The electoral campaign in France, ending in the repulse of M. Buffet and the return of a decisive republican majority, is the most thoroughly satisfactory event in Europe since the ruin of the Empire at Sedan. It is perhaps the most hopeful incident for social progress since the victory of democracy in the United States ten years ago. In the first place it assures, or seems to assure, the final establishment of the only form of government that can ever be finally established in France. The Republic has been set up before now, but never the Republic of good sense. In 1792 and in 1848 the spirit of the nation was higher than it is now, and its mood more lofty and imposing, and on both occasions there were leaders of dazzling quality. But there was no political experience. The lesson had not been learnt, what are the limits of political action in social amelioration. The political capacity of France was pitiable, and her bad fortune was extraordinary. Good sense has not often had a chance until within the last three years, when a chief made his way to the front, who has the singular gift of investing this mere good sense with all the magnificence, sonorousness, and brilliance of attraction, that have hitherto been reserved to decorate the dreams and chimeras of politics. Gambetta has made political common sense as inspiring as the Rights of Man in 1785 and as Socialism in 1848. He has given it a size and spaciousness and imaginative colour which has made even the fiery and generously inflammable spirits of Belleville not only contented but enthusiastic. And what is curious is that Gambetta only five years ago was repulsed by the nation and banished, for a policy which is still admired by some, and which no doubt was full of audacity, but which, whatever else it may have been, was not the policy of prudence or sagacity. The patriot who talked and acted with the patriotism of sense at that sombre hour in the fortunes of France was M. Thiers, and at the last elections it was he who was placed in the triumphant position that to-day has been given to M. Gambetta. With the rapid versatility of true political greatness, M. Gambetta perceived what the fault of the revolutionary parties had been. They had for eighty years been dashing themselves against the nature of things, against the instincts of the people, against the whole set of conditions of social transformation, just as he himself had been dashing legion after legion in sterile conflict against the invaders. It was a revelation of genius to him that intrepidity, devotion, social hope, patriotic fire, might after all go with feasible aims and a right consideration of the relations between political cause and political effect. He satisfied the craving for violence in his extreme followers by the vehemence of his declamation, the deep tones of his voice, the wildness of his gesture, and the fierce readiness with which he retaliated on an interrupter. But underneath, all has been cool, as the head of a man who leads French liberalism needs to be, but too seldom has been.

In his electioneering speeches Gambetta has passed many gibes upon those whom he calls the play-actors of parliamentarism; yet it must be confessed that he has himself shown a very tolerable mastery of the arts, devices, costumes, properties, and stage-business of the parliamentary scene. His distinction has been that he never counted all this for more than it was

worth. He always looked, as our great leaders in England from Pym down to Chatham, and from Chatham's son down to Bright have looked, beyond the walls of the chamber out on to the forces of the country, its necessities, its sentiments, its prejudices, its hopes. He said at Belleville (Feb. 15):

"Je suis d'une école qui ne croit qu'au relatif, à l'analyse, à l'observation, à l'étude des faits, au rapprochement et à la combinaison des idées; d'une école qui tient compte des milieux, des races, des tendances, des préjugés et des hostilités, car il faut tenir compte de tout: les paradoxes, les sophismes pèsent autant que les vérités et que les généralités dans la conduite des hommes et des choses qui les intéressent. Aussi n'est-on un homme politique qu'à la condition de ne pas s'abandonner à des combinaisons de couloirs, à de misérables, intrigues, à des personnalités qu'il faut laisser aux docteurs du parlementarisme."

In the same speech he won loud plaudits by the energy with which he set forth the following thrice and four times sound doctrine:

"Il ne faut jamais se payer de mots ni de phrases. Il ne faut jamais croire qu'on a la force quand on ne l'a pas. Il ne faut jamais croire qu'on est la majorité quand on ne l'est pas ; il ne faut jamais croire que tout est facile quand tout est presque irréalisable. Il faut être plus viril, plus exact, plus consciencieux, savoir résolument se placer en face de la réalité des choses, dresser le compte de toutes les difficultés, ne plus se payer d'illusions, ne se laisser abattre par aucun obstacle, poursuivre la tâche à remplir, le but à atteindre. Il faut marquer, regarder ses adversaires en face, et leur livrer bataille sous le regard de l'opinion publique."

This may seem very elementary truth to a nation of wide and fairly successful political experience like ourselves, but to the people of Belleville who have been taught for eighty years by their chiefs to pay themselves with words and illusions, to defy facts, and to perish under difficulties which they would rather perish under than admit, such sense as this, from a man who struck their imagination before he appealed to their reason, is like manna from heaven. It is incredible that the reactionary party in France and their unreflecting friends in the English press should be so blind and so unjust as not to see that the one hope for the stability of a government is that it shall be inspired by a man, whether Gambetta or another, who will use his power and influence to stimulate the political manliness and political conscientiousness of these vast masses of men whom former leaders made mad with empty phrases and futile passion.

