Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, Part III
Señor Romero to Mr. Seward
Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to enclose you some extracts from the Moniteur Universel, of Paris, containing that portion of deputy Glais-Bizoin’s speech in the French legislature on the 27th of February last, during the debate on the discourse from the throne in relation to Mexican affairs. I also enclose with this note the brief discussion of the same subject in the house, on the 2d instant, when Mr. Rouher’s (the minister of state) proposal in regard to the Mexican expedition was adopted, and the debate upon it reserved for a future occasion, against the protests of the opposition. The pretext alleged by Mr. Rouher to avoid debate on Mexican affairs was, that certain communications to the so-called government of Maximilian had not been answered yet and, of course, no report could be made to the house concerning them. Thus, instead of postponing the discussion of the paragraph, the controlling influence of the imperial government caused the vote to be taken, and the proposal was adopted.
I refrain from comment on this strange proceeding, because I think it unnecessary.
I profit by the opportunity to repeat to you, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.
[Untitled]
Mr. Glais-Bizoin, having secured the floor, rises and says:
Gentlemen: The decree of the 24th of November has granted us the right—for we are now living in the reign of grants, like the restoration, a reign very unlike the noble and generous American system, that leaves the people to enjoy their rights and the President to do good or evil for four years—I say this decree has granted us the right to express our sentiments concerning the management of affairs to the chief power, to show him our wishes and the necessities of the country; and it is now our duty to speak truth where flattery has prevailed.
To accomplish this—and here I agree with Mr. Pamard, and it is perhaps the only thing in which we agree [laughter]—eloquence is not necessary; but we must have that holy love of liberty, dearer to us than life itself, and without which we would consent to that moral decay in which our country is kept, when it should be the leader in progress—[murmurs and exclamations in different directions. ]
Granier de Cassagnac. This is too bad! We will not stand such abuse!
President Walewski. Mr. Glais-Bizoin, I shall have to call you to order if you go on so, I hope you will consider my advice. [Good! good! ]
Glais-Bizoin. Much obliged to you, Mr. President. I was going to say, when it should be the leader in progress and emancipation.
Whatever strength this sentiment gives me, I am embarrassed by the multiplicity of questions suggested by the discourse from the Crown. These questions are confused by a fault in the constitution that denies us the right of introducing a bill, and the power of distributing the business equally through the session, and discussing the plans and projects, as was formerly done, and is still practiced in all representative parliamentary governments.
But we are compelled to accept the situation, whatever it may be, and to make the best of it or the worst of it. [Smiles in parts of the house. ]
[Page 126]These questions may be ranged into two categories: accidental questions, such as of finances and foreign affairs, and questions of a permanent interest, touching our liberties, which cannot be solved without implicating the constitution. Let us consider the first.
The author of the Crown speech glances over the political globe, wherever French arms are engaged, and with the satisfaction of the God that speaks in the book of Genesis, says:
“Behold my work is very good!”
Belmontet. He is right.
Glais-Bizoin. What does Mr. Belmontet say?
Belmontet. I say he is right, the Emperor Napoleon. [Approving laugh.]
Glais-Bizoin. But he turns away from Poland, once the object of his solicitude, where a death-like silence reigns.
On beholding our former friend and ally in the north devoured by the double-headed eagles of Prussia and Austria, he is pleased and grieved. Can the minister of state explain these contradictory emotions?
At Rome, in Italy, the work is good. The convention of the fifteenth of September will be enforced.
Gentlemen, we are about to quit Rome, where we went to save the Pope, and robbed him of two-thirds of his domain, just lessening his worldly cares by two-thirds. [Laughter and applause.]
We quit Rome with the hate of the ultra-clerical party that called us, and the hate of Romans who never saw armed foreigners before within their walls, and I thank them for it. We quit Rome, hated by the republican party, because France put it down. And, finally, we quit Rome after spending more than four hundred millions there, the abundant fruits of that expedition.
We went to Cochin China to please the ultra-clerical party, and now we are obliged to stay there. Algeria is the only place where we are not progressing.
The author of the Crown speech [interrupted by several members: Why don’t you say the Emperor?] glancing towards Mexico, says again: “Behold, my work is very good! there is a government made by the will of the people,” and let me add, by 40,000 French bayonets. [Sundry exclamations.] Gentlemen, that is so.
President Walewski. Mr. Glais-Bizoin, I call you to order; not by 40,000 bayonets, but by the will of all the French people.
Gueroult. Does the gentleman mean Mexico?
Jules Favre. He is called to order on the emperor Maximilian’s account.
Glais-Bizoin. I think there is a mistake, Mr. President, a misunderstanding on your part, and I would like to proceed with my speech.
President Walewski. We do not hear you; speak louder, and there will be no mistake.
