The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-03 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-, DECEMBER 3, 1853.

GT7ILDHALL, Dec. 2, 1853.—The Committee
for LETTING the CITY'S LAND will meet at Guildhall
on WEDSESDAY, the 11th day of December instant, at one
o'clock precisely, to receive TENDERS for LETTING, on leases
for 21 years from Chri-tinas next, TWO HOUSE?, Nos. 14 and 15,
on the east side of Qvieenbithe. Further peril ulars and Plans may
be seen, and Forms of Tender obtained at the Architect's office,
Guildhall.

THOS. SAUNDERS, Comptroller.

BUILDING GROUND, Fenchurch-street.—
The Committee for Letting the City's Lands will meet at
Guildhall, on WEDNESDAY, the 14th day of December in-t , at
One o'clock precisely, to receive TENDERS for LETTING, on
buildhiv leases for 80 years from Christmas next, several PLOTS of
GROUN:), on the south side of Fenchurch-street, between Loudon-
str,et and Mark-lane. Further particulars, specifications, and pla
may be seen, and forms of tender obtained, at the Architect's Office,ns
Guildhall.
Guildhall, Dec. 2, 1853'.

THOMAS S XUNDERS, Comptroller.

PRIZE CATTLE SHOW of the SMITHFIELD
CUM.—The ANNUAL EXHIBITION of Prize Cattle, Seeds
Roots, Implements, &c., commences on TUESDAY Morning and
closes on Friday Evening, 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th Deeember—Bazaar
Kim•-street and Baker-street Open from daylight till nine in the
mining, Admittance, One shilling.

OYSTERS—TO EPICURES.
QUEENBOROUGH and FAVERSHAM
NATIVE OYATERS.
Tire most acceptable Present at this season of the year is a Barre
of the best NATIVE OYSTERS, which are to be obtained at SCOTT'S
Celebrated OYSTER WAREHOUSE, 18, Coventry-street, Piccadilly,
at ss. 6d.per Barrel, warranted to weigh 141bs.

A TKINSON and COMPANY, CABINET
MAYUFACTURERS, UPHOLSTERERS, and CARPET
WAREROU,'EMEN, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75, Westminster-
bridge-road, Lambeth, London.

TKINSON and COMPANY, DRAPERS,
Ca_ SILK MERCERS, LACEMEN, &c., 69. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,
and 75, Westminster-bridge-road, Lambeth, London.—Shawls, Furs,
Mantles, Family Mourning, Bsc.

TO LOVERS of FISH.-100 REAL YAR-
MOUTH BLOATERS for 65., package ineluded. The above
forwarded to all parts on receipt of penny postage stamps, or Post-
office order (preferred), for the amount.—Address, THOMAS
LETTIS, Jun., Fish Curer, Great Yarmouth.

Itiß ALBERT SMITH'S MONT BLANC
WILL orEw for the SE 'SON on MONDAY EVENING,
December 5. Stalls can now be secured (without any extra charge)
at the Box-Office, Egyptian Hall, every day between Eleven and
Four.

ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION.
PATRON-H.R.H. PRINCE ALBERT.

CLASS LECTURES.

Mr. .T. 11. PEPPER Will commence TWO SEPARATE COURSES
of Twelve Lectures each on PRACTICAL CHEMISTRY in the
LABORATORY on MONDAY, December the sth, at Eleven o'clock
a.m., and on the Evening of the same day at a quarter to Nine.
Fee for each Course, including use of Apparatus, Three Guineas.
Also, TWO SEPARATE CLASSES on PHOTOGRAPHY, each
including Six Practical Lectares on the Paper and Glass Processes,
to commence December let, at Eleven o'clock in the Morning, and
in the Evenings at Eight o'clock.
Fee for each Course, Three Guineas.
CLASSES on MATHEMATICS by Mr. SMALLEY (a Graduate in
First Class Mathematical honours of the University of Cambridge)
commencing MONDAY, the 28th inst., at Eight p.m.
Terms. One Guinea per Month.

