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

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TiIIs DAT.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 12 o'clock.
a. 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 AMENDMENT

BILL.
Lord STANLEY rose to move the second reading o:
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 t.o
make certain documents in the French courts evidence
an;
the case under the treaty precisely in
the
eamebirllanlenfetr the
they were in cases not under the treaty. Thethe s
law just the same as it at present existed, and
was°_l,°___!lb...-
ject he had in view was to remedy that whichi.iztthe
sc'omplePo'f
a technical error. The crimes comion 'Oa
the treaty were murder, attembpoltio
bankruptcy, and forgery.
opposed, because it was saidas
ready
to agree to proposals
political purposes, tvietgdminWthuiegrhdbetiribl
ofwrauaussdetduolefbncert
lie
that
Ho was
prepared
the bill ; because he
otooonlideebtesdueefihnaend.objbeucttiohnopwrotvidedthosetpooaligtirceael
tooff
manyences
of the assertions put fort
knew precisely what was, andagWhat was not, the object of
the bill.
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
thev people erelookedof p
greatest jealousy
byHo
opposed the bill as strongly as he possibly
because ho 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 iu 1843, and if there was a measure
which had for its object the abolition of all viva voce
u l
with England.t
could, h the
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