Sitting of 1 July 1828

CASE OF THE BARON DE BODE —COMMISSIONERS OF FRENCH CLAIMS.
Mr. Stanleyrose, pursuant to notice, to move that the petition of the Baron de Bode be referred to a committee. The petition was from the Baron de Bode, a British subject, stating that his property in Lower Alsace, had been confiscated by the French Government in 1793; that he had preferred his claim for compensation before the Commissioners of Claims, and now complained of the award made by those commissioners. It was to him an unpleasant task to submit any motion which would take a large sum of money from the pockets of the people, and also to have to complain of the conduct of public men in the award they had given. Yet he had one ground of encouragement. It was, that he pleaded the cause of moral and substantial justice, and that, without reference to forms, it would be decided by that House on principles of public honour and good faith. One of the great difficulties of the case was, that he had to show, not merely an error of judgment in the commissioners, but that they had opposed the claim of the petitioner by vexatious and frivolous delays.
1564
Of the commissioners he personally knew nothing; he was even ignorant of their names until he had taken up this case;—but his knowledge of the facts connected with it justified him in stating, that their proceedings were most arbitrary, and that their award was founded upon a misconstruction, amounting almost to a falsification of evidence. The House were aware, that by the convention of November, 1815, framed in accordance with the treaty of peace between Great Britain and France in 1814, it was agreed that the sum of seventy million of francs should be placed at the disposal of a mixed commission, half English and half French, for the purpose of indemnifying British subjects for losses of property in France, in consequence of the French Revolution. It was stipulated also, that the time for British subjects to bring forward their claims was, for those residing in Europe, three months from the date of the commission, which was the 20th of November. The petitioner, who was then in the Russian service, caused, on the 9th of February, petitions, containing an amount of his claims, to be presented to the French government, through the duke de Richelieu. Some difficulty arose, in the first instance, as to whether or no he was a British subject, and having waited on our ambassador at Paris, and satisfied the duke through him as to that point, he received an answer on the 18th. In consequence of this delay, the 22d of February had arrived, before he had an opportunity of seeing the commissioners.—Here a new difficulty met him; for he was told, that he was a day too late, as the time in which British subjects residing in Europe were to prefer their claim, had expired on the 21st. However, in consideration of the circumstances, this difficulty was overlooked; he having afterwards obtained a certificate from the duke de Richelieu, stating that the claim had been preferred to him within the proper time. He also produced to them a register of his baptism from Uttoxeter, in the county of Stafford, and then he fully made his claim for compensation, for his prospects at Soultz-sous-Foret, in Lower Alsace. In the October of this year, he received a letter from the commissioners stating new objections, one of which referred again to the question of nationality. It was also urged, that this estate did not form part of the French territory in 1792;

1565
and it was again objected that the claim had been made a day too late. It seemed wholly to have escaped the recollection of the commissioners, that that objection had been over-ruled in Paris; but their geographical error, as to whether Alsace formed part of the French territory was corrected; and the question of nationality decided by the opinion of sir S. Romilly, who declared, that the baron de Bode was a naturally born subject of Great Britain, and entitled to ell the rights and privileges of a British subject. In 1818, it was found that the sum already applied by the French government was insufficient to satisfy the claims made, and a further sum of sixty million of francs was placed at the disposal of a set of English commissioners, to be taken as a full compensation of all the claims which had been or might be made; the surplus, if any, to be placed at the disposal of the Lords of the Treasury. In 1818, the commissioners again objected, that the name of the petitioner had not been entered in the register in France in 1816, and that it was then too late.—Now, he would contend, that the commissioners, if this were so, had acted most illegally; for if it were not so entered, they could not have legally entertained the claim from the beginning; but he would prove, that they were incorrect, and that they must have known that his claim had been registered. It would appear that there were two thousand two hundred and thirty-seven claims, and that of those that of the baron dc Bode stood No. 1,130: but it was impossible it could have so stood, if it had not been entered in the register at first. He would not, however, confine himself to inference on this point—he would put it beyond all doubt. In April, 1825, the baron made an application to the French government, under a law passed for indemnifying French proprietors of land for their loss of property which had been confiscated and sold for the benefit of the state, under the orders of the revolutionary government against emigrants and others. The answer to his application was, that the baron de Bode, being a British subject, had no right to present his claim as a French emigrant. That, however, was a difficulty which might be easily got over; he being well known to have been the owner of the property for which he claimed; but it was added, that there was a difficulty impossible to overcome,
1566
that of the baron having claimed indemnity as a British subject, under the convention of 1815, and having been acknowledged by the French commissioners at that time as a creditor of France, and his name registered by the mixed commission at Paris—the commissioners having by their secretary already denied that his name was registered; here, however, they had the authority of the French government that it was, and that he had been admitted as a British claimant. The answer of the French government went on to state, that the claims of the baron were provided for and included in the funds created to discharge the claims of British subjects, and put at the disposal of the British government for that purpose; and that, therefore, he must seek redress from that government, as it could not be expected that France should pay the same debt twice over. Now, he contended, that the British commissioners had acted wrong; that the money had been paid to them to satisfy all claims; and that they were bound not to oppose, by any vexatious delays, those who had a bona fide claim. The conduct of the commissioners, it appeared, changed afterwards. On the 3rd of July, 1819, they wrote to the baron, telling him to bring forward his proofs; but no notice was given him as to what the nature of those proofs should be, until the 1st of August, 1821, when he received another notice, that if his proofs were not produced within three months from that time, his claim would be struck out. However, they did extend the time to the January following, and they made a great merit of so doing. It would be necessary to bear in mind the difficulties with which this gentleman had to contend.—He was labouring at that time under considerable pecuniary embarrassments, from the expenses he had already incurred; and now he was to travel over one thousand two hundred miles of country, and to search in a province which had been twice ravaged by war, for documentary and other evidence, to prove all the minute details of the value of his farms, mines, woods and forests, at the period when they were confiscated; and for all this he was only allowed four months.—The hon. member then referred to another part of the conduct of the commissioners, which he considered was extremely objectionable. It was, that in 1822 the commissioners threatened, that they would

