Mr. W. Gilbert. 17 May 1882. MR. WILLIAM GILBERT was called in and examined as follows: 1472. (Chairman.) I think I need hardly ask you whether you have given much attention to matters relating to the city companies and the charities ?—I have given a good deal of attention with regard to the city generally, including the Corporation, the companies, and the charities, but not especially the companies. 1473. But you have considered the question of the function of the companies in connexion with your inquiries into the general condition of the city administration ?-Yes. 1474. You have published a book, I think, within the last few years upon the subject?—Yes; but I begun before that. It was, I think, about 20 years ago that I was asked by some of the guardians in one of the poorer parishes in the city to write a pamphlet. They were getting up an agitation with regard to the poor rates difficulty. After I had done that I wrote some articles, one in the Contemporary Review, another in the Fortnightly, another in the Nineteenth Century, and a couple of books upon the question. 1475. I think I am right in supposing that you have formed and expressed a strong opinion as to the action of the city companies in connexion with the poorer population of the city?--Yes, particularly so. 1476. Perhaps you will state, in your own terms, what you consider has to be complained of in that respect?-What is complained of took place after the equalisation of the poor rates in the city. Before that it was the custom for the owners of house property in the city, especially the city guilds, to drive the poor out of their districts into the poorer parishes; but when they all had to pay equally, then they were all equally interested in getting rid of the poor, and the result has been that the poor have been almost entirely driven out of the city of London. But that is not the principal point I wish to bring under your Lordship's notice. In London, whenever a house is destroyed and a new one erected, in almost every case, especially with regard to those of the city companies, a clause is inserted that no person shall be allowed to sleep upon the premises, thereby totally prohibiting the poorer classes from returning. In Paris, on the contrary, wherever an alteration or improvement was made, it was not allowed to be commenced until equal or a greater amount of provision for the industrial classes who were to be removed by it was provided. 1477. Do I understand you to say that the city companies especially have taken action in this way, or that they have only followed the general practice of house owners in the city?-They have followed the general policy of the house owners in the city; but holding the enormous amount of property they do in the city, their action has been most prejudicial to the comfort and well-being of the working and industrial classes generally. By industrial classes I mean such as clerks and others whose incomes would be under 2001. or 300l. a year. you 1478. Do you put it in this way that consider an obligation lies upon them which does not equally lie upon private owners of land or houses, to use their own property for the special benefit of the working classes. Am I right in putting that interpretation upon what you say?-Hardly. I want merely to say this, that when the enormous amount of property in such a small area as the city is held by the livery companies, and they prohibit the return of the working classes there after driving them away, it is a very great injustice, because it drives them from the centre of their work and puts great labour upon them as well as a greater amount of taxation. 1479. Do you know what proportion of the area of the city is owned by the city companies ?-1 am unable to state exactly, but I should mention that I look upon it in this way,-that all the Corporation properties of the city belong to different guilds, therefore I am unable to separate the two. I know they are separated, but where the line of demarcation between them lies I do not know. 1480. As I understand you, your complaint is, that the land owned by the city companies is used in such a manner as to make it impossible for working men to reside upon that land ?-(1) Precisely. By an example I think I shall be better able to explain what I mean. In Coleman Street there is a clock in front of one of the houses; underneath that clock is a passage into Basinghall Street. This is the property of the Merchant Taylors' Company. Ten years ago the whole of it was let for 750l. a year; the lease fell in ; they renewed it at 2,300l. a year under the condition that the whole of the building should be pulled down and about 200,0007. expended upon it in chambers; but with a strict clause in the lease that no one should be allowed to sleep upon the premises. I 1481. If that had been done by a private person presume you would not have thought it a matter of complaint, would you?—I would not state that. I think that the working classes and the poorer classes have a right to be taken into consideration by the civic authorities in the same way as they are by Parisian authorities, and even in Russia as well. There they have taken them into consideration and provided that the poor shall have some provision made for them, and no injustice done them. 1482. The injustice that you complain of is that in consequence of the owners of house property not finding it lucrative to provide lodgings for the working classes, those classes are not able to find accommodation within the area of the city ?-Granted; and yet not precisely so. When they were driven from the city they went over into Blackfriars, or between Blackfriars Road and Southwark Road. The Corporation and the Board of Works then formed a line of buildings which are at present called Southwark Street, passing through the most densely populated portion of the locality, thus driving away an enormous number of the inhabitants; but no dwelling-houses have been built there, with the exception of one block of Peabody Dwellings, although an enormous number of the working classes are employed upon the banks of the river. (2) See the Memorandum of the Merchant Taylor's Company (infra, p. 265.) 