Lords Sitting of 16 March 1865

Preamble
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Felony and Misdemeanor Evidence and Practice (22); Industrial Exhibitions*(28).
Select Committee—On Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland) Act Amendment*(20) nominated. (Seep. 1646.)
Third Beading— British Kaffraria*(34).

FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE BILL.

  (NO. 22.) SECOND HEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it had come up from the House of Commons, and
  explained its object to be to assimilate the procedure in criminal to that which prevailed in civil cases, so far as to give to the counsel for a prisoner the right of making a second speech at the close of the evidence for the defence. When a similar measure was before their Lordships a few years ago, it was argued that no such alteration as was proposed was necessary, inasmuch as the nature of the evidence in criminal cases was always known beforehand from the depositions taken before the magistrates, but then that argument did not apply to those cases, which were not unfrequent, in which the accused person reserved his defence till the day of trial. It was also contended that if the prisoner's counsel were permitted to make a second speech by way of summing up the evidence on behalf of his client the proceedings would be unduly protracted; but that he maintained was no valid objection where the proper administration of justice was at stake. When, he might add, the measure to which he had already alluded had gone into Committee an Amendment had been moved by his noble Friend Lord Wensleydale to the effect that the counsel for the prisoner should have the right of reply only in those cases in which it seemed to the Judge that the evidence rendered such a course expedient; but it was, he thought, undesirable that any provision should be introduced which would cause the mode of proceeding to be adopted to be so much a matter of uncertainty. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Chelmsford.)
  LORD CRANWORTHthought that, in ordinary cases, allowing the counsel for the prisoner to make two speeches would lead to great waste of time. He had never heard of a case in which there was any reason to believe that a prisoner had been convicted who would not have been found guilty if his counsel had been allowed to make two speeches on his behalf. Anything which tended to lengthen the proceedings of criminal trials threw obstacles in the way of prosecutions, and it was on that ground alone that he objected to the clause in this Bill which would increase the number of speeches. That objection did not go the principle of the Bill, many of the provisions of which he entirely approved, and therefore he should not oppose the second reading.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that at the trial of Mr. Rumble for a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, his counsel, Mr. Bovill, expressed his regret that he had not the opportunity of summing up his evidence, and the Lord Chief Justice said that, in his opinion, there was not the slightest reason for the existing distinction between the practice in civil and that in criminal cases.
  LORD CRANWORTHasked, why then did not the Lord Chief Justice permit Mr. Bovill to sum up. He knew of no law which would have prevented his doing so.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: Would it not be better to make a law at once?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as there would not be many cases in which any necessity for a summing up would arise, he thought that it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Judge. It was desirable that the rules of procedure, especially in respect to evidence, should be the same in criminal as in civil proceedings; but there were some details of the Bill which would require consideration in Committee.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord seemed to recommend had already once proved fatal to the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORshould certainly not propose an Amendment which experience showed was likely to be fatal to the Bill.
  Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

