Lords Sitting of 19 July 1866

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report —Office of Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Extradition Treaties Act Amendment (200); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (201); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (202); New Forest Poor Relief * (203); Rochdale Vicarage * (204); Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland) * (205); Colonial Clergy Disabilities * (120).
Second Reading—Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment * (57); New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government * (195); Revising Barristers' Qualifications (196).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (185).
Report—National Gallery Enlargement * (171); Dean Forest (Wetmore and the Bearce Commons)* (178).
Third Reading — Glebe Lands (Scotland) * (139); Carriage and Deposit of Dangerous Goods* (159).
Withdrawn—Masters and Operatives (59).

EXTRADITION TREATIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I venture to engage your attention for a short time while I propose for your consent a Bill which is of very great importance, and of urgent necessity. It is a Bill for the Amendment of the Law relating to Treaties of Extradition. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that we have had for some years a treaty of this description with France, and you have probably heard that in consequence of some dissatisfaction which has been felt by the French Government as to the mode in which this treaty has been dealt with by this country, notice was given by them in the month of December last, under the stipulations of the treaty, for its discontinuance at the expiration of a period of six months. Her Majesty's late Government were alive to the importance of this treaty; and accordingly they entered into communications with the French Government upon the subject. I believe they were met in the most friendly and cordial spirit, and the French Government agreed to extend the notice for six months longer—so that the notice would not expire until the 4th of December—while, at the same time, they intimated pretty plainly that unless some alteration of the law were made by which effect would be given to the treaty, which they considered had been almost a dead letter, they should feel themselves compelled to abandon it at the end of that extended time. The noble Earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs immediately directed a Bill to be prepared, which I believe, but for the change of Government, would have passed through both Houses of Parliament by this time. That Bill was found in the office, and was approved of by the present Government; and I am now introducing it to your Lordships' attention, it being considered by us to be one which will exactly meet the exigencies of the case. I will briefly explain to your Lordships the circumstances under which legislation becomes necessary upon this im-

1055
portant subject. The law of extradition in this country only dates from the year 1843. In that year two treaties were entered into—one with France and the other with the United States—and Acts of Parliament were passed to give effect to them. It certainly is an extraordinary circumstance, considering the importance of treaties of this description to a commercial country, that these should be the only ones into which we entered until the year 1862, when a similar treaty was concluded with Denmark. But these three treaties—with France, with the United States, and with Denmark—are the only Extradition Treaties in existence between this country and foreign nations; while France has no less than fifty-three treaties of this description, and I believe she has found no difficulty whatever in carrying them into effect with other countries. But with respect to this country, it is a most remarkable thing that for twenty years—from 1843 to 1863—not a single criminal has been delivered up when demanded by France. This has arisen partly from the view which was taken of his duty upon these questions by the magistrate who then presided at the Bow Street Police Court. He thought that he ought to inquire into the guilt or innocence of the party who was accused, instead of confining himself strictly to the question, whether there was on the depositions a sufficient case to warrant the sending of the accused to be tried. The French Government having been repeatedly baffled and disappointed in their attempts to obtain their fugitives, it is much less to be wondered at that they should have given notice of the discontinuance of the treaty, than that they should have borne disappointment so patiently. They had another ground of complaint with regard to the interpretation put upon the Extradition Treaty, as to the proof required of the different documents transmitted for the purpose of establishing the case. The Legislature felt that it would be most inconvenient, and would occasion considerable delay, if the foreign Government were compelled to send over witnesses for the purpose of establishing the case against the party accused; and therefore, by the provisions of the Act of Parliament, copies of the depositions certified by the Judge who issued the warrant were to be admitted as evidence of the criminality of the accused. If the provisions had stopped there no complaint could have arisen; but in addition to that proof, the Act of the 6th and 7th of the
1056
Queen provides that those depositions shall be proved to be true copies by the witnesses who brought them over. Now, the way in which documents of this kind are transmitted from France is this:—The depositions are sent over accompanied by a certificate authenticated by the official seal and signature of the Minister of Justice; and undoubtedly that proof ought to be sufficient to warrant the reception of the document. The French Government naturally feel that it is a great indignity to require them, in addition to this solemn verification, to send over a witness for the purpose of proving that he had examined the copies with the originals, and that they were true copies. It is most extraordinary that this should be required, because under the law with regard to proving documents from foreign countries in our Courts of Justice, any judicial proceedings, or any documents emanating from a Court of Justice, can be proved by the production of copies of those documents purporting to be sealed with the seal of the Court, or with the signature of the Judge of the Court accompanied by a statement to the effect that the Court had no seal, without any proof whatever of the authenticity of the signature or of the seal, or of the judicial character of the person who affixed the seal or the signature, or of the truth of the statements contained in the documents. If, therefore, those documents were produced in a Court of Law, verified in the way I have stated, there is no doubt whatever that they would be perfectly good evidence; and there can be no reason why a difference should be made in the mode of proof with regard to the transmission of documents from France under the Treaty of Extradition. The present Bill, which was prepared by the late Government, proposes to amend the law in this respect, and to allow documents in cases under the Extradition Treaty to be verified in the way that is customary in the Courts of Law. I believe that if this Amendment of the law is adopted—though it should not be entirely satisfactory to the French Government—it will go a very considerable way to reconcile them to our law upon this subject, and to induce them to abandon their intention of discontinuing the treaty.
My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity of removing a misapprehension which appears to prevail upon this subject with regard to the objects of the French Government. It has been supposed that they are extremely desirous upon political

