Front Page Titles (by Subject) II.: Select Committee on Extradition - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIX - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part II July 1869 - March 1873
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIX - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part II July 1869 - March 1873
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
II.: Select Committee on Extradition - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIX - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part II July 1869 - March 1873 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIX - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part II July 1869 - March 1873, ed. John M. Robson and Bruce L. Kinzer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Select Committee on Extradition
“Report from the Select Committee on Extradition, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix” (6 July, 1868), PP, 1867-68, VII, 129-338.
12 May, 1868
[The questioning turned on the fact that a proposed treaty of 1859 between Britain and the U.S., extending extradition to embezzlement, was rejected by the U.S. partly because of a clause requiring that it be ratified by Parliament. Therehad been no such clause in the Ashburton Treaty of 1842 (PP, 1843, LXI, 1-8), but it had been ratified by Parliament, and all recent treaties involving money or other matters requiring parliamentary sanction had included such clauses.]
56. It was on the proposal of the American Government, was it not, that the matter was taken into consideration at this time?—Yes, they proposed to extend the treaty in the same manner as the treaty with France of 1843 had been extended.2To that treaty an additional article was added in 1845, and a further additional article in 1858, extending it to crimes which had not at first been included.3
57. Then did our Government object to extend the treaty to the case of embezzlement unless it were to include all embezzlement, and not merely embezzlement of public funds?—I presume they did, because it would have been of very little use to the mercantile community if it excluded general embezzlement, which they were very anxious to have included.
[In response to the Chair, Hammond agreed that the British desire was to make it general.]
59. However, the overture for an alteration in the Treaty came from the United States?—Yes, it came from the United States.
[In the view of the witness, the negotiations substantively broke down over the question of embezzlement, though formally over parliamentary ratification. He recalled no controversy over piracy, though the governments differed over its definition.]
69. Are there any other instances than that of Anderson4 in which either America or this country have refused a case of extradition that was demanded under the Treaty?—I am unable to say; because the Foreign Office has no cognizance of the intermediate stages between the issue of the warrant of apprehension and the warrant of extradition; but I have a list of a certain number of cases which have occurred since the new Act passed.
[The questioning turned to the Treaty with France, and Hammond handed in a list of British demands for extradition since the Act of 1866.5 ]
90. These then are cases that have occurred since 1866?—Yes.
[On the matter of French complaints that England hardly ever extradited people to France under the original treaty,6it was ascertained that a new treaty had been negotiated in 1852,7but had not been passed by Parliament. France had eventually, in 1865, denounced the 1843 Treaty on six months’ notice.8 ]
132. Do you mean that the draft of the new convention having failed to become operative, owing to Parliament’s not passing the Bill that was presented to give validity to it, there was, between the failure of that attempt to make a new treaty in 1852 and the time when the French denounced the old treaty in 1865, no intermediate negotiation between the French Government and our own upon the subject?—Communications may have passed, but they did not assume the shape of a negotiation; in fact, I may say fairly, that it was felt to be hopeless to attempt to go to Parliament for an Act to give effect to such an extradition treaty as France would wish to have.
[Discussion centred on the failure to negotiate extradition treaties with other states, owing, in Hammond’s judgment, to the futility of taking to Parliament bills that would be thrown out.]
163. I think I have understood you to say that, within your official experience, it is only with France that there have been any difficulties about the actual execution of a treaty, and that the difficulties which have arisen there, have arisen from our requiring an amount of evidence which the French authorities do not think ought to be required?—In a few words that is about the state of the case, I think.
[Discussion on difficulties in Parliament continued, and reference was made to the complaint by the French government about unequal treatment.]
172. On what did the French complaint turn; was there any case of the delivery of any prisoner to Denmark who would not have been delivered to France?—I believe that the French Government, having made a great number of treaties with different States, considered themselves very much aggrieved because England would not come into what they sometimes called a general law of Europe upon the subject of extradition. There could have been practically no complaint about a person having been actually given up to Denmark. The first person, I believe, given up to Denmark was given up the other day, and he was not a convicted person.
173. Was the fact this, that whenever we gave up a person to Denmark the Danish Government had to produce an amount of evidence which France was unwilling to produce in a similar case?—The Act of Parliament of 1866 applies to all treaties, and enables the magistrate to be satisfied with the same character of evidence from all countries.
[The Chair ascertained that concerning evidence all treaties were on the same footing; the treaty with Denmark differed on a non-evidentiary matter, the inclusion of condamnés.9 ]
176. The difference between the treaties as regards the condamnés is of course a totally distinct question. In the case of a condamné the only evidence would be the record of the condemnation, and proof of the identity of the person; no other evidence would be required?—Yes.
177. But in the case of persons who are only accused, or who have been condemned par contumace, that other evidence would be required, and I suppose the evidence would be the same, whatever the country was?—Yes.
178. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground of complaint on the part of France that we have done for Denmark what we have not done for France?—No; not as regards the evidence on which extradition is granted; the Act was made purposely general to apply to all countries.
[The witness developed at length his view that a general Act should be passed, giving in detail the permissible kinds of evidence and a definition of all extraditable crimes, without reference to reciprocal treaties, and then criminals could be deported to countries covered by specific Orders in Council.]
205. We understand in what way you get rid, by your plan, of difficulties arising from the different definitions that the laws of the two countries may give of the same crime. But how would you meet another kind of difficulty which might require you to make a distinction between different kinds of acts which still come under the same category of crime in our own law? For instance, if there were to be a general Extradition Act, it would, of course, extend to murder; now, the most delicate cases of all are precisely the cases of those political offences in which the person demanded would, according to the law of our own as well as of any other country, be chargeable with the offence of murder, if the Government chose to prosecute him for it. For example, take the case of a person who shot a sentry from a political motive. If that act had been committed in this country, would not he be liable to be prosecuted for murder in this country, and if so, would he not, under the Act which you propose, be liable to be delivered up to the country claiming him?—The provision of the Act which I propose, of course, would be subject to limitations and restrictions; in the first place there would be the restriction that aperson should not be given up for a political crime; one of the clauses of the Act would be, “No one shall be delivered up under this Act for a political crime,” and also it would be provided that any man delivered up must be bonâ fide tried for the crime for which he is delivered up.
[The question of politically motivated murders was discussed.]
208. The difficulty which we have now reached is exactly that which more than any other it is the business of the Committee to find a means of resolving, and the Committee would be extremely glad to receive any suggestion you could offer for that purpose. The difficulty is this: any disaffected person who for the purpose of changing the Government of a country, has attempted to raise a civil war, or in any way gone beyond speaking or writing, has technically made himself liable to a charge either of murder, or attempt to murder, or robbery, or some other crime which in other circumstances would be a proper subject for extradition. You do not want to surrender persons who have done what they have done solely as insurgents, but you do want to surrender them if they have done it in any other character. The difficulty is to suggest a mode of distinguishing the cases in which, although the origin of the offence may have had something to do with politics, still it is not a proper case for exemption, from the cases in which the general character of the offence is properly political, and such as you do wish to exempt. For instance, if a case has occurred of a person claiming the throne of a foreign country, who landed in that country and shot a sentry,10 there can be no doubt, I think, that in the general opinion of this country it would have been wrong to have delivered him up, supposing he had escaped to England. If, then, his extradition had been demanded upon a charge of murder, do you think that the general Act which you would like to have passed ought to be one that would have authorised extradition in that particular case?—It is much better to let a man go scot free than to run the risk of exposing a person given up under an extradition treaty to be tried for a political offence. It is impossible to get at perfection, and I would, rather than run that risk, exclude from the operation of the Act, by a special clause, any crime committed in connection with a political crime; I think it is always understood that persons charged with political offences should not be given up. Under our present treaties we should certainly not give up a person charged with a political crime; but I am not sure whether we should be horne out in our refusal by the terms of the treaties. They must be construed in this instance by public policy.
209. It would not be possible, then, that the definition of the offence in the general Act should exactly coincide with the definition of the English law, because I apprehend that such an act as that to which I am referred, would have been murder, as well as treason, under English law?—The definition would, in the case supposed, be qualified by the special proviso.
210. Then you do not think that the Act ought to authorise the extradition of every person charged with murder, even though the evidence be conclusive that he committed it?—I think it would be dangerous to do so if the murder was committed in connection with a political crime; the only way you could meet the difficulty would be by an understanding in some form or other, with the foreign Government, that if a man given up under such circumstances, should be acquitted of the murder, he is then to be returned to the asylum from which he was surrendered.
211. Then he is to be tried for the murder?—He would be tried for the murder, and if acquitted, would then be sent back to England.
[If convicted, he would be executed.]
214. Let us take the case of the American war; one cannot call anything done by either of the belligerents, morally murder; but I apprehend that technically a rebel who kills anybody in battle, might be tried for murder?—The case of the Clerkenwell criminals would be the most appropriate case;11persons doing an act which, by our law, would be murder, killing bystanders, for instance.
[Dwelling further on political crimes, Hammond gave his opinion that, in the case of a Fenian killing a policeman for political motives, and fleeing to France, Britain could not ask for his extradition.]
233. Not for the crime of murder?—No.
[Hammond’s interpretation of the present treaties was that though they did not specifically exclude political crimes, because they were not included in the lists of extraditable crimes, they were excluded in practice. Therefore a person accused of treason by assassination would not be given up.]
238. Might not there be a real intention of trying him for the offence for which he was given up, and yet the offence might have been political; for instance, that the alleged murderer had been concerned in an insurrection, or in some political act in which persons lost their lives?—I think the mere fact of his being concerned in an insurrection would take his offence out of the category of crimes for which we should give persons up.
239. You think that under an Act which made murder a case of extradition, you could refuse to deliver up a political insurgent, although he might have shed blood?—Certainly; of course when such a case arose we should refer to the law officers of the Crown, and they would have to pronounce an opinion upon it.
[Under repeated questioning, Hammond, referring to his official capacity, refused to say whether he thought foreign governments might seek extradition on ordinary grounds for someone in fact suspected of political motives.]
251. Might not a foreign government do that in perfect good faith?—Yes, they might do so in perfect good faith, and, of course, if we gave the man up we should be relying upon the good faith of the government to whom we gave him.
252. But although they might be in perfect good faith in demanding a person for the very offence for which they meant to try him, still might not that be an offence really political, and one which ought not to be made a case of extradition?—It might be so; there would be a choice of difficulties; but, on the whole, I think it would be much safer not to give the man up.
253. I mean without imputing any bad faith to the foreign government?—Certainly.
[Henry indicated that of six applications from France in two years, two were successful. He then gave the details of one of the latter, a case of fraudulent bankruptcy, when two unsuccessful appeals were made by the accused. During the examination the bankrupt’s assignee appeared and gave oral evidence.13 ]
292. Was the assignee cross-examined?—Yes; I ought to have mentioned that the man was defended by a solicitor and counsel; in fact, in all the cases I have known, the persons have been defended by solicitor and counsel, and they have had ample time and opportunity for preparing their defence. In this case, the first day when they appeared they said they were unprepared, and I adjourned the case for two days, I think, and then they came again and the case was fully gone into; they afterwards went before the Court of Queen’s Bench. Perhaps the Committee would like to see a short report of the case. It is given in Clarke’s Treatise on Extradition, which I have here, and it is also very fully reported in the Queen’s Bench Reports.
[Henry indicated that the second successful application had special significance in clearing up a dispute over the meaning of French law. The law officers had held that a jugement par contumace was a condemnation, and therefore a person under such a sentence would not be extraditable; Henry’s view, subsequently vindicated, was that it meant merely a conviction of contempt of court, and that subsequent trial under the substantive charge would follow extradition.]
306. Perhaps that impression was founded upon the circumstance that a jugement par contumace, although it is not practically so, is technically a condemnation, since the sentence could not have been executed on his return to France without a trial?—Just so; we did not understand a judgment of that sort here, because we have no similar judgment in the courts of this country.
[Henry averred that in England there was no such judgment in criminal courts, though there was in Ecclesiastical courts, and in civil causes there was judgment by default.]
309. A judgment by default in civil cases can be executed, can it not?—Certainly; if the process of the court is served upon the person, you can go on in his absence in a civil cause, but never on any criminal charge.
[Henry outlined the American case,14in which embezzlement, not an extraditable offence under the Treaty, seemed clear, but the attempt to prove forgery failed. In the trial it emerged that while forgery was a State offence in New York, it was not a Federal offence, and the Treaty was of course with the Federal government.]
