At the beginning of April Bismarck instructed Savigny, his envoy at the Diet, to propose the consideration of a reform in the Constitution.  The proposal he made was quite unexpected.  No details were mentioned as to changes in the relations of the Princes, but a Parliament elected by universal suffrage and direct elections was to be chosen, to help in the management of common German affairs.  It is impossible to exaggerate the bewilderment and astonishment with which this proposal was greeted.  Here was the man who had risen into power as the champion of monarchical government, as the enemy of Parliaments and Democracy, voluntarily taking up the extreme demand of the German Radicals.  It must be remembered that universal suffrage was at this time regarded not as a mere scheme of voting,—­it was a principle; it was the cardinal principle of the Revolution; it meant the sovereignty of the people.  It was the basis of the French Republic of 1848, it had been incorporated in the German Constitution of 1849, and this was one of the reasons why the King of Prussia had refused then to accept that Constitution.  The proposal was universally condemned.  Bismarck had perhaps hoped to win the Liberals; if so, he was disappointed; their confidence could not be gained by this sudden and amazing change—­they distrusted him all the more; “a Government that, despising the laws of its own country, comes forward with plans for Confederate reform, cannot have the confidence of the German people,” was the verdict of the National party.  The Moderate Liberals, men like Sybel, had always been opposed to universal suffrage; even the English statesmen were alarmed; it was two years before Disraeli made his leap in the dark, and here was the Prussian statesman making a far bolder leap in a country not yet accustomed to the natural working of representative institutions.  He did not gain the adhesion of the Liberals, and he lost the confidence of his old friends.  Napoleon alone expressed his pleasure that the institutions of the two countries should become so like one another.

There was, indeed, ample reason for distrust; universal suffrage meant not only Democracy,—­it was the foundation on which Napoleon had built his Empire; he had shewn that the voice of the people might become the instrument of despotism.  All the old suspicions were aroused; people began to see fresh meaning in these constant visits to France; Napoleon had found an apt pupil not only in foreign but in internal matters.  It could mean nothing more than the institution of a democratic monarchy; this was Bonapartism; it seemed to be the achievement of that change which, years ago, Gerlach had foreboded.  No wonder the King of Hanover began to feel his crown less steady on his head.

What was the truth in the matter?  What were the motives which influenced Bismarck?  The explanation he gave was probably the true one:  by universal suffrage he hoped to attain a Conservative and monarchical assembly; he appealed from the educated and Liberal middle classes to the peasants and artisans.  We remember how often he had told the Prussian House of Commons that they were not the true representatives of the people.