CHAPTER VI

.

THE NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.

Plan of the Chapter. Section I. HISTORY OF THE COMPETITION--Burning of the old Houses of Parliament--Opening of the Competition for the New Building--Award of the Commissioners--Approved by the Select Committee of the Houses--Protest of the advocates of Classical Architecture--Critical controversy--Personal attacks on Mr. Barry--Meeting of unsuccessful Competitors--Presentation of Petition by Mr. Hume--Opposition quashed by Sir Robert Peel--Protest against it by Professor Donaldson and others. Section II. PROGRESS OF THE BUILDING--Difficulties as to the Foundation--Commission of Inquiry as to the Stone to be used--First Stone laid--Unavoidable delays--Committee of the Peers--Generous support of Earl of Lincoln--Committee of the Commons--Appointment of New Palace Commissioners--Appointment of Dr. Reid--Difficulties arising therefrom, and arbitration of Mr. Gwilt--The Great Clock--Competition and success of Mr. Dent--Professor Airy and Mr. E. B. Denison referees--Mr. Denison the chief Director--His tone and method of controversy--The Great Bell and its disasters--The Fine Arts Commission--The Architect’s exclusion from it--His scheme for the Decoration of the Building--The Scheme of the Commissioners--Its ideal excellence and practical drawbacks--Connection with Mr. Pugin--Real nature of the aid given by him--Mr. Thomas and the Stone Carving--Mr. Meeson and the practical Engineering--Other assistants in the work--Opening of the House of Peers--Opening and Alteration of the House of Commons--The Architect knighted in 1852--The Great Tower hardly completed at his death. Section III. THE REMUNERATION QUESTION--Its points of public interest--General question of Architectural percentage--Its bearing on the particular work--Original attempt at a bargain by Lord Bessborough--Accepted under protest--Re-opening of the question--First Minute of the Treasury, and reply--Mr. White acts for Sir C. Barry--Second Minute of the Treasury--Counter statement--Third Minute of the Treasury--Submitted to by Sir C. Barry--Protest of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and reply--Practice of the Government after Sir C. Barry’s death--General reference to the question of Expenditure--Summing up of the chief points of the controversy.

The description of the greatest work of Sir C. Barry must necessarily occupy a considerable place in the narrative of his life. Independently of its intrinsic importance, both in a historical and architectural point of view, it was undoubtedly that, to which the best twenty years of his life were devoted, which gradually absorbed his attention, almost to the exclusion of other work, and which, not so much by its labour as by the anxieties, disputes, and disappointments arising during its execution, at last exhausted the health and strength of his iron constitution.

It would be needless to give a detailed description of a building, which tells its own story to the eyes of the public; it would be entirely out of place to attempt a general criticism on its merits. But the points, to which it seems needful to direct attention, are partly historical, and partly descriptive or critical. In the historical part of the notice, contained in the present chapter, it will be necessary to give some particulars with regard to--

I. The history of the competition, of Mr. Barry’s success, and of the opposition with which that success was greeted.

II. The order and dates of the erection of the various parts of the building; the alterations made during the progress of design, and the notice taken of them by Parliament; the new elements introduced into the work by the appointment of Dr. Reid to superintend the warming and ventilation of the building, of the Fine Art Commission to direct its embellishment, and of Mr. Denison and Mr. Dent to construct the great clock; and the assistance received during the progress of the work from other artists.

III. The controversy carried on with Her Majesty’s Government on the subject of the professional remuneration of the architect.

The next chapter is reserved for a descriptive and critical notice, and must refer to--

I. The growth of the design, and the reasons which dictated its general scheme and details.

II. The general description of the plan and design, so far as such description is needed, as a key to the observation of the building itself.

SECTION I.--On the night of October 16th, 1834, Mr. Barry was returning from Brighton on the coach, when a red glare on the London side of the horizon showed that a great fire had begun. Eager questions elicited the news, that the Houses of Parliament had caught fire, and that all attempts to stop the conflagration were unavailing. No sooner had the coach reached the office, than he hurried to the spot, and remained there all night. All London was out, absorbed in the grandeur and terror of the sight.

The destruction was so far complete, that preservation or restoration was out of the question; the erection of a new building was inevitable, on a scale, and with an opportunity for the exercise of architectural genius, hitherto unexampled in England. The thought of this great opportunity, and the conception of designs for the future, mingled in Mr. Barry’s mind, as in the minds of many other spectators, with those more obviously suggested by the spectacle itself.

The opportunity occurred at a critical time in the progress of architecture, when the long empire of classicism was being broken, and the claims of Gothic began to be recognised. There were all the energy and enterprise abroad, which belong to a period of change. The whole artistic world was on the alert, and the public generally were eagerly desirous that the opportunity should be used to the utmost.

Nor were these desires disappointed. At first, indeed, there was some inclination to keep to routine, and Sir R. Smirke was desired to prepare designs for a new building. But this course was felt to be unsatisfactory. The Government were called upon (by a published letter from Sir E. Cust to Sir R. Peel) to open a competition and appoint a Royal Commission to award the prizes. They readily responded to the call; and in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee of the House of Lords presented in June, 1835, the terms of competition were published. The style was to be “Gothic or Elizabethan;” the drawings were to be sent in (without formal estimates) and the decision pronounced before January 20th, 1836; and four premiums of 500_l._ each were promised, it being understood that the architect receiving the first premium should carry out the work, unless some grave cause to the contrary should be discovered, in which case he was to receive an extra premium of 1000_l._

The period of competition was short; only by unremitting exertion could drawings of such a building be prepared within six months; and certainly by the successful competitor such exertion was unsparingly bestowed. Four or five hours’ sleep was the utmost which he allowed himself during this time, and he paid the penalty of his over-exertion in a short and sharp attack of illness, when the work was done. The drawings were sent in on December 1st, 1835. There were ninety-seven competitors, and Mr. Barry’s plan was No. 64. When once the strain was over, his mind most characteristically threw off its anxiety, until rumours began to ooze out that No. 64 was among the first, and not unlikely to be the chosen design. Then followed a short time of vehement excitement, till on February 29th, 1836, the award was published, and the first premium assigned to Mr. Barry.

The Report of the Commissioners was published. It stated that the imperfect state of knowledge as to sound and ventilation had prevented their giving much weight to these points in their decision; and that therefore they had confined themselves “to the consideration of the beauty and grandeur of the general design, to its practicability, to the skill shown in the various arrangements of the building, and the accommodation afforded; to the attention paid to the instructions delivered, as well as to the equal distribution of light and air through every part of the structure.” On these grounds they assigned the palm to Mr. Barry, and continued as follows:--

... We beg leave respectfully to add, that it is impossible to examine the minute drawings for this design, and not feel confidence in the author’s skill in Gothic Architecture; still, as the beauty of this depends upon the attention to detail, for which the architect has no rule to guide him, but must trust to his practical knowledge and good taste, we humbly, yet strongly, recommend to your Majesty, that his Drawings shall be submitted from time to time to competent judges of their effect, lest from over-confidence, negligence, or inattention in the execution of the work, we fail to obtain that result to which our just expectations have been raised.

We are, however, far from thinking it advisable, should the plan, when revised and perfected, be finally approved of by your Majesty, that it shall be subject to any alteration, that may have the effect of changing its character, or of impairing its unity of design.

We are aware that we are not called upon in selecting and classifying the plans for your Majesty’s approbation to make the cost of any design an object of our consideration; and we fully agree in the prudence of having abstained from requiring the competitors to furnish estimates, which would have been productive of no public advantage, whilst the trouble and expense attending them would have been a considerable bar to competition.... We are conscious that in the plan we have selected for your Majesty’s approbation, the enriched appearance of the several elevations will naturally excite suspicion, that it cannot be carried into effect but at an enormous expense. In the absence of the detail of any portion of the work, we can form no perfect idea of the architect’s intentions, but even with the minute drawings before us, we have sufficient evidence to lead us to the belief that, from the unbroken character and general uniformity of the different fronts, and external decorations being wholly unnecessary in any of the courts, no design worthy of the country, of equal magnitude, can offer greater facilities for economy in the execution.[62]

The proposal here made to appoint a controlling commission (which many conceived to imply a recommendation that the original commission should be continued for this purpose) was unusual, and Mr. Barry was censured by his professional brethren for not protesting against it. Probably he felt that it was impracticable; certainly it was not carried out, and he was one of the last men in the world to submit to minute or vexatious control. Meanwhile he left matters to take their course.

The Report of the Commissioners was approved by a Select Committee of the Houses. An estimate was made by the architect, aided by Messrs. Chawner and Hunt, and afterwards, by the direction of the Board of Works, tested by Messrs. Seward and Chawner. The calculated expense was about 800,000_l._, exclusive of furniture and fittings.[63] The period fixed for its completion (with little foresight of the difficulties that must intervene) was about six years, and on this notion was based the calculation of the architect’s remuneration, out of which arose the harassing and painful controversy, to be more particularly narrated hereafter.

