HL Deb 04 March 1853 vol 124 cc1046-61

My Lords, I rise to occupy but for a very few moments the attention of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) upon a subject in which I feel a deep interest. It is a matter of public notoriety that great irritation prevails in the capital of the Austrian dominions, and throughout the whole of that country, against the people and Government of England. So far has it been carried, that I understand the Austrian Government have just considered it right to appoint a police force to protect the residence and person of our Ambassador from insult and attack. Though, from recent circumstances, that irritation has been greatly increased—I allude to those painful and deplorable events which have lately occurred—yet this irritation owes its origin, no doubt, to the asylum we have afforded to foreign refugees, and to the manner in which they have been permitted to abuse the protection afforded them by this country. Their conduct in this respect, as everybody sees, has been most scandalous; and the impression I believe prevails abroad that there are no means in this country adequate for the purpose of punishing them. If that were really the case, it would be incumbent on the Government of this country to consider whether it would not be proper to introduce some law for that purpose; but I do not think so ill of the common law of this country as to suppose that it would leave offences of this description without providing the means of adequate punishment; and I feel it to be my duty to state my opinion on that subject, which I do with great deference, in the presence of noble and learned Lords, who will correct me if I am erroneous in what I state. I will first take the case of British subjects. If a number of British subjects were to combine and conspire together to excite revolt among the inhabitants of a friendly State—of a State united in alliance with us—and these persons, in pursuance of that conspiracy, were to issue manifestoes arid proclamations for the purpose of carrying that object into effect; above all, if they were to subscribe money for the purpose of purchasing arms to give effect to that intended enterprise, I conceive, and I state with confidence, that such persons would be guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to suffer punishment by the laws of this country, inasmuch as their conduct would tend to embroil the two countries together, to lead to remonstrances by the One with the other, and ultimately, it might be, to war. I think my noble and learned Friends who are now assembled here, and who perform so important a part in the deliberations of this House, will not dissent from the opinion I state with respect to British subjects. Now with respect to foreigners. Foreigners residing in this country, as long as they reside here under the protection of this country, are considered in the light of British subjects, or rather subjects of Her Majesty, and are punishable by the criminal law precisely in the same manner, to the same extent, and under the same conditions, as natural-born Subjects of Her Majesty. In cases of this kind, persons coming here as refugees from a foreign State, in consequence of political acts which they have committed, are bound by every principle of gratitude to conduct themselves with propriety. This circumstance tends greatly to aggravate their offence, and no one can doubt that they are liable to severe punishment. I will put the case in another shape. The offence of endeavouring to excite revolt among the subjects of a neighbouring State is an offence against the law of nations. No writer on the law of nations states otherwise. But the law of nations, according to the decision of our greatest Judges, is part of the law of England. I need therefore say no more with reference to the nature of the offence imputed to those individuals—I need say no more than that they are subject to be punished by the laws of this country for offences of this description committed by them. But there is a question connected with this subject of considerable difficulty, and that relates to the evidence by which a party can be convicted. Here, I admit, there is a very serious difficulty. It is not sufficient that the offence should be notorious to the world;—you must have such evidence to support the particular charge as shall be admissible before our tribunals. For instance, proclamations have been dispersed throughout Lombardy—printed proclamations—purporting to be issued from London by a person whose signature, under the name of "Mazzini," was attached to them. Supposing that to be so, it is not sufficient to render these documents admissible in a court of justice. They are not of themselves evidence in support of the charge. You must bring that home to the individual—you must show that those proclamations were issued by his direction. You must further show that they have been issued from England, and that they have been so in consequence of some act, committed in England by the person charged, authorising that issue. In illustration of this, let me refer your Lordships to a matter which has recently occurred—which has occurred within a few days. Proclamations were found in great numbers in Milan, in Lombardy, purporting to be signed by Kossuth. From the purport of that document any one would infer that it had been written and issued in this country; and as Kossuth has lived a considerable time in this country, and is now resident here, it might be supposed by a person unacquainted with our laws, that this was evidence sufficient to fix the charge on Kossuth. But what turns out to be this case? That the document was written two or three years ago, not in England, but in the Turkish dominions. It was sent by Kossuth to Mazzini; it was handed aver by Mazzini to another person, who altered two or three passages, and who then printed and published it in the name of Kossuth. That would be no evidence in this country that Kossuth had been guilty of any offence, or had issued any such proclamation. I must remind persons not acquainted with the laws