whom you do not wish to impose a government, but merely to become acquainted with their free wishes?

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

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

crees:

"ART. 1. Pending ratification by the government of the emperor Maximilian,

is named provisional prefect of the district; alcalde, &c.

substitute;

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

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

These "two individuals," gentlemen, were not the authors of the incendiary publications. SEVERAL VOICES. We cannot hear. Louder!

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

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

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

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

Mr. ERNEST PICARD. I continue the quotation: "Who among you can imagine that the men who have pilfered the power will be unmindful of the religious and patriotic party, and that they will go so far as so take from that party its respectable members, treat them with contempt, and even to threaten them with the severest punishment? Who would think that they could push presumption and impudence so far as to side with the fallen party, and protect laws which have thrown such disrespect and outrage upon the ministers and virgins of the Lord? Who is there among you, no matter how limited may be his intelligence, who has not understood that the regents-general of the intervention are the bitterest enemies of

religion and order?" You see how you are treated by those men who have called upon youthose men of consideration, whose sentiments I have just made known to you, and one of whom, if I mistake not, belongs to the provisional government you have established down there-M. la Bastida. I do not intend to read the entire document, but I merely wished to lay a sample of it before you. And now I hope the honorable Mr. Corta will permit me to ask him, is he very sure that he saw everything? He certainly understood all that he saw, but he has not seen all that he could understand. [Movement.]

DIFFERENT VOICES. And you, what have you seen? what have you been able to understand?

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

The MARQUIS DE PERE. There is no Mexican deputy here.

M. ERNEST PICARD. I have not understood the interruption.
President SCHNEIDER. Do not stop for interruptions.

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

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

M. ERNEST PICARD. The government will explain itself. Here is what I find in this document: 66 Perhaps the subscribers to the loan will have more real causes of grievance in the facts accomplished during the operation, properly so called, of its issue. The rumor spread abroad of a more than filled-up subscription, corroborated by considerable purchases made the day before, and the very day of the closing of the subscription list, up to one and a half per cent. profit; the irregular delay in announcing the allotments, whilst it was publicly given out that there would be a considerable reduction upon applications already madeall this has certainly contributed to swell the number of applicants, and prevent subscribers from extricating themselves, in leaving the market open to those only who were acquainted with the true position. Whence proceeded these false reports? Whence came these purchases? It is not the purpose of this document to seek the answer. It suffices to state the share of influence they have exercised. Thus much is certain, that while the loan could be subscribed to with one per cent. discount for brokerage, purchases with premium were made one day on a very large scale-not by hundreds of francs of capital, but by hundreds of thousands of francs of interest all at once; that it would be easy, by tracing up the bonds delivered, to discover by whom these purchases were effected; that they stopped as soon as the subscription was closed; that they were forced to believe the loan entirely filled up at the risk of entering into explanations rather too delicate; and that, lastly, subscribers have

determined by this to increase the quantum of their applications, the author of this document himself heading the list.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. ERNEST PICARD. Willingly.

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

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

Now, what does the Hon. Mr. Picard oppose ? To a paper of Mr. Lerdo y Tejada, written in 1856 or 1857, he opposes an anterior synoptical table, from which it results that the net produce of the revenues was, according to Mr. Lerdo y Tejada, inferior to that I spoke of. But the synoptical table shows the net produce only, while the work of Mr. Lerdo y Tejada comprises the net profits, the accumulated gross profits, and the profits which are

stolen from the exchequer. There can be no possible comparison, neither by analogy nor discrepancy.

