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

THE DEBATE OF LAST NIGHT.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had that
morning seen a gentleman whose name had been men-
tioned in connection with the Gala-ay mail contract, Mr.
Daly. He proposed that, in order to prove that he
had been greatly misrepresented, he should be examined at
the bar of the house. The gentleman complained that
Lord John Russell, in particular, and also Lord Palmer-
ston had misrepresented Mr. Daly's share in the transaction.
Earl GRANVILLE thought it would be extremely in-
convenient, as neither Lord Palmerston nor the Irish
members were present in that house, to enter in any ques-
tion in which they were concerned.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he was not trans-
gressing any of the rules of the house in mentioning the
subject. Lord John Russell had said that Mr. Daly
seemed to have been authorised to make the state-
ment he had ; now that gentlemen on the contrary said
there was no ground for such a statement. Mr. Daly alto-
gether disclaimed having held out any threat that the Irish
members would vote against the Government if Galway
was deprived of the mail contract.

Lord BROUGHAM said it seemed that certain Irish
members had requested an interview with Lord Palmer-
ston, and his lordship had declined to see them till after
Monday. It was said this would be of no use, as they
meant to "take action on Monday."
Tho subject then dropped.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Simpson's Hospital Estate, Mid-Wales Railway, Lon-
don and North-Western, and Manchester and Sheffield and
Lincolnshire Railways (Manchester London Road Station),
Llandlocs and Newtown Railway bills were read a second
time.

The Kingston-upon-Hull Docks, Great Northern and
Western (of Ireland) Railway bills were read a third time
and passed.
GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVY BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill. After
a few verbal amendments, the whole of the clauses were
agreed to, and the bill was reported.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (V 0,000,000) BILL.

This bill was read a third time.
Their lardehips then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
THE GALWAY PACKET CONTRACT.
The Lord Mayor of Dublin, who was attended
by several members of the City of Dublin Corpora-
tion, appeared at the bar of the house and pre-
sented a petition on behalf of that body, praying
Parliament to restore the subsidy to the Galway Packet
Company. The clerk of the house read the petition, which
urged the usual grounds advanced in favour of the restora •
tion of this subsidy. At a later period of the evening seve-
ral other petitions from different parts of Ireland to the
same effect, including one of 40 yards length from Belfast,
were presented.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the Whitehaven, Chester,
and Egremont Railway Bill were considered and agreed to.
Tho following bills were considered and ordered for
third reading :—Bogner Railway, Kingston Improvement,
Leven and East of Fife Railway Companies (Amalgama-
tion, &c.), Leven and East of Fife Railways (Extension,
&c.), and South Wales Mineral Railway.
The Rumney Railway Bill and Staffordshire Potteries
Water Bill were read a second time.
PETITIONS.

Some petitions were presented in favour of and against
the abolition of church rates ; in favour of the Piers and
Harbour Bill ; by Mr. Whalley, from several places in
favour of the withdrawal of the grant to Maynooth College ;
for the amendment of the Irish poor law ; against
the Highways Bill, on the ground that it would
remove the control of the highway expenditure from local
bodies, and interfere with the principle of local self-govern.
ment ; in favour of affording facilities for the growth ol
cotton in India, in order to render this country independent
of the supply of that article from America, &c.
BREACHES OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.
Col. FRENCH gave notice: that to-morrow he should
move for returns to show the number of breaches of con-
tract committed by the Cunard Company and other com-
panies during a period of two years after they were first
established, the amount of the penalty imposed, and the
amount enforced. (Hear, hear, from the Irish members.)
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. DILLWYN gave notice that on going into commit-
tee of supply on the educational votes he would move that
grants for educational purposes should be limited to those
schools which were of an elementary character.
WESTMINSTER NEW PALACE, &c.
Mr. SPOONER moved for returns of the annual ex-
pense of lighting the Houses of Parliament, including the
•atsido lighting of the courts, New and Old Palace-yards,
the river terrace, west front, and other external parts,
specifying the cost of gas, oil, or wax, and names of the
departments in which they are severally used, and the ex-
pense of each, &c.—Ordered.
POST-OFFICE (CANADIAN MAILS).
Mr. HALIBURTON moved for returns, actual or esti-
mated,:of the gross postage accruing to the Post-office re-
venue of Great Britain during the years 1859 and 1860 re-
spectively, on letters, newspapers, and other mail matter
conveyed by the Canadian mail line of steamers; separat-
ing the outward from the inward receipts, and distinguish-
ing the proportion accruing to international letters, &c.,
passing between the United Kingdom on the one side and
the United States and Canada respectively on the other,
from the proportion accruing on letters, See. passing between
foreign countries or British colonies.--Ordered.
EAST INDIA COVENANTEDASOCIETY.
Sir J. FERGUSSON moved sea address for copy of the
report of a special committee of the Council of India to the
Secretary of State upon the subject of opening, upon cer-
tain conditions, the covenanted service of India, with dis-
sents, if any, therefrom.—Ordered.
EAST INDIA (COUNCILS IN INDIA).
On the motion of Sir C. 'WOOD an address for Copy of
the despatches of the Governor-General of India to the
Secretary of State for India, dated the 9th of December,
1859, the 15th and 26th of January, 1861,
&e
the constitution of councils in India, was ordered
respecting
EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS.
Mr. G. DUFF asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, whether the Government was prepared to ad-
vise her Majesty to issue her Royal Commission to inquire
into the colleges of Eton, Winchester, and Westminster, as
well as of Harrow, Rugby, the Charter-house, Christ's
Hospital, and all endowed, collegiate, cathedral, and pre-
bendal schools in Great Britain and Ireland in which thb
Greek and Latin languages were taught, ;with a view to
ascertain whether the great resources of these institutions
may not be rendered more serviceable to education and
learning ?

