Foreign news.
the intervention question--Mr. Roebucks mission to Napoleon — the French Emperor's opinion of recognition.
The European papers by the Persia, of the 5th inst, are laden with parliamentary motions and discussions, correspondents' speculations and newspaper articles on intervention. The most interesting event of the week, with reference to this subject, occurred on the evening of the 30th ult., when Mr. Roebuck rose to his motion for the recognition of the Confederate States of America. He spoke advocating the motion, and in his speech gave the following minute account of an interview with the French Emperor on the subject:
I was met in the lobby outside some days since by an honorable and learned friend of mine, who said to me, "You propose that the House should address the Queen, to ask her to enter into a negotiation with the great powers of Europe. Now, I have heard to-day, on very good authority, that the mind of the French ruler has changed, and if Lord Palmerston can come down to the House and say so, what becomes of your motion for the recognition of the South? I acknowledged to my honorable and learned friend the force of his statement, though like the Scotchman about the fish, I doubted the fact--[a laugh]--therefore, I wrote to my honorable friend the member for Sunderland, knowing that he had authority to write to the French Emperor when ever he wanted to see him--[a laugh]--and I said to him in effect, "Suppose, for the purpose of ascertaining whether this rumor be true, we go across and ask at once for an audience." [A laugh] For, sir, I know the Treasury Bench right well. I know they are wonderfully expert at circulating rumors; indeed, when they have an object in view, there is hardly any rumor they won't circulate. [A laugh] My letter to the honorable member from Sunderland got to Patis, and subsequently we had the audience asked for. I am now going to make a statement which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs may think somewhat surprising, but it is true for all that. The Emperor of the French said, and he gave me authority to repeat it here, "As soon as I learned that that rumor was circulating in England, I gave instructions to my Ambassador to deny the truth of it. Nay, more, I instructed him to say that my feeling was not, indeed, exactly the same as it was, because it was stronger than ever in favor of recognizing the South. I told him also to lay before the British Government my understanding and my wishes on this question, and to ask still again whether they would be willing to join me in that recognition. " [Applause.] Now, sir, there is no mistake about this matter.--And to tell me that the British Government does not know that has occurred must mean some diplomatic evasion. It can't be the truth. [Hear, hear] And if there be contradiction, as the Judges say, between the witnesses, I pledge my veracity for what I state. And what is more, I laid before His Majesty two compress of conduct. I said "Your Majesty may make a formal application to England." He stopped me, and said; "No, I can't do that, and I will tell you why. Some months ago I did make a formal application to England. England sent my dispatch to America. [Hear, hear] That dispatch, getting into Mr. Seward's hands, was shown to my Ambassador at Washington. It came back to me, and I feel that I was ill-treated by such conduct. [Loud cheers from the Opposition.] I won't (he added.) I can't subject myself again to the danger of similar treatment.--[Hear, hear] But I will do everything short of it. I give you full liberty to state to the English House of Commons this my wish and to say to them that I have determined in all things."--and I will quote his words-- "I have determined in all things to act with England, and more than all things I have determined to act with her as regards America." [Hear, hear.] A large portion of our manufacturing population have been for some months living upon charity. Now, there is very soon acquired a habit of idleness, and I have learned from Lancashire that at the present time an unwillingness to labor is creeping upon the people, and if we carry them through the coming winter in idleness, we don't know what may be the consequence to our manufacturing population. Again, sir, I will quote the words of His Majesty the Emperor of the French, and they are very remarkable words He said: ‘"I am afraid of the coming winter with respect to my manufacturing population."’ [Hear] And my honorable friend, the member for Sunderland, said:"Sire, we don't dread the winter, although we know that great misery must of necessity be entailed upon our manufacturing population if the cotton famine continue; but we, Sire, desire to avert from our countrymen the community that must arise from the continent on of that famine."
Mr. George Gray made the following reply to this statement:
I can only say that I am utterly unable to explain the discrepancy between the honorable and learned member for Sheffield's statement and the fact that Her Majesty's Government received no such communication It has been stated that the communication which was well known to have been made last year to Her Majesty's Government, on the part of the Emperor of the French, proposing a meditation between the contending parties in America, was transmitted by, Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, and by Lord Lyons handed to Mr. Seward, by which means Mr. Seward received information which would otherwise have been with held from him respecting the Emperor's proposal to Her Majesty's Government. Now, I know that no secret was made at the time that such a proposal had been made by the Emperor of the French to Her Majesty's Government. It was announced by the newspapers that dispatch had been taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government, and answered in terms of courtesy of which I am sure the Emperor of the French had no reason to complain, and never has complained.
