The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING,' rEPRUARY 15, 1842.

introduction of some measure to legalise Presbyterian
mixed marriages. The Noble Viscount urged upon the
Government the necessity of speedily introducing some
measure for that purpose.
PRESBYTERIAN MIXED MARRIAGES.

Lord CAMPBELL referred to the recent decision
of the Judges in Irelat:cl, and observed that the former
decision upon the subject of those marriagesovere much
more to be relied on, than the decison alluded to. It was
much to be regretted that a question of such infinite import-
ance was not determined otherwise than merely by the
conviction of a criminal. The Noble Lord suggested to his
Noble Friend, before he introduced the Bill upon the sub-
ject of these marriages, it would be of the utmost import-
ance to consider what the law was precisely, though he
perfectly agreed with his Noble Friend who had pre-
sented the petition, that no time should be lost in de-
termining so serious a matter ; it seemed to him (Lord
Campbell) of vast importance, first, to determine what
the law upon the subject of those marriages was.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had written
to Ireland to ascertain what the precise terms of the
decision in the case alluded to was, and when he had
received a communication from the Learned Judge
before whom the trial took place, then he (the Lord
Chancellor) would introduce a Bill either declaratory or
enacting.

The Marquis of CLANKICARDE concurred with
the Noble and Learned Lord who had suggested the
necessity of considering what the law was upon the
subject of those marriages. It was also of the utmost
importance that time should not be 'unnecessarily lost,
because every day serious evils might arise, and
were actually arising every day. For instance,
a person in a humble rank of life, who was a member of
the Church of England, had been married for some
years to a Presbyterian, by a clergyman of that per-
suasion, and since the decision had been made upon
the subject by the Judges in Ireland, that man deserted
his wife, who was obliged to go into the poor-house to
procure the necessaries of life. The Noble Lord
then presented petitions from the Presbyterian con-
gregation.of Galway, and front the Presbyterian con-
gregation of Stewartstown, in the county of Tyrone,
praying the House to pass a law for the immediate
regulation of Presbyterian marriages.
. . _

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
Roman Catholic inhabitants of Kendal for a repeal of
the Corn-laws. Also a petition from working men of
Kendal, which stated that the rights of industry were
tampered with by unjust restrictions, imposed by the
Legislature on labour ; and, therefore, they prayed for a
total and immediate repeal of all monopolies on commerce,
by which the petitioners would be enabled to sell
their labour .in the best market. The petitioners
also stated that the repeal of these laws would be the
most effectual mode of regulating the labour of children
in factories. The Noble Lord also presented a petition
from a place in Surrey for the repeal of the Corn-laws ;
also a petition from the manufacturers employed by
Messrs. Mann and Sons, of Arbroath, to the same ef-
fect ; also a petition from the inhabitants of Stourport,
and several other places to the same effect. The
Noble Lord also presented a petition from Jedburgh, an
agricultural district, the inhabitants of which were wholly
dependent upon agriculture for support, and they prayed
for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws.
THE CASE OF THE " CREOLE."

