said, he should take the earliest opportunity of rising to oppose it. The fact was, that this professed be an Estate bill, but under that shape it gave to the lord of the manor a power which he did not at present possess. Great doubt had been entertained by some persons as to the form in which this bill had been introduced into, parliament: it was thought to partake so far of the nature of an enclosure bill, that it ought not to have been proceeded with until the regular notices had been given: it was likewise thought that the copyholders had such an interest in the property, that a notice ought to have been served upon them; and in the third place, it was objected, that as the bill empowered the steward of the lord of the manor to collect money by way of license, the bill assumed the shape of a money-bill, and ought to have originated in that House instead of the Lords. But, laying aside the question of form altogether, he was prepared to maintain that the principle of this bill would go to exercise a most unjust influence ever the copyholders. For what did the bill do? It assumed that the copy holders had no right to improve the premises they occupied; that they had not the privilege of digging for sand; and that certain customs of the manor existed. But all these were only assumptions. If he understood the bill aright, its provisions were dangerous to the rights of the copyholders, and yet no opportunity was afforded them to establish this fact. What had been the progress of the bill? It had been read a second time, without the accustomed space intervening between the first and second readings. It had been committed on the day of the reassembling of parliament after the late adjournment; but though the House really did not meet till four o'clock, the parliamentary usage was, to presume that it met at ten, and the consequence of this had beery; that several gentlemen who would have attended, had had been unconsciously absent, and no opportunity had been afforded for discussing the measures. If the bill were now ordered to be recommitted, he should be able to make out such a case, that parliament would not entertain the proposed measure; but as this course, Owing to the period of the session, might be open to cavil, the fairer way would be to oppose the bringing up of the report, and to move that it be received that day three months. In pursuing such a course, he was acting on broader grounds than the rights of copyholders; for even if all the copy-holders had consented to the measure, he should object to it on the behalf of the public. It was not the fashion of the day to think much about the amusements or comforts of the poorer classes of society; but he nevertheless contended; that the House was bound not to do any thing that might tend to abridge those comforts or amusements. Besides, it was not merely the poorer classes of society that were interested in this question; for he would venture to say, that there was not a gentleman who resided in the vicinity of Hampstead that did not derive benefit, either for himself or for his family, from having access to the heaths. If the lord of the manor already proposed the right of building there, let him have it; but he must protest against any further facilities being afforded for the prosecution of so undesirable an object. He would move, that the report be received on this day three months.

seconded the amendment. The estate which sir T. Wilson possessed at Hampstead was originally acquired by his father. His father gave to the present sir T. Wilson his estates in other parts of the country in fee simple: but he only gave him a life estate in his manor of Hampstead. It was evident therefore that he never intended any part of his manor of Hampstead to be parcelled out in the way in which its present possessor now intended. A copyholder of the manor of Hampstead, had informed him, that the father of sir T. Wilson had himself wished to enclose a spot of ground on the waste adjoining to a farm of his own. He applied to the copyholders for leave to enclose it, and gained it, on the express condition that no other spot should be enclosed. Now other spots were sought to be enclosed, and if this bill should pass, it would enable sir T. Wilson to violate the pledge given by his late father. The bill spoke of the freehold tenure of the waste being in sir T. Wilson as lord of the manor. Now, he had already proved that sir T. Wilson was only tenant for life; and the copyholders of Hampstead likewise denied that the waste belonged to him in fee simple. They declared that they had a part in it; and having such part in it, they had a right to oppose this bills The inhabitants of London had also a right to oppose it. No place was so advantageous to them for the restoration of their health as the heath at Hampstead. It was a common source of good to all classes in the metropolis [hear]; and even artists were in the habit of going to Hampstead-heath to draw sketches of the metropolis.

