Lords Sitting of 13 February 1877

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament — The Earl of Lonsdale, after the death of his Father.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Intemperance, nominated.

QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (the Marquess of HERTFORD)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—
MY LORDS,
I THANK you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address.
I rely with confidence on your earnest consideration of the measures which will be submitted to you, and I shall ever be ready to co-operate with you in your endeavours to promote the happiness and prosperity of all classes of My subjects.

NORTH AMERICA—EXTRADITION.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the arrangements between this country and the United
  250
  States as to the extradition of criminals. Your Lordships will remember that last year Her Majesty's Government refused to surrender on extradition processes two men, named Winslow and Brett, unless the Government of the United States gave a distinct pledge that the persons whose extradition was demanded should not be tried on any other charge than that in respect of which the extradition was granted. This was in consequence of a statement that a man named Lawrence, who had been already surrendered, was to be tried on a second charge. Since then one man has been surrendered—at least, it has been so stated, and I believe the statement to be true. I should, therefore, like to know, What were the conditions under which that surrender was made, whether any conditions were required, whether he was surrendered on such an assurance as had been given in the case of Winslow, but was not considered sufficient, or on a formal engagement that he should be tried for no other offence, such as required by the Home Secretary? But however it may have been brought about, if a satisfactory arrangement has been entered into, I rejoice sincerely at the conclusion of the affair, and I think both Governments deserve great credit for having, by a little common sense, extricated the two countries from what appears to me would have been little less than a public scandal.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the noble Earl has put to me a Question which, although the Papers on the subject are ready for presentation—have, indeed, just been laid on the Table—it may still be convenient to your Lordships I should answer; it may also be desirable that I should explain in a few words the position in which this business actually stands. Your Lordships will remember how the matter stood last year. The extradition of a man named Lawrence was demanded by the American Government on a charge made against him. His extradition was granted on that charge, and he was put on his trial in the United States. While he was about to be put on his trial, a representation was made to us that steps were being taken by the United States Government to put him on trial for another offence, in the event of failure to obtain a conviction on the charge in respect of which his extradition had been granted.

  251
  Now, as the man had not been surrendered on that second charge, this representation raised the question as to the construction to be placed on the Extradition Treaty. We objected to the proceeding said to be contemplated by the United States Government; and that Government did not at the time deny the intention to put Lawrence on his trial in respect of the second charge; but they put forward views in reference to the construction of the Treaty which led to the Correspondence between the two Governments, which your Lordships will recollect, and ultimately to a discussion in this House. The result was that we and the Government of the United States held opposite views as to the construction of the Treaty, inasmuch as they claimed a right which we held they were not entitled to claim; and inasmuch as they asserted their intention to act on that claim, we felt bound to refuse to grant any further extraditions till the question should be settled. So matters remained for some time. Meanwhile, the man Lawrence was tried for the offence on which his extradition had been granted. I am not aware what became of him; but at all events there was no second trial. And in the month of August last we received, through the American Minister, a communication from the United States Government which, if it had been made before, would have saved a great deal of trouble and controversy. From this communication it appeared that, notwithstanding the representations which had been made to us on the subject, yet, as far as the United States Government were concerned, no steps had been taken, or had been intended to be taken, with the view of putting Lawrence on his trial for the second offence. In other words, the Government of the United States claimed a right under the Treaty which we did not admit the existence of; but they stated, and we did not doubt the accuracy of the statement, that they had not exercised, or attempted to exercise, the right they so claimed. That materially altered the position of affairs. We continued to maintain, and we maintain now, that the construction which we put oh the Treaty was the correct one; but from the information we obtained in August, and which, I repeat, it is unfortunate that the United States Government did not think fit to supply at an earlier date,
  252
  it appears that the question raised by the United States Government was purely theoretical. In other words, the point raised between the two Governments had not arisen in practice; and on becoming aware of that fact, we considered that the question might well remain in abeyance till it did so arise. We were of opinion that, in the circumstances actually existing, there was no further occasion for suspending the operation of the Treaty; the suspension has therefore ceased, and it remains now as it was before this controversy arose. Had steps been taken under it by the United States Government inconsistent with the view held by us, then we should have continued to hold that the Treaty could only be allowed to operate under the conditions suggested by us; but, as matters stand, we felt that those conditions were no longer required. The arrangement between the two Governments continue as before that question was raised, pending the negotiations for a new Treaty, which negotiations are now in progress. That is the whole case—and your Lordships will find the full details in the Papers now on the Table.

