on a point of law—for that is all that Gortschakoff’s Note amounts to.”

Later on the Minister returned once more to the postponement of the bombardment, which he regarded as dangerous from a political standpoint. “Here we have now collected this enormous mass of siege artillery. The whole world is waiting for us to begin, and yet the guns remain idle up to the present. That has certainly damaged us with the neutral Powers. The effect of our success at Sedan is very seriously diminished thereby, and when one thinks on what grounds.” One of the causes of the delay brought him to speak of the Crown Princess, of whom he said: “She is in general a very clever person, and really agreeable in her way, but she should not interfere in politics.” He then again related the anecdote about the glass of water which he told me near Crehanges, only this time it was in French that the Princess spoke.

[p. 326]

Friday, November 25th.—In the morning I cut out for the King an article from the Neue Freie Presse, in which Granville’s note is described as timid and colourless; and arrange for the republication by all our papers in France of the telegram of July last, in which Napoleon stated that the whole French people approved of the declaration of war which he had just despatched.

Whilst I was walking with Wollmann in the afternoon, he told me an anecdote of the Chief which is very neat—although I must add that my informant is not quite trustworthy. Wollmann said: “On the night of the 14th to the 15th of June, 1866, Manteuffel telegraphed that he had crossed the Elbe, and asked how he was to treat the Hanoverians. Thereupon the Minister wrote the answer: ‘Treat them as countrymen, if necessary to death.’ He asked me: ‘Do you understand that?’ ‘Yes, Excellency,’ I replied. ‘All right then,’ he added, ‘but, you see, it is for a general.’”

Saturday, November 26th.—Wrote several articles, including one on Trochu’s extraordinary production in the Figaro of the 22nd instant, praising those whom he considered specially deserving of commendation in the defence of the city. The Chief read over to me some of the passages he had marked, saying: “These heroic deeds of the defenders of Paris are mostly of such an ordinary kind that Prussian generals would not think them worth mentioning; while others are mere swagger and obvious impossibilities. Trochu’s braves have made more prisoners when they are all reckoned up than the whole French army during the entire investment of Paris. Then here is this Captain Montbrisson, who is commended for having marched at the head of his[p. 327] column to the attack, and had himself lifted over a wall in order to reconnoitre,—that was merely his duty. Then here this theatrical vanity, where Private Gletty made prisoners of three Prussians, par la fermeté de son attitude. The firmness of his attitude! And our Pomeranians ate humble pie before him! That may do for a Boulevard theatre, or a circus,—but in reality! Then this Hoff, who on several occasions slaughtered in single combat no less than twenty-seven Prussians! He must be a Jew, this triple nine-pounder! Probably a cousin of Malz-Hoff of the Old or New Wilhelmstrasse—at any rate a Miles Gloriosus. And finally this Terreaux, who captured a fanion, together with the porte-fanion. That is a company flag for marking the line—which we do not use at all. And the Commander-in-Chief of an army officially reports such stuff! Really this list of commendations is just like the battle pictures in the gallery of toutes les gloires de la France, where each drummer at Sebastopol and Magenta is preserved for posterity, simply because he beat his drum.”

At dinner the Chief complained: “I was yesterday visited by a whole series of misfortunes, one on top of the other. First of all some one wanted to see me on important business (Odo Russell). I send word requesting him to wait for a few moments, as I am engaged on a pressing matter. On my asking for him a quarter of an hour later, I find he has gone, and possibly the peace of Europe is at stake.

“Then I go to see the King as early as 12 o’clock, and the consequence is that I fall into the hands of the Grand Duke of Weimar, who obliges me, as his Chancellor, to listen to a letter which he has written to an august personage (the Emperor of Russia), and thus[p. 328] wastes a good deal of my time.... I am to tell him what I think of the letter, but I decline to do so. Have I then anything to object to it? he asked in a piqued tone. I cannot say that either, although I would observe that I should have written the letter differently. What do I wish altered? I stick to my point, and say I cannot express an opinion, because if the letter went with my corrections I should be held responsible for its contents. ‘Well, then, I must speak to the King.’ ‘Do so,’ I reply coolly, ‘and take over the office of Chancellor of the Confederation, if you like. But if the letter goes off, I for my part shall immediately telegraph to the place of destination that I have had nothing to do with it.’ I thus lost an hour, so that telegrams of great importance had to wait, and in the meantime, decisions may have been arrived at and resolutions taken which would have very serious consequences for all Europe, and might change the political situation. That all came of its being a Friday. Friday negotiations, Friday measures!”

Bucher told me the Crown Prince recently said to the Chancellor that too little had been secured by the Bavarian Treaty. After such great successes we ought to have asked for more. “Yes; but how were we to get it?” asked the Chief. “Why, we ought to force them,” was the Crown Prince’s reply. “Then,” said the Chancellor, “I can only recommend your Royal Highness to begin by disarming the Bavarian Army Corps here,” a remark which, of course, was intended ironically.

Sunday, November 27th.—We were joined at dinner by Count Lehndorff and Count Holnstein. The latter is Master of the Horse to King Lewis, and one of his confidential advisers.

The Chief spoke at first of the Russian question. He[p. 329] said: “Vienna, Florence, and Constantinople have not yet expressed their views; but St. Petersburg and London have done so, and those are the most important factors. There, however, the matter is satisfactory.”

Subsequently affairs at Munich were discussed. Holnstein observing, amongst other things, that the French Legation had greatly deceived themselves before the outbreak of the war as to the attitude of Bavaria. They judged by two or three ardently Catholic and anti-Prussian salons, and even thought that Prince Luitpold would become King. The Chief replied: “I never doubted that Bavaria would join us, but I had not hoped that she would decide so speedily to do so.”

Holnstein told us that a shoemaker in Munich had made a good deal of money by letting his windows, from which a good view could be had of the captured Turcos as they marched by, and presented seventy-nine florins to the fund for the wounded soldiers. People had come even from Vienna to see that procession. This led the conversation to the shooting of these treacherous Africans, on which the Chief said: “There should have been no question of making prisoners of these blacks.” Holnstein: “I believe they do not do so any longer.” The Chief: “If I had my way every soldier who made a black man prisoner should be placed under arrest. They are beasts of prey, and ought to be shot down. The fox has the excuse that Nature has made him so, but these fellows—they are abominably unnatural. They have tortured our soldiers to death in the most shameful way.”

[p. 330]

## CHAPTER XIII

REMOVAL OF THE ANXIETY RESPECTING THE BAVARIAN TREATY IN THE REICHSTAG—THE BOMBARDMENT FURTHER POSTPONED.

Monday, November 28th.—Prince Pless and Count Maltzahn dined with us. At first the Minister spoke about Hume, the American spiritualist, a doubtful character, who had been at Versailles, and who was to be arrested if he showed himself here again. The Chief then said: “The fellow managed to sneak into the Crown Prince’s. But that is explained by the fact that whoever can speak even broken English is welcome there. The next thing will be for them to appoint Colonel Walker my successor as Chancellor of the Confederation.”[14] Bohlen exclaimed, “I suppose you know that Garibaldi has been thrashed.” Some one observed that if he were taken prisoner he ought to be shot for having meddled in the war without authority. “They ought to be first put into a cage like beasts in a menagerie,” said Bohlen. “No,” said the Minister; “I have another idea. They should be taken to Berlin, and marched through the town with these words on a placard suspended round their necks, ‘Italians, House[p. 331] of Correction, Ingratitude,’ and be then marched through the town.” “And afterwards to Spandau,” suggested Bohlen. The Chief added, “Or one might inscribe merely the words, ‘Italians, Venice, Spandau.’”

The Bavarian question and the situation at Munich was then discussed. The Chief said: “The King is undecided. It is obvious that he would rather not. He accordingly pretends to be ill, has toothache, keeps to his bed, where the Ministers cannot reach him. Or he retires to a distant hunting-box in the mountains to which there is no telegraph line, nor even a proper road.”

Some one having remarked that in the present circumstances he is, after all, the best Bavarian ruler for our purposes, the Chief said: “Yes; if he were to die he would be succeeded by little Otto, whom we have had here. A poor creature, with very little intelligence. He would be entirely in the hands of the Austrians and Ultramontanes. He has ruined himself; that is, if he was ever worth anything.”

General Reille’s name again brought up the question of Napoleon’s surrender. “The King thought,” said the Chancellor, “on reading Napoleon’s letter, that it meant more for us than it did. ‘He must at least surrender Metz to us,’ said the King to me. I replied, ‘I do not know, your Majesty; we are not aware what power he still has over the troops.’ The Emperor should not have needlessly surrendered himself as a prisoner, but have made peace with us. His generals would have followed him.” The Minister then again related the incident of the letter Weimar wished to write to the Emperor Alexander; and it appeared that the day before yesterday the Chief had, in a moment of irritation, represented the expressions which he had[p. 332] used in speaking to the Grand Duke as stronger than they actually were. According to the present account, Weimar said, in conclusion, that his only object was a patriotic one. He (the Minister) replied he quite believed that, but it would not make the letter any more useful. The letter has probably not been sent off.

The question of the bombardment then came up, and, in connection therewith, the intrigues which are now being carried on by Bishop Dupanloup, and the part he played in the opposition at the Vatican Council. “Women and freemasons,” said the Chief, “are chiefly responsible if our operations against Paris are not conducted as energetically as they should be. Dupanloup has influenced Augusta.... He also wrote me a pile of letters, and took me in to such an extent that I sent them to Twickenham.” (The Chancellor must have meant Chislehurst). “He must be packed off when our people get to Orleans, so that Von der Tann may not be swindled by him.”... “That reminds me,” continued the Chief, “that the Pope has written a very nice letter to the French Bishops, or to several of them, saying that they should not enter into any understanding with the Garibaldians.”

Somebody having expressed anxiety about some matter which I was unable to catch, the Chief observed: “A more important question for me—indeed, the most important—is what will be done at Villa Coublay; that is the main point. The Crown Prince said recently, when I mentioned the matter to him, ‘I am ready to give up the command for that purpose.’ I felt like replying, ‘And I am prepared to assume it.’ Give me the post of Commander-in-Chief for twenty-four hours, and I will take it upon myself. I would then give one command only: ‘Commence the bombardment.’”

[p. 333]

Villa Coublay is a place not far from Versailles, where the siege park has been collected and still remains, instead of being placed in position. Bucher tells me that the Chancellor has appealed directly to the King to hasten the bombardment. The Chief continued: “The assertion of the generals that they have not enough ammunition is untrue. They do not want to begin because the Heir Apparent does not wish it. He does not wish it because his wife and his mother-in-law are against it.

“They have brought together three hundred cannon and fifty or sixty mortars, and five hundred rounds of ammunition for each gun. That is certainly enough. I have been speaking to artillerymen, who said that they had not used half as much ammunition at Strassburg as they have collected here; and Strassburg was a Gibraltar compared to Paris. It would be easy to fire the barracks on Mont Valérien, and if the forts of Issy and Vanvres were properly shelled so that the garrisons should be compelled to bolt, the enceinte (of course we know it) would be of little importance. The ditch is not broader than the length of this room. I am convinced that if we poured shells into the city itself for five or six days, and they found out that our guns reached farther than theirs—that is to say, 9,000 yards—Paris would give in. True enough the wealthier quarters are on this side of the city, and it is a matter of indifference to the people at Belleville whether we blow them to pieces or not; indeed, they are pleased when we destroy the houses of the richer classes. As a matter of fact, we ought to have attacked Paris from another direction; or still better, left it altogether alone, and continued our forward march. Now, however, that we have begun, we must set about the affair in earnest.[p. 334] Starving them out may last a long time, perhaps till the spring. At any rate, they have flour enough up to January.... If we had begun the bombardment at the right time, there would have been no question of the Loire army. After the engagement at Orleans, where Von der Tann was obliged to retire, the military authorities (not I) regarded our position in Versailles as critical. Had we begun the bombardment four weeks ago, we should now in all probability be in Paris, and that is the main point. As it is, however, the Parisians imagine that we are forbidden to fire by London, St. Petersburg, and Vienna; while, on the other hand, the neutral Powers believe that we are not able to do so. The true reason, however, will be known at a future time. One of its consequences will be to lead to a restriction of personal rule.”

In the evening I telegraphed to London that the Reichstag had voted another hundred million thalers for the continuation of the war with France, eight social democrats alone opposing the grant. Also that Manteuffel has occupied Amiens. Several paragraphs were afterwards written for the Norddeutsche, including one (on the directions of the Chief) in which the moderate demands of the Chancellor in the negotiations with Bavaria were defended as being not only right and fair, but also wise and prudent. I said that the object was not so much to secure this or that desirable concession from the authorities at Munich as to make the South German States feel satisfied in forming part of the new organisation of united Germany. Any pressure or coercion for the purpose of obtaining further concessions would, in view of the circumstance that they had fulfilled their patriotic duty, be an act of ingratitude; while, in addition, it would have been, above all things,[p. 335] impolitic to show ourselves more exacting in our demands upon our allies. The discontent which would have resulted from such an exercise of force would have far outweighed half a dozen more favourable clauses in the Treaty. That discontent would soon have shown the neutral Powers, such as Austria, where to insert the thin edge of the wedge in order to loosen and ultimately destroy the unity which had been achieved.

At dinner I suggested to Bucher that it might be well to ask the Chief’s leave to hint in the press at the real cause of the postponement of the bombardment. He agreed with me that it would, and added: “I myself have already vehemently attacked Augusta in the newspapers.” On the Chancellor sending for me in the evening, I said: “May I venture to ask your Excellency a question? Would you have any objection if I made a communication, in an indirect way, to non-official organs respecting the causes of the postponement of the bombardment, in the sense in which they have repeatedly been discussed at table?” He reflected for a moment, and then said, “Do as you like.” I accordingly wrote two paragraphs—one for the Vossische Zeitung, and one for the Weser Zeitung, which I had copied out by another hand in Berlin, and forwarded to their destination.

One of these paragraphs ran as follows:—

“Versailles, November 29th. It has been asserted here for some considerable time past that the real cause of the postponement of the bombardment is not so much a scarcity of ammunition for the siege guns that were brought here weeks ago, nor the strength of the forts and ramparts of Paris; in short, that the delay is not due to military considerations, but rather to the influence of very highly placed ladies, and—can it be[p. 336] credited?—of freemasons. I can assure you, on very good authority, that these rumours are not unfounded. I have no reason to apprehend a denial when I add that the interference of one of these ladies has been prompted by a well-known French prelate, who took a prominent part in the opposition at the Vatican Council. For the moment we would only ask a few questions: Is it true humanity to let masses of gallant soldiers fall a prey to the hardships of the investment by postponing an artillery attack merely in order to save a hostile city from damage? Is it good policy to let the impression produced by Sedan upon the neutral Powers be frittered away by such a postponement? Is that true freemasonry which troubles itself with political questions? It was thought hitherto that politics were not permitted to enter into the German lodges.”

Tuesday, November 29th.—In the afternoon I sent off another article on the Treaty with Bavaria, which is to be reproduced and circulated in Berlin. It is becoming more and more difficult to satisfy the people there.

Lieutenant-General von Hartrott joined us at dinner. The distribution of the Iron Cross having been mentioned, the Chief observed: “The army doctors should receive the black and white ribbon. They are under fire, and it requires much more courage and determination to quietly allow one’s self to be shot at than to rush forward to the attack.... Blumenthal said to me that properly speaking he could do nothing to deserve the Cross, as he was bound in duty to keep out of danger of being shot. For that reason when in battle he always sought a position from which he could see well but could not be easily hit. And he was perfectly right. A general who exposes himself unnecessarily ought to be put under arrest.”

[p. 337]

The Chancellor then remarked suddenly: “The King told me an untruth to-day. I asked him if the bombardment was not to commence, and he replied that he had ordered it. But I knew immediately that that was not true. I know him. He cannot lie, or at least not in such a way that it cannot be detected. He at once changes colour, and it was particularly noticeable when he replied to my question to-day. When I looked at him straight into his eyes he could not stand it.” The conversation then turned upon the conduct of the war. The Minister said: “Humility alone leads to victory; pride and self-conceit to an opposite result.”

The Chancellor, speaking of his friend Dietze, talked of his natural inborn heartiness—politesse du cœur. Abeken asked if that term was originally French, as Goethe uses it—Höflichkeit des Herzens? “It must come from the German, I fancy.” “It certainly does,” replied the Chief. “It is only to be found amongst the Germans. I should call it the politeness of good will—good nature in the best sense of the word, the politeness of helpful benevolent feeling. You find that amongst our common soldiers, although, of course, it is sometimes expressed rather crudely. The French have not got it. They only know the politeness of hatred and envy. It would be easier to find something of the kind amongst the English,” he added; and then went on to praise Odo Russell, whose pleasant, natural manner he greatly appreciated. “At first one thing aroused a little suspicion against him in my mind. I have always heard and found that Englishmen who know French well are not worth much, and he speaks quite excellent French. But he can also express himself very well in German.”

At dessert the Minister said: “I recognise that I[p. 338] eat too much, or, more correctly, too much at a time. It is a pity that I cannot get rid of the absurd practice of only eating once a day. Formerly it was still worse. In the morning I drank my tea and ate nothing until 5 o’clock in the evening, while I smoked incessantly. That did me a great deal of harm. Now, on the advice of my doctor, I take at least two eggs in the morning and smoke little. But I should eat oftener; yet if I take anything late I cannot sleep, as I only digest while awake. This morning, however, I got up early. I was waked by the firing just at the time when I sleep best, that is between 7 and 9 o’clock, and as it seemed to be near I sent to inquire if the King was going to the scene of the engagement. Otherwise he might start suddenly and go nobody knows where, or where nothing is to be seen.”

While at tea the conversation turned once more on the now constant theme of the postponement of the bombardment, and afterwards on the Geneva Convention, which the Minister said must be denounced, as it was impossible to conduct war in that manner.

“The principal reason why the bombardment is delayed,” said the Chancellor, “is the sentimentality of the Queen of England, and the interference of Queen Augusta.... That seems to be a characteristic of the Hohenzollerns—their women folk have always a great influence upon them. It was not so with Frederick the Great, but with his successor and the late King, as well as the present Most Gracious and his future Majesty. The most curious example is that of Prince Charles, who is anything but a good husband, and yet depends upon his wife, indeed he is thoroughly afraid of her and is guided by her wishes.... But it is somewhat different with these two (the King and the Crown[p. 339] Prince). They want to be praised. They like to have it said in the English and French press that they are considerate and generous. They find that the Germans praise them enough as it is.”

It appears that Delbrück has not expressed himself very clearly in his telegram respecting the prospect of the agreement with Bavaria being sanctioned by the Diet. It seems as if there were not sufficient members present to form the necessary quorum, and that it would be opposed both by the Progressists and National Liberals. The Chief observed: “So far as the Progressists are concerned, their conduct is consistent. They wish to return to the state of affairs which prevailed in 1849. But the National Liberals? If they will not have now what they were striving for with all their might at the beginning of the year, in February, and what it now depends upon them to secure, then we must dissolve. The new elections will weaken the Progressist party still more, and some of the National Liberals will also lose their seats. But in that case the Treaties would not be completed. Bavaria would reconsider the matter; Beust would put his finger in the pie, and we do not know what the result would be. I cannot well go to Berlin. It is a very uncomfortable journey and takes up a lot of time, and besides I am really wanted here.”

Proceeding from this point the Minister spoke of the position of affairs in 1848. “At that period the situation was for a long time very favourable for the unification of Germany under Prussia. The smaller Sovereigns were for the most part powerless and despondent. If they could only save their money, their domains and their appropriations they were prepared to consent to everything. The Austrians were engaged[p. 340] with Hungary and Italy. The Tsar Nicholas would not have intervened at that time. If they had only acted in a resolute way previous to May, 1849, and come to terms with the smaller States they would doubtless have carried the South with them, particularly if the Würtemberg and Bavarian armies joined the Baden revolution, which was not impossible at that stage. Time was lost, however, through hesitation and half measures, and so the opportunity was thrown away.”

About 11 o’clock another telegram arrived from Verdy respecting this morning’s sortie which was directed against La Haye. Five hundred red breeches were made prisoners. The Chief bitterly regretted that further prisoners should be taken, and that it was not possible to shoot them down on the spot. “We have more than enough of them, while the Parisians have the advantage of getting rid of so many mouths to feed, which must now be supplied by us, and for whom we can hardly find room.”

Wednesday, November 30th.—Wrote fully to Treitschke, giving him the reasons why the demands which he and those of his way of thinking consider absolutely necessary had not been made upon the Bavarians. Arranged to have a similar communication made to Schmidt.

The Chief seems to be seriously considering the idea of asking the King to relieve him of his office. According to Bucher he is already on the point of resigning.

“The Chief,” he said, “informed me of something to-day which nobody else knows. He is seriously considering whether he will not break with the King.” I said that in that case I should also take my leave. I did not wish to serve under any one else. Bucher: “Nor I either. I, too, would then resign.”

[p. 341]

At dinner, at which Prince Putbus and Odo Russell were present, the Chief related that he had once tried to use his knowledge of State secrets for the purpose of speculating in stocks, but that his attempt was not successful. “I was commissioned in Berlin,” he said, “to speak to Napoleon on the question of Neuchâtel. It must have been in the spring of 1857. I was to inquire as to his attitude towards that question. Now, I knew that his answer would be favourable, and that this would mean a war with Switzerland. Accordingly, on my way through Frankfurt, where I lived at that time, I called upon Rothschild, whom I knew well, and told him I intended to sell certain stock which I held, and which showed no disposition to rise. ‘I would not do that,’ said Rothschild. ‘That stock has good prospects. You will see.’ ‘Yes,’ I said; ‘but if you knew the object of my journey you would think otherwise.’ He replied that, however that might be, he could not advise me to sell. But I knew better, sold out and departed. In Paris, Napoleon was very pleasant and amiable. It was true he could not agree, as the King wanted to let us march through Alsace-Lorraine, which would create great excitement in France, but in every other respect he entirely approved of our plans. It could only be a matter of satisfaction to him if that nest of democrats were cleared out. I was, therefore, so far successful. But I had not reckoned with my King, who had in the meantime, behind my back, made different arrangements—probably out of consideration for Austria; and so the affair was dropped. There was no war, and my stock rose steadily from that time forward, and I had reason to regret parting with them.”

Villa Coublay and the bombardment were then referred to, and the alleged impossibility of bringing up[p. 342] at once the necessary supply of ammunition. The Chief said: “I have already informed the august gentlemen a couple of times that we have here a whole herd of horses that must be ridden out daily merely for exercise. Why should they not be employed for once to better purpose?”

It was mentioned that the Palazzo Caffarelli in Rome had been purchased for the German Embassy, and both Russell and Abeken said it was a very fine building. The Chancellor observed: “Well, we have also handsome houses elsewhere, in Paris and in London. According to Continental ideas, however, the London house is too small. Bernstorff has so little room that he has to give up his own apartments when he has a reception or any other function of the kind. His Secretary of Embassy is better off in that respect. The Embassy in Paris is handsome and well situated. Indeed, it is probably the best Embassy in Paris, and represents a considerable money value, so that it has already occurred to me whether it might not be well to sell it and give the interest on the capital to the Ambassador as an allowance for rent. The interest on two and a half million francs would be a considerable addition to his salary, which only amounts to one hundred thousand francs. But on thinking the matter over more I found that it would not do. It is not becoming, not worthy of a great State, that its Ambassador should live in a hired house, where he would be subject to notice to quit, and on leaving would have to remove the archives in a cart. We ought, and must have, our own houses everywhere.”... “Our London house is an exceptional case. It belongs to the King, and everything depends on the way in which the Ambassador knows how to look after his own interest. It may happen that[p. 343] the King receives no rent—that actually does occur sometimes.”

The Chief spoke very highly of Napier, the former English Ambassador in Berlin. “He was very easy to get on with. Buchanan was also a good man, rather dry, perhaps, but absolutely trustworthy. Now we have Loftus. The position of an English Ambassador in Berlin has its own special duties and difficulties, if only on account of the personal relations of the two Royal families. It demands a great deal of tact and care.” (Presumably a quiet hint that Loftus does not fulfil those requirements.)

The Minister then led the conversation on to Grammont. He said: “Grammont and Ollivier strike me also as a pretty pair! If that had happened to me—if I had been the cause of such disasters, I would at least have joined a regiment, or, for the matter of that, have become a franctireur, even if I had had to swing for it. A tall, strong, coarse fellow like Grammont would be exactly suited for a soldier’s life.”

Russell mentioned having once seen Grammont out shooting in Rome dressed in blue velvet. “Yes,” added the Chief, “he is a good sportsman. He has the strength of muscle required for it. He would have made an excellent gamekeeper. But as a Minister for Foreign Affairs, one can hardly conceive how Napoleon came to select him.”

The Minister joined us at the tea-table about 10 o’clock, and referred again to the bombardment. He said: “I did not from the very beginning wish to have Paris invested. If what the general staff said at Ferrières were correct, namely, that they could dispose of a couple of the forts in three days, and then attack the weak enceinte, it would have been all right. But it[p. 344] was a mistake to let 60,000 regulars keep an army of 200,000 men engaged in watching them.” “One month up to Sedan, and here we have already spent three months, for to-morrow is the 1st of December. If we had telegraphed immediately after Sedan for siege guns we should be now in the city, and there would be no intervention on the part of the neutral Powers. If I had known that three months ago I should have been extremely anxious. The danger of intervention on the part of the neutral Powers increases daily. It begins in a friendly way, but it may end very badly.” Keudell remarked: “The idea of not bombarding first arose here.” “Yes,” replied the Chief, “through the English letters to the Crown Prince.”

Thursday, December 1st.—We were joined at dinner by a first lieutenant, Von Saldern, who took part in the last engagement between the 10th Army Corps and the Loire army. According to him that corps was for a considerable time surrounded by the superior French force at Beaune la Rolande, the enemy endeavouring to force their way through one of our wings towards Fontainebleau. Our soldiers defended themselves with the greatest gallantry and determination for seven hours, Wedel’s troops and the men of the 16th regiment specially distinguishing themselves. “We made over 1600 prisoners,” said Saldern, “and the total loss of the French is estimated at four to five thousand.” “I should have been better pleased,” said the Chief, “if they had all been corpses. It is simply a disadvantage to us now to make prisoners.”

The Chief afterwards gave Abeken instructions respecting communications to be made to the King. The Chancellor looked through a number of despatches and reports with him. Pointing to one document he said:[p. 345] “Do not give him that without an explanation. Tell him how the matter arose, otherwise he will misunderstand it. That long despatch from Bernstorff—well, you can show him that also. But the newspaper article enclosed—the gentlemen of the Embassy take things very easy—I have already said frequently that such articles must be translated, or, better still, that they should be accompanied by a précis. And tell his Majesty also,” said the Minister in conclusion, “that, properly speaking, we ought not to allow the Frenchman to join the Conference in London” (the approaching Conference on the revision of the Paris Treaty of 1856), “as he would represent a Government which is not recognised by the Powers, and which will have no legal existence for a long time to come. We can do it to please Russia in this question. At any rate, if he begins to speak of other matters he must at once be sent about his business.”

The Chief then related the following incident: “To-day, after calling upon Roon, I made a round which may prove to have been useful. I inspected Marie Antoinette’s apartment in the palace, and then I thought I would see how the wounded were getting on. The servant who acted as my guide had a pass-key, so I decided not to go in by the main entrance, but by the back way. I asked one of the hospital attendants what food the people had. Not very much. A little soup, which was supposed to be bouillon, with broken bread and some grains of rice, which were not even boiled soft. There was hardly any meat fat in it. ‘And how about wine? and do they get any beer?’ I asked. They got about half a glass of wine during the day, he said. I inquired of another, who had had none, and then of a third who had had some three days ago and none since[p. 346] then. I then went on to question several of the men, in all about a dozen, down to the Poles, who could not understand me, but showed their pleasure at somebody taking an interest in them by smiling. So that our poor wounded soldiers do not get what they ought to, and suffer from cold besides, because the rooms must not be warmed for fear of injuring the pictures. As if the life of one of our soldiers was not worth more than all the trashy pictures in the palace! The servant told me also that the oil lamps only remained alight until 11 o’clock, and that after that the men have to lie in the dark until morning. I had previously spoken to a non-commissioned officer, who was wounded in the foot. He said he did not want to complain, although things could be much better. Some consideration was paid to him, but as to the others! A member of the Bavarian Ambulance Corps now plucked up courage, and said that wine and beer had been provided, but that half of it had probably been intercepted somewhere; it was the same with hot food and other presents. I then made my way to the chief surgeon. ‘How about provisions for the wounded?’ I asked. ‘Do they get enough to eat?’ ‘Here is the bill of fare,’ he replied. ‘That is no good to me,’ I said; ‘the people cannot eat paper. Do they get wine?’ ‘Half a litre daily.’ ‘Excuse me, but that is not true. I have questioned the men, and I cannot believe they were lying when they told me that they had not received any.’ ‘I call God to witness that everything here is done properly and according to instructions. Please come with me and I will question the men in your presence.’ ‘I will do nothing of the kind,’ I answered; ‘but measures shall be taken to have them questioned by the auditor as to whether they have received what has been ordered for them by the[p. 347] inspector.’ He turned deadly pale—I see him now—an old wound showed up on his face. ‘That would be a great reflection upon me,’ he said. ‘Certainly,’ I replied, ‘and it ought to be. I shall take care that the affair is inquired into—and speedily.’”[15]... “What I should like best would be to induce the King to visit the wounded with me.” He afterwards added: “We have two classes in particular amongst whom frauds occur: the weevils that have to do with the commissariat and the officials in the public works department, especially in the water works. Then the doctors. I remember not long ago—it must be about a year and a half ago—there was a great inquiry into frauds connected with the passing of recruits for the army, in which, to my amazement, some thirty doctors were involved.”

About 10.30 P.M. the Chief joined us at tea. After a while he remarked: “The newspapers are dissatisfied with the Bavarian Treaty. I expected as much from the beginning. They are displeased that certain officials are called Bavarian, although they will have to conform entirely to our laws. And the same with regard to the army. The beer tax is also not to their liking, as if we had not had it for years past in the Zollverein. And so on with a crowd of other objections, although after all the important point has been attained and properly secured.”... “They talk as if we had been waging war against Bavaria as we did in 1866 against Saxony, although this time we have Bavaria as an ally on our side.”... “Before approving the treaty they want to wait and see whether the[p. 348] unity of Germany will be secured in the form they prefer. They can wait a long time for that. The course they are taking leads only to fresh delays, while speedy action is necessary. If we hesitate the devil will find time to sow dissensions. The treaty gives us a great deal. Whoever wants to have everything runs the risk of getting nothing. They are not content with what has been achieved. They require more uniformity. If they would only remember the position of affairs five years ago, and what they would then have been satisfied with!”... “A Constituent Assembly! But what if the King of Bavaria should not permit representatives to be elected to it? The Bavarian people would not compel him, nor would I. It is easy to find fault, when one has no proper idea of the conditions which govern the situation.”

The Minister then came to speak on another subject: “I have just read a report on the surprise of the Unna battalion. Some of the inhabitants of Chatillon took part in it—others, it is true, hid our people. It is a wonder that they did not burn down the town in their first outburst of anger. Afterwards, of course, in cold blood that would not do.”

After a short pause, the Chief took some coins out of his pocket and played with them for a moment, remarking at the same time: “It is surprising how many respectably dressed beggars one meets with here. There were some at Reims, but it is much worse here.”... “How seldom one now sees a gold piece with the head of Louis Philippe or Charles X.! When I was young, between twenty and thirty, coins of Louis XVI. and of the fat Louis XVIII. were still to be seen. Even the expression ‘louis d’or’ is no longer usual with us. In polite circles one speaks of a friedrich d’or.” The Chancellor[p. 349] then balanced a napoleon on the tip of his middle finger, as if he were weighing it, and continued: “A hundred million double napoleons d’or would represent about the amount of the war indemnity up to the present—later on it will be more, four thousand million francs. Forty thousand thalers in gold would make a hundredweight, thirty hundredweight would make a load for a heavy two-horse waggon—(I know that because I once had to convey fourteen thousand thalers in gold from Berlin to my own house. What a weight it was!)—that would be about 800 waggon loads.” “It would not take so long to collect the carts for that purpose as it does for the ammunition for the bombardment,” observed some one, who, like most of us, was losing patience at the slow progress of the preparations. “Yes,” said the Chief; “Roon, however, told me the other day, he had several hundred carts at Nanteuil, which could be used for the transport of ammunition. Moreover some of the waggons that are now drawn by six horses could do with four for a time, and the two spare horses thus could be used for bringing up ammunition. We have already 318 guns here, but they want forty more, and Roon says he could have them also brought up. The others however won’t hear of it.”

Hatzfeldt afterwards said: “It is only six or seven weeks since they altered their minds. At Ferrières, while we were still on good terms with them, Bronsart and Verdy said we could level the forts of Issy and Vanvres to the ground in thirty-six hours, and then attack Paris itself. Later on it was suddenly found to be impossible.” “Because of the letters received from London,” exclaimed Bismarck-Bohlen. I asked what Moltke thought of the matter. “He does not trouble himself about it!” answered Hatzfeldt. But Bucher[p. 350] declared that Moltke wanted the bombardment to take place.

Friday, December 2nd.—I see Neininger in the morning and learn that he succeeded in obtaining an audience from the Chief by playing the informer. He hinted to a Dr. Schuster of Geneva that “there might possibly be collusion between the foreign settlement collected round headquarters, and the personnel of the Government of National Defence,” and also that there were “fresh symptoms of intimate relations being maintained across the German investing lines with the Oriental colony at Versailles.” Schuster managed to convey these hints to the Minister. The “Oriental colony,” however, (a title which is intended to apply chiefly to Löwinsohn, and after him to Bamberg) appears to be innocent, and the intrigue to have been contrived merely for the purpose of providing a better position for Neininger on the Moniteur by securing the dismissal of the other two journalists.

Subsequently wrote some letters and articles again setting forth the Chief’s views in the matter of the Bavarian Treaty, and translated for the King the leading article in The Times on Gortschakoff’s reply to Granville’s despatch.

Alten, Lehndorff and a dragoon officer Herr von Thadden, were the Chief’s guests at dinner.

The Chief said that he had taken measures for providing our sentries with more comfortable quarters. “Up to the present they occupied Madame Jesse’s coach-house, which has no fireplace. That would not do any longer, so I ordered the gardener to clear out half of the greenhouse for them. ‘But Madame’s plants will be frozen,’ said the gardener’s wife. ‘A great pity,’ said I. ‘I suppose it would be better if the soldiers froze.’”

[p. 351]

The Chief then referred to the danger of the Reichstag rejecting, or even merely amending, the treaty with Bavaria. “I am very anxious about it. People have no idea what the position is. We are balancing ourselves on the point of a lightning conductor. If we lose the equilibrium, which at much pains I have succeeded in establishing, we fall to the ground. They want more than can be obtained without coercion, and more than they would have been very pleased to accept before 1866. If at that time they had got but half what they are getting to-day! No; they must needs improve upon it and introduce more unity, more uniformity; but if they change so much as a comma, fresh negotiations must be undertaken. Where are they to take place? Here in Versailles? And if we cannot bring them to a close before the 1st of January—which many of the people in Munich would be glad of—then German unity is lost, probably for years, and the Austrians can set to work again in Munich.”

Mushrooms dressed in two ways were the first dish after the soup. “These must be eaten in a thoughtful spirit,” said the Chief, “as they are a present from some soldiers who found them growing in a quarry or a cellar. The cook has made an excellent sauce for them. A still more welcome gift, and certainly a rare one, was made to me the other day by the—what a shame! I have quite forgotten. What regiment was it sent me the roses?” “The 46th,” replied Bohlen. “Yes; it was a bouquet of roses plucked under fire, probably in a garden near the outposts.” “By the way, that reminds me that I met a Polish soldier in the hospital who cannot read German. He would very much like to have a Polish prayer book. Does anybody happen to have[p. 352] something of that kind?” Alten said no, but he could give him some Polish newspapers. The Chief: “That won’t do. He would not understand them, and besides they stir up the people against us. But perhaps Radziwill has something. A Polish novel would do—Pan Twardowski or something of that kind.” Alten promised to see if he could get anything.

