Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ceded in those treaties, and it would, he was certain, now urge the Ministry to propose to England to open fresh negotiations on that subject.

In the course of the discussion that followed, M. D'Alton Shee said, he regretted to differ in opinion from his hon, colleagues respecting the right of search, which was regarded at the time as a liberal conception. All the leaders of the Liberal party under the restoration, Lafayette, Benjamin Constant, M. Odillon Barrot, and himself, strongly advocated that concession, as the most efficacious means of repressing an infamous traffic. When the treaties were concluded, all parties saluted them with exultation, and he could not help remarking how strange it was, that after their existing during ten years without giving rise to the slightest complaint, those treaties should suddenly be made the pretext of such violent vituperation. M. D'Alton Shee then contended, that until 1837 no complaint had been made, and that it was only in that year, when the relations between France and England became somewhat impaired, that in compliance with some illegal instructions forwarded to the English cruisers by Lord Palmerston, who was doing everything in his power to excite a feeling of irritation between the two countries, that the first vexatious act was committed by the English against a French vessel. Since then, and whilst the Whigs remained in power, those acts had become frequent, but ever since the accession of the Tories, when those illegal instructions were repealed, no other vexatious acts had been committed. Those acts had been

not by the treaties, which he maintained had been attended with the most beneficial consequences, and did not, as asserted, imply on the part of France an abandonment of the principle of the liberty of the seas. M. D'Alton Shee moreover did not believe that a negotiation for the modification of the treaties would be productive of any result. The question was extremely complicated. The British Cabinet could not, even if disposed to do so, grant the concessions demanded by France. The action of the Parliament was as strong in England as it was in France. The latter, besides, would be wrong to require any modification in these treaties. It was her interest to remain at the head of the second-rate naval Powers of Europe; by withdrawing from the treaty France would leave at the mercy of England Powers which were accustomed to look up to France for protection.

Baron C. Dupin said, that with respect to the various treaties made for the suppression of the slave trade, he conceived them to have been agreed to when they were already without an object. Before the first treaty had been signed the slave trade was no longer practised either by France or England. In 1831 more than three years had elapsed without any vessel having been arrested for being concerned in that culpable trafic. How, then, did it happen that England was always so anxious about the maintenance of the treaties? Humanity could not be considered the cause, for it was no longer a question of saving unfortunate negroes from slavery. Something, therefore, more sacred in the eyes of England than the

it uneasy and on the watch, and that was the desire to increase her maritime interests, and the ambitious desire to protect and extend her empire over the sea. This view of the question would much simplify the whole discussion. Let it be supposed that the English Ministry should say to the Government of France" This treaty is useless, nay, burdensome to us: it is of use neither to you, nor to us, nor to the slave trade; let it be revoked." Suppose, also, that the French Ministry should in reply declare that "it should not be changed; the treaty existed, and should continue to be observed as it was." Did the Chamber imagine that this answer would sa tisfy England, and that she would not endeavour to discover the object of a refusal which was with out apparent reason, and would she not in the end succeed in finding what the other party endeavoured to conceal? Let the parties be changed, and the two nations be considered as they at present were. England it was, that would not alter the treaties, although France proved to her their inutility either for them or the slave-trade. It was in vain for France to declare that the Treaty was a lifeless tree. England replied by a refusal which she could not justify; but behind that refusal might be seen her grand moving power-her self-interest-for it was under covert of this treaty that England filled the waters with her vessels, and assumed the empire of the sea. had heard it asserted, that the treaty had emanated from men of liberal ideas, and that Benjamin Constant had been concerned in drawing it up. This was a mis

