147
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
Januaby 28, 1899.
Mr. James F. Field (member of the council, London) also supported the vote of thanks. He felt considerable interest in the paper, especially as he had dealt with some of the points mentioned in the papers which he hao read before the Institute, and more particularly in the course of an inaugural address delivered two years ago. It would, perhaps, be remembered that he then referred to Michael Angelo Taylor’s Act, and he might say at once that he differed from his friend Mr. Sogers on very many points, but more particularly on the question of costs. The fact that they had to pay the piper made them a bit chary in calling for a tune, but when they did call for a tune they were willing to pay their own piper, though it anyone else raised a tune it was only natural that they did not wrnnt to pay for it. That was exactly what was meant by the Act. His own experience of the working of the Act was that it simply put into the hands of the authorities a power of oppression. He agreed with Mr. Young that it was iniquitous and dishonest on the part of the authorities to allow the drainage to remain unattended to, simply because they were, in many cases, afraid they would have to■ do the work themselves.
Mr. E. O'. Thurgood (Fellow, London) agreed with the remarks of Mr. Field with regard to neglect and delay on the part of sanitary authorities generally, and instanced a case in support of his complaint.
Mr. W. Roland Peck (vice-president, London) remarked that it would be most gratifying to the council and Institute generally to see the younger members taking part in the discussion. He would advise them to secure advance copies of the papers, which they should study with a view of making some comments at their meetings.
Mr. Sydney Perks (Fellow, London) agreed that Michael Angelo Taylor’s Act had enabled authorities to inflict an imposition on owners of property. He thought the power given to take part of a property without having to compensate the owner for the remainder was altogether wrong.
The discussion then ended, and
The President, having, with a few complimentary remarks, put the resolution to the meeting, it was carried with much enthusiasm.
Mr. Griffin briefly returned thanks, remarking that his paper, which in the ordinary course of events would have been read in March, had been somewhat hastily prepared, owing to the desire of the council that it should be submitted at that meeting.
The proceedings terminated with a hearty vote of thanks to the President for his services in the chair, proposed by Mr. Dalton (Fellow, Carlisle), and seconded by Mr. H. B. Taylor (Fellow, London).
A City Pkopebty.—A compact block of freehold property, comprising 18,000ft., and situate close to Farringdon-street station, is to be offered to auction at the Mart, Tokeniiouse-yard, E.C., on February 10 next, by Messrs. Baker and Sons. The property has a frontage of 180ft. to Cow-cross-street, and abuts, in the rear, upon the Metropolitan Railway, and being virtually in the midst of the Colonial Meat Market, the site is admirably suited for the erection of warehouses, or depot, or cold storage establishment. Upon the rear portion of the site have already been erected capacious warehouses, but the remaining portion is open for development. The sale offers an exceptional opportunity to capitalists and others of acquiring an extensive site in close proximity to the City.
Real Pkopekty Sales in Beekshiee in-1898.—There were far more enquiries for houses and land in 1898 than in the previous year, Messrs. W. R. Nicholas and Co., ot Reading, inform us. They say:—“Properties of all descriptions have changed hands more freely, especially in the country, and prices have ruled higher, the principal demand being for medium-sized holdings, although we have sold several good residential estates. We have had far more sales by auction, and in most cases with satisfactory results, and even those that were not sold under the hammer, we invariably found purchasers for by private treaty after. Some idea may be gathered of our success when we find that our total sales during the year amounted to nearly a quarter of a million sterling. With regard to the future, property in a good position is■ bound to sell well, and as things are much more settled, the investor is gaining more confidence. Small class property in Reading is selling well, and good investments generally are much sought after. The demand for building land has been much better than in ■previous years. We have developed several estates, and the greater portion of the land has been disposed of.”
