► 272. 36 i o a O- ^2 to H ST CD Co a o ^8 (3 S' w CD 3 s. a o **4 O 3 oc 3 CO o H* >-j IS) • S’ o S' 3 h-4 Z t? w O td c/3 f 1 > w cn n ■n H H > d f M o O l*T^ > ja o O o w d o- 3 S w d o W I—» z o Cc > H H td W *n t-H Stf c/s H W h 3 O £! H 37 SECOND REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE Wind sor Castle and Bucking-ham Palace; WITH THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND APPENDIX. Buckingham Palace . Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 14 October 1831 . 329. A 38 THE REPORT - MINUTES OF EVIDENCE APPENDIX - P- 3 - P- 9 - p. 149 39 SECOND REPORT. THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into Matters connected with Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace ; and to whom the Papers presented to The House by His Majesty's Command on the 15th day of February 1831, together with the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Committee in the last Session of Parliament, and the Papers laid before them, were referred; and who were empowered to report their Proceedings from time to time to The House :— Have agreed to this their Second Report ; which has reference to Buckingham O' Palace. "VTOUR Committee have ascertained that on the 26th May 1826 an Estimate was presented to the House of Commons, of the probable Cost of certain proposed Alterations of and Additions to Buckingham Palace, amounting to <£.230,400; and also an Estimate of the Cost of Improvements of the Grounds, amounting to <£.22,290; forming an aggregate Sum of £.252,690. The estimated Expense of these and other alterations and additions was increased, first, to £.331,973; secondly, to <£. 432,926; and lastly, by an Estimate presented to The House of Commons on the 15th May 1829, to £. 496,169. In the evidence of Mr. Nash, and in the papers submilted to the Committee, various reasons are assigned for the first and second addi¬ tions to the original Estimate, to which Your Committee desire to call the attention of The House ; but no explanation has been given to them, sufficient to account for the great extent of the inaccuracy of the last Estimate, of £. 496,169- Your Committee are of opinion that Mr. Nash, in preparing this Estimate of £.496,169? in May 1829, did not use proper caution, either by ascertaining from the different Tradesmen the amount of Balances then due to them, nor the probable amount of what would be so due when the Works by them to be executed should be completed ; and it appears to the Committee that Mr. Nash's statement, that such a course would have been impossible, has been by some of the 329- A 2 Tradesmen 4 SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Tradesmen directly contradicted. If such inquiries had been made, Your Committee believe that it might have been ascertained in the month of May 1829> when Mr. Nash gave in his last Estimate' of £. 496,169? that the whole of that Sum, with the exception of about .£.40,000, had either been expended, or was due to Tradesmen for Works in progress ; and yet it appears that it was not till the month of August 1830, that the expectation of completing the Palace within the Sum of £.496,169 was abandoned. By an Account (No. 2.) Your Committee find that (exclusive of a Sum of £.789- 6. 6. for Duties remitted on Marble imported) the Money actually paid for Buildings, See.- ■} £. 500,741 - - 54,964 8 42,177 - 15,414 - 9 is due ; - is due; at Buckingham Palace, is - That for Work completed and delivered! by Tradesmen - For Work in progress, but not completed That a further Sum of - ' ■ - 77 « /V.w t S *■ * * will be necessary to finish such Works _ in progress, but not completed. Making an Aggregate Sum of £.613,296 8 9 To this Sum must be added the Amount that may be necessary to complete the Palace according to Mr. Nash's intentions, which, though estimated by Mr. Nash at only £. 11,656, is exclusive of Ornamental Painting (£. 2,500)—Gilding (£.23,000)—and finishing the Conserva¬ tories and Court-Yards (£.4,600)—estimated by the Architects and Surveyors of the Board of Works at £.31,177- With respect to the Claims of different Tradesmen for Works already executed or in progress, Your Committee advise that they should be liquidated without delay, after strict investigation of their accuracy by the Board of Works, or other competent authority. Your Committee are of opinion, after duly considering Mr. Nash’s Letter of the 14th July, that he does not acquit himself of the charge of making improvident contracts with tradesmen, and especially with Mr. Crawshay for Iron-work. It appears in evidence, that Messrs. Craw- shay & Co. early in July 1825 contracted to furnish the Iron Girders for Buckingham House at £.17 a ton, and the Pillars at £.18 a ton; and that at the same period Messrs. Crawshay agreed with the sub-contrac¬ tors and founders of iron in Staffordshire, to provide the same at £. 12. 10. tor the Girders, and £. 14 for the Columns. Your Committee must however observe, that they do not consider that it could have been reasonably expected that the Public should obtain the whole of this advantage. Your Committee further report, that although Tenders were given in for the Iron-work by Messrs. Bramah 8c Fowler, it appears by the evidence of the latter, that no fair competition was offered to the Trade, inasmuch as he was informed that the Iron was to be re-cast in London, and not from the blast; and that the difference between London castings and country castings is about £.3 per ton. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 5 It appears in evidence, that different Tradesmen employed at Bucking¬ ham Palace purchased of Mr. Nash certain quantities of Materials, for which they paid (for reasons by them assigned) in some instances a higher price to Mr. Nash, than to other persons from whom they obtained like quantities of similar materials. The Surveyor General, in his Letter to the Treasury, of the 26th January 1826, says, “ There is “ another circumstance connected with this business, which in my “ opinion is highly objectionable, namely, that of the Architect himself “ supplying the Tradesmen with Materials used in these Buildings : upon “ the impropriety and bad tendency of this, there will, I am certain, upon “ inquiry, be found but one sentiment.’" Mr. Nash, in his Letter of the 14th July 1831, to Your Committee, says, referring to this supply of Materials, “ it was at that time fully explained by me to the Secre- “ taries of the Treasury, and was not further pressed either by theTrea- “ sury, or by the Surveyor-General. I received no directions to alter “ my conduct in this particular, and I had a right to presume it w r as “ not the subject of disapprobation/" Your Committee hesitate not to express in the strongest terms their marked disapprobation of such a practice, and their entire concurrence in the comments of the Sur¬ veyor-General ; but they have not ascertained that the Public sustained any loss in this transaction, nor that any previous arrangement on this point had been entered into with the Tradesmen before they w r ere employed. * Although Mr. Nash originally suggested the sending to Italy for Marble, with a view to procure such Marble at a cheap rate for the Public Service, Mr. Nash, by the loose and irregular manner in which his arrangements were made with Mr. Brown, was involved in disputes with him ; and Mr. Brown subsequently declared that he was not to be considered as an agent, and required to be paid for the Marble at the market price. Mr. Nash’s want of due caution in these Transactions has rendered it very difficult to elucidate them ; but T our Committee are of opinion that Mr. Nash is to be considered responsible for the whole of the Marble delivered for the Palace, and they cannot advise the payment of the Balance of <£. 5,691. 16. 5. until the accuracy ot such Balance has been fully ascertained and proved to the satisfaction of the competent Authorities. An Extract of a Treasury Minute of the 15th October 1830, contains the follow ing Opinion of Mr. Nash’s conduct:—“ Upon the wffiole, “ My Lords see in the paper before them no justification of Mr. Nash’s “ conduct; the Estimate submitted to, and sanctioned by Parliament, “ has been exceeded to a large amount; the progress of such excess “ has been concealed from My Lords, and their earlier interposition “ therefore prevented. My Lords feel it incumbent upon them to “ mark their sense of such conduct by every means in their power.” Your Committee, after due consideration of the oral and documen¬ tary Evidence adduced before them, agree in the opinion thus ex¬ pressed of Mr. Nash’s conduct, with this exception, that no proof has 329. A 3 been 6 SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE been brought before Your Committee that Mr. Nash wilfully concealed the excess of the Estimates from the Lords of the Treasury, although the fact is correct, that the Lords of the Treasury were not duly in¬ formed of such excess, which it was the duty of the Architect to have ascertained, and to have communicated to them. Although Your Committee are of opinion that Mr. Nash is charge¬ able with inexcusable irregularity and great negligence in his transactions relative to Buckingham Palace, they would not act justly if they did not express their conviction that the successive Governments who origi¬ nated or authorized this heavy expenditure of Public Money did not use sufficient caution in obtaining due information before they submitted the Estimates for these Works to Parliament. Notwithstanding the endeavours of Mr. Goulburn, after his accession to office, to check the excess of those Estimates, confirmed by the specific directions of the then Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, an excess did continue to take place, and no adequate control on the execution of the Works was established during the reign of His late Majesty. It appears further to the Committee, that the Surveyor General, Sir Benjamin Stephenson, performed his duties strictly and impartially, and exerted himself to the utmost of the powers with which he was invested, but that he was not adequately supported by the Treasury, and the improper proceedings of Mr. Nash commented upon in his Letter of the 26th January 1826, and especially the supply of Materials to Tradesmen, were either slightly passed over, or insufficiently visited with the dis¬ approbation of the Government. Your Committee regret that the successive Estimates for repairing Buckingham House were not more strictly examined by The House of Commons, whereby this heavy Expenditure of Public Money might perhaps in some degree have been prevented. Various opinions have been expressed as to the sufficiency of the Covering of the Roof, and as to the general stability of the Building; Your Committee, however, have the satisfaction of finding that the apprehensions of insecurity may be obviated, and that the other defects, which at present render the Building ineligible as a Royal residence, may be remedied. However Your Committee may regret that this Site should have been chosen for the construction of a Palace, they recom¬ mend that this Building, which is not applicable to any other Public Service, should be finished as a Royal Residence, and ultimately as a Palace for purposes of State, and thus prevent the necessity of any future expenditure on St. James’s Palace. Mr. Blore has prepared Plans and Estimates, from which, as far as they have been able to judge, Your Committee are inclined to believe that a Sum of £. 75,000 would complete the Alterations at present proposed ; but they are aware that a considerable additional expenditure, for Furniture, Fixtures and Decorations, will be necessary to enable His Majesty to occupy Buckingham 1 alace. \ our Committee however cannot conceal from The ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 7 The House, that the completion of this Palace, at a future period, for purposes of State, will require a further Outlay of Public Money; but they trust that care will be taken that the Estimates which may be approved shall as far as possible not be exceeded, and that the icsponsible Authorities will maintain a fixed determination to check any additional Expenditure. 14 October 1831. 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE LIST OF WITNESSES. Jovis, 3° die Martii, 1831. John Nash, Esq., Mr. William Browne and Mr. J. Pennethorne Jovis, io° die Martii, 1831. John Nash , Esq., Mr. William Browne ~1 and Mr. J. Pennethorne - -J p. 17 Major-General Stephenson - p. 28 Sabbati, 12 0 die Martii, 1831. Major-General Stephenson - p* 33 John Nash, Esq., Mr. William Browne\ and Mr. James Pennethorne -/ P -33 Major-General Stephenson - P- 34 Lunse, 14° die Martii, 1 831. Mr. William Freeman - P- 36 Major-General Stephenson - P- 43 Mr. James Palmer - - p. 46 Mercurii, 16 0 die Martii, rH CO 00 T—< Mr. James Palmer - - - - p. 50 Mr. William Whitehead - - P- 53 Mr. Francis Reid - - p. 61 Mr. David M‘Intosh - p. 65 Veneris, 18 0 die Martii, 1831. Mr. David M‘Intosh - P- 65 Mr. Francis Reid - - p. 67 Mr. Launcelot Edward Wood - p. 68 Mr. Thomas Rice - - p. 71 Mr. George Harrison - P- 73 Mr. Thomas Martyr - P- 77 Mr. James Firth - - p. 81 Mr. James Western - P- 83 Mr. James Palmer - - p. 84 Martis, 22 0 die Martii, 1831 Mr. Richard Cobhelt Mr. William Frome Mr. Joseph Browne Mr. George Seddon p. 85 p. 86 p. 86 p. 96 Jovis, 24 0 die Martii, 1831. Mr. Charles Shepherd - - - p. 97 Mr. John Bazeley White - - p. 97 Mr. Peter Paul Grellier - - - p. 98 Mr. William Freeman - - - p. 103 Mr. John Bazeley White - - p. 105 Mr. Joseph Browne - - - p. 106 Mr. Pennethorne - - - -p. 110 Lunse, 28° die Martii, 1831. Mr. Samuel Parker - - - p. 111 Mr. Thomas Want - - - - p.113 Mr. William Roles - - - -p. 116 Mr. G. Stratton and IT. Pitt - - p. 121 A. Y. Spearman, Esq. - - - p. 124 Mercurii, 30° die Martii, 1831. Mr. Robert Moser - - - - p. 129 Mr. John Wyke Fowler - - - p. 135 Mr. John Joseph Bramah - - p. 138 Francis Chantrey, Esq. - - - p. 140 Mr. James Kepple - - - - p. 143 Jovis, 14 0 die Aprilis, 1831. Mr. John William Hiort - - p. 144 Mercurii, 20° die Julii, 1831. Mr. John Rastrick - - - p. 148 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE.. 45 9 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Jovis, 3° die Martii , 1831. ROBERT GORDON, ESQUIRE, IN THE CHAIR. John Nash , Esq., Mr. William Brozvne, and Mr. James Pennethorne , called in ; and Examined. Mr. Nash.] — IN your letter to Mr, Dawson, of the 9th of July 1828, you say that j . Nash , Esq. you “ take this opportunity of referring to Plans and Estimates for the whole of the Mr- IV . Browne , alteartions and additions which are before their Lordships;” and you state that “ I am and proceeding in the execution of the work according to those plans, which have Mr - Penne thome, received His Majesty’s approbation, under the assurance that I had the authority of 3 March, those opinions of their Lordships for doing so;” have you those Estimates, so that 1S31. you can produce them before the Committee?—I have got the greater part of them V --- J here ( producing them;) there were others sent to Windsor, of details, from time to time, which I have not. Is this the first plan that was submitted ?—The first plan that was submitted to Lord Liverpool, as a detailed plan, like this, was done away with, and this is an additional plan. Was this the plan upon which the estimate of 252,690/. was originally framed? ( the Plan marked A.) —Yes, certainly; I also produce a general plan, which was laid before Lord Liverpool. When was this plan laid before Lord Liverpool ?—That will appear in^my^exa- mination before the former Committee, in page 44; all those Plans and Estimates, as there stated, were examined by that Committee. It was delivered on the 25th of June 1825, and on the 26th of May 1826 ; that was a detailed plan ; but there has been nothing done in addition to the original plan that was signed by Lord Liverpool, except that the body of the house was made larger, and which is made the subject of the second estimate, delivered on the 20th of June 1825; and of course this plan was delivered between the 25th of June and the second estimate, so that this larger plan must have been between the one date and the other. The first Estimate, then, to which that plan has reference, was for 252,690/. and was delivered on the 20th of June 1825?—Yes, on or about that time. Did that Estimate of 252,690 /. include all the expenses that were then confessed to be unnecessary in case that plan had been simply carried into effect?—Yes. Can you deliver in to this Committee a more detailed estimate of the items comprising that sum of 262,690/.?—No, I believe I have not a detailed Estimate here. Can you furnish it?— I think I can, but I am not quite certain what papers I have at home; I believe I have not got it more in detail than that printed esti¬ mate explains. Was there never any more detailed estimate submitted to the Treasury than that ? —I think not; and the reason is, because there is a letter among these papers, wherein it is desired by Mr. Robinson that they might be accompanied with some¬ thing like an estimate; and therefore this is the gross estimate without details. Do you state to the Committee, that the only estimate submitted to the Trea¬ sury, of the original expenditure of 262,690/., was this in which there was an item of 234,000 /. without any further detail ?—Certainly ; I had not any detailed esti¬ mate, agreeably to that letter of Mr. Robinson. In what manner did you frame that rough estimate of 234,000/.?—In the way I generally frame a rough estimate, by squares in some instances, and by gross sums without stating the measurement, which is the way in which rough estimates are generally made. I never considered myself called upon for a detailed estimate, when speaking of this 234,000 /. 329. B Have 46 10 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE J. Nash, Esq. Mr. IV. Browne , and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 3 March, 1831. '—-_J_/ Have you got that letter of Lord Goderich’s here?—No, it is not here. Were there ever any estimates afterwards delivered in, more in detail of the original sum of 252,690/.?—No, there were not any; there were none but that rough estimate, up to that time. In preparing this rough Estimate, did you obtain the assistance of any gentleman in your office, or clerks, who can give any information upon the subject?—No, I do not know that I did. I think the probability is, that I did the greater part myself, as I did not think myself called upon to make a detailed estimate, which is a matter of considerable length and trouble; nor was I called upon for any till, I think, Mr. Goulburn came into office. I speak from memory. Were the operations commenced under the authority of the Treasury upon that rough estimate ?—Yes, certainly. In what year?—In 1825. Did you not make any detailed estimate for your own guidance, previously to the commencement of the work ?—No, I made no detailed estimate ; certainly not any that I considered a detailed estimate, namely, upon the principle of measurement. Is that principle of measurement as applicable to a house that was to be altered and repaired, or as it would have been applicable to a new house r—Yes, certainly, in all parts that were new. Were you ever called upon by the Treasury to send in a more detailed estimate ? —Certainly not. In the rough estimate you have made, did you consider that the prices were to be in the gross, or that they were to be otherwise ?—I did not at all consider it to be done in any other way but by the Office of Works, after it was taken out of my hands. In the rough estimate you speak of, did you estimate the work as being built by the gross, or otherwise ?—I consider that I had estimated it largely, and that whether it were contracted for in the gross, or otherwise, it would not have exceeded my estimate. If that work, when it was proceeded in, had been done by the gross, would it have come to a smaller sum than it amounted to ?—I think considerably. Confining yourself to the rough estimate of 252,690/., if the work had been done in the gross, would it have cost less than the amount of the estimate ?— Certainly. The Committee wish to know in what way the work was done ?—The work was done by measurement by the Office of Works, and the accounts were made out by the Office of Works, and paid by the treasurer of the Office of Works, the details of which accounts I had nothing to do with, nor ever examined. Who engaged the workmen to do this work ?—1 presume that I employed the greater part of them, or I may say all of them. Did you make the contract with them ?—The works that were done by measure¬ ment and valuation, w ? ere done by the Office of Works, according to the system of the Office of Works. Those I had nothing to do with ; but I contracted with different workmen for prices, in a number of instances. Those contracts I w 7 as directed by the Treasury to submit to the Surveyor General, and which, in every practicable instance, I did. When the Board of Works had the offer of a contract for executing any portion of work, did thev submit it to you for your approval?—Not to my recollection. If such work had been submitted at a bargained price, it would have been your duty to have protested against it, would it not?—I did always protest against any work being contracted for but in gross. Then, from the year 1825 to 1828, you had no authority or superintendence over the charges of the workmen ?—I had no authority over the charges of the work¬ men at all; their accounts were measured, made out, and also priced by the Office of Works, except where I had previously settled the prices, and which were sent to the Office ot Works as their guide. Were you consulted as to the price that should be given per rod for the brick¬ work in detail ?—I made a contract for the price of the brick-work, and sent it to the Surveyor General. Did you yourself contract for any brick-work?—I contracted for the price of the brick-work, and sent the contract to the Surveyor General for his guidance. Was the work done by contract or by measurement?—By measurement; I ob¬ jected always to a contract for prices, but it was the system to do so, and I con¬ formed to it. Was 47 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. n me. 3 March, 1831. Was the contract made for the brick-work per rod of brick-work?—I think it J. Nash, Esq. was; certainly it was in no other way. Mr. W . Browne, At what price was it?—I speak only from recollection, but I think I did in many j pevnethornc. instances object, and I think I did so from knowing in my own mind the result of doing work at agreed for prices; and in order therefore to get it done as economi¬ cally as I could, and knowing that I was defeated in my principle of doing work in gross, I consented that they should have the work at the agreed for prices, deduct¬ ing that per cent from the amount of their bills. Is it usual, in building a house, to fix it at the Board prices?—Yes, frequently. Is there any great work that was done by the Board of Works prices ?—1 do not know. Do not the Board of Works prices appear to apply more to jobbing than to building a house ?—They say so, but I do not think it does ; I know nothing, how¬ ever, of the Board of Works prices, except as relating to the prices settled every quarter by the attached architects, and the work I am myself engaged in; I never interfered in it. I am a party every three months to settle the Board of Works prices, but, strange to say, those very people who are paid according to those prices, will in private work abate from five to twenty per cent of those prices, although the attached architects, of which I am one, profess to give the tradesmen a profit of only twelve and a half per cent. Are not the Board of Works prices applicable to new public buildings?—I pre¬ sume the Board of Works can answer that question better than I can; I do not know that they do so, as I have nothing to do with those accounts. Was the marble arch included in the first estimate?—Not as a marble arch, but as a stone arch. Are the Committee to understand that you made the contract with regard to prices with the different people, and that this document was afterwards sent by you to the Board of Works, and that they measured the work as it was finished, and paid the money?—Yes, but the agreements made by me extended but to a very few articles; the greater number of prices, at least nine out of ten, were valued by the Board of Works, without consulting me. Are the Committee to understand that, in submitting this rough estimate to Lord Liverpool and Mr. Robinson, you did not lead them to understand that they would not be substantially correct as to amount?—Yes. Did you not give them to understand that in all probability no great excess would occur over that amount?—Yes. Considering the interior of the works in the Palace, do you think it possible to form any estimate of the work by taking the square of the plan?—No, certainly not. You formed the plan by taking the square each way?—Yes, of all that could be ascertained by that mode, but many parts could not be so ascertained ; for example, the chimney-pieces I could not take by the square, nor estimate them at all until the designs of the chimney-pieces were determined upon, and many other things of a similar kind. That would be an estimate in detail, would it net?—I could not estimate it with¬ out making some memoranda upon paper to ascertain what it would be, and perhaps in the rough way I calculated it, I considered that the brick-work was worth so much a rod, and other things so much each, and I delivered the result as my opinion as to what the cost would be; but I have no difficulty in saying that the estimate I have given would or should have covered the expense. Did the Office of Works ever make any alteration in the prices which you recom¬ mended for the execution of any of the works at the Palace?—Yes, they did ; and in one instance, if I am not very much misinformed (but the Committee can have the person from whom I got the information) 1 had agreed for the price of stone¬ work, knowing very well that the quantity of stone I required would increase the price of stone, and therefore before I let any one know' what I w-anted, I sent for a stone-merchant of the greatest eminence, and made an agreement with him for the price of the stone; that agreement, instead of being attended to, was altered, and, as I understand, by the Surveyor General; that is to say, he settled it to be done in another manner, and the man was released from the engagement he had made with I believe the man himself has stated, and will state, that it made a difference of 12,000/. in the stone only, which would very nearly cover one-third of what I am charged as having exceeded my estimates. 329 - B 2 Will 48 12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE J. Nash, Esq. Mr. W. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 3 March, 1831. __ ✓ Will you state the name of the person who can elucidate this transaction ?— Mr. Freeman. Do you mean to state, then, that the Board of Works, by adopting another mode of contract, released Mr. Freeman from that engagement which you had induced him to enter into ?—I understood from Mr. Freeman that it did so. Will you state about what period this transaction took place:—It was at the very beginning of the business; it was the very first stone that was used. Can you state what the nature of the agreement w’as with Mr. Freeman, in the first instance ?—I sent for Mr. Freeman, and told him I should want a certain quan¬ tity of stone, and desired to know the lowest price at which he would supply me, and he gave me in prices for the stone. Calculated in what way ?—By the ton, or by the cubic foot. Was it by the ton, or by the cubic foot?— Mr. Pennethorne .]—The order was given by the ton, but the price at the cubic foot. Mr. Nash .]—The builders were to have the stone at those prices, in order that the Government might be the purchasers of the materials, and therefore it was for the purpose of securing a low price of the stone to the builders, by which means the builders were enabled to make their contracts lower with me. Can you state what the alteration w T as that the Board of Works made in this arrangement?—I cannot state that from memory. About what period did you make this agreement with Mr. Freeman?—I think before a single stone of the building w ? as laid. About what period were you aware that that agreement had been altered by the Board of Works ?—I cannot tell, because there was a good deal of argument about it. Between whom?—Between myself and the Office of Works, about the manner in which the stone was supplied. How soon w’ere you made acquainted with this other arrangement?—I should think it was before the first quarter’s bill was paid. You say you had a considerable degree of argument with the Board of Works upon this subject ?—It is difficult to answer that question in a direct manner ; this was years ago, and the probability is that I had discussion on the subject either with the tradesmen or with Mr. Freeman, or with the Surveyor General, or with them all; but Mr. Freeman can speak to that, because he is my informant. Did you or did you not discuss this matter with the Board of Works ?—I have no doubt that I did; but I believe the alteration was made by the Office of Works with Mr. Freeman. Did you ever state to the Board of Works that the effect of annulling that agreement and making your bargain in that w r ay, would be to cause an additional expense to the Public ?—’No, I did not know its extent. Did you anticipate that that would be the effect?—No, I did not; if I had foreseen this, I should have set my face against it more strongly. Did you ever make any official representation to the Treasury upon the subject of this mode of proceeding ?—I had no communication at that time with the Treasury at all. _ Therefore they knew nothing of this discussion upon this subject?—No, nor of any other subject of detail. You say you had no communication with the Treasury, either upon this or upon any other detail?—Ido not mean to say that I did not verbally receive directions occasionally from the Secretary of the Treasury, and I occasionally communicated to them what I was doing. But you never stated to them that this mode of proceeding would cause an increase of your estimates ?—I did not know that it would. Then your statement of that arises from after experience?—From the after declaration of the man, w ho says that if my agreement had been carried into exe¬ cution with him, it would have been attended with the saving I have described. AY as there any discussion between vou and the Board of YY orks with regard to any other contract:—I cannot state that from memory. Can you state any other instance in w hich you wished to contract in one way and the Board of YY T orks in another, by which you conceive that the Public was put to greater expense by your plan not being adopted ?—I have no particular instance in my recollection. YVhat 49 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. What description of stone was this?—Bath stone. At what price per foot was the wholesale price : —Mr. Pennethorne. At various prices ; the greater portion was at 2 s. ~\d. To Mr. Nash. —Have you made any calculation of what the stone would amount to in the manner in which you treated with Mr. Freeman?—Xo, because I made no estimates of details. Did you make a rough estimate ?—No, because that was not the way in which I did it. I might suppose that a certain quantity of stone would be wanted alto¬ gether, and I took a much higher price, that I supposed I could get it for, but then it was a rough estimate. Did you make any rough estimate of what the probable amount would be in your mode of dealing with Mr. Freeman?—No, because I did not know what the result w ould be. When you gave in the estimate of 253,690/., did you make it upon so liberal an estimate as to cover all chances of excess?—Yes. Will you define the relative official situation of yourself and the Board of Works, how’ much came under your responsibility, and how much under the responsibility of the Board of Works ?-—According to my understanding, nothing came under my responsibility, but executing faithfully the general plans as settled by the King with the Ministers, and to obey the commands I received from the King respecting the de¬ tails of the building, and making the most provident contracts I could, and sending those contracts to the Surveyor General as directed by the Treasury, before I carried them into execution. The measuring the work, and valuing such works as I had not agreed for, was the duty of the Office of Works, in I which I did not interfere; nor did I inspect the bills or know any thing of the contents, except the sums total at the end of the quarter, when I was called upon bv Colonel Stephenson to sign our names to the bottom of the account, but the items of that account I never saw, nor any measuring book in which the accounts were taken, therefore I was totally unconnected with the expenditure. You state, that your duty was to execute whatever might be ordered by the King; do you mean that it was to be executed upon the King’s order, without a previous order from the Treasury?—Yes, till I received the direction of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he came into office. When was that?—In February 1828. Then from the year 1825 to the year 1828 you conceived yourself authorized to carry into execution whatever the King ordered, without the approbation of the Treasury ?—Certainly. Did you receive any order from the Treasury previous to beginning the works, that you were to obey the personal order of his late Majesty ?—None. I received no orders, and I was never called upon for an estimate till Mr. Goulburn came into office. What led you to conceive you were bound to obey the personal orders of his late Majesty?—I considered myself employed as the private architect of his late Majesty, until I received directions from the Treasury in future not to carry any thing into execution but from their orders ; and from that time to this I never did. When was that communication made to you ? Mr. Browne.] —The first communication, I find, is the 23d of September 1829. The Committee have before them a copy of the Treasury Minute of the 17th of June 1828; is this the communication directing you to consider yourself under the control of the Treasury, or w as there any previous communication ?—Xo, it was a subsequent one. In 1825 were not you employed as architect to the Board of Works ?— I was one of the attached architects to the Office of Works. Was not the first Plan of this building signed by the Lords of the Treasury r—It was signed by Lord Liverpool and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How do you reconcile the answer you just gave, that you considered yourselt as the private architect of the King, w ith the tact, of this being under the Board ot Works ?—It was intended at the beginning, that it was not to be executed under the Office of Works, but put entirely under"my direction. I objected to this, and told Lord Liverpool, that nothing should induce me to have any public money go through my hands. I afterwards mentioned that to Lord Goderich, and it was then con¬ sidered how that difficulty might be obviated, because it was not under the Office of Works. Then I suggested, as the money was supplied by the Office of M oods, whether they could not settle the accounts ; that was tound to be impracticable, 329. ' B 3 because J. Nash, Esq. Mr. IV. Brorme, and Mr../. Pennethorne. 3 March, 1831. ' ___ 50 J. Nash, Esq. Mr. IV. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 3 March, 1831. \ — ■/ 14 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE because the Office of Woods had no establishment of measuring clerks, or any means of verifying to the auditors the truth of the accounts ; and it was for that reason that the accounts were put in the hands of the Office of Works, and that I was directed, if I made any contracts, to send them to the Surveyor General, and that the Surveyor General would consider that as the price that he was to put upon those articles so agreed for by me. The original Plan having been signed by the Lords of the Treasury, did not you. consider that you were acting under their sanction ?—I considered that all the details of the plan were to be executed as his Majesty thought proper, and that I was to receive all my directions from his Majesty. Was that opinion of yours formed upon any communication made to you ?—It was my own understanding, and I believe every person’s understanding. Was the general plan given to you by the Treasury ?—It passed through the hands of the Treasury to me. That being the case, did you consider the Treasury or his Majesty to be the per¬ sons to give you commands as to the details ?—His Majesty. Did not you conceive that if you exceeded that rough estimate, you had no further authority to go on without reference to the Treasury ?—Long before any excess could have been discovered of any kind whatever, I received directions from the Treasury that in all future works I was not to carry them into execution till I had received their approbation; and I then stopped, where it was practicable, all the works going on, and abstained from making any other contracts, although I had his Majesty’s commands for many other works. How soon were you aware, from the mode and style in which the building was proceeding, that the original estimate of 252,000/. would bp exceeded?—Certainly not till the last Treasury Minute. At the time I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling him I had a well-founded hope that the estimate would not be exceeded, I had no means of knowing how r far the original estimate I delivered had been exceeded. What subsequent communication are you referring to?—The communication I made preparatory to the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to Parliament for an additional sum of money. I was requested verbally by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to revise my estimates; till 1 did revise my estimates, I had no notion that the estimate would be exceeded, because it was impossible for me or for the measurers themselves to say whether that part of the work measured and priced by the Office of Works had exceeded my estimate or not. In the original plan, as given in by you, did the Wings, as they now' appear, form part of that plan ?—In the original plan, the Wings were as they originally were before they were altered, and the alteration caused an additional expense of 50,000/. Did the marble Archway form any part of the original contract?—No. Can you favour the Committee with the documents upon which that original rough estimate of 252,000 /. was founded?—No, I cannot. Can you state what the number of squares of building was upon which it was grounded?—I do not mean to state that it was by the square only that I ascertained my opinion, I did it in a variety of ways; I could not ascertain the ornamental work by the square. Having before you the original Plan upon which this estimate of 252,000/. was founded, can you furnish the Committee with a calculation showing that it would cost, according to a rough estimate, 252,000/.?—Certainly not in this room, but I can do it when I go home; I can do it as easily now as I could then. Will you have the goodness to furnish to the Committee the calculations upon which this estimate of 252,000 /. was founded ?—1 could make a new calculation. The original estimate having been 252,690/., when did you first discover that that estimate would be exceeded?—The papers were put into Mr. Spearman’s hands to examine, at which time Mr. Spearman sat down with me to revise my Estimates, for the purpose of going to Parliament, as I understood ; and in the best manner we could we revised that estimate, and when we revised it we had reason to believe that great as the excess vvas, the original estimate would have covered it; and it I am asked why I imagined this, I have no doubt I have the papers at home upon which that calculation was made, and I think they would demonstrate why I thought that the original estimate would not be exceeded. It has been exceeded, it seems, 36,000/. which is not eight per cent. When did you first discover the necessity of increasing your estimate from 252,690/. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 51 252,690/. to 331,000/. ?—By progressive orders from The King to do works that were not estimated before, not in any increase of building, but in the details in finishing those buildings. Those orders came day after day to me, and till Mr. Goulburn came into office I never was called upon for any estimate; I then sat down to make an estimate, and the estimates I made then form the Schedule of Estimates laid before the former Committee, and which were then printed by the House of Commons. Then the Committee are to understand that the increase from 252,690/. to 331,000/. was owing to certain alterations made by direction of the King, and without the sanction of the Treasury ?—In part; but they were also in part things which were always stated not to be included in the original Estimate. You will find at the top of these Estimates certain things stated not to be included : for example, all the works at Carlton Palace, all the chimney-pieces, all the state doors, all the columns in the front, all the floors at Buckingham Palace, those are all stated in the original estimate as making no part of that estimate. Now those things were all taken away from Carlton Palace and Buckingham House, and carried to Windsor, and therefore of course all those things became subjects of new estimates, and that makes the most considerable part of the second estimate. Have you ever given in a detailed estimate to the Treasury, of the difference between the sum of 331,973/. and the sum of 252,690/. ?—Certainly. The greater part of it was for things stated in the original estimate as not being included in it, together with alterations wffiich the King made in the details. Then in your estimation, the alteration from 252,000 /. to 331,000/. was in con¬ sequence of other things being done which were not previously estimated, and did not arise from an erroneous computation in the original estimate?—Certainly ; and may I add to that, that at this moment I am certain that every one of my estimates, or at least the aggregate of them, would not or ought not to have been exceeded. In your original estimate of 252,000/. there were included various articles at Carlton Palace, which you thought were to be used at Buckingham Palace, and those articles were not used at Buckingham Palace, but were sent to Windsor ?— Yes. And that formed part of the excess ?—It did form the greater part. And the other part of the excess was owing to changes in the King’s mind? —Yes. Did the Board of Works execute the works contained in the increased estimate, in the same manner that they had done the other works ?—Till the accounts were taken out of the Office of Works and placed under my hands, and then I executed all that was practicable according to my own system, viz. by contracts in gross, and those contracts in gross saved thirty per cent at least, that is, they came to thirty per cent less than my estimate. Were all those alterations which were commanded by the King communicated by you to the Treasury?—Never till Mr. Goulburn directed me to send in state¬ ments of them. Were not the accounts sent into the Treasury when they paid them?—They never went through my hands; they were sent by the Surveyor General to the Treasury, and I had nothing to do with them. Have those accounts been paid at all ?—In a great degree. Can you state what was the increase of expense wffiich arose from the transfer of the materials you have referred to, from Carlton Falace and from the old Bucking¬ ham House to Windsor Castle, which you originally expected would have been incorporated in the new building at Buckingham Palace?—New ones were sub¬ stituted for those that were sent aw r ay, and the new are all stated in the esti¬ mates wffiich are printed. Do they come under the head of certain extras not previously estimated ?—They come in part under that head. Could you give any idea of the value of those articles that were so sent to Windsor, which you expected to be used in Buckingham Palace?—No; but the articles substituted for them bore no comparison with those sent away ; for example, per¬ haps a chimney-piece sent away would be worth 90/. and the chimney-piece sub¬ stituted by a design signed by The King might have cost 300 or 400/. Will you have the goodness to explain the reasons of the second increase that took place from 331,973/. to 432,926/. ?—The details of that estimate are stated in the Report before the Committee. Did the increase in 1828 from 331,973/. to 432,926/. arise from the additions 329. B 4 -to J. Nash, Esq. M r. IV. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 3 March, 1831. 52 J. Nash, Esq. Mr. IV. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 3 March, 1831. 16 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE'BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE to the two Wings and the alteration of the Arch, from being built of stone to being built of marble?—In part from that, and in part from the other particulars stated in the Report. When you gave in that increased estimate on the 12th of February 1828, of 432,926/. did you consider that that increased estimate would cover the whole expenditure of the Palace ?—All the expenditure of the Palace is specified in those estimates. Had you at that time any reason to suppose that the original estimate of 252,000/. would be exceeded for the works specified in that estimate ?—Certainly not. Did you get the Treasury sanction for this new estimate?—No. When was it determined to change the Arch from stone to marble?—I cannot state that from memory. Was it in the consultation with yourself, or with Mr. Westmacott, that the change was determined ? — Mr. Westmacott had nothing to do but with the sculpture. Was that change made previously to your giving in the estimate of February 1828 ?—Certainly. Was there any correspondence between you and the Treasury, upon the subject of the supply of marble for the use of the Arch?—Yes. Did you yourself import and supply the marble for the use of the marble Arch ?— I myself imported the marble; by directions of the Treasury, I sent an agent with all the sizes of the blocks of marble that I wanted, to Carrara, with a commission to buy them, not for me, but for Government, at the least possible price at which he could get them. Was there any representation made by you to the Treasury on the subject of your purchasing the marble previous to your sending the agent to make that pur¬ chase?—I did it with the consent and approbation of the Treasury. Was the marble so imported of the best quality?—-Of the best quality of the particular marble. What particular description of marble w as it ?—Ravaccione. Is that the dearest description of marble?—By no means; it is the cheapest, but most durable. Was there a representation by you in writing to the Treasury, showing what the saving would be in consequence of your being allowed to purchase the marble ?—No. What w r as the sum at which you supplied the marble ?—1 did not supply any marble myself, and I had nothing to do with the marble further than to certify the accounts received. What was the sum at which the marble so obtained was supplied ? Mr. Pennethorne. ]—The total amount is somewhere about 30,000 /. Was the marble supplied ready worked, or in rude blocks? Mr. Nash.] —In rude blocks. Can you furnish an account of the whole quantity so supplied, and the price per cubic foot at which it was supplied ?—Certainly. Is the marble account wound up, or is there more marble coming?—There is no more coming. It appears by the accounts that there has been 22,700/. worth of marble paid for? Mr. Pennethorne.] —There remains a balance of seven thousand and some odd pounds unpaid. W hat was the course of business in purchasing this marble; by whom was it shipped ?—By the agent that purchased the marble. To whom was it consigned in this country 1 ?—It was consigned in this country to the broker. What is the name of the agent that was sent?—Mr. Joseph Browne. In what office are the invoices of the shipment of the marble?—Mr. Browne has them. By what office was this marble paid for?—Through the Office of Woods. Was it paid on account, or for particular bills ? Mr. Pennethorne.] —Paid on account of the several amounts transmitted. Have there been any specific bills given in?—There has been no final balance paid, but specific bills of every part have been given in. You have stated that you only gave in a rough estimate of the original expected expense of 252,690/.; wall you have the goodness to look at this estimate, which is 53 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 17 is contained in the parliamentary papers, which amounts to the sum of 252,690/. and which appears to be signed by yourself on the 26th of May 1826 ?—( The same being shown to the Witness )—This is what I call a rough estimate. Was the estimate which has just been shown to you the first estimate which you gave in to Lord Goderich ?—I do not recollect any other. Will you explain why, after having given in the estimate on the 12th of February 1828, amounting to 432,936/. you afterwards increased the estimate to 496,000//? —The estimate of 432,936/. had not included the sculpture of the marble Arch. It is stated in the evidence before the former Committee, that sculpture is not in¬ cluded in any of my estimates, and therefore not being included it became a separate estimate, but it is part of the estimate that made up the total sum of 496,000/.; the rest is incidental expenses, such as architect’s commission, wages of door¬ keepers and clerks of works, temporary shops and hoards. Why was not the architect’s commission included in the original estimate of 432,000/.?—I cannot say. I believe architects very seldom, in making an estimate of their building, include their commission, at least I never did. Then the Committee is to understand that the increase of the expense from 432,000/. to 496.000/. is to be attributed to two items, 34,000/. for the sculpture, and 28,000/. for architect’s commission, and incidental charges of that description? —Yes. J. Nash , Esq. Mr. IV. Browne , and Mr. J. Pennethornt. 3 March, 1831. ' -- * Is there any account yet made up of what the Arch has cost, including sculpture and the price of marble?—I do not know that there is any separate account made of it. Could not an account be made of it?—Certainly. In the inclosure No. 3. amongst the List of Extraordinaries, there appear certain charges for laying water through main-cocks, oil and candles during the winter, sail¬ cloths and tarpaulins; are not those things usually included in an estimate for building a house ?—No, because it could not be foreseen. Is it a matter upon which two different opinions could be held among professional men, whether those should be included or not?—I cannot tell what other pro¬ fessional men’s opinions are, but I know that it is not so with me. Suppose a gale of wind were to happen to blow down a chimney, that could not have been fore¬ seen ; or, supposing a gentleman chose the workmen to work by candlelight in the winter, to get the work done by a given time, those men would of course expect to be paid for the candles they worked by ; those things are always an additional charge ; besides, this is an affair of four or five years standing, and repairs, and renovating, and a hundred things that happened in the four or five years always come in as extras. In any gross estimate you would make for the building of icehouses, would you not include therein drains attached to that icehouse?—The icehouses are not done, they were not in the original order, but I was obliged to make the drains before I could level the ground. The icehouses were no part of the original estimate, and they are not done at this moment. Was it not a part of your duty to confine your designs within the limit of what you had originally supposed would be the expense, and which you stated in the estimate delivered to the Treasury?—No, because I understood from the beginning that nothing more was settled between the King and the Treasury than the general plan. I conceived that I was to receive the King’s directions for every detail of the plan, and I did so receive them from time to time as the w 7 ork proceeded, and I considered that I was to consult no one but the King with respect to details. Jovis , 10° die Martii , 1831. John Nash , Esquire, Mr. William Browne, and Mr. James Pennetkorne, again called in ; and Examined. Mr. A r ^/z.]—-AT your last examination, the Committee traced the different Esti- 10 March, mates you gave in to the Treasury, from 25^,000/. to 496,000/.; they now have to l8 3 *» request that you will state upon what principles you framed the last Estimate of 496,000/. so as to lead you to consider that that would cover the whole expense of finishing the Palace ? —Upon the same principle as I made the other Schedule of the Estimates I delivered to Mr. Goulburnin February 1838; that was a Schedule of all 329. C the 54 i8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE J. Nash, Esq. Mr. IV. Browne, and Mr. J. Bonnet home. V. 10 March, 1831. / the Estimates of the work then to be done, and they were printed afterwards by thf* House of Commons. You refer to the Estimate of the 12th of February 1828, that amounted to 432,000/.; the question was as to the Estimate you delivered in May 1829, of 496,000/. ?—The Estimates I delivered were, as I stated before, in gross; the two Estimates to makeup the 496,000/. were in gross also; and the reasons for my supposing the Estimates would not be exceeded were founded upon the conviction, first, that I had estimated them in extreme, and the impossibility for me or any one concerned in the building, even the Office of Works themselves, or the clerks who measured the work, to say what portion of the work made out and measured by them, with which I had nothing to do, exceeded the Estimate ; and there was no means of comparing them, the whole of the work being in progress, and several quarters, 1 believe at least five, were then not measured or ascertained. What was the date of your delivering in the Estimate of 496,000/. ?—The 15th of May 1829. When you were des’ired by Mr. Goulburn to prepare an Estimate of the 496,000/. did you not communicate with Mr. Spearman as to the manner in which the Estimate should be prepared?—Yes. Did you not in such communication with Mr. Spearman receive instructions to prepare so full an Estimate as should prevent the possibility of excess?—No, I do not recollect receiving any such instructions; Mr. Spearman himself went into the detail of the Estimates, and considered, with me, as far as his want of professional knowledge enabled him, the probability of the Estimates not being exceeded. Upon what principles did you enter into the investigation with Mr. Spearman in the hope of forming such an Estimate ; did you make any inquiries of the respective tradesmen, as to any rough estimates they might give of the monies then due to them? —It was impossible; I did not, because the thing was impracticable; no trades¬ man could do it; their accounts were unsettled, that is to say, the works were in progress, and until they were completed no comparison with the original estimates could be made. But this difficulty relates only to w r orks in progress. But there were other accounts, where the balances could be ascertained ; and they were ascertained by Mr. Spearman and me in the best manner possible, the particulars of which contributed to make up the sum of 496,000 /. Was there any application made to the master bricklayer, to the master carpenter, or to the master mason, or to the master ironmonger, to request them to give in a rough Estimate of what they conceived to be due to them at that period ?— Certainly not. Do you state to the Committee that it was impossible at this period to obtain from the principal tradesmen any estimate of what they conceived due to them for works they had completed ?—I think it impossible. Upon w'hat data did you make those calculations of the 496,000 /. ?—The calcu¬ lations making the 496,000/. was the aggregate of the Estimates that were printed by the House of Commons, to which two sums, as well as I recollect, the raising of the Wings, and I believe the architect’s commission, the pay of the clerks of the works, and the marble Arch, were added. Those were the sums that made up the 496,000/. Upon what data did you ground your calculations, either as to those sums, or those already spent ?—The Estimates that were delivered, and which were printed, were Estimates in gross, and not Estimates in detail. When we came to calculate what further sum might be required, the result of which was the sum of 496,000/., it was formed by those Estimates, brought together with the Estimate for raising the Wings, the article for commission and the marble Arch. Then that calculation was made upon the rough Estimates with regard to the works already completed, and also upon a rough Estimate of the works to be completed?—Exactly so. But no more with regard to the works that had been completed than with regard to those that were to be completed, was any thing like a detailed Estimate formed ? —No. Had you not directions from the Treasury in the preceding August to measure those works yourself?—No. Do you recollect the Treasury Minute of the 15th of August?—Not by memory. Look at that Treasury Minute {handing the same to the Witness'), and say what you understand by it ?—I understand this perfectly. Referring to that Minute, were you not directed, under that Minute, to measure the 55 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. i 9 the works, and make up the accounts of the building?—That could only be per¬ formed by the Office of Works, and not by me, as I had nothing to do with the accounts. Were not you desired by this Minute in future to measure the works, and make up the accounts of the building, and transmit them to the Office of Works?— That was at the time it was taken out of their hands. Your Estimate is in the month of May 1829?—Yes; I understand all that perfectly. Was there any measurement made under the directions of this Minute by you, of any of the works at Buckingham Palace, between the date of this Minute in August 1828, and the date of the calculation in May 1829 ?—There were continued measurements as the works proceeded. Did those measurements enable you to form any opinion of the amount of the expense already incurred ?—Certainly not; they measured the works as they were performing. What degree of additional measurement was necessary to enable you to form an accurate account of the expense of the works that had been completed ?—I under¬ stand the Minute I have been reading to mean, that I should not exceed the limit of 10,000/. a month, which I took care to observe; but it was impossible, as was stated in my answer to the Minute, and has been confirmed by the Surveyor General, to state every month the amount of the works doing in that month, because the work was not measured, but in the act of measuring, and they admitted the impracticability of the thing; but I nevertheless confined myself within the 10,000/., and never did exceed it. To enable you to be quite sure not to exceed that 10,000/., did not the measure¬ ment give you some idea of the expenses incurred between August 1828 and May 1829?—As the works proceeded, the clerks of the work knew the probable amount they had then measured; and when I asked them, u Are you exceeding the 10,000/. a month?” the answer was “No ; ” and I knew they were not. Did you not take the probable amount furnished you by the measurers during this period between August 1828 and May 1829, when you formed the general Estimate of 496,000/.?—No, I did not. Who measured those works ?—They were measured by the officers of the Board of Works; I had nothing to do with the measurements till they were put into my hands. After the 15th of August, when they were put into your hands, who measured them ?—A clerk appointed by me. When you and Mr. Spearman endeavoured to frame an Estimate of the 496,000/., did you apply to that clerk for information as to the sums he considered, and of which he ought to have been some judge in consequence of measuring, to be due to the tradesmen?—It was impossible he could tell, or any body else, because the works were in progress, and the clerk of the works himself would state it w r as im¬ possible ; at all events it was impossible for me to do it. Between the 15th of August 1828 and the 15th of May 1829, all the works were measured under your direction?—Yes. The question is, whether, in framing your Estimate of the 15th of May 1829, you did not take into your consideration any reports you might have received from the clerk of the works, or from the respective tradesmen ?—No, because it was impossible. To Mr. Browne~\ —At the time when Mr. Nash was directed by the Treasury to frame the Estimate of 496,000/., are you aware whether any application was made to the gentleman who measured the work, or any tradesmen, in order to assist Mr. Nash in framing such Estimate?—Mr. Nash inquired of me if it were possible I could tell the amount due in payment for works then in progress, and remaining to be done : upon consideration, and looking at the quantity of work then in hand, and that portion remaining to be done, it was found quite impossible. Then, if it was found quite impossible to ascertain that which was due to the dif¬ ferent tradesmen, how r came you to fix the sum of 496,000/. as the probable sum that would cover the expenditure; on what estimate did you fix that?—I am not able to answer that question. To Mr. Nash.] —When you refer to that Estimate, No. 2, do not you consider that Estimate before you as a detailed Estimate r—No. Have the goodness to read it ?—“ Marble chimney-pieces (exclusive of marble), 18,970/.; parquette floors, inlaid floors and oak floors, 12,631 /.” 329. C 2 Must J . Nash , Esq. Mr. IV. Browne , and Mr. J. Pcnnethorne. 10 March, 1831. - - * 56 20 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE J. Nash, Esq. Mr. IV. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorue. 10 March, 1831. '-O- * Must not that be a detailed estimate, to make it an odd sum? No, a detailed estimate would be a measurement of the several parts which compose the floor, whereas an estimate in gross would be a sum conceived by professional knowledge to embrace all these articles, without adverting to the several parts. How do you explain the precise sum of 631/. if there was no measurement or estimate of the measurement, an odd one pound ? It is most likely that I said to some clerk, “ Tell me how much the oak parquette floor will be,” and he told me it would come to 12,631 1. Must not that be founded on some calculation of the number of square feet?— Yes; but in stating that by the square, it became an estimate in the gross, that is, the price per square included the separate parts of which the floor was formed, the statement of which several parts, would be an estimate in detail. Would not that sum of 12,631 /. be founded on some particular estimate you had made before?—All of these rough Estimates are founded on some particular calcu¬ lation, but not a calculation in detail. Will you refer to No. 4, in the next page ; every item is in hundreds of pounds ; there is no odd sum, except the last?—I state again that all these are rough Esti¬ mates, each of which are composed of details, which, if enumerated, would become a detailed estimate, but which my professional experience enabled me to estimate the value without dissecting the parts. Is it usual, in giving an estimate to a private person of a building to be erected, for an architect who wishes to keep his expenditure within his estimate to give in those details to the gentleman employing him?—I think not. Do you not feel yourself bound, then, to bring your works within the Estimate ?— I do; and I contend that my Estimates were sufficient to cover the expenses; but I had nothing to do with the measurement, or the accounts. Were those Estimates given in as you would give them in any private transaction, which you would feel yourself bound to keep within your Estimate ?—Any estimate I have given to a gentleman I hold myself bound to keep within, if it is in my power, and I had the sole control of the execution of the works, and contracting for them in gross, instead of ascertaining the cost by measurement and valuation. You were understood to say you gave in only a rough Estimate, and therefore that you were not bound to keep within it?—No, that was not what I meant to say. Is it the custom of architects to give general estimates, or is it the custom of architects in the first instance to give detailed estimates ?—I believe seldom, if ever, detailed estimates. I consider detailed estimates would be found to be a fac simile of the bills of the several tradesmen that would afterwards be delivered, and therefore would be of immense length. Architects never make that sort of estimate in the first instance; I believe it is so much the contrary, that were an architect to be called on to deliver that sort of estimate, or bill of particulars, if I may so call it, he must apply to professed measurers, unless he has measurers in his own office; and if he employs a measurer, he would pay him one and a half per cent, for making that measurement; and when that has been required, I have charged one and a half per cent, showing I have paid that. With regard to detailed estimates, is it necessary to have the working plans before they can be made?—Certainly. Were the working plans made before you formed that Estimate?— Certainly not. Would not the working calculation produce odd sums, just as much as detailed estimates ?—Certainly they might produce broken sums. So that on that point there is no difference between the detailed and the general estimate?—Certainly not. You have stated on a former day, “ I think the probability is, that I did the greater part myself, as 1 did not think myself called upon to make a detailed esti¬ mate, which is matter of considerable length and trouble : nor was I called upon for any, till, I think, Mr. Goulburn came into office.’* Were you then called upon for a detailed estimate ?—I was not called upon at all for a detailed estimate. You stated that you were not called upon till Mr. Goulburn came into office?— I certainly was not. What was the nature of the estimate required by Mr. Goulburn, when he first came into office ?—He required estimates to know what the amount of work still to be done would be. In your reply to that question, when you were asked about a detailed estimate, did ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 57 21 did you understand that to mean a detailed estimate or a general estimate?—Only a general estimate. . e , Does not a general estimate necessarily include the details of the estimate?— No, not in the way I have explained that: I do not call an estimate* by the squares of building, a detailed estimate: if I want to know the expense of building a wall, I do not call the multiplying the length and breadth of it an estimate that will cover all the little circumstances : a detailed estimate is the enumeration of all those little circumstances which are amalgamated in the estimate in gross, without individual consideration. When you made this calculation with respect to the parquette floors, did you take the numbers of square feet, and multiply them by what you considered a fair average of the expense ?—Yes. In that manner the odd sum arose?—Yes. The Committee are to understand that, in framing, with Mr. Spearman, the account of 496,000/., you did not make any previous inquiry of the principal tradesmen, or of the clerk of the works, as to the sum actually expended ?—No, I did not, because it was impossible. Because what was impossible ?—It was impossible for them to state it. You consider that it would have been quite impossible for the different trades¬ men to have given you any rough estimate of the sums then due to them ?—Cer¬ tainly, quite impossible. You did not give them to understand that you formed that sum of 496,000/. upon any other data than those upon which you formed your original Estimate ?—• Certainly not. At what period did you at first begin to conceive that that sum of 496,000 /. would not cover the whole expense of the Palace?—It was at the time that Mr. Spearman became the medium between the Treasury and me, at which time Mr. Goulburn desired estimates, to know what further sum might be required, in order that he might go to Parliament for more money ; that w r as the time, whatever time it was, that I was directed to do it; and Mr. Spearman and I sat down to re¬ examine all the Estimates, and re-state them; and it was Mr. Spearman, as well as myself, brought out the sum which I then delivered in to Mr. Goulburn, and upon which I presume Mr. Goulburn formed his own judgment when he went down to Parliament; but at that time it was equally impossible for me, as at any other time, to say how far the Estimates I made of work which was measured and valued by the Office of Works, exceeded, or did not, the Estimate ; for it was work in pro¬ gress ; five or six quarters remained unmeasured, and it was impossible for me to know what relation the work measured and valued by the Board of Works bore to my Estimate, nor was it possible for those who had done the works, or those who had measured them, to form any judgment of it, and much less myself, who had nothing to do with those measurements, or with the accounts. At what period did you first begin to discover that the 496,000/., your last Estimate, framed in communication with Mr. Spearman, would not cover the expense of the Palace?—Not till that was examined by Mr. Spearman and me; nor can either he or I think any otherwise but that the sum in hand would have completed the building. After that sum of 496,000 /. w*as arranged, how soon did you first find that that would not be sufficient to cover the expense ?—I cannot recollect the date. It appears by the Minute of Treasury, that on the 29th of October 1829, y ou stated your satisfaction that the total charge for the Palace, according to the best view you could take of the state of the account, would not exceed the Estimate of 500,000/. proposed to Parliament; at what period was that opinion of your’s changed ?—That Estimate was made also with Mr. Spearman. To Mr. Pennethorne .]—Can you state at what period it was ascertained that that Estimate of 496,000/. would not cover the expenditure of the Palace?—On the 6th of April the Treasury wrote to Mr. Nash, to say there was only 37,867/. 2 s. "jd. in hand. Mr. Nash desired me to answer that, by saying that he considered that impossible, but would revise his Estimates. Mr. Nash was at that time ill, and not able to attend to it until much later in the year. It was not ascertained till the com¬ pletion of the Estimates, w hich w'ere delivered at the Treasury in September 1830. To Mr. Nash .]—You have already stated that it w*as utterly impossible lor you to obtain from the different master tradesmen a rough estimate of what was due to them previous to your giving that Estimate of 496,000/. Could not you have obtained from the different contractors an account of the different balances due to 329. C3 them? J. Nash , Esq. Mr. IV. Browne, aud Mr. J. Bennethorne. 10 March, 1831. 58 22 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE J. Nash, Esq. Mr. W. Browne , and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 10 March, 1831. '---- them?—My answer, subject to the correction of dates, is, that those balances were ascertained so far as they were completed. To Mr. Browne.} —Before Mr. Nash gave in his Estimate of 496,000/. were the balances due to the different contractors ascertained?—Yes, they were. To Mr. Nash.} —Have you with you any original contracts entered into by the different builders?—None ; I sent them all to the Board of Works; I have copies of them all. Did you make contracts with the builders for the price at which these works were to be executed by the foot?—There were very few contracts I did make; but they were made in that manner which was conformable to the system of the Office of Works. Were these contracts made by private bargain, or public competition, and a tender?—They are of various sorts, and they will speak for themselves ; I am sure I cannot spak to how many were by prices and how many for specific sums ; I believe the greater part were by prices, in conformity with the system of the Office of Works, from w hich I never considered myself at liberty to deviate w hilst the accounts were under its control, which was from the beginning of the w r orks until they were placed under my direction by a Minute of the Treasury ; and I believe that in the impracticability which I always found of making contracts for prices so as to include all the prices, 1 followed what I conceived the next best method to serve the public, which was, by agreeing with the several people that they were to be paid the prices of the Office of Works, with a reduction of five, ten, or fifteen per cent., according to circumstances, and that was the basis of most of the contracts I made, because I knew the fallacy and impracticability of making contracts for the innumerable separate articles. Were these contracts made privately with the parties who undertook them, or by public competition, and with tenders sent in by different persons who were anxious to obtain the work?—A great many, and all that could, were done by competition ; the others that were not by competition, were in a certain w r ay competition ; that is to say, I agreed with a tradesman that he should abate ten percent, from the amount of his bill; there was another sent to perhaps who would not take off more than five per cent., another not more than seven per cent.; then whatever the lowest was, I did not employ the others unless they would consent to do it at the lowest. Referring to your former evidence, in what manner did The King communicate His instructions for the execution of certain works ?—Verbally ; and whenever I saw Him, it generally happened that he ordered some alteration. On that verbal communication you generally made an estimate, did you not ?— I proceeded to give the workmen directions for the work necessary. Have you the signatures of His Majesty to a great number of these w-orks? — I have; they are in the room. You are understood to say that you have Estimates of particular works ordered by His late Majesty, and which you have now the signature of His late Majesty to? —No; merely the verbal communication to do such a room so and so, or such a deling so and so. Did you think yourself authorized by mere verbal orders from His Majesty to engage in works that would increase the expenditure from 252,000/. to 350,000/. ? —I felt myself bound, after the general plans were settled, to follow' His Majesty’s commands in every detail of the building that he directed. Then, after having given in the Estimate, how was it possible you could conform to it, if you were to vary that according to every command His Majesty gave?—• It was impossible to conform to the Estimates; but I from time to time made sub¬ sequent Estimates as those alterations took place, and which Estimates are those which were printed by Parliament. Have you kept any memorandum of directions given by His Majesty for these alterations? —No, not particularly; but to a great part of them I have His Majesty’s signature to the Plans, not to the Estimates. Do these plans, signed by The King, show which are original plans and which are alterations ?—Perhaps if I were to show' one or two ol them, that would be most satisfactory. Did you not, by a letter to G. R. Dawson, Esq. dated 9th July 1828, in page 5, state, “I request you will inform their Lordships that I shall, in conformity to their desire, take care that the expense to be incurred shall not exceed the sum mentioned in that letter, namely, of 10,000/. in each month?”—Yes. How was it possible you could provide against an excess, if you obeyed every command 59 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 23 command of His Majesty ?—Because it could not be done within the month, and if it could, and exceeded that, I should not have done it at all; I have never exceeded the amount of 10,000/. a month, but I could not know the amount till the Office of Works, made up the account, and showed what it was. At the conclusion of the letter, you state, “ At the same time that I submit the impracticability of fulfilling to the letter my instructions to their Lordships’ consi¬ deration, it shall be my endeavour to obey them to the utmost of my power, always bearing in mind the spirit of their command; namely, that the expenditure shall not exceed 10,000/. in each month, and that my Estimates in toto shall not be exceeded how could you undertake that your Estimates should not be exceeded, unless you had some plan to which you were to adhere?—Because each Estimate stood on its own particular ground, and would show what were and were not extra of these contracts ; and I knew I had estimated so largely, that it was not possible that, even measured by the Office of Works’ prices, that should be exceeded; and I am, upon a revision of those Estimates, still of that opinion. How, in point of fact, has it been so exceeded ?—Because the system of the Office of Works, which I always objected to, made it impossible that any estimate could be formed which could be relied upon, by agreeing for prices, and measuring the work after it was done, and therefore I put all my Estimates so largely, that I considered it impossible that even those prices should exceed it; but when I came, after the works were put into my hands, to pursue my own mode, which is to con¬ tract in gross, I have not exceeded my Estimate, but, on the contrary, am twenty-five or thirty per cent, within it, as can be shown : this being the case, how could 1 sup¬ pose that the work done under the Office of Works, and measured and valued by them, could have exceeded, when I found, in doing the works myself, they cost so much less than my Estimate? You were quite aware of the mode of measuring and valuing on the part of the Board of Works, when you bound yourself by that letter to the Treasury not to exceed 500,000 /. ?—I always protested that 1 was not responsible for any work that was not only executed, but measured and valued by myself. On the 28th of July 1828, there is a letter from Colonel Stephenson to the Honourable F. R. Stuart, in which he recommends that Mr. Nash be recommended to measure the works, and make up the account of building, that you might not be interfered with by the Board of Works; and it appears, by a Minute of 15th of August, that you received the sanction of the Treasury to measure your work your¬ self?—Yes. Do you mean to say, that since that time the prices have been within your Esti¬ mate ?—For works where I was enabled to contract in gross ; but when these works were handed over to me, there were works in progress, which were begun to be measured by the Office of Works ; I could therefore only measure them in the same manner; but when there were no works begun, I had recourse to my own method, of having competition and contracts in gross; the consequence was, that those so contracted for were tw enty-five and even thirty per cent, within my Estimate; that it w ? as that made me say, in my subsequent letter, that I had a well-founded hope that my Estimates would not be exceeded, conceiving that there could not be such a difference between the system of the Office of Works and contracts in gross. On the 7th of November i 829, there is a Treasury Minute, in which it is stated, “ Write to Mr. Nash accordingly, and acquaint him, that beyond what has now been authorized, My Lords will not admit any deviation from the plans or any works which can either retard the completion of the Palace, or raise the amount of expenditure on account of it beyond that of which Mr. Nash furnished an Estimate to Parlia¬ ment, and that for any deviation or increase My Lords will hold Mr. Nash respon¬ sible do you state to the Committee, that since that period you have not made any deviation or increase?—Certainly, I believe I have not; my directions were that I should not, and I have never in any instance to my knowledge disobeyed the commands of the Treasury. Having stated to the Treasury that you not only would not exceed the expendituio of 10,000/. a month, but that that expenditure in future should not exceed the sum of 500,000/., how could you think yourself authorized to engage in any expenditure His Majesty might command from his own authority without the sanction of the Treasury?—Since that letter, desiring me to do nothing without their authority, I have done nothing. You state on the 9th of July 1828, that you will not exceed the sum of 10,000/. a month, and that the Estimates furnished shall not be exceeded ; do you mean to 329. C 4 say J. Nash, Esq. Mr. TV. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 10 March, 1831. 60 24 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE J. Nash, Esq. say that from the 9th of July 1828 you never took any command from His Majesty ^am\ r0Wne ’ * n P erson ?—I cannot recollect; I am sure that after I was desired not to execute Mr. J. Penvetkorne. an y thing without the orders of the Treasury, I did not; though I might receive - orders from The King, of which I had many, I executed none of them ; and if His 10 March, Majesty had lived, I ran a great risk in not doing it. I never told The King that the , l8 3 1. Treasury would not allow it; but I stopped a great deal of the work which was begun by order of The King the moment I received that direction of the Treasury, and certainly gave no directions for new works, though commanded to do so by The King. You can furnish the Committee with certain orders signed by The King?—Yes, I can. In page 15 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee the last day, you were asked, “ Can you state what was the increase of expense which arose from the transfer of the materials you have referred to, from Carlton Palace and from the old Buckingham House to Windsor Castle, which you originally expected would have been incorporated in the new building at Buckingham Palace?” to which you an¬ swered, “ New ones were substituted for those that were sent away, and the new are all stated in the Estimates which are printed.—Do they come under the head of certain extras not previously estimated ? They come in part under that head.” Then you were asked, “ Could you give any idea of the value of those articles that were so sent to Windsor, which you expected to be used in Buckingham Palace ? ” You answer, “ No ; but the articles substituted for them bore no comparison with those sent away; for example, perhaps a chimney-piece sent away would be worth 90 1. and the chimney-piece substituted by a design signed by The King might have cost 300/. or 400/.” By whom were those more expensive designs furnished? — By me. Were those new designs furnished to The King of a more elaborate and costly description than the old ones ?—Infinitely. You have stated that the reason of excess in the Estimate above the 330,0001. was the private instructions from The King to make the alterations in the detail; how do you reconcile that statement with the statement given by you last time you were examined, that up to February 1828 you did the works without communicating with the Treasury, but that from February 1828 you first applied to the Treasury before you executed them ?—I do not recollect that answer. You were asked this question: “ You state that your duty was to execute what¬ ever might be ordered by The King. Do you mean that it was to be executed upon The King’s order, without a previous order from the Treasury ? Yes, till I received the direction of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he came into office.— When was that? In February 1828.—Then from the year 1825 to the year 1828, you conceived yourself authorized to carry into execution whatever The King ordered, without the approbation of the Treasury ? Certainly.—I did not conceive till February 1828 that 1 received any orders from the Treasury not to execute The King’s commands; it was subsequent to that; but there is the order itself. When the Duke of Wellington came into office, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself both verbally desired me not to execute any works without the express order of the Treasury. You stated, on your last examination, that that was in February 1828 ?—It was on Mr. Goulburn coming into office. I never received directions not to obey The King’s orders till Mr. Goulburn came into office, and I was then asked when it was, and I stated that Mr. Goulburn came into office in February 1828. You do not mean that he gave you the directions on the moment of his coming into office?—No. Did you understand, either from the Duke of Wellington or Mr. Goulburn, soon after their accession to office in 1828, you should not incur any expense at Bucking¬ ham Palace unless under the sanction of the Board of Treasury?—’Not until I had received the Treasury Minute, to which I beg to refer. What Treasury Minute do you refer to?—The Treasury Minute in which I was directed not to carry any work into effect without their express orders. I have a copy of the Minute. Was that Minute previous to your Estimate in 1828?—No, considerably sub¬ sequent. I he date of the Minute appears to be the 25th of November 1829. There was none earlier. Were not any of the old bricks of Carlton Palace used in the construction of Buckingham Palace? Mr. 61 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 2,- J N Mr. Browne. ] —The. worst of them were sold by auction, and the rest of them, as far as my recollection serves me, used in the foundations, but to what extent I cannot say. To Mr. Nash.} —Whose property were those bricks?—They were sold by the Board of Works. To whom did the bricks belong at the time of their removal from Carlton Palace to Buckingham Palace?—I cannot say; I have nothing to do with the accounts at all. As architect and surveyor to His Majesty, are not you the supervisor of the materials to be used in the works over which you are appointed architect and sur¬ veyor?—Most undoubtedly, it is my chief duty. It would depend upon your discretion whether the bricks that Mere removed from Carlton Palace were or were not fit to be used in the construction of any part of Buckingham Palace ?—I believe there were no bricks carried from Carlton Palace to Buckingham Palace; I considered the question as alluding to the old bricks of Buckingham Palace. It appears by a paper which has been laid before the Committee, that you have given in a fresh Estimate of 11,656/. for completing the buildings at Buckingham Palace; will you have the goodness to say on what data you form that sum of 11,656/. ?—I have an Estimate here that u'as delivered to the Treasury. Is that an Estimate in detail or in gross?—In gross; these Mere all calculated [A paper marked letter (A.) was delivered in.] To Mr. Brozvne.] —Does this Estimate include any painting?—Yes. Does this include locks and bells ?—Yes, every thing to complete the quantity of work described in that Estimate, except bells, which are furniture; there are general heads to the account. Does this Estimate contain any fixtures? — None M’hatever. No fastenings to windows or iron-work?—Yes, all fastenings to windows that are usual in buildings. Any locks for doors ?—The ordinary locks to doors, all M'hich Mas necessary to complete the joiner’s work to the building without going into extra or additional expense. To Mr. Nash.] Would you have any difficulty in entering into any contract, or in finding a person to enter into a contract, to complete the work within the Estimate so delivered in ?—Certainly I should have no difficulty in finding a person who would give the best security for the execution of the work according to the Estimate I have delivered in. You would be able to find persons who would enter into a contract to complete the Mffiole of Buckingham Palace for 11,656/.?— According to my Estimates of 11,656/. Is the staircase railing in the different parts of the House erected ?—No, cer¬ tainly not. Are all the rooms plaistered ?—No, but they are included in this Estimate. Is the pallisading in the front of the Palace included in that Estimate ? Mr. Browne.] —That has been included in a former Estimate. What provision is there for the payment of that? Mr. AW?.]—It comes in with the general Estimate in the general excess, that is part of the original Estimate. Is not 15,000/. for pallisading included in the balances of sundry works?—The balances due to them are included; it is in part paid for, the balances are included in the Estimate. Is it erected behind the hoard now ? Mr. Browne.]— No ; all the work for that paliisade railing connecting the Arch with the Wings of the building is finished, but not fixed ; some part remains at the premises of the manufacturer. Where do you put your Estimate for fixing it ?—That Estimate relates to the parts still remaining to be commenced at the Palace, but the railing alluded to has been commenced, and pretty nearly finished, a good many months; that comes under another Estimate, letter (B.) Is it all paid for ?—No, not all. The remains of payment, that is, for the fixing, will still come -under another Estimate for the completion of the Palace ?—\ es. 329. D Is J. Nash, Esq. Mr. W. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 10 March, 1831. v_• „_; See Appendix, P- 1 75 * 62 J. Nash, Esq, Mr. IV. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 10 March, 1831. Appendix, p. 177. 2 fi MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Is that Estimate given in?—It was given in to the Treasury the 2 Mr. Nash w r as allowed, if he pleased, to make contracts in gross ?—I conceive so. Buckingham Palace is the only exception to the whole of the agreement being made by the Office of Works, instead of being made by the architect himself?— Buckingham Palace I never considered as directly under the Office of Works; Windsor Castle was precisely in the same situation. Mr. Nash says, “ The works that w r ere done by measurement and valuation were done by the Office of Works according to the system of the Office of Works ; those I had nothing to do with, but I contracted with different workmen for prices in a number of instances ; those contracts I was directed by the Treasury to submit to the Surveyor-General, and which, in every practicable instance, I did.” Do you recollect that circumstance ?—Mr. Nash himself made all the agreements for the building of Buckingham Palace, as he thought best. Mr. Nash is asked, “When the Office of Works had the offer of a contract for executing any portion of the work, did they submit it to you for your approval? ” Mr. Nash says, “ Not to my recollection ?”—I cannot understand what that refers to. In point of fact have the Office of Works made any agreement in respect of Buckingham Palace?—None whatever. If Mr. Nash had preferred to have a piece of brickwork executed in gross, instead of per rod, it was perfectly open to him if he pleased to do so ?—I conceive so, there having been no control over him in the Office of Works in respect to any con¬ tracts for this building. Mr. Nash was asked, “If such work had been submitted at a bargained price, it would have been your duty to have protested against it, would it not?” and the answer was, “ I always did protest against any work being contracted for but in gross.” Have you a recollection of that?—Yes ; the whole of Mr. Nash’s exami¬ nation before the Committee of The House of Commons in 1828 goes to that point ; but my opinion was never asked respecting the contracts for Buckingham Palace. Did you enage any of the workmen for Buckingham Palace ?—Neither engaged or recommended any. All the agreements and contracts were made through Mr. Nash ?—Entirely. In what mode were their bills settled ?—The measurements were first taken by the Office measurer, who had been previously approved of by Mr. Nash. In taking these measurements, the clerk of the works ot the architect goes round with the measurer, and points out to him the work he is to measure; he does not take the dimensions alone, but the tradesman’s measurer goes with him, and they make out together dimension by dimension, scantling by scantling. 329. D 3 Have 66 Major-General Stephenson. 10 March, 1831. 30 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Have you the original contracts for those works ?—I cannot say all, but I should think most are in the Office. Mr. Nash was asked, “ Are the Committee to understand that you made the contract with regard to prices with the different people, and that this document was afterwards sent by you to the Office of W orks, and that they measured the w'ork as it was finished, and paid the money r”—The answer was, “ \ es, but the agreements made by me extended to a very few articles; the greater number of prices, at least nine out of ten, were valued by the Board ot Works without consulting me.”— I must beg to sav, this statement is very incorrect, and that Mr. Nash’s agreements extended to every article : I never interfered in any one contract of Mr. Nash, directly or indirectly. The Office prices, which we never settled without the personal assistance of the attached architects, are prices fixed periodically, for common and ordinary works and repairs, and, by an Office regulation, do not apply to any great works ; these are executed under special contracts: Mr. Nash and his clerks had always access to the Office prices. The answer is, “ Yes ; but the agreements made by me extended but to a very few' articles the inference would be, that the others w'ere made by you ?— Mr. Nash’s agreements extended to every article. Mr. Nash states, “ I did always protest against any work being contracted for but in grossare you aware of his having protested with the Board of Works against contracts for piece work-for Buckingham Palace, and desiring to have con¬ tracts made in gross?—I never interfered directly or indirectly upon this subject; and previously to 1828 there w'ere contracts made by Mr. Nash in gross for parts in tbe basement, &c. See. See. He did not protest against the contract being made in any other way but in gross ?—I never had any thing to do with the arrangements of Mr. Nash in his contracts. Mr. Nash w f as asked, “ Did the Office of Works ever make any alteration in the prices which you recommended for the execution of any of the works at the Palace?” to which he answered, “Yes, they did ; and in one instance, if I am not very much misinformed (the Committee can have the person from whom I got the information), I had agreed for the price of stone-work, knowing very well that the quantity of stone I required would increase the price of stone, and therefore, before 1 let any one know what I wanted, I sent for a stone-merchant of the greatest eminence and that “ the Government lost 12,000/. by their annulling the agree¬ ment?”—I must beg the Committee will take the trouble of examining the stone- merchant respecting the contract for stone. There was an agreement made by Mr. Nash, I think, on or about the 6th of June 1825, which was stated in a letter from Mr. Nash, to be for the purpose of securing a large quantity of stone, and to the best of my recollection, the prices of stone were mentioned at 2 s. 7 \ d. and 2 s. 9 \ d. ; but this agreement was never carried into execution ; for on the 20th of June following, Mr. Nash made other agreements with the respective masons, to do the mason’s work at a certain per-centage under the Office of Works’ prices, which annulled the prior agreement for the stone, made on or about the 6th of June 1825. In point of fact, did you or the Office of Works interfere to annul that agree¬ ment?—Never; nor for a great length of time did we know there w ? as any such agreement. I request that the stone-merchant may be examined upon this point. In what manner has the stone-work been paid for ?—It has been paid for in the different masons’ accounts; there w 7 ere several masons : their contracts were at a certain per centage under the Office of Works’ prices. The Committee understand that the first agreement w r as for the stone in the rough state?—Yes, I believe in blocks ; and in a letter Mr. Nash stated that it w as for the purpose of securing a full and sufficient supply of stone; but an agree¬ ment was subsequently made by Mr. Nash, with the masons, at a certain per¬ centage below the Office prices. Freeman was the name of the stone-merchant. Whom did the Office of Works pay for the stone?—The masons. Did you pay Mr. Freeman for the stone?—The Office never paid Mr. Freeman, or received any bill from him, for any stone for this Palace. Was there any agreement that the masons should receive their stone from Mr. Freeman:—I am not quite certain, but think Mr. Nash’s first arrangement with Freeman was for the purpose of supplying a sufficient quantity of stone; and there was a sort of guarantee respecting the payment entered into by Mr. Nash, but the letters of Mr. Nash and Mr. Freeman will better explain the circumstance. If any alteration was made in the mode of paying for the stone, that originally the 67 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 31 the stone was to be delivered, the mason to charge the work only, and that after¬ wards it was arranged that the mason should charge the whole material and work together, w 7 as that made by Mr. Nash independently of any directions of the Board of Works?—I never interfered in this matter directly or indirectly; Mr. Nash stated in his examination in the year 1828, that this building was under his entire direction. Are you certain no alteration took place in the mode of making the payment, whether the mason should be paid for the stone and work altogether, or the mer¬ chant receive for the stone and the mason for the work?—I should think none at all; the prices paid for the stone, &c. were those Mr. Nash had agreed for with the respective masons on the 20th of June 1825, subsequent to his agreement with Mr. Freeman. Will you read the evidence Mr. Nash has given respecting certain contracts for stone, and make any observations upon that evidence which occur to vou ? [The Evidence of Mr. Nash was shown to General Stephenson .] I must beg leave to refer to Mr. Freeman upon the subject. What would be the price of the work ?—I cannot say without referring to the books. Referring to that letter, dated the 29th of July 1828, to the Treasury, in which you advert to an opinion expressed by Mr. Nash to a Select Committee on the Office of Works and Public Buildings in the course of that year, in which he states his “ inability of judging how nearly the expense of the Palace comes to his Estimate, because he has nothing to do with the measuring or making up of the accounts,” and in consequence of this observation, you recommend to the Treasury to alter the system under which those accounts had been made up and the works correctly measured; what did you then conceive he meant by the measuring and making up of the accounts in a manner different from that practised subsequently by him according to your recommendation ? is not that the Paper to which Mr. Nash refers, when he states that twenty-five per cent, w ould have been saved if his ow n system had been adopted instead of that of the Office of Works ?—I should think not; but why did he not adopt his own system ? Is it possible that the measurement by your Office, independent of that, could have made any difference in the cost of the works?—I think quite impossible, beyond some very trifling difference; but I never heard of there having been any till I saw Mr. Nash’s Evidence before the Committee in 1828. In consequence of his making this observation, you thought fit to recommend to the Treasury, that from that time forth he should be the measurer?—Yes; and Mr. Nash’s own measurer came frequently to the Office for information respecting the mode of measuring certain descriptions of work, and I have every reason to be¬ lieve he generally adopted the Office system. Who were the persons who measured for the Board of Works previous to that time?—I think the first was Mr. Phipps ; then he was afterwards removed to another building in the Office : the next was Mr. Cox, and his place was taken by a Mr. Biddar; the gentlemen are all in the Office at the present time. Who was the gentleman w ho came to your Office to learn the mode of your mea¬ surement?—I do not know ; but this can easily be ascertained at the Office. In brick-work how 7 would the contract be made?—By the rod. Do you remember the prices ?— I cannot. You state in your letter to the Treasury, that inconvenience has arisen to the public from their being placed under a heavy penalty, and that the payments were not made one quarter under another?—Yes; but that was immediately done away with by the Treasury. How many quarters have you ever known the payment to the tradesmen employed at Buckingham Palace in arrear ?—I cannot at present answer that question. Have there ever been five or six quarters in arrear ?—I cannot say. What loss has arisen to the Public, if any, from the agreements with the trades¬ men being merely verbal ?—I cannot state any loss, but great trouble in pricing the accounts. Do you consider that the Public sustain any loss in consequence of these accounts being so loosely draw n up ?—I cannot say. Do you consider that any loss or inconvenience has arisen to the Public from tradesmen being employed w ho do not possess so much capital as tradesmen do who are generally employed by the Board of Works?—As a matter of opinion, I think ;V2q. D 4 that Major-General Stephenson. 10 March, 1831. 32 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Major-General that there is always some danger or risk whenever tradesmen enter into agreements Stephenson . without the necessary and proper means of carrying on the work. 10 March, Is not a man of smaller capital sometimes content with smaller profits?—Ido 1831. * not think I have generally found that to be the case. ^- - Was it in point of fact the case, that any tradesmen who had been insolvent were subsequently employed by Mr. Nash in building Buckingham Palace ?—I believe there were one or two instances of this during the progress of the building. Had you any means of ascertaining the amount of their capital when Mr. Nash employed them ?—None. There is another circumstance you state you consider as matter of objection, that is, the architect supplying tradesmen with the materials used in the building ; upon the bad tendency of which, you state that there will be found on inquiry but one sentiment: did the architect provide any and what articles himself?— Bricks and cement. Where were the bricks provided?—That I do not know. Are those the only two articles that the architect himself supplied to the different tradesmen ?—They are all that I am aware of. How did it come to your knowledge that the bricks used at Buckingham Palace were furnished by Mr. Nash?—From the tradesmen. Do you remember the tradesmen?—I could get their names. Were all the bricks used in Buckingham Palace new, or were any of them old? —I cannot say; but this can, I think, be ascertained by a reference to the ac¬ counts. Were there any bricks brought from Carlton Palace and used in Buckingham Palace?—I cannot say. No bricks ?—I cannot say. Have you heard of any per-centage allowed by the tradesmen to the architect?— 1 have heard of such things, but not in reference to this building. In reference to Mr. Nash ?—Never. Were the bricks provided by Mr. Nash of good quality?—I cannot say. Do you know whether they were provided at a higher price than they would have been from other persons ?—I cannot say, but beg to refer to the bricklayers employed. Do you know whether any per-centage or allowance was given to the persons who used the bricks ?—I cannot say. In making the contracts with the different workmen, did Mr. Nash ever stipulate the bricks were to be supplied by himself or any body else?—Not to my know ledge. There was no agreement that they w r ere to take bricks in part of their work ?— I cannot say. Do you know at all under what engagement the bricks were supplied by Mr. Nash ?—No. Was it understood that in the agreement w 7 ith the bricklayers they were under obligations to purchase their bricks exclusively of Mr. Nash?—I cannot answer. Did a large portion of the bricks furnished for the Palace come from Mr. Nash? —I cannot say; the bricklayers can best answer that. Mr. Nash has stated that the old bricks of Carlton Palace were sold by the Board of Works?—A number were sold by the Office at Buckingham Palace, but none belonging to Carlton Palace. Was the brickwork dearer at Buckingham Palace than at other works carried on by Government?—The Return will show that. It appears from the Return, that it w 7 as twelve per cent, more than at some works, but only two and a half per cent, more than those furnished for the new Courts ; can you explain that ?—I cannot. Under whose direction were the new Courts built?—Mr. Soane’s. Was the cement supplied by Mr. Nash himself?—Yes, I believe some was so supplied. From whom can information be obtained upon that subject?—From the bricklayers. The bricklayers contracted to do that w r ork ?—Yes, I believe they did. The bricklayers’ work, for which Mr. Nash supplied the bricks, he fixed the price of the work?—Yes. And the cement work ?—Yes. Sabbati , ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 33 69 Sabbati , 12° die Martii , 1831 . Major-General Stephenson again called in; and further Examined IN the Return that you sent in from the Office of Works, you have introduced an item of 53,956/. as being due for “ Balances on sundry works and contracts “ not included in the above quarterly accountcan you furnish the Committee with a specification of those works and contracts?—No, but Mr. Nash can furnish it, as it was a Return made by him to me; I never heard of the sums till I got the Return. > Have those contracts ever been submitted to you for your approbation ?—I can¬ not say; I do not know what are the contracts alluded to. Do you consider it to be balances for works already executed and for goods de¬ livered, or for works and goods still in the hands of the parties ? —As it is worded, it is impossible for me to say. Is that the only statement you have received from Mr. Nash?'—It is a fac simile of Mr. Nash’s Return ; I only had a slight alteration made in the arrangement of the sums. John Nash, Esq., Mr. William Browne, and Mr. James Pennethorne, again called in; and Examined. YOU have delivered in a Statement to the Board of Works, in which there is this item, “ Balances on sundry works and contracts not included in the above quarterly “ account, 53,956/. 176’.can you give to the Committee the specific charges which form the whole of that sum of 53,956/. 175.? Mr. Browne .]—That sum is composed of the amount of the papers (B.) and (C.), delivered by Mr. Nash to the Treasury in 1830. It appears by reference to those papers, as printed in the first papers given to the Committee, that the aggregate of the items included in the papers (B.) and (C.) amounts to 65,779/.; h° w do y ou ex pl a i n the difference?—Since this Estimate was delivered by Mr. Nash to the Treasury, further sums of money have been paid on account of the articles included under those papers (B.) and (C.) Which sums are, it is presumed, included under the sum of 501,531/., which is stated as the sum paid?—Yes. Can you state how much of the work included in the papers (B.) and (C.) is actually finished, and how much is only in progress ?—I can by reading them over. Will you take those papers, and mark upon every item of those papers how many of those articles have been actually delivered, how many are in progress, and how many are finished, but still in the possession of the workmen?—I will do so. All those works are in progress, and in such a state that they must be finished. Do you mean that the artists and the workmen have so far commenced those works, that it is incumbent upon the Public to pay those sums?—Decidedly. Was it done under contract?—Some of them were the subjects of contract. Were those contracts entered into under the individual authority of Mr. Nash, or with the concurrence and approbation of either the Board of Works or the Trea¬ sury ? Mr. Afos'/h]—They were done under the directions of His Majesty; the orders were given by me under the directions of His Majesty, and the contracts themselves were sent to the Surveyor-General, according to the directions I received. Were the contracts upon which the 53,000/. is now due ever transmitted to the Board of Works?—Yes, all of them. . Are those contracts in writing, or verbal contracts ?—There are no verbal con¬ tracts, they were all in writing. Mr. Pennethorne .] — I have always understood that every contract was sent to the Board of Works. Are the contracts contained in the papers (B.) and (C.) the whole contracts in gross that have ever been made for the Palace ? Mr. Browne. ]— No, there are other contracts. . , i Have those other contracts been finally settled ?—Many ot them have. < ' - : 1329. L Mr. Nash. Major-General Stephenson. 12 March, 1831. John Nash, Esq. Mr. W. Browne, and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 70 John Nash , Esq. Mr. W. Browne , and Mr. J. Pennethorne. 12 March, 1831. \ __ __ ) Major-General Stephenson. 34 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Nash.]— The works contracted for will speak for themselves ; but in those Balances there are balances of works contracted for, but executed under measure¬ ment and prices. How came the works actually measured not to be included in the quarterly accounts, and submitted to the Board of Works?—I he works measured were in¬ cluded in the quarterly accounts, and also the works included in the Estimate in gross, but which latter, not being completed, have only in the quarterly accounts money paid on account. In the papers (B.) and (C.), in the printed papers, appears the sum of 61,779/. for balances due to certain tradesmen upon certain contracts ; were not the original contracts for a larger sum than the sum stated here as balances due ?—The sums here stated as balances due in that paper are composed of contracts and measured work. Were not the original contracts to a larger amount than what is stated here as the Balances due ?—Yes. Are there any sums aue for measured work included in that total of 53,956/. that were incurred previously to the 10th of October 1829 ?—I do not recollect. Major-General Stephenson ; further Examined. YOU have heard the evidence of Mr. Nash ; have you at the Office of Works the contracts stated by Mr. Browne to have been sent to the Board of Works ?—I can¬ not state that from memory, but I have got all the contracts that were sent, and I can furnish the Committee with them. What was the last quarter in which the measurers from the Board of Works were employed at Buckingham Palace?—To the best of my recollection it was Michaelmas 1828. Then from Michaelmas 1828 to the period when the works were discontinued, the Office of Works had nothing to do with the measurement?—Neither with the measurement nor making up of the accounts. Did Mr. Nash send to you from time to time the amount due for measured work ?—At the termination of the quarter Mr. Nash delivered in the account, with the measuring books and other vouchers. Then there might have been considerable Balances due upon measured work since Michaelmas 1828 without your knowing it?—Certainly. If the Treasury were to direct the Board of Works to investigate the accounts for building Buckingham Palace from the beginning to the end, are there architects and surveyors employed by the Office of Works whose duty it would be to investi¬ gate those accounts?—So far as the accounts go, up to the 5th of January 1829, they have been regularly examined and audited, and they have been paid, excepting the last quarter. Was Mr. Nash authorized to enter into any contract without having laid an Estimate before the Board of Works?—I cannot say, having no knowledge of Mr. Nash’s Estimates for this building ; he never delivered any to the Office. When the works were suspended on the 23d of October 1830, by order of the Treasury, did you write to all the workmen who had received orders, or who were under contract, directing them to suspend their works till further direction ?—I be¬ lieve to all. Does that refer to the workmen that were employed under contract by Mr. Nash ? —I believe I wrote to all the tradesmen. Then if any of the artists or workmen have been going on since October 1830 in the progress of any works, they have done it at their own risk?—Certainly, all those to whom the circular was addressed ; I think I did not send to Mr. Chantrey, because his work was considered of a peculiar description. You have stated that the accounts have been examined up to a certain period ; what sort of examination do you mean?—The usual examination that all similar accounts undergo. What is that sort of examination ?—The examination of the accounts is of the same nature as that which took place before Mr. Nash look upon himself to mea¬ sure and make up the accounts ; it is precisely the same, and the same measuring books and documents are called for. There is no alteration whatever in the exami¬ nation, or in the documents called for. Have ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 35 71 Have those documents reference to the price?—The contracts fix the prices; the other documents refer only to the quantities. Have the Board of Works measured the works since 1828 ?— Certainly not. Did not you suggest that Mr. Nash should employ his own measurers ?—Yes; in consequence of the Report of the Committee, and the examination taken before that Committee in 1828. Are there not architects and surveyors under the control of the Office of Works, whose duty it would be, if they received orders to do so, to measure all the work that has been done since Michaelmas 1 828 ?—-No doubt of it. Is the work in that sort of state as to prevent them from measuring that work accurately?—It is impossible for me to answer that. Looking at Mr. Nash’s as a disputed account, and that it would be the object of the Public to settle with Mr. Nash up to the present period, are there surveyors and professional persons employed by the Office of Works who are competent, and whose duty it would be if so ordered, to investigate the whole of the unsettled accounts, and to state what the balance is that is fairly due to the several trades¬ men?—I conceive so. Would that examination and settlement of such account involve the payment of a per centage?—Certainly not; as our instructions call for every man’s time, with¬ out any limit whatever. Can you state what time it would take ?—It would be very difficult to ascertain that. It would be necessary to set apart a certain portion of the Office for this pur¬ pose ; there is at present a great pressure of business. I can only say that it should be done with as little delay as possible. If those persons under the control of the Office of Works were also required to deliver in an Estimate of the sum required to finish Buckingham Palace, accord¬ ing to a prescribed plan, would they also be competent to deliver in such an Esti¬ mate ?—I conceive so. When you suggested that Mr. Nash should undertake the measurement of his owm work, were any suggestions made with reference to the appointment of a mea¬ surer?—None at all. When you suggested that that course should be taken, did you suggest any course which is not usual between private parties and architects ?—None. Is it then usual that architects should appoint their own measurers?—Yes, in private work. Is it so in public work?—Not so far as the Office of Works is concerned. The Committee observe that in the printed paper, No. 3, the sum of 501,530/. is stated to have been paid by the Office of Works ; does that include Mr. Nash’s commission of five per cent.?—I cannot state that at this moment. Were you in the habit from time to time, when you paid up the quarterly accounts, to pay Mr. Nash’s commission of five per cent, upon such quarterly accounts?— Yes. Was it uniformly the practice when you received a Treasury Warrant, directing you to pay the quarterly accounts to the different tradesmen, to pay also Mr. Nash’s per centage?—Yes, it formed the last item in the account. Do you consider therefore that Mr. Nash has been paid his per centage upon the whole of that sum of 501,530/. ?—-That I cannot state at present. Will you prepare a statement of the exact sums that have been paid to Mr. Nash for his per centage, and the dates of the payment?—I will. Upon the 19,000/. that has been stated to have been paid upon the marble account, has Mr. Nash received his per centage? —No; that is an unexamined account. Was it understood that Mr. Nash was to receive his five per cent, upon the price of the imported marble in the same manner as upon the other works ?—To the best of my recollection it is charged in the account; that account is unsettled, but I can ascertain it by papers at the Office. E o’ Major-General Stephenson . 12 March, 1831. Lunce , 72 36 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. William Freeman. 14 March, 1831. v- Luna, 14° die Martii , 1831. Mr. William Freeman , cailed in; and Examined. YOU are a stone merchant?—I am. Had you any communication with Mr. Nash relative to the providing stone for the new Buckingham Palace early in 1825?