The law courts: the architecture of George Edmund Street 9780262021999

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Preface (page 9)
Acknowledgments (page 11)
Abbreviations (page 12)
Chapter 1: George Edmund Street and High Victorian Architecture (page 15)
Chapter 2: Law Reform and Its Architecture (page 37)
The Legal Labyrinth (page 39)
Complex, Slow, and Costly (page 40)
Reform (page 43)
A Palace for Justice; Sir John Soane (page 47)
The Wilde and Buller Committtees; The Barry Plans (page 52)
Further Site Debate; The Scott Plan (page 63)
The Coleridge Commission (page 65)
The First Legislative Season and the Abraham Plan (page 68)
Setbacks and Gladstone's Magic (page 71)
Successful Legislation; The Pennethorne Plan (page 74)
The Royal Commission and the Competition Instructions (page 77)
Lessons Architectural and Political (page 80)
Chapter 3: The Competition (page 83)
The Politics of Electoral Reform (page 84)
Designing the Competition; Judges and Judging (page 85)
Selecting the Competitors (page 90)
Preparation and Interpretation (page 98)
Gothic Designs (page 102)
Polarized Taste (page 104)
Street's Design (page 138)
The Decision of the Judges (page 150)
The Decision is Abandoned (page 156)
Appointment and Protest (page 162)
Chapter 4: Revised Plans (page 171)
The Great Plan (page 172)
Spiraling Costs (page 179)
The Embankment (page 181)
The Battle of the Sites (page 186)
The Howard Street Site (page 190)
Street's Plans of 1869 (page 192)
Defeat (page 199)
Chapter 5: The Final Plan (page 205)
Ayrton and the Office of Works (page 206)
Fresh Designs for Carey Street (page 209)
Toward the Final Plan (page 214)
Resistance and Revision (page 224)
Circumventing Ayrton: Final Revisions (page 228)
Public Controversy (page 243)
Economy (page 252)
The Fall of Ayrton (page 255)
The Tide of Taste (page 259)
Chapter 6: Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen (page 265)
The Architect at Work (page 266)
The Government as Client (page 273)
The Architect's Pay (page 279)
Pay for Surveyors (page 283)
Responsibility for the Heating System (page 285)
Builders (page 291)
Building Workers (page 300)
Chapter 7: Under Construction (page 307)
Construction (page 308)
Modification of the Design (page 317)
Fittings, Furniture, and Decoration (page 326)
Heat and Light (page 346)
Temple Bar (page 351)
Epilogue (page 355)
Notes (page 375)
Archival Materials (page 423)
Selected Bibliography (page 423)
Index (page 425)

Citation preview

The Law Courts

ee ; FO . oe. Xe Se SS - oS |... A i ms a UmUrrrC _** *444, “ +—rr— es | | | — we—rr———C“(i“‘—“RiCds ~~2

Ba = = . = aS Soe ee S : Re ‘ Sonomareess sone etuinee emesis St nnn ee > Men Se

: ee cS ; 3 Sass one ea SS as oe ; BE 22% & Je aes éSaag . =ee q id ig e4 4 g ES ES es 3= :=‘=q; 33 é2%taAgee .e‘ 4 é; ange aeee : -eeae Ba Es2e Soo Segees tn,4Si ;, :“Se ‘ 35zt3a: ae : aa ne rf ce ey — 2 a ed ee ae ee _ Spee He : j : : : , ee: aeSSE 3 ra ¥. = * 5 a — lg ee < : ” Sees x5 £ = % ee * e SE = 7 i % . ene 4 S 2s eae pS Bes fee Se

: ‘ ee Pee Fe Cg é é x a a & = 4

= : * zmae exaaa ges eeie :eee eeSeed ope EER sae oo aaa eSeee 2 er sie:ee Eas oe ee pee| ee ican : i ES eeI em eeiegue ee& ee Be bee Eee ee.$ :3Se: a3 oe OPaeoat eseSFu fo aeeee aeeiee : _eee ee eee

S 3 os*Se ee |; AM SS a i. aeOUT ae r Pee ee ee Bee . So ee =SSea5a =eed aezor|)|—6 gt

E ee 3 = > : E a SS Bee SE See: tae: eae - y ee Sat e ate ce ae ail - é a ass a ee sp ge Racwcess

». = :eee \ aun ‘i. & Y a ee? taes esOrSS . ULUDULULUD ete | See oe Jlee &4Ps Ne es= eT2.— me 82 4.. ... Fa”? ga *Te: 428hw Gace i = i = ee}. tg 3 = a? oe 27 '¥es i¥ ee:*pS cr| eee - 5ee ORG ay¥= ftoey=* : ——, &2*‘A — =ES a. -—.2 — = =. # ge a. 3 = =: a 2 Po ec ig— a ee “a «a ' ee gp ae i Pe : _ s J oe eS : i ——— rrr—LClLe*="e a "ames? ree NC; Pee ee |.GO = sO se 8 =. * As ee ee EE E... #4 oo ttt [Reet TT gage CC S| ee ae oo” Oe & WES = @4 aaa Ba) 6hl”llCtCO, | 6 CP gto bape mE Hae *Gah : "[=— =-3? & rj # @: :&2es = oF oMiNbhebsh | Mie =as) oe ae ee 2 oS 8UCC Fee = ie eeay ae Sees | Ee : Pf Piet Ff Fe emer. ee ne :2! =OC s te 4 s a ee , _ , #-» 4 .. 7... == Ww . oowwiitiome ue a ee. COs cc * 4 2 a ees bis a4 yn i ee is ae shat EE Pre . - i : : sae ceeeanannnl ¥ 3 strates ns rd > om se > + ye “e7 , sb ie TESLA = See i = oi ee See S ee 4 Z Be = ce

ae Fie $e 22% EEE ae Ee Se & 3 PZ 3 ba & BS % ie ee geal . 3 ed : : « 4 a SF 35 : PRS Eee SFE i * : 5 ee F3 ee be g4 tt ce ee q F E 2 a

4 ae P te - 3 oer = > a3) a 2 # ‘ 2 pe a - “< : | a g , cai S. $s de ies i es = : swans > L = 2 cS 8 4 Re 3 Es ¢ ae: ae i 2 = s © : E3 : = OS (udeealee ee, aes St — see A:,,|.Sea —Be. bg es_ 4 , Pe ee é Ee eeer—Ci“PC ec ee Bae 2 PEO : silOC Pe 3 od ; = iG ae. feePie ee seeds é ey

ot y ’ . = Oo SOO ji. ot ah ote | SUN ol —— =. Cee BF ge ee ee — . ia i... — " | ~~ ge ia ee ga = fs ell ae fk. oe Gj aa a eae oe ee ~ 4 . 7 e5 ee

aee — eee Gi. eeh6h =@* ooEi2Lt 42. — eas «€ oes . _i— 2— oe ot Te ae P PR ge © LLL aia a ee at es k ee Ss is

5 ee ee et —=g é yg Sa a fe

5 ee SoS Sain eee SESS ee neneeeenes

So eee : BS: eee Re a ere a poe eae a beer Es =asee sere eee 2eee ese ee ee Bee Ue Bat oe Sere ee een 2 te eee eee ne ere =See a 3so bee os Ses Sapna de Bee aeee oe2aBic Meas a ea sib caseramen nnn entre pene Becase ops eee ear estine eee eee pin ae ns seheee ches nesine ens aneee Peano ee a = ss =ee SSee iFae tee ak cetera ae Seeee een agin ae cera ce aesate eR sear aean .BE a&: SS Spine : eee Zees Se ae sipag gee ea tan eRe See ie aen nSoe Raeage geca re se ee rteen cnn a Se pease eae eee eraspe Sipe — be eee aSoa :é3sactactee ;eee Be ees =—=—r—r——S—S—S—S—CsFé~S~CTtsé—FCTf

Seles: 3;Se °ee ss 23 3rsee ES == 3—— E ;ae ccc # Bs a Bess ee 3 e ig. . 2 : a sl ee as = ee s : © ee Ee |: =:: |:oat 3 &eee = == ee a cescss ce ee , ; : )ca_: ee .~ peers ee 3Ee 2S 4Gees = 3 : ‘: iseea ES “Spe ees pea gags : : — ee . See Be 4 j 3 = @ es z = ae i a = m as i = 3 z 3 : 2a 2 Be See eee pe Ps Se eS F 7 7. Bi i ‘ |38 / '$ Fe é == £5 i 3 be 4 = eee > > BOOS GS. 3 é i ee | . *¢ ? = 7 lasses | :; ee {e|.;> . se ieeyse ae Seas. 4 ;eae =eee = Ee Se Bee cee . es 4 3=eed qDns =zae . 2res :Be |.RE Se ee aa>——— xSa cee ee 2Seca = ‘ae Res Teed SS : / ‘, ||:a|= :_| & 4te “ak : Bees si ne See : “ = ; Ps ba Se Re Sse e cents $: 3 eae ca ae GE i 4 . .ef=si EE ee aSee ge ge =es:pe :eee gee Pee wags :rs 4=Ps 3eee eeBe, ifs accisapraerae Be ee Z :a33 hie —— |“‘-e a_i = ee © =stig :oe:. =é;oS eee BP sa ae ree ~~ & ~ Si g;oe es Seoeceeees =e ar aaa perio: Ati -ees z CEES s eee :Seer - se Se = =-eee eee aa peste Gee Lede Beecaprn en Fa ee Soe z— = caer pea See See Ss BEE ees seattle tsse ee as eS fae ~ we {cee "2: os = .SR Pee es se ee epee EERE SS sites % Cia ns 2Se =vie .cee ;Re aeB .ge =a;.ee BR eSGR eee ee See ee oo ee: ee :ieBet eee :Z;Bean ie tage =Fs .BE eee 'ie ,tS ee — =Spat Se nee Se ee ee :8% Ee oe 4Se .;See ae eg oe .ee 5=ses Seeceeae = ee eee SaaS Bie Bs tai ge F SO as ve =aes. gee passes ees aaa = 4 ' cad

= m = an : ee = in 3 i . = ae Seas P gy les ; 2s “seen ‘< a: se : : 4. ee 4, :||

:/:|

The Architectural History Foundation/MIT Press Series The Architectural History Foundation is a publicly

| supported, not-for-profit foundation.

I On Domestic Architecture, Sebastiano Serlio’s Sixth Book.

Introductions by James S. Ackerman, Adolf K. Placzek, Directors: William Butler, Colin Eisler, Edgar Kaufmann, jr.,

and Myra Nan Rosenfeld. 1978. Elizabeth G. Miller, Victoria Newhouse, Annalee Newman, I] Space Into Light, The Churches of Balthasar Neumann, Adolf K. Placzek.

Christian F. Otto. 1979. Editorial Board: George R. Collins, Columbia University; Il] Borromini and the Roman Oratory, Style and Society, Henry-Russell Hitchcock, New York University Institute of

Joseph Connors. 1980. Fine Arts; Spiro Kostof, University of California at

IV Le Corbusier Sketchbooks, Volumes 1 and 2, 1981; Berkeley; Vincent Scully, Yale University; John

Volumes 3 and 4, 1982. Summerson, Sir John Soane’s Museum, London.

V_ Frank Lloyd Wright’s Hanna House, The Clients’ Report,

1981. The Hanna House Documents. 1982. Paul R. and Special thanks go to the National Endowment for the

Jean S. Hanna. Humanities, whose generous grant helped make possible VI In Search of Modern Architecture: A Tribute to the publication of this book. Henry-Russell Hitchcock, edited by Helen Searing. 1982.

VII Campus, An American Planning Tradition, Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Paul Venable Turner. 1984.

VIIl The Law Courts, The Architecture of George Edmund Street, Brownlee, David Bruce.

David B. Brownlee. 1984. The Law Courts. . (The Architectural History Foundation/MIT Press American Monograph Series series: v. 8) Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, Richard Oliver. 1983. Bibliography: p. 423 The Almighty Wall, The Architecture of Henry Vaughan, Includes index.

William Morgan. 1983. 1. Street, George Edmund, 1824-1881. 2. Court-houses On the Edge of the World, Four Architects in San Francisco at —Great Britain. I. Title. I. Series.

the Turn of the Century, Richard Longstreth. 1983. NA4475.G7B78 1984 725-15 83-25625 Mizner’s Florida, American Resort Architecture, ISBN 978-0-262-02199-9 (MIT Press) Donald W. Curl. 1984. Designed by James Wageman

© 1984 by the Architectural History Foundation and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology David B. Brownlee is Assistant Professor of the History of

All photographs without credits in this book were taken by the author. Art at the University of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form

or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, Pages 2—3: Royal Courts of Justice. Air view. recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without (Aerofilms Ltd.) Pages 4—5: The Strand facade, from

permission in writing from the publishers. the great portal to the clock tower.

The MIT Press is pleased to keep this title available in print by manufacturing single copies, on demand, via digital printing technology.

Preface 9 Acknowledgments 11

Abbreviations 12

Chapter | George Edmund Street and High Victorian Architecture 15

Chapter 2 Law Reform and Its Architecture 37 The Legal Labyrinth 39 Complex, Slow, and Costly 40 Reform 43 A Palace for Justice; Sir John Soane 47 The Wilde and Buller Committees; The Barry Plans 52 Further Site Debate; The Scott Plan 63 The Coleridge Commission 65 The First Legislative Season and the Abraham Plan 68 Setbacks and Gladstone’s Magic 71 Successful Legislation; The Pennethorne Plan 74 The Royal Commission and the Competition Instructions 77 Lessons Architectural and Political 80

Chapter 3 The Competition 83 The Politics of Electoral Reform 84 Designing the Competition; Judges and Judging 85 Selecting the Competitors 90 Preparation and Interpretation 98 Gothic Designs 102 Polarized Taste 104 Street’s Design 138 The Decision of the Judges 150 The Decision is Abandoned 156 Appointment and Protest 162

Chapter 4 Revised Plans 171 The Great Plan 172 Spiraling Costs 179 The Embankment 181 The Battle of the Sites 186 The Howard Street Site 190 Street’s Plans of 1869 192 Defeat 199

Chapter 5 The Final Plan 205 Ayrton and the Office of Works 206 Fresh Designs for Carey Street 209 Toward the Final Plan 214 Resistance and Revision 224 Circumventing Ayrton; Final Revisions 228 Public Controversy 243 Economy 252 The Fall of Ayrton 255 The Tide of Taste 259

Chapter 6 Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 265 The Architect at Work 266 The Government as Client 273 The Architect’s Pay 279 Pay for Surveyors 283 Responsibility for the Heating System 285

Builders 291 | Building Workers 300

Chapter 7 Under Construction 307 Construction 308 Modification of the Design 317 Fittings, Furniture, and Decoration 326

Heat andBar Light Temple 351 346 | Chapter 8 Epilogue 355 Notes 375 Archival Materials 423 Selected Bibliography 423

Index 425

9

Preface

[ee DOMINATING monument of an important quarter of London and the

largest commission won by one of the most noteworthy British architects of the nineteenth century, the Royal Courts of Justice have naturally been the subject of earlier inquiry. However, previous studies have not tapped the vast archives of the Public Record Office nor explored the parallel stories that the law courts can tell about law reform, political patronage of the arts, and the theory and practice of architecture in the High Victorian era. Although important, the law courts have never been a popular building. Erected in a time of changing taste, they were quickly surrounded by controversy, and, like Victorian architecture as a whole, their reputation has not yet been fully rehabilitated. Sir John Summerson’s analysis is little short of savage: “The . . . exterior design . . . is as totally incoherent as the great hall is eloquent. It represents the pathetic collapse of an overstrained imagination.”'’ Sir Nikolaus Pevsner was only slightly kinder: “The Law Courts is not a popular building now and perhaps never will be. Yet it is serious and competent. . . . Moreover, in its composition it is not without sensitivity. . . . Street’s facade to the Strand is an object lesson in free composition, with none of the symmetry of the classics, yet not undisciplined where symmetry is abandoned.” It is not my purpose to enter into this debate, for the importance of the law courts is intrinsic, not relative, and their study should not be made subject to the shifting tastes of architectural historians. However, insofar as the controversy itself began in the nineteenth century, it will receive discussion and analysis. 1983

BLANK PAGE

11

Acknowledgements

[Hx incurred debts to the kindness and services of many people while completing this study. My greatest indebtedness is to Neil A. Levine, who has constantly challenged me to think more searchingly about nineteenth-century architecture. Every aspect of the project has also benefited from John Coolidge’s generosity and wisdom. Paul Joyce has freely shared his great knowledge of G. E. Street and of Victorian architecture generally, and Lynn Hollen Lees reviewed the portions of the text devoted to political and legal matters. However, I remain responsible for my own errors.

I am grateful to Harvard University for the Frank Knox Memorial Traveling Fellowship which enabled me to work in Britain in 1977-78 and to the University of Pennsylvania for a faculty Summer Fellowship in 1982. The following institutions and individuals have also provided essential assistance: Aerofilms Limited; the Architectural Association (Elisabeth Dixon); the Boston Public Library, Fine Arts Division; the British Architectural Library, Royal Institute of British Architects; the British Architectural Library Drawings Collection, Royal Institute of British Architects (Nicholas M. E. Antram, James Bettley, and Jill Lever); the British Library, Manuscript, Newspaper, Official Publications, and Printed Book divisions; the British Library of Political and Economic Science; the Fine Arts Library, Harvard University; the Fine Arts Library, University of Pennsylvania; the House of Lords Record Office (D. Johnson); the University of Kentucky Libraries; the Lambeth Palace Library; the Law Society Library (F P. Richardson); the National Monuments Record; the Northamptonshire Record Office (P. I. King); the Property Services Agency Library, Department of the Environment (B. D. Charlton); the Public Record Office; the Royal Academy Library (Constance-Ann Parker); the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts; the Royal Courts of Justice (M. R. Cockrem, M.B.E., and J. FE Warwick); the Southampton Civic Record Office (S. D. Thomson); the Victoria and Albert Museum, Department of Prints, Drawings and Photographs, and Paintings, and Department of Furniture (Clive Wainwright); the Watkinson Library, Trinity College, Hartford (Margaret F Sax); and the Westminster City Libraries. | extend my thanks to them all. Much of the wearisome work of preparing the manuscript was borne by Susan Nally, Mary Buttrick, and Michal Truelsen. William Clough printed many of the

photographs, and Daniel McCoubrey drew two plans. Victoria Newhouse, Julianne Griffin, Karen Banks, and Lauren T. Klein of the Architectural History Foundation have overseen the production of the book with intelligence, ingenuity, and tact; they have made my task much easier. In this and in all else | have been sustained by Ann Blair Brownlee.

12

Abbreviations

AES Arthur Edmund Street AES, Memoir Arthur Edmund Street. Memoir of George Edmund Street, R.A., 1824-1881. London: John Murray, 1888. Reprinted by Benjamin Blom, New York, 1972

BAL British Architectural Library, Royal Institute of British Architects, London

BL Manuscript Department of the British Library, London BPP British Parliamentary Papers. The pagination cited is the printed pagination of each blue book, not the cumulative pagination in manuscript which has been added in some sets of this series.

GES George Edmund Street NMR National Monuments Record, London PRO Public Record Office, Kew, Surrey

The Law Courts

Sst BE cn ati ee eeee : Se i— ”—sens i=" —r——“‘“=ER

STR: SE A sn ai OP - Rn ela ie ae ae Cn pitt seauaneneemne eat see ete ee sping ROR OT SRT RIN SE Be ea eae eee cee Baia Se eae ear ne a ee — _

a eer ssn, bo Sete GORE Ee Bee cee eae ee Serena -— :ane — 3eM SeenSTA Stns enpig aangSens Re Rea Seer a a. es Beaici a ce ae accede ei ae Sa SeMe api Se cea ct Pia aan a Sr Seemann eeeaati Baa Be FF ener ees sara ne are=. eee 7 Soket, SNe DN Se oePEPE neier Se Se -Speen — cst eee am SS eeSeaeEe BE Fe a7 eee ee sosiugiies renee aneaea pen me an tact ieee: rar See eeae ee are SEE ec ES ee ees ee ee Se se EO eeBE ee Se Se mee SORE aiES oa ss:gee ee a LE Eocene, Sapa ig a es eeea ieee eeeeter gee an seee ee ee ee Se Se ee a ee i ee SEced eg Sea Se ei ce crn ee ee Lie ea aBip aSi cree reraese es aera aeasst aga eaa eAapa poem ee pee ceeee SS eee ee ses Seesea eeieee gM see pe Be ae3geist pases Seemann, Oe iseae eeieee aetae pie eeeee ee SS Re eaeea gee CeIe Sane eet Pigs Seen oeBees Graces eeaEse weib eee eet ecreas Bac a Paes Rega Sait Gatecceees ees enSO care see se See Se aseeserae aes asieteSr ae Gas ree a ca eee rapePace pee ee ee Bs eee ee aot See See Ngee EENe aeoeee eee etaSe eee ease So ce eee ee eerie es esa7 aeBe Ieaang GOCE ereae See rae iSicecceecaraeea Feene e SN: Sp ee. reamee z rae te cha specs Sees ce nope Ba sais SEEN este Leiberae ee SE Pe: eenr Brice 2 geet Ae . senate aei le Samsara Se cm ai Se pera eePE Pee pis Riese ee erase eee ee Seen peer naaee reneeases Soames OY See eeere angeee Bescon neaee BE ace Be cree eectaeanes! Soe eeeSe taeepee Sas er eaeeee Bae ee See Or Sos SOO Drees ee Giaa:Le Se aescee gS sia cea see Papi Se sees SS eee pe ee ee Spe = RE apa. Me oateeeite gece eeer esegST peeee tis,5ga PS aaaOm so eg MT: ee ee ke spas I oe ee eee eeEee ee ee ee ee ee es Pe eepei Bee SN AS Be eas ere i Te ae rr ee ea ee eee ae Ge ae iissTS ames A ay: agua: RES SAGES aaa sete ee SeSee Fiso: EEee peas Leee Brie ee ee Ss ae eee ee EE SD

ae Ss Se ee sini Soe somata, ialiaaieasanes inenecceane geccacaees ia ee aaa Sree ee Se eesa ee ss ne Se ee ee ee ae EE ee coe eeee eeage Se F—E EOE ACenieeesee eeeaeee EE le Se eee ee eee 3: eens 8 innai 2eeae SS eeDi re Sean CE eg aeEERE, ES Liesoeee ee ee aeeeEEE eiLe ee ee ee a ea tease siag ni aa siamese ES ge Fe ee Be Ee — Se aEEOO See SeSe ee enka ee LOPE ee tie cecenaa a Beri Pirie einigs henPEP easessg Ea ee EE ee a een Seeee een sieoews eaeSee eee Sat a gee ecient sage Sec Ba aera sro ose sete Peep gas PierDI gece RecSe stressisSete ee ie ee ena ate ee2aSh A aise HeeEE Pome eas Gere ee Ses pieces ee ee i_ ee Skee oeian>BaSORE ae ecg ER Ce sce ae Rene geeeeRI RS ae cae gs ee ee aSea et soe eeeae —eeeeLee ee SE gee ec ern= Me sc PP BeODE mate Sac ene «ts ae Bs Fanecesses ase a en ee ae ar srrgee a Spa bagi ir EE a oe ie aes.ip CEE SSS Ca ceEee eine ces i rt 2 Lise Rae NGanata pabeaeeceeecrcs: Cie cia Seana Seri FR a spe rae sae aag Seapets aees a eae 2 Spanier aaa

Seeeageeerenene Se a, Ss ene site ecco aa Sees Biagio i a a Sete cana Pca eceer acon gate Bie eicter a Rep amecen tn cae se aa ace aoe Gee Seca i pitas gia scare Sec ie eae Bee ais eet Ba ena wie es ra Saaeeene baa ata ne Sica ioe ——— te ee = > PE BE BBO Sa ae Saeco Sipe comers aera ee aie es SOARS REE aps peat RES pe ee eres ee ROE TSE ce ae ace Pig ese amar caae aeons eg Re eR ee Ee eae are nee Gee pe i te SEER RE ie ee aa Se ata cerned

Speage ae Spee ee a snes Sa SieeSacaSeeaeeaatareieBee iii 2 eee as Be pntSeEE Ete eeetyeeae Sasi Saccmcearad BLE SoBai aaaSentai Sy aigREE a ert wee eta agement escman penneeee ee eee —2_ izseeSke epee eeeeee mm eee ESaebegcanarsug aLea ea eat Neee REima LORDS Lie aes ag eeI Sean aeiaeeie EgPe RO a acaer SeiBee araaces aEeiaia Be ee eeeieBee eee ctigs... oe serene pe ae eae eae eee RG ape SS Bee Ee a tii Sans seas: ee ies OR ceiicetiecont ene < SIS Sate OP ne RIP > ae: sca taeOTE sec Deere ise ag ete aoaee ar eee PR ee eereeeee —

oe i opeeae eeee eeSe eeLI oe es Eserences eeee eee Se Se oS / geCeeeNE ES eea ge eeeen OEnner ee eee eee eee eeeecceuiioy 2eoes eeeeeeeepeeeSo. — es pee ee eg ee ees Se pee eee SS RE: RESSees See: Pees ee pet EReas Pasaoe Le Se se pa ee pean Se peti eePe Oe te 2 teEg os er ane oe aeSeti ge Lice ereIN rae RB eg as Se Sen Tea ee cegaapanetee samenSonernes Sie ea ERE ate spree pepeIIBee ete Dias Spmieoeae eeeee ee a es _ Sirs. a es ee ge SRPEeS eeeSeae EO ee BARE AONE es eee BeaeeeSesEe te eS PPPs: eeeaera tees esSeas Secu SSS EEN Bee eeeeee

See oo as RSs, waicge Mp cece geet=Spee Ss nce pe PRE COCR Ag aeapee eta be ae eee ee EE gee eters, arr nage Leeree Sarena ese sae ee eaepe page eaa Fe eae ae Zi EE BEES BEE SOLE Cigpede, ROOa “3a cierto oe Rdiecneuseate — asbePana esRane CEE Sie creSO ogee seeEEete aiaLEee REE ESa eeGEE assSea seeis Seen GE asgsESOO EEieEE SS ete aiecreass eevamioees ey Ss SOS eee aaeae LEDSae ee Ba eeRaeeeeoo __

Bae —— ——— —— . cn nm - te a os ge ee en SPOS Sa ae oa BELLE ee eer, See I sa ee IE eee a a ee EE ee ee EEE ee ig acc = — Se es om EE Se ee ES is apSs ig a Bieuae ee aes BONE sO aie ae ee pst eee ae i ee ee aSS ie Og Sie ee gee ee ee————e—( eeag—ee Ee SiS eeOecee ai ge Soe Bees a ee eeeee eeeeeee SEee ee)

ee ee EE EEE _e ee EEE GE POR eee ae apa Wks gua tso re ge peas EEO RE rg: Sige eee ee Ree CE BE ee aaa : Pie eres

Sr —— eae =ER se cesneeea EE ee BO Fo cite ii Ce ic es eebce eee EE SeaSaas POM PE eee Eee Sse LS ee a eae eS eae CeeePee eg sce Cane ert ESC gpsCe i oes taeee SEE ps Se Lee i Se ee ee eeoeee PE ae plese ORSBPS ee eepee ee eee eeBes em eeRReres ee eee eeSRee SeeHeat aSee aoteen SoBe erBe faces ample ae arere ss eee ee ee oe - ELE Se es > ms so Bega nana eee saeRe aa eepm occas is ee a le ae ene ee a oSee LOC A nyeeee i Betate PRL5: ie soak hag eee beaeedrigs SR ea ce a Pi cen oe aeragee ator aoe SEge as sateen ote Sessa

oe

‘ ee sae Po akpier Sa: z iatLO sears : Serta:SEE Bec se saZ ,ee ie Bes Se Bian piensa slit” arta Seas Bere se geSa SeeSee : a : Saas : ee ee gee oot aeeG eetan LeepeaeBee Sc ae ong oe SO eece Bees ee Sete ghiaeeeecee eS:OES seasAaes Gates Bese eead Liens hisaeetz pe Eee — ee —5SD Se penn: eering x RRyao speGEES PS gyes 8 iaegOpie Mr” Bec EEai,eeeeeeeccecsti ee ee Sa page LE Picea ear ae Lie S Sears Seeing ae Oo Sa age seeee SteCeseis, Seetaeaan Guan Scar peSe nr ae seeeeieee pees

oe | ee _ ee LSBs ee Bees Re eto BE eer re Baie, ee es Be eee et Bee eae eee perennation Se MR Nc pereraan te santa se Sierra Saper ihe eR gaia te Dae ec Siac tes eee

os ee LEE ” getters eei gor =atest LEED cerie i zsrc zs ee rere Be aeBe 3 Sap a seeae, eeieRa re aoe See%Zs1cnr 2a cots Batre aueetan Seer ek cameos =eae Spear pres ipahee ener 2 sacanarsats =< oo ae . eee

eeeak BE arTa ees Lee oi arte H eae = Ciao peat — Fae tent Beeernae opmee ene zee z eee 5 zSee Se ing rane aa ae gas scenario ann tee a gene eseeepean Seeeeoaas ecSgae bo Se: : oShie : . eee eee Soe pose eee Rr: ceanne a aaa te ea BT PR i gezeB See encase:rssects me ee Sa? sft See2:2 ir 7 etesec Oe Zs al eeeae eaeae Beage Sees eC Ze as er Bas capper pnt ee ee ee es eee

pei ree eae ea ESesceed EE a ee ee ee papTE POT FsOs eit:eeCS ee ae Gees — ee- -Ee eee eeaee eine. tran=pes pio sitigesagt ig eee Spe ee eee rece ee = ts CE neeip Merce CEEEE Ket SSE ona este eeaBe en eeeee ee = ae | a=scttpene ne —ween eeSioo eee aeBen ee eos ee iOspeEE sgateneer reseee See Mei: 2Ea SeSee ieSiSee sae eesacar Ss ee SES eee rae Seeepee ieee_

eee eePee=sea aeSeag eenies eei Peeol a BO acpi RR RR ro ete seeSET sessap eea eee eeso Seer :eae:Se Bee gies aeee bata panna ESP esSaha osOE maine eatin iy toca eeeeepar 3eae_— __ —— ssSie Ee iaSe Se SSae eee ee Bie Scns ies neticie REoe ets Ee 5 i ADOM Ra OED Fey BeeIena SS = pe otineeeee RR RE es Sareeiio Sececeer to i, ee

EE peccert Seo SsGREE poi ee Spee eee si geaicremeninaes Bi saa aac hi EC DS SOOM DSsreintog GillaMO ee EON LE LOI eS or: EL RA Pan ee Beer cereBasaran Se senmrtanc ees aes Sgseeee eee :ice cope See Soesae ee Poi aa corns BeSif ryt % Sei - peed eee“i4ae eres Bees ncge ie cranes x Se aspen econ ee Seer eevee : eres SSRES ss RR eo Gaiters ieee patna LE ieecarne Se BeiETE x2 canta Pree “ht ete aesaBShs stirs fayeF oe se Sirebsaecas se3een ESin‘Seta ice gs neei Seceeetnes eee seamen =.%Sa es Geeeee ecient == tae Sons : pore “ nent SS aaa

Pos saa ea aoo ease scsi este eesee SeBrecon, g Pe Seeeee aan caraScene zGREATS rs Saeeeaes Sesinng esata tn ee ce red Dah ei: =~ é 3ace een ge nee i sae Beseeat eae ane eerste 3 SR eee ee — = >ee ic pape 25> osgece

Sse 3 : Seoaraeeae t $ : iano = eset ae Sencar See is Baa Das iene Se cae mes Te es ase Lennie bem a : ie RB cere RB ae Ee Seen as » seats See ES = se ceaee ee ieeee ee eeeeee seceeiieER Be eee Be 5RO Beeeeere eee pe eee Re a ae_ — ae Se 3_ 3entero 7SieLame eee SS ecarrrare otIEE: ee ne ipaseerences eesonra eeshe ee _Sparse ee |Zi _é -3sao : aserene | it 3. -Soca _Sees | _ Ss eeSpates he ee: SIE gg PR Se aetheo E7 oe pace Sica me boes aecarn erPee aenaa se ati e ePe Sica : PIIIoe Saee- perenne - sn Pea eea cae % Se Pa hag ee sees: OE eeseit s eeaeBes . Y se ee Cage a =e sca . Stace: : Sie Soe er See ieee pee oe ee Seaeecae ‘ ‘6 SBS pees ee Sins aa nekes, ea. Stine : Sescinro scré ce eae 2ae.Kemet a a,&: heSea ee ageeee nace pager ee Sees Sas DDS See cte ae Ce spccaeios ee prenscSe - = Soeee eae aeSco eae ay Se ee es ae s See i Dg See ee i iit,EE ay % >ge ies is ics aa iakes.ts ili >a” LS eter ra oe papeee ae a peSe SPIE a nk paeeonce ee S :gs — ee ee es. ee_ eee cere LE GO cea. ieee aisieee aSassis:SSeen he eeeee =eaeZs Bees See 2Secor se eee igi ig, tie 3 Se eeesBae ee tes ee ee eee ee Sees ee ee es ee Sete :ee eeSe ae eee ignores os = esee 3SSE Bsns es zsBante: ieeeteLnBoe: re ea=e se bys Bees i i eed Deeees ate ieee anee aseEE fae sect soe -seer eee ose : ee eee ee ie#BESTE, ears Be reece antares ee BsBee Sree pe Pececes oe Se ee —Sree —eee a

SRR prs cas ee Pe Deke est eta gcc Bast aes Saas eS PRPs: 3 hsp spmnaabpaaia Ka OEE ee pam ee ae eee Be fee oe ee = SS es 1 oe et a L 2 Ss : : = a : ou - | :

:SeeeSes_sera : _poe _seca Oe eeSe eoa pect eae eee Ge see eee cae eee peeten aeeespiece 5Sepees Be gee éoo SensSartre sfertetes ececena Senseieran ees Beaes caetee cea meme Oe Tate aera ama cate Ee ae eraneer: aceSa cata Scares : es | ee ee = Ba es ae é :se SS SeBearer Chaareeats aac gags RC Sie pea SPE asseas, eae Heaeee ee Oe : oe 2.—. /

coy > eas Seea :Serer site = es = Beeston Sesion raeSee Beceenn seas SheedSeicece ce SO SSSSore Po4Sessa PSrepees ee Lee, zeeae Beseaees2 ast ee:eeee zZ8 :eeSeos _ ae _25.“ ee sean = Sees Rites steneat > = ;: sees3sera See cipeer OC aos Sear eeeSeas ee See ea peices neersBee Besire Seepat SLES i ae ie oe PRR oe se ee Seccecceee e atiaes ar ae ee Z Bes eSaoS

—%Ce | eeSeieeeneneee ane corgiteete%Be eeenarpee Zee a eeromer ee ee ee Beene aesBe‘ %peBae ieacee eeFiPrae5atPS: Beare Seen areca Daan peer: Pp BahBE ara ie aaaPee Sa eaSess a paste ee pe : Seee secon ene sere eee es ncn Cece ae gerne Seca = asap eae eewie >» reOne, fe ez

af

—— __ eee —eeSeee Se ee ee eeBE eeeee SRT eae as age i gee ees peia aeee ie eee iee aeeee eeepee aCe Se gig Seer EY eee ee(eee 4oo # aoe a,Oral ee (Se: ee 2Sacra pees Scene See ee ea ne eseeEE Pee ioe iG ee Es eee etSe neIne eee es: rags Oat? Be ee éanes eee ee eeEE ee ee co Ee CE :eee 2Ceee eee: Se roeieee pee GE Sy — Spt :GeO : ee Se cieseae :Bere Bee ge: ee Ses, pe Leer eiees feeee : Bees rapaee se ag : eee esag gfaet REde™ 1252" % ea ee ee ee | See z eee ee eee ee ee ee ee ere ee Bg GT OO, OO 6: Se to ety Eset cer 3 secs Si : ee Z se z Besos Bee ie ee 5 : Lag: ie ee pene Be ee EP Tea es EG MEN, won gee: o8t83 := eeehag Sears me ee ieeeseen Secateey z semis cc ss rcicaee eeME oe : EEE Bee eee ee pease: sare see peteeecee Le weiss peter Ze ost aes 4fos ot 4 ie eae Z 3Bee oe EsEo Bee Cee te Laine re ee Bien, BOE eReeEeseen Saunas Br eepsSee teeBe ereeeSee peapee to”vr aemoi aecine Ee

Cite, Soa z pak ee Pest SosaSee : eae na SiSBae eine tees Me RC z Serre g CEPa eg ss Sege * Bee Ba aa aa aa Siesta ateeae giaBs SaSe Segeer aeice geeaEe see ne e: gee oe age paces aee tose ak ORs a as ered LE PE aee eeee a aa ee LE cee Me aeaia pec as ge eg “nt pete= Meee BE 2 pee z— Seceeeaee Be ee ee Cee ee ea ea es Pee ee eee ee — ee Ee ee ee LA EOee eeeeee eae Sree aspe Cees ©gy gene See cee geesaee Pactra eee ee ge aegE ae gOS re ar 3 ware —— ye Z|ae ~:ger se =icaeaSener —. Be i > ee ee et Sg nga re geese gE po ngnngs ~ eet aSeceeteite, |=a |eeSie .“ceceSe— i Ee ee Se eit ~u POO pe en eas pene. ere eee eee EE see ee ee ee aa aa ee et EE Bee eaters Biri ee SEE af EEO D1. EEE a Be ee eee Sess eee ; pitts ge ThE OS ng ttt « ¥ @ = Seegg ee ee ee ee Fo,SEE ees Spee ee Pe Be eee sais eo oeeases teen Spec Cicaasae Bar ae a EEE STS eMCe ae oe ee ga tea sg apt oat pine 3Feet gp OG OE potions? ene te eg eae £2 {ieee Eee aes 5Resear aE ee See sees: ee ee pore eee eee eiaeg Fnage = ee we arrest ae ee OO gS ae: zee ie. ee Ee aa aprsamcuaenemae tae ee et I ns MtOB eeeae es :one ESpee Recanna zs = peas seanencneeceae eeBe teape Saphira ep sence eeae aiEAC oe . pee eens GO es ? Sr ss Soiree acer esSa esBa Became tata a aSS oeDR meee A Dia: pp a .me: bi Seen age pees eee ee ie, PiOO meg Gee EN“2p ee = Soeeiae es :Fae Dicer : Se sa ge ee aeee eeee cceee eon sa OS E ee Sipe Sa ee at LE ae2eg :es Soe se eesoy : Ze ie : egee SoeSe eeences acca ceca SER Ee a aearies RE SAF: z ceases DS2Ln pai a ts teepee Seip gece fos ease, ie Bs cs ES Seee aOR Gm U Iae tags Pe ithEGO OOS ee eo et eeSheree ee :$j; -gO” ae odae J aaere aAee, aegeSe PE ee Se Sse cana eee Be Be eee GILLES EEE IE at a DS EO te iy Sig ee ee Me oe Mie ke ee me wate ote ee SP ay eee ie, Rae Se eae PS Sita ae Ee Es ig ee a a i si bigs ee ee aM Bae se eee ee ee gg ak Sg ee % MAID 6 i, FS Sa pt OO™ eee wee peer: Fs etter 6 et SE pesoeaee aa Sean es Soden an Ren z as Sage Bea a ee Dee cee es eis eee era aetna Tie nena een ik es eras Sg, ee iuimumer sees «Sates em Cee gor - a ee a fe a ote “Ze | ays SE 24

eee Binrcaee eters EE ae EE OS I EE PO EE a eeme aot $9 = 3.y°ee oewe “a. tee inie eeSco aoe --=were: we aedae a+»:‘0S .‘“~ Saeeqra

ee Bo ae ee i eereser ee ON WEgg | iiiSeBoe apa stasis en PE peer, 2 es: GO Se 0 2eas:eae a GEE ee rnd pee @ea:éoete ¥gewee ager leaiioe ct ay Se,Was ee 2 aToie ar :>oo rc 4 ee |Be—. —PeEE iineoe foe 8 BE ES ee eae ,8ae eee 4ASME We FS Sigg = cee—2 S Pens< “aeEee Seg, ORE ae ee SE EE *, ORscee ia 23 a teeWo a se, GA, beet Sao oa & nore aA war oe ow on aes SOO i fod eee, ‘oe . a, Bee

Ps rtentee * ies See, 5 Px: nates NOR Raepe8S #2Figo zy *Bees Been? Se Se ot a Wee &aitGt Bee es 25 ey 2St eee ees Sees Baar as oe Le 5gSess Pee Be ete Dai nies gea eeape ee EEE it|heSees ie 7LL BsTeese? a¢ eee oe fo%ee S eS fai|, ew screen aesee wire wes opr ‘See aeBe cee ef —— _ |se 2Se io =SEE aa ne gSaeDees ON TE en%2.5go ;eree EEO FO eueeBES Sg Bike, caper: =: |Ss==See =: S oS Zeee EE peeeeamere £8ane edad y* |Deka Se . Rec Sg ee£4ee gu" gare ee Loe Sane ie tee gee gO sitreg=a, )-”Be Bees =tttecemmraenae > te — eee = re =EE ee ee Eeoar esREE ge?seen i ere a—e a— Ei ae ae =Be cow wheiera a aoe Kd Pees oea me vz Ret ser CdS ae ©By vat ogo ee eget -ieraees peae 4 #2 ok meee arosracene, eB3Less is ie . ge Bete=og sate ae siGees ewes peak Os ee2SS aS cpeeesge Pit: Mii ia ee xg>¢" Oefen So TB eeby> « we 8 OZ “ vet cS i.ete a. pi=OE aie2eke, | WR ogeteece RSS ee SM i eS a Le rat ego 2s te. eae gas | er Pn 3 4 EE ae ea ih@ eee ay eee tieeeBaa eaSeLs aifyy REC api oe ROR ee7eeste ee EEESS; ee tn ; Sere ot fy :OT £5cay 3

7 ice RO, Pear een Op aoe SEE geeséEe ge . =Beecags ee aan Bin, aed oe ores Bit we ie-esBe, ee go ca & peesea Serre me siege eee pee eee eae oerg Caeaese trees Catton “eed eee eta DES ee Hi eee Le 3-Ne~ z “a oe egBo s Fas Rade es Sent eeSs agape deeoe Mme HO SS ; aa oie er BESe bees & es —— ee ee eee See BOO a 5 ; eee See oe : ‘Mt SE S55 ¢ Fe Ree Ee ae jar ae _* “ 8, Sa as $3 : irae = - aoe oeae— Sos — ahias. ceenste ee es ¢aeoifcr3.8See, Oe i ya: ge tees. pee ieeae TR= eee = eneeieaa- neem | Barer seesesoroerey Sgitemeancen wis fC ta in tae #¥ ae is 9 eth Me pl Pe Sittin Pm é eee oY eee de ee: bee Bees ae ee 5 eso Se ee eres

== : | = Serene. ie = : iy —— 3— !cE=aLER =< eS Pan:Sefeeee ee Ps ee a iikor{er ceHae Fs edi ee ES eS ipie pegs fie oS pad eee eee Se PE Sesee is 2eee ER SON Sak esesatae Ce ne pea& ompnnennmnaesrttoee noosa 9esperme ah Po AFR oSSEEE FES Bee atpasseseee ee: es =eeiad 3 Seen - we SR. wey «, eerie Song ones “8 tet, |~ Ee 3 ta; ay e

E =aslil Ps, Nporeasa =ssasee :ee——=a,3vtitipad We ‘Se. — ee =easaNiyeba Sd, XEaor esrr NSee = HH eee:eet ie money ae eeSea Sie Bobo teeaSeas caeths oe ’thGr ‘ i .Pres fe ae see ee Bee ae fees BOL |ate ess“2pee ~esetmags BEES esME Lo ie Go. ee©nn Be feais ee ees ee ee ee ee .SSE 2 ee eS ee gee © ao Cine Gh tee CSpte AE =e Sees Ge eee’ RGU ee erent Gea, CLE Boe eeee ee Sake, Es -* eee Seg eee Re See es, | Eee ee ere ae ee ee ee & # Pon Be eae 3 Peete ee ey ae eS +. > as CLE Bilt ?, 1 ee 3 4 ae aaa eae Becta ee a ee Sees eee Bee ees See 2 i = S LM a ede ee nee ee BPE Be Es FS = Se 2 ° LO ee Es ; 2 .2e = eee ae eee Ra ere ee:oe pe aeBees oFsoreeewntike eeingme oteres tee= Fah pgesacrs ainBoeere SigleeeeeeaEeS1%»&Be ee Sects ise:ences BeSees eeeSe Ee ae . 2Se 2 eeCe z Le ee “40 tae Gees Jen a REeee, pee ee| See ~« B#LBeZ ve ax neg ae eeFa ee fee Bee a.3a jBares eee oepoe eaige es: oe ile, See Sanam eee ee eeeae Sas ba eeeSerene eee ff. a Be a wbecoe > ee ntpePe 4 has an 7~ eS 2 aoe: ge g PRE Pe sap ee ies, cs, 3eeee an,” SY HH Sees & Rees : Se Koos eae cae iii meee >i&ee Agar : a eeeG cae. ST Secon Pek ey eecee: *= Gaps : ees : pes So Bet Ceay Soeee See eeeee Sete = Ree eee 2Deck 2-cease eee to ite. 5EEG RS RAE ee Se5ses Pei asee eee Bee iste See SRR ee ee th, Paces rg < a ; +f eez eSFa EE”cel ze ene a ry aos ee, a eg peettenconrecutill a ener > iamaiaes ae se Sis Bee Z: Sasoe See eeeEe ee = He, : 7 = } sa = a oe = : Ser a a —, Ce ae ey An, ag epee ao tg ll Ne BE AOR Rome CR NC ae Se ed eg Oe Fee rarer gee Ee eee ee So BD ae ie eae a ae cee Secrets Eeee eer —.. s SS Mg oe Sar S, Be aden Re See me te co es a Phaeiiiie . — e . é EE ge = — = . . < Ze ~ " x * . < epee ¢ pers Sates 5 » ee s 2 Naas, poner ate be Bape get ay int Sa aes SE eae ee — 7 ee ee bon ee ee Se eee giz. > 2a PRE Ey Sy ee se * eee ae Loma... ee ee cea ae gr ete Re in. eee eee Se eS _ . ta ee ee ORG Oe 5 es ee : AE PS Migs EGG OO sass ce OL. ey er: te pee ee ee a ek Om: 2 pps ee a Geren cee Sette eer DS Te tC wate 8 oe: A Flaine ee pe ee ON i oe, Se ee eT LIS oS a, OF ee giae ee eg Oa ee ee ee = “< CET enc Ce ee ee ea hae a Briss Lie ie a oe % “SOs ~ ee etatinatine * tes ee ae I sas a BR eg as EEE ee ee es > Pe cceeeenil -ie keEe zZae as 2Se ar EE a Ot yo te . . etee ee ee on, eS ees I gg eeFe gsSSime enaei Sceeee EE tay race ee : le FO

eee ee MM ee gee pe Ee Se EE Se Seana ne— es aeeaee Eeeee MEpees. Be oR REE Eg naoram ee al Ee -a—rr—“‘“i™éséOCOCOCOCOC—C~C~C~O eeae ee es eeeee geapne SS ee poe SS |.ire De eeee oeee |es ee2c i Sage encne ro es EE ae Se eeeee Cee ee Deseo Scsti a Bria Besa Be see eae ae gee rr ee eee ee rt—“_Or—~—C—~—— ade ee hee: Rete ee etd RS a ae ae Steet nnn. * eraser Ge ae ie aad ain a a a ee Sear = Sareea t ee aes ee Se ergs oeee b>” Fin: ct ee hy =e 3 oo ee Bnnh ep ore” Segaa Be Base. 20 OO > gee i ag are Bee Boe eeenO ee Be.tig : * Sk, S,EGE eee. eee E eee BES igs esac a3 ee eeeee ene a eee iocJceeenreecmeee ee ae nea enee ee eee eeee bs RY AO Seip i a, sg cat ieBR mteee geBie RO ee ee wae ag me esI, ean oe cee Le nn eeneSF ene Sak. pe ates, i £22 eegs ernee *Boe? eeSA ee (° aS... eee, ee es eySe eefz csee eeea ee SO ee eee eee ae eeee gin:Og war 4 ome 0 TO a ep OE on I oN pe ET hee: Sapir aoe it BBB Py aa Ba ee ee ee BiG ek ee eee ee a el cee cans, ee Sot eign se ee ee OEM Be x. won ef ehee eee BAe ee Be ins ee See . . hppereeea ans Eece aaihiiis ‘ps 5 pase 4aaa oecat ae Fa sere!te a ae 5 cicommer BeAD fee ee zpnt eee ee .Te ir ‘ at Eg 5 E.ee esdO ES pita 2 ni Ne a mea eer ac\ a ewe Spee. aenee é, eeSe totic fs el= Klip in ibneSTAR si, a¢oyreaepage Og aie (|=eee Lee) GUC Pc oeeesree eeNs E OL Ne sag ees ee grecannes #32. yia= eSi eer. oeene ne — ts Wescentieee Se eecae bon 0: Be, i ieee. -A 4 ss Tnae gnc ee gews ene Bs) reIeo cee ws BEBg EEE eee 22. se eS ferSe 9eee Ee. 2s,* 6epee eee:eM FE aes Tea Segre Pars ee aee Fic see4Se re ect Peres BEER, aes oe 3gtath Oe 4EP .eeeee pare eemoe eee eee ee :a EET. 22 MS pe ee aeae ag5eebrieiiine i eg etSe ltt nee 5 te : #ecm isa Zses ein pe eeAung ele“: ecgSe Re ee eee rae vsess Wess Ph ae. en gaa tad ee es: #es &ieee). eeA i PO Seek. Sa Be Cee ee saaegis ig FR inn anon afe ae seers ease oe enn Pe % 5 ERR ee eee en we Oe Bc SB: ee a Eee ee es ae leeds Sasi eee SS OE eg Te laste get ee wang cae a pee en Oi eel I aS IRS nk app [PEE OES RS ee ee ae ae ee eee ee EIS Voi ee Be eee ee ee—eeee 3 *=3 RS Bice naps ohms aae ERE ite et Me aoe a ae ee Re Ns RO eG Cees EE Bite eeME nn opFe Speer cee Sars 7 ge, ay F >eg ReOR AEE EF ce iORE Satara peace “ig Ree eee eee eeeee eta Se eee Siti Bee a eet pee Bre rood iar: hth re ees. Se Sa = oe ge er Wiy xi af PP eh us 52 £2 ea ee OE ee TT ; SE te 3 i: es Sa: ae 3 - ae tee. 7 ge fe ah Bi OR BS < 78 ee eee ees ee seca aeeernces Season Seeetreeee seems res pecan ree Deer sea I ae ‘ ange ers Se

Cee eS Ne perma ge oS pe ane en pe a ee ig So Wire =~ = F7Y ee eR ee ee - . —

eee = Ne eepee gees|, Pere 5Se Ore Beg BE oe EM so ee oe.eel Bo Be ie aege aSShis? (ee Ee EE eee eee eeFF ge es Bie Eee gonSete rhage Senna Geen i eg isapti ee 4 :we iGCoe ese esee4Se Seaoaaah ace aa ¢eas “4eiotBEE »£4 Se: & 3Se tenes oPbem Ree reaaeace reacne eeoe iLe asi.aaa Bee aee Beas aes eae ee os Seca See ne prema ne “ssPE St nao ce :Oe Wis ar oe ,&Se Rees be 4. a3 BE ce adSees ge Pike Bsr asoooagonons went Se See a Pre ntan, Iee EE eae tt Pipe ome 5 Ge Se ee Boo aee 2 ee. eeBo” ae SPSS, peg: “So Be pent opsbe toe eee eee 2 SZ 2reee ae Ee 2 nk ee ies ae ances ~ Dagar 2 Aint pee kn ita OS opr 2 eee eee Se. 8 Veale ee 2a Sere Se ee Lee” gar Ais Re Sore prmernonpsiatiae ne 2 a ~ eer re ESE go ~~. ee oe gf ee POY 3 Sia Fo ee A SG BE ae ee Fs Oey ae eM St eee Sle econo Pre on amg EO eh aon Ee

6a Bie Joh wr See eee eee es 5 437. Pee OLY “Fy Saee F2479 ie sic ee wet ; eo ce ae tne — _— ee Ss “el oe%oeae eamnammntoe SN” eyeSse oe I oem = Oa CEgee eeeeek peoe eee Bets ee ee£43 oei eee, aay agEat > Se : ee >CANS ee 5 EES ag, 8eoBe : ee am*eaas” ~~ AoLl Fees; ae “nse We cerreeieennc Pv ag ca‘pot ene fo Co Bee peeet 5as th. BOR ES a5 YT Se 4J :>ae eg: Ragga AMER otee A era esse eeCae Rte 2ee Ee LAE t 2WS gee ;Po ;ee Fico : re:eee, ss aq ee eeeNig ee ke eg eette Fe ee =BPE Bs Serres © Se a ee >ae2S: BB ce 5 aee aes aeRh SS . ete 2Saag t3 ee Eek. EP z2ti, al +8vz Ze hog ueoe 6 es aes ee ON agae ggee 4 ease Bees &ee eke: esBEE ee etpa aespae eM BS” 2agee Be &es ERTS. (it ESpln : Sonam eae So F we. ERAS tats Eee ae FOE si eS=inSa x=Pan ora Pana ME gPrgeeeee Se i,ase Pe poco pee 35tBe ass as PE aes Ft 2 Sas i% 2$age ee eee HEE 4¢ge BENS Be ‘ke TES =egen Vai:eea:stte. ota ol pire Ce aese ei getter.” - Steere: Bee ie bt$Bee +2Sees ee ee©eeMikes ¥ bc mthcn PE oeSts ‘Berne »* Foe OE UE 24 ee>oeeee ae”

;5 se eeecen i eee ¥. Serco APeRcee Rereeecens .ees :EE a eeee Fees ee Feg EEC _,== Nee aetao FSS oeAsee eee ae‘fe 8 eo aor io i, Sommer mae oxaeR sco of ES ae, aaSe pi Beer ee tS eee aeLOE ee es panty Sinn Eee Ee Ae 2Eee —— eeeSEE aa coe pheee 0Saat een ee Tear2ELE Set. >:See Eee eet: oe Dee, eine ttn ese ORE” S:eee gaeto. eReee i S38 BSS ¢ti. ¢eet 2F: Be &, Pama cae eee, gree 6 2 Ipee TO BS oe.# BE aEE a aB. BarFe (33te te aEE wo meee ee os Smeg 7 Sot eee in Bees. eee es shitty: “ae £ +) ghee Shit ee ee ne op gee it Og ee p=en PONE Mccann a emmnatits My Res ee a 4 pg ee eg ae ie es ge See oP eres. BE: Eggs + eee ea paee nen geennen” 5 we ers . dlls Se Sols ene Ee eee tt pee Ege oe. ae Fone Be ee oe ee ay Sua es 5 oo. FFs Bae i Ce rience a ame enone ae ya te LR gues ee me OS ==: = es ee sah ee a ee ee a ee ee ie “te ee se + Bei piace ate Bee pm eparegpanty aie — BEE Sa ss . OS icin "ee ees te ;

= So ee Se SsNS. SS were: -v epee ee ss Le ee eerr emee EE Soe Oe etAE tes. >< eC iF if ee ee Ree Gee Bee OS ee ye Ee ee Ree sa ee crpsatin ib sede tel Ce Oe GCE ae ee eee ae Soe ACK Hees: aig ee eAase nom.naa napomtgenany pai GOFAL! OE PO CLae OI ae Se: ee ei, Bee egAS eePe tiesh =eee RErePea aeae EE eee eeMeta Se aeee Face: ae ee ees See. en Se5ee eee oe sls , :% Ses eS F, ee zadaes 4 yee Esee coc aa eens Etre: Eos ate renee aS ee Bb eteRak eset *esFAS pase #9 cas eGey eeeae eecton ee Ae eet pie ee sine ee eemnreneeaee , BS gles awe

Maem £7047? ee. ae ster . oP EE pe ae ee ae Meike 22S ie Co ee se, RES: SI ee aa Meee ee je ee * oe ali

ee . ‘..Gate See. Soe esSN BSae ee Seaee. Bee: Seepee seeaera aesee ee eee ee oe are Se Breet Eee sinners pike ape, la ae ualSEL ipTg REE ieee Mage ge gesee s a.or 2 ane germ Sac Se ae ca atee ger ee 4 m. ‘ eeet* ae ee osate‘Sete ie, ee Si. Beet Ep ene games ag SeeBRE ace a See ee reeSeen OEE aa cae SRO ile, igge bh, Sathana eee d5 3. aS Meee Ne BS eS re peean Miaat) Gee Se 3eae lee eetone eee Pe Bo esEES ieRR aequae Se ee eee: =RB 9meee ie pall apoe seal a2 :-Sees eed Sege23 Shae er«csee i int ae geal 3Races Re *Rigs Se eRe aD ieee SE gee Eo Cs bepga aad pr a aBF cad on —eg pre aa Se Bees eShg >ee sino rnSeieeeee BI a minarnnranm . pnects oe ee geeeCe aeRe Ree een * bcs 2 asi eae SE BEELER AS ee BEeee eeSE wegen vegeta 2on FE,eea>res & Leosapen eee REE ae Peeee eee ee, tian ee Pog aSe aME egat >aeBae eeeLEE Se ee ee>See =Ree Sees OS :SB sepinay kk sae Ne a aS a Rooagi pone ‘pin a

EEE aee pied et 2 mee ae aEEgiant Oe Se"esee eee ee ee :fe4PB ae | eo aeani =matcarers : oO a ec Pe SAE Se ee 'ygeSad ,Oe fy eee Ne Pao a fimo. SELLS ieBO eeaSRE ph aa:ee LEee ape ob ras seams OEeen orne aee aeoan ea a Be es ee are} es tae Sees = Se SEM Me aeions Sieoh a eee erie OP Se aks

Ee Sie ee oF . EE é Speen eee a > Ee Seiveee sho Bya CF %Rote skee Re Se Fig =ee oeNe ee Se Sig tewes Se i ieS LET IT ee oenai eee —— 8 men: :a— 5ee ee AEE Paes * :ie © Se Bees Je aes #coed wey eeSet. se Spt =» teae rmrmeorrsbowiter CPOcas tin A~SEs, peeBie 258 Ngee = AE: ART Hic LEI: oP en~s phage gsiPie eege aSol aeoe geaa e gO ee Zmmensaninontt A4 eDiets aca ee we ee ee eee SS gamer gglaaceaaaaaal SWE ME ng ees a eor ae — oe oS PEER are ee atee oA tee, BES Soe ee 2eas ee ‘ ene Renee esENeacge teRe Ge oso 85% mene , a)

: : ee ee. Pt: " Cee se Rez Bees wares Mnahod * aaa ; quae ae ae +i BEoiea a Woke et 6505 ange a> Leer re2“£4 Pas Sear Fee Bee? fzeee PCRS SR. aye ” 5 Seeaeeceseeea oe ale -LP . ee " ==Ga Fue etseA. Me ¥ re Pessoe ioe aeSeteaerie oeseca,

a Soo a 5 eee oe > re i . : om aa So Smee eects “ee ae A. ee : seekers : bo “3 o Seater . See ennies ee: :inne : . nnn aesSora ee = a RS Sime gsc ce pe aesee Se ae eS =arise

™ = 22%e% ng HeSe= ;= :eesee : : > Bi SeOe Sea See

;.aassie+ aT a cement rR es “ivncainesh acta Beste : : teens Serres: hy 7TR i tees reo eeeERC ce coer Soke ens SSSRreais cane coer ecreenenien Bean

ace. aces Spee 3 a3.2 :k: ee =s bites cores ee :% : : Hepes : oe i. 4-Rivrecncronsnonanas memset eS ee ms = oF ie i ES : eae = mia a : :

— ae “A $* ; tapes &ae [ 4i ie é -aj4 fo < & fPsani ep OE, A ig SaOE Pees ee Mee ¥A age 2aFET Gan *ie 2 ae pops 5:Eii a ee *reeanes OO FF ee | aSSe 4‘ wh fe EE “%‘

ae 7. a ee EEL ee ee fo wer os ee a er ee ss ee ee f. Bs i Me Naat ee f Ras Fits Seeeteteaos? ee ee Be4 Bee Sapa Wf ‘ es ie. oa étF F; oe cbt he ena. 5naters. EeRe nsge+gee sg Se i. . 3eser ae éRe a“ig Se, ee ba eg pCR EF Se RSIS ES ek“Beame eet eS. aeeeBota =eeane ega mae Eeage oefeeBs ee Pee eB ee os fe

se Da gees ee eee foie wee eetag > —Co ge Mis.” G5Bae! ie ees eee Lee ERGs eeeMeeks RE 2S Ee Ee Leet eA a Spy Sseceeiae ts eee aeesee oe” sRMite Bees, pee S. SoBe a”ae ee & 3 Me Sak eam Sees pare sot Seeks ee=gt Soe: Sege.” i man £5 Sees FeAare a |Sas 35 oe FE ae teeCia ae&FO 2: 2:oS >oe GRO IGE ESerg ae EAE a aFeta Ae Re ee Sg aRe Nite. ee 24 aebeSe ee 4cas: f 3ng oesi:ay eeeae ae”... ry $2

; pee ees geek Sd ee a EO RE ees Us Lect SPS nn “Sag Se ye eee paren ig of i a ee 5 Ree 4 $35 a

*Ae og feet 3 Sak eS RO Bs Fsi Bee oe to eae tee ss Fs ts SeSe in eee ReSee eck a Eee Te “SSS ececeecaee 4 i: ile‘ oe So ae ;4s. ; coe eM f eee 4 he ib: i534 Bee 3 Rak Mea es ersee tpseee ey Ae te eeeites He ett) ‘ Pages™ alae :Beg TES ees, | ee iy aes aes |fF SeeSse at Meei 4 2e3 mi

¢: eeGEE See PF eS$F ne Me eseeAue i77g Bee taaeSes | #oS ee . rece bteeEe Eee Oe7Fs Sti: 20 ‘ eeieoh ae eeaBBE SF PEST ye Pe em > Fa Paice. 5 go. Ages Gate i Se. og ee. 2. gee :Set? Bo OS EEE EEE BF SS = i 41° d s, Ssgs ss ¥ Eg 3 $s “$S Sees ee ieee. ok

£ Sep ee PSs ace See: 5 oe BasSstees Bes SB famweb, Se $e 4 bsece if z:serch ee | eeEee 8 rreeseSBSaypo, esod Seeecas ESSsi i: ’a $83 43Ce GE A Fak cogss © fSee ogee, ery- Faber ee =Fa Pong Fe == a “3 Po id a Sastre oe ‘z:Poy a

at ate SSR eae Pee. Reem ee Caee a ee es eae ae ee elie es Be: 2 ee 5) Pa Mag. Geteeinees Bp RT eSeR Sees eeeee fe -9tige ts Meeeeme eS eee Be sae ee Aes tug ij. a geee eSSe ee me ieee = Se ye met nee 2 Oe a SP ie rene >befee Se agies! Soe Beee Sha cae ci eames Yee tuaeg a Mee Reig ge eeeee Be es PS Se ae eee See ge:Se eee seMle re 5,Oya a he eee eee 8 f. Rees > eeeeee iii,TeBae Fh eeee

5eeee Ee tae. pate Letts Pe. pete es eggEee 5: seee, -beeoke ae : Be Pree Ae = >>>eee 5 ate aay Pot gee8Geer €&Sct Fe a eames goose é 3of Sues * Phe a (BE gee Foe ee Fs ae a-:- > ot oeTie bes ee Gee 2 gees gee gs. ~dil Sea ee eae S ee +re “Sg BeosPS? eS es7S eae, les oi 3 SRG os ee eeeerRg eae$e oaae= i>, GMa Sea Se“gee een 2Px SE #A:©eS Ape Ee eS ye > OG eee

Set ae Pee ee ee eae a a ae. Ree eee se bee x &. se eae se ge ae gs ae See EM : MER, A eli Se Oe

es,ie, Stel q er pees =EO, esaePs, Bees teeeBE ie : soe So eaON Pi Mle 2pee I2ss. Ge: esee oe aeeSy et. eSSere fecee apect é: aes ” bs ih es OeBee eae OP. gsBe ae ag i;SeaA SE ee a Yee neee, ee 2.eeee aeS et & iin Dotas ER EEE ge ED Deas WORE Secs: eee oe $e5 LEB : oe SBelos St A 2 GR ae Sag My as ee gee i 3 ga PCRS SID marE a eee Mee ieoon ;reer e Pioete te |ea, ge ee Ee, ee gt: ipa PRR Bee onMe. Fae yeoe

A eaetCS ER eeeBe game See se Gl eeRep eg bP ee Hoes, me ee ;3fcame : fio : :age eae eeeePee ee eg ee Se ee by| SM 2pees oS gnSk fees PreFs:x Bile >* aeos reeeEe Ae foes agama Beace 38 casete gaits Lage 1 Bee ee ee ee es seaegteen eee in Res ge See ae ae: eae BEE: ceeage Hite. ga es Keg ame : ] i ie §Be pre Spies ee See ebeee Coes, Be Ses So beet2ee 2¥ Sb: o> iwaeseeete[Sees FY gayeeaAS £25 ngEs segs, 4 Ese we. eenee ae EES Fae PPS eeeee NegeeEE: Skee as Ae| oP Pees es ae Pia A eee agent $i +4 Mes. aoe aFog Sane ee oset ee ! ‘,ae gsi$s reel, Cee Mees et See a ee sa ee Siete, oe 2: pan aati.ce CEE ertee Byeeee Ee Se Bc eee 8 ae Rae acs oe? a ERE > eeeMak EE OEtee: ie 2 a 2 ‘Ee : ‘i iFe eae=“ae asgh eeeA ee Seaeee ee,Poehe. te pete ee, ee Sat i ae?

