§ MR. TITEsaid, he rose to put the Question of which he had given notice—to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, what steps have been taken by the Government with reference to the rebuilding of the Foreign Office in Downing Street. It would be in the recollection of the House that last Session a Select Committee was appointed in reference to the reconstruction of the Foreign Office, He sat on that Committee, and the evidence before it showed this state of things:—In 1856 a suggestion was made by the House itself, that all the government offices should be associated together in one large block of buildings, and that there ought to be a public competition on the largest scale for the furnishing of designs for the building so proposed. It was also proposed that certain premiums should be offered for the best designs, amounting to considerable sums. In consequence of the advertisements which were issued upon that suggestion 220 designs were sent in, 200 of which were of the Italian style of architecture, and 10 of the Gothic. A Commission was then appointed to inquire as to what parties were entitled to the premiums. There was one professional gentleman upon that Commission (Mr. Burn), an architect of great eminence, who thoroughly understood the subject under consideration. The remainder were, no doubt, eminent men but not technically conversant with such matters. The Commission, after some time, called in further professional assistance in the persons of Messrs. Angell and Pownall, two architects of great experience. After some consideration of the question the number of competitors was reduced from 220 to 70 in the first instance, and afterwards to 40. The premiums were awarded. After considerable discussion the select Committee of 1858 had recommended the purchase of a large mass of property to fur- 261 nish the site of the Foreign Office, and it appeared that part of this site was now to be occupied by the new building for the Council of India, and that the cost of this site alone would be £500,000 or £600,000. The House would see the importance of the question. Thus the Committee found that £110,000 had been expended in procuring so much of the site of Downing Street as was cleared, and a portion of the ground in Fludyer Street. The Committee, moreover, recommended the expenditure of another £100,000 to extend the site to Charles Street, and the whole area would be about double the size of the new Custom House. It was further recommended that the Foreign Office should be erected upon the end nearest the Park, occupying a portion of the Park equal to 130 by 110 feet. The façade of the building here towards the Park would only show one-third of its length; it would therefore be necessary to take down the State-Paper Office, and part of the property in Duke Street. At the other end, up to Charles Street, there was a block of buildings between Parliament Street and King Street, which should be secured in order to open the façade, and which would cost about £150,000 more; in addition to which the houses in Duke Street would cost £50,000. This, therefore, was a work of very great importance. The former Chief Commissioner of Public Works declared distinctly that the Government would not be bound to employ the architect who obtained the premium. No doubt that was so, but, notwithstanding, it was the impression of the profession and the recommendation of the Committee, that the architect to be chosen should be taken from the successful competitors. It subsequently appeared before the Committee that the gentlemen to whom the first premium was assigned for the design for the Foreign Office had not been recommended by the professional advisers of the Committee. In their list they stood sixth; but all the lists agree in the award of the second and third premiums, which, in fact, ought to have been the first and second. Thus the Committee passed over the gentleman who had obtained the first premium for the design, so that ultimately there remained but two gentlemen upon whom the discussion turned. The first premium was awarded to Messrs. Banks and Barry for a design of great merit, mainly in the Italian style of architecture. The next in order was Mr. Scott, for a design commonly called Gothic—a 262 design also of great merit, and one which had been worked out with great skill. It was of the Gothic style of the north of Italy, but different in character to what we were generally acquainted with in London. A considerable discussion arose in the Committee upon this matter, many of the Members believing that there would be considerable incongruity in an arrangement under which a mass of building would be erected in a style of architecture not corresponding with those in the neighbourhood. It had, indeed, been suggested that the genius loci required that there should be a harmony between the new public offices and the Houses of Parliament and West-minster Abbey; but it had been urged, with much force, that neither of those buildings could be seen in juxta-position with these new buildings, and certainly the carrying out of Mr. Scott's design would be both inconvenient and expensive. There could be little doubt that the Italian style would be more suited to the wants of common life, and that Gothic would be very inconvenient. Every hon. Gentleman who had served on Committees of that House would, he thought, agree