42. K. Marx. An International Affaire Mirés
London, April 28
A main theme of diplomatic circles here is France's conduct on the Mexican scene. People are puzzled by the fact that Louis Bonaparte should have increased the expeditionary troops at the moment when he promised to reduce them, and that he should want to go forward whilst England draws back. Here people are well aware that the impulse for the Mexican expedition[204] came from the Cabinet of St. James and not from that of the Tuileries. It is equally well known that Louis Bonaparte likes to carry out all his undertakings, and particularly the overseas adventures, under England's aegis. As is known, the restored Empire has not yet emulated the feat of its original(1) in quartering the French armies in the capital cities of modern Europe. As a pis aller,(2) on the other hand, it has led them to the capital cities of ancient Europe, to Constantinople, Athens and Rome, and, over and above that, even to Peking.[205] Should the theatrical effect of a jaunt to the capital city of the Aztecs be lost, and the opportunity for military archaeological collections à la Montauban[206]? If, however, one considers the present state of French finance and the future serious conflicts with the United States and England to which Louis Bonaparte's actions in Mexico may lead, one is then obliged to reject without further question the foregoing interpretation of his doings which is popular with various British papers. I believe I can give you the real explanation.
At the time of the Convention of July 17, 1861,[207] when the claims of the English creditors were to be settled, but the English plenipotentiary simultaneously demanded that the entire register of the Mexican debts or misdeeds should be examined, Mexico's Foreign Minister3 put the debt to France at $200,000, i.e., a mere bagatelle of some £40,000. The account now drawn up by France, on the other hand, does not confine itself to these modest limits by any means.
Under the Catholic administration of Zuloaga and Miramon, an issue of Mexican state bonds to the amount of $14,000,000 was contracted through the Swiss banking house of J. B. Jecker and Co. The whole sum that was realised by the first issue of these bonds came to only 5 per cent of the nominal amount or to $700,000. The sum total of the bonds issued very soon fell into the hands of prominent Frenchmen, among them relatives of the Emperor and fellow string-pullers of "haute politique"!' The house of Jecker and Co. let these gentlemen have the aforesaid bonds for far less than their original nominal price.
Miramon contracted this debt at a time when he was in possession of the capital city. Later, after he had come down to the role of a mere guerilla leader, he again caused state bonds to the nominal value of $38,000,000 to be issued through his so-called Finance Minister, Sefior Peza-y-Peza. Once more it was the house of Jecker and Co. which negotiated the issue, but, on this occasion, it limited its advances to the modest sum of barely $500,000, or from one to two per cent to the dollar. Once more, the Swiss bankers knew how to dispose of their Mexican property as quickly as possible, and once more the bonds fell into the hands of those "prominent" Frenchmen, among whom were some habitués of the imperial court whose names will live on in the annals of the European stock exchanges as long as the affaire Mires.
This debt, then, of $52,000,000, of which not even $4,200,000 have hitherto been advanced, the administration of President Juarez declines to recognise, on the one hand, because it knows nothing about it and, on the other hand, because it claims that Messrs. Miramon, Zuloaga and Peza-y-Peza were possessed of no constitutional authority to contract such a state debt. The above-mentioned "prominent" Frenchmen, however, had to carry the contrary view at the decisive place. Lord Palmerston was, for his part, opportunely instructed by some members of Parliament that the whole affair would lead to highly objectionable interpellations in the Lower House. Among other things to be feared, it was said, was the question whether British land and sea power might be employed to support the gambling operations of certain rouge-et-noir(3) politicians on the other side of the Channel. Accordingly, Palmerston caught eagerly at the Conference of Orizaba[208] to withdraw from a business that threatens us with the filth of an international affaire Mirés.
Endnotes
[204] See Note 88.
[205] Marx means the occupation of Rome by French troops in July 1849, which continued until 1870, and the stationing of French troops in Athens and 27 — 1134 Constantinople during the Crimean war (1853-56). In October 1860, British and French troops occupied Peking.
[206] D u r i n g the second Opium War (1856-60) unleashed by Britain and France to impose crippling new terms on China, the British and French interventionist forces under General Montauban in October 1860 seized Peking, the Chinese capital, and plundered and burnt down Yüanmingyüan, the famous summer residence of the Ch'ing emperors, the greatest treasure-house of Chinese art. T h e plundered property was valued at tens of millions of francs. An incalculable number of valuables were barbarously destroyed.
[2 0 7] O n July 17, 1861 the Mexican Congress decreed a two-year suspension of payments on foreign debts, which was exploited by Britain, France and Spain as a pretext for launching an intervention in Mexico (see Note 88). T o avoid war, the Mexican government of Benito Pablo Juarez in November 1861 repealed the July 17 decree and agreed to satisfy the claims of the three powers.
[208] The conference of British, French and Spanish representatives in Orizaba, Mexico, held on April 9, 1862, was to outline a plan for the three interventionist powers' further action in Mexico. However, serious disagree-ments came to light, with the French representative refusing to negotiate with the Mexican government and declaring the preliminary peace treaty, concluded in La Soledad on February 19, 1862,' null and void. The British and Spanish representatives declared that France was interfering in Mexico's internal affairs and their countries therefore refused to participate further in the intervention. Soon after the Orizaba conference, the British and Spanish troops were withdrawn from Mexico.