Since my first interview with Mr. Von Thile on the subject, the inclosure, No. 269, has been received. I have made inquiries among my colleagues and find that the Swiss Republic presented a paper which I have read, and which in tone and argument is very similar to that of the Department to Baron Gerolt. No other power has taken any further notice of the matter. As a practical question it will soon lose its interest; as a speculative question it is much discussed. There are not wanting those who think that the German view will be maintained. Every disposition has been shown to facilitate the intercourse of this legation with the legation at Paris, but that courtesy does not alter the main question. I remain, &c., &c., GEO. BANCROFT. Mr. Jules Favre to Count de Bismarck. MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, CABINET. COUNT: The diplomatic corps now at Paris request me to ask your excellency that they may be notified in the event of a bombardment, and allowed to leave the city. They would also like to be allowed once a week to dispatch a courier (mail)-exclusively diplomatic-accepting all the precautions which your excellency might think proper to take. In transmitting this two-fold wish to your excellency, I beg you to accept the sentiments of high consideration with which I have the honor to be, &c., JULES FAVRE. Count de Bismarck to Mr. Jules Farre. FERRIERES, September 26, 1870. Mr. MINISTER: In reply to the note which I have this day had the honor to receive from your excellency, I regret to say that military considerations forbid me to make any communications with regard to the time and manner of the approaching assault upon the fortress of Paris. The permission of correspondence from and with a besieged fortress is not usual according to the rules of warfare, and although we will willingly permit the transmission of open letters of diplomatic agents, I cannot share the opinion of those who regard the interior of the fortifications of Paris during a siege as a proper central point of diplomatic intercourse. This view of the case seems to be shared by the neutral governments whose agents have removed to Tours. Receive, &c., Circular of Mr. Von Thile. VON BISMARCK. BERLIN, September 26, 1870. Since the French authorities have declined an armistice, and made Paris the theater of war, and since there is no recognized government in Paris, and the de facto government, as we learn, has been removed to Tours, the undersigned has the honor, most respectfully, to notify you that safety of communication with Paris exists only according to military events. The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Mr. of his most distinguished consideration. the assurance THILE. The Papal Nunciò and representatives of seventeen other powers to Bismarck. PARIS, October 6, 1870. COUNT: The undersigned, members of the diplomatic corps residing at Paris, had, on the 24th of September last, the honor to transmit to your excellency the expression of their desire that a courier bearing their official dispatches might, each week, on days to be appointed, pass the lines of the besieging army, and go to a locality whence the regular postal service was sure. By a letter of the 3d of October, the minister of foreign affairs of France has just informed us that he has received from your excellency the reply "that a diplomatic courier could not pass the lines of the besieging troops save on condition that the dispatches be open and treat of no subject relating to the war." We should have considered it our duty, as to the contents of our dispatches, scrupulously to conform to the obligations imposed, during a siege, upon diplomatic agents, by the rules and usages of international law. On the other hand, our position as diplomatic agents, and our duties toward our governments, do not permit us to accept the other condition, only to address open dispatches to thein. If this latter condition were to be adhered to, it would become impossible, to their great regret, for the diplomatic representatives of neutral states to maintain official relations with their respective governments. Be pleased to accept, Count, the assurances of our very high consideration. KERN, Archbishop of Myre. Minister of the Swiss Confederation. Baron ADELSWÄRD,. The secretary, chargé d'affaires ad interim of the legations of Honduras and Salvador. VERSAILLES, October 10, 1871. MONSEIGNEUR: I have had the honor to receive the letter bearing date of the 6th of October last, whereby the members of the diplomatic corps still residing at Paris have been pleased to inform me that it would become impossible for them to maintain official relations with their respective governments, if the condition of only being able to address to them open dispatches was to be adhered to. When the continuation of the siege of Paris was rendered inevitable by the refusal of an armistice by the French government, the government of the King notified, of its own accord, by a circular note from the secretary of state, Mr. Van Thile, under date of the 26th of September last, a copy of which I have the honor to transmit to you, the agents of neutral powers accredited to Berlin, that freedom of communication with Paris only existed so far as military events permitted it. On the same day I received, at Ferriéres, a communication from the minister of foreign affairs of the government of the national defense, which informed me of the desire expressed by the members of the diplomatic corps to be authorized to send dispatches to their governments by couriers leaving every week, and I did not hesitate acting in accordance with the rules established by international law, to make a reply dictated by the neces sities of the military situation, a copy of which I likewise take the liberty of trans mitting to your excellency. The present representatives of power have thought proper to establish the siege of their government in the midst of the fortifications of Paris, and to choose that city and its environs as the theater of war. If any members of the