QUESTION. (Hansard, 26 April 1861)

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, the question which be intended to address to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government was one which deeply concerned the comfort and convenience of that numerous class of Englishmen who during the summer vacation were in the habit of travelling on the Continent. The matter did not concern Captain Macdonald alone. If it 1177 did, perhaps it would be unfitting that he should take up the time of the House with it; but, unfortunately, it concerned every English passenger who travelled through the territories of Prussia, and was, therefore, important enough to be brought under the consideration of the House. He wanted to know precisely the amount of protection which Englishmen were to expect from their own Government in case of need, and the amount of oppression which they would have to bear from foreign Governments when unfortunate enough to fall into their hands. The case of Captain Macdonald, through the agency of the press, was tolerably well known to the House, and, therefore, he should be absolved from stating it in any detail. Captain Macdonald was a passenger on the railway from Mayence to Cologne. At Bonn the train stopped, and his sister-in-law, her child, and a nurse left their places to get some refreshments. During their absence a Dr. Parow entered the carriage and seized their places. Captain Macdonald represented to him that the seats were occupied, and protested against the intrusion. Dr. Parow replied by calling him a "lout." Thereupon Captain Macdonald called the station master, who unfortunately was a man personally dependent on Dr. Parow, and when he came up, at once took the side of his countryman, and summoned Captain Macdonald to leave the carriage. Not satisfied with that summons he attempted to pull him out. Captain Macdonald, with an instinct natural to an Englishman, resisted; but we had the evidence of German witnesses, totally unconnected with Captain Macdonald, that his resistance had no character of violence. He simply pushed the stationmaster back. No sooner, however, had he laid hands on the sacred person of the stationmaster than several railway officials dashed by the opposite door into the carriage, seized him by the heels, and pulled him out upon the platform. Having done so Captain Macdonald stated, but his evidence was not corroborated by other witnesses, that they maltreated his sister-in-law and the child. He was then ordered to lay down 10 dollars on the spot. Captain Macdonald demurred to that demand and asked what authority they had to demand 10 dollars; but that was a question which Prussian officials were not in the habit of answering; and, instead of producing their authority, they seized Captain Macdonald and threw him into prison—into what Englishmen described as a filthy prison, 1178 but what Prussians described as a decent prison. The precise state of things could, of course, be imagined by the House. In that prison he was left for six days. At the end of that period he was brought before a court of justice. They acquitted him of the alleged assault, but they imputed to him what was never charged against him—that he had insulted the stationmaster—on the sole and unsupported testimony of the stationmaster himself, contradicted by other German witnesses; and for this they fined and dismissed him. The House would observe, in the first place, that even according to the Prussian law the treatment of Captain Macdonald was absolutely illegal. The Prussian law, like our own, was very jealous of the liberty of the subject. It provided that every person arrested by the police should, within twenty four hours of his arrest, be examined before a magistrate, and that the magistrate should sign a warrant for his further detention. But that law was in reality a dead letter. The police were in the habit of constantly disregarding it, and in this case it was treated as of absolutely no avail. Captain Macdonald was thrown into prison, and remained there, without authorization. This was a very serious state of things. It showed that it was competent for any Prussian authority to throw an English traveller into prison, and keep him there for six days, on the simple allegation that he himself had been insulted by that English traveller. Captain Macdonald was not intimately acquainted with the German language, which was the case with many of the gentlemen who travelled on the Continent; what possible security had they that any railway stationmaster might not consider himself insulted by some unwitting word or act on their part, and that they would not be thrown into prison and kept there for six days without bail? It had been asserted in the German newspapers that Captain Macdonald had assaulted the stationmaster and Dr. Parow, but that accusation had been found to be without any foundation whatever. But there was more than this danger. It was not only that a railway official might seize a man against whom he, or anyone in whom he had an interest, happened to have a spite; but, unfortunately, the whole course of proceeding showed that there was a special animus against English travellers among the authorities who bore rule in Prussia. He did not mean to cast the slightest 1179 blame on Her Majesty's Government, or on the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; he thought that noble Lord had behaved in a very worthy and dignified spirit; but he did wish to impress on the House, and through them on the public, the fact of the hostile spirit in which the Prussian authorities dealt with the subjects of the Queen, and the danger which all English travellers ran in the present state of feeling in that country. In the first place, it was hostile enough, when a man objected to his place in a railway carriage being forcibly occupied by another, that he should be dragged out by the heels to the platform and