The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1844,

ANTI•LEAGUE MEETING AT
CHESTERFIELD.
DEFEAT OF THE MONOPOLISTS.

vote to the following effect ;—" The Chamber, without ap-
proving of the conduct of the Cabinet, passes to the order of
the day."
The Minister of Foreign Affairs—Adjourn I It is for the
interest and dignity of all the world that the question
should be fully discussed.
The Left, en masse, exclaimed, " It has been."
The Minister of Foreign Affairs—l formally demand the
adjournment. I have much more to say.
After some further objections from the Left,
The President announced the adjournment ; and
The Chamber rose at half-past six o'clock.
FRIDAY, MARCH 1.
At two o'clock M. Sauzet, the President, took the chair,
when the Chamber resumed the adjourned debate on the
Otaheite affair. _ .

not fail to say that the Queen is innocent ; but tire following
are the facts of the car. As long as there were no English
vessels here every thing went on well, but on the arrival
of the English things went to the other extreme. The
Queen received a flag in thename of the Queen of England.—
(Noise.) Soon after this, she would see none but English of-
ficers, and refused to receive those of France. She granted to
the English military points, and allowed them to land troops.
The missionary Pritchard publicly preached against the
French ; the Queen was present at his sermons. He pays no
attention to the provisional power established at Otaheite, and
the Queen approves of what he does, and ended by hoisting
the flag sent her by Queen Victoria at the same hours that
the English flag was hoisted. Things arrived at such a point
that the French put an end to them as described. Our position
is now better. The materiel which had been brought out to
form an establishment at the Marquesas has been removed to
Otaheite, as being now the most important point, and the
considerable resources which had been given to form the
establishment at Noukahiva are now collected at Otaheite."
—(Long continued agitation and movement.) This is the
substance of the letter which I read. I am persuaded that
the officers who were there the representatives of France
had motives for acting as they have done, and that the pre-
cipitation with which they have been judged will be a
subject of regret hereafter, as such a disavowal is a serious
affair. I willquote two instances of the kind. Every one
knows that ,the battle of Navarino was fought without in-
structions ; the English and French Governments .felt
serious scruples on the subject, but the fact was accepted
by the two Governments, and the idea of disavowing the
acts of the officers who commanded there was given up.
The second instance was at Ancona. An officer had been
sent there with a certain force, to observe what was going
on : the progress of events induced that officer to force
the gates of Ancona ; there was then a question of dis-
avowal, but it did not take place, and the fact is become one
of the glories of France. When officers who are acting in
distant points are under fear of having their acts disavowed,
it certainly tends to damp their courage. He remembered
two famous trials that had taken place, one of an English
officer, Admiral Sir Robert Calder, and the other a French
admiral (Dumanoir). The former was tried for not having
properly followed up a victory ; the latter because, during an
engagement, he had withdrawn from the line of battle. He
justified his conduct, and was acquitted. I bring forward
these facts to show that great nations do not seek to damp
the courage of their agents, but rather to stimulate and sup-
port them.—(Approbation from the Left.)
No other person demanding to speak, the President rose,
and informed the Chamber that the ballot must be had re-
course to on the occasion, as a list of twenty Members had
been handed in to him who required it.
The ballot then took place, when M. Ducos' proposition
was re;ected by a majority of 46, the numbers being-187 in
its favour, and 233 against it.
The Chamber adjourned at a quarter to seven.

Mr. Maynard, Mr. Pegge Burnell, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr.
Mines, Mr. Meynell, Mr. Robert Arkwright (all of them
Tory magistrates), a parson Horton, a Mr. Barrow, and one
or two others, have been trying to get up a " demonstration"
against the League at Chesterfield, and a most farcical pro-
ceeding it was. After beating about for some time for requi-
sitionists, twelve pliant spirits were found in the persons of
two freeholders (one of them lately agent to Mr. Arkwright),
several cattle-jobbers, and two publicans ! With this funny
mixture, the machinery was set in motion. A requisition,
inviting "owners and occupiers of land, tradesmen, and
others," to attend the meeting, was published, and a regular
'canvass set on foot to "work up" a good muster. Many of
the Duke of Devonshire's tenants in the Scarsdale
_HundrFd

M. Ducos hiving moved, on Thursday evening, that the
Chamber, "without approving the conduct of the Cabinet,"
should pass to the order of the day, on the question pending
before the House, was called to the tribune. He stated that
he was induced to propose that motion from a consideration
that the debate was at an end, when the Minister for
Foreign Affairs had interrupted him, saying that he had a
number of other documents to produce, and asked that the
discussion should beradjourned to Friday.
M. Guizot here rose, and declared that he had not pro-
nounced the word " document," but had said that he had many
other arguments to adduce in justification of the conduct of
the Cabinet.
• M. Ducos next read the account of M. Guizot's speech in
the llironiteur, which proved that he had not pronounced the
word "document."

