Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

[Two enclosures.]

Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward.

No. 75.]

Legation of the United States, Paris, April 17, 1865.

Sir: The “corps legislatif’ have finally disposed of the amendments proposed to the address from the throne which related specially to America. The one deploring the blood shed for a foreign prince in Mexico provoked a lengthy and somewhat angry debate, though the opposition was confined exclusively, I believe, to the republican wing of the assembly, neither Berryer nor Thiers speaking or voting. Out of two hundred and forty-one votes, but sixteen voted for the amendment. No different result was to have been anticipated, as the Mexican policy of the government stands more in need than any other, at the present moment, of the unqualified support of the chambers. A report of this debate translated from the Moniteur will be found enclosed.

The speeches of Messrs. Corta and Rouher show what view the government wishes should be taken of its efforts thus far to found a European dynasty in Mexico. It will be seen that these gentlemen have made the most of the conciliatory tone taken by your representatives abroad in reference to the future of the President’s policy toward foreign states in the western hemisphere.

The other amendment, tendering sympathies and thanks to the United States for their efforts in behalf of civil liberty, was not debated. M. Pelletan made a short speech, but the news of Lee’s flight, and the evacuation of Petersburg [Page 258] and Richmond, had reached the house only a few moments before he began, and the members were not in the humor at that moment, as you may suppose, to have the relations of France with the United States made the subject of a general discussion. The majority, at least, required time to take counsel before defining their position upon questions which the news of the day rendered more delicate than ever. M. Pelletan, who, I was told, had intended to enter at considerable length into our affairs, found in the events reported by telegraph logic more conclusive than any he had to offer, and so contented himself with a brief amplification of the amendment. After a thrilling allusion to the news, he asked the chamber to send its felicitations across the Atlantic.

A report of M. Pelletan’s speech, translated from the Moniteur, is also enclosed. The amendment received twenty-four votes, eight more than were given for the Mexican amendment.

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

JOHN BIGELOW.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.

[Enclosure No. 1.]

CORPS LEGISLATIF OF FRANCE—SESSION OF THE 10TH APRIL, 1865.

PRESIDENCY OF M. SCHNEIDER, VICE-PRESIDENT.

Debate on the amendment to the address about Mexico.—(Translated from the Moniteur,April 11, 1865.)

President Schneider. There were two amendments on paragraph sixteen. The modifications demanded for the first amendment having been obtained, it requires no further notice from us; the second remains for consideration. It is presented by Messrs. Bethment, Jules Favre, and others, and is thus expressed: “In Mexico we more than ever deplore the blood shed for a foreign prince, the national sovereignty unrecognized, and our future policy badly entangled, (mal engagé.) In conformity with the declarations of the government we await the recall of our troops.”

M. Jules Favre has the floor for the development of this amendment. Gentleman, said he, I am almost abashed at rising to speak again. [Speak! speak!]

We demand by our amendment that our troops shall be immediately recalled; in the solution of this question the country is deeply interested. I waive as inopportune all discussion upon the origin of the war of Mexico, and 1 take the facts of the case as they present themselves at this moment.

The emperor Maximilian has founded in Mexico an official empire. I earnestly desire that the condition of the country may permit of a complete pacification, and that a government may there develop the true elements of stability and greatness; but I do not desire that France should contribute to this work, nor that she should lavish her arms and her wealth to sustain a foreign power that ought to stand by its own proper strength.

If we are to believe the articles of the Moniteur, the emperor of Mexico has been received with universal enthusiasm; the whole population hailed him as a saviour. Among the disaffected there were none but brigands and anarchists, who, thank God! were there, as elsewhere, in a very small minority.

Thus everything is going on well, if we judge from the official documents. True, we have not the power to consult other statements; and, inasmuch as nothing relating to this question has been laid before the Chamber, 1 consider that it has been treated with disrespect. Why this silence? All political documents are our common property.

It is impossible not to remark, that by the side of these official declarations we have others which contradict them, and which affirm that the country has never ceased to be in a state of war.

The first fact that strikes us is, that the emperor Maximilian, ever since he touched the soil of Mexico, has found it impossible to conform to the programme he traced out for himself. You have not forgotten the declaration of Maximilian at Miramar, when he replied to the deputation which came to offer him the crown, that he accepted it, but only upon the condition that he held it by the will of the whole nation. This declaration was also made by the French government. In reference to this the minister of foreign affairs, who was the interpreter of the imperial letter of July 3, 1862, wrote on the 17th of August, 1863: “The government will submit to the Mexican people the question of the political regime, which is to be definitely established.” [Page 259] Upon such promises Maximilian departed; and such are the conditions enjoined upon him by France. These conditions are succinctly insisted on by the despatch of 17th of August, 1863. The orator read an extract from this despatch which set forth the manner in which the Mexican people should be called to give their verdict, so that there might be no shadow of a doubt as to the expression of the will of the nation.

Nowhere, continued the orator, could we find more reasonable words, but they seem to be dictated by honorable and very singular illusions, since the minister who wrote them supposed that no sooner should the emperor Maximilian arrive at Mexico than he would be greeted by a submissive and sympathetic nation, and that there was nothing to do but to apply to the rural magistrates (gardes champêtres) to insure the elections. [Noise.]

Unhappily this was not the case, and it will be interesting to place, not the entire truth, since we are not able to get at that, but a few figures alongside of the letter which states the indispensable conditions for the establishment of the new government.

The honorable member read a document from which it appeared that, during the year 1864, there were 8,070 men put hors de combat, 1,601 of whom were killed; 179 cannon had been taken by the French, as also 2,630 muskets and 1,400 horses. Such, gentlemen, was, in 1864, the state of a country that they called, and still continue to call, pacified. I will not present to the Chamber the sorrowful episodes, the deeds of arms in which French blood so freely flowed, the treachery of certain Mexicans who, after having betrayed their country, betrayed the Frenchmen of their party, basely abandoning them, and delivering them into the hands of their countrymen.

These facts prove that Mexico is still in a state of war; and this is yet further proved by the siege of Oajaca, where Marshal Bazaine has been obliged to go, which has been attended by much sacrifice, and has ended in the taking of some thousands of men. I ask the government if it desires such a position of affairs to continue, if it intends to prolong such expeditions; for not only have we gone to Monterey, but I believe I speak the truth when I say that preparations are now making for an expedition into Sonora.

Now, whoever is acquainted with the province knows that there are difficulties there which, if not insurmountable for our courageous soldiers, are, at least, very terrible for them. What business have we to put ourselves in such a situation? Is that what we have been promised? Should not the emperor Maximilian, once placed upon the throne, be able to defend himself? Moreover, what does all this mean?

We proclaim the principle of nationalities in Germany and in Italy, and just now an honorable member of the majority reproached me for not having laid sufficient stress on this. And we went to Mexico to establish a government by the sword; when it was established, instead of recalling our army we place ourselves in the alternative of a disaster, or of an interminable war against the peoples who may continually present themselves upon the field of battle. In fact, not only do the documents attest that Mexico is not pacified, that the de clarations of the government are contrary to truth, but the partisans of Maximilian acknowledge that the present army is indispensable to the maintenance of his power, and that it is even necessary to augment its proportions.

The orator read a fragment of an article taken from an official journal of Mexico, which speaks of the ill usage that the friends of the new regime are likely to experience, and which ill usage will have a tendency to abate the devotion of the partisans of the empire, and to hinder the populations to co-operate actively in the work of pacification. The writer of the article thinks it will be necessary to maintain a French army of 45,000 men in Mexico. This, gentlemen, is what has been printed under the eyes of the emperor Maximilian, and this is the family council which is indispensable for him to maintain himself upon the throne and to enable him to exercise his guardianship over Mexico. [Different movements. Approbation from some benches.]

This must be energetically confuted here. In the commissions of supplementary credits last year it was said that at the end of the year there should not be a French soldier in Mexico. This promise has shared the fate of many others; I will not say ministerial, but human promises. It must, however, be fulfilled, for it would be deceiving the Chamber and the country to protest that we were concentrating around Mexico, while we were undertaking to conquer by armed force a country ten times larger than France, and where the guerillas, who are the strength of the nation, and in whom its patriotism has taken refuge—[loud disapprobation.]

His Excellency M. Rouher, minister of state. Do not speak of brigands in such terms.

M Garnier Pages. They said also “brigands of the Loire in 1815.”

Mr. Piccione. I ask to speak against the amendment.

Mr. Jules Favre. We have the right to say that, since the government pretends that Mexico is pacified, and that Maximilian is bailed by the popular sympathy, it shall no longer maintain around his throne a force which might be so necessary to France.

I conclude by calling the attention of all the thinking men who hear me to a danger apparent to all, and which is too serious to be slighted.

In 1862, when the expedition was in process of formation, I took the liberty of warning the Chamber of the dangers and contingencies which might arise from a contest with the United States.

It is difficult to imagine how deeply the American heart has been wounded by our expedition to Mexico. And may we not fear that at the termination of a terrible, a gigantic war, [Page 260] which has called all men of action to the battle-field, their armies, disbanded by peace, should rush into Mexico? Let our troops return then; let them return then immediately. It is the desire of all France, and we ask of you to fulfil it. [Approbation from several benches.]

President Schneider. M. Corta has the floor. [Movement of attention.]

Mr. Corta. The Chamber will, I hope, permit me to say a few words about Mexico. Having been honored with a mission to that country, I come to bear witness of what I have seen. I must premise that the impressions which I bring thence do not agree with what the last speaker has just said.

The Hon. M. Jules Favre declared that he would not go back to the origin of the expedition, but would confine himself to existing facts. On this point I will follow his example.

He has examined the situation of Mexico in regard to its present sovereign; in regard to its pacification; in regard to our army: in a word, in regard to the contingencies of war with the United States. Before following him into these different questions, I ask the permission of the Chamber to lay before it a few preliminary observations. It seems to me that the first question to examine is, what faith can be placed in the future of Mexico? A Frenchman who had lived a long time in that country once said to me, “I have seen so many successive revolutions in Mexico; I have so often seen the country ready to fall, and yet recover itself, that even before the intervention I said to myself, Mexico cannot perish. And indeed this country, even in the midst of its disturbances, had always a principle of vitality which gave sure promise for its future destiny.”

What are the causes of this vitality? In the first place, its extent is, not as M. Jules Favre paid, ten times, but three times and a half as large as France; situated in the centre of America, touching the north on one side, and the south on the other, and washed by two oceans, this country unites all the advantages of geographical position to a soil of universal fertility.

The subsoil is so rich that, at the time when the treasures of Mexico were being spread through the entire world, Humboldt said these riches had scarcely begun to be developed, and this opinion has been confirmed by the testimony of the celebrated, engineer M. Lam, who was sent from France to Mexico.

Mexico is, therefore, a highly favored country, in an agricultural and commercial point of view. Having thus shown its natural advantages, let us now see what man has done for it.

When Fernanda Cortez conquered Mexico, he overthrew not only the throne of Montezuma, but a civilization, the importance of which is attested by history, by tradition, and by monuments still extant in the country. What has been substituted for this civilization? The Spaniards gave Mexico Catholicism, without themselves following its precepts. The natives were excluded from all public orifices; certain branches of industry and knowledge were closed to them, in the interest of commerce and the church. Spain, in short, did not restrict herself to drawing from Mexico the silver that she scattered over the whole earth; she levied from its products in order to aliment her colonial budgets, and to raise immense sums of money, which she poured into her treasury at Madrid. During all this time nothing was undertaken in Mexico for its own interest, but solely for that of Spain; then came its independence proclaimed in 1810, and realized in 1820.

What was this independence and for whose profit was it declared? The Spaniards left behind them in Mexico the old natives, the Indians, whom they had long enslaved, but who were submissive and resigned; a race somewhat weak, but industrious and intelligent, impenetrated with the sentiment of religion and the love of home.

The Indians formed four-fifths of the population. The Spaniards thus left behind them a new people, born of their admixture with the natives, the Mexicans properly so called.

