Free Blood and Daring by John Boyko

Robinson declined to hear an appeal.
The Times
suggested that if the law said Anderson and others like him should be returned to the United States, then the law should be ignored and a prison break should be arranged. Claiming wide support for its conservative point of view, the article said, “We suppose there will be hardly a man in England who will not hope for the success even of his forcible rescue, if things come to that.” 64
    On January 4, 1861, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society executive committee discussed the Anderson case at length. It was agreed that Anderson had become the symbol of all that was right with the abolitionist movement and all that was wrong with America. 65 Unwilling to wait any longer for the British government to intervene,Chamerovzow prepared to take the Anderson case to the Court of Queen’s Bench. He would argue that Anderson was being held without a charge, demand that a writ of
habeas corpus
be issued, and spring him from the possibility of extradition to America by bringing him to London. It was a bold gambit.
    On January 15, Chamerovzow stood before Chief Justice Alexander Cockburn who, from beneath his outrageously large horse-hair wig, heard that Anderson was in imminent danger, as extradition would likely lead to his death. Chamerovzow cited precedents, reviewed the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, and argued that because the Canadian legal system had been created by Britain, it remained under its jurisdiction and so could be overruled.
    Cockburn and his fellow justices came to a decision after only twenty minutes of deliberation: the Canadian courts were British courts and so the writ could be issued and Canadian law officers would be obliged to obey it. Anderson would be brought to England. The packed courtroom erupted in cheers. A writ of
habeas corpus
was prepared.
    Cockburn’s decision meant that the case was no longer just about slavery, or about British, Canadian and American relations, or about America’s internal struggles. It was now, even more than before, about Canada’s evolving independence and national pride. Cockburn was no fool. In rendering his decision he said: “We are sensible of the inconvenience which may result from the exercise of such a jurisdiction. We are also sensitive that it may be thought to be inconsistent with the higher degree of colonial independence, both in legislation and judicature, which has been carried into effect in modern times with happy results.” 66
    The decision indeed seemed to be in contradiction to British policy, which for years had been granting Canada a fuller degree of sovereignty. A step toward political independence had been taken with the establishment of responsible governments following the 1837 Upper and Lower Canada rebellions. Subsequently, greater economic independence had evolved through the 1854 Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty, which for the first time in British imperial history saw a colony establish abilateral free trade agreement that did not involve or bring value to the mother country. In 1859, Canada became the first of Britain’s colonies to place duties on the importation of a number of British products.
    The Cockburn decision was debated at length at the British cabinet table and on the floor of the House of Commons. Concerns about British relations with the United States were balanced against precedents regarding colonial independence. Abolitionists, anti-Americans, and others who had for some time been advocating saving money by cutting the colonies loose, all weighed in.
    Finally, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston announced to the House of Commons that his government supported the writ of
habeas corpus
, as it would ensure that Anderson would not be surrendered to American officials. He said Canadian authorities should do nothing with Anderson until his government issued instructions. 67 As secretary of state for the colonies, the Duke of Newcastle was blunt in his assessment: “The case of