Mr. Gladstone spoke French perfectly, but he asked my permission--this is a characteristic trait which shows the practical and cautious mind of the great statesman of the Anglo-Saxon race--to carry on the conversation in English because, as he said, he was more certain of the accuracy of his expressions in his own language. “The accuracy of his expressions!”----Does that not teach one a remarkable lesson? Here is an eminent Minister who has grown old in politics and is accustomed to the most important and difficult conversations. He finds himself in the presence of one who is young enough to be his son, and he takes serious precautions to guarantee the sureness of his speech and the accuracy of his expressions! I learnt the lesson and followed his example. I accepted his proposal and asked for reciprocity--that is to say, for permission for me to answer in French. Our conversation was therefore carried on in two languages, Mr. Gladstone speaking English and I replying in French. The first point we discussed was the election of a National Assembly. On this matter Mr. Gladstone gave utterance to an opinion which well marks the difference between him and Lord Granville. I have faithfully set down Lord Granville’s views, and the reader has seen how insistently he advised the election, in any manner whatsoever, of a National Assembly. Now here is what Mr. Gladstone thought on this matter:-- Should one proceed to elections, said he, or should one not even think of such a thing under existing circumstances? That is purely and essentially a domestic question, which concerns no one outside the French Government. The French Government is the only judge, and a sovereign judge, of that question; and no foreign nation has the right to be heard on the desirability of this measure. But Mr. Gladstone, like Lord Granville, could not see the impossibility of holding Elections without an armistice, and said that, if he were entitled to offer his advice to the French Government, he would counsel them to do so. But he did not refuse to recognise that there were very good grounds for a contrary opinion. If one cannot go so far as to declare, said he, that it is materially impossible to call a National Assembly, at least there is what may be called a moral impossibility. Because the dignity of the elections would suffer very much from the presence of the enemy and the actual condition of the country.