The Sun.
London, England, 1866-08-04 00:00:00

THE OCCUPANCY OF (AWE.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for copies of
the report of the Financial Commissioner, Mr. Davies, upon
the inquiry into rights of occupancy in Oude, together
with the reports of the different settlement officers and
commissioners in Oude, and of the evidence of the land-
owners, cultivators, ac., on the same subject. He
moved also for copies of the despatches of the Chief
Commissioner of Oude, forwarding these reports in 1865,
and the reply of the Governor-General of India to that
despatch.
The Earl of ajualEsßlTAy. Offered no objection to

the production of the documents iu question, but e 3 pressed
a fear that they would not supply the full information
which the noble marquis required.
The returns were then ordered.
The Industrial Schools Bill and the Reformatory Schools
Bill were read a second time.
And their lordships adjourned at seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 12 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :

-Downpatrick,Dundrum, and Newcastle Railway ; Wa-

terford, New Ross, and Wexford Junction Railway.
EXTRADITION TREATIES ACT AMENDMEN T

BILL.

Lord STANLEY rose to move the second reading of
this bill, the object of which was the amendment of the
act upon which the extradition treaty with France was
founded. The principle laid down in extradition treaties
was now almost universally adopted in all civilised coun-
tries, and nothing but the best results had followed the
adoption, and now all that was sought by the measure
was to remedy an oversight which now had become per-
fectly necessary. He did not think there was any person
now who would wish that the old state of things should
ever again recur, when a man had committed a murder
in London, and, obtaining six hours' start of justice, could
on reaching the streets of Boulogne and Calais walk openly
about, perhaps rejoicing in the perpetration of the crime.
It had been said that the present bill was most extensive
in its alterations, and that a great many present of-
fences were not embraced within its provisions; such
was not. the case. The alterations made by the
measure now under the consideration of the house were
very limited, and to effect the object of the bill was to
make certain documents in the French courts evidence in
the case under the treaty precisely in the same manner as
they were in cases not under the treaty. Tho bill left the
law just the same as it at present existed, and the sole ob-
ject he had in view was to remedy that which was simply
a technical error. The crimes coming within the scope of
the treaty were murder, attempt to murder, fraudulent
bankruptcy, and forgery. He believed the bill was to be
opposed, because it was said that it might be used for
political purposes, but he was ready to agree to proposals
to meet such an objection provided those political offences
could be defined. He was not prepared to agree to many
of the assertions put forth against the bill ; because he
knew precisely what was, and what was not, the object of
the bill.

Mr. TORRENS moved the second reading of the bill
that day three months. He contended that the measure
was not simply one to amend procedure, but that it con-
tained principles that were looked upon with the
greatest jealousy by the people of England. He
opposed the bill as strongly as he possibly could,
because he was not disposed to do that which
was only to be borne in countries not so happily
governed as England. He was desirous of leaving the law
as Sir R. Peel left it in 1843, and if there was a measure
which had for its object the abolition of all viva voce
evidence the one now under discussion was of that nature.
The bill laid it down that certified copies of the warrants
and depositions should be considered sufficient for the sur-
render of any person ; but he, for one, was not disposed to
meet all the demands of the French Government which
had been made, and he presumed the present amendment
of the Extradition Treaty was made as a peace-offering,
in the hope that the Government of France would be
satisfied with it. As such he opposed it, because
he was not disposed to give to Franco those extensive
powers which she W 0.9 only waiting her time to demand.
The French Government made a similar demand for the
amendment of the Extradition Treaty in 1852, but that
demand was refused, because the House of Lords did its
duty; but the demand had been again made, and the
House of Lords were not so jealous, and wore disposed to
assent to the request, but the House of Commons were the
guardians of the liberties of the people, and he hoped they
would not give their approval to the bill. He looked upon
the measure as ono of the greatest importance ; and to let
the house know what was thought of it by persons capable
of forming a good opinion of its operation, M. L. Blanc, in a
letter he had addressed to him (Mr. Torrens), strongly de-
nounced the bill, and said the passing of the measure would
be to make the right of asylum iu England a snare. He (Mr.
Torrens) hoped, therefore, that one of the oldest and
cherished rights that England possessed—namely, that of
asylum—should be surrendered by such a pettifogging bill
as that now on the table. It had been said that the bill
made no addition to the catalogue of offences, but what
guarantee had the House of Commons that next session
demands would not be made for an extension of the offences
dealt with in the bill, because he believed the more you
trod on slime the further it receded. (Hear, hear.) He did
not wish to disparage the reputation of the Emperor of the
French ; oa the contrary, he was ready to give him praise
for his exertions for strengthening the bonds of amity
between this country ; but then he was not immortal, and
therefore no one could say what changes a few short years
might not bring about. He hoped the house would stillhold
firmly to their sacred and cherished right of asylum, and
refuse to give its assent to the present bill.
Sir R. P. COLLIER said the right hon. gentleman had
altogether mistaken the object of the bill, because he had
laid it down that it was the surrendering of one of the most
dear and cherished rights in England, whereas in effect it
was a bill of the most limited proportions. It was simply
and truly a bill to remedy international defect, and not a
measure that was merely the first portion of a deep laid
scheme on the part of France to effect great and extensive
changes in the law, in order to render England the jackall
of foreign nations. The matter decided in the House of
Lords in 1852 was extremely different from that now under
discussion. He could but think that the distrust that was
expressed with respect to the purity of the French courts
of justice was calculated to have the worst effect. He
denied that the bill had any other object than that which
had been stated by the noble lord who moved the second
reading, and therefore he hoped the house would agree to
the motion.

