The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-17 00:00:00

public rights were materially injured. So far did they
carry it that, for the use of some valuable sand at Shoe-
buryness, they compelled the War Office to pay a rent of
£lO a year. But the evil was, that not a farthing of the
vast sums realised goes to the public, but was placed at
what they termed the capital account of the company. The
documents in his possession showed what he was cc:attend-
ing for. Several authors had written on the subject. The
hon. member proceeded to quote from the opinions of the
various authors who had written on the subject. The At-
torney-General said it must be admitted that much that
had been said on the subject was true in a certain sense, but
it could not be controverted that a certain property in the
fore-shores was vested in the Crown. But he (Mr. A.
Smith) was in possession of documentary information which
showed how unsatisfactorily the alleged rights of the Crown
were defined. In connexion with the borough which he
be had the honour to represent most extraordinary charges
and changes had been made in the operation of this ques-
tion. The subject would never be set at rest till an inquiry
was instituted. (Hear, hear.)

Captain JARVIS seconded the motion, and in doing so,
referred to the different acts which had been passed from
time to time to define the rights of the Crown and the public
as to the foreshores and tidal waters of the United King-
dom. He also referred to the various 'actions which had
taken place in the courts of law between the Crown and
private individuals as to their relative rights. He espe-
cially cited an action in 18:54 in which the present Attorney-
General and Mr. Sergeant Merewether were engaged, and
which was ultimately compromised by the Crown.
Sir J. HANMER hoped the house would refuse its as-
sent to the motion. He was extremely surprised at the
statement made by his hon. friend that this was compara-
tively a right claimed by the Crown of recent date. He
would find in the British Museum that in a charter of
William the Conqueror the King's rights in this respect
were carefully preserved. He thought the motion was a
most dangerous one as regarded the rights of the subject.
Mr. FINLAY reminded the house that the law of Scot-
land on this subject differed very much from the law of
England, and was in every case adverse to the Crown and
in favour of the subject. He was in favour of the appoint-
ment of a select committee.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion.
The hon. mover said he read every authority on the sub-
ject from the time of the Roman law downivards, but he
failed to prove his case, or lay any grounds for a select com-
mittee. The last time the hon. member brought the subject
forward the house was counted out, and he was left alone
in his glory. (A laugh.) The motion he now made was
not only to inquire into the rights of the Crown, but those
of private individuals—a course, he was bound to say,
which was one of the most extravagant ever pursued. The
Crown was supposed to be the grantor of all landed proper-
ty, and held the ownership of the sea shore, the beds of rivers,
and other property of that description, entirely for the benefit
of the public. The Crown cannot make a grant which was
inconsistent with the rights of the public, and all the con-
tests they had had in courts of law on the subject was,
whether certain individuals who claimed the right to the sea
shore as lord of the manor, held the grant legally from the
Crown. Those hereditary revenues of the Crown were now
transferred to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests,
and it was their bounden duty, where any encroachments
were made by private individuals, to protect the public.
There were 32 cases brought forward for that purpose
within the last 25 years, in 27 of which they suc-
ceeded in maintaining the rights of the public
against adverse claims. The hon. and learned gentleman
regretted that any remarks which might have been made
by him should have been received with displeasure by the
hon. member. The hon. member was himself a grantee of
the Crown, but he should not be unmindful of the great
sacrifices which the Crown had mode, and the rights it had
given up in this matter. With regard to the commissioners,
to whom the hon. member had referred, he must say that,
in his opinion, those functionaries were deserving of great
credit for the course they had taken. Negligence in former
times had operated to confer advantages upon private pro-
prietors, and in many caaus thew) advantages had not been
interfered with by the authority of the Crown. The whole
foundation for the committee which the hon. member
moved for was founded upon a discovery which he imagined
he had made, namely, that the claim by the Crown to cer-
tain foreshore rights, was founded upon the most illusory
grounds, and not sustainable. The parties who were in-
terested in urging the objects which the hon. member
argued in support of hoped to strike at the rights of the
Crown and the parties to whom the Crown had made grants;
but he (the Attorney-General) hoped and trusted that the
House of Commons would not consent to such a proposition
as that which the hon. member moved for. The hon. gen-
tleman in his remarks submitted that the Crown had no
title to claim, as it did, to be a trustee in the matter. He
assured the hinfse that the hon. member was mistaken, and
with regard to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests,
he was glad to be enabled, in justice to them, to say that
they had done all in their power, not merely to defend the
rights of the Crown in the fore-shore interests that apper-
tained to it, but also of those who had private property in
them.

