It　is　important　to　the　success　of　my　defence；　that　I　should　vindicate　myself　from　this　reproach；　and　since；　while　perceiving　in　myself　other　faults　of　a　different　character；　I　still　adhere　in　this　particular　to　my　disputatious　style；　it　is　right　that　I　should　give　my　reasons　for　my　conduct。　　I　act；　not　from　inclination；　but　from　necessity。
  I　say；　then；　that　I　treat　my　authors　as　I　do　for　two　reasons：　a　REASON　OF　RIGHT；　and　a　REASON　OF　INTENTION；　both　peremptory。
  1。　Reason　of　right。　　When　I　preach　equality　of　fortunes；　I　do　not　advance　an　opinion　more　or　less　probable；　a　utopia　more　or　less　ingenious；　an　idea　conceived　within　my　brain　by　means　of　imagination　only。　　I　lay　down　an　absolute　truth；　concerning　which　hesitation　is　impossible；　modesty　superfluous；　and　doubt　ridiculous。
  But；　do　you　ask；　what　assures　me　that　that　which　I　utter　is　true？
  What　assures　me；　sir？　　The　logical　and　metaphysical　processes　which　I　use；　the　correctness　of　which　I　have　demonstrated　by　a　priori　reasoning；　the　fact　that　I　possess　an　infallible　method　of　investigation　and　verification　with　which　my　authors　are　unacquainted；　and　finally；　the　fact　that　for　all　matters　relating　to　property　and　justice　I　have　found　a　formula　which　explains　all　legislative　variations；　and　furnishes　a　key　for　all　problems。　　Now；　is　there　so　much　as　a　shadow　of　method　in　M。　Toullier；　M。　Troplong；　and　this　swarm　of　insipid　commentators；　almost　as　devoid　of　reason　and　moral　sense　as　the　code　itself？　　Do　you　give　the　name　of　method　to　an　alphabetical；　chronological；　analogical；　or　merely　nominal　classification　of　subjects？　　Do　you　give　the　name　of　method　to　these　lists　of　paragraphs　gathered　under　an　arbitrary　head；　these　sophistical　vagaries；　this　mass　of　contradictory　quotations　and　opinions；　this　nauseous　style；　this　spasmodic　rhetoric；　models　of　which　are　so　common　at　the　bar；　though　seldom　found　elsewhere？　　Do　you　take　for　philosophy　this　twaddle；　this　intolerable　pettifoggery　adorned　with　a　few　scholastic　trimmings？　　No；　no！　a　writer　who　respects　himself；　never　will　consent　to　enter　the　balance　with　these　manipulators　of　law；　misnamed　JURISTS；　and　for　my　part　I　object　to　a　comparison。
  2。　Reason　of　intention。　　As　far　as　I　am　permitted　to　divulge　this　secret；　I　am　a　conspirator　in　an　immense　revolution；　terrible　to　charlatans　and　despots；　to　all　exploiters　of　the　poor　and　credulous；　to　all　salaried　idlers；　dealers　in　political　panaceas　and　parables；　tyrants　in　a　word　of　thought　and　of　opinion。　　I　labor　to　stir　up　the　reason　of　individuals　to　insurrection　against　the　reason　of　authorities。
  According　to　the　laws　of　the　society　of　which　I　am　a　member；　all　the　evils　which　afflict　humanity　arise　from　faith　in　external　teachings　and　submission　to　authority。　　And　not　to　go　outside　of　our　own　century；　is　it　not　true；　for　instance；　that　France　is　plundered；　scoffed　at；　and　tyrannized　over；　because　she　speaks　in　masses；　and　not　by　heads？　　The　French　people　are　penned　up　in　three　or　four　flocks；　receiving　their　signal　from　a　chief；　responding　to　the　voice　of　a　leader；　and　thinking　just　as　he　says。　　A　certain　journal；　it　is　said；　has　fifty　thousand　subscribers；　assuming　six　readers　to　every　subscriber；　we　have　three　hundred　thousand　sheep　browsing　and　bleating　at　the　same　cratch。　　Apply　this　calculation　to　the　whole　periodical　press；　and　you　find　that；　in　our　free　and　intelligent　France；　there　are　two　millions　of　creatures　receiving　every　morning　from　the　journals　spiritual　pasturage。　　Two　millions！　　In　other　words；　the　entire　nation　allows　a　score　of　little　fellows　to　lead　it　by　the　nose。
  By　no　means；　sir；　do　I　deny　to　journalists　talent；　science；　love　of　truth；　patriotism；　and　what　you　please。　　They　are　very　worthy　and　intelligent　people；　whom　I　undoubtedly　should　wish　to　resemble；　had　I　the　honor　to　know　them。　　That　of　which　I　complain；　and　that　which　has　made　me　a　conspirator；　is　that；　instead　of　enlightening　us；　these　gentlemen　command　us；　impose　upon　us　articles　of　faith；　and　that　without　demonstration　or　verification。　　When；　for　example；　I　ask　why　these　fortifications　of　Paris；　which；　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