The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-15 00:00:00

•.
way, we have our fears lost the objects of the trtisti.ent'ates,
in seeking the extinction of the:l6 ohnoxious and iniquitous
imposts, be defeated by some other species of financial jug-
gluey. Let them rely on no man's promises or protesta-
tions, but trust entirely to themselves. They may depend
on it that their best friends are themselves: We kiiow of
no great triumph which has ever been achieved in their case
that has not been effected through their Own exertions.
We entreat them in the present inttabee to 'trust to them-
selves, and to themselves aloha Let the agitation in the
shape of petitioes, " demonstrations," &c., against Church-
rates. tint only be continued, but prosecuted with redoubled
vigour for the next two or three months, of this they
may be assured, that the most iffeetual means they can
employ to induce Government to introduce a measure for
the bona fide extinction of these imposts, is to assume etch
an attitude as will convince Government that they are de-
termined that those imposts mall be abolished.—Morning
Advertiser.
In a letter from Mr. Richard Taylor, which appeared
in our columns on Saturday, and who is one of the City
members of the Gresham trusts it is stated that we were
misinformed as to the proceedings which took place rela-
tive to the question of competition. That gentleman says,
" The first proposition, that, in obtaining plans for the re.
building, there shoulc be a competition among architects,
was at once carried unanimously, The secend proposition
was intended to bring under full and fair consideration the
question whether the competition should be wholly ettii-
ntited, or confined to a certain number of nrchilects, of a
certain standing : and the dinition was, I believe, nearly
what you stated," Our readers will recollect. we stated
the division to have been 11 on one side and 6 on the
other ; the former for competition., and the latter against
it ; the majority being composed of eight Mercers sled
three City men—the minority of three Mercers and three
City men. It is one of the inconveniences attendant
upon the private discussion of questions of public interest
that it is very difrictilt in general to get t the precise truth
of facts. What oozes abroad through the crevices of
closed doers can hardly be expected to be as accurate as
that which the press could have obtained through its accre-
dited agents, if such agents were allowed to be present at
the discussion. In the present case, however, the inaccu-
racy is not so very important as Mr Taylor would represent
it to be. Taking the fuels to be exactly as that gentleman
states, they prove that there was a struggle in the Com-
mittee as to whether there should be free and open compe-
tition or not. That is the great point. As to limited com-
petition, we look on it as very like no competition at all.
It is selection, not competition; or it is a mere compro-
mise between nomination and competition, to " designate
which by the latter word is calculated to mislead. Whe-
ther the limited competition was to five or 15 candidates
we care not. It is not the free and open competition fi,r
which we contended when we alluded to the job-
bing system, which has been " the bane of architec-
tural taste and science in this country," and fol-
lowed up those observations by saying, " We have been
induced to make these remarks at present from learn-
ing that an attempt is now making to exclude the
principle of open and free competition among architects, in
reference to the rebuilding of the Royal Exchange."
Well, was there not an attempt made to i xclude the prin-
ciple of open and free competition? Mr. Taylor's own
admission proves it. He voted for what he calls a limited
competition, and consequently against free competition.
It is also confirmed by the statement of the same member
of the Committee that Mr. Horsley Palmer, as we stated,
voted against an open unfettered competition. Is this what
the public had a right to expect of these respectable mem-
bers of the Gresham trust ? As to the limited competition,
we have said it is only selection—selection of aftw, by some
arbitrary principle of choice, to the exclusion of the many.
