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, Downing-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 THR CROWN FROM 1139 (4TH OF
STEPHEN) TO 1487 (18TH EDWARD IV.)

Stephen, 100 marks of silver for permission to
choose their sheriffs.
1158. 4th Henry 11., 1,0431., gift.
1159. sth Henry 11., 1,000 marks donum.
1170. 16th Henry IL, 6661. 13s. 4d.
1172-3. 19th Henry 11., 666/. 13s. 4d.
1197. Bth Richard 1., 1,500 marks.
1250-1. 35th Henry 111., 600 marks.
1256. 40th Henry 111., 3,000 marks.
1267-8. 52d Henry 111., 20,000 marks.
1270. 54th Henry 111., 100 Cilroks.
5001307-8. Ist Edward 11., 1,7002.
1,0001.
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 11., 4,000 marks.
1478-9. 18th Edward IV., charter granting package, car-
riage, porterage, garbelling, and gauging, and
coroner, in consequence of the City releasing a
debt due from the Crown off' 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
?ight 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,
RN., 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
river, 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 amounted 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.

1139.

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.

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 law if the Crown
proceeds by writ of intrusion, and does not 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 lifer,
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 be
guided by their professional officers with regard to the
river, must they not ?

Mr. Merewether—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 in 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 then 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 own police, whether in the hands
of the trainbands, the watch and ward, or other-
wise. The police of the other metropolitan districts
used to be regulated by the different parishes. Tie
City manages its own sewers. It considers that it can
manage them better for itself than they could be managed
for it. The sewers rates in the City are moderate,
_ea
the sewers themselves are in a very perfect state. Th.)
corporation delegates the management of the sewers_
toa
commission, and the accounts of the income and
expen-
diture of this department are kept distinct. The manner
of subdividing the management of the corporate busi-
ness into separate trusts or boards works very satisfac-
torily. The conduct of prosecutions instituted by the
corporation is vested in the Court of Aldermen. The
connection between the Irish Society and the corpora-
tion is not vary intimate ; but the recorder, the common
sergeant, and some other officers and members of the
corporation are governors of that society.
The Chairman—Does not the corporation of London
possess any jurisdiction or control over the municipality
of Londonderry and of other Irish boroughs ?
Mr. Merewether—l have never known any such ju-
risdiction
to be exercised by the pity of London. There
was a petition presented, a short time ago, by the cor-
poration of Londonderry to the corporation of London ;
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-
..

Lion was formerly connected wilt'. the Royal Exchange;
but when 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

