A.—4.

The debate was resumed again next day (24th October), when M. Berenger replied to M. Waldeck-Eousseau's speech. Speaking of New Caledonia, he recalled to the Senate the fact of the Governor's having expressly declared that the colony could not receive a single rScidiviste ; but, as it had been supposed to be absolutely necessary to name some place, New Caledonia had been named, notwithstanding the fact that it was well known to be impossible to send any there at all. He then went on to combat the arguments used about transportation to Australia, and to compare, to the disadvantage of the present Bill, his own Bill (now before the Chamber of Deputies) for preventing relapse into crime, which, he said, had been inspired by the example of England in her present criminal legislation* and methods; but he denied that he was hostile to transportation altogether. M. Berenger was followed by M. de Verninac, the Committee's Beporter. For many years past, he said, there had been a growing augmentation of crime of the minor type (petite criminalitS) in France : from 41,000, in 1830, the number had increased in 1882 to 153,000. But it was not merely this augmentation that was so formidable : the worst was the increase of relapsed and habitual criminals, at a constant progression of 1 per cent, per annum. Out of fifty-five reports of inquiries set on foot respecting the measure, forty-seven had been favourable; and all, without exception, agreed on one pomt —namely, the fear which it had produced in the criminal classes. Some remedy must be sought for an evil that was certain, undeniable, self-evident, imminent; and of all remedies transportation was the only one that would be efficacious. M. Sehoelcher, as a former deputy from Guiana, spoke against the Bill. M. Felix Faure, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, followed. The two chief questions asked by M. Berenger were where the transportation would take place, and what would be its cost. Now, the Government adhered to the figures of 5,000 rScidivistes for the first year, 4,000 for the second, and 3,000 for the third. Phu Quoc had been given up as unfit; the Marquesas had also been given up ; but the Minister for the Colonies had clearly shown that' the Bill could be applied in the proportions of one-fifth to New Caledonia and four-fifths to Guiana. The Government had also stated that the one-fifth sent to New Caledonia would be under what was to be called " individual relegation." The Government believed, and had been so advised by the best authorities, that out of this class it would be possible to find a number desirous of working at their trades, and preferring to go separately to a colony rather than undergo the punishment of what, in Guiana, was to be called " collective relegation." This class would be engaged, not only immediately on arrival, but (at any rate, as to a large number of them) even before departure. What was wanting equally in Guiana and New Caledonia was not room, but labour ; and the best proof of this was that only the other day the delegates from New Caledonia, as well as Governor Pallu himself, had demanded the re-establishment of recruiting in the New Hebrides. It was not without much apprehension that this request had been granted, and, if the steps taken in regard to it were found not to guarantee sufficiently the rights of humanity, the Government might be obliged to recall their authority ; if so, New Caledonia would be seen asking for rScidivistes to a greater extent than was proposed. New Caledonia was made a penal settlement in 1863, and from Ist January, 1864, it had been the practice to send convicts alternately there and to Guiana; until 1867, when only Arab or Asiatic criminals were sent to Guiana. The reason for the change in 1867 had been that the climate of New Caledonia was so much better than that of Guiana, and that, having to populate a new colony, it was easier to transport convicts there than to find enough free colonists willing to go. There had been no prompting of tbe reports of the Governors of either colony: both the Governors had been left free to advise according to their conscience. Then, as to the cost of the measure, the Government believed their estimates to be perfectly right; nothing had been omitted, and the cost of police, troops, administration, and transport had been given, not only in the colony, but in France; and not only tbe first expense of the establishments, but their maintenance in succeeding years. The problem before them was certainly difficult, but the Government understood their responsibility ; and they wished to speak of things just as they were, or, at any rate, as they saw them, and to rest only upon the most complete evidence in favour of a law which they believed to be not only useful but absolutely indispensable. Admiral Fourichon, who had been Governor of Guiana in 1853-54, spoke strongly against transportation. England had been forced to give it up, and why ? Because, when a free and moral European population, working, producing, exchanging, had once established^ itself, it had declared to the Mother-country that it would receive no more convicts. Transportation thereupon ceased, and the system perished by its own success. Suppose the present scheme failed ? There would be misery of all kinds, and a 'great waste of money. One error had been widely disseminated and credited, that the Australian Colonies owed their prosperity to transportation. He rejected this scheme absolutely; there was no right solution of the problem but one, namely, that every country should take care of its own criminals. M. Millet-Fontarabie supported the Bill on the ground that the present system was intolerable. It was no longer possible to keep the rScidivistes in France; they must be sent to the colonies: but the Committee had not thought right that particular colonies should be designated. The UnderSecretary (M. Faure) had said a great deal about Guiana; but there were other colonies to which the rScidivistes could be sent. [Several members here referred to Beunion, Guadeloupe, Madagascar, the Congo. M. Testelin exclaimed, " Make yourselves quite easy ; ther'll be plenty for everybody."] The debate was renewed next day (25th October). Admiral Jaureguiberry said he had been accused of being an enemy to all relegation. This was not the case ; some law to remove from France such criminals as gave signs of repentance and amendment was both desirable and necessary. But such a law must be divested of all arbitrary character ; must be capable of being carried out; must not entail a cost out of proportion to the object to be attained. The Bill before them did neither. The relegation was to be compulsory, and the Judges were to be compelled to.

6