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

SYRIA.

On' the motion for the House resolving itself into a
Comin'ttee of Supply,
Mr. HUME said it would save the time of the House
if instead of making a motion for an address, of which
ha had given notice, he were to ask a question of the
Noble Lord. It would be in the recollection of the
House, that at the- commencement of the Session the
Noble Lord had consented to lay upon the table of the
Howe ail papers relating to the Syrian warfare. Three
weeks had elapsed since tl.at promise had been male,
and the pa:era Lai not yet been laid on the table. Now
he wished to ask the Noble Lord whether it was his in-
tention to lay those papers before the House, and if so,
whoa it was likely they would be laid on the table ?
When they were hid on the t Me it was his intention
to bring the whole question before the House.
Lord PALMERSTON' could assure his Hon.
Friend that no unnecessary delay had taken place.
There was a great mass of papers to bo arranged and
printed, and at present there was a great press of cur-
re..t public business in his office. He could not fix
any particular day, but he could assure his Hon. Friend
that no unnecessary delay'should take place.
Mr. HUME hoped the papers would be laid on the
t able as soon as possible, as the Noble Lord had stated
that the object of the Treaty of July having been accom-
plished, there ought to be no delay in bringing the
papers before the House.
AMERICAN BOUNDARY.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to ask the Noble
Lord is hat was the precise position in which this coun-
try stood in relation to the United States, and the
North Eastern Boundary. Two Commissions had
been appointed to ascertain the Boundaries between
the Province of Maine and the State of New 'Bruns-
wick. What he wished to know was, whether, since
some portion of those Commissioners had made their
Report, any steps had been taken, in concert with the
Government of the United States, to bring' the ques-
tion to a satisfactory settlement ?
Lord PALMERSTON said, that a convention had
first of all been proposed by this country, to which the
Government of the United States had objected, and had
sent over to this country a draft of a counter-propo-
'hien to that. Her Majesty's Government could not
agree ; anti in the early part of last year they had made
a third proposition, to which he hoped the Government
of the United States would have agreed. They, how-
ever, had not done so ; but, in reply, had sent another
counter-proposition, to which her Majesty's Govern-
ment could not agree, and to which they had sent a
reply. A survey had, however, in the meantime, been
ordered to- be made, for the purpose of acquiring an

accurate knowledge of the geographical features of the
country, by Commissioners appointed by her Majesty's
Government, without any reference to the United
States. These Commissioners bad reported, but, of
course, the Report, although there was no reason to
doubt its accuracy, oould only be looked upon as an
ex-parte statement, and not at :41 binding on other par.
ties. The United States had also sent Commissioners
of their own to make a survey, without any reference to
the Government of this country.
Sir R. PEEL understood, then, that the Report of
the Commissioners had been made without reference to
the United States, and that there was no General Com-
mission acting on behalf of the two countries, and that
no proceedings had been undertaken in concert between
them, to bring this question to a settlement. The plain
fact was that reciprocal propositions bad been made by
the respective Governments of Great Britain and the
ILlited States, which had been reciprocally rejected.
Lord PALMERSTON wished to explain. The
two Governments had agreed upon the principle of the
question at issue, but they had not agreed as to the de-
tails by which it should be carried into effect. Mr.
Featherstonhough had been sent by the authority of the
British Government without the authority of the Ame-
rican Government, although the American authorities
had afforded him every facility.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was desirious of knowing if
the American Government agreed to any arrangement
for the settlement of the points in dispute.
Lord PA LMERSTO N—The American Govern-
ment had at first proposed a Convention of one kind, to
which the British Government had agreed ; they then
proposed a modification of that arrangement. The
American Government then proposed a Convention of a
different kind, containing a provision for the appoint.
ment of a Commission of Arbitration. The first Con-
vention contained no proposition for the appoint-
ment of a Commission of Arbitration ; they then
proposed such an arrangement, to which and to
that change we had agreed, as we thought it
desirable to have some arrangement for arbitration. The
two Governments were agreed on that point. lie did
not think it right to enter into further details, as to the
negotiations. The difference between the two Govern-
ments was not as to the principle, but as to how the
principle was to be carried out.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDNY,,FEBRtTARY 20, IS4I

COURT OF SEWERS FOR W.EST,
KMINSTER AND PARTOF MIDDLESEX.