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he stated on a former weft.
sion that the Government were prepared to accede to the
proposition for the appointment of the commission. Since
the question had been previously asked he had communi-
cated with the authorities of the principal public schools,
and they seemed generally disposed to afford the commission
every information. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to
ask Parliament to give the commission any compulsory
powers. With reference to the Manchester School, from
special difficulties, the Government had not come to a
conclusion.

GOLD DISCOVERIES IN NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. CAIRD asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether he had received any authentic information re-
garding gold discoveresin Nova Scotia ?
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that information that gold
had been discovered in that colony had been received by
the Government, but in quantities too small to induce
miners to go there.

LONDON IRISH RIFLE CORPS.
Colonel FRENCH asked the Under-Secretary of State
for War if any application:had been made to allow the Lon-
don Irish (28th Middlesex) Rifle Volunteer Corps to visit
Dublin this year, and refused ?
Mr. T. G. BARING said that no such application had
been made, but he thought it right to state that if it had
It would have been refused. The Secretary for War
was opposed to these excursions which imposed
an expense on the members of the Volunteer corps, which
they did not wish to decline and which they could not
afford to incur. Besides, at a late excursion of the Volu-
nteer corps they came in collision with the militia, which was
inotst undesirable.

ECNCESIASTICAL
L 4
RECEIPTS OF TIIE I
CONIMISSIO
CK asked the Seeeriedtearreydof State for the
Dlr. G. BENZIN
by
the on 4th day
Horaa Department when the returs,
derived
delerrsiastical
of Mu reh last, relative to the receipts
Coma iissioners for England, of revenues deriv
the
estate s of the Dean and Chapter and Prebend:ol
the
Cattle Aral Church of St. Paul, London, would be laid on
the is .ble ?
81 Ci, C. LE WIS said the return in question was not

