Why Did The Great Britain Hold The Revolutionaries?

In fact, Marx, Lenin, terrorists and others were bothering not the Great Britain but its enemies or friends, and that's quite another matter. After all, no one even stumbled upon the idea to grant political asylum for the enemies of the throne and of the establishment or for the fighters for the independence of the British colonies (the becoming of many future undertakers of the British Empire took place in British colleges and universities, but at those times they had not fledged yet and had not grown into the enemies of the crown).

Are you hinting that it was beneficial for England keeping hold the revolutionaries? - Outraged the Cat.

That's obvious without any hints, my beautiful, my wonderful Cat, but pernicious thought is still tormenting me: the "shelter of freedom”, beneficial for England back then, later came at the very high price: immigration trickle grew into a powerful stream.
You need to pay the bills for the Empire, so its subjects started to move from the poor huts, from tuberculosis and hunger in the modest housing with water supply and canalisations, closer to the center of London (And don't you think that there are not as many descendants from the former republics in Russia?).

The British government wasn't idling its time away but was trying to complicate and restrict entry into the country, as if! Immigrants were filtering their way to the country, and how could you restrict the inflow, if the head of the Commonwealth-Empire is Her Majesty the Queen itself? Slowly and steadily England, especially London were becoming more “yellow” and “black”, in some districts other nationalities are already outnumbering the