The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

bility whatsoever be more explicit. Nevertheless, the
Court of Queen's Bench has decided otherwise, and
the hero of Scinde has been sacrificed to the Board
of Directors ! After this, let the Company look well
to their Charter. The time for its consideration is
now rapidly approaching, when we anticipate with all
confidence its searching and patriotic revision by the
Legislature.

At length the case of the unfortunate and deeply-
injured Baron DE BODE is placed in a position afford-
ing a prospect of future adjustment. The clear and
simple, but effective statement of Lord LYNDHURST,
in moving on Friday evening for the appointment of
a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of
the claimant's petition, must have convinced every
unprejudiced and disinterested person of the justice
of the demand. The boasted honour and integrity of
the British Government, or at least of those
who, acting in its name and on its
behalf, resorted to such pettifogging and paltry
expedients to evade payment of a fair and honest
liability, is placed, in no very favourable light. It
must indeed be deeply humiliating to every English
heart to be informed that a plea of the Statute of
Limitations had been put forward on behalf of their
SOVEREIGN, more especially when the delays had been
occasioned by the acts and erroneous decisions of
parties acting on behalf of the Crown, and when the
applicant had steadily, perseveringly, and unceasingly
urged his rights before the legal tribunals of the
country, and even in both Houses of Parliament. The
case, indeed, affords a melancholy example of " hope
deferred," and we can scarcely wonder that the heart
of the late Baron, who was so long and so unjustly
deprived of a princely income, enduring the res
augustx domi during the interval, should have
sickened and eventually broke under the severity of
his trials and his disappointments.
The case, as detailed by the Noble and Learned
Lord, lay in a nutshell ; and the only suprising cir-
cumstance is, that it should have been so long deferred
and procrastinated, that its manifest justice should
not have insured a favourable decision without delay
or difficulty. The father of the late Baron, and
grandfather of the present claimant, was a German.
He had married an English lady, and his son (the
late Baron) was born in England, and therefore to
all intents and purposes an English subject, owing
allegiance to and entitled to protection from the
British Monarch. In the year 1791, the first Baron
(being then in the military service of the French
KING) conveyed a very valuable estate in Lower
Alsace to his son, the second Baron, conceiving that
his position as a British subject, would save his pro-
perty from confiscation, and ensure the enjoyment of his
rights. In this opinion he was, however, mistaken ;
for when father and son were compelled to seek re-
fuge in 1793 out of France, the estate was confis-
cated as belonging to French emigrants. After the
termination of the war, sixty millions of francs
(2,400,000/. sterling) was paid by the French to the
English Government, in pursuance of a convention,
for affording compensation to English subjects who
had suffered by confiscations; and the English Go-
vernment, in consideration thereof, undertook to satisfy
the English claimants, and to indemnify France
against their demands.
Under that convention and arrangement England
became responsible to Baron DE BODE, and was bound
to recompense his losses, provided he were an English
subject, and as such subject entitled to property that
had been confiscated. These were the only questions
that could arise—viz., was he a subject of the British
Crown in 1793, the period of the confiscation, and
was he at that time entitled to the estate above re-
ferred to. If he could establish the affirmative of
these issues, he had a clear title to the value of the
confiscated estate from the national Exchequer. He
lost no time in putting forward his claim. In Janu-
ary, 1816, the second Baron lodged his claim. The
Duke DE RICHELIEU at first thought that claim inad-
missible, considering the second Baron a German, but he
then collected the evidence relating to his birth, and laid
it, with the opinion of Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, to the
effect that " there could be no doubt that he was a
British subject," before Mr. MACKENZIE, the chief
English Commissioner, who admitted that there had
been a mistake, and promised to have the Baron's
name inserted on the list of claimants. In 1819 the Act
of Parliament was passed, giving force and vitality to
the convention, and regulating the manner in which
the claims should be diposed of. The Baron's name
was placed on the list, but, by what is now
universally admitted to be an erroneous con-
struction, the Commissioner rejected it. From
that time forth the Baron was unceasing
in his applications. His claims were repeatedly
brought before Parliament, but they were opposed on
grounds that any private gentleman would be ashamed
to resort to, in answer to demands on his purse.
No stone was left unturned by the Baron
to obtain justice. He applied for a mandamus
to the Lords of the Treasury, to apply the money
for the purposes for which it had been received. This
was resisted, and refused on the technical ground
that " the possession of the Lords of the Treasury was
virtually that of the Crown, and that the Crown
could not command the Crown to any particular act
He then applied for a writ of right, which was re.
silted on the ground " that the money was no

in the possession of the Crown, but of the Lords of
the Treasury !! !" Was there ever such a mockery
of justice, such disgraceful subterfuges put forward

- -
on behalf of a Government priding itself on the fide