The Sun. — London, England, 1828-07-02 00:00:00

• - • . - • . . e state oil that at. an early period of the ensiling Session, he sught that • e mended to move for a Committee to Inquire into the the d e f er elf ,Tudition of the Labouring Poet. of all Trades and ar6, :./ s s i sll ` - siasses, for the purpose of ascertaining the extent to ..sce• rs: s which coritintiso their comforts were affected by the present re p tro ps would I v iate ms upon the subject of Trade, as compared es, as soon With their conditions in the times that are past. meet the d, th . t er observing that the petitioners, among other to lie on t PC'gs, prayed, - in the present artificial system of , • . P r ohibitions and free trade, the fixing a minimum of elf-past Si w '.ges. The Hon. Member concluded by recom 'needing the petition strongly to the House. ,y 1.. A Jr. C. .OURTENAY said, that if the Hon. Gent. five minus had done him the favour of attending to his observe . t ons on a former night, he 'mist feel that it would be Inconsistent in him now to reply in detail, or indeed to further io • ford Distil r ePly at all. • Besides he was not the head of the De- Parte:l ent , nor had he the controul of the Finances. froln Be Mr. F. LEWIS said he was sure his Hon. Friend )1 trade. would never consent to pursue the course adopted by Dill Covetl t he Hon. Gent. • The course the House would have t o pursue next Session would be gradually to follow retition fis t . P the principles of free trade, without injuring exe erv, with( 'sting interests. He was glad to hear the Hon. Member declare that it was . i m p oss ibl e to fi x a petition fl r • tlitti vaum of wages. Such an attempt was indeed Corn Lev, 'toPracticable, and could only be productive of the ILL ; 4 worst consequences. It would be well, therefore, if petition fib . one Members would discourage all such hopes lurches I3i, la those who asked them to present petitions, and the Bill f . . to tell them that that Howse could never come to was evin - - 0 4 'w practical resolutions upon such a principle. LI every otb , Mr. HOBHOUSE said that the Hon. Member 'or Colchester appeared to be greatly displeased, not :er the oPP 41 . Y With those opposed to him, but with all those d even . ini t t ttound him. He had asserted several matters which Session. "e (Mr. Hobhouse) denied. He Nvould tell the Hon. s pi p l oo , 0. Gentleman that there was as much sincerity in those . l i . Pinelit ti ?tOund him, and as Much sympathy, as he could find present . 4 F , i. , p in , his awn bosom. (Cries of Hear, hear, hear.) the coon t kne Hon. Member found it convenient upon diffe [ that Ha'. re nt oeettsione to make statements contradicting each er -"that i (Auer, for he came down the other night; and stated Church that th e agriculturists had so much money that they ts ‘ii prey were only at a,lose for a safe repository in which to sioitime sf keep it; but to-night he found it convenient to.say 10 i, t ),410 that the distress of the agriculturists was so great ded by ? that they did not know how to get any money to keep. Xinu He hadailso draws] a most invidious comparison be si - rnri4et that o, s f, tween 'the President tiMl the late President of the t he,o i lo s i i Board of Trade. Now, for intellectual capacity, the w the pub': late President of that Board was eminently dis rhe pet aii linguished, and it gave him great Satisfaction to hear from the lips of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, SILL: t hat he entertained a different, sentiment as to the )KER, IV . abilities of the latePresident.—(Hear.)--.lt gave him amendisef great comfort when he heard such language indulged nits now et 'int4l. Gentleman were not to be abandoned.— to learn that th e p r i nc ipl es o f that Right 4 (Hear, hear.) With res p e ct to the present Presi ion front i' ° f at, who h a d compare d hi s •mind to a sheet Lancasllif .se - not waste, bill white paper—(A laugh)—he t ; iild ed by os is' only sav, that if it was a comfort to that it expreSo °right' Hon. Gentleman to be perfectly uninformed, )e.said to cowlthgreat questions which come before him, he asies in II d assure him that it was no such comfort to the tlieir . lab .ie:utilitry.—(Cheers.)—With all the zeal and alacrity ;anion' villi‘• hid t, e World he could not conquer subjects which illy' cocoas. es ta ken up the life-thileasf the greatest men that vith t e hol h o er s . li ved.---.-(11he most . leughable part, Right He which of theSllon. Member's speech was, that in hat he cas _ of ••• he stated that lie could not agree in the prayer he tiered by! . er - c petition as to the establishment of nn in ,f the pri' did se of wages. If not, for what purpose then .iiting of 1 . se - he' make his speech.—(A laugh.)—The sated, wt b oo , Member then concluded. by saying that ded t o ' tl t " e Member for Colchester should cease to complain i 'f those around him when his complaints were not plications' ar acutent, to well found e d. Mr. .D. W. HARVEY said, that either the syes sessed gged: to 6 Pe. tem of prohibition must be more complete, or else, , if the free trade system was to be more liberally of t4e adopted, certain taxes which pressed heavily on the . . Lirell l )°3l i manufacturers must be abandoned and a Property 31t of t , Tax laid on instead. The Hon. Member then-corn dries ; 11; plained of having been misrepresented by the H on . Session Member for Westminster as to what he had pre ed to rot viously said, end concluded by moving that the peti nil proheirt tion be prieteds . —Agreed to. ogether .free . traO Mr. W. WYNN gave not i ce that he would - to st, be and morrow move for a : Committee to enquire what alteration . ' e . ' td. may be necessary to be made in the i very iilte. s an mg orders relative to contested elections. acne mean that 141411 Sir J. NEWPORT gave notice of a motion for d altered- the beginning of nest Session, relative to the . Church 'ay. let t i Establi s h ment . in Ireland. , . • - all his it Mr. MONCK presented a petition from the bpe y the mot rative Weavers of Manebesterspraying s for, a Lev eto a platlative enactment-to regulate the rate of Workmen's ertv taxi Mra P s • ss A princely e 1 Mr. istisNNING. moved that an humble Ad , Majesty, praying of t h e pe t dress be p resen t e d t o his praying that there ;fated s of, be laid before the House a return of Mint Prosecu. itiOns ma° ,tione from the year 1819 to 1827 inclusive, distin— ion. o f 0. gnishin g the number in each y e a r : id that ti l 4.. Mr. - CURTEIS presented a petitiPo from the ma, Soo •4op : Plant er s o f , Kir warten , in t h e county o f t the wee , S itss., against certain clauses in the Bill for ma-slim s, !).