not disposed to give credence to statements plainly exaggerated, nor would he now inquire whether the multitudes so congregated numbered hundreds of thousands or not. One thing was clear, they were sufficiently large to create intense anxiety and alarm; and their effect, in conjunction with the language used, the objects sought, and the sentiments inspired, had been to compel numbers of peaceable and loyal well-disposed persons to leave the country and either throng into the large towns, or remove to a greater distance from the scenes of excitement. About a month ago a new feature had developed itself in this agitation, and had greatly augmented the excitement. Before that period the Roman Catholic bishops generally had stood aloof, or had at least taken no active part in the agitation. But about the time referred to, the greater number of those bishops had given in their adhesion to the repeal association. Since that adhesion by letter, by the delivery of speeches, and by the subscription of their names, on the part of the Roman Catholic bishops, the parish priests, before sufficiently so disposed, had become more active in their support of the agitation. They had marshalled their flocks in thousands, marched them in regular order, to great public meetings, and had collected money from them for the purposes contemplated by the repeal association. Nay, what was infinitely more to be regretted, the priests had threatened, with curses, all those who should not attend the meet ings. True, as yet the public peace had not been broken; but if these things were permitted, who could answer for the continued peace of the country? About the time that the Roman Catholic bishops generally had thrown themselves into the ranks of repeal, the association in Dublin issued an address to the people of Ireland. It was signed by Mr. O'Connell, as chairman of a committee, and was dated the 6th of June. It stated as their objects: -1st, restoration of a separate and local parliament for Ireland; 2nd, the restoration of the judicial independence of Ireland; next, the remodelling of the House of Commons, household suffrage, vote by ballot, and the severance of all connexion between the church and the state. then came the fixity of tenure, which noble Lords must be convinced was only another name for agrarian dominion Absenteeism and the public debt formed And two other objects of contemplated alteration. And the address concluded with those words "The time is come when Irishmen can make Ireland their own. Where is the man with an Irish heart who will not join in the glorious struggle for the rights, the liberties, the prosperity of his native land? Away, then, with idle fears, with vain jealousies, with causeless apprehensions, with anti-religious animosities. Irishmen, one and all, Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, Dissenter-rally for the land of your birth-your fatherland." On those exciting topics, speeches the most inflammatory were addressed to assembled thousands. The petition which he had presented prayed their Lordships to pass some law to repress those proceedings. As to the great and avowed object, the repeal of the union, there were, he thought, only two ways of accomplishing it either by coming to Parliament and obtaining a law for the purpose, He felt justified or by force and civil war. in saying that to the latter mode alone the conduct of the repeal leaders pointed. The two hon. Members for his own county, the county of Cork, did not think it right to come to Parliament; they would not even petition Parliament on the subject; they thought it better to harangue the people evil effects of this agitation was, that it in the most exciting manner. Among the effectually prevented the introduction of English capital into the country. That had come within his own knowledge, where a large capital was about to be embarked in an enterprise in his own vicinity; but, in consequence of the alarming state of the country, the enterprise He would ask their Lordships how long was suspended, if not wholly abandoned. was this to continue? The country was endangered-the confidence of the loyal, the peaceable, and well-disposed was shaken, and disaffection was widely spreading. He would conclude by expressing his deep and earnest conviction that her Majesty's Government was bound to take some prompt and decisive steps, with the view of putting an end to a state of things so alarming. was a matter of fact, an instance of which Petition to lie on the Table. EXTRADITION OF OFFENDERS.] The Earl of Aberdeen in moving the second reading of the Apprehension of Offenders (America) Bill, said he presumed the ob ject of the measure would meet with ge- treaty. This, he must say, was a most neral support. It seemed natural and unfounded notion. Not only was a fugireasonable, that friendly and neighbouring tive slave guilty of no crime in enstates should aid each other in the detec- deavouring to escape from a state of tion and punishment of acts considered bondage, but he was entitled to the symcriminal by the whole of the civilised pathy and encouragement of all those world, by which life and property were who were animated by Christian feelings. attacked. Many writers had maintained But then it had been said, a slave running, that this was a duty which governments away might be accused of theft on the owed to each other; among others, those ground that the very clothes he wore were who were most quoted, and considered of not his own, but the property of his most authority in this country, Grotius master. This, however, in his judgment and Vattel, both declared it a national could never be construed into a theft. duty. That