;H Sent the BP SE ER Ee ee SaaS oy, SSosly *ee Gaspari onta Ras Bs2 ee EO SeLee | Pee ete to}teee 8 ee ON tefe a} eS2ieee wer. md pee Bes ce Peet |aa Bee eeee Bg be ee age Sees gee aes ee... Bee DS eR seca eee OS wagte Corte ee rae +: Fe eS ge eg 8|Ee ee ee ee ee ee ee PS

2Ye i ce ae5a oo eeTER eSig£= Psecee he. gee xBgea eearene eS eePee peeteeee aeey.Fie ee pey a3 ae 2g) 2eeegaee ee tes opOR ot Seae eae Ree eager Fee eect? Se eest Rsee eer a i ee a 23 a eas ge TAL ei Eee gee Cee Bee 2Se= eae sae: PES wcrc gaa oeisieee Gates 6 4 Weenie Ft eeee ie eee eaeBee eS:

SA aaeran eB i og ag,eee Be &OMe pe Soeck * ERD Recreate 55 Ma gg Keeee GE RE pee aoe Ee Ro ee See $4 ees3s “62 : ae eZ: Seei.eeay APE SSeee 3 Ta eee pee ime Ree ee CE eeAES” tree Yee ee ee~Pigg ee>aeEti gee oe:2BE gieesSe ae Hee Bee ee ee EM badeae Bape FPF MMM teswere RR ree OO ne RUIN seen ge ees %ayfe eeemihiag. 2a, a set ee Seg eee 7ayee.Si €> ae Eg eseg Se pene RES MAR er: 3\poo ares wemmaame eee i ee =iehrnas “i hte Ace ae:

sg,aati ae)Siphii ea ae SSB et gpwe eee 108 ee eemamma. ee coneccaeaeaea Se ceePSSener ee Se Fee eee a ae SE as gemma eS ee OR a oe aeemmmcietee eect eshi SS ane. aaaeg oye SA FsMEISE SM SeORE eae Se eeEee ee SS ee) ST,ES eee eee Pee Recea PE MERE Syapeweergucesey Sie Ce ggeae ee Ae me Ee age GED ee eS eh MME eSSO eeeele eRae REOP ewes iece seememeued :etpiling “einem” TP.ie es, 6 te 2 aia | mg ZA Stele is eee Fe pact ye a eee eee eS Spee ee ee ee 4 ial SE ee ge OE IEE ete “4 ei a ee Eee ban ee Pas f eRe 3 ASE 3 RPP pease Rete eage te Recreate re po Sie See 2 eae 2, CS: Pa cee a ie ee ee oe pe ee ‘« wt @ ‘fe tr ee age Be oe Ee eet rae eee es 1 iy eet = Be So Se eee Oe Sati Prin > eee ae > AE Se So ae o pe cei 2s i> 4 iS SS Ey Cid S 6

See gO Se eee BE i gs eee : eam CS aSS SS rn Jags, Bo Bee eee 3fa 4 as *aeacess EsSS) Wee AS ee eeae eetsfree, ao onee Soe, tase oe >A ‘Giese =eeys 2a 2% 4 ean ae oe ee 2-Se “eat re ixesJ353402 | ;F>aer= eeSees sess eee teeee 2h ee ee eg “e ei5-PE aRy etd Oe Ee ar Se et Reo >eee a ee geeameye Ni sect egmn? He ce gy wnanne as Eee ae>: gb ars Re| oe EE Sa a ee aa,Bee SPS ee A a az Steed OeGe enee Z ee i E: a8 “eee a Aad =, xe 9 ES

eeH's _ tees Sgt # vs Pere, care Pa + sg = =fcpe we. - atee” . ee > ee woe >i - cys... Lae Syne ie > SeFe aeee See |)eesUl BeteHy, ee ee ansa My re ooITE TR tee Sookie i| a)Se I ot dywe a Wyes iest ~ i A ae fi deeOEY

Slee eee Oe ge oe So ace ie eo ea ee ag

ee ee ge Te Se ee ee i i ee ate ae SR See oe eg RO OF mS Sica = seca Se ee ee 1 cange Pinan ire ries eT en oe Re 2 SEO. 5 ke eee Date oe i Sect OME co eigall

:#

Peapoesed Larteneies sos S otac ducts lee8. GHGOuxG Fi 48 A. Chapel G. Beewees Convent-of (Margaret, deed UY Ko *Pe § 22be 6. Base h.Bat Secee

‘ fo. ; ‘ ‘ oh. pa t: Shea! toate Cast OSringtead, Berni G)Re GeeLi Heer: a Rieck ;

pipes * | a $ Netcare, Mictrsees afOL. the Novice9 ad Larder Sussex, mie of on cg : & 4 ts pe gent + go @ “ Uae iy oka £- ee : oe eee see Pap een ] fo TI 134 | 4 é hypy 2 Meng term Hee ‘ ete oot _.

).....

GEGHGE COMUND STREET. AAA ARGH! ‘ {iy Lilly] saad ee ~ re & Stara co {. Peed Tar ioaing ee

8 Convent of St. Margaret, Grinstead, Sussex (1864—g0), his largest work before he entered the great law courts East Grinstead, Sussex. 1864~ and National Gallery competitions in 1866 (Fig. 8). There again Street produced

go. Chapel built to revised de- ne esd . wae sen. e878 Ge. (huildine an informal composition, justified by the rural setting of the building.

News, 18 December 1868.) The Early French achieved monumentality without resorting to the proposed synthesis of classical and Gothic, and this “muscular” and “masculine” style thus drove a wedge between Street’s High Victorian theory and practice.*’ It nevertheless became the preferred architectural idiom for Street and many other architects in the early sixties, for it possessed both extraordinary visual power and a timely congru-

ence with High Victorian cultural values. At that time, the intellectualization of the Early Victorian period was gradually yielding to a more vigorous, outgoing attitude. A symptom of these new values was the emphasis on physical exercise and sport at public schools, a movement led by Rugby School under Thomas Arnold and celebrated by Thomas Hughes in Tom Brown’s School Days (1857). Another sign of the times was the challenge offered to theological ritual and symbolism made by what was significantly called “muscular Christianity.” This term was aptly defined by Charles Kingsley in 1865 as “a healthful and manful Christianity; one which does

not exalt the feminine virtues to the exclusion of the masculine.”

High Victorian Architecture 35 To these currents of thought Street remained alert, and his work for Edward Thring, the famous headmaster of Uppingham School, brought him into direct contact with one of the leaders of the movement. Thring had taken over the then tiny school in Rutland in 1853, and on his first day he played a symbolically important cricket match with the boys.°° He revised the curriculum in order to attract students, increasing the contact between the masters and their pupils, and he also launched an important building program. In 1859 Uppingham erected the first gymnasium of any public school in Britain, followed a few years later by a carpentry shop. In 1861 Thring obtained the appointment of Street, over the objections of the board of supervisors, to design a new school room and a chapel.*° It is easy to imagine why Thring, who wrote that education must strike a “balance of manliness and intellect,” was impressed by Street’s work of that period, and why Street produced a muscular design for Uppingham.”

Reinforcement of this kind helped to sustain the Early French and delayed Street in putting his theories completely into practice until 1866 and the competition for the law courts. Only then did he face squarely what he had identified as the

High Victorian challenge and impose classical order on the architecture of the Middle Ages; this gave his contest entry peculiar poignancy and significance. Thereafter, Street was beset by the great political and bureaucratic forces that shape most of the following story. But in the midst of that storm, Street continued to reconsider his artistic position, as reflected in the slow evolution of the revised and final designs.

The law courts as built returned to the muscular and picturesque, and that final transformation signaled Street’s abandonment of his quest for the “‘central building of the world.”

= \ Ve \ - . oe ee

Sy — ~*~ - — : - yw. : —-— oe

oes ae ae Ae 22aseeesco on a- .,dlUC Ye Z, ro\ § : 7 oe — Be a, | oS . 2 y \(& 4 _ es ae he 4. | ee — | ° as — 2 ea :

—e Oo a SS ee ae eee. egy, Feae - ee_Soee ee Se Lees42 Ee eee j Ef eee jes EES oe eeee ee AA Ssee 6ee.oe had feGee y [eG —— wh oo Es ®eeaeee ee ee a= =.

— Noe a. uw 74 ae Lied ae es . 7 : ke Seaeoe dé Ff "\ 2Lega Ce= -~~ee| ae a 4= =. «x—>oe eeee St =6.—— ee eS ee Se ~~. aebe eTee 2— a Yr = oF Lo — e oe ee fo i ft eo re ul a oo | oe oO: a: hlae Os2eae popL ey .aCt ee ee se — ey —. e a BC. : ee aS a 2. oo A \ ~~ . . é 3 - 2 a Ce ee ee ee paces ee ee ee See ee bps eee oR cee eee eee ad ee tae EE Se ee ee ee ee

i. - — - . ee ee a : ae : - a :

. ~_ ¥FY..Q- ee "aeoe | eea ee .ee LVeA hoe—OG —) O De os ew oe MA.) Pe-Sern — Oe eesD j RM — SeaeeeGs ees ee a Se Eirias, eee as oS am eee ogee re Eene ee a eeeo pe i Wee 2 ee oe 8 _ |. .|YF !— : . 4s “eg a VS : Cc ee — wt 25 a gs Oe - eeGe i wl ee ~¥ .“7 ae _‘oeésa- |_ee —a 2— Me : ieeAk

Te 2 Age —eS, 3° fe —eeee teae ee7oo | Ae —ae ax < se 3s ce — ee SS 7 € oy ee oo eeSo— — ye- aKk. bie >eeAe { 23NY ge | Co hy 4 a| ‘:\e - 8 oe ee — - Se_AS 2NS ye at Ze a LS .Af AeKO ee phn meUx - Ve -2 — — CS—_ oe 3o oe S _7os oe oc —\¥ye\\\\VA eea_. aes. _. a\ oe | Ne ral oo NoNY ee.oo ok-— Yi ce a a4eA PONG ). Ne oS Le \ \\WWeads

_ a = A .— yw . A ay ae oe Ve eC — “ ~ ae 2 *% 4\ ¥Se . re oe VA Yee | i & | ie FS Be : 4 ge Se SS : fess ee ee pee je ; ee ee ee : EME ee Re Ee bee ee Be ee B. Bee ee ees ees oy ~~ | e A ‘ : | , 4, | ee oe ao : — = WS AeAy ¢\ \ cA — ay y \\ 3 |

Aa |— - \_ — ee w oe ey.ve os-No _eae1Sy =ee| eeé8ee\.ayy A “a A.._.3 A eSFees_SS NY ae — OeSRS oe See ee —esese eee Le eeataxX es ee AY — a Zeees r eS es a LeeA ee es\ Ree

ee ge ee Uf oF a es — — Se rr — 4 Or ts he ae, oe co ty Te ae ae Dil

ee es |Le Ee Ne es oe 2 ae: ee 4 a ae z | Zs ‘.ge — q 47S. see ae _Se1See 8 2eeoe oe ee x es (aeeaeeeNe oepe=SEs ee BES Z ee: — 2 ee wefee- Eee — cee a eeoe“eea oe sists

le _ < — fe : _ _ ay S , ee — ee Lo e — — ee bo cy‘ . ae& : Se7: -seen — es . i Wy - eeog ee yy, oS Cee Ve aso ee ee 2 2 ee \ y | iy ok zfis A ee SAN ce = 5ee — ——— adecskdsee= | 5 =%ee : 5Fdoe eo aae ee2 a” oeSSRm Se—ee a ees

—c—vos ay - eT ee “e Ch xX ee oei. 1 SS pos ee 4 3AU 4 $l — —.. ee '{ :Le :iy| oee\ Ge — eo E 3de EME -. So & ee ¥ 2, x oe 4k MS % ws 23U4 ° S— | : :ae \ o ue aaS: Ae) ate Nd ate : pt yi;—os JBoe \ >:— §» A se See C*, jgoS i aeee a -Sebe - _. |_ee : oo el go ; jj tA Ser CO ae oe pee si _ > 43 = Sle.oe cate seg reg coee SS -Ee=y,oe OT GRE ed — - er aT il™ py La __ =O a . on _ oooN _oo ua “aie s‘ 5| Je3my a Fea oooyLn ,— Se as . sk _ Ss | 5 — 2 Ma Ee 7 a OD — CC -: ;On yv.. . aeVe. .o pee POwail ge ee ia hip side: LA ee = —ee8 S - 2S |:A ‘ es - e\3 aSfAse ge we e ieosgee _ ie ee —

dee —— Ze=7 é2 =\ *— = :g ‘ : . -\0 ¥y | J Pe ) - |.7| Ls ee gel _ ; ee wiat. So : :alSs. _©inee

eef wk | ==‘—“N i “iCooe C6ee -2 — = ee_— . s—\.ee— 2 a Se. Se Se See Se -. ee*7 2DooSY a -ia | oe ] ee>$eLs—

» Me o 7 2 Lo oo - —. — - ~ ae oF a — 8. _ SS 3 oF ee oo a & a oe oa “4 Be —e a 7 — = ai . oo . re ee oS ae a a \ > < a MS ere oe ae eS 8. —* ; * ibd © i eB A ee ee ee ge ee. ee eS ge oe . oF / . : 5 — ; Hs 3 — fpr i> * ee “ Se ee ee So —_ oe Bee — ee — ee _ _ oo \; \ a :

ceo hee fe\\fhe 6LEigen ongee ea # ee eeoe eeeeeBEE ee oeco — so -& _ooL|. Be . *: | : 7%oy Ae < — —eco —eeee [—.. -|.— es ge ie + 2 ofa Cee eae,= ee Eee:}seSe eeeee eee ee EE epce Bee eee 2 ee segs ae -— . SS so

niae »\ = =,“Fe A _— ee a Be eo -_ — i.) A .eei| | > : ae : :P a% oe Ee ees eee ee — — eis ae:ee fe= eeee EE= ee oe ae Bete ——rr—O—C*N ee Bas pe eae eeee Bere EE oe TT yy . ee So oe 8. : . Yd OF x _¢ fyi Yh? oo oe — | Pe oe _ o. Ff /_ oe d | : . Ss 2» , ve 7 = = De ee _— oe ee Se IE — Cs a Zs ee CC se ees = sds FS / As iS — oc le Se ee - - ee . . ; — ee 2. S , ;Lf , , . a aie ee ee ee:

1 OL Cr ot ee ei BE on hl MM gs “WZ Po A Ca: PCR \. A _ yn | i. 6262 lr , ¥ of ath 2 GD ike) ec es ‘ AL” itl .

. 35 Le at Ae Lay ois 3 WAZ Le GS, os Pee SES,

‘ : ae ae 4=aZ_FY ohAe SS ¢ee ee= i.= ee” 1 ee |eeaeeLtSD sy eeiD) ey x oo ee

a -Leane e. ha YA YY VA, a eee a a 4aLe. oo i Yy\pce V/Aig (ilasilltnny 7 —Ys Me :eece ‘i hl| e “au a

Be Core \N\ A? Y Daag’ rar aan aa bs

yoAi.' gsae| yok n\n 5 ae Cee fa 7 bay a Ad a AS gd en A ee a.

2 “gg poten we a et AON ‘a\ Oi hb oo Le aa. bet) Li ai)eUy, i aey caccieg :| —e eese AY CUA oS ae aaGa eg wo Yee ay WOH ec:nnSe MY; oS Ww @ oD | Aducked : - ,“bed 5a Sn roegaR = 1-yy \:i YUa:

is JANCTZ, on Gem \\ ce LAVAVG E47 i PURNIVALS | A | i Y\jre ( te amh. inh - VDE - a ae Ar - ig dA gt 2 | | Dal tee iy AY c “ eee Se a dba gs eeol IE, ig gf ee a ptf eS :eS oe ee SM Se 2-:e eeWY § ag 7We Ar “i #| kalafoNee AY Jom We eePygeadel A ge Aefoe yeee. if _Zee el Be a 4,2 CO

e oS oe = eae snsilibnomnti 4 ee 2 48 ig eee — Ze ed iin Wi ee LA A eS cd o(ll ;ying. : co i.| my, ee le th8Zoe VST: Ze=< Yiae iy .by i, Chon »|A y | UF WeyGe li Sy

. D,» Al Vy per _ ea. : on | “ay Ly i : FY y ae 1 Ue HUY; Pr de a HRA i \\ .“oe % Ut” LG,WG \; is 7\s es»eyYO tip (eZ A ee TS | V4ou F tifa A ly A ope oeZeYC), D aWipe yyySoaeae -(LF = ee Wi, j\o%

. ::aN ve e7 \\ y\ a Yay 7 aenfo — CO - “LAV a \e rami = |VL >& i. ae Bie ageeeia) co2

| | . : , ¥ A Ls La V7 _ iS, — vo iy fa A ee ee ee Bee ee -——r SS ee = : fos a

x—— a ee Ugyy—os. YY - 2Lscee a | 2 ae ee-V4 y a “59 me .ior > ce ot ‘Lg ~~ Le f lS 4 WA Vi |ipalYY @. _ :oo ar -— y=2Vg pe ds “Wigs . ey Y ZB ae| -4J .Yt .gee . | ;Cait )Pls 3 |K) bows ‘7, ig : : yr . se UY Z : Wf 2 oe a yy 8 Yy iy, Vie, YY Uy a. dk ; ae ye A “ oa a ties of) o nn — - _ Y Y 4 Y, SS Y : yey Vi e ty LE a Ze _ So ey Vv. a

: Zz ; ae en. te y = Ee Cy 2 See s _ ——- 7 Ze 1 rr eg eZ3 Bes

" 7 x y q — @) £ erie Wi. _ > 3”, _ Lisi . ila) Za * ~ PO S ‘ Z \ q Oe 7 «a ae ee : ZZ. a_i ) ay’, WHEE, Kg hed Or J

| > x P as 5 SF | yl Uy ls pda iy hap]

] = a ee > . % - a Se ™ oa , CB — UY ty WY LY jpuigs oe ke : Sop - oe Vea Ji tity Sy ffs fe :

\\o- \2soa=a.- ew 3| . «A gr: a, tp © dl ae ——_ae WW 4Gy WW es y as7 WAAAY ee s/s loliakia ge oe eee : nd #2 oem) Wh, WY WU Uf i = =

= 4Se MEE ppb tLe (ieee iy’ Loe OA nt ‘i Cy, EDVy TE |wz Vi Yj si om Ee =e } aae—:-:ie =,. Fs YLUY, Vy :Z hp mlhe ee, eeYip “3, £2 PE: y ,: Yff ee Y EPPS eSMh YiyLy YG, Uj S=ley aiae ,:: ~_ni) Yg Yf{APES WyLe : op Mile ae Wp Ld 1 ZA Tipp iiallll, yy

> ie = D> a / 7 se OL se 11. gaa Yy Easel eee YY Lee WEG — Ue ie oO DCG yp,WL Va(a ir VY) USly ey7 OO ~ oo AGS SY ie EO?Y ey ae Y, Sea7ZY : WyGp “ys iON Uy WZ

.i * : . x ‘WZ WH, yy _.t gfe? if) . : , 4; Ye / thy } Wy 3 : 7 ; | | , 7 . | 3 | wet"eo 4 AY ;La, UYVe‘eet a ye Spe :om Yi TD Ml iEe 'Z wee ’ AG 2 Nigga LE ys ;ae . A .| :VN 5 B , eo oS -gn \Z eB yy, Dye) he hGgLS, a » /Gg ype 9ma) jo ae/~ \Z|. Cre. yp, o ‘a a g Ss ee ve3 fs : oe we” = Uy f ee Vi SZ phe the? Uf rf P., "eae “fi eS = 4 4 WE: fj “iG Liie/, ag f Viti: ts ee hd ty Jd ice ess ig

— « 2.”%aUshi’ aw ©. _*» «agit Ute Vil a iss=“shib - LgW ie aom . hy IY es yyy dh f, 4J CN ee i ss : of Se : RE: E 4 > Bere = = * : J * * zs bE: t 4 Pe Bee he a See poe hide de ae &

: ESS : ag ce aa ue : a 3 be _# * : os © 3 & : Ld % 3 & ee s a pa :% cs d a4 A REM SIRI RISES

pre == See 3 % z 23% $ Pe cas Sen . a SRE EERE GOGO AEE, Rt PaesEOE EG

Se—$: Eg 3 arcane reaercaeeaeei ee 4a! cerca a 4 eseee wea aae eg= 22S pe cece recinre e be Ragen ckine Beseceosisecnsonapai eat BORE eeccarnaaite teeta 4 " eee a = pete Sess 2

ESS F ee eS E Sener ipieiicdncn, le fen senate scat gy ‘z*;ae 2a ae oS : perc OX, Soot aery =e AEE ipa:aas‘< fete %ha“Sas De |Sip :ee i =:213aE fF (ea) a sii - =Eh—h—h—heseNENNSeeSsS‘Oe alol Er Se eee..eeee eae ee ce eo ig 4—— Beer eee reeee si, aSF #23 ‘ ae |= Ped fefs gf ic on ee aeieeg aa Bs es,Sgee ae % ee ES & eeees ge ioae&ge ge ,3SS fgapes | Sees fe reeSebs +Bee . oot GEE, si | Ae a acd eee ‘ ee ee wm ae, cegee ee eee peCei,+4 opig 2 *eee — oeR

t~-s oe eees le ee Ee eeSe‘iS Seeka ee Pgaeee ee, Teg : ee a om gee BE? ee eeoeeeee Pe '*—— ? fe, end ee &S pie, FB F_™ oe See er ,EZ oe ee Se yf ee Bs i oeOe Hmie; ge Pe eeeeeek{See ne Cee ea Beee2 . ff 2 2s ¢ S f Dee he

a 2 oe Se ee Gee 338 oe SS ee ae” ee SG fone Be a ge es 3 = ee £ Be 3 ie. Si |Se SS soPs,crBw.‘eo .se aeeego POceeOU | Ge weoeFens SeSeeee eeys-igus , eeeeeees eS .Seeeeses Bae Wa

£€ ~ & >. CS Pe, eg : Ma CE Es q NEN go reeBAe Saal ae FeiteeBPef2bee Pe % 3a Bacsciics ee Seessnees Oe eesPS eee-oe ee t.: ..-—: eo es es aees>,Bs oe —&U wrasNO eefi oe = catia . 4ee, ‘ st oeee: oer ne a ee ten =e co leeeetLo ae eeeer “eee o7 4seis fearie 8See Es eeee ee2Log cee 6— eea >ae ©=, Bee oe ae 2ie pee ‘ re “apt Pas a—. soeAes|ps =< =eSa aye! ESEe Aeee eeSper - ot ig, :aS ——— sO5 $23 tea eia og 4 ex bs ge oye Ge eee ipl eee 3 2 ot Se obs Cee a ree eee;te eSEe 2kae Se AN oeiy — :3-ift ae J.J Re SSSnare geeeeee Soceenes < petit Peee ee i ae aa pee ees Age A|2eee i eee foe if| eBe “eE a os -ee& xees oeaSSee al83oe a gee er eee eee oS ae ian eeweet fe ~~. eeee. iPe a3= eek — ~. — $. es go ik tes tha povpesesd Chambers. ON : Aha grated tena of Coast, | fhambers cZANG ea ' ve ae “ast. he Law Chamiders 4 ties & Stites 8 age, the ; : : ge.ss ateLaw propesed ferindicated the LawteGteae o— eXwoalily , . eee d the fer the Carte, ate

«* ae = parts tinted Hack Xe a ore porpots pripeed te be pe pehuased #4 thé «2 the saeesras BS 3 *vad: and ONS on . tae tiurta and the Chambers wetstlee f there 3

|: ‘(Go 5 & 5 me Se < ae. 2

* Baseee 22%% secsauans 7 . eonssnnsanannosnnnsenemeemmanesmamnnsensnessuameemmmammmmmnataasiatl snarpateneccnnie

_N? 605 . ;Ordeqea pore senna eres i —4s 3 r of Prntai i*Angirat. tv theCommons Hows ¥ te he at

Lge Bae Seacsed.. Fes nies

Law Reform and Its Architecture 63 16 Barry. Proposed The dirt and filth are so abominable, that sometimes in hot weather you have

1845. Map. (BPP, volume . . 1 .

law courts, Carey Street site. difficulty in walking through those places; they are dreadfully bad, and the

12 in 1845.) circumstances of having pulled down so much in St. Giles’s [the adjacent parish], has driven so many more of the poor into that neighbourhood. . . . There is a great deal of it that has no drainage, no sewerage at all, and there being a current down towards the Strand, a great deal of water and filth has to find its way down.®

The Buller Committee was told that this 73/-acre slum could be acquired for £675,074. But Barry cleverly argued that the real expense of the site could be calculated as only £172,224 if part of the purchased land were devoted to new chambers for lawyers (at a ground rent of £316,474), and if account were taken of both the savings to be made by vacating the present offices (£100,350) and the value of the land on which the Westminster courts were built (£86,000).°° Barry also presented a brief indication of the type of architecture he envisioned at this new location, and his block plan was included on the map published in the report of the committee (Fig. 16). The center of the cleared land was occupied by the law courts themselves, organized on the same principles as the project for Lincoln’s Inn Fields, with twelve to fourteen courtrooms arranged around a central hall that would presumably run north-south, following the longer axis of the building. The more crowded site would require a taller, four-story structure, but the courts and the central hall would still be lit from above. The exterior, Barry suggested presciently, might be treated in “the Medieval style of architecture,” and although he did not explain this change of intention, it is likely that he was motivated by the tightly enclosed, urban site, on which only oblique views of the building would be possible. Presumably Gothic was better adapted to such picturesque siting. To the east and west of the courts proper, Barry planned detached quadrangles of incomeproducing offices for lawyers, one of which he showed absorbing the Law Society’s new clubhouse on Chancery Lane. The cost of the law courts themselves—only a part of the entire project—was calculated by him at approximately £300,000.”

Further Site Debate; | Bi THE Wilde Committee, the Buller Committee published only a transcript

The Scott Plan of testimony, which received no discussion in Parliament. For a while after

1845 the attention of most law reformers turned away from architecture and toward the partial fusion of common law and equity, but when this was achieved, interest returned to architectural matters. The debate focused again on the site. Although this question had seemingly been settled by the almost unanimous evidence heard

by the Buller panel, the strong endorsement given to Carey Street by the Law Society was now challenged by other powerful interest groups who wished to see the courts built in Lincoln’s Inn Fields or in Lincoln’s Inn itself.” In January 1854 a deputation of officers from the Law Society had exacted a generally favorable response to the Carey Street plan in separate meetings with the earl of Aberdeen, the prime minister, and Sir John Molesworth, the first commissioner of works.7* However, Harvey Gem, the leading proponent of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, also conferred privately with Molesworth, advising him that impending events would make the Lincoln’s Inn Fields site irresistibly attractive.?? Gem’s prediction came true at a meeting on February 1 of the trustees of the fields. Awakened to the

F PROPOSED N2YW LAY GOURTS,

ah PERSPECTIVE SKETCH FROM THE NORTH WEST

AG ig fox. 8 of Fs ; ida F

re = fe! iy n> Mok Be A Wi:

PDY ae EHH ey a) heeLa a3 eee 1@\ ee jie BON ih EN ee (fl ON ot aa

a ) fa ae Se Bh NN SEN aN

a a ia oo ad 1 0UléCK SS i = | i Fe A “ Beye wee prem Nis nhc a

ae 8) ES La =—e—__, , ae: ay, Aa! eee | A i ape ee Oe aRS |Beee ee eS cee ee ees8ON aBee - fee Be £208 BY kia be |ng COC ec | OLE Boy oe INN oeee|ee

On Vea Ae ae Ee AME wana Wie ve 3.9 im) 6B (EN Y/N ee ae

TRae TD8eae AE ai ~. Ad BS Ane oe Py AMONG ae 7Se FY Pe 8 ale] eee hee Se |) 2 2) Pees a 8 i? Gg : Fae oS | V2 aa ee) Se Oe a eC

See eePllee A a i Rae ne fq 4 26) a 9 26 26 i oe | aan ieee 7 Se! ee i cea iy is t d ial Be

4 “| 7 lg) : ee 2 a2 2 . a q oer 4s poe a : 7 —— } aes fee ie oeabd . = SetiCeAA E Ege ee 2 aa ee foe Se ee 2 eRe iiltl 2 Pe ss

OA. sae ‘ca any ra Le emit iti}! ci BEE a et hig Salle / | a |

Reh Big= 4ithih tobe leElaS ga)| =?| i —. oeaa a3! |GlTRIBE ts mei Bi: Bitte HH Tit. ogeet ok Mic | ile 2 DER

Pee, & Ses fis Lee er. + $e, Sats = Se i Se ee 2 gf fe ee eee Ce oe ee. ig Hee < eee S _.} : pee? ee eee eee Bgee bees Boe ee Se ee i # ge) i BS 22 : isk

foePie ~~AKL aN nF tia: ETRLUELE ‘ee Ho. 7 AS THEE Hk iL. $ +Mab 18 ecceee we a ee TRL.LT Hini i.hittut it Ait —~) ep£t Fl)/ OSS EARL ie ee_

eS : SS ee SS ses| yr teeleiee eS & >&Bie Pe acf Fee ee ee Oe Bee ef A ig SS Eee eoaefli 5a ¢A= *orayy PeSES ig Be Ae, oocipli eecaah fFeS2 eee ne ee otee| Gy ft; es + Eee 4imeit ae32a,228i tld ft—

4. vis ee 4 y e (a: IOS Ae EF itm: igi tihi fi i 8 € . . Ne — fs | hee Py oie i ok L Fi -@ if

a, Bike (bg i ry Fit Sh hal. | oe bee | 1 t © FF | iil Ame UMS i -* Ce me ot BE 7? Pf

TR I Pin. Po tLdEaee ATE, 8 ea aey \* US a - IreON ~~ ifSel! ii Be Miltgigi (er |m oe -A a tt~we Pat Ss0wae Sa a a®ae ee ttm fide en Tt. r 1 1 bil. borer? jiteas “4 TY TT eee ef ee: Te a y : fe Z : - a - L 2 a a a : i: S fe . ® ws ES . ‘ ft . , eS _ ; _ Se - . Lo ' seg ot a : . - » i 3 a 24 ge i a Ss aS S, 4. lid Se%s %. WA 9 0.86 a >a = = — C. > oro Bete i CL - 2. é | Ge — & * de i (iis _— os

2G? Seeing “AE ey,AES Pie, Ffa 7ae EEL. AN = Birettnc he — eS A ee yo ae ee be mg ten S 2s Tapio tee J oa eGinBigs eS in y 3 1a? es: Cc «LL ee 1 s ] ole bee Eee ee -io 3 ry1aeVu | a eeFe. 3

© . + a ee 6 Ge: es 2 a ig ill tm ff 7 ee 2 tin Fe te gh i

= See - oh eae |saeSe a \ ay2 ee FF) — 5 See* - oc.hte, $i ¥ 2 fas 2 vet in a , 3 ei, ee |oie7k Gee eS se2 ee Bae: a ie i:"— Se = S4| i ¢ eee pe gees ee ee 7 < ee F17h: ee i & i i SSe e—4 AT a.iG ‘TT 6se,es — sb 8 ea! ‘ie I Sethe ay Age Tig yf yy ee. .: ie 2 Mh My Nia aalhi Udsé L th Ba)>3a -&APaes | fi h : " otaeee a x—~< > >>— — He p A©pn PRUE “ae _ eee ‘:eevf ee” — geow Mm ieeeoes Se eSBES oepees aasEe EE ‘fBi af See ee Le? Mg A | 4xeif ape BiUs eae eee Std agees Po ee ee ees pee 4 Le ,: 6iLg OS 5p, ® apt Ss 3 ee 3s Be Lee oe ey 3s (if 4 yf yee * “i = < ep. ~ a Be i qrae -Bees aPeeWi 4 £ . r se [_ Moe Se, er See Oo ieee ae Tt a SE 4 pos foe, x wg Fe: we ee 5 3%, cs Ee om a: eee Rea ee igus @ ete eee o Sees eae see Pes wee ~ at ee ee @ ; $ SB ee Pepto | § Ses seers Ze ee ee J 4 wid os Vi AK ) » : = :

oeAG iteee, 7as ee:geese _ Gene Ase, oFmY A :SS 2S 3 Z)6hCU6S SOe2 ae pes igts kU ff.8 Ye VA ee bee gee ieDe Le ee eee ee iad gO aes - -fp, ==, a be ie W/ ifOo V/) iy =“:a =ay aae ue ai ee4i Pie petieee Beet BBEeA SE 2 Seee 2 eepie Ae ot ae a‘ 5—< gees aeee Contes 3 Hh

— ee lie Ay fo ME Boe siti ok ey a i ieee = oA Heid ae oO HoH Ps OSE SP . oe om a S oe £-

Ren Selene see. eer eee = > Soe ceeSe 5 ee ee 8 ee pees pa: ee) Fees se& & Ey 2382 Bee te sees a ee seia+r ea tds eet% neu, ;3wpagoesen pare TF *eae -ee-* — ;FfafF 2 2, - 52| ieee SbeEES, ‘|we 4f ot AF "ele 4 - |; Bee nd Gee eeee ee eS Ze m Bee Eyeee nao aie 4% €£$ @ Ea cena OBR ase ae 2E ——— es,58s gee ee * ee ag ae |ee|Wee x= ete -.=3 tire me O:e x Pees4eee Eee eee ee eee ee a oe 2 ee essa Siemens ene Se i “2 ee i, g — ee EBS ee SS 2 Se a ne &. 2B > 8 i 3 aes ones SihereeBae eesSh Bes SRR aege : ERE: eepe eeSvge Meeee eSeZ it ; Fo f ’;7hl¢Pape3feegs. aweoo -ee:a:Bo eeee: eepe 2 es: ee *‘es ieee ee Bi eee be PEED ES ee Bee ee Ze gs :‘pae De% $i eeeeerrsesa See ie Piro : eeeeeeee ee 3eccoSees eecos ees || 2> - eg‘ fe gee.oaSe ree gage ge a: ‘ - See: a ae Seas eae eases oC 2seaeeee fgees iee ; a. ak EEE Se :ee eee Pee AEee g se Biezi » . ft |.le Pg >igiaee open 2Seog ee :GE eSMeee tee ee : : ee sme oe of sege ee ee, Be ge Go8=—hm6hLUM 2g ee ee ea Eee sy ee ee OT i 5 eo ie aps Yow = a ae ee,ee a Fee >ees eki esS ' F p. eS a> ee Bee: See eee ee ES gee

5tiie 3mentllcccke =Se = aBed a | iFy ; | Fs ; a*/ —76g oe Rg? Sepe Bow eebe Peoe eeeo Bee aeBeg aeLa#ke Ras& 2 “cs Si Aeee ¥ ae 2 4p#8 Bas ge Wes eeeee po2&fo foSG|cee 2rrD9s :ae aé. Cerca peeee & 2S RS P as 4Ree ue =EE oe Se awe Le4ee. ee ee eae | $238 Fe sg a age is wig 4 Z 2 gs gos fe ae Ly eS 2 Se saad Pages + 3 [SS oe Pee oo Epa % fee gS fe =

wee l 8BONEF OT Pee gePASg8 aS_.ge aie) feEstFF Jnooor eee TN fae Eg ced Be ic ee et De s erg 7 Ae eile ES aoe =

: ee é ce.oe Paiee RaeBee ee | BF Aatee EEi,mee SF aE Ee % ae eeee ses ee | peegot e+4-jcree. areAF Pye 5 es 6AgD 2+ Pe ih, Be BeLee syPape” Beeee & ee ka i ae: a Bi i oe aeFees ee Ee + “ ee a est Ag RAs. ae i ee SAM % ie ee < os oe ; K 4 i Bae. Vie fice Pee 2 Ss Se OF ares er ae ae ee Bei fe a a 2 Mes ie |g ae ee RE.Gane Se oe Fes i: tee.oe ae 3oo or Os Re ges, ee=es - 72s. ee iesaeeeeete eeSg See. ae aBae) a aeMie 2 a&geSe a -s

a a2 ee7ge. = cis ge feoeSe. et Bes 8 oe, 2eee ee fe Eee 4. Bee ee aeLSeeBe Bees eo Ge > a a2;ae : eg ae Fee SB. ageeBas | to 94S ee =

. , ug:\%. eea éSTS ce so=a.ite ee Se aa eeBe fee atefeoae aPigg oeFeCGE geegBe eS2heae es pes : ges iebe ae. eee eeAe ee aESicote Tees ee:pe ee aeee PeBs >see oe ‘Zs Li : :i[-a= Oe ea gs —— ee eee — PPee iee Sie eeeeilinhaeedbaed ae FEE ee os:ee . _. Nrieeren: Ts thnk bs boar-hsEEE RaeCo Ha2 cae 4?2 re oo ee 3 a“ m ‘haat "as a EMRE Att Rbed beams 9 sg +7 Ae --

ee rr: 3 3 A a & i 2) tat Sah A PR A iD. ee ES ge aSiges spree ye PFA, EPO: Fs Pepe et Dei se sc ie ee eee a : ; ifeettee Mah FT aa%BEE A, ae ’|eS ie Sow e * ot a4 . bs jaan = 29*pioneer’ < eee ret, ~ a Pi “ee “«

Oe — 0 as oe fred Rs fo my ES aS a3 fer me P k: eniaa +) eel oe = i Se ok ae” sedis a , 4 — at eee

Zz ca te er ep heap ‘oe Pe ORS wee Ow ee I . eee ne ani, sibeoeainnils me ony ake “agen omen ' Gos bo tec@ amen :

fainnk i ae I, ny aii ue is. ae eS z * ie ies , een bo + \e | Be: i: ae eps ober | ‘ ) tis Bi ft fare Ses & pepe |S je es pl ef |eh Ss at an AS aid eo = ALT “leh LS

‘ td EM 5 ey See ; serie wh we cae each serb wera a: : ‘ Vg Kiam” i ae Sie oa gh Te i ~ a a » btm

_" - : | : [a renenanene sc omseonfester nay -pee so Gs . mteT=i

TP yea) JN Bee Bee ry ee ae 2 a | eb tet] (: ) PRPC IRC SO OPI i de: ber GE | > din RN igh | RR: Sa | Dig A, hg hentia sabhissicas eco” Ess

TE bo 7 8(prt Ver ire/ERE i» rh gt be ben's me fy = aSHS ad sie¢@ ullRES ta) gh ma $: eee 4 >. ene # > Fs : ® ? ~# ee me a Fe at i : bk { Wiles oooh a ; LCC REEL RE me eT ss EEE Eeatasbes no londhe * 1 Bee are

we 4i ety sa ee (ba ar aee » ¢ a> & eee eres eee ag he GEL i” a aan Pevde a4 i seme. ‘ “ert : és 4 : € e cael a ae 7] eet - a. Yer oe 7 a m. — wok wie dies +

JA FoI See ee Lt [Serer ei a tL Sey ;|z;-Lie we i *. : 8 ‘ * Boa $6 oe i ; a aa H.R) SE" Sprit BEAR Et AEEREEHRRRIESS FS 4b ict Uy Ee er Le a ae eee

i *# a j Ee nee ol faca tl fa of omen me — od ed kf Poe ‘ae 3 eo = , . [sf

fo (Poke 2d ee RS EE Bee Eee eee: et

neneae anes hy BC cs as come I =sReelgypags 4s bed | ay a A oe Dex: wT! ~pdona Sg See SC EE Sk Ole ON tre Sager Gee ee aban ed = Tham Hel ca mp aes paren te

: aeoeeeegom : c4 aond eei:aTae as apeigeincys sevoniate aanae t were ee ee Joh” bees

Pe eros 4 a ny tI ir: a a a ee ee a -+ . "TOO ” +ae idHACAATERLOU a oe oeSEa ** ECT

=con . le Dalla nal8ateréwre tel Sn FPoe cram oe od =e cc acees mei t= aaa pn ae Hk .o% _btee a¢aea@ewiigna tse: yl|

30 Alfred Waterhouse. Com- What Waterhouse achieved was a coherent adaptation of the basic concen-

at Strand level. (Waterhouse. | ae |

sees ie ae Plan tric circle formula that, like Burges’s more radical solution, overcame the problem | 7 of public admission. In effect, he designed two central halls, whereas Burges had

Courts of Justice Competi- . .

tion: General Description of effectively omitted the central hall altogether. In Waterhouse’s scheme, the pubDesign. London: George Ed- lic was admitted only to a lower, north—south hall (what he called the “‘Transward Eyre and William Spottis- Jerse Halls’), from which stairs and minor corridors beneath the courts led to

i- ; ; :

woode, 1867. Courtesy of . Univeniy of Renda the spectator galleries (Fig. 30). The larger, east—west hall crossed the Transverse Libraries, Lexington. ) Halls at a higher level in the center of the building, spanning them with a single oy ‘Waterss Compeadin narrow bridge (Fig. 31). This vast concourse (478 by 60 feet) was reserved for design. 1866-67. Plan of prin- lawyers and the parties to cases, and the courts were arranged in a very simple

in set (seal ania | pattern along either side of it, one story above the level of the hall floor (Fig.

tion. Courtesy of University oo .

z0nns On Justice omer 32). With its iron-and-glass roof and facadelike interior elevations, the hall of Kentucky Libraries, closely resembled contemporary Continental shopping galleries (Fig. 33). The

Lexington. ) courtrooms themselves were served by several systems of circulation, each reserved exclusively for a single type of visitor. The exterior of Waterhouse’s design was illustrated by numerous perspective

” renderings, all by hisyown handia and all of superlativ ity. IdiNews 32 Waterhouse. Competition BS» . Pores quality The Building

design. 1866-67. Plan at suggested that they merited hanging as watercolors in their own right, and quescourtroom level. (Waterhouse. tioned whether their beauty might not mislead some of the judges.'°> Indeed, with Courts of Justice Competi- their blue-tinted water and sky, Waterhouse’s perspectives apparently violated the

tion. Courtesy of University ——e SS ae — a ere Bee aaie§ b

of Ketuchs laaoies mane ion in the instructions that “sepia, indian ink, or pen and ink only is to be Lexington. ) used.””"®° But no official complaint was made against them.

114 banca MONG pW a as ay / Ne ta 5NS \ Qe kd iy Es 4 . a te: Pos ig : % 7 ed >> 4 . \ c ym 4 Wie 2

Sv. Py iy? d nd Pe Pe —- K if i Oy \\ her

r. SOQZGY \ Or ) s\ Sie x OH Av” CeO, gy warn ae > es iceI2:meKo! SSS ec €>. Men 2;AA »4 SeBas Ae =, Tee eae “ies 8? °"> YY AEC aSSS # YY. ES¥ .foe3 oy ke Vy ;.Set Zs NY

= ete. i. SA Le be I eg me AS ia

i) a ee iN Vig GG? Vee SN Nee Eeyee EO 8 eSURE ee 4; Sone 388 hyo tte es S&S. AG.}cola

ae ee “ase | o. oe © ey es O% - eit co : Sec =a ae et : ‘ “i - . %

aee . iyWsiiy t it 7) aX, awNe iy i 1 oe we BS Se BENNY “a =f 7e A. 4 >. ie % CL er MG 7

POSS RS ON eo wee gt eee [oS 9. Be ° oA

ef ea F 2 % . ; 2 2! te : ye Aer i) = if ; S ee af ae p AS ee € : $2 oe 33 Waterhouse. Competition P77 aE |] AMER et)

design. 1866-67. Interior of gla CUMMEME ie4yliggy = ee - Sing. “SEL 1% 4 oA ee. Vir Fi Ae aoe |

; | Le eer 7 ae - . 7 eS ae @

great hall, by Waterhouse. 1, ag SPRUE SC < OMMdesere vient’ est oense gona ces coe SE Oe

( Photograph in Waterhouse. | at i) 3Le 4 i ee if *ha : 4 AM es A rae a Fa Courts of Justice Competi&@oea .#ad3:if 3

: eT fF a: Se, ie < ae o, eo Saas ee Jas SE° 3 fs ee ee ft an ‘ ee = sd de ay = tion. Courtesy ofiAthe Property gefa eeeeee eT |aCN! MR ce etDepartment BML Baek| Fo Yee mes CG Services Agency, ci! i ee cng el OO )ee oP MES > Jat: of the: Environment. ee —e roncbf - TS SF ee, The design illustrated by these drawings, like that of William Burges, emphasized elements of picturesque irregularity and a relationship to the tight urban setting. Like Burges’s, the main facade stepped back to accommodate Pickett Street as it swept around St. Clement’s, and Waterhouse portrayed the building in a fairly realistic, close perspective, although he chose not to show the church itself (Fig. 34). Waterhouse also composed a breathtakingly dramatic skyline with four major towers devoted to ventilation and record storage, the tallest of which was to reach 354 feet. This silhouette would have been seen to particularly good effect from the far side of the Thames, as suggested in what must have been the most beautiful drawing in the exhibition (Fig. 35). But while these qualities indicate that Waterhouse had been studying the strong picturesque of the Early French with interest, his design retained a thin and flinty angularity that set it apart. He had rejected the somewhat staid symmetry of the Manchester Assize Courts, but he was still marked as a Northerner (i.e., from the north of England) and an outsider. Rather naively, Waterhouse claimed that he had adopted early thirteenth-century Gothic for his entry, close to the favored period of Burges and his admirers, and that he had sought to ‘avoid any extreme delicacy in the detail of the exterior.”'°? But while this was up-to-date rhetoric, the design, with its often busy surfaces and linearity, lagged behind.

yy OF Pas 4

pga . . '

fee?

°| |:| |pee. oes See ee GS ition

3 ae Bator ‘é eee

a:| :ee * ee 4ee x |3 ee Vege #. 2see a3 ee “ | ae : = on 2 Be Bee Seo SeeGees: ee gs BEes ee%See z |a| BEieee : ss oe: sa nae Bee : =- ee =: ee es as3Seeeseee ee ee geeer oD

eee fs peace 3et: eae Bh petite Ciseee ee Be cee ae ee oe : eee — : 4oS oo i em :sea aeero pSee: esEtre Boe )DS ue s Se eccstSe 43Sap Bee Be :Es | 7re oa =||Pe Po decmsamere tfalte % ase ee... eeeesaeéaera é See Bee gSeis -_ a : ee :: i a 7 ee < e 4 ee Ee bby 2 Bee a ae ee : eee 1h: ee eee es : Re z ge a 3 Se fe See Ss SS ee eas ih,2FS Agee eee eee See Peer Bigs ESae= eee oases: 4Se :oeSee: Soe eae ee ae Pee a ese te ikBe TREF S. aetaeeees aeieeeSececcneess ga a: bs ee ose ; eae seer. 2 fege 'g: ae i Bee BE. la ieee aa Si: eece aeeetgs eese gees ea eeeS —F — :::24 ad

: : |:(gt © 2eoEP eeeeOePiece ee eee ee ee Se ee ::!AF “4.7. CG = Se = . 3 : Fe Be Bases Oe ee ce ee po ts ees % £2 ee ee Re ee Se eee aBee aie pee Be he: ERE ee aie ee Bip Ee oe CS fEeya24 ee Be i Pe ce See Bees angie AE ee Se es eeee por Fee ee 2 aetgas 2 ee ae ge gies es Saee Ye ee aS2eS Be “gee aema ee Bieeeaeee en ple ge ee ge oe ee feCae eo ae se BaSame i eae ge fies City es 2See ee Ree: & ee-55 oe eea pe satedBEL =Zsits eeeBeez ace eee a Bie Cee3 Sa2 af eagee a= gy ee ee, Be iiss %Ge Peo aeCe snEE Se peers eeecee paso akg eeeereeee ee:Bee porege. Sees eee yee $22 FSeae See eBPages BeBere eeiRee Soeaaa Sspase ee eee iBees Bi aeSee Sieae 28: a gees = eee Se ee A eee € ce eee 2 a Se x ee BR ee Sasa, aaa Li iy eee ee ER er ae i 5: | tes epee ae Ce ae a Beer ae saa Se oe Se eee

ee be lg ORE 5 eerie oe see Bn. Te ae eee | eae ee ee ae guts Be. BS Be bie ee Eee eee = Bea eee ee : be ee #£
$2BEES a pe i j .ee£28 i ug : : fiee : itg = Se 3ae if geeEe22 3 El Z 3Gee # eeee. pee fegauge 3 Ee teee Bee eliteis5.: bil eee Bee GeeFGA

> ee vse is es iPe‘vw Peasa 2i Ba [ PeESe ee So ye ieee ee 3Boag ee Se ee Sore oe jie ee ee Beeee Fae 4gze Bee eee. Zs ea ae GG eg — os eeFree foeoe ees PigFecn geeee se ee SS8ee 2Srete | ile EeSeEOS 4 Ss;

Sem See eeeee ee ee eeeee See Seeeee Aee cd ¥ eae Sa eaFe meeSee eee SneS eee ae oe eS eei pe Ss es Be ge Be Bee eee ee ee - | ; -Be | a=Se :5ce E oe, Ea 2eSiae;2peae 3. As pe ai ae PE ‘pees ae 2RM aaae 2 ee ee ae aeae§¢ eee 4ae:FS gHFS ; @e ft eee Zee =| pee #: ee . iee F. Be ee ee:eeRae es 3‘aaee csP44 S, aawa a 9‘2gues i 9a aa Ra iif see fae fe 4Se Pe; eeee a. {=Ce £25 =F ee ee ASeee oaFee Sees Oevig eeeae So 4a 8re2ee ; Se

ES Bt DR REee 2 ee BeDO Pee 22 Page Pe eepee Sees|ies aes aoe Aeee SEE: a "Alga a aig Seeee eaeops Se agree ae Pee cis oe eeeeeSSe bk ses eS 28 ee |ise Sa eg ae reSeeas eSee heeet Po Be. gee ae ee pees os: .==:ss 7iS 4Fset, os aBERBER. ‘eltSe os ee EE Be 2came oeges aee ee ee PEE BE poe, Be Sreie | eee Sseo =aeOe ee Fe Gee a eee aea Se : =See eae SeGee res Bette Sa Ss FSR aie Be pe:ae “ieee: Fas ae ee _: ao Fe = Bekae ns 7eee iyi oe ae oegate =cae bz.Bee S Fe See iese eee eeBis AHe See go. eee agee Beoe eee i,| : 2 : x= Z tee pes e Pt eee r 4 2 pg oa ge ee a eS Pee Be ae = & foe 2 ee ee ee err ie Sa ee eee ee eee ee ee [a os. BS= BS noe oes ee 2 Bt see Bed >= £ se. ee Bee Zs ‘3 4 : Ss, SS See a ES igs: 5 fae a a age a > ee ree Bae = Ste eee se ay ee 2 oS Seer Fates seers a ee=4ipi es 2s EF Beee eeae Esigs os)Pree a é pe ee a aeeeidee3ae = eee = -§.ee&bee. ee. Ge eresee2BO 5 ae ps rs gegee ee *oeFfa ee = ame es aeee Be 4rey ee fe aad Ce.03ae ee oe é a See sees ee :ee Bee He ee 22s BE 8 eeipa ee: Pe ee beRae 4: | ee eee oes oe ciesee bea eee spaeeaie ee eea oe ge eee 3 Bee + Be geABeee 2 SE ‘ pee 4 2. eneeeee ae

- lon ‘ .