TURKEY—THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY'S EMBASSY—THE DESPATCH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to ask another Question, of which I have given private Notice, and which is not likely to lead to debate. Having the other day expressed some alarm at the voluminous character of the Blue Book, it may appear inconsistent to ask for any addition to it—more especially as in some cases Her Majesty's Government has certainly given us very detailed information. For instance, in page 11, I find this despatch given at full length—
  The Earl of Derby to the Marquis of Salisbury.
  My Lord, Foreign Office, November 20, 1876.
  I HAVE to request your Excellency to correspond with this office, while employed on the service of your Special Embassy, in a series of despatches, numbered and docketed, and addressed to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  I am, &c.,
  (Signed) DERBY.
  We all know that, in pursuance of these Instructions, Lord Salisbury did write despatches—and very good ones—and I

  253
  have no doubt the first-rate Foreign Office clerks who accompanied him duly numbered and docketed them. With regard to this despatch, there is only one very small question which suggests itself to me. The Question is this. By the Blue Book the noble Marquess was clearly appointed "Special Ambassador." Why, then, in the Queen's Speech, does he suddenly tumble down to the more humble position of "Special Envoy?" But I do not require any answer to that Question—What I desire to know is, why the despatches recording Lord Salisbury's conversations with Prince Bismarck are not published, nor those with Marshal Mac-Mahon and the Due Decazes? Despatches are to be found in the Blue Book recording conversations with the Austrian Emperor, Count Andrassy, and Count Melagari:—there is also a conversation with the German Emperor; but I can find nothing as to those which are said to have taken place, and certainly did take place, between Lord Salisbury and Prince Bismarck and the French Government. The Emperor of Germany, among other things which he was stated to have said to the noble Marquess, stated that—
  "He trusted that by the concession of reasonable reforms in the administration of the Turkish Provinces, combined with guarantees for their execution, the necessity for an occupation of Turkish territory might be avoided. His Majesty considered that it was impossible for Europe any longer to accept the mere promises of the Porte, and that it was indispensable that satisfactory guarantees against the continuance of the evils under which the Christians in Turkey were suffering should be arranged."
  He (Earl Granville) thought there could be no doubt that Prince Bismarck held similar language to that of the Emperor, but the subject would probably have been further developed; and if it was important that the public should know the views of Italy and Austria, it was certainly not less important that they should know the views from Paris and Berlin. The Question he wished to put to the noble Earl was, whether the despatches he had alluded to were of so completely a confidential character that it would not be right to produce them? Any assurance to that effect from the noble Earl would be considered by him as sufficient.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the noble Earl, in the intimation with which he closed his observations, has
  254
  suggested by anticipation the answer which his diplomatic experience told him it would be my duty to give. Having regard to the confidential character of conversations sometimes held with foreign Ministers, cases must arise in which the Secretary of State and the Government have to consider whether the publication of those conversations would involve a breach of confidence, and whether it would be conducive to the public interests or calculated to produce embarrassment. In regard to the conversations held with the other eminent persons whom the noble Earl has named, we did not think that anything had passed the publication of which would be unsatisfactory to the persons concerned, or on public grounds in any way objectionable. But, as respects the conversations with the French Government and with Prince Bismarck, those were undoubtedly of a more unreserved and confidential character, and we thought that if we published them we should be doing that which would produce a very unpleasant feeling, and would be considered a breach of confidence. That is the reason why the despatches the subject of the noble Earl's Question have not been published with the other Papers.