St George's Hall

BY ROBERT BOULT ESQ ARCHITECT LIVERPOOL

Harvey Lonsdale Elmes, courtesey Liverpool Records Office

THE ARCHITECT

Liverpool Mercury Sept 19th 1854

Before describing the edifice it seems desirable to notice such particulars of the life of its gifted architect as are accessible to the public. In compiling this portion of the present paper, assistance has been most kindly rendered by gentlemen conversant with the particulars narrated, especially by Mr RAWLINSON. C.E, who enjoyed considerable intimacy with Mr ELMES and has published some of his letters in the Builder of September 16th.

Harvey Lonsdale ELMES, now so eminent as the talented and lamented architect of the law courts and St George's Hall and as having distinguished himself at an early age by his remarkable success in two most important competitions was the son of James ELMES, well known by his memoir of Sir Christopher WREN and his work upon the Dilapidations. He was also associated with HAYDON, the historical painter in, a "Dictionary of Fine Arts." The subject of this notice was born in London in February 1814, and consequently at the time when his design for St George's Hall was selected was only 24 years of age. He acquired the rudiments of his profession in his father's office, where he remained till he was 21, He was then with Mr H. E. GOODRIDGE of Bath for about 3 years, and subsequently in the office of a London builder, Mr ELGER. At the age of 24, Mr ELMES commenced practising of his own account, but jointly with his father designed and executed some private houses, offices, and chambers in the Birdcage Walk, for C. PEARSON Esq, city solicitor.

His attention being attracted to the advertisement for designs for St George's Hall, Mr ELMES entered the lists with numerous competitors, many of them much his seniors and, as is well known, achieved signal success. On the subsequent occasion when the town council required designs for the law courts, Mr ELMES did not hesitate to engage in another severe professional contest and obtained unprecedented success.

Before the execution of either design was commenced it was suggested that the two buildings could be most desirously combined in one erection, and the original design for such combined erection was prepared by Mr Joseph FRANKLIN, then surveyor of the corporation. The drawings were prepared by Mr T. J. KILPIN, at that time in the surveyor's office, and I am informed showed at Grecian portico and general elevation, not much unlike the present building. It was upon this design that the committee ultimately decided to combine the buildings and Mr ELMES pleaded as a favour, if not as a right, to use Mr FRANKLIN'S sketches, as Mr FRANKLIN had seen his, and that he should be permitted to prepare new plans and elevations. The present building was the result, Mr FRANKLIN'S conduct having been most honourable, for he did not avail himself of the position he occupied to place any impediments in the way of the young aspirant, whom many officials would have regarded as an intruder on his department, but he rendered to Mr ELMES every assistance in his power.

Having secured a position so distinguished, Mr ELMES received some very valuable commissions. He was employed upon several important mansions in the neighbourhood, any one of which would be deemed a reward for many years patience by architects much is senior. There was Allerton Hall, for Hardman EARLE Esq, Druid's Cross for the late Joseph HORNBY Esq, villas at New Brighton for Daniel NEILSON Esq, and G. H. LAWRENCE Esq, one at Rock Ferry for W. IRLAM Esq, and the County Lunatic Asylum Rainhill, the arrangements of which are considered excellent, but, quite unfinished at the time of his death.

Mr ELMES also prepared a design, and took the premium in the competition for the Collegiate Institution, but he was not allowed to superintend execution. The committee it is understood, offered to pay Mr ELMES a commission of five percent, upon the cost of the facade [it is allowable to use an Italian term in speaking of a Gothic building] and two and a half percent on the cost of the remainder of the edifice. These terms Mr ELMES very properly declined, but he furnished some of the working drawings without charge, in order that the design might not be injured in its details, he had previously offered to return the premium in order to get the design back, when he found he would not be allowed to superintend its execution, an offer which the committee felt themselves justified in declining. The exterior, therefore is a very fair representation of the design of the architect, and is much and deservedly admired as an adaptation of the Tudor style, it has a strong general resemblance of King Edward's School at Birmingham, erected many years ago from the design of Sir Charles BARRY. The interior of the Collegiate Institution is quite unworthy of its front.