1567
grant no further extension of time, unless the baron consented to a considerable reduction of his claim. This fact would be found in the affidavit of Mr. Hinde, a gentleman who had considerably interested himself in forwarding the baron's claim. On the 28th of February, when Mr. Hinde called at the baron de Bode's lodgings, for the purpose of accompanying him to the continent, Mr. Brackenbury received a communication from the Board of Commissioners, signed by the secretary, stating that if he could not pledge himself for certain, that baron de Bode was actually set off to France in search of documents, they would retract their further extension of time, and erase the baron's name from the list of British claimants on the 1st of March. If that was not arbitrary conduct he knew not what was. The baron did proceed to France to obtain the evidence necessary to establish his claim, and transmitted to Mr. Brackenbury certain documents. On the 1st of April, Mr. Brackenbury wrote to the commissioners—"Gentlemen, I enclose you sixteen documents in support of the claim of the baron de Bode, which arrived on Saturday afternoon.—There are other documents of great importance which the baron was in progress of obtainment." On the same day the commissioners wrote an answer to Mr. Brackenbury, through their secretary:—"Sir, I am directed by the Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this day's date, transmitting a mass of papers in support of the claim of the baron de Bode, and in reply to inform you, that in these papers they consider that there is no proof whatsoever adduced, that the property in question was seized in virtue of the decrees of confiscation and sequester against British property. I am accordingly to notify to you, that if you are prepared to give any direct and formal pledge to the Board, that among the expected documents there arc to your knowledge any which will go to establish the fact, that he lost the property in question by confiscation and sequester, in virtue of the decrees issued against British property in France, the Board will allow the further period of one fortnight from this date, for the arrival of such documents; but if you are not prepared to give any such pledge, the commissioners will consider it their duty to notify their award forthwith," Upon the receipt of this, Mr.
1568
Brackenbury wrote to the Commissioners, requesting them to grant further time to enable the baron to be heard by himself or counsel, before any ultimate proceedings were adopted. On the 18th of April, the Board replied, that they would hear the baron de Bode by himself or by his counsel on the Wednesday following; and stated, that they entertained a strong feeling of the urgent necessity of coming to a final decision on the case. Why did the commissioners feel that necessity? Because they knew that delay would be prejudicial to the view which they had beforehand determined to take of the case. On the 26th April, 1822, the commissioners signed their award of the rejection of the baron de Bode's claim. The petitioner having determined to appeal to the Privy Council, he received an official communication from the commissioners to the following effect:—That it being his intention to support his appeal before the Privy Council with new evidence, they informed him, that any attempt to infringe the act of Parliament by the production of additional evidence before the Lords of the Council, would not only be fruitless, but most probably would occasion the immediate dismissal of the appeal. This appeared to him to be most extraordinary conduct. It was for the Privy Council to inform the baron, that the mode in which he proposed to prosecute his appeal was not legal; but for the commissioners to step in and endeavour to prevent an appeal against their own injustice, was a stretch of arbitrary power which he trusted the House would not sanction. On the 23rd of June, 1823, the appeal was heard; and; the appellant not being allowed to produce the important evidence which the commissioners would not wait to receive, before they made their award of rejection, the Lords of the Council confirmed that award. The baron then applied for a rehearing of his case, and, after numerous postponements, the question came on to be argued on the 6th of May, 1826. The counsel confined their arguments solely to this question,—whether, under the act of parliament, the Council had the power to grant a re-hearing; and the Council decided—and he thought justly, according to the terms of the act—that they had no such power. Their lordships, however, accompanied their rejection of the petitioner's claim, with the expression of their extreme commiseration for his case. Thus

1569
did the commissioners, by refusing to allow the baron to produce additional evidence, not only prejudice his case as it stood before them, but prevent its being heard elsewhere.—The House of Commons was now the only party which had the power of doing justice to the petitioner. The commissioners, in stating the proofs they would require from the baron, began by throwing out difficulties. They said, first, that the property was described as a German fief: and, if it were so, it could not have formed part of the dominions of France in 1792; and, secondly, that all feudal and seignorial rights were abolished by the French government before 1793. If the commissioners had taken the trouble to examine into the nature of the petitioner's case, they would have found, that the property might have been a German fief, and still in the dominions of France. The properly was a seignority, situated in Lower Alsace, which became part of the dominions of France, under the treaty of Westphalia. By that treaty, however, it was stipulated, that all the feudal and seignorial rights and privileges attached to property, should be preserved in the same manner as when the territory was under the dominion of the Emperor of Austria. According to those privileges, the estate in question could not be burthened with debts, mortgages, or incumbrances of any kind. It descended from father to son in the direct line, and, on the extinction of that line, it lapsed to the seignor, who could not retain it, but was bound to transfer it to some other family in Lower Alsace. The Emperor of Austria ceded Lower Alsace to France as Emperor of Austria; but it was expressly stipulated, that he should retain all his seignorial privileges as Emperor of Germany and head of the German Diet. The other difficulty which the commissioners created arose out of their ignorance of the French law, and their neglect of inquiry. The commissioners said, that all feudal rights were abolished in France in 1789. A decree was certainly passed in that year for the abolition of certain feudal rights, consisting of personal services. But this was not done without indemnity. In other words, the services were made redeemable, if the parties chose to make compensation. It was remarkable, however, that Lower Alsace was excepted from the operation of that decree. Amongst the proofs which the commissioners re-
1570
quired from the baron was that of the cession:—he was to prove that Lower Alsace was in the territory of France, and that he had granted leases for rent. How the baron could comply with these conditions he was at a loss to conceive; for rent formed no part of a feudal tenure, and it was usually the tenant, not the landlord, who kept leases. The baton was also required to state at what time his property was considered by the French government as the property of a British subject, and also to prove that it was taken away on account of his being a British subject. Thus he was called upon to explain, not only the opinions, but the motives of action of the French government. The commissioners laid much stress on the fact of the father of the baron being living at the time of the alleged cession of the property to the latter in 1791. It was inferred from that circumstance, that there had been an intention to trick the French government. But, by the laws of Alsace, as well as by those of England, property might be held in trust for the son. The cession was proved by thirty-three most respectable inhabitants of Soults-sous-Forets; who declared, that they were present when the late baron de Bode gave up all his rights in the property to the petitioner. He now came to a very important feature in the case. The petitioner was compelled to borrow money from various persons for the prosecution of his claims, and, amongst others, from a person named Richmond, upon a deed. Richmond drew up the deed, and introduced into it many erroneous statements, to which the baron objected as likely to prejudice his claims. He was told, however, that as it was a private deed, it mattered not whether facts were or were not correctly stated; and, as it would have been expensive to have drawn up a fresh deed, the baron contented himself with striking out (previously to affixing his signature) one paragraph, which stated that his father was a Frenchman, and that the property had been seized and sequestered as belonging to him as a French emigrant—which was too gross a misrepresentation to be allowed to stand. The deed with the erasure was attested in the usual manner by two witnesses. The House would hardly believe, that the commissioners ventured to quote the erased passage at full length in their award.—They examined no witnesses, made

