The delegates of the League of the Republican Union of the Rights of
Paris returned from Versailles to-day, the 14th April, and published
the following reports:—
“CITIZENS,—The undersigned, chosen by you to present your programme
to the Government of Versailles, and to proffer the good offices of
the League to aid in the conclusion of an armistice, have the
honour of submitting you an account of their mission.
“The delegates, having made known to Monsieur Thiers the programme
of the League, he replied that as chief of the sole legal
government existing in France he had not to discuss the basis of a
treaty, but notwithstanding he was quite ready to treat with such
persons whom he considered as representing Republican principles,
and to acquaint them with the intentions of the chief of the
executive power.
“It is in accordance with these observations, which denote, in
fact, the true character of our mission, that Monsieur Thiers has
made the following declarations on different points of our
programme.
“Respecting the recognition of the Republic, Monsieur Thiers
answers for its existence as long as he remains in power. A
Republican state was put into his hands, and he stakes his honour
on its conservation.”
Ay! it is precisely that which will not satisfy Paris—Paris sighing for
peace and liberty. We have all the most implicit faith in Thiers’
honour. We are assured that the words, “French Republic” will head the
white Government placards as long as he remains in power. But when
Thiers is withdrawn from power—National Assemblies can be capricious
sometimes—what assures us that we shall not fall victims to a
monarchical or even an imperial restoration? Ghosts can appear in
French history as well as in Anne Radcliffe’s novels. To attempt to
consider the elected members who sit at Versailles as sincere
Republicans is an effort beyond the powers of our credulity. You see
that Thiers himself dares not speak his thoughts on what might happen
were he to withdraw from power. Thus we find ourselves, as before, in a
state of transition, and this state of transition is just what appals
us. We address ourselves to the Assembly, and ask of it, “We are
Republican; are you Republican?” And the Assembly pretends to be deaf,
and the deputies content themselves with humming under their breaths,
some the royal tune of “The White Cockade,” and others the imperial air
of “Partant pour la Syrie.” This does not quite satisfy us. It is true
that Thiers says he will maintain the form of government established in
Paris as long as he possibly can; but he only promises for himself, and
it results clearly from all this that we shall not keep the Republic
long, since its definite establishment depends in fact on the majority
in the Assembly, while the Assembly is royalist, with a slight sprinkle
of imperialism here and there. But let us continue the reading of the
reports.
“Respecting the municipal franchise of Paris, Monsieur Thiers declares
that Paris will enjoy its franchise on the same conditions as those of
the other towns, according to a common law, such as will be set forth
by the Assembly of the representatives of all France. Paris will have
the common right, nothing less and nothing more.”
This again is little satisfactory. What will this common right be? What
will the law set forth by the representatives of all France be worth?
Once more we have the most entire confidence in Thiers. But have we the
right to expect a law conformable to our wishes from an assembly of men
who hold opinions radically opposed to ours on the point which is in
fact the most important in the question—on the form of government?
“Concerning the protection of Paris, now exclusively confided to the
National Guards, Monsieur Thiers declares that he will proceed at once
to the organization of the National Guard, but that cannot be to the
absolute exclusion of the army.”
In my personal opinion, the President is perfectly right here; but from
the point of view which it was the mission of the delegates of the
Republican Union to take, is not this third declaration as evasive as
the preceding?
“Respecting the actual situation and the means of putting an end to the
effusion of blood, Monsieur Thiers declares that not recognising as
belligerents the persons engaged in the struggle against the National
Assembly, he neither can nor will treat the question of an armistice;
but he declares that if the National Guards of Paris make no hostile
attack, the troops of Versailles will make none either, until the
moment, yet undetermined, when the executive power shall resolve upon
action and commence the war.”
Oh, words! words! We are perfectly aware that Thiers has the right to
speak thus, and that all combatants are not belligerents. But what! Is
it as just as it is legal to argue the point so closely, when the lives
of so many men are at stake; and is a small grammatical concession so
serious a thing, that sooner than make it one should expose oneself to
all the horrible feelings of remorse that the most rightful conqueror
experiences at the sight of the battle-field?
“Monsieur Thiers adds: ‘Those who abandon the contest, that is to say,
who return to their homes and renounce their hostile attitude, will be
safe from all pursuit.’”
Is Thiers quite certain that he will not find himself abandoned by the
Assembly at the moment when he enters upon this path of mercy and
forgiveness?
“Monsieur Thiers alone excepts the assassins of General Lecomte and
General Clément Thomas, who if taken will be tried for the crime.”
And here he is undoubtedly right. We must have been blind indeed the
day that this double crime failed to open our eyes to the true
characters of the men who, if they did not commit it or cause it to be
committed, made at least no attempt to discover the criminals!
“Monsieur Thiers, recognising the impossibility for a great part of the
population, now deprived of work, to live without the allotted pay,
will continue to distribute that pay for several weeks longer. “Such,
citizens, is, etc., etc.”
This report is signed by A. Dessonnaz, A. Adam, and Donvallet. Alas! we
had foreseen what the result of the honourable attempt made by the
delegates of the Republican Union would be. And this result proves that
not only is the National Guard at war with the regular troops, but that
a persistent opposition is also made by the National Assembly of
Versailles to the most reasonable portion of the people of Paris. And
yet the Assembly represents France, and speaks and acts only as she is
commissioned to speak and act. The truth then is this,—Paris is
republican and France is not republican; there is division between the
capital and the country. The present convulsion, brought about by a
group of madmen, has its source in this divergence of feeling. And what
will happen? Will Paris, once more vanquished by universal suffrage,
bend her neck and accept the yoke of the provincials and rustics? The
right of these is incontestable; but will it, by reason of superiority
of numbers, take precedence of our right, as incontestable as theirs?
These are dark questions, which hold the minds of men in suspense, and
which, in spite of our desire to bring the National Assembly over to
our side, the greater part of whose members could not join us without
betraying their trust, cause us to bear the intolerable tyranny of the
men of the Hôtel de Ville, even while their sinister lucubrations
inspire us with disgust.