The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-09 00:00:00

PERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Jwie 8.
The LORD CUANCELLOR t0,31c his seat on 1. O Woo!sick
at Five o'clsclr.
The Militia Bill was read a first time.
The Kennington Common Improvement Bill was read
a second time.
LONDON NECROPOLIS AND MAUSOLEUM
BILL.

Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this
Bill.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY opposed the Bill, as
being in in its provisions.
The Bishop of LONDON also opposed the Bill.
After a short conversation the Bill w:s read a second
time.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from certain copyholders in Cumberland against the
Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill.
On thu motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
the Corrupt PrDctises at Elections Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.
Oh the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Registra-
tion of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill was read a
third time and passed.
On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Public
Works Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of the Earl of MINTO the Law of
Evidence (Scotland) Bill passed through Committee.
On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY the In-
dustrial and Provident Societies Bill was read a second
time.

SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION
WITH FRANCE) BILL.
The Earl of MALMESBURY moved the second read-
ing of this Bill, which he explained was intended to
place Franco on a footing of equality _ with
England with reference to the mutual surrender of
crimittals. By the convention of 1843 between
the two countries this country obtained the right fe
claim the surrender of certain criminals who took refuge
in France; while, on the contrary, by the imperfect
state of oar law, France was not able to claim criminals
who had fled hither from that country.
The Earl of ABERDEEN,Said he was afraid that the
Noble Earl opposite was
wnhoitehsuhffi;:hieandtlytakaewnarien
diffieultios of the sabjent of the
which, indeed, were so great that ever since the
peace of 1815 the two Courts had been in
constant communication for the purpose of conclud-
ing a convention of this sort, and in 1843, he
(Lord Aberdeen) had for the first time concluded a
treaty with France for the surrender of criminals
charged wits murder, foigery, and fraudulent bank-
ruptcy. He did not think the present Bill gave suffi-
cient security against political offenders being claimed
under its provisions, and it only required the production
of a niandat Barret or warrant from a French magistrate
and proof of identity. Now, it was evidently insuffi-
cient that a mere accusation without any proof of -the
commission of Vie crime charged should be all that
was required to justify us in delivering up an accused
party.
Lord BROUGHAM readily agreed that this was a sub-
ject which required legislation, for nothing could be clearer
than the propcsition of his Noble Friend, that it was hardly
consistent with the condition of civilised society, that two
nations so closely connected as France and England were
should exist with the facilities at all times afforded to the
most desperate offenders, who had committed the mcst
atrocious crimeseof escaping with impunity by passing over
a narrow channel as easily as formerly ideal boundaries could
be passed. Nevertheless, he admitted the many difficulties
which would have to be encountered in dealing with tha
question. Having enumerated a few of these difficulties, the
Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to observe, that under
the convention it was stipulated that an analogous law to
the one now proposed should ba passed in France, and a
provision to be made in the treaty that the convention
should not come into force until a day to be named by both
parties; consequently until we shall be satisfied that a law
was passed in Franca similar to this, no such day would
be named. So far all was well. But just suppose a French
law to be passed, and this country, being satisfied, gave
notice that the convention was to come into operation, say
on the let of October next. Then, by another provision of
the Bill six months' notice was required iu order that the
treaty should be put an end to. Let the Elouse, then, see
what might happen during these six months—laws in these
dap, were not like the laws of the Medes and Pereiace, which
were never repealeet and never altered. On the contrary, we
lived in times wlien the repeal of laws was almost as fre-
quent as their enactment; and supposing a law passed before
tee Ist of October shculd aiterwarda be repealed, or a sub-
stantial modification introduced in it, where was the
security for those parties who might then be tried for po-
litical offences, though under the previous state of the law
they would have been safe? But the chief difficulty was,
atter all, that which had been alluded to by his Noble
Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen)—namely, that the warrant
should be taken as conclusive evidence of identity for the in-
carceration and surrender of the person accused.—(Hear,
hear.) His Noble Friend opposite would bear with him
(Lord Brougham) for a few moments, whilst he called his at-
tention to the sort of legislation which was at this time going
on on the other side of the Channel. lie had lately had
some conversation with the British Ambassador at Paris
with regard to a Bill which was then before the corps kg's-
latif: Teat Bill was in a very forward state, and as the
Government there had what might be called a " working
majority"—(Laughter)—a majority, he believed, of 242 to
3 ; and that he thought was almost entitled to the
name of a " working majority"— (Another laugh)—
he took it for granted that that Bill would soon be the law
of France. Now, that Bill contained some most extraor-
dinary provisions ; for not only might Frenchmen be tried
in France for offences committed by them in England. or
elsewhere—political offences included—and possibly these
political offence, though not the only ones contained in
the Bill , might be its principal object—(Hear, hear)—
not only might Frenchmen be tried in France for offences
committed in England, but their accomplice3—English-
men, It might be, in the condition of accessories—might
also be tried in France. Nay, more—and he owned he was
never more astonished in his life at any act, or attempted
act, of legislation as he was when he saw this - Englishmen
not charged as accomplices of Frenchmen—but English-
