Glasgow Courier. — 1845-04-05 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

APRIL 5, 1845.  t on the tenitorfal rights of the British the otroeseet. Yet if the languas fait Is Iptiolisd to convey more then rgyrtssielib*iftempistitt by tii.! Csbh  r oepipflog 1 mode of Iv  ilitti'ditWeirlind of. Goehen iera'ertelely no violation of- MA. orates% misting. tree ; but when the Presideot goes on to speak it I. the' n of our laws, the benefits of our republieeninatltali and the formation of states In that part of our terrine', WIWI the sphere of our Federative Union," be misinterprets the tile nature of our agreement on the subject. This case may he MAN la a very few words. When the dispute, which 'route 1719 between Greet Britanand Spain, with regard to the posseet, don of Nootka Sound, and the right to make settlements on the north-West smut of America, was amicably terminated by the Treaty/of the Escurial, the state of thin remote region toodeeed such an arrangement practicable. he Whigs ridiculed it. eV the time, and Mr. Grey obitorved; that Mn every place' In whieh we 'might settle moon wee left for the Spaniards; . where we might form a settlement on one hill, they might, meet a fort upon another, be." But, In point of fact, at that Inwood for half a centary afterwards, the recognition of a joint ebetefiet right was sufficient to prevent a collision, since neither Man was likely to make an active use of it, and the yet Volnell practically to the operations of cornthoritY if a government. It is contended, inrof the United States, that the Treaty of the sated by the declaration of war between Spoil 9S, and that it was never renewed; insomueb that fle the United States all her titles to land norther if latitude, by treaty of Florida, signed in 1819,0116 1., not as limited and defined by the treaty of 1790, tad before that treaty. The argument is bad, e, the Escurial, being in the nature of a wovenof exiating rights, wu clearly not liable to be Augment deelaration of war sod was certainly .iiileake eiter%b• Olt  i-d;  force—  man  ot-.0110,.. I Ifte  I.  Ikealkiti***** Id** -71.11=.11 0-46 b llotopoppt robblittias of Ow al*****V tool** king..pid *boom 10 opt* IA dm* bow Imetaro.tbq feel sad erbealMemo ii...set demote /01144101i0h0 was mild, odd bed laspliale as. 41, hie peblislead eas palms tbal. 0014se lboll OM by poison, ea • (ebboovrit); It however eseasaddaalitter. We but the mites essaseiti, poseisptlettood II well for tbe rads of joitioombi fie UM Imo WU tried by so aft sad erjedome• Parke. There are is.. is abe beta ***l. 120 litho monstrous protases that the pro 01101•01 saspa o:aerated by apple pips -le the stemashOr tophelisem soieutlflo and rational would Mao^ is • stomseh might be etteibried *atm was another arguaseht Id Mr. Kelly lsa..his' Woes absurdities; it etas 11tet • tlllle4 trisemilesho ow a case a daub protrood by prairieovo* to glie el 'dense lots eNsets. Aeoordhie tow= robes could be aboatrlib loopmeily. How No* be hid? Na otedlool ran bad diet, ofttl .. . .  37per—Tooterniiiiiiitiro—me founistid.: 1 FY ther with the mark of a eersiteh only, but eith Um other observed in animals killed by the wourrall poison, o medical man has ever seen a human being destroyed by the poison in question, Mr. Kelly would say, no there must be an acquittal. The next case of murder by the woe wens must have the same impunity; for in B's case the preof that be had died of the poison had not been allowed, and So on, there would be a oomplete impunity for amassioation by that agent. In the ease of prussic acid, i modern poison, the argument of Mr. Kelly would have involved full impunity 11 juries had been weak enough to hare bees misled by it. The first use of it wu, me believe, by Donelly, who poisoned his nephew, Sir Theodosius Boughton; but at that tines no medi., cal man had seen death produced by it In a human body. Had such an objection been permitted to bold good in thrlxst case, it would have been equally valid in all subsequent inetatioes of th same class until the experience wanted happened to be supplied by some suicide; but even in that event, the accident of medical imperialca of the operation would be too limited to serve the par. poses of justice, and poisoning by prussic, acid would-have been practised with perfect safety, keeping clear only of theoeighbour hood of the medical men who happened to have seen an establie case of it. The conviction of Tawell did not rest, as pretended, solely on the medical testimony, but all the other circumstances In evidence tended to the same inference, while the statement of the accused, and the defence of bit counsel, were full of inconsistencies and itni probabilities. Tewell's story was that Sarah Hart poisoned her 4 self. His advocate's defence of him rested on the denial that the death of Sarah Hart was produced by poison. Counsel and client were thus in opposite stories. But all Tawell's conduit from the 'thee of his leaving the woman in the agonies of death issbreeen. eileable with his tale that he thought the convulsions fidgeed, lei had no idea of any danger. Had that beim his imprimis.% there would have been no motive for the pretence of a mil at Herschel. house, at Slough; no motive for the denial that he had been a Slough that day. To his falsehoods after he had been told by the police that Rut was dead, we do not attach the same significance and importance it was his anxiety to conceal his movements before (according te his own story) there could be in his mind any reason for supposing that no serious a suspicion attached to him, that we regard as the -overacting of conscious guilt. In the other recent case of poison. ing already adverted to, the falsehoods of the prisoner, both be. fore and after the event, were yet stronger evidence against him;