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.