1483. Are you speaking of the land that has been cleared on the two sides of the street?-The land that has been cleared on the two sides of the street; that will be the work of the Corporation, and as I hold, the Corporation comprises the members of the city guilds, or the greatest portion of them-the majority. 1484. Do I understand you that the greater part of that land is owned by the city companies ?-No, it was bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and there was no opposition to it in any manner whatever, because in the precincts of Southwark the city itself had a considerable amount of interest. 1485. In that case all that you complain of is, that the city companies did not interfere with the manner in which the Metropolitan Board of Works dealt with the land? The city companies owned the land; they drove the working classes out in a north-easterly direction. This especially told upon St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which was the great centre of medical relief for the city. I took the returns some time ago from St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and I found that the average distance every out-patient had to go was about a mile and a half, and a mile and a half to return. 1486. Does it not come to this, that the central area of London has become enormously valuable as a site for business premises, and that therefore dwellings for the working classes erected there, if they are to be made to pay and if the fair commercial price is given for the sites upon which they are built, will cost the working man much more in rents than they will at a greater distance from the centre?-That it has increased enormously in value there is no doubt; but still, for all that, they have built houses that cannot let, whereas they might have built houses that might have been let; for example, if you take from Holborn to the Minories, at the present time there are 2,000 sets of offices vacant that they cannot find tenants for. There is one house near the Blackfriars Railway Station, the value of which is 2,000l. a year, and there they have been able to let only one set of offices for 601. a year; the whole of the rest is lying idle, and the ratepayers of the metropolis are taxed for it. There are a great number of other cases of the same kind in the city. In the case of the Merchant Taylors that I was speaking of, not one half of the offices are now let. 1487. In that case, will not the evil cure itself; if the building of offices has been overdone, will it not be discontinued?-In a great measure. Frequently the city companies and the Corporation will keep land idle that may be productive rather than let it in such a way that the working classes or the poorer classes may benefit by it. If you will allow me, I will give you an example. Some years ago Lady Augusta Stanley wanted to start a school for nurses, and the Westminster Hospital agreed to train her nurses. She asked me to come upon her committee, and I was also asked to look out for a piece of land as a site for their home. I looked at a piece of land within about 100 yards or 150 yards of the house in which this Commission is sitting. I asked the agent how much frontage it had. He told me about 900 feet, and asked how much I wanted; I said about 80 feet. The price he asked and the price we paid for it was 10 guineas per lineal inch. I said to him, "this land has been lying idle, to my certain knowledge, for the last 25 years." "Yes," he said, " for about that time." "To whom does it belong," I asked; he replied, "It belongs to a charity school, and the Corporation of the city of London have an interest in that charity school." I asked whether they were interested in any other land near it, and he told me there was a great deal more, and gave me an instance within 100 yards of this house. It appears from this that about 17,000l. charitable endowments have been lying idle and wasted for 25 years. I then went down to the school board, and asked them what would be the expense of educating the whole of the inhabitants of the city of Westminster under the school board. They gave me a memo randum, which is in my hand at the present moment, 1488. I presume you do not pretend that the rate- 1489. What do you call the inheritance?—I mean to say if left for endowment the poor have as much right to profit by it as the rich by their endowments. 1490. In this case you are speaking of land specially left for educational purposes?-For educational purposes alone. 1491. Take the case you have put as to the alleged exclusion of the working classes from the area of the city. I do not understand you to contend that there is any special intention of driving them out on the part of the companies, but merely that they, like other proprietors, let their land in a manner which they consider the most profitable ?-It is the most profitable to themselves, because if they get the working classes out of the city they escape the inhabited house duty upon their new buildings. 1492. That, I presume, is the meaning of the rule of which you spoke just now, that no one is allowed to sleep on the premises?-Precisely. 1493. But in point of fact they have simply acted, as I understand you, like all other proprietors ?