The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-07 00:00:00

8 5 7i

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT in which the claims of the Crown were now enforced,
setting aside every title short of 60 years, although
founded on txprees conditions and powers laid down
by act of Parikineut assented to by the Crown itself. If
such a principle as that were to be admitted no dock or
harbour company would be safe within a period of 60
years, even under the security of an act of Parliament.
The petitioners prayed for the appointment cf a select
cemniittee, iv, he would not press that point on their
lordships at present. He trusted, however, that the
Government would take steps to quiet the apprehensions
which prevadod throughout the c tuntry, and would set
matters at rest, by passing a declaratory law, stating
what are the rights of the Crown between and log
water mark. (Hear.)
Lord STANLEY of ALDIMLEY said the attention
of the Crown was c; lied to many encroachments on the
coast of Certnarthenshire et-% eral years ago, and that,
after the subject bad been uoder discussion for a con-
I.sideral_de time, Sir William Foilett, the Attorney-Ge-
neral of the Government of which the noble earl was
a diAinouished member, filed an information against
these parties in the year 1845. In the case of the
Earl of Cawdor a verdict was found for the Crown,
and 0,) pecuniary payment was made with regard to
the case of Mr. Lewis. It was in 1855 referred to the
arbitration of Ur. Rendell, who was directed to define the
meaning of high and low water mark, according to the
terms of the decision of the Lord Chancellor, assisted by
Mr. Baron Al Jerson and Mr. Justice Mania. The arbi-
and9:hdiercihrtis
hdoe awtehd,
tabniit htee he
aldd
itnrahis
o !hi caee dee,dm untilmun cealtri.oßn
been succeeded by Mr. Bidder.
The Eail of DERBY inquired the date.
L Ord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—May, 1857. The
araitration was now proceeding under the auspices of
Mr. Bidder, who had been appointed at the request of
Mr. Le eie, and whose duty was to decide the exact
limits of the claim of the crown. The existence of the
railway did not alter the tights of the Crown, which re-
mained the same, subject to the decision of the arbitra-
tor. So far as Nr. Lewis was concerned he thought he
had estallslied that there bad been no hardship on bias,
slate ao unnecessary delay. He now came to the case of
the Leanelly Daeks, and the noble earl said it wee a
great hard: hip on them after 30 years possession to have
the claim tiled° rgaiost them. But surely it was the
duty of the dock company to take care that the land on
which they built was conveyed to them by a proper
title ? How c ould the noble earl like to have the rights
which he had to the shore of the port of Liverpool, and
which were not his but those of the Crown—the lands
being granted to his family by the Crown—encroached
upon 4 How could the noble earl, if the Crowe had no
right to the foreshore, establish his right to a proper y
which brought him in 93,0001.4 He hoped that with
his view of the case the noble earl would be prepared to
abandon his rights to the foreshore in question. (A.
laugh.) With regard to the law of the case, he should
leave that to be defended by the noble and learned lords
who were concerned in considering and giving judgment
on the case, but he trusted that he had shown that, so
far as the Crown was concerned, no new rights had been
claimed, and the Government would have neglected its
duty if it had not preserved the rights to which the
Crown was entitled.
Lord WYNFORD said that it might be recollected
that last session he warned certain Scotch proprietors not
to attempt to improve the docks and ports of Scotland
before they had satisfied themselves that no demand of
this kind could be made on them by the Crown. He
bad then in his eye not only the subject-matter of these
petitions but a number of other cases in which the de-
partment of Woods and Forests had cruelly pressed on
proprietors, and there were numbers of instances in
which the proprietors of land on the sea shme and on
the banks of navigable rivers were not able to deal with
their property in consequence of the course taken by the
Woods and Forests. He would not go further into the
matter, but would merely say that he was surprised to
hear the noble lord say that a verdict had been given for
the Crown in cete case, when in point of fact the case
was settled by a compromise. He was also surprised
to hear that Mr. Lewis bad submitted his claim to arbi-
tration since Me. Rendell's death ; for it was stated in
the petition presented that day that no other arbitrator
had been appointed. The property in question, to his
knowledge, lay far above high-water mark.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the doctrine
laid down that evening was rather startling, for the
noble earl set out on the assutaption that the crown had
the right to the disputed shore, but that the question
was whether it had been propetly asserted ; and he gave
as one reason why the right shou'd not be asserted, teat
the crown held the shore, not for its own benefit, but
for the use of the public. t seemed strange to say that
the crown, which held the land for the use of the public,
should not assert its right, for the more strenuously it
asserted it the more it would seek to preserve the land
for the use of the public. If the crown allowed pro-
perty of this kind to be encroached on year after year,
and did not claim it for the use of the public, tee crown
deserted its duty, and, in fact, gave up what belonged
to the public to the neighbouring proprietors. The noble
earl said that the assertion of these right& was in-
con,istent with the making of docks, and of those in
this case especially ; but if the dock company had a
title which was good against the crown, why was
it not set up in answer to the information 4 When
he (the Lord Chancellor) was one of the law
officers of the crown, he, in conjunction with his noble
friend the Lord Chief Justice, was consulted with regard
to the rights of the crown with respect to this question,
and they gave an opinion, which, however, was not acted
on until the government of Sir R. Peel, when Sir Wm.
_Follett gave directions to have informations filed. What
the cause of the delay was he did not know, but the trial
did not come on for several years afterwards ; but at
length it was decided that the crown was only asserting
its tight to the " littus marl." The matter came before
him (the Lord Chancellor) by way of appeal, to de-
cide what the " littus marl" was. The civil law car-
ried the doctrine very much farther than was ever re-
cognised by the law of England; and the matter be-
ing one involving a question of common law, he ob-
tained the assistance of Mr. Justice Maule and Mr.
Baron Alderson, who beard the case with him. It was
most elaborately argued, and they came to the conclu-
sion that the rights of the crown were bounded by the
middle line between the highest and lowest point to
which the spring tides reached. Then came the
point, how was that line to be drawn 1 That matter
came before him by petition, and it was arraeged, with
the consent of both parties, that an engineer should be
named, who, with the decision of the court in bis hand,
should draw the rlquired line; and Mr. Rendell was
selected. If Mr. Rendell had been guilty of any delay,
it was Mr. Lewis's fault for not forcing him on ; but no
complaint was made of his proceedings. When Mr.
Rendeil deed it was necessary to appoint another arbitra-
tor, and Mr. Bidder was appointed. With regard to Mr.
Bidder's baviog been appointed with Mr. Lewis's appro-
bation, he had iu his band a letter from Mr. Lewis's
solicit or, in which he stated that he was willing to ac-
cept dr. Bidder's arbitration. What bad been the
Cause of the delay he (the Lord Chancellor) did not
know ; but the matter stood thus—that the crown on
its own part, or rather on the part of the public, had as-
serted certain rights, in which it had been successful.
Toe Duke of BUCCLEUCH raid that as regarded
the proceedings of the Woods and Forests, there were
many complaiets of the vexatious manner in which this
part of the business of the department was c inducted.
He knew of a case in which a disputed right of this kind
had been suspended over a proprietor and his father for
years and years, and no decision had been cones to. It
would be a desirable thing for the public if the Woods
and Forests were compelled to bring these matters to a
speedy
Lord CAMPBELL was unlerstood to protest against
the dsctrine which had been laid down, and which was
calculated to produce uncertainty where none existed
with regard to the rights of the Crhwn, which was un-
questionably entitled to the soil of the sea shore between
high and low watermark.
Lord BROUGHAM thought there ought to be a me-
dium bet een the rigorous and the capricious exercise of
these rights of the Crown. This was not, however, a
suleect for legislation, as the rights of the Crown were
undeniable ; but the Crown could only deal with them
so as to benefit the public. At the same time there ap-
peared to have been unusual delay in these proceedings.
Lord WENSLEYDALE agreed with his noble friend
on the woolsack, and his noble and learned friend, that
it would bo entirely useless to legislate on this subject,
as the law was perfectly clear. The seashore belonged
to the Crown for the benefit of the public ; but there
was a difficulty in interpreting what was the foreshore,
and the question came before the Lord Chan-
cellor, who, with the assistance of two of the com-
mon law judges, had laid down the proper line. There
could be no doubt that the seashore was held by the
crown for the benefit of its subjects, and the crown hal
a right to grant the land to any one it pleased, pro-
vided that the grant was not inconsistent with its rights.
The satiect then dropped.
The Dulwich College Bill, the Militia (Ireland) Act
Amendment Bill, and the Oxford University Bill were
severally read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at 5 minutes past 7 o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YEsTEnDAY.)
l'l,e LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the wools,ack
at five o'clock-