All at present seemed favourable; and the general opinion of the public ratified the choice of the Commissioners. The triumph was one of which any man might feel proud; and the work, commenced by the architect at the age of forty, in the prime of life and vigour, might have been expected to be carried out as auspiciously as it had been begun.[64]

But even now the triumph was not without alloy. Professional jealousy did not sleep. Perhaps it was inevitable that some soreness should be felt by the unsuccessful competitors for so important a work. It was certainly natural that sharp criticisms should be pronounced on the selected design. But happily few architects have had to encounter such a clamour as was then raised,--a clamour which certainly passed beyond the legitimate province of artistic criticism, venturing to attack the competency and honesty of the judges, and the private character of the successful architect.

In the first instance the partisans of classical architecture raised their voices in a somewhat tardy protest against the adoption of the Gothic style. They felt it to be a death-blow to the supremacy which Greek and Roman architecture had hitherto enjoyed. An article in the ‘London and Westminster Review,’ by “B.,” stigmatized Gothic as “a mere ‘ecclesiastical style,’” and advocated a change of site, as a less evil than the local necessity for the adoption of obnoxious Gothicism. W. R. Hamilton’s “Letters to the Earl of Elgin” embodied, in an abler and more elaborate dissertation, the same protest against that which the writer conceived to be an antique and venerable barbarism. The rising Gothic school, of course, would not suffer such artistic blasphemy to pass unnoticed. Col. Jackson, in answer to Mr. Hamilton, took a defensive line, denying a monopoly of beauty to Classical architecture, and putting forward for Gothic the plea of nationality, of picturesque or romantic beauty, and of local associations. But this tone did not content Mr. Pugin; he followed with an article in favour of Gothic, breathing a little of the more aggressive spirit of the present Gothic school. He himself had not appeared among the competitors, although one set of designs was believed to have emanated in great degree from him.[65] It will be obvious to any one who knows his designs or writings, that he must greatly have disapproved of many main principles in Mr. Barry’s designs. But the question at issue was the dignity and value of Gothic architecture generally, and he plunged into it with all the enthusiasm of his character.

All this controversy was natural and justifiable; the only objection to the plea of the Classicists was that it came too late, and the whole is interesting, chiefly as marking the important influence which this competition was felt to exercise on the progress of Gothic architecture in this country.

But the storm of personal opposition and abuse which followed cannot be so easily excused. At first anonymous attacks appeared in newspapers on the “highly ornamented and meretricious” character of the design, on the dangerously artistic beauty of the drawings, as tending to mislead the judges, and on the incompetency of the judges themselves, who were designated as mere amateurs. Hints were even ventured upon as to the favourable disposition of the chief commissioner towards Mr. Barry. It was pronounced that the competition was a “complete failure,” and that it ought to be renewed on a different basis, and with a greater freedom of choice as to style. When the design was altered and enlarged, to suit an extension of the site, the alteration was called a plagiarism, and alleged to vitiate the selection of the judges. All this was bad enough, but it is only that to which all public men are exposed, an acknowledged drawback to the great benefit of a free press, which will exist as long as anonymous writing is recognised. If this had been all, it might have been patiently borne.

But it was not all. Far more decided and unusual measures followed. An exhibition of the unsuccessful designs was opened on March 21st, 1836, with a view to invite comparisons. Finally a meeting of the unsuccessful competitors was held, to take steps to set the award aside. The chairman (one of the most distinguished of the unsuccessful competitors) stated the case, as one in which public duty must conquer private friendship, and defy the danger of misconstruction as to the motives of action; and after some discussion it was resolved, that the award of the judges was not confirmed by the public, that the prizemen did not merit the preference which that award gave them, that, in fact, a board of amateur judges was necessarily incompetent, and that a petition should be made to be heard at the bar of the House of Commons, to show cause for a competent commission to revise the whole proceedings.

The resolutions did not pass without energetic protest, especially from Mr. (now Prof.) Donaldson. It was urged by him (as by Sir E. Cust, in a pamphlet subsequently published) with a force and truth fatal to the objectors, that all these proceedings came too late, and that those, who by competing had acknowledged the judges, could not now with any propriety vilify them, and set their decision aside.

The petition however was prepared, and presented by Mr. Hume, on June 22nd, 1836; it was grounded mainly on the fact that four Commissioners only signed the award, and the assertion that in that award considerations of expense and the conditions of competition were disregarded; its prayer was for a fresh investigation of the whole matter. This was followed up in a formal attack by Mr. Hume, on July 22nd, based on the alleged ground of the alterations made in the plan, but showing a characteristic alarm at the prospect of large expenditure. The Commissioners’ award was ably defended by Mr. Tracy (afterwards Lord Sudeley), one of their number. But the question was settled at once by a speech of Sir R. Peel, in which he pointed out, with obvious truth, that if Mr. Hume’s suggestions were adopted the “whole principle of competition would be destroyed,” and the public faith endangered; and expressed a pity (somewhat prophetic) for the successful competitor as a man already “hunted and pursued,” “_cui sua mortifera est victoria_.” It was impossible to resist such an argument, even had the criticisms on the successful design been impartial, and the unpopularity of it real. But, in fact, the opposition was almost entirely professional, and in the profession itself it did not pass unquestioned. For the debate was followed by the publication of a protest of twelve competitors, against the proceedings of the original meeting of dissentients and the presentation of the petition, on the ground that the steps taken to overturn the petition were “indecorous and unprofessional,” and that the whole proceedings tended to disunion in the architectural profession. This protest was signed by Messrs. Donaldson, Angell, Kendall, Mocatta, Davies, Morgan, Wallace, Hakewill, Robinson, Blore, Lamb, and Bardwell. After this the opposition gradually died away, except in anonymous attacks.

During the whole of this time Mr. Barry, by the advice of his friends, had remained silent. He felt deeply the painful position in which he was placed, and, most of all, certain insinuations, touching not only his own character, but that of Sir E. Cust. It was asserted that he was “Sir E. Cust’s tool,” that the design in fact was that gentleman’s, and he only his draughtsman.[66] It was a relief to know that the Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to consider the question in March, 1836, gave opportunity for the following evidence from Sir E. Cust[67]--

_Lord Francis Egerton._ You make mention of Mr. Barry’s plan; do you mean to imply you knew it to be Mr. Barry’s plan at the time you considered it?

_Sir E. Cust._ In answer to that question, I must say that I never had the pleasure of seeing but one design of Mr. Barry’s in my life; I knew nothing of his style, and was not even personally acquainted with him; but I had heard so much of the merits of his plan, that when No. 64 passed in review, which was not till I had seen the greater number of those which were submitted to us, I certainly had a strong suspicion, from the beauty of it, that it could be no other than Mr. Barry’s; but I had nothing in the world to lead me to this belief, excepting the superiority of the design. Neither had I a knowledge, from looking at the plans, of the authors of any of them; I made a guess, it is true, at one or two; but in each conjecture I was mistaken.... I should like to add, as I am the only one of the four Commissioners who had a personal knowledge of Mr. Barry before we entered upon our duties, that, immediately upon my receiving the intimation that my name was to be proposed as one of the Commissioners, I signified to Mr. Barry my desire that we might have no communication with each other, pending the inquiry, and that, whenever we might meet, the subject of the Plans of the Houses of Parliament should never be brought into conversation between us, which he so strictly fulfilled, that, until I saw his plan in the due course of examination, I never had the slightest glimpse of a sketch, nor the slightest hint of any kind from him or from any common friend, which would lead me to infer that No. 64 was the design of Mr. Barry.

After evidence such as this, the calumny could be repeated no longer.

Of the silence which he observed, trying as it was, he never had cause to repent. Many of those who opposed him resumed their relations of intimacy or friendship, when the bitterness of disappointment had passed away, and could hardly have failed to regret the course which they had pursued.[68] On the other hand, the noble and generous support of the friends (most of all of Mr. Donaldson) who stood up to vindicate his character against so strong a professional array, was intensely felt at the time, and never forgotten in after-life.[69] It was the only point in the whole proceedings which he cared to remember. But the trial was a painful one, and, when the attack died away, it left a vague discontent, which bore afterwards many fruits of trouble. It deserves a record as a specimen of the drawbacks which attend on professional success. Fortunately it is an experience which in all the important competitions since opened has never had a parallel.

SECTION II.--These troubles having at last passed away, and all preliminaries having been arranged, Mr. Barry entered upon his work full of energy and hope. Great public expectation had been excited; the design of the new building was generally popular, and the authorities were prepared to aid and favour its execution in the best possible manner. He did not feel the burden of the work, and the responsibility now laid upon him. For a long time his unremitting exertion was in the truest sense “a labour of love.” Had circumstances allowed of the completion of the building, in anything like the time named, and at an expense such as had been calculated, the work would perhaps have been less beautiful than it is, and would certainly have been far less important in its influence on the “Gothic revival.” But it would have been universally accepted as a brilliant success, and the architect would have been spared many troubles. As it is, the account of the progress of the building shows conclusively (what those who have experience of such works know but too well) that difficulty, controversy, and misrepresentation beset the career of one who has to work for the public service. Had all been foreseen, it cannot be doubted that Mr. Barry would gladly have faced it all in the service of his art. But he would hardly have entered on his work with so much buoyancy and hopefulness of spirit, with so much self-reliance, and so much confidence in the future.

