RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 08 July 1861 vol 164 cc507-40

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

LORD ELCHO

rose to move that in the opinion of the House it was not desirable that the new Foreign Office should be erected according to the Palladian design now exhibited in the Committee room of the House. The question to which he was about to direct the attention of the House was one of considerable importance—it was this—whether a large sum of public money was or was not to be properly expended? He owed an apology to the House for having taken up the subject; he had not, like his noble Friend at the head of the Government, made architecture his study, and there were many hon. Members much more competent to deal with the question than he was. The question of the nature of the building to be erected for a Foreign Office was not a new one, but it appeared before them now in a new phase. The question was no longer what should be the architecture of the new Foreign Office, but the special design which had been sent in by the Prime Minister himself. He thought he should be able to show that what he stated was a fact. The drawing was not, indeed, the production of the noble Lord's own hand, but it was as much his work as any Despatch ever written by the hand of a Foreign Office clerk when the noble Lord was at the head of that Department. In 1856 a Committee was appointed to consider the whole question of the Government public offices, the Foreign Office being then, as now, in a very dilapidated state. That Committee recommended that an enlarged view should be taken of the question, that the public offices should be concentrated as much as possible, the new Foreign Office being the nucleus round which all the others should be congregated. And they further recommended that there should be a general competition for designs. Architects from various parts of Europe competed, and a very large number of designs—upwards of 200—was sent in. Subsequently a Commission was appointed to consider those designs, and it recommended that premiums should be awarded to seven of them. Of those premiums four were awarded to Gothic, and the remaining three to Italian and other designs, including, he believed, a Renaissance. After that Mr. Pennethorne, architect of the Department of Works, was consulted, and entrusted with the preparation of a design—a decision which had justly given rise to a great deal of discontent among those who had received prizes; and this state of things led to the appointment of a Committee of that House, of which he had the honour to be a member. That Committee declined to give any opinion as to the style which should be adopted—they merely inquired into the comparative cost of the different styles—but they made this recommendation—that in the selection of the architect a preference should be given to the successful competitors. At that time the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners)was at the head of the Board of Works, and he took upon himself to decide the question of style, and declared himself to be in favour of the Gothic design of Mr. Scott. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), who was then at the Indian Board, communicated with the First Commissioner of Works on the subject of a new Indian Office, and thinking it desirable that the two buildings should be similar in their style of architecture, he decided also in favour of Gothic. The public were thus naturally led to think that the question was so far settled, and that the Indian Office and the Foreign Office were to be built in the Gothic style of architecture. But the Government of Lord Derby was turned out of office, and his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) of course went out with it. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) came into office, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) became the First Commissioner of Public Works. With this change of men in office came a change of plans. The whole thing was at sea again. what had been done by his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) was opposed by his noble Friend now at the head of the Government. Indeed, it looked as if the House of Commons was not to be consulted on the subject at all, and as if it had been resolved by the Treasury and the Board of Works to set aside, by their own authority, all that had been done by their predecessors. In these matters of art and architecture we suffered in this country from what were in other respects a great blessing—our free institutions. In Governments where there did not occur these changes of office—as at Paris, for example—a man remained so long in a particular department that something like consistency and a consecutive course of action was pursued with regard to public buildings. But in this country, from the frequent changes that took place, our public works were often proceeded with in a very unsatisfactory manner. what one man did another man undid, and the works when completed were unsatisfactory. This subject was brought before the House by his noble Friend opposite (Lord John Manners) two years ago, when a very warm discussion took place on the question whether the Gothic or the Pal-Indian style of architecture was the best. His noble Friend at the head of the Government objected to Mr. Scott's Gothic design, and wished him to give in a Palladian or Italian design instead. Mr. Scott accordingly produced a design that was considered to be Italian; but his noble Friend did not consider it sufficiently Italian. Mr. Scott was then compelled—and he (Lord Elcho) thought he made a great mistake when he did so—he was compelled to consent to become the draughtsman of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and they now had the result in the design exhibited on the walls of the tea-room. He was justified, therefore, in saying that that design was practically the design of the Prime Minister, and not the design of the architect, who had in reality been compelled to draw it. His noble Friend had a horror of Gothic architecture, and therefore it was that he had insisted on Mr. Scott producing an Italian design. Undoubtedly people would differ on these matters of taste. He (Lord Elcho) would not express any strong opinion of his own one way or the other with regard to Gothic or Palladian architecture, but with a view to refresh his memory as to what had passed in Parliament on the subject, he had run through Hansard, and would give in as condensed a form as he could the arguments against Gothic which had been used by his noble Friend and other speakers. He would thus save House, as it would be unnecessary for the opponents of Gothic to repeat their arguments. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) said that Gothic architecture gave "a maximum of cost with a minimum of accommodation"—that it gave "no light" and was, moreover, "a barbarous style;" and the hon. Member added that "we did not live in age of darkness, "and that the Gothic style was "ecclesiastical and peculiar to a sect." He supposed that when the hon. Member for Brighton used the word "ecclesiastical," he referred to Mr. Beresford Hope, who was then a Member of the House; but he must ask the hon. Member, when he spoke of the style being "peculiar to a sect," to what seet in par- ticular he referred? He remembered that two years ago a deputation in favour of the Gothic style of architecture being adopted waited on the Prime Minister, and that one of the gentlemen who composed the deputation was the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). He did not know that Gothic was a style of ecclesiastical architecture peculiar to the sect to which the hon. Member for South Durham belonged. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), the architect of the Royal Exchange, said that the Italian style was "more suited to the wants of common life, that the Gothic gave no light and no ventilation," and this he illustrated by a reference to the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons. Now, he hoped the House would not be run away with by any argument drawn from the abuse of the Gothic style of architecture. Undoubtedly, there were very great defects in the building in which they sat. There was, as the hon. Member for Brighton had said, "a maximum of cost with a minimum of accommodation," and this was an evil from which Gothic architecture suffered. The minds of Members were apt to be prejudiced against it, on account of the abuses of it which they saw before their eyes, and to be led away by the idea that the style was necessarily inconvenient and costly. The hon. Member for Bath further said, that the Foreign Office should correspond in style with the genus loci. Where that was to be found in the neighbourhood of the Foreign Office he (Lord Elcho) could not tell; but the hon. Member for Bath had no difficulty in discovering the genus loci, for the said "the Foreign Office should harmonize with Montagu House." Now, Montagu House might be a very pretty building, but he (Lord Elcho) would rather that it was not taken as a genus loci in this instance. He now came to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord, always gay and cheerful himself— Quem jocus circumvolat, et Cupido"— said that public buildings should be gay and cheerful outside, and light and airy in