« VorigeDoorgaan »
that when he was informed of it as a mere matter of courtesy, in the month of June, 1870, he was exceedingly surprised. Moreover the Spanish Foreign Secretary Sagasta, in a circular note of the 7th of July, declared that the Spanish Government had not taken the advice of, or communicated with, any foreign cabinet, but had dealt directly with the Prince.
The moment the French ministers heard that a deputation had been sent by the Spanish Government to offer the crown to Prince Leopold, Le Sourd, the French Chargé d'Affaires at Berlin, was instructed to ask for explanations. He called on Herr von Thile, the Secretary of State, and was assured by him that the Prussian Government had not in any way promoted the candidature, and knew nothing about it more than the rest of the world. This was on the 4th of July. The excitement in France, however, became more and more intense. The Duc de Gramont directed M. Benedetti to go to Ems, whither the King of Prussia had gone to drink the waters, to see that sovereign and force him to order the Prince Leopold to withdraw his candidature. When this request was made to King William, he replied that he had neither encouraged nor opposed the acceptance of the crown of Spain by his kinsman, and that he had no responsibility in the matter. In the meantime, Prince Antony of Hohenzollern sent a despatch to Marshal Prin, announcing on behalf of his son his renunciation of all pretensions to the crown, and a copy of this message was sent also to Señor Oloaza, the Spanish ambassador in Paris. This took place on the 12th of July, and everybody hoped peace would be preserved. M. Ollivier, the Prime Minister, strongly entertained this opinion for several hours. But the Duc de Gramont was deep in negotiations for forming a coalition against Prussia, and he desired war. He confessed to Lord Lyons that the withdrawal of the Prince Leopold's candidature was a great embarrassment, and he hit upon the expedient of ordering Benedetti to ask the King for a declaration that he would not at any future time sanction the acceptance of the crown of Spain by Prince Leopold or any of his kinsmen. On the morning of the 13th the French ambassador met the King in the public garden, and in accordance with his instructions, asked him for his promise.
The King gave, of course, a point-blank refusal to so preposterous a demand, and said that he neither could nor would bind himself to any engagement without limit. of time, and that he must reserve his right to act according to circumstances. Subsequently the King went to far as to send an aide-de-camp to Benedetti, and to tell him that the decision of Prince Leopold in renouncing the proffered crown had his approval. Later in the day the King left Eins, and arrived in Berlin on the evening of the 15th. He was met at the railwaystation by Bismarck, Moltke, and Roon. It was by that time plain that France was bent on war. Before the old sovereign reached his palace he had made up his mind to give orders for the mobilization of the army. The news was communicated to the crowd, who heard it with wild enthusiasm. That very night the necessary telegraphic messages were sent to all parts of the country, and in the words of Moltke "United Germany stood to arms. Some days afterward the French declaration of war was received, and the great struggle began. Everybody knows the result-in a few months France lay prostrate at the feet of her conqueror.
While the war was being prosecuted with vigor, the question as to the internal constitution of Germany was not lost sight of. The idea of re establishing the German Empire was in many minds, but historical reasons and local prejudices made it an exceedingly difficult question to touch. The Crown Prince was undoubtedly the most active among leading men in urging the matter forward. The late King of Bavaria got credit for having done much to promote it. But the truth is, he had no steady opinion from the commencement in favor of the Empire.
The time has not yet come to let the world know the course of action which that monarch pursued during the great struggle in which his country was engaged. He never once showed an interest in the progress of the campaign. The King of Saxony despatched a general officer to Munich during the autumn, to urge the King to take some initiative in the restoration of the Empire, lest perchance the movement should acquire a dangerously centralized character. King Lewis refused to see the messenger. Another secret envoy who came from another sovereign was hardly more successful with the King.
He was at last persuaded to move by a gentleman who was sent to speak to him by Bismarck. And the letter which the King then wrote, and which was the immediate cause of the establishment of the Empire, was suggested by Prince Bismarck.
