CHAPTER II

BLEICHRÖDER AND GERMAN DIPLOMACY IN CONSTANTINOPLE--FURTHER INTERVIEWS WITH THE CHANCELLOR--RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND AUSTRIA--THE GABLENTZ MISSION--QUEEN VICTORIA--AN UNPLEASANT EPISTLE--A SEVERE REPRIMAND--BISMARCK COLLABORATES WITH ME--BUCHER’S JOURNEY WITH SALAZAR--A PRESS CAMPAIGN AGAINST ENGLAND--DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLES ON SOUTH AFRICAN QUESTIONS.

On the morning of Monday, the 27th of November, 1882, I called upon Bucher to hand him a packet with two articles and a letter to be forwarded to the Prince at Varzin, which he promised to do. The latter ran as follows:--

“Hochverehrter Herr Reichskanzler,

“Every man has his own ambition. Mine consists in studying and giving as true as possible a picture of your Serene Highness. I am accordingly about to write a new book respecting you in which the more important material scattered through my previous book will be brought together and supplemented from my own observation, and such sources as the letters in Hesekiel’s work, and the despatches published by Poschinger and in Hahn’s collection. It will not be a biography, but only a detailed character sketch, in a number of chapters, such as Bismarck and Parliamentarism, Bismarck and the German Question, Bismarck and Religion, the Legend of Junker Bismarck, Bismarck and the Diplomatists, Bismarck and the Social Problem, Bismarck as Public Speaker and Humorist, Bismarck and Austria, France, Russia and the Poles, and, finally, Bismarck in Private Life. The way in which I propose to treat the subject will appear from the two articles herewith enclosed, which I would beg you to regard as mere preliminary studies. The first of these, ‘Bismarck as a Junker,’ being a harmless sketch, has already been published in the monthly periodical, _Aus Allen Zeiten und Landen_, and the second, ‘Bismarck and Religion,’ is to appear in the _Grenzboten_. In case of new material coming into my possession both shall be re-written for the book, the object of which is to assist the future historian, and at the same time to be useful to yourself. Everything calculated to interfere with the latter purpose shall be omitted. It is highly desirable that I should receive your Serene Highness’s help in the course of the work. I therefore venture most respectfully to recall the fact that Hesekiel was greatly assisted in this way, and that your Serene Highness in 1873 held out hopes to me of similar assistance. Moreover, as many parts of the book will certainly produce the impression that the author is well informed, it is to be feared that should it at the same time contain errors, the public may also accept them as true.

“I therefore beg in the first place that the two specimen articles may be kindly revised and returned to me, supplemented with as much new material as possible, and, where needful, corrected. I would afterwards, with your permission, send in from time to time legibly written copies of other chapters, and crave the same consideration for them.

“It may be said that such books should not be written during the lifetime of the person described. I take the liberty of rejoining that they can be best done at that time, if confidence is reposed in the writer, as he can then obtain fuller information than can be found in archives, the contents of which are not always, later on, rightly understood by every one.

“Should your Serene Highness desire to communicate verbally with me on the matter, I am ready at all times to obey your commands without delay.

“Your Serene Highness’s most respectful and devoted

“Dr. Moritz Busch.

“Berlin, _November 26th, 1882_.”

At 11.30 A.M. on the 1st of December, Bucher called upon me to return the two articles that had been sent to Varzin, namely, “Bismarck as a Junker” and “Bismarck and Religion.” He at the same time communicated to me the contents of a letter from Count Herbert, to the effect that the Prince had read the articles through, and had said with regard to the second that he could communicate nothing on a matter of so personal a character; and that he could not remember having made the statement on page 2 that he had “brought about three great wars.” It might be possible to insert the word “perhaps” in that sentence. His (Herbert’s) personal opinion was that nothing more ought to be written about his father, and if he had any influence with me he would use it in this direction. I explained to Bucher that if the Prince himself had asked me not to publish anything more about him, I should most _probably_ forbear to do so, but that Herbert had no claim to any influence upon me. “What is Hecuba to me?” I concluded.

_December 19th._--Received the following letter from Bucher:--

“A horrible cough has deprived me of my night’s rest for the past fortnight, but I am a little better since yesterday. As you do not read many of the newspapers, I send you two extracts which will furnish material for the history of the morals of our time.

“1. _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, of the 15th instant.--The following in print:--‘_Herr Justizrath_ Primker is returning to Constantinople in order to join the Council for the administration of the Turkish State Debt in connection with the establishment of the tobacco monopoly and the unification of the Debt. The reports received from various correspondents respecting that gentleman’s failure or success in connection with any other financial mission are all erroneous. How far the investigations made by _Herr Justizrath_ Primker respecting matters of commerce and means of communication in the East may be utilised in the interest of German capital remains a question for the future.’” Bucher then goes on to say: “Unquestionably prepared by Bleichröder, and intended to serve as a kind of official credentials for his agent. You are sufficiently acquainted with the position of that newspaper to know that such an article would not have been accepted unless some one in the Foreign Office (Hatzfeldt) had had the matter in hand.

“2. _Deutsches Tageblatt_ of the 19th instant.--The following also in print:--‘We are pleased to learn from an incidental paragraph in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_ that _Justizrath_ Primker, one of Messrs. Bleichröder’s agents for international transactions, has had and has no other financial mission in Constantinople than to represent their firm. We are glad to see this statement in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, because--as one of our well-informed Vienna correspondents has shown--_Justizrath_ Primker has contrived in Constantinople to make it appear as if he were on the staff of the German Embassy, and as if the German Government were backing him up with all its influence and approval, a circumstance which we should deeply regret, as Primker’s efforts are directed to promoting the interests of Bleichröder and of the notorious Baron Hirsch, and do not tend to the furtherance of the general interests of the German Empire on the Bosphorus. Herr Primker is again going to Constantinople, ostensibly to take part in the work of the Council of the Turkish Public Debt in introducing the tobacco monopoly administration and unifying the State Debt. The Council, as is well known, has charge of the interests of the European creditors of Turkey, and with this object supervises the administration of the Turkish Public Debt. It protects, however, only the interests of the larger creditors, as is shown by the attitude adopted by Herr Primker, who knew how to secure all the advantages for Herr Bleichröder and his partners, while entirely neglecting the claims of the poorer holders of Turkish securities in Germany, so that they actually came off worst of all in the arrangements ultimately made. And yet it was these who ought to have been considered in the very first place, as the net receipts of the Turkish railways amounted to about four million francs, a sum which was sufficient to provide for a fair interest on the securities. It is well known, however, that Baron Hirsch is still able to withhold these receipts from the Turkish Administration, and is assisted in doing so by his business friend, Herr Bleichröder, who is quite indifferent as to whether the interests of others and particularly of German creditors suffer thereby. One hawk does not peck out another hawk’s eyes. Even if we can do nothing to remedy this state of affairs, we can at least help people to recognise the bird by its feathers.’ (Bucher’s letter now follows once more.) I am sufficiently acquainted with the management of this paper to know that such an article must at least have been sanctioned in a higher quarter (Bismarck).”

_December 20th._--The day before yesterday I wrote to the Imperial Chancellor begging for an interview, and in case there were anything to mention in the press to supply me with the necessary information. At 1.30 P.M. to-day a Chancery attendant brought me a letter from _Hofrath_ Sachse, marked “Urgent,” in which Bismarck “requested me to be good enough to visit him this afternoon at 4 o’clock.” I went to the palace at the time appointed. Theiss showed me in to the Prince, with whom I remained for three-quarters of an hour. He had a white beard, and was sitting at his writing-table. After reaching me his hand he said: “You have doubtless come with great expectations, and think I shall have something to say to you about the article in the _Kölnische Zeitung_--the one on Russian armaments.” I asked: “Did that come from here?”

He: “No, not from me; but from the military authorities.”

I: “And the statements are correct?”

He: “Certainly. They are constructing many more railways than they require for trade and traffic, and the garrisons in the western towns and fortresses have been placed almost upon a war footing. I should not be surprised if there were a war with them next year. The Bourse has also shown itself much concerned, but I believe that the fall in quotations arises rather from anxiety respecting France. But (he continued) you have been indiscreet in the _Grenzboten_ in your reference to the alliance with Austria. It has been very awkward for them (in Austria), for the Hungarian Diet can now come and demand information on the subject.”

I replied: “I thought that the matter had gradually leaked out. Three or four months ago some one, I forget now who it was, said to me that everybody now knew that a formal alliance existed, and not a mere memorandum. Perhaps my informant had it from Vienna. I was therefore of opinion that it could do no harm, and might possibly be of use if I mentioned it incidentally, as I did in the _Grenzboten_ article, and I was quite astounded when all the newspapers wrote leading articles upon it. I must be very much mistaken if I have not seen something similar elsewhere.”

“Yes,” he said; “but it was a State secret, and if you had only remembered from whom you had it, an inquiry might well be instituted. It is quite possible that something of the kind had already been said elsewhere; and if what you wrote had appeared in another paper, perhaps no one would have taken any notice of it. But you have given the _Grenzboten_ such a nimbus that it is placed on a level with the Official Gazette. That is not good for you as a writer. You are regarded as, in the highest degree, inspired.”

I: “That is a matter of indifference to me. It only excites hatred and envy; and I have never associated with the local journalists.”

“Well,” he said, smiling, “you can destroy this nimbus if you will only write something thoroughly silly.”

I: “And if you then have a vigorous _démenti_ inflicted upon me.”

He: “But, seriously, you can to a certain extent correct the statement which you blurted out inadvertently, by saying that in doing so you believed you were only repeating what was already known; and you might go on to add a number of useful observations, as, for instance, that, if the alliance did not actually exist, it ought to be brought about, as it would be of great advantage and would fulfil the requirements of two peace-loving Powers--and, further, that we should very much regret the truth of the assertion made by the _Kölnische Zeitung_ that it had only been concluded for five years; in that case it should be extended over a longer period. Finally, it would be in accordance with the interests of both Empires to strengthen and consolidate the good political relations existing between them by closer commercial relations on a treaty basis.”

He then returned to the question of the Russian armaments, and said, _inter alia_: “Now I am to assist! But they can settle the matter themselves. Three years ago I made proposals to them which they would not accept. Now let _them_ settle it!”

He reflected for a while, and then suddenly exclaimed: “Can you find us money, and rid us of the bailiff?... Parliament will not agree to the licensing tax, not even the Conservatives, each one of whom is cleverer than the other, while they are all of them wiser than the Government. Here there is nothing but discord, and the majority are blockheads. What is the use of their Conservatism when they will not support us? A progressive income tax is unjust, and would not be of much assistance, but an equitable income tax would be good and useful. That can be obtained by self-assessment, and it would in a short time cover the deficit in the four classes. The higher classes--14,000--pay about seven million marks, and to double that amount would be oppressive, it would mean a tax of 26 per cent. The capitalist is either a mortgagee, and if his taxes are raised, he turns upon his debtor and raises his interest to 5 or 5½ per cent. interest, instead of 4; or a loan and debenture company, and then its securities would lose as much in value as the tax amounts to; or a holder of industrial shares, and then the tax might reduce or indeed destroy the export trade in the manufactured article. The State cannot tax its own securities, and therefore there only remain foreign securities and railway shares. People are not afraid of the capitalist, but only of the tobacconist, the wine merchant, and the brewer. Of the capitalist one may say:--

“‘I prithee take thy fingers from my throat; For though I am not splenetive and rash, Yet have I in me something dangerous, Which let thy wisdom fear!’

“If the Conservatives were at one with the Government all would be well. As it is, however, we shall doubtless be obliged to dissolve again in February, and then there will not be so many Conservatives returned. The King has so far committed himself that he can no longer govern with the bailiff. His position is most painful, and he will ultimately ask the country again and again whether the bailiff is to be retained.”

He then spoke about Wedell-Malchoff’s motion for taxing time bargains on the Bourse. In his opinion it was not a bad idea, but the phrase “time bargains” should be defined, and in such a way as not to include genuine transactions in rye and spirits or cash transactions. Furthermore, it should start, not with two per mille, but, as the Government had proposed, with one per mille. The latter would be feasible, and of course once a beginning had been made it could be raised. The mistake here was that they were trying to get at dishonest transactions, and thus to introduce a moral tax, whilst such transactions could not possibly be defined or reached. The Chancellor’s statements were somewhat to the foregoing effect. More I cannot say, as I did not understand all these financial explanations, in which he doubtless credited me with more technical knowledge and capacity than I possess to supplement their purport.

In the course of his remarks he mentioned Bleichröder’s name, and I asked whether he had noticed certain hints that Bleichröder’s schemes with regard to the Turkish tobacco monopoly and railways were being promoted by German diplomacy. He denied the fact. It was true, indeed, that in the Rumanian affair Bleichröder had been supported, because, in that instance, in addition to some distinguished gentlemen, a great number of small investors were concerned. Of the former he mentioned Ujest, and, if I am not mistaken, Lehndorff. There Bleichröder had really done good service, “gallantly risking his money, and it was for that reason that he had been ennobled by the King.” Primker, on the other hand, he described as “clever but unscrupulous.” As to the Austrian Government, he observed that they had committed themselves too far with Hirsch.

