The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 5, 1861.

examine the treaty,and see whether the baren was entitled at
that time, because if he was entitled, and if he was deprived
of rights by a false recital in an Act of Parliament, that was
a grievous wrong which it was incumbent on Parliament
to rectify. Mr. Denman then called attention to the 4th
additional article of the treaty of 1818, by which it was pro-
vided that whereas there had been an undue sequestration
of the property of British subjects, it should be taken off,
and commissioners were appointed to examine claims and
fix the amount of compensation. There were two or three
other treaties, but this applied particularly to "irremov-
able," or what we call " real" property. He should first
have to establish that the Baron do Bode was a British sub-
ject within the meaning of the treaty; secondly, that he
was possessed of immovable, that is landed, property in
France; 3d, that such property was unduly confiscated
within the meaning of the treaty ; 4th, that money was paid
to the English Government by the French Government
which was to satisfy claims for property so confiscated ; sth,
that after payment of all others, there was a surplus which
ought to have been appropriated to the claim of the Baron
de Bode ; and 6th, that the present Baron de Bode's father,
the claimant, had done everything that he could do to place
himself in the position of a person entitled to such compen-
sation. He contended that the Baron de Bode, the claimant,

was a British subject in the meaning of the treaty. He was
the son of an English woman by a German father. His
parents were married in 1755, and he was born in 1757, at
Locksley, in Staffordshire, where he was baptised, and where
he lived with his father for several years. According to the
English law, the highest claim to be considered a British
subject was to be a natural born Englishman. Lord Hall-
burton said in the House of Lords that he always regarded
the Baron de Bode as a British subject. But it was con-
tended that he was a French subject, because he had resided
a long time in France, and that he was not a British sub-
ject in the meaning of the treaty. However, the commis-
sioners having expressed a doubt on that point, an opinion
was taken of an eminent authority, Sir Samuel Romilly,
who gave his decided opinion that the Baron de Bode was
an English subject. This opinion was forwarded to the
commissioners, who were satisfied with it, and the French
Government considered to this day that he was a British
subject, and entitled to the money. When the case
came before the House of Lords, it was strongly held by
Lords Brougham, Lyndhurst,Truro, and other high autho-
rities that the Baron de Bode was an English subject, and
was entitled to the compensation, and this view was in
accordance with the current of the decisions of the Com-
mittee of Privy Council that a person born in England was
a British subject, unless he had been solemnly naturalised
in another country, which did not arise in the case of Baron
de Bode. Then as to the question whether he had property
in France. His father, the grandfather of the present
Baron, was possessed of a town and castle in Alsace. Al-
sace had formerly belonged to Germany, but had been by
treaty incorporated with France. It was a German male
fief, equivalent to what in English law would be called an
estate tail, which could not be cut off by him. The hon.
and learned gentleman then entered into technical details as
to the nature of the tenure, and also as to whether the ces-
sion of the property by the Baron Charles de Bode to his
son (the claimant) was valid, or whether it should have
been sanctioned by the Archbishop of Cologne, his feudal
superior. He also discussed at considerable length the
question whether the confiscation was undue in the meaning
of the treaty, and expressed his surprise that any confiscation
by the arbitrary act of the revolutionary Government could
be supposed to have been regarded as due and legal by the
restored legitimate Government, who made the treaty, or
by the English Government, who had never recognised the
revolutionary Goverament of France. Mr. Denman called
attention to several cases in point, in one of which the
claimant's father was ern in Ireland, but entered the
French service at 19 years of ago, so that he was thus not
a British subject in any sense in which the Baron de Bode
was. He became a great dignitary of the army, a mar-
shal and a chevalier. The son was born in France in 1798,
and on troubles arising he entered the service of the Prince
de Conde. The case of Drummond, upon which reliance had
been placed last year, and which would no doubt be again
referred to this year, really had no more bearing upon this
claim than any bill of exchange case tried at Guildhall this
day would have. (Hear.) Count de Fainant had also claimed
under the treaty, and he was held to be an Englishman,
although he had resided only a few months in England,
had lived in France for a great period, was known by a
French title, and had even applied for letters of naturalisa-
tion; but the Privy Council held that they could not recog-
nise these letters of naturalisation, as they were not duly
authenticated and sealed, and they held he was an English-
man by what had been ridiculed as the accident of birth.
The hon. and learned member proceeded to refer to the re-
port of the Lords' committee on the claim, and argued that
the claim of the baron came fairly within the articles of the
treaty, which had reference to the indemnity to be paid by
the French Government, and that Baron do Bode had com-
plied with all the conditions required by the terms of the
convention of 1815, for the purpose of bringing his claims
before the commissioners appointedby thetwo Governments
to distribute the funds provided by the French Government.
The next point referred to was that money had been paid
by France to England for the purpose of compensating
