RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 13 May 1870 vol 201 cc670-729

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

rose to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence relating to the dismissal of Mr. Edward Barry from his employment as architect of the Houses of Parliament, and to move a Resolution. He said, it was with reluctance that he ventured to bring forward this subject; for the discussion of personal matters was distasteful to him. But as he had himself been responsible for Mr. Barry's appointment as architect of the Houses of Parliament, he felt it his duty to defend the propriety of that appointment, and also to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which, as he thought, Mr. Barry had been harshly and severely treated. In the year 1860, when Sir Charles Barry died, a considerable portion of the build- ing in which they now were was still incomplete, and under contracts then in existence. It seemed natural that the architect who should be selected to complete the work then in progress should be the son of Sir Charles Barry, who was then professionally associated with Sir Charles, was in possession of all his views, and in a position to carry them out successfully. Mr. Edward Barry was at that time an architect of considerable reputation. He had already built Drury Lane Theatre, not to speak of other works; and the ability he possessed had since been patent to the world, for he was in the remarkable position of having in the last two competitions for public buildings, open to a chosen number of the best architects, got the first premium in each—in the competition for the National Gallery the first premium absolutely; in that for the Courts of Law the first place for the excellence of his plan and arrangements, although his elevation was not considered so good as that of Mr. Street. The general estimation, therefore, in which Mr. Barry was held in his profession would be quite sufficient to justify his appointment. The simplest way to explain the nature of the engagement he was under was to refer to the annual Estimates of that House. In them the works under his charge were kept distinct from those under the Clerk of the Works or the Surveyor. In the last year's Estimates the works to be executed under the architect of that House included the alterations in the Central Hall, in the Royal Staircase, in the Queen's Robing Room, and in St. Stephen's Crypt. It had always been in the discretion of the First Commissioner of Works to determine what particular works in the Houses of Parliament ought to be placed under the architect, and what works he thought would be sufficiently cared for under the Clerk or Surveyor of Works, and he apprehended that all Mr. Barry had a right to expect was that, whenever a professional architect was employed in reference to the Houses of Parliament he should be that architect. But he had no particular agreement as to what works they should be; that was left entirely to the discretion of the First Commissioner of Works. Then it must be observed that Mr. Barry, like his father, had no salary. He was remunerated by the ordinary commission of 5 per cent on the works executed. The works allotted to him might be classed under three heads. First, there were special works, such as those which he carried out after the death of his father and which were designed by Sir Charles Barry; also the completion of New Palace Yard, Mr. Speaker's Stables, the Subway, and such works as would naturally be confided to the architect of that House, and which must necessarily be so treated. Secondly, there were those alterations in the Houses of Parliament which might be deemed essential for their completion, for example in the staircases and in the Central Hall—alterations that illustrated the very skilful manner in which Mr. Barry had brought light into the corridors extending between the two Houses of Parliament. The corridors were for a long time very obscure, but at last an ample flood of light was introduced to exhibit the pictures adorning the walls of the corridors, and to remove from the building the reproach of darkness which had fairly attached to it. Then there were the works in which it was necessary that he should co-operate with sculptors and painters in decorating the Houses of Parliament. At first sight that might not appear to be the special province of an architect; and yet if the matter was considered it would be seen to be requisite that there should be a competent person connected with the building to give general direction and combined action to the artists who might be employed for its decoration. They had a familiar instance of that necessity in what occurred in the Royal Gallery. The Fine Arts Commission had given orders for a series of statues representing the Sovereigns of this country, to be executed in a style and of a size that should seem best suited for the purpose, but they had not taken the architect into their counsel on the method of adapting the niches to the reception of the statues. When, however, a considerable number of the statues were completed, and when the time came for placing them in their position Mr. Barry, who was then in charge of that part of the building and who was consulted on the subject, after various trials and alterations in the pedestals and niches, pointed out that by putting the statues in that particular place the general effect and beauty of the gallery would be injured; and, accordingly, it was found necessary at the last moment to transfer them to Westminster Hall, for which they were better suited. That was an example of the value of the advice and assistance of the architect. It might have been better if he had been consulted rather earlier in the matter, and enabled to give his opinion before the statues were completed; but if there had been no architect, and the sculptors only had been consulted as to the position of their statues, the general effect of harmony between the architecture of the Hall and its decoration would have been marred. The third class of duties performed by the architect of that House referred to consultations about any proposed changes. When Committees of the House sat on such subjects as the arrangements of the House, the propriety of enlarging the building, providing a new refreshment room, or similar alteration, Mr. Barry was naturally consulted, and was always ready to give his services in the most accommodating manner; and hon. Members who had acted on those Committees would remember what diligence, attention, and trouble Mr. Barry bestowed upon the ideas consecutively thrown out by them, and with what intelligence and ability he put those ideas into practical form. For all those services Mr. Barry had received simply the ordinary commission of 5 per cent on the works actually executed. As it happened that those works had been small in extent and of very little cost, his remuneration had, consequently, been proportionately small in amount. Perhaps some hon. Members thought there must be some peculiar extravagance in the method of paying the architect of the House; but if they would turn to the Votes and Accounts for successive years and would calculate the commission of 5 per cent on the works executed by Mr. Barry—putting out of consideration for a moment the special works outside of that building, which he had previously enumerated—they would find that during the last 10 years the commission paid to Mr. Barry amounted to an average of less than £300 per annum. Out of that £300 he had to defray the ordinary expenses of an office in the neighbourhood of that House, and also to pay a clerk, whereby he was left very nearly in the position of working gratuitously for that House. Those expenses would have been small in proportion to his commission if Mr. Barry had had very large works to execute; but, as it was, and allowing for those expenses, probably he had not received for his personal services more than £150 per annum on the average during those 10 years. Their arrangement, therefore, with the architect of the House was certainly an economical one, for they had a man in the foremost rank of his profession, who had given much time to the study of that building, who was acquainted with every corner and cranny of it, who had made it his special labour of love, and who was therefore able to bring to bear his experience as well as his taste on any proposal for making alterations in it. They had the power of consulting that architect on any question that might arise at any moment, and that, too, for no money payment as regarded his opinion; but for only £300 a year in the shape of commission on the works he actually executed. So that really what they had in Mr. Barry was an honorary architect, not paid by any definite salary from the public. Almost all the great buildings of London had attached to them a permanent architect at a salary; and in the case of a building of that sort, with its vastness, its intricacy of detail, with so much in it that constantly suggested alteration, it did seem to him a very great advantage to have what was equivalent to an honorary architect ready at any moment to give them the benefit of his advice and experience. If, therefore, it was now the wish of the First Commissioner of Works to substitute another architect for Mr. Barry, he ought to show some very good reason for making that change. The original appointment of Sir Charles Barry was the result of a competition to which all the world was invited; and Mr. Barry himself, when he entered the lists with other competitors, had shown that he was a match for any man who went into the field with him, Moreover, he came with this advantage over every other architect, that his mind was thoroughly penetrated with the style of that building, and thus specially qualified to execute any changes in it which might be deemed requisite. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) did not think the choice of the style in which that House had been built a very happy one. Instead of that very elaborate and minutely florid style he should have preferred something severer, grander, and broader in its general treatment. But whatever might be said against the style actually adopted, no one could doubt that it had been carried out most perfectly and most consistently throughout. And it would be most unfortunate if any architect were to be called in who had not so entirely imbued his mind with the spirit in which that building had been designed, who would introduce incongruities into it, or who would mar the great merits which everyone recognized, and which made it one of the most remarkable structures of our time in Europe. That having been Mr. Barry's position at the end of last year he received an official circular from the Office of Works in his capacity of architect. He was without suspicion of insecurity with regard to an appointment which he had held for 10 years, when he received a letter from the Office of Works—the first of the series laid before the House. It was dated January 22, and contained two paragraphs—one informing Mr. Barry that the New Palace of Westminster would, from the 31st of March— Be placed entirely in the charge of the officers of this Department, and that the Estimates for that service for the ensuing year will, therefore, be prepared on their responsibility. The next paragraph was as follows:— I am further to inform you that the First Commissioner will be obliged to you to have all the contract plans and drawings of the Houses of Parliament, and all other papers necessary for affording a complete knowledge of the building, and of the works carried on in connection therewith, arranged together, and deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Works, in order that they may, when required, be at once handed over to this Department. This appeared to him (Mr. Cowper-Temple) to be a very remarkable document. It contained two propositions, which the First Commissioner had no right to make. He could not claim any authority to depart from the conditions expressed in the Estimates of last year—namely, that certain works were to be executed under the architect of the House. The First Commissioner, however, assumed authority to withdraw from Mr. Barry the execution of the works sanctioned by the House. In specifying the 31st of March as the period when Mr. Barry's duties were to cease, the First Commissioner had, moreover, named a time when the con- tract works confided to Mr. Barry were not closed. Some of these contracts were only to be finished by the end of April, and after that time a certain period must elapse before the architect could give his certificates. This summary dismissal, therefore, appeared to be an infringement of what that House had a right to require from the Executive charged with carrying out the plans approved by them. He was not sure, indeed, that the money would have been voted if it had been stated at the time that Mr. Barry was not to have the execution of the works, because it was voted upon the understanding that the money was to be expended on the responsibility of an able, experienced, and skilful architect. It appeared that the demand that all the