The Sun. — 1864-01-28 (London, England)

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 commander 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 important 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 respectful 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 merchants 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 punpose, that he could see, utterly confounded his reason. After a passing observation engaging the chamber to imitate the example of England, which patiently suffers every subject whatever to be discussed, 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 roughness, there might have been some slight ground for complaint. But in South America, with the exception 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 delinquencies. It might perhaps be said that such a mode of dealing with them was not very haughty, but national 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 outrages which Prussia thought it not expedient to avenge by an expedition ; of Bonpland (the companiOn 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