1057
grounds of continuing the treaty in order that they may, by charging criminal offences against particular individuals, get possession of these criminals, and then try them for political offences. Now, there cannot be a greater mistake than the notion that any such law prevails in France. On the contrary, the French law is so strict upon that subject that where a person is delivered up under an Extradition Treaty, he can only be tried for the offence stated in the extradition warrant; and, if he is acquitted of that offence, although he may be charged with twenty other offences, he is allowed to quit France and to return to the place from which he was sent, and he cannot be put upon his trial on any other charge. A striking instance of this was furnished in the case of the Extradition Treaty between France and Belgium. A man was charged with a rape; he escaped to Belgium; he was delivered up by the Belgian authorities; he was tried for the offence and acquitted. It was then proposed that he should be tried for an indecent assault, which of course was included in the greater offence; but so strict were the French authorities in the interpretation of their law that they refused to try the man for that offence, and he was discharged and sent back to Belgium. There is one other matter to which I wish to advert. It is supposed that the French Government are extremely anxious to have their fugitive criminals, who have been convicted, delivered up. Now that must be explained. There are two modes of conviction in France—one after trial in the presence of the accused, and the other par contumace. Persons who have escaped and are convicted par contumace, as it is called, if they are delivered up to France, are not sentenced upon that conviction, but are again put upon their trial, and they are then of course exactly in the same position as a person who has merely had a charge preferred against him, and has fled from justice, and the conviction par contumace has no effect whatever. Treaties of this kind are of the greatest possible importance to a commercial country; and 1 think it is very much to be regretted that the offences comprehended in our Extradition Treaty with France should be so limited. They only extend to murder, attempt to murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. It would be very important indeed to the commercial world if the treaty were extended to other offences which are of frequent occurrence, and which at present easily
1058
escape punishment from our facility of communication with France. But these are matters for future consideration. At present all I ask your Lordships is to assent to this Bill, which will amend the law in a slight particular, apparently, but in one which will give effect to the intentions of the Legislature when it passed the Act of 1843. The measure will, I think, conciliate the French Government, with regard to that treaty; it will show our desire to carry that treaty faithfully into effect, and to meet them in the same fair and just spirit in which they have always met us upon these subjects. Under these circumstances I ask your Lordships to give a first reading to the Bill.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: It is unnecessary for me to trouble your Lordships at any length after the very full and clear statement of the noble and learned Lord in presenting the Bill; but I wish to say a few words on this subject. Her Majesty's late Government thought the intimation of the French Government, given in the month of December last, not to renew the treaty, was rather a hasty proceeding; but, at the same time, it did not much surprise me, because not a single person had ever been delivered up to them under the treaty. This result was brought about, not because the English magistrates were unwilling to give effect to the treaty, but because the evidence adduced was considered by them to be insufficient. Nevertheless, I thought it would be much better to have kept the treaty in existence, for though it might not be in active operation, still it hung in terrorem over the heads of offenders, none of whom could be absolutely certain that he would not be delivered up under its provisions. It is quite right that there should be such a treaty between two great countries like England and France, which are only separated from each other by a few miles of sea. I am aware that a jealousy exists on this subject, and that we have only concluded three treaties of this kind. For my own part I thought it was preferable to retain the Treaty of 1843, making it operative, instead of asking Parliament to sanction a new treaty; and therefore, I had recourse to Sir Thomas Henry, the chief magistrate at Bow Street. I mention his name because it is mainly owing to his intelligence and ability, and the zeal with which he conducted the negotiations which took place, that we are saved from a position of some embarrassment and some discredit; for the French

