The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-02 00:00:00

looked into the proper places he would have found j
that in October 1793, the French Directory con-
fiscated certain property, being. the property of
French emigrants, and..that the name of Bode ap-
peared in the list of persons whose property was so
confiscated. Then, as to the insufficiency of time
for the providing proofs, alleged by the Baron :
From the time until the first claim was made, to the.
period when the claims were finally settled, a period
of 'six years bad elapsed ; and during that period
there had been nothing to prevent the Baron from •
'urging his claim. Through Mr. Bassett, the gentle-.
man. employed as the agent of the Baron, a memo-
randum bad been sent to him, of the various points
as to which -the Commissioners -required proof—•
this was an act of indulgence sufficient to show that
the Commissioners were far froth wishing to throw
obstacles in his way. On the 21st Feb, a gentleman
of the name of BraCkenbury WaS' employed as the
agent of the Baron, and he sent a letter to the Com-
Missioners,. praying for a farther extension of time.
On the Ist April, the. day fixed upon for the
Commissioners .to decide, documents did arrive. but
they added nothing to what had been previously
known as to the two grand points on which the-
Commissioners required to be: satisfied. When then
more time was applied for, Mr. Brackenbury was
asked, whether, if his request .were agreed to, he
would pledge himself that: he would bring forward
additional information en
,those two grand points.
Mr. Brackenbury declined to give such pledge, but
expressed his belief that such information would be
afforded ; and on this.mere opinion additional time
was granted. On the 24th of April the parties met
and there was thee another application for an exten-'-
sion of time ;. the decision was therefore postponed
to the 26th,-and on that day, as no fresh documents
arrived, the Commissioners signed their decision,
but kept, it undeclared, from the idea that further
documents might yet come. On the 30th of April
the agent • begged for further time, on the ground
that the Baron himself had not arrived in England,
and that he was anxious.to state his case in person,
as he could not depend on his professional advisers.
The agent, however, could not state that any addi-
tional evidence'would be adduced, and, on the Ist
of May the Commissioners finally issued their award,
rejecting the claim of the Baron : they did nor, how-
ever,' so do, until after a variety of delays had taken
place, nor until after the Baron had himself expressed
his gratitude for suck delay. The Baron, however,
had stated that other individuals had been allowed
time. Yes, and the Baron himself had been allowed
it; but they had procured valid evidence to support
their claims, while 'he had failed so 'to do, The
Baron then had his appeal, and he did appeal to the
Privy Council, 'and the Privy Council decided .at
once against his Claim. The Baron then demanded
.a,rehearing; and this the Privy Council decided they
had no power to grant. A strong illustration of the
present question was to be found-in the words of
Mr. Canning, used by him on the occasion of the
Baron's •petition being presented in 1826. That
Statesman then said that if that which had once
before been the proper tribured was brought forward
in that House, the Act appointing the Commis-
sioners would become utterly uselesS. That Conse-
quence would now result if the House was to over-
turn the judicial decision the CoMinissioners had
come to on this point.—(Cheers.) • •
Mr. sTANLEY, explained.
Mr. LOCKHART said, the subject was of such'
importance, that it well became the House to inquire
into it. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had not
altered materially any part of the case made out. by
his Hon. Friend- (Mr. Stanley) near him. The
complaint of the Baron was, that the Privy Council
could not come tea decision, being prevented by the
proceedings of,' the Commissioners. The latter, by
falsifying-a deed, and misconstruing evidence, led the
Privy Council to believe that the Baron had no pro-
perty at all in that to which he laid claim. It was
said that they had given the Baron time, but the
question was, had they given him time enough?
He meant' to say they had not. The Commis
sioners had read
,a draft of a deed, not the deed
itself, and then three days after made" this award—
that the Baron had no property in the estate in ques-
tion ; and they stated that they came to that con.,
elusion principally from what 'was contained in the
deed. But when the deed was referred to, no pas-
sage could be found which justified their award. A
passage that might justify- it -was in the draft, but
that was struck out in the deed itself, and it was
attested that that was done before it was executed.
The Commissioners had displayed the greatest
'ignorance of the language of the country whose do-
cuments they pretended to translate—with its laws,
too, with which the case was necessarily involved—
and yet with all this ignorance it had refused to take
time, but had hastily come to a conclusion against
the Baron, whilst he was. entreating them for time,
in order that he might be enabled to explain his
evidence.

Mr. R. GRANT said, he knew nothing of the
claims of the Baron except from what appeared in
his printed statement, and although it was impos-
sible, supposing him to have been wronged in the man-
ner stated, not to feel for him, yet every body must
regret the manner in which he had brought his
charges against the Commissioners. He charged
the Commissioners with having entered into a com-
pact to deviate from the administration of that justice
which they had sworn to administer. He combined
against them the charges of a violation of their duty,
their oath, and their honour. Now, his (Mr..R.
Grant's) firm conviction was, that a more unjust,
unfounded, and cruel imyutation, was never cast.—
(Hear, hear.) Whatever the errors of the Gentle-
men.might be, he. would presume to say that they
were incapable of acting except from public motives
—(Hear, hear)—all idea of, dishonourable conduct
was far from them.—(Cheers.) With respect to
the prejudice raised against the Commissioners, it
was not to be wondered at, considering the circum-
stances under which their authority WAR established.
In the first place, it was the establishment of a new
tribunal, all the cases that came before it were new,
and its decisions wanted that confirmation which
tribunals of greater antiquity, from that fact alone,
possessed. Another circumstance likely to create
prejudice was; that it was not, as in ordinary cases, a
claimant on one side, and a defendant on the other; all
the parties were claimants, and the Commissioners,
whilst they sat as judges, were also .bound.to con-
sider themselves representatives of the French Go-
vernment, and defending its rights. • All- thew cir-
eumstanees raised more than the average degree of
prejudice against this tribunal. The charges against
,the Commissioners, as far as he was able to see,
were divided into two branches ; the first was, that
the Commissioners- pressing the Baron's case to
premature hearing, adjudicated non incomplete
evidence.; and secondly, that even, upon the incom-
plete evidence that was before them, they came to
an unjust decision. With respect to the first point,
it was said that the Commissioners might apt to
have fixed any limit to the production of evidence,
and the Baron said that if he was apt ready, he
might have been put at the bottom of the list. But
if this plan had been pursued, from the s:ovenly
manner in which the cases were got up, a case
would no sooner have arrived at the top of the
than it would have been put at the bottom, and the
labour of the". Commissioners would never have been
concluded. At the end of six months the Commis-
sioners, found. that although he took not a single
step in advancing his claim, he applied for an,exten7
don of Aline. After some further observations;
which were quite inaudible in the gallery, the Hon,'
Member concluded by saying that the ease was so
complicated, he did not feel justified in voting on
the question.
Dr. PHILLIiVIORE supported the motion.
Mr. LITTLETON felt it of importance to the
petitioner that one circumstance should be known to
the House, namely, that Mr. Shadwell (the'present
Vice Chancellor) had given as his opinion—" That
although the
evidence of the cession was not com-
plete, he thougbt the claimant had made out a good
iisle for indemnity for the confiscation of his property ;
n 1793, and that therefore • his claim before the ,