The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-19 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The royal commissioners met again yesterday, at the
Privy Council Chamber, Vowning-street, and resumed
their inquiry. Commissioners present : the Right Hon.
H. Labouchere, Sir John Patteson, and Mr. Cornewall
Lewis. The proceedings were recommenced by the fur-
ther examination of

Mr. Sergeant Merewether, town clerk, who stated—
Since he had been last before the committee he had pre-
pared a list of the charters which had been granted to
the City in various reigns, with the different amounts
which had been paid by the City to the Crown in con-
sideration of those charters. The list was as follows :
GRANTS OF MONEYS TO THE CROWN FROM 1139 (4TH OF
STEPHEN) TO 1487 (18TH EDWARD Iv.)

1139. Stephen, 100 marks of silver for permission to
choose their sheriffs.
4th Henry 11., 1,0431., gift.
sth Henry 11., 1,000 marks donum.
16th Henry IL, 666/. 13s. 4d.
19th Henry 11., 6661. 13s. 4d.
Bth Richard L, 1,500 marks.
35th Henry 111., 600 marks.
40th Henry 111., 3,000 marks.
52d
ITenenrYryIIIIII.,., 100 marks.
marks.
54th
Henry
500 ditto.
307-8. Ist Edward 11., { .1,7°°1•
1,000/.
1314-15. Bth Edward 11., 600 marks.
1319. 12th Edward 11., 1,000 marks.
1322. 16th Edward 11., 2,000 marks.
1332. 15th Edward 111., 20,000 marks.
1371. 44th Edward 111., 4,601 marks.
1383-4. 7th Richard IL, 4,000 marks. _
1478-9. 18th Edward IV., charter granting package, car-
. riage, porterage, garbelling, and ganging, and
coroner, in consequence of the City releasing a
debt due from the Crown of 7,0001.
Another charter respecting mortmain in conse-
quence of the City releasing a further debt-
-1640-1. 16th Charles 1., charter respecting porterage
4,200/.
The witness then proceeded to another point: He said :
It was very material that he should lay before the com-
mission a plan of the sewerage of the City, a reference
to which enabled every citizen to ascertain how near the
public drains came to his own house, if he wished to
connect his house drainage with them. He next referred
to the subject of the suit with the Crown respecting the
right to the soil and bed of the river. He said that he
held in his hand a report drawn up in 1842 by Mr.
Walker, the eminent civil engineer, and Captain Bullock,
R.N., of the Admiralty, who examined the state of the
river, assisted by the city water bailiff and the engineer
of the navigation committee of the corporation. This
report entered into the management of the stream of the
liver, and was founded on the assumed necessity of giving
to the current as direct a channel as possible, in order to
maintain a uniform depth of water. The framers of the
report considered that the complete embankment of the
river was an undertaking which would be impracticable
to carry out as a whole on account of the enormous ex-
pense it would involve ; but they thought that the
bringing about of the same object by degrees, by ob-
taining a certain amount of frontage wherever any
alteration took place, was a feasible scheme, and
they accordingly recommended that this plan should be
adopted. The examination of the river, performed by
Mr. Walker, extended from Teddington to a point be-
low Gravesend. After this report was made the Crown
called upon the corporation to vindicate its right to the
bed and soil of the river, the Crown at the same time
asserting a claim on its own part to all the soil between
high and low water mark. The City had contested this
claim of the Crown, and he felt satisfied that, in all the
historical and legal records of the country, no mention
would be found of so extensive a right on the part of
the Crown as this aniounted to. The doctrine of the
City is that, the proposition of the Crown cannot be
supported, and that, if the CroWn seeks to take the
river out of the possession of the corporation, it. should
do so in the ordinary course by process of intrusion ;
first, establishing its own right, instead of starting
with the assumption of that right, and then calling upon
the City to make out its right.
Mr. C. Lewis—l understand Mr. Pemberton, solici-
tor to the Board of Inland Revenue, to hold that the
City, being conservators of the river, has been compel-
led to perform acts resembling acts of possession, but
not acts of possession in fact. How is that allegation
made by the. City ?
Mr. Merewether—l look upon that as a mere ab-
stract proposition which is not at all tenable. The City
has performed acts of actual possession, interfering with
the soil ; and it is impossible for anything to be more
distinct than the acts of the City as conservator of the
river, and the acts it has exercised as owner of the soil.
The corporation resisted the claim of the Crown to cer-
tain parts of the banks of the river in the reign of Henry
VIII., and it also established the well-known water-
works near London-bridge on the soil of the river. In
Doomsday-book there is no record of any claim of the
Crown to the sea-shore or to the bed and soil of the
river.

1158.
1159.
1170.
1172-3.
1197.
1250-1.
1256.
1267-8.
1270.

Mr. C. Lewis—What is the origin of the right of the
City to the soil and bed of the river ?
Mr. Merewether—l would rather abstain from going
into that point, it now being pendente lite.
Mr. C. Lewis—But a public matter like this might
be made the subject of legislation as well as of litigation.
Mr. Merewhether—Yes, but of course legislation with
regard to rights of this kind would proceed on the ordi-
dmary principle of granting compensation. And the
corporation are quite willing to give every facility for
having its rights tried in a-court of Jaw if the Crown
proceeds by writ of intrusion, and does trot set out
with an extraordinary assertion, like that of its general
right to all the soil lying between high and low water
marks.