1059
Government have always attributed what they considered our indifference to the working of the treaty and our supposed indisposition to amend our law to our mistrust of their good faith, and our fear lest they should misuse the treaty for political purposes. Now, there was not the slightest cause for any such apprehension. Lord Cowley was able to confer on the subject with the legal authorities in Paris, and to state to them what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and what concessions they were disposed to make with the view of making the treaty operative. Sir Thomas Henry subsequently went to Paris, and was received with great goodwill by the French authorities. The result of those negotiations was that I was enabled to prepare the Bill which has now been introduced by the noble and learned Lord. Its object simply is to admit, under abundant safeguards, public documents, and authorized copies of them, as evidence in cases arising under the treaty. I think there is every reason to believe that this will satisfy the French Government, because it will make the treaty operative, and go far to conciliate them. If it is sanctioned by Parliament and found to work well, I hope that the category of crimes will be extended in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
Motion agreed to.
Bill for the Amendment of the Law relating to Treaties of Extradition read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow. (No. 200.)

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.
(The Lord St. Leonards.)
(NO. 59.) BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that when he laid the Bill on the table at the beginning of the Session, he announced that it was not his intention to propose the second reading unless he found that the measure met with the approval of both masters and operatives. Since the Bill had been read a first time he had put himself in communication with both parties, and it appeared to him there was a general desire on the part of the operatives that the Bill should be passed into law, while there was no such desire on the part of the masters to have any such Bill passed. At a meeting of delegates who, as he was informed,
1060
represented 100,000 operatives, a long discussion took place, and a resolution in favour of the Bill was carried. A number of those delegates had an interview with him for the purpose of receiving an explanation on some points; and he found that those men seemed well disposed to act in a harmonious manner with the masters, and they, in their representative capacity, expressed an entire approval of the Bill. But, on the other hand, in his communications with the great builders of London they told him that they thought the Bill would do them no good, although on a previous occasion, after an interview with him, they were desirous that such a Bill should be passed. He, therefore, did not ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time. He had had considerable correspondence with both sides, and he had taken a great deal of trouble to effect what he thought would tend to the public advantage, and he had discovered that both masters and operatives were desirous that a Bill should be passed which would provide for the regulation of future wages. Now, the Bill which he had introduced carefully provided that the Council of Conciliation should have no such power, and he had expressed his opinion to the effect that he bad no intention of ever presenting a Bill to that House which should give Courts of Conciliation absolute power over wages; and, at all events, not unless confined to a very limited period. His purpose now was to move the discharge of the order for the second reading. Next Session he would introduce again the same Bill; and if the operatives and masters after reconsidering the Bill should petition the House in sufficiently large numbers he would do what he could to effect its passing. It was a permissive Bill, no man being bound who did not choose to be bound by it; and he had not the slightest doubt of its working well if it were to be passed. He moved that the order for the second reading be discharged. Its future progress would depend upon the masters and operatives themselves.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, it was but justice to the noble and learned Lord to state that the Bill had been received with considerable favour by a large number of operatives in all parts of the kingdom. Indeed, some such measure was required in the times in which we lived. Disputes about wages and other matters would necessarily arise, and unless something were done there would be perpetual strikes, and the ten thousand evils which

