ABSTRACT of EVIDENCE given by Robert Lederu, Stephan Schmidt," George Banhofer, Sigmund Brill, Rosalia Countess of Kendeffz, and Barbara Adlman, relative to the Sale of Messrs Wingate and Smith's Property.

On the 21st of May 1852, Robert Lederu, commissioner and hawker to the missionaries Wingate and Smith since 1845, stated before the police authorities at Buda that, after being in the service of the said gentlemen from 1845 up to the beginning of this year, he had, by their order, helped them in the necessary arrangements for the sale of their effects, the greater part of which had been bought by a Jewish furniture dealer; and that Wingate's house, and a part of his furniture, had been taken by a countess, whose name he did not know; that the furniture not being very new, and having all been sold at very good prices, he could not consider Messrs Wingate and Smith as having sustained any serious losses; and he believed, for his part, that Mr Wingate's greatest loss must have been in the sale of his kitchen furniture, which had. been sold for 30 florins, and had cost him 80 florins. As for Smith, he did not think he had much to lose. The library, and various valuable articles, were packed up and taken away: he himself had helped them to do so. He believed that the last quarter due for the use of the chapel had been paid by Mr Saphri of Pesth. He knew that the Rev. Banhofer had the pulpit and a piano to take care of for those gentlemen; but he was not aware what was their intention as to these two articles.

Stephen Schmidt, teacher in the Protestant school at Buda since 1848, stated also before the police authorities on the 21st May 1852, that, on hearing that the missionaries Wingate and Smith were going to sell their furniture, he went to their house to purchase various articles of which he was in want, but was informed, on arriving there, that everything was sold.

The Rev. Banhofer had a piano and a dictionary belonging to Mr Smith, he believed also a bed; and the pulpit belonging to those gentlemen was in the Protestant Church at Buda

The Rev. Banhofer, preacher in the Protestant church at Buda, stated before the police authorities, on the 29th May, that the missionary Smith had made him a present of a four-post bed; he had also sent him a piano and some books. These he believed he was to take care of. Wingate had made him a present of a wooden chair; and that was all he had received from those gentlemen.

Sigmund Brill, furniture dealer in Pesth, stated, on the 27th May, before the police authorities, that he had bought the greater part of Messrs Wingate and Smith's effects; that he had paid a very good price for them; these gentlemen having had their property valued by a competent authority, and he had given them

what they asked, although no one else would have paid so much. He had sold nearly all again, and had not made more than ten per cent. on them. He thought they sold their effects very advantageously.

Countess Kendeffz stated on the 2d June, before the police authorities, that she hired Mr Wingate's house at the time he left Pesth, and that she entered it immediately after his departure; that she paid her first quarter, and bought some few articles of furniture that were in the house, and belonged to Mr Wingate.

Barbara Adlman, housekeeper in the house inhabited by Mr Wingate, stated, on the 3d June, before the police authorities, that an immense crowd of people had come to inspect his furniture; that the prices fixed upon by a competent authority were written on every article of furniture; that every one complained of the very high prices, saying that the articles could not be dearer if they were new; that Mr Wingate had not allowed one single article to be sold under the fixed price; that nearly everything had been bought by a man of the name of Brill; and that every one had said at the time, that Messrs Wingate and Smith had sold their property remarkable well; and that Countess Kendeffz had taken Mr Wingate's lodgings, and was living in them at present.

No. 10.-STATEMENT by Mr EDWARD, relative to Despatch from the Foreign Office, of date 11th June 1852.

In answer to the statement in Lord Malmesbury's despatch of 11th June 1852, Mr Edward has to remark, that he never rested his claim to be tolerated in Austria on his capacity as missionary exclusively for the Jews, nor suffered it to be made a condition that he would restrict himself to dealings with that people. In all his intercourse with the authorities, Mr Edward appealed to the broad principles of the Austrian constitution, of date 4th March 1849 (to be found translated in Times newspaper of 12th March 1849), by which the Emperor accorded to all residing in his dominions the most perfect freedom in holding and propagating whatever sentiments they chose, and especially in matters of religion. For proof of this, Mr Edward may refer to three several written petitions presented on different occasions to the Austrian authorities, in which this ground is taken, and it is expressly stated that his meetings for religious worship were open to all comers.

It is particularly surprising that Lord Westmoreland allows the circumstance of Mr E.'s having preached in the Protestant village, Winiki to be urged as a valid ground for withdrawing the licence that had been granted him, when he (Lord W.) possesses a certificate formally signed and sealed by the Lutheran Superintendent of

Gallicia, to the effect that Mr E. never preached in Winiki after this licence was conferred, nor for a whole year previous to it.

As to the two allegations-1. "Mr E was informed when he came to Vienna that he must await at Lemberg the decision of the Minister of Worship ;" and, 2. "His passport was countersigned for his return," Mr E. regrets being forced to say that they are directly false.