When the German Empire was re established, Bismarck became the first Chancellor. The constitution, which was chiefly his work, was modelled .on that of the North German Confederation. It was the main object to be contented with the minimum of those concessions which the particular states of Germany were willing to make for the good of the whole. 'I believe," he said, speaking of the German Constitution on the 10th of March, 1877, our Constitution possesses a self-constructive faculty resembling that to which the British Constitution owes its formation, not through the setting up of a theoretical ideal."
It is impossible to imagine Bismarck apart from his influence in Parliament, and this brings me to consider him as a public speaker. He has always been fond of insisting that he is no orator. Like Kant and Göthe he heartily despises rhetorical gifts. His great effort has always been to make his speech simple and plain, and to express himself as neatly, as clearly, and as concisely as possible, and appea! solely to the good sense of his audience. The result, however, is that of all speeches his read far the best on account of the total absence of verbosity. They are rich in thought and elegant in expression, and are sure to be read in time to come even for their high literary merit. He speaks with far more deliberation than any speaker I have ever known. The nearest approach to him in this characteristic was Mr. John Stuart Mill. Niebuhr used to say that M. de Serre was one of the greatest political orators that ever lived. M. de Serre had by all accounts a great charm of delivery, and no doubt great wealth of expression. If Niebuhr had lived to read the speeches of Bismarck he would have discovered an orator who at least in many respects would come up to his view of a great speaker. In conversation he frequently uses original and striking metaphors. A few years ago, speaking to an English statesman, he compared the French policy in Africa to a fiery steed galloping across the desert of Sahara and finding the
ground much heavier than was expected. It is now five-and-twenty years since I had the honor of being first presented to Prince Bismarck, but the conversation I then had with him made such an impression that, though followed by many others, not a word of it has faded from my memory. Various subjects were discussed. Speaking of England, he expressed the opinion, which I know he has not changed, that although more Englishmen than formerly spoke German, the ignorance of Germany in this country was greater than ever. Those who had acquired the Germian language did not use it for the purpose of studying literature and trying to understand the German mind. He did not believe that the work of any considerable German poet, from the Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach to the songs and ballads of Uhland, was at all widely or properly appreciated in England. tions," he said, "have not yet been drawn closer together since locomotion has become more easy. This is a melancholy reflection. In the days of my youth, a certain number of English used to come here and stay some time among us. Now they fly like woodcocks across the continent.
No English leading public man has anything like the knowledge of Germany Carteret possessed a hundred years since."
Bismarck went up
Among his personal characteristics Bismarck's extraordinary coolness and courage are very prominent. Dr. Droysen told me that once during the revolutionary days of 1848 Bismarck went into an inn to get a glass of beer. There was a man in the room talking to a very excited audience and speaking most disrespectfully of the Queen of Prussia. to him and instantly called upon him to apologize. The man demurred, but he soon thought better of it, and expressed his regret before the whole revolutionary crowd. Three-and-twenty years after, in 1871, Busch tells us that during the partial occupation of Paris Bismarck could not resist the temptation of going into the city. He was soon recognized, and a crowd gathered round and became threatening. He went up to the man who looked specially truculent, pulled out a cigar, and asked him for a light. The man was so astounded that he pulled his short clay pipe out of his mouth and offered it to Bismarck with the most polite of bows. Stories illustrating Bismarck's
humor are endless, and we meet them at On the other hand a person entitled to the every turn.