QOYER'S EXQUISITE SAUCES expressly sea-
-1-0 soned to suit the Palate of Ladies or Gentlemen. SC/YEWS Re-
lish for general purposes, and SOYER'S Aromatic Mustard.
To be had of all grocers and It?lian warehousemen ; and whole-
sale of Crosse and Blackwell, purveyors by appointment to her
Majesty, 21, Soho-square, London.

F.DICaI. AD VICE ON THE SECRET INFIRMITIES OF
YOUTH AND MATURITY.

I THE HUME COUNTIES AND METRO-
POLIMN FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETY.
Office-14, Chatham-place, Blackfriars.
Members enrolled Daily. Office hours 10 to 4—and on Thursday
tiveninge from 7 to 9. •

PRESIDENT,.
Lord Dudley Canna Stuart, At.P.
YICE•PREBIDENTS.
Apsley Pellatt, Esq., M.P. William Ewart, Esq., M.P.
TRUSTEES.
Apsley Pellatt, Esq., M.P. William Ewart, Esq., M.P.
John Williams, Esq.

Shares, £3O each. Entrance Fee Is. Subscription, One Shilling
per Share Weekly. 4
The Directors call special attention to the class of estates that are
purchased for allotment amongst the Members of this society. The
one at Wood-green (now almost allotted) is acknowledged to be one
of the most eligible for building purposes yet distributed by any Land
Society; and a further purchase in Wimbledon-park has just been
effected, fully equal, if not superior, to the oue at Wood-green, ad-
mirably adapted for first class villas.
There is now an opportunity, either by paying up Shares, or taking
them, to get Ballot-rights of acquiring plots on this highly eligible
and profitable estate.
Ballots take place Monthly. _ .

HENRY KNIGHT, Secretary.

Office-14, Chatham-place, Blackfriars.

Now Ready, In 2,400 imperial octavo pages, price 365., with Map
corrected from recent Surveys,
POST-OFFICE LONDON DIRECTORY for
1854. The work is printed in entirely new type from the
Caslon and Glasgow Letter Foundry, and has been so greatly ex-
tended, that the " Street Directory" contains 131,1,842 distinct names
or firms ; these will be found correctly classified in all the other
principal divisions, Commercial, Trades, Law, addeonrr, all of which
are increased in proportion to the great extedsjon of the " Street
Directory."
" The Tost &Ace Directory has long been the' ivonder of the pub-

lishing world, a monument of private enterprise And labour
wholly without parallel."—MOMing Herald, Noti,'4, 1853.
" Battersea, Bow, Briito4Oiromley (Middlesex), Camberwell,
Cambridge Heath, Clapham-Paad, Dalston, Dept eril, Hackney, Hol-
loway-road, Kentish-town, Kingsland, New-crosauSouth Lambeth,
Stratford, Wandscybrth-road, &c., &c., are esaen ly parts of `the
it great metropolis,' and, as such, should obvloual be eluded in any
Directory of London. . . . In the,' Post- ' ectory,' there-
fore, the inhabitants of these places appear i alphabetical
lists, so that the residence and calling of any, be instantly
traced in whatever part of the suburbs he may be lodged. This
renders the work one of the most useful that tug be possibly ima-
gined for any purpose of metropolitan life." —Ohisrver, Nov. 13, 1853.
. _ .... • -

" The indices are very numerous, and immensely. facilitate refer-
ence to the various sub-divisions of the book."-3foming Adiertiser,
November 4, 1853.
" A mine of useful and entertaining knowledge."—Daily News
November 17, 1853.

