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

[Translation.]

Mr. Romero to Mr. Seward

Mexican Legation in the United States of America, Washington, 21st of July, 1865.

Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to transmit to you, for the information of the government of the United States, a translation into English of the discussion which took place in the legislative body of France on the 8th of June last, in relation to the affairs of Mexico, and of extracts of the disposal of that discussion, which terminated on the 9th thereof. The said translation has been faithfully made from the official record of the proceedings of that assembly, published in the numbers 160 and 161 of the Moniteur Universel, of Paris, corresponding to the 9th and 10th days of June aforementioned, pages 766, 767, 768, and 776.

The Mexicans who defend the independence of their country against the colossal power of France, and who at the end of four years of an unequal contest maintain with the same undaunted courage and decision that holy cause, when neither misfortunes nor disasters nor treason can avail to intimidate them or to cause them to deviate by a single step from the path which they believe it to be their duty to follow, and through which they have already made themselves worthy of the respect of the world, now find themselves assailed by their enemies with the most opprobrious epithets, but which reflect dishonor upon those who so unjustly seek to tarnish the character of those whom they cannot conquer in a good fight. These Mexicans have now the satisfaction of seeing their conduct defended and vindicated by the independent orators themselves of the French assembly, and in the presence itself of the despot who does his utmost to bring discredit upon such noble patriots. Furthermore, this discussion contains other points of much importance, which I do not doubt will excite the serious attention of the government of the United States.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.

M. ROMERO.

Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.

[From Le Moniteur Universel, No. 160, June 9, 1865, page 766, volume—.]

Discussion in the French legislative body.

Session of Thursday, June 8, 1865.

M. Schneider, vice-president, in the chair.

The session was opened at half past 3 o’clock. The minutes of the session of the preceding day were read by Count Le Pelletier d’Aunay, one of the secretaries.

* * * * * * * * * *

The Chairman, M. Schneider. The Chamber stopped yesterday in the vote on bill F, annexed to article 7, at the sections relative to the ministry of war and of the general government of Algeria. I resume the reading of the bill:

EXPENSES OF THE MINISTRY OF WAR.

“Section 1, (division second)—Central administration, quartermaster’s department, 12,500 francs.” (Adopted.)

“Section 2, (division second)—General staff, police force, 1,357,000 francs.” (Adopted.)

“Section 3, (division second)—Pay and maintenance of the troops, 33,718,801 francs.”

M. Jules Favre is entitled to the floor.

M. Jules Favre. Gentlemen, in proposing to you to insert in the deficiency budget of 1865 a sum of thirty-five millions in round numbers to cover an excess of expenditures in the war budget, the government and your committee impose on us the duty of examining the particular items of these expenses, and you know the most important one, and that to which all the others may be referred, is that relative to the Mexican expedition.

It may be said that this year, in accordance with the mechanism of our financial system, this expedition exerts a double influence on it—passively in reference to the expense, actively in reference to the receipts; and these two particulars, by an inexorable degree of fate, are so indissolubly bound together that one governs the other; that, in order to recover a sum of twenty-five millions a year, which is carried to the credit side of the budget, it is at present indispensable to enter on the debit side a sum which, in the deficiency bill for 1865, exceeds thirty millions.

Such is, moreover, the calculation and the process to which we have been condemned from the very beginning of this Mexican expedition.

That expedition was undertaken for the recovery of an indemnity, of a debt, fixed at a sum less than a million; and if we estimate at the very highest figure the contingent debts claimed by the persons interested, they fluctuated between five and twelve millions. We have already devoted more than four hundred millions to this expedition, and as an indemnity for this outlay we have only a certificate of indebtedness from the Mexican government, It is therefore our duty to examine closely what our condition is, and what shall be the extent and the duration of our sacrifices.

I am well aware that I am here to meet with an objection that has been made to me several times, and which, at one of our recent sessions, was very precisely stated in the speech of the honorable minister of state. “These criticisms,” said he, “are inoportune; they are contrary to prudence and even to patriotism. Our soldiers are now at work; France has accepted the conception and the execution of a great work beyond the Atlantic and yet this is the very moment which is selected to examine and criticise the motives of that work; and so, at the time when the great interests of all dictate a concurrence of effort for its stable consummation, it is by such attacks’ enfeebled and ruined in advance.”

Gentlemen, if such an objection as this could condemn us to silence, we might as well renounce forever the little share of power that has been left to us by the constitution. [Murmurs of disapprobation from several beaches. Applause around the speaker.]

The initiative belongs not to us; especially in matters appertaining to our foreign relations we are called upon to consider resolutions already taken; and if we have not the right to examine them when they are submitted to us, we may as well abdicate our power entirely. [Renewal of similar demonstrations]

That such is not your intention, gentlemen, I am fully convinced. Undoubtedly the spirit of abuse and passion is culpable; but that which is no less so, and which may be more dangerous, is the spirit of systematic illusion, and undiscriminating and predetermined confidence. The spirit of abuse and passion awakens the distrust of the government and places it on the defensive. On the contrary, the spirit of illusion, the spirit of systematic and predetermined confidence, encourages every species of rashness and folly; it is capable of precipitatiug rash undertakings from which it is impossible to withdraw.

It is therefore a very serious obligation upon us to examine the situation in which we are placed, whilst we strive, in truth, to avoid both those rocks, and for the decision of facts have recourse to a careful investigation of the truth, with the independence that appertains to this great assembly.

Well, you remember that when there was first question of this Mexican expedition, we entreated the government to be pleased to restrict it to the redress of the grievances of which our countrymen had to complain, and to abstain carefully from any interference with the internal affairs of the country. Then the language of the government was very different from that which we heard in one of your recent meetings. You may remember with what disdain they treated our anticipations; and when we spoke of a prospective emperor, to whose zealousness an appeal had already been made, how they treated all such ideas as chimeras, and how they loudly disavowed them; and when it was desirable to obtain the adhesion of the Chamber, and it was sought to specify the nature, the character, and the purpose of the expedition, they did not depart far from the system which we ourselves have always counselled to those in power.

They said, in fact, that it was for the redress of the grievances of our countrymen that we went to Mexico; only if the nation manifested a desire for a political change, we were to give them our assistance and we were to consult them; but it was from themselves and not from us that should emanate the final expression of will that was to decide as to their future government. Then the government very loudly proclaimed that it did not intend to allow itself any intermeddling in this regard; that it was a Mexican and not a foreign power that it intended to inaugurate. And on this point, here are the words uttered by the honorable minister of state, M. Billault, not on the occasion of the first debate between us, but the second, at the time of the debate on the budget in the month of June, 1862:

“When the French flag, an event which I hope will soon happen, floats over the walls of Mexico, we will not depart from this generous and protective policy; all, whether reactionists or liberals, violent or moderate, shall be equally admitted to participate in this general expression of the public will; there shall be liberty for all beneath the flag of France, and it will not be the first time, as you know, that it shall have thus sheltered under its tutelary folds the just manifestation of national desires.

“All will be allowed full and entire liberty of choice, and then if the tyranny of Juarez suits them—yes, if it suits them—well, they will say so!”

These, gentlemen, are the words that were received with almost unanimous approbation by the Chamber; these are the declarations that induced the resolution of the majority.

Now, I ask you, What have they in common with the lofty conceptions presented to you, at one of your recent meetings, by the minister of state? Ah! gentlemen, like yourselves, I am always touched by his talent; I am full of admiration for his eloquence; I am not astonished at the applause with which you receive his words; and if I have any regret, it is that I cannot join in it. Only let me be permitted to say to him, with all the deference which I entertain for him, that I find this eloquence often dangerous; that it inflames more than it enlightens; that it throws more brilliancy than light on the questions on which it is exercised; and, in my opinion, the minister of state, in treating of this Mexican question, has allowed himself to be carried too far by the dangerous seductions of oratory.

In any case, I assert that this grand idea of a regeneration of the Mexican nation, of the foundation of an empire which is to be, beyond the sea, the fruit of the power and protection of France, is the mere result of chance, of events; and that it has been developed by facts entirely unforeseen by those now advancing it. For this dilemma stands: either, as I am unwilling to believe, the truth has not been told to the Chamber, designs have been concealed from it before which it would have recoiled; or else these designs are merely the results of an afterthought. This great enterprise which it is now sought to glorify before you is only an idea that has been thrown into the scale of events by facts not sufficiently considered beforehand. All the difficulties, all the dangers, all the political inconveniencesthat such an idea might produce, were not taken into consideration; those who now entertain that idea gave themselves up to it as to a sort of necessity which it was impossible to foresee, and which became the pivot of the operations into which they were dragged, after having engaged in an expedition from which they should have refrained from the very beginning.

Thus, what I assert is, that this idea of the regeneration of the Mexican nation, which is now presented to us as one of the reasons for the continuance of our occupation, and the achievement of which alone can permit our flag to be withdrawn in an honorable manner, did not exist at the commencement. We went to Mexico to avenge our countrymen; we went to Mexico to interrogate the Mexican nation, and we solemnly declared to it that we would listen to its reply, and that we would conform ourselves to it.

Now the tone is somewhat changed. Hopes of a more lofty, but at the same time of a more deceptive character, are held up before your dazzled eyes; and, in order not to be led astray by them, we must examine them closely; we must not let olurselves be seduced by glittering words; we must not rely merely on the dedutions of ehoquence; we must consult facts, and facts alone. [Manifestations of approbation around tte speaker.]

Now, gentlemen, permit me to say that, if the transcendent talen s and eloquence of the minister of state have oftentimes carried away the votes of the Chamber, they have not entirely mastered the prejudices of the committee; for the committee, even in view of these brilliant prospects held out, has given utterance to words of much wisdom—words, unfortunately, very useless, for they are incessantly repeated, and they are only a vain sound that moves the air; and I do not see, gentlemen, that the advice given to the government with so much deference is followed any more this year than in preceding ones.

Here is what the committee says: “In the course of these thoughts with which it has been deeply inspired, the committee could not refrain from directing its attention to the Mexican expedition. Less onerous since the return of our troops has commenced, the sacrifices which it has occasioned are, it is true, compensated by reimbursements; but political considerations combine with financial reasons to cause us to desire that the completion of the work of pacification and the definitive establishment of the Mexican army, which is in a good state of organization, should hasten the moment when the last soldiers of the expeditionary corps shall return to France.”

And a little further on the same thought is again expressed, and it is peculiarly eloquent in view of the two numbers with which it is connected—41,342,470 francs on one side, claimed as the amount yet due for the expenses of our army, and 9,000,000 that are taken from the treasury of France to pay the Mexican army; certainly a very unpleasant innovation, and one which ought to be restricted within the narrowest limits.

So the committee adds, after having stated these facts: “We had in Mexico, at the beginning of last year, an army of 34,000 men; by the return home of various regiments its strength has been reduced to 28,000 men. It will be still further diminished from this time to the end of 1865 by the return to France of other regiments, which will embark at Vera Cruz as soon as the expiration of the sickly season will allow them to march towards the warm country without exposing the lives of our soldiers. Your committee on the budget cannot but repeat here the wish that the definitive organization of the Mexican army should contribute to facilitate this movement and hasten the moment at which the last detachments of our army are to return to their country.”

Such, gentlemen, are the wishes that have been expressed by your committee, and I have the right to say—no one can contradict me—that herein the committee has spoken the sentiment of the whole country. Yes, it ardently desires that the last of our soldiers in Mexico should, as soon as possible, set foot on the soil of his native land, and that as soon as possible, also, we should disengage ourselves from this heavy and perhaps terrible responsibility that weighs upon us as long as our flag floats over a foreign land.

The committee lays down the period of the reorganization of the Mexican army as the fitting time for the withdrawal of the French forces.

We will soon have to ask ourselves whether, in a political point of view, not indeed permitting ourselves to be guided by mere theories, but seeking a solution from official documents, from those emanating from the government itself, from its despatches and its declarations, this is indeed the only condition that can allow the French army to withdraw and abandon Mexico.

But I will make this observation to the Chamber—that the language of the committee, which, in my opinion, is the sentiment of the whole country, is but the repetition of that used by all the committees before it that have examined our financial condition.

They have not failed to hold out the same warning to the government; they have not ceased to repeat to it, with all the energy which could be inspired into them by their ardent desire to maintain, as representatives of the majority, a good understanding with the government, while assuring it of their entire support, that it was necessary to put the earliest possible end to this Mexican expedition.

This is, also, what was said by our honorable colleague, M. Gouin, so well informed in such affairs, when, in his report, under date of December 25, 1863, he gave utterance to those words, which I cannot sufficiently urge the government to ponder, for they contain the secret of maintaining a true equilibrium in all budgets:

“We insist, on the contrary, with all our strength, that the government should confine itself within the ordinary resources of our budgets, and not enter upon a system of extraordinary expenses that may have the most serious consequences in the future. Let us learn, moreover, to resist the seductions of glory; let us enjoy that which we have acquired, and with which we can honorably desire a peace of which the nations have so much need. Let us have peace, and our finances will improve; we can then employ larger sums in our public works, which will prove an abundant source of wealth and prosperity for our people.”

And none of you, gentlemen, have forgotten the remarkable report of our colleague, M. Larrabure, who not only repeated the wish expressed by the honorable M. Gouin, but also caused the government to adopt the declaration that had been made by him, that he hoped that by the end of 1864 our army should have quitted Mexico.

