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

MENT.

The Earl of MALMESBU [Z,Y called the attention of
their lordships to an act that hal been committed by
some of the officials of. Very-viela. A British vessel,
under the command of Capt. Ouseley, sixteen or seven-
teen months ago, was trading off the Catracaß, with
cattle on board for Demerara, and by the command of
the Government he had mentioned this vessel was seized,
on the ground that she carried contraband goods, and
the commander was declared ga,lty of smuggling. The
ship's boat having put off to obtain provision 4, the crew
were s.&zed, and having been taken before the tribunal, the
owner was fined 100 dollars. The ship afterwards was
seTz2d, but the captain- and crew were alowed to de-
part. No notice had been taken of the circumstance by
the Charge d'Affe.ires at Carracas, although applications
had been made to theVerczulean Government for re:iress.
He wished to know wbeth,r the noble earl the Secre-
tary of Sate for Foreign Affairs cod! give any informa-
tion on the subj-ct ?

The Earl of CIARENDON said be was sorry be
could not give any information, as he had not yet re-
ceived a report from the Charge d'Affaires at Carracac.
Ile knew that the sui,juct had betn brought under the
notice of the Venezuelan Government, but up to the
present time the subject had not been satisfac,orily Ex-
plained.
CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA.
The Earl of CARDIGAN, having referred to the seri-
ous disturbancesthathad t.ken plac in India, and to the
circumstance of a large number cf troops being about to
be sent there from this country, wished to know whether
the reports he bad heard were true, that it was intended
_to send out the troops in sawing vessels in preference
to screw steamers.

Lord PANSIURE said the Government had given
great consideration to the best means of conveying
troops to India, and as much difficulty existed in ob-
taining steam vessels of sufficient size at the present
moment to acc )mmodate the expedition, it bad been de-
cided to employ fir.t-rate sailing vessels for that purpose.
As the time occupied by steamers in coaling would be
saved, it was expected with favourable winds that those
sailing vessels would make a quicker passage than screw
steamers.

The Earl of ELLENTOROUGH said his experience
was in accordance with the deterreination of the Govern-
ment iu respect to the greaterspeed of sailing vessels than
steamers t) India. The present period was most fa-
vourable for sailing vessels.
IMPORTATION OF FREE NEGROES.

Lord BROUGHAM again called the attention of
their lord hips to the expedition fitting out at Marseilles
by the French Government for the importation of Free
Negroes into their colonies. He regretted that asovereign
whose antecedents were so opposed to everything cal-
culated to give the slightest encouragement to the
slave trade should countenance an act which was so cal-
culated to lead to a revival of that horrid traffic.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY explained the objects
of the deputation that a few days ago waited on Lord
Palmerston with reference to the subject.
The Earl of MALMESBURY did not believe that
the Emperor of the French would do anything that was
calculated to revive the slave trade.

The Earl of CLARENDON said he was of opinion
that such an attempt could not be made without having
that effect.

SOUND DUES BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
SITE OF WORKHOUSES BILL.
This bill passed through committee.

THE LAND BETWEEN HIGH-WATER AND
LOW-WATER MARK.

The Earl of DERBY presented two petitions com-
plaining of the rights of the crown between high-water
and low-water mark. He said he was afraid he should
but imperfectly do justice to the merits of the petitions,
seeing that they involved many serious and complicated
questions. At the same time he hoped he should be able
to show that the matter of the petitions was deserving
the attention of the house. The subject-matter was a
claim on the part of the crown to the land between high
and low water mark round the whole of the United
Kingdom, and not only the claim, but the manner cf
enforcing it. The two petitions were from different
parties, and some of the allegations were different,
but as the subject matter was the same, and the
principal details were common to both, and related
to the same locality, he would state the substance of
both at the same time. The first petition was from a gen-
tleman of property named Lewis, residing upon the coast
of Carmarthenshire, which county he at one time repre-
sented in Parliament. The other was from the Llanelli,
Railway and Dock Company, which was established in
the year 1828. The river in question was of considerable
width, and at low water showed a large expanse of sand.
The banks outside the sand consisted of mud and land
occasionally flooded at high spring tides, but generally
partaking of the character of salt marshes. About two-
thirds the way up the river was the property now in dis-
pute. Up to the year 1845141 r. Lewis and his predeces-
sors had been in undisputed possession of the property,
and had exercised over it all the rights of ownership,
and had leased a portion of it to a company, who had
sunk a shaft for the purpose of procuring coal. So long
ago as 1807 and 1812 two acts were passed from which
these marshes were excluded as being the private proper Ty
of Mr. Lewis. In the year 1845 an information was flied
by the Attorney-General, which recited that all the soil,
so far as the tide flowed, belonged to her Maje,ty, and
claimed for the Crown up to the highest point reached by
spring tides, including that portion of the land where
the shaft had been sunk for coal. Mr. Lewis lost no time
in filing an answer to the information, and availed him-
self of the assistance of Mr. Bethel], and in 1851 the
Master of the Rolls decreed that the Crown should in
one case prooeed to trial at law. Tho Eail of Caw& r,
it appeared, had asserted his-right as lord of the manor,
but the matter was compromised between the Crown and
the Earl of Cawdor, and the Crown then turned against
the owners of the adjoining soil. In the case of the Earl
of Cawdor he believed some money was paid on account
of the compromise.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY remarked that he
had never heard of any money being paid.

