Lords Sitting of 11 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Navy Pay; Poor Law Commission Continuance (Ireland); Trustees Act Extension.
3ª Public Works; Industrial and Provident Societies.

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION—THE MANAGEMENT CLAUSES.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) a question, on the subject of which I have given him notice, which is, whether any Minute has been agreed to by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, effecting or proposing to effect any alteration in the administration of the public grant voted by Parliament for educational purposes?
The EARL of DERBY: In answer to the question put to me by the noble Marquess, of which he was kind enough to give me notice, I beg to state that a Minute has been agreed to—that is to say, a Minute has been agreed to in substance, though not yet in exact words, which will make some alteration, and effect some relaxation in the stringency of some portions of what are called the management clauses affecting schools connected with the Church of England. It is not proposed to make any alteration with respect to the management clauses themselves; but it is proposed with respect to the grants to certain schools, that certain words should be introduced in the alternative in lieu of certain words in the management clauses, and to provide that parties who may avail themselves of this option should not be disqualified in consequence from receiving any portion of the funds appropriated by the Government to the purpose of education. As I said before, the precise form of words has not been definitely agreed upon; but as soon as they are, I shall have great pleasure in laying the Minute upon your Lordships' table.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I did not intend to raise any discussion upon the subject on this occasion, and I certainly do not wish to pronounce any opinion what-

469
ever on the subject of those alterations, because I am the last man to say that some alterations may not be very properly made from time to time in the regulations under which the grants are distributed. What has induced me to put the question to the noble Earl is, that that alteration, which has been described by high authority as an important one, has been made under very peculiar circumstances. Now, my Lords, it is only a very few days ago that a Vote was proposed in the other House of Parliament for applying a portion of the public money to this grant. It has been hitherto uniformly the custom, when any material alteration has been made in the condition of these grants, to lay that alteration forthwith before Parliament. I regret exceedingly that the present important alteration was not communicated to the House of Commons, nor any intention expressing of making such alteration at the moment when the other House was called upon to provide for this portion of the public service. This branch of the public service was so provided for no doubt upon the conviction that no such alterations was intended. I do not say whether the proposed alteration is a fitting one or not; but be it the very best of all alterations, which I assume it to be, the other House of Parliament had the right to be informed upon the subject before it voted the money. And I will take upon myself to say that while I was a Member of the Council on Education, in no one case did it ever occur that immediately subsequent to the voting of money for that branch of the public service, any alterations were made. On the contrary, the greatest care was always taken to communicate any such alteration from time to time; but, above all, to communicate it immediately before calling upon the other House to vote any portion of the public money for that purpose. I must say that the House of Commons have not, in the present case, had not that opportunity which they always have had, and which they have a right to have afforded them, namely, of obtaining the information for which the money is required, and the mode in which it is to be applied for the public service. It was not till after this Vote was obtained—it was agreed to on the 3rd of June, and reported on the 4th— that any intimation of the proposed alteration of the Minute was made. It was not till the money was secured from the other House that that intimation was made, and then, not even to the House of Commons,
470
but to another quarter, where it was probably supposed it would receive a more hearty reception.
The EARL of DERBY: I hope the noble Marquess does not intend to impute to Her Majesty's Government that they have been actuated in the course they have felt it their duty to pursue, by any unworthy desire of deluding or deceiving this or the other House of Parliament. We have had frequent representations made to us, similar representations were also made to the noble Marquess when he was at the head of the department on this subject. Complaints were presented, as we thought then, and as I think now, well-grounded, just complaints, upon the part of members of the Church of England, that with respect to the stringency of the regulations of the management clauses, they were not placed upon a footing of equality with other religious denominations to which aid was afforded from the grant. We have never concealed our opinion that in that respect the Church of England have cause to complain of the stringency of those clauses; and at the very earliest period at which it was possible for us to take those clauses into our consideration we entered into consultation with the Education Committee, with the view of seeing if whether—keeping in view the principle of perfect fairness and equality among the various denominations, and maintaining the principle of the management clauses—it was practicable to introduce such amendments and alterations as would meet well-founded objections, and remove what we considered to be a legitimate cause of complaint. We have not in the slightest degree altered the existing management clauses; but where liberty has been given to other denominations with respect to the religious and moral education of the people, we have not thought that the Church of England was making an extravagant or unreasonable demand if they required that the same liberty which was given to other denominations should be enjoyed by members of the Church of England also. My Lords, I quite agree with the declaration of the noble Marquess that is the duty of those who arc charged with the administration of those funds to give the earliest information to Parliament of any alteration which they may purpose to effect in the terms on which they are granted. At the same time I presume the noble Marquess does not go so far as to contend that, before the terms of a Minute are actually agreed upon by

471
the Committee of Privy Council itself, any communication should necessarily be made, not of the Minute agreed upon, but of the Minute which may at some subsequent period be agreed upon. And although the noble Marquess has said that he knows of no instance in which any important alteration has been made at a short period subsequent to the grant of the money, I take the liberty of informing him that in the course of the last winter the noble Marquess himself did by a Minute, which has only recently been laid before the House, introduce a very important alteration in the principle upon which this grant of public money is made, namely, that he consented to an endowment for the establishment of a school for the instruction of Jewish children at the expense of the British public. That is a very important alteration—a more complete alteration of principle than any which is involved in the amendments which we propose to make in the management clause, and which, when the noble Marquess has seen, I shall be perfectly ready to vindicate—I say that the proposed alteration is one of importance; but it is important only in this respect—that I believe it will have the effect, and that I conceive a most desirable effect, of removing well-founded dissatisfaction upon the part of members of the Church of England —of healing dissensions in the body of that Church, and materially increasing the amount which members of that Church can conscientiously profit by—that aid which is afforded by the country to all denominations, and which I think ought to be afforded to all denominations, with at least equal liberty.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I regret that the noble Earl has so far departed from the strict answer to my question as to be led somewhat irregularly into a vindication of the proposed Amendments. I did not intend to argue this subject further than it relates to the immediate question which I took the liberty of asking; and that immediate topic the noble Earl has altogether avoided. This is not the House of Parliament to which the communication ought to be made. When the time comes that we shall be enabled to judge from the Minute itself how far the alteration is likely to affect the Church of England, I shall be fully prepared to go into that question; and I hope to be able to show that the Church of England was most advantageously situated under the existing management of this grant. With
472
respect to other sects, any alterations in what are called the "management clauses with reference to the Church of England, must undoubtedly be attended with the consequence—the unfortunate consequence —of making alterations equally in the conditions attached to this grant with respect to other denominations. I wish, however, most distinctly to explain that the sole ground of my complaint to-night is, that whereas meetings of the Committee of Privy Council have been repeatedly held upon a question which the noble Earl has said has been repeatedly the subject of consideration of himself and his Colleagues since the appointment of the new Committee of Council—a subject with reference to which the noble Earl has expressed a strong sense of the importance of making these proposed alterations, both before and since he came into office, yet that these meetings have been held, and the subject repeatedly considered, entirely unknown to Parliament and the public until some time after the Vote had been obtained. And I once more distinctly state that there was no material alteration agreed to by the Committee of Privy Council while I had the honour to be connected with it, which was not communicated to the House of Commons before any vote of public money was asked for. The noble Earl has not stated the date at which the Minute was agreed to; but I think he will see that the proceedings upon this occasion are in the highest degree open to the objections which he himself has taken before now to the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council not being laid before the House in time for Parliament to know how it ought to act with regard to them. In this case the House of Commons has been called upon to act in perfect ignorance of the intentions of the Committee of Privy Council upon a subject which the noble Earl himself says is one of the utmost importance, and which has occupied a considerble share of his attention and that of his Colleagues since their accession to office.
EARL CREY: I should be glad to know whether it is intended that this new Minute, which is not yet quite complete in its wording, should take effect with respect to the grant of money which has just been voted by the House of Commons for the purposes of education; or whether it is intended to apply only to the vote of another year? I ask the question upon this ground: the House of Commons has been in the habit of giving a large discretion to the

