1. Both the Empress Frederick (diary, Osborne, 18 Dec. 1888, Preussisches Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Berlin-Dahlem, HA/Rep. 52/1) and Franz von Roggenbach (To Grand Duke Frederick I of Baden, Segenhaus, 17 Dec. 1888, Grossherzogliche Familienarchiv, Karlsruhe, Baden, Corresp. F.I/N.500) saw the Morier affair primarily as an attack upon the memory of Frederick III. Victoria, Princess Royal, Crown Princess of Prussia and Germany, later the Empress Frederick, is cited hereinafter as “V”. The archives at Berlin-Dahlem and Karlsruhe are cited hereinafter as “PA” and “BA,” respectively.

2. Schulthess' Europäischer Geschichtskalender, 1888, p. 198; cited hereinafter as “Schulthess”. This article is shortened and misdated in Wippermann, K., Deutsche Geschichts-kalender, 1888, II, 56–57; cited hereinafter as “Wippermann.” The charges are considered in detail in the Appendix, below.Google Scholar

3. On the early career and character of Morier (as outlined here), see Lane-Poole, S., “Sir Robert Burnett David Morier,” Dictionary of National Biography, XIII, 949–51, cited hereinafter as“Lane-Poole”;Google ScholarCrowe, J. A., Reminiscences of Thirty-Five Years of My Life (2nd ed., London, 1895), pp. 414–15 (British Museum, London [cited hereinafter as “BM”], Addl. Mss./41309 contains the unpublished continuation of these memoirs for 1860 only, with much more on Morier);Google ScholarHardinge, A., A Diplomatist in Europe (London, [1927]), pp. 26, 41;Google ScholarLeveson-Gower, G., Years of Content, 1858–1886 (London, 1940), p. 1;Google ScholarSchweinitz, H. L. v., Denkwürdigkeiten (Berlin, [1927]), II, 380;Google ScholarSchweinitz, , Briefwechsel (Berlin, [1928]), p. 316;Google ScholarLetters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone (London, 1904), pp. 117, 316, 328;Google ScholarRumbold, H., Further Recollections of a Diplomatist (London, 1903), pp. 93–188;Google ScholarPonsonby, F., ed., Letters of the Empress Frederick (London, 1928), pp. 22–23, 142;Google Scholar [Ponsonby, F. (?)], The Empress Frederick: A Memoir (London, 1913), p. 157;Google ScholarRamm, A., ed., The Political Correspondence of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville, 1868–1876 (London, 1952), I, 134, 142Google Scholar; Ibid., 1876–1886 (London, 1962), I, 260, II, 227, 256; Ponsonby, A., Henry Ponsonby: Queen Victoria's Private Secretary (London, 1942), p. 339;Google Scholar Staal to Giers, London, 30 Dec. 1884, confidential, Meyendorff, A., Correspondance diplomatique de M. de Staal (1884–1900) (Paris, 1929), I, 115–16;Google ScholarBülow, B. v., Memoirs, (Boston, 1931–1932), IV, 598–99 (very unreliable here as elsewhere);Google ScholarTempeltey, E., ed., Gustav Freytag und Herzog Ernst von Coburg in Briefwechsel: 1853 bis 1893 (Leipzig, 1903), p. 324;Google ScholarWeymss, V. M. W., Memoirs and Letters of…Morier (London, 1911), I, 163, II, 11Google Scholar; Sanderson, T. H., minute, Foreign Office, 16 Nov. 1888, Public Record Office, Foreign Office 65/1333 (Foreign Office and Public Record Office cited hereinafter as “FO” and “PRO”). Transcriptions of Crown-copyright records in the Public Record Office appear by permission of the Controller of H. M. Stationery Office. Official distaste for Morier emerges as early as 1858, Lord Clarendon to Queen Victoria, 11 Feb. 1858, Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, J77/109; Queen Victoria and Royal Archives are cited hereinafter as “QV” and “RA.” Material from the Royal Archives is used with the gracious permission of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.Google Scholar

4. E.g., V to QV, ? Jan. 1887, RA/H34/9.

5. Ponsonby, A., Ponsonby, p. 342; Lord Salisbury (cited hereinafter as “S”) to QV, FO, 3 Feb. 1886, RA/C37/229;Google ScholarBuckle, G. E., ed., Letters of Queen Victoria: Third Series (London, 1930–1932), I, 63, 70–71 (cited hereinafter as “VL”);Google Scholar QV to V, Castle, Windsor, 6 Mar. 1886, RA/Vic. Addl. Mss./U32;Google ScholarCrewe, Lord, Lord Rosebery (London, [1931], I, 268–70.Google Scholar The account in James, R. R., Rosebery (London, [1963]), p. 194, is incomplete and prejudiced against Morier (cited hereinafter as “M”).Google Scholar Rosebery continued to pursue Morier with waspish vindictiveness until the day of his death, Rosebery to QV, FO, 15 and 21 Nov. 1893, RA/B46/66 and 89. Rosebery was a close friend of Herbert Bismarck (cited hereinafter as “HB”; Prince Bismarck as “B”).

6. If Morier is to be believed, Bismarck feared his influence on William I and Augusta even before 1862, Weymss, Morier, I, 165. As late as 1864, William I described Morier as “the only reasonable man in the entire [British] Embassy,” V to QV, Neues Palais, Potsdam, 26 May 1864, RA/197/102.

7. Morier, a protegé of Prince Albert and a favorite with the royal family, was chosen specifically to advise the Crown Princess Victoria. This long association with the royal family is too complicated to be entered into here.

8. Hardinge, Diplomatist, p. 47.

9. They included Ernst II of Coburg, Queen Augusta, Stockmar the elder and younger, Karl Samwer, Franz von Roggenbach, Georg v. Bunsen, and Heinrich Friedberg. See especially Weymss, , Morier, I, 89, 162–64, II, 274–75, 318;Google ScholarDuncker, Max, Politischer Briefwechsel aus seinem Nachlass (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1923), p. 78;Google ScholarHeyderhoff, J., ed., Im Ring der Gegner Bismarcks (2nd ed., Leipzig, [1943]), p. 398;Google ScholarEmpress Frederick, p. 157; Knaplund, P., ed., Annual Report…American Historical Association…1942 (Washington, 1944), II, 248;Google ScholarSchweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 378;Google Scholar Crowe, Reminiscences, pp. 93, 401; Schlözer, L. v., Generalfeldmarschall Freiherr von Loë (2nd ed., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1914), pp. 190–9,;Google ScholarWaldersee, A. v., Briefwechsel (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1928), I, 231;Google ScholarIII, Frederick, Tagebücher von 1848–1866 (Leipzig, 1929), p. 513 n. 4;Google Scholar M to Sir William White, Cintra, 11 July 1879, private, PRO/FO364/8. Schweinitz brought up the “anti-Prussian” friendships with Ernst II, Stockmar, and Samwer as evidence of the dangers of Morier's transferring to Rome in 1891, Schweinitz to Caprivi, St. Petersburg, 23 Dec. 1891, no. 410, vertraulich, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts, Bonn, England 81 Nr. 2b, Sir R. Morier, journal number A11456. This file, microfilmed as German Foreign Ministry Archives, 1867–1920, Microfilmed at Whaddon Hall for the General Library, University of California, Berkeley, series I, reel 200, frames 1–419, is cited hereinafter as “AA,” with journal number. I owe the use of this reel to the courtesy of Professor Thomas Mullen, Wake Forest University. The Auswärtiges Amt is also cited as “AA”.

