The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-17 00:00:00

that if tbey decided according to the prayer of the
petition of the persons who were hostile to the floating
pier, they would do so at the hazard of human life. The
bread of hundreds was dependent upon the result of
their judgment, and everything was to be apprehended
from a decision which would throw the watermen, with
their wives and families, who were supported by the
floating pier, into a state of destitution.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS followed at considerable length on
the same side. He stated that the Permanent Pier Com-
pany had broken faith with the watermen who plied to
Garden-stairs, and who would, if this competition were
not interfered with, be totally betrayed. He described
the advantages which the public obtained from the re-
duced amount of the fares, occasioned by the establish-
ment of the floating pier. He denied that the Navigation
Committee had any colour of right to usurp the functions
of a jury. They could not examine witnesses upon oath,
and they had, consequently, no power of testing the
truth of the representations made to them. It was
impossible fur the Committee to decide the question.
He wished they would take the opinion of the Recorder
and the City Solicitor as to the course they ought to
pursue. The Learned Counsel then referred to the de-
cision of Mr. Ballantine, at the Thames Police-court,
and also to a judgment delivered by Lord Ellenborough
on a case which was considered to be analagous as re-
garded a complaint against a nuisance. He then
appealed to the Committee on the ground of the
danger to human life likely to arise from a conflict
occasioned by what the watermen would, no doubt, con-
sider an unjust decision, and called upon them to avert
such a calamity by sending the case to be tried by a legal
tribunal.

Mr. NEWBON made some observations in favour
of the Floating Pier Company.
Mr. CIIAMBERS, for the solid or Permanent Pier Com-
pany, contended that his Learned Friend had been all
the while advocating the cause he came forward to
support. The cause in which he appeared, was in sub-
stance and reality, the cause of the Watermen at Green-
wich ; and the Committee, in removing the nuisance of the
Floating Pier, would not injure or destroy, but protect
and establish, the right of the body. He went upon facts,
while his Learned Friend drew upon their imaginations
for pictures of excitement, in order to influence the Com-
mittee by the apprehension of dangerous 'violations of the
peace ; but the Committee would not be deterred from
the performance of their duty, particularly as the
removal of the nuisance would be the surest way
of putting a speedy termination to the har-
rassing squabbles which were constantly, taking
place, and which might, if not checked, lead to the
very calamities which his Learned Friend anticipated.
The Learned Gentleman next contended that the Lord
Mayor, in the Navigation Committee, possessed the
power by law of removing any nuisance or obstruc-
tion to the navigation of the river Thames, and that they
were bound to exercise that power for thei benefit and
protection of those who could not protect themselves.
The idea of prosecutirr, by indictment in a case where
such an authority existed was futile. What would be the
result of an indictment ? Why two or three poor men
might be indicted, and the cases might be taken into the
Court of Queen's Bench and prosecuted for two or three
years, at an enormous expense to both parties, the nui-
sance continuing all the while without abatement—the
evil remaining without alleviation. There was no
analogy between the Gravesend Pier cases and
the present. If the Floating Pier Company took
the means which the Permanent Pier Company had
taken, by going to Parliament, there would be no opposi-
tion to the formation of the second pier ; but it was pre-
posterous to say that the floating pier, for which there
was no Act of Parliament, and which no man could say
was not a nuisance and an obstruction, could be per-
mitted to remain in its present condition. The Learned
Gentleman then gave a rapid history of the permanent
pier and the floating pier, in which he stated that most
of the watermen who had been induced to join in the
latter speculation, had regretted the 'connection, and re-
turned to the former, in conviction of the advantages
which it was calculated to bestow upon them and their
families, by the allotment of a sixth part of the profits as
a recompence. After having addressed the Committee
at great length upon the power which the Lord Mayor
most assuredly possessed of removing the floating pier,
without the assistance of Judge or Jury, the Learned
Gentleman concluded by calling upon his Lordship to ex-
ercise his authority his authority with firmness, by di-
recting the Harbour-master to proceed in order to carry
into execution so necessary an object.
Mr. Carttar and Mr. Preston argued strongly on the
same side, and declared that all the signatures to the
petitions presented were undoubtedly genuine.
The Committee-room was then cleared of strangers, and
the City Solicitor having (as we were given to under-
stand) addressed them for some time, the doors were
ordered to be thrown open.
The CITY SOLICITOR, at the desire of the Lord Mayor,
read the following resolution, which he said was agreed
to unanimously. Resolved—" That it appearing to this
Committee that, since the construction of the floating
pier complained of, three assizes and sessions of the
peace for the county of Kent had intervened, and that a
(court of Conservancy for the district has been held
without any proceedings having been taken to remove
the alleged nuisance, the Committee are of opinion that
there is no circumstance or pressing necessity to induce
them to recommend the Lord Mayor to take any present
proceedings therein"—The Committee then adjourned.