The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-20 00:00:00

SPANISH BONDS.

Sir R. WILSON presented a petition from cer-
tain Spanish Bondholders, resident in Deal, in Kent,
praying the interference of Parliament for the pur-
pose of inducing the Court of Madrid to indemnify
them for the loans advanced by them to the Spanish
Government.

After a few words from Mr. EASTHOPE in sup-
port of the petition, it was ordered to be printed.
CONDUCT OF MR. NASH.
Mr4UIVIDOLD appeared at the bar with the

Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into
Mr. Nash's conduct, in relation to the new Archi-
tectural Improvements in the neighbourhood of
Charing-cross.
On the question that the Report be brought up,
Colonel DAVIES rose, for the purpose of stating
the grounds on which he felt himself compelled to
observe upon, and dissent from, the resolution con-
tained iii the report of the ou which, as
the House was aware, had been appointed at his
suggestion, to inquire into the conduct of Mr.
N ash. As that Committee had been appointed on
his own motion, it might naturally be supposed he
could not complain of'aity- resolution its labours
might terminate in. A'shcirt-explanation would, he.
was persuaded, show there was no inconsistency in
his objecting to that resolution. Before he moved
for that Committee, he had showed to the Chan-
t cellos 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 con-
tained too many from his (Col. Davies's) side of the
House He told the Right Hon. Gentleman in re-
plyathat he was at liberty to add as many members
as be pleased from the Ministerial benches. He
then showed the list as amended by the Right Hon.
Gentleman to some of his (Col. Davies's) friends,
and they, on the other hand, objected to its contain-
ing too many members holding official appointments.
But he replied that that objection should not prevail
with him, that he had brought forward serious
charges against an individual, and that it should
never be said he had attemp,ed to run down that
individual by objecting to the members of a Com-
mittee appointed to inquire into his conduct, on the
supposition that they might be friendly towards him
from being co-holder of office under the Crown.—
It happened that four of the members who viewed
the transaction in the same light with himself were
obliged to leave town very soon after the appoint-
ment of the Committee, and the consequence of their
absence was that the ministerial phalanx which acted
under the Right Hon. Gent. 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
arid Crown building property, so as to guard against
any unfair advantages in the disposal of those leases,
and of every other species of Crown property which
fell under his official cognizance. Without entering
into any detail of the agreement by which Mr. Nash
held his appointment under the Woods and Forests,
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 pur-
pose of erecting the new streets in the neighbour-
hood of Charing-cross, and to half a year's rent on
the entire of the new buildings erected, or about to
be erected. Surely this was a revenue sufficient to
satisfy avarice itself, and to preclude other modes of
making money of those buildings. And vet it WAS
in evidence that it was not. It was in evidence be-
fore 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 of Suffolk-street.
Mr. Edwards admitted before the Committee that
his application for the lease was in the hand-writing
of one of Mr. Nash's clerks, and that he had pre-
viously 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
valuation Mr. Edwards obtained the lease from the
Woods and Forests. Mr. Edwards, after obtaining his
lease, appointed, as he had admitted in evidence, Mr.
Nash his agent, to manage the ground he had thus
purchased, and to dispose of it as he might think
advantageous. Now, this single fact alone ap-
peared to him (Colonel Davies) as a most extraordi-
nary mode of proceeding on the part of a servant of
the Crown. Here the official authority, whose duty
it was to vigilantly guard the interests of the Crown
so far as they were involved in the valuation, &c.,
of the Crown leases within his jurisdiction, first
values (he would not then say more), and assists in
disposing of a certain portion of the Crown property,
and then what ?—becomes, forsooth, the agent of
the new lessee's.—( Hear, hear.)—After this Mr.
Edwards went to the country, thence to the Con-
tinent, where he stayed upwards of twelve months,
not returning till 1822. Shortly after his return he
had a conversation with Mr. Nash, who happened
to be on a visit with him at his house in the coun-
try, respecting this Crown lease property. On this
occasion, according to Mr. Edwards, Mr. Nash vo-
luntarily offered him 4,5001. 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. Ed-
wards's professional habits were considered. Mr. Ed-
wards was an attorney of 30 years' experience in leases
and other pecuniary transactions, and yet strange to
relate surrendered the entire management of this pro-
perty to his friend and relation,Mr.Nashoever making
any inquiry respecting it, and finally disposing of it
in a common conversation for a premium of 4,500/.
without any written document whatsoever of the
transaction.--(hear.)—To be sure, when the un-
usualness of such a proceeding was stated to Mr.
Edwards, that gentleman declared there was no col-
lusion
Dim
iandes) hisfor forineened
felt
relation,ao
ulllllrd.
Nash. betweenHe w
Co lh
to believe that declaration, the rather as Mr. Ed-
wards was a man of considerable property, and had
et(e
.
been a Member of that House. Had he been a less
unquestionable witness, he (Col. Davies) 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, in conversation, " Edwards, I'll give you
4,5001. for your good-will in the lease," &c. But,
after all this genergity, it turned out that Mr. Ed-
wards knew not alp 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 4,5001.,
the annual ground-rent of which was 769/—for
17,001.—(Hear, hear,)—without any outlay on his
part, excepting 5001. on the University Club-house.—
(Hear.)—From this immense profit let 2,3001.
of an unadjusted account with Mr. Nash be de-
ducted, and it would be found (the Hon. Member
said) that Mr. Nash made a clear profit of 14,6861.
on what he had given Mr. Edwards but 4,5001. for
—(Hear,)--and without any outlay on his part.
Now he (Colonel Davies) begged leave to ask, dis-
passionately and calmly, was this the fitting conduct
of an individual filling Mr. Nash's situation ? Was
it right that the architect of the Crown, holding an
important and highly remunerated appointment under
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, should
use the influence of his office to first obtaining his
friend and relation a cheap lease of Crown lands,
and then to disposing of it at an enormous personal
profit ? Either he had undervalued the property in
the first instance, or he overcharged for it in the se-
quel. Was it not his duty in the formor, the much
more probable case, to have stated to the proper au-
thorities, " I find I have unintentionally committed
an error; I undervalued such a Crown property, but
fortunately the lessee is disposed to take a compara-
tively speaking small sum for his goodwill. Pur-
chase 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 hi,.
duty ? and yet what' was his conduct ? He actually
most studiously' concealed from the Commission