plans and drawings connected with the new Houses of Parliament were to be given up involved a legal question, which would turn upon the nature of the contract between an architect and his employers. So far as it was a legal question he had no intention of dealing with it, because such questions were beyond the cognizance of that House. In the further correspondence on this subject, however, it appeared that Mr. Barry had acted in the fairest and most courteous manner. He said he could not give up what he looked upon as an inheritance from his father, and that he would not go against the unanimous opinion of his profession and the custom of the country. He added that he should betray his position as an architect in surrendering the original papers and documents connected with the building, but that he was willing to give the Office of Works any copies and tracings they might require. He thought he might say that Mr. Barry's refusal to comply with a demand of at least doubtful legality ought not to have subjected him to the treatment he had received in these letters. Mr. Barry had been guilty of no insubordination, and he had done nothing to deserve being treated in this contemptuous manner. Some time elapsed before Mr. Barry answered this letter of January 22, and he (Mr. Cowper-Temple) could well conceive that he was puzzled as to its meaning. If he had been guilty of any great breach of public duty, or any heinous offence, so terse a letter as that of January 22 might have been appropriate. The letter might have arisen from the appointment of Captain Galton to the office of Director of Public Works. It might be a prelude to the substitution of another architect or of a surveyor, assisted by the drawings. It might be a casual ebullition of bad temper, or have arisen from a contemptuous indifference to the whole question. Mr. Barry, when he did write, made a very fair appeal to the First Commissioner. He assumed that the letter had been written carelessly or hastily, and he supposed either that some explanation would be given of what was intended to be done, or that his implied dismissal would be withdrawn. Mr. Barry stated that he had not exceeded his estimates on a single occasion, although some of the works were such that it was not easy to foresee the expense. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) could confirm that observation. During the time he filled the Office of First Commissioner of Works Mr. Barry had never exceeded his estimates. He had been most attentive in the discharge of the duties entrusted to him, and most accurate in his accounts. Mr. Barry further mentioned that he had never sought a salary for the discharge of the various temporary duties entrusted to him. He was ready to demand the strictest inquiry into his conduct, and he pointed out that the course taken by the First Commissioner was calculated to do him the most serious professional injury, which he had done nothing to deserve. When a professional man of great eminence after 10 years' service was dismissed, without any reason being alleged, people out-of-doors would not suppose that this had not been done out of mere caprice or from the desire of showing authority. Mr. Barry received, on the 7th of March, a letter containing the following passage:— The First Commissioner desires me to add that he has not thought it necessary to enter into any discussion of the topics raised in your letter of the 10th ultimo, based upon assumptions which he does not recognise. Mr. Barry had raised three topics of great importance to himself in his letter, which were, however, so immaterial to the First Commissioner that he did not think it necessary to enter upon them in his reply. Mr. Barry of course was not satisfied without getting some reason for his dismissal, and therefore he wrote a further letter, in which he said— I had expected that my letter of the 10th ult. would, at least have been considered by Mr. Ayrton worthy of a reply, if not of his favourable consideration. He then proceeded to state in more detail his reason for not wishing to give up the drawings. He said that the drawings and papers relating to the Houses of Parliament consisted of two classes—the first comprising those prepared by himself during the last 10 years, and the second the drawings, &c, made during the life-time of his father, Sir Charles Barry, and which were left to him by his father. Many of these, he said, were invaluable to him; he regarded them as a sacred deposit, and he could not believe the First Commissioner would seek to deprive him of this much-prized inheritance, but as the wording of the letters from the First Commissioner's office might be held to imply such an intention, he felt bound before finally replying to them to ask for definite information on the point. He added— As regards the works now in hand and partly executed, I have already forwarded to you all the contracts relating to them. Even then Mr. Barry did not get any further explanation. In reply to his letter, the Secretary of the First Commissioner, having acknowledged Mr. Barry's letter, said— If you should think that any of these documents are a sacred deposit, which you ought to retain, you should state the fact to the First Commissioner, in order that it may be duly considered. In his next letter, Mr. Barry, while declining to hand over the drawings, added— I am, however, most anxious not to offer any impediment to his views, and I shall be happy to show all my drawings, &c., to the Director of Works, and to make tracings for his use of any of them of which he may require copies. He should have expected that, when Mr. Barry made that offer, he would be met with some acknowledgment that he was dealing in a liberal manner; but the letter in which he made it was treated in the same peremptory and haughty manner as that in which his previous letters had been received. In the reply sent to him he was informed that the correspondence had been referred to the Solicitor for the Department. He ought to remark that the drawings which Mr. Barry refused to give up were drawings made by Sir Charles Barry during the erection of the building, and were not likely to be of any use whatever to the Office of Works. They did not relate to the plans for warming and ventilating the Houses. The latter plans had been made by Mr. Reed first, and afterwards by Dr. Percy. The drawings made by Sir Charles Barry had no particular utility in respect of the carrying out of the ordinary repairs of the building. Possibly they might to some extent be useful in respect of repairs connected with drainage. Whether Mr. Barry's refusal to give up drawings in which he had an interest as an architect, and also a family interest, should have exposed him to the curt and laconic treatment he had received, and caused letters to be written which were of a character very unusual in letters sent from a public office, was worthy of consideration. This was not merely a personal matter, though to Mr. Barry it was of paramount interest. He thought the House might properly and rightly interfere when they found an officer of the House, who for so many years had discharged his duty with efficiency, and had always shown a readiness to do all in his power to promote the convenience of Members, dismissed in so summary a manner. He submitted that the House ought to require that he should not be dismissed without ample reason, or, at least, without grounds which might be considered by hon. Members. In a long correspondence on this subject no explanation was given of the circumstance that Mr. Barry did not receive the information he asked for. But there were public grounds on which the House should go into this matter. Former Commissioners had sought to foster and improve art, and to secure the assistance of the most eminent architects and sculptors and painters, and had maintained friendly relations with artists, and with the Royal Academy and the Trustees of the National Gallery; but the present First Commissioner appeared to think it his duty to discourage art, as a source of expenditure. He looked upon artists as a set of persons who were always trying to put their hands in the public purse. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) said that on the highest authority—namely, the authority of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he (Mr. Ayrton) had been kind enough to make a manifesto to all the world on the occasion of his appointment to the Office. It was on an im- portant—he might almost say a solemn occasion. In a very interesting speech the right hon. Gentleman told the electors of the Tower Hamlets that, at the moment of his presenting himself on the hustings, the Constitution required them to express not merely an opinion of himself, but of the conduct of the First Minister of the Crown in having selected him to fill the Office of First Commissioner. He then proceeded to state the grounds on which he thought his constituents would see he was the fittest man for the post. He spoke with a considerable amount of contempt of certain classes. The first were those who were educated at public schools and Universities, and who thought that, to be First Commissioner, he ought to be an ædile. The second class were the people who were fond of what was called art. To show his special acquaintance with them, he said many of them were very artful people. That seemed to have been appreciated by the electors of the Tower Hamlets as a happy and appropriate phrase. For architectural sculpture and gardening he expressed a profound contempt, and, to set himself right with the electors of the Tower Hamlets, he explained that he knew nothing about those professional accomplishments, but having so supreme a contempt for them he felt it his duty to look after architects, sculptors, and gardeners in order to see that they did not indulge their fancies at the public expense. The right hon. Gentleman then said he had received a training for his present Office while Secretary to the Treasury, when he employed himself in refusing applications for public money. This dismissal of Mr. Barry must be read in the light of the doctrine promulgated by the right hon. Gentleman on the hustings, and which was a doctrine he did not think would be acceptable to that House. There was a great difference between economy and saving. They might save a considerable amount of money, and yet not economize. By abolishing the office of architect to that House they might save 5 per cent on the work hitherto entrusted to him, but he did not think the saving would be economy. In watching works going forward and seeing that they were executed in a proper manner, the architect gave ample return for the percentage paid him. This was especially the case in decorative works. The House of Commons, he was glad to say, was anxious to see a rigid watch kept on the expenditure of public money, but it would not be carried away by petty parsimony and a want of taste. The wealth of a country did not consist in its money only, but also in intellectual development, in elevated sentiment, and in patriotism. In his opinion, the money of the country was wisely and judiciously spent when it was expended in the erection and adornment of public buildings calculated to improve the standard of public taste, and of which Englishmen might feel proud. Let them look at other countries. It was not necessary to go back to ancient Greece and Rome; if they looked across the Channel to Paris they would find that the most enlightened men regarded money as well spent when it was expended in rearing monuments of dignity and beauty in the form of public buildings. In Germany, again, the enlightened Prussian would scorn to save money at the expense of the beauty and nobleness of the public buildings. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) trusted that the time would never arrive when it would be considered in this country that it was unnecessary to employ architects in designing our public buildings. He further hoped that architects, many of whom possessed the highest talents, would always receive the consideration due to gentlemen who followed a liberal profession. It was upon these grounds that he had thought it necessary to move the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name, and he had tried to avoid bringing into the discussion more than necessary of a personal character. He had, however, thought it his duty to bring before the House the grievance of a gentleman who was nearly in the position of one of their officers, and to enter his protest against a mode of treating professional men, which he hoped might not become a tradition of an office which had hitherto been conducted upon very different principles.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word, "in the opinion of this House, the abrupt discontinuance of the employment of the architect who has hitherto been engaged at the Houses of Parliament whenever professional skill and responsibility were required, at a moment when works entrusted to his direction were still in progress, is uncalled for, and of doubtful expedieney,"—(Mr. Cowper-Temple,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. AYRTON