doctrine had received sup- Nay, more, if the slave took a horse with port from English judges; but as the law him, or seized upon a boat, or in short, stood, it was now he believed, universally appropriated to his use anything that was admitted that no power existed in this necessary to his flight, such an act could country of delivering any persons to the never be held to establish an animus authorities of a foreign state, without the furandi. Another point must be borne in sanction of an act of Parliament. The mind, namely, that if at any time a fugiprinciple was fully laid down last year, tive slave should be demanded under this in the case of the Creole, by noble and treaty, the demand would not be made learned Members of that House, that to by any slave state, but by the central godeliver up the individuals concerned vernment at Washington, and this would therein to be tried for murder, was not in itself be a considerable security against within the competence of Government. any improper application. Another seTheir Lordships might be aware that the curity against any improper application treaty of 1794 with the United States of would be found in the reference which America, contained a provision similar in would be made to the home Government principle to the object of the present by the governors of colonies, in case of bill. The class of offenders to which that any difficulty arising, when the home Gotreaty related, was not so numerous as vernment would, of course, be assisted by that embraced by the present bill, and its the best legal advice that could be obduration was limited. It expired in 1806, tained. But the great security was that and though a new treaty was negotiated by an express stipulation in the treaty it in that year, as it was not ratified, no was agreed that the articles by which the such stipulations had since been in two governments bound themselves to a existence. From various circumstances mutual surrender of criminals, should conit had been impossible to come to an un- tinue in force only till one or other of the derstanding on the subject with the United two governments signified its intention to States Government, until the mission of terminate it, so that, whenever inconvehis noble Friend near him enabled him to niences, arose, either government was at take up the subject, and conclude an en- liberty to put an end to that part of the gagement with the United States similar treaty, without being under the necessity to one proposed in 1840. The crimes of giving any notice beforehand. The specified in the treaty of Washington were convention with France was of a more li-murder, assault with intent to commit mited nature. Here also, a similar conmurder, piracy, forgery, arson, robbery, vention had been entered into on a former or the utterance of forged paper. He did occasion, and provisions had been intronot anticipate that any inconvenience duced into the Alien Bill of 1802, with a could arise from the carrying out of this view to give effect to it. But the peace at treaty, except what referred to the case of that period was so short in its duration, fugitive slaves, and this was no doubt a that the convention never came into force. subject that would require the utmost The French government had since excaution on the part of those who would pressed an anxiety on several occasions to have to administer the law arising from the renew that treaty, and the present moment new relations between the two countries. had been deemed particularly well calcuSome people had supposed that a fugitive lated for renewing it, as it was thought slave might be delivered up under this desirable to improve that spirit of good neighbourhood and those friendly relations | to New Brunswick, shall be dealt with as that at present so happily existed between if it were the produce of that province, so the two countries. It had been thought that it may be shipped to England as most advisable, however, to begin with English colonial produce, and may be the same articles as were contained in the imported into England as English colonial treaty of Amiens, and farther extension produce, paying duties as English colomight afterwards be easily given to the nial produce. This might be all very principles. The treaty with France had proper, but could not be done by the been made valid for one year, and after-mere prerogative of the Crown, as the wards, until six months after either party duties to be paid on the produce of the had intimated a wish to terminate the ar- United States of America, and on the rangement. He hoped, under these cir-produce of the English colonies, had been cumstances, that no objection would be made to the second reading of these bills. Lord Brougham had listened with much gratification to the satisfactory statement of his noble Friend, and particularly to that part of his application which referred to fugitive slaves. It might, however, be matter for future consideration whether it would not be better to introduce some explanatory clause into the bill, in order to do away with all ambiguity on this point. He felt great satisfaction at observing in these bills a proof of the good feeling that existed between the several countries parties to these treaties. Lord Cottenham was understood to express an opinion that some legislative measure would be desirable to explain the nature of those acts that might be offences in the one country but not in the other. an Lord Campbell said, he highly approved of these bills. Without treaty it was clear that no state was bound to deliver up offenders to be tried for crimes committed out of its territories, but there was imperfect obligation