The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-20 00:00:00

COURT OF SEWERS FOR WEST.
IMINSIIER AND PARTIOF MIDDLESEX.,

A Court of Sewers. for the City and Liberties of
Westminster and part of Middlesex, was yesterday
held at the office of the Commissioners, in Greek-
street, Soho-square, at twelVe o'clock, Thomas Leverton
Donaldson, Esq., in the chair.
The minutes of the last two Courts were read.
During the reading,
The CHAIRMAN stated that he had received a note
from Sir G. Farrant, stating the worthy Commissioner's
intention to withdraw the notice of motion which he
had given, it being his intention to bring it forward in
another form. The minutes were then confirmed.
The Collectors' Reports were then received, and cer-
tain summonses and warrants were issued against cer-
t ainthen read his Report of the state of
The defaulters.cLEitK
the collectors' accounts, and of the money in the trea-
surer's hands.
Mr. JOHN WHITE then rose for the purpose of
calling the attention of the Court to the Marquis of
Nurmanby's Drainage 13111, and stated his opinion that
this Court had already done all that cola he done with
respect to drainage. Mr. Slane}'
had called upon him
yesterda;, and he had called upon Mr. Sluney to-day,
hue had not met with him.
Mr. ADEY rose to order, and protested against being
called nn to discuss a matter of this import true at a
momert's notice, because the Clerk had laid the Bill on
the table. They ought not to discuss any thing that
was not in the business paper.
Mr. LESLIE hoped Mr. White would be permitted
to ee I.
Mr. ADEY objected to proceeding with anything not
in the business paper.
The CHAIRMAN said the matter must be postponed.
The next business therefore was, to order payment ol
1,6961. 13s. Id. to the Equitable Gas Company, Icing
the amount tendered in the case of Medley v. Priteli-
ard, in pursuance of the order of Court of the Ist De-
cemher,lB4o. Upon which
Mr. LESLIE moved," that the sum of 1,6961. 13s. hi.,
as a compromise in the action, Medley v. Pritchard,
cannot legally and therefore ought not to be abstracted
from the Sewers Rate by the Commissioners of Sewers,
as the cause of such action is shown in the records of
the Commission to have originated from an illegal or-
aer of the Commissioners, by which a private be-
nefit was conferred on one of the Commission-
e:s by making an unnavigable stream a naviga-
ble one ; and that the legitimate source from whence
such compromise ought to be paid is by a refunding of
so much of the purchase money paid by the Equitable
Gas Company for a property so illegally benefited
and improved in value, and not by a tax upon the pre-
sent rate-payers of the Western Division of WeA-
minster Sewers. The whole proceedings being con-
trary to the statutes on sewers and the judicial decisions
thereon, and conseque..tly void ab initio." The tender
had been made on the 3d of April, 1835, helore the
action, Medley v. Pritchard, had been brought, and
after this Court had ben triumphant in the Court of
Chancery, and had had the ex parte injunction, ob-
tained by the Equitable Company, dissolved with costs.
He would go at once into the merits of this question.
He would call upon Mr. Dowley, surveyor, to produte
the original plan of the King's Scholar-pond sewer
in 1808. There were two brick cul% erts, with self-
acting flaps, with an area of 25 feet 7 inches, through
which the King's Scholar-pond sewer drained into the
Thames ; and now the Commissioners would perceive
that by no possibility could it be navigable to or from
the 'Thames. The sewer rose in Hampstead, drained
property on an area of about five and a half miles in
length, and three quarters of a mile in breadth.
Sir G. FARRANT rose to order ; they had no right.
to go into the history of the sewer.
Captain BAGUE said Mr. Leslie could not speak un-
less his amendment was seconded.
The CHAIRMAN decided Mr. Leslie was in orde'.
Mr. WHITE said, that on the face of the proceedings
themselves was the grossest libel, and he protested
against the Court being mode the medium of publish-
ing libels, and perhaps it would not end there.
The CHAIRMAN thought, upon the point of order,
Mr. Leslie had a right to proceed.