their interior. "The Gothic," he said, "might be suited to monastic buildings or a Jesuits' College, but it was not suited to the purpose to which it was proposed to adapt it. He did not know what the peculiarities of Lombardo-Gothic were, but it combined all the modifications of barbarism," Now, the Committee of 1858, though they gave no opinion as the style that ought to be adopted, went thoroughly into the question of cost, and it was distinctly proved by Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of the Board of Works, that in regard to cost there was no difference between one style and the other, the estimate for the Gothic structure being, if anything, rather lower than the other. Then, in respect to convenience, the Gothis was shown to be quite as convenient as any other. As to inches, it was proved that the Gothic design of Mr. Scott admitted of more light than would be found in any public building in London in the Palladian style. AS to the objection that the Gothic was "ecclesiastical," he might pass that by, merely reminding the House that in North Italy nearly all the ancient public buildings were Gothic, and most beautiful they were. As to Gothic being barbarous and foreign, what was the Italian? Did not its very name import that it was foreign? Hid noble Friend wound up his speech and argument by declaring that he did not know the peculiarites of Lombardo-Gothic, but "he supposed it combined all the modifications of barbarism." He was surprised that his noble Friend, who spoke Italian like an Italian, should speak thus of Lombardo-Gothic. But in Northern Italy some of the most beautiful edifices were in this style—for instance, the Doge's Palace, and many other palaces in Venice, the hospital at Milan, and others. If these were modifications of barbarism he should like to see a few such buildings in this country. They would be a great improvement on the buildings which we were in the habit of constructing in this country. It was said that on grounds of congruity it was desirable to adopt the Italian syle. But the most beautiful towns were not the most congruous. Congruity was, indeed, often only another name for monotony. Look at Chester, Heidelberg, Venice, and other towns with gable ends and other irregular and picturesque features; it was this variety that gave these cities their charm. Instead of being built all of one style it was highly desirable that there should be a variety in our public buildings. He had endeavoured to refute the arguments urged against the Gothic style; but he did not wish to pledge the House to adopt that style for the new buildings. But before they sanctioned the expenditure of half a million or more of money, he only asked them to go into the tea-rooms to see the plans of the building now proposed to be built. He spoke with some diffidence on a matter of taste, and he did not wish to express himself too strongly, but he must say that since the plan had been exhibited his noble Friend had succeeded in uniting those who had never before agreed; for those who differed as to Gothic and Palladian united in condemning the plan which his noble Friend approved. In fact, his noble Friend's Foreign Office was as faulty as his foreign policy was sound. He, therefore, wanted the House to pause before they adopted a public building which would not be a credit or an ornament to the Metropolis. Great as our success had been in many things it could not be said we had succeeded in our public buildings. Any one who stood on London Bridge, and looked first upon the southern side and then passed to that street of palaces, as it had been called (New Cannon Street), could not fail to be struck by the unutterable meanness and want of originality of our street architecture. What would happen would be this. If his noble Friend came down and asked for a million of money to erect a large public building in the Italian style, no doubt a most imposing structure would be built; but that building would give the keynote to other buildings. Our street architecture would degenerate. The building would be imitated in plain, mean, brick houses; or, if not, they would have things of stucco—a sham which pretended to be what it was not, and which was almost the worse of the two. No doubt the Gothic style had this advantage, that it permitted every variety of play of fancy and the use of any materials whatever which could be had in London on the spot. The Houses of Parliament were built of stone. They had lately been obliged to paint the building, and they had thus made it look like one of the buildings with stucco fronts. Let them put whatever paint upon it they pleased, however, there was something in the atmosphere of London so hostile to stone that paint could not save it, and a Committee were now sitting to see how they could prevent the Houses of Parliament from crumbling into the Thames. Buckingham Palace, too, had lately had a new stone front. But no sooner was it constructed than they were obliged to paint it. The same thing had happened, he believed, in other buildings. This, then, was a very strong argument against the adoption of the pure Italian, which could not be carried out in that variety of style and colour of which the Gothic would admit. With terra cotta, for example, which was the most durable of all things, they would have variety of colour and ornament, by means of the introduction of serpentine, Cornish granite, &c. Where they had a building all of one colour, it soon became a dead dull gray and then black, as might be seen on one side of Spencer House. On the contrary, where they had a variety of colour, the surface might be discoloured by smoke and dust, like a picture in London, but yet a variety of colour could be discerned beneath the surface. If they were to judge of public feeling by the buildings in hand there could be no question that the classical or Italian was at a discount, and that the style which admitted of a play of fancy, but which his noble Friend described as abounding with all sorts of monstrosities, was predominating in London. He did not mean those mansions which were in course of building for young couples in Belgravia and Tyburnia, with plain stuceo fronts. The other day a party who took an interest in this question took a tour through London. They invited his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to join them, but he declined. He was sorry for that, because his noble Friend might have changed his mind in consequence. They saw an insurance office near Blackfriars Bridge, which was, he thought, a happy illustration of what he had advocated. It was built in the style which his noble Friend so much abused; and on the right and left of it were two stueeo fronted houses in the Italian style. A photograph had been made of them, which he supposed might be bought, and which described the house on one side as which described the house on one side as "Palmerston ornate," and on the other "Palmerston pure." The middle building was designated as "What London would be if Palmerston would allow ti." [The noble Lord here handed a copy of the photograph to each side of the House.] He would take two large buildings which had sprung up lately—one opposite Buckingham Palace, called the Palace Hotel, which was pure Palmerstonian; the other was the Victoria Hotel; and could any one doubt of the superiority of the latter over the former? There was no comparison between them. One was in the classic style, and the other admitted of variety and fancy, and was a very fine building, thought it wanted colour. They found, in going through London, that this sort of building was cropping out in all di- rections; and if his noble Friend succeeded in erecting the Foreign Office according to the Palladian design in the tea room, all that would be shown would be that the House of Commons was not acting in accordance with the feeling and spirit of the country and of Europe in general on the question of architecture. He begged pardon for having so long trespassed on the attention of the House; but he felt strongly on the subject, and he was anxious that the House should not, by sanctioning the erection of the noble Lord's last design for the new Foreign Office, be led into a mistake which it could not remedy. The noble Lord was all-powerful and all-popular. He hoped the noble Lord would but abuse his popularity and power by attempting to force on the House a design of this kind. Let the House recollect the Duke of Wellington's statue. The Duke of Wellington's popularity prevented that monstrosity from being pulled down while he was alive; and Duke of Wellington's popularity, now he was gone, prevented any Member of Parliament from moving an Address to the Queen praying that the statue might be pulled down, as being a disgrace to the arts and to the taste and common sense of the people. Let the House take care that the same mistake was not committed in reference to this Palladian design for the Foreign Office, and that the noble Lord's popularity and power did not prevent it from doing that which it ought to do—namely, agree to the Motion with which he should conclude. The hon. Member for Bath, in a former discussion, said that the House of Commons, when it made a mistake in legislation could bring in a Bill to amend the mistake; but the House should take care not to make great mistakes in costly monuments of granite and marble.

