The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-14 00:00:00

COURT OF SEWERS.

_ _ _ _ • ________
j Yesterday. a Special Meeting of the Court of Sewers
for the City and Liberty of Westminster, and part of
the county of Middlesex, was held at the office, in
Greek-street, Soho-square, Thomas Leverton Donald-
son, Esq., in the chair.
Mr. liswxiss, assistant surveyor; read the general
report, ordered by the Court of 31st. August, on the
practicability of Mr. John White's plan for sewers.of
an oval ti.irm, and its eligibility, as compared with
that at present in use. The .surveyors stated that
although the form recornmended by Mr. White was,
in some respects, superior to that now,adopted by the
Court, especially as possessing a greater hydraulic
depth of sewerage and a greater power.of resisting
lateral pressure, yet there were almost insuperable
barriers to its common use, and they (the surveyors)
had therefore brought before the notice of •the Court
two sections, combining, as they-thought, what was
best in the others.

Mr. LESLIE moved that the report then read be
printed, and that the sections be lithographed and laid
"upon the table, in order that Han.Commissiorters might
have an opportunity of examining and comparing one
with another.

•
Mr. JOHN WHITE would second the motion, but
he felt that he should be allowed to state his opinion,
'in the shape of a report, in order that it also should
come before the Court at the same time, and in the
same form, as the other.

After some remarks upon the subject from the
Hon. Commissioners,, it was
agreed that Mr. 'White sooui.i forward ms report to
the Chairman, to be printed and discussed with the
others on the following Friday.
The CitsiamAN stated that a letter had been re-
ceived from the Court of Commissioners for Holborn
and Finsbury, which tho Clerk would..read. .
Mr. HiIitTZLETT read the communication, which
expressed,' that in reference to the notice of the reso-
lutiOn.come to by the Westminster Court of Sewers,
in the matter of the sewerage in the
_proposed new
street from St. Giles's to Long-acre, and. the further
deepening of the line to suit the purposes of the
Holborn and Finsbury district, they could not be jus-
tified in expending an amount of several hundreds out
of their own district. They regretted the decision to
which the Westminster Court of Sewers had come,
and cited the mode in which other Commissions of the
metropolia--the City of London and the Tower Ham-
lets—were wont to act. They . stated that these
Commissions had deepened the sewerage to meet their
views, and had never exacted any part of the"expense.
They trusted, therefore, that the Sewers Court for
Westminster would reconsider the matter, and com-
municate again at an early period.
The CHAIRAIAN said that the Holborn and Fins-
bury division had no just reason to complain of the
resolution arrived at by that Court. They had already
given that district the advantage of a level of eight
feet where they at first. only wanted five, but when
they afterwards sought an increased depth of five
feet more, then indeed they (the Court of Westmin-
ster) thought, that for their own purposes and theirs
only, the Holborn and Finsbury.distrzctshould bear
the expenses of the increased digging. He was of
opinion that it would be illegal for them to -expend
the money of the rate-payers for purposes not calcu-
lated to benefit them in the smallest degree; and it
was no argument for them, that if other Commissions
in London had acted illegally, they should do so also.
Captain BAGUS said that the argument might be
advanced by the Holborn and Finsbury district,
" Why do you, who command the outlets to the river,
stultify us in this matter? It is for the public good,
and not merely for the interests of one division of
the City." He certainly thought it looked like one
Court opposing another, and looked as if they were
actuated by factious motives. If four Commissions
out of five did not accept money under similar cir-
cumstances, he did not see why that Court should
do so.