Mr. LESLIE then proceeded to describe the state of
the sewer according to the Reports of the Surveyors in
1808, the defects of which were a want of a free out-
let into the Thames, and an increasirg capacity es it
advanced to the river. Contiguous to this outlet of the
sewer there was the property of a Commissioner
of Sewers.—(Hear, hear.) There was a Special
Committee appointed, and this Commissioner sat
upon the Committee, and the contractors who exe-
cute d the works were also Commissioners. From
Charlotte-street, Pimlico, to the outlet at Millhank,
distance of 5,128 feet, there was expended on the
King's Scholar-pond sewer nearly 21,0001, of which
about 3,000/. was spent on the portion abutting on the
property in question. The Special Committee met,
and came to various resolutions. First, they de-
cided that flood-gates should be placed next the Thames,
and subsequently they resolved that they should be
moved higher up the sewer, which would have the
effect of making it navigable for a considerable distance
up the property in question. Then they decided that
for the security of the walls of the sewer, there should
be introduced piles, with one fender plank. He thns
showed that this Special Committee did that in pri-
vate, which ought, by the laws relating to sewers, to
have been done in open Com t, and that the public were
damnified in consequence. The worthy Commissioner
then went at great length into the history of the foram-
tiots of the sewer, quoting the minutes of the Special
Committee for the different works undertaken as he went
along, which the Chairman and the Clerk read as
Mr. "Leslie called for them. The Honourable
Commissioner then read from the Minute-hook
'of the Court, 28th of October, 1808, an extract,
showing that the Surveyor, in obedience to the direc-
tion of the last Court, presented a calculation, showing
the quantity of reservoir in the old water course, and
that of the reservoir that evid be gained by taking the
land proposed to he taken from Mr. White, and placing
the proposed flood-gates at a distance from the Thames,
viz. :—Calculation of the space that will he lost as a
reservoir at the south end of the King's Scho-
lar-pond Sewer ; supposing the floodgates to he
fixed 293 feet up the sewer from the river
Thames, the quantity would be 41,738 cubical feet.
Calculation of space given up by Mr. White beta con
the_bridge and the proposed situaton of the flood-gates
as a reservoir in lieu of diet lest between the river
Thames and the flood-gates, the quantity of reservoir
here obtained would be 42,283 cubical feet. Mr.
Leslie here pointedly called the attention of the Court
that the space lost to the public and given up by the
Commissioner was in the wrong di!ection, for the Re-
port of the Surveyors showing the great defects in the
sewer prior to any a!ter..tion was the want of
a free outlet to the river Thames, and an increasing
capacity as the sewer advances. He then resumed
the minute. The expense of excavation of Mr White's
ground as proposed to be given up by him would be
about 701. or 80/. The ground excavated as above
would be worth to the Commissioners, in my opinion,
more than the excavation and brick work would be
saved by the straight line to the amouiit of 80/.
or 90/. It being represented to the Court that the
proposition of the Special Committee of Works, for ex-
cavating the ground within the sewer, for admitting,
barges next to Mr. White's premises, had originated
from the circumstance of the Committee having consi-
dered that the great additional quantity of water let
down the sewer by the alteration, for the flood-gates
therein would prevent Mr. White's barges lying in safety
alongside his wharf next the river—
Resolved unanimously—That in consequence of the
arrangement agreed upon le teeea Mr. White, and the
Committee appointed for the improvement of the sewer,
whereby lie h.a agreed to relinquish a very considerable
portion of his freeheld land for the widening of the sewer,
as a reservoir, above the situation of the intended gates,
he be allowed to widen the creek or sewer at the outlet
below the gates, by cutting away part of his land to a
sufficient width on his own side of the said creek or
sewer, so that the water of the sewer may not
he interrupted in the entrance to the River ;
and to be also allowed to fix a floating boom to
the opposite side, to prevent any annoyances en-
tering the same, the expense incurred for the walls
on the sides of the sewer, between the intended flood-
gates and the Thames, which shill exceed the proportion-
able expense of the wall between the said flood-gates and
Mr. White's bridge, already built, to be borne by Mr.
White, together with other extra expenses. The Com-
missioners erecting a bridge across the sewer at Mil-
bank at their own expense, the whsle to be formed
acenrding to a plan produced to the Court this day."