His difficulties arose, first from the inevitable occurrence of delays, for which he was in no sense responsible, and the liberty which he claimed of modifying his design; next, from the appointment of independent authorities to superintend certain portions of the work; and lastly, from the course which the Government took in respect of his professional remuneration. No one perhaps will say of the difficulties which he experiences in life, that he does absolutely nothing to bring them upon himself: but it may be safely declared of Mr. Barry that his one object throughout was the perfection of his work, and he may claim the sympathy which belongs to enthusiastic and devoted labour in the cause of duty.

The first vote of public money was made on July 3rd, 1837, and the first portion of the building, the river-wall, was at once proceeded with. The superintendence of this work was shared by the architect with Mr. James Walker, the well-known civil engineer. A coffer dam was constructed, and the foundations of the wall laid upon concrete, which in some places is as much as twelve feet in thickness. At the very outset of the work unforeseen difficulties were encountered, and unforeseen expenses incurred. The soil of the bed of the river was found to be exceedingly treacherous, in many places little better than a quicksand, and unfortunately the same character attached to the soil under a large portion of the building. Great care however was taken with the foundations, and they were made thoroughly satisfactory; still, as an additional precaution, Mr. Barry resolved not to draw the piles of the cofferdam, as had been at first intended, but to cut them off level with the dredged bed of the river, in order that the lower part of the dam might remain as a kind of fender or outwork to the wall, protecting it against the scour of the river, which has in other places proved so dangerous to the stability of buildings. The wall was faced with large blocks of Aberdeen granite, and completed in 1839, and meanwhile the rest of the work proceeded, till it was brought up as nearly as possible to the level of the terrace on the river wall.

While the foundations were proceeding a commission was appointed to examine and report upon the various kinds of building stone, and select one, which should be at once thoroughly durable, and capable of being worked with tolerable ease and cheapness. The Commissioners were all distinguished men, Sir Henry (then Mr.) de la Beche, Mr. William Smith, Mr. C. H. Smith, and the architect. In 1838 they visited all the best-known quarries, and, after very careful inquiries and experiments, they presented a Report on March 16th, 1839, recommending the selection of the magnesian limestone from Bolsover Moor and its neighbourhood. It was subsequently found that the Bolsover quarries were insufficient to supply in good condition the large quantity of stone required, and for a considerable portion of the building a stone of the same general character (Anston stone) was used.

Well knowing the deleterious effect of the atmosphere (especially the London atmosphere) on all stone, excepting those which, like granite, are fit only for works of the most simple and massive design, Mr. Barry was glad to share the responsibility of the selection with men of high scientific attainment and reputation. That, in spite of all that care and science could do, the stone has shown some signs of decay (in a degree, it may be remarked, greatly exaggerated) is well known; but it is doubtful whether any other selection would have proved more fortunate, considering all the requirements of the case.

It is strange enough, that no public ceremony was thought necessary to mark the real commencement of the most extensive and important building of the time. The first stone was laid privately, by the wife of the architect, on April 27th, 1840.

It was very unfortunate, that the site could only be taken possession of gradually, as the old buildings upon it were gradually relinquished by the public bodies occupying them, and that the exigencies of the public service demanded the piecemeal occupation of the various parts of the building, as fast as they were completed. There could be no grand “opening” of the whole building, no opportunity for forming a judgment of its various parts, in their due relation and subordination to one another. Perhaps to this was due the fact, that throughout the whole course of the work there was no public ceremonial to serve as a recognition of its importance, and of the labour and talent bestowed on its design and execution.

From April, 1840, the work proceeded with great dispatch, in spite of many peculiar difficulties. The site (as has been said) could not be at once occupied; various alterations were suggested, either by the increase of public requirements, or by the experience gained in the progress of the work. Perhaps the most serious difficulty of all was to be found in the appointment in January, 1840, of Dr. Reid to superintend the warming and ventilating of the building, and the controversies (hereafter to be alluded to) which arose from that appointment. These various causes could not but tend to delay that rapid execution which Mr. Barry had expected, and which the public service required.[70] From this delay arose the first of the many troubles, which beset him in the course of his labours, and which must always, in greater or less degree, be encountered by those who carry out works of great extent and complexity, under public authorities, and with public responsibility.

The temporary accommodation provided for the House of Lords was both insufficient and inconvenient, while their old house, which had been surrendered for the use of the House of Commons, afforded every convenience and comfort. It was natural, perhaps inevitable, that the delay in the completion of the new House of Peers should create dissatisfaction. This feeling found its vent in the appointment of a Committee of Enquiry, which began its sittings in 1844, and reported from time to time to the House. In the course of its investigations it was found that several departures from the original design (which are noticed in the next chapter) had taken place, especially in respect of the royal approach and staircase. It was allowed in evidence by Lord Sudeley (Mr. Hanbury Tracy) one of the original Commissioners of Selection, that it “never was the idea, expectation, or wish of the Commissioners, that Mr. Barry should be confined to the plan approved of.” It was contended by the architect, that the alterations were either alterations of detail, not affecting the main features of the building and not increasing the expense, or else such as were necessitated by the requirements of further accommodation by the Board of Works, and therefore having “direct or implied authority.” But the Committee judged otherwise, and called the “special attention of the House” to the fact, that “alterations had been made by the architect without due authority.”

This Report was equivalent to a public censure. Not only the decision of the Committee itself, but also the tone of much of the examination, naturally caused Mr. Barry the greatest possible mortification. Had the Government assumed the same tone in its dealings with him, it is very doubtful whether he would have been able to continue the work. But the cordial and generous support of the late Duke of Newcastle (then Earl of Lincoln and First Commissioner of the Board of Works), both set him right in public estimation, and gave him personally the greatest encouragement and comfort. His Lordship, in his evidence before the Committee, while assuming for his office the power and responsibility of a rigid control of expenditure, yet urged forcibly the necessity of allowing much scope to the architect of a great public work, and of giving him a free and liberal support. He declared his perfect accordance with Mr. Barry in all the steps hitherto taken, while (in order to meet the views of the Committee) he arranged that for all subsequent alterations the previous sanction of the Board of Works should be formally asked and obtained. The effect of this firm and generous support was at once visible in the milder tone of the second Report of the Lords Committee.

But the matter was not allowed to rest here. The question of the alterations made attracted attention in the House of Commons, and a Committee was appointed to investigate the matter still more closely. The result was a Report declaring that “the Committee impute no blame to Mr. Barry for the course he had taken, and have every reason to believe, that all the alterations hitherto made have conduced to the convenience and general effect of the building.” They approved (as the Lords’ Committee had done) of the new arrangement made by the Board of Works; but they did so expressly on the ground of the “misapprehension” existing as to the course hitherto pursued.

Thus the difficulty, which had seemed most formidable, passed away. It was allowed by the architect that alterations, _not involving additional expense_, had been made by his own authority. It is clear that, even if the requirements of the public service had not varied, many alterations must have suggested themselves in the carrying out of so great a work. It was allowed on the other side, that some measure of freedom must be granted to an architect, whose professional character and hope of future reputation were at stake, in the endeavour to make his building as perfect as possible. The only question was, whether the design, in its main features, was still a fair development of that originally selected. This being decided in Mr. Barry’s favour, all serious opposition was at an end, while the opposition already experienced acted perhaps as an useful corrective to his natural tendency to alteration and development of plan.

It was, no doubt, in consequence of the difficulties above noticed, that a Commission was appointed on March 17th, 1848, to “superintend the completion of the New Palace.” The Commissioners were Earl de Grey, Sir John F. Burgoyne, and T. Greene, Esq., M.P. They were to “determine upon all designs for fittings, decorations,” &c., “all modifications of plan,” “all arrangements for warming, ventilating, and lighting the building,” subject to the approval of the Treasury, whenever additional cost should be proposed. The office must have been a difficult one, between the Treasury on the one hand and the Board of Works on the other, and although their relations with the architect were of the most friendly character, I cannot find that their appointment greatly facilitated the progress of the work.

Such difficulties must be expected by all who work for the public. No one can question the right of the Houses of Lords and Commons to examine, censure, and indirectly control, those who are working for their service. But then these public servants should be left free from other interference, with undivided power and undivided responsibility.

This was not the case with Mr. Barry. It has been already said, that the most serious difficulties, which he had to encounter, arose from the appointment of various authorities to superintend certain portions of the work, without any dependence on the architect, and without the provision of any tribunal, to which differences between them and him could be referred for final decision. In the case of the New Palace of Westminster, as of other important buildings, experience has tended to show the difficulty (almost amounting to impossibility) of such a division of power and responsibility in the execution of any great public work. This division is likely to suggest itself to official boards or functionaries, anxious to unite all available talent and knowledge in the service of the public. Moreover, what is true in all classes of work is especially true in relation to architecture, many-sided as it is, touching on one side the domain of science, and on the other the domain of art. No architect in his senses is likely to refuse to take advice, in the many and various questions which must meet him in his work, from those who have made such special questions their peculiar study. But to divide power is to paralyse action and destroy responsibility. Even with the most honest intentions, and with the most sincere desire of a good understanding on both sides, differences of opinion must arise between co-ordinate authorities, leading to controversy, which is likely to be obstinate, in proportion to the earnestness and sense of public duty felt by both. Such was certainly Mr. Barry’s experience. The work was so important, that interference on all sides was likely; his own character was certainly one, open enough to suggestions, but ready to resist dictation.

