262 THE BUILDING NEWS. Marcu 29, 1872.
tectural form the building should take. The matter
remained in abeyance till July last year, when cer-
tain designs were placed in the Library. On the
20th of that month he addressed a question to the
First Commissioner, and asked him whether the
building was to be erected in conformity with those
designs. He was referred to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who said that the Treasury had not yet
got the elevation, and that the object of placing the
designs in the Library was to give the House time
to express an opinion concerning them. That reply
not being very clear, he repeated the question, in
answer to which the right hon. gentleman said that
the plans had not yet been approved, and they were
placed in the Library to invite the opinions of mem-
bers. Herepeated the question a third time, when
the right hon. gentleman said that the plans were
not approved. In the cireumstances of last Session
it was quite impossible for any hon. member after
the 21st of July to make a substantive motion on
the subject; but, besides this, there was a very
general understanding that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer meant what he said when he stated that
the Government had not approved the plans, and the
plans, as exhibited in the Library, met with uni-
versal condemnation. (No, no.”) He, therefore,
supposed, as the plans were not approved by the
Government, they would be altered as regarded the
elevation by the architect. On the 22nd of February
he addressed a question to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, inquiring whether the designs had been
altered, andif so, whether they would be placed in
the Library for the consideration of the House. The
right hon. gentleman, in reply, said these designs
were exhibited in the Library for several weeks
last Session, but hon. gentlemen who were critical
in such matters could not be induced to express
their opinions. After submitting them to that
ordeal the Government did approve them, and
there would be no use in again exhibiting them.
Mauch discussion had occurred on this matter in the
public prints, and on the 9th of December an
article appeared in The Times in large type, which
at first sight seemed to have been inspired by the
Government, for The Times was a journal well in-
formed on all these matters, and was known occa-
sionally at least to receive information from high
quarters. The article in Zhe Times began by
stating that the amended designs noticed in that
journal three months previously—those exhibited in
the Library of the House—had given place to the
finally settled designs, which, it was hoped, would
soon be superseded by altogether new designs. He
referred to this to show that there was a generally
prevalent opinion that the designs which had been
exhibited in the House had been substantially
altered ; and, indeed, the writer pointed out at
length the differences between the two designs, and
he understood that the ‘finally settled designs ” had
been exhibited at the Atheneum Club. He main-
tained that the Government ought to follow the rule
of its predecessors, and submit their finally settled
designs to the members of the House. He asked
the House to condemn the designs exhibited last
year, and he did so because he fully endorsed the
opinion of The Times, which protested against this
vast mass of buildings because its outer form was
not what we were ambitious enough to require for
Courts of Justice, and what we did require was a
building the fagade of which would proclaim as in-
teiligibly as words could, “ These are the Courts of
Justice.” The designs had been attacked in letters
signed by the names of Wyatt, Fergusson, Smirke,
Cust, Bowyer, Pugin, Denison, and the hon. member
for Totnes, as well as by the journals devoted to ar-
chitecture; and they had been defended by Mr.
Ruskin, an artistic Will-o’-the-wisp, who would
draw us to an artistic vampire. Progress might be
made with the foundations, but we ought not to be
committed to the elevation until satisfactory de-
signs had been accepted. Better have delay than
rush madly into an insane scheme,and erect buildings
which would not be satisfactory. He conciuded by
moving, ‘‘ That in the opinion of this House the de-
signs prepared by Mr. Street for the new building of
the Courts of Justice are unsatisfactory and ought
not to be executed.”
