Mabch 25, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
482
THE LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
To the Editor ot the Estates Gazette.
Sib,—It is perhaps natural that the smaller vestries should not take kindly to a reform measure which will improve them out of existence, while Mr. Herbert Gladstone’s amendment need not be taken too seriously, seeing that it is the business of an opposition to oppose. The reform of the local government of the metropolis is, however, so urgently required that it would be nothing short of a calamity if a combination of vested interests and political partizanship should prevent the success of what must be the last serious attempt before the end of the century to bring about some kind of order into the chaos of London government.
To point out the many things which Mr. Balfour’s Bill will leave unreformed only emphasises the urgency of at once adopting the great reforms proposed in the Bill, not only that we may be free to give attention to the further needed improvements, but that we may have strong representative bodies to help in attaining them, in place of local authorities which cannot be matched for weakness in any part of the kingdom.
When a measure provides for so many practical reforms, as is the case with the London Government Bill now before the House of Commons, it would surely be the policy of the pedant to reject it, because with its passing the occupation of the reformer would not be gone.
Those who are really dissatisfied with the vestry rule of the metropolis will welcome a measure which will greatly raise the status of the local government bodies, and thus make them more powerful to promote the public wellbeing, without that undue interference with individual liberty which is too often the method adopted by weak bodies entrusted with a little brief authority.
The true measure of the Bill is a correct appreciation of the reforms it will accomplish, not a schedule of desirable changes which are left to be dealt with by subsequent measures. Doubtless it would have been better if the Bill had at once destroyed the system of audit by popular election, perhaps the worst system of audit ever devised, and one which the new municipal councils to be created by the Bill would soon put an end to. The fact that the metropolitan vestries have tolerated such an audit for nearly half a century is one of the strongest proofs of their inefficiency.
The Bill is based on a broad and liberal policy, and though the criticism of all parties may with advantage be forthcoming in Committee, the record of Liberal efforts to reform the government of London leads one to hope that the opposition will not divide against the Bill on the second reading.
John Stuart Mill and other advanced Liberals made repeated efforts in the House of Commons to pass a Bill to establish municipalities in place of the vestries, and they even went further than the present Bill in reducing the number of districts. Strong district authorities may possibly make more glaring any weakness that may exist in the central authority; but, in so far as the London County Council is strong and in harmony with the people, the new municipal councils will add strength to strength, while, on the other hand, it can be no honour to the County Council nor benefit to the community for the local authorities to remain weak in order that the strength of the central authority may appear to be what it is not.
The provision for the transfer of powers by the central authority to a district municipality, when both bodies wish it, is so reasonable a proposal that one can only explain the opposition it has aroused in some quarters to a want of faith in representative institutions. Should Sir William Harcourt return to the House in time for the debate on the second reading of the Bill, he will be able to refer to the general satisfaction which a similar provision in the London Government Bill of 1884 gave to the rank and file of the municipal reformers of that time.
The City of Westminster now numbers its ediles by the hundred, but the multitude of councillors has not prevented Regent-street below Piccadilly-cireus from being converted into a goods depot, to the daily annoyance of everybody who remembers it as once a thoroughfare. When Mr. Balfour has reduced our governors to tens the responsibility of government will be brought home, and within twelve months we may hope to have the right of way from Pall Mall to Piccadilly-eircus restored.
Yours, etc.,
MARK H. JUDGE. 7, Pall Mall, London, S.W.
March 18, 1899.
The rage for porcelain plaques and heavy chiselled and gilt bronze ornament was not affected by Louis XVI., who preferred the simplicity of Boule and Cressent, and ordered furniture accordingly. Hence came those cabinets in kingwood and mahogany, their panels only decorated with his cypher and crown, and those reproductions to which allusion has been made. He weakly yielded, nevertheless, in the case of David Roentgen by commissioning a sécretaire in marquetry with bronze mounts, for which he agreed to pay 80,000 livres (about £8,000). It was in part the rage for richly chiselled mounts which made them almost the price of pure gold.