7 V.

each year, and five or six praessors are, appo lutO
whose lectures are pretty weil'attelideel, particularly
the music lectures ; but I do not 'say tint, I think (en
very efficient educational institution., The' new XX-
change cost more than the inbome of the G-resham' edigite
would provide, and that building is now in debt,te
corporation on this account. 'The, riches to• the
Exchange were very costly. The qtiestionlis to S'hether
the general words of an act of Parliament can over-ride
the special customs of the city has never yet been de-
cided by the highest courts of the realm. Every free-
man of a livery company could vote in the common
ball, but it was extremely difficult to say whether the
companies separate and distinct from the corporation, or
formed an integral part of it. This was a point on
which witness had not been able to satisfy himself, be-
cause the companies elected their own officers and dis-
posed of their own funds. The Goldsmiths', the Apothe-
caries', the Stationers', and the Vintners' companies
were composed of persons carrying on these trades re-
spectively. If the livery companies were abolished, the
elections in common hall, under the act 2d Geo. 1.,
could not take place.
Mr. Merewether then withdrew.
Mr. Edward Tyrrell, remem bran eer of the corpora.
tion, was next examined. He said that he was appointed
to that office in 1852, and succeeded his father in it. His
emoluments are derived from two sources. He received
1,000/. a year from the corporation in a fixed payment,
and 250/. more for office charges ; and he was also paid
certain fees on acccount of the parliamentary business
that passed through his hands, and which fees amounted
altogether to 7001. in 1852. These fees fluctuated
very considerably ; and it would be more satisfactory
to him if he received a fixed salary in lieu of them.
His average income, after deducting the expenses inci-
dental to his office (which were 3001.) amounted to about
1,400/ a yea.a. He acted as parliamentary solicitor to the
corporation, and had the superintendence of the corpo-
ration business in both Houses of Parliament. The cor-
poration regarded him as the responsible party for every-
thing which passed in either branch of the Legislature
in any way affecting the interests of the City. He had
also to attend all the Courts of Aldermen and Courts of
Common Council, and was likewise the medium of com-
munication between the corporation and the Crown.
Last year the number of public and private bills in which
the City was interested was fifty. That was a rather
larger number than usual. It was his duty at an early
period of each session to report to the Court of Common
Council all the bills which were likely to affect the inte-
rests of the City. The subject of these bills were then re-
ferred to a committee of the 'corporation, and if any
further step was taken in Parliament with regard to the
bills, he (witness) had to communicate with the chair-
man, who would then call the committee together to
consider the matter.
The Chairman—We have heard of an extraordinary
expense incurred on the part of the City, in opposing
the Government measure relating to the removal of
Smithfield market. Had you any control over the
management of that expenditure ?
Mr. Tyrrell—The control, generally, was in my hands.
I sat from time to time, and Mr. Scott knew what was
done. A great deal of it passed through my depart-
ment.
The Chairman—l allude to that part which is called
the irregular expenditure. Were you not the party who
had the management of that ?
Mr. Tyrrell--I was in some degree, because no great
outlay was incurred without a communication passing
between me and Mr. Scott. The total amount of this
expenditure was 2,750/.
Mr. C, Lewis—Mr. Scott said that out of that sum
professional gentlemen were employed. Did you employ
any of them ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l think not.
Mr. C. Lewis—By whom were they employed ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l really at this time hardly know the
names. It was represented to me that it was desirable
to have the aid of some literary gentlemen, and I gave
my sanction to the expenditure of 1001. in that way.
The Chairman—How was the remainder of the 2,7501.
applied ?
Mr. Tyrrell—The main part of it went to parties who
got up petitions. I believe about 2,2001., or perhaps a
larger sum, went in that way.
The Chairman—Did you authorise and control that
expenditure ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l did, in a certain degree. Whenever
any amount was paid, the bill was brought to me.
The Chairman—Probably you selected the agents you
thought best able to carry your views into effect ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l did not personally employ the agents,
although I gave my sanction to their being employed.
The Chairman—ls it an unusual occurrence to set
aside a sum of money for the conduct of Parliamentary
business, or is it the common practice, when any im-
portant question affecting the City is under discussion ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt is a most uncommon occurrence, al-
though on a few other occasions there have been smaller
expended.
Mr. C. Lewis—What was the total cost of the Parlia-
mentary opposition to the removal of Smithfield market?
Mr. Tyrrell--There was the 2,7501. of which I have
just been speaking, and then there was 3,169/., the
amount paid by me for counsel, witnesses, and the other
usual legal charges • and these two items make the en-
tire sum, which I believe is rather under the sum paid
by the Government for the same purpose in promoting
its Smithfield-market Removal Bill.
