“The morning edition of the _National Zeitung_ of September 11th contains a paragraph entitled ‘From Wilhelmshöhe,’ in which the writer, after lamenting the considerate treatment of the Prisoner of Sedan, falls into further errors. Nemesis should have shown no indulgence towards the man of December 2nd, the author of the laws of public safety, the prime mover in the Mexican tragedy, and the instigator of the present terrible war. The victor has been ‘far too chivalrous.’ That is the way in which the matter is regarded by ‘public opinion,’ as endorsed apparently by the writer. We do not in any way share those views. Public opinion is only too much disposed to treat political relations and events from the standpoint of private morals, and, amongst other things, to demand that in international conflicts the victor, guided by the moral code, should sit in judgment upon the vanquished, and impose penalties not only for the transgressions of the latter towards himself, but also, if possible, towards others. Such a demand is entirely unjustifiable. To advance it shows an utter misapprehension of the nature of political affairs, with which the conceptions of punishment, reward, and revenge have nothing in common. To accede to it would be to pervert the whole character of politics. Politics must leave to Divine Providence and to the God of Battles the punishment of princes and peoples for breaches of the moral law. The statesman has neither the authority nor the obligation to assume the office of judge. In all circumstances the sole question he has to consider is what, under the conditions given, is to the advantage of the country, and how that advantage is to be best secured. The kindlier affections have as little place in the calculations of politics as they have in those of trade. It is not the business of politics to seek vengeance for what has been done, but to take precautions that it shall not be done again. Applying these principles to our case, and to our conduct towards the vanquished and imprisoned Emperor of the French, we take the liberty to ask by what right are we to punish him for the 2nd of December, the law of public safety, and the occurrences in Mexico, however much we may disapprove of those acts? Political principles do not even permit us to think of taking revenge for the present war, of which he was the author. Were we to entertain such an idea, then it is not alone on Napoleon but almost on every single Frenchman that we should wreak the Blücher-like vengeance mentioned by the _National Zeitung_; for the whole of France, with her thirty-five million inhabitants, showed just as much approval of, and enthusiasm for, this war as for the Mexican expedition. Germany has simply to ask herself the further question, Which is more advantageous in the present circumstances, to treat Napoleon well or ill? And that, we believe, is not difficult to answer. Upon the same principles we also acted in 1866.