The Sun.
London, England, 1870-08-29 00:00:00

THE CHANGES IN FRANCE.

We may well afford, while sympathising with the
Germans in this contest, to observe with careful eyes the
events which are now taking place in the world - events
which have never been exceeded in importance sinco the
French Revolution, and which are destined, as we have
always believed, to change the whole current of modern
European history. To suffer ourselves to be misled by the
ignorant cries of wild fanatics would be unworthy of us as
men who are living in times destined to stand out in
history with terrible significance. We may be against
France in this struggle, but it is not necessary to insult
France by asserting, as one of our contemporaries has
done, that all the French troops are drunk when they
march to the war, and that the people are bitterly opposed
to it. Let us, at least, as public historians, tell the truth
frankly, no matter where our sympathies may be. If we
believe that Germany is in the right, that is no reason
why we should garble the news that finds its
way into our columns. As for Napoleon, what does his
life signify in this gigantic struggle, one way or
the other? He is but an accident of the hour. Strike
him out of the scene altogether, and this war would be
waged with tenfold intensity on the part of France—for
then the great present cause of political differences would
be removed, and every man in France would rise to beat
back the tide of invasion. But while the Emperor remains
there are are divisions where all should be unity. If
Napoleon were to abdicate at this moment, and leave
the war to be conducted by other hands, he would
assist France infinitely more than he can do by
pretending to lead her armies. His health is bad
His spirits are broken. By abdicating he would
stand in a better position before the world
than he can hope to do now, even although an accident
might give him a great victory. For he is charged with
being the sole cause of the war, and the London Times,
for instance, asserts that if he were out of the way the
war would cease. The predictions and statements of the,
London Times throughout our own war were so remark-
ably accurate, and so manifestly dictated by a love of truth
and fair play, that we cannot fail to attach the greatest
importance to its suggestions now. Its opinion is,
scarcely less decisive than the " opinion of Antwerp,'
concerning which, by the by, the cable has not kept us
properly informed lately.
In any case, Napoleon, by withdrawing from the scene,
would put the question to the test whether or not the war
hinges solely upon him. This is, perhaps, the most
favourable termination to his rule which he can reasonably
look for. If he did not make this crisis, it is all the
more reason why he should net attempt to control it. He
is a cause of weakness instead of strength to the
country. France may be beaten under an
Emperor, but it has always been found impos-
sible to reduce her under a Republic. Politically,
indeed, Republics do not flourish on French soil. They
end in bloodshed and anarchy. But they at least have
always known how to defend the country. The people
know what they are fighting for when a Republic bids
them to advance against an invader. In 1792 French-
men.could turn aside from their own Revolution to sweep
back the Austrian invaders. Prussia would find her an-
tagonist fifty-fold more formidable if a Republic were
declared to-morrow. She might still conquer, but her
task would be more difficult. As for the restoration of
the Orleans family it is a hopeless chimera. There will
be no King in France until a Republic has had yet
another trial.—New York Times.