—In other countries there would be a law against that altogether, not only in France, but in Italy and Germany, and other places where they are always taken into consideration, and it is not allowed to be considered an act of good management simply to drive them away. I will take particularly the ejection-eviction will perhaps be a better term-of the inhabitants of the city of London in the north-eastern districts of the metropolis. The centre of their medical relief will be St. Bartholomew's Hospital, but they are completely driven away from that, and as they have been driven away from it the value of the land belonging to St. Bartholomew's Hospital has increased enormously in value, and the benefit intended for the poorer classes has not been given to them. 1494. Do I understand you to put it in this way, that if I or any one of us owns a piece of land in the city on which a certain number of working men have lived, you think that we ought to be bound to continue that land in the occupation of workmen, and not to apply it to any other purpose?-I do not mean that at all; but if 40 or 50 gentlemen join together and claim that it shall not be done, I say it looks very much like a conspiracy against the well-being of the industrial classes. 1495. You do not object to any individual doing it? -No. 1496. But you do object to a number of individuals doing it? Certainly. 1497. Even although they may each of them be acting independently upon the same principle and without any combination among themselves?—It is merely one common interest actuating the whole. 1498. Then to sum it up in one word, you think that the owner of building land in the city is in this position that he is morally bound, and ought to be legally obliged, to let his land or a great part of it, for the use of the working classes, although that is not the most profitable use to which it could be put? No, certainly not, in any manner whatever; but 50 or a 100 persons joined together in a city guild for that purpose, is a very different point. I do not mean to say that I am right, but I can state that in every other country in Europe it would be held so; and I canuot understand why it should not be so in England. Mr. 17 May 1882. Mr. W. Gilbert. 17 May 1882. MR. WILLIAM GILBERT was called in and examined as follows: 1472. (Chairman.) I think I need hardly ask you whether you have given much attention to matters relating to the city companies and the charities ?—I have given a good deal of attention with regard to the city generally, including the Corporation, the companies, and the charities, but not especially the companies. 1473. But you have considered the question of the function of the companies in connexion with your inquiries into the general condition of the city administration ?—Yes. 1474. You have published a book, I think, within the last few years upon the subject ?—Yes; but I begun before that. It was, I think, about 20 years ago that I was asked by some of the guardians in one of the poorer parishes in the city to write a pamphlet. They were getting up an agitation with regard to the poor rates difficulty. After I had done that I wrote some articles, one in the Contemporary Review, another in the Fortnightly, another in the Nineteenth Century, and a couple of books upon the question. 1475. I think I am right in supposing that you have formed and expressed a strong opinion as to the action of the city companies in connexion with the poorer population of the city?—Yes, particularly so. 1476. Perhaps you will state, in your own terms, what you consider has to be complained of in that respect? What is complained of took place after the equalisation of the poor rates in the city. Before that it was the custom for the owners of house property in the city, especially the city guilds, to drive the poor out of their districts into the poorer parishes; but when they all had to pay equally, then they were all equally interested in getting rid of the poor, and the result has been that the poor have been almost entirely driven out of the city of London. But that is not the principal point I wish to bring under your Lordship's notice. In London, whenever a house is destroyed and a new one erected, in almost every case, especially with regard to those of the city companies, a clause is inserted that no person shall be allowed to sleep upon the premises, thereby totally prohibiting the poorer classes from returning. In Paris, on the contrary, wherever an alteration or improvement was made, it was not allowed to be commenced until equal or a greater amount of provision for the industrial classes who were to be removed by it was provided. 1477. Do I understand you to say that the city companies especially have taken action in this way, or that they have only followed the general practice of house owners in the city?-They have followed the general policy of the house owners in the city; but holding the enormous amount of property they do in the city, their action has been most prejudicial to the comfort and well-being of the working and industrial classes generally. By industrial classes I mean such as clerks and others whose incomes would be under 2007. or 300l. a year. 1478. Do you put it in this way: that you consider an obligation lies upon them which does not equally lie upon private owners of land or houses, to use their own property for the special benefit of the working classes. Am I right in putting that interpretation upon what you say?-Hardly. I want merely to say this, that when the enormous amount of property in such a small area as the city is held by the livery companies, and they prohibit the return of the working classes there after driving them away, it is a very great injustice, because it drives them from the centre of their work and puts great labour upon them as well as a greater amount of taxation. 1479. Do you know what proportion of the area of the city is owned by the city companies ?-1 am unable to state exactly, but I should mention that I look upon it in this way, that all the Corporation properties of the city belong to different guilds, therefore I am unable to separate the two. I know they are separated, but where the line of demarcation between them lies I do not know. 1480. As I understand you, your complaint is, that the land owned by the city companies is used in such a manner as to make it impossible for working men to reside upon that land ?