THE MANIFESTO OF THE COUNCIL--THE COMPLEMENTARY ELECTIONS OF
THE 16TH APRIL SHOW A MINORITY WITHIN THE COUNCIL--FIRST
DISPUTES--THE GERMS OF DEFEAT.
For the second time the situation was distinctly marked out. If the
Council did not know how to define the Commune, was it not in the most
unmistakable manner, and before the eyes of all Paris, declared to mean
a camp of rebels by the fighting, the bombardment, the fury of the
Versaillese, and the rebuff of the conciliators? The complementary
elections of the 16th April--death, double election returns, and
resignations had given thirty-one vacant seats--revealed the effective
forces of the insurrection. The illusion of the 26th March had vanished;
the votes were now taken under fire. Also the journals of the Commune
and the delegates of the Syndical Chambers in vain summoned the electors
to the ballot-box. Out of 146,000 who had mustered in these
arrondissements at the election of the 26th March, there came now only
61,000. The arrondissements of the councillors who had deserted their
seats gave 16,000 instead of 51,000 votes.
It was now or never the moment to explain their programme to France. The
Executive Commission had on the 6th, in an address to the provinces,
protested against the calumnies of Versailles, but had confined itself
to the statement that Paris fought for all France, and had not set forth
any programme. The Republican protestations of M. Thiers, the hostility
of the extreme Left, the desultory decrees, had completely led astray
the provinces. It was necessary to set them right at once. On the 19th,
a commission charged to draw up a programme presented its work, or
rather the work of another. Sad and characteristic symbol this; the
declaration of the Commune did not emanate from the Council, its twelve
publicists notwithstanding. Of the five members charged to draw up the
project, only Delescluze contributed some passages; the technical part
was the work of a journalist, Pierre Denis.
In the _Cri du Peuple_ he had taken up and formulated as a law the whim
of _Paris a free town_, hatched in the first gush of passion of the
Vauxhall meetings. According to this legislator, Paris was to become a
Hanseatic town, crowning herself with all liberties, and from the height
of her proud fortress say to the enchained communes of France, "Imitate
me if you can; but mind, I shall do nothing for you but set an example."
This charming plan had turned the heads of several members of the
Council, and too many traces of it were visible in the declaration.
"What does Paris demand?" it said. "The recognition of the Republic.
Absolute autonomy of the Commune extended to all localities of France.
The inherent rights of the Commune are: the vote of the communal budget;
the settlement and repartition of taxes; the direction of the local
services; the organisation of its magistracy, of its internal police,
and of education; the administration of communal goods; the choice and
permanent right of control over the communal magistrates and
functionaries; the absolute guarantee of individual liberty, of the
liberty of conscience and the liberty of labour; the organisation of
urban defence and of the National Guard; the Commune alone charged with
the surveillance and assurance of the free and just exercise of the
right of meeting and of publicity.... Paris wants nothing more ... on
condition of finding in the great central administration, the delegation
of the federated communes, the realisation and practical application of
the same principle."
What were to be the powers of that central delegation, the reciprocal
obligations of the Communes? The declaration did not state these.
According to this text, every locality was to possess the right to shut
itself up within its autonomy. But what to expect of autonomy in Lower
Brittany, in nine-tenths of the French Communes, more than half of which
have not 600 inhabitants,[122] if even the Parisian declaration violated
the most elementary rights, charged the Commune with the surveillance of
the _just_ exercise of the right of meeting and of publicity, forgetting
to mention the right of association? It is notorious, it has been proved
but too well. The rural autonomous communes would be a monster with a
thousand suckers attached to the flank of the Revolution.
No! Thousands of mutes and blind are not fitted to conclude a social
pact. Weak, unorganised, bound by a thousand trammels, the people of the
country can only be saved by the towns, and the people of the towns
guided by Paris. The failure of all the provincial insurrections, even
of the large towns, had sufficiently testified this. When the
declaration said, "Unity such as has been imposed upon us until to-day
by the Empire, the monarchy and parliamentarism is only despotic,
unintelligent centralisation," it laid bare the cancer that devours
France; but when it added, "Political unity, as understood by Paris, is
the voluntary association of all local initiative," it showed that it
knew nothing whatever of the provinces.
