The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-07 00:00:00

whom was taken before Mr. Vaughan, at Bow-street, in
order that he might be given up to the authorities in
France, who claimed him, on a charge of forgery, under
the Extradition Treaty. He contended that the law was
in a very unsatisfactory state, because no man ought to be
delivered up after his arrival in England, unless it was
clearly proved that the offence with which he was charged
was embraced in the provisions of the treaty in question.
He hoped the whole matter would be taken into con-
sideration by the Government during the recess, and
also that in place of the wretched, little, limping law
which went halting after the convention of a foreign
power, a law would be proposed which would settle for
all governments of the world what it was fitting for Eng-
land to do with those who clung to her knees for justice.
(Hear, hear.) He was sure it was possible to fix a time in
which an appeal might be heard against the decision to
send any person out of England at the demand of a
foreign power, and he thought two months was not an
unreasonable period, and in the event of the wholequestion
being raised then the Court of Queen's Bench might be
empowered to try the bona fides of the charge with a mixed
jury— (hear, hear)—before a man was given up to a foreign
power, he having once received an as) lum in England.
He was quite content to leave the question in the bands of
the Government, having every confidence in the notle
lord now at the head of foreign affairs, but ho hoped that
next session they would pass a law having a backbone of
right in it—such an act as would secure for England the
regard of the whole world.
Mr. LAYARD was of opinion that the present position
of matters was highly objectionable. He felt there ought
to be no bargaining on such a matter as giving up a person
on the demand of a foreign Government. He thought the
proper course for this country to adopt was to lay down a
certain principle upon which persons charged with certain
offences should be given up without certain terms being
conceded. He bad long been of opinion that the proper way
to deal with the matter was for a committee to be selected
from both sides of the house, and composed of gentlemen
of the highest diplomatic ability. That committee could
inquire into the whole question; they could decide for
what crimes persons charged by a foreign Government
should be given up, and then Government might enter into
negotiations with the whole world. Extradition treaties
might be granted on the terms settled by the committee,
and no ea ers—(hear)—there need be no further negotia-
tions—no further appeals to Parliament. He thought, un-
der these circumstances, the bill could be reserved for one
year on tho understanding that an opportunity should be
given next session of discussing the whole question.
Mr. NEATE thought the speech of the hon. member for
Finsbury was ill-timed and most objectionable. Unless
England gave facilities for the extradition of accused
foreigners all diplomatic connections between England
and the civilised countries of the world would be broken
off. _ _ . .

