in former times； under the influence of certain prejudices； and by means of a concurrence of extraordinary circumstances supposed for the sake of the argument to have existed； may perhaps have served to protect us； but which it is doubtful whether our descendants will ever use；when I ask； I say； on what grounds they assimilate the future to a hypothetical past； they reply that M。 Thiers； who has a great mind； has written upon this subject a report of admirable elegance and marvellous clearness。 At this I become angry； and reply that M。 Thiers does not know what he is talking about。 Why； having wanted no detached forts seven years ago； do we want them to…day？
〃Oh！ damn it；〃 they say； 〃the difference is great； the first forts were too near to us； with these we cannot be bombarded。〃 You cannot be bombarded； but you can be blockaded； and will be； if you stir。 What！ to obtain blockade forts from the Parisians； it has sufficed to prejudice them against bombardment forts！ And they thought to outwit the government！ Oh； the sovereignty of the people！ 。 。 。
〃Damn it！ M。 Thiers； who is wiser than you； says that it would be absurd to suppose a government making war upon citizens； and maintaining itself by force and in spite of the will of the people。 That would be absurd！〃 Perhaps so： such a thing has happened more than once； and may happen again。 Besides； when despotism is strong； it appears almost legitimate。 However that may be； they lied in 1833； and they lie again in 1841；those who threaten us with the bomb…shell。 And then； if M。 Thiers is so well assured of the intentions of the government； why does he not wish the forts to be built before the circuit is extended？ Why this air of suspicion of the government； unless an intrigue has been planned between the government and M。 Thiers？
〃Damn it！ we do not wish to be again invaded。 If Paris had been fortified in 1815； Napoleon would not have been conquered！〃 But I tell you that Napoleon was not conquered； but sold； and that if； in 1815； Paris had had fortifications； it would have been with them as with the thirty thousand men of Grouchy； who were misled during the battle。 It is still easier to surrender forts than to lead soldiers。 Would the selfish and the cowardly ever lack reasons for yielding to the enemy？
〃But do you not see that the absolutist courts are provoked at our fortifications？a proof that they do not think as you do。〃 You believe that； and； for my part； I believe that in reality they are quite at ease about the matter； and； if they appear to tease our ministers； they do so only to give the latter an opportunity to decline。 The absolutist courts are always on better terms with our constitutional monarchy； than our monarchy with us。 Does not M。 Guizot say that France needs to be defended within as well as without？ Within！ against whom？ Against France。 O Parisians！ it is but six months since you demanded war； and now you want only barricades。 Why should the allies fear your doctrines； when you cannot even control yourselves？ 。 。 。 How could you sustain a siege； when you weep over the absence of an actress？
〃But； finally； do you not understand that； by the rules of modern warfare； the capital of a country is always the objective point of its assailants？ Suppose our army defeated on the Rhine； France invaded； and defenceless Paris falling into the hands of the enemy。 It would be the death of the administrative power； without a head it could not live。 The capital taken； the nation must submit。 What do you say to that？〃
The reply is very simple。 Why is society constituted in such a way that the destiny of the country depends upon the safety of the capital？ Why； in case our territory be invaded and Paris besieged； cannot the legislative； executive； and military powers act outside of Paris？ Why this localization of all the vital forces of France？ 。 。 。 Do not cry out upon decentralization。 This hackneyed reproach would discredit only your own intelligence and sincerity。 It is not a question of decentralization； it is your political fetichism which I attack。 Why should the national unity be attached to a certain place； to certain functionaries； to certain bayonets？ Why should the Place Maubert and the Palace of the Tuileries be the palladium of France？
Now let me make an hypothesis。
Suppose it were written in the charter； 〃In case the country be again invaded； and Paris forced to surrender； the government being annihilated and the national assembly dissolved； the electoral colleges shall reassemble spontaneously and without other official notice； for the purpose of appointing new deputies； who shall organize a provisional government at Orleans。
If Orleans succumbs； the government shall reconstruct itself in the same way at Lyons； then at Bordeaux； then at Bayonne； until all France be captured or the enemy driven from the land。 For the government may perish； but the nation never dies。 The king； the peers； and the deputies massacred； VIVE LA FRANCE！〃
