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

TNE SUN, .res-,LONDON,

,
this law of extradition—namely, making 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 of
the guilt of the party when the Government of a country
was called upon to give up a criminal. They were now, for
the first time, about to propose that the mere assertion of
the Government shall be held as conclusive evidence of the
guilt of the accused, and that he shall be delivered up to be
tried by the laws of his own country. It was extraordinary,
upon this subject, that there should be no reciprocity in the
requirements of both countries. If the Noble and Learned
wasntnd,proposed
orof
Lord on the Woolsack asked him how
in England this was to a
bes it
downeas?
he would simply say, let it be done
that t proposedhe warrantto b edo
on
fe
thein
Secretary France.ance.
g a
S relyof al
tt
in En ol
an English magistrate, should be taken as proof positive of
the guilt of a party whose extradition was required from
France. By the present measure, how easy would it be for
persons to forge documents asserting the guilt of an indivi-
dual who had made himself obnoxious to France, and merely
go through the form of proving his identity before a magi-
strate in this country—
The Earl of DIALMESBURY—.There 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 given up. Now, this was a power so liable to
abuse he thought the greatest care ought to be taken in the
creation of it. The law of extradition, even with all the
securities 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 so
abused under that law, how much more was it likely to be
abused under a convention which only required the ipse dixit
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 11 th 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. lie 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 of 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 Government could give them equal security with
the law of this country. If, however, a convention was to
be entered into, they must take the guarantee of the French
Government and the French Legislature as equivalent to
their own. Now, there were about 20 offences described in
this measure, which he thought would afford additional
facilities to persons being tried for political offences quasi
criminal. He was strongly opposed to the principle of deliver-
ing up supposed criminals merely upon the accusation of the
French Government, and proving the identity of the party.
Lord BROUGHAM called attention to the 7th article of
the convention, which says—" No accused or convicted
person who may be surrendered shall in any case be pro-
ceeded against or punished on 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 CRANWORTH 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 M.ALMESBURY said 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
Learned 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 come evidence of his
guilt, as was the case in the treaty between this country
and the United States. No man ought to be giveu 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 expresaly
for the objection taken by the Noble Earl (Grey), but thee
in similar cases hitherto they had never yet been able tO
surrender a single criminal. France, on the contrary, hal
found no difficulty in doing so.
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that in cases where crir4
nals were claimed, depositions should be laid before the
Secretary of State, and if found satisfactory, he should alio*
the warrant to issue. They might allow the Bill, with th 4
understanding, to be read a second time.
Lord MALMESBURY said all he wished was, that this
should be improved, and with that view he hoped their
Lordships would alUow 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 COMIVONS, June 8.
MAYNOOTII 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 their
inquiry—_in fact,T htihseywahsadmtheree;
nti
saelllevgeesd'adveoswireedforthaen i
irins
a step to the abolishment. of Maynooth alto-
gether, which they were prepared to effect
without the slightest inquiry. They wished to bevels
kind of inquisition to upset the grant, and that would
4.
load to the destruction of the College. Lie e
agreed in
thinking that the proposal fur inquiry was a mere sheik),
for if inquiry was earnestly wished fur, it could be hd
at once under the powers exercised by the visitors.'
(Hear, hear.) lle bad no objection to inquiry, but be
complained that a Select Committee was, us the Noble
Lord (Lord; John Russell) had stated, the very
worst tribunal to conduct it. He denied that the people
of England called for inquiry, but oven supposing they
did, why should the Hon. Member for North Warwick-
shire not adopt the suggestion, that it should take pl Ice
between this and the next session of Parliament, eit er
iby Royal Commission or by the visitors, who had 0
power of .conducting the strictest investigation upon
'oath? Ho. objected to an inquiry of an in-
sulting:.character, such as that proposed, which
it was notorious was intended as an electioneering clap-
trap. As to the miserable grant itself, he was prepared
to contend that the people of Ireland were entitled, to
it on every ground of justice and good faith.
The Church Zatatntscnuul, of Ireland cost thls:couutry
directly about 3,000,000/. per annum. There were
[ 600,000 Protestants in Ireland, so that the religious in-
-1 struction of each Irish Protestant cost 5/. a bead, while,
by dividing the Maynooth grant among the Roman • a-
tholic population, ho found that each of them recei ed
one penny ; so that each Protestant received just ' as
much as 1,200 Catholics; the Protestant got 3id. per 4ay
for his religions instruction, while the same sum had' to
serve each eeitholic for three years and a half. The discre-
pancy between the numbers of Catholics and Protestants
1n Iceland, and tho relative value of the endowmentsi of
the two churches, had strack every person who kiiew
l'hfis
anythingr of Ireland. Both foreign travellers and :the
c laity, i
great statesmen of this country had remarked on this
the Re:
land.aly, and bad spoken of it as the great evil of Ire•
Catholic grant, in fact, was nothing more than a res-
titutionthe property which had been robbed fFom
under Williantille
Roman Catholic Chureh, and from the Roman
n the reign of Queen Elizabeth
and under
were the ori protectorate of Cromwell, and also
111. The spoil cgs of these monarchs
population ginof the poverty of the Roman Catholic
play. They
rend. What Ireland wanted was 'fair
eu
lists, to have
Irish horses
a fairY wanted to be allowed to enter! the
, awe. Why, but the other daye see
what
ilel O'Rourke and Barbarian, 'had
done—(Laughter)......,
had been asserted about they
had a fair start. Much
ultranaontanism in Ireland,, but
lhaenda.sseTrthede
lithoantouthrearbelewasMember nothing of the sort in Ire-
tthoetihrefitrims teirawhPeoisaittihoicraynodll ofth eirthgeradpueanlalrellaaxwas!
t then proceeded at great
length to detail the his
(Itoirfinen'idnuegpci. That step ,had Sanctiontheo of many great
egf of Maynooth was
and it was always names,.considered in the light of a
into by Lord I h of Maynooth was inquired
Gait erea.g , one of whose chief
compact. In 1800 the state
advisers
Meath,
formerly a Ro-
man Catholic, and well acquainted with the rites and
was the Protestant Bishop of
he gave
practices of the Church, and the advice which
was not to leave the supply of the Roman Catholic priest-
hood in Irelaud to foreign colleges, but to do their' best
to provide them with education at home. The same
authority deprecated an intert erence with the college of
Maynooth. This was, however, not the first time that
this agitation had been raised against this estalish-
ment, it had been raised before in 1800, and afterwards
in 1826.
It being
and the no
lluwoEosue r
o'clock,the SPEAKER left the
Chair, adjourned until biz o'clock. 1

