IV
The first attempt of the slaveholders' conspiracy to put down Paris by getting the Prussians to occupy it, was frustrated by Bismarck's refusal. The second attempt, that of the 18th of March, ended in the rout of the army and the flight to Versailles of the Government, which ordered the whole administration to break up and follow in its track. By the semblance of peace-negotiations with Paris, Thiers found the time to prepare for war against it. But where to find an army? The remnants of the line regiments were weak in number and unsafe in character. His urgent appeal to the provinces to succour Versailles, by their National Guards and volunteers, met with a flat refusal.(1) Brittany alone furnished a handful of Chouans[211] fighting under a white flag, every one of them wearing on his breast the heart of Jesus in white cloth, and shouting "Vive le Roi! " (Long live the King!(2)) Thiers was, therefore, compelled to collect, in hot haste, a motley crew, composed of sailors, marines, Pontifical Zouaves,[108] Valentin's gendarmes, and Piétri's sergents-de-ville and mouchards.(3) This army, however, would have been ridiculously ineffective without the instalments of imperialist war-prisoners, which Bismarck granted in numbers just sufficient to keep the civil war a-going, and keep the Versailles Government in abject dependence on Prussia. During the war itself, the Versailles police had to look after the Versailles army, while the gendarmes had to drag it on by exposing themselves at all posts of danger. The forts which fell were not taken, but bought. The heroism of the Federals convinced Thiers that the resistance of Paris was not to be broken by his own strategic genius and the bayonets at his disposal.
Meanwhile, his relations with the provinces became more and more difficult. Not one single address of approval came in to gladden Thiers and his Rurals. Quite the contrary. Deputations and addresses demanding, in a tone anything but respectful, conciliation with Paris on the basis of the unequivocal recognition of the Republic, the acknowledgment of the Communal liberties, and the dissolution of the National Assembly, whose mandate was extinct,(4) poured in from all sides, and in such numbers that Dufaure, Thiers's Minister of Justice, in his circular of April 23rd to the public prosecutors, commanded them to treat "the cry of conciliation" as a crime!(5) In regard, however, of the hopeless prospect held out by his campaign, Thiers resolved to shift his tactics by ordering, all over the country, municipal elections to take place on the 30th of April, on the basis of the new municipal law dictated by himself to the National Assembly. What with the intrigues of his prefects, what with police intimidation, he felt quite sanguine of imparting, by the verdict of the provinces, to the National Assembly that moral power it had never possessed, and of getting at last from the provinces the physical force required for the conquest of Paris.
His banditti-warfare against Paris, exalted in his own bulletins, and the attempts of his ministers at the establishment, throughout France, of a reign of terror, Thiers was from the beginning anxious to accompany with a little byplay of conciliation, which had to serve more than one purpose. It was to dupe the provinces, to inveigle the middle-class element in Paris, and, above all, to afford the professed Republicans in the National Assembly the opportunity of hiding their treason against Paris behind their faith in Thiers. On the 21st of March, when still without an army, he had declared to the Assembly:
"Come what may, I will not send an army to Paris."(6)
On the 27th March he rose again:
"I have found the Republic an accomplished fact, and I am firmly resolved to maintain it."
In reality, he put down the revolution at Lyons and Marseilles[212]
in the name of the Republic, while the roars of his Rurals drowned the very mention of its name at Versailles. After this exploit, he toned down the "accomplished fact" into an hypotheti-cal fact. The Orléans princes, whom he had cautiously warned off Bordeaux, were now, in flagrant breach of the law, permitted to intrigue at Dreux. The concessions held out by Thiers in his interminable interviews with the delegates from Paris and the provinces, although constantly varied in tone and colour, according to time and circumstances, did in fact never come to more than the prospective restriction of revenge to the
"handful of criminals implicated in the murder of Lecomte and Clément Thomas," (7)
on the well-understood premiss that Paris and France were unreservedly to accept M. Thiers himself as the best of possible Republics, as he, in 1830, had done with Louis Philippe. Even these concessions he not only took care to render doubtful by the official comments put upon them in the Assembly through his Ministers. He had his Dufaure to act. Dufaure, this old Orleanist lawyer, had always been the justiciary of the state of siege, as now in 1871, under Thiers, so in 1839 under Louis Philippe, and in 1849 under Louis Bonaparte's presidency.[213] While out of office he made a fortune by pleading for the Paris capitalists, and made political capital by pleading against the laws he had himself originated. He now hurried through the National Assembly not only a set of repressive laws which were, after the fall of Paris, to extirpate the last remnants of Republican liberty in France[214]; he foreshadowed the fate of Paris by abridging the, for him, too slow procedure of courts-martial,[215] and by a new-fangled, Draconic code of deportation. The Revolution of 1848, abolishing the penalty of death for political crimes, had replaced it by deportation. Louis Bonaparte did not dare, at least not in theory, to re-establish the régime of the guillotine. The Rural Assembly, not yet bold enough even to hint that the Parisians were not rebels, but assassins, had therefore to confine its prospective vengeance against Paris to Dufaure's new code of deportation. Under all these circumstances Thiers himself could not have gone on with his comedy of conciliation, had it not, as he intended it to do, drawn forth shrieks of rage from the Rurals, whose ruminating mind did neither understand the play, nor its necessities of hypocrisy, tergiversation, and procrastination.
