The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-06-16 00:00:00

MORE FATAL FIRES.

sof I
•

Captain Shaw had reported to him on Tuesday
night the fatal results of a fire which occurred at 11,
Locksley-street, Burdett-road, Limehouse. A spirit
lamp was upset in the back room on the first floor,
and the ostcupant, Maria Halfpenny, age 60, was so
terribly barnt that she died in the London Hospital
on Tuesday afternoon from the results of her injuries.
Early on Tuesday morning a fire broke out in Vic-
toria-street, Clifton, on premises occupied by Mr.
Hood, cabinetmaker, consisting of a two-storey dwell-
ing-house, with workshops behind. The fire spread
rapidly, and by the time the brigade arrived the build-
ing was in flames. Subsequently the charred bodies
of two women and a boy were discovered in the ruins.
The women were Rebecca Gough and Ellen Hancock,
aged respectively 67 and 80. The former was deaf
and the latter blind. The women were seen at the
window, and neighbours went to their rescue, but the
floor gave way and the women fell through. The boy,
whose name is Joint, nephew of the occupier, had
gone to the back of the premises to light a gas stove,
and the outbreak is supposed to have originated from
an explosion of gas.
On Tuesday afternoon a fire broke out in a loft of
the Team Valley Paper Mills, at Gateshead, owned
by Mrs. B. Richardson and Sons. The fire spread
rapidly, and the loft, which was full of rags, was
soon in flames. Twelve workgirls were in the room
at the time. Ten escaped by the ordinary communi-
cation, which, however, was soon cut off by the fire.
The eleventh girl reached the ground by sliding down
a vinch chain a distance of 30ft. ; and the twelfth
girl escaped 14 jumping into a sheet held outside by
some workmen. Considerable damage was done to
the building. ,

THE man who undertook to blast his ueighbour's
prospects used too short a fuse, and got blown up
himself.
Miss KNIGHT (to new acquaintance, whose name
she did not catch) : "Etymology of names is my
favourite study. My theory is that all names indi-
cate what the person's ancestors were. For instance,
:ny ancestors were knights, the Smith family were
blacksmiths, and eo forth. I thivk it's the, best way.
to tell what .& person is, don% yOu ? " Well, no, 40
'tidal, because his name was Hogg.

