Page:Ernest Belfort Bax - A Short History of the Paris Commune (1895).djvu/36

 30

now entered upon his duties as delegate of war. His name was already known to Englishmen owing to his connection with the Fenian attack' on Chester Castle in 1867. He is regarded by many active participators in the Commune as at once insincere and incapable. The latter charge seems to be fairly made out, as to the former I am not prepared to offer any opinion. There were two main plans of defence possible to be adopted, that of the outer enceinte, with its forts, redoubts, &c., but which required more men, more means, and more military experience than the Commune had at its disposal, and that of the inner enceinte,' the ramparts, which if effectively carried out would have made Paris practically impregnable. Cluseret and the Commune adopted neither, but messed about with both, neutralising the one by the other.

The cowardly assassinations of Flourens and Duval had excited everyone. In deference to public opinion the Commune ordered the seizure of hostages in full accordance with the practice recognised by war. Unfortunately the best hostages they could have had had been allowed to escape at the outset of the movement. However, Darboy, the Archbishop of Paris, Lagarde, his grand-vicar, Duguerry, Curé of the Madeleine, Bonjean, Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeal, Jecker, a financial politician responsible for the Mexican expedition, and a few Jesuits were laid by the heels. A decree and a proclamation were then issued threatening reprisals in the event of any further