leaving them standing, the triumphal arch would have led to nothing but a very shabby cul de sac. In the next place, he could not have repeated, on the Westminster Abbey side of Downing-street, a fac simile of the Council Office without carrying it across King-street. Entire uniformity was, therefore, out of the question, and the mode by which Mr. Soane proposed to execute his purpose, was to confine the repetition of the building to the Pavilion; but he would have been unable to have brought even the Pavilion so forward as to be a prolongation of the Privy Council Office: it was, therefore, according to his design, to have been less advanced; so that, in fact, it would not have been a repetition of the building on the north side of Downing-street, but merely a building, of different dimensions, in the same style. It appeared to me, therefore, that if it were not a repetition of it, but solely in the same character, it would have the worst effect, from the incongruity of the parts and the irregularity of the whole design; and I stated to him, that whenever it should become necessary to determine any thing with regard to the line of approach to Downing-street, which ultimately would have become necessary, any design intended for that purpose ought to be of a character entirely distinct from the other building which had its natural termination with the Pavilion now erected in Downing-street.

Is not this exquisite! Mr. Soane will listen to nothing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Inigo Jones suggest; but he knocks them down with the Temple of Tivoli and Palladio; and on he goes with "the grand entrance" and "the triumphal arch." The last bit which we shall give on this subject, offers a perfect illustration of the character of the two men :—

Mr. Soane, in his evidence, mentions that your Lordship was extremely pleased with his design to terminate the present Council Office building by a triumphal arch, will you have the goodness to say if such was your Lordship's impression?-Mr. Soane was so pleased with it himself that I was unwilling to say any thing on the subject that might hurt his feelings; but I entirely disapproved of it as a practical plan, for the reasons which I have already stated. I not only never gave Mr. Soane any reason to suppose that it was likely to be executed, but distinctly told him that it was entirely out of the question.

Poor Soane!

We proceed to the second architect of the Board of Works, Mr. Nash. If Mr. Soane be cursed with the demon of irrepressible selfadmiration, there is another devil which appears to have a firm hold upon the mind of Mr. Nash,

"The least erected spirit that fell
From Heav'n;"

and between them both the country has an agreeable choice. We begin with the money-matters.

Mr. Nash, as one of the "council" of the surveyor-general, was to receive a salary of £500. per annum, and three per cent. commission. Upon the commencement of the alterations at Buckingham House, Mr. Nash memorialized the Treasury that his salary might be discontinued, and that he should receive 5 per cent. upon the works instead, to which the Treasury very humanely gave their assent. The Committee, having arrived at this fact, propose this question to Mr. Nash's arithmetical faculty:

"Is not the commission you receive upon the building of Buckingham House, much more than the salary would have been, added to the three per cent. ?"

“I have never made a calculation, but I have no doubt that it is." Mark the nonchalance! It might be well if we were to help Mr. Nash to a calculation. The estimate for Buckingham Palace amount to £432,926. At three per cent. and the salary, Mr. Nash's profit upon such an expenditure would be £13,487; at five per cent., without the salary, £21,646, making a difference in Mr. Nash's favour of £8,159. And yet the poor man has not made a calculation! But Mr. Nash thinks there are inestimable benefits in the building having been taken out of the Office of Works, to be placed in his hands with regard to contracts; and that therefore he has well earned his additional percentage, and that none but himself can buy Carrara marble, and other commodities, to advantage. And then comes a posing question: "Would it not have been your duty, as one of the attached architects, to have suggested to the surveyor-general exactly the mode you have pursued?" upon which Mr. Nash explains that the surveyor-general has nothing to do with the matter but to pass the accounts; and that no responsible person has any control or check over his plans, but his Majesty and his minister. We shall presently return to the question of responsibility; in the mean time we will stick to the per-centage.

Mr. Nash is an architect of iron-railing, a cleaner of canals, and a landscape-gardener, as well as a purchaser of Carrara marble; and we have no doubt his disinterestedness is equally conspicuous in every capacity. Let us hear a word or two upon this point from his own lips:

When the canal was cleared out two or three years ago, were all the sewers stopped which had emptied themselves into it? - Yes.

Was all this done under your direction?-All done under my direction. What is your commission that has been charged on this sum?-I have charged nothing yet, but it will be 57. per cent., and is what all architects receive.

Will that 51. per cent. be upon the iron railing?-Upon the whole expenditure. All the works we have done at the Palace, and everywhere else, have been done done by tender and competition.

