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

THE EXTRADITION CASE.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN asked whether, in the case
known as the Canadian extradition case, her Majesty's
Government had any doubt that the writ of Imbeds eerpus,
issued by the Court of Queen's Bench in this country,
requiring that the body of one john Anderson should be
brought to that court, would reach Canada in time to pre-
vent the judgment of the Canadian Court froiii being acted
upon, and whether her Majesty's Government had any doubt
that the writ on its reception by the Canadian Court would
be attended to and obeyed ; and whether any steps had been
taken to secure the safe passage of J. Anderson through
American territory, if that route should be selected to reach
this country. Ile had been informed that a very miiinent
Canadian lawyer had given it as his opinion that the writ of
the Court of Queen's Bench would not be attended to, and
English lawyers had expressed the same opinion. There
was a doubt whether a conflict might not arise betwPah the
Court of this country and the Canadian Court.
Mr. COLLIER thought this not an inopportune occasion
to say a few words on the subject. He confidently stated that
the aimed Unimous opinion of Westminster Hall was that
the judgment of the Canadian Court was wrong. The ques-
tion arose on the construction of the Ashburton Treaty. He
might observe, in the first place, oil the subject of ettradi-
tion treaties generally, that it was laid down by Sir J. Mac-
intosh that their object was the extradition of great offenders
against the law of nations, which was the basis of the laws
of all civilise 1 countries, and not of offenders against the pe-
culiar and exceptional laws of different States; and there
was a clause in the Ashburton Treaty in reference to extra-
dition, which was to the following effect :—" Provided that
this should only be done upon such evidence of criminality as
according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or per-
son so charged should be found, would justify his apprehen-
sion and commitment for trial if the crime or offence had been
there committed." In 1843 a question was asked in that house
by Lord Macaulay as to the construction of the treaty,
whether or not the treaty applied to offenders against the pe-
culiar law of the slave States, and Sir F. Pollock, one of the
law officers of the Crown, replied that it did not apply to
such cases, but only to cases in which the offences com-
mitted were against the laws of England or Canada. He
believed this opinion of Sir F. Pollock to be perfectly cor-
rect, and that it required some amount of legal ingenuity to
pervert it. According to the law of England, or of any
civilized country, the act of Anderson in killing his pur-
suer in defence of his own liberty, did not constitute mur-
der, and it could not become murder by the fact of Ander-
son being a slave, for the English law did not recognise
slavery. He, therefore, ventured to say with respect to the
Court in Canada, that it had frittered away the plain mean-
ing:of words, and given a meaning to the treaty never in-
tended by any of the contracting parties. Let the house
consider what such an interpretation would lead to if the
criminal law °fa:Missouri made it penal for a slave to read
the Bible. The logic.al consequence of such an interpreta-
tion would be that we should be bound to surrender a man
for doing that which we regarded as a meritorious action
rather than an offence—a conclusion so absurd that it was
scarcely possible to suppose its adoption was binding on
either of the contracting parties. He should not on that
occasion further advert to the subject than to express a
hope that the noble lord would be able to inform the house
that instructions had been issued to the Governor-General
of Canada not to deliver up Anderson to the United States.
Mr. WARNER said it would probably be in the recol-
lection of the house that some years ago a claim had been
made by the Government of this country on that of Ame-
rica for the extradition of a person, bearing the appropriate
name of Cain, who was charged with having shot his land-
lord in Ireland. In taking the claim into consideration it
was held on the part of the United States that the Ashbur-
ton Treaty did not apply to political offences, and that
shooting a landlord came within that category. (A laugh.)
For his own part he thought that treaty stood almost un-
rivalled as an instance of diplomatic incapacity, but it was
at the same time clear that the United States could not
fairly place upon it an interpretation totally distinct at one
time from that which it asked us to put upon it at another.
Under any circumstances, he entertained no doubt that her
Majesty's Government would be of opinion that homicide
committed in the endeavour to preserve a man's personal
liberty was not an offence which came within the provi-
sion of the treaty. Whether the decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench in Canada in the case of Anderson was
right or wrong did not now so much matter, inasmuch as
the question was taken out of their hands, and rested with
the Canadian Executive, which he hoped had been made
cognizant of the course taken by the United States in the
other instance to which he had referred.

