The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-04 00:00:00

tShA Y, AUGUST 4, - 18a5.

Did they conduct their enquiry in a like manner ?—Not in a
way that was satisfactory to me; quite the reverse.
• You mean the reverse of judicial, impartial, and orderly ?—I do.
You attended them day by day ?—Yes ; every day and-hour they
were in Coventry.
Was there much tumult or disorder during the examination of
witnesses ?—I can't say there was much tumult, but the people
conducted themselves very differently from the manner in which
they conduct themselves in Courts of Law.
Did they commit any person?—No.
Did they ever exercise any power of repressing disorder?—l
scarcely ever heard them say a word on that subject. I did see a
gentleman contradicting an assertion that was made, and they or-
dered him to sit. down.
On whith side did he wish to address the Commissioners
think he was on the Corporation side, but he was not a corporator.
Was it to correct misrepresentations of the acts of the Corpora-
tion ?—lt was.
Did he do so in a respectful and-gentlemanlike manner ?—Yes.
Are you acquainted with what is called the Municipal Corpora-
tion Report ?---I have read it.
Is it correct and true, from beginning to end ?—I should say not.
Did you take down the evidence ?-1 did take down in writing
some loose minutes from time to time, but I was so often called
on myself by the Commi sioners, that I frequently gave it up.
Did the Commissioners take notes ?—I thought they took every-
thing that appeared to militate against the Curporation, and that
was the general opinion of all the persons there, on both sides.
Did you see the judicial pen moving faster at certain periods,
when charges were brought against the Corporation, than at
others ?—% ery much so. When garbled statements were made,
they were taken down.
Were the witnesses sworn ?—I can't say whether they were all
sworn or not. I think the Commissioners adminis!ered the oath.
Do you mean that they took down every thing that any body
chose to say against the Cerporation, whether hearsay or not ?
Decidedly it was hearsay in almost all cases.
As a professional man, do you say that the evidence was legiti-
mate ?—I scarcely heard any legitimate evidence given.
I suppose you have attended the Warwickshire Assizes for the
last 30 or 40 years have not been absent from the Coventry
Assizes since I was admitted a solicitor in the year 1791.
I forget in what year you became town Clerk ?—ln 1812.
How many days were the Municipal Commissioners engaged in
Coventry ?—About nine or ten, including parts of days, and I
think I was under examination seven hours during the first day.
Were they collecting information during all that time ?—Yes;
parties came forward very freely.
What was the preponderance as to class and character, of the
parsons who came there to give information?—l should say the
lower classes preponderated ; some respectable tradesmen came
there, and communicated some one thing and some another, but
almost all of what was stated was hearsay.
You have read the Report upon the Corporations ?—I have.
Is it very long ?—lt occupies 27 pages of original matter, besides
extracts from the Charity Commissioners' Report.
How many witnesses are named in that Report don't know
more than one—Richard Marriott.
Judging, as well as you can, what was the number of persons
examined ?—I should say 30 or 40; but certainly not more than 45.
Would it not, in your Judgment, as a professional man, have been
useful to know the names, qualities, and ages, of the witnesses ex-
amined ?—I think it would be extremely right ; and if the Report
was put in a more tangible shape, the Corporation would have been
very glad to have answered it.
Was it visible to you that the evidence against the Corporation
was taken down more carefully than other parts?—That is my de-
cided opinion.
Had they any book before them ?—Yes, there was a book and
papers before them, but they were very much elevated above the
people, as they sat where the judge sits.
What ! did the Corporation give them the use of the County
Hall ?—Yes, and they directed me to give them information, which
they thought might be important, as I was examined before the
House of Commons.

Did the Commissioners meet with any opposition ?—No ; the
Corporation thought their conduct was exceedingly partial, as they
suffered persons to come in and make the grossest possible state-
, ments with impunity ; and they deemed it expedient to draw up a
protest against it.
Did they do so ?—Yes.
Have you a copy of that protest ?—I have not.
Then you had better furnish yourself with one.—l will.
On your oath, was that enquiry conducted fairly and properly ?
On my oath it was conducted unfairly.
Was the evidence taken down ?—lt appears to me that all sorts
of gossip was taken down.
Who and what is Richard Marriott ?—He is a solicitor.
Was he ever in the Town Clerk's office ?—He was in my office
for nine years as a scrivener.
Since he left your office has he been opposed to the Corporation ?
—Distinctly.
Had he while in your office means of getting access to the papers
of the Corporation your
had ample means of doing sot
Did he not make use of information which he had acquired in
your office on his examination?—Certainly.
Was that usual and professional, or not ?—Most unusual, and
most unprofessional.
{;,;Did you make any complaint of it ?—I did at the close of the
evidence, to Mr. Whitcombe, one of the Commissioners.

(To be continued in our Second Edition. )

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twel;e(';loci.—
On the motion of Mr. BARCLAY, Mr. Lowther was excused from
attending the Carlow Election Committee, on account of illness.

CHELSEA WATER WORKS.
Mr. CLAY moved the second reading of the Chelsea Water Works
Bill. The hon. member also moved the insertion of the Lords'
Amendments.

Sir S. WHALLEY objected to one of the amendments which re-
stricted the public to the supply of water by the proposed Company only.
Mr. CLAY said this was not a point upon which he would divide the
house, but consent to the omission of that part of the clause.
Sir S. WHALLEY objected to the amendment, which removed
the penalty in the clause originally agreed to for net keeping the
main always charged.

Mr. CLAY thought the Company needed no penalty to force them
to do that, inasmuch as they were compelled to keep the main always
charged to supply the smaller pipes.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said it was very essential that the main
should be kept charged. The deficiency of a good supply of water
had been the cause of a most lamentable devastation at a late fire in
the City.

t was agreed that a penalty of 101. should be attached to the

clause.

Sir S. WHALLEY objected to the amendment on clause 9, which
restricted the Company to take water from a place near Teddington.
Mr. CLAY said that the Lords did not introduce this amendment
until after having heard witnesses for several days. They then decided
that the Company should not go lower than the 350 yards above Kew_
bridge, where the water was considered free from pollution. The water
at Teddington was not purer, and if the Company were compelled to
go to Teddington, it would cause a difference in t'eir expenses of
300,0001.
Sir F. BURDETT considered the public would not be satisfied
with water taken lower than above Richmond. A plan had been
proposed for rendering the water at Teddington easy of access, and
conveyance, and every company ought to avail themselves of that
plan. If the water was not taken from the purest spot, the rublic
would be tricked out of the object for which they were induced to
support the Bill.

Mr. CLAY said, there were no common sewers (which rendered
the lower part of the Thames corrupt) above Kew Bridge.
Mr. WARBURTON was of opinion that the water at Westminster or
Waterloo-bridge was as good as any above Kew-bridge.
Sir F. BURDE'FT was anxious that the working classes, who per-
haps did not drink water enough—la laugh)—should be able to get good
water, and he hoped to see the time that they would have it, and that
without being compelled to pay for it—(hear.)
The Lords' amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill was ordered
to be reported.