persons whose property had been confiscated, and, among
other claims, that of Baron de Bode was admitted by the
British and French Governments, and the letters which had
passed between the Governments of the two countries on the
subject were produced by Lord Lyndhurst in the House of
Lords. The baron made application to the French Govern-
ment, asking for compensation, and they said they had paid
money to the British Government sufficient to satisfy his
claim, that they considered him a British subject, and that
they had, therefore, nothing further to do with him.
Throughout the reports of the Privy Council they held that
persons situated as the baron was, were entitled to com-
pensation, and yet he had failed to obtain that justice
which was his due. After the payment of all the claims
made under the treaties, a large surplus remained in the
hands of the British Government, and that surplus re-
mained still in the hands of the Government of the pre-
sent day, who were bound to satisfy the baron's claims. It
was established by a trial at bar, and also by the assent of
the counsel for the Crown, that there was a balance of £566,000
in the hands of the Government remaining due for compen-
sation. That balance had been applied in various ways.
£196,000 was paid to persons who claimed under the conven-
tion of No. 7. These claims, which had nothing to do with
the convention, were satisfied. Certain debts due to the
French Government for maintaining French prisoners in
England were paid, and a payment of £60,000 was made to
the poor of the Midland Counties of England. In this way
the whole surplus was said to have been exhausted, but
£200,000 of that amount had not paid under the convention,
and that sum ought in fairness and justice to be appro-
priated to the pay ment of the Baron. He (Mr. Denman)
protested against au inquiry of this nature taking place be-
fore the whole house. If, however, a select committee were
granted, he promised to establish his case. The Baron had
done nothing to disentitle him to his right of compensation.
In 1814 that right was unanswerable in law. The treaty
was made in November, 1815, and on the 9th February fol-
lowing the then B aron de Bode presented to the Duke of
Richelieu a written claim for compensation, the English
Commissioners not having then arrived in Paris. That
claim was objected to on the ground that the Baron was
not a British subject, but Sir Samuel Romilly overruled that
objection, pronounced him a British subject, and from that
time no further objection of that kind was taken, although
the Baron's name was not placed on any written list. Down
to 1818 the Baron was pressing for a hearing. The English
commissioners undertook to investigate his claim, and told
him the nature of the evidence they would require. He was
put to great expense in collecting his evidence, and then he
received a notice from the commissioners that he must prove
that the property was confiscated as the property of a British
subject. The Baron told them that he could do nothing
of the kind, because it had been confiscated as the pro-
perty of an emigrant. He then went on to collect
evidence of The validity of the cession of the
property from the father to the son. The award was then
closed, and in that award his claim was rejected, upon the
ground that the property had not been confiscated us the
property of a British subject, :and that there was no proof
of the cession. He made an appeal to the Privy Council,
but was told that he must not produce any new evidence in
the case. The Privy Council, having heard the former
evidence, held that the validity of the cession had not been
established. The Baron asked the Privy Council for a re-
hearing, but was informed that he was too late, their deci-
sion having been confirmed by his Majesty. He then ap
pealed to the Court of France, and was informed that they
had paid over all money which was to compensate him and
other British subjects to the English Government. Tn
1826 the Baron presented a petition to the House of Com•
mons, and Lord Stanley (now Lord Derby) ably sup
ported the claim, and in 1828 moved fora select committee
to inquire into the matter. That motion, however, was
defeated, and it was argued that the cession, not having
been by deed, was invalid. Dr. Twiss, on that occasion,
aayntetoaetrmhaerncri ntel:ieonfo
treated the whole question as res judicata, and the cession
as a fraud. Dr. Phillimore, a high authority, supported
the motion. A year or two afterwards Lord Stanley made
,winas
amhadoeus:o
of
fril7o
monemthbeerqsu, eastsioelne,ctbucotminmitthteaet
olinowtinhegsuybejaerett.he Ahoguasine,wi,naslcBo3u2n,
counted out.
n 1813t1
re-appointed
applied i n t d
forwas
a defeated,m an da m u
s In
to theth
was appointed, notwithstanding the opposition of the
Government. At the end of that year the committee as
almost ready to report, but in the following year a motion
yearthat
ItBh3e9eothmemßitatreoenbdeorße
e
Lords of the Treasury, but the Court of Queen's Bench
held that the mandamus would not lie, inasmuch as the
Crown could not command itself, and that there was not a
liquidated matey demand. The Baron then put in a peti-
tion of right, which was granted, and which came in the
ordinary course before the Court of Queen's Bench. That
petition set forth fully all the facts of the case, and there
was only one allegation in it which was not established by
inquisition. The petition of right was directed to very
learned commissioners, and a special jury found the facts
proved, although, of course, that finding was,
to a certain
extent, exparte. It:was subsequently tried at law, and every
allegation but one, which had since been established, was
found. The Crown thenplcaded the Statute of Limitations,
and judgment had to be entered for the Crown. Then the
case went before the Queen's Bench on the point of law.
It had been argued that that judgment was altogether ad-
verie to the Baron de Bode, but that was by no weans the

