THE NEW LAW COURTS.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 30 April 1866)

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he would bog to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, If any determination has been come to with regard to the Resolution of the House, that it was desirable that more than six architects should be invited to compete for designs for the New Law Courts; and, also, whether any 181 alteration has been made in the body with whom rested the responsibility of selection; and, further, whether any alteration has been made in the time when the designs are to be sent in? On a former occasion objection was taken to persons appointed to decide on the designs, on the ground that the Committee did not possess such an acquaintance with the subject as would command the respect of the architects. Of the fire persons so appointed one only had any pretension to a knowledge of that kind—namely, the hon. Baronet the Member for Perthshire—the others being strictly official personages—namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, and the First Commissioner of Works. It was objected to on a former occasion that these Gentlemen had not sufficient time to devote to the subject, and he pressed on the attention of his right hon. Friend that an alteration should be made in the constitution of that Committee by the introduction of Gentlemen who possessed a special knowledge of the subject. It was absolutely necessary that some precautions should be taken to prevent these officials from being smitten with some design that would be a disgrace to the country in an architectural point of view.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question he wished to put an analogous question to him relative to the National Gallery—namely, How many Architects he proposes to call upon to compete for the National Gallery; how long a time he proposes to allow them to send in their designs; and what class of persons it is proposed to call in to aid the right hon. Gentleman in coming to a decision?

§ MR. COWPER
, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), had to state that Her Majesty's Government had called the attention of the Commission on the Courts of Justice to the opinion which the House had expressed in regard to the number of architects to be called on to compete for the Courts of Justice; and the Commissioners had come to the conclusion that the reasons which had appeared to them, in the first instance, to make it advisable to limit the number of architects to six—namely, the desirability of avoiding as much as possible interference with the ordinary practice of the courts and the wish to secure the leading men of the profession—did not preclude the enlargement of the number of com- 182 peting architects to twelve. The Commissioners therefore agreed to extend the number to twelve, and they had accordingly selected the following architects to be added to the number already selected—namely, Mr. Gilbert Scott, Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Lock wood. It was also found that the object of having the designs sent in at the time when those who; were to judge them could conveniently attend in London might be gained by ex-tending the time for sending in the designs to the 15th of December. With regard to the question as to whether there was any change in the constitution of the Committee who were to award the prizes, he had to reply that there was none. The question who ought to decide in a competition among architects was one of considerable difficulty. On the one hand, it was of course desirable that those who were to judge should be aided by professional advisers; while, on the other hand, it was not desirable that the decision should be left exclusively to members of the architectural profession. He was not, how-ever, aware of any competition in which the judges were exclusively of the architectural profession. Two courses were open. One was to select persons who had an interest in the building as the occupiers of it, and a responsibility in causing it to be erected, and to afford them the aid and counsel of professional architects. This was-the course usually adopted by the directors of railways, by persons who built town halls, and by the various public authorities who had erected public buildings. It was also the course taken when designs were sent in for the Houses of Parliament; and on the occasion of the designs being received for the Foreign Office and the War Office, there was only one architect among the judges, but two professional men were employed to act as assessors or make reports in order to assist the judges in coming to a decision. The year before last a case occurred in which a different precedent was established. In the designs for the Natural History Department of the British Museum five gentlemen were appointed judges, and of those three were architects. The Commission on the Courts of Justice had, however, deemed it advisable to follow the more ordinary course. On the Committee of Selection were the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney General, both of whom were as competent as any persons could be to judge as to whether the pro- 183 posed building would be convenient for the courts and offices. In addition, both were men of such acknowledged ability that he doubted whether the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite could name two persons of greater competency. Another member of the Committee was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose unrivalled ability they knew extended into the domain of art as well as that of politics. He thought that right hon. Gentleman was as likely as any man to form a sound judgment on the subject. Then there was the hon. Member for Perthshire (Sir William Stirling-Maxwell), who had given much attention to the matter of art. The next person on the list of the Committee was himself. He could not say anything of his own fitness, but the office which he held made it necessary for him to apply himself to these subjects, and he trusted he would be able to form an opinion on the question. It was not the intention of the Committee to come to a decision without availing themselves of the assistance of architects of experience. They would call on one or more—probably two—architects, to give them the benefit of their professional assistance. In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope), he had to state that the number of the architects who would be invited to compete for the buildings in Trafalgar Square was twelve. The selection of the competitors had been made with a view to securing the competition of those who had turned their attention to that particular line of construction, and who by their works had shown their competency. They were Mr. Abraham, Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Scott, Mr. Street, Mr. Digby Wyatt, Mr. Somers Clarke, Mr. Owen Jones, Mr. Cockerell, Mr. Murray, Mr. Penrose, and Mr. Sidney Smirk. The time for sending in designs would extend up to October.

§ MR. POWELL
wished to know if it were proposed to call into the assistance of the Committee practising architects.

§ MR. COWPER
said, it would be undesirable to call in gentlemen who might be supposed to have that sort of bias which was frequently produced by the struggles of the profession. It would, he thought, be undesirable to bring in men with those personal feelings and partialities which belong to the active prosecution of their profession, but to get good men of experience who were themselves beyond the arena of competition.

§ MR. TITE
certainly had wished that the competition for the Law Courts should 184 be even more extensive; but twelve was a fair number of competitors. The result would very probably be satisfactory to the country. With regard to the names which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, he was glad to find that two gentlemen who had formerly refused to compete were now included in the list—namely, Mr. Scott and Mr. Edward Barry. Fashion had run so much on mediaeval art, that it was difficult to find an architect competent in both styles. He must say, however, that the list of names of the gentlemen who were to send in designs for the National Gallery contained a better mixture of architects of the two styles. Still, on the whole, hon. Members ought to congratulate themselves upon the subject having been brought forward. He believed it would result in the erection of a very convenient and very elegant building.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
wished to know whether any intimation had been given to the architects who had been invited to compete as to the style of architecture preferred by Her Majesty's Government? The omission to give such an intimation had resulted in a blunder six years ago, and it was therefore desirable to know whether Her Majesty's Government had decided as to the style to be now adopted.

§ MR. COWPER
said, in reply, that the Government had adopted the course of leaving the style an open question. If a blunder was committed on a former occasion it was the blunder of the architect, who might have resigned if he had been required to build in a style with which he was not familiar.