He

ways considered the Right of Search as threatening the liberty of the French navy. Besides, it was to be remembered that Benjamin Constant could not have taken part in the treaty of 1831, when he had ceased to live in 1830, and it was certain that he had never even given his opinion on the matter. To establish a right of search in order to repress a traffic in slaves which did not exist, which their morals reproved, and their laws were at all times ready to punish, was a mere derision. For the last twelve years not a French vessel had been engaged in the slave-trade. A slaver was known at the first glance; everything about it declared its business. Yet, notwithstanding this external appearance, vessels were visited which could in no respect be mistaken for slavers, and which were carrying on a lawful trade. All their cargoes were overhauled and disturbed, to see if a few planks might not be found on board, to enable them to be arrested as suspected craft. Baron Dupin concluded by repeating that the righ of visit was superfluous, since the slave-trade no longer existed. He would not, he said, propose to withdraw from executing the treaties, but he should desire to see the Ministry demand their annulment, being well persuaded that the application could not be refused. fused. He should, therefore, propose to insert a paragraph to that effect in the address-not an offensive one, but of such a nature as to show the Government what course it ought to pursue on this important question.

Next day, the Marquess dé Dreux Brezè opened the debate, and made a violent opposition

lately concluded between England and the United States had considerably, if not radically, modified the question of the Right of Search, and he trusted that France would seize that opportunity of removing the last vestige of a convention that had so deeply wounded the national feeling. He doubted, however, that the men who now composed the Administration, and had been mixed up with all the deplorable events that occurred since the last twelve years, and who had abandoned the noble traditions transmitted to them by the Duke de Richelieu and M. de Chateaubriand, were competent for the task. For instance, he asked, notwithstanding the repeated protests of both Houses in favour of the Polish nationality, what had they achieved in behalf of that heroic nation? Nothing. The wish expressed by Parliament, that the treaties of 1831 and 1833 be abolished, would, he feared, experience the same fate, if prosecuted by men who appeared to have invariably laboured to effect the degradation of their country, and promote the aggrandizement of rival Powers. He then proceeded to develope that opinion, and concluded that the policy pursued since the revolution of 1830 had alienated from France the affection of all the nations of Europe. As respected Spain, the system followed by them would necessarily produce fresh embarrassments, not only on the part of England, but also on that of the Cabinet of Madrid, who had dared to charge France with having been the chief instigator of the last revolt against the existing order of things. That policy had laid France open to all the attacks and menaces of the two

treaty of the quadruple alliance, whilst England was advancing with a steady pace to the enslaving of the entire Peninsula. He said, in conclusion, that France, in her present state of isolation, could achieve nothing, and recommended that she should hasten to form a more natural alliance than that of England.

M. Guizot, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, begged to be allowed to postpone the consideration of the principal question, the right of search, until the discussion was opened on the paragraphs. He repelled with indignation, in his name and that of his colleagues, the charge of having sought to promote the aggrandizement of foreigners at the expense of his own country. To prove that this was not the case, he would examine the relations of France with each nation separately. In Egypt the position of France was far more favourable than before 1840. The Pasha had had the wisdom to confine himself to the internal administration of his dominions, at the friendly suggestion of France, and the hereditary possession of Egypt was now secured to his family. The commercial intercourse between France and Egypt had likewise considerably improved. In 1838 her trade with that country, which did not amount to more than 14,000,000f., in 1839, to 11,000,000f., in 1840 to 10,000,000f., exceeded in 1841, 24,000,000f. In Syria, France had resumed her former ascendancy. Alarmed, at first, at the establishment of a Protestant bishop at Jerusalem, he had consulted the Catholic prelates and other chiefs of that religion in Syria, and they, one and all, declared that

spired them with no alarm; that all they required was full liberty of conscience for Protestants as well as Catholics. France, in conjunction with her allies, had forced the Porte to recall the governor, Omar Pasha, who had been sent to oppress Syria. In Constantinople France again occupied the former high station. Her sole policy was to protect and strengthen the independence and security of the Ottoman empire against all foreign attempts, and to promote at the same time the amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, and France and her allies had nearly succeeded in achieving those objects. With regard to Spain, her relations were not hostile, as stated by the Marquess de Dreux Breze, and he did not hesitate to declare, that no act of the Regent had hitherto justified the charge of usurpation directed against the present ruler of Spain by M. Boissy. France kept a watchful eye over that country; her interests, her honour pledged her to uphold the throne of the young Queen; the French Cabinet had carefully avoided to meddle in the internal affairs of Spain; they knew that Spain stood in need of the amity of France, and when the friendly advice of the latter was disregarded by the men who successively held possession of power in Madrid, they abstained from all hostility, and remained foreign to the quarrels of parties, well knowing that Spain, so jealous of the interference of foreigners in her affairs, would appreciate her forbearance, and that a reaction in her favour would ultimately take place. That reaction was already manifest, even at Barcelona, where the cries