“At this moment,” said the honorable M. Larrabure, “the Emperor’s government declares that it has no engagements with any one, either to leave a body of French troops in Mexico, or to guarantee any loan whatever; it declares that it has no reason to think that it may be necessary to increase the number of the French troops now actually in Mexico; that any movements that may take place until their final withdrawal will be only for the purpose of replacing the sick and those entitled to discharge. Under present circumstances, as far as it can foresee, the government hopes that the end of 1864 will mark the term of the expedition.”

And as the Chamber had participated somewhat in the feelings of the people in regard to an expedition that conducted our brave soldiers to the north of Mexico, the government deemed that it could give the committee the formal assurance that the expedition to San Luis Potosi should be the last.

“As to the expedition to San Luis Potosi in particular,” said the report, “it has been judged necessary, in order to occupy the most important parts of Mexico. The country comprised between San Luis and the city of Mexico includes some important centres of population. Their occupation became useful solely in order to hasten the consummation of the work undertaken—the reparation of our grievances and the enabling Mexico freely to choose a new government. Being masters of the country as far as San Luis de Potosi, we can see these projects realized with more rapidity and success. The army will stop there.”

Such, gentlemen, was the assurance of the government to the committee; such the engagement made by it; and the committee added these significant words, which I recommend to your kindly consideration, and from which I shall soon be entitled to draw their legitimate conclusions:

“The army will stop there; the method of universal suffrage, naturally set in motion in accordance with the usages or the institutions of the country, will be invoked for the selection of the system of government that may be best suited to it; whatever shall be its decision, France will respect it.”

Thus, more than two years passed away; unforeseen obstacles presented themselves; the courage of our soldiers triumphed over everything, and the flag of France floated in triumph over the city of Mexico.

The government engages not to continue, for the advantage of a cause which cannot be that of France, an expedition that would conduct our armies into vast provinces where they would be exposed to fatigues, privations, and dangers, which they are not bound to undergo when it is not the cause of the nation that impels them.

This was the first declaration of the government. There has been a second one, which is no less important in a political point of view. It is that there would be no sort of pressure exerted on the Mexican nation. Not only will it be consulted, but it is indicated also how that will be done. It will be in the most liberal manner. Each and every individual will concur in the erection of this vast national edifice, from which only anarchy and evil passions will be excluded. Universal suffrage alone can have this secret and potency. If our troops have gone to Mexico to accomplish a stern duty, at least, after having stricken with the sword, they will give consolation by the introduction of civilization and its benefits, and universal suffrage will be the consequence of their descent on the Mexican territory. [Cries of good! good! around the speaker.]

This is what was said in the report, and I have bound myself to it. I will keep my word—I will cite only official documents—here is what was promised in the month of January, 1864.

And when, just now, I told you that the language used in 1865, and which comes from your committee, is only the echo of all these anterior declarations, and that it is in complete accordance with those of the various committees and of the government, you see that I was in the right.

But I ask you, my colleagues, of what use are all these declarations if they remain sterile? Why these promises if they are violated? Why these counsels given to the government if it takes no account of them? Has the army stopped at San Luis de Potosi? Not only you know that it has proceeded even to Durango and Monterey, but also—this is certain—a part of our troops have ventured, we know not why, into the deserts of Sonora, where there is nought but privations for our heroic soldiers, where they are condemned to transport their cannon on the backs of men, where they have to struggle against all the difficulties and all the unhealthiness of the climate.

Such is the language of the government and such its course of action. Can we continue? Is it wise to content ourselves with mere words like these? Is it well that a great assembly like yours, and the committees which are its expression, should continue this kind of misunderstanding between us and the government, while we say, “The expedition must be terminated,” and the government says, “I wish to terminate it,” and yet, in reality, continues and extends it?

Well, it must be said, the state of the case was defined with very great precision at our last meeting, with so much precision, indeed, that it is impossible now to take refuge behind the slightest equivocation.

In fact, gentlemen, when M. Thiers spoke upon this question, with his wonderful sagacity, he understood perfectly well that on that day when France took the Archduke Maximilian by the hand, placed him beneath the protection of her flag, and accompanied him with the aid of her armies to enthrone him in the city of Mexico, she espoused his cause and bound herself irrevocably to it.

And then, gentlemen, he put some very precise questions to the government, to which replies were given, and these questions and these replies it behooves you now to recall to mind. Here is what the honorable M. Theirs said in the session of January 26, 1864:

“I believe that when you shall have encouraged the government to persist in its purposes, which will depend on the tone which you may adopt, it will be very unseasonable and inappropriate for you afterwards to refuse it troops, sailors, and millions of money, in order to sustain to the end that which you are now about to undertake; for, reflect well on it, hitherto you have not committed yourselves, as an affair of honor, but on the day that the prince sails with your support, with your guarantee, you must sustain him at all hazards, whatever comes of it.”

And our illustrious and venerable colleague, M. Berryer, insisting on these simple truths, added also, “Can the government assure France that it has resolved soon to quit Mexico? Or are we, on the contrary, to be told that it will prescribe as a preliminary, conformably to the instructions given to General Bazaine, the establishment of the monarchy of the Archduke Maximilian in Mexico?”

And behold, gentlemen, in what terms the honorable minister of state replied:

“The honorable M. Thiers has said to you, ‘We wish to withdraw honorably from Mexico.’ Yes, we wish to withdraw honorably. The Chamber has favorably received both of these declarations. In fact, these two declarations are the sentiment of the majority and the sentiment of the government.”

You received these expressions, gentlemen, with marks of approbation.

“But the government does not deem it honorable to withdraw from it by negotiating with Juarez. The government does not consider it proper to treat with General Almonte, who represents no legally constituted authority. It can only negotiate with a government sprung from universal suffrage. When a contract shall have been made between the Mexican nation and the Archduke Maximilian, if he is elected, the French government, by negotiating with that sovereign, will not have thereby contracted a permanent and indefinite agreement for the maintenance of an empire in Mexico.”

All this, gentlemen, is perfectly clear. The wish of the government is apparent to you. It does not wish to negotiate with Juarez, who is an enemy; it does not wish to negotiate with Almonte, who is the representative of a provisional government. It is necessary that it should meet the Mexican nation face to face, in the person of the chief, not who has been imposed upon it, hut whom it has freely chosen through the medium of universal suffrage. And when this popular consecration shall have intervened to establish Maximilian on his throne, France will negotiate with him and will withdraw honorably.

This is, gentlemen, what was said by the government, and it was impossible, allow me to observe, for it to hold any other language. Precedents all pointed in that direction; the Emperor himself had already written:

“It is against my interests, against my origin, against my principles, to impose ary government whatever on the Mexican people; let them select in full liberty the form that suits them best.”

And M. Billault added, In the session of February 7, 1863

“We appeal to the Mexican people. If its vote declares even for the government of Juarez, so be it; let its vote be allowed to take effect!”

And, under date of January 27, 1864, the minister of state gave utterance to words which do not much differ from them:

“The system of universal suffrage will soon perform its functions. If the Mexican nation adopts the republican form, we will respect its vote. If it prefers to establish a monarchy, we will likewise respect it. Now that seven-eighths of the Mexican people have been freed from the yoke of Juarez and from his exactions, universal suffrage will soon pronounce, and then the work of France will approach its completion.”

Such words, it must be stated, are only the consequence of the original convention that united three powers to march against Mexico; for they had all mutually obliged themselves— they are the terms of article 2 of the treaty of October 31, 1861—”not to exert in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature calculated to injure the rights of the Mexican nation to choose the form of Its government.”

This, then, is perfectly well settled, and I do not believe it to be possible to deny that what the government has wished, what it yet recently wished according to its language last year, was to bring the Mexican nation freely to manifest its wishes by means of universal suffrage. It did not wish to impose on it any species whatever of form of government.

Only it has happened—and assuredly, in the career of a statesmen, such a good fortune is very rare—it has happened that the scheme which we had announced, and which, although it was denied, had been long beforehand prepared by diplomacy, namely, the advancement of the Archduke Maximilian, was what proved most agreeable to the Mexican nation. In one of our late meetings you heard the extremely interesting developments presented to you by one of our honorable colleagues just returned from Mexico. He had therein superior advantages to us. He told us seriously that the Archduke Maximilian must succeed, because he had blue eyes and golden hair. [Laughter on various benches]

Yes, yes, this was one of the elements of success for him—this is what would cause him to be received with acclamation by the Mexican nation; and you will see that the Mexican nation did not even need to see him—his good qualities were foreshadowed to them; for, even before he had yet left Miramar, the announcement of his arrival had produced such an effect that a general enthusiasm was created in his favor. So we are told by the Moniteurof July 24, in which we read: “We call the attention of our readers to the correspondence from Mexico———.”

And, in fact, in the session of January 26, the honorable vice-president of the council of state, M. Chaix d’Est Ange, entered into an enumeration of the adherents of the empire, and assuredly, gentlemen, nothing was more gratifying. He said:

“We have now five and a half millions of inhabitants out of seven millions adhering to us, yea, obeying our laws. There are not two millions outside of our circle of action, and on these, I believe, even the most ancient and best established governments of the country have never been able to lay their hands; even the Spanish government was unable to control them.”

Thus, gentlemen, more than five millions out of seven millions adhered to the scheme proposed by France. The Archduke Maximilian had only to touch the soil of Mexico, triumphal arches were already prepared, and our honorable colleague has told us that from Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico it was but one long pageant; that at Vera Cruz they received him under a shower of flowers—always, it is true, excepting from these demonstrations the 1,500,000 Mexicans whom the honorable commissioner on the part of the government qualified as recalcitrant, incorrigible, and factious individuals. What is undeniable, at least, is, that they were men who defended their country and who desired no foreign domination. [Murmurs of disapprobation.]

This state of affairs is similarly set forth in the exposé of the condition of the empire which has been distributed among us.

Here, gentlemen, mention is made of the eagerness with which Maximilian was received. At page 174, towards the end, I read as follows:

“The results obtained in 1862 and 1863 by our expeditionary corps in Mexico, have, in 1864, received a solemn consecration. Under the protection of the flag of France, a regular government has been founded in that country, heretofore for more than fifty years delivered up to anarchy and intestine dissensions. In the beginning of the month of June the emperor Maximilian took possession of the throne, and sustained by our army, he inaugurates in all security an era of peace and prosperity for his new country.”

And a little further on we find similar words of congratulation and confidence, and then we asked ourselves, on occasion of the address: “Since the Mexican emperor is established, since Maximilian is the messiah announced by all past times, since he is really the man both for the Indians and Spaniards, who receive him with acclamations, since he meets on his passage only the bouquets of the señoritas, let our soldiers return. What have they to doin Mexico? They are not needed; let them return. They would only mar by their presence the gaiety of such a universal holiday; they would only be an obstacle in the way of that entire unanimity of feeling that exists between the prince and the nation.”

But between these words and the truth there is, unfortunately, gentlemen, a world of difference.

They have spoken to us of some Mexicans who were unwilling to take part with the new government; these they are occupied in pacifying. How is this pacification effected? Hear what we learn from the news published in the papers, and in reference to which the Moniteur has been vainly called upon for explanations. It has continued to keep silence. I regret it, gentlemen; for if these announcements are true, they are a stain upon the pages of the history of France. [Murmurs of disapprobation from several benches]

Listen, gentlemen; here is what I read in a telegraphic despatch published by a Paris paper of the date of April 19, 1865, announcing that the pacification of Mexico is more and more complete, and that General Castagny has burned a city.

Do you know what San Sebastian is? It is a city of 4,000 souls; it has been given to the flames, and yet the Moniteur is silent.

I do not insist that such an announcement should be contradicted; only, until it is contradicted it stands; unfortunately, I have reason to consider it correct; and what induces me to believe that I am not mistaken is the proclamation issued by the same commander on entering one of the cities of Mexico, whereby he announced what fate was reserved for those who would not submit to his laws.

Listen, gentlemen, and ask yourselves, after having heard these words, whether mine are too severe:

“Mexicans! I have come, in the name of the emperor Maximilian, into the State of Sinaloa, to establish peace therein, to protect property, and to deliver you from the male-factors who oppress you under the mask of liberty.”

Several voices: That is all right.

M. Jules Favre. How! protect property by burning a city of 4,000 inhabitants; to lay waste while declaring himself protector. [Interruptions and murmurs of disapprobation.]

A Member. You have made no mention of the brigandage that has authorized such reprisals.

M. Rouher, Minister of State. You are defending Romero, a robber and an assassin. [Confused manifestations.]

M. Garnier Pagés. How! whole cities burned? It is only dens of thieves and brigands that have been destroyed.

The Minister of State. Be pleased to respect the French flag.

M. Eugene Pelletan. Burn a whole city! That is what they do in Poland.

M. Garnier Pagés, in the midst of great confusion, utters some words that did not reach the reporters.

The Chairman, M. Schneider. Assuredly, you cannot be well acquainted with the facts, to be so positive in your assertions. I request you to be pleased to permit M. Jules Favre to continue his speech.

M. Jules Favre. I proceed:

“Efforts have been made to distort the purpose of our intervention; many of you have been drawn into a false path, and they have allowed themselves to be blinded in regard to the veritable interests of their country.”

