erected of all raw coal-burning apparatus. The demand is not illogical, since the better housing of the poorer classes should, as far as possible, aim at ensuring better atmospheric conditions for the people housed. Lt. -Comdr. Kenworthy’s suggestion has not, however, received general acceptance from correspondents in the Press, and it is apparent that, in this matter, a good deal of ingrained prejudice will be encountered. It is quite well known that the bulk of the smoke evil to-day comes, not from the factories, but from domestic buildings, but no Government has yet felt strong enough to put an embargo upon the domestic coal fire. The provisions of the new Smoke Abatement Act, if rigidly enforced, would cope with industrial smoke production, but little improvement in the air of our towns will be effected until the domestic grate is also brought under control. The ostensible ground of opposition to the proposal to ban the open coal fire in the new Ossulston Street tenements is the claim that the people to be re-housed cannot afford the cost of heating by other methods than coal. This is a contention that cannot be dismissed without very searching examination; although the high price which the poorer classes pay for coal by purchasing in small quantities must considerably reduce the economy, if any, which raw coal shows over other methods of heating. The high hopes which were entertained that electricity produced in bulk would make current sufficiently cheap to bring it within the reach of all seems unlikely to be realised for many years. Lt. -Comdr. Kenworthy makes his plea on the ground that, as the Smoke Abatement Act does not apply to domestic buildings, the abolition of the smoke evil, so far as these are concerned, is purely a matter for voluntary action on the part of housing authorities, private firms of constructors, and prospective tenants themselves; and he considers that the first-named have a heavy responsibility to the public which they cannot well ignore. The ‘‘tenants, ’’ how
ever, are voters and control the housing authorities, and until they are converted to the idea of ˮsmokeless housing, ’’we fear few local governing bodies will give more than lip-service to the cause of smoke abatement. The world is awaiting the discovery of some method of low Carbonisation by which valuable by-products, causing most of the smoke from the home grate, could be extracted from the coal before use for domestic purposes. So far no really economic method of effecting this has been found, but research still continues, and we are not without hopes of final success. It would then be possible to forbid the use in the domestic grate of any but “smokeless” coal.
The widely-spread outcry against the disfigurement of the countryside is, apparently, having an effect in stimulating some of the local authorities in rural districts to take steps to prevent, as far as possible, the erection of ugly buildings in their localities. The Rye Rural District Council, for example, have instructed their surveyor, whenever it is proposed to erect buildings which, in his opinion, are likely to be unsightly, to submit the plans to the Area Joint Town Planning Committee before recommending them for approval. The Corporation of Rye have, too, it is stated, laid down a restriction against the use of slates on new buildings. A similar line of policy, we read, is to be recommended in regard to rural localities round Bath and Bristol; and we hope it will be widely followed in other areas. The Ministry of Health has shown considerable sympathy with the efforts being made to preserve rural districts from spoliation by bad building and it is well aware of the psychological effect of ugly buildings in its tendency towards the creation of slums, with all the resultant evils which the Ministry exists to combat. In this case, prevention is decidedly better than cure, and those local bodies who have the courage to resist the
imposition of ugliness will probably find the necessary backing for their efforts in the higher authority.
Each generation, seemingly, must hammer out the old truths afresh. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why the Building Research Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should produce a report to inform the world that there is no such thing as fireproof construction. There must be many still who remember the British Fire Prevention Committee saying the same thing 20 or 30 years ago, but the B. F. P. C. seems to have disappeared behind theveil of the Great War, probably following the untimely death of its presiding and stimulating genius, Edwin 6. Sachs. Yet the B. F. P. C. did a great deal of good work in its time, and carried out practical tests on many forms of construction and on numerous types of patent doors, floors, windows, etc., that were advertised to withstand a conflagration. “Fire-resistanceʼ’ was the watchword of the B. F. P. C., and this latest report carries us no further. Sachs and his coadjutors were well aware of the resistance to fire which suitable timber construction will exhibit; of the instability of stone and concrete heated to high temperatures, particularly under the stress of the fireman’s hose; of the dangers of steel construction, and the most suitable materials and methods for protecting it; of the qualities of fire-resisting doors, shutters and wired glass. We fancy that most of the L. C. C. rules in regard to safeguards against fires in theatres and other places of public resort were inspired by the lessons which the B. F. P. C. set forth in its little red booklets. We have no particular quarrel with the present experiments, but in the cause of national economy we would suggest that the more elemental truths about fire-resisting construction elicited by the B. F. P. C. might be taken now as the basis for further experiments, rather than that we should set about extensive trials for the purpose of rediscovering them.