1571
no inquiry, but quoted the passage alone, as an admission against the baron. After the facts which he had stated to the House, he thought it better to leave the case on its own grounds rather than to endeavour to support it by any reasoning of his own. He implored the House, before they came to a decision which must inevitably consign to misery and destitution, a man who was born the heir to a large property, to the restitution of which he, in his conscience, believed him entitled; who had served with honour and distinction in foreign service; who had never disgraced either his birth or his profession of arms by low and dishonourable conduct—whose sole hope was in the justice of that House, which was the only body on the face of the earth, as his case now stood, that could save him from beggary and destitution, which stared him in the face to such an extent, that at the present moment he hardly knew where to ay his head. He implored them to consent to the motion, and to enter upon an examination of the evidence which could be adduced. The House had the power to call on the commissioners to account for the manner in which they had exercised the power vested in them. He hoped that no attempt would be made to get rid of the case on the ground that, if it were entertained by the House, it would induce a multitude of other cases to be brought forward. He did not bring forward the case on the ground that an injury had been inflicted through an error in judgment. If he proved that the commissioners had dealt unfairly with the petitioner, it would be a monstrous doctrine to say, that the House would not entertain the question, because they had dealt unfairly with many others. He had endeavoured to keep the subject entirely distinct from the question of the appropriation of the surplus. But the existence of a surplus was at least a reason why the House should entertain the case. He was certain that the noble and generous nature of the illustrious personage who wore the crown of these realms would shrink from the application of droits, the produce of oppression, to his own personal convenience, when be might obtain funds from the liberality of parliament, and not, as in this case, smuggled from the cognizance of parliament, and given to support the luxury of the crown out of the privations and ruin of the people. He
1572
concluded with moving, "That the petition of Baron de Bode, presented to the House on the 18th of May, 1826, be referred to a select committee."
Mr. Horace Twisssaid—The disadvantage, Sir, of rising after the hon. gentleman, is much increased by the appeal to the feelings of the House, which he has grounded on the desolate circumstances of the baron de Bode. But as he has admitted, that the question must be decided upon grounds, not of feeling, but of justice, to the justice of the case I will address myself; and of this I am sure, that if justice be really on the side of this claim, neither its magnitude, nor the fear lest others may enter at the same door, will have any operation with any members of his majesty's government. Sir, the claim which is the subject of this discussion is founded, in the first place, on the second article of the Commercial Treaty of 1786, by which England and France agreed, that in the event of a rupture between them, the subjects of each shall have the privilege of remaining and continuing their trade without disturbance; and if the government should be obliged to order them to depart, twelve months should be allowed them to remove with their effects and property. In violation of this treaty, the government of France, at the beginning of the Revolutionary war, seized the property of various English subjects; and the indemnity of those subjects against the effects of that violation, was the object of the convention of 20th November, 1815. On these grounds, the baron de Dodo founds his demand for the loss of an estate at Alsace, which was seized by the Revolutionary government, and in which he claims an interest, either in possession or in reversion. The list of claimants was to shut, by the terms of the convention, on the 21st February, 1816; yet the baron's petition of claim was not sent in till the 9th, only twelve days before the close. The French minister considered that he was not a British subject within the meaning of the convention, and the register was closed without his name; but it being afterwards made to appear that he was really a natural born subject of England, the English commissioners pressed those of- France to admit his name.—The hon. gentleman having-argued that it was not by the French, but by the English authorities, that impediments were thrown in his way, I will read

1573
a passage from the baron's own pamphlet. "Having resolved on seeking indemnification for my losses as a British subject, under the conventions, I, on the 9th Feb. 1816, caused petitions, containing an account of my claims, to be preferred to the French government, through the duke de Richlieu, to be by him sent in to the mixed commission of liquidation; but the duke having, in the first instance, objected to transmit them, under a misconception that I was not a British subject, his letter conveying his reasons, dated February the 15th, was only forwarded to me on the 18th. The next day I waited on the English ambassador, the present lord Stuart; and after having explained the merits of the case, I was advised by his lordship to prefer my claims again directly through the English commissioners; and he gave me leave to call, in his name, on Mr. Mackenzie, the head commissioner. I called several times on Mr. Mackenzie, but only met with him on the 22nd of February. I here encountered two difficulties; first, the list of claimants residing in Europe had, in conformity to the convention, been closed the day before; the second was, that the duke de Richlieu had called in question my nationality: but as the fault did not rest with me that my claims had not been laid before the mixed commission in due time, but with the French government itself; ray name was to be introduced in the list as a claimant, if I produced, in addition to the duke's answer to my petition, a certificate from him that I had actually preferred my claims through him to the French government before the 20th of February; and also, if I could establish, on better authority, my rights as a British subject."—While these negociations were pending, a new arrangement was made between the two governments, that England should take a certain sum, which she should distribute at her own discretion, among the claimants, whose names had been previously inserted in the register. At that time, that is, in 1818, the baron's name had not been so inserted in the register; and the register was made up, and the sum to be paid by France was settled and paid, without any allowance from France on account of the baron. Sir, if the baron, presenting his claim, as he did, at so very late a period, had been excluded from the register, he could hardly have laid blame upon any one but him-
1574
self. But the English commissioners, notwithstanding this remissness, resolved to give him every advantage; and, therefore, after the fund had been paid over to them by France in 1818, to be disposed of at the discretion of England, they took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, whether, as the claim had been sent in to the French minister before the closing of the list, though not actually received and inserted, it might not be allowable to enter it upon the register then. No computation, indeed, had been made for it in the payment by France; but if, as was expected, there should be a surplus after satisfying those for whom computation had been made, it would be equitable to consider the claim of the baron. The opinion of the law officers being, that the act which regulated the distribution did not forbid this extension, the baron's name was, on the 21st of June 1819, inserted on the register; where it stands, not in virtue of the arrangement with France, but solely by favour of the English government—No. 1,130. That being the precise state of the dates and facts, and such the indulgence evinced towards the baron, what, will the House think of this nobleman's candour, when he insinuates in this pamphlet, that the British commissioners, though anxious to uphold his claim, so long as it could be used as a pretext for swelling the demand upon France, had no sooner received from France the money to answer that demand, than they turn round upon him, "and try every means, fair or unfair, to expel him from the list of claimants." Thus it is that the baron begins, and a perversion so strange at the very outset is hardly to be accounted for on any other hypothesis than that expressed by lord Stowell, on deciding this appeal before the privy council: "That the claimant who, no doubt, has been much excited by this engrossing object, seems to labour under some strange delusion." The claim being thus, ex gratia, inserted, was now to be regularly heard. It had originally comprised two propositions; but it was now confined to the estate at Soultz, in Alsace. It is always a circumstance of suspicion when a claimant is inconsistent and variable in his manner of stating his own view of his own claim; yet that has been always the misfortune of the baron. His claim to the property at Soultz was originally preferred in a manner so vague,