—I had. What was the nature of that communication ?—We happened to have a con¬ siderable quantity of Bath stone by us, and a person came who was a stranger to us, to inquire what the price of stone was on different wharfs ; we not only had a great deal on our own, but on two other wharfs; the price was stated, and a bar¬ gain was made for the whole quantity, by the cubic foot; he then informed us that the stone w'as for Mr. Nash, and that if I would w'ait on Mr. Nash the following morning, he would talk to me about a further quantity; I. did so, and Mr. Nash stated that he thought of sending to various persons to inquire the price, and ran over a number of names that he intended to send to ; I stated that he had men¬ tioned the names of persons who were merely carriers, and not merchants, and if he thought proper to put any house in competition with us l should not object; but if he intended to send to such names as those, it would not be worth while for me to make an offer; he then asked me to step up stairs, and showed me the plans for Buckingham Palace, and gave me some idea of the quantity that would be wanted, and I finally made an arrangement with him for a very large quantity, and I have his order for it in my pocket. Was that agreement made in writing?—It was. What took place in consequence?—We began to supply immediately. Will you read the agreement?—My mother then was at the head of our business, and it is addressed—“ To Mrs. Freeman,—Madam, You will be so good as to fur- “ nish 3,500 tons of Bath stone from the Box and CoombeDown quarries, (the par- “ ticulars and scantlings to be given you from time to time,) provided you can engage “ to deliver us 1,200 tons in the course of this month, and the remainder in equal “ quantities in each of the three follow ing months. The stone is for the Government, “ and I will send you instructions as to the mode in which you are to debit the “ account: in the meantime you will consider me as responsible to you. The price “ to be as delivered to me, namely, for the Box and Coombe Down at 2 s. "J Id., “ delivered at Buckingham House, subject to a deduction of 2 d. per foot cube if “ the money is paid within one month of each monthly delivery ; the Farley Down “ stone will be charged at 2 s. 9 Id. per foot cube; any lengths above eight feet to “ be 6d. per foot cube extra.—I am, Madam, your obedient servant, John Nash. “ 14, Regent-street, June 8, 1825.—N.B. Of the above order, ooo tons may be “ from Farley Down.” Did you furnish any stone under that contract?—I did. Did you furnish any stone beyond that which was originally purchased by the stranger you spoke of on behalf of Mr. Nash?—When 1 received this order, all the stone that had been purchased by the stranger became part of this quantity. Did you furnish any beyond that which had been purchased by the stranger?— A considerable quantity, at the same price. , How came the contract not to be fulfilled?—We delivered the stone at the Palace for a very considerable time, as we had not received instructions from Mr. Nash. Now' to debit the stone, the folio in the ledger was merely debited Buckingham Palace; after sometime, masons were employed to work up the stone, and an arrangement was made w ith them, I understood, so that they were to be debited with the stone, and not Mr. Nash. Did you subsequently furnish the stone to the masons, instead of furnishing it to Mr. Nash?—Yes. Was that the stone included in that contract, and which has been since used in Buckingham Palace?—Yes. Do you consider that any loss was sustained by the country, by your debiting the workmen, instead of debiting the Government for it?—That question I am not able to answer; I am not a mason. Did you furnish it to the masons at the price at which you contracted to furnish it to the Government ?—Precisely. Did vou allow’ any discount?—No. Do / 73 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 37 Do you know the price at which the masons charged it P—I do not know the price the masons received. Did you ever state to any person that you considered 12,000 L was the loss sus¬ tained by the Government in consequence of their not fulfilling their contract with you?—No ; I was present with Mr. Pennethorne, Mr. Nash’s nephew, and he made a calculation, which I have in his own figures on my own paper, and he made this calculation, that 12,000 /. was lost; he took the difference in price at 9 d.\ I told him he must draw his own inference from the information I gave him, but I did not give him my own calculation. I always had an impression that the masons received a fair profit on their work, and I thought they were introduced into a very good work, but I had no opportunity of making a calculation as to the profit. Did you furnish him with the materials necessary to make the calculation ? —Yes. Is not the difference between your charge and the masons’ charge, that you would charge it as rough stone, and then the masons would charge for it as worked up ?—I merely sent the stone as an article of merchandize; I do not know how they charge it, but I expect they charge cube price, and the various descriptions of labour, such as plain work, and sunk work, and so on. Was the price you gave the stranger the same price that Mr. Nash subsequently had?—Yes. Did you furnish all the stone for Buckingham Palace?—No; I should think 4,000 or 5,000 tons were sent by other persons; Mr. Pennethorne, who made this calculation, took the quantity to be about 20,000 tons; he asked me whether I thought that was the quantity; I said I thought it very probable, but I after¬ wards made up an account of the quantity we had supplied; our quantity was under 10,000 tons. How many cubic feet make a ton ?—Sixteen feet is a ton ; it amounts to about 43 s. a ton. Are you able to state how many tons were supplied before the alteration was made with respect to the supplying the masons instead of Mr. Nash?—I do not know, but I can ascertain it. Did all the masons pay you for this stone, or did the Board of Works?—The masons. Are you the proprietor of quarries at Bath ?—No. Was there any rise of stone about that time ?—In consequence of the large quan¬ tities being required for the Palace, Windsor Castle and York House, and so on, there was an advance in price, and a very great advance in freight. Did you find any difficulty in getting the stone ?—We had a great deal of diffi¬ culty in getting the parties to complete the contracts I had made with them; I had to serve some of them with notices from a solicitor. Did they furnish you with that stone?—I think they did in nearly every instance; when I bought at Bath, the Bath stone quarries were in a very low state. I had to buy quantities of different quarriers, and afterwards to engage with other persons to bring it up ; the freight is nearly twice as much as the stone. Had any person previously purchased up the stone at Bath, which caused the rise ?—I think not; I think I was the first in the market. What quantity of stone had you at your wharf when the stranger bought it of you?—I think seven or eight hundred tons. Did you make any allowance to any person?—I did not make any allowance to any person whatever, no commission, or any thing of the kind. Did a mason of the name of Grundy buy any of you for Buckingham Palace ?— A great deal. Is that included in the 10,000 tons?—It is. Did you receive ready money ?—I made an agreement afterwards with the masons; when I found I was to receive the money from them, I thought it was necessary to have a memorandum, which I drew up, and I see the agreement was for the payments to be made quarterly, by bills at six months ; I thought that would cover the time at which they would receive the payments from the Office of Works. Is there any money due to you from the masons?—I think not on the Palace account, except some granite that I had orders for connected with the arch. Did you have the same price from the masons that you were to have had from Mr. Nash?—I agreed that if Mr. Nash paid monthly I was to allow 2(1. a foot cube, and if he did not pay monthly I w>as to be paid according to the time of pay¬ ment at the Office of Works, wdiich I understood to be quarterly. 329. E 3 Mr. William Freeman . 14 March, 1831. Then 74 38 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. William Freeman. 14 March, 1831. C-- > Then you received from the masons the same price at six months’ credit that you would have received quarterly from Mr. Nash?—It is some time before it gets measured. Did you allow 2 d. a foot to the masons ?—I did not. Who were the masons employed?—Thomas Grundy, Launcelot Wood, Thomas Rice, and Manderson and Moore. Did you consider that there was no more risk in trusting the masons than in trusting the Office?—I had some knowledge of each of them. Did you supply the masons, taking the risk, at the same price as you would have supplied the Government ?—Yes. Can you state the data on which Mr. Pennethorne founded his calculation of the loss of 12,000 /. which he supposed to have accrued ?—I think it was on Thurs¬ day week ; I think it was the day Mr. Nash was examined here himself; it w>as a very hasty operation. Mr. Pennethorne said, “ I suppose it was about 20,000 tons,” and then he took my average price; he then said, “ Your average price, including “ extra size, appears to me to be about 3 s. a foot;” and I think he said the masons had 35. gd. ; then he multiplied the 320,000 by g d. and reduced it to 12,000 /. You have already stated that it was Mr. Pennethorne who made the calculation, and not yourself ?—Precisely. [A passage in the Evidence of Mr. Nash, in page 12, was read to the Witness.'] Did you ever state that your being released from that contract made a loss to the public of 12,000 l. ? —I could not have made any such statement. I have seen Mr. Nash since, he said, “ Pennethorne says you have made a calculation that there “ is a great loss on the stone-w ork, in consequence of your contract having been done “ away.” I told him that that was a mistake; that it was Mr. Pennethorne’s own calculation, and that he must draw his own inference. I had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Pennethorne with Mr. Nash at the same time. Are the Committee to understand that the first conversation that ever took place about the supposed loss to the public, between Pennethorne and you, took place upon the Thursday w eek, when this calculation was made ?—I w ? as not applied to on the subject before that. I merely had casual conversations with Mr. Penne¬ thorne upon the Palace before. Had you ever before that day given Mr. Nash to understand that any loss had accrued to the public in consequence of the change of system ?—I could not have done so, because I did not know the masons’ prices. By w hom was your original agreement with Mr. Nash afterwards altered ?—By the masons. Do you mean to say that you, having made a contract with Mr. Nash, upon the suggestion of the masons, altered your contract without consulting with Mr. Nash ?— I did. Did you continue to supply the masons at the same price which you supplied Mr. Nash ?—I did. Do you apprehend that any loss arose to the Public from that alteration ?—I do not suppose the masons obtain more than a fair profit on the work. Do you know what price the masons were paid?—I do not know\ Do you know how the prices are charged of stone-work; is it charged at so much per cube for the stone, and then at so much for the work?—I think they have a cube price for the stone, and I understand that cube-price generally includes cer¬ tain expenses of unloading and hoisting. Is it then a usual course to estimate the stone at so much a foot, and to charge the work upon it ?—Yes. Mr. Nash has stated that a loss arose upon this transaction of 12,000/., and it appears that the calculation upon which that statement was founded was made by Mr. Pennethorne ; have you any reason to believe that that calculation was in¬ correct ?—If it is taken merely as the difference between two prices, between the price of 35. and 3 s. gd so many feet will produce that sum, without doubt; but, in the first place, Mr. Pennethorne took a greater quantity than w as actually used, in order to get his 12,000/.; that was done by mistake, I am quite convinced; and in the next place, there may be expenses that make the difference between my price and the masons’ price, which I am not able to explain. Do you knovv how' much is allowed to the masons for the block stones in the rough state ?—I do not. Are the Committee to understand that Mr. Pennethorne’s calculation was * founded ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 75 39 founded upon the circumstance of your having agreed with the masons, instead of having adhered to the original agreement with Mr. Nash?—Yes. Having entered into the contract with Mr. Nash, by what authority did you vary the agreement?—A short time after my contract was made, I was aware that masons were employed, because I had verbal communications with them, and that this would be the ultimate arrangement. There was no further agreement entered into till the time when it became necessary for them to receive money at the Office of Works, which was in January 1826. I then drew up a memorandum for the masons to sign, so that I might secure some persons for the various payments, and wrote a letter to the Surveyor General, stating that I was willing to release Mr. Nash. Had you any previous communication with Mr. Nash, or any person acting under Mr. Nash?—I think not. What induced you to release the Government?—I was very well satisfied with my paymasters; it is an object with us as merchants to stand well with the masons, and those persons were very large customers; Mr. Grundy was mason to the Bank of England, and mason at Northumberland House, and I was the means of intro¬ ducing him to the Palace; I would serve him quite as willingly as I would have served the Government at any time. It was in fact to promote the object of the masons, and not to promote any object of my own, that I made the new arrange¬ ment. Will you explain your meaning?—I doubt whether the masons would have undertaken the work to do the labour only if they had not had to supply the stone. I question whether they would have undertaken the work at any price; they think it degrading to do the labour without supplying the materials. It is the custom at nearly all public buildings where masons are employed that they supply materials, as well as do the labour. Did you supply stone to any other large buildings where the stone was found by the proprietor?—Not public buildings; 1 have sometimes supplied stone to the different Dock Companies, the West India Docks and the London Docks. Do you think there would be any difficulty in finding persons to contract for the labour only?—They would be an inferior class of persons. Do you think there would be any difficulty in finding competent persons to con¬ tract for the labour only?—I should hardly be able to answer that with propriety. Would there be more difficulty in finding persons to do it at Buckingham Palace than at the docks?—Yes; work that is done under engineers at docks is work of a rougher sort, and it does not require that description of skill and attention which architectural works do. How long was it after your supplying the first quantity of stone that you made this arrangement with the stone-masons?—Nearly seven months. Are you able to state whether in the mean time they had been working up the stone you originally supplied ?—They had. Was it in consequence of any suggestion from them you made a variation in your agreement?—It was; they wished me to adopt them for the account instead of Mr. Nash. What could produce their anxiety to be made an intermediate link in supplying the stone?—I apprehend their anxiety would be for profit. Must not that profit be at the expense of the Public ?—I question whether it would be at the expense of the Public, because there is a great deal of care required in working the stone, and unless they were interested in the stone itself there would be a great deal of waste. If they have a profit upon the stone supplied, is it not their interest rather to make waste, because then the quantity will be increased?—No; I believe the quantity is taken as it is found in the work after it is finished. Was the first time that you heard that 3 s. 9 d. was the price charged by the masons on Thursday week ?—I believe so. You stated that you changed your plan upon the suggestion of the masons ; will you have the goodness to read the letter you wrote to the Surveyor General upon that subject?—“ January the 5th, 1826. Sir, Having conferred with the masons “ employed at the Royal Palace respecting the stone supplied under the guarantee “ of Mr. Nash, I beg leave to acquaint you, that they have engaged to pay me for “ the quantities supplied to their respective works, and, as I am satisfied with the “ arrangement, I have no hesitation in releasing Mr. Nash from all liability. The u names of the masons referred to are subjoined. I have the honour to remain, &c. 329. E 4 “ (signed) Mr. William Freeman. 14 March, 1831. v--- -> 76 40 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. William Freeman. 14 March, 1831. “ (signed) William Freeman , for Sarah Freeman. To Colonel Stephenson , Surveyor “ General, &c. &c. &c. Names of masons ; Mr. Thomas Grundy , Mr. Launcelot “ Edward Wood , Mr. Thomas Rice , and Messrs. Manderson and Moore." Did you write that letter without any previous communication with the Board of Works ?—I believe I did ; I cannot find any previous communication with the Board of Works at that time. You merely speak there about releasing Mr. Nash, and nothing about his releasing you?—I had more than supplied the quantity I had contracted for. Did you write that letter at the suggestion of the masons?—I did ; and I have a memorandum, which I will read. “ London, January 5, 1826. Prices to be “ charged by Mrs. Sarah Freeman for the stone and granite already supplied to “ the Royal Palace, (it being agreed by her to release Mr. Nash from the guarantee “ he is now under for the same,) and to debit us respectively for the quantities “ supplied to our respective wwks; Bath stone, Coombe Down, or Box, ‘is. 7 \d. “ per foot cube ; Farley Down, is. 9 \d. ditto. All blocks eight feet long or forty- “ five feet cube, from any quarry, to be considered scantling sizes, and charged “ 6 d. per foot cube extra. Delivered in waggons on the ground. Yorkshire stone, “ at five per cent, below wharf prices for all paving ; and ten percent, for landings “ and other articles of Yorkshire.— T. G. If carted, cartage extra. Granite Steps - 1 OO • • X 1.2. x 6 . 4. 9 ft. running. Ditto Plinths - 3 - 42. X 3 . 4b X 2. 1. Ditto ditto - 4. - x 3 - 4b x 2. i. > 4. 9 ft. cube. Ditto Ashlar - 2. 1. high 9 in. thick - - Ditto Plinths 7 * 4b x 3 * 41 * x 2. 1 . - 5. 6. ditto. Ditto ditto - 9. - X 3’ 4 2 ’ x 2. 1. - 6. - ditto. “ In the rough, in waggons on the ground, subject to a discount of ten per cent. “ The payments to be made immediately, by bills at six months, from the end of “ each quarter in which the articles have been supplied.— Thomas Grundy. In “ addition to the above particulars it is agreed, that the Portland shall be charged “ at wharf prices, carted in.— William Manderson and William Baldock Moore, “ Thomas Rice. In the event of the granite being left for Mrs. Freeman to receive “ at the Office, the granite prices will be nil.— W. Freeman .” By this contract I made an agreement with them for articles that Mr. Nash had not agreed with me for, Yorkshire, Portland, and so on. How long did you see Mr. Nash after this transaction?—I was not in the habit of seeing him frequently ; and I am not able to answer that. Had you any communication with Mr. Nash upon the subject when you did see him ?—I think not. In your discussion with the masons as to the supply of stone, did they state to you what price they would receive for the stone in the building?—I have a note upon the subject from one of the masons, wherein his prices are referred to ; it was dated a few days after my first agreement with Mr. Nash.—“ Dear Sir, My prices “ have gone in to Mr. Nash, and he is much disappointed they are not ten per “ cent, under the Office of Works; he expects every tradesman to make that “ deduction. I, therefore, have little to expect after all. I have sent Mr. Grundy “ word, and a copy of the prices : I shall now be guided by him. Have you done “ any thing about the statuary for the staircase, &c. ? I have to see him to-morrow “ morning at Buckingham House ; he has not been near there to-day. If anything “ particular takes place I shall let you know, or see you; and am, Dear Sir, yours “ most respectfully, L. E. Wood. 14 June 1828. King’s Palace.” Did you hear any discussion betw een those masons as to what prices they w'ould receive for the stone ?—I may have heard, but it made no impression upon my mind ; I know that they w^ere ten per cent, under the Office prices, but I did not know what the Office prices were. Did you not consider that by giving the supply to the masons you were securing to the masons a large profit in the stone supplied?—I hardly know how to say a large profit; I considered that I was securing to them a profit. Sixpence halfpenny a foot?—I cannot say as to that; I question whether the four masons, if they w ere here, would agree as to the waste upon Bath stone. Had you any personal discussion w ith them ?—Frequently. Was not there a discussion as to the price?—It was not a price per foot; there was a certain price for the Office of Works, and they were to regulate their charge by those prices. • ' . ) Then, ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 4i Then, in point of fact, Mr. Nash expected to make a profit for the public of ten per cent, under the prices of the Board of Works ?—I believe that is the case. You have told us that Mr. Pennethorne calculated on 20,000 tons, whereas he should have calculated on 15,000?—Yes. And that upon the gross sum of 12,000/. would make a deduction of 3,000/.?— Yes, supposing his Estimate to be correct. Then supposing his data to be correct, that would make a loss to the public of 9,000/. instead of 12,000 /. ?—That is, if the whole of his data were correct. Have you any reason to suppose that Mr. Pennethorne’s data were incorrect?— I have always understood that the masons received a respectable profit upon their work, About qd. ?—I question whether they have received so great a profit. Therefore Mr. Pennethorne was right in making his calculation upon the profit received by the masons ?—There is no question about that. Then there would have been a saving to the public if the original mode of payment had been persevered in ?—There would have been a loss to the masons; but unless the work had been as skilfully managed by the persons who would then have undertaken it as the masons have managed it, the public might not have gained by that mode. Therefore I question whether that would be considered a fair way of puiting it. Then you think it is a questionable matter whether there would have been a saving or not ?—Yes. Then you cannot say that Mr. Nash was mistaken in that calculation ?—It was done too hastily to be brought before the Committee ; it was made on the same day 011 which Mr. Nash was examined. Were you present when Mr. Pennethorne made his calculations?—I was; I neither objected to them nor assented. If, in the first instance, you had known that the stone was required to be sold to the masons instead of the Government, would your price still have been the same ? —I do not think I was guided by the persons requiring it, but merely by the quantity and importance of the order. Do you think the mode adopted by Mr. Nash, of sending a stranger round, was a mode calculated to be beneficial to the Public?—We thought Mr. Nash made a hard bargain. And a good bargain for the Public?—Yes. Was not the market for Bath stone in that year very much depressed ?—It was. Was there much stone in London at that time?—My impression is, that there was not much besides what we held. Did you have no communication whatever with Mr. Nash when you thus re¬ leased him from his engagement ?—I think none whatever. Did you understand that the masons had made that proposition to you with the sanction of Mr. Nash?—Certainly ; I only understood it from them. Was there any remonstrance made by Mr. Nash upon the occasion?—Not any. Can you state the precise quantity supplied to Buckingham Palace ?—The quan¬ tity we supplied was something below 10,000 tons; some other person supplied the masons. I had supplied more than the quantity I agreed for, and therefore they bought of other persons. You do not know what was the price of the other 5,000 tons?—No. The Committee understand the 2 s. 7 \ d. is the price of the rough stone ?—It is; there are two prices, 2 s. 7 \d. and 2 s. 9 {d. And 3$. 9 ■’ Board of Works, as to the improvidence of breaking through that engagement with you ?—I am not aware of it. Did you inform Mr. Nash of the alteration that was made by the Office of Works?—I did not; I felt perfectly at ease about Mr. Nash, because I had sup¬ plied more than he agreed to receive; I had not been paid, but the masons were willing to be debited with it. You were understood to state, that it was seven months after the first contract that the masons applied to you to make this alteration; how happened it that they went on for seven months under a different arrangement, by which they were not debited with stone, and consequently made no profit upon the stone ?—I think that within the same month I began to debit the masons; but it was seven months before any notice was taken of it at the Office of Works. How could any private understanding you had with the masons be of any avail, unless there was a distinct understanding in waiting that Mr. Nash was to be re¬ leased, and that they were to be debited instead ? —There is one thing I have omitted to state: the account was first of all debited “ Buckingham Palace,” but without any agreement having been made as to the mode of payment. When the masons informed me verbally that they had completed their arrangement with Mr. Nash, I attended and took stock at Buckingham Palace, and charged the quantities to each respectively. I think that was in the month of June, the same month that I made the agreement with Mr. Nash ; so that I w r as going on, having confidence in the masons that 1 should receive our money, and Mr. Nash was not formally released till the month of January ; but there was an understanding almost from the beginning. Was that done with the knowledge of Mr. Nash?—I expect it was done with the knowledge of Mr. Nash. Do you apprehend that Mr. Nash knew in the month of June that the contract between you and the Government was to be transferred into a contract between you and the masons?—'Yes. And you never had any remonstrance from Mr. Nash, stating that the Govern¬ ment would lose thereby?—No. Are you aware that Mr. Nash ever remonstrated with the masons upon the subject?—No. You have stated that after that contract was made, Bath stone rose in price; can you inform the Committee how much it rose?—It can hardly be called so much a rise in price, as that I found it difficult to engage freights at the old price ; freights that I had engaged at 20s. a ton, the parties could obtain 24,?. or 25s. for; and that would make a difference of $d. or 4 d. a foot in the price in London. Was not there some understanding with Mr. Nash that the money for the stone that each mason used in the work was to be reserved for you by the Board of Works, and that you were to supply the masons?—I recollect that Mr. Nash gave directions to the Office of Works to that effect. Was notit the original agreement that you were to supply stone to each person, and that the bill for the quantity supplied to each person was to go to the Board of Works?—Mr. Nash, knowing that he was under a guarantee to me for the whole amount, directed that that should take place, that each mason should have the amount of his stone deducted from his bill. Was not there a letter to that effect ?—Certainly not. Are you aware of the sort of stone that was furnished for the building of the New Post Office ?—Yes, it was Portland stone; I am not aware of any Bath stone having been used there. Is Portland stone dearer or cheaper than Bath stone?—It is dearer, certainly. Is it also more difficult to work?—I believe so. What is the difference of price, either per ton or cubic foot, upon the rough block, as delivered from the vessel?—I have a difficulty in answering that question. Fre¬ quently I send returns in to the Office of Works of the wharf prices, and those returns will be found correct. I think the difference between the wharf price of Portland stone and Bath stone at that time might be about 4 d. per foot. How much per cent, would that amount to ?—I dare say the difference would be about ten per cent. It you were to take it in the finished state, of the same thickness per superficial toot, ready to be placed in the front of a building, what would be the difference?— That I cannot say. If you were required to state for how much you w ould put a stone front to a building per ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 79 43 per superficial foot, of such a thickness, could you calculate it?—I could not; I never have undertaken a work of that sort; I merely supply it in the rough. Is Bath stone or Portland stone the most expensive to work up?—Portland. Supposing that Buckingham Palace had been built of Portland stone instead of Bath stone, how much more per centage would you have added to the charge ?— There would have been an increase both in the price of the stone and in the price of labour. What should you say would have been the difference, if Buckingham Palace had been built with Portland stone instead of being built with Bath stone ?—I cannot say. Would it have made a difference of ten per cent. ?—I should think it would have been much more. Do you know any thing of the stone work of the British Museum?—Yes, it is Portland stone. Is there any Bath stone?—I think not any; not any in the east wing. It appears that the stone-work of the British Museum cost seven per cent, more than the stone-work of the Post-Office; can you state what was the reason of that? —It was on account of the size of the stone ; I was obliged to supply stones of an extraordinary size. Would the difference of carriage make any material difference in the price ?— The stone for the Post-Office, was landed at the east end of London ; and the stone for the Museum and for the Palace at the west end. What is the difference of carriage between delivering at the British Museum and at Buckingham Palace?—Perhaps i d. a foot more to the Museum. What did you receive per foot for the Portland stone you supplied to the Museum ?—I can hardly answer that from memory ; I think the price was about 3 s. 5 d. to the tradesmen. Have you furnished any stone for the Custom-house ?—Only for the staircases. Was the Custom-house built of Bath stone, or of Portland stone ?—Of Portland stone. In what year did you supply stone to the British Museum?—I think my con¬ tract for the British Museum must have been made in the year 1823 or 1824. Did you furnish any stone for the Board of Trade and the Council-Office?—I did. What stone is that?—Portland stone. Is there any difference between the carriage of stone to the Council-Office and to Buckingham Palace?—I think it must make a difference of a halfpenny a foot. Did you furnish any of the stone to the Duke of Clarence, at Saint James’s ?—• I think I did supply a portion of it. Was that under Mr. Nash’s direction ?—It was. Was that Bath stone?—No; I think it was the composition. Major-General Stephenson, again called in; and Examined. HAVE you any recollection of any argument having taken place between your¬ self and Mr. Nash on the subject of the responsibility to Mr. Freeman being changed, by transferring it from the Government to the different masons ?—I had no argument or discussion upon this subject with Mr. Nash; there was a letter from him referring to it, dated as late as the 13th December 1825, when the first quarter’s accounts were making up. I had nothing to do with this transaction, the whole arrangement having been made by Mr. Nash with Mr. Freeman, previously to the 13th December 1825. Have you any recollection of a Letter from the Treasury to you, representing that Mr. Nash had made improper agreements ?—It is, I believe, among the Letters from the Treasury now before the Committee. Do you consider that the public sustained any loss in consequence of the original agreement with Freeman not being carried into effect?—It is impossible for me to say ; I had nothing to do with this transaction. Did you know at the Office of Works that the original agreement with Mr. Freeman was to provide the stone in mass, to be afterwards worked up by the workmen?—The agreement for this work was made by Mr. Nash with the masons, and not with Mr. Freeman. Did vou never know it at all?—The agreement for the work was made with the masons. Was that agreement with Mr. Freeman ever submitted to you, and was it then 329. F 2 done Mr. William Freeman. 14 March, 1831. Major-General Stephenson. 80 44 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Major-General Stephenson. 14 March, 1831. done away with at your desire ?—Certainly not; I never interfered directly or indi¬ rectly with it. Then if that agreement was originally entered into to supply stone in the mass, and was subsequently changed to supply the respective workmen, was that an arrangement between Mr. Nash and the workmen, with which you had nothing to do?—This arrangement was between Mr. Nash and the masons; I had nothing to do with it. Do you consider yourself in any way responsible for any loss which the public may have sustained in consequence of any such arrangement ?—Certainly not; this agreement between Mr. Nash and the masons is dated the 20th of June, and to the best of my recollection Mr. Nash’s agreement with Mr. Freeman was dated on or about the 6th of June. This agreement with the masons, dated the 20th of June, is signed by all the masons, Grundy, Wood, Manderson, and Rice, and this was upon the Office of Works’ prices, that had been fixed by the architects for the 5th of April quarter 1825, at which Mr. Nash was present. By the Minute of the 5th of August Mr. Nash is directed to send all contracts to you ; did he do so?—In many cases he did not, for my previous approval. Can you mention any case in which he did not do so?—I cannot from memory, but it will appear from the different quarterly accounts. Then, in point of fact, by direction of the Treasury, you were to superintend all contracts made by Mr. Nash?—They were to be submitted to me for my approval, and if I delayed sending such approval for three weeks, Mr. Nash was to be indem¬ nified, and was to proceed with those contracts ; but this did not apply to contracts made prior to the Treasury Minute of .5th August 1825. Were any of the general contracts which were made previous to the 5th of August J 825 submitted to you ?—None of those were submitted to me for approval. Did any correspondence take place between the person who had entered into the contract for the stone and the Office of Works, with regard to the contract he had made with Mr. Nash being dissolved before the Letter was written to Mr. Freeman, stating that it w'as to be transferred to the masons?—Before that period, to the best of my recollection, none. Did you, or did you not, ever release Mr. Freeman from his contract?—Decidedly never; nor had I the power. Was there any other person that ever supplied stone to Buckingham Palace, except Mr. Freeman ?—I cannot say, but I think he must have supplied the greater part of it. Can you state the price paid at Buckingham Palace, together with the prices paid at other works going on at the same time, such as the British Museum and the Post-Office?—I beg leave to refer the Committee to the Return I made upon that subject. It appears by this paper that the stone at Buckingham Palace was paid seventeen per cent, more for, than a work of the same nature going on at the same time at the General Post-Office?—It appears so by that Return, and I am bound by that Return. Did the Office of Works make the contract for building the Post-Office?—Yes. Did the Office of Works make the contract for building Buckingham Palace?— No, the Office had nothing to do with making those contracts. Was the stone at the Post-Office of the same quality as that at Buckingham Palace?—I cannot say. 1 think it was Portland stone. Previous to.the 5th of August 1825, were any of the contracts entered into by the different workmen submitted to the Office of Works?—Not any for approval; only for pricing accounts. Subsequently to that period, were the greater part submitted to them ?—I will not say the greater part, but some w ere for approval. How was the stone for the Post-Office supplied to the public ?—Through the masons. Has the Office of Works ever executed any large works themselves, finding the stone ?—Never. Do you conceive there would be any difficulty in finding persons to contract for a work of that kind, without finding the stone themselves ?—I think that good master masons would object to a contract for labour alone; masons might be found to do it, I have no doubt; but I know that has generally been objected to. Is the Return before the Committee, as to the price of stone in the works at the Post-Office and the Museum, made out under your direction ?--It was. Do 81 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 45 Do you apprehend that the public were likely to suffer any loss from the system being changed of the masons furnishing the stone themselves, instead of the mer¬ chants furnishing the stone in block, and the masons working it up ?—I cannot say ; that is a matter of calculation, which I do not believe has been entered into. If this system was changed, it was Mr. Nash who changed it, and by whom all the contracts and agreements for this building were made. Do not you conceive that the masons make a profit upon the gross price paid to the merchant?—Certainly they do. Supposing that profit to be saved by adopting the other mode, in what way would that saving be counterbalanced ?—I cannot say ; to the best of my recollection, the agreement with Mr. Freeman was for blocks of different sizes; and I think he was to be paid every month; that, of course, would make a very considerable difference; and then there would be a calculation to be made as to the waste upon those blocks ; and I must beg leave to add, that it is generally allowed that workmen will not work with the same economy where the material is found for them, as where the master masons find the materials. Is it usual in Government works, for instance, the Post-Office, to allow the master mason to find the material ?—Yes. Has not the Clerk of the Works a great deal of control over the masons in working up the blocks of stone ?—That must depend upon the instructions from the architect; I should not think he can have much; all that the Clerk of the Works generally looks to is to see that the work was well done and the materials good. In your Letter to the Treasury in 1826, you complain of the improvidence of Mr. Nash’s contracts ; did you refer to the contracts entered into previous to the 5th of August 1825?—I did. Those contracts were not then in any way under your superintendence ?—1 had no control over the making of those contracts; they were sent to the office by Mr. Nash for the purpose of pricing the accounts. Had you any veto upon those contracts?—None upon any of the contracts made by Mr. Nash, excepting upon those submitted to me subsequently to the Treasury Minute of the 5th August 1825. It appears that there was a contract made with the masons in June 1825, by which they were to deduct ten per cent, from the price of the Office of Works, as fixed by the architects at Lady-day 1825; was that made about ten days after the contract with Mr. Freeman?—Mr. Freeman’s agreement was made on or about the 6th of June 1825, and that with the masons was made the 20th of June following. Has that been adhered to throughout the whole of the work ?—That with the masons, to the best of my knowledge, has. If the masons were bound by that contract to take ten per cent under the Office of Works’ prices, how came the works at Buckingham Palace to cost from ten to twenty per cent, more than the works at the Post Office, and the Museum, and the other public worlds?—I cannot say; the Board of Works’ prices simply govern the common and ordinary works and repairs, and do not apply to new and large works* which are generally contracted for (but by competition) at considerably less than the Office of Works’ prices. Are the Committee then to understand that, in point of fact, the works stated in your Return of January 1826, and which appear by that Return to have been done at a much cheaper rate than Mr. Nash’s works at the Palace, were more than ten per cent, below what are called the Board of Works’prices ?—Yes, in some instances, as will be seen by that Return. Did you found the opinion you expressed of the improvidence of Mr. Nash’s bargain upon his having entered into an agreement with the workmen at only ten per cent, under the Board of Works’ prices?—No, but upon a comparison with the prices for other buildings. Do you not believe that Mr. Nash w-as required to execute this work wfith an unusual degree of dispatch?—I cannot say. Was an opportunity afforded to other tradesmen to do it at a cheaper rate, if they had been willing, upon a principle of competition, to do so ?—I cannot say ; all the Office of Works’ undertakings for great works are done by limited competition, by selecting a certain number ot respectable tradesmen that are deemed competent to undertake the work, and who deliver separate tenders for the same. Do you require sealed tenders ?—Sealed tenders are always required, and they are invariably opened in the presence of the Architect* the Assistant Surveyor 329. F 3 General* Major-General Stephenson. 14 March, 1831. 82 46 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Major-General Stephenson. 14 March, 1831. \___ j Mr. James Palmer. General, the Chief Examiner, and myself, and, with hardly one exception, invariably the lowest is taken. After opening the tenders, is it your practice to state to the competitors what their comparative prices have been ?—Never; I only communicate with the person whose tender is accepted. You have, in your Letter to the Treasury of January 1826, expressed an opinion, that permitting an architect to provide any of the materials himself was a very improper practice?—That is my decided opinion. You have stated in your former evidence to this Committee, that the principal articles supplied by Mr. Nash were bricks and cement; do you understand that Mr. Nash supplied the bricks for Buckingham Palace?—Yes, some. Are you aware what quantity?—No. What is the authority upon which you make that statement?—As I stated before, the tradesmen. Could you ascertain, from an examination of the Returns, the number of squares of brick work in the Palace ?—Yes. It appears from the papers before the Committee, that in one of the quarters of 1825 there is a charge for 17,000 bricks for day-work, at Go*, a thousand; was that price fixed by the Board of Works, or was that the price fixed by Mr. Nash?—It was the Office price, but referred to by Mr. Nash’s agreement; no prices for brick¬ work were ever fixed by the Office of Works for Buckingham Palace. Do you mean that you had an authority from Mr. Nash to allow 60 s. per thousand for bricks used in the day-work?—To allow the Office price, with a certain deduction, was his agreement with the tradesmen. Can you produce to the Committee the original day-work bill, which was copied into your ledger, in which you had any authority from Mr. Nash to you to pay 60 s. a thousand for those bricks ?—I will produce the calculation upon which this price was fixed by the Office of Works; and Mr. Nash’s agreement was at a per centage under that price, as will appear from the deduction at the foot of each bill. Is there the signature of Mr. Nash to the account?—He always signed each quarterly account when it was made up, after examination. In looking over this bill at the Office of Works, when you found that 60s. a thousand was charged, had you any option to refuse payment?—No, the price being fixed as fair and reasonable. Are not the prices of the Office of Works for this article regulated with the architect ?—They are. Do they also fix the prices of all materials?—They always attend and assist in fixing those prices; but it occasionally happens that they are not all present. As the agreement with Mr. Palmer was to be paid at the Board of Works’ prices, are not those the prices of the Board of Works of that date?—They are the quarterly fixed prices of the Office of Works, subject to the deduction made agree¬ ably to Mr. Nash’s contracts, and which deduction is made at the foot of the bills. Mr. James Palmer, called in ; and Examined. ARE you a master bricklayer ?—Yes. Were you employed to do any of the brick-work at Buckingham Palace ?—Yes. By whom was the contract originally entered into with you for executing the work at Buckingham Palace?—Mr. Nash. Do you recollect the period at which that contract was entered into ?—I cannot recollect the date ; it was about the date when they began the pulling down. Have you any copy of the agreement with you ?—No. Was it an agreement in writing, or only a verbal agreement?—I cannot charge my memory ; I think it was only verbal, but I am not certain. Was there no written agreement between you and Mr. Nash for the brick-work ? —I cannot charge my memory whether there was or not. What portion of the brick-work were you to do?—There was no particular part stated what I was to do: I had the south wing. At what price was your agreement ?—I believe it was seven and a half per cent, below the Board of Works’ price. From whom did you purchase the bricks which you worked up at Buckingham Palace ? I purchased some of them of Mr. Nash, and some of other persons.^ What portion of those bricks you used at Buckingham Palace did you purchase of Mr. Nash? I this morning took a rough sketch; I cannot judge to a few thousands, 83 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 47 thousands, but I believe the total I bought was 2,450,000 : I used a great number of old bricks that were upon the premises. 1 bought 1,050,000 of Mr. Nash, and 1,400,000 of other persons. Will you state the prices you paid to those respective persons?—I have not any recollection of that. Have you books that will show the nature of the contracts you made with Mr. Nash at the time?—No, our accounts are settled quarterly with the Board of Works. What price did you pay to Mr. Nash for those bricks ?—That I cannot say now. Did you pay one uniform price?—No, our prices varied. When we first began, the bricks were much higher than afterwards ; bricks then were very scarce; but I bought no bricks of Mr. Nash when I first began ; I did not know that Mr. Nash had a brick-field. Did you pay the same price to Mr. Nash for his bricks that you paid to the other brick-makers?—The first bricks I had of Mr. Nash I did pay the same, I believe; but when the next season came, when there were a great many bricks more, I paid 1 s. or perhaps 2 s. a. thousand more than I did to others. At the time you paid Mr. Nash 2 s. a thousand more than you did to any other person, could you have purchased those bricks from any other person?—Yes. What was your reason for giving Mr. Nash 2 s. a thousand more than what you could have bought them for of other persons ?—Having had bricks of Mr. Nash, as the bricks were varying in price, I did not think it was proper to go from Mr. Nash for the sake of a shilling or two a thousand ; I may perhaps have been influenced by the feeling I had of Mr. Nash’s taking me to that building; Mr. Nash introduced me to do the work. And you felt that you had no objection to give Mr. Nash 2 s. a thousand more for bricks than to any other person ?—Yes ; but the impression on my mind was, that having purchased some bricks before, I w as purchasing those at the same price ; but I purchased bricks of other persons at 2,9. or 3 s. a thousand less than Mr. Nash’s, because persons came to me knowing that I paid the money on delivery. Per¬ sons came to me who had come up from the country with a quantity of bricks, and who said they could not go back without the money, and they were obliged to sell them for what they could get. Do you keep any books that will show the prices you paid?—Yes. Then by reference to these books you will be able to show the prices you paid ?—Yes. According to the best of your recollection, what was the price you paid for those bricks?—It was somewhere about 2/. or 2I. 3s. When w'as that?—It was soon after the Palace began; I suppose it was in 1826. Do you know that in the years 1826 and 1827, bricks were sold as low as from 25 s, to 30 s. a thousand?—No, I never heard of such a thing, excepting place bricks; such bricks as I never used under any circumstances. Do you not know that there were extensive sales by auction and in other ways, at which bricks w^ere sold at a price as low as that?—I believe I bought my bricks as low as any person ; but bricks vary so much, and some of those bricks are not nearly so large ; and there are a vast quantity of bricks which are called shuffi bricks, which I would not purchase, and never did. Was there not great distress amongst the brick-makers in the years 1826 and 1827, and were not bricks sold at very low' prices?—Yes, certainly. Were you permitted to use the old bricks that came from Buckingham Palace?— Yes; and I am almost certain the Board of Works charged me one, two, or three shillings more than I actually paid for new bricks. I believe they charged me more than I was then paying Mr. Nash. Was that in consequence of having them upon the spot without cartage?—We always include cartage; they charged us what they pleased for them. Can you state where Nr. Nash’s bricks came from ?—I cannot say. Whom did you deal with for the bricks ; did you deal with Mr. Nash, or his agent?—I believe I gave the order to Mr. Rolls. What w r as the mark upon Mr. Nash’s bricks?—N. What was the quality of Mr. Nash's bricks ?—They were very good bricks. Did you never give more than 43s. for bricks to Mr. Nash?—I do not believe I have, but it is impossible to say that I have not. Did you pay Mr. Nash ready money as you did other persons ?—No. 329. " F 4 Mr. James Palmer . 14 March, 1831. Was 84 48 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Was it deducted from your bills?—No, I paid Mr. Nash himself. What is the usual credit in buying bricks?—The principal merchants send their accounts in half-yearly, and some yearly, but very few of them will give credit for half a year. Have you been sometimes a builder?—Yes. Have you done any other work on Crown property?—I have not. Do you possess any house belonging to the Crown ?—None whatever. Had you any written agreement with Mr. Nash for bricks?—Not that I recollect. Did you originally propose to Mr. Nash to do the brick-work at Buckingham Palace, or did Mr. Nash propose it to you?—I applied to Mr. Nash, and Mr. Nash informed me that it was to be done by competition, and those persons that offered the lowest w'ould have the work, admitting that they were respectable men, and that he had confidence that they would do the work properly. Did you propose to do it at seven and a half per cent, under the Board of Works’ prices?—No; Mr. Nash told me to consider of it, and let him know the lowest I could do it for. How much did you do it for per rod ?—It varied almost every quarter; the Board of Works fixed what prices they pleased, and they varied almost every quarter. Did you give in any sealed tender?—Very likely I might have written Mr. Nash a letter ; or whether I saw him, I cannot recollect. Have you received all the money due upon your work?—I have not; there remains due about 200/. You say w'hen you first engaged in this, you did not know Mr. Nash had any brick-yard ; had lie a brick-yard at that time?—I believe he had. How long after you had been engaged in the work did you find out that Mr. Nash had a brick-yard ?—Perhaps eight or twelve months. Did you find that out by common rumour, or did Mr. Nash inform you of it?—- Mr. Nash never informed me of it. I think I saw some bricks that Mr Reid was using, for our object was always to get the largest bricks. Did Mr. Nash or any body on his behalf ever apply to you to buy bricks at his brick-yard?—I do not think they did ; I understood that Mr. Nash had bricks, and then I applied to him to know the price, and the prices were then the same that I was paying; they were a pretty full-sized brick, and that was my object in pur* chasing them. Was the quality of the bricks your sole inducement to go to Mr. Nash’s brick-yard ? —That, together with what I have stated. I have stated, that, of course, if I could purchase of Mr. Nash as well as any other person, that I thought I ought so to do. Did Mr. Rolls ever apply to you to purchase bricks on behalf of Mr. Nash ?— I will not say that he did not, and I will not say that he did. Suppose you paid Mr. Nash two and a half or five per cent, more for his bricks than any other person, did the public suffer any detriment from it?—Certainly not; the Board of Works never considered what we paid for our bricks. Then you state distinctly that when you made your contract for the building with Mr. Nash, there was no understanding relative to the purchase of his bricks ?—Not the least in the world. Are you in the habit of buying materials of architects ?—I do not knou r that I am. Is not it looked upon as contrary to the usual practice for a builder to buy materials of the person who superintends his work ?—It is a circumstance that never came under my consideration before. Was not one of the Clerks of the Works at Buckingham Palace the agent of Mr. Nash in conducting his brick business?—No, not till the building was nearly finished; after the death of Mr. Nixon, Mr. Rolls was appointed. Had Mr. Nixon any thing to do with Mr. Nash’s brick-field ?-— No, he had nothing to do with Mr. Nash, as I understood; he also conducted the business at Brighton. In the course of your day-work, which you performed at the Palace, did vou use a considerable quantity of brick?—Yes. And you charged those to the Government?—Yes. Do you know what price you charged?—I do not know; the Board of Works .put what prices they pleased upon them. It appears in one of the quarterly accounts before the Committee that you had credit for 1.7,000 stock bricks used in your day-work, for which you had credit 60 s. Mr. James Palmer. 14 March, 1831. 85 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 49 60 s. and odd; what was the rule you adopted for charging the day-work ?— Air. Nixon was the principal Clerk of the Works; there were three other clerks under him; one had the superintendence of the part that I had, another the part that Mr. W hitehead had, and another the part that Air. Reid had ; and every day we delivered in an account of the day-work done the day before; and the Clerks of the Works then taking that account would sometimes call upon the foreman to show them where that work was performed, and they even measured some of it with me. What was the rule you adopted as to the price for the men’s work?—We charge nothing, and the Board of Works did not allow us so much as we paid the men. Did you supply cement for your work at the Palace?—Yes. From whom did you purchase that cement?—The principal part from Francis & White, and some from Mr. Nash. What quantity did you purchase from Mr. Nash ?—A very small portion com¬ pared with what I used there altogether. Has Mr. Nash cement works ?—Not that I know of. How did you get it from Mr. Nash? did he purchase it of other people to sell it to you?—I do not know ; I understood that Mr. Nash had cement to sell, and I purchased some of him. Where did that come from ?—I do not know. To whom did you originally apply to get your cement?—Francis & White. Why did not you go on with Francis & White?—I purchased of different manu¬ facturers, and I understood that Mr. Nash had some cement to sell, and I purchased some of it. How much a bushel did you pay for the cement to Mr. Nash ?—I believe half- a-crown. Was it the same price you paid to others r—I think I was purchasing at 2 s. 3d. How did vou understand that Mr. Nash had that cement to sell?—I cannot •/ charge my memory how that was. Did you understand that Mr. Nash purchased that cement of some manufac¬ turers, and re-sold it to you?—Yes, that must have been so; I understood that he had a quantity of cement, and I never heard of his being a manufacturer himself. Whose cement was it?—As far as my memory serves, I think the name was Weston. Was it as good cement as Francis’s?—Yes. Had you ever performed any other workjmnder Mr. Nash before that work at the Palace?—No, Have you since that executed works for Mr. Nash ?—I have since in Carlton Gardens. Who found the cement in those buildings ?—I bought some of Mr. Nash, and some of Francis & White. Is Mr. Nash now in the habit of supplying cement for buildings he erects?—I do not know ; I have not bought any of them. When did you buy the last of Mr. Nash ?—I suppose two years ago. Can you furnish an account of the other works you have executed for Air. Nash —I have done none ; only labour and mortar. What have you done at Carlton Gardens?—I built Air. Herries’s house, and I plaistered Mr. Arbuthnot’s. Where was this cement delivered to you from ?^-That 1 do not know ; I fetched some myself from some wharfs. Where did you fetch it from ?—I cannot recollect; I believe it was Weston’s. In working under any other architect, did you ever purchase from that architect any materials ?—No. Then Mr. Nash is the only architect from whom you ever purchased materials for work ?—-Yes. Is Mr. Nash the only architect that you know that ever had a brick-field?— I never heard of any other architect having any before. You say that you did the labour and mortar work at Mr. Herries’s; who found the materials ?_Some of the materials were on the site of the ground, and I found some bricks for the coatings. Did you find all the new bricks? No. Who supplied the remainder of the new bricks t —I believe they were Mr. Nash’s, Would you have executed the works at Buckingham Palace if you had been re¬ quired to find only labour and mortar r Certainly, just the same. 4 , 329t J G Therefore Mr: James Palmer., 14 March, 1831. l_ __ J 86 50 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr; James Palmer. 14 March, 1831. 16 March, 1831. Therefore you do not consider it derogatory of your character not to find the materials ?—Not at all so ; it is a very common case. Can you recollect what proportion of the cement you had of Mr. Nash?—No, I cannot; it was but little. You found some cement also for daily jobs ; do you know what price you received per bushel for that?—No, I do not. It appears that there is 3 s. gd. charged?—There is carriage, and cartage, and casks, which ought to be reckoned. If you made an unfavourable bargain with reference to the cement, did the public suffer from it ?—Not at all; the public had nothing to do w ith it; the Board of Works put the prices. With reference to the bricks used in the day-work, did Mr. Nash authorize you to charge 60.?. per 1,000 for bricks used in day-work?—I do not believe that Mr* Nash ever asked me a question upon the point of charging any one article at the Palace; the prices were put by the Board of Works, and whatever price they put in one quarter, I monied out the same prices the next quarter, and they altered it to what they pleased. Do you mean to say that the Board of Works had the power of arbitrarily putting any price they pleased for the work you did ?—They did so. Do you mean to state that you have never, to the best of your recollection, given more than 435. per 1,000 to Mr. Nash for bricks?—I cannot tell what I paid; whether I paid 405. or 50 s. ; it is six years ago ; at that time bricks were varying every day. You have stated that you did the w 7 ork at seven and a half per cent, under the Board of Works’ prices ; did you apply that to the bricks used in the day-work, as well as the other work ?—I did. Did you ever come to any understanding with any person that you were to pay any discount or commission on your work ?—Not at all; nothing in the least. Of whom did you buy your lime ?—Of different merchants. Did you buy any of Mr. Nash ?—None. Mercurii , 16° Martii, 1831. Mr. James Palmer , again called in ; and Examined. HAVE you brought with you your books relating to the w-ork you did at Buckingham Palace?— [ The Witness produced some Papers.] —These are all the vouchers, and bills of parcels, and every thing I can find for work done at the Palace. Have you brought your ledger?—I have nothing further than these bills and receipts ; they are all entered in my books as they come in, but no price to them; therefore I have brought all the bills of parcels that I can find upon this subject. Are those the bills of all the bricks you purchased of Mr. Nash ?—Yes. Elave you examined those bills since you were here last?—I have, as far as lay in my power. Are you able now to correct or to confirm your evidence as to the price you gave to Mr. Nash for bricks?—Forty-two shillings, and then there w r as wharfage and cartage upon that. In the year 1825, the first bricks I purchased were of a person of the name of Hind, at Cowley ; I purchased of him 182,000 at 42 s., delivered alongside, and the cartage and wharfage added, made it 50 s. 10 d. a thousand. That was in September 1825. I should not have bought them so cheap, but I had bought a great many of him before. Bricks were uncommonly scarce at that time. Then I bought of Mr. Nash 84,000 at 425., and 66,000 at 40 s.; then the expenses on that would be exactly the same as I paid before, admitting that you take them at 41 s ., one part being at 42 s ., and the other at 405. This was four or five months after the other; this was on January 17th, 1 826. These are the bills for the wharfage and cartage [ Producing the same] ; the wharfage is 5 s. a thousand, and the cartage is 4s. 10 d. a thousand, for carting them from Grosvenor Canal to Buckingham Palace. ^ Is the bill you have produced for the cartage the correct bill you have paid ?— Exactly so. Had 87 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 51 Had you any allowance out of it?—Nothing whatever, but what appears upon the receipts • I believe that at the latter end w-e got them carted 2d. a thousand cheaper. Would it not have been your interest to have got them cheaper before?—Cer¬ tainly ; I made the best bargain I could, and I could not possibly get them any • cheaper. How many times a day could a cart go from Grosvenor Canal to Buckingham Palace?—I suppose four times a day, or perhaps five. What distance is it ?—About half a mile; but they had to take them out of the barge and stack them again; and when they take them out of the cart they stack them again. What was the next?—The next quantity I had from Mr. Nash was 246,000, at 40^., and the other charges were exactly the same ; the whole of the bricks I bought of Mr. Nash were 40 s., with the exception of the last, and they were 365. You stated that you purchased bricks of Mr. Nash at 2 5. to 35. more than what you paid to other persons ?—As far as I could recollect. Will you state the prices you paid to other persons?—There were some bricks that I purchased from Huggins, 26,000, at 415., in November 1825, and there would be 45. 10 d. to be added to them. Did you add wharfage and the cartage to all the bricks, or only to Mr. Nash’s ?— There is only the cartage added to these. Have not you these things entered in the books ?—I have not. The fact is, that I thought all the business at the Palace was done with ; I have got all the bills and receipts tied up, and as they came in they were entered in a book, but no price put to them. Had Huggins any large quantity of bricks?—I believe he had. What was the quality of those bricks ?—Very good bricks. Being able to obtain them from him at 465. 10 d., why did you give 565. 10 d. for Mr. Nash’s ?—That was not in the regular way of purchasing bricks ; for if those men know where they can get ready money, they will come and say, “ I have got a barge of bricks,” or “ two barges of bricks,” and they will be glad to sell them at a low price. If Huggins could have supplied you with a larger quantity at 465. iod., would you have purchased them ?—I should have been glad to get them, but I could not get them. Is the Committee to understand that to all those bricks there is to be added 4 - 5 . lod. for cartage?—All those I have stated. I had some that came from Ham¬ mersmith, in which the cartage is included. Can you prepare for the use of the Committee a statement of the different quantities of bricks you bought, and from whom you bought them, and how much a thousand they cost ?—I can. Can you give any further explanation as to purchases of the cement ?—I have all the documents here, in the same manner as with regard to the bricks. Was all the cement delivered to you at the wharf just the same, whether it came from Mr. Nash or whether it came from other persons?—I believe it was. If the Committee wish it, I will make out a statement with regard to the cement, in the same way as the bricks. At what time did you commence building under Mr. Nash in Carlton Gardens ?— That has not any reference to these prices, because I did only the labour and mortar. I was asked what the Board of Works allowed us in 1825; I see it was 17/. 45. 6 d. a rod ; at that time surveyors generally about London were allowing 18/. In the year 1826 the Board of Works’ price was 16/. 65., and the usual price allowed was 16/. 165. In the year 1827 the Board ofWorks’ prices were 15/. 75., and the usual price was 16/. . Was there no deduction made from that higher price by way of per centage, or any thing of that kind?—I do not believe there was; I had that from the person who measured my work for me at the Palace, and he told me that he was then allowing those prices at other places. What was the price you charged to Mr. Nash when you were at other work for him at Carlton Gardens?—I did not do any work for him but the labour and mortar ; he found the bricks. Were you building for Mr. Nash at Carlton Gardens at the same time that you were working at the Palace?—Yes. How much were you paid a rod for the labour and mortar ?—1 believe it was 4 /. ~i 6 5. or 5 L <220. G 2 Did , Mr. James Palmer. 16 March, 88 52 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. James Palmer. 16 March, 1831. Did you enter into a contract for that work?—I did. What quantity of bricks does it require to a rod ?—I should say, it would take 4,400, upon the average of brick-work, altogether. , Would it require the same number of bricks to every description of works?— j It is impossible to answer that; with some brick-work you may take 4,300 with a great deal of care, and in other work it will take 4,500. What did you give for the bricks you bought at the old Buckingham House ?—■ The Board of Works charged us 52 s. for the old bricks. Were not those bricks, when once cleaned, as useful to you as new bricks?— No; they took a great deal more mortar and more labour. Does every description of wall take the same number of bricks?—Yes. And the same quality of bricks?—That depends upon what they are ; where there are a great number of openings it will take more bricks ; in some buildings there are a great many more flues than in others, and where there are a great many flues it will not take so many bricks ; but that is not deducted, because there is the extra labour of plastering the inside of the flue, which is considered to be equivalent. When you were asked how many bricks vou reckoned to a rod of brick-work, did you make any allowance for different descriptions of buildings, or did you take the average ?—I took the average. Of what thickness is the brick-work in this place ?—All brick-work is reduced to a brick and a half; that is the standard by which all brick-work is measured. How is brick noggin reckoned ?—That is paid by the yard. You have stated that you received 17/. 4 s, §d. per rod for the work done at Buckingham Palace; you also stated that about the same time you were doing work for Mr. Nash in Carlton Gardens, for which you received for mortar and labour only 5/. per rod; calculating 4,400 bricks to the rod of brick-work, at 50 s. 10 d., it appears that the sum would be 11 /. 3 s. 6 d. for bricks, and the total sum there¬ fore per rod would be 16/. 35. 6 d. : how do you account for the difference be¬ tween 16/. 3 s, 6d., the price which the brick-work cost at Carlton Gardens, and 17/. 4,?. 6 d. which you state to have been the price allowed at Buckingham Palace? —I did not state that the work was done at Carlton Gardens for that, because I knew nothing about it, more than what I did myself, which is the work and mortar. Supposing the bricks to have been furnished at Buckingham Palace at 505. 10 d. t and 5/. to be allowed for labour and mortar, the total charge for the brick-work would be 1 61. 35. 6d., while the amount you were allowed was 17/. 4 s. 6 d .; how do you explain that?—If you add to that the profit of the tradesman, and you take off five percent, from the Board of Works’ prices, I think you will rind that there is nothing more than the tradesman’s profit. Did you do that labour and work for Mr. Nash at cost price, without any profit? —Certainly not. Did you then put your tradesman’s profit upon the mortar and work which you did for Mr. Nash?—I agreed to do that work at a certain price, and that price I was paid; but that price included my profit, of course. Does not the price of brick-work increase with the height of the building?—> Yes ; after forty feet you are allowed more. Which is the highest, the Carlton buildings or the Palace?—I believe they are about the same height, but if there was any difference I was allowed for it. Can you state what is considered as a fair profit in the trade upon mate¬ rials employed in brick-work?—Fifteen per cent. Do you happen to know the price paid for the building of the New Post-office at that time?—No. What is the price of bricks now ?—It is about 36s., 37 s., 38s. or 40^. delivered • but I cannot state it exactly, because I do not recollect; I have such a multiplicity of business that it is impossible to recollect it. Did you ever purchase any houses from Mr. Nash?—Never. Have you got an account of the quantity of bricks you bought altogether upon the account of Buckingham Palace from Mr. Nash?—I have. What is the amount of it ?—I do not know. Is it not about 1,228,000 ?—I believe it is. Were you in the habit of going to Mr. Nash’s brick-yard ?—I was not. Then you cannot say whether or not he was in the habit of making millions of bricks in the course of a vearP-'-No. w Mr. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 89 53 Mr. William Whitehead, called in; and Examined. ARE you a master bricklayer ?—Yes. Were you employed at Buckingham Palace?—I was. By whom were you employed?—In the first instance, I was written to by Mr. Nash, and this is the letter I received ; [The Witness delivered in the same, which ivas read as follows :] “ Sir, 14, Regent-street, Sunday, 12th June 1825. “ I will beg the favour of you to let me know, when you meet me at half- u past six to-morrow morning at Buckingham House, at how much per cent. “ below the Office of Works’ price you will execute that portion of the work “ which will be given to you at Buckingham House; namely, the new “ buildings in the west front, the raising the walls of the west front, and the “ walls of the north front, and such other bricklayers’ work as you will be “ directed to do. “ I am, Sir, your humble servant, “ To Mr. Whitehead.” “ J. Nash.” Mr. William Whitehead. 16 March, 1831. Did you take, in consequence of this notice, a certain portion of this work at Buckingham Palace ?—I did. This is my letter to Mr. Nash : [The Witness delivered in the same, which was read, as follows ;] “ Little Cadogan Place, Chelsea, “ Sir, 29th June 1825. “ Agreeably to your request, we beg leave to state we are willing to contract for “ the brick-work to be done at Buckingham Palace, (at five per cent, under the “ Office of Works’ prices,) which allowance includes the two and a half per “ cent, now deducted by the Office of Works; no allowance on day-work; “ and should any alteration in labour take place, the same to be allowed or “ deducted as the case may be. The accounts to be made out and paid “ quarterly.” Did Mr. Nash agree to your taking the brick-work at five per cent, under the Board of Works’ prices, including the usual allowance of two and a half?—Yes; I believe it was five per cent, upon the measured work, and no deduction upon the day-work; but when our bills were submitted to the Surveyor General, the usual deduction of two and a half was taken ; and I was the only bricklayer belonging to His Majesty’s Office of Works, and they sent to me; and the other bricklayers were regulated by the arrangement I had made with Mr. Nash. Did you purchase any of your materials of Mr. Nash?—I did, a small portion. What did you purchase of Mr. Nash ?—I have brought the bill; it is for 197,000; I paid him the usual prices at that day, 41 s. and 405. to the water's edge; then there was the barge-carriage, the w harfage, the tonnage, the loading and the cartage, amounting altogether to 52 s. a thousand; whether they came by the inland naviga¬ tion, or whether they came from the field, or whether they came into the Thames from below, it would be the same. What was the price you paid to other persons ?—I am a brick-maker myself; bricks were scarce in the year 1825, and I had not a sufficient supply at that moment, and I bought those bricks of Mr. Nash; but I did not buy of any one else ; it was a fair price; in fact, prices were regulated from time to time at the Board of Works ; taking the average, if the field price in London, at Hoxton or at Hammersmith, was 44 s., and the cartage 8 5 ., making 52 s. Have you executed any other work under the Board of Works at any of the great public buildings?—This Committee-room, and all the works about here. At what price did you perform your brick-work in those buildings?—That is regulated from time to time by the prices. How much per cent, under the Board of Works’ prices did you execute the brick¬ work here?—I believe I had the Office of Works’ prices here, and the usual deduc¬ tion of two and a half per cent. ; and in some instances there was a special contract before the work commenced. Were you paid the Board of Works’ prices with only the deduction of two and a half per cent, for all the brick-work done in this neighbourhood ?—Yes, I believe for all the Courts of Law that was the price; I believe for this building it was a special price, and I have been doing work lately at the State Paper-office, and that is at a special price. 329. G 3 Under 90 54 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE .16 March, •1831. Mr. Under whose direction are you working at the State Paper-office?—Under William Whitehead , General Stephenson of the Board of Works, under Mr. Soane. How much under the Board of Works’prices are the special contracts?—It depends so much upon circumstances; but the prices for all the work that was done at Buckingham Palace were regulated from time to time according to the returns made by the merchants, and then upon the prime cost of the materials there was ten per cent, added as a profit. Whom did you make your bargain with for Buckingham Palace ?—By that letter only. Did you make any bargain with General Stephenson ?—No ; but the bills always went to the Office of Works, and were paid there. Were any alterations made in your charges by the Board of Works ?—Yes, Had you any thing to do with Mr. Nash, but making the contract?—That was all. Do you mean to say, then, that the Board of Works could annul your contract with Mr. Nash, and pay you what price they pleased ?—Yes ; and that will appear by the ledger; if you turn to the quarter’s account, you will find the red ink pen is put through the charges. Then your contract with Mr. Nash was w r orth nothing?—Nothing whatever; not two straws. Did the Board of Works ever pay you more than Mr. Nash agreed ?—Never. Did they ever give you less upon the measured work ?—Yes. Were not their deductions upon Mr. Nash’s prices?—I did not consider any price to be given by Mr. Nash ; it was to be so much under the Office of Works’ calculations, and those calculations will show you what they have done from time to time. For instance, I have stated that bricks were 52 s., but in the progress of that work they came down to 42s.; the Office of Works made the price from the Returns they had, without reference to what I gave : for instance, if I gave 40s. a thousand, and the Current price was 35 s., they would give me no more than 35 s. You say you undertook the work at five per cent, under the measured prices ; do you mean to say, that although you had agreed with Mr. Nash that you were to have only five per cent, deducted from the Board of Works’ prices, the Board of Works would have deducted ten per cent.?—If I had submitted to it, they would have done so. On the receipt of Mr. Nash's letter I made him a reply. This letter I have dated myself on the 12th of June, and my answer is on thle 29th of June :—“ Agreeable to your request, we beg leave to state, we are willing to contract “ for the brick-work to be done at Buckingham Palace, (at five per cent, under the “ Office of Works’ prices,) which allowance includes the tw 7 o and a half per cent. “ now deducted by the Office of Works ; no allowance on day-work; and should “ any alteration in labour take place, the same to be allowed or deducted as the “ case may be ; the accounts to be made out and paid quarterly.” Now 7 , when our bills went to the Office of Works this was not taken notice of, and General Stephenson says, “ You must deduct two and a half per cent, off all the w-orkyou “ have done there, both day and measured.” So that if I had had all that I asked for, I should have had two and a half per cent, more ; but two and a half per cent, has been deducted from all the accounts upon all the work, both day-work and measured work. Do you mean to say that there w 7 as two and a half and the five per cent, both deducted ?—No. Then, in point of fact, the measured work was paid for at five per cent, below the Board of Works’ prices ?—Yes. Then the deduction from your bills was five per cent, below the Board of Works’ prices?—Yes. In point of fact, so far your contract with Mr. Nash w 7 as of value to you, inasmuch as they made a deduction of only five per cent, below 7 the Board of Works’ prices ? —Yes; they carried Mr. Nash’s contract into effect so far as regards the measured work ; but they deviated from my letter as to the day-work, because I had stated that there was to be no deduction from the day-w 7 ork. Then, in point of fact, you have been paid less by the Board of Works than you w 7 ould have been paid by Mr. Nash ?—Certainly ; that two and a half per cent. Was it a tender of yours to Mr. Nash, or was it a contract?—That was all; I was not paid by Mr. Nash; Mr. Nash hands over the tenders he receives to the Office of W orks, and they regulate it from time to time. Then 91 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 55 Then Mr. Nash did not contract with yon for a certain sum, but he merely took your tender, and handed it over to the Board of Works?—I take for granted that it must be so. How do you know that he handed it over to the Board of Works ?—There must have been a communication ; and I believe that General Stephenson would say that he knew of the agreement that was made; and I think the General has my original letter. There has been nothing done, in my opinion, at Buckingham Palace, but what General Stephenson is fully acquainted with. Did Mr. Nash make an agreement with you finally, or did he refer you to General Stephenson ?—I had nothing but that simple letter from Mr. Nash, and that letter of mine in reply. Had you any conversation with General Stephenson while the work was going on ?—Not on the subject of prices. Did he ever interfere about the prices ?—No; but, in the first instance, when the two and a half per cent, was deducted, there was a remonstrance made. In that case, then, General Stephenson did interfere ?—Yes. Was it the general understanding of the tradesmen employed in that work, that all the agents employed by Mr. Nash were submitted to the approbation of the Board of Works?—No; I do not think that was understood. When you went to Mr. Nash, in consequence of receiving that letter, did any conversation take place with reference to the contracts?—Not to my recollection; I met Mr. Nash one Monday morning, agreeable to his letter, and I gave him that answer in writing, and I was put to work immediately; I believe in the course of a day or two after I received that letter. Then you considered that letter of yours an acceptance of Mr. Nash’s offer?— Yes; I was the resident tradesman at Buckingham House before the work was begun. From whom did you receive your directions to go to work in the new work?— I-think from Mr. Nash. Did General Stephenson remonstrate with you as to your working at only five' per cent, under the Board of Works' prices?—No. Did he ever tell you that Palmer, another of the bricklayers, worked at seven and a half per cent, under the Board of Works’ prices ?—No; that was not the case; we were all paid the same. Were you aware, at the time Mr. Nash wrote to you to meet him at Buckingham House, that other bricklayers were to meet you there?—No, I considered myself ill used; I expected to have the whole. Before you wrote that tender to Mr. Nash, did you communicate with the other bricklayers, so as to arrange the tenders that should be sent in ?—We did. Then finding that there were other persons to be employed, you all sent in the same tender, five per cent. ?—Yes, they asked me the question ; to the best of my recollection they said, that whatever I did, as one of the Office tradesmen, they should be satisfied with. Then, in point of fact, there was no competition between the different bricklayers employed, but you all agreed to offer at a certain price ?—\ es. Was Mr. Nash aware of that agreement having been made?—That I cannot say. Did Mr. Nash ever ask you, or were you ever asked at the Board of Works, if you and the other tradesmen arranged together the prices at which you would do the work ?—No. What was the price per rod that you received for your brick-work ?—It varied from time to time. Bricks, when we commenced, were 52 Mr. Thomas Rice , called in; and Examined. i > J. t \ * -L v-' .<»/ y 1 •'i ' J » -• L , f * A • * •- ARE you a stone-mason?—Yes. Did you offer any tender to Mr. Nash for executing any part of the work of Buckingham Palace, and what work?—No, none; I was solicited by Mr. Nash, and signed an agreement at his office. Did Mr. Nash solicit you in writing or verbally?—By writing. Have you got the letter ?—No, I have not. 1 Can you get it ?—I do not know that I have got it. What was the purport of it ?—First, I had a communication with Mr. Freeman, and he recommended me to Mr. Nash, and Mr. Nash wrote me a letter to attend. Do you know the period that you attended ?—No, I do not recollect. Before the commencement of the work ?—Yes. / Did Mr. Nash propose to you the price, or you propose it to him ?—When I signed the contract, the price had been proposed by the masons, who had seen Mr. Nash previously. Did you agree to do it at the same price ?—Yes, I did. You did not offer to do it for less than others ?—No. What portion of the work was assigned to you ?—The south Wing. Did you execute the whole of it?—Yes, the masonry work. At the time you entered into the contract with Mr. Nash, did you understand you were to work up stone provided by Mr. Freeman to Mr. Nash, or that it was to be delivered to you?—I did not know how it was to be done, or that there was any con¬ tract made for stone. , * 329. I 4 When MV. L.E. Wood. 18 March, 1831. Mr. Thomas Rice. 108 72 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Thomas Rice. 18 March, 1831. --- When did you first hear it ?—It was the second morning after I signed the agreement. What did you hear the contract was ?—I did not know the contract for the price then ; but I went down to the wharf, and inquired of Mr. Freeman the price he was delivering his stone at. Did you understand it was delivered on account of Mr. Nash, or on account of the different masons?—I understood it was to be transferred from Mr. Freeman to us. Did you ever use any stone under the impression that that stone was to be delivered to Mr. Nash?—No. You always understood it was delivered to you directly from Mr. Freeman?— Yes, except some that w ? as delivered before I commenced. Did you pay Mr. Freeman for all you had?—Yes. Did Mr. Freeman ever tell you any change of contract, that it was delivered to Mr. Nash and transferred to you?—No. What day did you commence your work?—I cannot recollect. Was it in June 1825 ?—Yes, it was. Did Mr. Nash ever apply to you at any time to give him an account of how much was due to you from the Board of Works, for w^ork performed ?—I do not remember that he did. Could you at any time have told Mr. Nash what was due to you?—Yes, at any time. You could on the 17th of May 1829 have told him what was due to you? —Yes. Within how much ? —Within 100/. Did you ever perform any work for Mr. Nash elsewhere?—No, never. Through whom was the communication made, you w’ere to take the stone from Mr. Freeman on your own account ?—I heard it the next day. From whom?—Mr. Freeman; he said, There is a certain portion of stone delivered ; I shall turn it over to you, and consider you my debtor. In June 1825 you knew the stone was to be charged to your account, and not Mr. Nash ?—I did. Did Mr. Freeman say it was by any person’s direction he made that arrange¬ ment with you ?—I do not remember. Do you remember in the beginning of 1826 having any conversation with Mr. Freeman, as 'to the alteration of the mode in which you were to be paid ? —Yes. Before that time Mr. Nash was liable to you ?—Yes. An alteration being made, you suggested another mode?—Yes, because we could not get the stone from Mr. Freeman; we were obliged to go into the market. You wished to release Mr. Nash from his responsibility ?—Yes. That w r as negociated through Mr. Freeman and the Board of Works?—Yes. Up to that time, you did think Mr. Nash was liable to you for the payment ? — I did not consider him liable myself; I did not know the arrangement Mr. Nash had made. Whether Mr. Nash was liable, you have no knowledge ?—No; I considered myself the debtor to Mr. Freeman, from the time i commenced. What transaction Mr. Freeman had with Mr. Nash, you do not know ?—No ; I do not know the contract he had made. Nor did Mr. Freeman make any representation to you ?—No. The alteration of the contract was in your favour?—Yes, we benefited by it; w'e went into the market and bought the stone. Sometimes the market was glutted, and we made a trifle upon it. Did you purchase stone from any other persons besides Mr. Freeman, for the Palace ?—Yes. Have you got any of the bills with you?—No. Do you recollect what you paid for the stone?—No. Was it more or less than you paid Mr. Freeman?—Sometimes it was less ; and when we wanted blocks of a particular size, we paid more. You do not know what it was, upon the average?—No, I never made an average. You say you could have made up an estimate at any time; was there any altera¬ tion made in the part assigned to you ?—Yes, part was taken down. Supposing 109 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 73 Supposing alterations were made in the works in progress, you could not make an etimate of those ; you mean on those things that were finished ?—Yes. As far as they had gone, you could tell what was due to you ?—Yes, I think I could tell almost to 5 s. Did you propose to Mr. Nash to do it at ten per cent under the Board of Works prices ?—That was the price signed previous to my agreement. Have you ever executed any great works ?—Yes, always, from my boyhood. What works?—The Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, and Chatham and Dovor. On your own account?—Yes, partly; and also for several noblemen I could name. Mr. George Harrison , called in ; and Examined. DID you offer any tender to Mr. Nash for performing any part of the work at Buckingham Palace?—Yes. Have you that tender you so offered to Mr. Nash ?—I have it not by me. Can you state the substance of it ?—Yes ; the first tender I gave was for putting down the whole of the flooring and joists for the principal floor, and that was to be calculated at the price of 35. 7 \ d. per foot cube. Without any reference to the Board of Works prices ?—Yes, without any re¬ ference to the Board of Works prices; there were four tradespeople gave in tenders, and I was one of the four, and mine was accepted. Was it by competition, or arrangement with the others ?—By competition. You did not arrange with the others what price you should charge?—No, I never saw any one of them. Was it for the flooring of the whole Palace?—No, for the principal floors, and some of the attics that w ere not done at that time. You did not commence the carpentry work ?—No, I was not engaged at the Palace till sometime after it was begun. Were you engaged in substitution for any other carpenter that was dismissed?— Not to my knowledge. In addition?—Yes, I believe so. What other contracts did you enter into with Mr. Nash ?—I entered into a con¬ tract to do all the mahogany casements for the principal floor, to be calculated at 11^. 9 d. per foot; and my reason for wishing to do those casements was, I was interested in a patent for an improved water-bar to keep the wet out of sashes, and I thought I could not have a better opportunity than having a contract for doing those casements at the Palace; I thought it would be such a public work it would give them more publicity. Did you contract for doing all the interior work for the Palace?—No, only par¬ ticular works. Specify any other ?—The mahogany doors I contracted for; there were four gentlemen gave in for mahogany doors, and I was one of the tradesmen that de¬ livered in a tender; I also sent in a contract for performing the joiner’s work to the attic floor. There were four contracts of mine. You had contracted for the whole of the attic floor?—Yes, the joiner’s work. Of the whole Palace ?—Yes, the centre part of the building. Nothing to do with the Wings ?—No, not then ; I made a contract for finishing the joiner’s work to the whole of the Wings, after they were pulled down and built up again. Did you enter into any contract for the principal floor?—I did the floors I have mentioned before, and that part of the floor to the Picture Gallery, and the whole of the casements. Did you do any thing upon the ground floor?—Some part of the flooring joists ; there were two or three rooms I did. Were those contracts, any of them, in gross, or some for measure-work?—Some in gross, and some for measure-work, at prices. Is there any sum due to you upon those contracts?—Yes. How much?—I think about 1400/. or 1500/. Have you executed or delivered all the works for which you contracted ?—-Every thing, except one hand-rail to the north Wing, which I could not put up, because the ballusters of the stair-case are not fixed. Have you put up the doors?—Yes, every door. Every thing you contracted for ?—Yes, except about 20 /. in value for that hand-rail. .. • 329. K Could Mr. Thomas Rice , 18 March, 1831. Mr. George Harrison. 110 74 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Could you at any time, if Mr. Nash had required it, have given in an account of George Harrison. muc h vvas j ue to you for work executed ?—Within 200 /. or 300/. 18 March Did Mr. Nash in May 1829 make any application to you to tell him what was 1831. ’ then due to you ?—Not to my recollection. v -^— J He never consulted you, in the preparation of any of his estimates, as to what was due to you, or would be due if such and such works were executed?—No, they were generally done through his clerks. Without any communication with Mr. Nash?—Yes. Are all the shutters put up ?—Yes, every one that I made. Did you make all the shutters ?—Only for the principal floors; all the mahogany doors of the principal floor I made. What is the price per foot of the parquet floors?—We differed upon that; they did not give me the price I was entitled to, in making out the prime cost; I had to prepare them at the Palace, and I had to make thirty or forty new work-benches, which are of no use to me ; they would not allow a single shilling in the calculation of the prime cost for these work-benches ; I think it is about 8s. or 9s. a foot it came to, what I did. You did not do the rich patterns of the floors ?—I did the whole of the enriched part of the floor in the Picture Gallery. . That is merely wainscot laid in different devices?—Yes. None of the satin-wood and holly?—No. Were you engaged in any large Public Works besides Buckingham Palace?— I did a great many contracts, under Mr. Nash, on Carlton Terrace; I was not engaged by the Board of Works in any thing, except the Palace. As a bricklayer, or carpenter ?—Carpenter and joiner and builder generally. In brick-work ?—Yes, in every work. Have you had many dealings with Mr. Nash?—Yes. From whom did you buy your bricks ?—Mr. Nash. What quantity did you buy of him?—-To the best of my recollection, between six and seven millions. Was that at the time you were carrying on your works at Buckingham Palace ? —Yes. Did you buy those bricks of Mr. Nash before or after you had entered into the contracts for these different works ?—Some before and some after. Had your purchase of those bricks any reference to this contract?—No ; it had no reference to the contracts themselves. If I was to state the motive for pur¬ chasing those bricks, I calculated Mr. Nash would be a little liberal to me in return, but I never found I experienced any favour any more than any other indi¬ vidual in consequence of purchasing those bricks. Then your suspicions or opinions were not borne out by the result; your calcu¬ lations of advantage were all falsified ?—It did not answer the expectations I had formed. Did you give more per thousand to Mr. Nash, for his bricks, than to any other person?—Yes, I dare say I did, 3s. or 4 s. more; it was for that very reason; if the thing had to come over again, I should adopt a different course. Do you mean you purchased six or seven millions of bricks of Mr. Nash, that you worked up in other works, and that you were in the habit of giving him 35. or 4 s. a thousand more than you could have purchased them for of other persons ?—That was my opinion ; if I had ransacked and made different inquiries, I might have got them, I dare say, 2 s. or 3 s. a thousand cheaper elsewhere. Were they good bricks ?—Yes, as good as I ever used. You did not bargain with Mr. Nash to get them at a lower price ?—No, he told me I should pay 386-. for them, and I said I had no objection. Do you mean he told you, or his agent?—His agent, Mr. Rolls ; I had not the transaction with Mr. Nash. Have you any means of knowing that Mr. Nash was personally aware of the circumstance of your purchasing the bricks ; might not his agent have sold to you without reporting it to Mr. Nash ?—Mr. Nash must have been aware I purchased the bricks of him, because Mr. Jenkins, who is in Mr. Nash’s office every month, used to put the bill of the bricks in my hand, and if it came to 1200/. or 1400/. there was a bill drawn and put into my hand for acceptance, and it was necessary it should be signed by Mr. Nash, and I returned it to him. Did you never pay more than 38 s. or less than 38 s. during the whole years you bought of Mr. Nash?—I do not think, for the last two or three years, I have pur¬ chased ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. Ill 75 chased bricks any where else, except a very small quantity, than of Mr. Nash ; my trade particularly is not that of a bricklayer; lama general builder, but my trade in particular is a carpenter and joiner. During the whole time you have purchased bricks of Mr. Nash, has there been any great difference in the price you have paid ?—Yes, for some part I have only given 34 s. It varied according to the market price?—Yes. What are bricks now ?—Very low. When you were working for Mr. Nash in Carlton Gardens, was it a condition of the agreement between you and Mr. Nash, you were to take the bricks at any price ? —Not at all; it was a free-will act of my own. Have vou ever exchanged houses for bricks with Mr. Nash ?—No. o For whom did you build the houses in Carlton Gardens?—I built one for Sir Matthew White Ridley, one for Mr. Alexander, one for Sir Robert Lawley, one for Mr. Hanning, one for Lord Caledon, and one for Mr. Coesvelt. Who procured you those gentlemen’s custom ?—I got them by tendering for each contract, in competition with other tradesmen. They were all done in gross ?—Yes, much to my misfortune ; I lost a considerable sum of money. Had you any thing to do with the ground-rent?—Nothing. In making your tender to those gentlemen for building their houses, you calcu¬ lated the price of the bricks?—Yes. Did you, at the time you made this tender, calculate you were to purchase your bricks of Mr. Nash at 2 s. or 3 s. a thousand more than you could have got them elsewhere?—I did not take into the calculation where I was to get my bricks, I sent it in gross ; and the operation of my buying the bricks of Mr. Nash was en¬ tirely an after-thought of my own. Who was the architect for those houses?—Mr. Nash. Was it through Mr. Nash you got those houses?—No. Were not the contracts delivered in to Mr. Nash?—They were: if I had lost several, I should have been a great gainer. Was yours the lowest?—Yes ; and I built the United Service Club under Mr. Nash, but I did not have the bricks for that of him ; that took two or three millions more. Was your tender the lowest for laying the floor of the Palace ?—Yes. All your contracts for the Palace were the result of open competition ?—Not open competition ; only among four; there were some miscellaneous accounts arising out of those contracts. Did you enter into an open competition for all the works done at the Palace ?— Yes ; I cannot say every one, but almost. After that was done, were the specifications altered ?—No, except in one instance ; in the principal floor, mahogany shutters were substituted for the deal shutters. Of those 7,000,000 of bricks you bought of Mr. Nash, what proportion was before and what proportion was after the contract for the work at Buckingham Palace ?—Nearly the whole were bought after I began doing works at the Palace, as my account will show. Did you find Mr. Nash’s bricks as good as any other person’s?—Quite as good. Did you find Mr. Nash as strict and as severe in regard to work you executed in Buckingham Palace, as he was with regard to the work you executed for private individuals under his superintendence?—Quite so. He never favoured you?—Not in the smallest degree. On the contrary, you think he pressed hard upon you in some cases?—I will not say that, until the result of an investigation going on respecting my accounts. There is an idea of taking 600/. or 700 /. off those accounts, which in a variety of instances will not pay me for my prime cost, as I can prove. In one article, in cleaning off the floor underneath the Parquet floor, I returned vouchers to the labourers in trust, and according to those vouchers, the time, valuing it at 5s. a day, which I paid my men, and more too, it was 5 s. 1 d. the average ; reckoning it at 55. a day, for the time that floor took to clean off, it was cleaned off after it was laid down, by the direction of the labourers in trust, and it was walked over for six or seven months; the calculation of this time comes to 33/. odd, my prime cost out of my pocket; they have taken and measured the floor, and have taken off the day account, and allowed 10s. a square, which leaves me only 21/. 7 s. 6 d. for that charge, which I ought to have my prime cost and a profit upon. q-2o. K 2 Y r ou Mr. George Harrison. 18 March, 1831. v _„_ _J 112 76 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. George Harrison. 18 March, 1831. V _-✓ You are out of pocket more than thirty-three per cent?—Yes. This is done by Mr. Nash?—I would not receive my money ; and my accounts were put out of the Christmas quarter ; they are investigating them now. Was that done by the Board of Works, or through Mr. Nash? — Through Mr. Nash’s office. When was this account first of all discussed, and when was the deduction made? —In making out the accounts for the Christmas quarter in 1829. You are quite sure it was done by Mr. Nash, and not the Board of Works ?—Yes. Had you ceased to buy bricks of Mr, Nash at that time?—No; I am buying bricks of him at the present moment. At what price, the market price or any other price ; are you giving 35. a thousand more?—Not quite so much. What building are you now engaged in ? — I am doing something in my own neighbourhood. Do you go on giving more to Mr. Nash for his bricks now, than to any other people?—No; I think they are about upon a par. Ho w long did you give this extra 35. to Mr. Nash per thousand for his bricks?— To within about this twelvemonth. For six or seven months after this squabble about the floors ?—It had no reference to the squabble about the floors; I do not think Mr. Nash would let any thing of that sort interfere. ’ Have you ever purchased any thing else of Mr. Nash ; any cement, or any iron¬ mongery?—I think not; I might; I cannot tell. Yes, I think I did purchase a little cement, and 1 got it at a very reasonable price. I think some man owed him some money, I forget the name, and he asked me if I could take some cement, and I took I dare say twenty casks, but I did not want much; it did not come to 30/.; and he said he wished me to have it at the price I was paying any body else; the price was 3s.; and I said the price I was paying was 2 s. 9 d. and he took it off. How long ago was it ?—Three years. Do you not know that the price was is. ?—Not at that time. Who did it come from ?—I think, to the best of my recollection, it came from Mr. Sheppard. Who owed Mr. Nash money?—Yes. They paid him in cement?—Yes. Did you ever purchase timber of Mr. Nash ?—No. Nor any ironmongery ?—No. Nothing you use in the way of your trade ?—Nothing at all. Have you been in the habit of using much cement?—No, very little. Did you make any representation to Mr. Rolls, who sold you the bricks, you were paying him a higher price than you could obtain them at any other yard ?—No, I did not say any thing to him. Do you know whether that was the price that Mr. Rolls asked any other people, without reference to the Palace?—I do not know ; I have no idea. Are you sure seven millions was the outside of what you purchased ?—I do not think it came to seven millions. Did you execute any work at the New Post-office?—No. Did you execute any work at any public buildings under the Board of Works? — No, I did not, except the Palace. You know nothing of the carpentry and joiner’s work at the New Post-office, or the New Courts?—I have seen it. Is the carpenter's work at Buckingham Palace of the same description as at the Post-office ?—It is of a much better description. There can be no comparison instituted between them?—No, I think, not any comparison. Have you seen the work at the Duke of York’s house?—I have been once or twice over it. Is it of the same description of work as at Buckingham Palace?—Not so good ; I consider the work at York House is not similar; you cannot make a comparison between the one and the other; it is done in a different way. York House is done in what I call the common manner of building, with plates, girders, and joists and iron girders, but the Palace is nearly made all fireproof. The question alluded to the carpenter’s work; are they not similar?—No, I do not ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 113 77 not think it is equal to what is done at the Palace; it is not equal to what I have done there. Do you consider the beams at the Palace strong and effective ?—I have no doubt of it. Do you consider that the rooms at Buckingham Palace will be sufficient to sup¬ port a considerable weight, and great assemblies of persons brought there for the purposes of attending the Court?—I never thoroughly turned my attention to it, to give it a scrutinizing eye to answer such a question; the Palace itself is on a dif¬ ferent construction to any building I ever saw of the same nature; it is so strong that it must last for ever, or go all at once; it is all iron, brick and stone; it is tre¬ mendously strong. Did not some of the iron beams give way?—Not while I w r as there; the only long bearings were under the Blue room; the Bay room, where the variegated floors are, there was a tremendous bearing, longer than I have ever seen, and in that room they did not put the hollow cone arches the same as they did in the others, and I suppose it was in consequence of that very long bearing; it was done in order that the girders should not have an additional weight put upon them by those arches. Then that room is not fireproof?—I do not think it is. It is not built upon arches, the same as the others ?—I think not ; I had no control over that; but from my own ocular demonstration, I think there are no arches under that room. Did you contract for any work at Buckingham Palace; to do work, not for a specific sum, but with reference to a per centage under the Board of Works prices?—No, never. Was there any discussion with you at the time you came to have your bill paid, that you ought to work at ten per cent under the Board of Works prices?—Never; the w'ay I was situated at the time l came in as a tradesman to that Palace, was this ; I considered I was subject to all the deductions of other tradesmen from the Board of Works prices, but I believe it was seven and a half per cent deducted from the miscellaneous accounts. Have the Board of Works ever altered vour contract, so as to increase Mr. Nash’s prices?—Not to my recollection. Did you ever examine the under piers of the basement stories, with a view to the safety of the building?—Never. Is there a great deal of carpentry w^ork wanting, to render the Palace fit for the reception of furniture ?—I think not. You have not assisted Mr. Nash in preparing an Estimate of the carpenter’s work necessary to render it fit for the reception of furniture ?—No. Did you put down the floors on the basement story ?•—No, I did not. Was the contract, with respect to the mahogany doors, in gross, or how was it ?— It was not exactly a contract in gross, and yet it was for these doors we originally- put so much per foot; they valued them at so much per door, and made them a contract in gross afterwards, and they came to 2,099/. 1 there were thirteen doors, of so many feet, and the result came to so much for the double doors, and so much for the single doors. Mr. Thomas Martyr , called in ; and Examined. »• WHAT are you ?—A carpenter and joiner. Where do you reside ?—At Greenwich. Did you offer any tender to Mr. Nash for performing any part of the carpenter and joiner’s work at Buckingham Palace?—Mr. Nash applied to me in the first instance, and told me that he intended me to do the carpenter’s and joiner’s work of a certain portion of the building. What portion did he offer to you ?—He pointed out certain portions in the centre part I was to do. What portion were you to do; Mr. Harrison has stated he was employed to do some?—Yes, he was employed after me. What part of the joiner’s work did you perform ?—Various parts of it. What were the terms of your contract with Mr. Nash?—When I commenced work there ? Was your contract verbal ?—‘The contract ultimately made was, I think, verbal. What was your first contract?—When I was first employed, there was no contract q2Q. K 3 entered Mr. George Harrison. 18 March, 1831. Mr. Thomas Martyr. 114 78 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr, Thomas Martyr. 18 March, 1831. entered into between us. Mr. Nash asked me upon what terms I would do it; I said until 1 was aware of the nature of the work, it was difficult for me to decide; and previously to any thing being concluded between Mr. Nash and me, I began working such small portions as I was ordered to do ; and at the conclusion of the > first quarter’s works, when my quarter’s accounts were in course of payment, 1 was asked at the Office of Works, where I was to receive my money, what I expected to be paid, what agreement I had made; I said I had not entered decidedly into any contract with Mr. Nash; he had questioned me about it, I had not stated any particular terms, but it was left as a matter of consideration; that it was my duty to have gone to Mr. Nash, and to have stated it to him. I did not do so till I was called upon, as I have stated before, by the Office of Works. When were you called upon?—The first quarter’s accounts that were paid. When was that?—I cannot recollectimm diately. Was it the beginning of 1826?—Yes, I think it was; it was somewhere about that time; 1 believe they were the first accounts that were brought into payment for the Palace; I was desired to go to Mr. Nash, and come to some understanding with him. Who desired you?'—The Surveyor-General, General Stephenson; he was in the Office at the time. I went to Mr. Nash, and told him the Surveyor General had refused to settle my account, and there was some difficulty about it, till we came to some decided agreement. Mr. Nash considered he had made some agreement with me, and that I had agreed to do the work at ten per cent under the Office of Works price, the same as some other men had done. That you refused to assent to ?—I said that was not the case, certainly, though he certainly had questioned me more than once as to what I expected, or on what terms I was to work. Did you refuse to have your work valued by any other tradesman, when it was proposed to you by the Board of Works?—I have no recolletion of being asked that question. Did they not propose to you that your work should be valued and priced by some other person?—No, I have no recollection of it. What was the result?—I went to Mr. Nash, and I agreed, as other carpenters had agreed to do it for ten per cent under the prices, that I would do so too; and I further said, though there was no agreement fixed between us, I did not expect I should be paid better terms than were paid to those persons with whom he had made the agreement. Were you paid ten per cent under the Board of Works prices?—Yes. After some hesitation on your part?—I did not object to do it for those terms. How much longer did you continue to work at the Palace after this discussion took place?—CJp to the period of the work stopping. Did you not say you were succeeded by Mr. Harrison ?—No, he M as em¬ ployed as well as myself; Mr. Harrison was introduced, and did other portions of the work. You did certain portions of the u 7 ork?—Yes, such as were given me, I not knowing what I was to do. For such vvorks you were paid ten per cent under the Board of Works prices? —Yes, except on some occasions works were pointed out by competition between certain of us, Mr. Harrison and myself, and one or two others introduced at different periods, in the same trade; upon those occasions there was a competition, and the work described by specification and drawing, and those wffio would do it for the smallest sum, their tender was accepted; there was also work done by compe¬ tition for price. Did you enter into any contract to perform any carpentry work in gross ?—In the way I have described. Taking so much money for laying down such a floor?—Yes, I did ; the specifi¬ cation and drawing described a certain quantity of work to be done in gross, and I put in a lump sum for it. Is there any money due to you at present ? —Yes, there is. What is the amount above 6,000/.?—I am not prepared to say precisely, but I think it is above 6,000/. Is there any dispute between you and the Board of Works, as to the amount due to you?—None, that I am aware of. For that 6,000 /., has all the work been delivered and executed, or is it for any works now in progress ?—There were certain works commenced, that are not all completed; 115 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. completed; it includes that that was completed, and the principal part of the materials for that which was to be done. It does not include the finishing of all the works given to you to execute?—No ; the 6,000/. or the sum due to me, (I do not commit myself to the precise sum,) includes every demand of all sorts I have for work done at Buckingham Palace, till Mr. Nash stopped the works and materials prepared for the same. Is there any of your work finished but not put up ?—Yes. Any considerable portion?—Yes; there are wainscoat floors, the boards are pre¬ pared and are there ; those are not laid. The expense of laying those floors is included in the sum of 6,000/. ?—No ; the expense of that positively done, and the materials that are prepared for the rest. Have you ever formed any estimate of what it would take to complete all the car¬ penter’s works at the New Palace, as originally intended by specification?—I have not the slightest knowledge of what the original works were. Of the works that you undertook to do, have you made any calculation how much it would take to complete those works?—No, I am not prepared to say that. Have you assisted Mr. Nash to prepare the last Estimates he has delivered in ?—- No, certainly not. Did he first consult you in the preparation of his Estimates ?—No. Did he ever ask you at any period the sum of money due to you?—No; I have no recollection. If Mr. Nash had asked you on the 17th of May 1829, to give him a rough account of what you considered due to you, of the work in progress, could you have done it ?—I could have made a calculation, and 1 will not say he did not do it. Within a few hundred pounds?—Yes. Are you a timber merchant?—No, I am not. Did you ever buy any timber of Mr. Nash?—No. Did he ever offer you any?—No, neither directly or indirectly. Did you ever purchase any materials of Mr. Nash?—None of any kind. Or any houses?—No. Were your specifications shown to General Stephenson?—I do not know. You were paid by the same mode as others, and received ten per cent under the Board of Works prices?—Those that were not contracts for a gross sum were paid for at ten per cent under the Board of Works price. Upon which do you think the greatest profits accrued, those paid for in gross, or those according to the Board of Works price?—I cannot say; it must depend entirely upon the nature of the work, and what facilities there were. Were any alterations made in the contracts made between you and Mr. Nash, so as to increase the amount of your charges?—No, I have no recollection of any thing of the kind. Your bill was not increased by any alteration made by the Board of Works?— That I cannot take upon me to say ; if the various articles charged were what I con¬ sidered the price of the Board of Works, and I put them too much or too little, they would be put right by the proper clerks. The question related to contracts made by Mr. Nash; whether any alterations made increased the prices materially?—I have no recollection of it. Have you been employed upon other large buildings?—Yes, I have. On public or private account?—Public account, Greenwich Hospital. Do you know any thing of the carpentry work at the New Post-office?—No, I was never in it, except in the entrance hall. Have you ever executed work of a similar character to that at Buckingham Palace?—No, never, as to some parts of the work. That is a very superior kind of work?—Very superior; in some parts of it, it is like other buildings; in the state apartments, and those immediately connected with them, it is very superior. Was it not more difficult to make an estimate of that work than the other com¬ mon work?—Yes, no doubt. Does the superior quality of the work at Buckingham Palace depend upon superior materials or superior workmanship?—Both. Was there any difficulty in obtaining that superior class of workmen to do the work of which you have been speaking?—No, I do not consider that there was any great difficulty in it. You mean tq say that good workmen were fully competent to this branch of the 020. K4 business? Mr Thomas Martyr. 18 March, 1831. v__ s 116 8 o MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Thomas Martyr. 18 March, 1831. -- / business?—I was not in any difficulty in finding good workmen to do it; inferior workmen are, of course, much more numerous. That consideration would make a difference in the price you contracted for ?— Yes, undoubtedly, the wages I was to pay, would influence me. And therefore, the contract made for another description of work must be made upon different data to this?—Yes. And a just comparison cannot be instituted between this and other work?—No, certainly not. What particular description of work do you allude to?—Superior mahogany doors. That is a very small portion of the work ?—There are those inlaid floors. Speaking of the great bulk of the work, sashes and joists and flooring?—Inde¬ pendently of those superior works, I particularly allude to the floors and the maho¬ gany doors, &c. ; in the other works, there is nothing very remarkable about them. Not more than at the Custom House or Post-office?—No, I should think not. The windows and sashes ?