صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

knows nothing, except through Mr Grey's memorandum. On the contrary, it was by a whole day of ceaseless importunity as a friendless stranger that he obtained this liberty for himself from the Austrian police, and that merely by a police billet valid only eight days.

I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient humble servant,

A. MAKELLAR, D.D., Moderator:

The Right Hon. the Earl of Malmesbury,
Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
&c. &c. &c., London,

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 17. 1852.

SIR--I am directed by the Earl of Malmesbury to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ult., in reply to the letter which was addressed to you by his Lordship's directions on the 13th of May last, on the subject of the expulsion of Messrs Edward, Wingate, and Smith, from the Austrian dominions, and I am to request that you will call upon Messrs Wingate and Smith for an early reply to my letter of the 17th of June, enclosing an abstract of the evidence taken before the authorities at Pesth as to the losses alleged to have been sustained by those gentlemen owing to the sale of their property.—I am, &c.

Dr MAKELLAR.

STANLEY.

EDINBURGH, July 27. 1852.

MY LORD,-I am requested by the Rev. Dr Makellar, who is at present absent from Edinburgh, to acknowledge receipt of Lord Stanley's letter of the 17th inst., and to say, that, as his letter to your Lordship (dated 15th June) had not been received when Lord Stanley's was despatched, it is only necessary for me to refer your Lordship to that letter.-I have, &c.

The Right Hon, the Earl of Malmesbury.

JAMES CRAWFORD jun.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 2. 1852. SIR, I am directed by the Earl of Malmesbury to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ult., and to inform you, in reply, that Dr Makellar's letter of the 15th ult., to which you refer, has been sent to Her Majesty's Minister at Vienna for any further observations which the Austrian Government may have to make thereupon.-I am, &c.,

James Crawford jun. Esq.

STANLEY.

LETTER from the EARL OF MALMESBURY to the Rev.

DR MAKELLAR.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 27. 1852. SIR,-With reference to the correspondence which has already passed on the subject of the claim for redress from the Austrian Government, made by Messrs Edward, Wingate, and Smith, I am directed by the Earl of Malmesbury to communicate to you the decision at which his Lordship, after mature consideration of your letters of the 28th of June and the 15th of July, has arrived, both in regard to the merits of that claim and to the accusations brought against Her Majesty's Mission at Vienna, of indifference to the complaints of those gentlemen.

In considering the case as against the Austrian Government, I must premise that, with reference to the extradition of Messrs Edward, Wingate, and Smith from the Austrian territory, in violation, as is alleged, of the constitution of Austria at that time existing, Her Majesty's Government must absolutely decline to enter on the question of the legality or the justice of that act. Earl Granville, in his despatch to the Earl of Westmoreland of the 17th of February 1852, observed that "it is not for Her Majesty's Government to suggest what amount of religious toleration should be exercised in Austria," and "that Her Majesty's Government have therefore abstained from making a formal demand for redress;" and he instructs the Earl of Westmoreland "to leave it to the good feeling of the Austrian Government to decide whether they think fit to afford any compensation." Earl Granville's opinion to that effect having once been formally and publicly expressed, and communicated to the Austrian Government, it thenceforward became impossible for Her Majesty's Government to re-open a question thus virtually set at rest by the decision of the Secretary of State for the time being, or to found any official complaint on the asserted violation of Austrian law. The sole question which now remains open for consideration is, whether, under all the circumstances of the case, an amount of actual loss can be proved to have been incurred, or a degree of personal suffering to have been sustained, by Messrs Edward, Wingate, and Smith, which justifies a renewed demand on the Austrian Government for compensation or redress, in consequence of the manner in which the order for their extradition was carried out.

Considering first the case of Mr Edward, I am directed by the Earl of Malmesbury to observe that no claim for pecuniary compensation has been advanced by that gentleman, while the personal inconvenience sustained by him appears to have been limited to a journey, voluntarily undertaken, from Lemberg to Vienna and back, and to a removal from the scene of his labours, which cannot. be described as having been either sudden or unforeseen. Even

this inconvenience might, in Lord Malmesbury's opinion, have been greatly diminished, had Mr Edward not omitted to take the most obvious and ordinary precautions for diminishing it. For what were the circumstances attending Mr Edward's expulsion from Lemberg? On the 17th of December Mr Edward received a written notice from the police to quit the Austrian States. On Mr Edward remonstrating with the higher provincial authorities, he received, on the 23d of December, a written permission to remain pending the decision of the competent authorities at Vienna, and a further permission to repair to the capital with a view of pleading his own cause. Previously to his departure, Mr Edward had addressed the Earl of Westmoreland on the subject of his expulsion, and immediate steps were accordingly taken in his behalf. On Mr Edward's arrival at Vienna, the Earl of Westmoreland informed him of the representations which had been made, and advised him to remain where he was until an answer should have been received. Mr Edward, however, left Vienna without again communicating with the Mission; in consequence, as he states, of verbal orders to that effect from the police, and with a police pass valid for eight days only, which compelled him to leave the Austrian dominions within that time. Had Mr Edward, on receiving this verbal order and this document, communicated the fact to the Earl of Westmoreland, his Lordship would, no doubt, have taken immediate steps to procure explanation of measures so diametrically opposed to the assurances in the mean time received by him, both from the Minister of the Interior and from Prince Edmond Schwarzenberg, by both of whom he was informed that Mr Edward would be allowed to await, either at Lemberg or at Vienna, the final decision of the Ministry of Public Worship. But no communication whatever was addressed by Mr Edward to the Earl of Westmoreland, who, in consequence, remained as ignorant of Mr Edward's final departure from the Austrian dominions as the Austrian ministers declare themselves to have been. Mr Edward further goes on to state that it is not usual for the Austrian police to give written orders for expelling obnoxious persons, that he is consequently unable to produce such order as required by the Austrian minister, but that he has abundant evidence to shew that his statements are correct. That evidence, however, Mr Edward does not produce, nor does he state its nature; and I am consequently directed to express the Earl of Malmesbury's regret that, under these circumstances, and in the absence of all testimony bearing on so material a part of the case, he must decline taking any further steps in Mr Edward's behalf.

