M. Thiers, Count Bismarck, and M. Jules Fevre have all
pub- lished their accounts of the recent negotiations,—the report of M. Thera being, we are bound to say, by far the most passionless, and having the most appearance of exactness of the three. M. Thiers expressly says that Count Bismarck himself did not appear to raise any difficulties as to the principle of revictualling,— though the Count in his circular recounting the negotiation treats the demand as perfectly monstrous, and grounds on it a charge of insincerity against the French,—but that he laid it before the military authorities, and that, "speaking in their name," he refused it, unless the French would grant some military equivalent, such as " a fort," or "perhaps more than one."' The Count asserted that the armistice was utterly opposed to the' German military interests, that to introduce into Paris amounts of food difficult to define might indefinitely prolong its resistance,. and that, in short, it could not be done without an equivalent.. M. Thiers argued very justly on the opposite side that an armis- tice means the status quo, and that if the status quo would be altered' too favourably for France by revictualling, it would be altered tom favourably for Germany by no revictualling, and he pressed the- political advantage Germany would gain by "appeasing national; passions," and showing the disposition to defer to the wishes of neutral Powers. Of course, to surrender a fort would be to sur- render Paris, and utterly out of the question. And as no con- cession on this point could be gained, the negotiation was broken. off.
Previous page
