rom 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 f