"Deserves much praise for the accuracy which pervades it, and for
the lateness of the information."—Morning Chronicle, November 4,
1853.
" The completest Directory yet produced, both *8 regards classifi-
cation and typographical execution."—lllustrated News, November
5, 1853.
"If it be true, as all our readers will be ready to admit, that
there is no country like England, and no place like London, it is a
most consistent climax to add, and no guide book like the "Post
Office Directory."—John Bull, November 5, 1853.
" One of the most remarkable and useful works of the age."—
Herapath's Journal, November 5, 1853.
" This monster volume is a perfect desideratum for the office and
the counting,house."—Mining Journal, November 5, 1853.
" Greatly increased in size by the introductionof a large number
of streets in the suburbs."—Weekly Dispatch, I,lovember 5, 1853.
" The edition of this wonderful work has, to speak commercially,
been enlarged some ten or fifteen per cent.''—Spectator, November
5, 1853.
"Gives no insignificant idea of the wonders of a city that de-
mands such a work to register its multifarious writents."—Atlas,
Nov. 5, 1853.
" The whole information has been brought up with great care AND
ACCURACY to the 19th of September." Sunday Times, November
Gi, 1853.
" A notice of this gigantic volume, proportioned to its size and
value, would occupy our whole paper—we say its size and value, for
they hold a perfectly equal measure."—Standard, Nov. 7, 1853.
" Already the Messrs. Kelly and Co. had actually distanced the
most enterprising of their competitors. They have new rendered it
preposterous for any other compiler to dream of emulating their ex-
traordinary enterprise."—Sun, November 7, 1853.
" Its marvellous accuracy and minuteness of detail, fills one with
astonishment."—Morning Post, November 7, 1853.
" This annual miracle appears again."—Globe, Nov. 8, 1853.
" It is unrivalled —indeed quite unapproached by any competitor
we have seen."—Examiner, Nov. 12, 1853.
" Upon a gentleman of our acquaintance stating to us that the two
great wonders of the age are the electric telegraph and chloroform,
we were induced' to observe that there was yet a third, and that—
Kelly's Post-office London Directory." —Bell's Weekly Messenger,
Nov. 12. 1853.
" Of the accuracy of the Court Directory, we can ourselves speak
With confidence."—Court Journal, Nov. 12, 1853.
" A most valuable, commodious, and almost indispensable work."
—Weekly Times, Nov. 13, 1853.
" The biggest as well as the best book of our acqualatance."—
Punch. Nov. 19, 1853.
" It would be quite superfluous for us to dwell at length upon the
superior excellence of this work."—Economist, Nov. 19, 1853.
" Has no rival in the publishing world."—Britannia, Nov. 19,
1,853
" The volume before us far surpasses in bulk, weight, and com-
pleteness any that has appeared before."—Literary Gazette, Nov. 5,
103.
" Such a handbook of the polite, official, professional, and com-
mercial life of the grdatet city in the world, as to demand unquali-
fied praise no less than universal admiration."—Shipping and Mer-
Oantile Gazette, Nov. 5, 1853.
" One of the greatest wonders of this wonder-Working age."—
Church and State Gazette, Nov. 25, i 853.

Kelly and Co., 19 and 20, Old Boswell Court, and a 4 Booksellers.

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSVie'

