that he was going out for a drive, and would I like to come with him. Of course I would. We then drove for about two hours, first to Silt, afterwards to Schönau and finally to the Billenbrück, and then home through the beech wood on the right bank of the Aue. On the way, the Prince spoke to two gamekeepers about the scarcity of partridges and the fish poachers; while he discussed the state of the crops, and the condition of the cattle with a cowherd whose charges were feeding in a field of vetches. Further on, he entered into conversation with overseers who were looking after the potato digging and with labourers who were ploughing with oxen. In the intervals he had a long conversation with me on the manner in which the Crown Prince’s diary should be dealt with. He introduced the subject by the remark (in English): “I am afraid you have forgotten your English.” On my answering, “No, sir, by no means,” he continued the conversation in that language on account of the coachman. He began: “As you will have seen from what you read, we must first treat it as a forgery, a point of view from which a great deal may be said. Then, when it is proved to be genuine by the production of the original it can be dealt with further in another way.” I said that on the whole it appeared to me to be genuine, but incomplete, on the one hand, while, on the other, there were interpolations, probably by Victoria No. 2, in support of which opinion I quoted examples. I also told him that, in ignorance of his plans, I had already dealt with the matter in the _Grenzboten_ a week before, according to my own views, and in certain flagrant instances condemned it cautiously. Another course was, however, still open to me. I then repeated to him, from memory, the commencement of the article in question. He rejoined: “You were quite right. I myself consider the diary even more genuine than you do. It is quite insignificant, superficial stuff, without any true conception of the situation, a medley of sentimental politics, self-conceit and phrase-mongering. He was far from being as clever as his father, and the latter was certainly not a first-rate politician. It is just that which proves its genuineness to me. But at first we must treat it as doubtful.” The conversation then turned on the details of the diary. I asked if he had spoken to the Emperor on the subject, and he replied in the affirmative, saying: “He was quite in a rage and wishes to have strong measures taken against the publication.” He then came to speak of the demand for Imperial Ministers. We have them, of course, only without the title and name. The Imperial Chancellor is their permanent President,--permanent, because with us the power of the Emperor is greater under the Constitution than in other countries which are ruled by alternating Parliamentary majorities. I suggested that Gustav Freytag might perhaps at the instance of the Empress Victoria have edited the diary and arranged for its publication.