The Sun. — 1866-08-03 (London, England)

EXTRADITION TREATIES ACT AMENDMENT 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 iu all civilised countries, 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 perfectly 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 offences 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 object 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 bo used fcr 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 contained 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 surrender of any person ; but he, for one, was not disposed to meet all the demands A 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 France those extensive t 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