case. The ground on which the Queen's Bench decided
was a very narrow one. The case then went to the Exche-
quer Chamber, and their judgment was founded on the
single ground that the Treasury had full discretion in the
matter, because the claim ;of the Baron de Bode had not
been registered. lle contended that no adverse judgment
had been given on the merits. In 1851 the decision of the
House of Lords was given on the same grounds as that of
the Exchequer Chamber. In 1852 Lord Lyndhurst was so
shocked with the hardship of the case thathemade amotion
for a select committee in the House of Lords, and that
motion was successful. That committee was most carefully
selected, and after full consideration, and going into the
whole evidence which had been taken at the trial at bar,
came to the conclusion that the case had been fully made
out, and earnestly recommended the claim to the conside-
ra ion of the House of Lords. Were they, after that report,
to be told that this was not a case to be brought before the
house ? In 1853 there was a motion in the House of Lords
to act on that report, but it was unsuccessful; but in 1854
Mr. Montague Chambers brought forward a motion in the
House of Commons that the national good faith required
that the just claims of the Baron de Bode, established
after a full inquiry, should be satisfied. There was,
however, the fatal objection to the motion that it was
founded on a report of the House of Lords and not of the
House of Commons, and he therefore, on the present
occasion, contented himself with asking for an inquiry. It
had been shown that the treaty of 1815 applied generally to
wrongs done by confiscation, and, therefore, that it applied
to the case of Baron de Bode. The hon. and learned mem-
ber then proceeded, at some length, to notice and to refute
the arguments which had been urged against the claim by
several members when it was brought before the house in
1854. One of the objections urged to the claim out of doors
was, that it would amount to so large a sum—a million ac-
cording to some—that no House of Commons would enter-
tain it. He did not believe that the house would reject it
on that ground. Even were it to amount to a halfpenny
in the pound of income tax, he believed that the house
would admit it, if a committee of the house reported in its
favour, rather than allow injustice to lie longer at their
doors. (Hear, hear.) Thanking the house for the atten-
tion with which they had listened to him, the hon. and
learned member concluded by moving fur the appointment
of a select committee on the subject.
The AT T 0 RN EY- GENERAL said his hon. and learned
friend had maintained in a speech of three hours and a
quarter a case which he said was incontrovertible. When a
case, however, admitted of controversy some time must un-
doubtedly be granted to those who had to meet the various
topics which had been urged; and his learned friend, he must
admit, had set his arguments before the house with great
ability, but with expressions that were not deficient in
modesty, as they had been remarkable for their pertinacity.
(A laugh, and cries of "No, no.") The house would re-
collect that his hon. and learned friend had stated that the
arguments brought forward on formeroccasions were marked
by sophistry and casuistry and every topic which could
mystify the house. The first time the question was
brought forward was in 1828, by the present Lord Derby,
and when Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor, and under the
direction of the Government the motion was resisted, as not
being one founded in justice. It was brought forward again,
and again resisted ; and then brought forward under the
government of Sir Robert Peel, and again resisted,with the
advice of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers of the
Crown. It was brought before the house in 1853, and the
motion was rejected. In 1854 the matter was discussed at
great length, and rejected by the house. It was a question
for the house to decide how often claims like this—without
any foundation in law—should be allowed to be brought
forward. He supposed it would be brought forward as often
as any young lawyer chose to take the matter up. (Cries of
" Oh, oh.") In 1854 he (the Attorney- General) devoted
much time and attention to the examination of this subject,
and it was in consequence of that examination which now
led him to state to the house the reasons why he should
advise the Government and the house not to attend to the
application now made. He felt very much for the pre-
sent claimant, for he believed his father—the late claimant—
was led into the belief that he was entitled to compensation
by the opinions of the lawyers in whom he placed his case.
Those opinions were, however, delusive ; but no doubt they
created in his mind the impression that he was so entitled.
(Hear, hear.) The facts wero these. His hon. and learned
friend said the late Baron de Bode was a British subject.
It was true he was born in England ; but he would point
out the fallacy of the argument where it was said he was
a British subject, for as between France and England he
was not a British subject. Suppose an Englishman and his
wife visited Paris for a short time, and during such visit
a child was horn, and after a month or five weeks
all returned to England, and the child was educated in