TURKEY AND PERSIA—THE BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFErose, in pursuance of the Notice which he had placed on the table a few days ago—to make Inquiry of Her Majesty's Government as to the State of certain Negotiations respecting the joint Boundary between Turkey and Persia; and to move for Papers relating to the Construction of an official Map of that Frontier. The subject was not one of immediate urgency, but still it was one of very considerable interest and importance. The negotiations in question came under his notice twenty years ago. Those negotiations regarded the great and extensive boundary between the two Empires of Turkey and Persia, a subject on which no small interest existed
  1728
  at the time, and still existed, with regard to the policy of this country in the East. The policy which had been pursued by successive Administrations during the last twenty years had now ceased to have for one of its principal objects the maintenance of peace in that part of the world known by the name of the Levant, though somewhat extended beyond the usual acceptation of the term, and embracing the relations between those two great Empires which he had named. There was always a great proneness between those two Powers to get into quarrels one with the other; and unfortunately a frontier of 700 miles in length gave ample opportunities for dissension and at times even for open hostility. At the period to which he referred, after a great deal of bickering between the two Governments, a quarrel broke out on the frontier; and it required immediate action on the part of a friendly Government in order to prevent actual hostility from taking place, to a degree which threatened, not only to interrupt the tranquillity of that part of the world and even to effect materially the interests, particularly the commercial, interests of Europe. At that time Russia was in the position of a leading mediating Power towards those two Empires. It was not necessary to point out to their Lordships that there was some degree of risk in leaving so great an opportunity of interfering in the affairs of those two Empires at the discretion of a Power so often tempted as Russia then was to encroach on the territory or the independence of her neighbours. It became, then, a matter of pressing duty for Her Majesty's Ambassador to act on the spot, without waiting for the instructions of his Government, as there were no communications by steam or electricity in those days, and delay might have compromised the peace of the whole region. Under such circumstances, he thought it his duty to propose to the Russian Minister that he should consent to mediate jointly with Her Majesty's Ambassador. Fortunately he had to deal with a gentleman of very conciliatory character. Fortunately, too, the instructions of that gentleman permitted him to accede to the proposal of his British Colleague. The two Ambassadors, therefore, joined in trying to persuade the Turkish Government to adopt conciliatory measures with a view to preventing hostilities, and ultimately effecting a satisfactory accommodation. It became necessary to apply to the Sultan himself; and the Sultan,

  1729
  as well as his Government, were finally disposed to accept the proffered advice. At the same time there were great difficulties, from the animosity existing between the two parties, the distance from the scene of mediation, and other circumstances. However, a Commission was appointed with the consent of the two Governments; and the transactions which led to it, as well as the Commission itself, were subsequently confirmed by Her Majesty's Government. Negotiations ensued, which, like all negotiations in that part of the world, were protracted to a great length. In the end, however, they were successful; and in the autumn of 1847 the result was made known as the Treaty of Erzeroum. It then became a question how the treaty should be carried out; and it was decided that fresh power should be given to the Commissioners, the Russian and the English still acting together and giving their advice and assistance to the two Mahomedan Plenipotentiaries, on whom devolved the duty of carrying out the negotiations. Such, however, was the animosity prevailing between the principal parties that, notwithstanding the conclusion of the treaty, the local negotiations respecting the frontier gave birth to renewed difficulties. At last it was found necessary to resort to the expedient of removing the negotiations from the political and diplomatic ground to one of a purely scientific character. Accordingly, it was agreed by the two Governments that a map should be constructed of the whole frontier, extending from the summit of Mount Ararat to the head of the Persian Gulf. One of the great difficulties to be encountered arose from the barbarous nature of the different tribes who inhabited the border countries on each side, their nomadic habit of shifting their quarters at different seasons from one side to the other, and their doubtful allegiance. It was, therefore, an object of diplomacy to frame the treaty in such a manner that these nomadic tribes should be fixed by the settlement, so as to prevent the quarrels which were so frequent among them, and to preserve from consequent disturbance the peace of that quarter. The British and Russian Commissioners were ordered by their respective Governments to repair to the theatre of discussion, and, with the assistance of engineers and other suitable officers, nominated by the two Mahomedan Governments, to carry out this important work. It was begun, and had been carried on to a cer-
  1730
  tain extent, when the Crimean war broke out; and on that occasion he (Lord Stratford) suggested to the noble Lord then at the head of the Foreign Office that, perhaps, the Russian Government might accept the offer of continuing the operation notwithstanding the war. The Russian Government, however, looked on the matter in a different light; and the consequence was that the proceedings were interrupted for some years. The Crimean war having come to an end, the negotiations were renewed, and had been going on for several years at a considerable expense of trouble and money. Some four years ago he was informed, in reply to a question which he asked in the House, that the negotiations were still on foot; and he therefore deemed it the more important that the House should be informed whether, at this moment, the same negotiations were proceeding; whether the map (which was on a very large scale and very elaborate) was likely to be soon completed; and also, whether the Government intended to lock it up in the archives of the Foreign Office, or whether, by rendering it accessible to the public, they would make a large and valuable addition to geographical science? He was glad to have the opportunity, as this country had been so often placed in opposition to Russian policy, of bearing testimony to the fact that from the beginning of these negotiations to the end the two Governments had acted most cordially together, Russia showing an earnest desire to co-operate with England for the preservation of peace in that part of the world. What he wished, in conclusion, to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office was, whether the negotiations were still pending with respect to the boundary between Turkey and Persia; whether the frontier map was in course of completion; and whether when finished it would be made accessible to the public? Without asking for all the paper, which, referring as they did to a distant period, could only be produced with much difficulty and at a large expense, he hoped the noble Lord would consent to lay upon the table Copies of the Treaty itself, together with his (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe's) instructions and despatches in respect thereto.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for—
  "Copy of the Treaty concluded at Erzeroum between Turkey and Persia in October 1847: Also,