The fight to. save the two Lincoln Churches is still in progress, although nothing is yet settled, and the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission has written to The Times to deny the statement of the Defence Committee that the Commissioners have already settled the sale and the price. The Lincoln Corporation desire to acquire the sites of the two churches for “public improvements,” but the civic authority itself has to obtain sanction for their acquisition from higher authority. So far the Corporation has gone no further than to allow its officers to discuss with officials of the Ecclesiastical Commission possibilities and terms for acquiring the Churches, as the basis for a provisional agreement which it is admitted has been reached. But the Commission of Inquiry, which must be held to decide upon the union of benefices and parishes, will, it is asserted, be untrammelled in its decision by these preliminary discussions. With the City Churches in mind, we confess to no great belief in Commissions of Inquiry. What has probably exacerbated feeling in this matter is the knowledge that the “public improvements” contemplated are
the provision of parking-places for motor-cars; and there is a growing feeling, even among the more thoughtful motorists, that it is unreasonable to expect this accommodation to be provided at the expense of the public purse. The owners of horse-drawn vehicles, “push-bikes” and perambulators might claim with
equal right to have spaces provided where they could leave these means of transport for hours at a time while they went about their business or pleasure. At the present time, when public economy has to be studied, the higher authority may doubt the advisability of sanctioning the Corporation’s scheme for expending public money to furnish facilities which should be provided for itself by the section of the community interested.
ever, are voters and control the housing authorities, and until they are converted to the idea of ˮsmokeless housing, ’’we fear few local governing bodies will give more than lip-service to the cause of smoke abatement. The world is awaiting the discovery of some method of low Carbonisation by which valuable by-products, causing most of the smoke from the home grate, could be extracted from the coal before use for domestic purposes. So far no really economic method of effecting this has been found, but research still continues, and we are not without hopes of final success. It would then be possible to forbid the use in the domestic grate of any but “smokeless” coal.
The widely-spread outcry against the disfigurement of the countryside is, apparently, having an effect in stimulating some of the local authorities in rural districts to take steps to prevent, as far as possible, the erection of ugly buildings in their localities. The Rye Rural District Council, for example, have instructed their surveyor, whenever it is proposed to erect buildings which, in his opinion, are likely to be unsightly, to submit the plans to the Area Joint Town Planning Committee before recommending them for approval. The Corporation of Rye have, too, it is stated, laid down a restriction against the use of slates on new buildings. A similar line of policy, we read, is to be recommended in regard to rural localities round Bath and Bristol; and we hope it will be widely followed in other areas. The Ministry of Health has shown considerable sympathy with the efforts being made to preserve rural districts from spoliation by bad building and it is well aware of the psychological effect of ugly buildings in its tendency towards the creation of slums, with all the resultant evils which the Ministry exists to combat. In this case, prevention is decidedly better than cure, and those local bodies who have the courage to resist the
imposition of ugliness will probably find the necessary backing for their efforts in the higher authority.
Each generation, seemingly, must hammer out the old truths afresh. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why the Building Research Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should produce a report to inform the world that there is no such thing as fireproof construction. There must be many still who remember the British Fire Prevention Committee saying the same thing 20 or 30 years ago, but the B. F. P. C. seems to have disappeared behind theveil of the Great War, probably following the untimely death of its presiding and stimulating genius, Edwin 6. Sachs. Yet the B. F. P. C. did a great deal of good work in its time, and carried out practical tests on many forms of construction and on numerous types of patent doors, floors, windows, etc., that were advertised to withstand a conflagration. “Fire-resistanceʼ’ was the watchword of the B. F. P. C., and this latest report carries us no further. Sachs and his coadjutors were well aware of the resistance to fire which suitable timber construction will exhibit; of the instability of stone and concrete heated to high temperatures, particularly under the stress of the fireman’s hose; of the dangers of steel construction, and the most suitable materials and methods for protecting it; of the qualities of fire-resisting doors, shutters and wired glass. We fancy that most of the L. C. C. rules in regard to safeguards against fires in theatres and other places of public resort were inspired by the lessons which the B. F. P. C. set forth in its little red booklets. We have no particular quarrel with the present experiments, but in the cause of national economy we would suggest that the more elemental truths about fire-resisting construction elicited by the B. F. P. C. might be taken now as the basis for further experiments, rather than that we should set about extensive trials for the purpose of rediscovering them.
The fight to. save the two Lincoln Churches is still in progress, although nothing is yet settled, and the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission has written to The Times to deny the statement of the Defence Committee that the Commissioners have already settled the sale and the price. The Lincoln Corporation desire to acquire the sites of the two churches for “public improvements,” but the civic authority itself has to obtain sanction for their acquisition from higher authority. So far the Corporation has gone no further than to allow its officers to discuss with officials of the Ecclesiastical Commission possibilities and terms for acquiring the Churches, as the basis for a provisional agreement which it is admitted has been reached. But the Commission of Inquiry, which must be held to decide upon the union of benefices and parishes, will, it is asserted, be untrammelled in its decision by these preliminary discussions. With the City Churches in mind, we confess to no great belief in Commissions of Inquiry. What has probably exacerbated feeling in this matter is the knowledge that the “public improvements” contemplated are
the provision of parking-places for motor-cars; and there is a growing feeling, even among the more thoughtful motorists, that it is unreasonable to expect this accommodation to be provided at the expense of the public purse. The owners of horse-drawn vehicles, “push-bikes” and perambulators might claim with
equal right to have spaces provided where they could leave these means of transport for hours at a time while they went about their business or pleasure. At the present time, when public economy has to be studied, the higher authority may doubt the advisability of sanctioning the Corporation’s scheme for expending public money to furnish facilities which should be provided for itself by the section of the community interested.