said, he felt confident that if honourable; members would attend to his statement, they would not consent to the amendment. The hon. gentleman who had proposed it, stood upon two points, the one on behalf of the copyholders, and the other on behalf of the public. With respect to the first, the hon. gentleman had not stated one point in which their rights had been invaded. He had commenced by speaking of the manner in which the bill had been introduced, and had insinuated that it had been unduly hurried through the House. But he did not see how that could be the case. On May the 6th, a public meeting of the copyholders was called, and another on May 13, at which it was resolved to present a petition against the bill to the Lords: and so far from there being any desire shewn to hurry the measure, the committal was postponed from the 18th to the 27th of May. In the committee, certain amendments were proposed by the counsel who attended in behalf of the copyholders; and, as those were agreed to, it was understood that the bill came down to that House without any opposition. With respect to the second reading, it was true it had taken place at an earlier period than was prescribed by the rules of the House; but, at the same time, at a period usual and customary, when it was understood that there was to be no opposition to a bill. Could this then, be considered as smuggling the bill through the House? It merely arose from the fact of the session being nearly over. This bill had been called, "a Bill for inclosing Hampstead Heath," but he positively denied that it was such, in any acceptation of the term. It was only a bill to enable the lord of the manor, being nothing but tenant for life, to enter into such arrangements as could not be proceeded in without the agency of this bill; but if, instead of being tenant for life, sir T. Wilson had held the estate in fee simple, he would have been able to do, of his own power, all that the present bill would enable him to do. A few years ago, a Bill for the construction of a road at Hampstead was brought into parliament, which sir T. Wilson had opposed with might and main; but, in spite of this opposition, the measure had been carried; and one of the main arguments on which the committee had founded their opposition of the measure was, that it would be the means of improving sir T. Wilson's estate, as it would give a more extensive frontage to it for letting; but without the present bill this argument was futile, for, being only tenant for life, sir T. Wilson was unable to grant leases. The present bill empowered the lord of the manor to grant leases, and to enter into agreements relative to the fines for the renewals of the leases; and this was the whole sum and substance of the bill. He begged to deny distinctly that there was one syllable in the bill which would enable the lord of the manor to inclose any portion of the Heath. If the lord of the manor had the power to make such an inclosure, the present bill would be unnecessary for that purpose; and if he had no such power this bill would not help him to it. He was quite prepared to go with those who wished to preserve the Heath for the recreation of the. Public; and if the present bill would interfere with the Heath, it would be easy to strike out from the schedule that part which referred to the waste of Hampstead. He hoped the House would not agree to the amendment.

said, he should not be satisfied with the sort of compromise which was held out, and the more so, as eminent counsel concurred in opinion, that important rights of the copyholders would be affected by the bill, notwithstanding the description given of these saving clauses: for instance, it was proposed that the lord or lady of the manor, after sir T. Wilson, Should have the power of conferring licenses to copyholders to dig for sand and gravel on the Heath, upon payment of 40s. for each license, and three guineas to the steward; but the lord might refuse, if he pleased, to grant such license, while on the other hand, the parties at present insisted they could avail themselves of the Heath, in this manner, without his leave or any further payment, upon the terms of their existing tenure. Besides, in the schedule of this bill there were plots of land inserted as freeholds, which the tenants declared themselves in a condition to prove were not such.

said, he could not give his consent to the further progress of the bill, under existing circumstances. The course he should suggest would be to withdraw the bill, so as not to pledge the opinion of the House upon its merits, in the absence of further information; and then let the parties next session, if they thought proper, consider what course they ought to take.

said, he opposed the bill because the public were deeply interested in the changes to be produced by it. It was for the sake of the public that he rose to oppose the bill, for he recollected the opposition made to other attempts to infringe on the comforts of the people. There were already one million two hundred thousand people in London. The right hon. Secretary had been obliged to bring in a new Police-bill to govern them; and he believed he was not mistaken when he said, that the government looked with alarm at the daily increase of their numbers. It was because he did not wish the metropolis to become larger, that he voted for sir T. Wilson remaining where he Was; and he hoped that gentleman by endeavouring to grasp at all, would not en danger what he already possessed.

said, that, from the turn which the debate had taken, he would save the House the trouble of dividing and withdraw the bill.

