Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session of the Thirty-ninth Congress

Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward

No. 338.]

Legation of the United States, Paris, June 14, 1866.

Sir: I have the honor to invite your attention to an important debate which occurred yesterday in the Corps Legislatif in reference to the new attitude assumed by France towards Mexico. The budget was under discussion, and Mr. Jules Favre availed himself of the occasion to arraign the government for its disastrous financiering in Mexico, and to compare the position of France, as revealed by the correspondence recently communicated to the Chambers, with that which she occupied, according to the government orators and the official press, a year ago. Mr. Favre concluded by inquiring of the orator for the government, Mr. Rouher, whether it would be safe to withdraw a part only of the French army from Mexico, and whether it would not be more prudent to withdraw them all in a body.

Mr. Rouher made no reply. The government declined to enter into any discussion of the subject. A sort of defence of the government was attempted by M. Jerome David, a reputed son of the late Prince Jerome Bonaparte, which relationship gave to his remarks their principal importance perhaps. He closed with a timidly phrased sort of warning to the United States not to tread upon the heels of the retiring army of occupation, which was the only part of his discourse of special significance.

A translation of the debate, from the Moniteur, and a copy of the yellow-book containing the promised continuation of the correspondence on Mexican affairs, submitted a few days since to the Corps Legislatif, accompany this despatch. This latter document is chiefly remarkable for the limited amount of information on the Mexican question which it adds to the stock already in possession of the public.

I remain, sir, with great respect, your very obedient servant,

JOHN BIGELOW.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[Untitled]

[Extract from the Moniteur Universel of June 14, 1866.—Translation.]

Corps Legislatif, Sitting of Wednesday, June 13, 1866.

M. Jules Favre. The distribution recently made to the Chamber of documents calculated to enlighten us on the subject of our real position in Mexico, imposes upon us the duty of examining, in so far as relates to that particular point, into the action of government, and into the resolution which it intends to adopt.

This duty is the more stringent since the serious agitation in Europe, which is pointed out to us, may lead to complications in which our honor, our security, and our peace would become immediately involved. It is therefore indispensable that we should know what course is to be pursued in an expedition which might, in case of a conflict on the continent, have such serious consequences. For my part I have no need, in the observation which I ask the Chamber to kindly listen to, to inquire into all the facts, to examine all the difficulties arising from that great expedition. I have several times had occasion to express my views in that respect, and those views have not changed. The time does not seem to me to have yet arrived for telling the whole truth. While our troops are yet engaged in Mexico we must, gentlemen, restrain, the judgment which our conscience shall oblige us to pass, basing ourselves upon the sentiment and the conscience of the Chamber.

All that appears to me opportune and politic to do for the present is to examine, in a few words, what has been done since we parted, and what remains for us to do. Now the solution presented by the government, although resembling those which we have constantly advocated, cannot, under present circumstances, meet with our full approval. They cannot receive our approval for reasons which can be easily understood; for reasons which are justified by the painful comparison of the documents submitted to us with the former declaration of the government.

You will remember the pride impressed in these declarations, to which you have so often paid the homage of your applause; how the speeches pronounced in this hall were full of pompous promises; how those who dared to deny the hopes of which Messrs. the ministers were the non-responsible editors, [laughter around the speaker,] were called pessimists, peevish narrow-minds, incapable of understanding vast designs or generous thoughts.

Alas, gentlemen! the truth which government now reveals to us overthrows all these sad fictions.

I have said that I would be moderate. I shall keep my word, and I do so when, casting my eyes over the documents distributed to you, I discard the first of them; for, in my opinion, the only manner of treating it in a French Chamber is to say nothing about it. [Disturbance.]

M. Granier de Cassagnac. I demand the floor.

M. Jules Favre. Yet, gentlemen, the government has been under the painful necessity of accepting that document and of declaring that, in view of the injunction it contains, we should leave Mexico.

It has done more; it has made on that question unexpected revelations which, all at once, have cast upon the whole situation a very different light from that under which it had heretofore been presented.

In fact, as you will remember, gentlemen, since that expedition was commenced you were incessantly foretold not only that our arms would be successful, but also that the undertaking would prove a complete success in a political point of view. Yet I may assert, with full confidence that I am not mistaken, that is the adhesion of the Chamber was obtained, as I deeply regret that it was, it was obtained never by telling the truth. [Approbation around the Speaker. Strong murmurs on the benches of the majority.]

I will not enter upon this point into an examination which I have from the first declared to be untimely. You remember the declarations of the honorable minister of state concerning the relations of France with Maximilian when a convention was binding them to each other; you remember the bulletins succeeding each other every fortnight, and in which you were always told of the enthusiasm of the Mexicans for their new sovereign, of the success of the latter, both in a financial and in a political point of view, of the desertion of all the bands which opposed the raising of his throne. These things shall find their place in another discussion, which we now reserve, and to remain true to what I have had the honor to say to you, I shall merely examine the facts as set forth in official declarations nearest us, as they date from last year.

Well, at that time, when we ventured to express our disapprobation and our mistrust, we were proudly answered that the policy we were attacking was far above our views; that it was the proudest jewel in the crown of the sovereign; that the glory of France, radiating even to America, would establish upon these far-off shores a civilization which we would have cause to be proud of, and M. the minister of state, in the sitting of January 27, 1864, summed up all his views in these eloquent words:

“And now let me express my whole thought. Passions shall subside, the remembrance of the money questions disappear in the impulse of public prosperity, truth become free from its present shackles, the day of posterity shall come. Then, if any one looks over our old debates, and our antiquated quarrels, and takes up the pen of the historian, he will say, that one was a man of genius, who, in spite of opposition, obstacles, and doubts, had the courage to open to the nation of which he was the chief new sources of prosperity.”

And the Moniteur testifies that this passage was received with applause. [Smiles around the speaker.]

“He was the apostle of a daring but far-seeing and wise policy, who did not confine his views to the present generation; he understood both his time and the future, who saw that the European equilibrium rests no longer, as it formerly did, on the Alps or the Pyrenees, the Vistula or the Black sea—[we find it so now, unfortunately]—but that it embraces the whole world, and that such great interests should be the object of the care of France, however far the French flag may have to go to protect them.

“Yes, that shall be a page of glory, and the writer of it shall say, like the sovereign when speaking to the assembled nation, the distant expeditions, commenced for the purpose of avenging our honor have terminated in the triumph of our interests.”

And the Moniteur here also testifies that the words of the minister were received with prolonged applause.

Such, gentlemen, is history, as written by the bold and confident hand of Mr. the minister of state.

By the side of this document is another of no less importance. At the opening of our labors the Emperor pronounced these words in reference to Mexico:

“In Mexico the new throne is becoming consolidated, the country is getting pacified, its immense resources are developing; these are the happy results of the courage of our soldiers, the good sense of the Mexican people and the intelligence and energy of its sovereign”.

These words find their confirmation in some lines of the “Expose of the situation of the Empire,” where I read:

“The results obtained by our expedition to Mexico in 1862 and 1863 have, in 1864, received a solemn confirmation. Under the shadow of the French flag a regular government has been established in that country, devoted for over fifty years to anarchy and internal dissensions. In the early part of the month of July Emperor Maximilian has taken possession of the throne, and supported by an army, is preparing in security an era of peace and prosperity for his new country.”

I acknowledge, however, that this concert of praise was disturbed by a voice which, on this question, had great authority. It was that of a warrior who had led our victorious armies in Mexico. He said to the Senate, in the discussion of the address of March 11, 1865:

“Yes, unfortunately, everything is to be done over again in Mexico. The moral sense there is thoroughly perverted; there is no longer any administration, nor justice, nor army,

nor national spirit; we may almost say there is no longer anything”——

A member. But robbers.

M. Jules Favre. These words are not very reassuring.

It is true that the honorable marshal added:

“But this is not the fault of the nation; at the bottom they are good, they are generous, they have the proud and noble feeling of the people from whom they are descended—of the Castilians, the proud Castilians; I therefore do not in the least despair of that country.”

