1899.] Germany. — Defeats of the Government [277
ished for their votes, while the National Liberals and the Radicals posed as defenders of the dignity of the Crown and vaguely talked of "strong measures" for giving effect to the Emperor's will.
The dismissal of the Landrdthe was followed (Sept. 4) by that of Baron von der Recke, the Prussian Minister of the Interior, and Dr. Bosse, the Prussian Minister of Education, both of whom had shown great want of tact in their dealings with the House, and were accordingly made the scapegoats of the Government, in view of its unpopularity on account of the mismanagement of the Canal Bill. The vacant posts were filled by Baron von Rheinbaben and Herr Studt, members of the Civil Service, but not otherwise known. But while two of the ministers were thus sacrificed to the indignation of the Conservatives, the man who was regarded by all parties as the one mainly responsible for the failure of the bill, Dr. Miquel, the German Minister of Finance and Vice-President of the Prussian Ministry, remained in office. He was accused of playing a double game in officially advocating the bill, while at the same time leading the Conservatives to believe that he was really opposed to it, and some colour was given to this accusation by the disclosure that his protdgi, Baron von Zedlitz, president of the Prussian bank known as the Seehandlung, was the author of a series of articles in the Post violently opposing the bill, and yet was not dismissed from his post like the other officials who had spoken or voted against it.
Another severe defeat was sustained by the Government on a bill for protecting the working classes against men who pre- vent them from working or incite them to strike. This bill had been referred to by the German Emperor in the speech from the throne on the opening of the Reichstag, and as he then spoke of penal servitude as the punishment for persons thus interfering with free labour, the bill was popularly described as the Penal Servitude Bill. It was introduced in the Reichstag on June 19 by Prince Hohenlohe, the Imperial Chancellor, who pointed out that the bill was in no way calculated to limit the right of coalition or of making strikes, and that its only object was to secure the working man's independence and freedom. The bill provided for the infliction of penalties, and of penal servitude only in cases where interference with freedom of labour would involve danger to the State, or to life or property, such as stoppage of work in military or naval factories or on works undertaken for the prevention of inundations. Strikes had of late been unusually numerous in Germany, and the colliers' strike at Heme, near Bochum, had led to street riots in which fire-arms were employed by the mob and the police, and 2,000 troops had to be employed to restore order. It was universally recognised, however, both in the House and the country that the bill was unnecessary for the purpose of securing freedom of labour, as the existing law already provides sufficient
