even wish Roumania to be joined with Hungary, as that would weaken the Magyar influence in Hungary.  He looked upon it as out of the question to grant the Serbians access to the sea, because he wanted the Serbian agricultural products when he was in need of them; nor would he leave an open door for the Serbian pigs, as he did not wish the price of the Hungarian to be lowered.  Tisza went still further.  He was a great stickler for equality in making appointments to foreign diplomatic posts, but I could not pay much heed to that.  If I considered the Austrian X better fitted for the post of ambassador than the Hungarian Y, I selected him in spite of eventual disagreement.

This trait in the Hungarian, though legally well founded, was unbearable and not to be maintained in war, and led to various disputes between Tisza and myself; and now that he is dead, these scenes leave me only a feeling of the deepest regret for many a hasty word that escaped me.  We afterwards made a compromise.  Tisza promised never to interfere except in cases of the greatest urgency, and I promised to take no important step without his approval.  Soon after this arrangement he was dismissed by the Emperor for very different reasons.

I greatly regretted his dismissal, in spite of the difficulties he had caused me.  To begin with, the Magyar-central standpoint was not a speciality of Tisza’s; all Magyar politicians upheld it.  Secondly, Tisza had one great point in his favour:  he had no wish to prolong the war for the purpose of conquest; he wished for a rectification of the Roumanian frontier and nothing beyond that.  If it had come to peace negotiations, he would have supported me in taking as a basis the status quo ante.  His support—­and that was the third reason—­was of great value, for he was a man who knew how to fight.  He had become hard and old on the battlefield of parliamentary controversy.  He stood in awe of nothing and nobody—­and he was true as gold.  Fourthly, this upright man was one of the few who openly told the Emperor the truth, and the Emperor made use of this, as we all did.

I was, therefore, convinced beforehand that a change would not improve the situation for me.  Esterhazy, who succeeded Tisza, certainly never put obstacles in the way of my policy.  At the same time, I missed the strong hand that had kept order in Hungary, and the stern voice that warned the Emperor, and I did not place the same reliance on Wekerle as on Tisza, perhaps because I was not on the same terms of friendship with him as with Tisza.

Although I had many disputes with Tisza, it is one of the dearest reminiscences of my time of office that, up to the death of this remarkable man, our friendship remained unchanged.  For many years Hungary and Stephen Tisza were as one.  Tisza was a man whose brave and manly character, stern and resolute nature, fearlessness and integrity raised him high above the average man.  He was a thorough man,