Our Paris Letter.

Manawatu Herald, 7 December 1893, Page 2

Our Paris Letter.

(from our own correspondent ) Pakis, 9th September, 1893. At a banquet which was held on* the 23rd insfc., to celebrate the anniversary of the foundation of the Republic, M. Goblet made in important speech on the lines to be adopted by the Radical-Socialists and party in the Chamber. .The definitions are not very clear* md the aims of the party dp notfiseera likely to be '.obtained*-: Tfa^feamprise " a progressive ti^nsfojwation of the social State," which r^Siut partaking of all the ideas of Socialists would have many points ill common with them. Amongst thefce be the abolition of the monopolies: of the Bank of France and the mining and railway companies, the Separation of Church and State, and the Revision of the Constitution* ••.<£ Can we really say that we live und -elf a Republic, the government of the country by the country," said the orator, " when for several months after the general elections we remain without representation between] two assemblies, one of which has ceased to exist* and the other is not yet called into life, and the head of the executive poweiv rules ..franco alone with the -Ministers P! \MJ Goblet could not state exactly what the policy of the Chamber was likely to be. He hoped it would be Radical, but, in any case, he was j dead against " Republican Concen-. tration." He would like to; see - the Deputies arrayed in two .great parties, the larger of which would be in power. < , As to the honourable deputy, who is an ex-Minister, not much change was made by the Government while that gentleman was in power, although there were a lot of Deputies in the Chamber, who asked the Barae thing as M. Goblet now does. There is a great difference between being a candidate, and being in power, and the French proverb it

quite right by saying : " Plus qne ca change, plus e'est la mame chos?." As to the partisans of the Republic concentrating fchpy have by no mean» given up the ghost. Thoy maintain" that a homogeneous Ministry, although highly desirable, is impossible, or at least, that its formation is premature. They say, that a solid majority must be founded on a common political programme, and that then only a homogeneous Ministry can bo formed. But as there is no such political programme, there is no chance of a solid majority. Such is the view of certain chiefs of Opportunism, and it, must be confessed, that there is something in it. Nevertheless, if there is no common programme, there is a common sentiment that may well take its place, and that is the sentiment of resistance to the Ultra Radical programme. Here there is undoubtedly common ground on which a majority can take its stand, and a Ministry, representing this majority, would not be difficult to form. Indeed, the simply policy of resistance is the best of all possible programmes, because it is easier to agree upon what is not wanted, than to frame a programme on which the majority can cordially agree.