with him, that the simple method of drawing down the sash of a window was a better mode of ventilating a close room on a hot day than more complicated arrangements, however ingenious. The Committee on this matter had made a report, which, however, was not very decided on many important particulars. They had recommended that the architect should be chosen from the list of competitors, and left the other questions mainly to be determined by the Government. Since then he had learnt, semi-officially, through the usual channels of information, that Mr. Scott had been appointed the architect, and that a Gothic design had been chosen. He also understood Mr. Scott had also been chosen architect for the new building for the Indian Council, which was to occupy the part of the site east adjoining the Foreign Office, but not agreeing with the building in which the British Parliament assembled, nor with any of those in the neighbourhood of the proposed structure. He (Mr. Tite) ventured to think that the style designed by Mr. Scott was both inconvenient and expensive. The Committee generally, however, seemed to entertain a contrary opinion. The Committee made their report accordingly, as he had stated. It, however, recommended that the architect should be chosen out of the general competitive body, and that the remaining question should be 263 left in the hands of the Government. The Duke of Buccleuch was now about to rebuild Montague house in Parliament Street, which was to be in a plain, Italian style, and to be faced with stone. The style, therefore, of the proposed block of Government offices would not harmonize with that of the buildings on the side nor front of it. Now, he would suggest that, in these cases, the competing architects should be preferred in the order of the merit which characterized their designs; and Mr. Barry, the son of Sir C. Barry, but in no other way connected with that eminent man, felt that he had not been quite fairly dealt with. No doubt the Government had had no intention to cast the least reflection upon an able and honourable man; yet, the fact was, that Messrs. Banks and Barry had been set aside, and a competitor below them on the list had been selected to carry out this work. Another point worthy of attention was this:—Mr. Scott, from whose merits he would be the last to detract, was unquestionably as competent to erect an Italian building as a Gothic one; and if it were the pleasure of the House or the Government to give him instructions to that effect, that gentleman could have no difficulty in introducing Italian features and Italian arrangements into this plan. This subject, involving, as it did, a probable expenditure of between £500,000 and £600,000 for the purchase of the site alone, in addition, possibly, to a similar sum upon the building, was one of great public importance. What he wanted was a comprehensive plan adapted to the situation proposed—for if the south side of Downing Street were to be Gothic, what was to be done with the north side? If the House, in their ordinary legislation made a mistake, it was easy to bring in a Bill to alter and amend it; but not so if we recorded our mistakes in costly monuments of granite or marble. He had, therefore, to ask the noble Lord whether, as far as their present instructions go, the Government propose to execute these buildings in the style to which he had referred.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSIn answering the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I think I cannot do better than recall to the recollection of the House the exact position in which the subject stood when the change of Government took place last year. That position was, in fact, a complete dead lock. It then appeared to me, as it also did to the House, that the best 264 mode of meeting all the difficulties of the case was to appoint a Select Committee thoroughly to investigate all the complicated details connected with the question. That Committee sat for a considerable period, examining all the most material witnesses they could find, with the view of arriving at some definite and satisfactory conclusions on the whole subject. Their Report was not ready until the middle of July, and it was impossible to ask the House to take any steps then, in consequence of the late period of the Session. However, I devoted a good deal of time during the recess to the reconsideration of the whole subject, and to an examination of the report and evidence. In that Report the main points to which the Committee refer are four. They first recommend that one of the successful competitors should be appointed architect of the new Foreign Office. They next express an opinion that as far as the style of architecture is concerned there is no material difference as regards economy, commodiousness, and public utility between the rival styles., In the third place, they recommend that in any plan that may be adopted care should be taken that the plan selected should be so arranged as to be in harmony with any more general concentration of public offices. Lastly, they recommend that purchase should be made of the plot of ground to which the hon. Member has referred between Charles Street and Crown Street. In consequence of that last recommendation of the Committee I directed notices to be given in November last for the purchase of that plot of ground, and a