proceedings are civil, not criminal, and therefore appealable. If it does
come here, it will be a matter of great interest.

The reference is to the celebrated case of John Anderson--or Jack--a negro
of Missouri, who, in 1853, had been met by one Diggs, a white man, thirty
miles away from his home. In accordance with the laws of the State, Diggs
attempted to seize him. Anderson killed Diggs, and--by 'the underground
railway'--made good his escape to Canada, where he had lived ever since.
In 1860 he had been recognised, and, on formal application for his
extradition, he had been arrested. The Court of Queen's Bench in Canada
accepted the argument that they had to decide only as to the evidence of
the commission of the crime, not as to the nature of it, and remanded the
prisoner. In England the excitement was very great. The Secretary of State
sent out an order that Anderson was not to be given up without instructions
from him; and the Court of Queen's Bench sent out a writ of _habeas
corpus_, directing the man to be brought before it. But meanwhile an
application for a writ of _habeas corpus_ had been made to the Court
of Common Pleas in Canada, and the prisoner had been discharged on the
technical ground that he was not charged with any crime included in the
Extradition Treaty, as, for instance, murder; for the indictment was that
he did 'wilfully, maliciously and feloniously stab and kill, &c.,' words
which meant, inferentially, manslaughter; and manslaughter was not
recognised by the treaty.[Footnote: See _Annual Register_, 1831, part ii.
p. 520.]

The Journal here mentions the awfully sudden death of a friend of many
years' standing:--

_January 8th_.--The Frederick Elliots and Marochettis dined with us. There
was a frost, and torches on the Serpentine. Mrs. F. Elliot drove round to