Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session of the Fortieth Congress

Mr. Dix to Mr. Seward

No. 102.]

Legation of the United States, Paris, July 12, 1867.

Sir: I have the honor to transmit by to-day’s mail copies of the Moniteur of July 10th and 11th, containing the remarkable speeches of Mr. Thiers, Mr. Rouher, minister of state, and Mr. Jules Favre, upon the Mexican question.

Mr. Thiers’s speech will be found to be a clear and admirable historical resumé of the Mexican expedition, attacking the government by the force of the facts. Mr. Favre’s speech is a vehement and bitter attack upon the ministry, ending with the assertion that in a free country they would be impeached. Mr. Rouher’s reply is able and eloquent. Mr. Girardin in his paper of yesterday says that it is no answer.

With the Moniteurs I enclose two numbers of Galignani containing translations of these speeches. They are not, however, full or accurate.

I have the honor to call your attention especially to the concluding sentences of Mr. Favre’s speech, of which I subjoin a translation.

I am, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant,

JOHN A. DIX.

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

[Untitled]

[From the Moniteur, July 11, 1867.—Translation.]

Mr. Jules Favre. But it is not only upon Mexico you wished to make war. Through her heart, which you had pierced, you wished to strike America.

Well, the sad result of this expedition has been precisely to aggrandize that America which you wished to strike.

In fact, the final result of your false policy—a policy which you glorify, however, for you declare that you have committed no faults, and this declaration you make standing in the midst of ruins—the final result of your false policy is the avowal that the expedition of Mexico has ended in throwing this great country, that you wished to save from anarchy, into the arms of America.

Gentlemen, I have not invented this; it is the government itself which has said so in the last declaration of the Moniteur, the imprudence of which declaration I pointed out when I said that the severity of official language should never indulge in epithets which might cruelly wound a government which, after ail, has strength, and against which you can do nothing. No, no against which you can do nothing, and which can at this moment do great hurt to our countrymen.

This is what the government has said: “Mexico would be too happy if she could disappear from the number of independent nations, and see herself absorbed by powerful neighbors.”

Thus the result of your expedition has been to aggrandize beyond measure that America whose development disquiets you, as can be proved by official declarations which I can produce.

[From Galignani’s Messenger, July 11, 1867.]

The legislative body held a sitting yesterday, M. Schneider in the chair. The President announced the death of M. de Voize, deputy for the Isère. The debate on the budget of 1868 was fesumed, the speakers being M. Rouher, minister of state, M. Jules Favre, and M. Berryer. The close of the general discussion being called for, M. Olivier was heard against that course, but after some observations from M. Rouher it was pronounced. The sitting then terminated.

The following is a full report of the proceedings on the day before, already briefly mentioned.

M. Rouher, minister of state and of finance, M. Baroche, minister of justice, and the other government commissioners were present.

The order of the day was the discussion on the budget of 1868.

M. Thiers. I feel bound to speak upon the subject of Mexico, although the task is a painful one. So fatal a termination to that enterprise requires all the light possible that can be thrown upon it. I offered my objections in 1864, and I shall regret to the last day of my life that upon that occasion I was not sufficiently persuasive. It may be said that, the undertaking having now come to an end, silence with respect to it would be becoming, so that in the beginning a blind confidence, during the course of the enterprise an ill-understood patriotism, and, in the end, a desire to forget all, would never allow the truth to be heard. [Applause from the left.] The cause of all these misfortunes is to be found in an absence of control. It is not true, although it was said, that the losses suffered in Mexico by our compatriots were the motive for this expedition; it is not true that at any time there was the least chance of success. There has been no discouragement, because from the first there was no hope. The original motive was a generous but mistaken one, and it found no sufficient support. Mexico was at that time recovering from the effects of its revolution, and it was ruled by a man who had not then stamped an indelible stigma upon his name. [Hear, hear.] Foreign creditors, it is true, suffered, but some of them made their claims the pretext of odious speculations. Mexico could not pay, a rupture took place, and an act of rigor became necessary. It was then said that the Mexicans were tired of revolutions, and desired a monarchy under a European prince. The English Admiral Dunlop, however, who knew the country well, informed his government that the only party in Mexico that wished to see a monarchy established was the clerical party, composed of timid, passive and incapable men, who could do nothing for themselves. The English government then withdrew from the joint enterprise, and that of Spain followed the example; Marshal O’Donnell declaring that, for his own part, if the crown of Mexico were offered to him he would not accept it. The Spanish minister did not believe in the possibility of a monarchy in Mexico. That was in January, 1862. The ideas of the Mexican exiles met more credence in France. These men described the resources of their country as enormous; its riches were depicted in glowing colors, and it was even supposed at that time that means were obtainable to pay off the French national debt. [Laughter.] The next question was, where to find a European prince? A member of the house of Austria was selected; an Italian province had been taken from that family, and, as compensation, an empire was to be given to it. These were the three notions that lay at the root of the Mexican expedition: the mere appearance of France in Mexico would suffice; immense treasures were to be found there; and Austria would receive a satisfaction.

England objected, and then came the convention of the 31st October. The object of the expedition was laid down to be solely the securing of the interests of the resident Europeans; but a clause was added enabling the French general to undertake whatever accessory operations might be necessary. Nevertheless, the instructions given to Admiral Jurien de la Gravière, who acted throughout with sense and prudence, authorized him to extend his operations, in case of necessity, as far as the city of Mexico. The expedition, composed of 2,200 men, arrived at Vera Cruz early in December. The smallness of that force proved how completely the notions of the Mexican exiles had sunk into the mind of the French government. General Prim, who is not deficient either in courage or intelligence, heard at Havana, what was said everywhere by those exiles, that the mere appearance of the expedition would effect a revolution. “Well,” he said, “if you want a revolution, make it; we will then treat with you as we would with Juarez; but we shall not meddle in the matter. Our instructions are to enter into communications with the government de facto” The expedition reached Vera Cruz; the Mexican government acted calmly; it sent General Doblado to ascertain the demands made. That commander did not for a moment dream of resistance; but he said to Prim: “Do you come here to change the government? If you do, you shall be opposed to the death. If your purpose be confined to obtaining satisfaction of the claims of your compatriots, we can negotiate on that subject.” The French and Spanish troops were dying at that moment in great numbers at Vera Cruz; Prim replied that they could not negotiate, remaining in that position. General Doblado then offered to give up the defiles of Chiquite and 30 leagues of territory, comprising healthy localities, and where provisions were plentiful, provided that, if the negotiations should prove abortive, these positions were to be restored; and also, in order to appease the patriotic feelings of the Mexican people, that the national flag should in the meantime float alongside that of the allies. All this was agreed to, and formed the basis of the convention of Soledad, afterwards disavowed by the French government. The troops, heretofore blocked up in Vera Cruz, were enabled to go to Orizaba, the line of march being strewn with the dead and dying, so severe was the pest then raging. The Mexican general acted with perfect good faith. At Orizaba the European plenipotentiaries endeavored to come to an understanding among themselves respecting their claims on Mexico. England demanded 80,000,000, which, I am convinced, is an exaggerated amount; Spain claimed 40,000,000; and the French plenipotentiary estimated at 60,000,000 what was due to French subjects. The sum appeared high, but neither the English nor the Spanish representative raised any objection. Since that period, however, in negotiating with Maximilian, we have estimated the debt due by Mexico to us at 40,000,000, payable in paper, which is really worth only 20,000,000; and a sum of not more than half that amount had only accrued before the expedition was undertaken. With respect to the claims of Jecker for an additional 75,000,000, and of which I will say nothing at present, the English and Spanish plenipotentiaries only remarked that it would be difficult to compel Mexico to pay so much money—275,000,000 altogether, equal to three or four years of its entire revenue. But they agreed to refer the point to their governments. Then, a second expedition, accompanied by Mexican exiles full of enthusiasm, and commanded by General Lorencez, arrived at Orizaba. It proclaimed its purpose to be to re-establish monarchy in Mexico. The English protested and sent Miramon back to Havana. Our plenipotentiary refused to send away the other exiles, and a rupture took place. The English and Spanish representatives declared that they were pledged not to attempt any interference with the constitution of the Mexican government. Admiral Jurien de la Gravière, admitting that the French troops were there to overthrow the republic, asked whether they thought the Mexicans had given up the position at Orizaba with any real intention of negotiating. The reply of the other European representatives was: “This is only the 9th, and the negotiations are fixed for the 15th. I have my orders,” said the admiral. “So have we,” replied the others, and the separation took place. General Prim renounced the command which the Emperor had conferred upon him, and predicted a calamity to the French troops who were then about to march upon Puebla. The difficulties of that march were immense, and the conduct of the expeditionary troops elicited the admiration of France and of the world. [Applause.] Such was the first period of this expedition, of which the vindication of the interests of French subjects was the occasion but not the cause. I have mentioned these facts in order to show the necessity of more control over the action of the government. When was the legislative body consulted on the subject? It was not, indeed, in session at the commencement of the expedition, but afterwards, when 17,000 men were demanded in June, the request was made without a single observation on the part of the government.

