House of Commons. The opposition it encountered was general and strenuous. Outside the House public opinion was aroused by the proposal to build between the new roadway and the river. Eventually the Bill was defeated by a large majority, and in June 1898 the alternative scheme of the Council came before the public notice.

After considerable debate the Council, on July 4, 1899, arrived at the conclusion, embodied in the terms of the following resolution, which committed them to this important undertaking, and for that reason is a document in the history of London:

Resolved-That, subject to the Council being relieved from widening Abingdon Street, and subject to a contribution by the local authority of 100,000, the Council do apply in Parliament in the session of 1900 for powers to embank the Thames from Victoria Tower Garden to Lambeth Bridge, to widen Millbank Street to 70 or 80 feet, to acquire and deal with the land between Millbank Street and Tufton Street, in general accordance with the scheme shown in the plan approved by the Improvements Committee on June 7, 1899.

Then followed negotiations with the Government and with the Westminster Vestry. It was agreed that the local authority should contribute 100,000l. towards the scheme, 'subject to the land between the river and Millbank being laid out as a garden.' The Office of Works stipulated for a site for a new stoneyard in place of the existing one on the river bank at the end of the Victoria Tower Garden. Other alterations were demanded on the part of the Government, the chief one being that it should be made clear in the Bill, 'that the land between the new Millbank Street and the Embankment should be laid out as a garden.' These points were agreed to; the Bill proceeded on its way through the various stages of parliamentary procedure; and on July 24, 1900, a special report of its parliamentary committee was before the Council. It was shown that the Bill had passed the House of Commons without material amendment, in spite of strenuous opposition from certain freeholders and occupiers of property in Abingdon Street. This opposition was continued when the Bill reached the House of Lords, the Committee of which disapproved of the Council's plan and suggested another in place of it! The Council were in a tight place; but the parliamentary Committee displayed excellent judgment. With a clear view of the public interest, they accepted the terms of the Lords, and asked for ratification by the Council on grounds of urgency. They pointed out that the agreements entered into with the

owners and occupiers of property involved were not affected by the acceptance of the amended plan offered by the Committee of the House of Lords, but if the improvement be now abandoned these agreements will fall to the ground, and we are advised that, owing to contemplated extensions of existing premises, and to the erection of new buildings upon land which is now vacant, if either scheme should be delayed for another year it would cost fully 100,000l. more than is at present estimated.' Truly, the public has to pay for public improvements!

The alteration proposed by the Lords was to set back the line of the new road several feet from the river, thus adding a further strip of land to the new Embankment garden throughout its length, besides saving a piece of the Victoria Tower Garden which the Council's plan would have shaved off. In place of the Council's proposed diagonal line from the foot of Lambeth Bridge into Abingdon Street, where the Houses of Parliament begin, the new road was to start a few feet further from the river and run straight to the corner of Victoria Tower Garden, there taking a slight bend towards Abingdon Street and Old Palace Yard. This amendment was accepted by the Council, and it forms part of the plan now being carried out. But it is of interest to recall the circumstances, because it is right that a correct view should be obtained of negotiations necessarily obscured in the public mind by controversy at the time. It was the House of Lords (or Government) amended plan which entailed the demolition of the houses between Great College Street and Wood Street. The amended plan also increased the extent of the garden on the river side, and it improved the approach to the classic ground of Westminster. But public improvements have to be paid for, as we have seen. The County Council is the financial authority responsible, and the net effect of the amendments it accepted, between the pressure of the House of Lords Committee on the one side and its sense of responsibility to the municipal electorate on the other, is to very materially add to the cost of the scheme. However, in reply to this point, Lord Brougham said: 'In a great national improvement, what is that?'

It will be seen from the foregoing outline that the inception and fruition of the scheme were marked by the following stages: (1) action by the L.C.C., (2) action by a syndicate, (3) production of a scheme by the L.C.C., (4) victory of the L.C.C. in the House of Commons, (5) substitution in the House of Lords of a

Government plan, (6) acceptance thereof by the L.C.C., in the interest of ratepayers and in reliance upon the good faith of the Government.

Such a process of probation was not unfitting to the occasion. By averting the calamity that would have resulted from the improvement falling into the hands of a syndicate of speculators the Council rendered to the capital of the Empire a service which merits the gratitude of posterity. By its true appreciation of the position, in the final negotiation, it obtained for the improvement scheme the imprimatur of the highest authority in the land. The scheme has become national, and the site renders it of imperial importance. We do not urge that it should be carried out as a Government measure; we rather express the hope that the Council may be encouraged to regard the undertaking as an imperial trust confided to it.

Looking at the improvement area as a whole, it is necessary to distinguish between two portions, between the northerly and southerly halves of the area, made by the dividing line of Church Street and St. John's Church, a line which will be continued by the cutting of a new street, on the further side of the church, into Tufton Street. Leaving for the present the southerly half lying between this line and the Horseferry Road, let us glance at the northerly portion lying between the dividing line and the Precincts of Westminster Abbey.