For whose profit was the independence proclaimed? For the profit of the great majority of the population? No, but for a Mexican oligarchy, divided into two pretty nearly equai parties, the liberals and the conservatives, who were constantly fighting with each other, sword in hand. for the supremacy, oppressing the Indians and pillaging the people they were appointed to govern; thus with the Spaniards came tyranny, with independence, anarchy; nature had done everything for the prosperity of the country, but man seemed bent on its ruin. It has not perished, it has not even feebly prospered. The reason is, that outside the Mexican oligarchy the Indians, a patient and tenacious race, have never ceased to labor, and that foreigners have continued their traffic, which consists in the exchange of the mineral productions of Mexico against the fabricated productions of Europe.

Is a nation which has resisted oppression and anarchy, and which possesses a most fertile soil, capable of prosperity? The reply cannot be dubious. To rise again it needs but two things—a regular government and time. [Very good, very good.] It unquestionably has a regular government. From Vera Cruz to Mexico the progress of the emperor Maximilian has been a triumph. To the Indian he is the man coming from the east, with blue eyes and golden hair, who is to regenerate the country.

The Indians have, therefore, with a sort of innocence, but with genuine enthusiasm, hailed the emperor Maximilian as a deliverer.

The clerical conservatives, who form a half of the Mexican element, have rallied around him, as have also those moderate men among the liberals, who have become tired of civil war and are persuaded that the republican form of government is not suited to the interest of the country. This majority of the Mexican element has hailed the empire as the only hope of the nation, its only anchor of salvation. A solitary group of men has held itself aloof; for these [Page 261] men civil war is a necessity, a habit, an existence, and like Porfirio Dias, at Oajaca, they will not throw down their arms until they are forced to surrender at discretion.

Such are the sentiments which greeted the emperor Maximilian. It may be said that upon his arrival in Mexico he was crowned by the universal suffrage of the people, who called him to reign over them. (Very good, very good.)

The orator gave a full exposé of the earliest acts of the government of the emperor Maximilian for the reorganization of the finances, the military affairs, public instruction, and the administration of justice in the empire; also for the regulating the delicate question of the goods of the clergy. He entered into circumstantial details upon the financial situation of the country; upon the resources which could be looked for from taxation and the miues— resources considerable in themselves, but which would not exempt the government from the necessity of raising loans—upon the foreign debt of Mexico, the operations of which are regularly carried on; upon its internal debt, consisting of bonds, issued by the different governments which have succeeded one another.

The lateness of the hour obliged the honorable member to defer the remainder of his speech until to-morrow. The séance was closed at twenty minutes past six.

M. Corta. In yesterday’s session, gentlemen, I exhibited Mexico, with all its vitality— its financial resources, its popular government, and the prosperity which a regular administration and time guarantee to it; for time is of necessity the auxiliary of all great things. To this picture I would make but one addition. I wish to speak of the popular current which begins to set towards Mexico. Foreign capital, and emigrants who possess a keen scent for political affairs, are now to be found in Mexico. A national bank has been established, and its immunities have been granted to influential and distinguished houses in France and England; grants have also been made for the construction of numerous railroads. The most important of these grants, viz., for the line to run between Vera Cruz and Mexico, has been given to a very large English company having a capital of 135,000,000, and who are able to send on 15,000 laborers to carry on the work. Besides all this, there are grants for the line of steam packets in the Gulf of Mexico, and along the shores of the Pacific, as well as for the working of different kinds of mines. The Chamber will see clearly that foreign capital and foreign settlers, who have had grants of land made to them, will not be kept away from Mexico on account of the threatening contingencies to which the honorable M. Jules Favre alluded in his speech yesterday. I take up the question which he raised—the question of the pacification of Mexico—from the point of view of the return of our army.

The duration of this pacification is explained by the extent of the Mexican territory, and by the half century of war and anarchy which has reigned upon this territory. The end of the pacification has been found subordinate to facts which I ask leave to point out. The principal fact is the occupation of the seaports. A number of these ports, either on the Gulf of Mexico or on the Pacific, were occupied until lately by Juarez or his partisans; they collected the revenues of several custom-houses, and with these resources they maintained their corps d’armie. An insurrectionary body, compelled to take its subsistence from the country in which it lives, renders itself odious by the requisitions it is forced to make, and recruiting itself at the expense of the country, it quickly exhausts itself in exhausting the country. Therefore external revenues were necessary for the support of the insurgents, and I regret to say that, until lately, such resources have been left at their disposal. But at present, thanks to the co-operation of the land and sea forces, all the ports of the Atlantic and Pacific are occupied either by our troops or by those of the emperor Maximilian. The insurgents are deprived of the seaboard—that is, of the means of obtaining supplies, and hence one of the causes, in fact the principal cause, of the duration of the insurrection no longer exists.

The political situation of Mexico furnishes another fact to which the pacification was also subordinate. The Chamber knows that Mexico, after having vainly entreated Europe for kings, formed itself into a republic—now federative, then military, and then again federative. Under the rule of the federative republic several provinces declared themselves independent; they established mints and arsenals in some of the principal localities. These arsenals, containing considerable supplies and munitions of war, were so many torches ready to kindle insurrection. It is also to be observed that in Mexico the pronunciamientos, which have been followed by revolutions, have always come from the provinces to invade the capital! Well, when Oajaca was captured, with all the inhabitants and property it contained, I think the last military arsenal of the insurrection was destroyed. Juarez took refuge in Sonora, abandoning his baggage and part of his treasure. I am ignorant whether or not he has been able to procure fresh military supplies, or raise new recruits. It is possible that an expedition against him may move toward Sonora; if so, I do not think it will meet with serious resistance, and I am convinced it will be the last expedition undertaken.

Another fact in the light of the pacification of brigandage arises from the state of perpetual war, and the predominance of armed force in Mexico. The country people, and even the inhabitants of towns, unarmed, without protection from government, and living far apart, have contracted the fatal habit of allowing themselves to be robbed, without making resistance; from this have resulted encouragement to brigandage and impunity to crime. In order to remedy these evils, the Mexican government formed a country police, (gardes rurales,) commanded by captains named by the emperor, and composed of the best elements of the old [Page 262] Mexican army. The best results may be hoped from the institution of this police force. Thus, from the point of view of military pacification, of the suppression of a possible though slight resistance at the extreme north of Mexico, and in the light of the pacification of brigandage, there is a prospect of peace and quiet at a more or less distant period.

But, gentlemen, even when a great incendiary is extinguished, it must be watched, lest it break forth again. In presence of the elements of disorder which the civil war has left in Mexico, and taking into consideration the revolutionary principles rife in the Mexican army, a disciplined army, faithful and devoted to its duty and its flag, is still needful in Mexico, not only to sustain the institutions of the nation, but to insure its safety; and this army should be an European one. [Movement.] Should this European army be a French army? Ought the French army be still maintained in Mexico? The authors of the amendment demand the immediate return of the army. This is not admissible. In fact, to recall our army would be to compromise the work just begun; and, in case of the overthrow of that work, to expose our policy to the ridicule of Europe. To recall our army—that is to say, to abandon those who have accepted the intervention, and have rallied around the throne, to expose them to the consequences which might follow such a proceeding, would be to commit an act unworthy of France. In the place of our flag too hastily furled, France would leave her honor sullied. France may be asked to sacrifice her wealth, but her honor never. [Very good, very good.]

But, gentlemen, as the foreign legion and the auxiliary corps of Belgians and Austrians— Austrians who have already given proofs of their bravery and firmness—become developed,. and the empire consolidated, the French army can be gradually reduced and finally withdrawn. Our flag should never cease to wave in Mexico until all the advantages that France upholds there are guaranteed and sure. Shall our flag be furled before the chances of a war that may result from peace in the United States? This is the last question examined yesterday by our honorable colleague, Mr. Jules Favre, and upon which I asked permission to express the opinion that I had gathered in Mexico. In that country these chances preoccupy the public mind much less than in Europe. I will quote the opinion of General Smith, when, in 1847, he occupied the city of Mexico. After General Jackson’s expedition, he was asked if the United States intended to keep Mexico for themselves; he replied, “Why should they? Mexico is an old country, having its own religion, its own customs; its population, though thin, is scattered over its whole extent. The United States want deserts to people and virgin soil to work, upon which their institutions may readily be implanted. Mexico is not to our taste, and deserts and waste lands abound in America.”

Since these words were uttered, Sonora and the unsold property of the clergy have been offered to the United States by President Juarez, for seventy-five million (francs?) but the American government and the present Chief Magistrate have refused to negotiate, though thrice urged by Juarez. But will the proclivities of the United States government be modified hereafter? And first, in what concerns the president of the south, Mr. Davis, it is Only necessary to turn to his message of 1863, to see that he completely recognizes what has been established in Mexico, and that he desires to entertain none but friendly relations with its new government. This is what he says: “Mexico.—The events of the year that has just passed away have produced important changes in the condition of our neighbor at the south. The occupation of the capital of Mexico by the French army, and the establishment of a provisory government, followed by a radical change in the constitution of the nation, have excited the most lively interest. Always preferring our own government and institutions to those of other countries, we have no inclination to deny them the exercise of the same right of self-government that we claim for ourselves; if the Mexican people prefer a monarchy to a republic, it is clearly our duty to acquiesce heartily in their decision, and to manifest a sincere and friendly interest for its prosperity.” And there is no reason to believe that the disposition of the government of the United States differs from these sentiments.

But it is objected, when peace is declared what will become of the immense armies that have been raised?

I am aware, gentlemen, that this is a problem more difficult to resolve than the one of which Caesar speaks, when he says, that it is only necessary to stamp with your foot upon the soil of Italy to make an army spring up. More difficult than that is it to cause an immense army to return to the ranks of society; but in Mexico—for I repeat, I bring here only the opinions I have heard in Mexico—the solution of this problem is deemed much more easy in the United States than in Europe. In fact, the rights of labor open the way to various careers, which are not closed up, as in Europe, by the clergy. Besides, in the south, the army is not composed of mercenaries. It is in some sort a national army, which, after having laid down its arms, will soon return home and resume its ordinary occupations. In the north, the army is composed principally of mercenaries, but of mercenaries whose services have been rewarded by bounties of money and of land. All the soldiers of the northern army are, therefore, landholders, and gentlemen landholders do not generally become adventurers.

But is it indeed true that the army of the United States will cease to exist after peace is established? There is reason to believe, supposing the Union to be restored, that in the face of the agitated south and of Canada up in arms, the government at Washington will feel the need of maintaining a standing army; in this case, the remains of the present army will enter the ranks of that one which will then be formed. [Page 263] Another consideration which I have heard put forth would result from the situation in which the United States government would be placed after the pacification: this government will find that it has heavy damages to repair, and an immense deficit to fill up. Under such circumstances, gentlemen, war cannot he undertaken; therefore, in view of the future government of the United States, the chance of a war does not appear to be strong.

But it is said adventurers, led by another Walker, may attack Mexico. In the first place, gentlemen, it is not conquest from a political motive, but plunder, which is the aim of adventurers. Now if adventurers do spring up in the United States they will have conquests to make far more tempting than that of Mexico: Canada on the one hand, and the opulent Havana on the other. But how should these adventurers attack Mexico? by land? It is well known how precipitately General Jackson concluded a peace with Mexico, and under what conditions the expedition was formed. General Jackson’s expedition cost the United States two years in time, and five hundred million francs in money. Would it be possible for adventurers to undertake such an expedition by land, across deserts, where they would have to bring with them all their provisions and munitions of war, and also be obliged to await the rainy season in order to continue their march? By land it is impossible; by water a pretty large expedition—and that is the only kind to be feared—could be kept under the eyes of nations so watchful over the seas, and Europe would not look with indifference upon such enterprises. I therefore believe, gentlemen, that there is nothing to fear from Mexico, from the contingencies which have been mentioned, and I will now conclude with one reflection.

