User:Dobsonkj/sandbox

''This is an Article about the discussions within Royal Liver Friendly Society as to the erection of the Royal Liver Building circa 1907 - 1911. In particular, this is a resume of the discussions which took place at the 1908 Annual General Meeting of Royal Liver Friendly Society.'''

AGM - 1908



The Town Hall @ Gt Yarmouth

The most striking feature of some of the early details of the Resume of the 1908 AGM (held in Gt. Yarmouth) was that it transcended two working weeks and consumed 7 or 8 days of proceedings.

Its also interesting to note that only 4 members of the CoM attended this AGM – the other 4 (William Harrop was indisposed, otherwise there may have been 5 Board Members at Gt. Yarmouth) had to remain in Liverpool (as a Quorum) to run the business of the Royal Liver.

The first page of the 1908 Resume records that Frank H Taunton was also present as Secretary of the Society – he is referred to last of all – even after (forgive me) the Sub-Committee of Management for Scotland – how times changed as later Secretaries assumed this post!!

The 1908 AGM spent some time (on the 3rd day) to receive further information and assurances “from the platform” on the then current position with regard to the plans for the Liver Building, the progress made to-date, the expenditure incurred and committed to be incurred and, put simply, how all this aligned with the statements made at the 1907 AGM when the decision was made to commit the Society’s Funds in the endeavour of the erection of the Royal Liver Building.

Delegate Tomlin (Devonport, nr Plymouth) had included a Question on the Agenda which was required to be dealt with before the CoM’s Annual Report could be “received” by the Meeting. The Question touched on the following points with regard to the continued development of the Royal Liver Building as agreed by the Delegates at the 1907 AGM the previous year:-

•	The nature of specifications (for the Building) obtained by the CoM •	Where the granite was to be sourced from. •	Whether, in particular, a preference is to be given for English and Scottish Granite (but apparently not Welsh or Irish!!) before Norwegian Granite •	Whether, if the contracts were not yet “sealed”, the CoM would entertain tenders from the Granite Quarries of Cornwall (Penryn, Truro and De Lank), all of which were, apparently then in sad decline “for want of orders”.

[Editor’s Note – what follows is a photo of the Statue of Winston Churchill erected at Parliament Square in London – it is made from De Lank Granite. The De Lank Quarry therefore seemed able to weather the storms of the early 1900s and prosper to this day, apparently on an international scale.]

The Chairman of CoM – Councillor Skelton (formerly a District Manager from Lancashire), informed the Meeting (and Delegate Tomlin in particular) that the type of granite required for the construction of the Building was not to be had in and around Cornwall (but was in fact required to be sourced from a combination of quarries in Scotland and Norway).

This then led on to some further Questions (also on the Agenda) – this time in the name of Delegate Mitchell (Glasgow) with regard to “the new Chief Offices” as to:-

•	The nature of the “split” between contracts with Scottish granite quarries and their equivalent in Norway. •	Why not all of the granite required was being sourced from “home” in Scotland. •	How much of the Society’s Funds, (and therefore, in the eyes of many Delegates, how much of the members’ money) in total, had thus far been committed (by way of contracts) in the ongoing erection of the Society’s intended new building.

W Aubrey Thomas (the Architect of the Royal Liver Building) dealt with the question as to the nature of the “split” ad the answer was (broadly) “50/50”. Upon being probed further by Delegate Mitchell, Mr. Thomas informed the Meeting that the value of the contract for Norwegian granite was £68,000 and with Scottish quarries about £40,000.

Upon learning this, Delegate Mitchell raised the question as to why not all of the granite (i.e. a single contract of just over £100,000) had been offered to or placed with the Dalbeattie Quarries (in Dumfries and Galloway – apparently!!).

The Town Hall @ Dalbeattie (erected from local granite it appears!!).

Separate sources indicate that D.H. and J. Newall were possibly the first to quarry stone to the east of the town of Dalbeattie. They began in 1810 at Craigmath where three very distinct faces survive, and at Barrhill, but soon moved on to New Abbey and to Craignair.

