HC Deb 10 June 1850 vol 111 cc981-1008

(4.) 103,610l. for the New Houses of Parliament.

MR. HUME

said, the object of his Motion was to put an end for the present to the proceedings of the Committee of Taste. But he had also another Motion on the paper, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and examine the various reports, statements, and plans of the architect relative to the New Houses of Parliament. He was aware that he was undertaking an unpleasant duty in submitting these Motions to the House; but he had been requested by several Members to do so; and it was evident that if something was not done, there would be no limit to expense. He did not grudge the expenditure of a proper sum of money for a House of Parliament which would afford due accommodation to its Members; but seeing the enormous sums that had been already expended, and that proper accommodation had not been provided, it was full time that the House of Commons should interfere to prevent further waste of money. He would give a précis of the proceedings which had taken place, from which it would be abundantly clear, that if adequate care and precaution had been taken, such extraordinary delay would not have taken place, and they would not have incurred an expenditure of 2,000,000l. instead of 724,986l., which was Mr. Barry's estimate. If there was to be an end of expenditure even at 2,000,000l. it would be some satisfaction; but no person could tell how much beyond that amount would be expended. It was their duty, therefore, to require a definite statement as to the further expenditure that was likely to be incurred. None of the requisites which had been pointed out by the Committee of 1835, had been carried out. They required that there should be sitting room in the body of the House, for from 420 to 460 Members, with accommodation for the remainder in the galleries. Well, they had been sitting in the New House, and instead of accommodation for 420 or 460 Members, there was not accommodation for anything approaching that number. The lobbies were required to contain—one 1,800 feet, and the other, 1,100. They had an opportunity of testing the accommodation afforded by them in case of a division. They had a division in which 287 Members divided, and he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen if the lobby was not crowded to an inconvenient degree. They might thus judge of the inconvenience when a full House divided, and he had seen an occasion in which 500 Members had divided on one side. It was likewise considered of importance that there should be accommodation for 200 strangers in one or more galleries at the end of the House. But he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen if that part of the House was not required for the accommodation of its own Members? The 11th resolution of the Committee of 1836 was, that there should be 10 Committee rooms about 40 by 30, from 18 to 20 feet in height; ten, 35 by 25, from 16 to 18 feet in height; ten, 30 by 20, from 14 to 16 feet in height. He would leave hon. Gentlemen who had sat in these rooms to speak of the accommodation which they afforded. It was evident that the accommodation in the three points he had mentioned was deficient. The principal men in the House at that time sat upon the Committee which drew up these resolutions; and when Mr. Barry's plan had been adopted, the Committee stated that they did so "on the express understanding that it could be executed for a sum not exceeding, by any considerable amount, the estimate submitted to them by Mr. Barry—that was to say, 724,986l." Now, he (Mr. Hume) had some reason to doubt the accuracy of Mr. Barry's estimate, for he had written to Mr. Hodgson, the eminent contractor of Bloomsbury, requesting his opinion of it, and Mr. Hodgson informed him that the expense would amount to 1,100,000l; and when Mr. Barry amended his plan, he calculated the expenditure at 1,300,000l. On the 13th of June, 1836, he (Mr. Hume) presented a petition from eighteen to twenty architects of the metropolis, in which it was stated the building would not be executed for less than 2,000,000l., and that they founded their calculation on the expenditure of Henry VIIth.'s Chapel, to which Mr. Barry's plan nearly approached. Accordingly a Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Harwich was chairman, was appointed to inquire into the subject. He (Mr. Hume) put the following questions to Mr. Barry during the course of that inquiry:— Q. 170. What is the amount of your estimate, including everything?—724,986l., exclusive of the site. 172. It is the maximum estimate, applying to the building only. 184. Ventilation is included in the plan. Q. 211. You have been making an estimate of this building: have you done it yourself, or employed competent persons to do so?—I have done it myself, and employed competent persons to assist me. Q. 217. Have the calculations been made from the plans which are upon the table?—They have. Q. 218. The amended plans?—Yes. Q. 272. Then are the Committee to understand that the estimates that you have given in are on that general principle that you have stated, as to the quantity and the amounts, such that you can rely upon?—Yes. Q. 290. May I ask you, strictly speaking, what style you consider this building to be?—It is of the third syle of Gothic architecture, including the Tudor period. Q. 404. How long would it take a person to make a detailed specification, and the working drawings, so as to enable a correct estimate to be formed of the whole building?