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

THE

this law of extradition.—namely, making the word of the
party sufficient authority for the giving up of the party
accused. He locked with the greatest apprehension upon
such a provision. The law of extradition was very ancient.
Tile 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 , ere now, for
the first time, about to propose that the mere assertion of
the Government shall be i`ield as conclusive evidence of the
guilt of the accused, and tL'at he shall be delivered up to be
tried by the laws of his own country. It was extraordinary,
upon this subject, that there stould be no reciprocity in the
requirements of both countries. If the 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 it was not proposed
that the warrant of the Secretary of State 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
s rl o
vin xiiousi
d teon It;
tra
before
, n
amme
ar ey.
persons to forge documents asserting the guilt of an indivi-
dual who had made hiomf
f obn
sgtorattheroiungthhisthoeoufontrry_ p e
g o
h s y g li
The Earl of MALMESBURY.--,There is a discretion in the
magist r a te.
PBELL—The only discretion the magistrate
Lord CAM
would have was as to the identity of the accused. On that
fact being aseertajned he was bound to order him to be im-
mediately given lit". Now, this was a power so liable to
abase he thought the ,neatest care ought to be taken in the
creation of it. The law of extradition, even with all the
securities which at prest'nt surrounded it, had been much
abused. He recollected that when he had the honour of
being Attorney•Ganeral he eras consulted in a case arising
out of the treaty entered into bcn;ween the United States and
Canada. In that treaty there vas 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 02,1 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
abased under a convention which only required the ipse dLvit
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 I 1 th article
power was given to the Secretary of State to 6uper,,ede
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 ;lid not
propose to bind themselves by any law upon this point, they
therefore could not demand that the French Governmont
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 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 anv 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 sans—" 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 HABROWBY,
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 MALMESBIJRY sail 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 givea 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 COJIVIONS, June 8.
MAYNOOTII COLLEGE.
,Continued from our Afternoon Edition 01 yesterday.)
Mr. V. SCULLY said it was quite clear that those
who supported the motion were not sincere in their
alleged desire for an inquiry—in fact, they had them-
selves avowed their insincerity. This was merely
proefparMedaYn
gaethsetorp, wthoichthe theayboliwshemreent
without the slightest inquiry. to
oo t h
Effectal o -
They wished to have a
kind of inquisition to upset the grant, and that would
load to toe des:ruction of the College. Ile agreed in
thinking that the proposal tor inquiry was a mere sham,
for it inquiry was earnestly wished for, it could be had
at once under the powers exercised by the visitors.
(Hear, Leer.) Ha had no objection to inquiry, but he
complained that a Select Committee was, as the Noble
Lord (Lord Johns Russell) bad stated, the vary
worst tribune' to conduct it. 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, whieh
it was notorious was intended as an electioneering clap-
trap. As to the miserable grant itself, ho was prepared
to contend that the people of Ireland were entitled 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 in Ireland, so that the religious in-
struction of each Irish Protestant cost 51. a head, while,
by dividing the Maynooth grant among the Roman Ca-
tholic population, ho found that each of them received
one penny ; so that each Protestant received just as
much us 1,200 Catholics; the Protestant got 3id. per day
for his religious instruction, while the same sum had to
serve each teatholic for three years and a half. The discre-
pancy between the numbers of Catholics and Protestants
ha Ireland, and the relative value of the endowments of
the two churches, had struck every person who knew
anything; of Ireland. Beth foreign travellers and the
great statesmen of this country had remarked on teis
an";').llY, and had spoken of it as the great evil of Ire•
. This rant
titation g ,in fact, was nothing more than a res-
the property which had been robbed from
the Roman cavaolic Catholic Cbureh, and from the R,:tean
laity, in the reign of Qasen Elizaboth
and uneor
protectorate or Cromwell, and also
underam
The spoiliegs of these monarchs
were the origin uI? the poverty of the Roman Catholic
population or 'ref"
The,„ nd. What Ireland wanted was fair
to halo merelyat.air wanted to be allowed to enter the
what Irish horses, iPetaarr-t. Why, but the othar day, see
O'Rourke and. Barbarian, Lad
clor,—(Laughler)—whneeni
iiitthsy had a fair start. Much
had been asserted about
Ireland, t:ut
he asserted that. there seaarb,37,t3tinin4"iBfmthin,
The licnourable m
thenoproceiedoerdt altagrerea;
length to detail
.the history of the penal laws,
tracing thtir first imposition eon theird 1 I
gradual rc Ixa-
tion, up to the titue when
-e of Maynooth was
fottnded. That step had the sanction of. manygreat
names, awi it was always considered in the light gof a
compact. In 1800 the stateh of Maytionth was inquired
into by Lord Casidereag, , One of whose chief advisers
was the Protestant Bialop of Meath, formerly a Ro-
man Catholic, and well acpainted with the rites and
practices of the Church, and the advice which he gave
was not to leave the supply' of the Roman Catholic priest-
hood in Ireland to foreign colleges, but to do their best
to provide them with education at home. The cams
authority deprecated kip interference with the college of
Meynoeth. 'This was, towev,r, 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 Four o'clock, the SPEAKER left the
Chair, and the House adjourned until Six o'clock.

Ths House resumed at Six o'ciock.
A messenger from the Lorc;a brought up tho
tog Bills, to which their Lork,l4llips Mid agreed:—