rzen without any accession to, or complicity with, French-
men, might be tried in France for political offences by them
committed in England, provided those offences were against
the French Government, or against the public weal, as it
was called, of France.—(Hear.)
The Earl of MALMESBURY said the Bill to which the
Noble and Learned Lord referred was now passed, but its
provisions were confined to Frenchmen.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM was much relieved by hearing the
Noble Lord say that it was confined to Frenchmen.
The Earl of MALMESBURY—It was passed by a majo-
rity of 195 to s.—(Loud laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM—But the Bill in the shape in which
he had seen it was no new measure; on the contrary, it was
precisely similar to Article Gof the Code Napoleon. This
was the first time, except in peculiar instances, that this
great breach in the principle of what was termed interna-
tional law had been made, of not considering that offenders
ought to be tried in the country, and by the laws of the
country, in which the offences were charged to have been
committed. Having said this much respecting the proceed.
iugs in France, it was only fit he should add, teat he saw
ao reason to doubt the fairness and honest intention of the
French Government in reference to the matter of .the con-
vention.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—It appeared to be agreed on
both aides of the House that something must be done to meet
th just demands of the French Government. At present
the were two acts in force which gave to this country all
the betelits that could be derived from such a treaty, but
practically g bero-
ave the French Government no benefit at all.
I w
fedeaeo Perfectly clear, therefore, that a remedy shouldp
, if•thand her Majesty's Government were ready to do so,
enjoed.t7 did not, we might lose all the benefit we now
enjoyed. did
feeling of the House, too, seemed to be that what was p
opinion theroPer to be done slesuld be dens now. In his
of this sob, was the right time to provide a measure
possible to hrie2r if daring so many years it was found im-
tie the Governments of the two countries
ready,a
Poe the subject, and if they were now
though
Lest and most proiLernight not have taken exactly the
were now ready te enaasetePs for the purpose—yet, if they
isaly the moment _,to an arrangement, surely that was prec
wnen
thitt happy concarrence of advantage should be taken of
opinion. It was objected to the
measure before the Roust at it allowed any man to be
taken up in ails country., mn'
proof
et
„..cearried out of it, merely upon a
warrant and simple
us tit
was made to avoid that dimejt y• Now, when an attempt
Eziin the act of convention of
the Noble Earl near him (the
. of Aberdeen), it failed in
that in
,endeav
this respect— to do that which was
who was claimed, and
constitutional, to protect the Puerrisonel
who was entitled to our hospitality end the Protection of our
laws, we did that which made the •
..rteet
r. 3:
ce dead letter so
the government of
tar as regarded
• In carrying
forward such a measure as this, theretere7the
tain what substitute they could pr_yemust ascer-
which had already failed. And the uveatuL_,..afor that
vided at this moment was a warrant and proof substitute pro-
y how far this p • of identity.
It was very diffictf t to s . neat facie elf
dence was to go. Were they to require eo much eeiden '-
would satisfy them that if the person sser.e to be tried Zas"e
eves every probability of bit being convicted? Re was
co`
' -le they had in vie
desirous that the objects which w
.should he
carried-out, that if any plan could bo chalked out which
would give greater security to the person accused and to
the
nainch Government that their criminals in thie, Country
would be surrendered to them, be would be most nappy to
adopt it. Great care, he admitted, ought to 130 taken in the
convention that it would not be made spplicable to political
offenders. That convention stood upon a treaty
fornaallye
entered into. They could not, however, step in betweent
tip French Government and their subjects, although they
colll2 prevent a Frenchman being improperly carried into
France to be tried. But if he went into France they could
not. do more than demand compliance with the terms of
their treaty, which stipulated solemnly that no man should
be tried for any political offence; and that if he be so
tried, that he -should be at liberty to plead his snrrounder
here l' this Government as a discharge from the crime of
which be was accused.
Lard BROUGHAINI—Or be sent back.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Or be sent back. That
was a valuable suggestion of the Noble and Learned Lord.
They were now, however, upon the second reading of the
Bill, and he could :Only say that they would go into Com-
mittee with an anxious desire to have the benefit of the as-
ti,stanee of the Noble and Learned Lords in rendering the
MI as perfect as possible for giving effect'to the objects
which they were • all anxious to attain. But what he wanted
to impress upon their Lordships was this. He hod the most
sinew respect for the opinions of the Noble Earl near him.
The Noble Earl seemed to think that they had a right to
expect that these securities would be given by the French
Government. ?cow be (the Lord Chancellor) could not see
how
11o:they could ask the French. Government to pass any
such es would give them such enditional security. The
milar'tektienr of this country did not piss any law of a si-
rid when an Engttsli 'subject was brought to this 1
COUTItrr,
411 e. law and was tried for a political offence. They had no
. a ax prohibitedthem .
of-
fenders, nor did they
mitted that this Act would Pr"" to
pass any such law. He ad-
treaty by France
awould not prevent the infraction of the
what would be the sc
against her own subject.. But
would be she nfraction ortste.;luence of such infraction? It
they had t usual mode of treaty itself, and in such case
Noble Earl asserted that the
vmdicatiog their rights. The
He concurred in that opinioiztrospective law went too far.
the crimes since the date of the By some inadvertence, all
retrospective, whereas it was o treaty in 1843 were made
offences which were created by th:ari that only all the new
made retrospective. If their Lord Lordships, have been
Resent to the Bill going into CommitteeTis'e however, would
wouhl leave the Commi' tee in such a shapehad no doubt it
approval of their Lordships. , as to meet the
• Lord CAARBELL said that they were most
earnestly desired to further this 'measure. But
enxious and
he '
wae eurfnised at this novel mode ofhe must say
,•processing as to