§ Mr. Huskissonpresented a petition from certain British claimants on France, who complained of an erroneous construction of the convention of 1815. They prayed to be allowed to be heard by counsel before the commissioners, and, in the event of their decision being unfavourable, having the power of appeal to a competent tribunal.
§ Sir J. Newportfound fault with the present commissioners, who did not appear to be acquainted with all the facts under which the claims had originated. It was fit that commercial men should be associated with them. The petitioners had advanced their property on the faith of the treaty of 1786, which provided that no seizure of private property should take place at the commencement of a new war between this country and France, and this was a circumstance which the commissioners ought not to leave out of consideration.
Lord Castlereagh, in moving the second reading of the Claims of France bill, assured the House, that in adjusting the claims, the commissioners had shown no favour to any particular class of claimants. The whole number of claimants was 1,046, and the gross amount of the demands 1416 about 8,000,000l. sterling. To satisfy these demands, the French government had appropriated 133,000,000 of livres, or two-thirds of the whole amount; half of this sum had already been disposed of upon claims adjudicated, those claims being 311 out of 1046. The commissioners had thought it wisest, under all the circumstraces, first to decide upon those claims that were the most simple and least capable of dispute; these had been of a funded character, and had already absorbed about 130,000,000 livres. The commercial claims were of a more complicated nature, and although no class had a stronger case, it had been found best to postpone the consideration of them. With the admitted deductions, they did not now exceed 10,000,000 livres, and indeed they had been found not so numerous as it was at first expected they would have been. In arranging the mode of appeal, some difficulty had been found, as the American loyalists and the Carnatic commissioners afforded no precedent. It was, however, clear that the privy council ought not to be required to go into matters of evidence or account, but that the appeal should be allowed only on points of construction, and such special parts of the execution of the treaty as the king in council might think fit to leave open. To the addition of new commissioners he was decidedly opposed: there were quite enough to discharge the various duties, and multiplication would but create delay. As to appointing commercial men, he did not think that necessary; the individuals now named, were competent to all branches of inquiry that could come before them. If parties wished to be heared by counsel, the commissioners would be ready to admit them; but it was needless to introduce such a provision into the bill.
§ The bill was then read a second time.