76 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
his surrender demanded under a clause of the Ashburton Treaty 
providing for the extradition of slaves guilty of crimes committed 
in the United States. Lord Elgin, the Governor-General of Canada, 
in response to an appeal on behalf of Anderson, replied to the effect 
that “in case of a demand for John Anderson, he should require 
the case to be tried in their British court; and if twelve freeholders 
should testify that he had been a man of integrity since his arrival 
in their dominion, it should clear him.” 
The magistrate who examined the case decided that the charge 
against Anderson was sustained. The case was brought before the 
Court of Queen’s Bench, Toronto, which court decided that Anderson 
should be given up. Intense excitement was created throughout the 
country by this decision. Public meetings were held and strong pro- 
tests were made against the surrender of the hunted fugitive. It 
argued that in defending himself against recapture to bondage and 
to condign punishment and probably a cruel death he was exercising 
an inalienable right. The Court of Queen’s Bench gave a decision, 
Justice McLean strongly dissenting, not for his surrender, but against 
his discharge, leaving him'to be dealt with by the Government which 
might find sufficient reasons for not complying with the requisition 
from the United States. Justice McLean expressed his strong dis- 
sent in these words: “Can, then, or must, the law of slavery in Mis- 
souri be recognized by us to such an extent as to make it murder 
in Missouri, while it is justifiable in this province to do precisely the 
same act? . . . . In administering the law of a British province, 
1 can never feel bound to recognize as law any enactment which can 
convert into chattels a very large number of the human race. I 
‘think that on every ground the prisoner is entitled to be discharged.” 
So profound was the interest in this case that after the decision 
in Canada became known in England, the Habeas Corpus was applied 
for and granted by the Court of Queen’s Bench in that country. 
Before that could be executed, however, the prisoner had obtained 
a similar writ from the Court of Common Pleas in Canada. The 
result was that the prisoner was discharged on the grounds of inform- 
ality of his committal. There can be little doubt, however, that 
all the legal resources of Great Britain would have been employed 
for the defence of this lowly black prisoner. 
The present writer has a very vivid recollection of a great public 
meeting of sympathy with this fugitive slave, held in St. Lawrence 
Hall, Toronto, in which the Hon. George Brown and Dr. Daniel 
Wilson, President of Toronto University, took a prominent part. 
He was also present at the reading of the decisions of three judges 
before the Court of Queen’s Bench at Toronto. It was an occasion 