In sight of the impending municipal elections of the 30th April, Thiers enacted one of his great conciliation scenes of the 27th April. Amidst a flood of sentimental rhetoric, he exclaimed from the tribune of the Assembly:
"There exists no conspiracy against the Republic but that of Paris, which compels us to shed French blood. I repeat it again and again. Let those impious arms fall from the hands which hold them, and chastisement will be arrested at once by an act of peace excluding only the small number of criminals."
To the violent interruption of the Rurals he replied:
"Gentlemen, tell me, I implore you, am I wrong? Do you really regret that I could have stated the truth that the criminals are only a handful? Is it not fortunate in the midst of our misfortunes that those who have been capable to shed the blood of Clément Thomas and General Lecomte are but rare exceptions?"(8)
France, however, turned a deal ear to what Thiers flattered himself to be a parliamentary siren's song. Out of 700,000 municipal councillors returned by the 35,000 communes still left to France, the united Legitimists, Orleanists, and Bonapartists did not carry 8,000. The supplementary elections which followed were still more decidedly hostile. Thus, instead of getting from the provinces the badly-needed physical force, the National Assembly lost even its last claim to moral force, that of being the expression of the universal suffrage of the country. To complete the discomfiture, the newly-chosen municipal councils of all the cities of France openly threatened the usurping Assembly at Versailles with a counter Assembly at Bordeaux.
Then the long-expected moment of decisive action had at last come for Bismarck. He peremptorily summoned Thiers to send to Frankfort plenipotentiaries for the definitive settlement of peace. In humble obedience to the call of his master, Thiers hastened to despatch his trusty Jules Favre, backed by Pouyer-Quertier. Pouyer-Quertier, an "eminent" Rouen cotton-spinner, a fervent and even servile partisan of the Second Empire, had never found any fault with it save its commercial treaty with England,[216]
prejudicial to his own shop-interest. Hardly installed at Bordeaux as Thiers's Minister of Finance, he denounced that "unholy" treaty, hinted at its near abrogation, and had even the effrontery to try, although in vain (having counted without Bismarck), the immediate enforcement of the old protective duties against Alsace, where, he said, no previous international treaties stood in the way. This man, who considered counter-revolution as a means to put down wages at Rouen, and the surrender of French provinces as a means to bring up the price of his wares in France, was he not the one predestined to be picked out by Thiers as the helpmate of Jules Favre in his last and crowning treason?
On the arrival at Frankfort of this exquisite pair of plenipotentiaries, bully Bismarck at once met them with the imperious alternative: Either the restoration of the Empire, or the unconditional acceptance of my own peace terms! These terms included a shortening of the intervals in which the war indemnity was to be paid, and the continued occupation of the Paris forts by Prussian troops until Bismarck should feel satisfied with the state of things in France; Prussia thus being recognized as the supreme arbiter in internal French politics! In return for this he offered to let loose, for the extermination of Paris, the captive Bonapartist army, and to lend them the direct assistance of Emperor William's troops. He pledged his good faith by making payment of the first instalment of the indemnity dependent on the "pacification" of Paris. Such a bait was, of course, eagerly swallowed by Thiers and his plenipotentiaries. They signed the treaty of peace on the 10th of May,(9) and had it endorsed by the Versailles Assembly on the 18th.