thrown into prison. That by itself was evidence of hostility, but it did not stop there. No sooner was Captain Macdonald thrown into prison, than the British Consul at Bonn went to the proper authorities and offered bail for his appearance. In England that bail would have been accepted at once, but what was the course taken in Prussia? Consul Crossthwaite went to the State Procurator Möller, and, in writing to Lord Bloomfield the Consul said— He expressed great indignation at the Captain's conduct, and alluded to the manner in which the English generally conducted themselves on the Continent, as it they were not in a civilized land. I replied that perhaps a few might misconduct themselves, but such a complaint could not be made against all. He said at all events people who travelled must know they cannot strike down a railway officer in the execution of his duty. I pointed out to him that I understood Captain Macdonald was an officer of Her Majesty's Body Guard, and, setting aside his rank, it was a serious thing to arrest a British subject and to send him to gaol like a felon—that unless he were speedily released it might have serious consequences. To this Moller replied, 'We will run the risk of that.' I asked if Captain Macdonald could be released on bill, offering to deposit cash to any amount. To this he replied, 'I will not take bail; but if you like to petition the Court and offer to deposit 500 thalers, you can do so, although I tell you beforehand that I shall oppose it. I quite understand what you want—to get the Englishman out on bail, and then he will run off to England, not caring about the money. No; we must make an example of him.' That was the spirit in which the representatives of the Prussian Government at Bonn wished to proceed against the English. This functionary considered them as a species of vermin to be hunted out of the land; he stigmatized all Englishmen, and denied the commonest justice to Captain Macdonald because he was anxious to gratify his spleen against the English. But that was not all. The case came on for trial, when Möller, 1180 who was conducting the prosecution on the part of the Prussian Government, made a general attack on English travellers on the Continent. Now, there was not a particle of evidence against Captain Macdonald except that of the stationmaster who declared that he had been assaulted; all the other German witnesses—independent people, who had no interest in the matter—declared that Captain Macdonald had done nothing contrary to the law. But in spite of their evidence, the stationmaster declared that he had been assaulted, and the tribunal preferred believing him rather than the independent witnesses. To enforce the evidence Möller made a violent speech against all Englishmen travelling on the Continent, and in language which was well known, having been widely commented upon, he charged them with universal blackguardism. The exact meaning of the word used was a little controverted, and linguists declared that "lubberly" was the true translation. He did not know whether English travellers would prefer to be called blackguards or lubbers; but, whatever was the precise equivalent of the original, it was clear that Möller was animated by a desire to blacken the character of English travellers to the utmost extent. What did the Prussian Government do? Of course, that Government were not bound by the acts of their subordinates if they disavowed them; but they did nothing of the kind. Instead of disavowing Möller, they allowed a prosecution to be brought against the English travellers residing at Bonn for venturing to express their opinions on the subject. They had not inflicted the slightest censure on the stationmaster who had acted in such an arbitrary and violent manner. He did not mean to say that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary should raise this matter to the dignity of an international difference. He had already expressed himself in terms quite as strong as the circumstances deserved, and which did the noble Lord great credit. The noble Lord said— The Prussian Government has not thought fit to temper its justification of these extreme acts by any expression of regret, and Her Majesty's Government cannot but regard its conduct as too clearly evincing a disregard of international goodwill. If the British Government were not able to defend English travellers from such unjust, arbitrary, and illegal attacks, they were bound at least to warn them against 1181 the dangers they incurred. He thought Captain Macdonald ought to have received some reparation from the Prussian Government. It was a deep injury that had been inflicted upon him, and it was a reflection on the English people that the Prussian Government not only refused him reparation, hut allowed Möller to remain without any reprimand, and the author of the whole undisturbed in his office. What he wanted to ask the noble Lord was this—whether he would take any measures to acquaint English travellers with the dangers they ran when they travelled on a Prussian railway? They ought to be acquainted with what was the law of that country—that a stationmaster at any station might, for an imaginary insult, have them dragged by the heels out of the railway carriage on to the platform, throw them into prison, keep them there for six days, and on his sole, unsupported, and contradicted evidence have them punished with fine and imprisonment, even when actively supported by their own Government; the temper and spirit in which Prussian law was administered being specially hostile to all subjects of the Queen of England. English travellers ought to be informed that while travelling in Prussia they were liable to dangers to which they were not subject in any other country in Europe. Wherever passports were issued there ought to be a statement made public of the brutal and barbarous conditions to which travellers in Prussia must submit.