none whatever on the principle of it. It | vernment, that would make all the differwas well known that the first commission ence possible. Now, he held in his hand which was appointed to settle the claims of the official answer of the French governBritish subjects on the French govern- ment to the application of the Baron de ment was a mixed commission. Difficul- Bode, in which he was told that his claim ties interfering in the way of the satisfac- had amongst others been settled for. This tory discharge of their functions, a second claim was amongst the registered claims commission was appointed, consisting en- which the British Government at the time tirely of British commissioners, who, on contracted with the French government to condition of receiving sixty per cent from decide and discharge; and if it had not France on the claims, undertook to settle been paid for, that was the fault of the with the claimants, and to save the French commissioners, and not the fault of the government from being further troubled applicant. Between the two Governments, on the subject. By that commission an therefore, the Baron was completely sacriaward had been made against the Baron de ficed. To him this appeared a case of gross Bode. On what was that award founded? and extreme hardship; more particularly It was impossible to found it on any as- when it was considered that there was in sertion that he had not been registered; the hands of the commissioners who made for if he had not been registered, the com- the contract with the French government missioners would have had no right to go a large surplus, arising purely out of that into the consideration of his claim at all. branch of the claimants, No. 7, among The ground on which the commissioners which the Petitioner's name appeared. He made their award was, that although the repeated, that it was quite clear that the Baron was undoubtedly a British subject, Petitioner's name was registered, or the and although his property in France had British commissioners could not have gone undoubtedly been confiscated, yet that his into the claim. Since the time when he property had not been confiscated as a Bri- had mentioned the subject before in the tish subject, and therefore, that he had no House, he had seen the accounts of the claim to indemnity. This, if true, would commissioners. He had intended to move have been a good answer to the claim, or to that copies of them should be laid on any other claim of a similar nature, if it the Table of the House, but he was told had been made by the first, or mixed com- that they were very voluminous, that such mission. But the British commission had a Motion would be attended with great excontracted to satisfy the claims of all whose pense, and that his purpose would be claims were registered. Now Baron de equally answered by inspection. He had Bode's claim was registered. The British seen them therefore. Many of them were Commissioners had taken sixty per cent on loose sheets of paper. Some were with on the claims from France on the under- heads, others without; some were signed, standing that they would satisfy the claims others were not; some were written with of all whose claims were registered. They ink, others were written in pencil. There refused however, to satisfy the Baron de were three distinct lists. After describing Bode's claim; and by the contract which the first two lists, the hon. Gentleman they had made with the French govern- proceeded to say, that the Baron de Bode's ment, they precluded him from receiving name was in the third list, which was enrelief from France. He could not apply titled, "Names omitted to be sent in to the to the French government now, for it French Commissioners." In the same list would turn round upon him at once and as that in which the Baron's name appearsay " "We have paid so much to the ed were the names of other claimants; the English Government, who contracted to very next to him being the Marquis Welsatisfy all these claims, your's amongst the lesley, who had been satisfied and paid. rest, and you have, therefore, no right now Under these circumstances, he thought the to make a claim against us." They had Petitioner justly entitled to have the award been told two years ago, that the Treasury which had been made against him reviewed; were about taking steps respecting the dis- and he trusted that the right hon. Gentletribution of the surplus that remained, for man would not refuse to review it. He the satisfaction of the registered claims. must confess that he felt some surprise at On the discussion on that occasion, the hon. several of the claims which were on the list, and learned member for Plympton said, that and which had been satisfied. One was if he could find that this claim had been that of the Irish College at Paris, for a paid for amongst others by the French go- large sum. Notwithstanding, however, the arrangement that had previously been made with respect to Ecclesiastical claims, the Irish College at Paris obtained no less a sum than 106,3041. Their claim might be a good one; but he contended that the Baron de Bode's claim was equally good. Among the claims not presented in time, was a claim of 1,009,3127. from the English East India Company ["Francs," observed some hon. Member ]. No-1,009,3127. sterling. Having abstained from preferring that claim for fourteen years, it appeared to him very extraordinary that it should be preferred at the particular moment at which it was preferred. He requested to know from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, what steps had been taken, and what steps it was intended to take with respect to these claims; and if it were intended to take into consideration the extreme hardship of the circumstances in which the Baron de Bode had been placed. He begged leave to present the Petition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would not enter into any discussion of the merits of the case; for as it appeared that there was a variety of opinions with respect to the facts, some being asserted by one party and denied by the other, he could not state anything positively without further reference to the circumstances. He certainly, however, did agree with the hon. Gentleman in the view which he took of the matter. He would not enter