Mr. C. Lewis—But the bill of the solicitor of the Go-
vernment was printed and published among the Parlia-
mentary papers at length. A. return of the whole ex-
pense was moved for.
Mr. Tyrrell—l was not aware of that. The accounts
of Parliamentary expenditure are laid before the Court
of Common Council in detail ; but they are not pub-
lished in detail. As soon as any Parliamentary effort
is concluded, the account of the expenses is sent in, and
is laid before the committee to whose department the
business belongs, and when the committee is satisfied
that the thing charged was ordered by them, the chair-
man signs the bill, and it is then laid before the Court
of Common Council. It is next submitted to the law bills
committee, which is composed of legal members of the
court, and after the vouchers have been examined, the
charges are either allowed or abated, and afterwards
paid. The account specifies every particular measure,
such as so much for opposing the Smithfield Market
Removal Bill.
The Chairman—Do you see any objection to laying
these accounts before the corporation in detail ?
Mr. Tyrrell—None whatever.
Mr. C. Lewis—When the City Police Bill was intro-
duced were you an officer of the corporation ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l was.
Mr. C. Lewis—When Mr. Rogers was examined
by the commissioners as a witness, he stated the mode
in which the corporation opposed the measure of the
Government of Lord Melbourne as follows :—" They
(the corporation) immediately fixed their town-
clerk in New Palace-yard. They gave him a
large body of assistants, and instructed him to com-
municate with every corporation in the United King-
dom. #1 The consequence was that by the influence of
those country corporations, the Minister found that his
support fell like a "rope of sand." Is that a correct
statement ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt is rather an over-coloured description.
The fact was a committee engaged an office at Palace-
yard, and I believe communications were made to other
corporations, but what the nature of those communica-
tions was lam unable to state. The whole expense of
these proceedings was 3061.
The Chairman—Were any literary gentlemen engaged
on that occasion ?
Mr. Tyrrell—None whatever.
Mr. C. Lewis—l believe the corporation considers
that it has the same right to its tolls and markets as it
has to its lands or other property ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt does.
Mr. C. Lewis—And it would regard any attempt to
take away its markets without compensation as confis-
cation and injustice?
Mr. Tyrrell—Yes.
Mr. C. Lewis—Would it apply the same doctrine to
the tolls on carts ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt might make a voluntary surrender of
the tolls en carts.
Mr. C. Lewis—But supposing the corporation did ;o t
consent to that, would not these tolls be a portion of 315
revenue which it would call its property?
Mr. Tyrrell—Certainly.
Mr. C. Lewis—How would it be with the tonnage
dues
Mr. Tyrrell—That is a different thing. They were
given by act of Parliament for a particular purpose, and
there would be no claim to compensation if they were
withdrawn.
Mr. C. Lewis—How do you view the 4d. coal tax ?
Mr. Tyrrell—That is decidedly corporate property,
and in the event of its reduction or repeal the corpora-
tion would be entitled to compensation. And the same
would
C.
Ltheewcisa_seiwnitthhetehveemntetoaigtehediures.
to make the compensation ? repeal, who ought
Mr. Tyrrell—The party who deprives the City of its
property, I apprehend.
The Chairman—ls there no distinction to be drawn
between the right given to a public corporation to levy
a duty for public purposes, and a similar right given to
any individual for his private benefit ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt would depend a good deal on the
terms of the grant.
The Chairman—ls not every revenue of a public body
like a corporation intended for public purposes, and not
for private purposes ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt belongs to the corporation.
The Chairman—Do you mean that it belongs to indi-
viduals, or to the community ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l should say it belongs to the persons
from whom the representative body is chosen-
The Chairman—At the time the coal duty was given
did not the City constitute the whole of the metropolis ?
Mr. Tyrrell--It was given to the same body as now
holds it, but there certainly was not the same popula-
tion outside the walls then as there is now.
The Chairman—Do you consider that if the size of
London had been the same as it is nowin those days, the
right of levying a duty on the whole of the inhabitants
would have been given to so small a portion as is now
contained within the walls ?
Mr. Tyrrell—That is a question which I can bardif
answer; it depends so much on the particular circum-
stances of the case.
The Chairman—ls it not reasonable to conceive that
the right of levying the duty was given because it wasr
b
known at the time that the City was thewhole,svo
nearly the whole, of the metropolis, and that it
been
t
t
scarcely have been given in perpetuity
if
mlucdhar larger?
say,er
anticipated that London would become so
Mr. Tyrrell—That is impossible to say. it a h
when the coal duty was first granted,
therewas,
pro-
bably, no idea that the buildings outside the walls
would become so numerous ; but, so far as the application -
of the proceeds of the coal tax went, they had been ap-
plied for some titre not only for the benefit of the City,
but of the metropolis generally.
The Chairman--But I distinguish the 4d, duty from

~"'" __