The Sun.
London, England, 1870-09-14 00:00:00

LESSONS OF THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN
WAR.

The Nazione says that those who will consider the
events of a month of war which has comprised in itself
the story of a century, will find materials not so much for
wonder, but, for great and salutary lessons for all people.
A nation which was amongst the foremost n Europe, has
been invaded and menace,' is c apital ,an army which
had acquired the character of being invincible, ika-m been
abandoned by fortune in every encounter; a sovereign,
whose words have hitherto been echoed throughout
Europe, has been made a prisoner; and all these things
have happened in the course of a month. Heaven
preserve us from exulting over the misfortunes of a
nation which has fought with us for an independence.
We would rather seek for the causes which have produced
effects as stsange as they were unexpected. We would
turn them to the profit of our country, and we advise our
sister nation who is put to such a severe test to do like-
wise. A worm has been gnawing at the heart of the noble
nation for some time. In the short time of seventy years
we have seen in France three Republics, two Monarchies,
two Empires, a series of revolutions from 'B9 till the First
Empire, three Revolutions from '3O to '49, and again we
witness the commencement of another one. This is the
worm which has been gnawing France. Nothing
has been stable. All was uncertainty and precarious-
ness. A revolution upset the order of things,
andthe very next day they began to desire another change.
In France, in the Corps Legislatif, in the Senate, in the
public administrations, in the forces by land and sea, in
the journals, and lastly in the scientific
.academies, have
there not been, and will there not always be, Legitimists,
Orleanists, Republicans, and partisans of the Emperor?
From thence it follows that universal scepticism exists
among the multitude, who .are weary of the constant
change from this to that order of things and accustom
themselves little by little to be uncertain in whom to
believe and in whom to place confidence. Let us compare
1792 with 1870. In the former year the same enemy
invaded France, then, as now, directed by able
leaders, the pupils of the great Frederick. But France
conquered, because it was France in its entirety,
because in France there were only two parties, the Bour-
bonists and the Revolutionists. In 1870, assaulted by the
same enemy, France has fallen. There have not been
wanting proofs of heroism,' and the courage of the French
oldiers has been exhibited, but until now they have not
conquered. Many causes have been assigned for the
failure, such as the want of appliances, the incapacity of
the captains; but the real reason has been the divided state of
feeling which existed. When the rival parties disputed
in the Corps Legislatif Sagunto was fought, when
the Government hesitated to give out arms because they
knew that whichever party got them would turn them
against the executive power in the first place, when from
the war between France and Prussia arose fierce and
bitter, the war between the moribund Empire and the
,new Republic, what wonder was it that the people
remained inert, and that in 1870 a different order of
things prevailed to that which existed in 1792 ? We must
all feel that France stands in greater need of moral than
of material force, and amid the words of defiance she
manifests the desire and the want of peace. Far some
time past she has attached too much importance to ex-
ternal' appearances, and neglected the cultivation of those
virtues which form the true life of a people. We trust
that our citizens will profit by this example, and recog-
nise that no nation can offend with impunity against these
holy principles which constitute the force of civil society.

A GERMAN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR OF
M. JULES FAVRE.

The following criticism on M. Favre's circular appears
in the Nord Deutsche Allegemeine Zeituni :--" The circular
of M. Jules Favre is scarcely calculated to inspire a hope
that the provisional Minister for Foreign Affairs has risen
to the level of his position. He pleads like an advocate
for a lost cause the defence of which he has undertaken ;
he seeks for ,extenuating circumstances ; he attacks
the opposite party cleverly, but in no way ap-
preciates as a statesman should the present situation. A
statesman calculates on facts, but M. Jules Favre does
not seem to consider as realities either the 800,000 men
in the German army who have bought their victories with
the most precious blood of Germany, nor the destruction
of the armies of France. He says, ' You have fought with
Imperialist France; now France has become Republican;
go home, then, and if you don't go home we have the
Garde Mobile and the Garde Nationale abd the barri-
cades.' It is simply childish. Poor M. • Jules- Favre !
In 1851 you had also the Garde Mobile and the Garde
Nationale and the barricades. What becitme of them?
In 19 years these gentlemen have learned nothing, and
theg have forgotten everything. We know but little as
to the abilities of General Trochu, now Minister of War
and Governor of Paris; but we believe that if M. Jules
Favre were to hold a private conversation with him, and
-wtry fro prvig* lea him ycriaviray cq tv tilLsr FrfaVAralph fv*

resistance of the Garde Mobile, the Garde Nationale, and
the barricades, he would obtain as his sole reply a signi-
ficant shrug of the shoulders. M. Jules Favre says that,
personally, he was opposed to the war:* What shall we
conclude from-this? If every French citizen were asked
singly if he had been in favour of the war, he would
assuredly reply No ;' and, nevertheless, the nation was
lor the war, and the Left, desiring to render Imperial
Government impossible, probably contributed more than
any others to the outbreak of hostilities. M. Jules Favre
also says that the King of Prussia has declared that he
was not making war upon the French people, but upon
the Imperial dynasty. Where has his IVtajesty said this?
M. Jules Favre can only have alluded to the royal pro-
clamation of the 11th August, in which it is said. ' I
make war upon soldiers, and not upon French citizens.'
Thus we make war upon French soldiers, and as it is pre-
cisely the existing Provisional Government that would
make soldiers of all the French people, it is they who,
would convert the war into one against the French
people. For a considerable time, in truth, France has
been warring against the German people in the most
cruel fashion. M. Gambetta, a member of the existing
Government, was the warmest instigator of the expul-
sion of Germans from French territory. Does M.
Jules Favre reckon this as nothing? What do these ex-
pulsions mean of peaceable citizens who can be blamed
for nothing but belonging to a people who, to an insult
cast in their teeth, have replied by the victories of Weis-
semburg; Woerth, Metz, and Sedan ? Has the Provisional
Government recalled this measure ? No ; it has aggra-
vated it. A decree of the new Prefect of Police
menaces with the military tribunals every German
who, from eight in the morning of September 6, may be
met with in the department of the Seine and Seine-et-
Oise."