Our expediton to Mexico was undertaken in the midst of a revolution, brought about by science before our eyes. At the present day, steam and electrcity annihilate distances, bring nations, so to speak, in contact with each other, by land and sea, with their various wants, interests, passions, chances of disagreement, and also happily place them in strict community of ideas and sentiments, which clearly demonstrate it to be much more the interest of nations to aid one another mutually, than to fight together; the prosperity of one nation is increased by the prosperity of the others. A striking example of this is, on the one hand, the beneficial rivalry of France and England in peace, and on the other, the war in the United States, which not only has disturbed all Europe, but has also caused it to experience an immense commercial and manufacturing crisis. Well, in the midst of this novel situation, with the prospect of the nations of the world being drawn more closely together, and with the chances of peace and war, what will be the scope of the Mexican expedition? The future will tell us in estimating its results. As for us, while waiting for history to write the page consecrated to this expedition, what duty does our conscience impose on us? This duty has always appeared and still appears to me very plain; our flag is pledged; where our flag is, there is France, and we owe it our support. It is for this reason, gentlemen, that we are now in Mexico; it is for this reason that I vote for the rejection of the amendment proposed to you.

[Very good! very good! numerous signs of approbation.]

President Schneider. Mr. Picard has the floor.

Mr. Ernest Picard. Whatever legitimate authority, gentlemen, may belong to the words of our honorable colleague, and the mission with which he has been honored, I must declare frankly to the house, that his speech, to which I listened with the most lively attention, did not convince me, [laughter,] and I will add it cannot convince me. This question, gentlemen, demands from you in its discussion the greatest possible attention; the sentiments which animate us all are drawn together in questions of this nature, and public opinion is more pressing, and more severe than ever upon the topic of our political conduct in Mexico. I will add that, in my opinion, there is, perhaps, no other question in which our concurrence will exercise a more salutary influence upon the interests of our country. It is in our power, at least I have a pride in thinking so, to disentangle the political situation in which our government is now placed. It depends upon you, if you have the will to do this to have also the power. It depends upon you to do in 1865 that which we entreated you to do in 1862, at the time when this grave and formidable (redoutable) question first arose in this assembly, and I willingly take up the words which my honorable colleague, Mr. Corta, has just uttered, when, in examining the eventualities which might seem to menace us from the United States, he presented them to you in a still distant horizon. It is not, therefore, too late; for the rest no one would ask of the Chamber or of the government to adopt a policy contrary to the honor of France, and me less than anyone, [whisperings.] But we may ask you to adopt a course in conformity with her policy and her duty. [Very good, from around the speaker; murmurs from several benches.]

You have heard what the honorable Mr. Corta has told you. I confess that in listening to his speech two sentiments have been excited in my breast, a sentiment of fascination and a sentiment of fear; yes, his speech fascinated me. Our honorable colleague has brought back from Mexico images the most brilliant; he bas sought to gild his words with a beam of that; sun he has just left, [laughter and noise;] he has represented Mexico as a land of promise; the emperor Maximilian, that young man with golden locks and azure eyes [exclamations] I quote his words, gentlemen, [various interruptions]—as the savior come from the east, and promised to the Indians.

I am astonished, gentlemen, at the impression these words of his produce upon you; I am [Page 264] astonished that you do not recall the events which took place at the setting out of the expedition. Do you imagine that the government, before sending its troops to Mexico and seeking there what it has not yet found, had not obtained information on the subject from men of intelligence who have lived in Mexico, and who with an equal good faith, an equal sincerity, made similar statements? And we know now how a people colder than we are, and a government less impassioned than our own, appreciates in the despatches which figure among the official documents the statements which come from Mexico. We believed the statements we received, and off we started; we are now in Mexico, and we must quit it—we must quit it, gentlemen. The honorable Mr. Corta has told you so. However fascinating may be the situation, that part of his speech which caused him the most uneasiness was the conclusion. And he did not dissimulate to the Chamber, that had he found means which in his eyes would have been honorable to leave Mexico, he would have been the first to join with me in advising to leave it. He would be the first to do so, in spite of the marvellous narrations he has presented to the Chamber. He has told you of the fertility of the soil of Mexico, of the future that is in store for its finances. He has told you of this, gentlemen, but all this is only a personal appreciation, emanating, it is true, from a man to whom I willingly offer my homage, but which does not suffice to convince a great assembly upon so momentous a question. [Murmurs.] It is of this assembly, it is of the honorable Mr. Corta himself that I would ask if he concurs with Marshal Forey, who says: ** Yes, unfortunately, everything in Mexico requires remodelling; the moral sense of the country is completely perverted. There is no longer any administration, any justice, any army, any national industry, any anything, so to speak. This is not the fault of the nation.”[Interruption.]

Mr. Chagor. Before our advent.

A Member. The date?

M. Ernest Picard. The date of the speech of Marshal Forey? The 19th of March, 1865. If everything in Mexico is to be remodelled, you will readily admit with me that the situation is not encouraging, nor the time propitious for the loan which is announced to us. If all in Mexico is to be remodelled, if the opinion of Marshal Forey does not coincide with that of our honorable colleague, who will give the casting vote? Who will come here in obedience to the first of all duties, and in face of this assembly furnish us with official documents, which may be checked, examined, discussed? The government. The duty is undeniable. The entire nation is awaiting the day when the government shall submit to the free examination of the majority and of the minority these documents which it has not yet produced. And where are these documents? Of all political questions, the one which, perhaps, possesses the greatest interest at this moment for France is the Mexican question. Of all questions—I except Algeria—that one concerning which we do not possess a single document is the Mexican question. Not a single document. Not a single one. On all other subjects we have had distributed among us, more or less generally, documents, despatches, reports. Upon this subject there has been an absolute silence. We are often told that in France the discussions held in this assembly can replace those liberties which we lack—[Denials from several benches; approbation from others]—and that by carefully examining and checking the affairs of our country we can offer our fellow-citizens those guarantees which they sought in nominating us. But how can a discussion be really serious which lacks a basis? Is it possible, whatever authority may belong to the words of my honorable colleague, is it possible, I repeat, for us to discuss upon words, which, though certainly sincere, are but the expression of the personal opinion of a single man?

This, then, is the situation in which we rind ourselves; for upon this subject I have not yet seen the slightest explanation on the part of the government. It must be very grave, indeed, gentlemen, this Mexican question, since it is proposed to discuss it in this manner. What are the reasons why we are left in silence and obscurity in a matter which demands explanations and light? They are twofold. In the first piace, the government—and I know not why it should be so in a great country and before a nation like France, where nothing honors more, both those who speak and those who listen, than the truth—the government, I say, wishes to keep us under the empire of illusions the most complete—illusions which the government itself does not entertain. [Reclamations.]

The Minister of State. I ask for the floor.

M. Ernest Picard. The government tells us the country is pacified. It is not pacified. It tells us our troops are about to be recalled. And yet the honorable Mr. Corta himself has just told us, in his sincerity, that our troops are on the point of marching to conquer Sonora.

Mr. Belmontet. He did not say so.

M. Ernest Picard. He said the conquest of Sonora was about to be accomplished.

M. Corta. I did not say that., I confined myself to the interrogation, “Is there an expedition preparing to enter Sonora? If so, I believe two things: one, that the expedition will not meet with any serious obstacle; the other, that such expedition will be the last.” That is what I said.

M. Ernest Picard. I say that the country is not pacified; that the ovations of which we have heard may without doubt have occurred at certain points; but that the feeling of resistance is still very powerful in Mexico. [Reclamations.] And I will give immediate proof of what I say. What is the position which you occupy toward the Mexicans, upon [Page 265] whom you do not wish to impose a government, but merely to become acquainted with their free wishes?

The Moniteur is subject to slips as well as the other journals, and I therefore cannot tell whether or no it was in accordance with the wishes of the government that it published the decree that I am about to submit to you, as furnishing the only reply I shall make to this part of my honorable colleague’s speech. The Monterey expedition had taken place. The general entered the city. He delivered it from the yoke of its oppressors. The respectable citizens gathered around the French commander, who proceeded to instai the municipal power. But though no armed resistance was made, still, since all this was occurring in a country which our honorable colleague has so well named a vivacious country, and which proves its vitality by resisting a foreign invasion, a vague sentiment of opposition manifested itself, the existence of which is demonstrated by the following decree:

“General Castagny, commanding the first division of the Franco-Mexican army, being charged with the reconstruction of the municipal authority of the city of Monterey, decrees:

“Art. 1. Pending ratification by the government of the emperor Maximilian, ——— is named provisional prefect of the district; ——— ———, substitute; ——— ———, alcalde, &c.

“Art. 2. Any person designated in the preceding article who refuses to fulfil the functions confided to him shall be immediately punished by six months’ imprisonment, conformably with the law.”

We have here, gentlemen, a sort of press-gang for functionaries. I do not wish to speak of it with levity, for that would subject me to the remonstrances of the minister of state: and I wish in a question of such gravity to merit, at least, his testimony that I have treated the subject as he desires it should be treated. What does this impressment of functionaries prove? Simply that resistance was universal, and that the ovations were only offered along the route followed by our honorable colleague, who was attached to the person of the sovereign and surrounded by cortege. But this is not all, gentlemen. How were you received by those who summoned you to Mexico? And herein lies my reply to what the honorable Mr. Corta said, when, after crying out that honor forbade France to abandon Mexico, he said that if we abandoned it we should leave there our partisans exposed to the malice of the reaction. It is we who are exposed to the malice of our partisans, as you will be in a way to judge from a document which it was not seen fit to submit to us, and we were obliged to hunt up among the official publications. In this document we find the following, where General Negre, commandant of the department of Mexico, writes to Archbishop Labastide: “Incendiary writings are slipped under the doors into the houses. The authors of this culpable manifestation seek to excite vile material interest, which our holy religion repudiates, and to invoke the most detestable passions against the army of the Emperor. I am pleased to believe, monseigneur, that your excellency is ignorant of these criminal manoeuvres; I therefore point them out to you,” &c., &c. The general concludes by requesting the archbishop to suppress these measures. The archbishop replies: “It is an attested fact, and one of public notoriety, that we have all protested against the two individuals who have the pretension to be a government.”

These “two individuals,”gentlemen, were not the authors of the incendiary publications.

Several voices. We cannot hear. Louder!

Mr. Ernest Picard. It is against the government that the archbishop protests—against the government that we have erected. The archbishop continues:”And against the circulars of the 9th November and the 15th December of last year, declaring categorically that the church, in the plenitude of her immunities—of her rights, is subjected at this moment to the same attacks she had to sustain under the Juarez government, and that never has she seen herself persecuted with greater bitterness. In consequence of the position in which we have been placed, we find ourselves worse off than at that time. Your excellency will therefore perceive that the two documents (our protestation and our letter) contain two propositions relative to the position of the church and her pastors, entirely contradictory, the one to the other. One is necessarily true and the other false.”

And which was the proposition necessarily true? That one only which is contained in the letter of which I have just quoted a passage, but which also claims the responsibility of the following quotation:

“Who could have thought that the first steps on both sides would lead to the maintenance of infamous laws, called laws of reform, decreed by the demagogy?” And thus, gentlemen, you are styled demagogues.

His Excellency M. Rouher, minister of state. Does that please you?

Mr. Ernest Picard. I continue the quotation: “Who among you can imagine that the men who have pilfered the power will be unmindful of the religious and patriotic party, and that they will go so far as so take from that party its respectable members, treat them with contempt, and even to threaten them with the severest punishment? Who would think that they could push presumption and impudence so far as to side with the fallen party, and protect laws which have thrown such disrespect and outrage upon the ministers and virgins of the Lord? Who is there among you, no matter how limited may be his intelligence, who has not understood that the regents-general of the intervention are the bitterest enemies of [Page 266] religion and order?” You see how you are treated by those men who have called upon you— those men of consideration, whose sentiments I have just made known to you, and one of whom, if I mistake not, belongs to the provisional government you have established down there—M. la Bastida. I do not intend to read the entire document, but I merely wished to lay a sample of it before you. And now I hope the honorable Mr. Corta will permit me to ask him, is he very sure that he saw everything? He certainly understood all that he saw, but he has not seen all that he could understand. [Movement.]

Different voices. And you, what have you seen? what have you been able to understand?

