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

THE SUN,

this law of extradition— n ame y , makingg tuhpe
ofwword of
party the
party sufficient authority for
the
accused. He looked with the greatest apprehension upon
such a provision. The law of extradition was very ancient.
The invariable rule was to require reassonable evidence of
the guilt of the party when the Government of a country
for
the called upon to give up a criminal. They were now,
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 nts reciprocity in the
requirements of both countries. If the T noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack asked him how this was to be done?
he would simply say, let it be done in England as it was
proposed to be done in France. Surely ii; was not proposed
that the warrant of the Secretary of Stan to in England, or of
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
{,,e) through the form of proving his ids atity before a magi-
:wrote in this country—
Ry
The Earl of MALMESBU —.There is a discretion in the
magistrate.
_Lord CAMPBELL—The only discret ion the magistrate
would have was as to the identity of this 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 be thought the greatest care out ;ht to be taken in the
creation of it. The law of extradition , even with all the
' securities which at present surrounds ri 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 art 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. Tho governor, on learn-
ing these facts, very properly refused to give the man up.
There was a remonstrance made by tb e American govern-
ment in consequence and he (Lord C.) advised the govern-
ment of this country to stand by the g overnor 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 z equired 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 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 iaf! 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, i/F after being se deli-
vered up he was liable to be tried for pc litical offences. He
understood the Noble and Learned Lorsl on the woolsack to
say, that upon this point they must sim ply 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 not demand that the French Government
should bind themselves so. He would, however, remind
their Lordships of the terms of th c; 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 conventioia, 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 thern equal security with
the law of this country. If, however, a convention was to
be entered into, they must take the gusa-antee of the French
Government and the French Legislature as equivalent to '
their owns 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 DIALIIESBURY 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 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 fade 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
found surrender
no
difficulty
ffi singleeutt y
in similar cases hitherto they had never yet been able to
in doing so.
l.France, on the contrary, had
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, Jane 8.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
(Continued front our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. V. SCULLY said it was quite clear that those
who supported the motion were not sincere in their
alleged desire for an it!einiry—in fact,
Maynooththey haa
lto
them-
selves avowed their insincerity. This was merelya
a step to the abolishment of
gather, which they were prepared to effect
without the slightest inquiry. They wished to have a
kind of inquisition to upset the grant, and that would
lead to the destruction of the College. Ile agreed in
thinking that the proposal for inquiry was a mere share,
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
dst tribunal teo uc
(Lord;
joCniidßutssirr had stated, the very
He denied that 'the people
of England called for inquiry, but even supposing they
did, why should the Hon. Member. for North Warwick-
shire not adopt the suggestion, that 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 strictest investigation upon
oath? He 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 entiged; to
it on every ground of justice and good faith.
The Church Establishment of Ireland cost this country
directly about 3,000,0001. per annum. There were
600,000 Protestants is Ireland, so that the religious n-
struction of each Irish Protestant cost 5/. a head, while,
by dividing the Maynooth grant among the Roman Ca-
tholic population, he found that each of them received
one penny ; so that each Protestant received just :as
much as 1,200 Catholics; the Protestant got 3icl, per day
for his religious instruction, while the same sum had 'to
serve each Catholic for three years and a half. The discre-
Pitney between the numbers of Catholics and Protestants
4.11 Ireland, and the relative value of the endowments of
146 two churches, had struck every person who knew
titution
anything__ of Ireland. Both foreign travellers and the
great statesmen of this country had remarked on this
iarlire.ilratnd had spoken of it as the great evil of Ire-
the Rex:
Catholic
of
grant-, in fact, was nothing more than a
and ender undest•hiteyei
property which had been robbed from
ttiaCatholic Chards, and from the Ronian
in the reign of Queen Elizaheth
protectorate of Cromwell, and also
under William e
population of 'eel
tart.
were the origin 'lie The spoilings of these monarbhs
the poverty of the Roman Cathblie
(rd. What Ireland wanted was fair
merely
to be allowed to enter the
play. They eau
lists,at tlorihsahlfiors2B, n
w Why, but the other day, see
.......wiTel O'Rourke and Barbarian, bad
dene—(Laughter)
had a fair start. Much
wasstranothing of the sort in Ire-
4b6uteill tilnYentenism in Ireland, but
had been asserted
he asserted that there
he. The Honourable
length to detail the Member then proceeded at great
Waterof
aWIY their gradual railaxa-
the penal laws,
tracing their first imposition
was always considered
of many great
lien up to the time when the College
foandecl. That step had the a_ of Maynooth was
and van acquainted with the rites and
of___ in the light of a
aYnooth was inquired
into by Lord Castlereagh ono of whose chief advisers
enoammpe:C;:ln(llnitlBo,o,lthe state AT
was tile Protestant Biohop of Leath,l formerly a Re-
pmraanctiCcaest
of
advice which he gave
was not to !cue the seipPlY O# the Boman Catholic priest-
hood in Ireland to foreign colleges, but to do their best
with education at home. The same
to provide them
Catholic,
Church, end the
authority deprecated an interference with the college of
Maynoeth. This was, however, not the first time that
this agitation had been raised against this establish-
ment, it had been raised before in 1800, and afterwards
,
in 1826.
it being now Fbur o'clopht the .rPE-t. Tan left:tho
Chair, and the House adjourned until Six o'clock. ;

The House resumed at Six o'clock.
A messenger from the Lords brought up the follow-
ing Bills: to which the* Lerdebis hod greed:—