@- Ft it pO des se et oe St 33 2 eee Be 4 be Se iG se, ee ee SP re a z

% io:eetSpE, iepesaes : Ste wrk Le! is 52/ee2ESa7 2pSeeCok i.gamer .eeie: ree ee 2.ae23Ee iSeMee ge EOB. ee 8Ege ps Me Fe ee Bi aes ea Big Oe ae tae, hee aePEs: 3Milas Be es Ste oe a aa ee — os :4 fe: ea ER ee: Me ee2.Se 4 zg Ee >aia Saat iitMe Meo Sas, Seree ce ae iF Ses em s§z3eae fee = rt : Fs eyaOeae PIT cre agmee Bose sie tatt ee ee Eee 3 ek eee 2. A : jooe pee ae Cag 2 Pee, peers §.8ee Bee Be 3&taos y -aee Es eectces £4 ee a pySes Sec secae oe cea fee es Se eee (Be, MO - Be xe ee ae >-: 2See Pw hg PO oa” ao ee Peeren. Hiae

= ee Be peat oe ‘ e ce _ Se ee Sg ee ee ee — Si eee ee ae TS = : oe ee é é Bee es eee

seoopsoypaamaassspoecnsccsee tc ccompesatse

_ i — oe = ee eo ane gee Baie cae tec scar eee ee Spee ee setae sone ec Bene ee 2 Dasa oe eRe Bocas

ee i ee _ _

- eeSeee oei ee eS =Ee ee EP ee a .Seee SA=ee : . oe oe eee eae Se See eee LES Sie Se et con z 33 Sgagunis ssc Sees oe eS eee eee eres Sica nea : : Soe aes See

ee ee ie see Se Genet o eee ees : ee Bee ergs eee BE GS eee ee eS ee

yse Sea % ‘=peace eee ae ase ee Spee ah tno corsisiaagesoesaas anne PASS Seca ere es eeerrpitino eeetoe Se eefk, See‘3ee— es =osoSaoS = aoe z SSchet Ss Beemer a Bae a oaccfeeeees ee iiSee 2 eee

-| = ee: ee so Se ge ee bp Oe ee eee aes eS ee —“‘“‘“‘(;l Pee ee Re ee ere Peet eee eS ee pee oe Re oS pe eo ae CO ee — ————— — pcs ey: Seea. a SS — r————“—i eee ee ee :Bok . | ‘ee SOi eee eeeOE eSeS S23 Soe pean ae Soo= enee eee ee = War eee ee aaah Pacesees reer see Se ae em eee Ses. ees eee Seas Pee So eas rt —r—r—e————S—C eC eRe |:cm a 7 Co ee ce rr —“‘“‘_iOCOCSC—SC—~—~—SO fe 4 $ 3 bs;= ieoe SSS Se ee Soes eS egee PsSSS Seeeeenceeaeee See eee So Coa eee es gest Be FES ee OO —— Sie cree ns eee aesreae Se ee Eee eames Se rae q Ao eae a i eeeR Ee pooner retGe Sree Bese Se ee Paes ee ees = 2S Be eee eee Sea ci Seanee eeecnnewent eee eeRRS Seea Eee ie aReecan cae sceere eeSea eeeceeetee sc aeOe SER ee

2 Soke eee ac i ee : ry oe oe : . 0 fe ee oe — -— 1 . a | , {se ee Se eee a ee Bs 8 eee : eee é Se see: aepea eeeParse ee eek . ee Be Boo ec ee .ZPe é 5 ae oe areae»ee a e ee ae ee 3 2S eS pe — a6 : - 4

ve ; : § : a=Boos aS ee z ee acentoa case 2 eee Se £2;ee OTeae lg -PES - =@26©6 UA ae E22 Ei Aeneas 2 fae 3 ie ge oe eS eee 2 Ee be, ee 4 Se a a. :es” ag — *Po uA sateen g eee epee = 3 ee pe eo ees Seieemecee scossoegeaane =e pa eB Re eSLe eeeee ee ae te perce eee es. f = £3 ae 2S oe gee > Hees Ee,Bs eeae ee Gs : -ae4eej, .bo i Beeer ae eee Ea Face = See re eS PaceSe Jeeeee ee *i: £e eeeeeBeeeBR pee eee SS

.eee Be aesees Fas oe aeEe a nteeSee es eee a CF Te Be ea ae pee ise BBR eeeaLe 33ee eeeegs eeagtn eeD:eee ae ee ecceeaes se Ds eee eteeCE ee pee Page eee igBierce -ee.;oeee : aeFa&Ee ee Be eea2zeee Pee ae =oe SFnae ae pis BS? a Wiese ent**? Spee 24ae oo : “4 B Re nt 2SsaSesLandi. af tfeetsgee te os peed FYtne salen eye : Prietristrrc ttc tite: ot Bees. Soe Bis oe re 4 fe ‘ Bi: —

: | 2B ses oeerrr BiB ate ie ceFa 2 tedabevewiet eal abrapeairta pum Se te *(8) 2 5 eeOe er pon es Sl- eo oeEtiiverer oa det tastevaa thax sot2.aia soaoicom

sas ae f apie. ae ** 3 et = sie 4 Nd ha elegces 4 = opp > tam vik aes 4 Bs : a aes pel ed tgaipa arretnartnsier fist $955 SPs =wy, acs om Bomets bh Soares ia tens cit caesisaiiesics manrir Berane od | ae iL. i. arieererares thd Se, el gie EPOEP ea bok bit | cgabaa a i aot fea eee , eS fr jieotog "gee AT Red ~aahe_be “HH 9 seg 6. = OMe)

ee Cah mane : + oe aR o_ & Fauld Sa. es aa

ilACHE ieAC E160 BAe pe -hal FS di ett Daca GBSO58 Ae TT Sey oflEE TetPT PALA! — Hell] Ge aa ere 1g rit) i el 1 See ea | ey |i! Bete ia be ce Fy ‘aman ae an Pt pe ; weg J 788 gE r “| (el ae ¥¢ gees Be

38 Seddon ‘eS iit oo ame 4a —eral: C19 Gk (eal Bee ia =ce pes,cn iteS a si . Competiti —s. bf bf saga . : : + i Reser ee : : & ’ s aoe 4 gn. 1866-67. Pla ed 2 a = a * ee a Pe ey room level. (S GETD COUIE & et feeteety ooncod | aa herr ca ayoe aL7 en ‘ eddon Ni ey atte .Shae eo, eS ee

c: : KA st ree =m ;

Strato. Fao 65sagittis a4| at 6/123.) ae: of RO Justic p| oe : 4Szcou “§cok aa ee ee sa ¢eeP4 tie — Works Fioon, i23) gas duty tT$1 . ae winnaneidslecias Cateasiresudllcaes {

%, a otst-< a

% = at £

PEO) rer Co) NAVIN 119 ate Osy POA ae - MEF amee. WS

, WY cB FL Ol MR fa oe. ~\ \ ee Ree hesUEWie oe- — il Se Ute Ms fF

Whe | SES ye

| Pek oeeee ke vali Cie | TG2enERE SS fe far ood 4 ON VG

39 Seddon. Competition de- ry Woe | a - Y 26g FS (fi eA \

TW: 7 | a de C he eS SS

great hall, by E. S. Cole. Bui i aN ) Se u 47) A Bedesem ae Law Courts: Description of A Wilgaw alan Hee PL Wo (ea) oy

Design. London: Ed- a la Bi tksSpottisayy Nit SEE ,ist)S|ss a Gee ee ward Eyre George and William

woode, 1867. Courtesy of t SS A an Property Services Agency, De- AIIM eer Mec catmeemace gy a i — |

partment of the Environment. ) Pie: te er OO eg | be Pe domes set in the floor of the hall. The realization that this unusual provision would be necessary seems to have struck the architect rather late, for they are not shown in his large perspective of the interior (Fig. 39). However, the greatest failing of Seddon’s plan was his admission of casual visitors to the central hall, where they could disrupt the conduct of official business. He rather lamely sought to justify this grave divergence from the instructions: The general public can enter the Great Hall by the four principal entrances in the centre of the four sides of the building, and by the recesses in front of each Court to the spaces allotted to the public under the gallery in the Court... . It appears to me that such provision as I have made for the public in the shape of the Central Hall is essential to maintain the dignity of a Palace of Justice, which should be impressive equally by its internal as by its external effect. | believe that no inconvenience need arise from its use, and that it is not necessary that the public entrances to each Court should be separate and direct from the street. '”’

It is unlikely that such an explanation satisfied those who had drafted the instructions, and Seddon’s flagrant violation of what was probably their most absolute stricture seems like an act of defiance, like much else in his flamboyant design.

= rr

3age: 4 sume Se :fees re:2% %$ : cS be#4 paeeect etre © 3 satin as eee:

TRS ere Vee ss ee i:

: ay i Pore en ae pil . 2 E besbe $22eae 2ees PS at 3 se eeeeeees be Be er? RRR Beige} eiSete ee B54 PeepOee:

© deca Bee. eeoe Pre PeSiete eedteBaie gee pePs5eee Bes &ie ee see age. tS tia. = Pane See egtee . hk Se ; ‘£3322 Paws .Soe ghee =es ef eS sr KC; ie | tes sh S bee ee , Tee Pe... : = e ed SPs oki eeet oeeeHs ee aeeee aeBe g iWee "tHwy me me *XS wRS |"ot y4li t apune - el & oe eR Acad I. oe tien tee ik 1 ee soirtie |aee ee ere a,hi=4 z Sy~ve 5fone beseae hoes Sea i> W770 7me 77) EErane Seisie "xe an)ee wriee rer | en “pap is of‘oe rea ‘a | “. oer

i . ‘ ; ce i ts — on sececsees ene -2See iia en oe . es EP Ooz ato | Sige Rae Hea Ve Oe a Bde: {i oa ~ poe q ge ipeeey ss 2. CRAFT Ease Bass coe riPaSaad ae j| CS mnat jA; Aa Pslieta as %ee3Ree ie ;“Tt Pere

cae -piespeat s-«jee ;wa ~8pon :-4sanARMs t+i psye§7*.J || 5: gn , — =< e AS OM a o~_ + tha os i . S~ ; At ia anes =ao eteoa boone aéesee Boo t PERM TE 1¢ i or 4 Todor ae :ee : years : f, cial e | : mh [= i i oe ee oe K as tage il, wena og SS pes Fa A = : : 2 he . rT oad [ gE fae

.: Ricoep { aot]aesree .: 3poreadiecn: aog: ‘— my on | ' ma j {{ 3FlMALE hee aamee oFics «}as£2 ;Oe - -by Sree 5 me At. 3 tht LJ wane ~ i} eeamy Sd eee; |cg "abe as aia aSthn Sain Aj{ . =tomy 4 —s it 4agam : 5: aoe g.:

eet tee “ y > moe +] are “feet “es < at re Seq yas F 7 i aypes gs * n| q ood :

:Ss amaz,earth - yogpoi%alk ee Spee eee ee pS Oy eA ee wm | EE: ~sob £9»,Pte : be : - e we TF ems Scorched eT “nefoecennet Mame ave i ams :4 FH Beart +7:Kieth pw t& etfoal me neee oem ee e. a seed SSbe i Ee Lae GR.Bear SO4a seewe aann i Anceree te[2= ponte shindialien JMoe we zirns LEE" E =| IlsewD : re CEST OFf secu WAT er af we i> i weer = Aamorons Asi28yMT |R
a im. m2 he . Pr: owns BLS ; ew, eke fhe c oe4Ned. ¥5r* *: ‘. pc ~ ne PeD SaeS | ‘ 2 ey a i “ : : cS ‘ pee) Ree eet Pe, 1 8 ee ee ere oe ee: ome PAM eee OW Gees eae on, =BS: Heage et . Penge Ps Wes syLrwione ae 4 $iHA Ed a 4 4 oe: ‘i H 1% 3 4 ; , PEA 2 @ 4 igRALE # = & $ 2A 4 Bc? 4

a fe: oe Fie ‘st >:ft aSibm we # it iz Wa) i] } cgesraeS : aoP i eee Poe: os | eeeeaET oe temY :. ¥-

Ssees=eee 2% - Sa. + as af POP %% PB e3 iScadeefenee3° ee asadBewe : “Beeae 33=¥2% oyeote =. 2 san 4 Feyaorcs aS SRR TE 5 LO- LE DREAD. BBBt SS ibos Mlle we te See eX SS ee Se aS ee a

Se ge ASSS Bn Ses esccaeeStneematewan TiVata ii iets tta#A ge » ESSSI { Meas . te < sie SW = 0 BeBs Se eeies ee wh A canisof teases ak it tid 1 as :thPe 24 AFe | REDE 58 SE 4 eget

eee ee, EEeat3Pk Press 3£3PIRAe : ~ee|mah 2£& 3§éFEE Bei EtSees 4 4xOE bseeOy PP twee aha saat apas 3ec 22% eeess fbae iee% pee ps-atoR hae fiae 8 oe|itso} re ER oe) AS, Hon eases esFam ese7S spones| eae Ady 8,ras boge e855 eeeSee! eeat pee ee Beers zgi iete fi st 7al it :A es ia ge ry ; Shae Se rleer PEP Er aesecderey por aeee ea RES Re :ae.3Sisff=fy &tyfeaAae 5]RSoe | ;ones #%. ;“te ieseek 2Seariar? eee . , eesSte erties a ee eS weies A)Pee PaPParrarearrarvaWarrarrarramaress a Bi 2fF MPO PERE

SateonSS Re teSe3=rarer? = gee: : $33 2 : Lee i a iid fk. ie ie :3ie ig ibR y. ee € ie 7% Bitdug iB eoti8@ [eeif!88 ite te Hi ‘$2ite| re $8t Sess oe eee $3 aes ¥ fee £: bE 3 Be 3 sae ee1ee ate ae eee i tae aeine SBS ERA A 2 Ng a i Ngee es12 138 hi 2ie: ihe 4ieih: i Seek e553 See: 23 ¥2 a : wee: Be S Rgnpaees ie tee Ae Ee Jae Se Sg a =Ltt f 3 pbs oF bx8ES CSBeiifetes otcieatined 5 on ete eea}Bes eeieBE Bi BexBy Roo ht ianPee a Sn eee

BeeVie Siig 2aeSoi oie: et 3 ie 4 : ee H iz :}i.eees ¢ ee BesOe neete SS77q i : ee¥ies; aie1 oe ve 2.o gee: 1S:Be3>*=-Sea ahteaeee ue ry Pala eeSRi itsmeet eet 4 og eeeealce=RR at See j esSg& ee See. 5 Be ss pe £ i835 See tas 3 ORIN SERS Tee + BRD Sg ee a cn ene We cae Bee \ eat * geet Bo PP Sk 1 3 es #4 £4 - + é ea ee ae OR ER Bx Se ae cae eae aaeee eee ae = ca meer ey “4 ie 3 se ee ‘i es

= io. & faPALO ater Tits 2S} f Bie es 8(aut 6 |ee @ee ie ee tt eeRRE Cea e tigi ew cy AIS Millia g #a) 68 6$e Oe ee eee ea craa Poe ee eee Oa eS aa i4e*s 42 aitsegrrere Pe ge ig.e 3Tak. =Po 2 teenee e to,iter akf°a iSS iz i”2.GT 38 ee oS ¥ iE gate ef FP 43pee BS #ee * Fa a aat ‘Pa e 3 #og s es5:Bie: {ae LEtis We ee ee ¢eS “ ite PS Se38aa SS ‘ee.ee +i?:5. Bo —r”—”.=-sc ecm mrmhG§ Ll iQ tt (47a. uh = .. ell os cee :Spee See ae. &ae Pee ns Sates Rae abe seee .feby: .=SP -eeen PS See onIa, Pras. at acnegee Saree eePeet eee oe RE ae 3 Mg ee CR eat | cdSree re eaeoy : ee ekSg ee:Li BesSg 6 3ee PPPs :EE eeeee aa=oe aaSee ee cose eae ag se ee gr Wiese Se Se SS % os Fe ee be Bg DE eee, ee eee | Be Exe owe g ia eee € Ee SOOT eee SF ae ee ls em i eee = a ee : Raine Ee a eee * eee pee ee ee ee ae Scene Z se Se RR ee ae Bic gy Sees Bee ag Fe é i ee $ ee ee age : b.. .eee ees i ea ef Pee ete ee eee o 4 eS ee ee oe : cee ae} | pee ee eee sg EPs eee See re ee tag Ce gs eS a a gee Se ees¥

i%;:

ELE EE Sec ie

eee 2 : ecpee, Se}Soe it SSip a aea_ieeRDO. eteRRO eaeREET,” es 57ASens deat . fe SoS Sass cee - aeons = Se.REAP se Bare a BRIBE a RR aEeS ge ea PR gnge ie ngoe ig eles 3 2 Soe pecocaess ee ee , ee ee Foe, Tee ee Pe Men Tee 2 oe sit Tipe i cag a EE ba ie me in. ce : Es, 3 =

ee es ee ee Soars Bae ss ee ee Es =Sg Cs Z, ee - FE es GIL pt eee se 2g Boe LgeLE osPig ag 2B: égs ; Ke. ;ae #. eee ee. Eees = Ze Ses Rees Me ge beee pee BS, aeeee:R 4Seas ateoe seRae reee be pes ee‘ ee Soe GE rag Ye asey Se eee ceaseeene Fee seot eee pg eez oe

os em i odie Sate ull pe at te ic dies deli aii: Wate at W Give BO ame et a gt eget ty ee Stag pg Be ae dem,

Secescececccs € aoe me ages ‘ Scag mace oP J xxes 7 foie P i saa’ hyft -—_ eS i= tT Se zEe Bea oe i ut FSt“eh PEids[eh Janxe1seccores FT j cicome EE LREGH odd Sock, ak sais =| Sere reiega we

ES = ae Ee ema ooSe«> ote da be. 8S J inte aeBEPES Bt Ba = poeeh he es 5PSs =eSEeeeSat oes 3 : ts:: zSm ES ee> Seeceh meneets Me cement see comme ee heEat Anti at, feicstahinentntenhnnndid he asaree om SE3BE aes gee Ss
.tstgoege E Big bs Oe = © ON 4I. ACER cg4 BO ie-SG assi LSS:SS ee&gS oe | i “4 6 = de a Fe ax $3 >, i Se 1% pin diy O% : fe © sae ad abl a B33, 4 ye os “ee “cfs 4 pe fe 8 ae, ee Pe ee ae: 4

pe esa 5AAR — atte Medien 4 sgsepares ee J AOR pes ‘RE : r EE Ba See Ass 4 Beg peas 5 pes me eeee ‘+—Pee es|a2 3=ieeS : eee ee BE ae ‘ieak ~ sGh; est 3Ps ;= eeaeee —— - i| s. f 3|eeiy, { :, 2. 3.4 ae ree eG A wo — i a a i ee 2 Pip™ maaaeiioe ReSO $ es‘oe ps SS ee ee ss ae E 33‘£24 es |*i es ee ee =ee= Se Eepte See ee eeBe: ,L:1‘di y So & ee i Bg o% \Eg. ie pee Bes re ee Soe [ | |!i,H i IJ4.: aSesePewe eeee*eeowe a oe Bins, ee53ceeae —ee—eeae

=aa pce wkbile 7. ke «3 3« seee ES ‘| 23 #i ! 4+ese Ks 4*: 3ae-3iise ave ~% Be ; abe 5} Es ie 3‘ «rey 3 ‘ ;|Pd & ** .ft+ Scaler ‘Lyf poshe 4ee % poe

® om a a = BS } Fee Mi moe am +i ; ss tec sgh iti =a" sph % : thaw 4s yaad ; OP— RAKR ‘ 3 ww f F EF A i ee 'A %SOGR OEHT:OGT ; ~Kkf—b=| * bs . 4 ‘puted 4% { “ee “a4 ee i _E epee Se meme eee Fi. ; : 2% - < r : ae tenths ‘ a 5 — eae FJ ad Re ae s ia g ¢ ~ vm ~~ * * ‘ Rcgonpeany be ate 4

Bikes, jew ; , Bpeepaietel Bis ‘ $adf a onse + *abevoniwe 4% a* Uf eed ee‘ ses ns a i. +93 émae : as - Bont ¢ Pi ~ . *>aEeeoloe Sp eee OT A&wb ‘ $44 c< : i aes #: & ai $ * # # § “46° : e { Py ri bi FO st sade |

‘ . Pa ;eeteESmE it| ¥ ;3pr iP) beh" f Rb aay ee ‘ Pi xe ‘ fe 2 om Ae dg ee eee aor * were? 7 Rs

22 a*a.bet = ;es rte‘Temps , j Zon = pa Be ne conetine £° UPom oe ate M ¥ss, we as oe tee F “Me ba: :pe saeaeos cfsi :{540 ss ,ne||;:kee Gil (pm gages [fae Vi if Jsat, peed sone “ie ‘poms ser $ £E8 Se BES “* 00 ESe€ete 3: .Es pines ET ++ see, Asa j 5 + Fe: ESscan peersF: 3‘i 9-2 — se PF: eens, & oesase wee:dct 8poreeh re * . soa “Ae i “gee Povo z=esoa ta3SSseit tiTe beepes ete "Ree teccee Ruths ee~O}] ye * ¢ Pe < baer Perhaps this denial of the organic wholeness of plan and elevation prevented Scott’s law courts from winning any strong proponents. A professional architectural renderer, Thomas Allom (1804-72), was responsible for the vast number of beautiful perspectives that illustrated the entry, and public knowledge of this further damaged Scott’s reputation. The Athenaeum suggested caustically that Allom might have succeeded as well on his own. '%°

Street's Design 1% MANY respects the design submitted by George Edmund Street was the ideo-

logical ally of Scott’s, but it possessed far greater unity and power. Like Scott’s, his law courts were a final expression of faith in the possibility of High Victorian stylistic mediation (Fig. 64). The long regular facades, with their central and ter-

The Competition 139

.:$¢:Y)6)

minal climaxes and unbroken rooflines, bespoke the “horizontality” and “repose that Street had long championed for urban secular architecture. Against this were contrasted the bold verticals of asymmetrically placed towers. He himself explained his effort as a compromise:

I have taken occasion, so far as was reasonable, to make all my facades tolerably regular in arrangement. So I have made distinct centres to the north and south fronts, and have also made the other main fronts equally uniform in their general character. With all this uniformity there are, however, very often, of necessity, features where uniformity was unnecessary, and irregularity a virtue, and I have gladly availed myself of them in all cases. So that | hope my design has sufficient picturesqueness not to be tamely uniform, and yet enough uniformity to prevent the building looking trivial or frittered away. ‘7

64 George Edmund Street. Th iformi hich f thi ked b ial d

as ace lnuades doae e uniformity which was part of this compromise marked a substantial deparCompetition design. f Srhetoric ; : ;had.;always supported the Bird’ nae ee ture from Street’s previous1866—67. practice. Although his lrd s-eye view DY Street.

(Aychitestnal Acsncue on, incorporation of classicizing properties in contemporary architecture, he had hereNMR photograph. ) tofore designed little that conformed with this theoretical position. He had excused

Ei oe ‘ ee eS chi Ms er 2 oe, ee soe ee hl

ees = got: ; = eee ee cae = Se. eee peEe: os Shee Zt ee % ee ; Ce ee ae bk eee tee es es re eee Se en Pyaar Boh am io bees Seca ai ace er | ae ae - fe oh es. ] As yet. s sy a en A ef ~ ee De ane ke Re 5. SONS aes OS

Se a A. se ee eae Se ee a es RG ndBeMe A :Se tee yee Co, ade ee ~Oe FlPeeos eegsee gee 6 =eeag GE feRacha ceede ee eeoe. a ee p ee ee ee oe ge ee Po Po gms FOP Se EE ee Ra eeaBeGage ee eeoS eee ee 4 og SE. ae (2 oe. ee Wee oe Ss ae rs. pe a * a te Oe Ce 2 ee ee Fi“ i ee ke & ge hs an ee 2Ae ees wae Ry aeeghh RS ee ee TE -og eeseeevteeeeoS fig Nan ee Se & aoc ee. GF See eee eecr eeae BE «PeSh SE yk eeOO eeea ee gee: af ee ee elehea eeeSee g EE ~~ 6 eee Oe ee ee Me wee ee ee en ae ee ee Bo Rete ee Re : Bid ene Re oe Fo eh Pe ee a Re Pee oe Oy aS ee BR ee ee eg er ee ee EE egg

ole eT i ee a ee

oe a ee hier Sx oe OO. er ee

Ps “ gO Pegs : eea rn, Be,fo Sgt ee Aang, be teri,igeed eae oye Ee eethie Tr eee reEe «coe ag ee: 2Vaeee Deaf te= ae aes ee eae 5SBE Vee Lieieee Ae On ee ,lC— 2 = A ee ee Se ee & 22. 2 : si8oS ee Wes & Bee a ae A ae 2 es Bape ces Gees ee ee ee ee Z ef ee 2 oe ee ek92 ie ;ae : "Ee geg © i ee ee se CL, Ce CO" 5 Laer ae fo te ee se — Fe BAe ge 2 8 Cee Se oe | go —h _ ae Ce FT 8 A Ee 23 ee ee.GUS ee- eeag2 oeeee ——“(‘“‘ | iy SE ME i ce ee a ee i) BG) DESIGN-POR: NEW-COURT SOF STI we fee. ae ol SiS? (eee kg yo - 3 — — Ss PE oe ee So Sg ee ait BIRDS EYE: PROSPECE : FROM F0TE Se "SS “f= 4 ,hes ped oe - . om. Fs SU “gS Dee ee “se ee msBN Se Ee coneronor srconereerrn &* otaie a Me ore Sf aa 2ee Eeee So ‘ “5 2. ae e eS oon . eeeen

i eo Nes a eae ee een a = LPR LL rr ee

3 yi me 64s At so, obnde’ =; ere Bh | tae ae oe eee ar ae ,ouoe om « t ° se 4p GEORGE: COOTED: STREET: A:R $< hae : Sos ae =< ssieoet .: 285FeaSe2-708 j eee #2 “aSg Sie ioie é WER " %ies sani eo heise, pte aoe 4RY & R27 Sa EBs nin? i See ees ee eee:eepe eeeae pre nie :

pe eke EES 6 EE 22 Sas oa Ate a gece saeco Bh bien ae : 7 ete & Be eth hoe ees ee See 2 joes teind BS ee : be yf eXeeSoe eesceBej aiFehea.eegrBnew is +4)jis€Bee Pas#3: at oSot€| fxot2 ae aa +a 33 Bet = #:Se: ee Ses ReeSSeS&@ ioe

aS Seis baleyeI oh. co ae EAeee A eaters 3 oy is eA “ee itt: in 2Be Bae66s = ' tia teee ce te Sere te se espe Sees beBeast oe hug TERE a aeirae: feb,esTA “ngs ee 71Hee Fe fee trvel eetiSTe 45VE. ane

eesseeentae BsBeeeTRS Peeia' $4 iH : 4aie) i eeBewe $i el eeee Eeft:EE iB 3 Seg ve $e a ee ee bebe ee tes:tes be Go * Hesie besae 5 newh er Ee oe >Ay * ee je ee ae :eae Beeim4 i: 44% ip oe

oe, = Se se Gu ide eas REE —. 1 Gis gbaey ee = tt | a HEP eE >. au aac + Y igh atFCORD 12k ra see SENT ieee hetltiicts gos =+ Sega ii jnae 5dol fe nes 2sa=ses ‘Poarak Oh Be BE ae #3 i: aes Sane :eSaid TOWER. aatsi ates oP cian ee iet oe Ha hth Pee ieeBA ~ -isips Zne : +, 6%Te o jie. Jao sonia se me asxh on ae stree ie “eee cernenrte 2SAa itn xSE ansic aS 2EE ee£3 4me ee 2 fo poe trompie-C Temes hha Se ar ee Ses pee ne oe ee ee ete aed — esgees mace cit Lag Sse >ies Vien : Alternatin? of : Ti Eek siGit. ere S Seedesign. roreese ae eee wig es as s poten nc for IRE Pee ee Seetei>an ; age — Sea CORED TON ee ee Worcocenete *one 2ae =BESe é

The Competition 141 the irregularity of his entry in the government offices competition on the basis of the irregularity of the site and the proximity of St. James’s Park, while the picturesque properties of his other large planning exercise, the convent at East Grinstead, could be justified on the grounds of its rural setting (see Figs. 5, 8).'5° In the late fifties and sixties, Street, nearly as much as Burges, was identified with the powerful picturesque of the Early French, but now, with the law courts, he had at last resolved to put theory to practice. Nevertheless, to counterbalance the apparent symmetry and insistent horizontals of the main body of the building, Street provided a number of picturesque accents. The most dramatic of these was the soul-stirring record tower, which he called his “one grand feature.”"5° The four ventilation stacks were also placed without exact symmetry, and the fenestration patterns on each side of the main entrance were significantly different. Varied groupings of small pinnacles punctuated the roofline. Moreover, the proposed bridge across the Strand on the site of Temple Bar blocked from view the pair of eastern gables, obscuring the symmetry of the main facade (Fig. 65). These picturesque elements were demanded by the nature of the Carey Street site. Although Street submitted a bird’s-eye view of the entire building which did not show the church of St. Clement Danes, he also prepared a number of smaller, close-up perspectives which demonstrated that he understood that passersby would see only fragments of his facades. This realistic outlook shaped Street’s work. Street’s chosen architectural vocabulary, employing a variety of picturesque forms, complemented this dynamic composition. Much of his vocabulary derived from his earlier experiments with the forceful massing of the Early French, as seen in his churches at Howsham (1859—60) and Denstone (1860-62), and in the executed version of the Crimean War Memorial Church (1863-68) (see Fig. 7). His enthusiasm for these strongly picturesque forms had been responsible for delaying until now the realization of the more even and regular composition that he advocated in theory, and this enthusiasm continued in the law courts’ vigorous massing, reticent surfaces, steep-pitched roof, and in the asymmetrical placement of the record tower—especially in its more economical alternate version (Figs. 66, 67). The same feeling prevailed in the numerous round, conically roofed stair towers, in

, the chamfered corners of the central Strand pavilion, and in the general wide spacing of windows.

The unbalancing effects of the Early French were partially offset by a strong recollection of Italian Gothic in other parts of the design, particularly in the two, campanile-like ventilation towers at the southeast and southwest. With their strong cornices and horizontal striping, they harkened back to the towers Street had designed in the fifties for the government offices (1856) and St. Dionis Backchurch (1857), when his interest in Italy had been at its peak. As recently as 1864, in his design for All Saints, Clifton, he had adopted a partially Italian vocabulary for an urban setting. It may have been this consideration which brought Italian models into use once more at the law courts, for the urban applications of Italian Gothic, with its strong classical survivals, had first attracted him to its study. But although the Italian towers of the law courts contributed an element of repose to the design, they were grouped in a picturesque pattern, and their overall effect remained rather informal.

142 The Law Courts

ME ON INOS ST TT OO ha amy! ae \\ SEN iat

' eA Ae Z Oe 3 oS ee a, 7 if zi iat é \" ng a - Serra be 4 % ‘ tia dh wee SOR EES, RO His; SE Ree EE cf Peer

et ta a fF? o : ADA NAS Sei #4 te eee 2. 4ifP| sag sf? tt As : Ret? ayet; ERR Oy— Pepe. fF pif), : ye i ee es = Pah ae: -| oo — SS ~~ Ay ~ : ay pr ZN i aN\,.ol 1 = te ii id i [ | cae :i e1mrt 4% t aehsj ae PE e oO i ; \G\\y| =. et HV ail

‘ Ss = > le 4d iS ’ = Re Ke fig i Ad i i¢ es 3 =| 2 baie § Zz if 3 BS is $ «, 3 bem ee adrete 2 ee hey BIL

oe ee ee Be a ee MERE! GG Meme VN a // || esos mec: A>.aAVA gail: im mR Sb EET PET Be ET AS Wee ee WAHi) | —————ee mney ae ify) aeWNT 7a~ eaeee es es#2 i%de eee a aa. aa)diusWe et TTT i esEy: ssc eee ti eaastic : die : iF ee = t i 5 egMam Wb: 2 : p> aa aitwe § i % $ ieee Ft ; = $2 % *% a eo reat tetra vs SS HS a oie Be iilewen: @ 2g EF TE LOO EE Parties a . ay eee ti “4 3 “4 at ee ij @/ 4 Mf e- * tories: “Ge of BeBea eee EL “gt TEi}fei 2ee UR @Fi@q gag he18) hoa SS EUR lapf 3ee er ea TONS Ae .neoR gy Si FEE Ftee. Pes fe = iBL 4 ag Se SEcer ati, Ae , ra Tt F — || TEAlt A age PiliRitGhelsteee teat «ag Aaa A ais. >. i least clad abayealnisi Pisy’

5a a a au nil aaa

ap oT Ll petger ag WR eg | eZBae ee ae i 2_ aaemeai | TD eee eeeBeTee :spcensaws Joh ot 9eeascee ag«ayyRental? ;nannies (i A ' oe sees! 4a =i] Sey aa em ee ee eS : a_i ovemmniit | io me ae emeatlh tel a es | eae gee :

es foes e ¢ Nea tcegiee ” ay ana eo 8 i

i: Rete i areed8 eeerewwac __ 9atcnion =i f2. ee :

—_ tr”: ok CO Po. OR ee ey ae = |

7 = te «8s $< Cer ge alg Aarts weg

ee gg @ a a een Loe Eee 2 oa Re ae ee a ee ee . om Meow yee? Cog

hee ae ee YlClC emul | eam aaa |

71 Street. Competition design. | accommodation for them as shall make the proceedings of the Courts public.”'”? But

Of Courtrooms, access arrangements. (GES.Showing Expla- | | ae . -_ , |, ; , : : sani il eae: sections —_ despite this, Street somehow began with the intention of admitting the public to

S the central hall, from which they could pass into the galleries of the courts. This

nation and Illustrations. ) clearly jeopardized any scheme to limit public admission. On his drawings, he labeled this space the “public” hall, and located it on the level of the spectator galleries, where only the general public was likely to venture (see Figs. 68, 70). Fortunately, he detected this error at the last minute, and made a make-shift correction by adding railings to confine the public to the corners of the hall. But the noisy throng could still disturb the atmosphere of the great concourse, and, as the Builder pointed out, the railings cut off all public entry to the lord chancellor’s court.'?? The haste with which the design was revised as the deadline approached is reflected in the fact that a few of the labels on the plans were added in a rapid, ordinary script, and a number of the carefully lettered labels were crossed out and altered. There must have been a burst of feverish activity in Street’s office when it was discovered that the plan violated the chief stipulation of the instructions. Street’s scheme for dealing with public circulation was also faulty in another important respect. In order to prevent loungers from drifting from courtroom to courtroom, the program had specifically called for separate outside public entrances to each court. However, Street funneled the public from ground floor entrances up to the level of the galleries in two large groups, each of which might be admitted easily to ten or eleven courts. He argued in his description that the commission’s

148 The Law Courts requirement was “an impossible arrangement without vast loss of space and great expense, and therefore an impossible arrangement in so restricted a site." But to this the Builder replied sarcastically, “that the arrangement denied is not actually ‘impossible,’ is shown conclusively by more than one of the competitors.”'”? Barry, the Builder’s choice, had accomplished at least a part of the task by subdividing the flow of spectators with eight nonconnecting stairs, while Burges had provided precisely the separate external entrances which were recommended. Several other competitors, including Waterhouse, at least provided separate stairs to each court from the basement level. On the whole, Street’s plan must be ranked in the bottom half of the competition field, and this failure is not altogether surprising. He had had little experience in planning large buildings, and a glance at the great warren of rooms strung along ill-lit corridors which he had devised for the convent at East Grinstead (begun in 1864) suggests that he had achieved little sophistication (see Fig. 8). Nor was Street unaware of his shortcomings. In a letter written to the Royal Commission shortly after the designs were submitted, he urged its members not to devote too much attention to aspects of planning and too little to the “architectural character of the elevation.”'’° Contrary to the avowed priorities of Burges and Scott, and to the expected procedure of most architects, Street devoted the more important part of his efforts to the latter concern. Street believed that it was in the outward aspect of the building that he might at last give concrete form to what had for so long been only a potent theory, and, fortunately, the years ahead afforded many opportunities to refine his plan in accordance with the advice of its critics. During those years Street also revised his elevations, and in that work the critics again played an important role. Their enthusiasm for Burges’s extraordinary design encouraged Street to abandon his experiment with the classicization of Gothic,

just as it was bearing fruit. The future seemed to lie with an almost undiluted picturesque, and Street—long an Early French devotee—needed little convincing to redirect his energies. Indeed, a comparison of the law courts design with his slightly earlier competition design for the rebuilding of the National Gallery suggests that Street had begun to revert to his picturesque habits before hearing a word of this most recent praise of Burges (Fig. 72). Street had made a sketch for the National Gallery by the time he returned from his tour of Continental museums in March 1866, when the instructions for the law courts had not yet been issued.'** His gallery design, even more than the law courts, imposed classical regularity upon medieval structural principles, specifically adapted to its formal, unobstructed site on Trafalgar Square. For that location, Street created a virtually symmetrical fagade, whose repetition of gables recalled the composition

of a Roman basilica or bath, and at the center he raised a medieval dome to symbolize the Gothic and classic congruity he was seeking. Derived from the Byzantine-inspired domes of southern France, it linked the design to the Romano—Byzantine style practiced by some contemporary French architects, and, specifically, to

Léon Vaudoyer’s Marseille cathedral (begun in 1852). Like his Continental colleagues, Street evidently turned to Byzantine precedents because they were the most classical form of medieval architecture, and he wrote boldly about these intentions: “| have attempted to give [the design] so much simplicity, dignity, and classicality of

ee,

: & fae Se, Le -—

ee Cw SA ee

— Herne ntaay SHELTER a ET Ae “pence SH LHELETEL ECL i 2s

ws feta

. Nevertheless, the debate continued, and ten of the competitors voted on February 22 to ask that Shaw and Pownall be added to the jury. In addition, they requested that a third architect of their own choosing also be made a judge, no doubt wary of the tastes of the undistinguished professional assessors. The R.1I.B.A. Council passed a resolution in support of these requests which was forwarded to the Treasury, but the reply was again negative.”°° However, Beresford-Hope had kept the question alive in Parliament, and when the matter was once more brought up for discussion on May 3, the Government at last withdrew its opposition, and William Cowper, the chairman of the judges, rose to express his willingness to accept the two architects.?° In addition to the report prepared by the two assessors-turned-judges, the jury was also given a report prepared by a subcommittee of the commission composed of barristers and solicitors, a survey of opinions among the chief officers of the legal departments, and special evaluations from experts on firefighting and ventilation. The first two were the most significant, for it was stipulated that they were to provide the basis on which the successful competitor would be asked to make final revisions in his design. Not surprisingly, the bar and solicitors committee report on June 5 reflected the common attitude of lawyers and recommended acceptance of the plans prepared by Waterhouse.” Their most important conclusion was that a central hall was necessary and that it should be located one level below the courts. This decision entirely eliminated from consideration the schemes of Burges and Garling, and perhaps also those of Barry and Scott, with their small halls, while Waterhouse alone was found to have located the hall at the preferred level. The survey of law officers, which was attached to the bar and solicitors report, was difficult to summarize, but it concurred generally with the findings in favor of Waterhouse, with some good words for Scott as well.?°? One critical point on which the two evaluations fully agreed was that the probate offices, the largest legal department and one with numerous daily visitors, should not be located at the center of the building, where Barry, the favorite of Shaw and Pownall, had placed it. On May 27, Captain Eyre Massey Shaw, chief officer of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, submitted another advisory report.”*° He had unhelpful praise for Deane’s plan, with its fire-conscious subdivision of the building. However, Shaw was scathingly critical of Scott, who, he said, “does not appear to have made the smallest attempt to master the subject’”—an unexpected charge against an architect with so enormous and varied a practice. On most of the other designs he was noncommittal. And finally there was Dr. John Percy’s report of June 8 on heating and ventilating, that vexed issue in public architecture that had grown into a storm of controversy at the Houses of Parliament. Percy, in fact, had just completed a report on the

154 The Law Courts , unsatisfactory arrangements in that building, and the commission was anxious to have his expert advice about the law courts before a design was selected.?" Like most specialists in his field, Percy proved difficult to get along with, and his report seems to have been little heeded. He was most impressed by the plans submitted by Scott and Seddon, which received no great attention from the judges, while he disapproved of those of Barry and Street, their eventual choices. Of the last, with its combined use of hot air and hot water, he warned, “I should advise the Commissioners to hesitate long before they accept this proposal.”?!? As these reports were published or leaked late in the spring, the fortunes of Barry and Waterhouse were perceived to rise, and tensions noticeably increased. From the entrants came a flurry of rebuttals and rejoinders. No established procedure existed for such responses, but in January Street and Garling had asked that the architects be allowed to explain any confusing details of their designs to the judges.?”3

This request had been refused, and the dissatisfied now resorted to plaintive letters

to the Royal Commission.** Nothing eventually depended on the small points argued back and forth in this war of claims and counterclaims. Meanwhile, the judges were meeting. On May 29 they assembled for the first time since February, probably to consider the newly submitted report of Shaw and

Pownall. They did not meet again until after the Reform Bill received its third reading in the Commons on July 15. Thereafter, they pushed rapidly toward a decision, meeting on July r9 and 24, with several meetings with individual judges recorded in Gladstone’s diary as well. Finally, at their fifth session on July 29, they reached the split decision that Gladstone duly noted in his diary, and on the next day William Cowper wrote to the Treasury that The Judges of Designs . . . have been unable to select any one of the designs as best in all respects; but they are of the opinion that the design of Mr. Barry is best in regard to plan and distribution of the interior, and that the design of Mr. Street is the best in regard to merit as an architectural composition; and they recommend that an offer be made to those two architects to act conjointly in the preparation of the final plan to be executed." Government dissatisfaction with this awkward suggestion was such that it was never reported to the architects, but news of the recommended appointment of Street and Barry escaped and was reported curtly by the Builder on August 10.7" With the proposal of such an impossible joint commission to be shared by men of incompatible temperaments, the law courts competition joined the great list of past competition failures and perpetuated their ignoble tradition. The contest judges themselves were aware of their failure. A year later Gladstone expressed his regret that “he and those who acted with him had so entirely failed in rendering effective

aid to the Government in this matter.”*? On the same occasion, Palmer spoke of his “misfortune to be one of the Judges of these designs.”?'® Cowper, too, later admitted the awkwardness of their decision.”'? But the judges had simply been unable to sort out the divergent evidence and preferences that pulled them toward several of the architects, and, under the circumstances, they had probably been relieved to narrow the field to just two. Two extant contemporary accounts explain the judges’ split decision, and with these and an understanding of their predilections, the rumors, the other opinions,

The Competition 155 and the advice they received, a reconstruction of their thinking can be proposed. The first explanation was offered by Henry S. Winterbotham (1837-73), the irregular Liberal M.P. for Stroud, Gloucestershire, and the leader of the nonconformists in the House of Commons. In a later debate over the dilemma of the law courts

competition, he suggested that ,

The confusion that had arisen was entirely owing to the circumstances that Messrs. Shaw and Pownall had been raised from the position of assistant architectural clerks to that of Judges. This step had been taken in deference to the Trades’ Union feeling of the London architects, who anticipated that this addition to the number of the judges would neutralize the chance of the competitor from Manchester [Waterhouse] being successful. The result of this increase in the number of Judges was that the two Judges who were in favour of Mr. Barry united with the two who were in favour of Mr. Street against the three who were in favour of Mr. Waterhouse, who had succeeded so admirably with regard to the Manchester Law Courts.?”°

Winterbotham’s analysis of three parties within the jury is entirely acceptable. Given what is known about the feelings of lawyers—and two of the judges, Cockburn and Palmer, were lawyers—and the bar and solicitors report, some feeling in favor of Waterhouse was logical. Shaw and Pownall’s approval of Barry establishes a

prima facie case for his clique as well. And the sentiment which Gladstone and perhaps Stirling-Maxwell could have felt for Street explains the third division among

the judges. What Winterbotham said about the conspiracy of Londoners against Waterhouse is less likely, however, for the agitation to add the professional assessors

to the judges began long before their opinions could have been known. Also, his hypothesis fails to account for the rumors that were circulated about Burges. The main elements of Winterbotham’s story were repeated in the cryptic explanation that was proposed by the Architect some years after the competition was over.

After suggesting that the judges had invited architects from whom “muscular” or Early French designs could be expected, namely, Burges, Street, Deane, Brandon, Waterhouse, and Seddon (this was the Architect's own idiosyncratic list), they proposed,

Accordingly, when, after a vast amount of structural investigation of the designs, it came to be apparent that the balance of preference would on this ground lean towards either the altogether unexpected Mr. Barry or one of the above-named competitors who had not come up to the expected mark of muscularity . . ., some one in authority was said to have intervened (the name of Mr. Gladstone, in fact, was personally mentioned), and suddenly and surprisingly the selection fell upon Mr. Street.?” The Architect story confirms Winterbotham’s suggestion that the choice fell among

three competitors. If the unnamed third architect who “had not come up to the expected mark of muscularity” was not Burges—and, reasonably, it could not have been—then most likely it was Waterhouse. The stories thus coincide in identifying

the same three front runners, and an important confirmation is obtained for the hypothetical support of Gladstone for Street. On these bases, the decision-making process of the judges may be sketched

156 The Law Courts tentatively. Shaw and Pownall, both predominantly classical architects in their own practices and concerned principally with planning in their work for the commission, were clearly the locus of support for Barry. Their report, of course, confirms this. Although Waterhouse was unmentioned in the final decision, evidence reveals that he, too, had several proponents. His design was generally popular, and lawyers, including the members of the subcommittee of solicitors and barristers, especially admired it. The lawyers on the jury, Cockburn and Palmer, may have been naturally predisposed to favor him, and the latter had commissioned him to design a house. Perhaps, at least initially, Gladstone was also a supporter of his South Lancashire constituent. However, Street’s design was the ultimate recipient of Gladstone’s support. The casual contacts made during the preceding decade and the striking affinities of the two men do not alone prove this assertion. But the further story of Street’s commission for the law courts is so full of instances in which he turned to Gladstone as a

natural supporter that his help at the time of the competition seems almost certain.”? This theory is further confirmed by the conjecture of the Architect. With Gladstone may have voted Stirling-Maxwell, linked to Street as a fellow Spanish scholar, and, as a real art critic, aware that the work of Barry and Waterhouse was of substantially less artistic significance than that of Street.

Although neglected in the explanations of the judging offered by Winterbotham and the Architect, the very popular design submitted by Burges probably had some support among the judges as well. Despite being a late invitee, Burges may have been championed by William Cowper, acting on the advice of Beresford-Hope. Thus supporters may be identified for at least three, and possibly four of the competitors—the probable “finalists.” How these parties ultimately regrouped themselves to vote for a joint award to Barry and Street is more difficult to reconstruct. No evidence, however indirect, can be found. Perhaps it was the pragmatic lawyers, Palmer and Cockburn, who chose to transfer their allegiance to Barry, increasing his supporters to four in an effort to break the deadlock. They would not have been attracted to Street’s design, with its terrible planning, nor to Burges’s, which, while well planned, was the work of an architect with no great reputation for completing major commissions. Perhaps Cowper, seeing the thinness of support for his presumed favorite, Burges, shifted his vote to Street, bringing his party up to three in number. He would have recognized that Street came closest to equaling Burges’s power among the architects under active consideration. Thus, Shaw, Pownall, Cockburn, and Palmer, interested chiefly in convenience of plan, may have voted for Barry, while Gladstone, Stirling-Maxwell, and Cowper voted for Street and for art.??3

The Decision Is | )ssamsection withtaken the judges’ recommendation was enormous, and Abandoned immediate steps were to overturn it. Without waiting for what they correctly predicted would be a hostile public reaction, the Treasury drafted a minute asking the judges to reconsider their decision.?** The Treasury argued that the instructions had specified the appointment of a single architect and that the jury had

reached its conclusions without consulting the last of the reports of the special

The Competition 157 advisers, an estimate of comparative costs submitted by W. J. Gardiner on August 3, after the joint award had been suggested.” Gardiner had tested the estimates prepared by the architects themselves by

making an independent survey of their designs, and his figures did provide an additional standard of comparison in general, and further evidence in support of Waterhouse in particular. While all of the already costly designs were found to have been underestimated by their authors, Gardiner determined that Waterhouse’s entry would cost only 0.1 percent more than the architect had calculated. At £1,421,430 it was, in fact, the second least costly of all the designs. In contrast, Street’s plan

would cost 14 percent more than he estimated, or £1,523,273, and Barry’s, 26 percent more, or £1,610,966. The least reliable estimate was that submitted by Garling, whose design would cost 55 percent more than he had claimed, or £1,688, 458.°”° Given these figures, it is not surprising that on August 9, J. W. Pease, M.P., a relative of Waterhouse, asked in the House of Commons whether the judges had reached their decision prior to consulting Gardiner’s report.”

The judges, having struggled to reduce the favorites to two, must have been dismayed to have the Treasury return the matter to them for reconsideration. Moreover, the impending Long Vacation prevented any swift resolution of the problem. Gladstone wrote to Cockburn on August 19 and to Cowper on September 7, but no reply survives from Cowper, who was in Ireland, and Cockburn only replied on October 4, after Gladstone’s letter caught up with his yacht at Stornoway.??® Cockburn held out no hope that the judges would be able to settle their differences: “Not, indeed that as it appears to me, we can do anything more. We have given the subject our fullest consideration and cannot agree in selecting any one of the competing architects, and, therefore, as the next best thing, suggest that the execution of the work shall be committed to two.’”?? The tone of the reply indicates that Gladstone and he had supported different architects, as hypothesized, and that neither was willing to give in. Accordingly, when the judges reassembled in London on November 22, they could not revise their previous award. The evidence of the Gardiner report in favor of the very efficient Waterhouse could not dislodge the supporters of either Barry or Street, and on November 28, Cowper reported ruefully to the Treasury, “On reviewing our proceedings, no course appears to have been open to us better than that we have taken, but whether we judged rightly or not, it is clear that we have now no power to render further assistance in this matter.”3° But although reconfirmed, the decision was not rendered any more palatable, and the other competitors were among the first to protest. Waterhouse, perhaps sensing that the prize had nearly been his, was especially implacable. He published a letter which he had written to Cowper on November 13, calling attention to the favorable reports made on his design by the court officers and by the committees of lawyers. He further charged, correctly, that Shaw and Pownall had made up their minds in favor of Barry even before they were appointed judges.?3' He followed this with a letter to the Treasury on November 28—perhaps written with knowledge of the judges’ reconfirmation of their decision on that date—which repeated much of the same argument and demanded a single award.?3?

G. G. Scott was less persistent, although he too believed to the last that a

158 The Law Courts single architect should have been chosen and that he deserved to be that man.?33 He protested the award when it was first revealed in August, questioning “the justice

... Of... clubbing together the merits of different competitors” against the uncombined merits of the rest.?+ But his friend Street appealed to him to withhold his criticism, and Scott subsequently wrote to the Government offering to accept the decision if the judges should reconfirm it.?3° After the judges did so, Scott gracefully retracted his complaint on December 18: “I feel bound in all honour, not only to submit to the decision and to express my earnest desire that it may be fully acted

on, but further to state that, if under the circumstances the appointment were offered to myself I should feel that I had no right to accept it, nor if the competition | were in any way re-opened should I deem it right to re-enter it.”*3° He also expressed his confidence that Street and Barry would be able to collaborate successfully. Some of the other competitors emulated their tactful chairman. On December 13, Seddon wrote to the Royal Commission deploring the complaints made about the judging and urging that the decision be upheld.*3” A month later, Deane advised the Treasury that he concurred with the award.?3° The opinions of Street and Barry were, of course, tinged by different sentiments than those of their colleagues. For them this was surely a period of agonizing sus-

pense, for their appointment was not yet formally announced and the majority of feeling was set against it. For five months neither dared to express any view, but after the judges had reconsidered their decision, both wrote to the Royal Commission for confirmation of their joint appointment. Street later recalled that they had been in

| “constant friendly communication” at this time, and their letter writing was coordinated. 73°

Both worried that the judges might be swayed by the arguments that were now brought forward on behalf of the other competitors and against the split commission.

Street wrote on December 12 to defend them against this threat: “The eleven competing architects all agreed to accept the decisions of the Judges of Design, and this being so, these supplementary criticisms of the judgment after it is given ought not, I venture to think, be admitted or entertained by the Commission.”?#° Barry

wrote in the same vein on December 13: “I do not . . . suppose that at this late period, after the award of the judges has been made and published, the Commission will entertain any representations by competitors in their own favour, based upon ex parte statements of facts and figures, the accuracy of which is not admitted.” They followed the letters to the commission with direct appeals to Lord Derby, the Tory prime minister, on January 20. In this further allied effort, Street and Barry stressed that the instructions had specified that the decision of the judges was to be final. Each emphasized his willingness to work with the other. Barry pledged: “Our intimate acquaintance, and (I think | may add) mutual respect and esteem, will be a guarantee for our working harmoniously together.”*4* Street concurred: “I have always been on the best terms with Mr. E. M. Barry, and. . . neither of us see any difficulty about working together harmoniously in the execution of four] respective portions of the work.”?43

Why, exactly, the two were so anxious to join in what promised to be a most difficult partnership may only be guessed. It is likeliest that Street and Barry recognized that because of their respective deficiencies in planning and composition, their only hope of receiving the commission at all was a joint appointment. Judged

The Competition 159 on their individual merits, their designs would both lose to that of Waterhouse, and perhaps to Burges’s as well. So eager were they to have some part of the great prize that they were willing to ignore the professional embarrassment caused by the joint award and to attempt to work around their profound artistic and temperamental differences. Like Scott, who had persisted in revising the Foreign Office design to meet the requirements of Palmerston because “to resign would be to give up a sort of property that Providence had placed in the hands of my family,” Street and Barry were willing to accept a great hardship in pursuit of a greater glory. #4 But they, together with a very few of their colleagues, were nearly alone in their

confidence that a joint appointment would be successful. Just at this time, the controversy over the relative shares of Charles Barry and A. W. N. Pugin in the design of the Houses of Parliament was made a public issue, and this encouraged doubts about shared responsibility. Criticism of the award began to appear in the press in the fall, and it intensified after the decision was reaffirmed. On November 19 the Times argued that great art could not be collaborative and that “such works require an incubation, which is a solitary process.” The only acceptable solution was a new competition.?#5 The Ecclesiologist, too, supported a rejudging, if not an entirely

fresh competition, to break the deadlock. It was confident that if a single award were demanded, Burges would emerge victorious, and its reviewer now called his entry “in many respects the very best architectural work we have seen since the commencement of the Gothic revival.”4° The Building News, another Burges admirer, took precisely the same position on December 6, calling on the Treasury to exercise its final authority and select the single design that was the best. 74? The Builder joined the slim company that endorsed the joint decision. Perhaps it feared that the design of its favorite, Barry, would have no chance by itself. In any

case, the support did not reflect any fondness for Street, for in the December 28 article accepting the reaffirmation of the judges’ decision, the editorialist admitted, “Candidly, we shall never be contented with Mr. Street’s elevations, nor will the public be. We should prefer that Mr. Barry’s design be carried out in its integrity.”?4° This antipathy of the Builder toward Street had not been especially obvious before the decision of the judges became known, although the journal had failed to publish his perspective. However, the editors now began a campaign against his work that lasted through all the difficult early years of his association with the law courts. The Builder’s assault had actually begun three weeks earlier with a signed review by William Watkiss Lloyd (1813-93), a well-respected scholar of classical art and letters. Lloyd had attacked Street’s design from the point of view of a classicist in search of uniformity and order. Ferociously, he charged that Street’s law courts would be a “deformity and an eyesore for all time,” and he continued, “Anarchy reigns—

section after section seems to do what seems good in its own eyes. Architect and clerk of the works must have been spirited away to Dreamland; and the masons, tired of waiting for them, have evidently got the working drawings into confusion and finished the undertaking somehow—anyhow.”’*? George Godwin, the editor of the Builder, adopted this position in his later criticism. Dissatisfaction with the decision and with the victorious designs also spilled into the letter columns, particularly that of the Times. On August 15, E. W. Pugin had the honor of publishing there the first criticism of the newly selected architects. Although he was thankful that the judges had abandoned their rumored early pref-

160 The Law Courts erence for Burges, against whom he had fought, Pugin labeled the joint award “a forced and uncongenial partnership, in which every possible element of success is conspicuously absent, and every ingredient of combustion and speedy dissolution glaringly palpable.” Neither of the winners had much to recommend him, he rea_ soned. Disagreeing with Shaw and Pownall, he judged that Barry had only a “moderately good plan,” while of Street’s fagade he wrote, “My reason for coming to this conclusion [that the design was inappropriate for its purpose] is the ostensible poverty, not to say meanness of his Strand front, arising from two distinct causes—first, the absence of consecutiveness, which gives it the appearance of eight distinct detached buildings tacked together; second, an utter want of dignity in any part except in the entrance.”?°° This might have been the complaint of a classicist, but the remarks of the fiery younger Pugin always defy easy interpretation. Pugin’s assault was applauded five days later by a letter to the Times from “W. E. G.,” who accused the victorious architects of paying off the losers at the rate of £1,000 apiece.*>* This absurd libel was only denied by Street on September 4, for he was then in Venice and the allegation was slow in reaching him. “I have made no such bargain, and nothing would have induced me to do so,” he replied icily.?? k. W. Godwin, who had not received an invitation to compete and who had therefore assisted Burges, also wrote to the Times.that architects were generally unhappy with the judges’ decision.53 But amid this great outcry against the joint award in general and Barry’s planning and Street’s designing in particular, Matthew Digby Wyatt could still write to the Times with enthusiasm for the dual appointment. Based on his own experience in collaborating with Scott at the Foreign and India Offices, he was able to assure readers that such an arrangement was workable. 754

The cacaphony of displeasure resounded throughout the late summer and autumn of 1867, and when Parliament reassembled that winter the law courts were an inevitable topic of debate. Needling questions were asked of the Government on November 29 and again on February 14.75> However, this approach made no headway, and on May 12, 1868, Lord Denman, long a foe of concentration, urged the Peers to end the present state of confusion by giving up the plan for a new building altogether. **° ‘Iwo days later Cavendish Bentinck resumed his almost equally drastic

criticism of the competition in the Commons. Alluding to his earlier warnings, he likened the recent complaints about the decision of the judges to “locking the stable door after the animal had been abstracted.”?57 At last the matter was brought to a full debate on May 15. The disastrous effect of the long indecision on the inhabitants of the area surrounding the intended site and the ever-growing need for new courts were detailed. Cowper and Gladstone, speaking for the judges and the Opposition, called on the Government to decide the issue quickly.?5* Derby had retired in February, and Benjamin Disraeli was now the prime minister. The Government committed itself to no definite course of action, and this apparent hesitation encouraged a renewal of the campaign, begun three years earlier, to transfer the entire project to a new site on the Thames Embankment. Proposed during the debates of the spring of 1868, this culminated in an important discussion in the Commons on May 29. Baillie Cochrane (1816—go), the Conservative M.P. for Honiton, led the fight, rising to recommend the abandonment of Carey Street with the awkward assertion that ‘‘nothing could well be finer as a building site in

The Competition 161 European capitals than the banks of the Thames.””? But both William Cowper, the late first commissioner of works and the chairman of the jury, and Lord John Manners, the present commissioner, replied strongly. Both predicted added expense and further delay if the site were now changed. And they saw in the proposal a risk to the entire scheme. As Manners said, “This question [of site] had been decided years ago.””°° Such bipartisan cooperation, aimed at keeping the threatened project on course, was of immense importance as the process of selecting an architect entered its final, dramatic stages. While debate and criticism of the law courts competition grew, the Tory admin-

istration had not been as inactive as the public record seemed to show, but its activities had not yet borne fruit. In the wake of the reaffirmation of the award by the judges on November 28, 1867, the Treasury asked the Royal Commission for advice on how to proceed. Recognizing that the joint decision was unacceptable, the commission met on December 13 and recommended that the matter be referred to the attorney general, whom the instructions named as the referee of all disputes.?” He could decide whether the dual award was legally binding. The Treasury adopted this course, submitting a brief to Attorney General John B. Karslake on February 15, 1868. He was asked to rule on three questions: (1) whether a decision made by the judges without reference to cost was valid (a seemingly pointless query since the judges had reaffirmed their selection after considering Gardiner’s report), (2) whether Barry and Street could sustain any legal right to be employed, and (3) whether any other competitor could compel the judges to alter the form of their decision.?” The competitors were invited to inspect the Treasury’s brief to the attorney general, and Street and Barry both did so and submitted their own arguments. Street’s submission, prepared by his brother Thomas, a solicitor, has not survived.?® Barry’s letter of February 26 has, and it reflects a marked change in the joint strategy that he had pursued heretofore in cooperation with Street.*** The case submitted by the Government cited Street and Barry’s earlier support for the tandem award, but Barry now protested: “I cannot, in justice to myself, limit my claims to our joint employment.” He then outlined what would be his usual argument in the long ensuing debate, an argument that rested largely on a single passage of the instructions: “The chief points to be kept constantly in view, and to be treated as superseding, so far as they may conflict, all considerations of architectural effect, are the accommodations to be provided and the arrangements to be adopted so as in the greatest degree to facilitate the despatch and accurate transaction of the law business of the country.” This, Barry suggested, when coupled with the findings of Shaw and Pownall and of the judges as a group in favor of his planning, gave him a claim to the whole commission. Whether a quarrel between the two architects led to this change of position is not known. Perhaps Barry was merely encouraged by the increasingly hostile reception of Street’s design to assert his own claims more confidently.

