The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-25 00:00:00

THE SUN,

lity to render the subject attractive. Notwithstandin
these circumstances, he felt that, having taken up this
question, and having received deputations from different
parts of the country in reference to this subject, hi ;
was bound to bring it again before the attention of the
house. He had presented a petition from a gentleman of
. _

property and a magistrate, residing in South Wales, named
Rees, and he would again draw attention to this docu-
ment. Mr. Rees stated that there were fisheries in Car-
marthen which bordered on his estates, and that he had
been involved in serious litigation with the Commissioners
of the Woods and Forests with reference to certain claims

they had advanced of late years on behalf of the Crown,
with respect to these fisheries. He then proceeded to state
that great hardship, and, as he considered, injustice, had
been inflicted on the gentleman in question, and that this

case was by no means singular. It was most desirable that
this matter should be satisfactorily settled, and the rights of the

Crown clearly defined. At the present time there was no
certainty in reference to the rights which the Crown put
forward relative to its territorial possession as regarded this
description of property; and referring to an act, the 27th mt.
Elizabeth, he contended that the powers exercised by the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests were not legally con-
ferred. At all events, there could be no valid objection to the
appointment of the committee he proposed. He adverted
next to the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests having
disposed of several acres of land by virtue of the rights they
claimed in reference to these fisheries, to the detriment of
the public interest as well as individuals. He hoped that
the question would on this occasion meet with more atten-
tion than it had previously done, and he deprecated the
personal allusion made to him previously by the Attorney-
General as having an interest in these fisheries.
The motion having been seconded,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the hon. gen-
tleman in stating that on the occasion of his bringing forward
this question before, the house was counted out by the
agency of the Government, had done great injustice to the
Government, and to himself still greater. The house was
emptied on that occasion by the unassisted efforts of the hon.
gentleman. (Laughter.) This question had unfortunately
been attended with some heartburnings which a considera-
tion of the question would entirely remove. It was founded
upon the petition of a gentleman of the name of Rees. The
claim of this gentleman had been heard and discussed before
the Master of the Rolls, and his judgment was now pend-
ing. It was therefore not a seemly thing that this house
should discuss a matter which was still sub judice. But
there was a most conclusive answer to the case of the hon.
gentleman. In the year 184.5 Mr. Rees, for his owe per •
sonal benefit, thought it right to lease the coal under the
seashore to a company who were desirous of working it. lie
granted therefore to this company the means of raising coal
under property which he must have known belonged to the
Crown, for in 1813 Mr. Rees had addressed a letter to the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests, praying that they
would grant him a lease of the property which he had since
taken himself, stating that he was the owner of the adjoin-
ing lands, and wished to work a vein of coal which ex-
tonded under the sands in front of his property. The reply
to this application was that it was impossible to give Mr.
Rees a positive answer, as the right to the property was
still under litigation ; but an offer was made to him of a
lease of such part of the land as in the opinion of the law
officers the Crown was entitled to grant. This offer was
declined, and Mr. Rees had no one to thank but himself.
If he had accepted the offer of the Crown, he would have
been in possession of a valuable property. But he had taken
upon himself to deal with the question, he had failed, and
had the cause been tried before the passing of the late act,
Mr. Rees would probably have had to pay the costs of the
suit. This, therefore, was a claim which ought not to have
been brought before the house. It was a claim obstinately
and ignorantly brought forward, after the Crown had re-
covered judgment against him.
Mr. A. SMITH said that Mr. Rees only laid claim to the
land and the minerals under it as far as high water mark,
that is to say, not below high water mark.
The ATTORNEY-•GENERAL said that the question
in dispute was—what was high water mark. The shore in
that neighbourhood was' extremely flat—for the Attorney-
General had been by the sea-side—(laughter)—and in some
places the extent of land between the two lines was very
great. Mr. Rees claimed the high water wark at neap tide ;
the Crown claimed the average of the lines of high water
mark throughout the year. Mr. Rees, having raised the
coal under the soil between these boundaries, was found to
have worked wrongfully. Then who were the commis-
sioners ? They were trustees of the Crown property for the
public benefit. This was not a question between the public
and commissioners who were seeking to admit their rights,
but a question between the public and an individual who
was trespassing on their rights. The commissioners had
no other alternative than to act as they had done. There
was another ingredient in the matter—namely, the case of
the Submarine Telegraph Company. If the facts had been
stated, it would have appeared that in every case where the
public benefit was concerned the commissioners acted in
the most liberal manner, and made their rights subser-
vient to the good of the publie. But besides this, a great
principle was involved, in the case of which the house
would not be unobservant. The house was asked to in-
quire into the rights of the Crown, as though the
title of the crown to this property was not perfectly ascer-
tained. The rights of the crown to this property involved
those of a large number of private persona to whom grants
had been made, and the House of Commons would not do
so unconstitutional a thing as to attempt to exercise judicial
functions upon such a question. The manner in which the
commissioners were dealing with the property was quite
another matter, and was a very proper subject of inquiry by
Parliament. But upon this part of the subject he thought
it would be apparent that the conduct of the commissioners
had been most beneficial to the country. From a return
made to the House of Lords it appeared that during a period
of 27 years, from 1830 to 1857, 29 suits had been instituted
on the part of the commissioners to recover property be-
longing to the crown—this property being for the most part
mineral. Between the year 1830 and March, 1860, the re-
sults were these. Twenty- two of those suits trrminated
successfully for the crown, three were still pending, two
were put an end to, and in two caees only were there ad-
verse decisions. By these means property to the amount of
£490,000 had been recovered to the public. Nor was this
sum alone an adequate measure of the benefits attained ;
for in consequence of the rights of the crown being estab-
lished grants of land had been made to the extent of
£134,000. This made a total of £224,000 up to the present
time. It must be remembered that the crown had to bear
the whole cost of these proceedings, which were estimated
at £15,000. lie thought, therefore, the house would be of
opinion that the commissioners had been faithful and suc-
cessful trustees for the public benefit. What was to come
of those proceedings? The Commissioners of Woods and
Forests had acted under the directions of the law advisers
of the crown. The shore, by the ordinary law of the land,
was vested in the crown, but the public had rights over
that shore for embarking and di-iembarking. Consistent
with the enjoyment of those rights there remained the
right of digging under the, shore by any railway com-
pany. The cases brought forward by the hon. gentle-
man were all cases in which the crown had asserted the
rights of the public. Tl. is had been the law from the
earliest period, and it would so continue. Allis ion had
been made by the hon. gentleman to eases where leases of
foreshore had been granted to private individuals. The
hon. gentleman, as one of those lessees, had claimed the
property in those foreshores, nod had charged sixpence for
the deposit of a stick or umbrella. (Laughter.) It was
unfortunate that the hon. gentleman was not better in-
formed as to his rights to the foreshore; he had nothing to
blame for what he complained of but his own obstinacy and
want of judgment.
THE PROCLAMATION AGAINST VICE AND
IMMORALITY.