In the interval between the conclusion of peace and the arrival of the Bonapartist prisoners, Thiers felt the more bound to resume his comedy of conciliation, as his Republican tools stood in sore need of a pretext for blinking their eyes at the preparations for the carnage of Paris. As late as the 8th May he replied to a deputation of middle-class conciliators—
"Whenever the insurgents will make up their minds for capitulation, the gates of Paris shall be flung wide open during a week for all except the murderers of Generals Clement Thomas and Lecomte."
A few days afterwards, when violently interpellated on these promises by the Rurals, he refused to enter into any explanations; not, however, without giving them this significant hint: —
"I tell you there are impatient men amongst you, men who are in too great a hurry. They must have another eight days; at the end of these eight days there will be no more danger, and the task will be proportionate to their courage and to their capacities." (10) As soon as MacMahon was able to assure him that he could shortly enter Paris, Thiers declared to the Assembly that
"he would enter Paris with the laws in his hands, and demand a full expiation from the wretches who had sacrificed the lives of soldiers and destroyed public monuments."3
As the moment of decision drew near he said — to the Assembly, "I shall be pitiless!"b—to Paris, that it was doomed; and to his Bonapartist banditti, that they had State license to wreak vengeance upon Paris to their hearts' content/ At last, when treachery had opened the gates of Paris to General Douay, on the 21st May, Thiers, on the 22nd, revealed to the Rurals the "goal" of his conciliation comedy, which they had so obstinately persisted in not understanding.
"I told you a few days ago that we were approaching our goal; to-day I come to tell you the goal is reached. The victory of order, justice, and civilization is at last won!"d
So it was. The civilization and justice of bourgeois order comes out in its lurid light whenever the slaves and drudges of that order rise against their masters. Then this civilization and justice stand forth as undisguised savagery and lawless revenge. Each new crisis in the class struggle between the appropriator and the producer brings out this fact more glaringly. Even the atrocities of the bourgeois in June, 1848, vanish before the ineffable infamy of 1871. The self-sacrificing heroism with which the population of Paris — men, women, and children — fought for eight days after the entrance "of the Versaillese, reflects as much the grandeur of their cause, as the infernal deeds of the soldiery reflect the innate spirit of that civilization of which they are the mercenary vindicators. A glorious civilization, indeed, the great problem of which is how to get rid of the heaps of corpses it made after the battie was over!
To find a parallel for the conduct of Thiers and. his bloodhounds we must go back to the times of Sulla and the two Triumvirates of Rome. The same wholesale slaughter in cold blood; the same disregard, in massacre, of age and sex; the same system of torturing prisoners; the same proscriptions, but this time of a whole class; the same savage hunt after concealed leaders, lest one might escape; the same denunciations of political and private enemies; the same indifference for the butchery of entire strangers to the feud. There is but this difference, that the Romans had no mitrailleuses for the despatch, in the lump, of the proscribed, and that they had not "the law in their hands," nor on their lips the cry of "civilization."
And after those horrors, look upon the other, still more hideous, face of that bourgeois civilization as described by its own press!
"With stray shots," writes the Paris correspondent of a London Tory paper, "still ringing in the distance, and untended wounded wretches dying amid the tombstones of Père la Chaise — with 6,000 terror-stricken insurgents wandering in an agony of despair in the labyrinth of the catacombs, and wretches hurried through the streets to be shot down in scores by the mitrailleuse — it is revolting to see the cafés filled with the votaries of absinthe, billiards, and dominoes; female profligacy perambulating the boulevards, and the sound of revelry disturbing the night from the cabinets particuliers* of fashionable restaurants."13
M. Edouard Hervé writes in the Journal de Paris, a Versaillist journal suppressed by the Commune: —
"The way in which the population of Paris (!) manifested its satisfaction yesterday was rather more than frivolous, and we fear it will grow worse as time progresses. Paris has now a fête day appearance, which is sadly out of place; and, unless we are to be called the Parisiens de la décadence,0 this sort of thing must come to an end."
