Lord Broughamsaid, that he was anxious to ask a question of his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, respecting an occurrence of great interest, which had been stated in the public papers to have taken place. He alluded to the occupation by the French of the Island of Tahiti. He was sure that his noble Friend would give him credit that nothing was further from his wish than to embarrass the Government on a subject which was most important to the preservation of the peace of the world, namely, our relations with France. He wished to know whether the event which he had alluded to had taken place, at least according to the accounts in the newspapers, and whether his noble Friend had received any intimation or communication from the French Government respecting the occupation of Tahiti 2 by a French force? He did not wish to call upon his noble Friend to make any improper disclosures on the subject.
§ The Earl of Aberdeenbelieved that the statements which had appeared in the public papers were correct. He believed that it was perfectly true that a French naval force had taken military possession of the Island of Tahiti. He had heared of that event with great regret; but he was not in possession of any explanations of the French Government on the subject, as there had not been sufficient time to make communications and to received an answer.
Lord Broughamagreed with his noble Friend in expressing the deepest regret at that event, which appeared most unadvised as long as it remained unexplained. He did not mean to say but that it might be explained. It might, perhaps, be disavowed by the French Government, but he could not conceal the deep feelings of regret when he saw what had occurred in the announcement of this occupation, feeling as he did the greatest admiration for that gallant nation—a nation so much to be admired for its many great military 3 and civil qualities—and that they should have followed such a course as had been adopted on the present occasion. He considered that it was the deepest degradation to any party to adopt the tone which had been used by certain parties in France on this occasion. The persons who had resorted to the tone of expression to which he alluded were the enemies of peace, and more especially to the friendly relations subsisting between France and this country; such parties were bad friends to the honour and renown of the great nation to which he had alluded. The subject to which he alluded was the tone of exultation which had been adopted on the occupation of that Island, as if some great triumph had been achieved over this country in their taking possession of that small Island, which was inhabited by a race who had been justly and properly designated as the grown children—the defenceless children—of the South Sea Islands. It was not worthy of a great and gallant nation to make this a matter of boasting, which, in comparison of their former triumphs, must be regarded as nothing. Such a nation as France had need of no such laurels as it would acquire from such a proceeding, when it could boast of such victories as those of Marengo, and Austerlitz, and Eylau, and Jena, and Wagram, and other equally immortal victories which he could name. It was not worthy of such a people to boast of such a paltry acquisition as this. Those who made these boasts were not actuated by any love of French military glory in the eulogiums which they thus bestowed on this wretched acquisition. They did not care one straw for the glory of the French army. He, therefore, lamented that such language should have been used, and such arguments introduced, by any persons: but they had been resorted to by those whose only object was to work on the passions of an excitable people, so as to mar the prospects of peace, if that were possible; but he trusted that it would be impossible for any efforts of such persons as those to whom he had alluded to mar those prospects.