• never 11. lag,' the Hop Duties. tore g ene, -Mr..CURTEIS presented a petition from the in d the it s habitants of St. George, Camberwell, in - favour of ced by tb Additional Ch urc h es . Right IV Mr. H. GRATTAN presented a petition from dof r i e ss i Traders,. Mechanics, &c. &c. resident in Dublin, against the Tax on Glass. tae, that t a ,altoeetP, Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a petition from the b at itt" the Inhabitants of the town of Crowland, in the county Of Lincoln, against the untry, svi Withdrawing of 'Small' it with- t!'• Notes. state of t's BARON DE ISODE'S CASE. • • persOn Is) , . Mr. STANLEY said, i n t h e course of the oh lepieciate. servations he had made b e f ore to the House, he had in s sf ,n or t . stated part of the case o f t h e B aron de Bode. The rs -b ai ri hoo s Petition before the ITonsie•was that of the Baron de in all t Iloilo, a British subject, claiming for losses suffered content ' end er the confiscatory decrees of th e F renc h Go e prin o p ii vernMent, in 1•793,' and, therefore, coming (under the ed,,with 0 Conventions of 1815 and 1818. The House was net (Sir I aware, that a Convention was entered into in 18-15, anthropvl Consequently to the peace of 'lBl4, by which se the Glot venty millions of:francs were placed at the disposal insequen6 o f a mixed Commission, appointed by the Govern read by t) tn cnts of England and. France, for the liquidation leral benef of the .claims of subjects of his Britannic Majesty, uced to t) Wh o had suffered in 1793, by the Decrees of the etly in a French Government. It was determined by that I econorn,. Convention, that all claimants residing. in Europe lied to ail Should put in their claims within three months, and a i ns st i cit p here the House would see the particular hardship wno oth s Under which the petitioner laboured.' Ott the 9th is very di of February, th e p e ti t i oner , who was in the Russi an ) 1 ) 29 • trod' servic e (i ii w hi ch he had b een di s tinguish e d an d re inaci Ales' reeved several orders), t r a n smitted his claim throu g h of a dept Count . Pozzo di Borgo to the Duke de Richelien. — ot dispose .I.le made a difficulty of receiving it in consequence it, but tb i of its coming from a British subject; in cense- hut prate' tleence of which the petitioner waited upon Sir .s. It wi Charles Stuart, the English Ambassador at Paris, lurdett) hie the 15th February, and not until the 18th . did• :!! receive any answer. Ile was 'then desired by the regul' ___, tali _ . `:ir Charles Stuart, to call upon the Commis rit.eihii sione rs and make use of his ianne. That he did riot' in I several times, but was unable to find them, until the into a period ; w h en h e was one d ay after the t i me fact t( rescribed, f or i t was not unt il the 22d of Fes ' obtain , ed hruary that h e was - a bl e to see t h em, and the -. H e e . vention was signed on the 21st of November. nod foreiP ?ht en, index'' and compensation for the loss of the Lordship on t e h s e ta , te i s i o ( ff Soultz-sir-Forets, in Lower Alsace. ( put thee: acateS or of the t) May further proofs of the nationality Baron s.en De Bode were required, and accord advantat. in 0•1 he eniber tilt., That, Ysent in the registration of his baptism. as a . preliminary. step,mighthave been thought claretion r 6rea si,. satisfactory; but, in October, he received a letter, , the purport of which gave abundant symptoms! of ie.p , 1 ,00, the animus which governed the proceedings of the ansider * ' ) ( l ,3 i bminissiOis In that letter he was informed that same tit, nfs.rnratmn:hditel claimants the enjC' antecedent possessing property in Fraire. )ffice,wi gave toentto 1792. The natural answer whichlhe. I. its inc., claimed compensation that was, that the propei•ty WhiCh dud rim noti l compensation for was in Lower Alsace, dud - • . .that that province formed part of Prance previous to 1792. At that iper;nd of his intercourse with ' the Commissioner; the main question appeared to be the question of nationality. Though that ques tion had been, as any reasonable man would conceive, sufficiently answert'd before, yet he obtained upon it a - legal opinion—that of Sir Samuel Romilly—and that distingnished lawyer was clear in the opinion that the Baron de Bode was a natural born subject of Great Britain and entitled to all the rights of a man born of English parents. It was then natural to suppose that he would be placed upon the list of claimants ;- but in 1818 the scene was changed, and it was alleged that the sum to meet his claim was • altogether insufficient. A sum of 60,000,000 of francs was inscribed in the Great Book of France as a debt due to England, and out of this the claims of the emigrants were to be paid. • There, therefore, was an obvious interest •in creating as large a sur plus as possible. In 1619 the question of na was again raised, and a lth ou gh the• Law tionality Offieers of the Crown gave an opinion in favour of hi s c l a i m ; yet it would still seem to be postponed without any ground apparently stronger. The claim -of the Baron was also 'resisted by the French , Go vernment, and they took the ground that he was an English subject, a n d that account could not claim as a French emigrant. . Several statements - had been made by the Commissioners, and if those statements were true, they most certainly convicted themsehTs of conduct utterly illegal, and rendered their own Acts null and void, but he (Mr. Stanley) would not be satisfied with leaving them in that dilemma; he would prove that they had asserted that which was not the fact. They • stated that the Baron's case had not been registered in sufficient time. Now it appeared that out of 2,270 registered cases, his stood number 1;130, yet, how was that consistent with the statement that no-registry had been made by the Baron for three years after the proper opportunity for registration had passed away, With the French Government, 'as he had already stated, the success of the Baron was not better than at home.