the State, entirely to put into practice what he had
said from his place in the Chamber. But he was
not minister ; he was only a party leader ; his
speeches were, as they were intended to be, party
speeches ; they had something of the exaggeration
which conflict always produces. They were, more-
over, opposition speeches, for he was addressing not
so much the Government as the Chamber and the
country, and in them the party to which he belonged
was a very small minority. But why was there not
to be a Conservative party in Prussia?

It was necessary for the proper development of con-
stitutional life that the dominant Liberal doctrines
should be opposed by this bold criticism. Bismarck
was only doing what in England was done by the
young Disraeli, by Carlyle, and by Ruskin ; the
world would not be saved by constitutional formulae.



6o Bismarck.



[1847-



There were some of his party whose aims went
indeed beyond what may be considered morally
legitimate and politically practicable. The Gerlachs
and many of their friends, and the purely military
party which was headed by Prince Charles Frederick,
the King's youngest brother, desired to do away with
the Constitution, to dismiss the Parliament, and to
restore the absolute monarchy in a form which would
have been more extreme than that which it had had
since 1815. The King himself sympathised with
their wishes and he probably would have acted
according to them were it not that he had sworn to
maintain the Constitution. He was a religious man
and he respected his oath. There does not appear
any evidence that Bismarck wished for extreme action
of this kind. Even in his private correspondence,
at least in that part of it which has been published,
one finds no desire to see Prussia entirely without a
Parliament. It was a very different thing to wish as
he did that the duties of the Parliament should be
strictly limited and that they should not be allowed
completely to govern the State. We must always
remember how much he owed to representative
assemblies. Had the Estates General never been
summoned, had the Revolution never taken place, he
would probably have passed his life as a country gen-
tleman, often discontented with the Government of
the country but entirely without influence. He owed
to Parliament his personal reputation, but he owed
to it something more than that. Up to 1847 ^^e
only public career open to a Prussian subject was
the Civil Service ; it was from them that not only the



t852]



The Revolution. 6i



subordinate officials but the Ministers of the State
were selected. Now we have seen that Bismarck
had tried the Civil Service and deliberately retired
from it. The hatred of bureaucracy he never over-
came, even when he was at the head of the Prussian
State. It arose partly from the natural opposition
between the nobleman and the clerk. Bismarck felt
in this like Stein, the greatest of his predecessors,
who though he had taken service under the Prussian
Crown never overcame his hatred of " the animal with
a pen,'' as he called Prussian Civil Servants, and shed
tears of indignation when he was first offered a
salary. Bismarck was never a great nobleman like
Stein and he did not dislike receiving a salary ; but
he felt that the Civil Servants were the enemies of
the order to which he belonged. He speaks a few
years later of " the biting acid of Prussian legisla-
tion which in a single generation can reduce a
mediatised Prince to an ordinary voter." He is
never tired of saying that it was the bureaucracy
which was the real introducer of the Revolution into
Prussia. In one of his speeches he defends himself
and his friends against the charge of being enemies
to freedom ; " that they were not," he says ;

" Absolutism with us is closely connected with the
omnipotence of the Gehei}?irath and the conceited omni-
science of the Professors who sit behind the green table,
a product, and I venture to maintain a necessary product,
of the Prussian method of education. This product, the
bureaucracy, I have never loved."

When, as he often does, he maintains that the Prus-



62 Bismarck.



[1847-



sian Parliament does not represent the people, he is
thinking of the predominance among them of
ofificials, for we must always remember that many of
the extreme Liberal party and some of their most
active leaders were men who were actually at that
time in the service of the Crown.