While the desire for novelty and the necessity for encouraging contemporary industry induced Louis XV I. to commission numerous line pieces of furniture, he managed to maintain his huge stock at a level by means of constant sales by auction. Notice of these is found every year from 1741 to 1792.
One of the curious features of this period is the combination of the Sèvres plaque ornamentation with the old Florentine pietra dura. or mosaic. This may be studied in No. 640, Jones collection. This phenomenon is also visible in a cabinet at Windsor Castle, having the spiral top-shaped feet which form the best ,indication of the Louis XVI. period.
A permanent ornament of the dining table was the “ surtout,” a glass stand with a frame in silver and gold, from which branched vases and salvers to such an extent that it by-and-bv covered the whole table, so that the dishes had to be handed round to the guests one by one.
Statuaries, designers and painters were also employed to decorate the table, the centre of which was covered by statues and emblematic groups, with temples, amphitheatres, bridges and columns made of paste. Figures in coloured sand were also designed on the tablecloth, representing Persian carpets, to harmonise with the Sèvres porcelain. The “ surtout,” of course, gave work to the bronze carvers of the day.
Another manufacture which these men engaged in was the fitting of Sèvres vases with mounts serving for candelabra. There are a large number of specimens in the Jones collection, and it is possible that the mountings in certain of them may be by Gouthière or his rivals, Duplessis, Forestier, Calfieri, or Varson.
Towards the close of the period, fountains in lead, richly gilded, were placed in one of the arched alcoves of the dining rooms ; there was a very fine specimen in the hotel of Le Normand d’Etioles, the Farmer-General, and this was afterwards secured for M. Double’s magnificent collection.
The beautiful toilet-secretaire and the worktable of Marie Antoinette, now in the Jones collection, were probably among the last pieces made for Royalty under the old régime.
There was little demand either for architects or for cabinet-makers under the Terror, when there were 6,000 empty houses in Paris which had either been sequestrated or deserted. The Tuileries and all the other Royal palaces were confiscated ; while, as already described, almost the whole of the replenished furniture at Versailles was sold by auction “ at an alarming sacrifice.” No fewer than 2,500 religious houses were sold as national property, to be mutilated or destroyed ; while 40,000 churches were converted into granges, stables, or dining saloons. The principal designers, Antoine, Ledoux, Heurtier, de Wailly, Dufoumy, Boullée, ceased their labours ; some went abroad. The Revolution, in fact, had practically no architecture, though, theoretically, it accepted the Greek models, and endeavoured to replace the churches by Greek temples.
With regard to furniture, it is true that there was a special bedstead made, known bv the name of the Revolution ; while much of the present Mobilier National of France was׳ saved by the appointment of a commission to decide what should be sold and what retained. On this commission, Reisener and Roentgen had seats.
Many of the furniture designers and makers lost enormous sums which were standing due to them when the crash came. Gouthière, for instance, had׳ to forego 756,OCX) francs due to him for commissions carried out for Madame Barri, and in consequence he died a poor man.
Great distress also prevailed among the workmen. Some idea of the number thrown out of employment may be gained from the fact that in 1760 no fewer than 4,000 operatives were engaged in the preparation and application of stucco to the internal decoration of houses. Again, one finds but a single architect emploved during the troubles, namely, Chalgrin, who designed the curious house for Madame Brunov m the Champs Elysées in 1789.
On the other hand, some artists who attained to their zenith after the Terror achieved great wealth. Thus Antoine Ravrio, Gouthfère’s successor, died a millionaire.
(To be continued.)
The ESTATES GAZETTE can be obtained of our City Agents, Messrs. POTTLE and SONS Royal Exchange.
ijfnrnito CMît attîr I
XXIX.
LOUIS SEIZE FURNITURE.
