The Sun.
London, England, 1870-10-05 00:00:00

COUNT BISMARCK AN]) M. FAVRt.

The following circular has been addressed by Count
Bismarck to the North German Embassies and Lega.
tions

" Fbrri4res, Sept. 27.
" The report of M. Jules Favre, presented to his col-
leagues after our interview on the 21st September, causes
me to address to your Excellency a communication which
will give you a correct idea of what pasied between us.
Upon the whole, I' cannot but admit that M. Favre has
endeavoured to convey an accurate account of the
transaction. If he has not fully succeeded in so doing,
his errors are sufficiently explained by the length of our
interviews and the circumstances under which they were
held. With regard to the drift of his entire argument, I
ought, however, to observe that the primary topic of our
conversations was not the conclusion of peace, but of an
armistice, which was to precede it. As to our terms of
peace, I expressly declared to M. Favre that I should
state the frontier we should claim only after the principle
of cession of territory had been publicly conceded by
France. In connexion with this the formation of a
new Moselle district, with the arrondissements of
Saarbriick, Château Salins, Saargemund, Metz, and
Thionville was alluded to by me as an arrangement in-
cluded in our intentions, but I have not renounced the
right of making such further demands as may be calcu-
lated to indemnify us for the sacrifices which a con-
tinuance of the war will entail. M. Favre called Stras-
burg the key of the house, leaving it doubtful which
house he meant. I replied that Strasburg was the key
of our house, and we therefore objected to leave it in
foreign hands. Our first conversation, in Chateau
Haute Maison, near Montry, was confined to an ab-
stract inquiry into the general characteristics of the past
and present ages. M. Favre's only pertinent remark
on this occcasion was, that they would pay any sum,
" tout l'ament que nous avons," but declined any cession of
territory. Upon my declaring such cession to be indispen-
sable, he said in that case it would be useless to open
negotiations for peace; and he argued on the supposition
that to cede territory would humiliate, nay, dishonour
France. I failed to convince him that terms such as
France had obtained from Italy and demanded
from Germany, without even the excuse of pre-
vious war terms which France would have un-
doubtedly imposed upon us had we been defeated,
and in which nearly every war had resulted down to the
latest times—could have nothing dishonouring in them-
selves to a country vanquished after a gallant struggle,
and that the honour of France was of no other quality or
nature than the honour of all other countries. M. Favre
likewise declined to see that, as a question of honour, the
present restoration of Strasburg would be on a par with
the former restoration of Landau and Saarelouis, and that
the honour of France was just as little bound up with the
unlawful conquests of Louis XIV. as it had been
with those of the First Republic or the First Empire.
Our conversations took a more practical turn at Fel--
fibres, where they referred to the question of an
armistice. Such having been their exclusive themi at
that place disproves the assertion that I refused an armis •
tice under any conditions. M. Favre doing me, on this
and other occasions, the honour of making me express my
own personal n.o_tions—for instance, `il faudrait un armis-
tice et je u'en veux a aucun prix,' and such like—compels
me to rectify his allegations. I never, in conversations of
this kind, speak of myself as according or denying
anything, but only communicate the intentions and
demands of the Government whose business I have
to transact. In this conversation we both were of
opinion that an armistice might be concluded, to
give the French nation an opportunity of electing
a Representative Assembly, which alone would be in a
position so far to strengthen the title to power possessed
by the existing Government as to render it possible for
us to conclude with them a peace valid in accordance
with the rules of international law. I observed that to an army
in the midst of a victorious career an armistice is always in-
jurious ; that in the present instance, more particularly,
it would give France time to reorganise her troops and to
make defensive preparations, and that therefore
I could not accord an armistice without some
military equivalent being conceded to us. I
mentioned as such the surrender of the
fortresses obstructing our communications with Germany;
because, if by an armistice we were to be detained in
France longer than was absolutely necessary, we must
insist upon increased means of bringing up provisions. I
referred to Strasburg, Toul, and some less important
places. Concerning Strasburg, I urged that the crowning
of the glacis having been accomplished, the conquest of
that place might be shortly anticipated, and that
we therefore thought ourselves entitled to demand that
that garrison should surrender as prisoners of war.
The garrisons of the other places would be allowed
free retreat. Paris was another difficulty. Having com-
pletely enclosed this city, we could permit it renewed
intercourse with the rest of France only if the _importa-
tion of fresh provisions thereby rendered possible. did-not
weaken our own military position And_ retard the date at
which we might hope to starve out •ttle: place. Having
consulted the military authorities and taken his Majesty's
commands, I therefore ultimately submitted the follow-
ing alternative :--` Either the fortified place of Pal is is
to be given into our hands by the surrender of!
comiihnding portion of the works, in which case
are ready to allow Paris renewed intercourse with the
country, and to permit the provisioning of the town ; or,
the fortified place of Paris not being given into our hands,
we shall keep it invested during the armistice, which lat-
ter would otherwise result in Paris being able to oppose us
at its expiry, reinforced by fresh supplies, and strengthened
by new defences.' M. Favre peremptorily declined handing
over any portion of the works of Paris, and also refused
the surrender of the Strasburg garrison as prisoners
of war. He, however, promised to take the opinion of his
colleagues at Paris respecting the other alternative under
which the military status quo before Paris was to be main-
tained. Accordingly, the programme which M. Favre
brought tO Paris as the result of Our cohversations, and