It was the introduction of a Representative As-
sembly that for the first time in Prussian history
made possible a Conservative opposition against
the Liberalism of the Prussian Government. There
are two kinds of Liberalism. In one sense of
the word it means freedom of debate, freedom of the
press, the power of the individual as against the
Government, independence of character, and personal
freedom. Of Liberalism in this sense of the word
there was indeed little in the Prussian Government.
But Liberalism also meant the overthrow of the old
established institutions inherited from the Middle
Ages, especially the destruction of all privileges held
by the nobility ; it meant on the Continent opposi-
tion to all form of dogmatic religious teaching; it
meant the complete subjection of the Church to the
State ; it meant the abolition of all local distinctions
and the introduction of a uniform system of govern-
ment chiefly imitated from French institutions. It
was in this sense of the word that, with the exception
of the first few years of the reign of Frederick
William IV., the Prussian Government had been
Liberal, and it was this Liberalism which Bismarck
and his friends hated almost as much as they did
the Liberalism of the Revolution.

The clearest instance of his attitude on such mat-



18521 The Revohition. 63

ters is to be found in his opposition to the Bill
introduced for making civil marriage compulsory.
He opposed it in a speech which was many years
later to be quoted against him when he himself
introduced a measure almost identical with that
which he now opposed. Civil marriage, he said, was
a foreign institution, an imitation of French legisla-
tion ; it would simply serve to undermine the belief
in Christianity among the people, "and" he said,
"I have seen many friends of the illumination during
the last year or two come to recognise that a certain
degree of positive Christianity is necessary for the
common man, if he is not to become dangerous to
human society." The desire for introducing this
custom was merely an instance of the constant wish
to imitate what is foreign.

" It would be amusing," he said, " if it were not just our
own country which was subjected to these experiments of
French charlatanism. In the course of the discussion it
has often been said by gentlemen standing in this place
that Europe holds us for a people of thinkers. Gentle-
men, that was in old days. The popular representation
of the last two years has deprived us of this reputation.
They have shown to a disappointed Europe only trans-
lators of French stucco but no original thinkers. It
may be that when civil marriage also rejoices in its
majority, the people will have their eyes opened to
the swindle to which they have been sacrificed ; when
one after another the old Christian fundamental rights
have been taken from them : the right to be governed by
Christian magistrates ; the right to know that they have
secured to their children a Christian education in schools



64 Bismarck. [1847-

which Christian parents are compelled to maintain and
to use; the right of being married in the Christian fashion
which his faith requires from everyone, without being
dependent on constitutional ceremonies. If we go on in
this way I hope still to see the day when the fool's ship
of the time will be wrecked on the rock of the Christian
Church ; for the belief in the revealed Word of God
still stands firmer among the people than the belief in
the saving power of any article of the Constitution."

In the same way he was able from his place in
Parliament to criticise the proposals of the Govern-
ment for freeing the peasants from those payments
in kind, and personal service which in some of the
provinces still adhered to their property ; he attacked
their financial proposals; he exposed the injustice
of the land tax; he defended the manorial jurisdic-
tion of the country gentlemen. Especially he de-
fended the nobles of Prussia themselves, a class
against whom so many attacks had been made. He
pointed out that by them and by their blood the
Prussian State had been built up ; the Prussian
nobles were, he maintained, not, as so often was said,
unpopular ; a third of the House belonged to them ;
they were not necessarily opposed to freedom ; they
were, at least, the truest defenders of the State,
Let people not confuse patriotism and Liberalism.
Who had done more for the true political inde-
pendence of the State, that independence without
which all freedom was impossible, than the Prussian
nobles ? At the end of the Seven Years' War boys
had stood at the head of the army, the only surviv-
ors of their families. The privileges of the nobles



1852] The Revolution. 65

had been taken from them, but they had not be-
haved like the democrats ; their loyalty to the State
had never wavered ; they had not even formed a
Fronde. He was not ashamed of the name of
Junker: "We will bring the name to glory and
honour," were almost the last words he spoke in
Parliament.