This notwithstanding, W Aubrey Thomas (the Architect) was obliged to tell the Meeting “he” (one of D H or J Newall) “…. refused to tender because he said it would take at least 5 or 6 years to carry out that work with his granite. He offered to do a part of it, and this was placed with him.”

Mr. Simpson (a Member of the CoM), then addressed the Meeting and informed the Delegates that he had met with a “representative of the Dalbeattie and Aberdeen quarries (“Mr Newall”) earlier in 1908. Apparently, Mr Newall had informed Mr. Simpson that “…. The Building had been the topic of conversation in the granite world throughout the United Kingdom, America and Norway.”

Mr Simpson recalled the following interchange between himself and Mr. Newall:-

•	“I had the pleasure of meeting the representative of the Dalbeattie and Aberdeen quarries (Mr Newall). I met him in Liverpool and was introduced to him by Mr. Thomas.” •	“He (Mr. Newall) told me that he was particularly anxious to secure the contract for the whole of the granite for this building.” •	“I replied on behalf of my colleagues – You are not more anxious to obtain it then we are to give it to you. •	“But he said There are difficulties in the way”. •	“Name the difficulties” I said “you will find we are anything but unreasonable men and we will smooth the difficulties away if we can.” •	He said “There is a problem with the delivery and with the time.” •	I asked “Where is the difficulty there then? How much time do you want?” •	“Now gentlemen, listen to this; this is what Mr Newall said: - We cannot deliver the granite under 5 years.” •	“Why”? I said – “As businessmen we could not possibly wait 5 years for the granite.”

In the event, it transpired that the Royal Liver CoM granted Mr. Newall (Dalbeattie Quarries) a contract for the delivery of as much granite as could be quarried (by Mr. Newall) in two years and Mr. Simpson concluded this explanation by saying to the Delegates that:-

•	“Under the circumstances, we have done all that man could possibly do in looking after the very best interests of the Society.” [The Meeting apparently concurred as there were recorded loud sounds of “Hear, Hear!!”]

In addition to recording his exchange with Mr Newall of the Dalbeattie Quarries, Mr. Simpson reminded the Delegates (all of whom had apparently been present in Liverpool the week before for the laying of the Foundation Stone), that the Building was going to be “gigantic” and so not all of the materials for its construction could be obtained from one single source, nor even one single country.

Clearly some perceived imprecision in terms of the projected cost of the Building was a cause for some concern to the Delegates at the 1908 AGM.

Delegate Dunn (Liverpool) – soon to be a member of the CoM himself – put it simply when he stated:-

“The Delegates want the fullest possible information on that point [the cost of the Building], and I think it is the duty of this Delegation to see that we get it, so that we may know the cost of the Building. You must remember that the future of the Society rests in a great measure upon this investment being a success, and therefore it is our duty as the representatives of the members to ask these questions.”

He was absolutely correct in that statement. In round numbers, the eventual cost of the construction of the Building was in the order of £500,000 at a time when the Society’s Balance Sheet stood at no more than £3 million. Put another way, that is almost the equivalent of a modern CoM of Royal Liver (with Funds under Management of circa £2.5 bn) committing £400 million of those Funds in one single Asset (worse, in fact, since the Royal Liver Building was not even a tangible Asset – but a hole in the ground – when the 1907 CoM made such a bold decision).

At the 1907 AGM, the Delegates had been informed that, including the acquisition of the site – George’s Dock – the total cost of the Building would be in the order of £420,000.

It’s also interesting to note that the debate on the erection of the Building at the 1908 AGM afforded several Delegates the “platform” to demonstrate their command of the subject matter and their ability to challenge the CoM and hold them to account. At least 3 Delegate-speakers at that AGM were to go on to become members of the CoM themselves, in the persons of Richard Dunn. W. G. Heath ( in fact, Treasurer, rather than a Royal Liver Board Member) and J. Badlay.