rose, he said, for the purpose of stating the grounds on which he felt himself compelled to observe upon, and dissent from, the resolutions contained in the report of the committee Which had been appointed at his suggestion, to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Nash. As that committee had been appointed on his own motion, it might naturally be supposed he could not complain of any resolution its labours might terminate in. A short explanation would show that there was no inconsistency in his objecting to that resolution. Before he moved for that committee, he had showed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer his list of the members he intended should compose it, to which list the right hon. gentleman objected, on the ground that it contained too many from his (colonel Davies's) side of the House. He told the right hon. gentleman, that he was at liberty to add as many members as he pleased from the ministerial benches. He then shewed the list as amended by the right hon. gentleman to some of his friends, and they, on the other hand, objected to it as containing too many members holding official appointments. But he replied, that he had brought forward serious charges against an individual, and it should never be said he had attempted to run down that individual by objecting to the members of a committee appointed to inquire into his conduct, on the supposition that they might be friendly towards him from being co-holders of office under the Crown. He felt, besides, that it was a case so free from party features, that it might be left with confidence to any committee; and that from the gentlemen composing that whose report was about to be brought up, there could be no doubt of a determination to do strict justice to all parties. It there was any one member of that committee more than another from whom he had expected a firm determination to probe the question to the bottom, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the House had heard his statement, and compared it with the resolution of the committee, he would leave it to determine how far his expectations had been realized. It was true its majority were composed of members not connected with the government, and free from all personal feelings towards Mr. Nash. But it happened, that four of the members who viewed the transaction in the same light with himself were obliged to leave town, and the consequence was, that the ministerial phalanx which acted under the right hon. gentleman enabled him always to command a majority. Hence the resolution which the committee had adopted, and which he begged the House to compare with his statement, and thereby determine how far it was justified. That statement would be founded on the evidence heard before the committee. It was hardly necessary to premise, that Mr. Nash by his office was a responsible servant of the Crown, or perhaps he should rather say, of the Woods and Forests' Commissioners; that it was his duty as architect of the Crown to look closely to all transactions involving Crown leases and Crown-building property, so as to guard against any unfair advantage in the disposal of those leases, and of every other species of Crown property which fell under his Official cognizance. Wihtout entering into any detail of the agreement by which Mr. Nash held his appointment, he would remind the House, that that gentleman was entitled to one half per cent on the sale of the materials of the buildings pulled down for the purpose of erecting the new streets in the neighbourhood of Charing-cross, and to half a year's rent on the entire of the new buildings erected, or about to he erected. Surely this was a revenue sufficient to satisfy avarice itself. And yet it was in evidence before the committee, that in 1820, Mr. Nash reported to the Woods and Forests, that a certain tract of ground between Pall-mall East and. Suffolk-street might be advantageously purchased. This happened on the 20th of January. On the 26th of the same month it appeared in evidence, that a Mr. Edwards, a near relation of Mr. Nash, applied for a lease of a portion of this ground to the west a Suffolk-street. Mr. Edwards admitted, that his application for the lease was in the hand-writing of one of Mr. Nash's clerks, and that he had previously had a communication with Mr. Nash on the subject. In fact, the application was made at the suggestion of Mr. Nash; by whose influence, and at whose valuation, Mr. Edwards obtained the lease from the Woods and Forests. Mr. Edwards, after obtaining his lease, appointed Mr. Nash his agent; to manage the ground he had thus purchased, and to dispose of it as he might think advantageous. Now, that single fact alone was most extraordinary. Here the official authority, whose duty it was vigilantly to guard the interests of the Crown, first values, and assists in disposing of, a certain portion of the Crown property, and then what?—becomes, forsooth, the agent of the new lessee. After this Mr. Edwards went to the country, and thence to the continent, where he stayed till 1822. Shortly after his return he had a conversation with Mr. Nash respecting his Crown-lease property. On this occasion Mr. Nash voluntarily offered him 4,500l. for his interest in his lease, which he at once accepted without any further conversation or dealings whatever. This would, perhaps, appear the more surprising when Mr. Edwards's professional habits were considered. Mr. Edwards was an attorney of thirty years experience, and yet, strange to relate, surrendered the entire management of this property to his friend and relation, Mr. Nash; never making any inquiry respecting it, and finally disposing of it in a common conversation for a premium of 4,500l. without any written document whatsoever of the transaction. To be sure, when the unusualness of such a proceeding was stated to Mr. Edwards, that gentleman; declared there was no collusion between him and his friend and relation, Mr. Nash. He for one felt himself bound to believe that declaration the rather as Mr. Edwards was a man of considerable property, and had been a member of that House. Had he been a less unquestionable witness, he feared he should be uncharitable enough to suppose, that as Mr. Nash could not take a lease in his own name, he suggested to his friend and relation to take it out in his so that both might divide the profits. Mr. Edwards's account of the transaction was amusing; indeed, it smacked somewhat of romance. He stated, that Mr. Nash, with his usual warmth and generosity of feeling, said to him, in an off-hand manner, "Edwards, I'll give you 4,500l. for your. goodwill in the lease," & C. But, after all his generosity, it, turned out, that Mr. Edwards knew not all the advantages of which he was the possessor. For, what was the fact in the sequel? Why, Mr. Nash actually sold this property, for which he had given his friend and relation 4,500l., the annual ground-rent of which was 769l.