_Paris, January 14, 1835_.
Hon. JOHN FORSYTH.
SIR: The intended conference with the minister for foreign affairs of
which I spoke to you in my last (No. 70) took place yesterday morning. I
began it by expressing my regret that a communication from the President
to Congress had been so much misrepresented in that part which related
to France as to be construed into a measure of hostilities. It was, I
said, part of a consultation between different members of our Government
as to the proper course to be pursued if the legislative body of France
should persevere in refusing to provide the means of complying with a
treaty formally made; that the President, as was his duty, stated the
facts truly and in moderate language, without any irritating comment;
that in further pursuance of his official duty he declared the different
modes of redress which the law of nations permitted in order to avoid
hostilities, expressing, as he ought to do, his reasons for preferring
one of them; that in all this there was nothing addressed to the French
nation; and I likened it to a proceeding well known in the French law
(a family council in which the concerns and interests are discussed),
but of which in our case the debates were necessarily public; that a
further elucidation of the nature of this document might be drawn from
the circumstance that no instructions had been given to communicate it
to the French Government, and that if a gazette containing it had been
delivered it was at the request of his excellency, and expressly
declared to be a private communication, not an official one. I further
stated that I made this communication without instructions, merely
to counteract misapprehensions and from an earnest desire to rectify
errors which might have serious consequences. I added that it was very
unfortunate that an earlier call of the Chambers had not been made in
consequence of Mr. Sérurier's promise, the noncompliance with which was
of a nature to cause serious disquietude with the Government of the
United States. I found immediately that this was the part of the
message that had most seriously affected the King, for Comte de Rigny
immediately took up the argument, endeavoring to show that the
Government had acted in good faith, relying principally on the danger
of a second rejection had the Chambers been called at an early day
expressly for this object I replied by repeating that the declaration
made by Mr. Sérurier was a positive and formal one, and that it had
produced a forbearance on the part of the President to lay the state of
the case before Congress. In this conference, which was a long one, we
both regretted that any misunderstanding should interrupt the good
intelligence of two nations having so many reasons to preserve it and so
few of conflicting interests. He told me (what I knew before) that the
exposition was prepared, and that the law would have been presented the
day after that on which the message was received. He showed me the
document, read part of it to me, and expressed regret that the language
of the message prevented it being sent in. I said that I hoped the
excitement would soon subside and give place to better feelings, in
which I thought he joined with much sincerity. It is perhaps necessary
to add that an allusion was made by me to the change of ministry in
November and the reinstatement of the present ministers, which I told
him I had considered as a most favorable occurrence, and that I had so
expressed myself in my communications to you, but that this circumstance
was unknown at Washington when the message was delivered; and I added
that the hopes of success held out in the communication to which I
referred and the assurances it contained that the ministers would
zealously urge the adoption of the law might probably have imparted the
same hopes to the President and have induced some change in the measure
he had recommended, but that the formation of the Dupin ministry, if
known, must have had a very bad effect on the President's mind, as
many of that ministry were known to be hostile to the treaty.
When I took leave the minister requested me to reflect on the
propriety of presenting a note of our conversation, which he said should
be formal or otherwise, as I should desire. I told him I would do so,
and inform him on the next morning by 11 o'clock. We parted, as I
thought, on friendly terms, and in the evening, meeting him at the
Austrian ambassador's, I told him that on reflection I had determined to
wait the arrival of the packet of the 16th before I gave the note, to
which he made no objection. After all this you may judge of my surprise
when last night about 10 o'clock I received the letter copy of which is
inclosed, and which necessarily closes my mission. In my reply I shall
take care to throw the responsibility of breaking up the diplomatic
intercourse between the countries where it ought to rest, and will not
fail to expose the misstatements which you will observe are contained in
the minister's note, both as respects my Government and myself; but the
late hour at which I received the Comte de Rigny's note and the almost
immediate departure of the packet may prevent my sending you a copy of
my communication to him, which I shall use the utmost diligence in
preparing.
The law, it is said, will be presented to-day, and I have very
little doubt that it will pass. The ministerial phalanx, reenforced by
those of the opposition (and they are not a few) who will not take the
responsibility of involving the country in the difficulties which they
now see must ensue, will be sufficient to carry the vote. The recall of
Sérurier and the notice to me are measures which are resorted to to save
the pride of the Government and the nation.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your most obedient
servant,