- In•reply to his claims, urged to them, he was told that he was a British sulject, but as it was well known that his father had possessed the property, and that he, .under the old law, would have been justly entitled to it, the difficulty of his being a Bri fists. subject might easily have been gotten over, had he not completely destroyed .his claim against the French Government, by first preferring it as a sub. ject of Great Britain to the Commissioners ap pointed by the Government of this country. France could not .be expected to pay the - same debt twice. The sum of 60,000,000 of francs this country took as a composition for claims ; we profited by it, and should, therefore, deal liberally and fairly, with those . for whose compensation it was intended. Suddenly, then, the conduct of the Commissioners appeared to undergo-a change ; they called on the Baron to bring forward all the proofs he possessed, and he was ins formed that if they were not brought forward before three months, his name would be struck off the list. With difficulty he obtained an extension of the time from August, 1821 to January, 1822. The Baron then, reduced from affluence to distress, had to travel 1,200 miles, had to collect evidence in a country which had been twice .the theatre of war; he had in such a country to make surveys of several Lordships, to obtain proofs, not of the value of woods and mines, and other property, at the present time, but what their value was in 1793. He now held in his hand an affidavit sworn before Baron Hullock, in, which the deponent stated that he had accompanied a gentleman named Braekenbury, the agent of the petitioner, and, after the latter had had an inter view with the Commissioners, he stated that the only condition upon which they would grant the Baron additional time was, that of his making a con siderable reduction in the amount of .his (Hear, - hear, bear.)—On the Ist of April, Mr. -Brackenbury sent- sixteen documents to the Com missioners, which he informed them were duplicates, the.origifials of which the Baron de Bode was then Oinging-with- him •from France, together with other documents of a like nature, with a view to the ad vancement of his claims. Upon that•the Commis sioners-write. in reply, that they desired to know what were those other documents which the Baron intended to bring forward, and made it a condition of their being received that their nature should then be•stated. The House would see the utter impossi bility of %Tr. B.'s stating the contents of alocuments which had not yet come into his possession. Still the CeinMissioners on that ground any fur ther extension of time, until, at- the earnest entreaty of Mr. Brackenbury, they "evoked that refusal and granted additional time. For what length did the House suppose ? Till the following 'Wednesday. They told. Mr. Bmckenbnry that they were tinder the necessity of coming to an immediate decision— they could, they said, delay no longer, for they knew that delay would be prejudicial to the decison they intended to make: . On finding that he had no Chance of a fair hearing, the petitioner intimated his intention of appealing to the Privy Council. There upon a letter was written - to him,, 'stating that he would not be at liberty to adduce any further cvi dence on the hearing of his appeal; and that any at tempt on his part to infringe the terms of the Act of Parliament, would be resisted to the utmost. Thus a man claiming nothing more than naked justice, was not only denied that, but threatened for attempting to obtain it.;—(Hear, hear.)—That was a stretch of arbitrary power, which be sincerely trusted the House would not sanction by its vote.• On the imperfect evidence which he then pos;essed, his case came on to be heard before the Privy . Council, - and though that tribunal decided against him, yet Lord Stowell did hold out to him some hopes that he might ob tain a rehearing. Though ultimately heard and decided by the Privy Council, the case was delayed for a most unreasonable length of time, and postponed many times. The chance of rehearing held ont to him proved of little value, for the terms of the Act of Parliament were so express, that he could not adduce any new evidence in support of his claim; he, therefore, then had no hope of justice except what was derived from an appeal to that House. There was one other objection made to the claim of the petitioner, to which he would advert, namely, that the pro perty in questiOn could not be French, because it was a German fief. And it was to be observed, that they made this assertion all the while that they were contending that in consequence of the aboli tion of feudal rights in France, in 1793, the Baron was not entitled to compensation for the loss of those rights. In this they displayed the most corn , plete ignorance of the Preach law, and of the pe culiar circumstances of .Lower Alsace at the period alluded to. The Hon. MeMber.then entered into a history of the Circumstances under which Alsace became a part of France, and Called the attention of the House to the fact overlooked by the Commis sioners, t h at - from the general - abolition of feudal rights, which took place in 1789, that province was excepted, ,those - right s h av i ng b een t her e sp e c ifi ca ll y guarded by the faith of treaties. As a further proof of the difficulties which the Commissioners sub jected the present claimant to, he instanced the fact of their having r equ i red him ' to produce the least, °ranted to his tenants no leases are ever granted in such lordships as his—they are called inn for re ceipts for r e p nr s — s e bduuctairaheit'llltt of co u rse .c t o hl! rse person , not. being in his 9 who paid the rent. : All, however, Altai' either the leases the receipts eould shew, had been pre viously proved b y his steward, but that did not sa-' tisfy the Commissioners. They called - on him .also to shev whether the French Cuthoritie's had ever regarded him as possessing the title he laid claim to; and likewise to shew on what account they had de prived him of his property ; thus demanding froM him not only the opinions of the Trench authorities, but their inOtiVes of action. The 'Hon. Gentleman then entered into a variety of 'similar det a il s , amongst which he noticed-another ground on which the• Commissioners resisted the claims of the Baton; it was, that the cession to hint by his father was not a:bona fide cession, and called on him - to shew, that hythe law of Alsace he received such a cession, being then only fourteen years -of age. This was nuisr gratuitous; for' such - a cession could be made by the law 'of England—(Hear, hear, hear)—and property could be held in' trust for a minor. But after all, the best proof that could be given was offered of the cession—it was, that the late Baron, yielding to the necessities of the times, did hand over the property of his son in the presence of the municipality of the place. Now, if that cession would have been good .against the father, it was all that the Commissioners had a right to inquire into, even supposing the question to have been at all ma terial. -In consequence of the distress and difficul ties which he encountered in the prosecution of that . claim, lie found himself under the necessity of bor rowing money from a person named Richmond,— For that purpose a deed was prepared, and when it came to. be signed, it appeared that it contained a passage describing the property. in Alsace as belong ing to the late Baron : the petitioner refused to ex ecute the deed; the great expense of re-engrossing it was pointed out to him, and he was recommended to sign it as it stood; this he refused to do tuttil . the objectionable passage should be erased, and the era sure taken notice of by the witnesses. Finally that was done, and yet that very deed was quoted against him at length by the Comtnissioners as an admission of his own defect of title.