Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/280

 262 THE BUILDING NEWS. Marcu 29, 1872. tectural form the building should take. The matter remained in abeyance till July last year, when cer- tain 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 elevation, 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 mem- bers. Herepeated the question a third time, when the right hon. gentleman said that the plans were not approved. In the cireumstances 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 this, 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 the plans, as exhibited in the Library, met with uni- versal condemnation. (No, no.”) He, therefore, supposed, as the plans were not approved by the Government, they would be altered as regarded the elevation by the architect. On the 22nd of February he addressed a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inquiring whether the designs had been altered, andif 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 there would be no use in again exhibiting them. Mauch 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 in- formed on all these matters, and was known occa- sionally at least to receive information from high quarters. The article in Zhe 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 Atheneum Club. He main- tained that the Government ought to follow the rule of its predecessors, and submit their finally settled designs to the members of the 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 fagade of which would proclaim as in- teiligibly 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 ar- chitecture; and they had been defended by Mr. Ruskin, an artistic Will-o’-the-wisp, who would draw us to an artistic vampire. Progress might be made with the foundations, but we ought not to be committed to the elevation until satisfactory de- signs had been accepted. Better have delay than rush madly into an insane scheme,and erect buildings which would not be satisfactory. He conciuded by moving, ‘‘ That in the opinion of this House the de- signs prepared by Mr. Street for the new building of the Courts of Justice are unsatisfactory and ought not to be executed.” Mr. Beresrorp Hore hoped the erection of the Law Courts according to Mr. Street’s design would be allowed to proceed. The two portions of the hon. member’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 to condemn the designs which were so exhibited, but not those which were being carried out. The truth was, the designs which were being car- ried out were, architecturally and substantially, but with some improvements, those which were exhibited tor seyeral months in the Library of the House without any one taking an opportunity to comment upon them openly ; and these improved designs, eleva- tions, plans, and details had been published in the illustrated papers, so that all who were interested might know what they were. The article in The Times did scant justice to the architect; that article was a magnificent monu- ment of big words, piled together with reckless profusion ; it was simply based on the power of reckless assertion, and as a description of the building it was without value. The question between Mr. Street and the section of the public represented by the hon. member 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 elevation to them. The Houses of Parliament had been criticised severely, and mainly because the in- ternal arrangements were sacrificed to the river frontage. The architect of the Law Courts 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. Mr. Street had arranged a most practical and convenient plan which would meet the requirements of the Courts, and of everybody con- nected with them, and having done this he had pro- ceeded to cast it into an ornamental form and to design the elevation which would be presented to the Strand. Stripped of tall talk, and reduced to plain matter of fact, this was the sum total of the charge brought against the architect. He contended that the building was, upon the whole, a dignified, well balanced, and regular pile. 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 their orders? The adoption of such a course would only be productive of additional delay, dissatisfaction, and expense, while in the end we should have not a better, but probably a worse building than that de- signed by the eminent architect who, for the last two or three years, had deyoted almost the whole of his attention to this subject. (Hear.) Sir Rounpevz Paumer never felt so utterly per- plexed and so unconscious of his own insignificance in point of taste as when he was listening to dis- cussions in that House or reading controversies in the newspapers respecting the mysteries of archi- tecture. (A laugh.) It was quite clear that no architect would ever please his brother 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. (Laughter.) At all events, this was a building which for years had been wanted, and for the want of which justice had been straitened, and the greatest inconvenience and ex- pense inflicted on the public. (Hear, hear.) 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 gentle- man reconsidered 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 accommoda- tion. 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 whole- sale 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. (Hear.) Mr. Grecory, 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 the exterior of the building would not be unworthy of 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. Lord Excno 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 partisans of the Classical and the Gothie style; whereas the question ought to be the suitability of a building for its pur- pose and the wise expenditure of the public money. Natural History Museum when he was interrupted by a ery 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 de- signs for public buildings of late years. Mr. Gotpsmip had ascertained that the profession were generally satisfied with Mr. Street's plans, and he hoped no obstruction would be offered to their execution. Lord J. Manners urged the impolicy of fettering architects whose designs had been accepted, and of subjecting them to a chronic ancertainty 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. gentle- man had put upon the paper, but before doing so he would remind the hon. member that his motion was four years too late. Every architect had his peculiar style, and if the hon. member had objected to the style of Mr. Street he should have taken steps to have the preparation of the designs for the new Courts of Justice taken out of his hands when he was first appointed. The original plans had been returned to Mr. Street at the end of last Session for amendment, and the Treasury had since approved the revised designs and had requested Mr. Street to go on with his working designs. The Natural His- tory Museum at South Kensington was in exactly the same position, the architect having been requested to proceed with the designs. Lord Excuo observed that the right hon. gentle- man had not stated whether he intended to exhibit the designs. Mr. Ayrton saw no useful end which it would serve to exhibit them. Mr. C. Bentinck withdrew his amendment, and the motion for going into Committee of Supply was then likewise withdrawn. EO ——— PERSPECTIVE VIEWS IN ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITIONS. T the General Conference of Architects held in London in May last under the auspices of the Royal Institute of British Architects, this subject came on for discussion. Mr. Edmund Sharpe, M.A., F.R.I.B.A., author of “The Parallels of. Architec- ture,” &c., in introducing the subject, said he was very desirous of urging the absolute necessity of ad- mitting perspective views to competitive exhibitions and examinations, and for this reason: the mode in which any building is comprehended or viewed by any ordinary person, and, indeed, by an architect, is through the means of the laws of perspective. These laws of perspective are the laws of nature. We only know what a buildin# is by what we see it to be. The geometrical elevation, section, and plan of that building are merely the means by which a skilled - person, a scientific person, or an architect is able to lay before the builder or the public the mode by means of which he intends to carry out his primitive idea, if it is an idea at all, of the building the per- spective effect of which he has in his mind. He must or ought to have imagined the building in per- spective before he brought it upon paper. Archi- tects’ designs ought always, therefore, to be drawn in perspective. An architect, in fact, ought to think in perspective, and not think by the T-square and the drawing board, for this is completely bringing down and reducing the function of the architect to the mere level of a simple geometrical transaction. It is not that. The architect conceives his building in his own mind first of all, but has to explain the way in which he wishes it to be executed so as to produce a certain effect upon the beholder, and the effect can only be understood and appreciated by the laws of perspective, and by the means which every person has of looking upon a building. Therefore, the first consideration in all competition “in- structions” should be that the architect should present the building to the public as he conceived it—that is to say, by means of perspective— and that he should accompany it by explanatory plans and elevations. It is undoubtedly right and just that he should give the idea as he originally conceived it, and the mode in which he conceived it. Some people may say that a perspective view does not give you the original conception from more than one point of view out of athousand; that is very The noble lord was proceeding to allude to the | true, and the more perspective views the artist can ss