diplomatic corps, accredited to a former government, have decided to share with the government of the national defense the inconveniences which are inseparable from a residence in a besieged fortress, it is not the government of the King that is responsible therefor. Notwithstanding our confidence that the gentlemen who signed the letter of the 6th of October would conform, in communications addressed to their governments, to the obligations which their presence in a city besieged according to the laws of war imposes on diplomatic agents, we must still consider the possibility that the importance of certain facts, in a military point of view, might escape them. It is moreover evident that they would be unable to furnish us the same guarantee for the messengers whom they should see fit to employ, and whom we should be obliged to allow to pass and repass through our lines. A state of things has been created at Paris, in relation to international law, with which modern history shows no precise analogy. A government at war with a power which has not yet recognized it, has shut itself up in a besieged fortress, and is there surrounded by a portion of the diplomatic agents who were accredited near the government whose place has been taken by the government of the national defense. In the face of so irregular a situation, it will be difficult to establish, on the basis of the law of nations, rules which shall be incontrovertible in every point of view. I think I may hope that your excellency will see the correctness of these observations, and will be pleased to appreciate the considerations which prevent me, to my great regret, from complying with the desire expressed in the letter of the 6th of October last. If, however, the signers shall not consider my remarks just, the governments which they have represented at Paris, and to which I shall hasten to communicate the correspondence exchanged with them, will give notice on their part, and will put themselves in communication with the government of the King to examine the questions of international law relating to the abnormal position which events and the measures of the government of the national defense have created at Paris. Be pleased to accept, &c., &c., BISMARCK. Circular of Mr. Von Thile. BERLIN, October 19, 1870. I herewith most respectfully transmit to your excellency copies of— 1. The circular note which I addressed, in relation to the safety of communication with, from, and in Paris, on the 26th of last month, to the representatives of neutral states accredited to that court. 2. A joint note from members of the diplomatic corps at Paris, to the chancellor of the union, dated the 6th instant, in which it is requested that a weekly mail may be sent from Paris. 3. The reply to the same, addressed to the papal nuncio in Paris, together with the correspondence therein mentioned between Mr. Jules Favre and Count Bismarck. 4. The note by which the aforesaid documents are communicated to those governments whose representatives took part in the step mentioned, (sub. 2,) either directly or through the mediation of our diplomatic agents. I take the liberty, most respectfully, to request your excellency to be pleased to present all these documents, as confidential information, to the government to which you have the honor to be accredited. The inclosed duplicates of the annexes are intended for the archives of the legation. THILE. No. 177.] No. 154. Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish. [Extract.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Berlin, January 7, 1871. (Received January 30.) SIR: The new year opens a new era; North Germany disappears and Germany rises into being. To the December address of the North Ger man Diet, inviting the King of Prussia to accept the title of Emperor of Germany, offered him by the princes and free cities, the King wisely answered that he would wait for the decision of the people of South Germany, through their respective legislatures. The concurrence of all the legislatures, except Bavaria, has been given. The constitution of the United States of Germany went into effect on New Year's day. There was no ringing of bells, no salvo of artillery, no military parade, no proclamation, and the revolution which makes of United Germany the strongest power on the continent of Europe came in as still and noiselessly as the falling of dew on a summer's afternoon. The German Union has at this moment but four and twenty members, but no one doubts that Bavaria will join within a few days. The young commonwealth comes into being with every wish to maintain the most friendly relations with the United States of America. I am sorry to see that this disposition troubles British statesmen. As signs of the times, I inclose a letter from Earl Russell, of December 19, to the Times, in which he cavils at the Prussians for treating us "as blameless friends," and also an extract from the Times, of December 31, 1870. The relations between the new empire and Austro-Hungary involve questions of the highest political importance. On the 14th of last month Count Bismarck, through the North German minister at Vienna, announced to Count Beust the impending change in the most conciliatory manner, deduced its rightfulness from the peace of Prague, and opened the way for establishing the most friendly relations between the two powers. I annex Count Bismarck's dispatch to the German minister in Vienna, in German and in English. The answer of Count Beust was awaited with the greatest interest. Now, that it is published, it excites universal satisfaction that the Austrian chancellor, in his dispatch of December 26, to the Austrian minister at Berlin, putting aside all consideration of the peace of Prague, treats the union of Germany, under Prussian lead, as a fact of the first importance in the modern development of Europe. He gives assurances of the sincerest wish of all influential circles in Austro-Hungary to cultivate the best and most friendly relations with the mighty state whose establishment approaches