on all states for the general security of mankind to enter into treaties for reciprocal extradition. The only anxiety here was, that the slaveholding provinces in America might not be permitted to pervert this arrangement into an instrument of reclaiming fugitive slaves. But the principal object of his then offering himself to the attention of the House was to submit that there were other articles of the Treaty of Washington, which required to be sanctioned by the legislature. He did not mean to revive any of the questions which had been agitated on the merits of that treaty. He was willing that it should be carried into full effect, as much as if it had been in all respects for the honor and advantage of England. The third article stipulates that the produce of the territory ceded to America on the banks of the river St. John, when it is brought down that river fixed by act of Parliament. A still more important consideration arose from the Boundary Line which transferred an English settlement to the United States. The Treaty of Washington in fixing the Boundary, did not proceed upon a construction of the Treaty of Versailles, agreed to between Oswald and Franklin. This treaty was disregarded by Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster, who "agreed on a conventional line convenient to both parties, with such equivalents and compensations as were deemed just and reasonable." By this conventional line the Madawaska settlement on the right bank of the St. John's was made over to the Americans. The history of this settlement was given by the noble negotiator himself in a letter to Mr. Webster. "It was originally formed from the French establishments in Acadie, and has been uninterrupted under French or British dominion, and never under any other laws. The inhab itants have professed great apprehensions of being surrendered by Great Britain, and have lately sent an earnest petition to the Queen deprecating that being done." The The inhabitants before the treaty were, English subjects governed by English magistrates, owing allegiance to the Crown of England. The Queen's writ and no other writ ran in that settlement. settlement must be considered as part of the British Empire. Could it be alienated by the mere power of the prerogative? He apprehended that it could not. The Queen can declare war and make treaties of peace. A conquest made in war at the conclusion of peace, might be delivered back, and if de facto an English possession had been taken from us during the war, the Crown by a treaty of peace might probably renounce all claim to it. But when by treaty a territory had been annexed to the Crown in full Sovereignty, and in time of peace we were in possession of it, he denied the right of the Crown to surrender it by treaty to a foreign state. All Jurists agreed that the alienation of territory can only be by the supreme authority in any state. The venal instance given in the treaty of Madrid, by which Francis I, stipulated to surrender the Duchy of Burgundy to Charles V. The Kings of France could then make peace and war, but the Statesgeneral, from time to time met. The States-general not having ratified this treaty, it was not considered binding on France, and France was not considered guilty of bad faith in refusing to fulfil it. Vattel says: "But now that there are no longer any meetings of the States-general in France; the King remains the sole organ of the state, with respect to other powers, these latter have a right to take his will for that of all France; and the cessions the King might make them, would remain valid, in virtue of the tacit consent by which the nation has vested the King with unlimited powers to treat with them. Were it otherwise, no solid treaty could be entered into with the Crown of France. For greater security however, other powers have often required that their treaties should be registered in the Parliament of Paris: but at present even this formality seems to be laid aside." What says this great Jurist respecting the constitution of England? "The Kings of England are authorised to conclude treaties of peace and alliance; but they cannot by those treaties alienate any of the possessions of the Crown, without the consent of Parliament," The Madawaska settlement being undistinguishable in this respect from Quebec, the cession of it required Parliamentary ratification. The House might recollect that in the year 1783, there was a controversy on this subject between two great lawyers, Lord Loughborough and Lord Thurlow the former contending that the treaty with the United States required the sanction of Parliament-which was stoutly denied by the latter-but his reasoning is quite consistent with the necessity of an act of Parliament on this occasion, for before the commencement of the negotiation there had been an act passed to authorize the Crown to treat with the revolted colonies, and as we had de facto lost the territory, it was a mere release of allegiance. It was monstrous, however, to suppose that the Crown could by treaty now alienate to a foreign state, the Island of Jamaica, or the Isle of Man, or the Isle of Wight, or the Isle of Thanet, or the Isle of Dogs. If such a power exists, it is fully executed, and the transfer takes place the moment the treaty is ratified by the Crown, so that the empire might be dismembered, and the country irretrievably ruined before Parliament was made aware of the calamity. He trusted, therefore, that to sanction the 1st. Article of the Treaty of Washington, the Government would bring in a bill which would no doubt receive the unanimous consent of both Houses. The Earl of Aberdeen said, the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord was certainly deserving of consideration. Such a step, however, must be taken as the noble and learned Lord suggested, sanctioned by the other House. The Marquess of Lansdowne said, there were two crimes omitted in the treaty with France, which were inserted in that with America. He should like to know the reason why such a difference existed. The Earl of Aberdeen: Perhaps there was no very good reason why it should be so. The two treaties, however, had no connection with each other. The reason of the omission which the noble Marquess pointed out was this: the treaty of Amiens never having been carried into execution, it was thought prudent to renew its conditions, and the crimes now enumerated were all that were included in the former treaty. The French Government were desirous that the treaty should have been so extended; but on his suggestion, they thought it the more prudent course to commence with the limited provisions of the former treaty. Lord Ashburton could assure their Lordships that there was no part of the treaty, which had received their Lordships' approbation, that he looked to with more anxiety than its possible operation on the condition of slavery. It was a barbarous system that a malefactor by overstepping what was frequently a very narrow boundary between two countries, should escape punishment. He wondered it had lasted so long. We had the satisfaction of knowing that Mr. Jay's treaty had continued in operation twelve years, and no difficulty was found to arise under it. As to any difficulty that might occur with regard to the capture of slaves, it should be recollected that the slave-holding states were 300 miles distant from our territory. Be. sides, this question was now settled on perfectly fair grounds; namely, that a Bill read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, June 30, 1843. MINUTES. ELECTION PETITION. From Nottingham Electors, denying the Allegations of the Petition of William Cripps and others. BILLS. Public.-10. Law Courts (Ireland). the reasons why he considered the bill was proceeding through Parliament at a pace so rapid that it was quite impossible for him and the other parties who would be affected by it, to defend their interests. The parties who had brought forward the bill, and who had collected the evidence on which it was founded, and on which the whole case rested, had been engaged twelve or fifteen months in making good their case, and it could not be expected, that he should be in a condition, without time was allowed him, to collect evidence to contradict the statements of the other side, or to show the motives by which the witnesses who had been examined were influenced. It must be quite obvious, as many years had elapsed since the circumstances out of which these proceedings had originated took place, that it required long and strict investigation, and considerable time to examine into them, so as to arrive at absolute proof. His object was to induce the House to postpone the measure for a time; and he thought, looking at all the circumstances, and how materially his interests were affected by Reported.-Drainage of Lands; Grand Jury Presentments the bill, that there was no reason why this Ireland (No. 2). 3. and passed :-Pound Breach and Rescue. Private.-Reported.-Todhunter's Divorce. THE TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.] Mr. Greene having moved that the petition of William Henderson, agent for Lord C. Townshend, praying that the delivering of an attested copy of the bill, etc., on Thomas Clarke, solicitor to the Marquess Townshend, may be deemed good and sufficient service on the said Marquess Townshend, be taken into consideration. request should not be granted. In written Chancery proceedings, extending from 1813 to 1819, he was clearly defined as the eldest son and the heir to the Marquess Townshend. And it was very hard on him now, that that evidence which then existed, and which justified parties adopting that course in these legal proceedings, should be deemed altogether useless. A lady and gentleman, Mr. and Mrs. Gardner, who at that time were living, and were intimately acquainted The Earl of Leicester begged to make with all the circumstances, and with the a statement to the House in reference to family affairs of the late Marquess, and his own conduct, and the course he had of his family on the mother's side, were taken in the bill now before the House. since dead, and he thought it would have He believed, that no person charged him been much fairer in the other party if they with any personal fault in regard to the had had the courage to commence those transactions to which the bill referred, proceedings at an earlier period when all though before the bill had been consi- the witnesses were living. The opposite dered by the committee of the other House side, however, had shown great tact and -he had been charged with very great ingenuity, after so many years of silence, faults by parties whose proceedings he in commencing their proceedings at a thought deserved reprobation. It was time when the parties attacked had no hardly any satisfaction to him now, after means of defence. Down to the previous the allusions which had been made to his year, no kind of intimation or notice had conduct by one or two noble Lords in an- been given to him that any such proceedother place, that they had since ascer-ings would be instituted, nor was it stated tained there was no foundation for the statements which had been made to his prejudice. He would state to the House to him by any person that he had no right to the title which he possessed. This he thought was a material point, for it was |