And then he quotes the passage from Tacitus: —
"Yet, on the morrow of that horrible struggle, even before it was completely over, Rome — degraded and corrupt — began once more to wallow in the voluptuous slough which was destroying its body and polluting its soul—alibi proelia et vulnera, alibi balneae popinaeque—(here fights and wounds,'there baths and restaurants)." d
M. Hervé only forgets to say that the "population of Paris" he speaks of is but the population of the Paris of M. Thiers — the francs-fileurs[208] returning in throngs from Versailles, Saint-Denis,
Rueil, and Saint-Germain—the Paris of the "Decline."
In all its bloody triumphs over the self-sacrificing champions of a new and better society, that nefarious civilization, based upon the enslavement of labour, drowns the moans of its victims in a hue-and-cry of calumny, reverberated by a world-wide echo. The serene working men's Paris of the Commune is suddenly changed into a pandemonium by the bloodhounds of "order." And what does this tremendous change prove to the bourgeois mind of all countries? Why, that the Commune has conspired against civilization! The Paris people die enthusiastically for the Commune in numbers unequalled in any battle known to history. What does that prove? Why, that the Commune was not the people's own government, but the usurpation of a handful of criminals! The women of Paris joyfully give up their lives at the barricades and on the place of execution. What does this prove? Why, that the demon of the Commune has changed them into Megaeras and Hecates! The moderation of the Commune during two months of undisputed sway is equalled only by the heroism of its defence. What does that prove? Why, that for months the Commune carefully hid, under a mask of moderation and humanity, the blood-thirstiness of its fiendish instincts, to be let loose in the hour of its agony!
The working men's Paris, in the act of its heroic self-holocaust, involved in its flames buildings and monuments. While tearing to pieces the living body of the proletariate, its rulers must no longer expect to return triumphantly into the intact architecture of their abodes. The Government of Versailles cries, "Incendiarism!" and whispers this cue to all its agents, down to the remotest hamlet, to hunt up its enemies everywhere as suspect of professional incendiarism. The bourgeoisie of the whole world, which looks complacently upon the wholesale massacre after the battle, is convulsed by horror at the desecration of brick and mortar!
When governments give state-licenses to their navies to "kill, burn, and destroy," is that a license for incendiarism? When the British troops wantonly set fire to the Capitol at Washington and to the summer palace of the Chinese Emperor,[218] was that incendiarism? When the Prussians, not for military reasons, but out of the mere spite of revenge, burnt down, by the help of petroleum, towns like Châteaudun and innumerable villages, was that incendiarism?(11) When Thiers, during six weeks, bombarded Paris, under the pretext that he wanted to set fire to those houses only in which there were people, was that incendiarism?—In war, fire is an arm as legitimate as any. Buildings held by the enemy are shelled to set them on fire. If their defenders have to retire, they themselves light the flames to prevent the attack from making use of the buildings. To be burnt down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world. But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good! The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence. They used it to stop up to the Versailles troops those long straight avenues which Haussmann had expressly opened to artillery-fire[203]; they used it to cover their retreat, in the same way as the Versaillese, in their advance, used their shells which destroyed at least as many buildings as the fire of the Commune. It is a matter of dispute, even now, which buildings were set fire to by the defence, and which by the attack. And the defence resorted to fire only then, when the Versaillese troops had already commenced their wholesale murdering of prisoners.— Besides, the Commune had, long before, given full public notice(12)
that, if driven to extremities, they would bury themselves under the ruins of Paris, and make Paris a second Moscow,[219] as the Government of Defence, but only as a cloak for its treason, had promised to do. For this purpose Trochu had found them the petroleum. The Commune knew that its opponents cared nothing for the lives of the Paris people, but cared much for their own Paris buildings. And Thiers, on the other hand, had given them notice that he would be implacable in his vengeance. No sooner had he got his army ready on one side, and the Prussians shutting up the trap on the other, than he proclaimed: "I shall be pitiless! The expiation will be complete, and justice will be stern!" (13) If the acts of the Paris working men were vandalism, it was the vandalism of defence in despair, not the vandalism of triumph, like that which the Christians perpetrated upon the really priceless art treasures of heathen antiquity; and even that vandalism has been justified by the historian as an unavoidable and comparatively trifling concomitant to the Titanic struggle between a new society arising and an old one breaking down. It was still less the vandalism of Haussmann, razing historic Paris to make place for the Paris of the sightseer!