of our country—foreigners—that we have a rule, which I believe is not acted upon in other countries of Europe, that when a party is charged with an offence, you cannot interrogate him as to that offence; you cannot put interrogatories to a party accused. This is the inflexible rule of English law. Even when the safety of our Sovereign is at stake we do not attempt to infringe that law. There are other difficulties which interfere with the proof in attempting to bring home charges of this description, when the parties act with prudence and caution, against the individuals who are supposed to be guilty. I mention this as an excuse for the Governments for the time being not having brought these individuals to justice. That there is sufficient evidence against them, I cannot undertake to say; but this I think necessary—I think the Government ought to use great vigilance and great activity for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain evidence in order to convict parties who are guilty of these offences, and to restrain the commission of such offences in future. I think, with all submission to noble Lords opposite, that this is the imperative duty of the Government for the time being. It is so, because it appears, at least to foreigners, that no such vigilance, that no such activity, has been exercised by the Government: it is because the Government appears to be supine, that foreigners are led by proceedings of this kind to conclude, and that the notion has gone abroad, however unfounded, that we are indifferent to acts of this kind, and that we do not view them with displeasure. Nothing can be more unfounded than imputations of this kind. Every noble Lord whom I now address, every honourable man in this country, will join in the opinion I have expressed. There is one point more to which, with all submission, I would call the attention of noble Lords opposite. It is not sufficient for the Government to say to a foreign State—"Our courts are open to you; obtain evidence of a crime having been committed, bring that evidence into a court of justice, and justice will be done you." I say that is not a sufficient course for the Government to take. In my opinion, in cases of this kind, where foreign States are concerned, and where the offence is committed not only against the foreign State, but against our own, it is the duty of the Government of this country to take the initiative, to institute a prosecution in their own name, and more especially so as they have means of obtaining evidence of the transaction which cannot possibly be obtained by the foreign State. I have thought it my duty to make these few observations as preliminary to the question which I am about to ask—a question of great importance. I have taken a very sincere and deep interest in the subject for a considerable period; and I wish therefore to ask the noble Earl, whether any communications have passed between the Government of this country and Austria, or any other European Power, with respect to the Asylum afforded to Foreign Refugees in England, and to the acts committed under the protection of this country by the persons to whom I have referred?


My Lords, in answer to the question put by my noble and learned Friend, I have to state, that although communications have taken place respecting the foreign refugees in this country, no demand has been made either by the Government of Austria or by any other State in Europe. I do not deny—readily admit, with the noble and learned Lord—that a considerable degree of excitement and irritation has prevailed, and does prevail, upon this subject, not only at Vienna, but in other parts of Europe; and I also must say, not only upon the part of the Governments of Europe, but the feeling is largely shared by the people of those countries. My Lords, I must confess that, connecting as they do certain atrocious and sanguinary acts of recent occurrence with the residence of those refugees in this country, the feeling is perhaps not unna-tural—but connecting them, as I believe, very erroneously; and therefore I hope that before long that feeling may subside, and be set at rest. I think it right to say that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any new law for the adoption of Parliament upon this subject; and it is not our intention for this reason—because we hope and believe that the law of this country is sufficient to enable us to discharge those duties to friendly and neighbouring States to which we are bound by the international law of Europe. If indeed it were possible that the law of this country disabled us from performing those duties of paramount obligation, then it might be necessary to consider the subject; but, as I trust, and as has been confirmed by my noble and learned Friend, this is not the case, I hope that we shall be able to meet all that foreign Powers have any right to require without having recourse to any extraordinary remedies, such as have been pointed at. My Lords, if it could be supposed possible that the Government of this country, or the people of this country, had any connivance, or were even indifferent to the perpetration of the acts to which I have alluded, then, indeed, a greater degree of hostility would have been justified than any which has hitherto been shown towards us. I speak not only of that atrocious attempt on the life of an illustrious Prince, the hope of his country, and whose danger has revived all that ancient loyalty and devoted attachment which have so long been the possession of his family, but also of the recent outbreak at Milan, where a few desperate men have been attacking and putting to death isolated individuals, sentries at their posts. These men may, indeed, call themselves patriots, but they are really assassins in disguise. My Lords, I think that any powers such as are supposed to be necesssary for the Government of this country to possess would really be injurious to the tranquillity and peace of the country. If such a law as that to which I have alluded should exist, it must cither be on the supposition that a discretion would be exercised, and