10. Empress Frederick, pp. 169–70.

11. Weymss, , Morier, I, 165–66, II, 98–103.Google Scholar This was based, according to Morier, upon a chance meeting with some of them in 1858. These charges were repeated by Herbert in 1884 (see below) and as late as 17 July 1890, in a Bismarckian-inspired article in the Hamburger Nachrichten, Hofmann, H., Fürst Bismarck, 1890–98 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Leipzig, 1913–1914), I, 285Google Scholar. Beside a statement that “Mr. Morier was always one of the decided enemies of Your Highness,” Bismarck minuted: “To be sure already at the time of the Conflict as Secretary of Legation,” Count E. Solms to B, 1 Jan. 1889, no. I, vertraulich, AA/A245, received 6 Jan.

12. Frederick III, Tagebücher, pp. 513–22.

13. Weymss, , Morier, I, 398, 409–10;Google ScholarSchweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 378–79.Google Scholar

14. E.g., Weymss, , Morier, II, 66–68, 165;Google Scholar Thielmann to B, Darmstadt, 30 Jan. 1889, no. 10, AA/A1611. Bismarck was irritated during the Franco-German War by Morier's involvement in a project of Augusta and the Crown Princess to provision Paris as rapidly as possible after its fall, Weymss, , Morier, II, 211–12.Google Scholar

15. In 1874, the German Foreign Ministry held Morier responsible for an English press attack upon Germany, Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, C., Memoirs (N.Y., 1906), II, 109.Google Scholar

16. Weymss, , Morier, II, 303–304;Google ScholarRodd, J. R., Social and Diplomatic Memories, 1884–1893 (London, 1922), p. 92.Google Scholar

17. Weymss, , Morier, II, 335–39, 342–55;Google Scholar Hardinge, Diplomatist, p. 46. Morier saw an attack on France as the aim of Bismarckian policy in 1874, Hohenlohe, , Memoirs, II, 103.Google Scholar

18. Morier was appointed attaché in Berlin, 1858; 1862, second secretary; 1865, secretary of legation at Frankfurt; 1866, at Darmstadt; 1871, chargé d'affaires at Stuttgart; 1872, Munich; 1876, Minister to Portugal; 1881, Minister to Spain; K.C.B., October 1882, Lane-Poole. He entertained the Crown Prince during his Spanish visit in 1883, Poschinger, M. v., ed., Kaiser Friedrichs Tagebücher (Berlin, 1902), p. 168.Google Scholar

19. To Holstein, Königstein, 26 Aug. 1884, Rich, N. and Fisher, M. H., eds., The Holstein Papers (N.Y., 1955–1963), III, 128.Google Scholar Hohenlohe had warned Holstein as early as 26 June, prior to Ampthill's sudden death, that Morier had designs on the Berlin post, Rogge, H., Holstein und Hohenlohe (Stuttgart, [1957]), p. 219.Google Scholar

20. To Bill Bismarck, Königstein, 25 Aug. 1884, Bussmann, W., ed., Staatssekretär Graf Herbert von Bismarck (Göttingen, [1964]), pp. 252–53.Google Scholar He was later viewed, a common Bismarckian obsession (F. B. M. Hollyday, “Bismarck and the Legend of the ‘Glad-stone Ministry,’” in Wallace, L. P. and Askew, W. C., eds., Power, Public Opinion, and Diplomacy [Durham, N.C., 1959], pp. 92–109), as an adherent of Bismarck's bete-noir, Gladstone, HB to Reuss, Berlin, 16 Dec. 1887, no. 705, AA/A15445. On the representations made to the British government, see Plessen to HB, London, 31 Aug. 1884,Google ScholarWindelband, W., Bismarck und die europäische Grossmachte, 1879–1885 (Essen, 1940), pp. 601–602.Google Scholar Plessen was apparently mistaken in thinking the appointment of Morier was seriously contemplated (Lord Granville to QV, Windsor Castle [sic], 29. Aug. 1884, RA/154/55), though the Prince of Wales urged it (to QV, Abergeldie Castle, Ballater, 28 Aug. 1884 RA/154/54). If the Bismarcks had moved swiftly to forestall the Crown Princess (E. Corti, Wenn.… [Graz (1954)], p. 373, erroneously assumes she favored the appointment), they were mistaken. She favored Morier for the post “later,” Ponsonby, F., Letters, p. 193. See also V to QV, Berlin, 2 Dec. 1884, RA/Z37/50.Google Scholar

21. The attacks were the result of the Bismarck's false conviction that Morier was behind criticism in the Spanish and British press of German policy in the Carolines affair, HB to K. Rantzau, Berlin, 26 Aug. 1885, Bussmann, Herbert, pp. 297–98; M to Henry Ponsonby, St. Petersburg, 6 Feb. 1889, RA/157/16. Henry Ponsonby cited hereinafter as “P”.

22. Copy, Malet to S, Berlin, 24 Oct. 1885, private, PRO/FO 343/7; HB to Rantzau, Berlin, 4 Nov. 1885, HB memo., Berlin, 5 Nov. 1885, Bussmann, Herbert, pp. 333–36; Malet to S, Berlin, 7 Nov. 1885, private, PRO/FO 343/7; HB to Rantzau, Berlin, 18 Nov. 1885, Bussmann, Herbert, p. 344.

23. He was particularly skillful in settling the Anglo-Russian boundary in Asia. Langer, W. L., European Alliances and Alignments, 1871–1890 (2nd ed., N.Y., 1964), pp. 312–15, gives a general account without mentioning Morier.Google Scholar See also Lane-Poole and Rodd, Memories, p. 92.

24. To Sir William White, St. Petersburg, 27 Dec. 1885, private and confidential, PRO/FO 364/8. This agrees with Schweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 380,Google Scholar and copy, Geffcken to Roggenbach, Hamburg-Uhlenhorst, 22 Dec. 1886, RA/156/118. The account in Hardinge, Diplomatist, p. 48, is sketchy indeed.

25. Queen Victoria viewed Morier's policy as “humbuggery,” A. Ponsonby, Ponsonby, pp. 342–43. See also QV to S, Windsor Castle, 19 Nov. 1885, RA/H28/78, and Hatzfeldt to B, London, 26 Apr. 1886, AA/A5441. Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess saw Morier's policy in dramatic terms—as directed against Prince Alexander—but correctly.

26. V to QV, Berlin, 6 Dec. 1884, RA/Z37/51, speaks of an earlier “row” Morier had with the Battenberg family in Darmstadt.

27. The evidence for this is voluminous. QV to V, 24 Feb. 1886, RA/Vic. Addl. Mss./U32; Malet to S, Berlin, 27 Feb. 1886, private and personal, PRO/FO 343/7; Rosebery to QV, London, 6 Mar. 1886, RA/B37/31; V to QV, Berlin, 20 Mar. 1886, RA/Z38/3; QV to Rosebery, Windsor Castle, 5 Apr. 1886, VL, VI, 97; QV, journal, Osborne, 3 Aug. 1886, VL, I, 171; S to QV, 6 Aug. 1886, RA/A65/Ia; V to QV, Neues Palais, Potsdam, 11 Aug. 1886, F. Ponsonby, Letters, p. 206; QV to S, Balmoral, 22 Aug. 1886, VL, I, 179; S to QV, 19 Sept. 1886, RA/H32/38; V to QV, Villa Carnarvon, Portofino, 21 Oct. 1886, RA/Z38/40; V to QV, Berlin, 26 Nov. 1886, RA/Z38/45; V to QV, Berlin, 20 Dec. 1886, RA/H32/133; QV to S, Osborne, 20 Jan. 1887, confidential, RA/H34/18; V to Mary Ponsonby, Berlin, 22 Jan. 1887, Ponsonby, M., Mary Ponsonby (London, [1927]), pp. 256–57;Google Scholar S to QV, London, 16 Feb. 1887, RA/155/66; V to QV, Villa Zirio, San Remo, 14 Jan. 1888, RA/Z40/5; S to QV, 19 (or 9?) Jan. 1888, RA/A66/73; QV to V, Osborne, 20 Jan. 1888, RA/Vic. Addl. Mss./U32; V to QV, Villa Zirio, San Remo, 31 Jan. 1888, RA/Z40/11. Even after the conclusion of the Morier Affair, the Empress Frederick still resented Sir Robert's attitude toward Prince Alexander, V to QV, Kiel, Schloss, 8 Mar. 1889, RA/Z44/10.Google Scholar

28. See especially P's memorandum, 22 Dec. RA/Z190/?; S to QV, Hatfield, 26 and 30 Dec. 1886, VL, I, 239; M to P, Sandringham, Norfolk, 2 Jan. 1887, RA/H34/8 (?); V to QV, Osborne, 19 Jan. 1887, RA/H34/16.