352. There is no criminal law which applies to the United States generally, is there?—Our criminal law is generally used there, I believe. Still there are certain States which have passed Acts for themselves, which are binding upon all courts in that particular State. That was the case in the State of New York. However, the Court of Queen’s Bench decided that that could not be taken into account, because it was an Act of the Legislature that was peculiar and applicable only to that State, and did not apply to the United States generally; therefore the man was discharged.
[Questions were asked about the form of United States’ depositions.]
355. If the Court had been satisfied that it was forgery according to the law of the United States, although not according to the English law, could the accused person have been delivered up?—[When the point was raised in court, it had been ruled that there must be a common element. This was crucial, because offences are not easily equated in different jurisdictions. For example, fraudulent bankruptcy is defined differently in France and England, and, further, the English laws are subject to change over time. It was Henry’s opinion that the word faux in French law corresponded to the English forgery.]
362. Are there not cases which are not forgery by our law, although they are faux by the French law?—I am not aware of any.
363. It has been generally said that there are, has it not?—Of course in any extradition case we must be satisfied that it comes within both; at least that is thereceived opinion upon extradition law. I may, perhaps, here observe that extradition law is comparatively in its infancy in this country.
[In Henry’s view, the law was working adequately, except that the number of specified offences was too small. He was not aware that a defence on political grounds had been made.]
368. I imagine, from the statement of cases you have given, that among the very small number of cases that have occurred, no such case has come before you?—No such case has come before me.
369. Supposing that the extradition of an accused person was demanded upon a charge of murder, and it should appear that the murder alleged consisted in killing some one in an act of insurrection, or attempted insurrection, should you, in such a case as that, consider yourself bound or at liberty to deliver him up?—I should look at the depositions to see whether the case amounted to treason. If the case amounted to treason, then it would not be within the treaty, because the treaty does not include treason as one of the offences.
370. Do you think that by including murder, and not including treason, it would justify a court of justice here in refusing the surrender of any person who could have been tried for treason, for the same act for which he was demanded on a charge of murder?—The law of extradition expressly excludes political offences. In our treaty there is no clause to that effect; but it is well understood law, and it is laid down by all the French authors, but especially in a circular letter from the Minister of Justice addressed to all the magistrates in France,15that in matters of extradition political offences are to be ignored; that is to say, no extradition is to take place for a political offence.
371. That might be interpreted to mean that a person who had committed a political offence, such as sedition, or an attempt at insurrection, though attended with any violation of life or property, could not be demanded under the treaty?—He could not.
372. That is clear?—Yes, it is. It would, perhaps, be right to mention to the Committee that that is generally laid down as a principle of French law, with regard to extradition, and all their treaties contain a clause, that political crimes are not to come within the treaty. I have here a copy of all their treaties; they are 53 in number.
[All French extradition treaties, Henry established, contained a clause excluding political crimes, except three in which an additional clause made applicable crimes against the head of government.16 ]
384. So that it appears that by the interpretation of the French Government, proved by this public act, of concluding a supplemental treaty, they could not, under the extradition treaties, have demanded even a person who attempted the life of the Emperor of the French?—They could not previously to the supplemental treaty.
[Henry referred again to the circular letters binding French magistrates not to claim persons for political crimes, so the lack of such a clause in the British Treaty made no practical difference.]
387. Was there in the original treaty between France and Belgium any special provision against the delivery of political offenders?—There was; I will read the words in the first treaty which relate to it; it is dated the 12th December 1834: “Il est expressément stipulé que l’étranger dont l’extradition aura été accordée ne pourra dans aucun cas, être poursuivi ou puni pour aucun délit politique antérieur à l’extradition ou pour aucun fait connexe à un semblable délit, ni pour aucun des crimes ou délits non prévus par la présente convention;” that was the first Belgian treaty.
[The question arose as to the status in French law of the circular letter which, Henry opined, was effectively law, France not being quite like England in that respect.]
401. But, then, could not any future Minister of Justice or of the Interior (whichever it is that issued it) revoke that circular letter?—Then if he did that we could revoke the treaty.
[Henry reaffirmed the effective status of the circulatory letter.]
406. That is good evidence no doubt of what the present views of the French Government are upon the subject, but those views may change?—No doubt.
[The circular letter, dating back as far as 1841, expresses rather the French government’s view than its treaty duties.]
408. There are two questions; one is whether a person whose extradition is demanded for forgery, or some other offence, may be tried for something else, which something else may be a political offence; that is clearly precluded by the article you read in the Belgian Treaty, except so far as that is modified by the subsequent treaty. But is not it consistent with the article in the Belgian Treaty, that the very offence on which a person might be demanded upon a charge of murder, or some offence against property, might really be a political one, as in the case of the deserter who shot the gendarme?—If the original demand was for one offence they could not under any circumstances try him for a different offence.
409. But suppose they had made their demand originally for an offence which may include cases really political, though it is not peculiarly a political offence, such as murder. If they had made a demand for a person upon a charge of murder, no doubt they could not have tried the person upon any charge except that murder, but might they not have tried him for that murder, although it might have been a political murder?—Under the first treaty they could not.
410. You are sure of that?—Yes, I am sure of that, but now it is a different thing, in consequence of the supplemental treaty. France leaves to every country the right of judging what is a political offence. I particularly inquired when I was in Paris, and indeed since, whether they had any definition in their code, or in any of their books, as to what was a political offence, and they said, “No, it would be impossible to have a definition of it; we must leave to every country to judge what they deem a political offence, and if they so deem it, to refuse to deliver up a person demanded.”
411. There they would have no ground of complaint against us in whatever manner we defined a political offence?—Yes, but they thought that question was likely to arise between France and Belgium, they being adjoining countries, and both sovereigns considered that it was desirable at that time to have the clause inserted which I have read.
[The issue of defining crimes arose, and Henry pointed out that English judges already had to take account of French law, for example, concerning bankruptcy.]
447. As well as the English?—Yes, it must be both. That is the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice; at present there must be what he calls a common element.17
[Henry was examined further on the inclusion of defined extraditable crimes.]
496. If those offences were included which you think should be included in the Extradition Treaties, do you not think that political offences might be brought within them?—I do not think any of the offences I would put in would be such that political offences could be included in them.
497. You would include murder?—Yes; no doubt the question might arise upon a charge of murder, as in the case which I put where in the Italian war a man shot a gendarme in Italy and escaped to France.
[Henry would include attempts to murder which also, of course, might then be ruled to be political.]
499. You would have full power of receiving any evidence admissible by our own legal rules, to prove, not that the act had not been done, but that it was, properly speaking, political, and not murder or robbery?—Yes.
500. If that was made out to your satisfaction, or if such a case was made out as you would have acted upon if it had been a case beginning and ending in our own country, you would think yourself justified in not delivering up the person?—I should. I should say you have made a charge against the accused of murder, butthe charge really against him is treason; treason is not in the treaty, and therefore I cannot give him up; your warrant is for a different offence from that which he has really committed.
501. You would consider yourself at liberty to limit the technical or legal meaning of the word murder, so that it should not include any case that admits of being charged as treason?—Yes, I should in an extradition case.
[Discussion of French procedures included the timing for cross-examination.]
525. At what stage of the proceedings?—When the case comes before the Cour d’Assises.
526. That is, at the final trial?—Yes.
527. Therefore, that does not apply to the depositions sent to you?—No, it does not; it could not be otherwise where an accused had absconded before a warrant was issued.
[In Henry’s view, the French sent all depositions on to the British when a case was in issue, although they said only that those sent were “the depositions.”]
532. It might be only that they might think there was enough already, and that it would be superfluous to send more?—Yes.
533. Yet, if they did send more, it might lead to the discovery of flaws in the evidence?—I have always the power to say, I will remand this case; and as there were other depositions taken, I require them to be sent over.
[Concerning French interpretation of political crimes, Henry was of opinion that particular circumstances would determine whether an attempted assassination was political or not.]
564. Supposing that a political motive existed, and that no other motive was alleged?—Then it would be clearly treason.
565. That being so, you think that the extradition treaties would not extend to that case?—No, certainly not, as they exist at present, with the exception of Belgium and the Pontifical States, and Chili.
566. And then only by virtue of special supplemental engagements, limited to attempts upon the life of members of the Royal family?18 —Yes; that takes them out of the general rule.
[An attempt upon a member of a royal family, if made for private motives, would not exempt from extradition.]
569. But it is clear to you, that where the motive is political, a man cannot be given up, although he may have committed murder?—There is not the slightestground for apprehension with regard to that. The moment you show that it is treason, it becomes political, and is not the offence with which the man was charged.
[Again it was affirmed that France’s extradition treaties included a clause exempting political offences.]
579. That is not the case with the treaty between France and England, is it?—It is most curious that that was excepted; I cannot tell why.
[Attention being called to the anomaly that a person accused of murder could avoid extradition if also accused of treason, Henry indicated that the law or treaty could be so framed as to avoid the problem.]
607. Will you inform the Committee what mode you would suggest of drawing the distinction?—Yes; you might draw the line at any attempt to overturn the Government, for example. I do not know whether the House of Commons might wish to go so far as that; am I merely asked my own opinion about it?
608. Merely your own opinion?—I think the exception, with regard to political offences, goes rather too far in France.
609. What would you think, for instance, of such a definition as this: that if an act charged as murder had, if committed at all, been committed in the course of an insurrection, or for the purpose of inciting to insurrection, with a view to change the Government, it should be considered a political offence; but, if not, it should be considered an ordinary offence?—That is to say, if it was in a state of civil war.
610. If it was in a state of civil war, or if it was done for the purpose of inciting to civil war?—That would apply to the Clerkenwell case,19because it may be that the Fenians who blew up the Clerkenwell prison wanted that as a commencement.
611. Still, all the evidence would tend to show that they only wanted to release the prisoners?—Yes.
[Henry was of opinion that clauses could be worded so as to distinguish between shooting a policeman or soldier in an insurrection or seditious riot, and shooting him in the back on the street.]
622. Would you be able to state to the Committee in what way it could be defined?—I should require a little time, if that is to be reduced to writing; I am not prepared, sitting in this chair, at this moment, to draw up an Act of Parliament which would meet that object, and give a definition.
[Given time, he would have no objection to attempting such a definition.]
624. You alluded to another distinction which might be drawn, and which might be important; for instance, it might be proper to treat as murder the killing of anyone in a seditious riot which was not an insurrection; that would just cover the case of the Clerkenwell people, or the Manchester people;20 because when the object is merely to obstruct the operations of the Government, but without any prospect or design to effect a change in the Government, it is much more desirable to check that than the other?—Yes; I had that distinction in my mind.
[As to the case of a person condemned par contumace, the same evidence would be required as for anyone else.]
636. He would be treated like any other accused person?—Yes, we call him an accusé.
Thomas Henry, continued
[After discussion of several French terms, the witness said he would never act on his own knowledge of their meaning, but only with expert advice.]
699. Is it not the practice in France, when persons who are present and persons who are absent are charged with being concerned in the same crime, to find those who are present guilty, and condemn those who are absent par contumace, the only reason for considering them contumacious being that they could not be found in the country to serve the process upon?—I believe that is so; but that is a matter which I would rather leave to a French advocate also.
[Referring back to his last answer to Mill, Henry said he had assumed that Mill meant it was impossible to serve the process.]
705. I meant only so far impossible to serve him, that the person could not be found in the country?—Yes, when he cannot be found.
[Henry read his proposed clause concerning political offences: “No person shall be claimed or surrendered for a political offence; political offences shall be deemed to be such offences as are committed by persons engaged in insurrection or rebellion against a reigning Sovereign or Government; but any attempt against the life of any reigning Sovereign, or against the life of any member of his family, shall not be deemed a political offence within the terms of the treaty.” The wording came under question.]
721. Would it not be necessary to add not merely offences committed by a person in insurrection but acts committed with a view to excite insurrection, because the act in question may be the first step in an insurrection, as, for instance, in the case in evidence of a person claiming a throne and invading a country; the first act which he might do might subject him to a charge of murder, and yet he could not be said to have been engaged in insurrection previously, because the act would have been the first overt act of insurrection?—I think it would be desirable to add that; but I did not feel at liberty to go much further than I have done.
[After questions concerning Orders in Council, Mill turned to another topic.]
725. You mentioned the case of Müller?21 —I did.
726. What evidence was furnished to the American Courts in that case?—I sent over what I considered very full depositions, and I sent over two warrants of arrest by different packets. I believe it was the first time that that had been done, but I considered that it was perfectly legal to do it. It was important that the officer who arrived first should have the opportunity of arresting Müller, and not knowing which would arrive first, I sent two warrants.
