The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-29 00:00:00

THERMOS ETV'S...

TWA day at Two o'clock 7B
Barometer-29.90.
Wu, rD—S.; moderate breeze, and cloudy.

HIGI L WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
fins DA.T. —Morning, 10h. 35m.—Afternoon, Ilh. lem.
ro-u011.8.0N v.-Morning, 11h. 52m.—Afternoon, h. m.

SUIT

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1864.

..._.__.

The noble lord the member for Arundel may be
congratulated by men of all parties out of the House,
as ho was at once very earnestly congratulated by
men of all parties in the House, for the really ad-
mirable speech delivered by him yesterday upon the
subject of Emigration to America. That speech of
Lord EDWD. HOWARD'S was immediately recognised
as one of such conspicuous excellen e that, directly
after the close of it, the suggestion came from both
sides of the House of Commons that it should, out
of consideration for the public interests generally,
be circulated as widely as possible throughout the
United Kingdom. Even the stormy, fiery, redhot
Tory member for Devonport insisted upon it, that the
working classes of this country as well as of Ireland
must feel greatly indebted to the noble lord for the
able and important speech he had just delivered.
Mr. FERRAND adding thereupon that that speech
ought (as previously suggested by Mr. LAYARD)
to be circulated throughout the country. The
expense of doing so, said the hon. member, might
be great, nevertheless he (Mr. FERRAND) would ask
the Government whether they had not some money
in their hands which could be usefully employed for
that purpose. For example, said the member for
Davonport, seriocomically as one might say, and in
the midst of mingled laughter and applause, for
example—the secret-service money ! Again,
in regard to this remarkable speech of
Lord EDWARD HOWARD'S—What said the Irish
Secretary—what said Sir ROBERT PEEL P Why,
nothing less than this—that the excellent, humane,
and charitable demonstration of the noble lord
would, he hoped, be productive of much good in
opening the eyes of the poor dupes The
dupes, that is, of those emissaries from
Arne rice who are notoriously going about hither
and thither in this country, promoting in an
underhand manner the illegal cause of Federal
enlistment. The Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, however, was the
very first, as he was, everything considered,
the most earnest panegyrist of the veritable good
service done by the delivery of the noble lord's able
imps essive exposition before the House of Commons,
his exposition (through the medium of his speech)
of the evils resulting from the continuance of this
systematic emigration to America, of men who are
really entrapped for the purposes of Federal Enlist-
meat. Mr. LAYARD yesterday did not simply con-
tent himself with expressing his opinion that
his noble friend, the member for lerundel, had done
good service by the able and impartial address he
just delivered to the House." He said—while re-
marking that it was a difficult question for the
Government to dell with—that " he (Mr.
LAYARD) did not know a better way of dealing with
this difficult question than by publishing
throughout the kingdom the important state-
ment just made by the noble lord. It Vas
impossible for the Government to deal with the matter
except by reiterating the warning of hisnoble friend,
and by doing all they could to instruct those who
were likely to cross the Atlantic in regard to the
real facts of the case and the dangers to which they
were likely to expose themselves," Than this
declaration on the part of the honourable gentle-
man the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, nothing surely could be more strikingly
eulogistic of the speech which had been just
previously delivered in the House of Commons,
the speech then so very freshly within the recollec-
tion of those who were listening to Mr. LAYARD'S
instant commentaries thereupon. While we would
express our very cordial concurrence in these well
deserved commendations of the remarkable speech
here referred to as having fallen from the lips of the
noble lord the member for Arundel, we would fain
urge upon those upon whom ought now to devolve
the duty of carrying out the wishes of the
House of Commons in regard to Lord EDWARD
HOWARD'S speech of yesterday—we would fain
urge upon them the necessity of at once carrying
out these wishes in earnest by causing to be
reprinted and very widely circulated an accurate
report of that excellent and impressive harangue.

