The Sun.
London, England, 1870-12-09 00:00:00

PROPOSED ARMISTICE.

The Daily News believes it may announce this morning
that M. Gambetta has asked for an armistice, and for
permission to M. Favre to leave Paris to conduct negotia-
tions. The object for which the armistice is asked is
that a National Assembly may be elected to authorise the
Government to treat for peace. M. Gambetta does not
name any period over which the armistice should

extend. He leaves that question for future
consideration, and only asks that it shall be long enough
to enable the Assembly to be elected, and to meet. It
is impossible to exaggerate the importance of
this demand. It comes from the very Minister

who has so heroically refused to despair of the Republic,
and who so vigorously protested against former attempts
to negotiate with the enemy. M. Gambetta has up
to the present moment embodied and represented
the resolution of the Government to fight to the last. He

is not likely to have changed his mind; and we take this
application for an armistice to be expressive of his con•

viction that the end has come. He makes it, probably,
with the concurrence of the Paris Government, and as the
result of a discretion which has been left in his hands.

He makes it, too, as the distinct confession of

defeat, and in full view of the obstacles which
have proved fatal to all previous attempts to negotiate.
We do not, says the Daily News, of course assume that M.
Gambetta and M. Favre mean merely to throw them-
selves at the feet of the Prussian Chancellor and sue• for

peace. In asking for an armistice they know that they
must make military concessions equivalent to the benefits
they get by delay, and we believe they will
be prepared to do so. The Provisional Govern-
ment have merely undertaken the national de
defence ; they have carried on that defence with an
energy which has astonished Europe, and they are
now ready to confess that it has failed. But they
are not likely to grant any political terms as
conditions of the armistice, and any military con-
cessions are mere matters of detail. AI. Gambetta's

demand is, therefore, a step towards peace. We
can hardly believe that it will not be granted. Count
Bismarck will hardly accept the responsibility of refusing
it ; and M. Favre, on his side, will scarcely insist on
demanding terms which his Government are unable to
impose. It may at least be earnestly hoped that we see
the beginning of the end.
THE POSITION OF ENGLAND.

The Telegraph, in an article on the present position of
England, refers to the dislike with which we are looked
upon in Germany, France, and America. With reference
to the latter country the writer says :—We hope and
believe that the utterances of certain public journals, and

of politicians of the Butler stamp, are not to be accepted
as fair exponents of the opinions and feelings
of our American friends. If it were so, it
would be an . unhappy thing for us both.

..-- ..._ .... _
They, too, accuse us of want of sympathy with
them in their great national struggle. The truth is that
England was divided into two camps of opinion, as the
States were into two camps for actual warfare. If they

disagreed so far as to cut each other's throats, is it
surprising that some Englishmen were of one way of
thinking, some of another ? When the French Emperor
pressed us to interfere with armed force on behalf
of the South, we flatly refused. Had we lis-
tened to his overtures the result might have been
very different. We make no merit of our friendly absti-
nence ; but the fact of our honest neutrality remains
unshaken. We never recognised the South as a bellige-
rent till the President of the United States had done so
himself ; yet we are blamed for our course of action. A
ship, uufortunately, escaped the vigilance of
our authorities, and did much injury to the
commercial marine of the Northern States. We
deeply regretted it ; we have offered to the parties
injured arbitration on the justice of their claims, but it
will not be accepted. The United States have been pre-
eminently the headquarters of filibustering ; yet we are
not aware that they have ever offered compensation to
the persons on whom they have, wittingly or unwittingly,
inflicted damage. The most respectable and learned
men in the States tell the Government they have
no case against England, save in respect of compensation
for the defined instances of alleged negligence ; but the
Government will not listen to them. The undefined
grievance which public man in America choose to dwell
upon will not bear a moment's examination. If we
displayed want of sympathy with them in their great
struggle, what were the declarations and utterances
of the United States towards England when she
was at war with Russia, and when she was
struggling to hold her own against a desperate rebellion in
India ? All these things are forgotten in the passion of
the moment; and France'which defeated Mexico, and
would have broken up the Union by force of arms—Ger-
many which discounted the calamity of the States to a
higher degree than any other nation—find favour with
our Transatlantic cousins, who have nothing but abuse

for us.
In the opinion of the Standard, there is only one thing
which could have justified the English Ministry, at least
in the eyes of the people of England, in pursuing a policy
of strict non-interference. We might have refused to
mediate, in the belief it was better for us that the
quarrel should be fought out, but this polioy of inaction
ought to have been accompanied with a careful and
energetic attention to our own military resources. A
nation which did not believe that it was • its busi-
ness to interfere in such a war as this was bound for
its own sake to keep its armaments in the very highest
state of efficiency, in preparation for any result which
might happen. It was hardly possible to believe that
France and Germany would weaken each other precisely
in the manner which was most advantageous to England,
and no person except Mr. Bruce was capable of conceiv-
ing that the two would fight with such an exact balance
of results as that they would be mutually so much
damaged as to be no longer dangerous to the peace of the
world. Even if France and Germany had been the only
countries which we had to regard, the commonest pru-
dence should have taught us the good policy of keeping
our arms burnished and our defences prepared while two
of our neighbours were engaged in so tremendous a
struggle. But the policy of non-mediation has not been
accompanied with that of self• armament. We neither
interfere on our neighbour's account nor our own.
We are impotent whether for peace or for war. Our
peace professions, being unaccompanied with any of the
ordinarypowers of self-defence, are believed to arise out
of cowardice and not out of virtue. We get no credit any-
where, and are, at the present moment, fallen lower than
at any period since the close of the last great French war.
Our total abstention from any kind of interference
only brings down upon us threats and contumely from
L every quarter. Neither mediating nor arming, we are
every day coming nearer to very grave dangers—to
dangers of which a few months ago the mention would
only have provoked our laughter, but whioh to-day are
mooted and discussed ;FL almost every newspaper of the
European or American continent*.

•~