The Hon Comturei sioner then called for the
minutes of the next Court, by which it appeared
that the word unanimously in the preceding rest-
iution was struck out by order qf the Court ; and
he deemed this another vary suspicious circum-
stance in the transaction. In January, 1809, this
Special Committee was suspended by order of the
Court, and a Committee of Inquiry was appointed.
The Investigating Committee met on the 27th of
January, 1809, and ordered the surveyor to report in
writing what orders had been given, what had been the
proceedings, what works had originated with the Spe-
cial Committee, and whether any land had been taken
for widening the sewer without notice to the owners.
On the 10th Pebruary they again met, and received
the Report of the Surveyors. Upon which it was
moved—" That it is the opinion of this Committee that
the information concerning the proceedings of the Spe
cial Committee appointed 19th August 1808, can be
sufficiently obtained from the minutes of that Commit-
tee." Whereupon an amendment was put, " That the
Members of this Committee do proceed to examine the
Officers of this Commission as to the objects contained
in the notice." This amendment was lost, the Com-
mittee adjourned sine die, and thus ended the in-
quiry at that period, and the original Special Com-
mittee resumed their proceedings. jr, Leslie then
reminded the Court that be had shown that, on the
5,128 feet of this sewer, which cost the rato-ertyers
20,756/, 3,0001, of that sum was expended on

that portion of the sewer at the outlet into the
Thames ; and the proportion of this expense contri-
buted by the Commissieeer was in cash 421. 7s. 4d.,
and an allowance to him, for old materials pulled
down, of 210/., making together 252/. 7s. 4d.
The consequence of this alteration thus made, bad
been, that the parishes of Marylebone and St. George
Hanover-square, had been damnified to an immense ex-
tent, the houses in Bond-street, Bruton-street, the
Marquis of Lansdowne'', and all the lower part of
those parishes having been frequently flooded in con-
sequcuce of the obstruction occasioned in the sewers,
by one of the Commissioners being pe:mitted to moor his
boats in the sewer, which before this expenditure of
21,0001., bad never been navigable. The land in ques-
tion, at the outlet of this sewer, was soli by an agree-
ment, dated 22c1 November, 1832, for 11,250/., for
two acres, to the Equitable Gas Company, together
with the free liberty of ingress, egress, and regress, to
and for the laid Company, their executors, adminis-
trators, and assigns, their servant', agents, and work-
men, with lighters, barges, and boats, or otherwise, up
and down the sewer, to the ground thereby agreed to
be sold, for the purpose of landing and unloading all
such goods, coals,or articles as they might require." The
consequence of this agreement was the unfortunate
question they had been called on to discuss that day.
Why should any of the Commissioners be permitted
to sell free ingress and egress to one of the public
sewers? Before the Gas Company entered into the
agreement, notice had been given that certain parts of the
premises would be wanted for the public benefit. A Bid
in Chancery was filed by the Equitable Gas Company
against Mr. Saunders, the Chairman—the last person
against whom it ought to have been filed, as he had sever
presided over the meetings of the Special Committee,
but had washed his hands of the proceedings—and Mr.
Pritchard and Mr. Hoof; the contractors, for interfering
with the property, and they obtained an ex parte injunc..
tion to prevent the Commissioners from proceeding with
their works. The Chancery proceedings cost the Com-
mission 3001, and the injunction was dissolved with
costs. Having obtained this triumphant position in
Chancery, in Medley against Saunders, Pritchard, and
Hoof, how estate this Court to be involved in Medley
against Pritchard, and why was this tender of 1,696/.,
a hick is upon the business-paper to-day, when it ap-
peared that actually at that time there had been no
such action brought? One of the Commissioners had
objected to pay this money, because the notice of action
required by the statute on sewers, had been waived.
Now, how had it been waved ? The solicitor had
stated that the opposite party wished notice of act;on to
be waved, and they having applied to the late Chair-
man, who stated sery properly that he thought he had
nothing to do with it, would Hot waive the notice,
while the Commissioner's name was in it, but agreed to
waive the notice for the contractors, and thus
they got into the cause of Medley and Pritchard.