These, gentlemen, were, so to speak, attenuating circumstances granted to Mexico; it was forgiven on account of the generosity of its character. The honorable marshal permitted himself to be carried away by a feeling of patriotic indulgence towards that country which, however, he condemned in that severe judgment that it was lacking in moral sense, had no justice, no army, no nationality, and that where there was nothing, one was trying to establish something.

Such was the appearance of things in 1865. Yet you know, gentlemen, that at that time there was a shadow over the picture, and that shadow was the very finance question which disturbed many serious minds.

Indeed, if Mexico appeared drifting with irresistible enthusiasm towards Maximilian’s throne, that enthusiasm was exceedingly costly; for, during the years 1864 and 1865, one hundred and fifty millions were absorbed. This was not enough; two hundred and fifty millions more were asked for; and you have not forgotten, gentlemen, the discussion which arose upon this point about the loan of which the government became the official sponsor. We ventured to call the attention of the Chamber to the portentous conditions under which this loan was presented.

Aside from all political considerations, and from those higher motives which political men should always seek in the eternal right, because the great of this world can never disregard it without meeting the day when they have to reckon with those whose rights have been injured, aside, I repeat it, from these higher considerations, we ask, is it possible that a loan solicited under so disadvantageous and, we may say, scandalous conditions, could succeed? What! the lottery system is restored! The coarsest bait is made use of to attract the confidence of those who would gladly invest their money elsewhere; and you permit such things; do you not comprehend the danger do you not see that Mexico borrows at such high rates only because it is sure never to pay?

At that moment, near the place which I have the honor to fill in this hall, arose one of our honorable colleagues. His was an exceptional position. I admit he had received from government a special mission which he had faithfully accomplished; he knew Mexico much better than most of us; he had a right to speak, and I do not exaggerate when I say that his words fell upon the majority in the Chamber like a sort of soothing dew after a great heat. All difficulties appeared to vanish, and under the spell of the picture drawn by our honorable colleague, nothing could be more guilty or more unjust than the distrust of those who would not believe in the prosperity of Mexico.

Such, gentlemen, were the circumstances under which the loan was contracted, and I shall have occasion in a moment to refer to them again.

This occurred in 1865, in the month of April, and during the whole of 1865—you have not forgotten it—every fortnight the Moniteur brought us, not official documents; we always asked for those official documents; we asked for an official statement of the number of men in Mexico—of the wounded and the killed; we asked for it in the name of their families, which certainly have some right to care for the blood of their children, and never obtained any satisfaction; no official bulletin was ever published in the Moniteur. The Moniteur, like a historiographer, who can dispose of the events which he relates, merely presented to us at the arrival of every steamer statements of which this is the faithful resume: “Everything is pacified; but wherever we are not, dissidents are found whom it is necessary to pursue. The popularity of Maximilian is increasing in an unexpected proportion; yet our troops are obliged to have partial fights, and are always on the alert.”

Yet these bulletins paled for an instant before the magnitude of a new fact proclaimed by the Moniteur, and which was of extreme importance. On the 2d of October, 1865, says the correspondence of Emperor Maximilian, Juarez has left Mexico, and the new sovereign, taking this time full possession of the power intrusted to him, mentions to his people this great and beneficial news; hereafter he will have no opponent; he is indeed the legitimate head of the imperial monarchy, and is going to prove, you shall see in what manner.

“They write from New York, [it is the Moniteur from which I quote,] in spite of the activity of the Juarist emissaries in our city, the cause of the ex-president may now be considered as entirely lost. Official news immediately published in all our papers announces that Juarez has left the territory of Mexico, entered upon the territory of the United States, and abandoned his cause.

“Hardly had this news been confirmed by this morning’s papers, when the steamers from Havana, which arrived this afternoon, brought to us the news which reached that port on the 12th instant, by the packet La France, that Emperor Maximilian in his proclamation dated October 2d, [I beg you will not forget that date,] officially announced that Don Benito Juarez, after a long struggle, had been compelled to yield to the national will, and to leave Mexico.”

Gentlemen, how will the Emperor Maximilian celebrate this great event which liberates his country, since Mexico was always represented to us as bowed under the tyranny or rather under the shadow of tyranny of Juarez—a ghost whom it took four years to lay? [Disturbance.] How will he manifest his joy in announcing that whosoever henceforth may resist him shall be put to death?

M. Glais-Bezoin. That was his gift for the joyous event of his accession.

M. Jules Favre. Here is the end of the sentence, and the Chamber must permit me to read it:

“*** And that the robbers who claim still to be his adherents shall be outlawed and treated as bandits. ***”

And the Moniteur considers this news as so important that it recommends it to its readers.

You know, gentlemen, that this recommendation in the Moniteur is particularly intended for those who do not read it [laughter around the speaker] for all Europe, in order that the opinion of the government on this or that event may be thoroughly known.

I continue:

“The correspondence dated New York, October 23, which we publish below, gives very interesting details on the state of public opinion in the United States in relation to Mexico.”

Well, these facts given by the official organ are incorrect; we must except the proclamation of Maximilian, and the gentleness of his august mercy to those who take up arms against him. These things, gentlemen, are unfortunately true, and history will record them. But what was not true, was that the country had never ceased to be full of disaffected persons. The Juarez proclamation was dated October 2, 1865. On the 16th of November, Marshal Bazaine wrote to M. Riva Palacio, general-in-chief of the central Juarist army, asking for an exchange of prisoners. I do not present the expressions of that letter to the Chambers, as that is useless; but they show that the state of war was still continued, although officially, and in the eyes of Europe, which may still believe in the veracity of the Moniteur, the end of it had been announced. In 1865, in the month of November, the struggle was still going on, and the loan had been contracted, and on the strength of one of us who had vouched for these assertions—on the strength of the words of the minister who had endorsed them—the money of France had come out of the family chests to be swallowed up in that Mexican disaster, which I shall show up to you in a moment, with the authority of the government.

And in September, 1865, things had reached such a pass that had 250 millions been subscribed in France and elsewhere, thanks to the bait of these 500,000 francs lotteries paraded before the eyes of the poor people whom they dazzle, our country people would still not have received the indemnity due them. It is not irrelevant to recall that, as shall be hereafter established, as has been already shown before you, at the start the amount claimed, justified and recognized in a synallagmatic contract between Mexico and France, amounted to 750,000 francs.

This, gentlemen, is what has been stated in this very place, and was not contradicted by the ministers, for it was based upon official documents; there are four millions of hypothetic claims, which afterwards rose to twelve millions, and later still reached sixty millions; they grew with the insolvency of the debtor, as is always the case; but down to September, 1865, nothing was settled; perhaps the Jecker bonds, [laughter and approbation around the speaker,] I do not know, and if I am ignorant on that point it is not my fault—it is the fault of the government; for everywhere outside of these walls we are told, and we are shown documents which might prove, that that scandalous affair which I had the honor of exposing in the Chamber has been one of the greatest cares, I will not say of government, but of the traders. [Noisy interruptions and lively disclaimers.]

His Excellency M. Rouher, Secretary of State. You should not employ your talents in spreading such calumnies.

Mr. Jules Favre. Well, in the month of September our countrymen had not yet been indemnified.

Among the documents distributed to us is a despatch to which I would call your attention. I repeat, we are at the month of September. In the month of September a treaty was concluded by which the indemnities to be granted to our countrymen were to be regulated; they are to accept the reduced amount of forty millions.

Indeed, gentlemen, in my opinion those figures are much above their real claims. But on the other hand, these forty millions never went into their hands; the commission may or may not have received them. I don’t know about that; still I doubt its having received them, for these forty millions are forty millions in paper, and in paper on an empty treasury. The government will tell us about it. But at any rate, gentlemen, if a settlement was arrived at in September and in December, 1865, it was not out of regard to the principal; it was because it became indispensable that these claims should be regulated for the very reason that it was our right and our duty to demand it of the government that they should be. I find in the despatch of Mr. Dano, chargé d’affaires of France in Mexico, dated December 28, 1865, on page 30, an account of the resistance of the emperor Maximilian, who wished very much not to settle that claim. The despatch informs us by what decisive reasons he was induced to do it.