into the question if the circumstances of this particular case were hard or not; he only knew that where any general rule had been established, an individual might suffer a hardship for which it was not possible to devise a remedy. The great difficulty was as to the distribution of the remaining surplus in the hands of the Commissioners. For it appeared that appeals might be made to the Privy Council against the decisions to which the Commissioners had already arrived. If those appeals were successful, the surplus in the hands of the Commissioners might be demanded by the persons by whom those appeals were preferred. With regard to the claim of the Irish College at Paris, it was not the Government, but the Privy Council, that had decided that the College had a right to appeal. The claim made by the East India Company was for the main tenance of prisoners of war in India during the late war. He agreed that as the Company had not urged its claim in time, it was not entitled to a share in the remaining surplus at present; and (as we understood the right hon. Gentleman) he had given the Company a distinct and positive answer to that effect. But the same principle applied to all other claimants who had not preferred their claims within the limited time. Nothing could be declared respecting those claims until it was known what appeals were lodged against the decisions of the Commissioners, and till it was ascertained that funds remained, out of which the Crown might distribute something to persons whose claims were unsatisfied. Dr. Phillimore said, he could not avoid expressing his regret that the right honourable Gentleman had given such a vague and unsatisfactory answer to the plain and straight-forward question, addressed to him by his hon. friend. The question was, whether it was the intention of the King's Government to take into their favourable consideration the case of the Baron de Bode as having an equitable and legal demand on this fund. In reply to that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that there are so many claims on this fund, that it will not be more than sufficient to meet them all. There might undoubtedly be many such claims on the funds generally; but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the fund was divided into classes, and that there were specific appropriations of funds to each class, and that it was not competent to the Government to apply the funds of one class in satisfaction of the claims of another, so long as any under that particular head remained unadjusted. The Baron de Bode belonged to the class No. 7, in the list laid on the Table of the House. No demands were stated against No. 7, except the Ecclesiastical claims-or, as they have been termed, the Douay claims; that it was to be observed that these had already been decided, for one of these cases had been selected with an understanding that it was to govern the others; and, after full argument, was rejected by the Privy Council, and the time for the interposition of any appeal had long elapsed. For what purpose then he would ask, were the Douay claims inserted in this list as unadjusted claims? unless it were that the Government intended to allow them a re-hearing-and if they did, on what ground could they refuse a re-hearing to the Baron de Bode? The surplus which remains undisposed of, to the amount of nearly 300,000l., belongs exclusively to class No. 7. This, therefore, according to all the terms of the original agreement and convention, should be applied to the liquidation of the claims coming under this head, which should be investigated and settled before this class is opened to admission to the claimants from the other classes. Why should there not be a re-hearing of this case? it was one of unparalleled hardship. This House had a right to look into itfirst, because the good faith of the country was involved in the transaction; secondly, because Parliament became, in fact, a trustee for the equitable adjustment of these claims, and is responsible for such an adjustment. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to state that the case of the Baron de Bode was simply this:-He was a British-born subject, whose property suffered spoliation during the French Revolution-a question whether he was to be considered as a British subject or a French subject-but in either case he was entitled to the restitution of his property: his mother was English, his father French: but his name was registered on the list of the British subjects whose claims were to be satisfied by the money paid to the British Government under an arrangement entered into between the representatives of the two Governments; and on the British Government receiving a fixed sum in lieu of the claims of British subjects on the French Government, it received a pro ratá proportion for the claims of the Baron de Bode; thus circumstanced, when the Baron de Bode applied to the British Government for compensation, he was told "the British commissioners have decided that you are entitled to compensation, not as an English but as a French subject, and you must go to the French government for relief"whereas, when he goes to France, he is told "your name is put on the list of British subjects by agreement with the British Government, and we cannot give you any part of the sum set aside for the indemnity of French subjects." Surely, then, the credit and character of the country are deeply interested in the thorough investigation and just arrangement of this subject, and Parliament is peculiarly called upon to interfere, because it passed an Act guaranteeing, as it were, the equitable disposal of these funds. Mr. Bernal would refer the House to another case, that of Mr. Newland's claim for interest, which ought to be at five instead of three per cent. This person's claim was as sound as any upon the Boyd and Luxemburg Lists. A public body, the India Company, had put forth a claim which had never been heard of until the discussion of the 300,000l. He conceived that the VOL. XXIII. Company had no claim whatever founded on the Law of Nations. The important subject deserved the attention of the House. Neither in England nor in France did the commissioners stand well in reputation. The English Government too was suffering by the conduct of those commissioners, and neither in France nor in any other country was it considered to have acted fairly and honestly by all the claimants. The French Government said to the Baron de Bode, we have paid 300,000l. to England on this account, and you have no right to address your claims to us-you ought to go to the British Government, which is a trustee for the due application of these sums. The Treasury ought to proceed to appoint a new Board of Commissioners, which would classify the claims and settle them. An Act of Parliament ought to be passed, and if it turned out to be necessary, two or three small Boards of Commissioners ought to be appointed. If there were only a will on the part of Government, it would soon find a way to carry its will into execution. The case had been before Parliament two or three years, and it ought to be settled. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was by no means insensible to the opinion of foreign governments, but he must nevertheless say, that it would be extremely hazardous to pay over what was called the surplus, to persons whose claims might be advocated by Members of that House. A number of the petitioners had a right to appeal to the Privy Council, and if the commissioners distributed their funds before the final term, what would the House say to him, if he had to come down to Parliament and ask for a grant to pay the balances? Mr. Robert Grant thought the case one of great hardship, and the subject was of such importance, that it required a more formal inquiry. On that occasion he only wished to guard himself against the supposition that he acquiesced in the arguments of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir James Graham said, that the House had travelled from the question before it, which was not that of the claimants in general, but simply the case of the Baron de Bode, which was but too well known to the House, for the merits of it had been stated with great ability by the hon. members for Staffordshire and Preston. The case was one of very peculiar hardship. It was never to be lost sight of, that it belonged to class No. 7, out of which a sum of 250,000l. had been most shamefully mis2 T appropriated. The money had been given by France to the British Government to pay the claims, and it had been paid by the British Government towards building a palace. If Ministers would not re-open the case, he hoped his hon. friend the Member for Preston would bring forward a Motion upon the subject immediately after the recess. The Petition was read as follows. "To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled: "The humble Petition of Clement Joseph Philip Pen, Baron de Bode, Baron of the Holy Roman Empire, a Knight of several Orders, and a natural-born British subject "Sheweth-That Parliament, through the operation of the Act of the 59th of Geo. 3rd., c. 31, having virtually become a Trustee for the British Claimants on the French Government, your Petitioner begs leave humbly to represent that he was a Claimant duly registered by the English Commissioners, with the concurrence of the French Commissioners; that his name is registered in the second book, No. 1130. That your Petitioner can prove by documents that it is solely in consequence of the neglect of the English Commissioners that his name was not registered in the first book, No. 587. And your Petitioner humbly submits that the fact of his name having so been only registered in the second book, No. 1130, by the omission of the Commissioners, instead of No. 587, in the first book, cannot be alleged as a reason against the validity of your Petitioner's claim, because that circumstance rests with the Commissioners, and not with him, and because other Claimants, registered in the same book, under the same head as your Petitioner, have been paid. "That your Petitioner's name and the amount of his claim stands in the list of regularly registered Claimants in the official Returns made by the Commissioners to your Honourable House; that it stands as such in the official Reports of the Commissioners in The London Gazette. "That your Petitioner can prove that the Commissioners have acknowledged, in official documents, that they had kept a large sum apart to meet your Petitioner's claim, which could not have been done had not your Petitioner been a regular registered Claimant. That your Petitioner's case could not at all have been gone into, and have been considered, before the 26th of July, 1826, when the Commissioners closed their labours, as far as concerned the registered Claimants, had not your Petitioner been a regular registered Claimant. "That your Petitioner can prove, and always was prepared to prove, if the opportunity had been afforded him, that the property for which he claims indemnity was confiscated from him, and not from his father; that the cession made to him by your Petitioner's father was legal, and in conformity with the then existing Laws of Alsace; and that, had even that circumstance not taken place, he would equally be entitled to the indemnity he claims, in cousequence of his indisputable and indisputed reversionary right in the property. That the French Government not having disputed that question, the British Commissioners had no right to throw impediments in the way on that account. "That the Commissioners made their Award of Rejection in absence of the most essential evidence, knowing at the time that it was forthcoming, having been apprised by his agent that every thing they had required from him to substantiate his claim would be obtained, and that without the expected evidence it would be impossible for them to come to a just and equitable adjustment. That the Award of Rejection was principally founded on a passage pretended to be in a private deed, but which passage did not exist in that or in any other deed. That there could have existed no valid reason for the Commissioners not having waited for the arrival of his additional evidence before they made their Award of Rejection against your Petitioner, the Commission having remained open nearly four years and a half after this Award was made. "That your Petitioner was deterred from availing himself of the advantage arising from the introduction of additional evidence in consequence of a threatening letter from the