The preseat Chairman not liking to take upon
himself the responsibility which the late Chair-
man bad done, had a Law Committee to assist
him. The worthy Commissioner then detailed at great
length the different st roes of the law proceedings. On
the proceedings on which the injunction had been dis-
solved, it had been sworn that the obstruction oc-
casior.ed by the mooring of the barges was so great
us to occasion the overflowing of the marsh-
lands of St. George's, Hanover-square. Thus he had
shown that, in 1808, the sewer was not navigable, that
it had been made navigable contrary to law, and that,
in consequence, the rate-payers of Marylebone and St.
George's, Hanover-square, were now called upon to
pay 1,696/., because one of the Commissioners Wad
sold the free navigation of the Commissioners' sewer
to the Equitable Gas Company. It was their duty,
according to their oath e, to remove obstructions,
and not to suffer one of their own body to create
ob,t!'uctions in the public sewers. He hoped
no Commissioner would so far forget his duty,
as to sign the order for the payment on the pre-
sent rate-payers. The Commissioner whose property
had been benefited, should be called upon to pay the
amount in question, and net the rate-payers.
Mr. ADEY asked if the Chairman could put that
which was a direct libel from the Chair?
The CHAIRMAN said he could not put any motion or
amendment, unless it were seconded.
Mr. FULLER thought it was very undesirable that
such a statement should remain unanswered ; and yet
he knew not. how far he should be justified in seconding
that which some Hon. and Learned Commissioner stated
to be a libel. He would not second the motion because
the name of one of the Commissioners had been intro-
duced.
The CHAIRMAN could not put it unless it was Se-
conded.
Mr. FULLER said that a more disgraceful thing than
the suffering such a thing to drop, he had never known.
On the originel motion being put,
Mr. ADEY moved as an amendment that the money
be not paid, because it was illegal to pay it out of the
Sewers'-rate. They had a good defence to the action,
and they ought to have made use of it. He would not
rip up old transactions, and cast a slur upon the cha-
racter of individuals, but le thought it highly indeco-
rous that papers should go forth to the public, bringing
such indecent charges against any Commissioner or
Commmissioners, when they had hal no opportunity to
defend themselves.
Mr. Muenttss seconded the amendment.
Mr. LESLIE thought the character of the Court was
involved in this payment. He was glad that two mem-
bers of the legal profession had come forward to move
that they could not legally pay this sum. They were at the
bar of public opinion. He had not brought forward the
matter as a charge against an individual Commissioner ;
he had found among the records of the Court that the
transaction had been one in whieh the private benefit
of an individual had been consulted, and he had brought
it forward.
Mr. FULLER thought some answer should have bean
given to Mr. Leslie's statement.
Mr. WHITE thought the present a favourable oppor-
tunity for answering that statement ; the state of the
sewer had been complained of as far back as the time of
Sir Christopher Wren, who had devised a plan for its im-
provement. It was evident that the gentleman who
bad brought. forward the question was ignorant of the
transaction and of the laws of sewers generally. That
there had been the greatest improvement in consequence
of that outlet having been made be was convinced ; and
it was stated on the highest authority, that there ought
to be no gates at the mouth of any sewer, and that
the reservoir drainage was bad and impolitic.
The Commissioners bad taken away the landing-
place of the wharfs, and the balance of ;Account
was in favour of the Commissioners, and not of
the possessors of the property. His belief was that
no money could be so will expended as that spent in
obtaining increased depth and increased current. After
the sewer had been embanked the height it ought to
have been, the Commissioners put up flood-gates, and
he believed that all those who put up the flood-gates
would be assessed in the. expense. It was not
the individual to whom allusion had been made that
had put up the flood-gates, but the Commis-
sioner, and thus the obstruction had been caused.
The whole previous transaction had been a matter of com-
pact in 1808, and the sale to the Equitable Gas Company
of free ingress or egress hal been made, with a reser-
vation of tan rights of the Commissioners of Sewers,
which the Hon. Commissioner had omit'ed to state.
The original 1 amain between the Commissioners of
Sewers and the individual alluded to, he had no besitas
tion in saying, was one of the must beneficial ever
made for the public. He should not vote on the mo-
tion at all.
