THE CASE OF BARON DE BODE. (Hansard, 1 May 1834)

Mr. M. Hill
wished again to draw the attention of the House to the case of this nobleman, who had suffered great injustice by having his estates in Alsace, of a very large yearly value, confiscated by the French at the time of the first French Revolution. Subsequently, a large sum of money was paid over by the French government to this country, to compensate such English subjects as had suffered by the Revolution, among whom was specifically mentioned the Baron de Bode. Notwithstanding this, not a farthing had been received by that nobleman, although he (Mr. M. Hill) could incontrovertibly prove his right to the amount as a suffering British subject, and that a specific sum had been paid over by the French government for the specific object of compensating the noble Baron. The Baron de Bode was said to be not one of those persons whom the treaty intended to relieve; he should like to know on what ground such an opinion was founded. The Baron de Bode was given to understand, that there was high authority against him, viz.—the judgment pronounced by the Privy Council, in the analogous case of Drummond. The fact was, however, that the case in question 398 was not analogous, for the claimant there was both an English subject and a French subject. The Baron de Bode was an Englishman; he was an English born subject—the son of a German father and an English mother. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine 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 confiscated by the French authorities."

§ Mr. Ewart
, in seconding the Motion, said, he thought a case was made out for giving this matter a re-hearing. He did not approve, under ordinary circumstances, of appointing Committees for the purpose of referring legal decisions to them for revision, but he thought it better that such a course should be adopted in this case, than that it should be altogether neglected. He did not hesitate to say, that he believed the case had been unjustly decided.

The Solicitor General
denied, that this was a trust in the hands of the Government, giving a claim to the Baron de Bode. The Act relating to all such claims gave a power of appeal from the decision of the Commissioners to the Privy Council, whose judgment was to be final. So far from the case not having received due attention, and been fully inquired into, it had run through all the modes of investigation that the Act of Parliament authorised. In 1822, a further period of ten or eleven months was given to the Baron de Bode, to procure fresh evidence to perfect his claim if he could. It could scarcely, then, be said, that he had not sufficient time, particularly when it was remembered, that the claim was launched in 1816. These facts did not, of course, preclude the House from making any grant, if it saw occasion, out of the public money; but he must say, that he considered them to conclude the question of right. He would submit to the House, whether a Committee was a proper tribunal to determine questions of law that had already received final adjudication? Unless the case was a very strong one, this alone would be an answer to the Motion. The Commissioners were charged with ignorance of the nature of the Baron de Bode's claim; but, according to a pamphlet, which he (the Solicitor 399 General) had the honour to receive from the Baron, and in which the case was stated on very different grounds from those on which it was rested before the adverse judgment was pronounced, it appeared, that the Baron himself was ignorant of the nature of his claim. In fact, at the time the property was ceded by the father to the Baron de Bode, in order to escape confiscation, the latter was only fourteen years of age.

§ Mr. Pollock
said, they were told, that it would require a strong case to justify the appointment of the Committee. They had a strong case. For the sake of the honour of the country, if there were a surplus after paying all the claims about which there was no difficulty, and if there were any miscarriage with respect to other claims, to their liquidation ought that surplus to be applied. The Baron de Bode was a British subject, born in England, of an English mother, his father being a German; of this there was no doubt. Nor was there any doubt that the Baron de Bode was possessed of some property, which was confiscated by France. Doubtless, also, a large sum was assigned over to the British Government to liquidate the claims of British subjects on account of the confiscation. It was beyond a doubt, too, that a large balance of the sum so assigned remained unappropriated. Equally clear was it, that a Commission was appointed to give those persons who had not perfected their claims, the benefit of further time. Now, he believed, that the Baron's case had not been understood; he would even say, that in his humble judgment, it had not been correctly decided. Then there were grounds sufficient for a further inquiry. The Baron de Bode's present claim was said to be inconsistent with that which he presented to the Commission; but let the House not forget, that the Baron was a soldier not versed in technical terms. Was he not to have his claim fairly decided, because he did not understand the full meaning of the terms, "heirship" and "remainder"? He pursued his claim according to his best judgment. He presented it; told them, that he was in possession, that his property was confiscated because he was a British subject, and he claimed his share of the sum paid as indemnity. The Commissioners asked him how he was entitled? He replied, that his father ceded, and he proved the ces- 400 sion. Some of the documents could not be expected to be in his possession—others, which were necessary here, where we had a statute of frauds creating numberless difficulties, he was never asked for, and, therefore, did not produce. The Commissioners decided against him. He then applied to the Privy Council, who affirmed the judgment, because he did not prove, that his father ceded the estate to him according to our notions of legal propriety. The Commissioners appeared to consider, that the Baron de Bode had not any interest in the property at all. The fact was, the Baron had a claim to the whole of his father's property, but of that the Commissioners took no account. The Commissioners purported to act on the deed to which the objection was made, and this circumstance alone was sufficient ground for granting a Committee of the House. The deed was drawn up by an attorney, on the instruction of the Baron, who was at that time ignorant of the English language. It was, therefore, proper to try, whether an unintentional, though gross injustice, had not been done in the case; and it would become that House, if such were the case, not to sanction it. The House was not asked to come to a decision on the case. The Motion was merely one for inquiry, and this, he trusted, hon. Members, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, would not refuse.

