The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-29 00:00:00

FRENCH MEDIATION IN AMERICA.

-
The following is the despatch addressed by M.
Dronyn de Lhuys to the French minister at Wash-
ington, under date of Paris, January 9 :

- _
TO 51. ItILECIEB, 1111118TZR OF MS EMPEROR AT

WASHINGTON.

Paris, Jan. 9, 1883.
Sir,—lf in forming the project of endeavouring
by the offer of our good offices to shorten the dura-
tion of hostilities which are desolating the Ameri-
can continent, we had not above all things been
guided by the friendship for the United States
which animates the government of the Emperor,
the small success of our overtures might have
diminished (refroidir) the interest we feel in the
incidents of this struggle. But the sentiment we
have obeyed is too sincere to allow indifference
to obtain entrance into our minds, or to prevent
us from being painfully affected by the continuance
of the conflict. • We cannot regard without pro-
found regret, this more than civil war, which may
be compared with the most terrible intestine com-
motions of the old republics, and the disasters of
which multiply in proportion with the resouross
and the courage displayed by each of the belligerents.
His Majesty's government have fully examined,
therefore, the objections made to us when we
suggested the idea of a friendly mediation, and we
have asked ourselves if they are really of a kind to
exclude as premature all attempts at reconciliation.
On the one hand, the repugnance of the United
States to admit the intervention of foreign influence
has been pointed out to us ; and, on the other, the
hope which the Federal government has not aban-
doned of obtaining a solution by force of arms.
Assuredly, sir, there is nothing in recurring
to the good offices of one or several neutral powers
incompatible with the legitimate pride of a great
nation ; and purely international wars do not
alone furnish us with examples of the useful part
played by mediators. We conceive, moreover,
that in offering to place ourselves at the
disposition of the belligerents, for the purpose of
facilitating between them negotiations, the basis
of which we abstained from
_prejudicing, we ren-
dered to the patriotism of the United States the re-
gard more than ever due to it now, after so many
fresh proofs of moral force and energy. We are
not less prepared, in the desires we entertain in
favour of peace, to make allowance for the suscep-
tibilities of national sentiment, and we in nowise
dispute the right of the Federal government to
decline the co-operation of the great maritime
powers of Europe. But is this co-operation the
only means of shortening the war which offers itself
to the Washington cabinet l And if the latter
thinks it ought to reject all foreign intervention,
might it not honourably accept the idea of direct
negotiations with the authority which represents
the South?

The Federal government, we know, does not
despair of giving • more active impulse to hostili-
ties : sacrifices have not exhausted its resources,
still leas its perseverance or its firmness. The
duration of the struggle, in fact, has not shaken
its confidence in the ultimate success of its efforts.
But the opening of negotiations between the belli-
gerents dote not necessarily imply the immediate
cessation of hostilities. Negotiations for peace
are not always the result of a suspension of arms •
on the contrary, they mire frequently precede th;