HC Deb 22 March 1872 vol 210 cc581-9
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

, in rising to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the finally settled Designs for the New Building of the Courts of Justice are identical in all material particulars with those exhibited in the Library of this House in the month of July last? and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the designs prepared by Mr. Street for the New Building of the Courts of Justice are unsatisfactory, and ought not to be executed, said, it was important that an answer should be given to the Question, inasmuch that to a certain extent it affected the rights, if not the privileges of that House. That right or privilege, call it what they liked, was that for many years it had been considered that, inasmuch as the House of Commons voted money for the erection of large public buildings, they should have some voice as to the selection of the plans. As a proof that the exercise of the privilege was not misplaced, he did not hesitate to affirm that when the eye of the House had been removed from those plans they invariably met with disaster; and such had certainly been the case in this instance. For a year or two the matter had slept, and it was not till the Session before last that his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) called attention to the plans, when the First Commissioner stated that the foundations were being proceeded with, but gave no hint as to what architectural form the building should take. The matter remained in abeyance till July last year, when certain designs were placed in the Library. On the 20th of that month he addressed a Question to the First Commissioner, and asked him whether the building was to be erected in conformity with those designs. He was referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the Treasury had not yet got the elevations, and that the object of placing the designs in the Library was to give the House time to express an opinion concerning them. That reply not being very clear, he repeated the Question, in answer to which the right hon. Gentleman said that the plans had not yet been approved, and they were placed in the Library to invite the opinions of Members. He repeated the Question a third time, on the following day, when the right hon. Gentleman said the plans were not approved. In the circumstances of last Session it was quite impossible for any hon. Member after the 21st of July to make a substantive Motion on the subject; but, besides that, there was a very general understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant what he said when he stated that the Government had not approved the plans; and that the plans, as exhibited in the Library, met with universal condemnation. ["No, no!"] The hon. and learned Member for Richmond might say "No, no;" but he was one of the judges, and he was, therefore, debarred from giving an opinion upon the subject. In accordance with that answer, he, therefore, supposed, as the plans were not approved by the Government, they would be altered as regarded the elevations by the architect. On the 22nd of February, he again addressed a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inquiring whether the designs had been altered; and, if so, whether they would be placed in the Library for the consideration of the House? The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said these designs were exhibited in the Library for several weeks last Session, but hon. Gentlemen who were critical in such matters could not be induced to express their opinions. After submitting them to that ordeal the Government did approve them, and he did not know that any good purpose would be answered in again exhibiting them. Much discussion had occurred on this matter in the public prints, and on the 9th of December an article appeared in The Times in large type, which at first sight seemed to have been inspired by the Government, for The Times was a journal well informed on all these matters, and was known occasionally at least to receive information from high, quarters. The article in The Times began by stating that the amended designs noticed in that journal three months previously—those exhibited in the Library of the House—had given place to the finally settled designs, which, it was hoped, would soon be superseded by altogether new designs. He referred to this to show that there was a generally prevalent opinion that the designs which had been exhibited in the House had been substantially altered; and, indeed, the writer pointed out at length the differences between the two designs, and he understood that the "finally settled designs" had been exhibited at the Athenaeum Club. He maintained that the Government ought to follow the rule of its predecessors, and submit their finally settled designs to the Members of that House. He asked the House to condemn the designs exhibited last year, and he did so because he fully endorsed the opinion of The Times, which protested against this vast mass of buildings, because its outer form was not what we were ambitious enough to require for Courts of Justice, and what we did require was a building the facade of which would proclaim as intelligibly as words could—"These are the Courts of Justice." The designs had been attacked in letters signed by the names of Wyatt, Fergusson, Smirke, Cust, Bowyer, Pugin, Denison, and the hon. Member for Totnes, as well as by the journals devoted to architecture; and they had been defended by Mr. Ruskin, an artistic will-o'-the-wisp, who would draw us into an artistic quagmire. Progress might be made with the foundations, but we ought not to be committed to the elevations until satisfactory designs had been accepted. Better have delay than rush madly into an insane scheme and erect buildings which would not be satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

