CONVENTION TREATIES. These are treaties entered into between different states, under which they each bind them selves to observe certain stipulations con tained in the treaty. In 1843 two acts were passed (6 & 7 Viet. c. 75 and c. 76) for giving effect to conventions between her majesty and the King of the French and the United States of America for the apprehension of certain offenders.
The act relating to France (c. 75) le galizes the convention entered into with the government of that country for the giving up of offenders who may escape from France into England. On requisi tion duly made by the French ambas sador, a warrant will be issued for the apprehension of fugitives accused of hav ing committed the crimes of murder (as defined by the French code), attempt at murder, forgery, or fraudulent bank ruptcy: aad any justice before whom they may he brought is authorized to commit them to gaol until delivered up pursuant to the ambassador's requisition. Copies of the depositions on which the original warrant was issued, duly certified as true copies. are to be received as evi dence. But no justice is to issue a war rant for the apprehension of any French fugitive unless the party applying is the bearer of a warrant or document, issued by a judge or competent authority in ' France authenticated in such a manner as would justify the arrest of the sup posed offender in France upon the same charge. The secretary of state will order the person committed to be delivered up to the person or persons authorized to re ceive him. If the prisoner committed shall not be conveyed out of her ma jesty's dominions within two months from the time of his committal, any of her majesty's judges, on application made to them, and after notice of such appli cation has been sent to the secretary of state (or to the acting governor in a co lony), may order such person to be dis charged, unless good cause shall be shown to the contrary. The act is to extend to all her majesty's present or future possessions, and to continue in force during the continuance of the con tention.
The act relating to America (c. 76) is similar in its nature and purposes to the one relating to France; but the crimes specified include, in addition, pi racy, arson, and robbery, and do not in clude fraudulent bankruptcy.
In 1844 a case occurred of a fraudulent French bankrupt who had escaped to England, and the French government demanded that he should be given up under the Convention Treaty. He was
arrested and taken to prison ; but before the surrender could take place he applied for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that fraudulent bankruptcy was an offence unknown to the law of England, and that therefore it was contrary to law to arrest him or keep him in custody on such a charge. The warrant of commitment did not specify that the prisoner should be given up on requisition duly made ac cording to the act, but the words were, "until he shall be delivered by due course of law." In consequence of the defective application of the Convention Treaty in this particular case the prisoner was dis charged.
At the close of 1843, seven persons ac cused of murder, robbery, and piracy fled for security from Florida, in the United States, to Nassau, one of the Ba hama Islands. They were followed by a marshal of the United States, who was authorized by his government to demand that the fugitives should be given up under the Convention Act. The governor, Sir Francis Cockburn, issued his warrant accordingly to the chief justice of the colony, authorizing and directing him to take measures for the fulfilment of the act. In anticipation of the application of the marshal, the chief justice had a war rant prepared for apprehending the fugi tives, expecting that the evidence tendered would be such as could be judicially received. The only evidence offered was documentary, consisting of indictments; without the evidence upon which they were framed. The act requires that copies of the depositions upon which the original warrant was granted, certified, &c., must be adduced in order to render the provisions of the act available. The chief justice, with his associate judges, were under the necessity of refusing the warrant applied for, chiefly on the fol lowing grounds :—" An indictment per se can never be received as evidence : it is not enough for us to know that the Ame rican jury thought the parties guilty ; we ought to know the grounds upon which they thought them guilty. What may constitute the crime of murder in Florida may be very far from doing so according to the British laws, or even to the laws of the Northern States of Ame rica. By issuing a warrant, then, to ap prehend the parties in virtue of thee indictments, we might be doing so on evidence which would not justify their apprehension by the British law, and should thereby be proceeding in direct violation of the act." (Purl. Paper, No. 64, sees. 1844.)