pleased to have them kept out of sight. I replied: 'By no means. You certainly thought that I had been drinking, but I insist that the words shall stand as I spoke them.""

"We will trample down with an iron heel all which is opposed to the restoration of the German nation in its splendor and power," the Chancellor once exclaimed in the Reichstag. But, as soon as the victory was won, he always advised that it should be used with discretion, and in a moderate and conciliatory spirit. That in 1866, in view of a reconciliation that was effected in 1879, Austria lost none of her territory; that the kingdom of Saxony was preserved, and that the south German states were not at that time obliged to surrender anything to victorious Prussia- this they owed to Bismarck. It was not always easy to carry out his moderate views, and on other questions all his energy was required, as, for instance, in 1863, when the Fürstentag of Frankfort wished for the reconstruction of Germany under the house of Hapsburg. At Nicolsburg his royal master wished that every conquered state should surrender some territory; that Austria should cede part of north Bohemia and her Silesian possessions; that Saxony should give up Lausitz on strategic grounds; and that Bavaria should be deprived of the broad strip which includes Ansbach and Baireuth, since these had belonged to his Majesty's ancestors. And in this and other cases the cession was to be a punishment. But Bismarck declared this to be contrary to good policy, and that in such cases the matter must be left to the justice of God. In political decisions the only criterion was, Cui bono? and no sentimental claim should be made for what we did not really require. In certain cases we might seize all, but, if not, we ought to seize nothing.

The Chancellor related at Varzin the following characteristic episode relating to the same period: "At the council of war held in my room at Nicolsburg, others were in favor of carrying on the campaign into Hungary, but I was opposed to it. I felt that we had the cholera against us, the Hungarian steppes and marshes, the complete change of front, political considerations, etc. The rest persisted, and I spoke once against the scheme in vain. I then went out of the sitting-room into my bedchamber, which was only divided from it by a wooden partition, and I threw myself upon the bed, and cried aloud in my nervous excitement. After a while silence reigned in the next room, and the matter rested there." The Minister, also, came near to having a fit of crying during that momen

tous discussion at Baden-Baden to which King John of Saxony and his evil genius Beust came from Frankfort to visit King William, and induced him to decide at the last moment to obey the Emperor Francis Joseph's summons to the assembly of princes, and thus in a certain sense to mediatize himself. Bismarck was almost beside himself from the excitement with which he had opposed the King's resolution, and, when his efforts were at last successful and he was able to withdraw without anxiety, he was seized with convulsions, so that in shutting the door he wrenched out the latch. His aidede-camp in the anteroom anxiously inquired the reason why he was so pale and agitated.

When the war of 1866 became a certainty and the Prussian Liberals declared themselves to be decidedly opposed to it, a furious attack was made on the Minister by a noted Berlin newspaper. Bismarck, to whom this was not a matter of indifference, sought an interview with the editor, and it took place, but without result. "I see, my dear Doctor," the Count said in conclusion, "that we shall not come to any understanding. You will continue to attack me, and I shall not change my course. But, if you knew what a struggle it has cost me to convince his Majesty that we must fight, you would understand that I only obey the law of necessity. In another half year I will ask you which of us is right." Before the half year had elapsed, they met in the street; the Minister gave the Doctor his hand, and his large gray eyes silently demanded, "What now?" The editor now understood him, pressed the Count's hand, and nodded.

The Chancellor was as forbearing as possible toward the jealousy with which the smaller states of the empire attempted to assert their prerogatives. For instance, he declared himself indifferent whether they carried on the farce of sending embassies to foreign courts or not. He once said, when drinking tea at Rheims, that "it was a mistake to suppose there was danger in keeping up the diplomatic representatives along with those of the Bund. Even if the states were powerful, it would be easy for them to exchange letters at foreign courts, and to intrigue against us by word of mouth, without the aid of official representatives. A dentist, or some such person, would suffice for the purpose.' At Versailles, on the admission of Bavaria into the new empire, he willingly agreed to the request of King Louis that he should retain certain special rights. The national zealots severely condemned him for this concession, but they did not understand that the matter was

pressing, and in their zeal overlooked the fact that the Bavarians were not conquered enemies but allies. In the last cabinet crisis (April, 1880) the current report that he purposed to introduce a change in the constitution which would restrict the privileges of some of the allied states was an invention of the newspapers. "Nothing was further from my intention," he said to me on this occasion, "the constitution of the Bund needs no change as long as the rights which it concedes to individual states continue to be used with moderation."

