*-^» 
 
 .:^:.;■s^. 
 
 ^M 
 
 •• ■ 
 
 
 :;^^'%^J^'
 
 L I G) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N 1 V ER.S ITY 
 
 or 1 LLI NOIS
 
 THE NEW 
 
 COURTS OF JUSTICE 
 
 NOTES IN REPLY TO SOME CBITIGISMS. 
 
 Bv GEORGE EDMUND STREET, R.A. 
 
 MEMBER OF THE IMPERIAL AND ROYAL ACADEMY OF THE FINE ARTS, VIENNA. 
 
 SUCOND EDITION, WITS ADDITIONS. 
 
 Eontfon, 
 EIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE; 
 
 HIGH STREET, 
 ©ifOltl. 
 
 TRINITY STREET, 
 
 (JTambilHsc. 
 
 1872.
 
 THE DESIGNS FOE THE NEW COUETS 
 OF JUSTICE. 
 
 The publication of a Paper on the design for tlie 
 New Law Courts in tlie number of Macmillans 
 Magazine for January, 1872, written by Mr. James 
 Fergusson, affords me an opportunity of replying to 
 some of the attacks which have been made on my 
 designs, of which I am not unwilling to avail myself. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson was the earliest as he is the latest 
 to attack me. He began by writing a letter to the 
 Builder some six months ago, and the line of 
 opposition to all that I design, which he suggested 
 then, has been closely and carefully followed up in 
 the articles and letters which have since the middle 
 of August appeared in the Times. There has been 
 no controversy, for it is hard to sustain one when 
 only one side is represented, and it is nothing very 
 new or very surprising that only one side is re- 
 presented when the question under discussion is 
 ventilated in the columns of a newspaper. But as 
 it is Mr. Fergusson' s particular fortune to hold 
 exactly the views of the critic in the Times, as well 
 as of the gentlemen — architects or surveyors — who 
 have contributed the anonymous letters to the same 
 paper, and as he has now stated his views with 
 extreme emphasis in Macmillans Magazine, it is 
 
 A 2
 
 4 The Designs for 
 
 worth while to say a few words in reply to him. In 
 so doing, I have the advantage of replying to a real 
 person, and not to one of those shadowy essences 
 whose delight it is to attack men under the shelter 
 of delusive initials, or of unsigned articles. 
 
 When Mr. Fergusson attacked me in the Builder, 
 the charges he made against my design were mainly 
 two. First, that he had "no hesitation in saying 
 that it is the meanest design for the principal front 
 of so important and pretentious a building which has 
 been proposed in our day." And secondly, that I was 
 going to build a useless Central Hall, which he politely 
 called a ' ' vault. ' ' ' ' Nobody, ' ' he said, ' ' wants this vault 
 except Mr. Street'," and he carefully described it as an 
 "imperforate" and "gloomy vault." "It is not a 
 Gothic Hall in any true sense of the term," he added, 
 because "no Gothic hall on any thing like the same 
 scale and applied to civil purposes was ever vaulted 
 during the Middle Ages in any part of Europe," — an 
 argument which comes strangely from the mouth of one 
 who pretends to object to following old precedents or 
 to copying what was done in the Middle Ages. 
 
 As to the first of these charges, I can only plead 
 that after all it is a question of taste, and that I am 
 
 * Opinions seem to differ on this point. Mr. Paley, the 
 architect of the Parish Church at Bolton — one of the finest 
 churches built since the revival, and a competent critic therefore — 
 expresses himself as follows : " I cannot help taking this oppor- 
 tunity of saying how much I admire your designs. I think 
 your Great Hall will be the finest work of its kind erected (in 
 Europe) since the Gothic EevivaL J know of nothing that will 
 equal it, even going back to the fourteenth century," Mr. E. 
 W. Godwin, an architect of acknowledged ability of a high order, 
 writing in the Building News, speaks of it as " this beautiful hall 
 — one of Mr. Street's very happiest efforts." 
 
 UIUC
 
 the New Cotirts of Jji-stice. 5 
 
 content, as I always have been, to differ from 
 Mr. Fergusson's opinions in regard to taste in archi- 
 tecture. I think they are founded in prejudice, and 
 fortified by an ignorance which it would be hard 
 indeed to account for on any but Mr. Fergusson's 
 own explanation, which is, that " architecture is 
 not an art to be learned in a day, or practised by 
 amateurs. Long apprenticeship and severe study 
 are requisite for success, and if architecture ever 
 passes out of professional hands the art will be 
 something one dreads to look forward to." There 
 is no one to whom these words apply with more 
 singular exactness than they do to Mr. Fergusson 
 himself. On the other hand I am obliged to quote 
 what Mr. Fergusson himself says about my own 
 qualifications in MacDiillan's Magazine. He says, 
 '' Mr. Street is a man of undoubted talent, equal 
 in that respect to any of his professional bre- 
 thren, either in this country or on the Continent. 
 He loves his art, and has devoted his life and 
 energies to its cultivation, more from predilection 
 than interest. He is an exquisite draftsman, and 
 has in fact almost every qualification for a great 
 architect;" and he concludes by asserting that I 
 have thrown away all these advantages by choosing 
 to devote my ''undoubted talents" to the study 
 and revival of one style of art alone — that of the 
 thirteenth century. And surely if any portion of 
 this eulogy is deserved, I am entitled to follow my 
 own taste, instead of deferring to what Mr. Fer- 
 gusson, with his few opportunities of professional 
 employment and entire lack of early artistic education 
 or training, chooses to lay down for my guidance. 
 As to the second charge, I can only say that it is
 
 6 The Designs for 
 
 not founded on fact. My ''imperforate" vault was 
 and is to be lighted by very large windows, at the 
 north and south ends. It has also on either side eight 
 enormous windows, each containing about 300 feet 
 of glass, and there is absolutely no single portion of 
 the surrounding buildings which can by any possi- 
 bility obscure the light from any portion of these 
 windows. What is one to say of the bold indif- 
 ference to facts which Mr. Fergusson's assertion 
 exhibits ? His statement was either founded on 
 knowledge of the truth or it vras not. And to me it 
 seems that the man who ventures to make a 
 damaging assertion about another man, without first 
 of all trying, to learn whether it is true, exposes 
 himself to the heaviest censure. 
 
 After this vigorous commencement of the attack 
 on me, I was certainly not surprised to find some 
 similar attacks made in the columns of the Times, 
 but I ^dll defer any comments upon them, and go 
 at once to Mr. Fergusson's latest utterance in the 
 January number of Macmillan's Mngazine. In this 
 paper there are various statements in regard to me, 
 which for convenience I will state and answer as 
 shortly as I can, seriatim and without further preface. 
 
 I. " One fine morning the Government, u'orried and 
 l^erplexed hi/ the rival claims of the competing architects, 
 awarded to Mr. Street the building of the Law Courts, 
 because his design was the irorst — a perfectly competent 
 tribunal having aicarded him only three marJcs in the com- 
 petition, while it had assigned Edward Barry fort ij -threes 
 
 Mr. Fergusson ought to inform himself of facts 
 before he makes such assertions. To say the least, 
 it is improbable that Government would have selected 
 my design "because it was the worst," or that the
 
 the Nezu CoiL7'ts of J nsticc, 7 
 
 House of Commons, by a majority of two to one, 
 would have confirmed the selection as it did, when it 
 was challenged by Mr. Edward Barry's friends. But 
 the whole statement is entirely inaccurate. 
 
 The selection of the best design in the Law Courts 
 competition was left to a small tribunal of most 
 distinguished and eminent persons. The instruc- 
 tions issued to architects were very elaborate. Two 
 of the most important were as foUovv^s : — " (^^l)* 
 The chief points to be kept constantly in view, and 
 to be treated, as superseding a.? far as they may con- 
 flict, all considerations of architectural effect, are the 
 accommodation to be provided and the arrangements 
 to be adopted, and in carrying out this design, the first 
 object should be to provide ample uninterrupted com- 
 munication and accommodation for those who have 
 legitimate business in the New Courts." The other 
 was " (54). The comparative cost of carrying out such 
 design will be an important element in determining the 
 competition." 
 
 The competition designs were sent in in January, 
 1867 ; and in order to assist the judges of design in 
 arriving at a conclusion, four separate investigations 
 were carried on by direction of the Courts of Justice 
 Commission. 
 
 (a) A Joint Committee of Barristers and Solicitors 
 was appointed to report on the plans. This was the 
 most important inquiry of all, as the final plan had 
 to be founded on this very report, to the exclusion of 
 all others. 
 
 (h) The designs for each department were sent to 
 the several heads of departments, and their opinion 
 was asked as to the comparative merits of the several 
 office-plans in detail.
 
 8 The Designs for 
 
 (c) In December, " 1866, two gentlemen (Messrs. 
 Shaw and Powuall) were also asked to make a 
 separate report on the plans. 
 
 And— 
 
 {d) Finally, Mr. Gardiner was employed to esti- 
 mate the cost of carrjdng into execution the several 
 designs. 
 
 When Mr. Fergusson talks about " a competent 
 tribunal " having awarded Mr. Barry the first place, 
 he refers solely to the third of the preliminary inquiries 
 referred to above. 
 
 The first inquuy resulted most unfavourably for 
 Mr. Barry ^ The second Report (5) was very un- 
 favourable to Mr. Barry's plans, and much more so 
 than it was to mine. The third Report (c) is that 
 to which Mr. Fergusson chooses to confine himself; 
 and the fourth (</) was extremely against Mr. Barry, 
 whose design was estimated as being likely to cost 
 no less than £87,000 more than mine was. 
 
 The judges of design, when they came to a decision, 
 made, as is well known, an equal recommendation of 
 
 ' The Sub-Committee expressly condemned in his case, (1) The 
 level of the Central Hall, (2) its very complicated plan, (3) the 
 position of all the Equity Courts, (4) the lack of provision for 
 ingress to and egress from both sides of the Courts, (5) the position 
 of the bar rooms (6) the position and level of the attorney's rooms, 
 and (7) the position of the offices of the Probate Court, forming 
 one-fifth of the entire building (the largest and most thronged 
 of all the offices included in the building) which had been placed, 
 they say, " by 'Mr. Barry, in the centre of the building, so as to 
 increase the concourse of persons into that part to an extent which, 
 in the opinion of the officers of the Probate Department, cannot 
 but interfere with the general utility of the building." And 
 thii-ty-four of the officers of this great department presented a 
 formal memorial against acting on Mr. Barry's plan, as being the 
 worst, and least capable of improvement of all the plans submitted.
 
 the New Courts of yustice. 9 
 
 Mr. Barry and myself; and finally, and not "because 
 my design was the worst," the Government appointed 
 me to the sole conduct of the work. Here again, 
 therefore, Mr. Fergusson is guilty of a complete mis- 
 statement of the facts of the case, much to my 
 damage. 
 
 II. Mr. Fergusson's next statement is as follows : — 
 " It is the accuracy of imitation pervading every detail 
 that malces Mr. Street's design so perfectly intolerable. 
 According to this Joshua of architects the sun of art stood 
 still when Edivard III. died in 1377, and has not moved 
 fonvard since that time. Hence the lawyers of the 
 l*dth century must he content to lounge in vaidted halls, 
 ivith narrow windows filled loith painted glass, and so 
 dark that they cannot see to read or tvrite in them. They 
 must icander tlwongh corridors ivhose gloom recalls the 
 monldsh seclusion of the Middle Ages. They must sit on 
 high, straight-hacked chairs, and he satisfied ivith queer- 
 shaped furniture, which it is enough to give one the 
 rheumatisrii to look at;" and so forth. 
 
 Again, with sorrow for the writer, I have to say that 
 this tirade contains not a word of truth. It is true 
 that Mr. Fergusson did not know whether or no it was 
 true, simply because he had not seen my plans. He 
 might easily have done so at any time ; but when I 
 invited all the members of the Institute of Architects 
 to do so, he might both easily, and without any 
 awkwardness or indelicacy as regards myself, have 
 done so, if he had wished to know the facts of the 
 case. My vaulted hall is not a lounging-place for 
 barristers. It is the Westminster Hall of these New 
 Courts — the passage-way to the whole of them, — but 
 not likely to be used by barristers at all or ever. The 
 " narrow " windows have each hght 5 ft. wide by 30 ft.
 
 lo The Designs for 
 
 high. There is no intention on my part to fill them 
 T\'ith stained glass. There is not a gloomy corridor in 
 my building ; they are all lighted directly from the 
 open air without borrowed or artificial light. I have 
 proposed no "high, straight-backed chairs;" and, in 
 fine, can only express my amazement at the rash 
 temerity of all Mr. Fergusson's slashing statements. 
 
 III. '^ Mr. Street boasts that his design is a real fac- 
 simile of the monastic or domestic institutions of the 
 middle ages." This is entirely an invention of Mr. 
 Fergusson's fancy. I never said or thought any 
 thing of the kind, and consequently! have not boasted 
 about it. I do, on the contrary, venture here to say 
 that if Mr. Fergusson, or any^one else, can find any fea- 
 ture in my design which is copied from any thing else 
 any where, I shall be happy to change it. But I don't 
 believe that all Mr. Fergusson's diligence or acuteness 
 would enable him to find a single such instance. The 
 truth is, as his remark about the similarity of the 
 Greek revival and the Gothic revival shows, Mr. Fer- 
 gusson knows but little about Gothic buildings either 
 old or new, and when he charges me with copyism he is 
 giving the very best evidence of it. I am devoted, as 
 he says, to the study of my art, but I detest — the word 
 is not at all too strong — copyism ; and the ground of 
 my love for Gothic is that it is a real, free, and living 
 style, in which copyism is not necessary or likely to be 
 indulged in by any one who knows his art at all well. 
 
 lY. ''Mr. Street's central hall is useless inside. It 
 darlxcns the lights, and renders the courts and 'passages 
 around it noisome and inconvenient." Here again 
 appears the misfortune of speaking without knowledge 
 of facts. Unless the Courts of Justice Commission, 
 and all the authorities that have been consulted from 
 
 i
 
 the New Cotirts of J usiice. 
 
 II 
 
 first to last, are entirely in the wrong, a central hall is 
 not " useless," but indispensable. I prefer to cover it 
 with a stone vault, for the very practical reason that on 
 any other terms it would be impossible to make it fire- 
 proof, or to avoid the greatest risk to the whole enor- 
 mous building in case any part of it were set fire to^ 
 As to the darkness and inconvenience of my corridors, 
 there is no question of taste ; it is a question of fact ; 
 and the simple fact is, as every one* who served on the 
 Sub-Committees of the Courts of Justice Commission 
 well knows, my one object was always to postpone 
 every thing to real convenience. That is still my 
 object, for I believe most firmly that in architecture the 
 useful and the beautiful are something very like con- 
 vertible terms. 
 
 V. " The inconvenience and inappropriateness of the 
 new Laiv Courts may, like the frightful example of the 
 
 ^ The present state of Strasburg Cathedral, with its outer 
 roof burnt off during the siege, and its interior left unscathed, is 
 about as good evidence as can be wished for of the advantage 
 of a stone vaulted roof in this point of view. 
 
 * Mr. Edwin Field, the Secretary of the Courts of Justice Com- 
 mission (whose untimely death all who knew him deplore), had 
 a better practical knowledge of the various plans which had been 
 made for the New Courts, than any one. In his examination 
 before the Select Committee on the New Law Courts, he spoke 
 strongly of my " admirable " arrangement of the plan, which " I 
 believe " (he said) " is perfect." And I cannot resist quoting a 
 part of a letter received only a few days since from Professor 
 Hayter Lewis bearing on the same subject. " The mention of the 
 Law Courts brings to mind a remark I heard from my poor friend, 
 Edwin Field, no long time before his death, and after his connexion 
 Avith the matter (officially) had ceased. He was showing me your 
 plans, and, after explaining the details, he said as he shut the port- 
 folio, ' There, if Street carries those out as they are drawn, they 
 will make the finest Courts of Law known. I look upon them as 
 absolutely perfect.' "
 
 12 The Designs for 
 
 itinerant preacher^ serve as a learning, and prevent the 
 repetition of such mcdiaval productions." On this I will 
 only add to what I have just said, that any one who 
 will take the trouble to look at my plans will see that 
 they are not inconvenient. Almost all the windows are 
 large, square-headed openings, of an average ^ddth of 
 four feet, and they are always placed in the most 
 convenient part for lighting the room. The whole 
 building is most carefully fire-proof in its construction, 
 and in no part have I ignored any modern appliances 
 or uses which present any real advantages. The style 
 I have adopted makes it quite unnecessary that I 
 should do so. It is perfectly free and elastic, and 
 lends itself so easily to every useful requirement as to 
 be infinitely more suitable for a building of such varied 
 requirements than any variation of Classic or Renais- 
 sance architecture. But, indeed, it is perplexing in 
 the extreme to understand what style Mr. Fergusson 
 would suggest in its place. He damns all styles with 
 a singular impartiality, and mth an assumption of 
 omniscience which is superb \ 
 
 ^ This is no new featui'e in his criticisms. In those very useful 
 books, the " History of Architecture," and the " History of 
 Modern Architecture," few indeed are the architects or buildings 
 that get much praise at his hands. He has always some radical 
 cure for the defects which he sees in every building. Somerset 
 House, for instance, wants wings brought forward, the centre 
 thrown back, and some towering feature — dome or tower — in the 
 centre. I might have hoped the centre of my design would have 
 exactly pleased him. But no. I must reverse the rule, close up 
 my fi-ont, conceal my central hall, and erect a front as straight 
 and unbroken as Somerset House. It is amusing enough to think 
 what my fate would have been if I had commenced with this, and 
 how, just as now, I should have been told how to make my work 
 passable, just as Sir Christopher Wren, Kent, Chambers, Sir Charles 
 Barry, and the rest of my predecessors have been told by the same 
 infallible critic.
 
 the New Coicrts of yustice. 1 3 
 
 Mr. Fergusson complains in the Tunes, thai 
 " archsBology is not architecture." No one, I sup- 
 pose, ever said or thought that it was. But it is 
 remarkable to see in the same issue of the paper a 
 letter from him denouncing me (and all other archi- 
 tects, too !) for acting, as he asserts, as if I thought 
 it were, and a letter from Mr. E. B. Denison de- 
 nouncing me just as heartily for not so acting. And 
 for these exactly opposed reasons both of them agree 
 to condemn my mode of designing. It is not easy to 
 please critics when no two of them agree in what 
 they wish to see. The Tmu$ critic first of all objects 
 to my design that it is too Enghsh and too ecclesias- 
 tical; and, secondly, that it is a mere copy of foreign 
 secular work. Mr. Fergusson complains that I 
 copy every thing accurately from old examples ; Mr. 
 Denison that I copy nothing from them, but produce 
 what he calls " Streetian" work instead ! Mr. 
 Sydney Smirke complains that my Law Courts are 
 not like the Flavian Amphitheatre, and Mr. E. W. 
 Pugin (if I understand him aright) that they are not 
 modelled on the Granville Hotel, Ramsgate ! 
 
 Can any thing be clearer than that the real objec- 
 tion to any thing I can do will be as strong as ever 
 if I attempt to please all these gentlemen ? It is a 
 question, really, of the man and the style. I main- 
 tain that both were deliberately chosen more than 
 three years ago, and that it is not fair now to argue 
 as if they had not been. Mr. Fergusson naturally 
 tries to call off attention from this point to discus- 
 sions as to whether a central hall, such as mine, 
 may be vaulted in stone in the absence (so far as 
 he knows) of "mediaeval authority for such a vault." 
 It would be about as reasonable to inquire whether
 
 1 4 The Designs for 
 
 or no there is "mediaeval authority" for eighteen 
 courts of justice in one great building ! He settles, 
 next, that my hall being, in spite of its want of pre- 
 cedent, " so correct in all its details, must be orna- 
 mented with richly coloured glass;" and I suppose, 
 when he finds that this does not enter into my concep- 
 tion of what is desirable in any part of such a build- 
 ing, he will again complain of my want of respect for 
 the " authorities," of which, after all, it would seem 
 that he is the most slavish worshipper. It is not to 
 the point to compare the lighting of the Manchester 
 Hall with that of my buildings. I do not believe 
 that the conditions are the same. But it would be 
 very much to the purpose to compare the area of 
 my hall with that of Westminster Hall, and to notice 
 that the proportion of glass to area is very much 
 greater in my design than it is there. 
 
 But it is, I feel, idle and in vain to argue with 
 such a combatant. I have shown how carelessly and 
 recklessly his statements are made ; how invariably 
 his assertions on questions of fact are more or less 
 erroneous ; and I have a right to say that, if this be 
 so, there is every reason to suppose that the opinions 
 on questions of taste of one who is so intolerant of 
 all opinions but his own will be equally reckless, 
 unsound, and untrustworthy. 
 
 I have now, I hope, sufficiently answered Mr. Fer- 
 gusson's complaint. No one can have read it, and 
 the articles which appeared in the Times of August 
 19, 1871, and December 6, 1871, without seeing how 
 completely identical they are in the sort of criticisms 
 they indulge in, and in the whole tone which they 
 adopt. And it is sufficient for me to say that there 
 is ample internal evidence in the articles themselves
 
 the New Courts of J itsticc. 1 5 
 
 that their author was absokitely ignorant of every 
 thing except a very small elevation of one front 
 of the building. The Times first of all charged my 
 design with being ecclesiastical because it was English 
 instead of Continental in style. But the vigorous 
 answer of the Saturday Revieiv to this assertion in- 
 duced it in the next article to charge me with having 
 " collected doorways, towers, windows, gables, and 
 galleries from all over Europe, and incorporated them 
 in a building which is a heterogeneous collection of 
 parts, and which by no amendment can be fused into 
 a whole," and I gladly leave these two contradictory 
 criticisms to confound each other ! 
 
 It is not worth while to refer at length to the letters 
 which have appeared in the columns of the Times. 
 Generally speaking they have answered each other, 
 and I am content to leave Messrs. Smirke and Pugin, 
 Messrs. Cavendish Bentinck and E. B. Denison to 
 fight out their quarrels together. Sir George Bowyer 
 had evidently made a mistake in the scale of the one 
 very small drawing which he saw when he complained 
 that my building was low, just as the Times' Critic did 
 when he spoke of the doorway to my central hall 
 which is seventeen feet in clear width as being " a 
 small church-like door." 
 
 Some of my professional brethren have been temptec2 
 like Mr. Fergusson to join in the fray, and the Times 
 has printed their letters ; I decline to follow them, in 
 the many curious inquiries their letters branch off 
 into. I am sorry to find Mr. Edward Pugin so pro- 
 foundly distressed at his own want of proper education 
 as an architect that he imagines all of us to be in the 
 same unhappy case. No doubt if we are, the world 
 will soon find us out ; but in the meantime, if we would
 
 l6 The Designs for 
 
 take example by other professions, we might perhaps 
 be wise not to wail quite so loudly in public 
 places as Mr. Pugin does. Let us hope that when 
 he has relieved himself, he will try again whether he 
 cannot mend his ways, and give us such works as 
 his father's admirers would "uish to see from his 
 hands. 
 
 One of the anonymous writers in the Times, 
 "F.E.I.B.A.," whose statements are generally as ill 
 founded as are those of Mr. James Fergusson, not 
 only repeats, nearly word for word, the statement 
 about Mr. Barry's claims, but says also that my designs 
 have met with nearly " universal condemnation," words 
 which Mr. Fergusson repeats in Macmillan's Magazine. 
 If he thinks that this is so, it is, I suppose, because 
 he limits his reading to the Times. I have naturally 
 enough taken note of the criticisms which have ap- 
 peared elsewhere, and I venture to say that as far as 
 the rest of the press is concerned this statement is 
 wholly inaccurate. Of artistic pubhcations the Atlie- 
 nmim, the Architect, and the Building News have all 
 remarked in the most flattering terms on my design. 
 One only, the Builder, has done the contrary. I have 
 yet to leam why its editor is entitled to speak ex catludrd 
 on questions which involve any real acquaintance mth 
 mediaeval art^ Yet this is the way in which he criticizes 
 the design for the only part of my work which he 
 troubles himself to notice at all. "With the end of 
 
 * Elevations cannot be understood without comparison with a 
 plan. This every Architect knoAvs. But the editor of the Builder, 
 himself an Architect, spent, as I am informed, not more than a 
 quarter of an hour in my office looking at my drawings some 
 three months since. This was short work Avith one of the most 
 elaborate set of working draAvings ever made, and did not show 
 much desire to do justice to my labour !
 
 the Neiv Courts of J us tic e, 1 7 
 
 the hall some seventy feet behind there is nothing but 
 a hole, the common gabled buildings seen on each side 
 increasing the meanness of effect." The public must 
 judge between us when the perspective views of my 
 design can be published, as I trust they very shortly 
 will be ^ 
 
 I believe that no one can have read what I have 
 written, or can have followed the attacks on me in the 
 Tiims, without seeing how very much personal animus 
 runs throughout them. I have shown how completely 
 opposed to the facts of the case Mr. Fergusson's state- 
 ments are. I have stated also that his ignorance of 
 what my plans are and contain is wilful ignorance. 
 He might have examined them, but has preferred to 
 criticize without examining ! The other attacks on 
 me are generally of the same description as Mr. Fer- 
 gusson's. Those even which are signed condemn an 
 entire building because their writers, failing to under- 
 stand a geometrical elevation of one front, are too 
 impatient to wait for further information in the shape 
 of perspective drawings, and plans, &c., of this and 
 all the other fronts. 
 
 I should like, before concluding, to say a few words 
 on my conception of the work which I have to carry out 
 in this great building. Ever since my appointment as 
 its architect — now nearly four years ago — no day has 
 passed without more or less of my time and thought 
 being given to it. The more I have thought the more 
 certain have 1 been that there is only one way in which 
 such a building can possibly be made all that it should 
 be, and this is, by setting before myself, as the first object 
 to be obtained, the perfectly convenient arrangement 
 
 ^ A general view of the building was published in the Illustrated 
 Jjondon News of January 20th. 
 
 B
 
 1 8 The Desig7is for 
 
 of the floor-plans in every part. The drawings which I 
 have now just completed are the fourth complete scheme 
 which I have had to make. And each scheme has, I 
 feel sure, as far as arrangement goes, been rather 
 better than its predecessor. The details have all been 
 sifted over and over again by all the persons best 
 qualified to judge whether they are suitable for the 
 purpose. They have been thoroughly approved and 
 endorsed by those authorities, and I may assume that 
 in this important respect they may now be held to 
 leave little to be desired. The alterations from the 
 plans approved by the Courts of Justice Commission 
 are in no case alterations of principle. The number 
 of Courts is decreased, and various offices are omitted, 
 but all that remain are arranged in the same manner 
 as in the plan approved by the Commission. 
 
 In regard to architectural design, it is natural that I 
 should feel anxious to do my best. The opportunity 
 is great, and ought not to be thrown away. No 
 architect would dare to do so, and I must again appeal 
 to Mr. Fergusson's own description of my position and 
 character as an architect, and ask whether it is likely 
 that I, of all men, should be willing or likely to 
 do so. 
 
 But every one who has studied modern architecture 
 at all knows very well that there are questions of 
 principle involved, not only in the choice of a style, 
 but equally in its treatment in detail when you have 
 chosen it. When I was chosen to be the architect of 
 this building it was because I had made a Grothic 
 design, which, whatever its merits or faults may have 
 been, had this peculiarity, that the design of the 
 exterior grew naturally out of the arrangement of the 
 interior. It would neither have been consistent nor
 
 the Neiu CoiLvts of y ustice. 19 
 
 reasonable if I had subsequently forsworn all my 
 principles and followed the example which Sir C. Barry 
 set in the river-front of the Houses of Parliament. 
 Mr. Fergusson says now that Sir Charles ^'gave a 
 grace and dignity which hardly belong to the style by 
 taking the licence of putting his design for the Parlia- 
 ment Houses into an Italian form," and, again, that it 
 is ''an Italian design in a Gothic disguise." And the 
 offence in my case is that I refuse to follow what 
 seems to me, and what I should think would seem to 
 most students of architecture, to be a very bad exam- 
 ple. But one has only to read Mr. Fergusson's own 
 criticism of the Houses of Parliament (History of 
 Modern Architecture, pp. 325-6) to learn how ill I 
 should have fared if I had tried in this way to con- 
 ciliate a man whose hand truly is against every man ! 
 
 The position and surromidings of the new Law 
 Courts, in great degree, as it seems to me, settle 
 what the treatment of the design ought to be. Three 
 out of the four fronts (I am unable to realize what is 
 meant by " the " front of such a pile) are to be built in 
 comparatively narrow thoroughfares, where neither at 
 present nor in future will any distant view be possible. 
 In the Strand, the most far-off possible point of view is 
 from the south side of S. Clement's Church. Here the 
 view of the eastern portion of the building will be cut 
 off by intervening houses, the western portion will be 
 partly liidden by S. Clement's Church, and the only 
 visible portion will be the entrance to the central hall, 
 and the portion of the building on each side of it. So 
 again coming from the east, the view will be fore- 
 shortened in the most extreme way, and a long regular 
 front would lose its only charm or claim to be erected, 
 viz. visibility in its completeness. The river front of 
 
 B 2
 
 '20 The Desigyis for 
 
 Somerset House can be taken in at one glance, because 
 you can stand at any distance you like from it, and 
 therefore its regular front (which Mr. Fergusson would 
 like to see cut to pieces !) is a reasonable mode of treat- 
 ment. But I repeat it — the elevation of the Law Courts 
 in the Strand will have always to be seen bit by bit, or 
 in a very foreshortened perspective, and if it were uniform 
 and regular, would be at the same time utterly tame and 
 uninteresting. The elevations of my building in Carey 
 Street and Bell Yard are erected under the same con- 
 ditions, facing streets which will not be more than some 
 60 feet in average width. But on the west side, my build- 
 ing will have a much better chance of being seen in its 
 entirety ; and accordingly, my design for this is treated 
 in a very regular and uniform fashion. Mr. Fergusson, 
 being an architect, knows very well that this west ele- 
 vation and the southern elevation are closely connected. 
 Even whilst S. Clement's Church stands, they may be 
 seen together, and if it is ever removed they must be so 
 seen. Why then has he never troubled himself to see 
 what I proposed to do with this western elevation, and 
 why should he assume that the Strand front is " the " 
 front ? For my own part, it seems to me it would be 
 more reasonable to affix this distinctive article to the 
 west front, because it will be possible to take it in at 
 one view. I should like to ask whether the front of 
 the Tuileries towards the garden, or towards the Rue 
 de Rivoli, is "the" front of that building. And the 
 position of the New Courts of Justice makes the answer 
 in one case suitable to the other. The important front 
 of the Tuileries is towards the open garden, because 
 it can be best seen from that side, and the important 
 frontage of the Law Courts is naturally toward Cle- 
 ment's Inn for the same reason.
 
 the Neii) Co^irts of J^tt slice. 2 1 
 
 The treatment of the two fronts in combination must 
 be seen in order that the case may be properly under- 
 stood. One cannot and ought not to be discussed, with- 
 out knowledge of the other ; and the architect who is 
 criticizing his brother architect's work, ought to be careful 
 to see what is proposed before he condemns it root and 
 branch. My complaint is not only that Mr. Fergusson 
 has not done this, but that he has not made even the 
 faintest attempt to do it. He says that he is '• proud 
 to call me his friend," and that '' personally he has 
 the greatest possible esteem for me !" What more or 
 what worse he could have done for me if he had been 
 my enemy, and had the greatest possible contempt for 
 me, I know not ! For six months, I have held my 
 tongue under great provocation ; and if I now speak, it 
 is only because when one, who is " proud to call me liis 
 friend," circulates persistently statements about my 
 work and my intentions, as to which he has no know- 
 ledge whatever, and which are, in point of fact, in 
 almost every particular contrary to the facts, it is 
 necessary for my own credit's sake, and out of deference 
 to those real friends who concern themselves for me, 
 that I should at last brush away the cobwebs in which 
 my critic is attempting — I hope in vain — to entangle 
 me. 
 
 GEORGE EDMUND STREET. 
 
 January 1st, 1872.
 
 POSTSCRIPT TO SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Since the publication of these notes, I have read a 
 paper published by Mr. E. M. Barry, in reply to what 
 he calls my " attack " upon him. A reference to page 6 
 of my notes will show, I think, that Mr. Barry is 
 over sensitive when he thinks that I meant to attack 
 him. I meant only to reply to Mr. Fergusson's state- 
 ments, and I said no more than I could help ; for I 
 was anxious then, as now, not to say any thing to 
 wound Mr. Barry. We are both members of an 
 Academy of Arts, in which the number of Architects 
 is so limited, that it is doubly unfortunate when they 
 disagree. I must adhere, however, to the statements 
 I have made in answer to Mr. Fergusson. They are 
 founded strictly and carefully on the published record 
 of the proceedings of the Courts of Justice commission. 
 There is one observation of Mr. Barry's to which I 
 must refer. He says, " Mr. Street afterwards accepted 
 a separate appointment without communication with 
 me." This might be interpreted by some as an impu- 
 tation on my honour, in which sense, I am confident, 
 Mr. Barry did not write it. The truth is, that when I 
 heard that I had been appointed sole Architect to the 
 new Courts of Justice, I at once consulted one of the 
 most eminent of my brethren as to whether or no I 
 should accept it without Mr. Barry. He pointed out 
 to me, with obvious force, that the Attorney- General had 
 decided the joint award in favour of myself and Mr.
 
 The Designs for the Neiu Courts of Justice. 23 
 
 Barry to be invalid, and that if the judges could not 
 name oiie of us, as being superior to the other, nothing 
 was left but for the Treasury to do so ; and he ad- 
 vised me that I should do no good, to either Mr. 
 Barry or myself, by making another protest. So far 
 from not communicating on the subject with Mr. 
 Barry, we were in constant communication, and I 
 wrote to him within a day of my appointment — a fact 
 which may very easily now have escaped his recollec- 
 tion — and received a reply from him. I supposed 
 when I was protesting that the award of the Judges of 
 Design should be final, that I was being supported 
 by Mr. Barry, who was in constant friendly commu- 
 nication with me on the point. I was unfeignedly 
 surprised, however, when I found among the letters 
 printed by order of the House of Lords, May 1st, 
 18C9, one from Mr. Barry, dated February 2Gth, 
 1868 (i. e. just after my letter to Lord Derby in his 
 favour, which he has printed), in which he says, 
 "It is further stated in the Case " (submitted to the 
 Attorney -General) " that Mr. Barry and Mr. Street 
 insist on their joint employment under the terms of 
 the award. T]\u statement is altogether erroneous, as far 
 as I am concerned, for I have never insisted on my em- 
 plotpnent jointly ivith Mr. Street.'" 
 
 I prefer to make no further observations on this 
 point, and will but add a few words on the only other 
 matter which concerns me in Mr. Barry's reply. Those 
 who read it will observe that he speaks throughout 
 of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall as having made a Re- 
 port, which was in fact exhaustive and final on the 
 whole question. I have already (p. 8) stated that this 
 was one only of four Reports, and it may be well now 
 to see in what light Messrs. Shaw and Pownall them-
 
 24 ' The Designs for 
 
 selves regarded it. Mr. Barry has frequently printed 
 some of the results at which they arrived, in the tahu- 
 lated statement annexed to their Report, and I cannot 
 but regret that he has omitted to notice or reprint the 
 Report' itself. In this the following extremely distinct 
 opinion as to its Umited character is expressed, in 
 entire opposition to the view which Mr. E. M. Bany, 
 Mr. Fergusson, and F.R.I.B.A., have tried to extract 
 from it. They say, "We should have been glad 
 to feel that this Report, made in conformity with 
 the Instructions contained in the Minute of March 
 23rd, would have enabled the Commissioners to de- 
 termine v/hich of the Designs, upon the whole, afforded 
 the greatest advantages. We fear, however, that this 
 is not the case, and that though we have expressed a 
 definite opinion on all the most important requisitions, 
 the number of these requisitions is so considerable, 
 and they vary so much in their relative importance, 
 as to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for 
 the Commissioners on the Report alone to arrive at a 
 satisfactory conclusion as to which of the designs does 
 offer the greatest advantages, having reference as tvell 
 to the relative compliance of the several competitors ivith 
 the instructions in detail, as to the equally important 
 points of the general arrangement and combination of the 
 design as a whole." 
 
 This very limited inquiry is what I have always 
 objected to Mr. Barry, and after him Mr. Fergusson, 
 elevating into the final decision of a perfectly com- 
 petent final tribunal. The real final tribunal was in- 
 creased, after this Report was made, by the addition of 
 Messrs. Shaw and Pownall themselves, to the number 
 of the judges, and it was in this character, with their 
 own limited Report a^nl all the other Beports before
 
 the New Courts of Justice. 1 5 
 
 them, except that respecting the comparative cost of 
 the designs, that they made the joint award in favour 
 of Mr. Barry and myself, which the arbitrator — the 
 then Attorney- General — pronounced invalid. 
 
 To turn from Mr. Barry to Mr. Fergusson, I think 
 it right to say that he has, so far as I can learn, not 
 attempted to answer the remarks which I found it 
 necessary to make on his erroneous statements in 
 Maeiiiillan's Magazine. He has indeed written a 
 letter to the Athenmum (dated January 16th, and 
 printed on the 20th), which touches none of the state- 
 ments which I made, and on which the Editor makes 
 the following remarks : "It lies with Mr. Street, if 
 he cares to do so, to answer certain points in Mr. 
 Fergusson's letter with which we have no direct con- 
 cern : but we must say that Mr. Fergusson allows 
 judgment to go by default on the question of his 
 alleged ignorance of the design which he ardently con- 
 demned. What the ' principles and practice of the 
 law and literature of the middle ages ' have to 
 do with the question we cannot imagine. To intro- 
 duce such appeals to prejudice is unworthy of the case 
 and the writer. ' Small clique worshipping that par- 
 ticular fetish ' would be, if from another pen than Mr. 
 Fergusson's, considered 'personal.' To us it appears 
 important that the opinions of those who are to use 
 ' this building should not be summarily rejected as 
 wholly beside the mark. Mr. Fergusson must forgive 
 us for saying that he seems incapable of recognizing 
 that there are persons who do not agree with him 
 about the architectural merit of the design. Mr. E. 
 Sharpe, whose knowledge of architecture is very great, 
 is but one amongst many authorities who reject Mr. 
 
 Fergusson's dicta," &c., &c. 
 
 c
 
 2 6 The Designs for the New Courts of yustice. 
 
 I gladly add the only paragraph in Mr. Fergusson's 
 letter which I need refer to. He says, " The other per- 
 sonal point I wish to allude to is the insinuation, which 
 runs through much that Mr. Street says, that, besides 
 the letter in the Times that bears my name, I am the 
 author of many that have been published under other 
 signatures. On this point I beg leave to call atten-. 
 tion to a paragraph in a letter which I wrote to the 
 Times on the 29th of December last. At the end of 
 the first paragraph I stated, ' I have never written a 
 line on these subjects without signing my name in 
 full.' This statement I now beg leave to reiterate in 
 the strongest and most unequivocal terms." 
 
 January 31sf, 1872. 
 
 OILBERT AND RIVIXGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN S SQUARE, LONDON.
 
 ■f* ^ 
 
 
 **.*'> 
 
 J^