Mr. Dayton to Mr.
Seward.
No. 120.]
Paris,
February 27, 1862.
Sir: Your despatch No. 109 encloses a copy of
Mr. Thouvenel’s note to you of the 19th of January, 1862, and your reply
of the 7th of February, 1862.
Both of these papers are in the best tone and spirit, and I confess I
feel now and have felt (since the address of the Emperor in opening the
Chambers) in the best hopes and spirits for the future. A speech just
delivered in the French senate by M. Billault, minister without
portfolio, and herewith inclosed, is most satisfactory as respects
American affairs. These ministers, it is said, represent the Emperor on
the floor, and are understood to express his views and the views of the
government. This speech, I am informed, is universally regarded as
closing, for the present, all hopes on the part of the secessionists of
France’s interfering to break the blockade. M. Billault, you will
recollect, was, last summer, minister of foreign affairs ad interim. I think I can see from the British
press how this thing has worked itself out. England and France have been
coquetting a little with each other on this question. We have had what
seemed to be the most reliable assurances from England that the Emperor
was urging them to interfere. In the meantime, the British press was
urging France to interfere; it was giving out that the blockade was a
paper blockade, and the south should be recognized; thus working France
and themselves up to the point of, at least, a joint interference. Then
came the Emperor’s address; it was not what they expected. They said
that just before its delivery “the switch had been turned off,” and
forthwith the London Times and other portions of the English press ran
off along with it. Now, all hands seem opposed to interference. How long
this will last no human power can tell. If, in the midst of our
successes at home and abroad, some reasonable hope could be given of
opening two or three cotton ports, it would greatly mollify the feelings
of that class of persons abroad who constantly agitate these questions
against us. And I cannot help thinking that (excluding things
contraband) the trade would not seriously affect our interests.
I am, sir, with much respect, your obedient servant,
His Excellency William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, &c., &c.,
&c.
Speech of M. Billault.
M. Billault, (minister without portfolio.)
The government is anxious to clearly make known its sentiments on
another point mooted by the Marquis de Boissy. When on the other
side of the channel a member of the English chambers, not sharing in
the feelings of his neighbors and of his colleagues, makes by chance
a violent motion against our country, French feelings suffer from
it, and it is not without emotion that the echo of such a discussion
is heard on this side of the Strait. The reason is, that the two
great nations are proud and susceptible on what touches their honor.
Expressions of hatred exchanged from one tribune to the other are
most objectionable. How can any one endeavor to revive feelings of
hatred when the Emperor’s policy is based on conciliation? The
government, without forgetting the reminiscences and lessons-of the
past, and instead of allowing itself to be led away [Page 319] by savage rancor, has adopted a
conciliatory and pacific policy, under the shelter of which it can
proceed in the path of ameliorations which constitute the progress
of the world. (Hear, hear.) Instead of recalling the memory of
Waterloo, in order to revive hatred, it is wiser to think of Italy
wrested from the yoke of Austria, of Savoy again become French, of
Belgium and of Holland separated and constituted in a state of
neutrality. It would also be much more desirable to admit that with
the alliance of a great country important results might be hoped
for. A good accord between the cabinets cannot but be advantageous.
The Emperor does not fear the revival of old reminiscences, because
they are not applicable to him, but the expressions which the senate
has heard are not of the present age, nor are they good policy. The
two great states may differ on certain points, and may not
completely pursue the same object. All nations have not the same
wants and the same instincts. Some require a large amount of
material profits and advantages, while others desire more grandeur
and more glory. We went into the extreme east, and shed the blood of
France to there represent the spirit of religion, and plant that
cross which is the symbol both of the empire and of civilization.
Why, however, should the two powers be reproached for the qualities
peculiar to them—qualities which impel England to seek elements for
her commerce, and France for her glory? (Approbation.) As to
America, France will never forget the bonds of kindness which unite
her to the United States. History points out to her that war with
them is impossible, but that does not prevent her from being pained
at seeing the children of the same people destroying each other and
their common country. The government has recommended and practiced
neutrality. It would not allow events to compromise the principles
which it defended and made prevail in 1856 in the congress of Paris,
but it feels the strongest friendship towards the United States, and
cannot comprehend how any one could wish to impel it to a
combination which would have for object to force an entrance into
the southern ports in order to load cotton. On the part of France
such conduct would be madness, and England, whose interests are more
deeply engaged in the question, and is now on good terms with the
United States, would not venture on a line of policy which is not
that of France, and to which the Emperor would not lend himself.
(Approbation.)
