The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-07 00:00:00

THE BARON DR BODE.

How far the House of Commons represents the
feelings of particular classes may be a matter
somewhat difficult to specify, but on all questions
involving the good faith and sense of justice of
Great Britain, there is generally a fusion of parties
and a degree of unanimity highly honourable to
the representatives of an enlightened people. We
have observed that Mr. Denman has given notice
that he will this day move for the appointment of
a committee to inquire into the case of Baron de
Bode. In 1854, Mr. Montague Chambers, without
having moved for a preliminary investigation,
called upon the house to resolve:—" That the
national good faith requires that the just claims of
Baron de Bode, established atter protracted inves-
tigation, should be satisfied." The case has been
so fully discussed and so powerfully supported by
the press, that Mr. Chambers was justified in
supposing its merits well known to every member
of the house; the result, however, proved that he
was mistaken, for the speakers against his motion,
used, and used only, arguments which had been,
, before all other tribunals, shown to be quite fella-
' cious. The facts stand thus :--

The Baron's father, a British subject, had his
property confiscated during the French Revolution.
At the peace of 1814, compensation was, by a
convention and treaty between England and France,
provided to be p iid by France to British subjects
so injured.
Commissioners were appointed to inquire into
their claims, and after many of them had been
proved, and after 70,000,000 f. had been advanced
by France to meet them, 60,000,000 f. more were,
under a new convention, advanced to cover all
additional claims, total about £5,500,000 sterling.
Baron de Bode's claim was regularly made ; but
whilst engaged on his proofs, the Commissioners
demanded a particular (quasi preliminary) proof,
and, whilst his general proofs were thus delayed,
the report was made excluding him.
It has been since repeatedly decided, and is now
admitted, that the particular proof required by the
Commissioners was not necessary, and thus the
baron was excluded by the mistake of the Commis-
sioners. By a petition of right, the Baron's case
was inquired into before a jury in the usual manner,
and by their verdict they affirmed all the facts ; and
it was afterwards brought before the Court of
Queen's Bench, and the previous verdict was con-
firmed in every particular. But it was ultimately
decided in the House of Lords that, inasmuch as
the 59th Geo. 111. enacted that the balance of the
compensation money, after paying the claims
allowed by the Commissioners, should be handed
over to the Lords of the Treasury—that act barred
the rights of the Baron, clear as they had been pro-
nounced by the highest tribunals known to the law
of England. Three Lord Chancellors (Lords
Lyndhurst, Brougham, and Truro), and three Peers,
who had held high offices under the Crown, were
amongst the committee of sixteen, who, L a most
able and elaborate report, expressed a perfect coin-
cidence with the verdicts of the two juries; report-
ing that every part had been found, and concluding,
in terms almost without precedent in the records of
the house," that the case was one of great hardship
and injustice."
From the observations made during the debate
in the House of Commons upon the Chancellor's
motion there can be little doubt that a committee to
inquire would have been acceded to; indeed, it
would have been flagrant injustice to have refused
it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Glad-
stone), who opposed, complained, and not without
grounds, that members of that house, so mum
engaged in mighty matters, were " invited not
to declare that there were appearances in this
case, and presumptions arising on the face of it,
which would justify further steps of inquiry,
but to come that very night to a peremptory deci-
sion that in their opinion these claims were valid
and incontrovertible." The hon. gentleman added
that "the members of that house were asked at
once to come to a decision, after listening to the
speeches of that evening, which had not been heard
by more than a very limited proportion even of the
small auditory which he had the honour to address."
Mr. Gladstone was speaking after all the leading
members in favour of the motion had spoken ; there
is, therefore, on record a very frank admission on
his part that the speakers supporting Mr. Chambers
had been heard but by a very limited portion of the
house, and as that house then proceeded to a divi-
sion, and rejected the motion for inquiry, there are
just grounds for expecting that it will be granted
on the present occasion by an attentive auditory.

THE WEATILER.