SIR,
No. 844.
(CANADA.)
HOME OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Whitehall, August 7, 1873. WITH reference to your letter of the 4th ultimo, forwarding among other enclosures a copy of a Bill passed by the Houses of Legislature in Canada, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1870, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Bruce to transmit to you to be laid before Earl Granville, the enclosed copy of a report thereon by Sir Thomas Henry, together with a copy of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I am to request that you will convey to his Lordship Mr. Bruce's concurrence with the views expressed therein, and his recommendation that the course suggested by Sir T. Henry should be acted upon.
The original enclosures which accompanied your letter are returned herewith.
I am, &c.
The Under Secretary of State,
(Signed) A. F. O. LIDDELL,
&c.
&c.
&c.
Foreign Office.
SIR,
SIR THOMAS HENRY to the HOME OFFICE.
Bow Street Police Court, July 18, 1873. WITH reference to your letter, 24445, I beg to state that I have read the copy of the Bill passed by the Houses of Legislature in Canada; with a trifling exception it
is in conformity with the provisions of the Extradition Act of 1870, and I am of opinion that the Royal Assent may properly be given to it.
The exception to which I allude is in the 9th clause, which requires that copies of
depositions must be "attested upon the oath of the party producing them to be true
4
copies of the original depositions"; this provision renders it necessary that the person who produces the copies should be able to swear that he had compared them with the original depositions; this was found to be so inconvenient that the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 121. was passed to dispense with such proof in this country.
The 9th clause of the Canadian Bill ought to have been omitted, as the 10th and 11th clauses provide for the reception of warrants and depositions when authenticated in conformity with the 14th and 15th sections of the English Extradition Act of 1870. I presume that no alteration can be made in the Canadian Bill, and I think that the objection I have pointed out is not of sufficient importance to justify sending the Bill back to Canada.
The attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies can be drawn to the objection, and, if found necessary, the Canadian Legislature could pass a short Bill to remove it, and they can at the same time take the opportunity to add the alterations which have been introduced in the Bill now before the House of Commons “for
amending the Extradition Act of 1870."
I have, &c. (Signed) THOMAS HENRY,
The Hon. A. F. O. Liddell, &c. &o. &c.
OPINION of the LAW OFFICERS on the BILL passed by Canadian LEGISLATURE for carrying out the PROVISIONS of the IMPERIAL ACT.
In this case we entirely concur in the opinion expressed in the report of Sir T. Henry.
Westminster, July 31, 1873.
0 16278.-931.
25,--5/86.
(Signed)
J. D. COLERIDGE.
G. JESSEL.
C. BOWEN.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
T། ། ། ་། །
C.O. 885
Reference :-
11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO8455.