F\ 

 
 FRENCH CLAIMS. 
 
 APPEAL OF THE BARON DE BODE 
 
 TO THE HONOURABLE 
 
 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 ON THE MOTION TO BE MADE BY MR. O'CONNELL ON THE 
 
 23d JUNE, 1836, 
 
 FOR THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF A SELECT COMMITTEE TO 
 COMPLETE THE EXAMINATION OF HIS CLAIM; 
 
 SHEWING 
 
 That his case has not been regularly gone through. 
 
 The total nullity of the Award of the Commissioners. 
 
 The discrepancy between the judgment of the Privy Council on the 
 Appeal, with that of the Commissioners in their Award. 
 
 The statements made by the late Lord Gifford in delivering 
 the Judgment of the Privy Council upon the Petition for the 
 re-hearing of the Appeal. 
 
 The misappropriation by the Treasury, of the Funds paid by France 
 under the Conventions of 1815 and 1818. 
 
 The systematic persecution the Baron de Bode has had to contend 
 against. 
 
 That the claim of the Baron de Bode is a proper case for the consi- 
 deration and interference of the House of Commons, and that it 
 would be an unparalleled injustice and hardship to refuse the 
 re-appointment of a Committee to complete the examination of it. 
 
 AND CONTAINING A 
 
 SHORT OUTLINE OF THE BARON'S CASE. 
 
 LONDON : 
 JOHN HEARNE, 81, STRAND
 
 London : 
 Printed by Manning and Smithson, 
 Ivy-Lane, Paternoster Row,
 
 i c 
 
 FRENCH CLAIMS. 
 
 APPEAL OF THE BARON DE BODE, TO THE HONOURABLE 
 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 The motion for the re-appointment of a Select Committee of the 
 House of Commons to complete the examination of my case* being 
 fixed for the 23d of this month, I find myself under the painful 
 necessity, in consequence of the most cruel and systematic opposition 
 and persecution, to appeal in a more public manner than I have 
 hitherto done to the representatives of the nation, that they may not 
 again be misled by statements bearing apparently the sanction of 
 high authority, but neither founded in justice nor sustained by evidence. 
 I also adopt this more public mode of addressing Honourable Mem- 
 bers, because, I know to my cost, that for various reasons, not ten 
 out of 658 have time to read statements sent to them with their par- 
 liamentary papers. 
 
 To whom can a British subject oppressed by superior power, and 
 contending against the influence of Government, fly for protection 
 and redress, the courts of justice being closed against him, but to the 
 representatives of his country ? I have faced death, not only in the 
 field, but in many other aggravated shapes, — I can submit to 
 death, in want and misery ; yet before I die, I do claim in a country 
 like ours, an act of justice at the hands of the representatives of the 
 people. 
 
 I do not ask Honourable Members to decide my case in my favour; 
 by no means ; I only ask for the re-appointment of that committee 
 which has already been conceded, and which had nearly concluded 
 the investigation with which it was charged. It will then be seen — 
 it can only then be seen, whether my claims are, or are not, founded 
 in justice. 
 
 I beg most humbly to impress on the minds of Honourable Mem- 
 bers, that my case is not a party question, and that it ought not to 
 be allowed to be made a government qtiestion. On every occasion 
 
 * For an outline of the case, see post, page
 
 but one, when my case 1ms been brought before the attention of the 
 House of Commons, the tre isury made it a government question. 
 Treasury circulars, and of which 1 have had several in my possession, 
 have been sent to the members who usually vote with Government, 
 requesting their attendance, as a division was expected on the motion 
 to be made for granting a Select Committee on the case of the Baron 
 de Bode. Other resources at the command of a powerful Govern- 
 ment, have been resorted to. The exception above alluded to, was 
 under Earl Grey's administration ; the question was, on the 1st of 
 May, 1834, left an open one — the general feeling of the members of 
 the cabinet, with few exceptions, appears to have been to let the case 
 take its course ; and the result was, that a Select Committee was 
 granted by acclamation, by a House as well as could be ascertained, 
 of about 170 members. On that day, May 1st, 1834, Mr. Lyttleton 
 (now Lord Hatherton), spoke most strongly in favour of the granting 
 of the Committee, and other cabinet ministers were in attendance to 
 vote also for it, had it come to a division. The only opposition in 
 the House of Commons was from the then Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer (Lord Althorp), and the Solicitor General, speaking from a 
 Treasury brief. It is well known that opposition made in the House 
 by the law officers of the crown in cases in which the Treasury is 
 supposed to be interested, is made by them officially from the in- 
 structions or commands which are prepared in Downing Street. Out 
 of the House, the great opposition I had to contend against, was that 
 of Mr. Spring Rice, the then Secretary of the Treasury, a branch of 
 the public service which (with reference to the past) is not uninte- 
 rested in resisting disclosures, and in obstructing the progress of 
 inquiry. 
 
 By many perhaps I shall be blamed for speaking so freely ; but be 
 it remembered that I feel myself an injured man, suffering and 
 struggling for a series of years against oppression, and deprived by 
 what I deem abuse of power, of my property. I have nothing 
 to expect from the goodwill, or, I fear, from the justice of a 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer who has declared that he will resist any 
 attempt of mine to have my case investigated, — who has declared 
 my case an abominable case — that it must be put down — and that it 
 shall be put down ; — -who, as I can distinctly prove, has suffered, if not 
 directed, the sealed file of documents in my case, kept in the archives 
 of the late Commission for French claims, to be cut asunder, the 
 seals to be torn off, and three important documents in my case to be 
 abstracted from such file, by a party interested in suppressing those 
 documents — which documents were received by him, and in respect of 
 which, the Committee had four times ordered those three documents 
 to be produced, he at last sent an answer that they could not be 
 found. 
 
 Mr. Spring Rice says, that I have no claim ; now the late Sir 
 Samuel Romilly, the late Sir James Mackintosh, Lord Brougham, the 
 Vice Chancellor, Sir Launcelot Shadwell, Mr. Serjeant Wilde, Mr. 
 Fonblanque, K. C, Mr. Lockhart, late M. P. for Oxford, Mr. Ralph
 
 3 
 
 Carr, Mr. Manning, Mr. Langslow, 1 lie Attorney General at Malta, 
 and many more in England ; as also in France, from Paris, Mr. 
 Macqnin, Mr. de la Grange, Mr. Gaclion, Mr. Dcsprez ; — and from 
 Strasburg, the four first advocates there, who have been consulted 
 on different points of the case, and some of them given written 
 opinions thereon, — besides the recorded strong opinions declared on 
 the merits of the case in the House of Commons by Dr. Phillimore 
 — Sir Frederick Pollock— and Mr. M. D. Hill, K. C. — as also Lord 
 Stanley and Lord Hatherton, who, though not lawyers, have looked 
 minutely into the merits of the case, — have expressed opinions 
 favourable to my claim, the general result of these opinions being 
 that I am entitled to be indemnified for the loss of my property in 
 France, out of the fund paid by the French Government to the 
 British Government, under the Conventions of 1815 and 1818, for 
 that purpose, although my case has miscarried before the British 
 Commissioners, and on the appeal ; that the real merits of the 
 case have never been decided upon or considered ; and that I have 
 been most unfairly and cruelly treated by the Government. — The 
 opinions of such men appear to be at least of as much weight as 
 that of Mr. Spring Rice. — Under what authority is his opinion 
 to be so decisive on my case, as to preclude the necessity of com- 
 pleting the investigation of it so far advanced in the late Committee ? 
 — Nay, if it really be the opinion of Mr. Spring Rice that I have 
 no case, what as he to fear, why oppose the completing of its 
 investigation ? 
 
 Every time my case has been brought before the attention of the 
 House, it has been met on the part of the Government by new objec- 
 tions, retaining, however, at the same time the three original favourite 
 ones, namely : — 
 
 1st. That I had myself admitted, in a deed of covenant concern- 
 ing a money transaction, to a certain person of the name of Rich- 
 mond, and signed by me, that the property I claim indemnity for, 
 at the time of its confiscation was not my property, but that of 
 my father. 
 
 2nd. That my case had been regularly gone through and 
 adjudicated. 
 
 3rd. That the House of Commons was not to be made a court 
 of appeal. 
 
 The following statements of facts will shew what credit is to be 
 given to these objections. 
 
 I shall not here enter into the general demerits of the award of 
 the Commissioners, or their misrepresentations of the documents 
 that were before them. I shall only advert to the adjudication, and 
 give an extract from the statement I have drawn up of my case 
 from that part concerning the award, and referring to the two first 
 objections. 
 
 The Commissioners conclude their award as follows : — 
 
 " Whereupon the Board resolved, that the said claimant has notcom- 
 " plied with the provisions of the 5th and 6th Articles of the Con- 
 " ventions, either as respects the proof therein required, of proprie-
 
 " torship in the person claiming, or of confiscation ; and that he has 
 " not established in proof, that the loss for which he has claimed an 
 " indemnity is a loss suffered by a British subject, as such, in virtue of 
 " the said Decrees of confiscation and sequester, according to the true 
 " intent and meaning of the Convention of the 20th November, 1815. 
 " The Board accordingly resolve, that this claim be rejected." 
 
 On the 26th of April, 1822, when the Commissioners made this 
 award, I was at Paris, in progress of obtainment of additional evi- 
 dence, and also waiting for the legalization of evidence already 
 obtained ; and that my then agent, Mr. Brackenbury, had officially 
 announced to the Commissioners by writing, " that he had no hesita- 
 " tion in saying, that every thing they required would be obtained, 
 " and requested that they would suspend their award till the receipt 
 " of such further confirmatory documents, (then lying for legaliza- 
 " tion at the different offices at Paris), and those yet expected from 
 " Soultz, until my arrival in England, for the purpose of giving me a 
 " favourable hearing, and the benefit of such additional evidence ; as 
 " neither he (Mr. Brackenbury ) nor counsel, could do that justice to 
 " my case which it deserved, without my presence, and the additional 
 " documents alluded to." 
 
 If the Commissioners, therefore, did not think the evidence before 
 them sufficiently conclusive to make the award in my favour, why 
 did they not wait my arrival from France, instead of closing it 
 in the absence of most important evidence, which had been announced 
 to them, — the Commission having remained open for the adjudication 
 of other claims, till July 26th, 1826, four years and three months 
 after the award of rejection made against me 1 
 
 With the 5th and 6th articles of the Convention alluded to in the 
 conclusion of the award, I have strictly complied ; but supposing I 
 had not, it could only have reduced my claim to the value of my 
 interest as remainder-man ; this point, if anything further was want- 
 ing, having been settled by the judgment of the Privy Council, June 
 21st, 1821, on the appeal in Andre's or Girardot's case, which was 
 a claim for a contingent reversionary interest. My claim, however, 
 under the circumstances above supposed, stands on much stronger 
 grounds ; it is not in respect of a merely contingent or reversionary 
 defeasible interest, but a vested indefeasible interest in remainder — a 
 vested right. 
 
 By this judgment, the Lords of the Privy Council laid it down, 
 and the precedent has been established, that British born subjects 
 were, under the Convention of 1815, to be indemnified for interests in 
 reversion, or in remainder, although derived from a foreign parent. 
 
 As to not having established the proof that the property was con- 
 fiscated, in virtue of the confiscatory decrees against the property 
 of British subjects — the Convention prescribes no such thing. Those 
 decrees were of October 9th, 1793, and the Convention only requires 
 proof of a confiscation since January 1st, 1793. The judgment of 
 the Privy Council in Devereux or Fanning's case, September 18th, 
 1820, also decided thai question ; laying down the maxim, that the
 
 Convention should be largely and equitably construed, that the 
 real intent and meaning of the Convention was to indemnify British 
 subjects, for the losses they had sustained in the limits of France 
 during and in consequence of the French revolution ; the claim in 
 that case having been for property confiscated in 1701, as belonging 
 to a French emigrant, and sold in 1 704, as the property of a French 
 emigrant. Indeed, the greater number of claims allowed, have been 
 for property confiscated and sold as the property of emigrants. My 
 property was, however, confiscated October 10th, 1703, and sold in 
 June and October, 1704. How could then the Commissioners make 
 their award of rejection on two grounds, which had already been 
 settled and over-ruled by a decision of the court of appeal ? 
 
 Extract from the statement I have drawn up, of the merits of my 
 Case. — Part IV, concerning the Award of the Commissioners. 
 
 The Commissioners in their award, under head VII, state as 
 follows : — 
 
 " A copy of a covenant and declaration (the original whereof was 
 " produced to this board, on the 18th day of April, 1822) made 
 " between Clement Joseph Philip Pen, Baron de Bode, and Thomas 
 "Garner Richmond, dated 15th December, 1821, respecting the 
 " assignment to the latter of certain sums, in case an award should pass 
 " in favour of the said Baron, and in which said covenant and 
 " declaration, the facts of the said case are fully stated as follows." 
 
 The Commissioners then make a long extract of the contents 
 of the deed of covenant, but of which it will only be necessary to 
 give that passage on which they ground their award of rejection, and 
 to which they so often refer in their award, as also on other occa- 
 sions. 
 
 "And whereas the Government which presided at that 
 " time in France, seized and sequestered the said lord- 
 " ship of soultz, under the pretence that the said cliarles 
 " Augustus Louis Frederick Baron de Bode, was a subject 
 " of France." 
 
 This is not a true copy, and could not have been compared with 
 the original, this passage having been struck out before the deed was 
 executed, as attested at the bottom of the deed, viz., " Signed, sealed, 
 " and delivered by the within-named Clement Joseph Philip Pen, 
 " Baron de Bode, and Thomas Garner Richmond ; part of the twelfth 
 " line, beginning with the words ' and whereas,' and part of the 
 " thirteenth line, ending with the words ' of France,' being first 
 " struck out in the presence of G. Cooper, James Grubb, 7, Copthall 
 " Court, London." The citation, therefore is false and yet it is upon 
 this cancelled passage that the Commissioners principally found the 
 rejection of my claim. 
 
 The instructions for drawing this deed had not been given by me 
 to Messrs. Tomlinson and Cooper, the attorneys of Mr. Richmond, 
 but by Mr. Richmond himself, who was far from being master of the
 
 6 
 
 merits and details of my case. — I only was made acquainted with it, 
 when it was presented to me ready engrossed for my signature ; — I 
 disapproved generally, at the time of the signing this Deed, of the 
 different erroneous statements made therein, and protested against 
 them ; and only after the one in question (the most objectionable one) 
 had been struck out, I consented to sign the Deed as it was, lest 
 by farther alterations it should be defaced entirely, to save time and 
 expense, at the particular request of Mr. Richmond. 
 
 The very idea of my having given such instructions for such a 
 Deed or signed it unconditionally, is preposterous ; it would have been 
 stating wilfully untruths, for the mere pleasure of destroying my 
 case ; — and it is clear that Mr. Cooper and Mr. Richmond did not un- 
 derstand perfectly the bearings of my case, when the one gave the in- 
 structions, and the other drew the Deed in conformity with those 
 instructions, because the money to be advanced, was for the sole 
 purpose of enabling me to make search for documents and substan- 
 tiate facts diametrically in opposition to those recited in this Deed 
 of Covenant, — and it is in consequence of Mr. Richmond, with the 
 assistance of his attorney, having better understood the merits of the 
 case from the fresh explanation I gave them of it at the time of 
 signing this Deed and the striking out of the passage in question, 
 that he, after having failed to make me assign to him the whole of 
 my property, presented in revenge the draft of this Deed of Covenant 
 to the Commissioners. 
 