Several voices. That is an error.

M. Thiers. Well, it may be one; but a complete discussion at that epoch might have had the effect of limiting the expedition. A whole year was required to repair the consequences of the check received on taking Puebla, on the 3d of May. Our soldiers on that occasion conducted themselves in a manner worthy of the troops of the first empire. [Hear, hear.] Puebla was taken, and with this the real fault commenced. If an efficient control existed, no cabinet, feeling itself responsible, deliberating under the watchfulness of the sovereign, and composed of capable men, could have remained blind to the objections which then presented themselves. It had been said, “Oh, we have only to present ourselves;” but two years had elapsed, and we had scarcely got beyond Puebla. The state of parties in Mexico was known, and the government ought to have been aware of the impossibility of an Austrian prince sustaining a government in their midst. The Mexicans had applied the principles of 1789 to their own affairs. Nearly the whole of the property of the clergy had been sold; and Spaniards, French, and English had shared in it. This placed the prince in a false position and one of great difficulty. The wealth of Mexico in precious metals could not be compared to that of California or Australia. The soil gave none of those marvellous results like the cultivation of cotton in the United States or of coffee in Brazil. When the French troops arrived in the city of Mexico, the party which had promised such wonders at length showed itself. A provisional government, composed of honorable men, I admit, was formed, and a junta being organized, voted by 213 to 2 that the monarchy should be re-established and Maximilian invited. The French army was in the mean time well received everywhere but with a certain reserve. A French merchant wrote at that moment, that after an absence from Mexico he had found the country a little more quiet, but many more soldiers and millions, he said, would be required. The Mexicans, he added, were vanquished, but not subjected. In the mean time the prince arrived at Paris in January, 1864. The address in the chamber was then being voted, and on the paragraph relating to Mexico I said, “We have repaired the check at Puebla; now we should stop. The prince has not yet started; it depends on you to stay the government.” It was replied to me, “Will you, then, abandon the French in Mexico to the vengeance of the partisans of Juarez?” I answered, “Do not expose yourselves to a still greater danger—that of abandoning the French you will have taken there if you allow him to leave.” The next day M. Rouher replied to me, and if I quote his words do not think it is for the pleasure of vain reprisals, or as a sad revenge for the rather hard words he then addressed to me. He said: “Passions will die out, the truth will become manifest, and posterity will say, he was a man of genius, who, in spite of resistance, obstacles, and weaknesses, had the courage to conduct a difficult undertaking to a successful termination.” He saw that the equilibrium of Europe, being no longer on the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Vistula or the Euxine, was in the whole world. That will be a glorious page, and people will be astonished that this policy should have been contested and misunderstood, not here, but elsewhere. A loan of 126 millions was concluded, but it only produced 102 millions, and of that sum Maximilian, in starting for Mexico, had to leave two years interest of the English and French debts, and a certain sum to guarantee the reimbursement. There only remained for him 40 millions, and probably he had not more than 20 millions on his arrival. He was well received, as all governments in that country have at first been during the last 50 years. The Mexican expedition resembled the wars of Spain under Napoleon I. Maximilian did like the brothers of the Emperor. He issued decrees, formed a council of state, made prefects and sub-prefects, and attempted to reform the administration of justice and organize an army. The cadres were ready, but the men were wanting, there being no conscription. He then wished to settle the question of the ecclesiastical property and excited against him the animosity of the clergy. From that moment he was completely isolated and had no other support than the French army. The emperor Maximilian had thought that with a budget of 90 millions, 20 millions for the debt, 20 for the Mexican army, 25 for the French troops, and 25 for public works and the home government, he could suffice for everything. He could not expect, however, to raise that sum by taxation. He hoped to pass the year with the 30 millions brought from France, and obtain fresh assistance from Europe for the next year. Six months later the budget had to be remodelled, and then it was not 90 millions but 180 millions of francs, he required. He applied to Europe. The first loan of six per cent., issued at 63, had fallen to 50. Recourse had consequently to be had to another form of credit. Then was imagined that combination of bonds issued at 340 francs, producing nearly ten per cent, interest, and with prizes of 500,000 francs downwards. A number of short-sighted persons, seduced by those advantages, allowed themselves to be led away. Moreover, all the government officials were set to work to convince the public of the excellency of the investment. M. Corta said that the country had formerly produced a revenue of 150 millions to the Spanish government, and the population having doubled, 200 millions might be counted on. At that moment, however, Spain had the monopoly of the distribution of the precious metals, on which she derived a profit of 20 to 25 per cent. They produce now but 6 or 7 per cent. Spain derived 20 millions of profit on the tobacco trade, which now produces but 6 or 7. The debts, which did not exist, under the Spanish rule, had been forgotten; for since the period of what is called the independence, each of the governments have had 70 millions of revenue, and 100 of expenditure, and have provided for the difference by loans. After M. Corta, the minister of state said that a general had told him that Mexico had always produced, not 200 millions, but 300 millions, to those who had pillaged or devastated it. If the country gave so much to anarchy, it would not be less productive to those who introduced order. The minister added, with a certain irritation, “You wish to discourage the capitalists as you have done the partisans of the expedition. Well, the capitalists have pronounced. I have just received a despatch announcing that the loan is all subscribed for.” This statement excited marks of satisfaction and applause. It is not to recriminate that I revive those recollections. [Several voices: It is the truth ! It is history !.] But a few weeks after the minister of state had boasted of the advantages of the loan, the minister of finance admitted that at bottom the affair was doubtful and bad. Of this second loan, which produced about 168 millions, after the deductions for reconstituting the capital for interest, prizes, &c., only about 40 millions remained for the emperor Maximilian. The situation had begun to grow worse. The French columns had been forced to pause and concentrate. The United States had triumphed over the insurgents of the south; the Mexican malcontents, who were said to have been driven from the country, took courage; they resisted leaning on the Rio Grande.

The republican generals, Cortina, Regules, and Porfirio Diaz, also were holding out. The resources were void. The French army was obliged to pay the Mexican troops from its own funds. Marshal Bazaine asked Maximilian to establish a conscription; but the emperor replied, “what would be said if he introduced all the European burdens into the country?” A melancholy incident then arose. When the French troops were absent the roads were infested with brigands. The government was accused of being weak. Heaven preserve me from attributing the decrees of the 3d of October to any one [Movements in opposite senses.] These persons who accused the Mexican government of weakness did not see, by the side of the few brigands who might indeed be infesting the roads, men who were defending the country and had a right to do so. [“Hear hear,” on the left of the speaker. A movement of dissent.]

The President. The gravity of the debate makes it a duty on all to listen in silence.

