And

any indemnity I must address myself to the ambassador of my own nation. I am the widow of an English clergyman, of very limited means, and have, with my sisters, occupied for the last seventeen years an apartment, 8, Avenue de Paris, Versailles. We had been absent some time before the occupation of that city by the Prussians, and, being ladies alone, it was impossible for us to return. now, upon making inquiries, I find that during the six months that my apartment has been occupied, the larger portion of the furniture has been wantonly destroyed and burnt, and boxes of plate, wearing-apparel, household linen, &c., pillaged. In fact, at the lowest computation, we have been robbed of effects to the value of 3007. Will you kindly inform me whether, as the subject of a neutral Power, I have not a claim to some indemnity, and what steps I ought to take? Also, am I responsible for the maintenance of the Prussians during their occupation of my apartments? And, thirdly, can my proprietor enforce the payment of the last six months' rent, as I am only Locataire?

I beg to apologize for this intrusion, but the case is to me very serious, and I shall feel most grateful for a reply to this application, though I am aware that you must have many calls of a similar nature to attend to, but attention to this will be very gratefully received. (Signed)

HARRIET ASHBURNHAM.

No. 17.

EARL GRANVILLE TO LORD LYONS.

Foreign Office, March 18, 1871.

My Lord, I have received your Excellency's despatch of the 15th instant, enclosing a copy of a letter from Mrs. Ashburnham, complaining of the destruction and pillage at Versailles by the Germans, and inquiring whether she has not some claim to indemnity, and also

whether she is responsible for the rent of her apartments during their occupation by the Prussians.

Your Excellency, it appears, has answered Mrs. Ashburnham's application on the last point; but as regards the general question of her being compensated for the other losses sustained by her, I can only request your Excellency to express to her the regret of Her Majesty's Government at the occurrences in question, and to explain to her that Her Majesty's subjects resident in France, whose property has been destroyed during the war, cannot expect to be compensated on the ground of their being British subjects, for losses which the necessities of war have brought upon them in common with French subjects.

I am, &c. (Signed)

No. 18.

GRANVILLE.

EARL GRANVILLE TO LORD LYONS.

Foreign Office, March 23, 1871. My Lord, I have thought it desirable to ascertain the opinion of the law officers as to the liability of the French Government to compensate British subjects resident in France for loss and damage to their property during the late war, and I have been advised by them that British subjects resident in France would, in their opinion, have no just ground of complaint against the French authorities in the event of their property having been destroyed by the invading armies. Their losses, under such circumstances, would be amongt the inevitable consequences of war raging in a State within which they have chosen, as foreigners, to take up their residence, and with regard to such losses, British subjects would not be entitled to claim any compensation from the French authorities.

Government of Her Majesty that it would be impossible for the Government of France to pay such a sum, and that it would be dishonest on their part to enter into an engagement for a payment which they know it would be absolutely beyond their power to fulfil, and they urge the Government of Her Majesty to represent to the German Government the impossibility of such a payment.

Her Majesty's Government feel the difficulties which arise from their ignorance of the offers made on the side of France, and they bear in mind that this country is one only among the neutral Powers, all bound by the obligations of friendship to both parties.

But Her Majesty's Government are willing, in consideration of the extreme pressure of time, to make representations to Germany on the amount of this indemnity, and to tender their good offices in the spirit of friendship to both parties, under the conviction that it is the interest of Germany, as well as of France, that the amount of the indemnity should not be greater than that which it is reasonable to expect could be paid.

I am, &c. (Signed)

No. 2.

GRANVILLE.

EARL GRANVILLE TO LORD LYONS.

Foreign Office, February 25, 1871. My Lord, I transmit to your Excellency herewith a copy of a letter from M. Jules Favre, with reference to the Duc de Broglie's appointment as Ambassador for France at this Court, and which was placed in my hands by his Excellency.

I expressed to the French Ambassador my thanks for the friendly tenor of this communication, but I observed there was one phrase in it, namely, that which, whilst referring to the friendly relations which have so long existed between England and France, implied some disappointment that in the hour of her present trial England had withheld her support, which I could not on our side admit. That I perfectly understood that France should have felt some irritation, whether reasonable or not, at an old ally not coming actively to her asssistance; but that we decided upon neutrality as the line which this country felt bound to adopt in a struggle which they had vainly attempted to prevent; but that in that neutrality we had been actuated by the most friendly feeling compatible with its impartial duties.