473
Government with respect to the application of money voted for the purpose of education in England and Ireland. Upon the other hand, the Government for the time being have made it their duty to take care that when the House of Commons voted the money for this purpose, the House should he fully aware of the way in which the money was to be applied. The consequence has been, as the noble Marquess has informed you, that no change of importance was ever made in the regulations by which the money was applied, without its being done in such a manner as that the House should know of such alteration before the money was voted to which that alteration should apply. Now I perceive that the gentleman who has for many years served as Secretary to the Committee of Privy Council on Education, has, in a letter which appeared this day in the public newspapers, referred to these facts. He refers to one or two important alterations which have taken place in the regulations, and shows that great care was taken that those changes should be made at such times as that Parliament should understand them before any money was voted to which those alterations were to apply. In the present case the noble Earl opposite has informed us that the subject has been for some time under consideration; that it is an amendment of considerable importance; and that the substance of the proposed alteration was settled some time ago. Now, if the noble Earl had wished to adhere to what has hitherto been the practice in such cases, the course was perfectly clear. The House of Commons had not closed the Committee of Supply; there remained several votes of supply to agree to; and the natural and obvious course, if the noble Earl wished to keep the House informed, as in previous cases, of the means to which the money was to be applied, was to have deferred this vote until the other votes had passed, and in the meantime, having completed the wording of the Minute, to lay it upon the table of the House, and call attention to it before the vote passed. If the noble Earl intends that the altered Minute should take immediate effect, that was the straightforward, fair, and honest way of dealing with the other House of Parliament. I do not impute to the noble Earl any intention of that conduct which he seems to fancy has been imputed to him, but which it was not the intention of the noble Marquess to impute; but the noble Earl having omitted to take that
474
course which in my opinion was necessary, if it is intended that the amended clause should take immediate effect, I think he will be wanting in that respect towards the House of Commons, and in the straightforward conduct which it has a right to expect, if the alteration is made to take effect before another year shall have gone by, and another vote of money has been conceded. The question, therefore, which I wish to ask is this: does the noble Earl intend, or not, that the grant which has just been made by the House of Commons shall be applied according to those rules and regulations which the House of Commons, in voting that money, believed to be in force, and not likely to be altered; or, is it intended that any changes shall, or shall not, take effect with respect to this particular vote, which were not known to the House of Commons at the time of voting the money.
The EARL of DERBY: I did not anticipate that any discussion of this nature would have arisen upon the notice of the noble Marquess of his intention to put a question to me on this subject. I am, consequently, not at all able to enter upon a discussion of the particular times of the year, and seasons, at which important alterations have been made in the rules laid down by the Commissioners of National Education; but if I am not much mistaken, many of the most important alterations and decisions which have been made by the Committee of Education have been made during the recess of Parliament, and consequently at a time when the Vote had been agreed to. I have no desire that the House of Commons should, in the slightest degree, be deceived with respect to the purpose for which any vote has been granted; and I am quite ready at once to say that under the Minute which is about to be issued, but which has not yet been issued, no sum of money shall be applied until the House of Commons has had full and ample opportunity of pronouncing its judgment upon the expediency or inexpediency of such alteration.

POSTAL CONVENTION WITH FRANCE.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEput a question to his noble Friend the Postmaster General relative to the state of the negotiations with France on the postage question. Having explained the mode in which we were fettered by the treaty made with France on this subject in 1843, he proceeded to state that in 1850 he had

475
made a proposition to France, which would have improved the postal communications between the two countries very materially, but which had nevertheless been refused by the French Government. He wished to know whether the negotiations on that subject had been resumed, whether they were still going on, and, if so, what answer had been given to our proposals by France?
The EARL of HARDWICKEconsidered that it was not only necessary for the convenience, but that it would also be very much for the advantage of both countries, that a reduction should be made in the expense of transmitting letters between England and France. He considered the proposition made by the noble Marquess to France was a very advantageous proposition to that country, and he was astonished that the French Government was not disposed to carry it out at once. Since his noble Friend had left office, the French Government had notified to him (the Earl of Hardwicke) that it would take his proposition into consideration. He hoped, before long, that he should receive a communication from the French Government, stating their willingness to accede to it.

TRANSATLANTIC PACKET STATION.
EARL CAWDOR,in putting the question of which he had given notice to Her Majesty's Government, had first to call their attention to the following paragraph which had appeared in the daily papers:—
"THE NEW PACKET STATION COMMISSION.— Captain Charles Tyndal, of the Royal Navy arrived in Galway on Tuesday night, accompanied by his secretary, for the purpose of viewing and reporting on the capabilities of the port of Galway for a Transatlantic packet station. The gallant officer was out early the following morning making the necessary observations. Each of the three Commissioners appointed by Lord Derby's Government will separately visit the harbours of Limerick and Galway, and send in their respective reports."
He (Earl Cawdor) did not know whether there was any truth in this paragraph.
The EARL of DERBY: Not a word of it. We have sent out no Commissioner.
EARL CAWDOR: His noble Friend assured him that there was not a word of truth in the paragraph; and he was very willing to believe that Captain Charles Tyndal was not called upon to make any report on this subject. But "coming-events," it was said, "threw their shadows before;" and he was not quite clear that Captain C. Tyndal might not yet ap-
476
pear bodily in that city for the object assigned to him, or some other gallant captain in his stead. He had hopes that the late discussion in that House had settled this question; but owing to this paragraph, and the perseverance with which certain noble Lords connected with Ireland always pursued the objects which they had once had in view, and owing to other circumstances which had come to his knowledge, he had now more fears than hopes; and, therefore, he felt compelled to put a question or two to his noble Friends near him. The object of the late inquiry ought not to have been what port in Ireland is the best fitted for Transatlantic navigation, but what port on the western aide of the United Kingdom. Now, there had been no allusion made to anything of that sort by any other of the noble Lords opposite. The evidence and the report which had been founded upon it both showed clearly enough that no advantage would be gained by choosing an Irish port as a Transatlantic packet station, but that great evil and inconvenience would accrue to the commercial and travelling community from the adoption of such a proposal. Now they were threatened with a fresh inquiry, to decide whether Limerick or Galway would be the least inconvenient as a place of departure for America. He had already informed their Lordships that the Commissioners who conducted the last inquiry were precluded from inquiring into the practicability of selecting other harbours in other parts of the country; but it had somehow or other oozed out that Milford Haven was better suited for a Transatlantic packet station than either Limerick, Cork, or Galway. It had been shown that there was no harbour on the western coast of Ireland into which a vessel of any great tonnage could enter with safety in hazy weather. Now, the soundings in Milford Haven were so good that any vessel of any size might run into it either night or day. If we were to have another inquiry into this subject, he thought that the capabilities of Milford Haven ought to be included in that inquiry. He wished to ask the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Northumberland) whether he intended to proceed with this inquiry, and, if so, whether he would include Milford Haven in it?
The EARL of DERBYsaid, he could fully appreciate the desire of his noble Friend to have the merits of Milford Haven investigated, in the event of the Government instituting an inquiry as to the

477
most desirable port for a new transatlantic station. He could assure his noble Friend that the merits of Milford Haven should not be lost sight of; but he must leave his noble Friend to balance them against the merits of Limerick and Galway, which were as eloquently advocated on a former night by certain Irish friends of his, as those of Milford Haven had been advocated that evening. His noble Friend had misapprehended the intention of the Commission of Inquiry now about to issue. First, as regarded the paragraph which his noble Friend had cited from the Times. It might be very true that Captain Tyndal was surveying and examining Galway Bay; but, if so, it was on his own behalf, and not on that of the Government. When he said just now that Government had not despatched a commissioner to Galway, he bad said that which was perfectly true to the letter, for the appointment of the commissioners had not been signed till that morning by the noble Duke near him. Still it was intended that those commissioners should proceed to make forthwith a personal survey and examination of the western coast of Ireland. Their survey, however, was to be limited within very narrow bounds. Without in the slightest degree involving the Government in any pledge whatever as to the adoption of a packet station, they were desirous that one point should be cleared up by an examination on the spot, which appeared to be left in doubt by the late Commission of Inquiry on the subject. That commission reported that, among the places for a packet station on the west coast of Ireland, there were two to which they gave a decided preference over all others. They entered into a statement of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the ports of Limerick and Galway; and there was a request that a commission should be appointed for the purpose of filling up what appeared to be a void in the previous commission, and striking the balance between the comparative merits of those two harbours. It was, therefore, thought desirable that officers should be appointed for the purpose of personally inspecting the harbours of Limerick and Galway, investigating the comparative merits of the two, and reporting thereon to the Government. It was necessary that that examination should be undertaken by naval officers, in order to determine what facilities there were for the entrance to and departure from those harbours respectively,
478
for steamers of the largest class, at all times of the day and night, and at all times of the tide. The investigation of the commissioners was strictly limited to the comparative merits of the two harbours of Limerick and Galway; and that was owing to the late commissioners, in reporting upon the different harbours, giving a preference to those two, but without deciding in their own minds to which of the two the preference was due. He could assure his noble Friend that the Government would undertake no great work in reference to this subject without the fullest consideration of any claims which Milford Haven might put forth as to its means of communication with all parts of the United Kingdom.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, whatever might be the merits of Milford Haven, there would undoubtedly be a saving of time, which was a matter of great importance, by the adoption of an Irish port. He accepted the statement with respect to the present intentions of the Government, but he was satisfied that, in the end, they would have to go a step forward.

