At this point we were interrupted by Count Bill, who brought a message. When he had gone the Chief took the article out of his pocket, and as it had grown dark we passed through another door into his study, where he looked through the passage once more. At the first, on page 395, where I--following Unruh’s statement--made the Chief say that in the year 1859 the German Governments “with the exception of a few minor States which fall within the sphere of influence of Prussia, would all join Austria. The former would, therefore, be completely isolated, yet she would have allies if she knew how to win and to treat them, namely the German people,” he said: “That’s pure nonsense. Directly contrary to history. Why, you should have known that.... But, no, I misunderstood the sentence. I read it wrongly in my hurry. The ‘former’ and ‘she’ referred to Prussia. There I have done little Busch (Büschchen) an injustice.... But further on, here (the passage on 398) where I say that the people could have done nothing against a reactionary policy during the period of conflict. That is unfounded. I cannot say that. It should have been ‘would have done nothing.’ No doubt they would have desired to do it. Well, on page 401, that is again an oversight on my part. Here I overlooked the first ‘not.’” (He referred to the passage: “The expression ‘drive them to the wall’ has not only not been used by me in this connection, but was never used by me at all.”) “But all this about Bennigsen is quite wrong--the second part of it. There you have written in his interest. If that were a correct account I should have told a lie. My main object in the article was to explain that point, and you ought to have known from the _Norddeutsche_ how the matter really stood. You should know that the article in that paper was written at my instance. But I suppose you do not read the official journals. No further negotiations took place with him after the interview at Varzin, that is with Bennigsen respecting the ministerial post, although I did not break with him otherwise. It is true that my son wrote to him once more, but I knew nothing of this. And Eulenburg did not decide to remain. He had had enough of it. He went to the King, however, told him of my negotiations with Bennigsen, and incited him against me. I had been in treaty with these Liberals behind his back, &c. The King did not inform me that Eulenburg did not wish to retire, but wrote me an exceedingly rude and snappish letter somewhat to this effect: How dare I enter into negotiations with this rabid Radical, this arch-demagogue, and expressly forbade me to treat with him any further. That did not take place ‘several months,’ but only three or four days after the Varzin interview. The statement that Lasker reckoned on obtaining a portfolio is correct. On the other hand it is quite incorrect to say that _out of politeness_ I abstained from telling Bennigsen that I did not think of him any more, as the post was no longer open.