Karslake reported his decision on May 14, the day before the major debate on the appointment in the Commons. He ruled that the joint award could not be binding on the Treasury, although it was the failure of the judges to reach a decision in accord with the instructions and not their initial failure to consider the Gardiner report that rendered the

award invalid. Hence Street and Barry could not claim any right to be employed, but Karslake also ruled that neither could the other competitors force their ouster.*®> A few days were required to interpret this interpretation.

162 The Law Courts Appointment [* THE END, the Treasury recognized that Karslake’s decision gave it the power and Protest to break the impasse. After analyzing the new position in a minute on May 22, the Treasury explained its conclusions to the commission on May 25: “My Lords now consider themselves free to make any appointment they may think proper, and .. . they will forthwith proceed to consider what appointment should be made.” Just four days later, on the day that the Embankment debate went forward in ignorance of the Government’s new initiative, George Ward Hunt, Disraeli’s chancellor of the Exchequer, directed the drafting of a second minute. It was promulgated on May 30:

The First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer state to the Board that after the decision which my Lords have come to, as expressed in their Minute of 22nd May, to the effect that they considered themselves free to appoint any architect for the new Courts of Justice Buildings, and after

. consultation with the First Commissioner of Works, they recommend that Mr. G. E. Street should be appointed the architect. My Lords approve.?® The explanation of this surprising triumph for Street is a difficult problem, for little is known about the architectural tastes of two of the three officials named in the minute. The first lord of the Treasury (that is Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli) was not the intimate of architects that Gladstone was. His Young England Toryism, however, did have an architectural component in its vision of a paternalistic, well cared for society, and in his novel Sybil, Disraeli had written of a model factory covered with roofs of iron and glass. He had also had his own home, Hughenden, remodeled by E. B. Lamb in 1862, but neither an interest in iron and glass nor an appreciation of Lamb’s old-fashioned “rogue” architecture was likely to have led the prime minister in the direction of Street. However, as chancellor of the Exchequer

Disraeli had approved the appointment of a Goth, G. G. Scott, to design the government offices in 1858, and perhaps his notorious anxiety to establish his credentials as an impeccable Christian gentleman inclined his thinking toward a High Church architect for the law courts. Of George Ward Hunt (1825-77) much less can be postulated. Under Derby he had served as the financial secretary of the Treasury, and when Disraeli became prime minister, just three months earlier, he was elevated to the chancellorship. His brief tenure ended in December when the Government fell, and nothing is known of his artistic preferences. However, the predilections of Lord John Manners (1818-1906) are quite well understood, for he had a long record as first commissioner of works, serving several Governments of the 1850s before his last tenure of that office under Derby and Disraeli. He was known as a High Churchman and a friend of Gothic architects,

having been active in the Camden Society while at Cambridge, and under his administration Scott had received the Foreign Office commission and encouragement for his Gothic design. In the choice between Street and Barry, at least Manners’s preference can be counted on the side of the former. By contrast, almost no support can be adduced for Barry. The sole voice to

speak on his behalf was that of William Baxter, the financial secretary of the Treasury, who wrote a memo on May 22 on the back of a copy of Karslake’s decision,

proposing that the award should go to Barry, without elaboration.” Several other

The Competition 163 memos on the same document note simply that the Treasury might choose whom it

liked, and the absence of any evidence of a major internal disagreement at the Treasury—with the exchange of hostile arguments—suggests that Street’s selection was rather mysteriously unanimous.

Several factors might have contributed to this consensus. First, the glaring deficiencies of Street’s plan may have been overshadowed by the serious complaints made about Barry’s design. The most telling of these came from the probate depart-

ment, whose original report, critical of Barry, had carried little weight with the judges. After the confirmation of the joint award, the department submitted a petition against his plan to the Royal Commission on January 18, 1868, and its views seem to have been more influential on second hearing.” The probate officers again criticized Barry’s intention to place their huge complex of rooms in the center of the building, a “position we cannot but consider the most detrimental to the due

performance of our public duties which could easily have been selected.” They complained that his placement of the record depositories several levels above the reading room would “tell severely upon the accuracy and despatch of the business throughout the Registry.” Moreover, in the event of fire, they feared that their records “would probably be entirely destroyed in the position Mr. Barry assigns them.” Another major complaint was the expense of Barry’s design. Gardiner’s report had shown that his entry was both more expensive and less accurately estimated than that submitted by Street. This information had had little impact on the judges, but it may have helped to turn the opinion of the Treasury toward Street. Those who were concerned by these criticisms, but who believed that Barry had at least some moral claim to part of the commission, may have had their consciences salved by the knowledge that he had only recently received another prestigious public appointment. On May 8, even before the attorney general’s decision had been prepared, the commission for the rebuilding of the National Gallery had been awarded to Barry, following another controversial competition. His entry had been adjudged the best of a poor lot, but the original jury had declined to recommend that it be carried out, and the circumstances of his eventual appointment have yet to be decoded. Perhaps, as many speculated at the time, the National Gallery job (which was never executed) was given to Barry as a consolation for what the Treasury already intended to do with the law courts commission. But this interpretation implies that they had some advance report of Karslake’s ruling, which freed them to give the law courts to Street.

Finally, and probably most importantly, the award must be analyzed in its political context, for the month of May 1868 was a peculiar period of transition. The Conservative Government which appointed Street had, in fact, been defeated on April 30 over the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and it had only remained in power at the behest of the Queen, who was perhaps manipulated by Disraeli. This was obviously a temporary situation and the Liberals and Gladstone were expected to return to office following the November elections, the first held under the expanded franchise of the Second Reform Bill. In the meantime the Tories continued in a twilight of insubstantial power. The peculiarity of this situation perhaps helped to shape the law courts decision. The bipartisan alliance which defeated the proposed move to the Embankment

164 The Law Courts on the very day when the Treasury drafted its minute of appointment has already been noted, and a similar alliance overcame subsequent opposition to the selection of Street. Perhaps in this interregnum, such bipartisanship extended to the matter of the appointment itself, particularly in the case of a project fostered and judged by members of the Opposition. A direct consultation between Disraeli and Gladstone need not be postulated, for the architectural tastes of the most powerful of the competition judges and the apparent next prime minister may well have been known in official circles. Nor need any feelings of good will between the two leaders be assumed. The Tories may have been perfectly satisfied to let the Liberals have their own way in the matter of a competition that was evidently headed toward disaster. Whatever the explanation of the award, Street had to spend some time in suspense while waiting for formal notification, for nine days elapsed between the May 30 Treasury minute and the forwarding of a copy to the successful architect.?”° By then the news of his appointment had already been widely circulated by informal means, and Street later recalled, “I first heard on the 3rd of June, 1868, froma. . . friend, an architect, a rumour that I was to be appointed, and I received the first

official notice of the fact on the ... gth of June. Between these two dates the Builder published the rumour.”?7' Thus he learned that he was to receive the largest commission of his career.

After the rumors had begun to circulate, but while still awaiting the arrival of the formal confirmation, Street received two letters from E. M. Barry, dated June 5

and 6, which he characterized as “very kindly” in tone. To these he wrote two replies.*” “The letters were full, friendly, and kind on both sides,” according to Street’s account, and he maintained that Barry “congratulated me, and wished me success in the work.”?? On another occasion he quoted one of Barry’s letters, in which his colleague had conceded: “I can fully sympathise with your natural joy at being independent and have no doubt of the result being a worthy building.”?’* But Barry was later unable to recall this cordiality. 775

Street realized that his good fortune entailed a moral dilemma, for, in good faith, he had pledged to carry out the design in partnership with Barry. He therefore sought advice:

I at once consulted one of the most eminent of my brethren as to whether or not I should accept it without Mr. Barry. He pointed out to me, with obvious force, that the Attorney-General had decided the joint award in favour of myself and Mr. Barry to be invalid, and that if the judges could not name one of us, as being superior to the other, nothing was left but for the Treasury to do so; and he advised me that I should do no good, to either Mr. Barry or myself, by making another protest.?”° Street’s “eminent” adviser was most likely his old employer, G. G. Scott, and his counsel to persist, despite the claims of others to the commission, had the precedent of his own conduct in the case of the Foreign Office. Street must have been grateful that his advice was so easy to follow, and, probably without an excess of qualms, he accepted the single appointment on June r10.?77

Unfortunately, E. M. Barry had already launched himself on a course that would ultimately magnify his professional setback in this competition into a career-

shattering defeat. He commenced an unceasing battle against Street’s selection

The Competition 165 which irrevocably tarnished his own reputation and caused untold embarrassment and difficulty for his successful rival. Some foretaste of his hardening attitude was

evident in his comments on the case submitted to the attorney general by the | Treasury, yet after Street’s appointment he only warned that “I may probably put on record my view that I have not been well used at the Law Courts, and then you will hear no more of me in connection with the matter.’??° In fact, his all-out effort to upset the commission began even before Street accepted the award. On June 8 Barry wrote a long protest to the Treasury in which he again cited arguments from his February letter to the attorney general. If a single award was to

be made, he reasoned, it ought to be his, for his plans had been judged best in solving the practical problems which the instructions had said should be the principal concern of the competitors. The plan submitted by Street would have to be revised in order to meet the requirements of the commission, and, hence, Street had been selected “for what he may yet do” while Barry deserved proper consideration “for what I have done.”??? A copy of this letter was also sent to the Office of Works, and it was submitted to a number of journals and was widely printed, appearing in the Times on June 15.7°°

Barry dispatched a short addendum to the Treasury on June 13, but he also turned his attention to rallying support for his cause in Parliament.?*' In this he achieved a swift and notable success when the House of Lords discussed his situation sympathetically on June 19. The marquess of Salisbury outlined Barry’s argument in

detail and tabled a question to the Government. It asked, “If it is true that the Government has rejected the Design which was recommended by the professional Judges and the Judges of Designs as the best for Plan and internal Arrangements,

and has adopted the Design which was recommended for Elevation only; and, further, if the Competitors were instructed that Utility and convenient Arrangement were to be preferred to architectural Effect?”*®* Supportive statements were made by several Peers. Lord Cranworth, who had signed the architectural instructions as lord

chancellor in 1866, admitted that the architects had been asked to “attend, not perhaps exclusively, but mainly, to matters of internal accommodation, convenience, and arrangement.”?®3 However, because of the decision of the attorney gen-

eral, Cranworth concluded that the Government was free to appoint Street if it desired. Replying to this broad assault on behalf of the administration, Chelmsford, Disraeli’s lord chancellor, could make only the rather weak argument that Street’s

plan, with its admitted deficiencies, would be revised to take into account the lessons learned from all the other competition entries. **4

After this success, Barry prepared his case for a debate in the Commons. To introduce his petition he secured the services of Robert Lowe, the great orator of the Cave of Adullam and the man whom Gladstone would choose as chancellor of the Exchequer when he formed the new Government in December. Barry also obtained the support of Sir Francis Goldsmid, active before in the law courts debate, who was to introduce a motion for a select committee to investigate the appointment. Street, realizing that Barry’s amiability had evaporated, was now driven to make an enormous defensive exertion, and he prepared his own long memorandum which was forwarded to the Treasury on June 22.785 He argued that the decision of the judges had been shaped by a number of advisory reports in addition to that of Shaw and Pownall, which Barry had emphasized because it was favorable to his claims.

166 The Law Courts Street noted that the bar and solicitors’ committee and the officials of the legal departments had all been highly critical of Barry’s plan and that Gardiner had reported that Street’s design was £87,000 cheaper. Street sent a copy of this memorandum to Austen H. Layard, M.P., on June 24.7° Layard was an Assyrian archeologist and an art critic, and he would soon be appointed Gladstone’s first commissioner of works, a position that would bring him into steady and cordial contact with the architect of the law courts. But this future relationship could scarcely have been foreseen, and the surviving letter from Street

is probably one of many which he sent to art-conscious M.P.’s in preparing his defense against Barry. Apparently suspecting that Layard, who had lived for a long

time in Italy, was classical in his architectural tastes, Street reassured him in a covering note that “Barry’s design is more violently Gothic than mine—covered in all directions with traceries crockets and pinnacles. Whereas mine was a comparatively simple straightforward work as is proved by the Government Surveyor’s estimate of costs.” His memorandum appeared as well in the correspondence column of the Solicitors’ Journal under a supportive letter from his brother Thomas.?* Most importantly, on June 29 Street openly solicited the assistance of Glad-

stone.*** This nearly confirms the theory that Gladstone supported him in the competition, although Street emphasized that he had asked no favors until now, feeling, as he said, “a certain delicacy about claiming any acquaintance with [one] who had so much to do with the decision.” It was only after one of Gladstone’s “followers” had urged Street to overcome his scruples that, faced with the serious challenge from Barry, he felt free to act. In a letter to Gladstone he relied on the same argument he had presented in his memorandum, but concluded by stressing the importance to him of Liberal support, and Gladstone’s in particular. Noting his own wonder that he had been so well treated by the Conservatives, he asked, J venture to hope therefore that you will lend the just weight of your authority to support my appointment. I venture to say that there never was one made which was more entirely free from personal bias. I have absolutely no speaking acquaintance even with any member of the present Government (except a very slight one with the Duke of Buckingham), whereas it is notorious to those who know much of me or my writings in how much respect I hold your person and proceedings as a public man. It is not open to any one to say, therefore, that any political bias has the least degree affected my appointment. If Street did have political differences with the future prime minister, he recognized that this was not an opportune time to air them. Street’s defense succeeded. With the support of both Liberals and Tories the challenges brought by Lowe and Goldsmid were beaten back in the House of Commons on the evening of June 29, the very day that Street had appealed to Gladstone. In the debate, which centered on the motion for a select committee “to inquire into the recent appointment of Architects for the New Public Buildings in the Metropolis,” Gladstone was the first to speak in opposition.” Although he felt that his role as a competition judge disqualified him from voting on the motion, he believed that

Upon the whole, the Government had come to a recommendation which the House would do no good in endeavouring to disturb. The House in this matter was, if he might so speak, a rude instrument for a delicate process. To

The Competition = 167 appoint a Committee upon this subject would be to re-open from the beginning an operation which had been found to be extremely laborious and complicated, and to re-commence the labour with even less chance of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion than they had when the matter was first started.?%°

Roundell Palmer, another Liberal competition judge, also spoke in support of the decision made by the Conservative Government. He argued against Barry’s claims, observing that “it was never considered that the competition was to be decided by reference to internal matters only.” Moreover, Palmer reported, “It was not the opinion of the judges that Mr. Barry had by his internal arrangement placed himself upon such a pinnacle, that they, without taking into consideration other things, could recommend him.”*' Further arguments were added by Beresford-Hope, a Tory, and the Tory commissioner of works, Lord John Manners, concluded the case against

Goldsmid’s motion. Manners reviewed the award from the point of view of the Government, citing, as Street had done in his memorandum, the reports critical of Barry’s planning:

After considering all the circumstances they had appointed Mr. Street to build the new Law Courts, and in so doing they believed they had taken the wisest course open to them. . . . If the Government had appointed Mr. Barry to be architect of the interior and Mr. Street to be architect of the exterior this result would have followed—Mr. Street would have been able to carry out his part of the design, while Mr. Barry would have had the mortification of finding that his plan for the interior would have to be materially altered before it would give satisfaction to one important branch of those using the new Courts [the probate department].?% Support for the select committee motion came from several members, including

William Tite, the president of the R.I.B.A., who called for the joint award to be upheld. But in the vote, the Liberal leadership allied themselves with the Government and the Government made the issue a ministerial question. This insured the defeat of the motion, which was accomplished by a margin of go—45.’” Thereafter, the law courts commission belonged securely to Street. The substantial margin of the division, however, did not dissuade Barry from pursuing his increasingly pathetic campaign. On the day of the debate he replied briefly to Street’s memorandum in a letter to the Treasury, asking that the letters

written on January 20 by the two architects, in which both accepted the joint

: appointment, be included in the materials that were being published by order of Parliament.?% This request was sent to the newspapers and was widely printed. ?% Three days after the vote he wrote to the Times that his purpose was not to prolong the debate, but he was unable to restrain himself for long.?% Complaining that he had received no reply to his earlier letters, Barry again addressed the Treasury on July 21.72? He cited Lord Cranworth’s description in the Lords of the requirements stated in the instructions, and he repeated once more his

, usual argument against the single appointment of Street. Barry concluded, “I had hoped the Government would have hesitated to pursue a course which has turned

r my success in the competition into a serious misfortune, or at least would have furnished me with some satisfactory explanation of the reasons which have induced them to inflict upon me so great an injury.” The Law Times published this painful

168 The Law Courts document, which was thoroughly summarized in a further letter from Barry to the Times, but the Solicitors’ Journal declined to print a repetition of his previous statements, noting that the text was “extremely long.”2%° At the Treasury, Barry’s letter was read by Sir William H. Clerke, a principal clerk, who observed in a memo, “this hardly requires an answer.”?% Consciously or unconsciously emulating his successful rival, late that year Barry

also appealed to Gladstone. The new prime minister took several weeks to reply and then carefully avoided making any promises. While expressing his hope that the effects on Barry’s career would not be as unfavorable as the architect had predicted,

Gladstone firmly explained that “as one of the ‘Judges’ I think my duties have terminated and could not be revived.’3° With no political support for his cause, on December 21 Barry again repeated his complaint to the Treasury.?°! Clerke was nearly incredulous, and he wrote, “it is so long since we have heard from Mr. Barry that I thought that he had accepted the decision of the Treasury in favor of Mr. Street’s appointment.’?°? He recommended that the letter only be acknowledged. Poor Barry simply lacked the resiliency nec-

essary to do business in the Victorian political world. Although an architect of middling talent, he had the touchy disposition of a prima donna. Understandably, the press and public opinion, both critical of the proposed tandem commission, were pleased that the Government had extricated itself from a difficult position. Some, however, remained on Barry’s side in his quixotic endeavor. The writers of the Builder, who had been so entirely repelled by Street’s design, were Barry’s best allies, and they predicted that the decision would have “a fatal effect on future competitions.” They explained, If Mr. Street be appointed sole architect of the Law Courts, and Mr. Barry be refused connexion with the work, it will be an act of injustice that, like other acts of injustice, will bring disaster in its train. Mr. Street’s plan is altogether out of the question; no competent judge, so far as we know, ventures for a moment to assert that it might be adopted; and as to his design for the exterior, we consider it to be, with the exception of a few portions, altogether unworthy of Mr. Street’s reputation. 3°

Even after the Commons rejected the motion for a select committee, the Builder queried, “Is it yet too late to obtain justice?”3°* And on November 2, in his presidential address at the first meeting of the R.I.B.A. winter session, William Tite endorsed the Builder’s editorial position and, as he had in the Parliamentary debate, called for the division of the award between the two architects. Perhaps separate buildings for the common law and equity courts could be built, he suggested. 3° Some of the law journals, conceivably impressed by the niceties of Barry’s argument, also briefly tendered him their support. The Law Times was surprised at the award to Street and could not see “how that appointment can be justified.”3° The editors concluded that the motion for a select committee placed the Government in “a very awkward dilemma,” and even after the defeat of that motion they called for a new competition for an even larger building.3°? The Solicitors’ Journal merely wished to see the joint award upheld, but neither of these publications was willing to stand with Barry as he continued, even in later years, to press his case.3°

The Competition 169 The Times maintained a more common and more pragmatic position, although admitting that, in choosing between Barry and Street, its first sympathies had been

with the former. The journal urged readers not to commit themselves to either architect and to remember that fairness to the competitors was not more important than fairness to the nation. The serious criticisms of Barry’s plan were carefully reported. 3°°

Other journals were less fainthearted in welcoming Street’s appointment. The Building News observed that “Mr. Street and Mr. E. M. Barry were scarcely the two men to be yoked together,” and in the manipulation of the two commissions—for

the National Gallery and the law courts—a “happy stroke of diplomacy was achieved. ”3"° Its critics doubted that Barry would gain anything even if he did secure the appointment of a select committee, and when Goldsmid’s motion was defeated,

the Building News noted with relief that it would be “useless for Mr. Barry or for anyone else to disturb the arrangement.” Perceptively, it concluded that Street had been selected “not because his plan is best, but because. . . he is the best architect for the purpose.”3" Architects rallied to Street as well. In a letter to the Times, Scott, who had, albeit unwillingly, accepted the tandem award and who was not quite ready to concede that his own plan was not the best of all, nevertheless renewed his pledge to keep his own name out of the contest. He applauded Street’s victory as well, noting, “whether or not the final decision be logically correct, I cannot but rejoice that this great work has fallen into the hands of an architect of the highest class of talent.”3* Such was the self-indulgent praise of Street’s former employer and, perhaps, his present adviser. Satisfaction was also expressed in an altogether unexpected quarter, when E. W. Pugin joined with those who supported the award going to Street. In another letter to the Times he drew back from his previous criticism of both designs and registered his decided preference for that of Street.3"3 While he suspected that Barry would have an “incapacity for mending his elevations,” which he called a “giddy, puerile, and firework sort of design,” he now maintained that Street’s facades “evince a power which, when coupled with a sense of the responsibility and grandeur of his position, will enable him to rise far above the comparative mediocrity of his present

design.” As for the argument that the selection should have been decided on the basis of convenient planning, Pugin offered perhaps the most sensible comment of his life: “A camel is a very conveniently arranged animal, and its ‘internal accommodation’ appears to be remarkably well adapted to the countries wherein it flourishes, but I suppose people would not generally prefer a camel if they could procure the same advantages in an animal of less ungainly exterior.” In the final analysis, the successful interpretation of the decision to appoint Street need account for no more than the unwillingness of any public official to erect a great camel of a building on the Strand. For a camel was what Barry’s design undoubtedly was. And so George Edmund Street won what Barry called “the greatest architec-

tural prize in this generation.”3’* But his troublous initiation foretold a long and difficult task ahead, which ended with his death a year before the great building opened. Scott remarked a few years after the award, “It is well this . . . load of persecution has fallen upon a man of spirit and nerve calculated to bear it. I heartily wish him the highest success.’3"5

== ———————— =Xa“EEE 2 ee ee =eeeeBe ee eee ee ta ee eee eee ee

Ee ee ee eee Se ee ae 2 Se ee SS —————“(— OL _ ee a ee

—r——“———C—C—C™CisC“ ‘Ec cc ll —rr——C—C—C—C——C—C—C—™TUCCLCFN'W— =ERNDRNR9EA< ee a SS ae Bias ie pes +SAE tt Sagas 9 SNS ee Rae tt eee eSeegetees eSa5Pe

bS3iy bE fee! EEs SF se GOR gr me Se Po te ee hole wat Re ey ea Re eo Bl 2S Fog EPI ire ARE tn,z CE EBBseats GS +ae EB: 8 2eter Seeee Semee 5 Mee a ieeececceee Regods 4 aysFSS 3 Hea ie Se Seggad et Bee OeFee4ET Se 22° * Bee eaegee de 135 Pe ee 4) { -ami & q eB ik Sal. ¢. FMA nil Se oesBe eSEE ee EE iesearitersscases ae Aig aes383. i : ee 6 ee i gi # 4ceatt| eed sageEsfaEsFE re fot ANlocas 2 4 se #- $i. Ps at iy 4SEF Bes oe Seraeee.

ee as a P antes ed tbat coda at Be Fes e eS C2 ee ee OO Swe er Raa es wedeniyass Seen Crete. ake Seen ea x en is SES oe os Hd + *Eke ot 39 lt 5. eS Fe BS ee Peres ec tah a * eis 5 Bf AEBS es oS See Bee | i, *ye Ree E25 6 ES PROBES saroy fet[irege eee 4 ee eePA £% 2 Suet Hy yeeAiene = 25ae: ,5 $=ee8inoe tSC 2),See $3? REot ceeaees Cee Ci, SES CES ae Se oe ponte faeeee teesoe ses ow SlaA. Fey a petit Ta aksteeMA - ek peieesc Pm, de Weer SEFee 33aus gt!4a, ore 2 ge Pa eee.aia ig oe rn BeBe eR ee oes eeSp eeBe eee ER ere Sede , ae Bere care Beeee *ees fees + : Ses EBEee SERS “ Gees See eee gS ut! A|S eae Pee=eet ce ?: tee(oe ttess Picts ARR a te SR naceeeRe aed we Haste ek, a a Bete ee See 4k yeEees Cag. 8 5SoS eee: PeSeMott §ones RR eB Eee akse ges Regen s: sent BRA rfSOE 2 ¢ DARL S— | SERS ee *ee heise. ER EN eeSPS a a gett gNae SY ee Gites oaks Lee eee SD RS, eres eyte4 ls 5X: ree. i ee ers peSee Avgeke ALAS Sie < Be Ssyl. e wow dae 7 tee fg aH gg Reese es, ES SAF Se eS neni Se: tM RR Eh Pe eee: BS Ry ne ee er. 2 Perens me» Fe 4 a8» 3SY Sy!B, 7° 38: azaa n Se yee, = EE Eee x Oe Eee ee : RY ossieaca v & # ¢aSe Bs aks pe ik,Fe 288 oe a adcm + 4rcecnsortcern : oy = oS sees : ae 4 ce Pa ae Rg ae ar Sag PtaeBae pe ee s 33 Bete & ? eS 1 338=48ee ae:ee eeA‘ge aee Ta Lee 4 ete eepa aE° de. SHaed een Be eee ¢Fae |oh eee ee ;ee KE ie dé. Leese. esof agi(ek£ SHE) BRrire? uF Ffy! ti 1) rey 7 ae eeee eeee14% eee 2Ae esBes ee wer 9G5ire atae $% ae Se ae po ae eSEE ; Sees tee Baers a ee ie Bie -. ee bata: be SetG a: 3: Pp Seiig i re ae yA 28 Sy Oy eT fe atSe 24p se eeiL eae €e ey Ha Oe Bemies Sects WR Neccs Sic we iF P bis ihe es Ie oo wae gee* ee Si. PS. Bess eS bees Po Bee eek EN ah g gu.” BSA Ee a eS es 4 BH. OE ee Ee Ub eee in ane ES : ee. Oe ie ou: Se Me Bh ht 2 ee SNS. Boat es ce TE Se ft, oe were ee ae ee pen 2 3 $3 Sug Be Bee 2 oe ee Ez, ie ae Ee ot ee Siseser. 3. Hee es oi eee eS ci oes ote i Zee i) Heike = ¢ Si oe ae Se ee re ae = A i SE en ee fe? Sa? : gress oo 3; iP43 aia BAtcBe Ge, Sec S302 tet oyeeR ences Ske SS rtSoa oe >iat amram Mee? eM npr ee es Seg PLEgers Bee ee SEUSS ge ee Vr SeekSB Zo Eee Ss tytkeee, eg &ieeat egSent. EGE ERIE GE7gsee en EL ee GEE AOA ee cgene EEaie ME 8: SO nLSea bce CMM. 5 ees ee ee WE pes es es pea Oe Bee ody, = ee §rere te xeeestsHi iebBe 3aaa Par eN:C*8L SS hUalCUE VeTee, celia «el ee gsoe .™ *“Sees: oe338 ays cE fp eds, PRPisiz tc Ee : £33cere 4 Seate Shas & ee,he), SS Bees ieee «me8 =suSete oe ee BS ees Se £2. i&IM eS Uhm Aas nec - eet 2 Sig Oats SG Be pigFat i ode Piney ene: cmetitemee, iee > Ray ieee.& Wee ee t 2COU ta Se EE241? oe =See ee: eee er eeUNAS PellRG ee) ee t Mie ee ate ie Whe eee ett St ee ee ae“ee “Sie eeseSSeats eee BeeS EEce. ees ae Peer oP SS: See i ATE? a ee eeee, a eee eee: ee ue - aeEE, LES Sees e—Sere = ZF:teeS See ae2es ao.eee FREES ey ES en aes, ieee 4 2S Ge eee aBe = 2aeeS ee ,5>Ses te os Ese ee Se eae * + Ngee ees PGs SP i 6 ESRI, *< Be eee 2 S| ees | ee Be a oe he 2, Pisa io ee fe PY Ae age. aes ee as eee ae we Renee ee Si sie Seto te ee, Fe eee ee ts ee ee. EE, 8 Ee PS. “AS xo. Ses > Se Ey ie See OFS FS GA eM ESR OLE EE EERE Sat : 3 ee See Soectererees sate SB, Ase ee Sao eG go Oe ee ie Oty ge, a i MR ge ee eT he od ; Ky es See Sot Nae ee epee te ee Oe ieee. ee ee wees aea 2ze “¢ cs Sesea? is;a ee oiee Se esPeeee eee, * Re eee i tee Fee,Fscee. (See: See ss we 3:BSyee” 12 ®Be a” Se St< &FH eo ee Ls Ze Be, Be 4 Tey es = ssseee eres tGe. 2 as é 12 me e ieee ds 1 = oHeee “ke ee eea % 3 es ee ¥ee * ESek ae eRea ge Se © ee ee! .ee 5 ae eas Be iy z,ee ee. #F: see FSaL Beee 2 ze 2s yt 3 £Se ay Eft.-43 ped |2. & Rd =35: #8 ri Ae Bes Ses : Se Seed Ra Ey eee sks $Be Stes ‘tea ee ee 4 eee Ga fF3==ee eeRyee oe aes Oe ee: oe Cire EF Seee ee,2St ane ns See : a ey 2 Pe. er eG | eee eG chiens edeee ee | Bee Seek eee a ieee Ng PEO Bee see4eee Sf Pog * Pee Saas eters =aSF gee ye ceie Geer 2 i:ieee Be Sees vgs >Bae sae SS 5Sseed rk oa See se y We ig $9 3-355 Ses eeSee 2S Sees «Seb Ge OO es mae 7 Si Sse, Ss ees eS Cees, Se, i fee @ eee SP a < ees, a as eek 3 if Pigs} SSegy 2 < $55 eee— Fe.SSee8 Fe ee ee caeSee FSfee agtee = PPS “3tee Pareegeaeope See ee a. ee Seg. SES hs as eeeeeiaNF ee 2feRR Peeeee § thi: Eade OP Oe 9° 3Be eeieee iy he) ue‘= eesGeer eee ae OS. Fy eeetoe Re iSee Gomes. Wire eeeoySlee eee Sicha eee 3$e) th 4i) se SliSe oS ee

ERATE OR ee ae Sy Se Seas (eeeeeesi= t iern3ee FEED 2 BE oe. in, FER, easgeaisegseet (LORE * stig Gere steee Se Ss{gee eee | Beet eS es eee Beetsau fe aSF Bee eeereetAS eee eS fog bee Go Soe sisi 2 3, Seaee 2 ae Beseeae =. eos2 eee OR4,SS ae Mee ps aSSCares eee ae eee PO>eeepc aAE aeeeee a ’ee ecBR SS% Bu B38 2 #57 ee ee & eseAe PF exes ee eeafeee eae ee seems ie Sree Gate a. 2. aS Sesete eat bee ai a? A Ree Ly * eager BeeA PES Beane eres eae SSf es Bae seas Meets sae EE Beag OES PGBete eeedH eB 3, 25 Ste Hien 2getie fe pases eae ceFRS RE, ag OFS Ss £4 WEEE Se poh ig Oe eeegspee ac Se a ERAS eines taki“&Peete Pee Ses PO BBs REaan SS , BEbs Segre ts ES eedt eS SE ESBefe teres 3.eeHesse $e ee sgBeane ee ee) SeFee Seeee nS wl$&See 4 Beet st 3osz3a Wet ak ¢Be eeiPo eee Miata ee, $ ee=a Sos », Sree Rpts She ope Bec piss Seeswsic: ee | ae2Sd pi RADI PPE RES SF OOF 3 ge og % Se a Dette oZe: 3 we Feet. og 3 eR ¥ 3ed: tzi>x:tae . #2. eeem pars “7% eeeee iatap eeeases aeyme APee Pinger REESE Boo i Baer Soae- Be 5BEech £.eee expe Peet: Fae: GeBEee peHES 2: 7 Fike bee at 4boll :;es$ S$ re * ee WE

FEage ee eet sh Hee? geeNgee ee ee eee Tae nO ee Be ae eeayaae ae 4ie PS OPIpig ER eee Pat toes, NE ABBE eS4440 EBs ARR on See Ee ee cael ae ae wes I ts | & Vie occ tg oe an Sls Dg Se | Get al a Lo eee 046 te =< Boeke eT En Pe SieuP PRE gEMeet Bee :oe ee ae} Ete .3 3 itt ae Eeaxtemates 5%, 3 RTE NOM. SRD ae 7m ee ae FeEa 284 2reSe ghee RS eeeES Seae SSS eee o>Re Se.ge. BsSos 2 BS Pik the Se Boy eet? ao 5f et OSE 3*see oe, Pee ae Pee 4| 2 3, hg esek2OS cSt ee ae2ES oei ES 8B eS StSess 4g eee eee eae Sie okae Px. arth PEE EE AE PrP, Kerk BP Fh FPIS Ey “eat o>¥4a+ee f See tC” Mee #:2 «tee rae See 2dSeeds: “> Fate ee ys =.OO ata Seeee. ae epthe pe p22 SSE oe pgER > te ="fee: Ac PFE os. +3cae ¥=> 17Rees So$3 BS eeBee Pee Bree Pe. Re eee skSe ea eee ; eee4 5Eee ans itSpe, age es Se eee ee #8 a2pesrees zSe v 2OS PRStee Faeae Phe Bee Ge Sere ES 23 eee 32Sa ESeeBethe PF EaBe BSGalitn oe Ros bo etoeesom Seee ML Ak FBR E>. o psales be fo: . Teayy Pemeek eee bo OE esee PaaS Hee RLS Seeae ene seat2SR S > ae SeeSo; at(ae 6S Ae eee = 3 iNH eee pefe Bsiigh i:BEE te Ba. Be |ge fee * feet? t* ts. ae BSE” bees adeseS aoe oor is 2 Se Pr Sn See? oF Pes SeeaeeSSe cM we Tee Pye es

Vege © oes #2 apegs? aS oSEe -2He 23, : es‘BES ae eg etTok: aeBes ¥5" .* ae geSpee eeeBe rrn as East *~ ieae ee 2g% 2 Be ee 12 Sia Rete Ee erie mespeee faes *¥ EE ee ee hate ee SBle , =Besse fea Page CH pa! gi ioe a tsecker se. ds rn. aMees ae Ge Se.&teos eS epee Oe, in. eS Jayae eae se eee EE ii: ayTE 2» gh hese Se ee ee Se oe eee ee Petes 55 fees oS Pe ae Se ee Bo Hees, RAaaSe Shgee giespe |See ae3 OS a ee eeee soe#3 ee ee oN,eS eaestaat Dg Ne SRY. ES Se §Sia. es Fae EEE oe estee Sess Biigase sae? ke Bee Peee feOe BSZee 2 RES ee Wee ae Bene aepe He2teBB? “: Bees REE Sg BAS PE Bee ee a ae: gee: .* Fe Se Rae. eee es Pee Ppt Ee, a SS Bee RE eens et ; ee eee Ge We 2 a ee ee rae eee ee OS Eo fe “See & Eee fe © 33 eee sige * BR A Bieee: 27s GEER ee ss Sie bi Pgh fs F te ae oS eeGe is Se BE ae Be oseo oe cp goes ae ae Sees oo aMe ee Payers sb ; Sees Bee semeee Xe, *ee , Be Safe PEE a>Gime Zor FZ2>=ae 8ee Bema oes Bete EA ati>Bas Eee ee ee og” aeSee Eaeee poe gee aeOE Bee gEeae yah BS Ree eea eee Saeed Se ee igkee, Ea Bsbey ES BZ. mith tek iS ieee gas’ tie eee Bee . See csge a: o& FES 24See P sSES ReSenge Se ae % ERAS 32806 4 ve ? tg 4 4 bi i Sa Bom Boon So Raanhe a See ss sees ’ : a6 3 ods e cap Baaoos : 4 = ea ss & ; é en < Bao tech if fog P ved te ee te yes ' ok i se Fea 3 ‘3 , “ - #2 £ oe at : Awe js , : on re nascar ninn nil bs Soorsen a #3 ee a Spe s e om meaanorn® aes «

Bo ae a ee . Se aaARORA - a COURTS 2AE.. pees eee &:LE BS 2 ice eee ppp Ee ageeee ies ie AI 5 REECE2REECE EE! MELEE ALLoem LLL Presa Bu OES PO ee, eee POO eeoes Be ; pa ea es #te ae CS » OR +-IUSTHCE Nti. AE P ;iPLEO 2eS224 2rx won fd, oer : Whs a? ;ES ,panel 2 eS“feeeee .2© ae 8 gow 4 fjSe\ 3eee ies 5 | iFe

L = | |queen. —: 43Beer | t se ss Sn Re ey cate isipeesigs Sscam S| ;ergeaer a on, eee is Ee = ie * I ataeena eee ree Re a SS Pie : ; ES Somme £ eenevien |Be meee CR SAREE. Heyes dpb Patan? ie te aan nnd , A, :_ E p> 4 EEL A AES SME AME songs Se atins WAM ci tue eciizccoe ee by Lae

ee,geen See:saeeesee ‘ es > E. wee : t ABoid: me = PrPnome agent. wobee sepa.BEPet tee Beeos Pe ES womemantriin Pit yp Cored sien Bieaee bee B4 f: sapees ‘ ae ; ?staal i >: 7tats eeghestibas te Rsk, Babccccces ROO Pee SE geese oe Resins Me E32 ees BS sini ae +SR saeanitie See: ae ec oH 2anconal :: ;3Bees i zzEsch # -ae *intiyenh,LS a; ;Ieeee EF;gen ii eeee A” oe zSg exes geas ge: 2S %ee Zé icHe See ae IPRe 8eee apr aeas is Le sean Seecies Uses 5¥ eetiPG =ame eeiy Bet pe ee eeCalli ceiEE SineeSr

4a =ee4=oe ae se; 1spe 4 ibr~ s (55 Bie = 4 -Boe 5 4 feon 5 ; be :se hescoy \ : ; 5 Rei Rates see i q : oy, age od yg { 'GREE: eget: tag z ,CBE : ae2ee2ae of ieselggaggews a ee pores ieee tite @ 3 ‘isFoe ees ‘ected = ; eit— sie a 4 ee ry ose fe ee en - 1s | ‘ an

176 The Law Courts Artistic effect was not even discussed in principle in the full report that he submitted to the Royal Commission on January 11, 1869, and the cross-section that was included in the published portfolio carried the warning: “This Drawing is intended solely to shew the arrangement of floor levels & Road levels throughout the building & is not intended to shew any Architectural detail or design” (see Fig. 75). In part, this caution was inspired by the directions of the Treasury, which authorized Street to prepare only plans and sections, but there was probably a kind of self-discipline as well. He did not wish to experience again an embarrassment like that caused

by his ill-conceived arrangement of public access to the central hall in the competition design. So, in his report, he stressed his detailed consultations with

the various legal departments while reordering their accommodations. He reported proudly, “In almost all the reductions in size which have been made, we have

had the active concurrence of the officers who represented the departments affected, whilst in every case we have invited statements of objections and criticisms, and have as far as possible, and, I believe, in nearly every case satisfied them." The reductions which Street achieved were substantial, totaling 37,000 square feet. They included a major simplification of the chambers of the common law judges, a consolidation of the multiple facilities for witnesses, and the elimination of some of the redundant amenities provided for lawyers. However, more important than this trimming was Street’s reorganization of the

entire plan according to a clear and regular system, freed of his earlier mistakes. This was certainly a higher priority for the Royal Commission than the lessening of expense. The courtrooms were now grouped in pairs, sharing certain facilities, and

all except the appeals and bankruptcy courts were aligned on either side of the central hall. None was relegated to a secondary passage, as in the competition plan, but the price of this regularity was a much longer central hall, lengthened from 190 to 322 feet. The row of central columns of the earlier hall was not retained in this elongated and narrowed format. General access to the hall was entirely rethought, and no admission at all was provided for those whom Street, with his later, better informed understanding, came to call the “dirty public.”"® Spectators were funneled into the galleries of the courts by small circular stairs, each of which.served only

two or three courtrooms and led only to the outside. The central hall itself was lowered to the level of Carey Street, one floor below the courts, where the bar and solicitors’ committee and the recent subcommittee had agreed that it should be placed. He also eliminated other makeshift arrangements in the competition entry, most notably the iron catwalks and the glass roofs they had required in the areas between the courtrooms. Street’s only admitted failure was in providing spacious courtyards within the building, but this was blamed on the dimensions of the site. It is hardly possible to credit Street with great originality in working out the problems of his plan in this way. He had available all of the ideas generated by the other ten competitors, and he was not shy about borrowing. In particular, Street’s replanning owed a great deal to the design that had been most highly favored in the legal community, Alfred Waterhouse’s elegant realization of the concentric zone model. The great plan incorporated Waterhouse’s clearly defined and nearly uninterrupted north and south streets, crossed at intervals by bridges, and his long central

Revised Plans 177 hall—a central street really—with its own bridges for lawyers and judges (see Figs. 30, 31, 33). Because the lengthened main block of the building, with its long hall and contiguous courts, ran nearly the entire length of the site, Street slid it against the eastern perimeter of offices, just as Waterhouse had done, in order to open up a courtyard to the west. Only in pairing the courts and giving up the idea of “trans-

verse halls” in favor of direct exterior entrances to the public stairs, did Street’s design differ markedly, and the latter feature may have been borrowed from Burges. Street offered other indications of his admiration for Waterhouse’s planning ability. In 1868, while waiting for the commission for the law courts to be resolved, he and Professor Thomas Donaldson had served as the judges in the second stage of the Manchester Town Hall competition, which Waterhouse won on the strength of his plan.’? Street was also impressed by Waterhouse’s artistic ability, for when he

explained his great plan to a public meeting in March 1869, he worked up a perspective study of the building as it would appear from Waterloo Bridge—precisely the vantage of Waterhouse’s celebrated view of his competition entry (see Fig. 35).* The picturesque effects which such a drawing emphasized, like the improved planning, were evidence that the great plan had been made with an eye to the more successful competition designs. In particular, the warm reception accorded William Burges by the Ecclesiologist, the Building News, and the Saturday Review must have

convinced Street that his last-minute decision to break up the roofline of his own entry had been a step in the proper direction. A. J. Beresford-Hope recalled that the architect had openly admired Burges’s design, gesturing at his drawings in the exhibition building and professing: “I would not mind being beaten by those!’"? At nearly the same time, Street also expressed his admiration in a more tangible way, for in fulfilling his duties as the assessor in the third Bristol Assize Courts competi- , tion in 1867, he awarded a second prize to Edward Godwin, Burges’s friend, helper, and artistic ally. Godwin’s design was another example of Early French solidity, like his earlier town halls for Congleton and Northampton.” Street again awarded a prize to Godwin in 1871, placing his Burges-like design first in the competition for the Leicester Town Hall (Fig. 77). (Godwin’s design was not executed. )

Street’s increased conviction that a careful balance between irregularity and symmetry was unnecessary can be detected in the surviving illustrations of the great plan, even though they include no elevations. With the main block of the building pushed eastward, the counterbalancing role of the two massive, quatrefoil-plan record towers to the west is very pronounced.”’ The four secondary towers (for ventilation) were related to these in a syncopated pattern, and the south facade was broken back

asymmetrically in response to the site, particularly the northward arc of Pickett Street. All of this bespoke a sympathetic study of Burges’s design, but other influences were also at work. While the plans of the record towers suggest a solidity of form similar to that of the Early French, the section of the great hall showed a profusion of English Decorated tracery in the windows (see Fig. 75). In this respect, Street’s mix of precedents remained that of the competition design. Although he was now converted to the desirability of more irregular massing, he had resolved not to limit himself exclusively to the tough muscularity of the Early French. Despite its technical and artistic achievements, the great plan faced an uncer-

f.’'

1

4 ait '

| \ Sel ede, ra 2 ee wa Poe th i: ae I Oe ae es | SSeS SS ia Sd . Shaan ye < eaSamer %: mete yt n=eet on Re ay, is ‘ge? Si Bs 6 Tipu aeteeesnns

RR is ry oat + H he ie. Sei Se — sian ie : dee’: ‘” ~ ; Py wre A iy i = ee satires ;

ceseni atl gi ag a oe ts 3:f Ae ee ae fie Stic a ae ie A |i| fae — 2emTe HME LES 4 # a eo oem ional 3 : aa ¥ 2 ee j % = 7% as sii iy | . : , me hg ¥

| | A, a Cr RarRAE. Yai Ba Wiivinery, Ee Ny oS.i soe ee > | Lei Gee OE Pore “< er aT. SoeBecky |) ee |

ee: ee } WS— gareses Sy SeeRR ae eee 2S | hee ert a Leicester Town Hall competi- |e) ey et eo ae ate

77’ Edward Godwin. aNEe ee 2h WaFers js Ae _ Aafe e aay : | BibaW.ALS So er a ee eee 3 Ay ee

tion. 1871. (Architect, "nyi toraeaele ee i eee eee ne ncn pe 6Janne ss ape AIS oe "FREES Rangace "bm ae li tain future in the hands of its official patrons. The printed plans were distributed to the members of the commission, to the legal professional societies, and to the officers of the law departments on December 19 and 21, 1868. Field also forwarded a copy to the Treasury, which, ominously, had not yet responded to the plans submitted in July. Street was anxious to proceed with the elevations for the building, and the Treasury, which shared responsibility for approving the plans with the commission, was asked to provide further instructions.” The situation was further confused by a new Government, formed after the general election of November 23, in which the Liberals had won their expected victory from an enlarged electorate. Gladstone became prime minister, and, friend

of Street or not, under his economical regime the cautious silence with which Disraeli’s Treasury had dealt with the law courts was firmed into more active resistance against what still seemed to be unchecked expenditure.

Revised Plans 179 However, Street chose to ignore this gloomy prospect and submitted his full report on the great plan on January 11, 1869, asking for permission to advance beyond the plans and sections authorized the previous summer.”? Already at work on the elevations, he felt that if allowed to proceed, the first stone could be laid in the summer of 1869. On January 15, the commission read this report, inspected Street’s more detailed “volume of Plans of Departments,” and empowered Field to ask once more for a response from the Treasury.” The Treasury finally recognized the existence of the great plan on January 25, by asking Burnet to prepare a summary of the alterations.’> These were duly calcu-

lated and submitted to the Treasury on February 2, accompanied by a resolution passed by the Royal Commission on the previous day: “That this Commission do approve the detailed plans submitted by the Architect in accordance with the block plans already approved by the Commission . . . , subject to such modifications in matters of detail as the Commission may hereafter approve.””© Rather than deal with them directly, the Treasury transferred these materials to the Office of Works, where the puzzled chief secretary, George Russell, replied on February 5, asking what was to be done with them.?? No answer appears to have been given. The Treasury, anxious about costs, was then quietly preparing its own, alternate proposal for the law courts, and was little interested in the scheme that Street had designed for the Royal Commission. The great plan was thus destined to be abandoned. It had the misfortune of being prepared in the uncertain climate of an election year and in ignorance of the deeper concerns of the new Liberal Treasury. But in the great plan, the fruits of Street’s admiration for Waterhouse’s planning and for Burges’s picturesque composition first coalesced. These lessons from the competition also shaped all of Street’s subsequent designs for the law courts, and the pragmatic and visual criteria that they reflected became the standards for late Victorian architecture.

Spiraling Costs [i DEMISE of the great plan was a result of the difficulties encountered in

providing funds for a building and a site that had been enlarged by the enthusiastic law reformers of the Royal Commission well beyond the limits set by the enabling legislation of 1865. Despite Street’s parings, the site had grown from 7% to 13% acres. The total cost was now estimated at £3.25 million, more than twice the approved ceiling of £1.5 million. Even the Conservatives, who remained in power as lame ducks until December 1868, were not eager to assume this financial burden. They reserved the matter for consideration by the new Government, while they closely monitored the gloomy financial outlook for the project. Some of the financial difficulty lay with acquisition of the original 7'/-acre site, which had been almost entirely cleared when Street’s appointment was announced. In fact, demolition had commenced while the competition designs were on display in New Square in 1867. The total acquisition cost had been £765,441, which corresponded with the original £750,000 estimate, when the £17,000 paid for an additional house in Fleet Street was subtracted.?® However, the Office of Works spent an additional £28,000 on an accountant, a firm of wreckers and valuers, and auctioneers to sell salvaged materials. Moreover, the law firm of Field, Roscoe, and

180 The Law Courts

inwrocnad oxpTOSTICE . mente COUNTY OF| MivDDuLES: | | COURTS q —7 | CONCENTRATION. 3b Ree “Faegeled 8. The ; | , , nn y AcRibereernse (ACQUISITION : Bblshisae, hehe CONSTRUCTIONOF OFARDITIONAL BRIDGES, &*)SITE, 3 NAN4 eee ooome a Eeat + i 4 ce } 4

| errand | nn ; a | NOVEMBEReo 1888.ee . : ‘ tieain » POE hecay St aa es em # :/{ ice

ie GS Nena j a j . Ve be io og > 5 ) us By le 8 ri ; | / }

,; vi ie ) ye Eb SOG aie ed ce eee. Se Ce Ry ; ee | - ' ce ony ae j /

; ] SS » al PRERE AT FYRE HARE D vrecnl THE hae fe - ve Ee . j : t : oe 3 «% : cnurrs € 22S : be ' pins ih ad WO" s

AM aioe err eB Bii| es / “A 3=Pu |- ee I,:MeO , Wee .. F 0ie'SARTO pe 44yoA ' \,e‘BS fe @aer eaSeeTae =edSV, ; ;: '|;&Js«3 ce Or. % \NSE OF om ff 24 te NR SAS ES . | | ae pe (hse i I"a| Beate CER ee -7\ Feo epee? ET 31 |'| &ia;[3 ee. ee ee | rest = eee is om i ©oS peach, \ 2-4|2Seed sr 8 a 8Dy leneeeidans ¢ @.% et” « igs, | : : *“% eens E "i.%CITY ‘ - oe OF LONDON fiesorcerititggee oe 7 a , \ F F “on % grew p= ern VES ; > pe ater i E ‘* Head = tee « 3 “es es MR isines eee rier SN 8 REE He

|: 2esl J eer he “_ ;24.tei:ad! i| PARI $.# ar S$ CLEMENT Pae7 ms; 44 MtDOLeE TEMPLE ty Kh & SAR GC Rt Rs

lop AA of Clet2 CHARLES R. CHEFFINS, | 23, Auincoon Sraaet, :

WESTHINSTER. |

78 Charles R. Cheffins. Carey Company, charged almost £400 to untangle the complex ownership of some of the Street site. Plan of proposed en- houses. As Edwin W. Field, the secretary of the Royal Commission, was a partner taigement, November 1868, in this firm, Parliament later questioned the propriety of their employment, although

(PRO Works 12/36/2 f.112.) ae, | ‘ aa eee

no particular wrongdoing was alleged.”° In addition, the original site, although expensive, could accommodate neither the grandiose competition designs nor the great plan, whose foundations alone would

have covered eight acres. As a result, the same committees that met with Street after his appointment to discuss his plan also discussed the site, and they approved his proposal for an enlargement of the purchased land. The commission accepted these purchases, which expanded the site to 13% acres, in July 1868, at the same meeting at which the great plan itself was first approved. Like the plan, the request for an expanded site was forwarded to the Treasury, accompanied by George Pownall’s calculation that the enlargement would cost an additional £668,000. °° This estimate may have discouraged the Conservative chancellor of the Exchequer, George Ward Hunt, from giving serious consideration to the great plan, but he did go through the motion of ordering the Office of Works to draft a bill for the acquisition of the larger site on August 13.%* Charles R. Cheffins, the surveyor employed in 1866, again prepared the plan and books of reference needed for the provisional legislation.** His final site plan of November showed the acquisition of all lands as far east as Chancery Lane (excluding the building of the Law Society) for the purposes of an improved eastern approach, although some of that land could

p¥py&

Revised Plans 181 be resold later (Fig. 78). The purchase of the houses in Thanet Place, to the south of the Strand, would permit a bridge to be built to the Temples. To the southwest, Danes Inn and Clements Inn were to be bought, with the understanding that the latter would rebuild on the site of the former. In the northwest corner, the squalid buildings adjacent to King’s College Hospital were to be acquired. The entire north side of Carey Street was also to be obtained to permit the northward expansion of the site. Included in this last area was the large Cook’s Court property, on which a private group of Manchester investors erected several office blocks based on Waterhouse’s design. The Government gave official notice of its intention to introduce the new bill, but Cheffins’s supporting documents were not deposited until November 30, one week after the general election and just three days before Gladstone accepted the premiership.*? The Royal Commission had not proposed the vast expenditure required by this bill, and by the still enormous scale of its building program, without having prepared its own, audacious financial plan. This was drafted in July and sent off to the Treasury

with the sketches of the great plan and the additional site request.34 Based on Pownall’s July estimate for the site, and on the assumption that the great plan could be built for the sum that Gardiner had assigned to Street’s competition entry, the commissioners admitted that the total cost of the law courts would be £3,250,000 rather than the legislated £1,500,000.3° To make up this deficit of £1,750,000, they proposed that an additional £754,850 be obtained from some of the other surplus legal fee funds held by the courts, and that the remaining £995,150 might come as an additional advance from the general budget, to be repaid by levying higher taxes on the suitors. Skeptical of this scheme, the Treasury prepared its own internal study in Oc-

tober.2° The findings were disturbing. Income from the other fee funds that the commission had proposed to tap was already fully committed to paying court expenses, and so the entire burden of the increased expenditure for the law courts would have to be borne by the Treasury. This could be relieved only if the unpopular court taxes were enormously increased. However, the doubts in Hunt’s mind that were strengthened by this report were

never tested, for he left office shortly thereafter, in the wake of the Conservative election defeat on November 23. Gladstone’s new Government was even more likely to question large public outlays, and its members also had new ideas about the site for the law courts. This unlikely conjunction of thrift and sensitivity to the artistic issues of siting inspired a final, climactic debate over the cost and location of the new building. In the course of this discussion, Street prepared two further designs. What was promptly christened the “Battle of the Sites” saw attention focused once more on the attractions of the Thames Embankment.

The Embankment Le THAMES-SIDE alternative had been a persistent subcurrent in the law

courts discussion ever since a royal commision in 1861 had recommended the construction of quays along both banks. Legislation authorizing this enormous project, engineered by Joseph Bazalgette, was enacted in 1862 and 1863. As work progressed, numerous plans were prepared for the construction of public buildings along the

182 The Law Courts

- 2 CRS = ee . : |

@ ee ——lrlrr”~—™O—O -

P Lf 3

— VE a rrt—“‘i‘* Layard was even more upset when the agenda for the January 15 meeting of the Royal Commission included a report of his private order for Street to stop work on the great plan. He protested this leak to the architect on January 20, but he was mollified when Street explained that Field had published the information without permission.*? Now, however, the antagonism of the Government toward the Royal Commission was public knowledge.

