the february constitution.—merseberg.—first appearance of bismarck in the white saloon.—von saucken.—bismarck’s first speech.—conservatives and liberals.—the first of june.—jewish emancipation.—illusions destroyed.

when king frederick william iv. issued the february manifesto, in 1847,[35] and summoned the united diet with the chambers, he thought in his royal great-heartedness to have accorded to his people a free gift of his affection and his confidence, and to have anticipated many wishes; but close behind the rejoicings which welcomed the patent of february, there lay the bitterest disenchantment for the noble king.

the honorable old royalists of prussia, who had been educated and had grown up in the honest prussian absolutism of frederick william iii., first looked with suspicion at this new royal gift; they could not at all understand why their own king of prussia should have thought it necessary to summon a parliament somewhat on the model of england, and they foresaw all sorts of evils in the future, as they thoughtfully shook their gray and honored heads. to these men, who at that time were still very numerous, and whose influence was considerable, succeeded those who certainly felt that the abuses of bureaucracy were no longer curable by patriarchal absolutism, but who still thought that the king, by this measure, had conceded the very utmost possible in that direction. they saw in the patent the last fortress of the monarchy which must be held against liberalism at any cost. in opposition[166] to these royalists, the host of liberals unfolded their gay banner in different columns. they only could see in the february patent the starting-point of a further movement, which, founded on the patent, might transform the absolute state into a modern constitutional monarchy. there existed even individuals who perceived that the patent would prove an obstacle to their revolutionary tendencies, and desired to refuse its acceptance.

we will not criticise these parties, but it is certain that none of them regarded the patent in the spirit of the royal donor—unless perhaps some who had understood that the king, basing his action on the existing provincial assemblies, proposed in a similar manner to erect a peculiar prussian representative monarchy. they beheld the february patent to be no final measure, but the beginning of states government, which could only develop itself under specially favorable circumstances, and in course of time.

bismarck was one of the men who, although without absolutely expressing the opinion, regarded the patent as the starting-point of a new order of things, in common with the liberals, but not in the sense of a constitutional monarchy, but comprehended it, as the king did, as a step towards a peculiar and specifically prussian state government.

the saxon provincial diet at merseburg had chosen the dyke captain and first lieutenant von brauchitsch of scharteuke, in the circle of jerichow, as deputy at the united diet, and had selected dyke captain von bismarck of sch?nhausen as his representative. as herr von brauchitsch was very ill, his representative was summoned.

bismarck appeared in the white saloon of the royal palace at c?lln on the spree, where the three estates’ assembly held its sessions, as a representative of the knight’s estate of jerichow, and a vassal and chivalric servitor of the king. he was at that time, however, as liberal as most of his associates; liberalism then floated in the air and was inhaled; it was impossible to avoid it. against many abuses it was also justifiable; hence its mighty influence.

a conservative party, in the sense in which we wish it to be understood, did not then exist; nor did the general confusion of opinions at the time allow of the formation of true parties. it is[167] true that bismarck met many men in the white saloon, whose opinions were well known to him; of these were his brother, the landrath, his cousins, the counts von bismarck-bohlen and von bismarck-briest, his future father-in-law, herr von putkammer, von thadden, von wedell, and many others—but unfortunately these gentlemen in general, as herr von thadden once bluntly said of himself, were not even bad orators, but no orators at all. nor could the two freiherrs von manteuffel contend in eloquence with the brilliant rhetoricians of the liberals, such as freiherr von vincke, camphausen, mevissen, beckerath, and others.

very few persons now exist who can read those speeches of the first united diet, once so celebrated, without a melancholy or satirical smile: those were the blossom-days of liberal phraseology, causing an enthusiasm of which we can not now form any adequate idea.

they acted with such an influence upon bismarck, but he was soon sobered, when he attained the conviction that these great speakers, moved by their construction of the patent of february, advocated an end not contemplated by the spirit of the patent. to him it did not seem honest to contend for modern constitutionalism upon the judicial merits of the february patent, against its sense and spirit.

an inimical inspiration acted on him in liberal phraseology, and the more magnificent the oratory, the more repugnant it became to him, especially where he saw untruth clearly in view. he employed some time in making it evident to himself that the liberal idea was the very fact under the government of which men, otherwise of great honor, in the very best of faith, brought forward matters in themselves quite false; and the deepest want of confidence then made itself master of his mind. he began to understand how dangerous a power so intangible might become to the sovereignty.

at the sitting of the three estates on the 17th may, the deputy von saucken made one of those wordy enthusiastic speeches at that time so popular, and declared that the prussian people had risen in the year 1813 for the sole end of obtaining a constitution. this had previously been asserted by beckerath and others on several occasions.

