The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-07 00:00:00

THE FRENCH IN AFRICA.

The RIGHT HoN. BARONET, in answer to a question from
Viscount Ebrington, respecting the conduct of the French on
the coast of Africa and the Gaboon River, said that a me-
morial had been received by her Majesty's Government on
the subject, which had been referred to the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs; but he did not feel at liberty to go fur-
ther into the matter at present.
Lord PALMERSTON complained of the policy of the
Government in giving way to other countries on several oc-
casions. They had begun by a great concession to the
United States, which they had been told would produce the
best effects and the most permanent good-will on the part
of the Americans, and would perpetuate harmony and good
understanding between the two Governments of England and
America. What had been the result ? Why, after the
cession of a great part of the disputed territory, other ques-
tions with respect to the Oregon territory, the right of visit,
and ether subjects of serious moment were raised. The
Government had also, in deference to the French
Government, counselled the Regent of Spain to
submit to great indignities and attacks upon his
authority in the case of Salvandi and M. Lesseps at Bar-
celona, the consequence of which was that the Spaniards,
seeing that the Regency was not supported by the moral aid
of the English Government, the Regent fell, and important
English interests were sacrificed. The Noble Lord then pro-
ceeded to contend that that policy which sought temporary
peace at the sacrifice of the rights of the country must tend to
difficulties of a more serious nature than those which it was
intended to put an end to.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Government appeared to be shaping its policy not for
the interest of the country, but for the purpose of ascertain-
ing how far things done by them might bear upon the in-
terests of the government of foreign countries. Such policy
might be founded on good intentions; but any system of
purchasing momentary tranquility at the sacrifice of future
interests could not work out the advantage of the country
that should adopt it. With regard to the treatment of Mr.
Pritchard by the French, he thought the right of sovereignty
could not justify it.—(Hear, hear.) When it was saidtewas
not the consul of this country, that was a statement totally
without foundation. What, he would ask, made a man a
consul? A commission from his Sovereign, and that commis-
sion Mr. Pritchard held at Otaheite ; and when the Govern-
merit of the island was arbitrarily deposed by a foreign
Power, Mr. Pritchard, though he refused to interfere, still
was consul, and the treatment he had received was most
unjustifiable.
Sir R. PEEL denied that the present Government had
made any concessions that were injurious to this country or
its honour. He thought, and had always done so, that the
policy of the Government ought not to be the maintenance
of any foreign Government. The leading principle of a
British Administration was to support British interests and
British honour. Nothing was so inconsistent as making com-
promises to any Government. The invariable result of such
proceedings would be no satisfaction, but fresh demands on
the part of other countries. The Noble Lord had began by
adverting to the Boundary question. Had he done anything,
he would ask, to settle that question? Certainly not. The
present Government undertook to de so, and they had accom-
plished their task in so efficient a manner, that the thanks of
the House had been given to Lord Ashburton, who
had so ably effected so desirable an arrangement.
The resolution was carried with the concurrence of many of
the Noble Lord's friends. The Noble Lord the Member for
the City of London had also distinctly stated that he did not
blame the Government for the course which they had pur-
sued with regard to France. He was not surprised that the
Noble Lord was smarting under a sense of the indignity which
had been offered to him. Then again, with respect to Texas,
nothing could be more unjust than to attempt to
make her Majesty's Government responsible for the
course pursued by the United States towards Texas. As re-
garded Algiers, the Noble Lord had himself acquiesced in its
occupation by the French, provided they did not attempt to
extend their power on the side of Tunis or Morocco. Con-
siderations of wise policy had induced him not to demand
the evacuation of Algiers. With respect to Spain, he did
not apprehend that Espartero entertained the same
opinion as the Noble Lord. But if Espartero had the
hold upon Spain which he supposed, how did it come
to pass that no effort had been made by any party in Spain
to restore him to his position. It was easy for the Noble
Lord to say that he fell in consequence of advice given him
by the Government. He believed his fall was attributable
to the notion that he was a firm friend of the British Go-
vernment, and was receiving support from it. He
perfectly admitted that the Government had not acted
in every respect on the principles of the Noble Lord; but, as
regarded every object of importance to this country, he con-
tended that there never was a period when the name and
honour of the British Government stood higher than they
did at that moment.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON explained.
Mr. FORSTER could not but express his regret at the
unsatisfactory nature of the answer given by the Government
to the question of the Noble Lord. If the French were
allowed to proeted in this course on the coast of Africa, this
country would not have an inch of ground left except that
which was occupied by its forts. The Gaboon River had
been a very important station for British trade.
Sir R. PEEL said he had stated that the Gaboon River
was not within several hundred miles of any part of the Bri-
tish territory.
Captain PECHELL wished to call the attention of the
Right Hon. Baronet to the fishery question. They were at
present uninformed what steps the French Government had
taken to carry out the views of the convention. He hoped
the Right Hon. Baronet would have no objection to state
what was the present state of French legislation in reference
to the articles of the convention.

Sir R. PEEL was not able to give any precise information
on that subject.
On the order of the day for reading the report on the
Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Bill,
Col. VERNER said he had to complain of the precipi • • -
tancy with which this measure had been hurried through
the House. A measure of such importance ought not to
have been brought forward only three or four days before the
termination of the session, and in the absence of the /lon.
Member for 'the University of Oxford.
Mr. MACAULAY said—Would any Gentleman get up
and say that there was a single enactment repealed by this
Bill which was not a disgrace to a civilised and Christian
country 7—(Hear, hear.) If any Gentleman would rise up
and affirm that, there might be some force in the Hon. Mem-
ber's objection.—(Hear, hear.) He was quite satisfied from
his personal knowledge of the Hon. Member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford, that he would not have opposed this Bill.
Colonel VERNER said his objection applied to the period
at which the Bill had been introduced.
Mr. SPOONER complained that he had been misrepre-
sented in what he had said with respect to a petition against
this Bill. He appealed to the House whether he had treated
the petition, as had been stated, with disrespect or levity.
Sir R. PEEL could bear testimony to the fact, that the
Hon. Member had not treated the petition with levity, though
he had the manliness to say that, after learning the object
of the Bill, he felt bound to give it his support. The
object of the Bill was to remove what was an in-
cumbrance to the statute-book.---(Hear, hear.) There
could be no danger in passing it, because the laws repealed
were not, and could not be put in force.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES hoped that the Government would, in the
next session, proceed still further in this course.

=AXTON MILNES was sure the Right Hon. Ba.