 In May, 1824, I laid before the Privy Council, a written state- 
 ment signed by myself, of all that passed at the time when I executed 
 this Deed of Covenant ; — also a joint Affidavit to the same, by Mr. 
 Cooper the attorney and Mr. Richmond, sworn the 28th April, 
 1823, shewing the protestations I had made against several recitals 
 contained in that Deed, and of the striking out the passage in ques- 
 tion before I executed it ; — as also an Affidavit from a Mr. Baker, 
 sworn the 25th May, 1824, as to a conversation between himself 
 and Mr. Richmond, the morning when he was on his way to the 
 Board of Commissioners to present to them this said Deed of 
 Covenant, having amongst others said, — that he was then going to cut 
 my throat in the case of my claim, by producing the said Deed of 
 Covenant he then held in his hand, to the Commissioners. 
 
 This Deed of Covenant was no evidence in my case, it was not 
 presented by me, nor did I receive even the slightest intimation 
 that it had been produced against me, till I was informed of it 
 by the award itself. — It was a document containing stipulations 
 as to a bonus for a loan of money which, after all, I never received ; 
 — Mr. Richmond instead of advancing, or producing the 16001. 
 mentioned in this Covenant, made use of securities intrusted to him 
 by me for negotiation for my benefit, and applied them to his own 
 purposes, so that he is my debtor and that to a considerable amount ; 
 but having been a Bankrupt and afterwards taken the benefit of the 
 Insolvent Act, I have no remedy against him. 
 
 The Commissioners, in their letter of April 18th, 1822, refuse to
 
 wait for the arrival of most important documents in support of my 
 claim, and appoint an early day for the hearing of my case; because, 
 as they express themselves, " they are of opinion that the interval 
 " between that day and the next Wednesday will be amply sufficient, 
 " considering the state of my case, for enabling any person fully to 
 " prepare all the materials necessary for such a hearing;" and on 
 this very day they receive this private deed of Covenant on which 
 they principally ground their award of rejection. 
 
 If the Commissioners had been satisfied with the vouchers before 
 them, so as to warrant an award in my favour, they might have 
 waived the production of additional evidence in support of my claim ; 
 but that not being the case, to preclude me from laying before them 
 my additional evidence, and at the same time to receive evidence 
 against me, is an instance of partiality and injustice which I suppose 
 is wholly without precedent! 
 
 The Commissioners do not say that this deed was executed by 
 me ; they never apprised me of having received a copy of it, nor had 
 they, indeed, any proof that it had been executed by me. 
 
 Had the Commissioners, as in duty bound, used ordinary and just 
 precaution, they would have given me notice of 'having received this 
 deed of covenant, when they would have been put in possession of 
 the circumstances attending the execution of it. But no ; they 
 deny to me this opportunity of obvious correction. As soon as 
 they imagine that they have found a pretence, however flimsy, for 
 defeating an inconvenient claim, they seize upon it with an eager- 
 ness which makes them set at defiance the plainest rules of 
 justice and common sense. 
 
 The Commissioners were, however, guilty of more than misappre- 
 hension ; for the day on which the deed was presented to them 
 (April 18th, 1822) is noticed by their secretary on the original deed 
 in his own hand-writing, and signed with his initials, and the stamp 
 of the Commissioners' Office is stamped on the deed ; they there- 
 fore could not avoid seeing also that the passage in question was 
 struck out. The Commissioners not only recite this passage in 
 full, in their award, and refer unremittingly therein to it, and princi- 
 pally reject my claim on the strength of this cancelled passage, but 
 they cite and refer to it again in their Report of May 17th, 1827, to 
 the Lords of the Treasury, after their misconduct in citing this 
 cancelled passage as an existing part of the instrument had been 
 distinctly pointed out. 
 
 The late Sir Christopher Robinson, the late Lord Gifford (when 
 Attorney-General), and Sir Nicholas Tindal, recite in full this 
 struck out passage in the case signed by them, and printed for the 
 appeal, in support of the award of the Commissioners. Sir Nicholas 
 Tindal referred to it in his address to the Lords of the Privy Council 
 on the appeal ; again on July 1st, 1828, when Lord Stanley moved 
 for a Select Committee, Mr. H. Twiss and Sir Charles Wetherell 
 (then Attorney-General, who with great emphasis informed the 
 House " that he had waded through the load of papers belonging to 
 my case with great patience and industry") referred to this cancelled
 
 8 
 
 passage, although Lord Stanley had adverted most distinctly to the 
 fact that it had been struck out before the deed was executed, 
 besides my having complained and denounced that circumstance 
 over and over again in the different petitions and memorials presented 
 by me to the Lords of the Treasury, and in my letters to the Duke 
 of Wellington, Mr. Goulburn (then Chancellor of the Exchequer), 
 Mr. G. Dawson, Secretary of the Treasury, and other members of 
 the Government. The Government cannot, therefore, plead igno- 
 rance of that circumstance ; Sir Charles Wetherell's allusion to that 
 cancelled passage, unfortunately for me, coming as it did from such 
 high authority, had a cruel effect, many M.Ps. having thereby been 
 misled and imposed upon ; add to this, the effect of the Treasury 
 circulars sent that morning to those M.Ps. in the habit of voting 
 with the Government, that their attendance was most earnestly and 
 most particularly requested that evening in the House of Commons, a 
 division being expected on the case of the Baron de Bode. 
 
 The motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine 
 my case was in consequence lost, — I have seen three of those circu- 
 lars, and believe I have one yet in my possession. 
 
 In my second petition to the House of Commons, presented by 
 Lord Stanley on the 5th of April 1830, which was read and ordered 
 to be printed, I had made the statement of the Commissioners hav- 
 ing principally founded their award of rejection, on a passage pre- 
 tended to be in a private Deed, but which passage did not exist in that 
 or any other Deed : — Again in my petition presented to the House, 
 15th May, 1833, by Mr. Hill, appears the following passage: — 
 " Nevertheless the Commissioners cite this passage so struck out, in 
 " full in their award of Rejection, make it evidence against your Peti- 
 " tioner, refer to it in several instances, and found their Award against 
 " him upon it, and this cancelled passage is the only part of the Deed 
 " to which they principally refer." And yet in the very face of this, 
 on the 1st of May, 1834, when Mr. Hill moved for a Select Com- 
 mittee, he was opposed on the part of the Treasury by Sir Charles 
 Pepys, then Solicitor General, who cited and relied on this same can- 
 celled passage. This Deed of Covenant, with the full insertion of 
 the cancelled passage, was printed ; and the first half sheet of it, in 
 which this passage appears in full, was handed clandestinely to many 
 Members a few days before the motion came on, and even in the lobby 
 of the Houseitself on the day the motion for the appointment of a 
 Select Committee 'was made, for the purpose of exciting prejudice 
 against my claim. — Mr. Mackenzie, the head Commissioner of the 
 late Commission, even shewed it to Mr. Lomanosoff, the then first 
 Secretary to the Russian Embassy, and for what purpose if not for 
 that of exciting a false impression as to the merits of my claim ? 
 ■ — but the other half sheet of the Deed, in which was the special 
 attestation that this passage had been struck out before execution, 
 was carefully suppressed. 
 
 I think that without going into any further details of the award 
 of rejection of the Commissioners, there is sufficient to be elucidated
 
 9 
 
 from the above, to shew that my case has not been regularly gone 
 through, That this award, made upon evidence never communi- 
 cated to the party to be affected by it, and self-evidently false, can 
 never be called an adjudication* 
 
 Extract from the Statement I have drawn up of the merits of my Case. 
 — Part VI. Concerning the Appeal heard, and Judgment given, 
 June 23rd, 1823. 
 
 The Lords present, were the Earl of Harrowby, — Lord Stowell — 
 Lord Colchester — Sir John Nichol — and Sir Henry Russell. 
 
 Their Lordships' judgment was pronounced by Lord Stowell as 
 follows : — • 
 
 " This is an appeal brought by an unfortunate Nobleman from an 
 " award made by the Commissioners liquidating British Claims, and 
 " after the best attention the Lords had been able to give the case, it 
 " appeared that the claimant had completely failed in regard to the 
 " ownership of the property ; that it had been a contrivance origin - 
 " ating in the mind of the father, and by no means an improper one, to 
 " delude the French Government, and which proved ineffectual : and 
 " therefore under all the circumstances, although hard it might be for 
 " the unfortunate Nobleman, yet the Lords were bound to confirm 
 " the award." 
 
 I am fully aware that to find fault with their Lordships' decision 
 will be thought very presumptuous and bold of me, and that the 
 opinion of such men as Lord Stowell and Sir John Nichol must have 
 great weight, considering their high reputation : there can be no 
 doubt that no one would venture to find fault with a judgment pro- 
 nounced, or an opinion formed on a case by those high characters in 
 their respective courts — the court of High Admiralty, and the Pre- 
 rogative Court, — a long series of years of experience has raised them 
 to that fame. But my case is probably different from those on which 
 their Lordships have been accustomed to pronounce judgment — my 
 case depends neither on the laws of these realms, nor on the mari- 
 time section of the laws of nations ; — its merits rest on the laws and 
 customs by which that country was ruled where I lost my property , 
 and on political circumstances, arising from treaties and conventions : 
 and it is very possible those distinguished characters may not have 
 been perfectly cognizant of the details of the political relations of 
 Alsace, towards France, since its annexation to that kingdom by the 
 Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, down to the French Revolution, and 
 then down to the Treaty of Luneville in 1801, — and of the laws 
 by which it was ruled during those different periods. 
 
 I hope, therefore, that the remarks I am going to make on their 
 Lordships' confirmation of the Commissioners award of rejection, will 
 not be considered presumptuous, or disrespectful, and that it will be 
 borne in mind that my fortune is at stake.
 
 10 
 
 The principal point argued at the appeal, was the cession ray late 
 lather made to me of all his rights and title to the property (which is 
 the subject of my claim,) during the revolution in 1791 : — the reason 
 why this point was more argued and insisted upon, was, that it was 
 the cession only which the Commissioners required to be proved, 
 although / had not claimed under the cession, or even adverted to it 
 in my several memorials to the commissioners, not considering the 
 proving of the donatio inter vivos of my father to me, of the pro- 
 perty in Alsace, which was in his possession, necessary to establish 
 my claim. Moreover, when the Commissioners had fixed upon the 
 cession, and examined me on it, I expressed doubts of being able to 
 prove it ; the original notarial books in which the minute of it had 
 been recorded having been destroyed in December, 1793, when 
 Sultz was sacked and pillaged by the French army. But it being a 
 true and bom fide transaction, executed according to the existing 
 laws and customs of the country, and taking place in so public a 
 manner, there seemed no difficulty in establishing that point ; because, 
 upon that point being established, the proprietorship would be more 
 directly proved, the question would be simplified, and the necessity 
 of proving the hereditary feudal right, or right in remainder, would be 
 rendered superfluous. It never had appeared that my right in remainder 
 was ever doubted, or called in question ; nor did the Commissioners in 
 their memorandum of the 23d of August, 1821, in which they 
 prescribe the evidence I was to produce in support of my claim, 
 call for such evidence; nevertheless, I was, as I have shewn, pro- 
 vided with vouchers to support my right in remainder, had it been 
 called for. My counsel, Dr. Lushington, did not therefore enter 
 into the merits and minute explanation of my right in remainder : yet 
 he told their Lordships that the nature of the property was such, that 
 my father could not sell, mortgage, or by any means encumber it : — 
 and which circumstances were likewise distinctly stated in the printed 
 case of appeal then before their Lordships, viz : " He, the Baron de 
 " Bode the father, was anxious to take precautionary measures for 
 " his own safety, and to secure to his eldest son the enjoyment of 
 " those rights and that extensive domain to which by the law of the 
 " country the next of kin must succeed, no alienation of such property 
 " from lineal descendants being permitted by the then existing insti- 
 " tutions of Alsace." This was plain ; it presented, though under 
 other words, the right in remainder. The expression made use of 
 here by Dr. Lushington, next of kin, was not the proper one ; he ought 
 to have said, next feudal male heir. 
 
 Although Dr. Lushington did not, as I had desired him to do, 
 particularly request that their Lordships would send my case back to 
 the Commissioners to examine it with the additional evidence, in 
 case their Lordships did not feel themselves justified in giving their 
 judgment in my favour on the evidence before them ; and though Dr. 
 Lushington did not make their Lordships acquainted with the par- 
 ticular circumstances connected with the reasons, why that evidence 
 had not been before the Commissioners previously to their making
 
 11 
 
 their award, Dr. Lushington thinking the case sufficiently established 
 without the additional evidence, and apprehensive that in case their 
 Lordships might think proper to send the case back for re-examina- 
 tion, and thereby, in consequence of disclosure, to make enemies of 
 the Commissioners, — yet Dr. Lushington told their Lordships " If he," 
 Dr. Lushington, " was not debarred by the Act of Parliament from 
 " producing fresh evidence, he could lay such evidence before their 
 " Lordships, which would set aside all doubt concerning the cession, 
 " if their Lordships had any on that point." 
 
 Their Lordships having been put in possession of the nature of 
 the property, and of the fact that there existed additional evidence, 
 had sufficient before them, as a court of conscience, of equity, or 
 rather arbitrators, in conformity with the intent and meaning of the 
 Conventions of 1815, to justify them in sending the case back to the 
 Commissioners for re-examination, which has been done in other 
 cases, as I am prepared to prove. 
 
 Now, concerning their Lordships' judgment itself. 
 
 First it is said, "That the claimant had completely failed in regard 
 to the ownership of the property." Did not Dr. Lushington tell 
 their Lordships, that " there was additional evidence, which would 
 set aside all doubt concerning the cession ?" — and did not Dr. 
 Lushington state to their Lordships the nature of the property ? — 
 and did not their Lordships see the same in the printed case of 
 appeal 1 — out of which circumstances their Lordships must have been 
 aware that I had a vested right in remainder in the property, which 
 entitled me to indemnity in case the cession could not be sufficiently 
 legally proved to their Lordships' satisfaction. Why did not their 
 Lordships send the case back to the Commissioners to re-examine it, 
 either with the additional evidence, or with a direction to restrict 
 the claim to the interest in remainder, arising from the nature of the 
 tenure, Avhich was not attempted to be denied or doubted ? Then it 
 is stated, " that it had been a contrivance of the father to delude 
 the French government, and by no means an improper one." Is not 
 this admitting the fact of cession ? Which admission of their Lord- 
 ships herein differs from that of the Commissioners, who admit of no 
 cession at all. Their Lordships only objecting to it, as it appears, from 
 having considered the cession as a temporary expedient and not as 
 an absolute conveyance, when at the same time they find the motive 
 by no means improper ; nor was it improper, — it was not done to 
 delude the French government ; and if it had been intended to delude 
 such a government as then existed in France, how can it be said, 
 that any act done for the purpose of avoiding the effect of seizure, 
 the violence and injustice of which, the treaties and conventions 
 were created to relieve against, was improper, and therefore void. 
 The cession, however, was made openly and publicly, more pub- 
 licly indeed, than was absolutely necessary and customary for the 
 mere transfer of property from man to man — it was so done to give 
 the act more solemnity ; to make it more generally known that my
 
 12 
 
 father had ceased to be the proprietor of it, and that I, an English- 
 man, had become the sole proprietor of it. It was certainly done in 
 anticipation of the promulgation of Decrees, which divest the pro- 
 perty from the eldest son, and force it to be divided amongst all the 
 children ; but these decrees were not then in existence, nor were 
 they fully efficient till 1794. Was therefore the transaction illegal? 
 Their Lordships were perhaps not aware that this was a common 
 practice at that time, resorted to by thousands of fathers, to secure 
 the property to the legal heir, before, by any mischance, a division of 
 it could take place from the threatened abolition of the then existing 
 laws of primogeniture ; expecting that when at a future period tran- 
 quillity and order were restored, the old laws would likewise be 
 reinstated, and the family estates have thereby escaped dismember- 
 ment. The motive or reason, however, why a person disposes of 
 his property to another, is surely a point of little consideration, pro- 
 vided he does in fact dispose of it according to the existing law. 
 
