§ EARL RUSSELL, on presenting a Petition, said: I beg to take this opportunity of making a statement to your Lordships as to matters of considerable importance upon which it is desirable no misapprehension should exist. It has been stated in the public prints that a Convention has been entered into by Sir Charles Wyke and Commodore Dunlop on one side, and the Mexican Government on the other, by which the British claims on Mexico will be satisfied, and that the Convention has been ratified by Her Majesty's Government. The first part of that statement is certainly correct. A Convention has been signed by Sir Charles Wyke and Commodore Dunlop, and it has been sent home for ratification. The arrangement contemplated for the satisfaction of British claims was fair and liberal; but we found that the Convention referred to another Convention between Mexico and the United States, by which the former gave security on its lands for the repayment of a loan to be advanced by the latter; and finding that this might give occasion to considerable difficulties, Her Majesty's Government determined not to ratify the Convention. There is another point upon which I wish to make a statement to the House. It is generally believed in France, and much circulated here, that Her Majesty's troops, together with the Spanish troops, were withdrawn from Mexico, leaving the French troops alone to contend with the difficulties of the situation. Now, after the temporary check which the French received, no one can be surprised that the French Government have resolved to send large reinforcements to Mexico; but it is not fair or just to ascribe that movement to any course taken by the British Government. In the original Convention of October last there was no specific engagement as to the number of troops to be sent by the different Governments that were partics to it, but communications were made separately by each Government. The Spaniards declared that they meant to send 6,000 or 7,000 troops. The French Government said at first that they would send 2,000, which was afterwards increased to 2,500 men. The British Government proposed to send a squadron with 700 Marines, to be landed, if necessary, for the occupation of forts, it being the opinion of the Admiralty that the operation 721 of marching troops through Mexico would probably be attended with great loss of life. The Marines were landed, and for a short time occupied some forts. It seemed that the land forces met with difficulties, and Commodore Dunlop, in order not to have the appearance in any way of leaving the allies in the lurch, said he would provide, by his own activity and resources, camp equipage and conveyance. That, however, was not approved by the Home Government, and orders were sent out that the Marines should be re-embarked. Commodore Dunlop, on his side, very soon found that there was no immediate danger of collision with the Mexicans, and he determined to send away the Marines, who were never intended to march up the country. They were accordingly removed from Vera Cruz. After this came the Convention, and the allied Commissioners agreed to a procès verbal, with regard to which I will now say nothing, as I do not wish to enter into the great question involved in it. But it should be known that at that time there were only 150 Marines in occupation of the various forts; and when the rupture took place between the French Commissioners on the one side, and the English and Spanish Commissioners on the other, it was determined by Commodore Dunlop to haul down the British flag in the ports of Mexico, and to withdraw this small force. There was thus no question of withdrawing troops from Mexico, for there never were any land troops there; the only force we ever sent in the naval squadron was a force of 700 Marines, the greater number of whom had been withdrawn some time previously. I thought it necessary to make this statement, as I believe that great misapprehension has arisen on the subject. I am informed that considerable indignation has been expressed in France as to the presumed withdrawal of troops by this country at a very critical moment. That supposition, as I have shown, has no foundation in fact, as there were no British troops to be withdrawn from Mexico.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was extremely glad that the noble Earl had taken the initiative in this matter, and had given so satisfactory an explanation upon the subject, which had certainly occasioned considerable anxiety both in France and in this country, and an impression that something like an unfriendly feeling had been manifested by England towards France. He (the Earl of Malmes- 722 bury) had therefore intended to give notice to the noble Earl of his intention to ask him a question on this subject on to-morrow or Monday. In respect to the first part of the noble Earl's explanation, he must say he entirely agreed with the noble Earl as to the modification of the Convention which he proposed. He thought that the noble Earl had made a prudent arrangement, and that the danger which he anticipated would have very likely occurred if he had not provided against it. But he (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not think the noble Earl spoke strongly enough as to the indignation felt in France as to the supposed desertion of their allies by the British army. It was not only a common rumour —it was not only a national misunderstanding; for if the noble Earl would read the Address sent to the French Chambers by the French Government, he would see that that feeling was likely to be prolonged. He read that Address this morning; but as he had come down to the House only for the purpose of giving notice of his intention to ask a question in respect to it, he was not prepared to give the exact words. But, undoubtedly, the meaning of it was, that there had been some common understanding between the two Powers with respect to a military advance into Mexico, and that the British Government had not carried out their part of the agreement, but, on the contrary, at a most critical moment had deserted the French troops and left them exposed to serious dangers, which with the assistance of the British troops they would have been able overcome. He thought it most important, as regarded the honour of this country, that the true facts of the case should be made known to the French people as speedily as possible. He was very glad that the attention of the noble Earl had been drawn to this subject, and he trusted the noble Earl would point out the real facts to the French Government, which he believed to be of precisely the character stated by the noble Earl, as soon as possible. He did not think that the noble Earl had used language strong enough in regard to this misapprehension of the public press and the French public on this subject, seeing that that misapprehension must have been very much strengthened by the language of the French Government.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONwished to ask a question of the noble Earl with 723 respect to this matter. By the last Mexican papers issued by Her Majesty's Government it appeared that Sir Charles Wyke and Commodore Dunlop had left Mexico and had gone to New York. Now, it appeared that the Convention signed by those two gentlemen was signed subsequent to that time. He wanted to know whether they had acted with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government in going to New York, and whether the noble Earl had any objection to lay the papers upon the table in reference to this point?
§ EARL RUSSELLsaid, that Commodore Dunlop and Sir Charles Wyke never went to New York. Sir Charles Wyke wrote home to say that it was his intention to go there, but he never executed that intention. He was now living at Mexico, but not in an official character, and he had informed the Mexican Government that he would not resume that character until the Convention had been ratified by his Government. The Spanish Secretary of Legation was also, he believed, living there in an unofficial capacity. With regard to the Address of the French Government to the Chamber, it certainly contained a statement liable to misapprehension. But the papers which had been laid before Parliament, and those which were about to be produced, were likely to remove that misapprehension. He intended to write a despatch to the French Government upon the subject, which would, he hoped, tend to the same result.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, there was one more point which he thought it important to notice. According to the public prints there appeared to be a feeling in Mexico that Sir Charles Wyke had taken a strong part with the Mexican Government as against the proceedings of the French. He did not believe that report at first, but it was said that Sir Charles Wyke had attended the theatre in public on an occasion when money was being raised for the Mexican wounded, and had thus identified himself with that party. Now, although the performances at the theatre might have been for a charitable object, it did not appear to him that it was a proper act of Sir Charles Wyke to appear publicly at the theatre on such an occasion. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was sure that in this country there was no feeling whatever against the French in regard to their proceedings in Mexico. His own feeling was that they had made a great mistake in policy and were paying 724 dearly for it. But he must say that the state of Mexico was such that any change of government must be an improvement, and the people of Mexico and the world generally were likely to profit by the acts of the French, however opposed those acts might be to the interests of France.
§ EARL RUSSELLsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had no information that Sir Charles Wyke had acted in the manner stated. He knew that such a report had reached Paris, but Sir Charles Wyke's letters, dated May 12, contained nothing on the subject. If Sir Charles Wyke had appeared publicly at the theatre on that occasion, he quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite, that it was a very injudicious act on his part.