CASE OF THE BARON DE BODE.
LORD LYNDHURSTmoved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations of the Baron de Bode's Petition, and to report thereupon to the House. Their Lordships would probably be alarmed at the mere mention of the name of the Baron de Bode. But he could assure their Lordships there was no ground whatever for such a feeling on the present occasion. From recent circumstances the case had assumed a very simple form; it was circumscribed within very narrow limits; and he should be able, he trusted, in the very plain statement he meant to make to occupy no very considerable portion of their Lordships' time. If, however, it were otherwise, he had had so much experience of their desire on all occasions to do justice, that he was quite sure they would cheerfully afford the time and attention necessary for forming a correct opinion on a question of this nature and importance. The outline of the case might be stated in a few words, almost in a single sentence. It was this—The Baron de Bode was a British subject; he possessed a large property in France; that property was confiscated by the revolutionary Government of France. At the time of the Peace a treaty was entered

479
into between the King of France and the Government of this country, by which a large sum of money was paid over to the British Government for the purpose of giving an indemnity to British subjects whose property had been confiscated by the revolutionary Government of France. A considerable portion of that money remained still unapplied for the purpose for which it was given. The Baron de Bode, therefore, as a British subject, having had his property confiscated by the Government of France, claimed to be indemnified out of the remains of the money paid by the Government of France to the Government of this country for that very purpose. Simple as the case was, he had, by a series of misapprehensions and mistakes of the most extraordinary kind, been defeated in his attempt to obtain redress. Baffled in the attempts he had made to obtain redress by various applications he had made to the other House of Parliament, and at last worn out by his anxiety and exertions in reference to this case, he had sunk into the grave, transmitting his claims to the present petitioner, who was his son, his heir, and his personal representative. He (Lord Lyndhurst) hoped their Lordships would bear with him for a few moments while he said a word or two with respect to himself as connected with this case. He was present in their Lordships' House when, sitting judicially, they pronounced the late judgment on the case of the Baron de Bode. And he found no fault with that judgment—no other judgment could have been pronounced consistently with law, and he concurred in it. But in the course of those proceedings he felt so strongly the injustice which had been done to this gentleman, and the injuries he had sustained, that in a moment—rash perhaps so far as he (Lord Lyndhurst) was personally concerned—he undertook to bring the case before their Lordships. He did suppose at that time that he should have able to do it in the course of the last Session. His increasing infirmities, however, had prevented him carrying that wish into effect. But having once made the promise, he had felt himself bound under all circumstances to adhere to it, and to fulfil the duty he had undertaken. He had stated the plain and simple outline of the case. He would now fill up some of the details necessary for its more perfect comprehension. The father of the late claimant was a German by birth; he was in the military service of the King of France. He married a Brit-
480
ish lady—a Miss Kynnersley, the daughter of a Mr. Kynnersley, who resided on his own estate in the county of Stafford. He had a son—the late claimant—who was born in that county—he was, therefore, to all intents and purposes a natural-born subject of Great Britain; he was entitled to all the rights of a British subject, and subject to all the liabilities cast upon him by that name. The father and the son were entitled to an extensive and valuable estate situated in Lower Alsace. It consisted of the lordship, town, and castle of Suit, with an extensive demesne, and, connected with it, mines and other valuable property. This estate was held under the Archbishop of Cologne. By the treaty of Munster—which was confirmed by that of Nimeguen—Alsace was annexed to the Crown of France; but there was a proviso in that Act that all the property in that district of German tenure should remain inviolable. This property was a German male fief—it might be described as an estate tail; the estate tail in the remainderman being incapable of being defeated or barred. The claimant, therefore, had a vested estate in the remainder. In 1791 the father of the claimant, who was in the service of the King of France, foreseeing the events which were then pending, and apprehending they might lead to the loss of his interest in this estate by confiscation or otherwise, determined to give up that interest to his son. It was accordingly conveyed to the son with all the form and ceremony incident to the law of that country, without condition or reservation of any kind; so that by that act he became entitled to and was absolute master of the whole interest and property. In 1793, in consequence of the events which then occurred in France, both the father and son were compelled to leave France, and take refuge in Germany. They were treated therefore by France as emigrants, and their estate was confiscated. The conveyance of the estate from the father to the son had been made to secure the estate to the family—the son being a British subject; and it was supposed that under the circumstances he had mentioned the whole estate was secured. Notwithstanding that, by an unjust act the whole estate was confiscated by the French Government. Thus circumstances remained until the close of the war. At the close of the war, conventions were entered into between France and this country for the purpose of affording compensation to per-

481
sons for the losses sustained by confiscations under the authority of the revolutionary Government as he had stated. A mixed commission was appointed for the purpose of investigating the claims, partly composed of four French, and partly of four English commissioners, and money was appropriated to satisfy those claims. In one of those treaties, namely, one dated 20th November, 1815, it was a stipulation that persons presenting their claims should present them within three months from that date, and those three months expired on the 20th February, 1816. The claimant presented a memorial to the Due do Richelieu, who was then Prime Minister of France, setting forth his claim, on the 9th January. The reason why he presented his claim to the French Minister was, that the English Commissioners had not then arrived, and no meeting had been held by the Commission. The Due de Richelieu said the claim was inadmissible; and the reason he assigned for it was this, "Your father (said he to the claimant) was a German; how can you claim to be a British subject?" The claimant was staggered at that statement, and went immediately to Sir Charles Stuart, the British Ambassador, to state the case to him. Sir Charles Stuart said he would see Mr. Mackenzie, the head of the English Commissioners, and represent the case properly to him, and he accordingly did so, and satisfied Mr. Mackenzie that there was not the slightest ground for the objection. Mr. Mackenzie, in consequence of that, said he would put the name of the claimant on his list. He begged their Lordships' attention to that list. He had stated that at the end of three months no further claims should be received. At the expiration of three months, accordingly, the Commissioners made out a list of claims actually presented. But the Due de Richelieu having decided against the claimant, Mr. Mackenzie stated it would be proper, be-fore he mentioned the case to the French Commissioners, that the claimant should present proof of his birth, and any other circumstances on which his claim was founded. The petitioner then obtained certificates of the marriage of his father and mother, of his own birth in the county of Stafford, and other documents that were necessary. In addition to that he took the precaution to make an accurate statement of his ease, and to present it to Sir Samuel Romilly for his opinion on the subject. Sir Samuel stated there was no
482
doubt whatever that the petitioner was a British subject, that he had all the rights of a British subject, and was subject to all the liabilities incident to that character; and that, in fact, he could not put off his allegiance to the British Crown, and stating that opinion in terms the most distinct and decisive. That evidence was presented to the Commissioners, and Mr. Mackenzie said he would take care that the claimant's name should be put upon the list. But afterwards Mr. Mackenzie stated he had doubts whether the petitioner's property was situated within the limits of the French territory. It was stated, in reply, that Lower Alsace was ceded to the Crown of France by the treaty of Munster, and confirmed by subsequent treaties; and every map of France that their Lordships might look at would show that that district was situated in the midst of the French territory. Mr. Mackenzie was satisfied he had made a mistake. Such were the various difficulties which this gentleman had to contend with in making good his claim. From time to time he applied to know when his case would be heard, and what documents would be required as evidence in support of it. At length he was told that the Commissioners were employed in considering another class of eases. Thus time went on until 1818. In that year there was another shifting of the scene. A new convention was entered into with France and the Government of this country. The Mixed Commission was abolished, and a large sum of money—60,000,000 francs, was paid over to the British Treasury; this country taking on itself to liquidate the various claims, and undertaking to indemnify France against all such claims as might be made upon that country by British subjects. In the following year, 1819, an Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose of carrying that convention into effect; and in that Act of Parliament the Commissioners, who had acted on the part of England in the Mixed Commission, were named as Commissioners under the new convention. The petitioner's name was included in the list of the claimants of the new Commission. He applied to be heard, and after a considerable interval he was heard; and he received from the Commissioners a statement of the kind of evidence which they would require in support of his claim. This gentleman, as might naturally be supposed, after that long delay, was reduced to great pecuniary difficulties. He stated his case frankly to the Commis-