No. 17, Kingsholm-road, Gloucester, has been sold through the agency of Mr. William •Dancey, of Gloucester, at £350.
decidedly beneficial in its effect. The lecturer also touched upon the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, the Metropolis Management Act Amendment Act, 1879, the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1890, the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, Amendment Act, 1890, and the Public Health (London) Act, 1891—a considerable portion of the paper being devoted to the latter. Dealing with section 94 of this Act, Mr. Griffin said that section provided that every sanitary authority should make by-laws for the regulation of houses let in lodgings. Among other purposes by-laws are to be made for fixing the number of persons who may occupy such houses, and for the cleansing and lime-washing of the premises at stated times. This was a clause which, strictly speaking, covered large classes of property where its operation would be distinctly unnecessary and injurious. A safeguard against anything of this kind was to a certain extent provided by another sub-section of this clause, by which particular houses must be first registered before the by-laws can be applied to them. By section 96 it was provided that any underground room which was not let or occupied separately as a dwelling before the passing of this Act, shall not be so let or occupied unless it possesses a considerable number of* requisites enumerated in the section. The section is also to apply to all such rooms previously so occupied, but the sanitary authority is empowered to relax the restrictions to a certain extent. Section 115 sets out the conditions under which the powers given to sanitary authorities to inspect premises are to be exercised, and subsection 3 very clearly lays down that, before a magistrate grants a warrant to a sanitary authority to enter any premises he must be satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for believing that there is on the said premises some contravention of the Act, or of some by-law made thereunder. It appeared to him, therefore, that in all cases where the owner or occupier are agreed that no nuisance or ground of complaint exists, they would be quite justified in refusing to admit the sanitary inspector, and that no magistrate would grant a warrant for forcible entry in any such case.
DISCUSSION.
Mr. Douglas Young (member of the council), London, who moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Griffin, ■remarked that the paper would serve as a very useful text book, especially if it was indexed, and would do away with the necessity of referring to legal works, which they, as auctioneers and estate managers, so" often had to do. The important question of the increased assessment of public-houses after the quinquennial valuation had been touched upon, but he should have liked to be enlightened thereon by Mr. Griffin’s own personal experiences. In the previous week a case of very considerable importance had been heard in the Supreme Courts, and as the result there was no doubt that the authorities could now go into the question of the premium paid for a public-house in order to determine the annual value. A ease in which a school mistress declined to allow the sanitary inspector to enter her house had also been reported, and as a result of that the tenant had the power, under certain circumstances, to refuse admittance. However, he was of opinion that the sanitary authorities should see that the drains were put■ right, and it would be much better for all parties if a house to ■house visitation was made for this purpose (hear, hear). If the drainage was at tended to at all, the work should be done exhaustively and thoroughly. In closing his paper Mr. Griffin had referred briefly to the new Land Transfer Act. One or two cases under that Act had already been placed before him, and it appeared to him that the servants of the Crown were certainly getting the best of it for the time being. At present it was in every sense a very expensive process, but he was looking forward to the time—it would come in two generations, perhaps (laughter)—■when there would be upon the rolls a large number of possessory titles, and when the Act would be very much simplified (hear, hear).
Mr. W. Bennett Rogers (member of the council, London), in seconding the vote of thanks, said he did not altogether agree with Mr. Griffin’s conclusions in regard to Michael Angelo Taylor’s Act. From an owner’s point of view it was perhaps ■not satisfactory, but from the point of view of the ratepayers׳ or Yestry authorities, it rather commended itself because it led to a less inflation of claims. In his opinion, they were more inclined to settle under that Act than under the Lands Clauses Act, because there was always the fear that they would have to pay the costs if they went to trial. As regards sanitation, he had always been in great fear of the inspector, but now that he had listened to Mr. Griffin’s paper he would, with the boldness of a lion, resist and defy him, and send him away (laughter).
Mr. Alfred Moore (Associate, London) expressed his appreciation of Mr. Griffin’s paper, which, he said, all of them should study.
Institute.
ACTS AFFECTING PROPERTY IN LONDON.
