The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-07-20 00:00:00

THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN AGREEMENT.

At the Bow-street Police-court, on Tuesday, before Mr.
Vaughan, Charles Marvin, described as a writer in the
Foreign Office, again surrendered to his bail to answer a
charge of having committed a breach of trust in copying,
appropriating, and wilfully stealing a secret document, put-
porting to be a Convention between the Governments of
England and Russia, contrary to the 21th, Vict., cap 96,
section 30.

Mr. Poland prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, in-
structed by Mr. Stephenson and the defence was conducted
by Mr. G. Lewis, junr.—We take the following account of the
proceedings from the Globe of Tuesday evening :
Mr. Francis Irving, assistant in the Treaty Depart-
ment of the Foreign Office, said: I occupy a room at
the Foreign Office next to Mr. March's, and the de-
fendant occupied my room for, I should think, eight
or nine menthe. His position was that of a writer,
and from conversations I had with him I thought him
a gentleman of education, as he spoke several lan-
guages. I had every confidence in him. I re-
member the afternoon of the 30th of May being in my
room, and I had a printed paper," The Proj et de Memo-
randum," given me in Mr. March's room to copy. I
knew that two copies had to be made. This was late in
the afternoon, and my impression is that I commenced
the copy in Mr. March's room. At the same time
Mr. March was also copying from one of the printed
papers. I remember Lord Salisbury's private secre-
tary, Mr. Currie, coming into the room. He made a
communication to Mr. March in my presence. He
brought a copy of Memorandum No. 2, and stated that
two copies of each were wanted in a great hurry. I
know that the defendant (Mr. Marvin) was directed
to copy the shorter document, and Mr. March went
into his room with the Memorandum. I was then
writing the Projet. Mr. Marvin set to work and
copied Memorandum 2. When I had finished my
copy I took it into Mr. March's room, taking
the print. lam almost certain, with it. I think
it was compared with the print, and I assisted in com-
paring Mr. Marvin's copy, Afterwards Memorandum
No. 2 was finished by the defendant, who went into
Mr. March's room with the two copies he had made.
Mr. Marvin, I believe, remained in the room to make
the comparisons. When I had finished the longer
document I took the printed copy to Mr. March's
room. That would be about half-past six as near as
pcs.ible. Afterwards Mr. Burne came into ray room.
Mr. Burne is connected with the Turkish department
at the Foreign Office. He is here to-day. Defendant
remained at the Foreign Office until a little after
seven.

Cross-examined by Mr. C. Lewis: To the best of my
belief I examined the copy made by Mr. March. The
defendant was only four or five minutes in Mr. March's '
room. He had finished his copy whilst I was writing
mine. My impression is that I read the copy myself,
hut I will not swear that the defendant did not do so
himself. lam almost certain that I read over both
copies. Mr. Marvin had been in the room and left
it. In the course of copying my document I may
have left my own room and gone into Mr. March's. I
remember coming back into my room after examining
the copy made by Mr. March. The defendant speaks
Russ, French, and German, and has been employed in
translating Spanish. When I came back into my room
I did not say at that time that it would be in the
papers, and that a statement would on that night be
made in Parliament. I should say it was most im-
probable that I should have said so, but my memory
is not certain on that point. I have no recollection,
but I may have said it, and forgotten it. My
memory is not very certain, and although my im-
pression is that I did not say it, I may have done so.
It was in my mind that it would be in the papers
next morning. bat I have no recollection of having
said BO to the defendant. I had reason, from what I
heard from a high authority, that it would be likely to
be published next day.
Mr. Lewis: From whom?
Witness: The authority was some one high in office,
so I should not like to disclose it.
The Magistrate ruled that the witness need not
disclose the name.
Examination resumed: I do not deny that it was
said in the room in defendant's presence that it
would be published next morning. Mr. Burne came
into my room, and said he was going to send a
copy to her Majesty the Queen. I said, This is not
going to be sent to the papers, is it?" or words to
that effect. Mr. Burne said, "I have heard nothing
whatever about it. What I want is a correct copy
for the Queen." To which I replied, "We were
under the impression that it was to appear in the
papers to-morrow." I might have said, "We are
under the impression that it is to be sent to the
papers." Having received it from a high authority in
the office I did not think it necessary to inquire further.
Papers that are marked "confidential" are sometimes
sent to the papers, but I cannot say whether" secret"
papers are. I have no recollection of saying next
morning to the defendant that the matter was in the
papers.
Mr. Lewis put a question to the witness as to
whether he was not on the day following this copying
a " secret " document which had not been disclosed,
with the view to show that the "Projet de Memo-
randum " was only marked "confidential" and not
secret," but
Mr. Vaughan thought it unnecessary to go into that
matter.

