ernment; we do not possess the republican virtues of independence and self-respect, without which there can be no genuine republic. We love to deceive both ourselves and others. It is the "name" of liberty that we affect: the "thing" itself is unknown to us.
Is it to be wondered at that Sir Charles Dilke, fresh from brighter countries, like the United States, where self-government is a reality, should have misconstrued the reply of an oracle so ambiguous and untrustworthy? But no harm has been done by his miscalculation,—rather much good. The country has been made to know that it has at least one public man of first-rate ability and dauntless courage, who is not afraid to reconcile administrative practice with the best political theory whenever the people are prepared to abandon their unworthy idols, and to look the facts of history, experience, and common sense straight in the face.
And, as for Sir Charles, he is an imperturbable, good-natured man, who doubtless considers that he took ample revenge on his unscrupulous calumniators when he published anonymously his clever brochure, the "Fall of Prince Florestan of Monaco." Several leading Tory journals advised him to lay the lessons taught by the Radical Prince of Monaco to heart. How he must have chuckled! It is only natures of the largest and healthiest mould that are thus capable of looking amusedly at the comical aspect of their own doings. In the domain of current domestic legislation. Sir Charles has played no unimportant part. It is to him we owe the popular constitution of our school boards, it having been Mr. Forster's original intention to intrust the duties of school management to committees of boards of guardians.