Amendment propsed, To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words in the opinion of this House it is not desirable that the new Foreign Office should be erected according to the Palladian design now exhibited in a Committee Room of the House.' —instead thereof.

MR. BUXTON

seconded the Resolution, and said he rose rather to confirm than add to the remarks just made by the noble Lord. The Palladian design, against which the noble Lord had spoken, might have great merit, but he found it allowed on all hands that one merit it did not possess—the merit of being beautiful. Every one agreed that it was—he would not say ugly, but dull. There was in it nothing original or striking. No human being would ever be so deluded as to look up at it with that keen intellectual delight which was awakened by a really noble building. In repeating these general remarks he was not disparaging Mr. Scott. Every one allowed that the Gothic design which that eminent architect had prepared, though its outline might be amended, was radiant with grace and beauty. It glowed with thought and imagination, and would kindle the minds of those who looked at it. This difference was natural. Mr. Scott was a man of genius, but his genius lay in Gothic. In setting him to Palladian they went against his mind's grain; and he was glad to find that many hon. Gentlemen who did not love Gothic, yet said that if Mr. Scott was to be the architect it would be only good sense to give his genius its own sphere, instead of forcing him to work for which he was unfit. He was not going to compare the merits of the Gothic and classic styles. In fact, he had drawn so much enjoyment from both of them that he had no wish to assail either—though in passing he might remind the House that Palladian was not classic, but a bastard daughter of the classic style. But he hoped they would be guided by the plain common sense of the matter. He would not address himself to the good taste of the House, but to its good sense and judgment. And, keeping strictly to that ground, let him try to dispel the illusion that experience in that House showed the inconveniences of the Gothic style for a secular building. It was true that that particular Gothic was inconvenient; but the reason was that it was bad Gothic. We had made great progress in the Gothic style in the twenty or thirty years since that House was commenced, and has ventured to say that in Mr. Scott's Gothic design there would be precisely as much air, light, and freedom from soot as in his Palladian design. There would be none of this absurd folly of large mullions and small panes, and windows opening by pulleys, or not at all. As to expense, the Committee reported that the style would make little or no difference. But now there seemed to him to be one decisive argument against a Palladian design; that was that the Palladian style had already lost, or was quickly losing, all hold on popular affection. This could not be denied. A thousand things showed that every year public feeling was becoming more and more averse to that style. In all architectural publications it was found that Gothic and other intermediate styles were advocated in preference to it. All young architects, if let along, forsook it. Scarce a single recent building was in pure Palladian. Lately a great edifice was built at Manchester by a committee of mercantile men, with a Quaker chairman, and they would have it in Gothic. Most striking of all, only last Thursday the Premier himself rode twenty-two miles in a flood of rain to lay the foundation stone of a Gothic building, and told the company he had had great pleasure in doing so. All this might show bad taste in the British public; but it was the fact. Men above sixty still loved Palladian; men of taste below sixty hated it. Nor was that strange. Since Queen Elizabeth's time we had had nothing else. No wonder the world was growing dead-sick of it. It was a style, too, that had little range. It did not, like Gothic, admit of infinite adaptation and variety. Uniformity was its soul. Naturally it palled at last on the eye. Now, he appealed to the noble Lord, whose common sense was the admiration of his countrymen, whether it would be good sense to set up a great mass of building in a style of which the world was fast growing weary. Surely in such a matter the old should a little yield to the young. It was by the men of the future that this building would be enjoyed or execrated. Let it be built as they would wish it built. And of this he assured the noble Lord, that if he built it in Palladian it would not be enjoyed but execrated by the rising generation of men of taste. He put it respectfully to the noble Lord whether he would not generously sacrifice his own prepossessions in order to let this building harmonize with the feelings of the rising rather than the setting generation of men.

MR. COWPER

said, he was glad to hear his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) as well as the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution disclaim any very decided partiality with respect to the Gothic, Italian, or Renaissance style, he inferred from that disclaimer that they were not really convinced that the public opinion, of which they spoke so boldly, was in their favour. His noble Friend had used expressions of contempt towards this selected design, and assumed that public opinion had declared against the against the design by Mr. Scott which was now exhibited in one of the Committee rooms, and for which a Vote would be proposed in the Committee of Supply. People were apt to attribute to the public that opinion which happened to be their own. Possibly a knot of eager partizans of a particular style had congregated around his noble Friend, and by their constant buzzing had kept from his cars all remarks made by individuals of a different taste; for it so happened that he (Mr. Cowper) had found a different opinion on the subject, not only among ordinary persons to be met with in the streets—men who had superficial notions and slight interest about architecture—but also among persons practically versed in the science of architecture, and, competent to pronounce an authoritative judgment, and the opinion he had heard from illustrious architects who had practised the Italian style was that Mr. Scott's design did that gentleman the greatest credit, and was better than any of the Italian designs exhibited in 1857. It the House should come to the conclusion that the new Foreign Office should be built in accordance with the proposed plan they might, he thought, rest satisfied that we had procured the best design in that particular style which could be obtained. Mr. Scott, who stood so prominent as a Gothic architect, had done himself credit by the manner in which he had succeeded in dealing with architecture of a style with which he was not so familiar; and when his noble Friend who introduced the subject to the notice of the House described the design to which he had called attention as emanating from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he was paying the noble Lord a compliment more flattering, perhaps, than was intended. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, representing what he believed to be the views and preferences of the majority of the House and of the country, had asked Mr. Scott to prepare an elevation for a new Foreign Office in the Italian style. It would not have been to the credit of Mr. Scott had he said, "I am an architect only in one style: I can do nothing without the pointed arch, and I, therefore, decline to undertake any other"—but Mr. Scott, being conscious of his own ability to deal with whatever style the country might prefer, submitted to authority, and undertook the commission. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire seemed to be much pleased at having found certain buildings in the Metropolis which were not in the prevailing style of architecture, and had mentioned an insurance office in Bridge Street with satisfaction and triumph. The House, however, should bear in mind that the money lavished on the outside of assurance offices was intended to attract attention, and that notoriety was obtained more readily by strangeness and peculiarity than by conformity with the prevailing taste, Either a novel or an exploded style would serve as an advertisement and allure business. He was surprised to hear his noble Friend still claiming the Gothic as the national style. If the epithet were understood to denote what originated in the nation, or what exclusively belonged to it, was not more national than the Gothic, the Italian, and Stonehenge or the Irish cabins, were the best examples of the national style. But if the epithet implied that which was adopted by the nation, and prevailed to the greatest extent in the country, it certainly belonged to the Italian style. It must be manifest to anybody who used his eyes that London as a city was built not in the vertical and pointed but in the horizontal or Italian style; and the House of Commons ought in making a selection of a design for a new Foreign Office, to give preference to a style which would be best adapted to a public building, and which would combine the largest amount of internal convenience with an elevation calculated to produce great architectural effect without unnecessary expense. The style best adopted for a public office, and most available for modern construction, was the Italian, nor did the warmest advocates of Gothic architecture assert its superiority over the Italian in these respects. Assuming, then, that upon practical grounds the Italian style was that which it was desirable to select for the new Foreign Office, the next consideration by which the choice in architecture ought to be guided was that of association Action upon that consideration, churches were built in the style of the early Christian ages for the sake of preserving in the minds the worshippers the associations of ancient times. And for the same reason the architect of a Wesleyan chapel looking to the associations of the Eighteenth century, built in the style of George III. rather than in that of Edward I. It was also natural that when the present Houses of Parliament were about to be erected, a style should be chosen connected with the period when the House of Commons first acquired its liberties, and thus associate the past with the present. In the case of the new Foreign Office, however, he saw no reason for mediaeval associations. No hon. member wished, be presumed, to associate the transactions in that office with those of by-gone times, nor would he desire to see the foreign policy of the present day correspond with that of the days of King John. On the contrary, the association to be desired was that of the period in which we lived, and the Italian style was that which by its breadth, simplicity, and symmetry best represented modern sentiment and aims. It was a matter of importance that the style, whatever it might be, should be of such a character as would make the new building group well with those in this vicinity. A building of any description standing alone had only its peculiar architectural merits to depend upon; but when there were a number of buildings contiguous to one another, much of the beauty of the entire group, taken from any particular point of view, depended upon the harmony of the whole. Now, he saw no prospect of the plan of clearing the houses between Charles Street and Great George Street, which was a few years ago contemplated, being carried into execution, and the new Foreign Office would therefore be seen in conjunction with the Treasury, the Horse Guards, and the buildings in Whitehall. Any person going from Regent's Park to Pall-mall would find Palladian elevations along the route; and copies from the best models of Italian architecture in Pall Mall. He would find the same style continued through Trafalgar Square and Whitehall, and the Foreign Office should be the culminating point of this long series of buildings. Another object which was sought to be attained in choosing the design, was to afford as much pleasure to the public who would look upon it as possible. It had been asserted that by many persons in this country the Palladian style was execrated; but, for his own part, he was of opinion that for one person who took delight in the pointed, there were twenty who derived greater satisfaction from the Italian style of architecture. The latter was the style which now prevailed in Paris and the Continent. The erection of the new office ought not only to afford satisfaction to those who had a taste for art, but should be the means of furnishing an example and a model of what builders ought to copy. For one person who would profit by the example of a building in the Gothic style, there would be twenty who would profit by the example of a building in the Italian style. He thought these grounds were sufficient to justify the Vote which the Government were about to propose, and which would be for the erection of a building on the last design prepared by Mr. Scott. The noble Lord, the Member for Haddingtonshire, evidently wanted to exclude that design. That design, however, was the best which could be obtained in the Palladian style, and he was sure the House would never regret its adoption.