Mention was made of Ducrot, who in all likelihood commanded the French forces engaged in to-day’s sortie, and it was suggested he had good reason not to allow himself to be made prisoner. “Certainly,” said the Minister. “He will either get himself killed in action; or if he has not courage enough for that, which I am rather inclined to believe, he will make off in a balloon.”

Some one said Prince Wittgenstein (if I am not mistaken, a Russian aide-de-camp) would also be glad to leave Paris.

Alten added: “Yes, in order that he might go in again. I fancy it is a kind of sport for him.”

The Chief: “That might be all very well for a person who inspired confidence. But I never trusted him, and when he wished to return to Paris recently, neither I nor the general staff wanted to let him through. He succeeded in obtaining permission surreptitiously through the good nature of the King. Never mind. Possibly things may yet be discovered about him that will ruin him in St. Petersburg.”

The subject of Stock Exchange speculation was again introduced, and the Chief once more denied the possibility of turning to much account the always very limited knowledge which one may have of political events beforehand. Such events only affect the Bourse afterwards, and the day when that is going to happen[p. 353] cannot be foreseen. “Of course, if one could contrive things so as to produce a fall—but that is dishonourable! Grammont has done so, according to what Russell recently stated. He doubled his fortune in that way. One might almost say that he brought about the war with that object. Moustier also carried on that sort of business—not for himself, but with the fortune of his mistress—and when it was on the point of being discovered, he poisoned himself. One might take advantage of one’s position in a rather less dishonest way by arranging to have the Bourse quotations from all the Stock Exchanges sent off with the political despatches by obliging officials abroad. The political despatches take precedence of the Bourse telegrams, so that one would gain from twenty minutes to half an hour. One would then want a quick-footed Jew to secure this advantage. I know people who have done it. In that way one might earn fifteen hundred to fifteen thousand thalers daily, and in a few years that makes a handsome fortune. But, all the same, it remains ugly; and my son shall not say of me that that was how I made him a rich man. He can become rich in some other way—through speculation with his own property, through the sale of timber, by marriage, or something of the kind. I was much better off before I was made Chancellor than I am now. My grants have ruined me. My affairs have been embarrassed ever since. Previously I regarded myself as a simple country gentleman; now that I, to a certain extent, belong to the peerage, my requirements are increasing and my estates bring me in nothing. As Minister at Frankfurt I always had a balance to my credit, and also in St. Petersburg, where I was not obliged to entertain, and did not.”

In the afternoon Friedlander called upon me with[p. 354] an invitation, which I was obliged to decline. Our fat friend knew exactly why the bombardment did not take place. “Blumenthal will not agree to it because the Crown Prince does not want it,” he said; “and behind him are the two Victorias.” So an Artillery officer told him a few days ago.

Addendum.—According to a pencil note which I have now laid hands on, Bohlen remarked yesterday at dinner that he understood many valuable pictures and manuscripts removed by the French from Germany had not been returned. Some one else observed that it would be difficult to put this right now. “Well,” said the Chief, “we could take others of equal value in their stead. We could, for instance, pack up the best of the pictures out of the Gallery here.” “Yes, and sell them to the Americans,” added Bohlen; “they would give us a good price for them.”

According to another note the Chancellor related (doubtless on the occasion when Holnstein dined with us): “In Crehanges the Augustenburger again tricked me into shaking hands with him. A Bavarian Colonel or General came over to me and held out his hand, which I took. I could not put a name to the face, and when I had, it was too late. If I could only come across him again, I would say to him, ‘You treacherously purloined a hand from me at Crehanges; will you please restore it?’”

I afterwards wrote an article on the neutrality of Luxemburg, and the perfidious way in which people there are taking advantage of it to help the French in every sort of way. It ran as follows:—We declared at the commencement of the war that we would respect the neutrality of the Grand Duchy, the neutrality of its government and people being thereby assumed.[p. 355] That condition, however, has not been fulfilled, the Luxemburgers having been guilty of flagrant breaches of neutrality, although we on our part have kept our promise in spite of the inconvenience to which we have often been put, especially in connection with the transport of our wounded. We have already had occasion to complain of the fortress of Thionville having been provisioned by trains despatched at night with the assistance of the railway officials and police authorities of the Grand Duchy. After the capitulation of Metz numbers of French soldiers passed through Luxemburg with the object of returning to France and rejoining the French army. The French Vice-Consul opened a regular office at the Luxemburg railway station, where soldiers were provided with money and passports for their journey. The Grand Ducal Government permitted all this to go on without making any attempt to prevent it. They cannot, therefore, complain if in future military operations we pay no regard to the neutrality of the country, or if we demand compensation for the injury done by breaches of neutrality due to such culpable negligence.

Sunday, December 4th.—We were joined at dinner by Roggenbach, a former Baden Minister, and von Niethammer, a member of the Bavarian Ambulance Corps, whose acquaintance the Chief made recently in the hospital.

The Chief spoke at first of having again visited the wounded, and afterwards added:—“Leaving Frankfurt and St. Petersburg out of account, I have now been longer here than in any other foreign town during my whole life. We shall spend Christmas here, which we had not expected to do, and we may remain at Versailles till Easter and see the trees grow green again, whilst[p. 356] we wait for news of the Loire army. Had we only known we might have planted asparagus in the garden here.”

The Minister afterwards said, addressing Roggenbach:—“I have just looked through the newspaper extracts. How they do abuse the treaties! They simply tear them into shreds. The National Zeitung, the Kölnische,—the Weser Zeitung is still the most reasonable, as it always is. Of course one must put up with criticism; but then one is responsible if the negotiations come to nothing, while the critics have no responsibility. I am indifferent as to their censure so long as the thing gets through the Reichstag. History may say that the wretched Chancellor ought to have done better; but I was responsible. If the Reichstag introduces amendments every German Diet can do the same, and then the thing will drag on and we shall not be able to secure the peace we desire and need. We cannot demand the cession of Alsace if no political entity is created, if there is no Germany to cede it to.”

The question of the peace negotiations to follow in the approaching capitulation of Paris was then discussed, and the difficulties which might arise. The Chief said:—“Favre and Trochu may say, ‘We are not the Government. We were part of it at one time, but now that we have surrendered we are private persons. I am nothing more than Citizen Trochu.’ But at that point I should try a little coercion on the Parisians. I should say to them: ‘I hold you, two million people, responsible in your own persons. I shall let you starve for twenty-four hours unless you agree to our demands.’ Yes, and yet another four-and-twenty hours, come what might of it.

[p. 357]

“I would stick to my point—but the King, the Crown Prince, the women who force their sentimental views upon them, and certain secret European connections—I can deal with those in front of me—but those who stand behind me, behind my back, or rather who weigh upon me so that I cannot breathe!—people for whom the German cause and German victories are not the main question; but, rather, their anxiety to be praised in English newspapers. Ah, if one were but the Landgrave!—I could trust myself to be hard enough. But, unfortunately, one is not the Landgrave.[16] Quite recently, in their maudlin solicitude for the Parisians, they have again brought forward a thoroughly foolish scheme. Great stores of provisions from London and Belgium are to be collected for the Parisians. The storehouses are to be within our lines, and our soldiers are merely to look at them, but not to touch them, however much they may themselves suffer from scarcity and hunger. These supplies are to prevent the Parisians starving when they shall have capitulated. We, in this house, it is true, have enough, but the troops are on short commons; yet they must suffer in order that the Parisians, when they learn that supplies have been collected for them, may postpone their capitulation till they have eaten their last loaf and slaughtered their last horse. I shall not be consulted, otherwise I’d rather be hanged than consent to it. But I am, nevertheless, responsible. I was imprudent enough to call attention to the famine that must ensue. It is true I mentioned it merely to the diplomatists. But they have thus become aware of the fact. Otherwise it would not have occurred to them.”

[p. 358]

Swiss cheese having been handed round, some one raised the question whether cheese and wine went well together. “Some descriptions with certain wines,” was the Minister’s decision. “Not strong ones like Gorgonzola and Dutch cheese, but others are all right. I remember that at the time when people drank hard in Pomerania—two hundred years ago or more—the good folks of Rammin were the greatest topers in the country. One of them happened to get a supply of wine from Stettin, which was not quite to his liking. He complained accordingly to the merchant, who replied: ‘Eet kees to Wien, Herr von Rammin, deen smeckt de Wien wie in Stettin ook to Rammin.’” (Low German: “Eat cheese to your wine, good sir, from Rammin, then the wine will taste as good in Rammin as it does here in Stettin.”)

Abeken, who had been with the King, came in afterwards, and reported that his Majesty considered it would be well to write again to the Emperor of Russia, and give him the views held here respecting the Gortschakoff Note. The Chief said: “I think not. Enough has been already written and telegraphed on the subject. They know in St. Petersburg what we think. At least we must not write discourteously, but rather in a friendly and amiable spirit: It is better however to say nothing. If it were England! But we shall still want Russia’s good will in the immediate future. When that is no longer necessary, we can afford to be rude.”

Bohlen said: “They are quite beside themselves in Berlin. They will have tremendous rejoicings there to-morrow, about the Emperor. They are going to illuminate the town, and are making immense preparations—a regular scene from fairyland!” “I fancy that will have a good effect on the Reichstag,” observed the[p. 359] Chief. “It was really very nice of Roggenbach to start off at once for Berlin” (in order to urge moderation upon the grumblers in the Reichstag). “They” (the members of Parliament, or the Berliners?) “attach much more importance to the title of Emperor than the thing really deserves—although I do not mean to say it is of no value.”

“That was really funny,” said Bohlen, “what Holnstein told us about his interview with the King of Bavaria while he had a toothache!”

“And the way I wrote to him in order to bring him round,” added the Chancellor. “I knew that he could not bear me, and did not trust me. So I wrote to him at last, that one of our estates had been granted to our family by Ludwig, the Bavarian, as Lord of Brandenburg, and that consequently we had had relations with his house for more than five centuries. That was true, in so far as the estates which we now hold were given to us in exchange for those which the Hohenzollerns extorted from us. Holnstein said the letter must have pleased the King very much, as he asked to read it again. It was Holnstein who did most in this matter. He played his part very cleverly. Tell me (to Bohlen), what Order can we give him?”

Bohlen: “He got the first class of the red fowl (the Red Eagle), when the Crown Prince was in Munich.”

“Well then,” said the Chief, “he has got the highest decoration that can be given to him.”

Bohlen: “Well, the King might give him the Imperial German Order, about which Stillfried is already meditating, or he can found a new Prussian Order, and thus supply a long-felt want.”

The Chief: “The Green Lion.”

[p. 360]

Bohlen: “The German Order, with a black, white, and red ribbon.”

The Chief: “Or with the colours of the German Knights, a white ribbon with small black stripes. It looks very well. The King did not rightly know what it was all about when Holnstein requested an audience. He said to me, ‘I observed to Holnstein, that I supposed he wished to see Versailles.’ Of course, he (King William) could not have arranged that himself”—(i.e., he could not have arranged to acquire the Imperial dignity through the good offices of Bavaria.)

Werther, our Minister at Munich, seems to have reported that it was intended there to commission Prince Luitpold with the proclamation of the Emperor. The Chancellor observed: “A singular idea! Another example of the way in which Bray treats matters of business. How is he to do it? Step on to a balcony, and proclaim it?—to whom? That might do if all the Princes were here—but with the three or four now present! I had hoped that we should have made peace before German unity was secured.”

Bohlen: “How pleased the King will feel at being made Emperor! and still more so, the Crown Prince!”

The Chief: “Yes, and no doubt he is already thinking about the cut of the Imperial robes.”

Monday, December 5th.—The Chief sent for me, and gave me his instructions for a démenti with regard to the Bavarian Treaty, in which his ideas were to be somewhat differently expressed. It was to the following effect. The rumour that the Chancellor of the Confederation only concluded the treaties with the South German States, in anticipation that they would be rejected, or at least amended in the Reichstag, is entirely without foundation. The debate on the treaties[p. 361] must be brought to a close during the month of December, and they must be adopted in their entirety, in order that they may come into force on the 1st of January. Otherwise, everything will remain uncertain. If the representatives of North Germany alter the treaties, the South German Diets will be entitled to make further amendments in a contrary sense, and there is no knowing how far that right might not be exercised. In such circumstances, the nation might have still to wait a long time for its political unity. (“Perhaps ten years,” said the Chief, “and interim aliquid fit.”) In that case, also the Treaty of Peace might not be what we desire. The treaties may be deficient, but they can always be gradually improved by the Reichstag, in co-operation with the Bundesrath, and through the pressure of public opinion and national sentiment. There is no hurry about that. If public opinion brings no pressure to bear in that direction, it is obvious that the present arrangement meets the views of the majority of the nation. Men of national sentiment at Versailles are very anxious and uneasy at the prevailing dispositions in Berlin. They are, however, to some extent reassured by the fact that the Volkszeitung opposes the Bavarian Treaty, as people have gradually grown accustomed to find that all persons of political insight as a rule reject whatever that journal praises and recommends, and are disposed to adopt whatever it deprecates and censures.

At dinner Bamberger, the member of the Reichstag, was on the Chief’s left. He is also going to Berlin in order to plead for the adoption, without alteration, of the treaties with South Germany. The conversation first turned on doctors and their knowledge, whereupon the Chief (I cannot now remember on what grounds)[p. 362] delivered the following weighty judgment: “Ah, yes, if doctors were only sensible men; but as it is, they are dolts.” The question of the treaties was then discussed, and the attitude of the Princes in this matter was admitted to be correct. “Yes, but the Reichstag,” said the Chancellor; “it reminds me of Kaiser Heinrich and his ‘Gentlemen, you have spoiled my sport.’[17] In that instance it ultimately turned out all right, but in this! All the members of the Reichstag might sacrifice themselves one after another upon the altar of the Fatherland—it would be all to no purpose.” After reflecting for a moment, the Minister continued, with a smile: “Members of the Diet and the Reichstag should be made responsible, like Ministers, no more and no less, and placed on a footing of absolute equality. A Bill should provide for the impeachment for treason of members of Parliament when they reject important State treaties, or, as in Paris, approve of a war undertaken on frivolous pretexts. They were all in favour of the war, with the exception of Jules Favre. Perhaps I shall bring in some such measure one day.”

The conversation then turned upon the approaching capitulation of Paris, which must take place, at latest, within a month. “Ah!” sighed the Chancellor, “it is then that my troubles will begin in earnest.”... Bamberger was of opinion that they should not be allowed merely to capitulate, but should immediately be called upon to conclude peace. “Quite so,” said the Chief. “That is exactly my view, and they should be forced to do so by starvation. But there are people who want, above all else, to be extolled for their humane feelings, and they will spoil everything—altogether forgetting[p. 363] the fact that we must think of our own soldiers, and take care that they shall not suffer want and be shot down to no purpose. It is just the same with the bombardment. And then we are told to spare people who are searching for potatoes; they should be shot too, if we want to reduce the city by starvation.”

After 8 o’clock, I was called to the Chief several times, and wrote two paragraphs for the Spenersche Zeitung in accordance with his instructions. The first ran as follows:—“The Vienna newspapers recently stated that ‘the German Austrians did not wish for war, and the majority of the Austrian Slavs just as little.’ But there is in Austria, and in Hungary, a not very numerous but influential party which does desire war. When inquiry is made as to their real motive for doing so, it is found to arise from pride and arrogance, from a kind of frivolous chivalry, from a real hunger for political luxuries, from the determination to play the Grand Seigneur before the world. The Austrians of this party, in which very distinguished personages are the moving spirits, seem to us to resemble the princely family of Esterhazy. It is an ancient house, of high rank, with great estates and a large fortune. Its members might well have been content to occupy so eminent a position. But the evil genius of the family continually drove them into extravagance, into making too great demands upon their resources, into squandering enormous sums on horses, diamonds, &c., with the object of displaying their wealth and importance; so that they fell into debt, and, finally, came to the verge of bankruptcy. The Esterhazy Lottery was then resorted to, and actually did tide them over their difficulties. The family was saved. But scarcely have they begun to breathe freely, and to regain their footing,[p. 364] when their evil genius once more inspires them, and the old game goes on again, until, at length, a time will come when even a lottery will no longer save them. The Austrian party to which we have already referred seems to us to present a close resemblance to the Esterhazys. The State is a fine property, with excellent natural advantages, a rich soil, and a great variety of valuable resources. But the policy of the proprietors is exactly the same as that of the Esterhazys. They must always overreach themselves, and try to be more than they really are. The evil genius of the State regards as a necessity what is in reality mere luxury, self-conceit, and the desire to cut a great figure in the world. In that way, the ancient and wealthy house has become a comparatively poor one, with a touch of the Quixotic, and a still stronger flavour of unfair dealing, which is very badly suited to our matter-of-fact age, when so much importance is attached to the ability to pay one’s way. Every now and then, the State, like its prototype the Esterhazys, escapes out of its troubles by means of a lottery, or of some not particularly respectable financial manœuvre; but then it suddenly puts forward fresh claims to a position beyond its means, presumes to play the part of a great Power, squanders millions on mobilisation, as its prototype does on stables and diamonds, and thus sinks deeper and deeper into financial difficulties. Instead of being able to satisfy its creditors by good management and a modest bearing, it moves steadily forward, without pause or rest, towards that bankruptcy which for a considerable space has only been a question of time.”

The foregoing is an almost literal reproduction of the Chief’s own words. I did not venture, however, to incorporate his concluding remarks, which were as[p. 365] follows: “The Hapsburgs have really become great through plundering old families—the Hungarians, for instance. At bottom they are only a family of police spies (polizeilich-Spitzelfamilie) who lived upon and made their fortune by confiscations.”

The second paragraph, which referred to a statement in the Indépendance Belge, pointed out that the relationship between the Orleans and the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine through the Duc d’Alençon, could not induce us Germans to regard them with any special favour. The paragraph was to the following effect. It is known that Trochu declined the offer of the Princes of the House of Orleans to take part in the struggle against us. The Indépendance Belge now states that the Duc d’Alençon, second son of the Duc de Nemours, who was at that time incapacitated by illness from joining his uncles and cousins in their offer of service, has now sought salvation by adopting a similar course. The Brussels organ adds the significant remark: “It will be remembered that the Duc d’Alençon is married to a sister of the Empress of Austria.” We understand that hint, and believe we shall be speaking in the spirit of German policy in replying to it as follows:—The Orleans are quite as hostile to us as the other dynasties that are fishing for the French throne. Their journals are filled with lies and abuse directed against us. We have not forgotten the hymn of praise which the Duc de Joinville raised after the battle of Wörth to the franctireurs who had acted like assassins. The only French Government we care for is that which can do us the least harm, because it is most occupied with its own affairs, and with maintaining its own position against its rivals. Otherwise Orleanists, Legitimists, Imperialists, and Republicans are all of the same value or no[p. 366] value to us. And as for those who throw out hints about the Austrian relationship, they would do well to be on their guard, as we are on ours. There is in Austria-Hungary one party in favour of Germany and another hostile to her,—a party that wants to continue the policy of Kaunitz in the Seven Years’ War, a policy of constant conspiracy with France against German interests, and particularly against Prussia. That is the policy which has recently been connected with Metternich’s name, and which was pursued from 1815 to 1866. Since then more or less vigorous attempts have been made to continue it. It is the party of which the younger Metternich is regarded as the leader. He has for years past been looked upon as the most ardent advocate of a Franco-Austrian alliance against Germany, and one of the principal instigators of the present war. If the Orleans believe that their prospects are improved by their connection with Austria, they ought also to know that for that very reason they have nothing to hope from us.

After Bucher, Keudell and myself had been for some time at tea, we were joined by the Chief, and afterwards by Hatzfeldt, who had been with the King. He said it was intolerably dull there.

“Grimm, the Russian Councillor of State, gave us a variety of wearisome particulars about Louis Quatorze and Louis Quinze. The W. worried us, and me in particular, with silly questions.” (He pouted his lips, assumed a killing smile, and bent his head to one side, imitating the Grand Duke’s affectations.) “He informed us that the students at St. Cyr all received a portrait of Madame Maintenon, and that he himself had one also. The King, who had occasionally rubbed his eyes, observed somewhat pointedly, ‘I suppose they were[p. 367] photographs.’ ‘No, oh no, engravings.’ ‘Well, then, what did you do with yours?’ the King asked. ‘Why, nothing, I kept it.’ The Grand Duke then asked me—he had obviously prepared the question in advance, and perhaps learnt it by heart—‘Is the Revue des Deux Mondes still published? An interesting newspaper.’ I replied, ‘I do not know, your Royal Highness.’ ‘Who is the editor?’ ‘I do not know that either.’ ‘So-o-o!’ The aides-de-camp were cruelly bored, and one of them nudged Lehndorff, begging him in a whisper to give the old fool a rap on the head with his crutch.”

“Yes, he is a fearful bore,” added the Chief. “What a miserable position it must be for a man whose father was a Court official to him or one like him, and who has to assume the same office himself—a chamberlain or something of that kind, who has to listen day after day to all that twaddle, and has no prospect of ever becoming anything else! The Queen is just such another. She was educated in the same school. I remember she once questioned me on a literary subject, I believe it was about some French book or other. ‘I do not know, your Majesty,’ I replied. ‘Ah, I suppose that does not interest you.’ ‘No, your Majesty.’ Radowitz was very strong on those subjects. He boldly gave every kind of information, and in that way secured a great deal of his success at Court. He was able to tell exactly what Maintenon or Pompadour wore on such and such a day; such and such a gewgaw on her neck, her head-dress trimmed with colibris or grapes, her gown pearl-grey or peacock-green with furbelows or lace of this or that description—exactly as if he had been there at the time. The ladies were all ear for these toilette lectures, which he poured forth with the utmost fluency.”

[p. 368]

The conversation then turned upon Alexander von Humboldt, who appears to have been a courtier too, but not of the amusing variety. The Chief said: “Under the late King I was the sole victim when Humboldt chose to entertain the company in his own style. He usually read, often for hours at a time, the biography of some French savant or architect in whom nobody in the world except himself took the slightest interest. He stood by the lamp holding the paper close to the light, and occasionally paused for the purpose of making some learned observation. Although nobody listened to him he had the ear of the house. The Queen was all the time at work on a piece of tapestry, and certainly did not understand a word of what he said. The King looked through his portfolios of engravings, turning them over as noisily as possible, evidently with the intention of not hearing him. The young people on both sides and in the background enjoyed themselves without the least restraint, so that their cackling and giggling actually drowned his reading, which however rippled on without break or stop like a brook. Gerlach, who was usually present, sat on his small round chair which could barely accommodate his voluminous person, and slept so soundly that he snored. The King was once obliged to wake him, and said, ‘Pray, Gerlach, don’t snore so loud!’ I was Humboldt’s only patient listener, that is to say I sat silent and pretended to listen, at the same time following my own thoughts, until at length cold cake and white wine were served. It put the old gentleman in very bad humour not to be allowed to have the talk all to himself. I remember once there was somebody there who managed to monopolise the conversation, quite naturally, it is true, as he was a clever raconteur and spoke about things[p. 369] that interested everybody. Humboldt was beside himself. In a peevish surly temper he piled his plate so high (pointing with his hand) with pâté de foie gras, fat eels, lobsters’ tails, and other indigestible stuff,—a real mountain,—it was astounding that an old man could put it all away. At last his patience was exhausted, and he could not stand it any longer. So he tried to interrupt the speaker. ‘On the peak of Popocatapetl,’ he began,—but the other went on with his story. ‘On the peak of Popocatapetl, seven thousand fathoms above’—but he again failed to make any impression, and the narrative maintained its easy flow. ‘On the peak of Popocatapetl, seven thousand fathoms above the level of the sea,’ he exclaimed in a loud and excited tone,—but with as little success as before. The talker talked on, and the company had no ears for anybody else. That was something unheard of, outrageous! Humboldt threw himself back in morose meditation over the ingratitude of mankind, and shortly afterwards left. The Liberals made a great deal of him, and counted him as one of themselves. He was however a sycophant who aspired to the favour of Princes and who was only happy when basking in the sunshine of royalty. That did not prevent him however from criticising the Court afterwards to Varnhagen, and repeating all sorts of discreditable stories about it. Varnhagen worked these up into books, which I also bought. They are fearfully dear when one thinks how few lines in large type go to the page.” Keudell observed that they were nevertheless indispensable for historical purposes. “Yes, in a certain sense,” replied the Chief. “Taken individually the stories are not worth much, but as a whole they are an expression of the sourness of Berlin at a period[p. 370] when nothing of importance was happening. At that time everybody talked in that maliciously impotent way. It was a society which it would be hardly possible to realise to-day without the assistance of such books, unless one had personal experience of it. A great deal of outward show with nothing genuine behind it. I remember, although I was a very little fellow at the time, it must have been in 1821 or ’22. Ministers were still like strange animals, regarded with wonder as something mysterious. There was once a large party, which was at that time called an assemblée, given at Schuckmann’s—what a monstrous huge beast he was as a Minister! My mother also went there. I remember it as if it were to-day. She wore long gloves that went up to here.” (He pointed to the upper part of his arm.) “A dress with a short waist, her hair puffed out on both sides, and a big ostrich feather on her head.” (The Chief left this anecdote unfinished, if indeed there was any conclusion to it, and returned to his former subject.) “Humboldt, however,” he continued, “had a great many interesting things to tell when one was alone with him, about the times of Frederick William III., and in particular about his own first sojourn in Paris. As he liked me, owing to the attention with which I listened to him, he told me a number of pretty anecdotes. It was the same with old Metternich, with whom I spent a few days at Johannisberg. Thun afterwards said to me, ‘I do not know how you have managed to get round the old Prince, but he has indeed looked into you as if you were a golden goblet, and he told me if you do not come to an understanding with him then I really don’t know what to say.’ ‘I can explain that to you,’ I replied. ‘I listened to all his stories, and often prompted him[p. 371] to continue them. That pleases the garrulous old people.’”

Hatzfeldt said that Moltke had written to Trochu telling him how affairs stood at Orleans, and expressing his readiness to allow one of Trochu’s officers to satisfy himself of the truth of his statement. He would be furnished with a safe conduct to Orleans. The Chief said: “I know that. But he should not have done so. They ought to find that out for themselves. Our lines are now thin at various points, and they have also a pigeon post. They will only imagine we are in a hurry to get them to capitulate.”

Tuesday, December 6th.—In the morning I telegraphed to Berlin and London more detailed particulars of the victory at Orleans. Then wrote articles for the Moniteur and the German papers on the way in which French officers interned in Germany are breaking their parole. So long as this unworthy conduct receives approval and encouragement from the Government of National Defence, it is impossible for us to carry on any negotiations with it.

Dr. Lauer and Odo Russell dined with us to-day. The conversation was not of particular interest. We had, however, a delicious Palatine wine—Deidesheimer Hofstück and Forster Kirchenstück, a noble juice, rich in all virtues, fragrant, and fiery. Aus Feuer ward der Geist erschaffen. Even Bucher, who usually drinks only red wine, did justice to this heavenly dew from the Haardt Hills.

I afterwards wrote an article in which I politely expressed surprise at the brazen impudence with which Grammont reminds the world of his existence in the Brussels Gaulois. He who, through his unparalleled ineptitude, has brought so much misery upon France,[p. 372] should, like his colleague Ollivier, have hidden himself in silence and been glad to be forgotten. Or, inspired by his ancient name, he should have joined the army and fought for his country, so as in some degree to expiate the wrong he has done it. Instead of doing anything of the kind, however, he dares to remind the world that he still lives, and once conducted the foreign policy of France. “A blockhead, a coward, an impudent fellow!” said the Chief, when he instructed me to write this article. “You can use the strongest expressions in dealing with him.”

[p. 373]

## CHAPTER XIV

THE PROSPECTS OUTSIDE PARIS IMPROVE

Wednesday, December 7th.—At dinner the Chief related some of his Frankfurt reminiscences. “It was possible to get on with Thun,” he said. “He was a respectable man. Taken altogether, Rechberg[18] was also not bad. He was at least honourable from a personal standpoint, although violent and irascible—one of those passionate, fiery blondes! It is true that as an Austrian diplomat of those days he was not able to pay too strict a regard to truth. I remember his once receiving a despatch in which he was instructed to maintain the best relations with us, a second despatch being sent to him at the same time enjoining him to follow an exactly opposite course. I happened to call upon him, and he inadvertently gave me the second despatch to read. I saw immediately how matters stood and read it through. Then handing it back to him I said: ‘I beg your pardon, but you have given me the wrong one.’ He was fearfully embarrassed, but I consoled him, saying I would take no advantage of his mistake, using it merely for my personal information.” “The third, however,—Prokesch—was not at all to my liking. In the East he[p. 374] had learnt the basest forms of intrigue and had no sense of honour or truth. A thoroughpaced liar. I remember being once in a large company where some Austrian assertion which was not in accordance with the truth was being discussed. Prokesch, raising his voice in order that I might hear him, said: ‘If that be not true, then the Imperial and Royal Cabinet has commissioned me to commit an act of perfidy, indeed his Imperial and Apostolic Majesty has lied to me!’ and he emphasised the word lied. He looked at me whilst he was speaking, and, when he had finished, I replied, quietly: ‘Quite so, Excellency!’ He was obviously aghast, and as he looked round and found all eyes cast down and a deep silence which showed approval of what I had said, he turned away without a word and went into the dining-room where the table was laid. He had recovered himself, however, after dinner, and came over to me with a full glass in his hand—but for that I should have thought he was going to challenge me—and said, ‘Well, let us make peace.’ ‘Certainly,’ I replied, ‘but what I said in the other room was true, and the protocol must be altered.’ The protocol was altered, an admission that it had contained an untruth. A rascally fellow!”

Thursday, December 8th.—Some one asked at dinner how the question of Emperor and Empire now stood. The Chief replied inter alia: “We have had a great deal of trouble with it in the way of telegrams and letters. But after all Holnstein has done the greater part of the work. He is a clever fellow, and not in the least spoilt by or prepossessed in favour of Court manners.” Putbus asked what position he held. “Master of the Horse. He showed himself very willing and energetic, making the journey to Munich and back in six days. In the present condition[p. 375] of the railways that requires a great deal of good will. Of course he has the necessary physique. Indeed, not merely to Munich, but to Hohenschwangau,—and there saw the King who had just been operated under chloroform for a tumour in the gum. But King Lewis also greatly contributed to the speedy settlement of the matter. He received the letter immediately, and at once gave a definite answer. He might easily have said that he must first take some fresh air in the mountains, and would answer in three or four days. The Count has certainly done us a very good service in the affair; but I really do not know how we can reward him.” I forget how the conversation came to deal with the terms “Swell,” “Snob,” and “Cockney,” which were the subject of much discussion. The Chief mentioned a certain diplomat as a “swell,” and observed: “It is really a capital word, but we cannot translate it into German. ‘Stutzer,’ perhaps, but that conveys at the same time pompousness and self-importance. ‘Snob’ is something quite different, while it is also very difficult for us to render properly. It denotes a variety of attributes, but principally one-sidedness, narrowness, slavery to local or class prejudices, philistinism. A ‘snob’ is something like our ‘Pfalbürger,’ yet not quite. It includes also a petty conception of family interests, political narrow-mindedness, rigid adherence to ideas and habits that have become a second nature. There are also female snobs and very distinguished ones. The feminine half of our Court are snobs. Our two most exalted ladies are snobs. The male element is not snobbish. One may also talk of party snobs—those who in larger political issues cannot emancipate themselves from the rules that govern private conduct—the ‘Progressist snob.’ The cockney[p. 376] again is quite another person. That term applies more particularly to Londoners. There are people there who have never been outside their own walls and streets, never got away from the brick and mortar, who have never seen life anywhere else nor travelled beyond the sound of Bow Bells. We have also Berliners who have never left their city. But Berlin is a small place compared to London, or even Paris, which has also its cockneys, although they are known by another name there. There are hundreds of thousands in London who have never seen anything but London. In such great cities conceptions are formed which permeate the whole community, and harden into the most inveterate prejudices. Such narrow and silly ideas arise in every great centre of population where the people have no experience, and often not the faintest notion of how things look elsewhere. Silliness without conceit is endurable, but to be silly and unpractical, and at the same time conceited, is intolerable. Country life brings people into much closer contact with realities. They may be less educated there, but what they know they know thoroughly. There are, however, snobs in the country also. (Turning to Putbus.) Just take a really clever shot. He is convinced that he is the first man in the world, and that sport is everything, and that those who do not understand it are worth nothing. And then a man who lives on his estate in a remote district, where he is everything, and all the people depend upon him; when he comes to the wool-market and finds that he is not of the same importance with the townspeople as he is at home, he gets into a bad temper, sits sulking on his sack of wool, and takes no notice of anything else.”

At tea, Keudell said that I ought really to see, not[p. 377] merely those political despatches, reports and drafts which I received from the Minister, but everything that came in and went out. He would speak on the subject to Abeken, who acts here as Secretary of State. I accepted his proposal with many thanks.

Bucher informed me that the Minister had made some very interesting remarks in the drawing-room while they were taking coffee. Prince Putbus mentioned his desire to travel in far distant lands. “It might be possible to manage that for you,” said the Chief. “You might be commissioned to notify the foundation of the German Empire to the Emperor of China and the Tycoon of Japan.” The Minister then discussed at length the duties of the German aristocracy, of course with special reference to his guest.

The King was faithful to his duty, but he was born in the last century, and thus he regarded many things from a point of view which was no longer suitable to the times. He would allow himself to be cut to pieces in the interests of the State, as he understood them, if he knew that his family would be provided for. The future king was quite different. He had not this strong sense of duty. When he found himself in good case, had plenty of money at his disposal, and was praised by the newspapers, he was quite satisfied. He would choose his Ministers in the English fashion from the Liberal or from other parties just as things happened in the Diet, in order to avoid trouble. In that way, however, he would ruin everything, or at least produce a condition of constant instability. The great nobles ought then to intervene. They must have a sense of the necessities of the State and recognise their mission, which is to preserve the State from vacillation and uncertainty in the struggles of parties, to give it a firm[p. 378] support, &c. There was no objection to their associating with a Strousberg, but they would do better to become bankers straight away.

Monday, December 12th.—The Chief’s indisposition seems to have again grown worse, and it is said that he is in a particularly bad humour. Dr. Lauer has been to see him. The Times contains the following communication which it would be impossible for us to improve upon.[19]

[p. 379]

An excellent letter which we must submit to the Versailles people in the Moniteur.

Busily engaged all the evening. Translated for the King articles published by The Times and Daily Telegraph warmly approving of the restoration of the German Empire and the imperial dignity.

The Times article, after stating that not merely the fact of the restoration of the German Empire but also the manner in which it had been brought about could only be regarded with the liveliest satisfaction, proceeds as follows:—

“The political significance of this change cannot be placed too high. A mighty revolution has been accomplished[p. 380] in Europe, and all our traditions have suddenly become antiquated. No one can pretend to predict the relations of the Great Powers; but it is not very difficult to forecast in a general way the political tendencies of the time on which we are about to enter. There will be a powerful united Germany, presided over by a family which represents not only its interests, but its military fame. On the one side will be Russia, strong and watchful as ever; but on the other side will be France, which, whether patient under her reverses or burning for revenge, will be for a time incapable of playing that great part in Europe which belonged to her even under the feebleness of the Restoration. Thus, whereas we had formerly two strong centralised military empires, with a distracted, unready nation between them, which might be ground to powder whenever the two closed to crush it, there is now a firm barrier erected in Central Europe, and the fabric is correspondingly strengthened. In this the policy of past generations of English statesmen is fulfilled. They all desired the creation of a strong Central Power, and laboured for it in peace and war by negotiations and alliances, now with the Empire, now with the new State which had arisen in the North.”

