The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-12 00:00:00

J U N J l2, 1852

de Bede was a British subject; he possessed a large pro-
perty in France; that property was confiscated by the
revolutionary Government of France. At the time of
the peace a treaty was entered into between the King of
France and the Government of this country, by which a
large sum of money was paid over to the British Go-
vernment, for the purpose of giving an indemnity to
British subjects whose property had been confiscated by
the revolutionary Government of France. A consider-
able portion of that amount remained still unapplied
to the purpose for which it was given. The Baron de
Bode, as a British subject, claimed to be indemnified
out of the remains of the money so paid by the Go-
vernment of France to the Government of this coun-
try; but by a series of misapprehensions and mistakes
of the most extraordinary kind the Baron de Bode had
had been defeated in his attempts to obtain redress from
the British Government. The Baron de Bode had also
been baffled in his attempts to obtain redress by the
various applications which he had made to the other
House of Parliament, and at last, worn out with anxiety
and perseverance in this case, ho had sunk into the
grave, and had transmitted his claims to the present pe-
titioner, who was his son, his heir, and his personal re-
presentative. He (Lord Lyndhurst) hoped their Lord-
ships would bear with him for a few moments while
he said a word or two with respect to himself as con-
nected with this case. Ho was present in their Lord-
ships' House when, sitting judicially, they pronounced
the late judgment in the case of the Baron do Bodo. He
(Lord Lyndhurst) found no fault with that judgment.
Indeed, no other judgment could have been pronounced
consistently with law, and he concurred in it; but in
the course of the proceedings ho felt so strongly the
injustice which had been done to this gentleman, and
the injuries he had sustained, that—rashly, perhaps, so
far as he was personally concerned—he undertook to
bring their case before their Lordships. He bad supposed
at the time he made the promise, that he would have
been able to bring the subject forward during the last
session. If he had anticipated the delay he would cer-
tainly have hesitated in making such an engagement,
owing to his increasing infirmities—(Hear, hear)—but,
having once made a promise, he felt himself bound to
adhere to it,—(dear. hear.) Having now given an out-
line of the case, he would fill up some of the details ne-
cessary for its perfect comprehension. The father of
the into chtiment was a German by birth; he was in the
service of the King of France; and he married an
English lady, the daughter of Mr. Kynneraley, of Lox-
ley-park, Staffordshire, by whom he bad a son, the late
claimant, who was born in that county, and who was
therefore to all intents a nutural-born subject of Great
Britain, entitled to all the rights of a British subject.
The father and son were entitled to an extensive and
valuable estate in Lower Alsace, called the Lordship of
Suit; which was held under the Archbishop and Chap-
ter of Cologne, and was an inalienable male fief. Alsace
was annexed to the Crown of France by the treaty of
Munster, which contained provisions for pre-
serving all existing tenures. In 1791 the father of
the late claimant, being in the service of the King
of France, foreseeing the events then pending, and fear-
ing that they might lead to the loss of his interest in the
estate by confiscation or otherwise, determined to give
up his interest to his eon, and it was accordingly con-
veyed to his son, the late claimant, with all the forms
and ceremonies incident to the law. In 1793, in conse-
quence of the events which occurred in France, both the
lather and the son were compelled to leave that country
and to take refuge in Germany. They were therefore
treated by the then Government of France as emigrants,
and their estate was confiscated. The conveyance of the
estate from the father to the son had been made to in-
sure the estate to the family, the son being a British
subject; and France being at that time in amity with
England, it was supposed that, under the circumstances,
the estate was secured. By the unjust act which he had
mentioned, however, the estate was confiscated by the
French Government. So matters remained till the close
or the war, when conventions were entered into between
France and this country for the purpose of affording
compensation to persons who had sustained losses by
confiscations under the authority of the revolutionary
Government, and a mixed commission was appointed
to consider the claims. The late claimant pre•
sented a memorial to the Duke de Richlieu in January,
1816, setting forth his claim, but the Duke said it was
inadmissible, because the claimant's father was a Ger-
man. The claimant immediately applied to Sir C.
Stewart, the British Ambassador, who was satisfied that
a mistake had been committed by the Duke de Richlien,
and Mr. Mackenzie, the chief English Commissioner,
also stated that there was not the slightest ground for
the objection, and promised to put the claimant's name
upon the list. The Commissioners, however, recom-
mended the claimant, as the Duke de Richlieu disputed
his nationality, to obtain proof of his birth and of other
circumstances upon which his claim was founded. The
claimant immediately obtained certificates of the mar-
riage of his father and mother, and of his own birth, and
other necessary documents, and he also submitted his
case to the late Sir S. Romilly, who stated there was no
doubt whatever that he was a British subject. The
evidence thus obtained was presented to the Commis-
sioners, and Mr. Mackenzie subsequently said he would
take care that the claimants name should be put upon
the list, Mr. Mackenzie subsequently stated that he
had doubts as to whether the property was situated within
the limits of the French territory, but the claimant
showed that the whole of Lower Alsace was sur-
rendered to the Crown of France by the treaty of Mun-
ster, and Mr. Mackenzie admitted that he had made a
mistake, and said that the claimant's name should be
placed upon the list. The claimant applied from time
to time to know when his case 'would be heard, and so
matters went on till 1818, when a new convention was
entered into between the Crown of France and the Go-
vernment of this country, the mixed commission was
abolished, and a large sues of money, amounting to
60,000,000 francs, was paid over to the British Govern-
ment, who undertook to satisfy the British claimants
and to indemnify France against all claims made by
British subjects. In 1819 an Act of Parliament was
passed to carry that convention into effec.t, and. by that.