ST, JAIVIES'S PARK.

The Earl of MALNIESBURY moved that the paper
presented to the House of Commons relative to the
agorizs going on in St. James's Park be hid upon the
table of their lordships' house.-!--A7,reed to.
SEIZURE BY THE VENEZUELAN GOVERN.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Clyde Navigation • Eiie Harbour ' • Metropolitan
Railway (No. 2) ; Midland Great Western Railway of Ire-
land (Sligo Extension); Newport, Abergarenny,and Here-
ford Railway ; Newquay Pier and Harbour and Rail-
way ; Newry and Enniskillen Railway ; Salford Borough
(No. 1) ; Stockport, Disley, and Whaley Bridge Rail-
way ; Whitehaven and Furuess Junction Railway ;
and the West London and Crystal Palace Railway
bills were read a third time and passed.
The British and Irish Grand Junction Railway ;
Coniston Railway ; Dexthorpe Turnpike Trust ; London
and South Western Railway Acts Amendment ; Mersey
Coaservancy and Ducks ; Norfolk Estuary Acts Amend-
nient; North-Western Railway; Pulteney Town Har-
bour; Richmond and Saw Extension Railway, and Taff
Vale Rail way Bills were further considered and ordered
to be read a third time.
CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.
Mr. DEASY, chairman of the comtnittee to inquire
into the return for Cambridge, brought up the report,
which declared the sitting member duly elected.
BENGAL MILITARY FUND. _ _

Viscount GODERICH gave notice that he should not
proceed to-morrow with his motion relative to the Ben•
gal military fund.

THE RIVER DEE.
Mr. SALISBURY ailted the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty if tie would lay on the table copies of all corre-
spondence which had passed between the Admiralty, the
authorities of the city of Chester, and other persons in
the counties of Chester and Flint, cince 1840, respecting
the state of the River Dee?
Sir C. WOOD said he bad no objection to the return
which extended over a period of 16 years, lie thought
it would be better for the bon, gentleman to ttate wha