Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 11.djvu/157

 10 s. xi. FEB. is, 1909.] XOTES AND QUERIES.

125

doing good work. For these three bodies Mr. J. A. Simon, M.P., appeared ; while Dr. Mansfield Robinson, Town Clerk of the Borough of Shoreditch, represented that Council. The Worshipful Company of Iron- mongers placed their interests in the hands of Messrs. Honoratus Lloyd, K.C., and Arthur Adams, the desire of the Company being only to do the best possible in the interests of their numerous pensioners. It was decided to hear all interested, and a considerable number of witnesses were brought forward, both for and against the sale of the land, and the transfer of the almshouses to some other spot. Among those on behalf of the Company were Mr. R. C. Adams-Beck, the Clerk; Mr. W. T. Price, the Master of the Company ; Mr. G. Hubbard, F.R.I.B.A., the surveyor ; the Rev. Septimus Buss, the chaplain ; and Dr. Garrat t, the " apothecary. " The matron, the nurse, and several inmates of the Alms- houses supported the plea for the sale, and gave evidence as to the undesirable sur- roundings of the locality for such an institu- tion. The witnesses for the opposing bodies were Mr. Lutyens, an architect, who spoke as to the interest of the buildings from an archaeological standpoint ; the late Sir W. Randal Cremer, M.P. for the district ; the Rev. E. R. Ford, the Vicar of Shoreditch ; the Rev. J. L. Le Couteur, Vicar of St. Columba's ; Mr. T. W. Troup, Architect and Sxirveyor ; Sir R. Hunter, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Trust ; Mr. Holmes, Secretary of the Metropolitan Gardens Association ; and some others. It appeared that the witnesses on behalf of the Company did not marshal their facts to the best advantage, and the opposition, it must be said, seemed some- what vexatious and frivolous, for all things went to prove (as before stated) that the Company was solely actuated by the desire to benefit its pensioners, and had never been anxious to sell for any other reason. The City Press of 11 and 18 Jan., 1908, gave a full account of the proceedings.

The result of the inquiry, which was held in the Court-Room of the Company, at the Hall in Fenchurch Street, was that these old almshouses were not to be removed ; and an abstract of the reasons of the Com- missioners' decision appeared in The City Press of 29 February. It was to the effect "on a careful consideration of all circumstances, the Commissioners, while fully recognizing the desire of the trustees to do what they think best calculated to benefit the inmates of the almshouses, are of opinion that a sufficient case is not established to call lor their sanction to the proposed sale."

Here, for some little time, the matter was-

I allowed to rest ; but an appeal was lodged

i against the decision, to enable the trustees

to assert what they claimed to be their

i rights. The result of this appeal so far as

I can ascertain has not appeared in the

public press ; but lately the inmates were

informed that the matter had been decided,

and that no sale of the land or removal of

the almshouses would take place.

It may be put on record that the would-be purchasers of this property were the Peabody Trustees, and that the price to be paid for it was 24,000/., which appears to be a very moderate price. There would have been put up about five blocks of five-story dwel- lings, and overcrowded Shoreditch would have had its population increased by some 1,200 or more souls. For the present, at least, this change in Ivingsland Road will not come about, although the boards announcing that the land is for sale have not yet been removed.

W. E. HARLASTD-OXLEY, Westminster.

COPYRIGHT nsr LETTERS. The question of the copyright in letters appears to be one of interest in France as well as in this country. The decision in Macmillan tv Dent (1906) has, in the words of a legal expert, given rise to a good deal of specula- tion as to how the law relating to letters has been settled or unsettled by the judg- ments of the Lords Justices.

A French case of considerable interest was decided last summer, when an unsuccess- ful effort was made to suppress the ' Note& sur Prosper Merimee ' of Felix Chambon, containing a number of letters addressed by Merimee to his friends, as well as official reports of monuments made by him as- inspector. The substance of the decision of M. Ancelle in the Premiere Chambre of the Tribunal Civil de la Seine I find in one of the many excellent catalogues that reach me from Paris, and it is of interest as a piece of literary history, as well as for its bearing on the perplexed question of the right to publish or to suppress the letters of a bygone notability. *H

Put in its shortest form, the French case is this. M. Chambon is the author of a work entitled ' Notes sur Prosper Merimee,' in which there are many hitherto inedited letters of that well-known writer. Madame Hemon, as the representative of Merimee's legatee, claimed the sole right of authorizing the publication of any of his letters. On this ground she asked for 5,000 francs as