MR. LAYARD

thought it was strange that in this nineteenth century we had made so little advance in the art of architecture. The principle of architecture of the present day, as far as public buildings were concerned, appeared to be to imitate as closely as possible something that had gone before, and was as little applicable as possible to the real wants of the age. That House, for example, was a Gothic building. The exterior had much of the beauty of the Gothic style, but the interior had all the inconveniences which characterized buildings in the time of our forefathers. So with modern classic buildings. We had beautiful exteriors in the classic style, but the interiors, for the most part, were such as prevented us from enjoying—what we all wanted—the light of Heaven. That House moreover, swarmed with hideous and grotesque monsters, which, though called lions and unicorns, resembled nothing so much as the gorillas lately discovered on the west coast of Africa. He believed these frightful animals had even crept into the apartments occupied by the Speaker. Yet they did not necessarily belong to Gothic architecture. In the British Museum, on the other hand, we had a classic building, but we had spoilt it by erecting a great colonnade which rendered a whole series of halls almost useless. When these things were mentioned reference was always made to authority—as if authority alone were sufficient to reconcile us to monstrosities. Take the monument lately erected by Mr. Scott himself in the neighbourhood of Westminster Abbey. Some considered it a very fine monument; but although it might be justified on authority it could not be justified on common sense. On his column Mr. Scott had put a number of Kings and Queens, and on the top of all had placed a George and the Dragon. That was not consistent with common sense. What we wanted was a building adapted to our pre- sent wants. The noble Lord at the head the Government objected to Gothic on the ground that it was an ecclesiastical style—the style of the Jesuits. Everybody knew that the Gothic, instead of being the style of the Jesuits, was the very style which the Jesuits destroyed. The Jesuits introduced a tawdry renaissance style, which utterly destroyed that grand Christian style of architecture which was then developing itself in Italy. Again, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), who was himself an architect of no inconsiderable eminence, objected to the Gothic style, because it excluded the light. There was no foundation for that objection. They might have the whole side of that chamber one mass of light if they liked. In classic architecture there was something to prevent the admission of light. Classic architecture sprang up in the South, where one great object was to exclude the light and heat of the sun; as far as the admission of light was concerned we could not get a style more adapted to it than the Gothic which originated in the north where more light is required. The President of the Board of Works had said that the Gothic was not in use on the Continent. Mr. Scott had recently erected one of his finest Gothic works in Hamburg, and everybody knew that the Town halls on the Continent presented magnificent specimens of Gothic architecture. The charge of ugliness had been brought against the Gothic. At one time that might have been true; but the Italians had done much to take away all ugliness from the Gothic, and in one of the most beautiful monuments in Florence the Gothic was combined with the classic style in the most exquisite manner. He believed, indeed, that if the Jesuits, to whom the noble Lord at the head of the Government attributed a love of the Gothic, had not interfered, Italy would have given us, in a modification of the Gothic, one of the most beautiful and most Christian forms of architecture which the world had ever seen. It was a mistake to suppose that Palladio, who was a man of genius, confined himself to one style. Palaces at Vicenza in the Italian Gothic style are attributed to him. He most decidedly objected, however, to what was called in this country the Palladian style, and he thought the design prepared by Mr. Scott a mean design. He had no wish to cast reflections upon Mr. Scott; on the contrary, he thought he had produced a fair plan, all things considered; but Mr. Scott was not a classic architect; his whole time and study had been directed to Gothic architecture, and hence he excelled in that branch, and not in another. It was scarcely fair to that House, or to the country, to accept the classic design prepared by Mr. Scott; because that gentleman won his prize by a Gothic and not by a classic design, and classic architects ought to have been allowed to compete with him in their own style. His objection to the Palladian style was that it was a mean style in London, where it could not be carried out properly. The design in the tea-room looked to him like some of the new terraces in Regent's Park, which, like all large masses of renaissance buildings, were exceedingly monotonous. The monotony of classic buildings could only be broken by porticoes and colonnades—the very things which ought to be avoided in this country, where light was indispensable. With classic buildings we could not that ornamentation which was always necessary. The ancients painted and sculptured the exterior of their classic buildings, and so produced a very fine effect; but we could not have the same delicate painting and sculpturing in London, because the atmosphere would destroy all that kind of decoration in a very short time. The President of the Board of Works had referred in terms of praise to Paris. Everybody knew how monotonous Paris had recently become. The new streets were most oppressive and tiresome, and one was glad to take refuge in the old parts of the city. In Paris might be seen how architecture illustrated the political condition of a people. A stranger seeing Paris for the first time would at once say "A despotic powerdom could execute such works!" The whole was built on one plan. One day he observed a peculiar commotion going on in the Rue Rivoli. From one end of the long street to the other scaffolding poles were erected, and hundreds of people were engaged in scrubbing and scraping. On asking the meaning of it he was told by a person who did not speak English very well that all the people had been ordered to "scratch their outsides." Such was the system in Paris. Everything was done by one person, and monotonous. What we wanted, on the contrary, was variety, beauty, something that would interest people, not a repetition of the same thing. He did not altogether approve of the Italian Gothic design in the room; but he thought the third plan deserved great consideration. It possessed great beauties. The Houses of Parliament were erected at a time when the Gothic was little known in this country, and they were consequently overloaded with expensive and tasteless ornaments. Nevertheless, Sir Charles Barry deserved great credit for what he had done, for he was a classic architect, and it was not fair to require him to erect a Gothic building. Excessive ornamentation disfigured a Gothic building, and took away from its dignity. He would suggest that the designs of Mr. Scott should be referred to a Select Committee. In ancient times, when great public buildings were to be erected, the architects were always placed in communication with the leading men of the State. He had not the honour of knowing Mr. Scott, but from all he had heard of his character he had no doubt he would be prepared to meet a committee of gentlemen, and, if anything objectionable were pointed out in his plans, to make what might be considered improvements in them. He thought the Gothic plan should be accepted, on the understanding that some changes should be made in it; and then they would have a most magnificent building. His right hon. Friend had talked of the great improvements in taste which had taken place in the City of London. He quite agreed with him in that respect. Everywhere they saw magnificent buildings arising, if not of pure Gothic, of an English character—that is Gothic adapted to the wants and manners of the times. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) made an extraordinary admission with reference to the Fire Insurance Office, when he said it was built as an advertisement to attract people. The fact, then, was that it was thought that that style of architecture would be so attractive to the people that they would thereby be induced to insure their houses and persons in that building. A Gothic building in this country would admit what was most required—colour, by the introduction of terra cotta, red granite, and coloured marbles. It admitted of all varieties, and might well be made worthy of the country and the times in which we lived.