The Duc de Broglie replied that France felt our conduct to be cold; that there

had been a disappointment as to our nonrecognition of the Republic, and at our indifference whilst France was suffering so much; but that any questions of this nature were now resolved, and that he wished only to talk to me of the present and future.

Her Majesty's Government had been told that M. Favre knew the terms of peace; this, the Duke added, was not the case; M. Favre did not know them at the time this was said.

The Duke said he was not well informed about them. He had seen M. Thiers after his first interview with Count Bismarck this week. It had turned exclusively upon the prolongation of the armistice which was absolutely necessary, and which had to be extracted from the Emperor and his Minister. He had also seen M. Thiers after his second interview. M. Thiers had thought it right to be reticent to him on the political and territorial questions, but he had mentioned the financial claim of six milliards, and had spoken of the absolute impossibility of meeting it, adding that it would not be honest to promise what could not be fulfilled.

The Duc de Broglie said, in these circumstances, that however much the old principles of European right were laid aside, the French Government thought they had a right to ask England whether she had no proposal to make. Speeches had been made in Parliament stating that Her Majesty's Government would not neglect a favourable opportunity of promoting a permanent peace, and the time was pressing.

He reserved to himself the right of bringing before us the territorial and political questions, but the financial subject was simple, and a matter almost of fact. Could we do nothing in this?

I explained to the Duc de Broglie the difficulties of the situation. I pointed out that our non-recognition of the Government arose from the late Government declining to call an Assembly to sanction it, a refusal which I knew M. Thiers had disapproved.

There is, moreover, a want of agreement among all of the Powers of Europe even to examine any proposal which France might make, and we were not prepared to use stronger language than that to which we intended to adhere; that individually I doubted whether any friendly advice which the Germans were adverse to receiving would not weaken whatever party there might be at Versailles in favour of moderation; that with regard to any proposals which the Duc de Broglie might make, I could answer for their being considered by my colleagues in the

most friendly spirit, and with a strong desire to do whatever might be practically useful.

I begged his Excellency to state in what way he thought we could be useful in the financial question.

The Duc de Broglie said that what he asked us to do was to demand from Germany that the armistice should be prolonged in order that the negotiations should not be withdrawn from all cognizance on the part of Europe; and that, in the second place, we should offer arbitration with respect to the amount of indemnity, which was an object of importance to the conquerors and the conquered, and a matter of deep interest to all commercial countries to whom the financial perturbation caused by an excessive sum might be of great detriment.

I promised to bring the matter before my colleagues, and the Duc de Broglie reserved his right of appealing to us with respect to the territorial and political conditions.

Your Excellency is already aware that a cabinet having been immediately summoned on the subject of the Duc de Broglie's communications to me, I informed him that, with regard to the first proposal, that Her Majesty's Government should urge Germany to prolong the armistice for the object stated by his Excellency, the Cabinet was of opinion that such a step would not promote the object which his Excellency had in view, but that Her Majesty's Government had embodied in the despatch to Lord Augus tus Loftus (of which I communicated copies both to your Excellency and to the Duke) the substance of the second proposal which the French Ambassador had conveyed to me in order to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement as to the amount of indemnity to be paid by France.

I subsequently pointed out to the Duc de Broglie that, in directing Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, as stated in my despatch, to make representations to Germany on the amount of indemnity demanded of France, and to tender their good offices, in the spirit of friendship, to both parties, Her Majesty's Government had been guided by the wish which his Excellency had so strongly expressed on behalf of the French Government; and I said that I had moreover asked Count Bernstorff in the evening of the 24th to telegraph to Count Bismarck, as I had myself telegraphed to Mr. Odo Russell at Versailles the substance of my despatch to Lord Augustus Loftus.

I added, with reference to a remark

that he had made to me as to the importance of time, that, as his Excellency had only arrived in the morning of the 24th, that I saw him at half-past ten, and presented him to the Queen at half-past one, after which it was necessary for me to consult my colleagues, in a cabinet specially summoned for that purpose, on the statements he had made to me, and thereupon took measures at once for making a representation to the German Government, I considered that I had shown that Her Majesty's Government, no less than his Excellency, were fully sensible of the importance of acting without delay.