Do you not think that such an addition to the charter would be a better safeguard for the liberty and integrity of the country than walls and bastions around Paris？ Well； then！ do henceforth for administration； industry； science； literature； and art that which the charter ought to prescribe for the central government and common defence。 Instead of endeavoring to render Paris impregnable； try rather to render the loss of Paris an insignificant matter。 Instead of accumulating about one point academies； faculties； schools； and political； administrative； and judicial centres； instead of arresting intellectual development and weakening public spirit in the provinces by this fatal agglomeration；can you not； without destroying unity； distribute social functions among places as well as among persons？ Such a systemin allowing each province to participate in political power and action； and in balancing industry； intelligence； and strength in all parts of the countrywould equally secure； against enemies at home and enemies abroad； the liberty of the people and the stability of the government。
Discriminate； then； between the centralization of functions and the concentration of organs； between political unity and its material symbol。
〃Oh！ that is plausible； but it is impossible！〃which means that the city of Paris does not intend to surrender its privileges； and that there it is still a question of property。
Idle talk！ The country； in a state of panic which has been cleverly worked upon； has asked for fortifications。 I dare to affirm that it has abdicated its sovereignty。 All parties are to blame for this suicide；the conservatives； by their acquiescence in the plans of the government； the friends of the dynasty； because they wish no opposition to that which pleases them； and because a popular revolution would annihilate them； the democrats； because they hope to rule in their turn。＇1＇ That which all rejoice at having obtained is a means of future repression。 As for the defence of the country； they are not troubled about that。 The idea of tyranny dwells in the minds of all； and brings together into one conspiracy all forms of selfishness。 We wish the regeneration of society； but we subordinate this desire to our ideas and convenience。 That our approaching marriage may take place； that our business may succeed； that our opinions may triumph； we postpone reform。 Intolerance and selfishness lead us to put fetters upon liberty； and； because we cannot wish all that God wishes； we would； if it rested with us； stay the course of destiny rather than sacrifice our own interests and self…love。 Is not this an instance where the words of Solomon apply；〃_L'iniquite a menti a elle…meme_〃？
＇1＇ Armand Carrel would have favored the fortification of the capital。 〃Le National〃 has said； again and again； placing the name of its old editor by the side of the names of Napoleon and Vauban。 What signifies this exhumation of an anti…popular politician？ It signifies that Armand Carrel wished to make government an individual and irremovable； but elective； property； and that he wished this property to be elected； not by the people； but by the army。 The political system of Carrel was simply a reorganization of the pretorian guards。 Carrel also hated the _pequins_。 That which he deplored in the revolution of July was not； they say； the insurrection of the people； but the victory of the people over the soldiers。 That is the reason why Carrel； after 1830； would never support the patriots。 〃Do you answer me with a few regiments？〃 he asked。 Armand Carrel regarded the armythe military poweras the basis of law and government。 This man undoubtedly had a moral sense within him； but he surely had no sense of justice。 Were he still in this world； I declare it boldly； liberty would have no greater enemy than Carrel。
It is said that on this question of the fortification of Paris the staff of 〃Le National〃 are not agreed。 This would prove； if proof were needed； that a journal may blunder and falsify； without entitling any one to accuse its editors。 A journal is a metaphysical being； for which no one is really responsible； and which owes its existence solely to mutual concessions。 This idea ought to frighten those worthy citizens who； because they borrow their opinions from a journal； imagine that they belong to a political party； and who have not the faintest suspicion that they are really without a head。
For this reason； sir； I have enlisted in a desperate war against every form of authority over the multitude。 Advance sentinel of the proletariat； I cross bayonets with the celebrities of the day； as well as with spies and charlatans。 Well； when I am fighting with an illustrious adversary； must I stop at the end of every phrase； like an orator in the tribune； to say 〃the learned author；〃 〃the eloquent writer；〃 〃the profound publicist；〃 and a hundred other platitudes with which it is fashionable to mock people？ These civilities seem to me no less insulting to the man attacked than dishonorable to the aggressor。 But when； rebuking an author； I say to him； 〃Citizen； your doctrine is absurd； and； if to prove my assertion is an offence against you； I am guilty of it；〃 immediately the listener