“I met at first with very strong opposition,” says Mr. Dano. “The emperor and Mr. Castillo claimed, which is true, that the surrender of similar bonds of the second loan in the place of bonds of the first would be more disadvantageous for the Mexican treasury—the conversion”—[this relates to the conversion into bonds according to the resolution passed by the government]—“the conversion and the establishment of premiums having led to rather considerable outlays.” And the chargé d’affaires adds: “However, I became so pressing that I gained my cause the very next day. I made them understand that the Emperor Napoleon and his government must be put in a position to declare to the French Chambers that the question of claims is finally settled.”

Your power, therefore, gentlemen, still amounts to something! [Approbation around the speaker.] At least so thought Mr. Dano on the 28th of December, 1865, and it was one of the levers with which the resistance of our debtor was overcome. The forty millions were thus devoted to our countrymen; but are those forty millions, gentlemen, of a nature to fully remove their fears?

Here arises a question which the government has settled in so clear a manner that I should weaken the argument I have to offer you if I were to omit presenting you its very words. Mr. the minister of foreign affairs, as a watchful guardian of the French interests, experienced a very natural feeling of displeasure on hearing of any curtailment of claims recognized by treaties.

But, gentlemen, he invites the representatives of France in Mexico not to be too hard to please. The circumstances are such, the debtor’s position is so alarming, that one must take what one can get; and here is what he Hon. Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, minister of foreign affairs, says on the 14th of January, 1866:

“Our expedition had originally for its sole object to follow up the adjustment of our claims and the amends to be made to our countrymen. If we have, however, thought it useful to lend our aid to the efforts of a nation desirious of the restoration of order and prosperity under a regular government; if our legitimate interest led us to assist the prince who devoted himself to that generous undertaking, our co-operation had still to be restricted within settled limits, which the convention of Miramar had for its object to determine. The reciprocal arrangements stated in that act have settled the measure and the conditions in which the French forces might be employed; so strengthen a friendly government. It were useless to insist upon the motives which place the court of Mexico, in spite of the uprightness of its intention, in the recognized impossibility of henceforth fulfilling those conditions.”

As for me, gentlemen, it seems to me, on the contrary, that it would be very opportune to know those causes, since our interest is so closely connected with them. But I am willing to accept for the discussion the restrictions of Mr. the minister of foreign affairs, and I proceed:

“On the one hand any appeal to credit would be useless. On the other we cannot, departing from the conditions agreed upon, assume the exclusive charge of the Mexican government, providing with our army for its defence, and with our finances for its administration.”

What a marvellous result of the confidence which surrounded that prince, of the assistance given him by France, of those four hundred millions procured by the loan and swallowed up by that ruinous sovereignty! We are obliged to uphold him with our blood, to pay his army, and to pay his internal adminisration, else he disappears! And that also is said by Mr. the minister in his despatch of the following day, January 15, 1866, which is no less significant.

Speaking of the convention of Miramar, he says that that convention was declined by Emperor Maximilian himself. That man who was acclaimed not only for his imperial probity, but also for his political strength, himself breaks his word.

And the minister adds:

“Such was the object of the Miramar convention, which was to remain the standard of our reciprocal rights and duties. It would be of no interest now to revert to the circumstances which prevent the Mexican government from fulfilling henceforth the obligations imposed upon it by that act, and which threaten to throw upon us, without any of the promised compensations, the whole burden of the charge of the new establishment.”

We said these things last year and in the years preceding, and you interrupted us with murmurs. To-day you listen to them because it is unfortunately the minister who has come over to our side. [Noises.]

“I shall not insist upon the observations on that point, which will be found in great number in my correspondence with the Emperor’s legation. It appears superfluous to me now to inquire, in an idle discussion, into the causes of a position which my duty compels me merely to state. In point of law the Mexican government being no longer able to fulfil the conditions of the bilateral contract which bound us to it, we are ourselves freed from the obligations we had assumed.”

And a little further on:

“The Mexican government is powerless to supply us with the financial resources indispensable for the maintenance of our military; it has even asked us to take upon ourselves the burden of most of the expenses of its internal administration. These difficulties are nothing new, and we had repeatedly tried to provide for them by facilitating loans which placed important amounts at the disposal of Mexico.”

And the minister adds sadly:

“What remains for us to do in presence of the recognized emptiness of the Mexican treasury, and of the charges thrown upon us thereby? The provisions of our budget furnish us with no means wherewith to supply this deficiency. Mexico not being able to pay the troops which we maintain in that country, it would be impossible for us to retain them there. As for asking a new credit from our country for that purpose, I have already talked that over with you. As I then told you, public opinion has declared, with irrevocable authority, that the limit of sacrifice in that direction has been reached.” [Approbation on several benches near the speaker.]

Yes, public opinion is enlightened, and if you were still able to mislead it you would yet take millions from us to throw them to foreigners. [Noisy interruptions, and lively protestations.]

Numerous voices. Order! Order!

M. Gravier de Cassaquac. These are odious accusations.

M. Count de Taulongeen. Such language cannot be tolerated.

M. Count Caffarelli. It is not permitted thus to insult the legislative body.

M. President Walewski. Mr. Jules Favre, you indulge in regrettable accusations; and you chose your time very badly for bringing such accusations forward, since you acknowledge, yourself, the frankness of the government, by what you have just read. Do not, therefore, accuse it of insincerity. [Very good! Bravo! Bravo!]

M. Glais Bizoin. Compulsory sincerity at present! The course of events renders it necessary.

M. Jules Favre. I wish to answer with facts, and those which I shall quote cannot be contradicted in this assembly, since they were accomplished by and emanated from it.

Now I have said that the situation established by the minister of foreign affairs—with a frankness to which M. the president has just now called your attention—was nothing new. The difficulties of the Mexican government were known long ago, and it was impossible that they should not be known. These difficulties are nothing new. When did they originate? They originated—and it is the minister says so—from the time that the loans were facilitated.

They knew when the loans were asked and contracted for, that the situation was bad; they wished to provide for it, and it was for that purpose that we heard in this hall the words to which I allude, but which I shall define more fully, since my honorable opponents desire it. Yes, indeed, that situation was known; one would need to be blind not to have discovered it; not to have seen that nothing but inextricable difficulties were to be met with; and there must have been a secret design which I have been unable to foresee or to fathom, to throw over the truth, which so many saw, the veil which we will find beneath the words I have already alluded to. Thus, when the Hon. Mr. Corta, taking the floor on the subject of this loan—for it is a monetary affair in which our country was involved; the gold of France as; well as its blood were spent in that fatal undertaking—[Very good, around the speaker; murmurs on several benches,]—he said:

“As for me, the mature conviction which I bring back from Mexico is, that Mexico wants but two things to rise again—a regular government, and time.”

“A regular government it now undoubtedly possesses. From Vera Cruz to Mexico, the emperor Maximilian, whose election is being, criticised, was accompanied by a ceaseless ovation. What was the true, the national sentiment which lay at the bottom of this enthusiasm? It was easy for an impartial witness to see it.

“In fact, for the Indians, that is to say, for the great majority, the emperor Maximilian was the man of the predictions, the man coming from the east, with golden hair and azure eyes.” [Interruptions.]

This is but what you heard, gentlemen: “With golden hair and azure eyes.” The Indians, unanimously, candidly, and enthusiastically, proclaimed emperor Maximilian as their liberator, and this was very natural.

Then the Hon. Mr. Corta expressed himself on the financial position, and said:

“However, the present budget, as submitted to the deliberations of the council of state, amounts only to one hundred and fifty millions, including the interest on debt.

“Thus, so far as thè external debt is concerned, you see that the Mexican government has, for the present, no occasion to take any pains to provide for it.

“Remains the internal debt.”

We are well aware that, in order to pay the debt, it had to apply to France, since its exchequer was empty, and the Hon. Mr. Corta was not the only one who held that language. The honorable minister of state added this solemn declaration, which had such great weight throughout the country.

“As regards the Mexican finances,” said he, “Have not the details furnished by the Hon. Mr. Corta given the Chamber most precise information concerning the magnitude of that country’s resources?”

And you, gentlemen, who did not know it, you exclaimed, “Yes, yes!” trusting, as you did, in that double assurance.