727. Did you send any person to give oral evidence?—Yes; I was going on to add, that I recommended that some of the material witnesses should accompany the officer, and I believe that it was fortunate that I did so.
728. Does it appear to you unreasonable in itself, apart from the objections which some foreign governments might feel, that it should be necessary, whenever the extradition of any person is applied for, to send some witness capable of being cross-examined, who could testify to the main facts of the case?—I think it would not be practicable. I think so much objection would be made to it, that they would rather decline to make applications than submit to that condition.
729. You think, however, that it was fortunate that you did so in the case of Müller?—I believe it was.
730. If you had not, do you believe that the case could not have been established against him?—I do not go quite that length, but I handed in, last time I was examined, a report of what took place before the magistrate, in New York, in that case; I judge from that; but if the Committee would like to know what took place before the American magistrate, the inspector who went over there and heard everything, could be examined; it was Inspector Tanner.
[Questioning centred on the interpretation of terms.]
748. I understand you to say that, by the present practice, and, as you conceive, by the present law, the country upon whom a demand is made has a right to define what is a political offence, for which they will not deliver up: would it not, then, be better that the treaty should merely exclude the delivering up of all political offenders, leaving the decision as to what are political offences to the surrendering country; and do you not think that any definition of what is a political offence, or any rule to be laid down, as it could be only a rule to be laid down for the guidance of our own courts, would be better laid down in an Act of Parliament than in a treaty?—I think it would. I only prepared this as the Committee requested me to do so.
[Henry reaffirmed his view that the French took great care in criminal proceedings.]
755. I understood you also to say that the depositions furnished to you in support of a demand for extradition are furnished in a stage of the proceedings at which the accused person has had no opportunity of cross-examination?—Yes, just so; and it is entirely ex parte evidence which has not been subjected to the amount of scrutiny to which it would be subjected before you. That is necessarily so, because the accused person has gone away; and, therefore, any evidence which is taken must of necessity be taken in his absence.
756. Unless he has escaped?—He was not forthcoming; there was no opportunity of having him present. The depositions before our tribunals before the warrant is granted are taken ex parte. In that case they are not called depositions; they are called informations, but they are taken ex parte.
757. But if a person charged before you, who did not attend to the summons, and against whom depositions had to be taken in his absence, was afterwards apprehended, would he not be brought again before you, and would not his case be again heard before he was committed?—Yes.
758. In that case he would have an opportunity of saying whatever he could say in his defence, and of producing counter evidence, if it were in his power to do so?—Yes; no doubt our system is better in that respect.
759. Therefore the depositions taken before you are a stronger assurance of there being a good primâ facie case against the accused person than the depositions taken in France are?—We cannot alter their practice in that respect.
[The treaty between France and Belgium provided that a person accused of attempted assassination of a sovereign, even from political motives, would be given up.]
764. But that is under a supplemental treaty, is it not?—Yes.
765. Which supplemental treaty France, if I understand you rightly, has with only three countries?—Yes.
766. I think you said that those were Belgium, the Papal States, and Chili?—Yes.
[The examination returned to the question of whether the depositions sent by theFrench were complete, Henry reaffirming that he believed them to be so, but could not prove them so.]
793. Is that which is sent called the dossier?—It is; it is the name known in their chambers.
794. Is it certified to be the dossier, or is it certified to be an extrait du dossier?—It is not an extrait; I never saw an extrait.
795. It is certified; but there is no certificate from which you could tell that what is sent is the whole, though you think it is?—Yes; that is the form in which it comes.
[Contrasts between French and English procedure were discussed.]
818. In any case you would not deliver up any one on these depositions, until he had been heard upon the effect of the depositions, and had an opportunity of disproving what the depositions stated?—Yes, he or his counsel would have that opportunity.
819. But they would not have the advantage of cross-examination; that they could not have under the circumstances?—No; but if they could afford to bring over evidence to disprove what was stated in the depositions, they would have the opportunity of doing so.
820. They would be allowed to comment upon the depositions, and to raise any argument founded upon their not having had an opportunity of cross-examination?—They would; and they have introduced that argument in nearly every case.
Henry Thurstan Holland22
[The witness mentioned, in connection with engagements for extradition by colonies, the case of Malta and Italy.]
827. Would there be the power of trying an Italian subject in Italy, for a crime committed in Malta?—I think the Italian Government would have that power.
828. But we should not?—No; a colonial court could not try for offences committed out of the colony, except in certain cases specified by Imperial Acts.
[A British subject could be tried in England or Ireland for a murder committed anywhere.]
830. I believe the French Government had not that power until a recent Act was passed in France, by which French subjects were enabled to be tried on their return to France for crimes committed in foreign countries?—An article was inserted in the Code in 1866.23
831. I believe they had not that power before?—Possibly not.
[The questioning was miscellaneous.]
837. Under the convention which concerns Malta,24 could political offenders be demanded?—There is no mention made of political offenders; but they would not be surrendered, I apprehend, according to the general rule. It has always been understood that political offenders are not to be given up.
838. What is the date of that convention?—The date of the convention is 1863.
839. Was there any convention previously between the Maltese authorities and any of the Italian Powers before the kingdom of Italy was constituted?—None. I have desired inquiry to be made into that point, and I can find none.
[Inter alia, the arrangements between the British West Indies and Venezuela were discussed.]
900. I believe it is said that in some of the Spanish American States, it is usual for brigands to describe themselves as patriots, and to assume the guise of insurgents against the reigning power, and cover their acts by that means. In such a case as that, have you any idea by what considerations a Colonial Government would be guided in determining whether to surrender or to refuse to surrender a person charged with brigandage?—I apprehend that if there is a scintilla of political motive; if there is any political character in the offence of any sort or kind, they would refuse to give the man up.
[Reference was made to the refusal to give up to French Guiana people who had merely fled to British Guiana.]
912. If I rightly understand what you said, it would have been necessary to have delivered up those persons, if it had been in Malta?—After the ordinance had been passed, I think it would have been necessary to have given up persons charged with any of the crimes specified.
913. Breaking prison was included among the cases for which there was to be extradition there?—Yes; I think it was included.
914. In that case, if it had been in Malta, the authorities would have examined whether the refugees had been imprisoned for a political offence or not?—I should rather imagine that it would be for a prisoner who was charged, and brought up before a magistrate, to set up the defence. If he could in any way set up that it was a political offence, he would be allowed to do so. That has always been the case before our magistrates in the American cases; the offender has always been allowed to set up the defence that he was acting under orders from the Confederate Government.
915. So that, although breaking prison is an offence for which extradition can in that case be demanded, still, if the person was in prison for a political offence, his breaking prison would also be considered a political offence, and he would not be surrendered?—It would be rather difficult to give a distinct answer to that question. I should think he would not be surrendered if he had been imprisoned for a political offence.
[Concerning the Guiana case, the British had issued an Ordinance25providing for delivery of escaped convicts, on the presentation of evidence of the conviction, identity, and escape; it was not put into effect, however, as the French refused to pass a corresponding law.]
924. If the French had consented to come under a corresponding obligation, and the Colonial Ordinance had come into force, would it have been necessary under that ordinance to give up a person who had escaped from confinement, having been placed in confinement as a political offender?—I should think certainly not; it would not have been necessary to give up political offenders who had escaped from confinement.
925. My question refers to this; if nothing was requisite to be produced but evidence of the conviction, the identity, and the escape, it seems as if the country from whom extradition was demanded were precluded from entering upon the question of how the person came to be imprisoned?—I should imagine not; I speak with diffidence, because I have not had much experience upon the matter; but I understand that it is an implied rule governing all these treaties and conventions, that political offenders are not to be given up. Sir Thomas Henry said that if a prisoner came before him, whether he was accused of crime, or had escaped from prison, if he could show that he was really imprisoned for a political offence, or that he was only accused of a political offence, he would not be surrendered.
926. If a colonial legislature were to pass an Act, by which they should be empowered or required to surrender political offenders, you think that, according to the principles acted upon in the Colonial Office, the Royal sanction to that Act would be refused?—I should incline to think so.
[The examination turned to colonies in the East Indies.]
960. Before the surrender of any person upon the demand of the Sultan of Borneo, or any other Asiatic prince, what kind of previous examination takes place?—It is only in the case of Borneo that we have such an arrangement;26it does not apply to any other Asiatic prince.
961. The Rajah of Quedah?—That treaty is under consideration yet, but it is substantially in the same form.27The application is made to the Governor in eachcase; the Governor then issues his warrant to any magistrate to aid in apprehending, and the magistrate inquires into the case. If he is satisfied, he certifies back to the Governor that he is satisfied, and the Governor issues his warrant of delivery.
[Depositions would be sent, but were not governed by a specific clause.]
963. Is there a British resident, or any other British agent, at the Court of the Sultan of Borneo or the Rajah of Quedah?—Not at Quedah; the British resident is at Siam. Quedah is under the authority of the King of Siam.
[The Governor of Labuan is also the agent for Borneo.]
965. Are you aware what used to be the practice under the East India Company’s government with regard to the extradition of persons demanded by the native princes?—No, I cannot say that I am.
966. Are you aware that in most cases there was a right on the part of the native Government to demand prisoners in certain cases, but that when there was, as there usually was, a Resident or other political officer stationed at the Court of a native Prince, the trial which the person underwent when delivered up was virtually a trial by that British officer; because, although it might be ostensibly by the tribunal of the native Prince, it was the duty of the Resident to watch over the proceedings, and he had a right to be fully cognisant of them, and, in fact, no sentence could be passed of which he did not approve?—I was not aware of that.
[The arrangements between Hong Kong and China came under examination.]
982. Do you find that, in the case of China, that takes place which takes place very often with the Native princes of India, namely, that insurgents are demanded as robbers?—I do not think we have any case in the Colonial Office of any insurgent having escaped to Hong-Kong, and being demanded. The truth is we have very few cases indeed in the office that I can find, but I can quite understand the possibility of such a case.
983. The usual practice of the Native princes in India is to demand those as robbers whom they wish to punish as insurgents?—I can quite understand that.
Edmund Hammond, resumed
[It emerged that there were cases in which individuals had been given up to Britain where treaties did not exist, simply out of good disposition.]
1068. Are there any instances in which we have delivered up any person in that unofficial way, as a matter of complaisance?—I should think not; but Sir Thomas Henry could best speak to that.
[Hammond amplified his previous evidence on several matters.]
1094. Did I rightly understand you upon the former occasion to say, that although you think that offenders should not be delivered up, if there is even a slight tinge of politics in the offence, yet you saw a difficulty in providing against that by the terms of treaties?28 —[Yes; there is no provision in our existing treaties for exempting political offenders from surrender; but the thing is understood, and we certainly, I think, should object to giving them up. I believe Sir Thomas Henry the other day quoted an instruction of the French Government to their different préfets, saying that a man was not to be given up who was charged with a political crime. That, of course, as between the French Government and their own officers, is quite sufficient; but internationally it is not sufficient, because it involves no international obligation between France and England. I only wished to make the observation because there was some stress laid upon that letter of the French Minister to préfets. Internationally it involves no obligation, though in the improbable supposition that the French would ask for a political offender, of course we should feel ourselves at liberty to quote it against them.
1095. But Sir Thomas Henry, besides referring to that instruction, also said that in all the numerous extradition treaties between the French Government and other nations, with the exception of that with England, there is an express provision that political offenders are not to be surrendered?29 —I have not examined the treaties carefully, but I think most probably that is the case, because it would be in the spirit of the French instructions.
1096. Those treaties, of course, are internationally valid?—Wherever that provision is contained in an extradition treaty, of course it is internationally valid; but there is no international validity in the instructions to the préfets.
1097. If those treaties are found to work well, do you see any difficulty or objection to our having such a provision in any future treaty we may enter into?—No; certainly we ought to have such an article. I should be very glad indeed, if we could make an arrangement that a man given up for a crime should, after being tried for that crime, be sent back to this country if he was acquitted; but we should have great difficulty in reciprocating it. The case of Lamirande was somewhat similar; the French Government said, “We have got him, and we cannot legally give him up.” That was precisely the answer we should make in England in a similar case.
1098. Might you not have an alternative provision, that each Government, if such a case arose, should either send the man back, or set him at liberty; and although we could not, consistently with our own law, send him back, we could consistently with our own law set him at liberty?—Yes; but you could not put him in the same position of security in which he stood before he was given up. Many a man is set at liberty at the Old Bailey, and re-arrested at the door.