It is we who have undertaken to teach the Mexicans what are the real interests of their country, and we have promised to consult them [Disapprobation.]

That is not all: “The hour of justice has come.” Listen to this, gentlemen, and I proceed to ask you whether there are two codes of morals—one for the us of the party that triumphs, and the other prohibited to the vanquished.

Listen to this: “The hour of justice has come. A rigorous sentence is being executed at this very moment against the district of Concordia.” The sentence is the burnt city; and see how they reply to those who resist; the refuge of women and children, private property, everything is devastated, everything is destroyed. Mexico is enlightened by fire, and it is by the light of this fire that the proclamation which I read to you has been drawn up.

Listen: “The hour of justice has come. A rigorous sentence is being executed at this very moment against the district of Concordia. Let this example exert a salutary influence on your minds. Appreciate our course of action; to some protection, to others the chastisement which they deserve. You can choose between these two alternatives.”

Several voices: Very well; that is all right.

M. Jules Favre. Listen; that is not all: “We are disposed to act with the greatest kindness towards those who honestly rally round the elect of the Mexican nation.” Numerous voices: Very good! very good!

M. Jules Favre. “But we are resolved to act with all necessary rigor against those whoobstinately persist in sustaining the wretches who, usurping the glorious title of soldiers, dishonor the Mexican nation by their crimes.”

The same voices: That is very well said.

M. Jules Favre. We understand this language; you have only to open history; you will find there that the vanquished have been always calumniated. Words of a similar import were uttered against the vanquished of 1814 and 1815. [Loud manifestations of dissent and murmurs of disapprobation on a great number of benches.]

Permit me to speak, gentlemen; it is not only a right that I exercise; it is a duty that I perform. [Renewed disapprobation.]

His Excellency M. Rouher, Minister of State. You injure the French army, the army of your country.

Numerous voices: Yes, yes; it is intolerable.

M. Jules Favre. That is what I ought to say, and that is what I say.

The Chairman, M. Schneider. I pray you not to compare the French, overpowered by numbers in 1814, with men whom I do not wish to characterize and whom the French army has encountered in Mexico.

Numerous voices: Good! good!

M. Le Marquis De Piré. The brave men of 1815 had shed their blood for the defence of the country, and you have never shed anything but ink. [Confusion and noise]

M. Jules Favre. I ask you, gentlemen, how such words can be reconciled with those that emanated from the Emperor, with those that have been uttered by the ministers in this hall, wherein it was declared that the Mexican nation was to be consulted, and that the Archduke Maximilian was to be of no account without his vote. Now it is declared that there are two camps in Mexico—the camp of the Mexicans who accept the empire, and these are protected.

Several voices: That is a duty.

M. Jules Favre. And the camp of the Mexicans who protest against the empire, and these are pillaged and shot down. [Confused manifestations of disapprobation.]

That is not all, gentlemen; these acts have been committed contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the laws of war, which require that neutrals should be respected; that private property should not wantonly and without cause be destroyed; that the sacking of cities should not be made a means of coercion in order to intimidate the minds of a people and inspire a salutary terror to insure the success of a pretender. Such are the principles laid down by all moralists and all who have written on the law of nations. [Discordant manifestations.]

The Chairman, M. Schneider. M. Jules Favre, allow me one observation. I am an ardent partisan of liberty of speech, and I believe I have given proofs of it. The Chamber is no less anxious for it than I am, and it proves it at this moment; for, although it has already heard the Mexican question discussed several times, it is still willing to lend its attention. Yet, in the interest of your cause—

M. Jules Favre It is not my cause; it is that of the law of nations.

The Chairman, M Schneider. I entreat you not to exaggerate anything, and to confine yourself to the use of such expressions as may not excite the legitimate sensibilities of the assembly. [Good! good!]

M. Jules Favre. In reply to the observation of the chairman, I thank the Chamber for having been pleased to hear me patiently. [Loud manifestations of disapprobation.]

Some voices: No, no—not very patiently.

M. De Guillontet. The Chamber hears you with indignation.

M. Jules Favre. I address myself to the majority, and not to a few interrupters.

I have called the attention of the Chamber to some new facts—to facts which seriously compromise the policy of France, to facts that may compromise the future—and it is very important that the government should give precise explanations in this regard.

Now, gentlemen, I call your attention to another class of facts no less important. I refer to events that have excited, and very naturally, too, a strong degree of irritation in all minds in Mexico, and have given rise to hostile passions. Who can doubt it? That irritation, those passions, have found vent in certain writings, If those writings were culpable, why not bring them before the courts of justice? There is no better course. But that France, under the protection of its flag, should shelter a military council before which journalists are brought, and that in the name of the Emperor, who has proclaimed liberty and universal suffrage, these journalists should be delivered into the hands of the Archduke Maximilian—this is something that appears inconceivable to me, something that seems a great political fault. In this way we compromise—and here I avail myself of the expression just employed by the chairman—we compromise the cause that we wish to defend.

Yet, gentlemen, such things have come to pass in Mexico. Journalists have been brought before a council of war, and in the name of the Emperor and by French justice have been condemed to various punishments.

M. De Guillontet. That is all very proper, for they were criminals.

M. Jules Favre. Is it by such means as this that you think you can bring about that pacification for which every one is anxious.

Gentlemen, a frank explanation is requisite here. You have been continually told of the possibility of withdrawing our troops, now at the end of 1864, now again at the end of 1865, and the minister of state, self-deluded, though, I am convinced, in good faith, told us, on the 23d of January, 1864, that it would be sufficient for our troops to remain a few months more in Mexico in order to consolidate the throne of the Archduke Maximilian and to give a proper impetus to the regeneration of that country.

It makes but little difference, gentlemen; and, as for me, I would very willingly consent that our troops should remain there not only some months, but even a year, provided that, at the end of that year, the promise of their return should be no longer an empty word. But if the programme of the minister of state is to be accomplished, do not delude yourselves; one year will not be enough; it will require ten years yet to establish firmly the throne of the emperor Maximilian; it will be necessary to sacrifice for that purpose 40,000 men a year, and 400 or 500 millions of money.

This is what I consider to be a truth now firmly established, and I ask your permission to prove it to you in a few words.

This regeneration of Mexico will bring complications of every kind in its train. Do you not believe it? Does not the present suffice to indicate what is to transpire in future? And if we were disposed to look over history, would we not find there eminent men, more eminent by far than those of the present day, men of genius even, who were led astray by ideas of this character?

What, in fact, happened to the first Emperor, to Napoleon? He, also, had an idea of regenerating a people. He then held forth to Spain such assurances as it would be well now to recall; for they teach a lesson, that princes who govern without any opposition before them—and, unfortunately for himself, Napoleon found none—princes who govern without any sort of control, may ruin their country while ruining themselves. In a proclamation which he issued to the Spaniards at the time that his troops were setting out for the peninsula, he said: “Your monarchy is old; my mission is to rejuvenate it.”

I am distrustful of all self-imposed missions; and, for my part, I believe that it is the part of Providence to effect that there should be no more providential men, but nations governing themselves, and with power to direct their own destinies.

“I wish,” added Napoleon, “that your latest posterity should preserve the memory of my name and say, ‘He is the regenerator of our country!’”

Now that, thanks to God, she has been enabled to heal the severe wounds which we inflicted upon her, Spain has returned to us. But during the first years after our invasion, a violent hatred reigned in the heart of that nation towards those who had wished to protect and rejuvenate it.

And as to the mighty man who had conceived such projects, you know whither they conducted him! You have only to consult the deliberations of the senate, and you will see that his deposition was pronounced on the 14th of April, 1814, by the great legislative body of the state, which thus expressed its motives for the measure:

“Considering that Napoleon Bonaparte has undertaken a series of wars in violation of art. 50 of the constitution of the 22 Frimaire, year 8, which provides that declarations of war must be proposed, discussed, and promulgated like laws; * * * considering that the liberty of the press, established and consecrated as one of the rights of the nation, has been constantly subject to the arbitrary censorship of the police,”&c., &c.

Such, gentlemen, is the answer of nations when they are unfortunate. [Tumultuous interruption.]

M. Le Marquis De Piré. The reply of France, in her misfortunes, has invariably been to turn republicanism out of doors [Noise.]

The Chairman, M. Schneider. In his retrospective review, the honorable M. Jules Favre has told you that there was no opposition under the first empire; there is certainly one under the second empire. [Laughter and applause.]

M. Glais-Bizoin. That is not its fault.

M. Emile Ollivier. Mr. Chairman, be pleased to permit freedom of discussion.

M. Jules Favre. What I wish to show is, that it is necessary, indispensable, that the position, which hitherto has been equivocal, should cease to be so; it is that it is necessary and indispensable that we should know what we have to do, and what the sacrifices are to which we are exposed. If the Chamber adopts the idea expressed by the minister of state; if, indeed, it wishes to establish the new Mexican government and the throne of the Archduke Maximilian on a firm basis, the majority is sovereign, and we will bow before it, while retaining our own opinion; but it must not be imagined that the achievement of such an undertaking can permit the return of our troops next year.

This is the delusion which I oppose, if in reality it exists, and I request your kindly attention for a few moments while I strive to combat it.

I am well aware of the truth of what was just said by our honorable chairman: the most of the points involved in this question have been already discussed. I shall call your attention only to such as are of present moment. Within these limits, gentlemen, I intend to confine myself, while investigating the events that have transpired since last year.

After a thorough study of all the facts in the case, political, military, and financial, it is impossible for any one seriously to believe that the government of Maximilian can exist without our army. With our army, I acknowledge, his throne would rest on an agreement; it would last as long as our assistance would be extended to it; but if you withdraw this assistance from it, it is evident that it will be overthrown. If, therefore, you wish to establish it firmly, our army must remain in Mexico. The Chamber should understand this thoroughly.

You remember what I said to you just now, namely, that the French government had obligated itself to consult the Mexican nation; that it had declared that its work would be finished as soon as universal suffrage should have pronounced, first, on this first question: “Is it a monarchy or a republic that is to be established in Mexico?” These are the words of the minister of state, not mine. Secondly, and on the supposition that a monarchy would be preferred, on this second question: “Will the monarch be the Archduke Maximilian?”

Now, gentlemen, not only did the minister of state use this language—and he spoke to you, with the preciseness which he usually exercises in his words, of the necessity of a formal contract between the Mexican nation and the sovereign, a contract without which the new government would be ephemeral, founded on force and not on right—but also the Archduke Maximilian himself entered into a similar engagement; and you remember the speech which he delivered to the Mexican deputation that came to bring to him the deliberations of the notables of Mexico. He said:

“I must, however, acknowledge, being herein fully of accord with the Emperor of the French, whose glorious initiative has rendered possible the regeneration of Mexico, that the monarchy of that country cannot be established on solid and legitimate foundations unless the entire nation, by a free manifestation of its will, confirms the wishes of the capital. On the result of the vote of the assembly of the country I must, therefore, in the first instance, make the acceptance of the offered throne depend.”

And you remember also, gentlemen—you cannot certainly have forgotten it—that such were the instructions given by the minister of foreign affairs to Marshal Bazaine. I do not quote them in full to you; that would be an indiscretion. I content myself with reminding you that the minister had fully foreseen the distinction that was to be established between the deliberation of the notables and universal suffrage: “However,” said he, “we can consider the votes of the assembly of the city of Mexico only as a preliminary indication of the disposition of the country.”

And the minister enters, with minute care, into the details of the vote to which the whole Mexican nation should be invited, and without which the power of Maximilian could have no legitimate foundation.

Here, gentlemen, is what has been said by France, since it is from the Emperor’s own mouth that these words have come. This is what has been repeated by his ministers in their diplomatic despatches. This is what has been asserted here in your presence. This is the condition of the agreement that has been made between the majority and the government. The Chamber has not been willing that the country should suffer violence, that the treasure and the blood of France should be employed in imposing on Mexico a government which it did not wish; a foolish and culpable enterprise if it were thus conducted; legitimate, on the contrary, if it were accepted by the unanimous will of the nation.

Now, I ask what has been done in this regard since 1864? If we choose to rely upon the passages which I have had the honor to quote to you a moment ago, it would seem that Maximilian had only to collect the votes. He was expected by a unanimous people, 5,500,000 Mexicans! The commissioner on the part of the government has counted them, and he is perfectly sure of the correctness of his calculations; 5,500,000 Mexicans were there, ready to place their votes in the urn! We demand nothing further: no more did Maximilian, probably!

What has been done with these 5,500,000 Mexicans? What political acts are there to which we can refer? For we are not called upon to inquire either into the resources of Mexico or into the number of its population. These are vague and confused questions, which it is easy to envelop in a pleasant mirage, to suit personal prejudices, but which must be set wholly aside. Let us look at facts.

What has Maximilan done? He was sincerely anxious, I am convinced, to inaugurate an era of prosperity in the country in which he was received, and for this purpose he had need of power. Nothing is possible without this vigorous instrument in a generous hand. But in order that this power should he useful, it was necessary that it should be well rooted in the heart of the nation. He has not dared to look in that direction, and the only act which we know of his is an act of good pleasure—a statute which, indeed, I have not now to examine, but which sufficiently testifies that there is yet between him and the nation some obstacle which prevents him from hearing its voice and consulting it. Nothing, therefore, has been done.

