HISTORY ON SCRAPHEAP

Evening Star, Issue 21092, 3 May 1932, Page 13

HISTORY ON SCRAPHEAP

LONDON TREASURES LOST FOR EVER CROSBY HALL AND CLOTH FAIR SCANDAL Lovers of London aro scattered all over tho Empire—indeed, all over the world—and the changes m its physical appearance, tho demolitions and rebuildings which take place every day, aifect millions of people outside the metropolitan area (writes Douglas Goldring in ‘John o’ London’s Weekly’). Anyone of British origin with a feeling for tho history and traditions of his race must, indeed, regard tho historic monuments and famous old buildings of the capital as national possessions, which should be guarded as a sacred trust and preserved for posterity. Apart from these, tho genius of certain great writers, notably Charles Dickens, has invested numerous inns and taverns with a romantic interest which annually attracts large numbers of tourists, especially Americans. News that such a Dickens shrine as, for example, “Tho George and Vulture” Tavern in Castlo Court was about to be demolished would be far more than a parish pump concern. It would cause something like consternation to all sorts of people, scattered over the four quarters of the globe. CROSBY HALL. Tho issue of a cheap and handy edition of Mr George H. Cunningham’s ‘ London ’ (Dent, 10s Cd), described as a “ comprehensive survey of the history, tradition, and historical associations of buildings and monuments arranged under streets in alphabetical order,” provides an opportunity for considering how well—or how badly—during tho past quarter of a century the guardians and governors of London have acquitted themselves of tho responsibilities entrusted to them. Alas, tho period under review begins with such an outrageous act of vandalism, the destruction of Crosby Hall in Bishopsgate street, and has been followed by so many other lesser blunders that it cannot bo said that anything in London is_ really safe against tho destructive activities of commerce and finance. Crosby Hall—now marooned in Chelsea as a perpetual reminder of our shame—was erected between tho years 1466 and 1471 by Sir John Crosby, a wealthy grocer and wool-stapler, who, with eleven others, was knighted for his gallant defence of the city against the assault of Faulconbridge, the Bastard. It was not only the finest merchant's palace ra the city, but the most complete specimen of Gothic domestic architecture in the whole of London. In addition to this, a weahh of historic interest attached to_ it. It was at one time occupied by tho Duke of Gloucester, afterwards Richard Hi., and Shakespeare makes it the scene of much of tho action of his play, ‘ Richard lII.’ Sir Thomas More bought tho palace about the year ISIS and occupied it until 1520. It is believed that ho wrote his ‘ Utopia ’ here. In Shakespeare’s time it was the home of tho Countess of Pembroke, sister of Sir Philip Sidney, an 3 there can be little doubt that the dramatist was a frequent visitor and knew it well. VAIN EFFORTS TO SAVE IT. Tho great hall of tiro ptlaeo lasted, in fairly good preservation until 1007, when the site' was acquired hy a hank. This hank, to the horror and aina.-.emcnt of cultured people throughout the country, promptly announced its intention of demolishing the historic building. Immediately a “Crosby Hall Preservation Committee ” was formed, with Sir Vezey Strong ns chairman and with the support of the Corpora-

