Naturalisation registration of aliens 1: but its execution has fallen more and more into disuse. The confidence of our policy, and the prodigious intercourse developed by facilities of communication and the demands of commerce, have practically restored to foreigners that entire freedom which they enjoyed before the French Revolution. The improved feeling of Parliament in regard to Act, 1844. foreigners was marked in 1844 by Mr. Hutt's wise and liberal measure for the naturalisation of aliens' Confidence succeeded to jealousy; and the legislature, instead of devising impediments and restraints, offered welcome and citizenship. Right of asylum paired. While the law had provided for the removal of never im- aliens, it was for the safety of England,—not for the satisfaction of other states. The right of asylum was as inviolable as ever. It was not for foreign govern ments to dictate to England the conditions on which aliens under her protection should be treated. this principle, the events of 1802 offered a remarkable illustration. Napoleon's demands in 1820. Of During the short peace succeeding the treaty of Amiens, Napoleon, First Consul of the French Republic, demanded that our government should "remove out of the British dominions all the French princes and their adherents, together with the bishops and other individuals, whose political principles and conduct must necessarily occasion great jealousy to the French Go To this demand Lord Hawkesbury replied, his Majesty "certainly expects that all foreigners who may reside within his dominions should not only hold a 17 Geo. IV. c. 54; 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 11. 27 & 8 Vict c. 66; 10 & 11 Vict. c. 83. 3 Mr. Merry to Lord Hawkesbury, June 4th, 1802; Parl. Hist., xxx. 1263. conduct conformable to the laws of the country, but should abstain from all acts which may be hostile to the government of any country, with which his Majesty may be at peace. As long, however, as they conduct themselves according to these principles, his Majesty would feel it inconsistent with his dignity, with his honour, and with the common laws of hospitality, to deprive them of that protection which individuals, resident in his dominions, can only forfeit by their own misconduct." 1 Still more decidedly were these demands reiterated. It was demanded, 1st. That more effectual measures should be adopted for the suppression of seditious publications. 2nd. That certain persons named should be sent out of Jersey. 3rd. "That the former bishops of Arras and St. Pol de Leon, and all those who, like them, under the pretext of religion, seek to raise disturbances in the interior of France, shall likewise be sent away." 4th. That Georges and his adherents shall be transported to Canada. 5th. That the princes of the House of Bourbon be recommended to repair to Warsaw, the residence of the head of their family. 6th. That French emigrants, wearing orders and decorations of the ancient government of France, should be required to leave England. These demands assumed to be based upon a construction of the recent treaty of Amiens; and effect was expected to be given to them, under the provisions of the Alien Act.2 These representations were frankly and boldly met. For the repression of seditious writings, our government would entertain no measure but an appeal to the courts of law.3 To apply the Alien Act in aid of 1 Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. Aug. 17th, 1802. Merry, 10th June, 1802. See supra, p. 176. 2 M. Otto to Lord Hawkesbury, Reply of the English Govern ment. Principles on which are protected. the law of libel, and to send foreign writers out of the country, because they were obnoxious, not to our own government, but to another, was not to be listened to. The removal of other French emigrants, and especially of the princes of the House of Bourbon, was refused, and every argument and precedent adduced in support of the demand refuted.1 The emigrants in Jersey had already removed, of their own accord; and the bishops would be required to leave England if it could be proved that they had been distributing papers on the coast of France, in order to disturb the government: but sufficient proof of this charge must be given. As regards M. Georges, who had been concerned in circulating papers hostile to the government in France, his Majesty agreed to remove him from our European dominions. The king refused to withdraw the rights of hospitality from the French princes, unless it could be proved that they were attempting to disturb the peace between the two countries. He also declined to adopt the harsh measure which had been demanded against refugees who continued to wear French decorations.2 The ground here taken has been since maintained. foreigners It is not enough that the presence or acts of a foreigner may be displeasing to a foreign power. If that rule were accepted, where would be the right of asylum? The refugee would be followed by the vengeance of his own government, and driven forth from the home he had chosen, in a free country. On this point, Englishmen have been chivalrously sensitive. Having undertaken to protect the stranger, they have resented any menace to him, as an insult to themselves. Disaffection to the rulers of his own country is natural to a refugee his banishment attests it. Poles hated 'Mr. Merry to Lord Hawkes- 2 Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. Merry, Russia: Hungarians and Italians were hostile to Austria French Royalists spurned the republic, and the first empire: Charles X. and Louis Napoleon were disaffected to Louis-Philippe, King of the French: legitimists and Orleanists alike abhorred the French republic of 1848, and the revived empire of 1852. But all were safe under the broad shield of England. Every political sentiment, every discussion short of libel, enjoyed freedom. Every act not prohibited by law, - however distasteful to other states, was entitled to protection. Nay more: large numbers of refugees, obnoxious to their own rulers, were maintained by the liberality of the English government. conspiracy This generosity has sometimes been abused by aliens, The Orsini who, under cover of our laws, have plotted against 1858. friendly states. There are acts, indeed, which the laws could only have tolerated by an oversight; and in this category was that of conspiracy to assassinate the sovereign of a friendly state. The horrible conspiracy of Orsini, in 1858, had been plotted in England. Not countermined by espionage, nor checked by jealous restraints on personal liberty, it had been matured in safety; and its more overt acts had afterwards escaped the vigilance of the police in France. The crime was execrated but how could its secret conception have been prevented? So far our laws were blameless. The government of France, however, in the excitement of recent danger, angrily remonstrated against the alleged impunity of assassins in this country. Englishmen repudiated, with just indignation, any tolerance of murder. Yet on one point were our laws at fault. Orsini's desperate crime was unexampled planned in England, it had been executed beyond the limits of British jurisdiction: it was doubtful if his confederates 1 Despatch of Count Walewski, Jan. 20th, 1858. 1 to Murder 8th, 1858. could be brought to justice; and certain that they Conspiracy would escape without adequate punishment. Ministers, Bill, Feb. believing it due, no less to France than to the vindication of our own laws, that this anomaly should be corrected, proposed a measure, with that object, to Parliament. But the Commons, resenting imputations upon this country, which had not yet been repelled; and jealous of the apparent dictation of France, under which they were called upon to legislate, refused to entertain the bill.1 A powerful ministry was struck down; and a rupture hazarded with the Emperor of the French. Yet to the measure itself, apart from the circumstances under which it was offered, no valid objection could be raised; and three years later, its provisions were silently admitted to a place in our revised criminal laws.2 Extradition treaties. A just protection of political refugees is not incompatible with the surrender of criminals. All nations have a common interest in the punishment of heinous crimes; and upon this principle, England entered into extradition treaties with France, and the United States of America, for mutually delivering up to justice persons charged with murder, piracy, arson, or forgery, committed within the jurisdiction of either of the contracting states.3 England offers no asylum to such criminals; and her own jurisdiction has been vastly extended over offenders escaping from justice. It is a wise policy, conducive to the comity of civilised nations. 1 Mr. Milner Gibson's amend- 2 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 4. States in 1794.-Phillimore, Is. Law, i. 427; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser lxx. 1325; lxxi. 564. In 1862, after the period of this history, the like arrangement was made with Denmark; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 70. 1864, a similar treaty was entered into with Prussia, but not confirmed by Parliament; Hans. Deb., 25th and 27th July. La 1 |