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

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 Franca 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, perbaps 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. The 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. Ho 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 ono 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.
s notdisposed
which to
The bill laid it down that certified copies of the warrants
and depositions should be considered sufficient for the sur-
rendermeet a
all
lf
thetn any person;demaml
demands
he,the forFr French
Government a, w
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 was 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 were 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 ho 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 ; on 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. lie hoped the house would still hold
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.

gravest suspicion,
Sir F. GOLDSMID looked upon the bill with the
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. (Hear,
hear.)

Tho 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 be 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 the present
bill.

Mr. J. S. MILL said, without wishing to say one word
in disparagement of France or the Emperor, he did not
think that he was precluded from finding fault with French
law. (Hear, hear.) Ho 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
care should be taken before any alteration was
made to suit that department in France by an alter-
ation in the law of England. It was a very easy matter
to make a charge of complicity in political assimilation against
a person residing int h
0m
Englandovern e thatnt
in orderthe greatest h
t ast
theafe safeguard
per-
sonshoulduard
yrauiseocinby the honour of England should not, in the
hourre b
olfhienisg p
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 he looked as jealously as any man
opinion that
which the pr h
pre-
' any alteration of the law which affected the right of
asylum in Engla
st bill would prevent rather than permit foul play.
Rand he
supported'as ofth
the measure,
saiSdirwGa; Bon°Wyu:ewhich 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 he 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
asked, before the house went to a
whether TAYLOR
steamboats, to have treaties of extradition iu operation.
A.
Mr. P.
division,
tee exceptiLlg frJal the operations of the bill persons
charged with
political offences.
Lord sTANLEY said he would consider such a proposal,
but considering the extreme difficulty of framing such a
it would accept a resolution in commit-
clause, he could not pledge himself to adopt such a course.
The house thou divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ................... 77
Against it
Majority

The bill was then read a second time.
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 tho 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 tho act hereby
continued, and to such other persons as may come into
Ireland after the passing of this act."
Lord NAAS opposed the amendment.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l3
Against it
/ Majority