We finally came to speak about his neuralgia, which caused him a great deal of pain. I suggested that it probably came from a bad tooth.

He: “Others have thought the same, but the doctor has hammered at all my teeth, and says they are sound. No, it is a nervous affection, muscular pain, particularly when I am worried and excited. That is why I do not attend the Parliamentary sittings; for what a delight it would be to certain people if, in the middle of a speech, I suddenly made a wry face, and were unable to proceed!” He dismissed me with the words: “Adieu, Büschlein, auf Wiedersehen! But take care to avoid further indiscretions.”

_January 14th, 1883._--Called this morning on Bucher to give him my new address.

Bucher then expressed a hope that the Bleichröder swindle, which was becoming more and more widely known, would ultimately be mentioned in the Reichstag. I told him that, in speaking to the Chief recently, I had referred to certain newspaper articles on the subjects, and that he declared he knew nothing of diplomatic influence having been exercised in that way at Constantinople, and had, moreover, praised Bleichröder’s action in the Rumanian affair. Bucher exclaimed angrily: “Well then, he lied to you in that matter.... It is true, indeed, that Bleichröder and the Disconto Bank plunged into the affair gallantly, but it was not for the sake of the poor tailors, cobblers and cooks that had blundered into it, but because the Prince of Hohenzollern was also involved.”

Bucher also denounced as “a lie” the Prince’s statement that the article in the _Kölnische Zeitung_ which followed the paragraph in _Grenzboten_ on the Austro-German Alliance, and emphasised, first its five years’ duration, and then the warlike preparations of the Russians, did not come from the Foreign Office, but from the military authorities. (Perhaps this assertion was intended to lead me into some “blunder” which would have deprived the _Grenzboten_ of its “nimbus.”)... “The article is by Kruse, who as you are aware is here. I know also who corrected it.” (Probably Bismarck, or possibly Bucher himself under his instructions.) The fact that the Chief told me to advocate the renewal or prolongation of the treaty, with additional commercial provisions, (this was done subsequently in the _Grenzboten_ and was noted and emphasised by the _Post_) tallies according to Bucher with a proposal which the Chancellor made in Vienna. He was, however, informed in reply that that would not do, as Austria-Hungary consisted of an industrial and an agricultural country, with different interests. Bucher condemned the proposal, saying: “He is in too great a hurry, because he thinks he has only a few more years to live.” I shall now take care to get away from Berlin as soon as I can, and thus avoid further risk of hearing and circulating untruths from the Chief’s mouth.

_January 28th._--Wrote to the Chief yesterday, informing him that the editor of _Harper’s Monthly_ (published in London) had asked me to write an article upon him, and if possible, also to send a photograph of the Prince with his new full beard. At the same time I added a request for an interview. On the same evening I received an answer from the Imperial Chancellerie that the Prince begged me to do him the honour of calling upon him to-morrow, Sunday, at two o’clock. I went accordingly to-day, and had to wait for a while, as the Minister of Justice was with the Chancellor, and Hatzfeldt was already waiting in the antechamber with Möller, the Under-Secretary of State. When Hatzfeldt was called in Möller dropped into conversation with me, and asked me whether I was the author of _Count Bismarck and his People_. He then turned out to be an admirer of my former books also. He had read, among others, the _Pilgrimage to Jerusalem_ and even the _Wanderings between the Hudson and the Mississippi_. When Hatzfeldt came out, the attendant immediately called me in. The Chief, who gave me a very friendly reception, had a particularly bright colour in the face. He asked: “Now then, what is it you want me to tell you for the article? All the principal facts are known.” I replied that I had come less on that account than for the photograph. They had written to me that thousands of Germans in America would be much interested in seeing his portrait with the new beard. “Yes,” he observed, “they now show their interest in the old country by overloading me with contributions for those who have suffered by the inundations on the Rhine. I have not the least idea what I am to do with them. I have talked over the matter with the people in the Reichstag, they must distribute the money. As to the photograph, however, the man suggested in your letter (Brasch, in the Wilhelmstrasse) cannot do it, as I have promised Löscher and Petsch, with whom I have always been satisfied. But I cannot go to them at present as I should catch cold in this weather, and also because I do not go to the Emperor, and he would be surprised if I were to be seen going to the photographer. But I should myself like to see a portrait with the beard, as I do not know how long I shall keep it.” I suggested that he should let Brasch take two photographs only, as he lived close by and would bring his camera here, one of them being for _Harper_ and one for me. He could be forbidden to sell any copies. But the Chief considered that that would be a breach of his word, and showed a disposition to lose his temper, so I let the matter drop.

He spoke of the way in which they “hated him in Parliament,” although “he had done them no harm.” “I cannot understand it,” he continued. “It is not so with other Ministers, even with those who have done nothing but commit blunder after blunder, while I, at least, have maintained peace for them. Surely the present Ministry in France is a wretched concern, English policy has been an unbroken series of blunders for the last three years, and Gortschakoff, with his vanity, also makes all sorts of mistakes; yet no one in their own countries worries and hampers them in every direction. Nor in other respects have I ever given them ground for dissatisfaction. Other Ministers speculate on the Stock Exchange, and take advantage of their office and information to make money. It is asserted that several French Ministers do so, and such cases also occur in Austria, and particularly in Hungary, where the Zichys have made millions in railway shares. Manteuffel and Schleinitz took advantage of their position in the same way. No one can say anything of the kind against me. The Diest-Daber statements were slanders. I have never held speculative securities, but only regular dividend-bearing stock. It is only the national grants that have given me my competency. I have made nothing, but was, on the contrary, much better off formerly than I am now, in consequence of the low prices of corn and timber and unwise purchases of land.... Nor have I led a loose life, but have, on the contrary, been always a respectable father of a family. And nothing of the kind can be said of my sons either. (Really?) No charge can be brought against me, and nevertheless I am hated. But I am tired. I have lost my old passion for shooting and riding, and I fear I shall soon lose my liking for politics. I am sacrificing my health. I ought to live in the country, and the doctors say that if I were free from business, and could spend three or four hours a day in the open air, I should be well again. But I do not like to desert the Emperor, who will soon be eighty-seven, when he begs me with tears in his eyes to remain. Nor can I expect him to accustom himself to others.”

I inquired how he now stood with the Crown Prince, and he replied, “Latterly he has been very amiable to me, particularly at the various festivities.” Then returning, without any transition, to the subject of Parliament and its opposition to himself, he said: “I have maintained peace for them with a great deal of trouble. After 1870 everybody expected war in a couple of years; but so far it has not come, and perhaps, indeed, it may never come again. We are now on a better footing with Russia than we have ever been before, and with Austria we have concluded an alliance.” I asked him if he was still negotiating for an improvement of the treaty in a commercial direction. He rejoined: “I will not tell you that, as you have been indiscreet enough to let it be known that it was only concluded for a period of five years. The _Kölnische Zeitung_ has reproduced that from the _Grenzboten_.”

I: “I beg your pardon, Serene Highness, but the converse was the case. I could not have said it before the _Kölnische Zeitung_, because I was not aware of the fact until I read it in that paper.” He maintained his opinion until I offered to prove to him that he was in error, by sending him the _Grenzboten_ article. He then went on to relate: “They (the Austrians) thought they might satisfy their greed in that way. I imagine that I am doing them a good turn and making them a present, and then they come with their conditions. I have rejected them. A commercial treaty is possible in which we might grant them more favourable terms than to the others, and in which the tariff would not be raised, indeed perhaps reduced. The high duties which we have imposed upon Russia and America need not be applied to Austrian maize and barley. The importation of cattle may also be allowed, although that is scarcely feasible in view of the certificates given in Galicia and Hungary, where everything can be bought and everybody can be bribed. But commercial union and a common customs frontier are out of the question, for Germany takes plenty of imported goods, and superior foreign wines are consumed here in Germany, while even a groschen would be too much for a Slovak or a Raizen (_i.e._, a Servian of Slavonia or Lower Hungary), who uses nothing of the kind. Even here there is a great difference between the Elbe Duchies or the Rhenish provinces and East Prussia or Upper Silesia.”

He then came once more to speak of the peaceful times in which we are now living, and said: “You have only to look at the newspapers and see how empty they are, and how they fish out the ancient sea-serpent in order to have something to fill their columns. The feuilleton is spreading more and more, and if anything sensational occurs they rush at it furiously and write it to death for whole weeks. This low water in political affairs, this distress in the journalistic world, is the highest testimonial for a Minister of Foreign Affairs.”

After a moment’s silence he went on: “Then you propose to return to Leipzig?”

“Yes,” I replied, “since the death of my son, my wife requires amusement and society, which are not to be had here, but which she may find in her own native town.”

He: “Well, but surely any one who writes on politics ought to live in Berlin, where politics are now made.”

I: “But Leipzig is only three hours from here, and during the months when you are in town I can easily reside here.”

He: “That is not necessary, but you might come every fortnight, or when anything occurs, and ask me.”

He again complained of the neuralgic pains, at the same time dipping his finger, as he had already done frequently, in a wine glass containing some strong-smelling yellow liquid, with which he rubbed his right cheek bone. “That relieves me for a short time,” he said. He then continued: “But I am very tired. I have now been engaged in politics practically since 1847, nearly forty years, and that is exhausting. At first in Parliament, then at Frankfurt, where I was very busy, having work thrown upon me from Berlin also.”

I: “That can be seen from Poschinger’s book, which I am now reading and making extracts from.”

He: “Yes, but he does not say that I also wrote numerous letters to the King from Frankfurt,[9] and that I came no less than thirteen times in one year to Berlin to see him.”

I: “It looks almost as if already at Frankfurt you had been his Minister for Foreign Affairs--at least Manteuffel drew his inspiration from you in the principal questions.”

He: “Yes, the late King discussed all great questions with me, and Manteuffel put up with it.”

I mentioned that the extracts which I was making from the documents contained in Poschinger’s book were intended in the main for the chapter on “Bismarck and Austria,” in which I proposed to embody what I had personally gathered in 1870, as, for instance, Prince Luitpold’s abortive letter to the Emperor Francis Joseph.

He: “Certainly! But as long ago as 1866 I made an attempt to come to an understanding with them. I suppose I have already told you the Gablentz story?”

I: “No, but you have told me others from that period, as, for instance, how the King wanted to annex portions of Saxony, Bavaria and Bohemia, and how you persuaded him not to do so.”

He: “Well, it occurred in this way. Just after the first shot had been fired (in reality it must have been about a fortnight before) I sent Gablentz, the brother of the general, to the Emperor at Vienna with proposals for peace on a dualistic basis. I instructed him to point out that we had seven or eight hundred thousand men under arms, while they also had a great number. It would therefore be better for us both to come to an agreement, and making a change of front towards the West, unite our forces in attacking France, recapture Alsace, and turn Strassburg into a federal fortress. The French were weak as compared with us. There might be no just cause for war, but we could plead with the other Powers that France had also acted unjustly in taking Alsace and Strassburg, whence she had continually menaced South Germany ever since. If we were to bring these as a gift to the Germans they would accept our dualism. They, the Austrians, should rule in the South and have command of the seventh and eighth army corps, while we should have command of the ninth and tenth and the federal command in chief in the North.... Dualism is a very ancient institution, as old as the Ingævones and Istævones, Guelphs and Ghibellines.”

I observed: “Already under the Othos, indeed as long ago as Charlemagne with his Franks, and the Saxons.” “High German and Low German,” I said. “With a Celtic fringe below and a Slavonic fringe above.”

“Well,” he continued, “Gablentz submitted his proposal to the Emperor, who seemed not disinclined to entertain it, but declared he must first hear the views of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mensdorff, you know. He, however, was a weak-minded mediocrity, unequal to ideas of that calibre, and he said he must first take counsel with the Ministers. They were in favour of war with us. The Minister of Finance said he believed they would beat us--and he must first of all get a war indemnity of five hundred millions out of us, or a good opportunity for declaring the insolvency of the State. The Minister of War was not displeased with my suggestion, but in his opinion we ought to have our own fight out first, and then we could come to an understanding and fall upon the French together. So Gablentz returned without having effected his purpose, and a day or two afterwards the King and myself started for the seat of war.”

I thanked him warmly for this important and startling communication, and asked him if I might use it in my book. He replied: “Yes, it is for that purpose that I have related it to you. But not in detail, merely the main features. Proposal for peace on the dualistic basis, united attack upon France, and the reconquest of Alsace.”

I then asked once more whether he wished to read the book before it went to press, and he said: “Yes, in order that you may not include anything false in my epitaph.”

I: “That would certainly not be done intentionally. You know that I worship you, and would let myself be cut into a thousand pieces for you.”

He: “Ah, no; not into so many! It is not necessary.”

I: “Well then, only into two pieces, so that one might see half a Büschlein (little Busch) fall to the right and half to the left!”

On my then begging him as soon as his health permitted to let Löscher and Petsch come to take his portrait, he promised to do so, adding: “If they do not care to come, then the other man can--what’s his name?”

I: “Brasch, here in the Wilhelmstrasse, at the corner of the Leipzigerstrasse.”