The declaration continued, in the style of an address, sometimes to the
point: "Paris works and suffers for all France, whose intellectual,
moral, administrative, and economical regeneration she prepares by her
combats and her sufferings.... The communal revolution, commenced by the
popular initiative of the 18th March, inaugurates a new era." But in all
this there was nothing definite. Why not, taking up the formula of the
28th March, "To the commune what is communal, to the nation what is
national," define the future commune, sufficiently extended to endow it
with political life, sufficiently limited to allow its citizens easily
to combine their social action, the commune of 15,000 to 20,000 souls,
the canton-commune, and clearly set forth its rights and those of
France? They did not even speak of federating the large towns for the
conquest of their common enfranchisement. Such as it was, this
programme, obscure, incomplete, impossible in many points, could not,
spite of some generous ideas, contribute much to the enlightenment of
the provinces.
It was only a project. No doubt the Council was going to discuss it. It
was voted after the first reading. No debate, hardly an observation.
This assembly, which gave four days to the discussion on overdue
commercial bills, had not one sitting for the study of this declaration,
its programme in case of victory, its testament if it succumbed.
To make things worse, a new malady infected the Council, the germs of
which, sown for some days, were brought to full maturity by the
complementary elections. The Romanticists gave rise to the Casuists, and
both came to loggerheads on the verification of the new mandates.
On the 30th March the Council had validated six elections with a
relative majority. The reporter on the election of the 16th proposed
declaring all those candidates elected who had received an absolute
majority. The Casuists grew indignant. "This would be," said they, "the
worst blow that any Government had dealt universal suffrage." But it was
impossible to go on continually convoking the electors. Three of the
most devoted arrondissements had given no result; one of them, the
thirteenth, being deprived of its best men, then fighting at the
advanced posts. A new ballot would only set forth in bolder relief the
isolation of the Commune; and then, is the moment of the fight, when the
battalion is decimated, deprived of its chief, the opportune time for
insisting upon a regular promotion?
The discussion was very warm, for in this outlawed Hotel-de-Ville there
sat outrageous legality-mongers. Paris was to be strangled by their
saving principles. Already, in the name of holy autonomy, which forbade
intervention with the autonomy of one's neighbour, the Executive
Commission had refused to arm the communes round Paris that asked to
march against Versailles. M. Thiers took no more efficient measure to
isolate Paris.
* * * * *
Twenty-six voices against thirteen voted the conclusions of the report.
Twenty elections only were declared valid,[123] which was illogical; one
with less than 1100 votes was admitted, another with 2500 rejected. All
the elections should have been declared valid, or none at all. Four of
the new delegates were journalists, six only workmen. Eleven sent by the
public meetings came to strengthen the Romanticists. Two whose elections
had been validated by the Council refused to sit because they had not
obtained the eighth part of the votes. The author of the admirable
_Propos de Labienus_, Rogeard, allowed himself to be deceived by a false
scruple of legality--the only weakness of this generous man, who devoted
to the Commune his pure and brilliant eloquence. His resignation
deprived the Council of a man of common sense, but once more served to
unmask the apocalyptic Felix Pyat.
* * * * *
Since the 1st April, scenting the coming storm and professing the same
horror for blows as Panurge, Felix Pyat had attempted to leave Paris,
sent in his resignation as member of the Executive Commission to the
Council, and declared his presence at Versailles indispensable. The
Versaillese hussars making the sortie too perilous, he had condescended
to stay, but at the same time assuming two masks, one for the
Hotel-de-Ville, the other for the public. In the Council, at the secret
sittings, he urged violent measures with the vivacity of a wild cat; in
the _Vengeur_ he held forth pontifically, shaking his grey hairs,
saying, "To the ballot-box, not to Versailles!" In his own paper he had
two faces. Did he want the suppression of the journals, he signed "Le
Vengeur;" did he want to cajole, he signed Felix Pyat. The defeat of
Asnieres struck him again with fear, and anew he looked out for a
loophole. The resignation of Rogeard opened it. Under the shelter of
this pure name Felix Pyat slipped in his resignation. "The Commune has
violated the law," wrote he. "I do not want to be an accomplice." And,
to debar himself from any return to the Council he involved the dignity
of the latter. If, said he, it persisted, he would be forced, to his
great regret, to send in his resignation "_before the victory_."