Sir, before I rose to address the House upon this matter, I wanted to see if any other hon. Member was desirous of making any observations upon anything I had done with regard to the subject of this Motion; because it will occur to all hon. Members present that if any further observations upon this question are to be made it would only have been right that they should have been brought forward before I made my statement, in order that I might have had an opportunity of answering them. I am, however, quite prepared to deal with the case as it stands on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who, no doubt, had a special duty to perform towards himself in bringing forward this matter, he having appointed Mr. Barry to fill the post which he has recently left. If, therefore, he thinks Mr. Barry is injured, he is right in bringing the case before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, not confined himself entirely to the task he undertook. He has thought it necessary to refresh his memory—or rather has failed to refresh it—respecting some observations made by me a great many months ago. I will undertake to say I have a recollection more accurate than that of my right hon. Friend on that matter, and there is only one remark which I recognize as my own amongst those he quoted, the rest being a play upon the language I used. It is true I asserted that the First Commissioner of Works is responsible for seeing that the public money is duly spent by those who may be employed under his Department. That I regard to be his chief and most important duty towards this House, and the very reason why he sits here is, that he shall account to the House for the manner in which money is spent that is voted for this particular branch of the public service. That is the duty I have regarded myself as bound to discharge, and I have carefully refrained from attempting to perform functions for which I do not deem myself qualified; and, therefore, I have always left questions of architecture, sculpture, and other arts, to be determine by the judgment of professional men. I will now pass on to the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman began by disclaiming any desire to go into a question which he said has been remitted to legal investigation, and then he proceeded to enter most fully into the whole subject. I regret that he has thought fit to do so, because I think there was ample ground for discussion upon the Resolution he has proposed. It is, however, impossible for me to allow the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without giving the House some little information upon the subject. Now, Sir, the view which I took of the relations of Sir Charles Barry and Mr. Barry to the Office of Works, as regards the plans which had been prepared by them in the discharge of their duty while in the employment of the Crown, and at the public expense, were that those plans were, of necessity, the property of the Crown; and I have no doubt that any person having no special knowledge of the matter would have arrived at the same conclusion, and would have believed that, if he had paid for a particular commodity, he was of necessity the owner of that commodity. Another view of the matter, however, appears to have been taken by the Messrs. Barry; and I do not now intend to argue the legal rights of the Crown upon the subject, it being sufficient for me to explain to the House how I came to entertain the notion that such an opinion was one to which everybody was likely to subscribe. At the time of the occurrences to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I had in my Department a document which had been prepared by a gentleman of the very largest experience, to whom I was entitled to look for information—namely, the Surveyor to the Office of Works. ["Name, name!"] The name of the gentleman to whom I allude is Hunt. That gentleman had, not long before these occurrences, prepared a document, which, as it put the question as I believed accurately before me, I will rather read to the House than give any version of my own of it. Before reading that document, however, I may remark that this is not the first time that this question has arisen in the Office of Works, and that the Paper I am about to lay before the House had reference, as will be perceived, to the plans of another architect. The question raised was, whether the Office of Works were or were not entitled to have possession of the plans which had been executed for them? Mr. Hunt, in reply to that question, says— I am not prepared to recommend the First Commissioner to permit Messrs. Banks and Barry to have the custody of the contract drawings. Upon principle, I think every document appertaining to a deed of contract should be in the charge of this Department, to the head of which is intrusted the expenditure of public money. But it is more especially desirable in this case, seeing that the First Commissioner will from time to time have to ask the Treasury to sanction a further expenditure of nearly £35,000, in ornamental and other works, which it has been considered expedient to exclude from the general contract with Messrs. Mansfield & Co., and the First Commissioner will have need to refer to the contract drawings to enable him to judge of the propriety of the estimates which may be submitted to him by the architects for the additional works. I cannot see that any delay can or ought to arise from the adoption of the course I venture to recommend, for Messrs. Banks and Barry admit that they have tracings of 41 out of the 92 contract drawings, and the remainder could be traced at a trifling expense in two or three weeks at the most. And for this purpose there would be no objection, I think, to allow Messrs. Banks and Barry to have the drawings. The contractors are supplied with copies of all the drawings by the surveyors, who calculate the quantities, and the architects only want the drawings in their office for reference, or for preparing further details, for which correct copies are as good as the originals. All the contract drawings for the new Foreign Office are and have been in the custody of this Department, and there is no reason, as it appears to me, why the same course should not be followed in this case. Messrs. Banks and Barry state that they had charge of the drawings for Contract No. 1, and therefore they ought to have the drawings for Contract No. 2. Why they were permitted to have the drawings of Contract No. 1 I know not. I suppose it was thought that the works were small in amount and simple in character; and, moreover, the then First Commissioner was desirous that the works should be proceeded with without the least delay, and so the architects were allowed to have the custody of the drawings. But in a large and elaborate work like Contract No. 2, extending over a period of many months, the case is very different, and the precedent quoted by Messrs. Banks and Barry ought not, in my opinion, to be followed. So that when I am told that I am pursuing a course in this matter altogether unknown, I reply that I found in my Department a document which informs me that the most distinguished architect in England has concurred in the very course which I have adopted, and that the same course has been again prescribed in the case of the large buildings now being carried on in front of Burlington Gardens, and that it has been acquiesced in by Messrs. Banks and Barry. Finding this to be the case, I regarded it as a matter of course that if the Office of Works accepted a responsibility in regard to this building, they should have the contract plans and drawings relating to this building in precisely the same manner as they possessed them in relation to the Foreign Office, and the building which is now in course of construction. That was the reason why I made the very simple demand upon Mr. Barry to deliver the plans and drawings relating to this building to the Office of Works in consequence of changes which were about to be made in the conduct of the business of that Department. What is the view that any reasonable man would take with reference to the money that is paid to an architect for the service he renders? As regards Mr. Barry himself, I have no reason to doubt that he entertains opinions upon the matter somewhat similar to my own; because, when it became necessary that I should ask him what amount of remuneration was due to him for the services which he had performed with reference to certain sketch plans he had drawn for the new National Gallery, he declined to make any charge, on the ground that if he were employed to superintend the works he would receive 5 per cent upon the outlay, and that if he were not so employed he would receive 2½ per cent upon the outlay as remuneration for his services in drawing out the sketch plans. Now, if the 2½ per cent upon the outlay is not for those sketch plans, what is it for in such a case? If we have no property in those plans, and if they are not to be handed over to us, how can the architect whom we may select to superintend the works make use of them; and if we cannot make any use of them, of what value can they be to us, and why should we be expected to pay for them? The request preferred by me to Mr. Barry that he should deliver up to the Office of Works the drawings and plans connected with this House was met by Mr. Barry by a very long argumentative letter. Now, every man of official or commercial experience will decline to be drawn into a long controversial correspondence, which may have the effect of throwing one off the scent, or, as lawyers would put it, of raising a false issue; and I trust that I have had sufficient experience, at all events in one professional character, to prevent me from falling into such an error as to enter into such a controversy. Therefore, I declined to enter into a sentimental controversy on a mere personal question. I wanted the simple question to be disposed of, as to what was to be done with all the plans and drawings, which I thought ought to be deposited in the Department I was connected with. A great deal has been said by my right hon. Friend of the cruel wound inflicted on the feelings of Mr. Barry by the attempt to take him from all his father's drawings; but he has not called attention to the fact that I pointed out to Mr. Barry that the purpose for which I wanted them was to have evidence of the structure of the building and all its appurtenances, and of the position of the drains and flues. Everybody knows that all such drawings are made by clerks at two or three guineas a week, or by draftsmen employed for the purpose of preparing contract plans, and they are not the personal work of a man of genius, done by his own hand; but if they were so I did not put any pressure on Mr. Barry, for I told him, as he had got all the papers, to sort out what he considered the personal work of his father from those other papers which might be regarded as mere matters of business, and to send the latter to my Department as evidence of the construction of the Houses of Parliament, of the foundations, embankment, sewers, and works of that kind. I could not give Mr. Barry further instructions than that, for not having seen the plans and not knowing their character, all I could do was to ask Mr. Barry to make a selection according to his own view. I could not say that I would be bound entirely by whatever selection Mr. Barry might make, because he might have sent me papers which were insufficient for the purpose. All I did was to ask him to make a selection in the first instance, reserving to myself the right to say whether they were sufficient for my object. My right hon. Friend said that Mr. Barry was willing to give copies; but did not state that Mr. Barry desired to be paid for them. What Mr. Barry said was—"You have no right to any- thing in my possession; but if you want information, I will provide copies if you pay for them." Thus, it seems, I was to acknowledge Mr. Barry's right to the papers and then to pay him for copies. I think I should have ill discharged the duties of the Office I hold if I had agreed to spend the public money in recognizing Mr. Barry's right. Was it proper that I should have entered into a controversy with Mr. Barry on the question of right as regards the Crown, when neither he nor I had any means of deciding the question? I could only do what I did. My right hon. Friend has in this matter spoken of Mr. Barry as if he were the party principally concerned; but Mr. Barry sent me a letter from Sir Charles Barry's executors, who asserted their right to the papers. Therefore, I was brought face to face with those executors claiming their rights against the Crown. Consequently, the affair no longer bore the sentimental character which Mr. Barry began by ascribing to it, but took the form of a legal claim by executors on the part of the estate. All that I said was that, before I took another step, I would put the matter in a course of examination by the legal advisers of the Office of Works; and what fairer could I say as regards Mr. Barry, Sir Charles Barry's executors, and the public—for the public have as much right to consideration as the other parties to the transaction? I at once declined to interfere further, leaving the result in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown, and it is perfectly a matter of indifference to me personally if they should recognize the right of the executors to these plans. I leave the question to those whose duty it is to deal with it; but if they advise that these papers are the property of the Crown, then I should have no right to come to the House of Commons, and ask for a Vote of public money to pay for that which the public have a right to. This being the position of things, I do not see what advantage will arise from anticipating the result of the examination of these relative rights, and I think it would be better to leave the affair to take its own course. But when it is said that Mr. Barry feels aggrieved, and when a large body of architects meet to declare that they consider themselves aggrieved at what has been done, I ask what ought to be more gratifying to them than that, without any trouble or expense to them, and without the necessity of going into a Court of Law, they will have the whole question examined by the highest legal talent? One thing I ought to mention. Mr. Barry put forward the idea, and endeavoured to impress me with the idea, that I am implicitly bound by certain rules as to remuneration which architects think it convenient to lay down for themselves. Now, I am not of opinion that the House of Commons will be ready to recognize that any class of persons is entitled to proclaim specifically the terms on which business is to be transacted, so as entirely to exclude the other party to the contract. All I claim for the Office of Works is that it should be treated as one party to the contract, and be at liberty to say what its views are as regards its own interests. What I object to is that the architects not only assert what they think most for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of the Crown. They desire to take the matter out of the hands of the Crown, and that is an assumption which I am disposed entirely to disregard. This scheme of architectural combination was brought under the attention of the Office of Works on a former occasion—I think it could not have been when my right hon. Friend was in Office. It was in March, 1867. Mr. Barry wrote a letter as to the amount of his remuneration—5 per cent being declared by the architects as the exact sum to be paid on all occasions. Well, it would be very delightful if every person might state the exact sum he should receive, and make a combination with other people to exact it. On the 25th of March, 1867, Mr. Barry wrote to the Secretary of the Board of Works— The present question between myself and the Board refers to a sum of less than £10; but I could not admit the justice of the views expressed in your letters without exposing myself to a charge of unprofessional conduct by accepting less than the recognized remuneration of my profession, and departing from the rules laid down for its guidance by the Royal Institute of British Architects, to whom I have felt it my duty to communicate the substance of this correspondence, referring as it does to an important point in professional practice. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) took a view which I think he was perfectly justified in taking of such an extraordinary communication. In reply, after stating that he had decided the particular case, the Secretary to the Board of Works wrote on the 9th of April, 1867— I am at the same time to acquaint you that, in order to prevent any future misunderstanding, your remuneration for all works intrusted to your superintendence by this Department, whether at the Palace of Westminster or elsewhere, will be calculated by the Board at a commission of 5 per cent on the outlay, which commission is, according to the practice of this Department, to cover all expenses of measuring and superintendence, except the charge for the clerk of the works. The practice of the Department being exactly the reverse of the practice laid down by this combination of architects. ["No, no!"] There is a distinct claim on the part of the Board of Works to state the amount of remuneration it will pay, and that Office does not hold itself amenable to the Royal Institute of Architects, but deems itself entitled to prescribe the manner in which the Department will conduct its own business. Now, I come to the question which my right hon. Friend has raised by the Notice he has given. My right hon. Friend opened his case with an error, which I should not have thought he would have fallen into, because, being the advocate for Mr. Barry, he ought to have informed himself of the condition under which Mr. Barry was employed. The House well knows that it is not in the power of the First Commissioner to create any continuous office under the Crown. The power of the First Commissioner is very limited; and if he desires to create an office under the Crown, his duty is well defined. He must make a submission to the Treasury; he must get the sanction of the Crown, through the Treasury, to the creation of that office, and then the appointment may be made; but no appointment whatever in reference to the Houses of Parliament has ever been proposed by the First Commissioner, or has ever been sanctioned by the Treasury. What has been done is strictly in accordance with regular practice—namely, that when the House of Commons has voted a sum of public money for any particular work the First Commissioner is intrusted to watch over that expenditure, and it is his duty to appoint the individuals, be they many or few, who are to execute it. When my right hon. Friend desired the services of Mr. Barry, the Secretary to the Office of Works wrote to him saying— I am directed to inform you that the First Commissioner requests that you will undertake that service—that is to say, to superintend the completion of the works at the new Houses of Parliament, which have received the sanction of this Board, and for which Parliament has made a grant of money. That was the appointment that was made; it was a limited one, and the House must not suppose that I am playing on words, or that Mr. Barry did not understand the nature of his employment, for when a question arose in March, 1867, as to his remuneration upon a Vote that had been made by Parliament for the service he had undertaken, he said— I have to remind you that in my letter of 8th June, 1860, accepting the appointment, I expressly limited my acceptance to the case of the works which had then received 'the sanction of the Board, and for which Parliament had then made grants of money.' The House will see that Mr. Barry was ready to make this important distinction, which it is my duty to explain to the House, and therefore it is not a point which is now raised for the first time. Mr. Barry was conscious that he was not appointed to any permanent employment; but pro hac rice to superintend the then expenditure of the money that had then been voted by Parliament. My desire is to satisfy the House that Mr. Barry well knew his position, although my right hon. Friend, owing to his long absence from official life, may have forgotten what he himself did.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