“Have, then, no fears * * * *” [These are the words spoken by the minister in the sitting of April 11, 1865. Hardly a year has passed, and what a sudden change of scene! In the place of prosperous finances, we have before us a desperate situation. In the place of a prince with a flourishing budget, we have a prince obliged to hold out his hand for money wherewith to pay his army and his internal administration]——

“Have, then, no fears, gentlemen. The high impulse given by Emperor Maximilian shall insure the real prosperity of the finances of the Mexican empire, and give undoubted security to those who shall trust their money to it.”

I will say no more.

A member. What more could you say?

Mr. Jules Favre. I can understand what is passing in the mind and in the conscience of several of my colleagues. I merely wish to compare these statements with what M. the minister of foreign affairs wrote in January, 1866.

“These difficulties are nothing new, and we had repeatedly tried to provide for them by facilitating loans.”

Yes, you have facilitated them, indeed; for you declared to listening France that Mexico was in a prosperous condition; that those who trusted it with their money ran no manner of risk. One year has passed by, and by your own showing, their treasury is empty, their army unpaid, their internal administration is falling to pieces under the insolvency of their sovereign, proclaimed by you.

Now, gentlemen, I ask the Chamber, in view of such a situation, can we remain satisfied with the rather too philosophical advice from the pen of M. the minister of foreign affairs, contained in his despatch of January 15, 1866?

He flatly informs Mexico—and I do not blame him for that—that henceforth the finances of France shall no longer be at his disposal. He adds, that public opinion rejects new loans, and that, consequently, Emperor Maximilian must get out of the situation by himself, and here is what he says to him:

“At a time when these various considerations oblige us to contemplate the end of our military occupation, the government of the Emperor, in its solicitude for the glorious work he has commenced, and in its sympathy for Emperor Maximilian, had to examine accurately the financial position of Mexico.”

That situation is critical, but it is not desperate. It is an empty treasury, an unpaid army, an internal administration whose employés cannot get their salaries; and M. the minister has the courage to add: “With energy and courage, with a fair and persistent will, the emperor of Mexico may overcome the difficulties which he has met; but success is on that condition. Such is the conviction we have arrived at by a careful and conscientious inquiry into his obligations and his resources, and you will endeavor to impress it on the mind of Emperor Maximilian and on his government.”

I have not to inquire into what passes between the minister of foreign affairs and the government of Emperor Maximilian; but I would ask with you, whether, in view of so strongly defined a position, the remedy pointed out by the French government is sufficient.

That government wants the troops to return, and so do we, and even more strongly; but we do not consider the mode of that recall sufficient, and, above all, having been so often deceived, we are yet distrustful.

Here is what I read in a despatch of April 6, 1866, summing up the intentions of the French government on that point:

“In his despatch of the 12th of February last, Mr. Seward, on his side, recalls that the United States government has, during the whole of its history, adhered to the rule of conduct which it has received from Washington, in maintaining invariably the principle of nonintervention, and he adds that there is nothing to justify the apprehension that it would prove unfaithful to it with regard to Mexico. We accept this assurance with full confidence, and find in it a sufficient guarantee no longer to delay the measures destined to prepare the return of our army. The Emperor has decided that the French troops shall leave Mexico in three divisions; the first to start in the month of November, 1866; the second in March, 1867; and the third in the month of November, of the same year. You will be pleased to communicate this decision officially to M. the secretary of state.”

I say, gentlemen, that, so far as regards the return of our troops, we can only approve of it, provided this resolution be sincere, and that we will not again be deceived. And permit me, gentlemen, to say that we have, to some extent, a right to retain some doubt in view of recent publications in the Moniteur, which I wonder how we can make agree with the resolution of which I have laid the text before the Chamber.

I do not wish to tire you on that question, nor to introduce into the debate irritating elements already too abundant in it. [Exclamations and laughter on several benches.]

A voice. It is too late to say that!

Mr. Jules Favre. Well, I may say to those who do me the honor of interrupting me, that I hope our troops will come back, and then, when the French interest shall be entirely freed from that question, a debate will take place in this hall, and if God permits me to take part in it, and gives me strength to express the truth as I feel it, my honorable interrupters will hear something very different. [Exclamations on some benches; approval on others.]

M. Gravier de Cassaquac. We will hear, and answer it too!

M. Jules Favre. But resuming what I had the honor to say to the Chamber, and, as I stated, being unwilling to tire you by reading documents which, however, would all tend to prove my position, I take up the last—the one, gentlemen, which mentions the despatches received at Vera Cruz on the 14th of May, and which, as you see, are four months posterior to that which I had the honor to submit to you.

M. Rouher, minister of state. From the 6th of April to the 14th of May does not make four months.

Mr. Jules Favre. What did these despatches announce? They are all taken from those fanciful bulletins of the Moniteur, without our being ever allowed to see an official document. I said fanciful, and I maintain the word; it could easily be justified if required. I could say that the Moniteur has wilfully concealed afflicting facts published by other papers. M. the minister of state, who does me the honor to smile at this, knows perfectly well what I mean. [Signs of denial on the part of the minister of state.]

I have used the word fanciful, and I maintain it. The Moniteur has said what it chose to say, and kept back what it chose to keep back.

Here no one can criticise us, for this dispatch is that of the Moniteur of June 9, 1866. It is the last. If there were a more recent one I would take up that.

Here is what I read in it after the preamble: That all is pacified—for it is always the same expression—and that expression can only be explained by a perpetual struggle, if not actual war.

“The Mexican General Mendez continues his operations in Michoacan; he holds the line from Tacambaro to Umapan; there is every reason to hope that the military measures which have been taken will restore quiet in that country. In that view, Marshal Bazaine has sent back to the north the columns of General Aymard and of Colonel Clinchant.”

And a little further on: “General Douay, who is at Santillo, is preparing to commence operations in the centre of New Leon, disturbed by the bands of Escobedo.

“Emperor Maximilian is engaged in organizing his army, and regulating the service.”

And we are told that our troops are coming back; that is to say, that they are falling back. [Murmurs.] And at the same time we are told——[Interruptions.]

Gentlemen, one must be unacquainted with the geography of Mexico, not to see that when troops are sent to the north they are not falling back towards Mexico and Vera Cruz.

I ask why we are told that our troops are returning, when they are advancing into the country? Whose interests do they uphold? Is it that of Emperor Maximilian, whom you forsake and discredit, whom you declare yourself unwilling to uphold? Such is the question which I take the liberty to put to M. the minister.

Permit me to say in finishing, that what ought most of all to occupy the attention of Chamber, we have all but to consult ourselves in order to be assured of the unanimity of our feelings on this point. They are above all political divisions, is the welfare of the 30,000 brave men who are now in Mexico. Now, I ask you whether their interest can be conciliated with the plan announced by government of recalling them in three divisions, and at periods so far distant from each other?

You are now compelled to acknowledge that that pacific country is at least a disturbed country, since our soldiers there must always remain under arms; you are obliged to pursue all the disaffected, whom they crush when they meet with them, but who too often escape them; and it is under these circumstances, when our whole effective force there cannot uphold Maximilian’s throne, cannot prevent encounters in which too often French blood is spilled, and, as we must all deplore it, uselessly spilled; it is while this struggle is going on, and 30,000 men are unable to put an end to it—it is then that you are going to decrease that force, first one-third, then two-thirds, leaving the other third exposed to all possible dangers. And that is not all; you leave them in a country which you declare insurgent, and which you have been unable entirely to subdue!

In such situations moral influence is omnipotent. But you solemnly announce that you are withdrawing. You post up Maximilian as an insolent prince. [Murmurs and interruptions.] You say that his treasury is empty. [Renewed interruptions.] But unless French be no longer understood in this hall, I have a right to speak so. I am not the author of these despatches; they are the minister of foreign affairs’; and when I draw from them the political consequences they contain, I fulfil a duty.

In weakening the French forces you strengthen the Mexican forces ten-fold; and if you wish to protect the lives of our soldiers and the honor of our flag, our retreat must take place under different conditions. The fears which I express are not chimerical, and I am not alone to experience them.