[168]

after the liberal speaker had descended amidst the plaudits of the assembly, the deputy bismarck, for the first time, appeared upon the tribune. his stature was great, his plentiful hair was cut short, his healthily ruddy countenance was fringed by a strong blond beard, his shining eyes were somewhat prominent, à fleur de tête, as the french idiom has it—such was his aspect. he gazed upon the assembly for a moment, and then spoke simply, but with some hesitation, in a strong, sometimes shrill voice, with not altogether pleasing emphasis:—“for me it is difficult—after a speech replete with such noble enthusiasm—to address you, in order to bring before you a plain re-statement.” he then glanced at some length at the real merits of a previous vote, and continued in the following words:—

“to discuss the remaining points of the speech, i prefer to choose a time when it will be necessary to enter upon questions of policy; at present i am compelled to contradict what is stated from this tribune, as well as what is so loudly and so frequently asserted outside this hall, in reference to the necessity for a constitution, as if the movements of our nation in 1813 should be ascribed to other causes and motives than those of the tyranny exercised by the foreigner in our land.”

here the speaker was assailed with such loud marks of disapprobation, hisses, and outcries, that he could no longer make himself intelligible. he quietly drew a newspaper from his pocket—it was the “spenersche zeitung”—and read it, leaning in an easy attitude, until the president-marshal had restored order; he then concluded, still interrupted by hisses, with these words:—“in my opinion it is doing sorry service to the national honor, to conclude that ill-treatment and humiliation suffered by prussia at the hands of a foreign ruler would not be enough to rouse prussian blood, and cause all other feelings to be absorbed by the hatred of foreigners.”

amidst great commotion bismarck left the tribune, ten or twelve voices being clamorous to be heard.

bismarck in 1847-1848.

it is not intelligible to us at the present day, how the casual statement of a simple opinion, which, even had it been untrue, need have offended no one, could raise such a storm. nor had bismarck personally offended any one, but he had protested against liberalism, and at once the mamelukes of this most evil[169] despot pounced upon him—upon this unfortunate member of the chivalry of the province of saxony. the elder gentlemen were especially offended, who had voluntarily taken the field in 1813, and had now attributed the motive they thought then actuated them, and perhaps they really entertained, to the nation. it was curious, too, that they flatly denied the right of criticism to this member, on the ground that he was not in existence in those great days. when, with loud clamor, these gentlemen had given vent to their moral indignation, bismarck again ascended the tribune; but the[170] anger of the liberals was so great that the marshal had to use all his authority to protect him during his speech.

bismarck now spoke fluently, in the manner since so familiar to us, but coldly and sarcastically: “i can certainly not deny that i did not as yet exist in those days, and i am truly sorry not to have been permitted to take part in that movement; my regret for this is certainly diminished by the explanations i have received just now upon the movements of that epoch. i always thought the servitude against which the sword was then used was a foreign servitude; i now learn that it lay at home. for this correction i am not by any means grateful!”

the hisses of the liberals were now met by many voices with “hear, hear!” from this moment the hatred of the press was concentrated upon bismarck; being without exception in the hands of the liberals, it governed public opinion entirely, and it assailed bismarck even more unscrupulously and unconscientiously than it had attacked von thadden and von manteuffel. as contradiction was impossible, the world probably thought bismarck was still one of the wild junkers who, armed to the teeth in steel, considered village tyranny and dissoluteness to be the best kind of constitution, and in deep political ignorance was still standing at about the mental mark of dietrich von quitzow,[36] or at the most of one of the junkers of the time of frederick i. the liberal press certainly succeeded in producing a caricature of bismarck, composed of a kind of a black bogy and a ridiculous bugbear; the latter they were speedily obliged to drop, but the bogy they have the more firmly retained, and frightened political babies with it until very recent days.