—(Hear.) Thus he thought he had . Made out . atrainSt the Commission ers a charge of having falsified and resisted the Claims ofjastice. Here was the case of a man born to large property, who had ail his life believed himself enti tled to it; who had served with honour the armies of his Sovereign, who had never disgraced his high birth or his honourable profession by any mean or discreditable act, and Whose sole hope was the ap peal then made'to the House of Commons, not for liberality but for justice. It was well known that that was the only body to which he could have made such an appeal, to save from beggary and de stitution one who at the present moment knew not where to lay his head. Ile (Mr. S) concluded by stating. that he thought. he had made out a Case which called for investigation, and warranted no in considerable degree - of suspicion. He moved that the petition of the Baron de Bode be referred to a Select Committee. Mr. H. TWISS said, the claim of the Baron de Bode vets founded on the second article of the Commercial Treaty,. entered into between France and. England in 1786—by which it was declare 1, that the subjects of each' country should be at liberty to exercise their respective trades, without let or hindrance; and that in case of any determination by either' power to remove any - such individual, twelve months' notice of such intention should be given.— In violation of this treaty, the French, at the com mencement of the Revolutionary War, seized upon certain possessions belonging, to British subjects.— For these acts satisfaction was given by France, to England, by an agreement bearing date the 12th of October, 1815. It was on this ground that the Baron de Bode, ,who had . possessed 'property ; in Alsace, and which property had been seized, sought for compensation for 'losses sustained by him. The terms of the agreement of lBl5, however, limited the time at which claims might be made •to July, 1816, at least so far as European claims were con cerned. .The petition of the Baron was only pre sented twclve.days before this period had expired; and the ,English and' rench Commissioners, then considering that he was not entitled to the compen sation claimed by him, . closed their register without inserting his name ; but as it afterwards appeared that the Baron was in reality a British subject, the English Commissioners pressed the French Com missioners to register' his name in their ( The Hon. Member. here quoted a passage from the Baron's Parnphlet, in - which he stated that he had presented a petition on the subject of his claims to the Duke de Richelieu, and described the way in which that petition had been received, in conse quence of an idea that he was not a British subject.) Now in the negociations between the Commis sioners of England and thos e o f F ra n ce , t h e f ormer pressed the latter to admit the claim of the Baron and in 1818, a new arrangement took place between France and England, by- which England took front France a certain definite sum, to be. distributed among those whose claims had been registered by the Commissioners- s -even At that, time, however, the Baron's name had not• been registered, and, conse• quently, the account had been drawn up without any allowance from France' on the ground of his claim; the name of the Baron de Bide - not occurring in the register. If, under these circumstances the claim of the Baron had been at once disallowed, much blame could not hare been imputed to,. any one ;. brit the Comrnissionerslesolved to give him ult the advantage . in their power, and after some time had been given, they took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to whether, his name havin g been omitted by the F renc h- Commissioners, they, as English Commissioners, had the power of entering his name then upon the list; arid as whether, in the event of there being a surplus over and above the demands made, it would not he right to take, the claim of the Baron into considera tion. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was, that the 59th of George 111. (lid not in spirit forbid such an indulgence, and accordingly, on the 30th June, 1819, the name of the Baron de Bode was for the first time inserted in the register, and stood as the Baron had , stated, No. 1130 on the list, not,. as he had expressed his belief, in con sequence of the interference of the Frenth Com missioners, but because of the determination of the English Commissioners. .The French Com missioners had ended their list at 1046; ..the re mainder being inserted afterwards, and on a separate paper. The Hen. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) had read a letter purporting to be signed by the Com missioners, and the substance of which had been very differently stated—that letter certainly con -tailed- a mis-statement—it arose no doubt from an erroneous impression, but it might fairly be termed So, even from the - representation of the * Baron him self. Did the House then think that the Baron had acted with candour in stating in his pamphlet that the Commissioners had no sooner procured the money from France than they. turned round on him, and tried by every means, fair and unfitir, to expel him from their list ? He (Mr. H. Twiss) could in no way account for such conduct, except in consi dering the Baron as lalsouring under that strong delusion, such as indeed the Learned Judge who decided against him in the Privy Council had pro nouneed.him to be. The claim of the Baron de Bode originally embraced twe points, and referred to property in two quarters ; that of the first was, how ever' subsequently abandoned, and the claim was • narrowed to the estate of Soultz, in Alsace. Then arose the two great questions;. first, as to .whether the property belonged to .his father,- or to himself, for if it had not belonged to the father, he not being .a British subject, would clearly have had no claim; and secondly, as • to whether, if the property had belonged to the Baron, the seizure was made by the French Government on the score of its being English property, or as being property . belonging ton, French emigrant—for the father being a French