—They were of a superior kind. The joists and beams ?—There is nothing peculiar about them. —Are not the joists more expensive when made for those finer floors, than ordinary ? Probably there is more workmanship about them; it is necessary to have them truer, and it ought to be seasoned more than is absolutely required for an ordinary building. Was there particular care taken in the selection of the timber?—Yes, when it required it. Did Mr. Nash exercise any superintending power over the selection of the mate¬ rials?^—Generally speaking, I believe, there was no particular caution about it. It was left to your own discretion?—There was a clerk of the works, and labour¬ ers in trust, always superintending it; and if I had put any thing improper in it, I should have been desired to take it out again. Was there any particular care used, to see that the timber brought in was all seasoned ?—I have no recollection of any thing of the kind, because where respect¬ able persons are employed, it is a caution not usual. Were you applied to before Mr. Harrison was applied to?—Yes. How long before?—I do not recollect when Mr. Harrison was applied to, but I was applied to from the commencement; I met Mr. Nash there at the time the foundations were digging out. When you were first applied to, did you expect to be more extensively employed than you were?—Yes, I did. Could you assign any reason for your not having such extensive orders as you expected?—I never knew the cause. Did you ever suppose you had given any offence, by not doing your work well ?— I had no reason to suppose so ; no complaint was ever made. Were you ever told you should have a more extensive order?—Mr. Nash pointed out to me, on the first occasion when I met him upon the ground, he intended me to do the carpenter’s and the joiner’s work of the centre Building, pointing out the centre building; and that another person, engaged previously to me, was to do the Wings. j You expected to do the whole of the centre?—I did. Did you do the whole?—No. Did you do half?—No ; I cannot say what proportion. Did you ever say you conceived you lost that order because you did not buy tim¬ ber of Mr. Nash ?—I do not remember that I did. Will you state you never made use of that expression ?—I have no recollection of it. Will you say you did not say so?—I do not believe I did. Had you any reason to suppose that Mr. Nash had any timber to dispose of at that time?—I have no reason to know that he had ; he never applied to me either directly or indirectly. Did not, in point of fact, Mr. Harrison execute some work originally designed for you?—Mr. Harrison certainly executed work which I considered Mr. Nash had told me I was to do; and I did consider Mr. Harrison was doing what I thought I ought to have done. Did you never remonstrate with Mr. Nash upon the subject?—No. Or to General Stephenson, or to Mr. Harrison, or publicly?—I might have said so in the conversation with General Stephenson, but I made no communication pfficially or formally. Did Mr. Rolls ever make any observation to you, or did you rpake any statement to ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 117 81 to him ?—It is very probable I might say I was disappointed in not having done the work to the centre building. Did Mr. Roils ever intimate to you that Mr. Nash had any materials of any description for sale?—Never. Have you seen the Board of Trade Office?—Yes. v And the New Courts?—Yes. And the British Museum?—No, I have not seen the British Museum. Or the New Post-office?—No. Or the New Custom-house?—No. Those you have seen, is there any comparison to be formed between the car¬ penter’s work at the Palace and the work there ?—The carpenter’s work, consisting of the joists and other wood-work, are in most buildings pretty much the same in character. Taking the parquet floors and wainscoats, and the fine works?—In the Courts there were no parqueted floors. Do you not think the fine carpenter’s work at Buckingham Palace far superior to any of the places I have mentioned ?—Undoubtedly the floors; there were parts of the work in the Courts, small parts of it, that were unusual and very superior ; and also at the Board of Trade. Taking it on the whole, would not the estimate for making Buckingham Palace, including the fine work, be higher than the Courts, or the Board of Trade ?—I should consider so Was the work you executed at Buckingham Palace of a superior description to that executed in the Courts 3 —The joiner’s work, alluding to the parqueted floors and mahogany doors, &c. was superior; but, excluding those, I should say there was nothing superior. What portion of your work was the fine work ? — I am not prepared to say. Did the laying the joists to the parquet floor require much more care than the other floor?—I should say so. And therefore you would be more particular in the choice of timber and the workmanship ?—Yes. Were you aware, when you laid the joists and floors, they were to be parquet floors ?—I understood they were to be of a superior kind ; but 1 did not know pre¬ cisely what they were to be. Had you any reason to believe you were prevented executing the remainder of the work in consequence of the manner in which you had executed the former part? —No. - s Was there any fault found ?—No. ■ , To what cause did you attribute it?—I do not know. Did you ever state to any person?—I do not recollect that I ever did, nor do I know any reasons. « ' Were you ever recommended by Mr. Nash, or any of his agents, to buy timber of any particular persons ?—Never. Does it come within your knowledge that any such recommendations were made to any of the tradesmen at the Palace?—It has come to my knowledge since I have been in this House; a tradesman in the House told me he had purchased timber from Mr. Nash, that is what lhave alluded to. Will you give the Committee the name of that tradesman r—Mr. Firth. Was there any other person s name mentioned to you?—No. * ’ : ) ' * 5 w •' ' 1 i ‘ ‘J' . Mr. James Firth, called in; and Examined. DID you send in any Tender to Mr. Nash, to execute any carpenter’s work at Buckingham Palace?—I did. Was any application made to you in the first instance: I think Air. Nash applied to me in the first instance. What was the tender ?—Ten per cent under the Office of Works prices. What proportion was appointed you to execute ?—1 he two M ings, and part of the centre, and the King’s private Apartments and Chapel. Were you to do the whole of the Centre?—I understood it was divided between Mr. Martyr and myself. Did Mr. Martyr take upon himself the whole of the Centre ?—No, he did not begin for some time after I was there. Did you purchase any timber of Mr. Nash?—I purchased one small quantity of him. 3 What Mr. Thomas Martyr. 18 March, 1831. * '■* Mr. James Firth. L 118 82 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. James Firth. 18 March, 1831. v___ What was it?—About 500/. Who applied to you?—Mr. Rolls applied to me; I was repairing the parish church of Saint John’s ; he asked me if I wanted any timber. When was it?—About August or September 1825; he told me there was , a small lot that Mr. Nash had, he had bought for a job, that he did not want; I said if I can buy it cheap I have, no objection, but before I buy it I must see the timber, and know the price of it. I think he told me 6/. is. 6c/. What timber was it?—Dantzic Riga timber, very fine timber. Where did you use it ?—Chiefly at St. John’s Church, and at other Buildings. Not at Buckingham Palace ?—Very little ; the chief of the timber there was oak ; that which ought to have been timber, was iron ; w'e did not use any timber till the finishing part. Was the contract between you and Mr. Nash, for ten per cent, verbal or written ? —Verbal first, and then written. Was there any misunderstanding between you and the Board of Works ? -Yes ; I thought that it was not fair to take off the ten per cent for the hoards, as the men were striking for wages. Afterwards you did give way ?—Yes, I did ; I gave the men 55. a day, and more than that, some of them had 55. 8 cl. Is any money due to you?—Yes, I should suppose from 1500/. to 2000/.; I cannot say the exact sum. Have you executed all the work you contracted for?—Yes. You have none in progress?—No ; I had a written authority not to go on with any others. Is it all put up ?—Yes, every thing I had in hand. Did you execute all the work originally promised to you ?—No, I expected a great deal more ; and expected to lay all the floors, and do the joiner’s work in the Wings, and I prepared all my flooring boards, and had them lying two or three years for seasoning. Who did that work ?—I think Mr. Harrison did it; I am not certain. Had Mr. Nash promised you that work?—Mr. Nash was much pleased with my conduct; he said he had intended to employ me very largely. Have you any reason to know why you were not allowed to execute that work you were promised?—No, I cannot say exactly. Can you give the Committee any reason at all ?—It Avas done by contract; he was lower in price than me; I expected it would have gone on in the regular way, ten per cent under the prices agreed on. He took it at a lower price ?—Yes. You say you paid 6/. is. 6rf. per load for that timber?—Yes. Was that the market-price at the time?—Yes, it was very low'; it was re¬ markably fine, I never saw finer. Were you ever offered any thing else by Mr. Rolls, or Mr. Nash?—Only a barge of bricks, 1 think, once. Did he ever ask you to buy any thing else?—No. Do you think a contract of ten per cent under the Board of Works prices pro* fitable for the public?—Yes, indeed I do ; I do not think I made one and a half per cent upon what I did. Mr. Harrison worked cheaper ?—Yes, he did ; that w'as upon contract; there was a certain part allotted out to be done, and then it was, What will you do it for, a lumping sum ; and I gave in mine very accurately; my son made out all the particulars. Mr. Harrison’s contract w'as less than they would have come to by the Board of Works prices?—Yes ; but it is very difficult to tell; it is either robbing myself or robbing others. Are you building for Mr. Nash ?—No, I never did any thing for him before that. Were you working at the Palace when you bought the timber from Mr. Nash? —Yes, I was; I had the appointment of carpenter and joiner to the Palace for about twenty-six years. Had you any conversation with Mr. Martyr upon the subject of this timber?—No. Not this morning?—I think he asked me a question, if I had had any dealings with Mr. Nash, and I think I told him I bought one small lot of timber. You understood this was a lot of spare timber that Mr. Nash had, after some job ? —Y es. Were they spare bricks ?—No, they were good bricks. 119 ON WINDSOR.CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 83 Mr. James Western, called in ; and Examined. WHAT are you ?—Cement manufacturer. Have you been in the habit of selling cement to Mr. Nash ?_I have not. Who did, of your name ?—It was my cousin, Thomas Western. He is not here?—No. You supplied no cement to Buckingham Palace?—No, my cousin did; and I was in the counting-house at the time. ’ Do you know of your own knowledge, that your cousin sold cement to Mr. Nash? —Yes. What quantity did he sell?—I think he took one house, value 1200/. Where was this?—In Suffolk-street. He bought the house, and paid for it in cement?—Yes. At what sum was that cement valued per bushel, in the payment for that house? —Two shillings and nine-pence per bushel. What year was it in ?—l think 1826, the beginning of the year. At what rate were you selling cement at the time, to other persons ?—From 2 s. 3d. to 2 s. 6 d. was the price. How came you, then, to charge Mr. Nash 2 s. gd. at the time you were selling to other persons at 2 s. 6d. and 2 s. 3d, ?—On account of the barter ; the house was taken at measuring value. 1 he house was taken at an additional value, in consequence?—Measuring value. What actually became of that cement that was so sold ; to whom was it delivered ? —Want & Richardson had a part, and Mr. Reid had a part. Mr. Reid, the bricklayer?—Yes. That portion that Mr. Reid took, where was it delivered ?— At Buckingham Palace. b And that was the cement afterwards used at Buckingham Palace ?—'Yes. At that very time did Mr. Reid buy some cement from you on his own account? —Yes. What was he paying you ?—I will not be sure whether it was 2 s. or 2 s. 3 d. Did you ever sell any to Mr. Reid as low as 2 s. ?—Yes. At the same time ?—I cannot say whether it was exactly the same time. Was the house of a good description, a well-built house, that you purchased ?— I am not aware that it was or not; I do not know that I ever saw it. Your cousin bargained with Mr. Nash for the house?—Yes. And it was inconvenient to him to pay the money ?—Yes. And he paid in cement?-—Yes. Did he put his own price upon the cement?—Yes. Mr. Nash being willing to get his money as he could ?—Yes. And Mr. Nash was glad to'get rid of it at 2 s. 6d. ?—I do not know. Do you consider measuring value more than the regular value?—I think so. Then the house was as much overvalued as the cement?—I should think it was. What condition was the house in ; was it made complete ?—I think it was finished and fit for letting. Was the whole of this value of cement used at Buckingham Palace ?—I think it was; I have no doubt it was. Was not some part used in Mr. Nash’s own house?—I cannot say; we had orders from Mr. Nash to deliver to any body that came. Was not Mr. Nash building a house of his own in Regent-street?—Yes, Was not cement used in that house ?—Yes, it was. Do you know whether any part of this cement was used there?—I do not know. You know that as well as you do that it was sent to Buckingham Palace?—' I know r some of it w as sent to Buckingham Palace; we sent it ourselves. Was it the original contract with your cousin, that the house should be paid for in cement, or a subsequent arrangement ?—That was the agreement at the time ; the cement was taken on condition he should take the house. Do you happen to know whether there was any statement made by Mr. Nash, that the cement was to be used at Buckingham Palace ?—No, I do not. Does this transaction appear from any of your cousin's books ? —I have no doubt it does. You have no doubt about the price ?—No, I am confident it is 2 s. g a. This cement would not have been taken, unless the house had been bought?_No. 3 2 9 * L 2 How Mr. James Western. 18 March, 1831. ^_ j 120 S4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE I 3 EFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. James IVestern. 18 March, 1831. Mr. James Palmer. How do you know that?— By the arrangement made at the time; if the cement was taken, the house was to be taken at measuring value. Did you deliver that cement r—Part of it. Do you know how much of it?—No, I cannot say. Was it a half or three-fourths?—I cannot say. Where was it delivered ?—At Buckingham Palace. Where was the rest sent ?—It was fetched by Want & Richardson, and Mr. Reid. The whole of the remainder?—I cannot say that; other persons might have fetched some, I recollect those two parties. What is the price of cement now ?—From 1 s. \od. to 1^. 6 cl. Mr. James Palmer , again called in ; and Examined. [The Witness produced and delivered in a Paper .] IN this paper, in some instances, the cartage is charged gs. gd. and in others as low as 4 s. 6d. ; how does that difference arise?—One is freightage and cartage, the other cartage without freightage; some are delivered in barges, and some are brought in carts. Where was Mr. Nash’s brick-field ?—I do not know, I never saw it; they were brought to the Grosvenor basin. Where were the others delivered?—All that were brought in barges were brought to the basin, and others were brought in carts. Did you pay the cartage and freightage to Mr. Nash, or to other persons?—To other persons. You paid to Mr. Nash merely the price of the bricks?—Yes. But the prices put there are what the bricks cost you at the building ?—Yes. The bricks of Mr. Nash cost you, in fact, 95. per thousand more than you bought of any other persons ?—That is the account. In purchasing bricks, you endeavour to buy them as near the spot as you can ?— We endeavour to buy them as cheap as we can on the spot delivered ; many of them come from Chatham. Are you in the habit of paying the freightage of bricks?—It depends upon the nature of the bargain you make, purchasing them in a barge or in the field. It appears in 1827 the bricks you purchased of Mr. Nash, of whom you pur¬ chased 364,000, cost you at the Palace 2/. 9 s. 8 d. per thousand ; it also appeared, the same year, the bricks you purchased of Mr. Clutterbuck, of whom you purchased 163,250 only, cost you, 1/. 18s. leaving a difference of 115. 8 d. against you for having purchased them of Mr. Nash ; will you explain to the Committee the reasons of those differences, and whether they had any thing to do with the method of payment?—Yes; those persons that sold them so cheap were in want of money, but I could get bricks of them at all times; I never applied to them, they came to me, I did not know where to apply to them. Was that the case with Gardiner?—Yes; I have since learnt from my clerk, who knew him at the time, he was in great difficulties. Was it the case with Paine?—I believe not. Could you not have obtained as many bricks as you pleased from Paine ?—I do not believe I could ; I am not certain. Was not he a brick-maker?—Yes ; but I did not know the quantity he had. Did Paine ever refuse to send you any you ordered ?—No, they applied to me in all cases. Did you ever find any difficulty in getting some of Gardiner?—I never could get any but when they brought them up the river. Rhodes ?—Rhodes’s were always to be got; the bricks I had of Rhodes I inter¬ mixed with other accounts. You do not know the price you paid ?—I think it was about 40 s. 38,?. or 40 s. In the field?—No, delivered, 48s. or 50 s- a thousand, delivered; the first I had of him. [ 77 /e Witness produced the Account of Mr. Rhodes.] The bricks you bought of Mr. Rhodes cost you 385. 40 s. and 43 s. ?—Yes. What was the cartage?—Eight shillings. At the time you were paying Mr. Nash 2/. $s. 2d. ?—There is the whole state¬ ment there, which they sent me this morning. What is the usual credit for bricks ?—We generally make it twelve months credit; they send in the account at the end of six months, and call in two or three months. . Did 121 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 8.5 Did Mr. Nash give you twelve months credit ?—No. Is the price mentioned here for Rhodes’s, the amount charged to you, or to the customers in general ?—He has made me an allowance, the Committee will see, of two and a half per cent. Produce the receipt between the 9th of July and the 14th of July 1827, for 45,000 stocks from Mr. Nash’s field. [The same was produced .] It appears that the 45,000 bricks you purchased of Mr. Nash, between the gth of July and the 14th of July 1837, amounted to 495. lod. per thousand?—If that is the statement on the paper it is correct. You also purchased, during the same week, 20,000 stocks from Margaret Gardiner; produce the receipt for that: [The Witness produced the same , and the bricks appeared to be purchasedfor 30 s. from the field .] How much was the cartage per thousand?—Four shillings and sixpence. Then the 20,000 bricks you purchased of Margaret Gardiner, during that same week, cost you 40 s. 6 l/. delivered at the Palace?—Yes, if that is the statement. Was it for ready money ?—Yes ; paid for before I saw the bricks. How do you explain your reasons for giving, in the same week, 405. 6 d. only to Margaret Gardiner, and to Mr. Nash 49s. lod. ?—The distress Margaret Gardiner was in, for want of money to pay the duty, was the cause, she told me, for selling them so low. And paying ready money?—Yes ; Clutterbuck also stated to me that he was in very distressed circumstances. Was Mr. Paine in distressed circumstances ?—Yes; and is to this day, I believe. Huggins?—I do not know much about him. Are you sure of the correctness of the Paper you have delivered in?—No, I am not. Can you state how much more you paid Mr. Nash than you paid to Huggins ?— The statement is correct there. Martis , 22° die Martii , 1831 . Mr. Richard Cobbett , called in ; and Examined WHAT are you?—A glazier. Were you a tradesman employed by the Board of Works, or a tradesman imme¬ diately employed by Mr. Nash?—I had been previously employed at Buckingham Palace. I had always been a tradesman at Buckingham Palace regularly for a great number of years. What part of the glazing of the New Palace did you execute?—The crown glass, consisting of the skylights and the basement, and the common rooms, but not the plate-glass windows. Did you execute all the common glazing of the whole Palace?—Yes; all the crown glass work. Did you do that by gross, contract, or by measuring value?—By a contract for prices ; at a price per foot for the work that might be done. Did you send in a tender for it?—Yes ; 1 understood there were several trades¬ men sent to, and myself among the rest, and mine was approved of. Did you send in a written tender to Mr. Nash?—Yes. Have you got a copy of that tender ?—No, I have not. At what price per foot did you offer to execute the glazing?—It was at 1 s. 7 d. per foot; and higher as the sizes increased. What was the usual price you were allowed under the Board of Works for ordinary glazing?—The price is higher for common repairing, than it is for a con¬ tract of that description. How much did you offer to do the glazing at Buckingham Palace under the ordinary price you were paid formerly at Buckingham Palace for the repairs and the usual ordinary glazing?—I cannot say exactly ; I put it as low as I could, being fearful of losing it; and it might be ten or fifteen per cent, lower. Did you give in any estimate of the whole amount that it would come to ?—No ; mv tender was subject to what might be required. ^329. L3 Mr. James Palmer. 18 March, 1831. Mr. Richard Cobbett. 22 March, 1831. Has 122 86 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Richard Coblett. 22 March, 1831. Mr. William Frame. Mr. Joseph Brown. Has the glazing been long executed ?•— I began and went on as the other trades¬ men did, and as it was wanted; the skylight was the chief thing that I began first; and as fast as the sashes were wanted they were put in. Then you did the whole of the common glazing of the Palace?—Yes. Did you do the Picture Gallery?—Mine was only the common crown glass. Was your’s the lowest tender?—It was. Is there any money due to you for the Palace ?—I think it is about 250/. How much was the whole amount of the bills for the work you have done at the Palace?—I cannot say; I suppose more than 2,000/. altogether. Did you ever purchase any materials from Mr. Nash ? —Not any; and I never had any private connection or dealing with him in any shape or mode. Is all the glazing done ?—I believe it is chiefly ; there are some pavilions of which only the roofs are glazed at present; but I do not know that there is any thing material besides that is not done. Mr. William Frome, called in ; and Examined. WHAT are you?—A plate-glass manufacturer. What portion of the orders for plate-glass did you execute at Buckingham Palace ? —I think w r e put the whole of the plate-glass into the sashes, and also several very large looking-glasses in the principal bow drawing-room, and a number of silver plates for the doors, Did you send in a tender of the prices at which you would execute those works ? —Yes, I did, at per plate. According to the specification and measurement that was shown to you?—Yes. Are you aw are whether there was any competition with other tradespeople ?— Yes ; there were several tenders sent in. Had you any understanding with the other manufacturers, that you were not to compete with each other?—Certainly not; I did not know what their prices were. Had you ever executed any work for Mr. Nash before ?—Not myself. I think our house, perhaps twenty years ago, had some transactions with Mr. Nash. Had you been employed on work at the Palace before?—I had not. Did Mr. Nash make the application to you, or did you make the application to Mr. Nash?—I made the application. Have you ever had any dealings or connection whatever with Mr. Nash ?—Not any whatever. Did you ever furnish Mr. Nash with any glass for any other building?—No. Did you have any materials from him in any way ?—No. Or any transactions about houses?—I had no transactions whatever, except so far as related to this particular order about the Palace. Did you send in a separate tender for this building?—Yes ; and I have reason to believe that my tender was lower than any other tenders that were sent in, from complaints that have been made by the trade since, saying, that I did the thing at too low a price. But I was anxious to get it, being a large job, and for the honour of doing the work at The King’s Palace; and perhaps 1 sent the prices in rather lower than I ought to do. Is there any thing due to you?—Yes; there is a balance of between 1,100/. and 1,200/. Did you allow’ any commission to any person for the work done at the Palace?—No. By the accounts before the Committee, there appears to be due to you 117/. ?—- Besides that, there is another sum of about 1,000/.; there-is a distinct account of silver plates, we received an order for seventy-eight plates, of which, I think, only twenty-four have been delivered, for the pannels of the doors. Was that by contract?—Yes, it was; that was the first order I received. The amount of my claim is for goods actually delivered ; there are three separate accounts upon which money is due to me. Mr. Joseph Brown, called in; and Examined. WHAT are you?—A merchant and manufacturer. Are you in the habit of manufacturing scagliola pillars?—I am. Are you in the habit of importing marble on your own account ?—Yes. Are you in the habit of importing marble as an agent for other persons?—No. Were you not employed by Mr. Nash as his agent, in importing marble from Italy?—No; I did not consider that I was ever employed as his agent; there has been a difference between Mr. Nash and me on that subject ; I believe he has con¬ sidered me as his agent, but I never considered myself as his agent. Did 123 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 87 Did you not go to Italy for the purpose of collecting marble for Mr. Nash ?_ I did. When were you first applied to, to go to Italy ? —I was first consulted on the business about the middle of 1825 ; about May or June. What took place upon your being consulted ?—All that I remember of what took place was, that Mr. Nash sent for me and told me that he wanted certain work done in marble. When did you set out for Italy ?—I am not certain whether it was the end of September or the beginning of October, but it was either the latter part of Sep¬ tember or the beginning of October. Did you go straight to Carrara?—I did. By sea or by land ?—By land ; but I ought to say, that after being consulted I went to Ireland to examine marble quarries that were said to have been discovered there. I went to the estate of Mr. Richard Martin, in Conamara, made a survey of his quarries, and a Mr. Darsies, after being first consulted, then I set out for Italy. How long have you been a marble merchant?—For fifteen years. How came you to quit your business to go to Italy?—I thought the advantage of a very large job which Mr. Nash had promised me, was a sufficient inducement; and I thought at the same time I could forward my general interests by so doing. Was there any bargain made for a per centage upon the marble purchased ? —None. Did you go without any specific agreement?—Without any whatever. I con¬ sidered that I was employed in the same way in which persons are usually employed by architects. Did you purchase the marble at Carrara ?—I did. In whose name ?—In my own ; or the name of my firm. How did you pay for it ?—Variously ; sometimes by cash and sometimes by bills drawn on my agents in London. What is your house ?—Brown & Company. Where?—At Carmarthen-street, now University-street. Did you keep a house at that time in Carmarthen-street?—I did. What year are you speaking of ?—The year I am speaking of is 1 825. Had you your premises in Carmarthen-street in 1825?—I had them in 1821. Who accepted the bills you drew at Carrara?—The persons of whom I bought during my stay there, were usually paid with cash; after my return they drew on my house in London, and I accepted their bills. Have you got the dates of those bills and the amounts ?—I can produce them. How long did you stay at Carrara ?—From the time I left England till I returned was about twelve months. Did you select the marble?—I did. Who was it addressed to here r—To my house. Where was it delivered?—Some in St. Katherine’s Docks, and some in the Lon¬ don Docks. Did you supply the whole amount?—I did. Have you got the quantities here. J —I have a copy of the statement I delivered to Mr. Nash. How were you paid for the marble here?—Mr. Nash paid me generally by his acceptances. _ . Have vou <*ot a copy of those acceptances ?—I can furnish it. Did those acceptances of Mr. Nash fall due on the same day that your accept¬ ances of foreign bills became due ? Certainly not. ... ~ .. , „ Were vou ever in advance, or did he meet the bills as your bills fell due ?—I was always in advance; but on one occasion I pressed Mr. Nash very hard for a pay¬ ment on account; and as one reason to induce him to give me something on account, I represented to him that I had certain bills falling due, and he then consented to pav those bills for me, which he did. What was the date of this transaction ?—I do not remember the date of that; but How were those bills sent to Mr. Nash?—I will just explain the circumstance. I went out to Italy, as I have stated, under the idea that I was employed to furnish marble to perform certain work ; I had been in the habit of being so employed by architects almost all the architects of eminence in the country ; Mr. Nash furnished me with drawings, and told me that that was the work he wanted, and I was to furnish marble for it, and do it; I examined the market here, and found there was Mr. Joseph Brown. 22 March, 1831. 124 8 S MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Josrpk Brown. 22 March, 1831. not suitable material to do it; and upon making my report to him that there was no material in the market here fit for this work, he then consulted me about going to Italy, and I consented to go, to furnish the material, as I understood, to perform certain work, the drawings for which I had in my possession ; after I returned from Italy, then I found out that I had been error as to the manner in which Mr. Nash intended to have employed me ; then he told me, for the first time, that he wished me to procure the marble, and that the work w as another part of the business altogether; and from that circumstance I told him that being the case, I should consider I was entitled to a fair correct price for the marble, and that I should send in an account to that effect; a great deal of angry discussion and correspondence then took place, much of it very unpleasant; at length we came to an agreement that I should be paid a profit of ten per cent, upon all the costs of every kind, and I was to make up the most correct account I could, from the materials I had, of the cost, and allow it to be verified by a person agreed upon between us, or rather proposed by Mr. Nash and agreed to by, me. Who was that person ?—A young man in his office, of the name of Pennethorne, and I made out the accounts, which accounts I have rendered to him, numbering them from one to fifty-seven. It appears that all the sums paid for marble are in gross round sums ; what was the description of account you presented to Mr. Nash ?—I rendered to him an account of so many blocks of marble, numbered and measured at such dimensions, and then I showed him, by extracts from my general accounts, that the cost for those particular blocks of marble was so much, that the freight and duties and other charges on them was so much, and then added my profit of ten per cent, at the bottom. Did that include your own expenses of journey, and so on ?—After we had settled the profit, I believe my journey was considered as part of the expenses I had incurred in procuring the marble. What was the amount of your charge for the journey, and your individual ex¬ penses during your residence in Italy?—I cannot speak correctly to a few pounds, but it was under 300/.; I put that down as a round sum ; I had no means of forming a correct calculation, as I had kept no separate account; I merely put down what I thought a fair and reasonable sum for such a journey ; but there are also mv man’s expenses that I took out w ith me, and who is in Italy to this day. What do they amount to?—I paid him at the rate of two guineas a w-eek, which has been correctly rendered in the accounts ; that would amount to under 300/. Has this person been in Italy ever since for the purpose of procuring marble for Buckingham Palace ?—He has been there for that purpose ; the moment I had orders to slop at the Palace, I immediately ordered him home. Does the correspondence exist which took place between you and Mr. Nash on the subject of the agreement between yourself and Mr. Nash?—I believe portions of it, but not entire; I think a great part of it does exist. When did that correspondence commence?—I think it commenced about Janu¬ ary 1 827. Has it continued up to the present moment?—It was settled within a few months from the time it commenced, when the correspondence about the manner of my being paid commenced. As I have before observed there was a good deal of both angry interview and angry correspondence between us, but it was arranged, I believe, within a couple of months. Was it arranged previous to the 3d of April 1828 ?—Certainly. Gn going to Italy did you look to Mr. Nash for payment, or to the Government for payment for the marble to be supplied?—I considered when I went to Italy that I was employed by Mr. Nash, as the architect employed by Government, but on my return I found things in quite a different state from what I had believed or expected ; then I considered that I was selling the marble to Mr. Nash, and had nothing to do with the Government. Could you supply to the Committee an account of the wdiole delivery of the marble and of the cost of the marble?—Every iota of it, excepting those items, such as my owm expenses, which I have kept no accurate account of. Can you give the Committee a copy of the account you sent in to Mr. Nash ?— Certainly ; I thought that account was before the Committee. Has the whole of the marble that was to be obtained through your instrumentality been delivered ?—Yes. When did the delivery cease?—The delivery ceased about a week before I was Stopped at the Palace. Was 125 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. Sg Was it after the King’s death ?—I believe about a month after. After having this correspondence, and your coming to some understanding with him, did you then go on delivering the marble?—I delivered up to a certain extent, answering to the accounts rendered, which I considered Mr. Nash liable to me for then; I believe, in the early part of 1829, Mr. Nash ordered me to deliver the marble, as I was delivering other things, on account of the Government, and from that period I charged the accounts to the Government, but up to that period to Mr. Nash. Have you delivered the whole of the marble that has been used at Buckingham Palace ?—I am not aware that any other person has delivered any, nor do I believe that any has been delivered except by myself. What was the ten per cent, charged upon?—Upon every charge that I could make up; upon every amount that I could show I had paid or was entitled to. Including the duties?—Including the duties and every thing; every shilling that I could show I had paid or was liable for. When I found how I was to be settled with I thought it just and right to produce every thing that I could make a shilling out of. Up to what point did you charge the ten per cent.; up to the docks or to the Palace?—To the water’s edge. The custom of all merchants is to take the charge on marble up to the wharf where it is landed or laid down; I landed at Westmin¬ ster, that being the nearest and most convenient place; so that my charges are cal¬ culated up to that point, but the charges for cartage go into my regular accounts for work at the Palace. Were you employed in getting the marble for the Palace during the whole time you were in Italy ?—No; after making my arrangements at Carrara I took the opportunity of going over the greater part of Italy, always corresponding with my man, and returning to Carrara as often as my presence was necessary. Do those expenses appear in your charges ?—No, certainly not. Can you state the quantity of marble you have delivered in ?—I have two statements, one of the marble sold to Mr. Nash upon the terms I have before stated, and the other is marble that I have subsequently delivered by his order at the Palace, which I charge, in the way I have before stated, to the Government. Can you state the amount you delivered up to the 3d of April 1828 ?—No; it is up to some time in 1829, but I cannot state the date, as I am not prepared to do so. The amount of marble I have delivered to Mr. Nash, according to this state¬ ment, is 24,149/. 16 s. 6d., the gross quantity of feet is 24,263 feet 5 inches, making 2,022 tons. Up to what period did you make up your bills to Mr. Nash?—I am not pre¬ pared to say the date, but it was some time in 1829. What is the difference in weight between a cube of Italian marble and Portland stone?—In the calculation for freight we reckon sixteen feet of Portland stone to the ton, and twelve feet of marble ; but I have tried the Ravaccioni marble, and I find it would weigh a ton under ten feet; it is more dense than any marble I know of: but I have not made the calculation in that way, I have taken it at the ordinary calculation of twelve feet to a ton. What was the number of blocks in that amount?—I believe it is five hundred. Will you state the number of blocks of the different descriptions of marble?—The 500 is made up of 403 of Ravacconi, seventy of statuary, fifteen of vein and eight of Bardiglio, seven of which is called in this country Dove, one black and gold, and three Sienna. Have you the account of the marble which you delivered to the Government, as you considered?—Yes; there is a large portion of that marble that I did not import directly. I purchased it in the market here, or furnished it from stock that I had by me; it contains in quantity 4,059 ft- 7 in - making 338 i tons. The gross number of blocks is sixty-two, consisting of forty-six Ravacconi and sixteen statuary. The amount in money, is 5,691/. 16$. 8*/., all which remains due to me. Is that for working, or for material only?—For material only. Was that dearer than the marble you purchased in Italy ?—It is ; here there are two profits, broker’s commission and wharf rent. Had Mr. Nash any agreement with you, previous to the delivery of the marble?— I had no special agreement with him for price; but he stated to me, that I was to deliver it in the same manner that I delivered other materials for the Palace, and furnish the account along with the quarterly accounts for work at a fair price; •390. M and Mr. Joseph Broun. 22 March, 1831. \ ___ > 126 go MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Joseph Brown. 22 March, 1831. *- -- / and I am willing to submit to all the world the charge I have made, as to its fairness. What is your opinion as to any saving that accrued to the Government in price, in respect of the marble that was imported from Italy ?—The amount of the marble I specially imported, for and charged to Mr. Nash, as I have before stated, will come to about 24,149/. 16,?. 6 d.; that is as near as I can at present tell, it will not exceed that sum certainly ; that includes all my charge to him. With respect to the com¬ parative saving to the public by the agreement Mr. Nash has made with me, com T pared with the valuation I had made at the time I was arranging my dispute with him, that dispute having at one period gone so far, that I thought there was no alternative but my suing Mr. Nash for the amount ; and in order to put myself in a situation to do that effectually, I called upon two very respectable houses in the trade, and got them to accompany me and make a valuation of the marble as I had brought it. What houses are they?—Francis & White at Vauxhall, and Freeman’s at West¬ minster, and I have their written certificate in my possession; making out the account agreeably to that valuation, there is a difference of 11,686/. 35. Sd. in favour of the Government. On what principle is that valuation founded ?—I have here a copy of the valuation they put into my hand. [The Witness delivered in the same , which was read , as follows :] Ravacconi, not exceeding 4 tons Ditto - - ditto - 6 — - Ditto - - ditto - 8 — - - Ditto - - ditto - 10 _ - - Ditto - - ditto - 12 — — — Statuary - - ditto - 8 — - Ditto - - ditto - to — - Ditto - Vein - ditto - 12 and upwards Dove - Sienna - - Bardiglio - Ponto Venere, if very good 18/ per foot. 20/ — 25/ — 31/6 — 35 / — 45 / ~ 60 1 — 70/ — 20/ — 24/ — 65/ - 23/ — 42/ — Being requested by Mr. Joseph Brown to give the probable value of the above descrip¬ tions of marble now lying at The King’s Palace, in St. James’s Park, we give it as our opinion that the prices placed against each description, according to the sizes of the blocks, is the present value of them in the market. 26th December 1826. (signed) J. B. White. W. Freeman. Mr. Brown.] —At the time that valuation was made, a part of the marble was not imported, but I have prepared a statement of the amount of the marble I have imported and sold to Mr. Nash, calculated at the rate of that valuation. [The Witness delivered in the same , which was read , as follows :] Cube feet. In. £. s. d . J 8,l6l 3 Ravacconi in 296 blocks under 4 tons each, at 18/ - 7,345 2 6 2,696 5 Ditto - - 41 — 6 — 20/ - 2,696 8 4 1,814 10 Ditto - - 20 — 8 25 / - 2,268 10 10 1,062 8 Ditto - - 9 -— 10 — 31/6 - 1,673 14 — 2,197 6 Ditto - - 15 — 12 — 35 / - 3,845 12 6 l,08l 4 Ditto - - 6 — 14 — 38 / - 2,054 10 8 10 Ditto - - 9 — 16 — 42/ - 3 , 7°6 3 — 1,609 7 Ditto - - 7 — 18 — 46/ - 3 , 7°2 10 1,916 2 Statuary in - 68 — 8 — 45 / - 4 , 3 H 7 6 148 9 Ditto - 1 — 12 — 70/ - 529 1,107 12 6 263 9 Ditto - - 1 ■—- 20 — 84/ - 15 — 667 5 Vein - - - 15 — - - 20/ - 667 8 4 56 4 Bardilla - - 1 — - - 23/ - 64 15 8 248 — Dove - - - 7 — - - 24/ - 297 12 _ j 26 7 Black and Gold, 1 — - - 42 / - 55 16 6 98 Sienna - -3 — - - - - 65/ 8 Column and 8 Pilaster Capitals, containing about 450 318 10 J 2 • r • cube feet of Ravacconi, including labour, say £. 1,200 35,836 Upon ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 127 9 1 Upon what principle did those merchants take those prices; are they the prices at the wharf?—They are the prices at the wharf. Such as a wholesale dealer in marble at the wharf would sell to a statuary?_ Yes; if I or any other person who sell marble to consumers had gone to one of the wharfs, we should have paid at that period after that rate of price. Do you mean to say that it is not such a price as a gentleman would pay to a statuary, but such as a statuary would have paid to a wholesale marble merchant? —Certainly. Supposing this supply of marble had been put up to open contract, and sufficient time had been allowed to the marble merchants to deliver it, do you think that they would have supplied it at a greater or less sum than this 24,149/.?—I do not believe there is any marble merchant in existence who had character or propertv to lose that would have undertaken, in 1S26, to have supplied at those terms; I cer¬ tainly w r ould not for myself, considering the very great risk, the disadvantages, the troubles and the anxieties that attend the procuring marble of such unusual dimen¬ sions in so expeditious a way as I did. If it had been put to any person dealing in marble, and the particulars stated as to the time and dimensions in which they were to supply it, I do not believe there is any respectable person that would have under¬ taken it upon those terms. Considering the large amount of it, if the whole supply had been given to you, at what price would you have undertaken to have supplied it ?—I should of course have been disposed, under such circumstances, to have supplied it at the lowest possible rate, but if I had been compelled to have gone out to Italy to make the selection myself, I doubt whether I should have undertaken to have supplied it at less prices than White and Freeman’s valuation; but if such a contract were now- offered me, l might be disposed to undertake to supply the same quantity for 30,000/., if I had no limit of time for fulfilling it; but no person who knows the difficulties or the nature of the trade would be bound for time at any price. Do you think that 30,000/. would have been a fair sum for the contract, if suffi¬ cient time had been allowed?—I think it would now ; I had not sufficient time, and that drove me into many speculations to enable me to accomplish the object. Do you consider that that limitation of time involved you in greater expense?— It did not, as it happened, but it might have involved me in ruin, because I was obliged to resort to various descriptions of merchants to get freight for the marble. The marble is usually brought as ballast, and the traders from Leghorn are so few, that if I had not resorted to those means, I could not have got the quantity of marble here that I wanted up to the present day, and therefore I was obliged to resort to chartering other vessels, and then furnishing the best cargo I could to make it answer my purpose, which if I had not done, I should not have got the marble to this day. At that moment did you conceive that you were acting upon your own respon¬ sibility, and not upon Mr. Nash’s ?—Entirely ; if I had known that I went out as an agent, I should have acted quite differently. How should you have acted differently?—I should not have taken up vessels upon my own responsibility, or entered into speculations by chartering vessels and fur¬ nishing cargoes for them, if I had felt that I was acting in the character of agent, or that I was only to receive a profit of ten per cent, on the marble. What price did you contemplate charging to Mr. Nash before you came to the arrangement with him, that you should charge commission merely as an agent?— The prices I thought of charging would have yielded me a fair profit, with the arrangements that 1 had made; because I considered that I had made good arrange¬ ments, and I believe if I had to go over the same ground again, it would be impossible to make a better arrangement than I did ; and having made a very excellent arrange¬ ment, I thought that twenty or twenty-five per cent, would be a fair profit to charge, taking into account the risk, the responsibility, and the sacrifice I made in leaving my business and my family to go out to Italy for twelvemonths. What would that have brought it to ?—It would have brought it to the sum I stated before, of about 30,000/. Had you any written instructions when you ■went out to Italy ?—I had none; I had what we are always accustomed to consider equal to written instructions, that is, I had drawings put into my.hands ; when an architect hands over to me drawings to work from, it is customary, with myself, to consider that an order. Had you no verbal instructions as to the quantity and quality, or time when it was 329. M 2 to Mr. Joseph Brown. 22 March, 1831. 128 Mr. Joseph Brown. 2*2 March, 1831. 92 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE to be delivered?—Yes, I had verbal instructions that I was to go and find out whether such and such marble could be procured. Did you then, as a tradesman, go out with only verbal instructions?—Yes, I did; it was impossible that I could have any other instructions under the circumstances, even if I had asked for them ; but it is not customary to ask for instructions beyond that of having drawings put into our hands; but when I went out to Italy, I was to make a statement of what marbles there were to be had, and what was the character and quality of them, and to get general information, which I did ; that applied to the arch. Who did you make those reports to ?—To Mr. Nash. When?—I think my first statement to him must have been in the early part of December 1825. What is your precise business ?—Marble merchant and scagliola manufacturer. How long have you been in business ?—About sixteen years. Uninterruptedly?—Yes; with the exception of three months in 1820, I was then out of business. Have you lived at Carmarthen-street all the time?—No; I once lived in the New Road, about 400 yards from where I now reside. Have you a partner ?—No, I have not now, but I had at the time I lived in the New Road. Did you buy the marble of a factor or of a quarrier ?—Sometimes one and sometimes the other; after I left Italy myself, I then appointed a regular agent, that is, I took out a man of my owm from this country to take my orders, and mark such marble as was proper after I left. Is the whole 24,000/. paid?—Yes, as far as concerns any payment in Italy. I have brought a letter from my general agents at Leghorn to my house in London ; it is dated the 24th of December 1830, and I will read this extract, to show that I have paid every thing. “ Being at the end of the year, w^e remit you our small account with our house of Leghorn, amounting to 484 francisconi and six pauls, and have drawn upon you a small bill of 107/. 135. qd. at thirty days, to the orders of Messrs. Heath, Son, Furz & Delarne, w'hich we beg of you to honour, awaiting your commands,” and so forth ; that is at the end of the year 1830, and here is the bill referred to [producing //.] Is that the only house you paid through?—While I was in Italy I bought at the quarries and paid myself, but I found that the man I had taken out with me was not competent to contend with the Italians, and therefore I found it necessary to put myself into the hands of a respectable house at Leghorn, the house of Moses Ascoli & Sons, and to let my man be employed only in selecting the marble at the quarries, such as I directed him as to dimensions, and approving of it as to quality, and attending to the measurement of it; and the moment that was done, the marble was consigned to this house, with whom I had made a contract at Leghorn, and by them it was shipped for me. Who agreed as to the price ?—I entered into a contract while there which I have now in my possession. Were the bills drawn upon you in London?—Yes ; that is the form of the bills drawn [producing oncd\ Through what house were bills paid in London ?—Some through my bankers, Barclay & Company, Lombard-street, and some through my agents, Elmslie&Stooks, Old Jewry. How w'as the quantity separated that you bought for yourself and what you bought for Mr. Nash?—I never made any separation. Did you take your choice in the docks?—It happened that a very little choice has been made, for the Ravacconi is a marble that there is not much consumption for in this country. Generally speaking, the whole of that marble that I have imported has been delivered at the Palace, because there is no demand for it; otherwise, such was the dispute between Mr. Nash and me upon the subject, that had there been any other market for it when I arrived in London, Mr. Nash should not have had a block of it; but there was no market, and I must have been completely sacrificed if I had not acceded to his terms. What marble did you purchase on your own account?—I purchased all the marble on my own account, but for private or general use I purchased vein, sta¬ tuary, sienna and dove, for those marbles there is a general demand. Plave you vouchers for all the marble to the amount you have stated ?—Every time ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 129 93 time when a block of marble has gone to the Palace I have had two tickets sent, one kept at the Palace and one came to me. Who checked the amount received ?—The marble was checked by what they call a labourer in trust at the Palace, and measured by the surveyor. Were the blocks of one description as to size ?—No, of all sizes. What was the largest ?—The largest was twenty-eight feet in length, and I think it weighed thirty tons. How much have you received altogether, on account of the marble you have sup¬ plied for the Palace?—The amount I have actually received of Mr. Nash is 22,815/. \is. 4 d. When was the last portion of that paid?—Some time in 1830 ,1 believe. Why has not the remainder been paid ?—I have made many applications for it, and have never been able to get any thing. With respect to Mr. Nash, the balance that is due from him, I believe he is willing to pay. Is the sum due to you from Mr. Nash on account of the marble, the difference between 22,815/. 11s. 4 d. and 24,149/. i6a*. 6 d., amounting to 1,234/. 55. 2 d.? —Yes. Is that sum of 22,000/. all you have received on account of marble?—Yes. What is the amount due to you for marble ?—I cannot give the exact amount to a farthing, because I do not know what the balance due from Mr. Nash is, inas¬ much as it cannot be made up till my man arrives from Italy ; but according to the nearest calculation I can make, the money due to me now for marble is about 7,000/. Is that independent of the labour of fixing and so on ?—It is independent of all labour ; for the material only. Was the duty that was due upon the marble returned to you, and were you re¬ quired to make an abatement in the price accordingly?—It was; I always gave credit for the amount of the duty when 1 received it; it was generally some time before I got a return of the duty, because I had to get a regular schedule of the marble made out and signed by Mr. Nash, before I could receive the return duty; when received, I gave credit for it in the following account. Then the 24,149/. 165. 6 d. is the price of the marble, deducting the duty returned ?—No, it is including the duty, because I have received the amount of return duty as a part of my payment. The accounts rendered by me include the duty paid on the marble; in payment of which Mr. Nash has given me so much in his bills, and I have received the return duty, giving credit for that as so much cash ; the amount therefore remains as originally delivered, including the duty. How long were you generally before you got the duty back ?—I got it back gene¬ rally about four months after paid. Have you the Custom-house duplicates ?—I can produce them; I have not got them with me. At the time when the Estimate you have delivered in was made by White & Freeman in December 1826, was there any difference in price, as compared with the period when you purchased the marble in Italy?—I think marble was, if any thing, rather cheapened at that period from the date of 1825, when I set out. At the time when that estimate was made by White and Freeman, was the whole of the marble arrived ?—No, it was not; and the calculation I have given in, I had made up two days ago, applying their prices to the quantities delivered. Can you furnish the Committee with a statement of the market prices of those different kinds of marble, at the periods when this delivery was made?—There is no such marble as this brought into the market, and therefore I have no authority but this valuation. What is the waste in marble in cutting it for columns ?—The waste in cutting it for columns, I think would be about one-third. Could any estimate be made now on measuring the work, of the quantity imported?—It could be done, but it would be attended with great expense and labour ; and be a very uncertain result Do you know what was the price of the Board of Works, at per foot, for marble? —No. If you were able to make an Estimate of the quantity from the drawings, could not a much more correct Estimate be formed by inspecting the marble works at the Palace itself?—No ; it could only be arrived at by the same authority that is now in existence; namely, by referring to the surveyor’s books who measured the dif¬ ferent courses as thev went up. M 3 Of Mr. Joseph Brown. 22 March, 1831. i 130 v_ 94 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Joseph Broun. 22 March, 1831. Of what thickness is the marble in the arch P—It is of all thicknesses; it could not be put on to make good work of one thickness. By making a survey of the actual work done, coupled with the surveyor’s books, might not a very accurate Estimate be tormed of the quantity of marble in the block required for the whole of that work?—The actual quantity consumed, I think might be ascertained from the surveyor’s books, but it could not be obtained in any other way than by taking the whole to pieces ; but a reference to the surveyor’s books would produce an accurate result, making a proper allowance for waste, excepting in cases of pavement or other work where only the surface is shown in their books ; but that is only in a few instances; generally the cube quantity may be obtained. What has been done with the chippings of the marble?—They are on the ground at the Palace; there has never been a morsel removed from the ground. Are they convertible to any purpose?—No; but there is an immense quantity of marble there that will, at the end of the business, be convertible by sale, and some of it will fetch a large price, it being very good. You have stated that in pillars there is a waste of one-third, would not it have been more advantageous to have had the pillars made at the quarries?—Many of the interior pillars were scabelled at the quarries. When you purchase the marble, do you try it first by sawing a portion of it?— In cases of statuary, that is very important, and I had almost all the statuary sawed in Italy. Was the marble you bought chiefly stock on hand or new workings?—I bought it all new from the quarries ; the Ravacconi was chiefly taken out of the quarry after I was there. They do not keep a great quantity of it ready for sale at the Marina, inasmuch as there is no sale for it in this country, and for France they have quarries of their own. Was all the marble that you have charged to Mr. Nash and the Government conveyed to Buckingham Palace?—I believe every inch of what I have charged has been delivered. Did you fix the arch yourself?—It was done under my superintendance and directions. Is this the first work you ever did as a mason?—No, not by some thousands ; it is the first work in marble of that magnitude that I have done, but I have been in the habit of being employed by noblemen and gentlemen in all parts of England ; I think there is hardly a county in England in which I have not been employed. Have you executed many of the chimney pieces for the Palace?—I have a great many; all that may be considered the inferior chimney pieces, and some of the best. Where are they?—They are all at the Palace, except those for the Picture Gallery. Can you state what is due to you on the scagliola account?—I cannot state the particulars, but I think in the gross there is about 26,000/. owing to me for works done and in progress; there is only a portion of that for the scagliola; the greater part of it is for labour to the arch and various materials supplied by me, also labour on the marble for the interior. I do not state the sum of 26,000/. as an absolute or settled sum, because some parts of the accounts are unsettled, and there is a dif¬ ference of opinion between me and Mr. Nash as to the value of some parts of the work. Have you copies of the reports you made to Mr. Nash from Italy?—I have not; I had no regular letter book with me, and I made no correct copies ; I per¬ haps may have some of them, but not a continued series. You say you have been usually employed by architects in this manner?—I have. Therefore, when those instructions were given by Mr. Nash, you were not asto¬ nished at them?—Not at all; it was quite as regular as business of that nature is usually done. I could produce a hundred similar things from other respectable architects, high in the profession. Did you ever go to Italy before?—No. You had never before had any order to the same extent as this?—No. And the extent of this order induced you to go to Italy, in order to procure the article at the cheapest rate?—Yes. And you thought that whatever price you paid in Italy you would be able to get a profit upon it here?—I always expected that I was going to have a fair and rea¬ sonable profit; I never expected to have an extravagant profit, but I always excepted ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 131 95 expected that I was to do the work, and to have a reasonable and fair profit, both on the material and the labour. Did you expect to do the sculpture?—I expected to do the sculpture to the chimney pieces, and all the marble-work for the Palace, but when I came back I found that was not to be the case; I never expected to do the sculpture for the Arch. Was it your intention to have charged the work separately from the materials, or the materials and the work together?—It was entirely a matter of indifference with me, but I supposed that a fair price would be settled for the material and the labour, and that I should be allowed for it in the same manner that I am for other material that I furnish ; I thought I should be allowed so much per foot for the material used in the building, and so much for the labour. Did you conceive that the cheaper you got the marble the greater profit you would obtain by it?—Certainly, I did. Did you take pains to get it at the cheapest possible rate ?—Yes, I took as much pains as any person could take; that was the impression that I had when I went out. And during the whole time you were in Italy you entertained the idea that the cheaper you obtained it the greater profit you would have?—Yes. And upon that cheap rate you obtained a profit of ten per cent. ?—I did. Have you had any direct or indirect advantage beyond that ten per cent. ?—Not a single farthing* Then that ten per cent, was the only profit you had for your time and your labour for a twelvemonth ?—Yes, for five years, for it began in 1825 and ended in 1830. Was the 300/. for your expenses included in the ten per cent.?—No, I had the 300/. for my expenses and the ten per cent, upon it; I considered that as part of the cost. You say that the calculation which was made of the difference between the sum you charged and the sum that you thought was the real value of the marble was about 11,000/., was that a demand you were prepared to advance in a court of law if you had gone there?--Yes, I had the valuation prepared for that express purpose. Was it more difficult to obtain this large quantity of rare marble in a short time than if you had had a longer period ?—It was much more difficult to obtain it in a short time than a long time, and I have stated before that I incurred a great deal of risk and labour in order to get it in the time required. In making your calculation of 35,836/. as the value of this marble, did you allow r for any increase of cost owing to that marble being wanted in a hurry ?— I rated my calculation as I conceived the circumstances merited; I took all that into account. Have you any reason to think that the valuation you made in order to carry on your suit at law, was an excessive valuation ?—No; but I believe it was such a calculation, as I should have recovered every shilling of it. What was the amount of the other purchases of goods, which you have stated that you made in Italy, in order to enable you to find freight for the marble ?—- I cannot say; I have imported, during the progress of that period, many thousand pounds ; but there were other risks besides that of my buying goods, I was obliged to interest myself with various merchants, to engage them to give to vessels I had chartered, freight of light goods, because sending a vessel to England with marble only, is a very expensive operation. Marble is by no means a fit merchandize to load vessels with ; it is all brought to this country as ballast, in vessels that are filled up with light things of a more buoyant nature than marble. If your vessel had come loaded with marble only, would it not have been a vessel in ballast ?—It would ; a vessel that is registered at 200 tons, does not generally carry above 100 tons of marble, particularly in winter. Did you work the marble ?—I did. Then besides the ten per cent, you had the profit of working the marble ?—I have not realized any at present, although I had a contract for prices and for periods of payment; some of the things I have been employed on there is no agreement for, and we are very much at variance about them as to the value. Were you employed as a mason for the working the marble?—I was, because my tender was the lowest; I was employed for fixing the marble work and the scagliola. Have you done any thing else at the Palace?—Nothing, but what arises out of that, or is in some way connected with it. 329. M 4 Mr. Joseph Brown. 22 March, 1831. During 132 g6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Joseph Brown. 22 March, 1831. Mr. George Seddon. During the progress of the work at Buckingham Palace, have you been doing work for Mr. Nash elsewhere ?—I have furnished him with three pair of columns at Carlton Gardens ; I have done nothing but that, amounting in the whole to about 300/. By whom was the labourer in trust employed at the Palace, who gave you the tickets for the delivery of the marble?—I understood that he was a person employed by the Board of Works. Have you reason to believe that a man of the name of Grellier, before you went to Italy, made an estimate of the marble that would be wanted at Buckingham Palace?—An estimate of prices, not in gross; I believe it w-as obtained by Messrs. Freeman. Did you communicate that estimate which you supposed was made by Grellier to Mr. Nash ?—I never knew what that estimate was, because I had never seen it, but I think it is more than probable that I stated to Mr. Nash, that the Messrs. Freeman had such an estimate in their possession, and which was delivered to them about the year 1825. I know nothing more about it, than that Messrs. Freeman said in my presence more than once, twice or thrice, that they, some time in the year 1825, had applied to Grellier for an estimate, and had obtained an estimate from him. Mr. George Seddon , called in ; and Examined. YOU belong to the firm of Morell & Seddon ?—Yes. Did you make at Buckingham Palace one of the parquette floors ?—We did for the bay drawing-room ; it w r as made with satin-wood and white holly. What was the cost of it ?—One thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight pounds. Does that include the whole expense?—No ; there was the expense of laying it down besides; the total of the amount delivered is 2,187/. 35.; that is all that has been delivered ; there has been something done since ; it has been waxed, and the wax was scraped off afterwards, and there has been thirty or forty pounds more. Has that account been paid ?—No, it is still due. Was this done bv contract?—No ; Mr. Nash asked me if I could tell him what the price would be; I told him it was perfectly impossible, but that I conceived it would be so much money; the amount it has come to is less than what I told him 1 thought it w'ould come to ; he said, if you cannot tell me the price, I cannot give you the order. I said I had rather decline the contract than do it in that w'ay, because, if I gave a price too low-, I must then omit something, in order to bring myself home. Then, about three months after, he sent me an order to do it; I told him if it could be done at a less price, I should be bound in honour to do it as low as I could. What is the price per foot?—I think it is about 24 s. per foot; I told him origi¬ nally it would be about 25 s. per foot. Are you accustomed to lay down wainscot floors?—We never have done so. Were you applied to to make any of the parquette floors for the other rooms? —No. Was it possible to make an estimate of the amount ?—No ; it was impossible to make an accurate estimate, and if you make an estimate and you make it too low, you are obliged in all cases of contract to bring yourself home, to see where you can leave out work. Now' if the greatest pains had not been taken with it it would have all gone to pieces. As it is now would it bear much walking over by large companies?—I should think at fifty years hence it would be as good as it is now; you might drive car¬ riages over it when properly laid down ; it is not permanently laid down yet. How much is due to you ?—About 2,200/. What will it come to when it is permanently laid down?—I should think about 2,400/. Will not that be more than 24 s. a foot?—Yes; but it has been taken up and down once or twice. What was the extra expense of laying it down that His Majesty might see the effect of it?—It cost 53/. 16s. for the laying down for His Majesty, and then aftenvards it was taken up again. I represented to Mr. Nash that if it was suf¬ fered to remain in that state I would not be answerable for it not flying to pieces, the rooms were then so damp, and after that we laid it down a second time. How much did that come to?—One hundred and thirty-eight pounds nine shillings. O Then ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 97 133 Then in point of fact His Majesty had it laid down twice?—Yes ; but the greater part of the work done was in fitting it, and therefore all that expense will not be lost. Then it was desired to be waxed, and it was found that the wax would not do because it would be rendered too slippery. Jovis , 24° die Martii , 1831. Mr. Charles Shepherd, called in; and Examined. YOU are the son of Mr. Shepherd, who was in partnership with Weston?—Yes. Did your father, to vour knowledge, during the time he was in partnership with Weston, contract with Mr. Nash to sell him any quantity of cement ?— He did. What quantity of cement did he agree to furnish Mr. Nash ?—Cement, to the best of my knowledge, between i,8oo/. and 1,900 /. in value. To be paid in what way ?—To be paid for a house which my father was to take in Suffolk-street, Ilaymarket. Was that house taken in partnership ?—It was taken in partnership originally. What price were you to pay Mr. Nash?—The house was valued at 1,800/. odd, for which we were to give him cement, at 2 s. gd. per bushel. At that time,* at what price were you selling cement to the trade?—I should think at about 2 s. per bushel. Then Mr. Nash was to give you the 2 s. 9 d. as a sort of barter, in consideration of the price that was paid for the house ?—Certainly. To whom was that cement delivered ?—To various parties. Was much of that cement delivered to parties who were working at Buckingham Palace?—I have no doubt of it; I am almost certain that that was the fact. * After you had broken up the partnership with Weston, did your father carry on business as a cement manufacturer on his own account?—He did. Did he, subsequently to that, sell any cement to Mr. Nash?—He did. What was the nature of that transaction ?—The amount exceeded the value of the house about 40/., for which he was to pay cash, and the cement was to be charged at 2 s. 3 d. a bushel, and he has since entered into an agreement with Mr. Nash to take various property at Suffolk-street, valued at between 3,000/. and 4,000/., for cement, at 2 s. a bushel. Since what time ?—Since the 25th March 1829. Has that cement been delivered ?—About 600/. worth of it only. Where was the cement delivered ?—At various places. Any of it for Buckingham Palace?— 1 cannot say whether it was or not. Can you furnish the Committee with an account of the persons to whom the first cement was delivered at 2 s. gd., and next as to the incomplete contract?—I could not furnish an account of the cement delivered in the first contract, on account of the books of the partnership being given up to Mr. Weston; but Mr. Weston could do it. When was the partnership dissolved?—On the 30th of June 1826. What was the price you were charging in 1829 to the trade?—To the trade, for cash, about is. gd. or is. 10 d. Can you furnish the Committee with a statement of the persons to whom the cement engaged for in the subsequent transaction was delivered ?—Certainly. What is the price at which you have been selling cement to the trade since September 1829 ?—I do not think it is a question that any person in the trade can answer, the prices vary so much. Has it been below 2 s. ?—Considerably below 2 s. Mr. John Bazeley White, called in; and Examined. ?■ ARE you a cement manufacturer ?•—lam. Did you sell any cement to Read for the use of Buckingham Palace, in 1825 and 1826, at the commencement of the building of the Palace?—I am doubtful as to that time; but afterwards, in 1828 and 1829. Have you supplied any other persons that have been employed at Buckingham Palace?—The builders, James Palmer and William Whitehead. 329. N Mr. George Seddon , 22 March, 1831. V___ J Mr. Charles Shepherd. 24 March, 1831. Mr. J. B. While . Was 134 98 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Was it delivered at the Palace?—Yes. J. B. White. Can y 0U gj ve a statement of the different prices in the different years? — In 1 826 March and 1827 we were supplying James Whitehead and Mr. Palmer at 2 s. 3 d. a bushel. With regard to Mr. Read, I do not think I can tell the first price; probably it v—.— _ > might have been a year afterwards; we kept declining in our prices. Did you ever charge more than 2 s. 3 d. to any workman at Buckingham Palace ? —I should think not; our price at that time was 2 s. 6 d. generally to the trade ; they were taking considerable parcels, and our large customers were, during this year, being supplied at 2 s. 3d. What was the price of cement in September 1829 ?—I should say 2 s.; we varied from 2 s. to 2 s. 3d. the last two years. Was it never lower than 2 s. ?—Not at that period; but it is now. Do you refer to the price of cement sold to the trade in great quantities ?—Yes, in considerable quantities. Mr. Peter Paul Grellier, called in; and Examined. Mr. ARE you a stone and marble merchant?—I am. P. P. Grellier. Did y 0ll wr j^ e a letter which was published in the Morning Herald on the 14th of July 1828?—I did. Is that the letter you wrote? [The Morning Herald of the 14 th of July 1828 being shown to the Witness .]—It is. [The same was delivered in , and read , as follows :] “ To the Editor of the Morning Herald.—Sir, We are surprised to observe, by your report of Mr. Nash’s examination before a Select Committee of the House of Commons relative to the plan adopted by that gentleman for the supply of the marble required for Buckingham Palace, that he produced certifi¬ cates of the value of the marble imported by him for that purpose, signed by three of the leading houses in the trade, one of whom is stated to be * Grellion.’ Now, as there is no dealer in marble of that name in London, there can be no doubt that ours is the house alluded to. We therefore beg to assure you that no one in our establishment has ever been called on to inspect or value this marble, or to give any certificate relating thereto. You may therefore judge of our surprise on reading this singular report; and as it is therein stated who are the three principal houses in the marble trade, (which we have no doubt is given by the party examined to the best of his knowledge and belief,) in order that no one may be prejudiced thereby, we hand you herewith a copy of the official Returns of the quantity imported by the different houses since the 1st of January 1826. Another part of this report is calculated to injure the British marble merchants, wherein Mr. Nash is made to assert that the marble im¬ ported by him for 16,000/. would have been charged in London by the trade 25,000/., according to the valuation already referred to ; thus making it appear that nothing short of the enormous profit of 9,000 /. would satisfy the merchant had the marble been procured in the regular way. In reply to a conclusion so absurd and ridiculous as this, we have only to say, that we ourselves, or indeed any respectable merchant having connections in Carrara, would have engaged to supply the marble in question at a commission of five per cent., and to have purchased it on at least as favourable terms, and probably much lower. Permit us also to remark, that in our opinion a different description of marble would have been better adapted for many parts of the work, particularly for the columns. The quality we speak of is susceptible of a very high polish, and is of a much bolder and more decided character than that used. We cannot be supposed to know what that imported by Mr. Nash may have cost; but as this can be so easily ascertained by the Board of Works, we think it would be a satisfaction to the Committee and to the public to be informed on the subject more particularly, as contracts might have been made for what we deem a more suitable description of marble, delivered at Buckingham Palace, at the rate of 165. per cubic foot. Until this is done we must be permitted to doubt whether the country has derived any advantage from the system pursued by Mr. Nash, instead of acting on the principle of competition among those who make it their business to import the article ; and we are quite sure such a plain and straightforward mode of proceeding would have been more congenial with the ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 99 135 the feelings and wishes of our most gracious Sovereign, who is well known to entertain a hearty desire that his subjects should participate in all the legitimate benefits which the Crown has in its power to bestow. “We remain, Sir, your obedient servants, “ Grieve, Grellier 8$ Morgan. “ Marble Wharf, Belvidere Road, Waterloo Bridge, July 12. “ Francis White & Co. 17,344; Grieve, Grellier & Co., 13,312; F. Joly, 8,195; T. Robson, 5,069 ; Wake& Daniel, 4,994; Browne & Co., 3,064; Harrison, 910; Searle & Co., 866; Williams, 755; G. Buckham, 671 ; De Lisle & Co., 542 ; Malcott, 486 ; J. Scott, 372; Norton & Co. 343 ; Caze- nove & Co., 280; Cath & Co., 153 ; Elmslie & Co.,* 13,020.” Did Mr. Nash apply to you to furnish the marble for Buckingham Palace ?— We were never applied to directly from Mr. Nash; Mr. Freeman made many communications to us prior to any marble having been imported. Did you ever send Mr. Freeman a tender ?—Never; it is now three or four years ago ; but, to the best of my recollection, I merely gave him our wharf prices for the marble upon the wharf; but never any price at which we would deliver a specific quantity at the Palace; we were given to suppose that the columns would be all statuary marble. Did he state what quantity ?—I think he stated that there were to be twenty-four columns, of very large dimensions, of pure statuary marble ; I gave a high price for them; 1 said that I could not engage them to be pure. What was the nature of the communication that Mr. Freeman made to you ?— It was merely to get our wharf prices from time to time, which would be a very vague thing. Supposing a proposal had been made to you to furnish marble of various kinds, to the amount of 20,000 l. or 30,000/., should you not have charged very different prices upon so large a contract, from the prices which you usually charge, if a trades¬ man comes and asks to purchase a small number of blocks?—Yes, very different indeed; when a tradesman comes to purchase blocks, he usually picks out the best, and leaves the rest behind; whereas in large purchases, where it all goes together, we should require a very small profit upon it; we never gave Mr. Freeman any prices for the description of marble that was used at the Palace. What per centage of profit should you have been contented with upon a marble contract to the amount of between 20,000/. and 30,000 /., had time been allowed to you for completing your contract?—Had it been a general order, we should have been very glad to have done it at five per cent.; but, of course, if it had required very peculiar lengths, or of very large weights, we should have been obliged to send a person over to get them, and then we should have required more. What per centage should you have been contented with, under all the circum¬ stances ?—We should have thought seven and a half per cent, a very abundant profit. Would that seven and a half per cent, have been charged upon the prime cost abroad, or upon the cost here, including prime cost, freight, duty, and all miscel¬ laneous charges ?—If we had agreed to deliver at Buckingham Palace at a stipulated price, we should have put a commission upon the price at which it was delivered, without any reference to freight; freight is an indefinite thing; sometimes it is not above 405., at other times it might be Sos. or 90 s. a ton ; we should have charged the per centage upon the article delivered. [The valuation delivered in by Mr. Brown was shown to the Witness Will you look over the prices charged in this list, and say whether you think you could have delivered the marble at higher or lower prices than the prices there mentioned r—I do not think the price a very exorbitant one ; but I think, as a contract price for a large quantity, it might have been done at about fifteen per cent, under this valuation ; 1 should have been very happy to have undertaken it at that- Making no charge whatever for the expenses of any agent?—No charge what¬ ever of any kind but the contract. Do you consider the Ravacconi marble well fitted for the purpose to which it was applied at Buckingham Palace?—It is not a bad marble for the purpose ; but I think that better might have been got. 329. N 2 Mr. P. P. Grellier. 24 March, 1831. * Imported for the supply of Bucking ham House. What 136 Mr, P. 1 J . Grellier. 24 March, 1831. 100 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE What would you have recommended?—We should have taken what is called the vein marble ; that is much harder than the ordinary marble, but is not so handsome in pattern. What would be the cost of it?—I think I could have delivered it at the Palace in moderate sized blocks, at 16#. Which is 2 s. under the lowest price of Ravacconi marble contained in this list? —Without any expenses put upon it. Is there much Ravacconi marble used in this country ?—No, very little indeed ; it is quite an inferior marble; it is generally used for the purposes of common sculpture; it is used for public monuments where it is liable to get dirty imme¬ diately, being a cheap article. What is the price, as compared with the hard marble you would recommend ?—• The price is very similar; I do not suppose there would be a shilling a foot difference between them. Flow is it purchased at the quarry ?—Per cubic palm, which is about half an English foot. What should you consider a fair price to charge for Ravacconi marble at Leghorn per cubic palm ?—The ordinary sizes, about five livres. Would there be any charge for putting it on board the ship ?—Generally speak¬ ing, not; but business is transacted in many different ways in that respect. What should you consider a reasonable freight to pay per ton?—During the last two years, for moderate sized blocks, it has generally been from 50 s. to 55 s. per ton ; but many of those large blocks imported for the Palace might have been paid as much as eighty, ninety, or even a hundred for. How many palms go to the ton?—Twenty-five. What is the duty upon marble ?—The duty upon the marble is the same, 1 s. a cubic foot. Was that the duty at the time this marble was imported?—I think, during part of the time, it was 3 s.; it was first lowered from 6-s. 4c/. to 3,?., and then from 3«?. to 1 s. What additional charges should you say were reasonable for landing it, the lighterage and so on, in London ?—I am not able to say that. At what rate do you think, under a contract, it could be conveyed from the ship to Buckingham Palace?—For ordinary sizes of blocks, under ten tons; when you get above that size it is a very hazardous business; but for ordinary sizes, under ten tons, I should think 5,?. a ton would pay on the aggregate, from the ship to Buck¬ ingham Palace. What would it be delivered for at the wharf edge ; say at the Grosvenor wharf? —About 2 s, a ton. Does that observation, that you would have been willing to have delivered that large quantity at fifteen per cent, under those prices, apply as well to statuary, vein, dove and other descriptions, as to the Ravacconi ?—With regard to statuary, that is of so many different qualities, that it is quite vague altogether; in every invoice we have six of seven different prices of statuary marble. Have you seen any of the marble delivered at Buckingham Palace ?—I have occa¬ sionally, when I have been going down to the wharf to look at marble on board of some ships, looked at it, but I cannot speak with any certainty as to the quality of it from seeing it casually in that way. Can you give an opinion on it by seeing it at Buckingham Palace in its worked state?—Not in its worked state, because many of the imperfections would be hid in the working; a block of marble may be worth 200/. in the rough state, and by putting a saw in it the next day, it may not be worth 50/. Who runs the risk in those cases ?—Ourselves; it is quite a matter of speculation. Is there much of this hard-veined marble in London ?—There is none in London; we never imported it but for specific orders. Were you ever required by Mr. Freeman to furnish a list of the prices at which you would have been willing to deliver that marble; Mr. F'reeman stating to you the quantity andextent of the order?—I think not; I cannot think that any thing I ever gave to Mr. Freeman bore any allusion whatever to it, as I am not aware of having given any statement that would bear upon this question; he has frequently applied to us for statements of our prices, from one time to another, which we have given him, and which I generally understood to be for prime marble. Did such prices as thatapplvto an order of the extent of from 20,000/. to 30,000/. ? — It ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 101 137 *—It had nothing to do with it whatever ; I never took any such thing into consider¬ ation when I replied to his letter. When I wrote that reply to Mr. Nash’s statement, I was aware what it alluded to. Do you apprehend there would have been a difficulty without allowing time for Mr. Nash to have purchased this quantity of marble off-hand, in the London market ? —He could not have done it of those sizes. What time should you have considered reasonable for executing this order ?— I think about eighteen months in all probability, but part could have been deli¬ vered within eight or nine months, and some portion of it might have been got at London. If so large an order had been put into your hands to execute, should you have made any difficulty in supplying a certain quantity immediately, so that the work might have been commenced ?—Not of the Ravacconi marble, because it is a kind of thing that we never keep above a block or two upon the wharf, and sometimes none at all; it is a description of marble well known, but not much in use. But your imports could have commenced in nine months, and could have been con¬ tinued as long as they had been required?—Yes; it being a marble of so little demand in England, it could be got with so much more facility. Is there a regular trade of shipment from London to Carrara ?—Pretty regularly from Leghorn ; they all take light goods. The marble comes in a peculiar kind of vessels from Carrara to Leghorn, and there it is shipped on board English vessels generally. Are those letters in your hand-writing ? [ Two letters being shown to the Witness .]— They are. [The same were delivered in, and the following extracts were read therefrom :] “ I suppose you have heard nothing decisive respecting the columns, from what our agent whites upon it. I am inclined to think they could be procured at something like a moderate price, say at 4 1. per foot, if eighteen or twenty- four months could be given, which is the least time we would engage to do it. The difficulty is not so much in the size as in the other qualifications neces¬ sary ; and any block that has size would do. I woula willingly engage to deliver them in twelve months at 51 s. per foot, but notone block in a hundred of that size wall prove sound ; and what few are sound will mostly have other defects. I am, dear Sir, yours very sincerely, “ 27 July 1825.” “ P. P. GrellierT Mr. P. P. G 7'dlkr. 24 March, 1831. “ Marble Wharf, Belvidere Road, Waterloo Bridge, London, 1st January 1827. “ Messrs. Grieve, Grellier & Morgan present their compliments to Messrs. Freeman, and beg to inform them their price for foreign marbles at the latter part of last year were as under; since which time to the present they have suffered a reduction of from one to two shillings per cubic foot, chiefly on account of freights being somewhat, lower. The undermentioned prices are for the best qualities of each description; ordinary being of too variable a nature to quote. Statuary - 50s. to 55 s - per foot cube. Dove - 27 s. to 28$. ditto. Bardiglio - 27 s. to 2 8*. ditto. Veined ... 23s. to 25s. ditto. Black and Gold 45 J. to 50s. ditto. Black, Irish or Welsh 1 8 s. ditto. Sienna - 65 s. to 70s. ditto.” Supposing that Mr. Nash saw those letters, and supposing that he never did state before the Committee that he had that estimate signed by you at such and such sums, would there be any thing improper, or any thing like an attempt to deceive, in the following statement made by Mr. Nash: “ But I ought to mention “ that, since the marble has arrived, I have, through the medium of the statuary, “ got the marble valued by three merchants, and by three of the greatest importers “ here, and it comes to the sum I have mentioned of 25,981/.and then, upon being asked who those were, that you were one of those importers ?—-It is decidedly unfair, because I had given no estimate and no price for the principal description of marble used at the Palace, which is the Ravacconi marble. 320. N 3 What 138 102 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE P P ir What are the marbles for which you had given the prices ? —Statuary, dove, . .trre ler. Bardiglio, vein, black and gold, black and Sienna. It was not in their contempla- 24 March, hon, at the time I wrote those letters, ever to use that marble; but I am pretty well 1831. certain that their using the Ravacconi marble was because there was a total impos- -^- S sibility of getting the statuary of such dimensions and quality as they required. Is that Ravacconi marble capable of a greater polish than any other marble ?— No; I think there are some descriptions of vein marble that are susceptible of quite as much polish, and perhaps in some respects more so, because the Ravacconi marble is of a very cloudy description. Is not the Ravacconi marble capable of a greater polish than any other marbles imported into England ?—No. When you wrote that letter, were you not rather displeased with this innovation upon your trade, by sending a man out, and not buying it of the merchants here ?— I was perfectly indifferent to the thing altogether, but as I saw the statement in the Morning Herald had made me tell a very gross falsehood, I thought it my duty to reply to it. Then you were perfectly indifferent about the matter ?—I had no ill feeling towards Mr. Nash. What induced you to make those comments upon him?—They were only in reply to the statement that I saw in the Morning Herald. Have you got the statement in the Morning Herald, which induced you to write the letter ?—I have. [The Witness delivered in the same , and the passage was compared by the Committee with the printed evidence of Mr. Nash , and found to be an accu¬ rate copy.] Did you ever see any of the marble that was delivered at Buckingham Palace ?— 1 have seen some of it prior to its having been delivered on board the ship, when I went to see my own. Did you ever examine any of the marble at Buckingham Palace, with a view of forming a valuation of what it would cost, had it been purchased of merchants in London ?—Never. When you delivered in that list of prices contained in one of the letters which has been produced, had you any reference to the large amount required for Buck¬ ingham Palace ?—Not the least. Would the prices delivered in by you have been very different, had you known that the extent of the order w ; as to be to the amount of 25,000 1. ?—Certainly ; the letter 1 wrote referred only to blocks of particular qualities. At the time you wrote that letter, had you any reference to the marble actually arrived at Buckingham Palace?—None whatever; I did not know that any had arrived. When you wrote that letter, did you conceive yourself responsible that the .marble should be good?—Certainly; I did not make any offer, I did not enter into any contract, nor did I say that I should have been willing to enter into any contract, because that would have been a different thing altogether. If you had merely imported the blocks of marble, not being responsible for their being good, at what price could they have been imported ?—I hardly know how to answer such a question; if it had been of common descriptions of marble, such as the Ravacconi, it is almost all sure to be good; there is very little difference in quality. Would you have found any difficulty in importing the quantity of marble required for the building of Buckingham Palace in the space of nine months?—If we had entered into a contract we should have chartered ships purposely. Would not that have increased the expense?—I think not; at that time there were a great many ships that would have been glad to have gone; we had at that time one ship of 200 tons without any other freight at all. At what rate of freight?—According to their sizes, from 50 s. to 80 s. Are not Francis & White persons of some respectability in their profession ?_ They are; they are marble brokers. F’ully competent to make a valuation of the marble ?—Certainly ; Mr. White is of the firm of Francis, White & Francis, and I should think him very competent; Mr. Freeman is a highly respectable man, but I should not think him competent to give a valuation for such a quantity of marble. And ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 103 139 And you have stated that the prices they have put are not exorbitant?—I should not think them exorbitant; I think it is the very outside. Do you think if a man had brought an action against Mr. Nash, supposing he could have made out his proof, the jury would have been disposed to give that sum ? —It would have been a difficult thing to say, because, with reference to statuary marble, it would depend upon the quality, and unless the jury had been able tu form a judgment by seeing it. Do you think that Mr. White was such a person that a jury would have been inclined to believe what he said ?—I should think so. When you say you would have done it at fifteen per cent, lower, do you take into consideration the amount of the duty ?—I think I should not have hesitated to do it at fifteen per cent, under the list showed me; I speak generally, but not upon statuary marble, which must be seen to ascertain its value. In 1825 was not the duty as high as 35. ?—I think it was. Supposing the duty to have been 3*. at the time that you speak of, would you then have undertaken it at fifteen per cent, lower than the price that was given in? —I cannot exactly say, without referring to the accounts to see what the prices of marble were at that time. Then in forming the opinion you have stated, you had no reference to the price and the duty at the time when Mr. Brown went to Italy, but you form your calculation upon the present price and the present duty ?—Yes. If the duty was 3 s. a foot, and you formed your calculation upon a duty of 1 s. a foot, would not there be a material alteration in that estimate?—Yes, there would be a difference of 2$. a foot. That being the case, perhaps you may now be induced to think that the estimate given in by those gentlemen was not exorbitant?—If they paid 35. a foot duty, I think it could not have been very high. And you could not have done it lower ?—Perhaps not. How much per cent, difference would be made by the difference of duty between 35. and 1 s. a foot?—About ten per cent. Are you rightly understood to say that you could not have supplied this marble at a price much below this valuation ?—f merely said, that upon being shown that estimate, I thought that I could have done it at fifteen per cent. less. I say the same now, because I calculate that it paid only 1 s. duty. Upon the presumption that all this marble paid 1 5. duty, do you adhere to your former statement, that you would have engaged to deliver this marble, had you been informed of the extent of this order, at fifteen per cent, under the prices stated in that valuation?— Certainly I would. Is the evidence you have given respecting the price at which you would have de¬ livered it upon the presumption that it paid 1 s. duty ?—Yes. Supposing that it paid 3^* duty, at how much per cent, less would you have furnished it r— At from five to ten per cent. How do you reconcile that with the evidence you have given, that, supposing the duty to be 3 s. you thought that estimate to be proper, and you could not have done it at less?—I am speaking in general terms; it is impossible to say exactly; it is impossible for any man to reply within five per cent, off-hand. Then when you formed your calculation of fifteen per cent., you formed it on the data that you are not able to substantiate?—When I said fifteen per cent. I formed it upon the assumption that it would pay 3s. duty; of course if the duty was u . a foot, it would decrease it to the amount of ten or twelve per cent. The whole of my remarks certainly apply to a duty of 1 s. per foot, the present rates. Mr. William Freeman, again called in; and Examined. WERE you ever directed by Mr. Nash to inquire of Mr. Grellier, or any other marble merchant in London, the fines at which they would furnish marble for Buckingham Palace?—I never was directed by Mr. Nash to apply to any par- Did you apply to any particular house?—I did; I applied to Mr. Grellier. Do you remember the period of your first applying to him ? In June 1825. Was that communication verbal or by letter ?—Verbal. What was the result of that communication ?—I received a letter from Mr. Grellier. [ The letter , which had been delivered in, was shown to the Witness .] 329. N 4 Is Mr. P. P. Grellier. 24 March, 1831. Mr. William Freeman. 140 Mr. William Freeman 24 March, 1831. S -Ny- 104 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Is that the letter ?—It is. Was that before Mr. Brown was sent to Italy for the purpose of procuring any, marble?—I believe it was. > [. Another letter , dated June 21, 1827, was shown to the Witness .] This has no reference to the marble at the Palace. What has that letter reference to ?—I am frequently called upon by architects, and by the Office of Works, to give returns of the prices of stone and marble; and as there are other houses that do more business in marble than we do, I am anxious to have our statement confirmed by the other houses; I perceive by this letter, that I applied not only to Grellier’s, but to Wake & Daniel’s, and I received verbal answers, which I have entered in red ink. Then that letter has no reference to the marble at Buckingham Palace?—I appre¬ hend not, because one marble used at the Palace is not mentioned in this letter; if I had applied with reference to the Palace, I should have mentioned Ravacconi; but when I was applied to by the Office of Works, I only referred to the marbles mentioned by the Office. Is the Committee, then, to understand, that the only communication you had with Mr. Grellier relative to the intended importation of marble for Buckingham Palace was in June 1825 ?—Certainly; because the order had gone out of our hands; then we expected to have supplied the whole of the marble for the Palace; in June, 1827. when this letter was written, I had made the valuation produced by Mr. Brown. Did Mr. Grellier, through your intervention, supply Mr. Nash with a valuation of the marble procured by Mr. Brown ?—I had no conference with him upon the subject. He never went down to see the marble, by your desire, to form a valuation ?—• Not by my desire. Who went to Buckingham Palace besides yourself?—Mr. White was the only person I met there, except Mr. Brown. Did you, on that valuation, appear on the behalf of the Board of Works, or on whose behalf did you take that valuation ?—At the simple request of Mr. Brown. You were not directed by the Board of Works or by Mr. Nash to obtain that valuation ?—I think not. What was the date of that valuation ?—It was of the 26th of December 1826. How much of the marble was arrived then?—A large portion of it. Could you state how much was arrived then?—Yes; I was employed by Mr. Brown to lighter the marble from the ships, and land it, and cart it to the Palace You stated that you conferred with Mr. Grellier; what conference had you with Mr. Grellier?—When Mr. Nash applied to me in the first instance respecting marble for the Palace, he stated that he should want a very considerable quantity, and mentioned the size and number of the columns; and as I was doing business with the house of Grellier in the marble way, I called upon Mr. Grellier, and whatever conversation I had with Mr. Nash upon that subject, I mentioned to Mr. Grellier at the time, so as to have the best possible information against an estimate was wanted for the marble; when I received that information from Mr. Grellier, I com¬ municated it to Mr. Nash, and I recollect communicating this letter in 1825 to Mr. Nash. In the conferences you had with Mr. Grellier, did you explain to him the great extent of the order?—I did explain that it was an order of very great extent; for Mr. Nash had said to me, that he intended in the entrance hall and staircase to have nothing but statuary and gold. Did you state to him either the quantity of marble or the amount of money to which it might extend ?—I could not do that. What account did you give to him that would lead him to infer that it would be very extensive ?—The statements of Mr. Nash that he intended to have a marbLe staircase ; he had seen the Duke of Northumberland’s, and he said it was very well for a lord, but not fit for a King; I had supplied the marble for the Duke of Northumberland’s staircase, which was the reason, I suppose, that Mr. Nash made an application to me. Were those prices delivered in, in that letter of Mr. Grellier’s in 1825, subsequent to your informing him that the order would be a very extensive one?—Certainly, and ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 141 105 and I expect that Mr. Grellier wrote to his agent in Italy for information ; tor I see this expression, “ From what our agent writes upon it.” Do you then state distinctly that Mr. Grellier, previously to delivering in those prices, was informed of the extent of the order?—Yes ; he certainly was given to understand that it would be a very extensive order. In that answer of Mr. Grellier’s is there any mention of Ravacconi marble? — I think at that time the Ravacconi marble was not thought of; Mr. Nash at first intended to have the triumphal arch of stone. Is not the Ravacconi marble the marble which has been chiefly used at Buck¬ ingham Palace ?—It appears so. What was the marble you calculated upon having a great quantity to find ?— Statuary marble. What state was the marble in when you valued it in 1826?—It was lying about the premises ; and many of them were sawn, and many of them in work. Did you not sign a certificate of the value of this marble in conjunction with Mr. White?—I did. Had you any dealing with Mr. Nash?—Yes; I supplied him with the stone that he used in his houses in Carlton Gardens. Did you make any agreement with him for the purchase of a house?—Yes ; when I supplied Mr. Nash with stone for Carlton Gardens, he mentioned a wish that I should take part of the amount in a house; I agreed I would do so, provided we could agree upon terms. I had a list handed to me, perhaps of twenty houses ; and I finally agreed to take a house in Regent-street at fifteen years’ purchase, on the net annual rent. What house is that?—It is a house occupied by Mr. Forward, an oilman, in Regent-street; when I delivered my accounts, Mr. Nash objected to let me have the house ; he said he could sell it at eighteen years’ purchase, and so I was to be paid instead. Mr. John Bazeley White, again called in; and Examined. DID you go with Mr. Freeman, at the request of Mr. Brown, to examine the marble at Buckingham Palace in 1826 ?—I did. Did you value it?—I did. Did your valuation and Mr. Freeman’s agree ?—Quite so. Did you measure it?—No; we saw an immense quantity of marble at Bucking¬ ham Palace, and the question was asked, “ What do you take to be the value of this marble at the merchant’s price, as it now lies ?” and our value was taken, including every charge upon it. We then looked round upon the quality of the marble, and upon that we conferred together, and our prices were put down. Did you estimate it as paying a duty of 35. or 15. ?—The duty, I think, at that time was 3 s., but whether 3s. or 1 s., it was supposing that the duty was paid. You took the duty into consideration?—Every charge of every kind. You having a knowledge at that time of what the duty was ?—Yes. Did you estimate that marble, as if it had been purchased from a marble mer¬ chant in separate blocks, or as if it had been contracted for by some one merchant to provide the whole quantity ?—Not as if it had been contracted for; whether sold upon our own wharf, or at the Palace, or any where else, I considered these as the market merchantable prices. Supposing the question had been put to you, at what price you would have con¬ tracted to deliver that quantity of marble then lying there, would not the estimate you would have given in have been very different?—In our situation, I do not think we should have given an estimate; our business is that of commission brokers; we sell the marble brought in by the merchants into London, at a commis¬ sion, but we never import any ourselves ; and therefore I should not have been competent to form an opinion. ‘ From- this estimate delivered in by you, the Committee can form no judg¬ ment as to the price at which a marble-merchant would have imported it?—I think that would not have governed it; we have given the market price of the day. Was there much Ravacconi marble imported into London?—Not much; the Ravacconi marble was not known in this market. 3 2 9 * Mr. William Freeman. 24 March, 1831, Mr. J. B. White. o Mr. Joseph io6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Joseph Brown. 24 March, 1831. - ' f Mr. Joseph Brown, again called in ; and Examined. HAVE you prepared the various statements which you were requested to pre¬ pare by the Committee ?—I have prepared as much as it was possible to do within the time, and the rest I will furnish as soon as I can. The first thing I was desired by the order to furnish, was the correspondence between myself and Mr. Nash, with respect to supplying the marble for Buckingham Palace. I have brought with me a copy of all the correspondence I have. [The Witness delivered in the same.] I was next directed to furnish a copy of the accounts rendered to Mr. Nash. I have not had time to make a copy of them, but I have brought with me an abstract of them. [The Witness delivered in the same, which is as follows : ABSTRACT OF ACCOUNTS. Statement, No. 1 - £. 7>°53 s. 1 d. 10 Ditto - 3,364 7 8 Ditto - 1,265 3 — Ditto - - 4 - 1,760 2 3 Ditto - - 5 - - - - - - 3*949 19 6 Ditto - - 6 - - - - - - 1,982 11 6 Ditto - - 7 - - - - - - 940 5 5 Ditto - - 8 - 1,651 8 4 Ditto - - 9 " 1,701 4 5 Error — — 2 £. 23,668 4 1 The additional charges on these accounts may probably amount to 400/. The next part of the order is for the tickets of marble delivered, and the Schedule on which the duty was returned. I stated that I had all the tickets in my pos¬ session, but I find that is not the case ; that I have only a portion of them; but the others, which properly belong to them, are at the wharfs where the marble was rendered, at Messrs. Freeman’s, and at Wake & Daniel's, and they have promised to furnish them to me in the course of to-day or to-morrow morning. The Schedule for the returned duty I have no copy of whatever; nor do I believe there is any copy in existence. In consequence of that I applied directly to my agent in the city, who has transacted the whole of that business for me, and he has, in conse¬ quence of my application, applied to the Custom-House, and he states that he cannot obtain it without an order from this Committee. The next part of the order is the amount of marble used in the interior of the Palace, and ditto in the Arch. To make that up correctly would occupy a full week; but I have made the best calculation I can from the materials I possess, which I am prepared to give in as the best calculation I have been able to make. The marble used in the interior of the building is about 600 tons. The marble used in or prepared for the Arch, is about 1,500 tons. When I say used, I mean what is already used, and what will be further used to complete it. The marble left on the ground, I calculate, when the whole is done, will be about 60 tons. Is that useful marble or chippings ?—All useful marble; the actual waste on the whole I calculate at 200 tons ; those quantities added together will make the whole gross quantity I have delivered, amounting to 2,360 £ tons. The next order is for copies of letters from me to the Treasury respecting sums due to me ; those copies are with the other correspondence I have given in. The next is an estimate of sums due to me, and the different heads of charge, specifying what are complete, and what remain to be completed ; that will take considerable time to make up ; but I have commenced doing it, and I will have it done as quickly as I can. Besides the written order of the Committee, there were other questions put to me in the exami¬ nation, which, as far as I have borne them in mind, I have written answers to. The first question that I recollect was the value of one of the marble columns in the hall; as nearly as I can ascertain that, it is about 70/.; I think they are between fourteen and fifteen feet high, and in the column, capital and base I think there is about thirty feet of cube marble. The 70/. includes labour and marble, and every thing except the metal ornaments. The next question that was asked me was the cost of one of the lapis lazuli columns in the bow drawing-room : that, including capital, base and plinth, is about 92/. That was a contract in gross, but dissecting it, 143 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 107 it, that would be the division. The next question was the cost of one of the Avan- turino columns in the south drawing-room ; that, including the capital, base and plinth, is about 113/. I was also asked when the first marble was delivered at he Palace ; it was in September 1826. When was that imported ?—The business of the docks and the discharging the vessel might have occupied about three weeks or a month. Then it was after the reduction of duty ?—It was; I never paid a higher duty than 1 s. } except for one single block imported before I went to Italy. When were you paid for the marble delivered in September ?—I cannot state when I was paid for that in particular, because there was never any one account settled. Did you receive any money before September 1826?—Yes, I have received 1,100/., which Mr. Nash advanced me on account; that was in 1826 ; I received it in England before I left; I would not go on without something as a kind of security ; I received a letter of credit for that amount in Italy. I was asked on my former examination whether I was ever in advance, and I think my answer was, that I was always in advance ; but I ought to have added to that, after the first four months, and then it is correct; but during the first four months I could not be in advance, because I set out with 1,100/. I w^as asked also when the last marble w r as delivered at the Palace, and 1 said, about a month after the late King’s death; but it w ? as in October 1830. I w r as asked also when the last marble was delivered at the Palace charged to Mr. Nash ; the last marble delivered that w^as charged to Mr. Nash w T as before the end of September 1829. I w r as asked also to state the dates at which I received payment from Mr. Nash; I have prepared a statement of it, which I will deliver in.— [The Witness delivered in the same , which ivas read , as follows :] Dates of Payments. 1826. - November - 17 - 30 1827. January - 18 — — * 2 8 — February - 12 - May - -17 - July - - 9 - August - 6 - September 27 - December - 1 - - 20 1828. March - 5 - - 6 - May - - 13 - October - 15 1829. January - 23 - September - 12 30 - October - 16 1830. March - 12 £. s. d By Cash - - - - - 1,100 — — Ditto - - - - D 550 — — Draft at 2 months - - - - - 2,000 — - Ditto - - - - 200 — — Cash - - - - 752 — — Ditto - - - - 1,200 — — Draft at 2 months - • - - 1,500 — — Returned duty less cost of Certificate - - 541 — — Draft at 2 months - - - - 1,000 — — Draft at 3 months - - - - 1,500 — — Ditto - - - - 1,000 — — Ditto - - - - 1,000 — — Ditto - - - - - 1,000 — — Ditto - - - - 1,099 14 9 Ditto - - - - 1,000 — — Ditto - - - - 730 12 8 Returned duty less cost of Certificate - - 247 6 — Draft at 3 months - - - - 1,000 - — Ditto - - - - 1,000 - - Returned duty less cost of Certificate - - 153 13 6 Draft at 2 months - - - - 1,000 — — Draft at 3 months - - - - 1,500 — — Cash - - - - 668 — — Ditto - - - - 73 4 5 Returned duty less cost of Certificate - - 147 11 6 £. 22,963 2 10 In the copy of the correspondence with Mr. Nash, which you have given in, the first letter is dated October the 1st, 1826, and it is as follows : “ Sir, I employ you, “ on behalf of the Government, to proceed to Italy, and purchase for them such marble “ as I shall from time to time direct you to purchase. October 1, 1826. John Nash. " Was that your first authority ?—That was the first document that came to me in that form ; that was after I returned from Italy. Do you mean that this letter, dated October 1826, was never delivered to you till after your return from Italy r- —Certainly, I do. When was the real date of this letter?—My answer to that letter will explain it; that letter was brought to me on the 23d ot January 1827. Mr. Joseph Brown. 24 March, 1831. _ J 144 Mr. Joseph Brown. 24 March, 1831. 108 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Do you mean that your letter, dated Carmarthen-street, 24th January 1827, is an answer to Mr. Nash’s letter, which appears to have been dated October the 1 st, 1826?—I do mean to say that, and it was written within twenty-four hours after it came into my hands. Can you explain how Mr. Nash came to write to you a letter dated October the 1st, 1826, which letter you only received on the 23d of January 1827?—I do not know how to give a better explanation than that which my former evidence will give. After my return from Italy I stated that a great deal of angry and unpleasant interview and correspondence took place between Mr. Nash and me; Mr. Nash understanding that I was his agent, I understanding that I was not; Mr. Nash then, I suppose, feeling that that was a point that ought to have been settled before I w f ent to Italy, sent me that letter. When did you go to Italy ?—In October 1825, I believe, I set out. When did you return ?—I think I returned about the early part of October 1826 ; I was out about a twelvemonth. Then supposing this letter to have been written on October the 1st, 1826, that was not written until you had returned from Italy?—That certainly is the case, unless Mr. Nash had mistaken the date, and written the letter previously to my going out, and put the wrong date to it; but my answer will show when that letter came to me. Will you produce the letter?—My answer will show that I cannot, but I had a copy taken of it. [The Answer of Mr. Brown , dated January the 24 th, 1827, was read, as follows:] “ Sir, Carmarthen-street, January 24th, 1827. “ I have read, with perfect astonishment, the note put into my hands the last evening by Mr. Pennethorne, and signed by you, inasmuch as it is directly opposed to your written orders to me in Italy, and would be degrading in me to entertain even for a moment, which I do not; nor have I any intention now to enter upon a new arrangement, but to abide by the one already existing, viz. that I should furnish the marble agreeable to your orders, and receive a fair profit on it. To enable me to do this, I have made very great sacri¬ fices, in leaving my family and business for twelve months; and taking into account the great risk and responsibility I have in so large and hazardous an undertaking, I feel that I am justly entitled to the most liberal profit that would under any circumstances be allowed. As regards your liability to me, it does appear, from the conversation I had with you the last evening, that you wish to rid yourself of it; and I have no objection to your doing so, on condition, that the authorities under which you act give me an acknowledge¬ ment of their liability to me in the same manner that you now are, as it is quite a matter of indifference to me by whom I am paid; but with the heavy engagements that I am now under, I cannot for a moment relinquish my claim on you, unless a substitute be given me with which I am equally satis¬ fied ; and under these circumstances, 1 consider it would be irregular in me to interfere in any way between you and those with whom you act. I therefore return you the paper given me the last evening, as a document that I have nothing to do with; my determination being not to deviate from the engagement I have with you, but to fulfil it in the most correct and best manner, according to my judgment, which I trust will give satisfaction. “ I am, Sir, your obedient servant, “ To John Nash, Esq. ( si § ned ) “ Jose P h Brown - “ P. S. All the original papers and letters I think it proper should remain in my possession, but may be referred to and compared with the copies by any proper person.” You refer in that letter to several written instructions in Italy ; are you in pos¬ session of those written instructions ?