 Lastly, their Lordships say, " and which proved ineffectual :" why 
 did it prove ineffectual according to the sense here conveyed ? Was 
 it because the cession had been made to me, to secure this property 
 more effectually in my person, to prevent the possibility of its being 
 dismembered? And admitting even for argument's sake, an intent 
 to delude the French government, and that notwithstanding that the 
 French revolutionary government confiscated and sequestered it ; 
 yet, on whatever grounds the revolutionary faction may have chosen 
 to act, the cession was legal, and made according to the existing 
 laws, and the property therefore at the time it was seized, was vested 
 solely in me, a British subject. 
 
 Did not their Lordships know that there is no gift so binding, so 
 irrevocable as a cession (une donation entre vifs) ? that such a 
 donation cannot be made with any reserve whatsoever — that the 
 donor by such a donation divests himself irrevocably of his property ? 
 1 am willing to believe that it is from ignorance of foreign law, that 
 their Lordships have committed the error — nevertheless, I have 
 suffered most cruelly from that error — if their Lordships had only 
 consulted a Merlin or any other French jurisconsulte for ten minutes, 
 it would have spared me years of misery and anxiety of mind, which 
 nothing in this world can compensate me for. 
 
 The Conventions were to be largely and equitably construed, — 
 the right of claiming of the registered claimants was already 
 established by the fact of their names having been placed on the 
 register — the Commissioners appointed under 59 Geo. Ill, c. 31, 
 had therefore only to examine the vouchers of the claimants as to 
 the proprietorship of property for which they claimed, and as to the 
 amount they demanded, and to pronounce thereupon — and in case a 
 claimaint was not satisfied with the Commissioners' award, the matter 
 was to be settled on appeal before the Privy Council ; this was 
 the plain manner of proceeding. But what has really been the case 
 on the appeals, at least in my case ? the law officers of the crown 
 disputed my very right of claiming — after the case had already been
 
 13 
 
 entertained by the Commissioners ; not meeting the ease fairly and 
 liberally on facts, according to the sense and meaning of the Con- 
 ventions. Among other things, they contended, that the Commis- 
 sioners stood in the shoes of the French Government — This pro- 
 position 1 deny. The French Government had a legitimate right 
 to oppose the establishment of the claim of an individual, even to be 
 placed on the list as a British claimaint, if they could prevent it, 
 as they were to provide for the payment of it ; but the British 
 Commissioners at London, who had only to carry into execution and 
 complete the conventions in favour of those claimants, whose right 
 to appear in the character of claimants was already admitted, did 
 therefore stand in quite a different position, from that in which the 
 French Government had originally stood — and were therefore not 
 warranted to oppose to a claimant any preliminary objection to his 
 right to appear in the character of a Claimant, which, (not being 
 sustainable,) the French Government had not chosen to take. 
 
 It would appear as if the Lords of His Majesty's Privy Council, 
 sitting for such length of time on Colonial Appeals, had erroneously 
 applied their experience in such cases to the case of French Appeals. 
 The cases are quite distinct, the French Commission being instituted 
 as a Court of Equity, to be conducted on the broadest scale of 
 liberality, because, if the unfortunate claimant who tried to recover 
 compensation for his lost property, and for whom an allowance had 
 been made by France, was defeated, and that defeat contributed 
 to effect a surplus, it was for the benefit of the crown, or rather the 
 nation, which had already received its share of indemnity by special 
 sums paid by France for that purpose. It is no answer to this 
 observation, to say that the Government had no intention to keep 
 such a surplus, but was prepared to give it to the supplementary 
 claimants, who are excluded by the conventions from participating 
 in these funds, and to the claimants of Convention No. 13, who have 
 had the sum allowed for them, distributed amongst them ; because 
 such a disposition of the fund would be merely arbitrary and 
 gratuitous, and it would be in the power of Government to apply 
 the surplus in the extra expenses of Buckingham Palace, or upon 
 any other object for which it was not convenient to go to Parliament. 
 
 There are two circumstances that occurred at the appeal, to which 
 I must yet refer ; first, when Sir James Parke, my junior counsel, 
 began to draw their Lordships' attention to that part of the Com- 
 missioners' award, where they made that gross blunder concerning 
 the mines, where they say that since the 12th July, 1791, I had no 
 longer any property in the mines ; Mr. Collingwood, one of the 
 Commissioners, rose and stated himself, as well as through the 
 leading counsel of the Treasury, Sir Christopher Robinson, that they 
 were wrong in that point, that they gave it up, and that therefore 
 it would be needless to argue further on it. If they gave up that 
 point, their statement in the Award was then incorrect, and they 
 thereby admit my possession of it at that period- — yet after the 
 ocknowledgment of such a gross misstatement, misrepresentation of a
 
 14 
 
 fact, and apprised of the existence of additional evidence, the Lords 
 of the Privy Council do not send the case hack to the Commissioners 
 to amend their award, Vmt confirm it. 
 
 The second circumstance is : — When counsel and strangers were 
 ordered to withdraw, to leave their Lordships to consult upon the 
 judgment they were to pronounce, I observed that the leading 
 Treasury Counsel, Sir Christopher Robinson, who had just pleaded 
 in opposition to me, and who had signed the Commissioners' Case 
 against me, had remained with their Lordships during their Lordships' 
 deliberations. On inquiring the reason of his remaining with their 
 Lordships, I was informed that it was to assist them in their delibe- 
 rations ! ! Having expressed my astonishment, and perhaps more 
 than that, to Dr. Lushington, Sir Nicholas Tindal, Sir James Parke, 
 Mr. Carr, and others then in the ante-room, I was assured by those 
 I have just named, that that proceeding was customary. The only 
 comment I shall allow myself is, that after that, I do not see why I 
 should not be appointed to decide on my own case. 
 
 I have stated that I can prove that in other cases the Privy 
 Council had sent back cases to the Commissioners for re-examina- 
 tion. In the case of Andre (executrix of Girardot), on the appeal 
 the 21st June 1821, the award was rescinded, and the case referred 
 hack to the Commissioners. The same in Boyd, Ker, and Co's. 
 second case of appeal, the award was rescinded, and the case referred 
 hack to the Commissioners. In the case of Law and Chevalier, at 
 the appeal, June 28th, 1824, the award was referred back to the 
 Commissioners; and in Sir John Nelthorp's case, not only was the 
 award rescinded by mutual consent, at the appeal, March 10th, 1824, 
 but actually fresh and unlimited time was granted for the claimant 
 to search and procure new additional evidence. In another case of 
 appeal, of Boyd, Ker, and Co., June 10th, 1826, in the Luxem- 
 bourg question, their Lordships ordered the award to be altered. 
 In Williams and Newland's case, on the appeal of June 21st, 1821, 
 on their second award, the award was affirmed, but with variations. 
 Now in my case, at the appeal, the Commissioners, in the person of 
 Mr. Collingwood and their leading counsel, Sir Christopher 
 Robinson, confessed that they were wrong as to the statement made 
 in the award concerning the proprietorship of the mines, and my 
 counsel was in consequence stopped from proceeding in his argu- 
 ments on that point. So far, therefore, as this goes, to say the 
 least of it, the award called for a variation, or to be altered, as in 
 Boyd's case, on the second award concerning the Luxembourg 
 question. I do not complain of these cases being sent back to the 
 Commissioners for them to re-consider their award ; nor that, in 
 many instances, fresh time was granted to claimants to search for 
 additional evidence : no, by no means ; this was right, — it was 
 acting in conformity with the intent and meaning of the Conventions, 
 which were to be largely and equitably construed. But I complain 
 that the same line of conduct has not been observed towards me ; 
 and I cannot help repeating here, that their Lordships being apprised
 
 15 
 
 of the existence of additional evidence which I liad been debarred 
 from tbe opportunity of producing, ought, as a Court of Equity 
 (appointed in tbe room of the arbitrators of the mixed Commission 
 at Paris), to have sent the case back to the Commissioners to 
 re-examine it, together with that additional evidence, and make then 
 a new award thereon ; and that if justice — legal, or simply moral — 
 has been administered in those cases, it has not been so in mine. 
 
 But how the Privy Council could reconcile their confirming the 
 Commissioners' award, — the two points on which they rejected my 
 claim — with their former decisions on those very same points in the 
 cases already alluded to, of Fanning and Andre, must be left to 
 conjecture. 
 
 I have already proved, that as far as the award goes, my case has 
 not been regularly gone through ; and I think no one will maintain 
 that my case has been regularly gone through as to the appeal. 
 
 Extract from the Statement I have drawn up of the merits of my case. — 
 Part VI, concerning the re-hearing of the Appeal, May 6th, 1820. 
 
 Present, Lords Harrowby — Stowell — Bexley — Gilford — and Col- 
 chester. 
 
 My counsel were heard in support of the subject matter of my 
 petition, but when Mr. Carr, my leading counsel, on opening the 
 case, appeared with my printed petition in his hand, and had un- 
 folded and referred to it, their Lordships seemed quite surprised ; and 
 the late Lord Gifford asked what it meant ; Mr. Cai - r explained. 
 Their Lordships then signified that they knew nothing of that printed 
 case ; that this was the first they had heard of it. Mr. Carr then 
 said that he understood a certain number of copies of it had been 
 delivered at the office of their Lordships ; and applying to me on the 
 subject, I told their Lordships that on the 1st of July, 1825, twenty 
 copies of the printed petition for the re-hearing had been delivered 
 at their Lordships' office, and that my solicitor's clerk, who had 
 delivered them, was in attendance. Mr. Buller, the clerk of the 
 privy council, was desired to make inquiry after them ; when he 
 returned, he said that none could be found ; upon which, my solici- 
 tor's clerk having five or six of them in his bag, I gave them 
 myself to Mr. Buller, who laid them before their Lordships. Lord 
 Gifford, during the interlocution, observed that they knew of nothing, 
 except the written petition he then held in his hand. This petition 
 must have been that of the 29th of January, 1824, or that of the 27th 
 of May of the same year ; because I recognized my own hand- 
 writing, and of the petitions sent by me to the King in council, 
 those two only were in my own writing. 
 
 Their Lordships having been totally ignorant of the existence 
 of the printed case for re-hearing, is a proof that my two petitions of 
 December 1st, 1825, and March Gth, 1S26, had not been laid before 
 them, or that they had not read them. 
 
 During the address of my counsel, their Lordships looked at some
 
 16 
 
 parts here and there of the printed ease ; hut it was utterly im- 
 possible for any one of them to peruse the whole, or even a quarter 
 of it — the time was far too short, and they were under the necessity 
 of lending their attention to my counsel, as far as the other occupa- 
 tions in which their Lordships were undoubtedly engaged during the 
 proceedings would allow. The case consisted of thirty-three large 
 folio sides, and contained a minute statement and explanation of the 
 merits of my claims, a summary of the nature and bearings of my 
 additional evidence, and also the reasons before-mentioned why I felt 
 myself aggrieved, and why my case ought again to be re -heard, or 
 referred back to the Commissioners. 
 
 My counsel were not allowed to go into the merits of the case, 
 though they had pledged themselves that if their Lordships would 
 allow them to do so, even without the additional evidence, they 
 should be able to convince them of my rights, and to induce them to 
 come to a different conclusion from that which they had arrived at on 
 the former occasion, by reason of the little elucidation and explana- 
 tion that was offered to them at that time, of those documents 
 which had been so grievously misconstrued and misrepresented by 
 the Commissioners. 
 
 The only point which my counsel were allowed to argue, was as to 
 the power of their Lordships to grant a re-hearing, or to send the 
 case back to the Commissioners for reconsideration. 
 
 Anticipating their Lordships' judgment from the fact that their 
 Lordships could not be cognizant of all the merits of my case, three 
 of my petitions being unknown to them, and they not having had 
 my printed case for re-hearing, regularly laid before them as above 
 observed, so as to make themselves acquainted with the facts ; and 
 likewise suspecting that their Lordships had not perceived the five 
 affidavits which I had presented with one of those former petitions ; 
 — when counsel and strangers were ordered to withdraw, I asked 
 their Lordships permission to make a few observations : when the 
 late Lord Gifford said, that as their Lordships had heard my coun- 
 sel, they could not allow me to be heard also. — I felt deeply on the 
 occasion, that the observance of precedent, obstructed the attainment 
 of justice. In case their Lordships had granted me a hearing, it 
 was my intention to have drawn their attention to these circum- 
 stances, and to have begged their Lordships to postpone giving their 
 judgment till they were acquainted with the contents of the different 
 petitions, affidavits, and the printed case ; and likewise to have drawn 
 their Lordships' attention to the circumstance of the false recital 
 made by the Commissioners in their award against me ! ! ! 
 
 Lord Gifford (when Attorney General) was one of the counsel 
 employed by the Government, and signed the case against me for the 
 appeal in 1823, and yet at the re-hearing of the appeal, he sits as the 
 principal leading J udge ; this may have been according to usage, like 
 Sir Christopher Robinson's staying to confer with the Lords of the 
 Privy Council, after the argument was over and the parties and their 
 counsel, except himself, excluded — but is this strictly just ?
 
 17 
 
 Should not a Court instituted as this was, under very peculiar cir- 
 cumstances, for a very limited time, and for a particular purpose, 
 judge each case on its own peculiar merits, without looking for pre- 
 cedents in that or other Courts which have little or no similitude to 
 it ; and where, from its short duration, precedents can hardly be ex- 
 pected to he found ? I should conceive a great difference to exist 
 with regard to precedents, and adhering to them in this Court as a 
 Court of Appeal from the Colonies, and as a Court of Appeal from 
 the Awards of the Commissioners for liquidating French Claims. 
 In the one case it is a permanent Court, and has existed as such for 
 a long period of time, and precedents for the sake of order become 
 important, and form a part of its Law ; but in the other case it was 
 a Court of yesterday's creation, and has even now ceased to exist. 
 