—At least a twelvemonth. The Committee made the following report:— The Committee are not satisfied on the head of expense; and before any part of the building be commenced, or any vote be proposed to Parliament, there should be the most minute and accurate estimate that can be formed. It was then referred to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to inquire into and report upon Mr. Barry's plans and estimates. That report was made on the 18th of April, 1837, and was signed by Lord Duncannon, B. C. Stephenson, and A. Milne. The gentlemen appointed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to examine the estimate were Messrs. Seward and Chawner, architects; and they reported "That the new Houses of Parliament can be satisfactorily erected, according to the said drawings, for the sum stated by Mr. Barry (707,104.)" This was exclusive of the proposed embankment of part of the river Thames, the estimate of which was 44,000l., and the purchase of the site, &c., which was estimated at 85,000l.; making a total of 129,000l., which was to be added to the 707,104l. It appeared that a great many deviations had been made from the plan, whether on the motion of Mr. Barry himself, or at the suggestion of some other person or persons, he did not know; but it was full time for them to see that some limit was put upon the expenditure. He had been informed that very day that it was intended to take down all the buildings on that side of the bridge next to the new Houses, not to speak of the courts of law, and thus one thing would lead on to another, heaping up the expenses more and more, unless some control was established. He found in a paper published by one of the Commissioners (Lord Sudeley) in 1844, some remarkable statements as to the deviations made from the original plan with reference to the House of Lords. According to that paper, the original way by which the Queen's state carriage was to pass through the great tower, had to be materially altered by Mr. Barry. A pillar had to be removed in consequence of the passage not being wide enough; and the Queen's carriage, instead of going out by the way at first intended, was now to go by a subterranean tunnel—a passage of only nine feet in width. But as the width of Her Majesty's carriage was eight feet nine inches, he thought there would be some danger in passing through. If any person happened to be in the passage, he could not well es- cape being crushed. He was astonished that any Government could allow these things to go on in this manner. He was not authorised to blame Mr. Barry; Mr. Barry might have authority for what he did. He did not mean to cast the least reflection on the eminent talents of Mr. Barry. He was ready to acknowledge his taste and imagination. He only meant to say, that having undertaken to make a House of Lords and Commons, he failed to do that. It was not many days since that Mr. Barry had received a gold medal from the Institute of Architects; and he begged to call the attention of the House to the language used on that occasion by Earl de Grey, one of the Commissioners appointed to control Mr. Barry. Earl de Grey Baid— We read that your predecessor, Sir C. Wren, himself laid the first stone of that superb edifice St. Paul's Cathedral, which is now the greatest monument of his genius; and I trust the same good fortune will await you. May you live to see the magnificent work now in your hands completed! St Paul's was thirty-four years in its erection; you have not occupied half that time as yet—and have made a progress which, if it had depended on yourself, would have brought the Houses of Parliament nearly to a completion; but the means of working have not been at your disposal. Tour work is to be devoted to I know not how many purposes. Sir C. Wren had to deal with men who knew what they wanted. Sir C. Wren, no doubt, received his instructions from men who knew the purposes to which the building was to be dedicated, and what was required to carry it out; but, I am sorry to say, that is not always the case with respect to the building entrusted to you. Sir C. Wren's masters were few—yours are legion. I am sorry to say, that au gust assembly which has most to do with the erection of this magnificent structure has in it a vast number of men who ask questions, make suggestions, and offer criticisms, while, at the same time, they do not know what is wanted, or, indeed, what they want themselves. It is not wonderful, then, that the architect should be impeded, and that fault should be found without any good substantial ground. And yet you have made a wonderful progress, &c. I have said the purposes to which it is to be applied are multifarious—there are wide and gorgeous palace halls, long corridors, short passages, lowly doorways, magnificent entrances, aspiring towers, groined staircases, every class of residences, porters' lodges, committee-rooms, offices, and even kitchens. As one of the Fine Arts Commissioners I have had more opportunities than, perhaps, any of his professional brethren, of seeing how cleverly and how readily Mr. Barry was able to make the suggestions he received from parties he was obliged to obey harmonise with his own conceptions, and thus preserve intact the beauty and unity of the original design. Now, he left it to them to say whether that was or was not a fair description of the conduct or proceedings of that House. His (Mr. Hume's) object was to ascertain who the parties were, and by what sanction and authority the expense of erecting the building had been increased from 724,000l. to over two millions. It might turn out that Mr. Barry might be able to clear himself from all those charges, as he (Mr. Hume) wished he might, because it was through no personal or hostile feeling to Mr. Barry that he brought on the Motion, but because he conceived the House was bound to have a full and candid detail of every expense connected with the undertaking. He called on them, then, to disallow the 3,000l. to the Commissioners of Fine Arts for one year; because by stopping the supply they would prevent their proceeding, further until the building itself should be in a condition to be used, and then they could see whether or not the money ought to be voted. He therefore called for inquiry into this, as it appeared to him, inextricable difficulty; and he hoped the House would support his proposition.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the "10" and insert the sum of "100,610l."