—I am not; I am not in possession of copies of all my letters to Mr. Nash ; I have copies of some of them, and I have some of his letters, but I have not the whole. After the marble had arrived, did you apply to Grellier to know what the price of ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 145 109 of black and sold marble was, so as to form an estimate of the value that had arrived ?—I did. Was that their valuation ? [A Paper being shown to the Witness .]—The letter handed to me was written in answer to an application I had made at the wharf. Mr. Grellier, in his letter, represents that he will call on me, which he does ; and on his calling I put down this memorandum ; he gave me this as the price that he was willing to sell me at, and I considered that as a fair certificate of what was the market price at that period. Was that after part of the marble had arrived ?—Yes, it was. [Other Papers were shown to the Witness.'] Do those papers operate as certificates of the price of marble at that period ?— Those are contracts for marble bought at that time, and of course they must be correct. [Another Paper was shown to the Witness.] Is that the certificate of White & Freeman ?—This is the actual certificate of White & Freeman, to which I referred in my former explanation of the prices of the marble. [Another Paper was shown to the Witness.] Is that another document of the same character?—This is an offer from another house, Wake & Daniel, offering to sell me marble at certain prices. It is as follows: “ Milbank-street, Nov. 23, 1826. Sir,—We have been favoured with your letter, and on the following terms we shall be glad to serve you. As the measurement of statuary occasions great disputes, we will let you have as many as you please of the largest and finest blocks, opened or not, at 45s. per foot, English, according to the Italian invoice, which we will show you translated. The dove marble, at 25 s. per foot, at which we will measure it, is of very fine quality, and large sizes. We shall be much pleased at receiving your orders, and are. your obedient servants, Wake & Daniel” On the other side of this note, I see, I made a memorandum at the time : “The statuary referred to in this note is from the quarry of Bettagli, which, of all the Carrara marble, is the softest, and altogether unfit for the purpose of a staircase ; and, taking it at the Carrara measure, would be equal to about 63s, per foot cube, English.” Mr. Nash, in his evidence before the former Committee, stated as follows:— “ Since the marble has arrived, I have, through the medium of the statuary, got the marble valued by three merchants, and by three of the greatest importers here, and it comes to the sum I have mentioned, of 25,981 /.do the certificates that have been shown to you bear out that statement of Mr. Nash?—I think they do. Are you the statuary referred to by Mr. Nash?—I should presume I am. Have you heard Mr. Grellier at any time say, that if he had been aw are of the size of the blocks that would be required, his price w'ould be much higher?—No ; but I will state what I have heard Mr. Grellier say, almost immediately after my return from Italy. Mr. Grellier being a friend of mine, I called at the w'harf of Messrs. Grieve & Grellier, and in the course of the conversation that I had with Mr. Grellier at that period, he said to me,“ Well, you have an excellent commission in supplying the marble for the Palace; had it been given to us (that is to his house) we would have supplied it at a commission of one per cent.but I did not think Mr. Grellier serious in this statement. One per cent, instead of ten ?—He was not aware what I was to be paid, because that was not settled at that time; Mr. Grellier made this statement to me some time about the early part of December 1826. You stated that there was great difference in the measurement of marble in Eng¬ land ; to how much per cent, does that go ?—It is impossible to say that; it is an arbitrary matter, and differs with every person. How' is it measured in England?—By the foot cube. Do you mean that in making the allowances for the irregularity of form, parties may differ very much?—Yes ; that only applies to statuary, because other marbles are more regularly scabbelled; but the Italians never scabbel more from statuary than they are compelled to do, on account of the value; in consequence of that, any half dozen persons measuring the same block would produce half a dozen different measurements. , A passage has been read from the evidence of Mr. Nash, and you were asked whether the documents shown to you bore out Mr. Nash in that statement; if 020. O 3 Mr. Nash's Mr. Joseph Broom. 24 March, 1831. v_. __ J 146 no MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Joseph Brown. 24 March, 1831. Mr. Pennttliorne. Mr. Nash’s statement goes to this effect, that he got the marble valued by Mr. Grellier, was that the fact ?—Certainly, those documents would not bear out such an assertion, nor have I said it. I do not mean to say that that particular document was a valuation by Mr. Grellier of the marble I had imported. Does that bear out any person in affirming, that Mr. Nash got the marble valued by Mr. Grellier?—I understood the question put to me was, whether the documents laid on the table vrere such as may be considered a fair market price at that period for the particular marble to which they refer; my answer was, yes ; and I believe they may be considered to be so. Did you get the marble valued by Mr. Grellier?—No. But you got a comparison of prices from him of some particular marbles, w hich you compared with the marble that came from Italy ?—The document I obtained from him was a document stating the prices of marble they had for sale. Mr. Pennethorne, again called in; and Examined. HAVE you any recollection of going to Mr. Joseph Brown’s on the 23d of January 1827 ?—I do not remember the date, but about that time there was a great deal of discussion, and I went frequently to him. Did you deliver to him about that time a note, signed October the 1st, 1828 ?—• I have no recollection of that. [The Note in question was read to the Witness .] Have you any recollection of going to Mr. Brown’s on the 23d of January 1827, and delivering him such a note ?—All that I remember is, that there was a great deal of discussion between Mr. Nash and Mr. Brown at that time; Mr. Brown insisting upon it that he was marble-merchant, and Mr. Nash insisting upon it that he was an agent; and Mr. Nash said, that if there was any risk that Mr. Brown had run or was running, and that writing any note of this sort would insure him against risk, he gave him that as his authority; but I do not believe that any note of that sort was ever delivered. Do you remember Mr. Brown handing back to you any such note, and desiring you to return it to Mr. Nash?—The impression upon my mind was, that I should have said the note never was written, and that it was merely an offer of Mr. Nash as a security. Do you know whether Mr. Brown proceeded to Italy without any such docu¬ ment?—That I do not know, for I was not in England at the time. Is there any such document at present in Mr. Nash’s possession of which this is a copy?—1 do not believe there is, for the impression upon my mind is, that the note then never was written or since. Can you state whether there is in Mr. Nash’s possession the correspondence that passed between himself and Mr. Brown while in Italy, and the answers thereto ?— I have got all Mr. Brown’s letters to Mr. Nash while in Italy. Have you got the original letter, dated Carmarthen-street, January 24, 1826, addressed by Mr. Brown to Mr. Nash ?—If such a letter has been written, there is no doubt I have got it. Had you the charge of Mr. Nash’s books in 1825 and 1826?—Yes, until De^ cember 1826. Who had the charge of his books previously to that?—Himself. When did you enter into Mr. Nash’s office?—I had not any thing to do with the management of it till I returned from abroad in the beginning of December 1826. * Would not the effect-of that note have been to make Mr. Nash personally liable? —Yes; Mr. Nash offered that as a security to him for any risks that he might have run, or that he might hereafter run. * Have you any recollection of having put a note to that effect into the hands of Mr. Brown ?—From that letter I have no doubt I did so, because I remember the trans¬ action of the note; but the impression upon my mind is, that it was not delivered; my impression is, that a note to that effect was offered, and not delivered. A note dated from the commencement of the transaction ?—Dated, I dare say, from the commencement. Do you believe that a note to that effect remained in the hands of Mr. Brown ?—• I believe it did not; I will not say so positively. Have you any recollection that Mr. Brown took a copy of that note?—Very likely; it is possible that he may have retained that note for a day, and returned it the next day; but I believe the note was returned to me. Lurue , 147 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 1 it Lunce , 28° die Martii , 1831. Mr. Samuel Parker , called in ; and Examined. ARE you the principal person in the house to which you belong?—I am. Have you executed, and have you still in progress, certain works at Buckingham Palace ?—Yes. Were those done by contract in the gross, or by contract to be measured ?— Contract in the gross generally; some particular articles were done by contract per piece. Have you any of those contracts with you?—Yes. You are the only person who works in this line, are you not?—The first articles I did were the gold capitals, which were done by contract, by tender, with several other persons. By competition ?—Yes, by competition. Will you produce the contracts ?—This is a copy of one of the contracts. [The Witness produced a Contract .] This is 13 /. for each capital ?—Yes, and 3/. for fixing. Making 16/. for each ?—Yes. Have you any other contracts ?—The contract for the gates and the staircase railing, was never any thing but a verbal contract, until I wanted money on account. I then delivered my account, and requested money on that account, a copy of which I have—[ Producing the same.] Are the Committee to understand that your communication with respect to the gates and the railing, was only verbal with Mr. Nash?—Only verbal. At what period did that verbal communication between you and Mr. Nash take place?—The first conversation I think took place in the year 1825, as appears by little memoranda which I have. I think in the year 1826, it must have been about September, that I made that verbal contract. In gross?—Yes, in gross. The date of this query, that of the capitals, appears to be December the 19th, 1S28?—Yes, it is so. From the month of September 1826, to the month of December 1 828, no written agreement whatever took place between you and Mr. Nash?-—None. After you had made this verbal arrangement with Mr. Nash, did you on returning home, make any minute of the conversation, so as to be able to ascertain the price at which you were to execute the work?—No, I did not, because there were only two sums, and I had them quite fresh in my memory. You mean to state that the contract to the amount of 6,300/. was a mere ver¬ bal contract, and that on returning from that conversation you did not make a minute of the contract of so large an amount ?—I made an entry in my books of the order. And the price ?—I cannot distinctly state whether the price is put down, but they being both one sum, each three thousand guineas, that remained in my mind. You have done some other works since this ?—A great many. The railing is done by you ?—It is. Was that a verbal or a written contract ?—Verbal. What was the contract in gross for the railing ?—Three thousand nine hundred pounds. And of that also you made no minute afterwards of the result of the conver¬ sation?—Yes, for that I did, because at the time that I made the Estimate, I had all the memoranda that I made at the times of the cost of that railing per foot. When was that verbal contract entered into with Mr. Nash for the railing ?—At the same time. In 1825 ?—Not the verbal contract, but the conversation that was entered into at the same time, but I did not receive the order for that for some time afterwards. Was there any objection made on the part of the Board of Works to paying you any sum on account, in consequence of your having made only verbal con¬ tracts?—No. You say you never wrote out this bill until you wanted money advanced for the 329. O4 purpose Mr. Samuel Parker. 28 March, 1831. v___; 148 ii2 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Samuel Parker. a8 March, 1831. purpose of obtaining money on account; this bill for 6,300/. was written out? —Yes. To whom was it delivered ?—To Mr. Nash in his office. Mr. Nash did not pay you the money; you received that from the Board of Works?—Yes. You must have taken this bill to the Board of Works before you could have ob¬ tained money on account?—No ; I merely gave it to Mr. Nash. Did Mr. Nash direct you to make out this bill, that you might obtain money on account?—Yes. Did you understand from Mr. Nash that there would be difficulty in your obtaining money on account from the Board of Works, unless you produced some written document?—No, I did not understand that, I was merely directed to make out my bill. Having made out your bill, was the money paid you by Mr. Nash or by the Board of Works ?—By the Board of Works. You went yourself to the Board of Works ?—Y es. Did they object to paying- you, on the ground of this being merely a verbal con¬ tract ?—No. Did Mr. Nash object to the amount of the bill when you produced it?—No. The bill was according to your verbal agreement?—Yes. There was no difficulty whatever respecting the effect of the agreement, it was admitted on all sides?—-Yes. At what period did you receive the first money in consequence of the production of that first account of 6,300/.?—I really cannot charge my memory; I think it was quite in the early part of the year 1829, it w'as 2,000/. How much is now due to you ?—Five thousand and thirty-four pounds ten shil¬ lings and fivepence; besides works that 1 have partly in progress, but which are not finished. About what would be the round sum?—I should think perhaps about 400/. w r ould cover the progress that I have made in them. What would they be w hen completed ?—The first works w ill be 3,719 /. 15 s. 10 d. the other Estimates I have delivered in to the Treasury, are 4,155/. 16s. There is 5,000/. actually due then?—Yes; for work which is all but finished, all but fixed. Is the fixing included ?—Partially, some part at my expense, and some part not. What part of the fixing is your’s ?—The fixing of the staircase is all mine. The outward railing?—That is not at my expense, that is altogether to be paid for by day-work. What vvorks did you do by competition ?—The capitals, the door ornaments. What was the price of the door ornaments and the capitals ?—They w^ere per piece; there were a great number of small articles, immense in number, and I did them at so much a piece; seven pence a piece, was the price of the little fleur de lis. What proportion does the work you took by competition bear to the whole expense?—I do not know that; the chimney pieces were not by competition, I gave in Estimates for them. For all my work I gave in an estimated expense, not a contract, but an estimated expense. How much have you received on account altogether ?—Eleven thousand seven hundred and ninety-three pounds six shillings and eight-pence. Is there any thing due to you beyond that about to be read to you, viz. 1,966 /.; is that correct?—I cannot understand that; it may be correct, but I have never made out my accounts in that way, I have had so much money in the gross on account. You have never had money on account for the separate works, but for the whole?—I have put it down for the w'hole. Two metal glass frames, 1,156/. 185.; had you a contract for that sum for those frames for the south drawing-room ?—There were four frames. Is there 863 /. 11 s. 4 d. due upon those frames ?—I have not maoe out my account in this way. You have never made out your account as receiving instalments on the separate contract, but on a general contract?—Just so. Column and pilaster capitals in the anti-room, staircase, hall, &c>, 256/. 19s. 6 cl. due to you for that room ?—I ma ke it 266/. 1 7 The next is an addition to railing of principal staircase and so on, 335/. 8$. 4 d. t is that due to your—I do not remember the sum, there are two alterations in the staircase ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 149 staircase, deductions and additions, I have charged it differently ; I have charged all which I did, and that which I did not execute I gave credit for. There are enrichments of doors and so on, the state-room doors and stair¬ cases, 2,134/. 10$. 9 d. ?—The metal enrichments on the marble door case is cor¬ rect, or it is very near that amount. There are gold-metal standards for the arch, 1,930/.?—My account is 1,950/. Will you state what is the sum total which you consider due to you, and what you have received on account?—I would not include the several articles I have just com¬ menced, and on which but little money has been expended, for that would only confuse the accounts; I make it 16,827/. 17 s. 1 d. for work done, or ready for fixing. What have you received on account ?— Eleven thousand seven hundred and ninety-three pounds six shillings and eight-pence. Leaving a balance to you of how much ?—Five thousand and thirty-four pounds ten shillings and fivepence. What are those works which you say have just commenced, and on which very little money has been expended, which you are inclined to leave out, in order not to con¬ fuse the account ?—Twenty-eight lanterns for standards of the railing. Are those included in your original contract?—Not in the acconut I have given; twenty-eight ornaments for pilasters for one of the drawing-rooms, hush and gadroon ornaments for doors, chimney-piece No. 2, and 3, 4, 5 and 6. Will you deliver to the Committee an account of the works for which you con¬ tracted, the amounts you have received, and the amount due to you ?—I have deli¬ vered that account to the Office of Works in October last, this is a copy of it— [Deli¬ vering in the same ]. What addition would the works contracted for and not done make to the amount ? —Seven thousand eight hundred and fifty-five pounds. When did you receive orders to commence the latter works ?—At very different times ; I have not yet received some of the models. Is there any part for which there is nothing expended?—Yes. Does that include any thing in the south drawing-room or the anti-room ?—It would if it was done. Would that include the state-room doors ?—There is work for the state- loom doors. Anything for the arch ?—No. Taking the aggregate of what you have already completed, and what is in pro¬ gress of completion, what would be the total amount of your balance for work done at Buckingham Palace?—Nineteen thousand four hundred and forty-eight pounds fourteen shillings and three-pence. Of which you have received on account how much ?—Eleven thousand seven hundred and ninety-three pounds six shillings and eight-pence. Leaving a balance, consequently, which would be due to you if those works in progress were finished, of how much?.—Seven thousand six hundred and fifty-five pounds seventeen shillings and a penny. For those works in progress you have expended 400/. ?—Yes. Did Mr. Nash ask you at any period to give in an account of how much was owing to you for works done at the Palace, previous to his preparation of any ot his Estimates?—At certain periods when I required money he did. Have you any recollection of his having applied to you about the 15th of May 1829, to ask you what sum was due to you for the works then executed by you for Buckingham Palace ?—No. If he had at that or any other, period applied to you to furnish him w'ith such account to enable him to prepare his estimates, should you have had any difficulty in furnishing him with such account?—No. You could have told him how much money was due to you, and how much you had received ?- Within a day or two. Did you ever do work for Mr. Nash before ?—Very little. Did you ever buy any houses of him ?—Never, You say your first business was by tender; was yours the knvest tender?—Mine was considerably the lowest tender. Was the verbal agreement afterwards entered into between you and Mr. Nash at the same price as your lowest tender?—I cannot say; the articles will not bear a comparison. 0 0(1 P " Mr. Samuel Parker. 28 March, 1831. 150 ii4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Samuel Parker. 28 March, 1831. Was the one egg gold and the other common gold ?—It is not of the same de¬ scription ; the article was altogether different. Was it possible to have a competition for some of the articles performed by you? —I should say they could not be done by competition. Was the price that Mr. Nash agreed for verbally as low as you could possibly have afforded them for ?—So low that had I been paid as in my contracts I should have gained a fair profit, but this not being the case I am not a gainer, because I have not been paid according to my contract; as in the agreement delivered it will appear that my expressly written agreement is for three months credit; I have been so much a loser by the interest of the great sum of money owing to me, that I had rather not have had the business. Are you a manufacturer of Mosaic gold ?—I am a manufacturer of my new golden metal which some persons call the Mosaic gold. You are the only person ?—I am the only manufacturer, but not the inventor. Could any other person have furnished this gold as cheaply as yourself, being the manufacturer ?—I believe not; I believe in these capitals alone the saving has been the difference btween fifty guineas and sixteen pounds. You furnished the capitals at 16/., whereas, if other persons had furnished them, they would have cost fifty guineas ?—I believe so; I have read so in the reports of The House of Commons, and I believe that is the case. The article you furnished was this new golden metal, called Mosaic gold ?—It was my new golden metal, not Mosaic gold. Are the Committee to understand, that up to this time you have made little or no profit by the business ?—I do not think I have. If you had been paid at the rate you mention, what would have been your profit? —I do not think it right to state that; I gave in my estimates at a very moderate profit, because I was promised faithfully to be paid as I wanted my money. Do you think the contract altogether, between you and Mr. Nash on behalf of the Public, was beneficial to the Public ?—Certainly. You are speaking of the ornaments on the tops of the columns?—Yes. Are they burnished?—Yes. How much per pound do you charge them ?—They are not charged by the pound. What do they weigh ?—I do not know; they were to be sixteen pounds a capital. Is there 200 pounds?—No. Fifty ?—I should think about eighty pounds, but I am not speaking correctly. Did you ever weigh them?—No. Is all the metal done for the Palace the same gold ; Mosaic gold ?—It is all my new golden metal; but it is not Mosaic gold. You made no brass-work for any part of the Palace?—None. Are the rail-posts out of doors all of the same metal ?—Yes. None of these you contracted for by weight ?—Not at all. Is there any other person besides yourself in the same trade?—No one has the same invention. Is there no other person who makes a golden metal to compete with your’s ?— None ; it is entirely my own trade. Is not Mr. M‘Phail in the trade?—His is not the same invention. Is there a patent for this metal?—There was a patent, but the present metal I use is not a patent metal. Does not the patent profess to make the same description of metal as your’s?— No; for the Mosaic gold alluded to there is a patent; the patent I have, it is not my invention, and is for Mosaic gold ; that which I work is my own invention, and a great improvement upon Mosaic gold. What is the date of your patent for Mosaic gold ?—I believe about 1826. What is the composition of your Mosaic gold ?—Copper and zinc. What are the proportions ?—On the average fifty per cent, of each. That is to make what you call Mosaic gold?—Yes. Is that for works of the description of that you supplied ?—Works of the same description. In what respects does the metal you use differ from your patent?—In several respects. In what respects?—There is no similarity between the two metals, within thirty per cent. Did 151 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 115 Did you get ail order for this work in consequence of your having the patent of Mosaic gold ?—I should say my estimate was given in as a competition between several persons for brass. You gave in your specification for so much brass ?—At the price of brass. The persons with whom you competed, gave in their specifications as for the price of brass?—Yes. You gave in your specification as a founder of brass or Mosaic gold?_As a founder of brass. Have you any objection to say what price per pound you charge for brass ?_ I do not charge for it by the pound ; the less weight I can give to the public for a distinct piece of work, the better it is. The lighter I can make it the more perfect I consider it. Did you receive any drawings or models from Mr. Nash, of all the work you performed at Buckingham Palace ?—Yes, and some I made myself. If you had detailed plans and sections of all sorts, were you ever allowed to vary from the model?—I submitted every thing to Mr. Nash as I proceeded. Where the work is in metal, it is often necessary to vary from the model, in order to execute it. In brass work it is necessary either to lacquer or gild, is it not?—Yes. Supposing those capitals had been founded in brass, it would have been necessary to have gilt or lacquered them ?—Yes, to bring up the colour. Is that the case with your metal ?—My metal is precisely the colour as it appears, there is no colouring put on to it. It could be cleaned and fresh burnished from time to time ?—It could. You say the price given in was for brass ?—Yes. Is the metal of which you make your materials, more expensive or less expensive than brass ?—Rather more. Is zinc of higher price than copper?—No. Of course the larger the proportion of zinc the less expense it is ?—Yes. Where do you reside ?—In Argyll-place, Regent-street. Anywhere else?—My manufactory is in Regent’s Park, next to the Barracks. Of whom did you take those premises?—Of Mr. Brown, the scagliola marble manufacturer, in University-street. Who has the freehold of the property ?—They had it from White & Francis, I think, who had it from Mr. Nash. When did you take them ?—About two years and a half ago, or it may be three years. Was that before or after Mr. Brown’s bankruptcy?—I did not know that he had been a bankrupt. Mr. Thomas Want , called in; and Examined. WHAT are you?—A bricklayer. Were you employed at Buckingham Palace to execute any work ?—A very little. In partnership with Richardson, or not?—In partnership with Richardson. How much did you do there?—I have got the account book here; it was but trifling. How came you to be employed there ?—By Mr. Nash. Did Mr. Nash send to you to know whether you wished to do any work at Buckingham Palace?—He employed me to do this. What was the amount?—One hundred and seventy-seven pounds ten shillings and sixpence; I believe that was all. Is that chiefly for day-work?—There is very trifling day-work at the bottom. How came you to apply to Mr. Nash to do work at Buckingham Palace?—I have done a great deal under Mr. Nash for a great many years; I called upon him to ask for employment on different houses; when I heard they were going on, I most likely called on him. Was there any contract with you to do any great part of the work?—No, only that I had been in the habit of making the drains for the Commissioners of the New Street ever since the year 1812; I have done their work generally, not all; and I put in the drains and so on at Buckingham Palace. I know I was employed because I was most used to it. - You were never employed for any of the walls above ground?—No, only the drains. . Q20. P 2 Was Mr. Samuel Parker. 28 March, 1831. V___ J Mr. Thomas tVant. 152 n6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Thomas Want. 28 March, 1831. Mr. William Rolls. Was any of it ever promised to you?—No; I went about it once or twice, but never had any direct promise of it. Had you dealings with Mr. Nash before?—Yes, immense dealings, making dif¬ ferent sewers under his direction; he was surveyor of the New Street, and I built a great deal in the New Street under him. There is not above ten pounds more at Buckingham Palace than that account. Did you not build the stables at Buckingham Palace?—Yes; that is a long time before the Palace. Did you build the greater part of the stables ?—All of them. Was there anv dispute between you and Mr. Nash when you came to settle the account?—Yes, there was some dispute about the extra account. Have you reason to believe that upon the whole you gave satisfaction?—I believe we did. Had you reason to expect, in consequence, that you would have a considerable portion of the brick-work at Buckingham Palace?—I did expect some of it. Was there any reason given you why you had not more ?—There was; and it was afterwards contracted for, and I gave in with the rest of the tradesmen, but I was too high, and I lost it. For the walls and buildings ?—No, 1 did not give in for any of them. Did you not apply for them ?—I did apply. You were refused, were you?—I was told by Mr. Nash that the tradesmen were selected and were chosen. Have you reason to know why you were refused?—No. Did any body on the part of Mr. Nash ever ask you to purchase any materials; any bricks, or any thing of that kind?—No. Did Mr. Rolls ever do so?—No. I have used of Mr. Nash’s bricks on my own account, I suppose, not 200,000 altogether. You were never applied to to take them for the Palace?—No, those were my own bricks that I used there. Was there never any communication between you and Mr. Nash, when you asked for employment at Buckingham Palace?—No. No hint was thrown out that you were to buy bricks ?—No. The stables were built many years before?—Yes. Has this bill you have produced, been paid to you?—Yes. What bricks did you use in the stables?—My own, I was a brick-maker. You said, that you had been more in the habit of making drains, than most per¬ sons in town ?—Yes. And you consider that the reason why you were employed ?—Yes; I think that was the reason. Mr. William Rolls, called in ; and Examined. 'WERE you appointed by Mr. Nash, as clerk of the works at Buckingham Palace ?—I was. Were you general clerk of the works?—Principal clerk of the works. Had you other clerks of the works under you for different portions ?—Yes. Were you in the habit of communicating with the different tradesmen, masons and bricklayers, for the whole building of Buckingham Palace ?—They knew the building was under my immediate care. Had you any communications with Palmer, relative to his purchasing bricks of Mr. Nash?—I had no communication with him in particular; he applied for bricks, and they were sold to him from Mr. Nash’s field. Did he apply to you, or you to him ?—I am sure I did not apply to him ; I think he applied to Mr. Nash’s office. Did you ever apply to either of the other tradesmen, to take bricks or cement from Mr. Nash?—Not after I became clerk of the works, I did previously. As agent for Mr. Nash?—Yes ; the brick-work was completed before I went to Buckingham Palace, it had been two years in hand. Did you apply to Palmer, or the other tradesmen there, to take either cement or bricks from Air. Nash?—Yes, I did. You asked them to take cement ?—Yes, I did. The different tradesmen ?—I do not know whether I did all. Do you remember what price they paid ?—No, I do not recollect any thing about the price. Was 153 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 117 Was Mr. Nash aware that you had applied to the tradesmen to take bricks and cement from him ?—Yes, he was aware of it, but he did not desire me to do so. You became the principal clerk of the works after Mr. Nixon ?—Yes. Mr. Nixon had been sent there by the late King?—Yes. When did you first commence being the principal clerk of the works?—I think v. the latter end of the year i 826 ; I think in November 1826. Are you aware that Mr. Nash had buildings of his own house, and Mr. Edwards’ house, in progress at the time ?—Yes. Was there cement left which had been bought by Mr. Nash for those works, after they were completed ?—I am not aware that there was any left. Where was Mr. Nash’s brick-kiln?—At Norwood, near Southall, in Middlesex. Had you ever any communication with Want and Richardson respecting the pur ¬ chase of any materials ?—None at all; they made their own bricks; they were brick-makers. You were never desired by Mr. Nash to make application to those different trades¬ men to take his bricks ?—No. Did you charge them more than you charged other tradesmen ?—No, I think less ; I am sure they were cheaper, because they would take less in number to make a rod; they were a pretty full-sized brick. Cheaper than those sold by other persons?—Yes, from that circumstance. Were they of superior quality?—It was impossible they could be better; I do not say they were so handsome. Were they not made according to the Excise mould?—Yes; but they could be made smaller by the mould if the customer chose to buy them ; they cannot be made larger, but they can be made smaller. When Mr. Stratton put in the warming machine, did you communicate to Mr. Nash that he was at work there?—Mr. Nash must be awai*e of that, because he gave him directions to begin. Are you quite certain that the bricks supplied by Mr. Nash were as cheap as those which could have been supplied by any other person ?—Yes, I am quite certain of that, and I think that can be proved by Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Lay- cock, and all the principal brick-makers ; they sold their bricks, I believe at more than Mr. Nash sold his at to those persons. Did you communicate to Mr. Nash when Mr. Stratton began to work ?—No, I did not communicate to Mr. Nash when Mr. Stratton began to work ; I did not consider a communication necessary. How did you know that he had an order from Mr. Nash?—Because I was present when it was given. Was Mr. Nash’s a distinct order to begin the work?—Mr. Nash, I believe, sent for Mr. Stratton, I was present, and he said, “ You must begin the work, using the most economical means you possibly can but he said something about the probable cost which Mr. Stratton seemed to hesitate about giving, he said he was not pre¬ pared to give it, and they were to have another meeting; but so far as I understood from the conversation an order was given by Mr. Nash to do it, and he soon after¬ wards began. Was Mr. Nash in the habit of visiting the Palace to see how it went on from time to time?—Yes. About that time he was in the habit of coming ?—I do not remember when the work for the warming began exactly. You were clerk of the works since 1826, were not you?—The latter end of 1826. Do you keep an account of the quantity of materials used in particular portions of the building?—No, the greatest part of the building was done by measure ; all the account I kept was of the day work. Do you know in any particular part how many rod of brick-work there was ?— The Board of Works appointed one man and the tradesmen another, to measure that; that was not in my department. Can you say what proportion of bricks Mr. Nash may have furnished ?—I cannot say ; I do not know any thing about the whole quantity of bricks used there. Did the bricks furnished by Mr. Nash form a large or a small proportion ?— I cannot say that, for I do not know the quantity. Did other persons furnish bricks also?—Yes, I remember a complaint being made that Mr. Nash’s bricks were so large that the other bricklayers could not use their bricks with them ; it is usual to say there shall be four courses making twelve 020. P 3 inches Mr. William Rolls. 28 March, 1831. 154 118 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. William Rolls. 28 March, 1831. \ _ _ , - ' inches or twelve and a half, but Mr. Nash’s ran thirteen inches, consequently if the bricklayer who had got the centre to do was using Mr. Nashs bricks, and the man on the right or left was using his own bricks or those he bought, they would not match, and I believe that was the reason Mr. Nash supplied other workmen with bricks or they would not have bought of him. Do you recollect when Mr. Stratton first began to put up his work ?-—I do not. Was he long about it?—Yes, I think twelve months. During that time Mr. Nash must have been frequently backwards and forwards? —Yes, no doubt about it. Where was your office before you were appointed to the Palace ?—I had no office; I was agent for Mr. Nash, and lived in my own house. You were at the brick-field daily?—I was frequently. Did he know you were delivering bricks at the Palace ?—Yes, certainly. As soon as the delivery began?—Yes. Is it usual for the brickmakers to keep their bricks at the Parliamentary size?— Yes; but one portion generally will shrink more than another; one brick will keep to the size of the mould, and another will come out five-eighths less. You never knew any one make his mould above the Parliamentary size, 10. 5. 3. did you ?—No. Do not you know that if your moulds are larger than those, there is immediately a complaint?—They could not fine me unless I produced larger bricks; the size of the brick is the thing, not the size of the mould. Did you never have a complaint from the mould being too large?—Never; I never heard of such a thing. Do not you know the Excise always confine the brick-maker to the size of the mould ?—No ; I believe it is not so. The excisemen always visit the yards before the bricks are put on the kiln?— Yes, but not before they are made. They see them in the drying state ?—Yes. When does the shrinking take place ?—When they are burnt. They are never visited after they are burnt, are they ?—No. Are not they always charged before they go on the kiln ?—Yes. Then does not the exciseman see them before they are shrunk?—Yes. You say your four courses come to thirteen inches ?—Yes. Did you ever see a brick made thicker than three inches?—No, the Act will not allow it; but then there is the course of mortar; twelve and a half is generally allowed for the work. Is not it the truth, that when the bricks are put on the kiln, they get thicker, by the weight one upon another?—Yes. That would be the cause of their being thicker ?—Yes, it might be so. Did not you consider it your duty, as clerk of the works, to examine into the goodness of the materials brought to the Palace ?—Yes. If there had been any bad bricks brought from Mr. Nash’s works, what should you have done ?—I should have rejected them. Are not the persons who make bricks paid by the thousand ?—Yes. W hat would be the profit in making the bricks, arising from making them so much larger ?—Because it takes less breeze and ashes ; the less breeze and ashes, which are dear in proportion to the clay, is used, the more profit, and they go further in a rod of brick-work; but if persons were selling the bricks to a builder at so much a thousand, they might gain by more being required. Y hen first you went to Buckingham Palace, Martyr was employed as carpenter? —Yes. Harrison was not employed?—He was not. Can you state to the Committee any reason why Harrison was introduced to supersede Martyr in any work going on?—He was never introduced to supersede Martyr. Was not he called on to do work that Martyr was to have had to execute?— No ; Harrison was called upon to give tenders for work, for certain works in common with others; Martyr had the option of doing so, and did so. Did not Martyr complain that he was deprived of the doing the work?—Not to my knowledge. At the period when Harrison was brought to do work at Buckingham Palace had he not been dealing with Mr. Nash for bricks to a large amount?—I do not know whether to a large amount, he had been having some bricks. Had ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 155 ll 9 Had you not been selling to Mr. Harrison?—Yes, but I should say not to a large amount. You will not say that he had not purchased to the extent of seven millions of bricks ?—I should say no such thing. Altogether has he purchased seven millions ?—I should say not. Does he continue to purchase bricks of Mr. Nash now ?—Yes. He does purchase them now?—Yes. Had you sold timber to these persons ?—Yes. To whom?—To Firth. Mr. Nash purchased several cargoes of timber for his OAvn use; about a hundred loads he had left that were lying at his wharf at the Regent’s Park, and that had been purchased by Mr. Knapp; the timber was lying in the way. I applied to Mr. Nash to know what I was to do with it; he said sell it; I sold it to Mr. Firth ; I do not know where he used it. Was Mr. Firth at the time employed at Buckingham Palace?—He was. Did you apply to Mr. Firth or he to you ?—I applied to Mr. Firth, I believe. Did you apply to any body else?—No. You do not know any thing of the repair of a church?—It was at St. John’s church I met him, and made the bargain with him ; he was repairing the church, and 1 believe it was used there. You do not know whether that timber was employed at Buckingham House?— I do not know that it was; I was not employed there myself at that time. Did Mr. Nash know of your application to Firth?—Yes, he knew of the trans¬ action ; I do not think he knew whom I sold it to; it was not necessary; he told me to sell it, and I did. Did he tell you to whom to apply?—He did not. Did Mr. Nash know you were selling it to a person employed at Buckingham Palace?—No. Where were those several cargoes of timber employed?—His own house; and he has several houses in the Quadrant, in the line of Regent-street, perhaps about twenty that he had at that time. Did you know at the time that you sold this timber to Mr. Firth that he was working at Buckingham Palace?—Yes, I had known him some years. What induced you to ask Mr. Firth ?—Because I knew he was very busy at that time, and he had got a contract to repair St. John’s Church, and I thought he was likely to buy it; I had known him for twenty years. You knew he was employed in other works besides Buckingham Palace, at that time?—Yes; it was without reference to Buckingham Palace ; I was not engaged there at that time myself. What timber was it?—Memel timber. Were you the intermediate agent between Mr. Nash and Mr. Weston for the pur¬ pose of selling a house in Suffolk-street, to be paid for in cement?—Yes. What was the nature of that bargain ?—The house had been built for two years, and we could not get a tenant for it, or sell it; and I applied to Mr. Weston, then partner with Shepherd, and told him that if he would take the house and pay the regular measure and value price for that house, I would take it out on behalf of Mr, Nash in cement. What did you do with that cement afterwards ?—I sold it. Did you sell any of it to persons employed in Buckingham Palace ?-—Yes. Was it delivered at Buckingham Palace?—That I do not know ; they fetched it away themselves ; I only gave the order. At what price did you sell it?—I think it was half-a-crow'n a bushel. Are you aware that at the time you were selling that at half-a-crown a bushel, the common price was from 2 s. to 2 s. 3d. ?—I am aware it was the same price, whatever it was; when Isay half-a-crown I may be saying 3 d. more than I intended; 1 am not certain as to the price; but I sold it at the market-price. The persons who bought the house charged it perhaps at 2 s. ()d. a bushel?— They charged a higher price in their general trade than I got for it. That was because it was a sort of bargain?—It was from that circumstance. You got a higher price for the house?—No ; it was measured fairly. Would you buy a house by measure and value price?—How could I do otherwise. Suppose you were an agent employed to buy a house, would you give a measure and value price for it ?—That is a matter of opinion. Is it the usual custom to sell houses at measure and value price ?—I have never been used to buy or sell houses; that is the first transaction in my life of the same kind; I am a builder, not a house agent. 32y. P 4 Mr. William Rolls. 28 March, 1831. Builders 156 120 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. William Rolls. 28 March, 1831. Builders know something of the value of houses ?—They may, but it does not come within my knowledge. At what period of vour engagement with Mr, Nash did you make this bargain with Mr. Weston; was it before or after you became clerk of the works ?— Before. Was the whole of the cement used at Buckingham Palace?—I do not know where it was used ; I gave orders for it to be delivered from Weston & Shepherd’s wharf, and where they took it I do not know. Was any part of it used after you became clerk of the works?—None that I know of. The walls were all up before you w r ere appointed clerk ?—Yes ; this transaction was in 1825, and I was not appointed at Buckingham Palace till November 1826. As a builder, you might possibly know whether the mode of selling by measure and value was usual in London ?—I do not suppose it was ; but under those cir¬ cumstances I think it w>as a fair way of doing it, taking the cement; Mr. Nash gave him a fair profit upon his cement, and he required a remunerating profit upon his building. Do vou think that a fair price was asked for the house ?—No; if he w'as selling his cement at 2 s. 9 d. a bushel, and perhaps Mr. Nash gave him 2 s. 3d. Were the circumstances you allude to, its being paid for in cement instead of in money ?—If it had been paid for in money, I do not think Mr. Weston would have given so much for it. How much cement is used in a house, take one of those in Carlton-terrace for instance ?—A great many houses are built without cement. Do you know how much was used in Buckingham Palace ?—No; they were using cement for two years before I went there. Was cement used in all the outside brick-work?—No; all the arches were cement. All the interior arches?—Yes. Were the parapets cement?—No, they were all stone. You say Mr. Harrison succeeded Martyr as carpenter at Buckingham Palace?— Martyr did not go aw'ay. Harrison came in addition, in fact?—Yes. Harrison gave in a tender for the same description of w'ork ?—Yes. Was Harrison’s the lowest tender ?—Yes, it was ; in some cases Martyr’s w^as the lowest, in others Harrison’s was the lowest; in other instances, other persons. Was it the circumstance of his tender for some of the work being the lowest, that occasioned his being employed ?—Yes, and nothing else. Who gave you the office of clerk of the w orks ?—Mr. Nash. Do you know of any other materials being supplied by Mr. Nash, for Buckingham Palace ?—No. You know of none but timber, cement and bricks?—No others. Have you ever made an estimate of the expense of giving more light to the base¬ ment story of Buckingham Palace ?— No, I have not. Have you never made an estimate of the quantity to be cut away?—No; I assisted in measuring, to furnish a drawing. What is estimated to be the expense of that?—T do not know. Did Mr. Nash ever consult you upon the subject of framing any of his estimates ? —No, never at all. In May 1829, when Mr. Nash gave in his last estimate, had you no communica¬ tion with him, relative to the probable expense of finishing Buckingham Palace?— No. If Mr. Nash had ever consulted you as to the different sums due to different tradesmen for the conclusion of the works, could you have given him any informa¬ tion?—No, none whatever. Was any estimate formed of the expense of letting in more light to the basement story ? —I do not know ; I made a calculation in my own mind, that is not an esti¬ mate, that it would come to 1,500/. or 2,000 /. Did Mr. Nash ever consult you as to any calculations of the sum it would cost to finish the Palace?—No, he never did. Did you give the calculation you have mentioned, of the sum for letting in more light to the basement story ?—Never. Supposing Mr. Nash had consulted you, could you not have stated the progress of the work, and stated the expense which it would have cost to finish the work?— If Mr. Nash had desired me, I should have done so. You 157 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 121 You could have done so within a few hundred pounds?_Yes. You could, in IVlay 1829, if JVIr. Nash had consulted you, as to what was due to the different tradesmen, and what it would then cost to complete the works by different tradesmen, have given him a calculation?—No; I did not keep the accounts, and could not tell what was due; I was never directed, and never did make such a calculation. Is it not the business of the clerk of the works to know the progress of the works ?—Yes. And to be able to give the architect a statement of the workmen, having done such and such works r—Yes; in this case the work is measured, the Crown employ one measurer, and the tradesmen another; he does not enter into the book what is done, but only has to see that the work is done in a proper manner, and to carry the rods, and tell the clerks what figure to set down. Was not the guess you made as to the expense of admitting more light to the basement story, founded on the drawing you saw?—Yes ; I think it would cost from 1,500/. to 2,000/. That was the original plan ?—I understand so, but objected to by the late King, in consequence of persons being seen walking on the terrace. You think it necessary to do that?—I think the Palace cannot be properly lighted without it. Mr. William Rolls. 28 March, 1831. Mr. George Stratton and Mr. William Pitt (his Clerk), called in ; and Examined. To Mr. Stratton .]—HAVE you a patent apparatus for warming and airing rooms?—Yes. Did you give in an estimate for warming and ventilating Buckingham Palace ?— No, no written estimate. Did you state that it would cost between 2,000/. and 3,000/. ?—I do not recollect that I did ; I believe not, because when Mr. Nash applied to me to know any thing about the price, I then told him that it was a thing quite entirely new to me and had never been done before, and it was impossible for me to give any account or price whatever; he frequently pressed me to it, but I still declined it, and I think at length there was something said about the price, but I told Mr. Nash at the time that it was impossible for me at any rate to give an estimate even within 1,000/. or more, and that, I believe, was the only account of price that was given from me. Did you ever receive any written or verbal order to commence the work ?—I originally received a verbal order, but that was in the presence of Mr. Brown, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rolls. Was that an order to begin the work ?—It was. In consequence of that verbal order you did begin the work ?—I did. Was that an order from Mr. Nash?—From Mr. Nash, in the presence of those other gentlemen I have named. Did Mr. Nash ever come and see the work as it was going on ?—Yes, I should apprehend he did frequently; and after some of the patent articles were fixed we had, of course, to remove them a very long time after, because where they stood there were sculptors to be put, and we were obliged to remove these cylinders that were under the floor for the accommodation of these sculptors, and that order was given me; Mr. Nash wrote to Mr. Nixon; I received the order from Mr. Nixon, in consequence of which my man immediately went to work to remove them ; that was many months after I had done the work, but Mr. Nash must have known that I was going on from the very first day. You yourself superintended putting up a great deal of this work ?—Yes, con¬ stantly. Did you, during the period of your attendance, ever see Mr. Nash?—Yes, I have, I think once. Did Mr. Nash ever come down to see how you were going on in your work?— I know he had been in, but I never met him to my knowledge; I received my orders always either from Mr. Nixon or Mr. Browne ; I do not think I received any orders from Mr. Rolls; I have never met with Mr. Nash at any time. How did you know that Mr. Nash had been to see your work?—From Mr. Browne, and from a man who attended ; the alteration was from Mr. Nash; I received the order from Mr. Nixon ; Mr. Nash left word. Do you know that of vour own knowledge?—Mr. Nash generally left word when any thing was to be done; I never could meet with him ; I do not think I saw 329. Q him Mr. G. Stratton and Mr. W. Pitt. 158 122 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. G. Stratton and Mr. W. Pitt. 28 March, 1831. v- v .- S’ him three times during the whole of the time, and that was at his own house; I always received my orders from Mr. Browne or Mr. Nixon; I think I never received any orders from Mr. Rolls. How did you know of these orders from Mr. Nash ?—Because I received them from Mr. Nixon; I do not think there was any alteration made but in two cylinders, > and they were improperly fixed, according to Mr. Nash’s account; afterwards, in consequence of these sculptors being to be fixed on the very top where these cylin¬ ders were, two of the eight were altered from the position in which they stood below. You knew nothing of any orders from Mr. Nash, but through Mr. Nixon or Mr. Browne ?—Only this I conceive must be from him. What sum is now due to you ?— Mr. Pitt.] —Four thousand three hundred and twenty-six pounds ; Mr. Stratton has received 500/. on account; the first account delivered was 3,250/.; on a further account 1,190/.; then there have been paid to the workmen who have kept the machine going, 86 /., and there is 500/. received on the general account. Is the whole Palace warmed ?—Only the central building; there is some work done since the last account was delivered. What was the whole of the account?—The first account delivered at Michaelmas 1829, was 3,250/.; up to January 5th, 1830, 1,090/.; since that period 400/./ 4,740/.; then there has been paid for the engineer working the apparatus, which is complete, 86/. 17.v. 6 d., from October 1829 t0 May 1^30; when the thing was complete and was set to work to keep the place warm, that with the other sums, making 4,826/. 175. 6 d. ; then there has been 500/. received on account. To Mr. Stratton.] —When you first sent in your account, asking for money on account, did Mr. Nash express any surprise at your having began the work with¬ out orders?—None at all. To whom have you sent the account?—The account was made out by order of Mr. Nash through Mr. Browne. Did you send it in to Mr. Nash’s office?—Yes; the account was made out several times. Had you any interview with Mr. Nash upon that occasion ?—No; I applied to Mr. Nash through Mr. Browne. At one time I met Mr. Nash, and I then applied to Mr. Nash for money at his own house, and he then made answer and said to Mr. Browne, Mr. Stratton must have some money, Mr. Browme, or else he cannot go on with the w^ork. Did he say to you that you had no business to begin the work without further orders, or anything to that effect?—None at all. When did you first begin your work?—I commenced in February 1829. How long were you about it?—About a year and a half. The work was not finished till August 1830 then? —Not quite so late as that. When was the first time that you made an application for payment on account ? —The first time I applied was about six weeks before Michaelmas 1829. About six months after you commenced the w r ork?—Yes. What sum did you ask for then?—I did not ask for any sum, but after a con¬ siderable time Mr. Nash told Mr. Browne that he would let me have 1,000/., and if we would draw a bill on Mr. Nash at two months, it should be sent to the Isle of Wight and returned back again the next day; I waited for it; it was a matter of much importance to me, and I applied to a friend to discount it for me, who would have done it the next day, but I could get nothing of the bill; I considered it was only an allurement for me to go on with the work, for I had some money in the funds which I had no occasion to touch, and would not have done it on any con¬ sideration, but with the fairness of Mr. Nash’s promise, and I expecting that the work must have been stopped, they could not have gone on at all; I very foolishly sold my money out of the funds and it is every shilling of it gone. I am above 1,200/. worse for the job at the Palace; I had money enough to keep me com¬ fortably, and now I do not know that I shall not be obliged to go to the work- house. * Had you any correspondence with Mr. Nash upon the subject?—No; all I had, was with Mr. Browne and Mr. Nash, the only thing Mr. Nash said, was that I must immediately have some money, or the work could not have gone on. I did not want it, but from Mr. Nash’s promise of my having money directly, and Mr. Browne told me I should immediately receive that money on the bill being made out. * 1 • , , / You 159 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. M23 You say Mr. Nash had gone down to the Isle of Wight, and that you sent this bill to him to sign it?—Yes. Did you write him a letter upon that occasion ?— Mr. Pitt.] —I believe not; it was only enclosed, and went through Mr. Browne’s hands; he brought a verbal message to say that Mr. Nash was sorry he could not force the account through the Treasury then, but that if he drew for 1,000/. on account, that would be a marketable commodity. That letter was sent down, as you understood, to Mr. Nash?—Yes; I took it to Mr. Browne, a verbal answer was given. To Mr. Stratton.] —Did Mr. Nash say to you, that he would allow you to draw upon him for 1,000/. ?—I think he did ; but I will not be certain whether it was from him, or only from Mr. Browne, but I think it was from Mr. Nash. Mr. Pitt.] —I think that is a mistake, it was from Mr. Browne, only there was a letter written to ask for even 1,000 /., Mr. Browne brought a verbal answer to that letter. Mr. Stratton.] —Mr. Browne called, and brought a verbal answer. To Mr. Pitt. —Did Mr. Stratton write to Mr. Nash, asking for 1,000 /.?—Yes; it was only 1,000/. to go on with the work. Was there an answer by letter ?—No, only a verbal answer. Who gave the answer to it?—Mr. Browne gave a verbal answer to that letter; I do not think we ever had a letter from Mr. Nash. To Mr. Stratton .]—After the work was done, to whom did you send your account? —To Mr. Nash. What w’as the amount of that?—That account w f as 3,250 /. There has been something since that?—Yes, a good deal since. By whose order was that done ?—It was always a continuation of the same order; I had no further order. Who gave you the order to commence the w r ork ?—Mr. Nash. In writing, or verbally?—Verbally. Is the wwk now complete ?— Mr. Pitt.] —Not quite; it will take about 300/. more to finish it. To Mr. Stratton.] —Did you ever send into Mr. Nash, or to the Board of Works, any other bill except the 3,264 /. ?—Never. Mr. Pitt.] —The Estimate of amount of works then in hand has been sent to the Office of Works. Amounting to how T much?—One thousand and ninety pounds. Is that finished ?—No ; that is up to the 5th of January 1830 ; we have delivered it up to that date. Are the Committee to understand that that was sent in to the Office of Works ?— It was ; I delivered it myself. Who called for that account to a certain period ?—The Surveyor-General. W"as that an account up to Michaelmas 1830?—Mr. Nash had the account up to Michaelmas 1829 ; but the Surveyor-General sent for the account to the January following. Was the account to which you refer, as sent in your account, up to Michaelmas 1830?—No; the 5th of January 1830. To what period does the last account go?—Up to the period that the works were stopped by order of the Office of Works. Have you a further account ?—Only for what it would take to complete it, about 300/. Mr. Stratton.] —Mr. Nash sent to me twelve months before I did anything for the Palace; I had been in the habit of doing things of that kind, and he sent to me to know whether I could undertake the warming of the Palace ; I told him that I could, and I then intended to have done it with copper pipes ; but I stated to him that if they w’ere not in a hurry, I had got an invention, which I knew w ould prove a very good one; but I should not w ish to give it aw ay, and therefore I intended to have a patent for it; Mr. Nash sent to me two or three times during the time I was getting my patent; and when I had got my patent, I sent word to Mr. Nash, and he desired I would call upon him, and he inspected the plans I showed him. • By the paper vou have brought with you, it appears the account delivered to Michaelmas 1829 is 3,250/. ; ditto to January the 5th, 1830, 1,090/.; ditto since the last period, about 400/.; when was the last period?—That was up to last January. That makes 4,740/.; now, according to the account delivered in by the Surveyor- t . .329. Q 2 General Mr. G. Stratton and Mr. IV. Pitt. 28 March, 1831. 160 124 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. G. Stratton and Mr. W. Pitt. 128 March, 1831. V._ __ General, there is a balance demanded by George Stratton & Company for erect¬ ing the warm air apparatus, 3,264/. js. 6d.; then there is George Stratton’s Esti¬ mate for completing the warm air apparatus, 3001; making together 3,564/. ; this account of the Surveyor-General goes to the 16th of February 1831, and there is no mention in this account of any of those articles stated in your account; will you explain that contradiction ? Mr. Pitt .]—'There must be some very great error; this is a copy of the account I delivered. Into who whose hands did you put that account ?—To Mr. Hyatt. Have you delivered to Mr. Nash or the Board of Works any account since January 1830?—No, only an Estimate in round figures. What was the amount of the Estimate you gave in up to January 1830?—One thousand and ninety pounds. That was in addition to the 3,250/.?—Yes. That makes altogether 4,340/..^—Yes. , You had received 500/. on account of that?—No, that was not till after that. When did you receive the 500/.?—The first of September of the last year. A. Y. Spearman, Esq. Alexander Young Spearman , Esquire, called in ; and Examined. AT what period did you originally receive any instructions to enter into any communication with Mr. Nash, relative to the Estimates and Expenditure of Buck¬ ingham Palace ?—I think, as well as I can recollect, about the beginning of the year 1829. Previous to that time it did not fall under your department?—It was not in.my hands specifically previously to that time. Do you recollect the sort of instructions you received previous to that first com¬ munication with Mr. Nash in 1829?—I was directed to attend to the papers relating to Buckingham Palace, in order, as I understood, that they should all pass through one channel in the Treasury, and that it should be my duty to bring them under the consideration of those persons in the Treasury who had to decide upon them. [The Evidence of Mr. Nash, as to the communication with Mr. Spearman , was read to the Witness.] Will you state your feeling relative to that investigation, and relative to your opinion, that this Estimate would not be exceeded?—It appears to me that Mr. Nash has answered the questions put to him under a misapprehension. I never did enter into any examination of any of Mr. Nash’s Estimates previously to their being delivered to the Treasury. This was previous to the Estimate of May 1829 being prepared?—I will state to the Committee, if they desire it, the nature and object of my several communications with Mr. Nash. Did Mr. Goulburn request that you would have an eye to those Estimates, that he might be aware what to communicate to Parliament ?—What I understood I was to do with respect to that particular Estimate, was simply this : an Estimate had been sent by Mr. Nash to Mr. Goulburn ; Mr. Goulburn sent for me, and put it into my hands, and told me it contained things which he would not submit to Parliament, the things which were struck out; and he desired me to communicate with Mr. Nash, in order that the Estimate might be prepared, leaving out those items. My communication with Mr. Nash upon the subject of that Estimate, went no farther than that. You did not enter into a detail of the Estimates, in order to ascertain, as far as was probable, that the Estimates would not be exceeded ?-—I did not; but I will state what I have done on more occasions than one. Mr. Goulburn being anxious to know at what rate the expenditure was going on, being apprehensive lest the expenditure should be larger than the sum sanctioned by Parliament, desired me to communicate to Mr. Nash upon the subject. In my communication I stated to Mr. Nash the amount which had been paid by the Office of Woods, and showed to him the amount of the balance which remained to complete the building. He then made his own calculations as to what would be the expense of completing the building, according to the designs and plans approved of, and estimated for by^him. And I always understood that it w'as, upon looking at the facts thus exhibited, that his opinion was given to me, and subsequently officially to the Treasury, that the building would be completed for the sum at which he had estimated it. Then ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 161 125 Then the Committee are to understand, the only positive interference which took place between you and Mr. Nash relative to the Estimates, was the striking out of those articles which appeared in Paper 15 ?—Yes, so far as related to the prepa¬ ration of the Estimates. In fact I did not strike them out, they were struck out by Mr. Goulburn, and I communicated their being struck out to Mr. Nash. Did you ever press Mr. Nash, in communications with him previous to sending in the Estimate of May 1829, to the necessity of bringing his expenditure within the Estimates ?—Yes, certainly I have, on more occasions than one. That was the object of my being desired to communicate with him. Did you understand from Mr. Nash, when you had that communication with him in May 1829, that 496,000/. would cover the whole expenditure ?—Certainly ; and he appeared to me, in all my communications with him, to believe it himself. Did you ask Mr. Nash whether he had communicated wdth the tradesmen, or different persons about the Palace, to inform himself?—No, I took it for granted that he would himself procure such information as w as necessary in the best manner he could. Did you ask Mr. Nash whether he knew how much of that sum was spent and gone before he gave in that Estimate that that sum w r ould complete the whole ?—I cannot say that 1 did upon that occasion, but l have several times subsequently shown him what sums had been paid by the Office of Woods, and what balance re¬ mained. When did you first discover that at that period of the 15th of May 1829, "herein he gave in his Estimate that 496,000/. would complete the whole Palace, within 40,000/. of the whole of that sum had been spent and anticipated ?—That was not discovered till towards the middle of the following year; I speak under correction, but in the course of the following year certainly. It came to your knowledge, that at the very period when Mr. Nash stated that 496,000/. would be sufficient, there had been spent by anticipation that sum within about 40,000/.?—I should be sorry to be answerable for precise figures, but the facts I believe to be as they are stated in the question. Did Mr. Nash, in his subsequent communications with you, persevere after the 15th of May 1829, in maintaining that the whole expense of the Palace would come w ithin the sum of 496,000/.?—He did. In point of fact, my communications with him have principally taken place since that Estimate was laid before Parliament. What was the latest period that Mr. Nash still persevered in that opinion?— I think in the month of August 1830 ; he appeared himself to be first aw'are that the expenditure w’ould exceed the amount of his Estimate, for I recollect in that month, in the communication I had with him, he stated his belief that there must be some crross errors in the account, and that the result would not come out on examination, such as I apprehended. He said he thought it impossible. Up to August 1 830, had you reason, from your communications with Mr. Nash, to believe that that w T ould be the full expense incurred in the Palace?—Un¬ doubtedly. Did you not, from time to time, receive from the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, communications which excited your suspicion that that Estimate would be exceeded ?—The communications were not made to me, but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were put into my hands by the Chancellor ot the Ex¬ chequer, and it was in consequence of them he desired me to communicate w ith Mr. Nash. Did you not at the Treasury, some times in public and some times in private, receive various communications during the last session, which induced the Treasury to believe that Estimate would be exceeded ?— Those communications were made more than once by the First Commissioner of Wfoods to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was inconsequence of those communications that I w^as directed to see Mr. Nash on the subject, and it was upon those occasions that he stated to me, for the information of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his belief and expectation that the Estimate would not be exceeded. It is only fair to state, that Mr. Nash appeared to me to be acting on those occasions quite bond fide. I certainly thought that he really did believe the Estimate would cover the expenditure. You think Mr. Nash was deceived in the amount of the Estimate?—It appears to me that he was mistaken as to the sum expended in those quarters for which the accounts were not made up. Did vou inform Mr. Nash, on the first communication, what sum had been expended?_Yes; on every occasion I have made to him a statement, showing the 329. Q 3 sum A. Y. Spearman, Esq. •2$ March, 1831. V_„_ J 162 126 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE A. Y. Spearman , sum of money paid by the Office of Woods, not the money expended. I could not ^ S( t* know what had been expended in the quarters the accounts of which had not been a8 March, made up.? 1831. * On every communication Mr. Nash was fully aware of the sum of money remain- v —-— -ing in the Treasury?—Precisely. When you state that Mr. Nash attributed it to some error of account, that the sum of 496,000/. appeared to be exceeded, or w'as likely to be exceeded, did he point out that error in the account r—He was at that time in the Isle of Wight. It was in a letter received by Mr. Pennethorne, and his state of health was such, that he was unable for some time to attend to the business. He subsequently sent in statements showing what the real state of the case was, and they are before the Committee. How long before his attributing this to some error in account had you explained to him what the sum of money which then remained to be expended was?—I do not recollect on w hat day I first communicated with him in the manner I have described, but certainly I have done so by Mr. Goulburn’s directions more than once in the course of 1829, that is in the year preceding; he knew from my statements the sums remaining at those times to complete the grant of 496,000/., and made his own calculations upon such occasion as to whether those balances would be suf¬ ficient. The account you gave him was the amount paid by the Board of Works?—Yes- the payments made up to a certain time. Had he any means of knowing how much money was expended beyond the sum of the accounts sent in to the Board of Works ?—I cannot state that; he estimated the amount of the quarterly accounts not made up. Supposing a certain sum paid in September, there might be further accounts sent in to the Board of Works not paid ?—Yes ; but Mr. Nash must have known the amount of the expenditure exhibited by those accounts not then paid although sent in for examination, at least I apprehend he must have known it. You did not go into the minutias or calculations what certain buildings would cost?—Certainly not; I was quite incompetent to go into such calculations. In the month of August 1 830 did you explain to Mr. Nash the sums which had been actually paid by the Treasury at that period ?—I should be sorry to say posi¬ tively that 1 did, but my belief is that I did. Did that sum exceed the sum of 496,000/.?—No, the amount paid at that time appears by the accounts to have been 466,216/. 16,?. 6 d. including the quarter ended 5th July 1829. [The Evidence of Mr. Nash, page 22, was read to Mr. Spearman.'] It appears to me that Mr. Nash has confused tw'o things together ; I never did examine any Estimate for works to be performed with him on any occasion, nor any account until after the Estimate for 496,000/. was laid before The House of Commons, My communications with him related to expenditure incurred or to be incurred upon Estimates already approved ; I always stated the amount issued, and it was his business, knowing what work had been done and not paid for, to ascertain whether the bn lance would cover the expenditure. Your’s was only a question of account?—Precisely so. In all your transactions with Mr. Nash relative to Buckingham Palace, have you reason to think that his conduct was dishonourable or unfair ?—Certainly most de¬ cidedly not; I have had no reason to think so, so far as I have had any communi¬ cation with him. Did you not consider Mr. Nash’s conduct to be negligent ?—Certainly ; but it did not appear to me to be dishonourable or unfair. Do you not think there w'as gross negligence on the part of Mr. Nash in giving in an Estimate of 496,000/. w'hen he might have obtained better information on which to frame it ?—If he could have obtained it. Did you investigate all the particulars of his conduct in order to form an opinion whether he had acted dishonourably or unfairly ?—Certainly not; my answ er goes to what I know of my own knowledge; I took into consideration his manner of communicating with me, and his statements to me at that time. You refer to your knowledge of the conduct of Mr. Nash subsequently to May 1829, w'hen this subject was specially referred to you?—Yes; I knew nothing before that. b You 163 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 127 You did not observe any desire to conceal on the part of Mr. Nash?_No; on the contrary, it appeared to me that his conduct was perfectly fair and open. Are you aware that he has had a serious illness ?—I am perfectly aware of that; I know he was disqualified from communicating with me for some months. Are you of opinion that that illness may have prevented his acquiring the infor¬ mation which he might otherwise have obtained ?—That is possible. Your first communication with Mr. Nash took place previous to his illness?— Yes ; the communications respecting the estimate of 496,000/. took place previous to that, in May 1829. > Did any of the communications that passed between Mr. Stephenson and the Treasury in 1826 pass under your observation?—! may have seen them, but I do not know whether I did or did not; I cannot answer unless a special case were pointed out. . • 1 There is laid before the Committee a letter from the Office of Works, of the 26th of January 1826, did that letter come under your knowledge?— [Thesamewas shown to theWitness .]—I do not think I ever saw the letter until within the last two days. Your observations as to the general conduct of Mr. Nash have no reference to any transactions contained in that letter, or observations contained in that letter, but merely had reference to his conduct and communications with you subsequent to May 1829?—Exactly so. I wish to be understood as stating only my own impressions, made by the nature of the communications with him. Had you a communication with Mr. Nash, relative to the Estimate of May 1825? —Not at the time certainly, nor I believe subsequently. Did Mr. Nash, in any communications he had with you, say that any changes had been made in the plans respecting the Palace?—He has told me several times that many changes have been made. Orders given him by The King?—Yes ; Mr. Nash told me he had considered himself responsible to The King, and to The King only. Have you ever made any observations on such a statement, on the part of Mr. Nash?—I told him that I thought it would have been much more prudent for him to have had the official sanction of the Treasury. Did he continue to hold out that language?—Not latterly, because he had subse¬ quently been directed to obey the orders of the Treasury. After the caution you gave him, what was Mr. Nash’s reply to you ?—That he had thought himself at liberty to do that which The King commanded. Did he complain that The King’s orders would necessarily entail a very heavy expense?—I do not recollect that he said so specifically at the time, but my im¬ pression arising out of that communication was, that that was the fact. The purport of the communication you made to him was, that if he acted entirely on the authority of The King, he must do it at his own peril; was it not ?—No, I did not say that; it would have been quite improper for me to state that he was not to obey The King’s command. What was the purport of the observation you made to him ?—It w r as in my earlier communication I told him that I thought it would have been more prudent on his part to have communicated every order he received to the Treasury. Did he show you The King’s orders for any of those changes ?—Never ; it was not my business to inquire for them. When was the peremptory order by the Treasury?—I think the months of Sep¬ tember and November 1829 ; but there was a previous order in the month of April, I think. Subsequently to that period he was obliged to wait for an order from the Treasury for every expenditure?—Yes; I know he applied in August 1829, for authority to* incur certain additional expenses, in consequence of the directions given to him to incur no expense without Treasury authority. Were you the person with whom he communicated at the Treasury ?—Yes, since the beginning of 1829. You went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and made a communication, and then communicated it to him?—My communications were verbal; he frequently. saw r the Chancellor of the Exchequer also. You have expressed your opinion favourably of the conduct of Mr. Nash sub¬ sequent to your first interfering in the business with him ; are you aware of the 329. Q 4 Treasury A. Y. Spearman, Esq. 28 March, 1831. - - J 164 123 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE A. Y. Spearman, Esq. 28 March 1831. ^ ___ ) Treasury Minute of the 15th of October 1S30, which is in these words:— 1 “ Upon “ the whole, therefore, My Lords see in the paper before them no justification of “ Mr. Nash’s conduct. The Estimate submitted to and sanctioned by Parliament, “ has been exceeded to a large amount; the progress of such excess has been con- “ cealed from My Lords, and their earlier interposition therefore prevented ; My “ Lords feel it incumbent upon them to mark their sense of such conduct by every “ means in their power; My Lords have already directed Mr. Nash’s commission “ to be withdrawn. They are therefore pleased to direct, that a case be submitted, “ without delay, to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, for their opinion how far “ Mr. Nash is, under all the circumstances, pecuniarily liable for the whole, or any “ part of the expense incurred in defiance of the orders of My Lords. My Lords “ are further pleased to suspend Mr. Nash from the office held by him of Architect “ of the Board of Works ; My Lords will hereafter consider, so soon as they shall “ be aware of Mr. Nash’s legal liability, how the expense subsequently incurred “ shall be provided for.” Will you have the goodness to explain how you recon¬ cile your general statement of approbation of the conduct of Mr. Nash with this Minute of the Treasury, dated the 15th of October 1830, which it is to be pre¬ sumed was drawn up with your knowledge, and after communication with your— The Minute of the Treasury was drawn up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I did not see it, I think, until after it was written, and had been read at the Board ; if I thought that Mr. Nash had studiously concealed from the Treasury the facts of the case, I should have thought dismissal a light punishment; but I thought at the time, and still think, that Mr. Nash did not studiously conceal the facts; my com¬ munication with him led me to believe he was himself misled ; and I confess that I thought it was rather a harsh Minute, in speaking of Mr. Nash in the terms in which it did. Did you communicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that opinion ?—No; it would have been beyond the line of my duty, if I had remonstrated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Were the papers submitted to the Attorney General?—Yes, they were. This Minute, you say, was drawn up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it probably was shown to you, if you did not assist in the drawing it up, that parti¬ cular branch being in your department?—I believe, that Minute was drawn without communication with me. That it was prepared on a statement of account sent in by the Office of Works, and another by Mr. Nash, showing what was at that time the state of the case. Did Mr. Stewart at the time take upon himself the elucidation of those transac¬ tions with Mr. Nash, and were they removed in a certain degree from your superin¬ tendence ?—I really do not know. The official communications might not improba¬ bly be addressed to him, as one of the Secretaries ; with respect to this Minute, my own impression is, that it did not pass through my hands, and speaking from memory, I should say that I did not see it before it was read at the Board. You did not see the rough draft of the Minute ?—Yes; it is the rough draft of the Minute which is usually read at the Board. Do you think it blameable in an architect to exceed his Estimate largely ?—Cer¬ tainly, I do, if the expenditure is confined to those works only for which the Estimate has been prepared. And I also think, that an architect should not undertake other works, which may occasion an exceeding, until he has given in and received sanc¬ tion to Estimates of the additional expense. Do you not think that an architect who, through great negligence allows his Esti¬ mates to be exceeded, is blameable?—Undoubtedly so. At what period did Mr. Nash first receive directions from the Treasury not to undertake works without their sanction ?—It would be very easy to give the infor¬ mation ; I cannot state that at this moment. Were any of your communications with Mr. Nash subsequent to that order?— I do not believe that Mr. Nash did give such orders subsequent to that direction. Did any of the communications with Mr. Nash take place after that order of the Treasury ?—Yes, certainly ; but a vast part of the expense had been previously in¬ curred. The King’s orders had already, as I believe, been executed to a great extent. Mercurii, 165 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 129 Mercurii, 30 ° die Martii, 1831 . ; , . ' ■ , ' » » ‘ ' t Mr. Robert Moser , called in; and Examined. ARE you the agent of Messrs. Crawshay?—I am a partner in the house, and acted for my partners in London. You communicated with Mr. Nash relative to the iron-work of Buckingham Palace?-—I did. Did you originally send in a tender for the work at Buckingham Palace?—I have not a copy of it; I understand the original letter is here in the possession of Mr. Nash’s clerk. [The Witness procured the same , and delivered it in.] Was there any contract entered into in consequence of this tender?—Mr. Nash simply wrote a note, stating that he accepted our offer, that was all which passed. Have you a copy of that note ?—I have not with me ; lam not quite sure as to that point, whether I did not apply at Mr. Nash’s office and was told verbally that it was accepted, I rather think that was the case. Did you think that this tender was for all the iron that might be wanted at the Palace, without any regard to any fall in the price of iron that might subsequently take place?—Certainly. Did you ask any questions from Mr. Nash previous to your giving in this tender, whether the iron was to be cast in London or in the country?—Not at all, that subject was not mentioned at all to me; simply that Mr. Nash required castings. ‘ Did you inquire whether the models were to be found or whether you were to find the models ?—I stated in my tender that we would provide the models for the common large castings, I believe verbally; it was understood that any castings required of a particular fine nature, which Mr. Nash could not trust us to make' the models for, he would make himself, and in many cases he did so. Were you to be at the expense of such models?—No, only such as we made ourselves. Did you make an extra charge for models?—No, we provided models for all castings, except a few required in town; of those Mr. Nash provided the models. Were the bearers to be proved?—They were to be proved, and they were all proved. Was there any specification as to the time at which this iron work would be wanted?—No, except generally that they would be wanted in a few months. What was the price of pig iron at the time you made the contract?—I can hardly answer that; I believe it was at the time that iron was very high; I think io/. a ton in London. What description of iron was this, from the blast or furnace?—The principal of those large castings w ere made from the blast. What is the difference of the price of iron from the blast and the air furnace ?— Castings made remelted, I presume the question means, it depends on the quality of the iron, two or three or four pounds a ton. Which is considered the best?—For large castings, I conceive made at once from the blastfurnace, they are stronger, and more to be depended on. What is the average difference of price between iron from the blast furnace and the air furnace, which is the most expensive ?—Being remelted from the pig iron would be the most expensive, that from the air furnace. Of course, if made in London, it must be made with the air furnace?—Yes. When you sent this tender to Mr. Nash, did you hear there was to be any com¬ petition ?—I understood so ; that there were several tenders besides our own. Did you understand there w-as to be any competition from any other iron master? —I did not know anything of it; Mr. Nash applied to us by a circular note. Do you know that he applied to others?—I only know by hearsay; I think I heard from Mr. Bramah that he tendered, I am not sure that Mr. Alderman Thompson was not applied to. Mr. Bramah is not an iron master?—No. Where were those bearers proved?—They were proved first, where they were made in Staffordshire, and afterwards at the Palace here. ‘ Did any of them break ?—Excepting in two instances, there were none, and they broke those by the carelessness of slinging them at the Palace. Mr. Robert Moser. 30 March, 1831- 166 130 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Robert Moser. 30 March, 1831. You were told there were only two brokenr—I cannot say positively, but I believe not more than two. Was your contract for the iron, trom the blast furnace or the air furnace ?— There was no specification upon the subject; Mr. Nash did not make any enquiries of that sort. There was no specification whether they were to be from the blast or from thq air furnace?—No. As blast was the cheapest, of course you furnished that ?—Certainly ; but we made many of those castings in London. You stated that the contract you received was for the whole quantity in Buck¬ ingham Palace ?—I so understood, when Mr. Nash accepted our tender. Did not a reduction take place during the delivery ?—At the time we contracted for those girders, the price was at the highest, and the price of iron has been falling ever since. Did not a reduction of 6 /. 105. in the price of it take place since July 1828, for the castings at Buckingham Palace?—Yes. There appears to be in July 1828, 1,805/. paid to you for castings, which you charged at ten guineas a ton ?—Yes. If the contract was for the whole quantity, how came that reduction to take place ?—We understood Mr. Nash had no further orders to give, and bye-and-bye he sent a note to us, to state that there would be a further quantity required, and required us to make a tender again; and I claimed those castings in consequence of pur former contract. In the course of two months after you made that contract, did not the price of pig fall 2 /. a ton ?—I cannot answer that question without referring. In April 1826, there were some of your girders broken?—I have answered the question, that I think there were only two broken. They were used at the Palace afterwards, were not they ? — They possibly might be. The price you charged for those broken girders was 12/. a ton, in April 1826 ?—- I think something of that sort did occur; that we agreed that if he would apply them to any other purpose, being shorter, we would sell them at that price. Did you consider those broken castings as of more value than pig iron ?— Mr. Nash using them as castings, they were of course of much greater value. , Are you aware that the price of pig iron was at that time 7/. 105. a ton?—I can¬ not charge my memory. , Did you tender at the same time for the iron work at the Post-office ?—No, I did not. Or any other public office ?—I did not. Did you happen to see the iron used there?—I did in passing. What quality of iron was it ?—I should say ours were better looking girders than those. Are you aware at what price iron was furnished to the Post-office ?—I believe that was a very long time after our contract, and iron had reduced then very con¬ siderably. Many of your deliveries were in 1827, are you aware that the price of iron at that time was 7 /. a ton ?—I am not indeed. What was the whole amount of the iron-work at Buckingham Palace ?—Some¬ thing short of 40,000/. I think. I am speaking from guess. \ ou do not mean to say that the prices were not those stated, but that you do not recollect it ?•—I do not bear it in mind ; I think it is not impossible they might have been bought at that price. Should not you have provided yourself with memoranda of the prices at different periods, as you were about to be examined as to the supply of iron-work ?—I was summoned only yesterday, late in the afternoon, and I was not aware of the points to which the examination would lead. Are you aware that there are prices fixed by the trade, and circulars sent out by different houses?—Yes, in Wales there are. Have you any doubt that that statement is correct ?—[A Paper being shown to the Witness. —I have no doubt that it is. r Will you refer to foundry iron in March 1826?—In January 1825, 11/.; in 1826, 6/. 10 I hat is the Cardiff price, what would be the difference of price delivered in London ?—About 1 /. making it 7/. ioa‘. in London. i- k • That on: WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 167 131 That being the price of.pig iron in January 1826, what would be the price of girders made from the blast, of the description supplied at Buckingham Palace?_ About 2/. or 2/. 1 os. making about 10/. • Do you consider that it would require 2/. 10 s. for casting iron of that descrip¬ tion, above the price of foundry wages in the country?—I should think about that would be the difference. The price charged in the account, in the year 1826, is to the amount of 21,000/., at 17/. a ton?—That was our original contract. If the tender had been made at that time they would have been worth 7/. 10,?. less ?—Somewhere there about. When did you first furnish the iron to Buckingham Palace?—In July 1825 our tender was. . . ' , Where was the iron made ?—In Staffordshire. . At. whose foundry?—The Toll End Iron Works made some. It did not come from Messrs. Crawshay’s works in Wales?—No. Can you give the relative value of the castings of those large columns, compared with the plain girders ?—The difference was 1 /. a ton. Do you consider that a fair difference of price?—We tendered at that, and sup* plied them at that price. • Do you consider, taking the price of the columns at 18/,, that at 17 /. was a fair comparative price ?—I considered so; I made the tender at that price; that was my idea. Is any money due to you now?—A very small sum ; about 10/. I think. Was all the iron furnished by Mr. Crawshay himself?—We purchased all the Iron ; we did not make it at our own works. You purchased it of other persons from time to time?—We did. Of course you made your profit upon those purchases ?—Certainly. If the public had obtained the iron from the original founders, that profit would have been saved ?—I almost doubt that, for I should say that the parties who made those castings for us would hardly have been able to have contracted with Mr. Nash for them, for they wanted the money immediately on delivery, and Mr. Nash had not power to pay money. If those parties could have been paid ready money, of course the public would have gained all the advantage of your profit?—Possibly. Have you any objection to give the names of the persons from whom you pur¬ chased the iron?—If the Committee desire it, I will do so; but I should submit, whether injustice I should be called upon to expose my business in that way. [The Witness was directed to withdraw.] *- r» r - •' .»» 1 « » . . - ( 1 L \ * ‘ ' . * . . !. ■ ■ . . j . 1.. , [The Witness was again called in.] ■ Mr. Robert Moser. 30 March, 1831. v__ / Will you explain why you think injustice you ought not to be called upon to answer that question ?—I shall by so doing expose the profits we have obtained in those transactions, that would be the effect. [The Witness was directed to withdraw.] [The Witness was again called in; and informed that the Committee had decided that he must answer the question.] The Toll End Iron Company, William Ward, of the Priestfield Iron W'orks, those were the parties in the country ; those in London, were Moreman & Company, Ball & Jones, Bradly & Benbow, and John Fowler & Company ; I believe those were all. Did you purchase the pig-iron from them, and afterwards cast it, or did they execute the work.?—I bought the castings from them complete. Did you send the models down to them?—No, the models of those castings were made in the country; I sent drawings, from which they made models, 1 agreed with them at a price, to deliver me castings from those drawings. You executed no part of the work; you did not finish the work in any way ?—Not at all. The work was completely furnished by them ?—\ es. Were you in the habit of purchasing iron work from them in that way?—Yes. And not of executing it yourself ?—No. , 329. K 2 Do 168 132 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Robert Moser. 30 March, 1831. . Do you ever execute iron work yourself?—Very rarely. All the cast-iron work you provide, you provide as an intermediate agent ?—\ es. You make pigs ?—Yes. In those instances, they did not cast the pigs made by you, you bought the cast¬ ing, and the pigs were provided by those parties ?—\ es. At what time did you send into the country to make a contract with them?— The date of my contract is July 1825 ; it was about that period, after that. Was your contract with those parties for the whole work you might require at Buckingham Palace, or only to vary according to the price of iron ?—As Mr. Nash sent orders to us and drawings, I purchased of those parties. Are the Committee to understand that from time to time those parties charged you according to the varying price of iron ?—That would not apply to the first part of my purchases. The price varied, according to the price of iron of the subsequent part of the work?—Yes. Did you put them up?—Not at all. Although the price from the persons from whom you bought it varied from time to time, did the price Mr. Nash paid you vary?—I think there are three different prices from time to time, but the papers are here I understand. Was there any previous money transaction between you and Mr. Nash ?—None whatever. What papers have you with you?—These are all the orders we received from the Palace, as the castings were wanted. Did not you put up the railing in St. James’s Park ?—Yes, part of it. Did you purchase that railing from other persons?—Yes, we did as we did in this case. You were merely an intermediate agent in that case as in this?—Yes. Did you do the work for the Government, or for Mr. Nash as an individual?— For the Government; Mr. Nash, as I understood, being the agent. You being an iron master, do you think it was in your power to make cheaper contracts with the persons in the country or other persons who supplied the iron than Mr. Nash could have done?—The contract being of such magnitude, requiring so large a sum of money, I think we had the power to do it better than any other house in London, from our command of capital. What was the whole amount?—Forty thousand pounds, or thereabouts. How did you pay those persons ?—Immediately on the delivery of the iron to us, in money or to their bankers. What was the sum you were generally in advance?—I think in one case twelve months or nine months. Are you in the habit of doing business in this way for other persons ?—We do occasionally. Is that a usual way in the trade of doing business ?—Certainly. Was your contract with Mr. Nash to receive one quarter under another ?—It was, but that was not observed. Is it not the custom of the trade to give six months’ credit?—Not in Staffordshire. Is it not the custom of the trade to give six months’ credit in Wales?—It is. Were there not iron works in Wales of sufficient capital to take that contract, giving six months’ credit?—I doubt whether that contract could have been executed in Wales at all, the difficulty of transit being so great of such large castings. Is it not the custom in Staffordshire to give three months’ credit, and to receive a bill at the end of the quarter?—We have never pursued that course. Do you not know that that is the custom of the trade?—I believe it is. When you made a contract with Mr. Nash, were you aware that other tenders had been given in ?—I understood that other parties had tendered. Were you made acquainted with those tenders?—Certainly not. Your tender is dated the 6th of July ?—I believe it is. Were you aware on the 5th of July, that tenders had been received by him ?—• That I cannot say. In this copy of a letter, dated the 20th of June 1825, you refer to columns that were delivered for the Quadrant at I 8/. a ton ; was that a contract between Messrs. Crawshay and Government, or between Messrs. Crawshay and Mr. Nash as an indi¬ vidual?—Mr. Nash as an individual. Had you had very considerable transactions with Mr. Nash, as an individual, * * * 1 previous 169 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 133 previous to that ?—I believe for those columns alone, previous to our dealing with him for the Palace. Was the account for the colums at the Quadrant settled at that time?— Undoubtedly. Was it your understanding that that was a final contract, which was to include all the iron you were to furnish for the use of the Palace?—I understood so. How came you afterwards then to reduce the pricer—Because Mr. Nash said he would give us no further orders; that if we would not tender again, we should have no further orders. Supposing the same observation had been made to you in July 1826, what should you have done ?—The schedule of prices shows a considerable fall. You continued to charge up to 1828 the same price per ton ?—I believe that was the case. Up to what period did you continue to charge that price of 17/. a ton?—I can¬ not state that, but our invoice will show that. Are you acquainted with Mr. Day, of Wandsworth?—I am. Has he a blast furnace ?—He has not. Do you know the house of Fowler, Jones & Company?—Yes. Have they blast furnaces ?—They have not. Are you acquainted with the house of Bramah & Company?—Yes ; they are London founders. They had no opportunity of making those castings from blast furnaces ?—No. Do you consider it fair that those gentlemen should tender for those castings at blast furnaces, against you who had blast furnaces ?—I cannot tell to whom Mr. Nash had applied. They were not proper persons to tender against you ?—They might have pur¬ chased, as we did, from those who made, and they do so. Mr. Nash has said, that every person conversant with the manufacture of iron knows that the oftener the metal is cast, the more brittle it becomes ; and where smoothness of surface is not required, and the castings are sufficiently large to be cast at the blast furnace, the iron is less brittle, and of course most proper for the support of weight; do you agree with Mr. Nash in that opinion ?—Quite. Do you not know that there is a very considerable difference in the strength of iron after it has been re-cast at the air-furnace ?—I should think that the strength is not so uniform in a large casting. Are you aware that re-casting iron from the air furnace by selection of the pig iron, you could obtain a more uniform quality and great strength ?—If great care is used in the selection of the iron. Would that make it dearer?—Undoubtedly. Is it not the custom of founders to take particular care in the selection of that pig iron ?—I would say no, that I have known many instances where it is not so, that they put in very hard iron and make a very bad casting. You have said that you considered this contract as a conclusive contract ?—I un¬ doubtedly understood Mr. Nash that all the castings for the use ot the Palace were to be made at that price. Suppose the price had risen instead of falling?—I should have supplied them at this price. Then you must have borne the loss ?—Certainly. At what time did the prices of iron begin to fall ?—In September 1825. Your contract was made with the Government in the month ot July 1825? It was. At what oeriod did you send your first orders to those different persons you em¬ ployed ?—I think about that time in July. At what period did you give your first order ?—I believe a very few days after I made the contract. Was that a considerable order ?—A very considerable order. To what amount?—Some thousands ot pounds I appiehend. Was the first order you gave for 114 tons?—Very considerably more; but only so much delivered in that quarter. For that you charged 17/.; what did you pay for that 114 tons r—I submit whether I should be called upon to answer that question. A considerable portion of the order given by you, was given before the fall in price took place?—Most undoubtedly. Are you aware that the original founders contract with parishes and new streets, . 220. ft 3 to Mr. Robert Moser. 30 March, 1831. 170 Mr. Robert Moser. 30 March, 1831. 134 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE to supply from Staffordshire small quantities, such as 50 or 100 tons, for lamp and street posts?—I believe that has lately been the case; but I believe at the period referred to they would not do it. What do you call latterly?—Within the last year. Are you not aware that five years ago they did it ?—No. Previous to the fall of iron about Christmas 1825, had you given considerable orders to those persons to whom you gave the order, on account of Buckingham Palace ?—I had. To what extent ?—I think I may safely say fifteen or twenty thousand pounds worth. That was the first order ?—Yes. What was the whole amount?—Between thirty and forty thousand pounds. About one half had been given ?—Yes, thereabout. At the time the fall took place, did you and Mr. Nash both consider that con¬ tract as binding?—Undoubtedly; had it risen I should have felt myself bound, and Mr. Nash would have called upon me to execute the orders. Iron continuing to fall, Mr. Nash applied to you, and said that the contract ought to be rescinded ?—That was the case two years afterwards, that we were obliged to reduce our price on iron he then wanted. The original order had been expended ?—1 did not so consider it, but Mr. Nash did, and said I shall give you no further orders upon those terms. To make no dispute about it you gave it up?—Yes ; I protested against it with Mr. Nash. The Committee have before them copies of your tenders of the 20th of June 1825, and the 6th of July 1825, was there any corresponding acceptance written by Mr. Nash, of either of those tenders ?—Not any; it was communicated to me verbally at his office, that our tender was accepted. I was called before him, and he said I accept your tender, and shall issue orders immediately to you. ' Have you the letter to which that was an answer ?—1 have not brought it with me. Do you ever remember the price of such castings to be higher than 18 1 . a ton ? — I understood that the Government have paid as much as 22/. a ton for them about that time. Was not there a very considerable rise in the price of iron in the year 1823 ?—Yes. How much above the usual price?—The price of bar iron was at one time 14/. a ton, and has been down to 5/., and is down at 5/. now. That high rate ranged up to what period?—At the time I made this contract, the summer of 1825. Was the price in the summer of 1 825 about as high as that existing in the year 1823?—I cannot answer that question. What was the price when you made your contract ?—It was higher in 1825 than in 1823. It was at the highest in 1825 ?—Yes. Subsequently to that it fell very considerably?—Yes. Supposing you had supplied to any private individual, should you not have had the benefit of having made a contract at a peculiarly favourable period?—Yes. When you and others in Wales and Staffordshire gentlemen all agree, iron rises? —I wish we could agree and get it up, but we never do. Was Mr. Nash aware at the time he made this contract with you that you were to provide the iron from other persons, instead of providing it from your own works?—He asked no questions of that nature from me. With regard to the price of iron in 1825, you observe the price actually fell 2/. 105. a ton in September 1825?—It did. I he price declined 2/. 105. a ton in September 1825; are you not aware that some months previously to that, in consequence of the decline in the demand for iron, a meeting took place of the trade at Gloucester?—There was such a meeting, undoubtedly. In the summer?—Yes. W as that previous or subsequent to the time that contract was taken ?—I cannot answer that. . . Was it not about that time ?—I think it was. Was it not notorious at that time that the price of iron could not be maintained,? -—I cannot answer that, but I believe that was the general impression. Was that notorious to the public?—I should say that the public possibly thought so, tor they did not buy go freely as to enable us to maintain the price. But 171 'ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 135: But you do not know when this took place?—I do not. It was in the summer of 1825 ?—It was ; I cannot tell the month. Will you have the goodness to state the price you paid for those castings vou first purchased, delivered in London ?—I will do ft if required, but I would submit whether I ought to be called upon to state that. [The Witness was directed to withdraw .] [The Witness was again called in , and informed that the Committee had decided that he was to answer the question .j Twelve pounds ten shillings for a part, and 14/. for another part. That for which you charged Mr. Nash 17/. a ton ?—Yes. Have you the contract you made with the persons who delivered that iron ?— Yes. Have the goodness to refer to it to refresh your memory as to the price ?-—This is on the 8th of July 1825, at 14/. a ton. To what does that contract refer ?—To the columns. What is the price of the other castings?—Twelve pounds ten shillings a ton. For those you received 17/. from the public?—Yes. For what you paid 14/. you received 18/.?—Yes. You appealed just now to the justice of the Committee whether you should be called upon to answer these questions; will you state to the Committee whether you conceive that the answering of these questions is likely to be injurious to you in your trade ?—I cannot say that it will be injurious, but no man likes his profit in business exposed, or the w ? ay in which he transacts his business. You say two per cent, for cash ; was not there a deduction from that price for cash ^—That I stated. If appears two per cent, w'as deducted for cash?—It is so. That is equivalent to three or four months?—Yes. What was the number of tons you ordered upon that occasion ?—I have not the means of stating now. Was the freight in that charge you have stated ?—Yes, delivered in London. Was that contract for the whole quantity?—It was for the whole quantity, for which we then had orders, which was very considerable. How long did you continue to pay that price for those castings?—In October 1825; I made a subsequent contract at a pound a ton less than that. What was the quantity you purchased at that price?—I have not the means of stating; it is contracted for by the number of girders, not the weight. State the number of girders?—It was a small quantity ; fifty-nine only, I see. Will you give the price you paid in 1826?—Nine pounds ten shillings I see, per ton ; we contracted, in 1826, for a very small quantity. At that time you were charging the public 17/. ?— I think it w as at that time 15 /. There appears to be a quantity delivered in 1826, amounting to 21,000/. ; what w'as the price you gave for those?—That piust have been at 12 /. 1 os., and 11/. 10 s, under those two contracts. What was the price at which they were delivered at Buckingham Palace?— Seventeen pounds. « . . Refer to those delivered in October 1826?—I had no contract, except in April 1826; that was at 9 /. 10-y. Were the castings delivered at Midsummer, October 1826, and in the Christmas quarter, under that contract ?—Yes, I think they were. Have you the means of ascertaining what you paid in 1827 ?—In October 1 827 I see I paid 10/. . 'j ' J Mr. John JVyke Fowler, called in ; and Examined. YOU are an iron founder ?—I am. Did you make any tender for the iron work at Buckingham Palace ?—I did. At what price?—Eighteen pounds ten shillings per ton. At what time ?—In July 1825. Were you told at that time by Mr. Nash, or any person, where the iron was to be made ?—That the articles were to be made in London, we w ere told. Did you consider that they were to be made from iron recast at the air or cupola furnace ?—Of course they must be. r 329. R 4 Mr. Robert Moser. 30 March, 1831. Mr. J. Wyke Fouler . What 172 136 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. J. Wykt Fowler. 30 March, 1831. What difference would that make ?—Three pounds a ton for the delivery. In the tender you made, you considered they were to be enhanced 3 /. a ton by their being to be made in London ?—Yes. Have you seen the columns ?—I have seen them casually, as I have gone by, I have not examined them. What should you think, taking into account the difficulty of making those columns, and the facility or otherwise of making the girders, was a fair difference of price between the one and the other, reckoning the columns at 18/. a ton ?—I should say they were worth 50,9. a ton less, taking the market as it was then ; I consider the difference of the price of the column and the girder, to be about 50 s . per ton, consi¬ dering the difference in the value of labour, and the difference of making them. Would you have provided these iron girders from any foundries with which you did business, or made them yourself ?—I should have made the girders at my own place. . , ' - Were the quantities stated to you at the time you made this tender?—JNo, they were not; I have got the letter in my pocket now. [The Witness produced the same , and it was read , as follows :] “ Sirs,_I shall want a considerable quantity of castings for the Palace at Buckingham House, such as iron joists, from sixteen feet in length to ihirty- % eight feet in length, the shortest to be of these dimensions: longest of these dimensions: rU i'/i /'A A •Ssj 1% ii* i the ■4/2 •3 J'k : .> < 3 % > ? in the middle, and one foot six inches deep at each end. I shall also want some cast-iron arches, to strengthen ( stones of large bearing, thus: the iron one inch thick, and four inches broad, with inch screw bolts, nuts and heads. Will you let me know at what price per ton you will furnish such description of cast¬ ings of the best iron, cleaned and fitted, and delivered ready for fixing the joists, to be previously tried to ascertain the sufficiency of their strength. Your answer is required immediately. “ I am, Sirs, your humble servant. i 4, Regent-street, July 1st, 1825. “ John Nash. “ The payments will be made one quarter under another. (.Indorsement in pencil.) “ Models ; who is to find them ? Founders.—Are the whole of the bearers to be proved ? Yes.—At what time are they likely to be wanted ? In all Octo¬ ber ? Are they to be cast in London?—Yes.” When were those pencil questions and answers written?—Previous to the tender being sent in, my late partner, Mr. Jones, went up to Mr. Nash’s and put those questions, and those are in his hand-writing. He is dead ?—Yes. You believe this to be in his hand-writing?—I am sure that is his hand-writing. What was your understanding of the extent of this order, was it to apply to the whole of the iron works in the Palace, or to be limited to a certain number of girders?—I understood it was for the girders for the Palace. To apply to all the girders ?—To the girders that were wanted till October. Till the following October ?—Yes. Can you state at what price you would have delivered the same castings in 1826 and 1827?—In the beginning of 1826, about April 1826, we had 15/. 10s. a ton for some girders. .. • ; iL • Do 173 ON WINDSOR CASTLF. AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 137 Do you happen to know anything of the relative strength of iron made by the air furnace and other iron from the blast furnace?—Not exactly, it is veryuncer- tain ; sometimes you can make as strong iron from the blast as from the cupola or air furnace. Speaking generally, do you consider iron made in the blast furnaces equally strong v as that made in the air furnace ?—Certainly not. Can you be so certain of the strength of that made by the blast furnace as that made from the air furnace?—No, certainly not. Which costs most per ton, castings made from the air or the blast furnace ?— Made from the air furnace. * The blast furnace is that in which the iron is first made from the ore?—Yes. The air furnace is that in which the pig iron so made is re-melted?—Yes. Consequently, all the castings made in London, is made in that way?—Yes, or from a cupola furnace. \\ hen the price of iron was from 10/. to 11 /. a ton, that would increase the price of the girders 3 /. a ton ? —The difference in price between London castings and country castings was 3 /. a ton. If you had had liberty to have obtained those castings in the country, you could have obtained them 3 /. a ton cheaper than in London?—Yes. What tender could you have made to Mr. Nash, supposing that you had the liberty to have made them in the country?—About 3 /. or 505“. lower. You have no blast furnace?—No. Was your tender for pillars or girders?—For girders; I never knew there were any pillars wanted at that time. Supposing Mr. Nash had accepted the tender in your letter, how long would you have considered yourself bound to furnish castings?—I should consider that I was bound to deliver them up to October. And no longer ?—No longer. And that after that period you were at liberty to demand a higher price, or must receive a lower price ?—Yes. Had you any personal communication with Mr. Nash in consequence of that letter?—I had not myself. Do you know that your partner had ?—Yes. You knew that at the time?—Yes, I did. From your understanding of that letter, did you understand that you were to supply the whole quantity of iron that was wanted in Buckingham House, or not ? --I understood from the questions put to Mr. Nash in that letter, that we were to supply the quantity of girders that would be wanted in all October. A specific quantity ?—There was no quantity stated ; we put the question to Mr. Nash when will they be wanted, and he said all in October. In the personal communications he had with your partner did he specify the whole quantity he should want ?—That I cannot say ; I only take it as I find it in pencil. When your partner returned from Mr. Nash's house did he communicate what had taken place between him and Mr. Nash upon that occasion ?—Yes; he said he had been to Mr. Nash’s, and we went over the questions and answers previous to sending in our tender. You considered that you were tendering for iron to be delivered up to October ? —Yes. What was the reason Mr. Nash rejected your tender ?—I suppose he had a lower. Have you done any other work for Mr. Nash ?—Yes. What work?—I supplied the iron-work for the Duke of Clarence’s house in the Stable-yard. Was that done by tender?—Yes. How many tenders were there upon that occasion ?—I do not know. Did you do the whole of the work ?—Yes, it was specified. Was that under the Board of Works?—Yes. Did you do the work round the Park?—I did. Was that by by tender?—Yes. Did you do the whole of the work?—No, only one-third. Who had the other two-thirds ?—Crawshay one-third, and May & Morritt the other. * Do you know how they came to have it ?