29. Again the evidence is heavy. Holstein, diary entry of 6 July 1885, Rich, and Fisher, , Holstein Papers, II, 215;Google Scholar copy, German dispatch (from Bülow?), passed to QV, 30 July 1886, RA/H29/194; Malet to Iddesleigh, Berlin, 4 Sept. 1886, private and personal, PRO/FO 343/8; Holstein to Hugo v. Radolinski, Berlin, 8 Sept. 1886, Rich, and Fisher, , Holstein Papers, II, 302;Google Scholar S to QV, FO, 9 Sept. 1886, VL, I, 203; Holstein to Ida v. Stülpnagel, Berlin, 14 Sept. 1886, Rich, and Fisher, , Holstein Papers, II, 300;Google Scholar S to QV, FO, 14 Sept. 1886, RA/H31/20; Hardinge, Diplomatist, p. 117; Malet to Iddesleigh, Berlin, 8 Jan. 1887, PRO /FO 343/8 and RA/H34/6; S to QV, 15 Oct. 1887, VL, I, 355; Bülow to Holstein, St. Petersburg, 10 Dec. 1887, Rich, and Fisher, , Holstein Papers, III, 238–39;Google Scholar HB to Bülow, AA, 10 Dec. 1887, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz [cited hereinafter as “K”], Nachlass Bülow/66; Malet, memorandum for S, Berlin, 23 Dec. 1887, private and secret, RA/ H45 /106, the draft (dated 24 Dec.) is in PRO/FO 342/2; Bülow to HB, St. Petersburg, 12 Feb. 1888, Bussmann, Herbert, p. 506. These charges took various forms. For example, Morier was accused of spreading the false report that Bismarck had urged the Russians to occupy Bulgaria, Malet to HB, Berlin, 10 Nov. 1886, private and confidential, 10 Nov. 1886; extract, HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 11 Nov. 1886, no. 955, sicher; extract, Hatzfeldt to HB, London, 16 Nov. 1886, no. 361; extract, Rantzau to AA, Friedrichsruh, 19 Nov. 1886; extract, HB to Schweinitz, Berlin, 13 Mar. 1887, vertraulich, sicher; and HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 15 Mar. 1887, no. 231; AA/A13592, A13617, A13920, A14077, A3197. A later charge was that Morier had expressed his disgust at German actions in the Alsatian border incident known as the Schnaebelé affair to the Austrian Ambassador, Bülow to B, St. Petersburg, 21 Apr. 1887, no. 149; HB to Plessen, Berlin, 1 May 1887, no. 401; Plessen to B, London, 4 May 1887, no. 168; HB to Plessen, Berlin, 6 May 1887, no. 416; Hatzfeldt B, London, 10 May 1887, no. 176; and Immediatbericht, Berchem to William I, Berlin, 13 May 1887; AA/A5381, A5680, A5963.

30. HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 7 Dec. 1887, no. 1018, AA/A15030. Cf. draft, HB to Schweinitz, Berlin, 19 Dec. 1887, no. 897, sicher, ganz vertraulich, and HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 19 Dec. 1887, no. 1054, AA/A15445 II and III.

31. HB to Reuss, Berlin, 16 Dec. 1887, no. 705; Reuss to B, Vienna, 18 Dec. 1887, no. 524, ganz vertraulich; Hatzfeldt to B, London, 10 Jan. 1888, no. 9, AA/A154451, A490.

32. Hatzfeldt to B, London, 14 Dec. 1887, no. 429, ganz vertraulich, AA/A15445.

33. Bernhard v. Bülow was probably the source. His wife was in contact with the Crown Princess, who informed her of the disfavor into which Morier had fallen, V to Marie v. Bülow, Berlin, 7 Jan. and 10 Mar. 1887, K/Nachlass Bülow/170. Always ready to report what was acceptable on high, Bülow was continually hostile to Morier, e.g., Bülow to HB, St. Petersburg, 4 Dec. 1885, 17 Sept. 1886, Bussmann, Herbert, pp. 351, 377 n. 1; Bu¨low to B, St. Petersburg, 1 Nov. 1887, Die grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914 (Berlin, 1922–1927), V, 313. He even portrayed Morier as gloating over Billow's lack of advancement in the diplomatic service, to HB, St. Petersburg, 12 Apr. 1887, Bussmann, Herbert, p. 435.Google Scholar Morier was convinced, though “only” with “moral certainty,” that Herbert's “âme damnée,” Bülow, was responsible, to P, Windsor Castle [sic], 7 July 1889, most secret and confidential, RA/157/38. Schweinitz refers guardedly to a subordinate writing reports attacking Morier, Schweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 380–81.Google Scholar Though his memoirs give the contrary impression, Schweinitz was not himself above relaying malicious information about Morier, e.g., Schweinitz to B, St. Petersburg, 17 May 1887, ganz vertraulich, AA/A6355. And Morier's feelings toward him were not always friendly, Hatzfeldt to B, London, 14 Dec. 1887, no. 429, ganz vertraulich, AA/ A15443. But Schweinitz later was rapped on the knuckles for attending a ball given by Morier, HB to Schweinitz, Berlin, 27 Feb. 1889, no. 79, sicher; extract, Schweinitz to B, St. Petersburg, 3 Mar. 1889, no. 59, AA/A2901, A3523.

34. The source was a dispatch the German Foreign Ministry passed on to the Crown Prince, who showed it to his wife, L. Bamberger's diary, Berlin, 21 Dec. 1888, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, Feder, E., ed. (Frankfurt a. M., 1932), p. 431. And it was doubtless the Crown Princess who informed her mother, who records (in 1889) that it had reached her about three years before. Morier said that he was early aware of the canard but could not refute it without betraying his informant (perhaps Schweinitz). Only in 1889 did he hear it from another source and was able to defend himself. QV minute on P to QV, 8 July 1889, transmitting M to P, Windsor Castle [sic], 7 July 1889, most secret and confidential, RA/157/38. Cf. the guarded reference in M to P, St. Petersburg, 3 Nov. 1887, private, RA/Vic. Addl. Mss./U32. This report may have been the one listed in the contents of the Morier file of the German Foreign Ministry, but missing from it. It was a copy of dispatch no. 283 (A10198) from St. Petersburg, 21 Aug. 1886, “concerning Morier's comments on Prince Alexander of Bulgaria.”Google Scholar

35. “He clearly dislikes me,” QV to V, Balmoral Castle, 18 Oct. 1886, RA/Vic. Addl. Mss./U32. This tends to confirm that the report reached the Queen in 1886. See also V to QV, Villa Carnarvon, Portofino, 23 Oct. 1886, RA/Z38/40; V to QV, Berlin, 11 Jan. 1887, RA/H34/9.