"death to the French," which was the rallying cry of the revolution effected in that city in September, 1840. France, he declared, wished that Spain should be happy and well governed, and the great majority of Spaniards were well aware that she had no other ambition. As respected the other Powers of Europe, the situation of France was what it ought to beperfectly regular. She courted the intimacy of none, but maintained a good understanding with all. M. Guizot, in conclusion, contended that the policy pursued by the Government of July was perfectly honourable, advantageous and national, having obtained the approbation and support of all the men who, since 1789, had been foremost in defending the interests and independence of the country.

In the course of the debate, M. Villemain (Minister of Public Instruction) said, that he should confine himself to examining and confuting the doctrines maintained by the opponents to the address, to the effect that occasional trea. ties may be violated at the pleasure of either party who may find it convenient to do so. "I assert, and I need not insist upon this point in the presence of such an assembly as I now address," continued the orator, "that the common law of nations never admitted such a theory. There are, no doubt, treaties which contain in themselves ulterior causes for modification, but such a condition must exist in the terms of the convention, or be the consequence of the object for which it was concluded. But it cannot be created at the will of either party. With respect to another point, raised on

recently concluded a treaty with the United States, that Power never admitted the Right of Search, and consequently France, which admitted this right by treaty, and ratified and applied it during ten years, is precisely in the same position as America, and ought to impose what America obtained. Certainly, Gentlemen, this pretension is an abuse of comparison and of argument. I admit, that Great Britain in her anxiety to extinguish the slave-trade, after having endeavoured to obtain the same terms to which the European Powers acceded, yielded on one point and admitted another arrangement. But have we there fore a right to refuse what we admitted and practised? Let me add that the United States had another objection, much more serious than the Right of Search, founded upon the similarity of language of the two Powers, and the pretension assumed by Great Britain to press her sailors whereever she can find them. This difference between the United States and every other nation has been overlooked in the heat of political debate."

Afterwards, the general discussion on the Address being closed, the debate commenced on the separate paragraphs, according to the custom in the French Chambers. On the 23rd of January, when the third paragraph was proposed, the Marquess de Turgot moved the following amendment

"Those good relations (with Great Britain) would be better insured if, on a new examination of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, the inconveniences which their execution has revealed were removed by fresh negotiations," and after describing the circumstances under

which those treaties were concluded, stated his opinion that the surveillance exercised by French cruisers would suffice for the repression of the slave-trade by French vessels; that the Right of mutual Search was no longer necessary to attain that desirable object, since it had been abandoned by England in the Ashburton treaty; that England could not refuse to negociate on a new basis, and that she would not compromise the peace of Europe by refusing to acquiesce in a demand to that effect. If the Right of mutual Search had been conceded in 1831 and 1833, it was, he said, because both parties then considered it to be the only means of abolishing an abominable traffic.

The Prince of Moskowa succeeded M. de Turgot, and proposed the following amendment :-"We hope that your Majesty will see the necessity of taking into consideration the opinion that has manifested itself relative to the Right of mutual Search stipulated in the treaties of 1831 and 1833."

The Prince of Moskowa quoted Vatel and other political writers, to prove that under certain circumstances one of the parties to a treaty had a right to demand its abrogation. He thought that the abuses to which the execution of the convention of 1831 and 1833 had given rise could be justly invoked as a well-grounded motive for their repeal. The search made by an English officer on board a French vessel was, he said, humiliating for the French flag; it was viewed in that light by the whole nation, and the Chamber of Peers, could not help partaking in that general feeling, and was bound to express its reprobation in the Address.

« ForrigeFortsett »