He: “But I must first keep my word.”

I: “I did not ask you to do anything contrary to it. I only thought of Brasch because he took a very good photograph of my late son.”

He: “How did the thing happen?” I then related shortly the circumstances of my son’s death.

He: “That is a sad case, and there are many to share your misfortune, all who had relatives on board the _Cimbria_.”

I: “But my son was engaged in his profession, in the fulfilment of his duty, and died bravely and conscientiously for his ship like a soldier for his flag.”

He reached me his hand, and said, “Auf Wiedersehen!” I had been with him fully three-quarters of an hour, and all this time good old Möller had to wait in the antechamber.

On returning home on the evening of the 3rd of February, I found lying on my table a letter from Count Bill, in which, at his father’s request, he enclosed a new photograph of the latter with a full white beard.

On the 24th of February I wrote to the Chancellor begging to be allowed to take leave of him personally, as I proposed to start for Leipzig on the following Thursday. I handed the letter to the porter at the palace at 11 A.M., and in about an hour and a half I received an invitation through Sachse to call upon the Prince at 3 o’clock. He was in the room behind his study, which opens on the garden. He was in an armchair, half sitting, half lying, and had beside him a small table covered with documents. After he had asked me how I was, he complained that he still felt very poorly. When one trouble left him another set in. The neuralgic faceache often prevented him from sleeping. If he could only go to the country, away from business, things might improve; but the King would not grant him leave, and “pestered him with all sorts of unimportant orders,” &c., as, for instance, with the question as to who should go to St. Petersburg to attend the coronation. “He thinks,” he continued, “that if I can manage to keep on my legs I shall live to be old,--and if not, why then I must die in the fulfilment of my duty.... And here in the Foreign Office I have no proper assistance. Look at that pile of documents which I must read through myself!” I said: “Of course there is not much to be done with Hatzfeldt. He has little ability, and still less inclination, to work. He only wants to amuse himself, and to draw a big salary for doing so.” “Yes,” he replied, “Hatzfeldt does little for his money, and has neither a good memory nor a taste for business.” He then continued: “The Crown Prince is also inconsiderate, and torments me with matters of no importance; and, in addition to that, the people in the Diet are committing all sorts of blunders. How abusive they have been during the past few days! But it is the same everywhere with Parliaments and Ministers.” I remarked: “Quite so, for instance in France.” “It is no better in England,” he rejoined. “The European is no longer making progress. There is nothing more to be done with him.” He repeated that he was sick of politics, and wanted quiet. He then spoke of the Kulturkampf, observing: “The Pope is really well disposed, but he is not so powerful and independent as one may think; he is dependent upon people who will have no peace. For some time it appeared as if a _modus vivendi_ could be arrived at, but now that is at an end. On the signs of approaching fine weather Windthorst threatened to strike and resign the leadership of the Centre party. He wants a stormy sky for other purposes, for stirring up discontent and strife, and they on the other hand need him, or think they do. They accordingly became frightened in Rome, and now they are once more making themselves unpleasant.” I said: “Catholicism has always been a secondary consideration for Windthorst. He is, above everything else, the well-paid advocate of the Guelphs.”

He rejoined: “Ah, he believes in nothing whatever. He has absolutely no religion.”

He caught sight of an envelope which I had brought with me and laid on the table beside us containing an enlargement by Brasch of his photograph by Löscher. He asked: “What have you there?” I answered: “It usually happens that granting one request brings on another, and that is the case now. I have had your last portrait enlarged and mounted, and I would now beg your Serene Highness to write your name under it as a souvenir. Of course it can be done in pencil.” “No,” he said, “in ink.” He rang for the attendant and asked for “a pen to write my signature,” and then wrote under the photograph: “v. Bismarck, Berlin, 24 February, 1883.”

I thanked him and said: “It is then arranged, Serene Highness, that I may come here and address myself to you occasionally when anything of importance arises, particularly when there would seem to be anything on foot in which you might wish to have some one near you in whom you could repose special confidence? And as to the book, I may send you the proofs in a few months? We shall probably not begin printing before August.” He agreed to all this, and then said: “Well, good-bye, Busch. Auf Wiedersehen! Enjoy yourself in Leipzig ‘an der Pleisse.’” He pronounced these words with a true Saxon accent.

On the 13th of May I came from Leipzig to Berlin, and reported myself to the Chancellor by letter.... On the 15th Sachse sent me word that the Chancellor expected me at 3 o’clock. I presented myself punctually at the time appointed, and had to wait while the Chancellor had a short interview with Rottenburg.... The latter referred to Colonel Vogt’s _Grenzboten_ article on Thibaudin, and mentioned that the Imperial Chancellor had remarked that it was no business of ours to point out to the French that their army was in bad hands. Count Rantzau also came across to shake hands with me. The Chief’s youngest grandchild, Heinrich, some five months old, was also in the antechamber, and he also gave me his little hand to shake.

I was then with the Prince from 3.5 to 4 P.M. He was in plain clothes, and sat at his ordinary double writing-table. He did not look ill, but complained as usual of his neuralgia. He said: “It now extends over the whole body, the chest and abdomen, and I can no longer exert myself to think or work for any length of time--two hours at the outside; then I must give up, or drink champagne or something of that kind to keep myself going for a while longer. I ought to get out of harness altogether, but the Emperor will not consent to this, and even when I go to the country, business and worry now follow at my heels.” I asked: “Worry with the gentlemen in Parliament?” “Ah, no,” he replied; “I no longer read their speeches and brawling. It is the Ministers. Scholz is all right, as also Bötticher and Maybach, although the latter is somewhat blunt,--but the others, and particularly those in the Foreign Office!” I said: “But surely Bucher and Busch are able and diligent.” “That is so,” he rejoined; “but Bucher is cross-tempered and soured, and Busch is sinking under his load of work. I was mistaken in Hatzfeldt. He is very good for negotiating with the King and the Crown Prince, but he thinks only of his own interest, and would like to be my successor; but he has no sense of duty and no love of work.” I added: “One or at most two hours’ work in the day, as formerly--and then to play a game of croquet or lawn tennis with Mrs. or Madame So-and-so.” “Yes,” he said, “that’s his way. Like Lucca. _Unser Paulchen ist sehr faulchen_ (Our little Paul is very lazy). His Excellency Herr von Keudell also wanted to become Imperial Chancellor one day, and absurd as the notion was, he worked it through his friends in the press, who had to praise him up to the skies and represent him as your intimate adviser. But I always regarded him as quite insignificant in politics, and in addition to that he could never do any work. He found a difficulty in managing the most ordinary affairs. I was often obliged to do things for him, and once at Versailles Taglioni, the deciphering clerk, finished off no less than thirty documents for him with which he was in arrears. It is true that he was very clever in looking after his own interests.”

He: “Yes, and he also knew how to get himself a rich wife, and to take advantage of the position which he acquired through the friendship of my wife and his own musical talent. Moreover, he knew how to impress people with his importance--through his silence. But there was nothing behind it. He is stupid, empty and incapable. He was unable even to manage the Pay Department properly.”

I: “On going to Constantinople it is said that he left a deficit of 80,000 thalers.”

The Chief then spoke of Hohenlohe, and appeared to think more highly of him than he did of Hatzfeldt. He also referred to Radowitz and afterwards to Radowitz’s father, alleging that the “Jesuitic attitude of the latter was responsible for Olmütz.” “You know what sort of a man the late King was,” he continued. “For years, during which something might have been done, Radowitz kept him occupied with all sorts of tailoring and ornamental matters, with mediæval questions of costumes, uniforms and coats of arms. He acted as Keeper of the Wardrobe to his fancies: whether such and such counts were or were not received, and the Knights of St. John, and the Wetterau bench of Counts, and the absurd question whether Saxony and Hanover should retain the right to appoint envoys,--as if a barber could not have intrigued successfully against our policy so long as they had the power. He amused the King with such trifles as these until it was too late.”

He then came to speak of Lady Bloomfield’s Memoirs, the Tauchnitz edition of which he brought in from the next room, and asked me to review it in the _Grenzboten_. He said I should find “the genuine English arrogance in the lady,” who was “much pleased at the opposition of the Crown Princess (the present Empress Augusta); and full of the profoundest aversion to everything Prussian and German.” In 1866 she “had been anti-Prussian to the backbone,” and had “libelled our officers as the French did in 1870 with their story of the clock.” In this connection he referred to the merino goats which the Prussians were alleged to have driven away with them from Bohemia. This led him to speak of the Crown Princess and her “English self-conceit,” whereupon I reminded him of the story of the silver plate of the English shopkeepers and of the Prussian nobility which he then repeated to me as before. On my remarking that the Queen, her mother, was also unfriendly to us Germans, and had always sided with the Belgian-Coburg clique, &c., he denied that this was the case, and said that, on the contrary, she had “on the whole been favourable to us.”

He then continued: “I wish you would some time or other refute the charge that I have acted inconsistently in the struggle with the Curia, and that I have changed my opinions and aims in the ecclesiastical question, and in others. That is the sort of criticism which can only proceed from some one who has never occupied the position of a leading Minister. Whoever has held such a post for any considerable time can never absolutely unalterably maintain and carry out his original opinions. He finds himself in presence of situations that are not always the same--of life and growth--in connection with which he must take one course one day, and then perhaps on the next another. I could not always run straight ahead like a cannon ball. (Doubtless a reminiscence of Schiller, ‘Piccolomini,’ I., 4.) Had I done so I should have knocked my head against a wall. When the situation changed I was obliged to alter my plans. Such changes in the situation were, moreover, chiefly due to the fickleness of parties, and, therefore, if any one is to blame they are. Their action, on the other hand, was in great part influenced by their envy. That is the national vice of the Germans. They cannot bear to see any one hold a high and leading position for any length of time. One of the most important changes was produced by the formation of the Catholic party, the founders of which might at the beginning have been expected to support the Government. Savigny, you know. It, however, weakened my position. The entire struggle with the Centre party would have taken another form, and have had a different issue, if I could have fought it out at the head of the Conservatives. I had risen from their ranks, but if I was to do justice to the requirements of the time it was impossible for me to continue in agreement with them on all points. This, and the long-suppressed hatred and envy of old comrades of my own class and faith, which very soon broke out, drove me over to the Liberal side. An understanding had to be come to with the latter if the Empire was to strike firm root, and so I was obliged to come to an agreement with the strongest party, a thing which I had tried in vain to do in 1866, when it was also desirable. It was particularly necessary in those years when Germany was threatened with a Triple Alliance like that of the Kaunitz period. The latest achievement of German diplomacy is to have prevented the formation of such a coalition against us for thirteen years. The Government was forced to appear at the head of the Liberals, at the head of the majority, in order to avert this coalition. The Conservatives fell away from me on that account. I would remind you of the Inspection of Schools Bill, and of the attitude of the _Kreuzzeitung_, and of the libels published in the _Reichsglocke_. And just as the situation was thus altered at that time, so it was again changed in 1878, through the defection of the Liberals. Here, too, it was envy and self-importance, and the desire to rule. I was no longer supported, or only in a lukewarm fashion. They were not sorry to see me weakened by the opposition of the Centre party, so that I should be forced to negotiate with them. The Progressists combined with the Centre against me. The Secessionists acted in very much the same way. From this time forward the National Liberals were silent in the struggle with Rome. They were pleased at the embarrassments to which it gave rise, and wished to have a weaker Government in order that they might appear stronger. When the Government had to strike the Liberals out of its reckoning, it naturally followed that I had to slacken my opposition to Rome. I cannot speak any longer now, or the faceache will return.”

He then rose, but continued to speak of his illness for a while as he walked up and down, describing it as very painful, “like shingles.” I further asked if I might in a few months send him the proofs of my book. “What book?” he said. I answered: “That which your Serene Highness has already twice promised me to read through.” He then thought for a moment, and promised once more to do so, whereupon I took my leave, with wishes for his speedy recovery. He said he had no longer any hope, and only expected to grow worse. (...)

On the 11th of July, after the Chancellor had left Berlin for Friedrichsruh, Grunow sent him the first sheets of my book, _Unser Reichskanzler_, to read through before they were sent to press. On the 16th of July, Count Bill returned me these proofs, with the following lines:--

“Friedrichsruh, 16/7, 1883.

“Dear Sir,

“I enclose the proofs herewith. All that has been struck out is a passage in a private conversation. It would be better to omit altogether expressions of a similar character made in conversations of a confidential nature. (Of course, here and in what follows it is not the writer, but the Chancellor who speaks.) Many things may be said that are not suitable for publication; among these are animadversions upon Imperial institutions, such as the Constitution, for example.

“With much esteem,

“Count W. Bismarck.”

The portion struck out appeared in the third sheet, (page 31, in the first volume of the work as afterwards printed, following the words “einmal zu Grunde gehen,”) and ran: “Then it will be Bang! and snap goes the German Constitution. There might be a repetition of Schwarzenberg’s saying, ‘This arrangement has not stood the test.’” The Prince has also corrected an oversight (Vol. I., p. 12, line 24), striking out the syllable “_un_,” where I had written “_unmöglich_” by mistake--evidence of the care with which he had read it through.

