The Sun. — 1861-01-17 (London, England)

CASE.  A writer in a contemporary says :—ln a case of such vast importance in its consequences as that of the fugitive slave Anderson, I trust you will allow me to occupy a small portion of your columns in order to point out to your readers the circumstances under which the British Legislature ratified by Act of Parliament the treaty under which the surrender of Anderson was claimed. On the second reading of the bill in the House of Commons on the 11th of August, 1843, Sir Frederick Pollock, the Attorney-General of the day, explained the objects of the Bill. He was followed by the late Lord Macaulay, who, in the course of his speech, made the following remarks. He said : _ _ _  "Take the case of a slave who had committed murder in his own defence. Suppose a man scourged him, pursued him. The slave had surely the right to resist, and, in his defence, to kill his assailant. By the law of England that would be justifiable homicide. By the law of Georgia it would be murder," &c. The Attorney-General said :-  " That in all the cases put by the right hon. gentleman no doubt could arise, The Bill expressly said the fugitives must be tried by the laws of the country where they were  round."  Mr. Macaulay asked—  " Whether he was to understand, then, that an action not criminal in a free man, would be held not to be criminal M a slaver"  The Attorney-General said—  " Ile was of opinion that an English magistrate would not be at liberty to enter into the question as to whether the fugitive brought before him was a slave or not. He 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 person was not shown to be a criminal) no extradition could take4lace." Viscount Palmerston—  " Did not go so far as some of his friends as to the effects of this bill, and the explanation of the hon. and learned gentleman had gone far to remove the apprehensions which he might have entertained. He understood that in no case where a slave was charged with the offence of murder or robbery would any English magistrate be justified in delivering him for trial, unless the offence he was charged with was one which was looked upon as murder or robbery by the law of England ; and he apprehended that any act that a slave might commit in resisting the coercion of his master could not amount to murder, and would not justify a magistrate in giving up the fugitive."  The Attorney-General said nothing to qualify his previous explanations, nor did any other member of the Government dissent. On the contrary, the present Lord Derby, then (if I mistake not) Colonial Secretary, used these words "No fugitive could, under the treaty, bo surrendered as a murderer unless his offence were such as our laws would qualify with this epithet."  I make no comment upon the above extracts from Hansard, 3d Series, vol. lxxi., p. 565-579, beyond calling attention to the fact that the words of the treaty, including its proviso, to the effect that• the evidence of criminality must be evidence of that which would constitute an offence in the country where the fugitive is found are expressly, and verbatim, recited in the English Act which thus passed its second reading; and that the Canadian Act is a mere substitute for the English Act so carried through the House of Commons,