BOARD OF WORKS INQUIRY.
MORE DISCREDITABLE DISCLOSURES.
The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the
alleged irregularities of the Metropolitan Board of
Works continued its inazastigations on Tuesday. Lord
Herschell presided, an the other commissioners were
Mr. Bosanquet, Q.C., twat Mr. Grenfell. Mr. Meadows
White, Q.C., and Mr. Isossapaa appeared for the Board
of Works; Mr. Winch, Q.O, Mr. Grain, and Mr. Studd
for the Inquizy Cainiclidtela
Mr. Meadows I.Etilto handset to the commissioners a
transcript of the ahortitrand notes of an inquiry made
by the Board of Works In October, 1887.
Lord Herschell remarked that he was perfectly
aware that Mr. Villiers, on the occasion on which he
was examined before the Works Committee, did not
--sake that full disclosure which he had made before
the Commission.
Mr. D'Oyly Carte, proprietor of the Savoy Theatre,
was the first witness. His theatre was the first built
ur;'• s the Act of 1878, which gave the Board power to
deal with places of entertainment. Great delay oc-
surr,l in connecason with the approval of plans.
They were referred by the Board to a committee, then
back to .t Board, again to another committee, and
so on. .: -as a very complicated business. The
great grievance was that there was no one person to
see on the subject, but it was dealt with by com-
mittees, and ss many people were concerned. He
purchased a site on which the Savoy Hotel was built
between the theatre and the Embankment in 1884.
The whole negotiations with -. oaect to the purchase
of the land and the sending' 1 of plans were con-
ducted by his solicitor. He had known Mr. Robertson
alt, *me.
"'h. :ansactions had you with Mr. Robertson
personally : —Mr. Robertson did some work for me
in connection with the plans of the Savoy Hotel in
1885 after the purchase was completed. He ad-
vised with respect to *he plans. Those designs were
ultimately abandons,, otherwise they would have
been submitted ti the Board. Subsequent plans were
se • ' the Board, and with those Mr. Robertson had
nothis.g to uo. ;paid him in January, 1886, £lOO for
his services.'s
By Mr. Winch : You never employed a member of
the Board as architect ?—.No.
In reply to Mr. Meadows White, the witness said
that al the request of Mr. Pyke, who was tendering
for the Pavilion site, he saw Mr. Villiers on the sub-
ject. That gentleman's account of the interview was
substantially correct. Mr. Villiers told him that the
purchase from the Board was already settled, and
witness informed Mr. Pyke that the transaction was
at an end.
Lord Herschel' asked Mr. Selway, a member of the
Board, if the officials in the Architect's Department
had any right to practise privately.
Mr. Selway replied in the negative. The Board were
not aware that it was being done. Private practice
would be against their distinct regulations.
By Mr. Meadows White: There is no written regu-
lations on the subject, but it is a distinct understand-
ing in the office ?—That is so.
Mr. James Hartnoll, builder, stated that he had
made a number of purchases of land belonging to the
Board. The plots were nominally tendered for by
Mr. Samuel Toye, who had previously had transac-
tions with the Board. Mr. Toye dealt with the
Board, and witness dealt with Mr. Toye. (Laughter.)
In this way he purchased land in Goulston-street,
near Aldgate Station. The Board would not accept a
tender from him because they thought he was not
competent to carry out such a largo undertaking.
Robertson assisted him to prepare the drawings for
the buildings—Artisans' Dwellings—in order that
they should be passed by the Board.
Had you any pecuniary transactions with any other
officer or member of the Board ?—None whatever.
Mr. Henry Clarke, tobacco manufacturer, said he
became acquainted with Mr. Robertson in connection
with the purchase of a site in Shoreditch, on which his
firm erected a building. Afterwards he obtained a site
in Bedfordbury for £9OO. For this he had previously
tendered £5OO, which was refused, and he subsequently
secured it for the higher sum through a Mr. Fair-
brother, who was recommended to him by Robert-
son. On letting the ground he gave Robertson ten
guineas, and afterwards, on selling the property at a
profit of £5OO, he sent that gentleman £5O. In 1881
he lent Mr. Robertson £5OO, which was paid back at
the end of the following year. He subsequently told
Robertson that he was prepared to go in for two or
three sites, and Mr. Robertson said that there was
land in Commercial-street for sale. Witness replied
that the site was too large, and Robertson then
offered to go halves. Witness unwisely accepted
this proposal, and he had regretted it ever since. If
he was correctly informed, his tender for this piece of
ground was £3OOO higher than the next to it. Mr.
Robertson was unable to advance the money for his
share in the business, and witness said he would let it
stand. He afterwards tendered for land in Goulston-
street, which was purchased for about £3OOO. Robert-
son also shared in this. Witness told him that lie
could not help him in a matter of this kind if he did
not find any money, and he replied that he ought to
be in this good speculation as he had been in the
bad one. The site in Goulston-street was sold for the
purposes of a German Church for £7OOO, andwitness
gave £250 towards the building fund. Robertson
pressed for payment of h's share of the profit, and
