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　opens　his　ears；　he　is　all　attention；　and；　if　I　do　not　succeed　in　convincing　him；　at　least　I　give　his　thought　an　impulse；　and　set　him　the　wholesome　example　of　doubt　and　free　examination。
  Then　do　not　think；　sir；　that；　in　tripping　up　the　philosophy　of　your　very　learned　and　very　estimable　confrere；　M。　Troplong；　I　fail　to　appreciate　his　talent　as　a　writer　（in　my　opinion；　he　has　too　much　for　a　jurist）；　nor　his　knowledge；　though　it　is　too　closely　confined　to　the　letter　of　the　law；　and　the　reading　of　old　books。　　In　these　particulars；　M。　Troplong　offends　on　the　side　of　excess　rather　than　deficiency。　　Further；　do　not　believe　that　I　am　actuated　by　any　personal　animosity　towards　him；　or　that　I　have　the　slightest　desire　to　wound　his　self…love。　　I　know　M。　Troplong　only　by　his　〃Treatise　on　Prescription；〃　which　I　wish　he　had　not　written；　and　as　for　my　critics；　neither　M。　Troplong；　nor　any　of　those　whose　opinion　I　value；　will　ever　read　me。　　Once　more；　my　only　object　is　to　prove；　as　far　as　I　am　able；　to　this　unhappy　French　nation；　that　those　who　make　the　laws；　as　well　as　those　who　interpret　them；　are　not　infallible　organs　of　general；　impersonal；　and　absolute　reason。
  I　had　resolved　to　submit　to　a　systematic　criticism　the　semi…　official　defence　of　the　right　of　property　recently　put　forth　by　M。　Wolowski；　your　colleague　at　the　Conservatory。　　With　this　view；　I　had　commenced　to　collect　the　documents　necessary　for　each　of　his　lectures；　but；　soon　perceiving　that　the　ideas　of　the　professor　were　incoherent；　that　his　arguments　contradicted　each　other；　that　one　affirmation　was　sure　to　be　overthrown　by　another；　and　that　in　M。　Wolowski's　lucubrations　the　good　was　always　mingled　with　the　bad；　and　being　by　nature　a　little　suspicious；　it　suddenly　occurred　to　me　that　M。　Wolowski　was　an　advocate　of　equality　in　disguise；　thrown　in　spite　of　himself　into　the　position　in　which　the　patriarch　Jacob　pictures　one　of　his　sons；　_inter　duas　clitellas_；　between　two　stools；　as　the　proverb　says。　　In　more　parliamentary　language；　I　saw　clearly　that　M。　Wolowski　was　placed　between　his　profound　convictions　on　the　one　hand　and　his　official　duties　on　the　other；　and　that；　in　order　to　maintain　his　position；　he　had　to　assume　a　certain　slant。　　Then　I　experienced　great　pain　at　seeing　the　reserve；　the　circumlocution；　the　figures；　and　the　irony　to　which　a　professor　of　legislation；　whose　duty　it　is　to　teach　dogmas　with　clearness　and　precision；　was　forced　to　resort；　and　I　fell　to　cursing　the　society　in　which　an　honest　man　is　not　allowed　to　say　frankly　what　he　thinks。　　Never；　sir；　have　you　conceived　of　such　torture：　I　seemed　to　be　witnessing　the　martyrdom　of　a　mind。　　I　am　going　to　give　you　an　idea　of　these　astonishing　meetings；　or　rather　of　these　scenes　of　sorrow。
  Monday；　Nov。　　20；　1840。The　professor　declares；　in　brief；1。　That　the　right　of　property　is　not　founded　upon　occupation；　but　upon　the　impress　of　man；　2。　That　every　man　has　a　natural　and　inalienable　right　to　the　use　of　matter。
  Now；　if　matter　can　be　appropriated；　and　if；　notwithstanding；　all　men　retain　an　inalienable　right　to　the　use　of　this　matter；　what　is　property？and　if　matter　can　be　appropriated　only　by　labor；　how　long　is　this　appropriation　to　continue？questions　that　will　confuse　and　confound　all　jurists　whatsoever。
  Then　M。　Wolowski　cites　his　authorities。　　Great　God！　what　witnesses　he　brings　forward！　　First；　M。　Troplong；　the　great　metaphysician；　whom　we　have　discussed；　then；　M。　Louis　Blanc；　editor　of　the　〃Revue　du　Progres；〃　who　came　near　being　tried　by　jury　for　publishing　his　〃Organization　of　Labor；〃　and　who　escaped　from　the　clutches　of　the　public　prosecutor　only　by　a　juggler's　trick；＇1＇　Corinne；I　mean　Madame　de　Stael；who；　in　an　ode；　making　a　poetical　comparison　of　the　land　with　the　waves；　of　the　furrow　of　a　plough　with　the　wake　of　a　vessel；　says　〃that　property　exists　only　where　man　has　left　his　trace；〃　which　makes　property　dependent　upon　the　solidity　of　the　elements；　Rousseau；　the　apostle　of　liberty　and　equality；　but　who；　according　to　M。　Wolowski；