§ The Marquess of Lansdownecalled the attention of the House to the subject of two bills which had recently passed the House, for giving effect to the treaties with France and the United States of America, for facilitating the apprehension of criminal offenders, upon which he had intended to have made a few observations on the third reading, but had been prevented in consequence of the bill having been read a third time during his absence. The general policy of those bills it was impossible for him or for the Parliament to doubt, and the only opposition he entertained to the treaties was, that one, without sufficient reason, did not go to the same extent as the other. The treaty with America enumerated a much larger body of offences, and went much further than the treaty which had been concluded with France. The reason for not extending the French treaty as far as the American was wholly insufficient. 1326 Some of the most aggravated crimes were not to be found in the treaty with France, and the omission extended to what he had always considered one of the gravest offences— the crime of arson. That was wholly omitted; and on stating his objection in committee he had been told that the only ground why the same extension was not given in one treaty as in the other vas, that it would have overturned the draft of a proposal of old date, which was suggested at the peace of Amiens, and which did not go to the extent of the American treaty. When, however, they were acting after forty years delay, he could not think this a sufficient reason, and he must conclude that some objections had been stated in the course of the negotiations which had not been stated to the House, which prevented the French embracing the full extent given to the American treaty. He could see no reason for this difference, and the extension was more necessary in the case of France than of the United States. He begged therefore to move
An humble address to her Majesty for copies of correspondence between the Governments of Great Britain and France for the last ten years relating to the apprehension of criminal offenders in each country respectively.
§ The Earl of Aberdeensaid the noble Marquess would agree with him that there was a sufficient reason for not agreeing to his motion when he told hint that no such correspondence existed; there was not, indeed, even an official communication on the subject. He quite agreed with his noble Friend, that the principle of these treaties being the same, it was desirable to give to them the greatest possible extent that could be given for the benefit of both countries. The French government had been anxious to renew the proposal of the treaty of Amiens; they had proposed it in 1815, and many times afterwards; but the proposal was always declined by this country; there were, however, no negotiations on the subject. He had thought, as a commencement of a new system, it was not desirable to extend the description of crimes. The convention was made only temporarily for a year, and six months' notice was to be given should there be a wish to determine it. Although the French government was desirous, in the first instance, to include a larger number of crimes, in his opinion it had been desirable to confine the catalogue of crimes; yet, if the present treaty should not be found at- 1327 tended with inconvenience, it would not be difficult to give it, on renewal, a more extended operation.
Lord Campbelltrusted, that by some fu-tare negotiation on the subject, the present state of the relations, in this respect, might be considerably improved; and lie particularly directed attention to the case of fraudulent bankruptcy, which ought to be provided against in any treaty, in order that parties who had cheated their creditors might he given up to punishment.
§ Motion withdrawn.