February 25, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
304
rounded ; bombé and twisted shapes alone were permissible ; the curled endive runs along the top ; the borders were formed of brass, gilded with ormolu ; and thus the whole was eccentric.
Perhaps the greatest artist in furniture of the latter part of the reign was Jean Francois Oëben, who received his patent as ébénist to the King in 1754, and was thenceforth lodged at the Arsenal. Oëben, who was of German extraction, had been a pupil of Boule. It was from the Arsenal that Duvaux, furnisher to Madame Pompadour, chose the furniture for that favourite’s apartments at Paris, Compiégne, Fontainebleau, Versailles, Belleville and St. Cloud.
Oëben was mainly a wood inlaver ; hence he did not favour much ormolu to distract the eye from his work. The dates of this artist’s birth and death are unknown ; one of his daughters was married to C. Delacroix, who became the father of the great Eugène. Oëben worked a good deal at the Gobelins. Riesener, who married his widow, commenced his life-work under Louis XV., but belongs of right to the next period. In thè pair of Encoigneurs, No. 714 at Kensington, the panels decorated with huge bouquets of lilies in marquetry, and in No. 726, the Escritoire à Toilette, which belonged afterwards to Marie Antoinette (No. 726), may be traced Oëben’s preference for a general tone of amber or yellow character. His works display the perfection of veneer.
Another artist who came into prominence through his appointment as Master of the Corps of Ebenists, in 1765, nine years previously to the King’s death, was Georges Jacob, one of the best decorative carvers of his time, though the chief events of his life occurred under Louis XVI. and the Revolution. He wa3 born at the village of Bourgogne, near Auxerre, in Burgundy, so that, unlike most of his rivals, Oëben, Riesener and Roentgen; he owed none of his success to German influence or training. He was the chief of a dynasty of carvers bearing his name which endured for three quarters of a century.
The chief novelty of the period was the varnish, called after the inventor. Vernis Martin, though really adapted from Oriental practices by Huggens, a Dutchman. Four brothers, sons of a taibr, Guillaume, Julien, Robert and Simon-Etienne, were engaged in the production of this transparent lac polish ; and about 1740, they had factories in the Faubourg S. Martin, Faubourg S. Denis, and Rue S. Mag-loire. Already, in 1655, Louis A. Hongre had enriched two cabinets at Versailles with paintings on varnish. However, in 1744, Simon Etienne obtained a patent for his process. The varnish is generally found on a waved gold ground on carriage panels, tables, book-cases, cabinets, snuff-boxes, étuis, and so forth. Robert Martin did not servilely copy the Oriental lac ; he knew how to bring out his ornaments and paintings upon a pale gold ground. Subsequently he painted gallant and mythological scenes and pastorals. He surrounded his subjects with a border interlaced with garlands of flowers. He formed his field with powdered gold thrown on a blue or green ground. There are a large number of sedan chairs and carriages in the Vernis-Martiu style in the collections of the Trianon, Madrid, Lisbon, and Moscow. The brothers issued numberless pieces painted with pagodas, animals, portraits, the varnish imitating a lacquer upon a black ground.
In their later style the brothers Martin produced mythological subjects in natural colours. Though Vemis-Martin has been regarded as among the lost processes, such as the old art of fresco-painting, yet, as in that case also excellent imitations were produced by those who succeeded the Martins.
Still another novelty of this reign was the inlaying of beautiful furniture, even when as lark as mahogany, with porcelain plaques from the Royal Sevres factory. Very beautiful specimens may be examined in Nos. 611, 614, 617 and 628, at South Kensington, all of this period, the larger panels dating not earlier than 1767.
Couches and chairs during this period were designed in fuller curves ; but at the same time the־r are far smaller in size, and a new element is visible, the separation of the back to form a decorative element in itself. The tapestry of Aubusson, the Gobelins and Beauvais was employed for the decoration of chairs in lacquered wood. Light chairs were covered in yellow satin, fringed with gold bullion.
The bonheur du jour, a tiny boudoir cabinet mounted on a table, was first introduced about the middle of this period. No. 628 at Kensington (Jones collection) is a beautiful early specimen in marquetry of king and tulip woods, inlaid with Sèvres plaques and mounted with chased ormolu.
Under Louis XV., the canopy of the bedstead was shaped or circular, gilded or painted grey, crowned with emblems or sculptural plumes, and often placed in an alcove. Only the fluted pillars and carved pediment remained visible, all the remainder being draped with silk or damask.
Some modifications occurred in the manufacture of tapestry ; instead of the huge subjects admired under Louis XIV., some amusing
fnrnitnw ©lit attìr
XXVI.
THE LOUIS XV. STYLE.
The Louis Quinze period embodied what the Regency had suggested—redundancy of ornament. In place of statuesque groups in carved wood, or painted in camaieu to imitate them, there is the curved endive ornament repeated everywhere, in the panels, mirror frames. Instead of Rubens-like figures, there are elegant busts of women, wreathed in folia-ge. White is the prevailing colour for interior decoration, and gilding the principal relief.