Further questioning ensued from the floor of the house in the context of the (then – 1 year later) revised and projected costs of the Building compared with the earlier statement made at the 1907 AGM that such total cost would be in the order of £420,000, with, apparently, plans for Rental Income in the region of £16,000 pa to £20,000 pa producing an annual yield of 4% (which was considered more than satisfactory at the time, so I understand).

During these proceedings, students of Citrine’s ABC of Chairmanship (of meetings) would be pleased to note:-

•	The precision and clarity of the statement of the Delegate-Chairman of the Meeting that no discussion should be had on Questions [since they were Questions and not Motions] but a Question having been put was required to be answered and answered clearly. •	The Delegate-Chairman himself (Mr. Turton of Sheffield) had been elected a few days earlier at the 1908 AGM after a tie of 88 votes in favour of him and 88 votes in favour of [ ]. •	The Chairman of the Board (then “in the Chair”) cast his vote ( both unknowingly and, therefore, blindly) in favour of the contestant who had been a Delegate the longest – Mr. Turton assumed the Chair having been a Delegate for 12 years compared with Mr ~Watson (London) who had been a Delegate for (only) 11 years.

The Solicitor then addressed the Meeting to clarify the position with regard to the projected costs of the Building – he stated that:-

•	£16,000 was attributed to excavations of the site. •	£109,000 in respect of the granite (being sourced from Scotland and Norway). •	£70,000 for the erection of the steel super-structure. •	£133,000 for the affixing of the granite as part of the Building. •	£10,000 for other miscellaneous costs and contingencies of Nuttall (the Building Contractor) and other Third Parties. •	£70,000 for the purchase of the site in the first instance.

By the Solicitor’s reckoning (and in verification of the figures previously put forward by the Architect, W Aubrey Thomas and the Consulting Architect, this produced a (then) Total Figure of circa [£400,000]. This figure needs to be read in the context of the position as understood and explained to the Delegates at the 1907 AGM in Dublin and in the context of the evolving position as the Building took shape during the 1909 AGM and beyond.

Much no doubt to the chagrin of the CoM, and the various Professional Advisors, especially the Solicitor (!!), this statement was not deemed to be in any way satisfactory in the opinion of Delegate Heath (Guildford). He returned to the Rostrum to make the point that he was not content with the estimates and projections of the Architects; he wanted to see evidence of the original tenders from the individual Building Contractors and other Merchants involved with this project.

Dr Clark (one of the Trustees) then took it upon himself to address the Delegation on this matter of precision as to costs – he informed the Delegation that:-

•	He had written “some very strong letters” to the CoM on this matter. •	He had refused to be a party “to the method which the Committee of Management were going to take and he (apparently) “expressed [my] strong disapprobation” at it all. •	In a perfect world, the CoM would have secured capped and fixed tenders rather than “estimates”. •	(However, by adopting the Hennebique system (and method of construction), the Society was limited to just one Building Contractor in the firm of Messrs Nuttall and Co.

Francois Hennebique – a Frenchman.

•	Notwithstanding Dr Clark’s strong views (as one Trustee) the CoM had informed him that Lord Stanley (the Senior Trustee) agreed with them (the Board). •	Therefore, in the words of Dr Clark, “as my colleague did not agree with me, I agreed with him”!! (This was apparently to avoid any further delay in making progress with the construction of the Building in its early stages.)

Councillor Skelton – Chairman of the CoM – then addressed the Meeting on his own behalf and on behalf of the CoM as a whole by stating that:-

