The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-17 00:00:00

711 E EX7R4DI7ION CASE.

A writer in a contemporary says :—ln a case of
such vast importance in its consequences as that of
the fugitive slave Anderson, I trust you will allow
me to occupy a small portion of your columns in
order to point out to your readers the circumstances
under which the British Legislature ratified by Act
of Parliament the treaty under which the surren-
der of Anderson was claimed.
On the second reading of the bill in the House
of Commons on the 11th of August, 1843, Sir Fre-
derick Pollock, the Attorney-General of the day,
explained the objects of the Bill. He was
followed by the late Lord Macaulay, who, in the
course of his speech, made the following remarks.
He said : _ _ _

"Take the case of a slave who had committed murder in
his own defence. Suppose a man scourged him, pursued
him. The slave had surely the right to resist, and, in his
defence, to kill his assailant. By the law of England that
would be justifiable homicide. By the law of Georgia it
would be murder," &c.
The Attorney-General said :-
- -

" That in all the cases put by the right hon. gentleman
no doubt could arise, The Bill expressly said the fugitives
must be tried by the laws of the country where they were

round."

Mr. Macaulay asked—

" Whether he was to understand, then, that an action
not criminal in a free man, would be held not to be criminal
M a slaver"

The Attorney-General said—

" Ile was of opinion that an English magistrate would not
be at liberty to enter into the question as to whether the
fugitive brought before him was a slave or not. He could
only enter into such questions of common law (which, of
course, means English law), as might arise out of the case ;
and if the accused person was not shown to be a criminal)
no extradition could take4lace."
Viscount Palmerston—

" Did not go so far as some of his friends as to the effects
of this bill, and the explanation of the hon. and learned
gentleman had gone far to remove the apprehensions which
he might have entertained. He understood that in no case
where a slave was charged with the offence of murder or
robbery would any English magistrate be justified in de-
livering him for trial, unless the offence he was charged
with was one which was looked upon as murder or robbery
by the law of England ; and he apprehended that any act
that a slave might commit in resisting the coercion of his
master could not amount to murder, and would not justify
a magistrate in giving up the fugitive."

The Attorney-General said nothing to qualify
his previous explanations, nor did any other mem-
ber of the Government dissent. On the contrary,
the present Lord Derby, then (if I mistake not)
Colonial Secretary, used these words
"No fugitive could, under the treaty, bo surrendered as
a murderer unless his offence were such as our laws would
qualify with this epithet."

I make no comment upon the above extracts
from Hansard, 3d Series, vol. lxxi., p. 565-579,
beyond calling attention to the fact that the words
of the treaty, including its proviso, to the effect
that• the evidence of criminality must be evidence
of that which would constitute an offence in the
country where the fugitive is found are expressly,
and verbatim, recited in the English Act which
thus passed its second reading; and that the Cana-
dian Act is a mere substitute for the English Act
so carried through the House of Commons,