still be maintained by the ladies.” On my removal from Hanover to Leipzig in October, 1875, the correspondence between Bucher and myself gradually increased in frequency. In reply to a request of mine for particulars respecting the Prince’s family, which I required for an article that the editors of the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ wished me to supply, Bucher wrote as follows from Varzin on the 31st of October:-- “It is very possible that your pen can do welcome service. Further particulars when you are in Berlin. Even now it would be very useful and agreeable to Gamaliel (this was the name under which, as a measure of precaution, we referred in our correspondence to the Chief, at whose feet we had studied politics), if you were to show up the manœuvre of representing Camphausen as the leader and the chief sinner, and Delbrück as following or being influenced by him, while the contrary is, and must be, the case, in view of the character of the two men. D. is cunning, C. blunt. Delbrück allows his bosom friend to be sacrificed as a scapegoat, in order to propitiate the raging waters.” And in a letter of the 7th of November also dated from Varzin, Bucher suggested the following: “A newspaper chorus is trying to make Herr Camphausen responsible for the financial policy of the German Empire. We fancy, however, that Herr Delbrück is both Minister of Finance and Minister of Commerce for the German Empire, and that in these departments he has been given a free hand by the Imperial Chancellor. He too has invariably had all the laurels so long as there were any to be plucked. Herr Camphausen has enough to bear in his responsibility for the financial policy of Prussia.” Shortly after I had fulfilled these instructions, the publication of Arnim’s pamphlet, “Pro Nihilo,” afforded an opportunity for unmasking its author in the _Grenzboten_.