36. Rodd, Memories, pp. 92–93; QV to P, Windsor Castle, 26 Feb. 1886, RA/L15/76; QV to Rosebery, Windsor Castle, 9 Apr. 1886, RA/H29/150; QV to S, Balmoral Castle, 23 Aug. 1886, VL, I, 181, the complete version (RA/H30/15) includes even harsher passages; S to QV, 29 Aug. 1886, VL, I, 194; QV to S, Balmoral, 8 Sept. 1886, VL, I, 203; QV to S, Balmoral Castle, 17 Sept. 1886, RA/H31/30; Iddesleigh to QV, FO, 18 09 1886, RA/H31/34; S to QV, 4 June 1887, RA/A65/25; S to QV, Noyat, 15 Sept. 1887, RA/A66/31; QV, journal, Windsor Castle, 8 Dec. 1887, VL, I, 363; QV to V, Osborne, 26 Jan. 1888, RA/Vic. Addl. Mss./U32; QV to S, Osborne, 5 Feb. 1888, VL, I, 379–80. The Queen's attitude toward Morier was apparently general knowledge in British political circles, Solms, Count E. to B, Rome, 1 Jan. 1889, no. 1, vertraulich, AA/A245. Lord Randolph Churchill also urged Morier's replacement on Salisbury, Hatzfeldt to B, London, 16 Nov. 1886, AA/A13969.Google Scholar

37. The semi-official Kölnische Zeitung and Berlin Post charged Morier with pushing the marriage of Prince Alexander to Frederick's eldest daughter, Journal de St. Petersbourg, 12 Apr. 1888, quoted in Schulthess, 1888, p. 80. The attacks were doubtless stimulated by reports that Morier was corresponding with the Emperor and Empress. The Morier file does not contain, but lists in the contents, a cipher telegran (no. 52, A4040) of 10 Apr. 1888 from London whish states this. In a telegram (cipher tel. no. 67, again not in the files), Salisbury was said to have denied knowledge of any such correspondence. But according to Malet, the intermediary was Frau von Stockmar, copy, Malet to S, Berlin, 14 Apr. 1888, private and secret, PRO/FO 334/9.

38. M to Malet, 17 and 31 May, 13 June 1888, private and confidential, PRO/FO 343/2.

39. See the Appendix for the original form of the story and the changes made in it. William II was officially informed of the contents of Deines' report on 5 Nov. 1888, Immediatbericht, HB to William II, Berlin, AA/A14423.

40. P to QV, Osborne, 4 Aug, 1888. RA/Z280/7. Malet had informed the Prince of Wales. See also, P to QV, 2 Aug. and 14 Oct. 1888. RA/Z280/6 and 9; P, memorandum, 14 Oct. 1888, RA/Z280/10. For Wales' view, see Wales to QV, Royal Yacht “Osborne,” Cannes, 4 Aug. 1888, RA/Z280/18. Salisbury did not reveal the charge to Morier, HB to Deines, Berlin, 7 Nov. 1888, vertraulich, AA/A14523. Herbert conjectured that Wales was Morier's informant, HB, memorandum for B, Berlin, 15 Nov. 1888, AA/A15005.

41. S to Malet, FO, 29 Oct. 1888, private, PRO/FO 343/2. See also, S to P, FO, 16 Oct. 1888, RA/Z280/II; P to QV, London, 17 Oct. 1888, RA/Z280/12.

42. Malet to S, 8 and 24 Nov. 1888, private, PRO/FO 343/10. Morier tried to influence William II through his former tutor, Hinzpeter, whose appointment Morier had advised. Though he believed Morier had lied, William II did pass on Bazaine's and Morier's denials to Count Herbert “about two weeks ago,” HB memo for B, Berlin, 15 Nov. 1888, AA/A15005. See M to P, St. Petersburg, 2 Nov. and 20 Dec. 1888, RA/Z280/14 16; M to QV, St. Petersburg, 20 Dec. 1888, RA/156/162. In a later interview, Herbert did not deny the article was inspired, Malet to S, Berlin, 22 Dec. 1888, PRO/FO 343/10.

43. M to P, St. Petersburg, 20 Dec. 1888, RA/Z280/16; Eric Barrington to P, FO, 21 and ca. 22 Dec. 1888, RA/156/103/104; QV to P, 22 Dec. 1888, RA/156/106; V, diary, Osborne, 22 Dec. 1888, PA/HA/Rep.52/1; P to S, 23 Dec. 1888, VL, I, 457; F. Knollys to P, Sandringham, Norfolk, 23 Dec. 1888, RA/156/110; S to P, 24 Dec. 1888, VL, I, 458–59; P to Knollys, Osborne, 27 Dec. 1888, RA/156/113.

44. M to HB, British Embassy, St. Petersburg, 19 Dec. 1888, Annual Register, 1889, pp. 2–3; Archives Diplomatiques, 1889, I, 69–70; Schulthess, 1889, p. 2. Herbert received the note on 23 Dec., AA/A17247. At the top, the Chancellor minuted: “Unheard of.” Edward Hamilton unjustly blamed Morier for not acting through the Foreign Office, diary, 4 Jan. 1889, BM/Addl. Mss/48650/p. 2.

45. Copy, cipher tel., HB to B, Berlin, 23 Dec. 1888, no. 71, AA/A17247.

46. Cipher tel., B to HB, Friedrichsruh, 23 Dec. 1888, AA/A17251.

47. Hatzfeldt told Salisbury that the Chancellor had forced his son to write the “uncivil reply,” S to Malet, FO, 24 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/10; S to QV, 25 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/40. But Herbert's real feelings are perhaps apparent in his statement: “that such a restless foreign intriguer as Morier permits himself to appeal to me as a man of honor to deliver the scouring water for his dirty linen is the height of impertinence,” HB to Schweinitz, Friedrichsruh, 25 Dec. 1888, no. 471, AA/zuA17251.

48. HB to M, Friedrichsruh, 25 Dec. 1888, draft with HB to Schweinitz, Friedrichsruh, no. 471, AA/zuA17251; Annual Register, 1889, p. 3; Archives Diplomatiques, 1889, I, 70; Schulthess, 1889, p. 2. Summarized in Kohl, H., Fürst Bismarck: Regesten (Leipzig, 1891–1892), II, 471. Simultaneously the Kölnische Zeitung renewed the attack, Wippermann, 1888, II, 72.Google Scholar

49. Minute on Reuss to B, Vienna, 30 Dec. 1888, no. 540, AA/A59. The dispatch was received at the Foreign Ministry on 2 Jan. 1889.

50. M to HB, St. Petersburg, 31 Dec. 1888, Annual Register, 1889, pp. 3–4; Archives Diplomatiques, 1889, I, 70–71;Google ScholarSchulthess, 1889, pp. 2–3. The original is not preserved in the Morier file in the German diplomatic archives.

51. M to P, St. Petersburg, 22 Jan. 1889, private, RA/157/11.

52. On the publication of 4 Jan. in London and 5 Jan. in St. Petersburg, see Reuter's dispatch from London to Wolff's Telegraph Bureau, tel. no. 1, 4 Jan. 1889; draft, HB to Schweinitz, Berlin, 4 Jan. 1889, sicher; cipher tel., Schweinitz to AA, St. Petersburg, Jan. 1889, no. 1; AA/A143a, Anl. zu A144, A211.