M.Thiers. The regretable decrees of the 3d of October, 1865, unhappily struck, by the side of a few brigands, two men who enjoyed universal esteem in Mexico, Generals Arteaga and Salazar, and drew from the United States a demand for explanations from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who replied—I do not blame him for it, for he was himself in great embarrassment—“Apply to Maximilian; apply to Juarez.” The American government did not insist, but it asked what were our intentions and how long we were going to stay in Mexico. An arrangement was come to with the United States as to the period when the French troops should leave, and in order to do something for the subscribers to the Mexican loan, the government of that country was obliged to give up the half of the products of the custom-house of Vera Cruz and Tampico. That was taking away the only resources by which it could live. Then it was that the voyage of the empress was resolved on; and while the Moniteur, which the minister of state recommended us to read, said that everything was prospering in Mexico, and that the empress Charlotte had not left that country, the telegraph announced her arrival at Saint Nazaire. [Various exclamations.] She was received with all the attention due to her rank, but what satisfaction could be given her? Could the Emperor tell her that he would resist the United States; that he would apply to the Chamber for fresh resources? No; he could not. The empress left Paris and went to Rome. I stop there. Let us hope there is a recompense above for souls who have suffered much on earth. [Great movement.] Then the French government decided to send General Castelnau to prepare the evacuation, and to leave Maximilian the choice to quit the country or to stay. In the former case he was to come to an understanding with no matter what government existed in Mexico. At the same, time the United States sent Mr. Campbell to Mexico, charged to recognize Juarez specially, and these facts becoming known to Maximilian, and at the moment he learned the blow which had fallen on the empress, he was attacked by a violent fever. Then he parted for Orizab, and there the parties who had separated from him returned to him and offered their swords. Even the clergy proffered pecuniary aid, and he, believing himself abandoned by France and bound in honor not to fail his partisans, took the resolution to remain, and returned to Mexico. What followed we all now know. France left this prince to make a last effort to save his honor, but solely his honor. [Movement.] We went to Mexico to obtain satisfaction for some of our countrymen: a few millions would have sufficed; but now, not only are they not reimbursed, but their number has become woefully multiplied. We went there for the benefit of our commerce and to advance the esteem of France in those regions. We went there to organize the Latin race in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon. Well, our commerce has suffered immensely. France has withdrawn, and as to the Anglo-Saxon race, it is triumphant; and we are reduced to form hopes that it will overrun the Mexico from which we wished to expel it, to avenge what we could not ourselves avenge. [Exclamations on some benches. “Hear, hear,” to the left of the speaker.] And what was the result? Last year the face of Europe was profoundly changed, and France, having the weight of Mexico on her hands, was unable to interfere. [Exclamations.] Every body, I well know, is liable to error; nations, as men. But was this one of the passions by which people are led astray I Was this an expedition urged on by the nation? All Europe has judged it like us. I well remember the railleries of the journals, especially the English. “Some occupation is necessary for the activity of our neighbors; here is an important one which will free us for some time from their enterprise.” In France, you well know, no one was led away, and dare I speak of the Chamber? If it did not resist, that was from a sentiment I respect—the consideration due to the government—to the chief of the state. [Hear.] And I draw this lesson from it, that no greater service can be rendered to the chief of the state than to resist him on certain occasions. [Cheers on some benches.] I have always been among those who in France have sought liberty under a monarchy; but there are two species. The first, where a prince governs through ministers, but without consulting them; in fact absolutely. The other, a chief of the state having respectful and devoted ministers, but concerting and arranging with them, they deferring to him with respect, and in case of difference, supporting themselves finally on public opinion. This latter is the one to which I have devoted myself for more than 40 years, and the one I wish for my country, and I am sure that the true friends of the government will desire that it pass as soon as possible from the first form to the second——

The President. M. Theirs will permit me to say——

Some members. Let M. Thiers speak!

M Thiers. I have only one word to add.

The President. Precisely; I ask that it may be such as that I may not be compelled to tell you that you are not discussing Mexico, but the constitution.

M. Thiers. Oh, Mr. President, I myself consider the situation too grave, the occasion too solemn, not to attend not only to moral, but to political propriety. [Applause.] Many of my honorable colleagues have told me that we are progressing towards this form of monarchy. So be it. I recognize that we are marching towards it; but let us not stop on the road, for we might encounter there the Mexican expedition and the events of Germany. [Various movements.] I have only touched upon these sad affairs, in hopes of accelerating the result we are permitted to aspire to—progress in our institutions. [Great applause on some benches.]

M. Granier De Cassagnac would once more sanction with his approval the Mexican expedition. This was not the first time that Providence had not granted success to a good cause. He regretted that young victim, the hope of right-minded men, the idol of liberal Italy, who had accepted the task of re-establishing order and liberty in Mexico. The speaker had heard the expedition reproached with being but of proportion to the interests engaged; but Europe could not tolerate a state of anarchy which held in check the general advance of civilization. France, England, and Spain united in 1861, and undertook an expedition to obtain reparation for former insolence, and a guarantee for the future. In the opinion of the three powers the expedition was not to be circumscribed to the narrow circle of former operations. Those powers would not confine themselves, as formerly, to seizing the customs and bombarding citadels. The landing had hardly taken place when the incident of Soledad arose. The plenipotentiaries signed, with the representatives of Juarez, the preliminaries of an arrangement, contrary to the spirit of the instructions the former had received. They were disavowed by their governments but a few days after, under pretexts which he would not revive. England and Spain withdrew. The honor of France bound her to remain. The events showed once more the result of such acts of weakness in governments. England saw the incontestable prestige of her maritime superiority disappear from the seas. She was attacked in Canada, and even in Ireland. M. Thiers had repeated an opinion, which was too generally believed, that the principal object of the expedition had been to establish a monarchy in Mexico, in order that it might form a barrier to the expansion of the United States, and become a check to their ambition. That error was much to be regretted, for it had contributed greatly to cause the expedition to fail. [Hear, hear.] The United States owed their existence to France, who was not now less liberal than in the last century. The Emperor had not been the guest of two republics to forget that if the republican form of government was in conformity with the genius of nations, it excluded neither order, liberty, nor greatness. [Hear, hear.] This had not been the first time France had attempted a great expedition beyond the seas. In 1778 she undertook a war against England, then the most powerful nation in the world; but after five years the latter was forced to come and sign peace at Versailles. He did not believe that Frenchmen had less courage and energy than their forefathers. If the Mexican expedition had been supported by public opinion it would have succeeded. Unfortunately it had not been understood. Nothing in it, could, however, tarnish the honor of France and her sovereign. [Hear, hear; loud applause.]

M. Jules Favre rose and was about to speak, when cries of “Adjourn, adjourn” were heard.

The President, at the request of the honorable member, consulted the Chamber, which decided that the discussion should continue.

M. Garnier Pages. It is scandalous to make a speaker begin at a quarter to six. [Interruption.]

The President. I regret to be obliged to order you to be silent. You should respect the decision of the Chamber.

M. Garnier Pages. I have a right to protest. [Loud marks of dissent.] Some offensive expressions have been employed near me.

M. Gavini. After the remark of M. Garnier Pages that it was scandalous to make a speaker begin at six o’clock, I answered that what was more scandalous was to thus treat the decisions of the Chamber. [Applause on several benches.]

M. Garnier Pages. It is certainly permitted, when the Chamber comes to such a decision, to express dissatisfaction. [Loud interruption.]

The President. If you had kept silent at first the persons near you would have made no remarks. The incident is terminated.

M. Garnier Pages continued to speak, amid cries of “Order, order.”

The President. I regret, M. Garnier Pages, to be obliged, by your persistence, to call you to order. [Hear, hear.]

M. Garnier Pages. Call the other persons to order, M. le President; do not have two weights and two measures.

The President. I must ask for the silence of the Chamber.

