The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PDBLIO JOURNALS.

TIMES.—Mr. Bright spoke somewhat angrily at
Leeds, but in the middle of a mass of trite dclama-
tion and threadbare abuse he did lay down some clear
principles of a reforming policy. His principles as
now professed deserve to be attentively considered.
In the course of the late debates, and more than once
since that time, Mr. Bright has claimed to be a
sound Constitutionalist. It is only in accordance
with the principles of the English Constitution that
he seeks to remodel the House of Commons. It was
on constitutional grounds that he maintained his
objections to fancy franchises and novel proposals
for estimating electoral capacities. He even asserted
on one occasion that his views on the subject repre-
sented the strictest and most unimpeachable Con-
servatism, inasmuch as he was taking his stand on
th© ancient practice of regulating the suffrage, while
others were introducing varieties unknown to this
country. To this argument he returned at Leeds
by declaring that the House of Commons as at pre-
sent constituted did not truly represent the popular
branch of the Legislature according to constitu-
tional theory. It did not speak with the voice of the
people, or the working classes, as distinguishable
from other ranks of society. It contained many
elements which could not be regarded as purely
popular elements. It represented not only numbers,
but wealth, intelligence, property, education, and
privilege. Some of its members were returned by
ridiculously small constituencies, often influenced by
peers or other great people. Yet it was not to speak
for such persons that the House of Commons was
established, but to express opinions and protect the
interests of the Commons of the realm—that is, the
common body of the people. So, in advocating a
change which would restore its natural and proper
character to this branch of the Legislature, Mr.
Bright was not designing a revolution, but promot-
ing a reformation. " We propose, in fact," said
he, " to restore the representation, and to restore
the fair andfree action of the English Constitution."
Now, this is a very plain declaration of principle,
but there are some very broad facts of the case
which Mr. Bright has apparently forgotten. The
very first and fundamental principle of the British
Constitution is, as every child is taught, that there
are three Estates of the realm. The three Estates
are the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons, which
are co-ordinate and co-equal authorities. It is of
the very essence of the Constitutional theory to
which Mr. Bright now appeals that no one of these
Estates should be independent of the consent of the
other, but that the agreement of all three should be
requisite for the enactment and establishment of law.
The operation of time and events has modified the
theory to such an extent that in practice one of these
estates—that is to say, the House of Commons —is
the main foundation of law and order. It has en-
croached upon the other Estates, and has attracted
a preponderating power to itself, not only without
much opposition, but with general approbation and
satisfaction. But how has it happened that such a
result—theoretically quite unconstitutional—has
been brought so quietly and advantageously to pass?
It has happened because the constitution of the
House of Commons has been practically adapted to
its enlarged functions and actual position. If the
House of Commons now speaks and acts as it were
for the whole State--not only for all the Commons
of the realm, but for all the Lards, all the nobility,
and all the classes privileged by education or posses-
sions, it may also be said that it is at the same time
a representation of all these classes and a reflection
of all their opinions. It is undoubtedly true that
this branch of the Legislature, presumed to be espe-
cially or exclusively the popular branch, now repre-
sents in some degree great nobles and landowners,
who, according 'to Constitutional theory, are sup-
posed to be represented elsewhere. It is not so true
as Mr. Bright's words would imply that the

people, commonly so called, are uureyresented,
for the recent debates, and, still more, the close
divisions, showed how many members were willing
to go as far as Mr. Bright was going himself ; but
still it is a fact that elements of representation which
should not, according to theory, be found in the
popular branch of the Legislature are found there
actively at work, and with no inconsiderable influ-
ence. He proposes to reinvest the popular house
with its popular character, to bring it back to the
people, and to restore that branch to the keeping
and possession of the estate whose name it bears—
the Commons of the realm. But now, following up
the argument on Mr. Bright's own lines, and guid-
ing ourselves. by the well-known principles of the
English Constitution, let us ask what is to be the
distribution of power after the Reform has been ac-
complished? Measured by strict constitutional
theories, the Crown and the House of Lords have
suffered more than the House of Commons. If the
purity of the House of Commons has been damaged
by the introduction, of alien elements, the functions
of the House of Lords have been reduced to a mere
fraction of their ancient and constitutional extent,
while the veto of the Crown has fallen into disuse.