I did not use the words "permanent employment." I said he was an officer of the House.

MR. AYRTON

My right hon. Friend emphatically stated that he considered Mr. Barry was an officer of the House, and I cannot conceive language better calculated to convoy his meaning. By using it he conveyed precisely the meaning of the words of his Resolution, which is based on the idea that Mr. Barry is a person who has an office and an employment from which he has been removed, and the substance of my right hon. Friend's speech was a complaint that that gentleman had been removed from his office. If that is not so, what are we discussing? If Mr. Barry has not any office or employment, what complaint can he have to make? But my right hon. Friend says that Mr. Barry has had a great charge in this House, and in the most cruel and summary manner has been deprived of his employment. I will read Mr. Barry's description of his position— January 19, 1870. I do not hold any appointment in virtue of which the building"—that is to say, the Houses of Parliament—"is in any sense under my charge, and I hare no responsibility in respect of it except as regards such works as are intrusted to my superintendence from time to time. And then, he goes on into other matter. ["Read, read!"] The letter goes on to a wholly different subject; but it is in a Parliamentary Paper, and anyone may read it for himself. I quote it to show how accurately Mr. Barry describes his position, and the view he himself took of it; and after that I would ask the House what ground he can have for complaining that he has been deprived of a continuous and permanent employment in the most summary manner? Having explained what Mr. Barry's duties were, I now come to the transactions of the past year, and will first state, that in accordance with usage, Mr. Barry received in April his authority for his employment under the Vote of last year. On the 12th of April, 1869, the First Commissioner directed this letter to be written to Mr. Barry— I am directed to instruct you to at once commence the work in the Central Hall, Queen's Robing Room, Royal Staircase, and St. Stephen's Crypt, for which provision is made in the Estimates submitted to Parliament for the current year, being careful that the expenditure for each service, including your commission, does not exceed the amount provided. That was Mr. Barry's commission for the year 1869–70, ending with March last, and he had no employment other than that which was intrusted to him under that letter, precisely as he had been employed in 1860 and on subsequent occasions under letters from the First Commissioner, who consigned to him particular Votes of the House of Commons to be expended under his professional supervision. That being so, the House will recollect that we had some very painful discussions last Session in Committee of Supply on the Vote with reference to the special expenditure on the Houses of Parliament. No one regrets those discussions more than I; but I cannot help reminding the House that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) who preceded me was then, called upon to defend himself in a very disagreeable manner, with regard to the ordering of the mosaics in the Central Hall. What was his defence? Why, he said that the architect had been left to do almost as he pleased; he on his own motion made all the contracts; and it was not the practice of the architect to communicate to the office the names of the persons with whom contracts had been made, but the Vote was handed over to the architect, and the First Commissioner knew nothing more about it. The position which my right hon. Friend assumed, and rightly so, for his vindication, was that Mr. Barry had done what he thought fit with the Vote that was consigned to him, and I recollect that in that discussion a noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) exclaimed— If I had been First Commissioner of Works and had made such a discovery, what would the Secretary of the Treasury have said, and what would right hon. Gentlemen have said if they were sitting on the opposite Benches? I wish to answer that appeal. There were many matters which came under my notice when I took Office which I thought it my duty to examine; but the longer I was in that Office, the more was I astonished at the way in which business appeared to be conducted there. It did not appear to me that the First Commissioner really accepted the responsibility which ought to belong to his position; but he seemed to hand over everything to the architects and others whom he employed, and then he had only to say—"I have done this, and whatever happens will be their doing and not mine." I will give the House one illustration, not intending to find fault with Mr. Barry, but as showing the state of things that existed. Notwithstanding the discussion which took place on that Vote, I received towards the close of the year a representation from Mr. Barry that the work had become in such a state that I must either look ridiculous or spend another £500—a painful position for a Minister who had given a pledge to the House of Commons that there should, not be any expenditure in excess of the Vote. If that condition of affairs was to continue where would be the responsibility of the First Commissioner, and what would be the use of this House discussing the matter and coming to a deliberate conclusion as to the expenditure? The control of the expenditure would be virtually gone beyond the Department, the head of which only received an intimation that he must spend more money. In another case a subway was to be made, and in the contract there was an item for contingencies. Mr. Barry said the amount of money was not large, and it was provided that any special extra work should be done at a cost not exceeding £300. When it was reported that the work was coming to a close, we requested Mr. Barry to furnish an account of the extra works to be paid for, and Mr. Barry wrote back to say that, in the exercise of his functions, he had arranged to pay £300 for them, and it was unnecessary to give any further explanations. What is to be the position of the accounting Officer of the Crown if he is not to have an account of extra works, and is to be told that they have absorbed the exact sum set apart? There is no complaint against this gentleman—it is against the system. The idea was to get rid of all trouble in the Office of Works, to put it upon somebody else, to let him manage as he pleased, and then to accept his statement as a sufficient answer for all the consequences that might ensue. I had to consider this among other illustrations of the system, and I had to ask myself whether we should continue this, or whether we should attempt to devise a better. The solution of this question was forced upon me much sooner than I desired, because I did not wish to be hasty, and wished to fortify my opinions by practical experience. It so happened that when I took Office a gentleman was appointed as Secretary of Works, who informed me that he intended to resign, but would not do so immediately, lest it should be supposed that my connection with the office had anything to do with his resignation. I asked him to retain his office long enough to enable me to consider what was best to be done, and he ultimately gave notice that he should resign his office at Christmas. I then had to consider whether I would appoint another Secretary of Works, or whether I would go to the root of the whole question of insufficient responsibility, and ascertain whether the office might not be organized on a better and sounder footing, so that the First Commissioner should be really as well as nominally responsible for all the public expenditure voted by the House in connection with public works. I laid my views before the Government, and they came to the conclusion that there should be an officer to be called the Director of Works, and that he should, under the eye of the First Commissioner, superintend all technical details, so that all should be thoroughly recorded in the office, and that there should be no expenditure of which the office had not previous cognizance. That was the spirit and principle of the change effected. When any one is appointed to an office in a Department with the head of which he is personally acquainted, there are people charitable enough to suggest that public have been sacrificed to private interests; and therefore I may say that the appointment in question was not made by me at all; it was made by the Government, on their collective responsibility, and was accepted by me, although I might have claimed the privilege of making it myself. I cordially accepted it, however, and I am, therefore, fully responsible for the appointment of Captain Galton—a gentleman who has had a professional education, and. who has had professional experience in connection with works of construction. This gentleman being thus appointed, and new arrangements made, it became necessary to re-arrange the duties of the persons employed by the Office of Works. In my communication to Mr. Barry I confined myself to a literal statement of fact, in order that there might be no ground for introducing personal matters connected with Mr. Barry and his professional status. What I said was that changes in the way of administering the Department rendered necessary that which I desired to do, and that showed that what was being done had no relation to Mr. Barry as an accomplished architect, or as a gentleman who had rendered service to the Crown in his professional capacity. Mr. Barry was at liberty to take whatever steps he thought desirable; but it was the office of the First Commissioner to render what he believed to be his duty to the Crown. Instead of acquiescing in these official changes, Mr. Barry desired to raise a great many questions, upon the discussion of which I declined to enter, as they were totally irrelevant to the reasons I had given Mm for what was being done in the Department under the direction of the Government. In order that there might be no mistake, in my letter to Mr. Barry I told him that his future employment was an open question; that I did not propose to deal with it, and that it would depend upon a great variety of circumstances; and I say he had no right to endeavour to commit me to his future employment for all time to come. He had been employed year by year under particular Votes; and he had no right to ask any questions as to any engagements beyond those which he already held. It is said he was deprived of the completion of works upon which he was engaged; but there is really no foundation whatever for that view of the case. It is a total misconception, arising, perhaps, from the fact that the House has before it Papers relating to works in which he is engaged; but it was never intended to interfere with any of the duties Mr. Barry was performing under the authority of my predecessor; and if I were to trouble the House by going into the letters which have passed, I could make it clear that Mr. Barry must understand that as well as I do. I did not, and I could not, at that time know the details of the works on which Mr. Barry was engaged, because I had not the contracts. I had not the information requisite for forming a judgment on the subject. What I understood was, that he was to certify all the expenditure he had undertaken, in accordance with his employment under the letter of my right hon. Friend of last year, and there was no intention whatever of interfering with that duty. If I am rightly informed the works have, in fact, been completed, and he understands that as soon as he certifies what accounts are due and are to be paid to all the contractors, they will be paid on his certificate and on that alone; and there is not the least intention to prevent Mr. Barry receiving professional remuneration to the extent of what he certifies. I wish to disabuse people of the idea of a dispute which never had any existence, and to show the House that there is no desire, and never was any desire, or intention to interfere with his employment. What has been intended and is intended is, that there shall be a responsible Department of Works; that there shall be a thorough, sifting investigation into the necessity for, and character, of all proposed expenditure; and that the conditions of it shall be thoroughly defined. The Director of Works, under the direction of the First Commissioner, and with the technical officers of the Department, is to investigate all proposals for expenditure of public money, and to bring them under the notice of the First Commissioner, who is to be made responsible by recording his opinions upon them for the consideration of the Treasury, by whom alone expenditure can be sanctioned; and it is not until all these conditions have been complied with that third persons are to be called in to give their assistance. That is the footing on which you must put the Department, if you desire to make it responsible, and if this House intends to undertake in a reasonable way the duty it proposes to itself in Committee of Supply. It must not be met by a First Commissioner who says that somebody outside his office has done everything, and that he is very sorry for it; but the Government is committed to what has been done. I wish that nothing of that sort should occur again; and I hope that the result of this proceeding will be that every question of expenditure will receive its perfect economical solution before we go to what may be called questions of decoration and of art. I do not wish or propose to limit the employment of persons who possess adequate skill and knowledge in any particular branch of art which it is necessary to lay under contribution; on the contrary, I wish the services of such persons to be resorted to; but, on the part of the Crown, somebody must judge when gentlemen of professional skill and knowledge are to be called in; and the technical officers of the Department, under the responsible First Commissioner, must necessarily perform that function. You are told that the First Commissioner of Works is guilty of a most arrogant proceeding if he undertakes to judge when people are to be employed in his Department—public money is to be placed at the disposal of what are called independent professional men, who are to take charge of all public buildings belonging to the Crown. What is meant by that? They are to be independent of whom and what? There can be no independent charge of the buildings of the Crown. Every charge must be dependent upon the head of the Office of Works, who is appointed by law to superintend the buildings of the Crown. It is said that there is no one competent to do this in the Office of Works. Who has the right to make this assertion? What right have a number of architects to meet together and to say—"Nobody in the Office of Works is competent to do our business, and, therefore, we claim to be the persons to do it?" There is no independent architect in charge at Windsor Castle, which is a tolerably large building—at Buckingham Palace, or at Somerset House. What right has anybody to say that these buildings shall be given up to independent architects, who are to decide what public money shall be spent on them? All these public buildings have been in the charge of competent persons. But the principle does not apply to existing buildings alone. There is now being constructed opposite the General Post Office a building of great mark, which is to cost £150,000—the supplemental Post Office; and this is being superintended by an assistant surveyor in the Office of Works, by whom it was designed. Why should any persons say, in effect, that this gentleman is unfit for the duty intrusted to him, and that they alone are competent? It is my duty to defend from such insinuations the meritorious gentlemen employed by the Department, who have long performed with ability the work they are called upon to perform, and who ought to be protected from the combination entered into against them. For my part, I shall be well content to see the work in connection with the Houses of Parliament performed as well as that at other public buildings. Whenever the officers of the Department are unable to perform the duties that devolve upon them, the fact will be reported to me, and in such case I shall be only too happy to avail myself of other assistance. I have now endeavoured to make clear to the House a true statement of the question at issue. In conclusion, I am not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that a combination of architects should regulate the terms of a contract entered into between the Office of Works and the architect it may employ, and Her Majesty's Government have concurred with me that no architect shall henceforth be employed by the Department who does not sign a written contract, the terms of which will afford a suitable protection, not merely for the interests of the architect, but of the public service.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