MR. DENISON

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the designs prepared by Mr. Street for the New Building of the Courts of Justice are unsatisfactory, and ought not to be executed,"—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that his hon. Friend had for the purpose of his argument magnified the few variations which had been made between last Session and the present day in Mr. Street's designs, which had in reality remained substantially the same as they were at the time of their exhibition last year. He trusted, therefore, that the House would be content with having listened to the statement of his hon. Friend, and would proceed with the erection of these Law Courts. In his (Mr. Beresford Hope's) opinion the two portions of his hon. Friend's speech were hardly consistent; for he complained that the designs which were being carried out were not those exhibited in the Library, and then he asked them to condemn the Law Courts in progress as being based upon the designs which were so exhibited, and not upon those which were by his own showing of a different complexion. The truth was, the designs which were being carried out were, architecturally and substantially, but with some improvements, those which were exhibited for a sufficient period in the Library of the House, without anyone having taken any opportunity to comment upon them openly. Moreover, these improved designs, as elevations, plans, and details, had been published in the illustrated and the architectural papers, so that all who were interested had the fullest means of knowing what they were. The article in The Times to which his hon. Friend referred did scant justice to the architect; that article was a magnificent monument of big words piled together with reckless profusion; it was simply based on the power of unlimited assertion; but as a description of the building it was without value. The question between Mr. Street and the section of the public represented by his hon. Friend might be summed up in a few words. Mr. Street had the common sense to arrange his internal plans first, and then to accommodate his elevations to them. As an example of the opposite course being followed, he might mention these Houses of Parliament which had been criticized severely, but, as he thought, unfairly, considering the date of their building and the difficulties of Sir Charles Barry, and mainly be- cause the internal arrangements were sacrificed to the river frontage, grandiose as that undoubtedly was. The architect of the Law Courts had, however, avoided that quicksand, and had taken extreme pains to ascertain all the wants and requirements of the Bench, the Bar, and the public in connection with the 18 Courts of Law which he had to provide. In short, Mr. Street had arranged a most practical and convenient plan, which would meet the requirements of the Courts and of everybody connected with them, and having done that, he had proceeded to cast it in an ornamental form, and to design the elevation which would be presented to the Strand. This design was composed of a well-balanced and dignified main pile, with an annexe for the judicial offices eastward. The crowning mass was the Central Hall—a vast apartment needful for the ends of administrative justice, fireproof by its stone groining, and amply lighted by wide window spaces. Stripped of tall talk and reduced to plain matter of fact, that was the sum total of the charge brought against the architect. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) therefore contended that the building was, upon the whole, a dignified, well-balanced, and regular pile; and if Mr. Street's design were rejected, what chance would there be of getting a better plan from a new architect, especially as his employers would not change their views, and he must therefore stick to their orders? There would be the same Courts to be provided for, the same officials resolute to have their independent claims recognized, the same Bar, the same attorneys, and the same public; and, over all, the same Treasury, determined only to spend the same sum. The displacement of Mr. Street could only be productive of additional delay, dissatisfaction, and expense. The new man would have the old site and the old funds to dispose of, and the old orders to comply with. His difficulties would be the same, and all that would be diminished would be the patience of the public. Years hence this room would be occupied by his hon. Friend or by his heir with a Motion identical with the present one, and in the end we should have not a better, but probably a worse building than that designed by the eminent architect who, for the last two or three years, had devoted almost the whole of his attention to this subject.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he never felt so utterly perplexed and so unconscious of his own insignificance in point of taste, as when he was listening to discussions in that House, or reading controversies in the newspapers respecting the mysteries of architecture. One thing, however, was quite clear, and that was, that no architect would ever succeed in pleasing his brother architects; nor would all the architects in the world ever succeed in pleasing amateur architects. After listening to this discussion and reading the newspaper articles on the subject, he would preface the few remarks he wished to make with a confession that he had no taste at all. For years a Palace of Justice had been wanted, and for want of it justice had been delayed, and all possible kinds of inconvenience and expense had been incurred. Everybody agreed that although it was desirable to have a handsome building, yet that the main thing was to have the necessary accommodation for the Judges and the suitors. The scheme had been maturing for 20 years before it was adopted by the House; and when at last designs were sent in by eminent architects, it was estimated that the cost of carrying out any one of them would be three or four times as much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at his disposal for this purpose. There was, in point of fact, only a limited sum of money, which would not enable us to indulge in an unlimited display of what was termed taste. The majority of the judges appointed to report on the designs thought that, on the whole, those of Mr. Street and Mr. Barry were the best, and eventually the design of Mr. Street was selected. That gentleman re-considered his plans many times, in order to meet the two exigencies of not spending too much money, and at the same time of erecting as handsome a building as he could with the requisite accommodation. Again, confessing he had no taste whatever, he was bound to say it seemed to him that the principal part of this design by no means deserved the wholesale condemnation which had been passed upon it. Taking it altogether, it was a building which would answer its purpose; and he trusted that as the New Courts were required soon, the Government would proceed to erect them without further delay.