1061
usually accompanied them. He had been anxious to learn the opinion of the operatives in regard to the present Bill, and he had received a letter from the chairman of a large body of working men, to whom the Bill had been submitted. The writer of the letter believed that the Bill, as a whole, was a wise one, and likely to have beneficial results. He also stated that he was apprehensive of strikes, and desired to avert them; and that the establishment of Councils of Conciliation, as proposed by the Bill, would in many instances prevent disputes, and generally foster a better understanding between employers and employed. It was a matter to be regretted that such a Bill should be withdrawn, but he trusted that next Session come such Bill would be passed into law.
Order discharged.
Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

REVISING BARRISTERS' QUALIFICATIONS BILL—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 196.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that under the law as it at present stood Revising Barristers were disqualified for holding any other office under the Crown; but several of those gentlemen had been appointed Commissioners to inquire into corrupt practices at recent elections, and the Bill before the House was to enable them to retain both offices. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SEWAGE AND POLLUTION OF RIVERS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL of SHREWSBURYsaid, that the subject of disinfecting sewage and preventing the pollution of rivers was one of great importance, and he hoped his noble Friend at the head of the Government would sanction the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter, and if there were ground for it, and he believed there would be, he trusted the Committee would be renewed next Session.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Means suggested by Mr. Dover of disinfecting sewage and preventing the Pollution of Rivers."—(The Earl of Shrewsbury.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, no one could dispute the great importance of pre-
  1062
  serving rivers free from pollution, and few could have more practical experience with reference to the matter than himself, since he lived in a country where every stream and brook was to a great extent polluted. But as a Royal Commission had begun an inquiry into the whole subject, commencing with the Thames, he thought it would be most inexpedient for their Lordships to appoint a Committee to examine into the value of any particular scheme of purification. He had heard Mr. Dover's patent very highly spoken of; but whatever its merits—and he would not detract from them—he thought if their Lordships consented to inquire into this one patent they could not, in justice, refuse to inspect and report upon the merits of the patent of any other inventor who chose to offer his plans for their inspection. Besides, the Committee could not hope to furnish the House with a trustworthy Report upon the subject unless they had some better means of testing the quality of the patent than the small model it was proposed to offer them. As it was most unlikely the labours of the Committee would lead to useful legislation, he thought that rather than waste the time of the noble Lords who would form the Committee it would be better not to appoint it.
  LORD DENMANwas understood to support the Motion for a Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, there was no doubt Mr. Dover's invention was very ingenious, and that his model worked very well; it seemed to purify the water very readily, and Mr. Dover made good use of the deposit which came from the water; but, at the same time, he agreed with the noble Earl that it was impossible to appoint a Committee to examine and report upon every invention brought under notice. No good could come of an inquiry into Mr. Dover's scheme unless Parliament were prepared to order that it should be tested on a large scale at the public expense; but although he objected to the appointment of a Committee especially to inquire into the merits of Mr. Dover's invention, he had no doubt, after what had fallen from their Lordships, that the Royal Commissioners would be induced to examine it themselves.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYsaid, he admitted the force of the objection, and had no wish to persist in his Motion; but as to the remark that a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject, he feared that the scope of

  1063
  their inquiry was too great to permit them to make an examination as to the merits of any particular scheme; while a Committee appointed to inquire into the one subject would give it particular attention.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had no power to direct the Commission, but he had very little doubt that, considering what a very favourable opinion had been expressed on the experiments which bad been made with Mr. Dover's patent, the Commission would be willing to receive evidence on the subject.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.