I have set before you the words uttered by the organs of the government, to the effect that the nation was to be consulted. If the nation desired to be republican, we would consent that it should be republican. They went even further, and said, “If the nation wishes to have Juarez, we will take Juarez.” You have changed your ideas, then; you have changed your principles?

His Excellency M. Rouher, minister of state. Not at all.

M. Jules Favre. You have not changed your ideas?

The Minister of State You have lost your memory. There have been two votes

M. Jules Favre. You have not changed your ideas! I accept very willingly your declarations. I have said that I was convinced beforehand that the intentions were good; and when I just a while ago intimated, because—I say it once again—it is my duty, that the conceptions had been changeable, that they had changed with events, I said that the government had thereby undergone the fatal law of necessity imposed upon it.

Now, the government told us—look, now, gentlemen, and judge of its policy and its prudence, I entreat you—the government told us that if the Mexican nation was consulted, and if it accepted republicanism, the government would submit. And then what would it have to do? To assist Maximilian in packing up his baggage and crown. Gentlemen, do you understand such a policy? They proceed to consult the country in regard to a form of government, and they begin by proclaiming one, and declaring that all those who act against that government will be pursued as malefactors! This is the way in which they wish to consult universal suffrage. Assuredly, this is not in earnest; and in any case I have a right to say that, in a political point of view, nothing has yet been done; and as you have, with justice, attached all your hopes of the expedition to universal suffrage, and as, on account of circumstances which I have not to examine, it has not been possible to consult universal suffrage, you are still in a provisional state. You have not advanced one step; or, rather, if we may rely on your own official documents, you have recoiled; you have lost ground. For the enthusiasm of the people portended to us an easy election. The report sent to the minister of foreign affairs had this character. Otherwise, the minister of foreign affairs is a person of too grave a character to write to General Bazaine in phrases as inconceivable as this: “You have only to call the people together and take their vote.” The minister must have received information that the vote was easy, and be must have believed it.

Now, at the present time, a vote is no longer possible. I say it is no longer possible, since it has not been taken. Otherwise, render an account to us of this delay in the accomplishment of your duty. Who prevents you from consulting universal suffrage, from causing the return of our troops?

Here is an important fact: Maximilian, very naturally, seeks to collect adherents around him. With whom did he arrive in Mexico? With the most powerful; with those who could insure success to his enterprise. I refer to our soldiers; for, whatever be the severity of certain chiefs, there is in the temperament of the French soldier, in his devotion, in his generosity, in his heroism, something that gains the hearts of the people.

This result was certain, especially in Mexico; and if we had not compromised all these advantages, the question would not be as melancholy as it now is. But, besides the French soldiers, there were auxiliaries who certainly did not participate in their sentiments. I refer—I wish to make use of a word that may offend no one—my honorable colleagues are fully persuaded that such cannot be my intention—[manifestations of disapprobation] —

A voice: Not so! [Exclamations.]

M. Jules Favre. He who says “Not so” assuredly says what the assembly is not willing to adopt as its own sentiment. It does not appertain to me to qualify it as it deserves; but I can say that if I had uttered it I should be profoundly sorry for it. [Signs of approbation.]

The Chairman, M. Schneider, I regret equally with you that the word should have been uttered. [Good! good!] Just a while ago I entreated M. Jules Favre to be more moderate, for the sake of his own cause. I also request the Chamber to listen to the speaker with more calmness.

M. Emile Ollivier. It is not the cause of M. Jules Favre; it is a question that appertains to the world in general.

M. Jules Favre. I would wish, I repeat, to make use of a word that would offend noone. It is certain that the party which accompanied Maximilian was the clerical party, the party that had opposed Juarez and the establishment of civil institutions, the party that had resisted the sale of the goods of the clergy. This is the party that constituted the escort of Maximilian. In it, gentlemen, he has found his most numerous and his firmest adherents.

I have no intention to entertain you with all the details of the quarrels that have taken place between him and that party. You know many of them, and I omit them. I proceed straight to the facts of most importance, which elucidate the condition of affairs.

Before his departure for Mexico, as all the world knows, Maximilian made a journey to Rome. No one has any right to qualify the motives of this journey yet, when a person has charge of souls, when he is a prince, a prince presumptive, a prince that desires to be elected, everything becomes of importance in these various steps that are taken. It is plain enough that the newspapers have interpreted this one of Maximilian, and have seen in it a certain proof of an accordance between him and the views of the court of Rome.

Now, gentlemen, it is no secret to any one that the views of the court of Rome are diametrically opposed to the resolutions taken by the Mexican government in reference to the clergy; and, consequently, you will not be astonished that, in accounting for the journey of Maximilian to Rome, one of the best-informed journals in this country—I mean the Constitutionnel—should have said:

“Their Imperial Majesties have gone to pay a solemn visit to the Holy Father, in order to implore the benediction of the august chief of the church, and to place their future efforts under the ægis of his paternal intercession and of his powerful spiritual authority.”

The conference between Maximilian and Pius IX appears to have been quite long. At its conclusion, the new sovereign had another one with Cardinal Antonelli:

“The next day, April 20, their Imperial Majesties assisted at the pontifical mass in the Sixtine chapel, at half past seven o’clock in the morning. After the gospel, Pius IX encouraged them, in a long sermon, to accomplish the designs of Providence, and represented to them their mission to Mexico as part of the grand scheme of Christian propagandism.”

This visit must necessarily have excited attention. I desire to make no comments on it. It gave to the emperor Maximilian a certain kind of connexion with a well-known policy. The world was of opinion that it did not contribute naturally to weaken his relations with those who had been his first partisans.

Yet, what happened? In Mexico, the emperor Maximilian recognized the impossibility of governing by means of that party. He recognized, rightly or wrongly, I venture no judgment here, that that party was the most unpopular of all; that it compromised everything which he desired to effect; that it was impossible to abstain from proclaiming, what is contrary to the doctrines of the court of Rome, liberty of religious worship, toleration, and, to a certain extent, freedom of thought, and especially from giving his adhesion to the measures taken by President Juarez, whom our troops had expelled, relative to the alienation of the goods of the clergy; so that it has happened—no novelty, it is true, in history—that the successor, called in to do a very different thing, has been obliged to do what was done by his predecessor.

But what you can very easily conceive is that such a resolution was very ill received at the court of Rome; and it is well to point out to you, from the latest documents, what the actual condition of affairs is on this point, and consequently to what embarrassments and to what dangers the new empire and France—for France is inseparably bound up with it— find themselves at present exposed.

Here, gentlemen, is the manner in which the Holy Father expressed himself in this regard, in a letter addressed to Maximilian, under date of October 18, 1864:

“Heretofore, and on more than one occasion, we have made complaints on this point, in public and solemn acts, protesting against the iniquitous law called that of reform, which overturned the most inviolable rights of the church and outraged the authority of its pastors; against the usurpation of ecclesiastical property, and the plunder of the patrimony of the church; against the unjust suppression of the religious orders; against the false maxims which directly attacked the holiness of the Catholic religion; finally, against many other outrages committed not only against sacred persons, but also against the pastoral ministry and the discipline of the church.”

And the Pope added: “Let no one obtain permission to teach and publish false maxims, subversive of morality; let instruction, public as well as private, be directed and superintended by the ecclesiastical authority; and, finally, letthe chains be broken that have hitherto retained the church dependent on the arbitrary control of the civil government.”

See, gentlemen, how the negotiation terminated which took place between the government of Rome and the emperor Maximilian. The latter did not choose to accept the conditions sought to be imposed upon him; he brokethrough them resolutely, it must be acknowledged. I shall not set before you the letter which he wrote to his minister; you know what wrath it aroused in the camp of his adversaries. Iam not at all disturbed thereat; I merely state the fact; I refer only to official documents. We first find a protest not very long delayed. The letter is of the date of December 27, 1864; the protest of the nuncio is of the same day. I shall not set it before you; I shall only say that if I qualified it as strong I should scarcely do it justice. But what was its echo at the court of Rome? We find it in a despatch from Cardinal Antonelli, which we may find exceedingly useful to consult. Here is what the cardinal says:

“The letter which his majesty, Maximilian I, emperor of Mexico, addressed, under date of December 27, ultimo, to Mr. Escudero, minister of grace and justice, and which was published the same day in the official journal of the empire, has caused the most painful surprise to all Catholic hearts, and has been a source of chagrin and regret to the Holy Father.

“Subsequent communications from the apostolic nuncio, and the note itself, which your excellency has been pleased to address, on the 8th of February last, to the cardinal secretary of state undersigned, have not been in the slightest degree calculated to diminish the serious apprehensions which the aforesaid act has produced in reference to the grave dangers to which the Catholic church is exposed in the empire of Mexico. The cardinal undersigned, in virtue of the orders of his Holiness, sees himself, therefore, obliged to call the serious attention of your excellency to an event so deplorable, and he hopes that the legitimate complaints and just remonstrances of the holy apostolic see will be favorably received by the new monarch.”

Cardinal Antonelli concludes with these significant words:

“The Holy Father cannot admit that his majesty, raised in a Catholic family always so well disposed towards the church, can ever fail to recognize his own true interests and the real purpose of the mission which God has confided to him. He hopes, on the contrary, that his majesty will abandon the course marked out in his letter to the minister Escudero, and will thus spare the Holy Bee the necessity of taking proper measures to set Fight in the eyes of the world the responsibility of the august chief of the church—measures of which the last, certainly, would not be the recall of the pontifical representative in Mexico, in order that he may not remain there a powerless spectator of the spoliation of the church, and of the violation of its most sacred rights.”

What is this despatch, gentlemen, if it be not a complete rupture, certainly according to the views of the court of Rome, but a rupture that shows that the archduke Maximilian can no longer rely for support on the party that called him to the throne? And as he cannot look for support to the liberals, you see in what a precarious condition he finds himself; and this explains perfectly why he has abandoned the idea of consulting universal suffrage.

At all events we must acknowledge that the situation has been completely changed since 1864. That the re-establishment of the Union in the North American States is not without danger to the French government and the Mexican government, no one can fail to recognize. That the condition of things should be developed in a manner least disastrous— thanks to the wisdom of both governments—I should be gratified; I hope it may be so. But you will admit with me that there is a certain degree of discouragement in the minds of the partisans of Maximilian, and a certain degree of elation in those of his adversaries; no one can fail to recognize the fact. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the American government has not recognized the empire of Mexico; and in a despatch recently published, and which bears the date of February 25, 1865, Mr. Seward, addressing himself to the representative of Juarez, acknowledges the receipt of his despatches, and expresses his desire for the welfare and success of the Mexican republic.

Thus, all that we said, all that we announced to you, from the month of February or March, 1862, when we entreated you not to engage in an expedition which would compromise our relations with our best allies—relations which permit us to preserve, on the sea at least, the peace of the world—all has been realized. That the government of the United States should not violate its treaties, I am anxious; but that a crowd of adventurers should not cross the frontiers, is something that I cannot, without difficulty, imagine.

Now, all these dangers, all these complications, all these compromises, explain how nothing can be effected in Mexico unless by force and a military establishment, and yet our military establishment is less solid and more precarious than it was last year.

On this point also I refer only to official documents. We have complained, and we yet complain, (I ask pardon of the minister of state,) that we have not had any kind of official statement whatever in reference to this most important question that so justly engrosses the attention of the country. The Moniteur has never published any official reports; only its editors have taken up the pen in unofficial statements.

In one of our former meetings the honorable minister told us that there were no other documents. I believe him; but in that case he is the least informed minister in the world, for we know what the Moniteur can do; we know what it did do on the occasion of a celebrated speech recently delivered, and which will leave a deep trace in history. TheMoniteur related only that the orator had made the circuit of the monument which he in augurated, without saying one word of that which was most interesting to the reader. [Divers interruptions. Laughter and approbation around the speaker.]

Several members: The Moniteur did well.

M. Jules Favre. Now, relatively to Mexico, I ask myself how it is that the Chamber has received no communication of any official despatch whatever, and how it is that all that we have been told has come to us from the pens of the too skilful editors of the Moniteur. It is probable that the committee on the budget, which has the rare good fortune of receiving the intimate confidence of the government, which confidence it is utterly impossible for us to know, has been able to get a glimpse of the despatches. As to us, who are outside barbarians, who are reduced to the condition of the minister of state—that is, to have to study the state of our affairs in the Moniteur, and to be debarred from the knowledge of state documents—we who are, notwithstanding, the elect of the people, and who should debate on the affairs of the country, at least we will be allowed the right of consulting the Moniteur.

Well, I take up the last number that makes any mention of the affairs of Mexico. I do not find in it the report of Marshal Bazaine, a report which, notwithstanding, is the property of the Chamber, and which is refused to it; hut I find in its stead some sort of a statement made by the official editors. Here is what I read in the Moniteur of May 15; the reports bear the date of April 28 and May 1:

“In the State of Tamaulipas, General Cortinas has fallen away from the imperial cause, with 750 men under his command.”

Thus it is, gentlemen, that we form the Mexican army in order that it may pass over to the enemy. This is a Penelope’s task assuredly that we are accomplishing, but with this difference, that Penelope was not killed by the fabric she wove. [Laughter.]