1099. In order not to demand from foreign Governments what we were not prepared to reciprocate, we might be obliged to give that alternative, instead of stipulating that he should be sent back to the country from whence he had been taken, since we could not comply with that condition on our own side?—I think it would be very illusory, because, even supposing you prevented his being tried again, you would leave him under the surveillance of the police of the country in which he was set at liberty, and therefore the man would not be in the same position as if he had been sent back to England. But I apprehend that, in passing an Act of Parliament, there would be very little difficulty in making provision for the supposed case in the Act, and as the Act of Parliament would be special in all its circumstances, one speciality more or less would not signify much.
1100. You see no reason why we should not pass an Act of Parliament which would authorise us, in the case of the acquittal of any person who had been surrendered by France, or any other country, to send him back to that country; you see no objection to our binding ourselves to do that by treaty, and passing an Act of Parliament to enable us to do it?—I see no objection to it at all; it would be something like the Alien Act.30Whether there would be any constitutional difficulty, I cannot say; you might pass a special Act, but it would be to meet a particular case which might never occur.
1101. It would be very different from the Alien Act, would it not?—Yes; I am only mentioning that with regard to sending a man out of the country. We had power under the Alien Act to send a man out of the country. I can see no reason why we should not have a similar power in the case supposed.
1102. It would not be liable to the objections which have been raised to the Alien Act, would it?—No.
[Concerning the difficulty of proceeding in cases of fraud, Mullens mentioned the case of Heilbronn,32who fled first to France and then to the U.S., whence he was extradited, but was found not guilty of forgery.]
1157. Was this man convicted for larceny on a separate indictment?—Yes; he was charged on two separate indictments, one for forgery and the other for stealing.
[Heilbronn had not claimed protection subsequently. The case ran from 1853 to the end of 1854, as Mullens recollected.]
1160. Was it at the Old Bailey?—Yes, it was at the Old Bailey.
[Mullens asserted that all extradition cases, including those of persons found in Scotland and Ireland, should be held in one central court in London, where the cases would be examined most carefully.]
1180. You think that when a foreign government asks for extradition, we ought to give the accused person the benefit of the best criminal tribunal we have?—I think so, I think we ought to have a thorough investigation, and only to give up persons in cases in which we are thoroughly satisfied.
[The interrogation turned to preliminary proceedings in extradition cases.]
1193. What do you think of the admission of written depositions?—I think you could not obtain extradition without them. Take the case of America. In Windsor’s case they sent over depositions. If I recollect right, I doubted in the first instance whether those depositions were sufficient, and I had to send again for more.
[Mullens was of opinion that someone accused, acquitted on the offence specified in the warrant of extradition, could be tried for another offence, provided it was on the same facts.]
1209. Then he would be tried for the same act, though it might be a different crime?—Yes.
[The French Treaty is such that only one offence could be specified in a warrant.]
1216. As I understand it, the treaty with America would not prevent our trying a man upon a different offence from that for which he has been given up?—It would not; there is no stipulation that he shall not be tried for another offence.
1217. Would you wish to extend that state of things to other countries?—With regard to America I have never found any difficulty about it; but since I have heard the question discussed in this room, I began to think a little more about it, and with regard to the continent of Europe we might consider it necessary that there should be some stipulation as to what should happen to a man if he was acquitted of the crime with which he was charged in the extradition warrant.
[If someone is accused of a crime other than that given in the warrant, he should, with the permission of the other government, be tried for it.]
1222. If that were the case, might he not be tried for a political offence also?—He might.
1223. Do you think that that would be desirable?—Certainly not.
1224. How would you guard against it?—That was one of the points I was coming to. In any convention, or in any Act of Parliament, or in any arrangement we might enter into, there should be an express stipulation that no person should be delivered up for a political offence.
[The effect should be that no one should be tried for an offence not stipulated in a treaty, and that political offences should be excluded.]
1227. The offence must not only be one arising out of the same facts, but it must also be an offence mentioned in the extradition treaty?—Yes; I think so; it must be an offence for which he could have been delivered up if his extradition had been first demanded upon it.
[Questioning continued on the problems of trial for more than one crime.]
1230. Is not there this difficulty; the supposition is, that a man is delivered up upon a charge of larceny, and you have reason to suppose that he has committed the crime of murder. Before he could be delivered up on the ground of larceny, primâ facie evidence must be adduced of his being guilty of larceny?—Yes.
1231. In the case supposed, in which there was no previous idea of trying him for murder, no primâ facie evidence would have been adduced in the country delivering him up of his being guilty of murder, and therefore he would have been delivered up for trial without the security of primâ facie evidence adduced in the country delivering him up, that he was guilty of that crime?—He would never, or at least under very rare circumstances indeed, be put upon his trial here without an examination before a magistrate, which would give notice of the fact that he was charged with that crime.
1232. Undoubtedly; but it seems to be admitted that before any person is surrendered for murder, there must not only be security that he shall be regularly tried in the country which receives him, but also a preliminary investigation in the country delivering him up, and primâ facie evidence must be adduced in that country, such as would justify his committal for trial in that country by the laws of that country. If so, and if a person was demanded, and primâ facie evidence adduced against him of one crime, and he were afterwards to be tried in the country receiving him upon another, he would be tried without the security of the primâ facie evidence of that second crime adduced in the country delivering him up, since the primâ facie evidence which would have been there adduced, would have been only primâ facie evidence of the crime for which he was surrendered, and not of the other on which he was subsequently tried?—Yes, it was for that reason that I threw out the suggestion, that the consent of the Government delivering him up should be asked, before he was tried for some other offence than that for which they gave him up.
[Questions were raised about the undesirability of immunity from prosecution of someone who stayed in the U.K. after having been acquitted on the charge for which he was extradited, when evidence of his guilt on another charge was subsequently discovered.]
1237. Would not that case be exactly met by a stipulation to be inserted in the treaties, that after a person had been acquitted of the crime for which he was charged, he should be sent back to the foreign country which delivered him up; we should then be able again to demand his surrender for the other crime, provided we could produce primâ facie evidence of it, that was satisfactory to the tribunal of the other country?—Yes.
[Some treaties expressly gave the acquitted the choice of staying or returning.]
1239. But in this case he would not perhaps accept the option of being sent back. Might he not have the option of either being put upon his trial at once for the other crime or of being sent back for a preliminary examination in the country which had given him up?—I do not think that he should be sent back.
1240. The case is this: he has been acquitted or perhaps convicted, of a minor crime, and it may be desired to try him for a greater crime, such as murder: should you see any objection to allowing him the option I have mentioned, that is, to try him for the murder here unless he claims to be sent back to the country which had given him up; and if he does so, then to demand his extradition afresh, and produce the requisite primâ facie evidence against him?—I should not go through that formality. If we were prepared here with the evidence of another crime, I would not give him the option of going back to the country which delivered him up, but I would at once apply to the other Government for its consent to our trying him for the other offence.
1241. But what if the other Government said it could not give its consent except in primâ facie evidence of the commission of the greater crime. It probably would do so, if it was a Government like ours which really requires primâ facie evidence of the crime before it grants extradition. I apprehend we should make the absence of an examination here an objection to giving our consent to the prisoner’s being tried for another crime abroad?—We should have no difficulty in sending to the foreign Government the depositions upon which the man might be committed for trial for the second offence.
[Someone who took the option of return, might, if faced with another charge implying extradition, flee to a third country that had no treaty with the U.K.]
1244. In such a case might not the practice be adopted of delivering him up to the officers of justice of the foreign country, instead of setting him free on the frontier?—That would entirely meet it.
[The witness explained, inter alia, that attempts against the sovereign’s lifeshould be considered under the heading of assassinations, and so not seen as political crimes.]
1302. As assassination is never regarded as a political crime, it is of great importance to know what is the definition of assassination according to the French law; because all homicide, even of the first order of criminality, is not necessarily an assassination in France. We do not make that distinction in our English law?—I will show you the distinction which exists in the text of the law. An assassination is an act of homicide committed with premeditation; a murder is the crime of homicide committed without premeditation, so that an assassination is distinguished from other kinds of homicide. There are two sorts of homicide; that which is committed with premeditation, which is called assassination, and that which is not committed with premeditation, which is called murder simply.
1303. Then, all murders committed with premeditation, even with political motives, would be cases of extradition, would they not?—They would be cases of extradition. In 1866 I wrote a report, which must have been sent about that time to the Foreign Office, in which I developed the difference which you allude to, and said that in cases of extradition under a treaty it was necessary to take into account the motive which inspired the premeditation. I can cite an example to illustrate that.
[Treitt was not sure whether his report had yet been published in England.]
1306. Is the consideration which you think ought to be given to the question as to the motive which has inspired the assassination, recognised by the French law?—[It is not, and consequently assassinations inspired by ideas of vengeance, rape, or any other passion, are confused with political assassinations.]
[The interrogation dwelt on definitions of French legal terms.]
1312. Suppose now, that murder had been committed on the person of a Frenchman, who was either a political functionary, or even the sovereign, in an attempt at insurrection; and that this murder had been premeditated in this sense, that the insurrection was premeditated, though it could not be foreseen that the death of this person would have resulted from it, but only that deaths would result from the attempt; would that case be regarded in France as an assassination?—The question which you put to me is not new in this sense, that an attempt against the life of a public functionary, or other person, on the part of a subject, from a motive of vengeance, has been considered as a crime de droit commun. Thus, supposing an insurgent has a personal hatred against a public functionary or anybody, and takes advantage of an insurrection to attempt his life, that has been considered as a crime de droit commun. But when there has been simply a meurtre as a consequence of the insurrection, that has not been considered then as a crime de droit commun, but as a political crime, as being part of the insurrection. In oneword, a crime committed on a person during an insurrection does not become a crime de droit commun, unless it has been inspired by private vengeance on the part of him who has committed the crime.
[Treitt indicated the distinction between a sovereign’s being killed indiscriminately among a group, in which case the crime would be political, and his being killed intentionally, in which case it would not, even though the act occurred in an insurrection.]
1317. We understand that; but you are aware that in war, and particularly since the introduction of the new weapons, it is common to aim at an officer, knowing him by his uniform; that is not done from vengeance, or from ill-will against the individual in particular, but as an act of war?—You will observe that in the case you cite, it is not the individual who is shot at, but the person clothed with the dignity of an officer. If it is a general, one shoots at the general; but one does not shoot at the particular man who is the general.
1318. Could not it be said in the same way that Tibaldi shot at the sovereign, and not at the individual?34 —But you will observe that that was a direct attempt against the person; he knew the person at whom he shot; Tibaldi knew the individual he wished to kill, and I would make a distinction between a criminal who did not know the person he would kill and attempted his life only as holding a certain position, and a criminal who knew the person he attempted to kill. That would be the distinction one might make before a jury.
1319. Then in that case one could not, even in time of war, shoot at a person whom one knew, knowing at whom one shot, without being guilty of assassination as a crime de droit commun?—You know the manner in which Lord Nelson died. It is said that the French vessel had on board an excellent shot (I forget his name at the moment). He asked the captain of the vessel, “Shall I shoot him?” because he saw Nelson on the deck of the Victory. The captain of the French vessel did not give the order to shoot Nelson. He said, “Do your duty as a soldier.” The man did so, and shot Nelson. You see that the distinction exists.
[The questioning turned to the status of the French circular on extradition.]
1399. This circular was issued by the then Minister of Justice, M. Martin du Nord?35 —Yes, under the Government of Louis Philippe. The circular is very liberal.
[Treitt affirmed that there was now no objection in France to the British law on extradition.]
1403. In the French procedure is the accusé necessarily confronted with the witnesses before the final trial?—He is generally confronted with the witnesses upon the instruction, and at the trial he is always confronted with the witnesses.
1404. In his defence has he a right to ask questions of the witnesses?—His defender and he have the right to cause questions to be addressed to the witnesses; but they must be addressed through the intervention of the president.
1405. Then, it would depend upon the discretion of the president to put those questions; he can refuse to put them?—He can refuse to put them, but then, if he refuses, the avocats defending the accused draw their conclusions, and the question may be brought before the Cour de Cassation, whether the president was not wrong in refusing to put a question; for example, if it was a question which was necessary for the defence, and the president has refused to put it, the Cour de Cassation may quash the arrêt, on the ground that a necessary question has not been put.