(for be it observed, the squires dare not call a meeting of the
whole division of North Derbyshire), were waited upon, and
every means used to decoy them to the meeting, under the
plea that it was not a political matter. But the Duke's
tenants were too wide awake. They looked at the instigators
of the plan, and saw through the whole proceeding; so re-
solved to absent themselves altogether. Not one of the
great landed proprietors of North Derbyshire was present at
the meeting, and the whole proceeding was thoroughly dis-
countenanced by them.
The hour appointed for the meeting was two o'clock, at
"which the aforenamed gentry, attended by perhaps fifty or
sixty of their tenants, "and others," made their appearance,
and huddled themselves about the table. Had they been
left to themselves, the hall would have presented a cold,
cheerless spectacle, and there would have been a beggarly
account of empty benches. But it so happened, that a long-
headed farmer named Lee, who resides at Kelstage, and who
had a bundle of " facts and figures" under his arm, together
with several intelligent and independent tradesmen of the
town, resolved on moving an amendment (though there does
not seem to have been an organised opposition), and though
the monopolists refused to receive the amendment, they were
signally routed.
Shortly after two o'clock, the hall became densely crowded,
and the two first speakers were listened to with attention.
When the mover and seconder of the resolution had finished

After a few words from M. Guizot, who insisted on the ne-
cessity of a new and complete discussion taking place on the
proposition of M. Ducos,
M. Ducos again ascended the tribune and said, that he
could only repeat in support of the Order of the Day, the
motives so eloquently developed by M. Dufaure and his other
colleagues.
After brief speeches from MM. Dangeville and Mermilliod,
Marshal Sebastiani next ascended the tribune, but he de-
livered himself in so low a voice that one-half of the Mem-
bers abandoned their scats and placed themselves in the semi-
circle at the foot of the tribune. We understood that the
Hon. Marshal strongly reproved the proceedings of Admiral
Dupetit Thouars, who had not, he said, the plea of right,
duty, or justice, to invoke in justification of an act of spolia-
tion, perpetrated to the detriment of a Queen who had signed
a treaty with France, in violation of all the laws of military

their " say," Mr. Hurst rose to propose the first amendment.
This was the signal for an uproar. The monopolists (some of
whom had whips and sticks) hooted, stamped, hissed, and
knocked the table, in order to drown Mr. Hurst's voice.
There were indignant cries of " Shame," "Turn 'em out,"
and so on, from the bulk of the assemblage, and the war of
voices raged for a considerable time.
At length Mr. Hurst succeeded in making himself partially
heard, and called upon the Chairman to say whether, this
being a public meeting, to which all classes were specially in-
vited, he had not a right to be heard.
The Chairman (Mr. Clay) replied in the negative, and one
or two bigoted squires, who made themselves notorious, voci-
ferated, " You shan't be heard, we'll not allow you!"
Mr. Hurst—Oh, it is a bad cause indeed that will not bear
scrutinv.—(Tremendous cheering.)
The Chairman put the resolution, for which about fifty or
sixty hands were held up ; and Mr. Sayer then called upon
him to put the negative. The Chairman refused, and the
refusal was received with hooting and hisses. A person,
however, in the body of the meeting, called for an expression
of opinion, when the great bulk of the assembly held up
their hands and negatived the resolution, amidst tremendous
cheering, by 30r4 to 1. The Chairman, however, refused
to receive the vote, and declared the resolution carried, stat-
ing that he should not put the negative to any of the resolu-
tions, as the meeting was called for the purpose of adopting,
not of rejecting, measures, &c.—(Hooting.)—[An attempt
was made to make it appear that many persons who were
favourable to the resolution held up their hands against it by
mistake! But this not only did not, but could not, happen,
for the matter was distinctly understood.]
Mr. Sayer', Mr. Hurst, and others protested against this
course ; and there were loud cries for Mr. Sayer, who essayed
to speak, but the contention between the rival parties was
so boisterous that scarcely a word he uttered could be heard.
Mr. Bagshawe moved the second resolution, but was
heard very impatiently, in consequence of the opposition to
Mr. Sayer. He made a rambling defence of the corn-laws,
and was frequently interrupted by witty ejaculations. He
attackedathe Anti-Corn-law League in strong terms, and
for so dding was hooted down.
The remaining speakers went through their work some-
how, but not a syllable they uttered was heard. The resolu-
tions were hurried over, and the three last were not put to
the meeting at all. So anxious were the monopolists to
scramble through them, that they altogether forgot to pro
pose a vote of thanks to the Chairman, and they made a pre-
cipitate retreat into the grand jury-room, whither they
beckoned their handful of supporters to sign the petitions,
amidst hissing, and hooting, and groani.
Mr. Sayer was then voted to the chair, amidst loud cheer-
ing, but before he had time to reach the allotted place, Mr.
Maynard, Mr. Milnes, the afore-named parson, and several
others, rushed to the chair, of which they took forcible pos-
session ; whereupon Mr. Hurst, Mr. Lee, and others, told
them some very unpalateable truths, and a long recrimination
took place. Ever and anon three cheers broke forth for
Cobden and the League, and in the course of the proceedings
three cheers were given for the Duke of Devonshire (whose
liberal sentiments in regard to civil, religious and commercial
freedom, are well known.
After a badgering. of nearly an hour longer, the opponents
of monopoly determined on calling a counter-meeting, and
on inviting Mr. Cobden, and then left the Hall, the proceed-
ings, having lasted nearly three hours.
Meanwhile, the screw will be put on, and many who would
" rather not" will be compelled to sign the petitions.
Not a single sixpence was subscribed at the meeting. The
monopolists growl terribly at their defeat, though an attempt
will be made to represent the demonstration as a " triumph-
ant one." We wish all monopolists many such triumphs !

