EX C

397

E X C

lift

the memorial was erected as a mark of civic respect,Hfto " l0 could never bring himself to visit the walks

5 vards -

c} Ja ® destruction of this building having deprived the mer-w 8 °f London , for the second time, of their great place of9tt a I’ they were obliged temporarily to assemble in the spacetv aa C * ed t0 the Excise Office, in Old Broad Street. Thiscourse, attended with much inconvenience to those

a «cu.

f'att,

8t °med to attend ’Change, and it became therefore aby lt . er of pressing importance to remove that inconvenienceits ** e ere ction of a new building, fitted in every respect for(U e .i > ' lr P°se, and worthy the merchant-princes of the first: | l ’°polis in the world.

i inj Preparing to re-erect the Royal Exchange, manyhad to be considered—those of the Underwriters ofj s . the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, and thePitt]' e P ers who had occupied the ground-floor. An act of; ob( l . an,e nt was also necessary; this was applied for, and'he in ed ' hiy this act, which received the royal assent onen, °thof August, 1838, the Joint Gresham Committee wereeast 6red to P urc l lase an d remove all the buildings to theof J^rd, extending nearly to Finch Lane, and to raise a sum1 * „®®,000 upon the credit of the London Bridge Trust.

'heif ter considerable delay, the Gresham Committee issuedI | loi tla a ^ vert i sements for designs for the new building, but in®°> unfortunately did not avoid the errors into which sosi^if s 'niilarly-constituted public bodies have fallen, underC** circumstances. There is little doubt but that the>iot.. Itte ® intended a fair and honest competition, but withto | n 9ular bad management, they so contrived matters, as* down on themselves a storm of indignation from alliti jy e ’ n an d to disgust not only the competitors, but the public

.•The””"'

pursued of late years in the management of archi-ri d competitions, has been attended with manifold evils, and

ft

ti|,,^ 'twitli gross and palpableinjustice to the profession. Has-«o ns d inconsiderately commenced, under the control of per-to y U ^fi*ted to sit in judgment on the various designs referred

%

decision, they have in too many instances beenby results, as injurious to the best interests of art,

d'eir

, 5 * n ded

J tl ,Ul ‘ and unjust to its professors.iM tl .‘7'king these remarks, it is not intended to attack thes u Pon which competitions are based ; properly con-'lif; ta j’ l beir tendency is unquestionably, not only to call out- 18 Pir' en * Und S en ’ us of the experienced artist, but to rouse*1 emulation in the young professor, as an assistance

blight ° Ura S' n g rising merit, which without such a stimulus°f e^P^ibly remain undeveloped, or, without such a meansdjj l , Clse > unknown and unappreciated.

to, 1 - 6 . nia 7 be many advantages attending architectural

0t np e ti,- - ^ cj <-j

0,1 ' ; i'at;. ' Ons ’ ^ ut tbot'e is so total a want of security, under the

system, so general anthat fairness andalways be relied upon,

'^PteR 0 - 11 of the present defective| a ip ar t^' )n existing, whether justly or not,

b(n Vl ^ le great body of the profession hold themselves aloofan arena where fair play is, to say the least,

t^ 1 ':! lted > afforded another proof, if proof were wanting, of'

--- - I V ' ,/ - - l

The competition for the Royal Exchange, it is tofy.. afforded another jIt ; g 1 °ft these observations,a Co not °ur purpose to enter on a discussion of the meritse ' tl( ? Ve rsy which filled many pages of the periodicalsj^'iti.,* ' c * a Hy devoted to recording matters connected withSr.,..' Lt Ur - - - -

a nn er

re and building, but we think we cannot pass to aotl of the New Exchange, without slightly noticingdesign for it was selected, or its

ln which the’I'l 1( , j. a PPpinted.

° °ning are extracts from the—5 i

“ Resolutions of the Gresham Committee , as to Instructionsto the Architects.

“ 1. That architects be invited to offer designs for the re-building of the Royal Exchange, in general competition, andthat premiums be offered for three designs adjudged by theCommittee to be the best.

“ 3. That the new building be of the Grecian, Roman, orItalian style of architecture, having each front of stone of ahard and durable quality.

“ 6. That a specification be required to accompany eachdesign, gi ving a general description of the building, and suchother information as cannot be clearly shown on the drawings,stating also what stone, or other material, are proposed foruse in the different parts of the building, and specifying par-ticularly the estimated expense of carrying the designs intoexecution in the most substantial and complete manner inevery respect for occupation, the expense not to exceed£150,000.

“ 10. That for the design for which the Committee shallaward the first premium, the sum of £300 shall be given ;that for the second design the sum of 200 ; and for thethird the sum of £100. The successful competitor, to whomthe first premium is awarded, shall not be considered ashaving necessarily a claim to be entrusted with the execu-tion of the work ; but if not so employed, and his designsare carried into execution, a further sum of £500 shall bepaid to him—the Committee retaining possession of all thedrawings for which the premiums have been given.

“ 11. That if reasonable doubts should arise in the mindsof the Committee as to the practicability of carrying intoexecution the successful design for the amount of the esti-mated expense of the building, the Committee shall be atliberty to call upon the party to give sufficient and satisfac-tory proof of the accuracy of the calculations, and to with-hold the premium, and reject the designs, unless such proofbe furnished.”

After issuing these “ Instructions,” the Committee appointedthree architects—Sir Robert Smirke , Mr. Gwilt, and Mr.Hardwick, to examine and advise on the designs whichmight be sent in. Above fifty competitors appeared, andthe above gentlemen, after due examination, made a report tothe Committee, from which we extract the following passages.

“ In the first class, those that we think may be executed for£150,000, we beg to report as follows :—

First.

Second .

Third .

Fourth.

Fifth.

“ In the second class, or that in which we consider the costwould vastly exceed the sum of £150,000, equal impracti-cabilities of execution with those of the first class are to befound ; and, notwithstanding the very great talent they exhi-bit, there are circumstances of inconvenience and unsuitable-ness which would bring them, as we conceive, into the pre-dicament of being unadvisable for adoption. We wish it,therefore, to be understood, that we report on them respec-tively as the works of very clever artists, who have producedpieces of composition in which, besides the circumstancesabove-mentioned, stability arising from solid bearings forupper apartments, and other essential matters, have beensacrificed to gram! architectural features.

“ The designs in the second class, in our estimation of theirorder or merit, are as follows :—

First.No. 50

Second. „ 46

Third .-. „ 27