How were the select few to be chosen ? From an exhi-
bition of their works ? If so, how were they to be com-
pared with those of others, seeing that no others were to
bo allowed to exhibit ? or were. the Committee to desiga
nate them without any reference to their works ? That
would be mere nomination—the close borough system, to
which Mr. Taylor was in political life, as well as ourselves,
so decidedly opposed. Or were the "select few" to be
chosen on a principle of seniority ? We suppose that is
what was intended by the Opponents of free and open com-
petition, because Mr. Taylor says " the competition was
to be confined to architects of a certain standing." To be
sure this is equivocal, as it may mean a certain standing in
public estimation, or a standing in years. If the choice
was to be made by reference to a certain standing in public
estimation, may we ask by what square and compass of
moral mensuration was the exact amount of public fame to
be measured in regard to architects who stand pre ty near
each other in the opinion of the public ? If the " select
few" were to he the senior architects of the profession, we
fear that some superannuated favourites of a jobbing pa-
tronage, and some incapables, might be found among the
number, and that many men of talent would have been ex-
eluded. The object of the Gresham trust is, or ought to
be, not the sticking a feather in the cap of a fortunate an
chitect, but the procuring the erection of the best building
that English genius can furnish for the purpose of
which that building is to be dedicated. How
can the Committee be sure of getting the best design for
the work that British genius can produce, if they shut out
the great mass of British architect: from competition y
How is youthful talent to make its merits known in the
world if the principle be adoptCd, as to all public works,
which Was advocated by the opponents of open and flee
competition in the Gresham trust ? How can Mr. Taylor
or anybody else say that, among the youthful architects
thus to excluded, there might not be a young Wren, or
Inigo Jones, or William of Wyckeham ? We contended for,
and obtained, the recognition of the principle of free compe-
tition as to the building the new Houses of Parliament.
On that occasion 95 architects sent in designs ; a very large
proportion of those designs convinced us that knowledge and
talent were not so much wanting in this country, to the re-
demption of architectural science from its present fallen and
degraded state, as honest and intelligent patronage. Is
such encouragement to be given either by shutting out
competition altogether, or by cutting it down to less than
one-sixth of the number of architects who availed them-
selves of the free competition to which they were invited
by the Legislature and the Government on the occasion to
which we have alluded ? We admit that on that occasion
the good principle was greatly marred in practice by the
appointment of so small a number as five persons, not pecu-
liarly well qualified for the task, to decide upon the merits
of the candidates. In that case the chief prize was obtained
by one whose standing does not give him a place among the
15 senior members of the profession. With such a limit :6°n
Mr. Barry would have been excluded from being a compe-
titor at all. We do not charge either Mr. Horsley Palmer
or Mr. Richard Taylor with knowingly lending them-
selves to a job. The misfortune is that members of the
Gresham Committee of their respectability, taste, and
intelligence should be induced by any argument to make
common cause with those who dread the manly English
fair-play of open, free, unfettered competition—the simple
and only sure mode of bringing into the field all the archi-
tectural talent of the kingdom, veteran and youthful, to
strive for the honour of raising from the ashes of Sir
Thomas Gresham'e building a Royal Exchange worthy the
first commercial city of the world. Mr. Taylor says he
will not answer for what may be at the Treasury (in the
shape of an intended job)—nor will we. If the Gresham

trust submits to Treasury dictation the shade of their great
founder will have to mourn over another calamity be-
sides the burning of the noble commercial mart which
his munificence created. The whole transaction will,
in that case, benefit another " science" than archi-
tectural science, whose triumphs are to be found
recorded in the history of " jobs." He adds—
" It is time the public should be aware that it is
by the Treasury that the work is most unwarrantably
obstructed. This we believe to be the case. The Go-
vernment wishes to oust the Gresham trust of its proper
functions, as it would oust the London Corporation of its
privileges. In both attempts we hope it will be defeated.
There is no question but it must, if the members of the
Corporation and of the Trust stand to the assertion of
their rights against the grasp of centralising power, as
Englishmen ought to stand to them. Let us add, that it
does great credit to the Gresham Committee that they
have resolved to act upon the principle of free unrestricted
competition, in obtaining plans and designs for the new
Royal Exchange. We are sure Mr. Richard Taylor, as a
man of taste and a friend of art, must feel pleased rather
than pained at his having been beaten on that point ; and,
for our own part, we are very glad to hear, upon that gen-
tleman's authority, that the question is not to be re-opened.
—Morning Herald.