When, in the month of February, 1866, a discussion was engaged on that Mexican question in the Senate, the honorable marshal, whose words I quoted a while ago, gave his opinion; and, allow me to say, that opinion has great weight. It was he who had carried on the war, and knew the country, and could appreciate the difficulties, who said:

“It is right that we should yet a while assist him whom they have freely chosen, to repair the evil done to them by the others during fifty years of anarchy; otherwise France would not assume such responsibility before history; the leaders of disorder, the robbers who are now without a chief, fleeing before the ceaseless and energetic pursuit of our brave soldiers, in contact with whom the Mexicans are daily regaining courage, shall rally around Juarez’s flag. It is to be feared that discouragement, gaining these timid people, may render them a prey to the revenge of the barbarous hordes, whose cruelty may be foreseen by those which have so often deluged Mexico in blood. And this is so true that, at the moment I am speaking, cities from which our troops have departed have been forsaken by their inhabitants.”

Such, gentlemen, is the real situation, and there is no exaggeration in that picture. Our honor, the interests of our countrymen, require us not only to protect our army, but also the French residents whom our retreat will leave exposed to most horrible dangers Interruption.] We must protect the populations who have committed themselves on our account. We have constantly announced this; you have but to read over our speeches of the other years; you will then see that this was one of our most important preoccupations, and if your retreat takes place under other circumstances, you shall be wanting in a duty which a great civilized nation has contracted towards itself.

I ask, therefore, that government should explain its intention; that government should promise to the Chamber, if the feeling I have had the honor to express is shared by it with regard to the retreat of our soldiers, that that withdrawal shall take place as soon as possible; that it shall take place en masse, so that no division may remain exposed to the people in that country who may be led by passions which the withdrawal of the first part of our soldiers would but have increased.

I ask it, gentlemen, and surely in addressing such a petition to the Chamber and to the government, do you think that I am only actuated by all the general considerations hovering over this debate? Do not the requirements of the times warn us that it would be an unwarrantable imprudence to act otherwise? Cannot these brave men who are in Mexico be useful in our country? Can we retain any illusion on that point, when in yesterday’s sitting we were notified that the map of Europe was to be revised? [Lively interruptions.]

M. Paul Bethmont. And without consulting it!

M. President Walewski. M. Jules Favre, I am obliged to ask you not to refer to yesterday’s discussion. You criticise what was said yesterday, and that is contrary to the evident intentions of the Chamber. Do not criticise, therefore, for your criticism would render an answer necessary, and I repeat that the discussion on that point is not possible; you know it.

M. Jules Favre. I feel very humble and very small; yet I do not believe that I am yet reduced to the condition in which M. the president would wish to place me. It is impossible that a member of this assembly should not have the right, when inquiring into one of the most important questions involving the welfare of his country, to look about him. [Agitation.]

And in what incredible position would your singular restrictions place us?

We are the delegates of the people, the representatives of the nation. [Lively interruptions.]

Several voices. Order!

President Walewski. It is to that very opinion of the delegates of the nation. [Agitation.]

[M. Jules Favre pronounces, in the midst of the uproar, some words which do not reach our ear, but which are received with approbation by those of his colleagues who are around him.]

President Walewski. It is to that very opinion of the delegates of the nation that I invite the honorable M. Jules Favre to submit, in abstaining from a discussion which the Chamber, for reasons which every one understands and appreciates, decided yesterday should not be continued. [Hear! Hear!]

M. Hacntjens. The words just spoken by the Hon. M. Jules Favre prove how right we were in that.

M. Jules Favre. I discuss nothing—I merely state; and unless, I say it again, it be desired that our ears should not have heard what was said, one must admit, if we have French hearts, our being impressed. [Disclaimers.]

General Dautherulle. We have French hearts, not Juarist hearts.

M. Glais Bizoin. We keep them for our own, and not for Maximilian.

M. Jules Favre. I admire you, gentlemen, but do not envy your state of mind. [Noise.] As for me, I prefer making use of my own, and I will merely say to you, in finishing, that we would be failing in duty if we did not look upon that question in the relation in which it necessarily stands to all others.

Some members. That is evident.

M. Jules Favre. If we supposed ourselves in the midst of peace; if we resembled that pilot who, seeing the storm at the horizon, goes to sleep contentedly, as though the waves were not threatening him—— [Ironical exclamations on some benches.]

Well, gentlemen, we have reasons to believe, and we were sufficiently warned yesterday, that dangers are possible, that great and supreme decisions may be asked of the nation. We must be prepared for any event, and for that we have need of all our strength; we have need to bring back among us those children of France who should never have left her. [Interruption.] We shall hail their return with enthusiasm, and I hope we shall find a great lesson in it, together with the manly courage we need to oppose follies which cost France a thousand millions. [Hear, hear, and applause around the speaker; protests on a great number of benches.]

The President Walewski. The Baron David has the floor.

Baron Jerome David. Gentlemen, I wish to say at once that I do not leave Mexico before the injunctions of any foreign power; to present things in that fashion is to misunderstand the true state of facts, and to lend, gratuitously to France an attitude unworthy of her. We represent a France. The majority represents a France, which does not yield to commands from abroad. [Good, good.]

How can we help regretting this method of discussion, which, after promising the greatest delicacy of treatment in view of the present circumstances, sets forth in the harshest and bitterest form all that can be imagined in regard to the Mexican expedition? [Very well.]

Gentlemen, I know that in taking the floor to defend the conduct of the government in what concerns the affairs of Mexico, I shall not obtain the assent of all, but I know, also, that you hear and examine attentively conscientious opinions. I ask your attention. I have never brought to the defence of a causemore of study, more of reflection, more of profound conviction.

The American expedition has just been again the object of severe animadversion. The aid we are lending to the consolidation of a regular government serves as a text for the liveliest criticisms. The return of our troops has been too long deferred; it has been badly arranged; promises attributed to the government are called in question; finally, we are shown the possibility of a frightful contest, by insinuations that the United States, as soon as they have repaired the damages of a gigantic struggle, will interpret the application of the Monroe doctrine in opposition to our views and our acts.

Gentlemen, I do not believe in these perilous chances; but even admitting them, do they exclude our right? Since when, among nations careful of their dignity, does danger place itself above duty?

Is it at the moment when our troops are redoubling their efforts to obtain before their departure alasting pacification, to labor to spread discouragement and weakness, when concord, confidence, and strength are the principal elements of success—the best means of preventing dangerous complications?

Why not look this Mexican question in the face? Have we sought these dangerous complications? Is it a spirit of adventure that has conducted us to Mexico? Is it the quest of supremacy or an abusive protectorate over the Latin race? If it is true that our foreign relations are inspired by natural sympathies for peoples whose origin, tendencies, and religious faith establish common bonds with us, these sympathies exert no more than their proper influence over the attitude of our diplomacy.

The imperial government consults above all the interests of France, to which it subordinates the measure of its intervention in questions which do not touch us directly; and have you not just now had a proof of this? Has not the government, in presence of the abuses of power of which Europe has been the theatre of late years, remained, if not inactive, at least disarmed? But when solemn conventions are disregarded, when our claims are treated with contempt, when the life and property of our fellow-citizens are compromised—when all these wrongs assume proportions vast enough to justify a resort to arms, our government does not accept derisive reparations; it knows that one can surmount the most difficult conjunctures with right and justice before him, and France behind him; one of the advantages of the empire over the governments which have preceded it is that it comprehends that there are certain questions which must be examined and grappled with under penalty of decay. The Mexican question is one of these.

Men are too apt to forget the origin of the Mexican expedition when they reproach the government with it as a fault. It must not be forgotten that it is given to no policy to conduct events; God leads them; good policy studies them, seeks to comprehend their bearing, the advantages and disadvantages which will result there from for the common weal, and, in a word, the place which they will hold for the honor of the country in the judgment of history and of posterity.

Do not events sometimes surpass the wisest perceptions? Do they not require from a nation sacrifices, resignation, consistency under trials? Consult the pages of humanity; consult the recent example of the persistence, crowned with success, of the northern States of the American Union, and you will see that the fame of nations depends upon their energy, depends upon their will, and not upon the weakness and the apprehensions of counsellors, more apt to mislead governments than to conduct them. Let us be penetrated, gentlemen, with these thoughts, so as to place the Mexican question upon its true ground.