Bismarck soon became completely at home in the
House. Notwithstanding the strength of his opin-
ions and the vigour with which he gave expression
to them, he was not unpopular, even among his op-
ponents. He was always a gentleman and a man of
the world ; he did not dislike mixing with men of all
classes and all parties ; he had none of that stiffness
and hauteur which many of his friends had acquired
from their military pursuits. His relations with his
opponents are illustrated by an anecdote of which
there are many versions. He found himself one day
while in the refreshment room standing side by side
with d'Ester, one of the most extreme of the Repub-
lican party. They fell into conversation, and d'Es-
ter suggested that they should make a compact and,
whichever party succeeded in the struggle for power,
they should each agree to spare the other. If the
Republicans won, Bismarck should not be guillo-
tined ; if the monarchists, d'Ester should not be hung.
" No," answered Bismarck, " that is no use ; if you
come into power, life would not be worth living.
There must be hanging, but courtesy to the foot of
the gallows."

If he was in after years to become known as the
great adversary of Parliamentary government, this



66 Bisnia^^ck. [1847-

did not arise from any incapacity to hold his own in
Parhamentary debate. He did not indeed aim at
oratory; then, as in later years, he always spoke
with great contempt of men who depended for
power on their rhetorical ability. He was himself
deficient in the physical gifts of a great speaker ; pow-
erful as was his frame, his voice was thin and weak.
He had nothing of the actor in him ; he could not
command the deep voice, the solemn tones, the im-
posing gestures, the Olympian mien by which men
like Waldeck and Radowitz and Gagern dominated
and controlled their audience. His own mind was
essentially critical ; he appealed more to the intellect
than the emotions. His speeches were always con-
troversial, but he was an admirable debater. It is
curious to see how quickly he adopts the natural
Parliamentary tone. His speeches are all subdued
in tone and conversational in manner. Many of
them were very carefully prepared, for though he
did not generally write them out, he said them over
and over again to himself or to Kleist, with whom he
lived in Berlin. They are entirely unlike any other
speeches — he has, in fact, in them, as in his letters,
added a new chapter to the literature of his country,
hitherto so poor in prose.

They shew a vivid imagination and an almost un-
equalled power of illustration. The thought is
always concrete, and he is never satisfied with the
vague ideas and abstract conceptions which so easily
moved his contemporaries. No speeches, either in
English or in German, preserve so much of their
freshness. He is almost the only Parliamentary







BISMARCK IN 1848.



1852] The Revohition. 67

orator whose speeches have become to some extent
a popular book ; no other orator has enriched the
language as he has done with new phrases and im-
ages. The great characteristic of his speeches, as of
his letters, is the complete absence of affectation and
the very remarkable intellectual honesty. They are
often deficient in order and arrangement ; he did not
excel in the logical exposition of a connected argu-
ment, but he never was satisfied till he had presented
the idea which influenced him in words so forcible
and original that it was impressed on the minds of
his audience, and he was often able to find expres-
sions which will not be forgotten so long as the
German language is spoken.

We can easily imagine that under other circum-
stances, or in another country, he would have risen
to power and held office as a Parliamentary Minister.
He often appeals to the practice and traditions of
the English Parliament, and there are few Conti-
nental statesmen Avho would have been so com-
pletely at home in the English House of Commons;
he belonged to the class of men from whom so many
of the great English statesmen had come and whom
he himself describes :

" What with us is lacking is the whole class which in
England carries on poUtics, the class of gentlemen who
are well-to-do and therefore Conservative, who are inde-
pendent of material interests and whose whole education
is directed towards making them English statesmen, and
the object of whose life is to take part in the Common-
wealth of England."



68 Bismarck. [1847-

They were the class to whom he belonged, and he
would gladly have taken part in a Parliamentary
government of this kind.

The weakness of his position arose from the fact
that he was really acquainted with and represented
the inhabitants of only one-half of the monarchy. So
long as he is dealing with questions of landed-prop-
erty, or of the condition of the peasants, he has a
minute and thorough knowledge. He did not al-
ways, however, avoid the danger of speaking as
though Prussia consisted entirely of agriculturists.
The great difificulty then as now of governing the
State, was that it consisted of two parts : the older
provinces, almost entirely agricultural, where the
land was held chiefly by the great nobles, and the
new provinces, the Rhine and Westphalia, where
there was a large and growing industrial population.
To the inhabitants of these provinces Bismarck's
constant appeal to the old Prussian traditions and
to the achievements of the Prussian nobility could
have little meaning. What did the citizens of Co-
logne and Aachen care about the Seven Years' War?
If their ancestors took part in the war, it would be
as enemies of the Kings of Prussia. When Bismarck
said that they were Prussians, and would remain
Prussian, he undoubtedly spoke the opinion of the
Mark and of Pomerania. But the inhabitants of the
Western Provinces still felt and thought rather as
Germans than as Prussians ; they had scarcely been
united with the monarchy thirty years ; they were
not disloyal, but they were quite prepared — nay, they
wished to see Prussia dissolved in Germany. No



1852]



The Revolution.



