SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 June 1870)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the advantages of Extradition Treaties were obvious. It was clear that a crime could be best investigated in the country where it was committed, and where the witnesses and the persons most interested in bringing the offender to justice resided. It was to the advantage of every country that its fugitive criminals should be surrendered 301 to it, and it was no less to the advantage of every country to get rid of foreign criminals who had fled to it. They had criminals enough of their own without being troubled with criminals belonging to other countries, and it was somewhat remarkable that, of all civilized countries, England had received the least benefit from Extradition Treaties. France had now 53 Treaties of Extradition. The United States had nearly as many. Most of the Continental States had a great many. But at that moment England had only three. This was partly owing to jealousy, lest they might be required to surrender political offenders, and to violate the right of asylum always afforded here to political refugees, and partly because a separate Act of Parliament had been required for each treaty. The Bill was founded almost entirely upon the recommendations of the Select Committee, which considered this subject in July, 1868, and it provided that Her Majesty, after having made an arrangement with any foreign State, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, might direct by Order in Council that the Act should apply to the extradition of criminals between us and such State. The Bill was drawn upon the footing of reciprocity, according to the recommendations of the Committee; but he doubted very much whether it was well to insist upon this reciprocity. It seemed to him that the getting rid of a foreign criminal was a benefit, nor did there appear any reason why they should insist on continuing subject to the nuisance of keeping foreign criminals, because foreign countries chose to endure the nuisance of keeping theirs. The list of crimes was extended in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee; but it was still limited to the graver crimes, and to such crimes as had some common element in the legislation of the countries with which they agreed for the purposes of extradition. These were specified in the Schedule to the Bill. The Queen, however, was not bound in each case to put in force the whole Schedule, but might make a selection. The Schedule to the Bill set forth a number of offences, but it need not be adopted in toto by the Queen when entering into any arrangement with any foreign country; indeed, she might adopt only so much of the Schedule as might be thought convenient under the circumstances. It had been held by the Court 302 of Queen's Bench that they ought not to surrender criminals if they had jurisdiction to try them; but that decision was arrived at by the Court against the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice; but now that that opinion had been generally adopted by the profession in England, and he understood in America, the Bill proposed to give effect to it, and to enable the Courts to surrender prisoners for certain offences, piracy for instance, even although we might have jurisdiction to try them here. It was right to state the safeguards by which the principle of extradition was surrounded in the Bill. First, there was a distinct provision that no criminal should be surrendered for any political offence. They had found it more difficult to define a political offence than to define the Ulster Custom, and they had finally given up the attempt, and had left the matter to the Courts. In addition to this, the Secretary of State for the Home Department might at anytime interfere to prevent the extradition of a criminal for any offence which he deemed to be of a political character. It was further provided that no person surrendered should be tried for any offence except that for which he was surrendered, without having been previously restored to liberty. This was to prevent a foreign country demanding a man—say, for manslaughter, and then trying him for a political offence. Further, it was provided that no criminal should be surrendered for what the French called par contumace—that of being convicted in his absence. The Committee further recommended that all extradition cases should be heard at Bow Street, and that recommendation had been adopted, subject to the exception that if a crime had been committed on the high seas it might be dealt with, to avoid delay, at the port at which the ship arrived, by a stipendiary magistrate in England, a chairman of quarter sessions in Ireland, and a sheriff in Scotland. At present proceedings were commenced by an order from the Home Secretary on a requisition from an Ambassador; but Sir Thomas Henry pointed out that this involved delay, which might allow a prisoner to escape; and therefore power was given to any magistrate to issue his warrant on such information, as he would do if the offence were committed in England; but no further proceedings were to be taken unless the 303 usual order was given by the Home Secretary. Every person taken up under the provisions of the Act would have notice given him that 15 days were allowed to him to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus, in the event of his having reason to complain of his having been arrested, or reason to give why he should be set at liberty. The Act would apply to the Colonies, unless any were excepted by an Order in Council; and in the Colonies a requisition was to be made by a Consul or Vice Consul, and the Governor was to perform the duties which were here performed by the Secretary of State. There was a further provision that if Colonial Acts on the subject had been passed and were in force they were not to be interfered with, so that if the Colonies liked to deal with this question themselves they were at liberty to do so. He thought it would be found that this was a very important enactment, and that it would lead to the adoption of the principle of extradition to an extent which hitherto had been little thought of; and he trusted it would lead to a number of treaties with foreign countries. At the same time, he thought the principle was surrounded by such safeguards that the most timid persons need no longer fear the possibility of the extradition of criminals for political offences and other interferences with liberty, which hitherto had prevented them resorting to the principle of extradition.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, he was Chairman of the Committee referred to, and, so far as he could then judge, the Bill appeared to be carefully and skilfully drawn in conformity with the Committee's Report. It would remove a defect in their criminal jurisprudence which was a disgrace to them as a civilized country; and it would place them on the same footing as the other civilized nations of Europe. Jealousies had arisen in consequence of the course they pursued with regard to political offenders, and also that each treaty had to be confirmed by Parliament. Those matters had created such great difficulties hitherto that nothing practical had been attempted to remedy them. He trusted the Bill would lead to a number of treaties that would 304 enable them to get rid of many rogues who now went about this country with impunity.

§ MR. DICKINSON
took exception to the principle of the Bill, that of contracting with foreign countries, as unsound, and involving them in all sorts of difficulties and different agreements with different countries; and he maintained that the principle was to determine by what rule they should be guided themselves; and having determined their own municipal law, we should inform foreign countries, and ask them to extend to us advantages corresponding with those which our laws afforded them. In Committee he should move the rejection of that part of the Bill which rendered it necessary to make treaties with foreign countries on the subject. He thought, too, it would have been better to confine themselves to their own municipal law, and to have allowed those Colonies which had Legislatures of their own to legislate on this subject for themselves. This Bill would apply to Canada till Canada thought fit to render it inoperative as regards that Colony by legislation of its own. The fact that Canada was in advance of England in this matter rendered it the less necessary that we should include that Colony in our extradition arrangements with other States.

§ MR. W. M. TORRENS
said, the Bill carried out two important recommendations of the Select Committee; one was, that after a fugitive was committed by a magistrate he should have 15 days to sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus; the other was an enlargement of the catalogue of offences so as to afford more protection to commercial interests. As a member of the Select Committee, he proposed that the Court of Queen's Bench should be the authority to decide what was and what was not a political crime. Two members of the Government who were on the Committee had undertaken to give the Committee a general definition on that subject; but subsequently they admitted that the task had baffled their powers. The Committee, by a majority of 1, recommended that the decision should be left to the Court of Queen's Bench; but he regretted that recommendation was not embodied in the Bill, because he thought the Secretary of State was the last person in whom the decision on such a point should be vested.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
, as one who had practical experience of the glaring deficiencies in our criminal law with reference to fugitive criminals, was glad to express his opinion that this Bill was a step in the right direction. Any objection that had been made to it was as to particular clauses, and might be discussed in Committee. He wished to know why the word "arrangement" had been used instead of "convention" in one of the clauses?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
, in reply, said, that the Secretary of State would not determine what was a political offence. The magistrate would determine that question subject to an appeal, in case of dispute, to the Court of Queen's Bench, or some other of the superior Courts. The Bill did empower the Secretary of State to interpose, if he should think the offence was a political one; but it did not give him authority to decide that it was. The word "arrangement" was used in order that an agreement might be come to without a formal treaty.