1406. Would that be the case; for example, when questions are proposed to be put for the defence, with the object of diminishing the value of the evidence against the accused by bringing out contradictions in the evidence?—It is at the discretion of the president to put such questions, or to refuse to put them.
1407. Does the president generally permit questions of that kind to be put?—Yes, generally; but I will beg you to observe that in the discussion on the plaidoyer in defence, the avocat has the right to show contradictions.
1408. But the avocat cannot show the contradictions unless he can put questions to the witnesses on the trial with reference to the evidence they have given previously?—The witnesses whose depositions have been taken in writing on the instruction are called again at the trial, and then they make their depositions vivâ voce, and if there is a discrepancy between their depositions given then and those given before the avocat, the accusé has a right to call attention to it, and to ask the president to put a question as to why there is a difference between the written evidence and the verbal evidence.
1409. Then, he could ask the witness for an explanation of the contradiction between his evidence given at the trial and that which he had given previously?—Perfectly.
1410. But those questions, passing through the president, are necessarily in the language of the president; the question is put in the manner in which the president expresses it?—Yes, that happens sometimes, and it is often the cause of warm discussions between the defence and the court.
1411. That is to say, the defence can complain against the president with regard to the manner in which he puts the question?—Perfectly; the defence can do that; there is entire freedom on this subject. One can boldly cause all questions to be put, only the president of the Cour d’Assises, when the question contains an insinuation against the character or honour of the witness, hesitates to reproduce it.
[The question was discussed of whether Ledru Rollin,36who was condemned par contumace over the Tibaldi affair, would have been extradited from England had the proposed treaty been agreed.]
1414. Then if the French Government had demanded the extradition of M. Ledru Rollin before his condemnation par contumace, as being an accusé only, you think that the English Government could not have refused that extradition without violating the treaty?—They could not have refused it without violating the treaty in the French sense, but that would not have been the case in the English sense, because, according to the mode of interpreting the treaty in England, it was necessary that the English judge should have a certainty of the guilt of the person accused; he does not content himself with the proof of the guilt furnished to him, he wishes more considerable evidence.
1415. He wishes more considerable evidence, but he does not require to be convinced of the guilt of the person accused; he only requires to have such proof as would justify the committal of the person for trial if he was an English subject, and subject to the jurisdiction of the English tribunals?—My answer to your question is, that if the French Government had demanded M. Ledru Rollin as an accusé before he was condemned par contumace, for complicity in the attempt of Tibaldi, according to the spirit of the treaty, and according to the interpretation given to the treaty in France, England ought to have delivered him up, I think; the extradition of another réfugié, M. Bernard, was equally demanded at that time, but M. Bernard was not delivered up; proceedings were taken against him in England, and he was acquitted.
[French law allows trial for complicity in a crime committed in France of persons not resident in France at that time; it would apply for their extradition. This procedure would have covered Ledru Rollin’s case.]
1423. Does not the French law recognise something which is called moral complicity?—[Yes, but it has been applied in only one case, that of a journalist who was accused of inciting by his articles an attempt on the life of the duc D’Aumale. The term has never been accepted.]
1424. What was the name of that writer who was then accused?—His name is Dupoty.37
1425. It was not M. Armand Carrel?—No.
1426. Do you remember that M. Armand Carrel was subjected to a procèscriminel for complicity in the crime of Fieschi?38 —At that time, the phrase “moral complicity” was not invented.
1427. Are you sure of that?—I am quite sure.
1428. M. Armand Carrel published a brochure at that time: it was in 1836, I think, under the title of Extract from the dossier of a person charged with moral complicity in the attentat of such a date?39 —Your memory must be confusing between two cases, I have read the pamphlet to which you alluded. This is what occurred. After Fieschi’s attempt, Armand Carrel was arrested and remained eight days in confinement. When he came out, he published the documents which had been seized at his house, and in his publication he said he had been interrogated by the judge on his moral participation in the attempt. But he never had to submit to a trial on that account. The words “moral complicity” only appeared in the brochure.
1429. And that expression has not been used on any other occasion?—No; moral complicity has not been admitted in French criminal law. I will hand in to the Committee a small brochure, which I have here, written by a young judge in France, in which he speaks of the good results of the visit of Sir Thomas Henry to Paris.
Henry Thurstan Holland, resumed
[Interrogation returned to practice in Malta.]
1445. In 1849, after the taking of Rome, if I remember right, a number of refugees from Rome were either deported from Malta or refused permission to land in Malta. I do not know which it was; but one or the other took place, I believe?—In 1848 there was a great arrival of Jesuits, who were compelled to leave Naples.
1446. But this is the very reverse; these were people flying from the Jesuits?—Yes; I was going to say that some of these were afterwards deported. All the cases in 1849 of which we know anything will be found in a Paper printed for the House of Commons on the 12th of March 1850.40
Petitions in the House of Commons (1866-68)
After 1842, petitioning had little effect on the House of Commons, but Mill was continuing a strong Radical tradition in agreeing to present petitions, seeing himself like his earlier congeners as a representative of the unrepresented, especially of minorities. Though there can be no question about his whole-hearted support of the views of some of the petitions, it must not be assumed that he agreed with all of them; indeed he not infrequently presented petitions on both sides of an issue, and his opposition to that concerning Napier (5 June, 1868) is part of the record. This appendix is not therefore a record of his beliefs; it is, however, an index of his repute nationally as well as locally, and of his exceptionally busy and regular parliamentary activity.
The reports are summarized from the Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Petitions [RPP], checked substantively whenever possible against those in The Times [TT], and (for 1867) against the St. Stephen’s Chronicle. Indication is given when the petition is given in full in an Appendix to RPP, or summarized as part of the entry. In one case, when Mill presented in one day (5 May, 1868) over one hundred individual petitions in favour of Municipal Government for the Metropolis, the entries are (as in TT) conflated into one.
For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from merchants, manufacturers, and traders of the city of Westminster. (No. 229, 772 signatures; TT, 20 Feb., p. 6.)
That adequate provision might be made for the religious worship and instruction of Catholic juvenile offenders in the Industrial School at Feltham, from members of the Roman Catholic Church in Farm Street, Berkeley Square. (No. 282, 257 signatures; TT, 23 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from members of Saint Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, Horseferry Road. (No. 283, 733 signatures; TT, 23 Feb., p. 6.)
That provision be made for the spiritual instruction of Roman Catholic adults and children in workhouses and reformatories, from members of Saint Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, Horseferry Road. (No. 287, 711 signatures; TT, 23 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from members of the Roman Catholic Chapel in Farm Street, Berkeley Square. (No. 288, 260 signatures; TT, 23 Feb., p. 6.)
For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from the Minerva Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 408, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Freehold and Leasehold Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 409, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from the London Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 410, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Mutual Reversionary Investment Society (Limited). (No. 411, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Carlton Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 412, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Professional and Commercial Benefit Building Society. (No. 413, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Athenaeum Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 414, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Standard Benefit Building Society. (No. 415, 1 signature; TT, 28 Feb., p. 6.)
For extension of the suffrage to all adult males (excluding peers, those of unsound mind, and those convicted of crimes), and vote by ballot, from inhabitants of the City of London and the Metropolitan Districts, in a public meeting in St. Martin’s Hall, Longacre, 12 Dec., 1865. (No. 1461, 1 signature [Edmond Beales], printed in App. 180, pp. 77-8; TT, 13 Mar., p. 5.)
For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from members of the Independent Building Society, No. 7. (No. 1738, 1 signature; TT, 13 Mar., p. 5.)
Idem, from members of the Land, Building, Investment, and Cottage Improvement Company (Limited). (No. 1739, 1 signature; TT, 13 Mar., p. 5.)
Idem, from members of the Independent Building Society, No. 6. (No. 1740, 1 signature; TT, 13 Mar., p. 5.)
For readjustment and redistribution of Irish Church property, from the parish of Scarriff and Moywe, County Clare. (No. 1708, 323 signatures, printed in App. 185, p. 79; TT, 14 Mar., p. 5.)
Praying that those who have suffered from vaccination may be examined at the bar of the House before the Vaccination Bill is passed, from John Lofts and others. (No. 3430, 62 signatures; TT, 11 Apr., p. 6.)
In favour of the Representation of the People Bill, from working men of London in public meeting assembled in St. Martin’s Hall. (No. 3776, 1 signature [George Potter]; TT, 13 Apr., p. 5.)
In favour of the Hop Trade Bill, from the brewers of Westminster. (No. 4935, 4 signatures; TT, 18 Apr., p. 6.)
In favour of the Representation of the People Bill, from the Vestry of the parish of St. James’s, Westminster, under their common seal. (No. 5871, sealed, printed in App. 523, p. 211; TT, 28 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from inhabitants of Westminster in public meeting to the number of 2500 assembled (the Members for the City being present) at St. James’s Hall. (No. 5872, 1 signature [Charles Westerton], printed in App. 524, p. 211; TT, 28 Apr., p. 6.)
For reduction of public expenditure, from the gentry, merchants, professional gentlemen, and others in Westminster. (No. 7049, 828 signatures; TT, 8 May, p. 8, identifies the topic as abolishing the duty on fire insurance and modifying the Income-tax, and says 834 signatures.)
For a committee of inquiry into the attitude of the working classes towards the opening of the national museums, etc., on Sundays, with evidence from the trade societies and representatives of the large workshops, from a meeting of 1000, including delegates from Trade Societies, in St. Martin’s Hall, Dec. 1865. (No. 7357, 1 signature, printed in App. 627, p. 250; TT, 15 May, p. 8.)
Praying that in the Bill for the completion of the approaches to the Thames Embankment, the site of Northumberland-house may be treated on the same principles of justice and equity as any other property, from the vestry of St. James’s, Westminster. (No. 7785, sealed; TT, 15 May, p. 8.)
Praying that two representatives in Parliament may be granted to the Scottish Universities, from the Principals and Professors of the University of St. Andrews, signed by the Vice-Chancellor, Principal John Tulloch. (No. 7340, 1 signature, the petition not assigned to Mill in RPP;1TT, 18 May, p. 6.)
In favour of spiritual instruction for Roman Catholic pauper children, from wives and mothers belonging to the Roman Catholic congregation of St. Mary’s Horseferry Road. (No. 7475, 231 signatures; TT, 18 May, p. 6.)
Praying for an inquiry into his suggestions respecting sewage, the ventilation of the Houses of Parliament, the magnetic and meteorological survey, and other subjects, and into the circumstances under which he was removed from an appointment under the Board of Ordnance, from Franklin Coxworthy. (Not in RPP; TT, 18 May, p. 6.)
Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from inhabitants of the eastern and other divisions of the metropolis. (No. 8099, 358 signatures; TT, 30 May, p. 6.)
Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from inhabitants of the parishes of Stepney, Bow, Hackney, etc. (No. 8325, 224 signatures; TT, 2 June, p. 6.)
For extension of the electoral franchise to all householders, without distinction of sex, who possess such property or rental qualification as may be appointed for male voters, from Barbara L.S. Bodichon and others. (No. 8501, 1521 signatures,2 printed in App. 747, p. 305; TT, 8 June, p. 5.)
Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from members of the East Central (London) Temperance Association. (No. 8705, 58 signatures; TT, 9 June, p. 6.)
Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from inhabitants and frequenters of Victoria Park. (No. 8706, 566 signatures; TT, 9 June, p. 6, implies only one petition submitted.)
Idem, from inhabitants and frequenters of Victoria Park. (No. 8707, 396 signatures; TT, 9 June, p. 6, implies only one petition on this subject submitted.)
Praying for a general, in lieu of a county, area of rating for compensation for losses by cattle plague, from inhabitants of the township of Hyde, Cheshire. (No. 8813, 105 signatures; TT, 12 June, p. 7.)
Praying for an investigation of the petitioners’ right and interest in 21 acres of land, of which they state that they have been unjustly deprived, from Joseph Gibbins and others, chiefly farm labourers, of Shawell, Leicestershire. (No. 8846, 8 signatures; TT, 12 June, p. 7.)
For a committee of inquiry into the currency laws, with a view to protect the working classes and their families from the injury done them by a high rate of discount, from working-men of the city of Cambridge. (No. 9447, 45 signatures; TT, 6 July, p. 6.)
Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from inhabitants of the East and North of London. (No. 9449, 100 signatures; TT, 6 July, p. 6.)