69



one can govern Prussia unless he is able to reconcile
to his policy these two different classes in the State.
It was this which the Prussian Conservatives, to
which Bismarck at that time belonged, have always
failed to do. The Liberals whom he opposed failed
equally. In later years he was very nearly to suc-
ceed in a task which might appear almost impos-
sible.




CHAPTER IV.

THE GERMAN PROBLEM.
1849-1852.

BISMARCK, however, did not confine himself
to questions of constitutional reform and in-
ternal government. He often spoke on the
foreign policy of the Government, and it is in these
speeches that he shews most originality.
/" The Revolution in Germany, as in Italy, had two
\ sides ; it was Liberal, but it was also National. The
i National element was the stronger and more deep-
Lseated. The Germans felt deeply the humiliation
to which they were exposed owing to the fact that
they did not enjoy the protection of a powerful
Government ; they wished to belong to a national
State, as Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Russians
did. It was the general hope that the period of
revolution might be used for establishing a gov-
ernment to which the whole of Germany would
pay obedience. This was the task of the Constitu-
ent Assembly, which since the spring of 1848 had
with the permission of the Governments been sit-
ting at Frankfort. Would they be able to suc-

70



1849]



TJie German Problem. Ji



ceed where the diplomatists of Vienna had failed ?
They had at least good-will, but it was to be shewn
that something more than honest endeavour was
necessary. There were three great difificulties with
which they had to contend. The first was the Re-
publican party, the men who would accept no gov-
ernment but a Republic, and who wished to found
the new state by insurrection. They were a small
minority of the German people ; several attempts at
insurrection organised by them were suppressed, and
they were outvoted in the Assembly. The second
difficulty was Austria. A considerable portion of
Germany was included in the Austrian Empire. If
the whole of Germany were to be included in the
new State which they hoped to found, then part of
the Austrian Empire would have to be separated
from the rest, subjected to different laws and a
different government ; nothing would remain but a
personal union between the German and Slavonic
provinces. The Government of Austria, after it had
recovered its authority at the end of 1848, refused
to accept this position, and published a new Consti-
tution, binding all the provinces together in a closer
union. The Assembly at Frankfort had no power
to coerce the Emperor of Austria ; they therefore
adopted the other solution, viz. : that the rest of
Germany was to be reconstituted, and the Austrian
provinces left out. The question, however, then
arose : Would Austria accept this- — would she allow
a new Germany to be created in which she had no
part? Surely not, if she was able to prevent it. The
third difficultv was the relation between the indi-



']2 Bismarck. [1849-

vidual States and the new central authority. It is
obvious that whatever powers were given to the new
Government would be taken away from the Princes
of the individual States, who hitherto had enjoyed
complete sovereignty. Those people who in Ger-
many were much influenced by attachment to the
existing governments, and who wished to maintain
the full authority of the Princes and the local Parlia-
ments, were called Particularists. During the ex-
citement of the Revolution they had been almost
entirely silenced. With the restoration of order and
authority they had regained their influence. It was
probable that many of the States would refuse to
accept the new Constitution unless they were com-
pelled to do so. Where was the power to do this ?
There were many in the National Assembly who
wished to appeal to the power of the people, and by
insurrection and barricades compel all the Princes to
accept the new Constitution. There was only one
other power in Germany which could do the work,
and that was the Prussian army. Would the King
of Prussia accept this task ?