The commissioners re-assembled in the official residence
of the Premier yesterday, and resumed their investigation.
Commissioners present Right Hon. Mr. Lsbcuchere
(chairman) and Mr. Coruewall Lewis. The first witness
examined was—
Mr. Edward Leigh Pemberton, who stated—l am solici-
tor to the Board of Inland Revenue, and have held that
appointment since 1830.
The Chairman—ln that capacity have you become ac-
quinted with the nature of any disputes which have taken
place between your office and the corporation of the city
with regard to the soil and the conservancy of the
Thames ?
Mr. Pemberton—l have.
The Chairman—State what you know with regard to
that.
Mr- Pemberton—l bcg to state, in the first place, that I
attend here at the request of the commissioners, o afford
such information as they may call for. It is now more
than sixteen years since it first came to my knowledge that
the corporation of London, who have long held the office
of bailiff and conservator of the river Thames from Staines
to Yantlet had exercised acts of ownership on the soil and
shores of the river quite beyond their jurisdiction as con-
servators, and amounting to encroachments on the property
and prerogative rights of the Crown. Tho title of the cor-
poration to the conservancy, the nature of the office, and
the duties and authorities appertaining to it, aro stated in
Lord Hale's treatise " De Jure Maris" ; Pars Prima, c 5.
In the spring of 1837 the Solicitor to the Admiralty called
my attention to au act which had been passed in the ses-
sion of 1836, for making I. pier, wharf, and other works at
Greenwich, which act cottaineda clause directing payment
of a fine and rent to the corporation of London for the
liberty of digging foundations in the shore and bed of the
river, and to a bill then in progress through the House
of Commons for amenaing and extending the said
act. The clause in question had been inserted without
the knowledge of the Commissioners of her Majesty's Land
Revenue, and as far as I could learn, without the sanction
of the Treasury or the Board of Admiralty. By the direc-
tion of the Board of Land Revenue, and after correspond-
ence and interviews with the City authorities, clauses
(eventually settled by the Attorney-General and the
counsel of the corporation) were introducedinto the Green-
wich Pier Extension Bill, repealing so much of the former
act as directed payment of rent to the City, andsaving the
rights of the Crown in respect of its property in the soil,
and of the corporation of London in respect of their office
of conservators of the river. The proceedings on the
Greenwich Pier Extension Bill and the embankment re-
quired for the new Houses of Parliament, which happened
at the same time, together led to my investigating the
the claim of title to the bed and shores of the river,
set up by the corporation of London. I collected
all the materials I could at that time get togther
embracing the published City charters and all the acts of
ownership I could find to have been exercised on eitker
side and laid a statement of them before the Attorney and
Solicitor-General, the present Lord Chief Justice of
England, and the Lori Chancellor. The law officers gave
their opinion that the evidence in support of the title of
the Crown greatly preponderated, and that none of the
charters contained apt words for passing the soil, but they
advised that the Crows, should not voluntarily enter into
litigation, but act as if its title was undoubted. Reports
of proceedings in the court of Common Councilha,ving been
published in the newspapers, by which it appeared that
the corporation had granted, or were about to grant licenses
to embank portions of the river, and that they were granting
such licenses not merely in the character of consevators,
but in the assumed characters of owners of the soil of the
river, I wrote to the City Solicitor for copies
particulars of the licenses granted, or about to be granted,
by the corporation. I afterwards received from him a copy
of a license granted to Mr. Cubitt to ma
ti ke ann
the embank-
ment in front of premises in his occupation i Isle
of Dogs. This was the only license, of which a copy was
sent to me, but it was in a printed form, and
it was
evident that similar licenses had been granted, or were
about to be granted, to other persons. The license was art-
fully framed. It did not contain any actual grant of the
strand or soil of the river, but it professed to grant full
permission and authority to Mr. Cubitt to embank
nkment it, with
a covenant that he should quietly hold the emba
without interruption by the corporation of London or any
person claiming under them, The corporation were not
described as conservators of the river, and there was nothing
on the face of the instrument to imply that they granted
that license merely as conservators. On the contrary, it was
so framed as to imply that they granted as owners of the
soil, more especially as the grant was expressed to be made
for a pecuniary consideration. By the order of the Board of
Woods I consulted the Attorney and Solicitor-General (Sir
Frederick Pollock and the late Sir William Follett) and
they were of opinion that the claim of the ownership of the
soil of the river being now openly made on the part of the
corporation, and acts having been done by them in asser-
tion of the rights claimed, it was desirable that the ques-
tion between the Crown and the corporation should be set
at rest, and that an information should be filed in the
Court of Chancery against the corporation and the grantees
of licenses to embank, praying that the rights of the Crown
and of the corporation respectively might be ascertained
and declared, and that if it were necessary to determine
such rights by issues at law, that such issues might be
tried under the direction of the court. Accordingly, in
Hilary Term, 1844, an information was filed by the At-
torney-General in the Court of Chancery against the Cor-
poration of London and their town-clerk, and against Mr.
Cubitt and several other persons to whom the corporation
had granted licenses to make embankments' -
some of which
were complained of as nuisances and obstructions to the
navigation. The information stated that the Crown, by
ground virtue of its prerogative, was seised of the 1
soil of the coasts and shores of the sea and
navi-
gable rivers, within the flux and reflux of the
throughout the kingdom and, among others, of the river
Thames, and had the right ogovernment
over empire and
over them ; that the Corporation of London had fora
very long period, by p irescri tion or grant from the Crown,
held the office of bailiff or conservator of the river Thames
from Staines to Yantlet ; and that the duty of the bailiff
or conservator was to see to the navigation of the river and
prevent nuisances and obstructions therein, and to regulate
the fishing thereof ; but that he did not, by virtue of his
office, acquire any estate or interest in the ground and seil