Glais-Bizoin. I thought so, Mr. President. What I stated was a fact. I was saying that the Emperor, in speaking of the government founded by the people——
Magnin. In Mexico?
Glais-Bizoin. Yes, in Mexico.
Several Voices. Why didn’t you say so, then?
Glais-Bizoin. I began the sentence by saying: Glancing towards Mexico———
Several Members. We did not hear that part.
Piccioni. As there was a mistake, I hope the call to order will not appear in the report.
Glais-Bizoin. They say that order reigns in Mexico, Yes, order is maintained by Belgian and Austrian troops, paid with money taken from the purses of our tax-payers; maintained by Turcos, who give no quarter; so the Moniteur says—horrid thought!—[murmurs;] maintained by our brave soldiers, that an abominable decree has converted into butchers for Maximilian. Ah, I thank Marshal Bazaine for refusing to execute the decree, and thus saving our flag from a stain that could never have been washed out.
They say the Mexican government is becoming strong. That expression may quiet the official world, but it will not satisfy the anxiety of the business world and those sound minds who compare this expedition with the Spanish war, one of the causes of the fall of the first empire. [Oh! oh!] Gentlemen, you all know the history of the first empire. The war with Spain was called memorable by a senate that did not bury all cowardice. [Noise.]
History will have a hard page for this expedition. It will tell how foolish it was, and show the diplomatic duplicity that caused it. To see this we have only to refer to the diplomatic correspondence of 1859 between the French and Spanish governments, and more particularly to the despatch of the minister of foreign affairs in 1861 to Count Flahaut, our ambassador to England, in which the Maximilian affair is discussed. You must next read the tripartite convention to satisfy claims on Mexico. See Article 2, where it says the high contracting parties bind themselves not to exert any influence upon the internal affairs of the Mexican government.
The allies had no sooner appeared at Vera Cruz than the Mexican government called for quarter, and the treaty of Soledad was concluded, Mexico granting all claims demanded. But the French government refused to honor the signature of her representative, one of the most noted personages in our country. [Interruptions.] Do you deny it? He was made senator.
Minister of State. You are mistaken; you are not acquainted with the facts.
[Page 127]Glais-Bizoin. Our allies left us, because they did not wish to destroy a government after they had promised to respect it, and place an Austrian prince upon the throne.
General Prim’s remarkable letter foretold what has happened. [Ironical exclamations.] Your disturbance shows you have not read that letter, for it predicted our present difficulties.
A Member. We are in no present difficulties.
Glais-Bizoin. Our allies, I say, left us, because they would not violate a solemn promise not to interfere with the internal government of Mexico, and would not join France in exacting reimbursement of worthless credits of a banker whose name has become famous.
A Member. They did not want to share in our glory.
Glais-Bizoin. General Lorencez was ordered to advance, and the army was constantly increased by the accession of those Almonte and Ramirez traitors.
Baron Benoist. You are aiding our enemies; you are firing upon our flag.
Glais-Bizoin. Those traitors who are not ashamed of the infamy that hangs to those who turn against their country or join its enemies. When we are stopped at Puebla, the cry is: “The honor of France is at stake!” Then General Bazaine, now marshal, with 40,000 men, invades Mexico; a few towns are taken, and a vote is polled, when, lo! the name of Maximilian comes out of the urn; and against this unrighteous election the Mexicans have been protesting, with arms in their hands, for three long years, and with an earnestness I should like to have seen in those men who were called the brigands of the Loire in 1814.
Yes, the Mexicans are protesting against that sham election, and they are joined in their protest by that great nation called the United States. While acknowledging our right to make war to obtain due satisfaction, the government at Washington reminds us of the convention, and says, “We allow that——[loud exclamations.]
Baron Benoist. We don’t want the consent of the United States. We don’t intend to cringe to them.
Glais-Bizoin. The United States says to us, “We confess your right to demand satisfaction; but, as you would not be pleased to see us set up a republic on your borders, we are not pleased to see you set up a monarchy on ours, and compel us to keep a standing army, contrary to the spirit of our institutions.” Nothing is more sorrowful than the last despatches of the minister of foreign affairs, who tries to destroy the effect of the imperial letter by resorting to all the cunning of diplomatic language, and to prove that we have not violated article two of the London convention, and that it is not the intention of France to keep Maximilian on his throne by force. But how are we to get out of the scrape? If we had a parliamentary government the issue would be very easy——[disturbance in different places.]
Baron Benoist. In that case we would make peace at all cost!
Glais-Bizoin. If a ministry had advised that expedition, it would have been put down long ago by the indignation of the house and the people. [Pshaw! hush up!] They would have said to the government, “You have engaged France in the affair; now withdraw her and substitute your false pride and your false honor.” [Noisy exclamations.]
