The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-05-19 00:00:00

THE BROKEN BOWL HOUSE.

One of the papers to hand by the mail from China
tells of a curious custom. Outside one of the gates
of I'ekin, says the journal, is a respectable, old-
established wine shop, generally known as the Broken
Bowl House. Many years ago a former proprietor
who was condemned to death was reprieved, and ever
since, by way of gratitude, the shop has gratuitously
supplied to condemned criminals passing it on the
way to the execution ground as much wine as they
wish to drink. Each criminal is supplied with a bowl
which, when he has taken the last draught, is solemnly
smashed on the pavement; hence the title of the
establishment.

BOARD OF WORKS INQUIRY.

The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the working of the Metropolitan Board of Works
resumed its business on Tuesday morning at the Ses-
sions House, Westminster. The Commissioners are
Lord Herschell, Mr. Bosanquet, and Mr. Grenfell. Mr.
Meadows White appeared for the Metropolitan Board
of Works, and Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Grain for the
Inquiry Committee. Lord Magheramorne and Mr.
Selway were again present.
Lord Herschell took his seat punctually at eleven
o'clock, but at that hour Mr. Robertson, who was
under examination when the Court adjourned on the
last occasion, was not in attendance, although the
witness was informed that his examination would be
continued when the Court was resumed. After wait-
ing a quarter of an hour,
Lord Herschell directed the clerk to dispatch a
telegram to Mr. Robertson, demanding his immediate
attendance at the court, and pending the witness's
arrival,

Mr. Selway, a member of the Board, was re-called
tnd examined by the president with reference to the
kting of the Grand Hotel site. The witness said
that the Board fixed a valuation of £9138 per annum
for the site, and accepted a tender of Messrs. Francis
for £9OOO. The Board subsequently agreed to
sell the freehold at 26 years' purchase. He was
next examined with regard to the Colonial Institute
site, which WU let to Mr. C. G. Phillips at £5.10 per
annum. Mr. Hobson who made the offer for the
Colonial Institute site on behalf of Mr. C. G. Phillips,
had had several other transactions with the Board,
and his name appeared in connection with the
London Pavilion site. He believed that it was Mr.
Hobson who financed Mr. Gray (Mr. Robertson's
brother).

Lord Herschell asked Mr. Selway why his name
appeared in the directory, inasmuch as he had stated
on a previous occasion that he was no longer a sur-
vey-or. Mr. Selway said he omitted to say that he
had one appointment as a surveyor, but it had
nothing to do with the Board's land. He had been
managing director of a building investment society,
but he had given that up a month or so ago.
Mr. Ebenezer Saunders, the architect of the
Pavilion, who was next called, stated that he was
until recently a member of the Board. On Nov. 26,
1884, he first saw Mr. Villiers with regard to the
Pavilion site, when he called to ask him to favourably
consider his application, as he had been an old
member of the Board. Mr. Villiers did not then
allude to his being appointed architect of the
Pavilion. The tender came before the Board on Dec.
1, 1884, and he did not see him between Nov.
26 and Dec. 1, 1884. Mr. Villiers at his 'first meet-
ing told him the price that had been put upon the
Pavilion site. It was talked about outside the
Board. He believed he was at the Board on Dec. 1,
He saw Mr. Villiers again on Dec. 7. Witness re-
ceived a letter from Mr. Villiers in the following
January specifying the terms he was to receive as
architect. He was aware that Mr. Pike made an offer
for the Pavilion site. On December 7he first recelved
a communication from Mr. Villiers, asking him to
become architect, the terms being 5 per cent, on the
outlay. In accepting the offer he urged that Mr.
Worley should act with him. He did not do this so
that the members of the Board of Works should not
know that he was acting for Mr. Villiers. He in-
formed the Board that he was acting for Mr. Villiers.
He was architect for the entire block, including the
Piccadilly Restaurant, which Mr. Robertson's brother
had bought. The plans had to be submitted to the
superintendent architect, and Mr. Robertson was the
second in command in that department of the Board.
Mr. Worley was pressed upon him to act as joint
architect.

Lord Herschell : Who pressed him on you P—lf any-
body, Mr. Robertson.
But you must know, and I must ask you to can-
didly tell me the whole story ?—I believe I am trying
to do so.

You say that Mr. Worley was pressed on you. I
want to know who pressed him on you. You must
know, and I must ask you to state explicitly.—The
fact was that Mr. Worley had prepared the valuation
at the request of Mr. Robertson, Mr. Villiers, or Mr.
Gray. The elevation was brought to me, and I was
asked to adopt it.

..
Did Mr. Robertson press Mr. Worley on you ?—I
believe he did.

How did you come to see Mr. Robertson ?—My own
opinion was that he was in Mr. Villier's confidence. I
knew that he was an old friend of Mr. Gray, but did
not know that he was any relation.
In answer to further questions, witness said there
was a memorandum between himself and Mr. Worley
as to the remuneration the latter was to receive. The
commission was paid to him. He received about
£lBOO, and paid Mr. Worley £l5O. He also gave
£2OO to Mr. Woodward, who introduced him to Mr.
Villiers. He acted as architect for the IlAtel
Metropole, the Grand, and Constitutional. He had
likewise acted professionally in advising Mr. Hobson
as to what he should offer for the Colonial Institute
freehold.

In reply to Mr. Grain, witness said that he was n't
aware that he was acting contrary to the Metropolitan
Board of Works Act of 1854 by being architect with
respect to the Board's land.

Shortly before the Court adjourned, the messenger
who had been dispatched in a cab to Mr. Robertson's
house in Amhurst-road, Hackney, returned. It was
intimated that Mr. Robertson and his wife were away
from home, and the person in charge knew nothing
whatever of their whereabouts. The servant was
unable to inform the inquirer as to what time Mr.
Robertson left the house, or when he was likely to
return.

At this stage the Commission again adjourned.