inquiry instituted in every case, before it was carried into effect; and this would naturally lead to difference of opinion between the State complaining and ourselves on the amount of proof required, and thereby lead to very serious differences between us. On the other hand, the only alternative would be a general acquiescence in any such demand; and that would be a state of degradation to which it is impossible for us to submit. But I trust that if foreign Powers are persuaded, not only that the Government, but the people of this country, have no sympathy with any such abominable acts as those to which my noble and learned Friend has alluded, they will be disposed to trust in the good faith, in the sincerity, and honesty of the attempts of the Government to carry that law into effect which we consider to be sufficient for the purpose of preventing them. My noble and learned Friend has alluded to the duty of the Government to take an initiative in these proceedings, and to institute prosecutions at law. Now, I have the satisfaction of informing my noble and learned Friend that Her Majesty's Government have already come to this decision, in case of any such event occurring as to give just grounds of complaint, not to throw it upon the Foreign Minister to institute such a prosecution; but, when a case is made made out sufficient properly to justify legal proceedings against any parties so implicated, the Government will take it upon themselves to carry on such a prosecution, and foreign Powers have already been informed of that determination. I do not know that I need say anything more upon this subject. Lamenting, as we all must, the existence of any cause which should produce alienation and estrangement between Powers that have been long, and desire to be, intimately connected, I do trust that the assurance which we have given, and shall be prepared to act upon, will be sufficient to allay the alarms that have existed.


said, that he could not avoid adding a few observations to those which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had made, as the subject was one of extreme importance, not only in a constitutional sense, but with a view to the great interests of the peace of this country and of other countries. With respect to the law as stated by his noble and learned Friend, it would be presumptuous in him (Lord Brougham) even to accept his challenge by confirming it by his testimony. The authority of his noble and learned Friend—greater than his (Lord Brougham's), or than that of any person in that House—was amply sufficient; and he would venture to say, that there was no lawyer in Westminster Hall who entertained the shadow of a doubt on his proposition—that the law of this country, as it at present stood, was amply sufficient to visit with severe punishment, not only all conspiracies such as his noble and learned Friend had described, but lesser attempts against the majesties or constitutions of foreign nations; he meant even libels against the persons of those Sovereigns or authorities, which, by the law of this country, wore offences against the Sovereign of this country and against the municipal law of England. Conspiracy might be tried and prosecuted here, although the place to which the conspiracy bore reference was a foreign country, if the offence was committed in England. They had had a remarkable instance some years ago, when a noble and much lamented Friend of his (the late Lord Ashburton) had been actually put upon his trial, and tried at the sittings at Guildhall, for a conspiracy to do certain acts in a foreign country—in South America—the locality of the conspiracy being alleged to be in England. He (Lord Brougham) would step aside for a moment to remark, that a greater and more flagrant example of the evils of the system of grand juries without a public prosecutor he was hardly acquainted with than that very instance, when that prosecution could not have taken place if a responsible public prosecutor had had the charge of it. The law here was amply sufficient to punish offenders who might conspire here to commit offences in Milan, Vienna, Berlin, or in any other foreign State. With regard to the offence of libelling foreign Princes, in the case of the King v. Peltier, the defendant was prosecuted, not by the French Ambassador, but by an ex-officio information laid by the Attorney General. Peltier was convicted of a libel on the Emperor Napoleon, then First Consul of France, during the peace, and was only not brought up for judgment by the accident of the war which shortly afterwards broke out; and he (Lord Brougham) entertained considerable doubt whether that was a sufficient excuse for not calling the defendant up for judgment. The law, therefore, was quite sufficient. But, as had been well observed by his noble and learned Friend, it was the fact that was deficient, and not the law—the difficulty of getting evidence, the difficulty of finding the means of prosecuting to conviction, without which a prosecution would do more harm than good to the parties who were anxious that a prosecution should take place. The consequence of such a prosecution was practically this: a long day's work in the Court, consisting in great part of an able, and eloquent, and most powerful address to a jury, aggravating every topic contained in the libel, and offering all sorts of excuses in justification of the conspiracy charged; and that went forth to mankind with ten times greater force than the original libel itself, with greater force than the rumour of the conspiracy itself. It went forth with all the force of being a part as it were of a judicial proceeding, the speech of counsel being in the mind of the vulgar confounded with the proceeding itself. And then came the difficulty of obtaining the verdict of a jury—sometimes the difficulty of making the jury give any verdict at all. In that case they were discharged; and the prosecution fell to the ground. In the other case there would be a verdict, after all the abuse of the libel, and all the effects of the conspiracy, had been aggravated by counsel