On the 9th Deeember occurs the following entry. " The committee considering that Mr.derman. who was chosen sur veyor for rebuilding the Exchange in April last. bath not yet received any gratification for drawing drafts and directing th, bnihling : they therefitre ordered that £50 shall be payed him upon account until further consideration of his merits." These extracts, 1 think you will agree with me, prove that I iceman (or lerman as sometimes spelt) was the sole architect. In these records Sir Christopher Wren is spoken of. under date of the 7th dim., 1670. as "Dr. Wren, Surveyor general of Ills Alajestv's workes." The building, erected by Jerman, was publicly opened for business on the •2Sth of September, 1669, the expense of its construction having amounted to XS0,000.which was defrayed in equal moieties by the City and the Alereers' Company.
This structure also was doomed to fall by the same element which had proved fatal to its predecessor, for on the night of the 10th of lts3S. it was discovered to be on lire, and in the course of the night, though not entirely destroyed, was so much damaged. that for all purposes of usefulness the destruction may be said to have been complete.
The architecture of the building thus destroyed has been variously estimated ; by some decried, by others praised ; but probably it merited the extravagant praises of the one party as little as it deserved the severe criticism of the other.
The four orders of the quadrangle were richly decorated, with the basements, arches of the walks, the user them, the niches, statues, pillars, circular windows, entabla ture, rdi wilts, and balustrade, all in correct proportion and arrangement. Its principal front was towards Cornhil ; and on each side there were CI ointhian demi-eolumns, a eompass pediment ; within cash of w hieh were niches con taining statues ofCharles 1. and II. in 11oman habits. 13,,,h. nell. W ithin the quadrangle there were twenty-linor niches in the intercolumus, with statues of English kings and qu,a ns, most of the kings before Charles II. leis g sculptured by CibLer. The centre of the area had for some time a statue of Charles II. by Grinlin Gibbons, which was subsequent'y displaced for one by Spileer, habited in the Roman style. In an obscure, position tinder the piazza, the statue of Gresham, too, had its niche ; and nigh to it. that of one. xi hose modesty would have been better content had his merit received no such acknowledgment—Sir John Bernard ; to whom, in rims lifetime, the memorial was erected as a mark of civic respect, but who could never bring himself to visit the walks afterwards.
The destruction of this building having deprived the mer chants of Loudon, for the second time, of their great place of resort, they were obliged temporarily to assemble in the space attached to the Excise ( fflive. in I fld Broad Street. This was, of course, attended with much inconvenience to those accustomed to attend 'Change, and it became therefore a matter of pressing hoportatiee to renn,ve that inconvenience by the erection of a 11(.1 Luilding, fitted in every respect for its purpose, and worthy the morehatit.princes of the first metropolis in the world.
In preparing to re-erect the Royal Exellange, many interests had to be eonsidcred—those of the Underwriters of Lloyd's, th,• ];oval Exchange Assurance Company, and the shopkeepers who had occupied the ground-Ooor. An act of parliament was also necessary : this was applied fr. and obtained. By this act, which received the Ifoyal assent on the 10th of August, 183,`..1, the Joint Gresham Committee wore empowered to purchase and remove all the buildings to the eastward, ext•nding nearly to I' inch Lane. and to raise a sum of £150,000 upon the credit of the London Bridge Trust.
After considerable delay, the Gresham Committee issued their advertisements for designs for the new building. but in doing so, unliwomately did nit avoid the errors into which so many similarly-constituted piddle bodies have 'Men, under similar circumstances. There is little doubt but that the Committee intended it lair and honest competition, but with not singular bad management, they so contrived matters, as to bring down on themselves a storm of indignation from all sides, and to disgust not only the competitors, but the public in general.
The system pursued oflate years in the management ofarchi tectural competitions, has been attended 1,i'ith manliest evils, and fraught with gross and palpable injustice to the profession. Hastily and inconsiderately commenced, under the control of persons unfitted to sit in judgment on the various designs referred to their decision, they have in too many instances been attended by results, as injurious to the best interests of art, as unfair and unjust to its professors.