A Court of Sewers for the City and Liberties of
Westminster and part of Middlesex, was yest-rday
held at the office of the Commi:sioners, 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 ho had received a note
from Sir G. Tarrant, 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 ain defaulters. _

The CLERK then read his Report of the state of
the collectors' accounts, and of the money in the trea-
surer's hands.
Mr. Jot WHITE then rose for the purpose of
calling the attention of the Court to the Marquis of
Normanby's Drainage Bill, and stated his opinion that
this Court had already done all that could be done with
respect to drainage. Mr. Slaney had called upon him
yesterday, and he had called upon Mr. Slaney to-day,
but had not met with him,

Mr. ADEY rose to order, and protested against being
called on to discuss a matter of this importance at a
moment'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 1 races".
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 of
1,696/. 13s. Id. to the Equitable Gas Company, being
the amount tendered in the case of Medley v. Pritch-
ard, in pursuance of the order of Court of the Ist .De-
cember,lB4o. Upon which
Mr. LESLIE Moved," that the sum of 1,696/. 13s: Id.,
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-
der of the Commissioners, by which a private be-
nefit was conferred on one of the Commission-
ers 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-
Feet rate-payers of the Western Division of West-
minster Sewers. The whole proceedings being con-
trary to the st instes on sewers and the judicial decisions
thereon, and consequealy void ale initio." The tender
had been made on the 3a of April, 1835, heFore the
action, Medley v. Pritchard, bad been brought, and
after this Court had bean triumphant is the Court of
Chancery, and bad 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 produce
the original plats of the King's Scholar-pond sewer
in 1808. There were two brick coh etts, with self-
acting flaps, with an area of 25 feet 7 inches, through
which the King's Scholar-pond sewer drained iete the
Thames ; and now the Commissioners would perceive
that by no possibility could it be navigable to or from
the Thames. Tire 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-
1C33 his amendment. was seconded.
The CHAIRMAN decided Mr. Leslie was in ardet.
Mr. WHITE said, that on the face of the proceedings
themselves was the grossest libel, and he protested
against the Court being made the medium of publish-
hag libels, and perhaps it would net 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 increasing capacity as it
advanced to the river. Contiguous to this outlet of the
sower 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-
cured the works were also Commissioners. From
Charlotte-street, Pimlico, to the outlet at Millbenk,
distance of 5,128 feet, there was expended on the
King's Scholar-pond sewer nearly 21,000/ , of which
about 3,0001. 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
tensed .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 fende: plank. He thus
showed that this Special` Committee did that in pri-
vate, which ought, by the laws re hating to sewers, to
have been done in open Cuui t, and that the public were
damnified in consequence. The worthy Commissiorier
then went at great length into the history of the forma-
tion of the sewer, quoting the minutes of the Special
Committee for the different works undertaken as be went
along, which the Chairman and the Cl wle read as
Nit.. Leslie called for them. The Honourable
Corranissioner then read from the Minute-book
of the Court, 28th a Oethber, 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 %yid be gained by taking the
land proposed to be taken from Mr. White, avid placing
the proposed flood-gates at a distance from the Thames,
viz.:—Calculation of the space ti,aa will be lost as a
reservoir at the south end of the King's Scho
1 tr-poed Sewer ; supposing the flood=gates to be
fried 293 feet up the sewer from the river
Thames, the quantity would be 41,738 cubical feet.
Celeulation of space given up by Mr. White be ts eca
the bridge and the propose.l situ • Con of the flood-gates
as a reservoir in lieu of that 1 beteeen the river-
Thames and the ilosri-gates, the quantity of reservoir
here obtained would be 42,283 cubical feet. Mr.
Leslie here pointedly called the atteition of the Court
that the Spne lost to the public and given up by the
Commissioner ras in the wrong dheetion, for the Re-
port of the Surveyors showing the great defecti in the
sewer prior to any alterstion was the want of
a free outlet to the river Thanes, 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 givea up by him would be
about 701. or 801. 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 amount 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 in
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 betweea Mr. White, and the
Committee appointed for the improvement of the sewer,
whereby he hag agreed to relinquish a very considerable
portion of his freehold 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 server may not
be 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 shall 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 whole to be formed
according to a plan produced to the Court this day."
The Hon Commmhosioner then called for the
minutes of the next Court, by which it appeared
that the word unanimously in the preceding_ reso-
lution was struck out by order .of the Court ; and
he deemed this another very suspicious circum-
sta Ice in the transaction. In January, 1809, this
Special Committee was suspended by order of the
Court, and a Committee of. Inquiry was appointed.
'File 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•
ciel 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-
quiryat that period, and the original Special Com-
mittee resumed their proceedings. Mr. Leslie then
reminded the Court that he had shown that, on the
5,128 feet of this sewer, which cost the rate-payers
20,756/.,
3,0004 of that sum was expended on

that portion of the sewer at the outlet into th.;
Thames ; and the proportion of this expense contri-
buted by the Commissioner was in cash 421. 7s.
and an allowance to him, for old materials pulled
does n, of 210/., making together 2521. 7s. 41.
The consequence of this alteration thus male, had
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, dui
Marquis of Lansdowne's, and all the lower part of
those parishes having been frequently flooded in con-
sequence of the obstruction occasioned in the sewers,