no one has any idea at the present time how the liberal press of those days assailed men who were obnoxious to them. in the year 1849, two gentlemen were introduced to each other in society; as ordinarily happens, they mistook their several names on a hurried introduction. the elder gentleman spoke in an intellectual, remarkable, exhaustive, and instructive manner concerning the affairs of hungary, whence he had recently returned, and showed himself to be a person of thought, information, and politeness. his interlocutor for a long time could not believe[171] that this was herr von thadden-triglaff; the ridiculous caricature the liberal press had sent broadcast into society of this eminent and singular man was so firmly fixed in his convictions.

we have laid some emphasis on this point, as it forms an explanation of the obstinate suspicion with which, for many after years, bismarck was regarded by a section of the public. it is also plainly evident that the young politician often defended himself against this “world of scorn” with equal and biting scorn, and covered himself with the shield of contempt against mockery he did not deserve. he was continually assailed, sometimes in the rudest manner, and sometimes with poisonous acumen; and he could not have been bismarck had he borne it with patience.

thus it befell that he soon found himself in full battle array against liberalism, and his speeches at the time show that he took a serious view of the matter. he gave utterance to his convictions and opinions in conformity with his natural fearless nature; he adhered closely to the matter at issue, but the form in which he did so was that of the most cutting attack, whetted in general by a cloud of contempt for his opponent, or of bitter ridicule.

in the debate of the three estates of the 1st of june, 1847, known as the periodicity debate, bismarck spoke as follows:

“i will not take the trouble to examine the solidity of the various grounds of right, on which each of us presumes himself to stand; but, i believe, it has become certain, from the debate and from every thing which i have gathered from the discussion of the question, that a different construction and interpretation of the older estates legislation was possible and practically existent—not among laymen only, but also among weighty jurists—and that it would be very doubtful what a court of justice, if such a question were before it, would decree concerning it. under such circumstances, the declaration would, according to general principles of law, afford a solution. this declaration has become implicit upon us, implicit by the patent of the 3d of february of this year; by this the king has declared that the general promises of former laws have been no other than those fulfilled by the present law. it appears that this declaration has been regarded by a portion of this assembly as inaccurate, but such is a fate to which every declaration is equally subject. every declaration is[172] considered by those whose opinions it does not confirm, to be wrong, or the previous conviction could not have been sincere. the question really is, in whom the right resides to issue an authentic and legally binding declaration. in my opinion, the king alone; and this conviction, i believe, lies in the conscience of the people. for when yesterday an honorable deputy from k?nigsberg asserted that there was a dull dissatisfaction among the people on the proclamation of the patent of the 3d of february, i must reply, on the contrary, that i do not find the majority of the prussian nation represented in the meetings which take place in the b?ttchersh?fchen. (murmurs.) in inarticulate sounds i really can not discover any refutation of what i have said, nor do i find it in the goose-quills of the newspaper correspondents; no! not even in a fraction of the population of some of the large provincial towns. it is difficult to ascertain public opinion; i think i find it in some of the middle provinces, and it is the old prussian conviction that a royal word is worth more than all the constructions and quirks applied to the letter of the law. (some voices: bravo!) yesterday a parallel was drawn between the method employed by the english people in 1688, after the abdication of james ii., for the preservation of its rights, and that by which the prussian nation should now attain a similar end. there is always something suspicious in parallels with foreign countries. russia had been held up to us as a model of religious toleration; the french and danish exchequers have been recommended as examples of proper finances. to return to the year 1688 in england, i must really beg this august assembly, and especially an honorable deputy from silesia, to pardon me if i again speak of a circumstance which i did not personally perceive. the english people was then in a different position to that of the prussian people now; a century of revolution and civil war had invested it with the right to dispose of a crown, and bind up with it conditions accepted by william of orange. on the other hand, the prussian sovereigns were in possession of a crown, not by grace of the people, but by god’s grace; an actually unconditional crown, some of the rights of which they voluntarily conceded to the people—an example rare in history. i will leave the question of right, and proceed to that concerning the utility and desirability of asking or suggesting[173] any change in the legislation as it actually now exists. i adhere to the conviction, which i assume to be that of the majority of the assembly, that periodicity is necessary to a real vitality of this assembly; but it is another matter whether we should seek this by way of petition. since the emanation of the patent of the 3d of february, i do not believe that it would be consonant with the royal pleasure, or that it is inherent with the position of ourselves as estates, to approach his majesty already with a petition for an amendment of it. at any rate let us allow the grass of this summer to grow over it. the king has repeatedly said, that he did not wish to be coerced and driven; but i ask the assembly what should we be doing otherwise than coercing and driving him, if we already approached the throne with requests for changes in the legislation? to the gravity of this view i ask permission of the assembly to add another reason. it is certainly well known how many sad predictions have been made by the opponents of our polity connected with the fact that the government would find itself forced by the estates into a position which it would not have willingly taken up. but although i do not assume the government would allow itself to be coerced, i still think that it is in the interests of the government to avoid the slightest trace of unwillingness as to concessions, and that it is in all our interests not to concede to the enemies of prussia the delight of witnessing the fact that, by a petition—a vote—presented by us as the representatives of sixteen millions of subjects, we should throw a shade of unwillingness upon such a concession. it has been said that his majesty the king and the commissioner of the diet have themselves pointed out this path. for myself, i could not otherwise understand this than that, as the king has done, so also the commissioner of the diet indicated this as the legal way we should pursue in case we found ourselves aggrieved; but that it would be acceptable to his majesty the king and the government that we should make use of this right, i have not been able to perceive. if, however, we did so, it would be believed that urgent grounds existed for it—that there was immediate danger in the future; but of this i can not convince myself. the next session of the assembly is assured; the crown, also, is thereby in the advantageous position, that within four years, or even a shorter period, it can with perfect[174] voluntariness, and without asking, take the initiative as to that which is now desired. now, i ask, is not the edifice of our state firmer towards foreign countries?—will not the feeling of satisfaction be greater at home, if the continuation of our national polity be inaugurated by the initiative of the crown, than by petition from ourselves? should the crown not find it good to take the initiative, no time is lost. the third diet will not follow so rapidly upon the second, that the king would have no time to reply to a petition presented under such circumstances by the second. yesterday a deputy from prussia—i think from the circle of neustadt—uttered a speech which i could only comprehend as meaning that it was our interest to pull up the flower of confidence as a weed preventing us from seeing the bare ground, and cast it out. i say with pride that i can not agree with such an opinion. if i look back for ten years, and compare that which was written and said in the year 1837 with that which is proclaimed from the steps of the throne to the whole nation, i believe we have great reason to have confidence in the intentions of his majesty. in this confidence i beg to recommend this august assembly to adopt the amendment of the honorable deputy from westphalia—not that of the honorable deputy from the county of mark—but that of herr von lilien.”