There is another revolutionary delusion to which the new liberal chief will give no countenance nor question. From 1789 down to the last days of the Assembly of 1871, French politicians have had an undying faith in the absolute efficacy of laws, decrees, and ordinances; in the immediate, indubitable, and permanent fulfilment of the objects at which such laws and ordinances were directed. Think, then, of the orator being interrupted for some minutes by the acclamations of his audience as he was speaking in such a vein as this:

"Eh bien, la politique qui a préparé les résultats déjà obtenus est la seule qui puisse en poursuivre les fruits, la seule qui puisse déjouer les

piéges nombreux qui nous seront tendus par une réaction qui n'a plus d'espérance que dans nos défaillances et nos fautes. C'est maintenant qu'il faudra se surveiller soi-même, se régler et ne jamais aventurer un pas sans avoir bien reconnu la solidité du terrain, sans avoir assuré ses derrières, parce que le seul moyen d'aller loin c'est de marcher sûrement, étant bien résolus à ne jamais revenir en arrière quand une fois nous aurons planté notre drapeau sur une position conquise. Cette politique, qui est la politique des résultats, est la seule qui soit véritablement conforme aux intérets de la démocratie, car ce que je veux, moi, pour la démocratie de mon pays, pour la France qu'elle est appelée à refaire, ce n'est pas une collection de décrets qu'on insère au Moniteur un jour et que la réaction déchire le lendemain. Ce que je veux, c'est que l'égalité ne soit pas un vain mot, c'est que l'éducation promise au peuple lui soit donnée, non pas par des affiches, par des ordonnances mises sur un mur, mais assurée par des faits et des actes par des écoles ouvertes par des maîtres en chair et en os, par des livres bien faits, par des programmes d'éducation, par des élèves qu'on fera entrer et asseoir sur les mêmes bancs, sans distinction de classe et de conditions, et par un ensemble de moyens pratiques et financiers qui fassent de la réforme que nous attendons non pas de simples formules, des vœux stériles, mais une réalité palpable et tangible, une action incessante qui descendra jusque sur le dernier d'entre nous, jusque dans les bas-fonds de la société, pour y porter l'air, la lumière et l'intelligence."

No wonder that the organs of the Irreconcilable section,-a section of excellent aspirations, very self-denying, very honourable, but without a method, and without either political science or political art-no wonder that they should cry out with an exceeding bitter cry against the "Policy of the Relative "—that they should accuse its author of murdering "l'idéal, la pensée, l'absolu, le sentiment." They compare Gambetta to Henry IV. with much bitter irony-an irony and a comparison that tell in literature, but in the heat of a deadly battle with such a foe as Imperialism are naught. Here is a sample :

“Quant à ceux qui se firent martyriser pour leur foi, c'étaient autant de rêveurs et de niais, qui ne considéraient que la nécessité du moment; s'ils avaient eu plus de sens et de jugement, ils eussent été faire un petit tour à l'étranger, et, la guerre civile apaisée faute de combattants, ils fussent revenus assurer le triomphe de Henri IV, qui, lui aussi, était partisan de la politique relative, et qui mit la réforme sur le trône en se déclarant catholique, absolument comme M. Gambetta proclame la République en cessant d'être républicain. La Réforme, mise sur le trône par Henri IV, a abouti au despotisme catholique de Louis XIV. Rien ne démontre absolument que le triomphe de la République n'obtienne pas un couronnement analogue." -(Droits de l'Homme. Feb. 21.)

What distinguishes the large and keen vision of M. Gambetta from the narrow vision of M. Buffet is that the latter has been sent into a panic by writers of this temper, while the former has seen that such a temper is not deep in the nation and not deep even in Paris, and has seen how to meet and transform it. His victory over M. Nacquet at such a town as Marseilles is one of the many striking proofs of the soundness of his calculations. It

would be childish for us to subside into the assurance that the Irreconcilable section will never again raise its head. Where things hang on a single life, it is impossible to be sure that there will not be either a monarchic restoration or an anarchic conflagration. All we can know for certain is that M. Gambetta has triumphed over greater difficulties than he is ever likely to have to face again, and that he has persuaded France that a man may be a republican, may repudiate theology (witness his speech at the funeral of Edgar Quinet), may promise war against the Church on a far more effective plan than Dr. Falk's, may be the representative and the hero of Belleville, and yet and after all may be the leader of a rational and practical party, and may be trusted to keep moral order' better than a sinister bigot like M. Buffet.

It is worth while to realise in actual detail what lines the policy of the most energetic portion of the French liberals is likely to follow. What does M. Gambetta's republicanism mean? What is the practical outcome of it? On what side will it first make itself felt? M. Gambetta's speech at Bordeaux (Jan. 13) answers all such questions about his programme.