Mr. Ernest Picard. The second reason why I fear the government has left us in darkness: is one which must be a still more painful one for it, it is that, behind all the brilliant explanations which the government will not fail soon to make, with all the talent of him who shall make them, I place a financial conclusion, viz: that the emperor Maximilian and his government will again make a demand upon the credit and funds of France. It is this, perhaps, which will explain to you why it was not thought proper to submit to our inspection those budgets, those custom-house systems, the brilliant mirage of which dazzled our eyes at the last session. I willingly bow before the financial superiority of our honorable colleague. I know he has often been one of the most experienced authorities on our budget commissions, and when he reports upon a budget, after having seen what he relates, I readily believe his word. When he makes here a Mexican report, [rumors] a report on Mexican finance, I hesitate to give him the same confidence, and I think it my strictest duty, in the name of my constituents, to come here, and, as far as I am able, examine the document and figures which are placed before us.

The Marquis de Pere. There is no Mexican deputy here.

M. Ernest Picard. I have not understood the interruption.

President Schneider. Do not stop for interruptions.

M. Ernest Picard. I regret, gentlemen, to say it, but the figures which you have heard to-day are not of a nature to inspire confidence in the hearts of future subscribers. The subscribers to the first loan have seen this loan, issued at the rate of sixty-three francs, fall in a few days ten and twelve francs—fall, I think, even as low as forty-eight francs, and at the present moment rise to fifty-two francs. So that small capitalists, owners of small incomes, attracted by the high rate of interest, believing the government to be morally responsible for an issue made, so to speak, under its patronage, and which may be sanctioned by official discourses pronounced here, [denials from several benches,] may have to be saved by a second loan. But you will agree that the way to restore the equilibrium of our finances is not to unite them more closely than is proper, in these circumstances, to the Mexican finances. I add, that it appears to me contrary to all rules of moral and political economy, that the government should favor (I use expressly no other word) combinations which are forbidden, interdicted to private individuals. What does it accomplish in this first loan? It authorizes this borrower, called the Mexican government, which cannot give sufficient security to its creditors to insure their receiving the interest of the sum, but to place in the office of deposits and consignments four semisties of arrearages. Thus it does what would not be allowed to the smallest commercial company, viz: pay the interest of the loan out of the capital; so that, at the end of two years, those who have not been so prudent as to withdraw from the consequences of such a financial affair will find themselves confronted by an empty treasury, and having no other guarantee than the henceforth well-known bonds of the Mexican loan. Complaints have been madea bout this, gentlemen, and I have in my hand documents which show these complaints to have been energetic. For instance, one of these subscribers in a paper which has, I think, been distributed to you all, and the authority of which I do not otherwise guarantee. [Laughter and exclamation.]

M. Rouher, minister of state. What authority, before the Chamber, can a document have which you do not guarantee?

M. Ernest Picard. The government will explain itself. Here is what I find in this document: “Perhaps the subscribers to the loan will have more real causes of grievance in the facts accomplished during the operation, properly so called, of its issue. The rumor spread abroad of a more than filled-up subscription, corroborated by considerable purchases made the day before, and the very day of the closing of the subscription list, up to one and a half per cent, profit; the irregular delay in announcing the allotments, whilst it was publicly given out that there would be a considerable reduction upon applications already made— all this has certainly contributed to swell the number of applicants, and prevent subscribers from extricating themselves, in leaving the market open to those only who were acquainted with the true position. Whence proceeded these false reports? Whence came these purchases? It is not the purpose of this document to seek the answer. It suffices to state the share of influence they have exercised. Thus much is certain, that while the loan could be subscribed to with one per cent, discount for brokerage, purchases with premium were made one day on a very large scale—not by hundreds of francs of capital, but by hundreds of thousands of francs of interest all at once; that it would be easy, by tracing up the bonds delivered, to discover by whom these purchases were effected; that they stopped as soon as the subscription was closed; that they were forced to believe the loan entirely filled up at the risk of entering into explanations rather too delicate; and that, lastly, subscribers have [Page 267] determined by this to increase the quantum of their applications, the author of this document himself heading the list.

“Who has laid the affair before the public? The credit mobilier, a privileged institution of the government. Who has received, one might almost say, who has solicited subscriptions from the public 1 The agents of the credit foucier de France, another privileged institution of the government. Who represents the credit foncier de France in the provinces? Notaries public and private collectors of finance, functionaries holding office from government. This side of the question alone suffices. It does not result from this that France ought to guarantee the solvency of Mexico; but the public cannot be prevented from viewing, in what has already been done, a governmental support, carrying with it at least a moral responsibility, and thus is assuredly one of the principal determining causes of the subscriptions made to the Mexican loan. This idea gains undeniable strength from the preceding and daily acts of the French government.”

This, gentlemen, is what the subscribers to the loan have published, [ah! ah!] and what is indispensably necessary to be made known, now that we are on the eve of having a second loan attempted; for as truly as I recognize the legitimate right of the government to call upon the public credit to negotiate the sixty-six millions it has on hand, to invite all capitalists to join in an operation that it considers sound, so truly do I believe it to be its imperious duty not to make such operation without first clearly enlightening those who are appealed to, without informing them to what consequences they are exposed, and without everything being conducted with a complete and entire royalty. [Very good, from several benches.]

Such being the case, the basis of the loan that you would make, which has benn announced to us by Mr. Corta, and which was not certainly the cause of his discourse, although it formed its most direct and precise interest. The basis of this loan is the financial prosperity of Mexico. Now, the light we ask of you is, light upon the financial prosperity of Mexico. The Hon. Mr. Corta endeavored to give it, and he told us—citing the authority of a minister of the Mexican finances, the best statistician I believe that Mexico possesses, Mr. Lerdo y Tejada—he told us that this economist had in 1857 computed the proceeds of the customs revenue to be worth nearly eighty millions; seventy-five millions at first, he said; eighty millions after the opening of the ports of the Pacific, and a hundred millions even, taking into consideration the increasing prosperity of the country. This is the only document I should have been able to verify among those cited by my honorable colleague, and I requested him to show me the statement of this minister of the finances. But my honorable colleague was not in possession of this statement; had he seen it with his own eyes, I should have accepted the figures; but he had never seen it. He had obtained his information only through a third person. It so happens, however, that I have in my hand [the orator unfolded a great roll of paper, which excited the risibility of the assembly] a synoptical table of the finances of the Mexican republic, drawn up, not in 1856, but in 1850, by the Hon. Minister Lerdo y Tejada. I am ignorant of his having issued a new one in 1856. If it has been so stated to my honorable colleague, I shall believe; only I must remark that if such is the case, the civil war has greatly benefited the country, since from 1850 to 1856, at the time when Mexico was in the greatest state of agitation and suffering, when the republic began to have the upper hand, the revenues of the customs had doubled.

In referring to this only official, or at least authentic document, 1 have been able to obtain, so as to appreciate the value of the exposé of my honorable colleague, I have been disagreeably surprised to find that not only the customs receipts, but those of the entire revenues of the country do not amount to more than the half of the figures given by the Hon. Mr Corta, or rather given to him. [Movement.] They are put down at 8,500,000 piastres, that is, forty-two millions instead of eighty millions.

Mr. Corta. Will you allow me to make an observation?

Mr. Ernest Picard. Willingly.

Mr. Corta. 1 took the information which I laid before the Chamber from the documents of former ministers of the finances, and also from a paper which I had not seen, as I told my honorable colleague, Mr. Picard, but of which an extract was given me by a Mexican who is at present in Paris. If the Hon. Mr. Picard had conferred with me upon the subject of the discrepancy which he believes to exist, but which does not exist, I could have obtained further information from this Mexican; but, I repeat, no discrepancy exists.

And in the first place, the writings of Mr. Mora Biasio, and of Mr. Antonio Garay, one of the most distinguished ministers of the Mexican finances, who wrote in 1835, 1836 and 1837, demonstrate that the revenues of the customs, not the net revenues, but the gross revenues, might, by adding in the profits robbed from the exchequer by contraband trade, amount to nearly the sum indicated by Mr. Lerdo y Tejada. For these former ministers counted the possible revenues of the customs at seventy-five millions, and Mr. Lerdo y Tejada, who wrote later, carries them to eighty millions, that is to say, to five millions more.

Now, what does the Hon. Mr. Picard oppose? To a paper of Mr. Lerdo y Tejada, written in 1856 or 1857, he opposes an anterior synoptical table, from which it results that the net produce of the revenues was, according to Mr. Lerdo y Tejada, inferior to that I spoke of. But the synoptical table shows the net produce only, while the work of Mr. Lerdo y Tejada comprises the net profits, the accumulated gross profits, and the profits which are [Page 268] stolen from the exchequer. There can be no possible comparison, neither by analogy nor discrepancy.

Mr. Ernest Picard. Was I not right in saying, at the commencement, that we must beware of the fascinations of Mexico? And are not those finances rather fantastical in which we find the number wanted without discarding the unknown quantity, and in which we reckon not only what enters into the treasury, but also what does not enter, but which probably ought to enter? [Laughter.] We are not accustomed to discuss affairs with such a large margin; and my honorable colleague must allow me to observe to him, that if that were the only guarantee furnished to the subscribers to the loan, and if they knew it were so, and did not see behind the loan the government in its power, its majesty, and moral responsibility, there would be no subscribers. I say it without further insisting upon this ungrateful portion of my task. I shall have fulfilled it if I have succeeded in demonstrating to you that it is impossible, even with the greatest good will in the world, and without being in any way systematically opposed to Mexico, and its prosperity—[interruption]—impossible, I say, to look upon our financial relations with Mexico as an excellent affair. I think, on the contrary, that it is time to remember what the Hon. Mr. Berryer said last year; about this time when making the account of Mexican finances, its debt and its resources, he showed that the minister of finance of the Mexican empire, whose report had been published there in the Morning Post, had said that not only was a loan, giving one hundred and twenty millions to the Mexican government, necessary, but that to save it, it would require a loan of seven hundred and fifty millions, otherwise it could not meet its expenses. The Hon. Mr. Berryer, our illustrious and eminent colleague, was very nearly in the right.

At present, gentlemen, who can dispute it? Surely not the minister, who, questioned by me for the third time, (and in truth I fear to question him again,) is about to announce to you for the third time that a loan is imminent and perhaps desirable. I say, then, gentlemen, that in the light of wisdom in the good administration of our finances, as well as of wisdom in our foreign policy, the affair of Mexico presents nothing satisfactory to us; and I am sure in thus expressing myself that I agree with the secret sentiment of the Chamber, and I may say before it what it thinks in all sincerity. But, gentlemen, in face of this fact, what is our duty? What have we to do? In order to understand it well, and know just how far we may venture to go, it is indispensable in this question also to take a retrospective view.

It was in 1862 that for the first time we were informed in this place of the Mexican expedition, and in 1862 we disputed the utility of this expedition, and declared to the government that it would not easily obtain those indemnities it went so far at such a cost to seek. We told it that behind this enterprise was concealed another, inspired by a candidate, and that candidate was the Archduke Maximilian. What answer was made to this? What were the words of him who was then the eloquent organ of the government? He said to us, When such suppositions are affirmed, proofs must be brought forward to support them, and you have none. The aim of the agreement between the three powers was to require from the Mexican republic a more effectual protection to their respective subjects, and the fulfilment of the obligations contracted by this republic. And the honorable orator added: “The three contracting parties are pledged to reserve no acquisition of territory and no private advantage, and to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico no influence of a nature to violate the rights of the Mexican nation to choose and freely constitute the form of its own government.”

Thus it was acknowledged that if the archduke were behind the expedition, you would not have been asked to vote for the expedition.

The following year we resumed the subject. All the world knew the Archduke Maximilian to be the candidate. The minister of state himself acknowledged that since October 31, 1861, (and this took place in the session of March 13, 1862,) that since that period an engagement had been entered into with him. “It was then necessary to look about one,” said he. “A name has been pronounced, the name of a prince of that great house of Hapsburg, which shortly before we encountered on the battle-fields of Magenta and Solferino. The Emperor has thought himself magnanimous in not opposing this candidate, and if it obtained universal suffrage it must be respected.” That is what was done October 31, 1861; that is, several months before the time that the contrary was told us in this building. The proof, gentlemen, is very clear and cannot be denied.

