A.—4.

to-day; and, indeed, the clause providing for Executive regulation had been taken, word for word, from the law of 1854. It was impossible, therefore, to reproach the Government fordoing anything for which there was no precedent. What they had done, in fact, was nothing more than an addition to the law of 1854, by extending to other classes of criminals what that law had prescribed for the worst type. But all this might be discussed after settling the gist of the question, after looking the problem in the face and seeing what these rScidivistes really were. Many people thought they knew what they were: every one, at any rate, was hearing about them, and suffering from them ; but very few really knew. These rScidivistes belonged to a class of criminals so exceptional that preconceived ideas of a penal philosophy were quite inapplicable to them. A law ought to lay down principles, and, if the Government claimed the right of organizing its penitentiary rSgime, it was only seeking from the legislative power the requisite executive authority for it, asking not to have its hands tied, and, while safeguarding the right of Parliament, securing the elasticity which was requisite in the law. Was it not, in fact, plain that every Executive regulation must depend on a question of money ? Credits must therefore be asked from the Parliament; and thus the regulations themselves would come under the review of the Legislature. But M. Berenger had said there were no colonies to which the rScidivistes could be sent; and that, if there were, nothing was known about how many rScidivistes would be sent there. That argument simply amounted to saying that there were some colonies which were too good for rScidivistes, and others which were not good enough. Was a colony mentioned where trade and industry had taken root, it was objected that to send rScidivistes there was to sacrifice the colonists. Was the colony one where there was a struggle for the means of existence, it was objected that the rScidivistes would be sacrificed. This sensitiveness for criminals was surprising. Compassion would be better for those who suffered from crime than for those who committed it. No one, however, had ever thought of sending men, even the most guilty, where they could not live. As for New Caledonia, there was literally only a word to say. The Committee's Eeporter, alike with the Government, had shown that the Government did not mean to relegate rScidivistes there in masses, though they might, in the interests of the colony itself, choose it for individual relegation (rSlSgation individuelle). Now, there was an extremely interesting report of a Commission appointed in New Caledonia by the Governor, M. Pallu de la Barriere, in 1882. New Caledonia had often been spoken of in all these discussions by persons who had generously made themselves the advocates of the colony ; so it was well to learn the opinions and the thoughts of competent men there. Now, when these were consulted in their own interests and asked whether sending rScidivistes there was such a sinister thing, they answered, with great wisdom, that, just as to colonize by transportation only was folly, so to colonize by free people only was delusion. These men, who represented the most respectable interests of New Caledonia, who possessed a patrimony acquired by persistent and perilous labour, declared that it was impossible to do anything in that country without convicts being sent from Prance. They favoured, in the most energetic terms, the same kind of mixed colonization as had made Australia : one that should comprise criminals whom the mother-country expelled, and adventurous spirits who came to take advantage of the resources of convict-labour. They said, what Governor Pallu had, indeed, already shown, that until lately very little use had been made of these resources, as was proved by the single fact that in less than two years M. Pallu had increased the number of concessions of land from 308 to 608, or double. Moreover, there had been started in New Caledonia a programme of works, for which 6,000 labourers, partly rSlSguSs and partly ÜbSrSs, would be required, and who, in ten years, would furnish 4,000 rSlSguSs for concessions of land. But that was not all. It was really a pity to be at once so severe and so unjust to the colonies. The same report showed that there were in New Caledonia 263,000 hectares of land ready for cultivation, suitable for cereals or pasture; and that, when these 4,000 men had received their land, there would still be 212,000 hectares left free for colonization. Now, although it must be acknowledged that free colonization from France had never reached the limits it had attained from England, yet in Australia only two free colonists had gone for every five convicts sent (et cependant vous voyez qu'en Australie, pour cinq forqats ou cinq convicts, il ne se rendait que deux colons libres). It might fairly be supposed, therefore, after allowing for the difference in national habits and instincts, that there would be even a less proportion of free colonists in New Caledonia. Well, if the Senate examined the programme of works that had been indicated by the Government—one which was only the prelude to future enterprises which the Committee had foreseen, and which imagination could easily suggest—it would be understood that individual transportation, that was to say the sending there of rScidivistes belonging to classes whose aptitude had been proved for certain trades corresponding with the demand for labour in the colony, could only be a. means of progress and increase in wealth and prosperity. So much for New Caledonia. As for Guiana, he (M. Waldeck-Bousseau) must make an even stronger protest against what M. Berenger had said. [Here followed a mass of details about Guiana.] But now as to the number of rScidivistes. M. Berenger had said there would be 10,000 the first year, 20,000 the second, 30,000 the third; happily he had stopped at the, fourth. What the Government had done, on the contrary, was to subject the question for months to a laborious and exhaustive investigation by directors of prisons and other most competent authorities, bringing out at last the numbers which had been actually settled. Their conclusions would be laid before the Senate before the debates closed. Meanwhile, what the Senate had to do, first, was to ask itself these two questions : Had the relegation of rScidivistes inexorably forced itself upon them; and, if so, how was it to be carried out ? In the three years during which these long discussions of the subject had lasted, there had been two kinds of adversaries to the scheme. The first class objected to transportation altogether as being contrary to social rights and the rights of man ; they met the question face to face and opposed a principle to a want. The other class was not less dangerous : they did not say there should be no transportation at all, but they said that some other method than transportation ought to be tried. It was to these that the Senate would reply, by now passing to the discussion of the clauses of the Bill.

5