MR. B. OSBORNE

seconded the Amendment.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was not sorry that this Amendment had been brought forward, or the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, into which he had so fully entered; but he was sorry that he should have made that statement with reference to the whole question of the New Houses, when his Motion referred to a subject totally distinct—namely, whether they were to stop the proceedings of the Fine Arts Commission? This was the sole object of the hon. Gentleman's Motion; but nevertheless he had gone into a long statement with reference to the building of the New Houses during the last 15 years. He was sorry for the sake of the House, that he should have introduced these totally distinct subjects into one debate; but he hoped that the House would not accede to the Motion which he had made. It should be remembered that the House, on the recommendation of a Committee, came to a resolution that a good opportunity of benefiting and promoting the fine arts would be found during the time of building the New Houses of Parliament. That was determined on many years ago; and it was a determination which had been acted on ever since. It was only last year that an arrangement was announced to the House, which received its unanimous approval—namely, that instead of proposing year by year the various objects on which the expenditure for the fine arts was to take place in the ensuing years, thus constituting themselves into what they were remarkably ill fitted for—a Committee of Taste—a certain limited sum should be annually placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of the Fine Arts for that purpose. And, certainly, though the hon. Gentleman might differ from the views taken by the Commissioners of Fine Arts on certain points, yet, on the whole, that was a more satisfactory mode of dealing with such questions than making them, in that House, the subject of interminable and unsatisfactory discussions. Last year, the sum placed at the disposal of the Commission was 4,000l.; and, anticipating a similar sum for the present year, the Commissioners had entered into arrangements with artists for works to be placed in the New Houses; some of these works had been executed, and were ready to be handed over; and if the House of Commons now withheld this vote, he need hardly say that an act of injustice would be done both to the Commissioners and to the artists. Therefore, whatever resolution the House might choose to adopt with respect to such votes in future years—whether or not they wished to put an end to all expenditure on account of the fine arts—so far as this vote of 4,000l. for the present year was concerned, they could not refuse it without being guilty of great injustice. Now, though it was a little inconvenient to go into those matters connected with the New Houses generally which the hon. Gentleman had introduced, he, nevertheless, would take that opportunity to address a few words to the House on the subject. He certainly thought it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had waited till he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was able to lay on the table a return which would have given the House information as to the whole state of the case—how far the estimates had been exceeded, what deviations had taken place from the original plan, and such other particulars as would have enabled them to come fully prepared to the discussion of the subject. From statements made by the hon. Gentleman, it might almost be implied that we had actually incurred an expense of 2,000,000l. for purposes within the estimate; but, in fact, the whole amount expended for purposes included in the esti- mate, with all the expenses of the deeper foundations and similar matters which could not be foreseen, was about 900,000l. Then he talked of the additions to the plan as having been attended with an enormous extra expense, whereas the addition to the plan ultimately approved of cost exactly 20,000l. It was quite true that in 1837, after minute inquiry, a plan was decided upon, the estimate for which, so far as buildings were concerned, amounted to 724,000l., including the architect's commission and some other items of a similar kind. The actual estimate for buildings was 682,000l.; but the hon. Gentleman spoke of all expenditure, other than that, as if it formed part of the original estimate. Now, it did no such thing. When the original estimate was made, it was distinctly stated that there were many other purposes for which expenditure must be incurred in addition to those estimated for—such as the cost of site, the river wall and embankment, carrying the foundation to an extra depth, sewers, and so on—those which he had named amounting to about 183,000l. The House would see, therefore, that a large expenditure was necessarily incurred for purposes not included in Mr. Barry's estimate at all. Previous to 1844 some alterations had, no doubt, been made; but the Committee which sat that year reported that though they had been made without proper authority, they were nevertheless great improvements, and they entirely approved of their being made. And here he was reminded of what the hon. Gentleman said about the removal of a pillar to make room for the Queen's coach. It was true that a plan had been made such as that to which he referred, including a pillar, but it never appeared in the approved plan, so that the pillar could never have in fact existed. As to the operations which had led to the extra expense, they arose from circumstances over which Mr. Barry had no control. The additional expenditure arose from improvements which were afterwards sanctioned by the Committee of 1844, or for purposes which had been sanctioned by the Commissioners of the Land Revenue, and by the Commissioners of the Treasury. For example, he found that for a supply of water, temporary buildings, and other incidental expenses, there was an additional expense of 23,000l., and for a better description of stone, the substitution of metal for wooden sashes for the windows, and other items, 82,000l. Then there was an extra cost owing to the change of circum-stances and the delay that had taken place, amounting to 68,000l., making, altogether, 173,000l. This was over and above sums not included in the original estimate, such as the expense of the site, the extra foundation and the river wall, &c., which was 183,300l. Now, surely, there was no blame attachable to Mr. Barry that in his original estimate, he had not included things which formed no part of the buildings, nor was it fair to say that such things were included in the original estimate. His hon. Friend had spoken of the time which had been occupied. No doubt the works were continued much longer than had been anticipated by Mr. Barry, though through no fault of his; but it should not be forgotten that in many items this delay had led to much additional expense. Take the article of iron, for example, which had greatly increased in price while the operations were going on, and it would be found that in consequence of the delay a sum of 68,000l., as he had already stated, had been incurred. Then, for warming and ventilating the buildings there were several items of expenditure resolved on after the original estimate was made, amounting to 120,000l. In consequence of these alterations further fire-proofing was rendered necessary in order to protect the buildings from the danger thereby incurred, and these led to an expense of 80,000l., making, under these three heads, a sum of no less than 200,000l. But surely this could not be put down as the fault of Mr. Barry. In the original estimate, there was no allowance for fixtures and furniture and some other matters, amounting to 500,000l. Including everything that could fairly be charged on the original estimate, the additional expense incurred was 230,000l. The original estimate was 682,000l., besides an addition to the plan of 20,000l.; and the excess consisted of supply of water, temporary buildings, &c., 23,000l.; improvements by means of better stone and other articles he had mentioned, 82,000l.; the cost caused by the loss of time, chiefly by the increased price of iron, 68,000l., and a sum of 37,000l. put down for contingencies. Then the charges produced by innovations upon the original plan were for cost of site, river-wall, embankment, &c., 183,000l., and for warming, ventilating, and fire-proofing the buildings, 200,000l.; furniture and fixtures, 500,000l.; approaches, if ever made at all, 32,000l.; taking down St. Stephen's Chapel, 3,000l., restoring the crypt, 22,000l., and the architect's remuneration, 75,000l. This, including the sum of 912,000l., which was the amount expended for purposes included in the original estimate, and those added to it, made a total expenditure of 1,927,000l. It would be much more convenient if the House were to abstain from taking any steps till put into possession of the information which would be laid before it. The hon. Member for Montrose adverted also to the accommodation in what was called the New House of Commons. A morning sitting would be held there to-morrow, and an evening sitting in the course of the week. In order to enable Members to come to some unanimous opinion, it was not undesirable that a Committee should be appointed on that subject. There was not the same objection to such a Committee as to one on the whole works; and he felt confident that the information it would be his duty to produce, would obviate the necessity for any general inquiry. [Mr. HUME said, that if the right hon. Baronet would consent to the appointment of a Committee, he should be quite satisfied.] He did not think it desirable that a Committee should be appointed to rip up all that had been done since 1836; but it might be advisable to have a Committee appointed for the minor purpose of inquiry into the accommodation in the New House of Commons, and ascertaining how far it was adapted to meet the wishes of, he did not say all, but a great majority of the House.