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

At present, gentlemen, who can dispute it? Surely not the minister, who, questioned by me for the third time, (and in truth I fear to question him again,) is about to announce to you for the third time that a loan is imminent and perhaps desirable. say, then, gentlemen, that in the light of wisdom in the good administration of our finances, as well as of wisdom in our foreign policy, the affair of Mexico presents nothing satisfactory to us; and I am sure in thus expressing myself that I agree with the secret sentiment of the Chamber, and I may say before it what it thinks in all sincerity. But, gentlemen, in face of this fact, what is our duty? What have we to do? In order to understand it well, and know just how far we may venture to go, it is indispensable in this question also to take a retrospective view. It was in 1862 that for the first time we were informed in this place of the Mexican expedition, and in 1862 we disputed the utility of this expedition, and declared to the government that it would not easily obtain those indemnities it went so far at such a cost to seek. We told it that behind this enterprise was concealed another, inspired by a candidate, and that candidate was the Archduke Maximilian. What answer was made to this? What were the words of him who was then the eloquent organ of the government? He said to us, When such suppositions are affirmed, proofs must be brought forward to support them, and you have none. The aim of the agreement between the three powers was to require from the Mexican republic a more effectual protection to their respective subjects, and the fulfilment of the obligations contracted by this republic. And the honorable orator added: "The three contracting parties are pledged to reserve no acquisition of territory and no private advantage, and to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico no influence of a nature to violate the rights of the Mexican nation to choose and freely constitute the form of its own government."

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

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

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

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

"Mr. ROUHER. If you had read Mr. Larrabure's report you would have been enlightened on this subject."

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

Every one, with the exception perhaps of the opposition, whose mistrust in all that relates to this question appears to be incurable, [smiles from several benches, ] placed confidence in the words of the honorable minister of state. One member only, one of the most eminent, who has often occupied the seat of minister, and who knows all the weight attached to the words of a minister, [murmurs,] interrupted the reading. He can readily comprehend the reserve under which the honorable Mr. Rouher will seek a refuge, from which I have no intention to drive him. The honorable Mr. Thiers interrupted Mr. Segris by saying 66 at present.". Upon this interruption of Mr. Thiers the Moniteur stated that a movement was produced in the assembly. This movement took place on the 27th of January, and on the 10th of April a convention, regulating the loan, the sojourn of our troops, and the payment of the Mexican coupons, was signed and engagements entered into, and upon too large a scale to have allowed them, on the 17th of January, to be avowed to the Chamber in the same terms in which the convention at Miramar was concluded on the 10th of April.

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

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

I assert, gentlemen, that when a Chamber has been induced by the government to accept in perfect confidence that which has been proposed to it, and allowed itself to be led whither it would not have gone of its own accord, I assert that this Chamber has a right and a duty. It has been trustful; it must now resist. It cannot and should not in face of the minister, in face of the government, make use of parliamentary courtesy, [dissent from several benches; assent from others, ] because state affairs are not regulated by courtesy and excess of confidence. I leave all other questions to your discretion, gentlemen, but in the Mexican question we are released from this duty toward the government. You are searching, for the interest of the country, for that policy which this time you ought not to recommend timidly to your country; but-permit me the word-you should enjoin upon the government by a vote and a manifestation. We do not ask you to join our party; but can it be possible that, in a question where you think as we do, where the interest of France appears to you as it does to us, where you see your duty as clearly as we do, that a man should not rise up from your midst, were it but-were it but-I withdraw the word, and I wish it might be the honorable M. Segris, whom I just now quoted, who has withheld, as he says, the declaration of the government, and who certainly must have withheld it for more than a year. The honorable Mr. Segris said, "This is the declaration which has been made; I withhold it;" and the honorable Mr. Rouher added, "I withdraw nothing from it." The declaration is there; the engagement exists; and, since it does, it must be kept. What is it? It is the engagement entered into by the convention of 10th April, 1864, by the convention of Miramar; or rather it is the engagement entered into in these precincts, for the convention of 10th April, 1864, like all conventions that pass between sovereigns, and are not submitted to the assemblies, is not altogether in conformity with the policy that has been explained here and sustained by the organs of the government. It has a preface of which I would willingly hear the honorable minister give a different interpretation from mine; it is thus conceived: "The governments of his Majesty the Emperor of the French, and of his Majesty the Emperor of Mexico, actuated by an equal desire to secure the re-establishment of order in Mexico, and to consolidate the new empire, have resolved to regulate by a conventionIf nothing more is meant than a desire I have no more to say; but if this "desire" tains the tacit and inevitable engagement which it is proposed to you to take in following this policy, the Chamber, which was not a party to this convention, and does not incline to this policy, must disengage itself from it. And in what manner must it do so? It must do that which was provided for by article 1 of the convention, thus expressed:

con

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

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