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to bring forward any measure this Session on the subject of Railway Accidents? He very much regretted that circumstances should have delayed the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject; but it was now completed and in their Lordships' hands. Had the inquiry been brought earlier to a conclusion, their Lordships would have been able at the commencement of the Session to have given it consideration and perhaps discussion; but he thought it would not be unreasonable, looking to the public interest which was felt in the matter, if he asked for such information as would enable their Lordships and the public generally to know whether the Government would deal with the Question in the course of the present Session, and whether, at no distant period, the subject would be brought under the notice of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF SANDWICHsaid, he should like to supplement the Question of the noble Earl who had just spoken, by asking whether the Board of Trade had power to compel the Railway Companies to adopt the recommendations which were made by the Government Inspectors from time to time in their Reports? Very serious accidents had lately happened on certain of our railways; and there could be no doubt that some of those accidents might have been prevented. Referring to a recent accident on the Great Northern Railway and a somewhat similar one that occurred about a year ago, the recommendations made by Captain Tyler as the result of his inquiries appeared to have been treated with contempt. In connection with this subject he thought it was a hardship that, when an accident did happen, and when information concerning it had reached the railway authorities at head-quarters, information of the fact that a casualty had occurred was not imparted to persons who intended travelling in the direction where the accident had taken place. The result of withholding the information which was thus known at head-quarters was that many persons often travelled on as if nothing had happened, only to be detained when they reached a certain point. With respect to the Report which had been referred to by the noble Earl (Earl De la Warr), that document was unquestionably an able one; but it was to be borne in mind that it was not a unanimous one. Of the nine Commissioners only six had signed it, and they were not agreed as to the measures to be adopted, two having drawn up Reports of their own. It would be very difficult, therefore, for any Government to act upon the Report of the Commission. There could he no doubt, however, that at the present time the number of trains which were run, at short intervals, constituted an element of danger; and it was worthy of consideration whether some measure bearing upon that point might not be brought before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, the Report of the Royal Commission is now in your Lordships' hands; but, as my noble Friend (the Earl of Sandwich) has just reminded us, that Report has not been presented to the Government with the authority of
  256
  unanimity. There were nine Commissioners. Of the nine, the Chief Commissioner devoted, I believe, two years to the labours of the Commission; but he accepted an appointment in a distant part of the Empire, and was therefore unable to finish his task as a Royal Commissioner, and sign the Report. Another of the Commissioners, a distinguished Gentleman, a Member of the Privy Council, who has had considerable official experience, and who is a man of very business-like habits, has altogether declined to sign the Report; and my noble Friend, the noble Earl who introduced this conversation, has also refused to sign it; but he has done his duty to the public by furnishing, on his own account, a Report which is well worthy of consideration. My noble Friend (the Earl of Sandwich) has reminded us that six of the Royal Commissioners did sign the Report; but, strange to say, two of these appear to have signed it only out of courtesy—through a feeling of good fellowship with, and as a compliment to, the remaining Commissioners, with whom, however, they did not agree. They also have furnished Reports of their own, which Reports are of an elaborate character—one of them extending to 25 folio pages. Under these circumstances, your Lordships will see that, as regards the Report of the Royal Commission, it is one which the Government must examine with a great deal of critical examination, and it must be equally obvious that, whether the Report is signed by the majority of the Commissioners or not, the Government cannot come to any conclusion on the subject without reading the voluminous evidence taken by the Royal Commission —which is not yet printed—and therefore it is impossible now for the Government to give a pledge as to whether they will introduce legislation on the subject this year. I can only say what every one must feel—that the subject is of a very grave character; indeed, as regards our internal affairs, I cannot conceive one of a graver character. My noble Friend (the Earl of Sandwich) asks me whether Railway Companies are bound to obey the recommendations of Government Inspectors. The answer to that is clear. Of course they are not bound to obey those recommendations, nor to regulate their conduct on the Reports of Inspectors. Those Reports

  257
  are made to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade considers them and recommends to the railway companies anything which it thinks advisable and which the law enables it to recommend. If there is anything which it thinks advisable, but which the law does not enable it to recommend, it must apply to the Legislature.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Two o'clock.