Lord PROBY brought up her Majesty's answer to the
address praying for a revision of the proclamation against
vice and immorality. Her Majesty stated that the procla-
mation should be carefully considered, w:th a view to its re-
yisign.

TIIE FORESHORES.
Sir F. GOLDSMID denied the right of the crown to the
foreshores beyond the ordinary high water mark.
The house then divided—
For the motion
Against it

Majority l7
BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. GREGORY rose to move for a select committee to
inquire how far and in what way it might be desirable to
find increased space for the extension and arrangement of
the various collections of the British Museum, and the best
means of rendering them available for the promotion of
science an I art. Last year he made a motion very similar
to the present one, which was carried by a large majority,
and he could only say that the same necessity which then
existed for inquiry existed at the present moment. He then
showed upon the testimony of Professor Owen that not a
single specimen of the collection in his department couldbe
exhibited for scientific purposes. The head of the ornitho-
logical department said that tho specimens in his keeping
were hidden from the public, and were perishing from damp.
The magnificent collection of prints were also shut out from.
the public eyes for want of space. The marbles from
Carthage and the antiquities from Cuidos remained in the
packages in which they were brcught to the Museum.
There was a more hopeless state of congestion in the 3lu-
scum at the present time than when he had proved these
facts. It was well known that valuable bequests would be
made to the Museum, but for the state in which it was.
(Hear.) Objection had been made to his motion last year
on the ground that the terms of it were too large, and that
it might lead to an inquiry into the trust itself. What he
proposed to effect by the committee was fir;st of all that in-
quiry should be made whether there should be a separation
of the collection in the Museum, and if so what that sopa_
what
tthbess collection
placelleioc t t
no
f
ration should be. He then proposed that they should in-
quire as
ptorestehnet
site, expediency
and
which it could be removed. The second portion of the in-
quiry would relate to the future structure and arrangement
if s ofo , a
removal
wasoval
h of
e
of the Museum. It was absolutely necessary that there
should be an inquiry on this point, because there was a
difference of opinion with regard to it between the trustees
and, as far as he could judge, between the trustees them-
and those who had the superintendence of the collections,