The NOBLE LORD, who spoke in an extremely low
tone of voice, and with his back to the gallery, said lie
had then to bring 'before their Lordships the subject to
which he had called their Lordships' attention, and in
conformity with the notice whkh he had given,
for the production of any correspondence with his Noble
Friend opposite relative to the ship Creole. Whether
there was any such correspondence he could not tell, but
if there was there could be no objection to bringing it
forward. In - bringing the subject before their Lord-
ships, he would state that he had considered it in
all its bearings, and the examination which he had been
enabled to give the subjecthad only confirmed him in the
opinion he first held respecting it, with respect to the
right of a foreign country to demand any person to
be given up who had taken refuge in that country, hav-
ing committed an offence. It was necessary to consider
in regard to this question the right of one nation to de-
mand or deliver up this person. This was one ques-
tion ; but there was another to be considered, whether
with all this right, even if they were to legalize the right,
whether it would enable one Government to demand,
or render up a subject charged with an offence, who
had taken refuge under that Government—and what
right by the municipal law of the land in which the
alleged criminal had taken refuge--what right the Go-
vernment of this country would have to seize, detain, and
deliver tip that alleged criminal ? Whatever right they
had, even if one nation should have made a treaty with an-
other, they had no right or authority by the common law
.of nations to deliver up such subject. If such a
treaty existed between this country and Ame-
rica, and legalised by Act of Parliament, allowing on
the one hand, the American Governnfent to detain a
subject of this country, and empowering this country to
detain a citizen of America, that treaty became inap-
plicable to the purpose intended, because the municipal
law of the land prevented the possibility of such treaty ex-
isting. 'He did not mean to say that such treaty could not
be entered into, but, as in the present case, if that treaty
had been entered into, it would remain a dead letter, unless
it were acknowledged and recognised by the Municipal law.
He thought they had not kept the two questions suffi-
ciently apart. there was no power, by law, to seize any
person, much more to surrender him, on the charge of
having committed an offence without the limits of
this country. Whether he were an alien or a natural
born subject, they had no power over him to
give him up on such a charge till a law be
made arming the Government with the power
to do so. lie had referred their Lordships to cases where
the Government had been armed with powers to perform
these obligations ; but without the power conferred by
Act of Parliament it would be impossible to perform
these obligations. He had stated that the only doubt in
his mind with regard to the Creole was, that a piratical
case had been committed. The case of piracy stood in
two particulars in a very different position from any-
other case where the charge is against an alien, for
crimes committed beyond the jurisdiction of the country;
for whereas in any other case they would have no power
to arrest and detain, in the case of piracy it was un-
deniable they had power to seize and to detain, though
the person charged should be an glen. In the case of
piracy, also, they had not only the power of seizing and
detaining a person, but they could send him to his
trial, so that here there would be no fear of his
going unpunished ; but in case of murder committed
in a foreign country they had no power either
to detain, seize, or give him up. It was impossible to
deny, and he (Lord. Brougham) did not deny, that this
was a state of law which ought not to continue. The
rights of justice required, and the rights of good
neighbourhood required, that in two countries bor-
dering on one another, as the United States and
England —in referenCe with their colonies and
even in England and France, Holland, and Bel-
gium, there ought to be laws on both sides, giving
power to each Government to secure offenders who have
committed offences in the territory of one, and taken
refuge in the territory of another. He could hardly
imaeirie how nations could maintain the relationship
which ought to exist between one country and another,
ithout being 'armed with some such power ; at present
however, such power did not exist ; there was no law
in this country to justify such a proceeding.—
He understood that in the year 1822 a law was passed
by one of the border States of America, conferring the
power in question; about the same time by our province
of Canada conferring the same power; and in consequence
of those two laws there was a mutual giving up of
persons charged with offences. A similar law had been
passed in Belgium, but only under certain restrictions,
and op,rating only in eases where certain proceedings had
already taken' place kith respect to persons charged ;
and, above all, only in eases where there was a reci-
procity in other points between the two countries. It
was on these grounds that he had troubled them with
observations on the subject, both now and on the first
night of the session.

Lord ABERDEEN said, in answer to the ques-
tion of his Noble and Learned Friend, he begged
to inform the House, that communications had taken
place between the Governor of the Bahamas and her Ma-
jesty's Government on the subject. Perhaps the Noble
-and Learned Lord would not press for the production of
those communications in the present stage of the trans-
action, particularly when he informed the House what
the course of her 'Majesty's Government had been on
this question. As their Lordships might well imagine,
her Majesty's Government had given the question their
most serious and anxious attention, and after taking
advantage of all the assistance which they thought de •
sirable on the subject they have satisfied themselves that
by the laws of this country there is no machinery or
authority for brin4ing those persons to trial for mutiny
dnd murder, still less for delivering them up.
The Secretary of State for the Colonial Department
had therefore sent out orders for releasing those persons
who had hitherto been detained. He was not certain but
under our colonial law these persons might be brought to
trial. It was possible, as the Noble and Learned
Lord had cited the existence of such a 14tw in the
Canadas. If such a law did exist, of course it could be
acted upon ; but should there not be such a law, direc-
tions had been, sent by the Government to release the
parties.

