The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-27 00:00:00

FRANCE.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTLES,—SITTING OF JAN. 22,
Marshal Swill., in continuation, said—Circumstances
have occurred to unveil all the ideas which I formed ten
years since on the subject of the defence of Paris. My
opinion was that the defences of Paris should be on the out-
side, and that they would be more or less efficacious ac-
cording to the distances they were placed, and that, if they
were too close, the danger of the capital would be thereby
increased. I will explain this twofold idea. It was evi-
dent to me that in placing the defences of Paris as far as
possible on the outside, and giving them a tend basis, which
I consider I should obtain by the establishment of my en-
trenched camp, I should compel the enemy, however nu-
merous, at the same time to keep at a distance from it ; and
that should he resolve on attempting to gain possession
of it, it would not be so easy a matter, from the valour
of my troops and the permanent 'works of fortifi-
cation by which they would have been supported. If I
bad need cf examples, I could have found them in the
campaign of Austerlitz, where, with 25,000 men of the
corps d'armees brought from Boulogne, I traversed the
Russian army in three lines, and, having divided it, threw
the greater part into the Lake of Meetaitz. There was
also another grand advantage which I should derive front
my position. The investing of Paris became, in my opi-
nion, impossible, and provisions would be constantly ritip-
plied to it without the possibility of the enemy cutting off
the communications. 'lids accounts for my not attaching
so much importarce as the honourable reporter of the Com-
mittee to the subject of provisioning Paris; for, according to
my plan, I was always certain of a supply. I have said that
the nearer the defences were brought to Paris, the greater
the danger to the capital would be. This preposition is so
self-evident, that, I think. it is only necessary to be men-
tioned to be conceived. It was in anticipation of such con-
sequences that I decided on carrying the defences of Paris
as far as possible on the outside, and that I attached but a
secondary degree of importance to the enclosure which it
was :proposed to raise round the capital. When Vauban
wrote, Paris was only a quarter of what it is now, and it is
but fair to infer that if he had been writing for the Paris of
the present day his views would have been modified. The art
of war has made great progress since the days of Vauban,
and if he could have foreseen that progress, his great mind
would have embraced every part of the subject which he has
left incomplete. The second authority quoted by the honour-
able reporter is more recent, and would, I confess, have more
weight for me if, without raising a doubt upon the authen-
ticity of the memoirs of St. Helena, I had not some observa-
tions to make respecting them. I will admit that the
Em-
peror said at St. Helena what has been represented as to the
defence of capitals, but I will ask how it was that when he
was in Europe, and at the pinnacle of power, he did not
carry these ideas into execution. It has been said that all
the capitals which were attacked by Napoleon were not
fortified. This is true as to the greater number of them,
but I remember very well that in 1805, after Ulm, the
Emperor presented himself beton) Vienna, which had been
fortified from the sixth century, ard was defended by a re
gular bastioned wall with an escarpment, yet it made no
resistance, and the autnorities came out and delivered the
keys. They had probably ascertained that a bastioned
watt was not sufficient fur the defence of the capital, with
out an addition or entrenched carep, which permitted the
Austrians to await under the wails. The Marshal next
alluded to the events of Toulouse in 1814, when he found
himself with 21,000 men opposed to 71,000, and said that
instead of shutting himself up in Toulouse, and being
blockaded and unable to check the march of the enemy,
he proposed occupying the hills round Toulouse, where,
throwing up entrenchments, he irapeded the progress of
the enemy, notwithstanding the great inferiority of his
own forces. He then said, I have accepted, and I still ac-
cept the continuous wall, such a= it is recommended in the
modified report of the Committee, for the following rea-
sons ;___When I entered office a few weeks ago, I found
this question settled and in full execution, and a large por-
tion of the population of Paris appeared to be in favour of
the bastioned wall, under an impression that they would,
in the event of invasion, be thus well protected against
the enemy. At the same time, I found my own project
of an entrenched camp, with St. Denis and Chareuton
well fortified, adopted. I asked much less formerly, for
in the war department we had adopted a great system of
economy, but I am not sorry that recent events have
brought the question to maturity, and given to my country
so greet and important a measure for its defence as the for-
tification of the cavital. I would reject still the system of
a continuous wall if it were at the sacrifice of an entrenched
camp, but 1 certainly regard it as a very useful completion
of such a means of defence. 1 renew this declaration,
adding that the detached works of the entrenched camp,
and those of the continuous wall connected with them,
will be carried on simultaneously or otherwise, as the Go-
vernment shall think most opportune. I shall now con-
clude by earnestly entreating the Chamber to look only at
the great object in view, and to lay aside all difference of
opinion, all eerviderafion of private interest, in giving to
France the first rampart of strength and independence.
M. Thiers (reporter of the Commission)--I owe to it
and myself the duty of establishing the true sense of the
flelberatie,q n.,'7 lave takes place, and to which Liarsh it
had .;,La l ailed. I muit say .1 feel some
and I think all the members of the Commission have telt
with me, in hearing what Marshal Soult has just said. It
would seem that the C91111:651i9I1 has in a manner extorted

from the Minister of War a project which ho did not ap-
prove, and which was not his own. lam nearly sure that
the Marshal, on being asked his opinion, said that his pro.
ject cf 1831 agreed pc] fectly with that now proposed. I
remember that upn the question of the enceinte, and par-
ticularly upor this question, we asked the opinion of Mar-
shal Soult, and 113 replied, I accept the project without the
enceinte, I accept it more willingly with the enccin'e, for
it is stronger.

Marshal Scult then rose and said, I perfectly remember
all I said, mid all the observations I made in the Commis.
sion. I spoke of the external defence of Paris ; I gave
with respect to that ample details. I wan asked if I ac-
cepted the continued enciente? I said yes; and I do not
think that in what I have just pronounced anything con-
trary to that can be found; I brr the reporter to remem-
ber that I said on that occasion, 'I
should be foolish to re-
fuse an advantageous alliance, because they wished to
double the dowry. I presented the project of law, and I
said just now that I would defend it. I had a right, in my
military .31.araeter, to persist in the first part of my dis-
course in an opinion which concerned my honour. But
as Minister of War it was my duty to defend the project of
law. Is that a contradiction ?

M. Barrot said there ought to be a new meeting be..
tween the Ministers and the Commission, in order to come
to a new understanding as to the simultaneous execution
of the works. For what the Marshal had said threw•
doubts upon the intention of the Government.
The Chamber then adjourned.