"It is said that some day a commonwealth will be our government. Now, history and experience show that you cannot have a republic unless you possess at the same time the republican virtues. But you answer: Have we not public spirit? Have we not the practice of self-government? Are not we gaining general education? Well, if you can show me a fair chance that a republic here will be free from the political corruption that hangs about the monarchy, I say, for my part--and I believe that the middle classes in general will say--let it come." This was the abstract avowal of a theoretical preference, which Sir Charles expressed with greater clearness and decision than others who professed it--than Fawcett, who preached Republicanism at Cambridge, or than Chamberlain; whose attitude is sufficiently indicated by the letter which he wrote to Dilke on seeing the very violent leader with which the _Times_ greeted the Newcastle speech: "I am glad to see that you have raised the Philistine indignation of the _Times_ by your speech at Newcastle, which, as well as that at Manchester, I have read with interest and agreement." 'Going on beyond my utterances, or indeed my belief, Chamberlain added: '"The Republic must come, and at the rate at which we are moving it will come in our generation. The greater is the necessity for discussing its conditions beforehand, and for a clear recognition of what we may lose as well as what we shall gain."' The essence of Republicanism to Sir Charles was equality of opportunity for all citizens in a well-ordered State. His theoretical avowal of Republicanism was seized upon by all who were offended by his lack of deference in dealing with a matter so nearly connected with Royalty. Charges of treason were made against the member of Parliament who, in defiance of his oath of allegiance, proposed to overthrow the monarchy. This general outcry did not begin till the _Times_ leader had circulated for a few days. But within a week the whole Press had broken out in fury. The London correspondent of the _New York Tribune_ reported that "Sir Charles Dilke's speech competes with the Tichborne trial" as a subject of public comment. There was a second article in the _Times_ The _Spectator_ imputed to Dilke a want both of sense and decency, and declared that he "talked sheer vulgar nonsense and discourteous rubbish in order to mislead his audience." But as the correspondent of the _New York Tribune_ said: "No one proved or attempted to prove that Sir Charles Dilke had misstated facts."