186 The Law Courts The Battle of the Sites Te CONTROVERSY intensified as an open debate started in the press. This

was heralded by a letter in the Law Journal on New Year’s Day which commented favorably on the rumor that a committee would be formed to study the Embankment site for the law courts.** This seems to have been the first public

indication that the Government was contemplating a change such as the Times and the Law Times had suggested the previous summer.

The Times now led the renewed debate, publishing on January 5 the first of what was to be a long series of pro-Embankment letters from Sir Charles Trevelyan (1807-86), a Liberal reformer who had returned to England a few years earlier after a successful but controversial career in Indian government. Trevelyan became identified with the Embankment cause, and while he may not have begun his efforts in consultation with the Government, by the end of the month he was corresponding with the first commissioner as an established ally. * The first letter dealt quickly with the objections that, six months earlier, the Times had predicted would stand in the way of the transfer of the building to the new site.°° To answer the complaints of barristers from Lincoln’s Inn that the Embankment was farther away from their chambers, Trevelyan proposed that their entire inn be moved into Somerset House, adjacent to the new site, thus abandoning the old buildings which he said were due for replacement. To those who argued on the grounds of expense, he replied that the Carey Street site, when expanded as much as the Royal Commission now proposed, would cost the nation £1.5 million, which happened to be just the sum needed to acquire the 9% acres that lay between the Embankment and the Strand. (The area of the site was later calculated at just under 10¥2 acres.) Io concerns about delay, Trevelyan answered emphatically: “It would be better that we should wait for ten years than that our descendants should reproach us for hundreds of years to come.” He went on to contrast the advantages of the Embankment with those of the Carey Street site, citing the better light and air and the triple provisions for transport (the new Embankment road, the new Metropolitan Railway, and the popular river steamers) afforded by the former. But for Trevelyan,

the argument hinged on the artistic potential of the proposal, and he asserted: “Without exaggeration, the Thames Embankment is the finest site in Europe— perhaps, all the circumstances considered, in the world.” The Times, where Lowe had served as an editorial writer until the press of other work forced his resignation just eight months before, promptly resumed its editorial support of the Embankment. In a leading article one day after Trevelyan’s letter appeared, it endorsed his plan as one that would make the law courts “do the greatest _ possible credit to the nation.”>’ Trevelyan continued to provide the editors with fresh arguments, contributing five more letters to the paper over the next two months. ® Trevelyan’s letters were answered, of course, by a variety of opponents to the Embankment site. In addition to arguing again the points addressed by Trevelyan in his first letter, these laid particular stress on the fear that the riverfront location was either too small or that it denied the possibility for future expansion. A succession of writers measured and remeasured the available land.‘° Street himself wrote to the Times in late January to defend his plans for Carey Street, and in early February, Trevelyan arranged to have all of the correspondence to date published as a pamphlet, with two maps illustrating his proposal.°° The other journals began to take sides. The leading general periodicals with

Revised Plans 187 strong artistic interests, the Saturday Review and the Athenaeum, split on the issue.

The latter, which had doubted the practicality of Baillie Cochrane’s proposal in 1868, now predicted victory for those who sought to move the building to “the noblest site in the world.” But the Saturday Review rejected the proposed change on both aesthetic and practical grounds, allowing, however, that it would like to see a broad esplanade between the Carey Street site and the river.” The legal journals generally opposed any displacement of the building from the very center of the Inns of Court, a most important consideration for many lawyers.

Only the relatively unimportant Law Journal warmed from neutrality to faithful support of the Embankment.®? The Solicitors’ Journal was a dogged opponent of any change of site, and the Law Times, which had endorsed Baillie Cochrane’s proposal

in 1868, now admitted: “We have not been sufficiently prosaic,” and shifted its support back to Carey Street.% The architectural magazines were divided on the question. The Builder supported William Tite’s proposed division of the building between two sites at first,

but its enthusiasm waned as the debate progressed, and the Building News was skeptical about the Embankment from the outset. Fearing that Trevelyan’s grandiose project would get out of hand and that a loss would be sustained in reselling the Carey Street property, the latter journal warned ominously: “It would be well for correspondents and architects to bear in mind that we are year after year closer and closer to grave economical questions, which will test to the utmost the abilities of our statesmen. With all our boasted wealth and material progress, pauperism increases more rapidly in proportion than our population.” The editors trusted that Gladstone’s “strong Government pledged to economy” would not succumb to what might have tempted Disraeli. Only the Architect, perhaps seeking to make a name for itself in its first year of publication, consistently spoke in favor of the riverside site.*” Its weak voice was not very influential, however. In general, the architectural press was forced to play a secondary role as the site question was settled in the arena of national opinion. The dividing lines of the debate were drawn most clearly in the March discussions conducted by a special committee of the Society of Arts. The committee, formed at the request of Henry Cole, secretary of the department of practical art at South Kensington, included Trevelyan, Field, and Street, whose testimony dominated the hearings. Lord Elcho (Francis Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas) was the chairman. They met for three days in March, and on April 8 voted to publish their minutes; but they issued no formal recommendation, probably because no agreement could be reached. ®

The first clear division among the participants in the discussion, and the most important one, lay between the supporters of the Royal Commission and those of the Government. The proceedings began with Trevelyan’s lengthy presentation of the scheme that he had outlined in the Times. Although this was no longer exactly the Government’s plan, his testimony was generally accepted as a statement of administration policy. In his almost equally lengthy response, Field, the secretary of the Royal Commission, defended the great plan. So the battle was joined. Notably, both Trevelyan and Field were Liberals, underscoring the fact that the law courts debate was rarely argued along strict party lines. Secondly, the two camps were clearly defined according to membership in the

188 The Law Courts Inns of Court. Benchers of Lincoln’s Inn by and large favored the closer Carey Street site, christened by Field “the very Acropolis of the law” on account of its centrality, while the Templars supported a move to the river. These prejudices were not shaped merely by the issue of convenient location, however, for the members of the inns

held substantial financial interests in their inns and in surrounding real estate. As Trevelyan wrote to Layard on February 5: “The two Treasurers of the Inner and Middle Temple are warm in the cause [of the Embankment site]—and well they may

be, for it will increase the value of the Temple estate by 2 or 3 hundred thousand pounds.”’° In supporting Carey Street, Lincoln’s Inn was joined by the Law Society, the organization of solicitors whose members generally maintained chambers in the

northern precincts of the legal district and whose clubhouse was adjacent to the original site. This self-interested involvement of the inns and the Law Society in the debate enraged the pro-Embankment Architect, which characterized the argument as a match of “Lincoln’s Inn against all England.”7! A third division was evident between equity and common law barristers. The

former were in the main members of Lincoln’s Inn, while the latter traditionally massed in the Temples, with a natural inclination for Carey Street and the Embankment, respectively.

Finally, a bitter split existed between artists and utilitarians—between those who valued the artistic potential of the Embankment and those who were convinced

that the law courts must be placed in the most efficient, central location if the thirty-year campaign for their construction was to be successfully concluded. Field thus scorned the adherents of the riverfront site as “dilettanti” and preached that “the highest art was the highest utility nobly clothed.””

Street’s contribution to the discussion at the Society of Arts unexpectedly showed him to be on the side of the utilitarians. He was still an ally of Field and the Royal Commission. Although he now admitted that “he did not know whether, if

both sites had been open to him, he should not, on architectural grounds, have selected the Embankment,” the matter had been decided for him when it was determined that the Carey Street site was “the most convenient.”’3 And he gave a long and glowing account of the artistic capabilities that the northern site did possess. Street showed the committee his perspective sketch of the great plan seen from Waterloo Bridge, and he explained:

I cannot help but think that the Carey-street site has been most unnecessarily disparaged. It appears to me to have some very great advantages, which may be allowed without the slightest disparagement of the Embankment site. The ground on which it stands is so well raised above the river, that any large and lofty building erected on it ought to add enormously to the architectural effect of London in all distant views, and even in all views from the bridges. . . . If my plan is carried out in its integrity, the upper part of the great central hall would be well seen as is the upper part of the western front of St. Paul’s, and it would be seen not only from the south, but generally also from the north.” Outside the meetings of the Society of Arts, the divisions of the debate were also becoming increasingly evident. The Law Society emerged as the most forceful agent on behalf of the Carey Street site, launching its campaign with a pamphlet in

Revised Plans 189 early February which lashed out at those “persons who have no connection with the administration of the law in this country, and are not conversant with its requirements.” Locating the building on the Embankment would cause “miles and miles of wasteful traversing” by lawyers and “weeks and months of delay.” Moreover, half a million pounds would be lost if the Carey Street site were resold, while it might be successfully utilized for the courts, even without the purchase of the additional land requested by the Royal Commission.”> The society also sent a deputation to discuss the matter with Robert Lowe on March 1, and it circulated a petition against the change in site among lawyers generally.” Perhaps prompted by the action of the Law Society, the Articled Clerks’ Society passed its own resolution against the Embankment site on February 17, calling the change “both unnecessary and undesirable.””’ And the Metropolitan and Provincial

Law Association quoted the Law Society in the printed letter, dated March 17, which it circulated. Provocatively entitled The So-called ““Embellishment’’ of London at the Expense of the Suitors, it asked rhetorically: “Will a building on an unfit and inconvenient site be more decorative to the Metropolis than one on a site eminently

fit and convenient?” Against this opposition Lowe and Layard sought to rally their own forces. Before

February, no evidence exists that they had begun to formulate their own specific plan for the use of the Embankment site, preferring to give quasi-official support to Trevelyan and his proposal. But on February 19, 1869, William H. Gregory (181792), the Liberal M.P. for Galway and a close friend of Layard, announced that he would introduce a motion for the new site on March 3. Gregory apparently warned the Government, which began to draft the needed legislation. The intended bill was based on a scheme whose details differed from those of Trevelyan’s plan, and to give them time to complete this new proposal, Layard prevailed on Gregory to postpone his motion until April 20.” The Government was constrained to be thrifty as well as artistic, and its studies were based on a smaller parcel of just 7'4 acres, rather than the 10% acres staked out for the new building by Trevelyan. F W. Shields, an expert on ironwork whom Lowe had once supported in a claim against the government, was asked by the chancellor to prepare a comparative study of this new proposal and Carey Street. °° On February 17, just two days after he was appointed, Shields submitted a contradictory and confusing report which cast some doubt on the affordability of the Embankment site and moved the government yet further from Trevelyan’s proposal. Shields concluded that on economic grounds the courts should remain north of the Strand, although he conceded that the artistic “superiority of the river frontage is obvious” and that the Embankment site also had “great advantage” with respect to accessibility.®* He quoted calculations showing that £400,000 would be lost in the resale of the Carey Street site, and that the 7% acres on the Embankment (equal in size to the acquired site) would cost an additional £1,125,000. Since about £800,000 had already been spent on Carey Street, the substitution of the same amount of land

on the river would be £725,000 more expensive. On the other hand, Shields also emphasized that the approach roads to the Carey Street site would have to be improved. He appended a detailed proposal for this to his report, including plans for the construction of a combined roadway and

190 The Law Courts underground railroad from the West End. Even according to his own optimistic figures, this project would cost an additional £1,200,000, surely enough to offset his argument that Carey Street was inherently cheaper. *3 Distressed by Shields’s high estimates and perhaps baffled by his ambiguous

recommendation, Layard asked for a second estimate from Henry A. Hunt, the surveyor of the Office of Works. In the hope of reducing the cost of the Embankment site to a reasonable level, he asked Hunt to survey an even smaller property lying

between the Temple and Somerset House but extending no further north than Howard Street (see Fig. 82). On February 24, he reported that the 6% acres could be acquired for just £600,ooo—a much more encouraging estimate for the ministerial planners.** Layard later told Parliament that it had been his own idea to reduce

the site in this way.® This proposal became the basis of the Government's legislation, and the organization of its support now also began. In this Trevelyan collaborated, lining up endorsements from the Inner and Middle Temples and overseeing the distribution of a large pro-Embankment petition which was presented to Parliament.*° The support of judges was also solicited, and on April 19, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, the lord chief baron of the court of Exchequer, reported to Layard the good news that “I and all of the Judges with whom I have been able to communicate (with a single exception, and that of one who only thinks that the proximity of Lincoln’s Inn is essential) are as I am strongly and decidedly of the opinion that upon every ground as regards the Bench, the Bar, the Solicitors, the Suitors and the Public, the Thames Embankment should be preferred.”*”

The Howard Street [x EARLY March, Gladstone himself studied the site question, and on March 9,

Site he prepared a memo setting forth his administration’s nearly incompatible twin goals for the law courts: metropolitan beautification and concomitant economy.* On the first score, he agreed that the Embankment had “some great advantages not

, possessed by the site already obtained.” With respect to economy, he was willing to approve the new reduced version of the riverside site, even though he believed that the absolutely cheapest solution would be to build a simple building on the acquired site. Gladstone argued that “some vigorous effort is needed to arrest the plan of the Commission as it stands, and give a new direction to the general scheme,” and he saw the Embankment plan as such a therapeutic shock. He allowed Lowe and Layard to proceed.

With their plan for a smaller Embankment site in hand, the two ministers awaited Gregory’s motion on April 20, knowing that the Government’s revised position would entirely change the thrust of the debate. Gregory himself does not seem to have been advised of the new official plan, and he opened the discussion with what was by now a routine explication of the Trevelyan proposal for a site stretching from the Thames up to the Strand. In its support he presented a petition with 7460 signatures, and he concluded by moving: “That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to reconsider the question of Carey Street as the site of the New Law Courts, inasmuch as the Thames Embankment, between the Temple and Somerset House, now offers many advantages for the erection of such buildings. ’®?

Revised Plans Ig] Roundell Palmer rose to reply. As attorney general he had shared the responsi-

bility for the legislation of 1865, and he had served as a member of the Royal Commission as well as a competition judge. He was now understandably distressed to see so much of the planning in which he had participated placed at risk. Although a Liberal, he became the leader in Parliament of opposition to the Liberal Government’s plan to change sites, just as Field had done at the Society of Arts. Palmer scathingly contrasted the “‘dilettanti gentlemen” who preferred the Embankment with “the practical and prosaic solicitors, whose main business it was to deal with the

administration of the law, and who know what its wants were.” He also spoke apprehensively of what he called “this demon of good taste” which threatened the most sensible and efficient siting of the courts.’ Two other commission members, William Cowper, a Liberal, and Lord John Manners, a Conservative, also defended

the Carey Street site. Their work seemed to be on trial. | Robert Lowe did not begin to speak until late in the evening, but what he said entirely reshaped the discussion. He began by explaining that his chief concern was for the British taxpayer and how, from the day he had entered office, he had been troubled by the financial features of the great plan. Lowe then enumerated the various additional land purchases required by the Carey Street site and the cost of the enormous building proposed by the Royal Commission. He ended with the frightening prediction that the total expense would approach £4 million.” This he attributed to the excessive zeal of the commission in seeking to bring so much more together under one roof than the enabling legislation had specified. “Why, we have

been seized with what I may call a frenzy of concentration. ... We have set ourselves to build a sort of Tower of Babel,” he said. But if a Babel was contemplated for Carey Street, he went on, the Trevelyan plan for the Embankment was no more fiscally responsible. Lowe calculated that the site alone would cost £2 million, and he strongly advised against “such an extravagance as that.” His audience must by now have been feverish with anticipation, remembering

, his budget speech of less than two weeks earlier in which he had concluded a long and gloomy financial survey with a piece of legerdemain that turned a potential deficit into a surplus. They were not disappointed, for having demolished the rival schemes for the law courts, Lowe now advanced the new Government proposal, the details of which had been sketched out at the Office of Works during the preceding month. “There is a street called Howard Street,” he began, and so his plan came to be named after that northern border of the intended site.°° He cited Hunt’s estimate

, that this smaller property would cost £600,000, and, allowing £1 million more for a reduced building, Lowe reported that the new plan could be executed for only slightly more than the £1.5 million that was originally authorized.°° The project

: would be guaranteed against another escalation of costs, because Lowe intended to abolish the Royal Commission and bring the law courts under the direct control of

! the Office of Works and the Treasury. °®” At this point, Parliament adjourned the debate to allow the thorough consideration of the new particulars. The Times aptly summarized the chancellor’s astonishing reformulation of the issue in a leading article: “The lawyers wanted a convenient monster, the artists a picturesque monster, but Mr. Lowe stoutly maintained that monstrosity was out of place altogether.””* As a prominent proponent of the

192 The Law Courts larger Embankment site, the Times had editorialized in support of Gregory’s motion, but in the wake of Lowe’s speech, the editors began to accept the idea that the cost should be “less absolutely outrageous.” Trevelyan himself endorsed the reduced site.

Street’s Plans of 1869 (_ 7PORCE EDMUND STREET was now asked to provide the architectural component of the Government’s plan. In his last words to the House of Commons on April 20, Robert Lowe had accepted “the duty of making, with as little delay as possible, some definite proposal upon this subject.” Very shortly thereafter, Layard sidestepped the Royal Commission and contacted Street directly."** He was able to convince him to prepare a design for the Howard Street site, even though Street had expressed no change of heart on the site issue as recently as April 8.‘ ‘To protect a possible route for strategic retreat, on May 13 Street was also ordered to draft plans for a building which could be accommodated on the unenlarged Carey Street site.’°? Within a week of the first request, Street had ready for the Embankment “a rough plan showing the sort of arrangement which | propose to work out.”"°* The plan for Carey Street took no longer, and on May 24 he submitted an illustrated report on the two, his third and fourth designs for the law courts.’°> His latest work demonstrated that while the question of site had become more uncertain, Street’s attitude toward the visual and practical requirements of the commission had become increasingly sure. More and more confident of his own conclusions, Street must have been alarmed by some of the first indications of what his official patrons would demand. Robert Lowe, once a supporter of E. M. Barry’s claims, had already proposed to Layard that the Embankment site would require a classical building, in harmony with Somerset House, rather than Street’s “Gothic Temple.”’% He had made his views known in

| the Commons, where he had advanced the more specific suggestion that the unexecuted design made by Inigo Jones for the Palace of Whitehall might be adapted for the courts."°? The Building News justifiably labeled this proposal “too crude and spasmodic to be reduced to practice.”"*® Also of concern to Street was Layard’s appointment of James Fergusson as secretary of works and buildings. Layard and Fergusson had long shared an interest in eastern archeology, and they had conferred when Fergusson was writing his Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored (1851). But

although Fergusson was learned, he was also a keen foe of the Gothic Revival, as shown in his critique of the competition designs in the Builder. Layard himself, at the meeting of the R.I.B.A. when he had praised the Embankment site, had also lashed out at all types of historicism, both medieval and classical, and called for the development of a “true English style.’'° Fortunately, none of these ill omens was realized. Layard stood up to Lowe from the start, telling Parliament in the aftermath of the chancellor’s speech that “it would be unfair to Mr. Street, who was essentially a Gothic architect, to impose upon him a style of architecture which he had not made the subject of special study.”"*® And Fergusson’s employment at the Office of Works was chiefly in the capacity of financial watchdog."*? When Layard contacted Street to ask him to prepare a design for the Howard Street site, he made no stylistic stipulation. The aesthetic potentials of the two sites were very different, but Street created

Revised Plans 193 picturesque compositions for both. He had learned an enduring lesson from the competition, to which he adhered despite the fact that his recent picturesque work had attracted criticism. E. W. Pugin and the Builder had already attacked the competition design for being too irregular. Likewise, the great plan, while praised by the Building News for its “varied and picturesque treatment,” had also earned a warning

from that journal. The editors advised Street “not [to] luxuriate too much in the irregularities which, to a great extent, are forced upon him.”’’* However, he recognized that Waterhouse and Burges had been able to please the critics of the competition with even less regular compositions, and he evidently concluded that a picturesque design could escape rebuke if it was sufficiently dramatic and compelling. For the Embankment location, Street displayed particular confidence in this line of reasoning (Figs. 81-83). Rather than exploit the unobstructed sightlines that stretched across the river and contrive a symmetrical facade as William Chambers had done at Somerset House, he wrung the utmost from the irregularities of the site.

His perspective gave a clear indication of his new artistic intention for the law courts, inspired at least in part by the success of Waterhouse’s great perspective of the building as seen across the Thames from the same vantage (see Fig. 35).'? Also influential was the irregular silhouette of the Houses of Parliament only a short distance upstream from the intended site. Street may have had in mind as well the reconstruction of Assurnasupal’s palace on the banks of the Tigris at Nimrud, drawn by James Fergusson for Layard (Fig. 84).'" Street’s concept of the appropriate architecture for the Embankment site had already been formed at the time of his testimony before the Society of Arts. Then, although preferring Carey Street, he had argued that a large building on the river ~ would be “very tame and monotonous” if it were composed as “a continuous line . . . with no break.” In Street’s view, the only acceptable type of design would have to be very different: “It ought to have some grand recesses, shewing something of the internal quadrangles of the building from the river, and so giving some opportunity of obtaining striking light and shade, and good architectural effect.”""5 His submitted Embankment design realized this objective, with its telling juxtaposition of the major mass of building to the west and a smaller but tower-topped

office block to the east. Ventilation towers, derived from the rear towers in the competition design, pushed up at the ends of the hall, and the rooflines of the encircling offices were repeatedly broken, as Street had said he had intended in the description of that earlier project. Because of the elimination of the probate department, the principal tower was no longer used as a record depository, but it was brought up to the facade of the building to play a more active role in the composition. As he had proposed at the Society of Arts, he offered an oblique glance into the courtyard of the building through a semicircular colonnade. Its Italian character was perhaps related to the taste for Venetian Gothic that Layard had professed in the House of Commons on May 10.''® Much of the rest of the exterior was richly

embroidered with Decorated ornament. ,

The whole of the building was united, not by the imposed regularity of the competition design, but by the organic cohesion of many small parts, clustered beneath the dominating roof of the central hall. As Street said of his perspective sketch:

pe te i =

rr re ee ee

‘ ::: SSCS :SSeS - PieEASES ee Fe ‘a = e ee % cae oH : ai peas: : : & 3 So aes eRe & eee 2 2 : * : es : :

ee ee OS Beet ES ie Bet : Eee i Se eco : see Wee ste eee at 22354 Re ¥e¢ fe oe Ses Secor : SS ra © ti : Beg Eee ;Se:fee FES tes eeeanes ae Big 3tage: Z ie oe aes = oes Se =3 Se3 et2 ee ae 4 eee 3:0 =5 “E Ad Mewes = e:So aesSieeeeencas Sa eae BR xiLatse : SsSee Se $ 32S pa it2 3 é:

: :Peres. isp A ee on po ae © : ee pe a : Be} iat 7 eee Se = ee Gs mae ee ee : : Beies epee cs 35 od Paes ee og yz pap iL ns : ; ta eeee FPS ee s ie hd a ee, ee fs Bere PPP :%‘ge Moe Pecece : ssesaceessacee % ieeee oeSe eea4 : bore eee seeetome bie:ek 3: :; : ‘ :: $522 eS ee:See ibs 5.oe Bae pores Wea Beenee Seiguitieeaccucaewec SSeS ce Sats Sate BARE FP Bee Rees © ees : 3 ze . PRES = SRS Sa Se: Ege 3 Ag Bae a = - $ 2 2 Ronn Sa ee ee si 3 3

“2= ee Mienned £% 3Pere Fe Ee 3Begs Sa feed ek aa : ge :bil aoe: Bye aes pee Jbg Bef: upd Lie Bee 3 :sess SeeS ae es Sch Bee if ee &ge igs ; Ness see gee Eeaee: =: 3 i2See 2 sae aecope te :4 oe bser 2% 2% ee aa. feee Sa Bee eee 4 “ib A fae Bee he See ee Bee poets < Mae age is oe. gS ee ee 6 en * BS BE Pee 33 OE ae SEES age Tes ee

of eee Oe oe ea oti ORaiiat ee Se ae ine? ae Ai ae Ul

ie ae Sete Be isa,Bee Bis 4 2fecheung Somer es3 emer ee Pl ad¢ Fs:Bs eeoe3843 3&33Ge TSEeteoeeS Bees Bs. ecais: sem. 33ee # Besos ‘Seen ego ases ee go dee 2 RES caceae creme © Pee SS PE Ree Bi Koes ac Seee He © $Pee Sat Sg. ge seme ee is BEE Bedee Rei So~Sy BoeetAF oreeepre Bee ic. * ee ES eeSe %ee eeae iBae EeaegPs ee Se Eoe ‘ Bec Bee! eae 3 ees: tee BeeRSS! 33% eee = Pi opie Lo Soe $e sibee, ie cia ie eae pet Sieies Ee Aeee re52 eos 3 EECESESE RF 2ae 3 aRSe See ee aeie Bee ik eae is eess ict eebiRee 2ee ie 3hae : 2éBee: seies:ee SorenBeSe ee eeBe . 2i356 pho trGel areeeSis teiastn,iwBescon Rsaeoe ee eegee en ieseee iaeee. : ae

et $ieeBie os 3gesies BP 2eeeeLOO ee8ee ey5oi:.gee i. pee. ; e4 ear peg Bes Se :yee fee oe Ee®aaeaeae RE Pe: ‘ ee: : ees ae Be ee et:ee afBe 5aS Beeee ere oe % ee z ae es LIED tgee Pee Bees Ee es ag bespe ee pss gta ae : Sa: e2ogee fe rt 8 2 oeoe i |

Lp spe yo a Re ties Seilpeer yoy. Spree PW remins Pee ofae asI Bie ce tae :ee ne Paes Sy Pee igsAe BES Pecake EYoe Be a atPe i Sap ee eeeoe BORE oe febee tege Se=) oePe eS ge ae 2 Fy Geepone ges Pee Seeee oe ae

Re ELL (fF pe oeia pe ss cece M 860.n atPla 33PSee (__.§i.8ai ee aT”, Jer dy 1009. .. ie _ § i$j$~aeee. feere occaBete ae ee eeee ee i cases ee a eee ee ek ee ee AOA ER EE wae 4 ALE ESL UT tees Bey $8 SE int ‘= Se es eae RETR ee Se

ede ) « |) ee ee = cco Bae \é hee - |e faa" LDiew ‘ee = eeu oe

level May 18 69 ( Bre Vol- iy 9 igs per se age oes < if de xt gaa 2 PS NT oe aie ci . ut feb # ad a es pe we. ook ._

Site. a5 °° ee Me ot iesize a \teDaun os ce. (ee 64 SS eee, ak” a Fe Ee 1 ae a pe ee ee Poe 8Assurnasupal, F: oo i an PA a eS PGES ee 8 hL ee F + os ames eTgusson. a € 0 : a ee ee eae ff ee Me ee See wee ANimrud. US — 2. et #§ 2 = §=—hhCChCCUrhmrhr Reconee fs a - = = 2 we 6 Layard, 1853. (Layard. The Le OP r—Ci“S™esCCSC*S™ » ee ee cs pk, (a es ee eos , So es EAE Meas Mie 2 oe ee SESE Monuments of Nineveh, 25, al Be oe aa. | a Le mdon: J ohn Murray, 18 53- ) a Se ere 25 2a , fea oe ee ume 47 In I 868— I 8609. ) ; Ce i whe: ee ¥ es WD ate — & se i te be Be 4 2 a. i “ai & Fe ge: Bs Se Zz es 2 eae Ez — ~~ z a see eg Bee SET Page: ge 4 Mese 7 oe Foe &ee a eee ES Bee =a = ge ee Es Bo oe Se eee ae2 ee ee3)ee g See ee228 i Be eseeee ee.eeBee

ee : we — = See - >ae3Beeeea ee a ifhie ae SS He pe se ; eg

—e —_. ss eT REET pa : oe , esgt ye 4a, a Nite ee, Soe .ere CAREY trace,ee =— i — ee oder Pe i a : ek gay Ane se . i See C. “osapiagsn : Mile ¢ : — : ;

a 7 “ ‘ x Shops Cal Low toildings at lack of Houses [: to“ Sang 4 . | :

5 © ot a: a iL crema ae Meee iE é Intend Ftenwivm i |

aS oe a aAa ane ee iP pe me :wore, ai. — wee | a J\ .2ae?a SS ha=mee ee- sll a |Rad CapetOm

< : 7... LE £ 9 ee tC a te ee 0s Se Oe ee ee ee ee ee % : ks : ce . a2 Cae! ‘ Sl COAG A pee 2 ob | ee Dt A Wine Race 7; 3 a“ = cond © oe : = : s as 48 eel cook | _ ee 3 Lo oe — * a | S fi, 3 ———— eee a see ono £ Ee Bend nee Rapa Se "a, é ee — sue es aoe : — = ; . : _ =

ve De nie is4-:.E«|E‘ ‘4: “ sswy a j rl: -“€ j «fo Leged | ._ aeye ¥% : dements bin = % wae: Be ee ae -” he siccdanetciaded ee cy pit 3 ee aeet sw je Lee ae E : ee 5 ed

DNa_t A ; zNe > xPe “ %\ Es gsleeBea Pig: fg i aA =f Y See ee See

Ke aN \\ N ANOR \2 %aa ee ~ vandirane @)oe - ea! RSC 5 be oe | aa

Shen | AVA | Bie BY ae ee eee | | /

| —— .©A *iame oe NO On eee The eeF:

SoM Stage od eve wetT OF Rep, nn ee ey / ‘| oe eT GE Se i me Se ok é as eet eects eo Fy Ep : ve € ve : € Snes ; = . L Danes Church ; / Pe is Loe 1 > 3 3 3 4 ; | 3 : ) | ene S es : oe my, he at Fas : | 2 . . | i 2 : ‘i

arid . Me } AC \ = ok; \ 1sEb fz] i j ?] THERAR 87 ee See.\ ecoe 2 | Ss

86 Reduced Carey Street de- for the building which Lowe’s economizing had man

room May 1860. ie Volume level, 47 in 1868-1869.) |

ait | es ‘: at hse were provided and numerous departments were altogetl

SHG TOO ADEE, hoes supe the probate department, with its requirement canceled were plans for the divorce department, the ruptcy department, the Admiralty offices, the land registry.

Although the two sites differed in shape, Street planning provisions in both designs, so that they migh: this end, he fitted nearly identical central blocks into | ently arrayed around a central hall, as in the great ple competition were borne in mind, and Street was di exigencies of organization. However, the smaller sites the multitude of separate public stairs leading to the in the great plan, as well as other concessions. The architect faced his greatest challenge in pt accommodations, and the differences in the two sites 1 for each. Neither plan adopted the paradigmatic conce1 in both Street’s competition design and the great plan which was shallow but relatively wide, Street concen offices around a single eastern quadrangle (see Fig. 83)

: provided in the main block on upper floors, reached by neither to the courtrooms nor their immediate adju Street site, with its maximum width located near the 1

198 The Law Courts block was placed quite far from the Strand (see Fig. 86). The southern portion of the site was devoted to a large wing of offices that could screen the courts from street noises. Further accommodation was provided by the bastion-shaped block placed in the awkward triangle of land on the west side of the site, north of Clement’s Inn. Both plans provided for a roadway to bring judges to the building at the level of their offices. On the Embankment, Street used the existing terrace of Somerset House for this purpose, while at Carey Street he designed an elevated carriageway at the northeast. Waterhouse had included a similar feature in his competition entry. Having designed buildings for both sites, Street now revised his assessment of their relative merits. By early May, Layard could report to the House of Commons that “he had gone fully into the whole plan with Mr. Street, who had met him most

honourably, and though at first in favour of the Carey Street site, and anxious to carry out that plan, now approved of the new proposal.’”"'® Street’s dramatic change of opinion occurred because it became apparent that the Liberals would not pay for the great plan and a concomitant enlargement of the original site. He explained his reasoning in the official report: [In previous expressions of my opinion on this subject, I have spoken strongly of the effect of a great building crowning this eminence [north of the Strand]. [ had in my mind when I did so the vast extent of my plan as approved by the Courts of Justice Commission, including not only the central hall and Courts, but the great Probate Department, with its towers for the reception of wills, which, grouping with the other towers and lofty roofs of the building, would have given scope for great architectural effect. The reduction of the scale of the building, the omission of the towers for wills, and the apparent certainty that the surrounding buildings will all be mean and unworthy of their position, if no more land is purchased, seem to me to make a vast difference in the view | am compelled to take, and deprive this site of the claims I considered it had to be very nearly on a par with the other, in regard to the opportunities it afforded for erecting a building which should be a great architectural success and an ornament to the Capital. *?°

In addition to these artistic considerations, Street emphasized the other advantages of the Embankment site, concluding that it possessed better approaches, more

light and air and quiet, and was better suited to efficient planning. There were financial advantages as well, he calculated, and this must have delighted Gladstone and Lowe. Either building, Street reported, could be built for £900,000—rather less than Hunt had estimated. Although foundations on the steeper riverside site would be more costly, compensating savings could be made by transporting the materials by water.'?? And while the buildings themselves were of equal cost, the Embankment location was cheaper. Even with the reduced program, Street would permit “very little” reduction in the purchase of land for access roads and ventilation that he and the Royal Commission had recommended for Carey Street. But Howard Street might be used just as the Government proposed, without any enlargement. He assumed, however, that Essex Street would be improved by private investment to provide a thoroughfare leading to the northern inns, perhaps lined by covered walkways like the “rows” of Chester. '”?

Revised Plans 199 Street was enthusiastic about these new opportunities. On May 19 he explained to Layard: “I am really delighted with the way in which my plan [for the Embankment] is working out.” However, he recognized that the question of site was still unresolved, for he added, “{I] hope that it may live through the threatened opposition.”?3 As it happened, that opposition gained new strength just as Street defected to the Embankment and the side of the Government, abandoning Carey Street and the Royal Commission.

Defeat Prrosrects for theStreet Embankment proposal darkened as soon as the Howard site was thoroughly explained. Led by the Times, many who had supported Trevelyan’s plan withdrew their endorsements following Layard’s introduction of the

authorizing legislation on May 10. Although the Times had been impressed by Lowe’s economic argument, it finally concluded: “If. . . the New Law Courts need not be on the extensive scale suggested by the Commission, the Thames Embankment site. . . loses its principal charm for us.””"** The Builder, a supporter of Tite’s version of the Embankment scheme, was similarly disenchanted. Even artistically, the smaller Howard Street site was not favored, since a building there would have no important northern facade and would lie “buried behind the houses on the south side of the Strand.’"?> In response to these criticisms, the Government had asked

Street to sketch a reduced plan for Carey Street in addition to his Embankment design.

Layard recognized that the strategic situation was difficult, but he was exhilarated by the challenge of the Parliamentary contest. On May 13, he wrote to his friend Gregory: We shall have a heavy fight with the Embankment site, but I think that we shall carry it. Elcho [chairman of the Society of Arts committee] has been this morning with Dizzy [Disraeli], and has shown him all the plans. He expressed himself on the whole favourably. A good number of men of the Conservative side will go with us. The chief opposition, curiously enough, comes from our own side, from below the gangway. It is most important to get the Irish right. Palmer was furious, stamped on the ground and clenched his fist, to the amusement of the House. The attorneys of the Law Institution will move heaven and earth against us, so we must be prepared. Unfortunately they have great influence in the Press.'”° This was a realistic analysis of the line of battle, cutting across party loyalties, and of the powerful position held by the Law Society. The Law Society now led the fight for Carey Street, lobbying strenuously in anticipation of a great debate when Layard’s bill was presented for second reading. Lithographed letters from the president were circulated on May 12 and May 26, and, more insidiously, lithographed form letters were provided in large numbers to solicitors, who could address them to M.P.’s and sign them to give the appearance of a multitude of personal appeals.’?? A deputation of the society joined Roundell Palmer in meeting with Lowe and Layard on May 27, and their influence can probably also be detected in the actions of some of the provincial law associations. ’”®

200 The Law Courts The boldest efforts of the Law Society were made in a quasi-alliance with the Royal Commission, the other leading foe of the Embankment. In May, the commissioners asked William Burnet, the commission clerk, and George Pownall, a professional assessor and competition judge, to prepare documents in support of the Carey Street site. Before the end of the month Burnet produced a map that purported to show the two locations, and Pownall submitted an estimate for the purchase of the Howard Street site and for the resale value of Carey Street.'?? Both men aimed to damage the Embankment cause. Burnet contended that the law courts could be accommodated with ease on the acquired site, thus avoiding any risk of resale loss. And Pownall argued that the Howard Street site could be used only if Essex Street were also purchased, thereby requiring an expenditure of £812,415 instead of the £600,000 estimated by Henry Hunt. Pownall also projected that the resale of the land already acquired would net only £364,320. Even more damaging, but decidedly unscrupulous, was the building plan that Burnet devised to bolster these arguments. This attempted to show that the bulk of the great plan could be wedged onto the acquired site. Burnet ingenuously called this “a mere suggestion which I offered to Mr. Field. . . to help in the work of the

Commission,” and Field said, “It was... done... to see how far the Chinese puzzle could be put into the box.”"3° But its true intention was to discredit Street and the Government, which maintained that the existing site was too small to

: contain any but an entirely reorganized version of the building. Burnet tried to prove that the Royal Commission’s plan could be salvaged, complete with what Field now called the full “quadrilateral system”—in essence, Webster’s concentric circles. He published a table of figures which seemed to show that his plan provided more and better accommodation than either of Street’s reduced designs, while requiring the same amount of land. All this was done without consulting the appointed architect, for Burnet complained that “Mr. Street has kept his doors locked since he began to prepare plans for the Howard-street scheme.”">! The Law Society used this information to rally Parliamentary opposition to the Government proposal, and on June 4, Burnet’s and Pownall’s figures were laid before the Royal Commission. On the basis of their evidence, Roundell Palmer introduced

an anti-Embankment resolution, but others questioned the accuracy of the new evidence, referring it to a special committee for evaluation. 3? Although that committee found numerous errors, the commissioners as a whole felt that the merits of the argument had not been altered. They voted on June 23 to approve Palmer’s motion: “That in the judgment of this Commission the substitution of the proposed Howard Street site for the Parliamentary Carey Street site would be an obstacle to

the attainment of the advantages contemplated . . . , and in particular that great loss of time and inconvenience would arise to the barristers and others practising in the Courts of Equity by the removal of the Courts in which they practise to so great a distance.”*3

Against this concerted onslaught, backed by a swing in public opinion, the Government marshaled its defenses. Street strove to blunt that part of the offensive launched on the strength of Burnet’s site map, which he called “worse than misleading” in his own report on the two sites. As also noted by the committee of the Royal Commission, it effectively increased the apparent area of the Carey Street site while shrinking that of Howard Street. Street later observed to Layard: “Whoever did it

Revised Plans 201 must have known what he was doing. It is not the sort of thing that happens accidentally.’”*34 When Burnet was confronted with his errors at a select committee hearing, he meekly explained that he had “never intended” the map to be metrically

accurate.‘ At Layard’s request, Street also prepared a full report on Burnet’s attempt to shrink the great plan to a size that would fit onto the acquired site."®° Street took this opportunity to lash out at the crude attempt which had been made to adapt his own work without consultation. '3’ In particular, Street criticized Burnet for reducing the size of all the interior areas, courtyards, and streets of the building, while adding an extra story. He complained, “These two alterations, or either of them, would, in my opinion, damage most seriously the convenience and usefulness of my plan for the building, whilst they would cause its arrangements to be a constant ground of complaint, in first place on the part of all the permanent officers of departments, and in second of those who have from time to time to attend to the offices and the courts.” Obviously, Street was also annoyed that a man of Burnet’s status should attempt to improve on his work. “I have. . . a greater knowledge than anyone else can possibly have of the space which is really required,” he asserted. At the same time, Henry A. Hunt prepared a new estimate to refute Pownall’s figures. He published an up-to-date version of the calculations used by the Government, reaffirming his estimate of £600,000 for the Howard Street site."2* The expense of erecting the reduced building was now set at £800,000, although the new bill would allow £1 million. Hunt was also sharply critical of Burnet’s work, noting that “statements of this sort ought not, I think, to have been laid before the Courts of Justice Commission without previous consultation with Mr. Street.” While these reports were being assembled, the Government was anxiously enlisting supporters. Trevelyan had been completely won over to the smaller, Howard Street plan, writing to Layard on May 20: “Today J have seen Mr. Street’s Design for the Embankment site, and I am delighted with it.”° He campaigned energetically for the bill, paying particular attention to the circulation of petitions and to securing the support of judges. ’*° In the latter effort he was most successful, but it was hard to convince judges to make their opinions public. In response to the Law Society, a group of solicitors who supported the Embankment, drawn chiefly from the City, Westminster, and the West End, was organized. They called on Lowe and Layard on June 18, and they argued that the Careyites were “a clique, who were privately and personally interested in the question." The Office of Works commissioned the South Kensington Museum to build a model of the Embankment site to illustrate the Government plan.'4? Apparently at Gladstone’s suggestion, copies of Street’s plans were even sent to Queen Victoria at Balmoral, where she viewed them on June g.‘*? Probably the most curious tangential effect of this renewed site debate was

E. M. Barry’s attempt to exploit the fresh uncertainty by reopening the entire question of the appointment. In June, he wrote again to the Times to ask for the publication of the letters that he and Street had written to Derby in January 1868. ‘4 These letters were now made public in a blue book. '#

Despite the best efforts of Lowe, Layard, Street, Hunt, and Trevelyan, the Howard Street proposal had become so controversial that Gladstone decided not to risk the prestige of the Government in its support. Ferocious opposition from within

202 The Law Courts the party, headed by Roundell Palmer, insured the divisiveness of the issue, although an unsuccessful attempt was reportedly made, under the mediation of a Conservative, to heal the rift between Lowe and Palmer.'#° On June 22, rather than bring the beleaguered bill to the Commons for a second reading, Gladstone moved that the matter be committed to a select committee. "47 Pointing to the lateness of the session and to the newness of the Howard Street plan, he argued that the complex issues could not be debated adequately in the busy House of Commons. The motion was agreed to, and a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Stanley was appointed. They reported on July 30.

Trevelyan once again assisted Layard in recruiting the strongest possible witnesses to testify before the committee. For a time, Scott and even Barry were to testify for the Embankment plan.'#* Street and Hunt carried the bulk of the argument, however, largely reiterating the points made in their published reports. Hunt was impressive, with his prediction that Carey Street, with all the necessary additional land, would cost £1 million more than Howard Street. Several lawyers presented statistics proving the Thames-side location to be more convenient for the majority of their profession who did not have chambers in the legal district itself. "4°

Field, Palmer (who gave evidence but did not serve on the committee), P. C. Hardwick (the architect of the Law Society), Burnet, and Pownall led the opposition. They made the usual strong case against risking possible loss by the resale of the Carey Street site and in favor of the most central possible location. Palmer argued reassuringly that the Carey Street site was sufficient “strictly as it stands." Moreover, Street’s design for the Embankment was humiliatingly criticized by George

Pownall, the last witness to be heard. Pownall said that he had conferred with John Shaw, his fellow professional assessor and competition judge, and that the two had agreed that the law courts should not project beyond Somerset House, as Street proposed. **’ Street must have wondered if he would ever escape such harassment. Street probably expressed some of his anxiety about the select committee hearings to Gladstone at breakfast on July 22.'5* But having called for the appointment

of the committee, the prime minister's hands were now tied. On July 30, Lowe presented a draft report in favor of the Howard Street site, but the members declined

to consider it by a vote of 8-5. A pro-Carey Street report drafted by Gabriel Goldney, M.P. for Chippenham, was considered instead and adopted, after paragraphs asserting the artistic superiority of the original site were deleted on narrow votes.‘ The approved report concluded: “The Carey-street site, upon the whole, affords the best opportunity of concentrating the courts and offices in the centre of the great legal district.” It advised that the property already purchased would provide adequate access “for all ordinary purposes. ”"54

This decision effectively ended all hope for the Howard Street site. On August 10, Gladstone replied to a questioner in the Commons that it was too late that year to apply for either a bill to purchase a new site or for money to build on the present one.*®> Little serious consideration was given again to the riverfront location, although Street may have continued to tinker with the Embankment plan until the fall.*°° The defeat was the product of several factors. First, the abandonment of Trevelyan’s grandiose but costly scheme lost for the Government the support of those most eager to improve the appearance of the city. As S. B. Robertson, a Temple bencher, wrote to Layard after the select committee vote: “Many . . . would have

Revised Plans 203 been prepared to sacrifice some amount of personal convenience to a really Grand National Work, who opposed an incomplete design like the substituted plan, and who objected that after all said in its favour, the principle [north] front of the Building would be hidden from view by a screen of inferior houses.”’°? Then too, there was the damaging economic argument against moving the entire project to a different site after four years of work and investment. Finally, there was the issue of centrality within the legal district—a point concerning which the Law Society and Lincoln’s Inn, both adept from years of lobbying for the law courts, were willing to offer every possible resistance. As Lowe observed to Layard in the midst of the struggle: “It is very hard to fight with the lawyers.’"® For Layard, the loss of Howard Street was a personal defeat which he saw as the

end of his effective role at the Office of Works. He felt that his idealistic goals of metropolitan beautification could not be achieved within the constraints of Liberal economic policy. Aware of Layard’s feelings, Earl Granville, his old colleague at the Foreign Office, advised him nine days after the select committee report that the governorship of the Cape Colony would soon be vacant, should he wish to escape from London.'*? He turned down this kind offer, but when the foreign secretary asked him to be ambassador to Madrid on October 4, Layard accepted. *®° On Octo-

ber 12, he sent his resignation to Gladstone. The letter was full of bitterness and disappointment, directed particularly against the subjugation of his department by the Treasury, despite the fact that he had been on polite, if never intimate terms, with Robert Lowe himself. Layard wrote,

| am convinced that the relations between the Department of Works and the Treasury have now become such that no man who has a proper sense of self respect and who takes the view that I take of the duties of a First Commissioner can hold the office as it is at present constituted. . . . Now that I find that the office is little better than that of a Clerk in the Treasury, and that I am responsible to Parliament and country without having any independent action of my own, I feel that I cannot hold it any longer. *” Layard’s complaint lay chiefly with the lesser officials of the Treasury, among whom the most bothersome was the financial secretary, Acton Smee Ayrton, the radical M.P. for the Tower Hamlets.’® Ironically, Ayrton, who was much admired by Gladstone because of his strict economic views, was also considered a nuisance by Lowe, who often found that his subordinate obstructed the type of direct control he wished to assume over every function of his department.’®? Moreover, Ayrton’s populism must have sorely tried the old Adullamite. And so, given Layard’s resignation and the desirability of separating Lowe and Ayrton, Gladstone adopted the peculiar stratagem of moving Ayrton into Layard’s old place at the Office of Works. When he learned of the new arrangements, Street wrote to Layard: “I. . . can only hope that I may find some of the pleasure in working with your successor that | had in doing so with you.’”'** But there was little chance of this with Acton Ayrton, whose personality was already well known. As Lord Elcho spouted to Layard soon afterward: [ am aghast! at what | have seen in the papers. Can it really be true! You gone from the Board of Works. Ayrton your successor! The only fit man in the Government replaced by the most unfit. ‘5

=Secs eee steed ee 2s aca 2eS Seeessee sieserene See eaeSeen a See Sita SO

SS oes eeREGS: ees eee ae See ee Se eee eeSeats oocae :oes ee eeerEe eae ee Se Bee ere ireGere — Spates

es fo ee SS : ees Be pee eee ee ee Seo Soeteee Seae anes ; eee eeBeiaeee oe ee LER Gage ieeesfe Se eae eaBees ee Le™eee neers ee pepe eee Bice oe ee ees:gee ee ee ees ig 5 Series ee eae Pig a ee parr pk oi Eae 8 aE ee ere eee ere aie ee EE oe

eeSe SOR eeSo ee : eee ee eee rete Soe eoarea Eee ee SE: Shanes Seow Soe = : se iesee Beemer pice Se ice ee eeoe Seger cng er es See So cere a ee: eeSeeee eee Eee eS ee ee oeSe eee eee Soe Bes ee eeseats :eee Ba ieee See 2% picid LE es ee Saas Sees SeeS ee See eaeae aee awaae éee See oseees ee oon Be Se ease LeLE PIE: ee tetaereneg eS eee eee em See eee Soe peace ee ea :ate EP oebeeSEE ee ee teeee oe Ce ee ee

See See Se pe ee ee eeeej ee Psu aaware: aaaeeBee ee eee —eae ——™ ee eS pee eee as ee eee Bee eee eeee see eeeee es eee eck ee ee feRee eee eee sae ee SSgs eaecs Bee esae eeom eee eee seSeige eee eeata eeee pies eeeee eeee— a -eeS-_|:eee oe as es2ee EE 2Keee Paces mae iPEE see pera ees eee Gi ee See aeeae ea SE eee aeis eee S gSo 2cee eae setesee ea rene Bae ees aeuae esSais Perea tame patSee eae Be a eee ees Sa sea iar pac Been ee oeee Ceci eee oe ;::=2.== sees eee Sept eesrPe ee Beets pcos ee es se seetens eee see eee ce esaee Sesee: ee . o: |.=:ee i:.. -,a7Saee a— —eeBee = oeeeeine pies ge eee PRC aeespe Gee Bocrerennee nts eps See Be serene saeSacre Sey eeeseese ee Scsean is Fe Bete Secon Sees seenseran eeeee ici reece eters Sopeeanae pera Seein pomenuee eeesecena ree asm pececsbect anaes racctoneeeae iacn ate easeee See seeBoers eeeeee pies see eects esee Dig eeSeen aprscots Seats aeSn cans eaeSenge Bees “ SSeS ee eeprom : Soa Secatne Berenice. eas Barataria atesesheets Sie ioeSager sehen Sse ssae ate ce Beane are Sets eeeee SR ees et bieeee ie isseca Be on ie: Sea Se Sapte patios Bee ESgeeee ener otOSE ES oo Sect Sk eat Site ep ae Pega Se: arz zs es ataeps seat cestaSaas mioSecon eee 2 Sirsa Beesiecsseeo Soa terecenes F Saiete cant Sie So eee fo aa eee epee Sheet cee acer isos eres Se Se SORES

— ee So ee eS ee ee Ee ee ee ee ee .