483
sioners, and asked them to afford him time to obtain the requisite evidence, which, of itself, would cost him a great deal of money; during the Revolution, his castle had been sacked and his muniments destroyed, and he stated he should be obliged to resort to secondary evidence of a complicated description; and his poverty then rendered it impossible for him to procure it without time. They allowed him time. He obtained money, and he employed agents to collect documents. One part of the evidence related to the cession of the property to the son by the father; and he was collecting that evidence on the Continent, when the Commissioners sent to him to ask if he was prepared to prove that the property confiscated, being the property of a British subject, was confiscated as such, and under the decrees against British subjects. His agents at once replied, "No; it was confiscated in consequence of emigration." The Commissioners replied that in that case it was no use going on with the evidence, and that unless he could prove that the property had been confiscated under the decrees against British subjects, he was not entitled to come in under the Convention. That was a most extraordinary decision, and there was nothing to justify it in the terms of the Convention. The Article No. 7 of the Convention referred to, and all the evidence required was, that the party was a British subject, that he was entitled to the property, and that the property had been confiscated. The question at a subsequent period—a few years afterwards—was decided by the appellate tribunal—namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They decided against that judgment of the Commissioners, following various cases reported in the transactions of that Committee; and many persons had since received compensation for their losses—their property having been confiscated, not as the property of British subjects, but as the property of emigrants, and on account of emigration. An end was put at once to the inquiries of the petitioner, and the Commissioners proceeded to make their award almost immediately after. That award was a rejection of the claim. Now, on the face of the award, the grounds of the rejection were stated, and the first ground was that which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had just mentioned. The second ground was, that there was no sufficient proof of the cession—of the giving up of this estate by the father to the claimant. That was a most extra-
484
ordinary ground, for the Commissioners had themselves by their erroneous act prevented the completion of the evidence, and therefore the second ground resolved itself into the first. There was another question which was very important-—what did the cession apply to? It applied only from the father to the son; the son held a vested estate in remainder, more valuable perhaps than the life estate of the father, for he died four years afterwards. They never entered into an investigation of that part of the case, or inquired whether they should give compensation for an undeniable interest vested in him, and incapable of being disputed. Now as to the third ground, on which he did not insist, but on which he should shortly dwell, as very material for the purpose of showing the manner in which the Commissioners had transacted their proceedings. This claim for compensation on the part of the Baron de Bode was wrongly described by them as biens caducs. They applied to it the definition that was given in the Dictionnaire de l' Academie, of a lapsed legacy or of property altogether abandoned and belonging to no one; and they asked "how can you claim compensation for property which belongs to no one?" But if the Commissioners had consulted a French lawyer, or any lawyer, they would have learnt that the term which they applied to it was used to describe property which had escheated to the lord for want of an heir, and which had become absolutely vested in the lord. Then, again, the Commissioners, not being acquainted with the law of France, consulted a learned work with reference to that part of the claim which related to the property in mines, and they extracted a passage from it with the view of showing that the claimant could have no property in mines—mines being of no value, as they could not be worked without the permission and under the surveillance of the Government; whereas any person who read the passage with attention would find that the author quoted had come to a conclusion directly the reverse, and that he was answering an argument against the opinion which he himself had expressed. Thus ended the proceedings of the Commissioners. But this gentleman, having a right to appeal from their decision to the Committee of Privy Council, accordingly appealed to that body. The decision of the Privy Council was given in a few words; it was grounded solely upon the assertion that the cession must

485
be taken to have been made for the purpose of deluding the revolutionary Government, subject therefore to the same observations that had been made upon the original decree. That being the last tribunal to which the claimant could apply, he was then left without redress. The ground of the Privy Council's affirmance not affecting the vested remainder to which he had referred, the claimant was advised to apply for a rehearing of the case. But no sooner was it known that he intended to apply for a rehearing than application was made to have the decision of the Privy Council confirmed by the Crown. Now, everybody acquainted with the course of proceedings in such cases knew full well that this was usually a mere matter of form; but, on this occasion, it turned out to be a matter of substance; for, when the gentleman applied for a rehearing, the Privy Council decided that they had no authority to rehear the case, in consequence of the Crown having ratified the previous affirmance. At that time there was about 500,000 l. of the money received from France in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury which had not been applied in discharge of the claims; and a gentleman who was then a Member of the House of Commons, but who was now a Member of the House of Lords, applied to Mr. Canning, then Prime Minister, and stated the case to him. Mr. Canning was strongly impressed with the injustice which had been done to the gentleman, and said he would order the case to be inquired into, and endeavour to do him justice. Unfortunately, however, the death of that distinguished statesman prevented any further step being taken in that direction. An application having been made to the noble Lord now at the head of Her Majesty's Government, he took up the case and brought it before the House of Commons, and supported the claims of this gentleman with all the fervour, and zeal, and perspicacity, and eloquence which were so familiar to their Lordships. Put how was he mot? The first argument used against him was, that the property had not been confiscated as the property of a British subject, under the decree to which he had adverted:—he (Lord Lyndnurst) had already disposed of that objection. Another objection was, that the cession was not made by deed; but it was not necessary that the surrender of the property should have been made by deed, the law on that subject being peculiar to
486
this country. The surrender was made according to the law of the country where it took place, and that was sufficient. Another and more singular objection was, that if the House of Commons granted the Motion for an Inquiry, they would cast a slur upon the credit of the Commissioners and of the Privy Council; and the House of Commons was asked to refuse to set the matter right, through courtesy to the parties out of whoso mistakes the injustice had arisen. These arguments, assisted by others at the nature of which he would not hint, prevailed; the consequence was, that the Motion of his noble Friend was lost, though his noble Friend was supported on the occasion by all the vigorous and manly eloquence of Sir James Graham. The case was then taken up by his noble and learned Friend opposite, who lately held the Great Seal (Lord Truro), and he undertook to bring the case before the House of Commons. He gave notice for that purpose in the year 1832; but though he had named several days for the Motion, he was unable to bring it on, and was obliged to postpone it to the next Session. Parliament having been dissolved, his noble and learned Friend had not a seat in the House of Commons in the ensuing Session, and therefore was not in a position to fulfil his engagement. The case was then taken up by Mr. Hill, the Member for Hull, who brought forward a Motion on the subject. He had made some progress in his statement; but soon perceived that one Member after another was leaving the House on the side of the Government; and when the benches were nearly deserted, an hon. Member moved that the House should be counted out—and it was counted out. So much for those dispensers of justice—so much for the honour of that House and its integrity when money was concerned, that money being in the hands of the Government, and unapplied to the purpose for which it was originally given. In the following Session Mr. Hill renewed his Motion, and not only obtained a hearing in a House of nearly 200 Members, but a Select Committee was appointed, as he understood, with acclamation. The Committee having met, some parties applied for liberty to oppose the claim, and were permitted to do so. Counsel were ranged at both sides, the case was argued day after day for some time, and the inquiry was nearly brought to a conclusion, when an objection was made, on the part of the opponents of the claimant, that his docu-

487
ments, although authenticated by the authorities abroad, were not authenticated by any British Minister or agent. The Session being then nearly at a close, the objection put a stop to the inquiry; but the Committee, in their report to the House, strongly urged the necessity of reappointing the Committee in the next Session. Unfortunately there was again a dissolution; and Mr. Hill not having been again returned to the House, it became necessary to find some other Member to move for the reappointment of the Committee; hut such was the general alarm at the nature and complexity of the case, that it was necessary to go about knocking from door to door to find some Member to undertake it. At last Mr. Warburton moved for the reappointment of the Committee; and, singular to say, was met by the argument, on the part of a Member of the House and an officer of the Crown, that the Baron de Bode, who, for twenty years, had been persevering and active in every possible way to have his case heard and decided, had slept upon his case, and that vigilantibus non dormientibus succurrit lex —an argument which, he maintained, was, under all the circumstances, nothing less than a piece of cruel mockery and insult. Mr. Warburton's Motion having been lost, the Baron next applied for a mandamus, calling upon the Treasury to apply the money for the purpose for which it had been received. The mandamus was refused, on the ground that the Lords of the Treasury held the money as the servants of the Crown; and it was asked how could a mandamus, which was an order of the Crown, command the Crown to apply the money in any particular way? The counsel for the claimant then applied for a petition of right, supplicating Her Majesty to do justice; and—-would their Lordships believe it—this application was resisted on the ground that the money was not in the hands of the Crown, but in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury. At length, however, Lord Cottenham, then Lord Chancellor, appointed four members of the Bar, and highly qualified for the duty, to examine into the matter. These gentlemen summoned a jury of fourteen, twelve being necessary for a verdict, and that jury pronounced a unanimous verdict, finding all the facts which were asserted in the petition of right to be true. The Attorney General had notice to attend this inquiry, and might have attended it if he had
488
thought proper; but he did not do so. Although, however, he did not choose to attend the inquiry, he did that which by law he was of course perfectly entitled to do—he traversed the finding, and pleaded the Statute of Limitations, which was fatal to the claim. The next step was a trial at bar, where the four Judges presided with a special jury, and the result was, to confirm the former finding in every particular. All the facts which he had stated, then, had been proved by the concurrent verdict of two juries. Advantage was then taken by the opponents of this gentleman of a clause in the Act of Parliament which was passed for the purpose of carrying the Convention into effect, by which it was provided that the money should only be applied to discharge the claims of the parties in whose favour an adjudication had been made by the Commissioners. It was urged that this claim had not been established by an adjudication of the Commissioners, and accordingly it was decided that judgment could not be given in favour of the claimant. An appeal against that decision was brought before their Lordships' House, but their Lordships felt they were bound to confirm that decision. If he were to be asked where the money was to come from to satisfy these claims, his answer was, that it was either in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury, or that it had been applied to some public service. If the latter were the case, the public, having reaped the benefit of it, were bound to restore the money. But he did not go so far as that. He asked simply for a Committee to inquire into this case; and if the Committee should confirm the statement which he had made, he should appeal to Her Majesty's Government to afford redress. He pressed this case in common honesty and common fairness, not for the sake of the claimant alone, but for the character, honour, and dignity of this country.
Moved —"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations of the Baron de Bode's Petition, and to report thereon to the House."
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I am quite sure that you have seldom listened with greater admiration to my noble and learned Friend, even in the days of his greatest vigour. My noble and learned Friend has entered into a detail involving matters of great complication and importance, delivered with a complete command of all the minutest circumstances, and unassisted, as you have perceived, by