The glorious uncertainty of the law—proverbial
in this country from time immemorial—has but
just now, as recently as yesterday, had a new and a
very striking illustration. Nominally, the YELVER•
TON Case was yesterday brought to an end defi-
nitively. Referring though we do here to the deci-
sion thus pronounced upon this important case by
the highest court of judicature in the land, we use,
advisedly, the significant adverb, and we hesitate
not to reiterate the remark, that this decision of
the Law Lords is, after all, no more than nominally
(as contradistinguished from practically) conclu-
sive. The meaning of which, at first sight, in-
comprehensible assertion, is readily to be explained
by the circumstance that yet another proceeding
has been taken by Mrs. THERESA YELVERTON, née
LONGWORTH, the consequence of which proceeding
on her part is quite eff,ctuaily to prevent the
judgment which was pronounced yesterday by the
Law Lords, in the House of Peers, from being
made final in Scotland, until the parties to the
suit shall have been finally examined upon oath.
It will be observed that the decision pronounced in
favour of the petitioner, Major WILLIAM CHARLES
YELVERTON, has been simply the decision of a
majority—not by any means an unanimous decision
against the respondent. Ostensibly, the majority is
considerable. In reality, it is insignificant. Ap-
parently, it is a decision pronounced as by three to
one for the petitioner and against the respondent.
Literally it is a decision carried by the smallest of all
possible majorities—that of one. For, while three
of the law lords (all of them present) were yester-
day for the reversal of the judgment pronounced
by the lower Courts--were, in other words, in favour
of Mijor YELVERTON, and against Mrs. THERESA
YELVRTON nee LONGWORTH—tWO other of the
law lords (one present the other absent) were
as distinctly of a totally different opinion.
And, observe who they were that were for
the petitioner and who they were that were
for the respondent. For Major YELTERTON, against
Mrs. THERESA YELVERTON nee LONGWORTII,
were—of these Law. Lords—whom ? Lord WENS-
LEYDALE! Lord KIN GSDOWN 1 And Lord CHELMS-
FORD I Whereas, upon the other side, who, let it be
distinctly borne in mind, were the law lords who
pronounced (one by word of mouth, one by message)
just exactly otherwise? Pronounced, that is, die-

tinctly, deliberately, emphatically, in favour of Mrs.

rIIERESA YELVERTON tea LONGIVORTIL and against
Niojor YELVERTON, the Petitioner ! Who were the
Law Lords who so thought, al decided ? Why, n©
others than— LordWesmultYand Lord BROUGHAM !
The latter, the moat venerable and illustrious

among our group of ex- Chancellors—as he is also one
of the most remarkable men of genius living—the
ex-Chancellor Lord BROUGHAM ! And—coincident
in opinion with Lord BROUGHAM in this matter—
speaking from the elevation appertaining to
the actual occupant of the Woolsack—the greatest
among all living Lawyers —Lord WESTBURY,
now the Lord High Chancellor ! These are the
two men whose judgments confirm the pre.
vious decisions pronounced in the lower
Courts in favour of the Respondent ! If the Peti-
tioner is backed by the favourable decision of Lord
WENSLEYDALE, of Lord KINGSDOWN, and of Lord
CHELMSFORD (reversing the judgments pronounced
pronounced against him by the lower Courts, here
in Scotland, there in Ireland)—the Respondent is
backed by the equally positive opinion in her favour
(confirmatory of those previous judgments) by Lord
WESTBURY and by Lord BROUGHAM! Altogether
the result arrived at, is about as unsatisfactory and
as bewildering of its kind, in regard to the
YELYERTON Case, as the decision arrived at the
close of the dispute in the old fable as to the precise
definition of the colour of the chameleon.