At the ordinary sessional meeting of the Institute, held at the offices, 57 and 58, Chancery-lane, W.C., on Tuesday evening, a paper was read by Mr. Harold Griffin (Fellow) on “ Some Acts of Parliament affecting property in London which have to be considered ■by-estate agents.” The chair was occupied by the President, Mr. Edward Dobson, and the attendance included: Messrs. James F. Field, W. Roland Peck, A. W. Brackett, Allen Drew, W. Bennett Rogers, and Douglas Young (members of council); Messrs. J. Boyton, G. W. Fortescue, F. W. Hatch, E. H. Henry, G. Higgins, H. F. Joyce, Alfred Moore, G. Pearce, F. Perks, P. W. Rogers, P. Stock, F. Swain, H. Bloss Taylor, E. 0. Thurgood and R. Dalton (Fellows); Messrs. H. G. W. Brinsley, T. C. R. Davies, O. F. Goddard, L. Neumegen, A. B. Norris, H. W. Rendell, ,T. T. Skelding, T. H. Thole and S. A. Martin (Associates); Mr. H. Ransom (student); and Messrs. R. D. Cameron, C. E. Chesterton, L. H. Dickeson, Greenwood, Griffin, W. L. Lang-ton, R. H. Palmer, W. S. Rogers, W. J. Watson and W. C. White (visitors); with the secretary, Mr. Charles Harris.
Mr. Griffin, in the course of his paper, touched briefly upon some of the most complicated statutes. His remarks were not intended to encroach on the province of the legal profession, his object being simply to draw attention in a very general and colloquial fashion to some of the leading considerations which should guide members of the Institute in the management of property so as to avoid infringing the law, and to make use of their knowledge of it to the best advantage ; as well as to enumerate a few points on which they ought to be able to advise their clients on the spur of the moment, and which might be useful for them to bear in mind. Taking the statutes in order of the dates when they were passed, Mr. Griffin dealt in great detail upon the provisions of the General Paving (Metropolis) Act, 1817, which only applied to the City and some of the central London parishes. The special attention of those present was directed to sections 80 to 96 inclusive, which relate to the acquisition of property by local authorities for widening and improving streets. Mr. Griffin thought that some of the provisions of the Act were so grossly inequitable to owners of property that if it were not the fact that owners have long since despaired of obtaining justice from Parliament they would have been repealed many years ago, and the procedure assimilated to that under the Lands Clauses Act passed in 1845. He proceeded to remark that now the system under which houses were drained and connected with the sewers had been very lax for many years, and there were thousands of houses in London drained in combination with others without any order having been made by a Yestry or Board. There were very many others where orders permitting combined drainage were made, and then the drains where subsequently laid with great deviations from the approved plans. The main sewers of London were, by section 68, vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works (now the London County Council) and all other sewers were, by the same section, vested in the several Vestries and District Boards. Therefore, all combined drains which do not fall within the definition “ drain ” must be maintained by and at the expense of the Vestry or Board. The principle was now thoroughly settled, and ft had been a sad awakening for the local authorities of London. No one ever dreamt, when the Metropolis Management Act was passed, that the authorities would have to repair and maintain drains on private property, and it certainly did not seem fair that it should be so, but in practice it had been found a valuable provision in checking the extravagant demands of sanitary inspectors and other Vestry officials, which, after the passing of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, were, in many instances, becoming unbearable. Where there is the slightest chance that what is supposed to be a “ drain ” may unexpectedly turn out to be a “sewer,” the Vestries are often inclined to be reasonable in calling for defects to be remedied, as, if it can be proved to be a sewer the owner of the property can force the Vestry to do a good many of the works they intended to make him do. The onus of proof that a combined drain is not a sewer naturally rests with the Vestry. Another matter which ought not to be overlooked is that by section 204 it is provided that no building shall be erected over any sewer without the consent of the authority to whom the sewer belongs. Owners are therefore prohibited from building over any combined drain on their own property if such drain falls within the definition “sewer” under the Act.
