TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE ISSUES OF M. GAMBETTA'S CAMPAIGN.
WE pointed out last week how unfortunate had been M. Gambetta's policy in giving so sectarian a tone of Radicalism, so revolutionary a temper, rather than doctrine (for we do not believe that M. Gambetta meant anything more than a summons to the Radicals to be active and vigi- lant), to his speech at Grenoble,—how doubly injudicious it was in a statesman who was then and there explaining to France her liability to accesses of irrational panic and the necessity of guarding against them. As the panic, accurately remarked, the Radicalism just at present so much feared in France means no special doctrine at all,—neither secular education, nor universal military service, nor even unlimited liberty of the press and of speech, for all these are advocated by men who inspire no fear at all,—what it does mean is "an absolute, haughty, trenchant, wounding manner of speaking, and an exclusive spirit in relation to persons." "It is not a political doctrine, but a defect of character, a disagree- able humour," a humour the reverse of persuasive, a humour terrifying, scaring, paralysing all who have any hesitation in yielding it their sympathy. That is very just, and that is precisely the fault of which M. Gambetta's speech at Grenoble, —showing therein in such strange contrast -with the speech he delivered at Ferte in July,—was full. He gave to 'Radicalism,'—as Mr. Bright has too often given,—the air not of a persuasive and generous popular belief, but of a stern and suspicious religious Inquisition. The fault was great,— though not, we suspect, altogether intentional,—and we deeply regret it ; but we were hardly prepared for the frightful display of weakness on all sides which the speech has elicited, not only in France, but in Europe. In France, the most moderate papers have been shrieking themselves hoarse in denunciation of M. Gambetta, in horror at the confusion he has caused. The De'bats, for instance, which one day described the results of M. Gambetta's speech as being "much ado about nothing," is itself responsible for a very great share in the "much ado," which is the less creditable, as it considers M. Gambetta himself only responsible for "nothing." M. John Lemoinne has, as one writer very justly describes it, hardly released his gripe of M. Gambetta's throat for a single day "since the Grenoble speech ; and yet he would have the world believe that M. Gambetta's speech is of no consequence ! The truth is, that it is of a great deal more consequence than it ought to be, even in relation to France alone. - France has no choice of statesmen. Anything which tends to alarm the public mind about the one man who seemed capable of succeeding to M. Thiers, is a blow for which there is no remedy. If M. Gambetta is to be impossible, who is to be possible ? Yet M. Gambetta will be impossible if he makes the Rural party in France look upon him as a hard and stern taskmaster, who demands a creed of orthodox Radicalism as the sine gad non of political toleration. It is a terrible mis- fortune for any country to be so dependent on the temperament of a single man,—as to pass from hot fits to cold fits just as the politician of the hour may happen to pass from a mood of tranquil self-confidence to a mood of nervous irritability. But we must say that the French statesmen and Press parade their anguish of mind with even indecent unreserve. What can be more mischievous than to aggravate the terror of France by Showing this abject excitement about one able states- man's fault? General Changarnier is goose enough to call Gambetta a public "insultenr," and to speak of him as "that man." M. Victor Lefranc, the Home Minister, publicly brands M. Gambetta as the enemy of the Government ; and M. Thiers, the head of the State, declares as publicly that M. Gambetta has greatly delayed the evacuation of French territory,—which is publishing to the world the external estimate of M. Gambetta's importance. From journalist to statesman everybody in France cries out that M. Gambetta is bringing ruin on the Republic, and then they lay all the blame on poor M. Gambetta. Surely M. Gambetta is right, and the blame should be partly laid on the unseemly French fear which thus makes of the false step of one man a calamity to the whole nation. It is lamentable, it is disgraceful that France should thus lose heart and courage be- cause a single person of ability happens to lose his temper, or to allow his digestion to affect his judgment. M. Gambetta had as much right to attack the National Assembly as Mr. Cavendish- Bentinck had the other day to attack the House of Commons, and though the former event could hardly have been quite as unimportant as the latter, it is unmanly to burst forth in this hysterical fashion at the blunder he has committed, and it is most discouraging to all the friends of France to behold such an outburst. Indeed, the most important revelation resulting from M. Gambetta's speech is not that of the defective judgment of the orator,—which may be retriev- able,—but that of the weakness and immoderate impression- ability of France. Till the views of individuals are of less importance in that country, how are we to entertain honest. hopes of its political future But it is not in relation to France only that M. Gambetta's speech has shown us a peril of the nature and extent of which we had no adequate notion. There seems to be no manner of doubt. thatthe Russian Minister of the Interior, M. Timaschef, after having paid M. Thiers a visit of private congratulation, returned soon after M. Gambetta's Grenoble speech to say that he must. withdraw in part that congratulation if M. Gambetta's oratory were to be permitted, and worse still, that if France were to be turned into the (foyer) focus of revolution, Russia and other Powers would be compelled to smother the flame (",e'touferaient ce foyer"). That is asserted and reasserted by the Times' correspondent in Paris, and he declares that two other Powers. held (also privat ely) the same language, while the French Govern- ment has only said in denial that no official representations have been made on the subject, which is no doubt true. What a revelation we have here as to the weakness of Europe No- doubt it is perfectly true that Russia, Germany, and Auatria equally fear anything like an outburst of French Radicalism, and think it might lead to terrible results in their own political worlds,—but their panic must be severe indeed, if they are really proposing to themselves to threaten international interference to extinguish any such out- break. Why, that is sheer fuel to the flames What could be more stimulating to any genuine Liberalism than to be told that it should speak only under peril of foreign invasion? If Sir Charles Dilke could get Germany or Russia to make any such intimation to Great Britain, his party, from being an insignificant and feeble collection of disunited men, would be- come formidable and powerful by magic. Russia or any other foreign power that has really threatened interference to put. down M. Gambetta, must be simply out of its mind with rage and cowardice. You might as well pour undiluted spirits down the throat of a man in brain-fever as tell the Radical party in any State in Europe that they must be silent under threat of foreign invasion. We trust Prince Bismarck has made no. blunder of this kind, though we know only too well that he does fear bitterly the contagion of French Liberalism, and that his campaign against the Roman Catholics is in great measure an attempt to find a vent,—a false vent,-- for that Liberalism which he so much fears. But we confess ourselves shocked at this clear evidence of the tendency in Europe to a new Holy Alliance nominally for the suppression,— really for the stimulation,—of extreme views ; and we shall re- gret as we have never done before the wane of British influ- ence on the Continent, if these threats against free speech are to be launched at any power whatever by the despotic ministers. of Eastern Europe. We believe Prince Bismarck far too able a Minister to have joined in these threats, whatever he may think of the wisdom of fulfilling them, for he must know that
statesmen vetoed by neighbouring Powers gain a great deal more popularity than they lose. But we do fear
that M. Timaschef expressed Prince Bismarck's thoughts ; and that Germany is now buying a temporary immunity from agitation solely by putting her own Radicals on the false and mischievous scent of persecuting a faith which is only really popular so long as it is waging war with the Civil power.
Previous page