On the instructions of the Chief, I also wrote a paragraph for the press to the effect that we are no longer opposed by France, but rather by the cosmopolitan Red Republicans, Garibaldi and Mazzini (who are with Gambetta, and act as his counsellors), and Polish, Spanish, and Danish adherents of that party. The aims of these good people are indicated in a letter from the son of the Prefect Ordinaire, who describes himself as an officer in Garibaldi’s General Staff. This letter, which is dated from Autun on the 16th of[p. 381] November, and addressed to the editor of the newspaper Droits de l’Homme, contains the following passage:—

“You will see from the post-mark where we are now stationed—in one of the most priest-ridden towns of France. It is the centre of monarchical reaction. It looks less like a town than an enormous monastery, huge black walls and barred windows, behind which monks of all colours intrigue and pray in darkness and silence for the success of the good cause. In the streets our red shirts are constantly brushing against the black cassock of the priest. The whole population, from the tradespeople downwards, present a mystic aspect, and appear as if they had been all drenched in holy water. We are regarded here as if we had been inscribed upon the Index, and the calumnies that are rained upon us rival the deluge. A breach of discipline (which is unavoidable in the case of a volunteer army) is immediately exaggerated into a great crime. Trifles are transformed into outrages that deserve to be punished by death. The mountain frequently gives birth to a mere mouse, but the bad impression produced upon the public mind remains.

“Would you believe it? The officials themselves put difficulties in our way! They echo, I hope unwittingly, the calumnies that are circulated against us, and regard us with evident ill will. Indeed, our fellow citizens are almost inclined to look upon our army as a band of brigands. Can you imagine that the monarchists have not in the least renounced their mischievous endeavours, and hate us because we have sworn never to permit the re-erection of those mountebank stages from which kings and emperors have ordered nations as the humour took them? Yes, we proclaim[p. 382] the fact aloud that we are soldiers of the Revolution, and I would add not of the French Revolution alone, but of the cosmopolitan revolution. Italians, Spaniards, Poles, and Hungarians, in gathering under the French flag, clearly understand that they are defending the Universal Republic. The real nature of the struggle is now evident. It is a war between the principle of the divine right of kings and of force, and that of popular sovereignty, civilisation, and freedom. The fatherland disappears before the Republic.

“We are citizens of the world, and whatever may happen we will fight to the death for the realisation of that noble ideal of the United States of Europe, that is to say, the fraternisation of all free peoples. The monarchical reactionaries know that, and so they reinforce the Prussian forces with their own legions. We have the enemies’ bayonets in front, and treason behind us. Why is not every old official sent about his business? Why are not all the old generals of the Empire ruthlessly cashiered? Cannot the Government of National Defence see that they are being betrayed, and that these people, with their hypocritical manœuvres, shameful capitulations, and inexplicable retreats are preparing for a Bonapartist restoration, or, at least, for the accession of an Orleans or a Bourbon?

“But the Government, which has undertaken the task of delivering the contaminated soil of France from foreign hordes, should take care. In times like the present, and under the fearful conditions in which we find ourselves, it is not enough to be honest. It is also necessary to show energy, to keep a cool head, and not to allow one’s self to be drowned in a glass of water. Let the Cremieuxs, the Glais-Bizoins, and the Fourichons remember the manner in which the men of 1792 and[p. 383] ’93 acted! To-day we need a Danton, a Robespierre, the men of the Convention! Away with you, gentlemen! Make room for the Revolution! That alone can save us. Great crises demand great measures!”

The fatherland disappears before the Republic! Resort to the great measures adopted by Danton and Robespierre! Behead every one who differs from us in religious and political affairs, and establish the guillotine as a permanent institution. Dismiss Generals Chanzy and Bourbaki, Faidherbe and Vinoy, Ducrot and Trochu, and appoint private soldiers in their place. That is the gospel preached by the son of a Prefect in the department of Doubs, an officer of Garibaldi’s General Staff. I wonder whether these proposals will commend themselves to many of the Versailles people when they see this letter in the Moniteur one of these days?

Tuesday, December 13th.—In the morning wrote another article on the confession of faith of the cosmopolitan Republicans. The Chief’s health is somewhat better, only he feels very exhausted....

At lunch Bucher, Hatzfeldt, and Keudell declared in all seriousness that they thought the Chancellor would resign. It was jestingly suggested that he would be followed by a Ministry under Lasker, who would be “a kind of Ollivier,” and then half in joke, half in earnest, the possibility was discussed of our having for a Chancellor Delbrück,—“a very clever man, but no politician.”

I regarded it as absolutely inconceivable that the Chief could ever be allowed to resign, even if he requested to be relieved from office. They thought, nevertheless, that it was possible. I said that in such circumstances they would be obliged to recall him in less than a month. Bucher questioned whether he[p. 384] would come back, and said positively that so far as he knew him, if the Count once retired he would never take office again. He enjoyed himself far too well at Varzin, free from business and worry of every kind. He liked best of all to be in the woods and fields. The Countess had once said to him: “Believe me, a turnip interests him (Bismarck) more than all your politics.” That statement, however, must not be too hastily accepted, and must be limited to a temporary state of feeling.

About 1.30 P.M. I was summoned to the Chancellor. He wished me to call attention to the difficulties of the King of Holland with regard to a new Ministry, and to point to this as the result of a purely Parliamentary system under which the advisers of the Crown must retire, whatever the condition of affairs may be, when a majority of the representatives is opposed to them on any question. He observed: “I remember when I became Minister that there had been twenty or twenty-one Ministries since the introduction of the constitutional system. If the principle of Ministers retiring before a hostile majority be too strictly enforced, far too many politicians will be used up. Then mediocrities will have to be taken for the post, and finally there will be no one left who will care to devote himself to such a trade. The moral is that either the advantages of a Minister’s position must be increased, or the Parliamentary system must be applied less stringently.”

The Chief went out for a drive at 3 o’clock, after Russell had again called upon him.

He talked after dinner about his negotiations with Russell and the demands of Gortschakoff. He said amongst other things: “They do not want in London to give an unqualified approval to the proposal that the[p. 385] Black Sea shall be again given up to Russia and the Turks with full sovereignty over its coast. They are afraid of public opinion in England, and Russell returns again and again to the idea that some equivalent might possibly be found. He asked, for instance, whether it would not be possible for us to join in the agreement of the 16th of April, 1856. I replied that Germany had no real interest in the matter. Or whether we would bind ourselves to observe neutrality in case of a conflict some day breaking out there. I told him I was not in favour of a conjectural policy, such as his suggestion involved. It would depend altogether on circumstances. For the present we saw no reason why we should take any part in the matter. That ought to suffice for him. Besides I did not believe that gratitude had no place in politics. The present Tsar had always acted in a friendly and benevolent manner towards us. Austria, on the other hand, was up to the present little to be trusted and took up at times a very dubious attitude. Of course he knew himself how far we were indebted to England. The friendship of the Tsar was the legacy of old relations, based partly on family connections, but partly also on the recognition that our interests are not opposed to his. We did not know what those relations would be in future, and therefore it was impossible to speak about them.... Our position would now be different to what it was formerly. We should be the only Power that had reason to be satisfied; we had no call to oblige any one of whose willingness to reciprocate our services we could not altogether feel sure.... He returned again and again to the suggestion as to an equivalent, and at length asked me if I could not propose something. I spoke of making the Dardanelles and the Black Sea free to all. That would please[p. 386] Russia, as she could then pass from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean, and Turkey also as she could have her friends, including the Americans, near her. It would remove one of the reasons why the Americans held with the Russians, namely, their desire for free navigation in all seas. He seemed to recognise the truth of that.” The Chancellor added: “As a matter of fact, the Russians should not have been so modest in their demands. They ought to have asked for more, and then the matter of the Black Sea would have been granted to them without any difficulty.” Turning to Abeken the Minister said: “Write that to Bernstorff and also to Reuss for his information. In writing to the latter, suggest that in St. Petersburg they should try to find something harmless that would look like an equivalent.”

The conversation then turned upon the four new points of international law respecting navigation—that no privateers should be fitted out, that goods should not be seized so far as they were not contraband of war, and that a blockade was only valid when effective, &c. The Chief remarked that one of these was flagrantly violated by the French in burning a German ship. He concluded the conversation on this head by saying, “We must see how we are to get rid of this rubbish.”

Wednesday, December 14th.—The German party of centralisation are still dissatisfied with the Bavarian Treaty. Treitschke writes me from Heidelberg on the subject in an almost despairing tone: “I quite understand that Count Bismarck could not have acted otherwise, but it remains a very regrettable affair all the same. Bavaria has once more clogged our feet as she did in 1813 in the Treaty of Ried. So long as we have our leading statesman we can manage to move in[p. 387] spite of that. But how will it be later on? I cannot feel that unquestioning confidence in the vitality of the new Empire which I had in that of the North German Confederation. I only hope that the nation will prosper, owing to its own healthy vigour, in spite of constitutional deficiencies.”

The Chief and Count Holnstein dined with us. Politics were not discussed. The Minister was very cheerful and communicative, and spoke on a variety of subjects. He said, amongst other things, that as a young man he was a swift runner and a good jumper. His sons, on the other hand, are unusually strong in the arms. He should not care to try a fall with either of them.

The Minister then sent for the gold pen that had been presented to him by Bissinger, the jeweller, and mentioned that the Countess had written to him asking about it, remarking that “doubtless it was a lie, like the story of the baby at Meaux.” We now heard for the first time that a new-born baby, the child of one of the French soldiers who had fallen in one of the recent battles, was supposed to have been smuggled into the Chief’s bed. This was, of course, a mere newspaper invention.

The conversation afterwards turned on the deputation from the Reichstag, which was already at Strassburg, and would arrive here to-morrow. The Chancellor said: “We must begin to think what we are to reply to their address. The speech-making will be a real pleasure to Simson. He has been already engaged in several affairs of the kind—in the first deputation to the Hohenzollernburg respecting the imperial dignity. He makes a good speech, loves to talk, and thoroughly enjoys himself on such occasions.”

[p. 388]

Abeken observed that Löwe, the member of the Reichstag, said that he also had taken part in such a function, but had afterwards plenty of opportunity to think over the matter in a foreign country.

“Ah! Was he also engaged in the 1849 affair?” asked the Chief.

“Yes,” said Bucher; “he was President of the Reichstag.”

“But,” said the Chief, “he need not have left his country on account of the part he took in the proposal as to the Emperor. It must have been because of his journey to Stuttgart, which was quite a different story.”

The Minister then spoke of the Hohenzollernburg, where each branch of the family had a special suite of apartments; of an old castle in Pomerania, where all members of the family of Dewitz had a right to lodgings,—it was now reduced to a picturesque ruin, after having long served as a stone quarry for the inhabitants of the neighbouring country town; and afterwards of a landed proprietor who had a singular way of raising money. “He was always hard up, and on one occasion, when he was in desperate straits, his woods were attacked by caterpillars, then a fire broke out, and finally a number of trees were blown down by a gale. He was miserable, and thought he was bankrupt. So the timber had to be sold, and he suddenly found himself in possession of a lot of money, fifty or sixty thousand thalers, which set him on his legs again. It had never occurred to him that he could have his trees cut down.”

This story led the Chief to speak of another extraordinary gentleman, a neighbour of his. (Query, in Varzin.) “He had ten or twelve estates, but was always short of ready money, and frequently felt a desire to spend some. When he wished to invite some[p. 389] people to a decent lunch he usually sold an estate, so that at length he had only one or two left. Some of his own tenants bought one of the former lot from him for 35,000 thalers, paying him 5,000 thalers down. They then sold a quantity of timber for shipbuilding purposes, for 22,000 thalers, an idea which, of course, had never occurred to him.”

The Minister then referred to the Hartschiere (big tall men, chosen for the Royal Body Guard on account of their size) in Munich, who made a great impression upon him owing to their bulk and general character, and who are understood to be excellent connoisseurs of beer.

Finally it was mentioned that Count Bill was the first German to ride into Rouen. Somebody remarked that his appearance would have convinced the inhabitants of that city that our troops had not up to the present been put on short rations. This led the Chancellor to speak again of the strength of his “youngsters.” “They are unusually strong for their age,” he said, “although they have not learnt gymnastics—very much against my desire, but it is not considered the proper thing for the sons of a diplomatist.”

While enjoying his after dinner cigar the Chief asked if the members of his staff were smokers. Yes, every one of them, Abeken replied. “Well, then,” said the minister, “Engel must divide the Hamburg cigars amongst them. I have received so many that if the war were to last for twelve months I should still bring some home with me.”

Thursday, December 15th.—Count Frankenberg and Count Lehndorff joined us at dinner, Prince Pless coming in half an hour later. The Chief was in high spirits and very talkative. The conversation at first turned on the question of the day, that is to say, the[p. 390] commencement of the bombardment. The Minister said it might be expected within the next eight or ten days. It would possibly not be very successful during the first weeks, as the Parisians had had time to take precautions against it. Frankenberg said that in Berlin, and particularly in the Reichstag, no subject was so much discussed as the reasons why the bombardment had been postponed up to the present. Everything else gave way to that. The Chief replied; “Yes, but now that Roon has taken the matter in hand something will be done. A thousand ammunition waggons with the necessary teams are on their way here, and it is said that some of the new mortars have arrived. Now that Roon has taken it up something will at last be done.”

The manner in which the restoration of the imperial dignity in Germany had been brought before the Reichstag was then discussed, and Frankenberg as well as Prince Pless were of opinion that it might have been better managed. The Conservatives had not been informed beforehand, and the statement was actually made when they were sitting at lunch. To all appearance Windthorst was not wrong when, with his usual dexterity in seizing his opportunities, he remarked that he had expected more sympathy from the Assembly.

“Yes,” said the Chief, “there ought to have been a better stage manager for the farce. It should have had a more effective mise-en-scène,—but Delbrück does not understand that sort of thing. Some one should have got up to express his dissatisfaction with the Bavarian Treaties, which lacked this, that, and the other. Then he should have said: ‘If, however, an equivalent were found to compensate for these defects, something in which the unity of the nation would find expression, that would be different,’—and then the[p. 391] Emperor should have been brought forward.”... “Moreover, the Emperor is more important than many people think. I could not tell them. (that is to say, the Princes) what it all means—if I had, I certainly should not have succeeded.... I admit that the Bavarian Treaty has defects and deficiencies. That is, however, easily said when one is not responsible. How would it have been, then, if I had refused to make concessions and no treaty had been concluded? It is impossible to conceive all the difficulties that would have resulted from such a failure, and for that reason I was in mortal anxiety over the easy unconcern of centralising gentlemen in the Diet.”... “Last night, after a long interval, I had again a couple of hours of good deep sleep. At first I could not get off to sleep, worrying and pondering over all sorts of things. Then suddenly I saw Varzin before me, quite distinctly to the smallest detail like a big picture, with all the colours even—green trees, the sunshine on the stems and a blue sky above it all. I saw each single tree. I tried to get rid of it, but it came back and tormented me, and at length when it faded away it was replaced by other pictures, documents, notes, despatches, until at last towards morning I fell asleep.”

Whilst Bucher and myself were alone at tea, he told me that Delbrück, who is the “Liberal Minister,” holds with the Liberals and is “thinking of the future.” “At an early stage of his career the Chief offered him the Ministry of Commerce. Delbrück declined it, saying: ‘Yes, Excellency, but you may not remain long yourself, and I should prefer not to accept it. What should I do if you retired? I should be obliged to go too and renounce official life, and of course that would not do.’”

[p. 392]

## CHAPTER XV

CHAUDORDY AND THE TRUTH—OFFICERS OF BAD FAITH—FRENCH GARBLING—THE CROWN PRINCE DINES WITH THE CHIEF.

Friday, December 16th.—In the morning I wrote several articles on M. de Chaudordy’s circular as to the barbarity with which we are alleged to conduct the war. They were to the following effect. In addition to the calumnies that have been circulated for months past by the French press with the object of exciting public opinion against us, a document has now been issued by the Provisional Government itself for the purpose of prejudicing foreign Courts and Cabinets by means of garbled and exaggerated accounts of our conduct in the present war. An official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Tours, M. de Chaudordy, impeaches us in a circular to the neutral Powers. Let us consider the main points in his statement and see how the matter stands in reality, and who can be justly charged with barbarous methods of warfare, ourselves or the French.

He asserts that we make excessive requisitions, and abuse our power in the occupied towns and districts to extort impossible contributions. We are further stated to have seized private property, and to have cruelly burnt down towns and villages, whose inhabitants have[p. 393] offered resistance, or have in any way assisted in the defence of their country. Our accuser says: “Commanding officers have ordered a town to be plundered and burnt down as a punishment for the acts of individual citizens whose sole crime consisted in resisting the invaders, thus misusing the inexorable discipline imposed upon their troops. Every house in which a franctireur had been concealed, or received a meal, has been burnt down. How can this be reconciled with respect for private property?” The circular states that in firing upon open towns we have introduced a procedure hitherto unexampled in war. Finally, in addition to all our other cruelties, we take hostages with us on railway journeys to secure ourselves against the removal of the rails and other injuries and dangers.

In reply to these charges we offer the following observations. If M. de Chaudordy understood anything about war, he would not complain of the sacrifices which our operations have imposed upon the French people, but would, on the contrary, be surprised at our relative moderation. Moreover, the German troops respect private property everywhere, although they can certainly not be expected, after long marches and severe fighting, and after enduring cold and hunger, to refrain from securing as comfortable quarters as possible, or from demanding, or, if the inhabitants have fled, helping themselves to absolute necessaries such as food, drink, firing, &c. Moreover, instead of seizing private property, as M. de Chaudordy asserts, our soldiers have frequently done the reverse, and at the risk of their own lives, rescued for the owners works of art and other valuables which were endangered by the fire of the French guns. We have burnt down villages, but does our accuser know nothing of our reasons for doing so? Is he not aware[p. 394] that in those villages franctireurs have treacherously fired upon our people, and that the inhabitants have given every possible assistance to the murderers? Has he heard nothing of the franctireurs who recently left Fontaines, and who boldly stated that the object of their march was to inspect the houses in the neighbourhood which were worth pillaging? Can he bring forward a single well-established case of outrage committed by our soldiers such as those of which the Turcos and French guerillas have been guilty? Have our troops cut off the noses or ears of their wounded or dead opponents, as the French did at Coulours on the 30th of November? On the 11th of December, when 800 German prisoners should have been brought into Lille, only 200 of them actually arrived. Many of these were severely wounded, yet instead of affording them succour, the people of the town pelted them with snowballs, and shouted to the soldiers to bayonet them. The frequency with which the French have fired at the bearers of flags of truce is something unheard of. There is good evidence for the truth of the following incident, however incredible it may appear. On the 2nd of December, a German sergeant named Steinmetz, at the express desire of an officer of the Garibaldian troops, wrote a letter to his lieutenant in Mirecourt, stating that if our side took reprisals against Vittel or other places in the neighbourhood, the ears of fourteen Prussian prisoners, who had fallen into the hands of the guerillas in a surprise attack, would be cut off.

In many instances we have not treated those volunteers as soldiers, but that was only in cases where they did not act as soldiers, but on the contrary, followed the principles recommended by the Prefect, Luce Villiard, in the address issued by him through[p. 395] the Maires to the peasants of the Côte d’Or department. M. Villiard said: “The country does not demand that you should collect in large masses and openly oppose the enemy. It expects that every morning three or four resolute men amongst you shall leave your villages and select some good natural position from which you can fire upon the Prussians without risk. You must above all direct your fire against the enemy’s cavalry, and bring their horses in to the chief district towns. I will distribute premiums amongst you, and your heroic deeds shall be published in all the newspapers of the Provinces as well as in the Official Journal.”

We have bombarded open cities, such as Orleans, but is M. de Chaudordy not aware that they were occupied by the enemy? And has he forgotten that the French bombarded the open towns of Saarbrücken and Kehl? Finally, as to the hostages who were obliged to accompany the railway trains, they were taken not to serve as a hindrance to French heroism, but as a precaution against treacherous crime. The railway does not convey merely soldiers, arms, ammunition and other war material, against which it may be allowable to use violent measures: it also conveys great numbers of wounded, doctors, hospital attendants and other perfectly harmless persons. Is a peasant or a franctireur to be allowed to endanger hundreds of those lives by removing a rail or laying a stone upon the line? Let the French see that the security of the railway trains is no longer threatened and the journeys made by those hostages will be merely outings, or our people may even be able to forgo such precautionary measures. We forbear to deal any further with the charges of M. de Chaudordy. The European Cabinets are aware of the humane sentiments which inspire German methods of[p. 396] warfare, and they will easily be able to form a just estimate of the value of these charges. War, moreover, is and remains war, and it cannot be waged with velvet gloves. We should perhaps less frequently employ the iron gloves if the Government of National Defence had not declared a people’s war, which invariably leads to greater harshness than a conflict between regular armies.

Bohlen, who is still unwell, Hatzfeldt, who is indisposed, and Keudell, who received a command to dine with the King, were absent from dinner. Count Holnstein and Prince Putbus were present as guests. The first subject to be touched upon was the Bavarian Treaty, which Holnstein expected would be approved of by the second Bavarian Chamber, in which a two-thirds majority was necessary. It was already known that there were only some forty members opposed to it. It was also practically certain that it would not be rejected by the Upper House.

“Thuengen will doubtless be in favour of it,” observed the Chief.

“I believe so,” replied Holnstein, “as he also voted in favour of joining in the war.”

“Yes,” said the Minister, “he is one of the honest Particularists; but there are some who are not honest and who have other objects in view.”

“Certainly,” added Holnstein. “Some of the patriots showed that quite clearly. They omitted the words, ‘For King and Country,’ retaining only ‘Mit Gott.’”

Putbus then referred to the approaching holidays, and said it would be a good idea to give the people in the hospital a Christmas tree. A collection had been started for that purpose, and 2,500 francs had already been received. “Pless and I put down our names,” he said.[p. 397] “The subscription list was then laid before the Grand Duke of Weimar, and he gave 300 francs; and the Coburger, who was then attacked, gave 200. He would certainly have been glad to get out of it. He should at least have contrived not to give more than Weimar or less than Pless.” “It must certainly have been very disagreeable to him,” said the Minister. Putbus: “But why? He is a rich man!” The Chief: “Very rich!” Putbus: “Why, certainly, he has come in for an enormous forest which is worth over a million.” The Chief: “The Crown Princess secured that for him through all sorts of stratagems, which she also tried on with me. But I have done with him. He shall never get my signature again.” Putbus: “Besides, 200 francs! He ought not to feel it so much. It is not much more than fifty thalers. But it is just like him!” Putbus then said they intended to submit the list of subscriptions to his Majesty, whereupon the Chief remarked: “Then you will also allow me to join.” Putbus afterwards added that Weimar had “not shown himself over-generous in other matters. He established an ambulance for his regiment, where a couple of officers are now being cared for. He demanded payment for their keep from the Commandant, which of course only the doctors are entitled to do.” “But surely they have not given it to him?” said the Chief. Putbus: “Oh, yes; they have though, but not without making some remarks on the subject that led to a great deal of bad language on his part.”

It was then mentioned that a French balloon had fallen down near Wetzlar and that Ducrot was said to be in it. “I suppose he will be shot then,” said Putbus. “No,” replied the Chief. “The common jail. Ten years’ penal servitude. If he is brought before a court-martial nothing will happen to him. But a Council of[p. 398] Honour would certainly condemn him. So I have been told by officers.”

“Any other news on military matters?” asked Putbus.

“Perhaps at the General Staff,” replied the Minister, “but we know nothing here. We only get such information as can be obtained by dint of begging, and that is little enough.”

Later on it was stated that the Government of National Defence was thinking of contracting a new loan. Turning to me, the Minister said: “It may be useful to call attention in the press to the danger investors run in lending money to this Government. It would be well to say that the loans made to the present Government might possibly not be recognised by that with which we concluded peace, and that we might even make that one of the conditions of the peace. That should be sent to the English and Belgian press in particular.”

Löwinsohn mentioned to me in the evening that a Conservative of high position, from whom he sometimes obtained information, had said to him that his friends were anxious to know what the King was going to say to the deputation from the Reichstag. It was understood that he was not pleased at their coming, as only the first Reichstag which would represent all Germany, and not the North German Reichstag, could tender him the imperial crown. (Doubtless the King is thinking less of the Reichstag, which cannot proffer him the imperial dignity independently, but only in concert with the Princes in the name of the whole people, than of the Princes themselves, all of whom will not as yet have replied to the proposal of the King of Bavaria.) Furthermore, this Conservative of high position would[p. 399] prefer to see the King become Emperor of Prussia. (A matter of taste.) Under the other arrangement Prussia will be lost in Germany, and that arouses scruples in his mind. Löwinsohn also reported that the Crown Prince is very indignant at certain correspondents who compared Châteaudun to Pompeii, and drew lively pictures of the devastation of the country owing to the war. I suggested to Löwinsohn that he should deal with the subject of the new French loan and that of “Chaudordy and Garibaldi’s ear-clippers” in the Indépendance Belge, with which he is connected. He promised to do this to-morrow.

An article for the Kölnische Zeitung on the new French loan was accordingly despatched in the following form:—

“Yet another loan! With wicked unconcern the gentlemen who now preside over the fortunes of France and who are plunging her deeper and deeper into moral and material ruin, are also trying to exploit foreign countries. This was to be anticipated for some time past, and we are therefore not surprised at it. We would, however, call the attention of the financial world to the very obvious dangers accompanying the advantages which will be offered to them. We will indicate there in a few words, in order to make the matter clear. High interest and a low rate of issue may be very tempting. But, on the other hand, the Government which makes this loan is recognised neither by the whole of France nor by a single European Power. Moreover, it should be remembered that we have already stated our intention that measures would be taken to prevent the repayment of certain loans which French municipalities tried to raise for the purposes of the war. We imagine that is a sufficient hint that the same[p. 400] principle might be applied on a larger scale. The French Government which concludes peace with Prussia and her allies (and that will presumably not be the present Government) will in all probability be bound, among other conditions of peace, not to recognise as binding the engagements for payment of interest and redemption of loans made by MM. Gambetta and Favre. The Government referred to will unquestionably have the right to do this, as those gentlemen, although it is true they speak in the name of France, have received no mission and no authority from the country. People should therefore be on their guard.”

Wollmann came up to me after 10 o’clock, and said that the deputation from the Reichstag had arrived. Their chairman, Simson, was now with the Chief, who would doubtless inform him of the King’s disinclination to receive them before all the Princes had sent letters declaring their approval. These letters would go first to the King of Bavaria, who would afterwards send them to our King. All the Princes had already telegraphed their approval—only Lippe still appeared to entertain scruples. Probably in consequence of this postponement it will be necessary for a few members of the deputation to fall ill.

Saturday, December 17th.—In the course of the forenoon I wrote a second paragraph on the new French loan.

In the afternoon wrote another article on the ever-increasing instances of French officers breaking their parole and absconding from the places where they were interned, and returning to France to take service against us again. Over fifty of these cases have occurred up to the present. They include officers of all ranks, and even three generals—namely, Ducrot, Cambriel, and Barral.[p. 401] After the battle of Sedan we could have rendered the army that was shut up in that fortress harmless by destroying it. Humanity, however, and faith in their pledged word induced us to forgo that measure. The capitulation was granted, and we were justified in considering that all the officers had agreed to its terms and were prepared to fulfil the conditions which it imposed. If that was not the case we ought to have been informed of the fact. We should then have treated those exceptions in an exceptional way, that is to say, not accorded to the officers in question the same treatment that was granted to the others. In other words, they would not have been allowed the liberty which they have now abused in such a disgraceful manner. It is true that the great majority of the captive officers have kept their word, and one might therefore have dismissed the matter with a shrug of the shoulders. But the affair assumes another aspect when the French Provisional Government approves this breach of their pledged word by reappointing such officers to the regiments that are opposing us in the field. Has there been a single case in which one of these deserters was refused readmission to the ranks of the French army? Or have any French officers protested against the readmission of such comrades into their corps? It is, therefore, not the Government alone, but also the officers of France, who consider this disgraceful conduct to be correct. The consequence, however, will be that the German Governments will feel bound in duty to consider whether the alleviation of their imprisonment hitherto accorded to French officers is consistent with the interests of Germany. And further, we must ask ourselves the question whether we shall be justified in placing confidence in any of the promises of the present French Government[p. 402] when it wants to treat with Germany, without material guarantees and pledges.

We were joined at dinner by Herr Arnim-Krochlendorff, a brother-in-law of the Chief, a gentleman of energetic aspect, and apparently a little over fifty. The Minister was in very good humour, but the conversation this time was not particularly interesting. It chiefly turned upon the bombardment, and the attitude assumed towards that question by a certain party at headquarters. Arnim related that when Grävenitz spoke to the Crown Prince on the matter, the latter exclaimed: “Impossible! nothing to be done; it would be to no purpose,” and when Grävenitz ventured to argue the point, the Prince declared: “Well, then, if you know better, do it! Bombard it yourself!” To which Grävenitz replied: “Your Royal Highness, I can only fire a feu de joie (ich kann nur Victoria schiessen).” The Chief remarked: “That sounds very equivocal.” The Crown Prince told me the same thing, viz., if I thought the bombardment would be successful, I had better take over the command. I replied that I should like to very much—for twenty-four hours, but not longer. He then added in French, doubtless on account of the servants: “For I do not understand anything about it, although I believe I know as much as he does, for he has no great knowledge of these matters.”

Sunday, December 18th.—At 2 o’clock the Chief drove off to the Prefecture for the purpose of introducing the deputation of the Reichstag to the King. The Princes residing in Versailles were in attendance upon his Majesty. After 2 o’clock the King, accompanied by the Heir Apparent and Princes Charles and Adalbert, entered the reception room where the other Princes, the Chancellor of the Confederation, and the Generals grouped themselves[p. 403] around him. Among those present were the Grand Dukes of Baden, Oldenburg and Weimar, the Dukes of Coburg and Meiningen, the three Hereditary Grand Dukes, Prince William of Würtemberg and a number of other princely personages. Simson delivered his address to the King, who answered very much in the sense that had been anticipated. A dinner of eighty covers, which was given at 5 o’clock, brought the ceremony to a close.

On our way back from the park Wollmann told me that the Chief had recently written to the King requesting to be permitted to take part in the councils of war. The answer, however, was that he had always been called to join in councils of a political nature, as in 1866, that a similar course would also be followed in future, and that he ought to be satisfied with that. (This story is probably not quite correct, for Wollmann is incapable of being absolutely accurate.)

Monday, December 19th.—I again wrote calling attention to the international revolution which arrays its guerilla bands and heroes of the barricades against us. The article was to the following effect. We understood at first that we were only fighting with France, and that was actually the case up to Sedan. After the 4th of September another power rose up against us, namely the universal Republic, an international association of cosmopolitan enthusiasts who dream of the United States of Europe, &c.

In the afternoon I took a walk in the park, in the course of which I twice met the Chief driving with Simson, the President of the Reichstag. The Minister was invited to dine with the Crown Prince at 7 o’clock, but first joined our table for half an hour. He spoke of his drive with Simson: “The last time he was here was after the July Revolution in 1830. I thought he would[p. 404] be interested in the park and the beautiful views, but he showed no sign of it. It would appear that he has no feeling for landscape beauty. There are many people of that kind. So far as I am aware, there are no Jewish landscape painters, indeed no Jewish painters at all.” Some one mentioned the names of Meyerheim and Bendemann. “Yes,” the Chief replied, “Meyerheim; but Bendemann had only Jewish grandparents. There are plenty of Jewish composers—Mendelssohn, Halevy—but painters! It is true that the Jew paints, but only when he is not obliged to earn his bread thereby.”

Abeken alluded to the sermon which Rogge preached yesterday in the palace church, and said that he had made too much of the Reichstag deputation. He then added some slighting remarks about the Reichstag in general. The Chief replied: “I am not at all of that opinion—not in the least. They have just voted us another hundred millions, and in spite of their doctrinaire views they have adopted the Versailles treaties, which must have cost many of them a hard struggle. We ought to place that, at least, to their credit.”

Abeken then talked about the events at Ems which preceded the outbreak of the war, and related that on one occasion, after a certain despatch had been sent off, the King said, “Well, he” (Bismarck) “will be satisfied with us now!” And Abeken added, “I believe you were.” “Well,” replied the Chancellor, laughing, “you may easily be mistaken. That is to say I was quite satisfied with you. But not quite as much with our Most Gracious, or rather not at all. He ought to have acted in a more dignified way—and more resolutely.” “I remember,” he continued, “how I received the news at Varzin. I had gone out, and on my return the first telegram had been delivered. As I started on my[p. 405] journey I had to pass our pastor’s house at Wussow. He was standing at his gate and saluted me. I said nothing, but made a thrust in the air—thus” (as if he were making a thrust with a sword). “He understood me, and I drove on.” The Minister then gave some particulars of the wavering and hesitation that went on up to a certain incident, which altered the complexion of things, and was followed by the declaration of war. “I expected to find another telegram in Berlin answering mine, but it had not arrived. In the meantime I invited Moltke and Roon to dine with me that evening, and to talk over the situation, which seemed to me to be growing more and more unsatisfactory. Whilst we were dining, another long telegram was brought in. As I read it to them—it must have been about two hundred words—they were both actually terrified, and Moltke’s whole being suddenly changed. He seemed to be quite old and infirm. It looked as if our Most Gracious might knuckle under after all. I asked him (Moltke) if, as things stood, we might hope to be victorious. On his replying in the affirmative, I said, ‘Wait a minute!’ and seating myself at a small table I boiled down those two hundred words to about twenty, but without otherwise altering or adding anything. It was Abeken’s telegram, yet something different—shorter, more determined, less dubious. I then handed it over to them, and asked, ‘Well, how does that do now?’ ‘Yes,’ they said, ‘it will do in that form.’ And Moltke immediately became quite young and fresh again. He had got his war, his trade. And the thing really succeeded. The French were fearfully angry at the condensed telegram as it appeared in the newspapers, and a couple of days later they declared war against us.”

The conversation then wandered back to Pomerania,[p. 406] and if I am not mistaken to Varzin, where the Chief had, he said, taken much interest in a Piedmontese who had remained behind after the great French wars. This man had raised himself to a position of consequence, and although originally a Catholic, had actually become a vestryman. The Minister mentioned other people who had settled and prospered in places where they had been accidentally left behind. There were also Italians taken as prisoners of war to a district in Further Pomerania, where they remained and founded families whose marked features still distinguish them from their neighbours.

The Minister did not return from the Crown Prince’s until past ten o’clock, and we then heard that the Crown Prince was coming to dine with us on the following evening.

Tuesday, December 20th.—On the instructions of the Chief I wrote two articles for circulation in Germany.

The first was as follows: “We have already found it necessary on several occasions to correct a misunderstanding or an intentional garbling of the words addressed by King William to the French people on the 11th of August last. We are now once more confronted with the same attempt to falsify history, and to our surprise in a publication by an otherwise respectable French historian. In a pamphlet entitled La France et la Prusse devant l’Europe, M. d’Haussonville puts forward an assertion which does little credit to his love of truth, or let us say his scientific accuracy. The whole pamphlet is shallow and superficial. It is full of exaggerations and errors, and of assertions that have no more value than mere baseless rumours. Of the gross blunders of the writer, who is obviously[p. 407] blinded by patriotic passion, we will only mention that, according to him, King William was on the throne during the Crimean War. But apart from this and other mistakes, we have here only to deal with his attempt to garble the proclamation issued to the French in August last, which, it may be observed, was written in French as well as in German, so that a misunderstanding would appear to be out of the question. According to M. d’Haussonville the King said: ‘I am only waging war against the Emperor and not at all against France.’ (Je ne fais la guerre qu’à l’Empereur, et nullement à la France.) As a matter of fact, however, the document in question says: ‘The German nation, which desired and still desires to live in peace with France, having been attacked at sea and on land by the Emperor Napoleon, I have taken the command of the German armies for the purpose of repelling this aggression. Owing to the course taken by the military operations, I have been led to cross the French frontier. I wage war against the soldiers and not against the citizens of France.’ (L’Empereur Napoléon ayant attaqué par terre et par mer la nation allemande, qui désirait et désire encore vivre en paix avec le peuple français, j’ai pris le commandement des armées allemandes pour repousser l’agression, et j’ai été amené par les événements militaires à passer les frontières de la France. Je fais la guerre aux soldats, et non aux citoyens français.) The next sentence excludes all possibility of mistake as to the meaning of the foregoing statement: ‘They (the French citizens) will accordingly continue to enjoy complete security of person and property so long as they themselves do not deprive me of the right to accord them my protection by acts of hostility against the German troops.’ (Ceux-ci[p. 408] continueront, par conséquent, à jouir d’une complète sécurité pour leur personnes et leur biens, aussi longtemps qu’ils ne me priveront eux-mêmes par des entreprises hostiles contre les troupes allemandes du droit de leur accorder ma protection.) There is, in our opinion, a very obvious difference between d’Haussonville’s quotation and the original proclamation, and no obscurity can possibly be discovered in the latter to excuse a mistake.”