witness Eave him a cheaue for 41 sOO ia December,
1885. Subsequently he purchased a site at Camber-
well for £2200. He then made up his mind to have
no more to do with purchases of the Board's land or
with Mr. Robertson, because the transactions were
beginning to look rather complicated. Robertson
"pushed him very close," and he therefore resolved to
take the bad bargain in Commercial-street on his own
hands. He then in settlement gaveßobertson a cheque
for £361 155., being £320 10s. for half the profit on the
Camberwell site and a balance of £4l ss. in connection
with Goulston-street. This was the close of his trans-
actions with the Board's property. Witness knew
none of the members of the Board, and Robertson
told him from time to time that he had no control
over the acceptance of the tenders, nor did he know
the price that the Board would accept.
Mr. James Willing, advertising contractor, handed
in an account of payments which he had made to
Mr. Robertson and Mr. Goddard. It appeared that
from 1876 he had paid sums of £2O or £25 a year to
each of these gentlemen. He explained that when
persons purchased properly from the Board of Works
they were bound during building operations to sur-
round the plots with hoardings. The payments were
made to Goddard and Robertson for early informa-
tion as to the sales of property by the Board, in order
that witness's firm could negotiate with the pur-
chasers for the right of advertising on the hoardings
before others in the trade knew of it. This had
nothing to do with the Board.
By Lord Herschel': Either Goddard or Robertson
could have given you the whole information? Yes;
but an immense number of people used to go about
posting bills on the Board's hoardings. This was not
permitted by the Board, who would not let their
hoardings, and I used to write to them to prevent
this. They would see that the bills were removed.
So you paid them really to make them perform
their duties? Quite so.
I suppose these payments were the res alt of your
_seeing Robertson and Goddard? No; I had no conver-
sation with them at all. I merely sent them annually
what I thought their services were worth.
Mr. Chas. Dunch, architect of the Canterbury
Theatre, stated that Mr. Goddard told him that Mr.
Villiers ought to make him an allowance for extra
trouble in supervising the Pavilion. Mr. Villiers felt
that Mr. Goddard, in his official position, might do him
great harm by reporting unfavourably with regard tp
the management of the Pavilion, and as the tenancy
was expected to last only two or three years he de-
cided to pay Goddard £5O a quarter. This was not a
bribe, but it was intended to secure Mr. Villiers from
presumed hostility, on the part of Goddard. Mr. Vil-
liers would have paid Goddard a lump sum, but could
not di so at the time.
Mr. Walter Emden, architect of Terry's Theatre,
spoke of the delays which occurred in getting plans
passed by the Metropolitan Board, and said that when
he applied to Mr. Ilebb for definite information as to
the Board's objections to the designs, he was usually
told to p?ruse the bylaws and find out.
You had no pecuniary transactions with Mr. Hebb ?
—No; if I had it might have been easier.
Have you any knowledge that pecuniary trans-
actions have made the matter easier in other cases ?
—No; personally I have not.
Mr. Stimson, auctioneer, was recalled, and gave
details of the payments which he had made to Mr.
Robertson. Be gave that gentleman one-third of the
commission on sales of property belonging to the
Board which he conducted on the Surrey side of the
Thames. In reply to Lord Herschel', he remarked
that in these days of competition business was next
to impossible unless such payments were made. It
was not to his interest at the time to offend Mr.
Robertson. He considered that unless he kept on
good terms with him he would have no more sales
from the Board.
Mr. W. Story, of Lambert-road, Brixton-rise, was
examined with reference to an award made by Mr.
Hebb when acting as temporary superintending
architect after the death of Mr. Vulliamy. Under
this award there had been erected- in Brixton-rise
two shops withiss 16ft. of the footpath, there being
on one side a new Catholic chapel, which was kept
back 50ft , and on the other side a mansion, which,
like all the houses in the Rise, were 100 ft. or more
from the footpath.
Lord Herschel' remarked that he had seen the place
himself, and could not see that the award was
justified.
Mr. Adams, an employiS of Messrs. Coombe and Co.,
stated that in September, 1886, he drew a cheque on
that firm n for £523 16s. It was advanced to Mr. Cox,
who took the Old Swan, Bethnal-green, from Mr..
Grey. Mr. Robertson was second mortgagee. £6900
was paid by Cox to Grey as premium for the lease.
The inquiry was adjourned.

To the well-constituted male mind the pleasure that
wornen derive from their clothes is an agreeable !nib-
ject.of contemplation. The man "who never knows
how one is dressed" is very properly regarded as a
'brute" by women; but they have a tendency °to
despise the other sort of man, who knows all about
it, and discusses dress like a modiste.

Vi'nEw a merchant became bankrupt he put a sign
at the door which read "Not, 1n,." and sat in his
ofEde to meditate on the uncertainties .of business
enterprise. One of his cxeditors looked at it, sighed a
quiet sigh. and reading it "N Tin," turned away in
.despair.
•