tion, the L.C.C., and various other public bodies. Desperate efforts were made to get the new owners to alter their decision. Tho public subscribed about £50,000 to assist the work of preservation, and the Plumbers’ Company offered tho bank an alternative site adjoining Crosby Hall, which would have given it all the accommodation required. King Edward VII. personally intervened and wrote, through his secretary, expressing the hope that “ means may be found to preserve such an interesting relic of old London.” All these efforts wox'e in vain. Tho bank held out for a substantial profit, and the richest city in tho world could not bo persuaded to pay the price and acquire the building for the nation. The Press was unanimous _ in condemning tho demolition, and in so doing undoubtedly reflected the views not only of King Edward, but of the majority of his educated _ subjects. ‘The Times’ referred to it as “a national disgrace and a national misfortune, one of those blunders that are worse than a crime.” Tho ‘ Pall Mall Gazette ’ in a leader quoted with approval a correspondent who wrote that “ to let Crosby Hall bo destroyed would brand the present generation, and in particular the city companies, the Corporation of London, and the present Government, with- indelible shame and infamy for all time.” THE CHANGING SQUARES. There have not been any acts of vandalism on this imposing scale since 1907. Nevertheless, a large number of ancient buildings have been torn down, of a kind which in Paris would certainly have been classified as historical monuments and protected by tho State against destruction. The ensemble of two very noble and characteristic London squares, Finsbury square, in the city, and Berkeley square, in Mayfair, has been hopelessly ruined, and further destruction is threatened in St. James’s square. Those that remain of tho Inigo Jones houses on tho west of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and the whole of tho_ Adelphi, probably owe their continued immunity more to a shortage of capital for development schemes than to any desire to preserve them on aesthetic grounds. Williamson’s Hotel, in Bow lane, built two years after the Fire and until 1739 the residence of tho Lord Mayors of London, was demolished a year or two ago without a murmur of protest. The bishops and the brewers, notoriously indifferent guardians of that portion of the people’s heritage over which they exercise control, have shown little signs of improvement during tho present generation; but it has been reserved for the Corporation of London to commit the most inexcusable act of folly since tho sacrifice of Crosby Hall. “ DANGEROUS AND INSANITARY.” This was tho removal in 1914 of nearly all tho ancient houses in Cloth Fair—the only sixteenth century street remaining in London—in accordance with a so-called “ improvement scheme ” which has, apparently, never been carried through. To-day tho street looks as if it had been subjected to a bombardment, Tho usual excuse was put forward to the effect that tho old houses were “ dangerous and insanitary.” This, of course, can be said of any old house which has not been reconditioned. Nearly all the Queen Anno and early Georgian houses in Westminster, now one of tho most fashionable residential districts of London, were equally “ insanitary ” before they wore “ discovered ” ami restored, it lias Loon proved over and over again that reconditioning on modern lines is cheaper than sito-clcaranco and rebuilding. Luckily one of tho best of the Tudor houses in Cloth Fair, No. 41, escaped tho general massacre. This has now been put into good order by

two architects, who live in it, and is one of the most charming old houses left in London. It is pleasant to be able to turn from the record of senseless destruction, which is added to almost daily, to the successful efforts which have recently been made to preserve the Terrace House at Battersea. This was built at the end of the seventeenth century, is in the style of Wren, and may have been of his design. It is, in any case, one of the finest existing specimens of the domestic architecture of its period, with stately rooms and a remarkably fine oak staircase, and constitutes one of the very few objects of beauty and interest left in the district. A TREASURE PRESERVED. The house and the ground surrounding it was acquired in 1930 by the Battersea Borough Council, in connection with a building scheme. Although urgent representations were made to the council, and the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings even offered to purchase the Terrace House from them—it occupies only a small proportion of the land at their disposal —the council remained firm in their determination to destroy. Finally, an appeal was made to Mr Arthur Greenwood, then Minister of Health, to exercise his powers under clause 38 of the Housing Bill. Mr Greenwood, to his lasting credit, vetoed the proposed demolition at the end of 1930. One of the greatest dangers to the future of London is tho effort now being made, by financially interested parties, to arouse public opinion in favour of erecting skyscrapers, after the American lei, "in the central districts, and at the same time cutting a number of broad new boulevards to facilitate the increased traffic caused by them. That such a scheme can find any support is due to our idiotic love of imitating New York and to widespread ignorance of the purely local reasons which have forced New York to develop in tho way it has. Actually, the ideas of town-planning involved in the new scheme have been out of date in Continental Europe—which is far more progressive than America in architectural matters —for nearly thirty years. The tendency, nowadays, when distance has been annihilated by every kind of mechanical invention, is to relievo the congestion in the heart of a big town by f j creation of a ring of subsidiary centres. Before the coming of the telegraph, the telephone, wireless, television, and other devices, when affairs had to bo transacted by personal interview, London’s commerce of all kinds was necessarily concentrated in the square mile of the city, and the crowded coffee-houses played an essential part in business life. Since those days, as communications have improved, this congestion has been relieved by a natural process. Some trades, like that of publishing, have moved out West and almost entirely abandoned tho city. Important new industries have made their headquarters in Westminster in Soho, and in other parts of tho metropolis still further distant from the sacred square mile. By encouraging and directing this natural process of relieving congestion in districts which have reached saturation point, rather than by foolish imitation of New York, London can be greatly improved without there being any necessity to demolish more of its ancient buildings or to destroy its native character and charm. It is to be hoped that the short-sighted policy of reckless commercial exploitation, of which London is now the defenceless victim, will bo chocked hy legislative enactments before it is too late.