The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-09 00:00:00

THE RAILWAY INVASION OF THE CITY.

Deputy LOTT, the chairman of the Special Railway Com-
mittee appointed to consider the different railway schemes
submitted to Parliament last session, affecting the city of
London, brought up a report of their proceedings, and ask-
ing to be allowed to continue to act in watching any new
schemes that might beiatroduced. There was also a report
from the same committee of the amount of money they had
expended. By this last mentioned report it appeared that
the gross amount expended in opposing the ten schemes
that had been introduced into Parliament during last ses.
sion, the whole of which more or less affected the City of
London, was close upon £4,000, of which sum £750 was
paid in fees to the Recorder, about £9OO to the Common
Serjeant, and the total amount of fees paid to counsel was
considerably more than £2,000. Mr Haywood, the engineer
to the Commissioners of Sewers, had, it appeared, also sent
in a claim for £2lO, which was included in the 4000. The
rest was made up of parliamentary fees and other expenses.

These reports gave rise to rather a warm discussion.

Deputy LOT; in moving that they should be agreed to,
adverted to the alarm that was created among the citizens of
London by the mode in which the projectors of different
railways proposed to deal with property in the City, and
said that the schemes, as originally proposed, would have
interfered with no less than 130 streets in different parts of
the City, and a vast amount of valuable property would
have been destroyed. These proposals, as the Court would
recollect, were received with very great alarm, not only by
the bankers and merchants of the City, but by all classes ;
and the committee were deeply impressed with the impor-
tance of the duty which had been confided to them, and the
result of their operations before the Select Committee of the
House of Commons, was that some of the projects were re-
jected, and others were modified in some most important
respects, and the result he believed was ono on which the
City might congratulate itself. He at the same time said he
could not deny that the expense that had been incurred was
considerable, but the committee felt itself bound to procure
the services of the most eminent counsel, and to take all the
steps in their power to carry out the object they hid in
view, and he trusted the Court would consider that the coma
mittee had done its duty in the proceedings they had carried
out. (Hear, hear.)

Mr BE JERSEY said he thought the Court ought not to
sanction the expenditure of so large a sum as £l,OOO without
some farther inquiry, and at all events ascertaining whether
the money had been properly expended. They should re •
member that the Corporation had no solicitor to pay, and
that the whole of this large sum consisted of costs out of
pocket. He should therefore propose, with a view to a fur-
ther investigation taking place, that those reports should
be referred to the Law and Parliamentary Committee for
them to take into consideration and report to the Court as to
the propriety of the payments that had been made. (Hear.)
Mr M. GEORGE said that although he was one of the
members of the select committee, he felt obliged to Mr De
Jersey for the observations he had made, and ho could not
deny that the cost of the proceedings that had been taken
was extravagant. It appeared that £2,900 was paid in fees
to counsel, and of this sum, two of their own officers, the
Recorder and the Common Sergeant, received, the one £750
and the other nearly £l,OOO. With regard to the sum of 200
guineas that was claimed by Mr Haywood, the committee
were certainly surprised that he should have made such a
claim,ase they
acting
in conjunction with the Com-
m s rs
they sdpposed that he, as the en-
gineer of that body, was engaged in their behalf,
i i
nof Sewers, were
and
Mr DE JERSEY said the Commissioners of Sewers were
not aware that such a claim as the one referred to had been
made by Mr Haywood.

Mr A. L. TAYLOR expressed his opinion that it was time
this special committee was done away with, and he at the
same time said that although one of its members had at-
tempted to make a great deal out of the fact of Mr Haywood
tho engineer to the Commissioners of Sewers, having set in
a claim for 200 guineas, he did not say anything about what
was paid to the two higher officera of the corporation—the
Recorder and Common Sergeant, lie considered the fees
gaid to these gentlemen were very large, particularly when
it was remembered they received a large salary from the
corporation. He did not see, however, that anything could
be done with reference to this portion of the subject, nor
how the fees could be reduced. [ t voice—They are paid.]
(A laugh.) He hoped that such a state of things would not
occur again, and so far as this committee was concerned he
thought that the sooner it was disembodied the better.
Alderman ROSE, M.P., supported the report, and said
that in his opinion it would be a very anomalous state of
things if one committee was to be allowed to sit in judgment
upon the proceedings of another. With regard to the fees to
counsel, there was a recognised scale of fees to bo paid to
counsel who appeared before a committee of the House of
Commons, and nothing more than the usual fees had been
paid.
Mr HARTRIDGE argued that the sum of £4,000 was not
at all unreasonable for the work that had been done. (Hear,
hear.) There were ten different bills to oppose, and the Cor-
poration in opposing them had this additional difficulty
thrown in their way, that there was already a foregone con-
clusion arrived at by the Parliament; that there should be
an inner circle of railways in the metropolis. The utmost
exertions were required to oppose successfully the schemes
that were proposed, and he could himself bear testimony to
the extreme zeal and ability with which the points had been
argued before the committee by the Common Serjeant and
the other learned counsel engaged.
Deputy ELLIOTT said it appeared to him that there was
nothing that could now be done except to pay the money—
(hear, hear, and a laugh)—and that the debate that had
taken place was what
and he would add that ho
thought that the fees that had been paid counsel were
hhto b ee
nctai lrleeldy a
cno indignation
idt e. bate, aHt e
e,
enormous—more than £2,000 being given to three of their
own well-paid officers, (Hear, hear.) He hoped that such
a crying evil would be stopped for the future. (Hear, hear.)
Mr G. J. COCKERELL expressed his opinion that £4,000
was a very small sum when compared with the important
results that were obtained through the exertions of this
committee, and he said that every ono who was acquainted
with the expense incurred in opposing bills in Parliament
must agree with him.
Deputy FRY said it appeared to him that the Court were
taking a most undignified course on the present occasion.
The select committee had, in his opinion, done a very great
public service— (hear, hear)—and had done the City a very
important service, and it was objected to pay for that ser-
vice, (Hear, hear.)
Deputy LOTT then briefly replied, and in the course of his
observations he reminded the Court that the Recorder and
the Common Serjeant had both accepted their offices
ppon
the understanding that they were to be paid for their ser-
vices when they were specially retained on behalf of the
Corporation, and
-nothing more than the usual amount of
fees were paid to them.
Mr DE JERSEY said that he was satisfied with the dis-
cussion which had taken place, and he should not press his
amendment.

Mr 11, L. TAYLOR then said that he should not offer any
further opposition to the reports, except with regard to the
continuance of the committee. In his opinion that was
quite unnecessary, as the Remembrancer was bound to be
perfectly well aware of the nature of every bill which was
brought before Parliament, and the Law and Parliamentary
Committee, which was a large committee, and of which the
chairman of every one of the other committees was a mem-
ber, was perfectly competent to deal with the subject. He
should therefore wove all as a woudraeut that the portion

ok the report which recommended the continuation of the
commltee should not be agreed to.
This amendment was carried upon a division bye majority
of 20, and the other portions of the reports were agreed to,