He had counted on stealing away as from the Assembly of Bordeaux; but
his roguery disgusted the Council. The _Vengeur_ had just blamed the
suppression of several reactionary papers demanded many and many a time
by Felix Pyat. Vermorel denounced this duplicity. One member: "It has
been said here that resignations would be considered as treason."
Another: "A man must not leave his post when that post is one of peril
and of honour." A third formally demanded the arrest of Felix Pyat. "I
regret," said another, "that it has not been distinctly laid down that
resignation can only be tendered to the electors themselves." And
Delescluze added, "Nobody has the right to withdraw for personal rancour
or because some measure does not chime in with his ideal. Do you then
believe that every one approves what is done here? Yes; there are
members who have remained, and who will remain till the end,
notwithstanding the insults hurled at us. For myself, I am decided to
remain at my post, and if we do not see victory, we shall not be the
last to fall on the ramparts or on the steps of the Hotel-de-Ville."
These manly words were received with prolonged cheers. No one's devotion
was more meritorious. The habits of Delescluze, grave and laborious, his
high aspirations, alienated him more than any other from many of his
colleagues, light-headed idlers, prone to personal bickerings. One day,
weary of this chaos, he wanted to resign. It sufficed to tell him that
his withdrawal would be very prejudicial to the cause of the people to
persuade him to remain, and await, not victory--as well as Felix Pyat he
knew that impossible--but the death that fecundates the future.
Felix Pyat, so lashed from all sides, not daring to snap at Delescluze,
turned round upon Vermorel, whom for all argument he called "spy;" and
as Vermorel was a member of the Commission of Public Safety, accused him
in the _Vengeur_ of putting out of the way evidence accumulated against
him at the prefecture of police. This member of the leporide species
called Vermorel "_bombic_." Such was his mode of discussion. Under the
veil of literary refinement lurked the amenities of Billingsgate. In
1848, in the _Constituante_, he called Proudhon "_swine_;" and in 1871,
in the _Commune_, he called Tridon "_dunghill_." He was the only member
of this Assembly, where there were workmen of rude professions, who
introduced ribaldry into the discussions.
Vermorel, replying in the _Cri du Peuple_, easily floored him. The
electors of Felix Pyat sent him three summations to remain at his post:
"You are a soldier; you must stay in the breach. It is we alone who have
the right to revoke you." Ferreted out by his mandatories, threatened
with arrest by the Council, this Greek chose the lesser danger, and
re-entered the Hotel-de-Ville in mincing attitude.
Versailles was jubilant at these miserable triflings. For the first time
the public became acquainted with the interior of the Council, its
infinitesimal coteries, made up of purely personal friendships or
antipathies. Whoever belonged to such a group got thorough support,
whatever his blunders. Far more; in order to be allowed to serve the
Commune, it was necessary to belong to such a confraternity. Many
sincerely devoted men offered themselves, tried democrats, intelligent
employes, deserters from the Government, even Republican officers. They
were overweeningly met by some incapable upstarts of yesterday, whose
devotion was not to outlast the 20th May. And yet the insufficiency of
the _personnel_ and the want of talent each day became more
overwhelming. The members of the Council complained that nothing was
getting on. The Executive Commission did not know how to command, nor
its subordinate how to obey; the Council devolved power and retained it
at the same time, interfered every moment with the slightest details of
the service; conducted the government, the administration, and the
defence like the sortie of the 3rd April.
FOOTNOTES:
[122] Seventy-three communes have more than 20,000 inhabitants; 108 have
from 10,000 to 20,000; 309 from 5000 to 10,000; 249 from 4000 to 5000;
and 581 from 3000 to 4000. There are then only 1320 communes having more
than 3000 inhabitants, 800 at most that possess any political life.
[123] Vesinier, Cluseret, Pillot, Andrieu (1st arrondissement, Louvre);
Pothier, Serraillier, J. Durand, Johannard (2nd, Bourse); Courbet,
Rogeard (6th, Luxembourg); Sicard (7th, Palais-Bourbon); Briosne (9th,
Opera); Philippe, Lonclas (12th, Reuilly); Longuet (16th, Passy); Dupont
(17th, Batignolles); Cluseret, Arnold (18th, Montmartre); Menotti
Garibaldi (19th, Buttes-Chaumont); Viard, Trinquet (20th Menilmontant).