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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 8.
The LORD CHANCELL,L took his seat on the Woolsack
at Fivo o'clock.
The Militia Bill was road 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

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY opposed the Bill, as
being impracticable in its provisions.
The Bishop of LONDON also opposed th© Bill,
After a short conversation the Bill was read a socond
time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a ?petition
from certain copyholders in Cumberland against the
Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill,
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
the Corrupt Practises at Elections Bill was read a :second
time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.
On 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 'Aviv of
Evidence (Scotland) Bill passed through Committe e.
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
..
place France on a footing of equality withto
England with reference to the mutual surrender of
criminals. By the convention of 1843 between
the two countries this country obtained the right to
claim the surrender of certain criminals who took refuga i
in France; while, on the contrary, by the imperfect.
state of our 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 not sufficiently aware ,of the
difficulties of the subject which he had taken in hand;
which, indeed, were so great that ever sine() the
peace of 1815 the two Courts had been in
constant communication for the purpose of cox iclud-
ing a convention of this sort, and in 184 3, he
(Lord Aberdeen) had for the first time conchs ded a
treaty with France for the surrender of crin duals
charged
with murder, forgery, and fraudulent bank-
ruptcy. He did not think the present Bill gave suffi-
cient security against political offenders being et aimed
under its provisions, and it only required the prodi action
of a er.andat Barret or warrant from a French magi strate
anti proof of identity. Now, it was evidently a nsuffi-
eject that a mere accusation without any proof ,of the
commission of the crime charged should be an that
was required to justify us in delivering up an su lensed
party.
Lord BROUGHAM readily agreed that this wasi a sub-
ject which required legislation, for nothing could be clearer
than the proposition of his Noble Friend, that it was hardly
consistent with the condition of civilised society, that two
nations so closely connected as France and Englana I were
should exist with the facilities at all times afforded •to the
most desperate offenders, who had committed the most
atrocious crimes, of escaping with impunity by passing : over
a narrow channel as easily as formerly ideal boundaries could
be passed. Nevertheless, he admitted the many diffi,:ulties
which would have to be encountered in dealing wit .h 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 be 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 France 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 Ist of October next. Then, by another provision of
the Bill six months' notice was required in order that the
treaty should be put an end to. Let the House, then., see
what might happen during these six months—laws is these
days were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which
were never repealed and never altered. On the contrary, we
lived in times when the repeal of laws was almost as fre-
quent as their enactment; and supposing a law passed before
the Ist of ,October should afterwards 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,
after 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. He had lately had
some conversation with the British Ambassador at Paris
with reeard to a Bill which was then before the corps legis-
haft; That 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
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 accomplices—English-
men, ft might be, in the condition of accessories—might
also be tried in France. Nay, more—and he owned he was
never mere 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-
men 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, cr 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 len to s.—(Loud laughter.)
bard 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 6of 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-
ings 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 sides of the House that something must be done to meet
the just demands of the French Government. At present
there were two acts in force which gave to this country all
the benefits that could be derived from such a treaty, but
practically gave the French Government no benefit at all.
It was perfectly clear, therefore, that a remedy should be pro-
rcied,
hey and
did her Majesty's Government were ready to do so,
'or if t not, we might lose all the benefit we now
weneard. The feeling of the House, too, seemed to be that
epiniownasi'roper to be done should be done now. In his
, L. the present was the right time to provide a measure
oi tins sort, for if during so many years it , wae found im-
possible to bring the Governments of the two countries
into accord
the subject, and if they were now
ready, thou-ehuP°thl
er ey migut not have taken exactly the
best and most e oper steps for the purpose—yet, if they
were now ready ee orar,
to- an arrangement, surely that was
precisely the moment -
when advantage should be taken of
that happy concurrence of mion o It was objected to the
measure before the Rouse P •
Oaken up in this country, that it allowed
its merely
to be
proo,fitor,carried out of it, merely upon a
ii,.acuentity. Now, when an attempt
warrant and simple
was made to avoid that
,„
elti in the act of convention of
—that ien Atha to do that which was
the Noble Earl near him
•ji _ rele rl of Aberdeen), it failed in
this respect
constitutional, to protect tbe person who , ,
was claimed and
and
who was entitled to our hospitality and j:e
protection of our
laws, we did that which made the treaty a dead letter so
far as regarded the government et
France In can y" g
forward such a measure as this, therefore, the must zis- cent.--
t ain what substitute they could
for that
°Psrouobefstoit,,u pro-
It
which had already faid. And the
vided at this moment wawa warrant and
fi identity.
Machc,Levidenceeval;
say how far this neon
was very difficult to
dence was to go. Were they to require so
would satisfy them that if the person were to be tried there
was every probability of hisbeing convicted? 11®
was so
desirous that the objects which they had in view should be
carried out, that if any plan could be chalked out which
would give greater security to the person accused and to the
Ferench Government that their criminals in this country
* would be surrendered to them, he would be most happy to
adopt it. Great care, he admitted, ought to be taken in the
convention that it would not be made applicable to political
offenders. That convention stood upon a treaty formally
entered into. They could not, however, step in betweena
the French Government and their subjects, although they
at ted 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 surrounder
here bee this Government as a discharge from the crime of
which he was accused.
-Lord BROUGHAM—Or be sent back.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Or be sent back. That
was a valuable saggestiou of the Noble and Learned Lord.
They were now, however,- upon the Second reading of the
Bill, and lie could only say that they would go into Com-
mittee with an'anxious desire to have the benefit of the as-
sistance of the Noble and Learned Lords in renderine the
- 13'111 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 had the most
sincere 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. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) could not see
bow they could ask the French Government to pass any
each law as would give them such additional security. The
Parliament of this country did not pass any law of a si-
milar kind when as Engles!: subject was brought to this
country, and was tried for a political offence. They had no
sfeeneln'
nelaw as prohibited them from trying such political or-
em did they propose to pass any such law. He ad-
mitted that this Act would not orevent the infraction of ,he
treaty by France as against' her own subjects. But
whet would be the consequence of such infraction ' It
would be an infraction of the treaty itself, and ins.nch.case
they had the usual mode of viadicntinb a their rights. The
Noble Eeri asserted that the reenßnpective law went too far.
He concurred in that opinion. y some inadvertence, all
the crimes since the date of the
was clear
in 1843 were nude that e4Evee. , retrospective, whereas it . _
only all the new
.1-elfierices which were created by the law should have been I
ek. , : 7 frpt t.W. retrospective. If their Lonlships, however would
'r I '• '
had no- 'doubt it
4.--,--
.1 . gement tee the Bill going info C. emmittee, he
.r.
erniedne4 the Committee in such a shape as to meet the
r 4<i-,47:.,, do',,.p pcy4-0 heir Lordships..
If iitc
But he must say
.ijfa' t /..7-4114 . . PBELL said that. they were most ennious and
k,....,.._.__. sired to further this measure.
oe-ti en' */' prised at this novel mode of preeeethog as (0
1p
a,- ' - ..ig,e_.„
mit A