M. Ayllies, who spoke next, threw no new light on the
question, and was not listened to by the assembly.
M. de Gasparin was more successful in captivating the
attention of the House. He said that he could not approve
an act of violence, committed by the strong against the weak,
and that he had too much national pride to exult at the ac-
complishment of an act which had neither the prestige of
danger or audacity to set it off. He then contested the
utility of the acquisition of Otaheite,, and showed the incon-
sistency of the adversaries of the Ministry, who last year
condemned it for acting and now blamed it for abstaining.
He then demonstrated the futility of the allegations of the
Opposition, that the present Cabinet was under the control of
the British Cabinet, and not free in its movements. M.
Guizot had repeatedly and victoriously refuted such an ab-
surd charge. It was M. Gasparin's firm opinion that the
Chamber had never been called upon more directly to decide
the question of peace and war than at the present moment,
and he concluded by a vindication of the piety, services, and
disinterestedness of the Methodist missionaries in the South
Seas amidst the murmurs of the Opposition.
M. Guizot—The question assumed at the end of yesterday's
sitting a very different appearance from what it possessed
previously ; for it was not only against the form and time of
the measure taken by the Government that objections were
raised, but Honourable Gentlemen were extremely anxious
to prove that we ought to have approved and ratified the
conduct of Admiral Dupetit Thouars. Several Hon. Mem-
bers seem to think that the Admiral was entitled to act as he
had done, because there was a violation of the treaty ; whilst
others maintain that there was an absolute necessity for his
so acting, in order to maintain the honour of France. I do
not think that there was any violation of the treaty, for at no
period did Queen Pomare refuse to execute it. She always,
on the contrary, declared that she was ready to comply,
whilst, at the same time, she complained that she had not
signed it with her full consent. She therefore did not violate
it ; and I can add, that no violation of it has proceeded
from any other quarter. I have mentioned that evil
counsels had been given to the Queen ; but I am
anxious to make a distinction which has not been yet
drawn. England has been spoken of in ti general manner
—England is said to have urged on to this proceeding and
to the other. This, Gentlemen, is an improper mode of talk-
ing. English subjects did certainly act thus; but the Eng-
lish Government not only did not act so, but did the very
opposite. It always declared that it would not interfere
with our protectorate, and gave positive instructions to their
agents in consequence.—(Hear, hear.) It was not able to
put a stop to all the proceedings, but it did what it could.
I have had sufficient experience of the honour of the English
Government to know that, without some provocation on our
part, it will not bring any obstacle to a state of things which
it had itself approved of. I have this firm confidence, and I
am convinced that I shall not be deceived. There was,
therefore, neither on the part of the Queen nor of Eng-
land, any violation of the treaty, which still subsists, and
is in full force for all parties. The Admiral therefore had no
right to depart from the tenour of the treaty. He
might easily have hauled down the flag of which so much
has been said, and substituted that of the protectorate,
leaving the Queen in possession of her territories—(Murmurs
on the Left.) We have heard much in the course of this
debate of national honour—of the honour of our flag,
and of the duty of the King's Government to support their
brave sailors, who, at 4,000 leagues' distance from their coun-
try, devote themselves to the furtherance of great national in-
terests. Gentlemen, I know of no spectacle more deplorable
than that of great and just ideas enlisted in the service of
error.—(Hear.) All those noble ideas so strongly expressed
by our adversaries in this tribune are equally felt by us. We
also wish the protection of the country to accompany our
seamen everywhere. But is there no other aspect in which
the country can be viewed ? Whilst our seamen are 4,000
leagues off, does not their country still remain here, and are
there not 35,000,000 of French subjects for whom this sailor,
acting in distant latitudes, may adopt a resolution which will
decide their fate ? And as the duty of the Government is to take
thought for all, why will you prevent its looking at the im-
portant side of the question ? Why will you not allow it to
demand from its seamen a complete obedience to the orders
given them by their country?--(Hear, hear.) We want
nothing more—we simply require obedience—and that pru-
dence and sound policy should accompany every where the
courage of our naval officers. Hence we consider it wrong in
any one 4,000 leagues from the mother country to act against
the orders given him.—(Hear.) As to the honour of France,
it is particularly in fidelity to engagements, in observance of
promises made, and pledges given in the respect of treaties,
that it has its most solid base. The tricoloured flag has never
received any affront in this matter, for the flag of the protec-
torate has never ceased to wave over the island. The question
lies wholly between two personal flags—one, which the Queen
desired to display—the other, which the Admiral insisted on
imposing on,her. I now come to the question of English and
French influence in the South Seas, and I assert that the
most powerful influence that exists at present in Oceania is
that of religion brought from Europe. Ido not speak of the
Protestant faith only, but of the Catholic religion also,
which exists already on many points of this archipelago. We