1575
that, as early as December, 1816, the English commissioners were obliged to apply to him, 12th December, 10 state more distinctly whether the property at Soultz was in his own possession, or in that of his father, at the time when it was seized by the French government. Now this, it will be seen, was no collateral matter. There were two great questions in this case to be tried; and the first of those questions was, whether the property belonged to his father or to him; because, if to his father and not to him, then, as the father was not a British subject, there was an end of the claim. The second question was, whether, supposing it to have belonged to him and not to his father, the seizure by the French government had been on the score of its being British property, in which case, compensation might be demandable; or on the score of its being the properly of a French emigrant, as the father was alleged 10 be, in which case the treaty would have authorised no compensation. The argument which he set up on the question of his own interest in the land was an alleged deed, whereby, as he said, his father, anticipating the political troubles that followed, conveyed the estate to him in the hall of the municipality, in the presence of many of the burghers, to whom this deed was publicly read. The evidence of the burghers is adduced. These citizens do, indeed, state, that the father formally pave up his rights to the baron; but, as to the died, not a man of them deposes one word about the reading of any such document. The present Vice-chancellor, sir L. Shad well, to whom, when at the bar, the baron submitted his case, observes that the evidence of the cession is not complete; and the baron who has always some accident or mistake to plead, alleges that by some unaccountable oversight, certain documents, which would have satisfied Mr. Shadwell of the validity of the cession, were omitted to be sent to him. But it happened, unfortunately, that even after the alleged cession, the land did not come into the baron's hands. The baron being a minor, the father does not convey to a trustee for him; does not, as he might have done, if the conveyance had been bona fide, interpose some third person as guardian to the son, but acts as guardian himself, and the possession remains as before. Thus, there is no proof of the execution of the deed—no proof
1576
of its loss—no proof even of its existence—no relinquishment of possession or control by the father who is supposed to grant, and, of course, no act of ownership by the son who is supposed to take. Under such circumstances, the French government would naturally regard the cession as collusive. But the case is not only weak by the absence of evidence to support it, but weak also by the presence of evidence to overthrow it. A certain deed between the baron and Mr. Richmond, dated 1821, long after the claims were preferred, contained a recital, that the French government had seized the premises at Soultz, under pretence, that the baron's father was a French subject, who had emigrated. That recital having been cancelled before the indenture was executed, the baron had a right to contend, that the commissioners were mistaken in treating it as evidence. But that was a misake of little consequence, and could proceed from no mala fides; for there was plenty of other evidence, that the seizure was made on account of the father being a Frenchman and an emigrant. There was, however, in the same indenture between the baron and Mr. Richmond, another recital which was not cancelled, stating, that the lather was seized, possessed of, or entitled to, the lordship of Soultz. That recital was left standing in the indenture when the baron executed it; therefore, the fact in evidence was, that the property seized was not that of the baron, who is a British subject, but that of the baron's father, who was a foreigner, and could in no way lay claim to compensation under the Treaty. Nor was it only in this indenture that the facts appeared: they were set forth also in a case submitted to sir S. Romilly. This case, and the indenture, were both drawn up long after the baron had preferred his claim, and when he must have been aware of the materiality of the facts he was introducing into these documents. And yet he contended, that the property was not that of his father; and he would contend, moreover, that the father's emigration was not the pretence on which the French government seized it; he would have us believe that it was legally his, and taken from him simply because it was found in the possession of himself, a British subject. A Mr. Hinde, who makes an affidavit for the baron, states, that he has searched on the spot, at and near Soultz, and, can find no entry or register,

1577
to show that the property was confiscated as belonging to an emigrant; but, if he had searched the Bureau des Archives, in the prefecture of the lower Rhine, he would have found the decree, of which I hold an authenticated copy in my hand, and by which, on the 16th October, 1793, the Directory declared certain persons to be emigrants, and their property to be confiscated for sale accordingly; and among these is the name of Bode, lately resident at Soultz. It is manifest, that the ground upon which the seizure took place is a vital question in a claim like this. For what were those losses which the convention was made to compensate? Why, losses by confiscations decreed in France, in contravention of the Commercial Treaty of 1786. The Commercial Treaty of 1786 was, perhaps, in strictness, intended for the benefit of trade only; but it has received a liberal construction, for the benefit of persons, not traders, who have been deprived of their property, on the score of their being British subjects. The Treaty may protect you in your own personal rights of property; but not in those rights of property which are only derivative from foreigners. As to all such rights, you must take the chances of a stoppage, or a flaw, in any of the channels through which you are obliged to deduce them; which foreign channels, of necessity, must be liable to the sequestration of the foreign governments they belong to. So dilatory had the baron been, that it was not till the 28th February 1822, six months after he had been told what evidence would be expected from him, that he set off from London with Hinde for Soultz, where he arrived on the 10th of March. On the 1st of April, the day when the limited time was to expire, a see of documents arrived, which appeared to the commissioners to add nothing to the proof. Being requested to give further time for more papers, they told the baron's agent, Mr. Brackenbury, that if he would pledge himself that among the expected documents there were any to prove that the baron lost the property by confiscation of it as British, the board would allow a fortnight's further time. The agent declined to pledge himself that this was so: he would only say, he fully believed it. It turns out that he took a very prudent course; for the pledge would not have been redeemed. More time, however, was granted, on the assurance of his be-
1578
lief, and further applications were still made for more yet; particularly one for further time to be heard by counsel, or otherwise, against the adoption of ultimate proceedings. The board fixed the 24th of April, to hear this argument; and that time was extended to the 26th. Both days passed away without any thing being done by the baron. On the 30th, the agent sent in another application for delay, on the plea of the baron not having returned from abroad. "The baron," says the agent, "wishes the commissioners to hear him in person, for the baton it seems cannot trust his agents or his counsel." That is what the agent says; but the agent does not say, that any more evidence is to be produced. Meanwhile, on the 26th of April, the last day to which delay had been extended, the commissioners had made their award; but they kept it in their minds until the 12th of May, that they might have the means of amending it, if any thing should occur to require its amendment. But the letter of the agent of the 30th of April, having intimated no intention that any fresh evidence was to be produced, the commissioners on the first of May, finally issued their award, rejecting the claim of the baron.—Is it reasonable, Sir, under circumstances like these, that the baron de Bode should complain of the refusal of time? After delays so numerous, the House will not wonder that these gentlemen should have concluded this matter. The baron meanwhile, appears to have wrought himself into a state of mind which would almost induce him to believe and to utter any thing. He now says the commissioners had no right to fix any day at all for the disposal of his case. Sir, I know of no court that has not a power of holding the suitors to a given time; and the more strictly the rule is kept, the better, for the most part, is justice done. The award, however, having been pronounced, the baron had his remedy by appeal to the Privy Council, and he took it. The Privy Council entertained so little doubt upon the case, that they decided it instanter. The baron, however, was still dissatisfied, and asked a rehearing. Arguments were heard fully on the question, whether the Privy Council had power to re-hear the case; and it was decided that they had not. The baron complains of that decision; but this House will hardly be disposed to enter into a technical argu-

1579
ment, on the judicial powers of the Privy Council. He would fain have introduced into that argument upon the jurisdiction of re-hearing an argument also on the merits of his case; and he complains that these were not then canvassed; but it is obvious that, to have entered on the merits of the case, would have been substantially to grant the very re-hearing which the Privy Council were of opinion they had no authority to grant. The circumstances of this case afford a strong illustration of the truth of what was said by Mr. Canning, when the petition of the baron was presented in 1826; namely, that "if a case once gone through by the proper jurisdiction is to be brought forward again in this House, the act of parliament referring such matters to the commissioners of the Privy Council becomes utterly useless." It does seem to me to be an object of no little importance, that this House should avoid being drawn into a court of appeal for all discontented suitors. If the claim had been, as it originally was, a mere question between nation and nation, parliament, no doubt, would have been a proper channel for redress; but a regular tribunal of commissioners having been delegated to sift these claims, with a power of appeal from them to the Privy Council, it is before those two municipal jurisdictions, that the suitor has his remedy; and the consequences of calling upon parliament to overturn or re-open their judicial proceedings, would be only to break down the settled sound barriers of all judicature, and ultimately to substitute the tumultuous feelings of politics and party, for the impartiality, the accuracy, and the calmness, of legal decision.—The political nature of the fund can make no real difference in the questions of law which the claim involves, and which having by statute been made questions for judicial offices, arc therefore by statute questions for them only, and not for cither House of parliament. There is no man who can be further than I am from any idle jealousy of party spirit; but I do, with great deference, submit it to the House, whether questions of a judicial nature be fitly selected for trials of political strength. The late debate on the Resolutions of the hon. member for Durham was a fair occasion for such a contest. But whether it be fitting or convenient to fight that battle over again, after the decision it has once received—whether it be advisable to take
1580
the general discussion thus as a collateral branch of an individual case—most of all, whether it be seemly or expedient, to try that individual case as a party question—on these points I own that my mind is made up in the negative; which negative, I trust, will receive the sanction of the House.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, the hon. and learned gentleman had deprecated their entering into any subject of a legal nature. To that, as a general principle, he was most ready to subscribe; but when he saw that the tribunal whose judgment was called in question was new—when that tribunal was invested with new and extraordinary powers—when it had the power of disposing of six millions of money—when he saw that tribunal vested with the right, not only of laying down the rules of evidence, but of pointing out what should be the nature of that evidence, he could not but think, that the principle stated by the hon. and learned gentleman was not applicable to the present case; and that the powers of that tribunal became, from the vast magnitude and novelty of the subject, deserving of inquiry, how they had been exercised, and how the funds, over which they exercised an unlimited control, had been disposed of. The only part of the case which the hon. and learned gentleman had endeavoured to explain was that which related to the conduct of the mixed commission that sat at Paris, which was unfavourable to the baron, and which he accused of misconception both of his motives and acts. It seemed that the baron had some grounds for conceiving that the commissioners were hostile to him; since even the hon. and learned gentleman had admitted that the conduct of the French Government was unfriendly to any of these claimants. But the part into which it most interested that. House to inquire was that which occurred since the mixed commission had been dissolved, and the business had been in the hands of the three commissioners appointed by this government. The hon. and learned gentleman had declared, that it would have been utterly useless for the Privy Council to have attempted to have gone into the case further them they did, because there was no evidence that the property seized was the property of a British subject. His opinion of the case was different; but it was not necessary for the House to come to a conclusion on that point, since it was part of the