emigrant, it was clear that on this ground he would have .no. claim. .In support of the, former plea, the Baron brought forward the evidence of., several burghers to prove that the father :actually give up the right to the son; but as to any instrument in proof of such relinquishment, no witness had stated that lie ever sawany 7 -no witness had stated that he ever heard of the existence of any such. Even after this alleged Cession the property did not come into the hands of - the Baron, he being a minor. The father did net convey it to trustees for his henefit, but he Tirade hiniself the guardian, and kept possession of it for, the benefit of his sob. Were not the French; Go vernment then justified in considering that this ces sion was colourable and collusive, and in treating-the property as being still the father's. But there was evidence even from the Baron himself of the seizure having been made, on the ground that the father was considered and treated as 'a French emigrant. Such lie was alleged to be by the French, as appeared by the case given by the Baron to Sir Samuel Ro milly. Mr. Hinde, who had been employed to exa mine into the archives of Alsace, for the purpose of. ascertaining ivhether. or not the father was consi dered a French emigrant, : Lad stated that „he could gnd no document so describing him; but if he Itiad looked into the proper places he would have found j that in October 1793, the French Directory con fiscated certain property, being. the property of French emigrants, and..that the name of Bode ap peared in the list of persons whose property was so confiscated. Then, as to the insufficiency of time for the providing proofs, alleged by the Baron : From the time until the first claim was made, to the. period when the claims were finally settled, a period of 'six years bad elapsed ; and during that period there had been nothing to prevent the Baron from • 'urging his claim. Through Mr. Bassett, the gentle-. man. employed as the agent of the Baron, a memo randum bad been sent to him, of the various points as to which -the Commissioners -required proof—• this was an act of indulgence sufficient to show that the Commissioners were far froth wishing to throw obstacles in his way. On the 21st Feb, a gentleman of the name of BraCkenbury WaS' employed as the agent of the Baron, and he sent a letter to the Com- Missioners,. praying for a farther extension of time. On the Ist April, the. day fixed upon for the Commissioners .to decide, documents did arrive. but they added nothing to what had been previously known as to the two grand points on which the- Commissioners required to be: satisfied. When then more time was applied for, Mr. Brackenbury was asked, whether, if his request .were agreed to, he would pledge himself that: he would bring forward additional information en ,those two grand points. Mr. Brackenbury declined to give such pledge, but expressed his belief that such information would be afforded ; and on this.mere opinion additional time was granted. On the 24th of April the parties met and there was thee another application for an exten-' - sion of time ;. the decision was therefore postponed to the 26th,-and on that day, as no fresh documents arrived, the Commissioners signed their decision, but kept, it undeclared, from the idea that further documents might yet come. On the 30th of April the agent • begged for further time, on the ground that the Baron himself had not arrived in England, and that he was anxious.to state his case in person, as he could not depend on his professional advisers. The agent, however, could not state that any addi tional evidence'would be adduced, and, on the Ist of May the Commissioners finally issued their award, rejecting the claim of the Baron : they did nor, how ever,' so do, until after a variety of delays had taken place, nor until after the Baron had himself expressed his gratitude for suck delay. The Baron, however, had stated that other individuals had been allowed time. Yes, and the Baron himself had been allowed it; but they had procured valid evidence to support their claims, while 'he had failed so 'to do, The Baron then had his appeal, and he did appeal to the Privy Council, 'and the Privy Council decided .at once against his Claim. The Baron then demanded . a , rehearing; and this the Privy Council decided they had no power to grant. A strong illustration of the present question was to be found - in the words of Mr. Canning, used by him on the occasion of the Baron's •petition being presented in 1826. That Statesman then said that if that which had once before been the proper tribured was brought forward in that House, the Act appointing the Commis sioners would become utterly uselesS. That Conse quence would now result if the House was to over turn the judicial decision the CoMinissioners had come to on this point.—(Cheers.) • • Mr. sTANLEY, explained. Mr. LOCKHART said, the subject was of such' importance, that it well became the House to inquire into it. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had not altered materially any part of the case made out. by his Hon. Friend - (Mr. Stanley) near him. The complaint of the Baron was, that the Privy Council could not come tea decision, being prevented by the proceedings of,' the Commissioners. The latter, by falsifying - a deed, and misconstruing evidence, led the Privy Council to believe that the Baron had no pro perty at all in that to which he laid claim. It was said that they had given the Baron time, but the question was, had they given him time enough? He meant' to say they had not. The Commis sioners had read ,a draft of a deed, not the deed itself, and then three days after made" this award— that the Baron had no property in the estate in ques tion ; and they stated that they came to that con . , elusion principally from what 'was contained in the deed. But when the deed was referred to, no pas sage could be found which justified their award. A passage that might justify- it -was in the draft, but that was struck out in the deed itself, and it was attested that that was done before it was executed. The Commissioners had displayed the greatest 'ignorance of the language of the country whose do cuments they pretended to translate—with its laws, too, with which the case was necessarily involved— and yet with all this ignorance it had refused to take time, but had hastily come to a conclusion against the Baron, whilst he was. entreating them for time, in order that he might be enabled to explain his evidence. Mr. R. GRANT said, he knew nothing of the claims of the Baron except from what appeared in his printed statement, and although it was impos sible, supposing him to have been wronged in the man ner stated, not to feel for him, yet every body must regret the manner in which he had brought his charges against the Commissioners. He charged the Commissioners with having entered into a com pact to deviate from the administration of that justice which they had sworn to administer. He combined against them the charges of a violation of their duty, their oath, and their honour. Now, his (Mr..R. Grant's) firm conviction was, that a more unjust, unfounded, and cruel imyutation, was never cast.