HL Deb 07 February 1873 vol 214 cc144-50
THE EARL OF CARNARVON

My Lords, the Question of which I have given Notice does not require any lengthened preface because the facts of the sad event to which it has more immediate reference are so recent that they must be in the recollection of your Lordships. It is only about 10 days ago that off Dungeness Point the emigrant ship Northfleet, having on board a large number of passengers, was run into by a vessel assumed to be the Spanish steamer Murillo, which steamed away after the collision without rendering, or attempting to render, any assistance to the emigrant ship. Assuming that version of the disaster to be correct, the act of the Murillo in deserting the Northfleetunder such circumstances was one of the greatest iniquity and inhumanity that it is possible to conceive; but, apart from this particular instance, I think it desirable that we should understand the bearings of the case. I apprehend that if an English subject commanding a vessel acted in such a manner he would be answerable first of all civilly in the Court of Admiralty, and next criminally by an indictment for manslaughter— the fact of his making away after the collision without having given any assistance being probably taken as evidence of wrong intention on his part. It appears to me that in the same way a foreigner who has escaped to his own country could be made answerable in the English Courts, supposing always that there was an Extradition Treaty with the country to which he belonged; and I conclude that even where no Extradition Treaty existed, such a foreigner would be at once made amenable in the Courts of this country if he ventured to come here. But I wish to know from my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any Convention or Extradition Treaty with the Government of Spain, by which, under such circumstances as those of the recent collision of the Spanish steamer Murillo with the English emigrant ship Northfleet, the master of the Murillo can be made answerable to the criminal jurisdiction of this country for an offence alleged to be committed in English waters? I am afraid there is not. From a Return laid before Parliament last year I find that there are four Extradition Treaties between this country and other nations—namely, the United States, France, Denmark, and Germany; and we know, by a passage in the Speech from the Throne, that an Extradition Treaty has been concluded with Belgium. But there is a footnote to the Return which I have quoted, in which it is stated that negotiations were on foot for Treaties with other countries. Well, then, I want further to ask whether or not, in such a case as that of this collision—assuming the master of the Murillo to have acted as alleged—such a case would be covered by an Extradition Treaty? In three out of the four Treaties, while murder and attempt to murder are included among the offences for which Extradition will be granted, manslaughter is not. It is only in the case of the last of these Treaties—that with Germany—that manslaughter is provided for; and in this Treaty with Germany alone, which seems to have been prepared with unusual care, the case of sinking a ship at sea is provided for. But, obviously, cases of this kind should be included. There can be no doubt that, owing to various causes, the danger to ships in the Channel has much increased of late years. Everybody, whether professionally acquainted with the sea or not, must be perfectly aware of that. There has been a large addition, not only to ordinary sailing ships, but to the number of steamers, and the recklessness of the masters of some of those steamers amounts to positive crime. These vessels, often ill-found, with few men on board, with no watch set, run down the Channel in thick fogs without slackening speed. Cases have come before the Admiralty Court itself in which recklessness amounting to nothing short of manslaughter has been clearly shown. I am afraid that there are Atlantic steamers belonging to respectable firms the masters of which make it a boast that they never slacken speed in the thickest of thick weather. The sinking of the Northfleet is a great catastrophe, because it involved the loss of some 300 lives; but the occurrence itself is not an exception. Cases have occurred in which the loss of life was not so great, but which were caused by recklessness quite as great, and attended with quite the same amount of inhumanity. Now that the matter has been brought home to the whole country by this collision in the Channel, I cannot help pressing on the Government the importance of first of all revising our own regulations. There should be a regulation requiring a difference to be made between the signals for pilots and those intended to indicate distress. There should also be a reconsideration of the terms on which certificates are granted to masters of Channel steamers; for I believe that the greatest abuse often exists in this respect; and I have always thought, though I am aware of great difficulties, that a greater number of boats might with advantage be required to be carried by emigrant ships. But I would suggest to my noble Friend that the Government should avail themselves of the present opportunity of not only revising our own regulations, but also of, as far as possible, securing satisfactory international arrangements with reference to those dangers. As a number of Extradition Treaties have yet to be concluded, a more satisfactory arrangement ought to be come to with other nations in reference to a matter of such importance. I have no doubt that my noble Friend will answer the Questions I have put; and I hope to hear from him, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that the whole subject shall receive their consideration at a very early period.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