In the midst of Smith Square stands the church of St. John. It is proposed to widen the square on the north and south sides, but the character of these is widely different. The north side of the square and the street leading therefrom, called North Street, consist of houses of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and their features bear strong traces of the Dutch influence introduced by William III. They are excellent specimens in good preservation. The row of houses in the square is most picturesque, moreover it is entirely representative of a typical street of the period. The plan of the improvement was of course drawn on the hypothesis of a cleared area, and if the ground were actually vacant, there would be attraction in a design which, making the church a centre, provides for the construction of wide thoroughfares, radiating from each of the four sides of the square. But as it is, the symmetry of the design entails a heavy sacrifice. There will be no regret for the clearance made for new streets, on the west and on the south sides. Church Street on the east side, leading from Millbank into the Square, is of no interest architecturally, and

this will not be widened. But the valuable and picturesque north side and North Street are marked for demolition.

Within a few paces of the spot stands the Museum of Architecture. Were it possible to transport within its walls these threatened architectural specimens, they would be a boon to future generations of students. In North Street is a little court (not readily found) which is so characteristic, so Dutch in character, so English in association, that we know not its peer in all London. Even Nevill's Court, Fetter Lane, does not exceed it in charm. Let Londoners look to it, and insist on reconsideration of the plan as it affects the northern half of the improvement area. Besides the houses mentioned, this area contains Little College Street, Great College Street, and College Mews. This ground should be immune and beyond discussion. In ancient times it formed part of the possessions of the Abbey, as did also the neighbouring Cowley Street and Barton Street, which are happily outside the area of the scheme. Here was the Abbey orchard, there was the Abbey mill, turned by the stream which bounded the Abbey grounds on this side. Even now these quaint and quiet streets approximate in character to a cathedral close. It is possible still in this retreat to dream of ancient days, when the King's palace stood by the riverside at Westminster, when the arts were nourished in the Sanctuary on the other side of the Abbey, when outside the Abbey Precincts, from the river to Tothill Fields, was all open country. Across the ancient wall which forms one side of Great College Street we may still hear the birds in the trees of the Abbey Garden. No wonder that these streets are filled with memories and associations which it is a delight to every educated person to recall. Their attraction for the artist, the thinker, the antiquary exists to-day as it did when Keats lived here, when Gibbon lived and visited here and cherished the spot, if not for its historic associations, as the home of the aunt and guardian whose love irradiates the story of his life. At No. 7 Great College Street, to recall no others, lived Walcott the historian of Westminster. No. 10 was the birthplace and residence of the lamented William J. Thoms, F.S.A., the librarian of the House of Lords, the accomplished gentleman and devoted student, who founded and edited 'Notes and Queries.' Such modern instances serve to indicate that the charm of these old-world streets has continued to attract the cultured; a complete catalogue of the famous worthies associated with the neighbourhood would be too lengthy for the space at our disposal here.

The redemption of the squalid district lying between St. John's Church and Horseferry Road does not require the sacrifice of these architectural treasures and the obliteration of these historic associations. It costs nothing to allow ancient houses to remain, and they add immensely to the interest and attraction of London. In the immediate vicinage of Westminster Abbey their presence is especially appropriate. Whatever the money value of these picturesque streets of old houses may be, and whatever the potential value of the site, let it not be forgotten that millions could not replace them, once they are destroyed. At the bar of history it will be not only the municipal authority that will be arraigned but the electorate of London, and the taste and the patriotism of the present generation.

There is really no lack of interest on the part of Londoners in the historic treasures of their streets, but it is not organised and expressed with sufficient force and energy. The governing bodies themselves, composed as they are for the most part of cultured and patriotic citizens, are not blind to the sacrifices which in their collective and official capacity they propose to the electorate. But they wait upon public opinion, and public opinion, in its turn, leans upon them. There is a deficiency visible in this, not bridged by the efforts of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, praiseworthy as they are. Let not the municipality, however, construe consent from the absence of organised opposition. Editors are shrewd interpreters of public feeling and the obsequies of every historic building that is destroyed are celebrated in a thousand prints and periodicals.

After all, if the age were callous there would be no Westminster Improvement Scheme. Not for themselves nor even for their own generation have they laboured who devised it and brought it to pass. The fame of the present lies ever in the future. What will be the judgment of posterity on the use made of the present opportunity to render this part of Westminster worthy of itself, worthy of its unique position in relation to the Abbey and to the Palace of Westminster? The photographic records which we may suppose are being made by the 'Society for photographing the relics of old London,' by the London Topographical Society, and doubtless too by the County Council itself, will present the whole case for judgment. Will the Londoner of the future be able, gladly and gratefully, to acknowledge the discretion and foresight of the authorities in the preservation of ancient and historic features which gather con