Mr. Beresrorp Hore hoped the erection of the
Law Courts according to Mr. Street’s design would
be allowed to proceed. The two portions of the
hon. member’s speech were hardly consistent, for he
complained that the designs which were being carried
out were not those exhibited in the Library, and
then he asked to condemn the designs which were
so exhibited, but not those which were being carried
out. The truth was, the designs which were being car-
ried out were, architecturally and substantially, but
with some improvements, those which were exhibited
tor seyeral months in the Library of the House without
any one taking an opportunity to comment upon
them openly ; and these improved designs, eleva-
tions, plans, and details had been published in the
illustrated papers, so that all who were interested
might know what they were. The article
in The Times did scant justice to the
architect; that article was a magnificent monu-
ment of big words, piled together with
reckless profusion ; it was simply based on the power
of reckless assertion, and as a description of the
building it was without value. The question between
Mr. Street and the section of the public represented
by the hon. member might be summed up in a few
words. Mr. Street had the common sense to arrange
his internal plans first, and then to accommodate his
elevation to them. The Houses of Parliament had
been criticised severely, and mainly because the in-
ternal arrangements were sacrificed to the river
frontage. The architect of the Law Courts had
taken extreme pains to ascertain all the wants and
requirements of the Bench, the Bar, and the public
in connection with the 18 Courts of Law which he
had to provide. Mr. Street had arranged a most
practical and convenient plan which would meet the
requirements of the Courts, and of everybody con-
nected with them, and having done this he had pro-
ceeded to cast it into an ornamental form and to
design the elevation which would be presented to the
Strand. Stripped of tall talk, and reduced to plain
matter of fact, this was the sum total of the charge
brought against the architect. He contended that
the building was, upon the whole, a dignified, well
balanced, and regular pile. If Mr. Street’s design
were rejected, what chance would there be of getting
a better plan from a new architect, especially as his
employers would not change their views and their
orders? The adoption of such a course would only
be productive of additional delay, dissatisfaction, and
expense, while in the end we should have not a
better, but probably a worse building than that de-
signed by the eminent architect who, for the last two
or three years, had deyoted almost the whole of his
attention to this subject. (Hear.)
Sir Rounpevz Paumer never felt so utterly per-
plexed and so unconscious of his own insignificance
in point of taste as when he was listening to dis-
cussions in that House or reading controversies in
the newspapers respecting the mysteries of archi-
tecture. (A laugh.) It was quite clear that no
architect would ever please his brother architects.
After listening to this discussion and reading the
newspaper articles on the subject he would preface
the few remarks he wished to make with a confession
that he had no taste at all. (Laughter.) At all
events, this was a building which for years had been
wanted, and for the want of which justice had been
straitened, and the greatest inconvenience and ex-
pense inflicted on the public. (Hear, hear.) The
scheme had been maturing for 20 years before it was
adopted by the House, and when at last designs
were sent in by eminent architects, it was estimated
that the cost of carrying out any one of them would
be three or four times as much as the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had at his disposal for this purpose.
There was, in point of fact, only a limited sum of
money, which would not enable us to indulge in an
unlimited display of what was termed taste. The
majority of the judges appointed to report on the
designs thought that on the whole those of Mr.
Street and Mr. Barry were the best, and eventually
the design of Mr. Street was selected. That gentle-
man reconsidered his plans many times in order to
meet the two exigencies of not spending too much
money and at the same time of erecting as handsome
a building as he could with the requisite accommoda-
tion. Again confessing he had no taste whatever, he
was bound to say it seemed to him that the principal
part of this design by no means deserved the whole-
sale condemnation which had been passed upon it.
Taking it altogether it was a building which would
answer its purpose, and he trusted that as the new
courts were required soon the Government would
proceed to erect them without further delay. (Hear.)
Mr. Grecory, taking a utilitarian view of the
question, pointed out that the country was now
losing £40,000 a year, which was the amount of the
interest on the money expended in the purchase of
the site. He believed the exterior of the building
would not be unworthy of the metropolis, As to the
access between the different courts and the central
hall, it was desirable that there should be access at
both ends for the profession, without entering the
part open to the public.
Lord Excno deemed it a thankless task to refer to
any question of taste, after it had been so “‘ sat upon”
by the hon. and learned gentleman opposite; such
matters were usually contested by partisans of the
Classical and the Gothie style; whereas the question
ought to be the suitability of a building for its pur-
pose and the wise expenditure of the public money.
