Ich ersuche Eure Ercellenz ergebenst, gegenwärtiges Schreiben Lord John Russell vorzulesen, und ihm eine Abschrift desselben zu übergeben. Berlin, den 27. Februar 1861. Der Minister der auswärtigen Angelegenheiten. Im Auftrage: (Translation.) AFTER the detailed communications which I made to Lord Bloomfield relative to the affair of Captain Macdonald on the 30th of November, and to your Excellency on the 8th of December last, I thought I might hope that the British Government would be convinced that the Prussian Government and its authorities had impartially treated this unfortunate occurrence in strict accordance with the laws, and that this much-discussed affair would now remain at rest. This hope has not been realized; but, as your Excellency will see by the inclosed copy, Lord Augustus Loftus has been commissioned by his Government to present a further despatch, and to communicate to me a copy thereof. First of all, I can only regret that, in this paper, although it was intended to be communicated to a friendly Government, a style of expression has been used which is by no means in harmony with those considerations which friendly Governments usually think themselves bound to observe. Such style of expression in the present case seems the less justified, inasmuch as the views and the assertions put forth in this despatch are almost wholly in opposition to the real state of the case, as it was communicated by me to the British Government from the documents. Hereupon I will confine myself to a proof of this, in a brief examination of the four points brought forward in the despatch: 1. By the testimony of Parow and his wife, and of Buchholtz, it is shown that, from the first, the entrance of those travellers was opposed by Captain Macdonald, partly by a threat of force, and partly by the actual employment of force. Nevertheless, the Railway Inspector, on being called, left no means untried to remove the cause of dispute by polite intervention. He offered Captain Macdonald and his party admission to another coupé. While he, with this view, tried to prevent M. Kuhe from getting in, Captain Macdonald used force, pulling his brother-in-law into the carriage, and thrusting his fist against the Inspector's breast. After such conduct nothing was left to do but to order Captain Macdonald's removal from the carriage. Such an order towards a traveller who has replied to the summons of an official person by a forcible personal attack, can only be looked upon as the indispensable restoration of seriously violated order. 2. The assumption that Captain Macdonald at any time offered security to obtain his liberty rests simply upon an error. To the demand made at the station to deposit a security of 10 thalers, Captain Macdonald replied by silence only, while his sister-in-law, Kuhe, opposed the accusation that it was extortion. When once Captain Macdonald was arrested and conducted to prison, no further proposition was made by him or his defender to let him out of custody on security. 3. The assertion of Staats-Procurator Möller in reference to the conduct of individual (not almost all) English travellers, is admitted by the Prussian Government itself as unbecoming. A disciplinary inquiry was instituted by the constituted authorities, with full observance of the existing law, and the legal penalty awarded. In reference to this episodical occurrence, the requisite satisfaction has therefore resulted, and consequently the matter is completely settled. 4. The English residents in Bonn are sufficiently acquainted with the Prussian laws and regulations to be aware that it is indeed permitted to every man to make known his supposed grievances in the newspapers, but that public offences ("Beleidigungen") committed through articles in newspapers bring after them a legal penalty. Those Englishmen, therefore, only suffered the necessary consequences of their excited feelings, when they, without due consideration, published in the newspapers accusations against an official person. In this matter also the Prussian Government has simply put the law in force ("walten lassen"). This was purely a matter for the tribunal, with whose functions the Government, as such, is not competent to interfere. The facts of this case being so notorious, there can be no question of any harshness with which, as Lord John Russell expresses himself, the law has been carried out. No knowledge whatever existed of the personal quality of Captain Macdonald when his own conduct rendered his arrest necessary. His violent behaviour was not calculated to make him known as a person of high rank and distinction. Even the demand to deposit a security of 10 thalers was not assented to. When once he was given over to justice, it was no longer possible for the Prussian Government to interfere with the course of it. It has deeply regretted this, and especially because of its close and friendly relations with England; it gave expression to this regret, not only in the note of the 30th of November last to Lord Bloomfield, but also in its endeavour to alleviate the position of Captain Macdonald by hastening his examination. I cannot understand, for the rest, how a reproach can be drawn from the circumstance that the legal prosecution against the signers of the article in the Bonn newspaper was carried out while the discussions upon the affair of Captain Macdonald were pending between the two Governments. The course of justice in Prussia is as free from all influence of the Government, and as independent, as in England. It is not in the competence of the Government to impede it; and those discussions could have no other object than to furnish the British Government with the desired explanation as to the actual state of the case. The decision was solely in the hands of the tribunal, not in those of the Government. I must, therefore, decidedly repel the view taken, that the Prussian Government has in this affair, by its acts or its omissions, violated any of the considerations which it owes to a friendly Government like the British. That such an opinion has appeared in the English press may be explained, inasmuch as it has gathered its information only from the partial representations of Captain Macdonald and of the English residents in Bonn, and to some extent has even refused to give insertion in its pages to impartial communications. But I