489
a reference to a single note. And seldom, I am quite sure, has the cause of humanity —I will not say the cause of justice, for that would, perhaps, he thought prejudging the case—seldom, I say, has the cause of humanity and national honour been placed before you in language more eloquent— conveyed by arguments more forcible, and in a manner more calculated to attract the attention and admiration of your Lordships, than the manner in which this case has been presented by my noble and learned Friend; and I am quite sure that to every one of your Lordships, on whatever side of the House you sit, it will be a subject of equal gratification, as it is to me, to perceive by this evidence that my noble and learned Friend's mental powers are wholly unimpaired, after the many years which he has passed—and I hope not at the close of his long and valuable life;—that not only his mental faculties are unimpaired, but also his high sense of what is due to justice and to the honour of the country, is retained with as much warmth and sincerity as ever they were in his youngest days. I am far from wishing to enter into a discussion of the merits of this painful case, with which at one time —as my noble and learned Friend has stated—I was myself individually familiar. I believe it is now about twenty-four years since I undertook to bring the question of the wrongs, as I certainly then conceived them to be, of the father of the present petitioner before the consideration of Parliament. I see a noble Friend of mine on the cross bench who undertook the charge of the case a few years before I did. Many of the circumstances have since faded from my recollection, until they were recalled to it by the able speech of my noble and learned Friend. I am quite sure that it would be a waste of your Lordships' time to enter upon a discussion of any portion of this claim, even if I were fitted by my recollection of the do-tails to do so. But I think that there will be but one feeling in the minds of all your Lordships—that such a statement as you have heard, proceeding from such high authority as that of my noble and learned Friend, evincing such a thorough conviction upon his own mind of the substantial justice of the case which he brings before you—that justice being vouched by so eminent an authority, and not answered or objected to by any of your Lordships, not controverted—and I believe as regards a great part of the statement not contro-
490
vertible—I feel, my Lords, that it would be impossible that you could listen to such a statement and refuse to submit to the test of a searching inquiry the alleged facts, which, perhaps, you may receive with too much favour, graced as they have been by the eloquence of my noble and learned Friend. Undoubtedly there must be great difficulty attending this inquiry, which will probably extend to a period when it will be doubtful whether any Committee which you can appoint can bring its labours to a close in the course of the present Session. At the same time, if my noble and learned Friend thinks fit to press this Motion for a Committee in the present Session, I, for one, shall offer no opposition to it, although I think that not only will the Committee require a considerable time for their inquiry, but after they have reported I am afraid that in another place there will not be evinced a disposition to regard with peculiar favour any demand that may be made on them in consequence of the report of such Committee. At the same time if the report of the Committee should substantiate the justice and equity of the claim, neither lapse of time, nor technicalities, nor any inconvenience of being called upon to pay a sum of money, however large, ought to prevent the discharge of such claim on the part of this country. Therefore, however large may be the sum which can by possibility be awarded—however unpleasing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be the prospects of this claim, I will venture to entertain a hope that if, and only if, you should come to a clear and undoubted conclusion, upon clear and incontrovertible evidence of facts brought before you, that this gentleman, in honour, in equity, and in morality, has a claim upon the country, the House of Commons will not refuse to acknowledge the liability or justice of the claim. I beg your Lordships not to prejudge the case; but after the statement you have heard, I think it impossible that you should say that such a question does not require to be calmly and deliberately investigated.
EARL GREYsaid that, without expressing any opinion on the claims of the Baron do Bode, with the merits of which he was unacquainted, he agreed with the noble Earl that if there was a valid claim on the equity and justice of the nation, however large the sum at stake might be, it was the duty of Parliament, and especially of the other House of Parliament, to provide

491
the means of meeting it. But he could not help entertaining more than doubts whether the appointment of a Committee of that House was the proper mode of arriving at a decision upon the subject; for he thought that Parliamentary Committees were, of all tribunals, the least to be trusted to adjudicate upon a claim upon the public purse; especially when it was one which involved such nice considerations of law, and arose from a long series of transactions of so complicated a nature. He believed that if this subject was to be brought under the consideration of the other House of Parliament, and a vote was to be asked to make good an equitable demand upon the nation, that claim ought to be recommended by the responsible advisers of the Crown, after they had, by due inquiry, satisfied themselves of its justice. They knew that the present advisers of the Crown were not indisposed to consider the subject attentively, for the noble Earl opposite was himself the person who brought the subject before the House twenty-four years ago. And in the investigation of the claim they could not only command the assistance of the law officers of the Crown, but might advise the Crown to appoint a commission of inquiry upon the subject. He believed that if by such an inquiry they were satisfied that the claim was a good one, their recommendation of it would have much more weight and authority with a Committee of Supply, than the decision of a Committee of that House. The noble and learned Lord had, indeed, laid no grounds whatever for the particular course which he called upon the House to adopt; for, assuming the facts which he had stated to be correct, they certainly led to the conclusion, not that the House should appoint a Committee, but that they should address Her Majesty, praying her to recommend a vote, in order to meet the justice of the case. The speech of the noble and learned Lord did indeed appear to make out so strong a case that he could not help feeling that there must be something more behind, of which their Lordships were not quite accurately informed, and which made it expedient that an investigation should be conducted by a more competent tribunal than a Committee of that House—by Commissioners learned in the law. This subject had now been twenty-four years before the House; when it was first brought forward by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby): the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), who
492
had that evening brought the matter forward was at that time the Keeper of the King's conscience; and he supposed, therefore, that it was upon his advice, and with his concurrence, that the Government of that day, of which he was the legal adviser, opposed a decided resistance to these claims, or even to the Committee which was moved for by the noble Earl. There had been several successive Governments since that time (the noble and learned Lord having himself held the Great Seal three times), and yet no one of them had thought it expedient to recommend this case to the liberality of Parliament. Now, without pretending to know anything whatever of the merits of the case, he must say that that one fact did inspire him with considerable doubt whether there were not some reasons against the claim of which he was not aware, but which, as he had already said, should be investigated by a more competent tribunal than a Committee of their Lordships. For these reasons, although he should not put the House to the trouble of dividing, he should feel it his duty to say "Not-Content" to the Motion.
LORD LYNDHURSTbegged to remind the noble Earl that the case had assumed quite a new shape since he (Lord Lyndhurst) had held the Great Seal, in consequence of two successive verdicts of juries, which had found the facts in the manner which he had stated.
EARL FITZWILLIAMwas surprised to hear his noble Friend object to the nomination of a Committee for the consideration of a question which involved nothing more nor less than the honour and honesty of the country. The noble Earl said that he thought there must be something behind which had not yet come before the House; but if that was so, it was the very reason why a Committee should be appointed. And when he talked of successive Governments having in every instance opposed these claims, he did not consider what various complications of interests might have influenced them in such a course. Two facts, which had come to light in the course of this conversation— that the case of the Baron de Bode now rested upon the verdicts of two successive juries, and that a large portion of the sum given by the French Government still remained unappropriated — would of themselves furnish a sufficient reason for calling upon that or the other House to institute an inquiry into the case. The Committee,

