The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 28, 1853.

towhcoicmhpolaffiinc,e
(linhathvee
ayteiaorns.Corhpaavney,
heldG3ue forral Steam
the last Nfsovuirg
part of the company in whose employ I am, of the imper-
fect state in which the navigation of the river is kept by
re shoals and other impediments are suffered to exist in
the corporation, who are its supposed conservators. Nume-
thuescourse of the river between London-bridge and Frith,
which cause great delay and inconvenience to our com-
pany', fleet. Vessels of the ordinary draught of water (12
cand down are stopped on reaching
these 13 feet)ese shoalspassg p
whenin up
tide is within two hours of low
water.
The Chairman—Do you mean that proper care is not
taken by the city to keep the river free from shoals ?
Mr. Pratt—l do ; and the best evidence of this to which
I can refer the commissioners is the report of the commis-
sion issued in 1846 on the subject of tidal harbours, and of
which Captain Washington, R.N., was the chairman. Our
vessels experience very great obstruction and detention
from the shoals in the river, and they also sustain serious
damage when the pilot tries to pass over them, and the
ship comes in contact with the hard substance of which
they are formed.
The Chairman—Do you consider that the shoals have
been growing worse from year to year ?
Mr. Pratt—They remain very mach the same. The city
some time ago improved the river near Limehouse by in-
creasing the dept of water eighteen inches, brit still the
navigation is in a very bad state. The present harbour-
master does his duty very efficiently. By his exertions the
water has been deepened at the piers where steamers of a
large draught of water are lying. The regulations of the
City and the regulations of the Admiralty are at variance
with each other. The 38th by-law of the City, revised and
published in 1852, requires all steamers passing up and
down the river between the sunset and sunrise to hoist
one light at the mast-head, and another at the bowsprit
head ; but by an Act of the 14th and 15th of Victoria
power is conferred on the Admiralty to issue regulations
of the same nature, and accordingly in 1848 the Admiralty
published an order requiring steam-vessels to carry a green
light on one paddle-box and a red light on the other ; and
in the concluding clause the rights of the corporation to
issue such regulations are saved. The consequence is that
the conflicting regulations of the City and of the Admiralty
are both continued in existence simultaneously.
The Chairman—Do you think the corporation is a fit
body to be entrusted with the conservancy of the river.
Mr. Pratt—No ; I think it would be managed better if
it were placed under the control of the Government.
The Chairman—ls your company affected by the dues
which the City imposes on the commerce of the port of
London ?
Mr. Pratt —lt is. The metage, tillage, and lastage dues
exacted by the City interfere with our grain trade very
much ; and in some instances they amount to one-third of
our freight, which of course makes it impossible for us to
compete with carriage by railway. Again, the Watermen's
Company of the corporation have very exclusive and injurious
privileges. No barge or lighter can be navigated on the
Thames except by a freeman of the Waterman's Company ;
and the number of these men beinglimited, and the business
very large, it is difficult to get cargoes discharged in
sufficient time to leave at the appointed hours. There are
not barges enough to discharge and load vessels lying in the
stream. The proper remedy would be to throw the trade
open, which would lead to a great saving of expense. Our
company's vessels could also make more voyages in a year
if we could load and discharge them ourselves. A short
time ago there was a strike of the privileged lightermen on
the Thames, which nearly threatened the entire suspension
of business on the river.
Mr. John Mathews examined —I am a solicitor practising
in the city of London, and have had to apply to the City
authorities on behalf of my clients with respect to the con-
servancy of the river. My clients were wharfingers, and
they had complaints to make er applications for privileges
to send in ; and my experience, which extends over a
period of 30 years, leads me to believe that the City either
wants authority or is incompetent to discharge its duty to
the public.
The Chairman—On what ground do you make thst
assertion ?
Mr. Mathews—From the fact that the navigation com-
mittee always endeavour to make a compromise in all
matters of dispute, or they defer and delay them, or if they
are forced to come to judgment, execution does not follow,
and relief does not arrive. I have conducted my communi-
cation with the sub-committee of the navigation committee,
which consists of about twenty persons, none of whom have
any knowledge of the river beyond what they have picked
up as committeemen. They have harbour masters and a
water bailiff, but the duties of these officers are of an execu
tive nature, and they cannot be present at the deliberations
of the committee to assist them with their advice. A client
of mine, Mr. George Simmons, occupies on the bank of the
river at Gravesend certain warehouses and premises, in
which he carries on business as a mast and block maker. He
and his predecessors have occupied these premises for up-
wards of 60 years. They front the river on the north, and
have also a river frontage on the east, where there is a sort
of harbour or lay-by place for small craft, near which my
client placed his masts, in order to convey them with
greater facility to vessels which had lost them from stress
of weather, and required to be supplied with fresh ones at
a moment's notice. In the year 1850 my client was sur-
prised to find that a powerful neighbour had made an ap-
plication to the navigation committee for power to enclose
and fill up the harbour or lay-by place which he and his
predecessors had used for their business in common with
the fishermen and watermen of the neighbourhood. This
would have been destructive of my client's business, and
he and 330 of the fishermen and watermen appealed to the
navigation committee of the corporation not to comply
with the application. After some delay the navigation
committee inspected the locus in quo in December, 1851,
and in the month of April following came to the resolution
to make no grant to the party wishing to enclose the
ground, but intimating that it would be advantageous to
the neighbourhood to fill in the spot, and would not be
detrimental to the navigation. Upon this hint the party
who wished to enclose the ground lay by until August,
when the courts of law were not sitting, and then began
with a large number of men to pull down some of his old
houses and to fill in the bay with the rubbish, driving out
the fishermen and watermen, and displacing the stock-in-
trade of my client. Information was given to the water-
bailiff, but my client was compelled to apply to the
Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the party
from occupying the river to his detriment. An in-
junction was granted on condition that the question
as to the right should be tried in a court of law.
It was so tried in December, 1852, and the City of-
ficers afforded him every facility at the trial, and al-
lowed him to inspect the City documents. A verdict was
given in favour of my client's right to use that part of the
Thames, and the Court of Chancery granted a perpetual
injunction to restrain all persons from casting rubbish into
the bay. I afterwards called on the water-bailiff of the
City to cause the rubbish which had been deposited to be
removed, and Mr. Merewether, the town clerk, afterwards
sent me a letter stating that the navigation committee
were of opinion that it was not desirable that the water-
bailiff should interfere in the matter. The result, there-
fore, is that the obstruction continues, the fishermen are
deprived of their anchorage, and my client has been seri-
ously injured. What I complain of, therefore, is, that the
City are exceedingly polite, but they either compromise
all matters of complaint, or they do nothing to uphold
what are their assumed rights over the river. In other
cases my clients have been seriously injured by encroach-
ments and obstructions which the City, as the conservators
of the Thames, have allowed to be made, and have not
ordered to be removed. One client in particular lost from
7,0001. to 8,0001. by parties being permitted to make such
an encroachment, but the corporation would afford no re-
dress. In fact, the practice of the City is to interdict en-
croachments if the parties about to make them choose to
yield ; but if the parties show themselves to be determined,
and are bold enough to question the City's right to inter-
fere with them, the City does not resist or put its rights in
force against them. In 1842 the navigation committee re-
ported to the Court of Common Council that serious com-
plaints had been at different times made to them of pro-
jections obstructive of the navigation, which had been
carried out in defiance of their authority, and that they
(the committee) wished to be authorised as to the means of
enforcing their authority. Now, the same state of things de-
scribed in that report of 1812 still continues, and seeing that no
redress can be obtained by parties who complain of these en-
croachments and obstructions, I am driven to the conclu-
sion that the City feels that it either has no title or but an
imperfect one to enforce the rights of conservancy which it
claims. I therefore think it is absolutely necessary that
in so important a matter as the conservancy of the Thames
there should be a tribunal consisting of a permanent chair-
man, with legal acquirements, with an infusion into the
committee of persons specially connected with shipping,
similar to the Trinity masters. Whilst lam before the
commissioners I may also add, on the general question, that
as a citizen of London I would purge the corporation of all
anomalies and incongruities, and of every abuse, but that
I would otherwise keep the City intact. I think the
citizens have well earned their privileges and immunities,
and I do not consider that there ought to be a fusion with
the whole metropolis, as respects the City property and
City rights. I would have a Government auditor ap-
pointed to audit the City accounts, with power to disallow
all illegal payments ; and there might, I think, be an
appeal to the recorder. In short, my view is that the
municipal institutions of the City ought to be preserved,
but that whatever is injurious to the community at large
should be purged away.
The next witness was—