1581
complaint of the baron, that, from the proceedings which the commissioners had adopted, the Privy Council had not had the opportunity of coming to a decision upon the subject. The first point which would enable them to come to a decision was, whether the baron had had any property at all. By misstating the evidence—by falsifying deeds—by misconstruction of every sort—by first falsifying a deed, and then founding evidence upon that deed, and by sending up the evidence so falsified to the Privy Council, the commissioners had misled the members of that Board, who, upon the statements thus laid before them, came to the conclusion, that it was not the baron's estate; but who came to no conclusion upon the question, whether he was a British subject. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that the first letter shewed that time enough had been afforded to the baron. But it was not a question whether time enough for a common case had been afforded, but whether, compared with the particular difficulties of this case, enough time had been allowed to the baron; and he appealed to any man who knew any thing of the difficulties of establishing such a claim, whether it was proper that a man, who was obliged to go to Alsace to procure evidence of his title, should only have the same time allowed him as would have been granted to any one who was about to try an action on a warranty of a horse. The hon. and learned gentleman then went on to the cession, of which, he said, no legal evidence had been afforded to the commissioners. All that was stated in the depositions of the thirty-four burghers who spoke distinctly to the point, that the baron de Bode formally abandoned to his son all his right. That the hon. and learned gentleman thought was not enough. He would have had them say that they saw the deed; that they heard it read; but did he believe that any French lawyer would have used those terms in the same manner as an English lawyer? The words used in the deed of cession were: "en toute proprieté which included both the law and the fact that it was read and executed. But was it to be expected, that these men should know the technical phraseology of courts of justice here, and proceed with the same regularity and exactitude? If they doubted the effect of that evidence, they ought to have paused: but what more could witnesses say, than that they
1582
understood his father to mean that he formally abandoned the estate to his son? The hon. and learned gentleman had passed over one grave subject of imputation against the commissioners in a manner which certainly surprised him. There had been a deed which the commissioners had put into their hands, not only not before the other party, but clandestinely. The commissioners determined, that upon the face of the deed the property was that of the baron, his father, and that it had been seized as the property of an emigrant. He did not impute to them that they did not think so, but that they had only read the draught of the deed, and not the deed itself. In three days afterwards they made their award, and said, that, from some of the baron's own statements, and particularly from the statement in the deed, that they concluded it was the property of the baron, the father, and not of the petitioner. When the deed came to be looked into, it would be found, that no such passage existed in it, but that it had been struck out previous to the execution, and that the erasure had been attested by two witnesses. That evidence was for, and not against him. It went to shew that he always maintained this to be his property. He had said "strike out that sentence in the deed, or I will not execute it." He should think that such a fact was alone sufficient for that House. He had no hesitation in saying, that by the treaty of 1786, and by the convention of 1815, that was the law upon the subject; and that by that treaty, and that convention, he was clothed with protection against the acts of the French government. In the course of every part of the case, all the mistakes were unfortunately against the baron. In no one instance had they erred in his favour. He would point out another gross blunder on the part of the commissioners, who had slated, that it was necessary that the baron should prove the contents of the deed; but it appeared that all the legal documents had disappeared. The mayor of Weissenberg stated, that, to his knowledge, the army entered the house and pillaged it. Yet the commissioners said, that this was a mere hearsay story. This was at the period of the revolution, when war was carried on against all deeds and archives. Considering that the commisioners had manifested the grossest ignorance of the language and laws of the country, and that they had rushed to a

1583
conclusion when the baron entreated a little more time to produce evidence, he was astonished at the attempt made By the hon. and learned gentleman, to defend them. But the chief point was as to his last argument; namely, that even if the cession had been made out on the clearest evidence, it was of no avail before the Privy Council, unless it was also shewn, that the property taken from the baron being; his, as a British subject, was liable to the decree against him as a British subject. This was an important question, and he was not so presumptuous as to decide upon it; but the House would agree with him, that the Privy Council, having confirmed the decision of the commissioners, the other party had a right to be put into a situation of having his case solemnly adjudged. Besides, the French king and the House of Peers and House of Commons of that nation could not be supposed to be indifferent to this question. Because they had got rid of all liability, they would not be careless as to the administration of these funds. The French people had been accused of injustice to all other nations. When the peace came, they had nobly set about restoring their character for justice; and for that purpose they had put into the hinds of commissioners a sum of six millions; and they were interested, though exempt from all liability, in its being justly distributed. This was a true and moral reparation, on the part of a nation, which had committed injustice. They took care not only to supply funds, wherewith justice might be done, but that the sum so appropriated should yield satisfaction to all who were entitled to claim it.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that in opposing the motion, he admitted it was no sufficient answer to it, that the House knew nothing- of the case but from the baron's own statement. The grounds on which he should rest his opposition rendered no such argument necessary. He much regretted, knowing the commissioners personally, that such charges as had been advanced against them should have entered so deeply into the discussion of this question. On the other hand, it became him 10 state, that, for years, it had been his duty to be in conflict with the commissioners; and to the extent of his ability, he had fought them with various success, but, generally, unsuccessfully. He might be supposed, therefore, to bring f to the subject feelings wholly untinged
1584
with any partiality towards them. He would stale, then, that it was his conscientious opinion, that the charges, that, in this transaction, they had acted on a foul and collusive compact, to defeat the justice they had sworn to administer, by violating at once their oaths and their honour, was an imputation, than which a more unjust or cruel aspersion was never cast upon any party. He believed they were incapable of acting from any motives except those of public duty; and that their proceedings had been as free from any base or dishonourable stain, as those of the assembly he then addressed. With respect to the prejudices that existed against them, they were easily explained by the circumstance, that this was a new tribunal appointed to investigate a class of cases entirely new, and not only wanting the authority of antiquity and experience to guide the decisions upon them, but also distinct in their nature, as arising from events, wholly unprecedented in the history of the world. The peculiarity did not end there. These cases were not heard as before an ordinary tribunal, where two parties opposed the claims of each other. The claimants were all on one side, and the commissioners on the other. It had all the disadvantages of a discretionary tribunal, where the odium of an unsatisfactory judgment always fell on the tribunal itself. The applicants thought that the course directed by the commissioners was too restrictive; and from this cause discontent arose in their minds, which, concurring with other causes, produced much more than an average degree of dissatisfaction. He would not assert that the case of the baron de Bode was rightly determined; but he was convinced, that there was no foundation for the bitter charges made against the commissioners, which rested on these grounds; first, that they had, by pressing the case to an immature hearing, come to an adjudication upon it while it was incomplete: secondly, that the case being so incomplete, they had formed a wrong and unjust decision. As to the first point, it was complained, that the commissioners ought not to have fixed any limit to the production of evidence in support of the claims. Baron de Bode contended, that if he was not ready it would have been right to have turned him down to the bottom of the list, by which he would have sustained the loss of priority. The truth was, that so many

