more cosmopolitan character. Certainly the members of many different nations seem to mix better there than elsewhere. At an evening gathering arranged by our own family circle there were men and women of French, English, German, Belgian, Polish, Greek, Ottoman ("Young Turkish"), and American nationality, together with some members of the Chinese Embassy. Conversation with many persons, who have for a long time been foreign residents in France, helps in the way of supplementing or checking native opinion or forecast. The politeness, free from stiff formality, of good Parisian society will always be a charm to those who, with proper command of the country's language, know how to enter into the ways and manners of the French. On occasions like the one just mentioned much may be heard which has nothing whatever to do with the gutter Press, either in France or elsewhere, but which, for that very reason, is of highly serious import.

I found French feeling about England one of extreme bitterness-even more so than I had known before from Press reports and from private correspondence with old friends. Egypt and Fashoda are, no doubt, in the background of that hostile attitude. They form the leading motive of many variations in the furioso key. Ever since forty centuries have looked down from the Pyramids upon the army of Bonaparte, it has been assumed by Frenchmen that their country has a vested right in the Nile land. The armed overthrow of Arabi Pasha without even a declaration of war, the non-fulfilment of the promised evacuation of Egypt "within six months," after a lapse of eighteen years, are themes on which the changes are continually rung. The reforms effected by England in Egypt since 1882 are held to be of no account. Upon the top of this ever-present antagonism has

come the bad feeling evoked by the attack upon the South African Republic.

It cannot, I believe, be said with truth that the mass of the French take a deep interest in the fate of nations lying under the iron heel of foreign rule or threatened with oppression. Witness the remarkable suddenness with which, after a century of pro-Polish sympathies, they threw themselves into the arms of Czardom. Yet it can neither be denied that among their better-class politicians, and among the more fair-thinking section of the younger generation, a genuine sentiment in favor of the South African Republics is in existence. That sentiment is fed by the knowledge of a sprinkling of descendants from French Huguenots being contained in the Boer population. It is not all from jealousy and rivalry that the opposition to England has arisen in this war. Unpleasant as the truth may sound, it is a truth that the conscience of Europe-nay, of the civilized world-has spoken through the utterances of a great many "Intellectuals"-from Herbert Spencer, Alexander Bain, George Meredith, Walter Crane and many others, to Mommsen and Tolstoi. These men are certainly not enemies of England. I know of a good many abroad who, from wellreasoned care for the best interests of this country, and for the progress and peace of the world, have deplored the threatening pressure upon the South African Republic, which, according to a former warning of the Colonial Secretary, must inevitably have "led to war, and leave behind it the embers of a strife which generations would hardly be long enough to extinguish."

Even in France, in spite of the unquestionable jealousy against this country which exists among the bulk of the nation, there are men who, from a simple sense of justice, share the opinions of many eminent Dutch, Belgian,

German, Austrian, Swiss, Scandinavian, Hungarian, Italian spokesmen and writers. The same is the case across the Atlantic, in spite of an "Anglo-Saxon" kinship whose formation into an alliance with England was somewhat prematurely announced. Such a state of opinion among so many cultured nations is not to be lightly disregarded. The best friends of England abroad feel a deep and growing concern as to the ultimate outcome of the war. This country is now thoroughly in the once boasted "splendid isolation." Its military power for covering vast possessions in the fifth part of our planet is looked at abroad in case of a great war, as being very insufficient.

At Paris I only found a different view in regard to the South African war in the house of a well-known Parliamentarian and honorary member of the Cobden Club, whose kind hospitality we enjoyed. He has done excellent service in the Dreyfus case, courageously setting his face against the prevailing intolerant madness. As to his views about the war, M. Yves Guyot and a few friends of his are almost the only instances of anti-Boer sentiment. True, a solitary other instance of the same kind I met with. It is that of a former member of the Commune Government of 1871, introduced to me after its defeat by a distinguished German scientist, the late Dr. Ludwig Büchner. That ex-member of the Commune, for whom, years ago, I was glad to be able to procure an amnesty from President Grévy through Louis Blanc, has held for some time past a Government position under the Republic. I much respect that gifted friend as a free-thinking writer on philosophical subjects. To the surprise, however, of his former associates in England, he has written a bitter book against the Jews as a race. In the present war he,

also very unexpectedly, sides against the Boers. With these two exceptions I found French sentiment universally and absolutely, so far as my experi ence went, arrayed against England. I have gone into these details merely from a wish of stating everything fairly and truthfully, irrespective of my own views.

French feeling against this country has reached such a pitch that, by way of revulsion, the hostility to Germany has actually, or at least apparently, made place for an attitude of friendliness in a most remarkable degree. It need not be said that quiet watchfulness remains the same as before on the other side of the Vosges among a nation, which, for many hundreds of years, has been the incessant object of aggression, whether Royal Republican, or Imperial Governments were at the head of France.