 If however, the Lords of the Privy Council, assembled to hear 
 French Appeals, were a Court bound down by the strict and rigorous 
 rules of a Court of Law, they must, like the High Court of 
 Chancery and other Courts, have the privilege — and justice requires it, 
 of protecting themselves against errors and their consequences by 
 granting re-hearings of cases where it may appear that justice has 
 not been done, and particularly where no appeal is allowed from them. 
 In the Court of Chancery this proceeding is one of every day's 
 practice. — If the Privy Council, as a Court of appeal from the Com- 
 missioners for liquidation of French Claims, was not bound down to 
 such strict rules as a Court of Law — then no difficulty existed in 
 granting a re-hearing of a case, when the application was supported 
 by strong and just reasons. 
 
 But it seems from the tenour of the judgment pronounced by the 
 Lords in this instance, that their Lordships wished that it should be 
 understood that they felt themselves peculiarly situated when com- 
 paring their Court with others in that particular : and that it was the 
 Act of Parliament 59 Geo. III. c. 31, which prevented their doing 
 that which not only justice required but that their own inclinations 
 would have prompted them to ; yet strange to say, on the same day 
 that a re-hearing was refused to me, the Lords granted a re-hearing 
 of an appeal in a case of Messrs. Walter Boyd, Ker & Co., and 
 counsel were afterwards heard thereon. The only difference between 
 the two cases being this technical one, that in mine His Majesty's 
 sanction to the award had been obtained with a most indecent cele- 
 rity, in the other it had not.— In my case His Majesty's sanction 
 was obtained 23 days after the appeal ; in that of Boyd and Co. that 
 sanction was withheld for above 15 months, and then the re-hearing 
 granted. 
 
 It certainly was never intended by the French Government that 
 by such an unfair advantage, taken from a technicality, (and that 
 originating with the authority bound to administer impartial justice,) 
 an individual should be deprived of that indemnity which France 
 had provided for him ; and that the British government or the crown 
 should benefit thereby : this is contrary to the intentions, spirit, and 
 
 meaning of the Treatv and Conventions. 
 
 C
 
 18 
 
 The British Government, as trustee of the funds paid by France, 
 under the Convention No. 7, of 1815, for the claimants under that 
 convention, is answerable to them and to France under the Law of 
 Nations, to distribute those funds strictly according to the meaning 
 and intent of that convention, and cannot adduce as a bar to do 
 justice to a claimant, the Royal approval, — that approval being the 
 act of Ministers, for which they arc responsible. 
 
 Why the case was not referred back to the Commissioners for re- 
 examination or its merits otherwise entered into, I have already 
 stated ; but besides this circumstance being so unfortunate to me, the 
 re-hearing of the appeal is also under another point of view a most 
 important epoch in the proceedings ; — and to which I must draw 
 particular attention. 
 
 Lord Gifford in the judgment he delivered further states, — 
 " In this case the decision was approved by His Majesty in Council, 
 " was certified to the Commissioners ; and in consequence of that 
 " decision, so certified, the funds have been actually divided 
 " among other claimants. It is clear therefore there can be no re- 
 " dress." Now this assertion " that the funds have been actually 
 divided among other claimants" was directly contrary to the fact. 
 There was at that moment at the Commissioners' disposal about 
 £1,250,000 capital, exclusive of the funds paid to the regular regis- 
 tered claimants between the 6th of May, 1826, and the 26th of July 
 of the same year, when the Commissioners closed their proceedings 
 as to the claims under Convention No. 7, — but according to their own 
 showing, they must have had at their disposal at that period, exclu- 
 sive of the sums paid to the claimants between the 6th of May and 
 the 26th of July, 1826, above £480,000,— unless Buckingham Palace 
 was admitted as a claimant against France under the Convention of 
 1815 ; and supposing, for argument sake, that to have been so, there 
 was even then £380,000, according to their own showing at their 
 disposal, because there had been as yet at that period only £100,000 
 parted with on account of Buckingham Palace. These £100,000 
 having been parted with to the Woods and Forests, January 24th 1826, 
 nearly three months and three weeks before my appeal for a re- 
 hearing came on — and one month and a half before the date of the 
 treasury warrant, which authorized such a misappropriation ! This 
 needs no comment. 
 
 Under the date of the 2nd of May, 1826, four days before my 
 appeal for a re-hearing came on, the Treasury issued a minute which 
 authorised those claimants who had forfeited their rights of prose- 
 cuting their claims, by not having given notice of them within the 
 time prescribed by the Conventions, and 59 Geo. III. c. 31, and 
 therefore excluded from the participation of these funds, to present 
 them henceforth. In the Return No. 417, June 9th, 1828, the date 
 of this Treasury minute is stated to be May the 5th. In the Return, 
 No. 296, June 10th, 1835, it is stated to have been May the 2nd, 
 1826,; — I confess it seems to me, that the inference to be drawn from 
 the parting with a portion of these funds, and from admitting the
 
 19 
 
 supplementary claimants (to whom at a future period as shown by 
 the Commissioners, £191,589 6s. Od. has heen paid) to indemnity out 
 of these funds, contrary to the meaning and intent of the Conven- 
 tions, before my case of appeal had been decided, is, that the Govern- 
 ment was pretty well satisfied beforehand, before the appeal was 
 heard, what the decision would be ; and that it acted accordingly. Or 
 was this sum of £191,589 6s. Od. already expended before the 
 Treasury minute of May 2nd, 182G, was issued, to authorize the 
 supplementary claimants to participate in the fund in question, as 
 the £100,000 had been expended upon the repairing of Buckingham 
 Palace six weeks before the Treasury Warrant was issued ? As for 
 the payment of the £191,589 6s. Od. to the supplementary claim- 
 ants, it is true we have but the Commissioners' word, the authority 
 of which is so much the less, as that statement only appears in an 
 item in a return fabricated to serve a temporary purpose ; I allude 
 to the Return of June the 9th, 1828, No. 417, and which is a 
 false return. Whether, therefore, this sum has actually been paid 
 to supplementary claimants, no return having been given on the 
 subject, or whether it has been expended in the building of a 
 cottage, or in the purchase of diamonds, or any thing else, is as 
 yet a mystery, enveloped in darkness. Is it to be believed that 
 Lord Harrowby, Lord Bexley (who had from 1812, up to 1823, 
 been Chancellor of the Exchequer,) and Lord Gifford, all well 
 initiated into the mysteries and working of the Government, were 
 not fully aware of these circumstances, namely, of the parting witli 
 a part of those funds, and of the Treasury minute, admitting the 
 supplementary claimants to compensation ? Where was the good 
 of admitting the supplementary claimants May 2nd, 1826, to com- 
 pensation, if before that date the fund in question had actually 
 been disposed of ? and more especially Lord Gifford, who when 
 Attorney General, as legal adviser of the crown had taken such a 
 prominent part in the defence of the Commissioners against the 
 appeals of the claimants ? Is it to be believed that their Lordships 
 did not know better, than " that the funds had been actually divided 
 among other claimants'' at that period P If not, they had been most 
 grossly imposed upon. I am warranted from these and other facts, 
 not bearing upon the present question, and in the details of which I 
 will therefore not enter, to believe that this assertion was made on 
 the presumption that the real truth would never come to light. The 
 tardy admission of the misappropriation of the £250,000 towards 
 the building of Buckingham Palace, as a temporary loan to the Woods 
 and Forests, was merely to get out of the difficulty caused by the 
 disclosures made by the Finance Committee. 
 
 In that memorable debate of J,une 23rd, 1828, (as reported in the 
 Mirror of Parliament), on the motion of the late Michael Angelo 
 Taylor, on misappropriation of public funds, where the malpractices 
 of the Treasury were so unanswerably exposed, will be found the 
 statement of Mr. Arbuthnot, one of the then Administration, 
 wherein he admits the proceedings of that spoliating congress which
 
 20 
 
 assembled at the Treasury itself, and came to the resolution to 
 appropriate for other purposes than for which they were intended, 
 the funds paid by France under the Conventions of 1815 and 1818, 
 to indemnify British subjects for the losses they had sustained from 
 confiscation of their property in France by the revolutionary govern- 
 ment. Lord Liverpool, First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Goderich, 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Canning, Secretary of State for 
 the Foreign department, Mr. Arbuthnot, First Commissioner of 
 Woods and Forests, and Mr. Mackenzie, the principal Commissioner 
 for French claims, were present. And when did this meeting take 
 place, where men in power, to the dishonour, I must say, of the British 
 Government, came to such a discreditable determination ? It must 
 have been in January, 1826, because we find by the Return No. 219, 
 of April 19th, 1833, that it was on the 24th of January, 1826, that 
 the first £100,000 was parted with towards the building of Buck- 
 ingham Palace, — therefore about four months before the re-hearing 
 of the appeal in my case was to be heard ! ! ! And now I ask, is it to 
 be believed that individuals connected with the Government, like my 
 Lords Harrowby, Bexley, and Gifford, (my judges in the Privy 
 Council), were not acquainted with these facts ? If they were, could 
 they have given judgment in my favour without embarrassing the 
 Government ? 
 
 Lord Gifford when Attorney-General, as legal adviser of the 
 crown, had signed the respondents' case in support of the Commis- 
 sioners' award of rejection against me ; and I cannot help observing 
 that under such circumstances, it was rather indelicate that, at a sub- 
 sequent period, he should have sat as my judge, in the same cause in 
 which on a prior occasion he had taken an active part against me. 
 
 The Commissioners illegally bound me down to time, for the pro- 
 duction of my vouchers in support of my claim, and singled me out 
 in enforcing such arbitrary measures, although the commission remained 
 open for more than four years after they had made their award 
 against me, during which period, they received vouchers from other 
 claimants, and examined and adjudicated their claims, — and although, 
 by their letter of the 12th of December, 1816, they announce to me, 
 that they " are unable to state the time in which the claims for 
 " landed property may be expected to be brought forward for exa- 
 " mination, or to point out to me the proofs that may be hereafter 
 " required in support of my claims." Notwithstanding reiterated 
 applications to them, to be informed of the nature of the evidence 
 they would require, I was left by them without such communication 
 till August 23rd, 1821, a lapse of nearly five years, when they 
 became so arbitrarily pressing for the prompt production of the vou- 
 chers, knowing it was from the very circumstance of their having 
 left me nearly five years in suspense, that my means had been so 
 reduced, that it was out of my power immediately to proceed to the 
 Continent in search of the documents which they then required : — 
 and considering 
 
 1st. That they made their award in the absence of most important
 
 21 
 
 documents, with notice that those documents were shortly forth- 
 coming, some of them already obtained, only awaiting in Paris the 
 necessary legalization. 
 
 2ndly. Considering that they principally grounded their award 
 On a passage in a deed, struck out before that deed was executed, as 
 specially noticed in the attestation, — a deed that was not in evidence 
 in my case — a deed, of the execution of which they received and 
 required no proof, and of which they never have possessed but a 
 copy, and the possession of such copy I, for the first time, was 
 made acquainted with in finding it included in the award. 
 
 3rdly. Considering the several great mistakes they have been guilty 
 of in their award, one of which they acknowledge on the appeal 
 concerning the mines. 
 
 4thly. Considering the gross misconstructions, misrepresentations, 
 and ignorance they have displayed in their award, particularly about 
 their observation on the word " manifesto publiquement," which 
 they wrest to a different subject-matter from that to which it is 
 applied in the certificate in which it occurs ; and about the " biens 
 caducs," or escheated lands, which they assume to be ex vi termini 
 of no value ; as also concerning the receipts they require for me to 
 procure, which I myself am supposed to have given to farmers, but 
 which they at the same time assume to be in my possession. 
 
 5thly. Considering that they have not adjudged upon, or taken 
 the least notice in their award, of my vested and indefeasible right 
 in remainder. 
 
 6thly. Considering the unfounded judgment they have pronounced, 
 that I have not proved any proprietorship in the property in ques- 
 tion, although on the appeal they acknowledge that they were wrong 
 as to the mines. 
 
 7thly. Considering that the Commissioners made their award of 
 rejection before the arrival of the additional evidence, and which 
 therefore could not be laid before them previously to their making 
 their award, and refused to receive it after the award was made, 
 although they had promised so to do ; whereby I was prevented from 
 availing myself of it on the appeal, in consequence of section 12 of 
 59 Geo. III. c. 31 ; and considering further, that the Commis- 
 sioners, fearful that I might nevertheless attempt to avail myself of 
 that evidence at the appeal, intimated by a written communication, 
 that if I made such an attempt, the case would at once be dismissed 
 without a hearing. 
 
 8thly. Considering the discrepancy between the award and the 
 judgment of the Lords of the Privy Council — the Commissioners 
 admitting no cession at all, — the Lords of the Privy Council, on 
 the contrary, admitting the fact of cession, but contrary to justice 
 and common sense, objecting to the motive by which they assume 
 my father to have been actuated. 
 
 9thly. Considering that the Lords of the Privy Council were 
 apprised of the existence of additional evidence, which if not 
 debarred by the Act of Parliament from laying before them, would
 
 99 
 
 have removed all doubt concerning the cession, if their Lordships 
 had any on that point ; considering that in consequence of that 
 announcement, their Lordships did not call in question the fact of 
 cession, but assumed a motive for making it, to which their Lord- 
 ships objected, instead of sending the case back to the Commis- 
 sioners, to examine it anew with the additional evidence which 
 justice required, and which in numerous other cases was done. 
 
 lOthly. Considering that the Commissioners pronounced their 
 award of rejection on two points, and the Lords of the Privy 
 Council confirmed that award, notwithstanding that on former 
 appeals they had, with reference to the spirit and real meaning and 
 intent of the Conventions, decided those two points in favour of the 
 claimants, thereby establishing a precedent on which the Commis- 
 sioners have acted in other cases, and which obviously ought to have 
 been acted upon in mine. 
 
 llthly. Considering, according to the judgment pronounced at the 
 re-hearing of my appeal, that the powers of the Lords of the Privy 
 Council sitting on French Appeals, were so circumscribed by the Act 
 of Parliament, that if they committed an error or an oversight, the 
 effect of which might deprive a claimant of his property, they pos- 
 sessed no power of correcting it, however gross and palpable it 
 might be. 
 
 12thly. Considering that the minds of the Lords of the Privy 
 Council presiding at the re-hearing of Appeal, must have been 
 much prejudiced, they stating in their judgment, that the funds had 
 been actually divided among other claimants, and that it was clear 
 there could be no redress ; that this fact being positively contrary to 
 truth, their Lordships were grievously mistaken. 
 
 Can it after this be maintained that the case has been regularly 
 gone through, and properly and finally adjudicated by the competent 
 appointed authorities ? 
 
 On the first of May, 1834, Mr. Hill, late member for Hull, 
 brought my case before the attention of the House of Commons ; 
 when it ordered : — " That a select committee be appointed to exa- 
 " mine into the facts and circumstances of the claim of the Baron de 
 " Bode, upon the fund received from the French Government for 
 " indemnifying British subjects, for the loss of property unduly con- 
 " fiscated by French authority, and to report the same with their 
 " observations thereupon to the House : and also that the Committee 
 " have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and that five 
 " be a quorum of the said Committee." 
 
