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 wit