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

THE PROPOSED ARMISTICE.

The lifoniteur Universal says the word armistice as soon
as it was uttered produced everywhere considerable
emotion. There were all kinds of speculations and conjec-
tures. The partisans of war h l'outrance angrily accused
the Government of deserting the cause of National
Defence. The friends of peace were overjoyed, and
believed the war was finished. For our part we stand
aloof from both extremes. An armistice is a pure and
simple truce, a pause in the operations of war. It
supposes that the state of affairs in both camps
remains the same, so that on the resumption of hostilities
the position of the belligerents is neither better nor worse
than it was. But what is the object of the present armis-
tice and who asks for it ? If the Government of National
Defence made overtures to King William it would be pos-
sible to infer something as to its pacific intentions, but the
initiative was not taken in this quarter. After discussing
the individual policy of the neutral Powers and their
motives for interference, the AfoniteUr Universal
says that it would be unseemly to refuse such pro-
posals when they are made by friendly Powers
uniting their action with all the great European nations.
The delegation at Tours could not pronounce on a ques-
inn of such importance without consulting the 9ther
Ministers at Paris, and M. Thiers has accordingly started
for the capital. It is, however, certain that the conditions
of the projected armistice will be exclusively military, and
will in no way prejudge the conditions of peace. The
Government of National Defence could not assume the
right to decide such an important matter. The country
must be consulted, and it is its office to decide it through
its regularly appointed representatives. If the
Prussian Government in its reply to the suggestion
of the neutral powers introduces any other question into
the armistice pure and simple, it will thereby give proof
that it will not have an armistice. In that case public
opinion and the neutral powers will know on whom the
responsibility of the failure will rest. Nothing therefore
in this view of the situation justifies the extremes of hope
and fear to which the suggested armistice has given rise.
The Constitutionnel says that no political condition
whatever is contained in the draft of the armistice sub-
mitted by M. Thiers to the Government in Paris. The
Government of National Defence insisted that the armis-
tice should be exclusively military. There is not even a
question as to the power reserved by the Government to
convoke a Constituent Assembly. Such a clause intro-
duced in the treaty of armistice would imply the right of
the Prussians to interfere in the internal affairs of France.
Notwithstanding it is tacitly understood on both sides
that every facility will be given for consulting the
country, and thus fulfilling the real object of the
armistice.

The Siecle, which resolutely maintains that no peace
should be made until the Prussians have evacuated French
territory, is bitter and suspicious on the subject of the
armistice. The English Government is absolutely hos-
tile. All the members of Parliament preach the dismem-
berment of France. At all the meetings they declare
that Bismarck's demands are just, and that we ought to
congratulate ourselves they are so moderate. We must
rely only on ourselves, and can only hope for an honour-
able peace when we have gained it by our arms.
The Tours correspondent of the Patrie, writing on the
27th October, says that a perceptible change in public
feeling has become manifest during the last few clays.
The general sentiment is now opposed to the armistice.
It is difficult to understand this change, as under present
circumstances a suspension of arms is in every way de-
sirable, as the suggestion proceeds from foreign Powers,
and does not in any way prejudge the conditions of peace.
Its main object is to secure the fulfilment of a measure
absolutely essential the election of a COnstituent
Assembly. The resistance which the proposal of the
neutrals has met with is therefore somewhat perplexing.
Is it true that M. Gambetta supports and encourages this
resistance ?