 This was the first and only time that the question was left an 
 open question, and as I have already observed, the greater part of 
 the Members of the then Administration, were in favour of the inves- 
 tigation of my claim ; the only opposition I met with being from the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Althorp, and the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, Mr. Spring Bice — the interest of the Treasury being 
 at stake ; because if I substantiated my claim, the Treasury would 
 have to part with the sum which would be found to be due to me, 
 and in case of there not being sufficient funds in hand for that pur-
 
 23 
 
 pose, the consequence would be, the double exposure of the mis- 
 appropriations of the fund from which I was to be paid by the 
 Treasury, and the necessity of Lord Althorp's defending his (surely 
 not constitutional) act, in appointing the New Commission without a 
 special authority from the House, and upon his own responsibility, 
 to examine and pay from the money in hand, claims that were ex- 
 cluded from all participation in them both by the Conventions, and 
 by the Act of 59th Geo. III. c. 31. ; while I am a regularly registered 
 claimant, whose claim a sum was set aside to meet, and which must, 
 therefore, have been taken into consideration, when the second fund 
 was allowed by France under the Convention of 1818; who am 
 chargeable with no neglect, with no error, but have strictly complied 
 with every thing the Conventions and the Act of Parliament pre- 
 scribed ; and who on the twelfth day after the Lords of the Privy 
 Council had declared that their power was so circumscribed that 
 they could give me no relief, brought my case before the House of 
 Commons. My claim has been particularly excluded by Lord Althorp 
 from the conusance of this New Commission, when about forty 
 claimants, who have also had awards of rejection against them, have 
 had their claims adjudicated upon by his New Commission ! ! ! 
 These claimants had forfeited all right of further prosecuting their 
 claims, in consequence of not having appealed against the award of 
 the Commissioners to the Privy Council, in the prescribed three 
 months, and therefore must be taken to have voluntarily acquiesced 
 in and submitted to the decision of the Commissioners ; — whereas 
 I, on the contrary, have complied with all that the Conventions 
 and the Act of Parliament prescribed, and have not submitted, 
 but have constantly protested (and have ever since followed up 
 my protest) against the unfair adjudication of my claim, and 
 demanded the most strict and severe examination of it. Lord 
 Althorp, and Mr. Spring Rice, would have had to set themselves 
 right in public opinion, for screening the perpetrators of the 
 spoliations committed in these funds, by the stifling of the inquiry 
 into my case, which will probably occasion the inquiry into those 
 malpractices. This accounts for the seemingly unnatural coalition 
 that has taken place in this case, between parties opposed to each 
 other on every other question. 
 
 As to Mr. Spring Rice, nothing can be more remarkable than the 
 sentiments publicly avowed by him on this subject, before he 
 expected to be a member of any Administration, compared with 
 those he has exhibited since he got into the Treasury. If any one 
 will read the debate recorded in the Mirror of Parliament, on the 
 motion of Mr. Bernal, in Newland's case, Part XX, page 2134, 
 June 23d, 1828, he will find that Mr. Spring Rice was then most 
 decidedly of opinion, — 1st. that the supplementary claimants were 
 not entitled to participate in this fund, as long as a regular registered 
 claimant's claim remained unsettled; but that in case a surplus 
 should remain, that then it could not be better employed than in 
 distributing it among the supplementary claimants, (among whom ii 
 may be observed, he had a most respectable friend).
 
 l( 
 
 24 
 
 2dly. That if a surplus should remain, the House of Commons 
 should have the disposal of it, and which would not be so unjust as 
 to apply it for any other purpose than that for which the French 
 Government intended it, — i. e. for " the satisfaction of the claims of 
 
 those persons who are fully entitled ; — and, while any person 
 " remains unpaid, the state had no right, either in policy, or in justice, 
 " to appropriate it. If similar instances should again exist, with 
 " what face could one apply to other countries for the indemnification 
 " of private wrongs, when those countries have seen you, in this 
 " case, apply this money to the necessities of the state, and not to 
 " thtf remuneration of private individuals for whom it was given ?" 
 
 3dly. Mr. Spring Rice was of opinion, " that no technical objection 
 " should prevail against a claim, and that if it be sought to get rid of 
 " a claim that was founded in justice, by a mere technical objection, he 
 " thought the House ought to interfere." But how different from these 
 expressions of justice has the conduct been of Mr. Spring Rice, since 
 he has become a Right Honourable Gentleman in Downing Street. 
 It would have been far more honourable, if the Right Honourable 
 Gentleman had acted in conformity with those maxims of justice 
 he then so strongly recommended, but which it appears now, were 
 mere empty words pronounced by him, not expressive of his feelings, 
 if we may judge from his subsequent conduct, to which I will again 
 allude. As far as regards the proceedings in the House of Commons 
 this can be elucidated from the debates recorded in the Mirror of 
 Parliament of May 13th and 22d, 1834, and July 14th, 1835. 
 
 A few days after the Committee for the examination of my case, 
 had been appointed, a conversation took place in the House of 
 Commons, between an Honourable Member and Lord Althorp, who 
 advocated the interests of the supplementary claimants, and those 
 of Convention No. 13, when his Lordship is reported to have replied, 
 that he had done all in his power to prevent my getting a Committee, 
 but that he had been fairly beaten, — that the supplementary claimants 
 must therefore now defend the surplus sum, (that is to say the 
 pretended surplus) themselves. Mr. Lloyd, the late Member for 
 Stockport, and the Right Honourable Robert Grant, late Member 
 for Finsbury, and a member of the Administration, presented, in 
 consequence on the 13th of May, petitions from such claimants to 
 the House of Commons, praying to be allowed to oppose me in the 
 Committee. After some discussion, the petitions at the suggestion and 
 recommendation of Mr. Spring Rice, were allowed to lie on the 
 table, with his advice to move on them at a future day, to be allowed 
 to oppose me in the Committee. The motion thereon, was accord- 
 ingly made May 22d, and with the powerful and influential support 
 of Lord Althorp and Mr. Spring Rice, the motion was carried — 
 namely, — supplementary claimants, and claimants from Convention 
 No. 13, who were particularly excluded by the conventions and the 
 Act of Parliament from all participation in this identical fund, from 
 which I, a regular registered claimant am to be paid, were allowed 
 to oppose my claim in the Committee appointed solely to examine 
 the validity of my claim, and if the grievances I complained of were
 
 25 
 
 well founded 1 The arguments in support of the motion were grounded 
 on false representations, and on the strength of Treasury Minutes, 
 which allowed those excluded claims to be presented,— just as if 
 Treasury Minutes were above solemn international treaties! The 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 vigorously oppose the examination of the case of one claimant with all 
 their power, and support another set of claimants who are not 
 entitled according to international law, with all the power and 
 influence their situations afford ! ! 
 
 Thirteen copies of documents were put in against me by my oppo- 
 nents in the committee, purporting to be copies of proceedings in 
 France, without being legalized, or otherwise authenticated, not even 
 so much as verified by the person who copied them. My counsel 
 having, as a matter of course, objected to such writings being received 
 as documents in evidence, my opponents required of the committee to 
 grant them a delay of two months, in order to get these documents legal- 
 ized ; and the reason alleged for asking for so long a period was, that 
 since Mr. Morier, the late Consul-general at Paris, had been appointed 
 minister in Switzerland, there had been no English consul, or other 
 authority at Paris, by whom documents could be legalized ; and 
 that Mr. Richardson, my opponents' agent, had applied to Lord 
 Palmerston on the subject, and was still in communication with him ; 
 that his lordship had promised that some person should be appointed 
 to legalize documents at Paris, but that the appointment would 
 require some weeks to complete. Rather than consent to so ruinous 
 a delay, I agreed to admit the documents without requiring any 
 legalization, thereby abandoning the means of inquiring into their 
 genuineness. I have since ascertained that Mr. Pickford, the present 
 consul at Paris, who has (in the interim between the prorogation of 
 Parliament in 1834, and the meeting of Parliament in 1835), 
 legalized 69 documents for me — has been uninterruptedly in 
 
 THE COURSE OF LEGALIZING DOCUMENTS AT PARIS, FROM THE VERY 
 DAY ON WHICH MR. MORIER CEASED TO PERFORM THAT DUTY. 
 
 But I have since sent to France for fresh and correct copies of the 
 documents put in by my adversaries, and have had them regularly 
 authenticated and legalized ; — of two documents, however, I could 
 obtain no copy ; — it appears that those produced by my opponents 
 must have been obtained surreptitiously, because the head of the 
 office where those two documents are deposited, told my agent that 
 he could not let him have a copy of them, they belonging to the secret 
 department ; and if they could only reasonably suspect the employe 
 who had delivered the former ones, he would immediately be dis- 
 charged. I applied to have this answer in writing and testified, and 
 I have got it. I nevertheless shall not object to these unauthenticated 
 documents remaining in evidence against me. Suspecting the 
 existence of intermediate documents, which would give those pro- 
 duced against me quite a different effect, I have had search made 
 for them, and have go(; them. A proceeding of a Mr. Meriacourt 
 pretended to have been made on my behalf, on the authority of a full
 
 26 
 
 power from me, was put in as evidence against me, by my oppo- 
 nents. I have applied for and received an authenticated, legalized 
 declaration from this very Mr. Meriacourt, that. I have never had any 
 direct, or indirect communication with him, and that he never 
 had a full power from me, but that he acted on the authority of a 
 full power from a Mr. Desprez. I have never seen the man, and was 
 totally ignorant of the circumstance. 
 
 My opponents having revived an old objection which had already 
 been settled in my favour, namely, the nationality, I nevertheless 
 thought it advisable to be prepared on the reply with additional 
 evidence against it, and have got it. My opponents having also 
 started a new objection, never made before, by the Commissioners, 
 or the Privy Council, namely, the double allegiance, I was under the 
 necessity to procure evidence to meet this new fallacy, and I have 
 got it. At the time of the investigation before the committee, I was 
 in possession of some documents which destroyed several of the 
 revived and newly-started objections, some of which were authen- 
 ticated in the usual manner, but my opponents refused to receive 
 them as evidence, because they had not been legalized by an English 
 authority abroad ; — one of them was dated so far back as December 
 15th, 1779. Although one and all of the evidence they had put in 
 against me, were devoid of legalization, or authentication of any 
 kind, not being verified as being correct copies, even by the attes- 
 tation of the party making them ! I therefore put in mine de bene 
 esse. 
 
 It appears that my opposing counsel did not agree in opinion ; 
 the junior counsel admitted my being entitled to indemnifi- 
 cation, he only begged the Committee would give his clients the 
 precedence, as they had a greater right according to his view of 
 the case, in consequence of their being admitted to claim under 
 the authority of Treasury Minutes ! whereas their leading counsel 
 on the contrary disputed my right in toto. 
 
 The following are the precise words of the Report of the Com- 
 mittee of the 8th of August 1334, to the House of Commons. — 
 
 "The Committee have proceeded in the execution of the duties 
 " entrusted to them, and have in the prosecution of their inqui- 
 " ries had a variety of documents laid before them, which they 
 " have embodied in the minutes of evidence taken before them : — 
 
 " That in the course of their proceedings, it appeared to the 
 " counsel for the Baron de Bode, that it would be necessary that 
 " the Committee should adjourn, to afford time to procure certain 
 " documents from abroad, rendered necessary in consequence of 
 " points raised and evidence adduced on the part of the res- 
 " pondents :-- 
 
 " That your Committee did, in consequence of such application, 
 " adjourn until the latest period to which the business of the 
 "House would reasonably admit: — 
 
 "That your Committee are given to understand by the counsel 
 " for both parties, that the inquiry is drawn nearly to a conclu-
 
 27 
 
 " sion, and they confidently hope to be able to present a (inal 
 " report on the case, at an early period of the next session, if the 
 " House should be pleased to revive the Committee, a step which 
 " they hardly need suggest to the House, is rendered necessary by 
 " no fault of either party, and which is essential to prevent the 
 " time, labour, and expense, which have been already bestowed on 
 " the inquiry, from being totally useless." 
 
 To get the documents I put in de bene esse, legalized, and ob- 
 tain the other additional evidence, I have been obliged to have 
 an agent in France, who has been under the necessity of going 
 twice to Alsace. I have been obliged to send to Germany, and 
 even to Russia for that purpose. The procuring all this evidence 
 to meet the new objections brought against me by my opponents, 
 has put me to an expense of above 3000/. The necessity for this 
 ruinous sacrifice arose from insinuations against me and my claim, 
 made to parties, who had proposed to advance the necessary funds 
 upon more reasonable terms, and which insinuations those parties 
 stated they had received from the Treasury. These insinuations 
 appeared also to have been industriously circulated, with the view 
 of preventing me if possible from being in a situation to prosecute 
 the inquiry. — The course thus pursued on the part of the Trea- 
 sury gave rise to the following correspondence : — 
 
 "To the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury. 
 "22, Lambeth Road, Southward, Sep. 16th 1834. 
 " My Lords, 
 
 " Whatever may be your Lordships' opinion on the merits of 
 " my claim, now under the consideration of a Committee of the 
 " House of Commons, I am confident that your sense of justice 
 " would restrain every attempt to prejudice or obstruct the fair in- 
 " vestigation of it ; and under that impression, I feel it to be my 
 " duty —as well to your Lordships as to my immediate interests, 
 " to draw your attention to the injurious reports which have gone 
 " forth, and are said, and supposed to be sanctioned by the Trea- 
 " sury. 
 
 " Your Lordships are probably aware of the pecuniary difficul- 
 " ties under which I have long laboured and continue to labour, 
 " and may easily conceive how much the alleviation of them must 
 " depend on the opinion that may be entertained of the merits of 
 " my case. Several persons to whom I have applied for loans, 
 "and who have been favourably disposed to afford me theaccom- 
 " modation, have been deterred by being informed at the Treasury 
 "that the claim was wholly destitute of foundation, — that 
 " Government had objections to it, tvhich have not yet been stated, — 
 " that I am not the person I describe myself to be. 
 
 " It is not my purpose to question your Lordships' right to 
 " estimate my pretensions, but I most respectfully submit that, 
 " pending an inquiry, your opinion should not be interposed to 
 "its prejudice ; and that, as no opposition to my claim could be
 
 28 
 
 <4 so fatal as that which would obstruct my procuring- the means 
 " of supporting - it, reports of that tendency, must prove most 
 " seriously injurious to my establishing it. 
 
 " With respect to the allegation, that Government have objec- 
 " tions that have not yet been stated, I trust that, as the matter is 
 " now under the consideration of a competent tribunal, that if your 
 "Lordships really have objections, you will in candour, by now 
 " stating them, afford me the opportunity of meeting them, that 
 " I may not be subjected to further delay, after I may have 
 " repelled those now before the Committee, as I have already 
 " experienced eighteen years of anxiety and expense. 
 
 " As to the charge of my not being the person I describe myself 
 " as being, though nothing can be more false or ridiculous, it has 
 " an evil tendency : and I am willing to hope that your Lordships 
 " will readily do all in your power to counteract it, and the other 
 " reports, by kindly assuring me that you have not in any manner 
 " authorized or sanctioned reports that so deeply affect my 
 "interests and moral character; such an assurance from your 
 "Lordships, will be regarded not merely as a measure of justice 
 *' to yourselves, but will be acknowledged with gratitude by 
 
 "Your Lordships' most humble and obedient Servant. 
 
 "(Signed), De Bode." 
 
 " Treasury Chambers, 22d September, 1834. 
 " Sir, 
 
 " Having- laid before the Lords Commissioners of His 
 "Majesty's Treasury, your letter dated 16th instant, I have it in 
 " command to acquaint you, that they do not admit that you are 
 " entitled to call on them for any expression of opinion with 
 " respect to the claims preferred by you so long as such claims are 
 " under the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons, 
 " or to require that they should take any step whatever in your 
 " case. 
 
