FOREIGN REFUGEES IN ENGLAND. (From the Times, April 2.)

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 661, 14 August 1852, Page 3

FOREIGN REFUGEES IN ENGLAND. (From the Times, April 2.)

In the House of Commons, Mr. M. Milnes moved a resolution to the effect that the fjnuse had obsoived with i egret, in the corresi)ondence lespectiiifr, foreign refugees, a menace on the pait of a friendly Power to visit upon unoffending British travellers its displeasure at tbat exercise of the light of asylum which is agreeable to the laws, customs, and feelings of the people of Great Butain. Observing, m the outset, tbat the manifestation of feeling exhibited in this country towards certain foieign visitors had been spontaneous on the pait of the mass of the people, and bad leceived no encouiagement from the Government, be referred to the communications which bad taken place between our Foreign Department and the Austrian Court, and to the despatches of Lord Granville and the reply of Prince Scbv»arzenberg ? which showed, be contended, that the precautions in question were adopted, not as matter of gencrtvl regulation, but to annoy British subjects and the Biilish Government by way of reprisal and retaliation. Since the accession of the present Ministry, be admitted, a differ£ht'~tone was held ; it had been announced to Lord Malmesbury that the news of this event had been received by the Cabinet of Vienna with "feelings of deep satisfaction," which seemed to imply that the advent to office of the present Government was regarded a* evidence of a change of our foreign policy, which would be anything but grateful to the people of this country. Such an alteration of tone on the part of the Austrian Ministei, therefore, did not authorise or require the abandonment of this motion, Mr. Milnes discussed upon moral and legal grounds the light of England to grant au asylum to foreigners of all nations without distinction of political opinions; and, in conclusion, stated that be had a double motive in proposing this resolution — first to secure protection to Biitish travellers; secondly, to leheve the present Government from the prejudice they might suffer if it were supposed that Punce Schwarzenberg's last letter, breathing hopes of a change m our foreign policy ominous to England, was acceptable to them. Lord D. Stuart seconded the motion. The pretext put forward by foieign potentates to show that there existed a conspiracy amongst the refugees in this country was, he insisted, dispioved by the correspondence, whicb,,on the other band, appeared, in his opinion, to prove that there was a conspiracy amongst all the crowned heads of Europe to frighten this country into the passing of a new law to control refugees. Lord Dudley inveighed in an indignant tone and very strong terms against the alleged faithless and oppressive conduct of tbe&e foreign Governments, especially that of Austria, and he hoped, from the sympathy evinced by the present Government towards foreign exiles, that they would agree to this resolution as only a proper rebuke. Mr. Walpole thought he should best consult the convenience of the House by avoiding all inflammatoiy topics. He had read the papers*, and having listened to the speeches of the mover and seconder, he was at a loss to understand whether the motion was intended to blame the late or the present Government. After a careful perusal of the papers, he thought that three inferences were to be drawn from thtm— first, that the conduct of the Government of this country, late and present, had upheld and maintained its dignity ; second tliat the foieign Couits had misunderstood, very naturally, our laws and regulations with refeience to foreign refugees, so different fiom their own ; and, third, considering that this misapprehension had been more 01 less removed by the representations of the late Government, and the conciliatory tone employed, and that more amicable relations now existed, that it was inexpedient by an abstract resolution to revive feelings of dissatisfaction which had disappeared. With respect to the sentiment expres»ed by the Imperial Cabinet upon the accession of the present Government, it had been inspired by the line of policy Bhadowed out by the Earl of Derby m the House of Lords, which had iuitber contnbuted to remove the unpleasant feeling that had so long disunited the two States. The present Government, he assuiea ihe House, weie as determined as any past Government to maintain the asylum which this country afforded to distiessed foieigners ; and, under these circumstances, he put it to them whether it was wise to pass a resolution which, at the very least, would appear lo foreign Powers to cast something like a reflection or censure upon their conduct. Mr. An'.tey argued fiom the case of the Scottish Ministers at Pesth, that the '' menace" referred to in the resolution, n hich had never been recalled, had not bnpn thrown out m heat, but wns deliberately utti led ; and that it was acted upon in lespect to domiciled lesulents in the Austrian dominions, as well as travellers. Having ie viewed the vanous. de-pntches referred to, he argued that there was no ground Tor the satisfactory conclusions ol Mi. Waliiole, and that Loid Malmesbuiy had been somewhat mdibcieut in his concessions. Loid Palmerston thought Mr. Milnes had done light in bringing under the consideration of the House a