The first serious instance of this difficulty showed itself in the long controversy, which arose between him and Dr. D. B. Reid. It will be enough to glance at its leading features, and the principles which it involved.

As early as 1839 the attention of the Government and of Parliament was directed to the warming and ventilation of the New Palace generally, and especially of the two Houses themselves. Dr. Reid had for many years devoted much time and study to these subjects, and had attained considerable reputation as an authority upon them. He was accordingly consulted by the Government, and formed a plan, by which all chimneys were to be dispensed with, and all the smoke and vitiated air of every room in the building were to be carried into great shafts, forming towers in external design, in which large furnaces were to create a sufficient upward draught. Similar shafts were to convey cold air for general dispersion, and various mechanical contrivances were to aid the general action of the ventilating system.

It was generally felt at this time that some new system must be adopted for the warming and ventilating of great public buildings. Hence, the very novelty and comprehensiveness of Dr. Reid’s plan tended to recommend it to public notice, in spite of much scepticism on the part of practical men. Accordingly, in January, 1840, he was formally appointed at a fixed salary, to superintend the warming and ventilating of the New Palace. This appointment was made, without any consultation with the architect, and without any provision whatever as to the relative subordination of the two authorities thus created. What limit (if any) should be put to Dr. Reid’s requirements of accommodation in space and position, how they were to be reconciled with the æsthetic or constructional character of the design, where the ultimate responsibility was to lie, if the efficiency of the building were seriously affected--all these questions were left undetermined. Nor was any authority provided, to which appeal could be made, if any important difference of opinion should arise between the architect and ventilator.

Division and disagreement were the inevitable result of this state of things. In consequence of Dr. Reid’s requirements alterations became necessary in every quarter of the building. The central tower itself was originally designed to furnish a great ventilating shaft, though it was afterwards gladly retained as an architectural feature. Finally it appeared that about _one-third_ of the whole cubic contents of the building was to be surrendered to Dr. Reid; and it was the opinion of Mr. Barry that the construction would be seriously affected by the ventilating arrangements, and especially that the “fire-proofing” ordered by the Government was all but nullified.

This led to a decisive rupture,[71] attended of course by much controversy and mutual recrimination, into which it would now be needless and improper to enter. The Government determined to refer the case to professional arbitration; Joseph Gwilt, Esq., was selected as arbiter. After a long and careful examination of the statements made, and papers presented by both parties, he made a report in September, 1845, stating his opinion, first, that Dr. Reid’s system, by the use of vertical flues, destroyed the fireproof character of the building, and, next, that the delay which had taken place was mainly due to the division of authority, and the want of detailed drawings explaining Dr. Reid’s views and requirements. He added a recommendation, that the whole authority over the building should be restored to the architect, but that he should be directed to call to his aid some “experts” in ventilation, and to act by their advice.

This award was one in which Dr. Reid refused to acquiesce. The matter was brought, by petition on his part, before Parliamentary Committees in the course of the next year. Various witnesses were examined, chiefly on the question whether a general scheme of ventilation could be applied to the whole building, or whether it would be advisable to ventilate the various parts separately. The final result was a report from the Lords’ Committee, stating that the only impediment to the preparation of the House of Lords for the session of 1847 arose from the delay of arrangements for warming and ventilating after the plan of Dr. D. B. Reid, and recommending that the warming and ventilating of the House of Lords be confided to Mr. Barry. So ended this long and painful dispute, and in 1846 Dr. Reid ceased to have any official connection with the building as a whole. It was found that responsibility could not be divided; a false step had been taken, and that step it was necessary to retrace.

For a time the general care of the ventilation and lighting remained in the hands of the architect, who had the advantage of the advice of Professor Faraday, in the course which he adopted. Subsequently, the ventilation and lighting of the House of Commons were restored for a short time to Dr. Reid, but he was soon after superseded by Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney, who has since been succeeded by Dr. Percy.

Under the able management of these gentlemen, Dr. Reid’s system has been set aside, at least as far as the collection of all smoke into one shaft is concerned; and I believe that the constructional arrangements of the building have been found satisfactory. The change, however, could not be made without great difficulty, in respect of chimneys and ventilating flues, for which Sir C. Barry has been, naturally but unjustly, held responsible.

The next instance of the same difficulty arose from the appointment of an independent authority (Mr. E. B. Denison, Q.C.) to design the great clock and bells, and superintend their erection. No one can question Mr. Denison’s ability, the attention he has devoted to clocks and bells, or his real desire to do good public service. On the other hand, many besides Sir C. Barry have found serious difficulties in working with him, unless prepared to yield up their opinions entirely to his, or to submit to injurious imputations, in the public press, and even in official correspondence. In the course of the work upon the great clock, Sir C. Barry was unfortunate enough to incur Mr. Denison’s hostility, and was assailed accordingly in no measured terms.[72] Several of her Majesty’s Ministers, filling the office of First Commissioner of Works--Lord John Manners, Sir W. Molesworth, and Mr. W. Cowper--shared this misfortune, and were attacked in a similar way; and Professor Airy, at whose instance Mr. Denison was appointed, and who at first acted with him as a joint referee, finally found himself compelled to resign his position.

But it is needless to resuscitate a defunct controversy. I shall only refer to it, so far as I am forced to do so by a “History of the Westminster Clock,”[73] written by Mr. Denison before, but published since, Sir C. Barry’s death. I shall notice merely its statements of fact; but it is right to remark, that, in so doing, I labour under considerable disadvantage. There are indeed many facts, with which Sir C. Barry alone was acquainted, and many points, on which he alone could have declared his opinions and motives of action. The case shall be sketched out here as it is contained in public documents. Those who may wish to refer to these documents will find them in Parliamentary Papers, No. 500 of 1852, No. 436 of 1855, and No. 553 of 1860.

As the clock-tower rose above the building it became necessary to provide for the construction of the great clock and bells. They were to be of enormous size, and required the best possible workmanship.

With regard to the great clock Mr. Barry, by the desire of the Board of Works, applied to Mr. Vulliamy, of Pall Mall, to inquire whether he would be willing to furnish plans, specification, calculations, and working drawings, for the guidance of the Government, it being distinctly understood, that no promise that he should make the clock was to be implied in this proceeding. Mr. Vulliamy agreed to do so, for a fee of one hundred guineas if he should be employed to make the clock, and for a fee of two hundred guineas should such not be the case. On April 24th, 1844, Mr. Barry was instructed by the Board of Works to accept Mr. Vulliamy’s offer.

Subsequently however (in July, 1846) the Government thought it better that a work of such magnitude should be open to a select competition by Mr. Vulliamy, Mr. Whitehurst of Derby, and Mr. E. T. Dent of London, the conditions to be prescribed by the Astronomer Royal, and the plans subjected to his arbitration.

Mr. Vulliamy however declined to compete on these conditions, conceiving that the Astronomer Royal was already committed to approval of Mr. Dent, by a letter written in October, 1844, to the Gresham Committee, stating that he considered the Royal Exchange Clock “the best in the world,” and another letter addressed to Mr. Dent himself, on July 22nd, 1845, containing a declaration, that, in the event of his being consulted as to a clock for the New Palace at Westminster, he should state without hesitation “that he considered Mr. Dent the most proper person to be entrusted with the construction of a clock of similar pretensions” to that at the Royal Exchange. It is needless to say, that this letter was written, when Professor Airy had no idea of being officially chosen as referee in the matter. Professor Airy had however, in a letter to Lord Canning, on June 22nd, 1846, recommended that the work should be given to Mr. Dent, “without inquiry of other makers,” unless his price appeared excessive, in which case he recommended that application should be made to Mr. Whitehurst and to Mr. Vulliamy. For these reasons Mr. Vulliamy objected to accept the Astronomer Royal as sole referee, though he would readily have competed, if the matter were referred to others conjointly with him.[74]

Accordingly, acting on his original instructions, he sent in his drawings and specification in August, 1846, with some remarks on the conditions laid down by the Astronomer Royal. Mr. Dent (declining, of course, to be guided by these drawings) and Mr. Whitehurst also, sent in drawings and specifications, with tenders for the execution of the work. The Astronomer Royal (who still continued to be sole referee) made a report on May 18th, 1847, recommending that Mr. Dent’s tender (for 1600_l._) be accepted, both on account of its lowness in comparison with Mr. Whitehurst’s (for 3373_l._) and for certain reasons, which led him to believe that the work would be best executed in his hands.

As Mr. Vulliamy had declined competition, he merely added some remarks on his drawings, and on the objection which he had made to the appointment of the Astronomer Royal as sole referee.