The second item ran thus: “The Delegation from the Government of National Defence, which is at present in Bordeaux, has satisfied itself that further resistance to the German forces is useless, and it would, with the approval even of M. Gambetta, be prepared to conclude peace on the basis of the demands put forward by Germany. It is understood, however, that General Trochu has decided to continue the war. The Delegation entered into an engagement from Tours with General Trochu not to negotiate for peace without his consent. According to other reports General Trochu has had provisions for several months stored in the fortress of Mont Valérien, so that he may fall back upon that position after Paris has had to capitulate with a sufficient force to exercise influence upon the fate of France after the conclusion of peace. His object, it is believed, is to promote the interests of the Orleans family, of which General Trochu is understood to be an adherent.”

On my taking these paragraphs into the office to have them sent off, Keudell told me the Chief had agreed that henceforth all State papers received and despatched should be shown to me if I asked for them.

The Crown Prince and his aide-de-camp arrived shortly after six o’clock. The former had on his shoulder[p. 409] straps the badges of his new military rank as field-marshal. He sat at the head of the table, with the Chief on his right and Abeken on his left. After the soup the conversation first turned on the subject which I had this morning worked up for the press, namely, that according to a communication from Israel, the secretary of Laurier, who acts as agent for the Provisional Government in London, Gambetta no longer believed in the possibility of successful resistance, and was disposed to conclude peace on the basis of our demands. Trochu was the only member of the Government who wished to continue the struggle, but on his undertaking the defence of Paris, the others had bound themselves to act in concert with him in this respect.

The Chancellor observed: “He is understood to have had Mont Valérien provisioned for two months, so that he may fall back upon that position with the regular troops when it becomes necessary to surrender the city—probably in order to influence the conclusion of peace.” He then continued: “Indeed, I believe that France will break up into several pieces—the country is already split up into parties. There are great differences of opinion between the different districts. Legitimists in Brittany, Red Republicans in the south, and Moderate Republicans elsewhere, while the regular army is still for the Emperor, or at least the majority of the officers are. It is possible that each section will follow its own convictions, one being Republican, another Bourbon, and a third Orleanist, according to the party that happens to have the most adherents, and then Napoleon’s people—tetrarchies of Judea, Galilee, &c.”

The Crown Prince said it was believed that Paris must have a subterranean communication with the outer world. The Chief thought so too, and added: “But[p. 410] they cannot get provisions in that way, although, of course, they can receive news. I have been thinking whether it might not be possible to flood the catacombs from the Seine, and thus inundate the lower parts of the city. Of course the catacombs go under the Seine.”

The Chief then said that if Paris could be taken now it would produce a good effect upon public opinion in Bavaria, whence the reports were again unsatisfactory. Bray was not to be trusted, had not the interests of Germany at heart, inclined to the Ultramontanes, had a Neapolitan wife, felt happiest in his memories of Vienna, where he lived for a long time, and seemed disposed to tack about again. “The King is, after all, the best of them all in the upper circles,” said the Chancellor, “but he seems to be in bad health and eccentric, and nobody knows what may yet happen.” “Yes, indeed,” said the Crown Prince. “How bright and handsome he was formerly—a little too slight, but otherwise the very ideal of a young man. Now his complexion is yellow, and he looks old. I was quite shocked when I saw him.” “The last time I saw him,” said the Chancellor, “was at his mother’s at Nymphenburg, in 1863, when the Congress of Princes was being held. Even at that time he had a strange look in his eyes. I remember that, when dining, he on one occasion drank no wine, and on another took eight or ten glasses—not at intervals, but hastily, one glass after another, at one draught, so that the servant scarcely liked to keep on filling his glass.”

The conversation then turned on the Bavarian Prince Charles, who was said to be strongly anti-Prussian, but too old and feeble to be very dangerous to the cause of German unity. Some one remarked: “Nature has very little to do with him as it is.” “That[p. 411] reminds me of old Count Adlerberg,” said the Minister, “who was also mostly artificial—hair, teeth, calves, and one eye. When he wanted to get up in the morning all his best parts lay on chairs and tables near the bed. You remember the newly-married man in the Fliegende Blätter who watched his bride take herself to pieces, lay her hair on the toilet table, her teeth on the chimney-piece, and other fragments elsewhere, and then exclaimed, ‘But what remains for me?’” Moreover, Adlerberg, he went on to say, was a terrible bore, and it was owing to him that Countess Bismarck once fainted at a diplomatic dinner where she was seated between him and Stieglitz. “She always faints when she is exceptionally bored, and for that reason I never take her with me to diplomatic dinners.” “That is a pretty compliment for the diplomats,” observed the Crown Prince.

The Chief then related that one evening, not long ago, the sentry on guard at the Crown Prince’s quarters did not want to let him go in, and only agreed to do so on his addressing him in Polish. “A few days ago I also tried to talk Polish with the soldiers in the hospital, and they brightened up wonderfully on hearing a gentleman speak their mother tongue. It is a pity that my vocabulary was exhausted. It would, perhaps, be a good thing if their commander-in-chief could speak to them.” “There you are, Bismarck, coming back to the old story,” said the Crown Prince, smiling. “No, I don’t like Polish and I won’t learn it. I do not like the people.” “But, your Royal Highness, they are, after all, good soldiers and honest fellows when they have been taught to wash themselves and not to pilfer.” The Crown Prince: “Yes, but when they cast off the soldier’s tunic they are just what they were[p. 412] before, and at bottom they are and still remain hostile to us.” The Chief: “As to their hostility, that only applies to the nobles and their labourers, and all that class. A noble, who has nothing himself, feeds a crowd of people, servants of all sorts, who also belong to the minor nobility, although they act as his domestics, overseers, and clerks. These stand by him when he rises in rebellion, and also the Komorniks, or day labourers.... The independent peasantry does not join them, however, even when egged on by the priests, who are always against us. We have seen that in Posen, when the Polish regiments had to be removed merely because they were too cruel to their own fellow countrymen.... I remember at our place in Pomerania there was a market, attended, on one occasion, by a number of Kassubes (Pomeranian Poles). A quarrel broke out between one of them and a German, who refused to sell him a cow because he was a Pole. The Kassube was mortally offended, and shouted out: ‘You say I’m a Polack. No, I’m just as much a Prussack as yourself;’ and then, as other Germans and Poles joined in, it soon developed into a beautiful free fight.”

The Chief then added that the Great Elector spoke Polish as well as German, and that his successors also understood that language. Frederick the Great was the first who did not learn it, but then he also spoke better French than German. “That may be,” said the Crown Prince, “but I am not going to learn Polish. I do not like it. They must learn German.” With this remark the subject was allowed to drop.

At dessert the Crown Prince, after asking if he might smoke a pipe, pulled out a short one with a porcelain bowl, on which an eagle was painted, while the rest of us lit our cigars.

[p. 413]

After dinner the Crown Prince and the Minister retired with the Councillors to the drawing-room, where they took coffee. Later on we were all sent for, and formally presented to the future Emperor by the Chief. We had to wait for about a quarter of an hour while the Chancellor was deep in conversation with the Crown Prince. His august guest stood in the corner near one of the windows. The Chief spoke to him in a low tone, with his eyes mostly cast down, while the Crown Prince listened with a serious and almost sullen look.

After the presentation I returned to the bureau, where I read the diplomatic reports and drafts of the last few days, amongst others the draft of the King’s reply to the Reichstag deputation. This had been prepared by Abeken, and greatly altered by the Chief. Then an instruction from the Minister to the Foreign Office to the effect that if the Provinzial-Correspondenz should again contain a commendation of Gambetta’s energy or anything of that kind, every possible means should be immediately employed to prevent the publication. Also a report from Prince Reuss to the effect that Gortschakoff had replied in a negative sense to a sentimental communication of Gabriac’s, adding that all the Russian Cabinet could do for the French at present was to act as letter-carrier in conveying their wishes to the Prussian Government.

At tea Hatzfeldt told me he had been trying to decipher a Dutch report from Van Zuylen, which had been brought out with Washburne’s mail, and had succeeded, though there were still a few doubtful points. He then showed it to me, and together we contrived to puzzle out some more of it. The despatch seems to be based throughout on good information, and to give a faithful account of the situation.

[p. 414]

At 10.30 P.M. summoned to the Chief, who wants the Moniteur to mention Gambetta’s inclination to forgo further resistance and Trochu’s plan respecting Mont Valérien.

Wednesday, December 21st.—At dinner the Chief spoke of his great-grandfather, who, if I rightly understood him, fell at Czaslau. “The old people at our place often described him to my father. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord, and a great toper. Once in a single year he shot 154 red deer, a feat which Prince Frederick Charles will scarcely emulate, although the Duke of Dessau might. I remember being told that when he was stationed at Gollnow, the officers messed together, the Colonel presiding over the kitchen. It was the custom there for five or six dragoons to march in and fire a volley from their carbines at each toast. Altogether they had very curious customs. For instance, instead of a plank bed they had as a punishment a so-called wooden donkey with sharp edges, upon which the men who had been guilty of any breach of discipline were obliged to sit, often for a couple of hours—a very painful punishment. On the birthday of the Colonel or of other officers, the soldiers always carried this donkey to the bridge and threw it into the river. But a new one was invariably provided. The Burgomaster’s wife told my father that it must have been renewed a hundred times. I have a portrait of this great-grandfather in Berlin. I am the very image of him, that is to say, I was when I was young—when I saw myself in the looking-glass.”

The Minister then related that it was owing to a relative of his, Finanzrath Kerl, that he was sent to Göttingen University. He was consigned to Professor Hausmann, and was to study mineralogy. “They were thinking,[p. 415] no doubt, of Leopold von Buch, and fancied it would be fine for me to go through the world like him, hammer in hand, chipping pieces off the rocks. Things, however, turned out differently. It would have been better if I had been sent to Bonn, where I should have met countrymen of my own. At Göttingen I had no one from my own part of the country, and so I met none of my University acquaintances again until I saw a few of them in the Reichstag.”

Abeken said that after a brisk fire from the forts this morning there had been a sortie of the Paris garrison, which was principally directed against the positions occupied by the Guards. It was, however, scarcely more than an artillery engagement, as the attack was known beforehand and preparations had been made to meet it. Hatzfeldt said he should like to know how they were able to discover that a sortie was going to take place. It was suggested that in the open country movements of transport and guns could not escape detection, as large masses of troops could not be concentrated on the point of attack in one night. “That was quite true,” observed the Chief, with a laugh; “but often a hundred louis d’ors also form an important part of this military prescience.”

After dinner I read drafts and despatches, from which I ascertained, amongst other things, that as early as the 1st of September, Prussia had intimated in St. Petersburg that she would put no difficulties in the way of such action in the matter of the Black Sea as has now been taken.

Later on I arranged that Löwinsohn should deal with the Gambetta-Trochu question in the Indépendance Belge. Also informed him that Delbrück would be here again on the 28th inst.

[p. 416]

Thursday, December 22nd.—This time there were no strangers at dinner. The Chief was in excellent spirits, but the conversation was of no special importance.

A reference was made to yesterday’s sortie, and the Chief remarked: “The French came out yesterday with three divisions, and we had only fifteen companies, not even four battalions, and yet we made nearly a thousand prisoners. The Parisians with their attacks, now here and now there, remind me of a French dancing master conducting a quadrille.

“Ma commère, quand je danse
Mon cotillon, va-t-il bien?
Il va de ci, il va de là,
Comme la queue de notre chat.”

Later on the Chief remarked: “Our august master is not at all pleased at the idea of Antonelli at length deciding to come here. He is uneasy about it. I am not.” Abeken said: “The newspapers express very different opinions about Antonelli. At one time he is described as a man of great intelligence and acumen; then again as a sly intriguer, and shortly afterwards as a stupid fellow and a blockhead.” The Chief replied: “It is not in the press alone that you meet with such contradictions. It is the same with many diplomats. Goltz and our Harry (von Arnim). We will leave Goltz out of the question—that was different. But Harry—to-day this way and to-morrow that! When I used to read a number of his reports together at Varzin, I found his opinion of people change entirely a couple of times every week, according as he had met with a friendly or unfriendly reception. As a matter of fact, he sent different opinions by every post, and often by the same post.”

Afterwards read reports from Rome, London, and[p. 417] Constantinople, and the replies sent to them. According to Arnim’s despatch, Monsignor Franchi informed him that the Pope and Antonelli wished to send a mission to Versailles to congratulate the King on his accession to the imperial dignity, and at the same time to induce the French clergy to promote the liberation of the country from Gambetta, and the negotiation of peace with us on the basis of a cession of territory. In certain circumstances Antonelli himself would undertake the task, in which the Archbishop of Tours had failed, of securing an acceptable peace. In reply to this communication Arnim was informed that it was still uncertain whether Bavaria would agree to the scheme of Emperor and Empire. We should, nevertheless, carry it through. But, in that case, its chief support having been found in public opinion, the (mainly Ultramontane) elements of resistance would be in still more marked opposition to the new Germany. Bernstorff reports that the former Imperial Minister, Duvernois, had called upon him at Eugénie’s instance and suggested a cession of territory to us equal in extent to that acquired by the Empire in Nice and Savoy. The Empress wished to issue a proclamation. Persigny was of a different opinion, as he considered the Empress to be impossible. Bonnechose, the Archbishop of Rouen, expressed a similar opinion to Manteuffel. The reply sent to Bernstorff was that we could not negotiate with the Empress (who, moreover, does not appear to be reliable or politically capable), unless Persigny was in agreement with her, and that Duvernois’ overture was unpractical. Aali Pasha is prepared to agree to the abolition of the neutrality of the Black Sea, but demands in compensation the full sovereignty of the Porte over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. This was telegraphed by us to St. Petersburg,[p. 418] and there agreed to; whereupon Brunnow (the Russian Ambassador in London) received the necessary instructions in the matter.

Friday, December 23rd.—It was mentioned at dinner that General von Voigts-Rhetz was outside Tours, the inhabitants having offered so much resistance that it was found necessary to shell the town. The Chief added, “He ought not to have stopped firing when they hoisted the white flag. I would have continued to shell them until they sent out four hundred hostages.” He again condemned the leniency of the officers towards civilians who offer resistance. Even notorious treachery was scarcely punished as it ought to be, and so the French imagined that they could do what they liked against us. “Here is, for instance, this Colonel Krohn,” he continued. “He first has a lawyer tried for aiding and abetting franctireurs, and then, when he sees him condemned, he sends in first one and then another petition for mercy, instead of letting the man be shot, and finally despatches the wife to me with a safe conduct. Yet he is generally supposed to be an energetic officer and a strict disciplinarian, but he can hardly be quite right in his head.”

From the discussion of this foolish leniency the conversation turned on General von Unger, Chief of the Staff to the 7th Army Corps, who had gone out of his mind, and had to be sent home. He is, it seems, generally moody and silent, but occasionally breaks out into loud weeping. “Yes,” sighed the Chief, “officers in that position are terribly harassed. Constantly at work, always responsible, and yet unable to get things done, and hampered by intrigue. Almost as bad as a Minister. I know that sort of crying myself. It is over-excitement of the nerves, hysterical weeping. I, too, had it at[p. 419] Nikolsburg, and badly. A Minister is just as badly treated—all sorts of worries—an incessant plague of midges. Other things can be borne, but one must be properly treated. I cannot endure shabby treatment. If I were not treated with courtesy, I should be inclined to throw my riband of the Black Eagle into the dustbin.”

The Versailles Moniteur having been mentioned, the Chief observed: “Last week they published a novel by Heyse, the scene of which is laid in Meran. Such sentimental twaddle is quite out of place in a paper published at the cost of the King, which after all this one is. The Versailles people do not want that either. They look for political news and military intelligence from France, from England, or, if you like, from Italy, but not such namby-pamby trash. I have also a touch of poetry in my nature, but the first few sentences of that stuff were enough for me.” Abeken, at whose instance the novel was published, stood up for the editor, and said the story had been taken from the Revue des Deux Mondes, an admittedly high-class periodical. The Chief, however, stuck to his own opinion. Somebody remarked that the Moniteur was now written in better French. “It may be,” said the Minister, “but that is a minor point. However, we are Germans, and as such we always ask ourselves, even in the most exalted regions, if we please our neighbours and if what we do is to their satisfaction. If they do not understand, let them learn German. It is a matter of indifference whether a proclamation is written in a good French style or not, so long as it is otherwise adequate and intelligible. Moreover, we cannot expect to be masters of a foreign language. A person who has only used it occasionally for some two and a half years[p. 420] cannot possibly express himself as well as one who has used it for fifty-four years.” Steinmetz’s proclamation then received some ironical praise, and a couple of extraordinary expressions were quoted from it. Lehndorff said: “It was not first-class French, but it was, at any rate, intelligible.” The Chief: “Yes, it is their business to understand it. If they cannot, let them find some one to translate it for them. Those people who fancy themselves merely because they speak good French are of no use to us. But that is our misfortune. Whoever cannot speak decent German is a made man, especially if he can murder English. Old —— (I understood: Meyendorff) once said to me: ‘Don’t trust any Englishman who speaks French with a correct accent.’ I have generally found that true. But I must make an exception in favour of Odo Russell.”

The name of Napoleon III. then came up. The Chief regarded him as a man of limited intelligence. “He is much more good-natured and much less acute than is usually believed.” “Why,” interrupted Lehndorff, “that is just what some one said of Napoleon I.: ‘a good honest fellow, but a fool.’” “But seriously,” continued the Chief, “whatever one may think of the coup d’état he is really good-natured, sensitive, even sentimental, while his intellect is not brilliant and his knowledge limited. He is a specially poor hand at geography, although he was educated in Germany, even going to school there,—and he entertains all sorts of visionary ideas. In July last he spent three days shilly-shallying without being able to come to a decision, and even now he does not know what he wants. People would not believe me when I told them so a long time ago. Already in 1854–55 I told the King, Napoleon has no notion of what we are. When I became Minister[p. 421] I had a conversation with him in Paris. He believed there would certainly be a rising in Berlin before long and a revolution all over the country, and in a plebiscite the King would have the whole people against him. I told him then that our people do not throw up barricades, and that revolutions in Prussia are only made by the Kings. If the King could only bear the strain for three or four years he would carry his point. Of course the alienation of public sympathy was unpleasant and inconvenient. But if the King did not grow tired and leave me in the lurch I should not fail. If an appeal were made to the population, and a plebiscite were taken, nine-tenths of them would vote for the King. At that time the Emperor said of me: ‘Ce n’est pas un homme sérieux.’ Of course I did not remind him of that in the weaver’s house at Donchery.”

Somebody then mentioned that letters to Favre began “Monsieur le Ministre,” whereupon the Chief said: “The next time I write to him I shall begin Hochwohlgeborner Herr!” This led to a Byzantine discussion of titles and forms of address, Excellenz, Hochwohlgeboren, and Wohlgeboren. The Chancellor entertained decidedly anti-Byzantine views. “All that should be dropped,” he said. “I do not use those expressions any longer in private letters, and officially I address councillors down to the third class as Hochwohlgeboren.”

Abeken, a Byzantine of the purest water, declared that diplomats had already resented the occasional omission of portions of their titles, and that only councillors of the second class were entitled to Hochwohlgeboren. “Well,” said the Chief, “I want to see all that kind of thing done away with as far as we are concerned. In that way we waste an ocean of ink in the course of the year, and the taxpayer has good reason to complain[p. 422] of extravagance. I am quite satisfied to be addressed simply as ‘Minister President Count von Bismarck.’”

Saturday, December 24.—Bucher told us at lunch he had heard from Berlin that the Queen and the Crown Princess had become very unpopular, owing to their intervention on behalf of Paris; and that the Princess, in the course of a conversation with Putbus, struck the table and exclaimed: “For all that, Paris shall not be bombarded!”

We are joined at dinner by Lieutenant-Colonel von Beckedorff, an old and intimate friend of the Chief, who said to him: “If I had been an officer—I wish I were—I should now have an army and we should not be here outside Paris.” He proceeded to give reasons for believing that it was a mistake to have waited and invested Paris. With regard to the operations of the last few weeks, he criticised the advance of the army so far to the north and south-west and the intention of advancing still further. “If it should become necessary to retire from Rouen and Tours, the French will think they have beaten us. It is an unpractical course to march on every place where a mob has been collected. We ought to remain within a certain line. It may be urged that in that case the French would be able to carry on their organisation beyond that line. But they will always be able to do that even if we advance, and we may be obliged ultimately to follow them to the Pyrenees and the Mediterranean.” “When we were still at Mainz, I thought that the best plan would be for us to take what we wanted to keep and occupy some five other departments as a pledge for the payment of the cost of the war, and then let the French try to drive us out of our positions.”

A further discussion of the conduct of the war[p. 423] followed, in the course of which the Chief remarked: “With us it occasionally happens that it is not so much the generals who begin and direct the course of battles as the troops themselves. Just as it was with the Greeks and Trojans. A couple of men jeer at each other and come to blows, lances are flourished, others rush in with their spears, and so it finally comes to a pitched battle. First the outposts fire without any necessity, then if all goes well others press forward after them; at the start a non-commissioned officer commands a batch of men, then a lieutenant advances with more men, after him comes the regiment, and finally the general must follow with all the troops that are left. It was in that way that the battle of Spicheren began, and also that of Gravelotte, which properly speaking should not have taken place until the 19th. It was different at Vionville. There our people had to spring at the French like bulldogs and hold them fast. At St. Privat the Guards made a foolish attack merely out of professional jealousy of the Saxons, and then when it failed threw the blame on the Saxon troops, who could not have come a minute sooner with the long march they had had to make, and who afterwards rescued them with wonderful gallantry.”

Later on I was summoned to see the Chief. Various articles are to be written on the barbarous manner in which the French are conducting the war—and not merely the franctireurs, but also the regulars, who are almost daily guilty of breaches of the Geneva Convention. The French appear only to know, and appeal to, those clauses that are advantageous to themselves. In this connection should be mentioned the firing at flags of truce, the ill-treatment and plundering of doctors and hospital bearers and attendants, the murder of[p. 424] wounded soldiers, the misuse of the Geneva Cross by franctireurs, the employment of explosive bullets, and the treatment of German ships and crews by French cruisers in breach of the law of nations. The conclusion to be as follows:—The present French Government is greatly to blame for all this. It has instigated a popular war and can no longer check the passions it has let loose, which disregard international law and the rules of war. They are responsible for all the severity which we are obliged to employ against our own inclinations and contrary to our nature and habits, as shown in the conduct of the Schleswig and Austrian campaigns.

At 10 P.M. the Chief received the first class of the Iron Cross.

At tea Hatzfeldt informs me that he is instructed to collect all the particulars published by the newspapers respecting the cruelties of the French, and asks whether I would not prefer to undertake that task. After I promised to do so, he continued: “Moreover, I believe the Chief only sent for me in order to tell me his opinion of the new decoration.” He said to Hatzfeldt: “I have already enough of these gewgaws, and here is the good King sending me the first class of the Iron Cross. I shall be thoroughly ridiculous with it, and look as if I had won a great battle. If I could at least send my son the second class which I no longer want!”

Sunday, December 25th.—Cardinal Bonnechose of Rouen is said to be coming here. He and Persigny want to convoke the old Legislative Assembly, and still more the Senate, which is composed of calmer and riper elements, in order to discuss the question of peace. The Chief is believed to have made representations to the King respecting the expediency, on political grounds, of greater concentration in the military operations.

[p. 425]

We had no guests at dinner, and the conversation was, for the most part, not worth repeating. The following may, however, be noted. Abeken said he had observed that I was keeping a very complete diary, and Bohlen added in his own lively style: “Yes, he writes down: ‘At 45 minutes past 3 o’clock Count or Baron So-and-so said this or that,’ as if he were going to swear to it at some future time.” Abeken said: “That will one day be material for history. If one could only live to read it!” I replied that it would certainly furnish material for history, and very trustworthy material, but not for thirty years to come. The Chief smiled and said: “Yes, and the reference will then be: ‘Conferas Buschii, cap. 3, p. 20.’”

After dinner I read State documents and ascertained from them that an extension of the German frontier towards the west was first officially submitted to the King, at Herny, on the 14th of August. It was only on the 2nd September that the Baden Government sent in a memorial in the same sense.

Monday, December 26th.—Waldersee dined with us. The conversation was almost entirely on military subjects. With respect to the further conduct of the war, the Chief said that the wisest course would be to concentrate our forces in Alsace-Lorraine, the department of the Meuse, and another neighbouring department, which would amount to a strip of territory with about 2,600,000 inhabitants. If one took in a few other departments in addition, without Paris, it would amount to about seven millions, or with Paris to about nine million inhabitants. In any case the operations should be limited to a smaller area than that occupied by our armies at present.

People’s ability to carry liquor was then discussed,[p. 426] and the Chief observed: “Formerly drink did not affect me in the least. When I think of my performances in that line! The strong wines, particularly Burgundy!” The conversation afterwards turned for a while on card-playing, and the Minister remarked that he had also done a good deal in that way formerly. He had once played twenty-one rubbers of whist, for instance, one after the other—“which amounts to seven hours time.” He could only feel an interest in cards when playing for high stakes, and then it was not a proper thing for the father of a family.

This subject had been introduced by a remark of the Chief’s that somebody was a “Riemchenstecher.” He asked if we understood what the word meant, and then proceeded to explain it. “Riemchenstechen” is an old soldiers’ game, and a “Riemchenstecher” is not exactly a scamp, but rather a sly, sharp fellow. The Minister then related how he had seen a father do his own son at cards out of a sum of twelve thousand thalers. “I saw him cheat, and made a sign to the son, who understood me. He lost the game and paid, although it cost him two years’ income. But he never played again.”

After dinner wrote another article on the barbarity with which the French wage war, and cut out for the King an article from the Staatsbuergerzeitung, recommending a less considerate treatment of the enemy.

[p. 427]

## CHAPTER XVI

FIRST WEEK OF THE BOMBARDMENT

On Tuesday, the 27th of December, the long-wished-for bombardment of Paris at length began, commencing on the east side. As the following particulars show, we at first knew nothing of it, and afterwards also it was only for a few days that the firing gave an impression of being particularly violent. We very soon grew accustomed to it, and it never entirely diverted our attention even from trifles, nor caused any lengthy interruption of our work or of the flow of thought. The French forts had been prepared for it. The diary may now resume its narrative.

From early morning on Tuesday until far into the day there was a heavy fall of snow and rather severe cold. In the morning Theiss, who serves Abeken as well as myself, and who seems to consider that our old Geheimrath is a Catholic, told me:—“He always reads his prayers in the morning. I believe it is Latin. He speaks very loud, so that he can sometimes be heard in the antechamber. Probably it’s a mass.” He then added that Abeken supposed the heavy firing that was heard from 7 A.M. was the commencement of the bombardment.

Wrote several letters to Berlin with instructions as[p. 428] to articles. Bray is to be sharply attacked by our newspapers. After 12 o’clock I telegraph to London on the instructions of the Chief that the bombardment of the outer fortifications began this morning. Our artillery has commenced with an attack upon Mont Avron, a redoubt near Bondy, and it appears that the Saxons had the honour to fire the first shot.

The Minister remained in bed the whole day, not because he was particularly unwell, but, as he told me, to maintain an equable warmth. He was also absent from dinner, at which we were joined by Count Solms. The only point of note in the conversation was Abeken’s mention of a very pretty poem in the Kladderadatsch, on the Duke of Coburg—probably a panegyric.

The Bonapartists seem to have become very active, and to entertain great plans. According to Bernstorff’s despatches Persigny and Palikao intend to get us to grant neutrality to Orleans, and to convoke there the Corps Législatif to decide whether the country is to have a republic or a monarchy, and if the latter which dynasty is to reign. It is intended, however, to wait for a while, until greater discouragement shall have made the people more accommodating. Bonnechose proposes to attempt a negotiation for peace between Germany and France. This prelate was formerly a lawyer, and only entered holy orders subsequently. He is considered to be intelligent, is connected with the Jesuits, and although in politics he is really a Legitimist he has a high opinion of Eugénie because of her piety. He was an ardent supporter of the doctrine of infallibility, and expects to be elected Pope, which position he has indeed some prospect of attaining. The Archbishop told Professor Wagener, who had been sent to see him by Manteuffel respecting the hospital arrangements,[p. 429] that he could induce Trochu, with whom he is acquainted, to surrender Paris in case we did not insist upon a cession of territory. The Archbishop suggested that instead of a cession of territory we might demand the return of Nice and Savoy to Victor Emmanuel, and then oblige the latter to restore their territories to the Pope and to the Sovereigns of Tuscany and Naples. In that way we should win renown as the protectors of order, and the restorers of justice in Europe. A strange idea indeed!

The Chief has given directions to adopt the severest measures against Noquet le Roi, where a surprise by franctireurs was assisted by the inhabitants. He has also rejected the appeal of the mayor and municipality of Chatillon to be relieved from a contribution of a million francs imposed upon the town as a penalty for similar conduct. In both cases he was guided by the principle that the population must be made to suffer by the war in order to render them more disposed to peace.

At 11 P.M. called to the Chief, who gave me several newspaper articles from Berlin “for the collection” (of examples of French barbarity in the conduct of the war which I have begun under his instructions), as well as two other articles that are to be sent to the King.

Wednesday, December 28th.—Snowfall and moderately cold. The Chief again kept to his room to-day. He handed me a letter in French, dated the 25th instant, which he had received from “Une Américaine.” I am to make what use I like of it. It runs as follows:—

“Graf von Bismarck. Jouissez autant que possible, Herr Graf, du climat frais de Versailles, car, un jour, vous aurez à supporter des châleurs infernales pour tous les malheurs que vous avez causés à la France et à l’Allemagne.” That is all!

[p. 430]

His Excellency Herr Delbrück again lunches with us. He is convinced that the Second Bavarian Chamber will ultimately approve the Versailles treaties just as the North German Diet did, respecting whose decision he had been really uneasy for some days.

Thursday, December 29th.—The Minister still remains in bed, but works there, and does not seem to be particularly unwell.

In the afternoon I translated for the King Granville’s despatch to Loftus respecting Bismarck’s circular on the Luxemburg affair. Afterwards studied documents. In the middle of October the Chief received a memorial from Coburg with proposals as to a reorganisation of Germany. These also included the restoration of the imperial dignity, and finally the substitution for the Bundesrath of a Federal Ministry, and the creation of a Reichsrath to consist of representatives of the Governments and delegates from the Diets. The Chief replied to this memorial that some of the ideas brought forward were already for some time past in process of realisation. He could not agree to the proposals as to a Federal Ministry and the Reichsrath, as he considered them calculated to hamper the new organisation, and, if necessary, he would openly declare against them. It is reported from Brussels that the King of the Belgians is well disposed towards us, but has no means of controlling the anti-German press of the country. The Grand Duke of Hesse has stated that Alsace and Lorraine must become Prussian provinces. Dalwigk (his Minister), who is as opposed to us as ever, wishes to see the territory to be ceded by France incorporated with Baden. The Grand Duchy would then cede the district near Heidelberg and Mannheim to Bavaria, whose connection with the[p. 431] Palatinate on the left bank of the Rhine would be thus re-established. In Rome the Pope wishes to undertake “mediation” between ourselves and France. The expression quoted was objected to by Arnim as inappropriate.

The following particulars relating to the King of Bavaria are contained in a report from Munich: “His kingdom is not of this world. It has been further observed that Major Sauer has no longer any influence upon him, while that of Privy Councillor Eisenhart has increased, as indeed also that of Count Holnstein. He is not coming to Versailles, in the first place because he would be obliged to ride, which he can no longer do with comfort, and in the next place because he does not like to play second fiddle. All that Bray thinks of is to keep his own position in Vienna warm, if only for the sake of his livelihood.” Lutz is “the tête forte in the Ministry, and is very ambitious.” The Princes Karl and Ludwig are strongly anti-Prussian. The Nuncio’s secretary exercises a great influence with his chief.—Read a letter from King Lewis to our Crown Prince. It was written at the commencement of the war. The handwriting is coarse and ugly and the lines are not straight. It expresses a hope that the independence of Bavaria will be respected. Otherwise the tone of the epistle is soundly patriotic.

In the evening I handed Bucher, as material for an article, all the newspaper reports I have collected on the barbarous conduct of the war by the French, contrary to the law of nations.

At 10 o’clock I was called to the Chief, who was lying before the fire on the sofa, wrapt in a blanket. He said: “Well, we’ve got him!” “Whom, your Excellency?” “Mont Avron.” He then showed me a[p. 432] letter from Count Waldersee, reporting that this redoubt was occupied by the troops of the 12th Army Corps this afternoon. “It is to be hoped that they have laid no mine and that the poor Saxons will not be blown up.” I telegraphed the news of this first success in the bombardment to London, but in cipher, “as otherwise the general staff might be angry.”

Subsequently the Chancellor sent for me once more to show me an outburst of the Vienna Tageblatt which has been reproduced by the Kölnische Zeitung. It declares that Bismarck has been thoroughly deceived as to the power of resistance of Paris, and in his overhaste, which has already cost the lives of hundreds of thousands (why not at once say millions?), has put forward excessive demands in connection with the peace. We reply, through the Spenersche Zeitung, that up to the present no one knows what the Chancellor’s conditions are, as he has not yet had any opportunity of stating them officially, but they do not in any case go so far as German public opinion, which almost unanimously demands the cession of all Lorraine. No one can say either what his views were respecting the power of resistance of Paris, as he has never had to give official expression to them.

Friday, December 30th.—The bitter cold of the last few days still continues. In consequence of his indisposition the Chief still keeps to his room, and is indeed mostly in bed. In the morning, on his instructions, I telegraphed particulars of the occupation of Mont Avron, and of the disgraceful conduct of the French authorities, who, according to the official acknowledgment of the delegation at Tours, have offered a premium to imprisoned officers to return to France, in breach of their word of honour. On the suggestion of the Chief I write paragraphs[p. 433] on this subject for the German press as well as for the local Moniteur to the following effect:—

“We have frequently had occasion to direct attention to the profound demoralisation manifested by French statesmen and officers in the matter of military honour. A communication, which reaches us from a trustworthy source, proves that we had not up to the present realised how deep and widespread that evil is. We have now before us an official order issued by the French Ministry of War, the 5th Bureau of the 6th Department, which bears the title ‘Solde et revues.’ It is dated from Tours on the 13th of November, and is signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Alfred Jerald, and by Colonel Tissier of the general staff of the 17th Army Corps. This order, which is based upon another dated the 10th of November, assures all French officers imprisoned in Germany, without distinction, a money payment in case they escape from custody. We repeat, all the French officers without distinction; that is to say also those who have given their word of honour not to escape. The premium offered for such dishonourable conduct amounts to 750 francs. A measure of this description needs no comment. Honour (which is the dearest treasure of every German officer and—duty and justice demand that we should add—formerly also of all French officers) is regarded by the men who came to power on the 4th of September as a commodity to be bought and sold, and indeed very cheaply. In this way officers of the French army will come to believe that France is no longer administered by a Government, but is on the contrary exploited by a trading firm, and one with lax principles of honesty and decency, under the title of ‘Gambetta and Co.’ ‘Who’ll buy gods?’ ‘Who’ll sell his word of honour?’”

