A Tale of One City | Page 5

affected many interests, and before it was
carried out it caused a fierce amount of strife, ill-feeling, and hostility.
The discontent and disaffection which Mr. Chamberlain's previous
schemes aroused were but as morning breezes compared with the storm
and tempest his new proposals raised. His daring and dash almost
dazed his fellow townsfolk, for, like Napoleon, he rushed on from one
exploit to another with a rapidity that astounded his friends and
confused and overwhelmed his foes.

III.
THE ACT AND THE DWELLINGS.
Considering how many interests were affected by the Birmingham
Improvement Scheme and the adoption of the Artisans' Dwellings Act,
it may be doubted if the scheme would have passed as it did had its full
purport and meaning been fully considered and understood. Some

persons saw that they would be grievously injured, and they offered
strenuous opposition, but there were many others who only found out
when it was too late what extreme and arbitrary power was conferred
upon the authorities who put the Act into operation.
Of course the scheme was laid before the rate-payers in the usual
manner, but few realised the importance of studying it well, or grasped
the far-reaching character of its operations till too late.
Let me explain more especially what is meant by this. When it was
decided to adopt Mr. Chamberlain's scheme and make the new fine
street, land was cleared and was let on leases by the Corporation. In
letting this land, agreements were made that the new buildings, when
consisting of shops, offices, &c., should be so many storeys high, the
object, of course, being to make the properties, which would in due
course revert to the city, the more valuable. When, however, these tall
buildings were erected, adjacent premises were robbed of light and air,
and when the owners or tenants of these injured premises asked for
compensation they found out, at least in some cases, that the authorities
were not liable. I believe I am right in saying that the powers conferred
by the Act absolved them from indictments on the part of those whose
property was damaged by diminished air or light. The result was that
certain sufferers found to their mortification that they had no redress,
but must raise their chimneys at their own cost, if necessary, and in
other cases endure the inconvenience of a decreased supply of light.
This was an unpleasant revelation that caused much gnashing of teeth
among the owners of, and the dwellers in, the properties surrounding
the tall buildings erected by the leaseholders of the Corporation.
As for those whose property was required and taken under the Act, it
was all very well for owners and for those who had leases: they could
not be molested without fair and proper payment. Shopkeepers and
others, however, who were only annual tenants, had, I fear in many
cases, to go empty away. Some of these had good, old-established
businesses that had for years become identified with certain premises. It
was nothing short of ruin to them to move, but they had to take up their
goods and walk. This is the way that authorities often have to deal with
the more or less helpless in view of what they consider to be the
greatest good of the greatest number.
It will, of course, be said that some of these traders were extremely

short-sighted not to have had leases of premises that were so
all-important to them. In many cases, however, they were unable to
obtain such agreements, the landlords being unwilling or unable to
grant them. The result was that many a prosperous tradesman had his
successful career cut short and passed into a retirement he did not
desire, probably with a few warm curses upon the Town Council, the
Improvement Scheme, and the schemers.
It is not very easy to understand the just laws that should govern
compensation. When there is talk of disestablishing public-houses,
certain statesmen approve of compensation. The argument is that as
public-houses are licensed by law, their owners have been given a sort
of status and sanction, which should be properly and considerately
dealt with in case their businesses are taken away from them. But other
people also take out licences, such as tobacconists, pawnbrokers,
grocers, and wine sellers, yet when these traders are disturbed or
disestablished, compensation is never suggested.
Let us see what has happened in Birmingham. When the grand new
street was made the traffic to the northern part of the town was largely
diverted from other thoroughfares, and the consequence was that streets
and passages that were once busy highways and byways were soon
comparatively deserted. Shops became tenantless, or had to be let at
greatly reduced rents. Indeed, the depreciation of property in the
localities referred to is said to have