  1731
  "Copy of Sir Stratford Canning's Instruction to Her Majesty's Commissioner for the Boundary, dated 9th December 1848: And also,
  "Copy of Sir Stratford Canning's Despatch, No. 280, to Viscount Palmerston, dated 17th September 1851; together with the Memorandum enclosed in it:"—(The Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe.)
  EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord has asked me a question upon a subject of considerable interest, and I shall no doubt be able to afford him all the information he can desire relative to the matter. The negotiations have lingered a very long time, but the map has been slowly approaching completion, although it has been a source of considerable difficulty, The work began in 1843, when British Commissioners were appointed, and in 1847 the Erzeroum Treaty was made, and upon the execution of that treaty the British and Russian Governments agreed that they would give advice to Turkey and Persia in the matter. The noble Lord is quite justified in describing the question as one of great importance, for the settlement of the disputed boundaries between Turkey and Persia will go far towards preventing war between those Powers. A great deal of correspondence has taken place on this subject, and among the papers is a despatch written by my noble Friend Lord Palmerston some years ago, in which a proposal was made to the Russian Government that England and Russia should agree upon a proper line of frontier, submit it to Turkey and Persia, and give their support to that Government which should adopt the line so to be submitted. I am constantly making the same inquiry as my noble Friend has just made in respect of the progress of this work; but, as my noble Friend knows, there are considerable difficulties to be overcome in fixing this boundary. I am, however, positively told that there is every prospect of the work being brought to an early termination. The last instructions stated that it would be completed by the end of the present month. Under these circumstances, I hope my noble Friend will not ask for the production of the papers. I am unwilling to put the country to any expense which can he avoided in connection with the matter; for the expense of the commissions for settling the boundary between Turkey and Persia has been very considerable. The commission at Erzeroum and Bagdad, from January, 1843, to June, 1847, cost say £7,000; the Turco-Persian Boundary Commission from June,
  1732
  1848, when Colonel Williams left England, to December, 1857, when the Commission returned home from Constantinople, £33,700; the expenses incurred at St. Petersburg, from early in 1858 to December, 1862, amounted to £12,000; and those in London, from January, 1863, to this month, to £4,400; making a total expenditure for these Commissions of £57,000. My noble Friend will therefore see that the Government have not been inactive in this matter, and I trust he will be satisfied with the explanation which I have given.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEthanked his noble Friend for the manner in which he had received his inquiries; and he felt pleasure in saying that he thought the whole arrangement of the matter by Her Majesty's Government, as far as it had proceeded, was satisfactory.
  Motion, by Leave of the House, withdrawn.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYrose to call the Attention of the House to the Effect of the Revised Code of Regulations of the Committee of Privy Council for Education, dated the 8th of February, 1865, on the Education of Children under Six Years of Age. The question he had to bring under the notice of their Lordships, was one of no great magnitude; but in consequence of the system on which our grants for public education were made, persons who had objections to urge, were compelled to call attention to any matter which required explanation or amendment just as it arose. If the system on which grants were made were settled by Bills which must pass through Committee, the attention of both Houses would be called to all the details of any proposed arraugement. As it was, however, the grants being regulated by a system of Orders in Council, which had the effect of law when they had lain on the table of both Houses of Parliament for a month, there was no other course open to a Member of either House but to call special attention to any point in the regulations of the Council on which he might desire information, however inadequate it might of itself seem for special discussion. Practically the matter which he had now to bring under their Lordships' notice was, however, one of considerable importance; for, though it involved no

