The Sun.
London, England, 1866-08-03 00:00:00

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 noegive 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 ho 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 in England a snare. Ile (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, bat what
guarantee had the House of Commons that next session

demands would not bo made for an extension of the offences
dealt with in the bill, because he believed the more you

rod on slime the further it receded. (Hear, hear.) Ile 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. He 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 jackal'
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
tie 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. (Hear,
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 courso 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 was precluded from finding fault with French
law. (Hear, hear.) He 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 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 he 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
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 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
steambDats, 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 from the operations of the bill persons
charged with political offences.
Lord STANLEY said he would consider such a proposal,
but consideriug the extreme difficulty of framiug such a
clause, he could not pledge himself to adopt such a course.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 77
Against it .. ll
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 the following
words o 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, 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 53
Majority —4o

COMMON LAW COURTS (FEES AND SALARIES)
BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
The sitting was then suspended.

At six o'clock the house resumed, and was

LETT iIITTIN43.

TELE WAR IN GERMANY.

(REUTER'S TELEGRAMS.)

FRANKFORT, Aug. 3.

The Prussian soldiers who were recently billeted
on the inhabitants have now all been removed to
the barracks. The town is much quieter.
Herren Schinitz and Holtzman have gone to
Berlin.