— (Hear, hear.) Whatever the errors of the Gentle men.might be, he. would presume to say that they were incapable of acting except from public motives —(Hear, hear)—all idea of, dishonourable conduct was far from them.—(Cheers.) With respect to the prejudice raised against the Commissioners, it was not to be wondered at, considering the circum stances under which their authority WAR established. In the first place, it was the establishment of a new tribunal, all the cases that came before it were new, and its decisions wanted that confirmation which tribunals of greater antiquity, from that fact alone, possessed. Another circumstance likely to create prejudice was; that it was not, as in ordinary cases, a claimant on one side, and a defendant on the other; all the parties were claimants, and the Commissioners, whilst they sat as judges, were also .bound.to con sider themselves representatives of the French Go vernment, and defending its rights. • All- thew cir eumstanees raised more than the average degree of prejudice against this tribunal. The charges against ,the Commissioners, as far as he was able to see, were divided into two branches ; the first was, that the Commissioners- pressing the Baron's cas e to premature hearing, adjudicated non incomplete evidence.; and secondly, that even, upon the incom plete evidence that was before them, they came to an unjust decision. With respect to the first point, it was said that the Commissioners might apt to have fixed any limit to the production of evidence, and the Baron said that if he was apt ready, he might have been put at the bottom of the list. But if this plan had been pursued, from the s:ovenly manner in which the cases were got up, a case would no sooner have arrived at the top of the than it would have been put at the bottom, and the labour of the". Commissioners would never have been concluded. At the end of six months the Commis sioners, found. that although he took not a single step in advancing his claim, he applied for an,exten 7 don of Aline. After some further observations; which were quite inaudible in the gallery, the Ho n ,' Member concluded by saying that the ease was so complicated, he did not feel justified in voting on the question. Dr. PHILLIiVIORE supported the motion. Mr. LITTLETON felt it of importance to the petitioner that one circumstance should be known to the Hous e , name l y, t h at M r. Sh a d well (the ' present Vice Ch ance ll or ) h a d g i ven as hi s opinion—" That although th e evidence of the cession was not com plete, he thougbt the claimant had made out a good iisle for indemnity for the confiscation of his property ; n 1 793, and that therefore • his claim before the , Commissioners_ ought to be allowed under the pro visions of the Treaty of i 91e, " - The ATTORNEY-6 r, rose to oppose the motion, and should AC . ,:.et declare, that if the proposition shoUld be negatived, the petitioner could not attribute that failure to the. want, of an excellent advocate, for : he, (the -A.ttorney,General) had never heard a case more ably stated in that House. If justice had been refused to the petitioner elsewhere, he would no doubt have had a ..right to come to that House for redress; but the CommiS sionera had, instead of throwing obstacles in his way, afforded him every possible opportunity of facility to proVe his case. If the nanie of the petitiOner hail been among those for whose indemnity. 'the sum already . stated had been .awarded by the Fr.c clt GoYernment, undoubtedly he wo► ld . have ad a claim on that fund ; bat his name was not to be found in that list, and, therefore, not being ne of those whose relief it - contemplated, the Baron de Bode had no claim upon it. Allusion had been made -to the opinion given on the claim of the petitioner the Vice-Chaneellor. FOr the opinion of that learned person no man could entertain more respect than he himself al; but the de . cision of the house must be founded upon different grounds. (Here the Hon. and Learned Gentleman discussed the terms of the Vice- Chancellor's opinion, which, he contended, being alternative and hypothetical, ought not to influence the House.) Mot eover, the application to the House was in the nature of an appeal, but it was not merely an appeal from the Commissioners, but from the Board of Privy Council.; for all the evidence sub mitted to the Commissioners had been laid before the Privy Council, at which one of the most eminent men that ever sat at that Board—he meant Lord Stowell---Was present, and gave his opinion that the evidence had failed Jo bear out the case of session. Looking at the meths of the case he should.oppose the motion. Mr. STANLEY replied, The House divided. For the motior Against it. 9l Majority against the motion _B7 WEST INDIA SLAVES. On returning to the gallery we found Sir G. MURRAY speaking. The objeet of his Bill war, the ,renewal of the Acts empowering the iSing to permit the removal of Slaves from the West Indies under certain regulations. After a few words from Dr. LUSIIINGTON, Mr. MANNING, and Mr. HUSKISSON, leave was given to bring in the Bill. SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS. Sir F. BURDETT, on introducing his motion relative to the Water Companies, recapitulated the objects for which the Commission of Inquiry had been appointed on .the subject, the quality Of the water supplied to the western parts of the-metropolis, and the - discovery of a remedy for the inconvenience complained of. The report of the Committee stated - their. opinion that the Water Was unfit. for use, and -injurious to the health. Why then should the public be compelled to pay heavy rates for such water ? Notwithstanding the lateness of the Session a Com mittee would have sufficient time tninvestigate the subject, with a viellsto an arrangement of the question. The authority of Doctor Paris was decisive in proof of the insalubrious nature of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company. Mr. Wright also pointed out the same thing in an able pamphlet, at • the hazard of beingprosecuted by th e G ran d Junction CoMpany. Dr. Somerville - also had given an account of the water, which was enoug h t o turn