The following year we resumed the subject. You know, gentlemen, what obstacles the expedition had to surmount. We were again told, “We desire that the Archduke Maximilian should become emperor of Mexico, but no engagement to this effect has been made with him.” And when, with the authority of his word, the honorable M. Thiers said in this house that the engagement was inherent to the situation, everybody cried out. The honorable M. Granier de Cassagnac exclaimed, interrupting M. Thiers, that there was no engagement, and that the archduke set out because he wished to do so. The honorable minister of state declared also that there was no engagement. And, gentlemen, the affair is too serious for me not to place before the Chamber the words which were uttered on this occasion.

In the session of January 27 Mr. Berryer said: “Is it true that the government has entered into no engagement binding the country either in a financial point of view or as concerning our soldiers? Is the country committed, or is it not?”

“Mr. Rouher. If you had read Mr. Larrabure’s report you would have been enlightened on this subject.”

[Page 269]

“Mr. SEGRIS. I request permission to say a word. The reply of the government organs which I find in the report, and which I bespeak for my share of the debate, is as follows: The Emperor’s government declares that at present it has not entered into any engagement whatsoever, either to leave a corps of French troops in Mexico orto guarantee any loan, and that there is no reason to suppose it necessary to augment the French forces at present in Mexico.”

Every one, with the exception perhaps of the opposition, whose mistrust in all that relates to this question appears to be incurable, [smiles from several benches,] placed confidence in the words of the honorable minister of state. One member only, one of the most eminent, who has often occupied the seat of minister, and who knows all the weight attached to the words of a minister, [murmurs,] interrupted the reading. He can readily comprehend the reserve under which the honorable Mr. Rouher will seek a refuge, from which I have no intention to drive him. The honorable Mr. Thiers interrupted Mr. Segris by saying “at present.” Upon this interruption of Mr. Thiers the Moniteur stated that a movement was produced in the assembly. This movement took place on the 27th of January, and on the 10th of April a convention, regulating the loan, the sojourn of our troops, and the payment of the Mexican coupons, was signed and engagements entered into, and upon too large a scale to have allowed them, on the 17th of January, to be avowed to the Chamber in the same terms in which the convention at Miramar was concluded on the 10th of April.

And now, habituated by our situation to moderate our desires, [laughter and murmurs,] we solicit you not to permit the convention of the 10th of April to be again overstepped, or that once more, before this Chamber, at the same date, you listening and the minister speaking, a session shall be held in which engagements shall be entered into upon the same terms, nothing more nor less, and then be carried out as in preceding years.

The Chamber is aware that the honorable minister of state has been present at only a portion of these debates, but the entire Chamber has assisted at almost all. It has watched the rise and progress of the Mexican question, and I assert that the hour has arrived when it becomes its duty, as it is its right, to bring this question to a close.

I assert, gentlemen, that when a Chamber has been induced by the government to accept in perfect confidence that which has been proposed to it, and allowed itself to be led whither it would not have gone of its own accord, I assert that this Chamber has a right and a duty. It has been trustful; it must now resist. It cannot and should not in face of the minister, in face of the government, make use of parliamentary courtesy, [dissent from several benches; assent from others,] because state affairs are not regulated by courtesy and excess of confidence. I leave all other questions to your discretion, gentlemen, but in the Mexican question we are released from this duty toward the government. You are searching, for the interest of the country, for that policy which this time you ought not to recommend timidly to your country; but—permit me the word—you should enjoin upon the government by a vote and a manifestation. We do not ask you to join our party; but can it be possible that, in a question where you think as we do, where the interest of France appears to you as it does to us, where you see your duty as clearly as we do, that a man should not rise up from your midst, were it but—were it but—I withdraw the word, and I wish it might be the honorable M. Segris, whom I just now quoted, who has withheld, as he says, the declaration of the government, and who certainly must have withheld it for more than a year. The honorable Mr. Segris said, “This is the declaration which has been made; I withhold it;” and the honorable Mr. Rouher added, “I withdraw nothing from it.” The declaration is there; the engagement exists; and, since it does, it must be kept. What is it? It is the engagement entered into by the convention of 10th April, 1864, by the convention of Miramar; or rather it is the engagement entered into in these precincts, for the convention of 10th April, 1864, like all conventions that pass between sovereigns, and are not submitted to the assemblies, is not altogether in conformity with the policy that has been explained here and sustained by the organs of the government. It has a preface of which I would willingly hear the honorable minister give a different interpretation from mine; it is thus conceived:

“The governments of his Majesty the Emperor of the French, and of his Majesty the Emperor of Mexico, actuated by an equal desire to secure the re-establishment of order in Mexico, and to consolidate the new empire, have resolved to regulate by a convention——.”

If nothing more is meant than a desire I have no more to say; but if this “desire” contains the tacit and inevitable engagement which it is proposed to you to take in following this policy, the Chamber, which was not a party to this convention, and does not incline to this policy, must disengage itself from it. And in what manner must it do so? It must do that which was provided for by article 1 of the convention, thus expressed:

“The French troops that are now in Mexico shall be reduced as soon as possible to 25,000 men, including the foreign legion. This corps will remain temporarily in Mexico, to protect the interests that led to this intervention, in conformity with the conditions regulated by the following articles.”

Here I pause to remark to the government. You declared in the report of the honorable Mr. Larrabure, to which you called attention in the session I spoke of just now, and to which you referred our colleagues in these words: “Read it and you will be enlightened.” You declared the year 1864 should not pass away before the French troops should have returned to France. [Sign of denial by the minister of state.]

[Page 270]

Mr. Jules F atre. Yes, yes; it is in the report. [Noise.]

Mr. Ernest Picard. This is what I read in the report of the honorable Mr. Larrabure:

“In the present provisions the government hopes that the end of 1864.” [Interruption.]

Many Voices. “Hopes!”

Mr. Ernrst Picard, continuing: “that the end of the year 1864 will mark the termination of the expedition. Moreover, arrangements have been proposed whereby, from the 1st of January, 1864, Mexico shall contribute more efficiently towards the pay and the maintenance of our troops.”

Several Members. Well, well!

M. Ernest Picard. The report says further: “In the first place, and in a general manner, the government has no intentions of undertaking new expeditions.” You know that now an expedition to Sonora is again spoken of. “As for the expedition of San Luis de Potosi in particular, it was judged necessary in order to occupy the most important parts of Mexico. The country between San Luis and Mexico contains important centres of population. The occupation of these parts became necessary, precisely to hasten the accomplishment of the work undertaken, viz: the redress of our grievances, and the possibility for Mexico to choose freely a new government. Having the country under our control as far as San Luis de Potosi, we can more rapidly and successfully see this result realized. The army will stop there.” Has it stopped? [Interruption.]

M. Auguste Chevalier. It went forward in the face of peril.

M. Ernest Picard. That is true. Its achievements were splendid, but our policy was not. [Approbation in the vicinity of the orator.] I proceed: “Universal suffrage, operating naturally according to the customs or institutions of the country, will be invited to choose the form of government it prefers; whatever may be its decision, France will respect it.” Is that what we are doing? I ask you this sincerely, loyally, in the capacity of a deputy anxious to fulfil my mission, and to obtain, if possible, the concurrence of my fellow-citizens and colleagues in a question which touches so nearly the most important interests of our country, both present and future. I ask you, have you done this? You have not; the Chamber knows it. Your engagements were made while you were in the chamber, and as soon as you quitted it you forgot them. [Disturbance.] You have returned to it, and I recall them to your remembrance. I remind you of them at the time, when, if we understand the language of politics, we ought to be able to see, by the explanations given us in these precincts, that not only has the French army not stopped, not only has it not returned in 1864, but also that it will not return in 1865.

Several Members. Very good!

M. Ernest Picard. Is it not true? Does anyone contradict me? This time the minister takes no further engagement, and I thank him for it; but by taking no further engagement, he gives warning to the Chamber; and if the Chamber is warned, what is its duty? Who are we here—for what? Can it be that the discussion of the address is nothing but a political pastime? [Disturbance and murmurs.]

M. Belmontel. The pastime is rather a long one!

President Schneider. I must beg of M. Picard * * * *

M. Glais Bisoin. Oh! the word is parliamentary; we all accept it!

President Schneider. If it be parliamentary, it is not well chosen in the midst of such full and serious debates. [Very good; very good!]

M. Ernest Picard. I wish that to-day’s session might prove to me that I have expressed myself badly. I wish that, animated by the same sentiments and intentions as myself, my colleagues might form the same idea as I do of our mission, and our mutual duties. [Fresh interruption.]

Several Voices. We know them!

M. Granier de Cassagnac. Do you claim to be a model deputy? [Noise.]

M. Ernest Picard. Do not be afraid, gentlemen; I shall form no theory infringing the constitution; I shall not ask you to interfere in the administration; but I ask you whether or no you have the right and the duty to vote efficiently in this assembly upon a given question about which your opinion is settled?

M. Granier de Cassagnac. Certainly we have.

M. Ernest Picard. Does the address sufficiently express this sentiment? I have read attentively the paragraph now under discussion. It certainly differs from last year’s compilation; and certainly in the ingenuous phrase, wherein the commission of the address expresses pleasure in witnessing the return of our troops, the imitation is not sufficiently precise for the government not to be able to misunderstand it. Having been three times held at bay upon this question, I conjure you, not in your own interest, not in that of the government, nor for any secondary political reasons, but in the great interest of the country, to declare your sentiments, if you have that courage that will [Exclamations and murmurs.]

Numerous Voices. Order! Order!

M. Granier de Cassagnac. Such expressions cannot be tolerated.

President Schneider. I call on the honorable Mr. Picard to explain himself.

M. Taillefer to M. Picard. Take back that word!

President Schneider. I call upon him to take back a word which may wound the feelings [Page 271] of the Chamber. It is not courage, but conviction, which acts in this place; and in France, where there is conviction, courage is never wanting to express it. [Very good; very good!]

M. Taillefer. I require that the honorable orator take back his expression. [Yes, yes; order!]

President Schneider, (addressing Mr. Picard.) I beg of you to withdraw your expression.

M. Ernest Picard. J appeal to the whole Chamber to admit, with me, that the resolution to be taken in this circumstance is one that requires a certain amount of courage. [Denials and noise.]

President Schneider. I again invite Mr. Picard to withdraw an expression which is somewhat offensive to the Chamber.

M. Ernest Picard. I withdraw it unhesitatingly. I am here to discuss a grave question, and not to offend the Chamber.

President Schneider. You are fully aware, Mr. Picard, that you must respect the convictions of your colleagues if you wish them to respect yours. [Very good!]

M. Ernest Picard. I respect them fully, and have just given proof of it.

I continue. You see, gentlemen, in what manner I take the liberty of placing this question before you. It is clear and precise, and closely connected with the gravest interests of the country, and your most imperious duties. I say, that if you decide to vote the second part of our amendment, which runs thus: “In conformity with the declarations of the government we await the recall of our troops,” you will explicitly express your wishes. If, however, you will not associate yourselves with an amendment which comes from our side, you can make one for yourselves which will express the same idea. By so doing you will, in my estimation, and as I said at the opening of this debate, render the most signal service to the government. You will disembarrass its policy. When it has been decided and acknowledged in the French chamber that our troops can return with honor, without detriment to any one, the government then will no longer be restrained by these vain and egotistical reasons which were just now brought forward, but will be able to fulfil its secret desires, and conscientiously satisfy its political conduct. [Very good! from several benches.]

M. Ernest Picard. Can you do it? You can do it this year; you could have done it better last year; and better still three years ago. The pretexts, or, if you like it better, the reasons that prevented you last year, no longer exist. It was asked, with whom shall we treat? And the minister of state replied, “France does not treat with her enemies; she will not treat with Juarez, nor with the bands behind Juarez.”