While Bismarck is forbearing wherever it is possible, he never shrinks from taking what is necessary, and he then acts with startling promptitude. In the summer of 1870 the hope of conquest was far more widely diffused through Germany than the fear of defeat. But at first the barren sentiment was equally prevalent that any one who spoke of the acquisition of territory which would give us a better western frontier was a visionary. It would only make France into our perpetual enemy, and it would be useless to incorporate Alsace-Lorraine, since the inhabitants wished to have nothing to do with us. Then followed the two declarations of September to the representatives near the neutral powers-the first from Rheims, on the 13th, the second from Meaux, on the 16thboth issued soon after we had crossed the French frontier, which were acceptable to public opinion in Germany in their general tenor. No prouder words had ever been spoken in the name of the German people, yet it was not the pride of exaltation which was expressed in those documents, but that of duty-the sober judgment which does not flinch from the truth, and draws aside the inmost veil which conceals the meaning of things.

MORITZ BUSCH.

CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.

Ir is perhaps rather late, after the lapse of three months, to reply to the paper of Sir Francis Hincks on "The Relations between Canada and the United States"; but the great revolution which in the mean time has taken place in England alters the aspect of this among other questions. At all events, I will be brief.

My principal object is to remove, if possible, from the minds of American statesmen, and any other Americans who may take an interest in this matter, an impression which the language of Sir Francis Hincks and of writers in Canadian journals hostile to American connection, such as the Toronto "Globe," is calculated to convey with regard to the nature of the movement which is going on in Canada. That a movement of some kind tending to closer relations with the United States is going on, nobody can fail to see; otherwise, why should Sir Francis Hincks be so uneasy, and why should the Toronto "Globe" be seized about once a week with a paroxysm of calumnious rage? But the language of Sir Francis Hincks and of the "Globe" would lead the reader to suppose that what was on foot was a political cabal or conspiracy of some kind got up by the arts of a knot of politicians for the objects which political intriguers usually have in view. This is not the fact. The movement is essentially economical, rather than political, though it brings political feelings into play, and it is spontaneous if ever a movement was. Those whom Sir Francis Hincks's courtesy usually styles "agitators" are no more agitators than he is now, nor half as much agitators as he once was: they are not in politics at all, and consequently can not be actuated by political ambition; they are either commercial men or journalists, and, if they are journalists, I am not aware that their style is particularly demagogic, or that, while they treat with frankness the subjects of the day, they betray any impatient desire to precipitate events. I can answer for one of them that he is as profoundly convinced as it is possible for any

human being to be of the inexpediency of precipitating events, and of the necessity of awaiting the formation of mature and deliberate opinion in both of the communities whose relations to each other are concerned. Sir Francis Hincks is one of a party which, with the best intentions, does its utmost to give the policy of Canada what may be called an anti-continental turn. He must not re

proach those who, believing this to be a mistake, take the liberty of expressing their opinion, and of endeavoring to counteract the estrangement which it is his object and that of his friends to produce. They feel that they may do this without placing themselves in any way in a false position. Sir Francis Hincks evidently thinks that he places himself in no false position by writing about the relations between the two countries in an American journal. He is right. I have spent some years in the United States, not as a mere sojourner, but engaged in educational work with my colleagues; I think I may say I have had full access to the real sentiments of the people, and I can truly say that I never heard a syllable implying the slightest desire of interfering with the independence of Canada, or in any way doing violence to her inclinations. I believe we may discuss these questions with the freedom of friendship and of natural partnership in the advantages and destinies of the New World.

Canada is attracted, economically, to the rest of the continent of which, she is a part; while, as the recent application of the Boston merchants to Congress shows, the rest of the continent is at the same time attracted economically to her. This is the movement which is really going on, and which by its increasing manifestations excites the alarm of Sir Francis Hincks and the "Globe." It is not the offspring of intrigue, but the behest of Nature. No conspiracy except the mutual interest of the two nations gave it birth: no denunciations will put it down.

Let those who think that they can for ever arrest or even reverse tais commercial gravitation consult the map. I do not mean the map political, in which the Dominion of Canada appears as a compact half continent, but the map economical. In the map economical the Dominion consists of four distinct territories, separated from each other by great natural barriers. Between the Maritime Provinces and old Canada (Ontario and Quebec) lies the wild country through which the Intercolonial Railway runs ; between old Canada and Manitoba lies the desert to the north of Lake Superior; between Manitoba and British Columbia lies not only a formidable tract of