The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-03 00:00:00

THE FALL OF METZ

There is something, the Daily News remarks, in the
fate of Metz which, after all, illustrates the old
opinion of the French character. French soldiers are
still greater in vigour than they are in endur-
ance, and more brilliant in a dashing attack
than they are in a patient defence. It is the
same with France herself. France bears the
intoxication of victory, but cannot bear the depression of
defeat. It is to this feature in the national character
that we must attribute the strange delusions French-
men have fostered during this war. Their resolve
not to accept defeat takes the shape of refusing to
admit that they have been defeated. Our corre-
spondent inside Paris, writing, of course, without know-
ing of the fall of Metz, represents the Parisians as still
confident of victory, and indignant with England for sug-
gesting an armistice and hinting at peace when the tide
of battle is turning and France is actually nearer entering
Berlin than Germany is to entering Paris. There was
the same unwillingness in Metz to believe in the
disasters of France; and we cannot but hope that
when Paris fully knows its position, it may be disposed
to come forward to terms. Frenchmen, however, will
never believe that Metz was fairly lost
.and fairly won.
There is perhaps enough that has been suspicious and
secret in Bazaine's procedure to foster suspicion,
though not, as we believe, enough to give any
countenance to M. Gambetta's charges ; and which the full
history of these immense transactions comes to be written,
it will probably be found that it was not the generals who
betrayed the army, but the army which betrayed the
; Igenerals. The defeat at Metz was both moral and
material. Bazaine, after a brilliant and prolonged defence,
yielded to physical and moral necessity, to famine and
L
. demoralisation.

THE GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE AND MAZZINI.
The Standard thinks the utter and hopeless feeble-
ness of the Government of National Defence is the
worst sign of the day for France. Her armies may
well be slow to encounter the enemy when the most
precious fruits of their victory will be the establish-
ment of a Gambettl Dictatorship, with Mazzini as
chief adviser. At a time when all the energies of
the people should be concentrated upon the one object
of expelling the Germans from the French soil, when
military skill and experience are the gifts chiefly in re-
quest, it must be beyond measure disgusting to every true
Frenchman to find that the policy of the Government is
one which drives men like Generals Bourbaki and Cam-
briels from the public service, and replaces them by
foreign adventurers or by civilians whose only qualification
.is their devotion to Republican principles. The days of
1792, so often invoked, seem indeed likely to be realised
in part. If we, observes the Standard, have not the
patriotic spirit which produced a Roche and a
Marceau for the war, we haVe the confusion, the demo-
ralisation, and the anarchy of the Republic at home.
We have the same cry of treason against every
general of distinguished position who is unfortu.
nate or who is betrayed. But in 1792 and 1793 the
Republic at least never hesitated to prefer the interests of
the country to those of its own. At the present day we
have a Republic which thinks of nothing but its own ex-
istence—which appears to believe that all mankind are
wrapped up in the cause of its sucCessful development, which
substitutes for France its own empty name and its feeble
presence. It is this which makes us despair of the French
condition—which turns away from the French cause a
great deal of the sympathy which should be its due. How
can any one feel deeply for a cause which is represented
by M. G-ambetta, and which has now M. Mazzini for
one of its sponsors? Even the bitterest enemies of
the Empire might well ask themselves, in what
respect the Republic is an improvement upon
the Government whichis so violently displaced ! Is it more
virtuous, more truthful, or more self-sacrificing? Has
it succeded any better in the conduct of national affairs ?
Is it wiser in counsel, bolder in the field? If the
Empire had its Sedan, is not the Republic responsible
for Metz? Having filched the sceptre from the appointed
hands, what have the Republicans done which the
Imperialists could not do ? France, humbled and di9-
graced before the world, will not fail to ask herself this
question.