But how are you to get out of it now? It is not my business; it is yours. [ Ah! ah! ] But I am willing to acknowledge the expedition as a blessing of Providence whatever may be its consequences—war or peace—provided it serves as a warning lesson to my country, that has so soon forgotten the causes of ruin to the first empire—the result of a personal government; and if it will only remember in future that the greatest danger to a nation is to trust its destiny to the will of a single individual. [Exclamations.]
Belmontel. All France protests!
President Walewski. You must perceive, Mr. Glais-Bizoin, that you wound the feelings of the house.
Many Voices. You are right; that is so.
Jules Favre. We did not meet here to compliment each other.
[Untitled]
Legislative chambers, session of Friday, March 2, 1866, Count Walewski presiding.
President Walewski. I will read paragraph 3 of the address:
“Our Mexican expedition is drawing to a close, and the country is pleased with the prospect. Forced to undertake the expedition for the protection of our citizens against violence, and to demand satisfaction for real injuries, our soldiers and sailors have gallantly achieved the task. Your Majesty trusted to their devotion. This expedition is another proof of the power of France in distant countries. The people of the United States, who have long known the loyalty of our policy, and have always had our sympathy, ought not to be offended at the appearance of our troops on Mexican soil. To recall them at the instance of the United States would be to yield our rights and tarnish our honor. You, sire, have the care of them, and the legislative assembly knows you will preserve them with a solicitude worthy of France and of your name.”
[Page 128]The minister of state takes the floor:
Rouher. The Mexican question is seen from two points of view—from France and the United States, and from France and Mexico, and they cannot be separated; if they could, then the Mexico-United States question could be easily discussed. All the despatches relating to it have been published, and everything is known; the house can soon form its opinion. As regards Mexico especially, the French government has sent communications to the government of Maximilian; but the great distance has not yet permitted a reply. For that reason I mentioned in the pamphlet of diplomatic despatches distributed to the assembly that the Mexican correspondence would be published hereafter. It is not necessary for me then to dwell on the impossibility of publishing despatches that have not yet been received. [Good. ]
It is the wish of the government then that the house do not take up the Mexican question at present; it will naturally come up in the course of the session. The government is as anxious as the house or the people are to take it up, but it wishes it to be done thoroughly and at a proper time. That time has not yet come, and I think the house will agree with me when I ask that the paragraph be adopted without debate.
Many Voices. Yes, yes! Put it to the vote.
Picard. I ask permission to make a few remarks.
President Walewski. Mr. Picard has the floor.
Ernest Picard. As the interest of the country is concerned in this question, I will consent to the postponement of its discussion, and I hope the house will approve of it.
Perhaps the minister of state will think proper to fix a day for the discussion of the question as soon as the Mexican correspondence shall be received, before the debate on the appropriations. [Noise in several parts of the house.]
Belmontet. The question may come up when the contingent expenses are discussed.
Ernest Picard. We presented an amendment; another was offered by the majority.
President Walewski, It has been withdrawn.
Ernest Picard. Our amendment is in order; we maintain it, but are willing to defer the discussion.
Several Members. It cannot be! The address must be put to the vote.
President Walewski. I do not understand Mr. Picard. The amendment is either maintained or withdrawn; if it is maintained, it must be discussed and put to vote.
Several Members. This is right and logical.
President Walewski. You cannot defer an amendment to the address, when it is to be voted on finally. [That is evident.] You must do one of two things; either withdraw the amendment or let it be discussed; take your choice.
Ernest Picard. The president will permit me to say that he has not properly stated the question. I do not think it becomes the dignity of the house to settle the great Mexican question definitely, as the president proposes, without discussing it. The paragraph of the address therefore ought to be expunged. [No, no! ] I insist that it be expunged, as it does not express the voice of the house; and I cannot believe it will retain an opinion on the most serious of all the questions in the address, without a profound discussion of its merits.
President Walewski. You mean then that you want your amendment debated?
Ernest Picard. Allow me to explain. It is evident that both the house and the government wish the address to express the truth of facts, and as this cannot be reached, the discussion should be deferred; and if we retained the paragraph in the address without its discussion, we would not be understood abroad.
President Walewski. Then you will vote against the paragraph?
Ernest Picard. Certainly we will vote against the paragraph; but we cannot withdraw our amendment. And, as I said at first, we will not insist on its discussion now if it is against the interest of the country, as they tell us.
President Walewski. You do not withdraw your amendment, therefore I must propose its discussion.
Ernest Picard. It must be referred to the committee.
Segris. I ask to be heard on the question.
President Walewski. You may speak.