MR. TITE

thought the proposition which had just been made one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard. He must certainly challenge the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) to point out any building of distinction which deserved the character of Gothic except in Lombardy, in which coloured materials were to be found. Even in Lombardy, the best specimen, the best Duomo of Milan, was built entirely of marble homogeneous in colour. What would be the effect of York, or Canterbury, or Amiens, or Antwerp disfigured with terra cotta or coloured materials. The introduction of terra cotta or coloured marble into structures of a Gothic character would be a great mistake. There was terra cotta work in buildings in Milan in the Palladian style— but they were Italian buildings in every sense of the word. He had certainly heard a very strong opinion expressed with regard to the design in the tea-room. He had no desire to insist on his own opinion, though he must have wasted his time for forty years if he did not know something about the matter. His friend, Mr. Scott, had as much distinguished himself by Italian as by Gothic designs; and an architect who was well informed in the pursuit he embraced might, without any great difficulty, succeed in one style as easily as in another. Sir Charles Barry did so, and the faults of that House as to cost, darkness, and want of ventilation were not his, but incidental to the style. If they took Mr. Scott's Gothic design, with its large window-heads, the whole upper part of the rooms must be in darkness. What was wanted was a square window up to the ceiling, so that the light might come in freely, and, the sash being let down, that natural ventilation might be available. With regard to the genius loci, he must say, the magnificent Banqueting House of Inigo Jones on the one side, the new buildings of the Treasury on the other, and the mansion of the Duke of Buccleuch, when finished— which was of classical architecture in a certain sense— would not harmonize well with a Gothic Foreign Office. Towards the close of 1859 a large body of the leading architects did him the honour to request him to introduce them to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. Among them were men of the highest character, such as Smirke, Donaldson, Cokerell, Godwin, and others. They waited on the noble Lord, and expressed to him their obligation for his determination against carrying out the Gothic plan in the new Foreign Office. They thought the application of Gothic architecture to the Foreign Office an entire mistake, and they expressed a hope that the noble Lord would persevere in his determination. Sir Charles Barry himself when examined before the Committee said he did not think we should introduce Gothic architecture here— it would be wrong in his judgment; it ought to be Italian. And then it should be recollected that of the 218 designs only 15 were Gothic; and all the first premiums were given to Italian architecture. He knew no better authority on the subject of the beauty of Italian architecture than Mr. Ruskin— a man who by his Stones of Venice and his Lamps of Architecture had done more than any other to make architecture understood aesthetically. What did Mr. Ruskin say?— Of all the buildings in Venice, later in date than the final additions to the Ducal Palace, the noblest is, beyond all question, that, which having been condemned by its proprietor, not many years ago, to be pulled down and sold for the value of its materials, was rescued by the Austrian Government, and appropriated—the Government having no other use for it—to the business of the Post Office, though it is still known to the gondolier by its ancient name—the Casa Grimani. … This Palace is the principal type at Venice, and one of the best in Europe, of the Central Architecture of the Renaissance Schools; that carefully studied and perfectly executed architecture to which those schools owe their principal claims to our respect, and which became the model of most of the important works produced by civilized nations. I have called it 'Roman Renaissance,' because it is founded, both in its principles of super-imposition and in the style of its ornament, upon the architecture of classic Rome at its best period. The revival of Latin literature both led to its adoption and directed its form; and the most important example of it which exists in the modern Roman Basilica of St. Peter's. It had, at its renaissance, or new birth, no resemblance either to Greek, Gothic, or Byzantine forms, excepting in retaining the use of the round arch, vault, and dome; in the treatment of all details it was exclusively Latin; the last links of connection with mediaeval tradition having been broken by its builders in their enthusiasm for classical art, and the forms of true Greek or Athenian architecture being still unknown to them. The study of these noble Greek forms has induced various modifications of the Renaissance in our own times; but the conditions which are found most applicable to the uses of modern life are still Roman, and the entire style may be most fitly expressed by the term 'Roman Renaissance.' It is this style, in its purity and fullest form—represented by such buildings as the Casa Grimani at Venice, built by San Micheli; the Town Hall at Vicenza, by Palladio; St. Peter's at Rome, by Michael Angelo; St. Paul's and Whitehall in London, by Wren and Inigo Jones,—which is the true antagonist of the Gothic school. To that opinion he entirely subscribed. He thought the House would do wisely and well to leave the matter in the hands of the Executive Government. The result, he had no doubt, would be a building which would in no sense prove a disgrace to England, but a splendid building adopted in all respects to the purpose for which it was intended—the Gothic style of architecture was the right thing in the right place; but that place was not the Foreign Office.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down condemned the Gothic style, but he must not quarrel with other Gentleman if they analyzed the reasons which he gave for the opinion at which he had arrived. His objections simply amounted to this—he condemned the Gothic because it was inconvenient, and because a sufficient body of light could not be admitted through the windows of a building in that style. Now, the House must bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman was a member, and, of course, a leading member, of the Select Committee which sat three years ago on this very question. Witnesses of the greatest authority were examined, and those who disputed the views entertained by the hon. Gentleman were subjected by him to a minute cross-examination; and yet at the close of a prolonged inquiry the Committee unanimously reported that, having very carefully considered the two styles with reference to cheapness, commodiousness, and facility of ventilation, the result of their inquiries led them to the belief that in those respects no material preference existed on either side. Yet the hon. Gentleman, who was an assenting party to that decision, now called on the House to reject the Gothic style as inconvenient, and precluding the entrance of a sufficient body of light. The hon. Gentleman himself as an architect had defied any architect to make handsome Gothic windows which would open in a satisfactory manner. But what was said by Mr. Scott, of whom the hon. Member entertained a high opinion? Did he admit that those windows would not open or admit sufficient light? On the contrary, he stated— and his assertion would be borne out by every practical man— that his windows were Larger than any public building in the opposite style in London, and that the mode of opening and shutting them was the same as in the most recent public and private buildings; they were glazed with large sheets of plate-glass, and were in every way up to the full point of practical improvement which up to the present time had been effected in buildings of whatever style. And he would show the House that during the last two years the hon. Gentleman himself had practically shown his approval of the Gothic style by the buildings which he himself had invented or sanctioned. But before he came to this he wished to impress upon the House to deal with this subject apart from the question of taste, and on the ground of common sense. What was the position of the House and the country with reference to the Foreign Office? The architect had been appointed; for, though the noble Lord had questioned and cavilled at the appointment, he had at last frankly admitted, both privately and publicly, that Mr. Scott was appointed in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, and with universal official practice, and, therefore, that he could not be removed from the position of architect to the new public offices. It being admitted that Mr. Scott ought to have the appointment, he put it to the House, as men of business, what was the necessary inference as to the style which should be adopted? Mr. Scott was the greatest Gothic architect, not in England only, nor even in Europe; his fame was spread over the whole habitable globe. Having selected him to erect a great public building, ought they not, as reasonable men, to leave him free to act, and to give him a fair chance for the development of his talent in erecting a public building worthy of his fame and satisfactory to the country? But the noble Lord, although he admitted Mr. Scott should be the architect, said "No; you shall only erect a building in that particular style of architecture which has found favour in my eyes." Such a course was not fair to Mr. Scott; it was not fair even to the noble Lord's own colleagues, and they all recollected the annoyance felt by the late Mr. Fitzroy when the whole subject was removed from under his cognizance. It was not fair even to the two distinguished architects who in the great competition of 1856 obtained premiums for the Italian or French style of architecture. The hon. Member (Mr. Tite) declared the Gothic style was so little approved in 1856 that only fifteen architects thought it worth while to compete in that style; but about this there could be no doubt, that of the seven architects to whom premiums were awarded four received them for Gothic de- signs, and the other three for plans in different styles. It was not fair to those three gentlemen that Mr. Scott should be compelled by the noble Lord to erect a building opposed to his own feelings, to the convictions of his professional life, and to the bent of his genius. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had astounded him by the declaration that it was necessary to adopt this Palladian architecture, because it was the only style which found favour in the eyes of a discerning public. He took most emphatic ground in contradicting that statement. The House had already made a short tour through London, and he would ask hon. Gentlemen to take their stand in imagination on Waterloo Bridge. Casting their eyes up the stream they would see the familiar towers of Westminster; but looking in the other direction, after passing the level but in some respects beautiful elevation of Somerset House, they would see the high-pitched roof and picturesque exterior of the new liberary ["Oh, oh!"] which had just been built by the Society of the Middle Temple—gentlemen who would certainly condemn reactionary designs in Church and State; and, going to the quarter occupied by the other society, that of Lincoln's Inn, they would find that in its newer buildings the style which found favour was not the Palladian, but an adaptation of the English national Gothic architecture. The House had been told that, whatever might be the case in London, at any rate in the great provincial towns such was not the case. No city could be more free from reactionary or mediaeval tendencies than Manchester; but in the architectural room of this year's exhibition, next to Mr. Scott's amended design of the Foreign Office was a plan in what might be called ultra-Gothic of a great public hall of justice now in course of erection in the city of Manchester. Had this been ordered by any private individual? Had favouritism been shown to any particular architect? Quite the reverse. The design was the result of public competition; and in the verdict in its favour not merely the city of Manchester, but, if he was rightly informed, nearly the whole of the county of Lancaster took part. Looking to other portions of the provinces, he found the town of Northampton, which had always returned two Liberal Members to Parliament, within the last few months had occasion to erect a public building. The design was thrown open to public competition, and the gentle- men of that town, in order to be on the safe side, applied to the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Tite) to give his advice and to act as arbiter. The hon. Gentleman examined all the plans, and recommended two as the most suitable for the purpose of this building. [Mr. TITE: It is not built yet.] No; but he had seen the tenders for it. The noble Lord read a newspaper paragraph stating that— The Northampton Town Council met again on Monday last, and decided the important question of the Northampton Town Hall. Mr. Tite selected three out of the sixty-nine designs submitted to him; one had the motto Circumspice attached to it, and another Non nobis, Domine. The first was of the Italian order of architecture; the second of Gothic. On the whole, Mr. Tite's bias seemed to be in favour of the Circumspice design, on account of its distribution and artistic effect; but he also spoke in high terms of the Gothic design; as to which he stated that a remarkable degree of talent was exhibited in the management of the style, and that if carried into effect it would be an ornament to the town. The Town Council, it seemed, took the advice of the hon. Gentleman, and by a majority of twelve to three adopted the Gothic design; and within the last few days he had had the pleasure of seeing in a local paper the details of the tenders for its erection. So wide, in fact, was the spread of the taste for Gothic buildings that he had recently been in a large railway station in Perth erected in that style, which he was told had been commenced by the hon. Member for Bath. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) said that the Wesleyans and other Dissenters were not in favour of the Gothic style, and that they only built their edifices in the style which found favour in the reign of George III. This was mistake. The Baptists were building their college at Rawden in the Gothic; and a number of Dissenting chapels had been built in the same style. During the last two or three years a great number of buildings of various kinds had been erected in this style. He might instance the town hall at Nantwich, public buildings at Cardigan, town halls and corn exchanges at Alston, Sutton Coldfield, and Leominster; the Royal Victoria Asylum, Wandsworth; the Equity Life Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields; workshops and warehouses in Endell Street, the Crown Assurance Office in Bridge Street, and the London Printing Company's Offices in St. John's Street, in support of his proposition that the Gothic style was increasing in public favour. He presumed that the object of the London Printing Company in adopting the Gothic was not to attract customers at the sacrifice of their own convenience in the business which they had to carry on. In Edinburgh and Glasgow there were some splendid buildings in the Gothic style; and on referring to the Colonies they found that the Parliament House in Canada and the University in Australia were to be Gothic. In Hamburg there were some fine buildings in the same style. So that at home, in the Colonies, and abroad they found a growing taste for Gothic architecture. The noble Lord was now asking the House of Commons to go back half a century, and build the modern Foreign Office in a style which would have found favour with those who lived fifty years ago, but which would not find favour in the eyes of the majority of those who were living now, or of those who were to succeed us. He should sum up what he had to say in the words of a writer in the review to which he had before referred— Secular Gothic appears to be making way, and we may look as surely for the town halls assize courts, and the like, which may be erected during the next few years, to be Gothic in character (not English Gothic, however), as a few years back we might have reckoned on their being Greek. The first great step in that direction has been made in the selection of an intensely Gothic design for the assize courts at Manchester, the city par excellence of Italian Renaissance. He would, before sitting down, make a personal appeal in the matter immediately before the House, to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. In 1856, when the noble Lord was Prime Minister, the First Minister of Public Works invited candidates to compete for these buildings, and rumours went abroad that there were those high in authority who were against the Gothic. So prevalent was the rumour that when Lord Llanover received the architects of London, the question was distinctly put to him. He was asked whether there was any bias on the part of the Government, or whether all styles would have an impartial consideration. He answered that there was no bias, and that all styles should be considered with care. On the faith of that reply four of the architects who gained prizes sent in Gothic designs; but since that time the House had heard declarations from the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury which had given rise to a suspicion that under no circumstances did he intend, when the competition was entered into, to permit Gothic buildings to be erected. That must be regarded as a most un- fortunate suspicion; and he, therefore, appealed to the noble Lord to give him an assurance that, whatever his own views on the subject might be, he would not bring his influence to bear on his own colleagues, or any one else, in order to set aside the decision of the House of Commons. He trusted they should hear from the noble Lord that he would take every step in his power to give effect to the verdict of the House, and in their hands he was content to leave the issue.