England and impressed with British ideas and feelings--
would they permit that child to be called a French sub-
ject? or would they allow that child to be claimed by the
French Government for any political purpose ? Certainly
not. That was the case, then, of the late Baron de Bode.
Although born in England, he was shortly after birth car-
ried back to France, and there educated by his father, and
for every political purpose he was a French subject. That
el as the real point which laid at the foundation of this case.
They were not to determine the question merely upon the
meaning of the English law, but upon the principles of in-
ternational law. The question was not to be determined
by the fact of birth being in this country, for that was quite
immaterial in an international point of view. The question
must be determined by the facts of where the person dwelt,
where he was a citizen, and where he performed all the
duties, and claimed the rights incidental to citizenship.
(Hear.) When the French revolution broke out the French
Government de facto had clear rights of govern-
ment over all those who were their subjects, and
those who were resident in that country, and who had
clothed themselves with the character of French citizens.
On the other hand there were persons residing in France
who were indisputably British subjects, and who had never
clothed themselves with the character of French citizens and
who were entitled to the protection of the British Crown.
The language of the treaty was "his Britannic Majesty's
subjects," meaning the persons within his allegiance, or
who owed allegiance to the British Crown. Did Baron
Charles de Bode, the grandfather, or the late baron, the
father of the present claimant, recognise themselves LE
owing allegiance to the British Crown ? Not one bit of it.
(Hoar.) Well, if that were so, it was an idle thing to say
theycame within the designation of British subjects. (Hear,
hear.) The commissioners found that the grandfather of
the present claimant was one of the French noblesse resid-
ing in Lower Alsace, where he had purchased a large
estate, and in the entail of which his son, the father
of the present claimant, was included ; therefore
it was to his interest to consider, himself a French subject.
Further, it was found that he was in the French service
and belonged to the order of St. Louis, and was in every
respect a subject of France. (Hear, hear.) The father and
son, then, were French subjects. In 1791 the troubles of
France begun. It was clear the father had adhered to the
sovereign of France—he was in every sense a royalist.
Anticipating the loss of his estate, he hit upon this device.
The son was then a boy of 14 years of age, and had by acci-
dent been born in England, and the father thought that
that accident of birth would entitle him to say he was an
Englishman, and that it would enable him, by a transfer of
the property to the son, to save the property from confisca-
tion. The property was accordingly made over to the son,
the father of the present claimant; but that did not pre-
vent the de jaelo government of the country exercising
their authority over it, and to that authority the subjects of
the country were bound to yield obedience. The French
Government saw through this device, which was merely
delusive, and they confiscated the property as being still the
property of the father. Whether they confiscated the pro-
perty as belonging to the father or to the son, they had a
right to do it. The act might have been arbitrary and un-
jest, but it was a legal act. It was the act of a government
existing de facto. First, the status of the father anc of the
son at the time of the confiscation was confessedly that of
subjects of France. Secondly, the property confiscated was
confessedly French property, held by a French title, pos-
sessed by a French citizen, and the ownership of which
placed the individual in a particular rank in France—viz.,
in that of sne of the noblesse of the country. What then
was the aim for which the property was confis-
cated ? It was an act done by a French subject,
which France had made an offence. They both, father
and son, left their country, abandoned their property,
and joined the Austrian army, which was then on the
point of invading France. The result was that here was a
law from which a subject of France could not appeal, which
was only binding against a French subject, in respect of a
crime which could only be committed by a French subject.
Could the English Government maintain a claim against
the French Government on account of the confiscated pro-
perty of one of its own subjects ? Could this be said to come
within the often-quoted words, " unduly confiscated" in the
treaty ? The treaty, the convention, and the Act of Parlia•
ment were all passed upon this basis, that the property for
which the French Government were to give compensation
must be British property, held by persons who at the time
of the forfeiture were subjects of Great Britain, and that the
property so taken must have been unduly and illegally taken
by the French Government. He was anxious to meet the
merits, the honesty, and truth of the case. The truth lay
in this—who were meant in the treaty by the description of
" subjects of his Britannic Majesty ?" He said with great
confidence they meant persons who at the time of the for-
feiture were de facto subjects of England, recognised in this
country, claiming in that character, acting in that character,
indisputably and notoriously subjects of the crown of Great
Br itain. The truth was that a gentleman in the position of
Baron de Bode, never meaning to be an English subject,
and availing himself of that privilege, did one of two things
—jeceitherphilettitg imposed upon the French Government by as-
eurning a denominational character to which ho was not
entitled, or he tried injuriously to appropriate to himeeif a
edtlhriace raemotf the money dedicated for the benefit of British sub-
on the character of a British subject, which
he had not at the time of the forfeiture, and which. but for
purpose
o f a
sosfumakingg
Theth baronclaim, he
and
dhis
would s neveron
returned h a ve
Ftorenthche Feruantsreingr .
ranch. army
as French Royalists, as
They joined the Russian service in
1814 ; and the son was unable to show that in word, deed,
or even in thought, he ever dreamt of connecting him-
self with England until this forfeiture was made. Was it
possible, he (the Attorney-General) asked, that this pro-
-1 perty could have been: held by anybody who was not a