question of great importance in legard to our own Jaw, our international relations, the rights of British subjects abroad, and the obligations of the Bntish Government towards them. Mr. Walpole, he obbeived, had ad die.-S'd "rent pait of his speed) to one biancli only of Mr. Milne's argument — the duty incumbent upon the Biitish Government to afford protection to foieign exiles; and did not expiess the determination of the Government to [enforce protection to Bntish subjects travelling abroad. "With regard to the transactions to which the papeis related, some allowance, he lemarked, ought to be made for the sensitive anxiety which some of the Continental Governments expiessed last year in legard io the proceedings of foreign refugees in this country. Unaware of the license given to free discussion in this country, those Governments had also conceived an exaggerated notion of the cifrcts of the Exhibition. In a conveisation with Count Walewski, he had explained the extent to which the. law cf thiscountrv allowed of interference with foreigners. He had likewise endeavoured to convince otheljforeign Ambassadors when they made representationlub him on the subject, that their apprehensions as to theSa^chief that could be done by the refugees were extravagant-.-^. It did appear to him that, at one time, it was the intention of the Austrian Government to letaliate upon Bntish iravellers, because the)r Government did not do what the Austrian authorities knew they could not legally do; and therefore Mr. Milnps did light in calling the attention of the House to such a menace. Loid Palmerston bestowed some satirical comments upon the "Arcadian dialogue" between the Austrian Government and the present Administration, woithy, he observed, of Virgil. Believing, he said, that we had now a Government which sympathised with Austrian pnnciples, and that with so much mutual confidence there would be no danger to Biitish travellers, he suggested to Mr. Milnes that as the discussion had sufficiently accomplished the object in view — although the resolution contained an assertion which no one could deny — if the Government would move the pievious question, he should not go to a division. Sir J. Walsh considered that a strong prima facie case had been made out on behalf of the foreign Governments, and that there had been a gross abuse of the rights of hospitality on the part of the refugees iv this country. Mr. Y. Smith observed that there had been no withdrawal of the menace, and the House of Commons had a right to know whether Bntish tiavellers were now exposed to inconvenience. Unless they were to be restored to their former privileges, he recommended. Mr. Milnes to persevere in his motion. Mr. B. Cochrane thought the menace had been in effect withdrawn, and considered that the motion, and the language which had been used in support of it, ■would be most mischievous. After a few words from Sir 11. Verney, Mr. Henley said, the paper which had been transmitted by our Minister at Vienna gave a different complexion to the question, showing that the Austrian Government drew a stiong distinction between Bntish subjects and persons with British passpoits who were not British subjects. He had not heaid that British travellers had been inconvenienced. lie moved the previous question. Ibis amendment, after a few words in assent from Mr. Milnes, was agreed to.