From an American friend who has lived in Paris for a long time, and who knows well what is going on among the wealthier classes, I heard that, as regards languages, both German and English are very much cultivated now by the higher middle class and the aristocracy. Is this a sign of an increasing abatement of deplorable national antipathies? or perhaps the reverse? In days long gone by-say, when Rabelais wrote, and still much later on-the French were not so averse from the study of foreign tongues as they became later on. Possibly the same might be said of England, where centuries ago the knowledge of Italian was a requisite of a good education.

It might be suspected that both Eng. lish and German are more cultivated now with a view to some future hostile conflicts. Were such contingencies to arise, France would probably be some. what better equipped in knowledge than she was before the "Terrible Year," as Victor Hugo called it. At the same time I believe that among the

younger generation there are large and growing numbers who have no wish for a repetition of dread armed encounters, especially not on the eastern frontier.

With many of them, I think, there are really higher aspirations at the bottom of those linguistic efforts. They begin to see that the boulevards are not the boundary of the civilized world; that there are nations là bas whose language and literature merit attention; whose art even, in some branches, is to be admired or studied. Witness the spreading Wagner cult, in remarkable contradistinction from former riotous scenes at the attempt of making some of the great composer's works known to a select audience at Paris.

Altogether, France has awakened to a deep consciousness of her backward state in many branches of information. For the furtherance of public instruction, especially in its primary branch, the Third Republic has provided a yearly budget, which, compared with, that of the Second Empire, is simply enormous. It is more than ten times what it was before the war of 1870-71, as may be seen by those versed in comparative statistics, from the Journal Officiel of April last. The present budget, leaving out the art section-which, after all, is also a natural branch of public instruction-amounts to 208,154,163 francs. In this matter, at least, the Revolution of September 4th, 1870, has achieved a progress which reaches the masses, whilst so many other obsolete and anti-democratic institutions still remain unreformed, in spite of the many political and social upheavals France has gone through during more than a century.

Primary instruction in France is now gratuitous, compulsory and secular. Formerly it was different in all these respects. At the time of the fall of Napoleon III there were many departments, especially in the west and the

No

south, in which the number of those unable to read and to write was between 61 and 75, 50 per cent. of the population! Only the departments near the German and Swiss frontiers -in Alsace and in the Jura-the proportion of the wholly uninstructed sank down to 7 or even 5 per cent. wonder that when the Man of December made a tour through southern France with his consort Eugenie, he was actually greeted by the ignorant peasantry as "the Little One" (Napoleon I), "who has come back," and that his wife was acclaimed with shouts of "Vive Marie Louise!" He himself laughingly told this to Queen Victoria on his visit here. Sir Theodore Martin has recorded it.

There is yet a great deal of dense ignorance, especially among the agricultural masses in France. Certainly, the Republic firmly tries at home to wrest from the priesthood the power of upholding intellectual obscurantism. Unfortunately, abroad, in its foreign policy the Republican Government still goes by the old monarchical tradition of making political use of the Papacy. This is a perilous kind of double-dealing. It goes to strengthen those clericalist, Orleanist, Bonapartist, antiDreyfus and military cliques which often combine against the existing Commonwealth. Considering that, under the present educational system, the popular classes have made, at any rate, some advance, I was astonished to find in private conversation that a distinguished political economist repeated to me the old fallacy about people becoming "pauperized" by a gratuitous system of education. It is true he belongs to the old Manchester school, some adherents of which are to be found even in France.

Those whose memory goes back to the 'fifties and 'sixties know only too well in what a state of educational neglect the popular masses in England

itself were then. At that time more than 32 per cent. of the newly-married could not sign their names—namely, 26 per cent. of the bridegrooms, and 37 per cent. of the brides. In some English counties the number of the unlettered was over 56 per cent. Such was the result of the hypocritical fear of "pauperizing" the people by gratuitous instruction.

The still backward state of the large rural population in France is always a menace to the Republic. When Paris also goes wrong politically, that danger becomes great indeed. The "City of Light," to use Victor Hugo's phrase, lost its head at Boulanger's time completely. Had the "brave General" not been kept back (in truly French manner), from action at the last moment, and persuaded to fly by his paramour, over whose grave he afterwards shot himself at Brussels when he had become penniless, the fate of the Republic would have been sealed.

Now, in the last municipal elections Paris has once more gone wrong. From being formerly Red it has this time voted Black, at the beck and call of the military anti-Dreyfus gang. Such is the explanation given in letters from French friends.