Those who oppose the expedition, who wish to use it against the government, say, Let us not occupy ourselves with the past; let us only interrogate the present.

Why not examine the origin of the expedition? Why not ask if the expedition was just, necessary, commanded by the true interest of France?

For forty years European commerce met with obstacles of every kind in the old Spanish colonies. For more than forty years the flags were powerless to protect their citizens—harassed, taxed, forcibly enrolled, and sometimes victims of assassination. Nevertheless, we practiced the temporising policy still in use with the republics of Central America and South America. This policy consists in employing diplomatic means; toiling in the sterile tract of chancelleries and official, despatches, trusting to the cleverness of consular agents, that, thanks to their knowledge of men and local matters, they might prevent wrongs from degenerating into public outrages. We preferred this limping policy to rigorous measures, not wishing to throw ourselves singly into a struggle the reasons for which weighed upon different European powers.

Was it not sound policy, when Spain decided to require by force the redressing of her grievances, when she had prepared her means of repression, when she was putting them in motion to adhere to her views—at the same time with England—by the treaty of the 31st October, 1861?

These facts being incontestable, is it not unjust to say that the Mexican expedition was inconsiderately undertaken? Where will you find an inconsiderate act? In our understanding with two great powers? We did not give birth to the expedition. We accepted it in common with Spain and England. We accepted it under conditions useful and necessary to the public good—the constant end of the plans of the Emperor and the government.

Observe the tactics of the opposition. See how the men of the opposition exclude from the debate the real basis, which would embarrass them, to substitute with an infinite art an erroneous base, from which they deduce the whole force of an argument, sustained often by a remarkable talent. It is thus that you hear them admitting a priori, and seeking to persuade the country, that the initiative and the responsibility of the Mexican expedition fall upon the French government. I have taken care to place the question properly. We went to Mexico with Spain and England, who shared with us the responsibility and the charge of the expedition. Our allies retired; we remained.

Two objections present themselves: Why did you not retire at the same time with your allies? If you thought you ought to persevere, why did you not have recourse to means less onerous than a campaign in the interior of Mexico? Here are the two objections, with all their clearness and all their truth.

We were right in not treating with Mr. Juarez; we had not placed our armies in the field to stipulate for illusory guarantees with a government which the day after our departure would have cheated us once more. [True! True!]

When a great power draws the sword; when it displays its banners for the fight; when it sends its armies beyond the seas, it should be only after having exhausted all pacific means, and it is ridiculous, not to say shameful, to end after such a display of force by ratifying at last conditions which one had refused before putting himself in motion.

It pleased our allies to traverse several thousand leagues to declare satisfactory the tortious promises of a cunning and obstinate half-breed, which they called bad and untrustworthy before leaving Europe. They were free to correct themselves in this way.

The tradition of France very different; [Very well!] and even if I were alone in my opinion [No, no!] I would think she has done well to persevere in the Mexican expedition; [Yes!] this expedition has cost ns millions; [Yes!] the blood of our brave soldiers and sailors has been shed in those distant regions; [Yes!] the whole weight of a task so difficult—rendered more difficult by distance and an unwholesome climate—has fallen upon us . [Well!] I think that even at this price, we did well not to retreat like Spain and England. History will do us justice in not having left Mexico; in not having given up when our allies did.

Besides, let no one deceive himself in this: if we had not persevered in the Mexican expedition at the time of the defection of our allies, a real disrespect and contempt would have come upon European influence in America; and this contempt would have found its expressions perhaps, to-day in disastrous wars. On the contrary, our influence has increased in the New World. While, since 1860, difficulties are arising on every hand between Spain, and her former colonies, the President of the republic of Ecuador, one of the three republics issued from the late Colombian, has officially solicited the protectorate of France.

Gentlemen, judge of our conduct in Mexico, without reducing it to vulgar proportions; without fitting it to the narrow views of those schoolmasters who talk of glory without risking its dangers, [applause;] who talk of national preponderance, and pretend to ignore the fact that it is acquired painfully by severe toil. Think of the prestige of our country, of her name, more respected and honored in every quarter of the globe.

Gentlemen, soon will the piercing of the isthmus of Suez, accomplished by the audacity of modern genius——

M. Achilli Jubinal. Of French genius!

Mr. Jerome David——transform Asia, that ancient cradle of human knowledge; and in presence of the prodigious advantages due to our initiative and our efforts, the minds of men will turn with a true passion to sea communications; all eyes will be fixed upon the terriries of Mexico and Central America, destined, they also, to bear witness of the triumph of science over the ancient works of nature. When a passage shall be cut between the two oceans, our influence in Mexico—influence now acquired by our firmness—will place us in the centre of the civilizing current which shall open for the field of human activity the islands of the great ocean, Australia and China.

When the most important work was done—when we had penetrated to Mexico, it was necessary not to compromise the future by too much precipitation. Ah! let us be sure the judgments of history would have been severe, not only for them who, without considering the results obtained by our sacrifices, demanded a cowardly abandonment of Mexico, but also for the government, if it had shown itself weak enough to yield to the first demands of retreat addressed to it.

Admit that there is some merit and some greatness in enforcing a respect for international laws, in magnificent countries, admirably situated; without this respect for international laws they are lost for agriculture, for industry, and for a just division of the productive forces of the world.

As in Africa the Roman roads indicate that the kingly people spread the waves of its genius and its power as far as the confines of the habitable globe, so, should we not be proud to leave, as traces of our occupation, works of public utility, the construction of railroads, the opening of routes binding together different points of territory, the application of the rules and laws which distinguish civilized peoples? Will we not be proud to hate the pencil of history record—we who are also a great nation—that in spite of defections and obstacles, we alone, in the general interest of the future and of its progress, placed the imprint of our eagles on the soil of the Montezumas?

I do not give the first rank to these general considerations; they take their place beside the decisive causes which led us to Mexico at the same time with Spain and England.

I come to the second objection: “Why did you not have recourse to maritime measures?”

A fleet presents itself to obtain reparation; a blockade of the coast is declared; the seacoast cities are threatened or bombared; what result will be obtained?

Commerce is almost entirely in the hands of French, English, Spanish, and American merchants. To bombard the seaboard towns, blockade the coasts, is to chastise those you wish to protect and defend. See what is happening; Chili in conflict with Spain; foreign residents in emotion; consuls interposing to prevent the reprisals of the Spanish squadron; when these reprisals take place, when Valparaiso is bombarded, a cry of anguish resounds through Europe.

Blockades and shore expeditions have never obtained anything. Were they not tried in 1838, at the time of the capture of San Juan d’Ulloa and the descent on Vera Cruz? Did we not try them in concert with England for fifteen years in La Plata without being able to bring to terms Rosas, the dictator of Buenos Ayres?

I have shown that the government had accepted the idea of the Mexican expedition, presenting itself under favorable circumstances, without having taken the initiative in the matter.

I have sustained that the retreat of our allies did not have to involve ours.

I have recalled the insufficiency of maritime measures.

It remains for me to examine the end which we are pursuing in Mexico—the results obtained; it remains for me to examine in what condition our departure will leave the regions of the New World over which our eagles have soared.

It is said, (and I am astonished at it,) But what have you been doing in Mexico? What have you obtained from Mexico?

Nations, like individuals, seek in a reparation by arms, not a material advantage, but public evidence, purely moral. A man exposes himself because he must; he exposes himself without calculating the danger, to escape loss of character and contempt. We have already attained in Mexico completely the principal end of every expedition which pursues a reparation by arms. We have broken all obstacles and all resistance. A few thousand French soldiers have traversed victoriously everywhere and in every way territories whose area surpasses three times that of France. They have made their way through regions deprived of communications, supplying by their self-denial and boldness the scanty means of execution. Except in rare cases, where it has been necessary to inflict exemplary punishments, they have been distinguished by their discipline and their respect for persons and property. They have completely changed the situation of Mexico. They have greatly reduced brigandage; for indeed to hear certain orators discuss the Mexican question, it would seem they were discussing a question of which the phrases more suited a European country. Nothing could be more false than that idea: the social state of Mexico resembles in nothing the social state of a European nation.