can only most deeply deplore that the communications which the legal proceedings have furnished as to what really took place have not sufficed, even after hearing the Crown Jurists, to restrain the British Government from the expression of a judgment which is in decided opposition to the facts legally proved. I beg your Excellency to be pleased to read this despatch to Lord John Russell, and to give him a copy thereof. By order of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Berlin, February 27, 1861. No. 56. (Signed) GRUNER. Sir, Lord Wodehouse to Captain Macdonald. Foreign Office, March 12, 1861. IN reply to your letter of the 22nd ultimo, I am directed by Lord John Russell to transmit to you for your information copy of a despatch which his Lordship addressed on the 11th ultimo to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Berlin, and a translation of a despatch in reply from the Prussian Minister for Foreign Affairs, which has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government by Count Bernstorff.* You will perceive from this latter despatch that the Prussian Government continue to deny that you suffered any injustice. I have, &c. My Lord, No. 57. Captain Macdonald to Lord J. Russell.-(Received March 28.) Flag Court, St. James's Palace, March 26, 1861. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from Lord Wodehouse, dated 12th instant, inclosing copies of your Lordship's despatch to Mr. Lowther, together with a translation of M. Gruner's despatch to Count Bernstorff, dated February 27. It is with the greatest reluctance that I again trouble your Lordship, but I feel it to be only due to myself not to leave the statements advanced by M. Gruner unrefuted. To begin with, that gentleman says: "By the testimony of Parrow and his wife, and of Buchholtz, it is shown that from the first the entrance of those travellers was opposed by Captain Macdonald, partly by a threat of force, and partly by the actual employment of force." Now, my Lord, this statement is not only untrue in itself, but also utterly at variance with the testimony of the witnesses for the defence, viz., Dr. Meyer, Mademoiselle Harrietta Hövel, and subsequently, at the trial for libel on the 18th of December, 1860, Madame Heyden Wolff. I say nothing of the testimony of my fellow travellers, my sister Mrs. Kuhe, and her husband, although it might well be allowed to weigh against that of Dr. and Mrs. Parow, who cannot certainly be called impartial witnesses. I will not weary your Lordship with a repetition of the evidence given on these trials, but merely allow myself to direct your Lordship's attention to the same. A careful analysis of that evidence will, I think, convince every impartial person of the incorrectness of M. Gruner's statement. He then goes on to say that Hoffmann civilly offered to show me to another carriage, but that I refused to comply with his directions, and on his attempting to prevent Mr. Kuhe from getting in, struck Hoffmann violently on the chest. It is scarcely necessary for me to attempt to disprove this statement. The tribunal before which I was arraigned having declared that it "recognised in the conduct of Macdonald not so much an attack upon, but only an insult towards the railway inspector on duty," thus acquitting me of the charge of assault. The Prussian Government, your Lordship perceives, will not, in their attacks upon me, allow me even the benefit of the decision of their own Court of Justice. How much less can I expect them to give credence to the evidence of my witnesses! If they would have the fairness to do the latter, I think they would be compelled to acknowledge that the evidence of Dr. and Mrs. Parow, of Buchholtz, and Hoffmann, is completely refuted. The witness Madame Heyden Wolff, in her testimony on the 18th December, shows that Parow actually prevented her from coming forward as evidence in my favour on the day of my own trial. Is this the bearing of a man confident of the truth of his assertions? But unworthy as Dr. Parow's conduct has been, it is not of him that I complain. It is of the Government, which has, without impartially weighing the evidence on either side, chosen to credit every assertion, however malignant, that has been made against me, no matter from what source it has proceeded. I still maintain, as I did before, that I have been cruelly and unjustly treated, in the first instance by the railway officials, and subsequently illegally by the police authorities; that is to say, if the Law of the 1st February, 1850, providing for the liberty of the subject ("Gezetz zum Schutze der persönlichen Freiheit") is to be considered as obtaining in Prussia. I again beg leave to remind your Lordship that I was taken into custody on the Wednesday, and that it was not till the Saturday following that the order of detention ("Verwahrungs-Befehl") was lodged in the hands of the jailer. This, although a direct contravention of the law, has remained unnoticed by the Prussian Government, who absolutely refuse an apology to myself, who have suffered from the illegal acts of their authorities. So far, indeed, from offering one word of apology for, or regret at, the indignities I have suffered, the Prussian Government, by their mouthpiece, M. Gruner, have cast imputations on my character as a gentleman, even taking the trouble to attempt to show that I refused, either out of parsimony or want of means, to pay the paltry sum of 10 thalers. I distinctly deny that I, either forcibly or otherwise, opposed the entrance of any travellers into the carriage I was occupying, or that I conducted myself, at any time, in an unbecoming manner. This I do not offer as a mere assertion, but your Lordship will find it rests on the testimony of the witnesses Hövel, Meyer, and Madame Heyden. In conclusion, and while begging your Lordship to accept my best thanks for the kind energy with which you have supported my cause, your Lordship will forgive my expressing my surprise at the decision come to by the Law Officers of the Crown. I am ready to affirm upon oath, and am able to bring witnesses to confirm my statement, that I was not only cruelly but illegally treated, according to the laws obtaining in Prussia, and I trust that your Lordship will see fit to direct the attention of the legal advisers of Her Majesty to the facts to which I have adverted. |