 "I am, Sir, 
 
 " Your Obedient Servant, 
 
 (Signed), J. Stewart. 
 " The Baron de Bode, 22, Lambeth Road, Southwark." 
 
 "To the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury. 
 
 "22, Lambeth Road, Southwark, Sept. 24th, 1834. 
 
 " My Lords 
 
 " I cannot in justice to myself, nor as it appears to me, 
 *' to your Lordships, leave unnoticed the letter I have received, 
 " dated the 22d instant, from Mr. Stewart, by command of your 
 " Lordships, in answer to my letter of the 16th. 
 
 " I readily admit that I am ' not entitled to call on yourLord- 
 " ships for any expression of your opinion on my claims, so long 
 " as they are under the consideration of a Committee of the House of 
 ' ( Com mons,' and, as I am willing to believe that the principle
 
 29 
 
 " which excludes me from the ri^ht to call for your opinion, 
 " namely, the pendency of the investigation, would restrain your 
 " communication of it to others, 1 felt it to be my duty to apprise 
 " your Lordships that certain reports, most injurious to my 
 " interests and moral character, had gone forth, and which, 
 " proceeding from the Treasury, may have been supposed to have 
 " the sanction of your Lordships' high authority ; my object 
 " therefore, was not to call upon your Lordships, to give me 
 " your opinion on my claim, but to afford your Lordships the 
 "opportunity of denying that you sanctioned the injurious 
 " representations of it by others. 
 
 " Perhaps I may have gone too far in expressing the hope, that 
 " if your Lordships had objections to my claim, that had not yet 
 " been stated, you would in candour afford me now the oppor- 
 " tunity of meeting them ; but I trusted that your Lordships 
 " would consider this expression of a hope, rather as a respectful 
 " appeal to your candour, than as the assertion of a right. 
 
 " Having stated what was the object of my letter, allow me 
 " respectfully to observe what may be, though I cannot suppose 
 " intended to be, the effect of your Lordships' answer; it may be 
 " concluded that you could not, or would not, deny your having 
 " sanctioned the reports, that my claim was wholly destitute of 
 *' foundation, that Government had objections to it which had 
 " not yet been stated, and that I was not the person I described 
 " myself to be. 
 
 " The latter imputation your Lordships cannot but feel to be 
 " of a most serious nature, and I should have thought that your 
 " Lordships would have felt even eager to disclaim having in any 
 " manner sanctioned or countenanced it, more especially as Mr. 
 " Littleton had in the House of Commons spoken to his long 
 " intimacy with me and my mother's family, and knowing as 
 *' your Lordships do, or might know, the distinguished reception 
 «« which I have experienced from most of the principal sovereigns 
 " in Europe, and the various marks of honour conferred upon me 
 " in my military character. Excuse the allusion, but there are 
 <• occasions, when egotism is not merely excusable, but a duty, 
 " and such appears to me to be the nature of the present. 
 " I have the honour to be, 
 
 " Your Lordships' 
 
 " Most humble and obedient Servant, 
 
 (Signed), De Bode." 
 
 On the 29th of April, 1836, 1 was informed, from good authority, 
 that a report was spreading that I was over in this country about 
 the year 1808, 1809, or 1810, being then in the Russian service, 
 and suspected to have been a Russian spy ; that I gave a grand 
 dinner to the principal individuals in office; but only so much 
 was told to me as the Government wished me to know ; the name 
 of the hotel where this alleged dinner was given, is even I believe
 
 30 
 
 mentioned; and it is added, that I was recognized as being the 
 same individual when I came over here in 1810. It is true 1 
 have been in the Russian military service ; I have fought her 
 battles, which were also those of England, and I glory in it. 
 But I flatter myself that the late Emperor Alexander, his Ministers 
 and Generals whom I have had the honour to know personally, and 
 under whom I have served, had too high an opinion of my spirit 
 of independence, and my feelings and principles of honour as 
 manifested by my general conduct, even to dream of making such 
 a proposal to me as to be a diplomatic spy. The shortest answer 
 to this calumny is, I have been five times in England. The first 
 time I came to England was at the moment of my birth on the 
 23d of April, 1777, at Loxley Park, in the county of Stafford, the 
 estate of my late uncle, Clement Kynnersley, Esq. ; the second 
 time, in 1782; the third time, in the spring of 1788, returning 
 in November of the same year to Germany; in 1794, I went to 
 Russia, and remained in Russia till December 1812, when 1 left 
 it at the head of a regiment of lancers, of which I was the colonel, 
 and which bore my name, as a reward, not for services performed 
 in the despicable character of a spy, but for my general good and 
 distinguished conduct. After the peace, in May 1816, I had the 
 misfortune to return to my native land for the fourth time. I say 
 misfortune, because I have here met with nothing but injustice, 
 persecution, and calumny. On the 1st of March 1822, I left 
 England for France, in search of the documents the Commis- 
 sioners had required from me to substantiate my claim; and T 
 returned to England in June of the same year, where I have 
 resided ever since, a prey to misery and unequalled anxiety of 
 mind. By this statement, and which can be proved to be correct, 
 it is to be seen that from 1788 to 1816, I was not in England. 
 
 Even so recently as the 4th of May 1836, I was informed of re- 
 ports most injurious and most distressing to my feelings and private 
 character, which, like the rest, are without the least foundation ; 
 and on the 10th, I was informed by a gentleman who had only 
 returned three weeks ago from Paris, that the late Mr. Mills, 
 solicitor to the British Embassy at Paris, as also several English- 
 men, told him that I was not the real Baron de Bode ; and the 
 same evening I was informed by another gentleman, that an M.P. 
 (and whose name had been confided to me) had stated that it was 
 reported that my documents were forged ! ! ! It appears, how- 
 ever, that this foul slander has had no prejudicial effect upon the 
 honourable member, as he intends voting for the re-appointment 
 of the Committee to conclude the examination of my claim, 
 believing that the Committee will find out if my documents are 
 forged or not; but will all Members give me the same opportunity 
 of justifying myself ? — will not such atrocious assertions have a 
 most fatal effect upon the minds of many ? 
 
 This is the manner in which my private character has been 
 assailed and calumniated ; and that in such a dastardly way, that
 
 31 ' 
 
 it is difficult to bring it home to the parties. I am ready to meet 
 any accusation; I court an investigation of my private character 
 as a gentleman — of all my actiors as a private individual, as 
 much as I do of the merits of my claim. 
 
 July 14th, 1S3.'3, Mr. Gisborne moved for the re-appointment 
 of a Select Committee to complete the examination of my claim, 
 when the motion was most vehemently opposed by Mr. Spring 
 Rice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Solicitor-General. 
 By Mr. Spring Rice, because " I had slept on my case, and had 
 never thought proper to bring it forward before the 18th of June; 
 that it would be wrong to let me step in before the rightful 
 claimants; that having been prosecuting my claim since 1816, I 
 had not been prepared with all the necessary evidence to support 
 my claim, and that therefore the Committee had closed the case; 
 if I had any additional evidence, I ought to have brought it 
 forward at the beginning of the session. The Solicitor-General 
 pretended that the case had been regularly gone through, and 
 adjudicated ; and that the House of Commons was not to be 
 made a Court of Appeal," and the motion was lost. 
 
 As to the first objection — Mr. Hill, the late Member for Hull, 
 having lost his election, I applied to Mr. Serjeant Wilde, as soon 
 as he was returned, before the House met, to move for a re-appoint- 
 ment of a Committee to complete the examination of my case. 
 The House met on the 19th of February. Mr. Serjeant Wilde 
 was of opinion that the motion should be postponed till the 
 political struggle then going on was finally settled. On the 9th 
 of March, I wrote to the learned Serjeant, desiring him not to 
 delay it any longer, but to give notice that very evening of the 
 motion for the earliest day possible. Mr. Serjeant Wilde, how- 
 ever, declined to go on with the case, in consequence of profes- 
 sional business of great importance which he had undertaken 
 (the case of Small v. Attwood). Application was then made to 
 Mr. Evvart, a Member of the Committee in the last session. In 
 consequence of the unavoidable delays arising from a correspond- 
 ence carried on between London and two circuits, on which my 
 legal advisers then were, it was not before the 29th of March that 
 it was agreed that notice of motion should be °:iven for the 6th, 
 7th, 9th, or 10th of April ; but Mr. Evvart thought that, in conse- 
 quence of the tottering state of the then administration, it would 
 be impossible to obtain attention so early. On the 8th of April, 
 Sir Robert Peel resigned, and no business was transacted from 
 that period till after the Easter holidays. Notice of motion was 
 given for the 9th of June, as may be seen in the papers of April 
 the 27th. That day was appointed, because it was supposed that 
 the Committee could not meet for dispatch of business before the 
 18th of June, when Term would be over, and Counsel be able to
 
 32 
 
 attend ; the 9th of June being, however, no parliamentary" clay, 
 the notice for the motion was, on the 12th of May, changed for 
 the 18th of June. As for the other objections, they are one and 
 all already, and T flatter myself satisfactorily, answered by the 
 foregoing statements. 
 
 This opposition on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 was also at variance with the communication to me from the 
 Lords of the Treasury, of September 22d 1834, — in which they 
 say, as has already been seen, " that I am not entitled to call on 
 " them for any expression of opinion with respect to the claims 
 " preferred by me, so long as such claims are under the considera- 
 " tion of a Committee of the House of Commons'' — My claims were 
 then, at that period, looked upon by the Treasury as under the 
 consideration of the House of Commons, although Parliament 
 was prorogued, and therefore the re-appointment of the Commit- 
 tee looked upon as a matter of right, — a matter of course ! — and 
 so it was ; nothing but the most unfounded assertions and misre- 
 presentations could have misled the greater part of the Members 
 present, to occasion by their vote the unparalleled injustice, 
 which reflects on the national and legislative honour. 
 
 If any one will examine what Mr. Spring Rice has said on the 
 debate in Newland'scase, June 23d, 1828, and compare it to what 
 he said on May 13th and 22nd 1S34, and July 14th 1835,- -he 
 must be amazed at the inconsistency, — and hardly conceive the 
 possibility of an individual expressing on the same subject, 
 opinions so irreconcileable. 
 
 Mr. Gisborne being obliged to leave England on private busi- 
 ness, Mr. O'Connell had now the kindness to take my case under 
 his care, and after having given seven times notice, at last suc- 
 ceeded August the 19th 1835, in presenting a petition of mine to 
 the House of Commons, in which I refuted the assertions on 
 which the re-appointment of a Committee to complete the exami- 
 nation of my claims had been made, ending with the following 
 prayer : — 
 
 " Your petitioner therefore most humbly prays that it may please 
 " your Honourable House to take into its consideration the an- 
 " swersof your petitioner to the unfounded statements and the mis- 
 " representations which led to the vote of the 14th instant ; and the 
 "propriety and necessity of interference on the part of your 
 "Honourable House in a case combining the dereliction of the 
 " principles of justice, apparent upon the face of the award of a 
 " tribunal constituted by the legislature, with a total omission to 
 " adjudicate upon the principal part of the subject-matter brought 
 " before that tribunal — a case of defects so obvious that if occur- 
 "ring in a judgment of the ordinary tribunals of the country 
 " would render such judgment not only reversible in error but 
 " wholly inoperative and worthless, antecedently to any appeal to a 
 " court of error, — and that your Honourable House will be pleased 
 " to re-appoint a Select Committee to complete the examination
 
 33 
 
 " of the facts and circumstances of the claim of your petitions 
 " upon the fund received from the French Government for in- 
 " dempifying British subjects for the loss of property unduly 
 " confiscated by French authority, and to report the same, with 
 "their observations thereupon, to the House, 
 
 " And your petitioner will ever pray," &c. &c. &c. 
 "August 6th, 1835. (Signed) De Bode." 
 
 On January the 30th 1833, I memorialized the Treasury, 
 and protested against any appointment of a new Commission that 
 should exclude the examination of my claim by the same au- 
 thority, and against the Treasury parting with any of the pre- 
 tended surplus till my case, which was then before the House, 
 had been finally settled. Lord Althorp nevertheless, appointed 
 that new Commission, and excluded my claim from the benefit of 
 it, although about forty other claims, similarly circumstanced as 
 mine, against whom also awards of rejection had been made, — 
 have been received. 
 
 July 9th 1833, 1 presented a petition to the House of Commons, 
 " to the following effect, — "That a Commission has lately been 
 " appointed by the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, which has 
 " published the following notice in the London Gazette, from No. 
 "5, Whitehall Place, May 10th 1833, — 'Notice is hereby given, 
 " ' that all persons interested in the distribution of the funds ap- 
 "'propriated by the Treaties of 1815 and 1818, for liquidating 
 " ' the demands of British subjects upon the French Government, 
 " ' who may have omitted to prefer their claims before the late 
 " ' Commission, or whose claims having been preferred before the 
 " ' late Commission, were not adjudicated, in consequence of such 
 '"claims having been sent in subsequent to the 5th of May 1826, 
 " ' will be permitted to bring their claims before the Commis- 
 " ' sioners recently appointed for the final adjudication of the 
 " ' French claims under the above Treaties, provided that the pre- 
 " ' vious delay shall be shewn to have arisen from circumstances 
 " ' over which the parties had no control, and provided also, 
 " ' that every claim so to be preferred shall be sent in to the pre- 
 " ' sent Commissioners within three months from the date of this 
 " « Notice.' 
 
 " ' That no persons are entitled to be considered as interested 
 " ' in the distribution of the funds appropriated by the conven- 
 "'tions of 1815 and 1818, for liquidating the demands of British 
 " ' subjects upon the French Government,' except those who have 
 " preferred their claims within the period prescribed by the con- 
 tention of 1815. 
 
 "That your Petitioner being a British subject, and having a 
 " well founded claim and demand upon the French Government, 
 " duly preferred and presented such claim and demand upon the 
 " French Government, within the period prescribed by the Con- 
 11 vention of 1815. 
 
 "That although the claim and demand of your Petitioner were 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 >l duly brought before the Commissioners for the liquidation of 
 " the claims of British subjects upon France, no decision or 
 " adjudication took place upon the right of your Petitioner to an 
 " estate in remainder, expectant upon the death of his late father, 
 " upon which point the bulk of your Petitioner's claim rested, 
 "such right having been totally unnoticed, as well by the Com- 
 " missioners as also by the Privy Council, to whom your Peti- 
 tioner appealed from the award of the Commissioners. 
 
 " That until the claim and demand of your Petitioner have 
 " been examined and adjudicated upon, there can be no surplus 
 " arising from the moneys paid by France, out of which the 
 " persons who are by the above notice invited to present them- 
 " selves as supplemental claimants, can be paid. 
 
 "That on Wednesday, the 15th of May last, a Petition was 
 "presented by Mr. Hill, the honourable Member for Hull, on 
 " the part of your Petitioner, praying for the appointment of a 
 " Select Committee of your honourable House, to examine your 
 " Petitioner's case, when by reason of the non-attendance of a 
 " sufficient number of honourable members to constitute a House, 
 " an adjournment took place, leaving the question as to the 
 "appointment of a Select Committee undecided. 
 