I resume. “In the State of Tamaulipas General Cortinas has fallen away from the imperial cause with 750 men under his command. General Mejia, who occupies Matamoras, has concentrated at that point the troops stationed in the surrounding districts. Foreigners, resident there, have spontaneously armed themselves in order to assist the garrison, which was to have been re-enforced on the 1st of May by the arrival of the third battalion of the foreign regiment, under the orders of the commandant, De Brian

“The offensive movement undertaken by Negrete, from west to east, has induced the marshal commanding-in-chief to form two columns destined to cover the attacked territory. The one was to occupy Parras, fifty leagues west of Durango, over against the desert of Mapimi; the other, starting from San Luis, was to march upon Monterey, capital of New Leon, situated at an equal distance from Parras and Matamoras

“If, contrary to all expectation, General Mejia, who commands in this latter city, should be obliged to yield to superior forces, he was to fall back upon Victoria, the capital city of the State of Tamaulipas, in such a manner as to cover the country in his rear, and to maintain his communications with Tampico, which was to become his base of operations.

“Finally, Marshal Bazaine announces his intention of proceeding in person to San Luis, where he is concentrating his reserves in order to be in a position to direct operations himself. Without mistaking the importance of the events that have transpired in the north, the marshal commanding-in-chief regards them only as among those incidents of war that can no more deceive his vigilance than shake his faith in success.”

What success? That of battles? We have no doubt as to that; we are very sure that the French will succeed, on condition, however, that they be not overtasked; and if it be the desire that they should succeed we must resign ourselves to all the expenses, for without further expenses their situation in Mexico will become impossible to maintain.

You see now, all that has been said in regard to pacification is a mistake; we have been mistaken; we have been mistaken in good faith, I am willing to grant; we were entirely too credulous of success; we were told that all hearts flew to welcome Maximilian, yet here we see that the enemy assumes the offensive I do not wish to remind you of any particular facts that have transpired; yet some weeks ago Marshal Bazaine besieged a city in person; in it he found a gairison of 8,000 men, and captured many hundreds of cannon. Now the enemy has assumed the offensive. Matamoras is threatened; General Mejia takes precautions for a retreat; Marshal Bazaine does not despair; neither do we despair; but we have arrived at a point where we are to ask ourselves whether, in a war so extensive, we should not take a great step at once, make war as it should be made, or abandon Mexico entirely—that is, according as the interests of France are or are not engaged in this affair. If they are engaged in it, be assured that by all, without any distinction of party, they will be sustained. But if, on the contrary, it is for foreign interests that we act, if it is for a foreign crown, if it is for the accomplishment of an impossible enterprise, if it is a phantom that we pursue, if the work to which the blood and the treasure of France are devoted is a work foreign to France, we will not continue it any further, and we will demand to have it abandoned.

Such is the conclusion at which we arrive from a consideration of the military occurrences.

And as a final and controlling idea, permit me to examine with you in a few words one of the most characteristic features in a question of this nature, and one of the most instructive. I refer to the financial aspect of the affair. The condition of the finances will teach us, and teach us beyond a possibility of doubt, the value of this Mexican business; for herein we are not dealing with contingencies. In the discussion of this point I do not wish to leave anything to uncertainty; I am going to state facts precisely as they are, in order that the discussion may be useful, and we may all of us be able, as we desire the welfare of our country, to arrive at conclusions favorable to it.

In order to estimate the worth of a private individual we have only to investigate what his credit is, If you desire to learn the worth of such and such a merchant, apply to those who have business transactions with him. If he pays badly, if he seeks to raise funds at the pawnbroker’s, if he requests the signature of his wife or his family, you may he sure that this merchant is on the point of bankruptcy.

Now, Mexico has engaged in financial affairs and adventures without precedent, and I blush to see France assisting in them; to see that it is with the stamp of France, with the aid and under cover of her administration and of her public treasure, that those unexampled financial operations have been executed which I have to lay before the court. [Merriment]

You are a court of justice, gentlemen, in this affair; I am authorized, therefore, to use this word without offence to you.

A member: We recognize the lawyer in that.

M. Jules Favre. Yes, gentlemen, I am a lawyer, and I feel proud of it, for I have always exercised my profession conscientiously. [Cries of good! good! around the speaker.]

There are among us men of more or less lively imagination. I do not take offence at interruptions; I have a good right to be indulgent in regard to them. But when I am told that I have been a lawyer, I cast my eyes on the government benches and find there three illustrious confrères———

His excellency the Minister of State. We are proud of it.

M. Jules Favre———of whom some have been either my friends or my comrades, and I can only feel honored at the interruption. [Laughter. Cries of good! good!]

I said that we should know what the credit of Mexico is. On this point I asked my honorable colleague, M. Corta, permission not to accompany him on the peregrination, so interesting otherwise, and listened to with so much pleasure by the Chamber, which he undertook through Mexico. I am convinced that all his researches have been conscientious; that he has given them to us such as he himself conceives them to be; his intention has been to enlighten the Chamber. Only in place of this marvellous romance, which seems a page detached from some political Arabian Nights, written by some complacent historian anxious for a loan, [laughter,] I ask your permission to substitute the naked truth, namely, the loan itself; and we will proceed to see, from the conditions under which it is negotiated, what the worth is of the borrower.

Every one knows that Mexico borrowed last year a sum of two hundred millions of francs. No one knows it better than the minister of state, unless it he the minister of finance, who has in his portfolio fifty-four millions of this Mexican paper, which he would be very willing to convert into money; and at our last meeting you heard an honorable member of the government say, “But if we wished to realize, what would we lose? Ten millions! Ten millions at this time is a matter of no consequence to the government! Thus we can get out of the difficulty!”

Several members: Who said that?

M. Jules Favre. I, for my part, say that, if you look at the state of the market, it would not be ten millions, it would be more than twenty millions that you would lose, or rather the paper could not be disposed of at any price.

His Excellency M. Rouher, minister of state. Will you please state the name of the speaker, the government member, who used that language?

A member: Is it not M. De Vintry? [Tumult and confusion.]

M. Le Marquis de PirÉ, in the midst of the confusion, utters some words which it is impossible to understand.

The Chairman, M. Schneider. Please do not interrupt, M. de Piré, or I shall be obliged to call you to order. It is not the first time that you have interrupted with vehemence; I pray you not to renew the attempt. [Good! good!]

M. Jules Favre. At all events, the interruption of the minister of state would imply that the paper cannot be disposed of at any price, which is precisely my opinion. [Laughter and manifestations of approbation around the speaker.]

This being understood, after the two hundred millions had been borrowed by Mexico, Mexico very soon found itself completely short, and has been under the necessity of recurring again to credit; under what conditions? It must be stated, gentlemen, here once more, and I say it with extreme regret, it is with the assistance of the French government that the loan has been contracted and sent out—“subscription to 500,000 bonds of 500 francs each, authorized by his excellency the minister of finance.”

What is the loan that is effected under the form of bonds? for it is not a consolidated loan that has been made by the Mexican government. It consists of bonds that are to be redeemed in fifty years and by annual instalments.

What is the amount of the loan? It is 500,000 bonds of 500 francs each; the calculation is very simple; that is 250 millions. The sum of 250 millions is therefore to be returned to the lender in the course of fifty years. But the bonds are issued only at the rate of 340 francs, and consequently Mexico, which is under the necessity of paying 250 millions, will only receive 170 millions.

M. Berryer. The bonds are for 310 francs, and not for 340

M. Jules Favre. I was just going to state that. On the 170 millions there is a commission. The notes, which are issued for 340 francs, are sold for only 310 francs. And truly I wonder at the minister of state who thought to overwhelm us when he told us in a speech recently delivered, “You speak of the contingency of a loan! The loan is already effected; the capitalists have been already found to take it.”

Permit me, Mr. Minister! Capitalists! You mean those who get the 17 millions premium. We know too well that they have no money, and that they appeal to the public for it. They offered the bonds to the public, and we are to see with what allurements they seek to entice the people to take them, what immoral conditions have presided over this loan, and how afflicting they are, if not to our finances, at least to the morality which ought to direct the resolutions of a government.

The Mexican government is under the necessity of paying 250 millions; it will receive only 170 millions. It pays 17 millions premium to its agents, which reduces the real sum to 153 millions. 153 millions! I do not believe, gentlemen, that such a sum will ever go into the coffers of the Mexican government.

In order to obtain it, under conditions so unfavorable, and of such a nature that if an individual allowed himself to enter into them he would immediately be taken in charge by the courts, do you know what the Mexican government does? Do you know what the French government does, which authorizes it, patronizes it. takes it by the hand in order to introduce it to the financial market, as it has taken Maximilian by the hand in order to conduct him to the throne of Mexico?

Here are the conditions proposed to lenders. The bonds are to the amount of 340 francs, and they are to be redeemed in 50 years at the nominal rate of 500 francs, principal; that is to say, 5 millions a year, with an annual interest of 30 francs, which, on a principal of 340 francs, make 9½ per cent., nearly.

But this is not all. In order to obtain money that might otherwise never be forthcoming, so great is the confidence, so fully convinced are people of the solidity of the enterprise, it is not enough that 340 francs, or rather 310 francs, should produce an interest of 30 francs; that is, at the rate of per cent.—an appeal is made to what has been proscribed by our legislation; a revolt has been raised against it, and a deplorable and scandalous example given of laws trampled under foot, avaricious passions inflamed, most detestable passions that agitate the lowest classes of society, in order to bring into the coffers of the Mexican government the money that never would have found its way thither naturally. Here is what they have pressed into the service of the loan—a lottery. And then under what conditions?

The bonds shall entitle to chances in a lottery of 3 millions a year, of 1,500,000 francs every six months, divided in the following manner: There will be two semi-annual drawings. The first ticket drawn entitles the holder to 500,000 francs.

Thus the most obscure passer-by, the lowest citizen, the humblest and poorest, is called to give his 340 francs, and these 340 francs may produce him 500,000 francs! Who will resist this contagion, this seduction, this immoral perdition, this monstrosity, which is not only condemned by law, but by all honest hearts, and which is sufficient to demoralize the country? Who can resist it? [Sensation; “bravos” around the speaker.]

But there is not only a chance of 500,000 francs; there are other chances. The two following numbers are each 100,000 francs; the four following, 50,000; and then several other premiums.

I have referred to the morality of the affair; I have a right to speak of it thus in reference to the law, for there is one—there is none for the ministers: they set it aside whenever it impedes their schemes; they apply it to their fellow-citizens; they put them in prison, if it is necessary. [Manifestations of disapprobation] As to themselves, they are above everything: [Tumultuous interruption]

Here is the law of which I speak. The date of its enactment is May 21, 1836. By this law lotteries are prohibited, for it says expressly: “Lotteries of all kinds are prohibited.”

And in the commentary which is given of this law, by a man whom we all venerate as much as we love, and who is seated on the government benches, the honorable M. Duvergier , who has been a lawyer, who has been our leader, and whose name is inscribed at the head of the bar—I am only too happy to render him this homage without grudging it, although he is a counsellor of state———— [Laughter and tumult.]

Well, here is what he says in his commentary: “When the epoch fixed at January 1, 1836, arrived, the royal lottery ceased to exist; but all the prohibitions issued against private and foreign lotteries have been maintained. It is evident that, in suppressing the lottery organized by the government, and which offered guarantees that no private enterprise could present, the legislature did not intend to permit the latter. Otherwise, it would be very absurd for the government to sacrifice an important branch of public revenue for the interest of public morality, and at the same time to leave a number of private enterprises to speculate” ————

To speculate on what? It is not I that speak, it is the government—“on the credulity and cupidity of the lower classes.”

Here is your lever; here is the instrument to which you have had recourse in order to obtain money, and you could not get any otherwise. Here is what was necessary for your enterprise, for the enterprise of the Mexican government is your enterprise. Here is what you have developed among the people. This is the detestable feverishness which the law condemns! [Confusion.]

And do you know what the Mexican government will have to refund? I do not speak here on suppositions; I have the figures before me.

Besides the obligations imposed on it by the loan, it will have to pay 3,000,000 a year. Whence it follows that, by adding 150,000,000 for premiums to the 250,000,000 at which the Mexican government is to pay off its bonds redeemable at par, we have thus a sum of 400,000,000 set down to the side of its indebtedness, in the face of a problematical credit of 153,000,000.

The scheme is wise—it is perfect; and the capitalists to whom appeal is made are treated by the borrower with so much distrust—so much fear is entertained of not obtaining their money, that after having granted them these conditional premiums they tell them: “When you shall have received back your 340 francs, or, rather, when you shall have received 500 francs, that is, when you shall have obtained 250,000,000 for the 170,000,000 that you advance, you shall also have refunded to you your entire capital!”

And they commence by raising in advance on the capital of the Mexican government a sum of 17,000,000 of francs, which is deposited in the treasury of France, the interest of which will be added to the principal, thus producing in fifty years a sum of 170,000,000. [Tumultuous demonstrations of various kinds among the members.]

So that in reality the Mexican government will only obtain a sum of 133,000,000. Such in reality is the sum that it will have in its hands, and yet it will be obliged to pay out 400,000,000. Where do you think it will obtain that amount?

