paradoxical, so it is with housing reform. Private interest is specially strong in housing matters, and nowhere, at least in our country, is it so difficult to be overthrown and defeated once it has got hold of public institutions and turned against public interest.

But we shall not despair. A hundred and fifty years ago, in your country, in England, was started a principle which seemed sheer revolution to the ruling classes and monopolists of the day; it said: private gain is public profit; private interest and public benefit are identical. This maxim became the programme of a new school of economics, and it became the leading principle in the unparalleled rise of English wealth and industry.

Look now at the distance; look at the progress of a century and a half. The aspect is changed. We are aware now, and we confess that in many respects private gain is now opposed to public profit. But we may be sure, not that the old rule is wrong, but that our institutions are defective. We shall not forsake the old principle which has led mankind to the highest victory. But we must work to turn the old truth to light again; private gain is to be made subservient to public profit. Private interest and public benefit must again become identical in the great task of modern civilisation, the building and planning of our towns.

DISCUSSION.*

Mr. Alderman ARTHUR BENNETT, J.P. (Warrington): I would like to say a word upon the question of open spaces. Nearly thirty years ago I read a book called "The Story of Merrie Wakefield." I do not know whether any of you have read it. It is a book that everyone should read; but it is now our of print. There was an idea expressed in it which I have never forgotten—a somewhat crude idea perhaps, but one which will help to explain another idea that I have at the back of my mind. The suggestion was that the New Wakefield should be laid out on the plan of a draught-board-all the black squares buildings and houses, all the white squares gardens. Now I should like to see something like that, though not so strictly geometrical. Every area should have, I think, a certain proportion of open spaces. Under the new Act we have, of course, power to preserve open spaces and make them part of our plan, and we have power to limit the number of houses to the acre. But I do not think that goes far enough. There ought to be an absolute statutory obligation that within every given area there should be a certain proportion of the land devoted to this purpose only. I think that would be only a reasonable sacrifice to ask for from the landowner. He would get an increment which would come from the extra groundrent, and it is only fair that he should be required to make this small concession in return. It seems to me that something of the sort is so vital to the health of the community that I should like to see it made compulsory. The idea was emphasized by what I saw of the London County Council's Housing Scheme at Tottenham—a scheme for which Mr. Riley, I believe, is largely responsible. The estate consists of a number of artisans' houses built around an open green, where the inhabitants are able to indulge in tennis and bowls and other amenities of suburban life. I should like to see in every town in England, in every given area, an open space like that, where the people might enjoy fresh air and exercise. I do not think we shall get what we want, even by our town-planning schemes, unless this is made essential. Fifteen years ago I got my Council to adopt a resolution in favour of something of the sort, but nothing was done. I throw the suggestion out for what it is worth, but I think there is something in it.

Dr. CHALMERS (Medical Officer of Health, Glasgow): Might I make a remark with reference to a suggestion by Mr. Unwin? I may have misapprehended him, but I understood him to suggest that we should endeavour to limit the size of cities. My question is, Is that possible? Surely there is nothing in the past history of cities. that supports the suggestion; indeed, it seems to me that the facts

* The reading of the Papers occupied the whole of the time at the Great Meeting, at which Mr. Daniel H. Burnham, of Chicago, presided, and there was no time for discussion. The discussion here reported took place at the overflow meeting, where Mr. Councillor Galbraith presided.

are entirely the other way. So long as its commerce grows you must go on increasing the size of the city. That seems to me to be the verdict of history. To suggest 30,000 or 50,000 as a limit is, I think, to entirely misapprehend the principles of modern commercial life. There is another suggestion which I understood Mr. Unwin to make that there were two ways of distributing your population. One was by a method of detached or semi-detached houses, and the other was by a concentration of houses with unbuilt-upon land, or land devoted to open spaces, surrounding them. This last is pretty much what we have had in the past. Then there was a query, which I think also came from Mr. Unwin, as to whether towns should increase, as it were, by wavelets, or by the growth of units outside. I do not think we can regulate that. Industry will determine the size and to a large extent the distribution of the city's population: our work as town planners is to endeavour to direct that development into lines which will not be injurious to people who must carry on the industries of the country.

Mr. A. B. MCDONALD (City Engineer, Glasgow): I have been greatly edified by the opinions expressed by the authors of the different papers, the main edification being derived from the diversity of opinions set forth. We have heard a great deal in the last few days about what is called the clean slate—an opportunity that no town planner in this country will ever possess. Besides, the conditions of every centre of population vary to such an extent that even if we had the clean slate-which we never shall have-we should not be able to use it in the same way in different places. One gentleman yesterday said a great deal on behalf of some restriction on the width of roads, one of his arguments being that the doorstep was an extra room to the house-an expression which seemed somewhat to ignore the climatic conditions of North Britain; but I have had an opportunity of seeing what are called model dwellings where the doorstep is quite a requisite for the matter of domestic comfort. Coming to Mr. Riley's Paper, I should like to tell those whom I have the privilege of addressing something they did not perhaps know-that in 1866 Glasgow promoted a Bill in Parliament for the improvement of the City, and this became a model for all the improvements in London and other parts of England. I am not talking about this without full knowledge of what I am saying, because my predecessor, Mr. Carrick, the City Architect of Glasgow, to whose genius the City Improvement Act of Glasgow belongs, was asked by Mr. Secretary Cross, on behalf of the Government, to prepare a scheme for the improvement of London based to some extent upon what had been done in Glasgow. He did not find an opportunity of doing it, but I think it is due to his memory that this matter should be mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Councillor Galbraith): I have a very pleasant duty to perform, and that is to thank the three gentlemen who have given us Papers this morning. We have listened to them with very great interest. One of them was given partly in German and partly in French. However, there is a translation of the Paper for those who are not able to quite follow the German in every detail; and when

the proceedings are distributed, as they will be by-and-by, we shall have an opportunity of going over that German Paper with the translation of it to see if our translation of the German is quite correct. We are very much indebted to these gentlemen, and particularly for their having repeated their lectures at this overflow meeting. It is a pleasant task to give a lecture to a large and enthusiastic gathering, such as they had in the adjoining room, and though I am sure those of us who are present were not lacking in enthusiasm, we were lacking in numbers, and numbers do give inspiration to reader or speaker. Therefore there is due to these three gentlemen a double debt of gratitude, and I ask now that you will show your appreciation by giving them a hearty vote of thanks.

Provost DAVIDSON (Coatbridge): Before we separate it is our duty and also our privilege to award our best thanks to the Chairman for presiding over our meeting this morning. He has guided the business of the meeting with great wisdom and given the various speakers every liberty and full time to deal with their various subjects, and I think we must heartily thank Councillor Galbraith, of Glasgow, for the ability with which he has presided over this meeting.