But the execution by the Commune of the sixty-four hostages, with the Archbishop of Paris[3] at their head! The bourgeoisie and its army in June, 1848, re-established a custom which had long disappeared from the practice of war — the shooting of their defenceless prisoners. This brutal custom has since been more or less strictly adhered to by the suppressors of all popular commotions in Europe and India; thus proving that it constitutes a real "progress of civilization"! On the other hand, the Prussians, in France, had re-established the practice of taking hostages— innocent men, who, with their lives, were to answer to them for the acts of others. When Thiers, as we have seen, from the very beginning of the conflict, enforced the humane practice of shooting down the Communal prisoners, the Commune, to protect their lives, was obliged to resort to the Prussian practice of securing hostages. The lives of the hostages had been forfeited over and over again by the continued shooting of prisoners on the part of the Versaillese. How could they be spared any longer after the carnage with which MacMahon's praetorians[220] celebrated their entrance into Paris? Was even the last check upon the unscrupul-ous ferocity of bourgeois governments — the taking of hostages— to be made a mere sham of? The real murderer of Archbishop Darboy is Thiers. The Commune again and again had offered to exchange the archbishop, and ever so many priests into the bargain, against the single Blanqui, then in the hands of Thiers. Thiers obstinately refused. He knew that with Blanqui he would give to the Commune a head; while the archbishop would serve his purpose best in the shape of a corpse. Thiers acted upon the precedent of Cavaignac. How, in June, 1848, did not Cavaignac and his men of order raise shouts of horror by stigmatizing the insurgents as the assassins of Archbishop Affre! They knew perfectly well that the archbishop had been shot by the soldiers of order. M. Jacquemet, the archbishop's vicar-general, present on the spot, had immediately afterwards handed them in his evidence to that effect.b
All this chorus of calumny which the Party of Order never fail, in their orgies of blood, to raise against their victims, only proves that the bourgeois of our days considers himself the legitimate successor to the baron of old, who thought every weapon in his own hand fair against the plebeian, while in the hands of the plebeian a weapon of any kind constituted in itself a crime.
a G. Darboy.— Ed. b The reference is to Jacquemet's statement of June 26, 1848, published in La Situation, No. 185, April 25, 1871.— Ed.
The conspiracy of the ruling class to break down the Revolution by a civil war carried on under the patronage of the foreign invader — a conspiracy which we have traced from the very 4th of September down to the entrance of MacMahon's praetorians through the gate of St. Cloud — culminated in the carnage of Paris. Bismarck gloats over the ruins of Paris, in which he saw perhaps the first instalment of that general destructions of great cities he had prayed for when still a simple Rural in the Prussian
Chambre introuvable of 1849.[221] He gloats over the cadavres of the Paris proletariate. For him this is not only the extermination of revolution, but the extinction of France, now decapitated in reality, and by the French Government itself. With the shallowness characteristic of all successful statesmen, he sees but the surface of this tremendous historic event. Whenever before has history exhibited the spectacle of a conqueror crowning his victory by turning into, not only the gendarme, but the hired bravo of the conquered Government? There existed no war between Prussia and the Commune of Paris. On the contrary, the Commune had accepted the peace preliminaries, and Prussia had announced her neutrality. Prussia was, therefore, no belligerent. She acted the part of bravo, a cowardly bravo, because incurring no danger; a hired bravo, because stipulating beforehand the payment of her blood-money of 500 millions on the fall of Paris. And thus, at last, came out the true character of the war, ordained by Providence as a chastisement of godless and debauched France by pious and moral Germany! And this unparalleled breach of the law of nations, even as understood by the old world lawyers, instead of arousing the "civilized" Governments of Europe to declare the felonious Prussian Government, the mere tool of the St. Petersburg Cabinet, an outlaw amongst nations, only incites them to consider whether the few victims who escape the double cordon around Paris are not to be given up to the hangman at Versailles!
That after the most tremendous war of modern times, the conquering and the conquered hosts should fraternize for the common massacre of the proletariate — this unparalleled event does indicate, not, as Bismarck thinks, the final repression of a new society upheaving, but the crumbling into dust of bourgeois society. The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out into civil war. Class rule is no longer able to disguise itself in a national uniform; the national Governments are one as against the proletariate!