On one occasion he had to meet Heinrich von Gagern at the house of Manteuffel on some business of a political character. Manteuffel left them alone to discuss the subject they came about. Gagern instantly drew himself up and began to talk in a very loud voice as if he were making a speech. Bismarck waited till he had
finished and offered some cold and curt remark. Gagern started off again and made a second oration. Then a third; at last he went away. Manteuffel came back and asked whether everything had gone well. "We settled nothing, was Bismarck's reply. "That is a stupid felhe mistook me for a popular assem
Bismarck, as a boy, received the rite of confirmation from Schleiermacher in the Church of the Holy Trinity at Berlin. Schleiermacher started from the Moravian sect, and never lost the influence of his early training. Partly, perhaps, owing to the influence of Schleiermacher Bismarck has always been attracted by their literature. Busch tells us that early on the morning after the battle of Sedan the Chancellor was summoned to meet the Emperor of the French. After he left his room his neighbor entered it while the servant was putting it in order. Two books of devotion of the Moravian sect were in the room one was called "Die tägliche Erquickung für gläubige Christen, the other "Tägliche Lesungen und Lehrtexte der Brudergemeinde für 1870." the servant stated that His Excellency was always in the habit of reading the books in question before going to bed.
No account of Bismarck would be complete without some allusion to his relations in private life. The letters which were written at various times to members of his family reveal a nature of the most extraordinary richness. His marvellous descriptions of landscape in Sweden, in Hungary, in France, in Spain, show an enthusiast for nature, and he speaks of the sea in language which recalls some of the finest passages in Victor Hugo. His kindness of heart was not alone exhibited to his own people. I was told once, by a person who had opportunities of knowing, that he never observed Bismarck say a really unkind or hard thing to any subordinate he conceived was doing his best.
highest credibility assured me he once saw an official of position come out of the room of the Chancellor showing by his garments unmistakable signs that an inkbottle had been hurled at him.
But the strongest of all Bismarck's personal characteristics is his firm, unshaken, and deep sense of his duty to the Almighty. At the height of the Franco
German war he said: "did I not believe in a divine ordinance which has destined this German nation for good and great things, I would have never taken up my calling.
To my steadfast faith alone I owe the power of resisting all manner of absurdities which I have shown during the past ten years. Rob me of my Faith, and you rob me of my country. Find me a successor animated by similar principles and I will resign on the spot. All persons who take an interest in the future of Germany will earnestly hope that successor has been found.
When the resignation of Prince Bismarck was announced, many persons hastily assumed that it was the outcome of a serious misunderstanding with his sovereign on economic and socialist questions. Those who came to that conclusion had not followed with any care Prince Bismarck's attitude to the pressing problem of the hour. Had he been seriously opposed to the action of the Emperor in calling together the labor conference, he would, of course, have resigned when his imperial master decided to summon it. The truth is that very soon after the accession of William the Second differences arose between the young monarch and the Chancellor. They existed to my knowledge a year ago and longer. The leading idea of Bismarck always was to maintain thoroughly good relations with Russia. This was one of his chief differences with the late Emperor Frederick and also with the most powerful members of the Prussian staff. The present Emperor is a warm partisan of the triple alliance, but Bismarck while equally anxious to preserve that combination, has attached more importance than his sovereign to the necessity of bringing about an arrangement between Austria and Russia on such a basis as would secure the interests of each power in the Balkan peninsula. Moreover, the Chancellor has always looked with cold suspicion on the colonial policy
WHEN a man like Professor Huxley, who has long been looked up to as the most brilliant champion of advanced thought, propounds principles which are not easily distinguishable from those of the most fossilized old Toryism, it behooves those who believe in modern progress to review their position and make sure that they are standing on solid ground. The Professor has been moved to descend from the serene regions of science, and enter on the burning region of practical politics by two considerations.
1. He is alarmed at the progress of democratic ideas and institutions, by which, as he forcibly expresses it, the navigation of the vessel of State is to be intrusted to the votes of the "cooks and loblolly-boys instead of the officers," and when thegreat heart' of the crew is called upon to settle the ship's course.
2. He specially distrusts such a democratic extension of the franchise, because he thinks that it leads straight to what he calls "Rousseauism," that is, to a disposition to throw all the fundamental institutions of society, and especially that of land and other forms of private property, into a crucible, and cast them into new and impracticable forms in accordance with visionary abstract theories of the natural equality of men.
