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

property could be held in' trust for a minor.
But after all, the best proof that could be given was
offered of the cession—it was, that the late Baron,
yielding to the necessities of the times, did hand
over the property of his son in the presence of the
municipality of the place. Now, if that cession
would have been good .against the father, it was all
that the Commissioners had a right to inquire into,
even supposing the question to have been at all ma-
terial. -In consequence of the distress and difficul-
ties which he encountered in the prosecution of that.
claim, lie found himself under the necessity of bor-
rowing money from a person named Richmond,—
For that purpose a deed was prepared, and when it
came to. be signed, it appeared that it contained a
passage describing the property. in Alsace as belong
ing to the late Baron : the petitioner refused to ex-
ecute the deed; the great expense of re-engrossing
it was pointed out to him, and he was recommended
to sign it as it stood; this he refused to do tuttil.the
objectionable passage should be erased, and the era-
sure taken notice of by the witnesses. Finally that
was done, and yet that very deed was quoted against
him at length by the Comtnissioners as an admission
of his own defect of title.—(Hear.) Thus he
thought he had. Made out .atrainSt the Commission-
ers a charge of having falsified and resisted the Claims
ofjastice. Here was the case of a man born to large
property, who had ail his life believed himself enti-
tled to it; who had served with honour the armies of
his Sovereign, who had never disgraced his high
birth or his honourable profession by any mean or
discreditable act, and Whose sole hope was the ap-
peal then made'to the House of Commons, not for
liberality but for justice. It was well known that
that was the only body to which he could have
made such an appeal, to save from beggary and de-
stitution one who at the present moment knew not
where to lay his head. Ile (Mr. S) concluded by
stating. that he thought. he had made out a Case
which called for investigation, and warranted no in-
considerable degree -of suspicion. He moved that
the petition of the Baron de Bode be referred to a
Select Committee.

Mr. H. TWISS said, the claim of the Baron de
Bode vets founded on the second article of the
Commercial Treaty,. entered into between France
and. England in 1786—by which it was declare 1,
that the subjects of each' country should be at liberty
to exercise their respective trades, without let or
hindrance; and that in case of any determination by
either' power to remove any- such individual, twelve
months' notice of such intention should be given.—
In violation of this treaty, the French, at the com-
mencement of the Revolutionary War, seized upon
certain possessions belonging, to British subjects.—
For these acts satisfaction was given by France, to
England, by an agreement bearing date the 12th of
October, 1815. It was on this ground that the
Baron de Bode, ,who had. possessed 'property; in
Alsace, and which property had been seized, sought
for compensation for 'losses sustained by him. The
terms of the agreement of lBl5, however, limited
the time at which claims might be made •to July,
1816, at least so far as European claims were con-
cerned.
.The petition of the Baron was only pre-
sented twclve.days before this period had expired;
and the ,English and' rench Commissioners, then
considering that he was not entitled to the compen-
sation claimed by him, . closed their register without
inserting his name ; but as it afterwards appeared
that the Baron was in reality a British subject,
the English Commissioners pressed the French Com-
missioners to register' his name in their
( The Hon. Member. here quoted a passage from the
Baron's Parnphlet, in- which he stated that he
had presented a petition on the subject of his claims
to the Duke de Richelieu, and described the way in
which that petition had been received, in conse-
quence of an idea that he was not a British subject.)
Now in the negociations between the Commis-
sioners of England and those of France, the former
pressed the latter to admit the claim of the Baron
and in 1818, a new arrangement took place between
France and England, by- which England took front
France a certain definite sum, to be. distributed
among those whose claims had been registered by
the Commissioners-s-even At that, time, however, the
Baron's name had not• been registered, and, conse•
quently, the account had been drawn up without any
allowance from France' on the ground of his claim;
the name of the Baron de Bide- not occurring in the
register. If, under these circumstances the claim of
the Baron had been at once disallowed, much blame
could not hare been imputed to,. any one ;. brit the
Comrnissionerslesolved to give him ult the advantage.
in their power, and after some time had been given, they
took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to
whether, his name having been omitted by the French-
Commissioners, they, as English Commissioners, had
the power of entering his name then upon the list;
arid as whether, in the event of there being a surplus
over and above the demands made, it would not he
right to take, the claim of the Baron into considera-
tion. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown
was, that the 59th of George 111. (lid not in spirit
forbid such an indulgence, and accordingly, on the
30th June, 1819, the name of the Baron de Bode
was for the first time inserted in the register, and
stood as the Baron had, stated, No. 1130 on the
list, not,. as he had expressed his belief, in con-
sequence of the interference of the Frenth Com-
missioners, but because of the determination of
the English Commissioners. .The French Com-
missioners had ended their list at 1046;
..the re-
mainder being inserted afterwards, and on a separate
paper. The Hen. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) had
read a letter purporting to be signed by the Com-
missioners, and the substance of which had been
very differently stated—that letter certainly con-
-tailed- a mis-statement—it arose no doubt from an
erroneous impression, but it might fairly be termed
So, even from the-representation of the *Baron him-
self. Did the House then think that the Baron had
acted with candour in stating in his pamphlet that
the Commissioners had no sooner procured the
money from France than they. turned round on him,
and tried by every means, fair and unfitir, to expel
him from their list ? He (Mr. H. Twiss) could in
no way account for such conduct, except in consi-
dering the Baron as lalsouring under that strong
delusion, such as indeed the Learned Judge who
decided against him in the Privy Council had pro-
nouneed.him to be. The claim of the Baron de
Bode originally embraced twe points, and referred to
property in two quarters ; that of the first was, how-
ever' subsequently abandoned, and the claim was
•
narrowed to the estate of Soultz, in Alsace. Then
arose the two great questions;. first, as to .whether
the property belonged to .his father,- or to himself,
for if it had not belonged to the father, he not being
.a British subject, would clearly have had no claim;
and secondly, as • to whether, if the property had
belonged to the Baron, the seizure was made by
the French Government on the score of its being
English property, or as being property.belonging ton,
French emigrant—for the father being a French
emigrant, it was clear that on this ground he would
have
.no. claim.
.In support of the, former plea, the
Baron brought forward the evidence of., several
burghers to prove that the father :actually give up
the right to the son; but as to any instrument in proof
of such relinquishment, no witness had stated that lie
ever sawany7-no witness had stated that he ever heard
of the existence of any such. Even after this alleged
Cession the property did not come into the hands of
-the Baron, he being a minor. The father did net
convey it to trustees for his henefit, but he Tirade
hiniself the guardian, and kept possession of it for,
the benefit of his sob. Were not the French; Go-
vernment then justified in considering that this ces-
sion was colourable and collusive, and in treating-the
property as being still the father's. But there was
evidence even from the Baron himself of the seizure
having been made, on the ground that the father was
considered and treated as 'a French emigrant. Such
lie was alleged to be by the French, as appeared by
the case given by the Baron to Sir Samuel Ro-
milly. Mr. Hinde, who had been employed to exa-
mine into the archives of Alsace, for the purpose of.
ascertaining ivhether. or not the father was consi-
dered a French emigrant,: Lad stated that
„he could
gnd no document so describing him; but if he Itiad