Mr. Dent did not as yet receive the formal appointment to make the great clock. He had competed on the understanding that, if any other clocks in the building were supplied by tender or competition, his name should be included among the competitors. Some misunderstanding with regard to clocks ordered for the House of Lords, in October, 1846 (before the adjudication of the Astronomer Royal) from Mr. Vulliamy, led to his withdrawal of his name from the whole competition; but, on explanation of the circumstances, he saw reason to cancel this withdrawal, and continued the preparation of the great clock.

In May 31st, 1848, Mr. E. B. Denison first appears on the scene, in an eminently characteristic letter to Lord Morpeth, accusing Mr. Barry of “acting in concert with Mr. Vulliamy” to set aside the decision of the Astronomer Royal, endeavouring to persuade Lord Morpeth that “he is familiar with the art of clockmaking, contriving to prevent the clock being ordered,” and the like. No proofs are given of these statements, made as they are in a letter to Lord Morpeth, to be submitted to the Commissioners for the New Palace. At the same time, August, 1848, Mr. Vulliamy applied for the two hundred guineas, which was to be his full payment, offering to return one hundred guineas in case of his being employed; but the Commissioners declined to recommend a payment of more than one hundred guineas, on the ground, that there was “no probability of any decision being required at present relative to the person to be employed to make the clock,” (June, 1849).

The matter still lingered, till towards the end of 1851 Mr. Denison was requested by Lord Seymour, the Chief Commissioner of Works, apparently at the suggestion of the Astronomer Royal, to act with that gentleman in the matter of the clock. He at once (to use his own words) examined, so far as was possible, the various plans, and “was soon convinced that none of them would do.” He therefore drew up a general specification, accepted by Mr. Dent, in accordance with which the clock was to be made under the direction of Professor Airy and Mr. Denison, for 1800_l._, and within the space of two years. This arrangement was formally sanctioned by the Board of Works, and thus for the first time the matter was put fairly in train.

The clock-tower had been in progress since 1843, and was now about 150 feet from the ground. The internal shaft (11 feet by 8 feet 6 in.) was of the same area on plan all the way up, and no hint had been given, that it was not amply sufficient for any clock which was likely to be required. But it now appeared, that the plan of the internal shaft was in some points inconsistent with Mr. Dent’s plan of the clock, and some modifications which appear to have been inconsiderable,[75] were made by Mr. Dent, in order to remove that difficulty. It is to be observed, that the architectural arrangements were all made before the clock was ordered at all.

After this the work proceeded steadily, and (as Professor Airy was abroad for some time) it proceeded under Mr. Denison’s sole direction. So long as Professor Airy was able to take an active part in the work, no difficulty seems to have occurred. But now a proposal was made by Lord John Manners (who had succeeded Lord Seymour) that some other referees should be appointed, and that the architect should be one of them. This proposal seems to have greatly excited Mr. Denison’s wrath; but, considering the trouble which Mr. Barry had already had from the appointment of persons to carry out works on the building, independent of himself and uncontrolled by any superior power, considering also the temper which Mr. Denison’s letters had shown, and the unreserved way in which he had identified his interests with those of Mr. Dent, it will probably not appear so entirely ridiculous or unreasonable to others.

As soon as the arrangements were made public, a memorial of the “masters, wardens, and court of assistants of the Clockmakers’ Company of the City of London” was presented to Lord John Manners, to the following effect, that, the original design and plan of the clock being altered, a fresh competition ought to take place, but that, if this was impossible, some committee of referees should be appointed in conjunction with the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, including the architect and Sir J. (or Mr. George) Rennie, _as originally proposed by Mr. Dent_. To this memorial the natural answer was given, viz., that the arrangements were already definitely made with Mr. Dent for the construction of the clock, but that the question of additional referees was under the consideration of the Chief Commissioner. A rejoinder was, however, written by Mr. Denison, referring the memorial to Mr. Vulliamy and “a certain set of clockmakers,” instead of treating it as, what it certainly was, an official document of the Company, and containing imputations of motives of underhand conduct against Lord J. Manners, Sir C. Barry, &c., which, as being incapable of formal proof or formal refutation, it is not usual to admit into official documents. Lord John Manners naturally declined to enter into controversy, and proposed Mr. Robert Stephenson as additional referee; but he did not think fit to press the proposal, when it was met by Mr. Denison with a declaration, that the Astronomer Royal and himself would resign, rather than admit of any change in the footing on which they had consented to act.

At this time Mr. Dent died, and his successor, Mr. F. Dent, claimed to succeed to the contract. Some doubt was entertained by the Government, based on legal opinions, whether they were bound to accept this succession. They did not, however, desire to injure Mr. Dent; they were prepared at once to make a new contract, based on the terms of the existing specification, with this single additional provision, that the approval of the clock should “be vested in the Chief Commissioner (then Sir W. Molesworth) acting under the advice and with the assistance of the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, or either of them, should any difference of opinion arise between the two.” This reason of this provision will be obvious from a letter of the Astronomer Royal dated a few days before (November 7th, 1853), in which he stated, that, since Mr. Denison’s appointment at his suggestion, subsequent intercourse, while it had “confirmed his high opinion of that gentleman’s mechanical ingenuity and horological knowledge, had shown that their ideas of the mode of conducting public business were very different, and had at last forced on him the conviction that they could not with advantage profess to act in concert.” Professor Airy had therefore tendered his resignation. After an interview, the Chief Commissioner induced him to withdraw the tender; but it would not appear that he took any active

## part in the subsequent proceedings.

It however proved that the Board had indirectly recognised Mr. F. Dent as succeeding to the contract. The law officers of the Crown, though declaring that this “did not alter the legal bearings of the case,” advised that the contract should be allowed to go on as before, but that the Board should insist on “the substitution of some other referee or referees.” This last recommendation was not insisted upon, and all accordingly proceeded on the old footing.

The clock was completed by Mr. Dent in 1855, and 1600_l._ was paid him on account. It however could not be hoisted to its place, and much discussion took place on the question, whether the tower was waiting for the clock, or the clock waiting for the tower. In fact, neither of these things was true. Both were waiting for the bells. As will be seen below, the tower was roofed in by Sir Charles in 1856, after he had waited in vain for some information about the bells, the tenders for which were accepted in 1855, but which were not finally ready till 1859. This necessitated the taking up the bells by the clock shaft, and so the clock could not be fixed till 1859.

Its troubles were not yet over. The weight of the hands was too great, and a vehement controversy, carried on in the usual spirit, took place in the ‘Times’ as to whether the blame of this did or did not rest upon Sir C. Barry.[76] Finally the difficulty was remedied, and the clock has been going on well up to the present time. As a piece of workmanship, it appears to do great credit both to Mr. Denison and to Mr. Dent.

Into the questions connected with the casting and the fate of the great bell it is here unnecessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do with it was that he recommended the appointment of Mr. Denison and the Rev. W. Taylor, F.S.A., as referees to superintend the formation of the bell; further proposing that certain bell-founders, Messrs. Mears, Warner, Taylor, and Murphy, should be invited to tender for it; but that if one founder alone should be selected, Mr. Mears should be chosen. It is clear from this communication that he fully recognised Mr. Denison’s merits, and was not disposed to allow any personal misunderstandings to interfere with public advantage.

The recommendation was accepted, with the addition of the Chief Commissioner of Works as an official referee, with a view (I presume) to avoid the difficulties which had occurred in the case of the great clock, and to give the head of the department, who had to be responsible for the work, some opportunity of knowing what was going on. Mr. Denison rejected the proposal, on the ground of the Chief Commissioner’s incompetency as to technical knowledge, and the probability that he would “act under the advice of somebody behind the scenes.” A delay accordingly ensued; but in August, 1855, Lord Llanover (then Sir B. Hall), who had become Commissioner of Works, appointed Mr. Denison, Mr. Taylor, and Professor Wheatstone to superintend the casting of the great bell. Six months before Sir C. Barry had informed the Board that the roof of the tower was ready, and, after waiting in vain for information about the bells, he was obliged to cover it in at the beginning of 1856.[77] This necessitated the carrying up the bells inside the tower, which was not originally intended by the architect. The interior was not under his control. Originally Dr. Reid intended a part of it for an air-shaft, and Mr. Gurney subsequently, against the architect’s wishes, used this part for a smoke-flue. The space available was about 8 ft. 6 in. in its smallest dimensions. Some difficulty occurred in consequence, of which much has been made. But it was obviated by the simple expedient of an alteration in the shape of the bell.

The first “Big Ben” was cast by Messrs. Warner, in August, 1856. In November it was brought to Westminster for trial, previous to its being hoisted into its place. It required a clapper of unusual weight, and in a short time it cracked under the test in October, 1857.