SIR R. PEEL

said, he apprehended the practical question on which the hon. Member for Montrose intended to take the opinion of the House was the vote of 3,000l. which it was proposed to apply to the decoration of the two Houses. Before adverting to that topic, he wished to say a few words on that collateral point to which the hon. Member devoted nine-tenths of his speech. The hon. Member referred to an address made by Earl de Grey to Mr. Barry in presenting him, at the Institute of British Architects, with a medal, in admiration of his genius, and approbation of his conduct. He (Sir R. Peel) rejoiced that Earl de Grey had made that address—had taken the opportunity of recording the estimation in which Mr. Barry was held by the architects of this country. His noble Friend did not act against the House of Commons or its recorded sentiments; but he had a perfect right to entertain his own opinions; and the House of Commons ought not to be so critical with respect to expressions of opinions. They were not exceedingly reserved themselves in expressing condemnation, and they ought not to be fastidious in objecting to the course pursued by any one who, on a fit and proper occasion, gave expression to his views. But his noble Friend Earl de Grey might have found in the report of 1844 an expression of opinion on the part of the House of Commons, that if there had been an alteration in the original plan, Mr. Barry was not responsible. In that report it was expressly stated that the Committee, having examined various persons with respect to the course hitherto adopted by Mr. Barry in regard to alterations in the interior arrangements, imputed no blame to Mr. Barry, and declared that they "had every reason to believe all the alterations hitherto made had conduced to the convenience and general effect of the building." In 1844, then, there was a complete acquittal of Mr. Barry by that Committee appointed by the House of Commons. Earl de Grey referred to various changes of opinion which had taken place, and said Mr. Barry had met with critics who did not understand their own mind. The hon. Member for Montrose was one of the main suggesters of alterations; and, therefore, he ought to be especially chary of impeaching Mr. Barry on the ground that alterations had been made. The evidence of the Earl of Bessborough, then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, referred to the original plan of Mr. Barry, and showed, if deviations had been made, and expenses incurred on account of them, that Mr. Barry was not responsible. But certain Members of the House of Commons, thinking important alterations might be made for the more convenient accommodation of Members, and the residence of persons connected with the House of Commons, suggested modifications of the original plan. The Earl of Bessborough said the first deviation was providing a house for the Sergeant-at-Arms. Being asked if he could state when that was proposed, he replied, "During the sitting of the Committees of both Houses which altered the plan of 1836. I can speak to that from a conversation I had with Mr. Hume." He (Sir R. Peel) read that evidence in vindication of Mr. Barry and of Earl de Grey, who, having expressed approbation of Mr. Barry, had incurred the censure of the hon. Member for Montrose. He should have read it, if only to convince that hon. Member that he ought to be tolerant of the opinions of others. A plan was offered by Mr. Barry, among other competitors, and adopted. [Mr. HUME: And altered.] It was altered in 1836, and again at the instance of the hon. Member. From the Earl of Bessborough's evidence it appeared that the Treasury consented reluctantly, and that the noble Lord himself had objected in consistency with the advice of Sir B. Stephenson, who said, if they once consented to make alterations, more would be suggested. But who overruled that opinion? "I recollect," said the Earl of Bessborough, "Mr. Hume coming to me, and stating that it was absolutely necessary the Sergeant-at-Arms, who had charge of the House, and so had a great responsibility for so large a building, should have an apartment." Lord G. Somerset inquired in what character did Mr. Hume make such applications? The answer of the Earl of Bessborough was, that he made the applications as a member of the Committee. Being asked if be acceded to the representation of the hon. Member, the Earl of Bessborough replied, "I assented to it, but with very great reluctance. I got the consent of the Treasury, but they objected very much." Here were these two reluctant departments consenting to new buildings and fresh expenditure in consequence of the suggestion of the hon. Member who now asked the House to curtail the vote for the New Houses of Parliament by 3,000l. It might be questioned whether it would not have been better had the Woods and Forests resisted the fascinations of the hon. Gentleman. When the Earl of Bessborough was asked whether Mr. Hume stated the suggestion as his own opinion or as that of the Committee, the answer was that the hon. Member described it as the general opinion. [Mr. HUME: Who was the chairman?] Who was the chairman? It was not, he believed, the hon. Member for Montrose. Every precaution, however, was taken by the departments, and this question was asked, "Mr. Hume was not the chairman of the Committee, was he?"—"No, he was not." That made the conduct of the hon. Gentleman still more improper then. He was very sorry to make this exposure of the hon. Member. He (Sir R. Peel) was anxious to have stated to the hon. Member before he brought on his Motion, in what a strait he was placed by his conduct with respect to this suggestion. The witness stated "he was not chairman of the Committee, but I think he said that it was the opinion of the majority of the Committee." [Mr. HUME: That's all very well.] If the hon. Member denied it, he (Sir R. Peel) could only say that he was quoting from a Parliamentary document, and it was quite sufficient to vindicate his noble Friend Earl de Grey from any reflections upon his conduct, and to show that Mr. Barry ought not alone to bear the blame of these alterations. Some observations had been made with respect to the inconvenience of divisions in the new House. He (Sir R. Peel) had a similar impression that the mode of taking divisions in this House was more convenient. But Mr. Barry was not responsible, for the Committee appointed in 1836 considered the principle on which the New House of Commons should be constructed, and they expressly recommended that the New House should not be so long as the present—in which he thought they made a mistake; the defect was its breadth relatively to its length. It would have been more desirable to afford accommodation in the centre of the House than in the gallery, and to have had its proportions more resembling those of the present House. But Mr. Barry for that was free from blame. He offered a plan, which was submitted to the Committee, and the Committee recommended that the House of Commons should be broader, and that the length should be curtailed. They expressly recommended an apartment on each side of the House of Commons in which divisions should be taken in the very matter Mr. Barry had provided. The House of Commons must, therefore, adopt the whole blame with respect to the construction of the New House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted prudently in proposing, before new alterations were made, or fresh expenses incurred, that there should be a Committee of the most experienced Members appointed with the view of ascertaining what alterations might be necessary. So much with respect to the House of Commons. As regarded the particular vote on which the hon. Member for Montrose intended to take the opinion of the House, the House of Commons appeared to have a short memory in these matters. They thought they were going to revise an act of the Crown—to express disapprobation of the course pursued by the Crown with respect to both Houses of Parliament. The House was perfectly at liberty to do so. If they did not think the Commission of the Fine Arts appointed by the Crown the proper tribunal to decide on the matters committed to its charge—if they thought the House of Commons should withdraw the vote altogether, they were perfectly at liberty to do so. If they thought all the great artists of the country—many of whom had been brought into prominence by the competition which took place under the auspices of the commission—ought to seek encouragement elsewhere; if they thought it necessary to mark their disapprobation of the delay which had taken place, or their anxiety to promote economy by withdrawing the grant, they were perfectly at liberty to adopt that proceeding. As a member of that commission, so far from deprecating such a step, he should be heartily glad to be relieved from the duties, particularly if it were intimated that the commission had not the confidence of the House. But no step had been taken by the Executive Government, or by that commission, except in the belief, and the justifiable confidence, that the Commission and the Government were acting in consonance with the views of the House of Commons. That commission was issued solely in consequence of an unanimous recommendation of a Committee appointed to consider whether it was not fitting that the opportunity should be taken for constructing that magnificent building to promote the fine arts. He should feel it to be his duty to put it beyond all possibility of doubt, that the acts done had been so in consequence of the sanction and recommendation