finished, but he hoped to be able to lay it on the table
before the end of the session.
THE GRANT TO THE COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH.
Mr. WHALLEY moved• that this house immediately
resolve itself into a committee to consider the acts for the
endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the
withdrawal of any endo wmen t out of the Consolidated Fund,
due regard being had to vested rights and interests. The
hon. member commenced by stating that he felt his inability
to do the same justice to the subject as the hon. member
(Mr. Spooner) had done for so many years in bringing it
before the house. He held in his hand a petition, signed by
7,000 Protestants, who represented the Protestant feeling
of the country, against the continuance of this grant,
and he contended that this feeling had attained to such a
height that it would ultimately succeed in effecting this ob-
ject. He denounced in the strongest manner the doctrine
which he said was inculcated in the minds of Roman
Catholic ecclesiastics, which was founded on the abominable
Jesuit principle that the end justified the means. He
maintained that the success of the Roman Catholic Church
was the end proposed, and any means might be resorted to
in order to promote that end according to that principle.
The grant was made for the better education of
Roman Catholics, not for the special education
of the priesthood. He thought, considering the
establishment of the Queen's Colleges and other
facilities afforded for education in Ireland, that
there was not the slightest plea for the continuance of the
grant. He thought the religious scruples that prevailed
amongst a powerful body in this country should
in itself be considered ground sufficient for with-
drawing the grant towards an institution that was
established for the dissemination of doctrines which were
believed by the general community of this country as
dangerous and blasphemous. The hon. member then pro-
ceeded to argue at much length in support of his motion,
and concluded by an earnest appeal to the house.
Sir W. VERNER seconded the motion.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR said he could congratulate his hon.
friend in having met with a seconder to his motion who
united the zeal of English fervour to the Orange loyalty of
the north of Ireland. But if any circumstance more than
another gave a tone to the speech of his hon.friend it was that
spirit of propaganda which that speech displayed, and which
was calculated to arouse the feeling of the house. He stated
that the grant to Maynooth had excited the unmitigated
feeling of Protestants throughout the country. Now he
(Mr. Seymour) did not yield to any one in his respect for
Protestant feeling when it was sincere upon the platform,
or when it was eloquent and pious in the pulpit ; but he did
not think that Protestant feeling was a proper basis for the
votes of legislators. His hon. friend had been led in the
course of his observations to attribute to the Maynooth grant
a great many consequences and results which he would not
enumerate ; but he could not agree with his hon. friend that
the deltitution of families in Ireland had any fair and legi-
timate connexion with Maynooth, or that the Puseyism of
the English Church had any connexion with the grant. He
deeply regretted his hon. friend had referred to these topics ;
but his hon. friend had thought proper to refer to him (Mr.
Seymour) in a somewhat personal manner, and to a vote
which he had given 17 years ago, when he was only 22 years
old. If he had given that opinion in the warmth and zeal
of youth, the experience of many years and a deeper ac-
quaintance with the subject had led him to the conclusion
that it was not wise for the sake of the Protestant religion
to maintain in Ireland a church in obstinate and obnoxious
hostility to the feelings of the people. By his amendment
he asked the house to oppose the Maynooth grant on the
same ground as that on which it opposed the regium donum
and the Edinburgh annuity tax. The hon. and learned
member concluded by moving, as an amendment, after the
words "consolidated fund," to insert, "and also to consider
the expediency of withdrawing all other State endowments
and grants for ecclesiastical and religious purposes in Great
Britain and Ireland." (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. CARDWELL said he understood it was not the
pleastire of the kouse to continue at any length this discus-

sion, or rather, he should say, now to reopen a discussion
which by common consent, both in that and the last session
of Parliament, had been closed. It would not be forgotten
that in the former Parliament, at the suggestion of the right
hon. member for Cambridge University, then Home Secre-
tary, who had then to answer the hon. member for North
Warwickshire, Parliament declined to reopen this discussion,
so full of angry feeling and so unprofitable in its results.
This house had come to the same conclusion, and he hoped
the hon. member for Peterborough would net suppose he
meant the slightest disrespect to him when he (Mr. Card-
well) said he was sure, if that house could have been in-
duced to take such a course, it would have been by the argu-
ments of a member whom the house so sincerely valued as
the hon. member for North Warwickshire. (Hear.) He was
sure he was speaking the language of every member of the
house when he said he deeply regretted if from any feeling
personal to himself the hon. member had abandoned his
motion, and he (Mr. Cardwell) should rather hope it arose
from the fact that Parliament had shown itself unfavourable
to the motion itself. It was only right to state that the com-
mission which had examined into this subject had acquitted
the college of anything which was inconsistent with alle-
giance to the Queen, and the conduct of the pupils, gene-
rally speaking, was marked by propriety and virtue. The
hon. member seemed to think it expedient to open a new
agitation, but he hoped the house by its vote that night
would give no encouragement to the attempt. The hon.
member, however, was not sanguine as to his success;
and like a cautious general he had prepared for himself a
line of retreat. He proposed, if his motion was unsuccess-
ful, to inquire and report whether the Commentary of Cab-
basatius or Devoti formed a part of the text-book—an in-
vestigation no doubt as useful as it would be r rofound, in-
asmuch as he (Mr. Cardwell) confessed his total ignorance
of the contents of the Commentaries of Cabbasatius and

Devoti. But if the house entered upon those subjects,
and began to deal with the foundations of religion, he
thought they would have abundant work upon their hands,
and would, moreover, have difficulties to encounter and
anxieties to meet which they might possibly not be pre-
pared for.
Mr. SPOONER could assure the house that he felt
bound to protest against the house, but he was unable, on
account of his health and strength, to continue the active
course in reference to it which he had formerly pursued.
He utterly denied that the question was a closed one, and
felt a stroug conviction that in the long run the Protestant
feeling of the country would demand the withdrawal of
this grant. Ho had never gone on any personal grounds,
but he objected to the grant to Maynooth as unconstitu-
tional and in direct opposition to the oath taken by the
Sovereign at the coronation.

After a few words from Mr. SOMES, who was inau-
dible in consequence of the loud call for a division,
Mr. NEWDEGATE explained that the cause why he
had not taken up the question which had so long been ad-

vocated by his hon. colleague was, that he kad been afraid
that if he did so it would appear to be too much of a party

question. liis opinion on the subject, however, had un:

dergone no change, and he should cordially support the
motion. He could not in any way understand the amend-
ment which was proposed, and trusted that it would not
meet tht acceptance of the house. The teaching at May-
nooth was the teaching of the Jesuits, and he could not con-

sent to such teaching being carried on by means of a grant
from a Protestant people. He was confident that those who
had so often supported the motion of his hon. colleague for
inquiry into Maynooth, would not fail to support the motion
now before the house.