One word upon these “bands;” and, in order that I may not be told that we associate our idea, which we do not, with men who are rightly called bandits—as they have been called by the government in former discussions—I inquire of the emperor Maximilian and his ministers, whose conduct in this respect I honor—for, in this sense, they have inaugurated a liberal policy—-I inquire of the emperor Maximilian and his ministers, in what manner those men should be treated who still resist the new government of Mexico? The minister of the interior, Mr. Gonzales de la Vega, expresses himself thus in a circular referring to those persons who lay down their arms: “His Majesty entertains the warmest desires, and makes constant exertions, to obliterate every trace of the dissensions that have for so long a period desolated the country, and to renew the ties of brotherhood which ought to unite the great Mexican family. He cannot, therefore, see with indifference that when certain persons are spoken of, odious qualifications are used which are in disunion with his policy and his conciliatory sentiments. With this object in view his Majesty in the decree of the 6th instant, wherein he calls around him all those who have opposed or still oppose his government, without being otherwise criminal, has avoided the use of the expression indulto,” (pardon.) Such, gentlemen, is the way they think in Mexico; I am convinced our soldiers think the same, not fearing to honor those with whom they have fought. I say, therefore, that the minister appears to me to exaggerate when he solemnly declares to this tribunal that it was impossible to treat with Juarez; but this is no longer the question. And when he said it was impossible to treat with Almonte, who was merely a provisionally chief, although installed by the French government itself, I reply, that although this may have been a reason, a specious one, this reason no longer exists. The Archduke Maximilian is now on the throne; he is seated there in virtue of an universal suffrage, very restricted certainly, and especially by the vote of the assembly of nobles. And here—I trust the government will permit me to speak it out—arises an invincible dilemma. If votes must be sought for in the recesses of the mountains, by the edge of the sword, these votes are no longer free, and we would prefer not to have the guarantee of universal suffrage if it musí be so obtained.

The emperor Maximilian is, I assert, sufficiently firm upon his throne to permit the recall of the French from Mexico. Last year you said it could not be, as he was not then installed. Now he is; ovations you tell us accompany him on every side. The pacification is effected; you yourselves declare this fact to us; you withhold from us documents that give a contrary statement, and I thank you for withholding them, if it obliges you to declare from the tribune where you stand, “The emperor Maximilian is on the throne of Mexico; and, as I informed you last year, we have entered into no engagement to sustain him there; there is no necessity of our sending out our French soldiers under a foreign flag, and we may now stipulate with [Page 272] Maximilian for the return of our troops.” In such a case, I withdraw my amendment, and thank the government for having performed an act of sound policy and true patriotism.

And now, gentlemen, I must beg you to note that whatever seeming irritation there may have been in our debate, I have carefully abstained, throughout the perplexing circumstances which surround our heavy task of duty, from saying a word about these threatening contingencies which hang over the question, and of which you are perfectly cognizant. [Murmurs.] On the other hand, you must judge whether it comports with it, comports with a true and judicious policy to keep thirty or forty thousand French troops and a portion of our fleet engaged for years in the Mexican expedition, three thousand leagues distant from the war we are actually carrying on in Algeria. Is it a sound policy? Is it a patriotic policy? Is it a policy which a French Chamber can accept? No! a thousand times no!

They did not dare to present it to you in this light when they drew you into this expedition; and can I forget that you constitute to-day the sovereign expression of the will of the nation? that when you speak, if you do speak, all, and the government before all, are bound to obey? I conjure you, in the name of French interests, to speak, and to protect the government itself, and, above all, France. [Expressions of warm approbation around the speaker.]

President Schneider. The minister of state has the floor.

His excellency Mr. Rouher, secretary of state. Gentlemen: Government does not ask you for a vote of trust; still less does it demand of you a vote of complaisance which you would not grant. It asks for your sincere, enlightened, and free judgment on the affairs of Mexico, [very good;] and, in order to aid you in forming an opinion, it is its duty to inform you of the facts, and of its convictions concerning them.

And first, I meet in the Hon. Mr. Picard’s discussion a reproach which I could in no wise expect. The government, says he, makes silence around the Mexican question; it produces no documents, no papers in the debate; it shows itself unwilling to give any information, and thus compels the opposition to discuss the question at a great disadvantage.

What, gentlemen, has the house, has the country, remained ignorant of the events concerning Mexico? Has not all possible information been given to public opinion, and to the members of this assembly? Every fortnight, at the arrival of every mail, either in England or in France, the Moniteur publishes with most scrupulous fidelity every military, political, or administrative information relating to the Mexican question. You can examine all these documents; I know of no omission nor of no interruption in them, for, so far as I, am concerned, I declare to the house when I wished to inform myself concerning the events which have taken place in Mexico since last year I merely and simply read the Moniteur. Thus the reproach addressed to government by the Hon. M. Picard is utterly unfounded.

Let us now examine rapidly what Mexico was before, and what it has become since, the emperor Maximilian ascended the throne; what the present position is, and what duties that position entails upon us. Let us consider at once, as did the Hon. M. Picard, the paragraph in your address, and the amendment to it proposed by the opposition.

Mexico, prior to the French intervention, (and all agree on this point,) was a prey to the most deplorable anarchy For fifty years it had undergone all the sufferings entailed by prolonged revolution; governments succeeded each other with the most marked want of stability; civil war reigned in central Mexico, and in a large portion of the south. The northern provinces had thrown off the yoke of all authority, the governors having long since declared their independence.

There existed in that unfortunate country a sad contrast between the riches with which God has endowed it, and the disordered rule of the leading classes which governed it. As was said yesterday by the honorable M. Corta, labor, the love of order, and patriotism, had no longer a home there; but among the long-oppressed Indian population, agriculture, industry, and commerce had no security of existence or of duration; labor no future to look to. And this disorder did not injure the natives only; it reached all foreigners who had come to bring their activity and their industry into the various parts of Mexico.

Such is the origin of the resolution taken by three great nations to avenge the injuries received by their countrymen, and the outrages to which they had been subjected. Such was the condition of Mexico.

What has it become since the French intervention? What has it become since the emperor Maximilian ascended the throne to which he was called by a regular, universal suffrage, whose votes were presented to him when he accepted the crown; what has it become since?

But, first, let us ask, at this moment, when that question is propounded to us, how long a time has there elapsed to justify a demand for the absolute pacification of Mexico?

The emperor Maximilian has hardly been ten months in possession of the Mexican empire and of the city of Mexico, and we are already asked to give a strict account of all the events which may have taken place!

Well, let us look at the facts.

French intervention has procured a durable peace to the central part of Mexico; but a large portion of the country had not yet been embraced by the operations of our troops. All the northern provinces and part of the south along the Pacific coast were yet in the hands of the adversaries of the empire, and that for the reason given a moment ago by the honorable Mr Corta. The federal system had divided the country into almost entirely independent provinces; each governor had his own administration, his own justice, his own army, his own [Page 273] finances; paid and equipped his troops, and had an arsenal of his own at the seat of his government.

Thus there was no centralization of the administrative powers, but a complete dispersion of all authority, and even of financial resources, for the governors levied taxes, but very seldom did any portion of them reach the hands of the central administration at Mexico.

The emperor of Mexico had, therefore, a two-fold mission to fulfil. He had first to reorganize the administration and government in the parts of the country which were pacified; he had the difficult task of steering clear of the passions of the contending parties, avoiding the exaggerations of the clerical party as well as the fiery demands of the party called liberal in Mexico.

He had, besides, to organize in the midst of these factions a new party, at once conservative and liberal, which should avoid all the above-mentioned obstacles.

It is. undeniably, a difficult task that of reorganizing all this complicated administrative and governmental machinery which, in the Old World, we can establish only with a great deal of time and patience, and which we have perfected, but after paying often very dear for our mistakes.

He had at the same time to establish his authority in the more remote parts of his empire, to overcome the influence of Juarez, and to counteract the efforts of his party and of the governors, who considered themselves independent.

What has he accomplished, gentlemen? He inaugurated his administration by a general amnesty, thus urging the country to quiet, to peacefulness, and seeking to lead the people to ideas of order and those of the government. Then he convened, as you were informed by Mr. Corta, all the most enlightened and eminent men of the city of Mexico and of the provinces, without distinction of parties, and without inquiring into the part played by them in former political events, and he intrusted them with the task of inquiring into the questions of finances and that of the organization of the army.

Finally, in order not to act too precipitately in anything in this country, rendered sore by revolutions, he went himself into the provinces, visited the principal cities, inquired into the tendencies, the ideas, customs, hopes of the people, thus gathering all the information which could be useful to him in the difficult art of governing a nation.

After his return to Mexico, making up his mind at once, he resolved all the questions which had to be disposed of, and determined the administrative course of the prefects of the empire by instruction worthy of the homage they received yesterday.

He has organized a council of state; he has restored justice—that justice so endangered in Mexico has been by him established on a firm basis, which guards at once its learning and its liberties. And this was doing no little, gentlemen. The administration of justice in a country is more than a governmental question. It is a social question. For it is in the administration of justice we find the most solid basis of the future and grandeur of a nation. [Marks of approbation.]

When this was done he inquired into all the questions which related to the increase of the public wealth. He sought to give the strongest possible impulse to enterprises facilitating the means of communication between the various parts of the country.

In these efforts did he meet with general confidence? Has he enlisted the sympathies of Europe? Have no manifestations occurred around him of a nature to prove that his empire is already firmly established, and offers most satisfactory guarantees to public opinion?

I consider the movement which has taken place during these nine months of the events of which I have to give an account to the Chamber. This movement has been as follows:

The customs of Vera Cruz and of the other ports of the empire have considerably increased. The English, who showed themselves very suspicious at the time of the loan, have gained confidence, and the great railway, which is to connect Vera Cruz and Mexico, has been conceded to an English company, who will fulfil the contract entered into by the firm of Escenda and the government of Juarez.

This is not all. Various companies are being organized in Mexico; the Guanajuato and Guadalajara railways, which are to connect the principal cities of the empire, have been conceded; the mines of Durango, including both the old lodes and newly discovered ones, are being worked by mining companies; science and speculation have joined handsfc o aid in developing the resources of the country. Besides the gold and silver mines it possesses, there have been discovered iron and coal mines and petroleum lands, all of which are about to be worked.

Something more was needed. Communications had to be established between the ports of the two seas which surround Mexico. A company was organized for this purpose, and now a line of steamers ply between the ports of both seas, insuring rapid communications along the coasts of the Mexican empire.

On the other hand, gentlemen, the emigration movement spoken of by the honorable M. Corta, has received a commencement of execution. I read in the Moniteur that large tracts of land in the province of Zacatecas are being offered to European immigrants.

Finally, as a last evidence of the progress making in Mexico, and a, most promising symptom for the Mexican empire, is the formation with French capital of a national Mexican bank, which will soon organize the commercial credit of Mexico.

Such results obtained in a new country, in a country which is but now attaining social [Page 274] existence, developing for the first time its resources and powers would be essentially worthy of attention and admiration.

How, then, shall you consider them when they are realized in a country so long a prey to civil war, still restive and disturbed, and of which a large portion was still a short time ago in the hands of the enemy we were fighting?

One word about military expeditions.

The honorable M. Picard has said that these military expeditions were undertaken under circumstances rendering them at once unreasonable and useless.

But which were the provinces where Juarez had sought shelter? Where was he still ruling? What resources was he availing himself of to organize the “corps d’armee” which we had to conquer? He had taken refuge in the State of Durango, and thence ruled over the States of Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, and Sonora.

He drew his supplies from the port of Matamoras, situated on the American frontier, and from various ports on the Pacific. Was it reasonable, was it possible for the emperor Maximilian to let this opposition increase, fed by the Mexican customs, which he had a right to rely upon collecting?

Under these circumstances was the expedition undertaken, and now reproaches only are addressed to the brave troops who courageously marched from victory to victory through the immense territory they had to cross. [Very good, very good.]

A. Voice. We did not blame our soldiers.

The Secretary of State. You did not blame the soldiers, but you blamed the eminent officer who, in order to insure the completion of our undertaking, and to hasten the return of our troops, undertook these expeditions; led by political considerations, you blamed the eminent chief who planned these far-off expeditions, and you sought to make government contradict itself.

A Voice on the left. It is the system.

The Secretary of State. Yes, our troops, commanded by Marshal Bazaine, took possession successively of Durango and Monterey, then strengthened by Mexican troops, and, assisted by our navy, they seized Matamoras, and thus dried up the source of Juarez’s supplies, which he used against us. They did not stop there. Marshal Bazaine sent General Douay into the State of Jalisco, and gave him the charge of subjecting these agitated provinces then advancing toward the regions along the Pacific coast, we brought them all under the rule of the emperor Maximilian.

