Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:12:21.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Contrast in Styles at the Office of Works. Layard and Ayrton: Aesthete and Economist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. H. Port
M. H. Port
Affiliation:
Queen Mary College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The rapid growth of wealth, especially among the classes of the greatest activity and enterprise, has led, for a number of years past, to a diminished watchfulness, outside the walls of Parliament, respecting the great and cardinal subject of economy in the public charges, and the relation between the income of the State and its expenditure. I earnesdy desire that the paramount interest of the lately enfranchised classes in thrifty administration may operate powerfully to bring about a change.’ So Gladstone trumpeted the leitmotif of his administration, at the outset of the general election campaign in October 1868. The fundamental importance of fiscal strategy in Gladstone's politics has recently been emphasized. Faced with an ineluctable increase in civil expenditure and rising expectations of governmental contributions to the public weal – what he termed ‘scattering grants at the solicitation of individuals and classes’, the system of ‘making things pleasant all round’ and stimulating ‘local cupidity to feed upon the public purse’ – Gladstone was determined that his ministry, backed as he believed by the votes of the thrifty working classes, should reduce such expectations. ‘I t is the special duty of public men’, he told his constituents soon after taking office, ‘to watch the very beginnings of evil’ in regard to any relaxing of the general principles of economy and thrift; and he promised to reduce expenditure in the coming year.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 151 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Times, 10 Oct. 1868. I wish to thank my colleague Dr J. A. Ramsden for reading a draft of my paper.

2 Matthew, H. C. G., ‘Disraeli, Gladstone and the politics of mid-Victorian budgets’, Historical Journal, 1979, pp. 615–43Google Scholar.

3 The Times, 21 Oct. 1868, p. 8.

4 The Office of Works votes acquired a cyclical character as major works were authorised. From £571,000 in 1851/2 they rose above a million in seven of the next 15 years. Expenditure, more consistent, ranged between £390,000 (1851/2) and £720,000 (1862/3). But in 1866/7 expenditure rose sharply to £978,000 and was still £723,000 in 1868/9 (Parliamentary Papers: Annual financial accounts).

5 See Crook, J. M. and Port, M. H., History of the king'works, VI, 1782–1851 (London 1973)Google Scholar, passim.

6 Ibid. chap, vii and pp. 223–35, 623–4 Port, M. H., ‘Pride and parsimony…the Whitehall quarter in the 1850s’, London Journal, II (1976), 171–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 14 & 15 Vict. c. 42.

8 Pennethorne's function was essentially that of a surveyor, King's works, vi, 193.

9 Barrington, Kaye, The development of the architectural profession in Britain (London, 1968)Google Scholar.

10 Liberal, M. P., Aylesbury 1852–1957, Southwark 1860–70. Under-secretary for foreign affairs 1852, 1861–6; first commissioner of works 1868–9; envoy at Madrid 1869–77, at Constantinople 1877–80. Explored Nimrûd 1845–6, published Nineveh and its remains, 1848–9Google Scholar. See Sir A. Henry Layard…autobiography and letters, ed. Bruce, Hon. W. N., 2 vols. (London, 1903)Google Scholar, and Waterfield, G., Layard of Nineveh (London, 1963)Google Scholar.

11 The Times, 11 Nov. 1869.

12 PRO, Work 22/2/18, confidential printed memorandum, 4 Nov. 1869; Parliamentary papers, 1868–9 (387), x, Select committee on Hungerford Bridge and Wellington Street Viaduct, second report, qq. 3299 ff.

13 See Sheppard, F. H. W. (ed.), Survey of London, xxxviii, The museums area of South Kensington and Westminster (London, 1975), chap. xGoogle Scholar.

14 Ibid. chap, XIII; B[ritish] L[ibrary], Add. MS 38995, fo. 400.

15 Port, M. H., ‘The New Law Courts competition, 1866–7’, Architectural History, xi (1968), 75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Scott, G. G., Personal and professional recollections (London, 1879)Google Scholar, chap. 4.

17 Sheppard, F. H. W., (ed.), Survey of London, XXXII, St James, Westminster, Pt II (north of Piccadilly) (London, 1963), 412–21Google Scholar.

18 See below.

19 Port, M. H. (ed.), The houses of parliament (London and New Haven, 1976), p. 180Google Scholar.

20 Physick, J., The Wellington Monument (London, 1970)Google Scholar.

21 Survey of London, xxxviii, chaps, v and VI.

22 Morley, J., Life of Gladstone (London, 1903), 11, 371–5Google Scholar. Gladstone, warned Lowe, 12 01 1869Google Scholar, ‘The great danger is excess in the buildings we raise and the affectation of a Palatial style in what are after all workshops’. Civil servants ought not to decide on the amount of space they needed, nor should the architect be free to add ambitious design to the brief. BL, Add. MS 44536, fo. 95.

23 Morley, Gladstone, ii, 375.

24 The idea of a permanent commissioner had been advocated by the select committee on miscellaneous expenditure, Parl. Papers i860 (483), IX, p. iv.

25 14 & 15 Viet. c. 42.

26 P.P. 1860 (483), IX, qq. 851–2.

27 See DNB.

28 P.P. 1860 (483), IX, q. 1338; P.P. 1868–9 (336), xxxiv, Copy of papas relating to the recent changes in the establishment of the Office of Works, pp. 3–4, Report of Treasury committee, 4 Mar. 1869.

29 Liberal M. P., 1831, 1832–59; president, Board of Health 1854–5, first commissioner of works 1855–8; Cr. bart 1838, Baron Llanover 1859: See DNB.

30 See Thompson, F. M. L., Chartered surveyors: the growth of a profession (London, 1968), 91Google Scholar.

31 P.P. 1860 (483), IX, qq. 1046, 1509 ff.; P.P. 1868–9 (336), XXXIV, p. 4.

32 P.P. 1860 (483), IX, qq. 1024 ff. For Austin, see Boase, F. M., Modern English biography (Truro, 1892), 1Google Scholar.

33 Probably the George Russell (1830–1911) who was son of William Russell (d. 1884), accountant-general of Chancery, and grandson of Lord William Russell (d. 1840); married 1862 Charlotte Isabella, daughter of the 6th duke of Roxburghe. Lowe thought him socially ‘rather too grand’ for his post (BL, Add. MS 44301, fo. 43). See also Sainty, J. C., Office-holders in modern Britain: I Treasury officials, 1660–1870 (London, 1972), p. 148Google Scholar; Debrett's Peerage, sub Bedford; Civilian, 2 05 1874, p. 408Google Scholar.

34 BL Add MS 44417, fos. 216–21, 21 Dec. 1868.

35 Treasury clerk 1827–62 (private secretary to Peel 1841–6); chairman of the inland revenue, 1862–77. Boase, Mod. Eng. biog. III (Truro, 1901).

36 Especially A history of architecture in all countries from the earliest times to the present day (3 vols., London, 1865–1867)Google Scholar. In 1871 he received the RIBA gold medal for architecture. Earlier, he had been associated with Layard in advising the Crystal Palace Co. on its Assyrian house. See Pevsner, N., Some architectural writers of the nineteenth century (Oxford, 1972), pp. 238–51Google Scholar.

37 PRO, Work 2/32, pp. 378–9, Layard to treasury, 4 Jan. 1869.

38 PRO, Work 6/413, memorandum by Hunt, 18 Dec. 1873.

39 P.P. 1868–9 (336), XXXIV, pp. 7–9, Layard to treasury, 11 Mar. 1869.

40 PRO, Work 22/2/18, memorandum by Layard, 4 Nov. 1869.

41 P.P. 1868–9 (336). XXXIV, p. 8, Layard to treasury, 11 Mar. 1869.

42 Ibid. p. 2, treasury minute, 14 Feb. 1869. For Hamilton, permanent secretary of the treasury, 1859–71, see DNB.

43 Wright, M., Treasury control of the civil service, 1854–1874 (London, 1969), p. 223Google Scholar.

44 P.P. 1868–9 (336), XXXIV, p. 5.

45 Ibid. p. 2, no. 3.

46 Ibid. p. 6, no. 4.

47 Ibid. p. 8 no. 6 enclosure, Layard to treasury, 11 Mar. 1869.

48 Ibid. p. 10, no. 8, treasury to first commissioner, 18 Mar. 1869.

49 BL, Add. MS 44419, fos. 271–3.

50 PRO, Work 2/33, pp. 73–5.

51 See DNB. He was a grandson of the 7th earl of Wemyss, and was a notable writer on highland folklore.

52 BL, Add. MS 44301, fo. 43, Lowe to Gladstone, 24 Mar. 1869. Callender himself was not without social standing, being described as a nephew of the duke of Somerset, Bodleian Lib., Disraeli papers, B/XX/Lx/413, Lord H. Lennox to Disraeli, 14 Apr. 1874.

53 PRO, Work 22/2/18, memorandum of 4 Nov. 1869.

54 Ibid.

55 P.P. 1868–9 (200), x, First report of select committee on Hungerford Bridge etc, p. iv. Lord Elcho (1818–1914), later 10th earl of Wemyss, frequently spoke on questions of public building.

56 P.P. 1868–9 (387), x, Second report of select committee on Hungerford Bridge, p. iii.

57 P.P. 1868–9 (200), x, p.v.

58 PRO, Work 22/2/18, memorandum of 4 Nov. 1869.

59 See Port, M. H., ‘From Carey Street to the Embankment – and back again!’, London Topographical Record, xxiv (1980), 167–90Google Scholar.

60 3 Hansard, CXCVII, 1431–45, 8 July 1869.

61 Mud was further flung at Layard for his having had shares in the Salviati Murano Mosaic Co., to which E. M. Barry had given the contract for the decoration of the central hall, houses of parliament, 3 Hansard, CXCVIII, 708 ff., 26 July 1869.

62 3 Hansard, CXCVII, 1438–41.

63 Ramm, A. (ed.), Political correspondence of Mr Gladstone and Lord Granville (hereafter Gladstone-Granville corresp.) (2 vols., London, 1952), 1, 45Google Scholar, 18 Aug. 1869. Cf. Gladstone's assessment of Layard in writing to Clarendon, BL. Add. MS. 44537, fo. 102, 18 Oct. 1869.

64 BL, Add. MS 38998, fo. 341, Elcho to Layard.

65 Gladstone-Granville Corresp. 1, 45.

66 BL, Add. MS 44301, fos. 63–4, 7 Aug. 1869.

67 BL, Add. MS 38996, fos. 292–4, Thornton Hunt to Layard, 20 June 1869.

68 Gladstone-Granville Corresp. 1, nos 100, 105, 108.

69 BL, Add. MS 44421, fos. 158–61, 12 Oct. 1869.

70 Gladstone-Granville Corresp. 1, 46, 21 Aug. 1869. Ayrton had criticized the queen's seclusion in her widowhood.

71 BL, Add. MS 44301, fo. 65, 9 Aug. 1869.

72 Gladstone-Granville Corresp. 1, 47, 50; BL, Add. MS 44537, fo. 35, Gladstone to Lowe and Gladstone to Childers, 24 Aug; fo. 38, to Lowe, 27 Aug; fo. 39, ib. 29 Aug.; fo. 65, ib. 20 Sept.; and fo. 86, ib. 7 Oct. 1869.

73 Gladstone-Granville Corresp. 1, 50, 54.

74 BL Add. MS 44301, fo. 65.

75 The Times, 26 08 1858, p. 8Google Scholar. For Ayrton, see DNB and Boase, Mod. Eng. biog. 1.

76 SirLucy, Henry, Men and manner in parliament (London, 1919), p. 235Google Scholar; Letters of Queen Victoria, 2nd series, 1862–1878, ed. Buckle, G. E., Gladstone to the queen, 8–9 08 1872Google Scholar.

77 The Civilian, 27 11 1869, p. 1Google Scholar; Brabourne papers, political diary of E. H. Knatchbull-Hugessen, vol. 3, p. 56 (I owe this reference to Miss J. Rowbotham).

78 BL, Add. MS 44421, fos. 168–70, 13 Oct. 1869.

79 Ibid. ffos. 187 90, 13 Oct. 1869.

80 Gladstone-Granville Corresp. 1, 69, 20 Oct. 1869.

81 BL, Add. MS 38997, fos. 71 6, 29 Oct. 1869.

82 Ibid. fo. 167, n.d.

83 The Times, 9 11 1869, p. 4Google Scholar .

84 DNB, sub Ayrton.

85 PRO, Work 6/413, memorandum of 18 Dec. 1873.

86 Ibid.

87 PRO, Work 2/33, pp. 409–14, 11 Jan. 1870.

88 Ibid.

89 See History of the king's works, ed. H. M. Colvin, vols. v and VI.

90 Ibid. VI, 277, 575 ff.

91 P.P. 1857–1858 (417), XI, Report of select committee on foreign office reconstructionGoogle Scholar, App. A (V).

92 BL, Add. MS 38997, fos. 171–2.

93 3 Hansard, CXIII, 738, 2 Aug. 1850.

94 PRO, Work 12/33/1, no. 203.

95 King's works, VI, 109, 168, 193–8.

96 Ibid. 233–8.

97 The British building industry (London, 1966), p. 356Google Scholar.

98 Ibid.

99 See Reader, W. J., Professional men (London, 1966)Google Scholar.

100 See Kaye, Barrington, The development of the architectural profession in Britain (London, 1960)Google Scholar. The 1881 census was the first to accord architects professional status.

101 PRO, Work 2/33, p. 415.

102 The Times, 9 Nov. 1869, p. 4.

103 PRO, Work 22/2/20, fos. 1–15, Ayrton to treasury, 11 Jan. 1870.

104 PRO, Work 6/413, memorandum of 18 Dec. 1873; BL, Add. MS 44538, fos. 107v–8, Gladstone to Lowe, 24 Mar. 1870.

105 P.P. 1868–9 (336), XXXIV, no. 4.

106 BL, Add. MS 44538, fo. 105, Gladstone to Glyn, 15 June 1870.

107 See DNB; BL, Add. MS 44440, fo. 144; PRO, Work 2/45, pp. 293–5.

108 PRO, Work 2/33, p. 443.

109 Survey of London, XXXVIII, 86–8.

110 P.P. 1868–9 (387), x, Appendix.

111 PRO, Work 2/34, pp. 90 (Ayrton to treasury, 7 Mar. 1870), 121 (treasury to Ayrton, 22 Mar. 1870).

112 P.P. 1870 (154), LIV, Correspondence between the first commissioner of Works and E. M. Barry, January–March 1870.

113 3 Hansard, CCI, 670 ff., 13 May 1870.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid.

116 Johnson, Nancy E. (ed.), The diary of Gathorne Hardy, later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: political selections (Oxford, 1981), p. 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gladstone told E. M. Barry that Lowe ‘concurred in Mr A[yrton]'s judgment, as to dispensing with the serv[ices] of a…special architect for the H[ouse]s of P[arliamen]t’, BL, Add. MS 44538, fo. 140, 4 May 1870.

117 PRO, Work 12/33/1, no. 203, ‘Terms of appointment of architects for public buildings.’

118 These fixed sums were calculated at, for a building, 5 per cent, and, for plans only, 1¼ per cent on the authorized expenditure. PRO, Work 12/33/2, fos. 50–2.

119 PRO, Work 2/34, p. 129, 23 Mar. 1870.

120 Ibid. pp. 287–9, 13 July 1870.

121 Ibid. 2/35, p. 347, 29 Nov. 1870.

122 Ibid. 2/36, pp. 692, 709, 748, 766, 813, 886.

123 Survey of London, XXXVIII, 208–9.

124 PRO, Work 17/16/2, 18 Feb. 1869.

125 PRO, Work 2/34, p. 206; Work 12/16/2, pp. 120–1, 24 June 1870.

126 PRO, Work 17/16/3: 5, 6, and 13 Dec. 1872, cited Survey of London, XXXVIII, 209.

127 PRO, Work 12/34/1, fos. 24–7, 2 July 1870.

128 PRO, Work 12/40/3, fo. 29, 27 Mar. 1873.

129 PRO, Work 2/40, pp. 227–9, 17 Apr. 1873. See Fergusson, J., “The new Law Courts”, Macmillaris Magazine, 01 1872, pp. 250 ff.Google Scholar; The Times, 19 Aug. (p. 11), 11 Sept. (p. 11), and 6 Dec. 1871 (p. 3) – and an almost uniformly hostile barrage of thirty-odd letters, 21 Aug. 1871 to 22 Jan. 1872; Builder, XXIX (1871), 949Google Scholar; xxx (1872), 237.

130 PRO, Work 12/40/3, fos. 50–6, Street to Ayrton, 1 May 1873; fos. 60–70, Ayrton to Street, 9 May 1873.

131 Athenaeum, 29 07 1871 (pp. 150–1)Google Scholar, 6 Jan. 1872 (p. 21), 13 Jan. (p. 54), gives a general picture of the press debate. In the professional press, the Architect gradually took up Street's cause; see vol. VI (July–Dec. 1871), 113, 125, 134–6; VII (Jan.–June 1872), 4, 19, 65, 153.

132 PRO, Work 12/40/3, fo. 90, 20 May 1873; fos. 105–9, Ayrton to Street, 26 May 1873; BL, Add. MS 44438, fo. 325, Street to Gladstone, 27 May 1873. Street was acquainted with Gladstone and breakfasted with him on occasion.

133 3 Hansard, ccxvi, 396–408.

134 Ibid. 404.

135 PRO, Work 2/40, pp. 532–6, 19 June 1873.

136 Ibid.

137 Ibid. p. 523, 14 June 1873.

138 Letters of Queen Victoria, 2nd series, 1862–1878, II, 261, Gladstone to the queen, 28 June 1873. Gladstone's letter of 28 June conveying the cabinet's decision to Ayrton is BL, Add. MS 44542, fo. 131.

139 BL, Add. MS 44641, fo. 140; 44542, fo. 131. Gladstone sent Ayrton's reply to Lowe, 30 June 1873, remarking ‘I understand it to mean conformity’, ibid. 132.

140 3 Hansard, ccxvii, 1262, 30 July 1873.

141 Ibid.

142 Ibid. 1123, 28 July 1873.

143 Ibid. 1260, 30 July 1873.

144 Ibid. 1268–9.

145 Letters of Queen Victoria, 2nd series, II, 224, Gladstone to the queen, 8–9 Aug. 1872.

146 Ibid. The Architect recognized (16 Aug. 1873, p. 73) that ‘the proceedings of Mr Ayrton with reference to the architectural profession have sprung out of the special policy of retrenchment which has been a leading principle with the government of Mr Gladstone’.

147 BL, Add. MS 44302, fos. 4, 6–7, Lowe to Gladstone, 2 and 8 Jan. 1872. Cp. PRO, Work 2/36, p. 929, 12 July 1872.

148 E.g. new rules for the royal parks, Gardiner, A. G., Life of Sir William Harcourt (2 vols., London, 1923), 1, 238Google Scholar ; BL. Add. MS 44541, fo. 161, Gladstone to Ayrton, 22 July 1872.

149 Lucy, Men and manners, 235. For a study of another instance, Ayrton's treatment of Joseph Hooker of Kew, see MacLeod, R., ‘The Ayrton Incidence: A commentary on the relations of science and government in England, 1870–73’, in Science and values (New York, 1974), ed. Thackray, A. and Mendelsohn, E.Google Scholar.

150 E.g. The Times, 9 11 1869, p. 4Google Scholar; 31 July 1873, p. 9, Saturday Review, 28 05 1870, p. 704Google Scholar.

151 3 Hansard, cxcv, 1254–66.

152 PRO, Work 12/34/4, fos. 87–9, 6 Apr. 1871.

153 P.P. 1860 (483), IX; 1868–9 (387), x.

154 Willson, F. M. G., ‘Ministries and boards: some aspects of administrative development since 1832’, Public administration, XXXIII (1952)Google Scholar.

155 P.P. 1868–9 (387), x, q. 3342.

156 Spectator, 14 05 1870, p. 602Google Scholar.

157 See Sir Henry Lucy's assessment, Mm and manner, 238.