The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-09 00:00:00

THE • FAILURE OF NL)OTIATIONS FOR AN ARMISTICE,

The Times, in commenting on the failure, says : We
take some little shame to ourselves that, though we pro-
tested at the outset the proposed Armistice could come
to nothing, -though we took care to point out as
it proceeded that the evidence of its favourable progress
was quite untrustworthy, we did so far yield
to the weakness of humanity as to hope that, in spite
of reason, a suspension of hostilities was by some means
or other about to be secured. It was a weak and a foolish
dream. M. Thiers was received clay after ,day by Count
Bismarck with the courtesy and kindly spirit due to his
past career and his precut devotion to his-country. M.
Tillers flattered himself he was making progress, that
he was actually bringing together the Government
of National Defence and the Chancellor of the
North German Confederation. The Delegation at Tours,
knowing perfectly well what bases of an armistice, and
what bases alone, they were prepared to accept, con-
cluded from the assurances of M. 'niers that Count
Bismarck was favourably receiving them, and was about
to permit the revictualling of Paris for as many days
as the suspension of hostilities might endure. It was
a pardonable delusion on their part. An Armistice with-
out revictualling would be nothing more than the volun-
tary diminution of the resources of defence to the extent
of 25 days' provisions, and, as they could never assent to
this, they naturally concluded that Count Bismarck was
about to allow fresh supplies to be thrown into the
city. They believed this, and we reported their
belief, expressing at the same time the gravest
doubts whether it could be true, and we now tee
that it would have been better if, instead of doubt-
ing, we had boldly pronounced the statement im-
possible. Count Bismarck never had the slightest
intention of making such a concession. However much
his courtesy may have misled M. Pliers, his despatch to
Count Bernstorff and the semi-official announcements at
Versailles and Berlin denounced the idea.

The Daily News says the explanations with which the
telegrams furnish us of the rupture of the negotiations
for an armistice themselves need explaining. If they
are to be trusted, the opposition to it has been found
where opposition was least to be looked for. M.
Jules Favre, and the majority of his colleagues,
are said to have favoured it, and the election
of a Constituent Assembly, of which it was
the condition. General Trochu is reported to have set his
face the other way. Yet immediately after the popular
vote of Paris, which confirmed the power of the present
Government, with express reference to the negotiations with
Count Bismarck, into which they had entered, General
Trochu declared for the suspension of hostilities. The cele -
brated and periodical avowla that not an inch of territory
should be ceded came from M. Jules Favre. It is
strange to find that member of the Govern: neat, who
is especially charged with the defence of the capital,
and whom the military problem chiefly engages, chal-
lenging a renewal of the conflict, which less respon-
sible rhetoricans are desirous of avoiding. Whether
an armistice, the conclusion of which would leave
Paris far advanced on the road to starvation, and which
thus involved the continued use of the chief weapon of the
siege, would really have been a suspense of hostilities, or
whether, without a truce, even Count Bismarck could
guarantee freedom of election, are points we will not now
discuss. In one notable point, if the explanation of the
rupture to which we have referred be true, is the fact that
General Trochu counsels resistance.

The Telegraph says: Meanwhile England must say a
word to both the combatants. France has technically
placed herself in the wrong by breaking off the ne-
gotiations, and has thus for the moment for-
feited the good offices of England. Lord Gran-
ville did not intervene until he saw that ho
could speak with effect, and the moment o
counsel was chosen so opportunely that every one
of his suggestions has been accepted. He might even
have continued his pacific efforts at the point where the ,
diplomacy of Count Bismarck and M. Thiers came to a
dead-lock. But the French Government has given
him no chance. It did not even cast the responsibility
of breaking off the negotiations on Count Bismarck,
as it might have done, but instructed its Envoy
to demand his passport and leave Versailles. Thus
England is shut out of the field for the present, and can-
not enter it again until invited by some disaster on the
part of France, or by some such change of fortune as
would compel Count Bismarck to lessen his demands. On
the other hand, the German Chancellor has been
guilty at once of harshness and impolicy.
Although he had a " right" to demand some
" military equivalent" for the revictualling of
Paris, he might safely have waived that right when
France is already beaten to the dust, and thus have saved
his policy from that stigma of hardness which will now be
applied to it by the common consent of Europe. Moreover
as we have shown, he has prevented the assembling of an
Assembly which, almost to a certainty, would have
voted for peace at any price. Nor by postponing
the day of peace, has he given greater surety to the ulti-
mate triumph of Germany, or made her final task more
easy. On the contrary, he has raised up a crowd of
new difficulties. The Prussian troops may capture
Paris, defeat General Bourbaki, destroy the Army of
the Loire, capture Lyons and Marseilles, and, in a word,
place the whole of France under their feet. They may
win such a triumph by ceaselessly fighting throughout
the winter. But they can do it only at the cost of
anarchy throughout France.