French subject? The owner of that property must have
acted an important part in the political affairs of France,
and could not havo so acted except as a French
subject. If the house came to the conclusion that
these persons were French subjects, that this property was
French property, that the position of the baron and his son
was one in which they owed allegiance de facto to the
French Government, and violated that allegiance by joining
the ranks of the Austrian army—then this claim must fall
the ground, for then this property had not been " unduly
confiscated." Let this house further consider what it was
asked to do. It was a mere mockery to tell the house there
was any need of a committee. The investigation had been
carried on for more than forty years, and there was not a
single fact remaining unascertained. He had hitherto
reasoned the case on the facts as stated by the partisans of
the baron in the report which had been laid before the house.

When money of this kind was stipulated for by one Govern-
ment and paid by another the only title to the money was
by the act of the party requiring the payment. Now the
conditions of these claims were defined by the act of 1819,
by which alone the right ta participate in this fund could
be determined, and they knew that upon this ground the
Baron de Bode had not the particle of a claim. Lord Lynd-
hurst said that under the treaty he could have no title to
appear in a court of justice as a claimant, and they would be
placed in a difficult position if they recognised a title which
I would not hold in a court of justice. They could not take
a step then to admit this claim without repealing the Act of
Parliament. But if they agreed to repeal the Act of Parlia-
ment, could they repeal it for the benefit of the Baron de
Bode only ? They must throw it open to all the other
claimants—to 100 or 500 persons whose claims had been
rejected because they had not been able to make out a title
in conformity with the act, and they must call upon the
Government to create a fund again, amounting to all that
was left unappropriated, together with the interest thereon,
to be scrambled for by all who might bring forward claims
which they would say were as good as that of the Baron de
Bode. It was a mocking expectation to hold out to the
Baron de Bode that the question of the act of Parliament
would be re-opened and all these claims decided upon on no
principle of law, but upon what was called moral justice.
These were matters lying at the very threshold of the in-
quiry, and it would be impossible to conduct any of the rest
of the" questions that would arise if they were to establish a
precedent of such a mischievous character as that which it
was sought to establish. In confirmation of the arguments
he had advanced, he might be permitt3d to advert to some
points that were established in the legal proceedings, in
order to remove another very fertile source of misappre-
hension. A great number of persons with whom he had
conversed—and he himself, until he read through these
voluminous documents—were under the misapprehension
that the French Government had recognised the claim of
the Baron de Bode, and had handed over a sum of money
specifically on account of his claim. But this represen-
tation which was set forth in the petition of right was
contrary `to the truth. The French Government never
had recognised the claim at all, and had never paid over
any amount specifically on account of the claim, and it
was so stated in the finding of the jury. The British Go-
vernment had been charged with want of faith and honour
in these transactions ; but while he did not wish to use
unkind expressions with regard to the Baron de Bode,
ho must say that the only thing inconsistent with good
faith and honour in the matter was the Baron de Bode putr
ting on for the purpose of the claim the character and status
of a British subject, which he never dreamed of assuming
or claiming until this pecuniary interest arose. He regret.•
ted that when the claim first came forward it was not optnly,
manfully, and honestly met upon the grounds he had
endeavoured to place before the house, but though a technical
objection was raised, the facts were made known and sub-
stantiated. The advocacy of Lord Lyndhurst had been
alluded to, and made the foundation of much of the
confidence in the claim ; but Lord Lyndhurst was not more
distinguished for his learning than for his benevolence, and
he had no doubt that in bringing forward the claim in the
House of Lords, the noble lord must have been influenced
by some feeling of benevolence. But he must oppose, to
Lord Lyndhurst, out of office, listening to the dictates of
his kind and benevolent disi osition, the resistance of the
law officers to the claim in HA in 1835, and in 1843,
under tb e authority of the noble lord. In the Privy Council,
on two several occasions, the question came on whether a
natural born British subject, but who had become natura-
lised in France, could claim under the treaty, and the
decision in each case was that he could not, and the decision
of the Court of Queen's Bench established this, that even
upon the claimant's own.showing there had been given no
proof that his property was unduly confiscated. He (the
Attorney• General) had thrown aside all technical objections,
and had treated the case as though it was unprejudiced by
any decision, but was brought under the deliberation of the
house for the first time. He had presented the facts fully
before the house, and upon the grounds he had stated he
must resist the motion for a select committee.