The bell was then re-cast under the direction of Messrs. Mears, in April, 1858. It was hoisted to its place, and tried with the clapper in November, 1858. It began to strike in July, 1859, and on the 28th of September it was found to be cracked. Into the charges and recriminations between Mr. Denison and Messrs. Mears, and the consequent

## action brought by the latter against the former, it is not at all

necessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do with the matter was, that Mr. Quarm, his clerk of the works, and Mr. James, the engineer, gave their best assistance in the fixing and hoisting of the bell, and in suggesting methods for overcoming any difficulties which presented themselves. It is only needful to remark, that the tone of the controversies which followed throws some light on the causes of the difficulties and troubles, to which it has been necessary to refer in the history of the great clock. In themselves these only formed one of the many instances in which Sir C. Barry, during the erection of the New Palace, suffered from the appointment of gentlemen, eminent in their own departments, to superintend works, in connexion with the building, and in perfect independence of its architect. But fortunately every such instance did not lead to so fierce a controversy as that which raged for a time about the clock and bells.[78]

There was one other case of divided responsibility, important as affecting the æsthetic character of the building, to which I must draw attention, as having caused Sir C. Barry much disappointment and anxiety. On this occasion, however, the architect experienced neither depreciation nor discourtesy; he sympathized with the object aimed at, and had reason to admire, in connexion with it, the knowledge, taste, and enlightened interest displayed by H.R.H. the late Prince Consort. Indeed, the qualities which the Prince brought to bear on the discharge of every duty undertaken by him, were perhaps never more conspicuous than in his many labours for the encouragement of the fine arts in this country.

As the building advanced, the public attention was drawn to the great opportunity, which it offered for the encouragement of the arts of painting and sculpture. His Royal Highness, who frequently visited the work, and took considerable interest in its progress, was most anxious that this opportunity should not be lost, and at the same time felt, that only by great care and consultation of various authorities could it be used to the best advantage. Accordingly in Nov. 1841 a Royal Commission (the “Fine Arts Commission”) was appointed, under the presidency of His Royal Highness, and consisting of the following members:--Lord Lyndhurst, the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of Shrewsbury, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, Viscount Melbourne, Lord Ashburton, Lord Colborne, The Right Hon. Charles Shaw Lefevre (Speaker of the House of Commons), Sir R. Peel, Sir James Graham, Sir R. H. Inglis, B. Hawes, Esq. jun., Henry Gale Knight, Esq., Henry Hallam, Esq., S. Rogers, Esq., G. Vivian, Esq., Thomas Wyse, Esq. To these were afterwards added the names of Lord Mahon (now Earl Stanhope), T. B. Macaulay, Esq. (afterwards Lord Macaulay), Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, Lord Canning, Lord Morpeth, Sir B. Hall, and the Right Hon. J. Evelyn Denison (Speaker of the House of Commons), Lord John Manners, and the Hon. W. Cowper. Sir C. Eastlake was appointed Secretary.

It is obvious, from a glance at the names of the Commissioners, that great care had been taken to represent on the Board, not only rank and official knowledge, but also artistic and literary excellence. But it will be noticed, that the name of the architect of the building does not occur on the Commission. It was thought, perhaps, that, as having to carry out the views of the Commission, he ought for technical reasons to have no seat upon it. It might also have been supposed, that he would be inclined to look at things too much from one point of view, and endeavour to subordinate painting and sculpture too much to the architecture of the building; so that, in the almost inevitable rivalry of the arts, he would not be a disinterested party. But it may be questioned whether technical propriety should have been allowed to override practical convenience. And it is not likely that a single voice on the Board would have been able to secure to architectural claims more than their due share of attention.

He himself greatly regretted his exclusion, and was inclined to consider it as a slight. He knew that practical questions must constantly arise, on which a few words of information from him might save long discussions, and perhaps serious mistakes. He felt also that few could have studied the building, as a whole, so thoroughly as he had done; that few therefore could be better qualified to give an opinion as to the nature and disposition of works of art, which should not only be beautiful in themselves, but should harmonize with one another, and with the building on which they were “set,” so as to produce a magnificent whole.[79] He was, of course, examined by the Commission, and was invited to lay his views freely and completely before it. But this was a very different thing from the opportunities of frequent suggestion and free discussion, which he would have enjoyed, had it been thought right to place him on the Commission. It will perhaps be interesting to quote some passages from the Report which he prepared on this occasion, showing the ideal towards which he desired, gradually but systematically, to tend.

“With reference to the interior of the new Houses of Parliament generally, I would suggest that the walls of the several halls, galleries, and corridors of approach, as well as the various public apartments throughout the building, should be decorated with paintings having reference to events in the history of the country, and that those paintings should be placed in compartments formed by such a suitable arrangement of the architectural design of the interior, as will best promote their effective union with the arts of sculpture and architecture. With this view, I should consider it to be of the utmost importance that the paintings should be wholly free from gloss on the surface, so that they may be perfectly seen, and fully understood, from all points of view, that all other portions of the plain surfaces of the walls should be covered with suitable architectonic decoration, or diapered enrichment in colour, occasionally heightened with gold and blended with armorial bearings, badges, cognizances, and other heraldic insignia emblazoned in their proper colours. That such of the halls as are groined should have their vaults decorated in a similar manner, with the addition occasionally of subjects, or works of art, so interwoven with the diapered ground as not to disturb the harmony, or the effect of the architectonic decorations generally, or interfere with the elementary features of the architectural composition. That such of the ceilings as are flat should be formed into compartments by moulded ribs, enriched with carved heraldic and Tudor decorations. That these ceilings should be relieved by positive colour and gilding, and occasionally by gold grounds with diaper enrichments, legends, and heraldic devices in colour. That the screens, pillars, corbels, niches, dressings of the windows, and other architectural decorations, should be painted to harmonize with the paintings and diapered decorations of the walls generally, and be occasionally relieved with positive colour and gilding. That the door-jambs and fireplaces should be constructed of British marbles of suitable quality and colour, highly polished and occasionally relieved by colour and gilding in their mouldings and sculptured enrichments. That the floors of the several halls, galleries, and corridors should be formed of encaustic tiles, bearing heraldic decorations and other enrichments in colours, laid in margins and compartments, in combination with polished British marbles, and that the same description of marbles should also be employed for the steps of the several staircases. That the walls to the height of from eight to ten feet should be lined with oak framing, containing shields with armorial bearings emblazoned in their proper colours, and that an oak seat should in all cases be placed against such framing. That the windows of the several halls, galleries, and corridors should be glazed doubly, for the purpose of tempering the light and preventing the direct rays of the sun from interfering with the effect of the internal decorations generally; for this purpose the outer glazing is proposed to be of ground glass in single plates, and the inner glazing of an ornamental design in metal filled with stained glass, bearing arms and other heraldic insignia in their proper colours, but so arranged that the ground, which I should recommend to be of a warm yellowish tint covered with a running foliage or diaper, and occasionally relieved by legends in black letter, should predominate, in order that so much light only may be excluded, as may be thought desirable to do away with either a garish or cold effect upon the paintings and decorations generally. That in order to promote the art of sculpture and its effective union with painting and architecture, I would propose that in the halls, galleries, and corridors, statues might be employed for the purpose of dividing the paintings on the walls. By this arrangement a rich effect of perspective, and a due subordination of the several arts to each other, would be obtained. The statues suggested should be, in my opinion, of marble of the colour of polished alabaster, and be raised upon lofty and suitable pedestals placed close to the walls in niches surmounted by enriched canopies; but the niches should be shallow, so that the statues may be as well seen laterally as in front. The architectural decorations of these niches might be painted of such colours as would give the best effect to the adjoining paintings, being relieved in parts by positive colours and gilding, and the backs of them might be painted in dark colours, such as chocolate, crimson, or blue, or they might be of gold for the purpose of giving effect to the statues.

“I would propose that Westminster Hall, which is 239 feet long, 68 feet wide, and 90 feet high, should be made the depository, as in former times, for all trophies obtained in wars with foreign nations. These trophies might be so arranged above the paintings on the walls as to have a very striking and interesting effect. I would further suggest that pedestals, twenty in number, answering to the position of the principal ribs of the roof, should be placed so as to form a central avenue, 30 feet in width, from the north entrance door to St. Stephen’s porch, for statues of the most celebrated British statesmen, whose public services have been commemorated by monuments erected at the public expense, as well as for present and future statesmen whose services may be considered by Parliament to merit a similar tribute to their memories. The statues which have been already proposed to be placed against the walls between the pictures, I would suggest should be those of naval and military commanders. The subjects of the paintings on the walls, twenty-eight in number, 16 feet in length, 10 feet in height, might relate to the most splendid warlike achievements in English history, both by sea and land, which, as well as the statues that are proposed to divide them, might be arranged chronologically. This noble hall, certainly the most splendid of its style in the world, thus decorated by the union of painting and sculpture and architecture, and aided by the arts of decoration as suggested, would present a most striking appearance, and be an object of great national interest.”

Side by side with these proposals, it may be well to place the substance of the principal Reports of the Commission presented to Her Majesty.[80]

After examining the various methods and styles of painting, fresco, oil, encaustic, and stereo-chrome (or water-glass) painting, and the best materials for sculpture, they had proceeded in the first instance to assume the superintendence of purely decorative works, and invite competition even in wood carving, metal-work, and stained glass. Fortunately they were led to reconsider this step, finding no doubt the insuperable practical difficulties which it involved, and to report “that experience proved that it was on many accounts advisable to leave with the architect the responsibility of all strictly decorative works.” They add that “he had undertaken on his own responsibility the whole of the decorative works, except the stained glass,” and that they deemed it right to abstain from all interference, and disclaim all responsibility in the matter.

