Otto von Bismarck Prince Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), something of a stormy petrel in his youth, became minister president of Prussia in 1862 and forged German unity, around and under Prussian rule. In 1864 he achieved the conquest of Schleswig from Denmark; in 1866 the defeat of Austria, which established Prussia's predominant place in Germany; and in 1870 his final aim, the proclamation of a German Empire under the rule of the Prussian king. Henceforth his policy as imperial chancellor tivas devoted to the maintenance of peace both at home and abroad. Until his dismissal from office in 1890 by the young William II, the old prince remained the dominant figure of European affairs-not only a great statesman but also a very smart operator. He found it useful to accept and use some of the progressive ideas of his time in order to strengthen the power of the monarchy he served. As he saw it, the end justified the means; as contemporaries saw it, success justified Bismarck.

From: A Speech to the Prussian Budget Commission

Germany is not looking to Prussia's liberalism, but to her power; Bavaria or Nti'urtem- berg or Baden may choose to be liberal, but no one is going to expect of them what they expect of Prussia. Prussia must gather up her strength and hold it ready for the moment of opportuniy. an aopportunity we ahve already missed several times. Prussia's borders since the Treaty of Vienna, have not been the sort that a healthy state needs; the great questions of the day are not decided by speeches and by the votes of the majority-that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849. They are decided by blood and iron.

On State Interference

Herr Richter has called attention to the responsibility of the State for what it does. But it is my opinion that the State can also be responsible for what it does not do. I do not think that doctrines like those of "Laissez-faire, laissez-alter," "Pure Manchesterdom in politics,"' "He who is not strong enough to stand must be knocked down, and trodden to the ground," "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath"-that doctrines like these should be applied in the State, and especially in a monarchically) paternally governed State. On the other hand, I believe that those who profess horror at the intervention of the State for the protection of the weak lay themselves open to the suspicion that they are desirous of using their strength-be it that of capital, that of rhetoric, or whatever it be-for the benefit of a section, for the oppression of the rest, for the introduction of party domina- tion, and that they will be chagrined as soon as this design is disturbed by any action of the government. I ask you what right had I to close the way to the throne against these people? The kings of Prussia have never been by preference kings of the rich. Frederick the Great said when Crown Prince: "Quand je serai roi, je serai un vrai roi des gueux." He undertook to be the protector of the poor, and this principle has been followed by our later kings. At their throne suffering has always found a refuge and a hearing.... Our kings have secured the emancipation of the serfs, they have created a thriving peasantry, and they may possibly be successful-the earnest endeavour exists, at any rate-in improving the condition of the working classes somewhat. To have refused access to the throne to the complaints of these operatives would not have been the right course to pursue, and it was, moreover, not my business to do it. The question would afterwards have been asked: "How rich must a deputation be in order to insure its reception by the King?" . . . I am not antagonistic to the rightful claims of capital; I am far from wanting to flourish a hostile flag; but I am of opinion that the masses, too, have rights which should be considered. I wish we could immediately create a few hundred millionaires. They would ex- pend their money in the country, and this expenditure would act fruitfully on labour all round. They could not eat their money themselves; they would have to spend the interest on it. Be glad, then, when people become rich with us. The community at large, and not only the tax authority, is sure to benefit. The large land-owner who lives in the country is not the worst evil; the worst is the large land-owner who lives in town, be it Paris, Rome, or Berlin, and who only requires money from his estates and agents, who does not represent his estates in the Reichstag or Land-tag, and does not even know how it fares with them. Therein lies the evil of large estates. Large estates whose owners live in the country are under certain circumstances a great blessing, and very useful.... I regard the large land-owners who are really farmers, and buy land from a predilection for this industry, as a blessing for our country, and especially for the provinces where I live. And if you succeed in de- stroying this race, you would see the result in the palsying of our entire economic and political life.... But so long as God is still minded to preserve the German Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia, this war of yours against landed proprietorship will not succeed, however many allies you may obtain. Give the working-man the right to work as long as he is healthy; assure him care when he is sick; assure him maintenance when he is old. If you do that, and do not fear the sacrifice, or cry out at State Socialism directly the words "Provision for old age" are uttered,-if the State will show a little more Christian solicitude for the work- ing-man, then I believe that the gentlemen of the Wyden (Social-Democratic) pro- gramme will sound their birdcall in vain, and that the thronging to them will cease as soon as workingmen see that the Government and legislative bodies are earnestly con- cerned for their welfare. Yes, I acknowledge unconditionally a right to work, and I will stand up for it as long as I am in this place. But here I do not stand upon the ground of Socialism, which is said to have only begun with the Bismarck Ministry, but on that of the Prussian common law.... Was not the right to work openly proclaimed at the time of the publication of the common law? Is it not established in all our social arrangements that the man who comes before his fellow-citizens and says, "I am healthy, I desire to work, but can find no work," is entitled to say also, "Give me work," and that the State is bound to give him work? I will further every endeavour which positively aims at improving the condition of the working classes.... As soon as a positive proposal comes from the Socialists for fashioning the future in a sensible way, in order that the lot of the working-man might be improved, I would not at any rate refuse to examine it favourably, and I would not even shrink from the idea of State help for the people who would help themselves. The establishment of the freedom of the peasantry was Socialistic; Socialistic, too, is every expropriation in favour of railways: Socialistic to the utmost extent is the aggregation of estates-the law exists in many provinces-taking from one and giving to another, simply because this other can cultivate the land more conveniently; Socialis- tic is expropriation under the Water Legislation, on account of irrigation, etc., where a man's land is taken away from him because another can farm it better; Socialistic is our entire poor relief, compulsory school attendance, compulsory construction of roads, so that I am bound to maintain a road upon my lands for travellers. That is all Socialistic, and I could extend the register further; but if you believe that you can frighten any one or call up spectres with the word "Socialism," you take a standpoint which I abandoned long ago, and the abandonment of which is absolutely necessary for our entire imperial legislation.