Segris. I have but a single remark to make. This question, gentlemen, seems to me of the greatest moment. Our discussions are heard by all of Europe. Well, what is the present situation? We have just been told that “the Mexican question is in such a condition that its discussion at this time would be seriously improper; that despatches have been sent, but it is not known if they reached their destination. To discuss that question now would only cause confusion, and perhaps render its solution more difficult. We request, therefore, that the discussion be deferred, to be taken up at a later day, either before the discussion of the budget or at that time.” That is what the minister of state said in the name of the government. Now I ask him how he can reconcile a proposal so just and reasonable with an immediate vote upon a paragraph to which two amendments have been proposed, and which is of such great importance. If all wish the discussion to be deferred———[Interposition.]
President Walewski. You don’t wish the paragraph to be voted on then?
Segris. Excuse me, Mr. President. I would like an explanation from the orators of the government. I believe the minister of state intended simply to say: As this question cannot be properly discussed at present, it had better be postponed, and I therefore propose its postponement. Now I ask you, is voting on the paragraph equivalent to postponing it?
[Page 129]Many Voices. Refer it to the committee.
Rouher, minister of state. Gentlemen, I do not deny the impropriety of voting upon a question without previous discussion. It is the usual custom in legislative assemblies to discuss every question thoroughly before it is put to the vote; but this is no common question, and a vote on the address will not prevent a full discussion, at a proper time, of all questions relating to Mexico.
A Member. We must have an opinion or we cannot vote.
President Walewski. No interruption!
The Minister of State. In questions of this kind, explanations interchanged between the government and the house are the safeguard and dignity of each. Now, what do we say to the house? A debate on the policy of the government towards Mexico, and on its recent proposals to the government of the emperor Maximilian, not yet heard from, seems to me to be entirely premature.
We ask the house to postpone it; and, to facilitate its complete development, the government will submit the despatches since the last session, not in the Yellow Book, to the consideration of the legislative assembly.
But the discourse of the Throne has expressed a thought that the expedition was drawing to a close, and that thought is common to the government and the legislative assembly; in fact, it is the thought of public opinion, and so it is expressed in the address.
Under these circumstances, where is the inexpediency of the expression of opinion by the legislative assembly? As to its result, and its connection with affairs of the United States, let those questions be discussed hereafter. Leave no blank at present in the address, that you are going to present to the Crown; but let it be understood by everybody interested in our debates that our respective sentiments are reserved, and that the dignity of no person is compromised [Good! Let the vote be taken.]
Ernest Picard. One word, if you please, Mr. President. [The vote! the vote!]
Buffet. I would like to ask the minister of state a simple question. He has just told you that it is improper to discuss the Mexican question at this time, because all the documents are not yet on hand. Now, I wish to ask him if a collective opinion can be formed upon it in the house when it does come up, so as to incorporate it with the address. If there is any likelihood of that, then I have no objection to vote on it now.
Rouher, minister of state. The answer to the gentleman’s question is easy. The Mexican question will be thoroughly discussed in due time; that is, when the budget for 1866 is brought up. It can then be analyzed and presented to the house; and, as acts of the government are more properly investigated at that time, the house can then give a final opinion.
What we most need is information, truth, and harmony between the great powers, and the government will do all it can to attain this, and thereby promote public interest and prosperity. [Good! good! Let us take the vote.]
Ernest Picard. I hope a proposition will not be voted on till it is maturely considered. This resolution is twofold. First. How is it to be considered hereafter? Second. It is a question that belongs solely to the house, and not to the minister of state and his colleagues. According to the constitution and the rules of the house there is but one time when we can discuss it, and that is during the debate on the address, and there will be no time when we can discuss it as fully as now. If the house wishes to put the question to a vote, it has only to say so. [Vote! vote!]
President Walewski. Do you withdraw your amendment?
Ernest Picard and other members. No, no!
President Walewski. I will now put to the vote the amendment proposed by Bethmont, Garnier-Pages, Julius Favre, Pelletan, Duke Marmier, Picard, Glais-Bizoin, Javal, and others. Here is the amendment:
“We condemned the Mexican expedition from its beginning on account of the difficulties and sacrifices it would cause France.
“The return of our soldiers was solemnly announced last year, and we regret it has been delayed to the detriment of French interests.
“The country has not forgotten the first declarations of the government concerning the causes of the expedition, and it wonders to see our army still sacrificed to the defence of a foreign throne.”
The amendment was put to the vote and rejected by a large majority.
The President. I will now put paragraph 3, which has been read, to the vote. [Vote! vote!]
Paragraph 3 is put to vote and adopted.
President Walewski. I now propose to the house that the remainder of the discussion be postponed till to-morrow. [Yes, yes!]
At ten o’clock to-morrow the discussion of the address will be resumed.
House adjourned at quarter past five.