—for 17,059l., without any outlay on his part, excepting 500l. on the University Club-house. From this immense profit let 2,300l. of an unadjusted account with Mr. Nash be deducted, and it would be found that Mr. Nash made a clear profit of 14,686l. on what he had given Mr. Edwards but 4,500l. for, and without any outlay on his part. Now, he begged leave to ask, dispassionately and calmly, was this fit conduct in an individual filling Mr. Nash's situation? Was it right that the architect of the Crown should use the influence of his office, first to obtain his friend and relation a cheap lease of Crown lands, and then to dispose of it at an enormous personal profit? Either he had undervalued the property in the first instance, or he overcharged for it in the sequel. Was it not his duty in the former, the much more probable case, to have stated to the proper authorities, "I find I have undervalued such a Crown property, but fortunately the lessee is disposed to take a small sum for his goodwill. Purchase his interest in the lease, and let the public have the advantage of the greater price, which you can obtain for the property." Was not this his duty? And yet, what was his conduct? He studiously concealed from the Commissioners the whole transaction; and although Mr. Edwards obtained the lease in 1820, and Mr. Nash gave him 4,500l. for his goodwill in 1822, Mr. Mill, of the Woods and Forests, declared in evidence, that that office knew nothing of the matter until about a year and a half ago. Let the House for a moment consider the whole transaction as one between private parties. Let them suppose Mr. Nash to have been the agent of some individual owner of ground-rent property. What would be the conduct of earl Grosvenor, or the duke of Bedford, if it appeared to them that their architect had thus abused the trust they reposed in him? Would they not at once dismiss him from their service as a dishonest servant, and fix the brand of violated trust on his brow? But, forsooth, Mr. Nash is to pass of seatheless, unadmonished, immaculate. In defence of his conduct, it is asserted by Mr. Nash's friends, that it would be found he came off with very small profits; that had such been his design, he might have consulted his own pecuniary advantage much more than he had done. It was stated, for example, that in Mr. Edwards's lease transaction, Mr. Nash's outlay was 21,598l., though he, received but 17,021l. for the property; thereby being at an actual loss of 4,.577l. Now, Mr. Nash would, persuade the world that the he lost the sum of 4,577l. upon these houses. No man who I, considered the subject could well conceive how he could have lost, so much; but supposing he did, how did that circumstance alter the case? If a dishonest servant, for instance, should rob his master of a certain sum of money, and afterwards lose a portion of it, could that be brought forward as an extenuation of his conduct? It was the duty of Mr. Nash to value those houses and the, materials of which they were composed. Now, he would ask, what reliance could be placed upon such a valuation and survey of those buildings, which Mr. Nash had himself erected? What security could there be, under such circumstances, that these buildings were composed of proper materials? Who could depend upon the statement of Mr. Nash himself as to whether the materials which entered into the composition of these buildings were either good or bad? That was case sufficient to justify inquiry into his conduct. But an attempt was made to bolster up the case of Mr. Nash by the evidence of Mr. Shaw. That evidence certainly, in his opinion, quite exculpated the office of Woods and Forests. When they found that Mr. Edwards was desirous to have a lease of these houses, they thought it not expedient to lease them to him merely upon the valuation of Mr. Nash. Accordingly, they employed Mr. Shaw, without the knowledge either of Mr. Edwards or Mr. Nash, to value the property, and Mr. Shaw valued the land, without knowing that any application had been Made for it on the part of Mr. Edwards. Mt. Shaw valued the ground, but upon a plan which had been originally drawn by Mr. Nash, Mr. Shaw valued the property at 900l. a year, exclusive of the sum of 174l. a year expended upon the laud in the shape of an increasing ground-rent. He likewise valued the old materials at 4,000l. He had examined this witness. In answer to a question from him, he stated, that he considered the speculation a hazardous one; and for this reason—that he had known persons who had built houses in Regent-street, and who had them upon their hands for some time before they could find tenants to occupy them. He then asked the witness whether he would not have given a different valuation of this property, if he had known that there had been several persons inquiring for it before the period a Mr. Nash's application? His reply was, that he would have attached more value, to the property if he had understood that others had made application for it. Now, it appeared from the evidence contained in the report of the committee, that previous to July, 1820, there had been a variety of applicants for this property.

