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

:~

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, June 8.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack.
at Five o'clock.
The Militia Bill was read a first time.
The Kennington Common Improvement Bill was read
a mond time.
LONDON NECROPOLIS AND MAUSOLEUM
BILL.
Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this
BBL
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY opposed the Bill, as
Mang impracticable in its provisions.
.The Bishop of LONDON also opposed the Bill.
After a short conversation the Bill was read a secon d
See.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from certain copyholders in Cumberland against the
topyhold 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
isird 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-
dtistrial and Provident Societies Bill was read a second
Lime.
SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION
WITH FRANCE) BILL.
The Earl of MALMESBURY moved the second read-
fag of this Bill, which he explained was intended
Itho
Ps,ance on a footing of equality w
gland with reference to the mutual surrender of
criminals. By the convention of 1843 between
thb two countries this country obtained the right to
claim the Surrender of 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.
%he 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 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 with murder, forgery, and fraudulent bank-
hptey. He did not think the present Bill gave suffi-
cient security against political offenders being claimed
:seder its provisions, and it only required the production
of a inandat d'arret 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
dOMMiSSiOn of the crime _charged should be all that
was required to justify us in delivering up an accused
Farfy.
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
eensistenn with the condition of civilised society, that two
.nations so closely connected as France and England were
lihould 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
Mble and Learned Lord proceeded to observe, that under
ihe 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—lawe in 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 rtpeal of laws was almost as fre-
quent se 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
aley 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 regard to a Bill which was then before the corps legis.
Seat 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 •et a " working majority"— (Another laugh)—
he took it for granted that that Bill would soon be the law
of Frame. Nov 4 that Bill contained some moat extraor-
dinary provisions; for not only might Frenchmen be tried
in Frame for offences committed by them in England. or
411sewhore—political offences- included—and possibly these
political offence, though not the only ones contained in
the might be its principal object--(Hear, hear)—
not only might Frenchmen be tried in France for offences
nommitted in England, but their accomplices—English-
yea, it might be, in the condition of accessories—might
alb° be tried in France. Nay, more—and he owned he was
never more astonished in his life at any act, or attempted
set, of legislation as he was when he saw this —Englishmen
sat 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, 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.—(Lond laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM—But the Bill in the shape in which
he had seen it was no new measure; oil 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 Wee termed interna-
tional law had been made, of not considering that offenders
ought to be tried in the country, and by the Jaws of the
country, in which the offences were charged to have been
committed. Having said this much respecting the proceed.
tags in France, it was only fit he should add, that he saw
no reason to doubt the fairness and honest intention of the
Stench 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
actically gave the French Government no benefit at all.
nir Perfectly clear, therefore, that a remedy should be pro-
fornien and her Majesty's Government were ready to do so,
what Int not, we might lose all the benefit we now
what was. he feeling of the House, toe, seemed to be that
opinion.thr osier to be done should be 'done now. In his
of this
tom for
was the right time to provide a measure
possible brifor if daring so many years it was found
to accord. in
Abe Governments of the two countries
pea the subject, and if they were now
ready, thougn
test and lease prey might not have taken exactly the
. were now ready to steps for the purpose—yet, if they
preesely the monies to an arrangement, surely that Was
n
that_ happy concurrences advantage should be taken of
ineseu before the Retua Opinion. It was objected to the
srldthat it allowed any man to be
then up Int this COantry,
ot tdaarried out of it, Merely upon a
difficulty Now, when an attempt
warramnatdeantdo saivmopidle
thattf
in the act of convention of
twnaesneenle Earl near him (tinen4
rem--that endeavourinoi Aberdeen), it failed in
this ran to do that which was
the
who was claimed, and
constitutional, to protect the persogn
who was entitled to our hospitalitt.
lawn. we did that which made t and the protection of our
government . vve a dead letter so
far as regarded the
measure as this, therefore,raara• In carrying
forwent such a
tain what subetitente. they could provide for
ascer-
which had already failed. And and
se for that
vided at this moment was a warrant and substitute pro-
-1 identity.
should be
It was very difficult to say how far thisf evi-
dence was to go. Were they to require so much
eviden
to the
• would satisfy them that if the person were to be tried there
ars
was every probability of his being convicteds ir'cteuw%iesoe
desirous that the objects which they had view
eeasSied out, thatif any plan could be nalKed out, which
would give greater security to the person fletised and
French Government that their criminals in this count,.,
would be surrendered
ought to be _ taken in to them, he would be most happy to
adopt it. •Great care, he admitted, 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 between
the French Government and their subjects, although they
could prevent a Frenchman being improperly carried into
France to be tried. But if he went into France they could
kinnt • more than demand compliance with the terms of
treaty, which stipulated solemnly that no man should
be tried for any political offence; and that if he be so
t ilia ha should be at liberty to plead his surrounder
Elifte Ifs this Government as a discharge from the crime of
which he was accused.
Iprd BROUGHAM—Or be sent back.
ne LORD CHANCELLOR—Or be sent back. That
was i'vettaable saggestion'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-
sistance cif the Noble and Learned Lords in rendering the
Bil'l 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
einceee 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 coull ask the French Government
to pass any
such law •
as w.aild give them such additional ' security. The
Parliament of this country did not pass any law of a si-
milar kind when an •
English subject was brought to this
Milani, and was tried for a political offence. They had no
241(.41 law as prohibited_
fender?, nor did them from trying such political of-
that thisthey propose to pass any such law. He ad-
mitted Act would
tasty by pralinenot prevent the infraction of he
what would be the"against her min subjects. But
consequence of such infraction? It
would be an infraction of t
tlrey had the usual mode obit) treaty itself, and in such case
Notale Earl asserted that the
vindicating their rights. The
odractirred in that Opinion, law went too far.
the crimes since the date of the
treaty
some inadvertence, all
retrespectinre, whereas it was
clear
in 1843 were 'made
ofTepees which were created by theear_ that only all the new
made retroePective. If their Lordships,
should have been
; assent to the Bill going into Committee, however, would
would leave the Committee in su.s, she had no doubt it
approval of their Lordships. 'a a shape as to meet the
• Lord CAMPBELL said that they were
moat
earnestly desired to further this Butmeaeuen anxious and
he was turinilnd at this ulna f he must say
9 Pr9ceeding an in