The withdrawal of the Mutual Surrender of Cri-
minals (Prussia) Bill will be received with general
satisfaction. It was not, indeed, probable that the
measure could ever have become law in the face of
so formidable an opposition as it excited, but Sir
GEORGE GREY has done wisely in refraining from
pressing the matter, and in acknowledging that in
this matter the popular representatives fairly repre-
sented the feeling of the public. It is not surprising
that the House of Commons should look with some
suspicion on the terms of any treaty about to be
concluded between this country and Prussia. The
members of our Government have shown themselves
collectively and individually to stand in such
wholesome awe of the terrible M. BISMARK, to be
so easily influenced by his wishes, so readily pacified
by his explanations, so confiding in the general
high-mindedness and generosity of the King, Ca-
binet, and people of Berlin, that plain English
folks, whose views and principles will not adapt
themselves so promptly to foreign fashion, may
naturally be unwilling to leave too much to their
discretion. In the case which has lately been
brought under the notice of Parliament there is
especial reason for watchfulness. Ti:ere is perhaps
none of the ruling principles of our political
code more generally received and more
readily acquiesced in by men of all shades of opi-
nion than that which affords unquestioning shelter
and unhesitating protection to the exile flying from
political or social persecution in his own country.
Englishmen pride themselves on the welcome which
they give to the unfortunate whether or no they
sympathise in the views or the actions which have
produced their misfortunes. Prince and peasant,
Orleanist and Bonapartist, slave-driver and slave,
are alike safe from the vengeance or the prejudice
of their countrymen so soon as they reach our shores;
and in the solitary exception to the national hospi-
tality which occurred in the case of Marshal HAY.
NAU, it must be remembered that he was no fugitive
driven from his country, but a favoured noble tak-
ing his ease while Hungarian homes were desolated
by his means. However much foreign Govern-
ments may dislike or distrust this our traditional
practice they may all feel thankful that they have
such an asylum in reserve, while Continental Sove-
reigns msy learn a profitable lesson from the recol-
lection that the past and the present ruler of no less
a country than France have at different periods of
their lives been glad to avail themselves of an
English shelter. But with all our fervour of feel-
ing on this point we do not carry our views to
such an absurd extreme as to wish to harbour
criminals. If our colonists are unwilling to receive
English malefactors, under legal restraints and
with proper guardianship, we are certainly not in-
clined to have the villains of all nations let loose
upon us. We have criminals enough of our own if
we may judge from the disastrous record of the last
few weeks, and the sagacity or activity of our police
force is scarcely competent to keep pace with them.
It is by no means desirable that every law-breaker
of foreign states shall flee to England as a refuge
from offended justice. Neither can we be anxious
that our own offenders shall be able to secure im
munity from punishment by escaping our shores.
With the immense traffic that is continually going
on it would be a serious thing if every felon who
could contrive to get beyond the immediate reach
of English jurisdiction were able to feel secure. It

would be felt on all hands to be a direful blow to
public security and public order if such a villain as
MULLER were able to elude chastisement because
he had crossed the Atlantic. A treaty of extradi-
tion then secures mutual interests and public rights.
The code of moral and social offences is happily much
the same throughout Christendom, and those offences
which are most fatal to life and happiness are, by
common consent, regarded with equal abhorrence,
and liable to much the same degree of punishment,
in most parts of Europe and America. But it is
very necessary to preserve a strict line of demarca-
tion between political and other offences, nor is
there any unfairness in our insisting upon mak-
ing the distinction clearly and unreservedly.
It' we refuse to surrender political offenders to
their offended Governments, we also refrain from
making any similar demand upon them. Chartists
and democrats who have suaneeded in stirring up
agitation in the United Kingdom have escaped
across the seas unpurEued, and we are not likely to
trouble France or America with any appeals for
the surrender of a refractory citizen, or unpopular
statesman, or indiscreet man of letters. Our Go-
vernments have hitherto been careful to frame their
extradition treaties with especial regard to this
point, with one solitary exception, of which the
public were probably unaware until the recent dis-

cussicn had disclosed the fact, that in the
terms of the treaty concluded with Denmark
two years ago, no such provision was made. If