M. Jules Favre. You have just heard M. Granier de Cassignac, with a sincerity which I honor, defend the Mexican expedition in spite of its failure. I cannot share his opinions. I may ask whether it is the proceeding of a wise government, conscious of its responsibility, to cast into the abyss of a distant expedition a sum of 700,000,000 or 800,000,000 and 30,000 or 40,000 men, and whether the expedition should not be condemned by all reasonable men and citizens who love their country. M. Thiers has sought for the causes of the faults committed in the want of control. That absence of restraint was not, however, the only or the principal reproach to be addressed to the government. It was to have not told the truth—to have obtained by surprise the consent of the Chamber, by indicating an object which was not the real one. [Dissent on several benches; applause on others.] The con-tradiction is flagrant, and you have not forgotten it. When the ministers first—the convention of London, in hand—said that the object of the expedition was to obtain reparation for outrages on Frenchmen, the opposition did not contest the right of the government to chastise such acts. You spoke of punishing outrages; but had you no other design in view? Had you not the secret idea of taking advantage of the dissensions in the American republic? Had you not a secret preference for the south, and had you not another project, rumors of which reached our ears through foreign journals, and not by the French press, which you keep enchained? [Loud interruption.] The best proof I can give is that it had not the right to say what was said by the journals of neighboring countries, and I do not think that this simple observation is refuted by the murmurs of the majority. The rumor was that under the veil of diplomacy the French government intended to destroy the Mexican republic and raise a monarchy on its ruins, and the prince mentioned for sovereign was just the unfortunate Maximilian, who has just perished, the victim of his courage and misfortune. The French government then contested the statement, and asked us for proofs. England, who was uneasy, applied to the French minister of foreign affairs, who denied the statement. That fatal conception, which has cost France her blood and treasure is now known to have come from Spain. [Noise.] The French government lent its ear to the intrigues of the Madrid cabinet and Mexican emigrés. The negotiations have been denied, but on the 18th April, 1860, the minister of state at Madrid wrote to the Spanish ambassador in Paris that, in reply to some proposals which he had previously made, the French minister at Madrid had read to the Spanish minister of foreign affairs an extract of a despatch, showing that France and England were disposed to combine their efforts with Spain to establish in Mexico a government recognized by all the nations, and to put an end to the painful situation of that unfortunate republic. [Hear, hear.] The idea was commendable at a moral, but not a political point of view. To put down all the disorders that may exist in the world Mexican expeditions must be increased, and the necessity for loans be accepted. [Interruption.] To promote morality in the world by means of the cannon is a mad enterprise, which every politician should oppose. [“Hear, hear,” to the left of the speaker.]

The President. I must ask members to abstain from such vivacity in their marks of approval. They may give rise to counter manifestations, and thus disturb the speaker.

M. Jules Favre. Now listen to what M. Barrot wrote on the 11th of October, 1861. The London convention was not then signed, but the diplomatists had their undivulged designs. The satisfaction of the complaints of our countrymen was stated by M. Barrot to be the ostensible object of the expedition. The real purpose was the overthrow of the Mexican republic and the establishment of a throne for a foreign prince. The opposition did its duty in calling attention to that design, and the minister of war admitted that such was the object in view, on the occasion when he asked for credits on account of the expedition. The truth was concealed from the Chamber, which, if it had been placed in possession of the facts, would certainly have refused to follow the government in the course it had pursued. In the name of reason and of law, this intervention in the affairs of a foreign nation would have been rejected. Every country has a right to its own government, according to its manners, customs, and usages; and to interfere with it is to violate a primordial right. [Applause on the left.] The same system of keeping back information has been pursued from the beginning. No documents have been communicated to the Chamber; and the minister, when asked for papers, disdainfully replied that the extracts made from Mexican correspondence by a clerk in the foreign office were sufficient. To that we replied that the words of the minister on that point were not more to be relied upon than on other matters. [Loud interruption,]

The President. M. Jules Favre must not express doubts of the veracity of any one, whether minister or deputy. Errors may be committed, but sincerity ought never to be called in question. [Hear, hear.]

M. Jules Favre. I did not speak of veracity, but I will withdraw the expression if it does not represent my thoughts. I merely said that the words of the minister of state were not exact. [Fresh interruption.] I cannot of course criticise documents which I have not read; as to believing that the minister has not perused these official papers, that is impossible. The absence of bulletins signed by any general officer engaged in this expedition is a fact of much gravity; and such intelligence as has been communicated represented the troops as being always victorious.

Several members. That is the truth !

M. Jules Favre. The Austrian prince was said to have been received with enthusiasm by the Mexican people, and that they hailed him as a savior; but when the minister held this reassuring language he must have known from the despatches of our agents that success was impossible. This was how our soldiers were doomed to perish in fruitless conflicts. I have a right to say that not only has there been a want of control, but also an absence of truthfulness in this matter. [Loud cries of dissent.]

The President. M. Jules Favre, I again request you to use parliamentary language. [Hear, hear.]

M. Jules Favre. I cannot express my thoughts in any other terms. I am convinced that the Chamber has been purposely deceived, and I have a right to say so. [Interruption.]

M. Roulleaux Dugage. If there has been a mistake it was not a wilful one.

M. Jules Favre. Maximilian has sealed his foolhardy enterprise with his blood; for all of us he is now a victim whose memory is to be held sacred. [Applause.] So long back as September, 1865, the French government considered Maximilian’s position to be untenable, and I, therefore, charge it-—entertaining as it did that conviction—with having taken none of the precautions which prudence dictated, and with having prevented that prince from leaving Mexico. [Loud denial.] We are all unanimous in our feeling respecting the sanguinary events of which that country has been the theatre; but the French government has been wanting in wisdom and in calmness, by publishing in an official journal words which may produce a deplorable effect on the other side of the Atlantic. [Approval from the left.]

M. Belmontel. It has given expression to the general sentiment of Europe.

M. Jules Favre. And when it appeals to divine right, I reply that the fate of the humblest child of France, who dies obscurely on a foreign soil in the performance of his duty, is more worthy of sympathy than that of a prince who perishes in defence of his throne. [Cries of “Order, order.”]

The President. M. Jules Favre protests not only against the sentiment of the Chamber, but that of the country and of all Europe. [Loud cries of approval.] If he persists in the expression of such opinions I shall be obliged to call him to order.

M. Eugene Pelletas. We esteem a Frenchman more than we do an Austrian archduke.

The Duke de Marmier. Let there be no distinction between victims !

M. Jules Favre. It is because I repel all distinction that I pronounced the words which have excited the Chamber. No reasons of political necessity can justify the conduct of the government during the latter period of the expedition. Maximilian went on the faith of our promises, with our army, and he ought to have been supported by it. Yes, I have experienced a feeling of profound affliction that this unhappy prince was not brought back to Europe with our troops, so that France might have been sheltered from the blood that has been spilt, and which will fall upon her head. [Loud exclamations, and cries of “Order, order!” Applause from some benches.]

The President. The latter words of the honorable member may well fall upon his own head, in the eyes of the whole country. [Sensation; loud applause.]

M. Jules Favre. No person in this Chamber, not even our honorable president, whom I respect, is entitled to hold such language to me—to me, who am one of that minority which, when it was in power, overthrew the scaffold for political crimes, which you have again set up. [Loud expressions of dissent.] I have always protested from this place in favor of the inviolability of human life, and if you had taken these protestations into consideration, perhaps we should not now be deploring the calamity which has occurred. [Great agitation.]

M. Rouher. I will not reply at present to the two speeches which have just been delivered. I shall defer that task until tomorrow, if the Chamber permit me; but I cannot allow the sitting to close without protesting against the language used a moment since by M. Jules Favre—[hear, hear]—and against the assertions which he has made. The honorable member insists that the responsibility falls on France.

M. Jules Favre. No, no; on the government.

Several members. You said on France. [Great agitation.]

M. Rouher. M. Jules Favre desires to cast upon the government of France.

The same voices. He said, upon France.

M. Rouher. The responsibility of the murder which has been perpetrated in Mexico. I must indignantly protest against such an accusation. The emperor Maximilian has fallen victim to an act of cowardly treachery—[hear, hear]—and when weeks had elapsed, and angry passions had had time to subside, a secret tribunal was erected, and Juarez assassinated the emperor whose betrayal he had procured. [Loud applause.] And this is the act the responsibility of which is songht to be cast on the French government. When we were leaving Mexico we used every effort to induce Maximilian to return to Europe; but he would not. No one can feel a more profound grief than the French government. I can affirm this with all the sincerity of my heart and of my conscience. [Sensation.] But that unjust reproaches should be levelled against us—that the responsibility should not be left there, where it is so odiously concentrated, is what I cannot for a moment tolerate. [Loud applause.] What ! The government of the Emperor is charged with erecting the political scaffold ! But was it not the Emperor’s government which blotted out from our legislation the penalty of death in political cases?