includingrbneiesnh e
dtehx- the
expressed
isensnesctdha ehnce ree Nof
whateverb ltehEef
oarsr
dal.melTie.Nteorlaiglii‘i,uoornf
Lord DENMAI'sI. laid he believed that all Westminster-
Eah san
had
j.: d justfu
persons accused of crimes committed in a foregn country.
When the Alien Bill was before Parliament, the lawyers
came to the same opinion.' Sir Charles Wetherall, a
man not likely to be led by political opinion, had ex-
Pressed a strong opinion on this subject, and had
given a strong example in support of it. He
expressly
stated that offences committed in a
foreign country form no reason for refusing protection
to the parties if in this country. He said that if the re-
gicides of Louis XVI. had4ought shelter in this country,
they ought not to have been sent away; and that refugees
for crime ought to find an asylum in this country. This
was not a new doctrine ; there was a passage in Lord
Coke to the same effect, and one winch , could
not be read without interest :—" It had been
holden and resolved, kingdoms in league with one an-
other should be a sanctuary to the servants and subjects
of each. if they fly for safety from one coun-
try to the other ; and if a demand be made for them
they cannot by the laws and liberties of this kingdom be
delivered back." lie then refers to a text of Scripture in
support of his opinion, and goes on to meriaon two cases
between France and England, one in which the Ambassador
of Queen Elizabeth made a demand for one Morgan, ac-
cused of treason, to which demand the French, Court
replied, that if he had committed an offence in France
the law would be acted on, but he was not
given up ; and the other, where Elizabeth
afforded Protection to the french liuguenots when they
were demanded to be delivered up for having committed
rebellion against the French Crown. These opinions were
not confined to the lawyers of this country,

as one. to exactly the same effect had been' given
by Judge Storey in America. After citing the same
passage from Lord Coke, he states that this doctrine
was indirectly confirmed by the Supreme Court of the
United States. He was quite sure that no Govern-
ment could give any decision that should appear
in the remotest degree to favour the slave-trade, and he
reminded that House that enforcing a seizure of
such persons, without authority,, might subject the Go-
vernment officer to the responsibility of an action
for false imprisonment, or even the still more awful
responsibility of murder should the parties resist, and
they would be justified in resisting any force that
might be used to seize them. He reserved his opinion
of the case, but was sure that their Lordships would re-
joice that two hundred human beings in a state of
slavery had restored themselves to a state of freedom.
Lord CAMPBELL should not have presented him-
self to their Lordships' had it not been stated that
during the time he had held the office of Attorney..
General, he had given it as his opinion that
foreign Governments had authority to demand that
their subjects, accused of crimes, and who had taken re-
fuge in the territories of other Governments, should be
delivered up to them. Ile had never given any such opi-
nion; on the contrary, he had always given it as his
decided opinion, that, according to the law of nations fo-
reign Governments had no right to make any such demand
and that by the municipal law of England there was no
power given to comply with any such demand. This had
been laid down by all the authorities, and Mr. Martens,
the Professor of Law in the University of Gottingen, had
in his work laid down the law very explicitly on th© subject.
No State could have any such right unless it acquired
it 'by treaty. In that way an imperfect right might
be acquired, but, according to . the law of na-
tions, there was no perfect right to make any such
demand. Mr. Week, the American Minister at Berlin,
had laid down the law that no State had a right to make
any such demand unless there was a specific compact
existing between the two States reciprocally to deliver
up to each other, all persons charged with crimes. But
there ought to be the greatestcaution in entering into any
such compacts. A treaty existed between the State of
New York and Canada, reciprocally to deliver up re-
fugee criminals against whom true bills should hare been
found by Grand Juries. A slave had escaped from New
York to Canada,; to facilitate his escape, he rode a part of
the distance upon his Master's horse, which he had sent
btu* before he crossed the frontier. The Americans
knew full well that England would not deliver up a run-
away slave, and therefore they presented a bill to the
Grand Jury of New York against the slave for horse steal-
ing. The bill was found, and on that ground they demanded
the slave to be given up, but the Governor re-
fused, as it was clear he was not actuated
by, the animus furendi. He (Lord Campbell) had been
cousulted, and had given it as his opinion he ought not to
be 'delivered up, and he never had been delivered up.
With regard to the claim for compensation, as slavery
was not recognised by the law of England, the slave was
free, ipso facto, as soon as he had set foot in
the British territories; and therefore America could have
no claim for compensation. He therefore trusted America
would see the justice •of our refusal, and that the affair
would be amicably settled.
Lord COTTENHAM entirely agreed with the Noble
and Learned Lords who had preceded him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR likewise agreed in the '
opinions that had been given by his Noble and Learned
Friends.

