as a difference of opinion in
the interpretation of the Constitution; all constitutional government
required compromise; a constitution was not something dead, it must be
enlivened; it was interpreted by custom and practice; it would be wiser
not to hasten this practice too quickly; then the question of law might
easily become one of power. It was not the fault of the Government that
they had got into this position; people took the situation too
tragically, especially in the press; they spoke as though the end of all
things was come; "but," he added, "a constitutional struggle is not a
disgrace, it is rather an honour; after all we are all children of the
same country." A true note, but one which he was not always able to
maintain in the struggle of the coming years. Then he expounded the
view of the German character which we have learnt from his letters: it
was customary to speak of the sobriety of the Prussian people; yes, but
the great independence of the individual made it difficult in Prussia to
govern with the Constitution; in France it was different; there this
individual independence was wanting; "we are perhaps too educated to
endure a constitution; we are too critical"; the capacity for judging
measures of the Government and acts of the Representatives was too
universal; there were in the country too many Catilinarian existences,
which had an interest in revolutions. He reminded them that Germany did
not care for the Liberalism of Prussia, but for its power; Bavaria,
Wurtemberg, Baden, might indulge in Liberalism; Prussia must concentrate
its power and hold itself ready for the favourable moment which had
already been passed over more than once; Prussia's boundaries, as fixed
by the Congress of Vienna, were not favourable to a sound political
life; "not by speeches and majority votes are the great questions of the
time decided--that was the great blunder of 1848 and 1849--but by blood
and iron." He appealed for confidence: "Do not force a quarrel; we are
honest people and you can trust us."

The effect of these speeches was very unfavourable; the very quickness
of thought and originality of expression produced a bad impression; even
the free indulgence in long foreign words offended patriotic
journalists. They seemed to his audience reckless; what was this
reference to the Treaties of Vienna but an imitation of Napoleonic
statesmanship? They had the consciousness that they were making history,
that they were i