Mr. Irving having left the witness box, and Mr.
Burne having been called by Mr. Poland,
Mr. Lewis submitted to the magistrate whether it
was really necessary to have any further evidence, as
all the facts were before the court,
Mr. Poland said he would not trouble the court to
examine the witness; and that therefore closed the
case for the Crown.
Mr. Lewis was about to rise for the defence, when
Mr. Vaughan intimated that there was no case for
him to answer. The learned magistrate then said the
charge against the defendant was that he stole, or for
some fraudulent purpose took from its place of deposit
for the time being, or from the person having the law-
ful custody thereof, an original document relating to
the business of the Foreign Office. And then it was also
stated that he was guilty of stealing the paper upon
which the information to the Globe newspaper had been
transcribed. The evidence which has been given in this
case fails to show that either offence has been established
against the defendant. The evidence has been mostly
confined to the information which was communicated
on the 30th May. It appears now from the evidence
of the last witness—Mr. Irving—that the defendant
had abundant opportunity of seeing the printed docu-
ments which were left for the purpose of being copied
in Mr. March's office, and having that opportunity
he no doubt hastily glanced over the contents of those
documents and communicated the substance of them to
the proprietor or sub editor of tho Globe newspaper.
It was in point of fact an effort of memory, it is per-
fectly clear, because Mr. Madge, who was called, stated
that when the defendant came into the 6,:0!..e office he
eat down and wrote out the article which appeared the
same evening in the GZ,e'ee• newspaper. It is, therefore,
merely a carrying away by memory a document which
he had seen in the Foreign Office. I confess I was very
much struck at first by the great breach of trust com-
mitted by the defendant in taking this course; but, if
the defendant had been aware, from what Mr. Irving
eaid, that the information would be published the fol-
lowing mornineiii the newspapers, it would not be very
extraordinary that he should seek to anticipate the pub
lica.tion the net morning by publishing it in the Glo3e
on the same evening. With regard to the document
which appeared in the Globe paper on the 14th of June
that, it appears to me, would stand upon a very
different footing, as the defendant must have known as
well as the publisher of the Globe that that was
a strictly confidential it ate document. There
is no evidence as to how he obtained that docu-
ment. It must have been copied literati:7l, he must
have had access to it subsequently to the 13th (Tune,
but there is no evidence as to where it was kept, or
tf aectththsauth the.ed sub-editor
of
documentTke
how he had access to it. But there is this undoubted
Gwlasobecoinpitehde, afinrclacionmetmanuenie communicated
saw it was so important that he would not L who
the responsibility of publishing it himself. Ish
e
have thought that the editors of that paper wou
have hesitated in accepting a document which came
from the Foreign Office, and which they must have been
satisfied yeas obtidned surreptitiously. However, they
seem to have satisfied themselves, and asked no'ques-
tions, as they say, owing to the keen competition for
news. They accepted it without asking any questions
as to the source from which It emanated, although
from the circumstances and internal evidence they
must have been cognisant that it must have been
brought from the Foreign Office. With the observa-
tions, I have nothing to say but that there is no evi-
dence at all of any larceny having been comuuttod,
dotadat io Quieten &charged,

ept
(Quid