The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-14 00:00:00

FRENCH CLAIMS.

THEIR ORIGIN, AND PRESENT STATE.
In the year 1786, a commercial treaty was concluded
between Great Britain and France, by which it was stipu-
lated, that in the event of war between the two countries,
twelve months should be allowed to the subjects of each
country resident in the other, to remove themselves and
their property in safety.
In the month of February, 1793, France declared war
against Great Britain, and in the months of September and
October of the same year decreed, in contravention of the
above treaty, the sequestration and confiscation of British
property of every description, and ordered, under severe pe-
nalties, all debts due by French to British subjects to be
paid into the national Treasury, for the benefit of the State.
In the years 1814 and 1815 certain conventions were
entered into between Great Britain and France, (particu-
larly that of November, 1815, designated as No. 7), by
which the latter State engaged to indemnify the subjects of
the former for their losses by the said sequestrations and
confiscations, and accordingly placed a fund at the dis-
posal of a mixed Board of French and British Commis-
sioners in Paris, for the purpose of liquidating the claims of
British subjects, for the presentation of which a very li-
mited period of three months was allowed to the claimants
residing in Europe.
This mixed Board of Commissioners proceeded to li-
quidate several claims for losses of funded property and
other Government securities, (a class of claims which the
French members of the Commission considered as having a
preference), until the year 1818, when the French Govern-
ment proposed to withdraw their Commissioners from the
Board, and to pay to Great Britain a certain sum, to be ap-
propriated by the British Government towards the liquida-
tion of the claims remaining on the register as unadjudicated,
on condition that France should be relieved from all further
responsibility in respect of the objects oldie Convention, N 0.7.
The British Government accepted this offer ; a Board of
Liquidation, composed of three British Commissioners, was
established in London, and the Act of 59 Geo. 111. cap.
was passed for the purpose of carrying this arrange-
ment into effect.
In the discussion which took place on the passing of this
Act in the year 1819, the late Mr. Tierney, and other
Members of the House of Commons, complained that
the time for presenting claims was too short ; but the late
Lord Castlereagh stated that, in the event of a surplus
remaining after payment of all duly registered claims,
those claimants who had been too late should have a
reversionary interest in such surplus.
In the year 1820, all the claims which had been origi-
nally registered having been adjudicated, and there being
a laq?,-e residue of the funds unappropriated, the Lords of the
Tre,isury gave directions to the Commissioners to liquidate
;dl such claims as, according to the arrangements respect-
ing their presentation, had not been delivered in proper
time ; hut as no public notice of the intention of their
Lordships was given on this occasion, very few claimants
were enabled to profit by the indulgence.
In the year 1828; this second distribution had been re-
potted as complete, when a residue of the fund still re-
m: tired unappropriated, out of which a sum of 23,707/. lOs.
w,ts, it, the first-place, directed to be paid to a Mr. Laffen
Dahat for an unsettled claim which he had against the
Ilti;.ish Government, but which was quite unconnected
with this fuod ; and the remainder was handed over to the
Ccnimissiowers of \Vocals and Forests. The Government
has subsequently agreed that this money advanced to the
Commissioaers of Woods and Foresfs should be repaid ;
but no steps have ever been taken for restoring to the
claimants' fund the sum paid to Mr. LafFon la
De bat.