The Earl of DERBY resumed—The Crown renewed
its proceeding against Mr. Lewis, and two other circum-
stances occurred which made the matter of still greater
importance. One of them was that Mr. Bothell became
Solicitor-General, and then Sir R. Bethell's services were
claimed on behalf of the Crown, he having previously be-
come acquainted with ail the facts on the ether side. In
1847 an act was obtained by which the South Wales
Railway was authcrised to be made, and its construc-
tion, as it ran along the shore, materially improved the
condition of the salt marshes, and these were the lands
which the Crown now claimed as being between high
and low water mark. In 1854 the Lord Caancell
made a decree that the landward boundary was the
medium line of high water of all tides occurring in the
ordinary course of nature. The question had been
raised whether the right did not extend to the Nary
highest point reached by the highest tides. NI r. Rendell
was entrusted with the task of laying down a line to de-
fine the right, but he had since died, and the matter
was still pending, and the petitioner was debarred for
an indefinite period from the management of what he
considered his property. Another question arose of
very serious moment—was it in the power of the Crown
to lay down certain marks which should form a line
between the rights of the Crown and. the rights of oilier
parties I Because if the Crown had the right claimed, it
might interpose another proprietor between the posses-
sor of proper y and the sea. The petitioner complained
that while the proceedings bad been going on, a tenant
of his had been served with a notice from t:e Woods and
Forests, requiring bi,n to take a lease from the Crown.
He also complained of the delay which had taken place,
and that, wbil,t he had prescription in his favour, he was
eompelied to fight on the part of the public the question
of the exert of the Crown rights. The case of the Rail-
way and Dock Company was still stronger than that of
Nlr. Lewis. That company having obtained an act in
1828, formed a rai, way and dock, and, having been in
existence for nearly 30 3e irs, they had been served with
a notice stating; that a portion of the land taken by them
was the property of the Crown, and that they must come
to an agreement with the Crown and take a lease from
the Crown. Now, if a period of 60 years was required
as security to the Crown, the' there was no harbour or
dock which had been made at private expense within the
last 60 years under the sanction of an act of Parliament
which was not liable to be proceeded against by the
Crown. This was a question, therefore, which affected the
whole country. He believed the claim to be one un-
known to the law of England. No person would dispute
that within certain limits the crown had dominion over
the soil between low and high water. But it was matter
for grave consideration whether the crown had the right
to sell or make a profitable transaction by way of corn-
proteiee or lease, or whether the property was vested in
the crown fur the public interest, for the protection of
the pubic, for the prevention of encroachment on the
sea coast by individual proprietors so as to cut off the
public from its use. It was laid down by some of the al
authorities that the right of the crown in these respects
"is not for the crown itself, but for securing to the public
certain privileges between high and low water mark ;" and
"if the King were to make the seashore a source of pri-
vate sale and profit, he would be acting contrary to the
trusts vested in the crown by the common law." Now
what was the crown doing in this case 4 It was in-
terfering to compel persons, under the risk of legal
proceedings, to come to a compromise, or to accept
a lease under the crown, and making a profit of the
property of the crown, contrary to the common law
of England. (Rear.) There were two cases illus-
trating the restriction imposed on the exercise of this
power by the Crown. In the Gosport case it was declared
that the land between low and high water mark might
be granted to the corporation, subject to the public
right of passage ; and at Portsmouth, when certain
public buildings hadibeen erected by the corporation,
between high and low water mark, under a grant from
the Crown, they were abated by a decree, inasmuch as
they interfered with the flux and reflux of the tide into
the harbour. Now, according to the common law,
although the Crown had a dominion over those portions
of the soil, it was for the benefit of the public, and the
Crown had no right to lease it to any private individual
whatever without the authority of Parliament. There
were two important questions involved in the matter
now before, their lordships : first, the nature and ex-
tent of the, rights of the Crown ; whether the Crown
was an absolute possessor or exercised a trust for the
protection of the public; and, secondly, tno manner