The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, FEB. 6. 1882.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6535, 6 February 1882, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, FEB. 6. 1882.

Self-government has come to sit as easily on the French as upon Englishmen or Americans. The late crisis is not the first that has passed oyer without any serions consequence to the constitutional machinery, or disturbance to the liberties of the people. But it is the first Ministerial crisis which was regarded as dangerous. As all former Ministerial changes that have taken place during the third Republic were regarded as the changing of puppets at the will of M. Gambetta, the virtual ruler of France, no significance was attached to them. Thus it happens that the Ministerial crisis which overtook M. Gambetta’s own Ministry—after he had abandoned the role of king maker for that of king in his own person—is entitled to rank as equal in interest to the straggles which France has seen during the century for supreme power. Englishmen are fond of expressing wonder that their neighbours over the Channel should ever allow their political differences to lead to bloodshed. The fact they ascribe to some inherent inaptitude, in the French nature, for compromise. But Englishmen have in the shock of parties no private wrongs to avenge. The great French Revolution, left a hideous record of terror calling for vengeance. Every change daring half the century that followed was accompanied by bloodshed which called for bloodshed in return. Louis Napoleon with his horrible coup d’etat banished whatever hope of political compromise may have remained. He filled the ears of men with the blood of the innocent, making them deaf to the voice of reason. His ferocious massacres of peaceful citizens going about their ordinary business, were emulated by the Commune, which, in its turn, was stamped out in horrible barbarity. The world settled it that bloody reprisals must be the accompaniment of French political change for all time. But though it seemed impossible to alter the consequences of such fearful precedents, the world is being slowly put in the wrong, Thiers has given way to M'Mahon; M'Mahon has yielded to Grevy, before bis lawful time was over; election has succeeded election, with much storminess of feeling and outspokenness of language. The world looked on at each straggle in fear, and hailed its termination as a proof of the triumph

of good sense. The Jast struggle has ‘passed without even a passing cloud. The last idol has submitted quietly to be broken to pieces—no inflammatory harangues, no barricades, no risings, no arrests, no executions, no deportations, no proclamations beseeching the people to be calm. Everything has happened just as it does in England under similar circumstances. Such is the episode which brings a hopeful decade to a satisfactory termination.

As M. Gambetta goes out, M. Freycinet comes in. M. Freyoinet at once becomes responsible for the vote which overthrow his rival. The leading feature of his programme is, that reform of the Constitution is definitely postponed. In most other respects it is impossible yet to say at this distance what is the difference between the two rival platforms. M. Freyoinet, like M. Gambetta, announces that bis aim is, peace abroad and the fullest liberty t)f the subject at home. Probably he excepts the kingdom of Tunis from the first, on the ingenious assumption that that country having become a French Province cannot be included in any definition of foreign places. Probably, also, he makes a mental reservation of the religious orders, on the plausible ground that their expulsion was legal. Educationally, M. Freycinet’s policy is that of M. Ferry, who is responsible for the banishment of the .orders. Commercially, the new Premier announces a desire to do all he can to secure a renewal of the Commercial Treaty with England; and in this connection we must not forget that the Minister of Commerce, M. Tirard, is a pronounced and energetic Free Trader. In all this (except, of course, the difference on the Reform question) there is not any difference from the policy of M. Gambetta. The fallen statesman excepted Tunis from his hopes of peace abroad, and the religious orders from freedom at home. He believed in the Ferry education scheme, and he, too, was anxious for the renewal of the Commercial Treaty. The announcement of the new Minister’s programme is too bald, necessarily at the present time, to enable any opinion to be formed as to whether it differs in any important degree from M. Gambetta’s. Freyoinet and Ferry, we must bear in mind, have not always been united. Their coalition must, therefore, represent some important compromise. The only thing we know clearly of the new Ministerial programme is that on the question of constitutional reform, it differs radically from M. Gambetta’s.

Two points of the programme call for special remark. The new Ministry does not intend to convert the Rentes, or to bay the French railways for the State. The first is intended evidently as a sop to the thrifty saving population that invests so largely in the securities of its Government. A proposal to convert means a proposal to reduce interest. Now, the bulk of the French population is described by competent observers as being largely given to the pleasures of hoarding. Any attempt to interfere with these pleasures by diminishing the profits of the largest of the hoarding channels, would be fatal to any Ministry. The other proposal is instructive to the foreigner. Either the French railways do not pay sufficiently well to enable the Government to pay such an interest on the loans required for their purchase as would satisfy its moneylending subjects; or the railway companies are too impracticable in the matter of price. The latter alternative is, we should think, improbable, for in a bureaucratic country, like France care would probably have been taken at the outset to provide against such a contingency. If this supposition be true, it is clear, some critic may say, that the railways of some of the Australasian Colonies are in a more profitable condition than those of France. Now if these colonial railways enjoyed the traffic which the French railways do, their profits would be so enormous that the people would rise in rebellion against the impost. The direct profit of the French railways is evidently not much more than enough for their financial necessities. The indirect profit belongs to the nation whose resources are developed. The principle is that when the financial necessities are provided for, the traffic rates on a railway must fall. ■ Hence it is that the French, in common with other European railways, do not give greater profits than some Australasian lines. The sooner we have the principle to which we have alluded in operation in this country the better. France supplies another instance of differential rates and low tariffs.