§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the arrangements between this country and the United 250 States as to the extradition of criminals. Your Lordships will remember that last year Her Majesty's Government refused to surrender on extradition processes two men, named Winslow and Brett, unless the Government of the United States gave a distinct pledge that the persons whose extradition was demanded should not be tried on any other charge than that in respect of which the extradition was granted. This was in consequence of a statement that a man named Lawrence, who had been already surrendered, was to be tried on a second charge. Since then one man has been surrendered—at least, it has been so stated, and I believe the statement to be true. I should, therefore, like to know, What were the conditions under which that surrender was made, whether any conditions were required, whether he was surrendered on such an assurance as had been given in the case of Winslow, but was not considered sufficient, or on a formal engagement that he should be tried for no other offence, such as required by the Home Secretary? But however it may have been brought about, if a satisfactory arrangement has been entered into, I rejoice sincerely at the conclusion of the affair, and I think both Governments deserve great credit for having, by a little common sense, extricated the two countries from what appears to me would have been little less than a public scandal.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, the noble Earl has put to me a Question which, although the Papers on the subject are ready for presentation—have, indeed, just been laid on the Table—it may still be convenient to your Lordships I should answer; it may also be desirable that I should explain in a few words the position in which this business actually stands. Your Lordships will remember how the matter stood last year. The extradition of a man named Lawrence was demanded by the American Government on a charge made against him. His extradition was granted on that charge, and he was put on his trial in the United States. While he was about to be put on his trial, a representation was made to us that steps were being taken by the United States Government to put him on trial for another offence, in the event of failure to obtain a conviction on the charge in respect of which his extradition had been granted. 251 Now, as the man had not been surrendered on that second charge, this representation raised the question as to the construction to be placed on the Extradition Treaty. We objected to the proceeding said to be contemplated by the United States Government; and that Government did not at the time deny the intention to put Lawrence on his trial in respect of the second charge; but they put forward views in reference to the construction of the Treaty which led to the Correspondence between the two Governments, which your Lordships will recollect, and ultimately to a discussion in this House. The result was that we and the Government of the United States held opposite views as to the construction of the Treaty, inasmuch as they claimed a right which we held they were not entitled to claim; and inasmuch as they asserted their intention to act on that claim, we felt bound to refuse to grant any further extraditions till the question should be settled. So matters remained for some time. Meanwhile, the man Lawrence was tried for the offence on which his extradition had been granted. I am not aware what became of him; but at all events there was no second trial. And in the month of August last we received, through the American Minister, a communication from the United States Government which, if it had been made before, would have saved a great deal of trouble and controversy. From this communication it appeared that, notwithstanding the representations which had been made to us on the subject, yet, as far as the United States Government were concerned, no steps had been taken, or had been intended to be taken, with the view of putting Lawrence on his trial for the second offence. In other words, the Government of the United States claimed a right under the Treaty which we did not admit the existence of; but they stated, and we did not doubt the accuracy of the statement, that they had not exercised, or attempted to exercise, the right they so claimed. That materially altered the position of affairs. We continued to maintain, and we maintain now, that the construction which we put oh the Treaty was the correct one; but from the information we obtained in August, and which, I repeat, it is unfortunate that the United States Government did not think fit to supply at an earlier date, 252 it appears that the question raised by the United States Government was purely theoretical. In other words, the point raised between the two Governments had not arisen in practice; and on becoming aware of that fact, we considered that the question might well remain in abeyance till it did so arise. We were of opinion that, in the circumstances actually existing, there was no further occasion for suspending the operation of the Treaty; the suspension has therefore ceased, and it remains now as it was before this controversy arose. Had steps been taken under it by the United States Government inconsistent with the view held by us, then we should have continued to hold that the Treaty could only be allowed to operate under the conditions suggested by us; but, as matters stand, we felt that those conditions were no longer required. The arrangement between the two Governments continue as before that question was raised, pending the negotiations for a new Treaty, which negotiations are now in progress. That is the whole case—and your Lordships will find the full details in the Papers now on the Table.