wished to ask his noble Friend the Secretary, for Foreign Affairs, What progress had been made with regard to Extradition Treaties since the last announcement on the subject? On two occasions last year he had called attention to the state of our Extradition Treaties. On one of those occasions his noble Friend (Earl Granville) replied that such a Treaty had just been concluded with Germany, and that others were in progress of negotiation with Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Austria. But their Lordships had heard nothing more of those latter Treaties. The noble Earl also announced that negotiations were going on for new Treaties with Denmark and the United States. That would require some explanation, because it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that a Treaty with Denmark was signed as recently as 1862. As to the existing Treaty with the United States, he did not see why that should be put an end to. He supposed six months' notice had been given; but he hoped the noble Earl would state why that had been done. At the time the noble Earl spoke of all those Treaties, the one with Belgium had been already ratified— so that it would appear no progress had been made since last Session. He concluded, therefore, that some obstacles existed, because no Peer in that House, nor any person in this country, was more impressed with the importance of this Extradition question than the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would state why it was that no progress had bean made during the Recess. It seemed to him that this was a matter in which everyone had a deep interest, and he hoped the time would come when it would be impossible for a criminal in one country to avoid punishment by fleeing to another. The appalling catastrophe of the Northfleet, reaching as it did to the very hearts of the people, was eminently qualified to strengthen the hands of the Government in their endeavours to bring this about.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

said, there could be no excuse whatever for a vessel which had struck another leaving that vessel without waiting to see what damage had been done, except the persons on board the vessel making away were of opinion that their own vessel was sinking. Even in that case her best chance was to remain close to the other vessel till they saw whether she also was sinking, which it was very possible she might not be. A vessel running into another was generally the result of going at too great a speed, which prevented her from being able to stop in time to prevent the accident, and the sooner a law was passed to prevent steam vessels running beyond a certain speed through a place known to be much frequented by shipping—the Channel, for instance—the better. At all events, no vessel which had come into collision with another should be permitted to run away until it had ascertained what amount of damage had been done to the other.

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, it has been found convenient that Notice should be given when Questions are proposed to be asked in your Lordships' House, and I venture to suggest that it would also be convenient if all the Questions proposed to be asked were included in the Notice. Nothing could have been more simple than the Question put on the Paper by my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), and nothing would have been more simple than to give it a direct answer; but other Questions have been put which, even if Notice had been given of them, I doubt whether it would be prudent to reply to. I doubt whether even after Notice it would be expedient to lay down the exact bearings of our own municipal law on an hypothetical case, and to lay down the exact limits within which the existing Extradition Treaties would have a bearing is what I can scarcely be expected to do without Notice. We have no Extradition Treaty with Spain; but we are actively negotiating at the present moment with the view of having one completed. The draught Treaty recently received has been referred by the Foreign Office to the Home Office for observations, and these have made further negotiations necessary before the Treaty can be concluded. I am not astonished that my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Rosebery) should have said that there are no visible signs of progress in respect of some of the Treaties to which I referred last Session; but I am happy to say that though the signs are not visible the progress has been considerable. With regard to the United States, the fact is we sent proposals to the United States last year; but in consequence of the Presidential election, and other circumstances, our proposals were delayed till within a very few days ago. I am, however, happy to say that we are likely to agree to the terms of a Treaty. I believe all difficulties have been removed; and the American Government is anxious that the Treaty should be ratified by the Senate before the Session closes. With regard to Treaties with other countries, there is the old difficulty of different definitions of crime in different countries. There are also difficulties in our own law. A month ago we proposed to the Home Department to consider whether it would not be desirable to make amendments in our own law with the view of meeting these difficulties; the Home Office is now engaged in considering the subject, and I hope we shall soon be able to present a draught Bill for the purpose of giving effect to what we think necessary. As to Switzerland, I am not aware of any difficulty except one which has recently arisen. The present state of the law requires the intervention of a diplomatic agent, and the Swiss have no diplomatic agent—nothing but a consul. Some time ago Lord Lyons stated to us good reasons why it was not desirable then to hurry on the negotiations with France; but the circumstances to which he referred have since disappeared, and we are now in communication with the French Government on the subject of the Treaty. A curious difficulty has arisen in the case of Portugal. There is no capital punishment in that country, and the Portuguese Government wanted us to insert in the Treaty an undertaking that capital punishment should not be inflicted in this country on anyone delivered up under the Treaty. We did not feel justified in agreeing to the insertion of such an undertaking. With regard to Austria, there have been difficulties on several points; but they have been so far removed that I think that we have now established a fair basis for coming to a satisfactory conclusion. As to Holland, we have been awaiting the action of the Dutch Ministry, who are amending their own laws on some not very important points. I think, therefore, I am justified in saying we have made sensible progress. It is impossible to know what difficulties may start up, but I believe we shall be able to conclude a number of those Treaties. I cannot sit down without saying how entirely I concur with the noble Earl as to the dreadful disaster which happened to the Northfleet the other day. I can assure your Lordships that all the circumstances connected with it immediately excited the attention of the Government. I shall not state what steps were taken, because Papers which will shortly be laid before Parliament will put your Lordships in possession of all the communications which have passed on the subject; but I may further inform your Lordships that the Board of Trade is attentively considering what steps it may be able to take with the view of diminishing those evils, which I am afraid it will be impossible to altogether provide against.