The Press. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1879.

Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4290, 30 April 1879, Page 2

The Press. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1879.

In our recent English files we find an account of the debates iv the French Chamber of Deputies on the subject of the Amnesty Bill. As our readers will be generally aware, deportations to a very large extent have takon place of persons who had mixed themselves up, or were suspected of doing so, with the political troubles in which France was plunged on the fall of the Empire. The neighboring island of New Caledonia has been made to serve as a gigantic prison house for the principal portion of these political criminals. And these colonies have been more than once alarmed by the successful attempts at escape of individuals or bodies of men who have been there confined. It has thus happened that the interest which all over the Continent of Europe is naturally felt in French affairs has extended to ourselves; and any intimation that the policy of repression is giving way will be hailed with lively satisfaction, even at the antipodes. It is the more satisfactory that the decision which the French Chamber has arrived at has been preceded by discussions marked by an unusual degree of temperance. It has hitherto appeared almost impossible that any discussion bearing upon the conduct of the ' Communists could take place at Versailles without provoking the most furious heats and animosities. On this occasion the debates took place, not certainly without difference of opinion, for the Government had to submit to important modifications of their programme, but those differences appear to have been soberly and calmly considered, and both the result and the way in which it was arrived at, are in a high degree creditable to the moderation of the Chamber. They prove indeed something considerably more valuable, for they may be taken as fairly indicating that the extreme party passions which have so long desolated France have at length largely subsided, and that it is becoming possible for Monarchists, Bonapartists, and Republicans to content themselves with abiding by their theore • tical views in the abstract, while obeying as good citizens the Constitution to which the nation at large has given in its allegiance.

The amnesty now resolved npon is of no illusory character, as indeed the extent to which it has already been acted npon sufficiently shows. The President of the Republic is entrusted with a general power to pardon " all those con- " demned for acts relating to the in 4 " surrection of 1871, and all those con- " demned for crimes or offences relating " to political acts." The only reservation npon this power is a limit of time. It must be exercised within a period of three months from the passing of the law. The amnesty granted, moreover, is to be complete. The pardoned persons are to enjoy full restitution of their civil and political rights. It may be said, perhaps, that the amnesty is, after all, left to the discretion of the President and his advisers. Assuming this to be so, it appears that the confidence thus exhibited has not been rashly reposed. It has already been announced that the exercise of the pardoning power will be extended at once to the whole body of French political criminals now undergoing punishment, with the exception of about thirteen hundred persons. Of these thirteen hundred there are some six hundred still at New Caledonia, the other seven hundred being described as contumacious. It must not, however, be supposed that the whole of the " contumacious" are to be excluded from the benefit of the amnesty. The term does not indeed necessarily imply any aggravated degree of guilt. Strictly speaking, it does not mean more than that the accused person has fled from justice and been condemned in his absence. The number of persons in this position is calculated at about two thousand, and it is proposed that nearly twothirds of this number, who are spoken of as having been " working honorably " abroad, and endeavoring by good con- " duct to atone for their faults," shall be brought within the President's proclama- j tion. Those who will remain at New Caledonia cannot claim the benefit of the j amnesty, inasmuch as they cannot be I truly spoken of as political criminals. The great body of them labor under tbe stigma of ordinary crime, and no one can blame the French Government for leaving them to the ordinary operation of the law. We expressed at the outset our cordial gratification with the state of things in France as thus indicated by the temper and conduct of the Chamber of Deputies. For the immediate object which they had in view we believe they have acted with a wise liberality. At the same time there are other duties in this connection to which their attention has been called, and which must unavoidably continue to be pressed upon them until they are' completely discharged. It is quite true that ordinary offenders " branded by re- " peated convictions" cannot hope to have the benefit of the amnesty. It is quite true that they must continue to be punished. But it does not follow that they should be punished at New Caledonia. . It does not follow that they should ba made a nuisance to every British colony within the Australian, waters. That they are snch a nuisance —an unmitigated nuisance—is not to be denied. It is almost like living near an ill-kept madhouse to be so near them. Queensland suffers most, but all of us are in danger. The British Government has given up transportation, under th© urgency of the settlements ia these seas, and it is no"piece of extravagance to say" that the French Government must, sooner

or later, make up its mind to do the same. It is not a question between a mother country and its colonies. It is a question of international comity—not to say international law —between one State and another. The French Government are bound by the consideration that their settlement of New Caledonia is within the immediate neighborhood of other civilised races owing obedience to the same laws which' regulate the relations between State and State and citizen and citizen all over tho Continent of Europe. They have scarcely more right to introduce into this community a settlement of convicts than they would have to introduce a settlement of pirates. The expression, no doubt, is a strong one. But'it "must be considered that it has been found practically impossible to provide against the escape of the criminals to an alarming extent, and an escaped murderer is as mnch the enemy of the human race as the pirate has long been said to be. This much, at least, is clear. But if the French Government continue to make use of New Caledonia as a penal settlement, and continue to be as unsuccessful as heretofore in preventing the escape of the convicts, the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and France will have to undergo re-considera-tion. It must no longer be possible for French criminals to land themselves, or to be landed, on the shores of a British colony without the possibility of being sent back. The initiative of demanding their return must bo allowed to rest not only with the authorities of the penal settlement, but also with the Government of the invaded colony.