Mr. Leslie rose, but was not allowed to explain ; but
Mr. THISELTON DYER, at his request, stated, on re-
ferring to the document, that the agreement for the
sale of the property between the Commissioner and the
Equitable Gas Company, from a record of the
Court—viz., the affidavit in Chancery of the soli-
citor to the Equitable Company, the sass in-
eluded the free liberty of ingress, egress, and re-
gress to and for the said Company, their executors,
administrators, and assigns, their servants, agents, and
workmen, with lighters, barges, and boats, or otherwise,
up and down the sewer, to the ground, thereby agreed
to be sold for the purpose of landing and unloading all
such goods, coals, or articles, as they might require. Hut
nothing in the document in question showed anything
about the reservation of the rights of the Commissioners
of Sewer'.
Mr. GUNTER came prepared to ask for the payment
of the money, but as Mr. Ailey had stated there was
a good defence to the claim, his mind had been consi-
derably changed.
The SOLICITOR stated that if they did not pay the
1,696/., they could not put those pleas upon the record
that would be a bar to the action.
Mr. ADLY said that, situated as they now were, he
would advise the payment of the money,
The CHAUMAN next addressed the meeting. There
could be no doubt that the most expedient course would
be to make the tender, and recommended the meeting
to abide by the solemn decision of the Court of Com-
mon Pleas.
A show of hands was then taken, when there ap
peered—

For the motion
For t;,e amendlnect
Majority for the payment of the money 6
&veral Commissioners would not vote.
A COMMISSIONER moved that the names be taken
down, which was done acoerdingly.
Thc CHAIRMAN hay.ng put the question that a
warrant do issue for payment of the same,
Mr. THISELTON DYER inquired on what district it
was intended to issue the warrant?
The CHAIRMAN replied, the western district. Mr. THISELTON DYER then inquired whether there
was a sufficient sum in the hands of the bankers stand-
ing to the credit of that district, to meet that payment,
because if there was not, and they Katy to levy a rate to
make up the amount the legality of stleh rate might be ,
disputed,
The CLERK replied there was.
Several questions were put tl the Clerk, the
an". 9" to "3:..:e-in
were not considered satisfactory by
some of the Commissioners, and the following amend-

rant was therefore moved et the suggestion of Mr.
THISTLETON DYER: " That the said sum of
1,696/. 133. Id. be not paid, it not appearing to the
Court that there is a sufficient sum in the hands of the
banners, received from the Western District, to pay
that sum."
The question was then put, when there appeared—
For the issuing of the warrant
For the amendment
Majority against the amendment —
Several Commissioners again refusing to vote.
The warrant for payment was' then ordered to issue.

MARQUIS OF NORMANBY'S DRAINAGE BILL.
The CHAIRMAN felt it to be his duty to state tliat a
drainage Bill had been brought into the House of
Lords, and it was necessary it should he looked into, as
it affected the powers and rights of that Court. He
thought the Bill would prove highly advan-
tageous to the public interests, but at the
same time the Commissioners ought to look into
it aid asceitain the position in which they stood
with respect to the measure. He thought it would be
desirable that a Committee should be appointed to con-
sider it and report thereon. He would therefore move
that a Committee for that purpose be appointed.
Mr. ADEY thought it would be better that a special
day should be appointed fur the discussion of the sub-
ject in open Court.

A show of ha•uds was then taken, when there appeared
a majority in favour of the appointment of the C 3,11-
mittee, but as the Chairman could not get six Com-
missioners to serve on it, although there were upwards
of 24 present, the resolution fell to the ground.
It was therefore agreed that a special Court should
be summoned for the consideration of the sahjort one
day next week.

Petitions and memorials were then received (it being
five o'clock). Many of those petitioners and me-
morialists were respectable tradespcop'e, and had been
kept in Court the whole of the day, to their great in-
convenience and the negl2ct of their business. It
would be as well if the Commissioners, in future, would
hear tho
.petition 3, &c , before they enter upon ques-
tions that arc likely to create discussion, and thus enable
the parties to occupy their time more profitably by pur-
suing their respective avocations.