-(1) Precisely. By an example I think I shall be better able to explain what I mean. In Coleman Street there is a clock in front of one of the houses; underneath that clock is a passage into Basinghall Street. This is the property of the Merchant Taylors' Company. Ten years ago the whole of it was let for 750l. a year; the lease fell in ; they renewed it at 2,3007. a year under the condition that the whole of the building should be pulled down and about 200,000l. expended upon it in chambers; but with a strict clause in the lease that no one should be allowed to sleep upon the premises. 1481. If that had been done by a private person I presume you would not have thought it a matter of complaint, would you?—I would not state that. I think that the working classes and the poorer classes have a right to be taken into consideration by the civic authorities in the same way as they are by Parisian authorities, and even in Russia as well. There they have taken them into consideration and provided that the poor shall have some provision made for them, and no injustice done them. 1482. The injustice that you complain of is that in consequence of the owners of house property not finding it lucrative to provide lodgings for the working classes, those classes are not able to find accommodation within the area of the city ?-Granted; and yet not precisely so. When they were driven from the city they went over into Blackfriars, or between Blackfriars Road and Southwark Road. The Corporation and the Board of Works then formed a line of buildings which are at present called Southwark Street, passing through the most densely populated portion of the locality, thus driving away an enormous number of the inhabitants; but no dwelling-houses have been built there, with the exception of one block of Peabody Dwellings, although an enormous number of the working classes are employed upon the banks of the river. (1) See the Memorandum of the Merchant Taylor's Company (infra. p. 265.) 1483. Are you speaking of the land that has been cleared on the two sides of the street?—The land that has been cleared on the two sides of the street; that will be the work of the Corporation, and as I hold, the Corporation comprises the members of the city guilds, or the greatest portion of them-the majority. 1484. Do I understand you that the greater part of that land is owned by the city companies ?—No, it was bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and there was no opposition, to it in any manner whatever, because in the precincts of Southwark the city itself had a considerable amount of interest. 1485. In that case all that you complain of is, that the city companies did not interfere with the manner in which the Metropolitan Board of Works dealt with the land?—The city companies owned the land; they drove the working classes out in a north-easterly direction. This especially told upon St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which was the great centre of medical relief for the city. I took the returns some time ago from St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and I found that the average distance every out-patient had to go was about a mile and a half, and a mile and a half to return. 1486. Does it not come to this, that the central area of London has become enormously valuable as a site for business premises, and that therefore dwellings for the working classes erected there, if they are to be made to pay and if the fair commercial price is given for the sites upon which they are built, will cost the working man much more in rents than they will at a greater distance from the centre ?-That it has increased enormously in value there is no doubt; but still, for all that, they have built houses that cannot let, whereas they might have built houses that might have been let; for example, if you take from Holborn to the Minories, at the present time there are 2,000 sets of offices vacant that they cannot find tenants for. There is one house near the Blackfriars Railway Station, the value of which is 2,000l. a year, and there they have been able to let only one set of offices for 607. a year; the whole of the rest is lying idle, and the ratepayers of the metropolis are taxed for it. There are a great number of other cases of the same kind in the city. In the case of the Merchant Taylors that I was speaking of, not one half of the offices are now let. 1487. In that case, will not the evil cure itself; if the building of offices has been overdone, will it not be discontinued?-In a great measure. Frequently the city companies and the Corporation will keep land idle that may be productive rather than let it in such a way that the working classes or the poorer classes may benefit by it. If you will allow me, I will give you an example. Some years ago Lady Augusta Stanley wanted to start a school for nurses, and the Westminster Hospital agreed to train her nurses. She asked me to come upon her committee, and I was also asked to look out for a piece of land as a site for their home. I looked at a piece of land within about 100 yards or 150 yards of the house in which this Commission is sitting. I asked the agent how much frontage it had. He told me about 900 feet, and asked how much I wanted; I said about 80 feet. The price he asked and the price we paid for it was 10 guineas per lineal inch. I said to him, "this land has been lying idle, to my certain knowledge, for the last 25 years." "Yes," he said, "for about that time." "To whom does it belong," I asked; he replied, "It belongs to a charity school, and the Corporation of the city of London have an interest in that charity school." I asked whether they were interested in any other land near it, and he told me there was a great deal more, and gave me an instance within 100 yards of this house. It appears from this that about 17,000l. charitable endowments have been lying idle and wasted for 25 years. I then went down to the school board, and asked them what would be the expense of educating the whole of the inhabitants of the city of Westminster under the school board. They gave me a memo 66 randum, which is in my hand at the present moment, and the amount represents 7,8647., including stationery. That is to say that the whole of the poorer inhabitants of the city of Westminster might be educated gratuitously, without taxing the parents or the ratepayers for a single farthing, merely with the value of the land that is at the present time lying idle within 150 yards of this house. 