HC Deb 21 May 1824 vol 11 cc814-5
Mr. Littleton

presented a petition from Mr. Soane, the architect, complaining, that an undue responsibility had been cast upon him, respecting the for the new buildings in Palace had, and also that the arrangements which he had provided for those engaged in the new courts of law, would be rendered, in a great degree, nugatory, if the recommendation of the late committee were carried into effect. Mr. Soane stated, that by order of the lords of the Treasury, he made a survey for the new buildings in Palace-yard, in 1821, and sent in his plan to the Treasury soon after. That it was then referred to the judges of the respective courts, and, after some alterations, adopted in consequence of that reference, ultimately approved of by the lords of the Treasury, and ordered to be carried into effect. Mr. Soane was therefore anxious, for his own professional reputation, that it should be known that he had gone on, step by step, under the sanction of the lords of the Treasury; and with reference to the recommendation of the late committee, he had to point out, that if that were carried into effect, and particularly in the erection of what was called the Tudor tower at the corner, all the arrangements which he had provided for a law library, for barristers, and attornies, as well as for the judges themselves, would be impeded and rendered useless.

Mr. Scarlett

thought the exterior of the new building was a disgrace to the national taste, and ought to be taken down. He suggested, that the old bail court of the duchy of Lancaster might be rendered more commodious and available for some of the accommodations required by Mr. Soane, in the place of other arrangements, which he contemplated.

Mr. Bankes

wished to know if the hon. member meant to refer this petition to a select committee.

Mr. Littleton

replied in the negative, and said, that if he had been in the House when the late select committee was appointed, he should have opposed it; for he did not think that the public interests were likely to be promoted by this mode of shifting the responsibility respecting public works, from the executive to private and irresponsible individuals.

Sir J. Yorke

said, that Mr. Soane's petition clearly showed, that he had acted under the authority of the lords of the Treasury.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, he certainly entertained doubts of the propriety of a part of the plan, but still it should be recollected, that the object uppermost with the government was the speedy erection of courts for the due despatch of public business. As to the question of taste, where no two persons could be brought to agree upon one point he would not pretend to give an opinion. It was due to Mr. Soane to state, that the lords of the Treasury had sanctioned his design.

Mr. Denman

admitted that external propriety was a matter of great consequence as connected with the national taste. It was highly important, however, when they were considering this matter, to reflect upon the vote of 300,000l. for repairing Windsor Castle. When they were informed, that the present lords of the Treasury, many of them persons of distinguished taste, sanctioned the new buildings in Palace-yard, which the moment they were seen, excited a public call to have them taken down, it was important for them to consider what might be the fate of that most beautiful building in the country, Windsor Castle. He should like to see an estimate; 1st, for the new buildings in Westminster Hall; then for pulling them down; and lastly, for rebuilding them, as an example for those who were to be engaged in the new works at Windsor.

Ordered to lie on the table.