At Fontainebleau, which affords such a revelation of the styles of the period, there is still preserved the “ Bedstead of Marie Antoinette.” This luxurious piece of furniture, which was made expressly for the Queen, stands upon a double plinth. The only part of the woodwork which is apparent consists of the headpiece, which is carved in garlands of flowers surmounted by an oval medallion with the letters A.M. interlaced under a crown of flowers supported by two female figures. The canopy is crowned with shields and amorini. The hangings are of Lyons silk, having a cream ground stitched with silk and coloured chenille representing musical instruments, roses, laurel boughs, garlands and emblems. The stuff was executed by Phillipe de la Salle, every portion being made for the position occupied.
Furniture, as a whole, however, became simpler in design though still freely relieved by ornament, thus becoming in accordance with the architecture and decoration of the period. There is in the Jones collection part of a suite in blue and white striped silk, comprising swo fauteuils and four chairs in a very simple design ; also a chair with a tapestry cover.
The tapestry covers of the settee and chairs in the cases upon the staircase, outside the Jones Gallery, also give a good idea of the upholstery of the period, though the woodwork is a later imitation of the Louis XVI. style.
The most salient mark of Louis Seize seats and furniture generally is the foot shaped like a boy’s top. The other prominent peculiarity of the chairs is the great difference in the breadth of the seat in front as compared with the back, the measurement of the latter being in some instances but half of the former. That which actually suggested the shape of the Louis XVI. drawing room chair was the “ chaise en encoignure,” or corner chair of the previous period, frequently mentioned in the Inventories about the year 1755.
A style which was not carried into the later period was that of the “ chaise perspective,” often named in Marseilles inventories from 1755 to 1760. This was of walnut, upholstered, and ornamented with carved work representing colonnades and arcades seen in perspective.
Folding seats were in use at the same time, and known as “ chaises a la dauphine ” ; but the Dauphine complained that these caused inj ury to her back, and had a low back fixed to the webbed seats. The chair was then known as the “perroquet.”
The rococo “ salon ” chair of Louis XV. was succeeded then by a chair with the back square or round, or having a central medallion or cartouche. There was also in the saloon of the Princesse de Lamballe a suite of chaises a lyre, or chairs with lyre-shaped backs, from which English makers later on took a hint or two. Patterns comprising interlaced circles and series of garlands also came in for the backs, though these were more frequently used for the “petites chaises volantes,” those light, easily moved chairs which were found so suitable for the dining room. These chairs had usually straight fluted tapering legs, the !lutings being sometimes spiral. Another chair which found imitators on this side of the Channel was that with an oval-shaped back, ornamented with a carved riband representing a lover’s knot.
A favourite form for the “salon” was the “chaise longue,” which might be formed of three sections en suite, the enclosed ends and the central part forming two fauteuils with a stool between.
The Wallace collection contains two typical chairs with fluted legs and top-shaped ”feet; the one square-backed, the other having a circular medallion; these are upholstered in tapestry, having urns and baskets of flowers. The legs have the usual husks in the flutings.
The reign of Louis XVI. was the period par excellence for seats of all forms, which luxury varied to infinity, providing every gradation from the richest to the most modest. They were carved, painted, varnished or gilded. The backs and seats were stuffed with hair, and covered with velvet, damask, embroidery oi tapestry. The arms were attached at one” end to the uprights, and morticed at the other into the seat. Later the “ chaises a la Reine ” were upholstered in red or blue velvet.
There was a large group of art furniture dealers employed by the Court, as Lazare, Duvaux, the Heberts, the Bazins, the Lebruns, the Dulais. Besides these, Duvaux had been employed by the Marquise de Pompadour to bring to her notice the choicest styles originated. From these she suggested a new style which, ־«hen perfected, became the style of Louis XVI. She did not care for the rococo except for the mounts of French and foreign porcelain. When the Pompadour brought in her style she persuaded Louis XV. to order a quantity of monumental clocks in marble and bronze, shaped as temples, tombs, altars, columns, surmounted with mythological groups or historical and commemorative subjects.
was also removed in order to obtain access to the premises. The defendants entered into possession from October 28 to November 9, and on the latter date an auction was held on the premises, the goods being sold much under value.
