The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-09 00:00:00

THE SUN,

this law of extradition—namely, melting the word of the
party sufficient authority for the giving up of the party
accused. He looked with the greatest apprehension upon
such a provision. The law of extradition was very ancient.
The invariable rule was to require reasonable evidence
the gni% of the party when the Government of a countryfor
was called upon to give up a criminal. They were not.wn,
ef
the first time, about to propose that the mere
lasseeer
ofio the
the Government shall be held as conclusive
leviecr
guilt of the accused, and that he shall
Ibtewdeeetv?xteerdre.eurruntoarbye
tried by the laws of his own country.
upon this subject, that there should be
and Learned
no reciprocity the
requirements of both countries. If the Noble
heLo Lord
eouni thea eitnpl
y say,Woolsack
let askedit bhim
howon done this
Englandwas to
asbe it cio
nwage
thatprop otsheedwtoe
rbr
eeedtoenfe
tinheFsraeenrceet. Se
ry uerf Stateely t wasin E
ungo
lta
epdr
?eoptedrs eef
an English magistrate, should be taken as proof positive of
the guilt of a party whose extradition
easy
nwas requiredi from
France. By the present measure, how woad it be for
persons to forge documents asserting the
to
the guilt of an indivi-
dual who had made himself obnoxious France, and merely
go through the form of proving his identity before a magi-
strate in this country—
The Earl of MALMESBURYeeThere is a discretion in the
magistrate.
Lord CAMPBELL—The only discretion the magistrate
would have was as to the identity of the accused. On that
fact being ascertained he was bound to order him to be im-
mediately this was a power so liable to
b
givenght then . Now,greates care ought to be taken in the
creation of The law of extradition, even with all the
abuse
eiiothin ees which at present surrounded it, had been much
abused. He recollected that when he had the honour of
being Attorney. General he was consulted in a case arising
out of the treaty entered into between the United States and
Canada. In that treaty there was an extraditional clause,
which required that there should be a bill of indictment
before the extradition could be demanded. An indictment
was found against a man in Canada for horse-stealing, and
an application was made to the Governor of Canada on be-
half of the Government of the United States to have him
given up. What were the facts? The accused was a slave
who had escaped into Canada on a horse, which he had sent
back on his arrival at the frontier. The governor, on learn-
ing these facts, very properly refused to give the man up.
There was a remonstrance made by the American govern-
ment in consequence and he (Lord C.) advised the govern-
ment of this country to stand by the governor in what he
had done. Now, when the power was capable of being a)
abused under that law, how much more was it likely to be
abused under a convention which only required the ipso d;xit
of a party as an authority for giving up an accused party?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was understood that
in the working of the French law the English government
would have the same facilities afforded them in France in
respect to the arrest of their criminals as the French govern-
ment would have in this country. By the 11th article
power was given to the Secretary of State to supersede
proceedings, where, under article 10 of the convention or
otherwise, it might appear proper.
The Duke of ARGYLL said that they were all anxious
that no person should be delivered up, if after being so deli-
vered up he was liable to be tried for political offences. He
understood the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack to
say, that upon this point they must simply trust to the faith
of the convention; that as the English Government did not
propose to bind themselves by any law upon this point, they
therefore could net demand that the French Government
should bind themselves so. He would, however, remind
their Lordships of the terms of the 12th article:—"No
person surrendered by the French Government under the
said convention should be prosecuted or proceeded against
in the United Kingdom, or in any of the dominions her
Majesty, for or on account of any crime or offence com-
mitted previously to his being so surrendered, except the
crimes described in the said convention, but shall be wholly
released by such surrender from all prosecutions and pro-
ceedings in respect of any such previous crime, except as
aforesaid, and in case of any prosecution contrary to this
provision, such surrender shall be admitted as a valid defence,
and evidence thereof may be given under a plea of not
guilty." If this Bill be passed, he thought that it would be
the duty of the French Government to bind itself by law in
a similar manner as this country would then have done by
the article in question. In consequence of many political
changes to which France was exposed, it was impossible that
the French Goverment could give them equal security with
the law of this country: If, however, a convention was to
be entered into, they mast take the guarantee of the French
Government and the French Legislature as equivalent to
their own. Now, there were about 20 offences de-scribed in
this measure, which he thought would affard additional
facilities to persons being tried fur political offences quasi
criminal. He was strongly opposed to the principle of deliver-
ing up supposed criminals merely upon the accusation of the
French Governmeet, and proving the identity of the party.
Lord BROUGHAM called attention to the 7th article of
the convention, which says—" No accused or convicted
I person who may be surrendered shall in any case be pro-
ceeded against or punished un account of any political offence
committed prior to his being surrendered, nor for any crime
or offence not described in the present convention which he
may have committed previously to his being surrendered;
and proof of having been so surrendered under this con-
vention shall be a good and valid defence against any
proceeding on account of any political offence previously
committed, and shall entitle the party to an immediate
acquittal."
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was nothing
more just than that the French Government should pass
such a law as this, and thereby secure a reciprocity of
power. If they did not pass such a law as would meet the
provisions of that clause they could then strike it out of their
Act.

After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY,
Lord CRAN WORTH said that the principle of this Bill
was to legislate so as to carry into effect a treaty and con-
vention, many of the terms of which were inadmissible.
Under this impression, he, for one, thought that this Bill
should not be read a second time.
Lord MALIIESBURY Bali that this Bill was considered
to be a matter of necessity. It had been well considered at
the Foreign-office, and he therefore hoped that their Lord.
ships would read it a second time ; and that the Noble and
Lsarned Lords opposite would give their valuable assistance
in amending the details so as to render it as perfect as
possible.