Is it usual for layers out of the grounds, or the landscape-gardeners as they are called, to make any charge for the expense of the boundaries, such as 57. per cent?-They never do it, they merely give designs.

So that you charge the architect's commission upon work which properly belongs to the landscape gardener ?—I do not think a landscape gardener

could have done it.

Does the landscape gardener make contracts and superintend the execution of the work?-I have a notion that he is paid by the day; Repton used to be paid by the day and for his drawings, but he never executed the work, and of course could not charge commission.

Does this charge for laying out the ground include the planting ?-It does not include the shrubs; those I could not make an estimate of; it includes the forming all the grounds for plantation, but not shrubs.

Is the commission to be taken upon the gross cost of the shrubs ?-Upon the total expenditure.

Who gives orders for the shrubs?-There is a gardener appointed, and he gives in a list of the shrubs; that list is submitted to the Office of Woods; I give my opinion as to whether they are such shrubs as I intend to form the landscape with, or not; then the Office of Woods gives directions for the purchase of shrubs, and there is a person appointed to see them put in. Did you not consult Mr. Hayter, the Kew gardener, as to the evergreens

which would live and vegetate well in the neighbourhood of London ?—Yes, with respect to Buckingham House gardens.

You have applied the same principle to the area in St. James's as to the gardens at Buckingham House?—Yes; and in addition to that I sent up for my own gardener, and made him superintend the planting, and to discriminate between the trees, and to see that they should be placed properly.

Are you aware of the expense of the trees or the shrubs that have been furnished?-I cannot form the least idea.

Now, mark the modesty of all this! A canal is drained and rendered serpentine-gravel walks are laid out-shrubs are planted. Mr. Aiton, (Hayter is a mistake) the king's gardener, is consulted, and Mr. Nash's own gardener is sent to assist him; (Mr. Aiton being a gentleman of undoubted taste and botanical knowledge), and the whole is inclosed with a plain iron-railing. Mr. Nash does not think a landscape gardener could have done it. But the Commission ?— Ornamental water, gravel walks, &c. Iron-railing, &c.

Exclusive of Shrubs

£8,350

7,703 £16,053

£800

Mr. Nash's Commission at five per cent. This is an extortion of which even 66 Capability Brown" would have been incapable. We do not think a landscape gardener could have done it.

We do not mean to be invidious when we say, that this gentleman has a particularly keen eye to his per-centage; quite sufficiently so to make the Committee and the country look very suspiciously upon the extent of the works committed to his care; and, especially, to regret that a little forethought is not called in to prevent the putting up, and the pulling down, which is constantly going forward at our Royal palaces. The alterations of the wings at Buckingham Palace will, alone, cost £50,000. Upon this unfortunate subject the Committee thus speak in their Report:

Another larger and much more expensive building, which is in progress for his Majesty's Palace in St. James's Park, is now undergoing very considerable alterations, not originally contemplated, for the purpose of rectifying a defect, which scarcely could have occurred, if a model of the entire edifice had previously been made and duly examined. Mr. Nash says, in answer to a question relating to the two detached three-windowed houses at the extreme angles of the wings, I was not at first aware that the effect would have been so bad; and I am sorry to say that I was disappointed myself in the effect of them." The consequence of this alteration, thus occasioned, will increase the interior accommodation by adding twenty-seven new apartments to the present numbers, but it is estimated at no less a sum than 50,000l. With regard to the dome above the roof of the Palace, Mr. Nash deems it unfortunate that it is visible from the Park side, which was not intended by him, nor was he aware that it would have been seen except as belonging exclusively to the garden front.

The fact is perfectly clear, from the whole tenor of Mr. Nash's evidence, that in certain very extensive buildings, there is no legal authority, responsible to Parliament, either for the control of its own desires, or the regulation of the expenditure of the architect. At Windsor Castle, the works are under the direction of a Commission. At Buckingham Palace, Mr. Nash says the plans are signed by the King, and countersigned by his Minister; but the following question, and

mysterious answer, explain the extraordinary latitude which is allowed:

"In reference to a question already put to you, you stated you received verbal orders to go on with the alterations; is it customary with the Treasury to give verbal approbation, and not written orders? -It is a difficult question for me to answer; I have received directions, and I have understood that those directions have come from the Treasury."

It is a remarkable circumstance attending each of Mr. Nash's irresponsible labours, as connected with the particular accommodations of the highest personage in the country, that an almost unlimited expense has been incurred, upon the plea of making a few alterations. It was We should have thus at Brighton, and at the lodge in Windsor park.

thought that the trick would have been somewhat stale with the Lords of the Treasury. But let us trace the evidence of Mr. Nash, with regard to the commencement of Buckingham House, to learn the real value of these seductive projects of repairs and improvements:

Was any portion of the old material at Buckingham House used?—Yes, a great deal of it; all the old bricks.

Any of the timber?-Very little timber; most of it was sold by the Office of Works.

Do you conceive there would have been much difference between building a new house from the ground, and altering the old house?—I suppose about 10,000l.

What would that consist in ?—It would consist in brick walls and a great deal of stone, that we have used again; and a variety of things of that description.

So that if Buckingham House had been pulled down, and a palace had been built elsewhere, the old material being used as at present, there would have been little or no difference in consequence of changing the site?--I think not more than 10,000l.

Were you consulted upon that point, of building it afresh upon a new site, or allowing it to remain where it now is?-Of course, I can have no objection to answer that question; but it may be conceived that that question must be answered only by repeating conversations upon this subject: how far it is proper to do that, I do not know; but, so far as I am concerned, I can have no objection.

Did any thing pass between Lord Liverpool and yourself upon that subject? With respect to the site of the old palace, or a site for a new one, Lord Liverpool, I presume, knew nothing till the plans were presented to him.

Was not the inducement to Lord Liverpool to agree to extending Buckingham House, that he conceived that there would be a considerable part of the old Buckingham House left entire ?-As far as regards myself, I had no communication with Lord Liverpool upon that subject.

Now, it is perfectly notorious that the plea for laying out any money at all upon the site of Buckingham House, was, that a very large sum would be saved by keeping the old building standing; and yet we find, that half a million of money is expended, while 10,000l. only is saved in old materials. Is this the way that a great nation ought to conduct its affairs? If a palace be necessary, let one be built-not for George IV. only, but for the accommodation and splendour of the chief magistrate of a powerful people, both in these our days and in

Let the architectural talent of the country

those which are to come. be fairly called into play for such a purpose, by an honest vote of the legislature, manfully looking the expense in the face, and not submitting to pay the price of erecting costly monuments of individual caprice, obtaining its ends by every petty expedient that a supple cunning can devise. Let us build, not for ourselves alone, but for other generations; and then, instead of "Scagliola," and "gold," and "brass-gates," and "arches of Carrara marble "-domes that the architect thought could not be seen, except on the garden-side, and wings that the same -we may, perpersonage did not fancy would have looked so bad,-chance, produce a structure of which the people might be proud, instead of suffering under the perpetual irritation, which must arise out of the contemplation of buildings which can excite no feeling but that of contempt for the wanton expenditure of the money of the nation, upon objects in which the nation can have no sympathy. But it is too late to talk of applying a better principle to palaces. Let us see what can be done for buildings dedicated to purposes of national utility.

Mr. Smirke is certainly the least exceptionable of the architects of the Board of Works; and it is fortunate that such buildings as the Museum and the Post Office have been entrusted to him, in preferThe love of meretricious ornament, ence to Mr. Soane or Mr. Nash. which distinguishes the style of each of his brethren, can certainly not be imputed to him. But Mr. Smirke is not a man of genius; he is cold and severe; a formal copyist of antiquity, without any pretension to originality. This gentleman happily gets into no scrapes before the Committee; but he dogmatizes upon the subject of other and younger architects, as much as one of his prudent temperament could venture. The following extract, from Mr. Smirke's evidence, is amusing:

In the case of the new buildings to be executed for the public, is there any competition instituted for the designs or plans according to which they should be built?-None that I know of.

If a plan were adopted that had been made by any other architect than yourself, would you direct the work according to that plan?-I could not, nor do I think it would be desirable if it were possible; the plan might not be practicable, and the construction of it might not be practicable, and there would be no responsibility attaching to any one.

It follows, then, almost of necessity, that the only persons from whom designs can be received for public buildings to be executed under the Board of Works, must be the attached architects?—I do not think it necessarily follows.

Could it not be possible that a building might be executed upon competition, by an architect selected from the competition, and controlled by an architect attached to the Board of Works?-No; it would take away responsibility from all parties.

If you have a competition of architects, and upon that competition you employ one, would it not be possible to controul that architect by the authority of a superior architect employed by the Board of Works?—It would be difficult, if not impossible.

How?--I think I might disapprove of the mode of construction which another would think proper.

Is not this plan actually acted upon by the Commissioners for building