M. Pelletan. You endeavored to re-establish it.

M. Rouher. I do not call the odious assassinations on the steps of the opera a political crime; I term them murders, [hear, hear,] for that is their real name. [Applause.]

The discussion was then adjourned to the next day.

[From Gralignani’s Messenger, July 12, 1867.]

Paris, July 11, 1867.

The legislative body held a sitting yesterday, M. Schneider in the chair. The President announced the death of M. de Voize, deputy for the Isère.

M. Rouher, minister of state and of finance, M. Baroche, minister of justice, and the other government commissioners, were present,

The order of the day was the adjourned discussion on the budget of 1868.

M. Rouher rose and said: Notwithstanding the painful result of the Mexican expedition, the hopes disappointed, and the excited language held yesterday from this place, the government remains convinced that the enterprise was just and legitimate, both in its causes and its object; but it does not shrink from the fullest discussion, even within the limits traced by its opponents. M. Thiers has represented this undertaking as having been inspired by the sole wish to found an empire, and as never at anytime having had the least chance of success. He denies that any real legislative control existed with respect to the action of the government, and says that if such control had been allowed the expedition would have been stopped. But M. Jules Favre, in more vehement language, admitted that control did exist, and that the public authorities were consulted; and he argued that the government had been deficient in veracity, and had deceived the Chamber into giving its acquiescence. Now, what are the facts respecting these questions? According to M. Thiers, neither Spain nor England had been thoroughly admitted into the confidence of the French government; but M. Jules Favre has contended that it was the cabinet of Madrid which prepared the whole plan; that it was from Spain the idea came, in 1858, of providing a throne in Mexico for Maximilian. Both these assertions are equally erroneous. The motive for the expedition lay in the well-founded complaints of our compatriots, and its object was to obtain satisfaction of their just claims. The means, frankly avowed from the first, were to penetrate to the heart of the republic—to the city of Mexico itself. We are accused of having harbored the intention, in 1860, of founding an empire in Mexico; but it was at the end of that year that Juarez, having overcome Miramon, returned to his capital. What did France then do? She sent a plenipotentiary to the President, recognized and entered into relations with him. And how were those friendly relations disturbed? Was it by France? On the 28th April, 1861, the French minister in Mexico reported that the political and even social state of the country was in process of dissolution, and that a French force was necessary in the waters of Vera Cruz for the protection of the interests of our country-men. Again, on the 29th of Jane, M. Dubois de Saligny wrote that requisitions, forced loans, confiscations, and exactions of all kinds were the order of the day; that foreigners were not respected, either in their persons or their property. The government of the Emperor recognized the necessity of action to protect the interests of French subjects. Similar reports continued to be received. Our minister reported that he and the representative of England had agreed to break off relations with the government of Juarez, and the Spanish minister was, towards the close of 1861, expelled from Mexico. The three great powers then, on the 31st of October, entered into a convention, the preamble of which declared that “the more efficacious protection of their respective subjects in Mexico” was the motive of their combined action. Could it be admitted that those three powers—France, England and Spain—simulated grievances that had no real existence?

M. Thiers. I did not say that.

M. Rouher. I do not mean to affirm that you did. My purpose is to prove that grievances did exist, and that to redress them was the object of the expedition. With respect to the means, did any doubt at that time arise? Why, the first paragraph of the convention laid it down that the three powers should send a sufficient force, naval and military, to occupy the coast fortresses, and that the commanders should be authorized to undertake whatever other operations might; in their judgment, be considered necessary to secure the object of the enterprise—which was the protection of the interests of our resident compatriots. That article acknowledged the right to push forward into the interior. That this was in the intention of the governments is further shown by the composition of the forces which they sent out; Spain furnishing a body of land troops, 7,000 men; France, 3,000; and England, faithful to her naval specialty, 700 soldiers and 700 sailors. M. Thouvenel, on the 11th November, wrote to Admiral Jurien de la Gravière that if the government of Juarez refused to treat, the troops should proceed onward to the city of Mexico, and that preparations for that purpose had been made, in case the necessity should arise, and intimations of these instructions was at the same time communicated to General de Flahault in London, and to M. de Barrot in Madrid; so that the English and Spanish governments were simultaneously informed of the causes and objects of the expedition. Besides, in 1858, efforts had been made by the Mexican exiles in Europe to induce Maximilian to accept the throne of a Mexican empire, but without success; and they were renewed in 1859, with the full knowledge of the contracting powers. The latter declared at first that they had no thought of conquest in going to Mexico; and by the convention of 1861 it was stipulated that the United States should be invited to join the expedition; and it was also agreed that no member o f the reigning families of the three European powers engaged should pretend to establish a throne in Mexico, or, in violation of the law of nations, attempt to impose by force a government on that country. Article two of the convention declared this formally.

M. Glais-Bizotn. The whole question lies in that.

M. Rouher. But it was known that the Mexican people were tired of the government of Juarez, and ample liberty of choice in selecting another was reserved to them. Instructions to that effect were conveyed to Admiral Jurien de la Graviere in M. Thouvenel’s despatch of the 11th of November. Thus the reasons which led to the couvention of the 31st October are to be found in the violence exercised towards our fellow-coantrymen. Its object was to repress the vexatious acts of which they were the victims: and the means consisted in a military march upon the city of Mexico.

M. Thiers. No.

M. Rouher. I will prove it. An eventuality was foreseen. The Mexican nation might shake off its apathy, and desire to establish a regular and stable government, and the instructions sent to the French commander had for object to give to such a free and spontaneous effort our encouragement and moral support.

M. Glais-Bizoin. They were secret instructions

M. Rouher. Secret instructions ! Why, I have read them from the collection of diplomatic documents laid before the Chamber at the beginning of the session of 1862. And did not the chief of the state pronounce a speech, in which the situation of the empire was presented to you? In that exposition it was said: “We should have only satisfaction to express if our intervention in Mexico should lead to a solution favorable to the reorganization of that magnificent country under conditions of power, regularity, independence and prosperity, to which it has been for a long time a stranger.” M. Thiers seems to have forgotten the discussions in this place in 1862 and 1863, and the explanations at that time given; but M. Jules Favre recalled them to mind. That honorable member admitted the power of control possessed by the Chamber, but he alleged that the government were guilty of unveracity. Yes, the truthfulness of M. Billault has been called in question, and this accusation has fallen upon a tomb so unhappily and so prematurely opened. [Sensation.] At that epoch the government knew nothing officially of the candidature of Maximilian. No engagement had been undertaken; the Austrian prince himself had not accepted the offer made to him. Under these circumstances, M. Jules Favre, on the 4th of March, 1862, asked the government whether the Mexican expedition was undertaken for the purpose of founding an empire for an Austrian archduke. The reply of M. Billault was in the negative; but did he dissimulate the possible consequences of the presence of our troops in Mexico? No. M. Jules Favre has exhibited temerity in desiring to place the words of that eminent orator in contradiction of the facts. M. Billault, on that occasion, said that if the Mexican people, wearied out with bad government and anarchy, should make an effort to establish a rule of order and liberty, they should not be prevented from making the attempt, and that our sympathies, counsel, and moral support should be theirs; but as to the employment of. force, there could be no question of that kind. [Approval.] Such was the language of M. Billault, who added that topographical peculiarities and reasons connected with the health of the troops would render necessary the march of the troops as far as the city of Mexico. The blow, he said, must be struck in the heart of the country—in the place itself where the wrongs had been committed. [Applause.]

Several voices. The case is clear.