Lord CAMPBELL said that the objections could not be
removed without a new French convention.
The LORD CHANCELLOR apprehended that the Bill
might be so modified as to meet their Lordships' views. It
might then be left to the French Government for their
adoption or rejection.
Earl GREY thought the Bill should not be passed in its
present shape. He thought, before surrendering an alleged
criminal, there ought to be offered some evidence of his
guilt, as was the case in the treaty between this country
and the United States. No man ought to be given up with-
out a prima facie case being made against him. Unless it
could be amended to that extent, he could not allow the
Bill to be read a second time.
Lord ABERDEEN said that clause too provided expressly
for the objection taken by the Noble Earl (Grey), but then
in similar cases hitherto they had never yet been able to
surrender a single criminal. France, on the contrary, had
found no difficulty in doing so.
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that in cases where crimi-
nals were claimed, depositions should be laid before the
Secretary of State, and if found satisfactory, he should allow
the warrant to issue. They might allow the Bill, with that
understanding, to be read a second time.
Lord MALMESBURY said all he wished was, that this.
Bill should be improved, and with that view he hoped their
Lordships would allow the Bill to be committed.
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed on Friday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 8.
MAYNOOTJI COLLEGE.
(Continued from our Afternoon 'Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. V. SCULLY said it was quite clear that those
who supported the motion were not sincere in
tom-
in
hth.eir
alleged desire for an iuquiry—in fact, they
selves avowed their insincerity. This was merely
a step to the abolishment
of Maynooth alto-
gether, which they were 'prepared to e ffct
without the slightest inquiry. They wished to
have'
kind of inquisition to upset the grant, and
that
would
a
load to the destruotion of the Codiege. He agreed in
thinking that the proposal for inquiry was a me sham,
for it inquiry was earnestly wished for, it Could be had
at once under the powers exercised by the visitors.
(Hear, hear.) He had no objection to inquiry, but he
complained that a Select Committee was, as the Noble
Lord (Lord. John; Russell) hild stated, the vary
worst tribunal to conduct it. He denied that th© people
of England called for inquiry, bat even supposing they
did, why should the Hon. Member for North Warwick-.
shire not adopt the suggestion, ritat it should take place
between this and the next session of Parliament, either
by :Royal Commission or by the visitors, who had the
power of conducting the strictost investigation upon
oath? Ho objected to an inquiry of an in-
sultOng character, such as that proposed, which
it was notorious was intended ea an electioneering clap-
trap. As to the miserable great itself; lie was prepared
to contend that the people of frelancl were entitled to
it on every . ground of puttee and good faith.
The Church Establishment of Ireland cost this country
directly 'about 3,000,0001. per annum. - There were
600,000 Protestants in Irelatid, so that the religious in-
struoion of each Irish Protestilra cost 51. a head, while,
by dividing the Maynooth grater. among the Roman Ca-
tholic population, ho found (lota each of them received
ono pansy ; so that each Pro t mtant received just al
much as 1,200 Catholics; the Poitestant got 3id. per day
for his religious instruction, cabala the same sum had to
serve each a:atholic for three yes ra and a half. The discre-
pancy between the numbers-of t Datholieslind Protestants
treland and the relative yak to of the endowments of
tala two churches, had struck 'every person who knew
'4nYthing of Irelaed. Both foreign travellers and the
greatisit.,a,tesomen of this country had remarked on this
landt'ilalsot had spokui of it. eas the great evil of Ire-
titution of itrant, in fact, W5l :nothing more than a res-
tbe Rain,u`l6'"a Property which had been robbed from
Catholie t
tbadie Church, 'and from the Roman
-
and undera sty' : in the reigea of . Queen El:a Ala-oh
I under William protectorate of Cromwell, and also
were the origin lll'of
population ot 'lreialir poverty 101
The spoT.lings of these monarchs
the Roman Catholic
pLay. They naerel;w What :Ireland wanted was fair
lists, to have a fair staa.tritted to
.!.)e allowed to enter the
what Irish hors;s, Dani,:i oNY"o.V..taut the other day, see
had *men eisertsd about 01•trzg,'
done—(Laughier)—whca
he asserted that there ~,,,a
airy] The Honourabe thlto peace and Barbarian, htei
had a fair start:. Mach
not. tb.tarch:na in Irelan.d, but
u...._. titlg of the sort in Ire-
leogth
to
(lola
.the liti'Dstor y thenof proceeded at great
their gradual ra laza•
the penal low;,
tr.icio4 Lb?* first imposition L. lad
ego of Maynooth was
to,n,teai, That stop bad the aroc'tion at ay g
tioa, up to OTo time when tho caqi.
Nleath
nos,
and it vrai tllways cant iderrd .in themranh great
fat
in ,0 by LT,I.d castlerengh, one
.cf whos,efothroieetr' Filtalllislirier'o;
wail toe piatesatnatintwl'elihaiPqa.a:„l,:iittft' ead:-dvtvi
uththrihtees
gaatvido.
compact. In 1800 &he stata of. Mayauoth
wasi-i . 11:
man Catholic,
Practices of the Church,
was not to lawn the supplY of ,17,e' Roman Catholic
1:11M. the first tirae_
priest-
hood in Ireland to foreign cola vs,. but to do their beat
that
to provide them with educatbn Lt home. The me
t Ar- EI interfer Ince with the college -
authority deprecated a , „ „ of
Maynooth. This was, howev•`47l
this agitation bad been raised agamst this ebtothsh.
meria it had been raised before in 1800, and afterwards
in 1826.
' o'clock, be ,-.:•PEATith left It being. now Four o.clock, o.
Chair, and the House adjourr.e3l until t.-.,ix o'clock,

The House resumed at Six o'clock•
A messenger from the Lurch; :brought up the follow.
mg Bills, to which their Lordshiipa had agreed:—