The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-01 00:00:00

COURT OF

-
Yesterday a Court was held for the election of a
Commissioner of the City Police, a City Solicitor, and
a Comptroller of the Bridge-house estates. The greatest
excitement prevailed during the day on account of the
contest for the office of City Solicitor ; Mr. C. Pear-
son and Mr. Thomas Saunders, two gentlemen who
poness great influence in the corporation, being the can-
didates for that office. The Court was crowded from
an earl, hour, and the Guildhall was the scene of extra-
ordinary bustle during the day. It must be admitted,
however, that never was a contest carried on with more
kindly feeling.

THE NEW ROYAL EXCHANGE DESIGNS.
Mr. ELMES rose and presented the following memo-
rial from Mr. Donaldson, one of the architects who sent
n designs to the Committee :
To the Right Hon. the 'Lord Mayor, Aldermen,
and Commons of the City of London, in Common
Council assembled,
" The memorial of Thomas Leverton Donaldson,
of Hart-street, Bloomsbury-square, architect,
" Showeth,—That your memorialist is the author of
No. 50, the first of the three designs for the New Royal
Exchange, which, according to the report of Sir Robert
Smirke and Messrs. Hardwicke and Gavitt, the three
architects to whom the drawings were referred, is stated
by them to be the best class of designs," possessing,
for magnificence and beauty, great claims as works of
art, exhibiting very great talent,' and distinguished
by grand architectural features.'
" That, notwithstanding the pre-eminent position in
which your memorialistis thus placed he is deprived of his
high advantage, and the premiums have been adjudged
to other designs, which the referees acknowledge do not
possess equal merits in point of design, upon the sole
ground that the cost of the best class of designs would
vastly exceed the sum of 150,0001.
" That the three architects did not call upon the au-
thors of those designs to substantiate the amount of
their estimates, which is contrary to the implied mutual
contract contained in the instructions to competitors, in
which is the following eleventh clause, viz., That if
reasonable doubts should arise in the minds of the Com-
mittee as to the practicability of carrying into execution
the successful design for the amount of the estimated
expenses of the building, the Committee shall be at li-
berty to call upon the party to give sufficient and satis-
factory proof of the accuracy of the calculations, and to
withhold the provision and reject the designs, unless
such proof be furnished.
" Your memorialist, therefore, prays, that he may be
allowed to produce proof before the joint Committee
for managing the Gresham Estates, that his design is in
strict conformity with their printed instructions, and
can be executed for the sum of 150,0001."
The LORD MAYOR inquired if the petitioner had
anything to add.
Mr. DONALDSON then came to the bar and said, it
was not his intention to call in question the conduct of
the Committee of the Gresham Estate, or to offer any
thing against the character of the three architects who
had just made their report. But he thought it due to
his own character and that of the other candidates, to
make a few remarks upon their report. It was stated
that the details of all the designs were imperfect, and
consequently impracticable ; and it was also said of the
three plans selected, that they would exceed the
proposed estimate. Now, that was admitted by the
three arcnitects themselves to be matter of very com-
plicated calculation, which they had acknowledged they
had not made, The estimates for the new Houses of
Lords and Commons, where there was a difference
of fifteen per cent., was a proof that architects
could not always be strictly correct in their cal-
culations, and he would verify his estimate by
evidence before the Committee. He believed the
gentleman who had sent in the plans for the new
Exchange were actuated by as nice a sense of honour
as those of any other profession. Independently of the
profit accruing from such an undertaking there was a
feeling of honour that a plan worthy of the wealth,
extent, and importance of the first city in the world,
should be adopted.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that
that feeling would actuate the Committee and the
Corporation of London, and that the suggestions in his
petition should be taken into consideration.—(Hear.)
Mr. BURTON complained of the conduct of the
Gresham Committee, and observed that the Corpora-
tion had acted very injudiciously in placing all the con
trol with respect to the building of the new Exchange
in the hands of a Committee. He thought it useless
to refer Mr. Donaldson's petition to the Gresham
Estate Committee, for he could get no justice from him.
—( Hear, hear.)
The LORD MAYOR fully agreed in the observations
of the last speaker.— (Hear.) He understood there was
another petition on the same subject to be presented to
the Court. It appeared to him that the whole of
the proceedings of the Committee with respect to
the plans for the new Royal Exchange, were conducted
with too much privacy and secresy. In fact he had
been refused admittance himself to view the designs.
Mr. JONES, the Chairman of the Gresham Estate
Committee, defended the conduct of that body at some
