that it is highly desirable to continue the arrangement made in 1855, by which all building constructional matters were grouped in the Building Act, whilst the legislation controlling the forming of new streets was separately dealt with in the Metropolis Local Management Act. It is true that this simplicity has been unwisely much obscured by Building Act subjects being altered by means of Local Management Amendment Acts, and Local Management subjects sandwiched into Building Act Amendment Acts, and, to make confusion worse confounded, both classes of subjects having been carried in "Omnibus" Bills. To obviate all this I think no wiser course could be adopted than to "try back" to 1855, and start with two codifying Bills. This course will be the more convenient, as the new proposals as to street formation and widening in the Bill under consideration are so hotly contested that, if persisted in, they are likely to render the whole Bill such a dangerous and ricketty structure that it will have to be condemned in the same summary way that the Council deals with overweighted and topheavy buildings which have not sufficient cohesive strength to hold together.

As Part I. of the Bill has been well discussed, I will only observe here that a person now desiring to make a new street according to law has only to give notice to the Council, but by Section 2 of the Bill he must make an application to the Council and first obtain their permission and sanction before he may form a new street, notwithstanding that it is to be in every way in accordance with the laws and by-laws formulated by the Council itself. In fact, one must humbly ask permission to do a perfectly lawful act.

PART IV., Section 30, which will prevent the extension of shops over back yards, is a great mistake. No observant person who passes by railway through the suburbs of London can have failed to observe how much dryer, cleaner, freer

from accumulated rubbish, and how much more sanitary is the state of the roofs or flats which cover shops extended over back yards, and how much better these, with their dwarf parapet walls, allow the free movement of air over them than the dank small yards surrounded by 6-foot walls, forming damp, dirty wells of stagnant air.

PART V., Section 41, of the Bill deals with woodwork in external walls. The present Act requires doors and windows which are of wood to be recessed 4 inches from the external face of walls, presumably to prevent the spread of fire. Since the Act was passed, the necessity for opening outwards many doors which have been hitherto opened inwards, has become apparent-dreadfully apparent in some cases. Now, in particular buildings dealt with by recent Acts of Parliament, doors have to be made to open outwards, but the necessity of recessing the wood frames 4 inches from the face of the walls makes the alteration very often exceedingly inconvenient, and in some cases actually dangerous, as it prevents the door folding back out of the way against the wall, and in many cases puts great strain on the hinges. Besides this, it is desirable to encourage outward opening doors in many cases where owners of buildings are not compelled so to construct them. I would suggest that, on all storeys, door frames and doors be allowed flush with the outside of the wall, provided that there is a certain minimum distance of imperforate brick wall on either side, and below such doors, and that they be cut off from doors or windows above by the interposition of a sufficient incombustible landing, balcony, or fire-escape bridge floor, and, by similar constructions, from doors or windows below, where such occur within a specified distance. Speaking as an architect, I have not had much difficulty in satisfying the Council in the case of altering doors of hospitals and vestry halls to open outwards, but very great difficulty in satisfying myself,

and at the same time keeping within the limits of the Act. I observe that there is a provision to this Section 41 of the Bill to vary it, if it become an Act, by a by-law; but bylaws, with their frequent changes, and involving, as they do, applications for special sanctions for small matters of detail, are exceedingly objectionable to surveyors and to the public they represent. It is much better to have the law definitely stated, and to be able to act according to it.

Section 45 will have the effect of transforming an external wall, built entirely on the land of one owner and belonging to him, into a party wall throughout its whole length, if the adjoining owner should build ever so insignificant a building (e.g., a w.c.) against it. The present Act makes the wall party only to the extent that it divides the twobuildings. That often inflicts hardship, if not something more, on the owner of the wall that was originally external; but this section, instead of amending a defect, makes it worse. For it must be borne in mind that a neighbour may build in such a way against an external wall, not his own, that the owner of the external wall cannot prevent him, and has no remedy. I have had to do this myself, taking care to derive no support from the external wall, and not to cut into it or interfere with it in any way. When the owner of the wall in question called upon my client to remove the offending building the answer was, we make no use of your wall except as an enclosure, and even as to that would prefer to be open on that side, if you will kindly remove your wall. This caused the irate owner to call on the district surveyor, the late Mr. EDMUND WOODTHORPE, who asked upon what ground he was to interfere, and, when informed that our new building was not properly enclosed. with walls, but on the side next the adjoining external wall supported on wood uprights, his decision was that the two buildings were separated by a sufficient brick wall.

whose property it was he knew not, nor was it his business to know, and there was nothing that called for his interference. That was a case in which a man's external wall was turned into a party wall against his will, without remedy. It is proposed by the Bill to enormously extend the evil, so that an external wall 100 feet long will be made party all its length if a 5-foot building be erected against any part. The provisions of the Bill will enable a neighbouring owner to alter the character of the adjoining owner's wall, and to limit with impunity the owner's power over his own property.

Section 50, Sub-section 4, provides, inter alia, that noflue shall be used for close ranges of eating-houses unless it be surrounded with brickwork 8 inches thick up to the level of the ceiling of the room next above the same. This is unnecessarily stringent, and will work great hardship, in the poorer suburban parts of London, on proprietors of small coffee houses, and on their customers, by tending to reduce the number of small places of cheap refreshment.

Sub-section 15. The provision that hearths shall be twelve inches longer than the chimney opening, although in the existing Act, is scarcely sufficient. It is good practice to build the opening very little wider than the grate body, and to let the iron front plate of the grate lap considerably over the jambs. This gives a much sounder setting for the grate. But applying this rule would result in the grate front in many cases being wider than the stone hearth. Many a 3-foot grate can be set in an 18-inch opening, and the hearth in such a case would, by the rule, be only 2 ft. 6 in. wide, which would be insufficient for safe construction.

Sub-section 18 provides that "a flue shall not be built . . . against any party structure unless it be surrounded with "new brickwork at least 4 inches thick," i.e., it must have a new half-brick back against the party wall. This is

unnecessarily severe, as no timber is allowed within 4 inches of the centre of a party wall. The rule will make corbelled chimneys more difficult to construct, and the flues will take up an unnecessary amount of room in consequence of the greater projection. In Sub-section 20, paragraph 6 (soot-doors), the requirement of a close iron door and frame is scarcely sufficient in many cases. "Iron frames and double

iron" soot-doors are desirable.

Section 52 (proviso) restricts steam pipes from being fixed nearer to combustible materials than six inches, and hot-water pipes nearer than three inches, but is not to apply to pipes conveying steam or hot water at low pressures. This is the same as the present amended Building Act. What is low pressure? Under the present Acts I find the greatest diversity of opinion among district surveyors as to what is "low pressure." As to steam, some say five pounds, and others any intermediate pressure up to 30 pounds per square inch above atmospheric pressure, or as shown on the gauge. The five pounds man justifies his opinion by stating that as the usual pressure of a low pressure condensing engine. Another district surveyor's view is that "low pressure means "no pressure," i.e., atmospheric pressure, or zero on the pressure gauge; really, steam in an open blow-off pipe of full capacity. As to hot water, some allow as low pressure hot-water pipes, all pipes of low-pressure (i.e., open circulation) apparatus, irrespective of the pressure to which they are subject by the "head" of water, as distinguished from high-pressure close circulations as BACON's; others, again, take the severe view that "low pressure" is to apply only to pipes from and below open boilers from which the water is drawn below the level of the boilers. This great diversity of opinion among officials is highly inconvenient, and is not cleared up by the Bill.

Section 54 provides that "public" (and some other)