The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-31 00:00:00

THE BRAZILS.

LISBON, JAit. 30.

The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company's ship
Oneida has arrived here from the Brazils and will
leave for Southampton at 1 p.m. to-day with 50
passengers, 18,9191. in specie, 2,304 bales of cotton,
953 bags of coffee, 610 rolls of totaoeo, and 190
packages of sundries.
The Rhone, with the outward Brazil mails of
the 9th instant, arrived at St. Vincent on the 21st
instant

(azurze's smarm.)

THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN
FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
PARIS, JAN. 30.

The following is the full text of the despatches
exchanged between M. Drouyn de Lhuys and the
French Ambassador at London relative to the extra-
dition treaty between France and England.

THE MEM= FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 0 PRINCE DE LA
TOUR D'AUTERONE. _ _

Paris, Nov. 29, 1865.

Prince,—l had the honour in February and March last
to address to you various communications upon the subject
of the repeated want of sumer experienced by our
demands of extradition in Great Britain, and my
last despatch of March 11 foreshadowed the probability
and even desired you not to leave the cabinet of London in
ignorance, that if the ameliorations we were desirous of in-
troducing into the system created by the oonvention of
1843 were rejected, we should probably find ourselves
obliged to give notice of the termination of the
treaty. You are aware, prince, of the difficulties
of every kind, in face of which our demands for extradition
have constantly failed. I will confine myself to recalling
the two principal ones. In the first place the British
government refuses to give up to us condemned persona,
upon the plea that the convention of 1843 only mentions
those who sre accused.

Without dwelling upon the contradiction, in our eyes,
of a system which recognises the legitimacy of extradition,
with regard to individu►ls upon whom weighs only a pre-
sumption of culpability, and which rejects it as touching
those who have legally suffered a judicial sentence, we pro-
posed an additional clause to the treaty of 1843, to in-
clude condemned persons, but our offer was declined by the
cabinet of Loudon, which was afraid it could not obtain
the acceptance of this clause by parliament. In the second
place, the extradition conveutioo, as interpreted by the
advisers of the crown, and consequently by the British
administration, would consist in the obligation of
having the case in some sort adjudicated in
England, as we have once more been able to per-
ceive by the refusal recently given to oar demand for
the extradition of a certain Seisser, one of the pirates of
the Fceleris Arca, who it was supposed might land in Cal-
cutta. The Attorney-General of the Indian government
and the Crown lawyers have stated that to authorise the
arrest and return of the fugitive to France,
it would have been necessary to append to the
warrant of arrest copies of the depositions already re-
ceived in evidence, and whose authenticity had been attested
by the oath of the person by whom they were put in, so
that the police magistrate at Calcutta would be able to
state whether the fugitive was priori facie, guilty of the
crime for which his extradition was required.
Such requirements constitute a permanent obstacle to
the success of demands for extradition and differ from the
practice pursued by the other powers of Europe. Extradi-
tion is not a measure invented in the special interest of this
or that State, it is the widest application of the principle
of penal repression from the point of view of social
order, which unites the great family of civilised nations
in one common end of mutual protection, and
guarantee. Its object is to restore the guilty poison to his
natural judge by depriving him of the benefit of the right
of asylum as it existed at the time when peoples placed
with regard to one another in a state of hostile isolation,
remained indifferent to criminal acts effected outside their
territory. if this be so, if extradition, brought beck
to its true character, is at bottom only • law
of international procedure and competence, if this
measure, as T said above, is only • means of returning the
fugitive to his natural judge, the contracting states in
such matters should not demand reciprocally other proofs
than those indispensable to verify whether the
proceedings are serious, directed by the competent
jodge, and occasioned by common crimes. Every
treaty that departs from this rule is devoid of
real utility, and does not present that character of recipro-
city essential in international relation,. Twenty-two years
of experience have demonstrated the inefficacy of the treaty
of February 13, 1843, or rather the anomaly of a situation
in which the contract is only executed by one of the parties,
and which could not be prolonged without inconvenience to
our own dignity.
In this state of things the Emperor's government has been
obliged to occupy itself seriously with the cars of relieving
itself from responsibility, in presence of the facilities offered
to malefactors for taking refuge a few hours distance from
our coasts, and of an impunity for which public opinion is,
up to a certain point, justified in calling it to account, so
long as the treaty subsists.
Consequently, prince, you will have the goodness to
make known, by an official note addressed to her Britannic
Majesty's chief Secretary of State, that availing ourselves
of the privilege contained in Art. 4 of the Convention of
February 13, 1843, we have resolved upon giving notice
of the termination of the Treaty, which will cease to be in
force six months after this declaration.—Receive, lac.,

(Signed) DROWN DE LHUTS.
TEC AMBASSADOR OP TRANCE AT LONDON TO THE MIN=