rose to order. He would submit it to the chair, whether it was usual or regular for an hon. member to go into the details of a report which was not yet before the House?

said; that having been called upon to give his opinion, he had merely to observe, that he was not prepared to state, that the line which the hon. member was pursuing was disorderly as he did not at present know to what conclusion the hon. member intended to arrive.

proceeded. His only object was, to procure sufficient information for the public on the subject and that a full Statement of the case should go forth to the world. Now what was the case here? This report merely contained the resolution of the committee, which stated, that Mr. Nash was not at all to blame in the transaction, and which, therefore, went so far to criminate him (colonel Davies), who had preferred these charges against Mr. Nash. If these resolutions were true; he was an individual not deserving of credit; for it would appear that he had brought certain, charges against Mr. Nash, and that a committee appointed to investigate those charges had pronounced them unfounded, and had totally acquitted Mr. Nash. But this report merely contained the resolutions Of the committee, without the minutes of evidence which had been taken before them, and which he contended warranted a different conclusion. Those resolutions would go forth to the country, every individual in it would read them, while the minutes of evidence which had been taken before the committee, would not reach one out of fifty individuals in the country. He Was therefore anxious that the facts of the case should be laid before the public. Mr. Nash stated that a great number of applications had been received for this land—so Many, that not cute half of them could be accommodated. Another witness stated, that up to July, 1819, they had received communications from various persons desirous of obtaining portions of this land There Was also an important circumstance stated in the evidence of Mr. Shaw. It appeared that there was no less than three years pepper-corn rent to be allowed to persons taking this land; and Mr. Shaw stated, that he was not at all aware of that circumstance when he gave his valuation of it. He was accordingly asked, whether he did not think that it would have made a great difference in his valuation of those houses, if he were aware that individuals—who would have suppose, to pay 1,000l. a year—would have such an allowance made to them for three years? His reply was, that such a fact would have made a great difference in his valuation.

rose to order. He did not know whether for the motion which he should, without further preface, move, that strangers be ordered to withdraw.

The gallery was accordingly cleared, and during the exclusion of strangers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. F. Lewis, and Mr. Protheroe, addressed the House. On our re-admission to the gallery we found the Speaker putting the question, "that the report be printed."

said, he was determined, at an early period next session, to bring the subject again under the notice of the House.

expressed his satisfaction at hearing the pledge given by his hon. Friend to resume the subject next session.

without making any more than a passing allusion to what here might be called, in architectural terms, appeared very much like whitewashing, must say, that the party arraigned had figured away in a variety of capacities. In the language of holy writ, it appeared he had been, the servant of God and Mammon, and trimming his course with dexterity he had cleared the Woods and Forests without falling foul of the, Treasury. What most surprised him was, that he had got the warrant alluded to backed by the Treasury. There had been enough developed in the transactions between Mr. Nash and his nominee, Mr. Edwards, to induce him to look on Mr. Nash as a suspicious character. He, however, exculpated him from all imputation of fraud; although it appeared he was excessively anxious to amass a fortune for his posterity. He also had the prudence to secure the support of his employers throughout. The affair of the reletting of the ground for the University Club, by Mr. Nash, for 394l., which he had bargained for and procured, for 173l. from the com- missioners, was, amongst others, a reason with him for inferring that Mr. Nash was not that sound-minded, right-headed, well-regulated public officer which the affairs of this great empire demanded in the situation of its civil architect. He was certainly a great speculator; for his extreme age had not prevented him placing a great stake on the event of this speculation, although hastening rapidly to "that bourne from whence no traveller returns."

The report was ordered to be printed.