Any man on the brink of ruin willingly exchanges some paper, to which he attaches his signature, for certain pieces of gold. [Confusion.] That is an operation as base as it is immoral. Now that is the very thing that is done; that is what you make the Mexican government do by causing it to borrow 133,000,000 against 400,000,000, which it will have to refund. It is impossible that such an operation should succeed. [Long-continued and noisy demonstrations of dissent.]

And yet you will be the persons who will have patronized it in the stock market. It will be in vain for you to say that you have not associated yourselves to it by giving it your guarantee; French capitalists will confront you by reminding you of the words uttered by you; they will tell you that on the very eve of the loan you pronounced here the eulogy of Mexico; that you have boasted, of its resources; and then it will be your responsibility, and not that of the ephemeral name of Maximilian, that they will call up! [Disapprobation. Applause around the speaker.]

I have repeated the thing too often to be obliged to remind you of it once more. If the Chamber thinks that the interest of France is linked to the establishment of a great empire in Mexico, let it say so; but let it not delude itself with any of these declarations, which are mere mockeries—that our soldiers are returning to France, that they are on the point of setting out on their return.

If it is desirable that such an establishment should be prosperous and efficacious, in place of recalling our soldiers, let our fleets encircle Vera Cruz with new lines in order to carry re-enforcements thither; but let France be fully aware of what she does.

Already, gentlemen, there has been much money spent. If I wished to count it up, I should certainly exceed the sum of 400,000,000—400,000,000 that would now be so useful to France, when we are asked for an appropriation for our public works that would improve the national patrimony, when the employés of our institutions are not paid. [Enough of this! Enough of this!]

For my part, gentlemen, to establish at the distance of 2,000 leagues from my country an Austrian Rome, minus the glory, minus the grandeur of the idea, minus the prestige of historical recollections, I consider an act of folly in which I wish to have no part. And it is in the name of violated law and justice, in the name of the interests of France compromised thereby—of her patrimony spent in it, in the name of the generous blood of her children that has been shed to water that country, where we have constantly heard mention made of hopes where we have found only deceptions, that I loudly and explicitly condemn such folly. [Divers manifestations in the Chamber. Applause from some benches.]

(Continuation of discussion in the French legislative body—Speech of M. Chaix d’ Est-Ange, in reply to M. Jules Favre.)

M. Le Baron deBeauverger. One word only, gentlemen. M, Jules Favre has said that he did not wish to offend any one here. I am willing to admit it. But it is impossible that M. Jules Favre should imagine that he offends no one when he compares our soldiers of 1814 to the Mexican brigands, when he compares our generals to incendiaries———

(The interruptions and confused vociferations prevented the rest of the speaker’s words from reaching us.)

The Chairman, M. Schneider. M. De Beauverger, you are very wrong in assuming to speak, without being authorized by the chairman.

Moreover, I have not awaited your observation to address one to M. Jules Favre, and it was one of those observations that have no need of being made a second time. [Good! good!]

M. Chaix D’Est-Ange is entitled to the floor.

M. Le Comte d’Ornano. But, Mr. Chairman, a deputy has always the right of making an observation. [Divers manifestations.]

M. Chaix d’Est-Ange, vice-president of the council of state. Gentlemen———

Several voices: Let us adjourn till to-morrow.

Other voices: No, no! speak!

M. Chaix d’Est-Ange, vice-president of the council of state. I am at the pleasure of the Chamber. [Cries of go on! speak!]

Gentlemen, on commencing his speech the honorable gentleman who has just addressed you remarked as to the little power left to this great assembly. I confess that I do not comprehend either the sense or the occasion of such an observation, I know no other limit to this power than that which has been assigned to it by the constitution itself. I know no other limit to your liberty than that which propriety and your patriotism at the same time assign to it. Is the right of questioning denied to you? Is the independence of your votes clogged by anything whatsoever? And how can the honorable gentleman, who has used the liberty of speech in all its extent, speak of the little power left to this great assembly? How can he call you outside barbarians? I do not understand it.

However it he, he has been willing to resume this Mexican question, and to indulge in very diffuse observations upon it, to which I ask your permission to reply.

And in the first place, let ns speak, since we must continually do so, of the origin of this quarrel and of the motives that induced France to take up arms. [Cries of no! no! tomorrow]

A member: It is six o’clock.

M. the Vice-President of the Council of State. If the Chamber is annoyed and restless at the lateness of the hour, and fearful of a long speech, it is mistaken. I will be as brief as possible. [Go on! Speak!]

The case is not one, as the honorable gentleman stated, of a quarrel entered into for a sum less than five millions, and which has led us into enormous expenditures, in a development of force entirely unexpected. The quarrel is one that rests on a very different basis and has a very different origin. Every one knows it, and the government has repeated it often enough to leave no one in ignorance of the facts. Our countrymen had been the victims of vexations, robberies, spoliations, assassinations. Reparation was demanded; it was impossible to obtain it. Must we have kept silence? No. We insisted on our demands, and then, on the refusal of any kind of satisfaction whatever, we were compelled to lay down an ultimatum. Finally, we came to what the honorable M. Thiers called, I think, the great argument of politics—war. This is how and why the war commenced; because the honor of the nation was interested in it; because the safety of our countrymen was involved in it; because there was at the time a reparation to be demanded for them on account of the material damage they had sustained, and a reparation of honor which France was entitled to exact.

Has France had—I proceed rapidly, I do not wish at this hour to abuse the patience of the Chamber—has France had any intention, as has been asserted, of imposing a government upon Mexico? On this point there is a reply which bears no contradiction—the letter itself read to the Chamber by the honorable M. Jules Favre, the letter written by the Emperor to General Laurencez:

“It is against my interests, against my origin, and against my principles, to impose any government whatever on the Mexican people; let it choose with full liberty the form that suits it.”

This is the letter that was written; it bears no contradiction, and it is evident that in declaring war it was not sought to impose any government on Mexico, but to obtain the reparation to which we were entitled.

The same language, as the honorable M. Jules Favre can remember, was held in the tribune by M. Billault, speaking in the name of the government. He said—and I should be very far from contradicting his words—that entire freedom of voting should be allowed, that the Mexicans should be consulted as to the government that would suit them, and that their will should be rigorously respected and religiously executed. Was it the purpose to deceive the Chamber when such language was employed? Was it the intention really to impose a government on Mexico? On the contrary, has not every facility been afforded for the exercise of universal suffrage? Universal suffrage has been consulted, and has spoken with a unanimity almost complete.

Here, gentlemen, was the difficulty that was met with. The war must have been terminated by a treaty; a treaty must be made with some one. And Admiral Jurien, in a despatch which I find among the diplomatic documents, had excellent reason to raise the difficulty in the very outset of the proceedings, and to say: It is not treaties more or less advantageous that we need; we have already several with Juarez, but they have never been executed. We must be certain that the government which signs them should have power and will to maintain the execution of them It is under these circumstances that the Mexican people were consulted, and were told: Choose through the medium of universal suffrage whatever government suits you; be it a republic or a monarchy, your will shall be respected and carried into effect. If it be a republic, you shall have a republic; if it be the government of Juarez that you select, well; we will accept Juarez and treat once more with him. If it be a monarchy, it will be accepted and proclaimed by us.

Monarchy! As for me, said the honorable M. Thiers last year, my reason is confounded when I reflect that the idea has been entertained of establishing a monarchy in Mexico! Why, then, has the honorable gentleman been so much astounded? Monarchical government existed for 300 years quietly in Mexico. There are yet some men living, who, born at the commencement of this century, can remember that they lived under the vice-royalty, and that they lived peaceably, with few taxes, and in perfect security; that the conductas, so called, that is, the trains that conveyed the products of the mines from Potosi to Vera Cruz to be shipped at the latter place, could proceed freely, without any obstacle, without any danger of attack; that the Spanish flag was raised over the wagons, and that flag was respected by every one.

Some of these men there were who lived in their infancy and in their youth under the monarchical form of government, and who, comparing it with the republican form, said: We cannot take a single step without being attacked in our interests, in our liberties of every kind. We live under an anarchical government which, in the common opinion of nations, is a disgrace to Mexico

In such a state of things there was reason to think that they might be entitled to have the liberty of choosing between a republican form of government, which they had the right to adopt, and a monarchical form, to which they had assuredly the right of returning.

That it should, forsooth, be a source of regret in the estimation of certain persons that they should have abandoned this republican form, under which Mexico lived so miserably for twenty years, in order to return to the monarchical form, under which it had lived so happily for three hundred years, I understand very well; the partisans of monarchy, however, are entitled to have their opinions as well as those of republicanism Now, the people have been consulted, they have been asked their opinion What action has been taken, and how? The same measures have been adopted that are always adopted in such cases. First, an executive junta was named. This junta was charged with the selection of an assembly, in the hands of which the legislative power should be deposited. This junta adopted a monarchical form of government and proclaimed the archduke. Addresses were signed in great number, and from all quarters adhesions poured in. Then it was that the result of these adhesions being thus collected together were carried to Miramar. What answer did the Archduke Maximilian return? I cannot, said he, I cannot go to Mexico, except in virtue of universal suffrage which will call me thither. I require that universal suffrage should he consulted, and consulted in the best possible way; that lists should be opened; that the result of the votes should offer all desirable guarantees; and when all these precautions shall have been taken, if universal suffrage calls me, I will go to Mexico.

Thereupon universal suffrage was consulted. What was the result? Here it is. Out of a population of 7,500,000 or 8,000,000 of inhabitants which Mexico contains, if we allow the very highest estimate, and include therein the remotest tribes, those which have hitherto escaped all dependence, and which have never been under the control of the central government, there have been 5,500,000 consulted, and they have cast their votes almost unanimously.

These 5,500,000 adhesions were carried to the Archduke Maximilian, who thereupon believed himself the choice of universal suffrage freely expressed.

But he was wrong, say they, to believe himself so. Why? Because there was a population of 1,500,000 persons outside of this vote; 1,500,000 incorrigible recalcitrants, who wished to have nothing to do with this government!

But the honorable M. Jules Favre is mistaken. These 1,500,000 individuals are the inhabitants of Sonora, savage Indians who have never recognized any government, and whose opinion it was impossible to consult. Now, from the fact that these 1,500,000 individuals have not contributed their vote to the universal suffrage, to draw the conclusion that there are yet 1,500,000 individuals who protest against the monarchy, who desire to have nothing to do with it, and wish the expulsion of the emperor Maximilian, is something that neither the Chamber nor any reasonable person will be willing to admit.

Therefore, when the honorable M. Jules Favre says that the Mexican people have been promised liberty and universal suffrage, and have not received them; that, consequently, the people should be consulted anew, I reply to him that universal suffrage is a great operation which cannot he repeated every year. When, after having consulted a people on the form of its government; when, after having asked it once, “What is your will? What form of government, a republic or a monarchy, suits you best?” it has with full freedom replied, “I wish a monarchy then, when after having consulted it in order to know who it should be that should govern them—who it was that had their confidence—for one reason or other it has repeatedly replied, “Here is the person for whom I ask!” then the trial by universal suffrage has been made, and you cannot, two or three years afterwards, come and ask us to have it renewed. [Cries of good! good!]

The emperor Maximilian has been consecrated by the will of the Mexican people. He is the choice of universal suffrage. It is an accomplished affair, and not one to be recommenced in this way from year to year. [Approbative laughter on several benches.]

M. Jules Favre has sought every possible means of attacking this rising government; he has taken it in its cradle, in the midst of difficulties of every kind and of every character that generally obstruct every new government, and especially a government succeeding an anarchy which had lasted for forty or fifty years; and then, magnifying these difficulties, he has sought to render its existence impossible and to prove to all that it was impossible. Has he succeeded?

He said, in the first place, that it had no credit. If we presumed to take the familiar comparisons that have been introduced into this debate by the honorable M. Jules Favre, that is to say, if we presumed to compare the credit of a merchant to the credit of a great state, we would ask you whether, whilst it would be repeated every morning that he was going to fail, whilst it would be continually stated in the greatest assembly in the world that he was unequal to his engagements, that he was on the point of bankruptcy, that ho resorted to the pawnbroker’s, it would not be necessary for this merchant to have the most firm credit in order to withstand such attacks? [Laughter.]

Now, such are the attacks to which the Mexican government has been subjected, a government which needed encouragement and sympathy; and they say that he has no credit!

No credit! In the first place, it is prompt and honorable with us. It carries out the treaty of Miramar with perfect exactness. It gives us securities; and how does it give them to us? It gives them to us at the market value, and we receive them at the same. I take up the last statement of the financial condition, and I find that the Mexican government was our debtor for all operations to the amount of 39,458,000 francs. It has paid us 38,838,000 francs. It owes us at present no more than 500,000 or 600,000 francs, a very small affair in a transaction of such a nature.

Meanwhile what is it doing in this new country—a country so long the sport of anarchy, where governments succeeded each other in some sort every day; where it was impossible to establish any system of taxation; where recourse was had only to the customs alone?

It makes loans, and it makes them under onerous conditions. Yes, that is true; but M. Juarez of whom you speak, M. Juarez who holds the country, who has armies, who has taken the field—I would like to know whether he could effect a loan at any rate at all, and whether he could obtain credit.