At !the close of the plaintiff’s case, Mr. Bodilly submitted that• there was no evidence as against the defendant company. A distress had been levied by a bailiff. The person in-structing the bailiff was not liable for the latter’s illegal acts. If Mr. Wright, the other defendant, broke into the house in the way described he was liable.
After discussion, the Common Serjeant .said he was of opinion that the Great Eastern Railway were not responsible for the illegal acts of the bailiff in breaking open the door, if he did so.
Mr. Wright said he was a certified bailiff, and he received the distress warrant. He had been to the arch occupied by the plaintiff several times. He went on the platform of the railway station over the arch, and saw that the skylight to the plaintiff’s stables was uncovered. A Mr. Gray was let down into Ihe stables. It being a good depth, Mr. Gray fell through. He (witness) had not forced anything. When his man was inside he (witness) found a key, and took the lock off the gate. The plaintiff’s goods were properly advertised.
In answer to the jury, the witness said he did not find the key in the stable, but he found that one of his own keys fitted the padlock.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant Wright for £30 damages.
Under his Lordship’s direction the jury found a verdict for the defendant company.
A stay of execution was granted.
DISPUTE ABOUT A LEASE ON HOLBOKN VIADUCT.
MITCHELL V. FBISWELL.
This action was brought by Mr. J. Mitchell, a cycle agent, against Mr. Friswell, •ycie manufacturer and dealer, to recover damages for his refusal to transfer a lease of 3, Holbom-viaduct, premises occupied by Friswell (Limited).
Mr. Cohen and Mr. Simmonds (instructed by Mr. Edmunds) were counsel lor the plaintiff, and Mr. Clavell Salter (instructed by Mr. EdelL represented the defendant.
The plaintiff said that on October 21 it was arranged that the lease of the premises, 3, Hol-born-viaduct, should be transferred to him without cost, the sum of £130 to be paid by March 25 for all the fixtures and fittings then on the premises. The plaintiff was ready to obtain the money, and had good financial assistance for the payment of the rent (£300 a year). The defendant, however, refused to transfer the lease.
In cross-examination the plaintiff said he understood it was necessary to obtain the consent of the landlords (the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company) before a transfer of the premises was made, and for that purpose he had given references.
For the defence it was said that nothing had taken place between the parties except a business conversation as to negotiations for the transfer of the lease. They never came to terms, and no bargain was made.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £25.
CITY OF LONDON COURT.
March 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kekb.)
OLAIM FOB BENT.
STONE V. WEBB.
Mr. Frederick Stone, the executor of one Orford, of High-road, Willesden, claimed the sum of £30 10s. for rent due from the defendant, Mr. Juba! Webb, of the Central Market, West Smithfield.
Mr. Minton Senhouse appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Turner for the defendant.
It was admitted that the rent was due, but the defendant counterclaimed for £44 over and above the_ rent. His case in support of the counterclaim was that the lease of the premises in respect of which the rent was claimed was coming to an end; and that he arranged with the plaintiff (who was acting for the landlord) for a new lease. He declared that he paid the plaintiff a sum of £75 as a deposit for the lease. It was said, on the other hand, that the money was paid to the plaintiff for his services in getting the consent of the tenant for life of the property to the defendant havin״ a new lease. That was denied.
The plaintiff was not in Court at the proper time, but judgment was given for him on vhe claim, and for the defendant on the counterclaim.
The plaintiff arrived a few moments afterwards, and a request was made that the matter should be again gone into. The defendant had left, and Mr. Commissioner Kerr said he could not do that. He added that the plaintiff’s answer to the counterclaim was a very improbable story.