The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-08 00:00:00

THE FAILURE -OF THE ARMISTICE,

The Tunes, in commenting upon the failure of the ne-
gotiations, concludes its remarks by saying, Why should
we offer to take upon ourselves any responsibility, eyed if
we could thereby bring about Peace? One
reason is that there is yet time. We have
good reason for knowing that the bombardment
of Paris will not begin until after fifteen
days more have passed, and, it is stated, apparently
on trustworthy authority, that the King himself is
reluctant to command the attack. If we have the power
thus to restore Peace to Europe, we cannot neglect-tlai
opportunity without abandoning the axioms of national
duty we have always professed. The guarantee of
Luxemburg is a recent acknowledgement of the responsi-
bility to assist in keeping the peace. But there are other
reasons which should move us to'exertion. Without being
in any way alarmists, we may say that Europe is in danger
of becoming once more the theatre of an old struggle.
The conflict between the principle of autocracy and the
free government of nations must be waged anew, and
in the attempt to ward it off at home, the supporters
of the autocratic principle are ready to run the risk
of any foreign adventures. With the possibility
of such dangers before us, we ask what are the
influences on which England should rely ? Are we
not bound to strengthen the authority of public
law, to maintain the supremacyof the free will of nations?
The institution of reciprocal guarantees against wanton
aggression is the first step towards the creation of a real
public law which shall be able to control the vio-
lence of individual members of the body politic.
A solemn recognition of the principle that the will
of a people cannot be coerced, a recognition attested by a
willingness to incur responsibility rather than see the
principle lightly broken, would be of the highest value in
the struggle between power and liberty. Whatever stories
might arise, we should have with us something more than
our own powers of defence ; we could appeal to the
sanctions of the public law we promoted when we might
have trusted to the security -of isolation, we
could rally around us the influences of freedom in all
nations, whatever plats might be contrived to confound
them.

The Prussian programme, says the Daily News, is plain.
Paris will be bombarded. Humanity shudders at a
prospect the full horrors of which it cannot even
imagine ; but, if the present dead-look continues,
the most sanguine of neutral spectators may well
look round and ask what alternative is possible.
There was but • one escape irom the dilemma in
which the absolute declarations of the two belli-
gerents had placed them, and that was the formation: of
an Assembly which might have nominated a Government
bound to obey it. It is vain to say that if Count Bistnarck
saw, or had reason to believe, at the last moment of the
negotiations, that the vote of France would be merely a
repetition of the vote of Paris, there would be no object
in granting twenty-five days' cessation of hostilities.
Count Bismarck professed to want the real opinion of
Prance, and did not claim to dictate it. The formal rup-
ture of the negotiations was the act of France ; , but in
such a matter one cannot apportion blame without being
fully apprised of the action taken on the other side.
If the Prussians were led to consider that France
had not yet realised her position, and was de-
termined to accept of no compromise, why did they
begin these negotiations ? Why did Count Bismarck
allow M. Thiers to dangle on from day to day without
bluntly stating at the outset that Paris would not be al-
lowed to revietutd? Why did not M. Thiers come to a clear
understanding on this point, of first importance
as a mere preliminary i Did either hope that the
other would be seduced into giving way by having the
tempting bait of peace hung fur a time before his
eyes? if this hallucination existed on both sides, we are
bound to believe that M. Thiers was its principal victim.
It is not unlikely that Count Bismarck may have
wished to accustom France to think of an armistiee as
practicable. He may have designed to fascinate the
peace-party with this possibility, under the hope that the
leaven would spread. And it may yet spread, though the
disappointment of one hope is not likely to engender
another.