493
if it answered no other use, would be beneficial in eliciting the precise mode in which the surplus had been disposed of. The report of the Committee might indeed be that it would be desirable to address Her Majesty, praying Her to recommend the case to the consideration of the other House of Parliament; such an Address, however, could hardly follow with effect upon the mere statement of an individual, however distinguished; and if, therefore, such a course was to be taken, nothing could be so appropriate a preliminary as the appointment of such a Committee.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that it was now many years since he had looked into the papers connected with this claim; but undoubtedly, from the best recollection which he now had of the matter, it was absolutely necessary to remove the impression which the vigour and eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, and what had fallen from the noble Earl on the cross benches, was likely to produce. There was no doubt that a largo sum of money had been given by France; but this money was strictly appropriated according to the Act of Parliament, which provided a special tribunal for the adjudication of the claims. As the noble and learned Lord had stated with perfect accuracy, that money was to be distributed to certain claimants, and any surplus which might remain was to be at the disposal of the Lords of the Treasury. Under the treaties of 1815, powers were given by Act of Parliament to Commissioners to decide on claims presented within a certain time. The claims put in within the time allowed, did not, however, exhaust the whole fund, and, therefore, the time for sending in claims was extended. It was alleged that the portion of this sum which should have been given to the Baron de Bode had been appropriated by the Government for selfish purposes, so that the Baron had been defrauded of his just rights. In the first instance, a term had been assigned within which all persons purporting to have claims were to put in those claims; and a vast number of claims had been excluded, not on their merits, but for want of compliance with the terms and conditions which had been imposed upon their claims. It was quite true that in the time of Lord Liverpool, there being a portion of the amount unexhausted by the satisfaction of the just claims put in within the stipulated period, that surplus was applied to the building and decoration of Buckingham
494
Palace. That was matter of history, and well understood. It did not, however, appear to be equally well understood, though it was equally matter of fact, that under the Government of Earl Grey, that surplus, so applied to the building and decoration of Buckingham Palace, was required to be returned, and it was accordingly returned in full to the Treasury; and a further investigation having been instituted, the money so repaid was applied in payment of a second list of claims which were allowed to be put in by persons who had been excluded from the former distribution by the limitation of time originally assigned: every single farthing, he believed, had been so appropriated, and nothing now remained. He would, in the course of the evening, move for Treasury accounts which would clearly show this state of facts, and which would thus disprove, at the same time, the allegation that the money designed for the Baron do Bode had been used by the British Government for selfish purposes, and the proposition that there was money available for the purpose of the Baron's claim.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that the Baron de Bode had preferred his claim on the 9th February, within the time fixed for their reception. As regarded the question of money, the jury had found that 450,000 l. still remained in the hands of the Treasury. Out of that, 200,000 l. had been paid to those who had not made their claim within the three months, and there remained a balance still unapplied of upwards of 200,000 l. He did not care about the accounts. This was the finding of the jury upon the evidence before them; the case of the claimant being opposed at every step by the law officers of the Crown.
LORD TRUROsaid, that notwithstanding the difficulty in which the Government might be placed by this Motion, he had fully expected the result which had been attained; for it was impossible to read the powerful and eloquent and convincing speech in which the noble Earl opposite introduced this subject to the House of Commons in 1828, when he advocated the even then manifest claim of the Baron de Bode without feeling that he would not do otherwise than adopt the course of assenting to the appointment of this Committee, however inconvenient in its immediate effect on the Exchequer its result might be. The case now came before the House in a very different position from that in which

495
it had ever stood before; and the only conceivable objection to the appointment of a Committee was that there was not now in reason, sense, or justice, a single feature of the Baron's claim in rational dispute. The facts which were necessary to support it had all been found under circumstances which precluded the most suspicious person from entertaining a doubt with respect to them. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) said that the case was so plain that he could not help thinking that there was something behind antagonistic to the claim, since there was no patent reason why the claim should not long since have been admitted and acted upon. His noble Friend might rest assured that that was not likely to he the case, after a contest of twenty-four years with the Crown, during which the claimant had been opposed at every step by the most intelligent counsel at the bar, at inquiries which took place at long intervals of time, and many of which were judicial. There never was a case which there was such reason to believe had been investigated to the dregs, and in which every fact had been established by the most indisputable evidence. The Crown having received many millions of money to administer justice to its own subjects, nevertheless met the claim of the Baron de Bode with what he almost dignified by calling a technical quibble: the opponents who could condescend to resort to so miserable an evasion as an appeal to the Statute of Limitations must indeed have been at their wits end for a case. Upon that plea the case went to trial; not before a Judge at Nisi Prius, but to a trial at bar before the Judges of the Court of King's Bench and a special jury. The plea had said that the inquisition was not proved, nor any part of it; but the verdict of the jury was that every part of it was proved. There was no Motion for a new trial, no suggestion on the part of the Crown that there was anything unsatisfactory in the verdict, and the Act of Parliament was the only ground upon which the Court of Queen's Bench refused to give judgment upon the case. It was said that the Act had placed this money in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury, not as servants of the Crown, but as a mere mode of describing them as public officers to whom a statutable authority was given. As to the statement that there were no funds out of which this claim could be satisfied, even in part, the finding of the jury completely rebutted it. It
496
appeared that certain claimants had been too late in presenting their claims; but he would read to the House exactly what was proved on the trial. The jury found "that, after the payment of all the claims of duly registered claimants which had been established, the surplus of 482,752 l. remained in the hands of the said Commissioners, of which surplus a sum of 200,000 l. and upwards was applied to satisfy claims which had been tendered after the time limited by the Convention of 1815, and not admitted until the authority given by the Lords of the Treasury in 1826; and the residue, after satisfying these claims, which had been presented duly and afterwards allowed, amounting to 200,000 l. was paid into the Bank of England on Government account by the Lords of the Treasury, into pursuance of the Act 59 Geo. III." That was said to he disposed of; hut was that any answer to the Baron de Bode? Already 200,000 l. had been disposed of to his wrong; for as he had put in his claim before the expiration of the term originally fixed, he was clearly entitled to payment out of this 482,752 l. before those who had, in the first instance, failed from not having put in their claims in time. How monstrous, then, was the proposition, that even the residue now existing should be withheld from him. That 200,000 l. might, and perhaps had, been disposed of, but not in the sense which belonged to this case. It remained hound by this judgment to the satisfaction of his rights. When France paid the money it was the duty of this country to see that it was honestly applied for those in whose behalf the claims had been preferred. It appeared, after the claims were in, a communication took place between the two Governments as to the proper sum to be set apart to answer future claims. The Baron de Bode's claim was in at that time; and, upon the footing of the claims then in, a computation was made as to the sum to be set apart. It appeared to him that, according to the statements, the case was almost incredible in point of strength and truth; and if their Lordships should find the claim to be just, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in adopting some course to redeem the honour of the country. He rejoiced to see that the noble and learned Lord who brought forward this case with so much ability and perspicuity enjoyed at his time of life so much vigour of mind, and, he was happy to add, so much vigour of body; and, in

497
conclusion, he hoped that the Government would do itself honour by assenting to the appointment of a Committee, whose labours, he believed, would not prove so protracted or so tedious as was supposed.
LORD HATHERTONsaid, that having been the individual who first brought forward this case in the House of Commons in 1826, he could not allow the present occasion to pass without offering his acknowledgments to the noble and learned Lord, for the spirited course he had taken, and the powerful statement he had made in introducing this Motion. He confidently believed, after the verdict of the jury, that the sum of 200,000 l. remained unappropriated, that the inquiry now proposed would result in placing the representative of the Baron de Bode in the position which he ought to occupy. At any rate, after the verdict of the jury, it was impossible for their Lordships to ignore the claims of the Baron de Bode, or, at least, to give him a fair opportunity of satisfying their Lordships of the merits of his case.
On Question, agreed to.

SCHOOL SITES ACTS EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order).
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, this Bill did not attempt to introduce any new principle of legislation; its object was merely to carry one step further the legislation which had been going on for several years, namely, to promote the erection of school houses for the education of different classes of the community. Originally these enabling Acts extended to parochial schools and diocesan training schools; and it was proposed by this Bill to extend these enabling provisions to two other classes of schools, one class being schools for the training of the sons of yeomen and of shopkeepers, partly supported by charitable aid and partly self-supporting. There was no class worse provided with regard to schools than that class. Practically speaking, the great improvement effected in the schools of the labouring class had a tendency to leave the class above the labouring class in need of considerable improvement in the schools suitable for them. He had proposed to enable parties to grant sites for these schools; but in consequence of objections which had been pointed out to him, he proposed to allow parties to sell, for a valuable consideration, two acres of land, and to enable ecclesiastical corporations to grant, with the consent of the dio-
498
cesan, two acres of land, for the second class of schools, which were for persons who had passed through the University, and were preparing for holy orders, to spend a year in pursuing theological study.
Amendments made; Bill to be reported on Monday next.

SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that when the Bill was in Committee, he hoped to have the assistance of noble and learned Lords in making such a Convention and Act of Parliament as the requirements of the case demanded. A variety of opinions had been offered the other evening with reference to the securities which ought to be required to prevent the liberty of subjects of foreign Powers who had received the protection of this country from being invaded. So much difference of opinion prevailed on this point, that he thought it advisable to propose some alterations of the Bill in Committee. One main objection to the clause which had been discussed the other evening was, that if any alteration were attempted in the Convention by the Act of Parliament, it would put an end to the whole thing sought to be attained. But this was not the case. If their Lordships pleased to give him such powers as he required, he would undertake to get a new Convention drawn up in twenty-four hours. As far as the proposed Amendments went, the French Government was satisfied with them. With respect to the principal points of the Bill, it was objected that the Act would have a retrospective effect, and would extend to now crimes not named in the old Convention. He begged to say, that in the former Bill, there was a paragraph omitted by the printer in mistake from the clause, which contained a recital of crimes, and that paragraph declared that no person charged with an offence should be given up unless the offence charged against him was one which was contained in the recitals of the respective Conventions. The most important Amendment he had to propose to their Lordships was one which, he hoped, if adopted, would meet the jealous fear of noble Lords as to the liberty of the subject. It was at first proposed to surrender criminals on a magistrate being satisfied with their identity. Instead of this

499
he proposed that the Secretary of State should not issue his warrant for the apprehension of the accused until documentary proof of the accusation was produced. On no account was the accused to he surrendered to the French Government until something had been received from the Juge d'Instruction in the shape of proof positive of crime. He considered that this Amendment would give a security to the Secretary of State when called upon to transfer criminals to another country. He would beg to remind their Lordships that the Juge d'Instruction was not an executive judge, or connected with the Government; he was an independent judge, and did not issue his mandat d'arret till he had gone through the whole case. Having said so much in explanation of his proposed Amendments, he would say he proposed nothing more, except with reference to the seventh article of the Convention, which related to protection afforded to refugees on account of political offences. He was promised by the French Ambassador that a law exactly analogous to the law he proposed to establish should be passed in France. The noble Earl opposite smiled; but if the noble Earl did not believe in the honesty and good faith of Governments, what was the use of making conventions at all? At all events, there was this hold upon the French authorities, that this Convention could not be put in motion until both parties agreed that it should operate. The object, therefore, of the Convention could not he frustrated, because it would not be put into operation until the provisions and stipulations of the French Government had been fulfilled. In the Committee he should move the Amendments of which he had given notice.
Moved —"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he felt confident that their Lordships would assist cordially in carrying this measure out. In the shape in which it was originally introduced it was inadmissible; but by the Amendment proposed it was certainly rendered less objectionable. The original terms of the Bill would have placed every Frenchman in this country at the mercy of the French Government; but the alteration now proposed certainly made the arrangement less objectionable, because it was now intended by the noble Earl that the party accused should not be delivered up until a certificate from the Juge d'In-
500
struction arrived. Still, he would have considerable hesitation in giving implicit credence to such a certificate; and although he could not require evidence against the party accused, strictly and technically equivalent to what would be sufficient in our law to justify his commitment, still, unless the Secretary of State took care to exact satisfactory evidence that the party was one who ought to be surrendered, England would lose its distinctive character as affording a safe asylum for the political refugees of all nations. Why, if the proposed Convention was agreed to, and a change of Government hereafter took place in France, the Prince President, if he took refuge in England, might himself be given up upon a mere mandat d'arret, and the certificate of a Juge d'Instruction. He (Lord Campbell) thought the Bill should be withdrawn, and a fresh Convention framed, to be afterwards ratified by an act of Parliament.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, the noble Earl the Secretary of State had proposed several very material improvements in his Bill, but how far they would be sufficient would depend on what the real spirit of the French law was. If the warrant of the Juge d'Instruction was a document, was really something in the nature of a bill of indictment found by a grant jury, it might be sufficient to justify the Secretary of State in giving up the accused. But he would not exclude any other means of giving proof— it would be enough if prima facie evidence of some other kind was furnished to satisfy the Secretary of State that the party ought to be delivered up to his Government; on the other hand, if all that the Juge d'Instruction did was to examine the pieces d'accusation laid before him, without taking any evidence at all, that would be a most unsatisfactory ground for ordering that a party in this country should be surrendered. He (Lord Brougham) would suggest that the noble Earl should print all his amendments, and allow the Bill to stand over for a few days. Then, if the alterations were considered by their Lordships to afford proper securities, there would be no difficulty in having another Convention, or in making such additions to the present Convention as would enable them to legislate with effect upon the subject.
The EARL of MALMESBURYexplained that the mise en accusation was the result of a judicial inquiry, not before a Juge d'Instruction, but before a court of judges of a much higher order. A mandat

501
d'arrêt was a warrant issued by the Juge d'Instruction himself; but it was the result of a judicial inquiry. He had no objection to reprint the Bill, if the Bill was allowed to go through Committee, and the further discussion deferred to the bringing up of the report.
The EARL of ABERDEENasked what it was that prevented the French Government from furnishing proof of the guilt of the party whose extradition they demanded? The noble Earl said that, under the present existing Convention, persons were demanded by the French Government whom the British Government were not able to surrender. Why could they not surrender them? Because the French Government did not comply with the terms of the Convention, and produce that amount of proof of the guilt of the accused which would warrant his arrest and commitment in this country if the offence had been committed against our laws. That was the principle which had been uniformly laid down; it was incorporated in the 20th Article of the Treaty of Amiens, and also in the treaty with America, and likewise in the treaty with France. Now, however, it was sought to introduce an entirely new condition of surrender—the law of this country having hitherto given to the foreigner the same protection as was enjoyed by the Englishman. He confessed, therefore, that he thought it a very serious matter to depart from the old established rule which always had existed for the protection of foreigners, and which was recognised in each of the treatises to which he had referred. At the same time, if the mise en accusation was really sufficient to meet the requirements of the principle long laid down, and to furnish evidence such as would justify the arrest and commitment of the party if he had transgressed the laws of this country, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would not offer any objection to the proposition of the noble Earl opposite.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that the noble Earl who had just spoken appeared to have forgotten what took place in the year 1846; for among the papers on this subject in that year, he found a communication from the noble Earl to Count St. Aulaire, in which it was stated that the note of the French Ambassador had been referred to the Home Department, and to the law officers of the Government, and that all these authorities were of opinion, in which Lord Aberdeen entirely concurred, that to obviate the difficulty complained of by the French Government, a
502
new Convention and a new Act of Parliament were necessary; and that in such new Convention the clause requiring that French subjects should not be delivered up, unless the evidence of their guilt was such as to warrant their commitment for trial by the law of the country in which they had taken refuge, ought to be altogether omitted, as being contrary to the real intention of the contracting Powers, and productive of many causes of insuperable difficulty in carrying out the object of the Convention.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the late Government had approved of the stipulations which had been embodied in the Convention. The proposition of the Government was to allow a party to be taken into custody upon a mandat d'arrêt, but not to be given up to his Government until much more solemn stops had been taken that would establish his guilt. They had no wish or intention to abandon the right of affording hospitality to all persons of every nation who came to seek refuge on our shores; but, the Convention of 1843 not having worked at all for France, although it had worked well for England, nothing was more reasonable than that the French Government should desire an arrangement the benefits of which should be reciprocal, and not all on one side. Her Majesty's Government had therefore found it to be its duty to enter into a new convention with France, and that being so, he was sure their Lordships would not, upon any light considerations, wish to disturb what had thus been agreed upon. Some weight, he thought, ought to be attached to the decision of the Government, acting upon its responsibility; and if every clause of the Convention was to be spelt out, and difficulties raised upon every item of its provisions, it would be almost impossible to frame a convention by which every one of their Lordships present would be willing to be bound, and which would also in every respect satisfy those Members of their Lordships' House who were absent— to say nothing of the discussions and alterations that might be required to meet the wishes of the other House when they saw the example that had been set them by their Lordships. Why, half-a- dozen experimental conventions might he necessary before they decided upon a final one, and the Government of this country would be lowered in the estimation of the world, and would not stand in the position they ought to occupy in their intercourse with foreign Governments. Her Majesty's Go-