On the 18th of July, Count Bill returned more proofs which were accompanied with the following letter:--

“Dear Sir,

“Although my father cannot act as collaborator but must confine himself to a more negative part, suggesting to you the suppression of incorrect or unsuitable passages, he nevertheless requests you to replace the portion within brackets on page 6, by the enclosed, as the latter is more in harmony with the facts.

“With much esteem,

“Count W. Bismarck.”

The enclosure here referred to was dictated to Count Bill, and appears in the book _Unser Reichskanzler_, Vol. I., pp. 54 and 55.

On the 20th of July further proofs, up to the end of the first chapter, arrived from Friedrichsruh. These again included alterations that had been dictated to Count Bill by his father.

When the Prince shortly afterwards proceeded to Kissingen, Grunow continued to send him the proofs, as he had received no orders to the contrary. They were not returned, and the printers had therefore to stop work. I, however, received the following long letter from the Chancellor, which was written by an amanuensis on official foolscap, like a State document, the two sheets being tied together with silk thread in the Imperial colours.

“Kissingen, _August 3rd, 1883_.

“Dear Sir,

“You probably have no adequate conception of the state of my health and of my need of rest or you would doubtless not be the only person who begrudges me the latter, while the Emperor and the Empire and all their officials respect it. Possibly you have also no notion of the difficulties of the work which you expect me to do. On former occasions of a similar kind I have corrected all errors of fact which had arisen through mistakes on your part or on that of others. Now, however, you wish to submit to the public with regard to my way of thinking and my inner man inferences drawn from observations made by yourself and others, which in great part are actually incorrect. (He had then in his hands Chapters II. and III., and a considerable portion of Chapter IV.) It is, therefore, not surprising that your conclusions do not correspond with the facts, so that if you were to publish them I should be forced to controvert and refute them. There are a number of gross errors of fact, and confusions of jest and earnest, in the expressions and incidents upon which you base your view of my supposed way of thinking. You assume that in everything that I have ever said in your presence for the entertainment of my guests at table, or in my own home, or in what you have gathered from the unreliable accounts of third persons, I have invariably given serious expression to my inmost feelings with the conscientiousness of a witness giving evidence on oath before a Court.

“In view of the pedantry with which you utilise scattered fragments of conversation, a man in my position would be obliged never to depart for a moment from a formal mode of expressing himself or step down from his official stilts. Everything you say in particular respecting my attitude towards Christianity and the question of the Jews is not only monstrously indiscreet, but thoroughly false. (Everything?) The jokes about my superstition have already appeared in print, and in so far as there is any truth in them are just mere jokes or consideration for the feelings of other people. I will make one of a dinner party of thirteen as often as you like, and am ready to undertake the most important and delicate business on a Friday.

“At the present moment I am particularly interested in setting public opinion right as to my share in the Catholic question. What you give on the subject is incomplete and superficial, and as soon as my health has improved I should like to supply you with better material. For that purpose it would be necessary that I should see you personally as soon as I have finished my cure. If I were to correct this and other points by correspondence I should have to myself rewrite your book. But I must be left absolutely in peace for the duration of my Kissingen cure, and cannot occupy myself editorially with such difficult and delicate questions as those you touch upon.

“I would suggest to you to recast your book altogether, as in its present form I do not believe it will be favourably received. The work is far too lengthy, and, in particular, it contains too much material published long since by yourself and others. What is new in it is in part of little interest, while other portions are incorrect, so that I should be obliged publicly to dispute their accuracy.

“I shall be very pleased to read the further proofs in order to form an idea of the whole. When I have done that, I can afterwards give you my opinion in Berlin or Friedrichsruh, but while I remain here I must decline every description of critical or editorial work.

“(Signed) v. Bismarck.”

In reply to this communication, I excused myself for having sent the proofs, through my ignorance of his absolute need of rest, and by recalling the fact that, in 1878, I had been permitted to send him such proofs to Kissingen and Gastein. The printing was then postponed for about eight weeks, until the beginning of October. On the 5th of that month I wrote to Friedrichsruh to ask whether it was now agreeable to him to receive me for the purpose of the interview which he had mentioned as desirable in his letter of the 3rd of August. On the 6th of October Count Herbert wrote that his father would be glad to see me as soon as he had read the proofs sent to him in the summer. Owing to his journey and the state of his health he had not been able to do so up to the present.

The work remained at a standstill for four weeks more. This was very disagreeable to Grunow, who repeatedly requested me to press the matter at Friedrichsruh. I declined to do so, as _I_ could wait. He then wished to write to the Prince himself, describing his embarrassment. I tried to dissuade him, but as he nevertheless repeated the suggestion, I told him he might do so at his own risk, and also gave him a few ideas for his letter. Next day he told me that he had written. On the 9th of November I received the following letter from Friedrichsruh:--

“Friedrichsruh, _November 8th, 1883_.

“Dear Sir,

“The Imperial Chancellor has received a letter dated the 5th instant from Johannes Grunow, publisher, of Leipzig, in which he urges despatch in the supervision of the proofs of your work. The letter contains the following sentence:--

“‘The manuscript was ready and in my hands eight weeks ago, and I do not know what excuses to make without prejudice to the truth unless I can communicate to those who are pressing me the real cause of the delay. This has not been done up to the present, but if the delay should continue for any length of time it will, to my great regret, be scarcely possible to avoid it, unless I receive some other explanation.’

“It is obvious that the Imperial Chancellor cannot continue a correspondence with a person who even now threatens him with disclosures. On the contrary, he is disposed to leave this gentleman to publish your work, if he should think proper so to do, reserving to himself the right of criticising it afterwards. Before he comes to any decision on this point, however, he desires to discuss the matter with you verbally, and requests you to visit him at Friedrichsruh, bringing with you your copy of the proofs of your work.

“I beg of you to be good enough to let me know shortly beforehand the day and hour of your arrival.

“I am, honoured Sir, with profound esteem,

“Your most obedient,

“F. Rantzau.”

I thereupon announced that I should arrive at Friedrichsruh on the 12th of November. I started on the 11th, and, travelling _viâ_ Berlin, reached Friedrichsruh shortly after 12 o’clock on the following day. I was met at the station by a servant, who accompanied me to the Prince’s house and showed me to my room. Shortly afterwards I was called downstairs, where I had a friendly reception from the Chancellor and his wife. We then took lunch, Rantzau being also present, and immediately afterwards the Prince went with me into his study in order to discuss the matter that had brought me hither. He first gave expression to his indignation at Grunow’s letter, in which connection I also came in for my share. Among other things which he said was: “You have turned me into a bookseller’s hack; I am to be exploited like a Christmas speculation, and harnessed to his cart, the impudent fellow! He should have known nothing whatever of my assistance!” I explained to him that I had to inform Grunow owing to the possibility of a considerable delay in the return of my proofs, that I had previously mentioned this to him, the Chancellor, and that he had agreed, and that the same course had been adopted in the case of the first book. In his excitement he appeared to have overlooked what I had said, as he went on as follows: “That must remain between ourselves. I can trust you. You may write to me. But he! What right has a bookseller got to correspond with me, to warn and threaten me?” I tried in vain to appease him, endeavouring to show that the passage quoted by Rantzau when read in connection with the remainder of the letter was perhaps not a threat, but only a strong and not particularly felicitous expression of Grunow’s difficulty and embarrassment. The latter was a man of straightforward character, who knew how to keep his own counsel, and who was incapable of wishing to bring pressure of a threatening character to bear upon the Chancellor, for whom he entertained the highest regard. He then rang for Rantzau, and asked him to bring Grunow’s letter, which he handed to me to read. I could not see that it contained anything more than a cry of distress on the part of the publisher, who had promised the booksellers that a certain book would appear at a fixed date, and who feared he could not keep his word nor find any sufficient excuse to give them. I was as little affected by this embarrassment as I was by any loss which Grunow might suffer in case the book was not published at Christmas. I could have waited for a long time, and even if that were not the case it would never have occurred to me to press him. He said: “You acted in a perfectly proper way when the matter was postponed, and I had not expected anything different from you. But all the same that remains a threat on his part, and a piece of presumption, and I hesitated whether I should not decline to have anything further to do with the book, and afterwards publicly contradict erroneous passages in it. But then I thought of you, although I altogether object to having books written about me and to people trading with me and my affairs. Poschinger has done so, and sold my despatches and letters, forgetting even to send me any remuneration.” (Sometimes his humour does not desert him even in his anger.) “Besides, this new book is not so good as the preceding one. It does not contain much that is new, and what it does is false. You are not such a good observer as you were; you have grown older; and you want to divine and picture my inner man from fragmentary observations, which were mainly misconceptions. You draw conclusions from occasional utterances which you jotted down under the table-cloth. According to you I am always in deadly earnest, as if I were on oath, &c.”

I abstained from urging what could be said on the other side, and his excitement gradually subsided. Taking some of the proofs he sat down at his writing-table and invited me to take a place opposite, in order that I might note down his corrections and additions. He was rather impatient over it, said my hearing was not so good as formerly, and complained that I did not take down dictation as rapidly as his sons, and so on. On this occasion we went through the greater part of the third chapter, and he had very much less to object to and alter than I had apprehended from his letter of the 3rd of August. By far the greater part of these pages he turned over without any remarks. With respect to the others he made observations that had no reference to the book, as for instance: “Thadden, a narrow-minded fellow, who has no brains.” After about three-quarters of an hour he stood up and said: “I must now get some fresh air.” He strode up and down the room, however, for a while, as before, and began again to vent his anger at the presumption and threats of “this bookseller who wanted to harness me to his Christmas cart.” Ultimately, however, he quieted down, grew more friendly, and showed me over the apartments, including his bedroom. In one of the first of these was hung a portrait in oils of a Roman prelate of high rank. In reply to my inquiry he informed me that it was Cardinal Hohenlohe.

He then went out for a walk or drive, while I proceeded to my room and wrote out his observations and the corrections which he had dictated to me. This room, which contains pictures of Grant, Washington and Hamilton, looks out on the park. After 3 P.M. I paid a visit to the Head Forester, Lange, with whom I took a drive.

At a quarter-past six I was called to dinner. Among those present, in addition to the Prince and Princess, were the Rantzaus, Dr. Schweninger, of Munich, who was in attendance on the Chancellor, and Herr von Ohlen, another of the doctor’s patients. The Prince, as I now observed for the first time, suffered from a slight attack of jaundice. Schweninger (a man of lively temperament, with dark hair and beard, who seems to be very much at home here) diagnosed the Prince’s ailment as chronic catarrh of the stomach, and has been successful in his treatment. (...) While taking our coffee, which was served in the Princess’s room, the conversation was at first of little significance. It turned on Becker’s portrait of the Prince during the Frankfurt period, and on two groups of his male and female ancestors, who from their costumes would appear to have flourished in the time between the death of Luther and the Thirty Years’ War, and on the portrait of his sporting grandfather with the shot-gun, which was formerly in Berlin, but has now found a place here too. The conversation gradually grew more lively and interesting; and the Chancellor, who had remarked in the _tête-à-tête_ with me at midday that he would henceforth be careful of what he said in my presence, had probably forgotten his intention. On my stating, among other things, that the war of 1870 appeared to have had an excellent effect upon the national feeling in Saxony, he added, “and still more so in Bavaria. I once said jestingly to Fabrice[10] that we should live to see order restored in Saxony one day by Bavarian troops.” Speaking of Court circles in Berlin, he complained: “Whenever I performed on the political tight-rope they hit me on the shins, and, if I had only fallen, how delighted they would have been! Particularly the eternal feminine (das ewig Weibliche).”

It was only after lunch on Tuesday, the 13th, and again before dinner, that the work with the Prince was resumed, when Chapter II., the remainder of Chapter III., and about half of Chapter IV. were weeded out, the weeds again proving much less abundant than I had anticipated. He maintained that in the second chapter I made him out to be a “hypocrite” in religious matters, an idea which he had no difficulty in entirely disproving, inasmuch as he justified his belief in God among other things by a reference to facts which could only be accounted for by the existence of a Deity.

In the second section he began to dictate to me an account of his attitude towards the Kulturkampf, which he broke off on our being called to dinner. Before that he again suddenly renewed his grumbling at Grunow, I, too, coming in for a small share. He was also displeased with my long full beard. “My wife asked me,” he said, “if you were older than I. ‘No,’ I said, ‘I thought you were four or five years younger.’ But she was right. It’s your beard. It should be cut shorter. As it is it makes you look fearfully ancient.”

On Wednesday, the 14th, the Chief set to work on the proofs with me after breakfast. At Chapter IV. he exclaimed: “Look here, you must have a thoroughly wicked heart. You are delighted every time you hear and can jot down a disagreeable remark about somebody.” I rejoined: “I cannot trust myself to give any opinion upon my own heart. But one thing I do know, it has always been devoted to you. I only hate your enemies.” He afterwards reflected for a moment, looked at the clock, and said: “I must now go out to receive Giers, who is coming from Berlin to discuss important matters with me. We shall introduce you and Schweninger to him as doctors of medicine, for if he ascertained that Dr. Busch belonged to another variety he would be afraid that he was being watched and that it would get into the newspapers. By the way, you have included him among the Jews in your diplomatic chapter, and that must be struck out. (I had referred to his name, Giers, as a russified form of Hirsch.) He may be a Jew, although he asserts that he is the son of a Finnish officer. But we must not write that, as he is well disposed, desires peace, and does what he can to secure it. He is quite indispensable to us.”