Those changes are compensated as things now stand
by the influence attaching to all the three estates
together in the House of Commons ; but if all influ-
ence excepting purely popular influence is to be
banished from the house, where are the expelled in-
terests to find that share of power which the consti-
tution assigns to them as expressly as to the
Commons ? The House of Commons now represents
all classes instead of one, but it also acts for all classes
instead of one. When Mr. Bright has purified the
representation by limiting it according to the origi-
nal theory of the constitution, will he be prepared to
see its power limited in a proportionate degree as the
same theory of the constitution would demand ? It
may be unconstitutional ; indeed, strictly speaking,
it certainly is so, that great nobles and landowners
should have such a voice in the House of Com-
mons ; but it is not unconstitutional—on the con-
trary, it is absolutely required by the constitution,
that they should have, somewhere or other, not only
a voice, but a voice equal to that of all the Com-
mons together. It is absolutely of the essence of the
British Constitution that the Estate of the Lords
should be equal with the Estate of. the Commons.
Now, supposing the House of Commons to become
a purely popular assembly ; supposing it to give ex-
pression directly and without qualificatiou to the
opinions of the working classes, would Mr. Bright
be prepared to see that opinion nullified by the dis-
sent of great nobles and landowners sitting entirely
by themselves ? Yet that is what it must come to if
the true principles of the British Constitution are to
be applied to one branch of the Legislature as well as
another. Mr. Bright gave exceedingly good advice
to his audience when he warned them against exag-
gerated ideas of their own power. No man in the
kingdom could have spoken more sensibly than he
did when he said that if the working classes were to
separate themselves from the rest of the nation with
a gulf between them there would be nothing for
them but subjection, and that it was only by secur-
ing the co-operation of large numbers among the
middle and upper classes that they could accom-
plish their ends. This is the view of Reform which
is taken by all the educated classes in the country ;
but when the appeal is made to them, as made it
must be, Mr. Bright's Constitutional principles will
infallibly be discussed, and with the result, we sus-
pect, of an unexpected dilemma. While pretending
to purify he would swamp the Constitution. It ap-
pears to us that the revival and application of the
old theory of the Constitution according to Mr.
Bright's present views must fail in one or two ways
in achieving its object. Either the House of
Commons cannot claim to represent numbers alone,
to the exclusion of aristocratical elements ; or it
cannot claim to exercise its present power to the
exclusion of an aristocratical counterpoise. Perhaps
Mr. Bright is thinking that the ancient theory may
be coupled with the modern practice, and that the
Commons' House, if returned by numbers only, could
still pjeponderate over other powers as it does while
representing all the elements of the State together.
This conclusion, however, we suspect, he would fail
to impress on the bulk of those classes whose co-ope-
ration he desires; and, what is more, we are sure he
will find it on reflection to be utterly inconsistent
with the principles he now avows. A purely popular
branch of the Legislature checked and controlled by
other branches is no doubt a genuine feature of the
British Constitution; but a purely popular House of
Commons, representing numbers only, and yet claim-
ing to be as little checked or controlled as our House
of Commons is now, would simply express the sub-
version of the Constitution altogether, and the sub-
stitution of a democracy in its place.