—Because they were obliged to come down to my price. 229. S Mr. John Mr. Wyke Fowler . 30 March, 1831. 174 138 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr'/ J. J. Bramah. 30 March, 1831. V-*__ ) Mr. John Joseph Bramah, called in ; and Examined. DID you furnish the iron-work at Windsor Castle in 1825?—We made our tender in ] 825, and made some part of it in that year. Have you got your tender ?—Yes, this is a copy of it. [The Witness delivered in the same, and it was read, as follows :] “ Pimlico, 4th February 1825. “ Sir,—In answer to your letter of the 30th ultimo, relative to a part of castings for flooring joists that may be required in the improvements carrying on at Windsor Castle under your direction, we beg to inform you we are willing to furnish the same at 22/. per ton delivered; at the same time we take the liberty of stating, that we should be willing to furnish bolts and nuts of large sizes at 39/. per ton if any are required. We think it right to observe that, from the unprecedented state of the iron-market, the above price must be subject to the various rise and fall of the article, which may be expected from its present great advance. (signed) “ Jos h Bramah 8$ Sons.” “ To J. Wyatville, Esq.” **• * * . ■ - , , ■; > v { ' 1 : $4 4 • Were those the prices delivered at Windsor?—Yes. In consequence of this did you enter into a contract to furnish it at that price ?— I did. Did you furnish that iron yourself; was it cast in London, or did you purchase it of other persons ?—It was cast in London, the whole of it from time to time; it was delivered in small parcels from that to the present time. You did not purchase it in the country? —Certainly not; the whole was cast at Pimlico. You purchased the raw material?—Yes; those castings are made of a mixture of materials of several pigs. What would he the difference of freight between Buckingham Palace and Windsor?—Girders being very light and very lengthy, we could not take them by water carriage ; it would be by land carriage about 255. a ton difference; we could have sent by water, but there would have been no economy in it; there was great hazard from the length of the girders, and not only so, but the expense by water to Windsor, and then the carriage from Windsor to the Castle, amounted to nearly the, same thins. How long did you continue to charge 22/. a ton?—I think the first year. What did you charge afterwards ?—I think 21 1 . What was the lowest?—Nineteen pounds ten shillings. Have you seen the large girders for Buckingham Palace?—Yes, I have. Was the nature of the castings you made for Windsor Palace so different in point of size and execution, that you can compare the price of those and your's ?—Yes, in some degree. What difference should there have been in the price for the castings made by that contract, and those plain castings?—Ours were not only more difficult but lighter; the comparison will be some thirty or forty per cent, difference ; I have never been in the Palace but once since the commencement of it, therefore I speak uncertainly. Did you see the strong girders made for Buckingham Palace?—Yes; those sup¬ plied for Windsor Castle would make an economy of thirty per cent.; the difference of price will be governed a little by that. - Do you mean that those at Buckingham Palace would be thirty per cent, cheaper than those at Windsor in material?—In material decidedly, the Windsor would be thirty per cent, cheaper than those at the Palace; I think, from those I saw at the Palace, they are two feet six or two feet nine, while ours are sixteen inches. What should you charge a ton for those you saw at Buckingham Palace? — I would ask whether cast at Pimlico or in the country? Give it both wavs?—I should say to have cast them in town at the time, I could have supplied them at something like 20/.; cast in the country, I should say about 14/. . That was at the time when the price of iron was the highest?—Yes. At what price would you have delivered those castings in 1826 and 1827, at the then price of iron, it made in the country?—I think they would have come down as low as 1 2 /. Does 175 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. iqq Does that include delivery at Buckingham Palace?—Yes. What is the reason for so great a difference between country and town castings ?_ The second melting, the difference of extraordinary labour. What would have been the price you would have charged in June 1825 for that iron work at Buckingham Palace, if cast in the country ?—If cast in the country, about 14/. I think at any time during that year. Do you recollect making tenders for the iron work of Buckingham House ?— I do. _ In your tenders you proposed to supply iron at 22/. a ton?—Just so, which is in contradiction to an observation I have just made. When we received the letter from Mr. Nash, which did not mention quantity or any thing else, I waited upon him to know what was the probable quantity likely to be required, and in what time; I was answered by a number of dimensions being given me for girders and columns, and it was stated that the quantity required immediately, for the building was waiting, was about forty tons, to be delivered in a fortnight. Taking that according to the patterns given me by Mr. Nash, and the shortness of time given, I could not have done it under that; but had they been for a larger quantity, it would have made a difference. The tender you made referred to the peculiar circumstances you have stated, and for that small quantity?—Yes. By whom was that communication made to you?—It was made by Mr. Nash himself; my letter was the 5th of July. Did you consider that the tender you made did not apply to the whole quantity required at Buckingham Palace?— My object in waiting upon Mr. Nash was to know what was the quantity we were to tender for, his answer was, that of various sizes and patterns, there were forty tons to be delivered in a fortnight. Were you ever required to supply other tenders?—No. Are you competent to give an opinion as to the relative strength of iron made from the blast furnace and the air furnace ?—The second melting, which is usually of mixed iron, is generally much stronger. Is it generally understood, among persons conversant with these questions, that iron made from the air furnace is more uniform, and of greater strength, than iron made from the blast furnace?—Undoubtedly so; and it is always under those cir¬ cumstances of second melting, which is of great advantage. . It has been stated, that the oftener the metal is re-cast the more brittle it becomes, and where smoothness of surface is not required, and the castings are sufficiently large to be cast in the blast furnace, the iron is less brittle and more proper for the support of weight; do you agree in that opinion?—No. Is that the general understanding of persons conversant with those things ?— Certainly not ; a casting coming from the furnace we are forced to make con¬ siderable allowances on account of the strength, as compared with that of the second melting, and also forced to provide for the honeycomb, which is very fre¬ quent ; it very seldom runs solid. Is that the general opinion of architects, and persons concerned in buildings ?— That is a matter of fact; the second casting is infinitely the best casting which is made; the first casting in the blast furnace is bad, and also the third and fourth depreciates in value ; the second is the best. The best is that made from the pigs which come to London re-cast?—Yes; they are the most solid, and the toughest which are made. Your letter which is addressed to Sir Jeffry Wyatville, is dated the 4th of February 1825; you say you will furnish him with the iron required for Windsor Castle at 22 /. ?—Yes. In the latter part of the letter you say, “ We think it right to observe, that from “ the unprecedented state of the iron market, the above price must be subject to ,c the various rise and fall of the article, w hich may be expected from its present il great advance?”—Just so. The price of iron fell very considerably after that ?—Yes. What was the diminution in the year 1828, in the price?—We have only taken off 50 s. at present, for the difference in the price of iron ; and last year had we been called upon to do anything further, there w'ould have been a further reduction, but what we did last year was but trifling, and of a different sort. A great fall took place in October 1825, did it not?—No ; I think not so early as that. Did you make any diminution in the price you asked, during any part of the { 329. S 2 year Mr. J. J. Bramah. 30 March, 1831* / 176 Mr. J. J. Bramah. 30 March, 1831. v-„ ..._/ Francis Chantrey , Esq. 140 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE year 1825?—I cannot answer that; I think there was no difference made in the first year, but in 1826. Do you recollect the fall which took place in the price of iron that year?—No; I cannot speak to that from memory. Were you allowed for models and casts ?—Some part of the models we had, and some were furnished to us. Was a large part of those you furnished, girders ?—Some portion were joists, very few girders. Did you purchase any of those castings ready made ?—No; they were all made at Pimlico. Do you mean to say the iron for Buckingham Palace would have been dearer than that for Windsor Castle?—Certainly not. Would not country castings have done for Windsor Castle ?—If they had been cast from the second melting, and there had been some little additional security in quantity. I said, that at Windsor Castle, there is the lowest material as to real quantity to be consumed, of any building that has ever been put up, the least spare metal. • * You mean the greatest strength in the smallest compass?—Yes, every thing is done with the greatest economy; many of the girders are framed open, all the neutral parts as to strength are left out. To have a less weight of metal?—Yes, to save the metal, at the same time that it increases the labour in the moulding, there has been a less quantity of metal to average the labour on, which is against us. You refer to Windsor Castle?—Yes; I have done nothing at Buckingham Palace. Was there a considerable quantity of iron furnished to Windsor Castle ?—Not considering it was a Palace. It came to eleven or twelve thousand pounds ?—Yes, thereabout, I think. Did you understand you were to supply the whole of the iron to be used in Windsor Castle?—No, I was written to in conjunction with others; I believe there was some other persons written to at the same time, and there was another at the same price as myself, in consequence of that it was divided. You and the other person have supplied the whole?—Yes ; I have supplied all the last year or two, in consequence of the other parties having left their business in town 5 and I believe there was some complaint of the article delivered by the other person. Francis Chantrey , Esquire, called in ; and Examined. DID you ever receive any order to suspend all work relative to the statue of his late Majesty ?—-No ; no such order was sent to me. No order was sent to you from the Board of Works in October 1 830, to stop any further progress in your works ?—No order was sent to me, but it is proper I should explain; General Stephenson informed me, that he had instructions to stop all works under Mr. Nash at Buckingham Palace, but that, as I was employed by the Treasury, he did not send that order to me ; but he asked me as matter of favour to him, to inquire of the Treasury whether it was intended that mine should be included. I did so inquire; a copy of the Treasury Minute was returned to me, and this gave me to understand that it was not to be stopped, that I was to proceed ; and that Teasury Minute is in my possession. Do you mean a Treasury Minute of that date?—No, a copy of the Treasury Minute of the 1st of May 1 829, an extract of which was put into my hand through Mr Nash on the 17th of July 1829, although the Minute was dated the 1st of May 1829. Can you state to the Committee the cause of that delay ?—I do not know the cause of it. I wrote a letter by command of His Majesty, and which was sent to Mr. Nash for the Lords of the Treasury, on the 1st of December 1829. I received no answer to it, and on inquiry I found that it had been delivered to them, but I could get no further information respecting it. 1 met Mr. Nash afterwards accidentally, as my letter will show, and he informed me respecting it. So that it appears that Mr. Nash received the Treasury order on the 1st of May, but did not communicate it to you until the 17th of July following ?—Certainly. Was it only then in consequence of your accidentally meeting him that he did so ?—It was in consequence of accidentally meeting him that I became acquainted with the circumstance of the Treasury having sanctioned my Estimate. : ; . in ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 177 141 In consequence of that you commenced certain buildings which you considered necessary to carry that order into execution?—In consequence of receiving an extract of the Treasury Minute, I commenced removing my works, and pulling down and re-erecting almost the whole of my premises. Though I had a number of small rooms, it was necessary to make a very large one for this work. My communication from Mr. Nash was not a copy of the Treasury Minute, but an extract from it. What other expense did you subsequently put yourself to?— It is extremely diffi¬ cult to say how much expense an artist puts himself to. I can state distinctly that from the time I received the commission up to the present moment, the whole of my time has been devoted directly to this work, in making studies and models, and indirectly in making buildings, with the exception of two models, one of them a statue of Mr. Canning, the designs of which were previously made before I re¬ ceived this commission. ; f Have you occupied any of your time or put yourself to any expense subsequently to the 3d of October 1830?—1 have been fully occupied upon this work. Did you not understand from General Stephenson, last October, that all works relative to Buckingham Palace w ? ere to be stopped, and did you not, in consequence of that, apply to the Treasury to know whether your work was included in that prohibition?—Certainly; I happened to see Mr. Herries, and mentioned the circumstance, and I in consequence applied at the Treasury, and a copy of the Minute was forwarded to me, through the kindness of Mr. Herries. Last October General Stephenson informed you that all works relative to Buck¬ ingham Palace were stopped ?—Those that had received their orders from Mr. Nash were stopped; but as I did not receive my orders from Mr. Nash, but from the Treasury, General Stephenson did not give me that official notice. That was the order of the 1st of May preceding?—Yes. Did that order go to the stopping of the w'ork ?—No; I have never had any order to stop the work. What authority had you to proceed with additional expense after the month of October?—I had no authority but my original order. Did you receive any directions to suspend the original order for making the statue?—None whatever. Therefore, unless you received some order to suspend the work, on no consider¬ ation would you have suspended it ?—Certainly not. Should you have considered that injustice had been done to you, if having received that original order to make the King’s statue at this late period, you were ordered to suspend it?—Most unquestionably. State the reasons why ?—From the time I received my order in the first instance, almost the whole of my establishment, and nearly the whole of my professional labours have been suspended, in order to make preparations for this work; it has not been in my powder to apply myself to any thing but this statue, and it is only since finishing my building that I have been able to proceed upon the larger parts of this statue. Does it require much previous consideration to devise the plan and design for executing such a statue ?—It requires more than half the artist’s time and attention to make the necessary studies and arrangements, before a large model can be put up. Are there any particular contrivances or devices, w hich it is necessary to have previously thought of, before an equestrian statue of that size can be completed ?—It requires the most minute calculation to put up every part to the exact proportion with the studies and designs, before the clay can be put upon that skeleton, or whatever it may it may be called ; it is very different from the preparation necessary for a pe¬ destrian statue, because the whole of the body of the horse must be suspended. The best information 1 can give of that is to be found in the great French work, upon the equestrian statue of Louis XIV. which will show how complicated the details are. Other works that were ordered by his late Majesty have been countermanded ?— Everyone, except a statue in marble of himself, which is completed. - Did you put vourself to any expense relative to those other works?—When His Majesty gave me a commission for the Duke of York’s statue I made a few sketches. . In case it should he found desirable to finish the statue, could it be properly placed in Windsor Park, in lieu of the statue of George the Third, at the end of the • 329.. S3 Long Francis Chantrey t Esq. 30 March, 1831. 178 142 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Francis Chantrey , Long Walk ?— I always considered that a very unfavourable situation for any statue ; mine is much too small; and in my opinion the statue intended for that situation will 30 March, look little, although it measures about twenty-four feet. l8 3 l * Must not you always consider the situation in which a statue is to be placed in • v ——- J v' order to determine what is the proper site of that statue?—Certainly, that is a de¬ sirable point. Is it your opinion that, looking to the dimensions of the intended statue, it will look well at the top of the marble arch in front of Buckingham Palace ?—I hope it will; I dare not say it will. The question refers to the situation; do you think that a good situation for your equestrian statue of his late Majesty?—Yes; I might perhaps point out a better. Professionally speaking, if you were not permitted to go on so as to complete this statue, should not you think yourself very much injured ?—Most materially injured. What money have you received on account ?—Three thousand guineas. Would not that three thousand guineas be a sufficient remuneration for what you have done ?—No, nor half; I do not know what could remunerate me for the loss of my time; I hardly know how to put a value upon that; almost my whole time, and the whole of my studies, have been directed to this work. You have been prevented undertaking other things in consequence of this?— I might have done many other things. Can you point out any other situation for this statue ?—I always think that a statue should be on a pedestal, and that it should be in proportion to the pedestal. You would not place a statue on the top of an arch?—That is not my choice ; I would rather see my ow^n work on a pedestal. There has been an equestrian statue on a "triumphal arch at Rome?—I believe there has ; I know of none now. Was it at your own solicitation you undertook this w'ork, under the direction of the Treasury, and not under Mr. Nash?—When Mr. Nash submitted the plans of the arch to me, I declined the whole ; and it was His Majesty’s commands that called me forward again, and was the cause of the statue being put into my hands. Can you account for the order being given back to you ?—I cannot, w ith any degree of certainty. You were specially directed by His Majesty to execute this work ?—I can only relate that which has been repeated to me. I was given to understand, that His Majesty, on the enquiry who w^as to make the statue, said that Chantrey must make the statue. I was then sent for to Windsor, and saw His Majesty, and he commu¬ nicated to me, that it was his wish I should undertake the statue; I told His Majesty, I should be proud to do it, if I was permitted to make a work of art, and not to put up a cheap statue as a mere sign of a work of art. A great deal more passed. Before that, Mr. Westmacott had given in his estimate for the execution of the statue?—After I declined the whole, the statue was given to Mr. Westmacott; but at that time the statue was to be only ten feet, or ten feet six, and the estimate was then 6,000 /. After the King commanded me to make the statue, the size was increased to thirteen feet nine inches high, and then it was that I met with some difficulty in settling the estimate. State what difficulty ?—The difficulty which I felt, was the reason for my writing and recapitulating in my letter of the 1st December 1828, what I had stated to Mr. Nash, in my letter to him of November 18, 1 828. Did you object to the statue being made only ten feet high?—Yes; I always thought that ten feet was too little, at the height of the arch. Y ou objected to those dimensions, because they would have made the statue appear insignificant ?—Yes ; being only about one foot larger than that at Charin^- cross. What is the elevation of the arch?—I think sixty feet. \ ou say you refused the whole; do you mean that you refused the sculpture of the archr—Mr. Nash offered me my choice of any portion of the sculpture that I chose to select; I declined the whole. You were then applied to a second time by His Majesty ? —I was then applied to by His Majesty. Considering that statue as a work of art, you had rather have it in some other situation ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 179 M 3 situation than on the arch ?—It would produce as good an effect on a pedestal as on j an arch. If you were offered your choice, whether it should be put on the top of that arch, or upon a pedestal such as you would recommend, would you put it on the top of the arch, or on the top of a pedestal ?—I have endeavoured to adapt my statue to w. the arch to the utmost extent that the means allowed will enable me to do; still the statue is not too large for a pedestal, indeed I hope it would look well in either situation. What would be the cost of the pedestal ?—My notion of pedestals is of a very simple nature; I think they should be made of solid blocks of granite, to protect themselves without iron railing; perhaps it would cost from 400/. to 600/., but I cannot tell at this moment. The whole of the sculpture of the arch was offered to you and you declined it ?— Mr. Nash submitted the designs to me in a very complimentary manner, for me to take such parts as I chose to execute; I declined the whole, I may say from a feeling that works of art in marble exposed to the climate of this country were not likely to be very lasting. Have you received to this day any explanation of the delay which took place in forwarding to you the Minute dated the 1st of May, which remained in Mr. Nash’s possession till the 17th of July?—None whatever. Will you give your opinion as to the probable duration of the marble arch, taking into consideration the effect of climate?—Any thing I can say will be matter of opinion I have made in looking at materials exposed in this country; for instance, the statue of Queen Anne in the front of St. Paul’s is now wearing her second head, though I must say that the marble there is not by any means so likely to be lasting as that of which this arch is made. What is your opinion as to the arch?—The construction and material are such that the arch will remain for a long period, but a few hundred years will obliterate much of the ornamental part. Is it not protected by the cornice?—Yes ; but the cornice does not protect it from the westerly winds, and buildings in this country decay most on the western side. 1 consider the cause of destruction to be moisture and frost. » • f - : r , t f ' — 1 . , 1 „ . L Mr. James Kepple , called in; and Examined. * YOU are clerk to Messrs. Rhodes?—Yes. Did you deliver in at the last meeting of the Committee this return ? — {The same being shown to the wit?iess )—Yes. You have stated 75,000 bricks at 545. per thousand, as extracted from your ledger ?—Yes. Was this the price that you actually received from Mr. Palmer?—No. What price did you actually receive from Mr. Palmer?—Five shillings less. Why did jou give in an account to the Committee of the amount of bricks sent to the King’s Palace for Mr. James Palmer, headed in that manner, as charged in that account at 54 s. a thousand, when in point of fact Mr. Palmer paid you 5 s. a thousand less ?—The price at this end of the town is as charged there; there are a few exceptions that we do supply under that, such as large quantities. You sent in an account of bricks sent to the King’s Palace for Mr. James Palmer, and you charge those in 1825 at 54-?-, 1826 at 52s., and in 1827, 48s*; you now state that the real contract price you actually received from Mr. Palmer was 5^. a thousand less?—Yes; that was a special agreement. Why have you given in this Return, when you knew the object was to obtain a Return of the prices paid? — I hardly knew' the object what it was; every quarter we have a letter from the Office of Works, and w e send in the prices to them ; those prices we send to the Office of Works are these; there are three or four persons whom we supply for less; we do not profess to sell bricks at 5 s. less; but for large contracts w e do sell for less. - The Committee are to understand that you sent in this fictitious account of the price of bricks to the Board of Works just as you have sent it in to this Committee ? ^-1 sent in a copy from the ledger ; we charge every person at that price; and if we take off anything, it is on the creditors’ side. You have not explained to the satisfaction of the Committee, why you sent a return of the price of bricks charged $s. more than the price actually paid?—The order desires an account of the price charged ; 1 have now brought the ledger ; I c 320. S 4 did Francis Chantrey, Esq. 30 March, 1831. Mr. James Kepple. 180 i 4 4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. James Kepple. 30 March, 1831. V- - - l did not know exactly what sort of account was wanted ; that is the price we generally charge ; but we took 5 s. less from Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer paid 5 s. less for the bricks he had all the way through the account ? —Yes. The Committee are of opinion you should have returned to them the prices Mr. Palmer actually paid?—Then there is this account we returned to the Office of Works, and that would not have agreed ; that is the price we generally paid. Mr. Joseph Brown was called in; and delivered in various Papers directed by the Committee. Jovis, 14° die Apr Ms, 1831. Mr. J. IF. Hiort. 14 April, 1831. Mr. John William Hiort , called in ; and Examined, ARE you aware of any difficulties having been thrown in the way of Mr. Nash by the Office of Works, as to the making of any of his contracts with the different workmen at Buckingham Palace ?—No. Was there any objection made on the part of the Office of Works to making contracts in gross, instead of making them by measure and value?—Not any; although it is the general opinion of the Office that the method of contracting in gross is not the best method, but I believe there has been no control over Mr. Nash, in making his contracts one w'ay or another. Have the Office of Works any authority to control Mr. Nash, with reference to his contracts ?—From all I can recollect of the correspondence with the Treasury,* quite the contrary; Mr. Nash, in the case of this Palace, was not under control in the same way as the other attached architects are. Are the prices fixed by the Office of Works, intended for ordinary and common repairs ?—Exclusively for common and ordinary repairs. Are those prices in any way applicable to contracts for works of great mag¬ nitude?—No; we always go to competition for works of great magnitude. Do you not consider that the entering into a contract for u, great work at a certain per centage below the prices paid by the Office of Works, is a fair system of com¬ petition r—Certainly, I think it is a fair system of competition, to exhibit to the parties the prices ot the Office of Works, and to require of them, (as I suppose Mr. Nash did in this instance), to say what they are willing to undertake the work for at per cent, under those prices; and whatever those prices may be it is not material; they may be the Office of Works’ prices, or any other, for if the parties tendering propose to contract at so much under any given list of prices, I think it is quite as fair a system of competition as any other; the utility, however, of refer¬ ring to the Office prices in preference, is, that it saves much official time and labour, because those prices can very readily be referred to, in making out and examining the accounts ; and it is merely taking so much per cent., as the case may be, off’the total of the account, therefore this has been considered, and generally adopted, as a very easy method of doing the business, instead of making new lists of prices, applicable to each particular building, which are always liable to omission of articles in the specification. When contracts are made on specification, without reference to the Office prices, there is always a provision at the end of the contracts, in case the architect should have omitted any articles in his specification, that all articles not therein specified, are to be taken at so much per cent, under the Office of Works prices. Those prices therefore are, in most instances, referred to, and contracts are sometimes taken at prices so much per cent, below the Office prices, at a particular period or quarter day, to remain so for the whole of the contract; at other times they are made to fluctuate, as the Office of Works’ prices fluctuate, according to the merchants* monthly returns. I am of opinion, therefore, which¬ soever system is adopted, it is equally fair in point of competition. The Office ot Works’prices fluctuate not only with reference to the price of materials, but the price of labour ?_Yes. D° the prices of the Office of Works apply to such works as Buckingham Balace . they are calculated only for jobbing work and common repairs, and not for works on a great scale. Have ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 181 145 Have you any prices referring to such works as Buckingham Palace ?—None ; our prices are as before stated, fixed for common repairs. Then how can you compare your prices with superior works?—No comparison can be made for many articles in Buckingham Palace ; for some ornamental plas¬ tering, for instance, may be considered as works of art, and not in our contracts, v which govern only common and ordinary repairs ; nevertheless, if no previous agreement has been made by the architect, and the Office is required to affix prices to such articles, we consider the tradesman equally bound by the usual official method of calculation, as he is by the fixed Office prices, and we endeavour by every possible means to go through the same process with respect to such articles, as any other ordinary article, by ascertaining the prime cost as near as we can, and allowing the same profit of twelve and a half per cent, which the tradesman receives on the ordinary work of the Office of Works. Can you apply that to a fine wainscotting such as that at Buckingham Palace?— Yes ; we have no other means of doing it. In the case of work of superior artists where not only the labour is to be paid for, but a remuneration for the design is necessary, what would be done?—If a previous contract had not been made we have no means of ascertaining the value of such work. Should you not think it necessary to make any deviation from that allowance of twelve and a half per cent., in the case of an artificer or artist having furnished not only the workmanship but the design?—The Office prices have no reference to the works of artists. Have you any criterion at the Office of Works by which you can estimate the value of fine carpenter’s work, or fine ornaments in plastering ?—None for works of this description, but in the manner I have before stated. Then the agreement made for those works at so much per cent, under the prices of the Office of Works, would not appear upon the contract at all?—They would necessarily form a part of Mr. Nash’s contract, but such extra articles not being included in the Office list of prices for common and ordinary repairs, they must be priced in the manner before stated. Will you refer to the paper now shown to you, attached to Colonel Stephenson’s letter, dated Office of Works, 26th of January 1826, was that paper drawn up by you?—It was drawn up under my superintendence. Can you answer for the accuracy of the comparative prices contained in that state¬ ment?—Yes,I believe the calculations to be perfectly correct. Do you believe that when you stated that the iron work at the British Museum cost sixteen and a half per cent, less than that of Buckingham Palace, that was a correct statement ?—I believe so, and I think I can turn to the calculations that produced that statement. When you state that the mason’s work for the New Post Office was done at seventeen per cent, less than the mason’s work at Buckingham Palace, was that also made w ith care and accuracy ?—It was made with care and accuracy. Did the Office of Works ever make any alteration in the prices which Mr. Nash recommended for the execution of any works for the Palace ?—None, beyond official correction in calculations, &c. as all the prices for the works at the New Palace were necessarily settled according to Mr. Nash’s agreements with the several tradesmen. Had you ever any discussion or argument with Mr. Nash, with respect to the stone delivered by Mr. Freeman?—I do not recollect any conversation with Mr. Nash on that subject. Should you have known if such discussion had taken place?—Yes, I think I should. Mr. Nash states that considerable argument and discussion took place with the Office of Works on the subject of the supply of stone by Mr. Freeman, are you aware of the discussion?—I recollect upon the first payment that was made for this Palace, the cashier who pays the tradesmen, had a difficulty respecting a guarantee that Mr. Nash had entered into with Mr. Freeman. What was the nature of the guarantee ?—I think it was simply that Mr. Nash was to take care to see him (Mr. Freeman) paid, or that the tradesmen’s money was to be reserved for payment to him, or something of that kind; and the trades¬ men’s money I think was kept back in consequence of that, till a letter came from Mr. Freeman to say that there was an arrangement made that the cashier might pay them. The question alludes to the mode of supply to the different tradesmen ; Mr. Nash ooq T contracted Mr. J. IV. Hiort. 14 April, 1831. - ... - 182 4 6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. J. JV. Hiort. 14 April, 1831. contracted for the supply of the tradesmen with stone through Mr. Freeman, did the Office of Works ever interfere with that arrangement?—Never. Mr, Nash has stated that there was a considerable sum of money lost to the Government by the interference of the Office of Works in that matter?—It could not be by the interference of the Office of Works, for in the same letter in which Mr. Nash transmitted Mr. Freeman’s engagement to supply the masons with stone on Mr. Nash’s guarantee, he sent also the contract which he had made with the different masons, for performing this very work at ten per cent, below the Office prices for stone and labour in measured work, which contracts have ever since been in force. You are certain that the Office of Works never did interfere with respect to the mode of supply of this stone ?—I know of no interference. Has Mr. Nash laid before the Office of Works the nature of the contracts entered into for the supply of marble from Italy, between him and Mr. Brown ?— No; he has delivered in certain accounts for a portion of the marble only, I dare say a year and a half ago, which I went through to examine as far as I could ; I was stopped for want of vouchers. On what principle was Mr. Brown to be paid ?—It appeared, I think, that Mr. Brown charged a per centage. Was Mr. Brown required to produce all the vouchers for the original cost, and to be paid ten per cent, upon that ?—I wrote to Mr. Nash for those documents; the Office never acknowledged Mr. Brown in this transaction. Did you ever receive at the Office of Works the original documents for the prime cost of the marble in Italy?—No, never. Taking into consideration the nature of the works at Buckingham Palace when they were in progress, do you conceive there would have been any difficulty, at any period, to ascertain the amount expended by the different tradesmen?—I should think no difficulty at all. The question refers to the architect being enabled to ascertain the expense in¬ curred at any period of the works ; would there have been any difficulty at the end of every quarter or every month in ascertaining, within a few hundred pounds, the exact cost of the work at that period ?—In my opinion he certainly could. If the architect turned his attention to the account he could at any period, in your opinion, ascertain within a small sum what expense had been actually incurred on a particular building?—I should think so, for in a building of that kind a difference of two or three hundred pounds would not much signify, and, as I before stated, there would not be found much difficulty, all the facilities of the Office of Works being at the architect’s command. The Committee find among the printed papers referred to them an extract of a letter, dated the 23d of December 1825, which states, that upon a representation from Mr. Nash, the Lords of the Treasury see no objection to Mr. Hiort, the chief examiner in the Office, being allowed to supply his patent bricks for the use of the New Palace ; have you such a patent right?—I have. Did Mr. Nash apply to you to supply the bricks?—He did. Did you feel any difficulty in supplying those bricks because you were attached to the Office of Works?—I did. Did you decline supplying those bricks in the first instance on that ground ?— I consulted the Surveyor General ; he felt a difficulty about it, and therefore I de¬ clined supplying them without a special Treasury Order. Mr. Nash applied for them before I received the patent: in fact he intended to use them, and he bespoke the first bricks that came from the country; and when they did arrive, and not till then, I told him that I would rather not supply them, as there w ? as a doubt whether I could consistently with my situation. That was the manner in which the question arose?—Yes, after consultation with the Surveyor General. What did you then do?-—I did nothing; Mr. Nash, I understood, wrote to the Treasury, and a Treasury letter w ? as received by the Office of Works allowing those bricks of mine to be supplied. \ ou obtained the special permission of the Treasury to have those bricks used ?—- The Office did. Were they, in point of fact, so used ?—Yes, to a certain extent. The objection came on the part of General Stephenson, in conjunction with you, to supplying those bricks?—Yes; my objection was grounded on the opinion of General Stephenson. There was no objection made on the part of Mr. Nash to using them ?—No. Your 183 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 147 Your own feeling led you to decline acting in the double capacity of surveyor and supplier of this article, unless you had special authority to do so ?—I thought myself it was perfectly impossible that the manner in which the bricks were to be supplied could amount to an infringement upon the law made upon that subject, but 1 de¬ clined it because I knew doubts had arisen. To what law do you refer?—The Act of Parliament for the appointment of our Office, w hich states that no officer of the Office of Works shall be concerned in any contract for the supply of materials for the King’s works ; it is an Act passed in the year 1814 I think. When I was sent for to the Treasury, I saw Mr. Herries ; he was of opinion that the Act of Parliament did not affect me in this particular in¬ stance ; nevertheless I pressed him for a Treasury Order. Is there a clear understanding among the architects of the Board of Works that they are not to be concerned in the supply of any materials for the works under that Board ?—I always believed so. Did Mr. Nash, after he commenced the works of Buckingham Palace, continue to act as an attached architect of the Board of Works, though he did not receive any salary for such appointment?—Yes; he generally attended the monthly or quarterly meetings whenever required; the principal business at those meetings, particularly the third in the quarter, is to settle the new prices for that quarter, in which settlement Mr. Nash generally took a part. Was it considered that Mr. Nash, in fixing the prices at Buckingham Palace, was doing so as a work belonging to an attached architect of the Office of Works?— The Office of Works knew nothing of the works at the commencement of Buckingham Palace. Mr. Nash had made most of the contracts before directions were received that the accounts of that Palace were to come under the examination of the Office of VYorks. Were the prices for the supply of the works at Buckingham Palace fixed quarterly by Mr. Nash with the other, architects ?—The quarterly meetings of the architects are for fixing prices for common and ordinary works only, as before stated. Did the other attached architects of the Board of Works assist in fixing those prices ?—Certainly ; the meeting consists of the Surveyor General, the Assistant Surveyor General, the attached Architects and myself. Were there any other works in operation under the direction of Mr. Nash at that time?—The Duke of Clarence’s House at St. James’s I recollect was at that time not quite finished. Were they considered as included in his salary?—Mr. Nash received the regu¬ lated commission of three per cent, for that building, together with his official salary; but this salary was discontinued upon his being allowed a commission of five per cent., upon the works at the New Palace. You stated that Mr. Herries doubted very much whether your providing these bricks would come under the provisions of the Act of Parliament; can you state to the Committee the ground upon which Mr. Herries expressed that doubt?—To the best of my recollection it arose merely on the wording of the Act; Mr. Herries did not suppose that I was, by supplying these bricks as patentee, concerned in any contract. I expressed a doubt to the tradesmen whether, if the bricks were intended for the King’s Palace, they could be supplied with them without the permission of the Treasury; and I made the same observation to all the architects of the Office, some of whom applied for special permission to use them at other buildings. Were you not, as chief examiner, regularly employed in checking the accounts of Mr. Nash of his expenditure at Buckingham Palace ?—Yes. Could any expenditure be made at Buckingham Palace without its being revised by the Office of Works ?•—The Office had no check upon the expenditure beyond examining the accounts, and pricing the work according to the agreements entered into by Mr. Nash. Was not the expenditure on Buckingham Palace all placed under the Office of Works?—The Office of Works had no control over the expenditure. You did not revise the accounts?—The accounts were examined as far as regarded contracts and prices, and also the quantities of work which appeared upon the measurements in the usual way. Were the contracts entered into by Mr. Nash for the erection of Buckingham Palace eventually revised by the Office of Works?—The Office of Works had no power to revise the contracts prior to the 5th of August i 825, and subsequently to that period they were directed to be sent to the Office of Works to be sanctioned by the Surveyor General previous to the work being undertaken, but they were generally omitted to be so sent, which omission was invariably stated in each quarter's account. 329- T 2 M,-. J. IV. lliort. 14 April, 1831. You 184 , 4 s MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. J. \V. Iiiwt. .’4 April, 1831. You as chief examiner took an official share in that examination ?—I generally took part, with the Surveyor General, &c., upon most occasions, in comparing the tenders when any were received, and examined the accounts, to ascertain that the prices were conformable to the contracts in the usual manner. Were the tenders for work at Buckingham Palace sent to the Office of Works from the time it commenced?—None till after the Treasury Minute, dated 5th August 1825, before alluded to, was received, directing them to be sent; and frequently after that time they were omitted to be sent, as I have before stated. Are you aware of the number of tenders there were from the time the work com¬ menced ?_There were a great many ; I have not a recollection how many. Are you able to give an opinion whether there was or not proper competition in respect of prices?—I could in all cases when the tenders were delivered. Can you give an opinion now as to whether there w^as a proper competition for the work done at Buckingham Palace ?—I cannot speak decidedly to that; I have some recollection that there have been objections made to contracts on the ground of not sufficient competition, but I cannot speak decidedly; I may be mistaken. Mr. Nash had a power of making contracts previous to 5th August 1825, as before stated, and I do not think it was defined how he was to make them, nor had the Office of Works the power to prevent works being undertaken, even without any contract; but such a circumstance would have given rise to a query in the exami¬ nation of the accounts. Was not it your business to know whether proper contracts were made?—I con¬ ceive not, for if no contracts at all had been made I could not know it before the accounts were delivered for examination, at which time the contracts would be called for, if they had not been previously delivered. Was not it your duty to see that the prices charged agreed with the contract prices?—Yes. Do you not conceive that was your principal duty?—Yes, one of my principal duties. And not to judge whether the contract was a good or a bad one ?—No; when the accounts were delivered it was too late to form a judgment of that kind ; but had the contracts been previously sent for the approbation of the Surveyor General, that would have been the time for the Office to have formed an opinion upon them. Mercurii , 20° die Julii , 1831. Mr. John Rastrick. 20 July, 1831. Mr. John Rastrick, called in ; and Examined. SUPPOSING the stone dome, and the room called the Billiard-room under it, were to be removed, do you see any great difficulty in making the bow part of the building secure?—None whatever. Supposing also the excrescences that are called towers, on the Pavilions, were to be removed, do you see any difficulty in making good the walls under them about which you expressed some doubt in your former evidence?—The principal weight that presses on them would be taken off, and therefore I think there would not be. Would it tend to render the proscenium of the Throne-room more secure ?— Certainly it would ; and I should likewise beg leave to suggest, that in these hollow' projections a solid brick wall should be carried up, and a cast-iron beam laid across in addition, to support that wall above, if it w r as thought necessary that that should remain. I should beg leave also to remark, that the subject of strengthening the building has not at present entered into my idea. I have not gone into it, and it will require both time and consideration to decide which will be the best way to do it; and if I am required by the Committee to do so, 1 beg leave to have some time to consider the subject, and to look more minutely into it, to know what would be necessary to be done. With reference to the security of the covering of the roof, what would you recommend as a substitute for the present composition covering?—To have the roof covered with copper ; but I beg leave to suggest, that the roof itself would be better decided upon by the architect, I wish only to call the attention of the Com¬ mittee now with reference to the great relief which they would be giving to the building by removing the brick w'ork. APPENDIX. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 149 185 APPENDIX. 329- < 150 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE L I S T. Appendix Ro. 1 .—PAPERS, presented by His Majesty’s Command ;— 1. —TREASURY MINUTE, (with Papers referred to) - dated 2. —LETTER - - John Nash, Esq. to G. R. Dawson, Esq. 3 . —Ditto - - - B. C. Stephenson, Esq. to Hon. J. K. Stewart 4 —TREASURY MINUTE ...... 5 . —LETTER - John Nash, Esq. to Secretary of Treasury 6. —Ditto - - F. Chantrev, Esq. to John Nash, Esq. - 7. —TREASURY MINUTE. 8. —LETTER - John Nash, Esq. to Secretary of Treasury 9 . —Ditto ------ ditto - 10 . -TREASURY MINUTE. 11 . —LETTER - John Nash, Esq. to Secretary of Treasury 12—TREASURY MINUTE. 13 . —LETTER - T. B. Mash, Esq. to the Hon. J. Stewart'! (with Seven Enclosures) - - - - _j 14 . —LETTER - B. C. Stephenson, Esq. to George Dawson, Esq. 15 — TREASURY MINUTE.. 16 — Ditto. 17 . —LETTER - - John Nash, Esq. to J. Stewart, Esq (with Seven Enclosures) - - - - 18 . —LETTER - - Commissioners of Woods and Forests^ to the) Treasury, (with Enclosure) - - - - . f 19 —TREASURY MINUTE. 20.—LETTER - - B. C. Stephenson, Esq. to Hon. J. K. Stewart 21 —TREASURY MINUTE 22 . —LETTER - - John Nash, Esq. to Lords of the Treasury - 23 . —Ditto - John Nash, Esq. to Hon. J. Stewart 24 —TREASURY MINUTE. Page 17 June 1828 - 153 9 July 1828 - 155 29 July 1828 - 156 15 Aug. 1828 - 157 1 Jan. 1829 - 157 1 Dec. 1828 - 158 1 May 1829 - 159 29 Aug. 1829 - 159 2y Aug. 1829 - itio 22 Sept. 1829 - 161 20 Oct. 1829 - 162 17 Nov. 1829 - 166 17 May 1830 - 166 20 Aug. 1 830 - 2 April 1830 - 29 Sept. 1830 171 171 172 I72 9 Sept. 1830 - 184 187 188 189 190 1QO 192 15 Oct. 1830 25 Oct. 1830 23 Nov. 1830 - 26 Oct. 1830 - 9 Feb. 1831 - 21 Dec. 1830 - No. 2—STATEMENT required by Treasury Letter, dated 29 December 1830, of the whole Expenditure actually incurred on account of the Works which have been carried on by Mr. Nash, at the New Palace, St. James’s Park ; showing the Amount which still remains due for Works done by the several Persons who have been employed either upon the Building itself or for Sculpture; also, an Estimate of the Expense which would be incurred beyond the Amount already paid, and that is still due, for completing the Building according to a Report in detail delivered by Mr. Nash to the Treasury.. •93 No. 3 —EXTRACTS (B.) from the several official Minutes, Letters and Reports relative Building of the New Palace in St. James’s Park : to the L.. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6. 7 . - 8. 9 .- 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 — dated 5 Aug. 14 Nov. 23 Dec. - 24 Dec. 4 Jan. 18 Jan. 26 Jan. 27 June 3 July 5 August -TREASURY MINUTE- . -LETTER from Surveyor-General to the Treasury — LETTER from the Treasury —LETTER from Surveyor-General to the Treasury —LETTER from the Treasury - —LETTER from the Treasury - —LETTER from Surveyor-General to the Treasury —LETTER from the Treasury —LETTER from Surveyor General to the Treasury -TREASURY MINUTE —LETTER from B. C. Stephenson, Esq. to J. C. Herries, Esq. 26 Jan. —STATEMENT, showing how much per cent, the Contracts entered Mr. Nash for Works executing under his direction at Buckingham exceed those entered into by the Office of Works - -TREASURY MINUTE . — LETT ERfrom John Nash, Esq. to the Secretary of theTreasury —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to the Hon. J. Stewart -TREASURY MINUTE - — LETTER from George Harrison, Esq. to the Lords of His) Majesty’s Treasury - - - . . _ . r treasury minute.. 1825 - 194 1825 - 194 1825 - 194 194 195 J 95 195 196 196 196 197 1825 - 1826 - 1826 - 1826 - 1826 - 1826 - 1825 - 1826 - into by House, 23 June 7 July 8 Jan. 8 Jan. 7 May 28 May No. 4 . CORRESESPONDENCE between Mr. Nash and the Surveyor-General of The Board of Works : plZp n ? 0tn p eut -*Colonel Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. dated 6 Jan. * 3 ORSF R V A'Pmv C WilUam Freeman t0 Lieut - Co1 * Stephenson 5 Jan. 3 —OBSLRVAIIONS and Queries that have arisen in the) Examination of Mr. Nash.‘ 3 * Aug. ^ ith Mr. Nash’s Answers - - . . . -12 Sept 198 1826 - 198 1826 - 200 1830 - 202 1830 - 202 1830 - 203 1830 - 203 1826 - 204 1826 - 204 1826 - 204 1826 - 205 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 151 LIST— continued. Appendix 4 . —LETTER from Lieut.-Col. Stephenson to John Nash, Esq., dated 25 Jan. 5 . —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson - 6. —LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. 13 Feb. 7 . —LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. 29 March 8. — LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson 3 April 9 . —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson 24 July 10. —LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. 24 April 11 . —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Col. Stephenson 12. —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Col. Stephenson - 6 Sept. Page 1827 - 206 - 206 1827 - 206 1827 - 2 °6 1827 - 207 1827 - 207 1828 - 208 - 209 1828 - 209 No. 5 .—FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE between the Surveyor-General of The Board of Works and Mr. Nash: 1. —LETTER 2. —LETTER 3 . —LETTER 4 . —LETTER 5 . —LETTER 6. —LETTER 7 . —LETTER 8. —LETTER 9 . —LETTER 10. —LETTER 11. —LETTER 12 . —LETTER 13 —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Col. Stephenson, dated 23 Jan. 1827 - 210 from Lieut.-Col. Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. - 7 April 1827 - 210 from Lieut.-Col. Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. - 12 July 1827 - 211 from J. W. Hiort, Esq. to John Nash, Esq. - - 21 July 1827 - 212 from W. J. Browne to the Surveyor-General - 7 Aug. 1827 - 212 from Lieut.-Col. Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. - 7 Aug. 1827 - 213 from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Col. Stephenson - 8 Aug. 1827 - 213 from Lieut.-Col. Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. - 9 Aug. 1827 - 213 from Lieut.-Col. Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. - 9 Aug. 1827 - 214 from H. H. Seward, Esq. to John Nash, Esq. - 25 Oct. 1827 - 214 from John Nash, Esq. to H, H. Seward, F.sq. - 26 Oct. 1827 - 214 from H. H. Seward, Esq. to John Nash, Esq. - 29 Oct. 1827 - 215 from J. W. Hiort, Esq. to John Nash, Esq. - 5 Sept. 1828 - 215 No. 6.- -DETAILED EXPLANATION of Accounts marked (B.) in p. 177, and (C.) in p. 179, J of the Original Papers in Appendix No. 1 - - - - - - -J 216 219 No. 7 .—STATEMENTS of Bricks and Cement supplied for the King’s Palace, in the years 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828 and 1829 - -- -- -- - 220 No. 8.—REPORT from Committee of Architects to Sir B. C. Stephenson, Surveyor-General of Works, &c. relative to the Expense, Condition and Security of Buckingham Palace, (with several Appendixes) ------ dated 15 July 1831 - 222 1 . —LETTER from T. B. Mash, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson, &c. &.C.J , R (with an Enclosure).J 1 ' JUnG " 229 2. — LETTER from Thomas Marrable, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson,! Q 2 ^ (Sc c. & c. &c. — — — — — — — — — j 3 . —LETTER from William Seguier, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson,"( j une 1831 - 231 &c. &c. &c. -------- -J 3 3 3 4 . —LETTER from Benjamin Jutsham, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson,") - j une . 292 &c. &c. &c. -------- -J ' " 3 5 . —COMMUNICATION from W. T. Aiton, Esq. to Sir B. C. Sie-! « » i9qi _ phenson, &c. &c. &c. ------ -J 6. —LETTER from George Rennie, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson,")^ g j une jgg t _ ^3 &c. &c. &c. 7 . —REPORT from John U. Rastrick, ployed in examining the Construction 8. —REPORT from Joseph Bramah, Esq. & Sons, on the Work used in the erection of Buckingham Palace -r Esq. to the Architects em-j June ]8 . 8 ion of Buckingham Palace - j 2 Cast Iron'l , (with an 7 June 1831 - 258 Enclosure) - - - - - - - ' -J No. 9 .— LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Robert Gordon, Esq. Chairman of! j. t g _ the Committee - -- -- -- - -j 4 - J LETTER from Mr. Robert Moser - ----- 28 July 1831 - 270 LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Robert Gordon, Esq. Chairman! .. jg _ n of the Committee - - - - - - - - J 9 ^ / No. 10.—LETTER from Committee of Architects to Sir B. C. Stephenson,"( 2 g j , j g _ g Surveyor General, &c. - -- -- -- -J ^ 3 / No. 11 .— LETTER from John U. Rastrick, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson,! , , R R Surveyor General, &c..J 3 ° July 1831 * 280 No. 12 ._ 1 .—OBSERVATIONS by John Nash, Esq. on the Report or Letter"! to the Surveyor General from the Committee of Architects appointed ( 2 g j^j g ^g to examine the state of Buckingham Palace, and delivered by him j ^ 3 ‘ - 4 to the Select Committee on Windsor Castle and Buckingham PalaceJ 2 . —OBSERVATIONS, by John Nash, Esq. upon the Letter of! T , R 9 Mr. Rastrick to Sir B. C. Stephenson - - - - -j 3 ° 11 y 3 - 7 3 . —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Robert Gordon, Esq. Chairman") g ^ ijo . j g _ o gg of the Committee - - - - - - - -J* Uc '‘ 3 4. — LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Robert Gordon, Esq. Chairman! . , Q 0 of the Committee ------- 9 A«g. l8 3 t - 289 t 4 ( continued .) 1 5 2 appendix to second report from select committee LIST— continued. Appendix No. 13 .—CORRESPONDENCE between Mr. Nash, Mr. Browne and the Treasury, relating to Marble for the New Palace in St. James’s Park: 1. —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to J. C. Herries, Esq. - dated 6 July 1826 - 2. —TREASURY MINUTE - - - - - - - 18 July 1826 - 3 . —LETTER from John Nash, Esa. to J. C. Herries, Esq. (with! n R r Enclosure) - - - ‘ - - - - - -J 9 UeC * 1620 ' 4. —TREASURY MINUTE.19 Dec. 1826 - 5. —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to J. C. Herries, Esq. (with") T Q Enclosure).j>2 4 Jan. 18^7 - 6_TREASURY MINUTE.26 Jan. 1827 - 7 . —LETTER from B. C. Stephenson, Esq. to the Hon. J. K. Stewart 27 Feb. 1829 - 8. —LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to the Lords Commissioners'! , , ^ of His Majesty’s Treasury - - - - _ji4 Dec. 1830 - 9 . —LETTER from B. C. Stephenson, Esq. to the Hon. J. K. Stewart 29 Dec. 1830 - 10. -—TREASURY MINUTE.4 Jan. 1831 - 11. —LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to the Lords Commissioners'! T <> „ru:. Ml Jan. 1831 - - 25 Jan. 1831 - of His Majesty’s Treasury 12 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to J. K. Stewart, Esq. CORRESPONDENCE between Mr. Nash and Mr. Browne: 13 , 14 , 15, 16 , 17 . 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25, 26 _ —LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. - — Ditto - ditto - —Ditto - ditto - - - - —Ditto - ditto - —Ditto - ditto - —Ditto • - - - ditto - —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Mr. Joseph Browne - —LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq.- —Ditto - ditto - —Ditto - - - ditto - -Ditto - ditto - —Ditto - - - ditto - - - - —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Mr. Joseph Browne, received in Italy --------- LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. - } 27 . —Ditto - - - ditto 28 . —Ditto - - - ditto 29 , —Ditto - - - ditto 30 . —Ditto • . - ditto 31 . —Ditto - . - ditto 32 , —Ditto - - - ditto 33 , —Ditto - - - ditto 34 , —Ditto • • - ditto 35 , —Ditto - m - ditto 36 , —Ditto - m - ditto 37 . —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to 38 . —LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne 39 . —Ditto - - - ditto 40 , —Ditto - - - ditto 41 , —Ditto - - - ditto 42 , -EXTRACT - • - ditto 43 , -LETTER - - - ditto 44 , —Ditto - - - ditto 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 5 L- 52 .- -LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to Mr. J. Pennethorne -EXTRACT Letter from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. -LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Mr. Joseph Browne - -LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. - -Ditto - ditto - -LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Mr. Joseph Browne - -LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. - -LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Mr. Joseph Browne - 53 . —LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to the Treasury 54 . —Ditto - 55 . —Ditto - - - 56 . —Ditto - 57 . — Ditto - 58 . —Ditto - 2 July 1825 26 July 1825 2 Aug. 1825 26 Nov. 1825 6 Dec. 1825 14 Dec. 1825 20 Dec. 1825 11 Jan. 1826 22 Feb. 1826 6 Mar. 1826 16 Mar, 1826 13 April 1826 21 May 1826 23 May 1826 11 July 1826 24 July 1826 26 Aug. 1826 30 Aug. 1826 31 Aug. 1826 2 Sept. 1826 5 Sept. 1826 30 Nov. 1826 4 Dec. 1826 19 Dec. 1826 1 Oct. 1826 24 Jan. 1827 8 Feb. 1827 8 Feb. 1827 27 April 1827 16 May 1827 1 June 1827 1 June 1827 13 June 1827 9 June 1827 27 June 1827 27 June 1827 30 June 1827 27 June 1827 2 July 1827 6 July 1827 28 Aug. 1820 ■ Page 290 291 291 292 292 294 ' 294 294 294 295 295 296 - 206 - 297 - 297 - 298 - 299 - 299 - 300 - 301 - 302 - 30.3 - 304 - 305 - 306 - 307 - 309 - 310 - 311 - 3 H - 312 - 313 - 3 H - 314 • 314 - 315 - 31.5 ■ 315 - 316 - 316 - 317 ■ 317 • 317 ■ 317 - 318 ' • 318 - 318 • 319 - 319 ■ 3i9 - 320 ■ 320 ditto - - - - 5 April 1830 - 321 ditto - 2 Aug. 1830 - 321 ‘ ditto - 4 Oct. 1830 - 322 ditto - - 14 Dec. 1830 - 322 ditto - - - - 11 Jan. 1831 - 323 by Edward Blore, Esq. - 26 Sept. 1831 - 323 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 153 APPENDIX. Appendix, No. 1. No. 1.—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, 17th June 1828. THE Duke of Wellington and the Chancellor of the Exchequer submit to the Board the following Estimates of the expenses necessary to be incurred, in order to complete the alterations and improvements of Buckingham Palace, which have been delivered to them by Mr. Nash; viz. 1st.—An Estimate of the sums which will be required to raise the wing's ------ © 2d.—An Estimate of the expense of certain Extraor¬ dinaries, not previously estimated 3dly.—An Estimate of the expense of erecting a marble arch ------- 4thly.—An Estimate of the expense of executing certain internal and external finishings, not previously calculated - £. s. d. 50,000 - - 79> 2 83 - - 31,100 - - 50,953 - - It appears to My Lords necessary, with a view to the appearance and conveni¬ ence of the building, that so much of these works as refer to the raising of the wings, and the completing the interior of the building, should be proceeded in with as little delay as possible. My Lords have before them an account of the sums which have been paid, and of those which are now due for work performed at Buckingham Palace, from which it appears that the bills paid up to the present date, amount to £.278,133. and that the amount of bills delivered to the Commissioners of Land Revenue, and unpaid, amount to £. 15,162. 13. 10. My Lords consider also a Report from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, giving an estimate of the surplus revenue of that department, which would, under the provisions of 6th Geo. IV. c. 77, be applicable during the remaining period of the year 1828, to rendering the Palace a fit residence for His Majesty. The said surplus, after paying the bills now due, may be estimated at £.43,418. 6. 2.; considering, therefore, this sum to be disposable to the objects pointed out in the 6th Geo. IV. c. 77, My Lords are pleased to order, that a letter should be written to Mr. Nash, directing him to proceed immediately with that part of the work which relates to raising the wings of the Palace and completing the interior; ordering him further to give on the first day of each month, a report of the expense which has been incurred in the preceding month, together with an estimate of what may be necessary for the succeeding month, so that their Lordships may be enabled to know accurately, from time to time, how far the expense incurred or to be incurred is within the means which the Land Revenue is able to furnish. Let Mr. Nash be also further informed, that the whole expense to be incurred is in no case to exceed £. 10,000. per month. Transmit copy of this Minute to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for their information, and acquaint them with the directions which My Lords have given. U 329* January 154 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE January 1828. 1 .—Estimate of raising the South and North Wings of the Palace in Saint James’s Park, to the same height as the east and south fronts, and also the private apartments next the Flower Garden to the same height: North wing and the apartments next the Flower Garden South wing -------- Sundries (contingencies) to both wings - £. s. d. - 25,007 10 9 - 22,271 12 — - 2,720 17 3 £. 50,000 -- — 2 . —Estimate of the articles stated in the first Estimate February 12, 1828 : as being omitted, £. s. d. Sculpture --------- Marble chimney pieces (exclusive of marble) - Parquette floors, inlaid floors and oak floors - State rooms, doors, and doors in The King’s apartments, on the ground floor - Marble floors in hall, grand stair-case and gallery (exclusive of the marble) -------- The like in the open gallery over the great portico The cost of the marble imported and on the sea Extra works unforeseen in the foundations - Temporary sheds, hoards and store-houses, to be removed and sold at the end of the work, about - Raising the reservoir at Hyde Park Corner - Adopting Hiort’s patent flues ------ 16,425 - - 18,970 - - 12,631 - - 4,400 - - 2,967 - - 290 - - 19,800 - - 900 - - 2,000 - - 300 - - 600 - - (No gilding included.) £. 79,283 - - 3 . — Estimate of Sculpture for Marble Triumphal Arch. Trafalgar Side : The three pannels in the frieze - The four statues ----- The two square pannels - The six spandril victories - The three key stones - Waterloo Side : The long frieze - The four statues - - - - - The two square pannels - The victories in the spandrils of the great arch The four wreaths in the spandrils of the smaller The three key stones - The two ends, one Naval and one Military : Naval bas relief - Military bas relief - Six wreaths to the two ends - Letters in bronze at both ends - Attic Pedestal, Trafalgar Side : Neptune, medallion of Nelson, lion and unicorn Attic Pedestal, Waterloo Side : Europe, Asia, Wellington and wreath Four victories - Bronze equestrian statue - £. s. d. - 2,500 - - - 3,200 - - - 600 - - - 900 - - • ** 300 - - 3,000 - - - 3,200 - - - 1,600 - •* - 500 - - arches 200 - - - 300 - - • _ 1,000 - - - 1,000 - - - 300 - - - 800 - - - 2,000 - - - 2,500 - - - 1,200 - - - 6,000 — — £. 31,100 - - ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 155 4.—Rough Estimate of Alterations which The King has directed, a Copy of which was delivered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, February 12, 1828. Brass gates and railing instead of iron - Brass handrail to great staircase, instead of iron gilt Brass capitals to statuary columns, 104 in number, instead of scagliola gilt - Inlaid work to pavement in hall and gallery - Enriched ceilings to thirteen state apartments - Ditto to eight rooms, in private rooms to flower garden - Ditto to picture gallery in north wing - - Ditto to hall and staircase ------ Ditto to the two galleries ------- Eighteen scagliola lapis lazuloe columns - Eighteen metal capitals to ditto ------ Mahogany shutters and plate glass to all the state rooms to answer doors -------- Patent spagniolettes to all the windows throughout the body of the building --------- Scagliola dado to all the state rooms on both the floors - Scagliola walls to staircase, hall and lower gallery Framed w r ainscotting for hangings in all the state rooms in the picture gallery, and in the rooms of the ground and principal floor in the apartments towards the flower garden (No gilding included.) £. £. s. d. 6,900 * - 3,000 - - 1,560 - - 800 - - 13,600 - - 1,800 - - 900 - - 3,000 - - 3,000 - - 900 - - 540 - - 4,200 - - 400 - - 3,000 - - 4,000 - - 3,353 - - 50,953 - - No. 2.—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to G, R. Dawson, Esq. &c. &c. &c. S I R, I have had the honour of receiving your letter, dated 16th June, commu¬ nicating to me the commands of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, with relation to my future conduct in the execution of the designs for His Majesty’s Palace in St. James’s Park. I request you will inform their Lordships that I shall, in conformity to their desire, take care that the expense to be incurred shall not exceed the sum men¬ tioned in your letter, namely, £. 10,000 in each month. I take this opportunity of referring to the plans and estimates for the whole of the alterations and additions which are before their Lordships, and of stating that I am proceeding in the execution of the work according to those plans which have received His Majesty’s approbation, under the assurance that I have the authority of their Lordships for doing so. With respect to that part of their Lordships’ commands which direct me “ to tt gi ve in on the first day of each month a report of the expense which has been a incurred in the preceding month, together with an estimate of phat may be « necessary for the succeeding month,” I beg to submit, that the nature of the works to be performed, and the mode (the only mode) in which building accounts are or can be made out, render such monthly return impossible; it is with great difficulty that the accounts can be made out quarterly, and even then a great portion of the several works must be paid for by advances on account, for they cannot be measured till they are finished and fixed, and much of the work cannot be finished and fixed till nearly the close of the building. The work is measured and the accounts made out quarterly by the officers of the Office of Works, nor is it practicable for them to make the returns oftener; but it will be my duty so to conduct the work that £. 10,000 per month shall cover the expenditure, and to that effect I can make the monthly reports required, but their Lordships must see how impossible it will be for me to know what portion of •m. u 2 a,| y 156 appendix to second report from select committee any order or contract given to a workman has been executed, the work being executed at their respective workshops. At the same time that I submit the im¬ practicability of fulfilling to the letter my instructions to their Lordships’ con¬ sideration, it shall be my endeavour to obey them to the utmost of my power, always bearing in mind the spirit of their command, namely, that the expenditure shall not exceed £. ] 0,000 in each month, and that my estimates, in toto, shall not be exceeded. I have the, &c. &c. Regent Street, 9th July 1828. John Nash. No. 3 . —LETTER from B. C. Stephenson , Esq. to the Hon. J. K. Stewart y &c. &c. &c. S I R, Office of Works, 29th July 1828. I havf. been honoured with the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, transmitting for my consideration and report thereon, a letter from Mr. Nash relative to his future conduct in the execution of the designs for His Majesty’s Palace in St. James’s Park ; and after a very attentive perusal and consideration of this letter, I have the honour to state, for the information of the Lords Commis¬ sioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, that in reference to the monthly report and estimate required by their Lordships, I agree with Mr. Nash that regular accounts cannot be made up and examined for each month; but at the same time I am of opinion, there can be no great difficulty in the architect’s furnishing, on the first of each month, such reports and estimates as may be sufficient to satisfy their Lordships that the sum they have apportioned for the monthly expense of this Palace, has not been and will not be exceeded. But upon the more important part of Mr. Nash’s letter, where, in the concluding paragraph he states, “it shall be “ his endeavour that his estimates, in toto , for this building shall not be exceeded,” I must beg leave, in offering my opinion upon this subject, to refer their Lordships to the Report recently presented to The House of Commons, by the Select Com¬ mittee on the Office of Works and Public Buildings, where, at page five, it is stated, “ Mr. Nash distinctly says, that nothing is so unreasonable as to think that an “ architect can be answerable in any way for his estimate, when he himself does “ not control the prices and make out the bills ; and he avows his inability “ of judging how nearly the expense of this Palace has come to his estimate, “ because he has nothing to do with the measuring or making up of the accounts ; “ a mode of proceeding which affords so plausible an excuse or justification for “ excess and deviation (unless some counterpoise can be alleged in favour of its “ utility in some other point of view), is hardly to be maintained or continued with “ advantage to the public.” Without entering into the accuracy of Mr. Nash’s evidence upon this occasion, their Lordships must plainly perceive from this ex¬ tract, that no great reliance can be placed in Mr. Nash’s endeavours to keep the expenses of this Palace within his estimates, so long as the plausible pretence alluded to in the above Report can be resorted to, in justification of any exceedings that may occur beyond his estimate for this extensive and important work ; nor do their Lordships appear to have any security against this pretence being alleged by Mr. Nash, whenever such exceedings shall in future be found. And although neither Mr. Soane, Mr. Smirke, Mr. Wyatville or the other architects who have at different times been called upon to execute public works under this Office, have ever complained of the manner of measuring their works or making up the accounts (a system which most of these gentlemen have indeed generally approved), yet after the very strong exceptions taken by Mr. Nash against his works being measured and his accounts being made up by the officers of this department, I take the liberty of most earnestly recommending, for their Lordships’ consideration, but as far only as immediately concerns the present works at the New Palace, the removal of this alleged justification of exceeding upon the architect’s estimates ; that Mr. Nash be directed to measure the works and make up the accounts of this building, and that these accounts when so made up, be by him transmitted ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 193 J 57 transmitted to this office, with the proper vouchers and the several measuring books for final examination, before they are submitted for their Lordships’ approval. I do not think that Mr. Nash can have any reasonable grounds of complaint against the expense and trouble which this arrangement may occasion, as the commission of five per cent, he receives, does, according to the fair and established usage of the profession, include the expenses of measuring the works and making up the accounts ; but I take the liberty of suggesting, as a further com¬ pensation, that whenever, in future, Mr. Nash may receive commands to attend His Majesty upon the concerns of this building, either at Windsor or elsewhere, excepting London, that he may be allowed to charge his chaise hire and travelling expenses, agreeably to the custom of this Office in similar circumstances. I returned enclosed the letter from Mr. Nash, And have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, B. C. Stephenson. No. 4 .—Copy TREASURY MINUTE, dated 15th August 1828. READ Report of the Surveyor General of Works, dated 29th July 1828, sub¬ mitting his opinion and observations on a letter from Mr. Nash, relative to his future conduct in the execution of the designs for His Majesty’s Palace in Saint James’s Park. Write to Mr. Nash, and referring to his letter of the 9th ult. acquaint him that My Lords are satisfied by the reasons which he assigns, that regular accounts cannot be made up and examined for each month, but My Lords desire that he should furnish, on the first day of each month, such reports and estimates as may be sufficient to satisfy their Lordships, that the sum they have apportioned for the monthly expense of this Palace has not been, and will not be, exceeded ; and with reference to that part of his letter wherein he states, that he will endeavour that his estimates, in toto , for this building shall not be exceeded. My Lords, adverting to the opinion given by Mr. Nash, in his evidence before the Committee of The House of Commons, that he cannot answer for the expense of the building not exceeding the estimate, so long as he has nothing to do with the measuring or making up the accounts; desire that Mr. Nash will in future measure the works, and make up the accounts of this building, and that these accounts when so made up be by him transmitted to the Office of Works, with the proper vouchers, and the several measuring books for final examination, before they are submitted for their Lordships’ approval, as My Lords consider that the commission of five per cent. Mr. Nash receives does, according to the fair and established usage of the profession, include the expenses of measuring the works and making up the accounts. Transmit copy of this Minute to the Surveyor General of Works for his information. No. .5.—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to His Majesty’s Secretary to the Treasury. S I R, Having received His Majesty's commands to employ Mr. Chantrey to execute the equestrian statue, which is to be placed on the top of the triumphal arch in the front of the New Palace in St. James's Park, I have the honour to enclose Mr. Chantrey’s estimate for the same, and to request that it may be laid before His Majesty’s Lords of the Treasury. I have the honour, &c. John Nash. 32 U 3 * No. 6 .—LETTER No. 14, Regent Street, Jan. 1, 1829. 158 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE No. 6.—LETTER from F. Chantrey , Esq. to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. MY DEAR SIR, Belgrave Place, l Dec. 1828. HIS Majesty having been pleased to express his commands, that I should execute the bronze equestrian statue to be placed on the triumphal arch at Buck¬ ingham Palace, I feel it my duty immediately to declare my readiness to obey those commands to the utmost of my ability. You inform me that this work must measure thirteen feet nine inches in height; and as that exceeds in magnitude the scale of ordinary works, I have felt myself called upon to consider, with the greatest care and attention, all the circumstances under which I am to undertake the completion of it. I conceive, therefore, that it will tend to your satisfaction as well as my own, and to your relief from personal responsibility in the eye of those before whom it may be your duty to lay my estimate, after I shall have stated the prices agreed upon for various works now under execution in bronze; I submit to you the grounds upon which, after the most mature deliberation, I now explicitly and distinctly state to you, the estimate of what my own services in this work may fairly entitle me to expect. Mr. Westmacott received for a pedestrian statue of Mr. Canning, twelve feet high, £. 7,000., and I received for a pedestrian statue of Mr. Pitt, twelve feet high, £. 7,000.; and for an equestrian statue of Sir Thomas Monro, ten feet high, £. 8,000. Pedestals being included in the above sums; deduct, say four or five hundred pounds at the utmost. It is also to be considered how greatly cubic contents are increased by the addition of every foot in height; for example, if a statue six feet high, weigh one ton, a similar statue twelve feet high will weigh eight tons. It will there¬ fore be obvious, that when I name 9,000 guineas as the amount of my estimate for an equestrian statue, thirteen feet nine inches high, such a remuneration will not exceed that which arises from my ordinary occupation. I deem it the more necessary to press these points upon your attention, because I know that other estimates have been given, and am also well aware that study and labour may be proportioned to inferior price, if a cheap work is required from the hands of the artist—a work, for instance, calculated only to produce effect when viewed at a given elevation. I should, however, as I have before stated to you, be equally reluctant to place my name upon such a production, as I should be ashamed to undertake it from no more honourable motive than such as mere pecuniary profit might suggest. As I wish that the considerations which have influenced me in forming the estimate I have given, may be in their integrity at once apparent, I must also beg leave to repeat in this letter, what I have already stated to you in a former one, namely, that I cannot contemplate the production of so important an object as an equestrian statue of His Majesty, especially where it is to be made of so expen¬ sive and durable a material as bronze in any other shape than that of a finished work, the purpose of which will be to transmit to posterity, not only the portrait of the Monarch, but the character of eminence which the arts have attained under His munificent patronage. Such a work you, and every man capable of forming a judgment on the subject, and all its concomitant circumstances must be aware ought to be executed with the greatest care, and the best talents the sculptor can bring to it. It is equally, if I may presume to say so of my Sovereign, the interest of His Majesty, of the country, and of the arts, that such a record should be produced as may remain for the respect and protection it shall receive from pos¬ terity, when marble exposed to the severity of this climate, and the accidents of time, shall have perished. I remain, &c. (signed) F. Chantrey . ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 159 No. 7-—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, 1st May 1829. READ Letter, dated ist January 1829, from Mr. Nash, inclosing a representa¬ tion from Mr. Chantrey, setting forth the grounds upon which he demands, for the equestrian statue of His Majesty, proposed to be placed on the triumphal arch, in front of The King’s Palace in St. James’s Park, the sum of £.9,450.; the estimate of Mr. Westmacott, as stated in Mr. Nash’s estimate of the probable expense of the arch having been £. 6,000 only. My Lords read again the original estimate of Mr. Nash, of the probable ex¬ pense of the arch, the amount of which is £.31,100., which upon this increased charge for the statue would amount to £. 34,550. My Lords having fully considered the reasons assigned by Mr. Chantrey, and particularly having reference to the fact, that for a pedestrian statue twelve feet high Mr. Westmacott and himself are each to receive from individuals £. 7,000.; that for an equestrian statue ten feet high he is himself to receive £. 8,000.; and that the proposed equestrian statue of His Majesty is to be thirteen feet eight inches high, they are pleased to sanction the estimate transmitted by him to Mr. Nash, and laid before this Board by that gentleman. Write therefore to Mr. Nash and acquaint him, that My Lords will be prepared to authorize the payment of £. 9,450. to Mr. Chantrey for this statue in the usual manner, and to desire that he will give the necessary instructions to Mr. Chantrey to proceed in the work accordingly. Acquaint him at the same time that as it does not appear to My Lords that this particular work is of such a nature as to require the personal superintendance of Mr. Nash, it is not their intention to make any allowance of commission to him upon the execution of this statue. No. 8.—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to the Secretary of the Treasury, &c. &c. &c. SIR, THE progress which has been made towards the completion of the building of the New Palace in St. James’s Park, renders it necessary that I should point out to the attention of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury the pro¬ priety of giving directions for certain fittings-up which will be proper to execute in the present stage of the building, in order to prevent much expense and incon¬ venience, which would be created by the postponement of them to a period when it will be in a more advanced state. These fittings-up form no part of the estimate of the architect in any buildings, and are consequently not included in those which I have submitted to their Lord- ships for Buckingham Palace. They are the following : The bell hanging. The baths. The frames and looking-glasses intended to make part of the design of the marble chimney pieces. The airing and ventilating of the house, according to a plan of Somers the ironmonger, suggested and approved It is necessary that the last-mentioned work should be executed before the marble floors are laid down, or they must be taken up again at considerable expense, and if the bell hanging be not arranged, and the baths and frames of the looking-glasses be not ordered before the finishings are completed, much damage will be done and expense incurred in restoring them and the plastering of the walls. 14, Regent Street, 29 August 1829. (signed) John Nash. 329 - No. 9 .—LETTER 196 i6o APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE No. 9.—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to the Secretary of the Treasury, &c. &c. &c. SIR, Referring to my letter of this day’s date, in which I have had the honour of pointing out to the attention of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury the propriety of giving orders for the immediate execution of some works which should be commenced before the interior of the building is further advanced, I have now the honour to transmit to you, for their Lordships’informa¬ tion, and for their directions thereupon, a statement of certain additions of sculp¬ ture in the interior of the Palace, which His Majesty has commanded me to make, and estimates thereof, for which I request their Lordships’ official sanction. I take this opportunity of stating to their Lordships, that having by desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer been engaged in revising the accounts of expendi¬ ture to the present time, compared with the progress already made, I have no reason to doubt but that the whole of the works, estimated for by me in the estimates already sanctioned by their Lordships, will be performed, for the sum at which I had stated the probable expense, viz. £. 496,169., provided there be no deviation from the designs upon which those estimates were framed. I beg leave, however, to point out to the attention of their Lordships, that in all my estimates I have distinctly stated that they were framed exclusively of any expense for sculptured figures which might be introduced into the design of the building. I have the honour of submitting the detail of the additional sculpture now ordered by His Majesty, with the estimate thereof, in a separate paper, No. 1. for the consideration and sanction of their Lordships ; some of these were so con¬ nected with the plastered ornaments then in hand that they could not be deferred without stopping the work. All those which could be deferred have not yet been ordered, and for which I crave their Lordships’ authority, or the other work with which they are connected must also stop [vide Paper annexed, No. 1.) I beg also further to submit to their Lordships, that I have received directions to make designs for the following things ; viz. 1st. For the alteration of the exterior shape of the dome of the building. 2d. For eight groups of the King’s Arms, to be placed on the eight turrets of the Palace. 3d. For four trophies of the columns of the two entrances, north and south sides of quadrangle ; and also for the following things laid down in the original plan, signed by The King, Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Robinson : 1st. The fountain in the Great Court. 2d. The fountain in the Flower Garden. 3d. The trellis work in the Flower Garden. 4th. The orangeries. 5th. The two temples in the Garden. 6th. The ice-house. Some of these designs are not yet made, and others, though made, are not finally settled by His Majesty. I am not therefore prepared with estimates of their cost. Paper (No. \.) referred to in this Letter. The following Sculpture has been directed by His Majesty : Eight additional vases, to the six in¬ cluded in the estimates - - £.500 Four alto-relievos on the cornice of the staircase, designed by Stothard, being the representation of boys and birds.£. 500 Four bas-relievos, designed by Sto¬ thard, for pannels in staircase, consisting of the Four Seasons, executing by his son. £.584 Not ordered. These are executed, and included in Bernasconi’s accounts, and paid. These are in great part executed, and £. 438. paid on account. Three ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 161 Three subjects over the columns, in the Bow State Drawing-room, designed by Pitts, the subjects are, the Progress of Rhetoric - - £. 450 Twelve bas-relievos over the pilasters in the north State Drawing-room, de¬ signed by Pitts, being the Sports of Boys - - - - - £. 800 Four bas-relievos in the Throne-room, designed by Stothard, and executing by Bailey, the subjects are, the Wars, &c. ot the Houses of York and Lancaster £. 1,300 Sixteen dessus des portes for the State-rooms, to correspond with the foregoing sculpture, designed by Bailey and others, estimated at £. 120. each £. 1,920 Three frontispieces for Picture Gal¬ lery, large terms with the Head of Apollo, two figures of Painting on the pediment, and medallions of Michael Angelo, Raphael and Titian - £. 700 Three designs from Stothard, of alto- relievos, for the south Drawing-room, to correspond with those in the Bow State Drawing-room - £-790 29th August 1829. These are in great measure executed, and £. 300* has been paid on account. These are not ordered, but are esti¬ mated, and the ornamental plastering now connected with them is so forward, that it must be stopped unless immedi¬ ately ordered. These are executing by Bailey, and £• 433* 8. has been paid on account. Two of these are ordered of Crogan, and two of Bailey; none others are ordered. These are in hand, and in consider¬ able forwardness. Designs settled and estimated, but not ordered, and the state of the orna¬ mental plastering with which they are connected is so forward that they re¬ quire immediately to be fixed. (signed) John Nash. No. 10.-Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, 22d September 1829. LORDS have before them two letters from Mr. Nash, dated 2Qth August, pointing out the necessity of certain additional expenditure beyond that for which an estimate has been presented to Parliament, in order to complete Buckingham This expenditure is stated to be required, first, for the purpose of fixing the bells, the baths and looking-glass frames, and a new apparatus for airing and ventilating the building, which require to be executed previous to the completion of the building; and, secondly, for the completion of certain internal sculpture, which His Majesty has been pleased to order, a part of which has already been paid tor out of the fund allotted to the building of Buckingham Palace, but has not been taken into account in Mr. Nash’s estimate submitted to The House of Commons in May last. My Lords cannot but observe, that Mr. Nash was perfectly aware of the object which Parliament had in view in requiring from him in the course of the present year, an amended estimate of the expense of building Buckingham Palace, namely, that of having before them and of adequately providing once for all/ for the* •whole expenditure which might be necessary to complete it so far as to fit it for the reception of furniture. My Lords, therefore, feel great surprise that Mr. Nash should have omitted to to apprize them that the expense of certain fittings not ordinarily included, as he states, in the architect’s estimate, would be to be incurred before the build m* could be completed. But it appears to My Lords still more extraordinary, that 3 2 9 * X Mr. Nash 162 appendix to second report from select ccmmittee Mr. Nash should not have included in his estimate the charge for internal sculp¬ ture, the greater part of which had been ordered, and was in the course of execution at the time when the estimate was delivered, and of which part had been already paid for at his requisition out of the funds allotted to the building of the Palace. That sculpture, moreover, being in substitution, as it would appear for plaster ornaments, was strictly within the provision of an architect to provide, but after the special injunction which Mr. Nash received to make his estimate complete in every respect, was more particularly part of his duty to include in his estimate. The consequence of this omission on the part of Mr. Nash has been, that no provision has been made for any part of the expense to which his letters refer. With respect to the fittings, My Lords are pleased to desire, that estimates may be forthwith prepared by the Lord Chamberlain, of the expenditure which will be required for providing the bells, baths, looking-glass frames, and airing apparatus. Write accordingly to the Lord Chamberlain, and desire that he will commu¬ nicate with Mr. Nash as to the precise nature of the work to be executed, and obtain from several different tradesmen, competent to undertake the work, tenders of the price at which they are prepared to execute it, for My Lords’ con¬ sideration. With respect to the sculpture, My Lords have to regret, that, as that charge was not included in Mr. Nash’s estimate, they have now no means of providing for it. With respect to the other things, for which Mr. Nash states himself to have received directions to make designs, and some of which he states to have been in the original plan, signed by His Majesty, Lord Liverpool and Mr. Robinson, My Lords have only to remark, that although some of them may have been in¬ cluded in the original plans, none of them were ever mentioned in any estimates, submitted either to My Lords or to Parliament, and as Mr. Nash states, that he is not even now prepared with any estimate of their cost, My Lords have no power of expressing any opinion as to the propriety or necessity of undertaking them. My Lords further desire, that Mr. Nash will not take any measures with refer¬ ence to them without My Lords previous and distinct approbation of them and of the estimates of their expense. Transmit copy of this Minute to Mr. Nash. No. 11.—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to the Secretary of the Treasury, &c. See. &c. sir, 14, Regent Street, October 20th, 1829. I have the honour of acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 23d September 182Q, transmitting tome, by command of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, a copy of the Minute of their Lordships of the 22d September last, after having had before them my letters of the 29th August 1829. In order to bring more clearly under the consideration of their Lordships those observations and explanations which it is my duty humbly to submit, upon cer¬ tain parts of this Minute, I conceive it will be more satisfactory that I should place them in juxta-position, with a copy of the Minute itself in the following manner: 1.—This Expenditure is said to be required, first, for the purpose of fixing the bells, the baths and the looking- glass irames, and a new apparatus for airing and ventilating the building, which require to be executed previous to the completion of the building; and, secondly, for the completion of certain internal sculpture, which His Majesty has been pleased to order, and part of which has already been paid for out of the 1.—In order to exonerate myself com¬ pletely, and, 1 trust, to the entire satis¬ faction of their Lordships, from the censure conveyed by this paragraph of the Minute, I beg leave to refer to the paper which I submitted to Mr. Goul- burn, when I was directed to furnish the revised estimate to which allusion is therein made. In that paper, these several heads of expenditure for the bell-hanging, the baths, and the appa¬ ratus ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 163 the funds allotted to the building of Buckingham Palace, but has not been taken into account in Mr. Nash’s esti¬ mate submitted to The House of Com¬ mons in May last. My Lords cannot but observe, that Mr. Nash was perfectly aware of the object which Parliament had in view, in requiring from him, in the course of the present year, an amended estimate of the expense of building Buckingham Palace ; namely, that of having before them, and of adequately providing, once for all, for the whole expenditure which might be necessary to complete it, so far as to fit it for the reception of fur¬ niture. My Lords, therefore, feel great sur¬ prize that Mr. Nash should have omitted to apprize them, that the expense of certain fittings, not ordinarily included, as he states, in the architect’s estimate, would be to be incurred before the building could be completed. 2.—But it appears to my Lords still more extraordinary that Mr. Nash should not have included in his estimate the charge for internal sculpture, the greater part of which had been ordered, and was in the course of execution at the time when the estimate was delivered, and of which part had been already paid for at his requisition, out of the funds allotted to the building of the palace ; that sculpture, moreover, being in sub¬ stitution as it would appear for plaster- ornaments, was strictly within the pro¬ vince of an architect to provide, but after the special injunction which Mr. Nash received to make his estimate complete in every respect, was more particularly part of his duty to include in his estimate. The consequence of this omission on the part of Mr. Nash has been, that no provision has been made for any part of the expense to which his letter refers. ratus for warming the Palace (which, although not the immediate business of the architect, was anticipated by me as being unavoidable) were distinctly set forth, and an estimate made of the pro¬ bable expense of each; but the Chan¬ cellor of the exchequer decided to omit them from the estimate which he pro¬ posed to Parliament: this will be clearly shown by the paper hereunto annexed, which is the original document fur¬ nished by me on that occasion. On the face of this paper will be seen what omissions were made from the estimate, as I presented it, and also the memo¬ randum thereupon. I feel confident, therefore, that upon a reference to this document, and to the recollection of Mr. Goulburn, their Lordships will en¬ tirely relieve me from the charge of having omitted to furnish full informa- tion on these heads. The charge of mirror frames is the only item of this class mentioned in my late letters, and not specified in the above-mentioned estimate; the reason of which is, that I have only been sub¬ sequently informed as to the mode in which these were to be constructed. 2.—With respect to the charge for sculpture not included in the estimate laid before Mr. Goulburn, I must in the first place humbly beg leave to remove an erroneous impression which their Lordships appear to entertain as to the nature of this item of expense. I have on all occasions, from the com¬ mencement of this undertaking, in all my communications with the Treasury, distinctly stated, verbally, and on the face of my estimates, that the charge for sculpture formed no part of them, and when I was called upon to explain what description of sculpture I alluded to in making this reservation, I stated (as in mv evidence before the Com¬ mittee of Inquiry) that it had reference to sculpture figures, not forming part of the building, and being the work of artists of eminence, and not of plaster¬ ers. Having stated thus much in reply to that part of the Minute which sup¬ poses that the charge in question was for work to be done by plasterers, and therefore entirely within my province as an architect, I am bound, on the other hand, to admit my error, and to express my very deep regret for it, in not having pointed out, in my estimate of May 1829, the expense which had at that time been incurred under that head, either by engagements or by actual payments. 1 can only attribute this L 2 oversight 200 164 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE 3.—With respect to the other things for which Mr. Nash states himself to have received directions to make de¬ signs, and some of which he states to have been in the original plan signed by His Majesty, Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Robinson, My Lords have only to remark, that although some of them may have been included in the original plans, none of them were ever men¬ tioned in any estimates, submitted either to My Lords or to Parliament, and as Mr. Nash states that he is not even now prepared with any estimate of their cost, My Lords have no power of ex¬ pressing any opinion as to the propriety or necessity of undertaking them. oversight to the circumstance of my having, upon all occasions, previously kept this particular branch of expense professedly separate from the rest; but I acknowledge that for the special pur¬ pose for which the account was then required, it ought not to have been omitted. * In claiming the indulgence of their Lordships for this error, I have, however, the satisfaction of being able to add, that even including the whole cost of the sculpture, which had at that time been incurred, or for which 1 had then received directions (consequently all that has yet been ordered), the total charge for the Palace, according to the best view which I can now take of the state of the accounts, will not exceed the estimate of £. 500,000. proposed by Mr. Goulburn to Parliament. The other article of sculpture specified in my last letters, are such as I have only since re¬ ceived instructions upon. With respect to these I can take no steps until I re¬ ceive the authority of their Lordships. 3.—For my entire justification con¬ cerning the supposed omission of all mention of the heads of expense ad¬ verted to in this paragraph, I must again take the liberty of referring to the Chan¬ cellor of the Exchequer, and to the paper which I submitted to him in May last. Their Lordships will see in that paper all these particulars distinctly stated. I have already stated that they formed part of the original plan submitted to Lord Liverpool and Lord Goderich; and I therefore deemed it to be my duty, when called upon in the last Session, to furnish a revised general estimate, to bring these particulars under the notice of Mr. Goulburn, al¬ though I had not yet received such precise commands upon the subject as to enable me to furnish designs and estimates for them. The remaining articles of additional expense referred to in my last letter to the Treasury, are for alterations or ad¬ ditions, for which I had received no commands when my estimate was fur¬ nished. So soon as such commands were conveyed to me, I brought them under the consideration of their Lord- ships, whose directions thereupon I must await before I proceed in the execution of them. In 201 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 165 In requesting you to lay before their Lordships the explanations which I have felt it my duty thus humbly to offer, in answer to the observations contained in their Minute, I have only to add, that upon a careful revision of my several esti¬ mates, I still feel convinced, according to the best judgment which 1 can form, that the paper which I submitted to Mr. Goulburn will be fairly justified by the result, that the total expense of all that portion of the projected works, which he did not strike out of my paper, will not exceed the estimate, and that the objects which he deemed it expedient to omit upon that occasion, may be executed for the sums which I then set against them. I have the honour to be, &c. (signed) John Nash. N. B .—PAPER submitted to Mr. Goulburn, in May 1829, by Mr. Nash, and referred to in Mr. Nash’s letter to the Secretary of the Treasury of the 20th October 1829. The following th\ngs The King has in contemplation, as set forth in my letter on the 12th February 1828: The trellis worked walks in flower garden The orangery The two fountains Wd statue and vases The two temples in\the grounds Planting the flower garden, plants, &c. £. s. d . - 5,000 - - - 10,000 - - - 12,000 - - - 3,000 - - - 2,000 - - £. 32,000 - - The above things are laid d)i>wn in the Plan signed by The King and the Ministers. (Struck through in the original.) Amount of Estimates (vide Appendix to Report) Sculpture of marble archway - Excess in Chantrey’s estimate of equestrian statue - Temporary shops, hoards, store-rooms, &c. to be sold to the credit of the account - Architect’s commission - - £23,493 — - Doorkeepers and clerks of work 2,800 - - £. £. s. d. 432,926 - - 31,000 - - 3>450 - - 2,500 - - 469,876 26,293 496,169 - - The above estimates I have reviewed, and have the greatest reason to hope they will not be exceeded. The foylowing things The Ring has ordered ; and, if authorized, should be done \ iviflv lV»o u/nrlr c\{ flip linilYinrr • £. s. d. o iS. d. \ with' the work of the buil\ing: Showey bath, douche phyiging bath, £. steam bath, Mahomed iVith, boilers and pomps, Sic. - -\ - - 2,100 Rell-hangrng - - \ - - 800 Apparatus V Stretton, for introducing warm aii\ and ventilation in the halls, staircases and passages throughout tne Palace V 2,400 Two very large .'(Y-houses, pumm and drains - - - 1,400 _ _\ Extra gilding, exceed in all the i\stimates, but sup¬ posed - • - o - 9 * (Struck through in the original.) X3 No. 12.—“ Copy 202 166 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE No. 12.—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, 17th November 1829. MY LORDS read the letter of Mr. Nash, of the 20th October, in reply to the communication made to him by order of this Board of 22d September last, upon the subject of further additions to and alterations in The King’s Palace in St. James’s Park. My Lords perceive that Mr. Nash sufficiently explains the supposed omissions in the estimate prepared by him in May 1829, upon which My Lords were in¬ duced to make the observations contained in their Minute of 2 2d September, with the exception of the sculpture ordered or executed previously to the date of that estimate, and which ought unquestionably to have been included in it. My Lords feel satisfaction in remarking, that Mr. Nash still entertains a confi¬ dent expectation that the whole expense of the works sanctioned up to this time, including the sculpture so omitted, will not on the whole exceed the sum granted by Parliament for the completion of the Palace. With respect to the remaining sculpture specified in Mr. Nash’s letter as neces¬ sary and not yet ordered, viz. No. 5.£.800 No. 7.1,920 No. 9 - - - - - 79 ° My Lords observe that the completion of the building depends on their early execution, and are therefore pleased to approve of their being provided; but with respect to any of the other works enumerated by Mr. Nash in his letters of the 29th August, for which no order or authority has yet been given, My Lords can give no directions at present for any of them beyond what they have authorized the department of the Lord Chamberlain to provide by their Minute of 22d Sep¬ tember, because no funds have been provided by Parliament for the purpose, and there are no other means of defraying the expense of them. Write to Mr. Nash accordingly, and acquaint him, that beyond what has now been authorized, My Lords will not admit any deviation from the plans and estimates, or any works which can either retard the completion of the Palace or raise the amount of expenditure on account of it beyond that of which Mr. Nash furnished an estimate to Parliament, and that for any deviation or increase My Lords will hold Mr. Nash responsible. No. 18 .—LETTER from T. B. Mash , Esq. to the Hon. J. Stewaj't, &c. &c. &c. s 1 R > Lord Chamberlain’s Office, May 17th, 1830. I am commanded by the Lord Chamberlain to acquaint you, in answer to your letter of the 22d of September last, addressed to his Grace, that, in compliance with the directions of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, a com¬ munication was immediately made to Mr. Nash, signifying their Lordships’ pleasure that every information should be afforded by him regarding the baths, the looking- glass frames, the bells and the warming apparatus required for the New Palace in St. James’s Park, with the view of obtaining estimates from various tradesmen of the several branches competent to undertake the execution of the above work. The result of the said communication has been a verbal explanation from Mr. Nash, that the plans and drawings had been submitted to The King, and that His Majesty had expressed his Royal approbation and command that the work should be proceeded on accordingly ; since that time the enclosed plans, drawings, estimate and letters have been received, which I have the honour to transmit to you, to be submitted to the Board of Treasury for their Lordships’ consideration, together with a memorial from Mr. Stratton, which he has requested may be forwarded with Mr. Nash’s statement regarding his work. O O I have the honour to be, Sir, * Your obedient servant, T. B. Mash. 167 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. (Enclosure 1.) — Estimate for the Baths. TO excavate for footings to plunging bath, build the foundations, piers, walls, arches and spandrills under steps and platform, in best workmanship, set in cement, the necessary iron-work in building the same; to form plunging bath with the best hard veiny marble, the whole to be connected together with the neces¬ sary copper cramps ; to provide handsome lions heads for admission of water; to excavate for and build up a pier in cement for warm bath, provide iron columns, cap and base, and necessary iron work in building ditto ; to form the bath of the best polished statuary marble, the necessary copper and iron cramps ; to provide an elegant French-polished mahogany casing for warm bath, provide and fix to coping of plunging bath elegant bright burnished brass railing, to pattern ap¬ proved, and down steps, and other necessary brass work connected with the rail¬ ing ; to provide top rails, strong scroll brackets, and brass hand-rail to slope to steps, screws and plugs; to fit up shower bath with elegant brass pillars and canopy top, cocks and valves; to fit up and provide the Duische bath, and the requisite mixing vessels and other apparatus for the same, pipes and cocks; to fit up tin’d copper hot closset to heat by steam, for warming towels and linen, in an elegant French polished mahogany cabinet inclosure, pipes and cocks; to fit up a vapour bath and requisite apparatus, with elegant brass pillars and canopy top, pipes and cocks, and two sets of best superfine white cloth coverings; to fit up a very large copper steam-engine boiler, and necessary apparatus for supplying the plunging bath with warm water, pipes, cocks and necessary iron work; to fit up boilers and necessary apparatus for warm, vapour and Duische baths, pipes, cocks and iron work ; to provide bricklayers’ work and materials for fixing the same upon an improved principle for consuming smoke ; to fit up a large warming apparatus for bath and dressing-room ; to form flues for consuming smoke, requisite iron work and elegant brass ventilators. We hereby undertake to do and perform all the above specified works at His Majesty’s Palace, St. James’s Park, agreeable to the plan submitted by us to The King, and approved by His Majesty, in the best and most workmanlike manner, for the sum of Three thousand seven hundred and ninety pounds twelve shillings. Wm. Slark & Son. 10, Cheapside, March 15th, 1830. (Enclosure 2.)—Estimate for the Glass Frames. To Thomas B. Mash , Esq. SIR, IN forwarding to you the accompanying Estimates, I must mention that many months back I estimated for Mr. Nash some of the same works; and that I cannot, therefore but deliver the same accounts to you that 1 did to him. I wish it to be distinctly understood that in so doing, 1 must claim the same advantages that were agreed to be granted me by Mr. Nash, viz. that I was to have what advances of money I required on account of the works, as I have proceeded with them. I beg to impress this, as it makes to me as a manufacturer, who am obliged to pay money for my wages and for my metal every week, all the difference, and as these works are necessarily long in hand, the advance of money by me, which I must borrow, would very greatly enhance their cost, without making any adequate advantages to the Government. This arrangement with Mr. Nash has enabled me to supply my articles to the Palace on the low terms I have. I would likewise mention, that in such splendid designs, which are rather works of art than of manufacture, and which have never been previously executed, and respecting which, therefore, there is nothing to form a comparison with to judge of their probable cost, I do not hold myself bound to adhere strictly to my estimates. I deliver in the sums as the nearest approach in my judgment, to what they are really worth, and it is all in such cases 1 am in my business required to do. I, however, so far feel confident in their accuracy, that hitherto in no instance have I had occasion, in any of the works I have done for the Palace, to deviate from my original price. I am, Sir, Bronze Works, 1 2, Argyll Place, Your very obedient servant, 15th April 1830. Sam 1 Parker, X4 (Enclosure 168 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE (Enclosure 3 .) To Thomas B, Mash , Esq. SIR, TO give you some idea of the difference to me between money and credit, I purchase my metals at the rate of 15 per cent, per annum less for money than credit. I believe every other article I use in my business is more favourable to me for money transactions than metals. I have received from Mr. Nash one quarter’s advance on commencement of the work or nearly so; the two quarters as the work progresses, reserving the last quarter until the work is delivered. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, 12, Argyll Place, 15th April 1820. Sam 1 Parker. For His Majesty’s Palace, Saint James Park. Estimated cost of ornaments for two chimney pieces, and frames for glasses to design (A.) to be executed in my new golden metal Ditto - - ditto for two ditto to design (B.) as above - Ditto - - ditto for two frames to glasses only to design (C.) Ditto - - ditto for ornaments, for one chimney and glass frame to design (D.) Ditto - - ditto for ornaments for two glass frames only, for Throne-room to design (E.) Ditto - - ditto for the ornaments for two chimney glasses only, to drawing (F.) for the saloon over hall - £. £. s. 1,708 18 1,717 10 265 16 D 35 ° - 1,200 - 1,250 - 6,982 4 d. 5 6 6 N.B.— The backs of the frames to be made of wood gilt, and by the party who furnishes the glasses, as explained to Mr. Nash. 12, Argyll Place, Regent Street. Sam 1 Parker. April 17th, 1830. (Enclosure 4.)—Estimate for Bell-Hanging. SIR ? 14, Regent Street, May 7th, 1830. IT will be impossible for me to send you a specification of the bell-hanging at the Palace, or my estimate of the probable cost, as the several departments of the household have not determined upon the arrangement of the bells and pulls; as soon as I obtain their reports, a specification accompanying my estimate shall be forwarded to your office; in the mean time I beg to express my opinion on the propriety of contracting for such a work in gross. In the first place, I think it almost impracticable to ascertain, in the first instance, either the exact number required, and it is almost certain that many changes will take place in the course of hanging them, and that no estimate can be made sufficiently accurate without putting down a much larger sum than they will probably, or ought to cost (a practice which I never have adopted). I am therefore of opinion, that the competition should be for prices, and the specification describe the manner, materials and position of the several bells and pulls; bell-hanging being one of the few articles in building that cannot safely be executed under estimates in gross. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, T. B. Mash, Esq. John Nash. (Enclosure ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 205 169 (Enclosure 5.)—Estimate for Warming Apparatus. S1R , 14, Regent Street, 27th April 1830. WHEN His Majesty fixed on Stretton’s patent apparatus for warming and airing the Palace, and having formed the plan, I applied to him for an estimate of the cost; he declined giving a written estimate, stating that it was not possible to ascertain the cost, it being altogether a new invention ; but stated that it would be from two to three thousand pounds, and I accordingly stated the latter sum in my estimate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the mean time informing Mr. Stretton of the necessity of his ascertaining the cost, in order that I might obtain the necessary authority, at the same time telling him to be prepared to begin the work when called upon. This, it seems, he considered as an order to execute the work, as the use of it would be wanted in the winter, and I heard nothing more of Mr. Stretton, nor had any further communication with him, until (to my great surprise) he wrote to me requesting a payment on account, which request I forwarded to the Lord Chamberlain’s Office; I had not the least idea that he had begun the work, and the Clerk of the Works supposing he was acting under my directions, allowed him to fix a considerable portion of it. In one respect this was fortunate, as it preserved the work, which would have otherwise suffered from the severe and long frost which immediately followed. The demand made by Mr. Stretton for the work done was £.3,250, and for the work remaining to be done £. i,8oo. On considering and examining the detail of the work, I thought the demand extravagant, and demanded to examine his vouchers and cash expenditure; this he did not refuse, and I caused them to be carefully examined, and found the works charged to be correctly stated, and not feeling myself a competent judge of the several works, I caused them to be examined, and an estimate made of them by Mr. Braithwaite, the engineer, and I herewith return his valuation, which it will be observed states the work done to amount to £.2,609. 1 - and the work remaining to be done at £. 700. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, T. B. Mash, Esq. John Nash. (Enclosure 6.)—Estimate for Warming Apparatus. *. To John Nash, Esq. SIR, Having by your desire examined and surveyed the various pipes, cocks, connections, &c. and the apparatus erected by Messrs. Stretton, White & Co. for the purpose of warming and ventilating His Majesty’s New Palace at Pimlico, I have had much difficulty in coming to any result, and much trouble and delay lias been occasioned by the loose manner in which the account of the materials has been rendered. From what I have seen of the work I am perfectly satisfied it is executed in a substantial and workmanlike manner, and, after mature consideration, and taking the most liberal view of the case, allowing Messrs. Stretton, White & Co. the greater proportion of their own charge for labour as well as remuneration to Mr. Stretton for his own time, in addition to what he terms profit as patentee, I value the work at the sum of Two thousand six hundred and nine pounds one shilling and one penny (£.2,609. 1# being Six hundred and forty pounds, eighteen shillings and eleven pence (£.640. 18. 11.) less than their claim of Three thousand two hundred and fifty pounds (£.3,250). Of the further sum of One thousand eight hundred pounds (£. 1,800) necessary for the completion of the work I cannot form any idea, not being in possession of the plans upon which the future operations are to be conducted. I remain, Sir, New Road, Fitzroy Square, Your obedient servant, April 1, 1830. John Braithwaite. Y On 170 appendix to second report from select committee On referring to the plans for the completion of the heating apparatus to the north wing of His Majesty’s Palace at Pimlico, claiming an allowance for the boiler already fixed and the patterns of the fluted cylinders, I estimate the pro¬ bable expense, including the oval cast iron steam main and connections, &c. See. at the sum of Seven hundred pounds, (£.700.) John Braithwaite. (Enclosure 7 -)—MEMORIAL. To the Right Honourable the Lords of His Majesty’s Treasury. The humble Memorial of George Stj'etton, of No. 50, Liecester Square, Showeth, THAT His most gracious Majesty having been pleased to prefer the new patent apparatus of Your humble Memorialist for warming and ventilating, be fitted up and completed the same in the most superior manner, in the central building of His Majesty’s New Palace, St. James’s Park : That the same having been in use during the last six months, its decided supe¬ riority is fully established, and its effect known to have preserved the splendid works there from the severe frost of the late winter: That in order to be prepared for such an occurrence, Your humble Memorialist spared no expense, and in fact parted with all his funds to have the said work done in the most superior and expeditious manner, in the full reliance that immediately on a part being finished, and an account thereof rendered, he should receive some money either in full or in part of the said account: That the particulars of Your humble Memorialist’s claim was furnished at Michaelmas last, the amount of which being Three thousand two hundred and fifty pounds (£. 3,250) : That Your humble Memorialist is informed that John Nash, Esq. as architect, considering the amount of the said account high, but not being sufficiently acquainted with the nature of such work, had the same valued by a Mr. Braith¬ waite, whose estimate amounts to Two thousand six hundred and nine pounds one shilling and one penny (£.2,609. 1 * 1 *) being Six hundred and forty pounds eighteen shillings and eleven pence (£. 640. 18. 11.) less than the claim of Your humble applicant: That as the nature and construction of the said new patent, being so widely different from any apparatus of its kind ever manufactured, a great part of its works very intricate and even hid from the eye, that the patentee or a person on his part, was not consulted as is usual, in order to explain any matter in the said invention which the said Mr. Braithwaite could not possibly know, and that the work being for a royal palace, your humble Memorialist felt justified in executing the same in the very best possible method, are circumstances he humbly presumes that will account for a difference in a valuation, and Your humble Memoriliast’s charge: That Your humble Memorialist is further informed that the said Mr. Braith¬ waite has also attempted to make an estimate of the probable expense of complet¬ ing the apparatus now in preparation for the north wing of His Majesty’s said New Palace, and that he computes, at Seven hundred pounds, that which your humble Memorialist estimates at One thousand eight hundred pounds ; to account for such an extravagant disproportion in two calculations, he humbly begs leave to state that that part of the work which Mr. Braithwaite did inspect is the most inconsiderable of the whole plan; that the principal portion is in various stages of its manufacture, some near ready for delivery, some on the canal on its way to London, and some in several foundries, the construction of which (it being an entire new invention) could not possibly be known to Mr. Braithwaite, as Your humbL Memorialist was not confined in his plan, dimension, weight or even de¬ scription of metal, consequently the conception of Mr. Braithwaite could only be founded on a rough presumption : That ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 171 That Your Memorialist humbly begs leave to solicit Your Right honourable Lordships to be pleased to order the amount of his claim of Three thousand two hundred and fifty pounds, or a part on account thereof, to be paid forthwith, and not allow the same to be prejudiced by Mr. Braithwaite’s estimate, otherwise it will be the total ruin of Your humble Memorialist, who has spent the greater part of his days in bringing this invention to its beautiful perfection, and is now not only loosing his business, having been obliged to refuse the warming of several colleges, but actually suffering from arrests occasioned through the disappointment in not obtaining money at so early a period as he was always led to expect. And Your humble Memorialist, As in duty bound, will ever pray. 50, Leicester-Square, 14th May 1830. No. 14 .—LETTER from B. C. Stephenson, Esq. to George Dazvson, Esq. &c. &c, &c. s 1 Office of Works, 20th August 1830. I have been honoured with the receipt of your letter, dated the 13th instant, transmitting, for my immediate and special report thereon, an application from Mr. Stretton, requesting an advance of money on account of works performed by him at the New Palace in St. James’s Park, in answer to which I beg to state for the information of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, that no part of the accounts of Mr. Stretton had ever been before this office, and I there¬ fore immediately sent a copy of Mr. Stretton’s application to Mr. Nash, under whose directions the works in question appear to have been executed ; I yesterday received Mr. Nash’s answer, which is in direct contradiction to Mr. Stretton’s statement, who I have also seen upon the subject, but without his giving me any hopes of bringing his business to any satisfactory termination without further delay; but in the mean time his distress is so great and pressing, that unless their Lordships shall be induced to grant him the sum of £. 500 or £. 600 upon account, he must inevitably go to prison ; I take the liberty of recommending most strongly this application to their Lordships’ favourable and speedy consideration, for under all the circumstances of the case that have come to my knowledge, I must consider it is a case attended with peculiar hardship; I beg further to state, that if their Lordships shall be induced to relieve Mr. Stretton, by an advance of £.500 or £. fioo for his immediate relief, that it may be done with perfect safety, as by Mr. Nash’s showing, this man has already done work at the New Palace that amounts to above £. 2,600, besides works still in progress. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. No. 15 .—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE on the preceding Application. WRITE to the Surveyor General of Works, authorizing him to pay to Mr. Stretton, the sum of £.500 on account of his trouble and expenses in warming Buckingham Palace, and inform him at the same time, that My Lords will give directions to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to repay him the said sum. Write to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, authorizing them to pay the Surveyor General of Works the sum advanced by him, and to be placed to the account of Buckingham Palace. 329- Y 2 No. 16.—Copy i, ;2 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE , * •* - « % ) No. 16.— Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 2d April 1830. MY LORDS have before them an account of the expenditure which has been incurred at the King’s Palace in Saint James s Park to 5th July 1829, the latest period to which the accounts have been made up and rendered to the Surveyor General of Works. * , . « » , . t 1 4 It appears that the expenditure to the 5th July 1829, exclusive of the payment for marble, amounts to £.439,042. 17. 5* an d from an account before My Lords, of the payments made by the Commissioners of Woods, that the sum imprested to Mr. Nash for the purchase of marble has been £. 22,700., the amount of the Expenditure to the 5th July 1 829, has therefore been £. 461,742. 17* 5 ’ My Lords refer to the estimates sanctioned by My Lords for this building, to the amount of £.496,000. and read their Minute of 17th November 1 829, autho¬ rizing Mr. Nash to incur a further additional expense of £.3,510. for certain articles of sculpture, not provided for in the former estimates. The expense to which Mr. Nash has been authorized, therefore, to proceed, being only £.499,5 10. the attention of My Lords has been again attracted to the very small amount which remains after paying the bills to 5th July last, to complete the building according to Mr. Nash’s estimates. My Lords have already had this subject under their consideration, and they now read Mr. Nash’s letter of 20th October 1829, in which he states that he has the satisfaction of being able to add, that “ the total charge for the Palace according “ to the best view which he could take of the state of the accounts would not exceed “ the estimate of £. 500,000. proposed to Parliament.” My Lords read also their Minute of 17th November 1829, by which they apprized Mr. Nash, that “ beyond what they then authorized, My Lords could not “ admit any deviation from the plans and estimates, or any works which could “ retard the completion of the Palace, or raise the amount of expenditure on “ account of it, beyond that of which Mr. Nash furnished an estimate to Par- “ liament, and that for any deviation or increase, they would hold Mr. Nash “ responsible.” Write to Mr. Nash to acquaint him, that the attention of this Board having been drawn to the fact that, upon works to 5th July 1 829? an expenditure had been incurred to the amount of £.461,74^* '7- 5* aR d that there remained, there¬ fore, only £. 37,867. 2. 7. to defray all the charges which then remained to> com¬ plete the Palace, they think it proper to repeat to him, that if the expenditure has exceeded or shall exceed the amount granted for the purpose, agreeably to his estimate, there being no funds out of which such exceeding could be defrayed, that he will be held personally responsible for the payment. No. 17. —LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to J. Stewart, Esq. &c. &c. &c. i j / • } « I beg to acknowledge your letter of April 6th, respecting the Palace in Saint James’s Park, and to state, that at the time of receiving it I was, and have been ever since (till within these few days) incapacitated from giving the attention necessary to enable me to afford that information which the subject of your letter requires ; a rush of blood to the head, occasioned, as the physicians say, by standing on the marble pavement in St. Paul's cathedral, during the funeral of Sir Thomas Lawrence, the effect of which was, at first, privation of sight, and ever since pains and giddiness in the head, which rendered investigations and statements of accounts and estimates impossible, and I trust their Lordships will consider such a state of health as a sufficient cause for not having earlier communicated with you on the subject of your letter ; but although I was not able then to investigate and state 209 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 173 the accounts of the estimates and expenditure of the Palace, yet 1 lost no time in procuring every information necessary for my doing so, as soon as I should be able, and that task I am now about to perform. In order to exhibit the information to their Lordships in the most concise and simple manner, I transmit enclosed state¬ ments marked (A.) to (G.) and if their Lordships will be good enough to examine those statements, they will therein perceive, in detail, an account of the whole expenditure which has yet been incurred ; an account of the amount that will yet be required to complete the buildings according to my estimates, and an account of the further sums which will be necessary, if the further additions commanded by his late Majesty, and in part commenced, are to be made to the original design. These papers will exhibit to their Lordships, that the expenses incurred to the 5th July 1830, upon works estimated for by me, have exceeded the estimates sanctioned by their Lordships, by £.34,787. 9. 3. and that there is work yet to be completed, the expense of which will probably be £. 11,656. 1. 6. making an exceeding upon my estimate of £.46,443. 10.9. That there has actually been paid £.4,042. 10. 3. for works found necessary during the progress of the building, but which could not be the subject of building estimates, and £.29,394. 11. 3I. for expenses incurred by his late Majesty’s commands, on works which formed no part of the original estimates, and for works in the gardens. These two sums amount to £.33,437. 1. 7. and being added to the sum of £.46,443. 10. 9. make up an amount of £.79,830. 12. 4. for which no provision has yet been made by their Lordships. In addition to this sum, there are certain works enumerated in papers (C.) and (D.) ordered by his late Majesty; the whole of those in paper (C.) were in course of progress, when stopped by the order of the Treasury of April 6th, and the amount of the expense would probably be £. 25,767. 7. o.; those in paper (D.) have not yet been commenced; the amount is £ 21,805. 18. 1.; the amount of the two taken together is £. 47,573. 5. 1. If these works are all to be completed, the whole amount yet to be provided will be £.127,453. 17. 5. The exceeding upon my estimate, for which I am to give explanation to their Lordships is, as above stated, £. 46,443. 10. 9., and it behoves me to show why, in my letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated 24th August 1829, I did not set forth that excess, but why on the contrary, I stated that I had a well grounded hope that the estimate would not be exceeded. At the time when I was called upon to make the statement which accompanied that letter, the works then done were measured and the accounts made up to the Christmas quarter 1828, inclusive; but of the work done between that quarter and the time of making that statement (August 24th, 1829,) two quarters, viz. Lady-day and Midsummer, were not measured or made out; it was therefore impossible at that time to state what the amount of the works done during that period would be, nor was it possible to say what balances would be due to the tradesmen (whose works had been only in part measured and paid quarterly) when the whole of the works then in hand should be finished; I was therefore only able to consider what the works not then begun would probably cost, and to take for granted that the works then done would be found to be verified by the original estimate. At that time it was supposed the two quarterly accounts of Lady-day and Midsummer 1829, not then measured, would amount to £. 44,990. There had been expended up to Christmas 1828, according to the accounts prepared and the measurement of the work, £.392,144.; to which the sum of £.44,990. being added, it appeared that £. 60,169. would remain at Midsummer 1829, for com¬ pleting the building according to my estimates. It turned out, however, that the amount of those two quarters was £. 60,644. and that there in fact only remained at that time £.44,965. instead of the larger sum; and the difference, £. 15,179. less than the sum I then calculated upon as remaining for the purposes of the building, together with the more expensive designs I was commanded to adopt in the ornamental plasterer’s works, and the total impossibility of estimating the parquette floors, (both which articles I then expressly stated I could not, for want of precedent, correctly estimate,) and also the uncertainty of the amount of the balances due at that time to the different tradesmen, will together account to their Lordships for the before-named exceeding upon my estimates of £.42,523. 5. 6.; and that the expectations I then held out have been defeated by these circum¬ stances, over which I had no control, and could not be aware of till the bills were made out. 329- Y 3 it 210 i 7 4 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE It is impossible to ascertain the several items which form this aggregate excess; but it is evident that the greater portion of it arises in the expenditure prior to the statement delivered in with my letter of the 24th August to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that I may not take more than my share of whatever censure is due for the excess of estimate, I must beg to call the attention of their Lord- ships to the following statement:—Out of the total expenditure, the sum of £.307,908. is for works measured and priced, and the bills made out without any interference on my part, and I knew nothing of the result of those accounts, but the total amount of them at the end of every quarter. By this remark I do not mean to impeach the correctness of those accounts, or the conduct of those who measured and made them out, but only to recal to their Lordships’ recollection, what I over and over again stated to the Committee on the Office of Works and Public Buildings, that I could not consider myself responsible for the result of my estimates, unless the work was contracted for according to my recommendation; and that I stated as my decided opinion, that no estimate could be relied on unless the contracts were made in gross. That examination has long been before the public, and the Committee itself have recorded the stipulation I made of irre¬ sponsibility in their Report to the House of Commons. The works at the Palace were measured and made out by the Office of Works in the usual way, up to the commencement of the Michaelmas Quarter 1828 ; but on the 18th August 1828, the Treasury directed that I would in future measure the works and make up the accounts: from that time I proceeded according to my own practice, and per¬ formed the rest of the works not previously begun, by competition for contracts in gross, by which practice I calculate that I have effected a saving upon all works thus contracted for, of at least 25 per cent.; if, therefore, my advice had been taken, and the works contracted for in gross from the commencement, the result would have been very different to that which now appears, as I think I have a right to assume that I should have been able to curtail the whole work in the same ratio, and if I am correct, I should, by so doing, have executed the works, for which £. 307,908. was paid,between the commencement of the work and Midsummer 1828, for £.230,931., a difference of £.76,977.; and should have therefore executed the whole building considerably within my estimate. This statement I only bring forward to show, that the opinion founded on 50 years’ practice, which I gave to the Committee of the House of Commons, was well founded ; and what would have been the result had that practice been adopted at the Palace at the commencement. Nor is this result confined to my experience in that building, but has been mani¬ fested in almost every public building that has been executed under contracts in gross ; and I trust their Lordships will see, that as I protested in the beginning against any responsibility as to my estimates, unless allowed to conduct the works according to my own arrangements, and that if my advice had been taken touching contracts in gross, the original estimates would have very nearly covered the expense, no blame can be imputed to me upon that score of excess. Having then, as I think, cleared myself from blame, so far as the works provided for in my estimate are concerned, I have only to add, as relates to the other expenditure for this Palace, that nothing whatever has been done by me beyond that estimate, except by his late Majesty’s express commands : that no expense has been in¬ curred which I could avoid, and that as soon as I was made aware of the irre¬ gularity of incurring expense, even when commanded personally by His Majesty, until officially sanctioned by the Lords of the Treasury, I immediately stopped all works (not intimately connected with the authorized works so ordered) then in progress, and did not order the further additions which His Majesty had directed to be made. I have, &c. 14, Regent Street, 29th Sept. 1830. John Nash. Enclosure ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. Enclosure (A.) STATEMENT of the several Works required to be done at the Palace to complete the Building according to Mr. Nash's Estimates, which received the sanction of the Treasury, but exclusive of the Gilding, Ornamental Painting, Baths, Bell-hanging, Warming the Conservatories, Cases for the Armories, and Fittings for Plate Rooms, Table Deckers Rooms and Offices, which formed no part of those Estimates. Lobby between ( the Armories. \ Armories - Music-Room -1 S. Drawing-Room Picture Gallery - Throne-Room Saloon Principal Stairs - King’s Closet Room in North- r West Tower, J principal Floor. [ Passages, principal Floor. Room in N. wing,"] looking into the \ Quadrangle. J Sculpture Gallery | Side principal Stairs. Great Dining Room. © The Chapel Entrance to the Chapel and Lobby adjoining. Porter’s Lodge - 1 Ceiling, with bracketting, walls, doors, £.30.; Par-l quette floor (French), £. 15. 4. - - - -J Closet, ceiling and fittings - Base and surbase, £.22.; Ground glass over win-1 dows,£. 18.; Parquette floor (French), £.418. 2. 6./ Pedestals, base and surbase - Seventeen ground glass, centre lights, plain - Parquette floor, not begun (French 3/9) - Parquette floor - ditto - ditto - Plain ground glass skylight - Ceiling and bracketting, £.90.; Wainscotting, £. 70.; Base, plinth and surbase, £. 14.: Doors and clo¬ sets, £.40.; Parquette floor (French), £.96. -J Ceiling, plain cove and mouldings at top and cor¬ nice, with two enrichments, £.60.; the walls, £.20.; Wainscot floor, £.25. - Ceilings and bracketting, with plain covers and cor-' nices, £.130.; Stucco walls, £.50.; Wainscot floors, £. 70. - - - - - Ceiling, £.25.; Stucco walls, £.14.; Wainscot 1 floor, £. 14. 10 .; Base and surbase, £.8. - -J Ground glass skylight at north end, and vertical"! light and frame at south end -J Design, a flat ceiling, with ovolo and dentil enrich-) ments in cornice, stuccoed walls, ground glass J light and mahogany hand-rail -J Flat ceiling, with complete Ionic entablature round it, two members of the cornice enriched, and bracketting, £.180.; Stucco walls, £.39.; Four Scagliola columns, £.160.; Dado, £.24. 10.; Floor, without inlaid border, £. 172. 10. Eight plain ground glass skylights, and eight circu-) lar ditto, £.127.; Gallery floor, £. 148.; Sixteen! Scagliola columns, £.360.; Pulpit, pewing and f altar (furniture), ballusters, pilasters, &c. £.230. -J New wall, &c. doors, windows, staircases and rail ings, ceiling, walls, floors, base and surbase Finishings generally - y 4 :} £. s . of. 45 4 - 25 - - 458 2 6 35 ~ ~ 20 - - 430 - - 340 - - 180 - - 310 - - 105 - - 250 - - 61 10 - 100 - - 180 16 - 576 - - 865 - - 450 - - 110 - - ( continued .) 1 7 6 appendix to second report from select committee Enclosure (A.)—Statement of the Works required to be done at the Palace— continued. NAMES of the several Parts of the Building. Kitchens - -{ Doric Entrance Portico. Bed-Room Ground Floor West front. Bath-Room - Six Ceilings and two Lobbies, ground floor, N. front. Passages - Staircase Picture Gallery, North wing. Entrance from f Constitution Hill.\ Marble Arch Buckingham Gate Plastering to scullery, fish larder, pastry room, &c."| and paving ------ -J Plain ceiling, with plain moulding round above the*l architrave ----- -J Recess for the bed, ceiling, bracketting and floor Ceiling, plain, with plain cornice and stucco walls'! (the floor is to be included in the Estimate of l Bath, &c. ------ -J Estimated as plain ceilings, with coves, 2 feet girth,-* plain mouldings at top and cornice below, with two enrichments, £.330. 16.; Stucco walls, £. 86.; f Wainscot floors, 291 squares, £.221. 5. - -J 14! Squares of wainscot floors (ground floors) Flat ceiling, with cornice and stucco walls, £. 6 Skylight and ground glass, £. 20.; New railing to these stairs, £. 150. J Ceiling flat, Corinthian entablature round it, two'| members enriched, and bracketting, £. 260.; Wain -1 scot floor, £. 175. - - - - -J Flat ceiling, with plain cornice, stucco walls and! Portland paving ----- _j Fanlights to passages, N. and S. wings - Twenty water closet apparatus - Railings to the several staircases in the N. and S, wings } Sundry plain chimney pieces - To finish the plain painting - Curb of Portland stone and brick foundations New gates and piers to kitchen offices - Removing the gates and piers, new work and repairs £. £. s. d. 200 - - 100 - - 30 - - 60 - - 638 108 230 1 - 15 ~ 435 - - 73 - - 50 - - 250 - - 230 - - 1,500 - - 1,500 - - 450 - - 100 - - 100 - - 10,596 8 6 Amount of the Bills - 10 per cent. Incidental Expenses £. s. d. 10,596 8 6 1,059 13 - Total £.11,656 1 6 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. !77 Enclosure (B.) STATEMENT of the Balances due to the Sculptors, and those due to the several Tradesmen, on Contracts and measured work, and which are not included in the Quarterly Bills contained in any of these Statements. Balances due for the Sculpture of the Arch : £. s. d. Westmacott ------ as 4433 6 8 Bailey ------- - 2,733 6 8 Chantrey ------- 6,300 - — Due - - - Balances due for Chimney Pieces : Sivier ------- - 170 - - Denman ------- - 410 - — Theakstone - - 500 - - Browne ------- - 1,250 - - Due - - - Balance due for the external Sculpture : Grimsley for six vases - - - ” — - Balances due for the internal Sculpture : Pitts for pannels in north drawing-room, £. 800 - 650 - — Three designs for the south drawing-room - 790 " — Sixteen dessus des portes, £. 1,920 - 1,720 - — Due • - - Harrison : Bills for Michaelmas quarter - - M 97 13 1 — Christmas quarter 1829 - - - - 5,250 - — Contract for the w r ings - - 2,550 - — Mahogany doors and boxings - - 2,099 - — 11,096 13 1 C r on French casements - - £.1,600 - — - on mahogany doors - - 500 - i — - on the wings - - - - 2,000 - — - by Treasury letter - - 3,000 - — - by certificate - 3> 000 “ - 10,100 - Due - - W oolcott: Contract for the private apartments - 926 16 - Ditto - for mahogany rail - - 193 13 — Due - - - 329. z s. d. 13,466 13 4 2,330 - - 110 - - 3A6o - - 996 13 1 1,120 9 - (continued.) 214 178 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Enclosure (B.)—Statement of the Balances due to the Sculptors, &c.— continued. Browne: Reserves on internal work - Balance of scagliola to the walls of the hall, lower) gallery and staircase -J Reserves on measured work of arch, exclusive of) sculpture - - - - - - -J Carving modillions and coffers - £. 1,463 - - C r by instalment - 500 - - Labour to complete the marble arch Cube hoisting and setting - - - Extra sawing to large blocks - 2^ per cent deduction on measured work C r by certificate in the Michaelmas Bills for 1829 Due Froom & Cribb: Contract for plate glass for windows C r in Midsummer quarter 1829 - £.1,500 - - - in Michaelmas quarter - - 2,000 - - Due Parker: Contract for the gold metal gates and railing, and) the staircase railing -J C r by sundry instalments - £. s. d. 2,015 4 4 3,084 - - 843 13 4 963 ~ " 3.050 - - 49 1 H 5 183 6 5 700 - - 11,330 18 6 5.500 - - Reserved on former Bill for fixing Due 3.617 j 3.500 10,200 - 8,500 - 1,700 - 266 17 M‘Intosh : Amount of Bills due for garden w r ork, from Midsummer 1826 to Michaelmas 1828 inclusive, done under my estimates, which have been certified by me, and delivered to the Office of Works, but which have not yet been paid ------ In addition to this sum, Mr. MTntosh has delivered an account fori work done subsequently to the above date under the directions ; of Mr. Aiton -------- - -J £. 5,830 18 6 117 - - 1,966 17 - 3.9 11 4 7 4,210 17 yb 37,220 13 i£ Amount of Balances 75 per cent, incidental expenses Total £•37,220 13 1 1 2.79 1 11 - £.40,012 4 i£ 215 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 1-0 Enclosure (C.) STATEMENT of the several Works ordered by His Majesty, in addition to the Estimates sanctioned by the Treasury ’ the whole are in progress, and some part are completed, but the remainder are stopped in consequence of the Treasury Order of NAMES of the several Parts of the Building. Armories { The South Drawing-Room. To complete, lay and clean off, the east and south'! armoury floors - - - - _ _ r Veneering the parquette floor C r by instalment - Two metal glass frames, &c. C r by instalment - - £. 2,500 - - 1,000 - - 1,156 18 - 293 6 8 Bow-Room Four Scagliola columns and capitals (fixed) - (For the remaining 26, which are not begun, vide D.) Throne-Room • Saloon Anti-Room Principal Stairs { l 1 Hall and Lower Gallery. M usic-Room State-Room, Doors, and Door-cases. Parquette floor (nearly finished) Six chimney and pier glasses (fixed) Gilding doors and glass frame C r by advance - Twenty-eight Scagliola pilasters Thirty-eight engraved glasses for th picture gallery - Sixteen ditto for the temple C r by instalment - £. 701 - - 300 - - _ r 1,080 3 - 60 18 - 1,141 1 - 300 - - Trusses and figures to screen (fixed) Composition ornaments in pannels Rosettes for the pilasters - Four column and two pilaster capitals - Twenty-two engraved glasses (fixed) Sky-light, engraved plate glass Addition to railing of principal stairs, and metal\ enrichments to handrail of ditto -J { 1 Three carved marble doorcases C r by instalment £.1,150 - - 400 - - Inlaid marble border, additional width in the hall) and temples ------ _J Sculpture enrichments in ceiling (fixed) Composition enrichments for one set of doors Silver’d glasses for the pannels of doors Metal enrichments for the doors (nearly done) Ditto - to three marble doorcases (fixed) Three Scagliola doorcases in picture gallery (fixed) Z 2 £. s. d. 200 - - 1,500 - - 863 11 4 513 19 ~ 2 , 34 ° - ~ 593 4 - 401 - - 1,300 - - 841 1 - 160 - - 230 6 10 495 - - 88 - - 170 19 7 650 - - 335 8 4 750 - - 968 - - 50 - - 1,320 5 - 2,134 10 9 I 80 11 - 660 - - (1 continued .) i8o APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Enclosure (C.)—Statement of Works ordered by His Majesty— continued. NAMES of the several Parts of the Building. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. COST. The Chapel - - Enrichments to the ceiling (fixed) - £. s. d. 343 “ " Six Ceilings and ! Two Lobbies, Ceilings and bracketting, estimated like those on the^ 477 14 " Ground-Floor, principal floor, without enrichments -J North Front. J Picture Gallery, "1 North Wing. J Ceiling flat, with enriched Corinthian entablature - 200 - - Enrichments to ceilings of the three drawing-rooms,! ftfif) _ The Arch - ground floor, west front - - - - -j Gold metal standards to the railing of the arch, in') lieu of stone ------ -J i ,930 “ - . Granite curb for this railing, in lieu of the Portland! stone included in Estimate (A.) (additional cost) J 200 - - Carving six wreaths for the arch - 300 - - Sculpture - - s Marble - - 1 Carving modillions and coffers for ditto - C 495 ~ ~ Four pannels in throne-room - £.1,300 - - C r by instalments - - 866 13 4 Additional quantity of marble to the arch, and trophies in lieu of statues; 28 additional pilasters in the hall and lower gallery; also the pedestals in the hall and the four columns in the anti¬ room ----- £.5,660 - - C r by instalment, Mich* 1829, 2,000 - - ' .. , * , 1, ; , 1 433 6 8 3,600 - - 26,424 17 6 | Deduct £. 3,000, advanced to Mr. Parker, on account of his metal works described under the heads of Principal Stairs, State-Room „ Doors, and the Standards to the railing of 3,000 - - the Arch ------- £. 23,424 17 6 h Amount of the Works - £.23,424 17 6| 10 per cent. Incidental Expenses - 2,342 9 6 Total £■ 25 , 7 6 7 7 1 a ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 181 Enclosure (D.) STATEMENT of the several Works ordered by His Majesty, but not begun, for want of the Treasury Authority. NAMES of tlie several Parts of the Building. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. COST. Lobby between J the Armories. \ Enrichments to the ceiling and the parquette floor,'l to match the armories - - - - -J £. 44 s. d. 16 - Music-Roon -| Three engraved plate glasses for windows, and the"! parquette floor - - - - - - -J 720 17 6 S. Drawing-Room| Twenty-six Scagliola columns like the four already f done (vide C.) _____ f Gilding the capitals of these columns - 3,016 325 _ - N.Drawing-Room| Veneering the parquette floor - Mosaic gold enrichments in Scagliola pilasters Gilding the capitals and bases - 2,220 1,000 330 — — Picture Gallery - Seventeen engraved central glass skylights 50 — - ’ Throne-Room -< Parquette floor ------- Figures for the recess ------ Shields of the arms of the Royal Family 7 J 5 150 156 — — Saloon Parquette floor ------- 550 — — Doors to the State-Rooms, . Principal Floor. Gilding the mouldings of the state doors, in addition 1 to the four already done (vide C.) -J Sixteen sets of metal enrichments for marble door'j jambs, £.429.12.; and for the cornices, £.244. 16.; > Drilling, fitting, Sic. £. 87. 8. - - -J 650 761 16 - King’s Closet Ceiling and bracketting, wainscotting, base, plinth'i and surbase, doors, dressings, Sic. to closets, under ’ floor, parquet floor ----- -J 338 15 - Room j in N. W. Tower, j Principal Floor. J Ceiling estimated like the others, and wainscotting 78 — — Passages - Bracketting and ceilings, like those below 245 2 7 h Sculpture Galleryj Engraved plate glass skylight at the north end, and'l vertical light and frame at the south end - -J 12 Brass pateras for warm air apparatus 250 40 - — Side Principal J Stairs. f Design, enriched fluted ceiling and cornice, pannelled'j walls, ground glass light, Sic. - - - -J 179 4 - Dining-Room Flat ceiling, with enriched Ionic entablature and-i bracketting, flush-framing for walls, four Ionic | Scagliola columns, dado mouldings, wainscot floor, f inlaid oak border to floor - - - - -J 35 i _ - The Chapel -j Eight plate glass skylights ground, and ground crown j glass for circular lights, pulpit, pewing and altar, ballustrade, pilasters. Sic. - - - - -J 1,290 — — Lobby to Chapel, - ! and Public Entrance. J Additional finishings to ceilings. Sic. - - - 70 — - 329- Z 3 (continued.) 182 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Enclosure (D.)—Statement of the several Works ordered by His Majesty— continued. NAMES of the several Parts of the Building. Becl-Room, -i Ground-Floor, ' west front Bath Room - - Six cielings and lobbies, Ground-Floor, north wing. Staircase, north wing. } Recess for the bed, ceiling, floor, &c. - Enrichments to ceiling ------ Enrichments to these ceilings and those on the prin-j eipal floor, £. 750 ; Flush framing, £. 220 ; and the inlaid border, £. 432 -J Enrichments to ceiling and staircase railing - Inlaid border to floors of three drawing-rooms and"! the dining-room, ground-floor, west front - -J Ditto - - to rooms of principal floor, north front Ditto — to rooms of ground-floor and picture gal-I lery, north front - - - - - - J Metal inscriptions to the sides of the arch Finishing the interior of arch for gate-keeper - Six vases for the north terrace, and eight vases forj the west ------ - -J Statues for niches and medallions in west front £. COSTS. £. s. d. 20 - - 20 - - 1,402 - - 65 - - 890 - - 480 - - 745 - - 600 - - 300 - - 770 - - 1,000 - - 19,823 11 1 \ Amount of Estimates - 10 per cent. Incidental Expenses Total - £. 19,823 11 1 1 1,982 7 ~ - £. 21,805 1 8 1 \ Enclosure (E.) STATEMENT of the several Works that have created an extra Expenditure, having been found necessary during the progress of Building, but whic the subjects of the Building Estimates. For laying on the water, throughout the mains, cocks, &c. - £.485 11 - j Tanks, drains, &c. - - - - - - 522 13 9 J > Lead service pipes to cisterns and sinks - 292 8 - J Coals and coke, for all the rooms finished in the basement and attics,! during the winters, to protect the joiners’ work and plasterers’ work in its progress - -- -- -- -- - _J Oil, candles and portable gas, used during the last winter, when the\ work was carried on in the evenings, and in the basement - -J Sweeping the chimnies ------- Brushes, brooms and matting, for cleaning and protecting the work For sail cloths, tarpaulins, 8cc. for covering the work in the winter, and) in bad weather _J Drains constructed for the ice-houses ------- Preparations for the patent apparatus for warming the palace, brickwork, masonry, &c. - - - - £. could not be the £. s. d. 1,300 12 9 k 1,290 14 — 472 *7 5 5 19 18 — 28 !3 9 232 — 8 247 13 8 450 — — 4,042 10 3 i ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 183 Enclosure (F.) THE following Payments will be found included in the several Quarterly Bills, but which made no part of the original Estimates; the Expense having been incurred by His Majesty’s command, in addition to those Estimates. Flush framing for the walls of the three drawing-rooms, bed-room, and) wardrobe adjoining, on ground-floor, west front; the estimates hav-' ing provided plastering ------- - -J Six frames ; carving and composition for the glasses in the bow-room - Carving to the pendants of the chapel ceiling _____ Paste composition enrichment in the walls of the principal staircase (likeT the railing) _J Additional cost of the Scagliola columns in the bow drawing-room,') occasioned by the metal granula being introduced -J Additional cost of the parquet floor for the south armoury ; foreign floors'! being provided in the estimates ------ -J Additional cost of the picture gallery floor ------ Additional cost of the anti-room floor ------ Extension of the patent flues (put down at £. 600.); it being at first pro-") posed to confine them to the state apartments -J Sound boarding and pugging the floors, throughout the state apartments^, and the King’s living rooms; it being found that the voice was dis¬ tinctly conveyed from one story to the other, through the hollow cone f arches -1 Sculpture. Two naval and two military trophies over the side entrances to the wings Group for the clock dial - south wing ------ Group for the wind dial - north wing. Pannel under the portico of south wing Pannel under the portico of north wing ------ Four alto-relievos on the cornice of the staircase, designed by Stothard - Four bas-relievos in the staircase, representing the Seasons, by Stothard Three alto-relievos over the columns in the bow-room, designed by Pitts Four bas-relievos in the throne-room, designed by Stothard and ex-j ecuted by Bailey, subjects from the wars of York and Lancaster, £. 1,300 ; paid on account - - - ..J Two marble chimnies for the armouries, executed by Mr. M. Wyatt Fourteen pedestals in the bow-room of metal glanulate Scagliola Gilding the capitals in the bow-room ------ Advance on account of gilding the state-room doors, &c. - Advance on account of the engraved plate glasses, for the picture gallery Advance on account of the parquet floor, for the south drawing-room - Advance on account of metal chimney-pieces, &c. - - - - Advance on account of three marble door-cases ----- Sculpture enrichments in ceiling of the music-room - - - - Three Scagliola door-cases in the picture gallery - Advance to Mr. Parker, on account of the metal works, described in') Statement (C.) - -- -- -- -- -J Additional cargo of marble, paid with the Midsummer account, 1829 - Advance on account of a further cargo, paid with the Michaelmas'! Accounts, 1829 - -- -- -- -- -J £. Advance to Mr. Stretton, on account, by direction of the Treasury £. £. s. d. 248 9 4 228 9 7 h 28 10 - 92 14 - 3 i 5 3 — 502 1 3 1,522 10 - 138 2 6 1,569 17 i-if^ CO 638 16 3 693 - - 700 — - 700 - - 800 - — 800 - — 500 - - 584 - — 450 — — 866 13 4 1.050 - — 240 - — 212 10 300 — — 300 - — 1,000 — — 293 6 8 400 - — 649 10 — 660 — — 3,000 — - 3,200 — — 2,000 — — 24,683 13 72 500 - — 25,183 13 7 2 Z 4 3 - 9 * Enclosure 220 184 appendix to second report from select committee Enclosure (G.) Expenditure up to the 10th October 1829, according to the accounts') submitted for the examination of the Office of Works, including/ £.5,200 for marble -------- -J Expenditure on the marble (exclusive of the above £. 5,200 for marble) - Amount of Bills for the Christmas Quarter 1829, about £.22,000 - -j Lady-day - - 1830 - - 8,100 - - Midsummer - 5,500 - -J Balances (not included above) due to the sculptors and different tradesmen'! on contracts and measured works - - (B.) -J £. s* d* 481,241 10 10 19>500 - - 500,741 10 10 35,600 - - 40,012 - - 57^,353 10 10 l £. s. d. 4,042 10 3f Excess of Expenditure to Midsummer 1830 - Deduct, the following sums included in that amount, but not provided for in Mr. Nash’s estimates : Statement (E.)—The several works which could not be the subjects of building estimates, but have been found necessary during the progress of the works J Statement (F.)—Payments included in the several quarterly bills, which made no part of the original estimates, the expense having been incurred by His Majesty’s command in addition to those estimates ------- Statement (B.)—Garden expenses incurred by the di¬ rection of Mr. Aiton, since the completion of the work according to my estimates, and specially excepted by me in the supplementary estimate delivered to Lord Liverpool in May 1826 - £. 5 . dw % 68,224 10 10 25,183 13 75 4,210 17 7b Excess on Mr. Nash’s estimate to the present time - The amount yet required to complete the building according to the estimate - -- -- -- - Total Excess on the works estimated by Mr. Nash - £. } 33,437 1 7 34 , 7 8 7 9 3 11,656 1 6 46,443 10 9 No. 18 .—LETTER from Commissioners of Woods, Forests, &c. to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. MV LORDS, Office of Woods, &c. Sept. 9th, 1830. WITH reference to Mr. Stewart’s letter to us of yesterday’s date, in which we are apprized that Your Lordships have had under consideration a letter from the Surveyor-General of Works, with an account of works done under the direction of Mr. Nash, at The King’s Palace, Saint James’s Park, for the quarter ended the 10th of October 1829, amounting to the sum of £. 36,723. 17. 11., and that in obedience to Your Lordships’ direction, we are to issue to the cashier of the Office of Works the sum of £.34,993. 4. 4. being the balance of such account, after deducting the sum of £.1,730. 13. 7. the charge for Mr.Nash’s commission, we I 4 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 185 Enclosure (G.) Amount of estimates sanctioned by the Treasury - Additional amount sanctioned for Chantrey’s statue - Additional amount sanctioned for internal sculpture - Add, the probable amount to arise from the sale of hoards, tackle, 1 machinery, old materials, &c. - - - - - - l) Excess of Expenditure to Midsummer 1830 - £. s. d. 496,169 - - 3450 - - 3,5io - - 5,000 - - 508,129 - - 68,224 10 10 578,353 10 10 Exceeding on Mr. Nash’s Estimate - (E). and (F.)—Amount of payments already made for works not esti¬ mated. Vide Statements (E.) and (F.) -} (C.) —Amount of Payments due for works not estimated but ordered by His Majesty - - £.25,767 7 - h (B.) —Garden work directed by Mr. Aiton - 4,210 17 7 (D.) —Works ordered by his late Majesty, but not yet commenced £. £. s. d. 46,443 10 9 29,226 3 ul 2 9>978 4 8 21,805 J 8 11 127,453 17 8 we transmit to Your Lordships herewith, a statement of the monies paid out of the funds of this department, for works at the Palace, from the period of their com¬ mencement to the present time, from which statement Your Lordships will per¬ ceive, that under the clause of the Act 10th Geo. IV, c. 50, which limits the issue of the monies out of the Land Revenue to £. 496,000, the balance now appli¬ cable to the works in question is only £. 28,283. 2 * 8. We are, My Lords, Your Lordships’ very humble Servants, Lowther. Henry Dawkins. 3 2 9 * A a 222 186 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE (Enclosure.) STATEMENT of the Sums and different Payments of Money for the Building of Buckingham Palace, showing the Quarter to which each Payment refers. QUARTER to which the Payments refer. AMOUNT. £. s. d. £. s. d. 10 October 1825 Board of Works, General Work • • 14,000 - - - - - - ditto - _ - 6,534 18 9 5 January 1826 - - ditto - • - - 33,276 4 4 5 April - - - ditto - - - 36,400 10 2 5 duly - - - ditto - - - 28,681 2 2 - - - - ditto - - • 11,045 12 8 10 October - - - ditto - - - 36,362 5 1 5 January 1827 - - ditto - - - 22,766 13 7 5 April - - - ditto - • - 16,087 3 11 5 July - - * - ditto - - - 2 4> 6 49 5 7 10 October - - - ditto - - - 22,747 9 2 5 January 1828 - - ditto - - - 15,162 13 10 5 April - - - ditto - - - 14,084 7 4 5 July - - - - ditto - - _ 25,483 10 2 10 October - - - ditto --- . - 28 , 39 ° 3 7 5 January 1829 - - ditto ... • - 19,914 10 8 5 April - - - ditto ... . . 2,000 - - - - - - ditto - . _ 22,853 9 4 5 July - - - ditto - • - 3,000 - - — — - - dttto - - - 3 A 50 - - — - - - ditto - . - 22,745 5 1° 5 October - - ditto - • • 500 - - — — - - ditto - - - 1,500 - - --- 411 ,335 6 2 John Nash, Esq., Marble _ 1,000 - - - - ditto - - - - 2,000 - - - - ditto - - - 4,000 - - - - ditto - • - . 2,500 - - - - ditto - - . - 3>ooo - - - - ditto - - . . 4,000 - - - - ditto ... - - 3,000 - - - - ditto - - - - 3,200 - - 22,700 C. H. Bailey, Sculpture - - - • 1,500 - - - ditto - ditto - - - 1,500 - - Chas. Rosse - ditto - - - 1,500 - - - ditto - ditto - - . 1,000 - - R. Westmacott ditto - - - 1,500 - - - ditto - ditto - - 700 - - Board of Works, ditto - - - 2,500 16 - - ditto - - ditto - • - 9 , 3 oi - - - ditto - - ditto - - - 4,433 6 8 - ditto - - ditto - - - 3,556 13 4 - ditto - - ditto - - - 833 6 8 28,325 2 8 From Christmas'! 1825 to Ladv j W. T. Aiton, Esq., Ground Works - . i, 94 i - 8 Day 1827 -j From Lady Day) to Michaelmas! - - ditto - - - - 292 16 11 1827 - -J 5 January 1828 - - ditto - - - - 366 8 8 5 April - - - - ditto - - - - 432 - 4 5 July - - - - ditto - - - - 360 15 10 10 October - - - ditto - - - - 334 16 9 5 January 1829 - - ditto - - - - 201 19 6 5 April - - - - ditto - • - - 225 13 - 5 July - - - - ditto - - . 301 12 10 10 October - - - ditto - . - 335 3 5 5 January 1830 - ditto - - . • - 129 15 7 5 April - - - - ditto - - - 220 1S 11 5 July - - - - ditto - - ■ - - 213 5 3 5,356 7 8 • •• • • .- £. 467,716 16 6 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 187 ESTIMATE for St. James’s New Palace PAYMENTS: General Works Marble Sculpture - Ground Works - £. 411,335 6 2 22,700 - - 28,325 2 8 5,356 7 8 Remains, 4th September 1830 - £. £• ii 496,000 - d. 467,716 16 6 28,283 3 6 No. 19.—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 15th October 1830. READ a letter dated the 9th September 1830, from the Commissioners of Woods, &c. inclosing a statement of the monies paid out of the funds of their department for works at The King’s Palace in St. James’s Park. Read also a letter from Mr. Nash, dated 29th September last, in reply to that addressed to him by direction of the Board on the 6th April last. My Lords, in the first place, observed upon the delay which has taken place on the part of Mr. Nash, in replying to that communication. Though willing to make every allowance for Mr. Nash’s illness and infirmities, they cannot but feel, that if Mr. Nash was competent, as he appears to have been, to carry on works at Buckingham Palace, and to incur expenses to so large an amount as have been incurred since the receipt by him of that letter, he might have found means of letting My Lords know the extent to which his own estimate had at that period been falsified, or at least have abstained from incurring additional expenses. The greater part of Mr. Nash’s communication appears to My Lords to be altogether irrelevant to the question at issue. What was required from Mr. Nash was, to explain why he has incurred an expenditure of £.46,443. beyond his esti¬ mate, as delivered in May 1829, not only without authority from My Lords, but after repeated warnings given to him at different times, both verballv and in writing, and repeated assurances on his part that his estimate for the completion of the work given in 1829, would not be exceeded. It is no explanation to state, as Mr. Nash has stated, that he was ignorant, in August 1829, of the amount of works executed in the previous Lady-day and Midsummer quarters. Mr. Nash had been previously desired to limit his monthly expenditure to a specific sum, and he had given assurance in July 1828 that it should be so limited, and that his estimates in toto should not be exceeded; if he could undertake before-hand to limit to a certain sum the value of work to be executed in any given period, it surely was in his power to calculate, with a near approach to accuracy, what had been in the same period expended. He has found no difficulty in stating what expense has been incurred up to the date of his letter for two quarters, in which the work has not yet been measured, nor the account made out; and the process by which he has attained this informa¬ tion now, would have been, no doubt, equally effective, if previously applied. It is in vain for Mr. Nash to urge that the increased expense of the works at Buckingham Palace is attributable to the measurement having been made by the Board of Works. Since Michaelmas 1828, the measurement and price have been regulated agreeably to Mr. Nash’s own suggestion. It is not probable, nor is it asserted, that the whole excess now complained of arose previous to that date. Upon the whole, therefore, My Lords see in the paper before them no justifica¬ tion of Mr. Nash’s conduct. The estimate submitted to, and sanctioned by Par¬ liament, has been exceeded to a large amount; the progress of such excess has been concealed from My Lords, and their earlier interposition therefore prevented. My Lords feel it incumbent upon them to mark their sense of such conduct by every means in their power. My Lords have already directed Mr. Nash’s com¬ mission to be withdrawn. They are therefore pleased to direct, that a case be submitted without delay to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, for their opinion how far Mr. Nash is, under all the circumstances, pecuniarily liable for the whole or any part of the expense incurred in defiance of the orders of My Lords. 329. A a 2 My 188 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE My Lords are further pleased to suspend Mr. Nash from the office held by him of Architect to the Board of Works. As the funds which Parliament has placed at the disposal of My Lords for the execution of this work have been already so far exceeded, it is essential to prevent any further expenditure. My Lords desire, therefore, that orders be forthwith given to the Board of Works, to suspend all further work at Buckingham Palace, beyond what may be necessary to protect from injury the work already executed; and, with respect to the payment of the bills delivered for the quarter ending Michaelmas 1829, a warran t be prepared for His Majesty’s signature, to the Registrar of the Admiralty, directing an issue of £. 6,710. o. 10. to Mr. Seward, the Cashier of the Office of Works, from Droits of the Crown, which, together with the sum of £.28,283. 3* 6. applicable to this service from the Revenues of Woods and Forests, will enable the Surveyor General to satisfy the demands of the several tradesmen for that quarter. My Lords will hereafter consider, so soon as they shall be aware of Mr. Nash’s legal liability, how the expense subsequently incurred shall be provided for. Transmit all the papers, together with copy of this Minute, to the Solicitor, for his information and guidance, in preparing a case for the opinion of the law officers. Transmit copy also to the Surveyor General of Works, for his information and guidance, and direct him forthwith to suspend Mr. Nash from his office of Archi¬ tect to the Board of Works, and to take measures for the prevention of all further works at Buckingham Palace, beyond what may be necessary to protect from injury the works already executed. Write to the Commissioners of Woods, directing them to return to My Lords the authority of this Board of the 8th ultimo, for the payment of the works at Buck¬ ingham Palace, in order that the same may be cancelled; and authorize them to pay to Mr. Seward, the Cashier of the Office of Works, the sum of £. 28,283. 3. 6. being the amount of the balance in their hands applicable to the works at the said Palace, which, with the sum of £.6,710. 0. 10. which My Lords propose to issue to him out of Droits of the Crown, will complete the account for the quarter ended 10th October 1820. No. 20.—LETTER from B. C. Stephenson , Esq. to the Hon. J. K. Stewart, Sec. &c. Sec. SI H ’ Office of Works, 25th October 1830. I have been honoured with the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, transmitting for my information a copy of a Minute of the Board of Treasury’ dated the 15th instant, relative to the conduct, Sic. of the works at the New Palace in St. James's Park, in answer to which 1 beg to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, that, in obedience to their Lordships’commands, I have suspended Mr. Nash from the situation of Attached Architect to this Department, and that I have also taken the necessary measures for preventing all further works being carried on for the present, at that Palace, nearly the whole of which ceased on Saturday evening last, when the several artificers were discharged, as well as all other persons employed upon the premises, excepting those it was found necessary to retain for the safety and pre¬ servation of the buildings, as also to enable Mr. Nash to complete his measure¬ ments and make up his accounts, which I presume should be completed by him to the period when the above works were suspended. I have also directed inven¬ tories to be made of all stores and building materials, the property of His Majesty, belonging to this Palace, which are either upon the premises, or elsewhere’ I have, until further orders, taken charge of all the above buildings, Sic. and shall confine the expenses of the same within as narrow limits as circumstances will permit; but I must request to be informed, whether this office is to carry on the accounts of the expenses that will necessarily be incurred in airing, watching and taking care of these buildings and premises, until their Lordships may Ihink proper to recommence upon the works; and it will also be necessary that I should be informed against what funds the above expenses are to be charged. I cannot close this Report, without taking the liberty of trespassing upon their Lordships patience, in offering a few remarks upon that part of the Treasury Minute 225 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. Minute transmitted me with your letter, which has reference to an assertion made by Mr. Nash, that “ the increased expense of the works at the new Palace is attributable” to the measurement having been made by this Office, an assertion that reflects great discredit on the conduct of business in this department, and which I have no hesitation in stating, has been made without the slightest regard to truth. I beg to observe, that the system of measurement adopted by this Office has repeatedly been a subject of discussion, at the periodical meetings of the Attached Architects, and more particularly at the commencement of the present Establishment, when many alterations and improvements were at different times suggested and adopted, and some at the particular recommendation of Mr. Nash himself, who most frequently attended these meetings; and from the opinions of many professional men of eminence, I have very good reason for believing, that the mode of measurement pursued by this Office is more advantageous to the public, and freer from abuses of every kind, than what is adopted generally in private business. In respect to the works at the New Palace, I selected with great care, measurers, whose abilities and integrity I could safely depend upon; and I own, that I was more than usually particular in my selection upon this occasion. The whole of these works were invariably measured in the presence of Mr. Nash’s own clerk of the works, who generally signed to the correctness of the several dimension books; and, independently of this precaution, Mr. Nash was invariably called upon, and in the presence of the Assistant Surveyor-General, the Chief Examining Clerk, and myself, to look over and sign each quarterly account, after it had been made up and finally examined; and although, upon all such occa¬ sions, many questions arose respecting different items of charge, yet, upon no one occasion was Mr. Nash known to object to the Office mode of measuring his works, or to refuse his signature of approbation to the different quarters’ accounts; but after a lapse of several years, he makes this injurious assertion, during the whole of which period he is silent as to the cause of this excess, and receives his com¬ mission of £. 5. per cent upon its amount. But even supposing that the Office system had been as defective as Mr. Nash has stated it to be, it was his bounden duty to have pointed out and remedied the defects : this was one of the objects for which he was appointed an Attached Architect, and for which he received his salary. I trust their Lordships will not think I am presuming too far if, under all the circumstances of this case, I take the liberty of suggesting, that Mr. Nash be called upon for proof of the assertion he has thought proper to make in justification of his great excess of estimate, that so serious a charge against this department may be fairly investigated ; which in a pecuniary point of view must be considered of great consequence to the public, particularly as so very important and extensive building concerns have been, and still are, intrusted to the superintendence and management of His Majesty’s Office of Works. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your very obedient servant, B. C. Stephenson. No. 21 .—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 23d November 1830. READ Letter from the Surveyor General of Works, dated 25th ultimo, in reply to letter respecting the suspension of Mr. Nash from the office of Attached Archi¬ tect to that department, and respecting a charge brought by Mr. Nash against the Board of Works, relative to the exceeding on the estimate for the works at the New Palace, St. James’s Park. As Mr. Nash is suspended, My Lords deem it unnecessary at present to enter into further controversy with him in respect to the charge alluded to in this letter. Write to the Surveyor General of Works to desire that he will take charge of these premises and buildings, and carry on the accounts of the expenses that will necessarily be incurred in airing, watching and taking care ot them, until this Board may think proper that the works may be recommenced, the expenses to be defrayed out of the funds appropriated on account of the Fourth Class of the late King’s Civil List. 32 4* A a 3 No. 22-LETTER 190 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE No. 22.—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to The Lords of His Majesty's Treasury, &c. &c. &c. MY LORDS, East Cowes Castle, October 26, 1830. WITH every proper feeling of respect and deference, I address you to express the very great, surprise and sorrow with which I have received a letter from the Surveyor General of the Office of Works, dated the 22d instant, intimating that a Minute made by Your Lordships on the 15th instant has been transmitted to him to carry into effect, by which Your Lordships direct him to suspend me from my situation as Attached Architect to the Office of Works; and as I am entirely ignorant of the cause which has induced Your Lordships to direct such a step to be taken, I hope you will indulge me with a copy of the Minute, referred to. I have the honour, &c. (signed) John Nash. No. 23 .—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to the Hon. J. Stewart , &c. &c. &c. SIR, Regent Street, 9th February 1831. I deeply regret, that since the time when the Lords of His Majesty’s Trea¬ sury, in compliance with my request, communicated to me a copy of their Minute of the 15th October, on the subject of the works at Buckingham House, incapacity to attend to business has confined me to my house in the country. Until my arrival in London, within the last three weeks, I have been unable to refer to the papers necessary for my offering such explanation upon the several points of that Minute, as must, I am satisfied, remove from their Lordships’ minds the erroneous impres¬ sions which they appear at present to entertain. I can have no doubt whatever that it will be satisfactory to their Lordships if I shall succeed in this object; for which purpose I must request their permission to advert to the manner in which I was directed to undertake the superintendence of this great work. Before I do so, however, I take the liberty of referring to that part of the Minute by which I am suspended from the office of Architect to the Board of Works. That office was spontaneously, and without solicitation on my part, given to me by his late Majesty; I have never for one moment failed in fulfilling the duties attached to it. I have discharged those duties gratuitously for the last five years, and I am now suspended without the slightest ground for imputing to me either a neglect of those duties, or impropriety in my performance of them. The superintendence of the buildings at the Palace formed no part of my duty as an Attached Architect of the Board of Works; and I trust I may be permitted without offence to state, that it is a very severe proceeding to deprive me of my office of Architect to the Board of Works, because the estimated amount of the expense of building the Palace has been exceeded, unless it be at the same time imputed to me, that the excess has been occasioned by malversation, or improper conduct on my part, with neither of which can I suppose their Lordships intend to charge me. I do not complain of this deprivation on account of any pecuniary loss. I have, as I have already stated, discharged the duties gratuitously for the last five years ; but I complain of it, as casting an imputation upon my character, which I feel that I do not deserve, and as being calculated to prejudice the whole case, and naturally bias the mind of the public unfairly against me. When his late Majesty determined upon carrying into effect the alterations at Buckingham House, I was directed by Lord Goderich, then Chancellor of Exchequer, on 31st May 1825, to prepare the plans for the approval of His Majesty; they were prepared accordingly, and having been approved of by The King, were signed by His Majesty, and by Lord Liverpool and Lord Goderich. I was directed, at the same time, to prepare an estimate of the probable amount of the expense likely to be incurred—I did so ; but it is scarcely necessary for me to recall to their Lord- ships’ recollection, that under such general plans as I was then ordered to furnish, it was, and is, and must ever be, utterly impossible for any architect to frame an estimate, the accuracy of which can, in all its details, be depended upon. Still less could I frame such an estimate, when I was referred for all details of the execution to the personal commands of The King; my instructions, given verbally, being only that the general outline of the plan should be adhered to. In ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 191 In the course of the work, many alterations and many additions were made; and it appeared to me that I could have no choice but to obey the commands of His Majesty, relating to the details of finishing a Palace which was destined for His own personal residence. That I never incurred the expenditure of one farthing upon any deviation from the original plan, except by those express commands, and under that immediate authority, I can most readily prove, if it be necessary, His Majesty having been graciously pleased to affix His signature to every drawing of the detail, as my authority for proceeding. If my conduct, in obeying His Majesty’s personal commands was (as I confess I never could have conceived it) erroneous, I erred in ignorance, until I received their Lordships’ letter of 22d September 1829, which first apprized me that 110 alterations ought to be made in the details of the work by any authority, but such as I should receive from them. I have not, subse¬ quently to that period, incurred any additional expense, nor made any alteration whatever but such as they have sanctioned. Indeed it must be evident, that no man would knowingly expose himself to difficulty and trouble in such a case, when all that was required to give validity to the orders for alterations, was to communi¬ cate The King’s wishes to their Lordships; but I must hope that no misconduct will be alleged against me for having obeyed the commands of my Sovereign and master, when, as I have already said, there appeared no course open to me but that of implicit obedience. It is undoubtedly true, however, that considerable expense had at that time been incurred, which I had not contemplated when I framed the various estimates which have been at successive periods laid before their Lordships. His late Majesty, upon various occasions directed that more costly modes of fitting up and finishing the work should be adopted, and I certainly obeyed these orders. In all the works in which I have been engaged for fifty years, and I have no doubt that I can appeal with confidence to the practice of every eminent man in the profession (I am sure I can to what has taken place at Windsor Castle), no estimate has ever been framed which has covered the whole expenditure, unless prepared upon a most extravagant principle at the outset. There are changes and alterations to be made in the progress of every large building, and particularly in one of such magnitude, and the details of which are of so novel and unprecedented a character in this country as the New Palace, which must defeat every prior calculation. I may equally appeal, I have no doubt, to the experience of every gentleman who has ever built a mansion, more especially if he has himself at any time inter¬ fered with any of the details. It does not become me to observe upon that part of their Lordships’ Minute, in which allusion is made to the apology I offered for the delay which took place in replying to their letter of 6th April. I can only restate the fact, that my health was in such a state as to render application to business, on my part, dangerous ; and it may be here proper to assure their Lordships, that if they have been led to suppose that I gave any directions or authority, during the continuance of that illness, for carrying on any new works whatsoever, their Lordships have been mis¬ informed ; nothing was done except to complete the works already in progress. I must be permitted, however, to observe, upon another part of their Lordships’ Minute, which appears, by implication, to charge me with having wilfully con¬ cealed that I was exceeding the estimate, in order to prevent the earlier interposi¬ tion of their Lordships. I trust that it could not be their Lordships’ intention to cast such an imputation upon me. What could I gain by such base conduct? The concealment could only be for the moment; at a very early period such a fraud must be discovered, and I should justly be the sufferer. I trust that a character sustained, I hope with honor and integrity, now for upwards of seventy years, will protect me from suspicion, which I could only meet in such a case, by an indig¬ nant denial of the justice or propriety of its application. I had hoped that I had fully accounted to their Lordships, in my letter of the 29th September last, for the excess of £. 46,443. beyond my estimate, which would be the amount supposing that the building were completed, but which is at present £.34,787. 9.3. After the explanation given in detail in that letter, I trusted that not a doubt could exist that the greater portion, if not the whole of that excess, had arisen in the works executed or commenced previously to Michaelmas 1828. From that time, contracts in gross have been made for all new works, and upon them, as I have shown in that letter, a saving of 25 per cent, has been effected. 02q. A a 4 Those APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE 592 Those works which were previously in progress, necessarily proceeded on the old system of agreed prices, to be measured after completion. It was impossible to ascertain what proportion the whole of the works already measured by the Office of Works bore to the total estimates. After making inquiries from the various tradesmen and measurers, to enable me to form the best opinion, I could only assume sums as likely to cover the amounts; and upon those data it did appear* that, after making every due allowance, there was a sufficiency of money in hand to execute the remainder of the building. From the admeasurements since made, it has been found, that much larger balances were due to the tradesmen on their measured works than was anticipated, or than could at that time be ascertained, even by themselves. In two quarters, the expenditure exceeded by £. 15,179. the sum I was led to believe it would amount to; and works, which it was presumed would be completed in three quarters, have actually required six quarters for their performance. Again, their Lordships will permit me to add, that I specially excepted from my estimates several works, such as the parquette floors, the marble work of the arch, staircase and hall, and the plasterers* work of the ceilings, as being of a nature so new and unprecedented in this country, that it was impos¬ sible to form a correct estimate of them. The excess which has taken place in the estimates for this work has arisen from two causes; the first, to which I have already alluded—the express commands of his late Majesty; and, secondly, from the circumstance of my having been pre¬ vented exercising my own judgment and discretion, as to the mode of contracting for the works to be executed. Upon this point I hope that I may be permitted to appeal to my repeatedly recorded declarations, that I could not be responsible for the expenditure at the Palace, unless I were allowed to contract in gross for the work to be performed in every case to which that mode of contracting was applicable. That permission was not conceded to me until Michaelmas 1828, and at that time two-thirds of the whole work had been completed, upon what I must ever consider the unnecessarily extravagant system of contracting by prices and measure; and in order to show that I am not wrong in my opinion, their Lord- ships will perhaps allow me to call their attention to the facts, that I did contract to the amount of £.55,100. In the tenders for those contracts, there was a diffe¬ rence between the highest and the lowest tenders of £. 17,800, being a saving of 25 per cent. Had the whole of the works executed and in progress at Michaelmas 1828, been contracted for in gross (with the exception of the imported marble and the sculpture, which were not subject to competition), works which cost £.307,908. might have been executed for £. 230,931., being a difference of £.76,977., a sum larger than the aggregate amount of excess which has arisen on the estimates. T , , T 0 1 have the honour &e. (signed) John Nash. No. 24 .—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 21 December 1830. A MY LORDS have again under their consideration the papers relating to the works which have been carried on at Buckingham House under the directions of Mr. Nash. It will be impossible for My Lords to determine what steps it will be proper to take with respect to the expenditure which has been incurred beyond the amount granted by Parliament for this Palace, before the further progress of the works was stopped by their Lordships’ order, until they shall have before them an accurate statement of the whole expenditure actually incurred, showing the amount which still remains due for works done by the several persons who have been em¬ ployed either upon the building itself or for sculpture. They desire, therefore, that the Surveyor General of Works may be instructed to take such steps as may be necessary for enabling him to submit such an account to My Lords with the least possible delay. My Lords also desire that he may be directed at the same time to report in detail what works are still required for the completion of the building, and what expense would be incurred thereby, beyond the amount already paid, and that still due. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 193 Appendix No. 2. STATEMENT required by Treasury Letter, dated 29th December 1830, of the whole Expenditure actually incurred on account of the Works which have been carried on by Mr. Nash, at the New Palace, St. James’s Park; showing the Amount which still remains due for Works done by the several Persons who have been employed either upon the Building itself or for Sculpture; also, an Estimate of the Expense which would be incurred beyond the Amount already paid, and that is still due, for completing the Building according to a Report in detail delivered by Mr. Nash to the Treasury. Amount paid by the Office of Works up to 10th October 1829 - Ditto - paid by the Office of Woods for Marble - Duties returned on Marble imported ------ Total amount already paid - - - £. Amount of Works for the quarter ended 5th January'l 1830, transmitted to the Treasury from this Office f on the 29th January 1831, but not paid -J Unsettled balance on Marble Account delivered byf Mr. Nash for examination - - - -J Balance of Marble Accounts not yet delivered byj Mr. Nash to the Office for examination - -J 2 & cS +* 55 a ^ •a £ C/5 ^ ^ I kg g c «.S •-•S a “ ® s CT) 5 a « o -g I-, o © o < ' 5th April quarter 1830 - 5th July ------ 10th October - - - - - From the 1 oth October to the suspension'! of the Works - - - - -J Balances on sundry Works and Contracts'! not included in the above quarterly; Account ----- -J £. s. d. 16,021 10 10 1,043 - 9 3,600 - - 9 ,& 7 2 11 7 5,104 13 7 n ,354 6 1 500 — - 53,956 17 — 3,264 7 6 Balance demanded by Geo. Stretton & Co. for^ erecting a Warm Air Apparatus -J Estimated Amount remaining unpaid Estimated Amount of the whole Expenditure, agreeably to Mr. Nash’s j statement, actually incurred up to the suspension of the Works -J Expense of completing the Building according tol Mr. Nash’s Estimate - - - - -/ George Stretton’s Estimate for completing the! Warm Air Apparatus -----/ Additional Works commanded by His late Majesty, - ! but not yet begun ----- -J 11,656 1 6 300 - 21,805 18 1 h Total estimated Cost of the Building, agreeably toj ^ Mr. Nash’s statement - - - - -j ' f. St d* 481,241 10 10 19,500 - - 789 6 6 50 U 530 17 4 104,717 7 4 606,248 4 8 33 > 76 i 19 7 h 640,010 4 3$ Office of Works, 1 16th February 1831. J B. C. STEPHENSON. 329. . : *->. Bb 230 i94 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE .Appendix No. 3 . (B.) -- EXTRACTS from the several Official Minutes, Letters, and Reports, relative to the Building of the New Palace in St. James’s Park. No. 1.—TREASURY MINUTE, 5th August 1825, STATES, That the Chancellor of the Exchequer lays before the Board a Memorandum which has been put into his hands by Mr. Nash, relative to the mode of carrying on the proposed works at Buckingham Palace. That my Lords, upon reference to the Surveyor General and to Mr. Nash, find that this object may be best obtained by directing Mr. Nash to transmit all the contracts and engagements proposed to be made by him for the supplying materials, or for work to be done, to the Surveyor General, for his previous concurrence and approval, and by the appointment of a person belonging to the office, and re¬ sponsible to the Surveyor General, to be attached to Mr. Nash, as a measurer and inspector of materials at Buckingham Palace. And to prevent any inconvenient delay from the reference of the contracts, &c. to the Surveyor General, My Lords authorize Mr. Nash to proceed upon any such contract and engagement, absolved from any pecuniary responsibility on his part for the same, whenever these works shall have elapsed after the delivery thereof, without his having received any communications from the Surveyor General. By this Minute Mr. Nash was directed to superintend these works, under the above agreement. The accounts to be rendered through him to the Surveyor General for exami¬ nation and final discharge, upon the certificates of Mr. Nash, and of the inspector and measurer, &c, &c. No. 2.—SURVEYOR GENERAL’S LETTER to the TREASURY, dated 14th November 1825, REPORTS, That, in obedience to their Lordships’ Minute of the 5th of August 1825, a proper person had been appointed to the works at the new Palace, under the immediate control, and subject to all the regulations of the Office of Works. But in respect to that part of the above Minute which directs a person being appointed as inspector of materials, the Surveyor General thinks there must be some mistake in regard to this nomination, as the architect in charge of the building is held exclusively responsible for the quality of all materials and work¬ manship used, and it would not be advisable to relieve him from so essential a part of his duty. The Surveyor General therefore will not appoint this inspector of materials till he receives further orders, &c. &c. No. 3.—A LETTER from the TREASURY, dated 23d December 1825, STATES, That, upon a representation from Mr. Nash, their Lordships see no objection to Mr. Hiort, the Chief Examiner in this office, being allowed to supply the patent bricks for constructing chimney flues for the use°of the new Palace, kc. kc. No. 4 —SURVEYOR GENERAL’S LETTER to the TREASURY, dated 24th December 1825, TRANSMITTING Mr. Nash’s accounts for works done at the new Palace up to the 10th of October 1825. The Surveyor General states, that the measure¬ ments ot these works were made by persons belonging to the Office of Works, and that they are, to the best of his knowledge and belief, correct; but that in respect to the prices of building materials and labour, they could only be calculated and uj-ir SUC1 a & reements as ^ r - Nash states he was authorized to enter into with the different tradesmen, and which agreements some were in writing and some merely' 231 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 195 merely verbal, but all of which, in the Surveyor General’s opinion, are more or less improvidently made, as compared with those which have been entered into for similar works in this department. The Surveyor General further observes upon these accounts, that Mr. Nash has charged a commission of 5/. per cent, upon the tradesmen’s bills, and that there does not appear to be any authority for this increase of two per cent, upon what has been invariably allowed the other attached architects, and to Mr. Nash himself, upon similar occasions. This charge has therefore been reduced to 3/. per cent, as directed by the 14th article of the Treasury Instructions, &c. Mr. Nash had stipulated severally with the above tradesmen, that they were to be paid one quarter under another, or in default of such payment the Government was to lose all the benefit of these agreements, and that these tradesmen were to receive such prices for their work as had been fixed by this Office for common and ordinary repairs. No. 5 .—LETTER from the TREASURY, dated 4th January 1826, STATES Their Lordships’ directions to the Commissioners of Woods, for paying over to the Surveyor General the sum of 20,534/. 18s, 9 d., to pay Mr. Nash’s accounts for the new Palace, to the 10th of October 1825, and direct¬ ing the Surveyor General to proceed at once so to do, by paying to the tradesmen, the clerks of the works, and labourers, in trust, the sums set against their respective names, with only 3/. per cent, commission to Mr. Nash. This Letter further states, That their Lordships have still under their considera¬ tion the Surveyor General’s observations upon these accounts, and which appear to be deserving of their serious attention. No. 6.«— LETTER from the TREASURY, dated 18th January 1826, STATES, That their Lordships having reconsidered the Surveyor General’s Report, of the 24th ultimo, upon Mr. Nash’s accounts for works done at the new Palace, up to the 10th October 1825; desire him to state more particularly, and show by a comparison of prices, in what respects Mr. Nash’s agreements have been improvidently made, as compared with engagements for similar works entered into by the Office of Works. Their Lordships express in this Letter their entire con¬ currence in the reduction the Surveyor General thought it right to make in the charge made by Mr. Nash for his own commission, from five to three per cent. Their Lordships further state it as their opinion, That in any agreements to be made hereafter by Mr. Nash, he should avoid entering into any specific stipula¬ tion with respect to the time of payment, without a previous communication with the Secretary of the Board of Treasury; and that their Lordships have instructed Mr. Nash accordingly, &c. No. 7 .—SURVEYOR GENERAL’S LETTER to the TREASURY, dated 26th January 1826, TRANSMITTING, in obedience to their Lordships’ commands, a Statement, showing, by a comparison of prices, in what respect the agreements made by Mr. Nash at the new Palace have been improvidently made, as compared with engagements for similar works entered into by this department. In addition to which the Surveyor General states,— That by these agreements the public have been deprived of those advantages resulting "from competition with respectable tradesmen, in great and extensive undertakings: That the public are liable to a heavy penalty if the payments are not made one quarter under another; and this without more favourable terms for such unusual prompt payments: That upon this occasion tradesmen have been selected who, according to the practice of the Office of Works, never would have been called into competition in works of such great magnitude ; as from experience it has been found, that it is only amongst persons who have a certain command of capital that the public can expect to obtain advantageous terms for the execution of any extensive works. And the Surveyor Generafadds, that the architect supplies materials for this building ; the impropriety and bad tendency of which is generally allow’ed. 3 2 9 * B b 2 196 appendix to second report from select committee , No. 8.—TREASURY LETTER, dated 27th of June 1826, STATES, That their Lordships having had under consideration the Surveyor- General’s Report of the 26th January 1 826, upon the new Palace accounts, a copy of the same was ordered to be furnished Mr. Nash, to enable him to give any explanation he might have to offer upon that part which relates to the alleged impro¬ vidence of the engagements entered into by him, previously to the adoption of the Minute of the Board of Treasury of the 17th January 1826. That in respect of the disallowance of the charge of 5 /. per cent, upon the amount of the expenditure made by Mr. Nash for his own remuneration, My Lords concur with the Surveyor General in opinion, that such a charge could not be admitted on the part of a person superintending a public work in the character of one of the esta¬ blished and salaried architects of the Board of Works, w'hose commission is limited to 3 /. per cent. ; but they are informed, after having made further inquiry into this subject, that the employment of Mr. Nash in this instance is of a very peculiar and distinct description, involving labour and responsibility, differing greatly in cha¬ racter and in degree from what is imposed upon the architects who superintend the public buildings executed under the authority and directions of the Office of Works; and as it appears that this employment is analogous to that of Mr. Wyatville at Windsor Castle, who receives the full commission allowed to architects in ordinary cases, My Lords therefore consider Mr. Nash should be placed, in that respect, on the same footing as Mr. Wyatville; but on the condition, that, while employed on this special service, Mr. Nash is to be considered as being entirely detached from the service of the Office of Works, both with respect to salary and to the superintendence of any new works which may be undertaken and directed by the Surveyor General; while, on the other hand, he is to continue to afford the Office of Works the benefit of his professional opinion and advice, w henever called upon so to do, without remuneration. No. 9.—SURVEYOR GENERAL S LETTER to the TREASURY, dated 3d July 1826, STATES the Surveyor General’s opinion why Mr. Nash does not stand in the same precise situation in regard to the new Palace as Mr. Wyatville does in respect to Windsor Castle; and thinks the Lords of the Treasury may perhaps feel them¬ selves entitled to charge Mr. Nash with some of the expenses of measuring the works and making up the accounts for the new Palace, which, for the three quarters ended 5th of April 1826, amount to 90,372/. 8 s. gd. The Surveyor General in this Letter requests their Lordships’ instructions how he is to proceed in respect to Mr. Nash’s commission for rebuilding the Duke of Clarence’s House in St. James’s Palace, now in progress, upon which 3/. per cent, commission has only hitherto been allowed. No. 10.—Copy, TREASURY MINUTE, 5th August 1825. THE Chancellor of the Exchequer lays before the Board a Memorandum which has been put into his hands by Mr. Nash, relative to the mode of carrying on the proposed works at Buckingham Palace. My Lords find, upon reference to the Surveyor General and Mr. Nash, that this object may best be obtained by directing Mr. Nash to transmit all contracts and engagements, proposed to be made by him for the supply of materials or for w ork to be done, to the Surveyor General, for his previous concurrence and approval, and by the appointment of a person belonging to the Office of the Surveyor General, and responsible to him, to be attached to Mr. Nash as measurer of the work executed, and inspector of materials delivered, at Buckingham Palace. And in order that no inconvenient delay may arise from the reference of the contracts, &c. to the Surveyor General, My Lords will authorize Mr. Nash to pro¬ ceed upon any such contracts and engagements, absolved from any pecuniary responsibility on his part for the same, whenever three weeks shall have elapsed after the delivery thereof, without his having received any communication thereon from the Surveyor General. Write to the Surveyor General and to Mr. Nash accordingly, and desire that the work may be superintended by Mr. Nash, under the above arrangement, and that the accounts for the execution of it may be rendered through Mr. Nash to the Sur¬ veyor General for examination and final discharge, upon the certificates of Mr. Nash and of the inspector and measurer. ' ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 233 197 My Lords have at the same time again under their consideration, the mode in which the expenditure at Windsor Castle is to be contracted and accounted for; and as the works at Buckingham Palace under Mr. Nash are in all respects analogous to those which Mr. Wyatville has the charge of at Windsor, they are of opinion that a similar arrangement should be adopted for both, and that Mr. Wyat¬ ville should submit his contracts and agreements, and have a person attached to him, to inspect the materials provided, and measure the works executed under those agreements, in the same manner as My Lords have above directed with respect to Mr. Nash at Buckingham Palace. Write to Mr. Wyatville and to the Surveyor General accordingly. No. II.—LETTER from B. C. Stephenson , Esq. to J. C. Herries , Esq. &c. &c. &c. SIR > Office of Works, 26th January 1826. I have been honoured with the receipt of your Letter of the 18th instant, com¬ municating the commands of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury for me “ To state more particularly, and show, by a comparison of prices, in what “ respect the agreements made by Mr. Nash for the alterations, &c. at Buckingham “ Palace, have been improvidently made, as compared with engagements for similar “ works entered into by this department.” In answer to which, I have the honour to enclose for their Lordships’ information, a Statement, which will show the difference between the prices settled by Mr. Nash, for the works at Buckingham Palace, and those agreed for by this Office for similar works in other extensive public buildings ; and the great difference between these prices is, in my humble opinion, attributable to the improvident mode in which the agreements for the buildings at Buckingham Palace have been made. In order further to show in what particulars I consider these agreements improvi¬ dent, I beg leave to observe,— That, in the first place, upon the principle they have been framed and settled, the public are deprived of all those advantages which result from fair competition with respectable tradesmen in great and extensive undertakings: That, secondly, the public are made liable to a heavy penalty, if the payments are not made one quarter under another, which appears to have been arranged with, the tradesmen without any previous authority, and also without any stipulation for more favourable terms in consequence of such very unusual prompt payments : That, thirdly, some of the agreements with these tradesmen are merely verbal, others so loosely made as to leave it almost optional in them to charge their own prices : And lastly, that tradesmen have been selected on this occasion, who, according to the practice of this Office in similar cases, never would have been called into com¬ petition for works of such great magnitude, as from experience it has been found, that it is only amongst persons who have a certain command of capital that the public can expect to obtain advantageous terms for the execution of any extensive undertakings. There is another circumstance connected with this business, which in my opinion is highly objectionable, namely, that of the architect himself supplying the trades¬ men with materials used in these buildings. Upon the impropriety and bad ten¬ dency of this, there will, I am certain, upon inquiry, be found but one sentiment. I shall not, Sir, at present trouble you with any further details upon this subject, feeling confident I have already offered sufficient proof, that the agreements for the buildings at Buckingham Palace are improvidently made, as compared with those which have been entered into by this Office for similar works. And I only trust their Lordships will do me the justice to believe, that in the foregoing Statement nothing has been exaggerated, and that I have not been actuated, in the whole of this most unpleasant discussion, by any other motive than an anxious wish faith¬ fully to discharge the duties of my official situation. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. 32 9- B b 3 19B APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE No. 12 .—STATEMENT, showing how much percent, the Contracts entered into exceed those entered into by this Office BOARD of TRADE. NEW COURTS. BRITISH MUSEUM. NEW POST OFFICE. Carpenters: ' Measured work 5 per cent. 2 \ per cent. 6 per cent. 9 l per cent. Bricklayers: Measured work 13 | per cent. - 2 \ per cent. 10 \ percent. 13? percent. - Masons : Measured work 14 \ percent. 2 | per cent. 11 per cent. 17 per cent. Iron Founders: Work - * - - No Iron-foun- ders’work has been required at this building. - - No Iron-foun- ders’work has been required at this building. 16 \ per cent. 15 per cent. General Observations. At Buckingham Palace the sheds and workshops for the different tradesmen have been provided at the expense of the public ; whereas, in the special contracts enumerated, they are provided by the tradesmen at their own expense. Besides Office of Works, 26th January 1826. J No. 13 .—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 23d June 1826. MY Lords resume the consideration of the Report of the Surveyor General of Works, of the 26th January 1826, upon the Accounts for the works carrying on at Buckingham House, wherein he transmits a Statement, showing the difference between the prices settled by Mr. Nash for the works at Buckingham House, and those agreed for by the Office of Works for similar works in other extensive public buildings; 235 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. i g by Mr. Nash for Works executing under his direction at Buckingham LIouse for the undermentioned Buildings ; viz.— DUKE OF CLARENCE’S, ST. JAMES’S. - - The same as at Buckingham House. 12 per cent. 3 per cent. - - The same as at Buckingham Palace, with the exception that the fixing is included; which is not the case at Bucking¬ ham Palace, and may make a dif¬ ference of from 5 to 15 per cent. CUSTOM HOUSE. - - No contract has yet been en¬ tered into for Car¬ penters’ work at this building. - - On account of the scarcity of bricks at the com¬ mencement of the works, it was ex¬ pedient to secure a quantity at a certain price; the comparison there¬ fore, in this in¬ stance, is not ap¬ plicable. 20 per cent. - - No contract has yet been en¬ tered into for Founders’ work at this building. Observations, as applying to the respective Trades. Carpenters and Joiners. —Mr. Nash has stated that the prices for Carpenters’ and Joiners’ work were to be charged at 10 per cent, under those allowed by this Office for similar works, and further stated this agreement to have been verbal, and that only with one of the Carpenters em¬ ployed, and that the prices so fixed with him were to be binding upon the other Carpenter selected for this building. But when these tradesmen came here to receive the amount of their bills up to the 10th of October last, the first de¬ clared that no such or any other agreement had been made with him for prices; and he never heard that a deduction of 10 per cent, was to be made from his charges till he came here for payment; and the other also declared that no sort of agreement had been made with him in regard to prices, and that he certainly never could have allowed his work being valued at prices to be fixed by another trades¬ man. Bricklayers. —The Bricklayers, when they attended at this Office to receive the payment of their account up to the 10th of October, appealed against the deduction of 2g percent, on their day-work, as being contrary to their written agreement. The Masons at the same time appealed on similar grounds in respect to their day-work. Plumber.—A large quantity of old lead, to the value of upwards of 2,400 1 ., has been delivered over to the Plumber; but it does not appear that any guarantee has been given by him, or any stipulation made respecting the same, although it must be considered as leaving a large sum of money in his hands until he can do work to meet it. Smith. —The same remark applies to the old iron work delivered to the Smith, although not nearly to so great an extent. Iron Founder. —At Buckingham Palace the Founder’s contract for cast-iron work does not include the hoisting, fitting and fixing, which is the case in the contracts for the British Museum and Post-Office. The extra expense on these heads at Buckingham Palace will be very great, such as very materially to increase the difference of the contract against the public. There does not appear to have been any specification re¬ specting the quality of these castings, as is the practice with this office ; and the founder admitted here, that some of them were cast from the blast furnace, which produces very inferior castings, and at a much cheaper rate. Besides the extra labourers in trust usually employed by this office for extra works at 2 l. 12 s. 6 d. per week, there is a Clerk of the Works at. Buckingham Palace at 3/. 35. per week, with lodging, or an allowance for the same. The pay of the door-keepers and watchmen also at Buckingham Palace, (eight in number,) is 3 s. per week more than is paid for that description of men at the buildings herein alluded to. (Examined) J. W. Hiort. buildings ; and states the grounds of his opinion, that the agreements for the build- j n cr<; at Buckingham Palace have been made in an improvident manner. & Mv Lords desire that Mr. Nash may be furnished with a copy of that Report, in order to enable him to give any explanation which he may have to offer on that part of it which relates to the alleged improvidence of the engagements entered into by him previously to the adoption of the course prescribed by the Minute of this Board of 17th January 1826. ... . 329. B b 4 Wlth 200 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE With respect to the disallowance of the charge of five per cent, upon the amount of the expenditure for this work, made by Mr. Nash for his own remuneration, My Lords concur with the Surveyor General in opinion, that such a charge could not be admitted, on the part of a person superintending a public work, in the cha¬ racter of one of the established and salaried architects of the Board of Works, whose commission is limited to three per cent. But they are informed, after hav¬ ing made further inquiry into this Subject, that the employment of Mr. Nash in this instance is of a very peculiar and distinct description, involving labour and respon¬ sibility, differing greatly in character and in degree from what is imposed upon the architects who superintend the public buildings executed under the authority and directions of the Board of Works. And as it appears that this employment is analogous to that of Mr. Wyatville in the restoration and alteration of Windsor Castle, who received the full commission allowed to architects in ordinary cases, My Lords consider that Mr. Nash should be placed on the same footing in that respect as Mr. Wyatville; but on the condition, that while employed on this special service, he is to be considered as being entirely detached from the service of the Board of Works, both with respect to salary, and to the superintendence of any new works which may be undertaken and directed by the Surveyor General; while, on the other hand, he is to continue to afford to the Surveyor General the benefit of his professional opinion and advice, whenever called upon so to do, without remuneration. Write to the Surveyor General and to Mr. Nash accordingly. No. 14 .—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to the Secretary of the Treasury, &c. &c. &c. SIR » 14, Regent Street, July 7, 1826. I am desired by your Letter of the 27th ult. to give an explanation of the alleged improvidence in the engagements entered into by me for several works carrying on at the Palace in St. James's Park, previously to the adoption of the course prescribed by the Minute of the Board of Treasury of the 17th January last. In obedience to that desire, I beg to premise, that previously to that Minute I considered myself, in regard to that building, totally independent of the Office of Works, and subsequently to that Minute as only connected with it as far as relates to the measuring, moneying, and making out the accounts; and which connexion arose out of my own objection to receiving or paying money. I shall therefore content myself with stating my own conduct in the prosecution of the work, and my reason for the course I have adopted, trusting that their Lordships themselves will see provident, and not improvident, conduct in every thing which I have done. Their Lordships are aware of the short time allowed me by The King for exe¬ cuting so vast a building: it became necessary for me to devise means for per¬ forming the task. I determined, therefore, to consider the whole, not as one, but as four distinct buildings, and to separate each part by boarded divisions, inacces¬ sible to each other, and to employ four distinct sets of tradesmen ; so that, with respect to the execution, it w r as as if it were only one fourth of the size. A separate clerk of the works was appointed to each, and His Majesty having been graciously pleased to spare me his own clerk of the works employed at Brighton, (Mr. Nixon,) the most efficient man in that line, both as to ability, conduct, and integrity, I placed him over the whole, and the result of the plan has completely answered my purpose. I am equally satisfied of the economy of the measure. If the building had been considered as an individual building, and only one clerk of the works, employed the building w'ould have been four times as long about, and the expense of the clerk of the works the same; but one clerk of the works, under any circumstance, w r ould have been insufficient in such a building. The inner divisions of boarding, for the purpose of separation, would not have been necessary, but the materials will all be used in the course of the building. Knowing, from the circumstance of so many large buildings carrying on at one and the same time, the difficulty which would attend the providing such an immense quantity of Bath stone as I should require, and aware of the advantage which would be taken of such a demand as to price, the first step 1 took was to examine privately the state in the market as to the quantity on hand, and then to see individually every person connected with the Bath quarries, and obtain from each of them, not only the price, but the quantity each individual could supply, without lettin" them know- the purpose or the quantity I should require. When I had thus made myself a complete master of the subject, I engaged with the most capable and most respectable ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 201 .respectable of these, (Mr. Freeman,) for the whole quantity I should want, and at the lowest price then paying, (the agreement and the stipulations are in writing.) By these means I procured for the several four master masons employed, their • stone, at a low and certain price, which enabled them to contract for doing the work with certainty. The stone was to be delivered to each of them by the mer¬ chant, and when the mason should be paid, the stone was to be deducted and paid over to the merchant; but this method of payment was suggested by the Surveyor General to be changed, and that the masons should themselves receive their money, and themselves pay the merchant. To this I assented, but have ever since regretted that I did so ; for the merchant being then independent of me, I have found ever since difficulty in procuring stone, by which the building has been and now is retarded, and I am obliged to give an extra price for some blocks of .particularly long stone. In stating the course I adopted with regard to the con¬ tracts entered into with the several tradesmen, it becomes absolutely necessary for me (which I should otherwise have avoided) to call the attention of their Lordships to the mode adopted by the Office of Works in ascertaining the prices which that Office allows, because I have made those prices the foundation of the contracts which I have entered into; and I the more advisedly did so, because the other attached architects and myself do from time to time regulate and fix those prices. Returns are periodically made from the different merchants who supply the raw materials used in buildings, and the clerks of the works return the wages which the trades¬ men pay their men. From those documents the prime cost of every description of work is ascertained, and 15 per cent, allowed as the tradesman’s profit. Great pains are taken that no fallacy be practised on us, and a zealous investigation has frequently taken place on this head. Out of this profit of 15 per cent, the tradesmen have to pay their house and shop rent, their clerks and measurers; none of these being taken into consideration in those calculations. As the same material, but of different degrees of value, may be used, average is taken. I mention this, because in the Palace none but the best of every article is used. On these prices I have formed the contracts which I have entered into; first, because in any work executed where no price is previously agreed for, there is no other certain mode of ascertaining its value than that adopted by us at the Office of Works; secondly, because, I am one of the party investigating and fixing those prices; and thirdly, because, connected as I am with the Office of Works, I consider it best, that what I did at the New Palace should be consistent with what I did at the Office of Works. I am bound, therefore, to consider, that if the work is done in a workman-like manner, and with the best materials, that no tradesman can afford to work under the Office of Works’ prices, and most certainly none but the very best materials and the very best workmanship is to be found in the new Palace. We are aware that certain tradesmen import or manufacture their own materials, and in com¬ petition are induced to sink the merchant’s and manufacturer’s profits in the prices of articles when worked; and we are also aware of the advantage of going to mar¬ ket with ready money: I therefore availed myself of those facilities, and agreed with the several tradesmen to deduct 10 per cent, from the Office of Works’ prices, whenever it was practicable, on condition of their being paid one quarter under another. I shall pass over Colonel Stephenson’s comparative statement with simply observing, that the deduction of 10 per cent, which / have stipulated for, extends to every article in the Office of Works’ list of prices, and not on a few articles selected for competition. These engagements were all of them in writing, except that with two of the carpenters, neither of whom made any objection (as they tell me) to the deduction when they came to be paid, and one- of them has written to say that it was his original engagement to deduct 10 per cent. For the iron I work had proposals in writing from the greatest founders, and of course chose the lowest, namely, the great house of Crawshay. Of course their Lordships will give me credit for stipulating with them for the best materials; and every person conversant with the manufacturing of iron knows, that the oftener the metal is re-cast, the more brittle it becomes, and where smoothness of surface is not required, and the castings are sufficiently large to be cast from the blast furnace, the iron is less brittle , and of course most proper for the support of weight; but I trust, after forty years’ extensive practice and intimate connection with every thing relative to the execution of building, I may without vanity assume that I am as competent as 329. " C c any 202 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE any person existing to decide both on the work itself and the value of it throughout the building branch. In forming the ornamental water, and raising the bank, I had recourse to navigators, and to the greatest contractor for great works (MTntosh) in England; and the prices agreed for with him (which agreements are in writing) are as low as in his most extensive contracts; indeed this part of the work could scarcely have been executed within so short a time by any other person, such are his resources for skill, men and implements. For the course I took with respect to the marble, I beg to refer to my Letter to you on the subject of the marble procuring in Italy. Even the ornamental carving I have taken the same precautions, both with regard to the execution and the price. I had a model made of the Corinthian capitals under my own eye, and also of the enriched frieze round the buildings, and had a competition between three sculptors, between whom I divided the work, the prices being previously agreed for. I have also endeavoured, in all the above trans¬ actions, to employ, when it was practicable and equally advantageous, the established tradesmen of the Office of Works. I trust this explanation will not only satisfy their Lordships that my conduct has been provident, but that the construction of the Office of Works is not calculated to effect what I have done. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) John Nash. No. 15 .—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to the Hon. J. Stewart, &c. &c. &c. S I R, No. 14, Regent-street, 8th January 1830. IN answer to your Letter of the 31st ultimo, I beg to state that Mr. Harrison’s application to the Lords of the Treasury, dated the 22d ultimo, for 3,000/. on account of joiners’ work at the new Palace, is for work included in my Estimate of 496,000/., and intended to be provided for in that sum ; and that although the amount of the several Works performing by Mr. Harrison are not nor can be ascertained at present, yet there is more than that sum due to him ; and I still hope that my Estimate of them will not be exceeded ; the greater part of the works by him being by contracts in gross. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, John Nash. No. 16 .—COPY of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 8th January 1830. READ a Letter from Mr. Nash, dated 8th instant; stating, in answer to the Letter from this Board of 31st ultimo, that Mr. Harrison’s application to this Board of 2 2d ultimo, for 3,000/. on account of joiners’ work at the New Palace, is for work included in his Estimate of 496,000/., and intended to be provided for in that sum, and that more than 3,000/. is due to him. Read also again the Letter from Mr. Harrison, dated 22d ultimo, requesting an advance of 3,000/. on account of joiners’ works at the new Palace at St. James’s. Upon the statement made by Mr. Nash, My Lords are of opinion, that an advance of 3,000/. upon account may properly be made to Mr. Harrison, and they desire that directions may be therefore given to the Commissioners of Woods, to advance 3,000 /. to the cashier of the Office of Works, on account of the King’s Palace in St. James’s Park. Write to the Surveyor General of Works, desiring that he will direct his cashier to receive the 3,000 /. from the Office of Woods, and apply it in payment to Mr. Harrison, on account of joiners’ work executed by him at the Palace, taking care that the like amount is deducted in his account when the bills are sent in for payment. Acquaint Mr. Nash with the directions given. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 203 239 No. 17 —LETTER from George Harrison , Esq. to the Lords of His Majesty’s Treasury, &c. &c. &c. MY LORDS, 47, Ebury-street, Pimlico, May 7th, 1830. HAVING been employed to do joiners’ works at Buckingham Palace, on con¬ tracts, in the new casements and fittings, and mahogany doors for the state apart¬ ments, and joiners’ works to the new wing buildings; the first works on contract for the casements began in June 1827, and doors and wings in March 1829. My contracts specified that the various works were to be finished six months after their commencement. As far as directions were given, this was complied with; but the works could not be fixed but at different periods, piecemeal, w'hich, as a contractor, rather operates to my detriment; and the returns at no one time have been com¬ mensurate with the outlay. This presses so severely upon me, that it impedes me in my business, in which I have a vast number of hands constantly employed, if I cannot in part be settled with; and it will materially affect my credit, which hitherto has been unimpeachable. There is due, upon casements and work to the windows £. 3,300 — Wing buildings - - - 550 — Mahogany doors to state apartments - 1,840 Miscellaneous contents - 2,400 Making a Total of - - £. 8,090 Upon which I have received 3,000 Leaving a Balance due of - £. 5,090 I most respectfully beg leave to solicit, that an advance of 3,000 l. may be made on account of these works. Having laid this statement before Your Lordships, I most respectfully beg that Your Lordships will take my application into vour favourable consideration. I have the honour to be, My Lords, Your Lordships’ most obedient and very humble servant, George Harrison No. 18 ,—COPY of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 28th May 1830. R.EAD Letter from Mr. G. Harrison, dated 7th instant, requesting a further issue of 3,000/. to him, on account of joiners’ work done by him at the new Palace, St. James’s Park. My Lords have before them the papers relating to Mr. Harrison’s former application. Acquaint Mr. Harrison, that My Lords having already imprested to him 3,000/. on account of these works, they cannot direct any further payments to be made to him, until his accounts shall be regularly delivered, and examined and reported upon by the Surveyor General of Works ; then he will be paid in the same manner as the other tradesmen employed in works duly authorized at the King’s Palace in St. James’s Park. C c 2 Appendix 204 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Appendix, No. 4. CORRESPONDENCE between Mr. Nash and the Surveyor-General of the Board of Works. No. 1.—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. DEAR Sift, Office of Works, 6th January 1826 . UPON paying the Tradesmen’s Bills yesterday, for the Works at Buckingham Palace, some difficulty arose in settling with the Masons, upon the sums pointed out in your Letter to me of the 13th of last month ; and these difficulties appearing* so obvious to Mr. Freeman, that he this morning wrote to me upon the subject, suggesting the adoption of a less complicated plan in the future settlement of these Masons’ accounts. I enclose a copy of this Letter for your consideration, And remain Your’s very faithfully, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. No. 2.—LETTER from Mr. William Freeman to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, &c. &c. &c. SIR* Millbank-street, 5th January 1826. HAVING conferred with the Masons employed at the Royal Palace respecting the Stone supplied under the guarantee of Mr. Nash, I beg Leave to acquaint you, that they have engaged to pay me for the quantities supplied to their respective Works; and as I am satisfied with the arrangement, I have no hesitation in releas¬ ing Mr. Nash from all liability. The names of the Masons referred to are subjoined. I have the honour to remain, Sir, With the greatest respect, Your obedient humble servant, William Freeman for Sarah Freeman. ., ' _ ■ ' * * * 1 • ' 1 • f t\ 4 •. . * i Names of Masons: Mr. Thomas Grandy, Messrs. Manderson & Moore , Mr. Lan. Edward Wood, Mr. Thomas Rice. His Majesty’s Office of Works and Public Buildings, Whitehall, 31st August 1826. No. 3.—Observations and Queries that have arisen in the Examination of Mr. Nash. Account of Works done at the King’s Palace in St. James’s Park for the Quarter ending 5th July last, to which he is desired to return Answers and Explanations on or before Wednesday the 6th September, together with the Papers called for; or, explain to this Office the cause why the same cannot be exhibited; in failure whereof the Accounts will be closed, omitting the articles defectively vouched. (signed) B. C. Stephenson. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 205 Mr. Nash is requested to write his Answers separately to the following Observations and Queries, in the blank pages left for that purpose, and to sign his name with the date, at the conclusion of his said Answers. DESCRIPTION of ACCOUNT. Tho s Gtundy,' L. E. Wood, Tho 5 Rice, Manderson & Moor. Masons Joseph Barret, paint¬ ing iron columns and girders. Hugh M‘Intosh, excavator. Messrs. Croggin & Rossi, for orna¬ mental stone. Messrs. Marshall, Harris & Rhodes, for 6" & 8" hollow cones. OBSERVATION or QUERY. - - Has any agreement been made for the architrave stone and column shafts, and should not the price in¬ clude the extra scantling length ? ANSWER or EXPLANATION. - - I have no other agreement with those masons than that signed by them on the 20th June 1825 (of which you have a copy), except that I have pro¬ mised to allow L. E. Wood one shil¬ ling per foot extra on ten architrave stones for the entrance portico, provided the same were procured and delivered on or before the end of (this) September. - - Has the Clerk of the Works been able to ascertain the value for carv¬ ing the following articles ; viz. Oak leaf frieze to win-' dow heads Ditto Circular ditto Ditto Blocks, with pateras Ditto - •* Trusses, 22" long r j' r profile. OO il girt - 7 r — - 8±" — - *7i // / 4 - - 6f" sq r - n±" 7 4 At Ditto 24I" - 7^" ditto. sills, rz Ogee blocks under window with husks on ditto. Swaggs to oval panels, 12ft. 8" long. Ionic caps, 1' yf" diam r . Grecian Doric blocks, 21" by 17". with 18 bells in each. Angular ditto, 24 bells. Half ballusters, worked on end of dado, 221" high 7" diam r . Has any special contract or agree¬ ment been made for this work ? - - These works are to be finished after they are set; and until this is done I cannot ascertain the price, ) but one moiety of this charge may be allowed to be placed against my va¬ luation of those articles after they are finished. - - No written agreement has been made, but I consider 10 per cent is to be deducted from the Office of Works’ prices, on the same terms as the same deduction is to be made from the other tradesmen. - - Has any agreement been made for the brick work to the upper re¬ servoir ? A considerable part of this bill is for work done under the directions of the Gardener, and for carting turf from Richmond and Carlton House Gardens, charges of which descrip¬ tion are not admitted in the building accounts of this office. Do the prices agreed for include fixing and cartage to the work ? - - No written agreement for this par¬ ticular article of brick work, but is to be at the prices which the other brick¬ layers receive, and subject to the same deductions. - - If the Surveyor General will point out to what office Mr. Nash should direct this account, he will do so, if not, perhaps the Surveyor General will think it proper to state the diffi¬ culty to the Lords of the Treasury for their instructions. - - The agreement for the frieze, as well as for the capitals, considers the work as complete for setting and de¬ livered on the premises, but does not include setting nor cramps; but if any work requires fitting, that is to be in¬ cluded in the charges for the capitals and frieze. Has any agreement been made for these articles ? - - £.4. 15. per thousand delivered for the 6-inch, and £.5.10. per thousand for the 8-inch. Mr. Rhodes, Hoxton, Mr. Aston Harris, Green¬ wich, Messrs. Marshall, Norwood, Mr. Faulkner, 14,500, which being an old stock I agreed to receive. These persons are to supply the remaining Quantity. 14, Regent-street, Sept. 12, 182G. 329 - (signed) John Nash. C C 2 242 206 appendix to second report from select committee No. 4—.LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, Office of Works, 25th January 1827. I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Letter, dated the 23d instant, transmitting for my approval, as directed by a Treasury Minute of the 5th August 1825, the copies of four Tenders for executing the Joiners Work at the New Palace, in St. James’s Park ; but, before I can attempt to form any sort of opinion upon the subject, I beg you will be so good as to furnish me with original Tenders, together with the Specification, and your Estimate of the value of this work. I am, dear Sir, Your’s very faithfully, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. No. 5 .—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, & c. & c. & c. DEAR SIR, IN answer to your Letter of the 25th instant, I beg to state, that with my Letter of the 23d instant I sent the four Tenders, and the Specifications from which they were made out were also sent; in perusing them you will find that the subjects were in a great measure the appropriation of old materials, and of course not discrimi¬ nated in my general Estimate; but my superintendent pointed out to those who tendered, the old doors that were to be used, and they took their own dimensions, and he shall attend any person you may please to send, and point out the work to him as he did to several tradesmen. I am, dear Sir, Your obedient servant, (signed) John Nash. No, 6.—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, Office of Works, 13th February 1827, I have carefully looked over the Tenders and Specifications for the contract you propose entering into for a part of the Joiners Work at the New Palace, where new and old materials are so blended, that I find it difficult to form any satisfactory opinion upon the subject; but as your Letter of the 31st ultimo, so strongly expresses your perfect satisfaction at the reasonableness of Mr. Martyr’s proposal, 1 feel it would be useless, under the circumstances in which the contracts for the building are made, to withhold my assent; but I cannot at the same time help observing, I am far from thinking, that a contract in gross, upon so large a scale, can be advantageous to the Public ; and this opinion has been strengthened by the experience we had in erecting the Royal Mews at Pimlico. I am, dear Sir, Your’s very faithfully, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 243 207 No. 7 .—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. SIR, Office of Works, 29th March 1827. I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Note dated yesterday, transmitting for my approval ten Specifications, and Tenders for sundry Works proposed to be done under your directions at the New Palace in St. James’s Park; but as this mode of contracting for works does not afford the means of forming, by any com¬ parison, an opinion as to the cheapness of the above tenders * it must depend upon you to say, that they are fair and reasonable for the works described in the several Specifications. I will also thank you to acquaint me, for the information of the Treasury , why , upon the present occasion , you have thought it expedient to adopt the mode of contract¬ ing for these Works by “ Contracts in Grossf in preference to Measure and Value ; the principle upon which I believe all the former Works in this Building have been previously executed, and which I must consider as the most advantageous and satisfactory mode for the Public , particularly in so important a building as the New Palace. I beg leave to add, that the Specifications above mentioned are not authenticated by either dates or signatures. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. No. 8.—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, &c. &c. &c. SIR, 3d April 1827. IN answer to your Letter of this date, I beg to state that I consider the lowest Tender upon the several Specifications, as fair and reasonable, and most for the advantage of the public to adopt. In all the Tenders sent you in gross, there are old materials connected with new, and the attempt at separation would open the door to imposition. The reason I did not adopt contracts in gross in the beginning was, in deference to your opinion often expressed, that Measure and Value was the most satisfactory and advantageous mode for the Public ; but I always (as you know) was of opinion, that though it might appear to be more satisfactory, yet it was the least advantageous mode of serving the public. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) John Nash. No. 9.—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson , &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, 14, Regent-street, 24th July 1827. Mr. Day, with whom I agreed for converting some old stone at Carlton House (part of the screen) into the pedestal under the ballustrade of Buckingham Palace, is an extremely excellent workman, and the person who did the capitals, by which I was, and you were, enabled to appreciate the very high charges made by those who carved the other similar capitals, and by which precedent we were enabled to qoq. C c 4 reduce 208 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE reduce those charges. On this account, and much experience of the rapidity with which he can execute carving in stone of every description, induced me to employ him on the pedestal in question, the face of which is carved into rock-work out of old stone; but rapid and cheap as he is, he is, nevertheless, a poor man; and as the work I employed him was entirely labour, I was under the necessity of agreeing with him for prompt payment, and his account you will perceive is only for a pay¬ ment on account; all the work is done, but the course of the work will not allow him at present to fix it; and fixing, you will see, is included in the contracts made with him. Since that account was sent in, a considerable portion of it is fixed ; it will, therefore, give you ample time to consider whether the sum he is to receive is an improvident bargain, before the balance is paid; but, I presume, you will not find any data on which to form your judgment, without adverting to means which you have not, but which I had. Before he knew my intention of employing him, I made him carve a considerable portion of it in two or three different ways, to judge which style of carving I most approved; this enabled both him and me to ascertain the time in which he could perform the whole; without which, neither “he, I, or any one could ascertain its value; it served also as a pattern by which the Test of the work should be judged. You will ask, why, as this work was ascer¬ tained by Day’s labour, the whole was not by the day. The answer is, that there was no longer the stimulus to exert himself, seeing that he must he paid for the days he should work, and he had no interest in shortening the time. It was on this account I preferred agreeing with him for a gross sum, and which in all similar cases I should always do. If it had been possible for those in your office to ascer¬ tain the value of such work, I should have submitted it for your previous approba¬ tion, as I do every thing, where circumstances will permit it, or where competition is the course I take; but I trust you see that it would be calling upon your office to perform a task impossible for it to perform, and giving you trouble to no useful purpose. I trust that will explain to you the cause why I did not wait for your approbation of the contract, and which I could not have done without com¬ promising the progress of the work, but I hope you will see that I have used the best means of forming my judgment; and I assure you, that the sum which I agreed with him for, is the lowest that he can receive, without positive loss: however, as I said before, it is open to investigation before you pass the balance ; and I will answer that, notwithstanding the contract, he will submit his work to inspection, and his charge to investigation. The same explanation will apply to the account of MTntosh ; the work is un¬ usual, (forming a foundation of puddle-work for the archway,) ancj. for which you have no precedent, and tor which I do not believe there is a precedent; but, from the knowledge of the same work done in other parts of the building, by the day, I was enabled to form an exact judgment of the value, and I beg to assure you, that the charge is just and reasonable. Ever, dear Sir, &c. (signed) John Nash. No. 10.—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. &c. Office of Works, 24th April 1828. Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson presents his Compliments to Mr. Nash, and in acknowledging the receipt of his Note of yesterday, transmitting three Tenders for some Iron-work required for the New Palace, requests he will have the goodness to favour him with the Specifications upon w hich these Tenders were formed; and Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson is of opinion, considering the high price that has hitherto been allowed for the Founder’s work at the above Palace, that the present Compe¬ tition for the New Works should be more extended, particularly in the Country, than it appears to have been upon the present occasion. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 209 245 No. 11 .—LETTER DEAR SIR, fiom John Nash) Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson , &c. &c. &c. I sent the Specifications to two of the greatest Country Founders, Thompson’s and Crawshay’s, and to another Country Founder, namely, Messrs. Day, at Wands¬ worth, and to only one Town Founder. I considered Crawshay’s so low, and the necessity of them was so pressing, that I directed him to go on with them ; little thinking it was possible that you could consider it necessary to send to more than four persons. As for the motive you assign for so doing, I cannot believe you mean it as the expression would convey; for a very ample competition was had, as you well know, when the contract was entered into ; and, if after the contract was made, iron fell in price, it was what no one could foresee, and it might have risen instead of falling ; I however have stopped the order, and with it the work must also stop. I send the Specification according to your request. I am, dear Sir, Faithfully your’s, (signed) John Nash. i Specification : The Iron to be of the best soft grey metal free from flaws; sand holes and all other defects to be cleaned off in the best manner, and delivered at the Palace ready for fixing. The patterns for the joists to be made by the Founder, the draw¬ ings may be seen at the Palace; and any further information had by applying at Mr. Nash’s Office. No. 12.—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson , &c. &c. &c. SIK > 14, Regent-street, Sept. 6 , 1828. I am favoured with your Letter of yesterday, and in compliance with your wishes I have looked over the items, and assuming that they conform to the dif¬ ferent agreements made by me with the several tradesmen, the documents of which are in your office; and assuming also that such items as were not comprehended by, or included in those agreements, are charged according to the established prices of your office, there cannot in my opinion be any objection to the bills. With regard to Mr. Browne’s prices for the two chimney pieces, they are subject to the established prices of the Office of Works; and the gentlemen who measured the work of them will of course exercise their judgment as to the price to be put to such parts of them as the prices of the Office of Works do not apply to. I have endeavoured to form a judgment of one of them, (that which is stated to be charged at £. 44. 1 6 s. for the carving) by comparing it with a similar chimney-piece which he made for me, and for which I paid him £. 100. including marble, and I should think the charge in question not unreasonable; the other (inlaid) chimney-piece, I should also deem reasonably charged at £. 22. 4 s. fid. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) John Nash. D d 329. 210 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Appendix, No. 5. FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE between the Surveyor General of the Board of Works and Mr. Nash. No. 1.—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to the Surveyor-General of the Office of Works, &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, 14 Regent-street, 23d January 1827. I have received the following proposals for the Joiners’ work on the basement story at Buckingham House, and I enclose a copy of the Specification sent to the undermentioned persons: Mr. Firth Floors and Skirtings - Sashes, Frames and Boxings -Door Grounds and Jamb Linings { Sash Frames and Dressings Floors and Skirting - Jamb Linings and Grounds { Floors and Skirting - Sash Frames and Dressings Grounds and Jamb Linings ( Floors and Skirting - Sash Frames, Shutters, Boxings, &c. Door Grounds and Jamb Linings - £. s. d. 85 — — 685 — — 83 10 — 709 19 8* 186 7 4 h 63 8 10 l 129 13 — 653 8 1 57 11 8 137 - — 574 -r — 52 — — £• s . d. 853 10 - 959 15 11 i 840 12 9 763 - Of course I have directed Mr. Martyr to proceed with the work. Ever, my dear Sir, Faithfully your’s, (signed) John Nash. No. 2.—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. S IR> Office of Works, 7th April 1827. IN reference to the several Specifications and Tenders for certain works at the New Palace in St. James’s Park, which you forwarded for my approbation on the 4th instant, l beg to observe, that upon examining the dates of these tenders, it appears the works in question were contracted for, most of them some months, and the remainder some weeks prior to these tenders being received here, and that upon enquiry I find these very works have already been commenced upon, and many of them are in a considerable state of forwardness. Under ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 247 211 Under such circumstances it would be not only useless in me to offer any opinion upon the subject, but I should also be acting in contradiction to the orders of the Lords of His Majesty’s Treasury, who in iheir Minute of the 5th of August 1825, <£ directed Mr. Nash to transmit all the contracts and engagements proposed to “ be made by him for the supply of materials, or for work to be done at Buck 1 6 c a> Plain work, and polished - 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 4 4 10 4 8 3 9 "tn ctf • Circular, plain, or sunk") work, and polished -J 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 8 1 7 4 r 7 6 1 & 1-8 - If Circular, sunk, or molded"! work, and polished - j 5 10 5 10 5 10 7 - 8 9 8 - 10 6 d „ J 1 ’§ c/l Circular molded work, andl polished - - -J 8 9 8 9 8 9 10 6 13 - 12 - 15 - J Tj X W Memorandum :—The above Office Prices include workmen’s sheds, saws, sand, mortar, plaster, and every description of articles required for the execution of the above works. It is further to be observed that by the terms of Mr. Brown’s contract, he is to be regularly paid one quarter under another, without any deduction ; whereas the tradesmen of the Office of Works are subject to the usual official course of payment, and are liable to the usual deduction of 2 § per cent, from the amount of their bills. No. 4 .—LETTER from J. W. Hiort, Esq. to John Nash, Esq. &c. See. See. SIR, , Office of Works, 21st July 1827. THE Accounts of the New Palace for the quarter ending 5th April last, being now in a state ready for passing, subject to some queries unsatisfactorily answered, I have to request you will please to appoint the earliest day in the next week, that will suit your convenience, for that purpose. In the mean time I beg leave to remind you of the special authority required (in the instance of Day and MTntosh’s account) for dispensing with a compliance with the Treasury Minute of 5th August 1825, in regard to contracts to be entered into for works at this building. I remain, Sir, Your most obedient Servant (signed) J. JV. Hiort. No. 5 .-—LETTER from IT. J. Browne to the Surveyor General of the Office of Works, &c. See. See. SIR, Office of Works, 7th August 1827. HEREWITH I inclose the Specification and Tenders for the execution of the- joiners’ work for the attic story of the New Palace, and Mr. Harrison’s tender being the lowest, I am directed by Mr. Nash to desire him to proceed with the work. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (signed) JV. J. Browne. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 249 213 No. 0 .—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash , Esq. &c. & c. Sec. Office of Works, 7th August 1827. 1 beg leave to inclose, for your information, a letter which was received here late yesterday afternoon, with a Specification and four Tenders for performing certain joiners’ work at the New Palace, and wish to know if this communication was made by your direction; for if the work in question has been already ordered by Mr. Browne to be commenced upon, the agreement for the same has been vir¬ tually commenced upon, and consequently any opinion of mine upon the subject must be rendered quite useless. I hope not to be considered as unreasonable in requesting, that these official communications from you to me may not in future be made through one of your clerks. I beg to observe that the specification transmitted me with Mr. Browne’s letter has neither date cr signature. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. No. 7 *—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to the Surveyor-General of the Office of Works, &c. &c. See. East Cowes Castle, Isle of Wight, SIR > 8th August 1827. IF I had been in town I should certainly have communicated the tenders myself, but in my absence no clerk of mine ever signs my name. I trust, therefore, you will see no disrespect in Mr. Browne’s transmitting the tenders; but I shall cer¬ tainly take care that communications with vou in future shall have my signature. It is seldom that specifications are dated, and I do not see the force of the remark; the specification states that the work is to be completed in two months (of course from the time that the tender is approved and orders given,) and the order will be the instrument which bears a date. Though Harrison’s proposal was the lowest, and I meant to give him the order, yet no order has been given (as Mr. Browne, by his letter this morning, informs me), nor has he from me (or as Mr. Browne says from him) been told that his tender w^as accepted; at all events he has been told that he was not on any account to begin until he received a written order; the work is therefore suspended till your opinion shall have been communicated ; in the mean time, I have the honour to remain, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) John Nash. No. 8.—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash, Esq. Sec. Sec. Sec. SIR, Office of Works, 9th August 1827. I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated yesterday; and in respect to the tender made by Mr. Harrison for executing the joiners’ work at the New Palace, as described in your specification, I am of opinion it ought to be accepted, since you think the price is fair and reasonable for the w'ork to be per¬ formed ; and upon your judgment it is I must principally depend in all contracts of this description. You will I am convinced see the propriety of my requesting you not to send official communications through private clerks; for upon the occasion alluded to in my letter of the 7th inst. Mr. Browne distinctly says, “ Mr. Harrison’s tender “ being the lowest, I am directed by Mr. Nash to desire him to proceed with the “ work,” when by your last letter it appears Mr. Browne had no orders from you for giving any such directions. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. 3-9* Dd 3 250 214 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE No. 9 .—LETTER from Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. SIR* Office of Works, 9th August 1827. WITH your letter of the 27th ultimo I received three Specifications and three Tenders from Mr. Bernasconi, for performing certain plasterer’s work at the New Palace, and which you have stipulated shall be paid for “ in every respect accord- “ ing to the terms agreed upon by this Office, for similar work executed at the resi- “ dence of his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, in St. James’s Palace.” The present tenders of Mr. Bernasconi are dated the 2d February, and 3d and 15th of last March, and the whole of this work appears to have been nearly com¬ pleted by him, before any communication was made to me upon the subject; the reason for this you state to be, that the work in question having been agreed for upon terms made by this Office, which being the result of competition, made it unnecessary for you to trouble me for my previous approbation of these agreements. In answer to which I have to observe, the Treasury Minute 5th August 1825 directs, that all agreements for works at the New Palace shall be sent for my pre¬ vious approbation ; and I can see no sufficient reason why this order should not have been complied with upon the present occasion. In respect to Mr. Ber- nasconi’s prices for the present work, I must beg to offer it as my opinion, that the difference of credit allowed for the payment of the works done at the Duke of Clarence’s house, compared with the ready-money payment allowed for the works executing at the New Palace, ought in fairness to have been taken into considera¬ tion, and the prices in the present agreements with Mr. Bernasconi ought to have been reduced in the proportions of these different modes of payment; and I can¬ not help expressing a wish, that you had made all the agreements for the building of the New Palace, as well as for this plastering, in the same manner as those for the Duke of Clarence’s house. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) B. C. Stephenson. No. 10.—LETTER from H. H. Seward, Esq. to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, Office of Works, 25th Oct. 1827. I am now enabled to inform you that this evening the accounts for the works at the New Palace done in the Midsummer quarter, will be in a state to require your attendance, before any further progress can be made to close them, and the sooner after Monday next you can give the necessary assistance, the more desirable. I have to-day written to the Surveyor-General to the same effect. Having received the money from the Office of Woods and Forests, to pay the New Palace accounts for Lady-day quarter, I shall commence the payments to-morrow r . I am, dear Sir, Yours sincerely, (signed) H. II. Seward. No. 11.—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to II. H. Sezvard, Esq. &c. &c. See. East Cowes Castle, Isle of Wight, 26th Oct. 1827. Mr. Nash presents his compliments to Mr. Seward, from his expression, that the accounts will be in such a state as to require your attendance before any “ further progress can be made to close them”-—makes him still fear that there are other questions to answer ; he regrets this, as from what passed when he last called at the Office, he supposed that he had answered all the questions that would be necessary, and it would have suited him better to stay when he was in town, than to 251 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 215 to make so expensive and so long a journey, beside the breaking in on a course of designs which he is making for His Majesty; and to enable him to have the quiet necessary for such a purpose he is come here; he will therefore feel very much obliged to Mr. Seward if he will send him the questions in writing, and he will not lose a moment in answering them, and they cannot be of such a nature but that they may be given and answered in writing, for he shall be very sorry that the tradesmen should be kept out of their money a moment on his account; and rather than they should do so, he must make a journey on purpose, inconvenient as it is. The bearer (Mr. Pennethorne,) will send Mr. Seward’s answer in a parcel, which he will have to send Mr. Nash to-morrow (Saturday) evening. No. 12.—LETTER from H. H. Seward , Esq. to John Nash , Esq. &c. & c. &c. DEAR SIR, Office of Works, 29th October 1827. IN reply to your’s of the 26th, which did not come to my hands till I found it here this morning, I have to inform you, that I am not aware of any other ques¬ tions relating to your accounts than those already communicated to you; never¬ theless observations, and even new questions requiring consideration invariably do arise, on the final passing of accounts, which makes it a necessary regulation of this Office, that they should be finally passed in the presence of the Architect under whose charge the work is conducted, and whose signature to them is indis¬ pensable previous to the account being transmitted to the Treasury. It is not, I am certain, the wish of this Office to put you to any inconvenience, or, in this instance, to press your return to town sooner than you consider expedient under all the circumstances, but you will recollect it was your own request that you should be informed when the accounts were ready for passing. I cannot conclude without stating again to you, that the only answers you have given respecting the marble work, is not correct, for no answer to the Surveyor General’s letter of the 12th July was ever received at this Office. I have just received your note of 28th, and will act accordingly respecting the payment to Milsorn. I am, dear Sir, Your’s very faithfully, (signed) H. H. Seward. No. 13 .—LETTER from J. W. Hiort , Esq. to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. &c. SIR, Office of Works, 5th September 1828. HEREWITH I send, by direction of the Surveyor General, the book of bills for works done at the New Palace in the quarter ending 5th April last, in order to afford you an opportunity, at your leisure, of inspecting the several items and charges preparatory to the accounts being finally passed. I beg particularly to call your attention to Mr. Browne’s bill for working chimney- pieces, the carving of one being charged at £.44 16,?., and another £.22 4s. 6 d.; and I must trouble you to decide on the correctness of these charges. You will also please to say whether the masons employed by Browne are worth more per day than those employed on ordinary mason’s work, there being no settled price or precedent in the Office for the pay of marble masons. As soon as you have gone through these bills, I will thank you to return them, with your remarks on the same, and appoint an early day for finally passing and signing them, previously to the account being transmitted to the Treasury. I am, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (signed) J. IV. Hiort. D d 4 2i6 appendix to second report from select committee ) Appendix, No. 6. DETAILED EXPLANATION of Accounts marked (B.) in p. 177, and (C.) in p. 179, of the Oliiginal Papers in Appendix, No. 1. EXPLANATION and REMARKS required by The Committee, upon the Paper marked (B.) Balances due for the Sculpture of the Arch : Westmacott - - The portion of this Commission not yet delivered at the Palace, is a 3 follows : the Bas-relief for each flank of the Arch (finished and ready for delivery.) The Bas-relief for the Military side will require about a week to complete, and the carvers are at work upon it. The Bas-relief for the Naval side will require about the same time. The four Military Trophies: two of them require only a fortnight’s labour to complete ; the third and fourth are done. Mr. Westmacott considers the whole of his work finished ; as the little that remains to be done, should be finished after the work is fixed. Bailey - - - The portion of this Commission not yet delivered at the Palace, is as follows: The lower part of the Statue of Britannia, for the face of the Pedestal for the Equestrian Statue, requires three weeks work to complete it. The upper part of this Statue, with the Lion and Unicorn belonging to it, are already delivered. The four Victories, for the angles of the Pedestal for the Equestrian Statue, are finished, and three of them are delivered. The four Naval Trophies—one is finished; the second will require three weeks, and the third six weeks work, to complete them; the fourth is in progress: but the block of marble required to complete the last, is not yet delivered to Mr. Bailey; when delivered, there will be two months labour to carve it. Mr. Chantery - Received his Commission from the Lords of the Treasuiy. Balances due for Chimney Pieces : Sivier - - - No. 2 Chimneys ; finished, and delivered. Denman - - No. 6 Chimneys; five of them are finished, and at the Palace; the sixth remains at his premises, but is ready for delivery. Theakstone - No. l Chimney for the Hall; finished, and ready for delivery. These Chimneys have been executed in Italy, and are stated to have been shipped three months since, but are not yet arrived. Browne 253 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. . Balance due for the external Sculpture : Grimsley - - No. 6 Vases; delivered and fixed. Balances due for the internal Sculpture: Twelve Panels, North D g Room.—Six are moulded, cast, and are fitted together; they remain at Mr. Pitts’ premises: the remaining six are not commenced. South D f Room.—These Designs are made, but the Models not begun. (Designs made by Stothard.) Sixteen Dessus de Portes.—Four of these are done, and delivered at the Palace, two of • »*«*•« v- } _■* which are owing for, at 80 guineas each, to Mr. Pitts; the remaining twelve are not ordered. Harrison - - Of this Account, there remains to be completed only the Handrail to one staircase, about £. 50. value. Contract for private Apartments: -Woolcott - - This Contract was in progress at the time the Works were suspended, and is about Two-thirds finished. The materials to complete the Contract are prepared, and the greater part delivered at the Palace; the remainder are at his premises. Contract for Mahogany Rail: This Contract is complete. Browne - - The greater part of the internal Marble and Scagliola Work is yet unpolished. Labour to complete the Marble Arch, £.3,050. Nearly the whole of the Work comprized in this sum remains to be fixed ; but the greater part of the labour is already done, and the Work is on the ground, ready for fixing. For the remaining; articles, the Sums are for balances due to Mr. Browne. Froom&Cribb - This Work is completed. Parker - - The Gold metal Gates are cast, and fitted together, and only require bur¬ nishing ; they are at the manufactory. All the Spear-heads to the Railing of the Arch are cast, and delivered at the Palace; as also the horizontal Rails; and all but eighty of the hafts or bars are done; these latter remain at the manufactory. This Work also is not burnished. The Staircase Railing has been fitted and fixed, and taken down to be burnished. MTntosh - - These are Sums due for Works already performed. 3-9* Ee 218 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE EXPLANATION and REMARKS required by The Committee, upon the Paper marked (C.) NAMES of the several Parts of the Building. NAMES of the Tradesmen executing the Work. DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK. East A rmoury - Henry Warren - - - The parquet floor is framed, veneered, and fitted down; it only remains to be screwed down, the bands to be filled in and cleaned off. South Drawing Room. Messrs. Martyr - - - The only parts of this floor unfinished are the centre inlaid panels, containing the Regal Crown, and the veneers to cover the places where the parquet floor is screwed down to the floor beneath. Samuel Parker - - - The two metal glass frames are cast, and have been fitted together; the whole is ready for bur¬ nishing. Joseph Browne - - Of the remaining scagliola columns 20 are pre¬ pared for the veneering coat, including moulding at top and bottom; 6 skeleton frames only are made; 16 of the bells are finished, and 10 prepared for veneering; the bases and plinths are all prepared, as also the whole of the enrichments for the capi¬ tals. The whole of these works are at the manu¬ factory of Mr. Joseph Browne. Bow Room Messrs. Morell & Seddon. -- The parquet floor is screwed down, and the bands are fitted in, but not glued down, which is all that is required to finish it besides cleaning off. Joseph Barrett, deceased. - - One glass frame, and the 3 sets of doors, are gilt, and fixed in their places. North Drawing Room. Joseph Browne - -- The whole of the 28 scagliola pilasters, together with the enrichments for top and bottom, are nearly finished, and remain at his manufactory. Picture Gallery and Temple. Messrs. Wain- wright. The engraved glasses are all completed. Throne Room Bernasconi The trusses and figures to screen are finished, and fixed. Jackson - The composition ornaments in the pilasters are completed. Saloon Jackson - - - 1,536 rosettes are finished, and are at the manu¬ factory ; 7,992 (to complete the quantity) are not begun. Anti-Room Parker The column and pilaster capitals are finished, and fixed. Wain wright The engraved glasses are finished, and fixed. Principal Stairs - Wainwright - - The 48 large circular plates are bent and cut to the size, but not engraved; the centre, and 48 small plates for bottom, are not begun. Parker - - The addition to railing of principal stairs, and the metal enrichment to handrail, is all cast and fitted; part of the latter is fixed, and the remainder is at the manufactory. 255 \ ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. NAMES of the several Parts of the Building. NAMES of the Tradesmen executing the Work. DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK. Hall and Lower Gallery. Browne % --The carved marble doorcases are finished, and fixed ; the whole of the inlaid border is laid down; that in the Hall is finished, but in the Gallery the polishing is not done. Music Room Jackson - The composition ornaments are done, and fixed. State Room Doors and Doorcases. Froom & Cribb --22 silvered plates are fixed in the doors; 2 are delivered at the Palace, and 6 are prepared at the manufacturer’s; 44 remain to be commenced. Parker - - The metal enrichments for 3 sets of doors, and 3 marble doorcases, are finished, and fixed; the rest of the enrichments for the doors are finished, and delivered in packages. Croggon - The 3 scagliola doorcases are finished. The Chapel Bernasconi All the enrichments, except a centre flower for ven¬ tilation, are fixed. Ceilings, Ground Floor, North Wing. Bernasconi The whole of these ceilings and cornices are lathed, and one coat of plaster laid on. Picture Gallery, North Wing. Bernasconi i The flat part of this ceiling only lathed, and one coat of plaster laid on. Three Drawing Rooms, Ground Floor, West Front. The Arch - Bernasconi Parker The whole of the enrichments to these rooms are finished. - - The gold metal standards to the railing of the Arch are all cast, and some delivered at the Palace; the remaining number are at his manufactory. Wood - - 19 stones of the granite curb are wrought, and delivered at the Palace; the remaining 55 are at the wharf, Milbank, and are in various degrees of forwardness. Sculpture - Browne - - - The 6 carved wreaths are finished, and fixed in their places; 160 of the modillions are finished, 10 ditto are half done, 20 ditto are not begun; 153 rosettes for coffers are finished, 25 ditto are not finished; 3 cornice stones remain to be set. Bailey The 4 panels in the Throne-room are finished, and fixed. Marble Browne - -- The whole of the additional marble required for the Arch is delivered; also that for the additional pilasters, pedestals and columns. The whole of the Work is completed. E e 2 256 220 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Appendix, No. 7- - - - STATEMENT of Bricks and Cement supplied for - 1 825: < 1826: 18 2 7: r - ■\ \ f A A. Mr. Hinds - 182,000 Bricks - 46/ Gibbons for cartage 4/10 per thousand - - £.2 10 10 B. H. M. Mr. Nash - 150,000 Bricks, average 41/ 449,000 Bricks 40/ 364,000 Bricks - 40/ Townsend for freight 5/ Freight & cartage,! Freight & cartage,! 0/8 Gibbons for cartage 4/10 average - -/ 919 average - -/ y i° per thousand - - £.2 10 10 per thousand - £.2 9 9 per thousand - £.2 9 8 C. I. Mr. Huggins - 26,000 Bricks - 41/ 116,000 Bricks 38/ Gibbons for cartage 4/10 Cartage - 4/6 • per thousand - - £.2 5 10 per thousand - £.226 D. Mr. Rhodes - 6,500 Bricks «- £.2 12 - 35,400 Bricks, part 44/ 93,100 Bricks, part 41 / Part - - 42/ Part - - 38/ E. 0. Mr. Gardner ----- 62,300 Bricks, I 130,000 Bricks, ! average/ 33/8 average] 3 51 Cartage - 4/6 Cartage - 4/6 ; • 1. per thousand - £.1 182 per thousand - £.1 19 6 L. P. Mr. Payne - 3,000 Bricks - 42/ 135,200 Bricks, \ A 1 IR 126,600 Bricks, ! average/ 41/b average/ 3 8 / per thousand - - £.22- per thousand - £.216 per thousand - £.1 18 - G. Part 1828: 163,250 Bricks 38/ per thousand - 1 00 i-* 1 STATEMENT of CEMENT supplied for < 1825: 1826: Mr. Nash - Sundries - Bushels. 160 - 2/6 731 Bushels. 1,645 - - 2 M 2 l 9 k Francis & White - Sundries • • 600 - - »• • 2 /3 /3f 1,020 - - 2/6f */6f • Stevens & Son Sundries - 80 - - 2/ M 720 - - 2/3 i 2 /3f Cleaver • “ “ * " • • • m 1827: Bushels. 1,305 - - a/gi 480 - - 2/6£ 400 - - 2/31 380 - - 1/7 Sundries - /3 1J10I ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 257 221 .- - Appendix, No. 7- The King’s Palace in the Years 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828 and 1829. 1828 1829 1 N e -~- TOTAL QUANTITY of R. R. STOCK BRICKS. 186,000 Bricks 36/ 79,000 Bricks 36/ Freight & cartage,"] 9 / 2 Freight and cartage 9/2 averagej Hinds - 182,000 per thousand - £.2 5 2 per thousand - £.2 5 2 Nash - 1,228,000 Huggins - 142,000 Rhodes - 286,900 Gardner - 192,300 151,300 Bricks 38/ Payne - 289,500 Clutterbuck - 163,250 2 ,483)950 Board of Works 378,924 T. 2,862,874 24,700 Bricks 38/ per thousand - tb *-* CO 1 The King’s Palace. 1828: 1829: TOTAL Bushels. Bushels. ^ U A i>( 111 JL. r Mr. Nash Bushels. 3,110 - - at 2/9I 2,520 - - Sundries 2/ - l 3 z 2)3? 99° - - 2 /3f Francis & White - - 5,610 - - at 2/5 the average 90 - - 2/3i ) Stevens & Son - 1,290 - - at 2/3I 530 - - 1/1 oi 30 - - l/ioi Cleaver - 940 - - at l/iof 10,950 Bushels. Ee 3 222 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Appendix, No. 8. REPORT from Sir Jeffry Wyatville , John Soane , Esq. Robert Smirke , Esq. and Henry Hake Seward , Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson , Surveyor-General of Works, &c. &c. &c. sir, Buckingham Palace, July 15th, 1831. WE have been honoured with the receipt of your Letter, dated the 18th of March last, transmitting, by command of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, for our consideration and report, an Order from the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on Buckingham Palace, relating to the Expense, Condition, and Security of that Building; and also a Minute of their Lordships, referring to the expediency of preserving St. James’s Palace, and of enlarging it by means of a com¬ munication with Marlborough House : And in obedience to their Lorships’ com¬ mands, we now have the honour of submitting, for their Lordships information, the result of our investigation into that part of the above reference which relates to the New Palace,—a subject that has necessarily occupied much time, and has received our most serious and anxious attention. Indeed, the want of time, with other attendant circumstances, have compelled us to limit our present inquiries exclusively to this important Building; leaving for a future occasion the other matters of reference, which we conceive may be subject to alterations, or even rendered un¬ necessary, by their Lordships’ decision in consequence of our present Report. We proceed to recapitulate each subjt Committee of the House of Commons ; tions, written in a separate column. 1. —An account of the Sums of Money due to Artificers and others, for Works actually completed and delivered. 2 . —Of the Works under contract, and in progress previous to the circular letter of the Board of Works in October 1830, suspend¬ ing all works, but not yet completed and de¬ livered ;—Of the Sum due for the said works in their actual state, and of the further Sum requisite to pay for their completion. 3. —Of the Works not under contract , but in progress ;—Of the Sums due for the said works in their actual state; and of the further Sum requisite to pay for the completion of the same, according to the directions that have been given. 4. —Of all Works (if any) in which pro¬ gress has been made subsequent to the cir¬ cular letter from the Board of Works, directing all works to be suspended. 5 *—Of the Works not yet begun, forming part of the plan to be executed according to the detailed statements of the same given by Mr. Nash; and of the Sum that will be ne¬ cessary to complete the said Works. :t of inquiry specified in the Order of the annexing to it our Answers and Observa- According to the returns made by the Tradesmen who have been employed upon this Building, their claims for work completed and delivered, amount to £. 54,968. 8. 9. According to the returns made also by the Tradesmen, their claims for works under contract and in progress, but not yet com¬ pleted and delivered, amount to the sum of about £.42,077;—And the further sum requi¬ site to pay for the completion of the said works will amount to the sum of about £. 15,414. It is necessary to observe, that we have applied to every person stated by Mr. Nash to have been employed upon the Works of the Palace, for the returns above alluded to: and although the returns are delivered by them as the amount of their respective claims, they cannot be reported as correct, until they shall have been examined and certified by Mr. Nash, and by the Office of Works. There are no outstanding claims for works of this description, as all the works, with some trifling exceptions, have been executed at this Building under contracts or agree¬ ments. No works have been done, nor any other expenses incurred than those necessary for the care of the Building and the preservation of its interior, finishing agreeably to the Treasury directions. The Statements and Drawings relating to them are not sufficiently detailed to enable us to give a well-founded calculation of the Expense of completing these Works; but, according to the best of our judgment, and from ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 259 223 from every information we have been able at present to obtain upon the subject, the ne¬ cessary Expenditure will be nearly as fol¬ lows :— To complete the Interior of the Palace in its present arrangements, and also the Marble Archway, according to Estimates made by the tradesmen employed by Mr. Nash, and according to the terms and agreements en¬ tered into by him, will incur an expense of about £.31,! 77 The expense of Gilding in the State Apart¬ ments appears to have been calculated ori¬ ginally only to the extent of the same pro¬ portion as that done in the State Rooms at St. James’s Palace; but the decorations of the apartments in the two buildings do not admit of such a comparison, those of the New Palace being of a nature infinitely more enriched; calculating, however, upon as mo¬ derate a degree of gilding as may be thought consistent with the general style of decora¬ tion that has been adopted in the New Palace, the expense cannot be estimated at less than about £.23,000. The ornamental Painting usually adopted in such buildings, does not appear to have formed a part of the original Estimate; but in completing the Building, we conceive that an expense of £.2,500. will be incurred by this work, in addition to the common paint¬ ing, of which the expense is included in the beforementioned sum of £.31,177. The expense of completing the paved and gravelled surface of the Terraces and of the Great Quadrangle, with that also of com¬ pleting and preparing the Conservatories to receive the Plants, will amount to the sum of about £.3,000. The expense of providing the necessary means of warming the Conser¬ vatories is estimated at £.1,600. The expense of building the additional Offices next Pimlico, according to Mr. Nash’s plan; the expense of finishing the Railing, Gates, and other works at the South En¬ trance ; and that also of completing the North Entrance, including a part of the boundary wall of the Gardens, in connection with these parts of the Building, will not be less than the sum of £.12,000. But in our present calculation we include no charge for providing all the Fittings that will be required in the Basement Story and other parts of the Palace; nor the Papering of walls, nor the Grates and Bells, and such other works and fixtures as will be necessary to render the Palace fit for occupation. These charges are not alluded to in any of Mr. Nash’sEstimates and Calculations, and we therefore conclude they are to be pro¬ vided for in the Estimates for Furniture. We do not attempt to submit an opinion of the expense to be incurred by the purchase of Buildings on the side of Pimlico ; for, as the Palace, if not used for State purposes, can be occupied without removing any, the purchases might perhaps be deferred to a future time, and made progressively, as oppor¬ tunities occur of effecting them with advan¬ tage-. It is however extremely desirable that many of the Houses standing opposite the South Front, and so near it, should be taken down. We have not also taken into account any expense to be incurred by the alterations that E e 4 will 260 224 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE will be required in the Lord Chamberlain's and Lord Steward’s departments, which have not yet been sufficiently defined by them; nor any works that may be deemed necessary for the convenience and for the durability and safety of the Building, according to the opinions which we have to submit to the con¬ sideration of His Majesty’s Government. See No. i» p. 229. See No. 2. p. 231. 6.—Of the further Works, if any, that are necessary, in the opinion of the said Officers, to complete the Palace in a substantial man¬ ner, prepared for the convenient and suitable reception of His Majesty and the Court, both as a private residence and as a Palace for State purposes. In order to give a satisfactory answer to this part of the reference, we considered it desirable in the first instance to inquire of the principal Officers belonging to the depart¬ ments of the Lord Steward and Lord Cham¬ berlain of His Majesty’s Househould, the nature and extent of the accommodation required for the Royal Establishment in Lon¬ don, and to learn their opinions of the con¬ venience and sufficiency of the arrangements provided for their reception in the New Palace. We annex to this Report a copy of the Opinions which we have obtained upon the subject, from the Lord Chamberlain and Lord Steward, and also from several Officers en¬ trusted with the care of particular depart¬ ments of the Household. It will be seen the Lord Chamberlain is of opinion, that the arrangements of the Building are not calculated to enable Their Majesties to hold their Courts in it; and as we conceive no partial alterations can remove the objec¬ tions made by this Department, we conclude that the Palace must be considered as calcu¬ lated only for the private residence of Their Majesties. The Lord Chamberlain has also furnished us with an account of the apartments required for their Majesties’ Domestic Establishment in London : and with reference to this we observe, that it does not appear practicable to provide for the reception of the whole of this Establishment within the Palace; for, after separating that portion of the Building required by the Lord Steward, it will be dif¬ ficult to provide a sufficient number of rooms for the convenient accommodation of all the persons enumerated in the list given by the Lord Chamberlain. According to the opinion of the Lord Steward, the Establishment under his super¬ intendence will require for their accommo¬ dation the whole of the Basement Story, and all the rooms in the South Wing above the Basement, together with the intended offices proposed by Mr. Nash to be erected adjoining the South Wing, as shown by the annexed Plan, but which are not yet commenced upon. The Lord Steward has described also various alterations, as necessary for the convenient occupation of the rooms, particularly in the Basement Story, where light and air must be given to all those rooms and passages, which are now darkened by the raised Terraces on the North and West Fronts. It is also con¬ sidered necessary by the Lord Steward, that the Entrance and circular Colonnade on the South Front should be taken away, and that the proposed additional Offices should be erected on this site. We apprehend that if there should be no objection to this last mentioned arrange¬ ment, considering that the Entrance on this Front may not be required, when it has been decided 261 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 225 decided that the Palace cannot be used for the reception of the Court upon State occa¬ sions, it will however be a subject involving great difficulty to make such alterations in the Basement story as will give the required light and air to those rooms in a satisfactory manner, and render them fit for occupation. It will be seen by the annexed Report of the Surveyor of His Majesty’s Pictures, that a considerable alteration is thought necessary in the mode adopted for giving- light to the Picture Gallery, and he pro¬ poses, for this purpose, to remove the present Roof over the room, and substitute a lantern light, extending along the centre of the ceiling. The Officer in charge of the Armoury in¬ tended to be deposited in this Palace, states in his Report, (which we have also annexed,) that the two rooms allotted for its reception will contain only about one-third part of this valuable collection : we conclude, there¬ fore, that arrangements must be made for depositing it in some other building. We considered it advisable also to have the opinion of the Superintendent of the Royal Gardens, upon the proper mode of finishing the three large Conservatories standing upon the Terraces on the North and West Fronts; and he has described this in his Report. As these Buildings remain in a very un¬ finished state, there will be no difficulty in adopting the recommendations of this Officer in regard to them; but he requires at the same time that a material alteration should be made in the construction of the Roofs over them. In concluding this part of our Report, it is necessary to observe, that the principal part of the Roof of the Palace is covered with a Composition, commonly known by the name of Lord Stanhope’s; and we cannot omit to express the strong doubts we entertain of the permanent security which itcan afford against the effects of the weather. Upon a careful inspection of the state of the Composition, we observe that it is at this time cracked in many places, upon different parts of the roof covered with it ; and in the fissures of these cracks the wet remains until it is evaporated, or, what is more probable, absorbed in the brickwork under it. As it has been laid upon arches of bricks formed between the iron bearers over the ceilings of the upper rooms, where there are two tier of these arches, one raised a little above the other, a considerable time may elapse before the rains have penetrated to the ceilings; but the wet has already penetrated through the covering of one room, (the South-west Tower,) where there is only one tier of these arches. We are informed that means may be readily taken for closing these fissures; but as there can be no security against the re¬ currence of the mischief, from the same cause which has now produced it, and as the cracks are discovered only by a careful examination and the removal of the slates which are laid upon the surface of the composition, we are of opinion that it will be found necessary to remove it-altogether, and substitute a cover¬ ing of a more durable and effectual nature. Sec No. 3, p. 231. See No. 4, p. 232. See No. 5, p. 232. 7. A Report of the state of the Building, The finishing of the Interior of the Palace whether it could be considered safe, sup- is in so advanced a state, that the construc- Q2Q, posing F f tion 262 226 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE posing Buckingham House to be used as a Palace for State purposes, and the reception of a numerous Court. See Nos. 6. 7 - & 8. p. 233-261. tion of the Building in many parts cannot be seen. We have, however, endeavoured to obtain correct information concerning it; and where a personal examination of the state of the work, or the nature of its construction, appeared indispensable, we have taken means to effect our object, as far as it could be at¬ tained without material injury to the finished work. The extensive and very peculiar use of Iron in the Building, rendered it necessary that we should give our first attention to this part of its construction. The only original Drawings of the Iron work given to us, being slight and imperfect, it did not seem advisable to place entire con¬ fidence upon their accuracy; and we directed a part of the floor and other places in cer¬ tain rooms to be laid open, so far as it was necessary to obtain a partial view of the Iron work. We made inquiries also of Mr. Moser, a partner of Mr. Crawshay the contractor by whom all the Iron Castings were stated to have been made, as to the means taken to ascertain the soundness of each Bearer and other Casting; but upon this point we have received no satisfactory information. We are informed by Mr. Moser, that the prin¬ cipal part of the Castings were made under a sub-contract with them by an Ironfounder in Staffordshire, since become a bankrupt, and now living in America; and we cannot learn whether that proof was made which is desirable at all times, but which we conceive indispensable in the use of Bearers of such magnitude, and charged with such extraor¬ dinary weight as many of them are in this Building. Mr. Nash has informed us, that the iron Bearers of two rooms. Saloon, and Throne Room, were proved at the Building by his direction, and that he had reason to be per¬ fectly satisfied with the result. Considering, however, the uncertainty that existed in regard to the strength of the Iron in many parts of the Building, and that it is stated to have been all cast from the blast furnace ; considering also the very rough appearance of the Castings, where they couid be seen, and the manner in which many of them were applied for the support of the walls; we deemed it advisable to have our judgment assisted by the opinion of some persons, whose pursuits and occupations had afforded them the means of acquiring greater practical knowledge of the nature and use of iron than we possess. We annex to this Report the Opinions we have received from Mr. Rennie, from Mr. Rastrick (for many years partner in the iron¬ works of Messrs. Foster, Rastrick & Co. at Stourbridge, and now a civil engineer) and also from Messrs. Bramah, ironfounders and engineers at Pimlico ; and their Reports con¬ tain observations of great importance in reference to the subject, many of them de¬ manding the most serious attention. These gentlemen differ in opinion, in some degree, upon the strength requisite for Iron Castings, in order to insure the perfect secu¬ rity of the building in the construction of which they are employed ; but they agree in expressingdoubts as to the sufficient Strength of some of those used in the Palace; and they point out several important parts of the Building ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 22 7 Building which they consider extremely in¬ secure. Their opinions have fully confirmed the apprehensions we have ourselves entertained; and after the most careful and anxious con¬ sideration, we are compelled to state, that we think the front Wall of the Bow in the centre of the West Front; the Wall on each side of the Bow Drawing Room, with the Floor of that room ; the North-east Tower, standing over the north end of the Throne Room ; and the South-west Tower, over the South Draw¬ ing Room, are in each instance, from the nature of their construction, very unsafe. We are of opinion that measures must be taken to give security to these parts of the Building. In the opinion of Mr. Rastrick, the Iron work composing the floors of several of the rooms, is far too weak to be trusted ; and from the statements and calculations upon which his opinions are founded, and which are detailed at great length in his Report, it is impossible not to feel apprehensions as to their want of security, although it may be believed by others that a less degree of strength than he requires would be sufficient. It was an opinion expressed by one of the most experienced and scientific men in the country, the late Mr. Watt, that the strain to which Iron Castings would be exposed in the situations where they were employed, ought not (for their perfect security) to exceed one- sixth part of that strain which would break them; and Mr. Rastrick’s calculations appear to be founded upon the same principle. It will be extremely difficult now to apply any means of satisfactory proof to the Bearers of the floors, without injuring the ceilings and other work attached to them ; but ad¬ verting to the opinions given upon several of them by Messrs. Rennie, Rastrick, and Bra¬ mah, we cannot think it will be prudent to occupy the Palace until the Floors of the Saloon, the Throne Room, and Music Room on the first floor, that of the Portico on the same floor, and the Bearers of the Roof over the Great Staircase, have been subjected to a full and complete proof in every part of them. In the opinion of Mr. Rennie and Mr. Rastrick, some of these Bearers are declared to be too weak to be trusted with the weight they may have to sustain ; those over the Portico have indeed already sunk, although the marble pavement is not yet laid down, nor the ceiling finished. The Iron work in other parts of the Build¬ ing, alluded to in the three annexed Re¬ ports, must undergo a farther examination and proof, before the Palace can be safely occupied, however difficult it maybe to effect this object without destroying some of the interior finishings. But we have considered that as the application of the necessary means of proof will occupy a considerable space of time, and might cause an incon¬ venient delay in the completion of this Report, it may be advisable to defer this part of the investigation to a future period. The only part of the Wood work employed in the construction of the Building which is defective, as far as we have been able to ex¬ amine it, is that of the framed Truss support¬ ing the ceiling of the Bow Drawing Room: it F f 2 is 2?3 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE is too slight, and is badly executed, but may be rendered secure without difficulty. There are only few indications of weakness in the Walls; and we have a proof of the satis¬ factory manner in which part of the work has been executed, by observing the great weight that has been placed upon them, and which they have borne with so little apparent in¬ jury. The fracture of the Stones over many of the Windows, is probably occasioned only by the weakness of the stone, and means can be applied to secure or to replace them ; but we are of opinion with Mr. Ras trick, that before the interior of the lower rooms is completed, a eareful examination must be made of those parts where the iron Beams are found placed over the windows; and they cannot be seen without removing part of the finishings al¬ ready completed. The slight fractures in the Wall of the Towers next the North end of the West Front appear to result chiefly from the wide open¬ ings left in the Basement Story, and are not of a nature to cause any apprehension of increase or danger. The upper part of the Walls of the North-east Tower on the East Front, are fractured from the defective con¬ struction of the Iron work supporting them, to which we have before alluded. Many slight fractures are seen upon the surface of the interior AValls of the Hall, of the Vestibule or Sculpture Gallery, and of the Great Staircase, which are defects only in the scagliola composition laid upon the walls; but the appearance of these fractures upon the square Pillars between the Hall and Gal¬ lery, and the small size of the Pillars as com¬ pared with the great weight they sustain, gave rise to some doubts in our minds as to their sufficient strength ; if, however, they are constructed in the manner described by Mr. Nash, there can be no doubt of their security. We are of opinion that the Balustrade of the Great Staircase will require a much stronger mode of fixing, than that proposed to be adopted, in order to render it secure against the pressure of a crowded assembly ; and it appears to us also, for the same pur¬ pose, that the projecting upper landing-place of this Staircase should be strengthened. 8 .—An Estimate of the probable Amount The whole of the articles enumerated in to arise from the sale of Hoards, Tackle, Ma- a Schedule furnished by Mr. Nash, are valued chinery, and old Materials, as estimated by at the sum of £. 1 , 361 . 16 . Mr. Nash on the 9 th September 1830 . WE have stated our Observations as concisely as possible, confining them to each separate subject of inquiry, and avoiding all unnecessary details ; but we con¬ sider it indispensable, for the support and justification of the opinions we have expressed, to give as an Appendix, Copies of the several official and professional Documents which we found it necessary to call for in the progress of our investiga¬ tion, and without which it would have been impossible for us to have arrived at any just and satisfactory conclusions upon some very important points connected with these inquiries. , 1 We have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient and faithful Servants, Jeffry Wyatvillc , Rob 1 Smirke, John Soane , Henry Hake Seward. To The Surveyor General of His Majesty’s Office of Works, &c. &c. &c. 265 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 229 No. 1 .—LETTER from T. B. Mash , Esq. to Sir Benjamin Stephenson , Surveyor General of Works, &c. &c. &c. SII b Lord Chamberlain’s Office, June 17th, 1831. I have submitted to the Lord Chamberlain your Letter of the 28th ultimo, on the subject of the New Palace in St. James’s Park; and am directed to transmit to you the enclosed List of Apartments required for Their Majesties Establishments in London. With regard to the conveniences in that Building for State purposes, I am desired to observe, that it is not at all calculated for Their Majesties to hold their Courts there. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (signed) T. B. Mash. APARTMENTS required for Their Majesties’ Establishments in London : The King’s Apartments - Sitting Room. Anti Room. Pages’ Room. Dressing Room. Bath Room. Water Closet. Wardrobe. The Queen’s Apartments - Sitting Room. Anti Room. Dressing; Room. Bath Room. Wardrobe. Their Majesties ----- Dining Room. Drawing Room. Music Room. Bed Room. Breakfast Room. Large Dining Room. General Breakfast Room. Library. Librarian’s Room. The Private Secretary Ditto Office - Two Rooms. The Privy Purse Ditto Office Two Rooms. The Queen’s Lord Chamberlain]. Tw0 Rooms Ditto Office -J The Queen’s Treasurer Ditto Office | Two Rooms. Equerries Room. Miss Wilson ------ Bed Room. Sitting Room. Maid’s Room. The Queen’s Lady in Waiting Bed Room. Sitting Room. Maid’s Room. 3 * 9 - F f 3 The 230 appendix to second report from select committee The Queen’s Dressers - - Two Bed Rooms. Sitting; Room. Maid’s Room. For Visitors, Branches of the Royal Family - Sitting Rooms. Bed Rooms. Servants’ Rooms. The King’s Pages - The Queen’s Pages - Gentleman Porter - The King’s Footmen - The Queen’s Footmen Messengers - - - - - Inspector of Household Deliveries - Housekeeper - - - - Housemaids - - - . Dining Room. Bed Rooms,—for Six Pages of the Back Stairs. Eight Pages of the Presence. Dining Room. Six Bed Rooms. Waiting Room. Bed Room. Waiting Room. Bed Rooms—for Eighteen. Waiting Room. Bed Rooms—for Twelve. Waiting Room. Bed Room. Sitting Room. Office. Bed Room. Sitting Room. Store Room. Linen Room. Coffee Room. Bed Rooms—for Twenty. (Enclosure in No. 1.) LETTER from J. H. Glover , Esq. to Sir Benjamin C. Stephenson , K. C. II. &C. &C. &C. SIR > Buckingham Palace, June 29, 1831. I Have this morning examined the Private Gallery of Buckingham Palace, with reference to its appropriation for the reception of His Majesty’s Library, and think that, with the addition of the two adjoining Rooms, for the large Collection of Prints and Drawings, there will be sufficient space to contain the Books. I have the honour to be, Sir, Tour most obedient Servant, (signed) J. H. Glover. 267 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 23, No. 2.—LETTER from Thomas Marrable, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson, &c. &c. &c. Board of Green Cloth, St. James’s Palace, SIR, 30th May 1 S31. THE Lord Steward directs me to forward to you the accompanying Report, conformably to the requisition contained in your Letter of the 25th instant, addressed to the Master of His Majesty’s Household. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, (signed) Tho s Marrable. THE Officers of the Lord Steward’s department having, pursuant to a Letter from the Surveyor General of His Majesty’s Works, requiring them to express their opinion “ Whether the present arrangements made for the accommodation of “ the Lord Steward’s department in Buckingham Palace, are sufficient for His “ Majesty’s residence there, or if any, and what, further accommodation will be “ necessary,” proceeded to inspect the Palace ;—report, THAT the Lord Steward’s Department will require the whole of the Basement Floor of the Palace, together with the Ground and Upper Floors of the South Wing, with such alterations “ for providing further accommodation ” as the Department will point out; differing in some respect from the Plan marked in red ink. The Department will also require some alterations on the Western Basement, principally for the admission of air and light; as well as some additional Closets throughout. Board of Green Cloth, 28th May 1831. No. 3.—LETTER from William Seguier, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson, &c. &c. &c. SIR> Sloane Street, June 23d, 1831. IN answer to your Letter requesting me to state to you, for the information of the Architects of the Office of Works, whether the Picture Gallery in the New Palace St. James’s Park is in every respect fit for the acception of His Majesty s Pictures ; I beg in reply to say, that I think the Gallery, from its noble dimensions, admirably adapted to hold His Majesty’s valuable collection of Pictures. But I must at. the same time observe, that the lighting of it is in my opinion a failure. In its present state, not a picture can be seen with its proper effect. This, however, may be reme¬ died most effectually by placing a lantern-light in the centre of the present ceiling; and with this alteration I should not hesitate to pronounce it a proper and very fine Gallery for the reception of His Majesty s large and valuable collection of Paintings. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your very obedient Servant, (signed) William Seguier, Surveyor of His Majesty’s Pictures. 3 * 9 - F f 4 232 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE No. 4.—LETTER from Benj.Jutsliam , Esq. to Major General Sir B. C. Stephenson , &c. &c. &c. SIR, No. 105 Pall Mall, June 7th, 1831. IN reply to your Note, which I have just received, requesting that I would inform you whether, in my opinion, the Rooms at the New Palace are sufficiently capacious to receive His Majesty’s valuable Armory under my charge; I without the least hesitation beg leave to say, that if you allude to the two rooms which have been denominated the Armory Rooms, they will not contain one-third of the Collection. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most humble Servant, (signed) Benf Jutsham. No. 5.—COMMUNICATION from W. T. Alton, Esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson , &c. &c. &c. THE three Temples upon the Terraces attached to the New Palace at St. James’s Park, cannot be considered, in their present state, of suitable construction as Con¬ servatories for such Plants as are usually appropriated to like buildings, being open entirely on all sides; and consequently much additional artificers’ works will be required to complete them for Exotic Plants. It will be expedient to enclose the interior, on each of the open sides of the Building, with glass sashes, or otherwise from the level of the flooring to the height of the columns, so as to effectually exclude the various changes of our climate, as well as to admit as much light as possible, and air occasionally. The roofs should be contrived so as to admit air when required, and that the top-lights can be occasionally removed altogether during the summer months. To produce and retain a suitable Temperature for the culture of the Plants in winter, the necessary introduction of Heat must be provided, either by brick flues, hot water pipes, or by steam, as may be found most practically convenient. The two Buildings on the Lawn Front of the Palace may be considered suitably situated for the cultivation of the hardier varieties of ornamental Conservatory Plants in beds and borders, and which will require to be completed accordingly. With regard to the Building upon the North side of the Palace, the situation, as to aspect, is by no means so favourable for Conservatory Plants, and should be appropriated for Greenhouse Plants, cultivated in pots and tubs only, upon a stone pavement. Should the Garden Buildings of this reference be completed according to the observations now submitted, I am of opinion they will satisfactorily answer the pur¬ poses for which they have been erected. Royal Gardens, Kew, (signed) 16th June 1831. W, T. Alton. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 233 No. 6.—LETTER from George Rennie , Esquire, to Sir B. C. Stephenson , &c. &c. &c. SIR > London, 18th June 1831. Agreeably to Mr. Smirke’s application to me on the 14th, and your Letter of the 15th ultimo, to examine and report on the result of an experiment then making on the strength of the Cast-Iron Girders of the floors at Buckingham New Palace;— I went to the Palace on the 16th and 17th of May last, and was present during the experiment tried on the strength of two of the principal Girders of the Ground- floor of the Bow Drawing Room. As these experiments were made under the direction of Mr. Rastrick, and will most probably be minutely detailed by him, it is unnecessary to state further, than that the experiments were very fairly and properly tried on two of the worst Beams, by weights of from one to sixteen tons, gradually put into a scale suspended on the upper edge of the middle of the Beam. The deflections of the Beams were carefully noticed from ^ to JA of an inch, when the load was allowed to remain suspended to the middle of the Beam for about twenty hours, after which, the weights were gradually taken off, and the Beam was found to resume its former elasticity. A second experiment was tried on another Beam with nearly the same results ; hence the effective strength of the remaining similar Girders may be fairly estimated at 16 tons suspended on the centres of each; and as there are seven Girders on the floor (out of the ten) of similar dimensions and length of bearing, the combined strength of the seven is equal to 112 tons. Now the actual weight of the floors is 32 tons, and, supposing the floor to be loaded with the additional weight of men, at the rate of 80 men, or 13 tons to 100 square feet, and taking the area of this part of the room at 1,146 square feet, it will make an addition of 75 tons, or 107 tons, which, on the supposition of the weight being distributed equally over the Girders, is not one-half of the experimental strength. The extremities of two of these Girders at the east end of this floor, rest upon brick and iron arches, which, as they have good abutments, may be considered sufficiently strong. The three Girders in the semi-circular part of the floor having shorter bearings, are also of adequate strength. The Girders in the floors of the North and South Drawing Rooms, on either side of the Bow Drawing Room, being of similar dimensions to the Girders already tried, but supported nearly in the middle by the cross walls of the passage underneath, are of course abundantly strong. The Girders of the floor of the great Dining Room are of the same depth as those of the Bow Drawing Room, but have their bearings reduced to 28 feet by the cross wall of the passage underneath. The Girders that support the floors of the different apartments on the ground level, such as the King’s Bed Room, and the suite of Private Apartments, are of adequate strength to sustain any probable stress to which they may be subject. PRINCIPAL FLOOR.—BOW DRAWING ROOM. The Girders of this room are of the same dimensions, and have the same length of bearings, as the Girders of the floors immediately below them; but their extremi¬ ties rest upon a cast-iron Tie of the annexed dimensions; one extremity of which rests upon the west wall of the Picture Gallery, and the other upon a cast-iron pilaster resting on a wall below. Each of the Ties is likewise suspended by four wrought-iron bars, 1 \ in diameter, to a cast-iron semi-circular Arch, cast in three segments, and having its extremities resting on the Tie, so that the whole may be compared to a trussed girder, resting on two side-walls: the cast-iron Arch is covered by an arch of three rows of bricks, laid in cement, and divided by key, or abutting stone, at the crowns, the haunches, and the abutments. Between the iron Arch and the Tie, the space is occupied by a door, with marble jambs and brickwork on either side of the door. There are two of these arched Ties, one on the north and one on the south side of the room ; consequently the weight of the floor, together with the weights of the wooden partitions, and' the probable weight when the room is full of company, would amount to about forty-seven tons on each side. 329.-'. G § The 234 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE The four Suspension Bars are capable of sustaining, by calculation, about 200 tons, or 400 tons for the eight Suspension Bars, which (could the castings and workman¬ ship be depended upon) would give an ample surplus of strength, independent of the strength of the Ties themselves. But, as the sections of the Tie-bar are greatly dimi¬ nished by the bolt-holes through them, I should have great hesitation in loading them to one-third of the above weight. Supposing, therefore, the cast-iron Arches to remain inflexible, and the Suspension Bars and Bolts to be of equal strength, it is difficult to say what weight would cause the floor to give way. The w eight resting on both of the Arches, consists of one-half of the Dome, toge¬ ther with the cast and wrought iron, brick, timber and plaster-work, and amounts, as nearly as can be estimated, to 272 tons, or 136 tons upon each arch, or 68 tons upon each bearing or point of support, or 34 tons per square foot; and, as one-half of each of the brick Arches abuts against the west wall of the Picture Gallery, any movement of these Arches would force in that wall. It is, however, proper to observe, that scarcely any change or sinking is perceptible; the Arches seem solid and good throughout. GRAND STAIRCASE. The iron work that supports the Marble Flight of Stairs seems abundantly strong. ATTIC FLOOR. The Dome is framed with eighteen ribs of cast iron, bolted to as many uprights, and united together at the apex by a hoop or key of the same metal; the interme¬ diate spaces are framed in with timber; the exterior is covered with lead, and the whole by a layer of Bath stone, of the average thickness of four inches; the interior is plastered. The weight of the Dome is supported, one-half by the circular walls of the central part of the building, and the other half by four cast-iron arched Girders, resting on the cross walls, which latter rest on the trussed or arched Girders that form the par¬ titions of the principal Bow Drawing Rooms below, as before described, the whole forming a very complicated system of construction. The plaster work of the domed Ceiling of the Bow Drawing Room is supported by a system of truss carpentry work, very indifferently executed. ROOF OF THE PORTICO. The ceiling of the Roof consists of a series of iron Girders, of different dimen¬ sions from those of the platform immediately below; but having nothing but their own weight, and the weight of the intermediate arches and plaster-work of the ceiling to carry, requires no further notice. The trussed carpentry work of the Pediment of the Portico is well executed. THE SALOON. Ft. In. The dimensions of the Room are - - - 47 2 long, 36 3^ wide. The area - - 1,709 9 square feet. The Girders rest on the side walls, and have flanches on the top and bottom edges, and their sectional areas are as under: Tons. Cwts. The probable weight they will have to sustain, when loadedl o o all over, will be - - - - - - -J lj212 Or to each girder - - - 1611 Leaving adequate surplus strength. Two of these Girders were broken in raising them up, for which two other of the same dimensions as those used in the adjoining room were substituted. THRONE ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 2 35 THRONE ROOM. The dimensions of this Room are With a square recess of Making the total are - Ft. In. , 61 4 long. 36 2 wide. 5 7 additional width. 2,313 6 square feet. The Girders rest on the side and cross walls below, and have ample strength. The probable weight of this floor, when loaded, will be - Or to each Girder - i PORTICO PLATFORM. The dimensions of the Platform are - Area, in square feet The dimensions of the Girders are. The total weight when loaded, would be - Or to each Girder Tons. Cwt. 169 14 >3 9 Ft. 52 long, 34 wide. 1,768 Tons. Cwts. 141 - 11 15 ! I Levelled these Girders, and found them depressed from a straight line of one quarter of an inch to three quarters of an inch ; but whether this depression was caused by the casting, or by loading them with weights in the first instance, is uncertain. PICTURE GALLERY. Ft. In. The dimensions of this Room are - - - 136 2 long, 27 8 wide. r The area - - 3,778 square feet. The Girders rest on the side walls, and their sectional areas are the same as those of the adjoining rooms, but have shorter bearings. Tons. Cwts. The probable weight they may have to sustain is - -278 - Or to each Girder - - - 10 14 MUSIC ROOM. Ft. In. The dimensions of this,. Room are - - - 59 lof long. 36 9 £ wide. Making the total area - - 2,198 square feet. The Girders rest on the side walls, and their sections are the same as those of the room below. The probable weight of the floors when loaded, will be Tons-. - l6l Cwts. 18 Or to each Girder l6 3 THE LARGE ARMORY. The dimensions of the Rooms are Ft. - 88 In. 7 long. 17 7 wide. The area - i ,577 11 The Girders rest on the side walls. The actual strength of the Girder is unknown, and it is impossible to say what weight they may have to sustain. THE .236 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE V tons on each square inch; my data give me nine tons for the strength of the Tie-bars, or four tons per square inch ; there may possibly come no harm to them, but I cannot be satisfied with any thing above my data. The iron Arch that spans over the Proscenium of the Throne Room is 37 feet span, and has a rise of seven feet. I consider the cast-iron Arch too weak, but it is not worth while to dwell upon this when we have such fearful odds of another description. I have calculated the weight of all the materials, and I find there are upon this Arch 94 tons ; the two tie rods which hold it together are only three inches by three- quarters; but the middle of them is perforated with a hole one inch in diameter; this brings them down to two inches by three-quarters each, or both together equal only to a section of three square inches. The tension of the tie-rods is 62 tons, and the greatest weight which I consider they ought to have upon them is only i 2 tons; that is, they are overloaded in the proportion of nearly five to one, or, if you take it another way, you will find they have a load of 204 tons on every square inch of iron. If this is not courting dan¬ ger, I know not what is. The only assistance the Arch has, is in having a good abutment at the west end, where it comes against the cross wall at the end of the Picture Gallery; but, like almost all the Arches we have had to do with in this Palace, it has no corresponding one at the other end. There is, however, a trifling abutment for the east end of about six feet and half wide against the lower wall of the Tower; but that this is insufficient, wants no demonstration, as is evident from the settlement of the Arch not only having made the crack which I pointed out to Mr. Cox, and can only be seen inside, but also in having by such settlement dislocated the stone-work ol the Tower above it. The support which this eastern abutment gives it is quite inade¬ quate to its necessities ; and as I look upon the Tow r er to hang by a wire, I shall not approach it in future w ithout some dread. I consider the whole in a very dan¬ gerous condition. You, of course, will form your own opinions, but I think the sooner something is done to secure it the better. There are some more Arches of this description in the building, one over the south end of the south Drawing Room, of which Mr. Nixon has given me a Drawing ; another, of which I have no Drawing, goes across the end of the Picture Gallery. As I cannot get down to give them that minute examination which I consider necessary, I must decline giving a decisive opinion. I had a Plan made of the roofs, with an intention of having all the Beams laid down upon it; but when we came to fix their situations, I found it was all guess work, for I could only see those over the Saloon, under the wood roof, and as they have onlv the ceiling to carry, they are strong enough ; and to enter upon calcula¬ tions to determine the strength of those Beams in the flats, when I have neither seen 329. I i 3 them 254 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE them, nor know the distance they are from each other, would be only groping my way in the dark ; and as there are a great variety of Beams and Bearers throughout this Building, that, were I to make calculations and enumerate them all, would swell this Report (already too long) out to a very inconvenient length. I have thought it best to confine myself to the most important points, but shall be happy to point out to you on the Plan those which appear to me doubtful, and then to give you such further assistance as you may require of me. I shall now enter upon the quality of the Castings. I observe the long Bearers in the Bow Room, and the rooms on each side of it, as well as all those for the Music Room, Dining Room, two in the Saloon Room, those in the Presence Room, and all those of large dimensions and great depth, have been cast with the flanch uppermost, and evidently out of the blast furnace, and moulded in the common pig bed. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that, provided the iron is good, as strong and perfect a casting may be made by running the iron out of the blast furnace into the mould, as if the iron had been re-melted in an air furnace; but the mis¬ fortune is, that you cannot always depend upon the iron from the blast furnace ; the mould is prepared, and when the furnace is ready the iron goes into it, be it what may, whereas if the iron is re-melted in an air furnace, you can select just that quality of iron you want. These Bearers have, as I have just observed, been cast with their flanch upper¬ most, and as the body of the iron down in the mould has cooled, it has drawn the iron out of the flanch and left it quite hollow, and in a many cases the flanch is half cut through by the drawing of the metal; this is a very serious defect, as the flanch forms a very great portion of the strength of the Beam. All Beams such as these ought to be moulded and cast sideways, and then more perfect castings might be made, and the flanches would be more perfect. Several of those Beams ought not to have been sent off from the works on account of the defects about them. What imperfections there may be in those which are ceiled over, I do not pretend to know; but I have much pleasure in saying that all the small castings appear to be in general sound and good. With regard to a further proof of the castings, I do not know how it can be ac¬ complished, without you do it by covering the floors all over with bricks to such a thickness as may be necessary to put the requisite proof upon the Beams, and by erecting a scaffold or framing at a few inches from the under side of the ceiling, to take the weight should the floor give way. Bricks are a sort of thing that could be easily handed, and expeditiously put upon the floors, and you could put them on leisurely, and by so doing judge how far it would be prudent to proceed ; but I beg leave to say no consideration whatever should induce me to be of the party to prove the Bow Room on the principal story. As to all the smaller Beams, which, generally speaking, appear to me to be sound and good castings, under present circumstances I should trust them without such proof, in all cases where they come out strong enough by calculation, seeing that there is no possibility of proving them all through the building; and if I could get a view of the large ones, and they appeared sound, I should be disposed to take them as such, if, as I have said, from calculation they came out strong enough, for you will 1 think not be able to prove them all. There is, however, another object of no mean importance for your consideration before you proceed upon this proof, (which I have not entered upon, as not coming within your instructions to me), and that is, how far the walls of the Building are of sufficient strength to carry the weight that must come upon them. I have been thus particular in describing all the details of the experiments, and giving the necessary data for determining the strength of cast-iron, and to show that when it is made of the proper degree of strength, that no material can be safer. As I find a great prejudice has arisen against the use of it from several lament¬ able failures, where it has been put to carry weights, that no man who had a proper knowledge of the material would have put it to bear. A more valuable auxiliary both to the architect and engineer was never conferred upon them, and I do not see that cast-iron should be condemned because an ignorant person had made it too weak, any more than a piece of timber should under a similar failure. I now subjoin the Tables of the strength of the Beams; and if you should require it, I will add all the other material ones in the Building on my return to town. I have not examined the Chapel, nor any of the castings in the Wings, further than the line of the East Front. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 291 2 55 Observations: (') This Bearer is strong enough. (*) Ditto - - ditto. . . ( 3 ) This Bearer is not quite strong enough for its full length, but there is a wall that supports it at 7 ft. from the one end. p) Quite strong enough. (*) Ditto - - ditto. («) This Bearer is not strong enough for its full length, but it is supported by a cross wall at one third ot its length. ( T ) Strong enough. P) This Bearer is a trifle below the strength it ought to be. p) It is not a little remarkable, that the Bearers for these apartments should have been made of so much smaller scantling than those for the South Wing, where the rooms on the Ground Floor have the assistance of a Passage Wall to support the Bearers. As it is, these are too weak. 1 i 4 256 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE TABLE of the Strength of Beams for Principal Floor. No. refers to the Beam. DESCRIPTION and SITUATION. 1. Bearers for the Portico,! East Front - -J 2 . Bearers for the Saloon! Room, each side -J 3 . Bearers for the centre part! of the Saloon Room -J A One of these Beams in the! Anti Room, the other in the Presence - -J Same. The last Beam, sup-l posing it to receive a | sufficient support from Arch below 5 . Iron Arch, to support the above Beams Plan. Same. Same 6. Beams for the Presence! Room, or before the 2 Throne -1 7 . Beams for the Throne! Room over Library -J Length of the Bearing between the Walls. Ft. In. 32 9 SECTION OF THE BEAM in the Middle of its Length. 38 - 38 - 37 “ 22 - 8 6 8 6 37 - 18 - up L 3 P . 18 . -- 16 . 5 ------— 1 \\\ 1 _ 16 . 5 - Same Beam - 26 _ F.y T I - ■<_ 61 -_J -J- . 1 : 6 - 5 - ‘f- 2-4 Same _ .26 625 . _ _ 21-at-tlie-ends . 25 . m. 1625 . 16 . | _^ I . 125 . §Li 15 “ Greatest Weight it ever ought to be loaded with. Tons. cwts. qrs. lbs. 7 2 7 3 3 11 - 2 2 5 2 5 2 5 - 2 9 6 13 2 11 11 12 2 12 3 2 7 3 9 2 6 3 16 2 4 2 9 2 2 9 8 2 3 1 9 Weight that raa^i come upon it, including the Weight of the Floor. Tons. cwls. qrs. U>s 12 12 2 l6( l8 13 - 24 (1 18 13 - 24 ( l6 10 1 12( 9 l6 1 20( 6 11 2 22 ( 6 11 2 22 ( 17 C 3 1 4 ( 7 4 2 20( Observations : () These are a great deal too weak, and ought not to be trusted. In calculating the strength of these Bearers, I was so much struck with their want of strength, that I could not but imagine that we had made some mistake in taking down the dimensions: 1 instantly went up to the Palace, and found the dimensions we had taken were correct. On this, I got a line, and having re¬ moved the Stanhope covering from the top of one of them, at the middle and ends, I found the deflection from a straight line on t le middle was rVo 0 f an inch. I have since tried four others, and found them to be VVo> i 5 o 3 o» and one so little as ts °* an inc . Now I have no doubt whatever that these Beams were originally round on the top edge, as, from their figure, they W °rv t q^ atU,i vj ‘ Jecome so on cooling, and that therefore the weight at present on them has caused a considerable deflection. i/ eSe j: eams are not quite 2/3 of the strength they ought to be, and must not be trusted. /« T - 1GSe * j are no . t 80 strong as they ought to be. I would rather not trust them. ( ) uave calculated this Beam the full length, from wall to wall, as I place little dependence on the Iron Arches that arc put to help it; and it ought not to be trusted. () If the Arches meant to support this Beam could be depended upon, it would be strong enough; but I think theyare not. ( ) In ca culating the strength of this Arch, I have given it all the advantage I think it could derive from friction upon its flat im- posts . it can mve no advantage from Abutments, as it rests nearly on the top of two flat Walls. They ought not to be trusted. v ) 2 iay u iere calculated this Arch as a simple Bearer, and I incline to think it will be found to be only such: in this way, it would be three times too weak, and ought not to be trusted. () Ihese Beams aie not so strong as they ought to be, for I would have none so far under the standard strength; and they ought not to be trusted. ® Quite strong enough. ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 293 257 Table of the Strength of Beams in the principal Floor— continued. Observations : (') It is an exceeding difficult matter to calculate what the real strength of this Bearer is ; hut I have calculated two ways, and I find it comes nearly the same by either; and I expect I have rather underrated than overrated it:_but my decided opinion is, that it ought not to be trusted. (*) These have a superabundance of strength, and although they have only a Plaster Ceiling to carry, they are the same strength as those which carry Brick Arches. ( s ) Quite strong enough. ( 4 ) If the Truss had proved a true auxiliary, it would have been quite strong enough. ( s ) But the Truss giving it no assistance, it would have to carry this weight, and would be too weak. ( 6 ) Too weak, must not be trusted. ( 7 ) Quite strong enough. ( 8 ) These Beams are too weak; and, for reasons I have already given, they ought not to be trusted. ( J ) & ( ,0 ) Quite strong enough. (") Too weak, and must not be trusted. 329. K k 258 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Perhaps it may be thought I have gone too much into detail in this Report. But when it is considered what great sums of money have been expended upon this Palace, and how much the public attention has been drawn to it, I did not think I should have been doing justice to those concerned in the erection of it, or to myself, if I had merely gone over it, and pronounced a loose opinion from a super¬ ficial survey of it. I have, on the contrary, examined every thing myself that could possibly be got at; for, there is no doing these things by proxy; and, having made the most laborious and voluminous calculations thereon, I am prepared to maintain the opinions I have here given, to their utmost extent. I am, Gentlemen, London, Your obedient Servant, June 17, 1831. JohnU. Rastrick. No. 8. _REPORT on the Cast Iron Work used in the erection of Buckingham Palace. —By Joseph Bramah 8 $ Sons. IN conformity with the Instructions received from H. H. Seward, Esq. on the 27th ultimo, we have carefully investigated the Cast Iron Work connected with the Palace, as far as regards the centre Building; and we beg to submit the annexed Schedule of the Values of the several Girders, expressed in terms of the load to which they may be safely subjected without impairing their elasticity. In this investigation, the Castings are considered as perfect; and by the amount of load they are capable of sustaining above that required, the-probable security against failure from any supposed defects, may be deduced. Col. 1, in the Schedule, shows the dimensions of that part of every Floor which is carried by each Girder. Col. 2, shows the load in pounds for a superficial foot that each Girder is capable of supporting, including the Floor. Col. 3, shows the load in pounds to a superficial foot, each Girder is capable of supporting, exclusive of the Floor. Col. 4, shows the surplus load per foot superficial, in pounds, that each Girder is capable of supporting beyond the greatest load to which it can be sub¬ jected by a crowded assembly. Col. 5, shows the comparative ratio between the greatest load that each Girder will sustain, exclusive of its Floor, and that to which it can be subjected. The following Example will explain the construction of the Columns, 2, 3, 4, 5 ; The greatest load per foot superficial, as per Col. 2, is - 1,524 Deduct the weight of a superficial foot of Floor - - 132 Leaves the greatest load, per superficial foot, as per Col. 3 - 1,392 Deduct the greatest load of persons, per superficial foot, l in a crowded assembly, as agreed by Messrs. Rennie, > 100 Rastrick, &c. ------- -J Leaves the surplus load superficial, as per Col. 4 - - 1,292 As 100 : 1,392 : : 1 : 1 = 13*92 times the strength required, as per Col. 5. With respect to the quality of the Castings, we have much pain in remarking on the very little care with which the workmanship has been executed, as well as the exceedingly improper mode in which the major part of them appear to have been moulded and cast. The soundness of castings is not always affected by their external character: in this instance, in those Girders which have their flanges very defective from the imprudent mode of casting them, have in other parts, from the same cause, a larger quantity of metal than they ought to have, which more than compensates for these contingencies. And further in proof of this opinion, one of the most defective Girders, namely, that in the Bow Drawing Room, over the Servants' Hall, has been proved ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 259 295 proved to an extent much beyond that to which it can ever be subjected when the Building is under occupation; and which proof is annexed to the Schedule. The mode adopted for supporting the Bow Drawing Room Floor, and transferring the weight of the Walls, Cieling, and part of the Dome, to the Piers and main Walls, by Cast Iron Trusses or Arches, is not, from its defective construction, the most eligible that could have been selected; but, from the great excess of material which has been given, the security is unquestionably much greater than the case requires. The Trusses being capable of supporting at least five times the weight placed upon them, after a very liberal allowance is made for the omissions, provided the con¬ struction were perfect, we suggest, if it could be accomplished, the addition of Ties to each Truss, to prevent it from spreading laterally, which would render them fully equal to the strength we have assigned them, as we do not consider the footings at present sufficiently secured to give them an equal value with the other parts of the Trusses. A slight inspection of the Columns on the Bow Front is sufficient to determine their inefficiency for the load which they have to support; and more so, as they have been assisted by Bonds or Ties, which secure them to the Piers; the enlarged caps and bases, compared with the diameter of the columns, being, we consider, very dis¬ proportionate, and highly detrimental, as tending to bend the columns in the middle, by causing the line of direction of the load to fall much beyond their axes. Our former calculation on the Beams of the Saloon and Bow Drawing Room, from the additional information procured since the work has been laid open, will now be incorrect. The mode of proof which has been adopted for the two Girders suspended in the Drawing-Room, namely, that of actually loading them in the centres with weights, is unquestionably the most satisfactory that could be applied; but the tediousness as regards the proof of the whole of the Girders in the Palace, and the circum¬ stance of nearly all the Ceilings being finished, render it probably inapplicable. The most certain method which suggests itself, and also the most economical one, is the loading the floor with sand or other materials, either all over or in parts at a time, as might be found most convenient in practice, and erecting temporary supports under the Ceiling to prevent accidents in the event of any Girder giving way. The two Girders over the Servants’ Hall were proved with very nearly 16 tons weight suspended from the middle of their length, one deflecting ’89 of an inch, and the other *45 of an inch. The first Girder returned to its original position after the weight, which remained on it for twenty hours, had been removed ; and the second Girder returned to within a very trifling quantity of its original state, owing probably to its ends being confined by part of the building, and to which circum¬ stance, as well as to some little variation in the position of the index for ascertaining the quantity deflected, we refer the discrepancy between the two deflections. London, (signed) Joseph Bramah 8 $ Sons. June 7, 1831. SCHEDULE. DESIGNATION OF ROOMS. 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . Ground Floor. Ft. in. Ft. in. lbs. lbs. lbs. North Drawing Room l 8 10 X 5 4 L 524 i, 39 2 1,292 13-92 South - ditto - 18 10 X 5 3 1.257 1,125 1,025 11.25 Ditto - ditto - 18 0 X 5 0 471 391 291 3.91 Bow Drawing Room - 35 0 X 4 10 \ 507 375 275 3-75 State - ditto - 2 9 6 X 5 5 k 615 483 383 4-83 Sculpture Gallery over Cellarman’s'l Room - - - -J 11 8 X 5 7 1443 996 896 9 - 9 g Sculpture Gallery over Bottle Room H 9 X 3 11 49 ° 333 233 3-33 Plate Room - 19 4 X 5 4 435 355 2 55 3-55 Bed Room - - - 18 0 X 5 of 531 451 15 1 4-51 3 ?Q. K k 2 ( continued.) 26o appendix to second report erom select committee SCHEDULE— continued. DESIGNATION OF ROOMS. 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5 . First Floor : Ft. In. Ft. In. lbs. lbs. lbs. North Drawing Room 32 8 X 5 10 \ 564 426 326 4.26 South - ditto - 32 8 X 4 10 i 064 426 326 4.26 Bow - ditto - 35 0 X 4 io£ 488 411 3 H 4.11 Saloon ----- 38 0 X 5 3 387 261 l6l 2.61 Ditto ----- 38 0 X 5 3 449 323 223 3-23 Throne Room - 37 0 X 5 4 402 264 164 2.64 Music Room - 37 5 X 5 5 s 408 278 178 2.78 Portico ----- 32 6 X 4 1 341 188 88 1.88 Room in Dome - 34 0 X 3 u| 637 593 493 5-93 N. B _The Designation of the above Rooms was given by the Foreman of Carpenters, now at the Palace. EXPERIMENT on two Girders in Bow Drawing Room, Ground Floor. Length of Girder, 35 feet. Weight suspended from the middle of their length, 16 tons, equivalent to 32 tons distributed all over. Deflection of the first Girder - *89 Inches. Ditto - of the second ----- -65 — (Enclosure in No. 8.) LETTER from Joseph Bramah 8 $ Sons to H. H. Seward , Esq. &c. &c. &c. SIR Pimlico, 10 June 1831. In reply to your Note on the subject of our Report on the Iron Work we have examined at Buckingham Palace, we beg to observe, that we do not think the Cast Iron Arches which support the sides of the Bow Drawing Room, &c. quite satisfactory; for, as far as we can learn (the ends being at present covered) they are secured to the horizontal Girder, or string on which they stand, with bolts and nuts, without any abutments cast on the string to prevent the arches from extending laterally. With this view of them, we consider the Wrought-Iron Ties essentially necessary, and submit the accompanying Sketch, agreeably to your request, as the simplest we can devise. In all Castings which have been made under our own superintendence, of a similar nature to those now under consideration, we have always been satisfied as to the security of them, in allowing double the quantity of material appearing necessary by calculation to support the load, the excess being to counterbalance the defects, which may ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 261 may take place under the greatest care, and not be discernible on the surface ; and we have never, on breaking up such Castings, found any imperfections but what the allowance has fully compensated. From the Calculations we have submitted to you, made from the examination of the Girders in the different apartments, we should consider that ail such as in the Schedule accompanying our Report, do not reach to three times the strength required, should be proved : the remainder, exceeding this strength, may not require it (although the Castings have been very improperly manufactured,) for the reason before given, namely, that their defects are compensated by an excess of metal in other parts. The 5th column in the Schedule shows the number of times which the strength required for each Girder to carry its load, is contained in the actual strength. The Girder over the Portico, to which you refer, is 1*88 times the strength wanted : being therefore only -88 times stronger than required, the total deflection when loaded with the full load it would bear, would be about 1.76 inches, and the total load beyond which we calculate it should not be subjected, amounts to 20 \ tons, equally distributed. The weight of the proposed Marble Flooring, with the Ceiling underneath, carried by these Girders, is estimated at 156 lbs. per square foot; and allowing for the Marble, and the Plastering for the Ceiling remaining to be finished, 36 lbs., the present weight borne by the Girders is 120 lbs.; the deflection for which ought to be about *5 of an inch. We are given to understand, from the Foreman of the Carpenters, that these Girders, before fixing, were loaded to such a degree as to deflect them about two inches, but the precise weight cannot be ascertained. We are also informed that one or more of them did not quite recover their original form; therefore the ne¬ cessity of subjecting them to a proof is the more apparent. We are, Sir, Your most obedient Servants, Joseph Bramah 8 $ Sons. Appendix, No. 9. To the Chairman of the Select Committee on Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. SIR, Regent-street, 14th July 1831. HAVING been furnished with a copy of the Minutes of Evidence given by the different Witnesses examined before the Honourable Committee for Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, I should, ere this, have taken the liberty to submit some observations on that Evidence, but understanding that a Report upon the Works of Buckingham Palace was daily expected, I had intended (in order to save the time of the Committee) to await that Report before I offered the following Observations: The Report not having been made, and it being, as I learn, very doubtful when it will be presented, I venture to submit some comments upon the Evidence, reserving to myself the opportunity, when the inquiry shall come to a close (and which I cannot doubt the Committee will permit), to observe upon the whole matter as it shall then appear. From the questions which have been asked, it would seem there is some sus¬ picion of corrupt agreement with the Tradesmen to allow a per centage to the Architect; but as the truth of such a charge is explicitly denied bv the Surveyor- General as applicable to me, even from hearsay, and is also distinctly denied by every Tradesman examined, I trust I may assume that every such suspicion is entirely got rid of, and that I have really now nothing to answer on that head. So far as I can collect the other imputations, from the tendency of the examina¬ tion, it would seem that they are founded on the Statement in the Surveyor- General’s Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury of the 26 January 1826. That Statement alleged, Improvident Contracts. Loose and verbal Contracts. Employment of Tradesmen of insufficient Capital; and Supplying the Tradesmen with a portion of the Materials used in the Building. 329. K k 3 It 298 262 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Page 200, (B.) App. No. 3. Page 130. Evidence. Page 201, (B.) App. No. 3. Mr. Freeman’s Evidence, p. 36. It might perhaps be a sufficient justification, that these charges were minutely investigated by the Treasury at the moment they were made ; that my explanations were partly given in writing, and verbally, in repeated interviews with the then Secretaries of the Treasury, who were fully satisfied with those explanations ; but I am anxious to show to the Committee that every due care was taken that the Work, in ail its details, should be executed on the most favourable terms for the Public, and that any excess of expenditure above the Estimates has arisen from alterations in, and additions to, the original Designs upon which those Estimates were framed, and not from any improvident Contracts or improper charges. I now propose to consider the Statement in detail under its various heads: and first, with regard to Improvident Contracts. The Surveyor-General enclosed in his Letter of January 1826 a Statement, comparing Contracts entered into by me with those of other Architects for other Public Buildings. It must be evident, I conceive, that no just criterion could be established by such a comparison, unless the circumstances of the two cases so compared were precisely analogous. The very statement itself exhibits a striking difference between the prices of the same description of work in the various Buildings therein mentioned; a difference which must inevitably arise, unless the Contracts are all entered into at the same time and under circumstances precisely similar in every respect. I am unable to go into an investigation of this Statement, or to show the total dissimilarity of times and circumstances connected with the Buildings, because I am not furnished with materials for that purpose; but Mr. Moser, in his Evidence, has distinctly shown the variation in regard to the Iron Founders’ work ; for, on being asked by an Honourable Member of the Com¬ mittee “ Whether he was aware at what price iron was furnished to the New Post Office?” (being one of the Buildings mentioned in the Surveyor-General’s state¬ ment) he answered, “ That was a long time after our Contract, and iron had “ reduced then very considerably.” In like manner (could the detail be gone into) it would unquestionably be found that the prices of all the other descriptions of work had similarly varied in a similar space of time. My Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury shows the principle on which I en¬ tered into the Contracts. Knowing that the prices fixed by the Office of Works allowed a profit of 15 per cent, to the tradesmen, I considered that I was making Contracts highly advantageous to the Public when I reduced that allowance by no less a sum than 10 per cent.; thus allowing the tradesmen a profit of only Jive per cent, upon the articles supplied. I may also be permitted to observe, that this deduction was not confined to a few articles only , invidiously selected for comparison, but to every article included in the Price-list of the Office of Works. Contract for Brick Work. The mode I pursued with the bricklayers was, to send to Mr. Whitehead, because be was a principal tradesman employed by the Office of Works ; to Mr. Palmer, because he was a bricklayer of equal eminence, but residing in the City, and not employed by the Office of Works, nor ever previously employed by me; and to Mr. Read, because he was recommended as a trust-worthy person, and likely, with the hope of future employment, to do the work at a reasonable rate. I am not aware that I could pursue any plan more likely to excite competition amongst the Trade. It is true (but I learn it for the first time from the Evidence) that all the parties had agreed to offer at a similar price. Had I been aware of that combination, their proposals would not have been accepted, although 1 then thought, and still think, that the price allowed was perfectly reasonable. Contract for Stone was with Mr. Freeman, and as follows: Having examined the stocks of Bath Stone on the several Wharfs in London, and communicated with the different Importers, and obtained their prices, I found' that there was not in London a sufficient quantity for the Palace, but that Mr. Free¬ man had by much the largest quantity, and possessed the most extensive means of procuring more. Without therefore letting him know either the quantity I required or lor whom, or for what purpose, I negotiated with him, and fixed the price for a given ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 263 299 given quantity. After doing so, I informed him that it was for Government, and to be used in building the Palace. The engagement in page 36 of the Evidence was immediately entered into, by which it will be seen that I bought stone for 2 s. 7 \d. and 2 s. 9 \d. per foot; and as the stone must necessarily be delivered to the several workmen who were to use it, I became guarantee for the payment. The Contract which I made with the different masons was, that they were to perform the labour , and that it was to be measured by the Office of Works, and priced at the Office prices, from which they were to deduct ten per cent. When the first Quarter’s Accounts were made out, (which Accounts I had nothing to do with, they being entirely prepared by the Office of Works,) a difficulty arose as to the manner in which Mr. Freeman was to be paid for the stone delivered to the several Artificers. Of what passed between Mr. Freeman and the Surveyor General, I know nothing; nor do I know any more than was communicated to me by the Surveyor General’s Letter, January 6th, 1826, in which he stated, that it had been arranged that Mr. Freeman should give up my guarantee, and that he was to be paid by the several workmen who had received the Stone. By this arrangement, it will be seen that the several workmen themselves actually became purchasers of the stone, and not the Government , and that they subsequently charged the Govern¬ ment for the stone as well as the labour of working it. At this period, the price allowed for stone by the Board of Works was 35. 11 d. per foot; but if the Government had continued, as I had arranged that it should be, the purchaser of the stone, the Government would have paid only 2 s. 7 \d. per foot, at which price I had contracted for it. The quantity of stone delivered by Mr. Free¬ man, w r as 144,271 feet, which, at the price so agreed for by me, would have amounted to 20,008/. 12 s. 9! d., whereas the price actually paid for the same stone by the Office of Works to the different workmen, was 26,104/. io^. 7 d. making a difference of 6 , 0951 . 17 s. 8 d. the whole of which would ham been saved , if the arrangement I had made had been persisted in. This calculation of difference of expenditure has been made only on the stone which w ? as supplied by Mr. Freeman, and not on the great quantities of that mate¬ rial used at the Palace, which was supplied by various other tradesmen, to an extent which I have no means of ascertaining. The Surveyor General, in his Evidence, refers to the stone-merchant, Mr. Free¬ man, for the particulars; but adds, “ That my agreement with Mr. Freeman, “ dated 6th June 1825, was annulled by a subsequent arrangement with the “ masons, dated the 26th of the same month of June.” This, I may be permitted to say, is an entire misconception on his part, as I shall hereafter show; my agreement with the masons being for work only , and not for the material. Contract for Iron. In order to obtain iron-wmrk on the most advantageous terms, I sent Specifica¬ tions to various Iron-founders. The tender of Messrs. Crawshay 8c Co. was the lowest, and was therefore accepted. My stipulation w>as, that the iron should be of the best quality, free from flaws and all other defects, and to be cleaned off in the best manner. From the Evidence adduced before the Committee, it appears, that the price of iron fell considerably in a very short period after this Contract was made ; it was impossible for me to foresee this fall. Whatever may have been the profit of the Contractor, (which, from his Evidence, appears in a great measure to have arisen from his command of capital and other peculiar facilities in the trade,) I cannot be amenable for it, provided I endeavoured to obtain competition in the first instance, and eventually took the lowest tender. It is proved by the Evidence of the other witnesses examined by the Committee, that their tenders were all of them higher than Mr. Crawshay’s ; that of Mr. Fowler was 18 /. 105. per ton ; that of Mr. Bra¬ mah 22 /. per ton; whereas the Contract with Messrs. Crawshay was 17 /. per ton. Indeed Mr. Bramah states, that for Windsor Castle he himself charged 22 /. per ton in 1825; 21/. per ton in 1826; and that the lowest he ever charged was 19/. 10 s., being 2/. to s. more than the sum at wdiich Mr. Crawshay tendered for Buckingham Palace. Having entered into the Contract, I could not do otherwise than adhere to its terms; but the Committee will observe, that I took the earliest opportunity of availing myself of the fall in price which subsequently occurred, and of making a 320. K k 4 fresh Correspondence, App. No. 4, p. qoi. Evidence, p. 31. Evidence, p. 132. p. 136. P- 138. 300 264 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. Moser’s Evidence, p. 130. Lvidence, p. 48. P- 49 - Evidence, P- 54 - Evidence, p. 70. Evidence, P- 53 - fresh Contract. Messrs. Crawshav contended that the original engagement wa binding for all the castings of the Palace, and protested against any new Contrac being entered into; yet, as I refused to give any further order to them, they con ceded the point, and made the further supply of iron on the reduced terms. Loose and Verbal Contracts. In some few instances the Contracts were verbal, in others, by letter; but the Committee will allow me to remind them, that any verbal Contracts into which I might have entered, could only continue verbal for one quarter. At the end of the current quarter the works were measured by the Office of Works, priced, and the deductions made according to the terms arranged. In no instance has any difficulty arisen ; and if loss could arise to any one, it must have been to the trades¬ men, and not to the Public, since the Office of Works allowed only such prices as in the discretion of the Officers of that Department were deemed just and proper. Mr. Palmer replies to an inquiry, “ Do you know what price you charged?—I do “ not know; the Board of Works put what prices they pleased upon them.” “ I do not believe that Mr. Nash ever asked me a question upon the point of “ charging any one article at the Palace; the prices were put by the Board of “ Works, and whatever price they put in one quarter, I monied out the same “ prices the next quarter, and they altered it to what they pleased.” “ Do you mean to say the Board of Works had the power of arbitrarily put- “ ting any price they pleased for the work you did ?—They did so.” Mr. Whitehead in his Evidence states, “ The Board of W^orks could annul his “ Contract with Mr. Nash, and did so; they carried Mr. Nash’s Contract into “ effect, so far regards the measured work, but they deviated from my letter as to “ the day work.” Mr. Wood, the stone-mason, who made his Contract at ten per cent, under fhe Board of Works’ prices, states, “The Contract was made beneficial towards the “ Public, it was a hard bargain, attended with considerable expense ; I should not “ accept a similar Contract again.” Employment of Tradesmen of Insufficient Capital. It is difficult to understand this charge. Twenty-tw'o of the Tradesmen were those usually employed by the Office of Works ; and among them were those persons who had the chief and most important branches to execute. The others were of the highest class of Tradesmen ; selected because their prices, on compe¬ tition proved to be the lowest. That they were substantial Tradesmen is evident, for (with one exception only) no one failed in the due performance of his Contract; and the failure in question was by an established Tradesman of the Office of Works, whose Journeyman adopted and duly completed the Contract. Supplying some of the Tradesmen with a portion of the Materials used in the Building. This was made a matter of “ Objection,” by the Surveyor-General, in his Letter of January 1826. It was at that time fully explained by me to the Secretaries of the Treasury, and was not further pressed either by the Treasury, or by the Surveyor-General. I received no directions to alter my conduct in this particular, and I had a right to presume it was not the subject of disapprobation. The practice was not dis¬ guised. In my private practice, it has frequently occurred, and has never been complained of; and I know' not therefore why I should expect it to be a matter of question now. It may be said, it is capable of abuse ; I defy any one to show it has led to any in my case ; and the Evidence has not the slightest tendency to show a corrupt intention on my part, or that I could be aware of any such inten¬ tion in others : on the contrary, it negatives every such idea. But few tradesmen purchased materials from me, and those purchases were made from peculiar cir¬ cumstances, as will appear from the following Analysis of the Evidence. Mr. Whitehead states, that “ Bricks being scarce in 1825, and he, though a “ brickmaker, not having a sufficient supply at that moment, bought a small por- “ They possess 1.88 times the strength required:” Mr. Rastrick says, “These are a great deal too weak, and ought not to be trusted.” He most minutely calculates the weight that may come upon them to be 12 tons, 12 cwt. 2 qrs. and 16 lbs. Each of these Girders I have had proved with a weight equal to 20 tons. 320. Mm 3: The 314 •27B APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE^ The Iron Girders of the Saloon. Mr. Rennie says, “ These Girders have an adequate surplus strength .” He cal¬ culates the greatest weight to come upon them at 16 tons i1 cwt. Mr. Bramah says, “ These Girders are 2.61 times the strength required.” Mr. Rastrick says, “ These Beams are not quite the strength they ought to “ be, and must not be trusted.” He calculates the weight that may come upon them at 18 tons, 13 cwt. oqrs. 24lb.; Mr. Rennie, 16 tons 11 cwt. These Girders I had proved before fixing with a weight equal to 35 tons. Iron Girders of the Throne Room. Mr. Rennie says, “ These Girders have ample strength .” He calculates the greatest weight that will ever come upon them at 13 tons 9 cwt. Mr. Bramah says, “ These Girders have 2.64 times the strength required.” Mr. Rastrick says, “ These Beams are not so strong as they ought to beand calculates the weight that may come upon them at 17 tons, 6 cwt. 3 qrs. 14 lbs. These Girders I had proved before fixing with a weight equal to 30 tons. This list of contradictions might be continued through the whole Survey ; but it is needless to proceed further, as the above will, I trust, fully satisfy the Committee, that the strength of iron-work required by Mr. Rastrick is much greater than is usually adopted, and much greater than the experiments made by him on the Beams of the Ground Floor will warrant. Having now observed upon every part of the Reports of the Architects and the Engineers through whose eyes they say their judgment has been formed, I trust, that as the Committee will feel that as neither of those Reports states that there is any appearance of failure either in the walls or in the iron, but on the contrary bears testimony that no such appearances exist; and as the Reports speak of the soundness of the workmanship of the walls, there can be no foundation for impeach¬ ing the stability of the Building; that the opinions they have given are entirely pre¬ mature ; and that in the absence of existing facts, they ought to have reported a very different result. If, however, any doubt rest on the minds of the Committee, I invite them to ascertain the fact, which is required by their Seventh Question, by the means of Soldiers, in the manner I have before stated ; the efficacy of which must be obvious to the Committee, and must be the most satisfactory. I have the honour to be. Sir, Your most obedient Servant, John Nash. Appendix, No. 10. LETTER from Committee of Architects to Sir B. C. Stephenson , Surveyor General, &c. &c. &c. SIR, Buckingham Palace, July 28, 1831. WE have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Letter of the 19th instant, transmitting, by desire of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, for our consideration and report, a Copy of some additional Resolutions of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Buckingham Palace, referring to the Report which we addressed to you on the 15th instant, and in obedience to their Lordships’ directions, we beg leave to submit the following Statement: & With reference to the first Resolution of the Select Committee, desiring to know our opinion of the measures that can be best taken for giving security to those parts of the Building which we believe to be unsafe, and of the Expense to be incurred by such Repairs as are necessary to render the Palace a safe and fit private residence for the Sovereign, we should have felt great difficulty in giving an answer to the latter part of this Resolution, having been unable, as we stated in our former Report, to make a sufficient examination of the floors and several other parts of the construction of this Building ; but in consequence of a personal com¬ munication with which we have been honoured by the Chairman of the Committee, who has informed us that, in the present instance, their inquiries were directed only to 315 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 279 to the measures necessary for the security of those particular parts of the Building upon which we had been able to express a decided opinion, we have accordingly confined our attention to these points only. In order to give security to the wall of the Bow in the centre of the West Front, we are of opinion that it will be necessary to raise some very solid means of sup¬ port to that part of the wall which now rests upon the slender pillars of iron; we are of opinion also, that it is extremely desirable to lessen the weight upon this wall, and upon the iron-framed work which carries the side walls in connection with the Bow on the first floor; and for this purpose it is necessary that the Dome, the Circular Attic Wall under the Dome, and the Bearers of iron upon which they are built, should be wholly removed. We consider also that some additional security is required for the iron-framed work, and it probably cannot be applied in any manner less expensive or less incon¬ venient than by columns on each side placed immediately under the iron work, removing for that purpose the fire places on the Ground Floor to a short distance from their present situation. We recommend also, in order to lessen the weight upon the iron-framed work supporting the North-east and South-west Towers, that these Towers should be taken down to the level of the roof, a measure which would at the same time render it necessary to take down the corresponding Towers on each front. We are of opinion also, that the present floor over the Entrance Portico should be taken away, and replaced by another constructed in a secure manner. We think it probable that the expense of these Works would amount to the sum of between six and seven thousand pounds. With reference to the Second Resolution of the Select Committee, desiring to know whether we remain of opinion that it will be found necessary to remove the composition which forms the principal part of the covering of the Roof over the Palace, and what would be the expense of substituting for it a covering of a more durable and effectual nature ; we beg leave to say, that we should not have presumed to express our opinion upon so important a question, without very mature consider¬ ation, and for the reasons submitted in our former Report, we cannot entertain any doubt in regard to the imperfect nature of the composition, as a permanent security against the effects of the weather. We consider also that it w’ould be an important measure of relief to the walls, to lessen the extraordinary weight upon them, occasioned by the materials laid to form the surface and receive this composition, which, including the weight of the upper tier of brick arches between the beams, cannot be calculated at less than about 1,500 tons. The whole weight of a new Roof covered with copper would not exceed about 200 tons, nor would it exceed about 300 tons if covered with lead. We are of opinion that the expenses to be incurred by making a new Roof covered with copper, would amount to the sum of between thirteen and fourteen £.13 or 14,000. thousand pounds ; if covered with lead, its expense w'ould be from twelve to fourteen hundred pounds less. In offering the opinions which we have been required to give upon the pro¬ bable Expense of these and other Works connected with this Building, we request it may be clearly understood, that as they are the result of assumed calculations, we cannot venture to name the sums with confidence as to their accuracy; it will, we hope, be obvious that in questions of this nature, where we can see only in a very imperfect manner the actual condition of the Building, many circumstances may and probably will arise in the execution of repairs or alterations, which it is impos¬ sible to foresee at this time, and which might cause a considerable increase in the estimated Expense. We have, however, in each instance, submitted an opinion carefully considered, and formed according to the best judgment we were capable of forming under such disadvantageous circumstances. With respect to the Third Resolution of the Select Committee, requiring us to give a Statement of the manner of rendering the Offices in the Basement Floor more commodious, and sufficiently light and airy tor the reception of the Royal Establishment, we have stated in our Report ot the 15th instant, that the altera¬ tions required by the Lord Steward for the convenient accommodation of his Department on that Storey have not been sufficiently defined to enable us at present to submit any satisfactory opinion respecting them; but for the purpose of render¬ ing the Rooms more light and airy, we conceive that it will be necessary to form M m 4 a wide 316 28 o appendix to second report from select committee £ 2,500. a wide open Area between them and the Terrace, and this might be made at an expense of about two thousand five hundred pounds. Inconvenience would, however, unavoidably be occasioned by this alteration ; as the noise of the servants engaged in the rooms below, must be heard in the principal apartments above them, w'hich have their windows opening towards the Area ; and all these offices would be laid open to the view of every person walking on the Terrace. We have the honour, &c. &c. (signed) J e ff r y Wyat'oillc. John Soane. Rob‘ Smirke. Henry Hake Seward. Appendix, No. 11. LETTER from John U. Rastrick, Esquire, to Sir B. C. Stephenson , Surveyor General, &c. &c. &c. SIR, London, 30 July 1831. I have received your Letter of 21st July instant, requesting me to report upon the Resolutions that were therein inclosed, and of which the following is a Copy : “ Resolutions of the Select Committee of The House of Commons ‘ c on Buckingham Palace. “ 1. That Mr. Rastrick do consider and report upon the sufficient means of “ securing the Building under the Dome, and the Pavilion Towers towards the “ west front, including the Proscenium of the Throne Room, on the supposition “ that the present superstructures are to remain, and generally for remedying the “ several defects alluded to in his Report : “ 2. That he do make a similar Report, on the supposition that the Dome, and “ the Billiard Room under it, and the four Pavilion Towers and Rooms above the “ Roof should be removed : “ 3. That a similar Report be made upon the supposition, that in order to 11 preserve the form of the Facade a Copper Dome should be substituted for the “ Stone Dome.” Having taken some time to consider the subject, and having re-examined the Building, I now beg leave to report to you my opinion on the several points to which the above Resolutions refer, and shall endeavour to give such a general description as to render the same intelligible, as far as can be done without drawings, which would take up more time than is consistent with the present emergency. First, as to securing the Building under the Dome according to the 1st Resolution. I have examined the window jambs in the Basement Story afresh, and have had the ground removed to see how the foundations were constructed; and I observed that there were no inverted arches between the jambs, but that they were built upon a piece of Yorkshire landing, laid upon the common brickwork, which is brought up about one foot nine inches high from the ground that forms the foundation, hence the window jambs which carry the iron pillars that support the Bow Room walls and Dome have not that support they might and ought to have had if inverted arches had been turned between them; they have only their own width of base to depend upon, which, in my opinion, is a great deal too little for the weight they must support if the Dome is to remain. I should therefore propose that the walls of the Bow Rooms should be shored up, the cast-iron pillars taken out, inverted arches turned between the window jambs, and as there is not room to increase the size of the window jambs with¬ out darkening the room, which at present is very much in want of light, I would secure the jambs themselves in cast-iron cases, embracing the window jambs in the front and on the two sides, so as to reach up to the level of the Yorkshire landing that is laid upon the window jambs; these cases may be cast externally to represent square pillars, and must be secured in their places by -iron bolts, passed through the brick-work of the window jambs from side to side, but more particularly by strong iron bolts, reaching from the front of the jamb, all through the 28l 317 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. the solid work, to the front wall. The said Yorkshire landing I should take away, and in its place 1 would put a strong cast-iron plate, of sufficient strength to carry the greatest weight that could ever come upon it, without having any support u:.,der the middle of it; this would give an opportunity of taking away the small cast- iron pillars that stand in the centre between the window jambs, which are very much in the way; and upon a cast-iron plate, that should be laid across to break the joint over the centre of the window jambs, I would set up a cast-iron pillar, ten inches in diameter at the bottom and eight inches in diameter at the top, in the place of the slender cast-iron pillars I have proposed to take out: these cast- iron pillars may be made hollow to lighten them. If this is well and effectually done, the bow walls, and half the Dome which rests upon them, will be secured in their present form. Secondly, As to securing the other half of the Dome, and the Building underneath it: There are two ways of effecting this object; the first and most secure way would be to build up two walls in the Ground Floor, (leaving doorways in the centre) upon the walls in the Basement Story to support the cast-iron L. Bearers, which carry the rectangular part of the Principal Floor of the Bow Room above ; by this means, the Bow Room on the Ground Floor would be made exactly of the same size as the Bow Room above it on the Principal Floor, and bv taking down the walls which at present are on each side of the Bow Room, (and which only reach up to the floor above, but do not carry any part of it), the rooms on each side of it would be exactly of the same size as the rooms above, and two windows might be opened on the Ground Floor which at present are blocked up, as coming opposite to the cross walls. The second way w ould be by letting the walls remain the same as they are at present, and by putting up a Pilaster against the wall, under each end of the cast- iron L. Bearer mentioned above, and then to set up either a single column, or a coupled column, on each side of the centre (upon the cross wall in the Basement Story, leaving sufficient opening between them to correspond with the Door-ways in the cross walls), these columns would take away the weight of the rectangular part of the floor, and of course relieve both the L. Bearer and the suspending rods from the arch above, of the weight which is at present upon them. The columns should be substantial ones, of cast-iron, but may be inclosed with others of Scagliola or any other material; that part of the wall on which these columns would be set should be strengthened on each side by brick or stone work, laid in cement, great care being taken to make the foundations secure, and on the top a strong cast-iron plate should be laid to throw the weight upon the whole width of the wall so strengthened. It will be observed, that by either of these means the Fire-places on each side of the door opposite the Bow Window would have to be shifted; but in this I appre¬ hend no great difficulty would be found. If either of these means is carried into execution, then I would recommend that from the L. Bearer a strong cast-iron upright should be set on each side of the door-way, immediately over the centre of the column below up to the cast-iron arch, and a strong piece of iron placed in between them, by way of strutt, imme¬ diately over the Door-way; there appears no way of relieving the spandrils on the haunch of the arch from the pressure it exerts against the side wall of the Picture Gallery, but by letting a cast-iron plate into the said wall, and tracing it up to the arch itself by wrought-iron screw pins and bars on each side of the arch ; as for the spandril on the side next to the bow, it must take its chance, as it has a much better abutment than the other side. These expedients would most probably render the support of the Dome in its present state secure, although I cannot absolutely pronounce that they would. If the Dome and Billiard Room is entirely taken away, and the space covered with a light copper roof, the inverted arches under the points of the window jambs may be dispensed with; but still I would recommend the present cast-iron pillars to be taken out, and stronger ones put in their places ; it would also be necessary to support the rectangular part of the Bow Room on the Principal Floor, either with a 329, N n ' • wall 282 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE wall or cast-iron pillars, as proposed above, but they would not require to be of such great strength as if the Dome, &c. remained. If a copper Dome was to be substituted for the present one, and the Billiard Room to remain, I conceive the weight upon the walls and pillars could not be so much lightened as to be worth while to make the alteration, and consequently the same expense would have to be incurred as is necessary to secure it in its present form. There is no possibility of rendering any assistance to the castings which carry the front wall of the Pavilion Towers, (which I have referred to in the 27th page of my printed Report,) without the upper part of the Tower itself was removed. In that case a strong cast-iron beam might be laid across from wall to wall; and by boring a hole down the wall on each side of the window, as near to it as could be done with safety, and then putting down wrought-iron bars, secured to a strong gland below the present castings, and screwed up tight upon the cast-iron beam I have proposed to lay upon the top of the wall. The brick-work and masonry might then be made good above the cast-iron beam, so that it would never be seen. The method of securing of the Proscenium of the Throne-room, if the Tower-walls, passage, &c. are to remain as at present, has occupied a good deal of my attention; and although it is a business beset with difficulties, I hope I have hit upon a way to do it without incurring any very serious expense. It will, however, be necessary to remove the finishing on each side of the Prosce¬ nium, to take down the angels, &c. and to lay bare the cast-iron arch and tie-rods, and also to take down the upright timber-work on each side of the room. I would then drill a hole through the foot of the cast-iron arch, at each end, close down to the impost, and put a strong flat wrought-iron bar on each side, and secure them to the arch by a strong wrought-iron bolt. This being effected, it would enable me to take away the present tie-rods and suspending bars, and it would leave the space quite clear for the whole width and thickness, under the cast-iron arch. On the cross-wall of the room below, which is directly under the Proscenium, I would lay a cast-iron plate from the wall on each side, to extend over the opening of the door-ways below, and thereon I would build up a wall at least eighteen inches thick, and about four feet wide, to a proper height, so as to allow of a semicircular arch being turned underneath the present cast-iron one, and make good the spandrils close up to the soffit of the cast-iron arch, wedging between the brick-work and the iron, so as to make the whole take a solid bearing upon the brick arch below. The whole of this brick-work I would recommend to be laid in cement, and well bonded into the side walls of the Building with wrought-iron cramps. If the work is done in the manner I have here described, it would not prevent the finishing being put up again in the same manner as it is at present, and then th? Tower above may remain. I have already described what must be done in case the Billiard Room is removed; it only remains for me to say, in answer to the Second Resolution, that in case the Pavilion, Towers, and Rooms above the roof are removed, it will take away such a large portion of the weight that at present rests upon the cast-iron arch over the Proscenium of the Throne Room, that the finishing as at present may remain, as the cast-iron arch will in that case be abundantly strong. I must here take notice of the cast-iron arch that supports the first Tower to the south of the Bow Room in the west front; this, in most respects, is the same as the arch for the Proscenium of the Bow Room, but it is of less span; as there is however no possibility of getting down to it, and I could never get any drawing of it, I can give no opinion whatever about it; but if the Towers are removed, no apprehensions need then be entertained of it, as it would at all events be perfectly secure of carrying a wall up to the level of the roof. • • . .• * I shall now reply to the Order contained in the latter end of the First Resolution, (viz. the remedying the several defects alluded to in my Report,) which I have not already replied to. The first defect that I have alluded to, is where there are any bearers laid over window or door openings, upon a piece of Yorkshire landing; in all these cases, the .Yorkshire landing must be taken put, and cast-iron plates .put in place thereof. * 'There ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE 283 There is now no remedy for the narrow bearing which the bearers have at their ends. i The only remedy which can be had where the cast-iron cradles are applied, as alluded to in pages 25 & 26, of my printed Report, is by relieving them of as much of the weight that is carried by them as is practicable; those in the Basement Story cannot, I apprehend, be benefited, but those in the Entrance Hall between the marble pillars would be very much relieved, if the proposed alterations are made in the roofs, to which I shall come presently; the said proposed alterations would also greatly contribute to the safety of the bearers, at page 2fi, of my Report; viz. those at the west end of the Throne Room, and those at the north end of the Picture Gallery. The alterations which I have to propose in the roofs are, to take away the whole of the Stanhope covering, and all the solid brick-work that is laid upon the upper coombs in the arch between the cast-iron bearers, which in some places is as much as twelve inches in thickness; also to take away the w hole of the upper coomb arches, and to put upon the bearers a light frame of timber, to carry the boarding of the roof, and cover the whole either with copper or lead : this would relieve the cast-iron bearers of an immense weight, even when a copper or lead roof is substituted. Should the roofs be altered as proposed (which indeed appears to be absolutely necessary), and the Dome and Towers entirely swept away, other very important advantages would be gained by taking away all the high walls, which rise up from eight to nine feet above the flats, and add a great and very unnecessary weight upon the walls, arches, cradles and bearers before named ; the whole of the passages upon the roof would also be taken away, the end of the roof over the Saloon next to the Picture Gallery may be striped off*, and all the roofing of copper or lead would be laid so low, that no part of it would be seen from the ground ; neither would the roof over the Bow Room be seen if constructed in the same manner ; for it does not appear to me to follow as a matter of course, that because one part of the Building has a circular front, that a Dome must be placed over it. Indeed, by taking away the Dome, Towers, the upper Arches, and Stanhope cover of the roof, &c. such an immense weight would be removed from the walls and bearers, and so many other important advantages would be gained, that I cannot suppose for a mo¬ ment, that any objection will be made to carry into effect so very desirable an alteration, it would be a disgrace to let the present covering remain. We have all read of the sumptuous covering of Palaces in foreign countries ; viz. of their being covered w ith gilt copper, plates of silver, and of those of the Incas of America having been covered with plates of gold, what a disgrace it w’ould be to have it related abroad that the English nation was so poor that the King’s Palace was obliged to be covered by pitch and tar. As to the effect that would be made to the Facade by the removal of the Dome and Towers, it is all matter of taste; as far as my own opinion goes, I think it w’ould be improved, but the Architects are the best judges of this. One advantage that would arise by the removal of the high walls above the present flats, would be the diminishing the depth of the Well-hole (about nine feet) that gives light to the north end of the Sculpture Gallery, and thereby an addi¬ tional light would be thrown into it. No remedy can be applied to the defective construction of the Truss I have described at page 28 of my Report, the Floor or Ceiling must be opened, the pre¬ sent Truss taken out, and a stronger one properly constructed put in its place. The two bressimers, described at page 30 of my Report, may be assisted in the same way that I have proposed and described for the strengthening of the bearers, that carry the front walls of the Pavilion Towers. The bearers for the Portico should by all means be taken out and stronger ones put in their places, as this floor must be covered with marble and arched below', as it will in a great measure be exposed to the atmosphere. The bearers in the Saloon, Throne Room, Music Room, &c. &c. had better be proved, as suggested by me in my Report, and as recommended by the Architects in their’s, before any thing further is done about them ; and should they be found oo'q. N n 2 deficient 284 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE deficient to the extent that I anticipate, they may be effectually relieved by taking out the coombed arches, and substituting a lath and plaster ceiling. Any other defects, &c. that I have discovered in the construction, and described in my Report, will no doubt be remedied in the progress of the work. I am, Sir, Your most obedient and most humble Servant, John U. Rastrick, C. E. Appendix, No. 12. No. 1 .—OBSERVATIONS, by John Nash Esq., on the Report or Letter to the Surveyor General from the Committee of Architects appointed to examine the state of Buckingham Palace , dated July 28th, and delivered by him to the Select Committee on Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. 1 ' ______ The Letter begins thus—“ In order to give security to the Wall of “ the Bow, in the Centre of the West Front,” &c. See. I beg now in limine to state,— That neither this Wall nor any part of it is insecure, nor can any thing that can be done make it more secure. Referring to the former Report of these Gentlemen on the subject of this Wall, they state that the iron pillars are crippled —(this is not true), and that they have the whole of the Upper Wall to support— (this is not true); yet it is upon those facts I presume they have formed their con¬ clusion of the insecurity of the Wall; against which conclusion the existing state of the Wall ought to be a sufficient answer; it has not manifested the slightest appearance of weakness , but stands without deviation at this moment as it did at first; and in contradiction to the facts upon which I have presumed their opinion of its insecurity to have been founded, namely, that the iron columns are crippled, and having the whole of the Upper Walls and Dome to support, have yielded and given way; now it can be proved (on oath if necessary) that the iron columns are not crippled ; were cast in the form they now are , and that they have not in the slightest degree been affected by the weight upon them, but are in every respect exactly the same as when they were fxed , and are as strong as if they had been perfectly straight; and so far from having the whole weight of the Wall and Dome above them to carry, they have a very small portion of it to sustain, for the Wall on which the Dome rests bears in every part of its circumference on the Outer Wall , which is brought up from the foundation , at the same time that the iron columns attached and fastened to the Piers as they are, afford a combination and strength to the whole, which in my judgment no other construction could or can accomplish in a more effectual way. The alteration here proposed cannot be effected without an alteration in the Plan. If the room under this Bow-windowed State Room had been of the same form as that Drawing Room, the side walls of those rooms would have been con¬ tinued from the foundation to the attics, and the iron arch and every part of the construction which belongs to it would have been unnecessary ; but His Majesty’s commands were, that the Under-room, being his Private Room, should extend beyond the side-walls of the room above it, consequently there could be no walls underneath those above, and columns were proposed as substitutes for such side- walls, but which His Majesty peremptorily objected to; and so partial was His Majesty to this shaped room, namely, to a long room , with a Bozo in the middle, that he made me repeat it in his Private Rooms towards the Flower Garden. Under those circumstances I had no means of carrying His Majesty’s commands into effect but those which I have adopted, namely, to sustain the upper weight in the absence of side walls by means of the iron arch, and the rest of the construction which ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 2S5 which belongs to it; and I trust the Committee on this part of the question will give me credit for so much common sense, that if I could have had walls or columns to sustain the side walls of the Upper State Room, I should not have had recourse to the contrivance of iron arches or any contrivance whatever; at the same time I must beg it to be understood, that I do not admit that the Building is less secure with the iron arches than it would have been with the columns pro¬ posed ; I consider it perfectly secure, and that the application of columns will not render it more secure , but on the contrary. It must be obvious to every one that the arrangement of the Plan and the Eleva¬ tion of a Design have their origin in the conveniences required , and the taste of the Proprietor; and that it is the province of the Architect to find the means of carrying them into effect; thence arose the construction in question; and it must be evident that if I had not had recourse to it, I could not have given His Majesty the room he required ; the question I presume is, simply, whether the construction I have adopted renders the Building insecure; at present there are no appearances of weakness of any kind; they insinuate weaknesses, but they prove none ; nor can they show any , or prove that any additional security is required. I have said that none is required, and that the Building is in every part perfectly secure; and I call upon them to make any fair or just experiments they may think proper to justify the opinions they have given ; at present every part of their Report is founded on con¬ jecture , on opinions merely asserted, not proved ; or where attempted to be founded on facts, the facts stated are not borne out. I must beg the Committee to remark, that in all my observations I have opposed facts to arguments: but that no facts have been advanced by these gentlemen to support their opinions ; the Committee therefore appear to me to be called upon to judge between a reliance on the judgment of those gentlemen, or on mine. I have from the beginning avoided every thing which could show a disposition to impugn their judgment, and have therefore in every instance opposed facts to opinion. It has been my professional lot to be concerned in works of great practical difficulty both in construction and in execution; it would ill become me to say that those gentlemen are incompetent to execute the works which I have executed , but I may say without offence that they have never been tried. I state this because it appears to me that in deciding upon the stability of the Palace, the Committee will have to determine and balance the experience and competence of the Architects employed by the Surveyor General, and my experience and compe¬ tency, i. e. which of us are most entitled to their confidence. In enumerating a fe\v of those works of difficult construction and execution which I have accom¬ plished, I shall do little more than name them, as I regret the necessity of appeal¬ ing to them at all. One of the first works of this kind was the restoration of St. David’s Cathedral: the west front wall, 70 feet high, and 10 feet thick, had for half a century overhung its base, and which had been continually increasing, and was plumbed every year, and its progress towards falling marked down. At the time I was called upon by the Chapter to examine it, the top overhung the base feet; the Saxon arches on each side the centre aisle, all the way to the choir, leaned against this wall, and which was their only support, inasmuch that, had it fallen, the whole of the Church as far as the choir must have fallen with it. I con¬ structed a timber buttress on a temporary foundation, and supported the whole of the Saxon arches ; I then took down the wall from top to bottom, prepared a new foundation, and rebuilt the wall upright, encased the temporary buttress with stone, and substituted stone arches for the wooden buttress, during which operation not the slightest accident happened, and though this work has been done 45 years, not the slightest settlement has taken place, and it is a perfect work at this day. When Sunderland Bridge was to be built, 1 was employed to make Designs and Estimates for a stone arch 300 feet diameter, the practicability of which was denied by those who objected to any Bridge being built at all, and a violent party contest took place between those who projected and those who opposed the Bridge, and a Committee of the House of Commons of that day were selected to decide the question of Bridge or no Bridge; the party opposing denied the practicability of executing a stone arch of that size, and to support their opinions, Dr. Hutton, Mathematical Professor at Woolwich, Mr. Smeaton, who built the Edystone Lighthouse, and Mr. Mylne, who built Blackfriars Bridge, were called in and ex¬ amined before the Committee. They rested the impracticability of the measure on the circumstance, that so vast a structure in stone required a very different process in every part from that required for Bridges of the largest size that ever had been there built. 329, N n 3 To 286 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE To combat the opinions that I knew would be given by those three eminent men, I had recourse to the making a Model of a very large size, together with the machinery and contrivances necessary to meet every difficulty which should be proposed, and establish the practicability of the Arch. The Model was produced before the Committee. Mr. Mylne insisted on .iis experience to state at once, without examining the Model, that it was impracticable: Mr. Smeaton declared that he never denied the practicability, but that on the contrary, he could build a bridge from Dover to Calais; that no doubt the Model I produced could be executed, but that no one could calculate the expense. Dr. Hutton admitted the practicability, but recommended a catenarian arch in preference to a semi-circular one. The result was, that the Model was approved in all its parts, and the Bill passed. On account of the expense of the stone arch the present iron one was adopted, formed from the Model at that time exhibiting by Tom Paine; but such was the effect of the investigation, that I had frequent invitations to form Piers, Docks and other Works, exclusively the province of Engineers. The late Mr. Rennie pressed me to give a Design for Building London Bridge, offering me the use of his Survey and Section of the River. When the Tunnel under Highgate Hill, designed by the late Mr. Rennie, fell in, I was called upon to ascertain the cause, and suggest the remedy. I removed the whole of the Tunnel, supported the ground for a depth of eighty feet, and built the present Archway. The difficulties which were encountered in those operations would hardly, if detailed, be credited. The late Mr. Rennie, in his Pamphlet addressed to the Commission of Sewers on the subject of substituting a new Common Sewer to drain the West End of the Town, (the old one being decayed and inadequate,) suggested a tunnelled Sewer, but doubted its practicability without taking down a great number of houses. That Sewer I effected, and made the tunnelled Sewer without taking down or injuring a single house. In a Committee of the House of Commons, Engineers were brought to oppose the making this Sewer, principally on the impracticability of ascertaining the expense; my Estimate was 50,000/. or thereabouts; when it was said that it would cost more than 100,000 /.; the actual cost, however, was within 1,500 /. of my Estimate, over or under, I do not recollect. Knowing the danger attending cast iron Bridges, as they are usually con¬ structed, I invented and obtained a Patent for Bridges of iron, to which no objec¬ tion ever was or can he made ; it has all the weight and semblance of a stone bridge, but is infinitely stronger than any stone bridge can be made, for it has no lateral pressure ; on this invention, I have built an arch of 100 feet span, rising only six feet, being a portion or segment of a circle 460 feet diameter. There is not a single roof in the Pavilion at Brighton which did not from its form require a peculiar construction, differing in all respects from ordinary roofs, and would, no doubt (and with more plausibility) engender doubts and apprehen¬ sions, and ensure the condemnation of the Reporters on Buckingham Palace ; and if an investigation were now to take place, I could oppose no other answers than I do in respect of Buckingham Palace, namely, that those roofs have now been built many years, and not the slightest appearance of weakness or insufficiency has manifested itself. The Flat Roofs there are also covered with Lord Stanhopes Composition , and do not exhibit the smallest symptom of decay, though done so many years, which would not have been the case had they been of lead or copper. The Surveyors recommend the taking down the North-East and South-West Towers, in order (they say) to lessen the weight on the iron framed work. There can be no doubt, that taking away the Towers which stand on the iron-work, that the iron-work will have less weight to carry; but this truism may apply to all the w^alls f a building, seeing that if they were taken dow n, the foundations would have less weight to support; but ought it not to be shown, before they disfigure the Building by taking away the Towers , that the iron arches are incapable of supporting them, or that they have shown a dis¬ position to yield to the present w eight upon them ? This has not been shown, nor can it be shown; and I will undertake to carry the walls of those Towers thirty feet higher, and at my own risk and expense, should they have the slightest effect on the arches which support them. It is recommended that the present Floor over the Entrance Portico should be taken aw ay, and another constructed in a secure manner. The insinuation of in¬ security ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 287 security in this flat is not only not borne out, but contradicted by the experiment made of its strength. It is next recommended that the covering of the Roof be taken away, and one of a more durable and effectual nature substituted. I can only repeat, on the subject of the covering, first, that I have used it on nine-tenths of the Buildings which I have erected for these last forty years; that in no one instance has it shown a tendency to decay; that I have removed the lead work of flats, and sub¬ stituted this composition, because the lead flats were constantly requiring repair; and that I have never seen or known a more effectual covering for keeping out the wet. The materials of which it is composed are all impervious to wet, and the slates, which form the last covering, render it impossible for the atmosphere to affect or even reach the composition, and they are so fixed in it, that it is impossi¬ ble with a sledge hammer to break a slate, or without great difficulty to remove them. I would now ask any professional man, whether these advantages can be asserted of any other composition. Here then is experience and demonstration which has not nor can be contradicted. And I must take the liberty, in conclusion, to say, that what has been proposed respecting the Bow Window, the Iron Arches, the South-east and South-west Towers, the flat over the Portico, and th* covering of the Building, is an uncalled for, and would be a wanton expense. And I must press on the consideration of the Committee, that without recurring to opinions of any kind, they have it in their own power to ascertain, to the conviction of their own senses, the stability or weakness of the Building, and without disfiguring the Archi¬ tecture or altering the Plan, or incurring such an enormous expense. They may ascertain the strength of the Floors (which is the main object), by filling the House from top to bottom with soldiers; they may try the strength of the flat over the Portico in the same way ; they may try the strength of the Roof in the same way ; they may try the strength of the Iron Pillars in the Bow Window, (and which I assert that it is impossible to crush, even if the weight of the walls of all the Building could be brought to bear upon them); the Arches under the South¬ west and South-east Towers, and the Arches on each side the Centre State Room, although they never can have more weight than they now have to carry, may easily have additional weight suspended to them ; and I trust I may con¬ fidently hope, that before the Committee recommend any of the suggestions contained in the Letter of the Architects to Sir Benjamin Stephenson, July 28, they will in justice to the Public, and to the humble Individual who now addresses them, satisfy themselves, through the medium of their own senses, of their necessity, and which they may do by the means I have pointed out. John Nash. No. 2. —OBSERVATIONS, by John Nash , Esq., upon the Letter of Mr. Rastrick to Sir B. C. Stephenson , dated 30 July 1831. Mr. Rastrick states, that he had examined the windows on the Basement Story, and that there are no inverted arches between the jambs. Now the fact is, that there are inverted arches between the window jambs, under all the windows ; that upon those inverted arches, a w r all plate of Yorkshire stone covers the w hole of the window jambs. The brick piers that support the iron columns stand upon a plate of Yorkshire stone, laid on a platform of brick-work, forming the footings, and which stone plate is nearly the whole width of the platform of brick-work ; the brick-work of the piers is also bonded into that of the window jambs, thereby forming one unbroken mass of brick-work ; on the top of these piers, together with jambs of the windows, there is laid a plate of Yorkshire stone six inches thick, w hich binds the piers and the jambs completely together, and which also distributes the weight of the Superstructure equally throughout the piers and jambs. By reference to the Model it will be seen that on this stone plate stand not only the iron columns and the lower bow wall, but the upper bow wall and stone columns which support the Dome. Mr. Rastrick thus concludes :—“ Hence the window jambs which carry the “ Bow Room walls and the Dome have not that support they might and ought to “ have had, if inverted arches had been turned between them.” Now, as I have before stated, that there are inverted arches between the window jambs, and the piers are bonded into the jambs, thereby lorming one solid mass of brick-work, and that there is a Yorkshire stone plate covering both the piers and jambs, it must be evident that the weight of the Superstructure above, is equally diffused throughout the brick-work beneath it. 4 , N n 4 I may 288 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE I may presume, that Mr. Rastrick was not aware of these facts, otherwise he would not have proposed a remedy for defects which do not exist, and that it is unnecessary for me to animadvert what the consequences would be if he were per¬ mitted to carry his remedial schemes into effect; which, if they were practicable, would, in my opinion, endanger, if not destroy, the Building. Mr. Rastrick recommends the lower Bow Room to be of the same form at the State Room over it, namely, to build side walls, thereby reducing the length of the Room ; there is no doubt that if his late Majesty would have consented to have so reduced the length of the Room, either by walls or columns, the iron arches would not have been necessary, but His Majesty insisted upon having the room (being his own private room) of the form and length it is; and it was to accomplish His Majesty’s purpose that the iron arches were constructed. If His present Majesty does not object to a reduction of the length of the Room, or the introduction of columns, there can be no objection to make such an alteration ; but if it is done for the purpose of security, I beg to state that the present construction requires no such security, and until it is proved, by some experiment, to require any, I trust that con¬ jecture will not be allowed to invalidate facts. Mr. Rastrick lays great stress on the insufficiency of the Iron Arches which support the Pavilion d owers, and suggests remedies, in my opinion, as inefficient as they would be dangerous. I, of cour&e, must except the one which recommends the removal of those Towers altogether. It would be absurd to deny that taking them down would relieve the arches on which they stand from their weight, and that, taking away the weight upon them, there would remain no weight for them to carry. But this w'ould be such an alteration in both Elevations, as I trust the Committee would not recommend or His present Majesty sanction; but on the subject of these Pavilions I beg to pro¬ pose if Mr. Rastrick’s doubts have any weight with the Committee, that they would allow me to carry up the walls which stand on the arches, thirty feet’ higher than they now are, upon the understanding, that if the arches do not sus¬ tain such an enormous additional weight, that I will bear the expense of the trial ; and I further request, that the Committee will bear in mind that no part of those Towers show the slightest indication of having yielded to the weight above them, and particularly that neither of those Towers nor the Bow in the West front will ever have more weight to sustain than they now have. Mr. Rastrick proposes to remove the covering, and substitute a w ooden flat covered with lead, and to remove the pot arches between the iron joists, in order to lighten them. On the subject of this covering I have fully treated ; to which I beg to add, that the Committee will bear in mind, that one of the intentions of this Building was, that it should be fire proof, and for that purpose brick arches were turned between the joists; that if the Dome and Flats are to be of wood, covered with lead, that object will be defeated. I beg further to state, the brick arches con¬ tribute greatly to the strength of the iron joists, and that the strength of the flats and the floors w'ould be greatly injured by taking them away. I must also request the Committee to remark, that the flat Roofs will not be crowded with people like the State Rooms, but on the contrary will not have more weight to carry than they now have ; and that the iron joists being of the same form and size as those of the floors which have had fifteen tons and a half suspended in the middle of one of them, and that any plea for lightening the floors of the Rooms and the flats is untenable; but if any doubts remain in the minds of the Committee, let the flats be tried with double the weight they now carry. One word more, and I shall then feel I have performed the duty I owe the Public as well-as myself; I beg to say that I am very willing to bear the expense of any reasonable trials, should they prove that the Building is deficient in strength or stability. ___ John Nash. No. 3 .—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to Robert Gordon, Esq. Chairman of Select Committee on Buckingham Palace, &c. &c. &c. SIR, 14, Regent-street, August 8, 1831. 1 take the liberty of transmitting to you my observations on the letter addressed by John U. Rastrick, esq. to Sir B. C. Stephenson, dated 30th ultimo, on the sub¬ ject of T hree Resolutions of the Select Committee ; viz. 1st. lhat Mr. Rastrick do consider and report upon the sufficient means of securing the Building under the Dome, and the Pavilion Towers towards the West Front, including the Proscenium of the Throne Room, on the supposition that the present superstructures are to remain, and generally for remedying the several defects alluded to in his Report: 2d. That ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 289 2d. That he do make a similar Report, on the supposition that the Dome, and the Billiard Room under it, and the four Pavilion Towers and Rooms above the Roof should be removed : 3 d. That a similar Report be made upon the supposition, that in order to pre¬ serve the form of the Facade a Copper Dome should be substituted for the Stone Dome. In doing this, let me once more entreat the Committee to have recourse to the experiment so often urged by me of putting the strength and stability of the Palace to the severest test it can be put to; viz. to fill every Apartment of the House, the flat roofs on the top of the Building, and the flat over the Portico, with as many persons as can be crowded in them, a test which cannot fail of satisfying the Com¬ mittee themselves, as well as quiet the public mind on the fears which have been so unjustly and so unfairly alarmed by assertions without a shadow of proof, con¬ trary to facts, contradicted by the appearance of every part of the Building. I entreat them again, as a justice due to one who has been engaged through a long course of extensive practice in works of most difficult constructions in every descrip¬ tion of building, without a single instance of failure. If it should be insinuated that a concourse of people so assembled would be placed in danger, I request the Committee to consider that the same precautions of temporary posts, which were placed under the floors when the Beams were loaded, to prevent the possibility of accident, may be had recourse to on the trial I solicit. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, John Nash. No. 4 .—LETTER from John Nash. Esq. to Robert Gordon, Esq. Chairman of the Select Committee on Buckingham Palace, &c. &c. &c. SIR, 14, Regent-street, 9 August 1831. IT has been intimated to me, that the Committee on Buckingham Palace have transmitted to the Treasury a Resolution that the Palace be finished under the directions of an Architect, to be named by the Treasury, who shall be unconnected with the Board of Works, or with myself; and that he shall give his Estimate for the completion of the Building.* Although I cannot but deeply regret that the completion of the Work should be transferred from mine to any other hands, yet I am bound to acknowledge that the Committee, having before them the conflicting and unsatisfactory Evidence of so many professional men upon the state of the Building, could not have adopted a decision more equitable, on the whole, to all the parties concerned, and more calculated ultimately to give satisfaction to the Public. The deep solicitude which 1 feel for the result of this determination, being founded much more upon my anxiety for my future character and reputation as an Architect than upon any pecu¬ niary considerations, I have taken the liberty of urging the Lords of the Treasury to instruct the person, whoever he may be, employed to finish the Palace, (and I feel confident none but a gentleman of eminence in the profession, and wholly disconnected with any of the parties whose Evidence is before the Committee, will be so employed) to proceed, in the first instance, to that simple and infallible method of proving the strength of the Building which I ventured to suggest to the Committee; viz. by filling it with the greatest number of soldiers that can be made to stand on the floor, a trial, the result of which will, I trust, remove all doubt from the public mind. There can be no danger in this experiment, because the same means used to prevent any consequences from accident at the trials by the Architects, may be employed on this occasion. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, John Nash. * The Resolution of the Committee is as follows: Resolved ,— “ That the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury be requested to name an Architect to be intrusted with the prosecution of the Work, and to direct such Architect to prepare such Plans and Estimate to he laid before the Committee, of the two modes of completing the Work.” 329. O o Appendix, 326 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE 290 Appendix, No. 13. CORRESPONDENCE between Mr. Nash , Mr. Browne and the Treasury, relating to Marble for the New Palace in St. Jamess Park. No. 1.—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to J. C. Herries , Esq. &c. &c. &c. Sir, 14, Regent-street, 6 July 1826. IN carrying the sanctioned plans of the Palace in St. James’s Park into execu¬ tion, it became necessary to provide in time the Statuary Marble required for the columns in the Hall, Gallery and Staircase, and for the steps and landings, I sent proper persons, privately, to all the dep6ts of marble in London, to ascertain the quantity in the market, when I found that out of 104 columns (each requiring to be in one stone), the whole stock in London would not have furnished thirty columns, and of those probably one-half of them would be defective; nor was it possible to procure steps of the length required, it therefore became impossible to be supplied in London; and the price was so capricious, varying from three guineas to eight guineas per foot, according to the sizes, purity and the demand, that I found I should be liable to every sort of imposition, had I taken measures to obtain the marble required through the medium of the marble merchants. I then, after re¬ ceiving the King’s approval, determined to send a competent person to the quarries, to examine and report to me the practicability of executing the order at the quar¬ ries, the mode of doing so, and the probable result, as to price; another advantage, I promised myself was, that by reducing the blocks to the sizes required, I might see the surface all round, and ascertain to a great degree the purity of the marble, and leaving the defective blocks and offal behind, the amount of freight would be reduced. The person I chose (Mr. Browne) is himself a statuary, a sensible man, and a perfect judge of marble; his first Report was as to the different marbles to be procured and the probable cost, upon which report His Majesty, attended by Sir Charles Long and myself, fixed on the sort of marble for the columns and pave¬ ment, and also for the steps and landings. This commission Mr. Browne is still at Carrara executing, and our correspondence has from time to time been shown to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yourself and Sir Charles Long. On the 13th April, Mr. Browne wrote that almost ihe whole order had been executed; that one cargo had been shipped on board the Diana ; that he was in treaty for another ship, both together bringing 200 tons of marble; and in a prior letter, dated i6th March, he says that the marble will not exceed 255. per foot for that which in London would have cost 605.; if so, the saving will be enormous. I gave Mr. Browne, when he first went, my bankers’ (Veres, Ward & Co.) letter of credit for £. 1,000, of which he has drawn for £. 900 ; and by his last letter, which I left with you, he requires a further letter of credit for £. 2,000 more ; the purport therefore of this letter is to request that I may be reimbursed the £. 900 in advance; the inclosed being my bankers’ memorandum of the dates of his several drafts, and a prompt of the remain¬ ing £. 2,000 required. I trust you will see the necessity, the advantages and the economy of this step. The marble for the Chimney Pieces and the other marble required is procuring in the same way, and will be attended with a similar reduction of expense. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (signed) John Nash. Joseph ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 327 291 Joseph Browne, to Jn° Nash, Esq. , £. s. d. a 3 Mths. due 16 March - - 100 - - 1825. Florence, 13 Dec r 1826. Ditto 2i Feb}'. - ,, Ditto 16 Mar. - Ditto 11 April - - „ Ditto 12 May - - ,, Accepted by Veres, Ward & Co. - 24 May - - 200 - - - 19 June - 200 - - - 14 July - - - 200 - - - 15 Aug. - - - 200 - - £.900 - - Rec d July 4th, 1826. No. 2.—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 18th July 1826. READ Letter from Mr. John Nash, dated 6th instant, requesting reimbursement of money expended by him for marble required for the Palace in St. James’s Park. Transmit copy of Mr. Nash’s Letter to the Commissioners of Woods, and desire they will imprest £. 1,000 to Mr. Nash on account of this service, the account to be rendered to the Surveyor General of Works. Acquaint Mr. Nash with the directions given. No. 3 .—LETTER from John Nash , Esq. to J. C. Her vies, Esq. See. See. &c. SIR > 14, Regent-street, 9 Dec. 1826. Enclosed I send you an account of the marble which has arrived in the River, a considerable portion is already unloaded, and conveyed to the Palace, and the remainder is unloading and carrying to Buckingham House Palace ; of the amount of the cost and charges (£.9,507. 6. 2.), £.3,000 has been advanced by order of the Treasury, and bills have been and are daily drawing on me for the remainder; I request, therefore, the favour of a further advance of £. 4,000 to be paid to me, or into my bankers (Veres, Ward & Co.) to meet those acceptances. The following are the ships which have brought the marble; namely, the Anna, the Diana, the George and Thomas, the Agenoria, the Arno, and the Prudence; none of these ships have brought any other marble than that for the King’s use. The cargoes of the five vessels are delivered, and carried to the Palace, and the others are unloading as fast as possible. The inclosed account, after showing the cost of the marble, including all charges till landed on the wharfs, is contrasted with the selling price of the same marble on the wharfs in London; namely, £. 15,905. 16., leaving a profit of £.5,398. 9. 10. on an outlay of £.9,507. 6. 2.; this statement may be relied upon, being not only the result of different inquiries, but is confirmed by the prices returned by the Marble Mart to the Office of Works, all which are higher than those assumed; this circumstance alone will, I trust, justify the advice I gave, of sending out a person to purchase marble at the quarries, inspecting the blocks, and seeing them delivered; but it was impossible to have procured the marble in London, ail England not being able to produce 104 statuary columns in single pieces, or steps of sufficient length ; and even the greater part of the quantity which England could produce might, when opened, prove to be defective marble, as is the case with at least one-half of the blocks sold in London; whereas the person sent out, by re¬ ducing the sizes of the several blocks to nearly the size wanted, would be able to inspect the surface of the marble all round, and detect the blemishes ; and it may be expected, that this marble will be more beautiful than any to be seen in London. I am, &c. (signed) John Nash . \ O 0 2 2 CJ*' APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE (Enclosure in No. 3 .) COST PRICE of Marbles, and Charges. >st, 6/6 - 21 /- - 7/6 - f - - 33 '- - - 10 /- - 19/- - 7/6 - Amount of Labour done in Italy Ravaccione - - - - 8,703 feet. average Statuary - - - - - 1,622 - - ditto Vein - - - - - - 549 - - ditto Dove - - - - - - 229 - - ditto Sienna - - - 46 - - ditto Bardilla - - - 52 - - ditto Black and Gold - 25 " - ditto Charges on - 11,286 - - ditto The above purchased in this Country would cost as under; viz.— Ravaccione - - Ditto - - - Ditto - - - Ditto - - - Statuary - - - Ditto - - - Vein - - - - Dove - - - - Sienna - - - Bardilla - - - Black and Gold - - 2,000 feet in blocks, under 4 tons - - 2,000 - - ditto - - 6 - - - 2,763 - - ditto - - 8 - - - 2,000 - - ditto - - 10 - - 811 - - ditto - - - - - 811 - - diito - - - — - 549 “ - ditto - - - - - 229 - - ditto - - — — - 46 - - ditto - - - - - 52 - - ditto - - — - - 25 - - ditto - - - - - 19 /- 21/- 2 5/- 3 1/6 50/- 55 '- . 8 - 24 - 63 '- 3 °/- 42/- £. s. d. - 2,847 J 9 6 - 1,703 2 - - 206 14 8 - 91 12 - - 75 18 - - 26 - - - 23 15 - - 4, 2 32 5 - - 300 - - £. 9,507 6 2 — i,9°o - - - 2,100 - - - 3453 15 - - 3,150 - - - 2,027 10 - - 2,230 5 - - 494 2 - - 274 16 - - 144 18 - - 78 - - - 52 10 - £. 15,905 16 - The above Sum of £.9,507. 6. 2. is the cost of the Marble with the charges thereon (including duty) brought by several ships, which ships are now unloaded and unloading: as the sum of £.15,905. 16. would have been the cost in London, according to the lowest prices which Marble is selling for at the wharfs in London. John Nash. No. 4 .—Copy of TREASURY MINUTE, dated 19th December 1826. READ Letter from Mr. Nash, dated 9th instant, inclosing an account of the cost of sundry parcels of marble purchased in Italy for the ornament of Bucking¬ ham Palace, and which have arrived in the River, amounting to £. 9,507. 6. 2., and requesting that a further sum of £. 4,000 may be imprested to him, to enable him to pay the bills drawn upon him on this account. My Lords read their Minute of 18th July last on this subject. Write to the Commissioners of Woods, referring them to the Letter of this Board of 26th July last, in pursuance of the said Minute, and desire they will imprest to Mr. Nash the further sum of £. 4,000 on account of this service. Acquaint Mr. Nash therewith. No. 5 .—LETTER from John Nash, Esq. to J. C. Herries, Esq. &c. &c. &c. SIR > 14, Regent-street, January 24, 1827. Herewith I send you an Account of the Expenditure, as nearly as it can be made up, which, exclusive of the compensation to Mr. Browne for his trouble, amounts to £. 9,553. 13. 6., of which £. 6,000 has been advanced; and I crave a further advance of £. 2,500 to meet further demands, which I have directed to be paid by my bankers. The other two vessels, which had not arrived, are in the River, and are in the act of unloading, so that now the whole of the marble in the enclosed Account is arrived, and will be discharged in two or three weeks, when I shall be enabled to make out the whole Account accurately, and discharge myself from my responsibility. In the mean time I am assured that the sum of £• 9 > 553 * J 3 - 6. will be within £. 200 over or under of the net cost. I have in two other ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 293 329 other columns valued the marble at the prices of the merchants here: the first column are the prices returned for the three last succeeding quarters by the Marble Merchants to the Office of Works, as their selling price, making the marble imported amount to £. 16,907; but it must be understood that these prices sup¬ pose the blocks not to exceed six tons in weight, whereas the greater part of those imported are above seven tons, and many as high as fifteen tons, which would have been charged at much higher prices, and some of them 80 s. per foot instead of 55 s. The other column, are the prices fixed by Mr. Freeman and Mr. White, two of the greatest importers of marbles, upon viewing the blocks imported, which you will find amounts to a still larger sum, namely, £. 17,326. 15. 4. This is owing to the very unusually large blocks not in contemplation in the Board of Works’ prices: the certificate of those persons I inclose. I have also inspected several bills of parcels of marble sold by them within the last year and a half, and find that they confirm the value put in both the Comparative Statements. I hope you will lay these Comparative Statements before their Lordships, that they may see the propriety of the advice T gave in the purchase of this marble, w’hich, how¬ ever, I did not do until I had the wharfs searched, to ascertain whether it w'as practicable to get the marble in England, and found that all the marble in the market would not supply half the quantity, and that there was no marble fit for the columns (104 in number), and none of the Ravaccione, of which cheap marble the columns are to be composed. There is still a further quantity now loading at Leghorn, to complete the order, making one whole and one half cargo of two vessels. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, (signed) John Nash. (Enclosure in No. 5 .) THE following Marble could not have been purchased at all in England, and therefore must have been sent from Italy, let the Cost have been what it might; and the following is a Statement of the Net Prime Cost as paid by Mr. Browne, and the comparative Cost of the same if they could have been bought in England ; the Compensaton to Mr. Browne for procuring the Marble, is not included, except his personal expenses for himself and man. DESCRIPTION AND QUANTITY. PRICES rendered by the Merchants to the Office of Works. The Merchants’ Valuation on a view of the Marble. 8,918 ft. s. d. Ravaccione, - a’ 6/6 COST. £. s. d. 2,898 7 - s. d. Average Price, 25/ £. 5. d. ii,i 47 5 ~ Average Price s. d. l8 / I 20/ 25/ s. d. >25/10 £. s. d. 11,519 1 8 31/6 . 35 / . 1,619 - Statuary - - a’ 21/ 1,699 19 - — 55 / 4,452 5 - - 60/ U/4 170 / J K> »-* 00 549 - Vein - - - a’ 7/6 205 17 6 — 25/ 686 5 - — 20/ 549 “ " 229 - Dove - - - a’ 8/ 91 12 - — 28/ 320 12 - — 24/ 274 16 - 52 - Bardilla - - a’ 10/ 26 - - — 30/ 78 - - — 23 / 59 16 - 25 - Black Sc Gold, a’ 19/ 23 15 - — 50 / 62 10 - — 42/ 52 10 - 46 - Sienna - - a’ 33/ 1 CO r-i to r- — 7 perfect cast of it than of the other, and it is rather better adapted for durability exposed to the weather than that of the three columns of the Campo Vaccino. The other day, when I was at Leghorn, I heard of two very fine Egyptian granite slabs that were sent from Rome to Leghorn by the French when they were exca¬ vating at Trajan’s Forum, to be shipped for Paris, but the English taking possession of Leghorn just at the time, these two slabs have remained in a warehouse ever since. I bought them of the person w ho had them in possession, and have shipped them by the Amy for London. They are 7 ft. 8 in. long, 3 ft. 7f in. wide, 2 in. thick, and both alike. 1 think they are well deserving a place in a palace, and if you have no objection I should be glad if you would take an opportunity of nam¬ ing them to His Majesty, who I should like to have the first offer of them, and I shall make no communication to any other person until I know your views respect¬ ing them. I have also sent home for your inspection two specimens of painting on scagliola, which are done here for table tops, a purpose to which it is not altogether adapted,' except for mere show tables; but it has occurred to me that the same sort of work may be made use of for the walls of certain rooms to very great advantage. I have made myselt master of the art, and could undertake to have it done if you thought proper. Four of the cheapest and best chimney-pieces that I could find ready made are now on their way to London. If they do not suit you, I know of friends that will take them. I will get drawings of others as early as I can. Chimney-pieces like the sketch you inclosed, I can get for from forty to fifty pounds each. The chimney-pieces made to ^our own drawings, I shall contract for as low as I can, and you may expect them of the best material and best workmanship that can be had here. In a fortnight I shall have shipped all the marble I have bought, and can for the present procure; it will be in four different vessels ; and by that time I shall have entered into contracts tor the capitals and chimney-pieces, as well as for all the marble that will be further required; after this my presence here for the next four months ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 309 months can be very well spared, as my man is fully competent to superintend all that will be done during that period, and it is my intention, with your approbation, to set oft’for London immediately on return of the post to this Letter ; and before I come out again, I can make an arrangement for getting home the long and large pieces at a saving that will be more than six or eight times the amount of my travelling expenses ; and as I will take care to make such arrangements here before I leave as I can be certain that nothing will be delayed during my absence, I trust you will have no objection to my returning for that time, as neither myself or family had any idea of my staying so long when I came out, and I give you my word that I will return immediately after the hot weather to see that every thing is finished and shipped in a proper manner, and I will enter into any security to that effect the moment I arrive in London. I have drawn money to the amount of eleven hundred pounds, and before I leave I shall want that made up to three thousand. Mr. Kleiber wrote me the other dav that he had written to Messrs. Veres, Ward & Co. for an extension of my letter of credit. If they have not already answered his Letter to that effect, I shall be glad for you to advise them to do so per return of post, and they may send it either to me or to Mr. Kleiber. Waiting your reply, I remain, dear Sir, &c. &c. &c. (signed) Jos b Brozone. P. S.—If you have any thing further that requires to be put in hand before I leave, send it as early as you can. No 27 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to Joim Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, Massa di Carrara, July 11, 1826. 2 FOR the last fortnight I have been expecting a Letter from you, in reply to mine of 23d May last, but no one having come to hand, I am fearful that either mine or your’s must have miscarried; I am sorry for this, as I should ere now have set out for London, having nothing in particular to attend to here for some time to come ; and it is now so insufferably hot that I am fearful of injuring my health by re¬ maining at this season. I have much satisfaction in being able to inform you, that I have shipped about 600 tons of marble in six different vessels ; viz., five at the port of Leghorn ; the Diana, the Arno, the Anna, the Agenoria, and the George and Thomas; and one at the port of Genoa, the Union; these take all the marble that I could get to the Marina before the harvest commenced ; but I have about 200 tons more already got from the quarries, all in very fine blocks, and a vessel is chartered to bring them to England as soon as they can be got to the Marina. I have also engaged the marble that will be excavated from the four best quarries of Ravacciona during this year, and as they are now in full work, a great deal will be done in that time. Among that already shipped are blocks suitable for almost every purpose about the Arch. I have received from Rome the cast of the Rotunda Capital, and those to be executed in marble are now in hand; the chimney-pieces are also all in hand ; and I have made the contracts so as to have them ready to send by the vessel that is chartered to bring some of the large blocks. The marble for the chimney-pieces I have myself approved, and I give you my word it is superior to any thing 1 ever saw before; and I have been fortunate enough to get them into the hands of the very best workman of the place. I omitted to say of the six vessels that have the marble on board, one only has as yet sailed, viz. the Anna ; but I am told the others will all sail within a month ; and as I find it absolutely necessary to leave this country during the very hot weather, and as I am aware of the importance of my being in London when the vessels arrive with the quantity of marble as before stated, I have determined to set out on the earliest day I can get a conveyance after the couriers of the 16th of this month have passed. I ought to add, that every thing here is so arranged as not to admit ot my leaving until all the work is brought into a forward state, and by that time a sufficient quantity of marble will have been excavated from the quarries lor me to make a further selection. I think I did not say in my last it would lighten the piece for the toezza, and make it more convenient for moving about by scabbling it to the form, but it would not lessen the freight much, and it could not be cut very exact to the size; if . 329. Q q 3 it *310 APPENDIX to second report from select committee it were to be in so heavy a piece there would be danger of its being broken on the edges. I shall be able to give you every information of these matters on my arriva in London. On the 30th ultimo, I wrote Messrs. Veres, Ward & Co. to advise them that besides the £. 1,100 that I had drawn for on them in favour of Mr. Kleiber, that I had drawn for £. 600 in favour of Messrs. Askoli & Sons at three months, from the 28th of June last past. Since that I have drawn for £. 350 in favour of G. G. Mirandoli at three months, from the 5th of July last. By this you will perceive that I have in all drawn on them to the extent of £. 2,050. I hope ere the last two drafts become due the marble already shipped will be laid down in London; and in the hope of soon seeing you there, I remain, dear Sir, Most respectfully, &c. (signed) Jos? Browne. P. S.—If I can get a place to travel with the courier, I may expect to be home by the end of this month, or early in August. No. 28 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne , to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, Leghorn, July 24, 1826. ' I came to this place from Carrara on Saturday last, and this morning’s courier has brought me your Letter of 4th instant, but ^little did I expect, after the ten months’ fatigue, and anxiety that I have had, to receive such a letter, and much less do I deserve it. To the utmost of my ability I have strove to carry into effect your orders, and I have at least this satisfaction, that I have succeeded far beyond my own expectations. Messrs. Wake & Daniel might wish it to be otherwise, and I am aware they are not the only persons who entertain such a wish ; but what they or any other interested individuals may say, when they deviate from the truth, I attach no importance to ; and therefore, I will once for all say it is not in their power or that of any other merchants in London, to lay marble down there, similar to what I have purchased, for fifty per cent, above the average price I have paid ; and you know very well the profit I am to have, rests solely at your discre¬ tion. I am perfectly content for it to remain so until the proper time arrives for you to judge of the manner in which I ha ve conducted and executed your orders, and until that time arrives, I could wish you not to be influenced by the idle tales or envious representations of any one, but wait and judge for yourself. Fifty years may pass over, before an individual could come here again and ship the same quantity of marble in the time that 1 have done, or on the same advantageous terms ; and nothing but a train of circumstances occasioned by the depression of trade so generally felt, has enabled me to do it; and as I have been quietly work¬ ing here, without giving any particular notoriety to the object I was pursuing, my success in these bad times has called down upon me the envy and ill-will of all the marble agents here, and therefore I am not surprized that their employers in England should entertain the same feeling; and the writing of the letter to which you refer, is a regular Carrara trick. I came here on this occasion, to' charter a vessel that has offered to take three hundred tons, in blocks not exceed¬ ing fifteen tons; when this is on board, I shall have shipped in all above nine hundred tons, which is more than has been shipped in this year by all the mer¬ chants put together : and when I tell you the average freight for this marble as I have agreed, is twenty per cent, under the price paid for the marble of other per¬ sons, you perhaps will not think it strange that I should have excited the ill-will and envy of others. You seem to be under some alarm in having advanced £. 900 and received no marble; when I tell you that the value of the marble I have bought, together with the insurance and freight to England, exceeds the value of £. 7,000, all which I am liable for, you perhaps will think with me, that I have much more reason to be anxious in this affair than you or any other person. As I had no particular instructions from you respecting the consignment of the marble, I have consigned it to my own house, and in fact I could not do otherwise, as I am mvself alone liable for every expense attending it, freight and all. I cannot, therefore, transmit to you the bills of lading, as those are necessary for me to effect the insurance with, and receive the marble in London, but the moment it arrives, it may be laid down or delivered to you at any place you direct, and I have given instructions to that effect. Or if you wish it, on my reaching London, which will be ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 311 be before any vessel, except the Anna, I will make a consignment of all the bills of lading to you, and you may then receive the marble yourself, but in so doing, you must relieve me from my liability to the contracts here, and from all the freights and charterparty of the brig Argo, which I have engaged to bring the columns for the Arch, as well as the capitals and other cases. I will render you an account of every thing within a week after my arrival at home, and I set off from here on Friday the 28th instant; I could not send it from here, as my papers are all in my portmanteau on board a vessel now half way to London. It is very common for vessels to lay here six or nine months after they have their marble on board, for light goods to complete their cargo, as yet, only one of those with the marble have sailed; viz . the Anna, but the Diana is to sail on Sunday next. I am extremely sorry that you should have been rendered uneasy in this affair, but it appears to me that you are so without reason; I am satisfied of having done every thing for the best, and notwithstanding your present letter, I cannot but think you will be as well satisfied as myself after you are in possession of the result of my labours, if not, I shall willingly resign to any one, of whose judgment and integrity you entertain a higher opinion. I before wrote to you that I had drawn on the 28th June last past, for £.600 at three months, and for £.350 on the 5th July, at three months. I shall draw one other bill for £.600 at three months, before I leave this place; and you may expect me in London to explain every thing you wish to know, within a week after this comes to hand; before the above bills fall due, I hope to deliver as much marble as will cover two acres of ground, and if it will be more satisfactory to you, I will meet the bills myself, and be repaid after the marble has arrived and been deli¬ vered, and you are in all other respects satisfied. I remain, dear Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Jos b Browne. No. 29 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. &c. DEAR SIR, Carmarthen-street, August 26, 1826. I have now the pleasure to acquaint you with my arrival in London this morning. I should have reached home nearly a week back, but have been delayed at Paris with an attack of inflammation in my bowels, but, thank God, I am com¬ pletely recovered from it, and hope in a few days to resume my usual health and strength. The Anna, with the marble, has arrived; is it to pay the usual duty at the Custom House, or to pass duty free ? if the latter, it will be necessary for you to advise me to w'hat quarter I should apply for an order to that effect; and it is desirable this should be attended to immediately, as it is likely a second vessel, the Diana, wall come to hand before the cargo of the Anna can be removed from the wharf. If you approve, it is my intention to land all the blocks under seven tons at a wharf at Pimlico, and all above that weight at a wharf at West¬ minster, as there is no crane at the former place for landing very large blocks ; it is also necessary that you should inform me whether the blocks for the Arch should be laid down at the same place, as those for the other purposes; it would be very inconvenient to have to move them after laid down, and be attended with unneces- sary expense. I remain, dear Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Jos b Browne . No. 30 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. See. Carmarthen-street, London, DEAR SIR, August 30, 1826. I am this morning in receipt of your favour of 29th instant. I afterwards called on Mr. Browne at your office, and accompanied him to the Treasury, where we were informed it would be necessary first to communicate with the Customs, from whom an answer would be had this afternoon, and to-morrow morning it should be finally determined whether the duty should be paid or not on the marble. I 329. Q q 4 afterwards 3 12 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE afterwards w^ent to the Palace, and examined the place where it is intended to lay the marble down, and gave directions for clearing the ground and arranging the sheds. On the other side is an account of the marble by the Anna and Diana; by the former vessel there is also a block of Sienna, a block of black and gold, and three scantlings of Dove marble; the Sienna, I think, is the finest block of the sort ever brought to this country, and the black and gold is also very beautiful; and the Dove is of the first quality. The whole is not very considerable, and if you think there will be occasion for such marble, I would recommend that it should go with the other; but there is no necessity for this unless you wish it, as it is quite a separate affair, and I can find a ready market for it. If you would like a little time to con¬ sider of this, I could land these five blocks at the London Docks, and let them lay there til 1 after your return to town, as they may lay there without paying the duty, but they cannot be removed from the Docks without paying, unless they were to be classed with the other marble, and removed along with it. I should not have troubled you on this subject, but to show you that I would not, even in this little speculation of my own, part with the marble without giving you the preference ; and I again repeat, as regards the block of Sienna yellow, it is one of a thousand. The Agenoria is the vessel that will arrive next after the Diana, and she has 139 tons on board, indeed they will all arrive in succession as quickly as the marble can be cleared from the wharf. I can send you all the bills of lading for your inspection, if you like ; or you can see them when you arrive in London, but they must be returned to me as I am obliged to produce them on receiving the marble at the Docks and at the Custom House. I will have all the accounts ready for your examination by the time you return to town. BxC. BxC. Insured for £. 950. 1 remain, dear Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Jos b Browne. Marble per the Anna. Twenty Blocks of Ravacciona Marble. 176. 181. 94. 184. 81. 185. 98. 183. 83. 82. 207. 208. 210. 88. 95. 186. 96. 93. 175. 209. Two Blocks of Vein Marble, 99. 100. Insured for £.450. Per Diana. Twelve Blocks of Statuary Marble. 2. Q y 49. 46. 54. 58. 42. 42. 43. QV 63. 60. Thirty-four Blocks of Ravacciona Marble, 20. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 14. 22. 23. 24. 25. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 32. 34. 36. 18. 31. 37. 78. 77. 79. 200. 201. 190. go. No. 31 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. Carmarthen-street, London, DEAR SIR, August 31, 1826. I this morning again accompanied Mr. Browne from your office to the Treasury, to receive the answer to yesterday’s communication, and Mr. Hill (1 believe that is the gentlemans name, who) stated the duty on all the marble must be paid. I have agreed with a wharfinger at Westminster to lighter and land the marble there, on, I think, very fair terms ; they are lower than I could get from any other house. It is now discharging from the vessel into the lighter, and I shall be at the Custom House ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 313 House to-morrow morning to fix with the officers the day for measuring the same; after that is done, and before it leaves the Docks to come up to Westminster, the duty must be paid ; shall I pay it, and render it to you with the other cost price accounts, or will you give a draft for it P I omitted to mention in my letter of yesterday, the satisfaction I felt on hearing that Messrs. Veres & Ward had accepted the bills I drew in Italy, that circumstance will so confirm my credit at Carrara, that if it was necessary, I could now bring away half the place with as little trouble as some people could procure a single block. (signed) Jos h Browne. P.S.—Owing to my having been so long from home, mv scagliola people are not so busy just now as I could wish to see them, if there was any thing I could put in hand for you, I should be very glad to have it.— J. B. No. 32 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash , Esq. &c. &c. &c. Carmarthen-street, London, DEAR SIR, Sept. 2, 1826. THE whole of the Ravacciona marble by the Anna is for the Arch; the two vein scantlings by the same vessel are agreeable to an order in one of your letters, but I do not know what they are for. The Sienna, the Black and Gold and the Dove are an entire separate thing, purchased for my own private use, without any re¬ ference to your orders; they have been paid for separately, and have nothing more to do with the marble purchased to your orders than that of any other persons, and therefore no suspicion on their accounts can by possibility attach to you or me; in offering them to you, it was far from my intention that you should conceive any obligation to take them, but I did so from what I conceive a proper feeling, and I have no doubt you will appreciate it as such. In the event of your taking them, I must immediately go into the market here and purchase to a disadvantage both as regards price and quality, which I should not have mentioned but for the regret with which you accompany your consent to take them ; this is a little mortifying, as I must in the next week purchase a scantling of Dove, for which I must pay 7 s. or 8 s. per foot more than this has cost me. The statuary by the Diana, Nos. 2, 3, 42, 42, 43, 43, are for the steps; the other six are either pieces cut from the steps, or small blocks bought with the large ones, ana are adapted for chimney-piece work or any other purpose you require, as they are all very superior, both in quality and colour, but are not very large. The thirty-four blocks of Ravacciona by the same vessel are for the Hall and Gallery, with the exception of eight blocks, and they are for the Arch. The Agenoria, which I expect wiil be the next vessel to arrive after the Diana, brings about 139 tons, viz. six blocks of Fanti Scritti for the Hall and Gallery floors; five blocks of statuary, viz. two for the landings of statuary Staircase, one for the long statuary steps, one a piece sawn from the landings, and one small block purchased with this lot; the latter is, I think, the most perfect block of statuary I ever saw; there is also by this vessel twenty-three blocks of Ravacciona, which I think are all for the Arch. The vessel likely to follow this one is the Susanna, with 140 tons, all of the Ravacciona for the Arch. After her will probably be the Arno (the first vessel that was loaded,) she brings 105 tons, nearly all the statuary for the Stair¬ case, with some of the columns, pedestals and long steps for the Hall and Gallery, of the Ravacciona marble. About this time, or perhaps earlier, will arrive the Union from Genoa, with 65 tons, viz. 34 blocks of the Ravacciona, partly for the Hall and Gallery and partly for the Arch, and 14 blocks of statuary; these are all small blocks sawn from off’ those for the stairs, or small blocks purchased with the lot, and are generally fit for the best sort of work for which statuary is used. The George and Thomas has 3.5 tons on board, viz. three of the Fanti Scritti for the Hall and Gallery floors, and 12 column shafts and two blocks of the Ravacciona marble. The Prudence has 30 tons on board, in nine blocks of the Ravacciona marble, all for the Arch. The Tiffin is chartered to bring 160 tons; she is row taking in her cargo at Leghorn, and about half ot it, I judge from a letter this day received, is already on board ; it will consist of one-third statuary (the whole of the remainder of that marble as far as I have purchased,) the other two-thirds will be Ravacciona for the Arch. The Arno is chartered for to be at Leghorn on the 1st of January 1827 ; she is to bring the column shafts for the Arch, with some 220. R r other 3 H APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE other long pieces, in all 175 tons; also the capitals for the columns, and the chimney-pieces, are to come by this last named vessel. The marble by the Anna is insured for - That by the Diana - — Agenoria — Arno - — Union - — George and Thomas — Prudence £. 450 950 1,000 1,250 350 200 150 The bills of lading for that by the Susanna have not yet come to hand, conse¬ quently it is not as yet insured, but I am daily expecting it. If you do not really want the dove marble 1 would rather you did not have it, as I shall be obliged immediately to buy others at a much higher price; or if you were to have two only of the three pieces, and me to keep the third, that would suit me. I remain, dear Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Joseph Browne. No. 33 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. &c. SIR > Carmarthen-street, 5 Sept. 1826. THERE are in the vessels now coming between fifty and sixty of the column shafts; they are in the Diana, the George and Thomas, the Agenoria, the Arno, and the Susanna; the remainder will come by the Tiffin and the Arno; there are about eighty of them scabbled, and the others have most of them a step or pilaster adjoined to them, to be sawn off here. I am, Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Joseph Browne. No. 24 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esq. &c. &c. &c. Sir, Carmarthen-street, 30 Nov. 1826. I am sorry to inform you the round scabbled pieces of Ravacciona are detained at the Docks, on the plea that they are manufactured marble. In this case they will be weighed, and pay a very heavy duty; and as there are a great many of them, it is important that something should be immediately done to set this matter right,’ before the other vessel begins to discharge. It appears to me nothing more than an erroneous idea of the Surveyor, as there is nothing more done to the round pieces than to the square ones, viz. scabbled. I am, Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Joseph Browne. No. 35 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esquire, &c. &c. &c. sir, Carmarthen-street, 4th December 1826. YOU have not yet given me any reply respecting the round pieces of Ravacciona marble which are detained at the Docks, on the plea of their being manufactured marble; I am fully aware that detention is irregular, and is occasioned principally by an erroneous conception of the Surveyor of Customs, as to the intention or meaning of the Legislature, in fixing the duty on marble in its crude state or manu¬ factured ; the round pieces in question, are of the former character, and no more manufactured than any other piece scabbled. Unless the question be immediately set at rest, a considerable expense will be incurred by landing all the round pieces from the Tiffin, which I cannot avoid, as the entry for discharging her cargo has already 351 ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 315 already been made for marble in block. In reference to the conversation I had with you respecting the marble work for the Arch , I submit the following for your consideration : Plain work to Ravacciona marble (extremely hard and diffi-o cult to work) in beds and joints, including sawing, working-f 2 s. 3d. out of winding, and preparing ready to fix, at per foot super/ Ditto - - - ditto, polished surfaces - - 45. 6d. Ditto - - - ditto, on moulded cornices, imposts, &c. - ys. Bevil joints, sunk work circular moulded, and other unusual work, to be in propor¬ tion. The above work to be executed in the best and most workmanlike manner, and measured on the external surface of each marble block worked. The tackle, scaffolding, hoisting, cement and labour to fix, cramping, jaggling, &c. to be charged extra; or if it be a more agreeable mode of arranging this business, I shall be willing to superintend and direct the whole execution for a commis¬ sion of twelve and a-half per cent, on the whole outlay, independent of the cost of marble, which perhaps will be the most equitable arrangement, for each party being fully aware of the application of every marble block, no difficulty or delay can arise in the execution of the work; and in respect to the material, I should feel the greatest anxiety to convert the whole with the utmost possible economy. I trust the proposition now submitted, will prove the anxiety on my part to meet your wishes, when it be remembered the very great saving already yielded in the material, of which you are fully aware ; indeed I have more ambition to execute this national work in a proper manner, than to realize profit by it; at the same time I must support my family, and conduct the business respectably. I am, Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Jos b Browne. No. 36 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash, Esquire, &c. &c. &c. SIR, Carmarthen-street, December 19, 1826. THE marble answering to the Schedule left with you, was shipped in the follow¬ ing ten vessels, viz. The Anna, Diana, Agenoria, Union, Susannah, Fortuna, Tiffin, George & Thomas, Arno, and Prudence. The first eight have come to hand, and the marble by six of them has been delivered at Buckingham House; that by the Tiffin, and George & Thomas, is now delivering; the Arno and Pru¬ dence are still to come, and may be daily expected, as both of them have long since sailed from Leghorn. 1 am, Sir, &c. &c. (signed) Jos b Browne. No. 37 .—LETTER from Jolm Nash, Esquire, to Mr. Joseph Browne , &c. &c. &c. SIR, * October 1, 1826. I employ you on behalf of the Government to proceed to Italy, and purchase for them such marble as I shall from to time direct you to purchase. (signed) John Nash. No. 38 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash , Esquire, &c. kc. See. SIR, Carmarthen-street, Jan. 24, J827. I have read with perfect astonishment the Note put into my hands the last evening by Mr. Pennethorne, and signed by you, inasmuch as it is directlv opposed, to your written orders to me in Italy, and would be. degrading in me to enter¬ tain even for a moment, which I do not, nor have I any intention now to enter upon a new arrangement, but to abide by the one already existing; viz. That I should furnish the marble agreeable to your orders, and receive a fair profit on it. To enable me to do this, I have made very great sacrifices in leaving my family and business for twelve months; and taking into account the great risk and responsi- 329. Rr2 bility 316 appendix to second report from select committee bility I have in so large and hazardous an undertaking, I feel that I am justly enti¬ tled to the most liberal profit, that would under any circumstances be allowed. As regards your liability to me, it does appear from the conversation I had with you the last evening, that you wish to rid yourself of it; and I have no objection to your doing so, on condition that the authorities under which you act, give me an acknowledgment of their liability to me, in the same manner that you now are, as it is quite a matter of indifference to me by whom I am paid ; but with the heavy engagements that I am now under, I cannot for a moment relinquish my claim on you unless a substitute be given me with which I am equally satisfied ; and under these circumstances, I consider it would be irregular in me to interfere in any way between you and those with whom you act. I therefore return you the paper given me the last evening, as a document that I have nothing to do with; my deter¬ mination being not to deviate from the engagements I have with you, but to fulfil it in the most correct and best manner according to my judgment, which I trust I am, Sir, he. he. will give satisfaction (signed) Joseph Browne. P. S. All the original Papers and Letters, I think it proper should remain in my possession, but may be referred to and compared with the copies by any proper person. No. 39 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash , Esq. he. he. he. SIR, Carmarthen-street, February 8, 1827. I have no knowledge as to the fact of the Prudence having left Leghorn, but I have heard she did about Christmas last. The contents of the nine blocks on board that vessel you have had. I will have them written off again to-morrow and forwarded. I cannot wait on you to-morrow, as I must go to the Docks to measure the marble by the Arno, which is now all out of the vessel. I am not aware of any thing that will prevent my waiting on you on Saturday morning, which I will do at any time you like to fix,—or Monday if it will suit you better. The scagliola specimens I believe will be ready to send you on Monday next. If you fix for Saturday, I should be glad if you would send word as to what are your views of the fair profit I am to have, and I will then come with the accounts correctly made up; otherwise my telling you the cost price will bring us no nearer to a settlement than we now are; and you must be aware that any delay in advancing money to me will only tend to augment the cost, which can neither benefit me or you either. I shall give punctual attention to the other parts of your Note that are not here noticed, and furnish particulars at the time you fix for meeting. I am, Sir, he. he. (signed) Joseph Browne. No. 40 .—LETTER from Mr. Joseph Browne to John Nash , Esq. &c. he. he. SIR, Carmarthen-street, February 8, 1827. THE marble mentioned in the Schedule was shipped by the ten vessels referred to in your Note. The Arno, which I mentioned to you the other day, has been discharging for several days past; if she finishes to-day, as I expect will be the case, I shall attend to-morrow to measure up the marble; it will then come up to Westminster I expect, in time to commence delivering at Buckingham House on Monday next, and, in that case, it is my intention to get the whole on the ground by the following Saturday. The Prudence is the last of the ten vessels referred to : I have no official infor¬ mation of her arrival at present ; she has nine blocks on board. In a short time I shall be able to give you tbe list of all the remainder that is coming. My beinant of a Servants’ Hall, adapted for so large an Establishment, and placed in a conve¬ nient situation for general communication. The remedies I have to propose for these defects are, in the first place, to widen all the Areas, so as to give additional light and air to those Rooms in the Basement which can be conveniently occupied without risk of annoyance to the Rooms on the Upper Floor occupied by Their Majesties ; and in the second place, to make openings through such walls, as by their height and proximity to windows, obscure the light. For the purpose of obtaining an increase of accommodation in those Offices connected with the Kitchen department, I propose to take down the circular Colonade on the side next Pimlico, and to construct on its site a parallelogram of Buildings to contain a portion of the Offices required, leaving between the New Building and the Main Building, a sufficient space for light and ventilation. I further propose to erect, on the same side, and with the same provision for light and ventilation, a Servants’ Hall of ample dimensions, the position being favourable for the purposes of general communication. Over both these Buildings I propose to construct Bed-rooms for Servants, of which, in the present state of the Building, there is far from a sufficient number. The Bed-rooms over the Kitchen Offices will be found convenient for the lodging of the Servants in that department, and those over the Servants’ Hall for Foot¬ men, &c. Intermediate between these Buildings, and connected with the Kitchen, but only rising one story, so as not to obstruct the light of the Kitchen, I propose to place all ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 325 all the offices connected with the Confectionary, and I have endeavoured to dispose of these offices, and all other offices connected with the Kitchen department, em¬ bracing the Pastries, Larders, Stores, &c. so that they may be in immediate conti¬ guity with each other, and have the advantage of free and ready communication by means of spacious and well-lighted passages. The attempt to accomplish a convenient communication for conveying the dinner from the Kitchen to the Dining-room was attended with insurmountable difficulties in the present state of the Building, and I therefore found myself compelled to adopt a plan for accomplishing this object, which, as it is attended with other very important advantages to which I shall have occasion to refer hereafter, I shall only advert to here, namely, the taking down of the intervals between the centre and the two wings on the side next the Garden, and advancing them so far forward as to obtain a considerable increase of space for internal Areas, admitting large bodies of light to parts of the Building, under the present arrangement very obscure, establishing an effective ventilation throughout the Basement, and on the side next the Kitchen allowing an ample space for a Stair of Communication between the Kitchen and Dining-room. Could I have attained these and other important ad¬ vantages connected with this alteration at a smaller sacrifice, I should most gladly have done so ; but I found no practicable mode of accomplishing the object in a less exceptionable manner. The other alterations I have to propose in the Base¬ ment are of such minor importance that I shall not dwell upon them, and I shall only remark, that they are adapted to the more convenient occupation of the various Rooms by the different departments of the Royal Household for whose use they are intended. Having now stated the principal features of the alterations I propose making in the Basement, I shall proceed to the consideration of the Ground-floor; and here I have first to observe, that though the Apartments destined for Their Majesties’ occupation are handsome and spacious, there are some minor points of arrangement connected with them which appear to me to admit of improvement. The commu¬ nication through the end of the Gallery, between the South-room in the centre of the Building and the Dining-room, and the entrance from the Gallery into the Bow-room, are both objectionable. There is a sad deficiency of light in the Gallery, which not only renders it unsuitable for the reception of sculpture, but also inconvenient as a mere Gallery of communication. The private Stair of Com¬ munication between this Floor and the upper Floor is much too small, and in other respects unfit for Their Majesties’ use, and the communications are many of them narrow, inconvenient, and not sufficiently lighted. Further, there is no suitable provision for Her Majesty’s residence on this Floor, combining all those advantages of space, aspect, and convenient communication which ought to be considered in the arrangement and position of the Royal Apartments. With a view to remedying the above defects, I beg leave to propose the following alterations which will, 1 trust, be found calculated to accomplish their several objects. In the first place I propose to close up the present entrance from the Gallery to the Bow-room, and to make the communication with that room through the South- room, making that room, independent of its distinct use, serve the purpose of an anti-room to the Bow-room. I further propose to place columns under the wall of the Bow Drawing-room of the upper floor, not merely for the purpose of giving increased support to that wall, but as an improvement to the appearance of the room itself, by breaking the enormous space of plain ceiling which has a tendency to make the room look very low and heavy. The fire-place I propose to remove to the space occupied by the present entrance from the Gallery, in which situation it will be centrical and placed immediately opposite to the Bow, which will give the room a very cheerful character. I further propose to open a door of commu¬ nication between the Gallery and the North-room, by which means that room will become more conveniently accessible. The advantages of advancing the intervals between the Centre and Wings already described become more apparent on this floor. On the south side, independent of the stair of communication with the Kitchen, and the light and ventilation obtained to the centre of the Building already referred to, a communication is obtained between parts of the Building where there is, at the present time, no distinct communication. The advancing of the Dining-room places that room in such a position as to afford a direct communication between it and the rooms in the centre, without the necessity of passing through the end of the Gallery. On the north side, the large area that I propose to form at the end of the Gallery affords an opportunity of opening a large 329. S s 3 window 326 APPENDIX TO SECOND REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE window into that end of the Gallery, through which a great increase of light will be obtained under circumstances favourable for its dispersion throughout the whole length of the Gallery. An opportunity is also afforded of rendering the communi¬ cation between the Gallery and the apartments in the North Wing appropriated to the use of the Queen and Her Majesty’s immediate attendants, more light, spacious and airy. At the extremity of this area is placed a private stair, intended exclusively for the use of those domestics who have duties to perform in Their Majesties’ private apartments. Having stated that the private stair of communication for the use of Their Majesties, between this floor and the upper floor, is both small and inconvenient I propose to remedy this defect by adding to the space the small back stair adjoining, and putting up a new and more commodious stair in the increased space which will thus be gained. As regards the providing of suitable apartments for the use of Her Majesty, I have to propose, as the most effectual mode of accomplishing this object, with all those advantages to which I have already referred, that the unfinished Conserva¬ tory, at the north end of the Terrace, be taken down, and that the space be occu¬ pied with the apartments exhibited on the Plan, comprehending a spacious Sitting- room and Anti-room, a private stair of communication with the basement for servants, and connecting with the main Building, where the requisite apartments for Dressing-room, Bath-room and Wardrobe may easily be provided. A private communication may be formed with the Bed-room, and for the use of attendants, and a spacious communication with the body of the Palace, embracing every ad¬ vantage that can possibly be required. I beg to recommend, in connection with this arrangement, the converting of the Bow-room on the North Wing into a pri¬ vate entrance for Their Majesties, the situation being peculiarly convenient for ready access from the Park. The other rooms in this Wing may be conveniently appropriated to the Ladies in attendance on Her Majesty, according to such arrangements as Her Majesty may be pleased to direct. The Conservatory, on this side of the Palace, I propose to remove altogether, as being totally useless under the arrangements already proposed, and incapable of being converted to any other useful purpose. The space occupied by it may be appropriated with advantage to a small ornamental flower-garden, inclosed between the Building and the boundary wall of the proposed new Approach. The Conservatory at the south end of the Terrace I should recommend to be replaced with a building to correspond in appearance with the new apartments proposed to be erected for Her Majesty, and though I cannot at once assign to this building a definitive appropriation, I may suggest that it may either be applied as a Sculpture Gallery, or become an auxiliary to the Armoury or the Picture Gallery, until some permanent use can be found for it. Proceeding to the Principal Floor, the most important and almost the only altera¬ tion I have to propose, except such as result from the alteration between the Centre and Wings already referred to, arises out of His Majesty’s wish to have a handsome Dining-room on this floor, and the providing of suitable offices in connection with the Dining-room. The only means, in my judgment, by which this wish can be effectually accomplished, is by converting the Music-room to the purpose proposed, for which appropriation the stairs communicating with the Kitchen afford consider¬ able facilities, and converting a portion of the South Wing, intended for an Armoury, into the offices required ; the space thus lost to the Armoury may, if thought expe¬ dient, be more than compensated by throwing into the Gallery the octagonal room intended for a Chapel and the room beyond it, by which a space more than equi¬ valent to that given up, and much better calculated for the display of the collection, will be obtained. Having now stated the principal features of my Plans for completing Bucking¬ ham Palace as a residence for the Sovereign, and pointed out the advantages that are likely to result from their adoption, it remains for me to furnish such informa¬ tion as to the probable Expense of accomplishing the various Improvements exhi¬ bited on the accompanying Plans, or referred to in this Report, as circumstances will admit of. In making a Statement on this subject, I must beg to observe that the time allowed me by the terms of Your Lordships’ Minute, and the Resolution of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, has been far from sufficient to enable me to go into a minute detail of the cost of each particular Item ON WINDSOR CASTLE AND BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 327 Item of Expense; and, indeed, had more time been allowed me, from the state in which the Building has been left, and the mixed nature of the several works pro¬ posed to be performed, an exact calculation would have been almost impracticable. Under these circumstances, I have proceeded upon the best data within my reach in framing my Estimate, and I have endeavoured in each head of Expense, to place such sums as I thought not only calculated to meet the actual cost, but also such contingent expenses as were likely, under ordinary circumstances, to arise during the progress of the Works : Probable Cost of completing unfinished Works - Expense of erecting Offices on the side next Pimlico - Expense of taking down and re-building the Intervals between the Centre and Wings - Expense of erecting Apartments for the Queen - Expense of Painting and Paper-hanging - Expense of sundry Alterations - Commission on the above Expenditure (say) Salary of Clerk of Works - £. 26,177 15,000 s* d • - 10,000 - - - 6,000 - - - 2,500 - - - 10,000 - - 69,677 - - - 3 > 5 °° - - - 600 - - £. 73*777 - “ In answer to the second branch of the inquiry referred to my consideration, namely, “ the practicability and Expense of completing Buckingham House as a “ Palace for State Purposes,” I must beg to observe, that the subject is one that requires more time than has been allowed me for giving it that full consideration that ought to be bestowed upon so important an inquiry, before venturing to record an opinion upon it. It must be obvious that, as a preliminary step towards accom¬ plishing this object, a very considerable purchase of property, of unascertained extent and value, must necessarily be made on the side of Pimlico ; and until the practicability of obtaining, and the amount of such a purchase, can be ascertained, it would be impossible for me to frame a Report to meet the demands of the Minute and Resolution referred to. Under these circumstances, all that I can venture to do is to state, that as far as regards the alterations proposed, in answer to the Inquiry as to the practicability of completing the Palace as a private residence for the Sovereign, there is nothing calculated to interfere with the eventual conversion of the building to State Purposes, but that most of the improvements recommended would considerably facilitate such an object, and to express my readiness to enter immediately upon the further Inquiry, if it should be Your Lordships’ pleasure that I should proceed upon it. I have the honour to be, My Lords, Your Lordships* most obedient humble Servant, 62, Welbeck-street, 26 Sept. 1831. Edw. Blore. V •* - - l '.t -i * - . ■ * ■ . . ■ - , • • . ■ ' ! . ■ . ' 1 Sow.