The Paris correspondent of the Times published on Thurs- day
a very curious screed refusing to be silent on the Dreyfus case. The letter seems at first sight to be a mere deluge of words, but if you read it carefully you will see that in the opinion of one of the shrewdest of observers, living on the spot, and knowing everybody, the Anti-Dreyfusards, the Army, the populace, the Anti - Semites, and M. de Beaurepaire, are all working together for a revolu- tion. In fact, all who are . hostile to that which exists, or who hope to benefit by a change, range themselves in one vast " conspiracy " among the Anti-Dreyfusards. That is precisely what we have been preaching all along, with this difference, that we expected from those who favour a revolu- tion intended to exalt the military element greater energy and decision. Either they cannot agree upon a chief, which is necessary, because the barracks must not fire on each other, or, having agreed on a. chief, he is unaccountably lethargic. It is just possible, however, that the signal was to be a decree for revision, and that the Government, aware of this, is passionately endeavouring to avert it. That dreadful clause in the present Bill refusing to Dreyfus any justice beyond a second trial by the Army reads very much like this.