Lord BROUGHAM had reason to know that the
Noble and Learned Lord (Wynford), who for some time
had been Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, enter-
tained similar opinions. After what had fallen from
the Noble Earl he should not press his motion.—Motion
withdrawn.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

8,000 unemployed operatives of Manchester to the same
effect.

. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from the mer-
chants of Wolverhampton, praying for a total and im-
mediate repeal of the Corn and Provision-laws. The
Hon. Member stated that this petition was agreed to at
one of the largest in-door meetings ever held in that
impOrtant borotigh. The Honourable Member also
presented petitions to the same effect from Montrose, and
seeral' Catholic and Protestant congregations of Liver-
pool ;
,and ten petitions, with the same prayer, from the
working men in Manchester. ,

Colonel RAWDON presented a petition from Armagh,
praying for a measure to legalise Catholic and Presbyte-
rian marriages.

PRIVATE BILLS.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET gave notice of his
intention to move several resolutions respecting petitions
for private Bills ; they are to the following effect —That
as regarda such private petitiens presented in the present
session, and which proceeds from the same' parties,
pacing the same objects as were sought by any Bills that
passed a second reading in the last session, and were
pending at the dissolution of that Patliament, a com-
pliance with the Standing Orders, preparatory to the in-
troduction of such Bills in that session, be deemed suf-
ficient to authorise the introduction of such Bills in
the present one. That the minutes of Com-
mittee on petitions for private Bills of last session,
be taken as evidence of the compliance with such stand-
ing orders ; the Committee to call, for further evidence
if they deem it necessary. The Committee to ascertain
whether such bill be bona fide for the same objects as
the bills presented last session. The parties promoting
such Bills, after the introduction, and previous to
the second reading, to give notice in the London Ga-
zette, and the local or county paper of the district,
of their intention to proceed with such Bills.
Lord DUNCAN and Mr. BUSFIELD presented petitions
in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition
from the inhabitants of the borough of Rochdale. The
petitioners alleged that the present Corn and Provision-
laws were oppressive to every class of the community—
only excepting the owners of the soil. That the truth
of this allegation was rendered more manifest each
succeeding year by the rapid decline of oommerce
and manufactures. That vast multitudes of their
countrymen were suffering privations from want
of employment and want of food, which must
breed burning discontent, and portend alarming cala-
mities to the nation ; that these laws increased the
rental of the landlords of Britain, at the expense' of a
grievous wrong committed upon all other classes of the
community. They, therefore, prayed for the immediate
and total abolition of all laws which prevented the free
importation of grain and provisions. The petition was
signed by ten thousand and ten names in the borough
of Rochdale. The Hon. Member also presented a
petition from the Society of Friends. They alleged that
any obstruction to the free importation of provisions was
directly opposed to the divine dispensations of ProVi-
denee ; that such laws doomed thousands to the horrors
of famine, and were at variance-with not only the tem-
poral but the eternal interests of man ; that such
unrighteous legislation must bring frightful retri-
bution, and inflict awful calamities on the nation.
The Honourable Member also presented another
petition from the congregation of Wesleyan Methodists.
'These petitioners, among other allegations, stated, that
these laws were injurious to the morals of the people ;
seriously hindering the spread of religion, and prevented,
to a deplorable degree, the benign effects which Chris-
tianity was calculated to produce. The Hon. Member
also presented three petitions from the congregations of
Water-street Chapel, Hope Chapel, and Baillie-street
Chapel; and ene from the Sunday School Teachers of the
Baillie-street Chapel, all setting forth similar allegations.
These petitions were signed by 903 names. The Hon.
Member also presented six petitions from the villages of
Lower-place, Miln-row, Rahewood, and Shaw Clough ;
also one from the printers at Gale Print-works, signed
by 2,301 names. All the above petitions prayed for
the immediate and total repeal of the duties on corn and
provisions, and were signed in the whole by 13,214 names.
The Hon. Member also presented a petition from certain
Members of the United Secession Church, and others
belonging to West Kilbride, Ayrshire, agreed to at a
public meeting joining in a like prayer, and the petitions
further prayed that the People's Charter might be made
the law of the land.