The house then divided, and the numbers were—

For the motioa 67
Against
Majority against . . —lo9
NAVAL ESTIMATES.

Sir F. SMITH rose t) call the attention of the house to
the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into
the control and management of her Majesty's naval yards,
and to move that a revised estimate for vote 10 for the
naval service be substituted for the estimate already sub-
mitted, adopting in such revised estimate the principle of
showing the amount proposed t) be expended in the cur-
rent year on each ship to be built and converted in the
Government yards. The hon. and gallant member pro-
ceeded to refer to prominent points of the report of the
commissioners, which was referred to at much length in a
recent debate.

An Hon. 111EmsEn here moved that the house should
be counted, and there being only 29 members present, the
house adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock.

PAIR LL-1 IiENTARY CO2II2IIITTEE#S.

POOR RELIEF IN THE METROPOLIS.
The committee appointed to consider the working
of the system of poor relief met again yesterday;
Mr. Villiers in the chair.
Mr. Selfe, one of the magistrates of the Thames
Police court, was called and examined.
you are desirous of mak-
ing n to the committee in con-
sequence The
some Ch aoifrma an I
reference t
i nk
having been made to the
course which you adopted in affording relief during
the last winter.
Mr. Selfe—l gathered from the sources of public
' information that some erroneous impression exists
that there has been a want of discrimination in
the administration of relief, and that it was given
without inquiry. lam anxious, so far as lam con-
cerned, to remove that impression, because I think
I can state with some confidence that the greatest
pains were taken to inquire not only into the reality
of the destitution, but into the character of those
who received relief at our court.
The Chairman—l need not ask you whether large
sums were placed at your disposal ?
Mr. Selfe—Yes. The ordinary amount received
'at Christmas is about £5OO. Last winter the
amount was upwards of £4,000. My colleague and
I at first seriously considered the expediency of our
mode of proceeding, and we agreed to divide the
receipts equally—that Mr. Yardley should distri-
bute his portion and that I should distribute mine.
The Chairman—Did you refuse any money that
was sent to you?
Mr. Selfe—Only.in two or three cases. The rea•
aon for doing so was not that we had too much or
that we could not distribute it. In the case of St.
Katherine's Dock Company we sent back £4O,
Stating that they knew their own neighbours better
than we did.

The Chairman—Was there not a request made
in several cases that the subscriptions should be
distributed in a particular way
Mr. Selfe—l think not. Certainly not to any
great extent.

The Chairman—But you accepted large sums,
and undertook the duty of distributing it. Had you
any principle on which you acted ?
Mr. Selfe—l never gave a sixpence to anybody
for whose character and destitution I had not the
pledged word of a person known to myself, conse-
quently I may have refused many persons who
were deserving. These persons were known to the
applicant as well as to myself.
The Chairman—What amount did you distribute
weekly on the principle you laid down ?
Mr. Selfe—About £4OO. Other persons assisted
in the distribution. I never assisted any one who
resided out of the police district. I believe there
were only some three or four cases in which the
parties were not entitled to relief.
Tho Chairman—lt has been said that the persons
about the office had no means of knowing the cir-
cumstances of the poor, and could not inform the
magistrate whether the persons were deserving or
not ?

Mr. Selfe—l don't agree in that. The officers
must know most of the bad characters, and the per-
sons on whom summonses have been served. _

The Chairman—Then the persons who had been
before you as offenders were not to receive relief ?

Mr. Selfe—There may have been two or three
exceptional cases, but that was the general rule.
The Chairman—What was the description of
females whom you relieved—were they
of good
character ?
Mr. Selfe—They were all certified to be of good
character. It is impossible to say that occasionally
persons of bad character may not have been relieved,
by evading our regulations. Those who were re-
lieved were almost exclusively persons who were
not relieved by the poorhouse.
The Chairman—Was it a part of the rule that if
they had been relieved you should not relieve them ?
Mr. Selfe—No, not always.
The Chairman--What station of life did the per-