503
vernment had every desire to accord full protection to political refugees within proper conditions; and he therefore hoped their Lordships would see no sufficient grounds for preventing the Bill from proceeding in its present shape.
EARL GRANVILLEdescribed the course taken by the Government of which he was a member in reference to a new convention with France; and said that he felt that there was great weight in some of the objections which had been urged against the proposed arrangement. But as the noble Earl had agreed to provide that no person should be surrendered until sufficient information had been given to show the nature of the offence charged against him, Parliament ought certainly to agree to some new arrangement with France, to relieve that country from the anomalous position in which it now stood in reference to the extradition of French criminals by this country, for unless some such arrangement were adopted, the French Government, which had derived no benefit whatever from the existing Convention, would, it was quite certain, resolve on terminating it altogether. It was certainly most desirable that precautions should be taken against allowing refugees to be sacrificed, but these precautions were, he believed, taken in the Convention. Certain other securities had, however, been suggested; and he thought that the object which they all had in view might be obtained, if they adopted some such arrangement as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord behind him—namely, that the Bill should be printed for the purpose of enabling them further to consider the subject.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he was glad to hear that the Convention had been entered into by the late Government, because in finding fault with it he could not, in that case, be supposed to be influenced by any party feeling. The stipulation of the Convention of 1843, that no Frenchmen accused of crime should be delivered up, unless his criminality should be established by such evidence as would have warranted his committal if the crime had been committed in this country, was a provision obviously calculated to render the Convention inoperative for the surrender of French criminals by this country, because, before a French criminal could be surrendered, that provision assumed that witnesses must be brought over from France, perhaps from places as distant as the Pyrenees, and that they should then make depositions which would warrant a magis-
504
trate in committing the person accused if the offence had been done in Middlesex. Of course such a proceeding had never taken place, and never would take place, on account of the great delay, vexation, and expense which it would involve. How was that evil to be remedied? It would seem that the obvious remedy was that the Secretary of State should be empowered to give up a refugee on the receipt of proofs that proceedings had taken place in France analogous to those which took place previously to a commitment in this country. He thought, that upon the faith of such proceedings, a criminal might be given up. That was the purport of the arrangement which they all wished to see adopted. But it was then proposed that they should be content with the mise en accusation, and he had to state that he could not say "Ay" or "No" to that proposal until he should become better informed than he was at present of the nature and effect of a mise en accusation. If he could be satisfied that that proceeding was analogous to an indictment in this country —that it afforded prima facie evidence of guilt—he could see no objection to the proposal. But he thought that, under any circumstances, some discretion ought to be given to the Secretary of State, and that he should not be absolutely compelled to give up refugees in all cases. There was a clause stating that political refugees should not he surrendered; but who was to determine what parties were to be considered as political refugees? A political leader might, in a time of revolution, stop the mails; and he might afterwards be regarded either as a political offender or as a person guilty of a robbery. In that and similar cases it would, he thought, be necessary that they should leave discretionary powers in the hands of the Secretary of State. In his opinion they ought to keep two objects in view—first, that they ought not to make any stipulation which would be absolutely imperative on either country; and, secondly, they ought not to stipulate for the surrender of any person without receiving such depositions as would afford a reasonable prima facie evidence of his guilt.
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved that by one of the sections of the Act, power was expressly reserved to the Secretary of State to snpersede the proceedings if he should think there was a case for doing so; and therefore there was a discretionary power such as had been recommended by the noble and learned Lord.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that in point of fact we trusted the President of the French himself, for it was a condition that the Keeper of the Seals, after an examination of all the documents in respect to a person charged with crime, should address a report to the President of the Republic, who, if due cause were shown, should issue a Presidential decree for the surrender of the alleged criminal. He, therefore, thought it should be required that the magistrate acting in reference to a similar case in this country, should make a report to the Secretary of State, who, if due cause were shown, should order the surrender of the party charged with crime. There was nothing in the Convention which gave this discretionary power. He denied that the magistrate had a discretion, for he made no report of the circumstances, and nothing was referred to the Secretary of State, who had no power to stop the proceedings, or to prevent the party charged with crime from being delivered up.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: That has been altered.
LORD BEAUMONT: The noble Earl said that had been altered. He would therefore ask the noble Earl, if this were the Convention which he had signed?—for if it were, he (Lord Beaumont) was correct; if not, he was surprised that the noble Earl should lay a Convention which was not the true one on the table of their Lordships' House. If the clauses of the Bill which they were discussing were not in accordance with the Convention, then the preamble had not been proved. He hoped their Lordships would not proceed with this Bill, but that the noble Earl would prepare another Convention in accordance with the suggestions which had been offered to him, and would then bring forward a Bill founded on that Convention. He considered that a provision should be made, that when a person was given up who was not entitled to he given up, he should be returned to the place in which he had been arrested. He considered, also, that the mise en accusation would not be sufficient to justify a magistrate of this country in giving up the person against whom it had been made.
LORD BROUGHAM: It would justify a magistrate in issuing his warrant.
LORD BEAUMONT: If on the face of the mise en accusation there be sufficient to justify the magistrate in issuing his warrant, that is all I require.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, the Bill,
506
according to its terms, did not appear to enable the Secretary of State to exercise a discretionary power. Whilst the French Government retained in its own hands the power of judging of all the circumstances of the case, the English Government were charged with the duty of issuing the warrant, on proof given of the identity of the party. The Bill professed to enable the Secretary of State to do that which the Convention did not enable him to do. Unless we were to receive evidence in England, he hardly saw how we were to judge of the criminality of a prisoner. He thought the security they were all anxious to obtain with reference to political offenders, could be had, to a certain extent, if the Secretary of State was entrusted with a discretionary power. It was a matter of primary importance that the Secretary of State should have that discretionary power, and the more especially as there were now to be twenty specified offences instead of three as at present.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the discretion which the noble and learned Lord found in the Bill only applied to one article in it—namely, Article 10. But it was quite fit the discretion should be extended. Nobody could be more sensible than he (the Earl of Aberdeen) was of the necessity of some alteration in the present law; for he had had too many complaints of the impossibility of executing it not to be perfectly aware of its defects. He was willing to assent to the proposal of the noble Earl, if the mise en accusation did furnish a reasonable presumption that there was a ground for trial.
LORD MALMESBURYsaid, the mise en accusation was not the best, though it was the nearest proof they could possibly obtain.
LOUD BROUGHAMsaid, if the mise en accusation was tantamount to an indictment they would require the Act, for without that it would not come within the purview of his noble Friend's Bill.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was stated we were forced to deliver up on a mere warrant, and that the French were not so forced to deliver up without they saw due cause. And then something was said about the Prince President. Why, the Prince President happened to be his own Minister, and therefore he reserved to himself a power which he would have given

507
to a chief officer of his Government if there had been any such corresponding to our Secretary of State.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not think it proper that the Secretary of State of England should be restricted as was done by the Convention, which gave a discretionary power on the French side, but none on the English. This power could not be introduced into the Bill unless it was in the Convention. He suggested that the same power should be given on both sides of the water, and the same obligations. Lord Aberdeen's Convention had proved ineffectual, because it required the same evidence as was necessary to commit a man under the English law. It was now proposed to dispense with this; but a discretionary power ought to be retained.
The EARL of MINTOconsidered that the Bill could not be proceeded with to the end, unless they had another Convention.
The EARL of MALMESBURYexpressed his desire that a discretionary power should be vested in the Secretary of State. He would suggest that their Lordships should now go into Committee on the Bill, when the Amendments he had to propose might be introduced and afterwards printed, and they could then be considered on Monday.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, the LORD CHANCELLOR, and the Earl of MINTO,
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative: House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the Convention was recited in the preamble of the Bill. Now he begged to know whether the Amendments which the noble Earl proposed to print related to the existing Convention between France and this country, or to a new Convention?
The EARL of DERBYreplied, that one of the Amendments to be proposed would provide that any further convention or stipulation which might be entered into between Her Majesty and the French Republic for making the terms of the present Convention consonant with the provisions of the Act, should be deemed and taken to be part of the said Convention.
LORD BEAUMONTthought it was desirable that before their Lordships assented to such a provision, they should understand what the nature of the Convention really was.
The EARL of DERBYstated, that the Convention as it stood had received the consideration of two successive Govern-
508
ments of this country; the French Government had shown every disposition to enter into the most amicable arrangements; the Convention had been framed by the most able lawyers, and it had received the most careful attention of the most eminent men both in England and France. He doubted, however, whether if half-a-dozen Conventions were framed, objections would not be made to every one of them.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that what Parliament was now called upon to do was, to give effect, by this Bill, to a new Convention which had been entered into between the French and the English Governments. He would venture to say that the existing Convention, which they were now called upon to alter, had been prepared by men as learned, as able, and as willing to effect the purpose in view, as any of the persons to whom the noble Earl had referred; and yet it had been found that that Convention had failed, and the present might do the same. He said, therefore, that their Lordships were bound to see that this Convention was likely to carry out the intentions of the Governments by whom it was made. With respect to the Amendments which the noble Earl said be intended to introduce, their Lordships must see them before they could judge of them. It was quite a new thing in legislation to point out what had no existence, and to say that their Lordships must either approve or disapprove of that with respect to which they had no means of judging.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas afraid that some misapprehension existed with respect to the effect of the proposed proviso. Their Lordships were not called upon to give effect to a treaty which had not yet been entered into by Her Majesty. They were at present deciding as a branch of the Legislature to what extent they would give effect to a treaty which had actually been made by Her Majesty by the advice of Her servants; and what was proposed by the proviso was, that if a supplementary treaty should be agreed to in order to bring the principal treaty within the limits to which their Lordships had agreed upon, it should be taken to be part and portion of the said treaty. It would be perfectly optional both with Her Majesty and the French Government to concur or not in the proposed supplementary treaty.
Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.