SECOND READING. (Hansard, 5 June 1890)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, this is a Bill which, for many reasons, has been proved to be urgently needed. One very important feature of the Bill is this: Where persons are guilty of an offence by reason of receiving goods known to be stolen, that offence is known in this country as felony. There is no such thing in other countries as felony; and the result is that where the offence has been committed abroad which would constitute a felony if done in this country, it is not felony, having taken place abroad. Therefore, the receiving of goods knowing them to have been stolen is one which cannot, in proper language, be so described if the goods have been received knowing them to have been stolen abroad. That is one of the classes of offences with which the Bill proposes to deal, and I believe it will be found to be one which can best be made effective by discussion in Committee, in order to see whether the proper technical phraseology is adopted. I hope that will be done in Committee in a way which will enable your Lordships to see that the Bill deals effectually with a matter which is of importance.

§ LORD THRING
My Lords, this Bill is a most important one, and it will, in almost every sentence and line of it, 10 require severe scrutiny. I only trust that the noble and learned Lord, in pity for the limited intelligence bestowed on the human mind, will have a Memorandum prepared regarding it for presentation to the Committee. This Bill affects many statutes, including the Fugitive Offenders' Act, and the Acts referring to jurisdiction abroad. I would submit to the noble and learned Lord that without some Memorandum or summary of the Acts to which it relates, it would hardly be possible for any Committee to grope through its mazes. I would also suggest, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that Section 4 of the Bill should be re-drawn, for, as it stands at present, I defy any human intelligence to understand its meaning.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in giving an account of the scope of his Bill, has dealt with only a very small portion of it. The provision of which he spoke is one of a very desirable character, and I should imagine that nobody could seriously object to it. It makes a change in the law which, in my opinion, is very necessary, because the law in that respect has always seemed to me to be somewhat absurd. But the Bill is of a wider scope than would have appeared from the speech of my noble and learned Friend, because it deals very largely with the power of arrest and trial of persons who commit offences out of Her Majesty's dominions, and not within the realm of any civilised State; and it provides practically for their trial in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. Very largo powers of arrest are given, and they may be exercised not only by British, but by foreign officials. It seems to me that those provisions require the very closest scrutiny, because I can conceive various cases arising which, under the Bill as it now stands, would be likely to create considerable diplomatic difficulties with Foreign Powers. The arrest of a person by the authority of the Government of a country outside its own dominions must obviously always be a matter of very considerable delicacy. We should be effecting that arrest in a place where our laws do not prevail and where Her Majesty's Government and officials have no authority; and the power that is given here to authorise the arrest under 11 such circumstances, not only by British officials but by foreign officials, of any person accused of a crime of this character might, it seems to me, give rise to difficulties of a very serious character; because, of course, a person being accused (at least I presume so) of a crime as mentioned in the 5th section, 1st sub-section, for which he can be tried under this Act, means accused by any person who may choose to make such accusation; it cannot mean accused in any official or authoritative manner, because no official authority exists in the place where the crime is suppossd to have been committed. But one can conceive that, under such circumstances, the question of a crime committed by a person found outside Her Majesty's dominions which would lead to his arrest by an officer of a Foreign State might obviously give rise to some very awkward questions indeed. I am not calling attention to these matters in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. I can quite understand the difficulties which arise when British subjects commit offences outside the territory of any civilised Power, and I entirely sympathise with the desire expressed of bringing them to justice, the more especially as they very often do great mischief to the country of which they are unworthy subjects. But I mention those matters for the purpose of calling attention to the important character of the Bill and the extreme care and attention which will have to be devoted to the consideration of all its details, as well as the close scrutiny which will be necessary into the effect of its provisions before it can be allowed to pass into law.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)
I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with the noble Lord who has just sat down when he says that a Bill of this kind needs careful scrutiny. No doubt some of its provisions are, to a certain extent, novel, and deal with very difficult subjects, but I think they deal with a growing evil. If we had only to deal with countries with which we are able to conclude Extradition Treaties—with civilised countries of that character where we could use sufficient influence—there would be less difficulty and less need for a Bill of this kind; but the 12 House is well aware that in recent times a new sort of dominion has been slowly growing which is expressed in a great variety of ways. Sometimes it is called a Protectorate, sometimes a sphere of influence, sometimes a region in which another Power has interests, and so on; but without some authority of this kind there is no doubt that persons of unruly spirits, who are to be found on the outskirts of civilisation, may do a great deal of mischief and cause a great deal of trouble, and there may be no means of bringing them to justice. That is, I think, the motive which has induced the production of this clause. I quite admit the great difficulties which attend the question: but I want to press upon the noble and learned Lord and upon the noble Lord behind me that they are not difficulties of our seeking; they are not difficulties even which have arisen from previous complications; but they are difficulties, which have arisen out of the curious conditions of International relations which: have from time to time grown up. The point in which I am—I will not say most interested, but which interests me very much—is the trial of British subjects in: this country for offences committed abroad. With most civilised States we have Extradition Treaties, and most of them allow us to extradite our own subjects to be tried for offences committed abroad. On the surface that seems a reasonable arrangement; but when you; come practically to work it, you are asked to send your own subjects for trial to a place where you cannot reasonably have any conviction that the trial will be conducted according to any principle which, in this country, we have been accustomed to consider inseparable from justice. It would be invidious to suggest instances where such differences exist; but in some there is a great delay in dealing with prisoners, and in others great corruption is found, considerations which make it very desirable that we should, as far as possible, try our own subjects in this, country for any crimes they may have committed abroad.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I must apologise to your Lordships for having referred in a somewhat perfunctory manner to the provisions of the Bill, but I thought its details would be best dealt with in Committee. That was the 13 reason why I made but short reference to it. I gave one example only of some of the difficulties which might arise when you are dealing with questions involving the consideration of foreign law, but I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that it is a matter which must be very carefully looked into in Committee. For that reason it appeared to me there was no great necessity for any considerable amount of explanation at this stage. I would suggest that the Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.