Our Paris Letter.

Manawatu Herald, 9 June 1894, Page 3

Our Paris Letter.

» , (from our own correspondent.) Paris, 30th March, 1894. M. Spuller has iuvented for French Parliamentary use two strange phrases whioh require elucidation il the new spirit," according to the Minister of Public Worship, is the official method of regarding matters relating to the Catholic Church. •The supremacy of the State is to be maintained — which, by the way, no one dreams of questioning — but, at the same time, the Catholic Church is not to be vexed for the gratification of Ultra- Radicals and the patrons of civil baptism. At the same time M. Spuller says, that the two pillars of the Republic — the Military Law and the School Law are to be maintained, and not the slightest modifications will be permitted. Divinity students will, as heretofore, have to serve three years in the Army, while pupils of the Normal School — the Seminary for future lay professors are exempted from this service. The "new spirit," according to M. Spuller is to maintain this inequality. Where the othev phrase, " inflexible moderation," comes in, it is not easy to discover ; still M. Spuller declares that he " will be deaf to prayers, entreaties, and menaces," but who are those praying, entreating and menacing, is not explained. It is a mystery of mysteries, but perhaps it was intended to soothe Radical Susceptibilities alarmed by the " new spirit." The French Presidential election, which will take place in the fall of this year, is beginning to occupy the attention of politicians and their organs. There seems little doubt, that M. Carnot will be the only candidate, and that he will be reelected by an overwhelming majority. Taken as a whole, M. Carnot's conception of the duties of his office has given the greatest satisfaction, and he has successfully held the balance even between warring parties'. His adversaries say, that he has carefully eliminated all possible rivals from the approaching conflict ; but it would be nearer the truth to say, that they have eliminated themselves. The Panama affair, which destroyed the prospects of so many of his rivals, was not of his seeking, and the responsibility rests on M. Carnot's Ministers, and not on M. Carnot himself. M. Carnot has also been accused of exercising a personal power in the choice of Ministers. In the first place the Constitution gives the President the most complete latitude in this respect ; and secondly, the system of Republican concentration, which has been in vogue during nearly sixteen years, prevented the regular play of Parliamentary institutions. Where there was no majority, it was impossible to select Ministers from a majority, and this fact gave M. Carnot a latitude in his choice of Ministers which he would not have possessed otherwise. *