Lord PALMER.STON—I wish in the first play to say,
in reply to the question of my hon. friend below the gang-
way (Mr. Bristowe), that it is not the intention of the Go-
vernment to introduce this Session a measure with respect
to church-rates. I may add that it would be the province
of the house to determine—there being a bill upon the sub-
ject already before it—whether it would be desirable to
proceed by way of resolution or not; but my own opinion
is that the question is one to which that course would not
be quite applicable. To the inquiries which have been
addressed to me by the hon. member for Dudley I think I
can best reply by stating how the case which he has brought
under our notice actually stands. My noble friend the
Duke of Newcastle wrote on the 9th of January to the
Governor-General of Canada to say that he was not to sur-
render Anderson—(cheers)—to the United States until he
had received from her Majesty's Government positive in-
structions to do eo. (Hear, hear.) An impression gene-
rally prevails that the decision pronounced by the Court of
Queen's Bench in Canada would have the effect of render-
ing it necessary that Anderson should be given up ; but it
has in reality no bearinw upon that point, for, whether it
be right or wrong, it simply amounts to this—that An-
derson was not to be taken out of the custody in which he
happened to be placed. With the Governor-General of
Canada, not with the Court of Queen's Bench, rests the
office of issuing a warrant for his surrender when applica-
tion for that surrender is made. (Hear, hear.) It is not,
of course, for me to give any opinion with respect to the
conflicting jurisdictions of the Court of Queen's Bench hero
and that in Canada, or to say what is likely to be the line
of conduct pursued by the latter on receiving the writ which
has been issued in this case by the former. It is, however,
plain enough that if Anderson should be sent to this country
in compliance with that writ he could not be sent through
the American territory, and that the writ therefore, cannot
be executed until the opening of our other line of commu-
nication with Canada has taken place. I may add that I
quite concur with my hon. friend who has just spoken in
regarding that portion of the Ashburton Treaty which re-
lates to this question as imperfect and unintelligible.
(Hear, hear.) It is as clear as day that a criminal ought to
be claimed under its provisions only upon an accusation that
he is guilty of some one of the offences mentioned in the
treaty, and that the circumstance alleged as the grounds of
asking for his surrender should be such as to show that he
would be liable to be prosecuted for the crime with which
he stands charged according' to the laws of tho land in
which he happened to be captured—that is to say, in the
present instance, according to the laws of England. (Hear,
hear.) It is, in my opinion, perfectly plain that the Ame-
rican Government must, before they can make good their
case, establish the fact that Anderson has committed an
offence which the law of this country constitutes murder,
and give proofs sufficient to satisfy an English justice of
the peace that he ought to be committed to be tried for that
accusation. I will not now enter into the question whether
a free man who kills in self-defence another who attempts
to reduce him to a state of slavery is guilty of manslaughter,
or justifiable homicide, or murder; but I think it probable
no English lawyer would place the act under the last-rnere-
tioned head, and, if that be so, it is quite clear that no good
case has been made out for the surrender of Anderson under
the provisions of the treaty. (Cheers.)
The motion for the adjournment of the house was then
agreed to.

THE POOR LAWS.
Mr. VILLIERS moved the appointment of a select com-
mittee to inquire into the administration of the relief of the
poor under the Poor Law Amendment Acts. There was a
very prevalent opinion that the poor law had broken down.
He thought there was in exaggeration on the subject,
but at all events investigation was desirable. It was time
it should be settled what should be the permanent mode of
relieving the poor.

Mr. E. JAMES heard from all parts of the country great
dissatisfaction expressed at the working of the Poor Law
Board.

Lord R. CECIL thought that the time had arrived for
some inquiry into the parochial management of the metro-
politan workhouses.

Mr. AYETON said that for 25 years nothing had been
attempted to remove the evils of the present system of poor-
law relief, because it would affect the pockets of the terri-
torial aristocracy in the country, and a few large landowners
in the metropolis, whose opposition the Government would
not, and he might almost say dare not, provoke, No good