The Russian Minister arrived between 2 and 3 P.M. The Chancellor received him at the station, drove with him to the house, and then conferred with him until nearly 6 o’clock, when Giers dined with us, the company remaining together over their coffee until about 9 P.M. Giers is a man of medium height, and would seem to be well advanced in the fifties. He has somewhat of a stoop as he walks. His features are of a slightly Jewish cast, a characteristic which is also evident in his gestures and movements, there being something in the hands in particular which recalled our Semites. On this occasion he spoke only in French.

On Thursday, the 15th, I wrote in my diary: Giers went off again last night about 10 o’clock, and Schweninger and Ohlen left at noon to-day. I took lunch with the Prince’s family, Count William being also present. The Prince, who, by the way, now observes great moderation in diet and drinks only the lightest wines, read despatches, and gave Rantzau instructions for replying to them. The subjects were Bulgarian affairs, and the North Sea and Baltic Canal. I then retired to my room to work, and afterwards made an excursion to the Aumühl. As I was about to return I saw the Chief coming towards me in a carriage. When he recognised me he reached out both hands towards me from a distance, left the carriage, and walked back with me to the mill. (I therefore fancy that he cannot have been so very angry with me.) He described to me a pretty pathway through the woods on the other side of the streamlet, saying: “I know you are also a lover of lonely country walks.” Yesterday evening over our coffee, after Giers had left, he also said: “I always feel happiest in my top-boots, striding through the heart of the forest, where I hear nothing but the knocking and hammering of the woodpecker, far away from your civilisation.”

Again at work with the Chancellor from 4 o’clock onwards. He told me his wife had said: “The doctor may be very clever and amiable, but all the same you should be on your guard at table when he is present. He always sits there with his ears cocked, writes everything down, and then spreads it abroad.” She herself, however, in her simple way, forgot to keep on her guard to-day. While seated on her right at dinner my napkin accidentally dropped, and, lo and behold! her Serene Highness, the lady of the house, bent down for it before I could prevent her! I felt that I had been fearfully awkward.

On Friday, the 16th, the Chief dictated to me the conclusion of the long passage respecting his attitude towards the ecclesiastical struggle. He then gave me, for insertion in the fourth chapter, the following statement with regard to Bunsen:--“During the Crimean War, when he was Minister in London, he reported to Berlin that England offered us Schleswig-Holstein in return for our joining in the war against Russia, whilst he stated in London that Prussia would join if she received the Duchies. Both statements were false, and when the affair became known, he was dismissed. I had something to say in the matter. The King exclaimed: ‘Why, he has been my friend for twenty years, and now he acts in this way!’ Old General Rauch observed: ‘Yes, he has also lied and betrayed your Majesty for twenty years.’ ‘One cannot allow that to be said of a friend,’ rejoined the King.” He then proceeded to other matters, and on my asking whether there was any subject which I could deal with in the press, he at first replied in the negative, but then said: “Giers found the Emperor very frail, and perhaps he will not last much longer. Well, when he dies, I shall go too. He is a gallant old gentleman, who has always meant well, and whom I must not desert. But I will make no experiments with the Crown Prince. I am too old and weak for that. Things will not go on particularly well, and on the whole I am convinced that what we have built up since 1866 has no stability.” In the course of his further remarks he mentioned the Crown Princess, “a Liberal Englishwoman,” “a follower of Gladstone,” and maintained that she “has more influence upon her consort than is desirable.” He then spoke once more of his need of repose and a country life, referring to Berlin in very disparaging terms, and scarcely allowing it even to be a handsome city. He insisted that owing to the drainage there was already a bad smell in every house, and that in a short time, the place would become utterly intolerable. He said in conclusion: “I have always longed to get away from large cities and the stink of civilisation. Every time I return I feel that more and more, and I have earned my leisure.” I remarked that I could fully understand that feeling, and also his reluctance to serve the coming King, on account of his opinions; but surely he would not abandon a work which was so entirely his own, and retire altogether from the political stage. He would at least take his seat in the Upper Chamber and be elected to the Reichstag, where he could offer advice and admonition. He replied: “Yes, but not like the others in perpetual and uncompromising opposition.” I said, “Then please remember this little fellow when you want anything done in the press. I shall always be at your service.” “All right,” he replied, and reached me his hand. “You can then come to me and arrange my papers. (With a significant smile.) There is still a great deal of good stuff there.” I begged leave to remain the following day, as it was such a pleasure to me to be near him. “Oh, certainly!” he said; “but you must not ask me to play cards with you or otherwise entertain you.”

I remained over the 17th, made several excursions on foot through the woods to the east and west, and was present in the evening after dinner when Lange made his report as to the administration of the estate. I started for Berlin at noon on the 18th, and returned to Leipzig on the 19th. There I received in instalments from Rantzau the bulk of the remaining proofs. The Chief sent two more to Bucher in Berlin, whence I had to fetch them.

I immediately noted down the following particulars of the conversation I had with Bucher on this occasion. I praised the Countess Rantzau as being good-natured and unaffected. “Well,” he rejoined, “she is cleverer and more prudent than her mother. The Princess, for instance, is not fortunate in the selection of her acquaintances. First she had the little hunchback Obernitz. Then Babette, Meyer was her friend and confidant--an intelligent body, but.... She was often with her in Berlin and elsewhere, and as the Princess heard a great deal about political affairs and spoke of them to others, Babette, while she was with her, certainly overheard many things and then repeated them to others.... It was afterwards Frau von Wallenberg’s turn. She was the worst, and she it was who had most opportunity for eavesdropping and keeping other people informed. You know that the Prince generally goes through his official papers at lunch time, and gives instruction to his sons or to Rantzau as to the answers to be returned. She could hear all that, and take note of it for Holstein, who has recently developed, owing to his ambition, into a very dangerous intriguer. He is accustomed to communicate to Paulchen (Hatzfeldt, the Secretary of State), everything he ascertains in this and other ways.”

I turned the conversation on Bucher’s share in the negotiations respecting the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern for the Spanish throne. He gave me a detailed account of this. The first time he was in Madrid in connection with that affair was in Easter and then in June, 1870.[11] He gave the following particulars of his second journey: “It was a rush hither and thither in zigzag, accident playing a large part in delaying and hindering as well as in promoting my purpose. Salazar came to me on the Saturday, and wanted to have the final decision of the Prince by Monday. I replied that that would not be possible in such a short time, particularly as I did not know where the Prince was staying at the moment, and of course he would have to be consulted first. Nor was it an easy matter for me to get away at the time. He said he knew the Prince was in Reichenhall, and added, ‘_Selon ce que vous me dites je renonce_.’ I replied: ‘I assume that you will write a statement of what has passed between us, which will find its way into the Spanish archives; and as they will some day be open to historians, I should not wish to take this responsibility upon myself. I will travel with you, first to Madrid, (improbable, but so I heard it,) and then to the Prince of Hohenzollern.’ He said he would take one of his liegemen with him, a man who would fling himself out of the window without hesitation if he told him to do so. A curious condition of things still prevails there, the obedience of feudal vassals, the devotion of the age of chivalry. Well, we started for Reichenhall, travelling first in separate compartments so as to avoid notice in Paris, and afterwards together, as he did not understand German and his companion spoke only Spanish. On my making inquiries at the office of the baths, I found that the director was at a neighbouring village, and the others could give me no information respecting the Prince. They believed he was not there. I drove out to the village they mentioned and found that the director had left. On returning to Reichenhall I proceeded to the police station. As I was going up the steps I was met by a rather shabbily-dressed man, who stopped and said he supposed I wanted to go to the police office, but it was now closed. He, however, belonged to it, and would go back with me. I told him I was looking for the Prince of Hohenzollern, to whom I had a communication to make. He replied that the Prince was here, and lived at such-and-such a place, but under another name. I therefore proceeded thither with Salazar, but only found the Princess, who told us that her consort was now with his father at Sigmaringen. We packed up once more and made off for Sigmaringen, where we found them, and they agreed. They could, however, decide nothing without the consent of the King, who was at Ems. We then started for that place, and were received by the old gentleman, who was very gracious to me and agreed to what I submitted to him. I then went to Varzin to report to the Chief. It was a regular zigzag journey with obstacles.” Bucher added that he had taken shorthand notes of his conversation with Salazar, which he “still possessed.” At least, so I understood him.

On the whole the Prince in his collaboration with me struck out a little over seventeen pages out of a total of nearly 900, while he contributed some twenty-two pages to the two volumes. The first edition of 10,000 copies was issued at the end of February 1884, and by the autumn of 1885, 6,500 copies had been disposed of, although the Liberal press did its worst to run the book down. An English translation was published by Macmillan in April, and some months later arrangements were made for an Italian edition. (This translation, by Brandi, was only published at Milan in the spring of 1888.)

On the 14th of March, 1884, I again took up my residence in Berlin; and on the 16th I called upon Bucher, to present him with a handsomely bound copy of my book, _Unser Reichskanzler_. He had already got it, however, and had read it through without coming across any inaccuracies. He made three suggestions for some supplementary material on the issue of a new edition.

According to Bucher, the Chancellor had returned this time from Friedrichsruh in excellent condition, had already been twice out riding in the Thiergarten, and once for a walk there. He had drawn up a memorandum for the Emperor, showing that the home policy of Gladstone, the extension of the franchise, must lower the position of the English aristocracy and with it that of the Crown, which was of course only its head. The Emperor’s minute said that he was much struck with this statement, and suggested that it should be laid before the Crown Prince--a suggestion to which the Chief agreed. In Bucher’s opinion the Chancellor would on certain conditions consent to remain in office when the Crown Prince came to the throne, but the latter would not keep his promises, and then Bismarck would retire. A further communication of Bucher’s was also interesting, namely, that the “refutation of the absurd attack of the _National Zeitung_” (on my account of Gablentz’s mission), which was contained in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_ was written by the Prince himself.

A few days after this visit to Bucher I wrote to the Imperial Chancellor, informing him that I was again a resident of Berlin, and begging him in case there was anything I could do for him in the press to kindly let me know when I might call upon him to take his instructions. I received no answer to this letter. My intercourse with Bucher continued. On the 3rd of July, he sent me a card informing me of his departure for Laubbach, near Coblenz.

On the 27th of July, I received the following letter which had been returned owing to an incorrect address and then re-despatched:--

“Kissingen, _June 30th, 1884_.

“Dear Sir,

“Rarely has a book excited my interest to such a degree as your _Unser Reichskanzler_, which I have perused whilst taking the waters here. As it will have produced a like impression upon others a new edition will soon be required. I therefore consider it my duty to call your attention to an error which I have also noticed in the French and English newspapers. The letter of the Minister President of the 26th of December, 1865, which was made public entirely against my will and in consequence of a gross indiscretion which has not yet been quite cleared up, was not addressed to the clergyman, Roman von André, but to the _Rittergutsbesitzer_, Andrae-Roman. In addition to this you will allow me to correct a few of the following observations, as, for instance, that on page 158. I have always spoken and written to Prince Bismarck not from a clergyman’s standpoint, but with the consciousness that in matters of faith our views were identical, and with a feeling of hearty affection for his powerful individuality, having fully recognised his greatness long before he became a public character.

“Allow me to add one further remark. The somewhat cool attitude adopted by Bismarck towards the clergy as such did not originate in the conflict with the _Kreuzzeitung_. It existed long before that date, and was closely connected with a similar attitude towards the Church, and arises from entirely different causes, which I need not enter into here. That clergymen, or, indeed, laymen, in signing ‘the Declaration’ made themselves sponsors for any of the vile and malicious calumnies, which--I regret to say--were at that time heaped upon the great man, I must dispute until that charge has been proved in some specific case. I speak only of those Conservatives who hold the same religious belief as Bismarck. I was pained and surprised to find for the first time in a letter addressed by the Prince to my friend von Holtz during the General Synod, that he entertained this view. I immediately put myself in communication with a considerable number of my co-signatories to the declaration who were present in Berlin at that time, and _all_ those with whom I spoke on the subject agreed with me that the public declaration by Bismarck (I have neither this nor the text of the declaration itself with me at the present moment)--his declaration, namely, that ‘after the unfortunate articles in question no _respectable_ person _could_ continue to read the _Kreuzzeitung_,’ was the sole cause of the counter-declaration, that we considered ourselves to be respectable persons, although we continued to read the _Kreuzzeitung_. It does not contain a word of approval of any ‘vile and malicious calumnies.’ I have never read nor approved of the _Reichsglocke_. The statements respecting the death of my relative, Herr von Wedemeyer, are also very hazardous, and would be difficult to prove. It was at that time decided to send to the Prince a joint statement, which was to be drawn up by me. At the desire, however, of a person closely connected with the Prince this decision was altered, and it was arranged that each should write separately to him in the sense indicated above. This was done in a great number of cases. There are, however, different kinds of Conservatives. The most reliable, if not always the most pliant, those who hold the same religious belief as the Prince, have always been and will ever remain on his side.