this speech is certainly a prussian-royalist confession of faith as opposed to the constitutional doctrine, and was so accepted at times with cheers, at other times with murmurs, and, finally with a flood of personal opposition.

the political side of bismarck’s attitude is clear enough from this speech. we will signalize another aspect of it by the following passages from a speech delivered by bismarck on the occasion of that debate known as the jews’ debate, on the 15th of june.

“on ascending this place to-day, it is with greater hesitation than usual, as i am sensible that by what i am about to utter, some few remarks of the speakers of yesterday, of no very flattering tone, will have in a certain sense to be reviewed. i must openly confess that i am attached to a certain tendency, yesterday characterized by the honorable deputy from crefeld as dark and medi?val; this tendency which again dares to oppose the freer development of christianity in the way the deputy from[175] crefeld regards as the only true one. nor can i further deny that i belong to that great mass, which, as was remarked by the honorable deputy from posen, stands in opposition to the more intelligent portion of the nation, and, if my memory do not betray me, was held in considerable scorn by that intelligent section—the great mass that still clings to the convictions imbibed at the breast,—the great mass to which a christianity superior to the state is too elevated. if i find myself in the line of fire of such sharp sarcasms without a murmur, i believe i may throw myself upon the indulgence of the honorable assembly, if i confess, with the same frankness which distinguished my opponents, that yesterday, at times of inattention, it did not quite appear certain to me whether i was in an assembly for which the law had provided, in reference to its election, the condition of communion with some one of the christian churches. i will pass at once to the question itself. most of the speakers have spoken less upon the bill than upon emancipation in general. i will follow their example. i am no enemy to the jews, and if they are enemies to me, i forgive them. under certain circumstances i even love them. i would grant them every right, save that of holding superior official posts in christian countries.