1488. I presume you do not pretend that the ratepayers or the inhabitants of Westminster have any more right to gratuitous education than the inhabitants of any other part of the country?-Certainly not; but if they have inherited the endowments they have as much right to them as the wealthier class to their endowments. 1489. What do you call the inheritance?—I mean to say if left for endowment the poor have as much right to profit by it as the rich by their endowments. 1490. In this case you are speaking of land specially left for educational purposes?-For educational purposes alone. 1491. Take the case you have put as to the alleged exclusion of the working classes from the area of the city. I do not understand you to contend that there is any special intention of driving them out on the part of the companies, but merely that they, like other proprietors, let their land in a manner which they consider the most profitable?-It is the most profitable to themselves, because if they get the working classes out of the city they escape the inhabited house duty upon their new buildings. 1492. That, I presume, is the meaning of the rule of which you spoke just now, that no one is allowed to sleep on the premises?-Precisely. 1493. But in point of fact they have simply acted, as I understand you, like all other proprietors ?--In other countries there would be a law against that altogether, not only in France, but in Italy and Germany, and other places where they are always taken into consideration, and it is not allowed to be considered an act of good management simply to drive them away. I will take particularly the ejection-eviction will perhaps be a better term-of the inhabitants of the city of London in the north-eastern districts of the metropolis. The centre of their medical relief will be St. Bartholomew's Hospital, but they are completely driven away from that, and as they have been driven away from it the value of the land belonging to St. Bartholomew's Hospital has increased enormously in value, and the benefit intended for the poorer classes has not been given to them. 1494. Do I understand you to put it in this way, that if I or any one of us owns a piece of land in the city on which a certain number of working men have lived, you think that we ought to be bound to continue that land in the occupation of workmen, and not to apply it to any other purpose?-I do not mean that at all; but if 40 or 50 gentlemen join together and claim that it shall not be done, I say it looks very much like a conspiracy against the well-being of the industrial classes. 1495. You do not object to any individual doing it? -No. 1496. But you do object to a number of individuals doing it? Certainly. 1497. Even although they may each of them be acting independently upon the same principle and without any combination among themselves?—It is merely one common interest actuating the whole. 1498. Then to sum it up in one word, you think that the owner of building land in the city is in this position that he is morally bound, and ought to be legally obliged, to let his land or a great part of it, for the use of the working classes, although that is not the most profitable use to which it could be put? No, certainly not, in any manner whatever; but 50 or a 100 persons joined together in a city guild for that purpose, is a very different point. I do not mean to say that I am right, but I can state that in every other country in Europe it would be held so; and I cannot understand why it should not be so in England. Mr. 17 May 1882. Mr. W. Gilbert. 1499. What is it that you would think it right to prohibit? You say you would not prohibit any indi17 May 1882. vidual or any single owner from letting his land as he thought best?-Allowing that to be the case; if the individual drives the poor away from the place to which the charities intended for the poor is limited he deprives them of the benefit of those charities by his action, and I say that the sympathies of most rightminded men are with those poor people, and if that state of things can be altered, it ought to be altered. 1500. Is there not an alternative remedy for that, namely, to extend the area within which the charities may be distributed ?--Certainly; that is the very point I was coming to. That is precisely the principal reason why I asked to be examined. 1501. You do not contend that the companies should be bound to build lodging-houses in localities where offices or warehouses would be more profitable? -No, I do not care about that, provided that the inheritance of the poor (that is to say, their charities and endowments and things of that kind) follows them where they go. 1502. But in that case is it not easier to bring the charities to the poor rather than to keep the poor within the original arca of the charities?-Certainly in the present instance it is so, in the commencement it might have been different. 1503. I understand also, you think that there ought to be a closer connexion than at present exists between the trades and the companies' charities ?-Most certainly. 1504. Do you consider that the charities should in the main be appropriated to benefit the trades whose names the companies bear?-I think that first of all their duties in relation to the trades ought to be taken into consideration, for example, I hold that certain portions of each livery companies special charity funds, such, for example, as that mentioned in the Goldsmiths' first charter for the relief of their blind operatives, should be applied to their original uses. 1505. For instance, a proportion of the Merchant Taylors' funds should be applied for the benefit of the tailors generally, you mean?