and the result of the whole was worse than if no verdict had been pronounced, or even than a verdict of acquittal. All those parities who advised prosecutions in such cases ought to look to the possible result; and all those who urged the prosecution ought to look at what they would get by such a proceeding. He had taken the liberty of making these observations because they were practical, and it was only that quality which gave them any value. Another equally practical remark was called for by the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and it was the only point which he had omitted to dwell upon. It was contended here that the law, as it at present stood, was sufficient. Our foreign friends and allies did not think so. They would fain in some particulars have an alteration. His noble Friend had given an answer on that point quite sufficient to show that no alteration could be hoped for by them at the present time. But what would be the possible result of any such alteration as that desired? Evidently the law which was desired by foreign Powers to be passed by the British Legislature was a law which should enable the Executive Government to drive from this country those unfortunate persons who for one reason or another had taken refuge within the walls, as it were, of our general hospitality. He would not stop to disclaim on the part of their Lordships and on the part of the people of England all participation in those atrocious sentiments that had given rise to the late scandalous and revolting proceedings, which he scarcely knew whether most to reprobate—the successful attempt at Milan, or, God be thanked, the unsuccessful one at Vienna. He believed that the people of this country would be always ready to express with one voice the depth and the extent and the bitterness of their abhorrence of such proceedings. But he would go further and say that he could not believe—that he was bound in charity and in common justice to express his disbelief of the charge—that these unfortunate refugees had been any parties to these atrocious events, But he would suppose, for argument's sake, that which in point of fact he did not believe, that the refugees in this country had conspired to send assistance abroad, or even had been at the bottom of the attempted assassination; he would suppose—which he could not in common charity and fairness and justice to these poor people believe—that they were not, innocent of the charge of having joined in a conspiracy or rebellion, and, still more, of having joined or set on a murderous assassin—the question would be of a law, and the execution of that law, which should enable our Government to drive such persons from their refuge here to a far distant land. Suppose the Government had the power, under an Alien Act, of driving them out of the country, and evidence should be produced which should justify our Government in ordering them away—where could they go to? They could not go to the continent of Europe. That was quite clear. The moment they were driven out of this country there would be no rest for the sole of their foot on the continent of Europe. They would be driven across the Atlantic. Would that put an end to their suspected conspiracies? Would that put an end to the sending of succour to Europe, or the sending of assassins to Europe? It would be the difference between fifteen days' sail and four or five days' sail, and then precisely the same risk would be encountered by these foreign Princes and Governments—if they run any risk. They would run just the same risk after a little delay; and no difference could by possibility be made by the existence and execution of such a law in the prevention of these schemes, whether of murder or conspiracy—the same facilities for conspiracy and assassination, if any existed now, would exist then. He hoped these considerations would have their weight in high quarters, and that the parties interested would see that if they wished for such a change in the law and its execution, it would have no kind of practical effect. The subject was one of paramount importance, and he trusted that the little discussion which had taken place, and, above all, the statement of the noble Earl, would have a decidedly beneficial effect.


said, that his noble and learned Friend had rendered a public service, by the question he had put to the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, as it had elicited from him a declaration that the Government were anxiously desirous to prevent the asylum this country afforded to foreign refugees, being used as the means of aggression and hostility against the government and peace of States in alliance and friendship with Her Majesty. The people of England fully shared these sentiments; and, he (Lord Truro) hoped, and had no doubt, that the high character of the noble Earl would secure to that declaration the full credit with foreign Governments to which it was entitled. It was to be feared, however, that an impression had prevailed abroad, that the British Government bad been influenced by very different feelings than those which had been expressed—an impression which could only result from the assumption that political combinations were carried on by the refugees in this country, to promote rebellion and revolution in the countries of our allies; and that the Government, if it did not sanction such conduct, at least took no means to prevent or punish it; and that the forbearance upon the part of the Government could be accounted for only upon the supposition either that the law was inadequate to repress the evil, or to punish the guilty parties, or that the Government viewed with indifference the annoyance which the individuals we protected, inflicted upon our allies. Although such inferences might not be unnatural in the absence of correct information upon the subject; still, before any feeling of displeasure should be entertained towards this country, or its Government, justice required that the real cause of the absence of legal prosecution in respect of the conduct complained of, should be calmly investigated.