53. Morier's letter was represented to the Foreign Office by the Germans as presumptuous, “Sir R. Morier and Ct. Bismarck,” minute by J. Paunceforte, 4 Jan. 1889, PRO/FO 64/1222. Other details may be found in Malet to S, 5 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/21; PRO/FO 64/1211; PRO/FO 343/10. Attempts to find Morier's name in the reports of Bazaine's trial, as suggested by the unreliable Princess Lise Trubetskoi, were fruitless, see esp., cipher tel., Schweinitz to B, St. Petersburg, 7 Jan. 1889, no. 10; Münster to B, Paris, 15 Jan. 1889, no. 11, and 17 Jan. 1889, no. 13; Pourtalès to B, St. Petersburg, 22 Jan. 1889, no. 20, ganz vertraulich, AA/A490, A837, A977, A1234. Efforts to discover other witnesses to Bazaine's remarks and Morier's betrayal were likewise unavailing, HB to Stumm, Berlin, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 6, vertraulich; HB to Zedtwitz, Berlin, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 4; HB to Thielmann, Berlin, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 6, vertraulich; Thielmann to HB Darmstadt, 30 Jan. 1889; Münster to B, Paris, 30 Jan. 1889, no. 26; Stumm to B, Madrid, 8 Feb. 1889, no. 24; HB to Münster, Berlin, 13 Feb. 1889, sicher; Stumm to B, Madrid, 14 Feb. 1889, no. 30; HB to Münster, 17 Feb. 1889, no. 54; Zedtwitz to HB, Mexico City, 19 Feb. 1889, no. 22; Münster to B, Paris, 21 Feb. 1889, no. 49; HB to Stumm, Berlin, 23 Feb. 1889, no. 13; Zedtwitz to B, Mexico City, 25 Feb. 1889, no. 24; Stumm to AA, Madrid, 5 Mar. 1889, no. 44; AA/A1002, A1022, A1611, A1646, A2198, zuA2051, A2520, A2804, A3631, A3990, A3387.

54. This is also the burden of HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 72, AA/A911511; also attached to S to Malet, London, 3 Feb. 1889, no. 38, PRO/FO 64/1210.

55. Bismarck specifically named Frederick III's advisers Geffcken, Loë, Roggenbach, and Stosch. To my knowledge, Morier had no direct contacts with Stosch.

56. Malet to S, Berlin, 17 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/10. Cf. Busch, Moritz, Bismarck: Some Secret Pages of His History (London, 1898), III, 303;Google Scholar Malet to M, 18 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/4; Malet to S, Berlin, 19(?) Jan. 1889, private, RA/Z280/34, is a variant of Malet to S, 19 Jan. 1889, private and personal, PRO/FO 343/10.

57. Copy, HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 72, attached to S to Malet, 9 Feb. 1889, no. 38, PRO/FO 64/1210 and AA/A915II; S to Malet, FO, 24 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/10; S to QV, FO, 25 Jan. 1889. RA/Z280/40.

58. On this Bismarck minuted: “Not necessary either! He is pretty good there!”, Hatzfeldt to B, London, 16 Jan. 1889, no. 24, AA/A915.

59. “Morier is less guilty in this matter [of passing information to Bazaine] than the English Queen,” B, minute, Ibid.

60. HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 20 Jan. 1889, no. 57, AA/A915.

61. See n. 57.

62. Bismarck minuted here: “Then do not publish,” Hatzfeldt to B, London, 30 Jan. 1889, no. 52, AA/A1675. The reference is to Bismarck's Reichstag speech of 26 Jan. 1888, Kohl, H., ed., Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarcks (Stuttgart, 1892–1905), XII, 567–89.Google Scholar

63. Hatzfeldt B, London, 30 Jan. 1889, no. 52, AA/A1675; HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 2 Feb. 1889, no. 100, sicher, AA/zuA1675.

64. QV to P, Osborne, 28 Dec. 1888, RA/156/114; P to S, Osborne, 29 Dec. 1888, RA/156/115a; Wales to V, Sandringham, Norfolk, 31 Dec. 1888, PA/HA/Rep.52/1; Osborne, 3 Jan. 1889, RA/QV journals/p. 34; V to QV, Sandringham, Norfolk, 17 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/63; QV to S, Osborne, 16, 18, and 19 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/30, VL, I, 466, RA/Z280/33; V to the Duchess of Connaught, Sandringham, Norfolk, 19 Jan. 1889, RA/Addl. Mss./A-15/5239; S to QV, Sandringham, Norfolk, 20 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/38. Morier, of course, used what influence he still had, M to P, 13 Jan. 1889, RA/157/5.

65. See below and S to QV, 4 Jan. 1888 [i.e., 1889], RA/Z280/19(?); P to QV, Osborne, 5 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/23.

66. Draft, S. to Malet, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 26, PRO/FO 64/1210. At head: “Highly app[rove]d V.R.I.” Malet was authorized by Salisbury to furnish Herbert with a copy, draft, FO, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 26A, PRO/FO 64/1210. Hatzfeldt was also informed, cipher tel., Hatzfeldt to AA, London, 26 Jan. 1889, no. to B, London, 30 Jan. 1889, no. 52; AA/A1399, A1675.

67. S to Malet, 29 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/3; S to QV, 30 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/45; copy, Malet to S, Berlin, 2 Feb. 1889, private, RA/Z280/49 (the version in PRO/FO 343/10 is not as complete); Malet to S, 2 Feb. 1889, no. 50, confidential, PRO/FO 64/1211; P to QV, Osborne, 2 Feb. 1889, RA/Z280/50.

68. Reports on the press reaction in Germany, Great Britain, Russia, Austria, France, the United States, and the Latin American countries may be found in: cipher tel., Leyden to AA, 4 Jan. 1889, nos. 2 and 3, AA/A154, A169; C. Graham to S, Darmstadt, 5 Jan. 1889, no. 2, PRO/FO 30/270; L. Rath's memorandums, 5 Jan. 1889, AA/A215, A222; Schweinitz to B, St. Petersburg, 6 Jan. 1889, no. 9, AA/A373; L. Rath's memorandum, Berlin, 7 Jan. 1889, AA/A336; Reuss to B, Vienna, 8 Jan. 1889, no. 10, AA/A514; L. Rath's memorandum, Berlin, 8 Jan. 1889, AA/A394; Malet to S, 8 Jan. 1889, no. 9, PRO/FO 64/1211; Leyden to B, London, 9 Jan. 1889, no. 12, AA/A556; Schweinitz to B, St. Petersburg, 10 Jan. 1889, no. 13, AA/A659; Lindau's memorandum, Berlin, 10 Jan. 1889, AA/A505; HB to Reuss, 11 Jan. 1889, no. 18, sicher, AA/zuA418; Rechenberg to B, Warsaw, 14 Jan. 1889, no. 1, AA/A802; Monts to B, Vienna, 17 Jan. 1889, no. 20, AA/A928; Lindau's memorandum, Berlin, 17 Jan. 1889, AA/A883; Rechenberg to B, Warsaw, 18 Jan. 1889, no. 13, AA/A979; Pourtalès to B, St. Petersburg, 20 Jan. 1889, no. 18, AA/A1139; P to QV, Osborne, 20 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/36; Münster to B, Paris, 21 Jan. 1889, no. 14, AA/A1371; Lindau's memorandum, Berlin, 22 Jan. 1889, AA/A1191; M to P, St. Petersburg, private, RA/157/III; T. Martin to QV, London, 30 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/44; Bergen to B, Guatemala City, 15 Feb. 1889, no. 1, AA/A4490; v. Gutschmid to B, Viña del Mar, Chile, 15 Mar. 1889, no. A26, AA/A6094; Wippermann, 1889, I, 2, 15; Carroll, E. M., Germany and the Great Powers, 1866–1914 (N.Y., 1938), p. 279;Google ScholarBülow, , Memoirs, IV, 599;Google ScholarSchweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 374;Google ScholarMeyendorff, , Staal, II, 6, 10.Google Scholar

69. E.g., Badische Landeszeitung, ca. II Jan. 1889, Wippermann, 1889, I, 4.

70. E.g., Radowitz, J. M. v., Aufzeichnungen und Erinnerungen (Stuttgart, Berlin, Leipzig, 1925), II, 291;Google ScholarMüller, W., Politische Geschichte der Gegenwart, XXII: Das Jahr 1888 (Berlin, 1889), p. 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. Bergen to B, Guatemala City, 1 Mar. 1889, no. A5, AA/A5223.