Commissioners, in which they state that they understood that your Petitioner intended to support his case on the appeal with his additional evidence, and therefore, informed him, that the producing of the new additional evidence before the Lords of the Council would not only be fruitless, but most probably would occasion the immediate dismissal of the appeal. "That a rehearing was refused by his Majesty's Privy Council to your Petitioner, in consequence, as their Lordships stated, of the limited power granted them by the Act of the 59th Geo: 3rd. c. 31. "That your Petitioner begs humbly to submit, that under all those circumstances it cannot be maintained that his case has been regu larly gone through. "That your Petitioner can prove that though the Commissioners would not wait for the arrival of the most important evidence announced to them before they signed their Award of Rejection against him, yet that they have to others, even after awards of rejection had been signified to claimants, and published in The London Gazette, given those claimants fresh time to procure new additional evidence, and have, after the production of such new evidence, reconsidered their award. That in some cases, after several years had elapsed after the award of rejection has been made and published, such claims had been reconsidered and paid. That your Petitioner feels himself very harshly treated by such preference having been given to other Claimants. "That your Petitioner is debarred, by the Convention of April the 25th, 1818, from seeking any redress from the French Government. That your Petitioner having applied in 1826 to the French Government, was referred to that special clause in said Convention, in which it is stated that no farther demand is ever to be made on France by the individuals who were, in conformity to the Convention of 1815, registered as British Claimants, and whose claims had been discharged on the part of France by the funds created in conformity to the Convention of 1815 and 1818, and placed for that purpose at the disposal of the British Government, adding, that France could not be called upon to pay the same debt twice, and that your Petitioner must seek his remedy against the British Government. "That your Petitioner was possessed of large landed property and mines, which were illegally confiscated and sold by the Revolutionary Government of France; that indemnity for such loss was admitted to be due to your Petitioner, and that it would be a case of unparalleled hardship if, notwithstanding such admission, and the recognition of his losses by two great and powerful Governments, your Petitioner should be deprived of his property without remedy or hope of re covery. "That your Petitioner courts the most minute, strict, and public investigation of his case. "Your Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your Honourable House will be pleased to take his unhappy case into your early consideration, and to afford him such relief as, in your wisdom, may seem meet. "And your Petitioner will ever pray, &c." The Hon. E. G. S. Stanley, in moving that the Petition be printed, asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that the Baron de Bode's being put on the list of claims under the British Government had barred his seeking redress from the French Government, which, under other circumstances, he would have been entitled to demand? When he had brought forward this case two years ago, he had founded his motion upon terms not calculated to secure success, for he had criminated the Commissioners. Although he had also moved for a Select Committee, which was not the way best calculated to conciliate the opposite side of the House, yet the case had made so strong an impression, that he had been defeated by a majority of only thirty-seven. This sufficiently showed what the real feelings were upon the subject. It was a case of great injustice, and he trusted that the Treasury would yield to its merits, and to what they knew to be the real feelings of the House. The Solicitor-general would not allow, that because the Baron de Bode's case had been registered, the claim must be allowed. This only made it a fair subject for consideration. The Commissioners were of opinion that the claim of the Baron ought to be settled by the French Government, the decision turning on the fact that the property had not been confiscated on account of the Baron being an English subject, but because it was the property of a French subject, who had belonged to the unsuccessful party in a civil contest. The Commissioners thought they had no authority to settle his claim, and therefore they rejected it. The Hon. E. G. S. Stanley explained, that the Baron's having been put upon the list by the British Government barred his claim upon the Government of France. The Petition to be printed. ECONOMY IN THE PACKET SERVICE.] Mr. Pendarvis presented a Petition from Cirencester, complaining of Distress, and praying for a Repeal of the Malt-tax. The hon. Member said, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Members of the Government to the saving which might be effected in the Packetservice, with advantage to the country. He was induced to notice this in consequence of a letter addressed to him in a provincial paper, wherein the difference of expense was stated at 41,000l. He would place the letter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not help observing, in the vessels employed in that service, the ten-gun brigs, which were not calculated for scudding, and were generally considered dangerous vessels, that two or three of them have been lost with their whole crews. He did not find fault with the packets being under the Admiralty, but if the statement he had seen was correct, he thought it would be more to the advantage of the country to employ hired packets, commanded by Lieutenants of the Navy, than the more expensive and dangerous vessels, ten-gun brigs. The difference of expense, amounting on the whole to 41,000l., arose in this way. It would be remembered, that soon after the war, the Packet-service was transferred from the Post-office to the Admiralty, and then it was, that ten-gun brigs were substituted for hired packets. The thirty-three hired packets before that period cost, at 1,977. 10s. each, 65,257l. 10s. per |