The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-28 00:00:00

SPEECH OF M. TRIERS ON MEXICO.

It being known that M. Thiers was to speak on
Tuesday on the Mexican question, all the tribunes
were filled long before the debate began. Prince
Napoleon and the Princess Clothilde were in the
seats reserved for the imperial family. Among the
senators present was Marshal Forey, the late com-
mander in chief of the expedition which M. Thiers
was about to criticise. The first lawyer of France, 1
Procureur-General Dupin, sat by the side of Mar- '
shat Forey. '
M. Thiers said that he would tint discuss this or
'...oat amendment, but treat of the question of Mexico
generally. Having a great deal to say on this im-
portant subject he had been anxious to speak early
in the debate, lest at a later moment the attention
of the chamber should be eXhausted. He was not
without hope that after hearing him they would
forgive him for having thus pressed hinaselk upon
their notice. As to the diterent amendments of
which they had the choice, he would prefer that
one which might be thought to lay the truth at the
foot of the throne in the most deferential and re-
spectful way. If they bad only to pass judgment
upon facts gone by, he would be very happy to
imitate the conduct of those merchants who write
off unlucky affairs to profit and loss in order that
they might think no more about them. But mer-
chants only acted thus with regard to effairs which
involved no further sacrifices. Unfortunately this
ould not be said of Mexico. They had heard
that the expedition cost twelve millions of francs
per month, and months rolled away very rapidly.
They were operating in a country 3,000 leagues
off, and which required a voyage of 15
days to reach. They had in that country
40,000 soldiers and 8,000 sailors; and what
was the object of that great and costly force P
they were informed that in a very few days the
prince destined to reign over Mexico would pass
through Saris to embark for Vera Cruz. They had
therefore undertaken this distant expedition for the
purpose of founding a great empire in the new world.
He had perhaps been brought up in narrow ideas,
but he must confess that such an enterprise in the
present etate of the world, without any useful pun-
pose, that he could see, utterly confounded his rea-
son. After a passing observation engaging the
chamber to imitate the example of England, which
patiently suffers every subject whatever to be dis-
cussed, he said he proposed to inquire by
-what series
of ideas France had been led from the first act of
protection of its citizens established in Mexico to
that most coneiderable enterprise of founding a
monarchy in that country. What connexion was
there between the two things? Was there any
reasonable hope of success; and if perchance they
did succeed, what good would they get by it ? M.
Thiers-then described the great difference' between
North and South America in respect of relations
with Europe. In theNorth,Europe found an immense
trade, and, in general, perfect security, though of
late, owing to the civil war and democratic rough-
ness, there might have been some slight ground for
complaint. But in South America, with the excep-
tion of the Brazils, there was nothing but anarchy.
When the southern populations of America separated
from the European countries which bad colonised
them and held them in subjection, they, like the
North, proclaimed republican government. But
the inhabitants of South America were turbulent
and idle, and their republics did not succeed. These
states were always in difficulties, ever borrowing
and never paying. In consequence of continual
agitation, the towns, the villages, and highways
were insecure. Robbery was frequent and murder
not uncommon. The police was good for nothing,
and justice weak. The custom with these states
when they broke treaties had been hitherto to
follow the English system, viz., to punish them
severely when they could be got at by sea, but
otherwise to wink a good deal at their delinquen-
cies. It might perhaps be said that such a mode of
dealing with them was not very haughty, but na-
tional honour itself must brook a check in the face
of physical impossibilities. As illustrations of his
meaning M. Thiers cited the case of some Riff out-
rages which Prussia thought it not expedient to
avenge by an expedition ; of Bonpland (the compa-
niOn and friend of Humboldt), who was made pri •
Isoner in Paraguay by the dictator Francia ; and
also an affair at La Plata, where French citizens
had been tortured by that abominable little tyrant
Roses. Well, French ships had gone to Buenos
Ayzs and Monte Video and deniunded severe