of the House of Commons. In 1841, during the Government of Lord Melbourne, a Committee was appointed on the 6th of May, to consider the promotion of the fine arts in this country, in connexion with the rebuilding of the New Houses. That Committee came to a unanimous report; and, strange again to say, one of the Members of that Committee, thus making a unanimous report, and compelling the Government to undertake the consideration of the subject, was Mr. Hume. What did the Committee recommend? They said they had examined several distinguished professors and admirers of art, who were unanimously of opinion that so Important a national work afforded a fitting opportunity for encouraging, not only the higher, but every subordinate branch of the fine arts In this country; mouldings, design in the most extensive signification of the term, the manufacture of ornaments in brasswork &c. Everything relating to the fine arts was comprehended within the scope of the Committee's recommendation. It was the House of Commons which recommended that a department of the Government should be solely responsible for carrying out the measures which the Committee's report contemplated. It was thought right to take a collective and united view of the whole question. The Fine Arts Commission thought they were acting in deference to the authority of that Committee when they asked the Treasury to intrust them with the expenditure of an annual vote, in order that they might ascertain to what extent the ingenuity, talent, and industry of this country might he employed. The Committee observed that doubts might he entertained with respect to the encouragement of fresco; some might think it a foreign taste; but the commission did not encourage fresco painting without their understanding that it was the wish of the House of Commons that that mode of painting should be tried. The Committee observed that it had been lately revived on the Continent, and tried, especially at Munich—that the subjects it was fitted to illustrate pointed it out for a national building as almost the only subject by which full effect could be given to the qualities which distinguished it of grandeur, breadth, and simplicity. The Committee recommended that that style should be adopted, and not oil-painting only. It was the House of Commons which suggested the encouragement of a branch of art not unknown to this country in former times, but which had remained dormant for above a century; and that the artists of this country should be asked to compete in that novel department of art. Reflections might be east on the selection made by the commission of eminent men whose effigies should adorn the New Houses, as well as of subjects illustrating the national history. But by making a selection of historical subjects, and of men distinguished in British annals, they thought, up to that night, that they were adopting the recommendations and acting in conformity with the wishes of the House of Commons; for the report of the Committee concluded by observing that they unanimously recommended the evidence to the favourable consideration of the House, with the view of its receiving the immediate attention of the Government. Such was the opinion of the House of Commons at that time—an opinion which the Crown was obliged to respect, because it referred to the decoration of the edifice appropriated to the House of Commons and the House of Peers. The report of the Committee concluded by saying— We humbly recommend the evidence herewith presented to the House to its favourable consideration, with a view to its receiving immediate attention at the hands of the Government, in the hope that the new Houses of Parliament may hand down to posterity a memorial as well of the genius of our artists as of the importance attached by the country to the nobler productions of art, and that subjects embodied in such representations, whether by painting or by sculpture, may serve to perpetuate the facts of our past history, and to preserve the memories of our public benefactors in the grateful remembrance of our people. Supposing the Crown had neglected that recommendation of the House of Commons, had appointed no commission, had done nothing with reference to the declaration of the two Houses in promotion of art, would not the House of Commons have taken credit with artists and the lovers of art for a disposition to give them encouragement? Might the House of Commons not have said—"Here you have evidence of our disposition to provide the means, but the Crown, the natural patron of art, has done nothing in furtherance of this great national undertaking?" The Crown acted on the suggestion of the House of Commons. It appointed a commission. If that commission had abused the functions intrusted to them, that was a legitimate ground for refusing to assent to their proceedings. But the commission, on their own part, were not aware of any dereliction of duty which a sense of justice ought to make them acknowledge. They obtained a public competition; they gave prizes to the best works; without restriction as to any particular class of art, they opened a competition to the whole talent of the country. Three prizes were awarded of 500l. each, three of 300l. each, and three of 2002. each. A commission was appointed to award those prizes, and, greatly to the satisfaction of that commission, they were, in almost every instance, awarded to young men whose names had hardly been heard before. Latent genius was brought to light. These were the names of the successful candidates:—Mr. Pickersgill (not the Royal, Academician), Mr. Watts, Mr. Armitage, each received prizes of 500l.; prizes of 300l. were awarded to Mr. Frost, Mr. Poole, and another; prizes of 200l. were awarded to Mr. Lauder, Mr. Lucy, and Mr. Foster. It could not be said that the opportunity had been thrown away for the encouragement of art, or that any favour had been shown in awarding the premiums; for he doubted whether the names of any of the successful artists had been known to those who awarded the premiums. The commission certainly thought they were acting in conformity with the wishes of the House of Commons when historical subjects were selected. A Committee was appointed. The recommendations on that subject were offered by that Committee, which was composed of the following members:—Prince Albert, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Lord J. Russell, Lord Morpeth, Lord Mahon. Mr. Macaulay, Sir E. Inglis, Mr. Hallam, and Mr. Wyse. If the House thought that Committee badly selected, and objected in any respect to the course taken in the matter, he did not deprecate their rescinding the vote, and withdrawing from the commission the power of encouraging art; but, in doing so, he wished the House distinctly to understand that they were rescinding an act not of the Crown, but of the House of Commons, and withdrawing encouragement which the Crown had given, acting in compliance with the express wish of the House of Commons. He ought to inform the House—it might be an additional inducement to withdraw the vote—that the commission had proceeded in the confidence that not only in this but in future years the grant would be continued. They had selected an artist of the highest eminence, to whom they had given a commission to execute a series of works. [Mr. OSBORNE: In how many years?] He should be sorry to be charged with any concealment whatever. Mr. Herbert was the artist. They had selected him for the decoration of an apartment, the commission being given on the distinct understanding that he could only enter on it bearing in mind the precariousness of the tenure by which the commission held the grants. But, with reference to one particular apartment they thought that there would be an advantage in intrusting the decoration of it to one artist of eminence than to several hands; that more uniformity of design would be insured; that it was more in common with the practice of former ages to take that course; and they had invited Mr. Herbert to commence a series of paintings for that apartment. [Mr. OSBORNE: Which apartment?] He thought it was the Peers' robing-room. If any doubt existed of the merits and genius of Mr. Herbert, hon. Members who had not had an opportunity of seeing it, ought to look at the magnificent fresco of King Lear, painted by him. The character brought out in the Cordelia bending at the side would attract particular attention; and hon. Members might judge for themselves whether a better selection could have been made than of that artist. He did hope the House of Commons would be of opinion that it would not be creditable to the country, were the opportunity allowed to pass without affording what encouragement they could to art; that if they thought the commission had not taken a course calculated to encourage other departments of art as well as the highest, they would give the commission credit for anxiety to discharge its duties aright. If, on the other hand, the House thought the commission had abused its trust, had given given encouragement to departments of art which it ought not to have encouraged; if they thought a Committee of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons generally, would be a better tribunal for the consideration of these matters of taste, without murmur and without complaint, he, for one, would see the commission extinguished, and would only hope the House of Commons would appoint a better authority for the purpose of executing its purpose—if it were its purpose—to make this magnificent building conducive to the advancement of the fine arts.

