The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-07-13 00:00:00

had been done in this instance hut what individuals
hid been in the habit of doing for 500 veers past,
hr the authority of the Lord Mayor anti Corpora-
tion of the City of London, in whom the right of
the cmo.ervency and soil of the mer was vested.
He would also ►hew, that prior to the formation of
this embankment the place was in a most dangerous
smite, and absolutely called for the alteration. He
drtied hit Learned Friend to show one instance
where 1I writ of ud /nod dantnum hail been issued,
with refetence to any embankment of the Themes.

Mr. GuRN EY said, lie could sliew where nuisances
hail liven allowed in the Thame•, when a certain
sum was paid to license—aid the greater the nui-
sance, the larger was the sum asked.
Luke Thompson, a wale-mina, proved that the
recess Was of great importance to individuals, who
mitigated that part of the river.
A host of wuternien and lightermen corroborated
this testi., ttttt
This closed the case fur the prosecution.
Mr. Scaitherr, for the Delewlants, said, his
Learned Friend had been obliged, in consequence of
the weakness of his case, to take a very narrow view
of a most important question. Ile admitted, if it
were put as in unqualified proposition, that the
Corporation of Loudon had no right to commit a
nuisance on the brinks of the river Thatnes—but he
was surprised that his Learned Priemd should have
asserted, that the City of Lo.don hail no right in
the soil of the river, but were merely authorised to
conserve the otivigation. The fact was, that, for
live hundred years past the Corporation were in the
habit of letting the soil between high and low water-
maik. Tin-re was, indeed, a great duty cast on
them, by various Acts of Parliament, to deepen the
bed of the river in some places, and, in others, to erect
and repair embenkinents. It was evident, that, if an
individual were to erect a quay on the river, so as to
obstruct the navigation, such an erection could not he
allowed. But a question of nuisance must always
be a question of degree—and it was necessary to ba-
laitce the evil said to be caused by that which was
denominated a nuisance, with the good that could
be proved to flow from it. If his Learned Friend
succeeded in tins action, the consequence would be,
that the pride of the Thames, which was raid to
bear on it. tide half the commerce of the world,
must vanish—for every wharf, from Staines-bridge
to London-bridge, would be liable to removal. He
contended, that the mere circumstance of this bay
being useful and conseaient to a small number of
watermen plying at Horeeferry-stairs, was not a suf-
ficient reason fur preventing the Defendant. from
forming a wharf, which would be extremely useful to
the public. Ills Majesty's Government, who cer-
tainly had no desire to interrupt the navigation of the
Thames, thought very differently from Mr. Hodges
and the other witnesses fur the prosecution on this
subject, and had actually filled up a much larger
bay, which formerly existed before the Penitentiary-
house. This, so ler from being detrimental, was con-
sidered a most useful walk. The Learned Gentle-
man then stated that he would whew, by various wit-
nesses', that the embankment, so far from being a
nuisance, would enable boats and barges to moor
more Safely than they formerly could, and would not
take sway any convenience or advantage which was
enjoyed when the recess or elbow existed. Why,
lie asked, was not the embankment to which lie
bad just alluded, and various other embankments
on the Thames, which were not molested, indicted
as nuisances? The truth was, that they were ex-
tremely beneficial, by deepening the river, and en-
abling the stream to flow without interruption. In
the present instance, the embankment was ems-
nently useful, as it prevented the accumulation of
mud in the recess.

Mr. Leech, Clerk of the Navigation Committee
of the Corporation of London, arranged in setting
out the laud which was to be embanked by Lord
Grosvenor. It was about 30 feet in depth. Be-
fore the embankment, the recess was a depository
of mud, and did not affard any mooring-place for
barges, except they were light. He had seen
barges lying there occasionally. Loaded barges
generally lay without the 30 fret that this embank-
ment would enclose. The breadth of the river
from the Penitentiary embankment to the opposite
shore, was 457 feet, at low-water—from this 30
feet embankment to the opposite shore was 640
feet. No inconvenience was experienced from the
river being narrowed before the Penitentiary-house.
He conceived, that the filling up of these recesses
was useful, as it equalized the current of the river,
and prevented the accumulation of mud.
Cross-examined.—The Corporation of London
d;d not pay Earl Grosvenor a sum of money for
effecting this improvement, but they took from him
a fine of 400 guineas and six guineas a-year.
The CHIEF JUSTICE raid, that the Corporation
of London had no right to take a floe from an
individual who was willing to improve any part of
the river Thames. It was a work useful to the
community, and they ought not to make a charge
fur it.

Mr. GURNEY was proceeding to inquire into the
amount of revenue which the City of London de-
rived from granting licenses of this nature—but
was interrupted by
The COMMON SERJEANT, who objected to the
question as irrelevant—and observed, that every
shilling procured in tins way was expended on the
improvement of the Thames.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, the quration was not
material—but he certainly would, in doe time,
state to the Jury, that the Corporation of London,
as Con eeeee tors of the river Thames, were riot au-
thorised to take a tine from persons who improved
the river.

John Nelson, water-bailiff under the Corpora-
tion of the City of London, stetted, that the re-
cess in question was a mere mud-hole, where filth
of all kinds accumulated. He conceived that it
would be a most improper place to moor a barge
in. It was the last place which a man ought to
make for, in tempestuous weather. Lt fact, craft
of moderate size could not get in. The embank-
ment would not be the least impediment to the na-
vigation of the river, and would afford considerable
accommodation to the watermen.

Several other witnesses deposed to the same effect.
Mr. Gots ex replied.
Chief Justice Aeaorr summed up.
The Jury retired, Dud in about half ■n hoar, re.
turned with a verdict of Goal against all the De-
fendants, except Earl Grosvenor and George Hen-
derson, against whom no evidence had been ad-
duced.