The House resumed at Six o'clock.
A messenger from the Lords brought up the follow-
ing Bills, to which their Lordships had. agreed:

Battle and Robertsbridge Road.
Runcorn Improvement.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway.
WRllingford, and Reading Road, and
Shitlingford Bridge, without aal-ndment.
Ip:iwich Dock, with an amendment.
South.-Eastern and Reading, Guildford, and Reigate
Railways, with amendments.

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against the grant to
Maynooth.

Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from the
Society for obtaining the Repeal of the Taxes on Know-
ledge, praying for an inquiry with regard to the postage
charged for the transmission of newspapers under 2 oz.
Mr. G. SANDARS presented a petition from the
physicians and surgeons of Wakefield and its vicinity,
praying for more adequate remuneration in criminal
prosecutions.
Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from George, Cape
of Good Hope, with 200 signatures, chiefly field cornets,
praying for the speedy passage of their constitution ordi-
nances, with all their details as first drawn.,

Mr. CUBITT presented a petition from the Southern
Association of Baptist Ministers and Messengers, assembled
at Whitchurch, Hants, representing 27 churches, 3,000 mem-
bers, and 12,000 hearers, against the Militia Bill.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Saffron Walden
against the Militia Bill.
Sir B. HALL presented a petiton from the inhabitants of
the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras, agreed to in
public meeting assembled, complaining of Romish doctrines
and practices being permitted in the churches of the Esta-
blishment, and praying that an inquiry may be instituted
into the conduct of the Bishop of London, in reference to the
matters complained of.

Mr. BROC;KINIAN presented a petition from the members
of the Hy the Reading Society to be furnished with copies of
such of the reports and other Parliamentary documents
ordered by the House of Commons to be printed as refer to
literature, science, the fine arts, and the useful arts, free of
expense, &c.
Mr. TUFNELL presented petitions from the Eastbourne
Literary and the Peterborough Mechanics' Institutions in
favour of a distribution of Parliamentary papers to all mecha-
nics' and literary institutions.
Mr. G. THOMPSON presented a petition from the Tower
Hamlets, praying an inquiry into the cause of the prohibi-
tion of meetings on the Sabbath-day in Bonner's-fields.
Mr. PACKE gave notice that he should move that the
County Elections Poll Bill be read a third time that day six
months.