MR. B. OSBORNE

wished to call back the House to the real question, and hoped they would not he deluded by the "fine arts" of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who had never delivered a speech, even when he sat on the Treasury bench, supported by a majority, in which the question was so entirely evaded. There were two points in the right hon. Baronet's speech; one of them, that the hon. Member for Montrose, in a moment of weakness, suggested that the Sergeant-at-Arms should have a house. That house had never been built to the present day; and the topic so admirably brought forward by the right hon. Baronet had as much to do with the New Houses of Parliament as St. Paul's. The other point was, that a commission had been given to Mr. Herbert to decorate one of the apartments; but, although a Commissioner of the Fine Arts, the right hon. Baronet was puzzled to know which of the rooms it was that was to be decorated. But the question before the House was not whether they were to destroy the commission, but whether they should suspend its operations, and have the money which was proposed to he laid out on what he considered monstrous frescoes and narrow-shouldered barons devoted to putting the House of Commons in a proper state. Let them finish the House first, and proceed with the commission afterwards. The commission consisted of a number of gentlemen—he supposed men of great taste—who were employed in spending other people's money, and passing most agreeable mornings in giving orders to Mr. Herbert and all those artists of whom the right hon. Gentleman read a list. But the right hon. Gentleman rather threw a slur upon his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and said, "You are not tolerant of other people's criticisms." The complaint, however, of his hon. Friend was, that Earl do Grey, who was a Commissioner to expedite the building of the Houses, was bandying compliments with Mr. Barry, presenting him with medals, and holding out inducements to him to copy the example of Sir C. Wren, and not to finish the Houses for thirty-four years. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet, or some other of the Commissioners, might explain the reason of the delay in the building; but Mr. Barry, to use his own words, attributed it to— Want of time experienced by all modern architects, and of that proper frame of mind to produce, with full effect, the æsthetical development of design which he was unable fully to explain. If an architect was to tell that House that he was not in a proper frame of mind to continue this building, and it was received with a cheer by Earl de Grey, was the House to be satisfied with that sort of rubbish? But the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, when anything was ever said on this subject, always praised the building. That reminded him of the story told of John Kemble, who, when he was asked his opinion of Mr. Conway, the actor, said, "He is a very tall young man." In the same way it might be said this building was a very large building, but he denied that it was either beautiful or useful. And he said further, that if the country had seen a fine building, or an useful House of Commons, he should not have grudged the money, but when he heard, day after day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting up and saying, "you have had very little expenditure," he would observe that they had spent 200,000l. for ventilation, and yet an hon. Gentleman got up on the other side—one of the country party who knew the value of fine air—and said, the air was so mephitic it was totally impossible he could breathe in the lobby. Why, he found that Mr. Barry and Dr. Reid, upon whose joint labours the comfort of the House depended, had not spoken for six years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware of the enormous expense of pulling down what Dr. Reid had set up, and of setting up Mr. Barry's designs. They had now three systems of ventilation. They were parboiling the House of Lords; they were going to kill the whole country party in the lobbies—he believed it was a design of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's; and then they had those enormous boilers—God knew what they were going to do with them, but he understood Mr. Barry, when asked, refused to say. He asked the House to come to some vote, not as a mark of censure on the commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had read the names of the Commissioners, and read them with an emphasis, as though the House would be deterred by it from doing anything; but he would remind the House that this was no vote of censure—it was only a vote to suspend the commission—though he would say, if it were suspended sine die and never met again he should be the better pleased. This was a question whether a sum of money voted should be applied to complete the House of Commons, or whether, whilst they were paying 2,000l for the residences of the officers, because they would not finish the Houses, they should spend it on frescoes. He said, finish the Houses first, and adorn them afterwards. After what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, he did not think there was any great encouragement for the House handing over its business to Committees, for it was proved that all these expenses arose out of the Committee. His hon. Friend wished to give the Sergeant-at-Arms a house, and the right hon. Gentleman wished to give Mr. Herbert an order for a picture, and they were running up an enormous bill, building abominably bad houses, and, if their legislation was not better than the Houses, the longer they remained in their present chamber the better. He hoped some hon. Gentleman would express a decided opinion that they ought to remain in the pre- sent House until the new one was put into such a state that they could hear, and sit with ease. One word now as to the Fine Arts Commission. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth would state the number of artists who were applied to to paint pictures for the refreshment room; he wished the right hon. Gentleman would state whether Mr. Stanfield refused, whether Mr. Roberts refused, whether the commissioners were not going to put Mr. Landseer's pictures into a room not so good as a billiard room, because there was not light from the top to see them; and he wished the right hon. Gentleman would state whether Mr. Landseer had asked whether there was another room, and whether Mr. Landseer did not consent to paint, and did not say he would paint, the picture for nothing. And in extenuation for the vote he (Mr. Osborne) had given the other night, he did it as much to save the reputation of that gentleman as to save the money of the country, because he thought it an affront to that artist that the commissioners should put his picture in such an abominable place. He hoped, therefore, the House would do their duty to the country, and support his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.

