The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-06-09 00:00:00

GIFTS TO MANCHESTER.

t

A provisional scheme, by which the citizens of
Manchester are to become the recipients of magni-
ficent gifts, has been issued to members of the City
Council. The scheme originates with the trustees of
the late Sir Joseph Whitworth, who left a large sum
of money to be expended in educational and other
measures for the benefit of the citizens. The pro-
posals are: To present the Woodland Park and
Pleasure Ground for the enjoyment of the public; the
erection and equipment of a Museum of Art and In-
dustries in the park; an enlargement of the present
School of Art; the building of a Central Technical
School to work in close relationship with Owen's
College; and the establishment of the Manual
Training School, which may form a link be-
tween the Public Elementary School and the
Central Technical School. The whole scheme repre-
sents a capital outlay of close upon £BOO,OOO. To-
wards this the Whitworth Trustees offer in money,
land, and buildings gifts amounting to £153,000; and
they promise further contributions in the way of
donations, endowments, and scholar ships, if the
scheme should be carried out on the broad lines they
suggest. A special committee of the City Council
has recommended that the Woodland-park and Plea-
sure-ground, presented by the Whitworth Trustees,
should be maintained out of the rates; and that Par-
liamentary powers should be obtained to make an
annual contribution from the rates towards the main-
tenance of the Institution of Art and Industry. The
annual expenditure for maintenance is roughly esti-
mated at £lO,OOO.

A COLNTRY dealer sent to London for a copy of a
little book called "Happy Husband." The work not
being procurable, the country dealer received a note
stating that there were no "Happy Husbands" hi
London.

WHAT a contrast there sometimes Is between the
adjective and the adverb. Reflect, for example, on
the wide difference exists between the man who
is constant in love and the man who is constantly in
love!

BOARD OF WORKS INQUIRY.

The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the alleged questionable proceedings of the Metropolitan
Board of Works has resumed, at the Westminster
Sessions House, Lord Herschell presiding. Mr.
Robertson was not present. Mr. Saunders, the ex-
deputy chairman of the Board, stated that as archi-
tect for the Pavilon, the site of which was the Board's
property, he received £2OOO. Mr. Pitt, contractor to
the Board, then made several corrections of his former
evidence, which, on referring to his books, he had
found inaccurate. Mr. Runtz, whose father was a
member of the Board, stated that the firm of
auctione( rs of which ho was a member had sold
several lots of land for the Board. Their acquiring
that business was probably owing to the fact of their
being successful in disposing of some land in Shore-
ditch, which the Board had had on it hands for nine
years, and were unable to sell. The father of the
last wttio is stated that not only had he an objection
to his son undertaking business for the Board, but he
was not aware for some time that he was doing so.
Moreover, he hal frequently opposed the Board's sell-
ing land by auction.
iNlr. Isaacs, architect of part of the Pavilion, de-
posed to his transactions respecting that building, and
stated that he never paid any money to Mr. Robert-
son, nor had any pecuniary transactions whatever
with him.

•
Mr. Worley, architect, said that he was introduced
by Mr. Robertson to Mr. Villiers, with a view of his
financing the latter, and it was in consideration of his
being put to a good deal of trouble in the matter, and
Mr. Villiers being financed by another firm, that he
was appointed architect of the elevation of the
restaurant connected with the Pavilion. Mr. Villiers
told him that he did not want to employ Mr.
Saunders, but he did so as a matter of policy, as
otherwise the Board would give him a good deal of
trouble. He had never paid Mr. Robertson or any
member of the Board id. Mr. Robertson was really
the ruling power in the matter of the Pavilion for the
Board.

Mr. Hodson, surveyor, said he had bought land of
the Board in 1886. He lent Mr. Robertson £lOOO for
three months, which was repaid with 5 per cent.
interest. In July, 1885, he gave Mr. Robertson
£350 as a present, He had been negotiating with
the Board for the purchase of the freehold for the site
of the Colonial Institute, which he was very anxious
to obtain, but the Board refused to sell it on his
terms.

One day, in Spring-gardens, he met Mr. Robertson,
who informed him that the Board had consented to
take 25 years' purchase. He was so delighted to hear
that, as he had offered 26 years' purchase, that he
thereupon told Mr. Robertson that if he got through
with it all right he would make him a present. He
also gave Mr. Robertson £l3O for introducing him to
Mr. Villiers, who bought a piece of his land in Shaftes-
bury-avenue. That was only two years ago. The
witness produced cheques returned from his bankers,
showing that, in addition to the sums stated, he had
paid Mr. Robertson £lOO and £250, which, in answer
to the chairman, he said he gave him for his good
advice, and telling him of land suitable for his
market. In several cases Mr. Robertson had advised
him to purchase land belonging to the Board which
had proved a loss to him. He (the witness) made
£13,000 gross out of the Colonial Institute land. He
had paid Mr. Fowler, a member of the Board, £2OO in
connection with the Lyric Theatre, in Shaftesbury-
avenue, of which Mr. Phipps and Mr. Fowler were
the architects. He was now under covenant to spend
£60,000 with the Board.

At the usual weekly meeting of the Board, the
clerk reported that he had written to Mr. T. J. Robert-
son, in accordance with the resolution of the Board at
the last meeting, but that Mr. Robertson had not
attended and reported himself as directed. He also
read a letter from Mr. H. R. Stewart, giving notice
that the salary alleged to be due to Mr. T. J. Robert-
son on the 24th inst. had been duly assigned for con-
sideration, and that if the same were not paid upon
application on Monday, the 25th inst., proceedings
would be issued without any further notice after that
date. The Clerk said he had forwarded an acknow-
ledgment to Mr. Stewart, which had been returned
through the Dead Letter Office. The subject was
referred to the solicitor.

The Royal Commission on the working of the
Metropolitan Board of Works held another sitting on
Tuesday. Mr. Augustus Harris gave evidence as to
the way in which theatres in London were controlled,
and produced letters from Mr. Hebb, who had been
employed in the architect's department of the Board,
asking for stalls or boxes at Drury Lane Theatre.
Evidence was also taken as to improvements which
the Board contemplated in Whitcomb-street, but did
not carry out; and a letter on the subject was read
from Mr. Edgar Bruce.

_