Bill will be brought before the House in a few days with that object. It then became my duty to consider what recommendations should be made to the Treasury and what steps should be taken to bring the subject in a certain and definite shape before Parliament this Session. The Committee recommended, and I agree with them, that the architect should be selected from the successful competitors. As far as appears from the Report of the Committee, the first three prize men stand upon an equality. The Committee also reported in respect to commodiousness and public utility there was no preference between the contending designs of what may be called the national or foreign styles—the Gothic or the Italian. That being the case I had to decide which of the three prizemen should be the ar- 265 chitect employed, and which of the contending styles should be adopted. I say it with all deference to my hon. Friend that the decision on that point was arrived at, not by the Government, nor by me, but was governed, in point of fact, by the site on which the Foreign Office was to be placed. A few days after I had made my recommendations to the Government, I received an intimation from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India that it was highly expedient that ground should, if possible, be found in the immediate neighbourhood of Downing Street for his department. Upon due consideration we found a piece of ground adjoining that proposed for the erection of a Foreign Office, which afforded sufficient space for the new Indian office. My noble Friend in council decided that this ground should be purchased of the Government, and that the erection of the Indian Office should be confided to the same architect to whom it was proposed to entrust the building of the Foreign Office. Thus, if the House should sanction the proposed arrangement, there will be uniformity of design, and these two offices will make one great whole. The new Indian Office will occupy the space which, under a former arrangement, was to be occupied by the War Office, with this agreeable difference, that the whole expense will be defrayed out of Indian instead of Imperial resources. These preliminary points having been decided by the Government as far as they could be, it now became my duty to desire Mr. Scott to put himself in communication with the authorities of the Foreign Office, and to make a plan adapted to the altered circumstances of the case. I am in daily expectation of receiving the drawing and plans, and the course I propose to adopt is one which, if the House should sanction it, will, I think, tend to promote the public convenience, and be consistent with due economy. I propose, as soon as I have seen and approved these plans, to submit the working drawings and sections to the competition of some of the most eminent contracting building firms. When I have received tenders from them, it is my intention to place in the library of the House of Commons, for the inspection of every Member, the matured plan and design of the architect, and the estimate—not the estimate of the architect—but the estimate at which the contractors guarantee to complete the building, so far as the building itself is concerned. I believe that if the House 266 will co-operate with the Government in this course they will see this long-vexed question settled in a way which will be satisfactory to the public, that a Foreign Office will be erected worthy of the country, and at an expenditure not disproportioned to the importance of the department.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the noble Lord having declared that when he came into office he found this question at a dead lock, and such a declaration was calculated to convey an impression that there had been a want of activity on the part of the noble Lord's predecessors in office. [Lord J. MANNERS disclaimed the imputation.] He therefore felt bound to state the cause of this dead lock. In 1856 a Committee was appointed by that House to consider the whole question of the public offices, and in consequence of their recommendation he, with the sanction of the Government, introduced a Bill for acquiring certain property upon which two new offices might be erected, and which property the present Government now proposed to purchase, with the exception of the ground at the back of the Irish office, which he thought ought also to be acquired. The Bill thus introduced went through a Select Committee, and it afterwards went through a Committee of the whole House, but as the Bill was very much opposed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now were about to bring forward a similar measure, he was compelled to withdraw it. No fault could be found with the late Government for the delay, but if blame were due to any one it was with those hon. Gentlemen who would not allow the Bill of the late Government to proceed, and who were now about to bring in a Bill nearly identical. Last year another Committee was appointed to consider the reconstruction of the Foreign Office. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that if any design were adopted it should be one of the designs that had gained the first three premiums at the great competition of 1857, when the plans were exhibited in Westminster Hall. But the noble Lord had not given any particular reason why he had passed over the first and second premiums and given the erection of the new Foreign Office to the architect who had gained the third prize. He would admit that if it were to be decided that a Gothic building should be constructed in the midst of buildings that had nothing Gothic about them, no architect could be 267 found who understood that style of architecture better than Mr. Gilbert Scott. But he thought the noble Lord should state the reasons why he bad rejected the plan to which the first and second premiums were awarded, and adopted that to which only the third place was awarded by the judges. The noble Lord had said that he would place that plan in one of the Committee-rooms for the inspection of Members, but he (Sir Benjamin Hall) thought that it would be only fair to hang up by the side of it the plans of the two other architects in order that hon. Members might see the three designs. The House might also form its own conclusion as to the effect of a Gothic building placed near the Treasury Chambers and Whitehall, with which it had nothing in common.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had asked the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works why he had passed over the first and second prizemen, and given the execution of the work to the third; but if the right hon. Baronet would look at the tables at the end of the blue-book he would see obvious reasons for that selection. On the list of judges of the designs exhibited there was only one professional gentleman, who was the person chosen to rebuild Montague House; and there were two professional assessors. This judge and the assessors separately drew up their two lists of awards, and it was seen upon them that prizemen No. 1 only gained the sixth place for the Foreign Office, and that he did not compete at all for the War Office; and No. 2, Messrs. Banks and Barry, appeared as first prizemen for the Foreign Office, but for the War Office they appeared nowhere on one of those lists, and only fifth on the other; whereas on both lists Mr. Gilbert Scott was second for both buildings. These lists were overruled by the nonprofessional majority of this judge, who likewise, in opposition to the object of the competition, refused to give more than one prize to any one competitor. Thus the lists of Mr. Burn and of the assessors remained the only tests of comparative excellence. According, then, to the award of the professional gentleman, who must be supposed to know more of the matter than amateurs, however skilful, the sum total of merit in the competition rested with Mr. Scott, as second for both the War Office and Foreign Office. On this award, no doubt, was based the decision of the Government. Just at that moment the question of building an Indian Office 268 came on, and it was decided that it should be placed on the site and on the footing which the War Office was intended to have occupied, and Mr. Scott having obtained the great sum total of merit among the competitors for that building, if he had not been selected as the architect of the Indian Office as well as the Foreign Office, it would have been a miscarriage of injustice, and a great injury to a most distinguished man. If the House reversed the decision of the Government, the matter would be placedin a most ridiculous position. The Minister for India proposed, out of his own pocket, to build an Indian Office on land bought out of Indian revenue, and he had appointed Mr. Scott the architect, as he had a right to do; and if that gentleman was deprived of the building of the Foreign Office, you would have him building the Indian Office, and next door to it there would be another architect building the Foreign Office, perhaps in a different style. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) said that Mr. Scott's designs were Italian Gothic, and not English Gothic, like the style of the Houses of Parliament, and then he spoke of the inconveniences of the latter style, illustrating them by the inconvenience of the windows. It was the fact of such inconvenience which had induced Mr. Scott to choose Italian modifications of the Gothic style, and the hon. Gentleman must recollect that Mr. Scott produced figures before the Committee which proved that by the adoption of this style the windows of the proposed Foreign Office would be wider than those of any other public building in London. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Marylebone, (Sir B. Hall) said, that a Gothic building would be incongruous with the Treasury; but had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his great plan of carrying a block of buildings down to Great George Street, where they would amalgamate, not with the comparatively small mass of the Treasury buildings, but with the great Palace of Westminster and the Abbey? All forms of Gothic were but phases of the same style, and in the present instance there would not be a greater incongruity than existed between the Palace of Westminster and the ancient Abbey. The hon. Member for Bath thought he made a great coup in appealing to Sir Charles Barry's evidence before the Committee with regard to incongruity of style being a defect; but in answer to questions put to him, Sir Charles Barry said that if he were going to erect 269 a great building in close proximity to St. Paul's, it would not necessarily lead him to adopt the Italian style; and when he was asked