Mr. P. Richardson, solicitor, practising in the City.
The Chairman—ls there not a newspaper, called the
Citizen, with respect to which, Mr. Richardson, you can
give us some information ?

Mr. Richardson—There was a newspaper of that name
established in the City in the latter end of 1848, or the
beginning of 1849.
The Chairman—Have you any objection to give us in-
formation with regard to it ?
this
Mr. Richardson—l can state that I was employed profes-
sionally in purchasing the copyright of the Citizen on
behalf of Mr. Scott and Mr. Toulmin Smith. It was
purchasedo from a person named Peet. I have no objection
Portion obfuthtz_necessary
t, state the circumstances of the negotiation. I received
smittorTtru7wpetzezk itt was with
wtth 3
julrr..
know with whom the idea originated of purchasing
nainstructions from Mr. Scott and Mr. Smith to do so. Ido
cannot say.ScottScott. o r withl thi
think
Mr.
funds for carrying it on was fur-
nishedofficers of the corporation ; but whether
some efficient r
they were' to the officers
Butrecow_uped their outlay, wholly or in part, I
meet roceedings of the
report
should
emember of the corporation, that
anxious
be made from time to time of
as
an
active
occurred was this. Mr. Scott was
urt
oforporation. The roports of the
ngs of the Co
ahnosramon Council were inefficiently
anvfahicialy suppressed from one cir-
e:hought that it would be
cgtilvmesnt'aannced'ainndfaanctahe r ;
have some organ
desirable that the corporation
anAeepxoptdss'ion given in
whereby their proceedings migahni3led and the re-
ports of the committees published,
some measure to the views of the corporation.
Mr. Richardson—No, I mean paper articles ?
po ing the pro-
ceedings.
airman—Were they not to have leading articles,
like ordinary newspapers ?
Mr. Richardson—No ; I believe only reports. At all
events, if the design was that there should be leading articles
on behalf of the corporation, that design was not carried
out. The paper vas very short-lived. What occurred was
this. A representation was made to the Lord Mayor, of this
supposed want, viz., a paper to report the proceedings.
This was presented by the Lord Mayor to the Court of Com-
mon Council, and it was, I believe, ordered to be referred to
the consolidated committee. It was so referred, and the
committee considered the subject, but what decision they
came to I do not precisely know ; but I know this fact,
that the solicitor of the City (Mr. Charles Pearson) and
Mr. Scott did, by authority, I believe, wait upon Mr. Toni-
min Smith, with the desire that he should act as editor.
Mr. C. Lewis—You say that certain officers of the cor-
poration established the paper by their subscriptions, but
that whether they were recouped the outlay you do not
know ?
Mr. Richardson—No 7• I say that Mr. Smith and Mr.
Scott purchased it, and then the officers of the corporation

assisted in supporting it by their subscriptions.