[p. 434]

Afterwards I write another short article on an error frequently committed by the Kölnische Zeitung and recently repeated in connection with the Chancellor’s despatch to Vienna. The great Rhenish newspaper writes: “Ever since 1866 we have been amongst those who have persistently warned both Vienna and Berlin to dismiss their idle jealousies and to come to the best understanding possible in the circumstances. We have often regretted the personal irritation between Bismarck and Beust which appears to stand in the way of such a rapprochement, &c.” The reply is to the following effect: “It has been observed that the Kölnische Zeitung has already frequently sought to explain political acts and omissions of the Chancellor of the Confederation by personal motives, personal likes and dislikes, personal disposition and ill humour; and we have here a further instance of this unjustifiable course. We cannot imagine why such suspicions are time after time brought forward. We only know that absolutely no feeling of personal irritation exists between the Chancellor of the North German Confederation and the Chancellor of the Austria-Hungarian Monarchy, and indeed that, previous to 1866, when they often came into personal contact, they were on excellent terms, as Count Bismarck himself declared in the North German Reichstag. Since then nothing has happened between them as private persons calculated to create bitterness, if for no other reason than because they have had no personal intercourse. If they have taken up a position more or less antagonistic to each other the reasons are obvious. Up to the present they were the representatives of different political systems, and acted upon different political principles which it was difficult although not quite impossible to reconcile. This, and[p. 435] this alone, is the sole explanation of what the Kölnische Zeitung ascribes to personal motives, from which the thoughts and acts of no statesman of the present day is farther removed than those of the Chancellor of the Confederation. It may also be remarked incidentally that not only has Count Bismarck not been ‘thoroughly’ deceived as to the power of resistance of Paris, but he has not been deceived at all. His opinion has never been asked on the subject; but we know on the best authority that months ago he regarded the capture of the city as difficult, and was decidedly opposed to the investment even before the fall of Metz.”

In reading documents in the evening I find that the Chief has had a letter sent to General Bismarck-Bohlen stating that he does not agree with the general in thinking that his main task should be to alleviate the misery caused by the war, and to render the Alsacians well disposed towards the future masters of the country. For the moment his first business must be to promote the objects of the war and to secure the safety of the troops. He should therefore expel such French officials as will not take service under us, including the magistrates who will not discharge the duties of their office; and he should also withhold the payment of pensions directing the pensioners to apply to the Government at Tours. Under such conditions the people would be more disposed to call for peace.

Saturday, December 31st.—All our people are ailing. I also begin to feel exhausted. It will be well to shorten the night work which my diary entails, or to interrupt it altogether for a few days.

Tuesday, January 3rd.—I observe that the opinion already expressed by the Chief on several occasions, that the dispersion of the German forces towards the[p. 436] north and south-west is dangerous, and that more in concentration is desirable, is also held elsewhere. A military authority has written on this subject in the Vienna Presse; and the National Zeitung of the 31st of December publishes an article which is even more in harmony with the Chief’s views. It says, inter alia:—“The withdrawal of our troops from Dijon and the non-occupation of Tours, to the gates of which a division of the 10th Army Corps had advanced, give perhaps an indication of the views entertained generally on the German side, and which will govern the continuation of the campaign. It may possibly be expected that France will forgo further resistance after the fall of Paris, and will agree to the German conditions of peace. That, however, is not certain, and it is necessary to be prepared for an opposite contingency. In any case the fall of Paris will not be immediately followed by the establishment of a Government generally recognised and supported by a National Assembly, with which we could enter into negotiations for peace. Then if hostilities are to be continued they cannot aim at conquering the whole of such an extensive country as France. Our army, as hitherto, might indeed be everywhere victorious and disperse the hostile forces. That, however, would not be sufficient. It would be necessary to organise a new civil administration in all the conquered districts and to subject the population to its rule. Even in the country lying between the Channel and the Loire our forces would not be sufficient to completely secure the safety of communications and to maintain the authority of a foreign administration in each town and village, to prevent treacherous attacks and to collect the taxes as well as the contributions and supplies that are indispensable for the purposes of the war. To extend the[p. 437] area of occupation indefinitely would not only be to overtax our military power, however highly we may rate it, but to unduly drain our home services for the necessary supply of civil administrators. Therefore, if peace is not attainable within a very short time our military authorities must set clear and distinct limits to the task which they propose to themselves. They must select a fixed portion of French territory, which they can occupy so completely that we shall have full command over it, and can retain it as long as may be desired. This portion should include the capital and the best provinces, with the finest and most warlike population, and it would have, of course, to bear the whole burden and cost of the war until a peace party had grown up throughout the country strong enough to force its views upon the Government of the day. The occupied territory should be so limited as to make its defence as easy as possible from a military point of view. Of course further offensive operations for temporary purposes might be undertaken beyond those lines, but there should from the beginning be no intention of going permanently beyond them. In the meantime the work of annexation should be proceeded with in those districts which Germany requires for the security of her frontier without awaiting the conclusion of peace.”

Friday, January 6th.—Up to yesterday the cold was very severe. The Chief has been unwell nearly the whole week. Yesterday for the first time he went out for a short drive, and again this afternoon. The Bureau has been reinforced by two officials, namely Oberregierungsrath Wagener and Baron von Holstein, a secretary of embassy. Amongst the articles which I have written within the last few days was one concerning the withdrawal of a number of railway waggons[p. 438] from home traffic, and consequently from the use of German industry, solely for the purpose of collecting provisions here in anticipation of the time when famine shall at length compel Paris to surrender. I described this as humane, but unpractical and impolitic, as the Parisians, when they hear that we have made preparations for that event, will continue their resistance to the last crust of bread and the last joint of horseflesh. We shall, therefore, ourselves be contributing through such acts of humanity to a prolongation of the siege. It is not for us to provide against the threatened danger of famine by establishing storehouses or collecting the means of transport for reprovisioning the city, but rather for the Parisians themselves by means of a timely capitulation. I yesterday translated for the use of the King two English documents respecting the sinking of English coal ships near Rouen by our troops, who considered the measure necessary.

After dinner I read despatches and drafts. A demand has been addressed to the German railways to supply a number of waggons (“2,800 axles”) for the purpose of transporting provisions to Paris. The Chief entered an energetic protest against this measure, which would be prejudicial to us from a political standpoint, as the knowledge of those provisions would enable the holders of power in Paris to exhaust all their supplies before finally yielding, without any fear of famine at the last moment. A telegram was sent to Itzenplitz on the 3rd of January suggesting that he should not deliver a single waggon for this purpose, and asking him to reply by wire whether he would decline such requisitions. If not, the Chief “would request his Majesty to relieve him from all responsibility.” Itzenplitz telegraphed back that he agreed with the views of[p. 439] the Chancellor of the Confederation, and would act accordingly. A letter from the King of Sweden, addressed to a Commandant Verrier in Erfurt, is to be returned through the Dead Letter Office. His Swedish Majesty, whom we know not to be particularly well disposed towards us, says in this epistle, which, by the way, is written in bad French with many orthographical errors, that he regrets to have to watch the struggle with “folded arms,” and to be obliged to “eat his bread in peace.” “Nous nous armons tardivement, hélas! mais avec vigueur, et j’espère que le jour de vengeance arrivera!” Vengeance? What have the Swedes to avenge upon us? It would seem as if Prince Charles of Rumania were no longer able to manage the local extremists, and were thinking of abdicating and leaving the country. “We have no political interests in Rumania.” The Chief has made representations to the King suggesting a limitation of the seat of war for political reasons, namely on the ground that only thus shall we be able to maintain our position in the occupied portions of France and take full advantage of our occupation; and he has further proposed that we should give notice to withdraw from the Geneva Convention, which is unpractical. Bonnechose has, at the instance of the Pope, addressed a letter to King William in favour of peace, but of an “honourable” peace, that is to say, one that would not involve a cession of territory. That we could have had twelve weeks ago from Monsieur Favre, if the Chief had not preferred a useful peace. For this reason the Minister recommended that the letter should be left unanswered. According to an intimation from Persigny, Prince Napoleon wishes to come to Versailles in order to act as intermediary. He is a highly intelligent and amiable gentleman, but[p. 440] enjoys little consideration in France, and therefore the Chancellor declined to negotiate with him. In the London Conference on the Black Sea question we are to give every possible support to Russia’s demands. The Dowager Queen at Dresden has suggested to Eichmann (the Prussian Minister) that it would be an indication of confidence in Saxony if we were to allow them to garrison Königstein with Saxon troops alone.

Saturday, January 7th.—Haber suggested that possibly some political documents of importance for us might be found in Odillon Barrot’s house at Bougival. I asked the Minister’s permission to go over there with Bucher. He replied: “That is all very well, but is it a private library? I must preserve the things for M. Odillon Barrot. But you can see if there is anything political amongst them.” It proved on examination to be a well-chosen library, containing historical and political works, as well as polite literature. It included also a number of English books, but contained nothing of the character suspected by Haber.

This evening the Minister dines with us again.

We hear at tea that the bombardment of the forts on the north side of Paris has also begun, and shows good results. Fires have broken out in Vaugirard and Grenelles—whence probably the smoke arose which we saw yesterday from the hills between Ville d’Avray and Sèvres.

Keudell thinks I ought to tell the Chief. I go up to him at a quarter to 11. He thanks me, and then asks, “What time is it?” I answer “Nearly 11, Excellency.” “Well, then, tell Keudell to prepare the communication for the King.” I ascertain down stairs that this is a complaint that by 11 o’clock at night the military authorities have not communicated to the[p. 441] Minister matters of which civilians were informed at 2 P.M.

Sunday, January 8th.—At dinner the Chief gave some further reminiscences of his youth. He spent the time from his sixth to his twelfth year at the Plahmann Institute in Berlin, an educational establishment worked on the principles of Pestalozzi and Jahn. It was a period he could not think of with pleasure. The régime was artificially Spartan. While there he never fully satisfied his hunger, except when he was invited out. “The meat was like india-rubber, not exactly hard, but too much for one’s teeth. And carrots—I liked them raw,—but cooked, and with hard potatoes, square junks!”

This led up to the pleasures of the table, the Chief giving his views chiefly of certain varieties of fish. He had a pleasant recollection of fresh-river lampreys, of which he could eat eight or ten; he then praised schnäpel, a kind of whiting, and the Elbe salmon, the latter being “a happy mean between the Baltic salmon and that of the Rhine, which is too rich for me.” With regard to bankers’ dinners, “nothing is considered good unless it is dear,—no carp because it is comparatively cheap in Berlin, but zander (a kind of perch-pike) because it is difficult to carry. As a matter of fact I do not care for these, and just as little for lampreys, of which the flesh is too soft for me. But I could eat marena every day of the week. I almost prefer them to trout, of which I only like those of a medium size, weighing about half-a-pound. The large ones that are usually served at dinners in Frankfurt, and which mostly come from the Wolfsbrünnen near Heidelberg, are not worth much. They are expensive, and so one must have them. That’s also the way at[p. 442] Court with oysters. They don’t eat any in England when the Queen is present, as they are too cheap there.”

The conversation then turned on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which was compared with the Brandenburg Gate. The Chief said of the latter: “It is really beautiful in its way—particularly without the two pillared porticos. I have advised the King to let it stand free, and have the guard houses removed. It would be much more effective, as it would no longer be squeezed in and partly concealed as it is now.”

Wagener having mentioned his former journalistic work, the Minister said: “I know my first newspaper article was about shooting. At that time I was still a wild junker. Some one had written a spiteful article on sport, which set my blood boiling, so that I sat down and wrote a reply, which I handed to Altvater, the editor, but without success. He answered very politely, but said it would not do, he could not accept it. I was beside myself with indignation that any one should be at liberty to attack sportsmen without being obliged to listen to their reply; but so it was at that time.”

The defence put forward by the Luxemburg Government in reply to our complaints respecting breaches of neutrality is insufficient. It perhaps shows the good will of that Government, but certainly the facts prove that they are not able to maintain their own neutrality. They have been again warned, further evidence being given in support of our charges. If this does not prove effective, we shall be obliged to occupy the Grand Duchy, and hand over his passports to the Grand Ducal Minister in Berlin. A communication to the same effect has been made to the Powers that signed the Treaty of 1867. According to a memorandum in which the Chief[p. 443] proposed to the King that, the statesmen who concluded the treaties providing for the accession of Baden and Würtemberg to the North German Confederation should receive decorations, an exception was to be made in the case of Dalwigk, because he had constantly intrigued and worked against Prussia and the cause of German unity, and only finally gave way on the compulsion of necessity; and his decoration would, therefore, have a bad effect upon public opinion, which had frequently urged the exercise of Prussian influence to secure his dismissal.

Monday, January 9th.—It is reported from London that Prince Napoleon has a plan under consideration for concluding on his own authority a peace satisfactory to us, and then after the capitulation of Paris convoking the two Chambers to ratify the treaty, and to decide upon the future form of government, and eventually upon the future dynasty. This plan would be supported by Vinoy and Ducrot. The Orleanists are also active, and hope to win over Thiers to their side. Bernstorff reports that it has been ascertained from a servant of Dr. Reitlinger, Favre’s secretary, that he has endeavoured to hatch a democratic conspiracy in South Germany. Gladstone has received Reitlinger, and promised to support him in every possible way.

In the afternoon I drafted a telegram as to the further successful progress of the bombardment. On submitting it to the Chief, he struck out a passage in which it was mentioned that our shells had fallen in the Luxemburg Gardens, as being “impolitic.” He also instructed me to telegraph to the Foreign Office in Berlin to omit this passage from the report of the general staff.

The following pretty story is making the round of[p. 444] the newspapers. It is taken from the private letter of a German officer, and was first published in the Leipziger Tageblatt. “One day the aide-de-camp, Count Lehndorff, visited Captain von Strantz at one of the outposts at Ville d’Avray, near Paris. In reply to the Count’s question as to how he was getting on, the Captain said: ‘Oh, very well; I have just been dining for the sixty-seventh time off roast mutton.’ The Count laughed, and after a while drove off again. Next day a policeman called upon the captain with the following message: ‘It having come to the knowledge of his Excellency Count Bismarck, Chancellor of the Confederation, that Captain von Strantz would doubtless be dining to-day off his sixty-eighth joint of roast mutton, his Excellency sends him herewith four ducks as a change of menu.’” This anecdote has the advantage over most of those appearing in the press, that it is in the main correct. But the policeman did not call on the next day. Count Lehndorff dined with us a few days before Christmas.

The Chief was shaved as usual on coming to dinner to-day. He first mentioned that Count Bill had received the Iron Cross, and seemed to think that it should more properly have been given to his elder son, as he was wounded in the cavalry charge at Mars la Tour. “The wound was an accident,” he went on, “and others who were not wounded may have been equally brave. But it is, after all, a distinction, a kind of compensation for the wounded.” “I remember when I was a young man that one Herr von Reuss went about Berlin also wearing the Cross. I thought to myself what wonders he must have done; but I afterwards ascertained that he had an uncle who was a Minister, and he had been attached to the general staff as a kind of private aide-de-camp.”

[p. 445]

The Chancellor suddenly remarked; “It must be three weeks since I saw Serenissimus.[20] It is not so long since I saw Serenior.[21] I cut the Sereni.” The Chancellor then continued, obviously with reference to the Sereni, that is the Princes at the Hôtel des Reservoirs, or one of them, but without any connecting sentence: “I remember at Göttingen I once called a student a silly youngster. (Dummer Junge, the recognised form of offence when it is intended to provoke a duel.) On his sending me his challenge I said I had not wished to offend him by the remark that he was a silly youngster, but merely to express my conviction.”

While we were discussing pheasant and sauerkraut some one remarked that the Minister had not been out shooting for a long time, although the woods between Versailles and Paris were full of game. “Yes,” he replied, “something has always happened to prevent me. The last time was at Ferrières, the King was away and he had forbidden shooting, that is to say, in the park, just as he has now given orders that Ferrières must be spared, merely because it belongs to a rich Jew. We did not go into the park, and there was plenty of game, but not much of it was shot as the cartridges were bad.” Holstein, who, by the way, turns out to be exceedingly amiable, hard-working and helpful, remarked: “This is the account given of the affair, Excellency. You were aware of his Majesty’s orders, and of course desired to obey them. But it unfortunately happened as you were taking a walk on one occasion you were suddenly set upon by three or four pheasants and were obliged to shoot them down in self-defence.”

The French Rothschild recalled the German one, of whom the Chief related a very amusing story. He[p. 446] said: “When the members of the Reichstag were here recently, I was seated next to Rothschild at the Crown Prince’s. The Prince sat next to me, and on his other side was Simson. Rothschild smokes a grew deal, and smelt of that and other things, and so I thought I would play a little practical joke before we sat down. But it did not succeed. It is only after dinner that stewards of the household begin to be sensible and listen to a body. I had my revenge however, by letting my neighbour have the benefit of my remarks. I said to him, ‘You should have a house in Berlin, and invite people to see you, and so on.’ ‘What do you mean?’ he asked, in a loud and almost angry voice. ‘Am I to give dinners in a restaurant?’ ‘Well, you might do that too,’ I replied, ‘but to other people, not to me. In my opinion you owe it to the credit of your house. But the best thing would be to have a place of your own in Berlin. You know there is nothing to be expected any longer from the Paris and London Rothschilds, and so you ought to do something in Berlin. People are constantly surprised that you have not yet got into the Almanach de Gotha. Of course, what has not been done up to now may yet happen, but I am afraid you are not going the right way to work.’”

Finally polite literature came to be discussed, and Spielhagen’s “Problematische Naturen” was mentioned. The Chancellor had read it, and did not think badly of it, but he said: “I shall certainly not read it a second time. One has absolutely no time here. Otherwise a much-occupied Minister might well take up such a book and forget his despatches over it for a couple of hours.” Freytag’s “Soll und Haben” was also mentioned, and his description of the Polish riots, as well as the story of the bread-and-butter miss and the[p. 447] ball, were praised, while his heroes were considered insipid. One said they had no passion, and another no souls. Abeken, who took an active part in the conversation, observed that he could not read any of these things twice, and that most of the well-known modern authors had only produced one good book apiece. “Well,” said the Chief, “I could also make you a present of three-fourths of Goethe—the remainder, certainly—I should like to live for a long spell on a desert island with seven or eight volumes out of the forty.” Fritz Reuter was then referred to, and the Minister remarked, “‘Uit de Franzosentid,’ very pretty but not a novel.” “Stromtid” was also mentioned. “H’m,” said the Chief, “Dat is as dat ledder is (that’s just how it is, a favourite expression of one of the characters in the book)—that, it is true, is a novel, and it contains many good and others indifferent, but all through the peasants are described exactly as they are.”

In the evening I translated for the King a long article from The Times on the situation in Paris. Afterwards at tea Keudell spoke very well and sensibly of certain qualities of the Chancellor, who reminded him of Achilles, his great gifts, the youthfulness of his character, his quickness of temper, his tendency to Weltschmerz, his inclination to withdraw from great affairs and his invariably victorious action. Our times could boast a Troy, and also an Agamemnon, shepherd of the nations.

Tuesday, January 10th.—Earth and sky are full of snow. A shot is only to be heard now and again from our batteries, or from the forts. Count Bill is here, and General von Manteuffel calls at 1 o’clock. They are passing through on their way to the army that is to operate against Bourbaki in the south-east under Manteuffel.[p. 448] During the afternoon I telegraph twice to London reporting the retreat of Chanzy at Le Mans, with the loss of a thousand men who were made prisoners, and Werder’s victorious resistance at Villersexel to a superior French force advancing to the relief of Belfort.

The first subject mentioned at dinner is the bombardment. The Chief holds that most of the Paris forts are of little importance, except perhaps Mont Valérien—“Not much more than the redoubts at Düppel.” That is to say the moats are not very deep, and formerly the walls were also weak. The conversation then turns on the International League of Peace and its connection with social democracy as shown by the fact that Karl Marx, who is now living in London, has been appointed President of the German branch. Bucher describes Marx as an intelligent man with a good scientific education and the real leader of the international labour movement. With reference to the League of Peace the Chief says that its efforts are all of an equivocal character, and that its aims are something very different to peace. It is a cloak for communism. “But,” he concludes, “certain august personages have even now no idea of that. Foreign countries and peace!” In this connection he referred to the influence and attitude of Queen Augusta.

Count Bill, according to the Chief, “looks from a distance like an old staff officer, he is so stout.” He was very lucky in being selected to accompany Manteuffel. Of course, it would only be a temporary billet, but he would see a great deal of the war. “For his age he has a good opportunity to learn something. That was impossible for one of us at eighteen. I should have been born in 1795 to have taken part in the campaign[p. 449] of 1813.” “Nevertheless since the battle of—(I could not catch the name, but he referred apparently to an engagement in the Huguenot War) there was not one of my ancestors who did not draw the sword against France. My father and three of his brothers were engaged against Napoleon I. Then my grandfather fought at Rossbach; my great-grandfather against Louis XIV., and his father against the same King in the little war on the Rhine in 1672 or 1673. Then several of us fought on the imperial side in the Thirty Years’ War, others, it is true, joining the Swedes. And finally still another was amongst the Germans who fought as mercenaries on the Huguenot side. One—there is a picture of him at Schönhausen with his children—was an original character. I still have a letter from him to his brother-in-law in which he says, ‘The cask of Rhine wine costs me eighty reichsthalers. If my worthy brother-in-law considers that too dear I will, so God spares me, drink it myself.’ And another time: ‘If my worthy brother-in-law maintains so-and-so, I hope, so God preserves me, to come into closer contact with his person than will be pleasant to him.’ And again in another place: ‘I have spent 12,000 reichsthalers on the regiment, but I hope, if God spares me, to make as much out of it in time.’ The economies referred to consisted probably in drawing pay for men who were on furlough or who only existed on paper. Certainly the commander of a regiment was better off at that time than now.” Some one observed that was also the rule at a later period, so long as regiments were recruited, paid, and clad by the colonels and hired by the Princes, and possibly the same thing still happened in other countries. The Chief: “Yes, in Russia for instance, in the great cavalry regiments in the Southern[p. 450] provinces which often have as many as sixteen squadrons. There the colonel had, and doubtless yet has other sources of income. A German once told me, for instance, that on a new colonel taking over the command of a regiment—I believe it was in Kursk or Woronesch—the peasants of this wealthy district came to him with waggons full of straw and hay, and begged the ‘little father’ to be gracious enough to accept them. ‘I did not know what they wanted,’ said the colonel, ‘and so I told them to be off and leave me in peace. But the ‘little father’ ought to be fair, they urged, his predecessor had been satisfied with that much, and they could not give more, as they were poor people. At length I got tired of it, particularly as they became very pressing and went down on their knees entreating me to accept it, and I had them bundled out of doors. But then others came with loads of wheat and oats. Then I understood what was meant, and took everything as my predecessor had done, and when the first lot returned with more hay I told them that what they had brought before was enough and they could take back the rest. And thus I secured an annual sum of 20,000 roubles, as I charged the Government for the hay and oats required by the regiment.’ He related that quite frankly and unabashed in a drawing-room in St. Petersburg, and I was the only one who was surprised at it.” “But what could he have done to the peasants?” asked Delbrück. “He himself could have done nothing,” replied the Chief, “but he might have ruined them in another way. He only required not to forbid the soldiers to take what they liked from them.”

Manteuffel was again spoken of, and somebody mentioned that he had broken his leg at Metz, and had to be carried on the battle-field. Manteuffel was greatly surprised[p. 451] that we had not known this, and the Minister remarked that he must certainly have thought us very badly informed as to the incidents of the war. Later on the Chief said: “I remember how I sat with him and —— (I did not catch the name) on the stones outside the Church at Blekstein. The King came up, and I proposed that we should greet him like the three witches in Macbeth: ‘Hail, Thane of Lauenburg! Hail, Thane of Kiel! Hail, Thane of Schleswig!’ It was when I was negotiating the Treaty of Gastein with Blome. I then played quinze for the last time in my life. Although I had not played then for a long time, I gambled recklessly, so that the others were astounded. But I knew what I was at. Blome had heard that quinze gave the best opportunity of testing a man’s character, and he was anxious to try the experiment on me. I thought to myself, I’ll teach him. I lost a few hundred thalers, for which I might well have claimed reimbursement from the State as having been expended on his Majesty’s service. But I got round Blome in that way, and made him do what I wanted. He took me to be reckless, and yielded.”

The conversation then turned upon Berlin, some one having remarked that it was from year to year assuming more the appearance of a great capital, also in its sentiments and way of thinking, a circumstance which to some extent reacted on its Parliamentary representatives. “They have greatly altered during the last five years,” said Delbrück. “That is true,” said the Chief; “but in 1862, when I first had to deal with those gentlemen, they recognised what a hearty contempt I entertained for them, and they have never become friends with me again.”

The Jews then came to be discussed, and the Minister wished to know how it was that the name Meier was so[p. 452] common amongst them. That name was after all of German origin, and in Westphalia it meant a landed proprietor, yet formerly the Jews owned no land. I submitted that the word was of Hebrew origin and occurred in the Old Testament and also in the Talmud, being properly Meïr and akin to “Or,” i.e., light, brilliance, whence the signification of Enlightened, Brilliant, Radiant. The Chief then inquired the meaning of Kohn, a name very common amongst them also. I said it signified Priest, and was originally Kohen From Kohen it became Kohn, Kuhn, Cahen, and Kahn. Kohn and Kahn were also occasionally transformed into Hahn, a remark which caused some amusement as it probably reminded the company of the “Presshahn,” who is at the head of the Berlin Literary Bureau. “I am of opinion,” continued the Minister, “that to prevent mischief, the Jews will have to be rendered innocuous by cross breeding. The results are not bad.” He then mentioned some noble houses, Lynars, Stirums, Gusserows: “All very clever, decent people.” He then reflected for a while and, omitting one link from the chain of thought, probably the marriage of distinguished Christian ladies to rich or talented Israelites, he proceeded: “It is better the other way on. One ought to put a Jewish mare to a Christian stallion of German breed. The money must be brought into circulation again, and the race is not at all bad. I do not know what I shall one day advise my sons to do.”

I spent the whole time after dinner at work, principally reading despatches. The Rumanian (Prince Charles) has sent the Chancellor a letter, written in his own hand, requesting advice in his difficulties. He seems to be in the greatest perplexity, and the Powers will not help him. England and Austria are at least[p. 453] indifferent; the Porte is inclined to look upon the unification of the Principalities as to its interests; France is now of no account; the Tsar Alexander is, it is true, well disposed to Prince Charles but will not interfere; and intervention on the part of Germany, who has no practical interests in Rumania, is not to be expected. Therefore, if the Prince cannot help himself out of his difficulties, he had better retire before he is obliged to. Such was the counsel addressed to him by the Chief through Keudell. Beust has been informed of this. It would appear that Beust’s despatch in reply to the announcement of the approaching union of South Germany with the North, shows a new departure in his political views, and it is possible that even under him satisfactory relations may be developed and maintained between the two newly-organised Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary. He reported that a new comic paper, Der Bismarck, was being founded in Vienna, and that he would do everything in his power to prevent this abuse of the name. The Chief has recently addressed a communication to the King in which he requests: (1) That the telegrams of the General Staff before being despatched to Berlin should be submitted to him and his approval obtained, as they might have political bearings—as, for example, in the case of the shells that fell in the Luxemburg Gardens. (2) That he should receive full information of the course of military operations, instead of being indebted for detailed particulars to the newspapers and private persons. Subalterns and members of the Ambulance Corps were kept better informed than he.

At 10.30 P.M. the Chief comes down to tea, at which Count Bill also joins us. Abeken returns from Court and brings the news that the fortress of Péronne,[p. 454] with a garrison of 3,000 men, has capitulated. The Chief, who was just looking through the Illustrirte Zeitung, sighed and exclaimed: “Another 3,000! If one could only drown them in the Seine—or at least their Commander, who has broken his word of honour!”

This led the conversation to the subject of the numerous prisoners in Germany, and Holstein said it would be a good idea to hire them out to work on the Strousberg railway. “Or,” said the Chief, “if the Tsar could be induced to settle them in military colonies beyond the Caucasus. It is said to be a very fine country. This mass of prisoners will really form a difficulty for us after the peace. The French will thus have an army at once, and one fresh from a long rest. But there will really be no alternative. We shall have to give them back to Napoleon, and he will require 200,000 men as a Pretorian Guard to maintain himself.” “Does he then really expect to restore the Empire?” asked Holstein. “Oh, very much,” replied the Chief, “extremely, quite enormously much. He thinks of it day and night, and the people in England also.”

Holstein then related how certain people belonging to the English Embassy had behaved very unbecomingly outside the place where the French prisoners are confined in Spandau, and had fared badly in consequence. Cockerell was knocked down and beaten black and blue, so that he afterwards looked “quite as if he had been painted.” Loftus did not at first want to intervene, but was ultimately induced by the other diplomats to enter a complaint. “Did they give this Cockerell a sound hiding?” asked Count Bill. “Oh, certainly,” replied Holstein, “and Miss —— (name escaped me), who tried to interfere on his behalf, also received a few[p. 455] blows.” “Well, I am glad Cockerell got a proper dressing,” said the Chief, “it will do him good. I am sorry for the lady. But it is a pity that Loftus” (the British Ambassador) “himself did not get thrashed on the occasion, as we should then be rid of him.”

Wednesday, January 11th.—Bernstorff reports that Clement Duvernois, a former Minister of Napoleon, wishes to come here in order to negotiate for peace in the name of the Empress. She will agree in principle to the cession of territory and the new frontier demanded by us, and also to the payment of a war indemnity and the occupation of a certain portion of France by our troops until it is paid, and will promise not to enter into negotiations respecting peace with any other Power than Germany. Duvernois is of opinion that although the Empress is not popular, yet she would act energetically, and as a legal ruler would have more authority and offer us a better security than any person elected by and dependent upon the representatives of the country. Duvernois assisted in provisioning Paris and accordingly knows that it must surrender shortly, and therefore as time presses, he is anxious to hurry on negotiations. Will he be received if he comes? Perhaps, if only in order to make the members of the Government in Paris and Bordeaux more yielding.

During dinner the bombardment was discussed, as is now usually the case. Paris was said to be on fire, and some one had clearly seen thick columns of smoke rising over the city. “That is not enough,” said the Chief. “We must first smell it here. When Hamburg was burning the smell could be distinguished five German miles off.” The opposition offered by the “Patriots” in the Bavarian Chamber to the Versailles Treaty was then referred to. The Chief said: “I wish I could go there and speak to[p. 456] them. They have obviously got into a false position and can neither advance nor retire. I have already been doing my best to bring them into the right way. But one is so badly wanted here in order to prevent absurdities and to preach sense.”

Thursday, January 12th.—At dinner the conversation again turned on the bombardment. On somebody observing that the French complain of our aiming at their hospitals, the Chief said: “That is certainly not done intentionally. They have hospitals near the Pantheon and the Val de Grâce, and it is possible that a few shells may have fallen there accidentally. H’m, Pantheon, Pandemonium?” Abeken had heard that the Bavarians intended to storm one of the south-eastern forts that had returned our fire in a weak way. The Chief commended the Bavarians, adding: “If I were only in Munich now, I would bring that home to their members of Parliament in such a way that I should immediately win them over to our side.”

The Chancellor then told us that the King preferred the title “Emperor of Germany” to that of “German Emperor.” “I gave him to understand that I did not care a brass farthing. He was of a different opinion. Rather the country than the people. I then explained to him that the first would be a new title and would at least have no historical basis. There had never been an Emperor of Germany, and though it was true there had also been no German Emperor, there had been a German King.” Bucher confirmed that statement and remarked that Charlemagne assumed the title of “Imperator Romanorum.” Subsequently the Emperor was called “Imperator Romanus, semper augustus, and German King.”

At 11 P.M. the King sent the Chief a pencil note in[p. 457] his own handwriting on a half sheet of letter paper, informing him that we had just won a great victory at Le Mans. The Minister, who was visibly pleased and touched at this attention, said as he handed me the slip of paper in order that I should telegraph the news: “He thinks the General Staff will not let me know, and so he writes himself.”

Friday, January 13th.—Arnim sends a florid account from Rome of the visit paid by Victor Emmanuel to the Eternal City. He mentions a report received from the Nuncio at Bordeaux respecting an attempt by the Government Delegation in that city to secure the intervention of the Pope for the purpose of negotiating a peace. The Cardinal in communicating this to the Minister added that the French are now disposed to make greater concessions than at Ferrières, and asked if in principle the Pope’s mediation would be agreeable to us. Arnim replied that the French Government knew our conditions and could conclude peace at any time on that basis. Arnim states that the efforts made by the Curia on behalf of peace are sincere, but are based on interested motives. The Cardinal asked if it was not intended to grant France any compensation for the proposed cession of territory, whereupon Arnim replied that we had no right to dispose of the territory of other States. The Cardinal obviously had Italy in view, and meant that France should indemnify herself by annexing Piedmont and reinstating the Pope in Rome. The despatch concludes as follows: “My presence here complicates our position, as it awakens hopes that cannot be realised, and maintains intimate relations that clog our footsteps without making the ground upon which we stand any firmer.” Thile reports that Queen Augusta told him the sinking of the English coal ships[p. 458] near Rouen had made more bad blood in England than was believed here. The Crown Princess knew from the letters of her mother that sympathy for our cause was daily decreasing there. Thile replied that he was surprised to hear it, as Bernstorff made no mention of it.

We are joined at dinner by Regierungspräsident von Ernsthausen, a portly gentleman, still young, and by the Chief, who is to dine with the Crown Prince, and only remains until the Varzin ham comes to table, of which he partakes “for the sake of home memories.” Turning to Ernsthausen, he says: “I am invited to the Crown Prince’s, but before going there I have another important interview for which I must strengthen myself.” “Wednesday will be the 18th, and the Festival of the Orders, so we can publish the proclamation to the German people on that day.” (The Proclamation of Emperor and Empire, upon which Bucher is now at work.) (To Ernsthausen): “The King is still in doubt about ‘German Emperor’ or ‘Emperor of Germany.’ He inclines to the latter. But it does not appear to me that there is much difference between the two titles. It is like the Homousios or Homoiousios in the Councils of the Church.” Abeken corrected: “Homöusios.” The Chief: “We pronounce it oi. In Saxony they have the Iotacism. I remember in our school there was a pupil from Chemnitz who read that way” (and he then quoted a Greek sentence), “but the teacher said to him ‘Stop! That won’t do! We don’t hail here from Saxony.’”

After dinner I read the latest despatches and some older drafts. Those of special interest were instructions from the Chief to the Minister of Commerce that the amount expended for the provisioning of Paris could[p. 459] not be included in the Budget; and a memorandum in which Moltke defended the supply of provisions for the Parisians. The 2,800 waggons with provisions were, he says, not intended solely for the Parisians, but also for our own troops—for the former seven million rations of two pounds each for three days—and it would be well if there were still more waggons in France. The Chief returned from the Crown Prince’s at 9.30 P.M., and shortly afterwards he instructed me to telegraph that we had made 8,000 prisoners at Le Mans, and captured twelve guns, and that Gambetta, who wished to be present at the battle, nearly fell into our hands, but just made his escape in time. Afterwards I cut out Unruh’s speech dealing with the scarcity of locomotives on the German railways, for submission to the King.

[p. 460]

## CHAPTER XVII

LAST WEEKS BEFORE THE CAPITULATION OF PARIS

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[p. 461] 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.”

[p. 462]

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[p. 463] 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[p. 464] 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[p. 465] 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[p. 466] 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[p. 467] 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,[p. 468] 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:

[p. 469]

“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[p. 470] 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.”[p. 471] 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[p. 472] 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[p. 473] 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[p. 474] 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[p. 475] 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[p. 476] 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[p. 477] 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[p. 478] 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[p. 479] 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[p. 480] 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[p. 481] 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[p. 482] 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[p. 483] 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[p. 484] 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[p. 485] 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.”

