HC Deb 18 July 1854 vol 135 cc385-9
MR. BOWYER

said, that pursuant to notice, he would beg to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of Mr. Edwardes (as representative of William Sturgeon) on the funds allotted by the French Government at the peace to compensate for confiscation of the property of British subjects. Between the years 1778 and 1793, Mr. Sturgeon, a British subject, expended very large sums of money, amounting in the whole to upwards of 26,000l., upon the erection and stocking of a very extensive manufactory for the fabrication of porcelain and delf at Rouen, in Normandy. Mr. Sturgeon was undeniably a British subject, and in 1793 his property was confiscated by the Revolutionary Government, simply because it was that of a British subject. By the treaties of Paris of the 30th of May, 1814, and of the 20th of November, 1815, and the conventions entered into in pursuance thereof, very large sums of money were provided by the French Government for liquidating the claims of British subjects in respect of losses incurred by the confiscation of their property; and by the 59th Geo. III. c. 31, entitled— An Act to enable certain Commissioners fully to carry into effect several conventions for liquidating claims of British subjects and others against the Government of France; it was provided (inter alia) that parties dissatisfied with the award of the Commissioners should have a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. Mr. Sturgeon, however, was one of a number of claimants who did not present their claims to the Commissioners within the time limited by the conventions; but there was a Treasury Minute, made on the 2nd of May, 1826, to allow further time to those parties to put in their claims, and the Commissioners were thereby required to investigate those claims on the same principle in all respects as they had done those which had been preferred in due time. Under that Minute, Mr. Sturgeon's case was investigated by the Commissioners. He claimed 22,000l., which, together with simple interest, computed from the time of the confiscation to the 24th of June, 1826, amounted to 43,586l.; the Commissioners, however, awarded him only 5.000l., which sum, after the deductions of 2 per cent, as authorised by the Act of Geo. III was paid to him. The reason why so small a sum was awarded to Mr. Sturgeon arose out of his inability to produce his deeds, books, and papers, which were proved before the Commissioners to have been seized and destroyed by fire during the revolution, and from the Commissioners not having given due weight to the secondary evidence produced in support of the claim. It was material to observe that the Commissioners admitted the validity of Mr. Sturgeon's claim. The question adjudicated upon by them, however, was merely that of the amount. Mr. Sturgeon remonstrated against their decision, and made several applications to the Treasury; but he failed in obtaining any legal redress, because at that time there was no right of appeal. Another Minute of the lords of the Treasury, dated 8th of June, 1830, stated, among other things, of those whose claims, not having been presented within the time limited by such convention, have been subsequently admitted to adjudication under a Minute of this Board, and have been, on adjudication, either only partially allowed or disallowed altogether." "With respect to the second class, as their admission to participate in the advantages of the convention was an act of pure bounty on the part of His Majesty, they cannot, strictly speaking, have any right to an appeal from the decision of the tribunal to which His Majesty thought fit to assign the task of distributing his bounty. But as, in admitting those parties to share in the benefits of the convention, it was my lords' intention to admit the satisfaction of those claims, as far as they were found to be just, without any objection as to the time of their presentation, my lords do not see any inconvenience likely to result from giving to such of them as may wish to prefer an appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of the Commissioners in their respective cases, a power to prefer that appeal, provided that such appeal be lodged within a definite period. By a Minute of the lords of the Treasury, dated 15th of March, 1833, it was stated— The only claimants who would have had a right of appeal under the proposed Bill are those whose cases were considered under the authority of the Minute of this Board of the 2nd of May, 1826, and were disallowed, or only partially allowed, by the Commissioners. It appears, however, that the opinion of the Privy Council may probably be obtained upon these cases, which will be few in number, supposing even the whole to claim the right of having the decision of the Commissioners reviewed by that tribunal, without an Act of Parliament for that purpose. The Minute then went on to provide that if there should ultimately turn out to be a surplus, after payment of the claims which should be admitted by the Privy Council upon appeal, the fourth class of claimants mentioned in the Minute of the 8th of June, 1830 (who were claimants in respect of losses at Bordeaux, and the subject of a distinct convention, whereby a specific and distinct sum of money, though insufficient, was provided for their satisfaction by the Government of France), should receive out of that surplus a certain portion of their demands, which the particular fund had been insufficient to satisfy. Now, what he, on the part of Mr. Sturgeon, contended was, that that money was wrongfully distributed to the Bordeaux claimants, and that it ought to have gone in satisfaction of such claims as those of Mr. Sturgeon. Besides, no notice whatever was addressed to Mr. Sturgeon, or to any person acting for him, of the liberty to appeal to the Privy Council, whilst such notice had been given to every other person similarly situated. In 1853, Mr. Edwardes, acting as the representative of Mr. Sturgeon, petitioned the Queen in Council for leave to appeal from the award of the Commissioners. The appeal was heard on the 31st of July, in the same year, and dismissed. In the course of the argument, lord Justice Knight Bruce intimated that the Court might be willing to adjourn the case, to give the petitioner the opportunity of applying to the lords of the Treasury to allow their lordships to hear the case on the merits; but their lordships ultimately decided that they had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, being of opinion "that the merits, if any, could only be brought forward before them at the instance of the lords of the Treasury." An application was subsequently made to the lords of the Treasury to have the appeal heard before the lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but they declined to comply with it. No laches could be imputed to the petitioner. It was not till 1833 that Mr. Sturgeon had the right to appeal, and then, after the right to appeal accrued under the Treasury Minute, he had no notice of the right of appeal. In July, 1842, upon an application from Mr. Sturgeon, the Treasury answered that arrangements had been made to distribute the whole of the fund — this, in fact, amounting to an intimation that there was no money. Now, assuming that there was no money in 1842, there was, at least, money in 1833, when Mr. Sturgeon ought to have had notice, and when, if he had had notice, he would have made his appeal. It was, then, the fault of the Treasury that the petitioner had no opportunity of bringing forward his claim in 1833, when there were funds in hand to meet it. Besides, to this plea of nulla bona it was a very sufficient answer to say, "You have given away our money to the wrong persons"—namely, the Bordeaux claimants. The petition did not proceed in 1842, because it was not until 1850 that the petitioner was able to prove, by the discovery of a private Treasury Minute, that he had no notice of the right of appeal in 1833. The petitioner now came to that House as a last resort. From what he (Mr. Bowyer) knew of the case, he believed that the Committee which was now asked for would have a very short labour to perform, and that they would come to the conclusion that Mr. Edwardes was wronged in not being allowed to appeal, and that he ought to be allowed to appeal to the Privy Council.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