I have gladly gathered from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he is, at last, beginning to learn that there are such things as equities of manner and methods of dealing with gentlemen which would enable gentlemen to deal with him. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman's lamp of knowledge on these points gives a very shining light; but there are certain glimmerings of illumination. As an encouragement towards a complete reformation, I may observe that the right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, feel greater sympathy with the architectural profession when he knows that a large proportion of them, though accomplished gentlemen, have not been at any public school or University. I listened with surprise to his argument, when I recollected that, as I can show by figures, Mr. Barry's services during the last 10 years, in connection with the Houses of Parliament, have resulted in a not annual profit to himself of £179 a year; and that, for this munificent reward, he has carried out great works, and has gratuitously attended Committees, which, labouring under the hallucination that he held a public office, cross-examined him, and occupied much of his time. A Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam), sat for two Sessions, and produced two very interesting and elaborate Reports, containing a scheme for the construction of a new House of Commons, with other alterations in, and additions to, this building. That scheme is now hung up; but, in preparing it, Mr. Barry gave his services gratuitously. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) ventured on a very wire-drawn distinction when he denied that Mr. Barry had any equitable claim to the continuous consideration of the Office of Works, or of this House, because he held no actual appointment in black and white. Does that mean that he held no patent under the Great Seal? Look at the way in which business is generally conducted in this country. How many persons are there whose equitable claim to continuous employment is recognized by the rules of society, though they are unable to produce any formal appointment? Does a man draw up a deed for the appointment of his family solicitor or his banker? In all such cases, the relationship grows up gradually; one incidental transaction leads to another till at last, without a scrap to show the commission, a relation is created which may last for generations. Of course, a man may change either his solicitor or his banker, and he may make the change like a gentleman, or in a very unjustifiable manner. The question now is, not whether the Office of Works has, or has not, an abstract right to dispense with the services of Mr. Barry. To raise that question is to throw dust in the eyes of the House. The plain issue is this—Is the way in which the Department of Works parted with Mr. Barry right or wrong? Were Mr. Barry's antecedent services, was his position as an artist and a gentleman, such that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in sending him the curt and harsh dismissal with which these Papers commence? The right hon. Gentleman has ridden off on a by-issue. The question is not as to the law and customs of architects respecting percentages, nor is there any reason why he should so pertinaciously ring the changes upon a "combination" of architects supposed to be organized against him. Anyone hearing the discussion to-night might suppose that Mr. Barry had brought down a lot of architects to the feet of the lions, in Trafalgar Square, and called on them from a pedestal to give their opinions on their rights. The fact is, that this "combination" of architects is a well-known and universally respected society, which was incorporated 30 years ago to serve as the official centre, legislative and practical, of the architectural profession; it has been honoured with marks of Royal favour, as the dispenser of a Queen's prize; and when I was its President, it obtained leave to use the prefix of "Royal." This "combination" of architects, which the right hon. Gentleman throws in our teeth, and threatens he will break down, is the acknowledged, incorporated, representative body of the profession, for the purpose of regulating and controlling the customs of architects. If the Law Officers of the Crown say that the rule laid down by them in this instance cannot be sustained, cadit quœstio; but, meanwhile, to try to place the Institute in so invidious a position, is to prejudice an important case while it is still before the tribunal. With regard to Mr. Hunt, who proves to be the right hon. Gentle- man's secret and only adviser, I respect that gentleman's practical ability and services; but what is the opinion of one man compared with the combined decision of the whole profession, especially when that one man is, after all, an outsider? Any how the right hon. Gentleman was very careful to keep Mr. Hunt's opinion to himself; but if, instead of this concealment, he had, in the first instance, communicated Mr. Hunt's view to Mr. Barry, and had inquired, in a friendly manner, whether he had any objection to deposit the drawings, or copies of them, in the archives of his Office, no difficulty, I venture to say, would have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman has himself stated that Mr. Barry, at the close of last year, received the usual circular regarding works in progress; and having received the same form as in previous years, he naturally inferred that the same honourable understanding—I will not call it engagement—was still to continue, and acted upon that circular. On the 22nd of January, however, he received the peremptory announcement that in consequence of the various arrangements made for the conduct of works the New Palace of Westminster would from the 21st of March be placed under an officer of the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head. Now what interpretation could an architect, receiving such a letter as that from his employer, put upon it but that his charge was at an end? It was in that sense that the letter was construed by Mr. Barry. In the same missive a simultaneous demand was made for the drawings, and so Mr. Barry naturally did what any other man of honourable spirit would have done—he stood upon his rights. If, however, matters had been managed otherwise, there would have been an opportunity afforded for those friendly negotiations by which alone the harmonious arrangement of such intricate business can ever be secured. But with a document in his hands which he could not regard in any other light than that of a dismissal, Mr. Barry found himself driven to stand upon his rights, which are the common law rights of his profession, not created by the Royal Institute of Architects, but only interpreted by them—rights which, I must add, have from time immemorial been recognized and respected up to the present period by all employers. I have been a considerable employer of architects myself, and I must say that I have never known such a demand to be made as that which was made in the present instance. But in spite of his dismissal, what did Mr. Barry do? A rigid adherent of the rights of the architectural profession might say that he had gone too far in conciliation, for he professed himself ready to surrender all the contract designs made during his 10 years of office, offering also the tracings of the drawings made in his father's time. An opportunity was thus afforded of terminating the matter fairly and honourably as between all parties, of which I venture to say any other Minister would have taken advantage. What was, however, the return made by the First Commissioner to this generous concession? The offer was met by a dry and hard assumption as to the rights of the Crown, and by the threat of legal proceedings against Mr. Barry, because while he virtually surrendered all that had been claimed, he did so with some regard to his own position. The right hon. Gentleman has harped on the trumpery expense to the public of making the tracings of Sir Charles Barry's drawings. I was ashamed to listen to such a plea. What did these two or three pounds matter to him more than they would have done to Mr. Barry, except as a protest on the part of that gentleman which he was bound to make of his own rights of ownership? The right hon. Gentleman has also made a good deal of what has been said by his Predecessor in Office last year with reference to the mosaics for the Central Hall, from which it might be imagined that Mr. Layard had got a large sum of money and had left it in Mr. Barry's hands to spread over a variety of expenses. But what were the real facts of the case? Mr. Layard simply allowed Mr. Barry to enter into a contract for one almost mechanical work—the pattern decoration of the roof—keeping, as he explained, the work which was most expensive and artistic—the mosaic pictures in the spandrils—in his own hands. I must contend, therefore, that Mr. Layard's speech was not susceptible of the colour which the right hon. Gentleman sought to put upon it. The right hon. Gentleman rested his defence, in a great degree, on what he called the creation of a "technical officer," who was to be at the beck and order of the Office of Works. What I am driven to infer from this statement is that there will be hereafter certain permanent officers placed in his Department to know what the First Commissioner himself ought to know, to check designs with which he ought himself to grapple, and to look over estimates which it ought to be his duty to look over. So far as I can make out, that is the simple definition of the technical officer. But had the Office of Works no professional adviser before? What was Mr. Hunt? What were Mr. Pennethorne and Mr. Fergusson? The crowning argument of the First Commissioner was the fact that a new General Post Office is being built for £150,000 by an assistant surveyor. I have only to remark that I want to see the building finished before I commit myself to the admission of the wisdom or the economy of such a procedure. Besides, I refuse to be blinded by words before I ascertain whether this assistant surveyor may not after all be an architect. Sir Christopher Wren was termed His Majesty's Surveyor of Works, and I wonder that the right hon. Gentleman has not argued that St. Paul's was built by a surveyor; the argument would have had precisely the same value as other assertions on which he has ventured. I hope the House will not be led away by special pleading about Mr. Barry's appointment, or by assertions about his 5 per cent. The question at issue is a broader one than that. It is how far the honour and the credit of the Administration, of this country will be affected by gentlemen, artists and honourable men, being treated by officials in a hasty, contemptuous, harsh, and overbearing manner.

MR. OSBORNE

I am puzzled, Sir, to know, after listening to the address of my hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope), whether he spoke in his capacity of Member for the University of Cambridge, or as the late President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, which he tells us has existed from time immemorial.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

I never said that.

MR. OSBORNE

My hon. Friend said it had existed for 30 years.

MR. BERSFORD HOPE

What I said was, that the custom of paving 5 per cent has existed from time immemorial.

MR. OSBORNE

I will come to that by-and-by. I am surprised to hear an hon. Gentleman who has been President of that society not only recommending people to go to school, to learn, I suppose, the principles of architecture, but also the coinage of words; for the hon. Gentleman, who is a Member for the University to which I have the honour to belong, made use of the word "assumptious." That is a word which I believe was never before heard, even at the Royal Institute of British Architects. I think, however, that the speech just delivered was, if I may use the word, "assumptious" in every sense. In considering this question I am not going to narrow it down to the position taken by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He has narrowed it down to a question of the family architect to this House; but I am going to put it on a broad ground—on the principle of the British taxpayer against the monopoly of the family architect. Let us get rid of all the verbiage—this "assumptious" verbiage—which has been used on the present occasion. It is necessary to look into the history of the building of these Houses of Parliament, and I am sorry to say that a grosser history of wasteful and profligate expenditure by family architects and by Royal Institutes never came under the consideration of this House. [Cries of "No, no!"] I hear my cantankerous Friend on the other side who says "No, no!" but I say "Yes, yes!" Now, what was the original Estimate for the Houses of Parliament? The original Estimate was £750,000. You may talk of percentage, or what you like; but what has been the actual cost? Why, upwards of £3,000,000. How has that bill been run up? By the favourite method of appointing a Committee of this House, which appointed a Fine Arts Commission, which, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge supported originally, even if he were not a Member of it. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: I never was a Member of it.] Then you ought to have been. Well, what did they do? From the first they ran up a bill for the ornamentation of these Houses—upwards of £50,000 for frescoes and statues. And what has been the case with those frescoes? ["Question!"] I must go into that question. It is the question of the taxpayer, and is not to be shrouded under family architects or the "No, no's" of the hon. Gentleman opposite—my intimate Friend opposite—who endeavoured to hide his face when he cried "No, no!" Upwards of £12,000 has been spent on the frescoes in the two corridors. ["Question!"] I will come to your friend, Mr. Barry, by-and-by; but first I am going into the whole question of these Houses of Parliament. Every one of those frescoes are now rotting on the walls. Now I come to the question of Mr. Barry, and I will give you sufficient contentment as friends of his. Hitherto the First Commissioner of Works and this House have been completely in the hands of the architect. Now you have got a man fresh from the Treasury. I do not say that he is a man of taste. He comes in here like the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence), totally devoid of æsthetic ideas, and with the wish only to save money. I may say that he is "as free as Nature first made man" when "wild in the woods the noble savage ran." Hitherto I say the whole of this House and its ornamentation has been in the hands of the architect, and the Commissioner of Works has been completely at his command; but now a man comes in who I believe is more intent on pleasing the taxpayers of the country than on conciliating the family architect or the Royal Institute of British Architects. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cowper-Temple) says Mr. Barry served this House for an income of £179 a year. Yes, but what did he do otherwise? He was always suggesting changes, though I do not say he did so for the purpose of putting money into his own pocket. What did he do with regard to the Central Hall? He proposed to cut down the original pillars which support the hall and to substitute marble pillars for them. [An hon. MEMBER: And a very good job.] Without doubt, it is a good job; but who is to pay for it? This is your idea of art; you prefer to have continual bills. This great work, which was originally estimated to cost £750,000, has gone up to £3,000,000; and yet you call yourselves the guardians of the public purse. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works did what he ought to have done. He called on Mr. Barry to send in his plans and to give up his position, as I understand it. I think we have had Mr. Barry round the neck of the public a great deal too long. This system of family architects ought to be abolished as far as the nation is concerned. But then there comes down my right hon. Friend the late First Commissioner of Works, who appointed Mr. Barry, and proposes this extraordinary Resolution, which is nothing less than a Vote of Want of Confidence in the present First Commissioner. "The noble savage," in his anxiety to save the public funds, may probably not be on the best of terms with individual Members of this House; but I say he deserves the thanks of the country generally for the course he has taken. I do hope the House will resist this insidious attempt, which is probably, to a great extent, the result of private pique. ["No, no!"] Well, what could be more personal than the speech of my hon. Friend the late President of the Royal Institute of British Architects? He has put the matter not on public, but entirely on private grounds; and, because you have got a Gentleman in Office who is determined to control the public expenditure, my hon. Friend turns round upon him and says he is not deserving of the confidence of this House. I think the time has come when this House ought to reassert its jurisdiction, and not listen to arguments about family architects or the opinions of the Institute of British Architects. I hope this House will not listen to their dictation when they attempt to put forward their rules, which are nothing more than the rides of a trades union Society. Those rules are not recognized in any Court of Law. The endeavour of the architects is to lay down the rule that the country is to pay 5 per cent—that is, 2½ per cent, I think, for plans, and 2½ per cent for superintendence. I think that is the rule. [Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE: "No, no!"] Well, the hon. Member for the City of London is a builder, and is better informed on this subject than I am. I happen, however, to have in my hand a statement of the professional charges as laid down by the architects, and here it is. If they do not continue the building they are to have 2½ per cent for furnishing the plans. Is this country content to pay these enormous sums of money, and then to be told that the plans have not been deposited in the public archives? From time immemo- rial, I believe—in the Middle Ages, at all events—the plans of great buildings were always so deposited. That was the case with regard to the cathedral at Cologne, and also with regard to the cathedral at Florence. Both in Italy and Germany, during the Middle Ages, all the plans were lodged in the public archives, so that if the building were left unfinished it might be continued at a future time. Yet we are now told that the Royal Institute of British Architects, which has existed from time immemorial—or, in other words, for 30 years—is to say that we shall not have their plans, although we have paid for them. I cannot think the House of Commons will allow itself to be subjected to such monstrous dictation as this; and I do hope the House—quite independent of personal feeling—will rally round the Minister who promotes economy, and endeavours to keep these family architects in order.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