Whilst we were at Paris, shortly before those elections, the friends with whom I discussed the situation did not foresee any coming trouble either in municipal affairs, which were on the point of being decided, or in Parliament, which was not then in session. I expressed a different view. So little did a distinguished member of the House of Deputies apprehend a coming row in that rather turbulent Assembly, that when I asked him on what day the sittings would begin again, he actually confessed that he did not know; and he seemed to care very little. Yet, no sooner was the Chamber opened than there followed a terribly stormy scene,

which led to General de Galliffet's resignation. It showed once more what dangers are lurking under the parliamentary surface. Not from increased ill-health did the pitiless slaughterer of the Commune resign, but because he would not go to the full desirable length against former military comrades, even though, for a while, he had acted with a firm hand against some of the worst offenders.

I may say that when General Galliffet was first appointed by President Loubet as a sort of terrifying Saviour of the imperilled Republic, I expressed strong apprehensions to an old friend, a well-known scientist, who had gone through the Revolution of 1848 and the coup d'état of 1851, and who thus became, for a time, a prisoner and an exile. I thought Galliffet himself had to be watched very closely. This view was held by my French friend to be one of unnecessary alarm. Now, however, both he and another old associate practically acknowledge that Galliffet could not be trusted any longer in his dealing with the military clique. Of General André, who has been put in his place, I am informed that "he is of no importance whatever, but devoted to the Republic-which is a point not to be neglected."

My personal experience, strangely enough, has been for years to this effect, that otherwise careful and perspicacious French politicians often seem to lose the power of correct judgment shortly before a fatal event or a highly critical contingency. Fortunately the Republic has had a great deal of luck in her many troublous complications, which are marked by the names of Marshal MacMahon; Gambetta, the demagogic Cæsarist; Boulanger; and the conspiratory group of deeply-tainted military men of recent date. It must, however, not be forgotten that if a considerable section of the Parisian masses goes wrong, the public peril

becomes such that only an ambitious general, who can draw a few regiments after him, is required for undoing the Republic.

Since Napoleon III rebuilt Paris on a plan he had already formed as an exile-that is, by cutting large, straight streets across the town for the effective operation of ordnance-resistance by building barricades has become wellnigh impossible. Let us hope that a coming man is not hidden somewhere who will one day suddenly and dictatorially make an end of a state of things which so frequently verges upon a collapse. Were a coup d'état carried out, it would inevitably lead to war as a means of escaping from internal difficulties created by the distracting condition of Opposition parties. This ever-recurring cycle of revolution, reaction, war and revolution again, has marked the history of France since 1789. And a similar possibility has to be reckoned with.

The gathering clouds in the Far East are another evil omen of coming conflicts which may tax the whole strength of England. The Czar, with all his dulcet profession of humane care for the peace of the world, has quickly enough made use of the South African entanglement-first, by impressing the Ameer of Afghanistan through a show of military force at the frontier; secondly, by putting Persia under Muscovite financial control; thirdly, by harrying Turkey in the matter of railways in northern Asia Minor. These three feats are indicative of well-known ulterior designs of Czardom.

I have before me a letter of twelve pages, with large additional enclosures, from an Indian friend, who dwells on the great discontent prevailing in his native country. He belongs to an ancient Mohammedan family, whose members have been often in native Government service. He himself having studied in England and formed

good connections in high social circles here, has for years been such an admirer of the institutions of this country that he generally spoke of it as his "home." In a "Farewell to London" he said, years ago:

"On my return, I shall carry with me many lively recollections, and a deep and inexpressible sense of gratitude towards those with whom I have come in contact, and of respect and honor for the English race in general, infinitely exceeding that which I felt when I first landed in England."

In a pamphlet, "The Bulwark of India," the same author strongly took sides with England as against Russia's designs on Afghanistan. Wise words of warning were also uttered by him on the bad treatment of Indians by English officials and residents.

The alarm pervading the palace at Kabul just now, owing to Russian procedure, has had its significant echo in communications recently made to me by the former Chief Secretary of the Ameer. Under such circumstances, I believe the letter of the Indian friend mentioned, who has hitherto been so warm an admirer of England, and whose continued loyalty is not to be doubted, is a noteworthy sign. He now feels indescribably disappointed and shocked. I pass over what he says approvingly of what I have written on South African affairs. He then goes on:

"In my opinion, those who have read Sir Edward Clarke's speeches, Mr. Frederic Harrison's Open Letter to Lord Salisbury, Mr. John Morley's speeches, etc., cannot but come to any conclusion other than that this war is one of the most cruel, unjust, and inhuinan wars. It is difficult to believe that a country like England, the nursery of freedom and independence, should wage it against a people so weak and insignificant as the Boers. Say whatever Lord Salisbury and his asso