The German Constitution was completed in March,
1849. -^y ^^^ exercise of much tact and great per-
sonal influence, Heinrich von Gagern, the President
of the Assembly and the leader of the Moderate
party in it, had procured a majority in favour of an
hereditar}^ monarchy, and the King of Prussia was
elected to the post of first German Emperor. At the
beginning of April there arrived in Berlin the deputa-
tion which was to offer to him the crown, and on his
answer depended the future of Germany. Were he



1852] The Gei'-man Problem. 73

to accept, he would then have undertaken to put him-
self at the head of the revolutionary movement ; it
would be his duty to compel all the other States to
accept the new Constitution, and, if necessary, to
defend it on the field of battle against Austria. Be-
sides this he would have to govern not only Prussia
but Germany; to govern it under a Constitution which
gave almost all the power to a Parliament elected by
universal suffrage, and in which he had only a sus-
pensive veto. Can we be surprised that he refused
the offer ? He refused it on the ground that he could
not accept universal suffrage, and also because the
title and power of German Emperor could not be
conferred on him by a popular assembly; he could
only accept it from his equals, the German Princes.

The decision of the King was discussed in the
Prussian Assembly, and an address moved declaring
that the Frankfort Constitution was in legal existence,
and requesting the King to accept the offer. It was
on this occasion that Bismarck for the first time came
forward as the leader of a small party on the Extreme
Right. He at once rose to move the previous ques-
tion. He denied to the Assembly even the right of
discussing this matter which belonged to the preroga-
tive of the King.

He was still more strongly opposed to the accept-
ance of the offered crown. He saw only that the
King of Prussia would be subjected to a Parliament-
ary Assembly, that his power of action would be
limited. The motto of his speech was that Prussia
must remain Prussia. " The crown of Frankfort,"
he said, " may be very bright, but the gold which gives



74 Bismarck.



11849



truth to its brilliance has first to be won by melting
down the Prussian crown." His speech caused great
indignation ; ten thousand copies of it were printed to
be distributed among the electors so as to show them
the real principles and objects of the reactionary
party.

His opposition to any identification of Prussia and
Germany was maintained when the Prussian Govern-
ment itself took the initiative and proposed its own
solution. During the summer of 1849, ^^^ Prussian
programme was published. The Government invited
the other States of Germany to enter into a fresh
union ; the basis of the new Constitution was to be
that of Frankfort, but altered so far as might be
found necessary, and the union was to be a voluntary
one. The King in order to carry out this policy ap-
pointed as one of his Ministers Herr von Radowitz.
He was a man of the highest character and extreme
ability. An officer by profession, he was distin-
guished by the versatility of his interests and his
great learning. The King found in him a man who
shared his own enthusiasm for letters. He had been
a member of the Parliament at Frankfort, and had
taken a leading part am.ong the extreme Conserva-
tives ; a Roman Catholic, he had come forward in
defence of religion and order against the Liberals
and Republicans ; a very eloquent speaker, by his
earnestness and eloquence he was able for a short
time to give new life to the failing hopes of the
German patriots.

Bismarck always looked on the new Minister with
great dislike. Radowitz, indeed, hated the Revolu-



1852] The German Problem. 75

tion as much as he did ; he was a zealous and patri-
otic Prussian ; but there was a fundamental difference
in the nature of the two men. Radowitz wished to
reform Germany by moral influence. Bismarck did
not believe in the possibility of this. To this per-
haps we must add some personal feeling. The Min-
istry had hitherto consisted almost entirely of men
who were either personal friends of Bismarck, or
whom he had recommended to the King. With
Radowitz there entered into it a man who was su-
perior to all of them in ability, and over whom
Bismarck could not hope to have any influence.
Bismarck's distrust, which amounted almost to
hatred, depended, however, on his feai that the new
policy would bring about the ruin of Prussia. He
took the extreme Particularist view ; he had no in-
terest in Germany outside Prussia ; Wiirtemberg
and Bavaria were to him foreign States, [in all
these proposals for a new Constitution he saw only
that Prussia would be required to sacrifice its com-
plete independence ; that the King of Prussia would
become executor for the decrees of a popular and