[p. 486]

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?

[p. 487]

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[p. 488] 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[p. 489] 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[p. 490] 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[p. 491] 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.”

[p. 492]

## CHAPTER XVIII

DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING THE CAPITULATION OF PARIS

Wednesday, January 25th.—Count Lehndorff dined with us, and talked about hunting and hunting dinners, including a great banquet given by some Baron which consisted of no less than twenty-four courses. His brother was present and fell asleep propped on his elbows, while a neighbour of his sunk into slumber on the shoulder of a governess who was sitting next him. The dinner lasted over five hours and the people were most horribly bored, as often happens in the country. The Chief remarked: “I always know how to get over that difficulty. One must put down a good bit of liquor right at the beginning, and under its influence one’s neighbours to the left and right grow ever so much cleverer and pleasanter.”

The Minister then spoke about his first journey to St. Petersburg. He drove in a carriage, as at first there was no snow. It fell very heavily later on, however, and progress was terribly slow. It took him five full days and six nights to reach the first railway station, and he spent the whole time cramped up in a narrow carriage without sleep and with the thermometer at fifteen degrees Reaumur below zero. In the train, however he fell so fast asleep that on their arrival in St.[p. 493] Petersburg, after a ten hours’ run, he felt as if he had been only five minutes in the railway carriage.

“The old times before the railways were completed had also their good side,” continued the Minister. “There was not so much to do. The mail only came in twice a week, and then one worked as if for a wager. But when the mail was over we got on horseback, and had a good time of it until its next arrival.” Somebody observed that the increased work, both abroad and at the Foreign Office, was due more to the telegraph than to the railways. This led the Chief to talk about diplomatic reports in general, many of which, while written in a pleasant style, were quite empty. “They are like feuilletons, written merely because something has to be written. That was the case, for instance, with the reports of Bamberg, our Consul in Paris. One read them through always thinking: Now something is coming. But nothing ever came. They sounded very well and one read on and on. But there was really nothing in them. All barren and empty.” Another instance was then mentioned, Bernhardi, our Military Plenipotentiary at Florence, of whom the Chief said: “He passes for being a good writer on military subjects because of his work on Toll. We do not know, however, how much of that he himself wrote. Thereupon he was given the rank of major, although it is not certain that he ever was an officer at all, and he was appointed Military Plenipotentiary in Italy. Great things were expected of him there, and in the matter of quantity he did a great deal—also in the matter of style. He writes in an agreeable way, as if for a feuilleton, but when I have got to the end of his closely-written reports in a small neat hand, for all their length I have found nothing in them.”...

[p. 494]

The Minister then returned to the subject of tiresome journeys and long rides. He said: “I remember after the battle of Sadowa I was the whole day in the saddle on a big horse. At first I did not want to ride him as he was too high and it was too much trouble to mount. At last, however, I did so, and I was not sorry for it. It was an excellent animal! But the long waiting above the valley had exhausted me and my seat and legs were very sore. The skin was not broken, that has never happened to me, but afterwards when I sat down on a wooden bench I had a feeling as if I were sitting on something that came between me and the wood. It was only a blister. After Sadowa we arrived late at night in the market-place of Horsitz. There we were told that we were to seek out our own quarters. That, however, was much easier said than done. The houses were bolted and barred, and the sappers, who might have broken in the doors for us, were not to arrive before five in the morning.” “His Excellency knew how to help himself in a similar case at Gravelotte,” interrupted Delbrück. The Chief continued his story: “Well, I went to several houses at Horsitz, three or four, and at length I found a door open. After making a few steps into the dark I fell into a kind of pit. Luckily it was not deep, and I was able to satisfy myself that it was filled with horse-dung. I thought at first, ‘How would it be to remain here,’—on the dung-heap, but I soon recognised other smells. What curious things happen sometimes! If that pit had been twenty feet deep, and full, they would have had a long search next morning for their Minister, and doubtless there would be no Chancellor of the Confederation to-day.” “I went out again and finally found a corner for myself in an arcade on the market-place. I laid a couple of[p. 495] carriage cushions on the ground and made a pillow of a third, and then stretched myself out to sleep. Later on some one waked me. It was Perponcher, who told me that the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg had a room for me and an unoccupied bed. That turned out to be correct, but the bed was only a child’s cot. I managed to fix it, however, by arranging the back of a chair at the end of it. But in the morning I could hardly stand, as my knees had been resting on the bare boards.” “One can sleep quite comfortably if one has only a sackful of straw, however small. You cut it open in the middle, push the straw to the two ends, and let yourself into the hollow part. I used to do that in Russia when out hunting. I ripped the bag open with my hunting knife, crept into it and slept like a log.” “That was when the despatch from Napoleon came,” observed Bohlen. The Chief replied: “Yes, the one at which the King was so pleased, because it showed that he had won a great battle—his first great battle.” “And you were also glad,” said Bohlen, “and you swore an oath that you would one day requite the Gauls when an opportunity offered.”...

Finally the Chief related: “Favre told me the day before yesterday that the first shell that fell in the Pantheon cut off the head of the statue of Henri IV.” “He doubtless thought that was a very pathetic piece of news,” suggested Bohlen. “Oh, no,” replied the Chief, “I rather fancy that, as a democrat, he was pleased that it should have happened to a King.” Bohlen: “That is the second piece of bad luck that Henri has had in Paris. First a Frenchman stabbed him there, and now we have beheaded him.”

The dinner lasted very long this evening, from 5.30 till after 7. Favre was expected back from Paris every[p. 496] moment. He came at length at 7.30, again accompanied by his son-in-law with the Spanish name. It is understood that neither hesitated this time, as they did on the former occasion, to take the food that was offered to them, but, like sensible people, did justice to the good things that were laid before them. It is doubtless to be inferred from this that they have also listened to reason in the main point, or will do so. That will soon appear, as Favre is again conferring with the Chancellor.

After dinner read drafts. Instructions have been sent to Rosenberg-Grudcinski at Reims respecting the collection of taxes. The Municipalities are to be called upon to pay five per cent. extra for each day of arrears. Flying columns with artillery are to be sent to districts where payment is obstinately refused. They are to summon the inhabitants to pay up the taxes and if this is not done immediately to shell the place and set it on fire. Three examples would render a fourth unnecessary. It is not our business to win over the French by considerate treatment or to take their welfare into account. On the contrary, in view of their character, it is desirable to inspire them with a greater fear of us than of their own Government, which, of course, also enforces compulsory measures against them. According to a report by the Minister of the Netherlands to his Government, the Red Republicans in Paris attempted a rising the night before last, released some of their leaders, and then provoked a riot outside the Hôtel de Ville. The National Guard fired upon the Mobiles, and there were some dead and wounded, but ultimately order was restored.

About 10 o’clock, while Favre was still here, there was heavy firing from big guns which continued for[p. 497] perhaps an hour. I went to tea at 10.30 P.M., and found Hatzfeldt and Bismarck-Bohlen in conversation with Del Rio in the dining-room. He is a man of medium height, dark beard, slightly bald, and wears a pince-nez. Shortly after I came down, he left for his quarters at Stieber’s house, accompanied by Mantey, and he was followed a quarter of an hour later by Favre. Del Rio spoke of Paris as being the “centre du monde,” so that the bombardment is a kind of target practice at the centre of the world. He mentioned that Favre has a villa at Reuil and a large cellar in Paris with all sorts of wine, and that he himself has an estate in Mexico of six square German miles in extent. After Favre’s departure the Chief came out to us, ate some cold partridge, asked for some ham, and drank a bottle of beer. After a while he sighed, and sitting up straight in his chair, he exclaimed: “If one could only decide and order these things one’s self! But to bring others to do it!” He paused for a minute and then continued: “What surprises me is that they have not sent out any general. And it is difficult to make Favre understand military matters.” He then mentioned a couple of French technical terms of which Favre did not know the meaning. “Well, it is to be hoped that he had a proper meal to-day,” said Bohlen. The Chief replied in the affirmative, and then Bohlen said he had heard it rumoured that this time Favre had not despised the champagne. The Chief: “Yes, the day before yesterday he refused to take any, but to-day he had several glasses. The first time he had some scruples of conscience about eating, but I persuaded him, and his hunger doubtless supported me, for he ate like one who had had a long fast.”

Hatzfeldt reported that the Mayor, Rameau, had[p. 498] called about an hour before and asked if M. Favre was here. He wanted to speak to him and to place himself at his disposal. Might he do so? He, Hatzfeldt, had replied that of course he did not know. The Chief: “For a man to come in the night to a person who is returning to Paris is sufficient of itself to bring him before a court-martial. The audacious fellow!” Bohlen: “Mantey has doubtless already told Stieber. Probably this M. Rameau is anxious to return to his cell.” (Rameau was obliged some time since to study the interior of one of the cells in the prison in the Rue Saint Pierre for a few days in company with some other members of the corporation—if I am not mistaken, on account of some refusal or some insolent reply about supplying provisions for Versailles.)

The Minister then related some particulars of his interview with Favre. “I like him better now than at Ferrières,” he said. “He spoke a good deal and in long, well-rounded periods. It was often not necessary to pay attention or to answer. They were anecdotes of former times. He is a very good raconteur.” “He was not at all offended at my recent letter to him. On the contrary, he felt indebted to me for calling his attention to what he owed to himself.” “He also spoke of having a villa near Paris, which was, however, wrecked and pillaged. I had it on the tip of my tongue to say, ‘But not by us!’ but he himself immediately added that it had doubtless been done by the Mobiles.” “He then complained that Saint Cloud had been burning for the last three days, and wanted to persuade me that we had set the palace there on fire.” “In speaking of the franctireurs and their misdeeds, he wished to call my attention to our guerillas in 1813—they indeed had been much worse. I said to him: ‘I don’t want to deny[p. 499] that, but you are also aware that the French shot them whenever they caught them. And they did not shoot them all in one place, but one batch on the spot where the act was committed, another batch at the next halt, and so on, in order to serve as a deterrent.’” “He maintained that in the last engagement, on the 19th, the National Guard, recruited from the well-to-do classes, fought best, while the battalions raised from the lower classes were worthless.”

The Chief paused for a while and seemed to be reflecting. He then continued: “If the Parisians first received a supply of provisions and were then again put on half rations and once more obliged to starve, that ought, I think, to work. It is like flogging. When it is administered continuously it is not felt so much. But when it is suspended for a time and then another dose inflicted, it hurts! I know that from the criminal court where I was employed. Flogging was still in use there.”

The subject of flogging in general was then discussed, and Bohlen, who favours its retention, observed that the English had re-introduced it. “Yes,” said Bucher, “but first for personal insult to the Queen, on the occasion of an outrage against the Royal person, and afterwards for garrotting.” The Chief then related that in 1863, when the garrotters appeared in London, he was often obliged to go after twelve o’clock at night through a solitary lane, containing only stables and full of heaps of horse-dung, which led from Regent Street to his lodgings in Park Street. To his terror, he read in the papers that a number of these attacks had taken place on that very spot.

Then, after a pause, the Minister said: “This is really an unheard-of proceeding on the part of the English.[p. 500] They want to send a gunboat up the Seine” (Odo Russell put forward this demand, which the Chancellor absolutely refused) “in order, they say, to remove the English families there. They merely want to ascertain if we have laid down torpedoes and then to let the French ships follow them. What swine! They are full of vexation and envy because we have fought great battles here—and won them. They cannot bear to think that shabby little Prussia should prosper so. The Prussians are a people who should merely exist in order to carry on war for them in their pay. This is the view taken by all the upper classes in England. They have never been well disposed towards us, and have always done their utmost to injure us.” “The Crown Princess herself is an incarnation of this way of thinking. She is full of her own great condescension in marrying into our country. I remember her once telling me that two or three merchant families in Liverpool had more silver-plate than the entire Prussian nobility. ‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘that is possibly true, your Royal Highness, but we value ourselves for other things besides silver.’”

The Minister remained silent for a while. Then he said: “I have often thought over what would have happened if we had gone to war about Luxemburg—should I now be in Paris or would the French be in Berlin? I think I did well to prevent war at that time. We should not have been nearly so strong as we are to-day. At that time the Hanoverians would not have made trustworthy soldiers. I will say nothing about the Hessians—they would have done well. The Schleswig-Holstein men have now fought like lions, but there was no army there then. Saxony was also useless. The army had been disbanded and had to be recruited over again. And there was little confidence to be placed in[p. 501] the South Germans. The Würtembergers, what excellent fellows they are now, quite first rate! But in 1866 they would have been laughed at by every soldier as they marched into Frankfurt like so many militiamen. The Baden troops were also not up to the mark. Beyer, and indeed the Grand Duke, has since then done a great deal for them.” “It is true that public opinion throughout Germany would have been on our side had we wished to fight for Luxemburg. But that was not enough to compensate for such deficiencies. Moreover, we had not right on our side. I have never confessed it publicly, but I can say it here: after the dissolution of the Confederation the Grand Duke had become the sovereign of Luxemburg and could have done what he liked with the country. It would have been mean of him to part with it for money, but it was open to him to cede it to France. Our right of occupation was also not well founded. Properly speaking, after the dissolution of the Confederation we ought no longer to have occupied even Rastatt and Mainz. I said that in the Council—I had at that time yet another idea, namely, to hand over Luxemburg to Belgium. In that case we should have united it to a country on behalf of whose neutrality, as people then thought, England would intervene. That would also have strengthened the German element there against the French speaking inhabitants, and at the same time have secured a good frontier. My proposal was not received with any favour, and it is just as well as it has turned out.”

Bismarck-Bohlen drew attention to a capital cartoon in Kladderadatsch: Napoleon waiting on the platform of the railway station and saying “They have already given the signal to start.” He has put on an ermine cloak for his journey to Paris, and is carrying his[p. 502] portmanteau in his hand. The Chief, however, observed: “Doubtless he thinks so, and he may be right. But I fear he will miss the train. Yet, after all, there may be no other way left. He would be easier to convince than Favre. But he would always require half the army to maintain him on the throne.”

Thursday, January 26th.—The Chief drove off to see the King at 10.30 A.M.

Herr Hans von Rochow and Count Lehndorff dined with us. The Chief talked about Favre: “He told me that on Sundays the boulevards are still full of fashionably dressed women with pretty children. I remarked to him, ‘I am surprised at that. I wonder you have not yet eaten them!’” As some one noticed that the firing was particularly heavy to-day, the Minister observed: “I remember in the criminal court we once had a subordinate official—I believe his name was Stepki—whose business it was to administer the floggings. He was accustomed to lay on the last three strokes with exceptional vigour—as a wholesome memento!” The conversation then turned upon Strousberg, whose bankruptcy was said to be imminent, and the Chief said: “He once told me, ‘I know I shall not even die in my own house.’ But for the war, it would not have happened so soon, perhaps not at all. He always kept afloat by issuing new shares, and the game succeeded, although other Jews, who had made money before him, did their best to spoil it. But now comes the war, and his Rumanians have fallen lower and lower, so that at present one might ask how much they cost per hundredweight. For all that, he remains a clever man and indefatigable.” The mention of Strousberg’s cleverness and restless activity led on to Gambetta, who was said to have[p. 503] also “made his five millions out of the war.” But doubts were expressed on this point, and I believe rightly. After the Dictator of Bordeaux, it was Napoleon’s turn to be discussed, and according to Bohlen, people said he had saved at least fifty millions during the nineteen years of his reign. “Others say eighty millions,” added the Chief, “but I doubt it. Louis Philippe spoiled the business. He had riots arranged, and then bought stocks on the Amsterdam Exchange, but at last business men saw through it.” Hatzfeldt or Keudell then observed that this resourceful monarch used to fall ill from time to time with a similar object.

Morny was then spoken of as having been specially ingenious in making money in every possible way under the Empire. The Chief told us that “when Morny was appointed Ambassador to St. Petersburg he appeared with a whole collection of elegant carriages, some forty-three of them altogether, and all his chests, trunks and boxes were full of laces, silks, and feminine finery, upon which, as Ambassador, he had to pay no customs duty. Every servant had his own carriage, and every attaché and secretary had at least two. A few days after his arrival he sold off the whole lot by auction, clearing at least 800,000 roubles. He was a thief, but an amiable one.” The Chief then, pursuing the same subject and quoting further instances, continued: “For the matter of that, influential people in St. Petersburg understood this sort of business—not that they were willing to take money directly. But when a person wanted something, he went to a certain French shop, and bought expensive laces, gloves or jewellery, perhaps for five or six thousand roubles. The shop was run on behalf of some official or his[p. 504] wife. This process repeated, say, twice a week, produced quite a respectable amount in the course of the year.”

Bohlen called out across the table: “Do, please, tell that lovely story about the Jew with the torn boots who got twenty-five lashes.” The Chief: “It came about in this way. One day a Jew called at our Chancellerie declaring that he was penniless, and wanted to be sent back to Prussia. He was terribly tattered, and he had on in particular a pair of boots that showed his naked toes. He was told that he would be sent home, but then he wanted to get other boots as it was so cold. He demanded them as a right, and became so forward and impudent, screaming and calling names, that our people did not know what to do with him. And the servants also could not trust themselves to deal with the furious creature. At length, when the row had become intolerable, I was called to render physical assistance. I told the man to be quiet or I would have him locked up. He answered defiantly: ‘You can’t do that. You have no right whatever to do that in Russia!’ ‘We shall see!’ I replied. ‘I must send you home, but I am not called upon to give you boots, although perhaps I might have done so. But first you shall receive punishment for your abominable behaviour.’ He then repeated that I could not touch him. Thereupon I opened the window and beckoned to a Russian policeman, who was stationed a little way off. My Jew continued to shriek and abuse us until the policeman, a tall stout man, came in. I said, ‘Take him with you—lock him up till to-morrow—twenty-five!’ The big policeman took the little Jew with him, and locked him up. He came again next morning quite transformed, very humble and submissive, and declared himself ready[p. 505] for the journey without new boots. I asked how he had got on in the interval. Badly, he said, very badly. But what had they done to him? They had—well, they had—physically maltreated him. I thought that when he got home he would enter a complaint against me, or get his case into the newspapers—the Volkszeitung, or some such popular organ. The Jews know how to make a row. But he must have decided otherwise, for nothing more was heard of him.”

When I came down to tea at 10.30 P.M. I found the Chief in conversation with the members of Parliament, Von Köller and Von Forckenbeck. The Minister was just saying that more money would soon be required. “We did not want to ask more from the Reichstag,” he said, “as we did not anticipate that the war would last so long. I have written to Camphausen, but he suggests requisitions and contributions. They are very difficult to collect, as the immense area of country over which we are dispersed requires more troops than we can spare for purposes of coercion. Two million soldiers would be necessary to deal thoroughly with a territory of 12,000 German square miles. Besides, everything has grown dearer in consequence of the war. When we make a requisition we get nothing. When we pay cash there is always enough to be had in the market, and cheaper than in Germany. Here the bushel of oats costs four francs, and if it is brought from Germany six francs. I thought at first of getting the contributions of the different States paid in advance. But that would only amount to twenty millions, as Bavaria will keep her own accounts until 1872. Another way out of the difficulty occurred to me, namely, to apply to our Diet for a sum on account. But we must first find out what Moltke proposes to extort from the Parisians, that is to say,[p. 506] from the city of Paris—for that is what we are dealing with for the present.” Forckenbeck was of opinion that the Chief’s plan would meet with no insurmountable resistance in the Diet. It is true the doctrinaires would raise objections, and others would complain that Prussia should again have to come to the rescue and make sacrifices for the rest of the country, but in all probability the majority would go with the Government. Köller could confirm that opinion, which he did.

Afterwards an officer of the dark blue hussars, a Count Arnim who had just arrived from Le Mans, came in and gave us a great deal of interesting news. He said the inhabitants of the town appeared to be very sensible people who disapproved of Gambetta’s policy, and everywhere expressed their desire for peace. “Yes,” replied the Chief, “that is very good of the people, but how does it help us if with all their good sense they allow Gambetta, time after time, to stamp new armies of 150,000 men out of the ground?” Arnim having further related that they had again made great numbers of prisoners, the Minister exclaimed: “That is most unsatisfactory! What shall we do with them all in the end? Why make so many prisoners? Every one who makes prisoners ought to be tried by court-martial.” This, like many other similar expressions, must doubtless not be taken literally, and applies only to the franctireurs.

Friday, January 27th.—It is said that the bombardment ceased at midnight. It was to have recommenced at 6 o’clock this morning in case the Paris Government was not prepared to agree to our conditions for a truce. As it has ceased, the Parisians have doubtless yielded. But Gambetta?

Moltke arrives at 8.30 A.M., and remains in conference[p. 507] with the Chief for about three-quarters of an hour. The Frenchmen put in an appearance shortly before 11. Favre (who has had his grey Radical beard clipped) with thick underlip, yellow complexion, and light grey eyes; General Beaufort d’Hautpoule, with his aide-de-camp, Calvel; and Dürrbach, a “Chief of the Engineers of the Eastern Railway.” Beaufort is understood to have led the attack on the redoubt at Montretout on the 19th. Their negotiations with the Chief appear to have come to a speedy conclusion, or to have been broken off. Shortly after twelve o’clock, just as we sit down to lunch, they drive off again in the carriages that brought them here. Favre looks very depressed. The general is noticeably red in the face, and does not seem to be quite steady on his legs. Shortly after the French had gone the Chancellor came in to us and said: “I only want a breath of fresh air. Please do not disturb yourselves.” Then, turning to Delbrück and shaking his head, he said: “There is nothing to be done with him. Mentally incapable—drunk, I believe. I told him to think it over until half-past one. Perhaps he will have recovered by that time. Muddle-headed and ill-mannered. What is his name? Something like Bouffre or Pauvre?” Keudell said: “Beaufort.” The Chief: “A distinguished name, but not at all distinguished manners.” It appears, then, that the general has actually taken more than he was able to carry, perhaps in consequence of his natural capacity having been weakened by hunger.

At lunch it was mentioned that on his way here, Forckenbeck saw the village of Fontenay still in flames. It had been fired by our troops as a punishment for the destruction of the railway bridges by the mutinous peasantry. Delbrück rejoiced with us “that at[p. 508] last adequate punishment had been once more inflicted.”

In the afternoon we heard that the Chancellor drove off shortly before 1 o’clock, first to see the Emperor, and then to Moltke’s, where he and Podbielski again met the Frenchmen. The latter afterwards left for Paris, about 4 o’clock, and will return to-morrow at noon for the purpose of completing the capitulation.

At dinner, the Chief, speaking of Beaufort, said he had behaved like a man without any breeding. “He blustered and shouted and swore like a trooper, and with his ‘moi, général de l’armée française,’ he was almost unendurable. Favre, who is not very well bred either, said to me: ‘J’en suis humilié!’ Besides, he was not so very drunk; it was, rather, his vulgar manners. At the General Staff they were of opinion that a man of that sort had been chosen in order that no arrangement should be come to. I said that, on the contrary, they had selected him because it did not matter for such a person to lose credit with the public by signing the capitulation.”

The Chief then continued: “I said to Favre during our last interview: ‘Vous avez été trahi—par la fortune.’ He saw the point clearly, but only said: ‘A qui le dites-vous! Dans trois fois vingt quatre heures je serai aussi compté au nombre des traîtres.’ He added that his position in Paris was very critical. I proposed to him: ‘Provoquez donc une émeute pendant que vous avez encore une armée pour l’etouffer.’ He looked at me quite terror-stricken, as if he wished to say, How bloodthirsty you are. I explained to him, however, that that was the only right way to manage the mob.” “Then, again, he has no idea of how things are with us. He mentioned several times that France[p. 509] was the land of liberty, while Germany was governed by a despotism. I told him, for instance, that we wanted money and that Paris must supply some. He suggested that we should raise a loan. I replied that that could not be done without the approval of the Diet. ‘Ah’ he said, ‘you can surely get five hundred million francs without the Chamber.’ I answered: ‘No, not five francs.’ But he would not believe it. I told him that I had been at loggerheads with the popular representatives for four whole years, but that the raising of a loan without the Diet was the limit to which I went, and which it never occurred to me to overstep. That seemed to disconcert him somewhat, but he only said that in France ‘on ne se gênerait pas.’ And yet he returned afterwards to the immense freedom which they enjoy in France. It is really funny to hear a Frenchman talk in that way, and particularly Favre, who has always been a member of the Opposition. But that’s their way. You can give a Frenchman twenty-five lashes, and if you only make a fine speech to him about the freedom and dignity of man of which those lashes are the expression, and at the same time strike a fitting attitude, he will persuade himself that he is not being thrashed.”

“Ah, Keudell,” said the Chief suddenly, “it just occurs to me. I must have my full powers drawn up for to-morrow, of course in German. The German Emperor must only write German. The Minister can be guided by circumstances. Official communications must be written in the language of the country, not in a foreign tongue. Bernstorff was the first to try to introduce that system in our case, but he went too far with it. He wrote to all the diplomatists in German, and they replied, of course by agreement, each in his[p. 510] own language, Russian, Spanish, Swedish and what not, so that he had to have a whole army of translators in the office. That was how I found matters when I came into power. Budberg (the Russian Ambassador in Berlin) sent me a note in Russian. That was too much for me. If they wanted to have their revenge Gortschakoff should have written in Russian to our Ambassador in St. Petersburg. That would have been the right way. It is only fair to ask that the representatives of foreign countries should understand and speak the language of the State to which they are accredited. But it was unfair to send me in Berlin a reply in Russian to a note in German. I decided that all communications received in other languages than German, French, English and Italian should be left unnoticed and put away in the archives. Budberg then wrote screed after screed, always in Russian. No answer was returned and the documents were all laid by with the State papers. At last he came himself and asked why he had received no reply. ‘Reply!’ I exclaimed. ‘To what?’ Why, he had written a month ago and had afterwards sent me several reminders. ‘Ah, quite so!’ I said. ‘There is a great pile of documents in Russian down stairs, and yours are probably amongst them. But we have no one who understands Russian, and I have given instructions for all documents written in a language we do not understand to be put away in the archives.’” It was then arranged that Budberg should write in French, and the Foreign Office also when it suited them.

The Chief then talked about the French negotiators and said: “M. Dürrbach introduced himself as ‘membre de l’administration du Chemin de fer de l’Est; j’y suis beaucoup intéressé.’—If he only knew what we intend.” (Probably the cession of the Eastern Railway.) Hatzfeldt:[p. 511] “He threw up his hands in dismay when the General Staff pointed out to him on the map the tunnels, bridges, &c., destroyed by the French themselves. ‘I have always been against that’ he said, ‘and I pointed out to them that a bridge could be repaired in three hours—but they would not listen to me.’” The Chief: “Repaired after a fashion, certainly, but not a railway bridge capable of carrying a train. They will find it hard now to bring up provisions to Paris, particularly if they have committed the same stupid destruction in the west. I think they rely upon drawing supplies from Brittany and Normandy, where there are large flocks of sheep, and from the ports. To my knowledge there are plenty of bridges and tunnels in those parts too, and if they have destroyed them they will find themselves in great straits. I hope, moreover, that people in London will only send them hams and not bread!”

Saturday, January 28th.—At 11 o’clock the French negotiators again arrived—Favre, Dürrbach and two others, who are understood to be also leading railway officials; and two officers, another general, and an aide-de-camp, both men with a good presence. They take lunch with us. Then follows a lengthy negotiation at Moltke’s lodgings. The Chief afterwards dictates to the Secretaries Willisch and Saint Blanquart the treaties of capitulation and armistice, which are drawn up in duplicate. They are afterwards signed and sealed by Bismarck and Favre, at twenty minutes past seven, in the green room next to the Minister’s study up stairs.

The Frenchmen dined with us. The general (Valden is his name) ate little and hardly spoke at all. Favre was also dejected and taciturn. The aide-de-camp, M. d’Hérisson, did not appear to be so much affected, and the railway officials, after their long privations, devoted[p. 512] themselves with considerable gusto to the pleasures of the table. According to what I can gather from the latter they have, as a matter of fact, been on very short commons in Paris for some time past, and the death rate last week amounted to about five thousand. The mortality was especially heavy amongst children up to two years of age, and coffins for these tiny French citizens were to be seen in all directions. Delbrück declared afterwards that “Favre and the General looked like two condemned prisoners who were going to the gallows next morning. I pitied them.”

Keudell expects that peace will soon be concluded and that we shall be back in Berlin within a month. Shortly before 10 o’clock a bearded gentleman apparently about forty-five, who gave his name as Duparc, called and was immediately conducted to the Chief, with whom he spent about two hours. He is understood to be the former French Minister Duvernois, coming from Wilhelmshöhe with proposals for peace. The capitulation and armistice do not yet mean the end of the war with France.

Sunday, January 29th.—Our troops moved forward to occupy the forts. In the morning read despatches respecting the London Conference, and other subjects, as well as the treaties for the armistice and capitulation signed yesterday. Bernstorff reported that Musurus became very violent at one of the sittings of the Conference. He could not conceive why the stipulation closing the Dardanelles against Russian men-of-war should not be worded in an indirect and therefore less offensive form for Russia, and at the same time quite as acceptable to the Porte. From another of Bernstorff’s despatches the Chief appears to have hinted that Napoleon should not miss the right moment. It is[p. 513] also stated that Palikao, who was of the same opinion, thought it would be dangerous to agree in the capitulation to leave the National Guard under arms. Vinoy and Roncière, being in favour of the Emperor, would doubtless be the right men to assume command of the troops in the city.

Our copy of the capitulation fills ten folio pages, and is stitched together with silk in the French colours, on the end of which Favre has impressed his seal.

We were joined at lunch by Count Henckel, who has been appointed Prefect at Metz. He maintained that in about five years the elections in his department would be favourable to the Government; indeed, he was confident even now of being able to bring about that result. In Alsace, however, the prospect was not so good, as Germans are not so docile to authority as the French. He also mentioned that his department had really suffered severely. At the commencement of the war it had some thirty-two to thirty-five thousand horses, and now he believed there were not more than five thousand left.

Before dinner I read further drafts, including a memorandum, in which the Chief explained to the King that it was impossible to demand from Favre, after the conclusion of the capitulation, the surrender of the flags of the French regiments in Paris.

We were joined at dinner by Count Henckel and the French aide-de-camp who was here yesterday. The latter, whose full name is d’Hérisson de Saulnier, wore a black hussar uniform, with yellow shoulder straps and embroidery on the sleeves. He is said to understand and speak German, yet the conversation, into which the Chief entered with zest, was for the most part carried on in French. In the absence of Favre[p. 514] and the General (the former was still in the house, but as he was very busy he had his dinner sent up to him in the small drawing-room) the aide-de-camp was more lively and amusing than yesterday. He bore the whole burden of the conversation for a considerable time, with a series of droll anecdotes. The scarcity of food in the city had become of late very painfully perceptible, but his experience would appear to have been more with the amusing, than with the serious, side of the question. He said that for him the most interesting period of their fast was “while they were eating up the Jardin des Plantes.” Elephant meat cost twenty francs per kilogramme and tasted like coarse beef, and they had really had “filets de chameau” and “côtelettes de tigre.” A dog flesh market was held in the Rue Saint Honoré, the price being two francs fifty per kilo. There were hardly any more dogs to be seen in Paris, and whenever people caught sight of one, they immediately hunted it down. It was the same with cats. If a pigeon alighted on a roof a view holloa was at once raised in the street. Only the carrier pigeons were spared. The despatches were fastened in the middle of their tail feathers, of which they ought to have nine. If one of them happened to have only eight, they said: “ce n’est qu’un civil” and it had to go the way of all flesh. A lady is said to have remarked: “Jamais je ne mangerai plus de pigeon, car je croirais toujours avoir mangé un facteur.”

In return for these and other stories the Chief related a number of things which were not yet known in the drawing-rooms and clubs of Paris, and which people there might be glad to hear, as for instance the shabby behaviour of Rothschild at Ferrières, and the way in which the Elector of Hesse transformed Rothschild’s[p. 515] grandfather Amschel from a little Jew into a great one. The Chancellor repeatedly referred to the latter as the “Juif de cour,” and afterwards gave a description of the domesticated Jews of the Polish nobility.

On Bohlen reporting later on that he had, in accordance with instructions, sent certain papers to “the Emperor,” the Chief observed: “The Emperor? I envy those to whom the new title already comes so trippingly.” Abeken returned from his Majesty’s and announced that “The matter of the flags was settled.” The Chief: “Have you also fired off my revolver letter?” Abeken: “Yes, Excellency, it has been discharged.”

After dinner read drafts and reports, amongst the latter a very interesting one in which Russia advises us to leave Metz and German Lorraine to the French, and to annex a neighbouring piece of territory instead. According to a recent despatch from St. Petersburg Gortschakoff has suggested that Germany might take Luxemburg and leave the French a corresponding portion of Lorraine. The geographical position of the Grand Duchy indicated that it should form part of Germany, and Prince Henry, who is devotedly attached to his separate Court, alone stood in the way. King William wrote on the margin of the despatch that this suggestion was to be absolutely rejected. The Chief then replied as follows: The future position of Luxemburg would, it is true, be an unpleasant one—not for us, but rather for the Grand Duchy itself. We must not, however, exercise any compulsion, nor take the property of others. We must therefore adhere to the programme communicated five months ago to St. Petersburg, especially as we have since then made great sacrifices. The realisation of that programme is indispensable for the security of[p. 516] Germany. We must have Metz. The German people would not tolerate any alteration of the programme.

Favre did not leave till 10.15 P.M., and then not for Paris, but for his quarters here in the Boulevard du Roi. He will come again to-morrow at noon.

The Chief afterwards joined us at tea. In speaking of the capitulation and the armistice, Bohlen asked: “But what if the others do not agree—Gambetta and the Prefects in the south?” “Well, in that case we have the forts which give us the control of the city,” replied the Chief. “The King also could not understand that, and inquired what was to happen if the people at Bordeaux did not ratify the arrangement. ‘Well,’ I replied, ‘then we remain in the forts and keep the Parisians shut up, and perhaps in that case we may refuse to prolong the armistice on the 19th of February. In the meantime they have delivered up their arms, and they must pay the contribution. Those who have given a material pledge under a treaty are all the worse off if they cannot fulfil its conditions.’”

Favre had, it seems, confessed to the Chief that he had proceeded “un peu témérairement” in the matter of the revictualling of Paris. He really did not know whether he would be able to provide in good time for the hundreds of thousands in the city. Somebody observed: “In case of necessity Stosch could supply them with live stock and flour.” The Chief: “Yes, so long as he can do so without injury to ourselves.” Bismarck-Bohlen was of opinion that we need not give them anything; let them see for themselves where they could get supplies, &c. The Chief: “Well, then, you would let them starve?” Bohlen: “Certainly.” The Chief: “But then how are we to get our contribution?”

Later on the Minister said: “Business of State,[p. 517] negotiations with the enemy, do not irritate me. Their objections to my ideas and demands, even when they are unreasonable, leave me quite cool. But the petty grumbling and meddling of the military authorities in political questions, and their ignorance of what is possible and not possible in such matters! One of them comes and wants this, another one that, and when you have got rid of the first two, a third one turns up—an aide-de-camp or aide-de-camp general—who says: ‘But, your Excellency, surely that is impossible,’ or ‘We must have this too in addition, else we shall be in danger of our lives.’ And yesterday they went so far as to insist that a condition (i.e., for the surrender of the flags), which was not mentioned in the negotiations, should be introduced into a document that was already signed. I said to them, however: ‘We have committed many a crime in this war—but falsification of deeds! No, gentlemen, really that cannot be done.’”

Bernstorff, it was mentioned, reports that he had informed the Conference that from this time forward he represented the German Empire and Emperor; and that the other members received this announcement with approval. Thereupon the Chief remarked: “Bernstorff is after all a man who has had business experience. How can he do such things? His wife—what’s her name? Augusta—no, Anna—will have a fine opinion of herself now. Imperial Ambassadress! I cannot lay much store by such titles. A prosperous and powerful King is better than a weak Emperor, and a rich Baron better than a poor Count.” “Such an Emperor as that of Brazil or Mexico!” “With a salary of 800,000 florins,” interjected Holstein. The Chief: “Well, that would be enough to get on with. They require no firing and no winter clothes.”

