The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-03 00:00:00

Mr. TITE--Not quite so. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I will
withdraw my statement. (Hear, hear.) I certainly under-
stood so. All I mean is, that, having heard from my hon.
friend that Mr. Mallett was a gentleman who had per-
formed important public duties in connection with the
Houses of Parliament—l mention this as a matter of fact,
and not of disparagement—l and the contractors made
some inquiries respecting him ; and 1 hold in my hand
two rather curious letters illustrative of the statement
made by the hon. member fur Galway, which I invite him
and the committee to appreciate. The right hon. gentle-
man then read extracts from two letters received b 3 him,
the one from Mr. Banks, of the firm of Banks and Barry,
architects. Mr. Banks said, "In reply to your (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer's) question as to Mr. Mallett's con-
nection with the new Palace at Westminster, I most con•
fidently assert that that gentleman has in no way, directly
or indirectly, been engaged upon the works. I can speak
with confidence upon the subject, as I was chief assistant
of Sir Charles Barry. Mr. Mallett was simply a visitor to
the works for his own gratification.' And then Mr. Meason
writes, " In reply to your communication, I have to say that
my connection with the Palace at Westminster commenced
in 1844, when I was engaged by Sir Charles Barry as his
principal assistant, and it lasted till 1856, and during all
this time Mr. Richard Mallett had no connection with the
building." Well, so much for Mr. Mullett's employment
upon the construction of the magnificent Palace at West-
minster. It certainly does appear that at one time Mr.
Mallett had as a partner Mr. Frederick Barry, an engineer,
and I think that through that circumstance my hon. friend
may have been led into an error, and probably also he may
have confounded Mr. Mallett with Mr. Meason. At any
rate, what I claim is that the authority of Mr. Mallett shall
be wholly and absolutely withdrawn from this matter. (No,
no.) I have not one word of retractation to utter with re-
spect to the estimates and figures prepared by Mr. Hunt;
for upon examination by competent persons they have been
entirely confirmed. Our object was to guide members to a
right conclusion, and to that end we employed a most com-
petent gentleman to inquire what sum would be necessary
to bring the building into a state of substantial repair with
a view to permanent uses, and with a minimum of decora-
tion. The estimate of Mr. Hunt I believe to be perfectly
trustworthy, but it would be an idle dream to suppose that
those figures could be accepted as anything wore than a
basis for ascertaining the sum for which the building might
be made complete for practical purposes. However, a peti-
tion has been presented from the Society of Architects against
the adaptation of the building for the purposes proposed.
(Cheers.) Well, I shall not attempt to follow the allega-
tions of the petition, for by far the greater portion of them
are beside the vote now before the committee, though the
time may arrive when they will require to be taken into
consideration. (Hear.) At the same time I demur alto-
gether to the opinion formed by these six or eight gentle-
men, even if they could be accounted at the head of their
profession. I believe their opinion was formed upon a sin
gle visit to the building. But the truth is, this petition is
very far from containing the names of the heads of the pro-
fession of architects. I admit that Professor Donaldson is
a man of eminence, that Mr. Fergusson has written a very
ingenious book, and is a very clever man; but lam not
aware that Mr. Fergusson has ever erected a public build-
ing, or that he is a practical architect in that sense. At any
rate this I may be permitted to observe, that the proceedings
of the Society of Architects were not founded upon any re-
port from such men as Mr. Hardwicke, Mr. Cockerel!, Mr.
Smirke, Messrs. Banks and Barry, Mr. Scott ; and although
I have not thought it to be my duty to go about canvassing
architects, I say that those gentlemen who are in the main
the heads of their profession are not in any sense parties to
this proposal, and that I have in my possession letters from
two of them, namely a letter from Mr. Smirke and a letter
from Mr. Scott, referring certainly to that which is one of
the smallest parts of the whole question—the exterior de-
coration of the building—and giving it as their deliberate
opinion that it is capable of being so treated, in respect of
its exterior surface, as to be made a very handsome build-
ing. (Loud and prolonged laughter.) Gentlemen may be
assured I do not intend to indulge in any enthusiasm about
the building—(Laughter, and ironical cries of " Hear,
its general terms, at the same time that the language
of these two gentlemen amounts to that. (Cries of "Read,
read.") Well, to take the first sentence of Mr. Smirke's
letter. He says, "I am not prepared to say that the outside
of the building is not susceptible—(laughter)—of being
made extremely ornamental. (Renewed laughter, and cries
of "Read, read.") I certainly am not going to enter into
the question between cement and stone, and the various
bricks and terracotta. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can
pretend to taste—he cannot have any—it is the la't thing
he dreams of, to put himself in competition with any of
those great lights and luminaries upon matters of taste,
whom we are so fortunate as to have in such numbers
amongst us. (Laughter.) But I would direct the serious
attention of the committee to the situation of difficulty in
which we shall be placed if, after taking the important step
of agreeing to the purchase of seventeen acres of ground—
(ironical cheers)—ue should stop short, and say that we
shall do nothing more. Now, my desire is not to say one
word injurious to the public interest ; but this I must, affirm,
that there is no obligation whatever of a written or specific
character upon the contractors to remove the building within
any given time at all. (Murmurs of dissent.) Of course
there are obligations incumbent upon them by the general
law. As possessors of the freehold we should have a right
to go into courts of justice and eject the contractors; and
then, having entered, we might remove the building, sub-
ject to making no unnecessary waste of the property, and to
an accountability to the contractors for the net proceeds.
