HC Deb 08 July 1807 vol 9 cc747-9
Sir H. Mildmay

rose pursuant to notice, to move that there be laid before the house a Supplement to his Memorial which was already upon the table. He took that occasion to state that he owed considerable acknowledgments to lord Sidmouth's government, for the fairness and liberality which he had experienced from it. His first offer had been made to the Barrack Office during that administration, but the whole of the business respecting the letting of his house, had taken place after that administration had gone out of office. His principal object in rising had been to move that there be laid before the house, certain letters which he had received from some individual of the Jury, that had awarded him the compensation for the injury his property had sustained. Of the whole of those who composed the Jury, he was not acquainted with the addresses of more than four, one of whom was the foreman. They were amongst the most respectable persons in the county. The hon. baronet then read extracts from these letters, which explicitly stated, that the 16 acres, with the house, were not included in the estimate of compensation; that the award did not preclude the hon. baronet from residing in, or disposing of the house; that of the 1300l. awarded by the Jury, 700l. was for the injury done to the ground by the works, and to defray the expence of restoring it to the state in which it was before the construction of the works; and that the Jury were aware at the time of making their award, of his being in treaty with government for the house. And here he begged to call the attention of the house to the situation in which he stood, with respect to this transaction. In June next he should be obliged to return to that house, with a barrack within half a-mile of it on one side and on the other. The sums he had received as compensation for a house that had cost 70,000l. to build, were very inconsiderable, though that house had been destroyed, at least as a residence for his family. If he had been upon the Jury, he had no difficulty in saying, that he should have awarded considerably more than had been awarded to him. However, whether the Jury had awarded him 50l. or 500l. he thought himself equally bound to abide by their judgment. He only wished that the house should be able fully to judge of his conduct in the Whole of this transaction, and with that view he moved, that the letters he alluded to, should be laid before the house.

Lord Howick

had no objection to the production of this paper, and he hoped it would prove as satisfactory as the statement just made by the hon. baronet, though he lamented that it did not appear to him yet as satisfactory as could be desired. There seemed to be some strange mistake in the case, because the hon. baronet had stated in his examination before the committee, that the 400l. a year was to procure him another residence; and now it was said to have been granted, on the general ground of enabling him to restore the land from the injury done by the works. If the sum had been awarded for the rent, it would have been an exorbitant allowance to make an award at the rate of 20l. per acre; and if for the land, the whole of the compensation ought to go to the tenants. But the hon. baronet in his examination had stated, that the 4001. per annum was to provide another residence for him; in this view, therefore, the statement did not appear to him to be satisfactory.

Mr. Secretary Canning

was surprised at so complete a misunderstanding in so plain a point. The fault he found with his hon. friend, was, that he had carried his delicacy too far in the steps he had taken to justify himself; unless it could be made out that he had had a corrupt understanding with the Jury, he was not more responsible for their award than any member of that house. The answer of the hon. baronet to the commissioners was one which he was not bound to give, nor the commissioners authorised to ask, because it was not for him to account for the award of the Jury. The 700l. were awarded to his hon. friend to replace the land in the state in which it was, previous to the construction of the works. But the noble lord forgot that his hon. friend could not get back into possession of his premises, till government should give up the lease.—The question was then put and agreed to.