Kidnapping and false imprisonment-Perjury, and subornation of perjury, whether under common or statute law.

Any indictable offence, under the Larceny Act, 1861 (24 and 25 Vict. c. 96), or any Act amending or substituted for the same, which is not included in the first schedule to the principal Act.

Any indictable offence, under the Act of the session of the twentyfourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-seven, "To consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to malicious injuries to property," or any Act amending or substituted for the same, which is not included in the first schedule to the principal Act.

Any indictable offence, under the Act of the session of the twentyfourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-eight, "To consolidate and amend the statute law of England and Ireland, relating to indictable offences by forgery," or any Act amending or substituted for the same, which is not included in the first schedule to the principal Act.

Any indictable offence, under the Act of the session of the twentyfourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-nine. "To consolidate and amend the Statute law of the United Kingdom against offences relating to the coin," or any Act amending or substituted for the same, which is not included in the First schedule to the principal Act.

Any indictable offence, under the Act of the session of the twentyfourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred, "To consolidate and amend the Statute law of England and Ireland relating to offences against the person," or any Act amending or substituted for the same, which is not included in the first schedule to the principal Act.

Any indictable offence, under the law for the time being in force in relation to Bankruptcy, which is not included in the first schedule to the principal Act.

In re Charles Worms, petitioner for a writ of Habeas Corpus (22 L. C. J., 109).

In Chambers, Court of Q. B., Sir A. A. Dorion, C. J., said:

The provisions of this Act (Extradition Act of 1870) are to apply to all or any part of Her Majesty's Dominions as may be declared by any order in Council, passed to that effect (sect. 2), and section 18 provides that Her Majesty by an order in Council applying the Act to any British possession, may direct that any law passed by the Legislature of

such British possession for the surrender of fugitive criminals shall have effect in such British possession, with or without modification, as if it were part of the Act of 1870. It was, therefore, competent for Her Majesty to direct by an order in Council that the Act of 1870 would apply to cases of fugitive criminals in Canada, under the arrangement made with the United States, and that the laws already passed in Canada, under the arrangement with the United States, should have the same effect as if they formed part of that Act.

What could have been done by an order in Council is effectually done, as regards Canada at least, by section 27 of that Act.

This section, first repeals the previous Imperial legislation therein mentioned, relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals; then, it provides that the Act of 1870, except when inconsistent with existing Treaties referred to in the repealed Statutes, shall apply in the whole of Her Majesty's Dominions as if an Order in Council to that effect had been passed, and also, as if such order in Council had directed that every law in force in any British possession, with respect to such Treaties, should have effect as part of that Act. As the Treaty with the United States as regards the extradition of fugitive criminals, existed when the Act of 1870 was passed, sec. 27 makes the Act applicable to that Treaty-except when inconsistent with it-throughout the whole of Her Majesty's Dominions, and as Canada had previous legislation on the subject, it makes that legislation part of the Act of 1870.

As to the second branch of the objection, it is unfounded, inasmuch as the Act of 1870 merely authorizes the Secretary of State in England, and the Governor of a British Possession, to issue an order requiring a Police Magistrate to issue his warrant for the apprehension of a fugitive criminal, but does not require it in every case; this is made evident by section 8 of the Act. This order is also expressly dispensed with by our Extradition Act of 1869, which, as already stated, must be taken as part of the Act of 1870 in the same manner as if an Order in Council had so directed it, under section 118, as regards the Extradition Treaty Iwith the United States.

It is also urged, that the Act of 1870 could not apply to Canada, because by the B. N. A. Act, sec. 132, the power to carry out any obligation resulting from Extradition Treaties had been absolutely given to Canada, and that if the Act were in force, then the formalities required were not observed, as no warrant from the Governor General had preceded the issuing of the warrant to arrest the accused. The answer to this objection is very simple. In the first place, the Act of 1870 is not

inconsistent with section 132 of the B. N. A. Act, 1867, and if it were, the last Act would prevail.

In the case of Rosenbaum (18 L. C. J., 200) whose extradition was applied for, in Montreal, in February, 1874, by the United States Government, for the crime of Arson, Ramsay, J., Held :

1. That sub-section 2 of section 3, of the Imperial Act of 1870, is inconsistent with the subsisting Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and the U. S., and is, therefore, not in force, quoad any application under such Treaty.

2. That a copy of a Bill of Indictment found against the prisoner in the United States cannot be received as evidence.

3. That the evidence adduced was sufficient to sustain the application.

After the passage of the Imperial Extradition Act of 1870, the British Government in the Winslow case declined, under the provisions of that Act, to surrender to the United States a fugitive to England charged with forgery, unless they were assured that he would not be tried for any offence other than that for which he should be surrendered.