such be the case, the Treaty needs an immediate
revision and alteration, but one such instance can
be no excuse for committing a still more serious
error. As the general law stands, an English
magistrate must be satisfied that there is evidence
against the accused party of having committed an
offence which is punishable by English law. This
is the great protection for all political offenders,

and our readers will readily recall a notable in-
stance of the action of this clause, when the sur-
render of the fugitive slave ANDERSON was refused
by the Canadian Judge, on the ground that the
offence with which he was charged was not recog-
nisable by English law. But notwithstanding the
general feeling on this matter, and the experience
of so many years, the Government has omitted any
such provision in the terms of the Convention
which it proposes to conclude with Prussia. I:
binds us to surrender any person who has been
convicted, on receiving an authenticated copy of
his conviction. So that in place of receiving evi-
dence of the actual guilt of the accused, we are
merely to be told that the Prussian Government
holds him guilty. Considering how very
widely the notions of Berlin differ from
the English sentiments, such a security is
by no means sufficient. There is perhaps
no country in Europe in which Englishmen are just
now so little inclined to trust ; and when we re-
member how espy it is to cite a person known to be

absent from the country before a Court at any given

time, and to pass judgment in default, we shall
certainly not be inclined to depart so far from our
old traditionary policy. If such a treaty is to be
ccncluded with Austria we shall probably soon hear
of a requisition to surrender KOSSUTH and GARI-
BALDI if ever they come in our way. A civil ex-
tradition ii the case of the Italian hero has just
been forced upon us, it only remains to follow it up
with a less courteous notice to quit. It is certainly
an anachronism in our legal administration if felons
of any class or country can claim sanctuary under
our laws; but while seeking to remedy such a state
of things, our legislators will do well to remember
that we are now governed by the same Minister
who introduccd the A.ien Bill, and that no con-
siderations of right, reason, or justice-are now suf-
fered to weigh in the balance against the prejudices
or requirements of Prussia.

The Losses of the Poles in the Insurrection,

The following interesting particulars on this sub-
ject are given by the Ost- see Zeitung, a journal
known for its partiality to Russia :—The losses both
in men and money suffered by the various portions
of ancient Poland in consequence of the insurrec-

tion may now be given with approximate accuracy.
According to accounts, partly derived from official
sources, in the Russian and Polish papers, theie
were, in the course of the 16 months' struggle, about
30,000 insurgents killed or severely wounded in
battle, 361 persons executed, and 85,000 political
prisoners deported into Siberia or the interior of
Russia. The following is the amount of the fines
and extraordinary contributions levied by the Rus-
sian Government:--In the kingdom of Poland,
6 millions of silver roubles (about a million sterling ;
in the Lithuanian Governments, 8 millions

(£1,300,000); and in Volhynia, Podelia, and Kiew,
b millions (£1,075,000). The following estates
have been either sequestrated or confiscated :—ln
the kingdom of Poland, about 700 ; in the Lithua-
nian Governments, with Volhynia, Podolia, and
Kiew, upwards of 2,000. The following amounts
were levied in national taxes by the National Go-
vernment:—ln the kingdom of Poland, 6 millions
of silver roubles (£1,000,000); in Lithuania, 3 mil•
lions (£500,000); in Volhynia, Podolia, and Kiew,
2 millions (£300,000); in Galicia, 21 millions
(£375,000); in Posen and West Prussia, 1 million
(£150,000). The total sum raised on the two
national loans amounts to about 2 millions of silver
roubles (£300,000). Soma idea of the magnitude
of the sums contributed to the insurrection by indi-
vidual landowners may be gathered from the fact
that a but moderately wealthy landowner of the
province of Posen had to pay in the course of the
year 1863, 5,000 Polish florins (£125) on three dif-
ferent occasions. Landowners who were notoriously
wealthy were taxed to the extent of from 20 to 30
thousand Polish florins (£5OO to £750). The num-
ber of Poles who fl,d abroad after the insurrection
amounts to 10,00 at least, and there are about
6,000 still under examination in prison. The arrests
still continue, though not quite so numerous as
before.