Ceilings were as before, richly painted ; and a whole school of artists devoted to this work sprang up during the reign—Francois Boucher Director of the Academy, Antoine Coypel, Charles Delafosse, Juste Meissonier, and Pierre Lepautre, who was engaged in the decoration of the Trianons at Versailles. In the work of these artists landscape and mythological subjects were introduced wherever practicable, as in the dessua-pnrtes (overdoors) also above the mirrors. A fashionable house in Paris would not, as a rule, display landscapes so freely; as a rule they were treated with white panels bordered with the endive ornament, while perhaps the saloon and boudoir would be graced with painted ceilings.
Francois Boucher was the chief decorative painter during the reign of Louis XV. Without the deep sentiment and exquisite grace of Watteau his execution was nevertheless suffi-
ciently spirited, though his designs and colouring were at times defective. The Council Hall at Fontainebleau—a palace which contains so much choice work—was among his chief performances. He excelled in chubby figures of infants ; and by these he managed to represent the central sunrise and the four seasons surrounding it in the ceiling of the above-named hall. Another clever decorator who worked with Boucher in the adornment of the Hotel Soubise (Palace of Archives) was C. J. Natoire, who revelled in classical subjects ; while the brothers Vanbo did a great deal of high-class work. Nor should mention be omitted of Christophe Huet, whose finest examples are at Chantilly, recently bequeathed to the French nation. Huet’s forte was the introduction of Chinese subjects ; thus he painted for Madame de Pompadour a saloon whose ceiling represented men and women of the Flowery Land, with appropriate birds and insects. J. B. Leprimo, who had sojourned many years in Russia, became equally famous. He had painted several ceilings for the Winter Palace at St. Petersburg; and upon his return to France his scenes of domestic life, drawn from his experiences in Russia, experienced a great demand.
Under Louis XV., Boule found a worthy successor in the previously named Jacques Caffieri, who was born at the Gobelins, and trained under Domenico Cucci. Jacques, however, whose father was the celebrated sculptor of Louis Quatorze, naturally gave most of his attention to the carving of bronzes for the decoration of cabinets. He frequently collaborated with renowned cabinet-makers; but there are very few complete works which can unhesitatingly be assigned to him. The furniture of the period is less grandiose ; but the chiselling of bronze reaches perfection, and appears in the handles of the drawers, in the clocks and candelabra.
As to the forms of furniture great license prevailed. Every object swelled to assume fantastic curves; the angles were hollowed or
nothing more. But the corporation chose, ' before the period when the provisions of its 1 Act of 1870 came into operation, to apply to Parliament for powers to obtain the tramway and all the rights and privileges of the company ; and Parliament, when it conferred those powers, made it a condition that the price to be paid to the company should be determined, not under the provisions of the Tramways Act, 1870, but by the machinery provided by the Lands Clauses Acts. The reason, we think, is plain—because, until the expiration of the period of 21 years, it was considered not reasonable to deprive the company of their rights and privileges without compensating them for such interest as they had in them. But the interest the company had was an interest liable to be determined after the expiration of the period of 21 years, and after the expiration of every subsequent period of seven years, in the manner provided by the Tramways Act, 1870.
It is quite true that it is possible the corporation might not have resolved to proceed under the Tramways Act, 1870, but the circumstance that the corporation possessed the power is clearly a contingency affecting the value of the rights and privileges of the company, and is a matter to be considered and taken into account by the umpire in determining the price to be paid to the company. In the course of the argument, frequent reference was made to the Edinburgh Street Tramways case, and Mr. Asquith relied greatly upon the meaning given by the interpretation clause in the present Act to the phrase “the undertaking of the company,” and one portion of his argument proceeded upon the assumption that, had such an interpretation clause been found in the Tramways Act of 1870, the decision of the House of Lords in the Edinburgh Tramway case would have been different. But we cannot accede to ‘his suggestion. The point in the Edinburgh Tramway case was that although the undertaking was described as the subject of the sale, it was to be sold, not on the terms of paying the then value of the undertaking, but upon the ,־erms of paying the then value of the tramway. The decision in that case turned mainly upon the distinction betwen the undertaking and the •ramway. But the House of Lords did decide that, although the undertaking was to be sold, the power to use the tramway granted to the promoters was not capable of transfer by them, and that the rights, powers, and authorities of the promoters in respect of the undertaking vested in the local authority by virtue of the Provisions of a provisional order under the Act.