 " That the notice of motion for the appointment of such Select 
 " Committee was renewed for Wednesday the 12th of June, when 
 " in consequence of orders being taken before motions, your 
 " honourable House was occupied until a late hour with import- 
 " ant public business. 
 
 " That the notice of motion being renewed for Thursday, the 
 " 27th of June, the House was counted out during the discussion 
 " of a motion which stood earlier on the list. 
 
 " That your Petitioner fears that from the unavoidable absence 
 "of Mr. Hill upon the circuit, the motion for the appointment 
 " of a Select Committee cannot be again brought forward during 
 " the present session of Parliament. 
 
 " That your Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your 
 " Honourable House will be pleased to take such steps as in 
 " your wisdom shall appear to be expedient, in order to 
 " prevent such funds, or any part thereof, from being distri- 
 " buted or parted with until your Petitioner's case, now 
 " before your Honourable House, has been by your Honour- 
 " able House determined. 
 
 " And your Petitioner will, as in duty bound, for ever pray, &c. 
 " July 5th, 1833. (Signed) De Bode." 
 
 Mr. Spring Rice, December 9th, 1835, as if by way of defiance, 
 having requested a friend of mine to tell me that the surplus 
 fund would be completely distributed before the meeting of 
 Parliament — I sent the following memorial to the Lords of his 
 Majesty's Treasury.
 
 SI 
 
 35 
 
 *• The Memorial of Clement Joseph Philip Pen, Baron de Bode, 
 "a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire, a Knight of several 
 "Orders, and a natural born British subject. 
 " Sheweth, 
 
 "That the Select. Committee appointed to examine Into the 
 " liicts and circumstances of the claim of your Memorialist, 
 " upon the funds received from the French Government for in- 
 " demnifying British subjects for the loss of property unduly 
 " confiscated by French authority, and to report the same with 
 " their observations thereupon to the House; did, on the 8th of 
 "August, 1834, make their Report, which they concluded by 
 
 bating, — ' That your Committee are given to understand by the 
 
 counsel of both parties, that the inquiry is drawn nearly to a 
 " ' conclusion, and they confidently hope to be able to procure 
 " ' a final report on the case at an early period of the next session, 
 '"if the House should be pleased to revive the Committee; a 
 " 'step which, they hardly need suggest to the House, is rendered 
 " ' necessary by no fault of either party, and which is essential 
 "'to prevent the time, labour, and expense, which have already 
 " ' been bestowed on the inquiry from being totally useless.' 
 
 "That on the 14th July last, Mr. Gisborne moved for the 
 " re-appointment of the Committee, but his motion was encoun- 
 " tered by the most unfounded objections, as will appear from 
 " your Memorialist's Petition to the Honourable House, presented 
 " by Mr. O'Connell on the 19th August last; a copy of which 
 " your Memorialist herewith encloses, and in which he has examined 
 * and has, he submits, completely refuted every objection urged 
 " against the revival of the Committee, and accounted for the 
 " delay imputed to him in not applying to the House for such 
 " purpose at an earlier period of the session, so far at least as to 
 " shew that no blame attaches to him in that respect. 
 
 " That Mr. O'Connell, at the same time that he presented the 
 " Petition of your Memorialist, gave notice that he would next 
 "session move for the revival of the Select Committee, and such 
 " his notice now stands No. 79 in the order book of the Honour- 
 " able House. 
 
 " That your Memorialist fully relying on the good faith of 
 " Government, concluded that nothing would in the mean time 
 "be done that might in any degree operate injuriously in the 
 " discussion of Mr. O'ConnelPs motion, or endanger your Memo- 
 " rialist making his claim available in the event of his establishing 
 " it, was much surprised to receive an authorised communication 
 " from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the fund now in 
 " the hands of Government, and primarily applicable to the claim 
 " of your Memorialist, in the event of his establishing it, would 
 " be distributed before the meeting of Parliament, and as your 
 ** Memorialist conceives, amongst claimants, whose claims can 
 " only attach to any surplus of the fund, after satisfying the claim 
 " of vour Memorialist.
 
 36 
 
 " In asserting his priority of claim, your Memorialist trusts 
 " that he shall not be considered as adverse to the claims of others, 
 " which though not within the terms of the treaty, as is the claim 
 " of your Memorialist, may be morally just, and he is willing to 
 " hope that the communication he has received from the Chancellor 
 ,*' of the Exchequer was intended to afford him the opportunity of 
 " distinctly submitting to your Lordships, that the distribution 
 " of the fund ought to be suspended until his claim is disposed of, 
 " or duly provided for. 
 
 " Your Memorialist, therefore, humbly prays that your Lord- 
 " ships will not allow of any application of the funds that may 
 " prejudice the discussion of Mr. O'Connell's motion, or your 
 " Memorialist's priority of charge upon the fund, in the event of 
 " his establishing his claim upon it. 
 
 " And your Memorialist shall ever pray, &c. 
 
 (Signed), De Bode, 
 "December 16th, 1835." 
 
 ANSWER OF THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY TO THE 
 
 ABOVE MEMORIAL. 
 
 " Sir, 
 
 " In answer to your Memorial of the 16th instant, I am 
 " commanded by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury 
 " to acquaint you, that their Lordships do not admit that the fund 
 " to which you refer is primarily applicable to the claim made by you, 
 " or that you have any claim whatever upon any part of it; and my 
 " Lords cannot suspend any of their directions which they have issued 
 " relating to the application of that fund. 
 
 " I am, Sir, 
 
 " Your obedient Servant, 
 
 (Signed), "T. Bane. 
 
 "Treasury Chambers, 29th December, 1835. 
 "The Baron de Bode." 
 
 REPLY TO THE FOREGOING. 
 
 " December 31s/, 1835. 
 " My Lords, 
 
 " I have received yesterday your Lordships' answer to my 
 " Memorial of the 16th instant, and beg to assure your Lordships 
 " that it was not my intention to call upon you to admit that I had 
 " any claim on any part of the fund referred to, or to admit the pri-
 
 ;*7 
 
 " ority of sucli claim over that of others ; all that I intended was 
 " respectfully to submit to your Lordships the justice of your not 
 " allowing of any application of the fund that might prejudice Mr. 
 " O'Connell's motion for the revival of the Committee, or any priority 
 " of charge upon it, in the event of my ultimately establishing my 
 "claim. If 1 have miscarried in my purpose of so limiting my appli 
 " cation, [ have to apologise to your Lordships for it ; and in the 
 " confident hope that the directions you have issued for the apportion 
 " of the fund are such as a due regard to the pending of Mr. O'Con- 
 " nell's notice of motion, and the possible result of it in my favour 
 " would prescribe, 
 
 " I have the honour to be, with due respect, 
 " Your Lordships' 
 
 " Obedient humble Servant, 
 
 (Signed), " De Bode. 
 " To the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury." 
 
 ANSWER OF THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY 
 TO THE ABOVE. 
 
 " Sir, 
 
 " In answer to your further application of the 31st ultimo, 
 " respecting your claims, I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners 
 " of His Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you, that their Lordships 
 " having already informed you, that they cannot suspend the operation 
 "of any of the directions given by them with respect to the fund to 
 " which you refer, my Lords have no other reply to make to this 
 " communication. 
 
 " I am, Sir, 
 
 " Your obedient Servant, 
 
 (Signed), " G. Stanley. 
 " Treasury Chambers, 8th January, 1836. 
 " The Baron de Bode." 
 
 Letter to Mr. Spring Rice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of 
 January 26th, 1836, — delivered the same day. 
 
 " Sin, 
 
 22, Lambeth Road, Southwark, Jan. 26th, 1836. 
 
 " In addressing you, it is not my purpose to deprecate that 
 " strenuous and determined opposition with which you have announced 
 " you intend to meet Mr. O'Connell's motion on my behalf, though I 
 " cannot but regret that one charged with the duty of deciding 
 " dispassionately upon it, should enter upon the discussion in a state 
 " of mind so prejudiced against it. But though it is not my purpose
 
 38 
 
 " to deprecate yoar opposition, it certainly is not my purpose to pro- 
 " voke or defy it. The course you have to pursue must depend on 
 " your own sense of honour and justice, and I am still willing 
 " to hope that its influence may induce that line of conduct which the 
 " duty of a Member of the House of Commons constitutionally 
 " prescribes. 
 
 " Under this impression, 1 will not observe on the more than 
 " inconvenience that I experienced during the sitting of the late 
 " Committee, from the non-production of three documents which 
 " were at one time in a bundle of papers, endorsed " Papers in the 
 " Baron de Bode's case," and which three documents were traced into 
 " your possession, and which you 6tated you had sent to the then 
 " Attorney-General, Sir William Home, but which he said he had 
 " never received. I may be thought to have attached more importance 
 " to those documents than really belongs to them, but I think that I 
 " am warranted in attaching some importance to them, if merely from 
 " the circumstance of your sending them to the Attorney-General ; 
 " and they certainly have not since lost any of their value, as they 
 " would additionally show how little reliance ought to be had on the 
 " Award of the Commissioners, which some of the objectors to my 
 "claim profess to consider as conclusive; — 1 trust, therefore, that 
 " though I could not procure the production of these documents under 
 " the order of the Committee, you will make every personal and offi- 
 " cial exertion to procure me a copy of them with the least possible 
 " delay. 
 
 " Having adverted to the objection relied on by some of my oppo- 
 " nents, that the Award of the Commissioners is final and conclusive, I 
 " would ask whether such is their opinion, however vicious the prin- 
 " ciple, or palpably erroneous the statements or reasoning upon which 
 " the Award is founded. If their answer is in the affirmative, and 
 " the House of Commons can be prevailed on to accede to such 
 " doctrine, I must submit ; but if, on the contrary, the House should 
 " indignantly repudiate such doctrine, then I am prepared to show 
 " that the Award ought not to prevail. That the late House of 
 " Commons did not accede to such doctrine, is evident from the 
 " appointment of the late Committee, and that the late Committee 
 " did not accede to it, is clear from their having recommended the 
 " renewal of a Committee; and that the Lords of the Treasury in 
 " 1827, did not accede to it, appears from their having called upon 
 " the Commissioners to state the grounds of their Award — a call 
 " which they certainly would not have made, had they considered 
 " those in the Award itself as satisfactory, or however unsatisfactory, 
 " as conclusive. 
 
 " I will not observe on the circumstances which may be considered 
 " as peculiar to the claims of certain British subjects upon the fund in 
 "question, namely, that it was confided to the administration of the 
 " Government of England, as a Trust Fund for compensation to 
 " British subjects, whose property had been unduly confiscated by the 
 " revolutionary authorities of France.
 
 39 
 
 " The Government of England might properly refer the investiga- 
 " tion of claims to Commissioners, but it could not relievo itself from 
 " the responsibility that attached to its character as trustee. It might 
 "justify its adoption of the judgment of the Commissioners, in the 
 " absence of all apparent objection to it, but it could not, without 
 " moral guilt, proceed upon it against its own conviction of its 
 " injustice. 
 
 " The framers of the Act of Parliament appear to have been aware 
 " of this, and therefore required the approval of the award by the 
 " crown, — even when the award has been affirmed by the Privy 
 "Council — for that approval Ministers must be responsible, and to 
 " whom, if not to the House of Commons ? 
 
 " In my petition presented by Mr. O'Connell, I have addressed 
 " myself to the several objections that were urged against the revival 
 "of the Committee on Mr. Gisborne's motion, and I trust 1 have 
 " at least materially weakened, if not removed them ; but if you 
 " should still consider any of the objections entitled to prevail, allow 
 " me to express the hope that your candour will induce you to apprise 
 " me of them, and that you will accept of my assurance that I will 
 " in the same spirit of candour apply myself to the yielding to, or 
 " repelling of them, — a full and fair discussion being all I ask. 
 " I have the honour to remain, Sir, 
 
 " Your most obedient humble servant, 
 
 (Signed), " De Bode. 
 " To tho Right Honourable Mr. Spring Rice, &c. &c. &c." 
 
 To this letter no answer has been received. 
 
 I think I have most clearly shewn that my case has not been regu- 
 larly gone through, that it has not been properly adjudicated. It is 
 clear, that although the Government has thought fit, and properly so, 
 to apply to Parliament to appoint Commissioners to investigate the 
 French claims, that it cannot notwithstanding this, relieve itself from 
 the responsibility that attaches to its character as a Trustee. As a 
 proof, the Act of Parliament requires the approval of the Crown, even 
 when the award has been affirmed by the members of the Privy 
 Council — and Ministers surely are responsible for that approval to 
 the House of Commons-^-and as to the jurisdiction of the House, it 
 will not be contended that the award of the Commissioners, however 
 palpably vicious in its principle, or evidently erroneous in its state- 
 ments or reasoning it may be, ought to be considered as conclusive. 
 The late House of Commons, in appointing a Committee to inquire 
 into the facts and circumstances of my claim, at least has not thought 
 so. The question of jurisdiction of the House cannot therefore be 
 raised, as the finality of the award was not in respect of the judgment 
 of the Commissioners, but in respect of the King's approval of it ; and 
 as the royal approval is to be considered the act of the responsible 
 Ministers, the House of Commons has a right of examining the pro- 
 priety of it. The House has already taken cognizance of my claim ; 
 the only question, therefore, is, whether that inquiry shall be resumed,
 
 40 
 
 which inquiry, circumstances over which I had no control, prevented 
 from being completed in the session of 1834. And I think I have 
 also clearly shewn that I have a prior claim upon that part of the fund 
 paid by the French government under Convention 1818, to the British 
 Government as a Trustee, for which the Treasury has yet to account, 
 to that of the supplementary claimants and those of Convention No. 
 13, — the first who are particularly excluded by the Conventions of 
 1815, and 1818, from participating in this fund, and the latter 
 who have received every shilling that France allowed on their 
 account, and who have only been admitted to participate in this fund 
 under Treasury Minutes, — when my claim comes under the General 
 Law, which is above Treasury Minutes. 
 
 I have also shewn that it was no fault of mine that my case was 
 not completed before the Committee in the session of 1834 ; that I had 
 no control over the different circumstances that occasioned the delay, 
 namely : 1st, That after the House of Commons had granted the 
 Committee, it was prevented from meeting for twenty-three days, in 
 consequence of the motion announced by Mr. Lloyd, to admit supple- 
 mentary claimants in the Committee to oppose my claim ; 2ndly, 
 That five of the days appointed for the meeting of the Committee, no 
 business was proceeded in, none of the Members having attended ; 
 3rdly, That in consequence of the points raised in opposition to the 
 claim, and the refusal of the opposing party to admit the evidence 
 against such objections, it not being legalised by an English authority 
 abroad, it was put in de bene esse — Counsel represented also, that 
 in consequence of the objections so raised, it would be necessary to 
 afford time to procure certain documents from abroad ; and 4thly, 
 That very great expense has been incurred in order to obtain those 
 documents (about 3000/.). 
 