I little expected to hear so advanced a Reformer as my hon. Friend who has just sat down go back to the Middle Ages for precedents as to the payment of architects and rules to guide the architectural profession. His remarks, however, were altogether beside the Motion which has been moved, relating as it does to the dismissal of Mr. Barry; but, not confining himself to this subject, the hon. Gentleman made a most vehement statement that the whole of the £3,000,000 expended upon the Houses of Parliament, and their embellishment was owing to the architects of one particular family. I must say that is a most unfair statement. There may be blame attaching somewhere for this expenditure—I do not go into that question; but if blame there be, it must fall upon the Ministers who proposed, and the Parliaments which sanctioned, that expenditure. And the hon. Gentleman, who has filled certainly one, if not more, Offices in the State, must bear his own share of that blame; and it is too late for him now to rise in an indignant manner, and lay the whole blame of that expenditure upon the unfortunate architect charged with the execution of the works. [Mr. OSBORNE: I voted against it.] The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that some £50,000 of that expenditure had been incurred by the Royal Commission of Fine Arts. I see some Gentlemen sit- ting opposite to me who were very laborious members of that Commission, and I think they will agree with me that there was not a single architect upon that body. I do not know that I should have wished to enter into this debate but for the references made by the First Commissioner of Works to circumstances that happened while I was in Office. It is most painful to me to have to speak upon a question in which the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Office, which I have presided over on more than one occasion, is called in question. But after the references that have been made to me, I feel it impossible to remain silent. One justification put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, for his conduct towards Mr. Barry, was an act of mine in reference to a particular claim, to the amount, I think, of £10, which Mr. Barry felt it his duty to make against the Government, less for the sake of his own emolument than upon professional grounds, I have no doubt. The fact that upon that occasion I resisted, and resisted successfully, the claim of Mr. Barry, ought to show the House that I speak now not in any sense as the representative of the Royal Institute of Architects, but from a persuasion of the justice of this particular ease. And in supporting the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), I do so not from any feeling as to the rules which the Royal Institute may have laid down, but because I feel that Mr. Barry has been treated with exceptional and unnecessary harshness. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said this was a great attempt on the part of the First Commissioner to save the pockets of the taxpayers. But as Mr. Barry never received any salary, or honorarium even, for the services which he rendered, I am at a loss to see how this great saving will be effected. It also remains to be proved whether this new system which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman will really effect any saving to the public. This is the second time, within the last two years, that the Office of Works has undergone a very considerable re-organization. Mr. Layard, the immediate predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, had not been very long in Office before he proposed extensive changes. These were undertaken after an inquiry prosecuted by the Trea- sury, and appeared to be based upon the idea that additional architectural assistance was wanted in the Office of Works. Undoubtedly after those changes the office was very strong from the architectural point of view. There was, to begin with, the First Commissioner himself, whose experience and knowledge of architectural affairs are generally admitted; then Mr. Pennethorne, attached to the Office of Works as architect and surveyor; then Mr. Fergusson, who was brought in after this re-organization, expressly as a most competent authority on all architectural matters; finally, there was Mr. Barry, to whom was intrusted what I admit to have been the somewhat informal employment of conducting all the architectural alterations and embellishments which might be required in the Palace of Westminster. This organization having been only a few months at work, the present First Commissioner insists upon re-organization again. Mr. Barry disappears, Mr. Fergusson disappears, Mr. Pennethorne disappears, and a new Engineer officer is brought in, to whom, as far as I could gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, all architectural matters are to be referred. Upon both these occasions the changes appear to have been made rather hastily, and I entertain very considerable doubt whether, as the result, we shall have this increased economy and efficiency, with direct responsibility, which the right hon. Gentleman has promised us. But, granting that all the advantages arise which are anticipated, what is there in the circumstances that makes it necessary to treat Mr. Barry with injustice? The right hon. Gentleman, I think, showed himself a little ungenerous when he quoted from a speech made by his immediate predecessor, when he found himself in a considerable strait, and, fixing upon a particular sentence, he said that Mr. Layard got into this scrape owing to Mr. Barry. The right hon. Gentleman also did me the favour of quoting some expressions which fell from me in that debate. I have not refreshed my recollection as to the precise circumstances; but I have a very strong conviction that what I referred to was the conduct of the First Commissioner himself in going to the Treasury—of which the right hon. Gentleman, now the First Commissioner, was, at that time, the official organ—and asking their sanction to the expenditure of a considerable sum of money for works of a purely ornamental character, which had not been submitted to the House of Commons for approval. I said then that if I and my former Colleagues had acted in the same manner, we should not have heard the last of it for a long time to come. I said, and I reiterate, that the right hon. Gentleman himself, now the First Commissioner, was among the Ministers whose conduct in the transaction was impugned. But the matter does not end there. The right hon. Gentleman would give the House to understand that his predecessor felt so acutely the misconduct of Mr. Barry, that he could only vindicate himself on that occasion, by throwing blame upon the architect. Why, so little does Mr. Layard adopt that view of the case, that from his exile—or whatever you like to call it—

MR. AYRTON

What I said was that Mr. Layard had brought under the notice of the House that this was not an exception, but that it had been the practice of the office; that he was not to blame for what had occurred, inasmuch as his predecessors had been in the habit of conducting matters similarly. It was to put an end to that system that the change was made.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

Well, Sir, after the harsh and unjust treatment which Mr. Barry has received, I now find, from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that what is imputed to Mr. Barry as his fault, was not his fault, but that of all previous Commissioners. It is most unjust, therefore, now, in the eyes of the public, to place the whole weight of blame on the shoulders of Mr. Edward Barry. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that under the new system this great Palace would be under the charge of the same class of officials as had charge of Windsor Palace, Buckingham Palace, Somerset House, and other great buildings. I grant that if it were a mere question of ordinary repairs cadet quœtio. Mr. Barry never interfered in that matter. But I venture to remind the House of this not unimportant fact, that, so far as my knowledge of these transactions extends—and I have had the honour of holding the Office of First Commissioner on three different occasions—there never has been a proposal made for any architectural work in Windsor Castle, in Buckingham Palace, or the Tower of London, without calling in the services of that architect who was thought most competent to discharge it. When Buckingham Palace was to be enlarged it was not a surveyor of works, however competent or judicious, that was called in, but Mr. Pennethorne. When we wanted to enlarge Somerset House did we intrust the work to a surveyor of works? No, but to Mr. Pennethorne. And I know it was shortly after that work was completed that Mr. Pennethorne received that very distinction of the gold medal of the Royal Institute of Architects which he valued so highly, but of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in slighting terms. So with respect to Windsor Castle and the Tower: architectural alterations in them have been entrusted to Mr. Salvin. My belief is, that where you have buildings of vast size and great intricacy, which from the nature of the business carried on in them are subject to constant calls for alterations and additional embellishments, it is not only wise and prudent, but, in the long run, economical to have some one of first-rate and undoubted eminence who can be the adviser of the First Commissioner before he proposes to Government or Parliament any serious changes or embellishments. If I wanted a proof of this I should find it in the unfinished state of the Central Hall. Questions have been asked, if not every week, at least every month, how the right hon. Gentleman intends to complete it, and his answer is—"Don't press me; I am deliberating upon it." Well, if we knew with whom he was deliberating—if we knew he was in consultation with a man of great eminence—it would certainly give the House more confidence in the result. That is the position which has been adopted by other bodies who find themselves in charge of great national monuments of value and interest. At the present moment Westminster Abbey is intrusted to the charge of Mr. Gilbert Scott, and St. Paul's to that of Mr. Penrose, and so of our other great architectural buildings. On public grounds alone I regret that course has been departed from on the present, occasion. With respect to the mode in which Mr. Barry has been dismissed, there can be little doubt as to the opinion generally entertained of the short and unceremonious manner in which he has been dealt with after a service of many years. As to the want of courtesy, I can only hope that the result of the explanation offered to the eminent architect may be to soften down some of those wounded feelings which must have been excited by the abrupt, and almost contemptuous, terms in which the correspondence has been carried on. The right hon. Gentleman has now given his reasons for dismissing Mr. Barry. I trust these may have some weight in mitigating Mr. Barry's wounded feelings; but, on public grounds, I must say I am not satisfied with the reasons which have been given.

SIR WILLIAM TITE

said, it was not his intention to prolong this discussion; but he wished to give some explanation on two or three professional points, which he hoped would clear away some of the mystery in which this subject had been shrouded. When he had the honour of introducing a deputation to his right hon. Friend the First Minister to-day, he was informed that the question of the right to have these drawings back had been referred to the proper authorities—the Law Officers of the Crown—to determine. With that he, of course, could have nothing to do; but he was bound to state that the feeling of British architects was unanimous and strong against giving up drawings. A public meeting of the members of the Institute was summoned; all the architectural institutes throughout the kingdom had been consulted, and they were entirely of one mind as to the practice of retaining them. It was a rule which he never knew to be interfered with. In his own practice he had never given up a drawing, and, so far as he recollected, he was never asked for one. If he had been asked, he should have given every reasonable information in his power, and, if necessary, copies of any drawings, but not the originals. Every person who had a house built for him was, no doubt, entitled to any means of information, as to drains and flues, &c.; but Dr. Percy had thoroughly examined the whole of that subject in the Palace of Westminster, and, he believed, knew the range of every flue, where it began and where it ended. It was not the practice of Sir John Soane to give up his drawings, and he knew distinctly that he did refuse to give his drawings to his successor, Mr. Cockerell. Sir Robert Smirke also, one of the greatest architects in. our day, re- tained all his drawings. They were bound up in volumes, and stood in his library, and he did not believe he ever gave up one of them. What might be the law of the case he did not know; but the uniform practice had been as he stated. When he was in the profession he could have built a house without a drawing at all. The drawings of the buildings in Piccadilly were, he understood, in the possession of Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of the Chief Commissioner of Works. With regard to architects' commission, it might be a very foolish way of paying a man for his services; but it was the practice in France as well as in England. In the not very common case when drawings were made and the work not proceeded with, he believed it was the custom to give up the drawings. With respect to the position formerly held by Mr. Barry, the difficulty which architects felt was this—no architect had been appointed in his place. The appointment which their friend had held for 10 years had been suddenly and, as they thought, a little unjustly taken from him, and an engineer appointed in his place, not at all professing to be an architect—indeed, it was said that he told the Chief Commissioner that he was not competent to undertake architectural work. It was for the House to determine whether the explanation which had been given was sufficient. He did not think it would be so considered. The fact that Mr. Barry had not, during 10 years, once exceeded his estimates, showed him to be a master in his profession; he was, in fact, one of the most accomplished architects he ever knew. On his applying to the Institute of Architects, he was told that the practice was to retain the drawings, and, as far as he could see, the Institute of Architects did not deserve the strictures which had been passed upon it. It was a very valuable institution; other professional men had their institutions; lawyers, engineers, and geologists all had their institutions, and no fault could be found with the practice. He had been President of the Institute of Architects for five years, and believed the society was composed of a body of well-meaning gentlemen; and the Government had shown confidence in it by having left to their discretion the appointment of, he believed, no less than 50 district surveyors.

