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

PALMERBTON-1 will first reply to the question o( Mr. Bristow. It is sot the intention of the government to introduce any bill with regard to church-rates. In fact there is a bill on that subject already before the house. With regard to the question whether we should object to proceed by resolutions, should the house be disposed to do so, I do not think that it is s matter on which the house will agree to proceed by resolution. As to the subject just sow under discussion, I will state saltily! to how the matter stands, because that statement will • y each of the ' questions that have been put. My nob friend the Duke of Newcastle wrote, on the 9th January, to the GoviessorGeneral of Canada, that he was not to surrender Anderson to the American government until be had received positive Instructions from this government to do eo. (Cheers.) So there Is no chance of Anderson being surrendered until the question has been fully considered and discussed. (Neer, hear.) There is a general impression that the decision of the Court of Queen's Beech in Canada would have the effect of requiring that Anderson should be given up; but it had no bearing upon that point. The effect of the decision of that court, whether right or wrong, was that Anderson WAS not to be taken away from the custody in which he was. (Rear, bear.) But it rests, not with the Court of Queen's Beech, but with the Governor-General of Canada to iesue_ his warrant for  the surrender of a criminal when applied for. (Near, hear.) It is of mono impoortile for me to answer qnestions as to the coelheting decisions of the courts here and in Canada, or to say what course will be pursued by the Court of Queens Bench in Canada on receiviog the writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Queen's Bench here. But, of course, it is plain enough that if Anderson he sent to England in consequence of that writ, he will not be sent through American territory ; therefore the writ cannot be executed until the navigation from Canada is open. (Hear, hear.) My hon. and learned friend who has just spoken has stated very properly the effect of the Ashburton treaty ; but I think that treaty has been improperly described as crude and uaintelligible. I think its provisions are as clear as possible. It requires that when • criminal is claimed he ahead be socueed of one of the offences mentioned an the treaty, and that the cironm. stances, alleged es the ground for his being delivered up should be such as would show that he was liable to be prosecuted for that crime according to the law of the country which is applied to. (Hear, bear.) That is in this case the law of England. Therefore it is quite plain, so I understand the treaty, that the American clainieut must establish that Anderson has committed an offence which by the law of England is murder, and must give proof which would be sufficient to satisfy an English court that he ought to be committed for trial upon that charge. I will not go into the question—which has been so ably discussed—whether the man who kills a person who is attempting to reduce him to slavery would be guilty of justifiable homicide or murder. I think our courts would not pronounce that murder ; and if it is not murder by our law, it is clear that no case has been established under which the surrender of Anderson can be claimed. (Hear, hear.) The instruction from the &ere, tory of Meteor the Colonies to the Oovernor-General deenada is, not to surrender Anderson until the question shall have been fully considered by the government at home, and until instructions shall have been sent out to him to surrender him. (Hear, hear.) The motion for adjournment till Monday was then agreed to.