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 been at least thirty per cent.
Yet the owners had no redress.
Of course it usually happens that when large reforms are effected the
noble work is done at somebody's inconvenience or cost. It is the
inevitable result, and people who are not sufferers shrug their
shoulders and complacently remark that the few must be sacrificed for
the benefit of the many. It is delightfully easy to be philosophical
and even philanthropic when our own pockets, feelings, and interests are
not concerned. The last new great Improvement Scheme would, of course,
be a great thing for Birmingham; it would also shed a considerable
amount of glory on its authors; it would likewise put a good deal of
power into the hands of its administrators, and not a little money into
the pockets of professional men. If some few persons had to suffer in
order to bring about such splendid results they must try to be
patriotic, noble citizens, or else grin and bear their discomfiture!
Those, however, who were despoiled of their businesses, or who found
their property seriously depreciated, were not likely to be consoled by
such buttered comfort. They raised their voices in impotent protest, and
denounced Mr. Chamberlain and all his works.
We do not hear very much of the Artisans' Dwellings Act now, but any
towns that contemplate adopting it should profit by the experience of
Birmingham, consider its full scope and meaning, and count the cost.
The city of Birmingham has applied the Act in connection with its last
great Improvement Scheme, and it now remains to be seen what the
results, in a commercial sense, will be. The present and succeeding
generation, at least, will have to pay off some heavy obligations in the
next sixty or seventy years, and then the city should he immensely the
richer for its enterprising policy. I say it should be, and probably it
will be, but there is a fair-sized "if" to be considered.
It seems to be taken as a matter of course that Birmingham will go on
developing and prospering in the future as it has in the past. And it
may be fairly presumed that it will do so. This, however, must not be
taken exactly as a matter of positive certainty. There are some
indications that there may be a pause in the material prosperity of the
city by and by--a limit to its progressiveness. If so, the enterprises
of our authorities may not prove so advantageous as has been reckoned
upon. Partly owing to high rates and the cost of carriage,
manufacturers are removing factories outside the city, and in some
cases, where they have a large foreign trade, nearer to the seaboard. If
this exodus continues and increases it is easy to see that the effect
will be to diminish the population, and this in time will affect the
value of property. The manufactures of Birmingham are, however, so
numerous and so varied there is reason for hope that any circumstances
that may apparently show a standstill condition will only be temporary,
and that in all general revivals of trade the city will participate.
Whatever may happen, we know the city in the middle of the next century
will come in for a fine heritage of reversions, and it is fair to
presume that posterity will greatly benefit by the Improvement Scheme
fathered by Mr. Chamberlain. In the meantime the citizens--at least,
those who bestow much thought upon such matters--shake their heads at
the load of debt Birmingham bears upon its shoulders, and chafe at the
high rates. It is, however, pointed out to the malcontents that they
live in a healthier place than Birmingham used to be, and, further, that
the city, owing to its improved character and appearance, attracts more
visitors, and this increases local trade.
Of this latter fact there can be little dispute. The new order of things
has led to a new and, in some cases, better class of shops being
established, and these attract a better class of customers. At one time
residents in the adjoining counties looked down upon Birmingham
shopkeepers, and would say rather contemptuously that they never
"shopped" in this city, but went to Leamington, Cheltenham, or London to
make their purchases. But we do not hear so much of this now. On the
contrary, I have heard of people--even aristocratic people--who actually
say that they now, for many reasons, prefer to "shop" in Birmingham
rather than go to London. Of course this is not an ordinary
circumstance--for Birmingham has not yet a Bond Street or Regent Street;
still, exceptional though it may be, it indicates a change of feeling
and shows that, in one sense at all events, Birmingham is on the rise.
The increased number of large and important shops in central Birmingham
has led to the formation of trading establishments and Stores of the
latest order of development. There are now large shops of the "universal
provider" type, where they sell everything from blacking to port wine,
and where you see silk mantles in one window and sausages in another.
Some of us rather preferred the old order of things. We liked and still
like to go to shops kept by tradesmen who have been brought up to
certain lines of business, and who know from actual knowledge and
experience what they are buying and selling. But in these large new
shops and Stores people sell you almost everything without having any
special knowledge of anything. They recommend this, that, and the other,
but you have often good reason to know that it is not from any
experience of the commodities they offer, but only the tradesman's
instinct and desire to dispose of what he wants most to sell rather than
what his customers may most wish to buy.
Such is the new style of large shopkeeping, and it is not, of course,
peculiar to Birmingham. It must be owned, however, that it means
cheapness, and also that it has been largely developed by the new order
of things brought about by the recent street improvements in the city.