the case of such a town as Pezenas, for example, refusing
to adhere, that the association would be incomplete? That is to say,
that French unity would not exist? Are you very sure about Pezenas? Who
tells you that Pezenas may not have its own idea of independence, and
that, we may not hear presently that it has elected a duke who raises an
army and coins money. Duke of Pezenas! that sounds well. Remember, also,
that many other localities might follow the example of Pezenas, and
perhaps in order to insure the entirety of the Commune, it might have
been wise to have asked them if they wanted it. Now, what do you
understand by "localities?" Marseilles is a locality; an isolated farm
in the middle of a field is also a locality. So France would be divided
into an infinite number of Communes. Would they agree amongst
themselves, these innumerable little states? Supposing they are agreed
to the contract, it is not impossible that petty rivalries should lead
to quarrels, or even to blows; an action about a party-wall might lead
to a civil war. How would you reduce the recalcitrant localities to
reason? for even supposing that the Communes have the right to subjugate
a Commune, the disaffected one could always escape you by declaring that
it no longer adheres to the social compact. So that if this secession
were produced not only by the vanity of one or more little hamlets, but
by the pride of one or more great towns, France would find herself all
at once deprived of her most important cities. Ah! messieurs, this part
of your programme certainly leaves something to be desired, and I
recommend you to improve it, unless indeed you prefer to suppress it
altogether.

"The inherent rights of the Commune are 'the vote of the Commmunal
budget, the levying and the division of taxes, the direction of the
local services, the organisation of the magistrature, of the police,
and of education, and of the administration of the property
belonging to the Commune.'"

This paragraph is cunning. It does not seem so at first sight, but look
at it closely, and you will see that the most Machiavellic spirit has
presided over its production. The ability consists in placing side by
side with the rights which incontestably belong to the Commune, other
rights which do not belong to it the least in the world, and in not
appearing to attach more importance to one than to the other, so that
the reader, carried away by the evident legiti