POST.—The policy on which extradition treaties
are based is so obviously sound and beneficial that it
calls for no special vindication. The only points
on which doubt exists are in reference to the lengths
to which this policy should be carried and the nature
of the machinery by which practical effect should be
given to these conventions. As individuals are only
amenable to the laws of the country against which
they have offended, and as no State can exercise
jurisdiction beyond its own dominions, criminals
would suczeed in eluding justice by the simple pro-
cess of quitting the country in which their offences
had been committed in the absence oaf some express
or implied understanding between independent
States for the extradition of such refugees. It has
always been a moot point in international law
whether a State is bound to surrender criminals who,
flying from another country, have sought a refuge
within its confines, in the absence of an express
treaty authorising their": extradition. Some of the
most distinguished jurists, amongst whom were
flrrotius and Vattel, were of opinion that every State
was bound to deny an asylum to criminals, and, after
examination of the charges advanced against them,
to surrender them. The practice of nations has,
however, for the most part been to make the sur-
render of fugitives solely dependent on express
stipulations, and the most recent decisions, both in
this country and the United States, have been to
that effect. The practice of concluding extradition
treaties dates from very early times ; so far back as
the year 1174 a convention of this kind having been
concluded between England and Scotland, and a
similar treaty between England and France, bears
the date. of 1308. Some writers on international
law have gone so far as to contend that every Go-
vernment is bound either to punish a fugitive
criminal or to deliver him up, but the established
principle on which the European States and
the American Republic have invariably acted
is, that the prosecution and punishment of crimes
must be left to the country where they are
committed. Admitting, however, that it is expedient
to afford every facility for bringing criminals to
justice, it is clear that States are bound to act with
circumspection in determining the class of offenders
to whom it is the interest of every Government to
deny the right of asylum. Those jurists who main-
tained that it was obligatory on States to surrender
criminals who had fled from other countries, limited
this exercise of authority to those cases in which the
offences charged were crimes against humanity. And
the earlier extradition treaties were, without excep-
tion, framed in this spirit; and although of late years
the tendency has been to enlarge the list of offences
for the commission of which the extradition of
criminals may be demanded, still the treaties are
limited in their operation to crimes of a very grave
character. For one class of offences, though by
many Governments regarded as the gravest of all,
no treaty in existence authorises the. extradition of
refugees. It is needless to say that we refer to poli-
tical offences. The explanation of this is not to be
found in any of the fundamental principles of inter-
national law, but in the nature of the institutions of
particular States. The nations who contracted the
Holy Alliance would have doubtless readily assented
to the extradition of political offenders. Those
States, on the other hand, which acknowledge that
it is the right of a people to select its own form of
government, and that rebellion itself may be sancti-
fied, have always accorded a refuge to those who,
dissatisfied with the established form of government
in, their native lands, have sought elsewhere the
political freedom denied to them at home. As extra-
dition treaties are in every respect reciprocal, the
attitude assumed by the liberal States enforced a
similar attitude upon those which would willingly
have added treason to the list of offences which
have already found a place in these conventions.
Public opinion throughout the world is so univer-
sally in favour of maintaining inviolate the right of
asylum for political refugees that no present appre-
hension need be entertained of any change being
effected in that respect. The chief, if not the sole,
difficulty which has arisen in connection with extra-
dition treaties has been occasioned by the different
forms of procedure which various nations adopt
with a view to the demonstration of guilt. The
crime of murder, for example, has practically the
same definition in the code of every civilised State.
But themeans by which the commission of the crime
is sought to be established are extremely various.
Now, assuming, for the sake of argument, that in
one country much slighter evidence was required for
this purpose than in another, or that the means of
obtaining such evidence were much simpler or easier,
it is apparent that the two States would not stand
on the same footing when respectively advancino%
their claims for the extradition of criminals. As the
preliminary proceedings before the magistrate of a
State in which a criminal has taken refuge are go-
verned by the ordinary rules of procedure in such
State, it follows that the State which furnished the
greatest facilities for obtaining evidence would give
up many more offenders than it would be likely to
receive in return. Now, this is precisely the com-
plaint which has been advanced against Great Bri-
tain by France, and which was considered so seri-
ous that an intiraatign was given by-the French,

Government that unless some measures were taken-
to facilitate the extradition of criminals who had
taken refuge in England the subsisting treaty be-
tween the two countries would not be renewed.
An act was passed at the close of last session,
to remain in operation for a year, which in
many important respects modified the proce-.
dure hitherto adopted in furnishing the evidence
on which a prima facie case of guilt is sought to be
established :against accused individuals whose ex-
tradition is demanded by the French Government.
For example, by the recent act it is sufficient to
produce depositions of witnesses taken before a
French magistrate, whereas previously the examina-
tion of those witnesses in the presence of the accused
before the English magistrate was indispensable.
This, it must be admittd, is a very serious modifi-
cation, inasmuch as it deprives the accused of the
opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses on
whose evidence his extradition is sought. Nor can
it be said that this is an opportunity deferred, see-
ing that, when once in France, the prosecution may
be indifferent about the testimony of the witnesses,
and may rely on establishing their case out of the
mouth of the accused. It is, however, clear that
the French Government are entitled to ask some
concessions at our hands, and we simply notice the
nature of one of those which have been temporarily
made, and the objections which may be raised
against it, to illustrate the difficulties with which
the matter is beset. The subject of extradition
treaties has been judiciously discussed at the Social
Science Congress, and it is to be hoped that Parlia-
ment will, in the course of next session, assent to
some law which will establish perfect reciprocity
between Great Britain and those States with which
she has concluded treaties of extradition.