The tone of the Report appears to convey some surprise and disapprobation of the course adopted by the architect; but any one who considers the wide interpretation which may be given to the word “decoration,” and the absolute impossibility of distinguishing between decorative and constructional work, or of securing unity of effect, when the building is in one hand and the decoration in another, will probably conclude, that, as he was not a member of the Commission, no other course was open to him, consistent with due care, either of his own reputation or of the public service.

The Commission accordingly confined their attention to “works of art,” and decided that (generally speaking) the painting and sculpture should be historical, and that their subjects should be chosen from English history and literature.

They then adopted a scheme, drawn out by a Select Committee, consisting of the Prince Consort, Lords Lansdowne, John Russell, Morpeth, and Mahon, Sir R. H. Inglis, and Messrs. Macaulay, Hallam, and Wyse, for the choice and distribution of the various works of art. Westminster Hall, which in the architect’s scheme formed one of the most magnificent features, was strangely omitted from the scheme of this Committee, and left in its present bare and dreary condition. St. Stephen’s Hall, as occupying the site of the old House of Commons, was set apart for the statues of “men who rose to eminence by the eloquence and ability which they displayed in that house,” and for paintings “illustrating great epochs in constitutional, social, and ecclesiastical history, from the conversion of the Saxons to the accession of the House of Stuart.” The Peers’ and Commons’ corridors, leading from the central hall, were to contain paintings illustrative of the great contest, which began with the meeting of the Long Parliament and ended in 1688. It had been already determined, that the House of Peers should contain statues of the barons who signed Magna Charta, and ideal paintings of Religion, Justice, and Chivalry, faced by corresponding historical pictures, the Baptism of Ethelbert, the Committal of Prince Henry by Chief Justice Gascoigne, and the Investiture of the Black Prince with the Order of the Garter. The Peers’ robing-room was to contain scriptural subjects, illustrative of the “Idea of Justice on Earth, and its development in Law and Judgment.” The Royal antechamber (the “Prince’s chamber”) was to contain “portraits relating to the Tudor family,” copies of the famous tapestry, representing the defeat of the Armada in the old House of Peers, and small bas-reliefs of the Tudor period. The Royal gallery was to be filled with paintings relating to the “military and naval glory of the country;” and the Queen’s robing-room with subjects from the legend of King Arthur. The Painted chamber was to illustrate “the acquisition of the country’s colonies and important places, constituting the British Empire.” The Royal gallery, robing-room, and landing-places of the great staircase were to contain the statues of English sovereigns down to Queen Victoria.

It is clear that the two schemes were constructed on totally different principles. The scheme of the Commission was, so to speak, an ideal one, drawn up with great skill and knowledge, so as to cover the whole field of English history, and bring out those salient points, which might properly be connected with the palace of the legislature. The scheme of the architect was a practical one, drawn up with reference to the various halls and galleries of the building, and designed to present as grand and perfect a spectacle as possible to those entering and traversing the building. It would have been very desirable that these schemes should have modified and interpenetrated each other. Ideal perfection need not have suffered, had some deference been paid to the actual conditions of locality. But such was not the case. The Commission indeed refer to the architect’s scheme as enabling them first to “select fit localities” for the works of art, and next to “proceed to a general scheme suitable to the localities selected.” Yet it is difficult to trace in the arrangements actually made any reference to the architectural character of the halls selected, or to the actual convenience of exhibition of the works of art themselves.

The original recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee, which gave rise to the Commission, was that “a plan should be determined on, by which the architect and the artists employed should work not only in conjunction with but in aid of one another.” The actual fact is, that, in some cases, the works of art are utterly at variance with the architecture, and ill-adapted to their position. Thus statues, beautiful in themselves, are executed on such a scale as to ruin the architectural effect of the halls, in which they are erected. This is the case with the statues in St. Stephen’s Hall, and the fine group by Gibson in the Prince’s chamber. In some cases fine paintings, such as Herbert’s magnificent picture of Moses delivering the Law, are in positions in which the public can rarely see them, while St. Stephen’s Hall, through which the main tide of people flows, is still left without a single picture. The series of statues of the British sovereigns is to be divided among three or four different localities, so that it will be impossible to see them at one time, or have them executed on one uniform scale. These things ought not to have been, and it is hardly possible that they should have taken place, had the Commission included one member, who had before his eyes the building as a whole, and the scale and succession of its various parts. Their labours have led to great and valuable results: it is a pity that these results should have suffered, even in a slight degree, from want of practical knowledge.

In order to carry out the ideas embodied in the scheme of the Commissioners, great exhibitions of cartoons and sculpture took place in Westminster Hall. Premiums were offered, and commissions were given to those who gained the highest places in this grand competition. The work is still going on, and (it is to be hoped) will be continued, till something like the ideal proposed in the reports shall be realized. Few buildings could be better adapted to serve as a British “Walhalla.” The natural wish for the perpetuation of memorials of great men and great events has filled St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey with monuments, seldom fitted for places of Christian worship and Christian sepulture. Such monuments might well find a place in future in a building, which is at once a palace of the Sovereign and the home of the legislature,--a building moreover, which by its extent and by its publicity gives the greatest possible scope for such commemoration of the past. When we look at what has been already done by the hands of our most celebrated artists, it is impossible not to feel that already the object of the Commission has been, to a great extent, attained, and a great opportunity nobly used. It is to be hoped, that even now such modifications may be made, during the continuance of the work, as may do away with all such drawbacks as those noticed above, and secure the harmony needed for grandeur of effect.

But, if it was Mr. Barry’s fate thus to encounter opposition and difficulty, it was his good fortune in the execution of his great work to draw round him men, who would work heartily under his direction, and yet would bring to their work all the enthusiasm and the high artistic spirit, which are usually supposed to belong only to independent workers. The opportunity was a great one; the scale of the building, the supplies given from the public purse, and (for a considerable time) the large discretion left to the architect in the employment of those resources, were at that time unprecedented. Mr. Barry felt the greatness of the opportunity. Not only did he desire to make his building a treasure-house of art and a sculptured memorial of our national history, but he also hoped to raise up in the course of its execution a school of decorative art, guided, but not servilely confined, by the examples of Gothic antiquity, and bringing to the evolution of Gothic principles all the resources of modern thought and science.

His ideas on the former point are embodied in the communication to the Fine Arts Commission, which is quoted above. The appointment of the Commission, of which (as has been remarked) he was not made a member, to a great extent took the highest artistic decoration out of his hands; and, but for his strenuous resistance, would have interfered even with purely architectural details. Still, however, much remained in his power; and his hopes in this direction did not fail of considerable accomplishment.

Nor was he disappointed in his other expectation. In the extraordinary progress of decorative art during the last twenty years the work in the New Palace of Westminster may justly claim a large share of influence. Infinite pains were bestowed on every detail; in some cases it seemed, that the dignity of the building as a whole, rather than the absolute need or object of the particular part under consideration, was allowed to determine the care and elaboration to be bestowed upon it. In the whole of the enormous mass there is hardly a square yard, which was not the subject of careful study. It was rather an understatement than an exaggeration of the truth, when the architect was forced to state to the Government that “no less than between 8000 or 9000 original drawings and models have been prepared for it, a large portion of which have emanated from my own hand, while the whole of the remainder have been made under my own immediate direction and supervision.” It was impossible that this extraordinary labour should be wholly thrown away. It could not fail to advance that cause of decorative art, to which it was so unsparingly devoted. But Mr. Barry was well aware that such a work could not be carried out by the unaided exertions of a single man. It was his good fortune to give direction and stimulus to a crowd of artistic coadjutors; it is the duty and privilege of those, who cherish his memory, to record with the most unreserved acknowledgment the valuable aid which he received from them.

Foremost among all stands the name of the late Mr. Pugin. It was (as has been said) during the erection of the Birmingham Grammar School in 1835 that he first became known to Mr. Barry, and at that time his help was first received in designing certain details of the interior. From the first moment of their acquaintance the connection between them became warm and friendly. Agreeing in their entire devotion to art, and differing widely in character and in artistic principles, they had perhaps just that amount of sympathy and diversity, which leads to mutual appreciation, co-operation, and friendship. Unrestrained as their intercourse and mutual criticisms were--impossible, in fact, as it would have been to restrain either in the assertion of what he conceived to be orthodoxy in architectural faith--that intercourse was untroubled by the slightest misunderstanding or estrangement of feeling, from the time that they first saw each other in Birmingham, till the day when Sir C. Barry was one of the few mourners who followed his friend to the grave.