RR: : sate Ss ae Sree ee eee : Seas See eae Bane es aaa Ce aa Sasi sea Pe ane See pee Pee seca ene eee a se eres cna ee one Samaras ee es ee i — = : oo eS ene Se Sepa Ss cee ee Aisne eee ee BEE atc eae es aeecerat eee —rr———_ ie 7]:sr. . Stee : Senne Sees REN eee seeSees ee See ae ipares ssarear ee sera sen Bissett Renan See BigPci ei aSe eee Bi PS rg ee ee ere Seec pte are: pes se ae Bc ee ee oe aS ee oe ——— - ._/| = — oe ee iene ane e pers 3RODDED aera Sea Boe egsreeas Benn cnt atone ces Beenie sce eee ee Seer eeSeeee eesBg Sete ikea oe esas Ge reared SSoeeter 3eae Rec Spas eee eae Z: ret eeeappr oeSessa énna ees REseaee: ss Ege isas ee siesta Seats Soy Geta: Beene ssstdpepe eee ewsAap ee ee es gsc cee eaeaepe eee Seceeee Egat

geen seez =SS =sian SsBe ne ieseaete mene oe escent ns Scene zeeaac ceases z 5see enna e we ie Bocca SpA ooSeg eee SsPES carat papas PSE ee aBias esea isoa epee eiacaecaa ceie iineeeceeeSeseer te eee—— ee a= =SS ._ Se ee seen Seea eaPecctee ree eens Ses cers Bite ieee ere eeStearate geahree irate Bie ces Seseeee espace Siae Spe: LS one iin ice me Soaeeee een Beer Scene anaSe meeeogees Se caeSacaccae esee ageee Soran BE Bape aeegg teetaeee Ran Boia tener: ‘ Stine Bicep ee Pecareer ate _Bee ieee < Sos peeBO ee ee eecasnocaatcn ee Senet Sees eaeSetar ae ee Seca aia POOR ic?spices eeeSe ee aeee Bee i Ra iste Se re ee ee SeSe_—Spa a [ aBe |= =:

z —: as = _Fe . _SS | a aSeeegoe ae es ee ee ee ee es ee EE eo eee Se es oe0=Se ee a— eeoeeeseLeSee i eS ee ee oiig OEE

Sa cnr ae eee Bearer Sec pens eryBee ee seeeg es - eee 5 sacra SaraStearns Ee ras es seca aan ie sey ee Ree SSare rec Bente iPeseeps Boerne ee as Spetous fsa as Se oegc —— fe = .er a = =: Seer So =— / See oo rs es aie ace Rac paar oeera ipaar eis eeesete coeeee cree esSeca ceteeaoe eePaiste Soareee aeare seas Sepa pay ater eccencee PD: Poor cariees Poitier Seon eee Rear in es RR Sactteae nas as eae BK seen sre =pita ce Sige ae Bin Sere eneope oe ote “ ees eneBe es ace Reece ee Ago cectat santas See aescecccgeeuser Sadie ae aeoe eta z Bocce Se geeres eee Cee ie sae os Ee ovopanera ata penser EgataezSee GoStgee eee ies Prt Bris Sapa Sane ee Sap Seerterse ce oe _ee eeee: =Sane Le wee :eeoSee 2 8 :

ese 2 eeSee aanoe eeeBe eeeWer FP mae se SaeEE Beane ste Si 53 ee ee pee ee ee see ee ee Eiko _ 2 :__:7= Seeeees orsSSSiete gos Si: orre : ESeeseessc LeBigse SREaeesBeieseers: rae ie eeBesa ee eee eee se: ee eeieBs ee a — ae_coe

ee eee oe ee peeeas BeeSeco Seasee eeee ee ee ae Re es ee: Ss este Biers te es pect hee Se eae zFS: Bee: soe —— re —rrr—= _a Ste ee ee Loe Beer gE EAE Se ee eee ee Se ee Sees Be ph eeSSEe eeessence see ee SeES eetensions pct aeee esiehBeers re Pe Bee an ee 5 eeeae eee SE en rei eeBcIR BEE ee ees eae ————O Seca ane = er z : Sou ears 2econ Saeco eeeoe Re Rte Bie Sie ence eae etn teEE piece eae ers Se eees aesEa es Pais tei PeER astg, a a See 2 es seeREO Bip ase pee Sanses pias aaa eee ee SensBe saan s cetera Sree: ee eSee 8eeee eSpee : Secs : Se fee Sse ieee pees Es Baas see ee eeeee Eee ee Bae : | ,:_.Sie a oo eee a. saeoe perce Pees Re eree ee eraee ipeer Bae ee, ae ste eeSS eee: 5 Tie ere eae Fr Ne Seg a ieee es ee eeee rate pees saeFee ra a LR eas Sees ieeeeee ence ea Spe iaeae ane ss ie ae Specie seee Bs: toBee, eee Se ee Se De ee eee ee Se ee ae eS ee Se EE SS es See es See Eee ere Set eee Sere eecaeHes egee ee eeesEe ees pee eepe Bepisces ae eee Bas eee Fe ee Biiatce eeRage eete ees epee ee Poe eesaees Seesee ee pane ape ee gee eas pecans Sasa eee Bee Bete Bane pu eenee OR reHee Seen te ase poise Sener san PEE eras See esseneer seen te ESE ca ae Rie ere eeeee Spence easeee :pees :| , é:i=S es os oe 7seaape ce .ee | ee _ese _Be eee sees ese ie eat roe eee epee Be Zi See eece imeen ar gece So oben er EE ee Ce eae es ee EE Bae sais eee ee_eeesSee ee SSeS eoaseeeee oss z:ee See eee eee eesae erePere cesES se Freres eae Sse genet pes BeCS ee eeears ee ee Oe Hie eS,ee ee ee Soe as Sees Sen epeeEE eeee eeeee Ser ieee EEE Beate eeee eeos eeGe Bec se ees Se : Sere See oa ees cee ieee se ee LI Sg EE —— — . _ 2. aoe, . aSee - : - | -:=geese par Becatis eee eee Pie eeehe 2 3 Bie a Sees aaBe Bs an eierenemee eee Sas ee Sees Eos Seenioes: 5 Si ecicnnet Se ence ne a pecerence eepee; ae res ee BMG tehsepa ccEsse ee sec popsgee ose Seer eer See gee _ , =See — ss eSe:- o |ees3eS : aePisce:eps - 8BesSonate — ape eereeeeeees ze ee se pee ee eeencase Pe aSs ree 8SeesBE eee eee Seon ee Se Sree z: smears ceca 3 Siete = Seager sate Cos Sates ae ea see Re piconets ee goon eae oes Ra gre sa ee eka tae a ananen ora trees ees iar Sa, aan ae ee Soccer Sencar see apa: cae ees Seer. ee Sa iarearereenee ag ct sense ee Se ee Se

Sects 3 Sse5 : z Seventeen : ocean nen aa Soo pte % peeee comma ase Se oe osee ie igs Eee tag cs Seats Be Pa iene ee Satin ii caeees as cnet: oe ae ae ems aE tr eceeremte teeee eseseias Geese Sie eee ere EEE ee - ee SSE eeioa : See es ee Sepntpane Sie See iiee EEE ee ise ee ee Sees Sates : ates eSSee SS See eee eer=: See eee reie aeeas ee eee ee: See BS Se es Re‘eeSS SEE ae sees ie eres a re Bee Deeg Cra Oe Se BEz3 ORE ge eee Ske : :gaan ee peo eee eeeee Reset eaeeeeee: eseeSs ce CE ae faia EE sata peee ee2eee eee eee ee Sees Se Saceeens neta ee EE Ee Pe Coe eS ee ee eee yo ee ee Sissies eeay= 5 Seeees $3 See BS Seer z : Becca Romie Sewers Se ee ce Bite Geren Seamer eta sii caer eee ee Se Be Se sere eee Pe GEES ce Se _ _ oe ae : : : i ~ea |.= _. =.Py ee ioe aei ee oe Bees Aiea sie ceeee Oees eee Se seen Be Sistema eee: ese ee—ees SSE ace eee Ses ee ee ee ee ck ere Ce ee 5 5 ere et EE Be ee — oe . a Seen : Ses : ee gee ee a ee ee nee ae Baia a eticseri te ee ee eee eee ee _ — a : ce a8 oe a Sateen . oe nes | : 3-- set . =ce_se — Ee ee rae eeeeee Seca aegegece eeSe ee eee Sons :2:eSee seers ee 3s SeBe ne zeee % Seco ecooe eae Pica SE ae MESSae ee stir Sis ee SE _ —et : : oe :: Oo So 6 se ee ee oe ee p eee, ees ee os ee ee ee ee ee ee Se eee eS nee es coe ee See eee ee eee es Pe ae Se eee ee ree Pee ie ae Beet ene ene es peer ee See seas: ee See Se ee 2 _ poe —— eee EE SEES Se eeBere ee eee ee ere Se i fiok LE eee BeSee ee ee eeeeieee 2aspereBee eyee SS eboo osee SS SORE eeegos ee Seeaeeee eeSe estsSee eee Eeee aePOO eee mene EE Bg pam ore ee eetes po ces este eeeee wee ee cee ee Ee eee zie ee “REE - -=ue - ae ee. :Be =oe — aS Sa seen wisp te ee eee ee Ss: OE Eis seen eee eeeos $ ag Pesan Hees eee goa sees eee cee atau esee Beare nae s oe eee eee eseeProse ee Bases: PEL A ge as ee fg ee eegiMeg ee ee See eae ee ee ee eeee ee ET eee, 2 ee es eee amen ee eee ea Bees zs See Spence Bete agcatees Secreta gee gcse cee econ saa 7 s Se eine pee Spas z sr eee 5 ii ipa ces pee fer ae PS Fie aE ee ae smarneiaen eee Bape: es = =e sea Sear pee ame ES Bee ices ece ace Seas eee pe eee

Se eSoe : See eeee Bee eeeeee se eee: ee oe ees ee ee Seee eee Sees a oe — ——re _7:_oO Ce Soe es ee —r— ee eeeeee Be Se oes=. Eee ae ee Sect a EG ee See Ray ake Se eee ees eee ee ee berate ee ae ee Bee Lage SSE SE es ee oe oS = = 2 = oS : oe = a : 2 2eae=eeeeaeeSages i = BR eS SSi = 7 eeeee— ees — ieee eeeeeeeERs :eeee ee: ee eS eeee ee ee Disne EPSe egeoeeoe ee ee eee Ne ee ee eid, § © BS See gee: 2 oi_ eeSeeepee iees ensangre a BREESE ee Perse oe wast eeeee ee Se = SS es SR spe ns ae Ba cee eee seener a pees: Srseereaseactes eae Seat caper Sp Sees wate i Sac ee eee espe eames cat EE REETe Raa PE PE ee et tS pees tains oman SERRE cs ee op csaeonar science Sas Has ae sea eee = _- oe =

cS ee :| 2: oe oe aae - a=ee—— Met psi SE Mca Beaters SYare ike:ay Sesaee ised tee Bisee ‘ Pesan sige aoSe Pe aSeer eas ia aaa Seasss Beree PDee aaa eee OSes Ss ee eeee ee eos eee ee ee PipeEe rae eae Bee EES BEES ge EEE foce ee BEE: eeee ee SS oS a yore eeSseeeeeeeeee ee Be geBiss aeeope | eee Seee Ae 2SeSS ERO re ee

Sees es Sees siesta Sssaaee Secs BE Boe Seevegee aes eee eames ei Sere ant ta Pah sateen Se pe i sca Se ecaee nas Bsc posi eae sche eo Bee as Seige ene ees se “yrs eis: Lee imee Ree eee ee ms ee a ae se eee SEAL secaeeesea eee eee Ses REN aeReieesnteae See ca reeeoe Ce Bees ee oteaeaeeees foie sitecece SRE, ee PE eesenna eee ae See eeee.pipe :See uae anaes : : ss gg eee a eeree ciaoe Bicone pase Se ee See See esonenes Rateartes eo ea ne ee ee é Sata oe SyLB SeeEOE ce SoreDe ets Skea Seca aicieee ree ee eS = te — eae - oi -ee :

: : Sg po Gye Se ee See gE eS cattascr ce Le Doin ae SE ee Ee ee eee * hg Bea Hee eee ee Se - a : = a

| 3 2s aSheet a : : eA - —auppase ee , Eee te Saye Be ensePee ee$ane a - ie Soper pesto Be eee es eons aeaerate SeepesBeta Spe age : =3Seat ae ::>-Seon a sh = sae s Sater coshseae REGi Ce an faBetas cezEePe Reeteen aapae ee tae meat aesSegoe Scie siete Seeseras A cee eee ee — eeee—Ma ae eaeet -= . Be = —y S :. = ess :aaa pS eae ag nee ks aeee Bee ge eee es £5 3NG 2Penns esoeeeBee ss Se E— See coe = ears z eeeeee : Soe cra a ere eames ae sees i,Risoe Se Spe Sere eeeee Eseries seeae Leeee ee eater, ee ee aree Beasts oct tacae Bra ieee teas cae Sioa ESS— Se eee treats aa Serene See See neeee aes sear eeeaeSs see Gist “cetera! pteSee aee eae Sikes an SSR Lanes esae pe ere 33 aceon fai eeBe eee Becisete aee ee eee Zee ieSoce neoo ee ee= see ee See ae pa pe : pcee e Be ae awe sre eee Bees Secon ee Be ees gp sae DORMS a eat ica eee ae ee — ee _ — Sees Se Saas enna oe é es ceeee eee eeesies aaa peesoeoeze Sa Het Se a Ee i Bes Sise re eee Sppeieases ese ee Feces Bee ee-aa: SS os Shoe :ee Sees een Gees mene ire See ee : Se a See ccens ic =— , = Sater ci Basie Pobre Hee EE Gen SEE Sears oeEE Peers Bee vee. eeee ee| sae gee crcee ere Ee tgaLae cate to So eeae ieee 7-=ce es 5 See c ee ; Sere Sie Be a Sean eae E Gee ee oe ESE ees I oe ee ee EEE ee. _ SS Sa pep Spas aaa Be eae Seen as puree Bedesaepnp cnatte a Bape Pisce Cae ee eeco tg fat ee PROBE Serge soeeee ei ee Bria oe ae epee Sapeee ian Sec tine See EyBe Pr se SSSean: : Sooner Serre pase Bienes Sepees eeesae SE83FeBein, ee as eeing eeeetaceca ORES IEEE hn GE aestes saeeee eee = Bs teePeta tes aBeer ie eee Bieace sees ee| -_ -

Sw Se 2eecea : ee 2eegaBe Pee eeaeiseo ee se ee Aa a. 5ee ee ee EEPe ee see aii Se See ee Pe ee ee ee ;|' |ae eS eeee eeBees lisea eee Boies eee seeee ee eee ee Bie eS eesSe =~ ee Soetate See eS pionanons pence gg ;= Lo eae eeee i 3:ee aFe ys #3. eeak es aes eect creme Ass See eee esa Tee :Sey -2= |: 3|| ::a=Pe -ES ,ee— seeesy eR 3tae, oD Se aaestore ee © SSeBi eee 3eects cee RNR gee .8ee-Sie? : eee : ee ee Reg aSyeeEee se eee BE: apees Sosa LEE: eeSeacoast ee *aee fiBa feeaee oe Bs REE 2 ee EOS ja ae eeeLee - 33733 eRe eaEeo Galbk eeoe Pea a oe Pits eea nas ha Feome, if $4 stseS 3 iOX oo SSe sen Ore aehee | 3)eer eee, J ees Pee Beitneeectees: penne 2ee ee Bee 4+eS: me tee Se ee. ete eR Ee aif eee Bt, eee BF oi eS te grat aSsFi sieeae 2eeae Bee eeee peak dt srae ee eSay SeSpee Fas 38cnaoe 1cr ey eeeee ee egaes ae.Sige Bae ore Ti Reece sebtet Ge33 PS Be een ae ont tiogd oe eee 3g Pg geeee eee a‘Eee aeis —— 3 x33x SE Se eee eX ih saree erasSee prrrr - ES ir 3 eo 4 es ee 3 Seer. deteeee pkzio a WSs 73 a ae, 7, Bg ees sheeEOS reekBSR AES ceees FSepeti caer eaeOO yyiea ee a go S SOLS oe Ka oe. 22 es a Be eee ee: Sa erss. Se a eee % mE EE po eee pe eee 6 S283, tN iBIST eR ¥gst pee OEE hae aa eat et : Se ie one OG i fo BES: | ee 23wk Heed S=ae geeeas ae gee ‘eae RES ereOr Nees oeBe > Se 770eS +, 4373 ee 3% ee,‘ eae wegtie =Aae. i SkSia POO Sy Seesot Pers ES ot SBT pe GO eee 5oe ri ASs See EeSE +AE aie +ilBE WAS \ Js ee —@ : Sn oat ene oe ==n& oeia 3: at Fee set agg Ba Ei A Bo 2See vm ee PE eee Fete 9 esse? Crh oe sera stbe eee oO}aoeiF f;*pens hs .¥NG ay = Sees SESS Se. bee Oe a eget a.Sees Sone Ho ae EY,PF oJ ea z Sy 32Rass Psy Ge 3m ¢ B42? 2 ee eeeee Pe is

ed See OS,asBlt gineee eteseFoe eee o> ee ¢are fs Wg ue eesseer: 3E= 24 33 dd wee e= 2, ie 77 eee > EES, PeesSees 3 peosae8SEEK eee Fe Sf eS , aeoeSeSeFF3 > eSBeeee ze hl Oe geo eee nt “>< : | OE, ee aS soe GEsig a eer os EO et et osaase ms wee ee eSeyae: : 3% 35 12352 e weeoe# Rowse. & ge a oto eeeBr, ae epee eng petic: atBit pee 1 He 3S ES8pee a: ae Hee 8 Gee pees t Be cet ee Siew ¢a.Somers ge eo ee ge See eee peegir 33 2S Peri ’ Sy e.g theres ro Seg tt i eta te eS ee ES Oe Se tote .2 Pes fiesta” Rests a3ee 2Rey tit: rtd>RS Ae eiee w/42; ‘Se \@84) as ApS : = :ee ZSree z 224 Ne oeBES — $3 Pg eee ie: Etats

SSZZ ern 3xsEE = ee ee 33 eeaeSpee ite ee aANT, a ree Tee Hat BePa See = oon LENasssae “A, «ee #Bs eeaiEeStes coe | AY bie eB BE EP5:ea:eee Lee nePork ee ee2gee iF gefeye azwists fa je i ge aepe ie 7seg LE eee SS ES33>: Sei Sy 2*tinge tiereiae e ee Pe aepidgitge : See =) tities. ad Zs ee Z = = ai i 5:2G A hs es 1 ie 3 ae > ee ee. aN eae Fire Oe Ye Ke oe: pane|p)Sw SegaRe fe i43 beyBit i¥5: eseS 324% i ggSet 7 BS i; ee HE. BEC ey ‘rnc S

Sager esRS woe oe Hissss ifypehs ee58i‘ Age nies 2BA ee Ee eS Aepears adSA £2oe DIAS tae ie ? sted, uy TE wees nde ahSR PE de Hee iS 3i 837 Aer? cay =ee | £F ! .ae Fil. is |i= e#3 ie :i EriRare :Be: 2= =os=ee := ‘ie aeeeieeae a .A ideeeNoe f3#3,227: SH ie©. -. Pitt Ps % asAs eae SSigs poOS aan SEE $82.3 £35 Eesige issEN co pe Pas age Sieg ij i a, rca Je Yi 3 € a Pil ia: > Bee sie) 84 : es —.. gig. £ Me a Ps Fy 5 ees Wee} \ vee gi bees i a | i P- : Ha cs | | | i) =

betas bee ae 3 EE eS, * seas Benes sae x ae Ses eS “3 fm i ee cs. g as * eee 3% ¥iF a ER 5 es : te | ¥¥ gee Bae geoy } agai} io * 4 af oe es * bs ee F oe 3 Bates” .*: BP eee SiStt eee ie £3 i Ete ce BRS a ee 2:1, 22 ss * 3314 ‘ : i = Sere es Srey S ee fitsPike is ee tie#24 BEfet, 4?S33 Se?2 3tSgeeess Seegee 3381ee*~ie: Baeegfe Ready fF:2333 %. Fei $33ae% i2:aBBS E33a3oF beet esas as 33. 2oS4FESS: ee | $333 eee et $e ee:Pgs: aie: : s Ste BES: Es Soe: LER BesSee eas se Pee BS aei 26s Pertace, - 2:23 pits=. t4ya7 *. Reg xd 3e#oH #2. } B Be Bis 3, Prise ea: bane chan5 aoe SoSai 5" TARE Sige es B eee 2h 3eefice i¢ 3 ee Seer es.$36 Fiz$334 aH, eeeVoge 2 ae paeed 3. CPE F 5e1 f25% 33Rik ee?| LEER Soe B :ES 2.4 eee 43tees 3 ee SesSoe i : Sees tee.in«2° “ feee eSBees, 82a 7% Perit peed 2$°2 Fwpe +3.age A SELES #; Seer e Fee oe Rate sees ateGrr ‘3 ee a oS $3.35 Secs $e 3ittee Beeess i Gee ce Hse Seed Bee AM Paige iv see 8B ee&Pe 5> £2 “\ 2+“5& Patios 437 33, #1 Bea 2e teSees greet, |os 84fhide olegsee EsSee. 2G aSiete “HesFgLis® oe2 2pH ae ig Eee Ae 2 SEB EST Y gee 13s ie:Ge eeFE eee se ge aa Es ee 2#ifat aefa es#343 Bees Eee eS os ee ie ea «= ee Se ae © SeePSS PS Fe 3 eae Secess ee Pes sess 2 iy§ pe * £Sites =em2? eee 3223:bo BGEES Ets - Se de.age eeseet: Se Ao crete . SaHFS o; Ey" 2 aes & ie: 8:Pe ES$eFae 3 ee YYEee cs i? ~ S. 2Ssi 22 2 =- ae ieee ead | aap Oe Baik he 4 eres Bain? arisP& Z ee ee see Se % ost&OH s > aes = 5£5 ae%ae9res 5th ese Sie? eee: Bues See EeSteae cases ee Fgee | yeeeete —— oe vA us xf a aane ge :ag erin s. ¥iz: te ee Beaaay T 2HE taechee » Zs (Rt oe eee 5 * hs p ree3¥@ mY: Geefisped 18ies SBP ee aid: fic f=. 4 Shige € =Ea t : ice HitBag hesedy Seegee gee aout geesaSee ree| 4a ox

a oa geet ages AS ge t+ A Bee F oo Bee 5 oe Seu: even eae “3 aS 2s ete eee “YZ ea ete ‘S i. ES eae ead ate Pe fee i tes tgs. ie bees ad. £3 33 Segeeece =~ “SG SIR ee fates Sess Se eee *, en, 3 ee oe = s Py ee ae SS meee paso pea ‘2 E: we we Bafe fe a TK S2 Seeisi 2 Se 72 %+ aeee eshots a 33S Soe ere ees22... = J BTS8S 5 &ad FFE7H i -c> tae 7! peeps Seeoe eteat4sda ¢ Stigh 2 32Peseigaeepee 5 Toskt inst Seetig= it Ser *gece ‘ Beea ete gk nig See hie oe 27S 3 tes3Fos mn =coun _ * Sete ee sims a Se *gee ee eee oo*4{ek a sh - | aeBee Snack 2.eS hioe BAS oe SE *os5%8eens ay ee PS ges ae oe +) Sige Bees Fir AS He Oe eg et BES 8, giaiagin 22Ptagg | Bass S ocSE > 2S SBS ee*ceed 6~See eg&rsee ee EsGe eeoo: ; oo : be > ANS ~~EEE S ete| cree S ae fe ee Cee Se pO a Nee e# FB&fiPiMerges aft igi isltsy U3 Sadi ae eg gee SS en Seow: eee. 4% tee & -xe

& Sort > “See Pa gee OE 62ae Si ee5SsEphaee ¢BE Samm aehts” sHea gs ie aPee eBat See aefMedes oe — a: e 4. & ‘aS S. eadens nine ates seeeeee ee feet SeCee Se evig? 5S SESk *‘fh. ‘mine eeaOthe e.a* Bitioae FHg ae. 33 Mek ?aeEee i ela i>te4 Secpate scheBe oe iee ee % 28 De aaGeese Sen >reaaeae: aa aelle: a eee Co eS ee Pm ”ist sswe we

gn nade 5 De ak OO ee Pe : Be EE A ae ae en Ge ee ee Pie eres pee ee ee pees e pe COOLED cy elt OSE &

is hae8:teiS > -epee oS gosedPi,ae J se ee oes ae Se Pe ee esZ fe 3po leenh. eS Fee Feee Peters «Sse St Sees gipie I eeee es #: ee Cee. 12 titieseeBoe ke Pee PeeeBe eessre eeei eee at eeBE Eee eSPESe , eee sg apeseed :TR Sa ef ;eee ’ arnt it: ee hs© ee? hae Bee 235SS. xhezy 2Pe eee eee tata,ag eae pee = pia eeok Seay pe ee ! ae OE ee CM Ee ae wreer ist te Se 2 ie : ee ee oa E ee e Jew 6 Ie ee ee Se eS a ee ee j ge wg a ee 2% 1 3. eo = 4 *. Bees bs @ ee es ee 2 BS Beer eeerer eee es Sp ae ee EI ee ea mend 2 ee ae BBs eres Ge eecesenee ase eee (ft ist Bee = | seR eees“WA, ae eoot 5Be eee ee, ooPare eeaeee ec6 ee ee2Be ee 4Soe ee ee ceeee feett eats Bee pee 7Stae33° etstwiee £; gi ae eeie a Be ceei ea go we eSsconel ee eeee Se ne eS ee ee targn OE a: ee er) Zi eee 7% fe “4eee ReOT eee be Oopig ee 4EF eeRS Te2ihe di BRE eeEe pa ae fees areee 2 bees Ey ESMeh, Sfee eee wee > pPee EEeee ee ae

we.OO SOR UA Cre ee 2eeee Mal 6 ews tid MORE Se: Jes tee A 0 MR EES ee Pee ee PS nr CR re ee oes ee ee | BA eh ek hee + et t= eee te LR CtisCi‘iC ct gp TRIES PR A SR VR i ee ee ON eee Ff I I ee Ee Bi ee ee a Re Ee ee: RY yy 8 ee re

MS *ee 4 Peres Sees aBet AS KeNs geeeee oe gt eeeOg oeeS. Sore: rassae BREE F, ay. Baer ae ae anaE pitteg Rea ee See ee Spi, Rae eee beeee: Le i.Ege et SR Ss @ eet em eebaer ee oo ee oeae -*5GOES tet EkeOsRam ee riegee a| ripe iia semester eater Binge ne aBeee me a8 tee Eeefee ee Pee. 5Sage ee ee eS BI eeaDearne aleeSee SER ET BOSE etDE DM AT Iteeta eS eeeeUe ee¢ isee BS eee: » mu eee a=>ae Poa seo Nias ME i.es£2 eeeRe Se se beh BeeCie. tp caReh cae mete ee es eee Be ote 3os LESS ON IE NS eae Reco as gis OOMe Pe ek BeOhne ae ett Be ware Se cee Gee Boones te :Be 5) Bees ee akSee eg he hen i tan em a i RE RS I ee ON ee i ee ree wees i fee ages ES OS NS AO ee a IA Ee fag rk. AS 4 ie a x ee ee eAfoeeMe i. Sp BS AAS EE PE— EA ee ee ee i (i)RA aSoeage OF aBSee See mic: 6antec ae eh ee kf oFoe 3NS Bt SN HE Sea PEP Sets Sect Sere fan se ee we} ail} “Ete See aneSd eeeSys fs Pred ee-SS. ae606UmUlhU ae3 pe Be eee eeee t bees 22 kede tee eeisBe SERS ee agaie em te cet a Bee Sateen ees BS Res Beet: Baoe aetw-BAR SS ‘nar ba =e bPSees Bae i Sonne te>.eee rae ee. ‘arte ie et eg Sead A Seeged «3 aeho? Ba ‘$3 Ray? 5 ye - pees agMe Score ROP Sabie = Os Bs 3esoe Seea :Bee bseer Aik Pe Res¥gE 42eden nee 4eegpDekel aaa a {es nn” fiaeeSere aseeYapa aeeEeee ee oe |aaeae eres Eo25 =v7 gi eo eokae ESee WESe Pte Bespesmi meets ed seen pies neBe aeBere mersFESS Steam Rega 6 WOOT &F 2: Beit My Te ieta; es 5ea es ae bgt ©ae.ape i;Bee iste Ber b iSite 5SE4SS$e ‘ SLO ed gee igns EAE een eeEe Ehacta ae on ee : vy ‘¥ so ese Rigs Des 2033 ees %i eet Co PR aee ~Fe Ee *5pesigif : | : eres fe; is‘Sate Seaed cA Oa a pe Eetpg ee=geese: E us oeub Sas, b..Pree YNfA $y eee ae ees Si 23 tees ge tt23 eeBe Pee ete 2 Be ae Bee eSAgi 8=a §i eres ; PO UAS 3=+2. ig28 2 eerie “ Seas eee pees eee ns eet eens ee aks Bees 3es3 Ga, pe oS Ae ANBE Eg aotaee ee EE ae Eg ke eg ee AEe ee *CEN eeeaoa, : A” eeeeeee aeeae ee eB 8 A ee OPE 2eeTUB ety, Bee ceSe Ce ee” 5, Gene ae ee ee ee ES TEE Ea eS RSggaM4 a Le CRM ee S $aalge BS pee oe eeeAeee g ie2. ee 2 ah a MSRG INESi CM ee aepe eeeBg Gea“Itee Eee ns ee meee Ss ee fie @re fa eSeressind ABeIA ee ee eea aeg aE aeSates, tw 2,BO % ee eSp .> SE aaSneeOC aeGees ea Gee, eee,oeeee ee eae Rt” Gg Bees a igh eee ar8Soke ee ee Gees ss ee oe ire>§pee 8“od 43eae5SIAPIS eeage a ae 2 ‘hEET eee ayoyaOo 2 eens Nae i kd ahs i 4axBe 8reetS ae. Pa Se eet ae Se tess BsBe OR Cees eee OR Be eSae SOE Re : see 3 ee ee uate o¢ RAR, See! S| oe4h OS FE Bt, eoigee iadee Bee ngfePete te ge &>F> gee ee, *y koSi am? : eet n. A aea a | eee tee te= > he> UE eesde egpeas eo! ettte AS MoH a&Eh MR eae5SS Mapes ere BeSeem! eee ie.ae finda AS oeCL a ag eT EEER A a%Ea

oe ge ae — a ae 2 18 we a2 ter, % ae i wee ees Se Cotes * : ate r 2", _ eed 32° 3 eee 5 & es, coe © ge . a 3 3 ee enh r es. Pe 4 dL Me .. U“g ky he ah 6 1.4 |

5% . ‘Raeia ee, ee Se ¥ Fee >SS. .eyBees eSaeaee7st ; .gpSarre ee. “ee eee Fe, & See ee eeeae fai)ee ; etyRC sors EY r ges & NS *, 5 ill52 Gee OE OSee BFS! RN EEE: wo BENS sseet neo bein ts byteste Eee oisae eeece VEE ea. 27 :§ BS 3h 8 Se Geeote eee ei*a£ :bse Soaitign, “OySs ~ amerpaceies “OE.te * ~BE ue at ,

: Zaie Sons te osts Be fee ee aSpare ee eneeeea Re * Fsecsreierseaersce, NS es _ ee ae pa? ay &43 tae>OOS hecin et ae’, Aaneee 7 ee ea,See ee Se Ee ‘tae ee Bee 4we eseer pee£2 hey%* es ee Sheet ee eee ae OES fF te,ANAS fs 2S Bei “ - ee & Jee ss of - AtbE. Phuke é. jae y 5? .ee an,FSS 4 HE ee gei oe. Ps as teeFasee, Bee Se ee

SS 0lUlU ieee Aa,oe. —Gem OFT =Ssi“(i‘zéizg:«n «.. eee ieee ee a ~~ eT EEO OR Oe etPaes+SPes, ns *Be. Ye4 ia {t a Se ie ae ee Pea Pg eee ee oe Sr aepe, Trws eM Aoor jim i(**i ieee ZX: ihe! Bee ePORE SS tm th RS qe 4 Ses . 2.aGk. meee wae oe mm, Ae“Nee OR2 eee aeity Se eee eaeeee sods ~gt ee eeee ee *, Se eee. g *TE OP ate si ee S, “i a ee ae ee, FD eeeae gaa eed - we OF ee : osTae AM ob Be, s+ib.SP att :,sey ssere 6 Pee a ee ZoBien 1s,Fee Ogteee ee ee

te? Ane Seeeeeee, ee| Se, 7 mT < “SD Bieaeet net EP Pigcae ee”.Te * Ai Ta eerie Ee eerie ee ee eeee, OP eo Mee. ee Seg he OE aai. Nea 2 EEE ETE eeee Ie eS a |te page= = ee, Ze me OY ne eS ME PRN ES ole IE UN ee aCeHee ST. ea SR SEE AGERE i,ee =,Me Otst— Fes) itnemea >5Pas abe eegeeee sc ee ena tT. B. eT, .Fi£ PF 4 th PLR eo TE BiRE peee ee ee Fe Bee ee eee a emacs Seeen Fs Ee 457 me 2,6.‘“eB5ae ex": Be.iBo eedAeae ace gene ay eePUM ne ™ BP onSes My + £ pea Se2.” 8. se Peete FA Bee een fo rere eeeCa ‘ss ae tae ee 2FS Eee aBE eS PR paeseses f all BBR |. Reese eeeee eae cee eens eeceesmenceermmmeeeeres «RREE : ee eee >2>>oe > “Ben eee :a$74 g:: => 4fe Sec* es 4 ee Oe: P ose ee oe se aeMg Be % Se 4 oe ogee. PZ zg PreMe 2 * PrEt Berae Gets en Seeeeeeeen Seance aSFZ Bere Peat.” seers eee eee Si chhaee eee ceec teeta be ieee bees ~ See ae Pn, FE ms Ee e tts Fg See eae aaa eaters age rae A ORS Bi, ide aie Se Binnie & Boros me. Seema me: Pe ee EERE SS OR ca

& me ES “a se ee ie ee 3 eee Sie: * oe = = me Be teent ~% wee oe BB oe 2 BS Li ge os go ee eee a Ee ee : % ~ Lm, =F: ee Lane sn QlE: Be FFP, se EEE

| oe NL O_RSSENEOS ISh SSSE eS eeeew eeee2sFee Se Bee 8=60G aP4See Pee WOT eauee TEFce ee ee, ee erot, $ ON cole Late, \ees Mae, | 3wee *e :ae >, ta oe. 7 Ss Vee” ae” EP Oe BP ee, ee Bee ~ fas Seti me htt Cee Se or ke tft. e. 2 eS y S&S Bees, et geen Bree 2

A " As \ / \ SS 7 Bate aA a es

—

eK

A SG ee % q MjWo ? \\ Ga = = ‘YY ;“ if / SS 2SE a i FZ | SSS ie _ A \ NG

} RLS Ai wh SS ; ome

2 ON S Far)

RS: ree | oe ANON: SS a SS ..

! esee SNi

' ca =e Seen ee PS ee :

op

SSS. SSS LSE

SSS SSS SS \\;ESS fe SSS SS Sp -| : WSS SS ee a: WSS ~_ CESS aeSSSSaaS SSL

CSS l SQ Hil iy ;

NS SSS aT MSS

re | Hy

WSs SSS SSS SS === SS e— |l il IT

| SSSSSSSNEESSEEESSS 87 Acton Smee Ayrton. (Illus- oe (S> trated London News, 16 May 1857.)

208 The Law Courts Ayrton soon reshaped the Office of Works to reflect his economical views. Even Fergusson, no friend of contemporary architects, felt uncomfortable under his antiart regime, and soon resigned. The position invented for him by Layard was abolished, and a director of works was appointed to deal with the architectural work of the department.° This post was filled by Douglas Galton (1822-99), a former captain in the Royal Engineers, apparently at the insistence of Gladstone and Lowe.’

Despite their awkward introduction, Galton and Ayrton were united quickly by similar objectives.

Galton was no artist, but he had had substantial experience in architectural design and construction. Although he had come to the Office of Works after eight years as the assistant undersecretary of state for war responsible for Army finances, in his previous service with the engineers he had built fortifications at Malta and Gibraltar, with adjunct service as the secretary of the railway department of the Board of Trade. In 1859, he had been named assistant inspector of fortifications, with a special charge to improve military hospitals in light of the terrible lessons taught by the Crimean War. Galton’s principal architectural work was the enormous, meagerly classical Herbert Hospital at Woolwich, erected in 1859—60—the first large pavilion system hospital in England.® He also developed a successful ventilating fireplace and wrote substantially on the design of healthful buildings.? Ayrton must have viewed him as a safe architectural adviser—uninterested in costly ornamental features and oblivious to stylistic controversy. The other architectural adviser in Ayrton’s office was a man of longer standing

with the department, Henry A. Hunt (1810-89), who had served as the surveyor of works and public buildings since 1856. Although Hunt provided the office with a great reservoir of common sense and experience, he was no artist either, and he had no aversion in principle to the tight economy advocated by the new, politically appointed head of the department. A professional surveyor, Hunt had an unusual civil service position that allowed him to maintain his lucrative partnership in the private surveying firm of Hunt, Stephenson, and Jones. George Russell, the administrative secretary of works, was also inclined to accept the philosophy of the new regime. He had been advanced from the post of assistant secretary by Layard and was said to be “very highly connected” in social circles. '° Indeed, Lowe characterized him as almost “too great a swell” for the job.” The first dramatic evidence of the new attitude at the Office of Works was the handling of the design for a new block of offices at the General Post Office. In fact, James Williams, an official of the department, had already prepared a design for the new building on the authority of Layard. But Ayrton claimed the project as his own, determined to publicize as much as possible this decision to function without the services of a private architect. At the cornerstone ceremony on December 16, 1870, he preached on the themes of economy and utility in public architecture.’ This was rightly construed as a threat to give all Government design work to civil servants, and to tighten the controls over every architect already working on a public building. George Gilbert Scott, who had been commissioned in 1869 to build the new Home and Colonial Offices adjacent to his Foreign and India Offices, was one who suffered at the hands of the new commissioner. Ayrton ordered him to eliminate the corner towers of the Whitehall facade of his building in order to save money. Scott

The Final Plan 209 complained that his “scheme ha[d] been greatly impoverished for economy’s sake,”

but, despite continued efforts, he was unable to reinstate the original design. | Alfred Waterhouse was more successful in undoing Ayrton’s harm to his plans for the Natural History Museum. When the building tenders were received in September 1872, all exceeded the two-year-old estimate of £300,000, and Ayrton demanded reductions to meet that expenditure ceiling. The Treasury interceded and worked out a compromise of £330,000, but substantial alterations in materials and ornamental work were still required. Waterhouse’s intended towers on either side of the main entrance were replaced by short spires, but the original towers were restored by the Conservatives in 1878 after a campaign on their behalf by the architect. Ayrton reserved the worst for E. M. Barry, whose commission to rebuild the National Gallery never amounted to more than the construction of a few new rooms and the refitting of some others. Moreover, in January 1870, the Office of Works abruptly severed his connection with the Houses of Parliament, where he had directed work since the death of his father. He was curtly ordered to hand over all construction plans and other drawings in a letter which one M. P. said “no gentleman would send to his butler.”"5 Barry protested his treatment to Gladstone, who referred the matter to Robert Lowe with the sympathetic observation that the architect had “suffered severely and most undeservedly though unavoidably from the course which things ultimately took in regard to the competition for the designs of the new Law Courts.’"® But Lowe did not interfere in Ayrton’s business, and although Barry wrote again to Gladstone to press his complaint in April, the prime minister only expressed his regret for his “inconvenience.”’? This melancholy sequel to Barry’s misfortune in the law courts contest marked the effective end of his career, although he served as the architectural professor of the Royal Académy from 1873 until his death in 1880. Fortunately, Street was not similarly humiliated. Ayrton subjected his design for the law courts to the same kind of economic reductions imposed on the government offices and the Natural History Museum, but his resistance was staunch and his friends were powerful. Like Waterhouse, he was able to have some of the lost features restored after a change of Government. His relationship with Ayrton was not happy, however.

Fresh Designs for Aces AYRTON officially took office on October 26, 1869, but he does not

Carey Street seem to have contacted Street about the law courts until the end of the year. He was not eager to pursue any program requiring expenditure. His correspondence with Roundell Palmer in November, however, suggests that he had already decided against the Embankment site.'® In the meantime, the Royal Commission and Street

left their quarters in Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Portugal Street. The commission moved to 7 Lancaster Place, while Street established a special law courts office in a temporary building on the acquired site, just behind the Carey Street hoarding. Here he assembled a separate staff to work on his single largest commission.

When Ayrton met with Street on December 31, 1869, he chose to instruct him directly, as Layard had done, rather than accept the intermediation of the Royal Commission. As this left nothing at all for the commission to do, it did not meet

2 10

he L

O

yer u

ee . 8 CO C br oo Soe . . ee a | : ee _ ign e - ae RE

7. 8 _la: iesene TZ . ee —i aees ee oe — .. €WSS

83ucaw C ane RS rts ee 18 7 sub ed C SEN % M ee Lake SY 1%

C e, x seSSE x renXX ey S. See P an, R ttex ro Meron . 50 6 iM ap Red vel Meo mae oe fee Re __ ee buce Ju ee _.ee es: pea |_Soe oo Roe ani truc tte dLe re y.) __ae ey npea 7° HA 1M ted 17 eeZ7See ubr 18 °me ~ Soote cCo lock ne t tr de ee eS

eSee_a. nensysl aoe _Soe ee (D € ER iSens

3 :.. bth Sees ans ee _ 1 nD 0 : Soe . : es ons ree e 1 ie _ ee e ae __ al tad th 8prJu ess, Bess | Wee en .th at ce 10 ee _ re ° ad 6 " ee . eee i d>e9iv, es XX _un Kees a y3yep and ee ‘da ca {S ac ed H7 . tC 0 Se eae xs SY v4 ne S06 os Xe x (x ace SK xe Sx eM

bl t,re bpla rton €uch on prdfsal du 18 Wk yon in _. eCc nsre the7____Bs 8 am Nn uctrSoul O fiyo Pp e ewh oe

18 e S se ti es| r r n _. Bs 7 fe nti 10 SI th st t a of su eb r A ing ST i u alf e 7 Ww ‘vi y hj e n ne 0 m rlit aiv. T 6 | . M e eee ae ats ee Si to is u nl m 0 S |

t tO A th MaOart Nn vis Jen. e h h Se S508 Bs OS een 8 RRR

Ta yt es \sgh € eC an 6e€ Cse )be1ey CxX 1 id _eee ‘“es A es sO of n,hO wo ired fay arg 187 40 ng t pti ec t e ti : C ‘ I I Pp LX d wing drib, alt thons thmes tk 8 ed | rely rs }Fiatr09ons red ae pr 5uted the Re0.5O(see pro upcritior Id theiao Ww SS

pled by pla the IT Be de a yesh °: € to the a

ae e a re aow d t m m|Ssee tythu n I u | th 5 O C of O in r e i g O € al t eb n th t r.” ed

it db ytsen ns HNo nemi SI an O 5nee sit to A nwd oe use mus © las —— the Crai ereCc th of ut li Ofor SeveiSSI hee eC Vj io ,in5)OIthSin es] S]

S fu nd et! ct pas co O ne Isu nth n ev tre u ns gn

On cel ae i 18 tio ns e ord m tm rtl int ad

to m ij n 6 nron re er fstad cu aie I uA _A50mhvith ue ru ed et rch a ssionof£eall sa th fihre7°

S C e Cc a e n Cc u hee C OSeis a e re 1 Saan n’ mows =ee©

ss co i= C me = “he fr heeaette

yste ed hei 25 ,on 750 we hn ye ithi our ry cted rst ¢ aw fre m: 5 tre ly £7 ,OOO n ar.” oOwiWwW CO odimofeSi signn’ s re him In ex ts . 20IIthe th swe Pl urtsh

i te © ioOg 18 ub Oi hW t sede dbit ithoa re vid at em 9 en enof

Nn th n re 6 m ‘e) O a S e

gaema ma noaf f thhe pl ,hats me tted asper | ex er mef at thve imiawa ce er 186ere str Pe) | SO | t feor alnedsSu O ub he un SOftatwo d eet nd er ean.nd leh1gtea on red e ds

e tigh hoff O ,While st at ’yst Ou 1 ch wete ertyttsS~U re th to h re h tt ru ned taiad t ew offien f eome st i 4ee cti th aftie re = t Ww om iefo bret t y O m a S ed t a n r r t 1S ead SS ’ ith CO te lo e€a aud he €ro isrtstesub ete eff ouate f© m at tr Q ks qui em ul el tI e el 00 y ; ir | « or t O nrtu Cc e y S re pa S r WwW C ed arto w al OF solu cau fout Th at St ite. Ne dril em pla ion op se r e si al d at at ain n of do imipl spe V5 ce ly,er ad con. of ‘ee eni erantioght |m fro cctee Bu ed ,d inBS nlid°of th Irs 2publi ordi al” esi tsim eT 9° Iomral aop ign ctstai nl ted cta Ic aeIn fe nttO heth pr ce ae afeCO sh yb n to C pl ntri ntil a lev sou atte ar i ovid ed th g m iaing > ed V rstich, chi ~ ea p nd ildi P ionpnose th Wi togall nar ose ‘hk. ith ime mot two sio e it ply m some pt d pac ofne les sweroflo

oat ri a neat ion nn

e€ t . r :

| uS ntr pchinl]in

The Final Plan 211 Despite the compression of the central block, the design required some adjustment of the western boundary of the site. Street suggested exchanging property with Clement’s Inn and purchasing some additional land in order to provide a rectangular building plot. He also recommended the demolition of St. Clement Danes, which

would “entirely fail to harmonize” with the new Gothic building, and vaguely proposed to build a replacement west of the courts. But if this removal could not be accomplished, he had contingency plans to tuck back the southwest corner of the

building, opening the space between it and the existing church and providing a courtyard for carriages. In the now familiar manner of these experimental block plans, Street had been instructed to prepare no elevations, and his report made few allusions to the artistic considerations of the design. But he did plead for the acquisition and preservation of as much open ground as possible around the building, and he noted that the roof of the hall would be visible above the surrounding offices and courts. Because of the reduced budget, Street reported that “very decorative work” would be ruled out, although, he wrote: “It will be possible, I hope, to build solidly, and with due regard to the Architectural effect of the building.” From the start he seemed committed to the simple, weighty massing of the Early French in his work for Ayrton.

Ayrton asked Galton and Hunt to report on this plan, and they evidently criticized the modest provision for spectators.?? On April 19, Street submitted revised plans which restored separate public stairs for each pair of courts.”4 But Hunt and Galton made more sweeping complaints, later described as “objections . . . to the crowded position of the courts and their accessories around the Central Hall,” and Street was asked to reconsider his proposal more thoroughly.”* When Street submitted a report and his second set of block plans of 1870 on June 17, he admitted that he had again been compelled to give up the “main feature” of the plan approved by the Royal Commission, namely, the “quadrilateral” arrangement of courts and offices in a concentric pattern around the central hall (Fig. 89).”° He had widened the main block by 30 feet to provide better light and ventilation, but this involved sacrificing all but a fragment of the southern wing. To replace the lost office space, Street lengthened, widened, and increased the height of the corresponding northern wing. With its remaining single block on the north side of the site, the design was now the mirror image of his Carey Street design of May 1860, which had one range of offices to the south. The reversed orientation permitted Street to create a forecourt, 55 feet deep, between the main block and the Strand, and he argued that this feature would be “very advantageous to the effect of the building on the side on which it will be most seen, and where the effects of light and shade will always be the best.”?? Evidently he sought to recreate the type of open setting that he had come to appreciate on the Embankment. Immersed in this incessant work of revision, Street began to find it easier to set aside theory and allow his work to be shaped by the interaction between such visual considerations and the remorseless practicalities of the program. In the end, Galton and Hunt gave this design their lukewarm endorsement, advising Ayrton that “the revised plan is an improvement upon the previous plan; but the buildings are still somewhat crowded around and overshadowed by the Central Hall.”?® They stressed the need for additional land, the cost of which they

212 The Law Courts estimated at £53,000, but they concluded that the building itself could be erected for the statutory amount. This was sufficient approval for the first commissioner, who forwarded the plans to the Treasury on July 2.2? However, in an accompanying letter, Ayrton warned that it would be necessary to acquire additional land to the west, as Street had requested. Ashamed at this suggestion of increased expense, he sweetened the bad news with the troubling observation that Street’s design included “some architectural features of an extremely expensive character which do not in the least affect the purposes for which the buildings are to be erected and which it may be found desirable to modify or dispense with altogether. 3° Naturally, this financial aside alarmed the officials of the Treasury, and on July

7, Robert Lowe drafted a minute in which he declined to approve the plans." Gladstone had placed the chancellor under relentless pressure to economize, and he was determined not to allow his annoying former assistant to upset his strict bud-

get.” As a result, Lowe reviewed the design in harsh financial terms. He flatly refused the requested expenditure for additional land, and he seized Ayrton’s suggestion and criticized some of the seemingly extravagant architectural details. Lowe’s recommendations were specific and provocative: “The Central Hall is unnecessarily

large, both in respect to its height and to its width, and. . . by lowering it a large amount of additional accommodation might be secured, while by narrowing it even more room might be gained either for more buildings or for more light.” Similarly, he questioned the generous provisions made for retiring rooms, waiting rooms, and even entire departments. The need to separate classes of visitors, the keystone of the instructions of the Royal Commission, was itself cast into doubt, and the creation of the large forecourt was judged wasteful when land was at a premium. Finally, Lowe disagreed with the estimated budget of £750,000, predicting an ultimate outlay of £1 million. The Treasury, he asserted, “would prefer to wait another year rather

than involve the Government in the indefinite expenditure which these papers disclose.” Curiously, this rejection temporarily allied Ayrton and Street. The first commissioner asked for the Royal Commission to be reconvened to consider the Treasury proposals for the further reduction of the program.*+ And in answer to the Treasury’s

| criticisms, Street adopted a now characteristic response: he redoubled his efforts to solve the planning problems posed by the small, irregular site, but defended the artistic character of his design with increasing vigor. A breakthrough came on July 14, only six days after the Treasury minute was communicated to the Office of Works. On that day Street completed his third new proposal of 1870, brilliantly cutting the Gordian knot that had so long encumbered the Carey Street site and all the solutions proposed for it.?> The fundamental problem had been the shallowness of the site, and efforts to compress the entire concentric plan onto the existing parcel, like Burnet’s proposal of 1869 and Street’s first plan of 1870, had been unsuccessful. Now, on his seventh attempt to solve the law courts puzzle, Street overcame these difficulties by rejecting the fundamental premise of all his previous designs, and of most of the other ten competition entries as well. He simply rotated the entire plan ninety degrees until the hall ran north-south, utilizing the greater east-west dimension of the site for enlarged courtyards and light wells. The gable of the great hall was turned toward the Strand for the first time.

The Final Plan 213

Pe ee | | C= | ey | - _ i : rd Ss t |

& ieee ee oe Ps“pre: a aPechinring See raeseca : | 34eee: Ave i— \ es : ‘ eon

- po —r ‘ol ‘ — Lone , ES .. ; poe. é“4, a wo , Ef i * se | — ‘ " : 3 set‘7| fe| HES on &|. we : ¢Ly. i) Law Ps | tae & < sia p Ss . | ee * » n ih.in— 3 *| 3 ,7 : fw : ‘ a 71 a Piatt; 3 ‘eal = | 4A *$? owes oper gf: Ps

LP Fa . ae i wie ttij oO" Pays\ \x*an | 4E:47s ieee: E: ex qe eye” os ue ©hei' ae | ey a; :4I t-aaaEY | | 29 Samed HE : tite oe», SSG gS & bié ‘ | \ —— ~~. sAnsioaeiacmais a ee cee Ts as 12 2, } id —— ate ee 4 - eth ¥ Ap. .

ee a %ae4 nne a| \\ieGk a| | 6 Guar ai ae TH e ie : a 4 eee SEES : 3 < be J secnentne taibdsnsinnaetstinnsessreesenesd Fuanoorecnnrann Lcsscapuencusetchedt

fo scisonangaiS Peon na sania ‘ -. ean , sacs senalanseeag gos

1870. 1/9. ss &

go Adopted design. Block plan On July 14, the date of his report on this new plan, Street displayed a drawing

at cour — a rl July to the “Committee as to Final Plan” of the Royal Commission.*® No copy is pre-

GA oe served of that first draft of the design, but it is known that Street provided blocks of offices on both the east and west sides of the building, a generous arrangement that he altered six days later in an addendum to his report.3? A lithographed representation of this later version of the plan, shorn of the western offices, is extant (Fig. go). Dated July 27, Street clearly prepared it for the general meeting of the Royal Commission, which met that day to discuss the Treasury minute and to consider Street’s design and report. In his report, Street explained that the main block of the new design would

pp§p,

reserve the lessons in planning he had learned so painfully. The hall had to be

shortened slightly to 240 feet—5o feet less than the halls of his earlier plans of that year and 80 feet less than the hall of the great plan, but still 50 feet longer than the hall of his competition entry. He carefully exploited the slope of the site, providing ground level entrances both to the main hall from the Strand and to the level of the courts, one floor higher, from Carey Street. Public access to the courtrooms reverted to the simpler scheme employed in most of the reduced plans, utilizing only four stairways. All offices were in the eastern wing or in the main block, although the

214 The Law Courts first draft of the report made mention of the short-lived western wing as well. This would have had to be dovetailed into the irregular northwestern corner of the site, for no additional purchases of land were required. Having wrought this strikingly successful transformation of his design, Street made certain to include a strong argument against any further economizing, responding specifically to the criticism leveled by the Treasury at the alleged extravagance

of the central hall. He wrote, explaining his artistic intentions, “I must plead earnestly to be allowed to make a fine Hall in the centre of this Building—I am sure the funds are sufficient to enable me to do so, and I have no kind of desire to be extravagant in the decoration of this, or any part of the Building. I hope to shew that solidity and good arrangement of outline, are of much more importance than an excess of rich and costly architectural detail.”3° Despite this exhortation and characteristic description of simple masses and

active outlines, the royal commissioners were rather impressed by the contrary economic arguments put forward by Lowe. At last they seem to have developed financial scruples of their own, and, after discussing the design on July 27, they passed an ominous final resolution:

The Commission are desirous that the Building, considering its situation, its national character, and importance, should not be imperfect in respect of its architectural character, but they are decidedly of the opinion that it is undesirable, if the funds at the disposal of the Government for the purpose are so limited as to render any change necessary, to sacrifice the complete usefulness of the building to architectural ornament. If this completion cannot be accomplished by any other means so effectually as by a change in the architec-

, ture of the Central Hall, the Commission, though with reluctance, express | their opinion that such a change should be made.?? Having issued this proviso and placed Street’s central hall in jeopardy, at their next and last meeting on August 3, the commissioners were willing to approve his plan, now formally presented for their consideration by the Treasury.*° This design incorporated a further slight revision, effected after some of the commissioners had ob-

jected to the location of two courtrooms directly adjacent to the noisy Strand (Rooms 12 and 13 on Fig. go). Street had pulled these rooms back into the body of the building and screened them from the street with larger public stair towers (Fig. g1). This plan, published subsequently in the Builder, was signed by the chairman of the commission, Lord Chancellor Hatherley, and returned to the Treasury. On August 13, the Treasury, apparently also satisfied that sufficient safeguards against

extravagance had been provided, directed Ayrton to obtain tenders for the plan upon which they and the Royal Commission, the joint statutory authorities, had at last agreed. The commission now passed out of existence, and on August 15 the Office of Works notified Street that he might proceed."

Toward the Final Plan “TE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR deprived Street of his usual late summer trip to the Continent in 1870, and so after a holiday in Scotland, he returned to London in September to begin to flesh out the approved block plan. Most of the

The Final Plan 215 (——\F F ‘ Re a =tt | owe 2 acted _ kK i a n@on jyRR &3(A mal Ay i eaeaN ra R=}Br St a3 % CARE Y Ss © &BE ETF E —\. =——\ =

\2il>t :oo Ue :i :4 Uf St — BAR ROOM omelet : RECORDMWRIT ff REPORT

=| Fe aa «| al a ee

qn i=i Vv — ori T S tor 8 MA ! retUSe z S cee Gon Goel pees 8 4

g BAR CORRIDOR f

ul N N Ngee -cemamalt NyN a .

Li oR Hl 4H i rot D mmm o OC MB BOO qa c =4 ;ow ee ‘ails ai Ww a al i Qa 4: i pores si regs (=a aaa N ccers cqA eec a.yo 3 Le yfaq; ¥s. aKS W6bla = 7H = wo EON PA?

Pole fe er

uw ae ee oe :

= oli ; Sa i4XPsi &eePa- oO a| a: oO »3 x5 B rh petites hati za Wali °e° - serene — = ff 99 meee s -

Foy me PdeyaPee = i Ped => 2pe | a i NSsbee SeLipGmeneee «.“,wl oe a 3 : eH fs f Bec Ub loae “eh>fee mist = ailDa

a z— i Se eae di P oa :: moPa az K : pean oy 0 ci ee ogee je © ° \:| »@ ie 3] tL saa a | fie |= \ co a is o - Ler KE

je *

Tose art il x bs ia ad

MAUI S| ur: ° FR ET a [:| a la a a \! : FA ifg=v=7= wn n* (Fi Po?Cry ou fro je ry i-_ aw oy | er BAR SORRYJo OR (eo awa q NA 3, = — ta === & No s == ies = i == SS es G wa ae |

rm = — é |NX = \yo =‘\“if |Ses 53) els, a\ ifoff- icE aca- caa SEE

j____|

THE STRAND- TEMPLE B/ yoo 50 0 54 100 150 200 SCALE OF FEET

INTENDED COURTS OF JUSTICE IN THE. STRAN)D.——Mrp. G. E. Street, A.R.A., Ancurtect. Plan of Cowrt Floor.

REFERENCES.

A. Position of Strand Entrance to Central Hail. Q. Queen’s Bench. J. Second floor above Courts, Stationers’ Depart:

B. Judges’ Entrance. R. Vice-Chancellor’s Court. Taxing Masters. C. Eastern Entrance to Central Hail. 8. Vice-Chancellor’s, or Appeal Court. Floor above Courts.

I). Western Entrance to Central Hall. T. Lord Justices. d ) , asatis te %iP Peewee Mean {GM * e.3* ro ° ¢ ¥d % 4 +‘ Paces #3 a 3vee bs ‘ = tee Fae otek} 7H osx }: ; wet Rees MG i eg ve: “ ee 2 Z ae 1. Ft gical —4-| +4 S. mF Te ag + eq: 3 a * «9 2 “4 ie ; ‘ zo . P 4 ~ Ps ~ 4) eet Beatie “= Je ae a te ze ses : = : fSe (&ee ‘ ;i. y*%ie 4 4°. 2]oo Mm =ag eo Po E. E EC =< Ze * es é3 E4 %P>ae;.ead *5*# ‘oea_3ae +e“« SLE Boothe % E;kExecute 0 aeSee 3s:pes 5 P+ ite Bind] Be cola % "gion aegrenwccne eee nd4a6 See bd ek: iced ¢€ ae Fe nee z Saal wee oi ; 6 TR ARS ARR. » Phcets PORES BE Sep osha t ; i “d inee Seven ; j 3 : 7 hie et “a a § ry Se ‘ :

bs te ® pe : F

t~? Fi &,: “7% Be 34~= a “f . t : 3 it * * a wre ; . tes ' +‘ i tt q

\%pererg ; ie “ Coe wed & al Pa é e) + 3 4 a; / Fe < of < 3 ‘ * “ 5 f,:&,i5a4; zsieatose i —— oo. at Soe A& & 7 Het j oad | we j : 7 od - se ee

j ’: a 3: r : . 3 = a & :* « =" e3 .— =ny < peg) m «‘i j Ee) See * F Bail 3 =a i oe a CL 5 oe: g SR Pity Fee a iE OX ae,” Bes aS bE" BBB SB ce ee cigape FOE = ees Se iF S j pn iee?) ieee: ee. * a, Pasa oe aa see « “to a 7 : :

: red Pad . #ees j«so Bad ae ‘at | sa Edbes “ :=Pees BEEP 4@a3‘j

j = Ps Sahat % ane Kit Pap 3 :. % «-: zon ~- Fi = Ds ~~ “:ts=¥z; We =e.: ae Fesie a5a+2:Re i nade j paenannennannnniannennni 4 tC _t :Pa 4 Att Te

ii Some ee"HESS a— ee Sd ws en |a”< \e1= ;eS i,‘Z33: 3 : Pees ‘ F “ : ities Seiichi 4 rd | ww ae a 88 a i bal + ; ro. = | “ tree of | Py i i * Pie Se ee Se i = aH $3 le] | £38 = — “ a A 1 Eig — a “ ete Fh i t ;{ ;¢ oe ae. — aa ; SF 2eS as. 4 sees : ee SS eee aes = ss 4. : ,23 j Bee Ee CF ae eeei:iit Mig ee aoe 3é2 ::ae -::#:Bee 5 ee = |=— son a: = . fae ss : $ : lees ES = ie oa Oe fee 3 > = & 2 ye :. 2a E ye a ad = ern” a oe y g: as 5 % og yeee ee < se esrs Se co Soe fs . 4 cS ig , 2 z sae Bac ee ee > eeno sseas se = ae Ee Boog eee Bigot s,, B aa sg Hi: ees Bees: ge-: co a= ee aE oe. 23re3ce A :3 :* :es See: Sos 4 ee : a ee SS | r——C—C “EE §$§éEUCE“élR"HCC s§/-—§— © —§©— —=_ === Ze ge 2S = ee 2. ee — #&} @&= = — —hErersememmaésrm\_/f_s—s—W—s—s—sXsXsW~—t'—s—'. ee re 3 F : Bie => ia leaeSra aa =ase Sn ea Sees Shearer tes ae ee goBerecees Sa Re Saat BSS hnena eigneecnn eee Fa seaen Bierce he, Se cee ee3 BS eee Cees pee cecepe Bee noe eet E scenes A2 aa ni hiaxz a Bee Sie paceeesee ee geen ee ee ee poeocces Peas Pte pS ERS penteaten eee aaa

ee Eo Se Se eeeRe teaecancer gee Rees 3steer ne Rarer eee EERE: ge iPeg . Bee ee# ae st a: 2eeee ee Pens Sees Seer Naame ace ee Sones z eae seen Seeaeceae nee oa ees ae:cee eee =Ge Se asores ae Bea eae aepce eeEe eT Seka : Bee: $e ean site :een z3 a ke ee = ee ae = 3 i Pe Stee. ee See Se eee ER aor oN a ; ae ###@ =EzSe eS eeeee Bee SS “tae tsLeee gil aAE ee = :4>S:= RNA...” sae:ea ge Ss 2eee Fae ee ee eeee 2be ee ee err SS iaSi PEE a:© eeos eee a ae ie *ee ceQe ge oe cere in enerSOS ee aee tteie ¢ ne Fi aen aaoe aees aee RE a oemr ,youn se ieee aea — Eas z 23fee ASpee ete eect no FEED g4-am= 2233 we = gees é 4 ae S Beg Ms > ee eee EE Eee pees a ae 3 . ae ee” S| am eee $22 335 See $f mi 3 a ee ae % a fe BS eee. fe ae ee ere 2243 tee & Sy o> age ste Sai eeaeeee2ete |— te ee ee eae .F424 ee aes FP ee =z $e 3See aa... peFi Bes aeae ee ee:eee ee "ggg 1s hsq Ba ES ee eee eae Se eeseas aOf aeeae Fe ee . 3 =;== g= S8 SS eacemnnnente =eee ee :=ee rr. Siw 2ps eeVe eee ee EEes Se Ge Be 2 ee ey ee pOPrvOWerr 9s,gees $ezeeBs See =Sen a eee eeSe apes 2eee %Sons Beemer aren 2 5ae 2Bee aEe seee ee 225 PT= aad 3:Meee? sr cee ae EERIE pa = se %& Pe eS ee z ee : ee 3 es ee = ee eee Eee : 2 a a een caw 3 ee ps ae 4 > i 3 = BS eee eee Raeae 3 F: ae es at = * Sess ee Sag see a oo = ce Sees Pa Ee at eeSe ees eseee: 2ceae 3ae: 55ee Soe Se eee ee oe Bt. aaSer Lee ss eeSS ee aeCee. eB Bee ; 6. eee 52See oem eee ee3BS Ez Se 23 aBee ee 2: S.=See : Rees Se =a5Se Se eso oa pen E 3ee SeES Saeco tie aeae :aaR — : Bi ae eee =aET =& eee eB 2Se eeesipees eee ae ee KO #es Seer ee Bee fe eee z 3ees eee aenames Ee peeee 2-.See gge cael oS pe eeeee ee ue ae 2eee Be ES eee EERE §anes ae eee j ‘3te se aaa Eee

es fee ao eae Z ees i — Bee # j§~ Fo 4 ee ea Ee eee

& = SS ee ge ee be 4=._ee aeeee . :“4 eeeeeSa aieLN ed =naS 8gai ee = eee eeeBe: — ine aeee baee eeeee = ee aae eee See P5 ges eeaSRL Sey aeBe eesose a eee =4+er }saSie aS eeeee eS See

ee. 2 a pe 3 ae “

e. tsa, ete ee a ee : ae FP* ae eeemes ees; ce. Sgn . é 43- ee - a.ie ae EEEee SERRE cee gs ae Se 4:pats Shas BE i ae -

236 The Law Courts Chief among the tempering elements was the influence of the Queen Anne, the new, gentler picturesque architecture of the seventies. Of the leaders of that movement—Richard Norman Shaw, Philip Webb, and William Eden Nesfield—the first two had been Street’s assistants, and he had followed their work and their growing success with interest. Webb had allied himself with William Morris, whose firm was now receiving important commissions, while Shaw’s career had already commenced a meteoric ascent. In 1870 Shaw had made his brilliant debut at the Royal Academy annual exhibition, the same show in which Burges’s Cardiff Castle was hung and at which Street undoubtedly spent some hours on the eve of reorienting the block plan for the Royal Courts of Justice. Shaw had shown his drawings for Leyswood, the great “Old English” country house on which he had been at work since 1866, and their unveiling occasioned the first public acclamation for Queen Anne architecture (Fig. 109). The precocious sophistication of Leyswood largely concealed its complex artis-

tic origins, but Street would have recognized its underlying nuances. On the one hand, the design betrayed a continuing interest in Burges’s—and Street’s—Early French, most apparent in the compact masonry of the entrance tower. This was not unexpected, for most of the young Queen Anne architects had begun their careers in the thralldom of Gallic toughness, as seen undiluted in Shaw’s earlier entry in the Bradford Exchange competition (1864) and in his All Saints, Bingley, Yorkshire (1867—71). However, the muscular Early French features of Leyswood were wedded with Shaw’s new interest in picturesque half-timbering, and the resulting whole was milder and more English in character than his previous work. Although the component units were conceived with great care and discipline, their individual power was reduced in the interests of the pretty composition. Sharing Shaw’s awareness that muscularity was beginning to achieve diminish-

ie: cg RE Sage ee RE toes Sie Pg ft ea ~ ohlad Se ie ea ee BE eaeesti: Ae ‘ : |ee reeEg: wigeevee at si ® er ARR Pie ecSSE See, ace

Es RE eee Eee OR ceYe ST een eeee BI oeAe ER eei)he ee eee, eS Om ia aae eataee UU Neae -—

a ae twat a ae | ain eee al Nae oe SS EIN / a ee |1aA axie BE emma Tie cemnmtee tea ON cay all] eee BN eeeaei.eT tSaSe Aa ae ek ae ® ee al Ae| |aea ong Roe tae Wee \ ee ee Aig pi eee a es 264 (iy Mien, tye

ee Se oS oe ee ee Soy tO A NO eet ee ee rhe. | Las pater * Boa iy Le Eee Re gee eee a a. 3 cn ee kay tas

ea, ise ee as 5 apie ie 3 eh ee oe MER ee ate Oe Ae 109 Richard Shaw,ee ggga “igPee IR ei creas , geNorman oe Ne eryooaeel eya Ete ea les a ee a ioe ge ie bie x i w

Leyswood, Groombridge, Sus- aw ae Jo eed PP we Luk on a ea yp jf ee 2

sex. 1866-69. Bird's-eye iP Ye SrikpnShy ee agi Ce ee eR ae ieee | NSview ogi Mele eres 8eek by Shaw, 1870. (Building ee ae eee ee Ba) Ce nee dea News, 31 March 1871.) : PO Reed Ge GE | IR NN OR NAGS TE EE

The Final Plan i355 “43 y | | — ee ee oes gi a 7" |.lh 2 2: aa i. ££ & llhlUlmlrlUdUlUmUmUmUmULUC*;«©7+—~—:a-{= : wie $ 3se eeeeeee eeeneo eaeSea SeefcSeoceeactas os seer &Me:come eae eaeat reneaaa tes Bebe Cehonest a iieeeiceeeeeees en Saag “Sa aig ne Pras aeg eeee B= Mae ‘eee sh teas e080 sie

Sea ee : : .. Sees free 3 ge gee : : : eee ; ee 22 =. z ee = . = £2 ae Be i - ee

ps = See PRE ga eee oem ae—aee2agee seSsiaeee: :ees > "a ite, Se ae : ee See eee & ; eeaes .8

os x4S ae ees BS :Eee peieee, epee ee: Soa= eeeess Ee = cS ae 2B2S ee 3 pian : peeBS eee : éiRaat es meena ee sie oe: Sie x ee Ges sa Se come Se aa zeae Sets FP fe Seppe sane ae aan ee Epie SS eee A ae eB gee Se CE Be aBB ae 3eee £3 Esentence Bi asmee eee ee ee ees ee ae eee 5z Se SSos Sa Red eee ‘:= Eeaieees:Zzas 3ag =Se aetna Bie eee aeBe capone ieeis ERE ae -Pama Sa ee Pes aee ea eee :ee eee fen #:5»:p Seite z2 :ee eee ;=oe Sie aeee peer eo ee F Ba Se See = Bis Sze 2 Be? fees é Pre cecnin : =e See j ee Be: Pee ocog es E Se Bee a Ree eae aes eS : eae aE fe : Bee gece Bs eee eae Sa 2 Sees se ee ae ee Be ee ee s Sg Sf ae 3 Bae aos 4 3 Bitig se Skis Hae ae Se $ & pe : | ee =. Eeeee nee: ae ogo age Seeeeeees | OEeeear ee 5eeSee = aaa = Recht tee :ES page See sate steSie: * Stee Sa Be ee «= ee ee ca Bes Se ree Sees 2 s eee : Sond BS petit = gene Se Ss eae Sie s Bez Bee Be:eS

= . oe - Qe 2 = pee Sa : se ae ae ae me 2 S- es tee a2

Pe a ee Bee eS ees se a 22 eee Siee Se ee Ui eanener ey : sae foe Bee Bae cr reer ss ig Rees pe he ee eee es Bee

ak *s a ee ee =S ee tae Ss ee Bae 2 Se SPS oeey: pte :erPpa sf 32: Epes Se i tee z Sek : %as. : : aa Bi eee Se : 3eeeeBee See E2Zia -aee _Se oe iSes eS £2 ee ees pace: 2% eeoeBas S Sage: eeFe SS i a 2272 = See Sie SE LS Re eae ; =e os. s ; = in : as Se aS : ce eee ES Re 2 o ge 2 Se oe fer So Foe cee Re Ee ae oe Re eke SH ak Se oe ee ee, oe Vee See ee ae ee Seee TS fester aeipee Sooe cig cce eS: = Z eee, Sedae =2Se 5BS :22 rcee pesca ieee Serpe aSe 3:Sega ais =:as t3Sect se ceaene suee Seiene z Semper 33Se Se ae ee+.fae: epee gee SE ae ieee eS See a ge ee ES = ee ae Seas fee % SSS ll SDS : ese Sy apse ee a I es eS ee Se Gee ee Ee Bie) eee ee ee EE a ee Se ees ee = S 2 Kee eens Pen ees ae = : ES f po ee ae ie Sa aes ae Cee ee = ee eee pee oe ee HeSee Sseee ee -ees BS ze43Ss Seo fe|‘ Soe ae soseeiae Sees ‘psoas Seeae aes sSees te aeeee es=ae fae Bee =Gees Sse Eee =.oe Sepa me aeSee Ze Se cad See, “Se % ;cs ed —— 35 :ee wee ae23 i eZ aeeeaae: ae eee = ee 5ee See ee Be zaed =éaSe:eee see a 5gee Sees es eS Spe :&=aee 2aa oes Ee | cSk -eee See ee eers+Se 2 3te se Soe > eee ee” eet;Apa F Seeeteaecn Se: re estes Eee — ee ee Ege. ee pee ee :=eee fe a gee aSee 2 ee Ze ee 2ees ae :SaSoa éaa=2aaPisce Occ Riess ,acca : es Sec eee ee: ee ee ee Be Fe Beez] ae: Rm as ee ‘ geeeeeememese a aeee Be aoe Bec Be > Seaeea A a eee Pree ae wy Sees i aeee eeee eeee oe ae sg Cae Se i ae

=.; ae$22 $e] eS ©BS -)ee ©: fee Bieeae=aes ep BR 2oees SS ee Va Be oecere SNe ewe Se eea6Bese OeaeeeOe eT Cd 5SM eeagaee eeOSee eeSP ee 2g aeee 8ee ee| ee eBeeCS Ree cg : Stee Cae Ss ea Magan ROR, PB ey yaseee a ReOR ee eee ae=ee ee eeeaee eae Be Bee eee 2Gee ee ==oe eeeeaieee gesea : ;jbeneenciee GS ByaU Sede fie ee ee Bee Seerie Sorc aesae Se ee ph eee oe esSeen : BE SPSS eeTa ae BRE ae 4 =ae ae=Ce os Ea =2Se = ee eee ae = : eis eee eee fae S Sa eee Pe ees ES GAT RS a Se bs Saas, a Be Me pe ee oe Bees 4 a ae Ee 3 ES eee Sen eee : pei a ; Sake pe SSSee 3See spe Fe geeeS 5 aa ee 4peees =3 eee ii, a Ss ‘fee (62 ee eee )2EER Bee eee Sey ce oe ee teee-aieRae pees Oe ER eee ee cSeeE e=esBe =ce foo - ae =aae Saaz - .ee a =.oe eee =eS. 3cSeer eeeS ick ef =Be See BS ee Paes 4 eee 3 Sie a . z 5Mes as* Sn Rate ee ee3 ee aeSee: oPee tooe ph =eeSee ees =e 5i aSee fe Tiaeee Joe 3em > aSie se ay Se See {Ss eee ©. ££eeeeeS hulleeUlrrhhhr— rs .-ae we.|—©|—6™m™m™m™m™m™m™m™C—t—mCNmCts—srs—~— ia ee ce Se OI i faee ee & BeeLgea: 8 = ae > 2.ee. Drrt—g|Oeges ge , Se = pS a) ee aeeeee Ee ee 2gee 2S = aeee Se = Bs ceeoe - S. ae See SgSe aeee gee oS & ee eeeae 3 22 ee es eeRS 8 ee Se$36 eect Se Eg ec og oe See pee ‘Seaae Sees eeeBee ee: ge fo: ee eeee keaeeSE Sas =cee iecee meee2sSS se a eee ee See tee ee : ee 2 So Que $4 2 pg po = Se Sapeees Bere 2. ee a f= EM 2 22 ee ee eee yee = ee ae ee eo Se Se Eee 2 s See = ees SS Ee pee = ~ See 22a ee Seen ees ee ee =e See 2 ages ce 2 ae aceee eee fae: eS Se eeaee =Be36teeeeOS Eee SS a ee ae8 ae BgBs> Sg a seePe ReeeeeeeeeeeeES ge ee eesReeB Beeefee Ee BeSS eeeee 2 ee Be caeees | Seeger ge :see aae iz2SE a == ee e i See ee ec Se ee fees AB Sete ‘ ween zs : mee ge mec Ra Ree ae 3 ee eS a ee ee aes Se See 8S es : ie c ae < ‘ Be

bee x, ee SSSe 2 See soe Pao ee 2: eee > “eee = aeee Beeee saa:ee Se Se 2 ie Se be eS ae oeee eeeSe pe Bo. ees oe aes aee eeeee 5 See ee &4 Soa 3 a eS Se Hee por pipe eReReel ca eat eeRsapapas ee ee ee=li. ae ee eee ee Sd eSaeseeBeseeic 5TSee aeZ3eeeBaSS2eee3ee Aeeeee pis Be

Pte, ee

3g eec= aSBeEB Z4a8 = i ss Oe eee CC — PE PEt £12 Ff = foe Sect te ee 2 eee ae — e. a2 8 ee OS Pe ; 2 5 Eee ee eS : sg ge SS |; eee o ee eee He : ; a Es oe eS 5 es a B= tee Ee ee ee ce Bi ee é Ea Es ees ESeeee Bo 2: eee: S=ete es tee we es eefae. ae ae ee=ee eee : : in : : 4eeEe3 2Sie ie ie eteee Seee4 CUS ae E ee fe | = = sae 3See eeeeetee 4 id $ ee BSBer Se Be se:Ee a eEBS & £ ete See 3 eee ss ae go ae ESS SS aR eS see es iim a & pi ae : seo -' 22 = ee F Se S 2 Zan ie — as = Bee = = Ge eee : = = See et eB : ee. ee Se See z Re ae == S = hs = z L: 22 =. fe ae : 3 Es sé ees : = # é : =a

a SSOS Be=See a 34 ee Sf=ees ek a= eS ae o. : ee ¢ bs 3eSaSa 3‘*BS le SS BS ee se ;aeSee SSE Se ee SSS SS . See SSS 3 aze ee2ae + aes Sass -S:SEE 3 ie. EOS eSee %SE J baEeee; Tames oe “3 a ee 4 $3ses

ae ES See SSC Cee££ ee2,.0 eeeteeee te ieee eee a Es eeeet pte: Se) Se Oe Ce YS ee | =-Se = 2: ee E E>:a. 3: = Se ce page: gee: Se Ges Semen: 3ea. ae esroe Sa fei i223. ees aee eSae : Eeee Pot Fae CE ee 3 28 saSs -e.-—h—UC SC ee es & Be ee te ee hlUClCUa CU ee et : ee — & 8 See 2 ee = ee ee Pe Seg ss 2 im] eS & geSA oa= fabee «be eeSee Pee Le Hs eeAce Cae ee Or ee oe= 2wre oeRSaeee2,7 28 iSee Bort 2 22 i 22218 =if. ae oe4 eej 5 S# 2iaPe ©|ae‘=—;iS wg CMe ieee fe ees CS eee ©eSaayBf£t.8 ££ ae a ie ee— aSS £3£ 3oSSaaS =eemc BS ee a SRR eae az ieio Bos TTme SeBS eeo: eeeoPe ee S>. | Gea ae Be ee Ue hhh hc OL eee —— ‘ Oe ee Oe lle OD ee aa Sage See ee ee ee = 5 St ae ae Se EE a oF 3 pot cco ee te, ee Renigee ee eB RS eee Se = Se See ae — 3eae Se 2Le Se EeSate Gee ee. Be 2 TEs eo: =Se ‘nee ssseee eeSe 1soss ee: Ea=aee £ B3=3ce 1: 2== ae az ee Bett FZ ===SS aa ee gfee eepepeee eee Se ee :[e = OS == . a4# Seea63 eS Sg -.aeens Sc ear Tee, ESSes aga :See me oe: oe ae %aFs ee pn =a ;.ae ee 3 .¢ gy 3= Be, aeees322 re sg :Sie © Se Es — Seite ac a aeE Se ae 2:: Fe 33 =E 2:SS ee

ee ES ee P22 fee ; ee eee 2 css seas eee te ee Ss Ss ee = ee - £ fe ; a ie 3 bat Fee ee So eeeae ee Sy Jes eee mee Rees ee Saeet eBRE aEe Mii oe ee 222Es be=.eee esee. ae aes 2 es sooz 32= -Sees es eeéi:ae ee See eS Be Bee pon ee agees en gg eee aaeae cS ee 2ae ees : ee oeee ee ee ee 3 S= SS | 4oe:Fe 5&2s Mex eee Bee: he foe 3eee ES ae ee eeeo See 5fe Se SBF rs Ee 2oie age ag EI ggg 2. ea ee Se : ee. SS: Bs i, 3 53 bee Se 3 a Se bosses. Eee See ee : ‘(—) SSS 4 GEE eee ae a : = ee age a ge bee 3 = = ; ae Se . ee eS = 3 Me ee ee piss 2 Bae i z : We eae ee ee ae ese Pig 3 ee = > Ea 2 | e ¥ : a eee = = & Ss pe = 3 ae ea ee ee a BE ee ee ee x : 4 = => 3 Bee -— |) oe Be =| ee tee fies. See i ese I i ae ae ee 2 iu = tae eS Ae x= — = eee 4Dee = 4=7sa sS =pps= See aZZ LFPES —ee eeeee2 eee £ =ee2eecece eee aesOOS: ey EE 4emmmmcmecS : eegases Ze SS ieee geeazaeoes Bee ee SS £Se‘= ae | ifaeeee a4 LE#Se senePe asa caeOE ee eeee Beeee i 2oe SSS") Sora camaaements < Ses ameSnes a cc |. MO PUNa ge :iBe. eas are : ee pSNeda? ee Bas Bacig ce RR MOOT cage ON ae OS2einen - ee ee. oY i 4eee... Se eereeal Eee *, eaSee SS amSS 5see £1} fee2a SS := ee pe “ee eee SeSet See aan eSee FRG co iAOE gs pa Ce OS eeee Ry ee ee eeSS ee ee. Se Me pong Ze gee oS Se = i: ee = oe: =e Zz eS ee = a“, os Z :$12 *9 ee— Se - ee See = Bee= Sere | Ste Seas Se See ee OEge ee Seee Bee ences ee2eees ae tee Re Se aE ER.7 pe;Pees gece. Ree Pae 5¥pee Eis ee ee me eee = Ve =°§ 9 Sa = ‘go Sy pe Ne a eee ‘ is =eeie PS = eee & ae 3 ae ee a Sead gs OE ee sce athe ee Esse: ee SSS —— FB ee ee age snag a geo 8 ae Rise =: Bee :Se ~24 = ae 2 eee : E 4 See aes Seer ne : TER Hi ee SS ee eee SSE Se eee ce ae aces aaa” é Seas ps ie ees: ee ; % =3 = 3 = : ae 2¢ Oe Oi. TORE OT TE i 3 eS ee ie Oe eee z ss 2 Sp Ss Se = ee ee ae a : TS apa ee ec a EEE LCL i a ta EEE ee Re EMR are ‘“ S:. eeeee ee Es betet sot onennees sae f Sse SSS SES SS RS ace eee a ee ae. Gop nner Soar cs on eens ik tgsn ec giguaaaie ean Seas, es pee: ee =ooBe gdee pees He Se ee Ssii: fee Se ee eee ee 25co =_eeSgaceca |See pi asBeste ee % :ee 3 .is =ee:See Se Bears asie:abso: SSS RRR EI SPS Eas ae ae eeoe Bee: Se eateecs aeee -. Rz© Se R :sgeae Ef | ga ’pee bees ae= SeBees SESE RS eee AE i pe Beane iat ae ee ueGoer eee aaa iaeereeeeee Kc iZ See i eee Be es Sees: aeee a ee ee aRer esac aioe esiaee aeSas taeieacaanmeaaten: mmaree cR;eeee e;:3 2ee = ee pee eee iS RS ne . ee BG a IES SE ee ae : eenS 3Se gsSa$ae ae ee ..pas = pees fg: OED eeene eaeeeeee ee ee Oe aeBes “See pea teee Sea See 222) 2 eee epee :eo eee. Sa eee specie ree. Serer Wiss) epeee Banoo 3Se. a on : SSS -SS Cal Ge See ¥PLEO 4 eke Bae te ieOE Gee ence a 2S 3:=EP ee % SSCe ee ee eae ee8, Soe => SGeecta eei Pa so ani Bere 3“os Seeee pape yA ae aman eee eee. OS eee =A aa es eee BE es. ei. .aes ee ::. see Boge eee SG foe ee 3 se GM Se Os ee ge ee eS ee : Ee eS ee ee. ee, : ee oe ee ie wait : ac eg nn oe, Ea ee ee “cee See a ei Ee eee Pe gee e See 4 y 4 2 gum FP pp sy pe Be we Fe ee ee Sue ne ea oez fsee PSs OOPS, POON ceaag eka. HOP as — eee ne a ee “ae2es = agee ee Fa Bie eseees — : oeee spe Sees nn iPOO SE, MO Se ee eeee Be ee eeenee. eee ati ge oeee ageEee pets aii eespi igri” amma eee eet eset eae Se cee See ae eeBee Pa mac es Se. ieee aaceFad Eeeeeg eee ees ea eae Pe ae ees SE ee, coeat a Bo ee Bes eS i On aegee eeEe ae 3 ae 3 i en Bees ea Kae & 3 ee page . °° bg gy ok 2 > See eee - Soe eee oe $i eae. a menien sek opens bee 4 Ra FO Zarae te uses Bas 2 A Le ge LBS Ye BPE FU AS AN fe Som hate enewe:: Oe ead 2 cE oe ae las SA Eee ugescws 2 oe ge e604: JOE WEN Pies? Bt ret he Were VA: ave A: | ieee Bey2 =nyae: Seay as €% ¢FeEe e PEA ee Fe Oe deci a SB. a ee 53: 32 TERRES ide OE ceBAGS ge pats $23 E mes:Ri Be 15289 ; ss #7, Bie Lefer pes Be22oF. ¢ ay ee PRS : te 4 ce eh F &5Beare ‘3ome Se cas Ms ae ae Hire 23 He 8A:acses +i3% 3 44 Be Lama Oe Se gees eee Eyei Ey LS eh Sie| £EE S e : ¢4 eee Bb BE Res cH PER HEP fs ER Bg: 5yin pelefeamecte Bs Wie 4s 4944 aaa meee © |AY (BET ureirse. eae Mie Bt, tedaei43Dn Bie PELCHER i Sra Pca iesee Mesias te eat Sed: S aed 2soak Sa eSe4a © ites apes ames caret i set ee arsine Ea 2 eres teacestg hseee oe SsziSe Be 5sou eene re:Bele . Pia ae | et aeBe aes es = ee @.Tepes 2i ee 22% BE |ety) pt petegeri ea SEee EER A 44% He a e3{ PURE stees: Se Re Ste etetente & ipy, pbuccbizeee 34 $2134) oe | Bb, bass cos fp Te ale $22 eaae ae 8G es gre pte gle ae scanners gagreu OOLS RII LOBE 3 reggae: tee < Tres Regt ele Cotetnnete 2 Sih See eS a S RSPeEE TSE ERS Ze cae 3 ity Tae AS ee eee : *e *, r oo | Siete ioe seWe Hs Seo oe stHGDeane popRRmpeg eg te 2slpenance laa teeLo SseAS 3 Bi Lee ee OES Cope ee a a)EE: 5 ai Sime eee os cetx| py Ce ue5 ee AeaRE EE He ARES ee : EBS Cisse HE RO Be a4 iat Soe Pe a i

ereed&a saeloge Aesfae: te ce o. Re? 8 “aS ee> ‘aN pete Y Methe, bk oe = eee FedieesRegen) Se Be ee shea ih AEEeee: Se 2% i ite ees ee fig Sepyae i eee baa 3 : oe fe HEEFS x aaSee: ae a Gaeits PareSR be heey fg ee z are aes x eathk FS ee EosOP | REE EeFete si ai ihseeee SokMe Pe A $B : pe oe -Gee Pee Bese teeee i Se ES ae $63 ex :3

a ‘ides ; ¢ .ee @ g| a+e i ‘pee tt ees er| ERA : H hens |Re eee| PPO 8 Te Fe gore”SEs eee: meautaeetesOEE Se ae? ite 5 oe £4%i i fie ere tiaeH rerre TE ae Seeeee jieDR SeeTeROO: gieliliiiiiiaiilal, 1 ame PERE ah) a fet 48 Soe eire ke eeFe Sk) eth 3pheeee laa deSei ee BSce BO Sits batts Sis ele Sete rh 4anada asics dean. e888) eeeeaeaie ¢ oe Geer #f%. eye te — He5 eee BE eg 464 eh : ie le * tale ate He ATiTTy ase 3 eee ee ares ke on e i Bi $3eee: Soe ite ie fat 7ie2 SS. TAS:8 Le 4 Ag eS Meme ae ; g ey : ae a pby eidedy > Reked! oe F = 2 g Se Se gy HE ’ tg eee 3 an es % Ee x PP. Sh Sek Seek Cate weer OH G8) a8 190 a8 8 yee ir ae R Be 4 ies ares tT Ae A Be BS we ne ea See aeet

adige a8 ae (ce a8 eel bee EU NNN TT : 7 oy Nl ees ie a es aa 7 S reltee ta | BE eat lithe apg Roa FH Base See iS Se ae ee yee et poe ge i ae 5S St SEA EE ee

meateeeetite oe ik i ee cats hE Big terse eeteOF *seas |b gree ¢ Bee BS a? ® Pee: aPe gitPoe Te {ee Set ee ee aSi:ae FR£4 EAL 3+: :.$ 2eae i . :rErrr pret 4 Eh @idias ote ledSS ae panj Re 34 @ 8 €t>* H ieee Ef ab ct . Sa 10 Sage PIS J SVE Tar Saree eee LO sae G ASeAgaits ae “*meee B aoebe Seay : #Se i pape

% Ses - ne xSoot 3 Gate eaaeee aaaes ‘ soc 82 ee ba ee 8 #ore gs 6 pS Sae2yee Lo, Sy a ceEe4 Lee H rs eee ; AeCEMt % se ssEek ee293 attia ee edeedSee EGGEEER i: He eeene BS:ies ERE p$2 thet ; ete Li. ee ECcae Oe pase eees casasdeSSveaAe oe sce eelSS eet eet: pb ear eyaePe. : ae ; -Pe&€ ee ie See Se EE i Eyaeweber? +7 pe i git tedND Gyes teneae sek Se

Ae eae Oe Sip Se Semen 14 coer, tags beget ie ae td ep i es ee a ees ¢ Se 5 Se bes Mideast & : ee ee plik Kakpkebo ts ppb ean tae es Gesauna Ponmittee Mapa poppe Areas wi ee eo:SETS |teSes anee ee)BEV ee EAE tien eeeeee on mena aebaht YeLaem Cee Bee EE rr . Pics eonSip ei ee t-Ee pb etate Seta eeeiOE Bite SB %a 9=&18 SES SER RC GEE Pe OOaKi Siteis BED eRfeeos ee- 1H RE Pee ieSee 9 ie[es ee 4feSees nereerrn, dSae BSet ES: E| See eae eee - SERS gat # AE aieane " . . 4 ree to 263? bia 14 Site 5H 4 faerie 2 Sete pete ceecene eae ioe (EBS x%, ;atge Gy ae :Be Ae = umge ad

iy. a Promn MN et Fite Sie ‘ ; a Ge

": 3iee 4ee Beees ee i Ae ae 3. Pa S$e aOe ¢= Pe iw: Gee 2"ee ee all ta:pO > oP soto —cost i= re -3 : pd e*: .ee ,*Ee ae :* en : ae ee Be $ et es is | | = ol “ im es €. ae « 4 i) ; sey EO —— : Be’ F ,a x , : es ee ee WE © wis K— F “ Qo ae a ee ae :aae |: Pees se So WE ce gee j , ae 5 GES we 4 tz Be ;: =," :«a ia re 5ACS Ssi :oo 2oe eSa éPe35a3aaeBee poet 1 aeFoe exeBee $i EEBeg Ss Boe 2 meee Py . Sees Se aSoe eee teeSee 4 Ci2 2s 4 eZ a se eS ¥aaaProm Bie. geeis ik éeS eee eeeaBe Sassen o TSE aaa eer: ea 3 ge . $35 SE Gage * Eee ae3 &fe #4 ep. Seen ae eS Se aeee ¢ ee eee va eee} Ee pu Sea: %y Zi ee Pr s . 3 2 eee ee 9 ee eae 2 Ee ze SO ;4BEE ee ame Pea. et Ea 3 £5. 3 poesia: ae og ee oe | es eee a * F a.EseSS: oe EBs = oe7°et= 8hege peeCUS ag tae 2 a£ i a-ia=¥3 ee 3 soSte Gi cee: 22 a =+are” at Dh — me ge Bee a-ee

ae ee oe | E Beem “ge E. a3 es “9 # Fd iz 3 ss = i: ja = 2) ge ge a” ee ; > Z Ma 4

Pbk, yeas aa 3Hae eee 33 43 So ERGs MO on d, “Steere ee eS :ciae —.=FaeSee.eaBORE SS sgl 2 .24Lo ey 2 ew Bee Se 3 eee : Bae ae cee al Be Si die Sea S Ee See tg Sg * Pie toe

3 := 2 =2 2 LGR fees: race eo Eavg oe es é: Soe ee 3See poe3cee: ee 1s . = gee s E= :ESee eee E aBet iie ee Ree 3be aisee eee tt :-$3 igs, :~=. oe iee eee Se] :=Ba = 2Gee ‘+s3==cee OE Fe % 25ee: — f Sseae os eS} ee ii ee 3 sae 2= =42—e ee =Pes >> gee Bic eS *”AesBe ao io | |23—

aie ae3;2!3i33;fe ’38‘;He :SS 23eoe :pees aN =. a ge eee ‘ 5 i : i: ce eee i ge Be S33 x Pa a = Ef 3&y ee Bee ce 3 :eee Gee Sees. ee Sacco on eps BE eZ ES5:=2 ee Se 2ees =SBS == sae eee ge i= =tee ———sSCC 223caEae Beg 3:E :Ee ee : aee:sszee ES 2ie 533 poe Ga ao i.te ee LO ae calle ee ae .Seaoe Ge ae ee ee (riitnacishaiamaaseenenenet Ee ae aeGe Peeae BE Eee casas DS a3 is3ee ese ee eee Bee bob Fae A se caseiaemeuseenaaia Sanaa Pee - Hee a ns on 2 ‘ BRR. >: pee ee : aS Sage Se eee ¢ Beinn ssi

ee ge Se ok eS e ae a 2 Cl

" | ie = 3 — er os erence es S aaemonqunee Fe cennasicnscenenaeeieeee eos BPE S555 EAD PPP OMDH i ee ee sees se ee : :

242 The Law Courts “

a ses a Gg — 5 T _ ~ ai :aa rae =og|=00h ‘y6hie6htiCGC Ft Fe ee 1s ne :: 4oe : pece ae = yA . @ 44 lrrm—CCOEE of f | Ge tm toe Se 6h6L6lUlU CU Cl |4‘ aAa——peer ee EF fh CP, oe Gehl Oe aie Ye Kitiitiiicn PONE i = Pi ey t+ © wm | 6 6§hUhUrmC—C UU T= uae ae f a (fF ee oo mit fe ee te PRD Hq —e 4 eg 2 tig. £ tee ES UCL :2:; Fx44Be gla oo fe & ; -., ,= Feet ££ fe fH Um Cer aieeSPR rr es 2zee 72fd +5 oe a. =a= [|sefo Gia 68g 1‘prt We Be éePF -hips Ii 7Pare es 74 oe % 1 # BS we 4 ii Ca Bie Pe PS ae ae ae Ft? 2 4 cS Bee 2 ig Ee Z ea tte le. va ee 2s Le be a. oe {44er ae 2” 6d-.Um™m™”lr”™””™””~—~—CSaS ($COf CaaS 8 CUCL eehhUhUmULMUMme ea A patie: tee § eee 52 eS oe Bas ET: Pak Swe ss SEF se Oe io.«4 :ejoe|yi;;BE afFoe;Pi ri mf ~ ifwe CUS COS 4oepee | Se qPOOP, —— my Bt - 2k 7 Fee Be i: ———L™LULULr eg ‘ Bee fe er© fee eeaOO -a Sum se et 44om Se ; e oe af ye OA ey we | ef ee ye _ ig Pe goa so lh TA i gee UF es 3% a by CL (i=a Ak ee BA is 1 oT! alee / ci nOtee(iAi CCl erfle es “Pe lw SS re( 6h 6mm UD Me=ee ‘42844 2 4. efa 4fo >afi 4fe ! On May 22 Street wrote again to report the unpromising results of his reconsid-

eration of the design. He told Ayrton, “I regret that I do not quite see how... | can accomplish what you require even by the wholesale alteration of my plans which you suggest and which I have so earnestly deprecated as being destructive to their character.”"5? He pointed out that any savings would be canceled by the £30,000

that he had been asked to allocate to the revised central hall and by the extra £20,000 that he estimated the alteration of the Strand facade would cost—an alteration ordered to save money. Clearly, Street was not ready to comply, although he was forced to be realistic. He found himself pitted against an enormously powerful bureaucratic agency, and if he could not stop it, he had resolved at least to retreat as

slowly as possible. :

In the meantime, a decision had been made that would ultimately rescue Street from his predicament. While still negotiating with the architect, Ayrton had asked the Treasury if he might sign a contract with Bull and Sons on the understanding that the amount was to be reduced to the statutory limit. On May 20, it allowed such an arrangement, but, apparently in analogy with allowance for inflation that had been permitted in the contract for the Natural History Museum, it also allowed

The Final Plan 255 an increase of £54,000 in the total contract sum for the law courts—an allowance Ayrton had not requested. "53 This was half the overrun of Bull’s tender, leaving only £54,000 of reductions to be made, and Street had already contrived savings of nearly

that amount. But the devious Ayrton chose not to advise the architect of this reprieve, granted by the characteristically more sympathetic Treasury. Perhaps he was eager to prove that he could be more economical than even his old colleagues at the Exchequer. In any case, he reaffirmed to Street the goal of cutting £108,000, hinting only obliquely at the new flexibility provided by the Treasury decision. Street was assured, “The First Commissioner does not doubt that, not merely an adequate building, but one which would do credit to you as an Architect could be constructed within these limits, but if it shall appear upon examination of the sketch which you have been directed to furnish that this could not have been accomplished, the First

Commissioner will then be prepared to reconsider his opinion on the limit of cost.”'54 The new Treasury policy was not mentioned, and the architect was admonished, “The First Commissioner thinks that if you had attended at this office some time ago, as requested by him, instead of writing letters, the sketch might now have been in a forward state, if not ready for a preliminary inspection.”

The Fall of Ayrton Lee to detect any change, Street resolved to play his last and strongest cards. On May 27, when he received his latest instructions from the Office of

Works, he appealed privately to Gladstone, his old supporter, and he called on Robert Lowe, who had assisted him in his last dispute with Ayrton. The aid of Gladstone was not needed, for Street learned from Lowe the happy news that the Treasury had already reduced its demands and had directed “for the works of the New Law Courts to be proceeded with in the way proposed.”'®> Thus fortified, Street

again advised the Office of Works that “I find myself quite unable to make the reductions required by the First Commissioner of Works in the cost of this building. "5° However, he reported slyly that by altering some of the stonework he could increase the possible savings to just over £54,000, precisely the amount he now knew that the Treasury had approved. Street must have been astonished when the Office of Works, despite the instructions of the Treasury, persisted in requiring the full £108,000 reduction and curtly asked him to inform the office when his revised sketch plans would be ready. *5”

He did not answer, and on June 14 the secretary of works sent him an ultimatum: “I am directed by the First Commissioner to request that you will be so obliging as to

furnish the Board with a reply .. . before 12 o’clock on Monday next the 16th instant. ’'>°> But Street had now taken the entire matter to a different authority. On June 11, he had formally appealed to the Treasury against Ayrton’s auto-

cratic behavior. He described what the first commissioner had ordered, and he explained:

As I believe it to be absolutely impossible to make any such alterations effect such a saving, and as | am quite sure that if I made the attempt I should only succeed in ruining my design both as regards convenience and Architectural character I am compelled much against my will to lay before your Lordships the reductions which I believe might be made without damage to my design,

256 The Law Courts and to most of which I have repeatedly and in Vain endeavored to obtain the consent of the First Commissioner of Works. '%

He then detailed the £54,000 in cuts that Ayrton had just rejected. Although a Treasury official noted dubiously, “Do you think we have any chance of inducing the

First Commissioner to fall in with our proposal?” on June 14 another letter of instructions was prepared for Ayrton.'® He was told to accept the suggestions made by Street and to desist from requesting further alterations: Their Lordships [the lords of the Treasury] cannot but think, although they made a suggestion in regard to the Central Hall in a previous letter, that it is highly undesirable that in an undertaking of such magnitude as the proposed New Building, the Architect should be compelled to make reductions, which he so strongly deprecates himself; and for which, if insisted upon, and in the event of their being disapproved by the Nation, the Executive Government

will be held responsible. , Apparently confident concerning his appeal to Lowe, Street sent a letter to the Office of Works just in time to meet the deadline, restating his inability to revise the design in the desired manner. He also protested the entire policy of interference in his art, “a condition of affairs which no Architect who had any respect for his work could possibly accept.”"® Ayrton, of course, was outraged. On June 19, he vented his paranoia to the

Treasury, protesting that Street “had been engaged in negotiations with... your Lordships to defeat my instructions, which he had carefully concealed from me.”?® If the matter were left with the Office of Works, Ayrton now proposed to be rid of the troublesome Street entirely and to place the law courts “under the supervision of an Officer of the Department.” He thus intended to adopt the example of the General Post Office annex as a general principle, a gloomy possibility. Should Lowe wish to enforce his views, the Treasury, at its own risk, would have to ‘employ Mr. Street directly as your own Architect,” and Ayrton would then accept no responsibility for the law courts. Ayrton’s refusal to cooperate made it necessary to refer the problem to the

| Cabinet. Apparently realizing that a major decision was imminent, Street reinforced his position in the highest circles of the Government. On June 17, he wrote to Gladstone, again accepting a standing breakfast invitation. ‘©? On June 18 and also,

it seems, on June 26, the prime minister entertained him, and they almost surely discussed the law courts. *™

The matter came before the Cabinet for the first time on Saturday, June 21, when Lowe explained the situation to the other ministers. As a result of their discussion, Gladstone arranged to meet with Ayrton, who was not himself a member of the Cabinet, on the following Monday.'®* Nothing seems to have come of this conference with his infuriating subordinate. Therefore, the subject was raised again at the next Saturday meeting of the Cabinet, for which both Lowe and Gladstone

prepared extensive notes on the case, both favorable to Street.’ The ministers approved Gladstone’s draft of a letter to Ayrton. He was advised:

What Her Majesty’s Government desire is that the plan as it has been de-

The Final Plan | 257 signed and approved according to the Statute should now be put in execution in the best and most effectual manner, which as Her Majesty’s Government understand is still practicable within very nearly the limits of costs prescribed by Parliament not withstanding the heavy increase of prices now prevailing. Now that the Cabinet has arrived at these conclusions we may I am sure rely on your cordial cooperation. '®”

On Tuesday, the Treasury sent a letter in the same spirit to Ayrton, and the Office of Works began to give way. * On Wednesday, the assistant secretary informed Street that “for reasons independent of the questions which have engaged the attention of this Board, the Lords of the Treasury have determined that the instructions desiring a reconsideration of your plans and drawings for the New Courts of Justice shall not be acted upon.”’®? On the same day Gladstone patiently urged Ayrton to yield gracefully. ‘7°

But conciliation was not in Ayrton’s character, and on July 11 he again protested to the prime minister the decision to go ahead with the largely unaltered design.'”’ His letter was discussed in the Cabinet the next afternoon, and it was decided that he must be asked to withdraw his criticism. Gladstone noted, “Probably this would best be done by his own spontaneous action. | asked Mr. Glyn [George Grenfell Glyn, the majority whip] to go to Mr. Ayrton, believing that this informal intervention would be more agreeable to him than any other method of communication.”’” But the thoughtfulness of the premier went for nought; on July 19, he was compelled to rebuke Ayrton for his rudeness toward poor Glyn.'73 Complicated by other difficulties, the law courts imbroglio was rapidly becoming a Government crisis of the first magnitude. The long and costly delay was more and more often the subject of questioning in Parliament, and of public skepticism as

well.’* The latter was recorded by Anthony Trollope in the Prime Minister (first published in 1875-76), which described the “neighbourhood of Portugal Street,” where much had been “pulled down a dozen years ago on behalf of the law courts which are to bless some coming generation.”'?> To compound this, both Lowe and Ayrton were involved in other unpopular policies. The chancellor lived forever under the shadow of his infamous budget of 1871, in which he had sought to pay for the costly reform of the army commission purchase system with a tax on matches. This inspired a heartrending demonstration by the waifs who manufactured and hawked lucifers on street corners. Amid much criticism of the cruel economy of the Government, the tax was withdrawn. Lowe had also been implicated in two scandals in 1873. In the first, it was found that he had unknowingly approved the financing of the deficits of the newly nationalized telegraph system out of the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank, and he was barely saved from censure after the report of a royal commission. In the other scandal, Lowe authorized the award of the Zanzibar mail contract without competitive bids, and a commission of inquiry on this question was appointed just as the controversy over Ayrton and the law courts reached its peak. '”°

Ayrton, meanwhile, had made himself generally offensive to every official with whom he came into contact, and, perhaps most critically, he had deeply offended Queen Victoria by his handling of the reconstruction of the drainage system at Windsor Castle.'?? His relations with Lowe, the minister with whom he had the

258 The Law Courts most official contact, had never even been polite, and they were certainly not improved by the law courts struggle.

The unhappy state of Gladstone’s Government at this time was parodied by W. S. Gilbert in The Happy Land, a play that opened at the Royal Court Theatre on March 3, 1873. The satire was banned by the lord chamberlain on March 7, because of its scarcely disguised political commentary. Gilbert had portrayed the deputation of three earthly ministers, Messrs. G[ladstone], L[owe], and A[yrton], to Fairyland, where they were to instruct the inhabitants in the principles of popular government. In one very pertinent scene, Zayda, the fairies’ minister of works, and Mr. A. are heard discussing the activities of her department in the light of recent criticism: ZAYDA Well you see what it has come to; they’ve been grumbling about those subterranean Law Courts again, I dare say. Mr. A. Subterranean! Why not subterranean? ZaYDA Why, it’s all in the dark. Mr. A. Well, what of that? Isn’t Justice blind? What does it matter where she sits. Listen to me. You’ve done too much. That’s what you’ve done. You want your Law Courts? Good! You open the affair to public competition. Three hundred enthusiastic architects instantly rush to the front, and prepare designs. Very good again! You pin them all to a wall, shut your eyes, and pick out one of them. Now you begin business in earnest. You clear a site; you collect all the dust-carts in Europe; you go to work and bring in— ZaYDA Bricks and mortar by the hundredweight. Mr. A. No. Rubbish! All the rubbish you can lay hold of—by the ton! ZayDA And the Law Courts?

Mr. A. Never build them at all.‘ In Gilbert’s imagination, official Philistinism and Street’s unpopular, picturesque design had been combined into one unfortunate medley. The growing unpopularity of two of the chief ministers of the Government finally compelled remedial action. On August 4, Lowe tendered his resignation to Gladstone, expressing the fear that he would be a source of “weakness and embarrassment to you and our colleagues,” and Gladstone decided to take on the responsibilities of the Exchequer himself.'7”? On August 6, the Cabinet approved the plan submitted by the prime minister to displace Ayrton as well, moving him to the post of judge advocate general.'®° Gladstone bluntly advised the first commissioner, “recent events have convinced me of the necessity of changes in the distribution of offices, and partially in the composition of the Government. In these events you

have been a sharer. I have arrived at the conclusion that there requires to be a

: change of hands in the Several Departments which are principally concerned.”"® Ayrton expressed his willingness to accede “for the general interest,” but he also reported that he had prepared several caustic memos on Treasury policy, to which he called Gladstone’s attention. This underlined the fact that he was the second successive first commissioner to leave office after a dispute with the Exchequer over the law courts. He further asked that some mark of distinction be awarded to Douglas Galton, whose services he had come to esteem and whose criticism of Street’s work

The Final Plan 259 had been so constant.'®? William Patrick Adam (1823-81), the Liberal M.P. for Clackmannan and Kinrose and a descendant of the famous family of Scottish architects, was chosen to succeed Ayrton. After the rearrangement of the Government, work on the law courts was allowed to proceed without official impediment. However, the builder now raised certain objections, in part occasioned by the long delay, and the contract was not signed until February 7, 1874.'°3 The first brick was laid on May 1, but by that time Disraeli was again prime minister, having ousted Gladstone with the aid of those who opposed Liberal policy toward public education. Gladstone’s long association with the law courts project was thus interrupted, although he did return to power in 1880, in time to attend the opening of the new building. Because of the more straightforward objectives of the Conservatives, the later years during which Street worked on his great commission were filled with less controversy, but the design forever bore the effects of Liberal management.

In the summer that construction began on the new law courts, Street turned fifty. That fall, Mariquita, his wife of nearly twenty-five years and his companion in most of his Continental travels, died after a brief illness. Suddenly, the architect for whom the law courts had promised to be the crowning achievement of young maturity had been caught up by the rush of years. The long delay and the bitter disputes had exacted their toll, and a younger generation of architects, sometimes critical of Street’s values, had come to the fore. Street now stood out in contrast among the contemporaries of Norman Shaw, although his work continued, almost gamely, to reflect the new environment.

The Tide of ‘Taste [: WAS ironic that Street’s steadfast adherence to apparently up-to-date artistic principles in designing the law courts should have earned such unpopularity. But

the explanation is not far to seek. Street had been attracted away from the High Victorian ideal of a medieval—classical synthesis by the triumph of Burges’s weighty,

irregular design in the competition and by the subsequent success of the pretty picturesque of the Queen Anne. However, there was simultaneously a growing reaction against picturesque excesses, especially in public architecture. As early as 1868 the Building News, long the champion of the Early French, had begun to criticize what it later called the “stiff and ungraceful incipient French Geometrical style, with heavy round columns and windows formed merely by piercing the wall and leaving masses of brick or stone between the several lights.”'®* The new, youngspirited Architect joined in this complaint, attacking the “crude architecture” which was characterized by “sheer muscularity and unrestraint.”’®> In this critical climate,

the law courts were not alone in being attacked. G. G. Scott’s St. Pancras Station (1865-71), a similarly picturesque design, was the target of almost equally savage comment. John T. Emmett wrote in the Quarterly Review of 1872: “There is no relief or quiet in any part of the work. The eye is constantly troubled and tormented, and the mechanical patterns follow one another with such rapidity and perseverance, that the mind becomes irritated where it ought to be gratified and goaded to criticism where it should be led calmly to approve.”®°

Shaw and his contemporaries, the successful young architects of the Queen

260 The Law Courts Anne generation, were sensitive to this nuance of taste, and they indulged in the picturesque only in their domestic, nonurban work. In the countryside, they built rambling, tower-topped and half-timbered manors, but in towns they adopted the gentle Renaissance of the English seventeenth century, with its bright red brick and white sashes, typified by Shaw’s New Zealand Chambers (1871-73). Gradually, their Renaissance turned into Baroque, and by the eighties the hegemony of classicism was nearly complete. For example, in the Birmingham Municipal Buildings competition, as early as 1871, four of the five selected finalist designs were classical even

though the judge was Alfred Waterhouse. While Street, the old High Victorian, may have sympathized with these architects as they attempted to define a monumental urban style, as a convinced Goth he could not have approved of their methods.

This was the final break-up of High Victorian architecture. Architects abandoned the attempt to create a single, synthetic architectural vocabulary which was medieval in principle, classical in some of its effects, and universal in its application.

The “Battle of the Styles” was revived. Henceforth, urban, secular architecture would be regular and classical, while the picturesque and medieval were restricted to churches and country houses. The Queen Anne, the pretty mongrel of mixed Gothic and classical parentage, reflected only dimly the aspirations of Street’s gen-

eration. Many of those who had spent their entire careers in opposition to the Gothic Revival rejoiced at this partial resurrection of classicism, as did James Fergusson when he saw that the law courts design controversy had aroused a broad fellowship of antimedievalists. As Street was tormented by his critics, Fergusson gloated: “This time the shaft has hit, and hurts, and may be the beginning of the end.’”"® The law courts had been stranded by these rapidly changing tides of opinion. Defiantly picturesque, the building turned its back on the High Victorian notion of classicized medievalism that Street had helped to define, and it also failed to satisfy the new taste for overt classicism in public buildings. The law courts were a transi-

tional monument which pleased neither younger nor older observers. The years around 1870 were a turning point in English architectural history, when High Victorianism, with its Early French foil, yielded to the Queen Anne and classical styles that prevailed until the First World War. Keeping abreast of these changes was no easy matter, and Street did not entirely

succeed, although the final design for the law courts represented a heroic effort. However, other indications show that he did come to understand the new critical climate of the seventies. An early sign of this was the lecture he gave at the R.I.B.A. in November 1869, called “On Some of the Differences of Style in Old Buildings. ”"® While his subject was limited to medieval examples, he dealt with the forces which created architectural variety, perhaps casting an eye toward the pluralistic future. More suggestive of a changed attitude was a pamphlet Street wrote in 1871, addressing the controversy that had then engulfed the proposal to decorate St. Paul’s

Cathedral.**? Street opposed the plan to encrust the interior and to fill the dome with mosaics, preferring to leave Wren’s work untouched and to commission only a rich baldacchino from William Burges, then the architect of the cathedral fabric. In part this may have been the predictable opinion of one who saw his own work being tampered with, but it was also a far more sympathetic attitude toward classical architecture than he had shown in his plan of 1857 to Gothicize Wren’s St. Dionis

The Final Plan 261 CC ECO TE EO EE EI EE TO CT RC ER EC EE ERE ECE EC OR NE EE SO RR I esas neste eecens ener cegtior apa cecsL score atl teresete ssperuptntLesam abn sacaeecemepecten ee

rm ee TT +; se ; Solent , a pee ae SN 3 tae = “ cee

Oy ng *Ld Rall| OT ean SeSS Pe oo. calapt Apo 3. =eaFAR SS| EE Se

eo ae a | Sess oe, sae ee Se |

o aaiom, eeants reMDa ; SPR ‘eo Sg entemen ee ete yas an EB men y Ie eg ~y _ “5 ade re | ge 4: = %ahi fan ee ik j |

9esSeSeee SS ee Ulin eer ep eeeeoy PAI Sees ee eC TE Sint Weel FE a ae a en EE ts sore er on pueeieeee ar aten tame A | 350g gS |, eeeBE ee aeeet eee eS, SS Pca ieee as ie eens % Lens OB Raat A nro NE peptone SIE a Ti ee 4 Be € Ae SS re eee wees one ag ane a "hs ss aRaera oePOSS eee Fr |e| Se Bef ae 2 a creases Seere ORae ge ge maeON toe i kee a ee ion % 4.OE go B

ee ec IT EE NS LS dee ee ete 5 Be eee i ae er i er me oe Pay e ie: ms. nae Ea pe oe Si oo ee Saeee ee 2 ae i sie bse 2%, ay bie Ge

| Sg eeAo ee meee EOE Te Wa Os AEaeea: Bae ee ef iiae‘Med |, Aa#159 eae ete 4t Hie ee i eePS Ae) | OR | Soe igo. IERYs Ew EBesaoe & 4 8. A ae Ane eo Se

ee ae Ve ee Pe ee ete. eee eecs eeoe Oe Bl2 Le ea-ee oe aES a. eeae eeee eee eee fence ee eee geee 8 ag ea ee, We eiBaOO gy ee aES ee eee

Pt ee eee ee ee pee —— ei ae ae a ee eee nee, ee ee Ee SSeS a edie’ i “St 3 °€. © Be A fig pares Ps if Peo Ree Ca, CO ee eee eee Tt nd ee Bess...

spective da n treet ‘ ; : 121 First design for All Saints = Backchurch and in his scheme to demolish Wren’s and Gibbs’s St. Clement Danes.

English pile sae Per- This classical sympathy, as well as a positive response to the criticism that his design a piles has Bul ding for the law courts received, could also be detected in the proposal that he made in News, 24 May 1872.) 1872 for the English Church at Rome (Fig. 121). With its long, pronounced cornice and repetitive detail, this unbuilt scheme for an emphatically urban site showed Street again seeking to infuse his Gothic with classical order. Almost a return to his earlier ideals, it was inspired, no doubt, by the persistent recommendations that he temper the picturesque component in his work. Interestingly the trip Street made to Italy to inspect the site for this church in 1872 brought him to Rome—and shortly later to Paestum—for the first time in his life. At last he saw something of § classical antiquity for himself. Street’s more conventional Gothic work of the last decade of his career also reflected the new tastes of the seventies, although they retained a personal flavor. He continued to incorporate more and more that was late and English in his buildings, as the shafted columns and tracery of St. John the Divine, Kennington (nave, 1871-74) suggest. At Erlestoke in Wiltshire he even designed a Perpendicular church, St. Saviour (1880). Street’s two most significant buildings of this period were begun in 1873: the church of St. James at Kingston, Dorset, and his own home, Holmdale, at Holmbury St. Mary in Surrey (Figs. 122, 123). They were both personal variations on themes

|e| KINGSTONE 88@@§§@+SFFfeseNeO_O__NMN | es: — : ee AS Bees CHURCH pee ests aeDORSET. eto s : : g norte Wc Raeaanneetee a ae |z . west view. 9 =aa =>: Ci

MR 3 = MS: Saget = eeENS Seats ee 3Ss Sees Soe = % x ORE i : oeeee 4 >. odPek Bas 4 ecweet : pe gee :ee patneanaas See a SEN Boe ee =Sa ee eosSe So a aes eas iD . TRE. ET id Sahai “Al: ae x ERROR BRSees Hg cs a reer Se : Hewe ie eae See eeSe S ee ee Se se a ee ee : [2=#'=:gSees GEORCE ED. bi ls é ee ee ee eae Beas eecentres Gennes Spitsaei* 3: =soexBe Be Cee ey =;z See Se eee ee ease PmSe pase ame ee ee a ae aee aaa :SSeS “ ze eae Fs # yao esi eee : heehee j : Sacoeesse eeeaeSees Sa eS Se aeee See Sees eS eeeeARCHITECT . ese- zeeSeEteceeccesr neers Cecio eesonmetnenie: seers aerate — oe :Nabaitcg - ets cate = : Tee Speen ngEo3 EES My yin Bee Re:Dees. ee eee RRR CES : ues tee Gee ser oes ey = Me N Ciee ease ee Se Geos aes SSeS E cee eek eae eee : Be cee : prcie 7 ate genre Sg ee Seer eer : Se St eecnes ee : Se SS SES eee ecSe eG ee eeee pee ee -_ =nas tao i ee$$; eet ee Se SS Snes eoeetee oo reere igoe tee aaPE[| a:SOE Hee te eeme ee ee githe ee eg ‘ ee ee eee mn cor en att ets See peae eee Ses Reesee Be Cine sonracage eee cee Seepono eee Sh et aes ae Eo etere eee ee aeres q Ee Seenes foeSpl ee oe =a Ss re eer meena estes eee RE Meee ee oe ew ge wer : . ee $ eas Gee asia spon Seereepee wees $ a Gest ge Pecos po gs ae ee er : ee otters at ewes Oe ele es ee | ; eee ee z Se SSS = Se :

ees: ante eee SS we pia oguenine SE cocks eae tecattoe a Pane Sei eae ae jae 2 ‘geok . ==Soe *Sitecnenrat $aeStes SeScore a oe ae Rea ae Sees‘ 34. SSS Speen ee := eseeeS esCee Shine hehns anata Rae ttt Sein a;aaa SP isRE Ease iat gem Ree pete :: See cae =en ST ean enaRge i rea jest eee eo een Rr meen Set cant eseee eeseesee aa:Bek eeeeee eeE$ SoS eee eg eee anette steam reccoat ae Etec — sige As ‘ GA ON ae See Bene ‘eiiiesenasinee Ee : mS ¢ ee ee > erie Ge ee eee = : ate ee ne eee eS es SSS 6 eeenN SRE Se ettcpee Prne 2%, it oe 3hae Bee ® ite? Beey: See So ae these Sage eeeSsee ees: eee eaatcnhas, oh gs orsRE SeeERO SS Spree fe aSpee ee boeeeeeecse 6 fy: Y Pampes SB ne Ete Ne TE ee eese eSese Soeeae eeeSee See fee : = Se ee eeae

= ee Bs ae co i: ee. te ‘faa Np HY Met 6 Se eeie eee SD Se ee C . (es awe oe + rp DN — Sr —“( Oe GT re eee alg ie : ay sai ae re Se i ee ee ee et ee vas ee se eek Pie i ete Be pte ee ee age Se Pa Bee eS — os SS SF. Ppa elie b Be 2 GA pee eee I fae ie bee ce So ne A Sr eee eet = ME gt ON : . Skee ee RS EE earn aces NEE eis gee Moi S me 2h Sys teres ee, uy %. 44 ea ae , Wier Se Aa SY Re eg pe = < SP ae es . eee

Se Se Res Bee eR a ee Sage ee ae So SS i ge Sate 3 ee WERE = Bie me} 4 i | i Pages t BS Se est Brae MS Seas se So SS ae utter had eae eee SS eee ee eee Sees cee Sea 5

eee ee IR ae fF - -— ~~.

fo Sco es ee ee ag fe TG Bet oa a. BIE as 24s 1 Od ees eee BG A oe ee Seo seeees ste Reece sie ee tee ee oe SsSe SR SS SeSos I eeCanam Be it eB! ee i ah er Paes ee Sy Sy ik7§Meee ed ee=Sie Ree eae eeeS geen gS eeieSEett = get Ae 7, 3eyU4 §Ee a ot bsBe SShes £550 2kgs * Sest Sloe Se Gaieee SeSes nn a ee Iracarne sees ead Eere 3 ERE mast ee ee salad of. EB MPa) dF OS SS Bae ar eee fae /-:BM go aeaees seeSees : See ee ae ig Neto aeeat ey aE aS (aa Bee me ig as aeeaeBEES eeegates Sea P24 geBias + BS SAD *bgitcre et eoeseit, Pnctne eee GOP aes Gegkiene eetOF Bere Ae So Si eee aCee Ee =foBie SRC: SSRE eeeRare eee Ao ia eeneee ees eeeee So ee ee MS geeSoren ces+glee Ey“ettimes aaeTt 8aa «Fe jim Bteras Bie eeetnet rere |reSS aeseeeSe ete eee pe seineetnen eeTs ting ccc neaS ae Cog Sete err tee | eeexyioe aSERENA 2 ieee ae tsaeSoe TO : eaAen fT t* ee ee Se oe ae

SS SS ne ek it a3oa cree ees id er ote cf] fF Ne es Ei ae Sores Re ee Se emg FG Rae4 ees: poe eeeee. fmeee(Mien, i oe, 1 Ee 5 s me 2UR Rue on aS OG aee eg ce ee eeae hyge — 8Fo ee Se aeee ¢ eeOa, ae Bie ined go pe So greet ENtee heh Wom geeces eePa | Ra oe nn po PR ee, Ce. ol Oe AP eI re She Fg WE Pkt ee eee ee Op SE ot See sec ee er ee eee 2 age er 3 By fe : ee | ee Se es re Sarg OO es ee ae SES St ee Se ee ee 2SeSeekeesce Bie Sova Ge eeeee Sones SSee epee ee ee SORae Se ice ee ee: CoNr ee ee = Se Fes fectoe re tee Bee OG LO ohFos I ng As = we ae Sgt 7ia ah Siaee ER RA Se ee a ees f ptSpeuiing eee i SS neeeu pee 5 : Bee PA eeaa)ieee:tee 17s,OE Wag,REE Rees ae Se” Pee 3BG pth eggee ie eeee ye IAe tg eaieAS ER esde ie ees ee eSEe. Se eeSe ee Se ees =oe SS ag on 5 Ps gd a ny Boot errr oermomagrnsonms ere ie cal, el Bee eo Ge i ae ta ‘ OEE Pane ig GTR gE ew SE GO AE Ee: Se 2 fg. as ee hege eeeee ee oer ee ea ‘ease a A ate es i Serer ree ee =: Cn «at re a te £% SS Si RR RE nS. ee ne es ea oe eS ee eee ig reece PORES oe EE ee gen — Se eo Bod OOS ange ASE Rg ie i EE Se 2 es Milt a Sct ag wg Reg Sate 0pier =%22,Qe ae. ‘ame SZ ge ge ae ets vee cle, aAe, Re i eee oe * ee Prager MO MEO EE oo 4G coe PeRie bt St5et Ree eeoe eeeaGp ee Me tae Ye Reee i ee SS SSeS er, Rete om eee ies OE, ip BOS nS eee, Bee A Sell BE PGS Leas Se TEE, ee HOC BA i ER . wey teeeS Mereatts 1s. tet MES aSBe os See Bie gares goat eo Pate «4 meprar Ft Sa Nn neHERS AOS! CEoer aESots AF An PRI Bio $ pitt Be ceetOIE Se aesae pp OIona SN ee art =paced Bent SHEE Sal et Se eee eas porns SLIPS HABE ER imae? on ome ge aig fo ot G4. eaLa ayee.Brians iaa og A7Liat AO Se Spee Seer ee aasBe SEES 22ya Oh, er IL, esee &Sasi cectr es ok io aaa Bae en es ON tasro cas aCa oe ce Seat psoa ge ete Bee ier see Menent og 3atts pRB: REE ain, 22 Sea«.éiataie by ig pl 2tants ee ee cS ene iy, r2 # aeFiley 5 getter San Ot oeeeNeovo. Ree gy, ey BONee. Igasgt ercna mani eechPee ee ee i’GE en, eeen secssetigss Oe

Ey RO I FE en TS oe oont ee ge, Bc Oa See a SoTeer eceo nt ON See pees tiene Se es Se eee cea = ee &> Rah one Egg NEscree OA eg esac aAMER ieene gs Poee TEfee oo eee paces a,cmectuah: os tabi? Se . aAeat eeaeot eeSede Fo re Oe WO ccgrea ines casa teheT5IDES Ain etaSone igTee EEore > a= SeNee 5. eee = |tehe See BS A$eeesins. | Seeeee eeee Sao 67See Felag ofceReoreriss, angen aEeg ge napa ‘ vaate aeeRe OmBienen iS oeate being Seer tteat aaceeeenreeeeee

* Jagy AES See | See

a ea UII! Eo GRRLeae ETE eee 2LSE ears Nea Li ye SS PE a Bae Se eS Neie7ani, PH admeee a eee ee dees, aTN aeaeeeCio VESifWee 4 a GAR © CB HSPe ee rer Co gM ee ee

meen ONG OS 1th ee a se y SoeUG ae ee P FN eS BS ee SieNGS : a ee. ee eee SMO i = 1 . ee ee ft hava ses | ee B ‘ + =Le is 3 Hey BO ; okNR i aE etnaeee ee ae om Wyre Gg Nee ee OE eS ce a cas kai 7 Boas ae geenn meneame, ome mmm memo

OS ‘/ é LY é ‘9 é J] f} poe SS = a SS | : oft te = gn a i i a . mow ein were "gs eee aia aaa

Sarre YX Ae Sema ‘Ke ant ae Sr — oe

HT) a a

8) i iaaC roeAe IA LY _ S|Res iT oo NE ae asa | Te Lo UE ly eam ke ieHeae eed

A B Na degen SESe ae T 7 DUN ieee )lUttC“(‘CO

perme: LS Th eo PLL epee har

Pe ea Lt © Fra 8§3§= © nr gee Ces hhlCUlU

iittimiainns:, 2mGE . Samim am, SSSases SS Se a SiMRAGHEE Ae bom,SS 1 i SS Aaa SS S73

USSG NA | CAR I Nene Be Ue ere , *- |ae ie ee aa\: oe Me fe eh es i 9, — a ke . ‘ ‘ i-stairs. gn $Elevation eee ‘ a.: Srastsverse 124 Witness % 7 ‘ bene — i ssFos ss —_ ye memes ar Be. OZ Se Caea ee Soeieaan ee iti saoees wisieeS ace OSwe, Be. S i x : ioe es 3 . eas Fs

Nodeee ce oof SS aI| = ‘~ee ees :, ss %oeA z ad Pde : “ 5soegt

and =~ec~*~ © a+sh2 fe Se SSS

..- 53 / Ls eo S2% heSeae eeBae Be. eeF:Bee ee ee, i: a‘= AL im . Bia Fig, aLi = 9te eeSf ee es eteee ed esFT Bees 3Ff feeSees ae oe ae Grae ii oe oe if aepo§ bn PS- seEeeee@F; A

aAAY Ss PS Pg*cs:rg: $ A:ae @ i: xD3ESAs: €: “* . NR #3 ys £74 ,ae. R ee Se so eee fafe fee pfeter CF aes ee FZ pf fe} ges fApee Spe ge Fe eefe fe fF fe ff ee ae ee fe FFI oe Zhe & nbicts fe gee BE: BE Peee fee Ee eeefpee 4¥rf pees fy6f eSArf fofl,eef/feJ, dee 23 ee fe esf aeff # see . iff 2 ff ff fps fr ff Ff ff fhCU ff 2 ? y ff fF ff 78=at yre eeff, if fC, fF Jf Ff J. fF 2 |; Ff fe he2s Ie4aeffa 2 ge foff — fey Fey f/f — ee ff L fe 8 .fae} eC yeeeo 6hee CD ee ee es SSeeie— es See Lees 3fe, Eeei5 ajf aefChLUf Ber gos £:¢ 4 ESey tee po fo 1s ees J Sy ee Fe é es i aes eee fee FF fF oe i ae Re ee ff ef Of eo, Ee, & ff feeeéie fBe,

—SSeJf ff ee f/f Sy—f2B ee ee Eee, i ee See eefe See Sees ‘ Al: : ‘k * eeeee eeee — SFie Of Jf ee fffefo ffiEee eyFsSees é ~-ON

Slice: —_ Zshane 3 smn RONG: END &. seennmnrernnannenen t© eed >> CND EVAG\C oe senate ero .. CER! |amsontteeesscesdes |ALONE: 4 y: Besar 4ELevs ee Cosemde aa =< tine Levasion ae SEaetisaan hd alin aTC ee iiSey ae OA | ?saas £1 ee eeeee Re SE fem LO

yCake. ee be ‘ Ft ef i ee —_=E caaeeeememammnd _ lr

éEspeSe 4 ‘ ee : Pe : {ee fee ooo. Seeseeeeeee spees Ge:3ae Be hee it Gat His SSR S :3re ae :eeREN SSS Scere 2 See :cK Bao

Bee Bete, Se 2 =e ease F = ee 2) :as eee RY SR : ie ee Seen Side (oat kee es := Bee pete See a sat fa ES i ] So ee Se. ae oe IS 3 eee ees = ZZ, : s 7x : ee ee ee So SE me : ; » Z a ae ee Ee ee ee ee eee eee es é eee Bee eo aeSe aeisaee ieSee eee ee He again counseled,

If, contrary to my advice, you employ some one who has not had constant experience of such large works, who is not responsible for the scheme in any sense whatever, and who cannot therefore be asked to guarantee any certain results, it is my plain duty to tell you that in my judgement there will be the gravest risk of a comparative failure, or at least of troublesome and probably expensive alterations in the scheme after the tenders have been sent in.