MR. GREGORY

, taking a utilitarian view of the question, pointed out that the country was now losing £40,000 a-year, which was the amount of the interest on the money expended in the purchase of the site. He believed that the proposed building would he a convenient and a dignified building, and one that would be an ornament to the metropolis. As to the access between the different Courts and the Central Hall, it was desirable that there should be access at both ends for the profession, without entering the part open to the public, and he wished for some information upon that point.

LORD ELCHO

deemed it a thankless task to refer to any question of taste, after it had been so "sat upon" by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; such matters were usually contested by partizans of the classical and the Gothic style; whereas the question ought to be the suitability of a building for its purpose, and the wise expenditure of the public money. The noble Lord was proceeding to allude to the Natural History Museum at South Kensington, when he was interrupted by a cry of "Question!"—but he maintained that the Motion being Supply, he had a right to comment on any cognate matter. He complained that the designs for that Museum having been adjudicated upon by a competent Committee, the premiated design, on the death of its author, had been materially altered by another architect, the public having no opportunity of inspecting the amended plan. He intended at a future day to call attention to the history of the designs for public buildings of late years.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he wished to accept circumstances as they were. Mr. Street ought to be fairly treated, and they ought not to go over the ground again and again. He had taken pains to ascertain whether the Bar and the solicitors were satisfied with the accommodation given to them, and on the whole, he believed they were satisfied. He, therefore, hoped the House and the country would support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in allowing Mr. Street to proceed with the work.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for Whitehaven was out of place, considering that it was generally understood that Mr. Street was the architect selected for the work. He must protest against the impolicy of fettering architects whose designs had been accepted, and of subjecting them to a chronic uncertainty as to the prosecution of their work. An unfortunate result of such procedure was presented in the new Foreign Office, Mr. Scott being compelled to build an Italian Palace.

MR. AYRTON

said, that as the plans for the New Courts of Justice had come into the Office of Works, he would answer the Question which the hon. Member for Whitehaven had put upon the Paper; but he must say that as the hon. Member objected to the entire plan and design, the Motion before the House was really four years too late, because it was four years since Mr. Street was selected by the late Government as the architect for the new Law Courts. The Government then, in effect, determined that the building should be erected in accordance with Mr. Street's known style; and if there were any objections to that, the proper course would have been to have brought the subject forward then, and to have addressed the Crown to cancel Mr. Street's appointment. His hon. Friend had, however, allowed these proceedings to go on for four years without challenging them. Since the exhibition of Mr. Street's designs last Session he had made some alterations in the design for the south front of the building; but these alterations were purely architectural in their character, and the general nature of the south front, in its leading features, remained as it was before. The Treasury had now approved of the revised designs, and it rested with Mr. Street to go on with his working drawings for the construction of the building. As soon as they were ready, which would be in two or three months' time, the construction of the building would be commenced. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for East Sussex, no doubt it was important that there should be continuous communication in the corridors all round the Central Hall, and if it appeared that such an arrangement was not carried out, a further revision of the designs would be necessary; but it was useless to discuss such a matter of detail, until the enlarged plans had been prepared. With regard to the Natural History Museum, that stood in much the same position as the Courts of Justice. The late Government appointed Mr. Waterhouse, who also had a style of his own, and everyone must have known at the time he was appointed that he would carry out in the end a building conformable to the dictates of his own genius; and that, in effect, was what had been done. There was no national style to which every one was expected to conform. The style was therefore determined by the selection of an architect who was distinguished for his pre-eminence in some particular style.

LORD ELCHO

observed that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether he intended to exhibit the designs.

MR. AYRTON

said, he saw no useful end which it would serve to exhibit them.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment and Original Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.

Committee deferred till Monday next.