infected rags; and isolated cases have since occasionally occurred. In Western and Southern Hungary, it is still stubbornly maintaining its hold. In Holland, it yet claims an occasional victim, and, although Paris and Havre declare themselves free from the epidemic, the end of the year sees it spreading in Northern France. In Russia, it continues to claim victims in thirty-seven provinces, being especially severe in Poltava, Lublin, Saratof, Tambof, and the Don region; and it has not entirely disappeared from St. Petersburg. Official reports show that there have been 550,000 cases in Russia, of which 260,000 proved fatal. A council of 250 doctors from all parts of the Empire has been discussing preventive measures in view of the probable renewal of the plague in the spring.

GERMANY.

The quarter's interest in German affairs centers mainly around the progress of the Army bill, the fate of which is still undecided. The Reichstag was opened November 22, by the Emperor in person. The following day, the Army bill was introduced by Chancellor von Caprivi, who, in behalf of the Government, repudiated any leaning towards a warlike policy, and severely condemned the allegations, attributed to Prince Bismarck, that it was Germany who provoked the War of 1870. He pointed out, that, both on her eastern and western frontiers, Germany was confronted with dangers; and earnestly pressed the necessity of the measure as a means of maintaining unimpaired the inheritance of the nation.

In particular, the bill fixes the peace footing from October 1, 1893, to March 31, 1899, on a yearly average of 492,068 men, a total increase, in round numbers, of 84,000, which, when the reorganization under the bill is completed, will give the German Army a strength of 4,400,000, as compared with 4,053,000 for the French Army, and 4.556,000 for the Russian Army. The term of service in the infantry is generally reduced to two years. The bill retains the power of the military authorities, as a punishment for mili

tary offenses, to keep men in the ranks for a third year.

The extra expenditure under the bill would be over 60,000,000 marks, or £3,000,000 sterling. To meet this, added imposts are suggested on beer, spirits, and Bourse operations, which new taxes will produce an estimated annual revenue of about 58,000,000 marks.

The debate on the bill began December 10, and revealed, from all sides, hostility to the measure as introduced. Even the Conservatives and Imperialists showed some hesitancy as to the proposal for a shortened term of service. This the Centrists, or Clericals, would concede; but they opposed an increase in the peace footing. The National Liberals, Socialists, Independents, and even the Poles, regarded the fiscal burdens of the country as already at their maximum. On December 14, on motion of a National Liberal, the bill was referred to a Committee of 28 Members of the Reichstag. It has thus reached the stage of private negotiation between the different sections of the Imperial Diet, the result of which none can foresee. The leaders of the Centrists and the National Liberals, have spoken in favor of a compromise with the Government, realizing the dangers of a dissolution on the subject; and this sentiment is apparently increasing.

The anti-Jewish sentiment is very strong among certain sections of the German people, its principal exponent being Rector Ahlwardt, who has recently been elected to the Reichstag in spite of the fact that he is undergoing a sentence of five months' imprisonment on three charges of crim inal libel. Among other things, he had charged the firm of Löwe & Co. with illegally stamping 1,500 rifles supplied to the Government; but the military authorities declared that the trial of the rifles gave a brilliant result. As an example of the extreme to which race antagonism can be carried, the anti-Semites propose to ask for legislation declaring the Jews to be foreigners and disqualified from holding positions in the service of the State or in the Universities. The movement is discountenanced by the

Emperor, the Court, the Socialists, and a growing section of the Conservative party.

On October 31, the historic Castle Church at Wittenberg was reconsecrated in the presence of Emperor William, the Duke of York, and other Royal visitors. Every European Power concerned in the Reformation was represented, and only one of the prominent Protestant Royalties was absent -the King of Würtemberg, called home by the death of the Queen Dowager. The church was originally built by the Elector Frederick III., and consecrated in 1499. Eighteen years thereafter, Martin Luther affixed to its gates his famous theses. It escaped injury during the Thirty Years' War, but was partially destroyed during the Napoleonic wars. It was renovated under Frederick William III., and dedicated afresh in 1817. The Emperor William I. decided that it should be rebuilt in the original late-Gothic style; and the work was begun under the impulse of the then Crown Prince, the late Emperor Frederick III.

Between October 2 and 11, under the patronage of the German and Austrian Emperors, a long-distance race of about 400 miles, was run by officers of the German and Austrian Armies. They covered the distance between Berlin and Vienna, each starting from his respective national capital. Nineteen horses expired on the road, and as many more died after the finish. The honors were decidedly with the Austrians, Count Starhemberg, of the Austrian Army, winning the first prize, with a record of 71 hours 20 minutes; and Baron von Reitzenstein, a Lieutenant in the German Army, the second prize, with a record of 73 hours 25 minutes.

FRANCE.

To unravel the tangled thread of events in France during the last three months is a bewildering task, and can be much better performed after the outcome of the present transition period of political disintegration and confusion is known.