by one of the Commissioners being permitted to moor his
boats in the sewer, which before this expenditure of
21,0001. had never been navigable. The land in ques-
tion, at ihe outlet of this sewer, was sold " by an agree-
ment, dated 22d November, 1832, for 11,2501., for
two acres, to the Equitable Gas Company, together
with the free liberty of ingress, egress, and regress, to
and for the said Company, their executors, adminis-
trators, and assigns, their servants, 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 Conyany entered into the
agreement, notice had been given that certain parts of the
premises would be wanted for the public benefit. A Bill
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 never
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 ihsm-
mission 300/., and the injunction was dissolved with
costs. Having obtained this triumphant position in
Chancery, in Medley against Saunders, Pritchard, and
Hoof, how came this Court to be involved in Medley
against Pritchard, and why was this tender of 1,696/.,
which is upon the business-paper to-day, when it ap-
peirei that actually at that time there had been no
such action brought? One of the Commissioners had
objet ted 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 action to
be waved, and they having applied to the late Chair-
man, who stated very properly that he thought he had
nothing to do with it, would not 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 present Chairman not liking to take upon
himself the responsibility which the late Chair-
man had done, had a Law Committee to assist
him. The worthy Commissioner then detailed at great
length the different stigcs of the law proceedings. On
the procee lings on which the injunction had been dis-'
solved, it had been sworn that the obstruction oc-
casioned by the mooring of the barges was so great
n 7 to occasion the overflowing of the marsh-
lands of St. George's, Hanover-square. Thus he had
shown that, in 1608, the cewer was not navigable, that
it had been made oat igable contrary to hue, and that,
in consequence, the rate-payers of 111ar)lehone and St.
George's, Hanover-square, were now called upon to
pay 1,6961., because one of the Commissioners had
sold the free navigation of the Commissioners' sower
to the Equitable Gas Company. It was their duty,
according to their oaths., to remove obstructions,
cool not to suffer one of their own body to create
obstructions in the public sewers. He hoped
no Commissioner would so far forget his duty,
as to sign the ordsr for the payment on the pre-
sent rate-payers. The Corornis!ioner whose property
had been benefited, should be called upon to pay the
trooriet in question, and net the rate-payers.
Mr. ADEY asked if the Chairman could put that
which was a direct libel from the Chair?
1 The CitarnMalc said he could not put any motion or
amendment, unless it were seconded.
Mr. FULLER thought it was very undesirable that
such a etatemeat 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 tbaer
the suffering such a thing to drop, he had never known.
On the original motion beieg put,
Mr. ADEY moved as an arnendrneat that the money
be net paid, because it was illegal to pay it out of the
Severs'-rate. They had a good defence to the action,
and they ought to have made use of it. He would not
rip up old trausactious, and cast a slur upon the cha-
ff of individuals, but he thought it highly indreo-
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. MULLING 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 which the private benefit
of an individual had been consulted, and he had brought
it forward.
Mr. FULLER thought some answer should have been
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-
pravement. It was evident that the gentleman who
had brought forward the question was ignorant of the
transaction and of the laws of !ewers generally. That
there bad been the greatest improvement in consequence
of that outlet having been made he was convinced ; and
it was stated on the bizbest authority, that there ought
to be no gates at the mouth of any sewer, and that
the reservoir drainage was bad and impolitic.
Tic Commissioners had taken away the landing-
place of the wharfs, and the balance of account
was in favour of the Commisioners, and not of
tle possessors of the property. His belief was that
no money could Le so well expendel 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 ear ease. It was not
the individual to whom allusion had been made that
had • put up the flood-gates, but the Commis-
sioners, and thus the obstruction had been caused..

win le previous transaction hid been a matter of corm

pact in 1808, and the sale to the Equitable Gas Company
of free ingress or egress ha I been made, with a reser-
%a' icu of the rights of the Commissioners of Salvers,

which the Hoe. Commisiioner had omit'el to state.
The original hargain between the Commissioners of
Sowers and the individual alluded to, he had no hesita-
tion in saying, was ore of the most 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. THISELTONER, at his request, stated, on re-
ferring to the document, that the agreemett for the
s ►le 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 sale in-
cluded 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 boat•, 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. But
nothing in the document in question showed anything
about the reservation of the rights of the Commissioners
of Sewe)s.

Mr. GUNTER came prepared to ask for the payment
of the money, but as Mr. Arley had stated there was
a good defence to the claim, his mind had been consi-
derably changed.

SOLICITOR stated that if they did not pay the
1,6961., they could not put those pleas upon the record
that would be a bar to the action.
Mr. ADEY said that, situated as they now were, he
wou!d advise the payment of the money.
The CHAIRMAN 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-
peared— _

For the motion
For the amendrneLt lO
Majority for the payment of the money —. 6
Several Commissioners would not vote.
A COMMISSIONER moved that the names be taken
down, which was done accordingly.
Tha CHAIRMAN having 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 suns 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 had to levy a rate to
make up the amount, the legality of such rate might be
disputed.

The CLERK replied there was.
Several quosfons were then put t' the Clerk, the
answers to which were not considered satisfactory by
some of the Commissioners, and the following amend-