After Whit-Sunday, 1871, there can be neither peace nor truce possible between the working men of France and the approp-riators of their produce. The iron hand of a mercenary soldiery may keep for a time both classes tied down in common oppression. But the battle must break out again and again in evergrowing dimensions, and there can be no doubt as to who will be the victor in the end,—the appropriating few, or the immense working majority. And the French working class is only the advanced guard of the modern proletariate.
While the European Governments thus testify, before Paris, to the international character of class rule, they cry down the International Working Men's Association — the international counter-organization of labour against the cosmopolitan conspiracy of capital — as the head fountain of all these disasters. Thiers denounced it as the despot of labour, pretending to be its liberator.(14) Picard ordered that all communications between the French Internationals and those abroad should be cut off(15); Count Jaubert, Thiers's mummified accomplice of 1835, declares it the great problem of all civilized governments to weed it out.(16) The Rurals roar against it, and the whole European press joins the chorus. An honourable French writer, completely foreign to our Association, speaks as follows: —
"The members of the Central Committee of the National Guard, as well as the greater part of the members of the Commune, are the most active, intelligent, and energetic minds of the International Working Men's Association; ....men who are thoroughly honest, sincere, intelligent, devoted, pure, and fanatical in the good sense of the word." (17)
The police-tinged bourgeois mind naturally figures to itself the International Working Men's Association as acting in the manner of a secret conspiracy, its central body ordering, from time to time, explosions in different countries. Our Association is, in fact, nothing but the international bond between the most advanced working men in the various countries of the civilized world.
Wherever, in whatever shape, and under whatever conditions the class struggle obtains any consistency, it is but natural that members of our association should stand in the foreground. The soil out of which it grows is modern society itself. It cannot be stamped out by any amount of carnage. To stamp it out, the Governments would have to stamp out the despotism of capital over labour — the condition of their own parasitical existence.
Working men's Paris, with its Commune, will be for ever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all the prayers of their priests will not avail to redeem them.
The General Council
M. /. Boon, Fred. Bradnick, G. H. Buttery, Caihil, Delahaye, William Hales, A. Hermann, Kolb, Fred. Lessner, Lochner, J. P. MacDonnell, George Milner, Thomas Mottershead, Ch. Mills, Charles Murray, Pfänder, Roach, Rochat, Riihl, Sadler, A. Serraillier, Cowell Stepney, Alf. Taylor, William Townshend.
Corresponding Secretaries
Eugene Dupont, for France. P. Giovacchini, for Italy. Karl Marx, for Germany and Zévy Maurice, for Hungary. Holland. Anton Zabicki, for Poland. Fred. Engels, for Belgium and James Cohen, for Denmark. Spain. /. G. Eccarius, for the United Hermann Jung, for Switzerland. States.
Hermann Jung, Chairman. George Harris, Financial Sec. John Weston, Treasurer. John Hales, General Sec.
Office — 256, High Holborn, London, W.C., May 30th, 1871.
Endnotes
[211] Chouans—participants in the counter-revolutionary insurrection in North-West France during the French Revolution. During the Paris Commune, this name was given by the Communards to the detachment of monarchist-minded Versailles soldiers recruited in Brittany and used against the Commune. pp. 343, 452
[108] "Papal Zouaves"—a regiment of the Papal Guard organised and trained like the Zouaves (see Note 13) and consisting of young French aristocratic volunteers. When Rome was occupied by Italian troops and the Pope's secular power abolished in September 1870, the Papal Zouaves were sent to France, where they were reorganised into a "volunteer legion of the West". As part of the First and Second Loire armies, they participated in operations against the Germans. After the war, the legion helped suppress the Paris Commune and was later disbanded. pp. 204, 343, 452, 513, 539
[212] Under the impact of the proletarian revolution of March 18, 1871, which led to the establishment of the Paris Commune, revolutionary mass actions were mounted in Lyons, Marseilles and a number of other cities of France. On March 22, the Town Hall in Lyons was seized by the National Guard and the city's working people, and a Commune was proclaimed. However, the provisional commission set up to prepare elections to the Commune abdicated its powers because it commanded only a small military force and had no strong links with the people and the National Guard. Fresh actions by the working people of Lyons on April 30 were fiercely suppressed by the army and the police. In Marseilles, the insurgent population took the Town Hall and arrested the prefect. A commission of the Department was set up in the city and elections to the Commune were scheduled for April 5. However, the revolutionary movement in Marseilles was put down on April 4 by government troops, who shelled the city.