However it be, the Mexican government raises loans on conditions that make the honorable M. Jules Favre blush with shame, in the first place, because they are bad, onerous, ruinous; and secondly, because they are immoral and shameful.

Let us examine these different objections. They are ruinous! Pardon me. The nations that have the best credit have borrowed at rates that I do not care to specify, but with which the Chamber is well acquainted. It is an ordinary thing for a very regular country to borrow at 12 per cent. I might cite, for example, a loan that has, it must be said, the sympathies of the entire world, because it was contracted under sad circumstances. I refer to the federal loan. That great country, the United States, while it was divided, while it was delivered up to civil war, while it seemed that it must necessarily conquer or perish—that great country appealed to credit, which it had not previously known, and of which it seemed it would never have need, and it borrowed at rates more onerous, at rates much higher than the Mexican loan, rates which have been as high as 16 27/100 per cent. if my investigations are correct. Now, who could blame that great country, so straitened and hard pressed in its resources, for having borrowed at onerous rates, in order to sustain a war for the purpose and in the name of the preservation of its Union?

But, say they, if States can subscribe for loans on conditions more or less onerous—more or less ruinous––according to their embarrassments, according to the struggles which they have to maintain, these conditions are honorable or dishonorable according to the good or had use that is made of the borrowed money. Now, the Mexican loan is, according to M. Jules Favre, a loan subscribed to under conditions that cause the blush of shame to mantle the cheek of my able and eloquent adversary.

M. Glais-Bizoin. Yes.

The Government Commissioner. What are these dishonorable conditions? They are premiums, chances, lottery—all those immoral things prohibited by the law of 1836.

Gentlemen, I do not approve of these conditions, if I may speak my personal sentiments on the subject; but it must be acknowledged at the same time that they have passed into customs, [protestations of dissent on certain benches,] into the customs of borrowers.

M. Jules Favre. You meanto say of emperors? [Laughter]

The Vice President of the Council of State. It is no estimate that I make; it is a fact that I relate; if it be not true, let it be contradicted. For fifty years Austria has been effecting loans by the offer of premiums. Prussia has effected loans by means of premiums. The provisional government, without deeming it an offence against morality—I am sure it did not wish to commit any such offence—[laughter]—the provisional government authorized the city of Paris to borrow by means of premiums, and it borrows yet by means of premiums.

I would be glad, in this regard, if no authorization of this kind were ever given; but it must be acknowledged that when we consult precedents, we find that such authorizations have been given, and that such premiums, I shall not say, have passed into public customs, but at least that they have accompanied many loans contracted under better circumstances, and by governments with greater credit.

M. Glais-Bizoin. Without lotteries?

The Vice-President of the Council of State. I beg your pardon; with lotteries, by means of lots, by means of premiums. Now, then, gentlemen, what are the resources that remain to the Mexican government in order to meet its engagements? Outside of loans has it any resources that it can present as a guarantee?

There is an assertion that has been made in some very authoritative works, and which, I believe, has been omitted by the honorable M. Thiers; it is, that under the ancient government, that is to say, under the vice-royalty, there were revenues by which the state supported itself, not by regular imposts, nor by duties on importations, which did not then exist, but from coinage and taxes on coinage, and from particular monopolies.

The illustrious and learned M. Humboldt, who passed five years in those regions, who studied the laws of the country, its resources, its means of advancement, writes that this country thus raised a revenue of twenty millions of piastres; that is to say, from one hundred to one hundred and ten millions of francs.

Mexico lived with ten millions of piastres. The rest it sent away either to the mother country—that is, Spain—or to Cuba, for the construction of fortifications there.

Such was the condition of affairs. It was, therefore—and you may form an idea as to what one hundred or one hundred and ten millions were worth at that time—it was, therefore, a country which had abundant resources for its existence.

Well, what are its resources now? The riches of the country are immense; that every one knows. The fertility of the soil is great; its productions are important, and present an excellent guarantee.

As to the amount of bullion extracted from the mines, it increases now; but the business of mining was ruined under the governments of Juarez and his predecessors. The working of the mines became an impossibility, when troops of bandits fell upon the miners, and seized and carried away the result of their labors. It is easy to understand that, in consequence, nearly all the mines were abandoned. But, at present, the working of them has been resumed with extraordinary activity, with new and more perfect processes, and the product is greater than ever.

As to the revenue from the customs, I have the statement of them, and I ask your permission to give you the data of two ports.

The customs at Tampico, during the first four months of 1864, yielded 96,000 piastres; in the corresponding months of this year they have yielded 431,000—that is, they have more than quadrupled.

At Vera Cruz the revenue from customs was from 800,000 to 900,000 piastres; it is now 1,645,000 piastres, or nearly double the former amount.

I do not wish, gentlemen, especially at this late hour, when I know how irksome it is for you to listen to a speech, I do not wish to have you enter on these calculations, and to show you how great are the resources that Mexico possesses, and how much more it has in imposts, which it is now proceeding to establish—such imposts as exist in all civilized countries—such, for example, as the land tax, so just and so natural, which he that owns the ground should pay to the state that protects him.

Such are the resources of Mexico And I should state that, at present, in spite of the prognostications of which it is the object, in spite of the evil auguries with which people seek to surround it, in spite of the threats that are directed against it, it assumes a new lease of life. What I have just said in a few words in reference to the revenue from customs sufficiently belies the fears that have been manifested, and proves that everywhere there is a total renewal of business. You see that by the increase of the custom-duties at Tampico and Vera Cruz commerce has received an important development.

The great line of railroad—that is, the line from Vera Cruz to Mexico—has been conceded to an Anglo-French company, that offers the most solid guarantees. This great line must be finished in five years; it will really be finished in three years.

There are, also, other lines of secondary importance capable of developing the resources of the country to a considerable extent, which, to the number of three, have been demanded and conceded already, and for the construction of which a capital has been subscribed of 4,500,000 piastres—that is, of 23,000,000 of francs.

Telegraphic lines are being constructed everywhere. In the notes which have been given to me in reference to the industrial development of the nation—that is to say, to the manifestation of the individual forces that attest the political life of a country—what do I see? Stage-coach enterprises, mines of coal, mines of petroleum, mines of gold, mines of silver; in a word, I see everywhere the development of all the resources of the country.

Now, gentlemen, we must come to the consideration of the desires of the Chamber, and see whether we can diminish the strength of our army in Mexico by causing the return of our soldiers to France as soon as possible. Be assured, gentlemen, that the government, in this regard, fully participates in your desire; that it is of the same mind with the learned authors of the reports laid before you, Messrs. Gouin, O’Quin, and Larrabure, and that it does all in its power to hasten the return of our troops to France. I have here a document, which, in this respect, can leave no doubt as to the intentions of the government.

Here are the sums of the numbers transmitted to the minister of war: The effective strength of our army on the 1st of January, 1864, amounted to 34,000 men; and on the 15th of January, 1865, it amounted to 28,000 men. As many as 8,000 men, therefore, have returned. And take notice that this is not all; for the order had been given for the return of a regiment now here—the second regiment of zouaves; but it was retained by Marshal Bazaine for the necessities of the siege af Oajaca, because he did not wish to strip other points. As soon, however, as the siege was finished, this regiment left Mexico; so that out of a total of 34,000 men, you see that more than a third has already returned to France,

This shows how the government yields to the just desire manifested by the legislative body to terminate this war as soon as it may be possible to terminate it.

In reference to this war, the honorable gentleman has given details, into which, especially at this moment, it is impossible for me to follow him otherwise than by a protest. He has said: “I have received news telegrams, and these telegrams inform me that a city has been burned; that Romero has been shot; that General Castagny has issued a proclamation—a proclamation,” adds the speaker, “which I conceive myself required to read to you, for it is contrary to all military usages.”

What, then, has General Castagny done? Whence comes it that he is denounced from this tribune? Whence comes it that for the benefit of those who are called the soldiers of Juarez, who are but miserable wretches, assassins, who disembowel women, who slay children, who commit nothing hut pillages and conflagrations, whence comes it that for the benefit of such men an insult is offered to a brave French general, who nobly commands his men? [Cries of good! good!]

Whence comes it that amid the facilities of the tribune and far removed from the scene of events, in the impossibility of forming a correct judgment, on the faith of I know not what news, I know not what telegrams, a French general, present under his flag, in face of the enemy, is treated as a chief of bandits, a brigand, and a veritable vandal? It is against such imputations that we must protest. [Yes, yes! good, good!]

For the rest, gentlemen, there is nothing in the world more legitimate, more approvable, more honorable than this proclamation of General Castagny. Any soldier would have signed it.

How! He is there conducting his men against a ferocious enemy that flies before him; that always flies unless he be ten to one. He finds him committing atrocities and outrages, and yet you wish him to be treated as a soldier! How! Must we respect men who have committed such massacres; must we treat them as gallant men, as brave soldiers?

No; General Castagny has them shot, because he sees in them only wretches, bandits, all steeped in crime. [Good, good!] And here, gentlemen, General Castagny has certainly done his duty; he has acted as any one ought to act under such circumstances. [Yes, yes!] Not, indeed, as honor and the dignity of the flag demand when we fight with true soldiers, but as the security of men demands when they are opposed to a set of bandits. [Renewed manifestations of approbation. Cries of dissent from some benches.]

He merely sought to punish those who dishonored the name of soldier. Yes, I repeat it, his language was that of a soldier; his conduct that of a soldier; and it is for this that he must be treated as he has been here, in the midst of an assembly, all the words of which are repeated everywhere, repeated throughout the world.

I do not say that the general has any need of a vindication of his conduct, but the army which he commands needs a protest to be uttered in its name. [Good, good!]

M. Jules Favre. The honor of the French flag is involved in the burning and massacre of a city!

Numerous voices: Do not interrupt! do not interrupt!

The Government Commissioner. In the midst of this excitement I cannot hear what you say.

M. Jules Favre. It is because you do not wish to hear. [Cries of disapprobation.]

The Government Commissioner. No; I do not wish to hear. No, when I have the floor I do not allow any liberty of interruption. [Good!]

M. Eugene Pelletan. Has he or has he not burned a city?

Several members: Order! order!

The Chairman, M. Schneider. You should not insist on such attacks upon a French general.

The Government Commissioner. I conclude in a few words. It has been sought to show the difficulties to be experienced by a new government. It is true such difficulties are experienced; but why come to its cradle to augment those difficulties, to raise up still more in its way, and to seek to render its task impossible; for, in brief, wars like this one which we have undertaken are not as the wars of other times, wars of devastation in which they carried murder everywhere. Here we have a war undertaken in the name of liberty, in order to restore that blessing to a people that has groaned for fifty years under an anarchy which all the world has pointed out to you; which President Buchanan, its neighbor, pointed out in his message, when he said that it was a disgrace to civilized countries to tolerate such a nation! Now, we are going to bestow civilization, liberty, order upon it, where disorder has hitherto reigned, as well as the most frightful slavery and the most complete anarchy. [That is true! Good! good!] It is, then, a noble enterprise. Why surround it with all those difficulties, all those evil auguries? Why seek to fetter this government in its progress? Why seek to cause its fall at every step which it takes?

Yes, we are aware it has difficulties with the court of Rome, hut nations more ancient, more powerful, have them likewise.

There are there, face to face with each other, two powers charged with the care of souls. As has been said, the one is the minister of God upon earth, his most elevated servant; he answers in the name of religion. He is the minister of peace, of mildness, of reconciliation.

But by the side of this power which has charge of souls there is another which has charge of souls equally, and which says: “Here is a people that has been intrusted to me; in what ways must I conduct it?” In ways of progress, of civilization, of liberty.

Now, from this arise difficulties; that is very true; but such difficulties as the moderation of both powers will know how to smooth away.

The august chief of religion must persuade himself that the necessities of the times will no longer permit the world to remain in the ways in which it was two or three hundred years ago.

On the other hand, we must count upon the moderation of the sovereign who loves religion, who respects and venerates it, and who, before setting out for his new empire, and before placing his hand upon his new crown, wished in some sort to receive it from the hands of God, and went to ask it from the Holy Father. Between them everything will he arranged; there will be no possible difficulty; things will be established to the satisfaction of all; there is every reason to hope for such a consummation. [Sensation.]

There remains the last difficulty; this is the United States, with which we are incessantly threatened, or rather with which Mexico is incessantly threatened—the United States, jealous, impatient, and only awaiting an occasion.

In this regard, permit me to finish with a few brief words.

As to the United States, frequent mention has been made of the Monroe doctrine, though God knows I care not much to enter upon the subject. Much talk has been expended on it without any great knowledge of its nature. The honorable gentleman spoke just now of a letter of Mr. Seward. I merely ask his permission to reply by reading these few lines only from the last message of Abraham Lincoln. It is in the nature of a last will and testament; it is not only an advice given to his own people, who have lost him by so frightful a misfortune, so horrible a crime, but it is also an advice given to the world in general, to whose admiration it is entitled.

Here is what he said in his message of the 4th of March, the last public document, I believe, which is known of his, speaking with a perfect humility in the midst even of his triumph:

“Without bitterness, without ill-will towards any one, with charity towards all, and with firm confidence in the right, as far as God permits us to see it clearly, let us finish the work in which we have been engaged, in order thereafter to heal the wounds of the nation, to take care of the soldier who has fought our battles, of his widow and his orphans, and to do all that lies in our power to attain a just and durable peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

As to me, I know of no finer language than this. I was struck with it, even before it had been consecrated by the sad end of Abraham Lincoln, and before I could have thought it was his last will and testament and his last word in this world.