one's stomach. - There was no doubt of the ex istence of this He hoped there would be as little on, the necessity of removing it. The mono poly itself was an evil most oppressive on the inha bitants 'of the metropolis. That monopoly was esta blished by means of an Act which was smuggled through the House as a private Bill. It gave uncon stitutional powers to the Company: Under it they imposed rates for their water at three hundred per cent. On the establishment of the Grand junction - Company, the water rates were raised from W.' to 10/. It was a dis g race to the Legislature to. allow the metropolis to be oppressed : by this monopoly, and disgusted by such water. On theSe grounds he hoped the House would agree that the Com-• mittee of 1821 should be revived for the purpose of removing these evils. He thought that .the Com mission had been too much limited in its object ; and he would now move for a Cominittee to give ef feet to the proceedings of the former Committee. — It was remarked in the report that no difficulty ex isted in supplying Paris with wholesome water, and this was because the Government had a proper re gard for the feelings, the comfort, and the health of the people. It was remarked too, that - Edinburgh was copiously supplied from. a considerable distance, according to the plan devised by the late .Mr. Ren nie. Now, by his (Sir Francis Burdett's) plan, there would be an abundant supply of pure and excellent water for all purposes, and he - thought it was the duty of the Government to see that the supply of water in the met r opoli s was such as it ought to be. Ile remembered, iu re ference, to this subject, the Act of a Monarch whose Memory was - not much respected, and indeed did .not deserve to be respected. Sir Hugh Myd dieton had expended large sums upon a specu lation of supplying the city with water, but so little justice or generosity, .or so little sense, had the inhabitants at that timw that they refused to come forward with the slightest ' contribution, and this - enterprising individual might have died in the gaol to which he was committed, if James 11. had not paid 7,000/. for him, not out of the public funds, but out of his private purse. He hoped that Par liament would in some degree imitate the generosity of this unpopular Monarch, and not refuse the mise rable pittance required to complete the plan which the Committee On the subject would have laid be fore them. He had been told , by Mr. James Mills that 3001. would be sufficient. No one company should be allowed to supply the others, for this would only have the effect of straitening the supply. But the plan he proposed was of another character, and if he had the sanction of the House, he would he proud of doing the thing himself. The plan was to bring water from Teddington, by means of forcing pumps, to Wimbledon Common. [Acre he would have a reservoir established, from which . all the companies should be obliged to take their water.. The whole line Wetild not be much more than nine miles, and there were plenty of persons ready to embark in the speculation, if they, once had the sanction of Government to assure them they would have the necessary support tq eu4ble them to carry their plans into effect, The Right Hon. Baronet. concluded by moving for a Committee to take into potisideration the Report of the - Commissioners of. Inquiry respecting the supply of Water for the Me tropolis;. and . to .see if any 6.4 , what remedy could be devised for the many and great grievances of sl;l k ich - the inhabitants complained. Sir J. YOIi.ICE did not thin}; the Hon - . Bart. had dealt with the subject in his issnal straightforward manner. He (Sir F. Berdett) had. founded his re marks upon an extremely exaggerated statement. The Hon. Baronet had directed his attack peculiarly against the Grand Junction Company. Ho (Sir orke) had no share in any of these Companies; he was no Joint-Stock Baronet ; he had only'one little share in the Waterloo-bridge, something- about one per eent,—,(Laughter.) But his at tack—for in that the Hon Ba ronet he eeuld have from a well in bis own house. p4lly supplied him with water . t Y 4 rk t e he Grand Junction be could truly say that. the G a r s a ‘ r p :C l i i i r c . e i h i a in u C d 'i t e io l l d i r l i e n d p C i o d i ' l m i f i l s : C Mr. Secretary PEEL could not agree with the obj to ect th or e metropolis.--(A Icon. () mp ß aol a pl yrpooaussei opposite e S i p l a r efd J mu o ds s :ae e atl t r i e l r his opinion a more impartial attack never had been made; it certainly included all the establishments He must say that these establishments had been allowed to exist in such. numbers, by the Go vernment, with a view to competition, and that now by concert among themselves they had created a o aaaopOly, .The House of Commons had given for the supply certain privileges to these Companies, and the House of Commons was assuredly entitled to know how these privileges were made use of. He had ne objection to inquire into the mode in which these establishments had discharged their duty. So far he- agreed with the Hon. Baronet, but he . was afraid that on another. point he would be compelled to entertain some difference of opinion. The question was, by whom was the remedy. to be :provided ? -The; arguments o f t h e H on . : B aronet were directed to, prove that it oug h t to b e by hi s Majesty's' Government, and if the Hon. Baronet -could establish this point, what would be the• con sego ences ? What would be the consequence if it :were clearly made out. that this duty ought to be undertaken by the Government? That the -sub ject was important—that the Government ought to regard it, with a watchful eye, and that the House of CoMmOns was entitled to demand from these Com panies an account' of the - way in which the powers entrusted to them had been used, and the obliga tions they had contracted were .discharged, he 'was most ready to admit; but then he must remark that there was a vast difference in the established mode of procuring the supply of various things for pdblic use and benefit in this country and in despotic countries. The lighting the metropolis was. most important, .and yet it was not done by Goveruient. The security from tire, and the making of roads-.and bridges, were both done •by private speculation, and with a view to individual remuneration.. Waterloo Bridge, in which the; Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Yorke) held so profitable a share, was the work of individuals. The supply of th e markets, too, was always left to individual enterprise. But now the• Hon. Baronet looked to Parliament.ta act like a despotic Gosiern ment, to rival Buonaparte, and