Mr ELMES likewise prepared a design for St Paul's Church, Princes Park, and in this matter also it is understood that Mr ELMES felt himself to be illiberally treated, the committee paid him a commission of two and a half percent, but as he was tied to design and accommodation he would not reduce his estimate. The erection was subsequently placed in the hands of Messers HOLME, but if general report is to be credited, the ultimate expense was not less than the estimate of Mr ELMES. Though Mr ELMES is believed to have acquitted himself to all his works both public and private, with marked good taste and much talent, it is unquestionable that the law courts is the chief memorial of his great ability, and of the loss his country has sustained from his premature removal.

It will be seen on future remarks of different portions of the works that I am far from elevating Mr ELMES beyond his merits, that I have no wish to convert the man into myth. He laboured under the disadvantage, it is a marked disadvantage, of inexperience, and though it was a proud and honourable distinction to achieve so much success at so an early age, there was peril in the position so attained. In criticising Mr ELMES'S work this is a point which must ever be remembered, otherwise his ability may be unjustly estimated by those conversant in architecture.

There is no doubt that the precocity manifested by Mr ELMES, and the labour attendant upon the important works confided to him, prematurely exhausted a constitution never robust. After suffering for some time from the attacks of that fatal disease which has blighted so much of promise in this otherwise favoured land Mr ELMES removed, in 1847, to the West Indies, in the hope of staying the progress of the disease, and of alleviating his suffering, perhaps to be restored to that bright and honourable career that seemed open for him. But it might not be. He sank rapidly, and at Spanish Town, Jamaica, on the 26th November 1847, he expired in the presence of his wife, solaced by her companionship in his melancholy and fruitless exile.

Mr ELMES was married in 1841 to Mary, daughter of C. D. Wilkins TERRY Esq, by whom he left one son.

Although Mr ELMES had great professional success, his career was very short, and his expenses necessarily great. Besides, notwithstanding the popular delusion on this subject, architecture, apart from surveying, is not a remunerative profession. It is very laborious and harassing especially when accompanied by delicacy of health. Under these circumstances it seems worth consideration whether those who admired Mr ELMES, his great talents, amiable disposition, and modest demeanour, would not do honour to themselves and the object of their admiration by providing the means for educating his son, as his father would have educated him, if he had himself survived, especially as it is well known in the profession that the father of Mr ELMES is unable to fulfil his son's part, being stricken in years, blind, and in depressed circumstances.

It seems desirable that this great commercial community should be every ready to express their cordial appreciation of those distinguished in intellectual pursuits, both because the labours of those distinguished men keep alive some of the nobler elements of man, and because such expressions evince that the pursuit of wealth has not banished nobler tastes.

There is another point worthy of attention. Though Mr ELMES, like WREN is the architect of his own monument, and in his great work will find his own fitting memorial, that monument is now dumb to the uninformed, since it speaks not the name of the architect. It seems therefore that a statue or bust has yet to be applied. to be accompanied by a suitable inscription, setting forth such particulars of the architect as will enable prosperity to appreciate his talents. It is said that the town council will supply this deficiency, being precluded by law from subscribing to the general fund [for which a subscription is now open], that they are desirous to avail themselves of this the only mode open to them, of recording their great respect to their able architect.

After the death of Mr ELMES the work proceeded under the superintendence of Mr John WEIGHTMAN, surveyor to the corporation. In a short time this was found to entail too much labour upon that gentleman an arrangement was made with Mr COCKERELL [who had been frequently consulted by Mr ELMES] that he should superintend the completion of the edifice.

Mr COCKERELL was so well known from his professional standing, his professorship in the Royal Academy, and his illustrations of Grecian architecture, that no selection could have been made, which would be so satisfactory to the public. Notwithstanding the great differences of opinion which now prevail upon the canons of architectural taste and criticism it will be generally agreed that Mr COCKERELL has acquitted himself in the difficult and invidious task of completing another mans design with considerable success. It is supposed that Mr COCKERELL has consulted such sketches of different portions of the work as Mr ELMES had prepared and that he had, had, frequent opportunities of learning the gentleman's intentions on different parts having been frequently consulted by him, but that for much of the building, especially in connection with the hall, Mr COCKERELL had to prepare large portions of the details for its completion. Under these circumstances, it is impossible, merely from an examination of the building to assign to each of the architects his own particular portion, and to give each his due, share of praise or blame, according as such, in the spectator's judgement, may be deserved. Contemporary criticism, is therefore, in this case, deprived, to a large extent, of the invidiousness usually ascribed to it.

