THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, who had a Notice upon the Paper to call attention to the proposed deportation of recidivists from France to the Western Pacific, and to move a Resolution, said: My Lords, it is an open secret that I am about to postpone my Motion, and I have only kept it on the Paper that I might offer a few words of explanation. Your Lordships will remember that this is the second time that I have been obliged to postpone this question, and, therefore, I think I should be wanting in respect to the House if I were to refrain from saying a word of explanation on this occasion. I have postponed the Motion, because, acting on the best advice that I can obtain, it is said that a discussion might cause a false impression in France, where it is most desirable to avoid misunderstanding. And it would be affectation to deny that at the present moment among the promoters of this Bill in France it is felt that such a discussion might do harm, and resemble an attempt to interfere in a matter of purely domestic concern. I need hardly say that no idea of the sort has crossed my mind. But what is felt in France is this—that there is a wish in Great Britain to prevent her establishing a convict depot on her own territory. I disclaim any such idea. It never occurred to me to protest against the erection or constitution of a prison by the French Government in French territory. My apprehensions are widely different. I deprecate a proposal to place the worst characters in France at liberty on a small island within an easy sail from some of our noblest and most attractive Colonies, to which these criminals must, in the nature of things, make their way with all convenient speed. There is a great difference between the two propositions. Lot me illustrate it by a familiar analogy. Suppose one is in lodgings, and the lodger on the next floor takes lessons on the flute, we may suffer but we have no right to complain. But if, on the other hand, he has a nest of favourite snakes at liberty in his room, as some eminent naturalists have, I think one has a right to say that he is not acting in a very neighbourly manner. And so it is with New Caledonia. 644 It is not precisely the neighbour that one would choose; criminals escape constantly and land oil Australian shores, and expirees also. But so long as due diligence is observed in endeavouring to guard them there is nothing to be said. On the other hand, a proposal to turn the crime of a great nation loose and free on Now Caledonia, with an occasional leave on parole of six months, may well cause some concern among the neighbours of New Caledonia. But there is another point on which I wish to offer a word of explanation. I am deeply impressed with the Australian feeling on this subject. I think it is both justifiable and dangerous. But I certainly do not wish to hold out Australian feeling on this subject as any matter for the consideration of France. If the Bill passes, her trade with and through Australia will probably suffer, if not cease, from the restrictive measures which it will be almost the duty of the Australians to adopt. That is, however, a comparatively small matter to a great nation like France. But I do hold out Australian sentiment on these points as a great danger for this country. If the Bill passes, Australia, as two statesmen so cautious as M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire and the Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) have admitted, must pass measures to protect herself. There is such a measure already which only needs the addition of a few words to render it applicable. I do not presume that the Imperial Government would veto the addition of those words. If it allows them, there is an almost unavoidable risk of collision or ill-feeling in the penalties they impose on captains, knowingly or unknowingly bringing convicts or expirees to the ' Colony. If it does veto them, such a veto would provoke a feeling in Australia as regards the Imperial Government of which I, for one, decline to calculate the consequences. I do not I doubt that Her Majesty's Government ore fully alive to all this, and have laboured assiduously in the matter. But I thought it advisable, in postponing the Motion, to say at least this much to show our fellow-subjects in Australia that even in postponing the discussion we are mindful of their interests.
§ Motion postponed.