Mr. DENMAN replied, observing that there was not
a single objection stated ky the Attorney. General which
had not been answered by anticipation in his observations
introducing the motion. He did not ask the house to decide
the case. He desired merely that a deliberate tribunal,
which would hear the arguments on one side and the other,
should be appointed to investigate the case. (Hear, hear.)
He hoped that those hon. gentlemen who had not heard the
arguments he addressed to the house would abstain from
voting, and that they would not be led away by the argu-
ments of the Attorney-General--arguments which he had
answered by anticipation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS said he had sat for three hours to listen
with great pleasure to the very able speech of his hon. and
learned friend (Mr. Denman), and he could only regret that
while his able arguments were addressed to about 30 mem-
bers of the house, the decision would be disposed of by about
150. Tho Attorney-General very dexterously took advan-
tage of the change of audience, and addressed himself to the
statement that the Baron de Bode was not a British-born
subject. But there was the opinion of a most influential
committee of the House of Lords, to the effect that the
Baron de Bode was bona fide a British-born subject; and
he (Mr. Malins) said that the money for his claim was paid
years ago by the French to the British Government—(hear,
hear)—and though it might be inconvenient to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to find the money to pay this claim,
he should certainly vote in favour of the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said he could not at all concur in
the views of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just
sat down. He rested entirely upon the fact that the com-
mittee of the House of Lords had given an opinion favour.
able to the claim; but he (Lord Palmerston) did not con-
cur that this house was bound by the decision of a com-
mittee of the other house of Parliament. It was said that
very few members had heard the arguments of his hon. and
learned colleague (Mr. Denman), and that they were about
to decide upon the speech of the Attorney-General and
the reply of his hon, and learned friend. In his opinion
those speeches contained all the circumstances upon which
they were called on to dicide. The simple fact was this—
was Baron de Bode a British subject ? Nothing could be
more clear than this, that it was a mere quibble to represent
him as a British subject. His father was not British, the
property was not British. The father lived in France as a
French subject; he emigrated as a French subject; he took
arms with Austria against France in the character of a
French subject; and it was as a French subject that the
confiscation was imposed upon him for having broken his
allegiance to the Government of France. How different was
this from those cases which his hon. and learned friend had
quoted of persons belonging to British families, bearing
British names, but who from some cause had resided in
France, and had, if you will, become domiciled in France.
Their property was confiscated, not because they were con-
sidered French subjects, but because they were considered
alien enemies. (Hear.) It was not that the Baron de Bode's
property was confiscated because he was a British subject,
but because, being a Frenchman, owing allegiance to
France, he joined an army going to invade the country to
which he owed allegiance; and, therefore, it did not appear
to him (Lord Palmerston) that there was a shadow of ground
upon which they could treat the Baron de Bode as a British
subject, or why he should come and claim an immense sum
of money from the English Government. It was a very
plausible thing to say, "Let us have a committee of in-
quiry." He (Lord Palmerston) said there was nothing to
inquire into. The question was simply reduced to this—
was the Baron de Bode, who was the claimant in this case,
a British subject or a Frenchman. His hon. and learned
friend the Attorney-General said ho was a Frenchman and
not an Englishman, and therefore this house could not take
a step which would be only the beginning of another step
for the application for large sums of money. And then it
was shown by the Attorney-General theta fraud was com-
mitted in this transaction. The father, who was not an
Englishman, made over his property to his son, then a
minor. He (Lord Palmerston) hoped the house would not
give way to this plausible and specious cry for a committee,
as theyhad all the facts already fully before them. (Hear.)
Sir G. BOWYER said he would not detain the house
more than a few minutes whilst he laid before them three
points—(oh, oh)—which lay in a nutshell. The first was
whether the son, at the time the property was made
over to him by the father, was a naturalised British sub-
ject? (Oh, oh.) The house might be impatient, but they
should remember that this was the case of a man struggling
for justice against fearful odds. On the question of na-
tionality he would read the high authority of Sir Samuel
Romilly, who was a great ornament of the party opposite.
Sir S. Romilly gave it as his opinion that the Baron de Bode
was a natural born subject of Great Britain, and entitled to
all the rights and privileges of a British subject, and that
he could not throw off his allegiance to the King of Great
Britain, in conformity with the maxim, nemo potest exuern
patriam. The conditional rights of the baron were exactly
the same as those of a natural born subject, the son of an
English father and mother. Then as to the second point,
that of confiscation. On this ho would refer to the authority
of Lord Lyndhurst. He must, however, first say he under-
stood that, whilst he was away, her Majesty's AttoTe.y-
General had denied that the Baron de Bode was a British
subject, and had said that although born in England, yet
that by the rules of international law he was a subject
of France, and that his allegiance was due to the Go-
vernment of that country. Now ho (Sir G. Bowyer)
challenged this statement of international law by the
Attorney-Ueneral, and he staked his own credit upon
it. In whatever country a man was born, of that
country he must remain the subject, because nemo
potest exucre patriam, although, Ills alleguulco might b;)

