AMENITIES COMMITTEES.
AT Farnham on Monday the Bishop of Winchester pre- sided over a meeting at which a society was formed for preserving the ancient features of the town and :or promoting its beauty in future developments. The Dean of Wells, who was present,, said that such societies were needed all over England. At Wells, for example, there was wonderful beauty apart from the Cathedral; there were old houses, old inns, old almshouses, and these were in constant danger of an insidious kind because it was "no one's business exactly" to look after them. In the ease of one very interesting feature at Wells which was doomed the postponement of the fatal act was partly due to the simple fact that successive excellent mayors were unwilling to have their names associated with vandalism. The Dean of Wells then remarked that it was necessary to remember the difficulties which beset civic authorities : they often found themselves helpless, although they were most ready to accept the informal help which came from the quickening of public opinion. There is a great deal of truth in that remark. Civic authorities may take a wrong and irremediable step merely because they cannot see any other way of satisfying sonic temporary need, and, perhaps, because they are in ignorance that they arc outraging any rational and serious sentiment. Since the preservation of some minor historic building or some small beauty spot is "no one's business exactly" it often happens that the public does not become alarmed—does not even hear of the projected destruc- tion—till it is too late. Then there may be an outcry and remorse, and the building or natural feature may even be saved by some act of personal sacrifice or at an absurd coin- mercial disadvantage at the last moment. But the point is that this is not the way in which things ought to be managed.
Foresight ought to be organized in any country which protesetes the leest faculty for orderliness and seemliness. The ideal of the Dean of Wells that societies like that just formed at Farnham should be established in all towns is good. But we should like to see a very much wider scheme than that. We should like to bare committees created to advise T:∎wn Councils and County Commits on what buildings and places ought to be protected and on what are the best methods for saving them. The country is in quite as much need as the town, and perhaps more. Well-known monuments are safe enough under the existing provisions for their care. The danger affects the multitude of lesser known buildings and places which in their sum, insignificant though many may be individually, make up the whole. character and soul of our country.
We do not of course forget the admirable labours of the National Trust, which has done more than we could easily recount for the preservation of places of historic interest or natural beauty, but it is quite out of the question for it, with its limited fends and confined opportunities, to cover the whole ground. The eelienit tees we have in hand might be known— we have made the suggestion before—as Amenities Com- mittees, and they should be appointed by, as we said, every County Council and City Council in the land, They might consist in the first place of three, four, or five members appointed by the Council ; but it would be necessary that they should have power to add to their numbers. They would not have statutory powers ; they would simply be advisory bodies. And they would, of course, choose for permanent association with themselves those who as antiquaries, historians, architects, or as persons of known taste and intelligence could give them the kind of help and support they needed. The great value and strength of such Amenities Committees would be that they would have local influence. They would be able to pull the strings. A land- owner, a builder, or a speculator in land is neither overawed nor cajoled by a Government department. He regards all appeals from that quarter as offensively meddlesome and to be resisted at all costs. But men of local knowledge make a more personal appeal altogether. They are able to reason and persuade on different grounds. They may be able to point out in a friendly way how an outrage to the town or county can be avoided without inconvenience or loss. This is especially true when an act of desecration is about to be committed in ignorance. We remember a case when an article in the Spectator protesting against a threatened act of destruction was laid before the builder who was about to do the deed. The builder bad never realized before the nature of that which he was about to destroy, and when its interesting character was explained to him he said that nothing would induce him to spoil it so long as an alternative plan could save it. And an alternative plan was soon found. If a newspaper article could do that, what might not be hoped from the friendly suggestions and advice of a powerful local committee!
We are not in the least pedants who desire the preservation of old houses and scenes at public inconvenience. We recognize that it is absolutely necessary to build new roads, new railways, and new reservoirs and to make urban improve- ments. But one can nevertheless insist on the universal principle that there should be the minimum of damage instead of the maximum of damage. A railway with pretty stations and well-designed bridges may conceivably be an acceptable symbol of the triumphs and services of science even amid the most beautiful scenery. What are wanted everywhere are in- telligence departments which will find out what devilments of unnecessary uglification are proposed, and show bow they can be prevented or modified. We have in mind a certain
spot in Surrey where the main road sweeps round a beautiful piece of common. A new set of telegraph poles
should have followed the road where one expects to see such things and does not actively think of them as a disfigurement. But in order to save a few poles the wires have been carried by a short cut across the green turf. Between the new line of posts and the road, with its old line of posts, there is therefore an enclave which is ruined as a part of the common, and yet serves no practical purpose whatever, as none of it is wanted as road. That is the kind of thing which should never be allowed to happen merely because it is "no one's business exactly," and merely in order that a few pounds may be saved —saved, very likely, by the contractor, and not by the rate- payer.
Take, again, the case of the Kent coalfields. We do not protest against the getting of coal in Kent merely be- cause it is the garden of England. Coal is an expensive thing, and still a necessary thing, and the more of it that is won from the earth the better. But there is no reason in the world why a Kent coalfield, so long as foresight can prevent
it, should be allowed to grow up to resemble the coalfields of the Black Country. A mining city might also be a garden and by a little planning it could generally be arranged that unsightly shafts, chimneys, and such like would not spoil
a fine sweep of down. In choosing a site for necessarily ugly buildings it is desirable to take into account how it lies in relation to surrounding points whence it can be seen. A shallow fold of down or a small wood may be quite enough to hide the offence isfro " a view." If there from some commanding position with
absolutely no means of hiding it well and good; it cannot be helped. But we venture to assert that there always is a way. ca Ira, as Benjamin Franklin was fond of saying. Forethought will reveal the alternative plan—the prevention of an eyesore, or, at least, the modifica- tion of it. A few yards this way or that in erecting the indispensable ugly building or the indispensable telegraph or telephone poles may make all the difference. The Amenities Committees of County Councils would look into such matters with their whole heart and with a. sense of proprietorship and local pride, because they would know that it was their view or their ancient building that was about to be destroyed.
Previous page