MR. WHITE

reminded the House that, in Committee of Supply of last year, he first directed attention to the Vote in the Civil Service Estimates for the beginning of a novel and extravagant scheme for the further embellishment of the Houses of Parliament. In the course of the animated discussion which followed on the Report of Supply, it came out that orders had been given and contracts made by the architect (Mr. Edward Barry) not only without any knowledge by Parliament, but without the sanction of the late Commissioner of Works (Mr. Layard), who was officially responsible for the Estimate. It was then made manifest that the architect was ever devising new schemes, and suggesting what he called improvements, to further swell the enormous outlay already incurred. He (Mr. White) held that the architect was mainly responsible for the continuous and growing expenditure on the Houses of Parliament; for it had become the custom of every Government to adopt the recommendations of the late architect, and also those of his son and successor (Mr. Edward Barry). In proof of this, he read a Minute, signed by the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), and dated the 24th of September, 1860, recording that the late Sir Charles Barry, acting as he was accustomed to do on his own responsibility, and without communication with the Department of Works, executed many alterations, additions, and repairs, which were not contemplated on the preparation of the Estimate, and incurred an expenditure of £21,280 on works not included in the original Estimate. The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ayrton) declined to defend and perpetuate such a system as that, and he ventured to thank him, on behalf of the economical section of the House, for putting an end to a system so detrimental to public economy. As to Mr. Edward Barry's skill, he appealed to the common sense of hon. Members whether the arcade leading to the Underground Railway was not a reproach to any architect? It was out of all harmony with the general building, and consistency required either that it should be pulled down or have an entirely new facade put to it. He again thanked the First Commissioner for having had the courage to put an end to system alike detrimental to architectural beauty and public economy.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), who has just sat down, has pointed out what is really at the root of the matter we are now discussing. The truth is, that as matters have been previously managed in the Office of Works, the responsibility of the Minister has been more nominal than real. As a natural consequence, the great expenditure on public buildings has become a scandal which has been justly complained of for many years. I do not see how it could have been otherwise, when the responsibility was divided. However, the Government have come to the conclusion that an end should be put to the system, and the remedy they applied to this crying grievance was, in the first place, to do away with divided responsibility, and to fasten the responsibility fully and definitely on the First Commissioner of Works for the time being. Of course, to do this we must provide the Minister with the means of discharging his duty, and the only way of doing so was to provide the Office of Works with what it was imperfectly provided with, and that is, sufficient technical assistance to enable a Minister, who is not necessarily conversant with the details of public works, to be equal to the responsibilities thrown upon him. Then came the question—How was this assistance to be supplied? Should we take an architect to advise him? I think good reason could be given, without saying anything disrespectful of the Institute of Architects, why this should not be the course. The very way in which an architect is remunerated is a conclusive reason against it. He gets 5 per cent on the expenditure, and he has, therefore, the most direct interest in making the expenditure as large as possible. That is a sufficient reason for not putting the technical department of the Office of Works in the hands of an architect. Then there was another great objection. If the architect were a man of great eminence, it could not be supposed he would give his time to the public, unless it were at a price much larger than we should be able, with a proper regard to public economy, to otter for the work; and if he were not eminent in his profession, he would not inspire confidence. These were the points for deliberation; and, after a great deal of consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that the solution of the difficulty lay in appointing some one to advise the First Commissioner of Works—some one who was not a professional architect, but who possessed sufficient knowledge of the subject to enable him to give professional advice. If I might criticize the Office of Works, I would say its fault lay in the fact that it was too strong in architecture, and too weak in the building department. We have endeavoured to remedy that by taking an Engineer officer into the service—a gentleman who has erected a great many buildings in various parts of the country, and who has had an excellent education as an Engineering officer; and I have reason to think that, during the short time he has been in office, the appointment has proved a considerable success. It is not wise to be too confident; but I entertain hopes that the appointment will be found to give great assistance to the First Commissioner in discharging his heavy and responsible duties, and enable him really to be, what he has never been up to this time, thoroughly responsible for the conduct of public works. Of course, such an officer as this would not undertake great architectural works; he would not be intrusted with works of high ornamental character, implying genius in the designer; his business would be plain, matter-of-fact detail; and, as it is quite right this House should be in the charge of some one, I cannot think of anyone better fitted for the office than the gentleman we have nominated. Then, with respect to Mr. Edward Barry, it was manifest to me that when we had an officer competent to discharge this duty, receiving a salary from Government, we should not be doing our duty to the public to put another officer at the work. It therefore followed necessarily from the appointment of Captain Galton that Mr. Edward Barry would be relieved from the duty of being answerable for the Houses of Parliament. We have been told we should always have an architect in charge of this building; but I demur to that proposition. Without saying anything disrespectful of the Institute of Architects, I must say that when they tell us in one breath that we are bound to place our public buildings in the hands of an architect, and that this architect should have power to withhold from us information which we have a right to, they lay upon us hard burdens; and if they will insist upon these laws of their own creation, they must be prepared for our finding some one who will do the work for us without insisting on their rules. I am the last man in the world to say anything against Mr. Barry, of whose abilities and attainments I think a very great deal. I gave evidence of this by the course which I pursued on the occasion of the competition for the Law Courts, when I thought that he had been ill-used by the right hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple). Therefore, I am not likely to say anything in disparagement of Mr. Barry. But I think it right that these things should be kept perfectly distinct, and that we had a perfect right to put an end, if we thought it advisable, to Mr. Barry's engagement. We believed it to be our duty to do so. It does not, however, follow that he was never to be employed again. I hope myself—it is not my business—but I hope that he may be employed when we have any architectural duties to be performed in connection with this House, and it was to that effect that I wrote when he applied to me upon the subject. But that question we must keep perfectly distinct from the general question which we are now considering, which is, whether the Government have done wrong in acting as they have done. The Government have done two things. They have said that these buildings shall be placed for the future under the Director of Works. On that point I have offered such justification as I think necessary. The second is, that Mr. Barry has been required to place at the disposal of the Government the documents and drawings necessary for understanding the structure of the building. I do not wish to go into that controversy to any extent; but, as far as my opinion may confirm the view taken by the First Commissioner of Works, I am of opinion that, as a matter of common justice, where works are executed for a public body, for a private individual, or for a Government, drawings which are of no use except in connection with the building on which the architect is employed, should, on the fullest principles of justice and equity, become the property of those for whom the building is executed. Indeed, I should be much astonished if that were not the view taken by the first special jury to whom the matter was submitted in a Court of Law. I cannot, therefore, see that there is anything wrong in demanding that these papers should be given up. The matter has, however, been to some degree overstated, because Mr. Barry was not asked to give them all up; he was told that he might select any papers to which, out of respect to the memory of his father, he attached particular importance. If matters had remained in their original state, I cannot conceive that there would have been any difficulty; but Mr. Barry, having had communication with his professional brethren, is now put forward to fight the battle on behalf of the profession to which he belongs. The course of the Government, however, is clear. We believe that we are entitled to the papers; Mr. Barry believes he is entitled to their possession. This is not a matter which can be decided by mutual recrimination; it is a question of law, and to a Court of Law I suppose it must go if it cannot otherwise be decided. I have now, I think, gone through the merits of the whole case, and I think we have only been doing our duty in throwing the chief amount of responsibility on the Minister who is by the Constitution responsible for these works; that we have done our duty in placing these buildings under the more complete control of the proper officer; and that we have only done our duty in raising the question whether the public, who have paid for these drawings, are not entitled to their possession. I therefore hope that the House will reject the Motion of my right hon. Friend.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, that the debate had entirely shifted from the point at issue. There was no doubt that the Government had a perfect right to dismiss Mr. Barry from his employment; but the question was, whether the son of the man who had designed and erected the magnificent palace in which they were assembled, and who was known to almost every Member of that House, and highly respected amongst his professional brethren, was to receive a letter which no gentleman would send to his butler who had been 10 years in his employment. Sir Charles Barry and his son had received the confidence of successive Governments for some 35 years, and yet the letter which Mr. Barry had received was much of the same character as if a man should send a letter to his butler, saying—"Send me a list of the plate and I will see if it is correct; send me the keys, and I will then tell you what I intend to do." If Mr. Barry had been written to in a gentlemanly manner he would, no doubt, have met the communication in the spirit of a gentleman, and this difficulty would never have arisen. Anyone who read the letter sent to Mr. Barry would think that he had been guilty of some improper act, or that he had in some way insulted the First Commissioner of Works, and that the First Commissioner of Works had in the course he had adopted implied his dismission, and had asked him to give up the drawings. In reference to the possession of those drawings, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman, in arguing that Mr. Barry had never been a public servant, but only occasionally employed, had proved the case against the Government, as it could not be averred that Mr. Barry held the drawings as trustee for the Government, and it must be remembered that no demand had been made for the drawings during the lifetime of the late Sir Charles Barry, or at his death from his executors, and the demand was only recently made in the letter to Mr. Edward Barry. The matter in dispute might at least have been referred to arbitration; but, instead of that, the First Commissioner had referred Mr. Barry to the Legal Officers of the Crown. The argument employed by the First Commissioner of Works was that the public having paid for a commodity were entitled to receive it. That was the word employed by the right hon. Gentleman; and he could conceive the possibility of some people regarding the labour of architects as a "commodity," as he could conceive the possibility of some people not understanding anything unless they could ascertain its superficial contents by a two-feet rule, or measure what it contained in a pint pot. The question was, what was the admitted custom of the architectural profession, and they could see what occurred in other professions. A man engaged in an action at law secured, perhaps, the services of some eminent counsel, who, being possibly otherwise employed, did not appear when the cause was called on. But the eminent counsel did not return his fee, and was not held liable for damages. That was the custom of the legal profession, and was supported by the Inns of Court, which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) would call the trades union of that profession. Again, in the case of the engineers, Mr. Joseph Cubitt had informed him that the custom in connection with the railways of the kingdom was invariably that the plans and drawings should be retained by the engineer.

LORD ELCHO

said, he had listened to the "premises" of the hon. Alderman (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence), but had not come to the same conclusion. He hoped that his right hon. Friend who had brought forward the Motion (Mr. Cowper-Temple) would be satisfied with the debate without going to a Division. ["No, no!"] He did not differ from his right hon. Friend as regarded that part of his Resolution which said that the discontinuance of Mr. Barry was abrupt. Indeed, so far from differing from him, after listening to all the circumstances of the case, he could not but think that the First Commissioner of Works had treated Mr. Barry with very scant courtesy. In the first place, Mr. Barry had been dismissed in a very summary letter, and subsequently, when asked to give up his drawings, another letter was written, which ought to have been couched in very different terms. His right hon. Friend's Resolution also stated that discontinuance of Mr. Barry's employment as an architect, when the works intrusted to him were still incomplete, was a matter of doubtful expediency. In that he agreed. The expediency of the proceeding would depend very much on the substitute for Mr. Barry, and for his part he could not think that in architectural details Captain Galton was an adequate substitute. But what the House of Commons had to look to was what prompted the First Commissioner to act as he had done, and, clearly from his statement, it appeared he was influenced by this, that the arrangements of the Board of Works was not, and ought not to be, satisfactory to the House—that there was a want of responsibility in the Department. Well, to do justice to the right hon. Gentleman, that was a motive which the Members of the House of Commons ought to approve. Under these circumstances, he was not prepared for the Resolution of his right hon. Friend. He would therefore leave the House and not vote at all, as he felt that Mr. Barry had been treated with scant courtesy.

MR. WALTER

said, he thought it a matter of congratulation that the discussion of this evening was likely to lead to the solution of a much wider question than that involved in the discontinuance of Mr. Barry's services, and that was the question as to the property of the drawings of an architect who might be employed in the building of a house. That was a point in which the country would feel a much greater interest than in the personal matter which had formed the subject of that discussion. He happened to have some experience in connection with architects, and he must say his experience was diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), as well as to that of the hon. Member for Bath (Sir William Tite). There were two ways of proceeding. If a gentleman was building a house, he might employ an architect to make the drawings, and if the architect was also employed to carry out his plans he would be entitled to a commission of 5 per cent; but there was another course which was not unfrequently pursued, and that was to pay an architect for making drawings only, without requiring him to superintend the building of the house, and then he was only paid half 5 per cent. In that case no one would say that the architect had an absolute right to those drawings. But there was another case still; the employer might retain the drawings and never execute the building at all. Would his hon. Friend contend in that case that where an architect had been paid for his drawings he still retained a right to keep them in his own hands. What could be more absurd? In fact, it was only common sense that the man who paid for the drawings should have the exclusive right to possess them.