its completion. He joins the German government in the wish that Germany and AustroHungary may extend to one another the hand for the advancement of the welfare and prosperity of both countries. In this he sees a pledge for permanent harmony between the two empires, and for Europe a guarantee of permanent peace. The emperor, he adds, recalling the ennobling recollections which united his dynasty for centuries with the destinies of the German people, promises to cherish the warmest sympathies for the further development of that people, and expresses his unreserved wishes that its new form as a body-politic may give genuine securities for its own happiness and the welfare of the ancient imperial state with which it is in so many ways connected by tradition, language, manners, and laws. The Pontus question is still talked about, but no one apprehends immediate war, which Russia and Turkey are both desirous to avoid. The Black Sea is the great interior sea of Europe, draining a far larger and more fertile part of its soil, and receiving larger European rivers than the Mediterranean. The only good issue to the present strife must be the declaration that that sea is one in which all the commercial powers of the world have an interest, and which, therefore, must be unreserv edly free and open to all. Russia shows no sign whatever of yielding any longer its natural right to fortify its coast, and to maintain ships of war in the Black Sea. The insinuation of a connivance between Prince Gortchakoff and Count Bismarck is to be rejected; no such connivance existed. I remain, &c. GEO. BANCROFT. [From the London Times of December 21, 1870.] To the editor of the Times: OUR MILITARY RESOURCES. SIR: I share in your anxiety respecting our armed forces, and it seems to me that during the five or six weeks before Parliament meets the public mind could not be more usefully employed than in considering our deficiencies, and, when a conclusion is reached, in asking government to supply our wants by armaments neither superfluous nor inadequate. We are, unfortunately, a mark for national animosity on many sides. During the South American revolution the United States checked the building and sailing of cruisers to intercept and plunder the trade of Spain and Portugal, according to their own views of their obligations. When remonstrated with for not doing more, they answered that they would allow no interference with their domestic measures. When one notorious cruiser escaped from Birkenhead, during the American civil war, and our government copied the answer of Mr. Secretary Adams, we were immediately told that our repression was designedly and willfully inadequate. In the same spirit, when arms are, during the present war, imported into France from England, but in much larger quantities from the United States, in conformity in both instances with the law of nations, the Prussian ministers, embassadors, officers, and soldiers, through whose country supplies of arms were carried to Russia during the Crimean war, and used by Russian soldiers to kill British troops engaged in a European cause these same Prussians inveigh against us as enemies, and treat the Americans as blameless friends. From these two instances I infer that the envy and hostility which have pursued every wealthy commercial nation in ancient and modern times are now dogging our steps, and will one of these days burst out into open aggression. The facility with which Prince Gortelakoff and Count Bismarck threw off the trammels of treaties in their own cause, and upon their own testimony, shows but too clearly how easy it will be to find a pretext for attacking, first, an ally of England, such as Holland or Austria, and then England herself. We have been subject since 1815 to occasional panics, often causeless and generally excessive. But if we have been affected in former days with unreasonable fear, that is no reason why we should now be buoyed up by extravagant hope "Fear's elder brother, not so sad; "The merrier fool of the two, but quite as mad." Why should we suppose the British Channel impassable to the ships and boats of an enemy? Is it impossible that a fleet may be required to relieve from danger our fellowsubjects in Jamaica while an expedition is preparing in the Texel for the invasion of England? Could we send a part of our army to assist an ally while we have so small a force of regular troops and so few thousands of embodied militia? Why not raise, by ballot if necessary, and embody one hundred thousand militia? In six months they would be admirable troops. Captain Sherard Osborn holds that a fleet equipped in the Scheldt against us ought to inspire no apprehensions, and at the same time advises us to line our east and north coasts with ships of war. His practical advice proves that he does not feel the security he affects. Lord Derby warns us against "an essentially retrograde step," and at the same time assumes that we might possibly be called upon to repel an invasion of one hundred thousand men. Even were I not an Englishman I should feel what many Germans, many Frenchmen, many citizens of the United States feel-admiration and reverence for a nation which, since 1641, has given her best blood in the cause of liberty; and since 1688 has furnished a model, often improved and purified, of a state in the enjoyment of civil and religious freedom. Being a member of that state I feel responsible, as one of the public, to Europe and to the world for its preservation. I compare it with the great overwhelming autocracy, or rather stratocracy, of Russia, where, as I read in your telegram of to-day, "the Moscow town council having, in their congratulatory address on the Black Sea question, petitioned the Czar to add liberty of the press, tolerance of all religions, and other reforms to the blessings he has conferred upon his subjects, their address has been returned with a reprimand." I see here what sort of government is prepared for the Turkish provinces now striving to obtain freedom from their own Sultan. I compare our con |