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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE uF LORDS, June 8.
ir,9 LORD CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the, Woolsack
a Five o'clock.
The Militia Bill was reset a fir:.c time.
The Kennington Common Lcprovement Bill was read
..soond time.
LONDON NECROPOLIS AND MAUSOLEUM
BILL.
Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this
The Earl of SHAF 7ESBURY opposed the Bill, as
boing impracticable in its provisions.
The Bishop of LONDON also opposed the Bill.
After a short conversation the Bill was read a second
wane.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
fv.ai certain copyholders in Cumberland against the
C,,pyhold Enfranchisement Bill.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
the Corrupt Practises at Elections Bill was read a second
ti ,e, and ordered to he 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 we?: read a second time.
On the moti:n of the Earl of MINTO the Law of
L'vidence (Scotland) Bill passed through Committee.
On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY thelna
dustrial and Provident Societies Bill was read a second

'si isle.
SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION
WITH FRANCE) BILL.
The Earl of MALMESBURY moved the second read-
leg of this Bill, which he explain
of
was
uality intended to
eq with
place France on a footing o
Eiegland wish reference to the mutual surrender of
cr ..minals. By the convention of 1843 between
the ewe countries this country obtained the right to
claim the surrender cf certain criminals who took refuge
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
denculties of the subject which he had taken in hand;
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-
log a convention of this sort, and in 1843, he
(Lord Aberdeen) had for the first Limo concluded a
treaty with France for the surrender of criminals
centerged with murder, forgery, 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
6,1 a rectedat d'arret or warrant from a French magistrate
eel proof of identity. Now, it was evidently insuffi-
te ent that a mere accusation without any proof of the
c .earaission of the crime charged should be all that
way 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 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 England 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 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 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 let 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 in these
days were not like the laws of the Bledes 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
Ley 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-
cention 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
eeith regard to a Bill which was then before the corps legis-
latif: 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
3; and that he , thought was almost entitled to the
'name of a " working majority"— (Another laugh)—
be took it for granted that. that Bill would soon be the law
cf France. Now, that Bill contained some most extraor-
',Unary provisions; tor not only might Frenchmen be tried
,n 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 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-
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
'she French Government, Cr against the public weal, as it
was called, of France.—(Bear.)
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.—(Lond 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 tce 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 interns.
nowt' 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 •intEranee, it was only fit he should add, that he saw
so reason to doubt the fairness and honest intention of the
e French Government in reference to the matter of the con-
' • ven time.
'• 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
111;s4tieally gave the French Government no benefit at all. '
,
vidone, perrectly clear, therefore, that a remedy should be pro-
for they her Majesty's Government were ready to do so,
en:3,74. did not, we might lose all the benefit we now
what was The feeling of the House, too, seemed to be that
opinion. thr'oper to be done should be done now. In his
of this sod,]leeent was the right time to provide a measure
possible to b for if daring SO many years it was found im-
into accord,, the Governments of the two countries
ready, thonglC-"se the subject, and if they were now
best and most they might not have taken exactly the
were now readreaLr steps for the purpose—yet, if they
precisely the moresZtru to an arrangement, surely that was
that happy coneurretZhen advantage should be taken of
measure before the go °f opinion. It was objected to the
taken up
in this eowitla.raerithat it allowed any man to be
warrant and simple proof oft,t,,carried out of it, merely upon a
was made to avoid. that, dim_entity. Now, when an attempt
the Noble Earl near him (e-i;.`ccre. in the act of convention of
respect_.that in endeeye, of Aberdeen), it failed in
this
constitutional, to protect the pZauog to do that which was
who was claimed, and
who was entitled to our hospitality °
laws, swe did that which made theantd the protection of our
tar as regarded the government oirtd9 a dead letter so
forward such a measure as this, thp-,. c'rance. In carryingtain what substitute they collie they must ascer-
eovide for that
which had already failed. And
veleel at thee seoeueue WAS a wt. arr.tu 4,41
_Substitute pro- .
say how far this of identitv.
to .
It was very difficieltPrima • •
b evidence as
Were they to require so much. facze
eves
would person, were to e tried there
deuce was to go.
would satisfy them that it',
was every probability of his being convicted? Its
had
theyin -1 was so
desirous that the objects which
be chalk Should be
carried out, thatif any plan could chalked out w
person accused which
would give greater security to the
thisand to
the
French Government that their criminals
be
most happycount
would be surrendered to them, he would
adopt it. Great care, he admitted, ought to be. taken I, T.°
the
convention that it would not be made applicable to
a treaty'
politica,
off-cadets. That convention stood upon formally
entered into. They could not, however, step in between,
the French Government and their subjects, although they
cZnill prevent a Frenchmanbeing properly carried into
France to be tried. But if he went improperly
into France they could
not do more than demand compliance with the terms of
their amity, 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 trythis Government as a discharge from the crime of
which he was accused.
Lord BROUGHAM—Or lie 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
nil!, and he coulronly 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 rendering the
Bill 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. lie had the most
sinceze 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
how they could ask the French Government to pass any
01l
_achlaw as would give them such additional security. The
rlatam.ent of this country did not pass any law of a si-
mrilrkuld
when an English subject was brought to this
Country,
and was tried for a political offence. They had no
such LW as prohibited them from trying such political of-
that this ey propose to pass any such law. He ad-
mittedtreaty by France Act would not prevent the infraction of the
what would be the
would be an infraction (Tesequence of such infraction? It
they had the usual mod the treaty itself, and in such case
eof vindicating their rights. The
Noble Earl asserted that th
lie concurred in that opine,onretrospective law went too far.
the crimes since the date of the
treaty in 1843 were made
By some inadvertence, all
retrospective, whereas it was clear that only all the new
offences which were created by the
made retrospective. If their
-order should have been
1.
assent to the Bill going into Committe:l37; however, would
would leave the Committee in such _ e had no doubt it
a shape as to meet the
approval of their Lordships.
• Lord CAMPBELL said that they were
most anxious and
earnestly desired to further this measure. cut he must say
e was surprised at this novel. ;node of Proceeding a/kW