I am, &c.

(Inclosure in No. 2.)

M. JULES FAVRE TO THE DUC DE BROGLIE.

(Communicated to Earl Granville by the Duc de Broglie, February 25.)

Paris, February 22, 1871.

M. le Comte,-I feel much satisfaction in entrusting to the Duc de Broglie the mission of Representative of France to the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of England. The assent which your Excellency has been so good as to give to this selection is a sure pledge to me that it will fulfil the sincere desire of the Chief of the Executive Power of the French Republic and of his whole cabinet, to renew with your nation the relations of friendship which have so long constituted our mutual strength, and have greatly contributed to the maintenance of peace in Europe. I cannot conceal from your Excellency that I should have been glad, in the days of our cruel trials, if this long-standing tradition had not appeared to be momentarily weakened; and yet I do not forget the kindness your Excellency has shown me, and for which 1 remain personally grateful to you, nor the regard which you have shown for France in postponing for her the labours of the Conference in terms by which I am deeply touched. I venture to hope that the communications which the Duc de Broglie is instructed to make to your Excellency will confirm those sentiments, and may give rise to a course of eflective action, which I do not fear to solicit in the name of my country, believing it, moreover, to be in conformity alike with the interests and the feelings of the English people, calculated to be usefully subservient to their policy, and at the same time to lay the foundation of a

home from a visit to the Crown Prince's head-quarters, where I learnt that the war indemnity of six milliards had been reduced to five milliards, and had been agreed to by M. Thiers.

I conclude that your lordship's telegram, through Count Bernstorff, must have reached yesterday morning early, but I have not been able to see the Chancellor myself, who is too much engaged with the French negotiators to receive any one to-day.

The negotiations must be concluded before midnight, when the armistice ends, and hostilities will be resumed if the preliminaries are not accepted.

A CORRESPONDENCE was presented (20th Feb.) to Parliament respecting the alleged violation of the neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. A remon strance on this subject by Count Bismarck was made public shortly after the appearance of the notorious Russian Circular. It attracted the more attention from its seeming assertion of a similar claim by one of the parties to a treaty to renounce its obligations without the consent of the other signataries. It must be owned that Count Bismarck's despatch, which opens the series of papers, does not warrant so unpleasant an interpretation, and the more important portion of the correspondence consists of explanations on this point between the Prussian and English Governments, ending in mutual expressions of satisfaction.

Count Bismarck, in his despatch of the 3rd of December, recalls the declaration made by the Prussian Government at the outset of the war, that it would respect the neutrality of the Grand Duchy "on the presumption that it would also be respected on the part of the French, and, as a matter of course, that it would be maintained with earnestness and goodwill by the Grand Duchy itself." He states, however, that "neither on the part of France nor on that of Luxemburg have these presumptions been verified. He complains specifically of "the provisioning of Thionville by railway trains at night from Luxemburg, so long as the fortress remained in the hands of the French;" of the transit of French soldiers and officers "in masses" through the Grand Duchy after the surrender of Metz, for the purpose of again entering

France; and of the French vice-consul in Luxemburg having established a regular office at the railway station, where the fugitives have been provided with means and vouchers to enable them to continue their march into France to join the army of the North. More than 2000 men, he asserts, have thus been added to the French forces. He concludes that there has thus been a 'flagrant violation of the neutrality of the Grand Duchy ;" and he announces, accordingly," that the Royal Government can no longer consider itself bound to any consideration of the neutrality of the Grand Duchy, in the military operations of the German army, and in the measures for the security of the German troops against the injuries inflicted on them from Luxemburg." At the same time, he reserves the prosecution of Prussian claims against the Grand Duchy for damages thus inflicted. A despatch from Mr. Lumley at Brussels, announcing the receipt of this circular by the Belgian Minister, expresses the interpretation which was immediately affixed to it. "The Prussian Government," he reports, "declares it considers itself no longer bound by the Treaty of May, 1867." In Luxemburg itself the declaration of the Chancellor was instantly understood in this sense. It was received as a menace to the independence of Luxemburg, and our representative at the Hague reports numerous patriotic protests by the inhabitants of the Duchy and the Chamber of Representatives.

Lord Granville answers the circular on the 17th of December. In the expec tation of explanations from France and Luxemburg he abstains from giving any opinion on the particular charges alleged,