ft will be necessarr here to revert to the years 1814 and
181, when it was settled by general treaties, that
ionian States and the Island of Mauritius, which were
formerly under the do:nit:ion of France, were, for the fu-
ture, to be nlaced umler the governinent of Great Britain,
at ,!)icii period certain debts remained due to sonic of the
inhab.tants o these places by. E•ance, for contracts for the
su;.!ny of French troops, and for sahtri:!s of civil, military,
;in:l naval of:leers, for the payment of which France entered
into a separate conetntion (numbered 13), and granted a
se•rirate and distinct fund for such payment.
On the distribution of this land, it turned out net to be
st:',lieieut to pay the claimants in full, and the agents of the
parties in 1829, finding that a surplus remained of the
other fund granted for the indemnification of' the British
sue: vets whose property had been confiscated in 1710, ap-
plied in the first place to the Board of Treasury, to ap-
proa.-iate that surplus to make up the deficiency ; but their
,Lordships refused to cemply with this application, where-
upon the parties applied to the Court of King's Bench for
a wancianws to compel the Commissioners to effect this
ob;ect. Tile Court, however, decided, that as two funds
had seen created 'for two separate classes of claimants,
there could be no doubt that those funds were originally
perfectly distinct, and were therefore of opinion that the
Commissioners Lad no authority to act in the manner re-
qcired. The Court, nevertheless, recommended to the
parties to apply again to the Board of Treasury, which
W;A:1 accordingly done, and in the year 1830 that Board
issued a Minute, authorising the payment of one half
of the deficiency of the Convention, No. 13 fund, to be
made to the claimants of the lonian States and the Mau-
ritius, and allowing the British claimants under Conven-
tion No. 7, who were admitted supplementarily in 1826
to the same benefit of appeal which was granted by the
Act of 59 George 111, to those who had originally pre-
ferred their claims. In consequence of a change in the
Government, no effectual steps had been taken for carrying
the arrangements proposed by this Treasury Minute into
effect until 1833, when another Minute was framed, con-
firming, the stipulations of the Minute of 1830, in regard
to the payment of one half of the deficiency under conven-
tion No. 13, and the allowance of appeal to the supple-
mentary claimants under Convention N 0.7; but allowing at
the same time British claimants under Convention No. 7,
(the surplus being the residue of the fund granted under
that Convention), who had been too late for the first and
second distributions before specified, to present their claims,
and stating as a reason for so doing " that mere lapse of
time should not be allowed to operate to the prejudice of
'the parties, provided they could show in a satisfactory man-
:ner that the delay did not arise from circumstances over
'which they had any control." New claims were also directed
to be admitted from the lonian States and from the
iilLUritius. In the first place, the supplementary claimants
under Convention No. 7, who might succeed with their ap-
peal cases before the Privy Council, were to have a prefe-
rence by a payment in full ; secondly, the claimants who
bad previously received all the dividends which the fund
granted under Convention No. 13 had afforded them, were
to be paid one half of the deficiency ; and lastly, the new
British claimants under Convention No. 7, the new claimants
frown the lonian States and the Mauritius under Con-
vention No. 13, together with the old claimants under
the last mentioned Convention, for the remaining half of the
deficiency, were to share pro-rata in the balance, should
any remain.
Three Commissioners were accordingly appointed for car-
rying these arrangements in execution, and a period of three
months was allowed for the presentation of new claims on
behalf of the parties above described.
The first part of the proceedings of this Board was to
require from these new claimants an undertaking to abide
Iy the decision of the Commissioners, under a threat of
exclusion in the event of a non-compliance. It must be
evident that this measure was adopted to exclude the
pinkies from the same benefit of an appeal, which had for-
merly been granted to the other classes, to the Privy
Council—a tribunal where the claimants were certain of
obtaining justice.
The. agreement, therefore, has proved to have been a
mere c!evice for the purpose of endeavouring to swamp the
just claims of the parties, as the whole of the cases of the
British claimants, with the exception of some six or seven,
have been rejected by the Commissioners, without entering
into their merits, on the mere pretence of negligence in
not presenting them earlier, although in most cases the
-very strongest evidence to justify the delay has been ad-
duced, showing that such delay did not arise from circum-
stances over which the claimants could have exercised any
controul. The invitation, therefore, to the claimants to
bring forward their claims, and " that mere lapse of time
should not operate to their prejudice," has been a mere
mockery.

To enumerate individually the cases of severe hardship
which have thus been summarily dealt with, would occupy
rrnore space than can be spared in this short narrative.
Suffice it to say, that the most arbitrary measures have
'been adopted to annul many of these claims, and the most
itiquisitorial questions have been put to the parties as to
how they obtained a knowledge of their claims, with other
.acts which are inconsistent with the principles which
should guide the proceedings of any British tribunal or
authorities.

On any appeal being made to the Treasury, the parties
are told that their Lordships cannot interfere with the acts
of the Commissioners ; and should a further remonstrance
be made, the a,greemerfts of the unfortunate claimants are
brought forward against them, thus reminding us of the ob.
f•.4ervation of Junius, that " We shake the whole system of
English jurisprudence whenever we entrust a discretionary
:power over the life, liberty, or fortune, of the subject to
a. zy man, or set Of men, whatsoever, upon a presumption
thy, 1 it will not he abused." '
1 ‘• may not be unimportant here to state, that the present
Chat; cellor of the Exchequer, in advocating one of the new
claim, under Convention No. 7, on behalf of one of his
friends, in the House of Commons, on the 23d June, 1828,
when he was not then in otnee, stated that "if there were
any sure
lus, lie did not think it fair that any technical ob-
jection si wuld prevail against the claim. If it were sought
to get rid of a claim that was fbunded in justice by a mere
technic,' pbjection, he thought the House ought to inter,

~' ~