So, for instance, in Mexico crime was an industry; a man was killed for a few dollars? entire villages lived only by theft and rapine; the bandits sold their services to the partisan Chief who bid highest, and by this commerce of brigandage invested themselves with a political claim. Before our arrival not a week passed without the diligence passing from Vera Cruz to Mexico being seized; and when it was not seized in the course of a week, it was an event so unusual that it was the talk of the country.

These are facts.

Let us not therefore compare Mexico with a European country. [True!]

The principal end of our expedition did not exclude aims which had also their importance. We were not contented with military glory; we were not satisfied with meeting at the centre of their country those to whom belonged the responsibility of our grievances, and with depriving them of a power which they used only to violate the rights of nations. We tried to restore confidence and energy to that large portion of the Creoles who aspire to the stability and the repose necessary to develop the living forces of the country. The Creole population is enlightened; it is composed of scholars, writers, and lawyers of merit; this population views with resignation those troubles against which it has the habit of guarding, not having the necessary energy to combat them; it manages with adroitness and skill to steer among the different factions, and with a little money and much subservience it comes out of a series of troubles almost safe and sound. The great majority of the Creoles despaired of the possibility of a return to public order, so long as a Mexican was in power. They understood that in this country, which within half a century had seen thirty revolutions, and more than two hundred insurrections, more or less serious, any individual sufficiently notable to aspire to power could only arrive there under a weight of prior engagements incompatible with an era of conciliation and peace; therefore, they turned their eyes toward a European prince.

The Archduke Maximilian was connected by his genealogy with the ancient possessors of Mexico. He had given proofs of a liberal spirit. It was to be hoped that he could restore order without suppressing liberty.

The French government has been much blamed for lending itself to the accession of the Archduke Maximilian. It has been said that French blood has been shed simply for an Austrian Archduke. Gentlemen, such observations would not deserve to be noticed did they not proceed from sources enjoying a certain authority.

Yet, what more simple than our attitude during the negotiations with the Archduke Maximilian? What more opportune than his accession? And how could any one blame the government for not having made public, at the risk of causing them to fail, negotiations which, although conducted by Mexicans, were going in a current useful to our interests?

We encouraged the Archduke Maximilian, convinced that it lay with an able direction of affairs to raise Mexico from the state of anarchy and disorder where we found her; but, while encouraging him, we did not bind ourselves indissolubly to his fortunes; we were bound only in the measure of French interests.

We have remained loyally, honorably masters of our movements, and if that were not so, the emperor Maximilian would have hastened to proclaim it, and they would not have failed to repeat it to you in this discussion; we have remained masters of our movements; we have made them wholly subservient to French interests, and when we saw events whose progress belongs neither to governments nor peoples about to endanger, our interests, and cause our sacrifices to be out of proportion with our views, and the role to which we were assigned, we recalled our troops, and we acted wisely.

What do you reproach us with, then? In it perhaps with having arrested ourselves in time?

The emperor Maximilian is at this very time favorably situated for maintaining the power with which he has been invested by the Mexicans; it is for him to turn it to advantage. These difficulties exist; they proceed from the deep-rooted anarchy which has corrupted and debased the Mexican population; he disposes of a regular army to check the evil; European contingents are enrolled under his flag; numbers of Creoles are grouped around his throne; a good government will assure to him the unconditional co-operation of the entire Indian population; he can raise to the dignity of citizens those millions of Indians whose systematic exclusion from everything constituting the government, the administration, public life, prevents us from being able to recognize in Mexico the distinguishing characteristics which compose homogeneous nations. Without these distinctive traits, patriotism is a vain word, and not a respectable and imposing idea.

Ah! if there had been in Mexico the cohesion which springs from patriotism, if there had not been on the one side a detestable oligarchy, whose members, liberal and clerical, were engaged in incessant conflict, and on the other side a whole population oppressed and reduced to servitude, our soldiers would not have been able, without being crushed under the number of their adversaries, to act in very small columns for the purpose of operating successfully on points the most distant from headquarters. Several hundred French soldiers penetrated to considerable distance—to two or three hundred leagues from the capital; they everywhere met sympathetic or indifferent populations, taking part in a struggle which did not appear to concern them.

The facts are there with their eloquence; they prove that we have overturned in Mexico an odious tyranny without impairing a pure patriotism.

Soldiers of France, you have been liberators and not oppressors. No sorrow will obscure your glory; preserve tranquillity of soul and of conscience: equity and right are with you.

Numerous Voices. Very good! Very good,

M. Le Baron Jerome David. Ought we to prolong our stay in Mexico until every difficulty should have disappeared; until a complete pacification causes the regular Working of the several branches of the government?

I would answer, yes. If it were given us to define, to fix a precise period for the accomplishment of a task which depends upon a mass of different elements—the ability of the prince, the sagacity of those in power, the successive changes of public opinion, the sacrifices of adherents, finally, in a certain measure, events in the other portions of America—I answer no, because all these elements of success give place to the unforeseen, and it would be injurious to give up to unforeseen contingencies the sacrifices demanded of France. We were to leave Mexico; a date was to be fixed for our departure. You were told just now—and that moved me for an instant—“Take care; you are going to leave Mexico, and what will become of your countrymen and the native partisans of intervention? To what dangers will they not be exposed? What will happen? You will be lacking to your promises, and thousands of Mexicans and Frenchmen will reproach you with their ruin, will reproach you with the disasters which will overwhelm then.”

In the first place it is going too fast to imagine the immediate fall of the emperor Maximilian.

Then it would be well, before casting that reproach, to ask, what would have happened if we had given up when Spain and England did. Do you imagine that our countrymen and those Mexicans who had invoked the intervention would have found themselves in a better situation than to-day? You would deceive yourselves greatly.

The affairs of Mexico were difficult and embarrassing. We have encountered difficulties of all sorts; we have tried in every way to overcome them; in every ease we have the high boast of having sensibly diminished them; impartial history will recognise it.

In eighteen months we will leave Mexico; during these eighteen months our countrymen and those natives who have not confidence can retire; they will suffer losses, perhaps, but these losses will be much less than they world have been if we had left Mexico at the same time with Spain and England.

Whatever may happen after having obtained full satisfaction through arms, we will have done for Mexico all it was possible to do; all that could be reconciled with the interests and honor of France. (Lively assent.)

For the rest, of two things, one: Either after the departure of our troops the emperor Maximilian will maintain himself, and in that case we will at once have accomplished a considerable work for Mexico, not only to the advantage of French influence, but also in the general influence of the civilization of the world; or the emperor Maximilian will yield to the difficulties which he cannot overcome; he will spend ostentatiously the resources needed for organization; he will pass successively from excessive rigors to measures of exaggerated clemency; he will waver between all parties, without resting upon any, offending in turn those who called for him, and those who might adopt him, in the mad folly—alas! too habitual to governments—of trying to conciliate implacable enemies; in this case we will none the less have proved that the anger of France strikes everywhere those who incur it.

If the emperor Maximilian commits blunders which render it impossible for him to maintain himself, it is then important that it be the Mexicans themselves who regulate their own destinies.

As long as the affairs of Mexico are arranged, after our departure, without foreign intervention, I say that the attitude of France is a most enviable one, and that we have courageously attempted a great act of civilization. As to the costs of the war and French interests in case of the fall of the emperor Maximilian, they will remain at the charge of succeeding governments in Mexico: I can scarcely see how we should diminish our financial losses in engaging ourselves further to protect the Mexican credit.

Whatever may happen, we have taught the Mexican populations to understand notions of order, of common law, of general security, of civil equality; these notions may be for a moment obscured by disorders, but gleams of light will arise from them to regenerate Mexico. Let us not doubt Providence; let us not accord to evil alone the power of duration and expansion. We have thrown fruitful seeds into Mexico; these seeds will bear their fruits, and we may be proud of the part which we have played in this. [Marks of adhesion and approbation.]

