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

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

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

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

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

Mr. JULES LE FAVRE. What means of verification has the public?

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

SEVERAL VOICES. They know it much better.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE— -who do not risk their money in operations which they consider unsafe; who examine, question, inquire, hunt up information, and have all the legiti mate caution of capital which dislikes ventures and risks. [Adhesion.]

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

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

SEVERAL VOICES. Yes, yes.

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

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

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

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

Gentlemen, there is a reproach which has touched me more deeply, both as a man and as a representative of the government. The house has been told that statements made to the corps legislatif, that engagements entered into, had been disregarded and broken. It has been claimed that we promised last year to end the expedition in 1864, and to bring back all our troops to France. The convention of Miramar has been distorted to find in it I know not what contradictions between its stipulations and those made in January. Is this the first time this convention is brought to the notice of the house? Has it not been discussed here? After the 10th of April, when it was concluded, was it not discussed, criticised, and examined by all the members of the corps legislatif? Has not every point in it been fully and freely canvassed? Who, then, maintains that that convention contradicted the declarations of government? What did we say in January, 1864 ? "Government had declared that it would not guarantee the loan which the emperor of Mexico was wishing to contract;" and also that the French troops would not remain an indefinite time in the service of the Mexican government; that the length of their stay in Mexico would be regulated by the requirements of the interests which had called us there and which we were to defend.

In January we simply expressed a wish with regard to the return to France of part of our

troops. It is only in May that we went further, and named the number; we said we thought it possible we might recall as many as 10,000 men.

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

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

"I hope to fulfil the engagement taken by the secretary of state towards the corps legislatif. I shall be the faithful guardian of the promises he has made. My efforts in rapidly carrying our arms to the various parts of the territory north and south of the Mexican empire were but the means to hasten the moment of our departure, and of realizing the hopes conceived in and the promises made to, the corps legislatif." [Approbation.] Any talk about breach of promises, engagements set at naught, is, therefore, the result of a profound error, and this discussion can only leave the regret that there should be persons so ready to doubt the word of a loyal government and the promises it makes to a house which it respects. [Approbation.] But there is a black spot on our horizon. Some point to it and show it to us. They do not appeal to our fears, but they give us the friendly advice of hastening the return of our troops if we wish to escape the attack of the United States.

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

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

I know that around that Mexican question swarm intrigues of which, every day, I discover some threads. I know that from the Mexican provinces bordering on the United States there come every day encouragements to an impracticable plan of a war between the American republic and Mexico. I know that these intrigues are felt over in Europe, and even in France. A fortnight ago I read in a foreign journal a most frightful description of our position in Mexico; and I found the same article published simultaneously in fifteen newspapers in various parts of Europe. There is evidently somewhere-I do not know where, and I accuse no one-a centre whence people try to encourage bad feelings, and to propagate erroneous appreciations of our Mexican expedition.

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

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

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

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

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

This created some excitement. In answer to this supposed threat of intervention we were threatened in turn with intervention in Mexico. To justify such a proceeding the Monroe doctrine was quoted. They said that when peace was made with the south it would then be the proper time to attack the Mexican empire. What did all this excitement lead to? To two incidents in the House of Representatives and in the Senate at Washington. The orator who last year presented a resolution relating to Mexico repeated his motion. It was at first rejected, then adopted two days afterwards. This resolution had no direct bearing on the Mexican question.

Its object was to contradict the opinion of Mr. Seward and President Lincoln, and to assert the right of the House to exercise a direct influence on diplomatic negotiations, a right denied them in the despatch which was read to you last year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

course.

"We expect our troops to be recalled in accordance with the declarations of the govern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M. JULES FAVRE. You are insulting the opposition.

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

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

Yes, gentlemen, [the speaker faces the left, ] you are more violent than ever we shall be in

the name of the government; but you have an excuse, and I will tell you what that excuse is. Do you know why you have sometimes allowed yourselves to be violent? It is because you have neither legitimate grievances nor reasonable hopes. [Lively approbation.] If you had serious grievances public opinion would be on your side, and it is not. [Approbation, murmurs, interruptions.]

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

M. CHEVANDIER DE VALDBROME. Paris is not France. [Rumor.]

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

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

THE PRESIDENT. You would prevent our doing so by your attacks.

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

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

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

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

From all sides: The vote! the vote!

THE PRESIDENT. The vote on the amendment will be taken.

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

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

The ballot is taken and the result is as follows:

Number of votes, 241; majority, 121. For the amendment, 16; against, 225.
The corps legislatif does not accept the amendment.

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

CORPS LEGISLATIF.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pelletan has the floor to develop this amendment.

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

Now, the American question is sufficiently important to be treated with less reserve; besides, at the present time, all discussion is useless, for at this very moment while I am speak