The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he had given notice to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of his intention to ask a question relative to the extraordinary proceedings that had lately taken place in one of the South Sea Islands, when a British subject was seized and confined; but, in consequence of what had fallen from a right hon Gentleman in another place, that question had been rendered almost superfluous. Still, as their Lordships ought not to be dependent for information on reports from other quarters, and as the subject was certainly not unworthy of further notice, he would ask his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the accounts which had been made public of these transactions were correct, 1643 and whether any reparation had been made for the outrages therein stated to have been offered; and, if not, whether any measures had been taken to obtain it?
§ The Earl of AberdeenIt is undoubtedly true, that a gross outrage has been committed against the person of a British subject; indeed, so flagrant an outrage, that, if I had not received an authentc account of the transaction, it would have appeared to me almost incredible. But I wish to observe to the House that this proceeding has taken place, not only without the possible knowledge, or instruction, or participation, of the French Government, but under a state of things which has been disavowed by them. It will be recollected that, in the month of September last, the French authorities in the island of Tahiti dethroned the Queen, and took absolute possession of, and exercised the full rights of sovereignty over that island. As soon as a representation on the subject was made by this country, the proceeding was promptly disavowed by the French Government, just about the time that the transaction at present complained of took place, in the month of March last. But during the intervening months, it is clear that a state of things existed that would account for certain acts which it would be impossible to anticipate under another and a more satisfactory state of things. Now, the gentleman to whom the noble Marquess has referred—at the time when the French took actual possession of the island, and proceeded to exercise all the rights of Sovereignty—that gentleman immediately hauled down his flag, and gave an official intimation or notice to the authorities that he was no longer Her Britannic Majesty's Consul there—that the Queen having been dethroned, he had no longer any official character. So that, in point of fact, however improper and unjust the proceedings might be which placed him under the necessity of abandoning his official position, he was not, at the time when the recent transactions occurred, occupying any, and was not recognized as occupying any official situation. Now, although the power which has been exercised and the arbitrary and unprecedented proceedings that have taken place could not be justified against any British subject, having an official character or not, still the circumstances under which the transaction took place must make some difference in the manner in which it is to be received. I said before that this proceeding had taken 1644 place without the slightest knowledge or encouragement of the French Government, and I have no doubt that they will regard it with as much concern as we do. I am afraid, however, that the late transaction will prove a godsend to the enemies of peace between the two countries, and I have do doubt that it will be turned to a good account in furthering their views, but I trust, and have every reason to believe, that by the exercise of a spirit of justice and moderation, will lead to no serious consequences. I have every reason to believe that the French Government will regard it in the manner in which such a transaction should be viewed; and I can only say, that not a moment has been lost in making such representations to that Government as appeared to me to be suitable to the circumstances of the case.
The Earl of Mintoobserved, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the noble Earl's assurance on that point, which, indeed, he believed they were all prepared to expect, namely, that the acts of those officers were wholly unauthorized by the French Government, and were totally foreign to their wishes. It was impossible to imagine that a Government which had the same deep interest with ourselves in the preservation of peace should have lent its authority to an act so calculated to lead to its interruption. He was entirely satisfied, therefore, with all the noble Earl had said as to the feeling of France; and he was satisfied, also, that the noble Earl would be content with nothing less from France than the full atonement for the outrage, which it was the noble Earl's duty to demand. There was one point, however, upon which he did desire some further information, a question which, however, he ought rather to put to the noble Earl of First Lord of the Admiralty, as to the means which had been taken by the Government to provide against the recurrence of any such misfortune. Aware as the Government were of the violent nature of the proceedings of France at an earlier period, he should like to be assured that they had taken proper measures to maintain our naval force at Tahiti in such strength as was necessary to protect the honour and interests of the nation. He hoped he should not find that at the time these outrages occurred we were inadequately represented in the seas of the Pacific? He (the Earl of Minto) would not enter further into the question, unless the answer which he should receive from his noble Friend should satisfy 1645 him and lead him to believe that little or no force whatever was stationed at that island. He knew that when the French took possession of the island we had a very considerable force there, and that, in consequence of some correspondence which had passed between the Captain of the Vindictive and the French authorities there, that frigate had been recalled. He (the Earl of Minto) should like to be informed of the cause of that proceeding, and whether, pending such discussions, and in the circumstances in which that country was placed, the Vindictive was recalled and the island left unprotected by a sufficient force? He should now conclude by asking his noble Friend if there was any, and what force, at the island of Tahiti?
The Earl of Haddingtonreplied, that at the time this proceeding took place, in March last, Tahiti was not, and indeed it never had been, devoid of the presence of a British ship of war. He was not able at the moment to give full information upon the point, but his opinion was that last March there was present there a frigate of a minor class. His noble Friend appeared to have made himself master of the precise dates, and he (the Earl of Haddington) could not pretend to follow him as the question had been put to him entirely without notice. The Vindictive was out there formerly; she was succeeded by the Dublin, a large fifty gun ship which was present when the French took possession of the island. When the Dublin left, every thing was quiet, and she was succeeded by a frigate of a smaller size; whether it was the Carysfort or the Talbot, he could not at that moment recollect. The Vindictive was recalled simply because her time for foreign service had expired. Captain Toup Nicholas had been ordered a considerable time since to return home, but he was kept on the station by the Admiral, entirely with the approbation of the home authorities. The America, had since gone out to replace the Vindictive, and the Collingwood was just about to sail for the station with the flag of Admiral Sir George Seymour.
The Earl of Mintowished to know this—was not the Vindictive removed from Tahiti by the order of the Home Government? Was she not removed without any measures being taken to replace her? It was said that Queen Pomare sought refuge on board the Basilisk. Was that the "frigate of a smaller class," to which allusion had been made? If so, she was "a frigate of a smaller class" indeed.
The Earl of Haddington'simpression was, that there was a larger vessel at Tahiti than the Basilisk. The Basilisk was only a ketch.
Lord Kinnairdfelt entirely satisfied that the French Government never had sanctioned, and never could sanction, what had taken place at Tahiti. He thought, however, that some blame attached to our Government for ever letting them take it under their "protection" at all. If there had been any sort of protectorate, it should have been a joint protectorate. He should be glad to know also, if Queen Pomare had not been restored after the first outrage? If that were the case, Mr. Pritchard of course resumed his post as British Consul, and was British Consul when the last act of violence took place.
§ The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that in dealing with occurrences at the antipodes it was difficult to say precisely when or under what circumstances certain acts took place, but he believed that about the present time, and not before, Queen Pomare would be restored. It was in March last that the French Government repudiated the acts of their officers at Tahiti, and as he had just received accounts from Tahiti, dated in March, it was probable that about this time, and not before, the instructions of the French Government would reach its officers in the Southern Seas. Queen Pomare would then be immediately restored, not to all her rights, but to the same position in which she was placed under the former protectorate. With regard to the joint protectorate of which the noble Lord spoke, he should know that offers of a protectorate of these islands had been on two or three different occasions offered to the British Government, and as invariably refused.
§ The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that Admiral Dupetit Thouars had been recalled in March last, in consequence of his assumption of the sovereignty of the island. He had been succeeded by Admiral Hamelin, who was now, he believed, on his way out.