“How can you communicate with the Government in Paris?” he asked.
I was very glad that he put this question, for it was my intention to ask him to intervene so that I might be able to return to Paris in order to report directly and personally to my Government all the information I had gathered since the time I left.
But as I did not wish to interrupt the trend of our conversation, I answered that I should like to speak on this subject later, before taking my leave, and I asked him to have the kindness to continue developing his ideas regarding the question of the “Representation of the Country.”
Lord Granville then discussed two other methods of creating what he called the “legal representation of the country.” In asking for a “legal” representation he was above all guided by the following idea, which seemed to preoccupy him considerably, for he often came back to it; there was actually no longer a “legal” authority in France; there was a de facto Government, but it had not received legal sanction.
“There is no one,” he repeated, “under existing conditions, who has the right of treating in the name of France, and Prussia would not even know with whom to come to an understanding when the moment arrives for discussing conditions of peace.”
It was with this event in view that he so desired the meeting of a national assembly. It was no use telling him he was mistaken—for I considered it essential to show him the true situation; he persisted in his opinion; and these were the two means which appealed to him for arriving at the creation of a National Representation:—
First of all, he thought, the Conseils Généraux might furnish a Constitutional Assembly.
After developing the details of his point of view and the advantages which were to be gained from such an Assembly, he finished his remarks by this question: “Why will you not have recourse to the Conseils Généraux?”
I told him that the Conseils Généraux had no constitutional right to represent the nation. He seemed to admit my argument, and reverted to his first idea:—
“But why not have the Elections without an armistice?”