Mr. V. SCULLY, amid cries of "Divide," said it would
be impossible for him to support the amendment. He was
opposed to all endowments, but could not agree to vote
against them unless they were all included in one measure.
The Irish Established Church would not be touched by the
amendment.

Mr. WHALEY rose to reply, but was met with loud calls
for a division. He moved the adjournment of the debato.
The SPEAKER said the right of the hon. member was
to reply only.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR, finding that the house wished to
divide on the original motion, proposed to withdraw his
amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the house
divided on the original motion
Ayes ...............
Noes..,
..............
Majority against the motion .. • • -77
Mr. DE BNAMRAONN mpo vRe dr th Da
tE S PETIT.
select cocommittee be ep.•
pointed to consider the allegations of the petition of Baron
de Bode, presented to the house on the
18th April last, and
be report to the house thereon. He had movedor a commit-
tee: because the case was one which could not be fairly and
impartially decided unless by persons who had heard all the
facts of it. Anticipating the objections which might be made
to his motion, he denied that the claim of the Baron de
Bode was a stale demand, or that it could be considered res
j"itelicata. So far from the decision of the house on the Ties_ I
tion in 1854 being a reason against the present motion, it
was one in its favour. He had examined the claim of the
Baron de Bode, and had come to the conclusion that he had
good grounds for bringing the case
it had been much before Parliament.
Though the case was very simple in itself,
complicated by the delays that had taken place, and by legal
quibbles. This was not a legal case, or the courts of law
would have been the proper tribunal. It was one of those
cases which could not be brought under the law, but in
which the maxim applied, &mum jus summa injuria,where
moral and equitable right had been destroyed, and the law
had failed to give relief. The late Baron de Bode, the
claimant and father of the petitioner, who was a British sub-
ject, possessed, in 1793, a landed estate in France, which
was in that year confiscated by the revolutionary Govern •
ment of France. By the Treaty of Peace in 1815, the French
Government agreed to pay over to the British Government
a large sum of money to meet the claims of British subjects
whose property had been unduly confiscated, and in 1818
the British Government were in possession of that money,
which was charged with the duty of paying such claims,
including that of the Baron de Bode. The main ground on
which he did not receive it at that time, was that in an Act
of 1819 it was recited contrary to fact, that all British sub-
jects who had entered their claims had been duly registered.
The Act went on to provide that when all those claims had
been satisfied, the control of the surplus should be absolutely
vested in the Lords of the Treasury, to do what they pleased
vitb.it. It was not till 30 years or more flom that time that
the House of Lords ultimately decided against the claim of
the Baron do Bode. We must, therefore, go back to 1818 to

examine the treaty,and see whether the baren was entitled at
that time, because if he was entitled, and if he was deprived
of rigl'ts 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 de 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
be 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 Hali-
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 born 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 puildhall 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 de 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 appointed by the two 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
persona 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. Tho 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 L 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 an 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 as 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 wits to compensate him and
other British subjects to the English Government. In
1826 the Baron presented a petition to the House of Com •
moos, and Lord Stanley (now Lord Derby) ably sup
ported the claim, and in 1828 moved fora select ammittee
to inquire into the matter. That motion, however, was
defeated, and it yas argued that the cession, not having
been 'by deed, was invalid. Dr. Twigs, on that occasion,
tayrneeaotetrhmdaeorntthidomentowh. hole question as res judicata, and the cession
es a fraud. Dr. Phillimore, a high authority, supported
the a
motion
afterwardsoAnfoyloineoawrtihneergstuwybeejaerett. heAhgoisueL owiruadslS,cBto3aunn2,letueyndomad
attempt was made to bring on the
ue;tion but in that
.
In 1834, in a house of 170 members, a select committee
was appointed, notwithstanding the opposition of the
Government. At the end of that year the committee was
almost ready to report, but in the following year a motion
that the committee be re-appointed was defeated. 1n the
year 1839 the Baron de Bode applied for a mandamus to the
Lords of the Treasury, but the Court of Queen's Bench
held that the mandamus would not lie, inasmuch as the
Crown could not comm and itself, and that there was not a
liquidated money 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 fireding was, to a certain
extent, exparte. Iltwas subsequently tried at law,
and every
allegation but one, which had since been establieherl, was
found. The Crown thenpleaded 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-
verse to the Baron de Bode, but that was by no wiz= the