On Universal Suffrage

Looking to the necessity, in a fight against an overwhelming foreign Power, of being able, in extreme need, to use even revolutionary means, I had had no hesitation what- ever in throwing into the frying-pan, by means of the circular dispatch of June 10, 1866, the most powerful ingredient known at that time to liberty-mongers, namely, universal suffrage, so as to frighten off foreign monarchies from trying to stick a finger into our national omelette. I never doubted that the German people would be strong and clever enough to free themselves from the existing suffrage as soon as they realized that it was a harmful institution. If it cannot, then my saying that Germany can ride when once she has got into the saddle was erroneous. The acceptance of universal suffrage was a weapon in the war against Austria and other foreign countries, in the war for German Unity, as well as a threat to use the last weapons in a struggle against coalitions. In a war of this sort, when it becomes a matter of life and death, one does not look at the weapons that one seizes; nor at the value of what one destroys in using them: one is guided at the moment by no other thought than the issue of the war, and the preservation of one's external independence; the settling of affairs and reparation of the damage has to take place after the peace. Moreover, I still hold that the principle of universal suffrage is a just one, not only in theory but also in practice, provided always that voting be not secret, for secrecy is a quality that is indeed incompatible with the best characteristics of German blood. The influence and the dependence on others that the practical life of man brings in its train are God-given realities which we cannot and must not ignore. If we refuse to transfer them to political life, and base that life on a faith in the secret insight of everybody, we fall into a contradiction between public law and the realities of human life which practically leads to constant frictions, and finally to an explosion, and to which there is no theoretical solution except by the way of the insanities of social- democracy, the support given to which rests on the fact that the judgment of the masses is sufficiently stultified and undeveloped to allow them, with the assistance of their own greed, to be continually caught by the rhetoric of clever and ambitious leaders. The counterpoise to this lies in the influence of the educated classes which would be greatly strengthened if voting were public, as for the Prussian Diet. It may be that the greater discretion of the more intelligent classes rests on the material basis of the preservation of their possessions. The other motive, the struggle for gain, is equally justifiable; but a preponderance of those who represent property is more serviceable for the security and development of the state. A state, the control of which lies in the hands of the greedy, of the new rich, and of orators who have in a higher degree than others the capacity for deceiving the unreasoning masses, will constantly be doomed to a restlessness of development, which so ponderous a mass as the commonwealth of the state cannot follow without injury to its organism. Ponderous masses, and among these the life and development of great nations must be reckoned, can only move with caution, since the road on which they travel to an unknown future has no smooth iron rails. Every great state-commonwealth that loses the prudent and restraining in- fluence of the propertied class, whether that influence rests on material or moral grounds, will always end by being rushed along at a speed which must shatter the coach of state, as happened in the development of the French Revolution. The element of greed has the preponderance arising from large masses which in the long run must make its way. It is in the interests of the great mass itself to wish decision to take place without dangerous acceleration of the speed of the coach of state, and without its destruction. If this should happen, however, the wheel of history will revolve again, and always in a proportionately shorter time, to dictatorship, to despotism, to absolut- ism, because in the end the masses yield to the need of order; if they do not recognize this need a priori, they always realize it eventually after manifold arguments ad homi- nem; and in order to purchase order from a dictatorship and Caesarism they cheerfully sacrifice that justifiable amount of freedom which ought to be maintained, and which the political society of Europe can endure without ill-health. I should regard it as a serious misfortune, and as an essential weakening of our security in the future, if we in Germany are driven into the vortex of this French cycle. Absolutism would be the ideal form of government for an European political structure were not the King and his officials ever as other men are to whom it is not given to reign with superhuman wisdom, insight and justice. The most experienced and well- meaning absolute rulers are subject to human imperfections, such as overestimation of their own wisdom, the influence and eloquence of favourites, not to mention petticoat influence, legitimate and illegitimate. Monarchy and the most ideal monarch, if in his idealism he is not to be a common danger, stand in need of criticism; the thorns of criticism set him right when he runs the risk of losing his way. Joseph II is a warning example of this. Criticism can only be exercised through the medium of a free press and parlia- ments in the modern sense of the term. Both correctives may easily weaken and finally lose their efficacy if they abuse their powers. To avert this is one of the tasks of a conservative policy, which cannot be accomplished without a struggle with parliament and press. The measurement of the limits within which such a struggle must be con- fined, if the control of the government, which is indispensable to the country, is neither to be checked nor allowed to gain a complete power, is a question of political tact and judgment. It is a piece of good fortune for his country if a monarch possess the judgment requisite for this-a good fortune that is temporary, it is true, like all human fortune. The possibility of establishing ministers in power who possess adequate qualifications must always be granted in the constitutional organism; but also the possibility of maintaining in office ministers who satisfy these requirements in face of occcasional votes of an adverse majority and of the influence of courts and camarillas. This aim, so far as human imperfections allow in general its attainment was approximately reached under the government of Willaim I.