MR. DUDLEY FORTESCUE

was not at all surprised at the inaccuracy into which the hon. Member for Bath had fallen with respect to the new offices which had been referred to in Bishopsgate Street, when he heard him quoting Mr. Ruskin as an authority in favour of classical architecture. He (Mr. Fortescue) was tolerably well acquainted with Mr. Ruskin's works, and he could state with the utmost confidence that if there was one writer who, more than another, had condemned the use of classical and advocated the adoption of Gothic architecture, it was Mr. Ruskin. He could, if necessary, point out innumerable passages in his works in proof of this assertion. Now with regard to the admission of light to a building in the Gothic style, so far from it presenting any obstacles it was well known to all had studied the subject that that style allowed of a more ample admission of light than any other, that in fact the supply of light was practically unlimited; in proof of which he need only refer to some of the recently erected buildings in the City to which allusion had already been made, in which the rooms were literally flooded with light, to a degree very rarely to be found in the hearts of this crowded Metropolis. The great superiority of the Gothic over the classical style consisted in its perfect readiness to adopt the exterior of a building to its interior requirements. Every one is aware that the interior of a house is not all divided into equal parts, nor in any way corresponds to the symmetrical regularity of a classical exterior. In one part, varying with the size, the depth, the aspect, the uses of a room you require a totally different provision for the admission of light from what you do in another. Take as an instance the case of some of the Clubs in Pall Mall, no one would contend that the same size or number of windows was required for the south front which looked upon the open space of Carlton Gardens as for the side looking upon the narrow streets which separates the Carlton and the Reform Club, but the classical style in which they were built took no account of the difference— the whole wall surface must be divided into equal spaces whether the building faced north or south, whereas a Gothic building could be adapted to admit a greater or less amount of lights as might be required.