Lord R. Montague moved as an amendment that this House earnestly desire that the impartial neutrality should continue to be maintained by her Majesty's Government during the present unhappy conless in the States of North America. He yielded to no man in sympathy and admiration for the South, but they were now on the point of working out their independence, and they ought not to be interfered with. He also objected to any intervention. The offer of it was not likely to be acceptable to either side, and, while it could lead to no good, might involve serious difficulties.
Mr. Clifford seconded the amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequers said it was the duty of every responsible adviser of the Crown to divest himself of partiality in considering such a question as this, and to regard facts alone in forming calm and deliberate judgment. Few who had observed the heroic devils of the South could withhold that sympathy; but on the other hand, the noble ford conceived visions of extended dominion, to which they clung with pardonable tenacity. Such a question as this must be argued, not on the basis of British interests, or that British interests were threatened by the prospects of the American Union. He believed that the policy of strict neutrality and not interventionists the only one that would have been approved by the country, and in the spirit of that policy the Government still desired to act. He did not believe that the restoration of the Union was attainable, and this was the general opinion of the country, regarded in the fight that there could be no doubt of the issue.
No practical benefit could result from recognition at present. There was no case in which such a recognition had taken place without being followed by war, and admitting the evils of the war, they must take care in remedying one evil they did not fall into a greater. A recognition would deprive this country of the character and weight of impartiality. When a time for intervention did arrive this country had many traditional relations and interests. France, by her action in Mexico, had engagements which prevented her recognition of the South without morning a of partonity or self-interest fatal to their authority and influence.
Mr. W. E. Forster referred to the declaration of Earl Russell contradicting the statements of Mr. Roebuck. With respect to the views of the Emperor of the French, he believed that the country had seen enough of diplomatic action on such questions with the Emperor of the French. In conjunction with the Emperor of the French we had drifted into the Crimean war; there were serious fears abroad lest we might drift into a war in conjunction with him, on account of Poland; but there was no doubt, if the House allowed the Emperor of the French to use Mr. Roebuck a his second ambassador to sound his opinions against the Government of the day, we should soon drift into a war with America. He combatted the opinions of Mr. Roebuck, and showed that the proposals for mediation last autumn, had led to the Conscription act, and maintained that the motion, if carried, would render peace between the North and the South impossible, and would inevitably involve us in the war.
Lord R. Cecil supported the motion, which, if carried, would, in his opinion, have a great moral effect upon the duration of the war. It was in vain to suppose the North could conquer the South, and therefore the continuance of hostilities was a gigantic crime. The English Government was now the sole obstacle to the recognition of the South, and as such it was responsible to England and to every one.
Mr. Bright said that the honorable member for Sheffield had left them in no manner of doubt as to his object, which, when his recent character and recent speeches were considered, was the same as if he had asked the House to address the Crown and declare war against the United States. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not very warm on the subject, was obliged to charge him with bitter hostility.
The honorable gentleman told them that the North was overbearing; but he did not tell them its Government had hitherto been administered by his friends of the South. He told them that the South were English, but not the scum of Europe. He had detailed a conversation with the Emperor of the French, and asked them to follow his lead in the greatest question ever submitted to that House. There was a time when the Hon. member held very different language. He said he had no faith in the Emperor of the French, and he looked for nothing but enmity and had faith from him. [Cheers] He had, however, adopted the character of Tear and was at his post. He then exclaimed against his perjured lips baying touched the hallowed check of our beloved Queen. [Cheers] But now he had been to Paris, and became a conspirator with the Emperor to draw this country into a policy hostile to its interest, and degrading to its honor.
Mr. Wyndham moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir G. Grey said he would not now notice the extraordinary conduct of Mr. Roebuck in himself an envoy to the Emperor of the French although such conduct was a of all confidence and official courtesy--Fie repeated the declaration of Earl Russell in the House of Lords, and expressed his inability to recondite them with the statement of Mr. Roebuck. As to his personal knowledge of the views of the Emperor of the French, they were totally at variance with the information possessed by the Foreign Office. He that there was the slightest ground for the completed that confidential communications of the Emperor had been submitted to the Federal Government. Such a charge was preposterous, and Mr. Roebuck must have misunderstood the Emperor, who has always expressed his satisfaction at the manner in which his views had been considered by Her Majesty's Government.