promised protection and security to the English missionaries
at Otaheite, and we have kept our word. We are not the
only power exercising such a protection. In New Zealand
there are established Roman Catholic priests with a bishop
at their head ; more than 20,000 of the natives are con-
verted, and the English protect the Catholic religion there
as we protect the Protestants at Otaheite. Do you sup-
pose that it is an easy matter to maintain those two religions
together in common activity? Do you suppose that it is not
possible that war be thence generated, if great care be not
taken ? It is undoubtedly a noble spectacle to see those two
religions acting side by side in a sympathetic accord ; but it
is also a spectacle attended with danger, and which cannot
last, but on condition that it is protected by the harmony of
the great Governments from which the missionaries have
proceeded. The day when this harmony shall have disap-
peared—when political differences shall arise, to place them-
selves by the side of religious proselytism!--on that day will
arise tempests, principles of disorder, causes of war, which the
prudence of the two Governments, of England and of France,
will perhaps be powerless to repress. Gentlemen, if you wish
the present state of things to continue, endeavour to main-
tain harmony between the two Governments—do not suffer
the imprudent act of a man, however courageous and devoted
to his country he may be, and I am not the person to contest
the merits of Admiral Dupetit Thouars, to destroy such a work
I now arrive at the proposition of M. Ducos. Gentlemen,
we do not ask of the Chamber a formal and exclusive appro-
bation of what we have done ; we have acted on our own re-
sponsibility, and we come here to state our motives to the
Chamber. This is but the commencement of an act ; the fu-
ture will show whether we did right to accomplish it. We
stand on our rights ; the Chamber rests on its right to exa-
mine and to criticise ; the question remains entire. You have
been asked to pass censure on what we have done, and you
have been asked to do this in an indirect and (excuse the ex-
pression) hypocritical manner.—(Rumours on the Left.) I
repeat, we ask for no approbation. The honourable M. Ducos
may ascend the tribune to explain the motives of his propo-
sition, but as to myself and my colleagues, we regard it as an
indirect and underhand censure, and we cannot accept it. We
accept our responsibility to its fullest extent, and from the
moment when we shall have received from the Chamber one
of those manifestations which tend to enervate a government,
v-e will cease to exercise it.—(Applause.)
M. Ducos—The Chamber will comprehend the feeling
which has induced me to speak, under the charge of having
proposed an hypocritical measure ; there is more hypocrisy
in such language than in my conduct. There is more than
hypocrisy in such language, there is fear—(Murmurs)—and
in that the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared perfectly
consistent with the other acts of his life.—(Murmurs.)
Numerous voices exclaimed—" Order, order !"
M. Ducos—The Chamber knows I should be sensible to a
call to order on its part, but who is there among you who
would be less offended by the reproach of hypocrisy, than by
the reproach which I have just addressed to the Minister?
The President—The expression that you have used, Sir,
is not parliamentary.
M. Gustave de Beaumont—lt is the Minister who has not
been parliamentary.
The President—lf I had understood the Minister to address
himself personally—(lnterruption on the Left)—l should
have made the same observation to him as I have made to
M. Ducos.—(Murmurs and exclamations from the Left.)
M. Durand de Romorantin—You do not know how to en-
force order.
The President—After having addressed an observation to
M. Ducos which I considered just, it only remains for me to
express a wish that irritating expressions should be refrained
from by all parties.
M. Ducos explained.
M. Thiers—After the speeches which you heard yesterday
from my Honourable Friends, MM. Billault and Dufaure—
(Noise and interruption)=-I scarcely think it necessary to
take part in the discussion ; but I am anxious to remind the
, Chamber of some facts which appear to me indispensable, in
order to fix its attention to the conduct of the Hon. Admiral
who receives to-day not.only the judgment of the Government,
but that of the Chamber.—(lnterruption.) The disobedience
of an Admiral is certainly a thing of a very serious nature,
and on that point I agree in the opinion of the Chamber. I repeat
that disobedience is a serious charge, and I ,can readily appre-
ciate the anxiety of those who wish on the present occasion
to give a lesson to all the agents of the Government. There
is also something very serious in the disavowal of the acts of
a general—of an agent of France abroad.—(Movement.) For
my part, I am 'persuaded that MM. Dupetit Thouars and
Bruat have had very good reason for dethroning this little
Queen Pomare.—(Laughter.) lam persuaded, from all the
documents which have been received, that they have been
judged prematurely, and I am convinced that the Minister of
Marine has felt considerable embarrassment in making this
*avowal. I place the Government in this dilemma—either
you are in possession of facts which you do not communicate,
or you have only the reports which you have produced. In
the former case, produce the documents ; in the latter, there
isdm
eroarntioinng inin ourth he anodstaaheleittitaenr
w;
is no reason for your disavowal. I can declare that the Hon.
M
squadron, and addressed to an officer of rank in this country.
I am not at liberty to mention names.—(Murmurs.)
itEtteinenbnye anda
personm myself, had
ohfadcotnhsi
M. Dupin, Sen.—Cite the facts without giving names.
M. Thiers—The writer says--" The English journals will