Well, that is not a remedy of very summary operation. I
see opposite to me gentlemen of great authority, who know
full well at what time, by a series of hostile measures, we
should succeed in ejecting the contractors, removing the
building, and restoring the surface, which is not within the
contract at all. At the end of two years we would find our-
selves in possession of a "tabula rasa" of 16 acres, and then
we should have to face a greater architectural question
than this house has ever yet entertained, namely, how to
dispose of the site, unprecedently large, what building to
place upon it, what architect to employ, what style to adopt,
and lastly, what money would be required for the purpose.
(Hear, hear.) Well, that is one of the alternatives before
us if you determine to refuse this vote. I come now to the
question of price. There is an opinion upon the part of the
minority that we are going to offer the contractors an extra •
vagant price for the building. Now we want to cover thin
17 acres of land with a building suited for public purposes,
and it is obvious that there is an immense advantage in
having the materials upon the spot. On that account also
it is obvious that the materials now there are worth more
to us than to one who seeks to realise their value when re-
moved. The first price announced by the contractors—the
minimum price—was £120,000 ; and we were informed that
we might take the building at that price, or leave it there.
Well, all things considered, I;cannot think that the contrac-
tors were making any very extravagant demand. The sum
they received for erecting the building was £230,000, and
its cost, when reduced by Mr. Fowler to an absolute mini-
mum, was £300,000. We refused that demand, and de-
clined to pay £lOO,OOO. Subsequently, Messrs. Kelk and
Lucas made a communication to my hon. friend the mem -
ber for Finsbury (Sir S. M. Peto), and having been in-
formed by him that he was in a condition to negotiate with
me on their behalf, the first thing we agreed which should
be done was to ascertain the net removable value. Mr.
Hunt was employed, and told to devote his time, without
reserve,ww went
na tatolwwtaoyorsaks
liable
e ef
orrt asei nv itenor ga
lv
wat
rhei
eeo
kt
isno,
neatni
in estimate.
e hme
soot
ivrmaebapltoeer. t
evda lue, which
Mr. Hunt
me that
wouldt hen e tnremovable
ovnatlrua eo t
oorfa thi
fe t
hbeuyi lwd ienr go se,
mthe
Is
eudm t
othey
would net to the contractors, if they were compelled to re-
move them within six months, and make forced sales of the
materials, was £48,000. I then asked Mr. Hunt this ques-
tion, whether, if we were to submit the matter to an impar-
tially chosen umpire, that such a person would give us a
sum not much below £48,000, or not much above it ? Mr.
Hunt said he could give us no assurance whatever. This
estimate of the removable value was taken upon conditions
totally different from the conditions that exist. It was taken
upon the supposition that the contractors were obliged to
pull down the building at once. I believe I command the
assent of the committee when I say that the contractors are
not under any specific obligation to remove the building
within a certain time. (No, no.) lam really sorry to find
expressions of dissent ; but the fact is this, that the com-
missioners of 1862 have no contract whatever with the con-
tractors with respect to the time within which they are to
remove the building. (Not no.) lam sorry to hear gen-
tlemen express dissent, but I run endeavouring to give a
true statement of facts. (Hear, hear.) There is no con-
tract. Mr. Hunt having made the proposal to me, and the
s
nrweaopkle di
shouldedatahartoe, ife offer
havingfrom
have now discharged your official duty, but what do you
e
think would be a fair offer to make the contractors ?" He
littht lose' lealc.
been stated, I said to him, "You
I said we
could not do anything of the kind, but subsequently,
vieriewtommoatkoex awno,ooffoeor
for
rr h. e building,
through my hon, friend-
derstanding Was corn
the building, and he assured
to
that £BO,OOO should be the price of
have realised a larger the member for Finsbury, an. un-
assured me that the contractors could
there was very difference The
of Mr. Hunt andcombemtwiteteeen
Mr. Fowler. Mr. pewiaerun, ate of the eminent engineer,
stoestimate was £50,000 if the
contractors were compelled wtohueld
estimate
ro thata
te
remove the building in six