M. Thiers, after what I have just said, will not reproach us for having paid undue attention to the legitimate interests of England in this circumstance. I shall not at present enter into the consideration of the clauses of the treaty; they will be examined hereafter, when the paragraphs are brought forward. I only wanted to give the Chamber a general view of the manner in which the affair has been conceived and conducted. I now come to Tahiti, and on that matter I have to say that there are several questions which the hon. deputy (M. Thiers), I will not say confounded, but mingled up together. There is first the occupation of the Marquesas; I can say that this question was discussed two years back at great length in this Chamber, and yet M. Thiers preserved silence. Why, if the taking possession of these islands appeared to him then an enormous blunder, did he not demand permission to speak, and declare it? I cannot but think that his ideas have become considerably modified since then, otherwise his silence would be inconceivable. ("Hear, hear!") But, however the honourable gentleman may have thought on the matter, the Opposition spoke, the Chamber heard them, and decided the question. The other Chamber also did so, and it was in consequence of the vote of the two Chambers that the expedition was proceeded with. The honourable M. Thiers has confounded dates and facts. The Government never had an idea of possessing itself of Tahiti, and putting France and England in contact on that point. All it sought for was a desirable port in those seas. The Admiral sent on that expedition had con

sidered it his duty to assume the protectorate of Tahiti, of which no mention had been made in his instructions. Two reasons determined us not to refuse what the Admiral had done, and the first reason was, that the protectorate of the island of Tahiti was of some importance to our establishment in the Marquesas, and the other, that we did not wish to see the French flag withdrawn immediately after its appearance. This provisional protectorate, a protectorate not yet sanctioned by the Government, continued for fourteen months. It had, it is true, met with difficulties and embarrassments; but there had not been anything like tumult or sedition; everything went on regularly and peaceably. When, on the contrary, Admiral Dupetit Thouars thought it his duty to convert the protectorate into a sovereignty, disturbances commenced. Thus, during the fourteen months of the protectorate, Mr. Pritchard, who was then at Tahiti, was unable to excite any insurrection; it was after the assumption of the sovereignty that he was able to do

So.

The Government, therefore, were not so much to blame when, after having accepted the protectorate, it refused the sovereignty; the former appeared to it necessary to protect the interests of France, for which the latter was useless. I now come to the last incident, that of Mr. Pritchard. You will remember the strong sensation created in England on the receipt of the news of his arrest; this emotion appeared to me to proceed from two causesfirst, the quality of agent of the English Government, with which he was invested; and, next, his religious character. The conduct

adopted by us in this matter was this we first sought to establish the truth of the facts of the case; to prove that Mr. Pritchard was not an official agent, but a simple foreigner, living under the protection of a law common to all. Had he been a consul, there would have been certain forms to be observed with regard to him, when desiring his expulsion; but he was not Consul, and the truth of these facts we have been able to

prove to the English Government. As to his religious character, we have also established that he has nothing to complain of at our hands; we have proved that the most perfect religious liberty prevailed in Oceania. This done, we remained quiet, in order to allow the angry feelings which had been raised in England to subside. When the proper moment arrived to examine the affair to its foundation, what was the conduct of the Government? We fully maintained the right of the French authorities at Tahiti to expel any foreigner who should disturb public order. After having supported this right, we maintained that our agents at Tahiti had just reasons for using it; and that they had acted properly in so doing. After this, we made the admission that some of the conduct used towards Mr. Pritchard was open to blame, and to be regretted; for it could not be admitted that French agents should, in any quarter of the globe, forget those maxims of equity and consistency which were the rule of all regular governments. Our conviction was, that in the arrest of Mr. Pritchard some of those maxims had been departed from, and I will explain in what those acts consisted. Without entering into

any irritating details, we considered that although there was enough in the circumstances of the case to warrant the authorities in taking every measure for their safety, yet that it was unnecessary to keep Mr. Pritchard in solitary confinement for eight days, and prevent his seeing even his wife and children. We thought that it was neither just nor proper to use more severity than was really necessary. We considered that the step which had been ordered by the Admiral on his arrival at Tahiti six days after should have been done at the time, viz., to compel Mr. Pritchard to leave the island. In saying this I do not mean to shelter the Government behind the Governor of Tahiti, for that would be neither honourable nor just. They had no such intention. was one of its most intelligent and bravest officers. He every day gave proofs of that. We have admitted that there were certain points connected with this affair for which it was honourable in us to express our regret and our disproval, and we, at the same time, thought that there might exist reasons why a pecuniary indemnity should be granted. (Murmurs on the left.) The

