The Sun. — 1861-02-09 (London, England)

PALMERSTON—I wish in the first play to say, in reply to the question of my hon. friend below the gangway (Mr. Bristowe), that it is not the intention of the Government 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 subject 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 surrender Anderson—(cheers)—to the United States until he had received from her Majesty's Government positive instructions to do so. (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 rendering it necessary that Anderson should be given up; but it has in reality no bearing upon that point, for, whether it be right or wrong, it simply amounts to this—that Anderson 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 application 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 here 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 communication 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 relates 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 offenses 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 the 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 American 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-men. 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.