The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-04 00:00:00

110LBORN

....x
Tut" P:VZST/10, MY Ti ItN Ner. Mr. Delmore: Muses
Foote and Lennox.—Awl FLYING still Steele'. Neville, Bel.
more, Blake, Yollsire, &c. ; Mesdames V. Josephs, C. ;launders,
Berle Foote, ridden, Lennox, Raymond, tte.

BRITANNIA.

Tins Evirmiso, THE PVINCVAS OF THE PEARL ISLAND
OR, THE THKEE KINGDoM3 OF PEARL, GOLD, AND
SILVER. Mrs. Lane a0..1 Mime Jacuba—First.rate Pautoutimista.
—ADd THE WIDOW'S FIRESIDE.

RIGII WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Thu flay —Morning, 2h. Om —Afternoon, 211. Dint.
TO-Moltnow—Morning, 2h. 37m Afternoon, tit. fhim.

LONDON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

Ir is stated by a French journal which occu-
pies itself with legal matters, that our Government
has applied to that of France to give back
M. LAMIRANDE, who was improperly abducted
from Canada a few months ago in defiance of the
Court of Queen's Bench, and hurried off to France
before the machinery of justice could be set in
motion on his behalf. A report so creditable to
Lord STANLEY should be well-grounded. The
Gazette ths Tribmatar professes to be able to con-
firm it, and in doing so undertakes to show that
the claim ought to be resisted. LAMIRANDE was
hastily removed from Canada by an improper use
of Lord Mose K's signature, because his abduc-
tors foresaw that if that were not done the highest
court in the land, before which his appeal was
pending, would within twelve hours order
his unconditional discharge. Thu principal
ground on which the Court subsequently declared
LAMIRANDE entitled to his freedom was, that the
offence with which he was charged was not among
those provided for in the Extradition Treaty be-
tween the two countries. Our French contempo-
rary meets this consideration by an argument
which, if admitted at all, would be conclusive.
The fiU tic maintains that the surrender o:
accused persons to a foreign government is " an
" act of sovereignty," and " can be effected
" without any special treaty on the subject." An
Extradition Treaty, according to this authority,
merely "ascertains the manner and fixes the
" cases " in which the right to extradition shall
be exercised. This detracts somewhat from the
force of the French argument, and can hardly be
what the writer meant to say, for we might
reply that neither was LAMIRANDE's case
ascertained by the Treaty, nor did his removal
from Canada take place according to its
prescriptions. The French writer, however, makes
his meaning quite clear when he proceeds to lay
down that the English Government " may if it
" thinks proper consent to the surrender of a
" person accused of a crime not mentioned in the
" Treaty." It will be urged that even if
this must be admitted as to the external engage-
ments of a government, still from the point of
view of public liberty and its guarantees against the
possible encroachments of the executive power, it
is necessary that the municipal law, which pro-
vidoi for and governs the execution of the Treaty,
should be respected. But the French writer takes
care to let it be known that he has not overlooked
the distinction. Hu is contemplating both the law
and the Treaty in their inseparable connexion,
and intends to affirm explicity that " the English
" Government had absolute freedom to
" give up LAMIRANDE even for a crime
" not provided fur by English law." It may
be hoped that Lord STANLEY will weigh
the effect of this reasoning, which is a fair
specimen of what may be heard every day among
French officials. If our Government acquiesces
in the detention of LAMIRANDE its inaction will
be taken as an acknowledgment that its right to
give up an accused person to a foreign Govern-
ment is not limited by law or treaty, but
is, as this French writer contends, "an ad-
" ministrative act." Neither Lord Moees nor
Lord CARNARVoN would, we are sure, feel
flattered by being told that the surrender of
Lamle %Net.: Was not an act of justice but of sove-
reignty. But the ingenious French publicist has an
argument in reserve. lie has noticed that in the
last session of Parliament some members of the
House of Coliiiiions maintained that extradition is
not an administrative measure, but an act
emanating from the judicial authorities, and
he has an answer ready for them. The
demand for LAMIRANDE'S restoration is un-
doubtedly an administrative act, and would
they attempt by such a claim to undo the
work of justice t The answer is obvious. Extra-
dition ought never to take place without the
previous satisfaction of certain established judicial
requirements ; and this is all that has been main-
tained either in or out of the House of Commons.
But the judgment of Mr. Justice DEUMMOND,
concurred in by all his colleagues Of the Court of
Queen's Bench, is an elaborate disavowal of LAMI-
RANGE'S extradition on the part of British justice,
which by its highest organ in Canada has stigma-
tised that transaction as unlawful from tint to last.
British justice would only applaud if the
work of the kidnappers is repudi.ted and
undone. The He lb. Trilmun, is scandalised
at the very suggestion of the prisoner's release,
unable apparently to see that if the law is'
to be upheld and reverenced, it is above all
things necessary that an example of respect for
it should be set by its professed agents and minis-
ters. Our French contemporary finds another
reason why LAMIRANDE should not be given up,
in the fact, which we take on its authority, that
from the signature of the treaty in 1843 until