Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1861-02-09

Canada having been established under the royal
charter, did not prevent this court from issuing
it's writ OF hdbeos corpus direc,ed 20 that coiony,
as The Grown had there q concurrent Jurisdiction
with the Colonial Courts in matters Of this kind ;
Tor, If their l~ordships were, to refuse to issue the
writ he now applied for, he would 60 to every
other court 10 Westminster Hall. Surely, 1t
could not be said that the courts in Toronto, hav-
ing dealt with this matter, debarred this court
from now interfering. 1t was undoubtedly the
right of the Grown to see,that none of its subjects
should be improperly imprisoned, and IL was
shown on the afillvit that there was q British
subject imprisoned under no legal warrant or au-
thcrity whatever, uutried, and uneccused Of any
crime known to the English Law.
The Lord Chief Justice-If our writ should be
treated with contempt, as IN interference with the
local powers, it would 10 a very serious matter.
What means have we Of enforcing our authority
Mr. James-By attachments
Mr.. Justice Il:ll-To whom would tho attach
ment issue?
Mr.. Jumes-It would be 70. the Governor TO
execute the writ.
MI Justice Hill'-Suppose he refused to do so ?
Mr. Justice Crompton-Iave -ou considered
whether an indictment would tic for refusing to
obey such a Writ
Mr.. james Canada is q British possession,
and the persons to whom the writ is directed are
British subjects. The same objection would have
been applicable in the Isle Of Man and Jersey
cases.
Mr.. Justice Blackburn-Hardly in the Isle o!
Man, but it might in the Jersey case.
Mr.. James submitted that, on the authority OF
the Isle Of Man and the Jersey cases, The writ
ought to issue.
Their l~ordsbips then retired to consider their
judgment, and after on absence of twenty min
utes, they returned into Court. The Lord Chief
Justice then'delivered the following judgment:
We have carefully considered this matter, and the
result of our anxious elaboration is, that we think
the writ ought to issue. We feel sensible at the
same tiuie Of the inconvenience that may result
from the exercise of such an authority. We feel
sensible that it may be thought inconsistent with
that higher degree Of colonial independence both
legislative and judicial, which has been happily
brought into %efect,in modern times. AT the same
time. in establishing local legislation and local ju-
dicial authority, the Legislature Of England has
hOb BObO on u "a SApASeSy " oD'OSotS ~ u
risdiction which the Courts of Westminster Hall
might possess with reference to the issue of habeas
corpus. Add we find that the existence Of the ju-
risdiction in these courts has been asserted from
the earliest times, and exercised down to the
latest. We find it asserted not only as a matter of
agreement, but carried into effect as a matter of
practice, that even where there is an independent
local judicOture, nothing short of a legislative en-
actment would suffice to deprive us Of the author
ity which was conferred upon us for the protection
of the liberty of the subject. We feel, therefore,
we should not be doing right, under the author
ity of the presidents cited, if we refused to issue
the writ.
There was a slight manifestation Of applause in
court on the conclusion Of the delivery of his lord
ships u dgment.