No. 199.

Mr. Moran to Mr. Fish

No. 192.]

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that in the latter days of last December the Right Honorable Mr. Hammond, one of her Majesty’s under-secretaries of state for foreign affairs, asked me if I could send a letter to Mr. Washburne from Lord Granville to M. Jules Favre, in case the North German ambassador here should not object, to which I replied in the affirmative. Late in the evening of the 30th ultimo, I received a private note from Mr. Hammond, inclosing the letter from Lord Granville for M. Favre, inviting him to the London conference on the Black Sea question, and saying that Lord Granville had told Count Bernstorff about it the day before. I accordingly sent the letter that evening to Mr. Washburne, in a brief note, stating that I did so at Lord Granville’s request, and I left it to Mr. Washburne to deliver the letter or not, as he might think proper. It was delivered, and M. Jules Favre has since published it in his circular in reply, addressed to the diplomatic representatives of France abroad.

The translation of this note of Lord Granville into French, and back again from French into English, has no doubt led to inaccuracies. I inclose a copy, as printed in the Times of the 17th instant, merely remarking that I did not offer to communicate with M. Jules Favre, but when applied to, to send a note to Mr. Washburne from Lord Granville [Page 421] for him, did so, as an act of comity to both the British and other governments interested in the treaty of Paris of 1856.

I have thought it my duty to make this explanation to you, as without it my course in the matter might be open to misconstruction.

I have, &c.

BENJAMIN MORAN
[From the London Times, January 17, 1871.]

France and the conference.

The Journal Officiel of Paris states that the minister of foreign affairs has addressed the following circular to the French diplomatic agents abroad:

Sir: The government has hitherto felt it right to maintain a strict reserve in respect of the negotiations which have been set on foot for a revision of the treaties of 1856. That such revision, should it be necessary, belongs exclusively to the powers which were signatories of those treaties, is a truth so evident that it is needless to dwell upon it. There can be no doubt upon the point. Thus, when one of those powers demanded a modification of the conventions which were equally binding upon all the signatories, the idea of a conference, at which the question could be discussed, was adopted without difficulty. The place of France in that conference was marked out. But could she think of occupying it at a moment when she was entirely absorbed by the defense of her territory? Such was the grave question which the government has had to consider under the circumstances which I am about briefly to recount. It was by a dispatch, dated Tours, 11th of November, received in Paris on the 17th, that the minister for foreign affairs was informed, by M. de Chaudordy, of Prince Gortchakoff’s circular. This intelligence was communicated to him by a telegram from our minister at Vienna, in the following terms: ‘The Russian minister yesterday made a communication, from which it appears that his government considers itself as no longer bound by the stipulations of the treaties of 1856.’ On the same day, November 17, the minister of foreign affairs replied to M. de Chaudordy, recommending the strictest reserve. We had up to that time received no official communication, and we were hound to confine ourselves to a policy of observation, at the same time without omitting to maintain on all occasions our formal right to take part in a resolution which, without our participation, would be absolutely devoid of value. Europe could not entertain any other view, and in the conversations and notes which have been interchanged between the various powers and ourselves, it has always been understood that France was a necessary party to the deliberation, and that she would be invited to join in it. I should hold myself guilty of an unpardonable indiscretion if I were now to reveal the details of these pourparlers. Our effort has been to take advantage of the friendly dispositions which have been manifested toward us, and to bring the representatives of the powers to acknowledge that, without deserting or in any way detracting from the extreme importance which the discussion of the treaties of 1856 would have for us, yet we were bound upon entering the conference to introduce yet another discussion of a most important character which should not be met by a plea of in competency. However, it must be admitted that, while fully sharing this view, the delegation at Tours has always been of opinion that we should accept the invitation of Europe if it should be addressed to us. Summing up this opinion, M. de Chaudordy wrote on his dispatch of the 10th of December: ‘The delegation is of opinion, after having examined, with me, all the dispatches, that we should join the conference, even without a previous promise or a subsequent armistice.’ The opinion of the members of the delegation has never changed. M. Gambetta strongly expresses it in his last dispatch from the 31st of December, 1870, to the 3d of January, 1871. Addressing the minister of foreign affairs, he writes: ‘You must be on the point of quitting Paris to repair to the conference at London, if, as I am assured, England has succeeded in obtaining a safe-conduct for you. I can imagine the pangs which you will experience in leaving Paris and our colleagues. I can hear the expression of your grief and your early refusals, and yet I must tell you in the interest of our cause it must be so.’ Before M. Gambetta had written these lines, the minister of foreign affairs, following as well as the imperfection and the delays in communication allowed him to do the negotiations entered upon at Tours, and continued afterward at Bordeaux, had intimated to M. de Chaudordy that the government had decided that, if regularly invited. France would send a representative to the conference at London, but with the condition that England, which had sent it a verbal invitation, would undertake to obtain the necessary safe-conduct for its representative if he were selected in Paris. This arrangement was accepted by the English cabinet. M. de Chaudordy informed the minister of foreign affairs of it in a dispatch dated [Page 422] Bordeaux, December 26, 1870, received on the 8th of January. He informed him at the same time that the delegation of the government had selected him as the fitting representative of France at the conference. This communication was confirmed by the following letter, written by Lord Granville on the 29th of December,and transmitted to us on the 10th of the present month through the medium of the United States minister:

“‘Lord Granville to his excellency the minister for foreign affairs at Paris.

“‘London, December 29, 1870.

“Monsieur le Ministre: M. de Chaudordy has informed Lord Lyons that your excellency was proposed to represent France at the conference which it has been agreed to hold in London, concerning the neutralization of the Black Sea, and he has at the same time requested me to obtain a safe-conduct which will enable your excellency to pass through the Prussian lines. I immediately requested Count Bernstorff to apply for the safe-conduct, and to transmit it to your excellency by a German officer dispatched with a flag of truce. M. de Bernstorff yesterday informed me that a safe-conduct would be placed at your excellency’s disposition whenever it should be applied for by an officer sent from Paris to the German headquarters, seeing that satisfaction had not been given for the officer bearing a flag of truce upon whom the French had fired. I have been informed by M. Tissot that much time would elapse before this information could be transmitted to you by the delegation at Bordeaux, and I have consequently suggested to Count Bernstorff another means by which it could reach you, by taking advantage of the opportunity offered by the chargé d’affaires of the United States to acquaint you with what has passed. It had been agreed that the conference shall assemble this week, but in order to afford time for the arrival of the French plenipotentiary, the day of meeting has been fixed for the 3d of January. I trust that your excellency will authorize M. Tissot to represent you at the first meeting, at which I will place upon the order of the day only questions of form, and, if your excellency is in a position to inform me of your arrival, I would propose to adjourn the conference for a week, to obtain the valuable advantage of your experience. I trust that your excellency will permit me to take the opportunity of expressing my gratification at entering upon personal relations with yourself, and the pleasure I shall have in seeing you in London.

“‘I have the honor, &c.,

“‘GRANVILLE.’

“Being called upon by the dispatch, the government could not, without abdicating the rights of France, reject the invitation which it received in her name. Undoubtedly it might be objected that, for France, the moment is not favorable for a discussion respecting the neutrality of the Black Sea. But it is precisely because at this supreme moment France is fighting for her honor and her existence, that the official proposition made to the French Republic by the European cabinets acquires an exceptional importance. It is a tardy commencement of justice, an engagement which cannot be retracted. It consecrates with the authority of public law the change of reign, and brings upon the scene where the destinies of the world are being contested the free nation, free despite her wounds, in place of the chief who led her to her danger, or of the pretenders who sought to dispose of her. Besides, who does not feel that, admitted to face the representatives of Europe, France has an incontestable right to lift up her voice? Who can arrest her when, relying upon the eternal rules of justice, she will defend the principles which guarantee her independence and her dignity? She will abandon none which we have maintained. Our programme is unchanged, and Europe, who invites those who framed it, knows well that they are bound and are prepared to maintain it. There was no room, therefore, for hesitation, and the government would have committed a grave fault in rejecting the overture which was made to it. But while recognizing that fact, it thought, with myself, that the minister for foreign affairs could not, without some reason of paramount importance, quit Paris in the midst of a bombardment which the enemy is directing upon our city. For a week past, suddenly, without warning to the inoffensive inhabitants and neutrals, the commander-in-chief of the Prussian army showers his murderous projectiles upon our buildings. It seems that he selects in preference our hospitals, our schools, our churches, our benevolent institutions. Women are killed in their beds, children in the arms of their parents or under the eyes of their teachers. Yesterday we accompanied to their last resting-places five little coffins of young pupils crushed under the weight of a shell weighing 200 pounds. The church, where their remains were blessed by the priest and watered by the tears of their parents, testified by its walls, shattered even at night, to the fury of the assailants. I know not how long these inhuman measures will continue. Useless for the attack, they are only an act of depredation and murder destined to excite terror. Our brave population of Paris feels its courage increase with the danger. Firm, irritated, resolute, it is indignant and does not bend. It means more than ever to fight and conquer, [Page 423] and we mean it also. I cannot think of separating myself from it at this crisis. Perhaps our protests addressed to Europe, the protest of the embassadors present in Paris, will soon put an end to it. Till then England will understand that my place is in the midst of my fellow-citizens. This is what I explained to the foreign minister of Great Britain in the reply which is subjoined, and which fitly closes this statement:

“‘Paris, January 10.

“‘M. le Comte: I received only to-day, the 10th of January, at 9 p. m., through the minister of the United States, the letter which your excellency has done me the honor of writing to me, dated the 20th of December, 1870, whereby I am informed that you have requested Count Bernstorff to place at my disposal the safe-conduct necessary for my passing through the Prussian lines and attending, as representative of France, the conference which is to be opened at London. I thank your excellency for this communication, and for the kindness shown me in facilitating the accomplishment of the duty imposed on me. It is, however, difficult for me to depart immediately from Paris, which, for eight days, has been given up to the horrors of a bombardment carried on against its inoffensive population, without the warning which is usual according to the law of nations. I do not feel it right to abandon my fellow-citizens at the moment when they are victims of this violence. Moreover, the communications between Paris and London are, by the act of the commander-in-chief of the besieging army, so slow and uncertain that I cannot, notwithstanding my good wishes, reply to your appeal in the terms of your dispatch. You kindly informed me that the conference would meet on the 3d of January, and would then probably adjourn for a week. Apprised of this on the evening of the 10th, I could not profit by your invitation in proper time. Moreover, Count Bismarck, while allowing the letter to reach me, has not accompanied it with a safe-conduct, which is, however, indispensable. He requests that a French officer should repair to the Prussian headquarrers to seek the safe-conduct, availing himself of complaints which he addressed to the governor of Paris on the occasion of an incident complained of by a parlementaire on the 23d of December; and Count Bismarck adds that, until satisfaction has been given him, the Prussian commander-in-chief forbids any communication by parlementaires. I do not inquire whether such a resolution, contrary to the laws of war, would not be the absolute negation of superior rights which necessity and humanity have always maintained for the benefit of belligerents. I content myself with remarking to your excellency that the governor of Paris promptly ordered an inquiry into the facts cited by Count Bismarck, and, in announcing this to him, brought to his knowledge facts of the same kind, much more numerous, imputable to Prussian sentinels, on which facts, however, he had never thought of relying for the purpose of interrupting the exchange of ordinary relations. Count Bismarck seems to have admitted, at least partially, the justice of these observations, for this very day he charged the United States embassador to inform me that, reserving respective inquiries, he re-establishes relations by parlementaires. There is no necessity, then, for a French officer to repair to the Prussian headquarters, and I am about to enter into communication with the United States embassador in order to procure the safe-conduct which you have kindly obtained. As soon as I have this document in my hands, and the situation of Paris permits, I shall proceed to London, sure beforehand of not invoking in vain, in the name of my government, the principles of right and morality which Europe has so great an interest in causing to be respected.

“‘Accept, &c.,

“‘JULES FAVRE.’

“I beg you, sir, to bring this dispatch to the knowledge of the government to which you are accredited. It is fit that Europe should be enlightened on our intentions and our acts; it is to its equity that we submit them.

“Accept, &c.,

“The minister of foreign affairs, JULES FAVRE.”