-Yes, and that used to be the case. If you look in Machyn's and Stowe's diaries you will find they give a description of a dinner at the Merchant Taylors' Company, and also describes the Merchant Taylors' School, in which there was not a boy in the school that was not the son of a tailor. 1506. What date was that ?--It would be about the time of Elizabeth or that and James the First. 1507. You say there was not a boy in the school that was not the son of a tailor?--That was not the son of a tailor. In 1812 there were but 12 boys who were the sons of tailors. 1508. You are aware that at the present time the freedom of the company can be obtained by patrimony, and that therefore a large number of freemen, probably the greater majority are not in any way connected with the trade?-I am perfectly well aware that it is so. With the Mercers' and with many others also it used to be the same, yet they now state that since the time of Charles II. it was not the case. In 1701 Sir William Gore was chief magistrate of London. He belonged to the Mercers' Company, and he boasted that there was not a man upon the company who was not a mercer, while other companies had admitted strangers. Beyond that, again, in D'Israeli's Curiosities of Literature, mention is made of a song that was used on the procession on Lord Mayor's day, in which the words were to the effect that the mercers had kept their company to the trade to which they belonged, and yet the Mercers' insist in the present day that it was not the case; that it was by patrimony, and that there were no mercers belonging to them. However, with regard to these companies, you will find in several of the Camden Society's publications many statements as to the close affinities existing between the trades and the companies. 1509. How do you reconcile that close connexion between the companies and the trades, with the fact that the son of any member of the company had a right to become a member of the company himself, although he might not follow the trade represented by the name of the company?-That was not so at the commencement. I am merely speaking as a man of science and a literary man; I am no lawyer. 1510. Have you considered the question at all of the manner in which the companies administer their affairs?-Yes, and certainly it seems to me almost inexplicable. If you look at the original charter of the Goldsmiths' Company you will find a great portion of their funds was distinctly for trade purposes and charitable purposes. At the present time I think they subscribe 600l. a year to some benefit associations among the operative goldsmiths, and that is all. The value of the clerk's appointment compared to the money they give in charity is simply perfectly absurd. 1511. Do you consider that all the members of certain trades in London have a right to be members of the company?—I consider that upon paying a certain entrance fee, they have a right to be elected members of the company, and that they should make the fees paid a sort of benefit fund plus the original endowment, but not the whole of the funds. I think the greater portion of the funds should go to benefit the metropolis at large, and the poorer classes in greater proportion than any other. 1512. Take, for instance, the case of the Merchant Taylors', you think that all the tailors of London would have a right on payment of some moderate fee to enter that company ?—I do. 1513. Would you extend that beyond London ?—I forget to what distance round London the powers of the Merchant Taylors' Company extend, but the powers vary, I think, from three miles to eight miles round London. 1514. You have considered the matter a good deal; if you had to deal with the question of re-organising the companies, what would be your proposition; in the first place, would you re-organise them, or would you abolish them?-I would rather wish, provided the benefit funds could be given to the members of the trades, to abolish them; but, as I have stated before, I have merely paid attention to the abuses that exist, leaving it to those who are wiser than myself to form such regulations as shall place them to better uses than they are placed at present. 1515. The chief abuse about which you have told us as yet is the driving of the working classes away from the city?—Yes; but will you allow me also to state this, that the English practice in this respect is directly contrary to the usage prevailing in all the capitals of Europe besides our own; you cannot find anywhere evictions carried out to the same extent as in London (and the precincts thereof). 1516. Carried out in consequence of any special legislation do you mean, or merely by the ordinary operation of the law which enables every house owner to choose his own tenant ?-A great deal by legisla tion; that is to say, if a street is required it is invariably required through that portion of the place where the densest population is to be found. 1517. Is that because the land is got cheapest there, or what is it due to ?-They quote that as one reason; but it looks also as if it were intended to get rid of the tenants. That is the appearance it bears. 1518. Have you considered the question as to the halls of the companies. We have heard it stated here that they were assessed below their is value; proper that your opinion ?-I am hardly capable of forming an opinion as to that. I have followed Mr. Beal's authority upon that point. He is much more up in the subject than I am. 1519. (Mr. James.) You have stated in your proof that the income of the clerk of the Goldsmiths' Company is 5,000l. a year?-Pardon me, I think it was 4,000l. a year. I stated that it was equal to, or that his incomes were equal to, at least 5,000l. a I think I made my calculation on the basis that it was equal to the emoluments of the head clerks of year. |