AFFAIRS OF OTAHEITE.
FRENCH CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.
SITTING OF FEB. 29.

M. Billault (part of whose speech we published on Satur-
day) continued, and said :—The Chamber has just heard the
affirmation on the honour of the King's Minister. Such a
mode of argument does not appear to me very parliamentary.
—(Exclamations and murmurs.) If no complete documents
have been received, why has the Government been so hasty
in condemning Admiral Dupetit Thouars? Why did it not
wait for more details ? This, gentlemen, is not a quarrel about
a flag, it is a quarrel of sovereignty— it is not a quarrel with
Queen Pomare, it is one with England.—(lnterruption.) A
quarrel with English agents then, if you like that expression
better. The protest of the Queen is clearly drawn up by the
secretary of the English vessel. The only part of it which
comes from the Queen, is that which she only signed through
the influence of fear. It was in consequence of the English
Captain Nicolas, that the flag of the protectorate ceased to
wave over Otaheite, and it was to English cannon that the
Government had yielded:—(Loud exclamations.) If you ac-
cept all that the English have done, the Chamber, Francs,
and all Europe, will appreciate your conduct.
The Minister of Dianne.—ln reply to the remarks of M.
Billault relative to the striking of the flag of the protectorate,
I have to repeat that from the day of its being first hoisted,
it had never been struck. I have carefully examined every
document relative to the affairs of Oceania, but I cannot find
anything to justify him in what he has done. The first duty
of an officer is to fulfil to the letter the instructions given
him.—(lnterruption on the Left.) I look upon the whole
question as purely French, without any regard to what might
be thought of it elsewhere.
Dufaure said I shall be exceedingly brief in my re-
marks. When the discussion on Oceania took place last
year, many persons anticipated the probability of complicit-
tions in the affairs of our protectorate. This case has oc-
curred, and the two Officers who acted in consequence are
now disavowed. We are told that they acted contrary to
their instructions ; but where are those instructions ? I my-
self have read the instructions given to Captain Bruat, and
there is not one syllable in them of what was to be done in
case of• the treaty being violated, or a refusal being given to
execute it. Well, then, here we have an Admiral 4,000
leagues off without instructions? What, then, was he to do,
should a cause arise which had not been provided for?
Clearly, he ought to act as his reason, his prudence, and his
patriotism suggested. As we obtain so little from the Go-
vernment we must seek elsewhere for our facts and infor-
mation. (The Hon. Member here referred to M. Gosse's
letter,_ part of which he read.) Thus, you perceive, that
scarcely was the protectorate accepted, when our flag was
hauled down, and another substituted, furnished by the Eng-
lish.—(Cries of " No, no," met by counter-exclamations of
" Yes, yes,") And it is for having demanded reparation for
thoseinsults that the Admiral is disavowed. It is a grave
matter to treat our naval officers after this fashion—grave not
only for the persons who suffer by it now, but for all our officers
cruising in distant latitudes. Those who so rapidly decide
on the question appear to me not to understand what they
do.—(Hear.) Why decide on such trifling evidence ? Why
not wait ? What danger could there be in doing so ? Re-
mark, too, that a variety of circumstances concur to aggravate
the disavowal of the Government. Ido not say that it took
place in consequence of the English debates, but it is unlucky
that it coincided with them, for the disavowal will be for our
officers not only a humiliation, but a subject of triumph to the
English party at Otaheite. I hope a French vessel will be at