  1733
  question of principle, it had an important effect upon the prosperity of schools. As well as he remembered, when the principle of payment by results was first introduced by the Revised Code, it had been proposed that so much a head for all children should be paid to the managers of schools as the result of an examination on a day when the children were required to present themselves. Very general objection had been taken to that proposal, on the ground that it made the payment depend too much upon an examination on a particular day; and it was urged that the occurrence of severe weather which would prevent the very young children from attending on the day of examination, might deprive the managers of the reward of their labour. In the course of the discussions which took place on the subject, it was strongly argued that it was absurd in the case of children of such tender age to make the grant depend on examination, and that in regard to them it would be sufficient that the Inspector should be satisfied that there had been a good attendance, and that the children were generally well taught. It was in consequence decided that children under six years of age should be exempted from examination. A Minute on the subject was issued, which stated that for every scholar who had attended more than 200 morning or afternoon meetings of the school, the grant in the case of children over six years of age should be 8s. for each child, and in the case of children under six years 6s. 6d., subject to the report of the Inspector that such children were instructed in accordance with their age. There were some other conditions annexed to that Minute, and it had remained in operation till the month of January in the present year. In February of the present year a Revised Code was laid on the table, in which there were two or three alterations. No particular attention was called to them, but there was one alteration which had induced an inconvenience to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention. The previous article ran as he had read it to their Lordships, but in the new Code the words were "if under six years, and present on the day of examination." At the same time that these alterations were made, a Minute was laid on the table in reference to rural schools, according to which some doubts might arise whether these young children were required to be in attendance or not. On the whole, however, it was clear that such was the intention. The
  1734
  effect of this Resolution had been made retrospective, and he had a case before him in which the average attendance of children last year under six years of age amounted to eighty, but when the Inspector came in February only forty five attending in consequence of an epidemic disorder in the place, only that number was allowed for by the Inspector. Now the effect of this regulation on the funds of schools would be very serious. The regulation was a very unwise one, and it would inflict considerable hardships upon the managers of country schools, who had no inexhaustible purses, but who made considerable sacrifices for the advantage of their poorer neighbours. Though he made no formal Motion on the subject, it was one on which their Lordships ought to express an opinion.
  EARL GRANVILLE, after some preliminary observations which were not audible in the gallery, said, that when the new Code was laid on the table he had called attention to it, and had stated that there were certain verbal alterations which were necessary to explain clearly the meaning of certain Minutes. He could not understand what the noble Earl meant by retrospective action, as there had been no change in that respect. He did not deny that the rule as to the attendance of young children might work some hardship in peculiar cases, but if money was to be voted for the education of these children, he did not see how the Inspector could satisfy himself as to the sufficiency of the education given unless they attended. Of course it was impossible to have an elastic rule which would meet the case of a snowstorm happening on the day of examination.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had received a complaint on the same subject, but his noble Friend had hardly correctly described the requirements of the present rule. His noble Friend stated that the grant in respect of infants was allowed when the Inspector was satisfied with the general state of the school as a whole. The words of the rule were that such children should be instructed suitably to their age, and in such manner as not to interfere with the instruction of the older children. Therefore it was clear that there must be an examination of some kind. He was inclined to think that the provision was too stringent. It had always been admitted that the requirement of attendance must involve some hardship, and in the case of infants the hardship

  1735
  would be greater. He would, therefore, urge upon his noble Friend the President of the Council the propriety of reconsidering this rule with a view to admitting some relaxation.
  LORD REDBSDALEalso urged a reconsideration of the rule which pressed with especial hardship in the case of schools in country districts, where the attendance of infants during the winter months must necessarily be very uncertain.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in reply, expressed a hope that the Government would consider whether they could not mitigate the rule to some extent.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.