•	“I don’t mind admitting that this is the first time I have had anything to do with putting up a building that is going to cost nearly £400,000, including the land. This is my first experience. I did not tell you when I got a seat on the Board that I was an expert building contractor; I told you I knew something of the Industrial Insurance Business”. •	“The CoM is obliged to take expert advice on this matter.” •	“With regard to granite, I was told that the only way in which the granite could be got in reasonable time was by the Quarry Unions agreeing amongst themselves to supply the granite. With regard to the Quantity Surveyor, I understand the Architect (W Aubrey Thomas) has saved us one-and-a-half percent. He saved us the Quantity Surveyor’s commission by doing the work himself and that will be included in the 5 per cent he is to receive; so instead of being to blame for that, I think he is to be commended.” •	“Mr. Thomas said he strongly recommended this ferro-concrete system. It was the latest and most up-to-date system it was possible for us to make use of.” •	“I ask, under the circumstances how I, an Insurance Agent …….. could say That is all moonshine; we will have some other system.” •	“The next question was as to who was going to do the work, but to my surprise I was told that the job could not be put into open competition, because no one but Nuttall’s could do it, and that they had the license in England for building on this system.” •	“As to the total cost of the building, so far as I understand it the building is to be 15 feet higher than Mr. Thomas first estimated for. In addition to that, by some arrangement with the Corporation of Liverpool about the building-line, we get rather more land than was originally contemplated and the building will consequently be larger than the Architect estimated for, and it is now expected that the total cost of the building will be about £320,000. I hope that is plain.” •	“Well gentlemen, when I brought this matter before the Annual Meeting last year I told you that our own Architect had estimated that he could put up the building for £250,000 but I also told you that Mr. Briggs (the Consulting Architect) had made a report to the Trustees in which he estimated that it would cost £318,000. That fact was laid before you as you will if you look at the Resume of last year’s Annual Meeting. Mr Briggs estimated of the total cost was £420,000 altogether.”

Councillor Skelton (Chairman of CoM), concluded this statement by saying:-

•	“We claim we have done our best and I believe the results will show we have done a good job for the Society – a cheap job for it; that it will be a building that everybody will have a right to be proud of; and that it will turn out to be a good investment.”

Again, history would appear to have proven Councillor Skelton quite correct in this last statement.

Towards the end of this debate on the emerging plans and costs of and for the Royal Liver Building, Delegate Land (Birmingham) enquired as to whether any provision had been made in the Building for a Hall in which the Society could hold its future Annual Meetings (!!).

He was informed (by Mr. Field on behalf of the Com), that this matter had not been settled yet but it was under consideration!!

The proceedings on this matter (at the 1908 AGM) concluded with this rather cautious and daunting statement by Delegate Goodship of London:-

“I just wish to make one point as clear as possible. I take it that so far as this discussion is concerned and the answers we have had from the platform, there is no resolution going to be moved and passed that the explanations and answers given be approved. We simply have heard what has been said, and leave the matter there at the present moment. The only reason I make the statement is that by remaining silent I don’t want it to be understood that I approve or disapprove of what has been done. A good many of us I know will reserve any action, or take any action we may think advisable in the future.”

The Meeting then adjourned to the Fourth Day.

It seems clear, therefore, that having secured the approval of the Delegates (as representatives of the Members of the Society – indeed as the self-styled Governing Body of the Society as the Rules may then have provided for or were shortly to provide for), for the construction of New Chief Offices at an approximate cost in the order of £420,000 (including the purchase of the land at the site of George’s Dock, Liverpool), the CoM remained under intense scrutiny by the Delegate Body to ensure that what was eventually delivered (by way of the Royal Liver Building) continued to be in the best interests of the members of the Society.

The 1909 Annual Meeting must have been an interesting week – as this matter was no doubt returned to 12 months hence.

However, its also interesting to note that in a Press Article Account of the 1908 AGM published a day or so after the fact (no doubt independently reported but surely facilitated by the body which was the CoM since the body which was the Delegation could not have acted so readily nor so speedily and expeditiously) it was reported that:-

“The discussion becoming somewhat wearisome owing to delegate after delegate harping on the same thing (!!!) the “next question” was (blessedly) put and carried and the conference proceeded to deal with alterations to the (Society’s) Rules.”

This must, as we remark above, have paved the way for an even more interesting debate at the 1909 AGM on this matter of the building.

Kevin Dobson, February, 2012