necessary variations so that the building shall comply with the proposed Act, and that the difference in cost caused by the consequent deviations from the contract shall be paid or adjusted by the parties to the contract, as circumstances require. This may be the cause of very great injustice, e.g., an owner may have contracted to pay for one building which he wants, and be compelled to accept and pay more (or less) for another building which he does not want, and which may be entirely unsuited for his purpose. Such contracts should be allowed to be completed in their original form. If power were given to owners to rescind, the builder might equally suffer by preparing for and purchasing materials for works he might not be permitted to perform. Why should either of these innocent private persons suffer, without public compensation, for the public good?

Section 185 ("Definitions ") requires the insertion of the word "afterwards" or "subsequently" between the words "have" and "become," so as to make clear the meaning of "centre of the roadway." The whole section is most important, and requires a more careful examination than space will here permit.

Should the Bill pass into law, architects and surveyors should remember that it does not, as it stands, cover the whole building legislation of the Metropolis, e.g., vide the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1891* (which includes London), as to stairs and other works required in factories where are employed more than 40 persons. This Act applies not only to factories which may be built, but also to those now in existence.

B.

ARTHUR HARSTON, Fellow.

I think we are greatly indebted to the author of this Paper for bringing the subject in such an exhaustive way before the Institution.

"Professional Notes," vol. v., p. 444.

I think we all must feel, from the Bill itself, and also from the remarks of the Chairman of the Building Act Committee of the London County Council at the last meeting, that the framers of this Bill are animated by the very best intention to promote the health of the Metropolis and also to remove grievances, but some of us may think that the Bill as it stands is too sweeping and revolutionary

a measure.

The courteous and wise conduct of the Committee who have the Bill in charge, in taking into their confidence the District Surveyors' Association and this Institution and the Royal Institute of British Architects, and inviting their criticisms at this stage, may go far towards removing the objections to the Bill. Still, there is always a danger that the amendments accepted and adopted by the Committee may not be adopted by the Council at large. Consequently, we can at present only argue on the Bill as it stands in print, and I may be pardoned, perhaps, for mentioning briefly one or two objections which the Committee in charge of the Bill have already promised to take under their consideration.

The first of these is the position of district surveyors, which I maintain would be, as the Bill stands, absolutely untenable. Duties are heaped wholesale upon them, their fees are cut down and no fees at all provided for the majority of works which now require their supervision. This has been fully pointed out to the Committee, and I have no doubt will be altered, as well as some of the following points which have not yet been mentioned.

(1.) On page 91 it is stated that the Bill is to apply to all new buildings, but the great majority of works done to old buildings would escape supervision altogether.

(2.) The difficulty of some of the definitions of a new building has been pointed out by Mr. RICKMAN, but he did not deal with the first definition on page 93, lines 3 to 7,

Ꮓ

which any practical man will see, on examination, would be unworkable.

I think most district surveyors are of opinion that the provisions of the present Acts with regard to the thickness of walls have worked well, and that it is undesirable to raise the cost of buildings and rents in the Metropolis by increasing them, and they will also agree with the author of the Paper in his remarks about Section 55, as to height of habitable rooms.

The clauses with reference to open spaces about buildings will probably excite as much criticism as anything in the Bill, and they have been exhaustively dealt with by the author of the Paper. It appears to me that it is very desirable to retain the saving clause in Section 29 of the present Act:--" Unless all the rooms can be lighted and "ventilated from a street or alley adjoining." If all rooms are lighted and ventilated in this way, I see no need for leaving an open space exclusively belonging to the building, often to become a receptacle for dirt and refuse.

I fear that, if all the provisions of this Bill were carried out as they stand, the effect would be so greatly to increase the cost of building and also the value of the ground left available for building purposes, as to lead to a very large increase in rents, and the inevitable result would be that those who must live within the Metropolitan area would have to put up with smaller and fewer rooms and reduced accommodation, a result which would surely be insanitary, and thus the very opposite to that intended by the framers of the Bill.

Some of the provisions in this Bill are greatly needed in view of recent decisions in the Law Courts, which have had. the effect of assisting "jerry" builders and some owners to evade the law and to escape supervision altogether, especially in smaller works.

ALEXANDER PAYNE, Fellow.

SECTION III.

PROFESSIONAL QUERIES.

Information is sought on the following points:

CLXXVII.

DRAINAGE OF BUILDING LAND.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 364, 365.)

A bought a plot of building land through which ran a ditch. A piped the ditch. A house has since been built on the adjoining land, a garden laid out, and the paths drained, and rain-water from roofs carried into the ditch. A's land in consequence is at times flooded, his pipes not being large enough to carry off this additional water. What is A's remedy, if any?

CLXXVIII.

DILAPIDATIONS-SURVEYORS' CHARGES, &c.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 365.)

Can a lessor recover his out-of-pocket expenses for solicitors and surveyors' charges when the notice to repair has been satisfactorily completed by the lessee? Does the Conveyancing Act, 1892, permit of a successful appeal to law?

What does the "waiver by lessor in writing" (Section 2) comprise?

CLXXIX.

DAMAGE TO ADJOINING OWNER-FALL OF CHIMNEY.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 365, 366.)

A and B are adjoining owners of house property in a large provincial town. During the recent gales a large chimney of the house of A was blown over and fell through the roof and bedroom ceiling of the house belonging to B. Is A liable for the damage done to B's house?

CLXXX.

VALUATION (LESSEE'S INTEREST).

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 366.)

A Corporation (A) is the freeholder of premises let on lease to B. The lease was granted for a term of 40 years from 1883, and a fine of £82 was paid by B to A at the granting of the lease as consideration (there is also a fixed annual quit-rent, which, however, does not affect the questions at issue).

By long-established custom, A's leases for 40 years are renewable in the 14th year, on payment of a fine; but, in some cases, these leases have been known to run for the whole term of 40 years. But, as there is no provision in the lease for such renewal, it is presumed that either party can refuse to renew,

The premises being required for a public improvement, A is willing to buy, and B to sell, his interest in the lease for a sum to be calculated from the above data; but there is a difference between the parties as to the fine.

A contends that, as the lease is renewable every 14 years, of the fine last paid, or say £6, should be deducted from the net annual value.

B contends that, as it is within his option whether he renew the lease or not, and he does not propose or hope to renew, the fine of £82 already paid to A gives him (subject to the quit-rent) 40 years' free use of the property; and that, therefore, his interest is the value of the net annual income for the remainder of the term, say 30 years, without any deduction, whether of th orth of the last fine. B contends that to deduct from the net annual income anything for the fine would be making him pay the fine twice over. He supports this contention by suggesting that, if he sold his interest of 30 years in the open market, the purchaser, in calculating his price, would not take into consideration the fine, unless in the 14th year he proposed to renew; but, as the premises are wanted for a public improvement now, it appears to B that there is little or no probability that in four years' time A would grant a renewal, or a fresh lease at the end of the term of 40 years.

B also claims that, in valuing his interest, he is entitled to add to the capital value of the income, the sum of £61 10s., representing ths of the fine, because, having paid £82 for 40 years' use of the premises, he only gets 10 years' use of them.

The two questions are, therefore:

1. Should any deduction from the net rent (and, if so, how much)

be made in respect of the fine of £82?

2. Should B's claim for ths of the fine be allowed?