DISPUTE AS TO THE PLANS

After this article was prepared and in the hands of the printer I received a letter written by Mr William BARDWELL, of Great Queen Street, Westminster, architect, preferring his claim to having originally suggested the design for the Law Courts and St George's Hall as now executed. I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the correctness of the claim by inquiring of those who seemed likely to give any information on the subject.

It appears from Mr BARDWELL'S statement that in 1835 he prepared a design for the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, for the adoption of which two thirds of the resident members voted, but that Dr PEACOCK, now Dean of Ely, and Dr WHEWELL exerted their influence with the non-residents, and secured the adoption of the design of Mr BUSEVI. Of this design Mr BARDWELL had a model prepared, which was placed in the Crystal Palace in the Great Exhibition, 1851, with the following inscription, :- "Design for a public building by W.B, parent of the St George's Hall, Liverpool" and was there seen by several Liverpool people. This design is described by Mr BARDWELL as being adapted for Cambridge, where the end portico would have fronted the London Road, and the circular end have been in Peter-house Gardens, but for its situation in Liverpool it should have been just reversed, the end portico towards Shaw's Brow, and the circular end towards St John's Lane, with the road below beautifully winding around, or both ends might have been circular [as shown on the plan he sent in for the improvement for Liverpool] and approached by a noble ascent of steps from the site of St John's Church.

The ELMES original design for St George's Hall was the joint production of himself and Mr STEPHENS, a former fellow-pupil in the office of Mr ELMES senior, and that STEPHENS had an uncle on the committee.

That ELMES and STEPHENS divided the premium so obtained, and the latter went out to Ceylon.

That when Mr ELMES was engaged to prepare a design for a building to combine the Law Courts and St George's Hall in one, the Fitzwilliam design came into play, by simply removing the dome, and substituting an attic, to gain height for the hall, filling up the interior columns one-third high in the Egyptian manner, to obtain a corridor, and altering and improving the details in the working drawings, and these were repeatedly altered as the work proceeded, "ELMES and I lived together in the same house, and he consulted me on almost every alteration."

That it was also his [Mr BARDWELL'S] suggestion that the hall should have a solid brick vaulting, in place of a lath and plaster waggon head [though Mr RAWLINSON may have suggested the mode in which it should be constructed] and solid Irish marble columns, instead of brick and plaster, but Mr MARTIN did not send specimens in time, and, after much delay, the Scotch offered polished granite at once.

This is a simple statement of the facts alleged by Mr BARDWELL, freed from all extraneous matter. The result of my inquiries is as follows. That there is a strong resemblance between the two designs, that prior to Mr ELMES'S marriage he and Mr BARDWELL had chambers in the same house in which they resided, and that ELMES occupied his chambers as offices subsequently. That there was considerable intimacy between these two gentlemen, and therefore it is very probable that they had frequent conversations upon the great works Mr ELMES had in hand, and that Mr BARDWELL offered many suggestions, some which were adopted, and some not. That Mr ELMES copied the Fitzwilliam design seems improbable, because the alterations which Mr BARDWELLL specifies are important changes sufficient to give Mr ELMES an indefeasible property in the design as a whole, but more especially because Mr FRANKLIN informs me that the circular end to Shaw's Brow was his own suggestion to Mr ELMES at one of the committee meetings, when the necessity of a concert room was pointed out by him, and the position and general form. This seems effectually to dispose of Mr BARDWELL'S claim, and to show that the resemblance, strong though it be, is another of those curious parallels and coincidences which have been traced in literary and artistic works. Men appear necessarily to repeat themselves, without the slightest intention of doing so. Although Mr FRANKLIN suggested the circular end and other important arrangements, he does not claim credit for the design of the building, for every architect knows that it is not he who furnishes suggestions, but he who combines those suggestions in one whole and harmonises there details, who is the real author of the finished work. Mr BARDWELL may have exercised indirect influence on the design, as all those consulted would do, according to their intimacy with the architect, but from the great mass it is province to eliminate the irrelevant and incongruous, and he is alone responsible for the result, its success or failure.

PAGE 4

MAIN PAGE