Ever since the Loubet Cabinet adopted a conciliatory policy toward

VOL. II.-30 A.

369

the Carmaux miners, it had lost prestige, and the opinion prevailed that its overthrow was a mere matter of time. True, it secured the passage of the Press bill without a division, on November 19. This bill had originally been brought forward after the catastrophe in the Véry restaurant, and proposed the suppression of incendiary newspapers and proclamations. The Radical party feared that the bill might be twisted to infringe the liberty of the press, and the Reactionaries agreed with them; but the sentiment aroused by the disorders at Carmaux and the subsequent outrage of November 8 in Paris, which were attributed to the incitation of certain newspapers, sufficed to rally to the support of the measure an overwhelming majority in the Chamber. The Press bill was felt to be a measure of public safety; and its passage was no indication of the strength of the Cabinet, which shortly afterward proved itself unable to weather the storm of the Panama scandal.

The Panama Scandal.

It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government, a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light, which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps, his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition. to ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt expenditures with a view to influence public opinion. The matter, it will be remembered (see Vol. I., p. 250), was the subject of inquiry over a year ago; but it was not until early in last November, that the Government, with evident reluctance, and in the hope of preventing a crisis in the Chamber, announced its definite decision to institute a formal prosecution.

The gathering storm finally burst on November 21, when the interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of

corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that 3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150 Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted details, they must vote an inquiry. Amid great uproar, M. Delahaye stepped down; and then M. Loubet declared, that, in view of the charges made, he too joined in the demand for an inquiry. Indescribable confusion followed for a time, M. Floquet, the President of the Chamber, losing control of both himself and the Deputies. It was ultimately agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33 Members to conduct an investigation.

The judicial summonses against the accused Directors were issued the same day, charging them with

the use of fraudulent devices for creating belief in the existence of a chimerical event,

the spending of sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose, and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of

others."

The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25, when all of the defendants-M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles, his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel

were absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893.

Even now the attitude of M. Loubet was still ambiguous. He opposed a motion giving the Committee of Inquiry power to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents; and, although the Chamber sustained him by a narrow majority, doubt and suspicion continued to spread even among the Ministerial supporters. It required but a trifling incident to finally turn the tide against the Cabinet.

On November 28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body be exhumed, and the his sudden death, the Baron would theory of suicide be tested. But for have been included in the prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice said,

that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the day "pure and simple" be passed. This the Chamber refused to do by a vote of 304 to 219.

The resignation of the Cabinet immediately followed-the twenty-seventh crisis since the overthrow of the Second Empire. A few days' interregnum followed, during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December 5, the new Ministry was announced, proving to be substantially the same as its predecessor, except that M. Loubet was replaced by M. Ribot as Premier, but still retained the Ministry of the Interior. M. Bourgeois replaced M. Ricard as Minister of Justice, the former's portfolio of Public Instruction being taken by M. Dupuy; and M. Siegfried replaced M. Roche as Minister of Commerce.

The policy of the Government regarding the scandal now changed. Realizing that its life, and perhaps also the fate of the Republican régime, depended upon a brave facing of the issues, the Cabinet used every means in its power to probe the matter to the bottom, and to bring everything to light. In this policy, it has been sustained several times by the Chamber; it has abated the panic in the country, if it has not yet dispelled the confusion; and, although its ultimate fate is uncertain, it seems at the close of the year to have a growing hold upon public faith and public support. On taking office, it promptly ordered a post mortem examination of the body of Baron Reinach. True, it opposed the remarkable proposition of M. Pourquéry de Boisserin, virtually to constitute the Committee of Inquiry a court of supreme jurisdiction, superseding all the judicial machinery of the country. It opposed this as an undue mingling of legislative, executive, and judicial powers; and, although

371

the Chamber had voted urgency, they finally sustained the Government in refusing to extend the scope of the Committee. The Cabinet, however, seconded the efforts of the Committee in every way.

In the course of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. The names of the payees leaked out through M. Cornelius Herz, who telegraphed from London that his two checks for 2,000,000 francs each, had been given him in payment of a debt. The names of the recipients included Senator Renault, Albert Grévy, son of the late Ex-President, and some prominent journalists. The checks were seized by the police on December 3, in the office of M. Thierrée, and handed over to the Committee. December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned, because his name had been connected with the scandal; and he subsequently admitted, that, as Minister of Finance, he had been compelled to supplement the meagre Secret Service Fund voted by Parliament, by soliciting contributions from wealthy friends of the Government.

In the meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps, M. Fontanes, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company, on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries.

This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five Senators and five Deputies, the Deputies being MM. Arène, Dugué de la Fauconnerie, Proust, Jules Roche, and Rouvier; and the Senators, MM. Beral, Albert Grévy, Renault, Deves, and Thevenet. Five of the ten are Ex-Ministers. Their arrest was in consequence of revelations brought before the Committee by M. Andrieux, an Ex-Prefect of Police in Paris, implicating over 100 Members of the