Praying for justice generally, and specially that the memory of her late husband, who had illegally suffered the death of a traitor and a felon, might be vindicated, and his sentence and execution be declared to have been illegal, from Mrs. Maria Jane Gordon, late of Kingston, Jamaica, and now of 40 Avenue Road, Regent’s Park, widow of George William Gordon, who was recently executed in Jamaica. (No. 9451, 1 signature, printed in App. 829, p. 341; TT, 7 July, p. 6.)
Praying that in case of any mediated intervention by France in the affairs of Italy the House will take measures to discountenance such intervention, from Mr. W.J. Linton, of Brantwood, Coniston, Lancashire. (No. 9569, 1 signature; TT, 21 July, p. 5.)
For the postponement of the Artisans and Labourers’ Dwellings Bill to another Session, from the Board of Works for the Strand District. (No. 9526, sealed; TT, 24 July, p. 6.)
Praying for inquiry into the conduct of Sir Richard Mayne and the police under his command, in regard to preventing a meeting from being held in Hyde Park, on the 23rd of July last, from inhabitants of the Metropolitan District, in public meeting assembled at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, on 30 July, 1866. (No. 9670, 1 signature [Edmond Beales], printed in App. 875, p. 376; TT, 3 Aug., p. 4 [saying 25th rather than 23rd July].)
Praying that the House will take steps for preventing the annexation of Mysore, and for maintaining that tributary State with every possible security for British interests and for the prosperity of the people of the country, from General John Briggs, the First Commissioner of Mysore; General J.S. Fraser, late resident at Hyderabad and at Mysore; Sir John Low, late member of the Supreme Council of India; Colonel Haines, late Judicial Commissioner at Mysore; General Jacob, late Commissioner of the Southern Mahratta Country; Sir Robert Hamilton, late agent to the Viceroy in Central India; and 50 others. (No. 9640, 56 signatures, printed in App. 869, pp. 36871; TT, 11 Aug., p. 6.)
For Committee of Inquiry into allegations made with reference to the appointment of Sir Fitzroy Kelly to be Chief Baron of the Exchequer, from Rigby Wason of Corwar, Ayr. (No. 330, 1 signature; TT, 13 Feb., p. 6.)
Against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, from the minister and members of Trinity Independent Church, Dewsbury, Yorkshire. (No. 123, 198 signatures; TT, 16 Feb., p. 6.)
For residential and registered manhood suffrage and vote by ballot, from Henry Beal, of 9, Charles Street, Portman Square. (No. 984, 1 signature; TT, 1 Mar., p. 4.)
Praying that legislative provision be made for the removal to certified Roman Catholic schools of all Roman Catholic children in workhouses, from the Roman Catholics of the congregation of Farm Street Church, Berkeley Square. (No. 1034, 301 signatures, printed in App. 89, pp. 38-9; TT, 2 Mar., p. 6.)
For the repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from the Westminster Permanent Building Society. (No. 1254, 1 signature; TT, 5 Mar., p. 7.)
Idem, from the Second Warwick Building Society, held at the Saint Leonard’s Institution, Pimlico. (No. 1255, 1 signature; TT, 5 Mar., p. 7.)
Idem, from the Second Warwick Benefit Building Society, held at the Saint Leonard’s Institution, Pimlico. (No. 1256, 1 signature; TT, 5 Mar., p. 7.)
Idem, from the First Pimlico Building Society, held at 37 Warwick Street, Pimlico. (No. 1257, 4 signatures; TT, 5 Mar., p. 7.)
Stating that the petitioner was the first proposer of schools of design and industrial exhibitions; that with much labour and considerable cost he drew up a plan, for which he was promised pecuniary remuneration by a committee of the House of Commons; that a sum of money for this purpose was voted by the House, but never received by him in consequence of his not knowing when or to whom to apply for it, and praying that the intended remuneration may be given to him, from Robert Thomas Stothard. (Not in RPP; TT, 6 Mar., p. 6.)
For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from the Seventh Pimlico Building Society, 37 Sloane Square. (No. 1284, 1 signature; TT, 9 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Athenaeum Permanent Benefit Building Society, held at 30 Regent Street, Piccadilly. (No. 1285, 1 signature; TT, 9 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Freehold and Leasehold Permanent Benefit Building Society, held at 20 Great Marlborough Street, Regent Street. (No. 1286, 1 signature; TT, 9 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Professional and Commercial Benefit Building Society, held at 20 Great Marlborough Street, Regent Street. (No. 1287, 1 signature; TT, 9 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Carlton Permanent Benefit Building Society, held at 30 Regent Street, Piccadilly. (No. 1288, 1 signature; TT, 9 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Mutual Reversionary Investment Society (Limited), 30 Regent Street, Piccadilly. (No. 1289, 1 signature; TT, 9 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Land, Building, Investment, and Cottage Improvement Company (Limited), 18 Adam Street, Adelphi. (No. 1290, 1 signature; TT, 9 Mar., p. 6.)
In favour of opening the British Museum and similar institutions thrice a week, from 7 to 10 p.m., from inhabitants of St. Saviour’s, Chelsea, at a meeting held on 6 March at the National School Rooms. (No. 1523, 1 signature; TT, 13 Mar., p. 6.)
Praying that the penalties for deficient weights and measures may be confined to cases of fraud, from the tradesmen of Dean Street, Old Compton Street, and other parts of Soho. (No. 1559, 126 signatures; TT, 13 Mar., p. 6.)
For the restriction of Sunday trading, from the tradesmen of Bloomsbury, etc. (No. 1638, 126 signatures; TT, 15 Mar., p. 4.)
For a measure re-establishing the exemption from rates of hospitals and other like charities, from the House Committee of the Westminster Hospital. (No. 1659, 1 signature, the petition not assigned to Mill in RPP;3TT, 15 Mar., p. 4.)
Praying that women be admitted to the electoral franchise on whatever qualifications—of property, rent, taxation, or education—which the House may adopt in the case of men, from Mrs. Elizabeth Wilmshurst French, of Staplehurst, Kent. (No. 1562, 1 signature; TT, 16 Mar., p. 6.)
In favour of the Bill for the abolition of Tests in the University of Oxford, from the members of the Senatus Academicus of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 1779, 9 signatures, printed in App. 179, p. 84; TT, 19 Mar., p. 5.)
In favour of the repeal or reduction of duty on fire insurance, from the Thirteenth Saint Martin’s Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 1825, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Eleventh Saint Martin’s Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 1826, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Fifth Saint Martin’s Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 1827, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Sixty-fourth Starr Bowkett Benefit Building Society, held at the school room, Grafton Street Chapel, Grafton Street, Fitzroy Square. (No. 1828, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Twelfth Saint Martin’s Mutual Benefit Building Society, held at 120 Long Acre (No. 1829, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Metropolitan and Suburban Benefit Building Society, 387 Oxford Street West. (No. 1830, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the No. 1 Ancient Order of Foresters Building Society, Star and Garter, Poland Street, Oxford Street. (No. 1831, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Warwick Mutual Benefit Building Society, held at the Queen’s Arms, Warwick Street, Pimlico. (No. 1832, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the vestry of the parish of St. Martin in the Fields. (No. 1875, sealed; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.)
For a searching investigation into the present mode of inspecting weights and measures, from the tradesmen of Westminster and Pimlico. (No. 2052, 151 signatures; TT, 21 Mar., p. 6.)
Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the Board of Works, Westminster District. (No. 2008, sealed; TT, 22 Mar., p. 5.)
For the complete enfranchisement of the working classes, from George Jacob Holyoake. (No. 1889, 1 signature, summary with entry, p. 165; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.)
In favour of amending the Printworks Act by reducing the hours of labour for women and children, from the workpeople employed at Belfield Printworks, Rochdale, Lancaster. (No. 2034, 200 signatures; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the workpeople employed at Hollingworth Mill Printworks, Hollingworth, Chester. (No. 2035, 71 signatures; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the workpeople employed at Dinting Vale Printworks, Glossop, Derby. (No. 2036, 510 signatures; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the workpeople employed at Reddich Vale, Lancaster. (Not in RPP; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.)
That the national museums, picture galleries, botanical gardens, and similar collections be open to the public on Sunday afternoons, from the employés of Messrs. Arnold, Jermyn Street, St. James’s and others. (No. 2081, 30 signatures; TT, 26 Mar., p. 3.)
Idem, from the employés of Messrs. P. and W. Wilson, tinplate workers, Wardour Street, Soho. (No. 2082, 71 signatures, printed in App. 236, p. 107; TT, 26 Mar., p. 3.)
Idem, from the employés of the London Journal Office. (No. 2083, 32 signatures; TT, 26 Mar., p. 3.)
Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from a public meeting at Exeter Hall. (No. 2305, 177 signatures; TT, 27 Mar., p. 5.)
Idem, from a public meeting at the Store Street Rooms, Tottenham Court Road. (No. 2306, 155 signatures; TT, 27 Mar., p. 5.)
Against the Metropolitan Gas Bill, from Lawrence Lord Barnes. (No. 2677, 1 signature; TT, 2 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from William John Blew. (No. 2678, 1 signature; TT, 2 Apr., p. 6.)
For alteration in the Representation of the People Bill to get rid of certain qualifications for the franchise, to admit women to the franchise, to alter the redistribution scheme, and to control bribery at elections, from Richard Sleman, an elector of Tavistock. (No. 2488, 1 signature, summary with entry, p. 228; not in TT.)4
For inquiry and redress concerning the petitioner’s claim concerning remuneration from the Committee on Arts and Manufactures, etc., from Robert Thomas Stothard. (No. 3038, 1 signature, summary with entry, p. 255; not in TT.)
For the opening of the national museums, etc., on Sunday afternoons; from working men of various trades in the metropolis. (No. 3061, 264 signatures; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from the employés of the Savile House Printing Establishment, Beaufort Buildings. (No. 3062, 34 signatures; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.)
Against the Metropolis Gas Bill, from Robert Cradock Nichols. (No. 3743, 1 signature; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from John James Mullins. (No. 3744, 1 signature; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.)
Complaining of the present system of selling and hawking goods on Sunday, and praying for a law to confine trading on that day to articles of necessity, from tradesmen of Westminster and Pimlico. (No. 3145, 187 signatures; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.)
Praying that the suffrage be granted to women on the same conditions of property, rating, rental, or otherwise, on which it may be granted to men, from Emma Winkworth, Lydia E. Becker, Jacob Bright, and others of Manchester. (No. 3094, 3086 signatures,5 printed in App. 320, p. 141; TT, 6 Apr., p. 5.)
For extension of the elective franchise and vote by ballot, from the Executive Committee of the Reform League. (No. 4366, 3 signatures [Edmond Beales, William Dell, George Howell], printed in App. 343, p. 151; TT, 9 Apr., p. 6.)
Against the Metropolis Gas Bill, from Benjamin Rawlings, Brompton. (No. 4551, 1 signature; TT, 9 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from Sarah Gunthorpe, Brompton. (No. 4552, 1 signature; TT, 9 Apr., p. 6.)
In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 5403, 1 signature; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Clement Danes. (No. 5404, 18 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint George, Hanover Square. (No. 5405, 34 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Saviour’s, Southwark. (No. 5406, 19 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Ann, Fulham. (No. 5407, 29 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint James, Westminster. (No. 5408, 29 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in Kennington, Lambeth. (No. 5409, 36 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.)
For extension of the elective franchise to women, from Clarissa Handforth, 4 Grove Street, Ardwick, and others. (No. 5442, 875 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from Elizabeth Hulme, 97 Collyhurst St., and others. (No. 5443, 230 signatures;6TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Mary le Strand. (No. 5728, 34 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Paul, Covent Garden. (No. 5729, 24 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 5730, 25 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Margaret, Westminster. (No. 5731, 19 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the Vauxhall Bridge Road. (No. 5732, 29 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in Pimlico. (No. 5733, 30 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in Millbank. (No. 5734, 22 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the District of Knightsbridge. (No. 5735, 27 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
Idem, from consumers of gas in the parishes of Saint Margaret and Saint John the Evangelist. (No. 5736, 27 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.)
In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from 1,812 consumers of gas in Westminster. (No. 6141, 1867 signatures;7TT, 30 Apr., p. 6.)
Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the City of Westminster. (No. 6194, 221 signatures; TT, 1 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from St. James and St. George, Westminster. (No. 6195, 140 signatures; TT, 1 May, p. 6.)
In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from the Board of Works for the Lewisham District. (No. 6942, sealed; TT, 3 May, p. 6.)8
Idem, from the Board of Works for the Westminster District. (No. 6943, sealed; TT, 3 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from the gas consumers of Brighton. (No. 6944, 7 signatures; TT, 3 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from the gas consumers of Bolton, Lancaster. (No. 6945, 89 signatures; TT, 3 May, p. 6.)
