England, when certified in a proper manner, could not have been known to the Recorder of New York at the time of his transmission of the deposition taken by him. It is obvious, therefore, that the impediment which occurred in this particular case could not have been prevented, and that it is not likely to occur again, after the provisions of the statute have been promulgated in America. I have, &c.

The Hon. H. Manners Sutton.

(Extract.)

DAVID JARDINE.

(19.)—Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur.

London, November 1, 1843.

I TRANSMIT with this despatch a letter from the Foreign Office, informing me that Sir James Graham, acting under the advice of the law officers of the Crown, had felt himself obliged to decline issuing his warrant for the apprehension of Andrew Pollock, charged with fraudulently appropriating the moneys of the Bank of America, in New York. Pollock's surrender, as a fugitive from justice, had been applied for by me, at the instance of the Consul of The United States for this port. The ground of refusal is, that "embezzlement" is not one of the offences provided for by the Treaty of Washington. It may be proper to add, that it is not known where Pollock is; and that the surrender was applied for only in the hope that his place of concealment might be discovered.

The Hon. A. P. Upshur.

EDWARD EVERETT.

(Inclosure 1.)-The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Everett.

Foreign Office, October 17, 1843.

THE Undersigned, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note which Mr. Everett, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, addressed to him in the month of September, requesting that a person named Andrew Pollock, charged with the fraudulent appropriation of moneys belonging to the Bank of America, and supposed to be at present either in England or Scotland, might be arrested and examined, with a view to his being surrendered to The United States Government, under the Xth Article of the Treaty of Washington.

The Undersigned has the honour to acquaint Mr. Everett, in reply, that he lost no time in communicating Mr. Everett's application to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has informed the Undersigned that, in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, to whom Sir James Graham referred the papers, for the purpose of having a warrant prepared by them for his signature, the facts stated in the deposition which accompanied Mr. Everett's note do not constitute either of the crimes mentioned in the Act of the last session of Parliament, (6 and 7 Vict., c. 76,) which was passed for giving

effect to the Xth Article of the Treaty of Washington; and that Sir James Graham, as Secretary of State, has no authority to issue his warrant in this case.

Under similar circumstances, if they were to occur in this country, the English Government would be precluded, according to the view of the case taken by the law officers, from obtaining the interposition of the American Government for the apprehension of the person so charged, if he should escape from this country to America.

The Undersigned has to express his regret, therefore, that Mr. Everett's request cannot be complied with.

E. Everett, Esq.

(Extract.)

The Undersigned, &c.

(20.)-Mr. Upshur to Mr. Everett.

ABERDEEN.

Department of State, Washington, November 14, 1843. WITH regard to the British Act of Parliament to carry into effect the Treaty of Washington, you will take the necessary steps to obtain through Lord Aberdeen the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the construction which is to be placed upon that Act; and if, in their opinion, the construction which was placed upon it in the case of Clinton be incorrect, and if, in other respects, the case be a suitable one for it, you may renew your application for his surrender.

E. Everett, Esq.

(Extract.)

(21.)-Mr. Upshur to Mr. Everett.

A. P. UPSHUR.

Department of State, Washington, November 23, 1843.

THE reason assigned by the British Government for its declining to issue a warrant for the arrest of Andrew Pollock appears to be just, and is received as satisfactory. E. Everett, Esq.

(Extract.)

(22.)--Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur.

A. P. UPSHUR.

London, December 2, 1843. I RECEIVED, at a late hour on the 2nd instant (Saturday), a note from the Foreign Office, transmitting a letter from the Home Department to Mr. Addington, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, accompanied with an opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, on the construction of the Act to carry into effect the Xth Article of the Treaty of Washington, relative to the extradition of fugitives. I have barely had time to read it; but I understand it to hold that the originals of affidavits may be received here as competent evidence to authorize the surrender of fugitives demanded by The United States. The contrary doctrine was held by the Bow Street magistrate, before whom Clinton, alias Reed, was brought up, and on that ground he escaped. The opinion, however, seems to take for

granted that there must be, as a matter of course, a warrant granted by an American magistrate; but this point is assumed, not discussed. It is not possible, owing to the press of business in this office to-day, to have these papers copied for transmission with this despatch; and this I the less regret, as there appears to be a clerical error in one of them of some importance, which it is desirable to have corrected, if possible, before they are forwarded to America. The Hon. A. P. Upshur.

(Extract.)

EDWARD EVERETT.

(23.)-Mr. Everett to Mr. Upshur.

London, January 2, 1844. In my despatch, No. 68, I alluded to a note, which I had received from Lord Aberdeen, of the 2nd of December, transmitting an opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General upon a case submitted to them by the Bow Street magistrate, relative to the construction of the Xth Article of the Treaty of Washington, by which provision is made for the extradition of fugitives from justice. I forward this note, with the opinion accompanying it, with this despatch. The case submitted to the Attorney and Solicitor-General was so drawn up as not to call their attention specifically to the ground on which the magistrate had proceeded, in refusing to order the arrest of Clinton, with a view to his extradition. But the opinion of the law officers seems to establish the insufficiency of that ground, viz.: that original affidavits could not be received in evidence. It requires, however, a mode of authentication which had not been observed in reference to the affidavit on which the application in the present case was founded.