measure the Commissioners who had acted on the part of
England in the mixed commission were named as Com-
missioners under the new convention. The Commis-
sioners made out their list, which included the name of
the claimant, and he requested tp be informed
what was
the nature of the evidence which would be required in
support of his claim. The elaimuannitarhya d
difficulties,
been
by the long delay, to great pee
he .stated his circumstances frankly ttohoen necessary
theCoam-
missioners, and applied for time to o
evidence, which was at once_to allowed him.
the cession the part of
the evidence required related
claimant
from the father to the son, andthe
Commission-
.n this was on the
continent collecting that evidence, when
ers called upon his agentcountrythe
,to prove that
ocgh y
o,geanntd ut nd e the property
r t h ea Be
ritish
decrees
T
the property
was confiscated,on4sooteda
sb_es
subject,
a once replied that
against British subjects. h
it was confiscated in consequence of emigration. The
Commissioners then said that unless it could be proved
that the property had been confiscated under the decrees
against British subjects the claimant was not entitled to
ioenangltyi to on evidenceju
was as a most extra-
ordinary decision,
come in under the
acnondventi
there o convention. a
sTnoi :et
nothing
titYtiattreino-
the terms of the convention, for th
quired by the 7th article of the convention
British subject was entitled to property Which had been
a w ears
confiscated. Indeed, cases were decided
afterwards by the Committee of the Privy Couyncil
which established the right of persons to receive com-
pensation whose propertyh. ,had been confiscated, not as the
property of British au J.ec.s., but as the property of emi-
grants, and on account of emigration. The Commissioners,
however, at once proceeded to meke their award, which
was an award of rejeotion. The first ground upon which
they proceeded was that Which he had just mentioned.
The second groused was, that there was no sufficient
proof of the cession of the property to the claimant by
his father. That was an extraordinary ground, for the
commissioners had themselves prevented the completion
of that evidence. There was another question. Tho
commission left entirely out of view the vested remain-
der, which the claimants had taken prior to and inde-
pendently of the cession, The third ground was one
upon which he did not inisi t
s except for the puepose of
showing the manner in which the commission transacted
its proceedings. There was a claim for compensation
as regarded part of the property, which consisted of
biens caducs. The Commissioners referred to the Dic-
tionnaire de l'Academie, and found this phrase descritsd
as a house in ruins, a lapsed legacy, property altogether
abandoned, and belonging to no one; and they asked
" how can you claim compensation for property which be-
longs to no one?" Such was the conclusion of the Commis-
sioners; whereas, if they had only consulted any French
lawyer, or even an Eoglish lawyer, they would have
learnt at once that the phrase meant property escheated to
the lord for want of heir, and which had become abso-
lutely the property of the lord. Then, again, the Com-
missioners, not being acquainted with the law of Frenee,
consulted a learned work with reference to that part of
the claim which related to the'property in mine- end
they extracted a passage from it with the view of show-
ing that the claimant could have no property in mines—
minesd
being of no value, as they could not be worked
without of the
without the permission and under the surveillanceepassage
Government; whereas any person who readr quoted had
with attention would find that the auethrso
come to a conclusion directly the rev
was answering an argumentTus ended the against the opinion which
be, and that he
he himself had expressed.
proceed-
ings of the Commissioners. The gentleman then ap-
pealed Council,
who after some time
affirmed the award o
to the Privy_
the Commissioners, solely on the
ground that the cession must bo taken to have been
mad© for the purpose of deluding the revolutionary Go-
vernment. The claimant was thus loft without redress.
f
the Privy 's affirmance t The ground o
remainder ouncil
che had to whi h no
re-
affecting
'r the vested
(erred, the claimant was advised
to apply for a re-hearing
of the ease. But no sooner was it known that he intended
to apply for a rehearing than application was made to
have the decision of the Privy Council confirmed by the
Crown • Now, everybody acquainted with the course of
proceedings in such cases knew full well tbat this was
usually a mere matter of form; but, on this occasion, it
turned out to be a matter of substance; for, when the
gentleman applied for a rehearing, the Privy Council de-
cided they had no authority to rehear the case, in conse-
quence of the Crown having ratified the previous affir-
mance. At that time there was about 5,0001. in the
hands of the Lords of the Treasury which had not been
applied in discharge of the claims; and a gentleman
who was then a Member of the House of Commons,
but who was now a member of the House of Lords.,
applied to Mr. Canning, then Prime Minister, and
stated the case to him. Mr. Canningh ;371
strongly impressed with the injustice which
a=a®r
been done to the gentleman,
and
said
be
would
do bins
the ease to be inquired into, and endearueri.
that di,_
justice. Unfortunately, however, the death of
h step being
tinguished stateiiman prevented any Lull
who was now
takn in that direction. The Noble L
° next took up
at the head of Iser Majesty's GovernmentHuuse of Commons,
the case, and bri night it before the
c airy, ond aup-
where he moved', for a Committee of