Mr. SHAW presented a petition from Dublin, praying
for the adoption of some regulations with respect to
Dissenters' marriages,
Dr. BOWRING presented three petitions from Kirk-
aldy and two other places, praying for the protection of
British industry, and the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. JOHNSON presented several petitions from
Lancashire, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws.

Mr. lIAWEi presented thirty-four petitions from
places adjacent to the metropolis, praying for the rG-
peal of the Corn-laws. He presented also thirty-three
petitions from Dunstable, Hertford, and other places, to
to the same effect.

Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from a place in
Scotland, of which the name was not heard in the
gallery. for Universal Suffrage and Annual Par-
liaments.

Mr. -ALDER presented a petition from Leeds signed
by 3,517, persons ; ten petitions from congregations of
Protestant Dis'senters, and numerous other petitions, all
praying for an immediate and total repeal of the Corn-
laws.
Mr. RIGBY WASON presented a petition, nume-
rously signed, from Ipswich, to the same effect.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from Man-
chester, signed by 68,850 persons to the same effect. The
petitions stated that by the last census the town of Man-
chester contained upwards of 240,000 inhabitants, and
it was the centre of a district, with a population of no
less than one million, which were entirely depen-
dant on manufactures for their support. The distress
which that large population were suffering was unparal-
leled in extent and duration, and they were convinced
that it was brought about by the Corn-laws, which pre-
vented them from exchanging the produce of their labour
for the food produced in other countries, and they prayed
for the total repeal of those laws. He presented a great
number of petitions from Salford, and from various Dis-
senting congregations in different parts of the country.
Mk. J. IIEATHCOTE presented a petition from Ti-
verton, for the repeal of the Corn and Provision-laws.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from Exeter
and Hull, to tha.same...effect.

Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition, signed by 15,000
inhabitants of the borough of Southwark, praying for
a repeal of the Corn-laws, and the removal of all rest•ric-
tions on the industry of the people.
Mr. MACAULAY presented four petitions from
Edinburgh to the same effect.

Mr. J. PARKER presented a petition, signed by
15,912 inhabitants of the town of Sheffield, praying for a
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Petitions to the same effect, from Derby, were pre-
sented by Mr. William Evans ; from Barnstaple, signed
by 9,000 persons, and from Milford, by an Hon. Member;
from Nailsworth, by Mr. Poulett Scrope ; from Wick,
by Mr. hock ; from Southampton, by Mr. A. Murray ;
from Renfrew, Stirling, and places in Lancashire, by
Air. P. Stuart ; and from several places also in Lanca-
shire, by Mr. O'Connell.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition on the sub-
ject of Dissenters' marriages.
Mr. HASTIE presented a petition from Paisley for a
total repeal of the Corn.laws.
Mr. RUNDLE presented a petition from the agricul-
tural district of Ashburton, Devon, for a repeal of the
Corn-laws, to which the petitioners attribute the de-
pressed state of agriculture to their operation.
Mr. COBDEN presented forty-two petitions ' from
Dundee and various other places, all praying for a re-
peal of the Corn-laws.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions, with
the same prayer.
Alderman HUMPHERY presented a petition from
Southwark, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.