The debate was then adjourned.
The other orders were disposed of, and the House, rose.
Opinions of the English paper.
We take some extracts from the London journals, of the 1st inst., commenting upon the debate in Parliament:‘ The London Times says Mr. Roebuck has failed to show that any good would ensue from the House adopting his motion. The speech of Mr. Gladstone, who opposed the motion, may be taken as an exposition of enlightened English opinion on the subject. He condiment the war, he condemns Mr. Lincoln's incitements to servile rebellion, but he denies that England and France can abate the miseries of the contest by such an act as the recognition of the South. He believes that the South can maintain its independence, and that it would be expedient for the Federal to assist from a hopeless, and, therefore, unjustifiable war. The Times says it is plainly our duty, as well as our policy, to bear with this misguided people for some time longer. It is the opinion of the best judges that the Northern States must raise another large army or allow the war gradually to wear out. The conscription is languishing — most people think it can never be enforced; and even when the new levies are made, it will be six months at least before they are ready for leaving, and next spring before they can be used. This being the case is it not better to wait and see what the next few months will bring forth? It may be that the failure of so many enterprises and the wasting away of their enormous hosts will at length teach the Northern people wisdom. The South may then indicate their willingness to receive the mediation which, if offered now, might give a new impulse to the war.
The Telegraph says we simply await the arrival of that hour which shall show the South to be in possession of the independence it claims, and enable us to recognize it with the sanction of sound judgment and the flat of public law.
The London Herald says the pretended fear of war with the North, in case of recognition, is only a screen to hide the divided sentiments of a Cabinet.
The London News and Star abuse Mr. Roebuck. The Star says last night's debate will assuredly be regarded by the friends of peace between Europe and America, peace between North and South, and freedom in both, as an acquisition to their good cause.
The Standard ridicules the idea of withholding recognition of the South for fear of war with the North.
’ The Paris correspondent of the London Post says:
‘ There seems to be no doubt of the Emperor having lately received the Southern envoy, Mr. Sudell. That his Majesty should have done this so soon after the fall of Puebla gives rice to speculation, and no doubt to many false conclusions. France has probably, since the occupation of Mexico, international reasons to watch what interest the American war.
’ The Paris correspondence of the London News says:
‘ Butlier's Correspondence, referring to the statement in the Times that the Emperor had again proposed to England to recognize the Confederate States, asserts that, on the contrary, it is the Cabinet of St. James which has this time taken the initiative of the proposal--It adds that the overture has "not been repulsed,"and " that the two Cabinets may very likely come to an understanding on the question, if the Confederate Government with give some guarantee for the abolition of slavery within a green time." There is much virtue in the letter "if."
The representatives of the North in Paris most distinctly and decidedly declare that the Government and people of the North now, as ever, bent on conquering the South and maintaining the Union, and that no attempt at mediation could possibly succeed at Washington. This is the language of Mr. Dayton, the American Minister, of Mr. Bigslow, the American Consul, and the majority of the Americans likely to hold correct views on the subject.
’ Another letter says:
‘ That the Emperor desires to see peace restored in America for political as well as humanitarian reasons, is beyond a doubt; that his Majesty would recognize the South if England would do so there can be no question. The isolated efforts of French diplomacy have failed. The question asked here is, "Has not the situation changed? Would not the united action of England and France for peace be now listened to at Washington?"
The Times'sParis correspondent repeats the statement that the rebels, with the sanction of the Emperor of France, have applied to Spain for recognition, offering to guarantee to her in case of recognition, the possession of Cuba. It is thought in Madrid that, in any case, the Emperor of France will not much longer postpone recognizing the Confederacy.
Mr. Lindray, in a letter to the Times, confirms the statements of Mr. Roebuck, respecting their interview with the Emperor of France. On the other hand, Mr. Layard, in the name of the Government, gave again an emphatically denial to the truth of Mr. Roebuck's statements. The Times prefers the concurrent and positive statements of members of the Cabinet to those of Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Lindsay, and thinks that the letter must have misunderstood the Emperor.
The Times has an inflammatory letter, recounting the particulars of the firing upon the blockade runner Margaret and Jessie by the Union Rhode Island, and branding one of the most unjustifiable outrages to neutral rights.
’