"Ce programme, il faut le dire et le répéter, est très-mesuré, très-sage. Je ne dis pas, je me garde de dire que vos représentants l'accompliront pendant leurs quatre années de législature; je ne le crois pas, et, si vous voulez toute ma pensée, je ne le veux pas! Si on pouvait seulement s'attacher à une partie du programme et la réaliser, non pas dans un vœu platonique, non pas dans une formule légale, mais dans l'exécution patiente et attentive, et dans le détail de l'administration générale du pays, je m'estimerais suffisamment heureux, et je dirais que les quatre années de législature qui vont s'ouvrir auraient été sagement employées pour le bien du pays. Je prends un seul article de ce programme, celui relatif à l'éducation nationale. C'est là qu'il faut toujours en revenir. . . . . . C'était le cri que nous poussions au lendemain de nos désastres nous reconnaissions très-bien que, ce n'était pas seulement la force matérielle qui nous avait vaincus, mais que dans les combinaisons, dans les perfectionnements apportés à l'art de la guerre et aux mille détails qu'elle comporte, la supériorité de l'instruction avait donné l'avantage à nos ennemis, parce que, sur les champs de bataille, comme dans le champ de l'industrie, c'est la force d'esprit qui décide de la victoire. Nous avons réclamé alors ce que je réclame aujourd'hui; c'était le cri unanime, sortant de toutes les poitrines: la Réforme de l'Education Nationale; mais nous n'avons rien obtenu; nous n'avons rien pu arracher; je me trompe, on a obtenu contre nous une loi de division, une loi de recul, une loi de haine, une loi désorganisatrice, une loi d'anarchie morale pour la société française: je veux parler de la loi sur l'enseignement supérieur. Eh bien! messieurs, sans entrer dans les développements que comporterait un si immense sujet, je dis que la tache urgente, pratique et efficace de vos futurs mandataires doit être presque uniquement celle de l'organisation, à tous les degrés, au point de vue des écoles, au point de vue des programmes, au point de vue des moyens d'étude, au point de vue financier, doit être d'assurer la constitution de l'éducation nationale; et si nous voulons véritablement aborder une telle réforme, il n'y en aurait pas d'autre qui dût venir se jeter au travers,

parce que les autres peuvent attendre ou peuvent être résolues plus promptement, et qu'elles ne seront même efficaces que quand celle-là aura réellement fonctionné. Done, dans la discussion de vos idées, quand vous les soumettrez, s'il y a lieu, à vos candidats, attachez-vous à être précis, à ne jamais aborder une question avant une autre, à établir une véritable série mathématique, logique, scientifique, dans les revendications que vous voulez faire prévaloir: demandez d'abord à vos députés d'assurer l'éducation; le reste, soyez-en convaincus, vous sera donné par surcroît."

This will sound painfully tame to people who have been made drunk by eighty years of utopian potions. The new feature in the present situation is that French liberalism has at length found a leader with true courage. It requires far more courage to talk in this strain, than to denounce tyrants, to promise the millennium, and to march to the guillotine with serenity on the brow and a magnanimous phrase on the lips. Such a policy brings the French revolutionary party into line with the rest of European liberalism, and the momentum which such an accession must add will be immense. For a quarter of a century France has shut herself out from the good cause in Europe. There is now for the first time since 1850 reasonable ground for hoping that her forces will count on the side of progress. France may not contribute many novel ideas in the region of practical politics. Her politicians have much to learn both from England and from America before they can solve their two great problems-not to mention others—of national instruction and administrative decentralisation. Until they have a free press and the free right of meeting, they cannot be considered the chiefs of a really free and self-governing people. But even in the meantime, it will be an immense gain to liberals who are fighting the battle in more prosaic lands to have their principles advocated with the elevation, the dignity of phrase, the high social morality, and above all the strong sympathy for the common people, as profound as it is rational, with which M. Gambetta's recent speeches have surrounded the accepted doctrines of Liberalism all over the western world.

The opening of another session of parliament reminds us among other things how few of our own Liberal chiefs possess the art in which M. Gambetta has shown himself supreme, of making common sense eloquent and inspiring. Parliamentary discussion has been more than usually level. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe made vigorous speeches on the subject of the purchase of the Suez Canal, but the general impression left on the public mind is, that although if they had bought the shares they would certainly have done so in a more careful and business-like way, still that they would never have bought them at all. The Government have introduced a Merchant Shipping Bill which only half satisfies the extreme believers in the efficacy of legislative interference; and a Bill for the Enclosure of Commons which thoroughly dissatisfies all who are solicitous for the maintenance of popular rights in popular property. The House of Lords by another Government Bill, is to retain the shadow of its name as the court of final appeal. But, when constituted as such a court, it is only to consist of a certain number of professional lawyers, and it is also to receive two Lords