The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Cowper) had observed that in these days people did not build their houses in the Gothic style; now, on this point, he begged to differ from him altogether— not to go beyond the walls of that House, he saw about him several Members, among others the Members for Kerry, for Maidstone, for South Hants, for Winchester, who had all built their houses in the Gothic style. It was quite true that the generality of London houses were not of Gothic architecture, for this reason, that they could hardly be said to have any architecture at all about them, being for the most part long lines of brick shells run up by speculative builders with a certain amount of cheap ornaments worked up in cement; but in the case of individual buildings in the City, for the designs of which architects, instead of builders were employed, there was, as had been pointed out by the noble Lord who opened the debated, a decidedly increasing tendency to adopt the Gothic style. He need not refer again to the instances quoted by other hon. Gentlemen in proof of this, but he would wish to direct attention to two buildings with which he had been especially struck, one a large warehouse erected within the last two years in a street adjoining Smithfield; and the other, the new schools for St. Giles's in Endell street, which really deserved the most attentive examination. It is a brick building, for stories high, with about the same frontage as the Travellers' or the Athenaeum, and the whole building which would be an ornament to any part of this Metropolis, he was assured had not cost more than from £12,000 to £13,000.

He would not trespass farther on the patience of the House than to say, that as they had secured the services of an architect of first-rate genius, one whom he, for one, would not be afraid of comparing with the greatest architects of bygone times, who, at all events, had carried off the prizes for important public buildings on the Continent against every competitor, and who had shown by the Government designs, where he has beaten his rivals on their own ground, that he was a master of classical as well as Gothic architecture, and this architect, after studying the subject profoundly for some years, having arrived at the conviction, that for beauty, convenience, and adaptation to meet every possible requirement, no style was to be compared with the Gothic, which he (Mr. Fortescue) would suggest was that they should take their architect's advice by rejecting the Palladian, and adopting the Gothic desige.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

