§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, a question respecting the alleged passage of the Russian troops through Prussian territory, in order to attack the Polish Insurgents; and also respecting the alleged wounding and robbery of a British subject, Ludwig Finkenstein, bearing a British passport, by the Russian soldiery. Certain statements in connection with the subject had been denied by the French Government. It appeared, by a recent communication, that at four o'clock one afternoon a Russian courier, with an escort of four Cossacks, arrived at a small town in Prussian territory, that they came fully armed, and that the Prussian troops not only did not disarm them, but gave them cigars and received money in payment. It was also stated that a British subject, Ludwig Finkenstein, had been seriously injured by some Russian soldiers while pursuing his lawful occupation in Poland and possessing a passport, signed by Earl Russell. He received twenty-five or twenty-six bayonet wounds, and was robbed of about £1,000 in English money. He was then taken to Cracow; and whether he was now alive or dead was unknown. He apprehended that the interference of the British Government under the Treaty of Vienna must be limited to some such cases as these. The ardent friends of the Polish cause were anxious to obtain support, and were prone to regard Her Majesty's Government as omnipotent. But the action of Her Majesty's Government differed from that of individuals. Their power to interfere was restricted by treaty obligations, while the people could freely express their sympathies, and even give indirect assistance to the cause of an oppressed nation. Hence the difficulty of framing Resolutions upon which the Government could act. At the Mansion House meeting one of the resolutions was that Russia, by her cruelties, had forfeited all right to Poland, and that the British Government should be called upon to make a solemn declaration to the Powers of Europe to that effect. What would he the use of making that solemn declaration, unless it was followed up by the alternative of 84 declaring war? At the Manchester meeting one of the resolutions was, that it was the duty of every Englishman to aid the cessation of all diplomatic relations with Russia until the state of things indicated in the resolution was changed. But that, probably, would he the most unfortunate step which could be taken in the interest of the Poles, because the English Government would then be deprived of all chance of mediating in a friendly way in the event of the opportunity occurring. The fulfilment of the obligations imposed upon Russia by the Treaty of 1815 would not meet the wishes and aspirations of the Poles. The Marquis Wielopolski endeavoured to induce the Russian Government to carry out the Treaty of Vienna in a manner more favourable to Poland than the letter of those treaties required, and, instead of being admired, his name was execrated by the national party. The domination of Russia over Poland was entirely incompatible with the feelings of the people. Unless by the interposition of Providence they were successful in their present struggle, he was afraid that the next hundred years must be passed, as the last, in a. perpetual collision with the Russian authorities. There was not a man in Poland who, if he were offered the most complete material comfort under the Russian sway, would consent to abandon his aspirations for the restoration of the ancient kingdom. He was afraid that it was impossible to expect the Government to proceed in any different course from that which they had adopted before. They could not go beyond remonstrances, and the appeal ad misericordiam, except they were ready to undertake a war with Russia. What Lord Castlereagh had failed to do in 1815, the noble Lord at the head of the Government would hardly be able to do in 1863. He had heard it stated that the Foreign Secretary was endeavouring to induce the Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna to join in a remonstrance to Russia, to endeavour to persuade her to consent to the realization on behalf of Poland of the stipulations in the Treaty of Vienna. He was afraid that the Poles must depend for the restoration of their country on their own strong hands and gallant hearts; all that could be asked of the British Government was that they should urge an immediate amnesty the performance of the promises made" in 1815, and the convocation of the Polish Diet. For himself, he was quite content to leave the matter 85 in the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
§ MR. LAYARDrose to make a brief reply to the Questions addressed to the Government by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Member for Horsham had made two or three observations in the course of his speech which required a distinct contradiction from the Government. The facts which he had stated, with regard to the Peterhoff, had been already submitted to the Government, but they were the ex parte statements of the owners of the vessel; and though, of course, it was not for him to call in question the accuracy of those statements, it was clear that as they were ex-parte the Government could not take immediate action on them. What they had done was what had been done in all similar cases; the statements of the owners had been referred without a moment's delay to the Law Officers of the Crown; and when their opinion had been given, such representations would be made to the Government of the United States as Her Majesty's Government might think desirable. The hon. Member complained of the delay which had taken place; but it was difficult to see what more could have been dune. The facts had only been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office two days before, and they had at once been referred to the Law Officers. But the hon. Member had travelled beyond the case of the Peterhoff, and had referred to some arrangement which be seemed to think had been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with regard to the proceedings of American cruisers, and he read a list of vessels which he assumed that Lord Russell had admitted to be suspected and liable to be seized and searched. The hon. Member was labouring under an entire delusion. The Government had never heard of any such arrangement, nor, as far as he knew, had any such an arrangement ever been proposed. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to certain papers published by the United States Legislature, Papers had certainly been laid before the American Legislature—which had been reprinted for the House of Commons at the hon. Gentleman's request—in which allusion was made to certain orders issued by the American Government to their cruisers; but those allusions are to certain arrangements which the United States Government had 86 themselves issued to their own cruisers, it was true that Her Majesty's Government had objected to those arrangements. The Government of Washington then issued amended orders to their cruisers, which, as far as he remembered, were published in the American papers, and Lord Russell considered that the new arrangements thus made were more satisfactory than those which had existed before. But these arrangements were not made in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government. The list of suspected vessels was merely an inclosure from Mr. Adams, with which the British Government had nothing whatever to do. He distinctly denied the fact of any arrangement such as that described by the hon. Gentleman having been made between the British and the American Governments. His hon. Friend, as was sometimes his wont, dealt rather largely in strong epithets, and said that the Government had been guilty of a very discreditable proceeding in regard to the papers which had been laid before the House. [Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I did not say that]. I am glad my hon. Friend withdraws the words. [Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I never used them.] Three or four sets of papers had been presented to Parliament; and when his hon. Friend placed his Motion on the paper, he communicated with him on the matter, and told him that he should lay on the table all the papers which he thought might be interesting; and he begged him then, if there were any papers which he considered of importance not included in the correspondence, to ask for them, and he should be most happy to furnish them. It was treating the Government, therefore, rather unfairly to say that they had acted discreditably in the manner in which they had laid the papers before the House. The hon. Member had asked, why were not the papers relative to vessels running the blockade laid before the House? The printing of all those documents would be of no use to any one, and would only unnecessarily add to the printing expenses of the House; he would be ready, however, to present papers connected with any particular case which the hon. Member might designate.
With regard to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), that hon. Member's sources of information in the public press of all countries were so inexhaustible that it was impossible to keep pace with him. He had already 87 distinctly stated that the Government had no official information that Russian troops had crossed the Prussian frontier. [Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH: The Moniteur.] He could not be answerable for articles that appeared in the Moniteur, but he had seen a disclaimer in that paper on this very point. As to the case of Mr. Finkenstein the Government had received information, which led to the conclusion that a more disgraceful and discreditable outrage was never perpetrated. It appeared that Mr. Finkenstein, having entered into a contract for the purchase of some corn, crossed for the purpose of obtaining it from Cracow into Poland with a Polish lady, who asked him to allow her to travel in his car. On crossing the frontier they were stopped by the Russian guard, but on the gentleman showing his passport which was a British one duly viséd, they were allowed to pass on. At some distance from the frontier they fell in with a second party of Russian troops, and were detained by the officer in command during the night. On the following morning, in company with some Poles who had been captured, they were told that they must be sent to the General in charge of the district. They were furnished with a guard under a lieutenant. On their way to head-quarters a party of insurgents were seen in the distance, and firing commenced; whereupon the guard murdered the captives at the cart-wheel, and then dragged the lady from the cart and inflicted on her several bayonet wounds; they then seized Mr. Finkenstein, took him out of the cart, plundered him of all his property, and bayoneted him, inflicting thirty-eight wounds, and leaving him for dead. The officer commanding the troops, Mr. Finkenstein stated, did his best to prevent this outrage, but he was unable to restrain the troops. While lying on the ground, Mr. Finkenstein was found by the Polish General, Langiewicz, who, perceiving signs of life in him, treated him with great kindness, and had him removed under the care of his own surgeon to Cracow. Lord Bloomfield, as soon as he heard of the ease, sent a person to Mr. Finkenstein to learn the full particulars, and the statement now made to the House was taken down from Mr. Finkenstein's own words. Mr. Finkenstein was not dead The Government had sent out orders for a full inquiry into the whole case. There was some doubt whether Mr. Finkcustein 88 was a British subject; if he should prove to be one, full reparation, it was to be hoped, would be obtained for this gross outrage upon him.