claimed by another country. Lord Lyndhurst, however,
had said that the Baron de Bode's property was expressly
confiscated on account of his emigration ; and that by a pro-
cess equally strange and invalid the proceedings instituted
to ascertain his nationality were closed before they were
complete. He denied that the law laid down by the noble
lord at the head of the Government was correct, because it
was sufficient that the property was confiscated, and that
that property belonged to a British subject. He was sorry
the noble lord had said that the property was fraudulently
conveyed by the Baron de Bode to his son, as in doing so he
cast a slur on the personal honour of the baron, who was a
gentleman entitled to respect. The House of Lords had come
to a distinct finding in favour of the baron on every point
which it was necessary to establish in order to substantiate
his case, and had, in fact, stated that he was an injured
man, and ought to have justice done to him. Under these cir-
cumstances he was sure the house would not allow the in-
fluence of the Government to tell against right and justice.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
only rose for the purpose of pointing out the double incon-
venience in which they were involved. It was unfortunate,
after hearing the mover of the motion and then his reply,
after only a single speech had been made in opposition to it,
that gentlemen friendly to the motion should, contrary to
usage, address the house. (Oh, oh.) It was contrary to
usage in the second place, that a member, as the hon. mem-
ber for Dundalk had done, should come down to answer the
speech of the Attorney-General which he did not hear, and
appearing at a late hour, after having been elsewhere per-
haps more agreeably engaged, make a solemn appeal in the
name of justice. (Laughter.) The hon. member said that
the Baron de Bode was a British subject. Now that was
never denied. The baron was a British subject for certain
purposes, but he was not a British subject as between Eng-
land and France, and the whole question turned upon the
latter point. The declarations of the Privy Council in the
case of " Drummond " showed that he was a French sub-
ject as regarded the relations between France and England.
He was informed that the Baron de Bode was not entitled
in reversion to this property. But this was not a matter
that was to be dealt with by this house. It had been before
the Privy Council, and by them solemnly determined, and
these were the words of Lord Stowell, in giving the deci-
sion of that tribunal : "It appears that the complainant
has completely failed in regard to the ownership of the pro-
perty. The cession to the son was a contrivance originating
in the mind of the father to defeat the French Govern-
ment, in which he failed. Their lordships are bound to con-
firm the award." His hon. and learned friend had brought
down on the house the authority of Lord Lyndhurst and
Lord Brougham. He (Mr. Gladstone) appealed to their
conduct when they were Ministers and responsible for con-
ducting the Government of the country. For 30 years all
the law officers of the Crown, including the Lord Chancel-
lors, without a single exception, had refused to entertain
this claim. They were asked to appoint a committee. He
said it would be cruel to this gentleman to appoint a com-
mittee, to keep alive a claim of this description, and cause
this gentleman to transmit to his children that which he
had unfortunately received from his father as an inheri-
tance, the prosecution of a claim of this kind. He wanted
to know how the report of a select committee could justify
an executive Government in acting against the opinion of
all the law advisers of the Crown for the last 30 years. His
hon. and learned friend said the next step would be to pro-
pose a vote of a sum of money to this gentleman. He (Mr.
Gladstone) thought they must have a special inquiry whe-
ther there was any surplus, and they must invite all the
world to bring in any claim they might have. Ho trusted
that the house would not agree to a motion which would not
be beneficial even to the gentleman himself who was the
object of the solicitude of the hon. and learned gentleman.

Mr. B. COCHRANE asked if the Government had not
a sum in hand applicable to this case?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
had not.