Reproaches have been addressed to the government on the subject of the Mexican loan. I have frequently heard reproaches in and out of this chamber.

This loan was openly facilitated by the French government. What is there surprising in that? How! We had our armies in Mexico; we had seconded, as far as we could, the establishment of a monarchy, conceived, it is true, by Mexicans. We had furnished to this cause what is most precious, the banner and the soldiers of France, and we were not to aid the placing of the loan, which is only a small feature of the manifestation of our sympathies.

Were these loans of 1864 and 1865 issued mysteriously? Was it an unknown situation, founded on ignorance of facts, working the good faith of subscribers? Had not the Mexican question passed through attacks, let me say, angry and exaggerated? Had it not been presented under the most sinister aspects? Had not discussion and contradiction been exercised on the chances, bad and good, of the new empire; on the natural riches of the Mexican soil; on the political state of populations; on the development or the sterility of resources? Had not all these investigations, all these researches, all these criticisms been laid before the public ever since 1861? The government believed that Mexico would rise up again, and it does not yet despair of it. Do not, therefore, for the sake of your argument, represent the subscriber or the holder of the Mexican loan an incapable person, led into error. Do not ask that the government should be the guardian, the only responsible guide of citizens in the least acts. We revolt every day against this idea, which I declare inacceptable. There were exceptional advantages for the subscriber. Does not every one know that the rate of interest paid by the borrower indicates his chances of solvency? [Movements.]

I do not admit that the subscribers to the loan should be taxed with incapacity; they have acted with full know ledge of the matter. There had been public discussions; they knew what they were doing; it was a question of judgment, of impression, which every One could decide at his own will and pleasure.

Several Members. True! [Interruption and various noises.]

Baron Jerome David. If it is true that public opinion in France desires the return of our troops; if it is true that this return is commanded by our well-understood interests, we should have serious guarantees of the non-intervention of foreign powers. I do not believe in the intervention of the United States in the affairs of Mexico. By what right, and for what purpose would they intervene? The population of Mexico is composed of Creoles, half-breeds, and Indians. There is no kind of analogy of relation between the Spanish American race and the anglo-American. Manners, temperament, language, religious faith, all differ; all is opposition and contrast. The question of race is, therefore, out of the question.

There is talk of the Monroe doctrine. Since when has a doctrine enunciated in a message addressed to the nation taken the force of law for foreign nations? We could understand that the United States should be moved by an aggressive neighborhood, or are threatening the internal institutions of the Union; but because one nation is ruled by the republican form, it is not just to pretend that monarchical institutions shall be excluded from the New World, even when they are acclimated among a people who, by their importance, the relative weakness of their resources, the extent of their territory, the distance of their capital, could not in the least influence the political mechanism of the nation in question. To sustain such a proposition is not possible in fair and legal discussion, especially when—thanks to the solidity of its institutions—a nation has traversed a terrible crisis, and placed on foot instantly the most considerable armies of which modern history makes mention. There can be no danger to the United States from the Mexican monarchy. It would be years before Mexico could set on foot a single army corps comparable to the contingents raised by the United States during the recent war between the federals and the confederates. Beside the negative right of the United States stands the positive right, recognized by every sovereign nation to make war and to assure its results. In virtue of this right we have seconded the accession of the emperor Maximilian. Now I repeat, if, in consequence of wrong directions, the emperor Maximilian should fall by the will of the Mexicans, France has not to interfere; she declares that she adopts the doctrine of non-intervention. We have sympathies, preferences; the United States are perfectly free to have their impressions of this kind; but it will neither be their business nor ours to meddle in the events which take place in Mexico. If it is difficult to perceive the right of the United States to intervene in Mexico, it is impossible to discover their interest in plunging into so grave an adventure. If, in default of right, there were a true interest for this great nation, for this adventurous, energetic nation, it would be capable of invoking a right, more or less genuine, to subserve its interests. Does there exist a powerful interest which could lead the United States to expose themselves, not to war with France, but to a rupture? Would it be to seek an aggrandizement of territory? The United States are already somewhat embarrassed with what they already possess, now that it is necessary to reconstruct solidly the Union. Would it be their interest to bring Mexico back to its former anarchy? Is it not to the advantage of the commerce of the northern States to find itself in relation with a country at peace, well governed, disposing of resources well worked and managed? Would not the prosperity of Mexico be an element of wealth to the United States? The different Presidents of the United States have thought so. This thought reveals itself in their messages—they deplore the disorders which have desolated Mexico. President Buchanan said, in 1858: “The successive governments of Mexico have not been able to afford effective protection either to Mexican citizens or foreign residents, against violence and lawlessness.” Mr. Buchahan said, in 1859: “Without help, Mexico will not be able to resume her position among nations, nor enter into any course fruitful of good results.” After such declarations, the United States could with ill grace deliberately take sides with the faction which we went to Mexico to subdue. When I regard the proofs of good sense and exalted wisdom given by the men of the United States, I say that such a conflict is impossible, and that it will not take place. The United States will learn from the dissolution which has threatened them, and which they have so painfully surmounted, the reserve necessary to renounce the temptations to domination over the New World, which are in violation of justice and reason.

The discoveries of science have brought nearer different continents; relations are multiplied; contact becomes incessant; we are nearing the period when peoples will be called either to unite in the interest of civilization to demand for the works of their genius, for the exchange of their products, for the adoption of their improvements, a new impulse in the path of social amelioration, or to give themselves up to conflict and jealousy in the interest of error and despotism. The United States have better work to do than to allow themselves to be led by the eccentric and quarrelsome instincts of a turbulent minority; they have better work to do than to identify themselves with bad causes which do not concern them—that is, to accept the co-operation of Europe to bring back into the intellectual and economic movement of our times the numerous populations scattered through the immense spaces which extend from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn. We do not go so far as to ask the United States to understand as we do their providential mission; we do not go so far as to demand of them the recognition of the order of things established in Mexico. We desire only that they shall know that we have not carried our banner to the soil of Mexico, where so many of ours have fallen gloriously, to allow that, under pretext of difference of appreciation, and in contempt of the principle of non-intervention, third parties should come immediately after our departure to overturn an edifice cemented with the blood of our soldiers. [Very good! ] We have nothing but sympathetic sentiments for the United States. We have not forgotten that our fathers fought in the front rank of the heroes of American independence. We could only deplore a rupture with a friendly nation, whose liberation shines in history like the radiant dawn of the French revolution. Nevertheless, these precious souvenirs cannot prevent us from reminding Americans that France wishes to find among them a reciprocation of the courtesy, the consideration, and the esteem which she accords them. No; the United States will not interfere in the affairs of Mexico. Their statesmen may not at once depart from the strange forms of their official communications and of their harangues, which flatter the American temperament, which is fond of loud and bold declarations. In America, popularity is gained by all sorts of audacity. We will have no trouble in answering the rudeness of the diplomatic style of the United States by the polished, firm, and moderate language which suits a nation like France. [Applause.]

The future of Mexico will rest, then, in the hands of the Mexicans, and no collision will arise from our generous enterprise. We have borne to Mexico the genius of civilization; it may suffer trials, from which it will certainly arise victorious. We may, therefore, gentlemen, regard the future with confidence, and be convinced that, in seconding the policy of the government, we have done an act truly good and useful for the prestige and glory of our country. In sustaining the policy of the government we remain the representatives of that proud and generous France which prefers resolution and even boldness to the reproach of indecision and of fear. Let us be independent of appeals made to selfish and vulgar sentiments, and sustain a policy which has only in view the greatness and dignity of the country. [Numerous marks of approbation,]

The President Waleswki. No one asking the floor, the chamber will pass to the discussion of the articles.

M. Ernest picard. Mr. President, we were waiting for the explanations of the government. I can understand that they are very difficult for it; but they would be very interesting for the country.

The President Waleswki. The government is the best judge of what is to be done. [Yes, yes; the vote.]

M. Chaix D’est-Ang, vice-president of council of state (rising.) The chamber understands perfectly.

Numerous voices. It is useless; the vote, the vote.

The vice-president of the council of state resumes his seat.

The President Waleswki. reads the first article of the law.