The Government of the United States refused to consent to the application of section 3 of the Imperial Extradition Act of 1870, as being a disturbance of the Treaty of 1842; and, maintained that the Secretary of State alone should decide whether an offence with which a fugitive criminal is charged is of a political character. The U. S. Government also refused to annul the Treaty of 1842, for the purpose of entering into a more comprehensive one.

(Dom. Sess. Papers of 1877, No. 13.)

In 1877 the Parliament of Canada made provision by one general Statute (40 Vict. c. 25) for the execution of all the Extradition Treaties and Conventions made and to be made from time to time between Her Majesty and Foreign States, and for repealing previous Acts on the subject. After the passing of the Dominion Act of 1877, an address to Her Majesty was adopted by the Dominion Parliament, praying that she would cause steps to be taken to suspend the operation of the Imperial Extradition Acts of 1870 and 1873 so far as Canada was concerned. This request has not yet been acceded to.

Article 4 of the Dominion Extradition Act of 1877 (40 Vict. c. 25) reads as follows:

In the case of any Foreign State with which there is, at or after the time this Act comes into force, an Extradition arrangement, this Act shall apply during the continuance of such arrangement: Provided that the operation of the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, and intituled "An Act for amending the law relating to the Extradi

tion of Criminals," shall have ceased or been suspended within Canada in the case of that state.

As already stated, the operation of the Imperial Acts of 1870 and 1873 not having been suspended as regards Canada, the Dominion Act of 1877 remains inoperative.

In Re Bouvier (42 L. J., N. S., 17, Queen's Bench, Nov. 21, 1872).

The accused was claimed in England, under the Extradition Treaty of 13th February, 1843, (replaced, since this decision, by the Treaty of 1876) between France and Great Britain, and arrested on a warrant issued under the Extradition Act, 1870. Section 3, sub-sec. 2 of that Act provided that a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a Foreign State unless provision is made by the law of that State, or by arrangement, that the fugitive criminal shall not be tried for any other crime. The Court of Q. B. upon the Affidavit of the officially appointed Counsel to the French Embassy in London, and the text books, found, that under the existing law of France such a provision is made, and therefore that the accused was not entitled to be discharged.

And held: That the Extradition Treaties are kept in full force by the Act of 1870, although the Acts passed to give them effect are thereby repealed.

Cockburn, C. J., in delivering judgment, said:

I rather hesitate to express any decided opinion as to the construction to be put upon the 27th section, although I see plainly what was the intention of the Legislature; that is to say, it was intended, while getting rid of the Statutes by which the treaties were confirmed, to save the existing treaties in their full integrity and force. This has been probably effected, but is certainly not very clearly expressed. Nothing would have been more simple than to enact, that, although it was expedient to repeal the Statutes, yet that the treaties should have full force and effect, instead of which, this complicated and obscure language has been adopted.

In Alexander Terraz (27 W. R., 179—L. R., 4 Ex. D. 63).

A native of Switzerland was apprehended under the Extradition Act of 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 52) on a warrant charging him with "Crimes against Bankruptcy laws."

On a rule nisi for a Habeas Corpus, obtained on the ground that the offence charging the accused with "crimes against Bankruptcy laws" was not sufficiently alleged in the warrant, a fresh warrant was lodged charging the offence more specifically.

Held, that the first warrant contained a sufficient description of the offence.

Kelly, C. B., said: I do not think we can legitimately, lawfully or consistently refer to the second warrant on the argument of this rule.

In re Wilson (Habeas Corpus) (3 L. R, Q. B., Div. 42-13 Cox's Crim. Cases, 360) the Extradition Treaty of 1874 with Switzerland, provided that:

No Swiss shall be delivered up by the Swiss Government to the Government of the United Kingdom, and no subject of the United Kingdom shall be delivered up by the Government of the United Kingdom.

In 1875, by an Order in Council the Imperial Extradition Act of 1870 was made applicable to this Treaty. Held:

That the Extradition Act of 1870 can only have application so far as it is consistent with the Treaty and that no British subject could be surrendered to the Swiss Government under that Treaty.

In Commonwealth v. Hawes (2 L. N. 79), Held:

That a fugitive to Canada (subsequent to 1870) indicted for forgery in the United States, and surrendered under the Extradition Treaty for that offence, could not be tried in the United States for another offence not extraditable, for which an indictment was also pending against him at the time of his surrender.

and French

133. Either the English or the French Language may be Use of English used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Languages. Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the Respective records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada. established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.

The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.

Ontario and Quebec.

134. Until the Legislature of Ontario or Quebec other- Appointment of wise provides, the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and cers for Ontario Quebec may each appoint, under the Great Seal of the Pro

Executive Offi and Quebec.