The Fuither correspondence respecting the foreign refugees in London, which was discussed at such length in the House of Commons last night, Hot only terminates in a very satisfactory manner the discussion which had unfortunately arisen between the British Government and the principal continental powers on this subject, but it affoids evidence that great progress has already been made in healing the wounds which a long couise of petty differences had inflicted on our relations with some of our oldest allies. ■ We mast say that a more pitiful dispute has seldom aiiseu between the leading Governments of Europe, or for a more unworthy object ; and when we remember that this correspondence was going on at a time when the peace and security of the woild might be said to depend on the harmony of the gieat Powers, we are at a loss to comprehend the spirit which continued to actuate their communications. Jt will be' remembered that the papers already laid before P«i»lia merit ended with Lord Granville's excellent despatch of the 13th January. The Prussian Government had already desisted from its remonstrances in deference to the Foreign Secretary who had juslMaken office. Thd .French Ambassador declined tbat his demands hid not been made in conjunction with the Northern Courts, and that he had merely remonstrated, without pointing out any future course of action. The Russian Cabinet accepted the piomise of the British Ministry to wdtch the machinations of the political refugees, and to employ all legal means to prevent them from abusing the hospitality of England ; and the Emperor " awaited with confidence the realisation of this promise." At the same time, however, Baron Brunnow communicated to Loid Granville an able paper, in which be pointed out that the offences imputed to the refugees in London were not merely offences against the municipal law of England, technically described as levying war against foreign Sovereigns, but offences against the law of nations, by attempting to disturb the tranquillity and injure the relations of foreign States. To this distinction we reply, tbat offences against the law of nations are just giounds of diplomatic remonstrance, and even of war, but that the law of nations is not administered by the civil or criminal courts of this or any other nation (except in the particular jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court), and that the law of England has no means of enforcing the most indisputable propositions of Vattel on persons residing in this country, who are only amenable to the ordinary municip.il jurisdiction of the land. The law of nations determines the relations of one State to another; but municipal law determines the relations of a State to persons inhabiting its teintorv; and the rights of persons seeking a refuge in England for political causes fall under the latter class only. We aie surprised that 60 acute a reasoner as Baron Brunnow should have adopted the very fallacy he is labouring to expose ; for although it is perfectly true that the foreign Powers bad a right to remonstrate against abuses against the law of nations, it is equally certain th.it it is thu municipal law of England, and not the law of nations, which can alone restrain persons in this country, whether British subjects or foreign refugees, from the evil practices which he describes. We proceed, however, to comment upon the less friendly tone which this correspondence subsequently, and for a time, assumed with the Government of Austria. The answer returned by Prince Schwarzenberg to Lord Granville's despatch has already reached the knowledge of the public through the Geiman papers, and it produced in this country a painful and offensive impression. We regretted to see a Government, which we had long been accustomed to view with respect, condescending to menace harmless English travellers with a persecution of passpoits and police agents ; and we suggested that the only appropriate notice to bo taken of such a threat was to abstain as much as possible from entenng the Austrian dominions. But although Lord Palmerston had quitted office, it was evident that the Austrian Cabinet still regarded Lord John Russell as the representative of the same hostile principle, for ceitainly no such sinister intentions could be imputed to Loid Granville; and, in addition to the notes previously presented on the subject of the refugees, the Austrian Minister in London was instructed to place in the hands of the Foreign Secrplary two communications of a similar tenor — one from the Duke of Modena, and the other from the Papal Government. The observations of such a Prince as he who rules in Modena might without ceremony be consigned to the waste pnpar basket, and accoidingly Lord Grnntnlle replied that he should not notice that communication. But the claim J of the Austrian Minister to present a remonstrance from the Holy See was an impertinence which requited some further censure; for we are at a loss to conceive either on what grounds the Pope's Secietnry could think himself entitled to address the British Government on any subject whatevej after the occunences of last year, or how the Austiian Minister could be instructed to act in the name of Sovereigns by whom he had never been accredited to the Queen of England. On these giuunds Lord Granville returned thebe two I.i^t mentioned despatches to the Austrian Minister. The relations of tha two Governments hid thus reached, undei the late Admnnstiiiuon, a most unpleasant point; am) on both sides oifence and letahation had been carried to their furthest limits. We deeply regiet the peevish and unwoithy spirit which may be traced in this correspondence to the great detriment of the public interests ; but we aye bound to add, that no sooner had the intelligence of the defeat of the late ministry i cached Vienna than Prince Schwarzenberg hastened to express to Lord Miiltne&bury hte cat nest desire to restore " that character of fianli and intimate confidence to the relations of the two Governments which events, independent of the Austrian Government, had more or less disturbed. Lord Dorby's rpmaiKs upon his own foieign policy and the question of the refugees in his speech on taking office, were accepted by the Cabinet of Vienna with unqualified satisfaction, and it will honcefoith only bu required on the Austrian fiontiti that Bntish tiavi'llirs should be provided with passpoits issued by some British authority.

At the present conjunctuie in the afi'.iirx of Europe it is impossible to overrate the importance of tlui K'conciliation, foi the union anil mutual confidence of all the great Powers is the mainstay of the geiieul peace ; and if any designs of aggie»sion aie or have been entertained by the French Government, the estrangement between England and Austria ib the cleft through winch they threatened Europe. It is on tins account that wo have steadily adhered, and sometimes through much obloquy, to the importance of n good understanding with Austiia. We beaitily wish that the internal government of the Austiian empiie were more tavouiahle than it is to provincial liberties, that her army could be reduced , and her finances improved; but these aie matters of no direct concern to ourselves. We look solely to our common international interests, and on that giound we maintain that n renewal of our amicable relations with the Austrian Government is a foitunate circumstance for this country, and we sinceiely hope they will not again be rashly destroyed.