Natural History Museum when he was interrupted
by a ery of “ Question,” but he maintained that the
motion being Supply he had a right to comment on
any cognate matter. He complained that the designs
for that museum having been adjudicated upon by a
competent committee, the premiated design, on the
death of its author, had been materially altered by
another architect, the public having no opportunity
of inspecting the amended plan. He intended at a
future day to call attention to the history of the de-
signs for public buildings of late years.
Mr. Gotpsmip had ascertained that the profession
were generally satisfied with Mr. Street's plans, and
he hoped no obstruction would be offered to their
execution.
Lord J. Manners urged the impolicy of fettering
architects whose designs had been accepted, and of
subjecting them to a chronic ancertainty as to the
prosecution of their work. An unfortunate result
of such procedure was presented in the new Foreign
Office, Mr. Scott being compelled to build an Italian
palace.
Mr. Ayrton said that as the plans for the new
Courts of Justice had come into the Office of Works
he would answer the question which the hon. gentle-
man had put upon the paper, but before doing so he
would remind the hon. member that his motion was
four years too late. Every architect had his peculiar
style, and if the hon. member had objected to the
style of Mr. Street he should have taken steps to
have the preparation of the designs for the new
Courts of Justice taken out of his hands when he
was first appointed. The original plans had been
returned to Mr. Street at the end of last Session for
amendment, and the Treasury had since approved
the revised designs and had requested Mr. Street to
go on with his working designs. The Natural His-
tory Museum at South Kensington was in exactly
the same position, the architect having been requested
to proceed with the designs.
Lord Excuo observed that the right hon. gentle-
man had not stated whether he intended to exhibit
the designs.
Mr. Ayrton saw no useful end which it would
serve to exhibit them.
Mr. C. Bentinck withdrew his amendment, and
the motion for going into Committee of Supply was
then likewise withdrawn.
EO ———
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS IN ARCHITECTURAL
COMPETITIONS.
T the General Conference of Architects held in
London in May last under the auspices of the
Royal Institute of British Architects, this subject
came on for discussion. Mr. Edmund Sharpe, M.A.,
F.R.I.B.A., author of “The Parallels of. Architec-
ture,” &c., in introducing the subject, said he was
very desirous of urging the absolute necessity of ad-
mitting perspective views to competitive exhibitions
and examinations, and for this reason: the mode in
which any building is comprehended or viewed by
any ordinary person, and, indeed, by an architect, is
through the means of the laws of perspective. These
laws of perspective are the laws of nature. We only
know what a buildin# is by what we see it to be.
The geometrical elevation, section, and plan of that
building are merely the means by which a skilled -
person, a scientific person, or an architect is able to
lay before the builder or the public the mode by
means of which he intends to carry out his primitive
idea, if it is an idea at all, of the building the per-
spective effect of which he has in his mind. He
must or ought to have imagined the building in per-
spective before he brought it upon paper. Archi-
tects’ designs ought always, therefore, to be drawn
in perspective. An architect, in fact, ought to think
in perspective, and not think by the T-square and
the drawing board, for this is completely bringing
down and reducing the function of the architect to
the mere level of a simple geometrical transaction.
It is not that. The architect conceives his building
in his own mind first of all, but has to explain the
way in which he wishes it to be executed so as to
produce a certain effect upon the beholder, and the
effect can only be understood and appreciated by the
laws of perspective, and by the means which every
person has of looking upon a building. Therefore,
the first consideration in all competition “in-
structions” should be that the architect should
present the building to the public as he conceived
it—that is to say, by means of perspective—
and that he should accompany it by explanatory
plans and elevations. It is undoubtedly right and
just that he should give the idea as he originally
conceived it, and the mode in which he conceived it.
Some people may say that a perspective view does
not give you the original conception from more than
one point of view out of athousand; that is very
The noble lord was proceeding to allude to the | true, and the more perspective views the artist can
ss