M. Rouher. Thus I have established the true sense of the convention, the lucidity of the explanations which were given by the government, and the frankness of the minister; and I have a right, therefore, to repel the rash allegations of want of veracity made against that distinguished man. [More applause.] And what, at that period, were the views of the Spanish and English, then on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico? Was it not agreed to by them that the city of Mexico should be reached as soon as possible? and that on account of the coast fevers which were decimating our troops? General Prim wrote in that sense to his government, on the 7th of February, and his letter is public and official. How, then, were these ideas changed by the 19th of February? How did the commander-in-chief of the allied forces come to sign the preliminaries of Soledad? To inquire is fruitless, under the circumstances in which he, whose conduct we are examining, is at present placed. [Marks of assent.] Those preliminaries involved a complete contradiction of the convention of the 31st October, and of the official instructions given to the plenipotentiaries. We repelled these stipulations; and this was also the sentiment of Earl Russell and of M. Calderón Collantes, the foreign minister of Spain; but events had taken their course before the refusal of ratifications had reached Mexico. The trick which the convention of Soledad involved was speedily discovered by the honorable men who were at first deceived by it. Exactions continued; violence and assassinations recommenced everywhere; and a Mexican army was organized and concentrated at Puebla to arrest the progress of our troops. The object was, by gaining two months, to place the expeditionary corps between the fortifications of that city and the yellow fever of the coast, the recurrence of which was looked for towards the end of April. [That is true.] On the 21st of March General Prim wrote to M. Dubois de Saligny and to Admiral de la Gravière: “We have been deceived. Our sole means of extricating ourselves from this position is by marching upon Mexico.”[Various movements.] Negotiations with the Juarists were broken off on the 9th April, and the straggle commenced between the Mexicans and the French, then separated from their allies. M. Thiers has mentioned an ultimatum, but that document could have had no influence on the course pursued by the Mexican government, because it was never forwarded to Juarez, and was only discussed among the plenipotentiaries. The honorable deputy (M. Thiers) described the claim of England to 80 millions as being probably exaggerated; that of Spain to 40 millions as equitable; and the French demand of 60 millions as exorbitant; and he reproached the government with increasing this demand to 156 millions after the entry of the expedition into Mexico. True, in 1855 we claimed only 40 millions from Mexico, but that was because we were unwilling to use excessive rigor towards a new government which was surrounded with difficulties. But did that moderation detract from the legitimate character of our demand? M. Thiers added that at that period 75 millions were also asked for on account of the Jecker affair. That statement is not correct; all that was asked for was to continue to have the decker bonds accepted in payment of the customs duties. I repeat, the question of the ultimatum and the non-acceptation of the preliminaries of Soledad had no direct effect on the events. Then occurred the attempt against Puebla—a check which raised a question of national honor—followed by the taking of that town. M. Thiers says we should have then stopped. It is easy after events have been accomplished to say that something else should have been done. [Hear, hear.]

M. Thiers, I said so before.

M. Rouher. I do not deny that you maintained that reasoning in 1864, I ask what could be done by a government that wished to arrive at a serious arrangement? A conquest? No one would have advised it. A treaty? It could not be made with a government in flight, which had not even a representative in Mexico to negotiate with the French generals. A fortnight or three weeks back some persons might have said, “You should not have had such scruples; you should have recalled the vanquished government; treated with it, and placed French subjects under its protection.” But, after the painful events just accomplished, such argument is impossible. Such a government is not to be treated with. [Prolonged movement; applause.] What was to be done? Bring home our troops and leave Mexico without a treaty; without any of the guarantees we had gone to obtain? Was that possible?

M. Glais-Bizoin. That is the present situation.

M. Rouher. It is; but we do not accept it voluntarily. We submit to it with profound grief. [Movements in opposite senses; exclamations.]

The President. These continual interruptions do not add to the dignity of the debate.

M. Rouher. It was, however, necessary to come to a resolution. The course followed by the United States in 1848 served as a precedent. They obtained several provinces by a treaty, and the electors having been assembled, Herero was named President of the republic in presence of the American troops. Marshall Forey did the same; he called together a junta to decide on the best course to be followed. That body, as M. Thiers has said, was composed of the most honorable men of Mexican society. It believed that the Mexican empire could be re-established, and a suffrage of the inhabitants having been taken, five millions out of eight voted for the reconstruction of the empire under the Archduke Maximilian. Did France employ any influence or coercive means to arrive at such a result? The instruct tions to Marshal Forey said, “Respect the will of the Mexican people,” and it was done. Yes; the Mexican nation acted in the plenitude of its liberty ! The choice was made spontaneously, and yet we are to be made responsible for ulterior events. When the Mexican nation appeared to be in accord to constitute a stable government, were we to prevent and paralyze it? were we to say that the enterprise was a mad one, and that Mexico was to be effaced from the list of nations because it was incapable of receiving a political and financial organization? No, no. M. Thiers has said that the archduke inevitably became isolated because of the question of the ecclesiastical property, and that the fertility of Mexico was an illusion. From the first day the emperor Maximilian saw the real solution—to respect the sales made and the contracts executed in perfect sincerity, and to overrule only those vitiated by manœuvre or fraud.

M. Thiers. He was right.

M. Rouher. He was; and because he counted on the reason and good sense of all, you exclaim folly ! If passion had not abused the intelligence of the country, he would have reaped a great and legitimate popularity. [Hear, hear.] As to the sterility of the country, all writings and reports of engineers bear witness to its extreme fertility, which, under different latitudes, presents the products of all climates. Its mineral riches are silver, iron, and coal. I do not know when they will be extracted from the soil, but if one day the United States establish a regular government, you will see, under the influence of order and the energetic labors of the Americans, wealth and prosperity succeed to the sterility still perpetuated by disorder and anarchy. We knew that the revenue of preceding years had amounted to from 80 to 90 millions; to balance, the budget of 130 millions drawn up by Maximilian, all that was required was a tax of five or six francs per head, on a population of eight millions of inhabitants. That was not impossible with a regular government. Such an immediate result could not be expected. But after a year or two the riches of the country would become developed and assume means for paying the liabilities of the past and the finances of the future. Under those circumstances we thought right to open the market of France to the loans to be raised. Could we refuse? M. Thiers objects that, while one minister was signing the contract for the loan, another expressed his mistrust of the operation. Here is a complete error in the dates. The second loan was contracted in April, 1865, under the auspices of M. Fould, the minister you accuse of having doubted it. The convention which you make contemporary with the loan was drawn up on the 27th September, at a period when grave events had already taken place, and even then no serious doubts hung over the Mexican loans. If at that time we had had any fears, we should at the present moment suffer a cruel remorse, for only a month before the minister of finance and myself had induced one of our friends to leave the council of state, where he was loved and esteemed for his rare talents, to go out to Mexico and take in hand the reorganization of the finances of that country, and the friend we sent there succumbed to the difficulty of the task he had accepted. We were destined not to meet again. [Sensation.] Ah ! say, if you will, that we were mistaken in our previsions, and insist on accomplished events, but do not suspect our honesty. [Hear, hear.] M. Jules Favre says that we were aware of the situation; that Marshal Bazaine had been obliged to force the receipts of the Mexican treasury; that the Mexican government was at the end of its resources, and obliged to have recourse to exceptional measures. This is also an error of date and appreciation. The events he refers to occurred in May, 1866, while the loan had been resolved on and the treaty signed in 1865. M. Thiers has said that the failure of the expedition was the result of a want of control; M. Jules Favre, that the control was exercised, but was perverted by falsehood. Gentlemen, that is an attempt to disunite the majority from the government, to isolate the executive power, and to charge it alone with all the responsibility of the undertaking. That argument is based on neither truth nor justice; you will reject it, and we shall continue, in good as well as in ill fortune, to make common cause. [Yes, yes; loud applause.] We told you the truth; and if we failed it was our misfortune, but we concealed nothing. If the event betrayed our hopes, if the expedition did not succeed, leave to us the responsibility if you will, but do not aggravate it by unjust imputations. What ! the fortnightly bulletins published in the Moniteur were not the exact reproduction of the reports sent by our commander-in-chief; question him. Do you suppose that we should have thought of falsifying them? Blame the enterprise, but do not deny our sincerity nor seek to introduce into this debate a violent and cruel element which we could not accept without indignation. [Hear, hear.] At the end of 1865, events became unfortunately complicated; the attempts made by American filibusters to violate the neutrality and the encouragements received by the malcontents forced Marshal Bazaine to concentrate his troops and prepare for all eventualities. Public opinion at home had been feverish; there is in our country, so prompt in generous enterprises, an impatience to attain the object, which does not always take into account the conditions of time. We had been long in Mexico, and no result appealed to have been obtained, What was to be done? Ah ! gentlemen, if you had had to do with such a despotic government as you picture sometimes, it might have persisted and declared that it would not withdraw; that it would meet all the risks and undergo all the consequences of the expedition. I do not know how things passed in the ministerial councils of previous monarchies, but I can assure you that the deliberations which took place on the question were conducted with frankness, independence, and resolution. We deliberated sadly and solemnly; we had interrogated the fluctuations of public opinion, and we resigned ourselves to pronounce the word, evacuation. And, gentlemen, if I were allowed to mingle in this debate a personal feeling, I should not hesitate to say, that if I had had a forecast of the future, if I could have foreseen an odious murder at the termination of that struggle, I admit I should have perhaps recoiled before my personal opinion. [Movement.] In fine, the resolution was adopted and the order for evacuation was given on the 14th of January. But what was the character of the withdrawal? Was it a retreat before the malcontent troops? Our soldiers feared but little the armed bands of Juarez and Porfirio Diaz. [Hear, hear.] Was it the abandonment of Maximilian? Did we not preserve for him all the sympathy due to a common cause, and which was destined to be further increased by a fearful misfortune? [Hear, hear.] We endeavored to delay the departure of our troops, who left in three portions. We hoped still to be able to consolidate the tottering throne, and when the fatal term arrived we sent an aide-de-camp from the Emperor Napoleon to implore the emperor Maximilian to leave that theatre of grief with the French troops. Alas ! he would not; and a few hours back I was reading in a journal an account which gives an exact idea of the feelings and motives which induced him to persist his resolution.