It seems to us that many at least of the reasons given by the House of Lords why the promoters were not able to transfer the powers granted to ;hem bv Act of Parliament apply to the present case. If was by virtue of the provisions of the ׳Vet of 1897 (sections 4 and 5), and not by virtue of the sale or purchase, that the undertaking of the company, and all the powers, rights, privileges, and authorities of the company under their Acts of Parliament became transferred to and vested in the corporation as if the corporation had been named in the company’s Acts nstead of the company. The corporation became entitled to exercise in perpetuity those rights and powers, not by virtue of any grant from or sale by the company, but by the express provisions of the Act of 1897. But it is said that the third section of the Act of 1897 gives the company a right to be compensated for their undertaking. That can only mean such interest as they had in the undertaking immediately before the transfer day. That is an nterest subject to the contingency of being determined under the provisions of the Act of 1870. There is only one other point to be mentioned lest it should be supposed that we have overlooked it. That arises from the circumstance that by the Southampton Street Tramways Extension Act, 1888, the company was authorised to purchase horses and construct, use and work omnibuses. It was agreed by the parties during the arbitration that the umpire should treat the omnibus business as part of the undertaking of the company, but this agreement was not to preclude either party from relying on the special provisions in the Acts relating to the omnibus undertaking in arguing the question before the Court. In our opinion these special provisions have no bearing upon the questions submitted to us. It follows from what has been said that we answer the first question in the affirmative, and the second :n the negative, and that the award holds good for £51,500.
Mr. Justice Ridley concurred.
TO READERS.
The Manager will esteem it a favour if readers of the “ESTATES GAZETTE ” will kindly mention the name of the paper when communicating with any firm in regard to properties advertised or referred to therein,
were most prohibitive, and that water carriage was much cheaper. The prices he had mentioned were quoted to him by a shipbroker, so that he could vouch for their accuracy.
The proceedings then terminated, it being announced that the next meeting would be held on March 6, when a paper would be read by Mr. F. Smith (Fellow) on “The Working of the Light Railways Act, 1896.”
THE PURCHASE TF SOUTHAMPTON TRAMWAYS.
In the Queen’s Bench Division on Saturday (Mr. Justice Bruce and Mr. Justice Ridley), judgment was delivered in the matter of an arbitration between the Southampton Tramways Company and the Mayor, etc., of Southampton.
This was a case stated by Sir Henry Oakley, the umpire aDpointed under the Southampton Corporation Tramways Act, 1897, and the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, to decide certain disputes which had arisen between the Southampton Tramways Company and the Corporation of Southampton as to the price at which the corporation should take over the undertaking of the tramways company, in accordance with the Act of 1897.
Mr. Asquith, Q.C., Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Q.C., Mr. G. M. Freeman, Q.C., and Mr. Alfred Lyttelton appeared for the Tramways Company ; and Mr. Cripps, Q.C., and Mr. Haldane, Q.C., for the Corporation of Southampton.
The questions for the opinion of the Court were (1) whether in determining the price to be paid under the Act of 1897 the arbitrators and umpire should treat the undertaking of the company as defined by that Act as an undertaking which the company only enjoved subject to the contingency of being compelled to part therewith under the terms of section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870 ; or (2) whether in determining the price to be paid as aforesaid the arbitrators and umpire should treat the undertaking as an undertaking which the company enioved free from all obligation to part therewith otherwise than under the terms of the Act of 1897 itself. If the first question was answered in the affirmative the umpire fixed the price to be paid at £51,505, and if the first question was answered in the negative and the second in the affirmative, the price fixed was £109,903. The provisions of Acts upon which the questions rest are referred to in the judgment.
Mr. Justice Bruce, who delivered the judgment of the Court״ after reviewing at length the various Acts involved. sa’d:—On •Tune 30. 18°8. the undertaking of the company, by virtue of the Southampton Corporation Tramways Act, 1897, became transferred to or vested in the corporation, and the corporation and the company haviijg failed to agree upon the price to be paid, arbitrators and an umpire were duly appointed to determine the price. It was contended by Mr. Asquith, on behalf of the tramways company, that, as the undertaking was the subject matter to be purchased and sold, and as the corporation acquired the tramway, together with all the rights and privileges of the company, for all time, the price to be pa;d under the Act of 1897 should b» calculated as if the company enioved the right« and privileges of the undertaking free from all obligation to part therewith other than the obligation created bv the Act of 1897 itself • in other words, that the company w°re entitled to be paid as though they were selling a concession of the׳‘r privileges in perpetuity. We cannot agr’e with this contention. We think that Mr. Crpps was right when ho contended that the interest of the company in the undertaking was only a limited interest liable to be determined by the terms of section 43 of the Act of 1870 at the end of ?1 years, and after that at successive periods of seven years, and that the company are not entitled to be paid for a larger right in the undertaking than they in fact, posse«s״d. No doubt the words us°d in the Act of 18°7 are different from the words used in section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870. But the Act of 1897 was framed to meet a state of facts different from the facts contemplated by the Act of 1870, and to carry out a different scheme. The company could not under the provisions of the Act of 1870 be deprived of their rights and privileges until the expiration of the period of 21 years therein mentioned. The Southampton Street Tramways Act of 1877 conferred upon the corporation a right to apply to Parliament for powers to purchase the tramway within the period of 21 years. Within that period—namely, in 1897—the corporation did apply to Parliament, for such powers, and obtained the Act of 1897, which enacted that the undertaking of the company should bv virtue of that Act be transferred to and vested in the corporation on .Tune 30, 1898. Had the corporation waited until August 11, 1898, they could have obtained the tramway and all the rights and privileges of the company under the provisions of the Act of 1870 on the terms of paying the structural value of the tramway and