Sir F. GOLDSMID hoped the bill would not be for a
longer period than one year, and that the position of per-
sons in England who had been engaged in civil conflict
with governments abroad should be clearly settled and
defined.
Mr. WATKIN said Lamirande richly deserved the
utmost punishment. No one sympathised with him. It
was to be hoped that such persons committing the crime
he had done should not find a safe asylum in England.
He was cashier to a bank in France he forged on, and
robbed the bank to an alarming extent, and then fled to
America, and eventually to Canada, where he was arrested
and sent back to France. He was arrested in Lower
Canada, where the law was almost in accordance with
that of France. Lamirande deserved the utmost punish-
ment, but the point raised in his behalf was that his cap-
ture was effected by illegal means.
Mr. MILL thought the law altogether unsatisfactory,
and hoped that the Government next session would intro-
duce a measure founded on the broadest possible ground.
Lord STANLEY said it never was his intention to ask
for a renewal of the bill for more than one year. Ile
thought some misapprehension existed as to what he had
stated last year, as on that occasion ho said the state of the
law was far from satisfactory, and that if a committee of
inquiry into the whole matter was moved for he should not
oppose it. Lamirande's case however which had been referred
to so generally during the present discussion had no more to
do with the bill now under consideration than it had to do
with the Reform Bill. (Laughter.) He freely admitted
that the matter was in a very unsatisfactory state, but the
error had been committed by our own authorities, and in
any bill that was proposed, he thought it ought to be
clearly laid down that the person given up should only be
tried for the offence for which he was given up, as set
dowu in the extradition treaty. The turn the
discussion had taken had not been directed
against the present bill, but against the principle
of extradition as it had existed for the last two hundred
years. He should have no objection next year to the
appointment such as had been suggested by the right hon.
gentlemen the member for Southwark.
Sir G. BOWYER thought all countries ought to give
up criminals, but there ought to be strong and effective
conditions under which such an arrangement was carried
into effect.
The House then went into committee on the bill. Tho
whole of the clauses were agreed to, the only amendment
made being that the words directing the continuance of the
I bill were struck out, the operation of the measure being
limited to one year.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
Lord R. MONT AGU moved that the house go into
committee on this bill, the object of which was to
remove, as far as possible, the restrictions relative
to removal of cattle through Great Britain. He
contended that the restrictions imposed by the cat-
tle p'.ague had not increased the price of meat in
any degree worth mentioning, but that it had increased
through some cause was certainly true, and in order that
no undue• regulations might remain in operation longer
than was actually necessary, the present bill was proposed.
Mr. J. A. SMITH said it was useless going on with
measures for preventing disease in cattle without some
steps were taken to remedy. the cruelty that was exercised
towards cattle during transit. A case had lately occurred
in which for four days and a half some cattle, moved from
one part of the country to another, had been
kept without either food or water. Tho great mis-
fortune, however, was that there was no power in any
department of the Government to prevent a continuance
of such a state of things. The Government said they
were anxious to prevent disease spreading, but stated
they were powerless in such a case as he had mentioned ;
they might go on for years passing such bills as the pre-
sent, and still be no nearer the object they had in view
than they were at the present moment. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. JERVOISE also said a great deal of disease was
occasioned by over driving. A case had lately occurred
in which a flock of sheep had been almost destroyed be-
cause the sheep had been driven for two and twenty hours,
with only two hours for rest. No horse could stand such
treatment, and it was not surprising that disease broke
out. It was very convenient to call it cattle disease.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress on Clause 12, with
leave to sit again on Monday.
The Public Health (Scotland) Bill, the Turpike Acts
Continuance Bill, the Recovery of Certain Debts (Scot-
land) and the Trusts (Scotland) Bills were severally read
a third time and passed.
The Companies' Act (1862) Amendment Bill, the Public
Works (Ireland) Bill, and the Patriotic Fund Bill went
through committee.
Tho two last were rushed through at extraordinary
speed, the Chairman only enumerating their clauses with-
out any indication of their objects. With all his speed
he only got through about a couple of minutes before
seven o'clock. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was
then nearly alone on the Treasury bench, and there were
not a dozen members is the house. Just then Mr. Whit-
more hastily entered, and in a voice loud enough to be
heard in the gallery informed Mr. Disraeli that the bill
had passed. He was followed by about 50 or 60 mem-
bers of the house, who had been in the gallery of the
Lords, and who now came to witness its retransmission
to the Commons. Mr. Lefevre, Ihe chief clerk of the Lords,
appeared at the bar with the bill. Sir Denis le Marchant
went down to receive it, and returning placed the docu-
ment in the Speaker's hands just as the first chime of the
clock announced the hour of adjournment. There was a
general cheer as the Speaker announced the title of the bill
as now returned to him.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do not
rise to address the house—l have only to move that the
amendments of the Lords be printed, and that they be
taken into consideration cn Thursday. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was agreed to.
The sitting was suspended at seven o'clock.

At the evening sitting.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

_ -- ---
Mr. AYRTON rose to put a question to the Chancellor
of the Eichequer with regard to the Reform Bill, which
had come back from the Upper House with some very
serious amendments. It would greatly facilitate the course
of public business if the House wore informed as to the
course the Government intended to take. The right hon.
gentleman was no doubt aware that on occasions of this
kind it had been the practice for the member who had
charge of the Bill to put down upon the paper the amend-
ments he proposed to ask the House to agree to, and those
he advised the House to dissent from. Perhaps before
Thursday the right hon, gentleman would bo able to make
some statement of this kind to the House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Just as
the House was about to adjourn, at a happy moment, when,
if it had been a minute later it would not have been in my
power to make the communication to the House, the Bill
for the Amendment of the Representation of the People
was returned from the other House of Parliament. I stated
then that I should at once move that the amendments of
the Lords be printed, and that I would move that the
House should take them into consideration on Thursday
Now, as I understand the hon. and learned gentleman, he
wishes that in the interval I should state which of those
amendments of the Lords Her Majesty's Government
would request the House to give their assent to or dissent
from. Now, my knowledge is limited on these subjects,
and I would not put it in comparison with tl at of the hon.
and learned gentleman, who on all subjects connected with
the conduct of Parliament always shows so much informa-
tion; but I was not aware that was the custom of con-