“The sanction of the Emperor William to the signature of the treaty with Austria would be obtained on condition that the Emperor might write to the Emperor Alexander: ‘His Majesty is satisfied with the assurances given in Berlin by Saburoff as to Russia’s love of peace, and desires, as an evidence of his loyalty and frankness, to communicate the fact that he _was on the point_ (underlined in pencil by Bismarck) of concluding a treaty with Austria, in which the careful cultivation of good relations was promised, and mutual assistance was only provided for in cases of attack.’” The letter from the Emperor to Bismarck, which Stolberg refers to in the above communication, is dated Stettin, September 15th, and runs as follows: “After I had completed my last letter to you, which you will have received to-day, Field-Marshal Manteuffel forwarded to me your telegram to him of the 7th instant, with which I am greatly pleased, as I can see from it that it will be possible to bring about an understanding between us. Fortunately this opinion is confirmed by your fourth report, which reached me yesterday. But an important point has occurred to me in connection with the pourparlers which you will hold in Vienna. That is the Convention dated St. Petersburg, 1873, which was only signed by the two Field-Marshals, Moltke and Barjatinsky, and was ratified by the Emperor Alexander and myself, while you declined to sign. A circumstance which goes to confirm the ---- (illegible) which you then and so often raised against _binding_ Conventions, in circumstances where there was as yet no positive object in view, for which reason I found much difficulty in making up my mind to sign the St. Petersburg Convention. How can you now desire to enter into a convention without giving notice of withdrawal from that concluded at St. Petersburg? Both are intended to be defensive conventions. Now, that of St. Petersburg binds Prussia and Russia to render each other _assistance_ in case either should be attacked. The projected Convention is to contain the same stipulation, but against Russia. How are these two to be reconciled? It therefore appears to me that Bülow’s idea (?) of leaving out the ‘against Russia’ would afford us an opportunity of drawing Russia into the new Convention, and thereby fulfilling that of St. Petersburg. As I do not believe Bülow junior to be initiated into the secret of the St. Petersburg Convention, I have not been able to speak of it to him, all the more so as from his silence on the subject when stating his views he seemed to have no knowledge of it. “William.” To this was added a postscript of no particular importance: review of troops, inspection of fleet, patriotic reception, &c.