[p. 518]

Hatzfeldt mentioned that a Spanish secretary of embassy had called. He had come from Bordeaux and wanted to enter Paris in order to bring away his countrymen. He also had a letter from Chaudordy for Favre, and was in great haste. What answer should be given to him? The Chief stooped down a little over the table, then sat bolt upright again, and said: “Attempting to carry a despatch from one member of the enemy’s Government to another through our lines—that is a case exactly suited for a court-martial. When he comes back you will treat the matter in a very serious way: receive him coolly, look surprised, and say that we must complain to the new King of Spain with regard to such a breach of neutrality and demand satisfaction. Besides, I am astonished that Stiehle should have let the fellow pass. These soldiers always pay too much deference to diplomats. And even if he had been an ambassador, Metternich for instance, he should have been turned back even if he had to freeze and starve in consequence. Indeed, such carrier service borders closely on spying.”

The rush of people to and out of Paris that was now to be apprehended then came up for discussion. The Chief: “Well, the French will not let so very many out, and we shall only let those pass who have a permit from the authorities inside, and perhaps not all of those.”

Some one said that Rothschild, who had been supplied with a safe conduct, wanted to come out; upon which the Chief: “It would be well to detain him—as a franctireur, and include him amongst the prisoners of war. (To Keudell) Just inquire into the matter. I mean it seriously.” Bohlen exclaimed: “Then Bleichröder will come rushing over here and prostrate himself in the name of all the Rothschild family.” The Chief:[p. 519] “In that case we will send him in to join them in Paris, where he can have his share of the dog hunting.”

Astonishment was then expressed that the Daily Telegraph should have already published a detailed epitome of the convention signed yesterday, and in this connection Stieber, Favre’s fellow lodger, was mentioned. The English correspondent had acknowledged, according to Bucher, that he had received the news from Stieber, and the Minister added: “I am convinced that Stieber opened Favre’s writing-desk with a picklock, and then made extracts from his papers which he gave to the Englishman.” This is scarcely probable, as Stieber’s knowledge of French is inadequate for that purpose. He much more probably received the news from his patron Bohlen, or perhaps from some officer who heard it from the General Staff, who—as the Chancellor recently remarked—“are very obliging and communicative in such matters.”

Monday, January 30th.—Favre and other Frenchmen, including the Chief or Prefect of the Paris police, were busily engaged with the Chief during the afternoon, and dined with him at 5.30 P.M. The secretaries and I were to go to the Hôtel des Reservoirs, as there was not room enough at table. I remained at home, however, and translated Granville’s latest peace proposals for the Emperor.

Abeken came up to me after dinner to get the translation, and was sorry I had not been present as the conversation was specially interesting. The Chief had told the Frenchmen, amongst other things, that to be consistent in one’s policy was frequently a mistake, and only showed obstinacy and narrow-mindedness. One must modify his course of action in accordance with events, with the situation of affairs, with the possibilities[p. 520] of the case, taking the relations of things into account and serving his country as the opportunity offers and not according to his opinions, which are often prejudices. When he first entered into political life, as a young and inexperienced man, he had very different views and aims to those which he had at present. He had, however, altered and reconsidered his opinions, and had not hesitated to sacrifice his wishes, either partially or wholly to the requirements of the day, in order to be of service. One must not impose his own leanings and desires upon his country. “La patrie veut être servie et pas dominée.” This remark greatly impressed the Parisian gentlemen, of course principally because of its striking form. Favre replied: “C’est bien juste, Monsieur le Comte, c’est profond.” Another of the Frenchmen also declared enthusiastically: “Oui, Messieurs, c’est un mot profond.”

Bucher, when I went down to tea, confirmed the above particulars, and related that Favre after praising the truth and profundity of the Chief’s remark—which, of course, was made for the edification of the Parisians, just as in general his table talk is intended for the benefit of his guests—must needs add the following bêtise: “Néanmoins c’est un beau spectacle de voir un homme, qui n’a jamais changé ses principes.” The railway director, who appeared to Bucher to be more intelligent than Favre, added, in reference to the “servie et pas dominée,” that that amounted to men of genius subordinating themselves to the will and opinions of the majority, and that majorities were always deficient in intelligence, knowledge, and character. The Chief made a lofty reply to this objection, stating that with him (i.e., with the man of genius, the hero) the consciousness of his responsibility before God was one[p. 521] of his guiding stars. He opposed to the droit du génie, to which his interlocutor had given such a high place, the sense of duty (doubtless meaning what Kant describes as the categorical imperative), which he maintained to be nobler and more powerful.

A little after 11 o’clock the Chancellor joined us at tea. “I am really curious,” he said, “to see what Gambetta will do. It looks as if he wanted to think over the matter further, as he has not yet replied. I think, too, he will ultimately give way. Besides, if not it will be all right. I should have no objection to a little ‘Main line’ across France. These Frenchmen are really very funny people. Favre comes to me with a face like a martyred saint, and looks as if he had some most important communication to make. So I say to him, ‘Shall we go up stairs?’ ‘Yes,’ he says, ‘let us do so.’ But when we are there he sits down and writes letter after letter, and I wait in vain for any important statement or piece of news from him. As a matter of fact, he had nothing to say. What he has done for us would go into two pages of note-paper.” “And this Prefect of Police! I have never in my whole life met such an unpractical man. We are expected to advise and help them in everything. In the course of half an hour he fires all sorts of requests into me, so that at last I nearly lost patience, and said to him, ‘But, my good sir, would it not be better to let me have all this in writing? Otherwise it cannot be properly attended to, for it is impossible for me to carry it all in my head.’ Thousands of things pass through one’s mind, and when I think seriously of one matter I lose sight of all others.”

The conversation then turned on the difficulty of supplying the Parisians with provisions. Several railways[p. 522] were useless, at least for the time being; to allow supplies to be drawn from those parts of France immediately adjoining the districts we occupy might result in scarcity and embarrassment to ourselves; and the port of Dieppe, where they count upon receiving consignments from abroad, could only hold a few vessels. The Chief reckoned out how many rations would be required daily, and how much could be transported in moderately normal circumstances. He found that the supply would be a very scanty one, and that possibly large numbers might still have to starve. He then added: “Favre himself said to me that they had held out too long. That was, however, as he confessed, merely because they knew we had provisions stored for them at Lagny. They had exact particulars on that point. At one time we had collected for them there 1,400 loaded waggons.”

The levying of taxes and contributions was then discussed, and the Chief explained to Maltzahn the arrangements he wished to see made. Instead of scattering our forces they should in general be massed in the chief town of the department or arrondissement, and from these centres flying columns should be despatched against those who refused to pay taxes, as well as against the guerillas and their aiders and abettors.

With regard to the ten million francs contribution imposed upon the district of Fontenay for the destruction of the railway bridges, Henckel declared, as an expert, that that was an impossible demand—they could not squeeze even two millions out of the people. “Probably not one million,” remarked the Chief. “But that is our way of doing things. All sorts of terrible threats are constantly uttered, and then afterwards they[p. 523] cannot be carried out. The people end by seeing through that sort of thing, and get accustomed to the threats.”

Then followed a highly interesting and detailed review of the various phases in the development of the scheme for the accession of the South German states to the Northern Confederation. “While we were still in Mainz,” related the Chancellor, “the King of Bavaria wrote a letter to our most gracious master in which he expressed a hope that he would not be mediatised. As a matter of course, his mind was set at ease on that point. But the King did not want the answer to be quite so categorical. That was the first conflict between the King and myself during the war. I told him that King Lewis would probably in that case withdraw his troops, and that he would be within his right in doing so. I remember it was in the corner room. It was a hard struggle, and finally he left me still in doubt as to what he was going to do. After the first great victories and before Sedan, there was another idea, namely, that of a military revolution and a military Emperor of Germany, who should be proclaimed by the troops, including the Bavarians. That idea was not to my liking. Subsequently, when Bray came here, they had thought out a plan of their own in Munich. They felt themselves to be safe, and wished for something more. Bray brought with him the plan of the alternating imperial dignity. As Bray said to me, an agreement could be come to between the North German Confederation and Bavaria or between Germany and Bavaria. In the meantime we might very well conclude treaties with Baden and Würtemberg, and afterwards come to an understanding with Bavaria. I was quite satisfied with that. But when I told it to Delbrück, he looked as if he were going to faint. I said to him, ‘For Heaven’s[p. 524] sake, why not accept it? It is exactly what we want.’ And so it was too. For when I informed Suckow and Mittnacht, they were beside themselves with rage, and immediately came to terms with me. Later on, however, the King (of Würtemberg) was induced to strike out again in a new line. It was through Frau von Gasser, who had great influence at the Court in Stuttgart. He wanted to act once more with Bavaria. The Ministers, however, remained firm, and assured me they would rather resign, and thus it came about that the Treaty with Würtemberg was not concluded until afterwards in Berlin. Finally, after all sorts of difficulties on both sides, the arrangement with Bavaria was also settled. Now there was only one thing wanting—but that was the most important of all! I saw a way, and wrote a letter—and after that the credit belongs to a Bavarian Court official. He achieved an almost impossible feat. In six days he made the journey there and back, eighteen German miles, without a railway, to the palace in the mountains where the King was staying—and in addition to that his wife was ill at the time. It was really a great deal for him to do. He arrives at the palace, finds the King unwell—suffering from a tumour in the gum, or from the after effects of an operation under chloroform. He is not to be seen. Well, but he had a letter from me to deliver—very pressing. In vain; the King will not be disturbed; he will do no business to-day. At last his Majesty’s curiosity is aroused, and he wants to know what I have to communicate to him—and the letter is well received. But there is no ink, no paper, no writing materials. They send off a groom, who ultimately comes back with some coarse letter paper; the King writes his answer, just as he is, in bed—and the German Empire is made!”

[p. 525]

Jacoby’s arrest having been mentioned, the Chief observed: “Otherwise, Falkenstein acted quite sensibly, but thanks to that measure of his and to his refusal to release Jacoby when I requested him to do so, we were unable to convoke the Diet for a whole month. As far as I am concerned, he might have had Jacoby carved up for himself into rhinoceros cutlets, but he ought not to have locked him up! All he had to show for his pains was the possession of a dried up old Jew. The King, too, would not at first listen to my representations. We were accordingly obliged to wait, as the Diet would have been within its right in demanding his liberation.”

Jacoby’s name brought up that of another congenial mind, viz., Waldeck (the Radical leader in the Prussian Diet), of whom the Chief gave the following description: “Something like Favre, always consistent, his views and decisions cut and dried in advance, and, in addition to that, a stately presence and a venerable white beard, fine speeches delivered with the earnestness of deep-toned conviction, even on trifling matters, that is so impressive! He makes a speech in a voice throbbing with devotion to principle in order to prove to you that this spoon is in the glass, and he proclaims that any one who refuses to accept that statement is a scoundrel! And all the world believes him, and praises him for his staunchness in every key from treble to bass.”

Tuesday, January 31st.—The King of Sweden has delivered a bellicose speech from the throne. Why, ye gods? I write two paragraphs under instructions from the Chief, and then a third, which calls attention to the sufferings during the bombardment of a number of inoffensive German families who, for various reasons, remained behind in Paris after the expulsion of their[p. 526] fellow countrymen, and commend Washburne, the United States Minister, for the efforts he made to alleviate the lot of these unfortunate people. In this respect he has really acted in a manner that deserves our warmest thanks, and has been loyally assisted by his subordinates.

The Parisian gentlemen are again here, including Favre, who has sent a telegram to Gambetta urgently requesting him to yield. It is to be feared he will not do so. At least the Prefect of Marseilles is showing his teeth and snarling at poor Favre with the patriotic declaration: “Je n’obéis plus le capitule de Bismarck. Je ne le connais plus.” Proud and staunch—but danger is best at a distance.

At tea I hear from Bucher that the Chief has been speaking very strongly about Garibaldi, that old dreamer, whom Favre declares to be a hero.

Subsequently Duparc had an interview with the Minister. Shortly after ten the Chief joined us at tea. He first spoke of the unpractical character of the Frenchmen who have been working with him during the past few days. Two Ministers, Favre and Magnin, the Minister of Finance who has accompanied him this time, spent half an hour to-day worrying over one telegram. This led him to speak of the French in general and of the entire Latin race, and to compare them with the Germanic peoples. “The Germans, the Germanic race,” he said, “is, so to speak, the male principle throughout Europe—the fructifying principle. The Celtic and Slav peoples represent the female sex. That principle extends as far as the North Sea and then across to England.” I ventured to add: “And also as far as America and the Western States of the Union, where some of our people form the best part of[p. 527] the population and influence the manners of the rest.” “Yes,” he replied, “those are their children, the fruit they bear.” “But that was to be seen in France while the Franks had still the upper hand. The Revolution of 1789 was the overthrow of the Germanic element by the Celtic. And what have we seen since then? And this held good in Spain so long as the Gothic blood predominated. And also in Italy, where in the North the Germans also played a leading part. When that element had exhausted itself, there was nothing decent left. It was much the same thing in Russia, where the Germanic Waräger, the Ruriks, first bound them together. As soon as the natives there prevail over the German immigrants and the Germans of the Baltic Provinces, they fall asunder into mere communes.” “It is true that the unmixed Germans are not of much account either. In the south and west where they were left to themselves, there were only Knights of the Empire, Imperial Towns, and Immediate Villages of the Empire, each for itself, and all tumbling to pieces. The Germans are all right when they are forced to unite—excellent, irresistible, invincible—otherwise each one will act according to his own ideas.” “Really, after all, an intelligent absolutism is the best form of government. Without a certain amount of it everything falls asunder. One wishes this thing and another that, there is eternal vacillation, eternal delays.” “But we have no longer any genuine absolutists—that is to say, no kings. They have disappeared. The variety has died out.” “A Republic is perhaps after all the right form of government, and it will doubtless come in the future; but I dislike our Republicans. Formerly things were different, when princes still appeared in brocaded coats and covered[p. 528] with stars. They are declining everywhere, and that decline will be much greater in future. One sees that in the younger generation. It is the case with us also. No more rocher de bronce. They no longer want to govern, and are glad when some one relieves them of the trouble. All they care for is to be praised in the newspapers, and to get as much money as possible for their personal requirements. The only one who still conducts his business properly is the old King of Saxony.” “And when they sit at the table d’hôte in the Hôtel des Reservoirs, here near the Palace of Louis XIV., and every one sees that they are ordinary human beings—and how ordinary!—why, the halo is quite lost. And then one fine morning three Grand Dukes pay their respects to me, and find me in my dressing gown!”

I ventured to relate that as a little child I pictured to myself the King of Saxony, who was the only monarch I knew of at that time, as resembling the king in the pack of cards—clad in ermine, and wearing a crown with orb and sceptre, stiff, gorgeous, and imperturbable: and that it was a fearful disappointment for me when my nurse once pointed out to me a gentleman in the passage between the palace and the Catholic church in Dresden, and told me that that little, crooked, frail, old man, whose uniform became him so badly, was King Anton. The Chief said:—“Our peasants also had very curious conceptions, and the following story was current amongst them. It was to the effect that on one occasion, when a number of us young people were gathered together in some public place, we said something against the King, who happened to be close to us, but was unknown to us. He suddenly stood up, opened his mantle and showed the[p. 529] star on his breast. The others were terrified, but it did not affect me, and I pitched him down the stairs. I received ten years imprisonment for it and was not allowed to shave myself. As I wore a beard at that time, a habit which I had acquired in France (1842) where it was then the fashion, it was said that the executioner came once every year on St. Sylvester’s night to shave it off. Those who told this story were rich peasants and otherwise not at all stupid, and they repeated it, not because they had anything against me but quite in a friendly way, and full of sympathy for a young man’s rashness. The pitching down stairs was rather a coarse invention, but I was pleased all the same that it was only to me they gave credit for not being intimidated by the star.”

I thereupon asked the Chief if there was any truth in the story of the beer glass he was said to have broken on some one’s head in a Berlin restaurant because he had insulted the Queen or refused to drink her health. “It was quite different,” he replied, “and had no political significance whatever. As I was going home late one evening—it must have been in the year 1847—I met some one who tried to pick a quarrel with me. As I pulled him up on account of his language, I discovered that he was an old acquaintance. We had not seen each other for a long time, and on his proposing to me, ‘Come, let’s go to ——’ (he mentioned a name), I went with him, although I really had had enough already. But after getting our beer he fell asleep. Now there were a lot of people sitting near us, one of whom had also taken more than he could carry, and who was attracting attention by his noisy behaviour. I quietly drank my beer, and this man got angry at my being so quiet and began to taunt me. I took no notice, and[p. 530] that made him only the more angry and his language grew more and more violent. I did not want to have any quarrel, nor did I like to go away, as people would have thought I was afraid. At last, however, he came over to my table and threatened to throw the beer in my face. That was too much for me. I stood up and told him to go away, and as he made a motion to throw the beer at me, I gave him a blow under the chin, so that he fell backwards, breaking the chair and the glass, and rolled across the room right on to the wall. The landlady then came and I told her she need not worry, as I would pay for the chair and the beer glass. I said to the others: ‘You are witnesses, gentlemen, that I did not seek a quarrel, and that I endured it as long as possible. But I cannot be expected to allow a glass of beer to be poured on my head simply because I was quietly drinking my glass. If the gentleman has lost a tooth in consequence I shall be sorry. But I was obliged to defend myself. Besides, if anybody wishes to know more, here is my card.’ It turned out that they were quite sensible people and took my view of the case. They were annoyed with their comrade and acknowledged that I was in the right. I afterwards met two of them at the Brandenburg Gate. I said: ‘I think, gentlemen; you were present when I had that affair in the beer house in the Jägerstrasse. What has happened to my adversary? I should be sorry if he had been hurt.’ I must explain to you that he had to be carried away on that occasion. ‘Oh,’ they replied; ‘he is all right, and his teeth are quite sound again. He is altogether subdued, and extremely sorry for what he did. He had just entered the army to serve his year, as he is a doctor, and it would have been very unpleasant for him if people had[p. 531] heard of the affair, and especially if it had come to the knowledge of his superiors.’”

The Chief then related that when he was attending the University at Göttingen he fought twenty-eight students’ duels in three terms, and was always lucky enough to escape with a whole skin. Once his opponent’s blade flew off, probably because it was badly screwed in, and caught him in the face, where it remained sticking. Otherwise he had never received a scar. “I had one very narrow escape, though, at Greifswald. There they had introduced an extraordinary head-dress, a white felt, sugar-loaf hat, and I took it into my head that I must snip off the top of the sugar-loaf, and thus I exposed myself so that his blade whizzed by close to my face. I bent back, however, in good time.”

Wednesday, February 1st.—It was stated at lunch that Gambetta had approved of the armistice, but expressed surprise that we still continued to attack the French in the south-east. Favre, with his unbusinesslike habits, had omitted to telegraph to him that operations were not suspended there. This, by the way, was at his own request.

There were no guests at lunch. The Minister, speaking about Favre, said: “I believe he came here to-day merely in consequence of our conversation of yesterday, when I would not acknowledge that Garibaldi was a hero. He was evidently anxious about him, because I would not include him in the armistice. He pointed to the first article like a thorough lawyer. I said: ‘Yes, that was the rule, but the exceptions followed, and Garibaldi comes under them.’ I quite understood that a Frenchman should bear arms against us—he defended his country, and had a right to do so; but I could not recognise the right of this foreign[p. 532] adventurer with his cosmopolitan Republic and his band of revolutionaries from every corner of the earth. He asked me then what we should do with Garibaldi in case we took him prisoner. ‘Oh,’ I said, ‘we will exhibit him for money, and hang a placard round his neck bearing the word “Ingratitude.”’”

The Chief then asked: “But where is Scheidtmann?” Somebody told him. “He will have, I think, to give me legal advice in the matter” (viz., the war contribution of two hundred millions to be paid by Paris). “Is he not a lawyer?” Bucher said no, he had not studied at all, was originally a tradesman, &c. The Chief: “Well, then, Bleichröder must first go into action. He must go into Paris immediately, smell and be smelt at by his brethren in the faith, and discuss with the bankers how it is to be done. Surely he is coming?” Keudell: “Yes, in a few days.” The Chief: “Please telegraph him at once, that we want him immediately—then it will be Scheidtmann’s turn. I suppose he can speak French?” No one could say. “I am disposed to select Henckel as the third string. He is well acquainted with Paris, and knows the financiers. A member of the haute finance once said to me: ‘On the Stock Exchange we always lay our money on lucky players,’ and if we are to follow that rule Count Henckel is our man.”

À propos of German unity, the Minister told us that thirty years ago, at Göttingen, he had made a bet with an American as to whether Germany would be united within twenty-five years. “The winner was to provide twenty-five bottles of champagne, and the loser was to cross the ocean to drink them. The American wagered against union, and I in favour. The interesting point is that, as far back as 1833, I must have had the[p. 533] idea which has now, with God’s help, been realised, although at that time I was opposed to all those who professed to desire such a change.”

Finally, the Chief declared his belief in the influence of the moon on the growth of the hair and of plants. This subject came up through his jocularly congratulating Abeken on the style in which his locks had been trimmed. “You look twice as young, Herr Geheimrath,” he said. “If I were only your wife! You have had it cut exactly at the right time, under a crescent moon. It is just the same as with trees. When they are intended to shoot again they are felled when the moon is in the first quarter, but when they are to be rooted up then it is done in the last quarter, as in that case the stump decays sooner. There are people who will not believe it, learned men, but the State itself acts on this belief, although it will not openly confess to it. No woodman will think of felling a birch tree which is intended to throw out shoots when the moon is waning.”

After dinner I read a number of documents relating to the armistice and the revictualling of Paris, including several letters in Favre’s own hand, which is neat and legible. One of the letters states that Paris has only flour enough to last up to the 4th of February, and after that nothing but horseflesh. Moltke is requested by the Chief not to treat Garibaldi on the same footing as the French, and in any case to demand that he and his followers shall lay down their arms—the Minister desires this to be done on political grounds. Instructions have been sent to Alsace that the elections for the Assembly at Bordeaux, which is to decide as to the continuance of the war, or peace, and eventually as to the conditions on which the latter is to be concluded, are not to be hindered, but rather ignored. The elections[p. 534] are to be conducted by the Maires and not by the Prefects in the districts we occupy.

Thursday, February 2nd.—We were joined at dinner by Odo Russell, and a tall stout young gentleman in a dark blue uniform, who, I was told, was Count Bray, a son of the Minister, and formerly attached to the Bavarian Embassy in Berlin. The Chief said to Russell: “The English newspapers and also some German ones have censured my letter to Favre and consider it too sharply worded. He himself, however, does not appear to be of that opinion. He said of his own accord: ‘You were right in reminding me of my duty. I ought not to leave before this is finished.’ The Minister praised this self-abnegation. He then repeated that our Parisians were unpractical people and that we had constantly to counsel and assist them. He added that they now wished apparently to ask for alterations in the Convention of the 28th of January. Outside Paris little disposition was shown to help in reprovisioning the city. The directors of the Rouen-Dieppe railway, for instance, upon whom they had relied for assistance, declared there was not enough rolling stock, as the locomotives had been taken to pieces and sent to England. Gambetta’s attitude was still doubtful, and he seemed to contemplate a continuation of the war. It was necessary that France should soon have a proper Government.” “If one is not speedily established I shall give them a sovereign. Everything is already prepared. Amadeus arrived in Madrid with a travelling bag in his hand as King of Spain, and he seems to get on all right. My sovereign will come immediately with a retinue, Ministers, cooks, chamberlains, and an army.”

With regard to Napoleon’s fortune, very different opinions were expressed. Some said it was large, others[p. 535] that it was inconsiderable. Russell doubted if he had much. He thought the Empress at least could not have much, as she had only deposited £6,000 in the Bank of England. The Chancellor then related that on the way to Saint Cloud to-day he met many people removing their furniture and bedding. Probably they were inhabitants of neighbouring villages, who had nevertheless been unable to leave Paris. “The women looked quite friendly,” he said, “but on catching sight of the uniforms the men began to scowl and struck heroic attitudes. That reminds me that in the old Neapolitan army they had a word of command, when we say, ‘Prepare to charge, right!’ the command was ‘Faccia feroce!’ (Look ferocious!). A fine presence, a pompous style of speech, and a theatrical attitude are everything with the French. So long as it sounds right and looks well the substance is a matter of indifference. It reminds me of a citizen of Potsdam who once told me he had been deeply impressed by a speech of Radowitz’s. I asked him to show me the passage that had particularly stirred his feelings. He could not mention one. I then took the speech itself and read it through to him in order to discover its beauties, but it turned out that there was nothing in it either pathetic or sublime. As a matter of fact it was merely the air and attitude of Radowitz, who looked as if he were speaking of something most profound and significant and thrillingly impressive,—the thoughtful mien, the contemplative eye, and the sonorous and weighty voice. It was much the same with Waldeck, although he was not nearly such a clever man nor so distinguished looking. In his case it was more the white beard and the staunch convictions. The gift of eloquence has greatly spoilt Parliamentary life. A great deal of time is consumed as every one who thinks he has[p. 536] anything in him wants to speak, even when he has nothing new to say. There are far too many speeches that simply float in the air and pass out through the windows, and too few that go straight to the point. The parties have already settled everything beforehand, and the set speeches are merely intended for the public, to show what members can do, and more especially for the newspapers that are expected to praise them. It will come to this in the end, that eloquence will be regarded as dangerous to the public welfare, and that people will be punished for making long speeches. We have one body,” he continued, “that is not in the least eloquent, and has nevertheless done more for the German cause than any other, that is the Federal Council. I remember, indeed, that at first some attempts were made in that direction. I cut them short, however, though as a matter of fact I had no right to do so, albeit I was President. I addressed them much as follows: ‘Gentlemen, eloquence and speeches intended to affect people’s convictions are of no use here, as every one brings his own convictions with him in his pocket—that is to say, his instructions. It is merely waste of time. I think we had better restrict ourselves to statements of fact.’ And so we did. No one made a big speech after that, business was speedily transacted, and the Federal Council has really done a great deal of good.”

Friday, February 3rd.—In addition to a violently warlike proclamation, Gambetta has issued a decree declaring a number of persons ineligible for the new Representative Assembly. “Justice demands that all those who have been accessory to the acts of the Government which began with the outrage of the 2nd of December, and ended with the capitulation of Sedan, should now be reduced to the same political impotence[p. 537] as the dynasty whose accomplices and tools they were. That is a necessary consequence of the responsibility which they assumed in carrying out the Emperor’s measures. These include all persons who have occupied the positions of Minister, Senator, Councillor of State, or Prefect from the 2nd of December, 1851, to the 4th of September, 1870. Furthermore, all persons who, in the elections to the legislative bodies during the period from the 2nd of December, 1851, to the 4th of September, 1870, have been put forward in any way as Government candidates, as well as the members of those families that have reigned in France since 1789, are ineligible for election.”

The Chief instructs me to telegraph to London and Cologne with respect to this decree, that the Government at Bordeaux has declared whole classes of the population—Ministers, Senators, Councillors of State, and all who have formerly been official candidates—as ineligible for election. The apprehension expressed by Count Bismarck during the negotiations for the Convention of the 28th of January, that freedom of suffrage could not be secured, has thus been confirmed. In consequence of that apprehension the Chancellor of the Confederation at that time proposed the convocation of the Corps Législatif, but Favre would not agree to it. The Chancellor has now protested in a Note against the exclusion of these classes. Only an Assembly that has been freely elected, as provided by the Convention, will be recognised by Germany as representing France.

Count Herbert Bismarck arrived this evening from Germany.

Saturday, February 4th.—The Chief has protested against Gambetta’s decree in a telegram to Gambetta himself and in a note to Favre. The telegram runs:[p. 538] “In the name of the freedom guaranteed by the Armistice Convention, I protest against the decree issued in your name which robs numerous classes of French citizens of the right to be elected to the Assembly. The rights guaranteed by that Convention to the freely elected representatives of the country cannot be acquired through elections conducted under an oppressive and arbitrary rule.” The despatch to Favre after giving an epitome of Gambetta’s decree, goes on to say: “I have the honour to ask your Excellency if you consider this to be in harmony with the stipulation of the Convention that the Assembly is to be freely elected? Allow me to recall to your Excellency’s memory the negotiations which preceded the arrangement of the 28th of January. Already at that time I expressed the apprehension that in presence of the conditions then prevailing it would be difficult to secure the entire freedom of the elections, and to prevent attempts being made to restrict it. In consequence of that apprehension, the justice of which M. Gambetta’s circular of to-day seems to confirm, I raised the question whether it would not be better to convoke the Corps Législatif, which would constitute a legal authority returned by universal suffrage. Your Excellency declined to adopt that suggestion and expressly promised that no pressure should be exercised upon the electors, and that perfect freedom of voting should be secured. I appeal to your Excellency’s sense of rectitude in requesting you to say whether the exclusion of whole categories laid down as a matter of principle in the decree in question is in harmony with the freedom of election guaranteed in the Convention of the 28th of January? I believe I may confidently express the hope that the decree in question, the application of[p. 539] which would appear to be an infraction of the stipulations of that Convention, will be immediately withdrawn and that the Government of National Defence will take the necessary measures to ensure the freedom of election guaranteed by Article II. We could not grant to persons elected in pursuance of the Bordeaux decree the rights secured by the Armistice to the members of the Assembly.”

After 10 o’clock I was called to the Chief, who said: “They complain in Berlin that the English papers are much better informed than ours, and that we have communicated so little to our journals respecting the negotiations for the armistice. How has that come about?” I replied: “The fact is, Excellency, that the English have more money and go everywhere to get information. Besides, they stand well with certain august personages who know everything, and finally the military authorities are not always very reserved with regard to matters that ought, for the time being, to be kept secret. I, of course, can only make public what it is proper that the public should know.” “Well, then,” he said, “just write and explain how it is that the extraordinary state of affairs here is to blame, and not we.”

I then took the opportunity of congratulating him on the freedom of the city of Leipzig, which has been conferred upon him within the last few days, and I added that it was a good city, the best in Saxony, and one for which I had always had a great regard. “Yes,” he replied. “Now I am a Saxon, too, and a Hamburger, for they have also presented me with the freedom of Hamburg. One would hardly have expected that from them in 1866.”

As I was leaving he said: “That reminds me—it is[p. 540] also one of the wonders of our time—please write an article showing up the extraordinary action of Gambetta, who after posing so long as the champion of liberty and denouncing the Government for influencing the elections, is now laying violent hands on the freedom of suffrage. He wants to disqualify all those who differ from him, i.e., the whole official world of France with the exception of thirteen Republicans. It is certainly very odd that I should have to defend such a principle against Gambetta and his associate and ally Garibaldi.” I said: “I do not know whether it was intended, but in your despatch to Gambetta the contrast is very striking where you protest, au nom de la liberté des élections against les dispositions en votre nom pour priver des catégories nombreuses du droit d’être élues.” “Yes,” he replied, “you might also mention that Thiers, after his negotiations with me, described me as an amiable barbarian—un barbare aimable. Now they call me in Paris a crafty barbarian—un barbare astutieux, and perhaps to-morrow I shall be un barbare constitutionnel.”

The Chief had more time and interest for the newspapers this morning than during the past few days. I was called to him six times before midday. On one occasion he handed me a lying French pamphlet, “La Guerre comme la font les Prussiens,” and observed: “Please write to Berlin that they should put together something of this description from our point of view, quoting all the cruelties, barbarities, and breaches of the Geneva Convention committed by the French. Not too much however, or no one will read it, and it must be done speedily.” Later on the Minister handed me a small journal published by a certain Armand le Chevalier at 61 Rue Richelieu, with a woodcut of the Chancellor of the Confederation as[p. 541] frontispiece. The Chief said: “Look at this. Here is a man who refers to the attempt by Blind, and recommends that I should be murdered, and at the same time gives my portrait—like the photographs carried by the franctireurs. You know that in the forests of the Ardennes the portraits of our rangers were found in the pockets of the franctireurs who were to shoot them. Luckily it cannot be said that this is a particularly good likeness of me—and the biography is no better.” Then reading over a passage and handing me the paper, he said: “This portion should be made use of in the press, and afterwards be introduced in the pamphlet.”

Finally he gave me some more French newspapers saying: “Look through these and see if there is anything in them for me or for the King. I must manage to get away or I shall be caught by our Paris friends again.”

Prince Putbus and Count Lehndorff joined us at dinner. The Chief related how he had called Favre’s attention to the singular circumstance that he, Count von Bismarck, who had been denounced as a tyrant and a despot, had to protest in the name of liberty against Gambetta’s proclamation. Favre agreed, with a “Oui, c’est bien drôle.” The restriction on the freedom of election decreed by Gambetta has, however, now been withdrawn by the Paris section of the French Government. “He announced that to me this morning in writing, and he had previously given me a verbal assurance.”

It was then mentioned that several German newspapers were dissatisfied with the capitulation, as they expected our troops to march into Paris at once. “That comes,” said the Chief, “of a complete misapprehension[p. 542] of the situation here and in Paris. I could have managed Favre, but the population! They have strong barricades and 300,000 men of whom certainly 100,000 would have fought. Blood enough has been shed in this war—enough German blood. Had we appealed to force much more would have been spilt—in the excited condition of the people. And merely to inflict one additional humiliation upon them—that would have been too dearly bought.” After reflecting for a moment, he continued: “And who told them that we shall not still enter Paris and occupy a portion of it? Or at least march through, when they have cooled down and come to reason. The armistice will probably be prolonged, and then, in return for our readiness to make concessions, we can demand the occupation of the city on the right bank of the river. I think we shall be there in about three weeks.” “The 24th”—he reflected for a moment—“yes, it was on the 24th that the Constitution of the North German Confederation was made public. It was also on the 24th of February, 1859, that we had to submit to certain particularly mean treatment. I told them that it would have to be expiated. Exoriare aliquis. I am only sorry that the Würtemberg Minister to the Bundestag, old Reinhard, has not lived to see it. Prokesch has though, and I am glad of that, because he was the worst. According to a despatch from Constantinople, which I read this morning, Prokesch is now quite in agreement with us, praises the energies and intelligence of Prussia’s policy, and (here the Minister smiled scornfully) has always, or at least for a long time past, recommended co-operation with us.”

The Chief had been to Mont Valérien to-day. “I was never there before,” he said, “and when one sees[p. 543] the strong works and the numerous contrivances for defence—we should have terrible losses in storming it. One dares not even think of it.”

The Minister said one of the objects of Favre’s visit to-day was to request that the masses of country people who had fled to Paris in September should be allowed to leave. They were mostly inhabitants of the environs and there must be nearly 300,000 of them, “I declined permission,” he continued, “explaining to him that our soldiers now occupied their houses. If the owners came out and saw how their property had been wrecked and ruined they would be furious, and no blame to them, and they would upbraid our people and then there might be dangerous brawls and perhaps something still worse.” The Chancellor had also been to St. Cloud, and whilst he was looking at the burnt palace and recalling to mind the condition of the room in which he had dined with Napoleon, there was a well-dressed Frenchman there—probably from Paris—who was being shown round by a man in a blouse. “I could catch every word they said, as they spoke aloud, and I have sharp ears. ‘C’est l’œuvre de Bismarck,’ said the man in the blouse, but the other merely replied ‘C’est la guerre.’ If they had only known that I was listening to them!”

Count Bismarck-Bohlen mentioned that the Landwehr, somewhere in this neighbourhood, gave a refractory Frenchman, who tried to stab an officer with a penknife, seventy-five blows with the flat of the sword. “Seventy-five!” said the Chief. “H’m, that, after all, is somewhat too much.” Somebody related a similar instance that had occurred in the neighbourhood of Meaux. As Count Herbert was passing recently, a miller, who had abused Count Bismarck and said he wished he had him between[p. 544] two millstones, was laid flat by the soldiers and so fearfully beaten that he was not able to stir for a couple of hours.