He said:

“France, in withdrawing, invokes her own interests; as for myself, I have no interests to invoke, and so long as the Mexican nation shall remain faithful to its choice, I cannot and will not abandon a cause which I accepted with its dangers. Happen what may, I have no need to tell you that I shall be what I was at Milan, in the Austrian navy, and at Miramar, taking counsel only of my duty and of my personal dignity. I will never abandon my post, and I shall not forget for one moment that I descend from a race which has passed through crises much more terrible than the one I am now traversing, and the glory of my forefathers shall never be tarnished by me.”[Applause.]

Noble words, which exalt by a hundred cubits the victim, and which force to his knees the conquering assassin ! [Hear, hear.] M. Thiers has said that the Mexican expedition paralyzed the action of France, when grave events occurred in Germany; that the ruin of the attempt has destroyed our prestige in those distant seas and compromised the future prosperity of our commerce. No; the Mexican expedition did not weigh upon the decisions of the government with regard to Germany. If 22,000 soldiers were absent from France she had still resources enough at home, had the government considered that her honor or interest required interference in the affairs of Germany. No; the prestige of the French name is not destroyed on those distant shores. And do you know why? During the four years which have passed never has the honor of our flag been seriously compromised. We have traversed from one end to the other that vast territory in small detachments, and in a hundred combats we have always been the conquerors. We left Mexico with all our renown, and the flag of France is respected, venerated in the republics of the south; like wise our commerce will continue to prosper there. We have failed; yes, but that result is only another proof of human fallibility, to show how perishable are the most carefully studied combinations, and how mysterious are the designs of Providence, which sometimes delays, without our being able to penetrate its reasons, the hour of reparation of justice, and of chastisement. [Applause.] You would have had a justification for your attacks if our attempt had been made against a people free, laborious, and honest; but when we went to Mexico we found only anarchy and disorder. And now that we quit the country, midst the applause of some, what do we leave there? Anarchy and crime, a disordered government abandoning itself to all the passions, all the excesses of an unexpected and unhoped-for victory. [Movement.] Is that the reason of a great triumph for those who had predicted our return? I will only add one word more; I do not wish to leave on the Mexican nation that afflicting epitaph. No; nations do not perish. Anarchy will be one day vanquished, and the innocent blood which has flowed will be avenged. I do not know when that day will come. But when Mexico, free and happy, shall* look into her history, she will have, in the midst of the enthusiasm of her deliverance, a cry of sympathy and gratitude for France. The minister resumed his seat in the midst of loud applase.

M. Jules Favre. We are less in face of a lamentable check than of a system of which that check is the consequence and symptom. [Rumors.] On hearing the minister I asked myself what language would have been used if the expedition had been crowned with success. [Fresh rumors.] It was just, we are told, and legitimate; it had been well conceived and valiantly conducted. Why, then, and how did it fail? [Interruption.]

Several members. Enough; enough; the close !

The President. M. Jules Favre has the right to speak; I beg the Chamber to hear him. I think that M. Favre will do all that is necessary to be listened to with calm and silence.

M. Granier de Cassagnac. Let him do it, then. [Exclamations to the left of the speaker]

M. Jules Favre. I am too much accustomed to submit to the law of the majority not to know how to accept it. If I am not wanted in this tribune I am ready to descend. [Various movements.] The minister of state will agree that it is a grave mission to govern a great nation, one of the highest duties it is given to man to fulfil; and when affairs have been conducted in such a manner that 700,000,000 have been expended in a way completely sterile, [exclamations,] that the blood of French soldiers has watered without success the soil on which they had been thrown, it is not enough to come to the tribune, avow that a mistake has been made, and invoke human fallibility. I have said, and I maintain, that the Chamber arid the country have never been sufficiently informed of the true scope of the expedition; [noise;] that if they had known, they would never have given their consent. At length it has been avowed that as early as 1858 diplomatic conversations had taken place between the cabinets of Paris and Madrid. [Denials.] I allude to official despatches anterior to the treaty of 1861. They are from M. Thouvenel and M. Barrot; they all mention that at this period there was a question between France and Spain of restoring the Mexican monarchy. It is none the less true that in 1861 those negotiations were denied in this chamber. Had they been known I do not doubt that the Chamber would have imposed upon the government the obligation of not going beyond the circle of the legitimate reparation of our wrongs. In October, 1861, was concluded between the three powers the convention which contained a clause foreseeing certain hypotheses. These were not new; and if we look into our history we shall find them in the despatches of those who wished to sully France by invasion and despotism. Among them was one providing for the case, when the sound part of the Mexican population, tired of disorder and anarchy, should aspire to another form of government and stretch out its arms to us. But, gentlemen, the sound part of the population never stretches out its arms towards the foreigner except to fight him. [Hear, hear, from some benches.] Did my country live under the most detested of governments? Let the foreigner show himself at our frontiers, and I should be ready to shed the last drop of my blood for that government. [Various movements.] Well, the troops arrived in February, 1862, and our ultimatum claimed a sum of 60,000,000 as due to Frenchmen, plus 75,000,000 for the Jecker bonds, which was assuredly a novelty in diplomacy, above all when it concerned a usurious contract. On this affair England and Spain separated from us, declaring that they could not associate themselves in a demand for a fraudulent claim. These bonds have been the constant preoccupation of our agents, and so much so that they are the only debt on which any payment has been made. In virtue of a convention bearing the signature of the Marquis de Montholon, the minister of France, the house of Jecker was to receive 26,000,000; 13 have been paid, and the claims of the French still await reparation. Those bonds were the object of a predilection never denied, and only the arrival in Mexico of our late honored colleague, M. Langlais, prevented the payment of the second part.