length, but the noise in the body of the Court pre-
vented our catching his observations.
Mr. R. TAYLOR also defended the Committee,
among which, he said, were some of the most respect-
able gentlemen of the City of London. With respect to
the observation of Mr. Burton, that the petitioner
would not get justice from the Committee, be
thought that remark a most unjust and uncalled for
one.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped the petition would be re-
ferred to the Committee, accompanied by such remarks
and suggestions as the Court might think fit. It was of
the utmost importance that a right decision should be
come to on a question in which the honour and charac-
ter of the City was so deeply involved. He was satis-
fied the Committee would not hesitate to hear any evi-
dence that might be tendered to them, and as to the
supposition that any particular candidate was favoured,
the Committee utterly repudiated any idea of the kind.
He should support the petition, and hoped it would
receive the consideration it deserved.
Mr. LAWRENCE highly approved of the system of
public competition which had been adopted with regard
to the building of the new Exchange ; and it appeared
that up to a certain point no fault had been found with
the proceedings of the Committee. The great mis-
take the Committee had made was in requiring the
architect, where any doubt arose, to prove before
the Committee that his plan would not exceed the
sum of 150,000/.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Why then
suppose that any practicable design could be prepared
from them ?—(Hear, hear.) Again, the delay of pre-
paring a new plan, and of making estimates, would
throw back their operations for six months longer. Un-
der all these circumstances, he trusted the petition
would be referred to the Committee for its con-
sideration.
After a few words from Mr. HALE,
Mr. ASIIURST said the Committee had, as it appeared
to him, been most unjustly censured. They were not
judges themselves, and they had called in the assistance
of three gentlemen who were competent to decide upon
the merits of the various plans which were to be sub-
mitted to them. Suppose the Committee had acted
upon their own respcansibilltv what would have been said
of them.—( Hear, hear.) The Committee said to these
three gentlemen—" You are to judge for us of the prac
ticability, the advisability, and the durability of all these
plans, while you are also to bear in mind that the est-
mate must not exceed 150,0001. All these points,
therefore, were to be taken into consideration, not
the cost alone, hut the eligibility and the durability.
Now what had the three gentlemen so appointed done ?
Each of them had separately made a selection, and it
was then ascertained that all three had selected the
very same designs.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared fur-
ther, that on examining them more minutely, it was
found that none of them were practicable ; and they
reported " under these rather embarrassing circum-
stances, they have endeavoured to meet the views of
the Committee by selecting eight designs, rather
as works of art, than as plans capable of
being carried inte effect. Of these eight,
five came within the estimates of 150 0001."
It should be borne in mind, however, that there was
something more than that condition required, which
these plans did not possess, and it was rather hard that
the Committee should bear the entire onus of the mat-
ter.—(Hear, hear.)
After some further observations from Mr. Cope, Mr.
Lawrence, and Sir Peter Laurie,
The petition was referred to the Committee.
Mr. HEPPELL said he had a similar petition to pre-
sent from Mr. Mocatta, the author of design No. 27.
The subject had been so fully discussed, however, that
he would not occupy more of their time than merely to
state, that Mr. Mocatta was prepared to prove the prac-
ticability of his plan, as well as the fact of his estimate
being rather within the specified sum. Before he pre-
sented the petition he would beg to ask the Chairman
of the Committee, Mr. Jones, whether the three archi-
tects had undertaken to prepare a new design for the
Royal Exchange.
Mr. JONES said two of them had, the other having
declined to act.
Mr. HEPPELL—May I ask which of the gentlemen
has declined to act ?
Mr JONES—Sir R. Smirke.
Mr. HEPPELL was very glad for the honour and cha-
racter of Sir R. Smirke that he had declined to interfere.
Mr. JONES thought it very unfair to be throwing out
insinuations against the two gentlemen who had under-
taken to prepare a plan at the request of the Committee.
Mr. HEPPELL said if ever persons wished to injure
the reputation of their professional brethren, and were
anxious to further their own pecuniary interests at the
expense of others,, they could not have adopted
a better course of proceedings to accomplish
these objects.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He hoped
the false step which the Committee had taken in the
matter would he retraced, and thereby satisfy the
minds of the public on this very important subject.
Mr. MOCATTA then appeared at the bar in support
of his petition, and observed that it was due to his cha-
racter to refute the statement in thehe report that his de-
sign was impracticable, and e ped he would be
I allowed to prove by evidence that such was not the fact.