SIR R. PEEL

would assure the hon. Gentleman that his (Sir R. Peel's) omission of all reference to the circumstances under which Mr. Landseer was invited to paint certain pictures in the apartment to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, was intentional, because he thought the House had decided on the point. He was influenced solely by a respectful feeling toward the House—that he would not call in question a decision of the House, however strongly he might feel upon it. The three artists to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, were called before the commission. The commissioners accompanied them to the apartment in question. Upon entering the apartment they found that the greater number of the panels which could be appropriated to the particular pictures were opposite to the light—and every Gentleman was aware that that was an unfavourable light for the exhibition of pictures—but there were three compartments in which the light was excellent. Those were at the end of the room, and were lighted at the side. The commissioners had a picture painted by Mr. Stanfield, one by Mr. Roberts, and one by Mr. Landseer. They were brought to the apartment—the com- missioners made an actual experiment of the light before the pictures were placed there; they made it in the presence of the three artists; the commissioners themselves thought the situation of the panels opposite the light was not suitable for the exhibition of paintings, and they therefore did not give a commission to Mr. Stanfield or Mr. Roberts, because they thought a more suitable place for works of those distinguished artists might be found; but the panels selected by the commissioners for the pictures of Mr. Landseer were selected with the full and entire concurrence of Mr. Landseer himself. That gentleman thought the purposes of the apartment were not unsuitable for the exhibition of works in that particular department in which he had attained a higher eminence, he (Sir R. Peel) believed, than any artist of any country or of any ago. He entirely approved of the light, and in no respect objected to the apartment. Of the liberality of Mr. Landseer, he (Sir R. Peel) could not speak in terms of too high praise; whatever sum might be awarded to Mr. Landseer for these pictures, he (Sir R. Peel) was confident it was not one-third of the real intrinsic value of them. All that the hon. Gentleman could say in favour of the eminence of Mr. Landseer was entirely justified. All the hon. Gentleman had said of his liberality was equally deserved: he hid not believe there ever lived an artist of greater eminence than Mr. Landseer; but the selection of these panels for his pictures was not made without his full and entire approbation.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex began his speech by saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had not spoken to the question, and that he misled the House by referring to a question totally irrelevant; but the fact was that the right hon. Gentleman did address himself to the question, which was, whether those sums of money which were voted in Committee of Supply should likewise be consented to by the House for the purpose of certain decorations and of the fine arts as proposed by the Fine Arts Commission. Now, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not address the House upon that question, because his speech was almost entirely on the merits of Mr. Barry and the building of the two Houses of Parliament. According to the logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there ought to be a vote for the House very much diminishing the sum to be apropriated to Mr. Barry for the Houses, and not interfering with the Commission of Fine Arts, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he did not wish to pass any censure on the commission; and yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's conclusion after his speech was, that every farthing asked for by Government for Mr. Barry and the Houses of Parliament should be voted, and that the sum asked for the commission should not be voted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's object was not a censure on the commission, but merely to say that every sum they could spare, every penny they could afford, should be devoted to continuing and finishing the Houses of Parliament. If that were the case, they ought to vote the whole sum of 150,000l, the sum asked by the Government and the Treasury of the House of Commons, only declaring that no part of it should be applied to painting and decorations. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so far from taking that course, would take away the whole sum proposed for these paintings, and leave the whole of the sum for the Houses neither increased nor diminished—therefore the Houses of Parliament would not have one farthing more money voted for them; they could not be proceeded with further; not one day's work more would be done in consequence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's wish. If the House of Commons really said that 150,000l. was not sufficient, and that 4,000l. more ought to be voted—if that were the deficiency, he thought the Government, in any supplementary estimate, might have applied for that additional sum to proceed with the Houses of Parliament; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not interfere with the sum for the Houses—he neither increased nor diminished it. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was only suspending the works of art, and that when the building was completed they might be proceeded with. But would not that be departing from what the House had done? Did not the House originally say—he was not one of those who were most sanguine on the subject—but did not the House say that that opportunity should be taken to decorate the Houses with works of art—that it would greatly promote the fine arts in this country, and did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth advise the Crown to appoint a commission for the special purpose of carrying into effect the wish of the country? Then, if they suspended that commission— if they told them, after they had led the people to expect that this money should be devoted to the purpose of the fine arts, that it should not be so devoted, the only result would be that it would be impossible for the commission, with any regard to their character, to proceed with the works, the House of Commons having declared that they were not fit to proceed with them. It would be a vote, in fact, declaring that their commission must be put an end to, and that they departed from their original purpose. He said this with immediate view to the vote. The question was not then with regard to Mr. Barry's merits—it was not whether that or the other House of Parliament did a wise thing in adopting Mr. Barry's plan in preference to a less expensive style of architecture; but whether after the House had gone on for five or six years in votes for this purpose, they would now put an end to them, and refuse to have the Houses decorated.

MR. HUME

wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman in the chair whether he could withdraw the Motion he had already proposed, for the purpose of substituting the other of which he had given notice for the appointment of a Committee? The noble Lord at the head of Government knew that all he (Mr. Hume) wanted was to have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House as to a Committee.

MR. SPEAKER

asked the hon. Member whether he proposed to withdraw his Motion?

MR. B. OSBORNE

objected to its being withdrawn.

SIR R. PEEL

thought the hon. Gentleman was so convinced of the injustice and impropriety of his Motion, that he wished to withdraw it.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, that not one word had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose which could justify the observation which the right hon. Baronet had just made. He protested against it; but he thought his hon. Friend wished to withdraw his Amendment in order that he might put another more consistent with the view of the House.