§ Mr. Littleton
said, that, having originally introduced this matter to the House some years since, he must declare that he still entertained the same impressions on this case which he then did. There might be, perhaps, some question as to the grounds upon which the Baron's original claims was attempted to be established, but he apprehended there could not be a question in respect to his reversionary claim; and, indeed, he (Mr. Littleton) had never heard any argument brought forward which could go to remove the opinion which he had entertained in the first instance upon this ground. He had felt an interest in the case from the fact of the Baron de Bode's family, on the mother's side, being one of the oldest and most respectable in Staffordshire. He knew, that the Baron had suffered much from pecuniary wants—that his family were residing in Russia—that he had experienced great misfortunes, and that he had followed this claim up with great 401 perseverance and propriety. He sincerely hoped that the Baron having in vain attempted to obtain a re-hearing of his case by the Privy Council, and having at last addressed himself to the only tribunal—namely, that of the House of Commons, that no difficulty would be raised in allowing him to bring his case before a Committee. If, indeed, there was any validity in the opinion of Sir Launcelot Shadwell, and many other eminent authorities, he doubted not that that Committee would assist the Baron de Bode in the attainment of his object. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that he thought it right again to state, that he still retained entire and unaltered the impressions which he had first imbibed.

§ Lord Althorp
was understood to say, that a certain time had been given to persons claiming upon the fund—that the Baron de Bode had put in his claim, and had been heard before the commission appointed for appropriating the fund, which commission decided against him. It appeared the Baron complained that he had not been able to put his claim in its strongest light, and that therefore the decision was unjust; but surely from 1816, the period at which he first claimed, to 1822, he had full time to make out his case. It was urged, that the Baron being a soldier, and unacquained with the forms of law, should not be tied down to the technicalities of legal proof. He (Lord Althorp) did not think this a doctrine which should be acceded to. If, through the negligence of legal advisers, or any other cause, the proper forms were not adopted, the person so failing (no matter what his profession) should suffer the same consequences as others. He certainly should not accede to this principle, nor yield to the granting a Committee on these grounds, more especially as the case had been already decided by a sufficient tribunal.

§ Mr. Hume
, before the sense of the House was taken on it, begged leave to ask one question of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp). Before doing so, he would premise, that no lapse of time ought to interfere with the justice of the claim. He would ask the noble Lord, if other claims which had been shut out on the score of time had not been afterwards admitted? If then other cases had been admitted, was it not very hard that this, which was primâ facie so well founded, should be 402 shut out from inquiry? The House should bear in mind, that it was inquiry, not decision, which was called for in this case, which was one where, the ordinary tribunals having failed in doing justice, an appeal was made to them. His (Mr. Hume's) only anxiety in speaking for the Committee was to ascertain the truth.

§ Lord Althorp
, having been asked the question, would only remark that there was a distinction between the cases. A certain period had been fixed for putting in the claims on this fund, and within the prescribed period the Baron had applied. His claim had been heard and adjudicated. The others had not applied, being ignorant of the limits as to time, and the allowance was therefore made.