seconded the Motion, believing that reasonable ground had been shown for inquiry.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the claims of Mr. Edwardes (as representative of William Sturgeon), on the funds allotted by the French Government at the Peace, to compensate for confiscation of the property of British subjects.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he thought that the House ought to pause before they allowed the time of a Committee to be taken up in inquiring into a case from which there was so extremely little chance of anything practical issuing. Mr. Sturgeon was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman to have made his claim to the Commissioners under the convention of 1815, which provided a fund for the losses of English subjects living in France during the revolution. Now, the House must recollect that that convention and fund were applicable solely to cases in which confiscation of British property had been made by the French Government. Mr. Sturgeon's claim had received the careful consideration of the Commissioners, and it was not the fact, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that the Commissioners admitted his claim; on the contrary, the Commissioners never did nor could admit it. Mr. Sturgeon declared that the whole of his property at Rouen was plundered and destroyed, and the fact was, that it had been plundered and destroyed by a common mob, and the petitioner had no claim whatever upon the fund which the Commissioners had to administer. From that day to the present Mr. Sturgeon had been unable to furnish any statement of the property he had lost, but, besides this, he (Mr. Wilson) repeated that this was a case which did not come within the meaning of the convention, and in which the Commissioners had no power to act. There was, however, no question that Mr. Sturgeon had suffered a considerable amount of loss, and in 1827 the Commissioners, looking to the whole circumstances, resolved to take into their merciful consideration the case of a gentleman of such high character and respectability; and, notwithstanding the fact that, properly speaking, he was shut out from any participation in this fund by the nature and character of his loss, they did recommend the Treasury, as a settlement in full of all demands upon them, to grant Mr. Sturgeon 5,000l. out of the money at their command. He would ask the House whether at this period of time, the claim having been settled in the manner which he had described, it would be wise and prudent to institute an inquiry into a question of this kind? The House must remember that this fund was now entirely exhausted, and that any claim of this nature must be satisfied out of the common taxes of the country. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the House would not agree to the appointment of this Committee to spend its time hopelessly in raising a matter which had long been settled.

MR. BOWYER

, in reply, said, that the property of Mr. Sturgeon had been both confiscated and destroyed, and that the destruction of the property had taken place after the confiscation. The claim of Mr. Sturgeon was, therefore, no doubt one which came within the operation of the convention.

MR. MALINS

said, he should support the proposition, and he believed that high authorities had decided in favour of the claim. With regard to the assertion, that there were no funds available, he thought that, if the fund which had existed for settling these claims had been expended for the benefit of the public, the public would not object to funds being raised to defray a just claim.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 40: Majority 1.