M. Rouher. Will you permit me a word?

M. Jules Favre. As many as you like; I only ask for the truth. [Exclamations on several benches.] Those who doubt it have only to descend to the bottom of their own consciences. [Applause on the left of the speaker.] If they have other sentiments I cannot compliment them. [Noise.]

M. Rouher. M. Jules Favre involuntarily commits a material error. There were two conventions in 1865. The first, in April, did bear the signature of our minister. By the terms of that instrument the Jecker claims were diminished 60 per cent. 13,000,000 were to be paid in the year, and the rest at a million of dollars annually. It was not executed. A new convention intervened in September, in reference to which the minister of finance wrote to M. Langlais, saying he was ignorant of the conditions, but that he saw with the most painful surprise that this convention had been settled without consulting the minister of France in Mexico. I hold in my hands the letter by which M. Drouyn de Lhuys, writing to M. Dano, protested against that convention, and declared it deplorable. The French government was a complete stranger to the affair, and only knew it to blame it energetically and prevent its execution. [Hear, hear!]

M. Jules Favre. Gentlemen, I do not wish to prolong this incident. [Noise and laughter]

M. Eugene Pelletan. We listened to you in silence, and you do nothing but interrupt.

The President. The Chamber has hitherto listened in religious silence. [Noise on the left.]

M. Marie. Not to-day.

The President. The sitting of yesterday was devoted to a solemn debate, and the speak ers who made the sharpest attacks were heard with the most scrupulous attention. I ask for the same to-day. [Hear, hear.]

M. Jules Favre. I gather from what the honorable minister says that the French government wished its agents to remain strangers to this negotiation, and yet the signature of M. Montholon is at the bottom of the convention.

M. Rouher. On that of April, but not on the second, that of September.

M. Jules Favre. The convention is of the 10th April, 1865. It may be that the government afterwards thought it advisable to alter its views; but what I affirm is, that Jecker has received a part of his claims in virtue of the signature of our diplomatic agent. I was there fore right in saying that the stipulation contained in the ultimatum was one of the causes of the rupture of negotiations. But the fact is there was a premeditation to march on Mexico and establish the government you had fixed on. Do you remember the solemn declarations that were made, “we shall never employ force?” Who will now dare to say that pledge was kept, and that force was not the only means employed to establish that phantom empire which has crumbled behind our soldiers? [Noise.] You speak of 5,000,000 of votes; where are the returns? [Rumors.] These 5,000,000 of votes are those of the 130 persons assembled at Mexico under the shadow of our flag, and whom you caused to deliberate on the offer of the crown to Maximilian. They were emigrants whom you conducted to the capital, sheltered by our colors; they carried there their rancour, their personal ambitions, in the service of which you engaged the honor and the blood of France. [Noise; approbation on some benches.] You remember that proclamation in which our soldiers were told that they would be received with crowns of flowers. How terribly were they undeceived. In 1864 Maximilian was enthroned; then all was told; France ought not to have carried her action further. Unhappily the persistent thought of the government was to treat every adversary of the new empire as an enemy of France. Either Maximilian, called, as you say, by 5,000,000 of votes, was sustained by the population—and then it was useless to seat him on your sword—[laughter]—or those 5,000,000 were a myth and you knew it; but you would not recognize it because you wanted to obtain a vote of subsidies from the Chamber. [Various movements; exclamations of dissent] As early as 1865 the inevitable ruin of the enterprise was admitted by you. Yet the Moniteur continued to publish articles affirming the success of the expedition, boasting of the solidity of the Mexican throne, and repudiating all uneasiness. When I asked for communication of the official documents, the reply was that they did not exist. The Chamber was satisfied with the articles in the Moniteur and the declarations of the minister of state. Were, however, these latter reconcilable with the dignity of France when he said, “The object must be attained; the pacification must be complete; the dignity of France and of the Emperor both demand it?” And, gentlemen, you received that declaration with the same applause as that with which you just now covered the last words of the same minister. The other ministers repeated the same language, saying the duty of France was not to abandon her ally in misfortune. The minister of state said just now that the prestige of France has not been diminished. How can he reconcile that assertion with the solution of the lamentable drama? The French army has returned leaving our unfortunate countrymen defenceless. [Loud exclamations of dissent. “The close !”] The minister has been forced to admit that the commercial prosperity which was announced as to be the result of the expedition has been a dream deplorably unrealized. It was not at the heart, of Mexico alone that you aimed; you wished to pierce also that of the United States. [Enough enough ! Loud exclamations of denial.

M. Belmontel. You are betraying France. That is not patriotic.

M. Jules Favre. Yet the result of the expedition has been to render America still greater; you have thrown Mexico into her arms. [Noise.] Yes, in that note of the Moniteur which I pointed out the other day as capable of wounding a powerful government, against which you can do nothing, [noise; cries of “Enough, enough,”] you say that Mexico would be too happy if that country could be absorbed by neighboring powers. Thus the result of your expedition will have been to aggrandise beyond measure that America, the strength of which was already a matter of anxiety to you, as is proved by a document I could quote. When you have compromised the finances of France, and have made of her blood a use which must weigh on your conscience, [exclamations and murmurs,] I have a right to say that in a free country you would be impeached. [Loud interruptions; cries of “Order, order;” “Enough, enough;” “The close!”]

The Marquis d’Havricourt. It is those whose speeches have been of service to Juarez that ought to be brought to trial.

The President. Monsieur Jules Favre, I must remind you that the exaggeration of the language proves always the weakness of the arguments. [Loud applause; “Hear.”]

M. Jules Favre. It is only in France—[the voice of the speaker is covered by the uproar.]

Several members. The last words of the speaker were not heard.

The President. I declare, for my part, I did not hear them.

Several voices. No one did.

The President. Then they cannot be inserted in the Moniteur.

M. Jules Favre. If that is the case—[fresh uproar; cries of “Order !”]

The President. Gentlemen, please to give an example of the moderation I invite the speaker to observe.

M. Jules Favre. Moderation is liberty, [exclamations,] and there is none where the Moniteur, which should reproduce our debates, is mutilated by the will of the person who presides. [Fresh exclamations; applause on some benches to the left of the speaker. M. Jules Favre then quitted the tribune.]

The President. I cannot allow these observations of M. Jules Favre to pass without remark. The merit, the right, and the duty of the Moniteur consists in being exact, and to be exact, everything that passes here must be reported. Now, the words alluded to were not heard either by the Chambers or by the president. [“That is the truth!” Agitation.]

M. Jules Favre. I am prepared to repeat them.

The President. If M. Jules Favre reads the Moniteur tomorrow morning, he will find there reported many attacks which I abstain from characterizing.

M. Glais-Bizoin. And they ought to be reported there.

A number of members demanded the close of the discussion.

M. Thiers requested permission to offer two observations, and said he would be brief: First, as to the origin of the expedition. He maintained, against the statement of the minister, that Spain and England had formally declared that they had no other object than to redress the wrongs inflicted upon their subjects in Mexico. I have, said the honorable member, the orders issued by the English and Spanish governments, absolutely prohibiting a march upon the city of Mexico; and I have the letter written by Admiral Jurien de la Gravière to General Prim, announcing that the object of the expedition was to advance upon the capital and there to establish a monarchy. The first operation was, therefore, only a pretext for the second. [Varied movements.] As to the financial aspect of the question presented to us, I am bound to say that the cost of the expedition has been 600, not 300 millions, and to that amount must be added 300 millions more subscribed to Mexican loans in France. I protest against the accounts of this expenditure which have been laid before us. [Marks of approval from several benches.]

Mr. Rouher. I maintain the absolute accuracy of the figures furnished to the committee on the budget, and when M. Thiers adduces proof of what he’ affirms, I shall be prepared to refute them. [Applause, and cries of “Tomorrow, tomorrow !”] [“The close, the close !”].

M. Emile Olivier observed that there were other questions of interest to be discussed besides that of Mexico, and if the general debate were now closed, he would reserve his right to speak fully when the budget of the minister of the interior came to be considered.

M. Rouher declared that he had no objection to that course.

The termination of the general discussion was then pronounced, and the sitting was brought to a close.