72. Egelhaaf, G., Bismarck (3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1922), p. 409 n., takes a noncommittal position.Google Scholar But even so nationalist a historian as Wahl, A., Deutsche Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1929), II, 484–85, favors Morier.Google Scholar Liberal historians like Eyck, E. (Bismarck [Erlenbach-Zürich, 1941–1944], III, 546–47) are naturally inclined to discount the Bismarcks' charges, but they are reflecting the more detached ideas of others,Google Scholar like Hartung, Fritz (Historische Zeitschrift, CXXV [1922], 537.)Google Scholar

73. M to P, 10 Jan. 1889, RA/157/13, largely printed in VL, I, 465–66; M to S, St. Petersburg, 14 Jan. 1889, no. 11, PRO/FO 65/1360; M to QV, St. Petersburg, 15 Jan. 1889, 5:30 p.m., RA/Z280/29; M to P, St. Petersburg, 22 Jan. 1889, private, RA/157/11; Schweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 378;Google Scholar S to QV, 12 Jan. 1892, RA/A68/99.

74. Morier's position in Russia before 1888 is difficult to determine. Schweinitz indicates he was not overly popular, Briefwechsel, p. 231; Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 371–72 (a copy of the original dispatch to B, St. Petersburg, 7 Dec. 1888, no. 268, geheim, AA/A16493;Google Scholar cf. Pourtalès to B, St. Petersburg, 22 Jan. 1889, no. 20, ganz vertraulich, AA/A1234), 374, 380–81. Morier's “âme damnée” (Bülow to Holstein, St. Petersburg, 10 Dec. 1887, Rich, and Fisher, , Holstein Papers, III, 239),Google Scholar Hardinge (Diplomatist, pp. 116–11), as well as Kalnóky (Reuss to B, Vienna, 30 Dec. 1888, no. 540, AA/A59), and King Albert of Saxony (Count Dönhoff to B, Dresden, 8 Jan, 1889, no. 5, vertraulich, AA/A433) thought otherwise.

75. Malet to S, Berlin, 5 and 17 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/10; Granville to Gladstone, Walmer Castle, Deal, 8 Jan. 1889, BM/Addl. Mss/44180/143; M to P, St. Petersburg, 22 Jan. 1889, private, RA/157/11; Meyendorff, , Staal, II, 10–12;Google ScholarWaldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 29, 39, Holstein Papers; III, 388;Google Scholar Rodd, Memories, pp. 178–79; Schweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 372, 374, 381.Google Scholar

76. Lane-Poole. A last echo of an attack appeared in the Hamburger Correspondent of 4 May 1889 (AA/A6549; cf. Gutschmid to B, Santiago, 12 Oct. 1889, no. 92, vertraulich, AA/A15658, and Pourtalès to B, St. Petersburg, 18 Oct. 1889, no. 268, AA/A14266.) Later efforts to transfer Morier to Italy were blocked by Alexander III's favor, Morier's skill in negotiations in Russia, and the intimation by Italy (after German pressure) that he would not be acceptable, S to QV, 12 Jan. 1892, RA/A68/99. See also Hatzfeldt to Caprivi, London, 5 Nov. 1891, no. 596, ganz vertraulich, AA/A9711; S to QV, 11 and 13 Dec. 1891, RA/A68/87/88; cipher tel., AA to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 17 Dec. 1891, AA/ A11161; Count E. Solms to Caprivi, Rome, 18 Dec. 1891, no. 28, AA/A11314; cipher tel., Hatzfeldt to AA, London, 19 Dec. 1891, no. 297, AA/A11248; Schweinitz to Caprivi, St. Petersburg, 23 Dec. 1891, AA/A11456; cipher tel., Count E. Solms to AA, Rome, 23 Dec. 1891, no.209, AA/A11457; P to S, ? Jan. 1892, RA/A68/98; Rosebery to QV, FO, 13 July and 15 Nov. 1893, RA/B46/66/?; Rodd, Memories, pp. 264–65. Crispi had rejected the idea of accepting Morier earlier, Hatzfeldt to B, London, 14 Dec. 1887, no. 429, ganz vertraulich, and Reuss to B, Vienna, 18 Dec. 1887, no. 524, ganz vertraulich, AA/A15445, A15651. Prince Bismarck continued to see Morier's hand in attacks on himself (Bismarck, Otto v., Die gesammelten Werke [Berlin, 1924–1932], VIII, 692,Google Scholar and Bussman, Herbert, p. 571), and attributed the entire Morier Affair to Sir Robert's instigation (Interview with Dr. Erwin Reichert, editor, Dresdener Nachrichten, 20 June 1890, reported in the Hamburger Nachrichten of 23 June, Penzler, J., Fürst Bismarck nach seiner Entlassung [Leipzig, 1897–1898], I, 141).Google Scholar But the former Chancellor seems to have had no desire to advertise his defeat, and ignores Morier in his memoirs, Die gesammelten Werke, XV. Morier's last years before his death at his post in 1893 were saddened by the indiscretions and death of his only son; Lane-Poole; Levenson-Gower, Years of Content, p. 105; Schweinitz to B, St. Petersburg, 23 Feb. 1890, no. 76, AA/A2718; QV to V, Windsor Castle, 12 Mar. 1890, RA/Vic. Addl. Mss./U32; Schweinitz, Privatschreiben, St. Petersburg, 1 May 1890, AA/A5729. For comments at Sir Robert's death, see Lady Anne [i.e., Alice] Morier to Schweinitz, Batchworth Heath, 11 Nov. 1893, Schweinitz, Briefwechsel, pp. 308–309; V to QV, Berlin, 18 Nov. 1893, RA/A36/61; QV to Lady A. Morier, Windsor Castle, 21 Nov. 1893, RA/F40/36; Rosebery to QV, FO, 21 Nov. 1893, RA/B46/89.

77. Roggenbach likened the Morier Affair to Napoleon's shooting of the Due d'Enghien! To Stosch, Freiburg i. Br., 15 Feb. 1889, Heyderhoff, Im Ring der Gegners Bismarcks, p. 318. Morier had previously been said to have compared the Schnaebelé affair with the incident of 1804, Bülow to B, St. Petersburg, no. 149, AA/A5381.

78. E.g., cipher tel., Leyden to AA, London, 4 Jan. 1889, no. 3; Leyden to B, London, 9 Jan. 1889, no. 12, AA/A169/A556. Dr. K. E. Born conjectures (Gebhardt, Bruno, Handbuch der Deutschen Geschichte [8th ed., Stuttgart, 1962], III, 246) that the Morier Affair was a significant factor in alienating Salisbury from Bismarck. Perhaps this is true, but the evidence seems to point more to the Battenberg marriage crisis and German objections to the British Consul in Zanzibar as the chief factors in Salisbury's increasing reserve.Google Scholar But of the Bismarcks' sincere desire for friendly relations between the two countries, there is, of course, no doubt, see especially Malet to S, Berlin, and 17 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/10.

79. See especially Staal to Giers, London, 13 and 16 Jan. 1889, Meyendorff, , Staal, II, 10–11, 12–13Google Scholar; Herbette to Goblet, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Berlin, 31 Jan. 1889, no. VIII, and to Spuller, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Berlin, 7 Mar. 1889, no. XVI, Documents diplomatiques français (1871–1914), 1st Series, VII, 325, 356. Queen Victoria repeatedly urged the public exoneration of Morier, e.g., QV, minute on P to QV, 20 Mar. 1889, RA/ Addl. Mss./A–12/1645.