Now this last word is a word of mercy, a word of moderation, of peace and of clemency. Let us hope, gentlemen, that it will be understood by those who obey him no more, but who preserve his memory.

The blood shed in battle for a just cause, for the liberty of a great people, may be blessed by the God of armies; but the blood shed after anger has passed, in an unjust cause, perhaps for the purpose of invading the rights of an inoffensive neighbor, has never yet fertilized the earth that received it, nor ever brought good fortune to the hand that shed it. We must hope, therefore, that the United States will repair their losses; that they will carry out the programme left to them by Lincoln; that they will take care of the widows and orphans who are in such great numbers among them; and that, after a war so bloody and yet so just, they will not hasten to engage in new quarrels, especially when their interests are opposed to any such complications. [Good! good!]

From all sides: Let us adjourn! Let us adjourn!

The Chairman, M. Schneider. To-morrow at 2 o’clock the public session will be resumed.

I propose to add to the order of the day, after the discussion of the deficiency bill, the bill relative to the cancellation of the rents of the bureau of liquidation, and to place the discussion of this bill before that of the regular budget for 1866. This order of discussion is necessary, because the arrangement of the items in the regular budget suppose the adoption of the previous measure.

To-morrow, therefore, the order will be: Continuation of the discussion on the deficiency budget for 1865; discussion of the bill relative to liquidation; discussion of the budget for 1866; discussion of bills of local interest.

(The Chamber adjourned at half-past 6 o’clock.)

[From Le Moniteur Universel, No. 161, June 10, 1865, page 776, vol.—.]

Debates in the French legislative body.

Session of Friday, June 9, 1865.

* * * * * * *

The discussion of the deficiency bill for 1865 was continued. The Mexican question was resumed and examined at some length by M. Ernest Picard, a member of the opposition, after which the minister of state, M. Rouher, addressed the Chamber on the same subject, in reply to M. Picard and to M. Jules Favre. The concluding portion of his speech, and a rejoinder from M. Jules Favre, are given as follows:

His Excellency M. Rouher, minister of state. * * * * In fact, the foolish hopes conceived by Cortinas, or by some few men who surrounded Juarez, have been dispelled; calm has succeeded agitation in the minds of men, and the authority of the American government has caused itself to be felt.

Enrolling offices were opened in New York and Washington; soldiers were invited thither to enlist under the flag of Juarez; large sums were offered as bounties to induce them to engage in the scheme.

The American government, adhering strictly and religiously to the duty of neutrality, closed these enrolling offices, in accordance with the law of April 20, 1818. And while this attempt was being essayed, a general, whose name had been freely mentioned in the papers in connexion with the scheme, and who was represented as intrusted with the duty of leading this army of filibusters to Mexico—General Rosecrans—in a speech delivered before the legislature at Boston, protested against the singular part which it had been sought to make him play, and said that he was not constituted or disposed by nature to be the leader of mercenary troops, and had no inclination to betake himself to Mexico to attack any government in that country; that the United States wished to respect the obligations of neutrality; that they would respect them with the greatest strictness and sincerity; and that the relations of friendship between France and the United States would not be, even in the slightest degree, compromised. [Good! good!]

While these declarations were being made at Washington and New York, they received a formal sanction and ratification here. The minister of the United States presented himself to our minister of foreign affairs, and said to him: “Undoubtedly we do not regard with any favorable eye the establishment of a monarchy in Mexico; undoubtedly we would prefer to see a republican form prevail in that country; but we respect the will of peoples and nations; we understood that Mexico, formerly for a long time governed by the monarchical form, desires to return to that state, and we are not going to make war on a mere question as to forms of government.”

Such have been the formal declarations made by the minister of the United States to the French government, and thereupon all those spasmodic efforts very soon have failed that were manifested in the states of New Leon and Tamaulipas, and which, I have no hesitancy in asserting, were a deplorable and melancholy consequence of an odious crime committed in the United States; a consequence which is destined very soon to disappear; and the partisans that have been collected will quickly be dispersed by the battalions directed against them by Marshal Bazaine. Such is the real condition of the Mexican empire. [Good! good!]

They have called up here in this assembly—I know not for what purpose—the question as to the property of the clergy in Mexico, and they have said to you: “The Emperor Maximilian is deserted; abandoned by the very party that bore him to power!” And then they have deemed it their duty to parade before you the Pope’s letter and the declaration of Cardinal Antonelli.

I do not feel myself called upon to make any reply to such assertions. The Emperor Maximilian attained his power by the will of the Mexican nation. He has called upon the parties to allow him to constitute a moderate party to assist him in the direction of public affairs. He has not sought for men in this or that faction; he has not required certificates as to antecedents from such as, abjuring evil passions, desired to subserve the interests of order and of civilization; and at the very moment at which I now address you, this prince, who is accused of quartering himself in the conservative party, counts among his ministers three former ministers of Juarez himself: the minister of the interior, the minister of public works, and the minister president of the council of state.

The Emperor Maximilian, without ill-feeling, without any party connexions, without any of those tendencies or any of those rancors which civil war leaves after it in a country, has appealed to all intelligent and well-inclined men, and has said to them: “Come to me, for I represent the cause of order, of security, of progress, and of civilization.” [Loud manifestations of approbation]

Now, gentlemen, permit me to address a request to the members of the opposition. [Hear! hear!] Permit me to tell them that they cannot exercise too much prudence and discretion in weighing the language which they use within this hall while yielding to the dictates of their convictions, the sincerity of which I have no disposition whatever to call in question.

If they could know, as the government knows, the detestable abuse that is made of their words, of their criticisms, of their charges against the government, within that empire of Mexico and in the midst of those very rebels whom we have to fight, I am deeply convinced that their voices would not be so loud on this question, and that they would regret the language which they have already used.

Numerous voices: Good! good!

The Minister of State. You would not believe the strange communications that reach the government in this regard. I have here the description of a banquet held in the United States by the friends of Juarez. Do you wish me to read to you the list of toasts that were offered? [Yes, yes! read them! read them!]

“The Mexicans of the party of Juarez, residing in New York, celebrated the other evening the anniversary of the independence of Mexico, by a grand banquet at Delmonico’s. Among those present were remarked Messrs. Romero, Doblado, Juan Baz, Colombiez, Alatorre, and other personages more or less distinguished for various reasons. After the banquet, M. Romero gave the signal for the speeches, which, as usual, abounded in big words and high-sounding phrases. They drank ‘to the death of Maximilian, tyrant of Mexico; to the death of the Pope, tyrant of consciences; to the death of Napoleon III, tyrant of the whole world.’”

That is not all. They drank the health of the French deputies who oppose the tyranny of the Emperor! [Cries of indignation.]

Such are the sad abuses which wicked and fiery passions make of criticisms and oppositions even the most conscientious—such, I feel convinced, as these are.

But this is not yet all. Our soldiers, in the long and difficult marches to which their duty condemns them, often find documents traitorously scattered among them! Do you know their purport? “Juarez to the soldiers of France.” I ask your pardon; do not hasten to cry out with indignation, “Juarez and his friend Jules Favre.”

Several voices: That is true!

M. Rouher, minister of state. To the French soldiers, proposing to them to desert the flag of that tyrant called Napoleon III! [Manifestations of indignation]

What matter our previous differences of opinion? What matters it that you have approved or disapproved the Mexican expedition? Let such discussions be henceforward discarded.

Our flag now floats over far distant shores. Let us then have the same sentiments of patriotism; let us all desire the triumph of that cause which we have promoted in those regions! Let us hasten by the unanimity of our wishes, let us hasten the moment when the French troops, not humbled—that they cannot be—but triumphant, and having completed their work, shall return amid the applauses of all France, to receive the crowns which their courage will have merited. [Good! good! bravo! bravo! Prolonged and redoubled applause.]

M. Jules Favre. Mr. President, I rise to a personal explanation.

The President, M. Schneider. I cannot very well see what can constitute the occasion for a personal explanation.

Several voices: Let him speak.

The President, M. Schneider. I decide, then, that M. Jules Favre asks the floor for a personal explanation and not for a speech. If there be question of a speech, M. Emile Ollivier is entitled.

M. Emile Ollivier. Oh, Mr. President, let M. Jules Favre speak.

M. Jules Favre. It is not, you may be sure, and the Chamber may feel convinced of it, to the last fact cited by the minister of state that I wish to make allusion. But in the explanations which he has made to you, there is one which is calculated to impress upon you the belief that on the part of the speakers of the opposition to the government, in the announcement of a fact recognized as very serious by all the members of the assembly, there might have been something of a surprise; and as such an insinuation affects my character for fair and open dealing, I ask your permission to reply to it.

I said, and you remember it perfectly well, that a corps commander, whose name it is unnecessary to mention———

Several members: Why so? Mention it.

M. Jules Favre. I said that General Castagny, at the head of a body of French troops, had recourse to a measure contrary to the laws of war and to the law of nations. [Denials]

The minister of state says, in reply to me, that as yet there is something untimely and imprudent involved in the assertion, that as long as our troops are upon hostile territory, while they are exposed to death, we have no right to examine their conduct, and that it is proper for us to guard our expressions so that there might be no possibility of their doing any harm. [That is so.]

I ask you, then, why you applaud the words of the minister? What does he do?

Various voices: His language is patriotic; he is a Frenchman!

M. Jules Favre. As to me, I can admit no such argument; it is unworthy of any man of sense. [Murmurs and cries of disapprobation.]

I respect and honor the courage of our soldiers who brave all dangers, but I esteem not the less the courage of the statesman who, on the government benches, comes to sanction by his words the principles which he proposes to your votes. Each in his sphere fulfils a duty, and I cannot believe that one can be considered superior to the other. [Various manifestations.]

Now, if I render him this justice, I claim a similar one from him in regard to the part which we perform here. I ask, gentlemen, whether there can be a sort of infallibility, of inviolability, decreed by the danger which a general funs that would permit him to place himself above all laws. [Interruption.]

If it be so, it is undeniable that it would not be himself only; it would be the fate of the men whom he happened to command that he would succeed in endangering [Exclamations of indignation.]

As far as regards the fact which has provoked the discussion between the minister of state and us, nothing is more simple. That fact, gentlemen, is the burning of a city of four thousand souls. Before giving expression to it I took care to state that the fact had been announced a long time since that the Moniteur had been interrogated on the subject, and that the Moniteur had been silent.

Just a while ago, when the minister of state reproached me for not having asked him for explanations, he must have forgotten that from the 20th of April explanations had been asked by the press [Exclamations of disapprobation.]

Here is what the Journal des Debats said in its issue of the 20th of April last. [Oh! oh!—confusion.]

I am only replying to the reproach of the minister, which would seem to intimate that I announced a fact hitherto unknown; whilst, on the contrary, that fact was a public one, and several papers had called on the Moniteur for information in reference to it. [Interruption.]

M. Ernest Picard That is the very point in issue.

M. Jules Favre. Here is what the Journal des Debats says:

“This despatch has been published by several journals, among others by the Constitutionnel, but we do not find it in the Moniteur of this morning. It is significant in its necessary brevity, for the telegraph does not indulge in long discourses; hut we hope soon to find in the official organ the details and the documents which the despatch could not give, and which should serve to present under their true light the rigorous measures adopted by General Castagny against Ban Sebastian and against the four Juarist chiefs in question. San Sebastian counts, or rather once counted, since that city no longer exists, a population of four thousand inhabitants. Whilst allowing the greatest possible latitude to the cruel necessities of war, it behooves us to know the reasons that induced General Castagny to destroy by fire a centre of population of that importance.”

There, then, was the question very distinctly made: Does the minister of state think that it is conformable to the law of nations, not to pursue a few brigands, not to shoot down some wretches who had assassinated our soldiers. These no one has ever defended within this hall—[So! so!]

The murmurs will not efface my words from the Moniteur; my words remain, and you cannot distort them.

Now, I assert that this fact was published in all the papers six weeks ago: A city of four thousand inhabitants, in which were peaceable and inoffensive inhabitants, women, children, and men of property, has been given to the flames. This act is contrary to the law of nations. We have said so; we say so yet. Such proceedings might bring deplorable retaliations upon our soldiers I add that such violent proceedings, unless they are disavowed, compromise the honor of France to a most fatal extent. [Numerous cries of indignation. Cries of good! good! from some benches.]

The Chairman, M. Schneider. I proceed now to put to the vote the third section of the article in reference to the war department, estimate marked F, and I announce in advance that there is a demand for the yeas and nays on the question.

“3d section. Pay and maintenance of the troops, 33,718,701 francs.”

The demand for the yeas and nays is signed by Messrs Hénon, Carnot, Ernest Picard, Viscount Lanjuinais, the Duke de Marmier, Bethmont, Magnin, Jules Favre, Marie, Garnier Pagès.

A member: And Juarez! [Exclamations and laughter.]

A vote was then taken.

The President, M. Schneider. The result of the vote is as as follows:

Number voting	245
Absolute majority	123
For	232
Against	13

The legislative body has adopted the section.