if he would put a large Gothic building in St. Paul's Churchyard, he replied that he was not prepared to say that he should not. So much for Sir Charles Barry's opinion with regard to incongruity. He (Mr. Hope) trusted that the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) would not be deterred by the slight opposition which had been manifested from going on with a plan which had received the general approbation of the leading journals, and of all thinking men. If the noble Lord exhibited the other designs with Mr. Scott's in the library of the House it would be very generous in him, but it was not necessary. The Committee had referred the selection of the architect out of the three prizemen, not to the House again, but to the Government, and the Government would only do their duty if they refused to shirk the responsibility which had been cast upon them.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he felt bound to express his regret that Gothic architecture had been adopted for the style of public buildings in this metropolis. The disadvantages of it could not be better illustrated than by the place where the House of Commons were then assembled. Gothic architecture gave at the maximum of cost the minimum, of accommodation, and, at the same time, a degree of darkness which, in London, was most inconvenient. The noble Lord talked of the Gothic as the national style of architecture; but he would remind him of the names of Wren and Inigo Jones, and the style of architecture they adopted. The Gothic was an European style of architecture, and it was a mere revival introducing it into civil edifices. It had beauty and merits in the period when great ecclesiastical monuments were raised, and was eminently characteristic of the spirit of that age. But the day was gone by for it. It was a barbarous style. We did not live in an age of darkness. We wanted more light, and he thought our public offices especially wanted both light and ventilation in more senses than one. He could not hear the question discussed without recording his protest against the use of Gothic architecture in public edifices. It was a style peculiar to a sect of which the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope) was a distinguished representative, but it was antagonistic to the taste and feelings of the English people.
§ GENERAL THOMPSONasked, whether it might not be wise to postpone the question of pulling down their barns and building greater, until after the Bills with regard to India had been brought in? There might be some from other parts of the world too, and if public opinion were taken as a guide, they might be just upon the eve of a European war; and if so, it would be difficult for England not to take a hand in it. Now, private families generally looked ahead, and did not spend money when immediate difficulties might be supposed to be coming upon them. The Government said they could not accede to the wishes of the people and remove the tax on paper, which amounted to little more than £1,000,000 a year; but they could remove the income tax to the amount of £11,000,000 a year, and they now came forward with a plan which he felt sure would be considered very ill-advised in point of expenditure. He spoke for certain poor men among his constituents, who he knew would grumble audibly if he did not raise his voice at such a period.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON—I have never heard a less satisfactory explanation, both as regards the selection of the architect and the choice of the style in which the Foreign Office is proposed to be built, than that given by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Public Works. The reason last assigned, that of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope), for the choice of Mr. Scott was, that he was always second in all the trials which had taken place, that he was second competitor for the Foreign Office, and second also for the War Office, and that therefore he ought to be put first; on the principle, I suppose, that the two negatives make an affirmative. It certainly is a new doctrine. What would be said if it were applied to horse-racing, and the horse which ran second in two heats were held to be entitled to the cup? Then, again, Mr. Scott was chosen because he was second competitor for the Foreign Office and for the War Office; but it now appears that there is to be no War Office, and the Foreign Office alone is to be built; and therefore Mr. Scott is reduced in point of claim, and we are told that he has been chosen to build a Foreign Office because his plan for that building was second-best. With regard to the Gothic style, we are told that it has been adopted because it is the national style, suited to Teutonic nationalities, and all that sort of thing. If that theory 271 of nationalities is to be carried out in our public buildings, the noble Lord the Secretary for India, in building his new office, should be lodged in a pagoda or a taj-mahal. That would be adapting the national style to the department over which be presided; and as Mr. Scott cannot be expected to be well acquainted with that style, the noble Lord should invite, as most competent for the purpose, the aid of some architect from India to decide as to what will be best for an Indian office. In my opinion no satisfactory reason has been given why the architects, whose plans were better than those of Mr. Scott, should have been set aside, and Mr. Scott selected. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) that if Mr. Scott's plans are to be exhibited, it will be more fitting that the plans of the other architects which were adjudged to be better should also be exhibited at the same time. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) in his protest against the selection of the Gothic style. In my opinion it is going back to the barbarism of the dark ages for a building which ought to belong to the times in which we live. And what, let me ask, is the reason alleged? It is said it is the intention to fill up the entire space between Downing Street and Westminster Abbey with buildings, all of which are to be Gothic, and that therefore it is desirable to begin with a Gothic Foreign Office. This is, in my mind, a reason against the proposal; for if the choice of a Gothic Foreign Office is to involve the necessity of an immense block of Gothic buildings down to Westminster Abbey, it seems to me we are beginning the first step of a course which we shall all have cause to deprecate, and which, instead of being an ornament to London, will create a black spot in the metropolis. Then, as to the principle of "congruity;"—it is said you should have a Gothic building because you intend to expend £5,000,000 in covering the ground between Downing Street and Westminster Abbey with buildings belonging to that style of architecture. But if the principle of congruity is to be applied to the future, why not apply it to the present? The neighbourhood of Downing Street is full of buildings of totally different styles of architecture. The State-paper Office, a most convenient fire-proof building, which cost the public £50,000, is, we hear, to be pulled down; and the mania for pulling down is to extend not only to it, but, in order to complete the "congruity," we 272 should have to Gothicise the Horse Guards, and apply Gothic exteriors to all the buildings in the neighbourhood. At present all the buildings in connection with the public departments and Downing Street are in different styles—in fact all the principal buildings in London are various in their architectural types. There are the Treasury buildings, the Horse Guards, the Admiralty, the Banqueting House—one of the finest specimens of architecture to be found anywhere—these are to be contrasted with a building which after all does not answer the description of the noble Lord who talks of a "national style," for it appears not to be English Gothic, but, as stated by the hon. Member for Maidstone, Italian or Lombard Gothic. I have not had the advantage of visiting those climes lately, and therefore I do not exactly know what the peculiarities of Lombard Gothic are, but it combines, I suppose, all the modifications of barbarism. Look, too, at that street of palaces, Pall Mall, where the clubs vie in splendour with each other; take St. Paul's and Somerset House, and I venture to say that they are handsomer, in their respective styles, than either Westminster Abbey or the new Houses of Parliament. The Houses of Parliament are no doubt very beautiful, but I think it was a great mistake, both in point of expense and accommodation, to make thorn Gothic. I had nothing to do with making them so—but I think we made what was certainly a handsome mistake both in point of cost and utility. Then why, let me ask, are we to be doomed for ever to erect buildings in a style totally inapplicable to the purposes for which they are intended? I hope, however, that the decision of the noble Lord is not irrevocable, and that he may be induced to modify his views. I find, upon reading the Report of the Committee, that Mr. Scott has studied the Greek and Italian style of architecture as well as the Gothic; and if it is finally determined that he is to be the architect, as he is a person of great talent, I have no doubt he may be able to make as handsome a design in the Latin or Grecian order, as this Gothic one which the noble Lord favours. If Mr. Scott be the architect, I hope he will be told to put a more lively and enlightened front to his buildings, than that which he contemplates, and that we may see them in harmony with the other public buildings of the metropolis, either of Greek or Italian architecture, and that the noble 273 Lord opposite will not insist upon erecting a Gothic Foreign Office in Downing Street.
§ MR. BENTINCKagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford (General Thompson) as to the inexpediency of spending large sums of money under present circumstances on ornamental architecture. Without going into the question of the probability of war, the state of Europe was such as to make it probable that our naval and military expenditure must be greatly increased; our naval armament was insufficient, and in the Royal Speech there was an announcement that a large sum would be needed for the reorganization of the navy. Until the country was put into a perfect state of defence it was the duty of Parliament not to sanction the expenditure of a single shilling that could be spared on such purposes as this. More especially was this their duty if there were any truth in the painful rumour that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his budget, the House would be called upon to supply an inevitable deficiency.