At the moment it seemed as if those interested in the maintenance of a corrupt system had won a signal victory, and the men who are working for the moralising of political life would have been more than human had they spoken no word of the bitterness they felt at seeing, as it seemed, their work undone and their hopes frustrated. But there are apparent defeats which mark a stage on the road to final victory, and such a stage was marked, for the people of Spain, by the fall of Moret in February, 1910. Turning to the other main body of political opinion, the Liberal party, with its offshoot, the Republicans, it is worth noting that many of these, including several of their most prominent and influential leaders, although professing republican opinions, are in reality staunch upholders of the constitutional Monarchy, their republicanism being more in the nature of a political counsel of perfection than a policy that they are actively forwarding. Thus Montero Rios, the leader of the Radical wing of the Liberals, who, if not avowedly a Republican, is closely allied to that party, recently said, _à propos_ of the split in the Liberal camp which seemed imminent after the resignation of Moret, “I have always urged that our group should submit to the leadership of Moret, because he alone can hold the party together.” Melquiades Alvarez, one of the acknowledged leaders of the Republicans, made in October, 1909, an important speech in which he offered “a final truce” with the Monarchy, and Republican support to a programme of liberty of worship, restriction of the power of the Religious Orders, neutral schools, and social reform. “With the adoption of this programme permanent stability would be afforded to the Throne on the model of the English dynasty--a crowned Republic.” And Soriano, another prominent man in that party, said about the same time “The Republican revolution should be spiritual, not material. _We do not desire to overthrow the Monarchy_, but to implant education and progress” (italics mine). The term “Republican,” as used by the men of this school of thought, seems to connote a social and political Utopia rather than a particular form of government, and “republican” principles are quite compatible with an undeviating support of the Constitutional Monarchy. These “idealist” Republicans would not thus group their party with the supporters of the Monarchy if they believed that the existence of the Throne were prejudicial to the nation. Nor would the Liberal-Monarchists accept without protest such an association with themselves, did they believe that these men were working to overthrow the Monarchy.