Mr. C. Lewis—Of course we do not wish to ask you
as an officer of the corporation, what the specific nature
of the right of the City is, but it is necessary for the
purposes of this inquiry that we should ask you what is
the general nature of the claim of the City to the soil
and bed of the river—whether it is a right of prescrip-
tion, or a grant, or any other kind of right ?
Mr. Merewether— We claim by prescription, as in-
dicated by successive acts of ownership, performed from
an early period. The corporation derive no revenue
from the conservancy of the river. They derive a small
income of about 1,1001. a year from the soil of the river,
in the shape of rents ; but any sum thus derived is ex-
pended on the river itself. The corporation look on the
matter rather as one of jurisdiction than one of revenue.-
The witness then stated that he had paid great attention
to the case, in which Mr. Mathews, solicitor, was con-
cerned, with regard to a lay-by place on the river near
Gravesend. The right to this inlet, which Mr. Mathews's
client claimed, was very doubtful and uncertain, and the
corporation could not, therefore, interfere. The cor-
poration always exercises its jurisdiction over the river
where it feels that it can properly do so. It is not inac-
tive or slow in the exercise of its rights, but it abstains
from mixing itself up with questions which are in dis-
pute with private litigants. The navigation committee
make personal visits of inspection on the river from time
to time.
The Chairman—But a body like the navigation com-
mittee, engaged in trading pursuits as they are, must he
guided by their professional officers with regard to the
river, must they not ?
Mr. IVlerewether—To a certain extent they must be ;
but there is a very proper jealousy entertained by the
corporation with respect to acting on the advice of
its officers ; and it is on this account that the navi-
gation committee make these visits of inspection.
There are members on the navigation committee who
have great knowledge of their duties, and are inti-
mately acquainted with the river ; and their officers
are admitted to be, very efficient. I think the busi-
ness of the navigation committee is conducted iu an
efficient manner, and in a manner that on the
whole gives satisfaction to the public. At the same
time, I do not mean to say that no further improve-
ments could be effected in this department of the affairs
of the corporation. The witness theU gave evidence re-
garding the police of the City. This body he thought
was managed with efficiency and economy. The police
rate in the City was 7d. in the pound, and was not
more, but rather less, than the same charge in the me-
tropolitan districts. The reason why the City had desired
to be separated from the general system of the metro-
politan police, was because it thought it could
manage its police better for itself; and experience,
he believed, had confirmed that opinion. As far back
as history went the City had always had the care
and control of its o?vn police, whether in 'the hands
of the trainbands, the watchl and ward, or other-
wise. The police of the .other metropolitan districts
eusedty toan
manages
e s regulateditsow n
sbeyw
etrhse.different
considers
t ean
forcthoer
pimanagerwa ett. Ttirhoshneetmh themselves
sewersbetter
delegatess elvrefisoi
ttrahe
estesimeni
ni
management
ahiaegavic3ier
nrit
tyheyen.yta oc perfectr
foe uti
ilnledeoTsbdas
theeena
rewdtmae sewers
re
mannerxn: aptTgeo
andhen dae.
dcoitmurmeiossfiothnis and
departmentthe accountsare k
Society
kept dh iestTnancnamt
d.
ofprosecutions instituted by the
torily. The conduct
the Court of Aldermen. The
nofesssubindtiovisdeipnagrathtee
corporation is vested in
Irish
connection between the
goe e n
boardst o f the
works
very corporatesat
fuasci
some other officers and members of the
trustsmana
corporation are governors
not the
The Chairman—Doescorporation of London
or control
possess any jurisdicdtioofnother Irish over the muni6ality
commonsu c
boroughs?
yLtohnedon
cor-
porationwso corpora-
tionezarmig sergeant,
ans.
ndpmntoeo,
otnetifrdt
andevi
ever
nrreyythai
presented,nenrt
Londonderrym ia teh
tvobaoefu
the
never
sr
society.
knowntimecorporation
g,
oat hnobeyf
ju-
risdiction to be exercised by the city of London. There
but nothing was actually done in the matter. Ido not
recollect what was the nature of this petition, but I will.
have the petition itself produced on a future day.
The Chairman—ls it not necessary for the bye-laws
of the corporation of Londonderry to be sanctioned by
the corporation of London ?
Mr. Merewether—l do not believe there is any such
power now in actual use ; but the petitioners to whom I
have referred seem to consider that there is such a power
vested in the corporation.
Mr. C. Lewis—What was the origin of the Irish So-
ciety ?

Mr. Merewether—l hold in my hand a complete state-
ment of the charter and other particulars relating to the
Irish Society, which I obtained for the purpose of lay-
ing before the commissioners ; but I thing it will be
better that information on that subject should come from
the secretary of the Irish Society himself. The City has
very little to do with the society. The Gresham institu-
tion was formesiy connected with the Royal Exchange ;
but ViliCE n the old Royal Exchange was destroyed by fire
it was thought advisable to separate the two, and a new
building was erected for the Gresham institution at
the corner Basinghall-street. There are four terms in