of the bed or shores of the river. That the corporation had
and shores of the river bev i
lately assumed to exercise
ottets of ownership over the soil
and
,tiohi as
t,;,, the powers of bailiff or con-
servators,
seised of the freehold of thewharfsland ground or soil of the river, and
parties possessed ofuP°ll
river, and to other persons h makeankronftsthe
to
them license to embank the-w }whom they thought fit, giving
strand of the river between
high and low water mark. It then stated the grant
made to Mr. Cubitt, in
may, 1843
another grant made to the Alias Ina 4 already mentioned ;
embankment at Rotherhithe, in April:al-11;43 'om pany for an
corporation received 2001, ; and a third ,fo r which the
grant made to Cor-
nelius Park in May, 1843, for an embankment at Battersea,
for which the corporation received 10/'
; and it charged that
the two last-mentioned embankments would be
and obstructions to the navigation. It also alleged that
nuisancesi
the corporation had made a great many similar grants to
other persons, and had received large sums of money for
them, and it required a discovery and account of the same.r
The information required the corporation also to set forth,
under what charter, letters patent, or other grant they
claimed to be entitled to the soil, or to have had their title
recognised or confirmed, and it concluded with praying
that the rights of the Crown and of the corporation respec-
tively might be ascertained and declared by the decree of
the Court, and that if it were necessary that issues at law
should be tried, the same may be tried under the di-
rection of the Court ; and if it should appear that the cor-
poration had no title to the soil, that the grants to the
other defendants might be declared null and void. The in-
formation also prayed on account of the fines, rents, and
profits received by the corporation for licenses to embank,
and that they might be decreed to pay the same to the
Crown, and that the title of the Crown might be decreed
and established to the avoiding multiplication of suits.
The corporation have been loud in their complaints that
the Crown has adopted an oppressive mode of proceeding
in suing them in the Court of Chancery rather than in a
court of law. It is the privilege of the Crown to
.sue in
what court it pleases. In the present case, even if the
right to a discovery had been waived, the question of title
between the Crown and the corporation could not have
been effectually tried in any other court than the Court of
Chancery, to which the equity jurisdiction of the Court of
Exchequer had been transferred. An information of in-
trusion against the corporation of London, grounded upon
their licenses to embank, could not have been sustained at
law, for the licenses contained no grant of soil ; and if such
informations had been filed against the grantees acting
under them, although the grantees might have been evicted,
the corporation, being no parties to the suit, would not
have been bound by the results of them, and endless actions
might have been tried without ever settling the question
between the Crown and the corporation. In March, 1844,
the corporation and the town clerk entered their appearance
to the information. An unusual length of time was con-
ceded to them for answering the same, on the assurance of
the City Solicitor that they would answer fully and com-
pletely. At length, on the sth of July, 1844, they put in
both an answer and a demurrer, answering only so much
of the information as charged that the licensed embank-
ments were nuisances, and demurring to all the rest of it,
alleging that the Crown was not entitled to any relief in a
court o equity, or to any discovery from the defendants
concerning the other matters in the information mentioned.
The demurrer was argued before the Master of the Rolls,
in January, 1845, and on the 17th of April, 1845, his
lordship overruled it. (8 Beavan, 270; Law Journal,
vol. xiv., p. 305.) The corporation thereupon ap-
pealed to the House of Lords, and on the 26th
of March, 1848, the House of Lords affirmed the judg-
ment of the Master of the Rolls. (1 H. L. Cas., 440.) In
the month of July following the corporation put in a fur-
ther answer. The Attorney-General applied to the Court
for leave to file exceptions to the answer as insufficient.
The motion was opposed by the corporation, nod by