LORD J. RUSSELL

had no objection, if the forms of the House would permit it, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should put his Motion exactly in the manner he thought best; but he understood the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex to say he could not consent to the Motion first made by his hon. Friend being withdrawn.

Question put, "That the sum of '103,610l.' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 62; Majority 82.

List of the NOES.
Alexander, N. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Bankes, G. Keating, R.
Bennet, P. Kershaw, J.
Beresford, W. King, hon. P. J. L.
Best, J. Lacy, H. C.
Blackstone, W. S. Lockhart, W.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Lushington, C.
Bright, J. Morris, D.
Castlereagh, Visct. Muntz, G. F.
Chatterton, Col. Norreys, Lord
Cobden, R. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Cochrane, A. D.R.W.B. Nugent, Sir P.
Codrington, Sir W. O'Brien, Sir L.
Colvile, C. R. Packe, C. W.
Corbally, M. E. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Disraeli, B. Prime, R.
Dod, J. W. Roebuck, J. A.
Drummond, H. Romilly, Col.
Duncan, G. Sibthorp, Col.
Dunne, Col. Smythe, hon. G.
Evans, Sir D. L. Smollett, A.
Evelyn, W. J. Sullivan, M.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Thompson, Col.
Forbes, W. Verner, Sir W.
Grattan, H. Waddington, H. S.
Greene, J. Walmsley, Sir J.
Hall, Sir B. Wawn, J. T.
Halsey, T. P. Williams, J.
Hastie, A. Williams, T. B.
Hastie, A.
Heyworth, L. TELLERS.
Hotham, Lord Hume, J.
Humphery, Ald. Osborne, R. B.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

MR. HUME

said, that he should now move, as another Amendment, for the Select Committee of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and examine the various Reports, Statements, and Plans of the Architect relative to the New Houses of Parliament, and also into the manner in which the works have been conducted, and the different estimates made, with a view to ascertain the cause of the great increase of charge above the estimate for the plan delivered by Mr. Barry, and examined by proper officers, amounting to the sum of 707,000l., on which estimate the sanction of Parliament was obtained for the adoption of the plan; and that the Committee be instructed to obtain from Mr. Barry plans and estimates of all the additions and alterations made by him upon his own responsibility; also, those that have been made at the suggestion of or under the authority of the Lords of the Treasury, the Commissioners of Woods and Works, or any other parties; also what further plans and projected works are in- tended to be carried out for the completion of the said Houses of Parliament, with proper estimates for the various items, so as to arrive at the total expense for the whole building, fittings, and decorations;

instead thereof.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated, that in a few days a complete return would be made of all the details of the expenditure, showing what the excess of expenditure had been, and he thought the House should have an opportunity of seeing that return before they came to any decision upon this question.

SIR H. WILLOUGHBY

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, and complained that no person appeared to be responsible for all the expenditure. The main ground of his supporting the Amendment was, that it would give the Committee the means of an effectual control over it. The House of Commons could not act as an executive body; all it could do was to pass good laws, and to give the means of establishing a proper control over all expenditure.

SIR D. NORREYS

said, that after all the expenditure incurred, had they not produced a monstrous failure, not only as regarded the architecture, but convenience itself? Was not the new building most unsatisfactory as regarded hearing, and was it not insufficient on the score of the number of Members it would accommodate? He thought that if a Committee were appointed, one of the first questions for it to consider would be, whether Westminster-hall had not been desecrated by Mr. Barry, who was now erecting a monstrous passage to a more monstrous staircase. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex in thinking that Mr. Barry was an accomplished architect, as far as one branch of the profession went; but he felt that the country had been misled by him in the adoption of a bad style of architecture.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that he scarcely knew what they were going to divide upon, and that it was most preposterous in them or any Committee that they could appoint to pretend to know anything about architecture. He thought that if they had appointed one man at first to build a house for them, and had not interfered with him, they would have acted more wisely. He thought it absurd to hear one hon. Gentle man getting up and talking about arches, and another about pediments, neither knowing anything about them. Everybody seem- ed to find fault with the New House of Commons; but he was totally incapable of forming a judgment on it. Everybody seemed to attack it as to hearing; but on the principle of acoustics he could not understand how one man talking on his legs could be heard when there were a hundred others about him talking on their heads' antipodes. The House which they were then in, he believed was as good a one as they could have; but he had no knowledge to guide him as to whether the New House was a good one or not. He thought that it would be better not to appoint a Committee, but to leave the responsibility on the Government.

MR. AGLIONBY

was quite sure that if the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had attended to the terms of his hon. Friend's notice, which was on the Votes, he would have given the Motion his support. The question before the House was for a Committee of Inquiry, and he denied that the responsibility rested with the Government. The responsibility fell on the House, and they ought not to shrink from it. If the papers promised would give the information required, he would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion; but the information that was wanted could only be elicited by a Committee. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could tell the House, within half a million, what sums had already been paid, and what liabilities had been incurred?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

entreated the House to wait until the return which he had promised was produced. In one of the returns laid on the table towards the end of the last Session, it was stated the total expenditure upon the New Houses up to May, 1849, was 938,000l., and certainly not more than 100,000l. had been expended on it since that time. It would be found, if hon. Gentlemen would wait for further information, that the great portion of the incurred expenditure had taken place in consequence of the demands for additional accommodation which had been recommended by Committees of both Houses, and by the Woods and Forests.

SIR R. PEEL

thought that a useful and practical Committee might be appointed, after they had sat in the New House four or five days, to consider what further accommodation was required in it, and also the cost of any such alterations as might be deemed desirable. Such Committee could state what steps it was desirable to take to avoid the risk which he feared might arise of Members not being able to hear comfortably in the New House. Great care must be taken to see what would be the cost of any alteration which might be made, such for instance as an extension of the side galleries. As to an investigation into what had been the cause of the past expenditure, he did not think it would be attended with any great advantage, and if they appointed a Committee of Taste to superintend the future progress of the building, it would be found to be perfectly incompetent, and they would lose the advantages which they might attain by such a Committee as he had suggested.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 55: Majority 30.

Resolution agreed to.