It was said that if the law did not afford protection to our allies, the defect ought to be supplied; but it had been most correctly stated by his noble and learned Friend, that the existing common law of England is fully sufficient to punish individuals, whether refugees or British subjects, who should adopt any conduct in England calculated to give just offence to foreign Powers in amity with this country, and to excite them to hostilities against us, and equally to punish those who should excite or endeavour to promote revolution and rebellion by the subjects of those Powers. There is no, doubt but that there are many refugees in this country who entertain very hostile feelings toward their own Government but the power of those persons by any acts they can perpetrate in England to cause any mischief to such Governments is at least very doubtful; they are, in truth, des- titute of all means to effect any such evil intentions which they may form. The rumours and complaints founded upon the assumption of combinations and conspiracies by the refugees in England to disturb the peace of the Continent, I know, were the subject of the anxious attention of Lord John Russell's Government, and every practical method, I am confident, was pursued which was calculated to ascertain the reality of the existence of any such associations, but without the discovery of any circumstances justifying the assumption, which was as generally adopted by our foreign neighbours; and I firmly believe that the transactions which have caused annoyance to some of them, did not originate, nor were promoted by any acts done, in England, as it seems to me that if any such acts had taken place, they could not have eluded detection; and there is not the Slightest reason to believe that any circumstances have come to the knowledge of the British Government, nor any information furnished by any foreign Government or their agents, which would sanction the prosecution of any individuals here; and regard being had to these facts the more reasonable supposition is, that no such confederacies or conspiracies have been carried on in England; and the true answer to the inquiry why prosecutions have not been instituted is, because there is no evidence that any crimes have been committed which could properly be made the subject of prosecution. The fact that addresses, proclamations, or other mischievous productions have been circulated abroad, purporting to be dated and to have come from England, does not at all impeach the conclusion I have stated; because it is obvious that it would be a principal object with the authors and disseminators of those productions to give a false venue to their creation, in the hope of misleading the Government interested in the inquiry, as to the direction in which search should be made for the offending parties; and in furtherance of the same view, acts really done by individuals who were personally within the reach of those Governments would be ascribed and pretended to have been done by individuals who were in England, or elsewhere beyond its power. Further, the disaffected abroad would be likely to offer encouragement to their associates by false representations of the activity and means used by absent refugees in aid of the common design, wherever residing; and, most of all, of the refugees residing in England, who would be the least exposed to inconvenient consequences by reason of such misrepresentations. The refugees in England who are supposed to be the most hostile to their own Governments, are well known, and they are poor and impotent in respect of any such means as are necessary to render them worthy to excite attention or apprehension in regard to the mischief they can accomplish, however much they may be disposed to abuse the hospitality afforded to them. Even excluding the obligations of good faith, it is impossible to assign any rational motive or interest which the British Government can have in forbearing to enforce the law against any refugees who can be proved to have violated it; and the English public would certainly deprecate a neglect of their duty. Good faith to our own allies, and regard to our own interest, however, are equally inconsistent with the giving encouragement to the prosecution of the machinations imputed to the refugees in this country. England gains by the peace and prosperity of her allies, and she has alike the disposition and the motive to cultivate their confidence and good will: these sentiments are strongly entertained, both by the Government and the people of this country, who are well assured that rebellion and anarchy in the States of our allies, never can be advantageous to the political or commercial prosperity of England; and while the British soil yields a temporary home alike to sovereign fugitives from rebellion and revolution, and to refugees who fly from prosecution for political offences, it is a solemn and bounden duty on the part of all who seek protection here, to forbear from any conduct tending to excite enmity against us on the part either of Governments or people. But to commence prosecutions in the absence of any evidence of guilt, would be grossly unjust to the individuals, and would convert a pretended asylum to all who should obey our law, into a snare and a fraud; and, further, policy is decidedly averse to such a course, An abortive political prosecution is generally mischievous in its effects, by furnishing a public occasion for justifying or palliating the imputed misconduct, and often thereby does more injury to the cause which it was the object of the prosecution to benefit, than the conduct complained of was calculated to effect, and it produces one certain evil consequence, that of showing the precise limits of the power of the law, and exposing the difficulty of detection, and the means of evasion. It is to be hoped that our allies will calmly consider these matters, and that such consideration will remove any feelings of displeasure and distrust which may have existed towards this country; and that the kindness and cordiality which may have been suspended, will be restored by the correction of the erroneous opinion that the Government or the subjects of this country, either encouraged or were indifferent to Conduct offensive to our allies, when in truth the British feeling has been decidedly hostile to such conduct, if really pursued.


