Year: 1879

French Republic assured HERALD cor
respondent that it was a mistake to sup
pose that the French Ministry as then con-
stituted was not of one opinion on all
points of public policy at that moment on
the carpet, and was not in full harmony
with the Executive. ''For reports to the
contrary" he said as to the first point,
"there is no foundation" Upon the second
point he explicitly declared ''the President
of the Republic and his Ministers are per-
fectly agreed as to their policy" He further
believed that the Ministry could command
a majority on the only measures on whlchlt
was in opposition to energetic elements the
Legislature. As Ministry can only 60 to
pieces through internal differences or the
opposition of a majority to the policy upon
which it is agreed, it followed from this
that the position of the administration In
France was impregnable or that President
Grevy was not we'll informed as to the rela-
tions of his Cabinet to public opinion. 1t
was an almost inevitable conclusion. there
fore, that the Cabinet was safe, and this fact
was demonstrated by the vote of ''unqual-
| flied confidence" given December by 243
| against LAT.


And yet the telegrams from France which
touch upon politics constantly deal with
the subject of an impending dissolution of
the Cabinet. From all the ordinary chan
nels of public opinion may be gathered a
general conviction that would only be
justified in the view of practical politics
if the vote above stated had been given to
the exactly contrary effect-a conviction
that the Ministry is not vital organ of the
| popular will, and stands at the edge of I'm
abyss into which it may be plunged
by any trivial parliamentary accident.
Here is what seems to US an unusual if not
altogether novel, circumstance in the tao
tics and moralities Of representative gov
ernment--the existence of some other stand
ard of validity than the support of a ma
jority on issues actually made and brought
to vote; the supremacy of an opinion
that is the issue of intrigue in the face of
contrary declaration from the legitimate
organs of the popular will. This is as
| if upon point of legislation in our own
Congress the voice of the lobby should
be accepted as authoritative on point
which Congress had by vote previously
determined in the other way. NJ Wad-
dington scarcely went too far when he said
that the attitude of those who hold that
ssthe government is at sea- rests upon
total misconception of parliamentary gov
| ernment.


But it rather appears to US that the parties
in the French Assembly are somewhat con-
fused in their political reckoning through
confounding two different methods in free
government-that by party lines as it exists
in this country and that by ministerial re-
sponsibility as it exists in England. In this
country parties lay down their presumed
principles by platform. The platform is
the statement of their creed. Its paragraphs
are the several articles of political faith,
more or less ingenuously set forth. As q
party is presumably an aggregation of the
men Of the country who take one side or
the other on points of public policy the
platform is a summary statement of what
these points are and what side is taken.
Upon this platform, therefore, the party
stands, and in SO far as the party is logical
and honest it is inseparable from its decla-
ration of principles. It comes into power
on these issues and is responsible to the
country for its conduct with regard to them.
The Cabinet is chosen from regard to the
known relation of public men to these
issues. In short, whole campaign and the
whole activity of an administration are
framed on a programme thus set forth.
| But the method by Ministerial responsible
ity. in which the possession of majority
for any project presented is the condition
OF administrative permanency, is totally diff
ferent--so different that fair comparison
of the two is barely possible.


Now the method which prevails in France.
and which is assured by the constitution,
is that of Ministerial responsibility 10 the
vote of majority on defined issue, or
more generally on declaration of conf
dence or the want of confidence; but the
republicans are endeavoring to subject the
government to the will of their party as
declared by programme or platform-this
platform being declaration of the prin-
ciples upon which several factions of repub-
licans are able to agree. And it is because
the government declines to recognize the va
lidity Of this proceeding that the republican
factions fill the air with vaccinations OF its
doom. 1t is held by the press and the pub
lie that the government which the republi-
cans are against must fall, and. further, that
| the republicans must be furiously against
this government because Of the want of
harmony on this point; but the truth is
that while the republicans denounce the
government for its refusal to accept re-
sponsibility to q caucus or to any other
fact than vote Of the Chamber ON o we'll
defined point, they cannot force to legit.
innate issue the hostility they pretend, for
if their very programme could, as whole,