arrangement ordered to stand over till Michaelmas Term.
The motion was heard, and an order made giving leave to
except. The exceptions were filed, and, in the usual
course of practice, referred to the Master. The exceptions
were argued, and on the 22d of December the Master al-
lowed them. The corporation appealed to the Master of
the Rolls by way of exception to the Master's report.
The ease was argued during three days in the month of
February, and on the 4th of April, 1849, the Master of
the Ras gave judgment, overruling the defendant's excep-
tions and confirming the Master's report with costs. (Law
Journal Reports, vol. xviii., p. Z 14.) The corporation
thereupon appealed to the Lord Chancellor. The appeal
was heard during several days in December, and on the
14th of January, 1850, the Lord Chancellor finally dis-
missed the appeal with costs. (Law Journal Reports, vol.
xix., p. 314.) After the judgment on their appeal the cor-
poration put in a third answer, which was deemed to be
still insufficient, and on the 26th of February the Attor-
ney-General obtained an order referring all the answers
back to the Master upon the old exceptions. On the 6th
of March, 1850, the Master made his report, finding the
answers still insufficient. After three answers reported
insufficient, the course of practice was to move for a seques-
tration against the defendants, and, notice of such motion
having been given, the corporation at length, on the 19th
of April, 1850, put in their fourth answer, setting forth in
the first schedule a list of charters and documents which
they claimed to be exempt from prodacing on the ground
that they were evidence of their own title to the soil, and
did not tend to prove the title of the Crown, and in the
iecond schedule minute books and presentments relating
exclusively to the conservancy of the river. An order
was made for the production of the last-mentioned
documents. The examination of them was commenced on
the 15th and continued till the 29th May, and the result of
the examination made it expedient to amend the informa-
-1 tion ; but I was advised first to prosecute further searches
for ancient and other d scumentary evidence bearing upon
the points in controversy. Instructions were given to Mr.
Fearnside, the keeper of land revenue records and enrol-
ments, and also to Mr. Hewlett, to make such further
searches. Reports having been made by these two gentle-
men, which, though incomplete, were sufficient for the
present purpose, I instructed counsel to prepare the amend-
ments required to be made in the information ; the purport
of the amendments being, to place upon the record charges
negativing the statements in the answers that the corpora-
tion had been immemorially seised of the bed and soil
of the river, and that their title had been recognised or
confirmed by Royal charters, and to show that any acts of
ownership on which they might rely were attributable to
their office of bailiff and conservator ; that their applica-
tion for, and acceptance of, charters was inconsistent with
their alleged right by immemorial possession ; that other
grants had been made, and acts of ownership exercised by
various Sovereigns, acts of Parliament passed, and decrees
made in courts of law or equity, also inconsistent with
such alleged right ; and that the title of the Crown had
been declared in various courts of law or equity, and evi-
denced by the returns to divers inquisitions in several
reigns. The proposed amendments likewise alleged that
the Court of Conservancy was a court held under and
for the Sovereign, and showed that the matters in
which the defendants had for some time past assumed
to act as owners of the soil were matters which for-
merly they would have taken and ought to take cog-
nisance of as conservators of the river, and that the
licenses in the information mentioned were granted by
the corporation in violation of the duties of their office.
In February, 1851 I applied to the Master, as re-
quired by the practice of the Court, for leave to amend
the information. The corporation opposed the application,
but the Master made the order. The information was
amended and filed. Tho defendant then applied by motion
to the Master of the Rolls to discharge the order, giving
leave to amend the information, but the motion was re-
fused. The Solicitor-General did not press for costs, the
