The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-09 00:00:00

(Stamped, ld. Additional.)

brought to that court, would reach Canada in time to pre-
vent the judgment of the Canadian Court from being acted
upon, and whether her Majesty. government had any doubt
that the writ on its reception by the Canadian Court would
be attended to and obeyed ; and whether any step. had
been taken to secure the safe passage of J. Anderson
through American territory, if that route should be selected,
to reach this country. He had been informed that a very
eminent Canadian lawyer had given it as his opinion that
the writ of the Court of Queen's Beech would not be at-
tended to, and English lawyers bad expressed the same
opinion. There was a doubt whether • conflict might not
lobo between the court of this country and the Canadian
court.

COLLIER said it might not be inopportune to make
a statement which he made with confidence,—that the
almost unanimous opinion of Westminster-hall was that
the judgment of the Canadian court was wrong, and that
Anderson ought not to be given up. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARNER wished to SAk another qt;eatioc on the
same subject. A claim was made by the government of
this cquntry on the government of the United States for the
extradition of a person who was charged with coinniitting
• murder in Ireland—a person bearing the appropriate
name of Cain. The charge was that he bad waylaid a
landlord and shot him dead. The case came before the
courts of the United States, and they ultimately held that
the treaty did not epply to political offences, and that the
shooting of a landlord in Ireland was not • crime, but a
political offence. (A laugh.) The Ashburton tree* stood
almost unrivalled as an instance of diplomatic ineapairityi
and want of common sense ; hut it could not hear two iu-
terretatione, one for the United States and one for this
country. The question rested now, not with the courts,
but with the executive government of Canada ; and he
wished to know whether that government had received any
instructions from the home government.
Vistonnt PALMERBTON-1 will first reply to the ques-
tion o( Mr. Bristow. It is sot the intention of the govern-
ment to introduce any bill with regard to church-rates. In
fact there is a bill on that subject already before the house.
With regard to the question whether we should object to
proceed by resolutions, should the house be disposed to do
so, I do not think that it is s matter on which the house
will agree to proceed by resolution. As to the subject just
sow under discussion, I will state saltily!
to how the matter
stands, because that statement will • y each of the '
questions that have been put. My nob friend the Duke
of Newcastle wrote, on the 9th January, to the Goviessor-
General of Canada, that he was not to surrender
Anderson to the American government until be had received
positive Instructions from this government to do eo.
(Cheers.) So there Is no chance of Anderson being sur-
rendered until the question has been fully considered and
discussed. (Neer, hear.) There is a general impression
that the decision of the Court of Queen's Beech in Canada
would have the effect of requiring that Anderson should be
given up; but it had no bearing upon that point. The effect
of the decision of that court, whether right or wrong,
was that Anderson WAS not to be taken away
from the custody in which he was. (Rear, bear.)
But it rests, not with the Court of Queen's Beech, but with
the Governor-General of Canada to iesue_ his warrant for

the surrender of a criminal when applied for. (Near, hear.)
It is of mono impoortile for me to answer qnestions as to
the coelheting decisions of the courts here and in
Canada, or to say what course will be pursued by
the Court of Queens Bench in Canada on receiviog the
writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Queen's Bench
here. But, of course, it is plain enough that if Anderson
he sent to England in consequence of that writ, he will not
be sent through American territory ; therefore the
writ cannot be executed until the navigation from Canada
is open. (Hear, hear.) My hon. and learned friend who
has just spoken has stated very properly the effect of the
Ashburton treaty ; but I think that treaty has been im-
properly described as crude and uaintelligible. I think its
provisions are as clear as possible. It requires that when
• criminal is claimed he ahead be socueed of one of the
offences mentioned an the treaty, and that the cironm.
stances, alleged es the ground for his being delivered up should
be such as would show that he was liable to be prosecuted
for that crime according to the law of the country
which is applied to. (Hear, bear.) That is in this case the
law of England. Therefore it is quite plain, so I under-
stand
the treaty, that the American clainieut must establish
that Anderson has committed an offence which by the law
of England is murder, and must give proof which would
be sufficient to satisfy an English court that he ought to be
committed for trial upon that charge. I will not go into the
question—which has been so ably discussed—whether the
man who kills a person who is attempting to reduce him to
slavery would be guilty of justifiable homicide or murder.
I think our courts would not pronounce that murder ; and
if it is not murder by our law, it is clear that no case has
been established under which the surrender of Anderson can
be claimed. (Hear, hear.) The instruction from the &ere-
, tory of Meteor the Colonies to the Oovernor-General dee-
nada is, not to surrender Anderson until the question shall have
been fully considered by the government at home, and until
instructions shall have been sent out to him to surrender
him. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for adjournment till Monday was then agreed
to.