said, that though this conversation was somewhat desultory, and most irregular, and although the subject had been almost completely exhausted, not only by the very able address of his noble and learned Friend who put the question (Lord Lyndhurst), but by the speeches which had subsequently been made, he should think that he was not discharging his duty if he did not rise merely for the purpose of excluding the notion that he dissented from anything that had been said by his noble and learned Friends. He fully concurred with them in the belief that legislation would be as useless as it would be impolitic, and that the present law gave ample powers to do all that the law ever could enable to be done. Such legislation would be useless, because, as had been already said, the difficulty was not in administering the law, but in finding out the objects against whom it was to be administered. Now, did any such objects really exist in this country? All the reasonings of foreign countries on these subjects assumed the facts to be of a particular description, and then they reasoned upon the conduct of the British Government in not acting upon that state of facts. It must, however, be mere speculation that there were such criminal proceedings as were supposed in this country. How could it be that largo bodies of men could associate here without the facilities derived from a knowledge of our language and laws, which might enable them to evade the detective eye of the police, and that they could conduct their proceedings without discovery for one, or two, or three years? Was it probable that no Government, with all its emissaries, should have been enabled to detect these persons? Why, it was impossible. If, however, the notion once prevailed in Austria, or any other country on the Con- tinent, that these schemes were matured in London, it became the obvious policy of persons acting against the Governments in Austria or other countries to issue proclamations which they dated from London, and which were supposed in foreign States to emanate from this metropolis. He believed this was the solution of nine-tenths of the conspiracies which were supposed to be concocted in London. If so then, even if a law should be passed to investigate these matters in a different way, it would be quite useless, for no detectives could detect that which did not in truth exist. Legislation was therefore out of the question. But was not the law in its present State amply sufficient for the purpose? Fifty years ago the case occurred to which allusion had already been made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst)—the prosecution of Peltier for libel on the First Consul. Previous to that case an indictment had been preferred, he believed, against a native subject for a libel upon the Emperor Paul. It was held in those cases by Lord Ellenborough and Lord Kenyon that any publication in this Country which so reviled a foreign Government as to be calculated to excite that Government to hostility with us, was punishable by the common law of this land. That was the principle then laid down; and then, if the publishing of such a libel could be made the subject of prosecution, à multo fortiori, the meeting and assembling of persons who were guilty of many such acts, and the collecting of money for carrying out those acts, must be the subject of prosecution. Therefore, supposing the case to exist, no doubt the actual law was amply sufficient to meet it. The law was not applicable to foreign refugees only; it was a law as applicable to native-born subjects as to foreign refugees, and Upon, this ground:—The reason why libellers in such cases were prosecuted was not simply on the ground of their having libelled foreign Sovereigns, but because such libels were calculated to create a hostile feeling in foreign States, and to cause a breach of the peace between this country and those foreign Powers; and It was therefore proper and just, when such cases arose, that the prosecutions should be conducted, not by the foreign Governments, who were only incidentally involved, but by the law officers of the British Crown—the laws and peace of this country having, in truth, been attempted to be violated, and such probable violation being the real ground of prosecution. He bad only made these few observations in order to add his testimony to that of his noble and learned Friends, and to show that he most entirely and cordially concurred in their opinions. He might say, not only for himself, but also, as he believed, for all thinking and well-disposed persons, that he concurred with his noble and learned Friends in nothing more strongly than in the sentiments of detestation and abhorrence which they had expressed at the outrages which had been committed on the Continent, and which had been supposed, though, as he believed, erroneously, to have been perpetrated by emissaries from this country.

Back to