[213] This refers to Dufaure's activities, aimed at strengthening the regime of the July monarchy, during the armed action of the secret conspiratorial Republican Society of the Seasons (Société des Saisons) in May 1839, and to Dufaure's role in the struggle against the oppositional petty-bourgeois Party of the Mountain during the Second Republic in June 1849. The revolutionary action of the Society of the Seasons on May 12, 1839, headed by Blanqui and Barbes, was suppressed by government troops and the National Guard. To fight the revolutionary danger a new ministry was formed, of which Dufaure became a member. In June 1849, in a situation of mounting political crisis that resulted from the oppositional moves of the Party of the Mountain against Louis Bonaparte, President of the Republic, Dufaure, who became Minister of the Interior, initiated a number of repressive laws aimed against the revolutionary section of the National Guard, democrats and socialists.
[214] This refers to the law on the press, adopted by the National Assembly on June 6, 1871, which reintroduced provisions from the previous reactionary laws on the press of 1819 and 1849: it provided for harsh penalties, including the closure of periodicals, for statements against the authorities. Besides, a law was adopted on the reinstatement of officials of the Second Empire who had been dismissed and a special law on the procedures for the return of property confiscated by the Commune and on the introduction of penalties for its confiscation, as a criminal offence. pp. 345, 467, 479
[215] The bill on shortening the trial by courts-martial (Projet de loi relatif à l'abréviation des procédures devant les Conseils de guerre), motioned by Dufaure and adopted by the National Assembly on April 6, 1871, extended the powers of the army commander and the Minister of War. In particular, they were empowered to institute criminal proceedings without preliminary investig-ation and pass sentences within 48 hours.
[216] A reference to the commercial treaty between Britain and France, signed on January 23, 1860, under which France was conceded the right to export most of its goods to England duty-free. France abandoned her prohibitive tariff policy and replaced it with duties of no more than 30 per cent of the value of the goods. The result was a sharp intensification of competition on the French domestic market, which was flooded with goods from Britain, and this caused discontent among French industrialists. Marx describes this treaty in his articles published in volume 17 of the present edition. pp. 346, 442
[208] Francs-fileurs (literally: "free absconders")—the name given to the Paris bourgeois who fled from the city during the siege. It sounded all the more ironical being a pun on francs-tireurs (see Note 34). pp. 342, 350, 457, 543
[218] In August 1814, during the war between Britain and the United States (1812-14), the British troops took Washington and burned the Capitol (the Congressional building), the White House and other public buildings. In October 1860, during the colonial war (1856-60) waged by Britain and France against China, the Anglo-French troops plundered and burned down the Summer Palace, a treasure-house of Chinese architecture and art near Peking.
[203] In the 1850s and 1860s, G.E. Haussmann, prefect of the Seine Department, carried out considerable work on rebuilding Paris. The old streets were widened and new straight ones were laid to facilitate the use of artillery by troops in suppressing popular uprisings. Big sums of money allocated by the state for these works were misappropriated by Haussmann and his subordinates, pp. 339, 351
[219] In 1812, Moscow became the centre of the all-Russian resistance to the aggression of Napoleon's France. On September 7, a battle took place at the village of Borodino near Moscow, and this largely predetermined the collapse of Napoleon's aggressive plans. At the beginning of the occupation of Moscow by the French army, a great fire began in the city and lasted about a week.
[3] A reference to the coup d'état of December 2, 1851, which gave birth to the Second Empire.
[220] Praetorians—privileged troops in the Roman Empire; originally — the bodyguard of the military commanders. Their name has come to symbolise mercenary troops supporting a tyranny. pp. 352, 514
[221] Marx gives the name "Chambre introuvable" (see Note 177) to the Prussian Assembly elected in January-February 1849, on the basis of the Constitution granted by the Prussian King on December 5, 1848, the day of the counter-revolutionary coup d'état in Prussia. In accordance with the Constitution, the Assembly consisted of two chambers: the privileged, aristocratic "chamber of the gentry", and the second chamber, dominated by the Junkers and the bourgeoisie. Bismarck, elected to the second chamber, was the leader of its extreme Right-wing Junker group.