Mr. Griffin went on to refer at considerable length to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, which he thought had, on the whole, been
parallel with the Buckingham Palace-road. Travellers on the Brighton have often realised the difficulty of trains entering and leaving the station. They have to pass through the narrow neck of a bottle. This neck will be enlarged through the Buckingham Palace-road scheme, and then there will be no delays on Grosvenor-bridge or in the station. The widening of the approaches to the station now suggested will allow of four lines (already authorised, and for which the land is being acquired) running into the terminus, double the number now existing. Roughly, the improvements thus briefly set out will cost nearly £1,500,000.
* * *
Lord Dudley has had the honour of being the first recipient of the honorary freedom of the borough of Dudley. Between the representatives of the House of Dudley and the people of Dudley, there has always been a close connection.	On the one hand, the
house of Dudley has ever recognised the great responsibilities wealth and the accident of birth bring with them, and on the other, Dudley folk have not been slow to appreciate and reciprocate that very laudable feeling. It was said of one Lord Dudley—the third Viscount —that he was the poor man’s friend. He was ever ready to extend a helping hand to the needy, ever anxious to promote the welfare of those about him and the community in which he had so much at stake. If it could be said of the third Viscount that he was׳ “the poor man’s friend,” with even more force could it be said of the present Earl’s father, the late Lord Dudley (one of the most popular peers of his time), that he was to all intents and purposes the friend of Dudley and of Dudley’s institutions.
* * *
The principal institutions of the town are solely and entirely monuments of the generosity of the late Earl of Dudley. The Guest Hospital, the Dispensary, the Institute, the Marketplace fountain (the finest of the kind in the world), the freedom of the Castle grounds tc■ the public, several churches, the Castle fetes, and very many other institutions in Dudley are due directly or indirectly to the generosity of the Earls of Dudley. Indeed, it would be impossible to enumerate a tithe of the good works that may be set down to the house of Dudley, and ■it was, therefore, in the fitness of things that the first honour of conferring the freedom of the borough should fall upon the living representative of the noble family. Particularly as the recipient had performed special services to the borough in the matter of filling the office of Mayor for two years in succession, and filling it, too, whilst he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
Through the instrumentality of Sir Reginald Paigrave, a tablet has been affixed to the wail in the archway which gives access to the Speaker’s Court from New Palace-yard, Westminster, indicating the position of the Star Chamber. The tablet bears an inscription to the following effect:—“This tablet marks the position of the outer doorway leading to the room built during the year 1602, wherein the Court of Law constituted by Statute 3, Henry VII., C.I., known as the Star Chamber Court, held session during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. until August 1, 1641, when the Court was closed by Statute 16, Car. 1, c. 10. The position of the doorway was ascertained by measurements based upon ancient plans of ■he Palace of Westminster. The frontage of he Star Chamber building extended about 30ft. orthward and southward from this spot. The star Chamber was upon the first floor, and was ighted by windows looking towards New ?alace-yard.” With this addition most of the istorie spots in the Houses of Parliament have row been fixed.
* * *
Too frequently we hear it urged that direc-ors of public companies are mere figureheads nd not the practical men that they should be. Ir. David Waterlow, L.C.C., the son of Sir *,ydney H. Waterlow, Bart., and a director of he Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, annot, however, be included in the list of irectors who have no knowledge of the tech-ieal details of the concerns over which thej reside. When Sir Sydney founded the com-any, his son was apprenticed to the “ crafts epartments,” and for some years the future ireetor ranked in the ,same category and dis-1harged the same duties as other apprentices, he company, it may be mentioned, have spent ver a million sterling on the erection of umerous block dwellings, and on the actual onstruciive work of these places Mr. Waterlow ms constantly engaged during his novitiate, e worked as a bricklayer at the Compton-wellings in Goswell-road ; at the Waterlow-uildings in Bethnal-green he toiled as a car-enter ; and at the Peerless-buildings in the ity-road he fitted the doors and windows, ״ter on he was trained as a draughtsman in e central offices, and finally he was elected director.