“With the most profound respect,

“A. Andrae-Roman.”

On the 23rd September I called upon Bucher, who had undergone a course of massage and hygienic gymnastics at Laubbach, and had been back in Berlin for about five weeks. He again complained of the “shocking way in which business was conducted in the Foreign Office”; and in particular of Hatzfeldt and Holstein. For a long time past he had given up saluting the latter. He would “like best of all to leave the place, if that were only possible.” He praised Count Herbert as “very diligent and not unskilful,” and was of opinion that the Prince intended to make him Secretary of State at some future time. Münster, “who is more English than German, and does very little,” having allowed some question to hang fire, the Chief sent Herbert to London, where he at once took it into his own hands, pressed it through, and finally settled it satisfactorily. “Another person placed in the position of the Ambassador would have resigned in such circumstances.” I suggested: “Angra Pequena, and the long delay in answering the Chancellor’s inquiries?” Bucher replied in the affirmative. He then said: “It will not be pleasant to work under the young man, but work will be done, and things will not be allowed to drag on in such a slow and slovenly way. Herbert has also a good memory, and has been a great deal with his father. He was often present at interviews with important personages, at which matters of great moment were discussed that do not appear in the official documents, and in that way he has had splendid opportunities for learning.” Bucher agreed with me regarding the meeting at Skiernevice as a “spectacle intended to show Europe the good understanding which exists between the three Emperors.” He added, however, that “the relations between Austria and Russia leave much to be desired in many respects.” He furthermore confirmed the fact that the Chief, “in view of the cool and repellent attitude of Gladstone, has for a long time past been working towards a better understanding with France, and not without success.” After speaking of the Balkan Peninsula, and hinting at an understanding respecting it, Bucher said he had a mind to write something on the despatch of an English Commission to Sarakhs for the purpose of settling the question of the frontier between Afghanistan and Russia, but he had not yet been able to collect the geographical materials. These remarks showed that he had been busy with this question recently. I offered to publish something of the kind in the _Grenzboten_, and he promised the necessary materials from the library of the Foreign Office, and in particular the account of O’Donovan’s travels. He saw the Prince (who has now returned to Friedrichsruh) a short time ago; he thinks that the journey to Skiernevice has done him good, as he is much less stout, feels thoroughly well and also works hard.

Bucher called at my house at 8.45 A.M. on the following morning with a collection of newspaper extracts on various subjects for my use. I had, however, gone out. On my returning the bundle of papers given to me on the 28th of September he gave me some further particulars of the way in which Herbert had dealt with the English. On Lord Granville asking him in the course of the negotiations respecting Angra Pequena whether we were not contemplating an ultimate expansion of territory towards the interior (Query, towards the East, in the direction of Bechuanaland and the Boer Republic), he retorted, not over politely, that that was “a question of mere curiosity,” and indeed finally, “a matter that does not concern you.” The Chief showed him the letter in which that was reported, and was pleased with his son’s sturdiness. The English have now so far yielded in the matter that the Ministry has not confirmed the resolution of the Cape Government to annex the country around Angra Pequena. “Münster,” he said, “must leave London, but I doubt whether there is any truth in the report that Herbert has been selected as his successor.” He afterwards said: “When the Germans, a short time before the conclusion of the Preliminary Peace at Versailles, sank some English coal ships on the Lower Seine and the English made a row on the subject, the Chief asked me, ‘What can we say in reply?’ Well, I had brought with me some old fogies on the Law of Nations and such matters. I hunted up what the old writers called the _jus angariæ_, that is to say, the right to destroy the property of neutrals on payment of full compensation, and showed it to the Chief. He sent me with it to Russell, who allowed himself to be convinced by this ‘good authority.’ Shortly afterwards the whole affair with the _jus angariæ_ appeared in _The Times_. We wrote in the same sense to London, and the matter was settled. A short time ago, when I had to look up something in the documents of the war period, I found that the two papers which I had written in this matter were gone. They had been removed by our mutual friend Abeken through jealousy of me.” I reminded him of O’Donovan’s work, but he said that just now the _Grenzboten_ article would be premature. In this connection he gave me a short survey of the relations of the English and the Russians in Afghanistan, which showed that he was fully informed on that subject. I finally suggested that I should now give a description in the _Grenzboten_ of the scandalous treatment of Ireland by England, based upon Lecky’s book, which he promised to get for me from the Foreign Office library, but which I already had. I wrote the article which appeared shortly afterwards.

The Prince having returned from Friedrichsruh, I wrote to him (on the 27th of October), requesting him, in case he wished anything said in the press respecting the Brunswick question or any other topic of the day, to let me know when I might have the honour of receiving information as to his intentions in the matter.

This letter also remained unanswered. It would therefore appear that the Chancellor will have no further intercourse with me, having apparently taken offence at something or other. His will be done! And so we bring the diary to a close.

SUPPLEMENTARY.

Bucher frequently mentioned to me that South African affairs were also of importance to us. On my expressing my readiness to deal with the subject in the _Grenzboten_, he promised me material for the purpose, and twice I reminded him of his promise.

On the 3rd of November, 1884, he wrote me: “I cannot yet spare the documents on South Africa, as they may be required for use any day. You will doubtless have noticed this from the articles in the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_. Besides, this is not the right moment. You must first know what the Boers have to say in reply to the accusations of the English.

“In the meantime another article would be desirable in No. 47 on the debate in _The Times_ of the 1st instant. I have done some of the preparatory work for you in this matter, and send you herewith for perusal a bundle of papers in which you will find a variety of material. The subject of Protection in England must, it is true, be dealt with very cautiously, as it is in our interest that England should maintain her present tariff, and we must bear that in mind.

“It is absurd to believe that the tariff question is governed by any absolute principle which applies to all peoples and all times. Every nation must know or must learn from experience what is best for itself. We therefore do not dream of teaching the English, although they are so generously anxious to teach us, and although the change from the system of natural forces (by which, since 1815, the preceding generation of Prussian statesmen raised the country to prosperity) to the free-trade doctrines that have been accepted by the official world and the majority of the legislative bodies since 1850, must be ascribed in great part to English writers, and German journalists paid by England. Now of the complaints that are being raised in England, one has an obvious application to the condition of affairs in Germany, namely, that which relates to foreign competition in agricultural produce and cattle breeding. Then you can deal with the arguments of the other side that a return to Protection is impossible in England, recognising at the same time that there are sound reasons for this contention. Conclusion: we also can suggest no remedy; probably this extraordinary state of affairs must be a consequence of the peculiar development of England--on the Continent the Thirty Years’ War, the Spanish War of Succession and the Napoleonic Wars (1870 was also a ‘wonderful year for England’ in consequence of our war). The peoples of the Continent rend each other to pieces in wars and revolutions. England, which, with the exception of the unimportant French landing in Ireland, has seen no enemy on her soil since 1066, is ‘making money’ and helping herself to the best colonies. If, as there is every reason to believe, we are now on the eve of a long era of peace in Europe, those conditions will no longer exist under which the wealth of England has, as Gladstone says, increased by leaps and bounds.” I wrote this article immediately, on the lines laid down by Bucher, and basing it on his material. It appeared in No. 47 of the _Grenzboten_.

On the 16th of November Bucher again sent me material for an attack upon England. This I worked up into an article entitled “England and the Cholera,” which was published in No. 49 of the _Grenzboten_. This article argued that England had destroyed hand weaving in the East Indies by its customs legislation of 1817, thus depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood. This, together with the bad harvests, resulted in famine, which in turn weakened the population and made it less capable of resisting the cholera which arose through malaria, heat and overcrowding at the places of pilgrimage, and which accordingly assumed an epidemic form! England was also responsible for the extension of the scourge to West Africa and Europe, as, in order not to disturb her trade and shipping, she exercised no proper supervision.

On the 24th of November I again called upon Bucher to remind him of the promised documents from the Foreign Office respecting the struggle between the English and the Boers. He said that just now in particular it was impossible to spare them, or at least those of a later date than 1879, as the Chief and Hatzfeldt might want them for reference any day. He would, however, send me the earlier papers, though he really ought not to let any of them leave his hands. He is of opinion that England is afraid of a war with the Dutch element in South Africa, and that Warren would certainly not be able to recruit his volunteers except among the English settlers there. He then said: “Just keep a sharp look-out on the news from Afghanistan. Something will happen there soon.” I said: “I suppose the English expedition which left Quetta to take part in the settlement of the frontier has arrived?” He replied: “No, it has only got as far as Herat. But General Lumsden, who has gone by way of Teheran, is already on the frontier, and has discovered that an important point, Puli Khatun (the women’s bridge--the men ride through the stream beside it) a place as to which a decision had yet to be arrived at, was already in the possession of the Russians. The _Daily News_, the organ of the Government, is surprised at this, and complains of the action of the Russians. The Chief will probably have something on the subject written for the _Grenzboten_. Of course it cannot go into the _Norddeutsche_.”

I then asked if there was any truth in the report that Busch, who, by the way, is married to a Jewess, would shortly leave and be given a Legation. Bucher replied in the affirmative.

I: “Herbert will then be his successor?”

He: “Yes, certainly.”

I: “In that case Hatzfeldt’s position will be rather shaky.”

He: “Certainly, he will then be superfluous, and that is doubtless the Chief’s intention. Herbert will then read through the despatches with him at breakfast, and the Chief will explain what is to be done with them, so that Herbert will bring everything ready prepared for us to deal with.”

On the 28th of November Bucher’s servant brought me three thick bundles of Foreign Office documents on the Transvaal question. I made extracts from these, and returned them to him personally five days later. They consisted of English blue books, and of despatches from Münster, Count Herbert Bismarck, Alvensleben at the Hague, and the German Consul in Cape Town. They extended over the periods from the 16th July, 1881, to the 31st of March, 1882; from the 1st of April, 1882, to November of the same year; and from December, 1882, to the 15th of March, 1884. These I worked up into three articles, under the title of “England and the Boers,” which appeared in the first three numbers of the _Grenzboten_ for the year 1885. These were followed immediately afterwards by an article on “Santa Lucia Bay,” in No. 4, which concluded with a statement by Bucher; and one on “England and Russia in Asia,” which was also suggested by him, and for which he had sent me extracts from the English newspapers, together with O’Donovan’s book on Merv. The latter article appeared in No. 6 of the _Grenzboten_. Together with the documents there was also a very violent appeal (in English, and printed on red paper) to the nations of Europe to help the Boers, on which Bucher had written, “You may keep this.”

(Here follow some letters exchanged between Dr. Busch and Herr A. Andrae-Roman, which led to the interview of the 18th of February.--The Translator.)

On the morning of the 18th of February I called upon Andrae, who was staying with Knak, the pastor of the Bohemian Lutheran community, at his residence, No. 29 Wilhelmstrasse. He introduced the pastor to me as his son-in-law. My visit lasted from 8.45 to 10 A.M. Andrae is a tall stately man, with a white full beard, apparently well on in the sixties. From his accent a Hanoverian, he himself said that he came from East Friesland. He first repeated that, owing to the unfortunate experience he had had he must be cautious in what he said, and that he doubted whether we could understand each other, as from my book I appeared to have a different religious standpoint to his. With regard to the first point, he referred to Bismarck’s letter to him, published by Hesekiel, of which he said: “I really do not know how it came to be published. I read and showed it to some intimate friends, but I never allowed it to go out of my own hands. But it impresses itself strongly on the memory, so that a Schleswig-Holstein ecclesiastic of high rank actually knew it by heart. It was moreover printed, not in the first place by Hesekiel, but by a democratic newspaper.” He likewise referred to Diest-Daber, who also went very thoroughly into things, and immediately noted down everything he ascertained; describing him as “clever and in reality honourable.” He had attacked Bismarck owing to a communication from Moritz von Blankenburg, which was based upon a misunderstanding. I endeavoured to dissipate Andrae’s mistrust, observing that anything he might now tell me on the subject in question was not intended for immediate use in the press, and should not be published at all without his permission, at least certainly not before Bismarck’s death. I was only collecting for history, which would ultimately claim its rights. As to the difference of our religious views, I told him that I had studied theology, and had adopted theosophical ideas, and in this connection mentioned Jacob Böhmen. Andrae was intimately acquainted with Bismarck many years ago, had visited him at Frankfurt-on-the-Main, and afterwards on several occasions in Berlin. He added: “Indeed I may go so far as to say that I was for a long time on terms of close friendship with him. Formerly he listened with pleasure and with great patience to the views of others. Of course whether he was guided by them was a different matter. Probably that is now no longer the case, which would be natural enough with one who has achieved such great things--and at the same time has had so much good fortune.” He then went on to speak with the greatest admiration of Bismarck’s extraordinary political genius, was convinced that he was a “sincere Christian,” and assured me that he “made no secret of the fact even as long since as the Frankfurt period. But then, and even before that time, he showed coolness towards the clergy and the Church.”

