“Finally, Unruh says here (page 19) that I aggravated the struggle over the Military Bills into a constitutional conflict, that I assumed an aggressive attitude towards the Opposition, and endeavoured in almost every speech to incense them by jibes and sneers, all this for the sole purpose of maintaining myself in power and office against the Austrophil Court party; and, on page 20, he repeats the same charge in the following words: ‘I am still of opinion that Bismarck used and took advantage of the conflict to maintain and strengthen his position.’ Now that is a gross slander, such as would render a man liable to prosecution--a falsehood arising from the same blindness as another on page 16, according to which the great men of the National Union regarded me merely as the representative of reaction. I desired no reaction, then as little as now, when I am again charged with doing so. Had I desired it I could have had it. Unruh and his colleagues would not have been able to prevent it, and ‘The People’ who elected them, could have done nothing. But it was not the people. The determined attitude I adopted towards the Opposition in Parliament was just as little due to the love of power, or to the desire to strengthen my ministerial position. It was rather due to my innate Royalism, which has always been a leading feature in my character. It was this which made me hold fast to my position. In doing so I was guided by my sense of duty towards my King, who, in the circumstances then obtaining, could not have found another Minister. I remember saying to him, ‘No one shall have it in his power to say that your Majesty cannot find a servant so long as there is one nobleman of the Altmark still surviving.’ Otherwise, at that time, it was, honestly speaking, no pleasure to be a Minister. A Legation in Paris, or even in Frankfurt, would have been much pleasanter. There one had a good salary with little work, little responsibility, and little worry, and was not attacked and reviled on all hands. The provocation and the sarcastic speeches in Parliament, of which Unruh complains, were not intended to prolong or aggravate the conflict, but were an exercise of the _jus talionis_. I am stated on page 17 to have often been most offensive. There is no denying that. But even when my expressions were offensive, they were not nearly so offensive as the language used against me and other members of the Government by speakers in the House. They were much coarser and more malicious than I ever was, indeed actually abusive and threatening, speaking of ‘a Ministry of tight-rope dancers,’ of ‘the reactionary brand of Cain,’ and other unflattering epithets. I was not the man to submit to that sort of thing. It was not in my nature to turn the left cheek to the smiter. On the contrary, I defended myself and paid them back in their own coin. Then, in addition to that, there was my contempt for the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and my disgust at the Byzantine