It is clear that this argument is in substance that which has been used since the days of Thucydides, in the long controversy as to the relative advantages of Aristocracy and Democracy; and that the "loblolly-boy" simile is in effect a pregnant and pithy way of putting the objections to the Reform Bill of 1832, urged by Sir Charles Wetherall and Colonel Sibthorp, and since repeated by every op
ponent of the great democratic reforms, which, in the course of the last fifty years, have so completely transformed the course of legislation. It is a plausible argument; but it has certainly thus far shown no sign of satisfying that, which, after all, is the surest test of truth, whether in scientific, or in political and social evolution, "the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence."
And here let me begin by saying that it is a source of great satisfaction to me to find that in contesting Professor Hux. ley's conclusions it is a question of appreciation of facts, and not of conflict of principle. I entirely agree with him that social and political problems are so infinitely complicated that it is impossible to solve them absolutely by any recurrence to axioms or first principles.
If even the simple problem of three bodies revolving round a common centre of gravity by the law of gravitation, can only be solved by successive approximations, how hopeless must be the task of arriving at any hard-and-fast mathematical solution of the problem of thirty-five millions of people revolving each in its own individual orbit, determined by an infinite number of impulses of self-interest, sentiment, hereditary influences, race, country, education, and all the vastly varied action of a complex environment. In fact I am disposed to go even farther in this direction than the Professor himself, and to object that in his "loblollyboy" simile, which contains the essence of his argument against democracy, he has stated the problem too generally, and not coupled it with the necessary limitations as to time, place, and other conditions which are indispensable to arrive at any practical conclusion. At the same time I so far agree with Herbert Spencer, as to think that it is not only interesting, but may be useful in arriving at practical conclusions, to trace back the results which have survived in the course of evolution of civilized societies, as far as possible to their origin or first principles, so as to see what factors have become permanent and inevitable, and what are temporary and evanescent. Thus it seems to me that while Huxley is perfectly right in rejecting the axiom that all men are born equal, he might study Herbert Spencer with advantage in tracing the conditions under which this axiom, absurd as an absolute
conclusion, has yet in some cases a real element of truth. Thus he would scarcely deny that all classes and conditions of men, be they rich or poor, strong or weak, ought to be equal in the eye of the law. Nor would Spencer deny that questions of property and contract, of finance and franchise, are in their nature questions of more or less, of time and circumstance, rather than of absolute conclusions. In short, I hold that a right appreciation of first principles and of the history of evolution are useful in enabling us to state the conditions of social and political problems, though powerless to solve them. In order to define more closely the conditions of the problem of Aristocracy v. Democracy, we must greatly narrow the assumptions on which Professor Huxley's argument depends. In neither case is it a question of "cooks and loblolly-boys" actually navigating the ship. There must always be a captain and superior officers, and the sole question is under which system we get the best ones. Monarchy, or as Carlyle calls it, hero-worship, implies that the rule of a single individual is best; but here we are met by the primary condition which the sagacious Mrs. Glasse put forward as the first requisite for making hare-soup. First catch your hare, first find your hero. Hereditary descent clearly fails us, you are just as likely to get a Nero or a Commiodus, as a Titus or a Marcus Aurelius. A plebiscite may give you a Napoleon III. or a Boulanger, as probably as a Washington or a Cromwell.
Aristocracy means that you are likely to do best when the Government is selected by a small, hereditary, privileged class who from superior wealth and education may be supposed to understand political questions better than the mass of their countrymen. The theory of democracy is that you will get a better result from the outcome of the varied opinions and conflicting views of a very large number of voters, comprising the whole or nearly the whole of the adult community.
A priori there is nothing absurd in this latter theory. Professor Huxley will admit that it is quite a tenable proposition that you may get a more accurate representation of the annual parallax of a star, or of the precise moment of the commencement and end of a transit of Venus, from the average of a large number of moderately skilled observers, than from