INTERNATIONAL LAW—RIGHT OF ASYLDH FOR POLITICAL OFFENDERS. (Hansard, 19 May 1881)

§ LOED LAMINGTON

asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the report is true that certain Foreign Powers had made representations to them respecting the right of asylum for political offenders in this country; and, if so, whether the correspondence will be laid on the Table? He attached considerable importance to the report, because early in April the German Parliament all but unanimously passed a Resolution advocating International Treaties for the prosecution and extradition of persons guilty of attacks against the Chiefs of States. It was pointed out that the attempts of the Nihilists and other political refugees were often directed not only against one, but against all Governments, and therefore the action taken should be of an international character. Instigation to these crimes was to be regarded as conspiring, and the nationality of the offender was to make no difference in the application of the law. To provoke to murder was more wicked than to murder, and to tempt more devilish than to fall. Their Lordships would agree with him that the feeling abroad was almost universal that there should not be any right of asylum in the case of political murderers, or would-be murderers. In Austria it was proposed recently in the Reichstag that a Treaty should be negotiated with other Governments to extradite foreigners guilty of 786 the offence of conspiracy to assassinate Sovereigns. In 1876, even Belgium, which was one of the freest countries in the world, declared that an attack on or murder of any Sovereign or of any member of his family was without the pale of the right of asylum. His attention was drawn to a meeting held in this City, on the 16th of April, at the rooms of the Slavonic Club, Hampstead Street, Fitzroy Square, which was attended by persons of all nationalities, when it was proposed and carried—"That this meeting expresses its profound sympathy with the martyrs of liberty hanged at St. Petersburg;" and it was added—"The present Czar must not think that he would reign long if he did as his father had done." He was perfectly aware of the difficulty the Government had to deal with in this matter; but though Englishmen had a right to pride themselves on the fact that England afforded a safe asylum for political refugees from all nations, still, when such a Chamber as that of Belgium had taken measures to provide against the abuse of the right of asylum, wo ought not to neglect co-operating with other countries in the endeavour to exclude conspirators from our midst, and those who did not hesitate to instigate to murder. He trusted, therefore, that Government would not hesitate to give a favourable reply to any representation which might be made to them on the subject by foreign Powers.

§ EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has spoken under some misapprehension of the facts of the case. No representation has been made to Her Majesty's Government in regard to the right of asylum for political offenders. This question has been repeatedly raised, and the decision of this country is now so well known abroad that it is not likely that any representations will be made again. In 1852 I held the Seals of the Foreign Office only for two months; but during that short time it was my duty to issue a Circular in answer to strong representations from all the Great Powers on this subject. In that Circular principles were laid down on which the right of asylum to political offenders was granted. First, it was laid down that foreigners had a right to be admitted and to reside in this country; secondly, being here, that they had a right to 787 the protection of our laws, but at the same time they were amenable to them; and, thirdly, that the Government had no power to send them away from the country except under the conditions of Extradition Treaties. That Circular went on, on the other hand, to denounce in very strung terms the flagrant abuse of the hospitality given to foreigners in attempting to incite insurrection in the countries they belonged to. It was formally stated that Her Majesty's Government would exercise all legal powers at their command to prevent such attempts being made. That Circular was very much criticized in many parts of the Continent; but, I believe, it was universally acknowledged in this country to be a sound exposition of the national doctrine On the subject. Ten years ago, when it happened that I was again at the Foreign Office, I had a similar representation from the Spanish Government. I made an answer, and in so doing put into a more condensed furor the same statement and phrases. My despatch was presented to Parliament as the Circular had been, and I think, I am not mistaken, there was no one person, either in this House or the other House of Parliament, to call it in question, excepting my. noble Friend Lord Lamington). I might farther allude to another circumstance that no doubt all remember—namely, what occurred at the time of the Orsini attempt on the life of the late Emperor of the French. Count Walewski wrote a strong letter at that time, not discreetly worded, reflecting on the state of our law in relation to the conduct of refugees in this country. Lord Palmerston's Government, having considered the subject, came to the conclusion that there was something in our laws which required amendment, and prepared a Bill by which the crime of conspiring to murder or inciting to murder, whether the murder was to be in this or in any foreign country, should be a felony, and not a misdemeanour, as it then was. Upon that occasion the matter was very carefully considered in the Cabinet. As it is so long ago, I may mention that I remember hours being spent in discussing the Bill and the prudence of presenting it to Parliament at that time As we were about to separate, the despatch of Count Walewski was referred to, and Lord Clarendon said— 788 "How am I to act with regard to the despatch? I think I had better not answer it at all." Lord Palmerston said—"I think that will be the best way." And in that the whole of the Cabinet acquiesced without saying a word. The Bill was introduced and read a first time without comment; but on the second reading was opposed not only by Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Bright, but by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord John Russell, and the result was that they obtained a majority, and the Government of Lord Palmerston was destroyed and a Conservative Government was formed. The ground the majority took in opposing the Bill was not objection to the improvement of the law, but to no answer having been sent to Count Walewski to vindicate the state of our laws. A year or two later that improvement in the law was agreed to without a single dissentient voice in a clause of another Bill. I only mention this to point out how exceedingly jealous the feeling of this country has been, and how strong I believe it will continue to be, in case of any notion of foreign interference with regard to our own domestic legislation. I have said that no representation has been made this year with regard to the right of asylum. I am glad to repeat that that is the case. What has happened is this. The Russian Government applied to Her Majesty's Government, with the approval of the Government of Germany, to join a Conference to consider what practical measures should be adopted in order to prevent criminal efforts on the part of certain associations, but guarded herself against any interference with our internal laws. I do not think, my Lords, it is surprising, after the frightful catastrophe of the murder of the late Emperor, that Russia should have desired, among other means of dealing with Nihilism, to seek the co-operation of other Powers. It is certainly no feeling of sympathy with Nihilism that has induced Her Majesty's Government to think it would not he advantageous to join such a Conference. If Nihilism means, as it seems to do, a general war against the laws and institutions of organized societies, not by appeal to opinion, but by murder and other crimes, it is the duty and the interest of this country to oppose and to punish it 789 by all the legal means in our power. To go beyond those legal means is impossible; but we believe those means are sufficient for the purpose. It seemed to us that to join the Conference would not have led to any practical results, but would have had a contrary effect as to the objects proposed. In no country has the national indignation against such crimes been more strongly shown both in and out of Parliament than in England; but I am convinced that to accept the Conference would not have been approved by Parliament or by the nation. But this refusal only makes it more incumbent upon us to exert all legal powers to prevent acts prejudicial to foreign and friendly Governments, more especially with regard to murders, whether such murders or attempts to murder are directed against private individuals, or against Sovereigns and Chiefs of States.