It is true that Mr E. received no WRITTEN order to quit the Austrian territory subsequent to that delivered to him in Lemberg on 18th December 1851; but he is able to prove that it is not usual for the police to give written orders in expelling obnoxious persons, and he has abundant evidence that the following statement is correct:

Mr Edward was summoned before the Central Police of Vienna on Monday, 12th January 1852, and informed that the MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, to whom he had presented a petition for reversal of the edict of expulsion, had rejected his cause, and that he must quit the imperial states without delay. Mr E.'s plea, that the military court of Lemberg had granted him respite till the matter was decided by the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, was overruled, and he was told that the decision of the one Minister was equivalent to that of the other. He was refused permission to return to Lemberg to remove his family, and it was only after his fourth visit to the police on the same day that this was conceded. Be it observed, the Vienna police only permitted him to return to Lemberg to remove his family, and at the same time made the remark, that they were taking the responsibility of this indulgence upon themselves. But even then "his passport was not countersigned," as appears in the statement; but he was forced to travel with a mere police-billet, which was only valid for eight days. Four of these days he occupied in the journey, and the other four in preparations to depart. Before leaving, he inquired at the police whether anything had come from Vienna in his favour, and was answered that nothing but his passport had come. It was evident that some instructions concerning him had been issued to the functionaries of the towns through which he had to pass, when the police-officers in Cracow refused his family, after a fatiguing journey of four consecutive days through a country covered with snow, twenty-four hours for repose. Four days were obtained by the intercession of a friend, but all of these Mrs Edward spent in bed.

It is well known that a private individual has no means of resisting the execution of a decree of the police court in Austria, except by obtaining its reversal by a higher court. But the civil governor (or Stadholder) of Gallicia, Count Golucheroshi, gave Mr E. no other reply when he waited upon him, but that he was resolved to have him out of the country for having Romanists at his meetings; the military governor, on whom Mr Edward waited in Vienna, declined admitting him again into his presence, and there ́

was no word of Lord Westmoreland's interference till Mr Edward was forced over the boundaries of Austria.

No. 11.-STATEMENT of Messrs WINGATE and SMITH, relative to "Memorandum drawn up and signed by the Hon. WILLIAM GREY," and enclosed in the communication from the Foreign Office, of date 13th May 1852.

The Imperial order to quit the Austrian dominions without delay, was received by us on the 5th of January. We immediately represented to the Commissary of Police the hardship of being expelled the country at once, on account of the English residents to whom we had ministered for many years, of our household and other arrangements, in a country which had become our home, of our families in a state unfit for travelling in the depth of winter, and of having no sphere of labour provided or thought of elsewhere. On his undertaking to represent these circumstances to the Supreme Government at Vienna, we did not immediately prepare for departure, in hope that some delay might be granted. Further, to insure the success of this appeal, we requested Captain Maijon, a gentleman of high standing and great ability, to communicate in our behalf with the English Embassy, who forthwith proceeded to Vienna. Four days after the first order, we were again summoned before the Commissary of Police, and informed that in reply to our representations, a more stringent order for our removal had arrived, and that, if at the expiry of six days we were not en route for the frontiers, we should be expelled by force. We presented in vain medical certificates that the journey would be attended with danger to the health and life of several members of our families. We then applied for leave to go to Vienna to state our own case to the Embassy and the Government, but were peremptorily refused. Soon after we received an answer from our friend Captain Maijon, who had gone thither on our behalf. His application had been most coldly received by the Embassy, and he informed us we need cherish no hope of effectual interposition from that quarter. If he called early in the morning at the Honourable Mr Grey's residence, instead of the "Chancellerie," this was owing to the urgency of the case, and the fact that the business hours there do not commence before one o'clock. We learned at the same time the result of Mr Edward's appeal to Lord Westmoreland, as set forth in his statement, which, together with our friend's unavailing application for ourselves, cut off all hope of British interference. An invitation now to furnish a written statement held out to us no prospect of relief, and to have been of real service, ought to have been accompanied by an immediate application on the part of the Embassy to

the Austrian Government to arrest its summary proceedings against us. Although we had been positively refused permission to go to Vienna to consult our Embassy, we were suffered, or rather compelled, to pass through that city after we had finally quitted Pesth, it being the high road out of the Austrian dominions. When we reached Vienna we had little to ask from the Embassy; we were already expelled from Hungary, and we were told by the Honourable Mr Grey that the Austrian Government had confidentially communicated to Lord Westmoreland its resolution no longer to tolerate the conversion of the Jews. In these circumstances we simply applied in Mr Smith's behalf for permission to travel by easy stages during the remainder of his journey, on account of the illness of his child. This was procured by the Honourable Mr Grey, but not as Mr Smith expected, by a written order from the Minister of the Interior, which could be used in a case of need. Mr S. was requested to send his passport to the police, and have it stated in the visée that he was not obliged to travel faster than convenient. He thanked the bearer of the Honourable Mr Grey's note, but could not avail himself of the permission granted, as his passport so inscribed would have subjected him to suspicion and molestation from the police throughout the journey, both in Austria and the rest of Germany. But as regards any application made by us personally in Vienna, we made no complaint against the Embassy. Our complaint is, that our application was not attended to when our friend Captain Maijon presented our case, and, according to the Honourable Mr Grey's admission, told him "that he had been requested by Messrs Wingate and Smith to make an application on their behalf at the British Mission, as they were ordered to leave the country." We complain that the British Embassy did not then demand as a right that we should not be driven out in so harsh and cruel a manner. If they were not satisfied of our having committed no offence, they should have at least arrested proceedings till they had investigated the matter. They should not have left it merely to the good feelings of the Austrian Government, but should have demanded that as British subjects we should not be trampled on and wronged,-driven rudely from our adopted homes, and compelled to sacrifice our property and hazard the health and lives of members of our families.

WILLIAM WINGATE.
ROB. SMITH.

At Edinburgh, the thirty-first day of May, eighteen hundred and fifty-two years: Sess. 17. Which day the General Assembly

of the Free Church of Scotland being met and duly constituted: Inter alia,

With respect to the matter of the Expulsion of Jewish Missionaries from the Austrian dominions, the Assembly did and hereby