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

TRANSATLANTIC PACKET STATION.

Earl CAWDOR, in putting a question to her Ma-
jesty's Ministers relative to this subject, called the at-
tention of the House to the following paragraph, which
ho read from the Times :

" THE NEW PACKET STATION COSIMISSION.—CapttIin
Charles Tyndal, of the Royal Navy, arrived in Galway
on Tuesday night, accompanied by his secretary, for the
purpose of viewing and reporting on the capabilities of
the port of Galway for a Transatlantic packet station.
The gallant officer was out early the following morning
making the necessary observations. Each of the three
Commissioners appointed by Lord Derby's Government
will separately visit the harbours of Limerick and
Galway, and send in their respective reports."
He (Earl Cawdor) did not know whether there was any
truth in this paragraph?
A.WDORRBY—Not a word of it. We have
sent out no Commissioner.
Earl C
there was not a word of truth in the paragraph, and he
--His Noble Friend assured him that
Tw
yaTsn The
eav
ieEr
wasyl rlwonfi lolDti c—Eoga l
lteod
übelievet 0 thata k
eCaptainany e
pCohrat r loons
then but
this subject. But ,6 coming events," it was said,
e threw their shadows before," and he was not quite n
clear that Captain
ee Tyndal might not yet appear
b
other
city for the object assigned to him,
or od
question;
y somee u in
thatt
late discussion in that House had settled
this e
vying to this paragraph, and the per-
severance , which certain Noble Lords connected
with Ireland always pursued the objects which they had
once had in view,
i hopes
i o
with gallant captain in his stead. He had
that;
) and owing to other circumstances
which had come to his knowledge, he had now more
question or
fears thatOeopes; and,
put a therefore, he felt compelled to
two to his Noble Friends near him.
The object of the late inquiry ought not to have been
what port in Ireland is the best fitted for Transatlantic
what port on the western side of the
uanviitgeadtiKoni,ng butdore.
Now, there had been no allusion
made to anything of
that sort by any other of the Noble
The
Lords opposite,
ehe evidence and the report which had
been founded upon
n
it both showed clearly enough that no
advantage would be gained by choosing en Irish port as
Packet station, but that great evil and
would accrue to the commercial and tra-
vellingn
"13111111114 Y from the adoption of such a prop-
ja Te ornavnesnaitere
et i e
sal. Now they a?
thaer were threatened with a fresh inquiry, to
inconvenient as Limerick or Galway would be the least
had already a Place of departure for America. He
informed their Lordships that the Commis-
sdieocni
ed
res wwhheot.hceorn (1
ueted the last inquiry were precluded
from incla.iring into the practicability of selecting other
harbours in other parts of the country, but it had some-
how out that Milford Haven was better
Limerick, xransatlantic packet station than either
Cork, or Galway. It had been shown that
there was no harbour on the western coast of Ireland
into which a
vessel of any great tonnage could enter with
safety in hazy weather. Now, the soundings in Milford
Ewen were en
- good that any vessel of any size might
bsuortedorfoor
run into it either or L night day. we wore to have
I'
I another inquiry e into this subject, he thought that the ca-
pabilities.caailford Haven ought to be included in that
inquiry He concluded a speech, which was indistinctly
heard throughout, hy asking the Noble Duke near him
(Northurabe 1
r-and) whether he intended to proceed with
this inquiry, and,
so,
if whether he would include Mil-
ford Haven in it?
The E€lll of DERBY was not surprised that his Noble
Friend was
anxious that the merits of Milford Haven
should not be lost sight of; but ho must leave his Noble
Friend to balance them against the merits of Limerick
and Gale? aY, which were as eloquently advocated on a
format le -
night by certain Irish friends of his as those of
Milford
...alien had been advocated that evening. His
Noble Friend 'nad misapprehended the intention of the
Commission
of Inquiry now about to issue. First, as
regarded the paragraph which his Noble Friend had
cited from in the Times. It might be very true that Cap-
tain Tyndal was surveying and examining Galway Bay;
but, if
SO, it was on his own behalf, and not on that of
Government. the
When he said just now that Govern-
ment had sot dispatched a Commissioner to Galway, he
had said that which was perfectly true to the letter, for
the
aPPointment of the Commissioners had not been
signed till that morning by the Noble Duke near
"`m• Still, it was intended that those Commissioners
should proceed to make forthwith a personal survey
and examination of the western coast of Ireland.
Their survey, however, was to be limited within very
narrow bounds. He thought that his Noble Friend had
bcall present at the last debate on this subject, when it
was stated that one point ought to be cleared up by per-
sonal examination on the spot. The last Commission
had reported that if a packet station or a harbour of
refuge were to be erected on the west coast of Ireland,
preference must be given to either Galway or Limerick;
and then it had described the advantages and the disad-
vantages of both. The Noble Marquis opposite (Clan-
ricerde) had then suggested that a new Commission
should be issued to fill up the void in our knowledge by
striking the balance between those two harbours. To
that object, and to that object alone, were the inquiries
of the Commissioners to be directed. The Government
had not decided to which of the two harbours the
pre-
ference was given, but would leave it to the Commis-
sioners to decide with his Noble Friend. lie could as-
sure his Noble Friend that Government would not un-
a
derteke the work of establishing great Transatlantic
with him
packet station without communicating further
QS to the merits of Milford Haven.
Tho Marquis of CLA.NRICARDE was understood to
say that there would be an undoubted
saving of time,,
which Was a matter of the very greatest importance, by
the adoption of an Irish port.
CASE OF THE
BARON DE BODE.
Lord LYNDHURST, in rising to move that a Select
Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations of
the Baron do Bede's petition, said he hoped their Lord-
ships would not be alernsed by a reiteration. of the claims
of the Baron de Bode, for, from recent circumstances,
the case had assumed a very simple form, and it would
not be necessary for him to occupy any considerable por-
tion of their Lordslaip's time. The outline of the ease
Might indeed be stated in a very few words. The Baron ,