1585
other cases were in the same situation, that no business could have been transacted on this principle.—The hon. gentleman then went in detail through the circumstances of the baron de Bode's case. He had had six months' delay granted; but during that time he took not a single step to obtain the evidence required. They granted him a further delay of one month; but they accompanied it with conditions which were said to be arbitrary and tyrannical. But the fact was, that the first six months of grace having been utterly unemployed, it was necessary they should take precautions that further time should not also be wasted. Nothing could be so unreasonable as to suppose that the commissioners had any feeling of hostility to the baron de Bode's claim. There were many other cases in which it was dubious, whether or not the property seized belonged to British subjects. That was a difficulty that could not fail to arise from the confiscations of a revolutionary government.
Dr. Phillimoresupported the motion. The fact was, that a sum of money had been given by the government of France to the government of England, for the repayment of the losses which British subjects had suffered under the spoliations which had taken place in France during the revolution. The baron de Bode was a British subject, and therefore clearly entitled to a share of the money so intrusted to the disposal of the British government. A large surplus was still in the hands of the commissioners, and he thought it particularly hard that the baron should be excluded from his share of it. The baron having been refused indemnification in this country, had applied to the French government, as a Frenchman, for indemnification out of the sums which had been set apart for the benefit of the emigrants. He was told, that, as a British subject, he had no right to present his claim as a French emigrant; but that that was a difficulty easily got over, he being known to have been the proprietor of the property for which he claimed, and that property being in the limits of France. But that a difficulty impossible to overcome was, that the baron having availed himself of his birth-right, and claimed indemnity as a British subject, under the convention of 1815, and having been acknowledged by the French commissioners at that time as a creditor of France, and
1586
his name in consequence having been registered by the mixed commission, at Paris, as a British claimant, his claims were provided for and included in the funds created to discharge the claims of British subjects, and put at the disposal of the British government for that purpose; and that therefore he must seek redress from that government, as it could not be expected that France should pay the same debt twice over. Under such circumstances, as the baron had been refused redress by both the English and French commissioners, he thought the House of Commons was bound to inquire into his case.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that after the part which he had taken upon this question on a former occasion, he could not give a silent vote at present, because he felt he should not be doing justice to the baron de Bode if he did not state, that all the impressions which he had formerly entertained respecting the justice of his claim, existed in his mind unchanged. In May, 1826, he had presented a petition to the House from the baron. The late Mr. Canning objected to any ulterior proceedings being founded upon the petition. In consequence of what transpired in the House of Commons upon that occasion, he advised the baron to present another memorial to the Treasury. Whilst that memorial was under consideration, he advised the baron to submit his case to some gentleman in the profession. The baron, in consequence, submitted it to Mr. Shad-well; who gave his opinion in these words:—"Though the evidence of the cession is not complete, I think the papers do satisfactorily make out, either that there was such a cession, or if there was not, then that the baron had such an interest in the property in 1793, that, if he had originally claimed in the alternative before the commissioners, his claim ought to have been allowed. And, in my opinion, although his case has miscarried before the commissioners and upon the appeal, the baron is entitled, in the view of moral justice, to indemnification for the loss of his property, out of the fund placed by the French government at the disposal of the English commissioners, under the convention of 1818." He thought that this opinion, given by a gentleman of Mr. Shadwell's character, who would not, for any consideration, upon earth, have gone one inch beyond the fair merits of the

1587
case, ought to have some weight with the House.
The Attorney-generalsaid, that if the baron de Bode had reason to complain of not having had able counsellors to state his ease elsewhere, he had at least had an able counsellor to state it in that House, for he would freely confess that he had never heard any case better put by any person than the case of the petitioner had been put by the hon. member for Preston. He had read the papers of the petitioner with the utmost attention, and he felt that the complaint which he made against the commissioners came from him with a very bad grace, considering that he had known, for four or five years, the course which they had publicly declared their intention of pursuing. They had given him all the time that was necessary to prepare his case; they had received all the evidence which the baron had offered, and which was legally admissible; and they had given him every opportunity that could be considered preliminary to a fair decision of his claims.—The hon. member for Preston had accused the commissioners of making a false statement, when they said, that the baron's name was not included in the first list of claimants admitted by the French government. He contended, that the commissioners were perfectly correct, and that the baron's name was no where to be found in that first list. He admitted that it would be a fraud to obtain a compensation from the French government on the footing of the baron's losses as a British subject, and then to turn round upon him and say, "You have not made out your losses, and we therefore will not admit your claim." But no such fraud could be charged in this case upon the British government; since the statement in the baron's petition that his name was in the first list of claimants was entirely without foundation. The petitioner said, he was entitled to claim for the confiscation of a property which he had acquired by cession from his father; and it was said that the opinion of Mr. Shadwell was in favour of that claim. Now, the opinion of Mr. Shadwell was given upon an alternative, that, if de Bode had not a claim by cession, he had, at all events, a claim by descent. Now it was not a little extraordinary, that all those who argued this case before the Privy Council made no allusion whatever to this alternative right; which seemed to
1588
have been taken up when all other grounds upon which the claim was founded had wholly failed. It was said, however, that the petitioner could bring further evidence; but it ought to be recollected, that the fact of the cession of the property by his father to the baron, then a boy of fourteen years of age, was solely supported by the testimony of a few burghers of Soultz in Alsace; that there was no deed produced; and that lord Stowell, when the case came before the Privy Council, distinctly declared, that this was an evidence of a cession of the property which the Privy Council could not receive. If there had been even two years' further time given to the baron, it was therefore plain that he could not produce any further evidence, and his persisting in asserting this was clearly a protestatio contra factum. In his opinion, no wrong had been sustained by the baron de Bode which called for the interference of that House. No injustice had been done him by the refusal of ample time to prove his case. There was no further evidence to be produced in support of his case which justified an inquiry; and, as that inquiry must be regarded in no other light than as an appeal from the Privy Council, he could not see why they were to allow that appeal, when the case had been already fully considered upon precisely the same evidence. Without travelling through the other parts of the case, he was satisfied that he should have come to the same conclusion as that at which the commissioners had arrived; and, being strongly of opinion against the alternative, as well as against the hereditary claim, and that no case of delinquency had been made out against the commissioners, he should vote against the motion.
After a short reply from Mr. Stanley, the House divided: For the motion 54; Against it 91; Majority 37.

SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that in rising to introduce a motion on this subject, he was sure the right hon. Secretary would concur with him as to the great importance of the question, and the necessity which existed, considering the grievances suffered under the present system of supplying Water to the Metropolis, for the introduction of some measure to remedy the evil. As the right hon. gentleman was impressed with the

1589
importance of the subject, it only remained for him (sir F. Burdett) to state the mode of proceeding which he proposed; and he might mention in the outset, that it was not liable to the objections which had been urged by the right hon. gentleman on a former occasion, when this subject was before the House. The facts of the case lay within a small compass, and were contained in the plain statement which he held in his hand, and which had emanated from the able Commissioners appointed by the Crown, who had so faithfully performed their duty, and had so satisfactorily shewn that all the complaints were well-founded, and had also pointed out the remedy. The hon. baronet here read an extract from the report of the commissioners, in which they state, that after entering upon the duties which they had been appointed to discharge, they received a letter from the Home Secretary, limiting their inquiries, to the state of the supply of Water to the Metropolis, and notifying to them, that the taking of surveys, &c. did not come within their powers. The commissioners certainly entertained, previous to the receipt of this note, a different opinion as to the meaning of the commission under which they had been appointed; and their idea on the subject was that entertained by every individual in the community at the time. The commissioners were appointed not merely to ascertain a fact which was notorious to all;—namely, that the Water supplied to the Metropolis, under the present system, was of a filthy, impure, and unhealthy description; but, to effect any good purpose, they should obviously have the power of pointing out the mode of remedying the evil complained of. The hon. baronet read another extract from the report, in which, after stating that under these circumstances they confined themselves to an examination of the water in those parts of the Thames from which the metropolis is at present supplied, they proceed to express their opinion as to the filthy and impure nature of the water in those parts of the river. It was true that differences might exist amongst medical men as to the unhealthiness of this water, but the public were certainly entitled to other water than that of a dirty, filthy, and impure description, while they paid the present high rates for the water with which they were supplied. The commissioners went on to remark, that a Select Committee of that
1590
House had been formerly appointed for the purpose of inquiring into this subject; but they added, that they were restricted from acting upon the suggestions of that committee. Now, he could not perceive the necessity for such restriction. The committee in question had reported on the subject seven years ago; and that report had never been acted upon.—He now called on the right hon. gentleman to direct his attention to the necessity of forming an efficient committee which would fully investigate this important subject. All he wished to propose was, that the committee so formed should have referred to it the different petitions on this subject which had been laid on the table of the House. They contained complaints from various parts of the metropolis as to the state of the water; and it would be for the committee to point out the most effectual remedy that could be adopted to meet the evil which was so loudly complained of. He did not mean to dwell at any length on the unwholesomeness of the water with which a great part of the metropolis was at present supplied; he would not enter into those nauseous details. If any gentleman doubted that much of the water with which this great city was supplied was not fit for human use, his doubts would be expelled by a reference to the evidence which had been given on this subject. When he had once read that evidence, he could not entertain any doubt on the subject. Dr. Paris, an authority of great weight, spoke most decidedly as to the badness of the water. He considered it as extremely unhealthy, and as calculated to give rise to very serious disorders indeed. He described it as containing much deleterious matter dissolved in the fluid, as well as a considerable quantity of indissoluble matter suspended in it. Dr. Paris then referred to an able pamphlet, entitled "The Dolphin," which had first called the attention of the public to this nuisance, and directed the public eye towards the proceedings of the Grand Junction Company. In that pamphlet the water supplied to the metropolis by the Grand Junction Company was stated to be so filthy, as to render it disgusting to the imagination, and its use destructive to health. Mr. Wright, the author of that pamphlet had devoted much time and paid great attention to the subject, and he had unquestionably made out a very strong case. When first Mr. Wright published

1591
that pamphlet, the Grand Junction Company were so exceedingly indignant at the exposure, that they threatened him with a prosecution; but they afterwards wisely abandoned their intention. He had seen some of the persons connected with that Company, and when they announced their intention of not prosecuting Mr. Wright, he had observed, that they might do as they liked on that point, but that it would still be necessary to bring under the consideration of parliament the whole question of the Supply of Water to the Metropolis. He should merely advert to the evidence of Dr. Somerville, the physician to Chelsea Hospital, which went to the same point, That evidence was so exceedingly disagreeable, that he would not read it; and if any gentleman felt inclined to peruse it, he feared it would be apt to turn his stomach. He thought, after what he had said, that there could be no doubt whatever of the existence of the evil complained of; and if this was the case, no delay should be allowed in devising a remedy for that evil. The commissioners who were appointed to proceed with this inquiry appeared, from the first, not to harbour a doubt that the complaints were just. The evils to which their attention was called, were principally two:—first of all was the monopoly, he would not say fraudulently obtained, by the Companies. Certainly, however, those parties procured from parliament the power which they possessed, under an idea that a competition, with respect to water, was to take place throughout the town; but, instead of that, a monopoly of the most oppressive kind had been established. The Grand Junction Company had contrived to smuggle through parliament, at a very late period of the session, a very objectionable measure. It passed through parliament, as a private bill; neither he nor his hon. colleague being apprised of its object. It was denominated "An act for confirming certain articles of agreement," &c.; and there was a clause appended to it which, considering that this affected to be a private bill, was of a very extraordinary nature. The clause ran thus—"That this act shall be considered as a public act, and shall be so taken and considered by all the judges," &c. And what did this act do? It enabled the parties to increase their rates three hundred per cent. It. was clear that the House never intended they should
1592
have such a monstrous power; it was evident that the House never contemplated such a monopoly as they had established; and the question then came to this, whether there was no remedy for such an imposition? As the matter now stood, the public got a very bad article at a very dear price. It was not merely bad, but from the evidence, absolutely filthy and disgusting, and extremely detrimental to health. Were persons, he demanded, to be thus made to pay large sums annually, to be poisoned in this way?—to be poisoned not only every day, but every hour of their lives? This being the case—the facts on which it rested having been established over and over again—it would, in his opinion, be necessary to give life and effect to the recommendations of the committee of that House of 1821, a committee formed seven years ago, upon whose report no proceedings had been instituted. That committee complained, that in case of dispute, there was no fair tribunal to which the aggrieved persons could apply. They were compelled to appeal—to whom? Why, to the interested parties themselves. With the report of the committee of 1821, the commissioners recently appointed, entirely agree. They only differed in this—that they stated the various complaints fair more strongly. He should weary the House no more on this subject; but he must observe, with respect to the Grand Junction Company, that he believed more blame rested on that Company than on any other. That Company at first declared, that they would have reservoirs filled with water drawn from pure streams. They never had, however, any thing of the kind. On the contrary, they procured foul water from the Paddington Canal, and afterwards they made use of water even worse than that—water taken from the Dolphin, at the foot of Chelsea Hospital, close to the mouth of a great common sewer, which had excited so much public attention, and created such general disgust. This was the Company, too, that introduced into a bill, on almost the last day of the session of parliament, a clause enabling them to raise their charges three hundred per cent? Such a system might not, perhaps, much affect the rich man who could avail himself of his springs and pumps, but it was a serious evil to the poor man who had no such resources. He trusted, although so much time had