Sir F. GOLDSMID looked upon the bill with the
gravest suspicion, and he would only consent to its pass-
ing by its being most strongly laid down that political
offences should not come within its provisions. (Hoar,
hear.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained in detail the
object of the bill, and said the opinions of the mover of the
amendment were founded on.imaginary dangers, and that if
his impression were of such a deep and determined nature,
the proper course would bo to raise the whole question in
debate rather than adopt the occasion of the second reading
of the present measure for the raising a debate upon the
advisability or inadvisability of having extradition treaties
in existence at all—more especially with France. The
amendment proposed in the bill now under discussion did
not alter or relax the law in one important particular, and
certainly he could not share in the fears that he enter-
tained in the event of Parliament sanctioning
bill. the present

Mr. J. S. MILL said, without wishing to say one word
in disparagement of France or the Emperor, he did not
that departmentthink that he was precluded from finding fault with French
law. (Hoar, hear.) Ile believed that the place where
French law was most defective was in criminal justice, and
that being so, it was of the
greatest importance that
careniade
t o should
suit be
takenbefo
in
Francoreanyaltbeyrataionn
alter-
ation was
the law of England. It was a very easy matter
to make a charge of complicity in political assimilation against
a person residing in England that the greatest safeguard
should be raised by the Government, in order that the per-
son relying upon the honour of England should not, in the
hour of his extremity, find himself unprotected, and liable
to be arrested and tried on a charge of which ho was en-
tirely innocent. He did not see why, where a
charge was made against a person residing in
England, by a Foreign Government, that charge should
be thoroughly investigated in this country before he was
handed over to those demanding his person.
Sir R. PALMER spoke in favour of the bill. He thought
a great deal of irrelevant matter had been introduced into
the discussion, and that the opinion of some persons ap-
peared to be of rather a curious description, as they went
the length of saying. believe the witness, but don't be-
lieve the judge.
Mr. HENLEY said ho looked as jealously as any man
upon any alteration of the law which affected the right of
asylum in England, and he was of opinion that the pre-
sent bill would prevent rather than permit foul play.
Sir G. BOWYER supported the measure, which he
said was one which ought, in fact, to be called a bill to
alter the law of evidence with respect to the law of ex-
tradition. (Hear, hear.) It did no more, and ho could
not understand the extreme surprise that had been de-
veloped during the discussion. He hoped the house would
pass the bill as a matter of business, because it was of the
utmost importance, at the present time of locomotives and
steamboats, to have treaties of extradition in operation.
Mr. P. A. TAYLOR asked, before the house went to a
division, whether it would accept a resolution in commit-
tee excepting loin the operations of the bill persons
charged with political offences.
Lord STANLEY said ho would consider such a proposal,
but considering the extreme difficulty of framing such a
clause, ho could not pledge himself to adopt such a course.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ................... 77

Against it
Maj0rity................................ —G3

'file bill was then read a second
HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT
CONTINUANCE BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1 being read,
Mr. DILLON moved the addition of the following
words to the end of the clause :—" That the operation of
this act shall extend only to the
persons who are now in
prison in Ireland under the provisions of the act hereby
continued,lrelanraitearutdhe passing of this act."
to such other persons as may come into
Lord NAAS opposed the amendment.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l3
.Against it
gajority ~,sit

COMMON LAW COURTS (FEES AND SALARIES)

BILL.

This bill was read a third timo and passed.

The sitting was then suspended.

At the evening sitting, after some explanations had been
given by Lord H. LENNOX (in answer to Colonel SYKES)
as to the surrender of certain pirates to the Chinese autho-
rities at Canton, and Mr. Pim had called attention to the
delay of the American mail steamers at Queenstown, the
house was counted out at ten minutes to eight o'clock.