EVENING,

de Bode 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 nnapplied
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, he 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. He was present in their Lord-
ships' House when, sitting judicially, they pronounced
the late judgment in the case of the Baron do Bode. 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 h© 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 had 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.—(Hear, 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 late claimant 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. Kynnersley, of Lox-
ley-park, Staffordshire, by whom he had 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
Sultz, 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 son, and it was accordingly cop-
veered 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
father 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
of 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 do 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 Richlieu,
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 do 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
othr 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 sum 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 Aet of Parliament was
passed to carry that convention into effect, and by that
measure the Commissioners who had acted on the part of
England in the mixed commission were named as Com-
aissionera under the new convention. The Commis-
sioners made out their list, which included the name of
the claimant, and he requested to be informed what was
the nature of the evidence which would be required in
support of his claim. The claimant had been reduced,
by the long delay, to great pecuniary difficulties, and
he stated his circumstances frankly to the Com-
missioners, and applied for time to collect the necessary
evidence, which was at once allowed him. One part of
the evidence required related to the cession of the estate
from the father to the son, and the claimant was on the
continent collecting that evidence, when the Commission-
ers called upon his agent indhiscountry to prove that
the property confiscated, being tit e property of a British
subject, was confiscated as such, and under the decrees
against British subjects. The agent at once replied that
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
come in under the convention. This was a most extra-
ordinary decision, and there was nothing to justify it in
the terms of the convention, for the only evidence re-
quired by the 7th article of the convention was that a
British subject was entitled to property which had been
confiscated. Indeed, cases were decided a few years
afterwards by the Committee of the Privy Council
which established the right of persons to receive com-
pensation whose property had been confiscated, not as the
property of British subjects, but as the property of emi-
grants, and on account of emigration. The Commissioners,
however, at once proceeded to make their award, which
was an award of rejection. The first ground upon which
they proceeded was that which he had just mentioned.
The second ground 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. The
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 inisist, except for the purpose 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 endues. The Commissioners referred to the Dic-
tionnaire de l'Academie, and found this phrase described
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 English 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 France,
consulted a learned work with reference to that part of
the claim which related to the property in mines, end
they extracted a passage from it with the view ofshow-
ing
t
that the claimant could have no propertyib
not Inemwlnnorked
mines being of no value, as they I
without the permission and under the surveillance of the
Government; whereas any person who read the passage
with attention would find that the author quoted had
come to a conclusion directly the reverse, and that
which
was answering an argument against the opinion
he himself had expressed. Thus ended tho proceed-
ings of the Commissioners. . The gentleman then ap-
pealed to the Privy Council, who after some time
affirmed the award of the Commissioners, solely on the
ground that the cession must be taken to have been
made for the purpose of deluding the revolutionary Go-
vernment. The claimant was thus left without redress.
The ground of the Privy Council's affirmance not
affecting the vested remainder to which he had re-
ferred, the claimant was advised to apply for a re-hearing
of the case. 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 that 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 Lofts,
applied to Mr. Canning, then Primo Minister,
_as
stated the case to him. Mr. Canning "
had
strongly impressed with the injustice
would order
been done to the gentleman, and said daot hdima-
the case to be inquired into, and endeavour
deerto step being
anguished statesman prevented any whonext wasteo knoll;
taken in that direction. The Nobvelernterndt
at the head of her Majesty's G
the case, and brought it before °theofHollse of Commons,
inquiry, and sup-
where he moved for a Committee