promised the House one thing— that he would not say one word about architecture. When the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), in the innocence of his heart, deprecated this being made anything like a party question, it might not be made a party in question in the usual sense of party questions in that House; but he believed that since the celebrated feud between the Montagues and the Capulets there had been no feud like this between the Palmerstonian and the Lombardo-Gothic styles of architecture. He could not conceive a worse assembly for discussing a question of this kind that the House of commons. That House had been tried in the balance and found wanting on questions of this kind. But he did not intend to enter into these disputes at all— he wished to speak to a matter in which they had undoubtedly been found wanting. Let them look at the House in which they were now sitting— a building which he had never considered a Gothic building at all. The original estimate for that building was £750,000, and it had cost £2,500,000. And then Gentlemen came there and talked of the different styles— the horizontal and the perpendicular— when the country was looking to something else—they were looking to what the building would cost. In 1855, Mr. Pennethorne, the Government architect, was called on to submit a plan for a new Foreign Office. He did so, and the estimate for the cost of the building only was £60,000, and £30,000 was to go for the purchase of ground. The House of Commons of that day was so singularly sparing of the public money that when they were asked for this Vote they refused to give it, and gave £10,000 to patch up the old buildings. Now there was an estimate of £200,000 for the Foreign Office. But did the House believe it would be built for that whatever style was adopted? His hon. Friend below him (Mr. M. Milnes) undertook to do it for less whether it was Lom- bardo-Gothic or classical. If so, he would advise the House to give it to his hon. Friend. He did think the question has been properly treated by the House. When competition was thrown open for designs it was thrown open to the whole world, and £5,000 was the total sum for the whole of the premiated designs. The gentlemen who gained the first prizes were Messrs. Coe and Hofland, and Messrs. Bankes and Barry; but, in consequence of Mr. Scott, who was a celebrated Gothic architect, being second for furnishing a plan of the Foreign and War Offices, he was by some hocus-pocus of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire put forward before the gentlemen who had the first prize. If the House were to treat this subject properly some one would move an Amendment in the spirit of "A plague on both your house," and he (Mr. Osborne) would vote with him. Reject both the Palmerstonian and the Scott plan, re-open the question, and give the building to the man who gained the first premium. He expressed no opinion upon either style—he was so afraid of being a party to the enormous expense which was about to be incurred. He thought the whole question ought to be re-opened, and that these gentlemen ought to have the benefit of the position which they had fairly gained in 1855. He should take no part in the division, but he advised the House to be on its guard and remember always that the estimate for the Houses of Parliament was £750,000, and the actual cost £2,500,000. They were the worst Building committee in the world, and they stood disgraced in the eyes of Europe as men of business. The cost of this undertaking would, he believed, in like manner swell into a million, and if any Gentleman would move that both plans be rejected, and the thing thrown open as at first, he should be happy to vote for it; but he would say nothing of the merits of the Palmerstonian style, the Manners style, or the Gothic.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, the battle of the books, the battle of the Big and Little Endeans, and the battle of the Green Ribbands and the Blue Ribbands at Constantinople were all as nothing compared with this battle of the Gothic and Palladian styles. I must say that if I were called on to give an impartial opinion as to the issue of the conflict, I should say that the Gothic has been entirely defeated. The noble Lord who sits opposite (Lord John Manners) made it a reproach to me that whereas he, an ardent and enthusiastic devotee of the Gothic style, appointed Mr. Scott as architect, superseding those who had won the highest prizes—thus stepping out of the usual way of selection—and appointed him—I will not say solely and entirely, because he was a Gothic architect, for Mr. Scott has, no doubt, high professional merits, but mainly on that ground—and that whereas when I succeeded to office, and confirmed Mr. Scott's claim as architect, though I did not also agree with him in adopting the style of architecture which he approved, I was bound to adopt not only the noble Lord's architect but the noble Lord's style with him. It is, I think, rather too much for a person who has left office to expect that his views in all things shall be followed by one who comes into office after him. It has sometimes been made a reproach to a new Government that they have adopted the measures of their predecessors; but it is surely no reproach to me that I did not adopt the views of the noble Lord with respect to the style of architecture that we ought to use. The noble Lord alluded to the practice of large towns in respect to architecture; but he forgot to say that some of the noblest edifices in our large towns are in the Italian or Roman style. He adverted to Liverpool. Did he forget St. George's Hall in that town? [Lord JOHN MANNERS: I did not refer to Liverpool.] Then the noble Lord took care not to mention Liverpool, or that noble building St. George's Hall. But he spoke of Manchester, though he did not refer to the Free Trade Hall, a splendid building in the Italian style. Then look at Leeds. Does the noble Lord forget the large and handsome building which is so justly considered the ornament of that town, and which is also in the Italian style? Here are buildings of great magnitude and beauty, and costing large sums of money, erected lately by the people of these towns, and I say these are indications of the taste which prevails in these towns. Then, the noble Lord went further, and saddled on the city of Edinburgh—the modern Athens—upon Edinburgh, which has adorned the Calton Hill with an imitation of the Parthenon—not being satisfied with the Italian, but going back to the Greek—the imputation of having been converted to the Gothic style. Why, Sir, I call upon every Scotch Member to repel that gross calumny. Well, objections have been made on the ground that these plans have no originality. It is said, in the first place, that Italian—I will not call it Palladian, but the Roman classical style—is not a national style. But is the Gothic national? I never heard of the Goths, the Vandals, or the Saracens doing much in this country. I have been told in my early years that the Romans were in this country for a considerable number of years, and it is probable, therefore, that they have better claims to have established in this island a system of architecture that may be considered English than those people who never came here at all. My noble Friend has talked about the real ancient architecture of England. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) suggested that Stonehenge must be the style intended. But I will go further, and say that the real aboriginal architecture of this country was much huts and wicker wigwams. These were the original styles of those who first inhabited this island When, too, we are told that the Gothic has been practised at certain periods, I reply, so also was the Italian. When we are asked what is our national architecture, we might, I think, very reasonably, inquire who have been our most distinguished architects, and what style they have practised. Well, who were the most distinguished architects, of this country? One of them was Vanbrugh, who, although it was said of him that he "laid many heavy loads" on earth, yet has given us some very fine buildings in the Roman or Grecian style. Then we have Sir Christopher Wren and Inigo Jones. They were great men who constructed great works which to this day excite the admiration of all who behold them. Do not tell me, therefore, that Gothic architecture is the characteristic architecture of this country. It there was one characteristic style of architecture more prevalent than another it was that employed in the castellated mansions which were erected for purposes of defence, and which we now find all over the country. But the reasons why these buildings were erected have ceased to exist, and we may, therefore, dismiss that style of architecture. The noble Lord told us that there was no style that gave so much light as the Gothic. We have heard, however, of Great windows that exclude the light, And passages that lead to nothing. That, doubtless, was in the Gothic architecture. My noble Friend and my hon. Friend very kindly invited me to take a morning dive with them—an invitation Which I regret I was unable to accept. They went through the streets of London to test the public taste, and they found a certain number of edifices in the Gothic Style, forgetting, however, all those fine buildings, such as St. Paul's, Somerset House. [An hon. MEMBER: The Post Office.] Yes, the Post Office and others. It is very much as if a gentleman were to drive through the streets of Rome, and, seeing a great number of children with their arms broken and their legs out of joint, exhibited as beggars for the profit of their parents, and forgetting all the well-conditioned, stout, and able-bodied people that he saw, were to say "Let us go home and make our children like them, for that is the taste and habit of the Roman people." My noble Friend would reverse the boast of the Roman Emperor. He objects to stone, and would make these buildings of brick. Well, we know what the colour of brick becomes after it has been some time exposed to the London smoke. We know that it becomes the most dingy and gloomy colour that can be imagined. I am afraid of quoting an Italian authority against my noble Friend, or I might quote the opinion of Canova, a man versed in the arts, and supposed to be a very good judge. He told me, talking of London, and speaking with Italian hyperbole, "If London were only whitened it would be a real Paradise." But my noble Friend, instead of making it a real Paradise, would make it a real—something else, with the gloominess that he would scatter over all the streets that he had the power to command. His great objection is the want of variety. Well, no doubt it is well known that error is infinite and truth is simple. Bad taste is infinite, and good taste is simple, and, therefore, it is perhaps that the Gothic admits of an infinite variety. But nothing will satisfy my noble Friend but the invention of some new order of architecture. Mr. Nash, a great architect, tried that experiment, but had not much success. We all remember the story of a gentleman who, walking along Regent Street, and being struck with something very irregular in one of the house being constructed, said to the clerk of the works, "Good Heavens! what order of architecture do you call that?" The man said, "Oh, Sir, that is Mr. Nash's positive order." Well, I should like to see the "positive order" of my noble Friend. If my noble Friend wants to invent a new order of architecture, and if it be worth while, let us offer a premium for it. But for Heaven's sake, seeing that we want a Foreign Office, that the Foreign Office is tumbling down, that the Colonial office is following its example, that we want a new India Office, that the State Paper Office is crammed full and has not space for two years' more papers, I hope he will not call upon us to delay providing for these buildings until he or somebody else shall have invented a new order of architecture that shall be approved by the House of commons—which is not a very likely thing to happen. It is quite true that I did object to the first plan of Mr. Scott, as being Gothic, and on that account not suitable. Gothic architecture is very fit for churches and other edifices, but I hold it to be very unfit for street architecture in a town where unquestionable a great number of out buildings are of a different character, and we want to combine external appearance with internal arrangement. Objection has been taken to the Italian style on the ground of monotony. But the new plan and the old are of an entirely different character; and I hold that, whether in external appearance or-internal arrangement for offices, the Gothic, on the whole, does not admit of the same easy subdivision internally, and is not the proper style. Then Mr. Scott brought me an amended style. Which appeared to me Gothic in disguise, with pointed windows rounded at the top. And then he brought me another style, Saracenic or Byzantine. I said then "I know you are capable of excelling in any style; now, do for Heaven's sake go and bring me something in the Italian style!" Mr. Scott did bring me an Italian style, and we have heard from the noble Lord that it has been admired by the very best judges. I do not myself pretend to be a judge of the scientific merits of architecture, but it seems to me a very beautiful plan, and one which combines with sufficient beauty and ornament great moderation of expense. I think that is an important point. If we adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and adopt different colours and different marbles—with Cornish granite and serpentine outside, which would be costly to get and to work—I say the expense would be enormous. And, after all, let us recollect what the site is to be. The front towards Parliament Street will be seen, the front towards the Park will also be seen; but the side towards Downing Street will not be much seen, while the other side will not be seen at all; and, therefore, it would be a waste of public money to throw away a great deal in constructing a highly ornamented building for a Foreign Office. For these reasons I determined that Italian should be the style submitted for the approbation of the House. The building is to comprise the India Office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who is to build his portion out of the Indian funds, greatly approves the style last prepared by Mr. Scott. If we were to make out part Gothic and his Italian, I do not think we should add much to the beauty and ornament of the whole. I will only now answer the appeal made to me personally be my hon. Friend. he has had the kindness to give me credit for some common sense. He said I had lately shown the possession of the quality by going down to Harrow to lay the first stone of a Gothic building there. Well, I think that did show common sense. I am not fond of the Gothic, but, having been applied to to lay the stone of a Gothic library, the plan of which was approved by the proper authorities, which was in harmony with a Gothic Chapel close to which it was to be placed, and also in keeping with old john Lyon's school-house, I waived my objection to the Gothic style in attending on that occasion. Now, I ask my noble Friend and my hon. Friend to show the same good sense on this occasion. I ask them to waive their prejudices, and to agree to lay the first stone on an Italian building; and I am quite sure that when they see that building rise they will have the same feeling that I shall experience when I see this Gothic library—namely, one of great pleasure in having contributed to its erection.

Question Put, "That the Words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"

The House divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 95: Majority 93.

Main Question put, and agreed to.