experiment of M. Thiers; and therefore nothing re- CHAP. mained but the foreign policy of M. Guizot. To that foreign policy he was tied, and in it he was absorbed without time or means of casting his eyes or directing his intelligence towards the domestic questions far more important. Had M. Guizot leisure to examine these, he would have seen that something more was required than mere resistance. But there was no other eminent man in the councils of Louis-Philippe who could lay his head on his hand and think of whither monarchy and society were tending. M. Duchâtel was not equal to such a task, yet to him was the management of home and parliamentary affairs committed. On most questions, indeed, or in all, it was not government which led or which commanded, but circumstances; and almost in any department a bold man or a decided will dragged the government into positions which were none of its choosing, yet which it became its duty and necessity to defend. We have seen this in the Egyptian question, when the French public drove the government into a path without issue and without honour. There resulted from this quarrel an awakening of French jealousy of England, and consequent hostility, without France being able to acquire a single ally in the quarrel which she was provoking. The end was that in almost every question England and France were at variance, yet unable, and indeed unwilling, to strike at each other more than diplomatic blows. The international quarrel was like that between enemies of the female sex, displayed in high airs, high words, much malice, with an endless variety of mingled coquetry and spite, but without real triumph, much less important results obtained by either party. The history of the Right of Search, of the Pritchard quarrel, of the Morocco one, and finally that of the Spanish marriages, are worthy of forming chapters in any novel. But the XLVII. XLVII. CHAP. acts achieved, the motives observable, and the arguments employed in all, are simply disgraceful to two great nations, which wasted time and energy in such petty passions and such beggarly considerations. The old monarchy of England went through this epoch unscathed and undiminished in dignity and in power, simply because the mere rivalry of its foreign policy was redeemed by the genius, the wisdom, and the grandeur of its domestic legislature. Sir Robert Peel was a political physician that could place his hand on the pulse of the country, and prescribe for its social and economical ills. All this time French politicians and ministers were writing diplomatic notes and fighting party and parliamentary battles about nothing. The first source of quarrel was the Right of Search, accorded to the armed vessels of both nations over their mercantile shipping in order to detect and prevent the slave trade. As there were infinitely more English trading vessels than French, the cruisers of the latter exercised a right even more extensive and humiliating, if it was found to be so, than the English. From 1831, the date of the first treaty, till 1841 there had been scarcely a complaint. Unfortunately the English government were at the time rendering the right of search general in consequence of the consent of other nations of Europe which had hitherto refused. This necessitated a new treaty, which the French diplomatists and statesmen saw no reason to decline. The United States government soon intervened. The Americans, for reasons of their own, did not like English officers coming on board their vessels, even to decide their nationality. They cared far more for a question of pride than for that of slavery; and American agents soon stirred the French to entertain the same jealousies and act upon them. Some of the French ports were at the time deeply interested in the slave trade, and objected to its being put down. Nantes was one of these places, and M. Billault, a young lawyer who represented it, so ably advocated slave trading interests that an amendment to the address in January 1842 was carried in the Chamber against the ministry, denouncing the right of search, and especially any extension of it. This suspended the treaty, left M. Guizot powerless to sign it, and France finally receded from it. The majority of the Chamber, not contented with this, pushed on for the abrogation of the treaties of 1831 and 1833. That body, the Tiers parti included, were not only irritated against England but anxious to display a warlike spirit on a question that could not lead to war. Such was the sentiment always displayed by M. Dupin and others of his school. They pressed for an abrogation of the right of search altogether, and of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, which sanctioned it. The English Tory ministry was not a little angry at this display of hostility from a monarchy and a court which it had in 1830 protected against Europe, and secured from the effects of a coalition.* But Lord Aberdeen was full of blandness, of consideration, and of trust for M. Guizot; and both ministers succeeded in replacing the right of search, by certainly a more costly mode of preventing the slave trade, but perhaps an equally effective one, that of a combined or double fleet of the cruisers of both nations. The arrangement concluded in May 1845 was as little to the taste of the slave interests of Nantes as the right of search. But there was no terrible objection to be raised against it. The nation took a deeper interest than usual in all matters relating to the marine, of which the estimates became largely increased. The sugar question was felt to be connected with them. Proprietorial interest was so predominant in the Chamber that the colonists continued to be sacrificed to the beet growers, their sugar being *Lord Sidmouth's Life and Correspondence, by the Dean of Nor wich; Lord Colchester's Diary; Lord CHAP. XLVII. CHAP. taxed double of that produced at home. It was felt that this system not only ruined trade but restricted the number of vessels and seamen. Beet-root was therefore denounced as a foe of the country's grandeur, and its protection so little desirable that equal taxes were laid upon home-grown and colonial sugar. In the midst of M. Guizot's efforts to heal up the breaches between England and France, especially in maritime affairs, the caprice of a French naval officer undid all that the minister had been labouring to effect for years. Admiral Dupetit Thouars had been sent with a squadron to the Pacific to take possession of the Marquesas group of islands, and form there a port and colony, which would prove a refuge and a station for French vessels in those seas. Not only this, but the Marquesas were to furnish a place of transportation for French criminals. The retention of these at home was attended with a host of inconveniences and evils. Admiral Dupetit Thouars took possession of the islands in May 1842. His ambition was not satisfied. Otaheite and its group offered a more enchanting climate and a richer soil. The admiral sailed thither under pretence of protecting the Catholic missions, although Protestant clergymen had long since converted, and, as far as was possible, civilised the islanders. The French admiral demanded a large sum from the Queen and her subjects, as indemnity for the alleged wrongs done to the Catholic clergy. Unable to pay it, Queen Pomare said, Take our islands. Dupetit Thouars had no other object; and by virtue of the offer of the Queen of Otaheite, the French flag was immediately hoisted, and their protectorship of the islands proclaimed in September 1842 by the French. M. Guizot was as much astonished as Lord Aberdeen at this fresh cause of difference between the nations. For the English clergy were nearly masters at Otaheite, although the English government had refused to assume or accept any sove reignty there. The fellow Protestants of M. Guizot, Gasparin and Pelet, remonstrated against the subjection of a Protestant population to a Catholic priesthood, supported by an envoy. M. Guizot repudiated of course any intentions of intolerance as if he was master of either person or policy on the other side of Cape Horn. He might have been certain that priest and captain would as little obey him as the admiral had done. The English consul and missionary, Pritchard, returned to protect his flock, as far as possible, from the French ecclesiastics. They insisted, he protested. He invoked the support of Lord Aberdeen, who was determined to give none. Meantime Dupetit Thouars paid another visit to the island, and finding that his protectorate had produced its inevitable result of anarchy and quarrel, he sought to put an end to it by dethroning poor Queen Pomare, and changing the French protectorate into sovereignty. The Queen retired to Pritchard's house; the sympathies and indignation of her people naturally followed her. Insurrection and civil war were the consequences. An officer, named D'Aubigny, who took the command on Dupetit Thouar's departure, seized Pritchard and shut him in a blockhouse, until he could be transported from the island. Thus the French commanders did their utmost to excite war between the CHAP. XLVII. |