The election addresses posted on the walls by the candidates for the National Assembly were then discussed, and it was observed that, in general, they were still very aggressive, and promised to achieve wonders at Bordeaux. “Yes,” said the Chief; “I quite believe that. Favre also tried once or twice to ride the high horse. But it did not last long. I always brought him down with a jesting remark.”

Some one referred to the speech made by Klaczko on the 30th of January in the Delegation of the Reichsrath against Austria’s co-operation with Prussia, and to Giskra’s revelation in the morning edition of the National Zeitung of the 2nd of February. Giskra said that Bismarck wished to send him from Brünn to Vienna with proposals for peace. These were, in effect: Apart from the maintenance in Venetia of the status quo before the war, the Main line was to be recognised as the limit of Prussian ascendancy, there was to be no war indemnity, but French mediation was to be excluded. Giskra sent Baron Herring to Vienna with these proposals. The latter was, however, coolly received by Moritz Esterhazy, and after waiting for sixteen hours obtained only an evasive answer. On proceeding to Nikolsburg, Herring found Benedetti already there, and was told: “You come too late.” As Giskra points out, the French mediation accordingly cost Austria a war indemnity of thirty millions. It was observed that Prussia could have extorted more from Austria at that time, and also a cession of territory, for instance, Austrian Silesia, and perhaps Bohemia. The Chief replied: “Possibly, as for money, what more could the[p. 545] poor devils give? Bohemia would have been something and there were people who entertained the thought. But we should have created difficulties for ourselves in that way, and Austrian Silesia was not of much value to us; for just there the devotion to the Imperial house and the Austrian connection was greater than elsewhere. In such cases one must ask for what one really wants and not what one might be able to get.”

In this connection he related that on one occasion, as he was walking about in mufti at Nikolsburg, he met two policemen who wished to arrest a man. “I asked what he had done, but of course as a civilian I got no answer. I then inquired of the man himself, who told me that it was because he had spoken disrespectfully of Count Bismarck. They nearly took me along with him because I said that doubtless many others had done the same.”

“That reminds me that I was once obliged to join in a cheer for myself. It was in 1866, in the evening, after the entry of the troops. I was unwell just then, and my wife did not wish to let me go out. I went, however—on the sly—and as I was about to cross the street again near the palace of Prince Charles, there was a great crowd of people collected there, who desired to give me an ovation. I was in plain clothes, and with my broad brimmed hat pulled down over my eyes, I perhaps looked like a suspicious character—I don’t know why. As some of them seemed inclined to be unpleasant, I thought the best thing to do was to join in their hurrah.”

From 8 P.M. on read drafts and despatches, including Favre’s answer to the Chief in the matter of Gambetta’s electioneering manœuvre. It runs as follows:—

“You are right in appealing to my sense of[p. 546] rectitude. You shall never find it fail me in my dealings with you. It is perfectly true that your Excellency strongly urged upon me as the sole way out of the difficulty to convoke the former legislative bodies. I declined to adopt that course for various reasons which it is needless to recall, but which you will doubtless not have forgotten. In reply to your Excellency’s objections, I said I was convinced that my country only desired the free exercise of the suffrage, and that its sole resource lay in the popular sovereignty. That will make it clear to you that I cannot agree to the restrictions that have been imposed upon the franchise. I have not opposed the system of official candidatures in order to revive it now for the benefit of the present Government. Your Excellency may therefore rest assured that if the decree mentioned in your letter to me has been issued by the Delegation at Bordeaux, it will be withdrawn by the Government of National Defence. For this purpose I only require to obtain official evidence of the existence of the decree in question. This will be done by means of a telegram to be despatched to-day. There are, therefore, no differences of opinion between us, and we must both continue to co-operate in resolutely carrying into execution the Convention which we have signed.”

Called to the Chief at 9 P.M. He wants to have an article written pointing out that the entry of our troops into Paris is at present impracticable, but may be possible later on. This is in answer in the National Zeitung to an article criticising the terms of armistice.

With regard to an article in the Cologne Volkszeitung showing that the Ultramontanes have offered a subsidy to the leaders of the General Association of German Workers on condition that they promote the[p. 547] election of clerical candidates, the Minister says: “Look here. Please see that the newspapers speak of a ‘Savigny-Bebel party’ whenever an opportunity occurs, and that must be repeated.” And just as I am going out of the room he calls after me: “Or the ‘Liebknecht-Savigny party.’” We take note of that, and shall speak from time to time of this new party.

Sunday, February 5th.—We are joined at dinner by Favre, d’Hérisson, and the Director of the Western Railway, a man with a broad, comfortable, smiling face, apparently about thirty-six years of age. Favre, who sits next to the Chief, looks anxious, worried and depressed. His head hangs on one side, and sometimes for a change sinks on to his breast, his underlip following suit. When he is not eating, he lays his two hands on the table-cloth, one on top of the other, in submission to the decrees of fate, or he crosses his arms in the style of Napoleon the First, a sign that, on closer consideration, he still feels confident in himself. During dinner the Chief speaks only French, and mostly in a low voice, and I am too tired to follow the conversation.

The Chief instructs me to send the following short paragraph to one of our newspapers: The Kölnische Zeitung has made itself the organ, it is true with some reservations, of those who complain of the alleged destruction of French forests by our officials. One would think it could have found some other occupation than to scrutinise our administration of the public forests of France. We act in accordance with the principles of forestry, even if we do not follow the French system. Moreover, we should be within our rights if we exploited these resources of the enemy in the most ruthless manner, as that would render the French more disposed to conclude peace.

[p. 548]

He also warmly praised the active part taken by the Duke of Meiningen in the conduct of the war. He concluded: “I wish that to be mentioned in the press. The background is ready to hand in the princely loafing and palace looting of the rest of them.”

Monday, February 6th.—The Chief desires to have an article against Gambetta published in the Moniteur. I write the following:—

“The Convention of the 28th of January, concluded between Count von Bismarck and M. Jules Favre, has revived the hopes of all sincere friends of peace. Since the events of the 4th of September the military honour of Germany has received sufficient satisfaction, so that it may now yield to the desire to enter into negotiations with a Government which truly represents the French nation for a peace that will guarantee the fruits of victory and secure our future. When the Governments represented at Versailles and Paris finally succeeded in coming to an understanding, of which the conditions were prescribed by the force of circumstances, and France was restored to herself, they were justified in expecting that these preliminaries of a new era in the relations of the two countries would be generally respected. The decree issued by M. Gambetta disqualifying all former functionaries and dignitaries, senators, and official candidates from election to the National Assembly was perhaps necessary to show France the abyss towards which it has been gravitating since the dictatorship, sacrificing the best blood of the country, refused to convoke the representatives of the nation in the regular way.

“The second article of the Convention of the 28th of January shows clearly and plainly that the freedom of the elections is one of the conditions of the Convention[p. 549] itself. In entering into such an arrangement for the elections, Germany only took into consideration the existing French laws, and not the good will and pleasure of this or that popular Tribune. It would be just as easy to call together a Rump Parliament in Bordeaux, and make it a tool for the subjection of the other half of France. We are convinced that all honourable and sincere French patriots will protest against the action of the Delegation at Bordeaux, which is entirely arbitrary and opposed to all sound reason. If there were any prospect that this action would be allowed to unite all the anarchical parties who tolerate the dictatorship in so far as it represents their favourite ideas, the most serious complications would inevitably ensue.

“Germany does not intend to interfere in any way in the domestic affairs of France. She has, however, through the agreement of the 28th of January, secured the right to see that a public authority is established which will possess the attributes necessary to enable it to negotiate peace in the name of France. If Germany is denied the right to negotiate for peace with the whole nation, if an attempt is made to substitute the representatives of a faction for the representatives of the nation, the armistice convention would thereby become null and void. We readily acknowledge that the Government of National Defence has immediately recognised the justice of the complaints made by Count von Bismarck in his despatch of the 3rd of February. That Government has addressed itself to the French nation in language marked by nobility and elevation of feeling, setting forth the difficulties of the situation and the efforts made to relieve the country from the last consequences of an unfortunate campaign. At the same time, it has cancelled the decree of the Delegation at[p. 550] Bordeaux. Let us hope, therefore, that the action of M. Gambetta will receive no support in the country, and that it will be possible to conduct the elections in perfect harmony with the spirit and letter of the Convention of the 28th of January.”

I am called to the Minister again at 11 o’clock, and instructed to defend Favre against the rabid attacks of some French newspapers. The Chief says: “They actually take him to task for having dined with me. I had much trouble in getting him to do so. But it is unfair to expect that, after working with me for eight or ten hours, he should either starve as a staunch Republican, or go out to a hotel where the people would run after him and stare at him.”

The Frenchmen are again here between 2 and 4 P.M. They are six or seven in number, including Favre and, if I rightly heard the name, General Leflô. The Chief’s eldest son and Count Dönhoff join us at dinner.

Subsequently I despatch a démenti of a Berlin telegram published by The Times, according to which we propose to demand the surrender of twenty ironclads and the colony of Pondicherry, together with a war indemnity of ten milliards of francs. This I describe as a gross invention which cannot possibly have been credited in England, or have created any anxiety there. I then hint at the probable source, namely, the clumsy imagination of an unfriendly and intriguing diplomatist. “That comes from Loftus,” says the Chief, as he gives me these instructions. “An ill-mannered fellow who was always seeking to make mischief with us.”

Tuesday, February 7th.—From Bucarest despatches it seems as if the reign of Prince Charles were really coming to a speedy end. With the retention of Dalwigk[p. 551] at Darmstadt, the old confederacy of opponents of German unity remains firmly entrenched, and the well-known intrigues continue unhindered. A telegram from Bordeaux brings the expected news. Gambetta yesterday announced in a circular to the Prefects that his Parisian colleagues having annulled his decree with regard to the elections, he has informed them of his resignation. A good sign. He can hardly have a strong party behind him or he would scarcely have resigned.

Wednesday, February 8th.—The Chief is up at an unusually early hour, and drives off at 9.45 to see the King. Favre arrives shortly before 1 o’clock, accompanied by a swarm of Frenchmen. There must be ten or twelve of them. He confers with the Minister after first lunching with us.

In the evening the Chief and his son dined with the Crown Prince, but first remained for a while with us. He again observed with satisfaction that Favre had not taken offence at his “spiteful letter,” but, on the contrary, had thanked him for it. The Chief had repeated to him verbally that it was his duty to share the dish which he had helped to cook. To-day they had discussed the way of raising the Paris war contribution; the French wanted to pay the greater part of it in bank notes, and we might lose in that way. “I do not know the value of what they offer,” he said; “but in any case it is to their advantage. They must, however, pay the whole amount agreed upon. I will not remit a single franc.”

Thursday, February 9th.—Speaking again of the Paris contribution, the Chancellor observed at dinner: “Stosch tells me he can dispose of fifty million francs in bank notes to pay for provisions, &c., in France. We must have proper security, however, for the remaining[p. 552] hundred and fifty millions.” Then alluding to the foolish story about our wanting Pondicherry, he continued: “I do not want any colonies at all. Their only use is to provide sinecures. That is all England at present gets out of her colonies, and Spain too. And as for us Germans, colonies would be exactly like the silks and sables of the Polish nobleman who had no shirt to wear under them.”

[p. 553]

## CHAPTER XIX

FROM GAMBETTA’S RESIGNATION TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE

Friday, February 10th. Fresh complaints respecting the intrigues of Dalwigk, and especially the measures for depriving the national constituencies in Hesse of their representatives and securing the victory of the Ultramontane and Democratic coalition. The Chief desires me to see that an “immediate and energetic campaign in the press” is organised against these and other mischievous proceedings inspired by Beust’s friends. He also wishes the Moniteur to reprint the long list of French officers who have broken their parole and escaped from Germany.

We were joined at dinner by the Duke of Ratibor and a Herr von Kotze, the husband of the Chief’s niece. Strousberg, a business friend of the Duke’s, was mentioned, and the Chief observed that nearly all, or at least very many of the members of the Provisional Government were Jews: Simon, Cremieux, Magnin, also Picard, whose Semitic origin he would hardly have suspected, and “very probably Gambetta also, from his features.” “For the same reason, I suspect even Favre,” he added.

Saturday, February 11th.—In the morning I read[p. 554] the newspapers, and particularly certain debates in the English Parliament at the end of last month. It really looks as if our good friends across the Channel had a suspicious leaning towards France, and as if they were not at all disinclined to interfere once more—indeed, in certain circumstances, an Anglo-French alliance would appear quite possible. It is a question, however, whether they might not fall between two stools. A very different result might well ensue. From what one hears and reads in the newspapers, the feeling in this country is almost as hostile to the English as to ourselves, and in certain circles more so. It may well happen that if England adopts a threatening attitude towards us, we may surprise our cousins in London with the very reverse of a Franco-English alliance against Germany. We may even be obliged to seriously consider the forcible restoration of Napoleon, which we have not hitherto contemplated. According to a telegram of the 2nd inst., Bernstorff is to see that these ideas are cautiously ventilated in the press.

Count Henckel and Bleichröder dined with us. It seems that in the negotiations with the French financiers, Scheidtmann described them to their faces in language more vigorous than flattering, talking of them as pigs, dogs, rabble, &c., in ignorance of the fact that some of them understood German. The Chief then spoke of the insolence of the Parisian press, which behaved as if the city were not in our power: “If that goes on we must tell them that we will no longer stand it. It must cease, or we shall answer their articles by a few shells from the forts.” Henckel having alluded to the unsatisfactory state of public opinion in Alsace, the Chief said that, properly speaking, no elections ought to have been allowed there at all, and he had not intended[p. 555] to allow them. But inadvertently the same instructions were sent to the German officials there as elsewhere. The melancholy situation of the Prince of Rumania was then referred to, and from the Rumanian Radicals the conversation turned to Rumanian stocks. Bleichröder said that financiers always speculated on the ignorance of the masses, and upon their blind cupidity. This was confirmed by Henckel, who said: “I had a quantity of Rumanian securities, but after I had made about 8 per cent. I got rid of them, as I knew they could not yield 15 per cent, and that alone could have saved them.” The Chief then related that the French were committing all sorts of fraud in the revictualling of Paris. It was not out of pride that they refused our contributions, but merely because they could make no profit out of them. Even members of the Government were involved, and Magnin was understood to have recently made 700,000 francs on the purchase of sheep. “We must let them see that we know that,” said the Chief, glancing at me; “it will be useful in the peace negotiations.” This was done without delay.

After dinner I wrote some paragraphs on the instructions of the Chief. The first was to the effect that we ought no longer to tolerate the insolence of the Parisian journalists. However generous and patient we might be, it was past endurance that the French press should venture to deride and insult to his face the victor who stood before the walls of the capital which he had absolutely in his power. Moreover, such mendacity and violence would prove an obstacle to the conclusion of peace, by producing bitterness on both sides and delaying the advent of a calmer spirit. This could not be foreseen when the armistice Convention was concluded, and in discussing any prolongation of the truce, effective[p. 556] means would have to be found for preventing further provocation of the kind. Undoubtedly the best way would be the occupation of the city itself by our troops. We should thus relieve the French Government of a source of grave anxiety, and avert the evil consequences of inflammatory articles in the press, which they are perhaps not in a position to repress.

Sunday, February 12th.—It is announced in a telegram from Cassel that Napoleon has issued a proclamation to the French. The Minister handed it to me, saying: “Please have this published in our local paper. It is in order to lead them astray, so that they may not know where they stand. But for God’s sake don’t date it from Wilhelmshöhe, or they will think that we are in communication with him. ‘Le bureau Wolff télégraphie.’” The Chief seems to be unwell. He does not come to dinner.

Wednesday, February 15th.—I again draw attention in the Moniteur to the disgraceful tone of the Parisian press. I intimate that this agitation is delaying the conclusion of peace, and that the most certain way of putting an end to it would be the occupation of Paris.

Wednesday, February 22nd.—During the last week I have written a number of articles and paragraphs, and despatched about a dozen telegrams.

The Assembly at Bordeaux shows a proper appreciation of the position. It has declined to support Gambetta, and has elected Thiers as chief of the Executive and spokesman on behalf of France in the negotiations for peace which began here yesterday. At dinner yesterday, at which we were joined by Henckel, the Chief remarked, with reference to these negotiations, “If they were to give us another milliard we might[p. 557] perhaps leave them Metz, and build a fortress a few miles further back, in the neighbourhood of Falkenberg or towards Saarbrücken—there must be some suitable position there. I do not want so many Frenchmen in our house. It is the same with Belfort, which is entirely French. But the soldiers will not hear of giving up Metz, and perhaps they are right.”

Generals von Kameke and von Treskow dined with us to-day. The Chief spoke about his second meeting with Thiers to-day: “On my making that demand” (what the demand was escaped me), “he jumped up, although he is otherwise quite capable of controlling himself, and said, ‘Mais c’est une indignité!’ I did not allow that to put me out, however, but began to speak to him in German. He listened for a while, and evidently did not know what to make of it. He then said in a querulous voice, ‘Mais, Monsieur le Comte, vows savez bien que je ne sais point l’allemand.’ I replied, speaking in French again, ‘When you spoke just now of indignité I found that I did not know enough French, and so preferred to use German, in which I understand what I say and hear.’ He immediately caught my meaning, and wrote down as a concession the demand which he had previously resented as an indignité.”

The Chief continued: “Yesterday he spoke of Europe, which would intervene if we did not moderate our demands. But I replied, ‘If you speak to me of Europe I shall speak to you of Napoleon.’ He would not believe that they had anything to fear from him. I proved the contrary to him, however. He should remember the plebiscite and the peasantry, together with the officers and soldiers. It was only under the Emperor that the Guards could again have the position which they formerly occupied; and with a little cleverness[p. 558] it could not be difficult for Napoleon to win over 100,000 soldiers among the prisoners in Germany. We should then only have to arm them and let them cross the frontier, and France would be his once more. If they would concede good conditions of peace we might even put up with one of the Orleans, though we knew that that would mean another war within two or three years. If not, we should have to interfere, which we had avoided doing up to the present, and they would have to take Napoleon back again. That, after all, must have produced a certain effect upon him, as, to-day, just as he was going to talk about Europe again, he suddenly broke off and said, ‘Excuse me.’ For the rest, I like him very well. He is at least highly intelligent, has good manners, and is an excellent story-teller. Besides, I often pity him, for he is in an extremely awkward position. But all that can’t help him in the least.”

With regard to the war indemnity, the Chief said: “Thiers insisted that fifteen hundred million francs was the maximum, as it was incredible how much the war had cost them. And in addition to that everything supplied to them was of bad quality. If a soldier only slipped and fell down, his trousers went to pieces, the cloth was so wretched. It was the same with the shoes which had pasteboard soles, and also with the rifles, particularly those from America.” I replied: “But just imagine, you are suddenly pounced upon by a man who wants to thrash you, and after defending yourself and getting the better of him, you demand compensation—what would you say if he asked you to bear in mind how much he had had to pay for the stick with which he had intended to beat you, and how worthless the stick had proved to be? However there is a very wide margin between fifteen hundred and six thousand millions.”

[p. 559]

The conversation then lost itself—I can no longer remember how—in the depths of the Polish forests and marshes, turning for a while on the large solitary farm houses in those districts and upon colonisation in the “backwoods of the east.” The Chief said: “Formerly when so many things were going wrong—even in private affairs—I often thought that if the worst came to the worst I would take my last thousand thalers and buy one of those farms out there and set up as a farmer. But things turned out differently.”

Later on, diplomatic reports were again discussed, and the Chief, who seems in general to have a poor opinion of them said: “For the most part, they are just paper smeared with ink. The worst of it is that they are so lengthy. In Bernstorff’s case, for instance, when he sends a ream of paper filled with stale newspaper extracts—why, one gets accustomed to it! But when some one else writes at interminable length, and as a rule there is nothing in it, one becomes exasperated. As for using them some day as material for history, nothing of any value will be found in them. I believe the archives are open to the public at the end of thirty years—but it might be done much sooner. Even the despatches which do contain information are scarcely intelligible to those who do not know the people and their relations to each other. In thirty years time who will know what sort of a man the writer himself was, how he looked at things, and how his individuality affected the manner in which he presented them? And who has really an intimate knowledge of the people mentioned in his reports? One must know what Gortschakoff, or Gladstone, or Granville had in his own mind when making the statements reported in the despatch. It is easier to find out something from the newspapers, of which indeed governments also make use,[p. 560] and in which they frequently say much more clearly what they want. But that also requires a knowledge of the circumstances. The most important points, however, are always dealt with in private letters and confidential communications, also verbal ones, and these are not included in the archives.

“The Emperor of Russia, for instance, is on the whole very friendly to us—from tradition, for family reasons, and so on—and also the Grand Duchesse Hélène, who influences him and watches him on our behalf. The Empress, on the other hand, is not our friend. But that is only to be ascertained through confidential channels and not officially.”

Thursday, February 23rd.—We retain Metz, but not Belfort. It has been practically decided that a portion of our army shall enter Paris.

And I write the following intimation for the Moniteur:—

“The arrogance with which the Parisian press insults and abuses the victorious German army that stands outside the gates of the capital has been frequently stigmatised by us as it deserves. We have likewise pointed out that the occupation of Paris by our troops would be the most effectual means of putting an end to this sort of insolence. At the present moment these lies and calumnies and provocations know no bounds. For instance, the Figaro of the 21st of February, in a feuilleton entitled ‘Les Prussiens en France,’ and signed Alfred d’Aunay, charges German officers and the Germans in general with the most disgraceful conduct such as theft and pillage. We learn that these proceedings, which we forbear to characterise, have entirely frustrated the efforts made by the Parisian negotiators to prevent the German army entering into Paris. We are positively assured that the entry of the German[p. 561] forces into the French capital will take place immediately after the expiration of the armistice.”

Friday, February 24th.—Thiers and Favre were here from 1 to 5.30 P.M. After they left, the Duc de Mouchy and the Comte de Gobineau were announced. The object of their visit was to complain of the oppressive action of the German Prefect at Beauvais, who is apparently rather harsh, or at least not very conciliatory or indulgent. The Chief came to dinner in plain clothes for the first time during the war. Is this a sign that peace has been concluded? He again complained that when he went to see the King, the Grand Dukes, “with their feminine curiosity, pestered him with questions.” With regard to the deputation from Beauvais, Hatzfeldt said that Mouchy and Gobineau were both sensible men and Conservatives, and that our Prefect, Schwarzkoppen, bullied them and the other notables of the town and neighbourhood in an unpardonable way. Amongst other things, two days before the expiration of the term on which a contribution of two millions was to be paid, they brought him a million and a half and said that the balance would follow shortly, whereupon he told them brutally that he was there for the purpose of ruining them and meant to do so, and he threatened to have them locked up in order to “coerce” them, which was not in the least necessary. The Chief was very angry and called Schwarzkoppen a “blockhead.”

Saturday, February 25th.—Unpleasant news has again been received from Bavaria. Werther (who, it is true, is described by Bucher as unreliable and a visionary) writes that Count Holnstein regards the condition of King Lewis with very great anxiety. Prince Adalbert, who combines “the Wittelsbach haughtiness with Jesuitry,” is inciting him against us. He asserts that he signed the treaties under pressure.[p. 562] Before every Court dinner and even before every audience he drinks large quantities of the strongest wines, and then says the most extraordinary things to every one without distinction of persons. He wants to abdicate and leave the crown to his brother Otto, who, however, has no wish for it, and he is always inquiring about deadly poisons, &c. The Ultramontanes are aware of all this, and their candidate for the Reichstag, Prince Luitpold, is also their candidate for the throne, and they mean to get him chosen in spite of Prince Otto’s claims.

Wednesday, March 1st.—In the morning I crossed the bridge of boats at Suresnes to the Bois de Boulogne where, from the half-ruined stand on the racecourse, I saw the Emperor review the troops before they marched into Paris.

We were joined at dinner by Mittnacht, and the Würtemberg Minister, von Wächter, who was formerly attached to the Embassy in Paris, and while there did his utmost against Prussia. The Chief said he had ridden in to Paris, and was recognised by the populace, but there was no demonstration against him. He rode up to one man who looked particularly vicious, and asked him for a light, which he willingly gave.

The Chancellor afterwards took occasion once more to speak his mind out on the obtrusiveness of certain princely personages. “They are like flies,” he said, “there is no getting rid of them. But Weimar is the worst of the lot. He said to me to-day, ‘Please tell me where did you disappear to so quickly yesterday? I should have been glad to put some further questions to you.’ I replied, ‘That was exactly it, your Royal Highness. I had business to do, and could not enter into a lengthy conversation.’ He fancies that the whole world has been created merely for his sake, for his[p. 563] amusement, the improvement of his education, and the satisfaction of his curiosity, which is insatiable, and he has absolutely no tact.” Somebody observed that as a rule when he talks he does not think of what he says, but rather repeats phrases that he has learnt by rote. Mittnacht told another story about this august personage. “Some one was introduced to him: ‘Ah, very pleased indeed, I have heard so much to your credit. Let me see, what was it I heard?’”

Thursday, March 2nd.—Favre arrived this morning at 7.30 A.M., and wished to be shown in to the Chief. Wollmann declined to wake him, however, at which the Parisian Excellency was very indignant. Favre wanted to inform the Chancellor of the news he had received during the night that the National Assembly at Bordeaux had ratified the preliminaries of peace, and thereupon to ask that Paris and the forts on the left bank of the Seine should be evacuated. This request was submitted in a letter which he left behind him.

Sunday, March 5th.—We leave to-morrow, first going to Lagny and thence to Metz. The Chief is present at dinner. The conversation first turned upon our landlady, Madame Jesse, who put in an appearance either to-day or yesterday and made a variety of complaints to the Minister as to the damage we are supposed to have done to her property. He replied that was the way in war, particularly when people deserted their homes. Besides she had reasons to be thankful that she had got off so easily. The little table on which the Treaty of Peace was signed is to be taken with us to Germany. Taglioni, who is to remain behind a few days with the King, is instructed to have it replaced by an exactly similar piece of furniture. In speaking of the preparations for our departure the Chief says: “Kühnel thinks we ought not to travel by night, as Lorraine will[p. 564] be haunted, and they might lay something on the rails.” I replied, “Then I will travel incognito as the Duke of Coburg. Nobody owes him a grudge. He is regarded as perfectly innocent—and with justice.”

Monday, March 6th.—A lovely morning. Thrushes and finches warble the signal for our departure. At 1 o’clock the carriages get under way, and with light hearts we drive off towards the gate that we entered five months ago, and passed Villa Coublay, Villeneuve Saint Georges, Charenton, and La Fasanerie to Lagny, where we take up our quarters for the night.

We leave here next day by a special train for Metz, where we arrive late at night. We put up at an hotel, while the Chief stays with Count Henckel at the Prefecture. Next morning we stroll through the town, visit the cathedral, and survey the neighbourhood from the bastions of the fortress. Shortly before 11 o’clock we are again in the train, and travel by Saarbrücken and Kreuznach to Mainz, and thence to Frankfurt.

The Chief has an enthusiastic reception everywhere along the line and particularly at Saarbrücken and Mainz. Frankfurt is the only exception. We arrive there at a late hour, and start again in the night. At 7.30 on the following morning we reach Berlin, after exactly seven months’ absence. All things considered, everything has been done during those seven months which it was possible to do.

## FOOTNOTES

[1] Strictly speaking, almost complete, as some passages must still be omitted for the present.

[2] The despatch was understood to contain a sentence to the effect that Rome should take care not to challenge Europe, and that whatever the Church might say, the Austrian Courts of Justice would not allow themselves to be influenced into according any indulgence towards those who broke the laws or instigated others to do so.

[3] At that time it had only been accepted by the Committee of the House of Commons,—without any important amendments however, and its adoption on a third reading was assured. It is true, objections were raised. Gladstone very characteristically observed that the law now only empowered the Administration to proceed against incitements to treasonable action; it was, however, necessary to provide for the punishment of attempts by the press to create a “treasonable state of mind” amongst the people. The sole concession made by the Government was that the threatened measures should not be put into execution until warning (once only) had been given.

[4] The loyal Hanoverian circles did not tell the truth in this matter. Stoffel’s reports were, on the whole, good, and he himself was a man of respectable character.

[5] Not quite correct, according to a subsequent statement of the Minister’s and Count Bill’s own account.

[6] Louis de Condé was treacherously murdered on the 12th of March, 1569, after the engagement at Jarnac, just as he had delivered up his sword to an officer of the royal army, being shot by one Montesquieu, a captain of the Guards.

[7] These particulars are worked up into the preceding chapter.

[8] In presence of later events he can hardly have expressed himself in this way.

[9] The Würtemberger was Von Reinhard, and the Darmstadter Von Munch-Bellinghausen, both determined opponents of Prussia.

[10] Compare this passage with the speech delivered by Bismarck in the United Diet on the 15th of June, 1847. On that occasion he said, “I am of opinion that the conception of the Christian state is as old as the so-called Holy Roman Empire, as old as all the European States, and that it is exactly the ground in which those States have struck deep roots; and further, that each State that wishes to secure its own permanence, or even if it merely desires to prove its right to existence, must act upon religious principles. The words ‘By the grace of God,’ which Christian rulers add to their names, are for me no mere empty sound. On the contrary, I recognise in them the confession that Princes desire to wield the sceptre with which God has invested them in accordance with His Will.” Certain remarks made by the Chancellor in his speech of the 9th of October, 1878, during the debate on the Anti-Socialist Bill, should also be remembered in this connection. He said, inter alia: “If I had come to believe as these men (the Social Democrats) do—yes, I live a full and busy life and am in opulent circumstances—but that would not be sufficient to make me wish to live another day if I had not, in the words of the poet, ‘an Gott und bessere Zukunft Glauben’ (faith in God and a better future).”

[11] It was a report from Mohl, originally intended, for his Government at Carlsruhe, which was communicated to the Chief, under whose instructions extracts therefrom were utilised in the press.

[12] At that time Secretary of State in the Foreign Office. He was not a Catholic.

[13] Bucher afterwards told me that the Chancellor was affected both by the superstition respecting the number thirteen and that relating to Friday. Other diplomats, as, for instance, the French, seem to entertain the same objection both to the number and the day. The following anecdote, which I was assured was perfectly genuine, may serve as an example. After the negotiations respecting the duty payable by ships passing through the Sound had been completed, it was arranged that the treaty containing the terms agreed upon should be signed at Copenhagen on the 13th of March, 1587. It turned out that the day thus chosen was not only the thirteenth of the month, but was also a Friday, and that there were thirteen Plenipotentiaries to sign the document. “A threefold misfortune!” exclaimed the French Ambassador Dotezac. To his delight, however, the addition of the signatures was postponed for some days owing to difficulties occasioned by the difference in the rate of exchange of Danish and Prussian thalers. The number of representatives still caused him so much anxiety, however, that it made him ill, and it was only on the decease of the Hanoverian Plenipotentiary a few weeks later that the French Ambassador and the other signatories of the treaty felt that they were no longer in danger of sudden death.

[14] Walker, the English Kutusow of Count Bismarck-Bohlen, H. B. M.’s Military Plenipotentiary at headquarters, was not held in much estimation by the Chancellor and his entourage.

[15] These suspicions, though fully justified by appearances, were subsequently shown to be for the greater part unfounded, except that there was inadequate provision for the requirements of the wounded. I reproduce the episode as evidence of the Minister’s usual humane feeling and love of justice.

[16] A reference to the popular Thuringian ballad of “The Landgrave and the Smith.”

[17] His greeting to those who brought him the news of his election as Emperor while he was netting birds in the forest.

[18] Thun, Rechberg and Prokesch held in succession the position of Austrian Minister to the Bundestag.

[19] The communication referred to is a letter by Thomas Carlyle published in The Times of November 18, in which it occupied two and a half columns. The passages quoted by Dr. Busch are here reproduced from the original:—

“The question for the Germans, in this crisis, is not one of ‘magnanimity,’ of ‘heroic pity and forgiveness to a fallen foe,’ but of solid prudence and practical consideration what the fallen foe will, in all likelihood, do when once on his feet again. Written on her memory, in a distinctly instructive manner, Germany has an experience of 400 years on this point; of which on the English memory, if it ever was recorded there, there is now little or no trace visible.... No nation ever had so bad a neighbour as Germany has had in France for the last 400 years; bad in all manner of ways; insolent, rapacious, insatiable, unappeasable, continually aggressive.... Germany, I do clearly believe, would be a foolish nation not to think of raising up some secure boundary fence between herself and such a neighbour now that she has the chance. There is no law of nature that I know of, no Heavens Act of Parliament whereby France, alone of terrestrial beings, shall not restore any portion of her plundered goods when the owners they were wrenched from have an opportunity upon them.... The French complain dreadfully of threatened ‘loss of honour’; and lamentable bystanders plead earnestly, ‘Don’t dishonour France; leave poor France’s honour bright.’ But will it save the honour of France to refuse paying for the glass she has voluntarily broken in her neighbour’s windows. The attack upon the windows was her dishonour. Signally disgraceful to any nation was her late assault on Germany; equally signal has been the ignominy of its execution on the part of France. The honour of France can be saved only by the deep repentance of France, and by the serious determination never to do so again—to do the reverse of so for ever henceforth.... For the present, I must say, France looks more and more delirious, miserable, blamable, pitiable and even contemptible. She refuses to see the facts that are lying palpably before her face, and the penalties she has brought upon herself. A France scattered into anarchic ruin, without recognisable head; head, or chief, indistinguishable from feet, or rabble; Ministers flying up in balloons ballasted with nothing else but outrageous public lies, proclamations of victories that were creatures of the fancy; a Government subsisting altogether on mendacity, willing that horrid bloodshed should continue and increase rather than that they, beautiful Republican creatures, should cease to have the guidance of it; I know not when and where there was seen a nation so covering itself with dishonour.... The quantity of conscious mendacity that France, official and other, has perpetrated latterly, especially since July last, is something wonderful and fearful. And, alas! perhaps even that is small compared to the self-delusion and unconscious mendacity long prevalent among the French.... To me at times the mournfullest symptom in France is the figure its ‘men of genius,’ its highest literary speakers, who should be prophets and seers to it, make at present, and, indeed, for a generation back have been making. It is evidently their belief that new celestial wisdom is radiating out of France upon all the other overshadowed nations; that France is the new Mount Zion of the universe; and that all this sad, sordid, semi-delirious, and, in good part, infernal stuff which French literature has been preaching to us for the last fifty years is a veritable new Gospel out of Heaven, pregnant with blessedness for all the sons of men.... I believe Bismarck (sic) will get his Alsace and what he wants of Lorraine, and likewise that it will do him, and us, and all the world, and even France itself by and by, a great deal of good.... (Bismarck) in fact seems to me to be striving with strong faculty, by patient, grand and successful steps, towards an object beneficial to Germans and to all other men. That noble, patient, deep, and solid Germany should be at length welded into a nation and become Queen of the Continent, instead of vapouring, vain-glorious, gesticulating, quarrelsome, restless and over-sensitive France, seems to me the hopefullest public fact that has occurred in my time.”—The Translator.

[20] The King.

[21] The Crown Prince.

END OF VOL. I.

RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.

## Transcriber's Notes

The following changes have been made to the text as printed. In cases of doubt, recourse has been had to the original German work (Tagebuchblätter).

1. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.

2. Errors in use of quote marks and other punctuation have been corrected.

3. In cases of inconsistent spelling of German and French names, the spelling used in the original language has been preferred. Examples include changing Frankfort to Frankfurt, Mayence to Mainz, Rheims to Reims, Delbruck to Delbrück. However, where the English text is consistent in spelling, that spelling has been retained (Cologne, Munich, Jahrbuecher).

4. Where a word is used repeatedly in the same way, hyphenation has been made consistent, preferring the form most often used in the printed work, or failing that the more usual form in general use at the time of publication.

5. Page 113: the result would not been has been changed to the result would not have been.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BISMARCK: SOME SECRET PAGES OF HIS HISTORY (VOL. 1 OF 3) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.