offended by the conduct of French sailors in Oceanica, and now threatened to force the hand of both Cabinets; not that the English government itself was, in the beginning of this affair, keenly interested in the question. In 1827, during the adminis tration of Mr. Canning, England had in set terms refused to take possession of the island of Tahiti, which was offered to her by the native chiefs. She had, therefore, no rights to vindicate against the establishment of the French protectorate, instituted first in 1842, over the Marquesas islands, and later, at Tahiti. Regret and anxiety had, however, long existed on this subject among the Protestant missionaries devoted to the evangelization of these archipelagoes, and their solicitude had extended to their friends in England. For many years Tahiti had been the object of a constant struggle between the Protestant ministers and the Roman Catholic priests. The first upon the ground, the most numerous, and the most successful had been the missionaries of the great "London Society," and they strove hard to maintain their empire. The Admiral du Petit-Thouars interposed in behalf of the Jesuit priests; and shortly it was no longer a question of a French protectorate, for the admiral had taken possession of the sovereignty of the island. Questions asked in the House of Commons irritated and disturbed Sir Robert Peel, himself displeased and anxious at the turn affairs had taken, but the moderation and prudence of the French government dispersed the first storms. The action of the admiral, in taking possession of Tahiti, had been performed without orders from home; it was disowned, and France claimed nothing more than the mere protectorate accepted eighteen months earlier by the native chiefs, and freedom of action and protection were promised to the Protestant missionaries to whom the island owed its regeneration. Sir Robert Peel hastened to acknowledge the friendly conduct of the French Cabinet; while at Tahiti the English missionaries themselves assured the admiral that, as ministers of the gospel of peace, they regarded it as their imperative duty to exhort the people of these islands to a peaceable and uniform obedience to established authority, considering that by such means their own interests would be best promoted, but more especially, as such obedience is required by the laws of God which the missionaries had hitherto made it their special business to inculcate. But these pious and reasonable sentiments were unhappily not unanimous. Mr. Pritchard, agent of the mission, and at the same time British consul at Tahiti, had always been excessively hostile to any French and Roman Catholic influence in the island; he exerted all his influence to excite resistance and even sedition against the newly established authority of France. The position of affairs became such that Captain D'Aubigny, provisional commandant at Tahiti, felt it necessary in the temporary absence of Admiral Bruot, the governor, to arrest Mr. Pritchard and place him in solitary confinement in a blockhouse. Upon his return, M. Bruot transferred Mr. Pritchard to an English ship, with the request that he should be taken to England. Returning home, Mr. Pritchard himself carried the news of the treatment that he had received, and the outburst of anger in the Houses was so violent that it even affected Sir Robert Peel himself. His reply to the inquiry of Sir Charles Napier in the House of Commons was extremely severe towards the French government, from whom he had as yet received no communication on the subject, - publicly announcing his intention to demand reparation for the insult offered to the English consul. - This language of Sir Robert Peel and the public indignation in England occasioned in the French Chambers a debate of great violence, which very nearly overthrew the ministry. When the facts were made plain, France maintained on the one side that she had a right to send away from any colonial establishment any foreign resident who disturbed the public peace; and on the other, her conviction that the French authorities at Tahiti had had good reason for sending Mr. Pritchard away from the island, he being, besides, no longer the English consul, as he had resigned four months before. The French government, however, acknowledged that the procedures in Mr. Pritchard's case had been unnecessary and objectionable, and offered, as compensation for the inconveniences these procedures had occasioned him, to pay an indemnity, the amount of which should be fixed by the two admirals, French and English, who were in command in the Southern seas. The English Cabinet, on their part, did not dispute the principle or the facts asserted by the French government, and gave up the idea of sending Mr. Pritchard back to Tahiti, and of demanding the recall of the officer who had banished him. M. Guizot was able to say with truth in the Chamber of Deputies: "Our relations with England are called an entente cordiale, a good understanding, friendship, alliance. There is something newer, more uncommon, grander than that, in them. There exist at this moment in France and England two Cabinets who believe that there is room in the world for the prosperity and for the material and moral activity of the two countries; two governments who feel that they are not obliged to regret, to deplore, to dread each other's progress, that they can, in freely developing their strength of every kind, be mutually helpful instead of harmful, one to the other. And this, which they believe possible and a matter of duty, these two governments really do. They put these ideas in practice; they testify towards each other on every occasion a mutual respect for rights, a mutual regard for interests, a mutual confidence in the other's intentions and words. This is what they do, and this is why the most delicate and serious complications do - |