By the steamer of the 1st of December, I received from Mr. J. R. Whiting, district attorney for the city and county of New York, an exemplified copy of an indictment against Clinton, with a bench warrant for his arrest, to be used in support of a renewed application for his surrender. You-direct me, in your despatch No. 67, to be governed by circumstances as to making another application, and I am requested by the agent of the parties in interest in New York to confer with Messrs. Bush and Mullens, the solicitors intrusted with the management of the business in this country. They incline to think that an application, founded on the copy of the indictment and bench warrant, would not succeed, under the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and have submitted a case on that point to counsel learned in the law. I have been awaiting the result, in order to assist me in making up my mind as to the course best to be pursued.

As soon as I can possess myself of the merits of the case, in its various bearings, I shall address Lord Aberdeen a note on the subject. Whatever the final result as to the extradition of Clinton

may be, I think it is plain already that the Act of 6 and 7 Vict. c. 76, passed with the intent to carry into effect the Xth Article of the Treaty of Washington, attaches conditions to the surrender of the fugitives not provided by the Treaty itself, and has thus far, in one very strong case, defeated its operation.

The Hon. A. P. Upshur.

EDWARD EVERETT.

(Inclosure 1.)-The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Everett.

Foreign Office, December 2, 1843.

On the 14th ultimo, the Undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had the honor to transmit to Mr. Everett, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at this Court, an account of the circumstances which led to the discharge from custody of an individual, named Nathaniel Britton, alias Clinton, charged with forgery in The United States, and for whose surrender to the American Government application had been made by Mr. Everett.

With reference to the same case, the Undersigned has now the honour to lay before Mr. Everett the copy of a letter which the Undersigned has received from the Home Department, covering a copy of a case, which, by the directions of the Secretary of State for that department, has been submitted to the Attorney and SolicitorGeneral, for their opinion respecting the construction of certain provisions of the Act 6 and 7 Vict. c. 76, for giving effect to the Xth Article of the Treaty concluded at Washington on the 9th of August, 1842, between Her Majesty and the United States of America.

The Undersigned, in transmitting to Mr. Everett this document, containing the opinion required, avails himself of this opportunity to express his hope that that opinion, in clearing away any doubts which may have arisen as to the quality and extent of the powers possessed by the magistracy of Great Britain for the apprehension of offenders claimed on the part of The United States under the Treaty of Washington, will contribute to facilitate the execution of that Treaty on the part of Great Britain, and thereby to fulfil the wishes and intentions of Her Majesty's Government.

The Undersigned, &c.

E. Everett, Esq.

ABERDEEN.

(Inclosure 2.)-Mr. Phillips to Mr. Addington.

Whitehall, November 27, 1843.

SIR, I AM directed by Secretary Sir James Graham to transmit to you the inclosed copy of a case which has been laid before the Attorney and Solicitor-General, with their opinion thereon, respecting the construction of certain provisions of the Act 6 and 7 Vict. c. 76, for

giving effect to a Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, for the apprehension of certain offenders; and I am to request that you will submit the same to the Earl of Aberdeen, for his Lordship's information. I am, &c. J. M. PHILLIPS.

H. U. Addington, Esq.

(Inclosure 3.)-Case respecting the construction of certain provisions of the Act of 6 and 7, Vict., c. 76, for giving effect to a Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, for the apprehension of certain offenders.

[Copy of the Act is left herewith.]

SECRETARY SIR JAMES GRAHAM has been pleased to transmit to the Solicitor of the Treasury a letter from Mr. Hall, chief magistrate of police, of which the following is a copy, with directions to submit the same to the Attorney and Solicitor-General:

SIR,

Police Court, Bow Street, October 18, 1843. A PERSON of the name of Nathaniel Britton was recently apprehended and brought before my colleague, Mr. Jardine, at this Court, upon a charge of forgery in The United States, in order to be dealt with pursuant to the 6th and 7th Vict. c. 76, passed in the last session of Parliament, "for giving effect to a Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, for the apprehension of certain offenders."

The accused, through the mistake of some one acting in behalf of the Government of The United States, had been improperly apprehended, no warrant having been previously required from or issued by a magistrate in this country, and he was not detained by Mr. Jardine, who thought the evidence tendered to him inadmissible in law.

The metropolitan police magistrates and also justices of the peace throughout England, will, no doubt, frequently be required to give effect to this Act, and it is very important that their decision, regarding its construction should not be conflicting. I beg to submit that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be taken upon the following points, on which doubts have arisen in the minds of some of the police magistrates and justices of the peace:

1st. To enable a magistrate to issue his warrant under the Acts should it not appear that the offence charged against the party sought to be apprehended here, is also an offence against the laws of this country?—the words in the concluding part of the first clause of the Act being: "and upon such evidence as, according to the laws of that part of Her Majesty's dominions, would justify the apprehension