defendants engaging not to present any further appeal.
The defendants were not required to answer the amended
information, but they were at liberty to answer if they
pleased • and on the 30th of April, 1851, they put in a fur-
ther
answer, not making any new case, but still resting
e
their title on immemorial possession and claiming a right
to apply the proceeds of the shores and embankments to
their own use. On the 3d of May, 1851, replication was
was at length brought toand
filed, and the cause
for
00
for the examination of witnesses. Since ' then about 200
ancient records have been proved in evidence on behalf of
the Crown, and from 50 to 100 still remain to be procured
from the various record offices. No evidence has yet been
given on the part of the defendants. In conclusion, I may
state that the reports of Mr. Fearnsid e and M r. lewlett
,
containing merely an analysis of the documentary evidence
in support of the title of the Crown, extend together to
420 brief sheets.
The Chairman—When do you think that that cause will
be decided ?
Mr. Pemberton—lt is impossible for any one to say. The
corporation of London have not gone into any evidence at
all, and it is likely they will apply for time.
Mr. C. Lewis--How does the exercise of the right to the
soil of the river stand now ? Does the City claim to exercise
the same right over the soil of the Thames as it did before
you filed your information, or is the right in abeyance ?
Mr. Pemberton--The right is, in fact, in abeyance, but
the corporation go on granting their licenses to embank,
giving the Commissioners of Woods and Forests 14 days'
notice before doing so.
Mr. C. Lewis—Has the Crown exercised a similar
right ?
Mr. Pemberton—l do not recollect any other case of the
Crown doing so except in that of the embankment for the
foundations of the New Houses of Parliament. We em-
banked there without any license from the City. We ad-
mit, however, that if a proposed embankment would be
injurious to the navigation of the river, the corporation of
the City have the right to stop it ; but the Crown in no
way recognises their right to the soil of the river. The
Crown does not dispute the right of the City to the con-
servancy—at least, I would qualify that statement by say-
ing that if the right be disputed at all it would be done by
the Admiralty, and I do not represent that department.
Mr. C. Lewis—Your case, then is, that the City
are, and
have been, from time immemorial, the conservators
of the
river ; but all the acts that they have done, and th
diction which they have exercised, have beau in t e juris-
diction uris-
ca-
pacity of conservators of the river.
Mr. Pemberton—Yes ; but of course
have exercised their power. we say that they
The witness then withdrew.
Mr. Beck examined--I am a wharfi
business at Isleworth. lam also n,„er, and carry on
a
timber merchant, and an owner of slate,i) lime, coal, and
Thames. Although I have been long acquainted
plying on the
g
sea, and have been in various of the British
with the
not allowed to carry goods up and down sh colonies, I am
the river, because
I have not been apprenticed to a licensed
watorman. My
grievance is, that I am not permitted to load my barges
with other people's property, which appears to me to be As
absurd a regulation as if no man were permitted to own a
ship or to sail her to any part of the world unless ho had
served his apprenticeship to the sea.
Mr. C. Lewis—Do the licensed watermen charge a higher
rate for their services than other persons would
re
Mr. Bedk—l do not know that they do, because
t he
k iseep
considerable competition in the business,
wee' a greater
down the rate of freight, but that there woutldro
_n
open I
amount of business done if the trade were
feel perfectly satisfied.
complaints to make as
The Chairman—Have you any
regards the conservancy of the rivers •hosis,
and, on account
Mr. Beek—The river abounds iaw
are put to great ex,
of the shallowness of the watr 5,e There is not a free
pease in rigging out landingllage_
e City charges us 2 }Nor
passage up to our wharves.
eoods up the river to lsleworth,
ton toll for conveying Qurnmnpaseing the navigation. In
and it expends no rn,Ye-does not do its duty as COME rva-
fact, the City eorco'ra
Tao absurdity of their regulations
tors of the Thames.
s Pixy be judged of from the fACt
as regards my busiuei