The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-26 00:00:00

THE CASE OF M. LABURANDE.

(From the Daily News.)
Tits discumion carried on for nearly six months
between the French and English Governments re-
specting the case of M. LAMIRANDE, who was im-
properly removed fr.ma Canada by a perversion of
the powers established by the Extradition Treaty
with France in 1843, has conic suddenly to an
end through the act of the prisoner, who has pre-
ferred to take the chances of submission to his
sentence to relying on English protection. There
can be no doubt that LAMIRANDE well deserves his
sentence, but public opinion in this country has
always distinguished between his personal merits
and the intentational points which his treatment
raises—has always understood that the reclamation
made against his detention in France were necessary
and incumbent on her MAJESTY'it Ministers—to em-
ploy Lord STANLEY'S words—not in order that a
guilty man might be shielded, but because our
Government are guardians of a treaty which has
been sanctioned by Parliament, and bound, there-
fore, to notice any infractions of it. Lord
STANLEY has from the first recognised
that the bearings of this case on the general
question of extradition are very important. Keep-
ing this aspect of the matter in view, it makes no
difference whether LANIIRAN DE was guilty or inno-
cent ; what we have to do is to take care that the
working of our extradition treaties shall be
strictly guarded, so as to keep unimpaired those
safeguards with which the Legislature has sur-
rounded the liberty of the subject.
Upon a perusal of the papers just presented to
Parliament we are bound to say they show in a
strong light the danger which attends the opera-
tion of any treaty of this kind with the French
Government. From first to last we are unable to
find one word in the language of its agents and
representatives in sympathy with that jealousy of
liberty and scrupulous regard for legal forms which
is an characteristic of our race, and which is found
as much in the colonies and the United States as in
the mother country. On the contrary, there is an
avowed and almost petulant impatience of legal
formalities, and a profound contempt for the
obligations which they impose. In the repre-
sentations by Lord STANLEY to the French Go-
vernment two points were relied on. It was
stated that the French authority in Canada who
set in motion the proceedings for M. LAMIRANDE'S
extradition, nut being ono of the diplomatic agents
contemplated by the treaty, had acted without
warrant, and in excess of treaty engagements.
Further, that by the law of England, the facts
laid to the charge of the prisoner in the
demand for his extradition did not consti-
tute forgery, the only crime mentioned in
the treaty at all applicable in his case. The
second point, it will be noticed, was material.
It will be remembered that the Canadian Court of
Queen's Bench decided on both points that
LAMIRANDE was not liable to extradition,
and that his removal while an appeal was
pending from the judgment of an inferior court
was contrary to law. The law officers of the
Crown in England shared both these opinions.
The Governor-General's warrant for LAMIRANDE9B
extradition was issued in ignorance of his appeal.
The French Government, on the first representa-
tion• of these facts, were disposed to take the
groin el that LAMLRANDE, being in the hands of
the tribueels, could not be surrendered on account
of any iriegularitq which might have taken place
in Canada but subsequently they were advised
that, inssmecli as the prisoner had been placed in
the position he occupied by the administrative
act of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that
Minister could recover him from the hands of
justice, provided that he was satisfied of the right
of her Maresrr's Government to claim his sur-
render, and this recovery might be made even
after a trial and conviction. Thus, by subse-
quently declining to recognise the grounds on
which the return of LAMIRANDE was re-
quested by the QUEEN'S Government, they under-
took to maintain the regularity of what had taken
place, and consequently to establish their right
to pursue a course just as arbitrary on any
future occasion. The manner in which the French
Government met the application of Lord STANLEY
suggests, not so much a difference of views be-
tween the two Governments, as an utter inaccessibi-
lity on the part of that of France to the consi-
derations which weigh most with our countrymen.
The English fear lest a bad precedent be estab-
lished is not understood by the French mind.
The first time this case was mentioned in the
Munitcur it was fur the purpose of remarking that
the points relating to the regularity of Lam-
RANDK'S extradition " originated in a chain of con-
" siderations foreign to the question itself." The
only question which our neighbours could entertain
was whether in this individual case injustice
was likely to be done through an irre-
gularity. The first despatch which the Mar-
quis DE Mousnelt wrote on this subject
closed with a gentle remonstrance with our Go-
vernment for interfering on behalf of " a man who
" lay under a charge so public that it was in some
" measure a case flayrante delitto"—as if that had
anything whatever to do with the regularity of
the extradition, which our Ministers were bound to
guard. Whatever disregard for the principles of
liberty and justice was implied in these casual ex-
pressions became explicit in the elaborate despatch
dated March 1, in which M. DE MOVSTIER declined
to grant the requested surrender. Let it be ob-
served how the right of appeal and the authority of
the highest court of justice in the colony from which
LAMIRANDE was removed are treated by the French
Minister of Foreign Affairs. " If," says M. DE
MOUSTIER, "the right of appeal does exist, is it
" requisite for the Government which claims an
" accused person from England to pursue him
" through all the judicial steps authorised by the
" forma of English law 1 This result doubtless is
" not to be feared when it, is a question of a
" criminal destitute of resources. But LAMI-
" RANDS is the proof that a thousand ways of pro-
" cedure ars open to him who has found by his
" crime itself the elements of riches necessary to
" meet his expenses; so that at last, by a con-
" piste subversion of justice, the chances of extra-
" dition will some time be in an inverse ratio
"to the magnitude of the crime. At all events,
" to return to the actual case, the antagonistic
" opinion of Judge DRUMMOND cannot be alleged
" in opposition to that of Judge DREHAUT, since
" that opinion, given too late, in the absence of
" the parties, wanting moreover in impartiality,
" cannot have the force of a decision by a court
"of appeal." These reasons for refusing to
restore LAMIRANDE are, if possible, worse than
the abduction itself. The French Government is
not bound to observe all the forms of the English
law, but is at Marty to place the opinion of an