I: “I beg your pardon, but how do you mean that? What do you understand by the Church? The entire Christian community, the faithful, the community of saints; or the institution with certain observances and means of salvation, sacraments, public forms of divine service, sermons, &c.?”

He replied that the latter conception was what he had in mind. He then continued: “It is an old story with him, and connected with the manner of his conversion. At that time the clergy in Pomerania were not what they are at the present day. The majority of them were Rationalists, and when the change took place it did not originate with them, but with a few laymen, like Below, (not Below-Hohendorf, as I interrupted him to suggest,) Senfft-Pilsach, and Thadden. They came forward to a certain extent as preachers, and as the clergy held and preached rationalistic views, often in opposition to them--in sectarian opposition. Blankenburg, and Bismarck’s father-in-law in Reinfeld, an excellent old gentleman, were also of the number. Their views somewhat approached those of Gichtel. Others inclined to the old Lutheran doctrines. (Therefore not to those of the Moravian Brethren, as I had supposed.) Bismarck came under their influence and joined them. Hence his coolness towards the clergy and the Church. (Gichtel’s ‘Gott in uns,’ and Bismarck’s ‘Nicht durch Predigermund sich erbauen’--‘Seek not edification from the mouth of the preacher.’) It was not due to the clerical signatures at foot of the Declaration.”

He then went on to say that Bismarck misunderstood “the Declaration.” According to him, Holtz wrote to the Prince that he regretted having had a hand in it. Bismarck was greatly pleased at this, and wrote Holtz a long letter expressing his satisfaction. Andrae disapproved of the step taken by his friend Holtz, “as an individual demonstration,” and suggested that the signers of “the Declaration” should send a joint explanation of its real meaning to the Chancellor, and reject the false construction put upon it, namely, that they wished to express their approval of the articles in the _Kreuzzeitung_. They wanted to adopt this course, but Bismarck informed them, through Limburg Stirum, that he did not wish them to do so, and would prefer that they should write to him separately. In that way the idea of a collective explanation was dropped. Andrae is of opinion that the intercourse between Moritz von Blankenburg and the Prince still continues, although they only see each other on rare occasions. “There was never an absolute breach between them, as their wives continued to meet as they still do.”

We then spoke about the Kulturkampf, and Andrae expressed his surprise that Bismarck should have entered upon it, as he must have known that a struggle with a spiritual power had no prospect of success. His action was doubtless determined by the creation of the Centre party. I defended him on the lines of the statement dictated to me at Friedrichsruh.

The conversation then turned upon the relations between the Chief and the Emperor. Andrae said of the latter: “His merit lies in the creation of the new army, and in the fact that he recognised the right men and held firmly to them.” He added the following anecdote: “A Minister who could no longer endure his position by the side of Bismarck tendered his resignation to the Emperor. The latter urged him to remain. ‘We must all learn to be patient,’ he said. The Minister nevertheless resigned. The Emperor, on the other hand, did not part with Bismarck, considering it his duty to retain him.” I observed: “It was a case of necessity; it would have been impossible to get on without him.” Andrae replied: “Yes, but the Emperor’s merit was in recognising that fact.”

Andrae then talked a great deal about Hanover, saying that the clergy there “were willing to yield obedience to the authorities who had power over them.” He proceeded: “Before the war of 1866, we, the Conservatives, were divided into two parties--Gerlach and Marquart, and, on the other hand, those who considered a war with Austria inevitable. Ultimately an effort was made to bring about an understanding, and we invited Gerlach to attend a meeting, accompanied by a few others of his way of thinking, in order that he should not be alone. He agreed and came, when he made the following prophecy: ‘There are only two possible results: either we are defeated, and then it is all over with us, and there will be a partition of Prussia; or we are victorious, and then we must have a Liberal _régime_, as that is the only way in which, unification of Germany under Prussia can be brought about.’ And so it has come to pass. Bismarck demanded an indemnity, and then for many years worked in harmony with the Liberals, so far as that was possible.”

As I was leaving Andrae promised to give me further information later on in case I asked for it. “But not in writing. I frequently come to Berlin, and shall be glad to meet you again.”

I continued in regular communication with Bucher during the year 1885. I visited him on New Year’s Day; called at his house on the 11th of February to return O’Donovan’s _Oasis of Merv_, but could not see him, as he lay ill in bed; a few days later we had a short talk on the Lucia Bay question; and again on the 25th of February I had a long conversation with him at his lodgings. At first we spoke about the Chief, whose health, he said, was now thoroughly restored. He was “quite young and rosy,” and was “working fearfully hard.” The conversation then turned on Hatzfeldt, who “got sick with fear at the thought that he might have to take part in the West African Conference, and that the Chief might appoint him to represent the Foreign Office in the Reichstag, and so took a holiday.... There is really nothing the matter with him, but he has managed to obtain a long leave of absence. As Herbert is now there, it is a question whether he will return any more. And we shall not miss him, either. Business will be done as well, or better, in his absence. He would certainly have been removed from his post as Secretary of State before this if they only knew where to put him.” I said: “Keudell is probably not disposed to give up his sinecure in Rome to him.” Bucher replied: “Keudell really takes things too easy. We thought he would send in a report on the Italian expedition to the Red Sea, and he, in fact, promised one. But what was it when it came? A description of the ball recently given by him, how he danced a quadrille with the Queen, how the knights of the Order of the Annunziata danced _vis-à-vis_ to him, and other fine and important matters of the kind, all in the fullest detail. The Princess is to blame for this. The other members of the family, including the Chief, have long since been convinced of his incapacity. At the beginning, during the first few months, I myself thought there was something in him. He played the part of the mysterious, reticent thinker, occasionally speaking very well, and with far-reaching and brilliant ideas. But one soon recognised that they were not his own, but were borrowed from the Chief.”

The inhuman pair of us then rejoiced at England’s misfortunes in the Soudan, and I expressed a hope that Wolseley’s head would soon arrive in Cairo, nicely pickled and packed. This led the conversation to Central Asia. Bucher was of opinion that although the Russians would not now occupy Herat, they would take up such a position that at the next opportunity they could annex it as they had done Merv. He then referred to the intention of the English to disband the native contingents of the Indian Princes, amounting in all to 300,000 men and 1,200 field guns, and to the “demonstrative review of the Rajah of Scinde.” I then mentioned the rising of the blacks at Kitteh against their English friends, and he said: “They are threatened by a conflict with the French in Burmah.” In reply to my question: “Have we given up South Africa, or is the Lucia Bay affair still open?” he said that the matter was still under consideration. (...)

At 1.30 P.M. on the 30th of March a Chancery attendant brought me the following pencil note from Bucher:--

“His Highness would like to have an article which appeared in the _Daily Telegraph_ of the 15th of January (or a few days earlier) dealing with the question of the different aspect things would assume if an English Princess were Empress of Germany. Perhaps you have this number?

“Yours, Bʀ.”

Unfortunately I had not kept the number, as I told Bucher in a note which I sent back by the same messenger. This doubtless explains the Chief’s recent speech in answer to Richter’s allusion to the dynastic connection between England and ourselves.

On the morning of the 19th of April paid Bucher another visit. He wished me to draw a comparison between the bellicose attitude of _The Times_, and that which it observed previous to the outbreak of the Crimean War, particulars of which were to be found in Kinglake’s _Invasion of the Crimea_, Vol. III., p. 31. He believes that it is now inspired by Lord Dufferin. There can be no question of war, as England has not the necessary means at present, and Russia has for the moment no idea of seizing Herat, or even the mountain line beyond it. In the Afghan campaign of 1839 the English required for a force of 38,000 men no less than 100,000 camp followers and innumerable pack animals. Nothing of this kind is now ready. It was said that 20,000 men passed in review before Abdurrahman and Lord Dufferin at Rawal Pindi, but in reality they had only 11,000 men there altogether. The commissariat department was badly managed. Graham’s troops at Suakim had only one pair of boots each, and when an Irish regiment knelt down at mass one could see that the soles were all torn and were patched with pieces of the tin cans which had contained their preserved meats. The soldiers they have at home are for the most part too young to be employed in the tropics. The English would require four months to get from Quetta to Herat. The Russians could reach it much sooner. The ideas as to the prospects of the two parties which Münster had been hoaxed into believing were mere nonsense. Bucher put all these facts together for the Prince, who submitted them to the Emperor in the shape of a direct report. “The Crown Prince’s people,” said Bucher, “are very cross and very angry with the Chief because he will not act as mediator in St. Petersburg and help England out of her embarrassment, and because he opposes her schemes at Constantinople. The English have offered the Turks the occupation of Egypt in return for permission to pass through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. The Sultan was, however, informed from Berlin and Vienna that we too had a word to say in the matter, and our officers in Stamboul would take care that the passage was stopped by torpedoes.”

On the 20th, Bucher sent me the third volume of Kinglake’s book, and I wrote the article desired by him, which appeared in No. 18 of _Grenzboten_, under the title “Prospects of Peace and _The Times_.”

On the 22nd of April I called upon Secretary of State von Thile, whom I had met on the way home a few nights before, when I announced my visit. He was very friendly and communicative, and we conversed together from 11 to 1 o’clock. (...)

Thile gave me the following particulars of the agreement with Russia in 1863: “Bismarck risked a great deal thereby. We might have got ourselves into a war with France, who would have begun by attacking us. Napoleon was furious, because he had heard nothing beforehand. Goltz wrote that he might be pacified if the treaty were communicated to him. This was done. Bismarck sent the treaty to Goltz, with instructions to read it to the Emperor alone. Even the Ministers were to know nothing of it. Napoleon was astounded at its contents, and exclaimed, ‘Why, this is worse than I had anticipated!’ It had no further consequences however.”

On Sunday, the 31st of May, I found in the _Daily Telegraph_ of the 29th a leading article on the Emperor’s indisposition, in which the alteration in the policy of Prussia which would result from the approaching change in the occupation of the throne was regarded as full of hope for England. It was asserted among other things that Prince Bismarck would no longer exercise the influence which he now did upon the Sovereign. I immediately called upon Bucher with the paper, which I handed to him in order that he might communicate the article to the Chief. He cast a glance at the principal passages underlined by me, and promised to cut out the article and send it to the Chancellor without delay, mentioning at the same time that I had brought it. He would doubtless deal with it in some way--probably get me to write an article on the subject in the _Grenzboten_. But he was going to leave Berlin on Tuesday (the 2nd of June). Bucher went on to say that it would really seem as if the Emperor were not at all well just now. I asked him what was the meaning of Lord Rosebery’s visit. He replied: “It is in the main as the newspapers represent it. He has been instructed to find out what the Chief’s views are on various questions. No negotiations have taken place. I was invited by the Prince to dine with them one day, and the conversation turned on indifferent matters, such as dogs, &c. Rosebery said nothing on the main question, namely, Afghanistan. It was the Chief who first turned the conversation on to it.” I suggested: “But the present understanding will doubtless be merely provisional?” He: “I believe the matter will come up again in about five years, when the railways are finished. The Russians expect to have the line from Kisil-Arwat to Askabad ready by 1886, and it will then be carried on to Merv and to the Oxus in the direction of Samarcand. The English are building their line from the Indus to Candahar, by a détour _viâ_ Pishin, and not through the Bolan Pass, which is the shortest route, but where it would run for twelve (German) miles through defiles which the natives would be able to block by simply rolling rocks down. But on the Pishin route also they will meet with great difficulties, and will not be ready for a long time.... Rosebery’s visit was brought about by Herbert, who, by the way, has not shown particular skill in the recent African negotiations. He can be very offensive at times, which is useful, but he has not sufficiently mastered these colonial questions. He does not understand, for instance, that colonies require a coast if they are to prosper, and so he made concessions which we are now trying to alter. He allows himself to be won over too easily. Rosebery had been particularly successful in that, and has quite mesmerised him.”

Speaking of the Emperor once more, he said: “His death will be a bad thing for us. Rottenburg believes that the Chief will not retain office under the new Emperor, and in that case it is not impossible that Keudell may become Chancellor. He is in high favour at the Crown Prince’s. They stay with him in Rome, and people believe him far more capable than he really is. He has provided for that in the press; as, for instance, through Meding, at considerable cost to his own or the Embassy funds.” (...)

At 12 o’clock (I had called on Bucher with the _Daily Telegraph_ article at 9 A.M.) a servant from the Chancellor’s palace came to my lodgings to inquire whether I could call upon the Prince at 3 o’clock. At a quarter past 3 I was shown into the Chancellor’s study, and did not leave until ten minutes past 4.

