outrageous that the Trustees, after considerable delay, were obliged to give up their proposal to purchase, and thus to a great extent neutralise the good they proposed to do. When it was found that the Trustees did not feel themselves justified in giving the sums demanded, and after the new buildings were begun, several of the owners of this adjoining property commenced proceedings in Chancery. In the case of the public-house, which was a leasehold for about 18 years, at a rent of 60l.,, it was stated by the lessee in Court that it cost 1,600l. some years before. Yet before any proceedings were taken the Trustees were asked to give 4,000l. for this lease. The owner of this property was so anxious to press the Trustees to buy his property that he brought an action against them for loss of light, and it was unfortunately decided in his favour. The Court gave judgment for 200l., and this, with costs, inflicted a loss upon the Trustees of probably 400l. Much worse than this was the lasting loss inflicted upon the Trustees by the proximity of this low and miserable property. It will remain there a nest of disease and probably of crime, interfering with the comfort and usefulness of the new and excellent buildings, because the Trustees were unable to acquire it on anything like fair and reasonable terms.
It may be said that what I am recommending is virtually a proposal to rebuild London out of the rates. I beg to say, however, that I propose nothing of the kind. I do not propose to rebuild London, or any part of London, out of the rates, nor should I think of offering any arguments in favour of such a scheme. All that I should propose would be that land should be bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works under powers similar to those conferred upon the Corporation of Glasgow. The land thus bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works would be again sold or leased by them at little or no loss. The loss (if any) would alone come out of the rates. It might be desirable to give powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works, as was done in the Edinburgh Act, to rebuild to a certain extent. The greater part of the building, however, would be effected by private enterprise.
All that is wanted is to enable private builders and philanthropic persons to meet the demand that exists for a better description of dwellings. If suitable sites were provided, private enterprise would do the rest. The Memorial of the Charity Organisation Society suggests that 'to provide against contingencies it would be expedient that these bodies should themselves have the power of rebuilding in certain exceptional cases and under proper limitations,'— the limi-