 1 have further to observe that an end ought to be made of this case, 
 and that this cannot be done without a due examination of it. As yet 
 the whole case has not been gone through ; the evidence in refutation 
 of the case set up in opposition to my claims has not been examined, 
 and the reply has not as yet been made. I feel so confident of the 
 justice and strength of my claim that I will not object, but I challenge 
 the Law Advisers of the Crown to oppose me in the Committee. The 
 only mode in which I can be defeated, is that which has hitherto been 
 pursued against me, namely, by stifling the inquiry. I beg also to 
 observe that one of my opposing counsel, admitted himself before the 
 late Committee, that 1 had claims which deserved to be considered — 
 begging the Committee only to postpone my claims to those of his 
 clients, because in his opinion they had a stronger claim, having been 
 admitted under Treasury Minutes. • — To refuse the re-appoint- 
 ment of a Committee, would be postponing my claim with a 
 vengeance. 
 
 I must further, and lastly, observe, that it has been the general 
 practice of the Treasury, through the medium of the law advisers of 
 the Crown, to discuss particular points in my case before the House; 
 which is most unfair ; as by such a mode of proceeding, a party having 
 the best possible case, upon the real merits, may be borne down by
 
 41 
 
 ex parte statements made by the Law Advisers of the Crown, while I 
 and the professional gentlemen, who, inHueneed only by their deep 
 conviction of the justice of my claim, have hitherto afforded me their 
 assistance, not having seats in the House, are debarred of the oppor- 
 tunity of exposing the fallacy of such statements, and the Members by 
 whom my claim is supported in the House not having leisure to make 
 themselves sufficiently masters of the details of the case, may by 
 their silence be supposed to acquiesce in them. 
 
 I beg again to submit to Honourable Members, that this is not a 
 party question, and it ought not to be allowed to be made a Govern- 
 ment or a Treasury question ; but that it is the case of a long-injured 
 and deeply suffering British subject. 
 
 Blackstone says, " There can be no wrong without a remedy — no 
 injury without a redress." For eighteen years unfortunately, I have 
 found that this theory is not borne out by fact — unless I interpret 
 redress and remedy to signify in my case, despair and death. 
 
 De Bode. 
 June Uth, 1836.
 
 SHORT OUTLINE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CASE OF THE BARON DE BODE, 
 
 Clement JosEm Philip Pen, Bahon de Bode, was born at Loxley Park, 
 in the county of Stafford, the residence of his uncle and godfather, Clement 
 Kynnersley, Esq., on the 23d of April, 1777, and was baptized at Uttoxeter, 
 in the same county, on the 20th of May. His father, Charles Augustus 
 Lewis Frederick de Bode, a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire, who com- 
 manded a German regiment in the service of France, had, in 177G, married 
 the daughter of Thomas Kynnersley, Esq., of Loxley Park. 
 
 The property for the loss of which indemnification is claimed by the 
 Baron under the treaties and conventions made with France in 1814, 1815, 
 and 181S, is the Lordship of Sultz-am-Staaten (called in French, Sultz- 
 sous-Forets), situate in Lower Alsace (now the department of the Lower 
 Rhine). Alsace was formerly part of the German Empire; independently 
 of which, a junior branch of the House of Austria held the Landgraviate of 
 Higher and Lower Alsace. The Lordship of Sultz-am-Staaten, otherwise 
 called the Barony of Fleckenstein, consisted of several male fiefs, comprising 
 the town of Sultz and five villages, and was held under the protection and 
 patronage of the Elector of Cologne ; and though locally situate within the 
 Landgraviate of Lower Alsace, was wholly independent of the Landgrave, 
 acknowledging no superior but the Emperor as head of the empire, of 
 which the Landgraviate of the Alsaces and the Barony of Fleckenstien were 
 co-estates ; the relation in which the Barony of Fleckenstein stood to the 
 Electors of Cologne, not interfering with the immediate tenure under the 
 empire. 
 
 At the Treaty of Munster, or Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, the Land- 
 graviate of the Alsaces was ceded by the House of Austria to Lewis XIV., 
 who paid an indemnification of 3,000,000 francs to Archduke Ferdinand, 
 the reigning Landgrave ; and to prevent the King of France from thereby 
 becoming a co-estate of the empire, the Landgraviate was severed from the 
 empire, and transferred in sovereignty to France. But to avoid any infer- 
 ence from this cession which should affect the rights of the Immediate 
 nobility holding lands within the district of Lower Alsace, it was arranged 
 that the relation in which the Barons of Fleckenstein and others stood 
 towards the German Empire should remain as before. And accordingly, 
 by article 87* of that Treaty, it is therefore stipulated,! " That the Most 
 
 * In some editions called 92. 
 
 t The terms of this Treaty are so clear and precise, that I insert them here in 
 the original French : — " Que le Roi Tres Chretien soit tenu de laisser non 
 seulement les Eveques de Strasbourg et de Basle, et la ville de Strasbourg : mais 
 aussi les autres £tats ou ordies, qui sont dans l'une et l'autre Alsace, immediate- 
 ment soumis a l'Empire Romain les Abbes de Muibach et de Luders, FA bbesse 
 d'Andlaw, Munster, au Val St. Gregoire de Fordie de S. Benoit, les Palatins de 
 Luzelstein, les Comtes et Barons de Ilanau, Fleckenstein, Oberstein, et la 
 Noblesse de toute l'Alsace ; item, les dites dix villes imperiales qui reconnoissent
 
 44 
 
 Christian King shall be bound to leave not only the Bishops of Strasburgh 
 and Basle, with the City of Strasburgh, but also the other States and Orders 
 which are in the two Alsaces, subject to the Roman Empire, the Abbots of 
 Murbach and of Luders, the Abbess of Andlaw, the Monastery of Val St. 
 Gregory of the Order of St, Benedict, the Palatines of Luzelstein, the 
 Counts and Barons of Hanau, Fleelcemtchi, Oberstein, and the Nobility of the 
 whole of Lower Jkace; item, the said Ten Imperial Cities which are under 
 the Prefecture of Hagenau, in the free enjoyment of the Immediateness 
 towards the Roman Empire which they have hitherto possessed ; so 
 that he cannot pretend any Royal Superiority over them, but shall rest 
 contented with the rights, such as they are, which appertained to the 
 House of Austria, and which by this Treaty of Pacification are yielded to 
 the Crown of France. In such a manner, nevertheless, that by the present 
 declaration nothing is intended that shall derogate from the sovereign 
 seignory here above ceded (i. e. derogate from the right to hold the Land- 
 fjraviaie of Alsace discharged from the rights of sovereignty which the 
 Empire possessed over the Landgraves). 
 
 England was not originally a party to the Treaty of Munster, but it 
 became indirectly a party to that treaty, by being in 1679 a party to the 
 Treaty of Nimeguen, which was negotiated under the mediation of Charles 
 II., and in which the Treaty of Munster was expressly confirmed, as fully, 
 and in the same manner as if the articles of that treaty had been re-inserted 
 verbatim in the Treaty of Nimeguen.* 
 
 The military occupation of the city of Strasburgh in 1680, by Louis XIV. 
 in a time of profound peace, is well known. This open violation of the 
 Treaty of Munster became a ground of war between France and the Ger- 
 man Empire. But the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, which confirmed the 
 Treaty of Munster in all other respects, confirmed the possession of Stras- 
 burgh by France. 
 
 In February, 1697, an attack was made upon the privileges of the 
 Alsatian noblesse by a royal declaration, enabling the noblesse to sell and 
 alien their estates. This declaration was recalled in June in the same year, 
 upon a remonstrance on the part of the noblesse, insisting that such 
 a declaration was an invasion of their rights granted in the Treaty of 
 Munster, by a royal edict reciting such remonstrance. 
 
 In 1720, the male line of the Barons of Fleckenstein becoming extinct, 
 the Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of Strasburgh, obtained from the Elector of 
 Cologne the investiture of the Lordship of Sultz, for his nephew the Prince 
 de Rohan, on whom Louis XV. also conferred other fiefs held by the Barons 
 of Fleckenstein, of which the Landgraves of Alsace, and afterwards by the 
 Treaty of Munster, the Kings of France, were patrons. 
 
 In 1786, the male line of the Prince de Rohan became extinct, and in 
 1787 the late Baron Charles A. L. F. de Bode obtained from the Elector of 
 Cologne, an appointment to the Lordship of Sultz, which was not entirely 
 gratuitous on the part of the Elector, inasmuch as a large sum, including 
 property belonging to the Baroness and her relations in England, was 
 received by the Elector and his officers as a douceur for this appointment. 
 
 ipres pret 
 
 des droits quelconques, qui appertenoient a la maison d'Autriche, et qui par ce 
 Traite de pacification sont cedes a la couronne de France ; de sorte toutefois que 
 par cette presente D6claration on n'entende point qu'il soit rien 6te de tout ce droit 
 de supreme Seigneurie qui a ete ci-dessus accord^. 
 
 * England was also a party to the Treaties of Ryswick and of Utrecht, in 
 both of which the Treaty of Munster was again expressly confirmed.
 
 UC .SOUTHERN REGIONAL 
 
 LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 45 AA 000 564 006 
 
 In 1788, the late Baron received the formal investiture of these fiefs 
 jointly with his son the present claimant. 
 
 In December, 1789, the Assemblee Nationale decreed the abolition of 
 feudal and seignorial rights, but with an express reservation of an indemnity 
 for the rights of the Alsatian nobility, guaranteed to them by treaties. The 
 right to such an indemnity was again recognised by the decrees of the 28th 
 October, 1790; 19th June, 1791 ; and 14th of January, 1792. 
 
 In 1791, many landholders transferred their estates to their heirs, both 
 as a protection from any forfeiture which they might themselves incur, and to 
 obviate the effect of any decrees requiring an equal distribution of property 
 upon death. With these views, the claimant's father, in the spring of 1791, 
 executed a formal cession of all his interest in the property in question to 
 the claimant.f This took place in the Town Hall of Sultz, in the presence 
 of a notary, and of the municipality and constituted authorites, and of the 
 assembled burghers and vassals. 
 
 From this period the property was administered in the son's name by the 
 father, until October 1793, when the claimant, with his father, mother, and 
 second brother, were obliged to fly from France to save their lives. He was 
 then (10th October, 1793), put on the list of emigrants for the departure of 
 the Lower Rhine ; foreigners domiciled in France, the moment they left 
 their domicile, being put on the list of emigrants in the same manner as 
 native French subjects, without the least distinction in respect of forfeiture 
 of property. The insertion of a name in that list constituted the act of 
 confiscation. 
 
 The late Baron died in Russia, in August 1797. 
 
 Under the Convention of Paris, of 20th November, 1815, British subjects, 
 whose property, movable or immovable, within the limits of France as it 
 existed in 1792, had been confiscated after January, 1793, were to be 
 indemnified by the French Government ; three months being allowed for 
 British subjects residing in Europe, to prefer their claims under such 
 Convention. 
 
 The British Commissioners of Liquidation of Claims on France were ap- 
 pointed on the 27th December, 1815, and arrived in Paris some time in 
 January, 1816, and had their first official communication with the French 
 Commissioners on the 14th February, 1816. On the 13th January, 1816, the 
 Baron presented a memorial of his claim (in which the property was 
 described as a male germ an fief enclave in Lower Alsace, and situate 
 between Weisemburg and Hagenau, not held mediately or immediately 
 from the crown of France, but from the Elector of Cologne), to be for- 
 warded by the Duke de Richelieu, the Prime Minister, and Minister 
 for Foreign Affairs, to the Commission of Liquidation ; no particular 
 mode or channel for the presentment of claims having been prescribed 
 by the Convention. This memorial was on the 9th February laid before the 
 Duke de Richelieu, who formally acknowledged the receipt of the claim on 
 that day, but omitted to forward it to the Commissioners, under an impres- 
 sion that as the claimant's father was a German, he was himself not qualified 
 to claim as a British subject. Much delay was occasioned by this mistake 
 of the Duke de Richelieu, and by a misapprehension still more extraordinary 
 on the part of the British members of the mixed Commission, who, as it 
 afterwards appeared, though they presented the Baron's claim to the French 
 Commission, yet, from a doubt entertained by them, whether Alsace formed 
 
 f The claimant was well known as an Englishman, and his register of baptism 
 had been inserted in the registry book of baptisms of the parish church of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul, at Sultz, in 1788. England was at this time highly popular 
 with the revolutionary party in France.
 
 46 
 
 part of the French territory in 1792, for a dQjhg time abstained from 
 insisting upon the Baron's name being inscribed in the register of claim- 
 ants. 
 
 By a subsequent Convention between Great Britain and France in 1818, 
 the unlimited liability of France to indemnify British subjects, was com- 
 muted for an absolute and final payment of 3,000,000 francs rentes, in 
 addition to 3,500,000 already advanced by France on the footing of the 
 Convention of 1815 ; the whole payment by France constituting a capital of 
 130,000,000 francs, or 5,200,000/. sterling. 
 
 By this new Convention, France was discharged, and the settlement with 
 the claimants, except those who had been already paid out of the first sum 
 advanced by France, was thrown upon, and undertaken by the British 
 Government. The mixed Commission of liquidation, which had been 
 sitting at Paris under the Convention of 1815, being now at an end, an Act 
 passed in May 1819, (59 Geo. 3, cap. 31.), which after reciting that the 
 Commissioners under the mixed Commission had " caused to be inscribed 
 in a register, the name of all the claimants, who presented themselves 
 within the period prescribed by the Convention," erected a new British 
 Commission of Liquidation, Arbitration and Award, who are authorized to 
 adjudicate upon the claims, subject to an appeal to the Privy Council, where 
 judgment is directed to be final. 
 
 The Baron lost no time in presenting himself to this new tribunal; but 
 it was not until 31st August 1821, that he obtained from the Commissioners 
 a statement of the facts which they required him to establish ; and the 
 Baron's means being entirely exhausted, by this nearly six years' delay, 
 no part of which was occasioned by any default on his part, it was not until 
 February 1822, that he could raise the necessary funds to set out for Alsace, 
 to procure the documents which the Commissioners required. In the fol- 
 lowing April, the Commissioners made their award of rejection before they 
 had received all the documents which they had required, many of which were 
 lying for legalization at Paris — as they were informed before they made their 
 rash and ill-considered award, founded upon reasons palpably erroneous 
 ex facie (some of which were abandoned by themselves before the Privy 
 Council) and embracing only a small part of the claim presented by the Baron. 
 
 This award was confirmed by the Privy Council on grounds inconsistent 
 with those on which the Commons had proceeded, and equally unwarranted 
 by the law and facts of the case. 
 
 A petition for re-hearing was rejected, on the ground, that by the express 
 provision of the Act of 59 Geo. 3, c. 31, the former decision having been 
 laid before the King and approved, was rendered final, such approval 
 having been obtained within twenty-three days of the hearing. This 
 haste was wholly unprecedented,* as shewn supra, page ; but it was 
 necessary, in order to insure the rejection of any petition for a re-hearing. 
 
 * In the case of Boyd, Ker, and Co., and others, heard on the same day with 
 that of the Baron, the decree of the Privy Council confirming an award of rejection, 
 was not laid before the Kins: for approval for more than fifteen months, and it was 
 not till after the expiration of that period, that notice of a petition for a re-hearing 
 was given. That case was re-heard on the very same day on which the Privy 
 Council refused to re-hear the Baron's case, upon the ground of the want of 
 jurisdiction thus occasioned. 
 
 LOKUO.N : 
 
 Printed by Manning awl Smitbson, Ivy-lam