The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-11 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON COMM:ISSION.

The Commissioners re-assembled at the Privy Council
offices, Downing-street, yesterday, to continue their in-
quiry. Commissioners !present :—The Right Hon. M.
Labouphere (chairman), Sir John Patteson, and Mr.
Cornewall Lewis. The first witness examined at this
sitting was

Mr. Horatio Nelson Fisher, solicitor to the firm of
Combe, Delafiek, and Co., brewers, who stated that in
the year 183, the Messrs. Combe and Co. had leased
from the Duchy of Lancaster what was called the Duchy
Wharf, on the Thames, on the Westminster side of the
Waterloo-bridge, with a view to unship the malt and
corn used by them in their brewery. They had used
the wharf for this purpose for several years. They have
large malting houses at Yarmouth, where they pure tease
barley, and convert it into malt, and then it in
bulk from Yarmouth to London in their own vessels.
Having for some time unloaded these" cargoes of malt
at this wharf, the City authorit:;.es, on the part of the
fellowship of porters, at Inngth made a claim to the
right to land every p2;rtiele of corn from the Messrs.
Combe's ships, and to do so at a certain fixed charge.
This the Messrs, Bombe resisted, and in the month of
October, 1835, u bill was filed against them on behalf
of the Cit,y and the fellowship of porters claiming this
right, Still the Messrs. Combe, finding that they could
get their malt landed at a very considerably cheaper rate
than the fellowship porters demanded, refused to con-
sent to the exaction, and they accordingly put in an
answer to the bill which had been filed against them.
But before any further step was taken in the matter,
another claim was made by the City, namely—they
insisted on measuring the corn, although the Messrs.
Combo did not require it to be measured, it being their
own corn both when it was shipped and when it was landed.
Still the City claimed the right to measure this corn, and to
make what they called reasonable charges for so doing,
Well, in consequence of the Messrs. Combe refusing to
allow them to do this also, another suit was instituted
against them by the corporation. In July, n 39, again
another bill was filed against the Messrs. Combe by the
corporation, for the purpose of enabling the City officials
to take an account of the quantities of corn landed ; and
to this bill the Messrs. Combe also filed an answer in
March, 1840. The leg:d advisers of the firm, thinking
that an inspection of the City documents would enable
them to disprov-e the claim which the City had made
upon their olients, filed a bill of discovery against the
City, praying to be allowed to inspect the documents in
question, as being necessary to their defence against
the suit. The MesSrs. Combe also filed a cross-bill
in the porterage suit, and a bill of discovery in both the
porterage and the meta,ge suits. In January, 1841, the
City put in an answer to the bill of discovery, which
answer not being of a very direct or satisfactory nature,
the Messrs. Combe were compelled to " except" to the
City's first answer. The City then made another an-
swer ; but still the Messrs. Combe did not receive what
they thought they had a right to, and they were posi-
tively obliged to again " except," and then they received
a third answer from the City. On that third answer the
Messrs. Combe moved the Court to require the produc-
tion of these documents, and in June, 1842, Vice-Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce made an order directing that they
should be allowed to inspect the documents which they
had claimed. An appeal to the Lord Chancellor was
lodged by the City against the order of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, and the trial of the issues was postponed ; but
the order of the Vice-Chancellor was confirmed by an
order of Lord Lyndhurst. The City then appealed to
the House of Lords, where the case still lies. Thus the
original suit began in October, 1835, and we are now in
the month of November, 1853, and the case is still un-
settled, being tied up in the House of Lords on the
appeal of the City.

Sir John Patteson—And that appeal, you say, being
on a colkiteral point ?
Mr. Fisher—Yes ; and that point is the refusal of the
City to produce documents in their possession.
Mr. C. Lewis—What is your idea of the general na-
ture of those documents ?

Mr. Fisher—Some of them are charters and other
papers in the archives of the City, which we think will
show that the right of the City to make the claim in
dispute is confined to the limits of the City merely, or
confined to metage, as between seller and purchaser,
where the metage may be very useful; but here the corn
is our own corn, and does not require metage or por-
terage.
Mr. C. Lewis—Are we to suppose that the City with-
holds documents on which it grounds a very extensive
claim as regards the whole metropolis, and also beyond
its precincts ?

Mr. Fisher—Certainly ; their appeal to the House of
Lords proves that.
Mr. C. Lewis—The result of these proceedings is, I
suppose, that the claim which the City makes has not
yet been enforced ?

Mr. Fisher—lt has not.
Mr. C. Lewis—You have not told us about the other
suits.

Mr. Fisher—They are also delayed until we see the
City documents.
Mr. C. Lewis—Then the one suit hangs upon the
other ?

Mr. Fisher—lt does.
Mr. C. Lewis—The City's claim, you say, is not con-
fined to the limits of the City-?
Mr. Fisher—No ; it extends over nearly 100 miles, or
from Yantlet-creek to Staines. And you must remember
that the premises of Messrs. Combe and Co.. are not
within the City—they are situated beyond Temple-bar.
The Chairman—Can you tell us what has been the
expense of these legal proceedings to the firm. ?
Mr. Fisher—l believe they have cost about 2,0001.
already to the Messrs. Combe—an amount of expense
in litigation which might have swamped a smaller firm.
According to interrogatories taken in the Court of Ex-
chequer, the rate of porterage, lastage, &c., charged by
the City fellowship of porters is 3s. 2d. per ten quar-
ters of corn ; whereas the same work can be done by
another class of porters at the charge of 3id. or 4d. per
ten tons. The yearly charge which would be made by the
City upon the Messrs. Combe, if the demand were com-
plied with, would amount to 1,000!. The case of the
Messrs. Combs is one of great hardship and oppression,
two vexatious actions, entailing very heavy expense,
having been instituted against them.
Mr. C. Lewis—To what articles does the claim of the
City apply ?
Mr. Fisher—To coals, salt, corn, grain of all de-
scriptions, vegetables, apples, pears, plums, onions, and
roots, and all descriptions of merchandise, measurable
or to be measured, arriving at the port of London or
the shores of the Thames, for a considerable distance
above and below the metropolis.
Mr. Fisher then withdrew.

Mr. Hubbard, governor of the Bank of England, was
next examinod. He stated that he had for a long time
Carried on the business of a merchant in the city of
London, but had never resided within its limits.

..„ .
The Chairman—Have you ever had any~
connection
with the corporation of the City ?
Mr. Hubbard—No. The only way in which I am at
all brought into contact with the City authorities is,
that I have to apply every year for the Lord Mayor's
order with regard to cargoes of merchandise, for which
I pay ss. 6d.

The Chairman—With respect to the service of the
meters of corn, their charges, or the manner in which
the metage is performed, have you found any reason to
complain ?
Mr. Hubbard—No. I have found reason to be satis
fied ; but I have no means of instituting a comparison
between the services or the charges of the city porters
and other porters.
The Chairman—Have you directed your attention
much to the constitution of the corporation ?
Mr. Hubbard—Not much.
The Chairman—ls it not the fact that the merchants
of the City abstain from connection with the corporation.
Mr, tiubbard—l believe it is.