The CHAIRMAN denied, in the strongest manner,
that that Court, in acting as they had done, were
influenced by factious motives.
Mr. W. DONALDSON briefly adverted to the corre-
spondence that had taken place between the Commis-
sioners, and denied that the Holborn and Finsbury dis-
trict had had anything to complain of. That Court had
come to the resolution to improve the Charlotte-street
sewerage, although for some years even that might
not be necessary. They did so partly to meet the.
wishes of the neighbour district. He was of opinion
that it would be decidedly illegal were that Court to
tax the eastern division of Westminster for the pur-
poses of the Holborn and Finsbury district. The ex-
penses of the City of London, in granting their wishes,
was comparatively trifling—very trifling indeed.; but
in their case a very great expense would be thrown
upon the rate-payers, and that, too, for a matter in
which they had not the slightest interest.
The CHAIRMAN had before stated that he thought
such an expenditure of their funds would be quits
illegal, and he would ask the solicitor of the Court
what his opinion was upon the subject.
Mr. SMITH was of opinion that, by •the statute,
they could only tax the division for benefits accruing
to themselves. It might be a question of fact whether
that greater depth would be a benefit. Of that he
was not a fitting judge. He had no hesitation in say-
ing that if the surveyor of the Court thought Such an
increased depth not required for the purposes of their
own district, that such an expenditure would, for
other purposes, be quite illegal.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that Mr. Smith should
take the opinion of counsel upon the matter.
Capt. lisoun thought it was absolutely requisite
that he should do so.
Mr. LESLIE was of opinion that they were quite
enabled to come to a decision without troubling coun-
sel upon the subject. He found in the regulation' of
the City of London Commission that the Holborn and
Finsbury division paid them an annual rental of 1501.
for the very privileges they were then discussing.
After some further discussion it was agreed that
counsel should be consulted by Air. Smith.
The CHAIRMAN said that the next subject for their
consideration was one of very great importance. It
was " the forms of contracts, specifications, and bills
of quantities, with the other steps necessary_ for ob-
taining new contracts for works."
The old forms of contract were laid upon the :table
by the surveyors.
These were examined in detail, and a few verbal
alterations were agreed to.
Mr. Shits!, the solicitor, said, that before examining
into the sufficiency of the forms, it might be alloWed
him to draw their attention to the operation of the
present bond. The old bond of contract was signed by
six Commissioners for the Court generally, but these
gentlemen, some thirteen years ago, took alarm at the
responsibility to which they were subjecting them-
selves, and withdrew in consequence. From that
time the bond was drawn out as at present. An
Hon. Commissioner, on a late Court day, expressed a
doubt that, though the Court were protected by the
articles of the bond, the contractor was not so, and it
was, therefore, advanced, that if a contractor failed in
his contract, the bond would not hold good in law.
Legal opinion had been taken on the subject, and it
had affirmed that the bond was good.
Mr. W. DONALDSON thought that counsel's opinion
ought to be taken on the subject. He did not think
the bond was binding upon the contractor.
Mr. SMITH did not think that any six Hon. Com-
missioners signing the bond in behalf of the Court
would be personally responsible, but he doubted,
after past experience, if any would do so.
Mr. BALDWIN would not hesitate for a moment to
sign it himself. He had no doubt that the Court
would support them.
This question was, however, deferred, and the
Court proceeded with the consideration of the forms
for tender.
A number of items were then sanctioned.
On the question that "12 feet 3-inch yellow second
deals" be allowed to stand part of the form,
Mr. LEBOW said that this was a most important
item, and seeing an Hon. Commissioner (Mr. White)
in his place, he would draw his and the Court's atten-
tion to it. When he had told that Court that an
enormous quantity of money had been overpaid for
deal, what was the statement ? 'Why, that the mar-
ket price was paid. They found that there were two
memorandums about the prices of wood at the bot-
tom of the old contract. Let them look at these
closely. The statement given was that they had sent
'to one of the Commissioners for the prices. of wood,
and the prices he had stated were given to the con-
tractors.
Mr. WHITE—I was asked for the market price, and
I gave it.. I never saw the article here, and 'I do not
know that it was required.
Mr. LESLIE did not attribute any part of this trans-
action to Mr. White, but he must say that a more
abominable fraud was never perpetrated 'upon the
public or upon any Commission. Of two contractors,
Mr. Bennett put in his tender for deal at 6d. a foot,
and Bird at something higher ; and by the rota bent
already alluded to, they were enabled to get the one
271. a load, and the other 251., for this Article.
The CHAIRMAN— The Court was certainly indebted
to Mr. Leslie for the trouble he had taken in examin-
ing into the accounts. The state of things he had de-
scribed was certainly wrong, but the question now was,