The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-02-05
THEI,Aw On FyrpAnITIoy

MrsGeorge Denman.Nrites tothe London Times
pointing outthe circumstances sunder which the
British Legislature ratified by act of Parliament
the treaty under which the surrender Of Anderson
was claimed The learned gentleman says;
On the second reading Of the bill in the House Of
Commons on the 18th August, 1913, Sir Frederick;
Pollock, the Attorney General of the day, explain
ed the objects of the bill. lie was followed by the
late Lord Macauav, who in the course of his speech
made the following remarks. He said: cake the
case of n slave who had committed murder in his
own defence. Suppose man scOurged him, pur-
sued him. The slave had surely the right to resist
and in bis defence to kill his assaant By the law
OF England that would be iustifabe homicide. Nv
the law of Georgia it would be MURDER" &c.
The Attorney General said-"That in all the
eases put by the right honorable gentleman no
doubt could arise. The bill expressly said the in
gitives must be tried by the laws of the country
where they were found.'
Dir. Macaulay asked-"Whether he was to IN
derstand, then, that IN action not criminal in
free man, would be held not to the criminal in
slave?"
The Attorney General said-"ue was Of opinion
that an English magistrate would not be at liberty
to enter into the question as to whether the lugi-
tive brought before him was a slave or not. lie
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 per-
son not shown to be a criminal, no extradition
could take place.
Viscount PalmerSton-''Did not 60 so far as some
of his friends as 10 the effects of this hill and the
EXPLANATION of+he hon. and learned gantIep1an
had gone far to remove the apprehensiGns which
he might have entertained. He understooI that in
no case where slave was charged with the Of
fence Of murder robbery would any English
magistrate be justified in delivering him up for
trial unless the offence be was charged with was
one which was looked upon murder robbery
by the law of England: and he apprehcnded that
any act that slave might commit in resisting the
coercion OF his master could lot amount to MURDER
and would not justify MAJ istrate in giving up
the fugitive"
The AttorneyGeneral said nothing to qualify his
previous explanations, nor did any other member Of
the government dissent On the contrary, the pre-
sent Lofd Derby, then (lf mistake notl Colonial
secretary, USED these WordS;-"No fugitive could,
Hnaer me treaty, be surrendered as murderer
unless ms offence were such as our laws would
quah'y with TINS ePthet: make no comment
upon ths ABOVE eXtracts rom 'h2nsaTG, ora Sc
re- Noi; lNSl, p 9o9-o'9' beyond GAZING aten-
LoL 10 Tue dcV lhaC te words or the treaty lnciu,
Htm FnorH.S9; 10 'he eHScC that the evidence OF
oonstita G ooo - t " .nri m,lit "9uu
80 =: &c &c '.' AZ 80 III t "eie Tue lus
| in the English Act which thus passed its second
reading; and that the Canadian Act is a mere sub.
stiute for the English Act so carried through the
! House of Commons.
| c,,..... - - =,
HiioN IN MANSAS--H C"S"res J0T "ie Itet'g
| q "e oGg ICHlsoN, co. Z.-NessrS' Hyat'