1593
been lost, that the public would be benefitted by the labours of the commissioners. He sincerely hoped that a remedy would be struck out for these grievances. This was a great national subject. It was a subject which was considered of deep importance in the more early ages of the world; as was sufficiently proved by the magnificent remains of ancient aqueducts. But there was not wanting in modern times a stimulus to exertion, for the purpose of supplying pure and wholesome water to the metropolis, when they turned their eyes to Paris, and saw the water conveyed thither in abundance by the canal de l'Ourcq. The city of Edinburgh was supplied with excellent water from a distance of eight or ten miles—a project which was perfected under the direction of Mr. Rennie. Now, looking at all the circumstances, he thought it was the bounden duty of government, who ought to watch over the health of the people, to see that the town was plentifully supplied with good water. He trusted that the same feelings would not operate in, this instance, as had operated in the case of sir Hugh Middleton; who, having brought a stream of good water so near the metropolis as Enfield, was unable to get any money advanced by parliament, or by the city of London, to enable him to complete his great project; when James 1st advanced him 7,000 l. out of his own pocket, and enabled him to complete that object, the benefits of which the public now enjoyed. So little sense and so little generosity, had those whom he thus essentially served, that he would have died in a gaol, but for the interference of James 1st. He wished that a plan for the conveyance of pure water to London should be completed—a plan which was in progress, and would have been completed, if the commissioners had sat longer. A gentleman under Mr. Telford, had made a survey, in order to find out the best mode of supplying the metropolis with water. The individual he alluded to was Mr. James Mills; and he understood that the survey on which he had been engaged might be completed for 300 l. It was a matter of much importance that he should be allowed the sum necessary for the completion of his survey. This sum he hoped the government would supply: and if it would not, he should, for so good an object, have great pleasure—he should even be proud—in advancing it himself. That individual
1594
was of opinion, that unless they went above where the tide flowed, it was impossible to procure water without more or less of impurity. The river Colne had been mentioned as likely to afford a good supply of water; but he understood the best mode would be to take the water from the river at Teddington, and to construct a reservoir for its reception on Wimbledon-common. This plan would interfere less than any other with the rights of private property, and water thus situated would receive such an impulse as would supply the lower parts of the town most amply with this essential necessary of life. This was a line not, he believed, of more than nine miles in extent, and he was informed it would require no public money to carry the project into execution, as there were numerous individuals ready to embark in it. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to take into Consideration the Report of the Commissioners appointed by his Majesty to inquire into the present system of Supplying Water to the Metropolis, and to state if any, and what Remedies can be applied, to the many and great Grievances alleged to exist in the System."
Sir J. Yorkecomplained, that the hon. baronet had kept out of sight all other water companies but the Grand Junction, and on that he had certainly laid a heavy hand. The hon. baronet appeared to him to have taken an exaggerated view of the case, which he entirely attributed to the pamphlet he had quoted from. Notwithstanding his authorities, he was of opinion, that the House ought not to interfere, particularly at so late a stage of the session.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he considered the great importance of the subject, as connected with the comfort, the feelings, and even the health, of the inhabitants of this metropolis. It was undoubtedly fit that the House should take cognizance of the manner in which the companies discharged the obligations they had taken on themselves under the authority of Parliament. He was not opposed to an inquiry being instituted for that purpose; but there was one point of the hon. baronet's speech from which he totally dissented.—He had said, that the remedy lay with government, and that it was for them to meet the complaints of the public. Had the hon. baronet reflected on the expense which would be incurred by a compliance

1595
with his suggestion? In resisting the hon. baronet's proposal, he was aware it might appear that he was undervaluing the importance of the question; but it ought to be remembered that lighting the city was a subject of importance, as it tended to diminish crime; that security against fire was no less important; and yet those matters were left entirely to private enterprise. Roads, bridges, and the supply of markets, all of which were of consequence to the public, were not directly interfered with by government;—and by a parity of reasoning he was convinced that it ought not to interpose in the present instance. The expense was, in itself, a material objection; and he had no doubt but the supply would be ultimately less satisfactory, should the home department be obliged to undertake its superintendence. The construction of aqueducts would cost millions of money, and should not be lightly undertaken, especially as he considered that the un wholesomeness of the water was, in a measure, imaginary. The hon. baronet had said, that he could procure a plan by which salubrious water from a high point of the river could be supplied to the metropolis. If such a plan could be effected, individuals would be found ready to undertake it, if it were likely to turn out a profitable speculation. The commission appointed by his predecessor was for the purpose of reporting on the supply of water to the metropolis—on its quantity and its quality. The commission had sat nearly six months, and had cost 800 l.; when he found it necessary to give them a hint, that it was time to give in the result of their analysis of the various descriptions of water, respecting which they were instructed to inquire. But it was never intended, by the appointment of this commission, that government should take upon itself the business of supplying water to the metropolis. The taking of surveys had been recommended; but before government sanctioned such a measure, an estimate of the expense should be furnished. Since the publication of the Report, a communication had been made to him from the Grand Junction Company, stating that they had it in contemplation to purchase 500 acres near Barnes, and that they proposed to convey water from Barnes; or, if that was not high enough, they proposed even to bring it from Richmond or Teddington. As to the proposed
1596
inquiry, he was anxious even to go farther than the hon. baronet; he consented to the appointment with not merely a restricted, but with full powers. If the hon. baronet wished to lay the commencement of such an inquiry in the present session, he would not oppose it; but as the hon. baronet did not bring forward the subject at an earlier period of the session, he would suggest, that the inquiry might be more effective if it were postponed until the next session. If then, on investigation it should appear, that water was supplied from impure sources; if bills were introduced late in the session, under titles which gave no correct notion of the enactments; if exorbitant rates were levied; these were abuses which should be corrected. He had now given his advice to the hon. baronet: he trusted he had satisfied him that he was sensible of the importance of the subject, and he would leave him to pursue whatever course he might think proper.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he would not trouble the House with many remarks after the satisfactory speech of the right hon. gentleman. He had consented to grant even more than was asked for by his hon. colleague, by consenting to a committee with the fullest powers of inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that if gross monopolies, the insalubriousness of the water, and other abuses were proved to exist, they should be corrected. Now, there was no doubt but that such abuses did exist to an alarming extent, and he hoped the committee about to be appointed would be effectual for the removal of them. His constituents loudly complained of the present state of the supply of water, and they had a right to have that complaint attended to and redressed.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that his attention had been called to a plan for filtering the water of the Thames, in the same manner that water was supplied in Glasgow; he thought it deserving of attention: it might be found preferable to that of bringing water in its natural state, even from the high point of the river that had been mentioned.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that the right hon. gentleman had misunderstood him in supposing that he wished government to interfere on the question. All that he wished was, that the House of Commons should take it up; if this were done, there were many persons ready to advance mo-

1597
ney to set works on foot, by which wholesome water might be obtained. He would move, in lieu of his former motion, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present system of supplying Water to the Metropolis, including the Borough of Southwark; and into the amount of the rates paid by the inhabitants."— Agreed to.