THE EMS TELEGRAM.
(To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.") SIR,—" G. S.'s " remarks in the Spectator of September 3rd make me bold enough to ask you to add one more to the many letters which have appeared in your columns this last month on the subject of the Ems telegram. M. Seignobos is no doubt perfectly justified in saying that, literally speaking, there was no falsification of the telegram by Bismarck. There was no falsification in the letter ; in the spirit there was. Study the two versions side by side (as given in the Spectator of August 13th). There is a lie in the word " thereupon " —"darauf" in the original—in Bismarck's version. Bismarck made it appear that King William had refused to see Benedetti as a. direct consequence of the Ambassador's unwarrantable demand for a future guarantee re the Hohenzollerns and the Spanish throne. This was not the case. King William was perfectly ready to see him again and continue negotiations either at Ems or Berlin. He was himself awaiting a letter from the Prince, and it was only after receipt of this letter, which contained no fresh material for further intercourse with Benedetti, and then only on the recommendation* of Count Enlenberg and Abeken (auf des Grafen E. tend meines Vortrag), that he decided not to do so, but instead to send a message through his A.D.C. to say that, " as he had now had confirmation of the news from the Prince, be had nothing further to say to the Ambassador." Bismarck made it appear in his published version, by omission and juxta.poaition, that the King had treated Benedetti brusquely in consequence of the latter's importunity. Frenchmen thought their representative had been insulted. Frenchmen and Germans alike believed that it would be impossible for either to resume negotiations. Thus the truth lies, surely, somewhere between Seignobos's view that there was no falsification, and Dr. Holland Rose's view that Bismarck's boast of having made war inevitable by manipulation of the telegram was merely the result of " senile vanity." Finally, do not let us forget the difference between the cause and the occasion of a war. The " Ems telegram" may have been the occasion of the outbreak of hostilities ; the causes were deeper and reached far back. We do not now hold that we should have fought Spain in George IL's reign merely because a certain Captain Jenkins brought his ear home in a box and declared a Spaniard had cut it off. That was the occasion of our war, but not the eause.—I am,
Previous page