The Telegraph, in an article on the failure of the armis-
tice and the prospect of the bombardment, says : We '
have within these few last days seemed so nearly to have
escaped the horror of an active siege of Paris, that the
mind scarcely realises what is now to be enacted. Yet
grimly true and harshly certain it is that the beautiful
city must suffer henceforth from ;word and fire mid
famine. Let us try to realise what that means. llitherto
Paris has been invested only ; the G ermans have scarcely
tired a shot in reply to the lavish salvos of Mont Valerien
and the adjacent forts. Now the besiegers will commence
in terrible earnest, for the only envoys left are shells,
the only possible plenipotentiaries cannon and mortars.
Famine will by and by be seen, and with it the infec-
tious diseases which spring from hunger. The list of
paupers to be daily.fed will swell; the well-to-do will see
every hoarded mouthful which they swallow savagely
envied; each failure, each disaster, must deject the spirit
and embitter the discontent of the suffering po-
pulation. If the garrison could break out, from
what army could they obtain support beyond the walls ?
And if they merely hold the city, the half million of
fighting mouths will help to eat away the supplies. After
that fearful stage in the progress of the conflict, a time
may come more horrible than any that we have ventured
to foresee, when, masters of the outlying defences, the
German chiefs will formally summon the city to sur-
render, and, on her refusal, will order the bom-
bardment and the assault. Who does not shudder
to meditate on what Paris may then witness ? Already
looms upon her that frightful future painted by the
hand of Count Bismarck. Two milious of human
beings stars o with very considerable speed when they
once begin to approach the end of their provisions,
and they cannot be rescued from that state
by any sudden help ; they cannot be re-provisioned
in a day or a week. Hundreds of thousands of
lives will silently pay the tax of death now demanded by
the firmness of the PariSian Government in breaking off
the peace negotiations. With such a prospect made
hideous by every element of human anguish—
contemplating such a fate, self-invoked by the
capital of France—Christendom draws near to its fes-
tival of " Peace and goodwill." Krupp's steel guns,
alas I and the mitrailleuses seem likely to sing
the Christmas hymns of ].870. Heavy, indeed,.
is the responsibility of- those who have made
peace impossible. Whose fault it has been is a
question too momentous to decide upon at this hour ;
but the artillery opening upon Paris is the
prologue of the third act of the war; and the tragedy, it
seems, must be played out now, till Trochu either works
a miracle of war, or the proud heart of France is com-
pletely broken.
The Standard thinks thb rejection of the armistice was
inevitable, if indeed it was not desirable. But the ques-
tion is how could anybody, professing to speak by authority,
have contemplated any other issue to this farce, which M.
Thiers has been inveigled into playing bewro Versailles?
In excuse of the French Government it must be said
that they seem to have acted on the notion that in some
way or other the four neutral Powers had obtained from
Prussia the concession of the conditions as to tho
victualling of Paris. An officiel dispatch from
Tours, dated last Saturday, declares it to be " well
understood " that. the victualling of Paris in proportion
to the duration of the armistice was one of the con-
ditions
precedent to the meeting between M. Thiers and
Count Bismarck. Other opinions were expressed in this
tame document even more strongly confirmatory of the
fact that there was an impression at the seat of the
French Government that the neutral Powers had taken
some active steps to put an end to the war. Possibly some
of these were among the ordinary delusions in which
the French mind is prone to indulge ; but it is diffi-
cult to believe that M. Thiers could have gone upon
his errand at all, except under the impression that the
chief difficulty in the way of the armistice had been re-
moved by the action of the neutral Powers. To
negociate for an armistice with tho essential point
of the provisioning of Paris left unadjusted was to
undertake a fool's errand. How far then are the
neutral Powers responsible for the fiasco at Ver-
sailles ? What did England, or did she do anything, to
secure a definite basis of negotiation ? Was there any
communication held between our Government and
the French as to the preliminaries of the armistice ?
Was there, in fact, any real attempt made by the
British Ministry to promote the interests of peace,
and if so, how came these attempts to fail ? If the
English Government did nothing at all in the matter, it
seems monstrous that they should have indulged in any
hopes of a successfurissue to M. Thiers's mission.

A besieged resident of Paris, writing to the Daily News
on the 28th ult., says :--I see at a meeting of the mayors
the population of Paris is put down at 2,036,000. This
does not include the regular army, or the Marines
and Mobiles outside and within the lines. Tho con;
sumption of meat, consequently, at the rate o'
100 grammes per diem, must amount to between
400,000 and 500,0001 b. per diem. Although mutton,
according to the tariff; is cheaper than beef, I rarely see
any at the restaurants. This tells its own tale, and 1
imagine that in three weeks from now at the very latest
fresh meat will have come to an end.