80. G. Freytag to Ernst II of Coburg, Wiesbaden, 4 Jan. 1889, Tempeltey, Freytag und Coburg, pp. 324–25; entries of 7 and 9 Jan. 1889, Waldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 28, 29Google Scholar; Staal to Giers, London, 13 Jan. 1889, personal, Meyendorff, , Staal, II, 6.Google Scholar

81. Tel., Herbette to Goblet, Berlin, 6 Jan. 1889, no. 2, and Waddington to Spuller, London, 31 Mar. 1889, no. xv, very confidential, Documents diplomatiques français, 1st Series, VII, 305–306, 373–74; QV, minute, 31 Jan. 1889, RA/157/12; Eyck, , Bismarck, III, 547.Google Scholar

82. Quoted by Malet to S, 17 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/10.

83. Lerchenfeld-Koefering, H. Count, Erinnerungen und Denkwürdigkeiten (Berlin, 1935), p. 234;Google Scholar entry of 3 Jan. 1889, Schweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 372Google Scholar; Freytag to Stosch, Wiesbaden, 8 Jan. 1889, Helmolt, H. F., ed., Gustav Freytags Briefe an Albrecht von Stosch (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1913), p. 215;Google Scholar Stosch to Roggenbach, Oestrich, 6 Jan. 1889, Hollyday, F. B. M., Bismarck's Rival (Durham, N.C., 1960), pp. 248–49;Google Scholar entry of 9 Jan. 1889, Waldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 378;Google Scholar Staal to Giers, 13 Jan. 1889, Meyendorff, , Staal, II, 6, 12;Google Scholar Malet to S, Berlin, 12 and 26 Jan. 1889, private, PRO/FO 343/10.

84. Entry of 19 Feb. 1889, Schweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 378.Google Scholar

85. Rodd, Memories, p. 179.

86. Adolf v. Deines (1845–1911) was to end life as a Lieutenant General (General der Kavallerie), after having served as supervisor of the education of William II's eldest sons, Priesdorff, K. v., Soldatisches Führertum (Hamburg, [1937–1943), x, 32–38.Google Scholar

87. He is not to be confused with Count Eberhard Solms-Laubach-Sonnewalde, German Minister in Madrid in 1886, who confirmed that both Deines and Prince Louis Solms had discussed Bazaine's story with him in March and April 1886, to HB, Rome, 3 Dec. 1888, AA/A16218.

88. Witzleben, E. v., Adolf v. Deines (Berlin, [1913]), p. 135.Google ScholarBülow, Bernard v. was also a member of this regiment, Memoirs, IV, 599.Google Scholar

89. HB to B, Berlin, 13 Dec. 1887, Bussmann, Herbert, pp. 490–91.

90. General Sir Fraser, Keith, British military attaché in Vienna, to P, London, 23 Dec. 1888, RA/156/107.Google Scholar

91. He was born in 1847, Gothaischer Genealogischer Hofkalender, 1888, p. 194.

92. M to P, St. Petersburg, 6 Feb. 1889, RA/157/16.

93. Deines to HB, Vienna, 12 Nov. 1888, AA/A15004.

94. Howard, M., The Franco-Prussian War (London, 1962), pp. 134–35.Google Scholar

95. K. Fraser to P, Vienna, 20 June 1889, private, RA/Z280/37.

96. Bülow, , Memoirs, IV, 599.Google Scholar

97. Malet to S, Berlin, 8 Nov. 1888, private, PRO/FO 343/10; Deines to HB, Vienna, 15 Dec. 1888, AA/A16817; HB to Schweinitz, Friedrichsruh, 25 Dec. 1888, no. 471, AA/zuA17251; J. A. Crowe to S, 7 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/22; Kosnilski (?) to HB, Berlin, 12 Jan. 1889, vertraulich, AA/Anl. zuA735; V to QV, Sandringham, Norfolk, 14 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/27; M to P, St. Petersburg, 6 Feb. 1889, RA/157/16.

98. To Malet, FO, 27 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/48.

99. The Standard (London), 8 02 1889.Google Scholar

100. This explains the reserved position taken by Egelhaaf, Bismarck, p. 409 n.

101. Malet to S, quoting HB, Berlin, 14 Apr. 1888, private and secret, PRO/FO343/9.

102. Malet was unsure of the name of the battle, but it was probably Vionville.

103. When Morier passed through Berlin, he had been shocked to be refused an audience on 10 January by the Empress Augusta. Count Herbert had informed her that Morier was pursuing an unfriendly policy toward Germany and was out of favor with Queen Victoria. Herbert, as Morier conjectured, may have informed her of the Bazaine charges in an audience on 12 January. See Baron von Knesebeck to HB, Berlin, 9 Jan. 1888; HB to Knesebeck, Berlin, 9 Jan. 1888, vertraulich; Knesebeck to HB, Berlin, 11 Jan. 1888, AA/AS38, AS52; M to Lord Granville, St. Petersburg, 7 Jan. 1889, private, RA/Z280/25.

104. Malet to S, 8 Nov. 1888, private, PRO/FO 343/10.

105. Schulthess, 1888, p. 198.

106. L'Armée du Rhin (Paris, 1872).Google Scholar

107. Wippermann, 1889, I, 13–14. This is contradicted by Deines' initial report of 2 April 1886, where the Marshal speaks of the days following 13 August, Archives Diplomatiques, 1889, I, 68.

108. Wippermann, 1889, I, 15.

109. Deines' account is itself available in four versions, which, however, do not differ appreciably from one another. The Morier file does not contain a copy of Deines' report of 2 Apr. 1886. The contents notes its number (A4682) and tenor. It was received on 12 April. The original of Deines to HB, Vienna, 12 Nov. 1888, is in AA/A15004. This dispatch was edited by the Chancellor for publication. He omitted the reference to Bazaine's “garrulity of age,” the fact that Deines had supplied Morier's name, the reference to Mexico and the Empress Eugénie, and Deines' conjectures. The two reports were published in the Kölnische Zeitung of 3 Jan. 1889. Archives Diplomatiques, 1889, I, 68–69, contains the full published text, which is shortened in Wippermann, 1889, I, 14. These 1886 and 1888 reports are supplemented by a report of 1889 of an informal conversation Deines had with the British military attaché in Vienna, K. Fraser to P, Vienna, 20 Jan. 1889, private, RA/Z280/37. For convenience, where differences must be noted, these are referred to as the “1886”, “1888”, “1889 versions”. The account in Witzleben, Deines, pp. 152–53, is highly colored and generally ignored here.

110. Solms' account is based upon Deines to Solms, Vienna, 28 Nov. 1888, AA/Anl. II ad A15838, which merely repeats the substance of the 1888 version. When Solms' account (Solms to Deines, Madrid, 4 Dec. 1888, AA/A16305a) was published in the Kölnische Zeitung of 21 Jan. 1889 (Wippermann, 1889, I, 16), references to Bazaine's senility were omitted. There was much correspondence, which need not be cited here, to secure the permission of the Austro-Hungarian government for the publication of Solms' letter. The suggestion first appears in HB, memorandum for B, Berlin, 15 Nov. 1888, AA/A115005, and the permission is given in cipher tel., Monts to AA, Vienna, 15 Jan. 1889, no. 5, AA/A766.

111. Witzleben, Deines, p. 152.

112. 1889 version.

113. 1888 version.

114. 1888 and 1889 versions.

115. 1886 version.

116. Ibid..

117. Ibid.. The 1888 version gives 15 or 16 August.

118. 1888 and 1889 versions. Witzleben, Deines, p. 152, does not make clear whether Solms or Deines put the question.

119. 1888 version. Asked to comment on the original, unpubliahed report of 1886, both Hatzfeldt and Schweintiz had noted that Morier had never been in Mexico, HB to Count E. Solms, 13 Apr. 1886, no. 43, sicher, AA/A5474; cipher tel., Hatzfeldt to AA, London, 30 Apr. 1886, no. 110, AA/A5474; Schweinitz, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 381.Google Scholar

120. Even Bismarck conceded: “To be sure, that makes Bazaine unworthy of belief,” minute on HB to Deines, Berlin, 7 Nov. 1888, vertraulich, AA/14523. By Morier's name he put: “The German's enemy.”

121. 1888 and 1889 versions.

122. The Chancellor first made the suggestion that the Crown Princess had sent the reports to England, minute on Deines to HB, Vienna, 12 Nov. 1888, AA/A15004.

123. See Eyck, , Bismarck, III, 531–40.Google Scholar As soon as the Morier Affair became serious, the Chancellor connected the British diplomat with the hapless Geffcken, minute on HB to Deines, Berlin, 7 Nov. 1888, vertraulich, AA/A14523. See also Rottenburg to HB, Friedrichsruh, 20 Nov. 1888, AA/A1528, where the Chancellor suggests Morier's relations with Roggenbach and Geffcken be made public. Prince Bismarck saw both Geffcken and Morier as “meddling in domestic affairs,” minute on Rechenberg to B, Warsaw, 14 Jan. 1889, no. 8, AA/A802. And gossip from Rome linked Morier not only with Geffcken, but with the Left Liberal Richter, and the Socialist Lassalle as well! Count E. Solms to B, Rome, 1 Jan. 1889, no. 1, vertraulich, AA/A245. “He is a kind of Eugen Richter,” reads the minute of William II (?) on Schweinitz to Caprivi, St. Petersburg, 23 Dec. 1891, no. 410, vertraulich, AA/AII456. See also L. Rath's memorandums, Berlin, and 8 Jan. 1889, AA/A215, A222, A394; Pourtalès to B, St. Petersburg, 20 Jan. 1889, no. 18, AA/A1139; HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 24 Jan. 1889, no. 81, AA/A1675.

124. See above.

125. The Crown Prince's letters to his wife (RA/Z25) describe only past battles and contain no military secrets. His wife was in Potsdam and then in Homburg from the “middle of August till about 20th December” 1870 (G. Seckendorf to P, Sandringham, Norfolk, 15 Jan. 1889, RA/157/7), and was apparently only in direct contact with Morier in September (V to QV, Schloss Homburg, 17 Sept. 1870, RA/Z25/16). It is not without interest that she refers to “that horrid Bazaine” in August (V to QV, Neues Palais, Potsdam, 6 Aug. 1870, RA/Z25/3).

126. Jarras, L., Souvenirs (Paris, 1892), pp. 86–87, 91–92, 103–105, 119, 361–62, noting intelligence received 13–18 August, cf. Howard, Franco-Prussian War, p. 146. Both these authorities, however, back up Bazaine in criticising the French cavalry.Google Scholar

127. Bazaine, L'Armée du Rhin, pp. 51–53, 58–59; Jarras, Souvenirs, pp. 86–87.

128. Howard, Franco-Prussian War, p. 139.

129. See above.

130. 1889 version.

131. Jarras, Souvenirs, pp. 103–105, 361; Howard, Franco-Prussian War, pp. 146–47, 151. Deines conjectured that the report arrived too late on the 16th to be used, 1886 version.

132. See especially the 1889 version. Cf. the conjecture in HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 2 Feb. 1889, no. 100, sicher, AA/zuA1675.

S to Malet, FO, 27(?) Jan. 1889, private, RA/Z280/48.

134. In PRO/FO 30/238.

135. Major Bigge to QV, 28 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/42.

136. Minute, Osborne, ca. 8 Feb. 1889, on copy of HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 24 Jan. 1889, attached to S to Malet, 9 Feb. 1889, no. 38, PRO/FO 64/1210.

137. The charge was also made that the Prince of Wales was the recipient of the information, Lindau, memorandum, Berlin, 17 Jan. 1889, AA/A883.

138. Frederick Charles of Prussia, Denkwürdigkeiten (Stuttgart, and Leipzig 1910), II, 127.Google Scholar

139. 1889 version.

140. To P, St. Petersburg, 6 Feb. 1889, RA/157/16.

141. E.g., M to Granville, Darmstadt, 30 July 1870, no. 23, PRO/FO 30/238.

142. M to Granville, 11 Nov. 1870, no. 49, confidential, PRO/FO 30/238. Cf. M to Granville, St. Petersburg, 7 Jan. 1889, private, RA/Z280/25; copy, Granville to M, London, 16 Jan. 1889, private, RA/Z280/31; Granville to P, Walmer Castle, Deal, 29 Jan. 1889, RA/Z280/47; M to P, St. Petersburg, 6 Feb. 1889, RA/157/16.

143. Col. B. Walker to Lord A. Paget, Sulz, 5 Aug. 1870, PRO/FO 519/284.

144. Cf. 1889 version. M to Bazaine, London, 25 July 1888, and Bazaine to M, Madrid, 8 Aug. 1888, may be found in AA/A14523a; as enclosures in S to Malet, London, 29 Oct. 1888, private, PRO/FO 343/2; ans in Schulthess, 1889, p. 3, Archives Diplomatiques, 1889, I, 69, and Annual Register, 1889, p. 3.

145. M to P, St. Petersburg, 6 Feb. 1889, RA/157/16.

146. Lindau (?), memorandum, Berlin, 13 Dec. 1888, AA/A16674; HB to Schweinitz, Friedrichsruh, 25 Dec. 1888, no. 471, AA/zuA17251; Count Lerchenfeld to Prince Regent Luitpold, Berlin, 7 Jan. 1889, no. 14/IV, Bayerische Hauptstaatsarchiv, Abteilung III, Munich, III/2667.

147. 21 Jan. 1889, Wippermann, 1889, I, 16.

148. Bazaine's estranged wife and son (who knew nothing firsthand about the Morier story) believed the note was not in his style, nor was the signature which they saw in a facsimile his, cipher tel., Zedtwitz to AA, Mexico City, 15 Feb. 1889, no. 1; Zedtwitz to B, Mexico City, 18 Feb. 1889, no. 20; AA/A2583/A3630.

149. HB to Deines, Berlin, 7 Nov. 1888, vertraulich, AA/A14523; Malet to S, Berlin, 8 Nov. 1888, private, PRO/FO 343/10.

150. 1888 and 1889 versions. Solms says, in fact, in a passage omitted from the published letter, that when he visited Bazaine the last time, when the Marshal had a broken leg, he was “completely— sit venia verbo—cretinous,” Solms to Deines, Madrid, 4 Dec. 1888, AA/A16305a. Since Deines' last visit to Bazaine occurred when he had a broken leg (1888 version), this would indicate that Bazaine was already senile when he produced the story about Morier.

151. HB to Deines, Berlin, 7 Nov. 1888, vertraulich, AA/A14523.

152. Another conjecture appears in Freytag to Ernst II, Wiesbaden, 4 Jan. 1889, Templetey, Freytag und Coburg, pp. 324–25.

153. His source was Hinzpeter.

154. M to P, St. Petersburg, 6 Feb. 1889, RA/157/16.

155. Count Herbert suggested that Morier was piqued at the time because he was, by mistake, temporarily incarcerated by the Germans, and sending information to Bazaine was his revenge. HB to Hatzfeldt, Berlin, 2 Feb. 1889, no. 100, sicher, AA/zu 1675.

156. The Standard (London), 8 Feb. 1889.