We have been to Acapulco, to Tepic, to San Blas, to Mazatlan; perhaps we are at present on our way towards Guaymas, the most important port of Sonora. Everywhere did we vindicate the honor of the French flag, or rather of the Mexican flag, whose defenders we were. [Very good, very good.] A worthy crowning of these great undertakings was the unconditional surrender of Oajaca, of its governor, Porforio Diaz, and of the four thousand men of his command.

Now, gentlemen, that our conduct has been explained, and a condensed account of our operations presented, what criticisms are made against us?

If I understand the Hon. M. Picard correctly he brings two principal accusations against us: an overweening confidence in the resources of Mexico, and a breach of promise.

We would allow the Mexican government to negotiate a loan in our market when Mexican finances, according to his opinion, do not present sufficient guarantee.

We had promised to withdraw the troops at the end of the year 1864, and we violated that promise.

As regards Mexican finances, gentlemen, did not the information imparted by the Hon. Mr. Corta fully satisfy the house concerning the resources of that country? [Yes, yes.]

The honorable M. Picard got hold of I know not what kind of statistical tables, which he showed the house from a distance, and which he finds, says he, contradict the statements made by the Hon. M. Corta, statements taken from a former minister of finances in Mexico.

Did the Hon. M. Corta, in order to convince you, merely give you the indications of some writer or other? Did he not analyze the position of the Mexican empire under Spanish rule, afterwards as a republic, and again after the United States had taken possession of it? Did he not follow up the question in the most thorough manner, proving that as far back as in 1804 the resources of Mexico represented one hundred millions of taxes, of which fifty millions—the figures are due to M. de Humboldt—were handed over to the Spanish authorities, who used part of it for the colony and sent the other part to the mother country? This is also confirmed from other sources.

In 1846 the Americans had possession of all the Mexican ports; they could collect the Mexican customs for their own use. How much do the documents of that time value them? At eighty to ninety millions; the very figures mentioned by the Hon. M. Corta.

There was less contraband and fewer frauds going on then. The Americans managed the customs in a way which gave the best guarantee in that respect.

These figures were but the rough product, I know. But Mexican budgets are made as we make them in France, In the budget of expenses figure the expenses for the administration and collecting of customs, while the rough amount derived from them figures in the budget of receipts.

It was, therefore, natural for the Hon. M. Corta, when counting up the resources, to put [Page 275] down the receipts at eighty to ninety millions, expressing the hope of seeing these figures increase, indicating, as he did, that the entire budget, including the interests on the state debt, did not exceed one hundred and fifty millions. He then counted up all the resources which revenue taxes and the tobacco monopoly would give Mexico, and said there was a wide margin of resources and securities which Mexico could rely upon and give in pledge to Europe.

Gentlemen, permit me to offer you a consideration which will make the house trust in the vitality and powers of that country.

Do you think that, during the civil war, enormous contributions were not levied by the contending governments?

Some days ago I questioned an honorable general recently returned from Mexico, and asked him what he thought of the resources of that large empire. “That country,”answered he, “has paid three hundred millions taxes during fifty years; during fifty years the irregular governments existing there levied on Indian labor, on Indian produce, and on the goods passing through the custom-house, two hundred to three hundred millions. How, then, can any one pretend to fear lest when order, prosperity, and liberty are restored, and develop all these magnificent natural resources, it should not be possible to levy one hundred and fifty millions taxes?”

Have no fears, gentlemen; the impulse given by the emperor Maximilian will insure the lasting prosperity of the finances of the Mexican empire, and give undoubted securities to those who shall lend it their money. [Approbation.] There can besides, in this case, be no direct or moral responsibility attaching to the French government. France does not interfere, and gives no direct or indirect guarantee on the question of the Mexican loan. We inform public opinion of facts which we believe to be true. We publish them in full, and in all sincerity, and it is for the public to judge. [Approbation.]

Mr. Jules le Favre. What means of verification has the public?

The Secretary of State. The Hon. Mr. Jules Favro asks me what means of verification the public possesses? I will tell him. These means are the capitalists who will give their money, and who know their own interests full as well as you do——

Several Voices. They know it much better.

The Secretary of State- who do not risk their money in operations which they consider unsafe; who examine, question, inquire, hunt up information, and have all the legitimate caution of capital which dislikes ventures and risks. [Adhesion.]

M. Ernest Picard. The subscribers to the first loan have already lost twenty per cent., and now you talk of a second. [Interruption.]

The President. I beg the Hon. M. Picard not to interrupt the speaker. He has expressed in the house many ideas which certainly conflicted with the views of large numbers of his colleagues.

Several Voices. Yes, yes.

The President. It was then his right; now it is his duty to listen to contradiction. [Approbation.]

The Secretary of State. You are concerned about the future loan; and certainly, it the money-holders who to-morrow shall read your speech believe in your assertions, they will be in no -hurry to advance their money; and if they sought your legal advice, you would counsel them against it. [Laughter.]

Well, I want to quiet your fears—to restore your confidence; do not worry; the loan is subscribed. At this moment, while I am speaking, it is signed by the most important firms in France and England. [Applause.] I received the news as I was entering the house. This mistrust, these criticisms against the most vital interests of the country, coming from unknown sources, and seeking to sow disquietude and fears, will not be listened to, and it is what they deserve. [Renewed applause.]

We must then lay by all the allegations laboriously collected and brought forward by M. Picard. The question has been analyzed and studied by those who have the most direct interest in it; and they have decided to put their money into the undertaking.

Gentlemen, there is a reproach which has touched me more deeply, both as a man and as a representative of the government. The house has been told that statements made to the corps legislatif, that engagements entered into, had been disregarded and broken. It has been claimed that we promised last year to end the expedition in 1864, and to bring back all our troops to France. The convention of Miramar has been distorted to find in it I know not what contradictions between its stipulations and those made in January. Is this the first time this convention is brought to the notice of the house? Has it not been discussed here? After the 10th of April, when it was concluded, was it not discussed, criticised, and examined by all the members of the corps legislatif Has no: every point in it been fully and freely canvassed? Who, then, maintains that that convention contradicted the declarations of government? What did we say in January. 1854? Government had declared that it would not guarantee the loan which the emperor of Mexico was wishing to contract;” and also that the French troops would not remain an indefinite time in the service of the Mexican government; that the length of their stay in Mexico would be regulated by the requirements of the interests which had called us there and which we were to defend.

In January we simply expressed a wish with regard to the return to France of part of our [Page 276] troops. It is only in May that we went further, and named the number; we said we thought it possible we might recall as many as 10,000 men.

Such is the engagement we had taken, and the budget recently gave it the fullest confirmation. You can examine the figures which were submitted to you, and you will find a very large reduction in the expenses resulting from the reduction of our army in Mexico.

Troops have returned. It is true that up to January, 1865, they numbered but 7,000 to 8,000 men, Marshal Bazaine having retained a regiment of zouaves for his operations against Oajaca. But two days ago we received from Marshal Bazaine information that this regiment was on the point of embarking for France; and, as became an intelligent statesman, and a general desirous of fulfilling the promises made by his government— -

“I hope to fulfil the engagement taken by the secretary of state towards the corps legislatif. I shall be the faithful guardian of the promises he has made. My efforts in rapidly carrying our arms to the various parts of the territory north and south of the Mexican empire were but the means to hasten the moment of our departure, and of realizing the hopes conceived in, and the promises made to, the corps legislatif”[Approbation.] Any talk about breach of promises, engagements set at naught, is, therefore, the result of a profound error, and this discussion can only leave the regret that there should be persons so ready to doubt the word of a loyal government and the promises it makes to a house which it respects. [Approbation.]

But there is a black spot on our horizon. Some point to it and show it to us. They do not appeal to our fears, but they give us the friendly advice of hastening the return of our troops if we wish to escape the attack of the United States.

Gentlemen, this question cannot be permitted to remain hidden in the semi-obscurity where it was left by the Hon. M. Picard, who in this followed the example of the Hon. Jules Favre. We must fathom the question; we must know what the danger is with which we are threatened. If it is a serious danger we should discuss and encounter it like men; if it is not, we should learn to despise it. [Approbation.]

What events, then, gentlemen, can, in the United States, have reversed the very reassuring declarations I read to you last year from this same tribune? What has happened to justify these fears and anxiety?

I know that around that Mexican question swarm intrigues of which, every day, I discover some threads. I know that from the Mexican provinces bordering on the United States there come every day encouragements to an impracticable plan of a war between the American republic and Mexico. I know that these intrigues are felt over in Europe, and even in France.

A fortnight ago I read in a foreign journal a most frightful description of our position in Mexico; and I found the same article published simultaneously in fifteen newspapers in various parts of Europe. There is evidently somewhere—I do not know where, and I accuse no one—a centre whence people try to encourage bad feelings, and to propagate erroneous appreciations of our Mexican expedition.

Is this anything new to you? Did not some of you yesterday hand me something claiming to be a proclamation of Juarez, and coming not from his actual residence in Mexico, but from Florence, [laughter,] and distributed on the eve of the discussion to all the members of the corps legislatif? [Renewed laughter.]

I should not have mentioned these incidents had not M. Picard seen fit to take hold of that anonymous document, unsigned, which has not even the merit of being written in French, and which he represents as a protest of the French subscribers to the Mexican loan. What does he know about it? What guarantee can he give concerning that work—its authorship, its origin, its aim? And if he can give us none, why did he give it the honor of publicity before the corps legislatif?

M. E. Picard. I merely took from that book a few questions which it propounded.

The Secretary of State. Gentlemen, what occurred in America resembles very much what is going on in France with regard to the Mexican question. The press propagated the rumor that the French government wanted to make a colony of Sonora and Chihuahua, two provinces almost as large as France, and to work the mines which abound there Hence a great uproar in America. What! said they, will France, not satisfied with obtaining redress for her grievances, and aiding in establishing in Mexico the imperial government of Archduke Maximilian, attempt now to establish a colony in provinces which border on our own country? This requires looking sharply after.

Next came other accusations. They said in America that we wanted to violate the promised neutrality; we had given to southern ships-of-war privileges which we refused to northern vessels; our intention was not only to violate our neutrality on small points, but even to interfere by force in the conflict between north and south. All this has been published in America. Yes, we were going to interfere in this terrible war, and on the side of the south.

This created some excitement. In answer to this supposed threat of intervention we were threatened in turn with intervention in Mexico. To justify such a proceeding the Monroe doctrine was quoted. They said that when peace was made With the south it would then be the proper time to attack the Mexican empire. What did all this excitement lead to? To two incidents in the House of Representatives and in the Senate at Washington. The orator who last year presented a resolution relating to Mexico repeated his motion. It was at first rejected, then adopted two days afterwards. This resolution had no direct bearing on the Mexican question. [Page 277] Its object was to contradict the opinion of Mr. Seward and President Lincoln, and to assert the right of the House to exercise a direct influence on diplomatic negotiations, a right denied them in the despatch which was read to you last year.

In the Senate, a member of the committee appointed to report on the budget proposed, considering that the Mexican empire has not been recognized by the United States, to substitute the words, “Legation of the United States in the republic of Mexico,”in the place of”Legation of the United States in Mexico.”

Such are the two events which have taken place in Mexico. Do you consider them very ominous? Afterwards, when some prospects of peace became apparent, the Monroe doctrine was brought out as a cloak for the attempt, and it was claimed that reconciliation would facilitate the carrying out of the doctrine.

But these hopes were disappointed, and these trifling incidents were forgotten among the preoccupations of war. You are doubtless aware that that war is still being carried on with painful activity. Yesterday’s paper gave you the news of a frightful conflict between the armies of Grant and Lee.

And has the government of the United States been in any way affected by these mendacious rumors? Have we been asked to justify ourselves? And would it not have been easy for us to have done so? What had we done? We had conceded to the south belligerent rights! But how could we have done otherwise? Were we not obliged through this prolonged war to insure in so doing the rights of our maritime commerce and the neutrality of our position?