MR. GLADSTONE

Before the House divides—as I understand we are to have a Division—though after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is not necessary to go through the general argument, yet I am very desirous that some attention should be paid to the terms of the Motion on which we are going to vote; for, though I am not surprised that a Motion of this kind should have been made, I am not a little surprised that it should have been made by one experienced Commissioner of Works, and supported by another. I wish the House to look for a moment at the bearing of this Motion, on the principle of Parliamentary responsibility, for I am not aware of any step by which this House can more effectually relax and destroy the responsibility of Ministers, and weaken its own power of controlling I the public expenditure, than by inter posing and saying to a Government—"We will point out to you the man whom you shall employ." It is quite evident after that has been done in vain does the House interpose and attempt to assert its own authority over the Ministry. The Motion is this— That, in the opinion of this House, the abrupt discontinuance of the employment of the architect who has hitherto been engaged at the Houses of Parliament whenever professional skill and responsibility were required, at a moment when works entrusted to his direction were still in progress, is uncalled for, and of doubtful expediency. The proceeding taken by the Government, in what is called "the abrupt discontinuance of the employment" of Mr. Barry, is to be censured by the House. That, I apprehend, is not very far removed from a direction on the part of the House to reinstate Mr. Barry in his post. It appears to me that is the only construction which can be put upon the words. That is their tendency—that they verge in that direction is perfectly intelligible. But are the words accurate? I will not comment now on the use of the words "abrupt discontinuance." Much has been said in this debate as to the language of my right hon. Friend's letters. It has been said that it was hard, dry, and uncourteous, and that it is open to another epithet invented for the occasion by the Member for the University of Cambridge, which I will not aggravate his responsibility by repeating and attempting to incorporate in the English language. But the question of the manner of dismissal, if dismissal it were, is not the one now before us. I want to know what it is that has been discontinued, because this is most important and goes to the root of the whole matter. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say that Mr. Barry had an employment—and a distinction is to be drawn between an appointment and an employment. I deny that he had an employment. It is particularly disagreeable to be called upon to discuss a personal matter of this kind in the case of a man so eminent in his profession as Mr. Barry, and one who has innocently suffered from laudable attempts to distinguish himself in the public service. I was myself one of the persons unfortunately chosen, as it afterwards proved, to attempt the award of premiums in the case of the competition for the Courts of Law some years ago, and it was our miscarriage—I bestow no censure upon anybody else—that laid the foundation of those difficulties which certainly resulted, I do not say in the disparagement of Mr. Barry, but in the disappointment of the hope and expectations he might have been fairly warranted in entertaining. Therefore, I trust I shall say nothing that can possibly be supposed to disparage the character or show indifference to the feelings of Mr. Barry. But it is right the House should have in view his own description of his relation to the Government, because it has been overstated, unconsciously I am sure, both by my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Cowper-Temple) and by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). My right hon. Friend behind me said distinctly and repeatedly that Mr. Barry was an officer of this House and that he was dismissed. I say he was no officer of this House. My hon. Friend opposite said Mr. Barry had an equity of continuous employment. Let us see whether that be so. Mr. Barry himself, in January of this year, said— I do not hold any appointment in virtue of which the building is in any sense under my charge. I have no responsibility in respect of it, except as regards such works as are entrusted to my superintendence from time to time. That is the position of Mr. Barry in reference to this building. Now, my right hon. Friend behind me says there has been a discontinuance of Mr. Barry's employment. I ask what discontinuance in his employment? My right hon. Friend appears to have framed his Motion under the impression that he was dismissed while works entrusted to his direction were still in progress. Evidently the meaning of that is, that the completion of those works was to be taken out of Mr. Barry's hands. I do not think my right hon. Friend will question that that is the natural construction of the words which he and another First Commissioner of Works are about to affirm by their votes. Then the House is called on to affirm that works intrusted to Mr. Barry's direction are about to be taken out of his hands. That is the main portion of the case of the abrupt discontinuance of his employment. Now, that is a statement of fact which happens to be entirely without foundation. There is no work in progress that is about to be taken out of his hands. He is to complete the works in progress exactly as if the correspondence had never passed. Then, as to his employment for the future, is that to be discontinued? Where is the authority for stating that the Government have ever announced that the employment of Mr. Barry in future is to be discontinued? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has given an opinion that Mr. Barry ought to be employed in future when the services of an architect were required for this building. I myself have never given an opinion on that subject, certainly I have never given one adverse to that declared by my right hon. Friend. So much, then, for that ground upon which the House is asked to undertake this hazardous and critical interference. I affirm that the employment of Mr. Barry as an architect never has been discontinued in regard to works in progress, neither has it been declared to be about to be discontinued in respect to works which may hereafter be deemed necessary. What has really been done is this—It was the custom in this one and only case of a building under the direct control of Parliament—in this case, which was made an exception to all the other public structures of this country—I do not refer to a structure like the Museum, under the management of a quasi independent body—it was the custom in regard to this particular building alone that Mr. Barry should be called upon from year to year to send in his sketch and estimate of the works that, in his judgment, would be necessary. Therefore, Sir, the whole care of the building was exceptionally committed to Mr. Barry. We see what the effect of that system was. I have been referring with pain to the debates of last year, when we were most severely challenged, and by no one so much as by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), for having acceded to, and been implicated in, a proceeding by which a contract had been made for the execution of works connected with this House before a Vote and Estimate had been submitted to Parliament; and it was my duty to rise in my place and apologize, as best I could, for the proceeding as part of a system that had grown up under this exceptional mode of treating the Houses of Parliament on a basis totally different from that on which every other public building is dealt with. And what is our present offence? Setting aside the alleged abruptnesss—which of itself I suppose would hardly constitute a sufficient ground for passing a censure on the Government—our offence is simply this—that the primary duty and responsibility of considering the state of this building and raising the question of what may be necessary to be done in it from year to year we have removed from that exceptional arrangement and placed on the same footing as that on which every other great public building in the country is managed. That, then, is really all that we have taken out of of Mr. Barry's hands—not that he is less fit than any other architect to perform, his duty, or that he has at all misconducted himself in any way in the execution of his work, but that we hold that a public officer strictly responsible to the Government and to this House should have charge of this as of every other public building and its superintendence, and that the calling in of an architect for architectural purposes should be determined on from time to time in respect to this building as in the case of Windsor Castle and the other public structures; and no such absurdity is contemplated as that when the special knowledge and skill of an architect is required we should refrain from availing ourselves of them. The worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) said if we had confined ourselves to withdrawing employment from Mr. Barry there might not have been a word to be said against it, and he founded himself mainly on the question raised in regard to the property in architectural drawings. It was certainly most singular that my hon. Friend in saying that the debate had wandered from the question should himself have illustrated his statement, for the Motion, which he is inclined to support, does not say one word about the property in drawings, which he tells us in his view constitutes the gravamen of charge against the Government. As to architectural drawings, I would only say this—I have had the opportunity of hearing the arguments of the Institute of Architects on that subject to-day, and I must own that, without inquiry what is the custom or the law—on which it would be presumption in me to pronounce or even insinuate an opinion—I am astounded at the argument maintained and apparently supported to-night by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope)—namely, that the drawings necessary to illustrate the state and the arrangements of a building belonging to an individual, an institution, and a Government ought not to be in the possession of that individual, institution, or Government, but in the possession of the man who erected that building. If, indeed, perpetuity of tenure were to be enacted for architects in the most rigid form, undoubtedly that would be the most ingenious mode of attaining that end; but we are not about to vote on that matter, but on the discontinuance of an employment with regard to which we have shown that the Motion is wrong in point of fact in asserting that works now in progress are taken out of Mr. Barry's hands; that it is wrong in presuming that works hereafter to be executed must necessarily be withheld from Mr. Barry. All which it does is to censure Government, because, finding a total want of efficient control on the part of Parliament in regard to the management of these buildings, they have thought it their duty to apply to them the same arrangements by which every other building under the control of Parliament is managed.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Sir, I had intended to take no part in this discussion; but some of the right hon. Gentleman's (the First Minister's) remarks compel me to do so, because they seem to me entirely inconsistent with the correspondence before us. The right hon. Gentleman says—and technically, perhaps, he is correct—that Mr. Barry did not occupy any special office in this House, but he has had employment under the First Commissioner of Works. In his first letter Mr. Barry says— I was appointed, in 1860, by the Right Hon. W. Cowper, M.P., the then First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works, &c, to be my father's successor as architect to the building. I have acted for the last ten years in this capacity, and have carried out numerous works under the orders of successive First Commissioners. Having enumerated those works, he goes on to say that he never exceeded his estimates on a single occasion; that he had fixed offices in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament, although he received no remuneration for those offices at all; and that, in fact, he has treated the matter rather as a matter of distinction and concerning his father's honour and his own, and that in that spirit he was content, except when works were carried on, to be without salary or anything which the right hon. Gentleman would call a definite office. Then, with regard to the drawings, the late Sir Charles Barry made a bequest of the drawings of this House to his son. It is quite clear, therefore, that he was never asked for them before that, and that he supposed them to be his rightful possession. I do not enter into the question of law—that, it appears, is to be determined hereafter—but it is quite evident that Sir Charles Barry believed he had a right to bequeath his drawings to his son, and his son in the same belief continued to hold them. Nor let it be supposed that Mr. Barry has withheld what was necessary should be given for the due arrangements of this House. On the 21st of March, 1870, he offers tracings of all drawings that may be required, and says he is willing to give originals or tracings of all drawings made in his own office during his engagement, which have been signed as contract drawings and referred to as such. The right hon. Gentleman says he is astonished at the claim made by the architect—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Astonished at the argument.] I ask whether, when plans were being had for the Law Courts and National Gallery, it was not made an express stipulation that the drawings should be the property of the country? Why should that stipulation have been made if they necessarily would have been the property of the country without it? I want to make one remark concerning what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the continuous employment of Mr. Barry. On the 14th of March, 1870, Mr. Barry wrote— As regards the works now in hand, and partly executed, I have already forwarded to you all the contracts relating to them. They consist, as you are aware, of works in the Central Hall, St. Stephen's Crypt, the Queen's Robing Room, and the Royal Staircase. The estimates for these services have been sanctioned by the House of Commons, and sums voted on account of them. I commenced the works by official direction of the Board on the faith of being allowed to complete them. It is obviously unfair to a professional man that others should be intrusted with the completion of his half-finished work, and no architect who valued his reputation could consent to such a course. In answer to the letter in which that statement was made, was Mr. Barry told he was to complete the work on hand? Quite the contrary. Mr. Russell, on the 17th of March, states— I am to add that the First Commissioner declines entering into any question relating to your future employment under this Office until you have complied with the request contained in the Board's letter of the 22nd of January last. There was no understanding conveyed in that letter to the effect that Mr. Barry would be employed for the unfinished work, still less that he was to be employed in connection with any work undertaken hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown said that Mr. Barry would be the man employed hereafter.

MR. GLADSTONE

I said the construction of the Vote would be that.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Then the right hon. Gentleman did not say that he would be employed?

MR. GLADSTONE

I beg pardon. I did say distinctly that he would continue to be employed in connection with the works already in hand.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Then it was unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have risen. Again I must refer to the passage in Mr. Barry's letter which I have already road to the House. There he speaks of "the works now in hand, and partly executed," and the answer is that which I have read. Does not it refer to the works in hand?

MR. AYRTON

The right hon. Gentleman was not here, I presume, during the earlier part of the discussion, and, therefore, he is, perhaps, speaking without knowledge. It was shown this evening that Mr. Barry had an engagement for certain works. Consequently the passage which he has read from the answer to his letter of the 14th of March had reference to his being called on in respect of future works.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

The House has now the correspondence before it, and I ask is that the meaning of the letter of the 17th of March? [Mr. AYRTON: Yes, it is.] Then the right hon. Gentleman had better write his letters himself. I must again remind the House of what Mr. Barry says in his letter of the 14th of March, and ask them to take it in connection with that statement in the reply. What is the employment in question? Mr. Barry referred to the half-completed contracts. It is now said that Mr. Barry is to complete those works; but I venture to think that anyone judging from the correspondence would be of a different opinion. Mr. Barry had been 10 years employed under successive First Commissioners. I do not say that he held any office in the Office of Works; but he was employed as architect of this building. On the 22nd of January a letter is written to him which was calculated to make him think he was to be dismissed from all supervision of the works connected with the Houses of Parliament, and yet in that letter there is not a word of acknowledgment of his services. Is that proper treatment for a man who has served the country under the Office of Works? The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) read something which related to estimates in the time of Mr. Barry's father. Whatever Mr. Barry had done in the way of directing works had received the sanction of this House, and it appears that he had never exceeded his estimates. He had given satisfaction as architect, and yet he is dismissed without thanks. I cannot help thinking that this has been an unnecessarily abrupt and unkind dismissal of a man who has done good service to the country. The profession of architect is a high one, and the higher we can keep it the better for the country. I ask whether the course adopted towards Mr. Barry is worthy the approval of this House, or whether, on the contrary, it ought not to meet with the disapproval of the House in the mild terms of the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple)?

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, he had come down to the House prepared to support the Motion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple); but, after the speech of the First Minister of the Crown, he thought his right hon. Friend would be hardly justified in going to a Division. He thought it due to Mr. Layard to say that, when filling the Office of First Commissioner, he made arrangements by which the architect was to be employed only purely in architectural matters.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

said, he wished to know distinctly from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether it was intended that Mr. Barry should be employed to carry out the uncompleted works, and whether he would be employed on future works?

MR. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman has, contrary to the rides of the House, put to me a question which it is contrary to the rules of the House that I should answer. I am not the First Commissioner of Works, and I can only make use of the information which has been given to me upon the subject; and, therefore, I can only repeat what I before stated—namely, that there has been no withdrawal of the employment of Mr. Barry as far as the uncompleted works were concerned, and that no announcement has been made to Mr. Barry respecting his employment upon future works.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 109: Majority 43.

Original Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair," by leave, withdrawn.

Committee deferred till Monday next.