M. de Bruat

Chamber sees that I do not avoid any point connected with the question. (Approbation.) Independently of the rules of which I have spoken, there is a fact of which I will remind the Chamber. Some years before this affair, two French Catholic missionaries had been expelled from Tahiti. Those missionaries had gone to that island under a Government which forbade any preaching contrary to the established religion of the State. The will of

Queen Pomare is the charter of that country. The missionaries who went to preach at Tahiti acted at variance with that law, and it was in virtue of it that they were expelled from the island. Violence had, it is true, been used towards them, but two years after Admiral Dupetit Thouars had demanded and received an indemnity of 2500 piastres for the treatment they had experienced. The Admiral was perfectly right in what he did, but it served as a precedent for the French granting an indemnity to Mr. Pritchard. At the same time, however, that we agreed to this indemnity, it was expressly stipulated that it was not given on account of his expulsion, but merely in consequence of the harsh treatment to which he had been subjected. It would be weakness in them to deny that they were glad that this indemnity had been the means of removing the clouds which had hung over their relations with England, but they should at the same time have granted the indemnity, had no political considerations been connected with the affair. This, gentlemen, is what I have to say on the ensemble of the question. At a future time I shall enter more into details. I will now say a word as to the conduct of the English Government with regard to the affair of Morocco. It made known to us how far its interests might be involved in it; it strengthened its force on that station, but at the same time kept it below our own, to make it apparent that it only sought to protect the legitimate interests of the country. This done, it entered into our complaints, and both at Tangier and elsewhere represented those complaints to

be just, and our demands moderate; it did more, it tendered to us its good offices. In fine, the English Government accepted a situation which was difficult and delicate for it—that of being present and watching our success; and it had the good feeling to wait to see what we considered it just and proper to do. We well knew what were the feelings of England on the subject, but she demanded nothing of us. Do you imagine that, if affairs had been directed in another spirit they would have taken the turn they have done? One word will serve to enlighten the Chamber on this point. I will quote a few words from a letter from Lord Aberdeen to the English Ambassador at Paris:-"My conviction is," writes the British Minister on this occasion," that the sincere desire of the two Governments to cultivate the best and most cordial understanding renders it almost impossible that incidents of this nature, if they are viewed dispassionately, and treated in a spirit of justice and moderation, can ever lead to anything but an amicable and happy issue." This, gentlemen, is the feeling which characterizes both the incident itself and the reciprocal situation of the two Governments. In order that such incident should not carry in its train grave consequences, it was necessary that both Governments should act with a spirit of justice and moderation. But there is something grander and more novel than this good intelligence. France has often been at peace with England, but behind their outward show of friendship there always subsisted a jealous and hostile spirit of rivalry. The prosperity, progress, and activity

of one of the Governments were a source of annoyance to the other. But this is no longer the case; for both, acting in the plenitude of their liberty, in place of being opposed as formerly, are able to aid each other. Such was the present opinion of the two Governments. There are then, I say, two Governments in Europe who consider it their duty to act towards each other in a particular way, and do act so; they continually testify a mutual confidence in each other's intentions and acts, and the care of their gravest interests ends neither in a rupture nor a coolness.

M. Guizot concluded a most eloquent speech with the following peroration:-"Such is the position

of affairs at present, and there is a vast difference between this lofty region and mere party struggles, In which of the two will the Chamber place itself? Will it side with mere party squabbles, or will it take into account great public interests? Such is the question into which the discussion will resolve itself. I have placed it before you in all its truth. The Chamber must decide." (Loud approbation.)

M. Dupin, who spoke at the close of the debate, said that he would vote in favour of any amendment restrictive of the praise which the Ministry claimed for the alleged success of its negotiations. This ended the general debate.