As regards the expulsion of Messrs Wingate and Smith from the Austrian dominions, I am directed by the Earl of Malmesbury to observe, that however much he may regret that the Austrian Government should have thought it compatible with their dignity to use towards those gentlemen measures so harsh as those complained of, he still cannot but be of opinion, that had Messrs Wingate and

Smith, on first receiving the crder for their expulsion, adopted a more judicious course of proceeding, they might have greatly diminished, if they could not altogether have averted, the annoyance and hardship to which they have been exposed. Instead of at once representing their case in writing to the Earl of Westmoreland, and soliciting his interference with the Austrian Government in their favour, they appear to have in the first instance communicated with Her Majesty's Mission through the medium of a Foreign gentleman unknown to every member of the mission, and not furnished by them with any letter or document whatever, by which it might appear that he was authorised to speak and act on their behalf. Further, it appears that when advised to address a written statement of their grievances to the Earl of Westmoreland, a communication which, it is understood, might easily have been received from Pesth in thirty-six hours, they neglected to do so, and in their subsequent personal interview with Mr Gray, tacitly withdrew their former demand, by requesting only to be allowed to travel by easy stages. This permission was at once procured for them, and if Messrs Wingate and Smith, for reasons of their own, as stated in the paper enclosed in your letter of the 28th of June, did not choose to avail themselves of it, it does not appear that Her Majesty's Mission were in fault, or indeed that they were in any manner responsible for the decision come to by Messrs Wingate and Smith. The Earl of Malmesbury therefore considers the accusation of supineness or neglect on the part of Her Majesty's Mission in protecting British interests, as having utterly fallen to the ground.

As regards the question of pecuniary compensation for the actual loss of property consequent on the removal of Messrs Smith and Wingate, Mr Wingate states, in the letter quoted in yours of the 15th of July, that " when a claim for damages was made out, it was only done at the urgent desire, I might almost say, demand of Earl Granville, on our leaving the Foreign Office in February last; and when our claim for compensation was sent in, it was accompanied by a note from the Hon. A. Kinnaird, in which he repeated low unwillingly we complied with Earl Granville's wish, and that our design in appealing to the British Government for redress was not to obtain pecuniary compensation, and that we had only stated a sum, because His Lordship had said it was indispensable to the formality of the appeal he intended to make to the Imperial Government of Austria."

It is of course impossible for Her Majesty's present Government to know what may have possesed in a private interview between Earl Granville and Mr Kinnaird or others; but no trace is to be found in the archives of this department of any such recommendation on the part of Earl Granville; and although Mr Kinnaird, in the letter referred to, certainly states that the parties concerned "did not look upon the question so much in a pecuniary light," yet.

I leave you to judge, from the perusal of the whole of Mr Kinnaird's letter, as laid before Parliament, a copy of which is herewith annexed, whether it coincides with the statement made by Mr Wingate as to its contents.

But whatever may have been the private and personal feelings of Messrs Wingate and Smith, as to the nature of the redress for which they should apply, there can be no question but that a specific demand for compensation on account of losses actually sustained by them has been made; that it has been made, if not by their express desire, at least with their sanction and consent; and that it has been met by the production of evidence showing that the losses in question have been greatly exaggerated in amount. In reply to this evidence the complaining parties have nothing to allege beyond vague and general assertions, and a disclaimer of all intention to give a pecuniary character to their demand.

But whatever be the nature of the reparation which they desire, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government not to perceive, and Messrs Wingate and Smith will themselves be at no loss to understand, that the proved inaccuracy of one part of their statement, however unintentional, renders it difficult to press upon the Austrian Government a claim which rests exclusively on their evidence, where that evidence is directly contradicted by that of the Austrian Authorities.

It is prima facie to be expected, under all circumstances that a Government will place confidence in the statements of its own officers; and Her Majesty's Government believe that after the investigation which has already taken place, and the decision already announced, there is no likelihood of Messrs Wingate and Smith being permitted to resume their missionary labours within the Austrian dominions, a demand, indeed, which they themselves have never made, apparently from a conviction of its entire hopelessness. I am, &c.

The Rev. Dr MAKELLAR.

STANLEY

LETTER from the Rev. DR MAKELLAR to the EARL
OF MALMESBURY.

EDINBURGH, 17th November 1852. MY LORD,-I duly received your Lordship's letter of the 27th August, but as no meeting of the Commission of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland was thereafter held until to-day, I could not obtain authority to reply to it. As instructed by the Commission, I have now the honour again to address you.

Your Lordship's letter of the 28th April to Mr Moody Stuart, Convener of the Assembly's Committee on the Conversion of the Jews, contained the following passages :

« السابقةمتابعة »