He was dressed in black with a military stock, and, as usual, sat at his writing-table. He first quieted Tiras, who sprang out and wanted to fly at me, shook hands with his accustomed friendliness, and after I had taken a seat opposite him, asked me how I was, observing: “You still look exactly the same, not a bit changed.” He mentioned that during the time he had not seen me he had been overloaded with work. “Even to-day I have been sitting here since 8 o’clock in the morning,” he continued; “and it is the same from week’s end to week’s end. The only break is at lunch time, and, as you know, I also work then, reading despatches and telegrams and giving instructions, &c. I must do almost everything myself. Hatzfeldt is an excellent ambassador, and he is also very good here at receiving the diplomatists,--clever and intelligent, but ailing and incapable of serious continuous work, impatient of routine, and in addition to that he is frivolous and has a poor memory. Busch is no longer of any use either, and must get out of harness. Bojanowski is ruined, and his Councillors are intriguing against him. My son is not yet sufficiently trained, and has much to learn.” I said: “But Busch was an excellent worker and knew the business!” “Yes,” he replied, “but that is no longer the case. The clock will no longer work. Latterly he has been constantly unwell.... Herbert is getting on very well in many things, but he must yet, as the French say, _faire ses caravanes_, or, as it is better expressed in English, ‘sow his wild oats.’ _Faire ses caravanes_, you know, originally meant to join one of the campaigns against the infidels, in which one had to take part before becoming a knight of Malta. It therefore signifies to get through one’s blundering as a beginner and to grow wise by experience.”

He then took up the _Daily Telegraph_ article which Bucher had pasted on a sheet of paper and enclosed in a letter, which also lay on the table. He said: “You have sent me this. I thank you for it.”

I: “I thought it would interest you, particularly one passage, as Bucher asked me a few weeks ago for a leader of the same kind for you, as he knows I receive the paper. I had not kept that number, but I afterwards came across it elsewhere, and the article was translated for the Emperor. I therefore thought you would be glad to see this one immediately.”

He: “Yes, and it is of interest. But it would hardly do to write anything against or upon it just now. It would have to be done very cautiously, and at the present moment in particular it would not look at all well. The old gentleman is in a very critical state, and you know it seems to me almost like the case of a woman whose husband is dangerously ill, and who talks to people about what she will do afterwards; or, more correctly, as if my wife were dying and I were to say how I should act after her death, and whether I should marry again or not. We must wait until the hour has come for a decision to be taken. It appears that the Crown Prince wishes to retain me, but I must carefully consider whether I ought to remain with him. There are many arguments against it, and many also in favour of it; but at present I am more disposed to go and have no share in his experiments. But I might look at it as Götz von Berlichingen did when he joined the peasants--it will not be so bad; and if I remain many things can be prevented or rendered less harmful. But what if I were then not to have a free hand?--to have colleagues like Forckenbeck and George Bunsen, and ceaseless worries with them; while latterly the old gentleman allowed me to do what I thought proper, and even to select Ministers and replace them by others? Besides, there is the co-regency of the Crown Princess, who influences and completely governs him. Yet what will the result be if I leave them to themselves? The entire position of the Empire depends upon the confidence which I have acquired abroad. In France, for instance, where their attitude is based exclusively upon the faith they place in my word. The King of the Belgians said recently that a written and signed contract would do less to put his mind at ease than a verbal assurance from me that such and such a course would be followed. It is the same with Russia, where the Emperor trusts entirely to me. I still remember at the Danzig meeting how he conversed with me for a long time in his cabin and listened to my opinion. The Emperor (William) was not over pleased at his taking no notice of the parade and the various celebrations; but he left us alone all the same. And the Empress--the Danish Princess--said to me: ‘Our whole confidence rests upon you. We know that you tell the plain truth, and perform what you promise.’... Of course I could retire and see how they got on without me, and then when they called me back after their experiment had failed, I could bring things back into the old course. It would then have been proved that affairs could not be conducted in that way. He doubtless would not venture upon such experiments if he had not got me in reserve. It was just the same with the new era when the King gave Liberalism a trial, because he had me to turn to eventually. But I am an old man, over seventy, and for twenty-nine years I have exhausted my strength in the service of the State, and can no longer do what I once did. I can no longer accompany the King wherever he goes--on journeys, shooting parties and to watering places. I can no longer ride to manœuvres and parades, so as to prevent his being alone with others, and to take immediate measures against the intrigues and influence of opponents. If I were to persist in that sort of work my illness would return, and I should soon be dead.”

He drew out from among the books on his right a letter from Dr. Schweninger, who had written to him that he had escaped a dangerous illness through regular diet and the greatest possible abstinence from mental exertion; but that if a recurrence of it were to be averted he must continue to follow the same course. He then said: “The Crown Princess is an Englishwoman. That is always the case with us. When our Princesses marry abroad they doff the Prussian, and identify themselves with their new country,--as for example the Queen of Bavaria, who ultimately went so far as to become a Catholic; and the lady in Darmstadt (it is obvious that this was a slip of the tongue, and that he meant Karlsruhe), as well as the consort of the Emperor Nicholas. Here, however, they bring their nationality with them, and retain it, preserving their foreign interests.... Our policy must not necessarily be anti-English, but if it were to be English it might prove to be very much against our interest, as we have always to reckon with the Continental Powers.” He further observed that the Crown Prince would be influenced in his liking for England by consideration for Queen Victoria, and (here he mimicked the act of counting money) her generosity. He has but a slight knowledge of State affairs, and little interest in them, and he lacks courage. I reminded the Chief that he, too, had had to infuse courage into his father on the railway journey from Jueterbogk to Berlin during the period of conflict. He then related that incident once more, and added: “He said that I should first come to the scaffold--at that time I was called the Prussian Strafford; but I replied: ‘What finer death could a man have than to die for his King and his right?’”

He then came to speak of the Emperor’s illness, for which--as he asserted--“the women were to blame, with their desire to give themselves importance. He was already ill, hoarse, when they talked him over into driving with them to church. And then the Grand Duchess wants to play the loving daughter before people, and so she accompanies him when he, like every one who works a great deal, would prefer to drive out alone; and at the same time she argues with him, even when the wind is in their faces, so that he catches cold if he answers her. It was only his daughter’s persuasion that induced him to go to Hatzfeldt’s dinner. He ought not to have done that. (Probably according to Lauer’s opinion.) As he sits at work, Augusta sticks her head into the room and asks in a caressing voice, ‘Do I disturb you?’ When he, always gallant in his treatment of ladies, and particularly of Princesses, replies ‘No,’ she comes in and pours out all sorts of insignificant gossip to him, and scarcely has she at last gone away than she is back again knocking at the door with her, ‘I am again disturbing you’; and so she again wastes his time chattering. Now that he is ill--you know what his complaint is--she is a real embarrassment and plague to him. She sits there with him, and when he wants to be left alone he does not venture to tell her, so that in the end he gets quite red from pain and restraint; and she notices it. That is not love, however, but pure play-acting, conventional care and affection. There is nothing natural about her--everything is artificial, inwardly as well as outwardly.”

The conversation then turned upon Brunswick, and I said: “Surely we shall soon have that now? It will shortly be Prussian?” He replied in the negative, saying: “It must remain independent, because without the two votes of the Duchy the Federal Council would no longer be of the slightest importance--Prussia would always have a safe majority. The Brunswickers, too, are anxious to retain their independence. In order to maintain the present balance of voting power in the Federal Council, I have always rejected the overtures of the small fry such as Waldeck, &c., that wanted to be absorbed in Prussia. Things can be managed as they are, and we must give the larger States no reason to mistrust us. _Their_ confidence also is part of my policy, and during recent years they have always trusted me.”

He was silent for a while and looked at me. I rose to go, and thanked him for this day’s invitation and the confidence in me which it manifested, adding that I was all the more pleased as I had been under the impression that he had been angry with me for my last book, and that I should not see him again. He clapped me on the shoulder in a friendly way and said: “No, Büschchen, everything remains as of old between us two. It is true that you contributed to my illness with your book, as it gave me a great deal of work.” I replied that nothing of the kind should occur again, and gave him my hand upon it.

On Tuesday, the 2nd of June, I went to Bucher to tell him that I had been with the Chief, and to read him my notes of the interview. He already knew that I had been called to see him. In connection with what I told him respecting the Chancellor’s resignation or retention of office under the future Sovereign, he said: “He has also given the French to understand ... that possibly the next Emperor may not continue his policy, so that in future it would be well for them in Egyptian affairs to keep their demands and actions within such limits as they thought they could, if left to themselves alone, assert and maintain against the English.” (...)

Bucher smiled at the apprehension which I now expressed that the Chief had been offended at my book. That, he said, was a mistake. With regard to the Prince’s remark that it had given him a great deal of work (he doubtless alluded chiefly to the revising of the proofs) Bucher observed: “Yes, I have had a good deal to write on the subject to Reuss, for Andrassy complained of various passages. But what he imagined he had read was not in the book at all; he had read it superficially, and we convinced him of that fact.” Finally Bucher thanked me for the account of my interview with the Chancellor, which he described as very interesting.

During the first half of June I made an excursion on foot from Dresden to North Bohemia, to Lausitz, then back to Dresden, and from there to Moritzburg and Meissen, in order to finally rid myself of a determination of blood to the head which had seriously troubled me all the winter. After my return to Berlin, I called upon Bucher on the 16th June to ask him, in the first place, what attitude should be adopted in the press towards the new Ministry in England. I observed that Gladstone had defended English interests although in an unskilful and feeble way, and that Salisbury would not suit our purposes any better, indeed, perhaps less, because they would be more energetic. He replied that Salisbury is blunt in manner, as he had himself experienced when he was in Berlin. He might, however, for the moment be more welcome to the Chief than Gladstone, who had been seeking a _rapprochement_ with Russia in favour of which there seemed to be a party in that country. Salisbury, on the other hand, had spoken too strongly against Russia to leave much prospect of an understanding at the present time between the Tories and St. Petersburg. True, one could not say what might happen in this respect later on, and the new English Ministry would also seek an understanding with France.

He then mentioned Count Herbert’s second mission to London, which had not turned out so well as the first one respecting Angra Pequena and the Fiji Islands, in which he had taken up a very strong position with good results. The second mission should have appeared, as far as the public was concerned, merely a visit to Rosebery, with whom Herbert stayed. Its object, however, was to negotiate respecting Lucia Bay and the Benue district; and Herbert, who was not sufficiently well acquainted with the maps, &c., conceded too much to Rosebery, who was very sharp, so that the result was disadvantageous to us. We lost Lucia Bay. The English Minister argued that they could not abandon it to us, as it was impossible to allow the Cape Colony to be hemmed in on both sides. On the Benue, however, they have annexed a large piece of land, well situated for their purposes.

Bucher then complained of the “gross ineptitude” displayed by Gerhard Rohlfs in his mission to Zanzibar. “He got it,” he said, “through the ‘paidocracy,’ as Busch calls it,--through the influence of the Chancellor’s sons upon their father, and he has spoilt everything. Contrary to the regulations, which require an examination to be passed first, he was appointed Consul-General without any examination, although he is not particularly well informed.... The trap had been very cleverly prepared for Sultan Burgasch. He has a sister who is married to a German, a Hamburg merchant named Reute, and lives now in Germany. Burgasch had robbed her of her inheritance, and this was to be the starting point of the scheme. She was to go out to Zanzibar and press her claim, and an accident might possibly occur to the lady,--her brother might have her strangled. In the meantime Rohlfs was also to go out, quite quietly, by way of the Red Sea, and not on board a man-of-war. He, however, induced the Chief to let him travel _viâ_ London and the Cape; and at Cape Town he talked imprudently about his mission and position to some officers of Warren’s expedition (to Bechuanaland), so that the English got wind of the matter, and were able to take their measures accordingly (this was under Gladstone’s Government, through their Consul, Kirk). And in Zanzibar itself he committed one blunder after another. When this came to the knowledge of the Chief he said in his own family circle that he would recall him. Paul Lindau, who constantly haunts the Chancellerie, got it into the newspapers, whereupon a _démenti_ was issued. Later on, however, the Prince returned to his former intention, as Rohlfs proved quite useless.”... Bucher further related that Herbert had “provided himself with a deputy Under-Secretary of State in the person of Darenthall, who was to act for himself when he was absent. Darenthall is an admirer of Keudell, with whom he spent nine years in Rome, where there is nothing to do, as everything is sent there ready prepared. He cannot have gained much experience of the world there, while others sent to various posts became acquainted with different countries and conditions of life. He did not, however, turn out badly as Consul-General in Egypt. When he comes to the office I shall take a long leave of absence in order not to lose the last trace of my self-respect.... Bill, who will shortly get married and who is going to Hanau, has also picked out a successor, von Rheinbaben. It is true that he belongs to the old nobility, but he is quite incapable,”--a statement in support of which Bucher produced sundry evidence. Finally we rejoiced that the Emperor was quite well again, and Bucher added: “Yes, and in very good humour, as may be seen from the remarks which he makes on the matters submitted to him.” (...)

On the 16th of October Bucher called at my lodgings to inform me that on Hatzfeldt’s departure as Ambassador for London, Herbert Bismarck is to be appointed Secretary of State, and that the latter has selected Holstein as Under-Secretary. The Chief had some one else in view, apparently Berghen, but Herbert would probably be able to carry out his views with regard to Holstein. He had already made up the differences between the latter and the Princess. In these circumstances he, Bucher, meant to retire. He had already asked the Prince on several occasions to arrange for his retirement on the score of ill-health. Although the Chief had, through Herbert, declined to do this, and only granted him a six months’ leave of absence, he would probably on the conclusion of that period renew his request. He intends to leave on the 1st of November, and to spend his holiday on the Lake of Geneva. On parting he said: “Adieu! I must now return to the treadmill.”