The house then divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
—22
THE GALWAY CONTRACT.
Mr. GREGORY postponed his motion for a select com-
mittee on the Galway contract till Friday.
SHERIFF'S COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. CAIRD obtained leave to bring in a bill to enlarge
the sheriffs small debt jurisdiction in Scotland.

EAST INDIA. LOAN BILL.
The report on the East India Loan was brought up, and
the bill brought in and read a first time.
SUPPLY.
The report of the committee of supply was brought up,
and agreed to,

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES IN ITALY.

Nt,

Recent letters from Florence and Rome repre-
sent a very hostile feeling in the Italian populations
towards the priests, or rather towards the clerical
hierarchy, on account of the injunctions of some of
the bishops forbidding any notice to be taken in
the churches of the grand national festival of June
2. Thursday last was one of the great festivals of
the church—" Corpus Domini" day. " The pro-
' cession," we read in a letter from Florence, "has
gone off quietly, but shorn 'almost entirely of its
usual splendour. Hitherto the municipality, all the
state officials, and the troops, with their bands, at-
tended. To-day all these were absent and the pro-
cession was one solely of ecclesiastics. As they
were returning to their separate churches, when
the procession was over, I never saw anything so
hang-dog' as the appearance of these priests. In
order to make their absence from the procession
still more marked, the National Guards are march-
ing through the streets without arms, and have
bands playing at various places. The leading men
appear to do all they can to check the expression of
the popular dislike to the priests. All priests ;how-
ever, are not 'anti-national. Yesterday there was
another great Tuscan commemoration hare, in me-
mory of the Tuscan Legion which was so cruelly
cut up in 1849. There was an enormous gather-
ing—all the civil authorities, and all the mili-
tary—and a magnificent scene it was. But of all
the bold speeches I have ever heard or read, none
exceeded the boldness of the address of the priest
on this cccasion. He claimed both Rome and Venice
for United Italy, without any reserve or equivoca-
tion, and equally unreservedly spoke against the
temporal power of the Pope. I understand that
those who have left the Roman Church, but who
are determined not to adopt any other ready-made
church,are sanguine as to a gradual but large acces-
sion of members, and the formation, in due time,
of an Italian Church. But I have been somewhat
surprised to hear it said by those who have been
watching, and are themselves converts, that at Rome
itself the people are far more ready to embrace Pro-
testantism in some already fixed form than in any
other part of Italy."

The Utah correspondent of the New York
Herald, writing from Salt Lake under date of April 26,
states that the fall of Fort Sumter and the secession of
Virginia had created intense interest among the " Saints."
The news was read in the tabernacle by Brigham Young,
and the disciples were asked to believe that this was merely
the prediction of Joe Smith, about the breaking up of the
American Union.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Out of 50,000 cures without medi-
cine, by Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica Food, we
quote a few :—Cure No. 71, of dyspepsia the Right Hon.
the Lord Stuart de Decies. Cure No. 49,832.—" Fifty
years indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness,
asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms, sickness
at the stomach and vomiting, have been removed by Du
Barry's excellent food.—Maria Joly, Wortham Ling, near
Diss, Norfolk." Cure No. 4,208.—" Eight years dyspep-
sia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms, nausea,
for which my servant had consulted the advice of many,
have been cured by Du Barry's health restoring food.—Rev.
John W. Flavell, Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk." No.
32,836. Three years excessive nervousness, with pains in
my neck and left arm, and general debility, which ren-
dered my life very miserable, has been radically
removed by Du Barry's health restoring food.—Alex.Stuart.
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate ana
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment
and expense may be avoided by using Du Fool
which, at a few pence per day, saves SC times its cost in
other remedies, removing
effectually, without
and
purging,
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. ,We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Tire,
MD., F.R.S Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr.
Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spa-
rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against
Alfred Hooper Nevill and his
agents ; and the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Arablca Food and that Du
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly fake.
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, onthe seal and wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
expect to bo distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 63. 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re.
gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.; Abbit,
60, Graceehurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox-
bard-street; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate.
street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co
tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-street
City; at 127 High Holborn: and all tamer,.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills.—lmpurity of
the Blood.—To ensure health it is absolutely necessary
that the fluids and solids of the body should be kept, from
those impurities which are continually getting admission
into the system by erroneous living, unwholesome atmo-
sphere, or disordered stomach. The only safe and certain
way to expel all impurities is to take Holloway's Pills,
Which have the power of cleansing the blood from all
noxious matters, and at the same time removing 'any irre-
gularities which their presence may have already produced
in any organ. Holloway's Pills expel all humours, which
taint and impoverish the blend, while they purify and in- ,
vigomte, and give general tone to the nerves, stomach,
liver, lungs, heart, avnd kidneys,