Deprecating interference on the part of Government with the intended public meeting in Hyde Park, from the Council of the Reform League at Aberdeen. (No. 8271, 1 signature; TT, 7 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from the Council of the Reform League at Parkhead. (No. 8272, 38 signatures; TT, 7 May, p. 6.)
For restriction of selling and hawking goods on Sundays, from tradesmen of St. James’s, Westminster. (No. 8663, 181 signatures; TT, 10 May, p. 6.)
For restriction of selling and hawking goods on Sunday, from tradesmen and others of Fetter Lane and neighbourhood. (No. 9108, 105 signatures; TT, 14 May, p. 7.)9
Idem, from tradesmen and others of Henrietta Street, Chandos Street, Bedford Street, and places adjacent Covent Garden. (No. 9109, 229 signatures; TT, 14 May, p. 7.)
Idem, from tradesmen and others of Carey Street, Chancery Lane, and neighbourhood. (No. 9110, 201 signatures; TT, 14 May, p. 7.)
To be heard against the National Gallery Enlargement Bill, by the Select Committee, from the vicar and churchwardens of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 9210, 4 signatures, summarized in the entry; TT, 15 May, p. 6.)10
Idem, from the vicar, churchwardens, and others of the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 9211, 6 signatures; TT, 15 May, p. 6.)
For extension of the elective franchise to women, from Sarah Steinthall and others of Manchester. (No. 9669, 1750 signatures;11TT, 21 May, p. 7.)
Idem, from Sarah Patchell and others of Manchester. (No. 9670, 108 signatures;12TT, 21 May, p. 7.)
For altering the time for closing the gates of the gardens of Chelsea Hospital, from inhabitants of the neighbourhood. (No. 9718, 35 signatures; TT, 21 May, p. 7.)
Against the Traffic Regulation (Metropolis) Bill, from the Board of Works for the Westminster District. (No. 9743, sealed, printed in App. 617, p. 262; TT, 21 May, p. 7.)
In favour of opening the British Museum and other national institutions on Sunday afternoons, from the employés of Charles Aldin, builder, South Kensington. (No. 9781, 65 signatures; TT, 24 May, p. 6.)
Against the Metropolis Gas Bill, as amended, from the Board of Works for the Westminster District. (No. 10,098, sealed, summarized in entry; TT, 28 May, p. 8.)
“Mr. Mill hoped that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, which was one of pressing exigency, the House would permit him to say he had just received a telegram from Dublin stating that a petition from Fellows and other gentlemen connected with Trinity College for the remission of the capital sentence on the convict Burke had this day been very numerously signed.” (Not in RPP for subsequent dates; TT, 28 May, p. 8.)
Praying that an opportunity be afforded the petitioner of proving experimentally the efficacy of his treatment of the cattle plague, from Professor Antonio Bini of the Licensed Chymical Laboratory, Leicester Square. (Not in RPP; TT, 6 June, p. 8.)
In favour of the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill and against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Regent Street, Oxford Street, and neighbourhood. (No. 10,892, 195 signatures; TT, 7 June, p. 6.)
Idem, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Piccadilly, Jermyn Street, and neighbourhood. (No. 10,893, 47 signatures; TT, 7 June, p. 6.)
Idem, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of the City of Westminster. (No. 10,894, 115 signatures; TT, 7 June, p. 6.)
Idem, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Saint Margaret and Saint John, Westminster. (No. 10,895, 59 signatures; TT, 7 June, p. 6.)
Against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, from the inhabitants of Oakhill, near Bath. (No. 10,720, 57 signatures; TT, 14 June, p. 6.)
For the opening of the British Museum and other national museums etc., on Sunday afternoons, from working men resident in London. (No. 11,181, 203 signatures; TT, 18 June, p. 8.)
Praying to be heard before the Select Committee on the Hours of Regulation Bill, from Messrs. Woodfall and Kinder. (Not in RPP; TT, 18 June, p. 8.)
Representing the petitioner’s great services as the originator of the railway system and of other important inventions, and his distressed circumstances, and praying for inquiry and some recognition of his services, from William Henry James, civil engineer. (No. 11,367, 1 signature, summarized in entry; TT, 19 June, p. 6.)13
In favour of alterations in the Factory Acts Extension Bill and Hours of Labour Regulation Bill, from Messrs. Savill and Edwards, printers. (No. 11,361, 1 signature; TT, 14 June, p. 6.)14
Stating that the petitioner’s treatment of cholera in Limehouse and Spitalfields during the late epidemic has been eminently successful, and praying for inquiry into its character and merits, from James Barnett. (Not in RPP; TT, 21 June, p. 6.)
Praying for inquiry into the excessive mortality from consumption and its connexion with rebreathed air, and for legislation directed to the removal of its causes, from Dr. MacCormac, consulting physician to the Belfast Hospital. (Not in RPP; TT, 29 June, p. 8.)
Praying for justice to Prince Azee Jah Bahadoor, of the Carnatic, from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Keighley. (No. 11,977, 3 signatures, printed in App. 882, p. 372; TT, 6 July, p. 7.)
For the opening of the British Museum and other national institutions on Sunday afternoons, from working men, residing in the metropolis. (No. 11,893, 156 signatures, summarized in entry; TT, 9 July, p. 6.)
Against the Sunday Trading Bill, from tradesmen and residents of Lambeth. (No. 12,110, 279 signatures; TT, 11 July, p. 6.)
For inquiry into the possibility of giving better accommodation to the public in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital, from the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. (No. 12,278, 9 signatures, summarized in entry; TT, 20 July, p. 6.)
For an address praying the Queen to acquaint Foreign Powers that the Declaration of Paris, having been made without her authority or consent, is not binding on this country, from the Birmingham Foreign Affairs Committee and from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Ladywood, Birmingham. (No. 12,667, 4 signatures; TT, 6 Aug., p. 6.)
Praying that a Bill be passed to allow affirmations or declarations to be taken instead of oaths in judicial proceedings, from inhabitants of the metropolis. (Not in RPP; TT, 8 Aug., p. 6.)
For an address praying the Queen to acquaint Foreign Powers that the Declaration of Paris, having been made without her authority or consent, is not binding on this country, from the Home and Foreign Affairs Association at Macclesfield. (No. 12,670, 2 signatures; TT, 13 Aug., p. 3.)
Praying that at least two representatives may be given to the Scottish Universities, from the General Council of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 1131, 1 signature, printed in App. 53, p. 26; TT, 22 Feb., p. 6.)
In favour of the Bill for Restricting the Sale of Liquors on Sunday, from the Pimlico A.A. Band of Hope, Vauxhall Bridge Road. (No. 1447, 1 signature; TT, 22 Feb., p. 6.)
In favour of the Bill for prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, from Thomas Edwardes and others. (No. 1926, 90 signatures; TT, 6 Mar., p. 4.)
Praying for the appointment of a Minister of Public Instruction, for introducing Art instruction into national education, and other educational improvements, from Robert Thomas Stothard. (No. 2336, 1 signature, summarized in entry; TT, 6 Mar., p. 4.)
For the repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from various benefit building societies. (No relevant petitions are assigned to Mill in RPP, but unassigned Nos. 2747-57 are from various societies in Westminster; TT, 11 Mar., p. 5.)
For the reduction or abolition of the duty on fire insurance, from the Globe Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 3521, 6 signatures, not assigned to any Member in RPP; TT, 14 Mar., p. 6.)
Against the Bill for restricting the sale of liquors on Sunday, from Westminster and other places. (No. 4046, 530 signatures, not assigned to any Member in RPP; TT, 17 Mar., p. 5.)
For the reduction or abolition of the duty on fire insurance, from the Eighth Saint Martin’s Mutual Benefit Building Society, 120 Long Acre. (No. 6487, 5 signatures; TT, 27 Mar., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Effra Mutual Benefit Building Society, 50 Carey Street, Lincoln’s Inn. (No. 6488, 1 signature; TT, 27 Mar., p. 6.)
For an address to Her Majesty, praying the Queen to acquaint Foreign Powers that the Declaration of Paris, having been made without her authority or consent, is not binding on this country, from the Home and Foreign Affairs Association of Macclesfield. (No. 6506, 2 signatures, printed in App. 275, p. 123; TT, 27 Mar., p. 6.)
Praying that in the Reform Bill for Scotland two representatives, at least, should be assigned to the Scottish Universities, from the Principals and Professors of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 6580, 1 signature; TT, 31 Mar., p. 5.)
Praying that in the Reform Bill for Scotland the clause or clauses which would incorporate in the General Council any graduates who have not resided and studied at the University may be omitted, from the General Council of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 6581, 1 signature, printed in App. 285, pp. 128-9; TT, 31 Mar., p. 5.)
Against the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and praying that if the resolutions be carried, the House will immediately dissolve the Union and withdraw the grant to Maynooth, from Hoxton, Westminster, and other places. (No. 9100, 41 signatures; TT, 4 Apr., p. 6.)
Against the disestablishment or disendowment of the Protestant Church in Ireland, from Westminster. (No. 9101, 180 signatures; TT, 4 Apr., p. 6.)
For an improved municipal government of the metropolis, from F.D. Lambert, 20 Devonshire Place. (No. 10,977, 1 signature; TT, 24 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from Major-General Lord Frederick Paulet, Albany. (No. 10,978, 1 signature; TT, 24 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from Comyn, Ching, and Co., 28 and 29 Castle Street, Long Acre. (No. 10,979, 1 signature; TT, 24 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from William Hargreaves, 12 Chepstow Villas, Bayswater. (No. 10,980, 1 signature; TT, 24 Apr., p. 6.)
For the repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and traders of the City of Westminster. (No. 10,694, 571 signatures; TT, 25 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Fourth Saint Martin’s Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 10,695, 2 signatures; TT, 25 Apr., p. 6.)
Idem, from the Thirteenth Saint Martin’s Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 10,696, 3 signatures; TT, 25 Apr., p. 6.)
For restriction of selling and hawking goods on Sundays, from Westminster, Pimlico, Chelsea, and parts adjacent. (No. 14,830, 303 signatures; TT, 6 May, p. 5.)
Against Mr. Ayrton’s amendments to the Artizans and Labourers’ Dwellings Bill, from Bassishaw, City of London. (No. 14,889, 44 signatures; TT, 6 May, p. 8.)
In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from a large number of individual petitioners. (Nos. 14,934-15,095 and 15,891, each signed; TT, 6 May, p. 8.)
In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from F.E. Walpole, 3 Queen’s Street, Mayfair. (No. 15,894, 1 signature; TT, 12 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from Ernest F. Webb, 4 Westbourne Villas, Harrow Road. (No. 15,895, 1 signature; TT, 12 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from Henry Burchett, 9 Saint Stephen’s Square. (No. 15,896, 1 signature; not in TT.)
Idem, from Arthur Provey, 34 Somerset Street. (No. 15,897, 1 signature; not in TT.)
Praying for an alteration in the vagrant laws, whereby householders and ratepayers may no longer be punishable as vagrants because they practise astrology, from Christopher Cooke, Ryde, Isle of Wight. (No. 15,908, 1 signature; TT, 13 May, p. 6.)
In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from John Watkins, 34 Parliament Street. (No. 16,068, 1 signature; TT, 14 May, p. 8.)
Idem, from J. Hardwicke, M.D., Deputy-Coroner. (No. 16,069, 1 signature; TT, 14 May, p. 8.)
For extension of the electoral franchise to women, from Mary Somerville and others. (No. 15,933, 21,783 signatures;15TT, 15 May, p. 6.)
In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Henry Latham, 15 Upper Westbourne Terrace. (No. 16,071, 1 signature; TT, 15 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from William Aston Blount, 1 Eaton Place West, Belgrave Square. (No. 16,072, 1 signature; TT, 15 May, p. 6.)
In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Francis Edward Reade, 7 Saint James Street. (No. 16,233, 1 signature; TT, 19 May, p. 6.)
Idem, from William Stevenson. (No. 16,234, 1 signature; TT, 19 May, p. 6.)
In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Reginald E. Thompson, M.D., 21 South Street, Park Lane. (No. 16,376, 1 signature; TT, 22 May, p. 4.)
Against the chartering and endowing of a denominational University in Ireland, and in favour of opening Trinity College, from the Presbytery of Coleraine. (No. 16,353, 19 signatures; TT, 23 May, p. 5.)
