sagacity, was completely captivated by the views of the Curia. He therefore also circulated the calumny, originating with Cardinal Reisach, that it was Dr. Döllinger who spoke in Prince Hohenlohe's despatch, and who (i.e. Dr. Döllinger) made opposi tion solely from disappointed ambition. The influence of such erroneous ideas in the letter of 14th May, 1869, is undeniable. Count Arnim submitted the personal opinions he held at that time' regarding Prince Hohenlohe and Dr. Döllinger to Prince Bismarck, with unfeigned candour and that confidence which is always justly entitled to discretionary treatment. The unabridged publication of that letter, which the article in the North German Gazette made political capital of in a most repugnant manner, offended every right-thinking man. The significance, however, of that which Count Arnim had expressed in his Memorandum, composed more than a year afterwards, could scarcely be weakened thereby in the eyes of intelligent readers. "Of course, Count Arnim could not remain silent in face of this malignant publication. In a letter to Dr. Döllinger, recently published, the late German Ambassador at Paris apologised, with the assurance of his esteem, if certain passages unfortunately not suppressed because of the intention of the publication,' should have grieved him. He likewise asserts that only hypercriticism could call the Memorandum apocryphal, and declares that he had only gradually, guided by what the course of the proceedings of the Council divulged, arrived at the conviction to which he (more than a twelvemonth later) had given utterance in that Memorandum, namely, 'If I have learnt anything during that time, I am mainly indebted for it to the German Bishops, who had the kindness to enlighten me in regard to the consequences of the dogma. Most of all do I regret that the deliberations suggested by Prince Hohenlohe have not resulted in more deliberate negotiations. If it had been possible to nip in the bud the rank weeds which have been reared by the Council, we should not to-day find ourselves entangled in the inconceivable perplexities which jeopardise pretty nearly everything which in the course of ages seemed to have become the common property of Christianity.' . "Count Arnim by no means boasts of the sagacity for which credit is given him everywhere, with which he correctly appreciated and explained to his Government the full significance of the resolutions of the Vatican, when it was yet time to anticipate them in Prince Hohenlohe's sense. His whole letter is written in a dignified but modest style, and does not contain the least reproach against his superior and Chief for Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that with this letter to Dr. Döllinger the cloth is completely rent asunder between Prince Bismarck and Count Arnim. Whoever has more closely followed the publications in the semi-official press cannot be in any doubt-as far as regards the personal question in the whole affair-to whose side the sympathies in this dispute must incline. We must not, however, saddle upon Prince Bismarck, who since the last publication of the North German Gazette is still confined to his bed as an invalid, those things which, perhaps, only his Chief of the Press Bureau is responsible for." The last paragraph might require contradiction. That, however, is not the object of this work. Moreover, it would be high time to renounce the method which has become habitual to find always a "scapegoat" in order to screen him who is really responsible. Who was it who last spring caused the article "War in Sight!" to be sent to the Post in Berlin? Who are the "Jews" who invented this war rumour, for the purpose of speculating on the baisse?· Who is the "military party" who urged the Emperor on to war, and who had nearly by a hair's breadth dragged the pacific Chancellor along with them? There is no (6 military party" in Germany. Who permitted the semi-official sycophants during eight weeks to apparently encourage the insurrection in Herzegovina and Bosnia, although all the world knew that the language of these papers might give cause to "misconstructions?" How is it that the Times, whose Berlin correspondent, Herr Abel, is in very intimate relation with the Foreign Office, was at the same time enthusiastic for Bosnia's independence? For God's sake, let us guard against either creating or tolerating irresponsible positions. His Majesty the German Emperor was this spring graciously pleased to say to M. de Polignac at a ball at Prince Hatzfeld's: "On a voulu nous brouiller-maintenant tout est arrangé." "Qui est ceton,' Sire?" If it is not allowed to saddle on Prince Bismarck's shoulders what perhaps his Chief of the Press Bureau is alone responsible for, there still remains that question to be answered : "Has Prince Bismarck disavowed the Chef de Bureau de la Presse?" Evidently not. For in spring, 1874, the very same "Chef" conducted the campaign against Count Arnim, who in the spring of 1875 put on the stage the episode "War in Sight!" PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND CO. |