once sent out with the news, for I do not like the idea of its
being taken out by an English one. When the French vessel
arrives, the first thing the Governor ought to do is to haul
down his flag, and cross the island like a conquered man.—
(Noise.) The protectorate, it seems, is to be resumed. It
was difficult enough before—judge what it will be now. Much
is said of the position that France ought to occupy as a naval
power, We make in our budget great sacrifices to sustain
the dignity of our navy ; but, for my part, I declare it openly,
I should prefer seeing France give up her navy for ever, to
find her suffering such acts as the Ministry is defending to-
day. This is the cause of my attacking the Cabinet, and
every one will allow that I do it frankly.
The Minister of Public Instruction—The Hon. Gentleman
who has just spoken, though he appeared not adverse to the
first attempt to extend the power of France in distant lati-
tudes, yet felt some uneasiness at the result. He feared that
there would result from it something onerous to the country,
and that there would be great difficult in reconciling the
protectorate with the preservation of the native power. But,
because the treaty appeared difficulty of execution, should it
on the first occasion be violated? Did the character of the
treaty, which rendered it difficult of execution, authorise it
being suddenly changed into absolute possession ? The treaty
which had been p.roposed and accepted established the dis-
tinction between internal sovereignty and a French protec-
torate, and this distinction certainly was not without value in
those distant regions. It gave to France a desirable means
of surveillance in the Pacific Ocean.—(Hear.) If there had
been shown to exist any imperious necessity for what has
taken place at Otaheite—if the French forces in that quarter
had been in danger, the Admiral would not only have been
supported by the Government, but praised for his conduct;
but nothing of the sort has taken place. What utility therefore
can be seen in thus suddenly changing our protectorate into
a definitive possession? Those who hold commands in those
distant regions certainly are obliged to have great liberty of
action, because great responsibility rests.upon them, but they
cannot be allowed to pledge their Governments indefinitely.
—(Approbation.) Because a mission is difficult and distant,
is the head of it, instead of maintaining and defending, to
take upon himself to modify and transform? No, gentle-
men, that is impossible. These are not doctrines made for
the occasion, they are the doctrines of all nations. The
greater the importance of a mission given to a courageous
leader, the more necessary is it that he should not exceed his
instructions, and the necessity of strictly adhering to instruc-
tions increases in proportion to the distance at which the mission
is to be executed. M. Dufaure has said that the conduct of
the Government towards Admiral Dupetit Thouars will
weaken the authority of French commanders. This motive
might be applicable if resistance were possible; but, gen-
tlemen, I will ask what resistance is there to be dreaded in
those islands, and what internal force can Otaheite find to re-
sist that of France ? The throne of Queen Pomare has been
spoken of with derision, but with these simple and primitive
people such facts as have taken place are regarded as more
important than some are disposed to consider them. Let the
treaty, then, be executed at Otaheite, let the protectorate be
re-established, and, instead of forming a weak idea of the
power of ance, these people will rather judge of her
strength brgeeing that she has the power to be just.
The President announced to the Chamber that M. Ducos
had handed to him a written proposition, having for its ob-
ject to terminate the discussion on the interpellations -by a