Complaining that proceedings have been taken against the petitioner by the Attorney-General for not having made a declaration and entered into recognizances, under the Act of 1 William IV, c. 73, and praying for the repeal of that and all similar Acts, from Charles Bradlaugh, Sunderland Villa, Northumberland Park, Tottenham, editor of the National Reformer. (No. 16,481, 1 signature; TT, 26 May, p. 6.)16
In favour of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, from a public meeting at St. Mary Cray, Kent. (No. 16,447, 1 signature; TT, 27 May, p. 6.)
Representing the injustice of the Abyssinian War, and praying that the House will not confer its thanks upon General Sir Robert Napier and the army, and will appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of the transactions relating to Abyssinia, from the Home and Foreign Affairs Association of Macclesfield, Chester. (No. 16,639, 2 signatures, summarized in entry; TT, 6 June, p. 6.)
Complaining of the prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh, of the National Reformer, under the Act of 1 William IV, c. 73, and praying that this and all similar Acts be repealed, from a public meeting of residents of Greenwich and Deptford. (No. 16,975, 1 signature; TT, 6 June, p. 6.)
Idem, from a public meeting assembled at Cleveland Hall, Cleveland Street, Fitzroy Square. (No. 16,976, 52 signatures; TT, 6 June, p. 6.)
For the repeal of the Acts of 60 George III, c. 9, and I William IV, c. 73, under which the pending prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh has been instituted, from Matthias Robinson and others. (No. 16,979, 4 signatures; TT, 9 June, p. 6, which identifies the petitioners only as “certain persons at Chelsea.”)
In favour of the Married Women’s Property Bill, from inhabitants of Belfast. (No. 16,954, 399 signatures; TT, 10 June, p. 6.)
In favour of Married Women’s Property Bill, from inhabitants of Birmingham. (No. 17,114, 2434 signatures; TT, 11 June, p. 6.)
Idem, from inhabitants of Rochdale. (No. 17,115, 612 signatures; TT, 11 June, p. 6.)
In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, and Co., General Sir De Lacy Evans, and other ratepayers in London. (No. 17,119, 731 signatures;17TT, 13 June, p. 6.)
Idem, from Edmund B. Ray, 15 Prince’s Gate, Hyde Park. (No. 17,120, 1 signature; TT, 13 June, p. 6.)
For the repeal of the Acts under which the National Reformer has recently been prosecuted, from residents in Harrow Road and its vicinity. (No. 17,226, 82 signatures; TT, 17 June, p. 8.)
In favour of the Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill, from James Beal, 209 Piccadilly. (No. 17,335, 1 signature; TT, 18 June, p. 6.)
For extension of the elective franchise to women, from inhabitants of Lichfield. (No. 17,362, 311 signatures; TT, 26 June, p. 8.)
For the extension of the elective franchise to women, from inhabitants of Alnwick. (No. 17,364, 163 signatures; TT, 30 June, p. 9.)
For extension of the elective franchise to women, from Eliza Cairnes and others. (No. 17,616, 972 signatures; TT, 10 July, p. 4.)
Praying that the power may be restored to parochial authorities of rating the landlords in respect of small tenements or houses let for periods less than a year, and that Clause 7 of the Representation of the People Act be so modified, from inhabitants and ratepayers of the parish of Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, and adjacent parishes. (No. 17,620, 21 signatures, printed in App. 780, p. 363; TT, 10 July, p. 4.)18
Against the proposed concessions to the Portpatrick, Belfast, and County Down Railway Companies, from Rigby Wason, of Corwar, Ayr. (No. 17,665, 1 signature, summarized in entry; TT, 15 July, p. 6.)
[1 ]Edmund Hammond (1802-90), Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1854.
[2 ]“Convention for the Surrender of Criminals between France and the United States, signed at Washington, 9 Nov. 1843,” in The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Clive Parry (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1969), XCV, 393-7.
[3 ]The first article added robbery and burglary, the second forgery, counterfeiting, and embezzlement (ibid., XCV, 398-401, and CXVIII, 325-6).
[4 ]John Anderson, a runaway slave who had mortally wounded one of his pursuers, and whose extradition from Canada was demanded by the U.S. (see Annual Register, 1861, 520-8).
[5 ]29 & 30 Victoria, c. 121 (1866), amending the extradition treaty. Mill spoke on this treaty in Parliament; see Nos. 36, 37, and 39.
[6 ]“Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, for the Mutual Surrender, in Certain Cases, of Persons Fugitive from Justice” (13 Mar., 1843), PP, 1867-68, VII, 257.
[7 ]“Convention between Great Britain and France, for the Mutual Surrender of Criminals,” British and Foreign State Papers, 1851-52, XLI, 20-36.
[8 ]See Henri Godfroi, prince de La Tour d’Auvergne-Lauraguais (1823-71), Letter to the Earl of Clarendon (4 Dec., 1865), PP, 1866, LXXVI, 373-4.
[9 ]“Extradition Convention between Denmark and Great Britain” (15 Apr., 1862), in The Consolidated Treaty Series, CXXV, 465-70, Art. 1.
[10 ]An allusion to Napoleon III of France and his attempted coup at Boulogne (see No. 36, n8).
[11 ]In this incident, on 13 November, 1867, the Fenians attempted to rescue Richard Burke (1838-1922) and Joseph Casey, his assistant, from Clerkenwell prison in London. They blew a hole in the prison wall, the explosion killing twelve people, but did not succeed in freeing the prisoners. Michael Barrett (1841-69), who was convicted of the crime, was the last man to be hanged publicly in England.
[12 ]Thomas Henry (1807-76), Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Court, and a negotiator with France for the treaty of 1866.
[13 ]See “Police,” The Times, 23 and 29 May, 1866, both p. 11. The bankrupt was Victor Widermann (b. ca. 1831), and the assignee Adolph Picard.
[14 ]The case of Charles Windsor, teller for the Mercantile Bank of New York, accused of forgery in 1865 under New York law. (See 122 English Reports 1288-91.)
[15 ]“Circulaire du ministre de la justice du 5 septembre 1841, relatant les principes de la matière d’extradition,” App. 7 of the present report, 288-90.
[16 ]The treaty with Belgium (22 Nov., 1834, in Consolidated Treaty Series, LXXXIV, 457-63) referred to in the next questions expressly excluded political crimes in Art. 5. It was modified by an additional convention of 22 September, 1856 (ibid., CXV, 437-9).
[17 ]See the answer to Q. 355, concerning the Charles Windsor case.
[18 ]See Extradition Convention between France and the Holy See (19 July, 1859), in Consolidated Treaty Series, CXXI, 7-12, Art. 9, and Extradition Treaty between Chile and France (11 Apr., 1860), ibid., CXXII, 79-81, Art. 7. For Belgium, see n16.
[19 ]See n11.
[20 ]Colonel Thomas James Kelly (1833-1907) and Captain Timothy Deasy (ca. 1838-88) were being conveyed through Manchester in a prison van on 18 Sept., 1867, when some of their fellow Fenians attempted to rescue them by storming the van. A guard was killed, and three Fenians, later known as the “Manchester martyrs,” were hanged: Michael Larkin, Michael O’Brien, and William Philip Allen (1848-67).
[21 ]Franz Müller (1840-64), a German tailor living in London, was accused of the murder of Thomas Briggs (1793-1864) on a railway train, 9 July 1864. The dramatic case, extensively reported in The Times, involved his being pursued to New York on a faster vessel by Chief Inspector Richard Tanner and two witnesses: John Death, a jeweller, and Jonathan Matthews, a cabman. He was arrested when his boat landed, extradited, tried, and hanged. (See, e.g., “The Surrender of Franz Müller,” The Times, 13 Sept., 1864, 10.)
[22 ]Henry Thurstan Holland (1825-1914), legal adviser to the Colonial Office.
[23 ]Art. XI, Bull. 1400, No. 14,336, in App. 2 of the present report, 238.
[24 ]Malta, Ordinance No. 1 of 1863, App. 3 of the present report, 239-41.
[25 ]British Guiana, Ordinance No. 2 of 1861.
[26 ]“Ordinance of the Government of Labuan, for Facilitating the Apprehension and Surrender of Certain Offenders Escaping to Labuan from the Dominions of the Sultan of Borneo” (4 Feb., 1857), British and Foreign State Papers, 58 (1867-68), 754-6.
[27 ]“Treaty between Great Britain and Spain, Respecting Quedah” (6 May, 1869), ibid., 59 (1868-69), 1147-50.
[28 ]In his answers to Qs. 216 and 246.
[29 ]In his answers to Qs. 578-9.
[30 ]33 George III, c. 4 (1793), a temporary act renewed from time to time with modifications, but fallen into disuse after 1843.
[31 ]Solicitor to the Association of Bankers.
[32 ]Alexander Heilbronn, whose extradition from the U.S. in March 1854 is reported in 12 New York Legal Observer 66.
[33 ]A French barrister, acting as legal adviser to the English embassy at Paris.
[34 ]Tibaldi was an Italian worker resident in Paris, tried and convicted for an attempt to assassinate Napoleon III in August 1857.
[35 ]Nicolas Martin du Nord (1790-1847), Minister of Justice 1840-47.
[36 ]Alexandre Auguste Ledru Rollin (1807-74), French politician prominent in the 1848 revolution, had fled to England in 1849 after taking part in a demonstration against Louis Napoleon.
[37 ]Michel Auguste Dupoty (1797-1864), liberal editor of the Journal du Peuple, accused in 1841.
[38 ]Jean Baptiste Nicolas Armand Carrel (1800-36), radical journalist and one of Mill’s heroes, accused along with two members of the Société des Droits de l’Homme of complicity in an attempt on the life of Louis Philippe by Giuseppe Marco Fieschi (1790-1836) on 28 July, 1835.
[39 ]Extrait du dossier d’un prévenu de complicité morale dans l’attentat du 28 juillet (Paris: Paulin, 1835). Mill comments on this in CW, XX, 207-8.
[40 ]“Despatches between the Governor of Malta and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Relating to the Admission of Foreigners into the Island of Malta” (12 Mar., 1850), PP, 1850, XXXVI, 843-917. Mill mentions the matter in CW, XXV, 1142.
[1 ]A note says that the petition would have been given in full had “the Member presenting the same” complied with the Order of 20 Mar., 1833, that every member presenting a petition “affix his name at the beginning thereof” (p. 570).
[2 ]TT gives the number as 1515, and says, “Mill stated that the whole of the signatures to it had been obtained during a period of little more than a fortnight.” The Committee notes that they “have reported the number of names appended to this Petition, but they observe that, with the exception of seven, they are all written on Slips of Paper and pasted on the Petition” (p. 697).
[3 ]Again a note that the petition would have been given in full had “the Member presenting the same” complied with the Order of 20 Mar., 1833, that every member presenting a petition “affix his name at the beginning thereof” (p. 134).
[4 ]TT, 3 Apr., p. 6, gives another petition, perhaps a confused version of this: “Praying that an Act may be passed disqualifying every person concerned in corrupt practices at elections, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another, from holding any public office or exercising any political privilege, from Lancaster.”
[5 ]TT gives the number as 3161.
[6 ]TT gives the number as 246, and says the petition was from Manchester.
[7 ]TT gives the number as 1812, and says “also from a public meeting in Westminster.”
[8 ]TT gives this and the following three petitions as against the Bill, adds Cambridge and Sheffield, and says the Westminster Board of Works petitioned for a Select Committee on the Bill.
[9 ]RPP does not assign this and the following two petitions to any Member.
[10 ]TT evidently conflates this and the next petition, saying the petitioners were the trustees and governors of Archbishop Tenison’s School and those of the parochial school of the parish.
[11 ]TT gives the number as 2348.
[12 ]TT gives the number as 104.
[13 ]RPP does not assign this petition to any Member.
[14 ]Given its appearance in TT of 14 June, the petition must have been presented on the 13th, but the date of 20 June in RPP conforms to the official numbering.
[15 ]TT gives the number as 21,757.
[16 ]The heading in RPP is “Law of Libel—for Alteration”; under the heading “Newspapers—for Alteration of Law” another petition from Bradlaugh, apparently identical, is given as No. 16,970, also submitted by Mill; Nos. 16,975-6 and 16,979 below appear under the latter title.
[17 ]TT gives the number as 731, plus those named, and probably including the next entry.
[18 ]Nos. 17,621 and 17,622 repeat exactly No. 17,620, giving 14 and 23 signatures respectively.