Hunt, who had championed the claims of Street on other occasions, now lost sympathy with him. He first wrote to Mitford that the fact that Street’s commission was based on the entire cost of the building, including the complete heating system, proved his responsibility. °° A few days later his views had hardened even more, and he advised Mitford, Mr. Street would not hesitate to be responsible for the success of his own scheme if only he could employ Messrs. Haden to do the work at their own price. This is practically admitting that the scheme is Haden’s and not Mr. Street’s and if we were to employ Haden to do the work as Mr. Street desires we had better hold Haden liable and dispense with Mr. Street’s services altogether and save 5 percent on the outlay. This of course cannot be done and therefore unless Mr. Street will admit unreservedly that he is to be held responsible for the efficiency and success of his scheme, I am decidedly of the opinion that it would not be prudent to allow the works to proceed under his direction. "*°

Based on this memorandum, an ultimatum was sent to the architect on June 7: “Unless

290 The Law Courts you wish to resign the superintendence of the Work together with the commission as architect thereon, the Board must hold you responsible for the execution and efficiency of a scheme which was so manifestly included in your agreement." Street must have noticed that his employers were growing weary of his intransigence, but only now did he seem to realize that they seriously contemplated his removal from part of the design. He replied: “I do not believe any architect has ever done more to assist a client in such matter than I have done in this case, and I have never asked, nor do | intend to ask after [a] great part of the work has been done, to be relieved from the work.”’*? He at last consented to put the specifications in shape

for the use of bidders, and he reported that these were ready on August 6.'43 The Office of Works then set about preparing the terms of the contract and the invitations to tender, and by the end of August everything appeared to be in order. '*4 However, the tenders were never invited. Almost immediately after resuming office as first commissioner, William Adam had appealed to Gladstone to be appointed governor of Madras.'*® He was apparently fond of India, where he had served

as private secretary to the governor of Bombay in the 1850s, and that autumn the transfer was approved. On November 11, 1880, George John Shaw-Lefevre (1831-— 1928) was named to succeed him at the Office of Works. Shaw-Lefevre’s sister had married the son to the fourth earl of Aberdeen, who had employed Street to design the chapel at Haddo House in 1879, and Shaw-Lefevre later professed that he was himself a long term friend of the architect.'*® This association may have disposed the new first commissioner to be indulgent toward Street, and in a meeting with the architect on January 18, 1881, he agreed that too much time had already been lost for him to allow any further delay for a competition. He authorized the signing of a contract with Haden. '*? Hunt was upset by this immediate capitulation, but the first commissioner was not to be dissuaded. “I have mentioned the subject to the Secretary of the Treasury and told him I will take the responsibility upon this Department,” he wrote, suggesting that, as A. B. Mitford later recalled, Shaw-Lefevre did have a knack for getting his way with the chancellor of the Exchequer. "#8 In March, a contract was signed for £36,225, rather less than the sum named in the estimate of December 1879. After much uncertainty, Street was thus spared the uncongenial task of supervising the installation by one contractor of a heating system designed by another.

Nor was he compelled to commit himself fully in an area where he had little technical expertise. Because G. N. Haden and Son were competent and honorable tradesmen, the law courts also received an effective apparatus without the terrible difficulties that beset the Houses of Parliament. But Street never won the argument over the responsibility of the architect for heating and ventilation, although the Office of Works no longer pursued the matter very vigorously. When his son submitted a request in 1884 for an additional commission for the heating contract, arguing that it had not been a part of the original responsibility of the architect, Sir Henry Hunt memoed stiffly, “Mr. Street was over and over again informed that the Warming and Ventilating of this Building were included in his Agreement of 23rd September 1870 and therefore | cannot recommend the Board recognise the claim now made.”"49

Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 2Q1 Builders |’ ADDITION to the difficulties encountered by the Office of Works in dealing

with the architect, it faced further disputes in working with the construction contractors at the law courts. With them, too, patterns of practice were in transition, complicating the ordinary problems of broken deadlines, strikes, and bankruptcy which beset the construction of the new building. Street was eager to get his design into the hands of the builders as soon as possible. On August 4, 1870, when his simplified floor plan was approved by the Royal Commission, he wrote to Douglas Galton at the Office of Works to ask that trial borings be made at the site and that the foundation contract be prepared. Since detailed plans had not yet been readied, Street proposed that contractors might be invited to submit bids based on the price per cubic yard of foundation work, rather than for the gross amount.'5° Henry Hunt objected to this unorthodox and oldfashioned manner of proceeding, demanding that tenders be submitted in the usual form. This required the completion of a full set of plans and specifications first. He was also unhappy with the separation of the foundation from the main construction contract, but he was willing to allow this in the “exceptional case” of the law courts. '>' Galton concurred in this opinion, and in early October, Acton Ayrton, who was also anxious for work to begin, approved Hunt’s plan.'” In November, Street set to work making the necessary plans and specifications for the foundations, and he submitted a list of suggested builders.'*? This does not survive, but it seems to have formed the basis for the roster of twenty-one contractors invited by the Office of Works to tender on December 21.'** Included were most of

the giant general contractors of the day, firms like Lucas Brothers, Holland and Hannen, Dove Brothers, William Cubitt and Company, Henry Lee and Sons, George Myers and Sons, George Trollope and Sons, and William Brass. Except for Holm and Nicol of Liverpool, all were based in London. They were asked to submit their tenders before 1 p.M. on December 28, 1870. The builders met together on December 15 and agreed to employ two firms of surveyors jointly, commissioning them to prepare the bill of quantities on which bids would be calculated. But they also agreed that the deadline was too soon and that they would have to see the conditions of the proposed contract, not yet drafted by the Office of Works, by December 19.5 These requests were forwarded to Street, who sent them on to the office with his endorsement. He observed, “Christmastide is, | suppose, not the most convenient time for getting work done,” and he recommended an extension of the deadline until January 14, 1871.'°° The builders’ requests were granted. ‘57

However, difficulties quickly arose after the contractors had studied the harsh provisions of the contract. These included penalties even in the event of unforeseeable delays, a clause permitting the government to add features not shown on the contract plans, and a prohibition against protesting the certificates issued by the architect. As it happened, the building trades were just then very sensitive to the dangers of such one-sided contracts, having been alerted to them by the decision in the case of Jones v. St. John’s College, issued the previous November. In that ruling, substantial penalties for exceeding a deadline had been levied against a builder, even though the client’s request for additional work caused the delay. The contract,

292 The Law Courts however, had stipulated that all construction, including extras, was to be completed by a given date.’®* Thus warned and rallied to something like professional solidarity, the bidders for the foundations of the law courts refused to accept the terms proposed

by the government. Rather than submit their tenders, they sent a deputation to Ayrton on January 7. The first commissioner evidently found the arguments of a group of influential businessmen more convincing than the unsupported protests which he often heard from the artists in his employ, and the contract was promptly rewritten. Concessions were made to the builders on every disputed point, and the time allowed for completion of the work was increased from seven to twelve months. ‘°°

Ayrton took advantage of the delay caused by this dispute to revise the specifications slightly. Street had just submitted the drawings which showed the great, freestanding clock tower at the southeast, a proposal immediately rejected by the Office of Works. Thus, when Ayrton advised the builders on January 13 of the modified contract terms, he also asked them to record the cost of the foundations for the tower as a separate item in their bids. The new deadline for tendering was 1 P.M. on January 20, 1871." Nineteen tenders were duly received. One contractor had withdrawn during the first stage of the bidding, another failed to submit a final tender, and a third delivered his bid too late. These three were partially offset by the firm of G. B. Gammon and Sons, which submitted a tender without an invitation. Gammon’s was the highest bid, at £68,734, separated by nearly £32,000 from the low tender of £36,775 put in by Dove Brothers."®’ This enormous range was noted with “astonishment” by the Builder, while the Building News observed that it appeared that tender-

ing had become a “game of chance.”' A correspondent in the latter journal suggested that many contractors agreed to tender for such contracts merely to get their

names into the papers and that they did not take the time to prepare careful estimates. ©

G. E. Street was immediately consulted by the Office of Works, and he advised the acceptance of Dove’s tender, which fell below his own estimate of £37,000— 40,000.'** Ayrton accepted Street’s advice, and after the approval of the Treasury had been obtained, a contract for £35,060 was signed at the Office of Works on

February 2 at 3 p.m." The contract amount had been reduced by omitting. the foundations for the clock tower, but Street at least had the reassurance of seeing some progress being made toward the execution of his design, albeit in altered form. Dove Brothers, although the low bidders, was not an insubstantial firm, risking all to win a large contract. They were probably to be counted among the top three London general contractors of the 1860s, a position they earned chiefly through the construction of churches." Originally four brothers were involved in the company, but in 1862 only three joined in signing a formal partnership agreement. The senior partner was Benjamin Dixon Dove, who lived unostentatiously at their building yard at 15 Studd Street, Islington. This was a convenient location for the use of Regent’s Canal to transport heavy materials cheaply. The lists of tenders and the reports of contruction progress published in the Building News show that the Doves were the low and usually successful bidder for more than a dozen contracts between 1868 and 1870. None of these exceeded £10,000, however, underscoring the great scale of the contract for the law courts. But at least one of their churches from this period, St.

Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 293 Mary Abbotts, Kensington, by G. G. Scott, was a work of national importance, and in 1869—70, they built the tower of Street’s St. Peter, Bournemouth, for £2995.’ The terms of the law courts contract required completion of the foundations by

February 1, 1872, but work was not finished until May 18. In principle, Dove Brothers was liable for a penalty of £100 per week for this delay, but in March Street appealed to the Office of Works against the strict enforcement of this clause. The slower, more careful rate of construction had been ‘“‘an advantage to the work,” he argued, and he went on, “I should be very sorry that Messrs Dove should be fined if they go on as they have hitherto. They appear to me to have done their work well and carefully, but perhaps have not quite realized from the first how much time this work would take.”"®’ Although Street later refused to accept any personal responsibility for the delay, blaming it on Dove Brothers’ failure to employ “a sufficiently large force of men,” he continued to argue that no penalty was called for. The work had benefited, he said, and, since the main contract was not even ready for tender-

ing, no harm had been done to the schedule. Ultimately the Office of Works accepted this point of view. ‘°°

Indeed, there was little to complain about with respect to the Dove contract. In the course of construction Street had been able to pare a further £3541 from the total amount, as he worked out the final design more exactly.’ Moreover, the excavations revealed a freshwater spring which, it was predicted, would be able to supply half the needs of the building. Of its waters Street reported enthusiastically: “It has been drunk by the workmen, and comes to our drains through gravel and sand, and looks extremely good.”’” Finally, the Doves’ workmanship was sound. However, they later seemed to regret their low bid, unsuccessfully petitioning for an additional £2250 to compensate them for the unexpected expenses that they had incurred when they encountered clay where the test borings had shown gravel. '? The main building contract did not proceed as smoothly. Tendering was delayed

for years by the controversy surrounding the final plan and for many additional months while the very complex quantities were calculated. Once the bids were received, further delay occurred while the Office of Works sought to reduce the expense of Street’s plan, and there was even more waiting when the successful contractor disputed the terms of the contract. When work finally began, the builder was out-matched by the enormity of the undertaking and by the worsening state of the economy. Preparations for the main contract began poorly because of the long debate over

site, cost, and plan, but even when these issues were resolved, a huge amount of time was lost waiting for Street to prepare the extraordinarily complete book of specifications and the 248 contract drawings. These, in turn, demanded a spectacular exertion from the surveyors, working in consultation with the architect, in order to draft the bill of quantities on which the tenders could be based. Although the surveyors employed by the architect began their work in May 1871, even before the Treasury overrode Ayrton and while Street was still making contract drawings, it was not until late in 1872 that preparations could be made to invite bids. In January 1872, in the midst of this long preliminary effort, Street explained his own role: “I am engaged day after day in answering questions, and making explanatory drawings [in additon to the contract drawings] for the Surveyors, and all these

294 The Law Courts answers and explanations are incorporated from time to time in a specification book from which finally I propose to form the complete specification for the work.” At last, on December 2, 1872, Street reported that the plans and specifications were ready. '”* Following instructions from Ayrton, he had organized the materials to allow the construction work to be divided into separate contracts for the main block and the east wing, perhaps to be awarded to different builders. The architect suggested that the list of those invited to bid for the foundations should form the basis of the list for these contracts. Hunt, however, thought that additional invitations should be issued to provincial firms, and Galton agreed.'”> Thus, when preliminary letters of inquiry were dispatched to twenty-four contractors on December 11, the

large London builders, with Dove among them, again dominated the roster of invitees, but four additional firms from Birmingham and Manchester had joined Holm and Nicol of Liverpool to represent provincial interests more forcefully.'”° This

| gesture was apparently felt to be necessary in constructing a national building, but the reasoning that lay behind it was never clearly articulated. It was not until mid-January 1873 that the results of the first letters were forwarded to Street.'7? Most of the non-Londoners had declined to compete, although a total of eighteen signified that they were interested. At the last minute four more names were added to the list, before the formal invitations to tender were sent out on February 27.'7 The deadline was originally set for March 15, but five days before the bids were due it was extended to the 25th. On the latter date nineteen contractors submitted tenders for one or more of the three contracts that were offered: for the entire building, for the main block of great hall and courtrooms, and for the eastern block of offices. The lowest bids for all contracts were discovered to be those of Joseph Bull and Sons of Southampton, one of the firms added to the list after replies had been received from the initial inquiries. '”° This time the range of tenders was less spectacular. To erect the entire building

in the preferred material, Portland stone, they varied from the Bulls’ low of £744,344 to the high of £994,700 bid by Peto Brothers of Pimlico. Bull and Sons, however, were substantially below the next-to-lowest tender of George Baker and Son of Lambeth, who had come in with £816,675. Dove Brothers, chastened by their small profit (or perhaps a loss) on the foundations, was tenth with £924, 100. Street recommended that Bull and Sons be employed, but a quarrel ensued because their tender exceeded the statutory limit of £710,000, a sum which was also to pay the separate contracts for heating and lighting equipment. The Office of Works demanded that the design be modified to reduce costs, as already discussed, and during the dispute both Ayrton and Street negotiated privately with the Bulls. This led to substantial confusion, and it was not until July 2, when Street and Bull were advised by the Office of Works that the Treasury had sided with Street, that the position of the contractor became clear. '®° The selection of Bull and Sons must have surprised most observers. Their Belvidere Works lay beside the River Itchen in Southampton, and they had established a successful but not enormous practice in the south of England. They did a substantial amount of railway work, chiefly for the London and Southwestern Railway, but their architectural output was limited, and a survey of the tender and construction news columns of the Building News from 1868 to 1872 reveals only ten

Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 295 apparent or confirmed contracts. These did include several important structures, including John Gibson’s National Provincial Bank in Southampton and the Godwinesque Winchester Guildhall by Jeffrey and Skiller.'** However, nothing about their previous accomplishments suggested that they were likely to win the right to build the largest public building of that generation. The success of Bull and Sons was Clearly the result of offering the lowest bid to an economy-minded Government,

and the case of their employment was to demonstrate the folly of making such decisions on the basis of price alone. The head of the firm was Joseph Bull, born in Southampton in 1803. He and his wife Sarah lived in Orchard Lane and later in Paget Street in that city, and he had established himself as a builder at least by the 1830s. Three of his sons entered the business: Edward Charles, baptized in 1840, and Henry William and Frederick

W., both evidently born after 1846." Another son seems to have become an architect, going into partnership with C. A. Monday, with whom he designed the Norman church of St. Matthew, Southampton, constructed by the family firm and . consecrated in 1870.'°3 Monday was later placed in charge of all the architectural drawings for the law courts by the Bulls. The story of the company was one of comfortable prosperity and of local importance, all of which was sacrificed in the pursuit of a contract which was probably too large and far away for the resources of the firm, and which was undertaken on the eve of deteriorating financial conditions in the country at large. The Bulls’ shortcomings were almost immediately demonstrated, bringing Street into an unaccustomed alliance with the Office of Works, a relationship that became more natural when W. P. Adam succeeded Ayrton as first commissioner in August 1873. The first indication that their builder would prove uncooperative came a few weeks after the design controversy had been resolved and the way seemed to be clear at last for rapid progress. In a letter to the secretary of works on July 18, the Bulls

raised two points of dispute whose lengthy debate was to delay the signing of the contract until the next year. First, basing their case on the precise wording of the invitation to tender, which had requested a bid for the fitting of only a single, sample court, they refused to undertake the construction of all of the courtrooms at their bid price of £804. Second, they reasoned that they were due “some consideration for the delay of nearly four months and the inconvenience and loss we have entertained since the delivery of our tender which it is obvious in the present state of the labor market has been much to our disadvantage.”’®* On neither issue were Street or the Office of Works at first willing to give much ground, but in each case some accommodation had to be reached before work could begin. The first reply to Bull and Sons was based on a memo by Henry Hunt, who suggested that they could be released from their bid of £804 only if the final plans for the other seventeen courtrooms differed from the single sample design on which their tender was based. On the other question, he argued, reasonably, that delays were common at the outset of “a great work of this kind” and that all of the bidders had known the state of the construction market, where prices had been rising steadily for several years.'®> Shortly after this message was conveyed to the contrac-

tors, Street met with them to attempt to persuade them that they were being unrealistic, but he was unsuccessful. Already they seemed to recognize that they

296 The Law Courts were in over their heads, and they grasped at every opportunity to reduce their responsibilities and increase their income.

On September 1, several of the Bulls met with Hunt, Galton, and Charles Poland, who represented Street. They explained that their sample courtroom tender had included a clerical error which resulted in a bid £300 lower than intended. The Bulls were understandably anxious that this mistake for one court should not be multiplied by eighteen. The hardships caused by the delay were also discussed, but most importantly, the builders introduced a number of additional requests which revealed even more tellingly the weaknesses of their organization and finances. In

lieu of the heavily framed timber scaffolding which Street had included in the specifications, they asked to substitute lighter, cheaper pole scaffolding where sufficient. They further requested that they be released from the clause requiring them

to work all stone on the site, preferring to do some of that labor at their yard in Southampton. They also asked to be granted an advance toward the purchase of machinery. *® All of these proposals indicated that the firm was short of capital and geographically overextended.

Street, Galton, and Hunt were adamantly opposed to any concession to these new demands, and in mid-September, Hunt prepared a briefing memorandum on the situation for Adam, the new first commissioner, who was only then becoming active in the business of the office. '®? Hunt was, however, now more flexible with

_ respect to the original claims. He allowed that the Bulls had made a “bona fide error” in their courtroom tender, and he urged that £5100 be added to the contract on account of this. Moreover, he was willing to see some “fair and reasonable” compensation offered on account of the delay, a difficulty which would not have arisen, he suggested, if Ayrton had not so stubbornly resisted Hunt’s counsel of moderation in reshaping the design. “But,” he went on, “the First Commissioner was pleased to take a different view of the subject and of course I do not presume to doubt the correctness of his decision.” Evidently, with Ayrton gone, Hunt now found it possible to suggest more generous terms, and he also saw that it was desirable to separate himself as much as possible from the policies of his late, unpopular chief.

W. P. Adam was by nature disposed to adopt this conciliatory line, and in early

October, he directed that Bull and Sons should be offered an additional £5100 for the courtroom fittings and that the cash reserve, which was to be withheld until their work was completed, should be reduced from £23,000 to £15,000 in compensation for the delay.'*® The builders, however, were still uneasy, for they estimated that they had already lost £10,000. Further, they replied that any arrangement with respect to the courtrooms must remain tentative until detail drawings for all of the rooms were available. And they added yet another request indicative of their weaknesses, asking that joinery work, which they intended to fabricate and store in Southampton, should be paid for before it was brought up to London.’* Street, Galton, and Hunt again agreed not to give in to this type of demand, and on October 28, the Bulls were advised that no further concessions would be made. '%

A week later, when no reply had been received, they were requested to answer “without further delay.”'®? The Office of Works once more resorted to the familiar practice of issuing an ultimatum, but this time Street was comfortably on their side. This tested technique had negative effects on the prospects for amicable cooperation. The Bulls immediately replied in fury,

Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 297 We were ready in March last to execute a Contract in accordance with our Tender. We must recall your attention to the fact that it was the Board and not we who disturbed the foundation of the Contract by proposing on the 31st May last (more than two months after the delivery of the tenders) first to include the fittings of 18 Courts in the Contract, we having tendered on the Board’s own request for the fittings of one only, and then to reduce the amount of the tender by £100, 000. '”

Rather than accept the terms offered by the Government with respect to the seventeen disputed courtrooms, they now proposed that all courtroom fittings be omitted and made the subject of a later, supplemental contract. This proposal was accepted by the Office of Works as the only route out of the impasse, and so a working agreement was reached, the Bulls reserving only the right to refer their claim for delay compensation to arbitration in the future. '” The priced bill of quantities, which Bull and Sons were to provide for inclusion in the contract, took rather longer to prepare than anticipated. All was not in readiness for signing until the last week of January 1874. The further delay caught Street unawares, for he had already had the signature blocks on all of the contract drawings provisionally dated “December 1873,” and the contractors themselves had told the press that work would begin on January 5.’%* Even when the documents were prepared, the Bulls were unable to come to London for a week, and Street was unavailable until Saturday, February 7.'9° On that date, at noon, Street met with the builders to sign the drawings and the contract. There were so many drawings that this mechanical task required five hours.'% In its final form the contract set deadlines of August 8, 1877, for the eastern block and June 1, 1880, for the main block. The contract amount was £693,429, having been reduced by the sum approved by the Treasury and also by the removal of all courtroom fittings. A further amount was subtracted because it had been agreed to make all decorative stonecarving the subject of a separate contract. '% Construction finally commenced on May 1, by which time the Conservatives had returned to office. There was no official desire to publicize the much-delayed

event, and, just as the first stone of the Houses of Parliament was laid without fanfare by Barry’s wife, the law courts got underway with a quiet family ceremony. Only about a dozen guests were present, and most of them were Bulls. The first brick was laid by Henry W. Bull, followed by one laid by his wife, another by his son, and one each by all of those present. This went on unobtrusively at the northeast corner of the building.’ The subdued poignancy of the event contrasted sharply with the acrimonious disputes over the design and the terms of the contract that had preceded it, and also with the years of difficulty that lay ahead. As foreshadowed by their efforts to amend the contract, Bull and Sons sank

quickly into trouble. By February 1874 Street was compelled to write to them, complaining of their slow progress. He was particularly alarmed by their neglect of work on the main block, and he kept up the pressure with a continuous stream of letters throughout the spring and summer of 1875. Finally, on September 14, he directed his clerk to advise the builders that

Mr. Street . . . is extremely surprised at your almost entire neglect of the works on the more important portion of your Contract, in spite of his often

298 The Law Courts repeated directions to you to go on with them. For the last nine months very little indeed has been done to this portion of the work and Mr. Street is confident that you will never recover the lost time, and that it will hardly be possible for you to complete the works within the period settled by the Contract. A month later he provided the Office of Works with a gloomy progress report. '%? Part of the blame for the setbacks lay with the severe winter weather, which halted work for a month and a half in 1874-75. But the chief difficulty, Street explained, was that the Bulls, like the Doves, did not employ enough men and machinery. A year earlier 350 workers had been on the job, and this had slowly risen to 540 by August 1875. The contractors were adding “considerably” to their machinery, and with more masons and laborers Street felt that it was still “within the bounds of possibility’ that the contracts would be completed on schedule. Still, he was not sanguine about the prospect for such improvements. Contemporary accounts did report a large increase in the numbers of men and machines, bringing the force to more than one thousand and tripling the number of steam-powered masonry saws, but relations with the contractor remained strained.?° The plight of Bull and Sons was principally financial in nature. Having been denied an advance payment with which to purchase equipment, they were slow in bringing together the necessary resources for the construction of a great building. Their acute money problems also led them to question the details of the certificates for completed work which Street prepared as the basis for their remuneration. To

protect himself, Street was compelled to hire James Gandy to survey the work regularly and provide corroborating figures. As discussed, Gandy’s pay itself became

a point of dispute between the architect and the Office of Works, but Street was able to convince them that the surveyor’s frequent measurements of the construction were necessary by maintaining,

Because with the sort of Contractors we have we should quite certainly have a demand for an Arbitration once a year as provided by the Contract unless I could meet them with this array of carefully prepared figures agreed to on their behalf by their Surveyors [who met with Gandy]. For my own purposes they are not necessary. I could now undertake to certify with a very close approach to accuracy without any such elaborate measurements.?*'

The Bulls’ financial distress necessitated this considerable extra expenditure and enormous additional labor on the part of those who employed and supervised their services.

But although it complained, the government had a vested interest in keeping its builder solvent. If Bull and Sons collapsed before the completion of the building, prodigious delays would inevitably ensue, and so, while lamenting their dilatoriness, special arrangements were made to ease their severe cash flow problems. Toward the end, certificates for payment to the contractors were issued weekly, and this rapid funneling of cash led, not altogether inadvertently, to sizable overpayments. These were treated as advances. As Arthur Edmund Street explained after the death of his father:

Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 299 The history of the overpayment of the contractors was their continued financial weakness which made it everyone’s interest to keep them going by advancing at times rather more than they were entitled to. In 1878 it was discovered that the Contractors were overpaid nearly £2600, but in the face of this £6000 extra was certified for (Certificate Number 47) at the request or with the consent of [the Office of Works] for the purpose of bolstering up Messrs. Bull. Six months later Messrs. Bull were found to have had £13,000 too much, but £5000 was advanced (Certificate Number 55) on the same grounds and under the same authority.””

Despite this generosity the Bulls were always on the brink of disaster. First and second mortgages were obtained on their equipment during the progress of the construction, and they were consistently slow in honoring the financial claims made

against them. In January 1878, Street brought it to the attention of the Office of Works that the Bulls had paid nothing to the subcontracting stonecarvers since the previous September. Arrangements were then made to pay the carvers directly.?” Similarly, in February 1879, Street reported that the Bulls had failed to pay their own surveyors for about a year, and that the surveyors had consequently refused to meet with Gandy to discuss the certificates. Again he asked that direct payments be

, arranged, but this time Henry Hunt objected that the practice would set a dangerous precedent.“ Further evidence of the serious problems of Bull and Sons can be gleaned from a variety of sources. For instance, in 1882, when electric lighting was being installed in the new building, the engineering contractor declared that the Bulls’ steam boilers were too dangerous to use even temporarily for powering the generators. They had suffered from want of proper maintenance, and the builders now refused to repair them.?° Ultimately, no combination of complaint and generosity could save the contractors. The main block of the building was completed and the law courts were

officially opened in December 1882, 121 weeks behind schedule, and the next month receivers were named for Joseph Bull and Sons, now headed by William Henry Bull. Their debts were estimated at first at £190,000, although an amount about half that figure was later quoted.?* In their defense, the builders claimed that the government owed them an additional £89,752, of which about £60,000 was said to be penalties for contract violations and the rest for added work. To counter this, the Office of Works was prepared to assert its claim for lateness fines, and so the case was referred to arbitration. Representatives and surveyors (with Gandy again serving on the government side) were appointed by both parties in 1883, and Lord Halsbury

was named as umpire in 1886, but the Bull family never assembled their case. Repeated postponements were granted at their request, but none was allowed after September 1894, at which date they had still failed to come forward with their evidence.

The government was pleased at this final victory by default, but it was a sad and antiheroic end for so great an enterprise. Almost ten years earlier Sir Henry Hunt had urged the speedy settlement of the case, observing: “As I happen to be the only person in the Department who is thoroughly acquainted with all that has been done and said from first to last in regard to this Contract there is the contin-

300 The Law Courts gency of a Man of my Age surviving or holding office for a Year or more.””°? Hunt, in fact, retired in 1886 at the age of seventy-six, thus breaking the last link with the early stages of the project. He died three years later. Street had died in 1881, and Ayrton and Layard, long out of office, died in 1886 and 1894, respectively. Thus,

by the time the last legal hurdles were cleared, the Royal Courts of Justice were already the work of a dead generation.

Building Workers Te BULLS’ demise had been speeded by the expenses incurred in defeating a

seven-month strike of the Society of Operative Stonemasons in 1877—78. This episode was of great importance to the trade union movement, marking the end of a decade of substantial gains and ushering in a new type of more moderate labor leadership. The outcome of the strike, like the fate of Bull and Sons, was heavily

. influenced by the state of the national economy, which, by the mid-seventies, was entering the period of decline that followed the mid-Victorian boom. By that date, Britain was being challenged for the first time by the industrial power of Germany and the agricultural might of North America. The stonemasons’ strike was in support of the so-called “Nine-Hours Movement,” and the history of that struggle to shorten the working day from ten hours

(as established by legislation in 1847) was to a large extent the history of the stonemasons’ union itself. They had first asked for nine hours in 1853, and had quickly established themselves in the vanguard of labor militancy. In particular, the London chapter of the Operative Stonemasons (O.S.M.) was famous for its independence and radicalism, persisting in the old brand of direct action, strike-oriented strategy that began to go out of style during the prosperous decades after 1850. The new moderate attitude among unionists, which favored arbitration for the resolution of differences, spawned the Trades Union Congress (T.U.C.), founded in 1868. The story of the masons shows them struggling with these new values and, in the end, succumbing. Three major episodes of working hours agitation prepared the ground for the climactic strike of 1877-78. In November 1858, the masons joined with the other London building trades in petitioning and ultimately striking for a nine-hour day, even though their national executive had failed to support their action. The employers, who had just banded together to form the National Association of Master Builders, responded with a lockout and then offered to rehire any of the twenty-five thousand unemployed workers who signed an anti-union “document.” However, the

strikers held out against this attempted union breaking, and the last contractor finally rehired his men in February 1860. Although they had not won shorter hours, the building trades were united by this effort, and another set of nine-hour demands was drafted in March 1861. Their unity was shortlived, however, and only the bricklayers briefly joined the masons in a supporting strike. The ever independent stonemasons persisted alone with what one historian has called “astonishing and almost suicidal determination,” but they

were once more cut off by their national organization in June 1862, and the long strike then failed.7°° The owners had again responded to this offensive with their own demands, and after their victory these were enacted. Hourly rates now replaced

Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 301 fixed daily pay scales, without which, the employers reasoned, no worker would ask for shorter hours. In the third battle, which came nearly ten years later, the new mood of mod-

eration seemed to have reached even the stonemasons. The T.U.C. had been founded in the meantime, and the Trade Union Act of 1871 had given unions new legal rights and increased respectability. In this climate the London masons began to agitate in January 1871 for what was called “nine and nine”—nine hours of work per day (fifty-one hours of work per week, with a short Saturday) at nine pence per hour. The concomitant demand for a higher hourly rate was intended to offset the reduction in working time. The carpenters and joiners enlisted as allies, and the owners were given until July 1 to reply to their demands. However, the carpenters overeagerly struck against two firms on June 1, and this was answered by the contractors with a general lockout. The masons responded to this challenge in an unexpected way. The new na-

tional secretary of the O.S.M., a nonmilitant, again denied the Londoners the support of the national treasury, but the London chapter itself was now headed by a man of the new breed, Henry Broadhurst, who was later the general secretary of the

T.U.C. and a member of Parliament. Broadhurst argued that the masons were entitled to make whatever terms they could, and in separate meetings with the masters they hammered out a compromise. The settlement of 8% pence per hour, with fifty-two hours of work per week for most of the year and forty-seven hours during the twelve weeks of mid-winter, infuriated other London trade unionists. More old-style militancy was expected from the masons. Six years later, the London masons seemed determined to redeem their repu-

tation, and the law courts became a hostage to their action. On the first day of 1877, they served general notice that after July 30 they would expect to see the prevailing wage of nine pence raised by a penny and to work a shorter day. However,

as the long spring wore on, the economy began to slide into a depression which ultimately reached even the relatively sheltered building industry. The employers met only once with representatives of the masons, and, pointing to the financial situation, they rejected their claim. As a result 1700 men came out on strike that summer. At first the strikers seemed to be making headway, as approximately one hundred smaller contractors acceded to their demands. But they failed to gain support from other unions, who were now content to let the masons go their own

, way, and they were generally criticized by moderate labor leaders for launching an offensive at an inopportune time. The weekly Industrial Review, the mild succcessor of the militant Beehive, supported the settlement of disputes through arbitration, and editorialized against what they called a “mere trial of strength.”?'? The London Trades Council also passed a resolution in October regretting that the stonemasons

had struck without consulting their brethren in other fields.** The thinking of laborites was still shaped by classical economics, and few questioned that a period of recession was an impossible time in which to seek higher wages. Moreover, despite the willingness of many of the smaller firms to give ten pence

per hour to their men, a dozen of the major general contractors refused to give an inch. This kept six hundred or more masons out of work, and these had to be supported by funds drawn from the national headquarters—which backed the strik-

Peers ete

_ 24 $4 ab !

preerery tiff a in eS+h eacaitt bY hse Ae Fits Wt tty TWA E : ittgeneet Peteta: tate at 5:Slee #3 ‘4 44222443412 3 S72 8427 netaWt a Pee #4333 £54334%3 Lai i| i| ie uy boas paises ati‘$i HH pre. Ey344 ETE214343 rsdviidd Healy eater an 344i $i Bae “aH ja aL Ws ray % we em iff] pianist etl i : i ll

\Ywa\ \AW aa . ANS as tas.AY PETt 293134 ee :, a) xt4i4 aay oak et Beit Debet; 4Atif] bge HE . Tes$ehe% k DE tie

\ ee AASa: é, ae"aeAS PAS sais av Laer AEE HERM? naiit ia AS \\avers: VO AV \ be iil aa aeaewee Aw Nk VX ¥ |\s eter eey akSN 4 eS1)3 SAN \\ \ : vba ) ¥Sins "i Msuit ee ‘email a SeinenNY teeteri |

a iae™ ihe gift ASS * \\ “o % if \ “ay \ VAY ak Vy 4 4 4k Ag Nerney a en sights mogul :&sitesi ae mS ie nieSa 3 Sy xX |ke \\ IN A pe: ie ay AL 3Beh a & GHEIES iti RE senettlt Te area AY\) AN eyAA SekatsaypaAaeyieeAY a nv peeri rice A Me mila P WA aa Sok \\ SAN AYR 43 AO * ye wae Ak eeSval 43 He ay a ;ay a; ie¢3 ne ;ree sta ;aeShaa ir : gi r i Mtr eit 4 "8, ie, LAN we AN Ps ae be 4 4 54. "a,SS YAN -, ES Ss Be \\ ‘ey as ht $333 a3 a3 re ceTE Shee ‘ ek>4 Ye oo aN AOw ak bee RNSWW \ Oy \ Natal i\|\\\4 ; \\ i : »oy Ze ue EEE 208 TANT he Pree Sh aA ANN Ay i$324 S525 3 pated 33313 :4444224 $233: 3a% 43 PHP 334%) . 2*9si3 $43 ‘ a SY pal 8 QS es “BF SA \ ANG A | \ is “lh {4 eet LO yrngiitt a & te SS . 3% ES ee oe a." 4 AGS ithiiti WeyHn Hy%pe eh *Paeeis4Sit Sisdie Hat %3Oe TSmee AN: % yeBRR: AL AY CARA ates ‘filia, Sees Hee. ai) Ce ee PET EEATE! $3328 Wi $5224 $424 ELLE .* a : a : oe Fe HELED 4122233 #4 age ‘ cS : . ee ee % bi SAN * +433 Ses mh AES ; : $e

saa 38 datWaaniht . ROGTTS % Hag2Be} i ae#394 £¢ 323 ; ‘ Sk b? 3 ;4iit4 : BeeFE pesPee % 2} Sak MoWhit LY Wee eee ors $33HHA: ¥533%433 HH}$33 LLALE tik$35 i ed$12777 oe 5 ~ ,ety ot 4ee158 babbsee’ te : me esem ee aAX weAX a c% * AXWANES, aha acts:: ;: Pe 2G agree ge53¢ z $4332 ¥353i% 442433 PEERS HEE toe | Sa Bo, ot “ % oS ‘id +243 LATE Me %, % : Se See EA LES ae 2) Wee ‘ Beak NAN ty es

L in HE Wanted $j ~ ee i Age sos, on : % a % : o A eee ASS $233 ‘ "hi

eS saps oe 4332435 $33 223333 etL EE $344 Hie 223% $3334 ; + bs eerbes be ere. So ie, 34 AS ES 4 BBA TEbeace Bra :

: waa it, SS SSN = aay SS. Ha ehosbemh y ~Soe s oF. zs Sy +" wii = : = :*\ a( |Eb 7 : -: : | j , se | | :ag5 =AOs a Zi > hi2g\ Pak3.hi“ pee EY: “ asmo higied es “£SaeaaMieco

a8 oei eis ee :*4 he 3 Fe “ze %~*% + She“ : See €:yok NT a #yy : Reese >wes ro ax 38ee = AY eoee. | ihe eecmEsrf oo eei: ai$3 50oe* ss ty*% *‘ER 44 ap? > ee =eewees Fas RS*fa BS | Wes i $i 2 = ae Ny al SS : ie + 4 Gy PF > Slee oF : We : ‘ 443° & ge es: ae Seeing aay 445: a . PAS. Y gee. 3 f.4 oe Se z Py : ® Er = oe oe — tee SS Pe * #27 ePeeJ ee} ee"2° 4 a xe NN if i)i:?£“6 | |ssAS a8 “ee iy Ht 4— i. eS uy a ie.% we pcre ale eh mebeeen aSE bt rss 2— MeN Ey Be es Se SORE, £6 “SNat a a: ae Bs i Es iz ‘pees gas Fae a oevcaceee £ oye eee be 3#¢$ oot eySoe SANS =#8

*2x ait ee4Sees feeseetEE tee ‘.pal3oeCato

HEE ‘:Senin . eee Say eseoJ‘ ie : ?i :ge, Fen es“jsRee * Wiace Sorte +58 ie Se | ac‘ *eexeseSate

we| G4‘i¢=,} ctries (4hostAes ih, Eeae Mt ; S Bronco . | e :- ey| ci oe; : |‘ nen ; a d afae A 4%eed er Bd *aoe oe 3 se F ‘ : . ae SS - ee Ss om i j H aeBy Ho. ANE : : , = a‘ 7 s f ‘ \ : | \ fe, ee Ai Se . * 5 - "3 wo a : oy + = mee x wonecect eeu a xe $ eff 4 x ears “ ~~ a ncoceonnce y 43: a i ee §

ee jen -§sate ey a oS ANY : AH \\ gg \reeS sage 1 SSj Saat SeeieSoh fiF Mey oe¢° Eites * dee gi OE: eons mate | het ee Se=3/\\1 3 #443 oy me "$Niece wee i See = exe Fj| apt %ae 3 Sin BPEe : zie BS EE VE Soe Al Le Be eS -. ah :& aegy rm san, get .aeBSS i ":Ss ieee Ss: A aan toss 2: eefa#3 phase: a jeSr -re=Soe

R24 a a 2S eS = ce tee fasta ‘i = 1 f i e: , :. _ :

— PRA oe mes>,ifage =| .| xa \ ‘ :agit cs sence = =ee SieBat ‘ aes%aaSane ‘ eae = aE2. :aae-Bs£ ai: =#bof(ze a2M

ae :

| Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 303 ers—or from special levies among those who had returned to work. The struggle soon focused on the two largest projects where the contractors had refused to come to terms: the Temple Gardens Building, a block of chambers designed by E. M. Barry for the Inner and Middle Temples, where the builder was G. W. Booth, and the law courts. In September, the contest entered a much more serious phase when the Master Builders Association began to import foreign masons as strikebreakers. Seven Germans arrived first, and agents of the builders soon fanned out to Italy, Canada, and the United States, where they offered guaranteed employment for six months with-

out mentioning the strike. The trickle of foreigners grew into a flood, with 571 masons coming to London before the strike ended. One hundred sixty-nine came from North America and fifty-two from Holland; the remainder were largely German and Italian. In addition to these forces, approximately six hundred less scrupulous British provincial stonemasons, many from Scotland, came to take advantage of the

situation.?”? The Bulls, who had employed 550 masons before the strike, had 40 foreigners at work by October and approximately 300 were on the site by November.

Their force was about half German and half Italian, and they also succceeded in luring some forty Englishmen back to work at nine pence.* Henry William Bull himself visited the quarries of Belgium, Austria, and Germany to recruit workers late in November, and he returned with 129 masons. He also hired a German architectural student named Rees, from Ludwigsburg, to serve as their foreman, and another student to be his assistant.?"4

Naturally, the introduction of foreign blacklegs raised an enormous storm of protest, even from those who had not supported the strike at first. Referring specifically to the law courts, the Industrial Review queried,

Was it ever heard of that, in a country so boastful of its freedom and justice as ours, great public works, for which every man, gentle or simple, pays his share, should be carried out by the importation of foreign craftsmen, to the exclusion of native artisans, and especially that a great national edifice should be bungled by the scum of European artificership, while the first masons in the world are turned off, to walk the streets of their own capital, with empty stomachs, and to bury their compulsory idle hands in the void depths of their

trouser pockets."

As resentment grew, scattered incidents of violence occurred, and after one encounter between a group of German masons and the son of an English plasterer, Henry Bull appeared in court to testify on behalf of his new men. They were released on their own recognizance after he paid their fine and a surety of twenty pounds.’° To safeguard their foreign workers, the Bulls housed and fed them on the site.

Some slept in the shop over the architect’s office, and a dining hall and kitchen were set up in the crypt of the eastern block, now nearing completion (Fig. 128). Separate messes were provided for the Germans and the Italians, and the latter were 128 The dining room for for- duly served “their beloved macaroni.””'? Three generous meals and lodging could be

en ee eee lhe had for only three shillings per day, and dinner, for example, consisted of a pint of trated London News. 3 No- beer and an unlimited quantity of soup, meat, and potatoes. Life was arduous for

vember 1877.) the foreigners, however. They worked a week of six twelve-hour days for nine pence

304 The Law Courts per hour, and, of course, they were held as voluntary prisoners behind the hoardings of the site.7”* The Society of Operative Stonemasons drafted a memorial, protesting the use of a government building as a “common lodging-house,” which was presented to G. J. Noel, the first commissioner of works.*"? But they were told in reply

that the Bulls’ action was legal, and, indeed, Noel later wrote to the Treasury, commending “the very active and successful measures which [the builders} took in combatting the masons’ strike.”??° The arrival of the foreigners also imposed a further financial burden on the striking union. Such was international labor solidarity that many and perhaps most of the workers from abroad refused to go to work when they discovered that a strike was in progress. The stonemasons decided to send these men home at the expense of the strike fund, and so these costs were added to the support payments which

were already being made to the strikers. Strike pay was maintained at or near eighteen shillings per week for single men, with an additional shilling for married workers and one more for each child. These costs were borne both by London masons lucky enough to return to work and by a small tax on provincial masons. The union continued to claim that more and more builders were conceding the ten pence hourly rate, and perhaps a total of 120 firms did capitulate. But the larger firms, like Cubitt, Trollope, Dove, and Bull, had discovered that they could beat the

strikers. Sufficient blacklegs had been recruited to get them through the winter season, at which time there was less work to do anyway. When the strikers asked to discuss their demands with the employers in November, the master builders voted not even to consider the proposition. The Bulls were present at the meeting when they chose instead to listen to a report on the masonry work being done at the law courts; the speaker concluded that no better workmanship had been seen in years.” Early in 1878 the builders declined the offer of arbitration made by George Godwin, the editor of the Builder, saying that they already had sufficient men at work.?” Finally, late in 1877, even some of those contractors who had originally granted

ten pence per hour began to give notice that they would cut back to nine.??3 A number of the provincial unions also began to call for an end to the strike in the capital, for which they had paid heavily. Although continuation of the action was approved by a vote of all the lodges in the country, the end was now not far away.??4 The London Trades Council voted in February against sponsoring demonstrations in support of the masons, the Industrial Review began to question the statistics which had seemed to show that the strike was succceeding, and early in March the union voted to allow its members to return to work at 9% pence per hour.??> Then on March 14, the workers gave way entirely, agreeing to accept the old rate of nine pence. The Operative Stonemasons had spent a total of £24,605, of which £15,775 had been drawn from national funds, and continued expenditure on that scale could not be sustained.’*° The failure of the strike was not interpreted only as a sign that the economy was weakening. It was also seen as proof that traditional labor militancy was now obsolete. The new strategy of moderate demands and settlement through arbitration appeared to have been vindicated, and the Industrial Review counseled: “The rank and file of the union must learn in the future to be guided, more than they have in

the past, by some of their trusted leaders.”?? A new era in labor relations was dawning.

Architect, Client, Builder, Workmen 305 For old-style unions, like the Society of Operative Stonemasons, the strike was the high-water mark of power. Their crude, rough-and-tumble strategy had been sometimes effective during the early years of the mid-Victorian boom, but the subtle and intractable economic problems of the last quarter of the nineteenth century were better solved by conciliatory techniques. In the course of the strike, the membership of the masons’ union reached an all time peak of 27,110, but by 1880 the roster had dwindled to 14,299 and the union was burdened with £2358 in debts.??® Many of the men who returned to work for Bull after the strike were nonmembers.

Perhaps the most galling symbol of the defeat of 1878 was that approximately 140 foreign masons, most of them Germans, were allowed to continue to work at the law courts, and 70, with their German foreman, remained as late as 1879. This fulfilled the pledge made by the master builders to look after the interests of those who had enabled them to defeat the O.S.M., but it was necessary to arrange for the foreigners to work in a separate shop, divided from that of their British coworkers by the boiler room.??°

1 &[ASEAN accoeRe | Wit! oD bt eae ae « LY |wee, es HS ri . ae ijPP oe |A | PoYR 6. FEVen | 4.) Si Te EA aati \\ boomed) | Were OR BS) eS) ISS Bt ed BA a 2 a Se ee (ee Eat] BaP VU OSU, (Rare) Qe OO eS sis @ es fe i | dileee u # he? a‘, ta lu | Yas 2 Se C wie \\ ait ay oO Palak o 7> ee :«es? 4A atHaare fe aENe wiih iNos , baEGE 1Wat i sLRA A| BS fi)OCS e,.H|a i\\e “iliAN |Vein eSA :iieee. i) ey OE| rh Se| ui Yo OP TERL AASN QUURM Bie ee Fo ee ae “HS I \ *e if 22 & Ie ee i a 6h lhl ¥) ig ft Ra i OE \. 2% 4% th Ae i ee ib a 2 re yo til eo = _ ——-— i fi,OR a %lig 2 a: Wr id tes, ee iiee \, fk YeBs 6O\ Beg OB yWi eeesi. i| ne i ea SW rn) OUI Wasen = el Tit EB ee sgenncnettente F AEST eed Be 2 _ #sA 4338 | DR i“a ‘| i| wos vyCY oe \ a ZEA a ¥ Wk aia? iv 4UL. ol ne xaoa Ss Hioig 3’4,Sea eiiSo) eee SeHi Nai rhi.. atee. fom et eer fae Lb 4 ‘ty Oe imar sabe liz\ \ Ya ah Oe mR NO TTY ie eee | ee Wy Oe (fe (VS |= CBE 4, a i 2 on \3 i i ee | ig’ | q ix 3 Re iia * i fi ee fe Aes SS 2S ie Bun, Se, eee Him eee * eis: ti i ER Mey Bh, ee Bed ees “SS $228 Sees =—ls , F 3% Be * ‘

Tits) 6 6f}S i Hu Se wo A \ = fete | . sh see mwi!hCUCU " A oe “< 7 7. Wty Bi lie alld : A Ae 2) fe : :

io) Gee | WeST AN Le ON ee je ee VC

\| ee\l ee Ae 0Le oe IMee Aina: VAS NY| BM) VARuatoaeil Al 1) fw: i Wog Bee+ieee Ome | Be ee eee ieee LePe i *& nee

Pac Se Se mms any ee i ee BS ov

\\t it) 4° Bae\C" “Ses «Bes S2227); 8 Bee zeMo i_g WO Wm eae » 4 é PteeS # © te,ne mn i i et; att i Ugee afl oe!Foe ie PS a ree\aiee ee ee a2 2 7ila) i! g 13,‘a+o st dis $Ge Seg? t. ' gee i Ayae, oy.6|hCUlC Hwee. 1 Fs i| ©. y| dif a oo “ey; Hh \ Hitt, VLE BeeBeMei ig i ab mirgiid; Aine ey vf ls | ie fa re | i a ROME A ER 2a A ue = \ ena // i i nf \\ EE * eel 1H tw ff PRR VA sh | Hy A" F at eS a ee cel iz fe * ‘ ’ ua ms a ; } ‘2 aS as ey Se i Se et 4 Fi 2 et #2 . ete is apne vom “een me . | 2 ae - bs te 3884 ; 233 | 3

Wee\: \ey > “SS -&Uitin: Tite oy Ae E Ba. wiUH LL .i (eg St HA eacerar VIEL a | J i a3 MOSS RY Rl \ m\\ A ieJe "|(FR pecmuntelg moma (/ |exam we _ \| tla//a Bae Bee wm. ou. it a Ha fey ,. ‘ ail A ea. Git, (4 gfG ye a ee. a | r SS a ue E ‘4 oeweTe ae | ee | a Dereee ce ei,ese oS; Pe“BS j Ad: | >vas 2: BeSy 'iSwee. * oe . | See mc ges & Gicndmiccctmmeninamens: WY ni 5s ale x ¥ i z, g 3 Sfaass 3 = : ; 4 ty E f } eS | 4d as aa pair om nea HO? ® € ee i Hs - ‘ 4 |: — ; § PA % é = tay 83 ; 4 et aS ‘ z a P £23 ws —— ee pee , g\33ty3 as ; Cogent ny €s Soy a 7, nee 4 \ Aa 7 aul ee ee % Fi, ; +e eS *¢ is os: pe ; if ( (li ie — ve i

PON OX eee MS RE epee Se pe SS oS A\ oS Net ee Te Ges RS ei, eee i333, ge nap ~~ a2 i7os~~ es ve i? 7Inj les Ge— BSaers”0—0UlC “tame! /ES —=/)eeLms, ‘(f ya ae Rage P Steg ie = e ia7:oY

eae OM %. 7 * 4% + 3 ¢° _ .# a “t PT Pe ee ate tHe anevada e. Rae 3 ¥ . es ; ; #¢ # oe £45 best * fees * i of.) PR i Hie 33% Qe, 35 i ; ae 2 53 ¥ i 7 4: 3°43 2 33 e552 fav. oF 4 oy mea Zz. a: az? * mee hy a a. fe i 2 ( er: eeeiyire ret th wf ne ee li i i 1 Higis ims a! iz A og)! be 5k 4, tt Bray 7 2 ; i we 6) yar ge, of" ge gy Sole ny iE g: ee eM i ioe ES ese i? | if tie -p €: 2 betel i; a sire Bs ; 2 Hig: Be a| : F b3 : ; en? : ae: ; s ° ie ae ae : Zee : :. Bees : ge 32 F ba EPSE ot #3. > ¢2, Po reef Bets ie, Pith gck Bie EB i > RG a EERE

ieaePeOodeere Jee MI et CA a | ls ee el 0 Os Te,IMeare ns|g (ae Ault ee eGebeT) ee da ue Ged Stee HB Sesfee ae,eee , ans ayBe RE a wee eg RE steLe TER tl ij OE ne ee er | 64 ici. | Mee re Bowes! at abt tee |e 8 3 Lay ae 8 Oey fl

Poy Sb eS Be aM a tee ees ae Wie Re AE tiie iu f Ofer 8. ear ue ih a am HTH ‘ *case. 4k rapes. - ru4 Spy GE * OF OLE ee eS” ee, aeo. aseiei :hea * : pga ee nei ee Bf BES Bett a oai ae Bee 1 Ps" Bee BaeiSE . ; He Z fags f.3fo ee 5———— es cue Fe ee aEe Z Pe‘} : a*aeae ee % A B® $ £2dict #; 2 2*tt 5Bee "angie Ma gg i Ege\ i