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.

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 theory of suicide be tested. But for his sudden death, the Baron would 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

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. On 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

on its rulers. Under the guise of soUnder the guise of solicitude for the honor of France, had been masked an insidious conspiracy against existing institutions. By sowing the seeds of jealousy, fear, and suspicion, they hoped to break down the Ribot Ministry, and thus to precipitate a revolution which would give them the opportunity desired. Monarchists, Bonapartists, Boulangists, Anarchists-all were more or less involved. The spreading knowledge of this fact has been one of the main elements of M. Ribot's strength. It has enabled him, by identifying himself and his Ministry with the preservation of the Republic, to survive attacks in the Chamber which might otherwise have caused his overthrow.

The Government has taken every precaution to maintain order in the event of an attempted revolution. It has kept itself posted as to the movements of its enemies. The Bonapartists are said to have drawn up a manifesto addressed to the people of France, urging the restoration of the Imperial House; and the document awaits the approval of Prince Victor, the present recognized head of the family. Greater importance, however, is attached by the Government, to the movement of the Royalists, for the ancient Royal House has still a large following in the provinces. But there are elements of weakness among both Royalists and Imperialists. They are jealous of each other. Nothing is clearer than that the enemies of the Republic, whatever their powers of evil may be-and they have been sufficient to score at least a barren success in the spreading of a confusion which has almost amounted to a panic, and in starting a movement, which, if it does not threaten the life of the Republic, does certainly threaten its conservative development-are unable to offer a substitute for the régime which they are anxious to overthrow. And this, strangely enough, is not owing to any lack of workable programs, but to the utter lack of capable leaders. Neither the Royalists, Bonapartists, Boulangists, nor Anarchists have any leader around whom they are confident that the country

would willingly rally in the event of a coup. The Comte de Paris has little hold upon the affections of the people at large, and, apparently no inclination to court them. Of Prince Victor, one of his own adherents recently said that he was an unknown quantity. The majority of the people in the French capital hate the Bonapartist pretensions; and moreover, the Prince's connection with the Royal House of Italy, and through that indirectly with the Triple Alliance, is a bar to his popularity with Frenchmen. The Boulangists have no more prominent leader than the Ex-Prefect of Police, M. Andrieux, whose past career has been one of vicissitude, and who has recently displayed no more remarkable feature than a great talent for the fomenting of scandal. And the Anarchists have no spirit among them whose name is known except in connection with incendiary schemes, whose only effect, beyond the local damage they cause when carried out, is to estrange the masses and to stimulate the vigilance of the friends of order. It is true that the various revolutionary factions, on December 28, united to form a "Committee of Public Safety," with a program that reminds one of "The Terror;" but, although there is much reflection on the possibilities of the situation, there is a general growing confidence in the ability of the Government to cope with it. The elements of opposition are weakened by dissension. As between the Monarchists and Imperialists on the one hand, and the Republic on the other, the Socialists and other extremists, and the lower classes generally, prefer the latter; and this sentiment is already modifying the attitude of those Deputies, who, throughout the present trouble, have been lukewarm or openly hostile toward the Republic. The firm determination of M. Ribot to maintain the Republic at any cost, and to prosecute its enemies if they persist in their designs, is having its effect. Hostility is less outspoken. There is no evidence that the loyalty of the Army has been in the least affected by the agitation; and perfect accord exists between M. Ribot and General Saussier as to what shall be