(scarcely in so blunt and plain a fashion) that there were things which a Prince, perhaps, might do, but no gentleman would attempt. Such conduct would be an act of perfidy, and an outrage upon allies who had fulfilled their obligations, quite apart from the folly of such an attempt at a time when we had further use for them. The statements in the alleged diary as to my position in the Emperor question in 1866, on my intentions in connection with the dogma of infallibility, my idea of an Upper House and the Imperial Ministries, can hardly have been written by the Crown Prince either. In 1870 he could no longer doubt that the Empire, in the form which he had in his mind in 1866, would have been neither useful nor feasible--in fact it would not have been an Empire at all. What he desired in 1866 was not an Emperor but a King of Germany--the other Kings and Grand Dukes being reduced to their former rank, merely Dukes--as if that were an easy matter to bring about. We had already put an end to the Upper House at Beaumont or Donchery, and had dealt with the Imperial Ministers in like fashion. He, too, must have finally recognised that the dogma of infallibility was of slight importance for us, and that I regarded it as a blunder on the part of the Pope and advised the King to let it rest during the continuance of the war. Even a hasty thinker like the Crown Prince could scarcely have concluded from that that I intended to oppose it after the war, and therefore this passage was doubtless not written by him. At least for the present we must continue to doubt the genuineness of this and other statements.” He then spoke of Bray, who, as an Austrian sympathiser, delayed the mobilisation of the Bavarian troops in 1870; and of King Lewis, who--at that time of sound German principles--was “our sole influential friend in Bavaria.” Returning to the Crown Prince’s idea of 1866 and to his Upper Chamber, the Chancellor observed: “An Emperor or King of North Germany would have created a division between North and South Germany such as did not exist under the Customs Union; and an Upper House with Princes and elected members was impossible.” I then reminded him of the importunity of Baden and Coburg, who at Versailles worried him with memorials and verbal counsels, questions, &c., to that effect, and of his indignation at the unexpected visit of the Grand Duke Frederick during dinner. I then mentioned to him what Bucher had told me about the sensible attitude adopted by the Queen of England at Charlottenburg, which he confirmed, adding that at the interview which he had had with her he had in part prompted the admonitions which she addressed to her daughter. In this connection I asked whether the statement in Bleichröder’s _Boersenzeitung_ as to his strong condemnation of my article, “Foreign Influences in the Empire,” were true. I added that, _rebus mutatis_, I should have considered it quite conceivable, and had indeed said as much.