“we have heard from the minister of finance, and from other gentlemen on the ministerial bench, sentiments as to the definition of a christian state, to which i almost entirely subscribe; but, on the other hand, we were yesterday told that christian supremacy is an idle fiction, an invention of recent state philosophers. i am of opinion that the idea of christian supremacy is as ancient as the ci-devant holy roman empire—as ancient as the great family of european states; that it is, in fact, the very soil in which these states have taken root, and that every state which wishes to have its existence enduring, if it desires to point to any justification for that existence, when called in question, must be constituted on a religious basis. for me, the words ‘by the grace of god’ affixed by christian rulers to their names form no empty sound; but i see in the phrase the acknowledgment that princes desire to sway the sceptres intrusted to them by the almighty according to god’s will on earth. i, however, can only recognize as the will of god that which is contained in the christian gospels, and i believe i am within my right when[176] i call such a state christian, whose problem is to realize and verify the doctrine of christianity. that our state does not in all ways succeed in this, the honorable deputy from the county of mark yesterday demonstrated in a parallel he drew between the truths of the gospel and the paragraphs of national jurisprudence, in a way rather clever than consonant with my religious feelings. but although the solution of the problem is not always successful, i am still convinced that the aim of the state is the realization of christian doctrine; however, i do not think we shall approach this aim more closely with the aid of the jews. if the religious basis of the state be acknowledged, i am sure that among ourselves the basis can only be that of christianity. if we withdraw from the state this religious basis, our state becomes nothing more than a fortuitous aggregation of rights, a sort of bulwark against the universal war of each against all, such as an elder philosophy instituted. its legislation then would no longer recreate itself from the original fountain of eternal truth, but only from the vague and mutable ideas of humanity taking shape only from the conceptions formed in the brains of those who occupy the apex. how such states could deny the right of the practical application of such ideas—as, for instance, those of the communists on the immorality of property, the high moral value of theft, as an experiment for the rehabilitation of the native rights of man—is not clear to me; for these very ideas are entertained by their advocates as humane, and, indeed, as constituting the very flower of humanitarianism. therefore, gentlemen, let us not diminish the christianity of the people by showing that it is superfluous to the legislature; let us not deprive the people of the belief that our legislation is derived from the fountain of christianity, and that the state seeks to promote the realization of christianity, though that end may not always be attained.

...

“besides this, several speakers, as in almost every question, have referred to the examples of england and france as models worthy of imitation. this question is of much less consequence there, because the jews are so much less numerous than here. but i would recommend to the gentlemen who are so fond of seeking their ideas beyond the vosges, a guide-line distinguishing[177] the english and the french. that consists in the proud feeling of national honor, which does not so easily and commonly seek for models worthy of imitation and wonderful patterns, as we do here, in foreign lands.”

it will be understood that this speech was much criticised; but it became a regular armory for his opponents; it was taken for granted that bismarck himself had stated that he stood in “the dark ages,” that he had “imbibed reactionary ideas with his mother’s milk,” and other similar things, although he was only ridiculing the ideas of his opponents; there was seldom an opportunity lost, when he was twitted with “the dark ages” and the “prejudices imbibed at the breast.” bismarck possessed humor enough to laugh at this pitiful trick, and once exclaimed very well: “deputy krause rode in the lists against me on a horse, in front the dark ages, behind mother’s milk!” what a picture herr krause, the burgomaster of elbing (if we are not misinformed), would make upon such a fabulous steed!

bismarck left the united diet with a thorn in his breast. he had lost many of the youthful illusions he had carried thither; the prussia he found in the white saloon was as remote as heaven from the prussia he had hitherto believed in, and his patriotic heart was sorrowful. he perceived that the sovereignty of prussia was about to encounter severe contests; that his duty lay with the monarch’s idea, and that his native land must be rescued from the insolent pretensions of the modern parliamentary spirit, from the most dangerous of all paper governments. in short, he arrived with hazy, but somewhat liberal, views, and he returned a politician thoroughly acquainted with his duty and his work, which consisted in aiding the king to restore the estates’ monarchy. it was a gift, but he received it with a sigh. his youth was at an end.

bismarck has ever remained true to his patriotic duties, everywhere in earnestness, and at no time has he withdrawn his hand from the plough; he went bravely on, when so many cast their weapons away and fled.