Have we gone beyond this necessary step in our diplomatic policy? Have we a representative at Richmond? Has the government at Richmond an official representative at Paris? Has not the French government continued to be officially represented at Washington? Our conceding belligerent rights to the south could not therefore constitute a serious cause for complaint. Have we then violated the rules of neutrality? Never did a government take greater pains than ours did to respect the principles and to observe the international regulations on this point.

The causes of our conduct were evident, and allowed of no misunderstanding.

Finally had we to justify ourselves in the eyes of the United States of that strange idea of founding a colony in Sonora.

Gentlemen, this slanderous rumor soon died of its own accord, as it had no serious foundation. Hence, explanations took place—despatches passed between the two governments. What was the result?

On the 15th of December, 1864, the President of the United States declared in his annual message that he intended remaining strictly neutral in the Mexican question; and in March last in his re-election message he invited ali nations to peace and concord.

Finally, when his representative at Paris communicated with the minister of foreign affairs, he gave his most loyal and satisfactory explanations. He discarded all these misapprehensions, all these fears of a conflict between the United States and France, as based upon a misunderstanding. He was able to say, you are accused of a desire of interfering in our affairs; this excited the ire of the American press. America is a wise and thoughtful nation; the loyal conduct of France will regulate their conduct in return. Who can entertain any doubt about our course? Have we not from the very beginning of the war declared our firm intention of remaining neutral? [Approbation.]

Thus when I look closely at the facts as they are to be looked at, in order to destroy those rumors which we meet with outside, and with which some attempt to create trouble for the imperial government, I can find in them nothing of any importance.

If I should venture further; if, instead of studying only the facts, I were to inquire into the doctrines and interests which are brought into play, then also would I find no cause to attach any importance to this chance of a conflict. I do not speak of the pretended guarantee which some claim to find in an indefinite, extension of the war between the south and north. I look upon such a hope as impious. [Approbation.] The wish of the imperial government is that this war, which is injurious to the interests of all countries, may speedily come to an end. [Strong and general approbation.] It expresses no opinion as to the manner in which it wishes the conflict to terminate. It has no right to, for it respects the independence of the American people. But its most ardent wishes are for concord, and the day when peace shall be made will be for France, the old ally—and permit me to use this expression, the sponsor of the United States—a day of joy and happiness. [Loud approbation.]

Let us, then, not wish to see this terrible war prolonged for the sake of postponing a conflict about Mexico. Have the United States any interest in entering into such a conflict?

We have been told in the early part of this debate that the United States once took Mexico and held it. They hastened to let it go upon its paying the expenses of the war. They would have us believe that the United States would have an interest in attaching the Mexican provinces. The contrary is the truth. What is the aim of the United States? The restoration of the Union in its former strength, in its original condition of grandeur and prosperity, and free from slavery. Well, then, let us for a moment forget that our flag waves in Mexico, that our forces protect its frontiers; would the United States have an interest in annexing it? No, certainly, for it would be strengthening the south. Do you not see that Mexico, belonging to the United States, would be a standing threat of separation?

[Page 278]

The interest of the United States is to cultivate friendly relations with Mexico, by means. of trade and commerce. This is their true means of action and of conquest; the way is open to them, and it can but do good to all. [Approbation.]

I do not insist on what has been said of possible inroads by filibusters landing on the Mexican coasts. The Hon. Mr. Corta has disposed of that question; he has reminded you that there are some four to five hundred leagues from Matamoras and the frontiers of the United States to Mexico; that no vessel could be found sufficient to carry any number of troops to any point of the Gulf of Mexico or of the Pacific coast. Such expeditions have always proved fatal to their authors; there is no occasion to fear them, and they could have no result.

This phantom, then, has ceased to exist. There is no “reason that we can see for France and the United States ceasing to be at peace; these two powers will remain allies, remembering their old friendship, as well as the interests and sympathies which unite them. [Marked approbation.]

And now, gentlemen, let us examine the amendment. How is it worded?

“We deplore more than ever the blood flowing in Mexico for the benefit of a foreign prince, the disregard of popular sovereignty, and our policy committed to an erroneous course.

“We expect our troops to be recalled in accordance with the declarations of the government.”

Such are the views of the opposition.

It certainly would require great courage for the majority to inflict on the government such unjust reproaches as those contained in your amendment. [Approbation.]

What! Must I plead here again a cause so often heard and decided? Must I recall the reasons which led to the Mexican expedition? [No, no; it is useless.] Must I repeat, gentlemen, that you have decided over and over again that the cause which took us to those far-off shores was just? Shall I have to vindicate the extreme prudence of the convention of 1861 between the three powers bent on avenging the insults of their citizens? Is there not in the fact of this union of three great powers uniting in the convention of 1861 a most complete and energetic answer to your painful amendment? Do you believe England and Spain would have signed that convention with France had it contemplated a violation of national sovereignty 1 There is neither reason nor truth in ail this. And I may add, while I am about it, that when you are told that the convention was not first submitted to the “corps legislatif,” the same might be said of England and Spain, two constitutional countries, two parliamentary governments such as some orators in this house like them.

The convention of 1861 was not submitted first to the parliaments of either England or Spain, for such things are done even in parliamentary governments.

We are told, gentlemen, that we can now make a treaty with the imperial government of Mexico; that if we had some ground for refusing last year to make a treaty with Juarez or Almonte, we are now in the presence of a regular government, and can make one with the emperor of Mexico.

What sort of a treaty do you wish us to make? What treaty could we make with Mexico? Have we not made the treaty of Miramar? Does it not exactly define our position? Have not our debts been liquidated? Have not the rights of our injured fellow-citizens been defined and guaranteed? What treaty are you talking about?

I really did not expect that the Hon. Mr. Picard would, for the sake of his arguments, revive that unfortunate advice formerly rejected. What! Do you need to remind the house of your proposition to withdraw the troops from Mexico, made immediately after the repulse at Puebla? Have you forgotten the feelings of indignation and the murmurs which that proposition excited? [Approbation.] Have you forgotten how the “corps legislatif” disposed of that proposition last year of treating with Juarez or Almonte, and how it was ridiculed by the public? [Approbation.] No, there is nothing serious in all you say to us,

The truth is that we have accomplished a great undertaking in Mexico; that, legitimately called upon to avenge our wrongs in that extensive country, we have established in it order, civilization, and liberty; [approbation;] that we have driven out anarchy and civil war; and that in a few years that country shall bless France, and contribute to the development of its commerce and grandeur.

That our troops should remain a few months longer in Mexico; that they should not return at the precise time appointed by you, as well as by Juarez also, what matters it indeed? I am fully aware that, encouraged by reports from France, Juarez writes, “I shall weary them out and make the troops return to France; France desires it.” He believes it! Well, let him know that he is mistaking the opposition of France. [Ironical laughter on many benches. Approbation.]

M. Jules Favre. You are insulting the opposition.

M. Ernest Picard. You are getting violent; so you must be wrong. [Exclamations and murmurs.]

The Secretary of State. I was not aware of being violent. [Laughter and approbation.] If to be violent is to be wrong, the opposition are in very great danger of being condemned by their own showing. [Approbation.]

Yes, gentlemen, [the speaker faces the left,] you are more violent than ever we shall be in [Page 279] the name of the government; but you have an excuse, and I will tell you what that excuse is. Do you know why you have sometimes allowed yourselves to be violent? It is because you have neither legitimate grievances nor reasonable hopes. [Lively approbation.] If you had serious grievances public opinion would be on your side, and it is not. [Approbation, murmurs, interruptions.]

M. Jules Favre. We have polled 180,000 votes in Paris. Try and get your candidates elected there.

M. Chevandier de Valdbrome. Paris is not France. [Rumor.]

M. Belmontel. The Emperor has had eight million votes. [Messrs. Picard and Jules Favre speak, but the noise does not permit us to hear what they say.]

M. Eugene Pelletan. If public opinion is with you, give us the freedom of the press. [Various exclamations. General noise.]

The President. You would prevent our doing so by your attacks.

M. E. Picard. We ask the government always to appeal only to public opinion. [Continued noise.]

The President. I invite the house to observe silence and abstain from interruptions. The secretary of state has the floor, and I shall call to order any one who shall again interrupt him.

The Secretary of State. Gentlemen, if I went a little too far in what I said, the opposition has sought to cover my responsibility. [Laughter and approbation.] You see how zealously they interrupt me. [Approbation.]

But we must close this debate. [Yes, yes!] Well, I have said, and I repeat, that the French expedition to Mexico was a great thing; that by that expedition France has opened to civilization an extensive country. Let her flag remain there a few months longer to overcome the last obstacles to destroy those banditti—the scum of revolutions. What matters a few months more I The end must be gained, the pacification complete. The dignity of France and that of the Emperor both require it. The French army must return to our shores only when its work shall be accomplished, and all the resistance it met with overcome. [Approbation and applause.]

From all sides: The vote! the vote!

The President. The vote on the amendment will be taken.

M. Maguin. Mr. President, there is a demand for a ballot.

The President. A demand for a ballot has been handed to me signed by Messrs. Jules Favre, Garnier Pages, Maguin, Marié, Dorian, J. Semen, Carnot, Ernest Picard, Glais Bizoin, and Eugene Pelletan. In consequence, the vote on the amendment shall be taken by ballot.

The ballot is taken and the result is as follows:

Number of votes, 241; majority, 121. For the amendment, 16; against, 225.

The corps legislatif does not accept the amendment.

[Enclosure No. 2 to despatch No. 75.]

CORPS LEGISLATIF.

Session of Saturday, April 15, 1865.—Debate on the amendment of the 19th paragraph of the address.

[Translated from the Moniteur, April 16,1865.]

President Schneider. Messrs. Bethmont, Carnot, Dorian, Jules Favre, Garnier Pages, Glais Bizoin, Gueroult, Havin, Herron, Lanjuinais, J. Maguin, Marie, E. Pelletan, E. Picard, Jules Simons, move that at the conclusion of the nineteenth paragraph these additional words be appended:

“We have declared from the commencement [of the war?] our sympathies for the United States of America. Thanks to their heroic efforts, slavery is abolished.

“We shall rejoice to witness the re-establishment of the powerful republic of the United States, the natural ally of France, and we shall hail with joy a triumph which has cost nothing to the cause of liberty.”

Mr. Pelletan has the floor to develop this amendment.

Mr. E. Pelletan. I do not desire either for the Chamber or for myself to prolong the debate, not even to pronounce an oration in extremis at the death-bed of our last amendment, for I suppose it will have no happier fate than its predecessors. [Noise to the vote.] I have but a word to say upon this emendation, the object of which is to make reparation for an omission. In fact, no allusion to North America is made in the address from the Crown, nor in the draught of our address, (projet d’adresse,) nor even in the “Levie Jaune,” which contains but a blank page for what concerns America.

Now, the American question is sufficiently important to be treated with less reserve; besides, at the present time, all discussion is useless, for at this very moment while I am speaking [Page 280] the victorious sound of Grant and of Sherman has decided the question. Richmond taken. The slaveholding rebellion is stricken to the earth, and the American republic is re instated in its majestic unity. [Noise.] Do not laugh, gentlemen; you may be heard on the other side of the Atlantic. [Renewed noise.] For four years the United States of America have borne the weight of civil war, and never for an instant during the whole of this grievous ordeal have they entertained an idea of suspending the liberties of the people; never have they opened the door of arbitrary power through which crime so often finds a passage. [Votes! votes!] The executive authority has been allowed to protect itself by legality under the fire of the enemy. This page of American history is the most illustrious page of the nineteenth century.

President Lincoln has been fully aware that he held the destinies of the New World in his hands, and he has shown himself equal to the emergency; he has abolished slavery, and he has founded a second time the glorious American republic.

Numerous Voices: The votes! the votes!

Mr. Ernest Pelletan. It seems to me that wherever anything great and admirable is done, there ought France to be present. For this reason I desire to send our heartfelt felicitations to the other side of the ocean.

The amendment was rejected—195 votes against it, and 24 for it, out of 219 voting.

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

Mr. Seward to Mr. Bigelow

Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward.