OBSERVATIONS

ON SOME RECENT

UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS,

TOGETHER WITH REMARKS ON THE

Management of the Public Library and Pitt Press.

1. Accidental circumstances first led me to examine minutely the history of some of our recently erected buildings. It afterwards appeared to me that I should be doing some service to the University, by laying before the Members of the Senate, a brief sketch of the proceedings of Architects and superintending Syndicates, in the cases of the Observatory, the Anatomical Museum &c., and the New Library, in order to prevent the dearly bought experience of the past from being entirely lost. The present time is very appropriate for doing this, as we are now taking steps to secure building sites, and the New Library is already nearly filled with books, yet still burthened with a heavy debt. On the ground of the extravagant cost and limited accommodation of the New Library, the Commissioners found a recommendation that the claim of the Library under the Copyright Act should be commuted for a money payment. This leads me to shew that that large outlay was quite unnecessary, that any attempt to form a great Library by a selection of books is generally regarded as unadvisable, and that the method of forming National and University Libraries, which has prevailed in England from the earliest times, is very general on the Continent and has recently been adopted in America. The superficial view which the Commissioners take of the Library, and their recommendations in direct opposition to the only evidence before them would probably have had little influence here or in Parliament, but it may be regarded as the interest of a class to take advantage of this injudicious re-opening of a question which had been set at rest after a long series of contests continued down to 1837. A carefully prepared estimate of the present yearly income of the Library, and of the sum probably applied to its service during the last 27 years, lead to the conclusion that the supply of money is amply sufficient, and that any existing deficiency is chargeable on the management. Finally, the University Press, which was formerly so profitable, now fails even to pay its own expenses, when the drawback on paper is deducted, even if interest on the capital invested, and depreciation of stock are left out of consideration. As well as can be judged from the limited amount of available information on this subject, it seems very probable that under proper government, a consider

able degree of prosperity might be recovered, but it is at any rate beyond all doubt, that the temporising system which has prevailed during the last nine years ought to be at once abandoned.

2. A Syndicate appointed to consider the propriety of building an Observatory made a favourable report in April, 1820, stating that the total cost would be not less than £10,000. In the following May this Report was confirmed, £5,000 was granted from the chest, and a Syndicate was appointed, which was empowered to expend £3,000 in instruments as soon as £10,000 was contributed-to select a siteto make arrangments for its purchase to receive plans and estimates, and within seven months to report again. On the same day another Syndicate was appointed to collect subscriptions. In the following December the Syndics reported that they had found a suitable site belonging to St. John's College, and had also ordered a Mural Circle, Transit, and Equatoreal, which were to cost about £2,300. In Feb. 1822, the Senate petitioned the House of Lords in favour of a bill for allowing the purchase and sale of the site. In the following March, Mr. T. C. Mead's plan was chosen by Grace, on the recommendation of the Syndicate, and in June, Messrs. Munday and Bushell entered into a contract to complete the Buildings, faced with stone throughout, before Nov. 1823.

3. From the Report of the Syndicate, dated May 7, 1824, it appears that the sum paid to St. John's College for the 7 acres of ground was £733; and the other expenses for interest, Act of Parliament, and compensation to tenant, amounted to £275, making in all £1,008. The Inclosure and laying out of ground cost £1,472. The contract price of the Observatory, Observer's and Assistants' Houses was £8,497, and the charges for alterations in Houses alone, were £566 with others amounting in all to £1,075. There was also a charge of £2,766 168. 1d. for the small Dome and Shutters at the top of the Observatory. Stoves, Papering, Ventilators, &c. cost £782; Stable, Offices, Garden Wall, and Pump-House, were charged £1,518; the Gates £652; Insurance and Printing £155; Premiums to Architects £150; Clerk of Works £183; and Architect £978. The sum total of these payments or demands was (including fractions of a £.) £19,241. 9s. 2d. and it was hoped that some reductions would be effected. The sum actually paid in 1822-1826 is returned at £18,963 15s. (Ev. p. 16). In December, 1824, it further appears that Mr. Mead's charges had been referred to Mr. Benjamin Wyatt.

4. I can find no trace of any authority given to the Syndics to order these extra works and alterations. In June, 1822, they stated that the total cost would exceed the sum then contributed, and that at some future period an application must be made to the liberality of the Senate for further assistance. In May, 1824, they confessed that they would not have regarded this intimation as a sufficient sanction to their proceedings if they had foreseen such an expenditure. It is of this excess that one of the Syndics makes the candid confession that they were "unfortunate in incurring during the execution of the work, both odium and a most serious responsibility, by acting without proper authority." (Obs. p. 17)

5. Thus we find that about £18,000 beyond the cost of site was squandered in providing three or four rooms on the ground floor, the

Equatoreal pillar, with one residence at each end, not by any means remarkable for extent of accommodation. The price of the Equatoreal was £718. 3s. 3d. and of the Mural Circle £1168, 1s. 6d. The chest is stated to have paid £1686. 4s. 9d. for instruments in 1832--1833.

6. About seven or eight years after the completion of the Observatory, it was resolved to erect an Anatomical Museum, with rooms for the Professors of Chemistry and Anatomy. Apparently under the influence of delusive views of economy, Mr. Humfrey, a Builder, was entrusted with the important office of Architect. The University entered into a contract to pay £1843. 10s. 6d. for the buildings. Mr. Humfrey gave written directions for very great deviations from his plans, mainly without authority, and without consulting a single member of the superintending Syndicate. (Report, March, 1834). The sum, in addition to the contract price, which the University paid was £1124. 18s. 11 d., with the Surveyor's bill of £93. 8s. 6d. for measuring the same, and Architect's commission £56. 5s. Thus the original contract price, with Architect's commission, was £1935. 14s. 6d. which was raised to £3210. 6s. 111⁄2d. by the Architect's unauthorised proceedings. The fittings of the Anatomical Museum cost £220. (Grace, June, 1833). Thus the total expense of these buildings was £3430, 6s. 11 d. with a threatened further charge of £170 for warming. In the evidence before the Commissioners the chest is said to have paid £2200. (p. 16), and the Report states the cost to the University to have been £3220 (p. 120).

7. The Architect's Report (June 24, 1833) is written in a style that seems to shew little respect for the understandings of those to whom it was addressed. It appears that no proper ground plan had been provided before the designs were made. The Architect states that he ordered some things, the cost of which surprised him; he expresses his firm belief that if the skylight of his own design, or, as he calls it, "the thing contracted for" had been executed, it would have fallen in under the effects of wind or snow, and he concludes by expressing a hope that he shall not be accused of having "out-stepped the fair "and liberal interpretation of what may be called the discretion usually "given to an Architect, in cases of this kind."

8. Having thus investigated the cost we will proceed to examine how far the buildings are adapted to their intended purposes. The evidence of the Professor of Anatomy on this point is so full and complete that nothing more can be desired. He says that the Museum is already inconveniently crowded, with no room for additions. The lighting of the Lecture-Room is "indifferent." The Professor's Private-Room is very ill-lighted. The two small dissecting rooms are "both badly lighted," and the one for Pupils is moreover small, and badly ventilated. "Thus the Museum is a room not well adapted for the reception and "display of the aggregate number of preparations which it contains "at present, and can with difficulty admit of additions to them; whilst "the rooms peculiarly designed for teaching are quite inadequate for "that object." (Report, p. 119, 120)

This outlay of £3,440. 16s. 11 d. refers solely to the accommodation for the Professors of Chemistry and Anatomy, and does not include the rooms of the Jacksonian and Botanical Professors. The appearance of the whole of this group of dirty cream-coloured brick buildings is

exceedingly mean. It is manifest from this example that there is no necessary connection between poverty of design and cheapness of execution.

9. A Syndicate was appointed Nov. 1824, to confer with the Provost and Fellows of King's College, respecting the purchase of their Old Court for University purposes. Again in Dec. 1825, this Syndicate was re-appointed and in the following July a Report was made, recommending the University to purchase it for £13,125, but a Grace proposing to adopt this Report was rejected in Nov. 1826. The area of this "Old Court" was considerably less than 3,000 square yards. Again, in March, 1827, a Grace was proposed for authorizing the Vice-Chancellor to give for the "Old Court" a sum "duodecim mille librarum non exsuperanten' which was again rejected. Finally, in March 1828, the Syndicate of Dec. 24, 1824, was re-appointed, which in the following March, recommended £12,000 to be given for the "Old Court," and this was confirmed by the Senate. The buildings of the "Old Court" seem to have been quite unfit for use, and were valued as old materials at £1460. (Obs. p. 52.) So that the cost of the new part of the site was £10,540.

10. A Syndicate was appointed on May 6, 1829, to consider of the arrangements to be made concerning the "Old Court." The Syndics were the Vice-Chancellor, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Master of Catharine Hall, Dr. Haviland, Mr. Carrighan, Mr. Hustler, Mr. Lodge, Professor Whewell, Mr. Shelford, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. King.

66

On

On the 2nd of July, 1829, the Syndics recommended in their Report that a Library, Lecture Rooms, &c. should be built, that application should be made to four Architects to furnish complete plans and estimates which were to be sent in on or before Nov. 1. They also asked for leave to report again before the end of next Term. The recommendations of the Syndicate were adopted in a few days, and the Syndics were authorised to draw up instructions for the Architects, and to offer 100 guineas to each of the three Architects whose plans were not adopted. Applications were accordingly made to Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Cockerell, Mr. Rickman, and Mr. Burton, who accepted the proposed terms, and sent their plans to the Vice-Chancellor. the 25th of November the Syndicate availed themselves of the permission to report again, and issued a document stating that They unanimously agree to recommend Mr. Cockerell's plan for adop"tion, as being on the whole, the best adapted to answer the objects "which the University have in view," (Obs. p. 15). The Members of the Senate were most indignant at this attempt to decide the competition without any authority for so doing—and moreover the statement of unanimity was not strictly accurate. The "Member of the First Syndicate" endeavours to account for the appearance of the unfortunate word "unanimously.' It seems that an excessive solicitude to make the decision as binding as possible went far to defeat its own object. "Master of Catharine Hall was absent from indisposition, and Mr. King "was detained by important University business," (Obs. p. 16). But further, the "Member of the First Syndicate" regrets that the Report did not state that the decision was comparative and not absolute that they were in fact desirous of numerous alterations in the design thus unconditionally recommended. Of the eleven Members of the Syndicate

"The

seven examined the plans carefully, and two others signed the Report, whilst the remaining two seem to have taken no part whatever in the business. It is manifest that, from the time of asking for leave to Report again, there was an intention on the part of some one or more Members of this Syndicate to get the decision of the competition into their own hands. The Syndicate asked leave to Report again, and when they did so, it was only to dictate to the Members of the Senate which Architect they were to choose. The Member of the First Syndicate shews that, so far as he was concerned, he was perfectly aware that by the act of publishing the Report they were committing the University to their decision, thus "the Architects themselves must have "considered that decision as nearly final, as far as the terms of the competition were concerned; and the public generally must have "formed a very strong opinion of the popular or perhaps democratic "nature of our Academical constitution, when the solemn and nearly "unanimous judgment of a body of men, constituted by the University, "to whom some degree of authority was supposed to be delegated, was "or rather would have been, if proposed, rejected almost with indignation," (Obs. p. 17).

66

66

11. Immediately after the publication of this document, some of the Syndics entered into a correspondence with Mr. Cockerell, who at once set himself to work to prepare a new plan, which was forwarded to one of the members of the late Syndicate in March, 1830, (Obs. p. 18). "In the meantime, so extraordinary a degree of excitement prevailed "in the University respecting the different plans, and in opposition to "the Report of the Syndicate, that the new plan in question could "neither be publicly shewn nor impartially considered." (Obs. p. 18)

12. Notice was given, Feb. 22, 1830, for Graces, (1) To confirm the Report of Nov. 25, 1829, and (2) To appoint and authorise a Syndicate to apply to Mr. Cockerell for amended plans, but I believe they were never offered to the Senate. Another notice was given on the following day, Feb. 23, of a Grace to appoint a Syndicate to consider what fund the University possessed for building, and the Report was made in April or May, 1830. On account of the want of money to proceed with the building, a Grace was passed, authorising the payment of 100 guineas to each Architect; and it was proposed to make use of the "Old Court" buildings. Several attempts were made to produce a calm in the University, but in vain, till on the 31st of May a "conciliatory Grace" was passed without opposition, appointing the second New Library Syndicate, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. French, Dr. Ainslie, Dr. Turton, Professor Whewell, Mr. Lodge, Mr. M. Thackeray, Mr. Blick, Mr. Jones, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Graham, Mr. Sheepshanks, Mr. King, Mr. Shelford, Mr. Cape, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Hildyard, Mr. Studholme, and Mr. Gibson.

13. In the first place a letter was written to each of the four Architects candidly stating that what had been done must be considered to be completely cancelled (Obs. p. 19), and inviting them to enter into a new competition, under new instructions to be given afterwards (Reply, p. 17), to which proposal all the Architects agreed. In July the Syndics issued their instructions.

The sum

proposed to be expended at that time was not more than £25,000, the fronts were to be of stone, and the style of Architecture was to be