construct aqueducts and.canals. It was all well to call on them to per -form miracles ; but he should first supply: them with the. means, and look to what the- expellee would be. If the Government was to con r struct aqueducts for the metropolis, upon the same prin ciple would they be obliged to do so- for- all the great towns and cities of the empire. But with respect to such interference on the part of Government, not only did he say that it would be unwise; but that it would ultimately render matters: much worse, considering-the way in which Govern ment _was constituted. A great part of the - Hon. Baronet's speech was founded upon the reasoning of the physicians ; but upon this he was not disposed to place so much reliance. The Hon. Baronet-said that 3001. would complete the plan he advocated ; but if there was to be a company formed on the specnlation, why should they not pay the engineers ? But, independent of this, what would the land cost,. and how was the Nmpany to he repaid. In giving; publicity to. the. Hon. Baronet's plan, they were, giving but little to the world, unless they could also. give an estimate-of- all-the expenses to be inetirre!l,, and the remuneration to be expected, unlit' !him by it engineers should happen to be mistaken in this, the cry of those who had embarked their nion4y iii the speeulation would be that they. had been. de ceived..by the Government. .He thought the report would do good, for if it were clea r ly sh own that the water supplied at preSent was bad, and that the , rates were too high, there would be no difficulty ill establishing atiew company, which Parliament would not hesitate to sanction. In fact, the inquiry hint already produced a good effect. He had received several plans —one, amongst others, front the Grand Junction Company, offering to form a reservoir to supply all the Companies, at Barnes Elms, or if the , water there was not considered sufficiently pine, at Teddington or Richmond. He believed that . auv interference on the part of Government woulderdy have the .effect of impeding th e supply, checking speculation, and ultimately breaking up tins machine altogether. He wished the Hon. Baronet had moved for an inquiry at an curlier period, When it ,might have been rendered more efficient. He had no interest in defending these Companies. - The only course for the Hon. BaroneCto pursue, would he to :take the reports of the most eminent engineers who could be employed, and to act upon their. information. Any new private Company to he formed muit,pro ceed upon this principle. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Peel) would not resist the.niption now ; but it wa, clear nothing could be done in the matter this,SeS, lion. lie would have no objection next Sessiv a. ,with every requisite power .:„ at . Hon, Baronet himself could claim for' it; but in Le inter meddling.theiean time, of G o h ve e n t im ho e u n g t h t t .ou that direct i duce no ' good effect whatever. , • '...1 to Mr.' HOB HOUSE expressed his satisfaction at the Right Hon.4entlema t e s • acquiescenee in the Motion. He owned he did net augur as favourably of the.good effects of competition among all the dill, fere% existing Companies, who possessed the whole of this great , city_ in so many districts, and was afraid that artless Parliament did interfere, ,the supply of water would continue to be as had as ever, and the public must be content to grant to the same offenders another fifty years' lease of their stomachs, and, bladders.—(A laugh.) Mr.. WA RAURTON thought that The .com plaints. avainst the Thames water had been ridicu, lously exaggerated.- Sir F. BURDETT explained, and havit6lvitlt drawn his original motion,.presented it in th i s amend ed form a in which it was finally agreed '4l)—" - That a Committee be appointed to inquire Into the supply of water to the metropolis, and the rates paid by the inhabitants; that five be a quorotn. ) .' The names of the Committee were then read over. coLaNIAI COMIESPONDENCE. Mr. 1 1USKIS,h0N, after observing that he held in his hand the;volumitious mass of -correspondence already published - by order of that House, on the subject •of slaves, and the laws affecting them in the West Indies, stated that , oneletter, which he con sidered of great importance, inasmuch as though he had written it with st• view of conciliation, had led to much.miSaPprehonsion and heart-burning. This let ter ryas, pt incluAed among the other papers, It wo;thl • be in the recollection of the. House that the House of Assembly at Jamaica had passed a conso lidating law, which he (Mr. Huskisson) when Se cretary for the colonies, had felt it to be his duty not to aAlvise his Majesty to give the Royal Assent to, Now, from the correspondence to which the, letter in question had led, it would be seen that this , advice had been miseonstrued into an intention ou ! the part of the Ring in Council to interfere with ;he , legislatures of the Colonies in their privilege of making laws; but, both in the facial letter which he had written to the governor of Jamaica, and in th ok , letter he was ROW speaking of, which was a private one to the Lieutenant-Governor, written by him on rho same day, he had expressly stated that the ground upon which the - Royal Assent wits advised to .be withheld front a.law that was in ether respects very . Valuable and pleasing to the Government at home, was, that' it had a direct tendency to interfere with time freedom of religious worship. The Right Hon. Gentleman, after eulogizing the conduct of the vari ous classes of missionaries who had visited the West India Islands, concluded by moving an address for the copy of a letter from the. Secretary of -Stale for the Colonies, to the Lieutenant-Governor of Ja maica, dated Sept. 22, 1827. Mr. BERNAL and Mr. BRIGHT expressed some_ doubts as to the accuracy of the Right Hon. Gentle man's historical recollection in respect of this Colo nial Bill, S►r G. MURRAY saw nothing- objectionable in the motion, and should not oppose' the production of the paper. After a few words from Mr. HUSKISSON and Mr. W. SMITH, the motion was agreed to. On the motion of Mr. COURTENAY, the House re solved itself into, a Committee on the Customs Bill., Mr. F. LEWIS gave notice of his intention to, ►nove for a further reduction of the existing duty on, foreign wool. Mr. HUSKISSON intimated a similar intention in respect of the duty on rice, the produce of our East India possessions. Mr. HCIVIE was of opinion that it would be highly advantageous to allow u large remission of the present ,duties upon.cashmere shawl, and esser tial oils, imported from India and other parts 4 Asia. Mr. BRIGHT suggested the expedient' of lOwer