because it is that upon which the whole thing turns. Some persons will, of course, cry out "pedantry," "antiquarian rubbish ;" I shall not be greatly troubled if they do; I have lived long enough to find out that all people, of whatever way of thinking, are delighted with an historical argument, analogy, or precedent, if it happens to tell on their side. If it happens to tell against them, they cry out "antiquarian rubbish." The historic fact that the French had for ages past seized one bit after another of German territory whenever they had the chance, he held to be a sufficient answer to those who maintained that the war ought not to have been carried on after the surrender of Napoleon at Sedan. It was not for the surrender of Buonaparte, but for the restoration of her lost towns and provinces that Germany was really contending. A power which claimed to lord it over all its neighbours could be dealt with only as the common enemy of all; loss of territory was the righteous and appropriate punishment for such a career as that of France had been. Without a territorial cession the work would have been imperfect, just as it would have been imperfect if the German troops had not entered Paris. To use Mr. Carlyle's illustration: Michael has overthrown the Dragon, the Dragon must have his wings clipped, and his claws pared, and he must be made fully to know that his wings are clipped and his claws pared.' It was, moreover, important to remember that the Peace of Westphalia had not given France possession of the whole of Elsass; what it did give was the possessions and the rights of Austria in Elsass. These consisted of the sovereignty of certain towns and districts, and of certain rights which had become purely honorary over some others. Over other parts of Elsass, France obtained

6

no sovereignty or rights of any kind, but from the time of the cession, France had gone on annexing bit by bit, the last annexations not being made till the time of the Revolution.

The sympathy of the English public had, in the first instance, been mainly with Germany, but had veered round to France after the crushing defeat of Sedan. Such a change of sentiment Freeman could neither understand nor approve. In some minds,' he said, 'there seems to be a kind of worship of failure, a feeling certainly less base but more silly than the worship of success.' And again, writing after the death of Louis Napoleon, he observed that the failure of wickedness was undeserving of sympathy, whether the principal actor was alive or dead. Those who, like himself, had never cringed to Buonaparte in the day of his power, but had always, from 1851 to 1870, denounced him as an impostor and a tyrant, might be pardoned if, in the day of his downfall, they took up something of the tone of those triumphant hymns in which the old prophets celebrated the vengeance of God. De mortuis nil nisi bonum' was, in his opinion, not only a foolish but an immoral precept. The death of any man was indeed a solemn thing; the death of a great criminal or tyrant, such as Sulla or Buonaparte, was a specially solemn thing, but death could not change the character of their deeds. Unless history was to become a record of lies, and the voice of God within us was to be silenced, our rule should be, not 'de mortuis nil nisi bonum,' but 'de viventibus et de mortuis nil nisi verum 1.'

6

Again, it was foolish to talk as if there were something specially wicked in attacking Paris. The siege

1 See 'Sympathy for the Fallen,' Saturday Review, xxxii. 364.

† VOL. II.

was a mere accident of war. The French had chosen to fortify their capital, and they had no right to complain if it was besieged, and certainly there was no peculiar sanctity in Paris which entitled it to exemption from the common fate of fortified cities. The concentration of public interest on the siege of Paris led to his writing an essay on the early sieges of Paris in the British Quarterly for January, 1871, and the fall of the Pope's temporal power about the same time occasioned him to draw an interesting parallel between the way in which Rome and Paris, alone among the capitals of Europe, had created the States of which they were the heads. He regarded with peculiar interest the union of German States after the war, under the headship of the King of Prussia, with the title of Emperor. A monarchical confederation was a novel phenomenon, for in all past ages the chief federal systems of the world had been republican in form. The head of the new German Empire was the hereditary chief of the largest State in the Union. It was as if the Governor of the State of New York should be ex officio President of the United States. Such an arrangement in America would have given an undue preponderance to the largest State, but in Germany the hereditary character of the chief would go far to lessen the risk of this evil. The man who was born to the position of an emperor as well as of a king, might be educated and trained with a view to the greater post as well as to the smaller. He might learn. to care as much for the interests of all the States collectively, as for the interests of that particular State of which he was the hereditary chief. The Burggraf of Nürnberg, the Elector of Brandenburg, the King of Prussia, was about to grow into an Emperor in Germany. His

gradual rise was not unlike the rise in the rival country of the Count of Paris into the Duke of the French, and of the Duke of the French into the King. No prince of the House of Capet had ever thought of calling himself Emperor, a title which would have been utterly meaningless for any sovereign of Paris. Two members of the family of Buonaparte had indeed arrayed themselves in the peacock feathers of empire, but both were grotesque shams. In the case of the elder Buonaparte the assumption of the title of Emperor was part of a system of imposture which served his purpose. In the case of the younger it was mere imitation, which was also for a time successful. The title Emperor of Germany, assumed by the King of Prussia, was justifiable, though Emperor in Germany would be more correct. The elected Kings of Germany were in old times Emperors elect of Rome, and so came to be called also Emperors of Germany. In the oldest and strictest sense, the King of Prussia could not be Emperor or Kaiser, having no connexion with the local Rome, either the Old or the New Rome, but as a king of kings he would hold a distinctly imperial position. He would not be an Emperor of Germany in the sense of being a territorial ruler, but he would be an Emperor in Germany as being head over other German princes1. In like manner imperial titles had been given to our own sovereigns from Æthelstan to Elizabeth, as being superiors over several kings and kingdoms.

The Franco-German war is the principal topic of the following letters:

1 The title finally adopted was 'The German Emperor' ('Der Deutsche Kaiser'). See articles in Saturday Review, vols. xxx. and xxxii. pp. 773, 137.

TO MISS EDITH THOMPSON.

Bishopthorpe, August 22, 1870.

. Yesterday was a day of no news, so I am all agog to know what this morning's post will bring, whether the Tyrant1 really has shot himself or what. You may suppose I have been in a state of wild delight all the time. 'Tis the first fighting in my time when I could go unreservedly with either side, and say that every man on one side was doing right, and every man on the other doing wrong-unless so far as a soldier, when he sells himself, transfers the responsibility of his acts to his master, which I suppose may be allowed in the case of a conscript. The Dutch 2 seem such noble fellows, and so thoroughly knowing what they are doing-not like the poor blinded creatures whom we sent off in 1854, shouting for this, that, and the other, when they were really fighting for Pope, Turk, and Buonaparte. We must have Elsass back again, if not Lothringen. As for the people not liking it, it would surely be easier to bedutch them back again than it was to bewelsh them before. I should like to cut up the whole Gal-welshry3 into bits, as its unity is clearly a standing menace to Dutchland and the world generally. For this it is vain to hope, but one might cut off some good slices at the sides.

TO THE SAME.

Craig House, Edinburgh, September 4, 1870.

I confess to being uneasy at your being among the Gal-Welsh just now; I shall be delighted to hear that you are safe, and still more delighted to hear that (Perth, September 7) you are safe again in England. I wrote the other page before we knew of the Republic being proclaimed ', whereat I rejoice much, if only they will give up Elsass, Lothringen, &c. Altogether, the last few days have been the most wonderful and delightful in my time, only I could wish that you

The French forces had been defeated by the Germans at Gravelotte on August 18. 3 France.

2 The High Dutch' or Germans.

+ Louis Napoleon surrendered himself to the Germans on September 2 at Sedan, and the French Republic was proclaimed on September 4.