The first aid which he received from Mr. Pugin was under the pressure of shortness of time in making the original design. Working under Mr. Barry’s own eye and direction, Mr. Pugin sketched for him in pencil a complete set of details, in a style perhaps bolder, less carefully proportioned and less purely English, than would have been adopted by himself. In the design they differed _toto cœlo_. Mr. Pugin would have recommended irregular and picturesque grouping of parts, utterly at variance with the regularity and symmetry actually adopted. Except in details, he neither had, nor could have had, any influence whatever, and those who compare the details of his own buildings with those of the New Palace will readily see that even here his influence, however valuable, was chiefly indirect.

As soon as he was appointed architect to the New Palace, he immediately thought of his friend, and resolved to invite him to his aid. Convinced that Mr. Pugin was at that time unrivalled in his knowledge of Gothic detail, admiring his extraordinary powers as a draughtsman, carried away by sympathy with his burning artistic enthusiasm, he could wish for no other coadjutor. The invitation was accepted, and a connection was established equally honourable to both artists. No man was more original than Mr. Pugin. He held strongly certain principles, on the evolution of which he greatly disagreed with his friend: he was one whose name and genius could at all times command an independent authority. Yet for the furtherance of his art he was willing to accept a distinctly subordinate position, and to work under the superintendence and control of another. His acceptance of the post, and the spirit in which he discharged its duties, showed the generosity and unselfishness which were his well-known characteristics. Nor, on the other hand, could Mr. Barry be unaware of the danger of calling in a too powerful coadjutor. He knew the almost inevitable risk which he incurred of being supposed to wear other men’s laurels, of having all that was good or spirited in the details attributed to Mr. Pugin,[81] and of finding it difficult or impossible to control an enthusiasm, which might work in what seemed to him undesirable methods. But these things he resolutely put aside for the sake of an aid, which he thought likely to improve his great building, and which he knew to be genial and inspiriting to himself.[82] That Mr. Pugin was the last man in the world to encroach on another man’s authority or credit he knew, and that this confidence in his friend’s character was not misplaced is shown by the strong disclaimer which he put out, when an attempt was made to attribute to him more than he felt to be his due. The misapprehensions of others he could afford to disregard.

After Mr. Barry’s appointment as architect, he still received the same aid in preparing detailed drawings for the estimate, most of which however, by changes in design, were afterwards set aside. Finally, at his recommendation, Mr. Pugin was formally appointed superintendent of the wood carving, and in that capacity he directed, first the formation of a valuable collection of plaster casts of the most famous examples at home and abroad, and next the execution of the wood-work, ornamental metal-work, stained glass, and encaustic tiles throughout the whole building. But in all cases it was thoroughly understood between them, that the architect’s supremacy was to be unimpaired. Every drawing passed under his eye in all cases for supervision, in very many for alteration. Mr. Pugin’s originality and enthusiasm never interfered with this understanding: he would carry out vigorously and heartily what he himself could not altogether approve.[83] His suggestions and criticisms, freely given and freely received, were invaluable; and his enthusiasm, even in its eccentricities, was inspiring and irresistible. For more than five and twenty years the intercourse between the two friends and coadjutors continued, unbroken by any differences except in taste, and, when Mr. Pugin was struck down by his fatal illness, Mr. Barry felt that his loss was irreparable.

In the stone-carving Mr. Barry was fortunate in securing aid, only less valuable than that of Mr. Pugin. In the same work, at Birmingham, he discovered Mr. Thomas, then working as an ordinary stone-carver on the building. He was struck by his ability, skill, and energy, and at once resolved to aid in raising him to a position more worthy of his talents. After experience of his powers, he entrusted to him, under the same supervision, the entire direction of the stone-carving throughout the building. The result proved the wisdom of the choice. Under Mr. Thomas’s direction, stone-carving made a great step, which was felt in its effect upon architectural sculpture throughout the country, and which has conduced powerfully to the remarkable progress which it has since made up to the present time. With the general results of his exertions Mr. Barry was fully satisfied, and rejoiced greatly when his success in this capacity enabled him to take and to support elsewhere an independent position.

But an architect’s work is not purely artistic. The construction both of the New Palace itself and of the scaffolding used in its erection, taxed heavily scientific knowledge and ingenuity.[84] In fact, the whole timber or framed scaffolding, with travellers, by which a stone, perhaps elaborately carved, could be raised from the ground, and placed in its proper position, had seldom, if ever, before been employed on so large a scale. The constructional difficulties introduced by the need of preservation of old buildings, and of piecemeal occupation of the new ones, were great. But even greater were those caused by the frequent change and increase of official requirements in the course of the work; and most of all by the appointment of Dr. Reid, and his enormous claims of space for warming and ventilation, never known till the whole arrangement of plan and construction was settled.

Into all these difficulties Mr. Barry himself fully entered. He felt a positive pleasure in the expedients by which they were to be met; and in the invention of such expedients he was full of resources, and bold even to the verge of rashness. But his knowledge was more practical than theoretical, and in his work he received the most valuable assistance from the scientific knowledge, ingenuity, and power of contrivance of Mr. Meeson, who was for a long time his chief assistant in this branch of office work. His aid was zealously and unobtrusively given, and heartily appreciated. Working side by side with him, and bringing practical energy, daring, and ingenuity to carry out much difficult and hazardous work, Mr. Quarm did good service to the building, and showed an enthusiastic loyalty and devotion towards his chief.

Meanwhile in the office Mr. Barry had associated with himself a series of able and zealous assistants, who were destined hereafter to make themselves a place in the architectural profession. He certainly was able to kindle in them a rare degree of enthusiasm for art, side by side with a strong personal attachment to himself, arising chiefly from sympathy in this enthusiasm. And it can hardly be doubted, that his peculiar refinement of detail and proportion, his careful study of every part of a building, and his resolution to attempt, even in comparatively trifling works, originality and unity of effect, must have left their traces on the designs of those who had been associated with him.

It would be an almost endless work to recount the names of those who worked under his direction in the decoration of the New Palace. Messrs. Hardman in respect of the stained glass, Mr. Crace in the ornamental painting, Mr. Minton in the supply of the encaustic tiles, took far more than a commercial interest in the work. It is said truly, that much of the beauty and vigour of mediæval works arises from the fact, that the actual decorators worked artistically, with a view to the excellence of their work, and not merely to the wages to be received for it. If this spirit is reviving, or has revived, in the present day, much is probably due to the work on the New Palace at Westminster, where there certainly was in a very high degree this feeling among those who took subordinate parts in the work. It can be hardly wrong to attribute some measure at least of this feeling to the enthusiasm for art which actuated the leader. It is certainly a duty to record the deep sense which he entertained of it, and the support and encouragement which it gave him.

With these difficulties and with these supports, the work proceeded steadily and energetically. The time which elapsed from the actual commencement of the work in 1840, to the opening of the main part of the building in 1852, cannot be considered long, if the extent of the work be calculated, and its various drawbacks allowed for.

In February, 1847, the House of Peers was for the first time occupied, not with any ceremonial opening, but for ordinary public business. Some difficulty was at first apprehended as to the acoustic properties of the House; but as soon as the Peers became more used to their new House, the difficulty was greatly diminished, if not entirely removed.

Meanwhile the rest of the building proceeded rapidly. The public approaches were completed, the committee-rooms gradually prepared for use, and at last the House of Commons was opened. The temporary house having been very convenient, the members of the Lower House had not been very anxious to enter their new quarters. When they did so, they were somewhat dissatisfied with the change. In the construction of the House the architect had acted upon the instructions and advice of the leading officials; and the general effect of these instructions had been greatly to diminish the dimensions originally proposed, for the accommodation both of the House and the public.[85]

When the House met, with an attendance increased beyond its usual standard by excitement and curiosity, it was thought that this process of diminution had been carried too far, and it was resolved to increase the accommodation of the lobbies and galleries. To this alteration no artistic objection could be offered. But it was conceived, without, as Mr. Barry thought, sufficient trial and experience, that there was difficulty in hearing; and members, accustomed to the lowness of the temporary house, immediately concluded that it was the height of the present building which was in fault. It was imperatively ordered that the ceiling should be lowered, and the only way in which this could be done was by the introduction of an inner ceiling with sloping sides, cutting the side windows in half, and ruining the proportions of the room. Never was a work carried out by an architect more unwillingly. Mr. Barry could not feel that a sufficient trial had been made, to prove the necessity of the alteration. When it had been carried out, he no longer considered the House as his own work; and never would speak of it, or even enter it, without absolute necessity.

In 1852 the Royal approach was completed, and Her Majesty made, for the first time, her public entrance through the Victoria tower and the Royal gallery into the House of Peers. At the same time the great public approaches through Westminster and St. Stephen’s Hall were ready for use.

The main portions of the building might now be considered as finished, and the architect soon after was knighted by Her Majesty at Windsor. It was at a time, when he began to feel keenly the attacks made upon him, and the harassing controversies in which he had become involved. Such circumstances gave an unusual value to the honour conferred upon him by the Sovereign--almost the only official honour which in this country is offered to artistic or scientific merit, although it has to be shared with those who have no pretensions to either.

From this time the building proceeded quietly towards completion. The towers were the last finished. There was not, of course, the same pressure of necessity for their completion; the nature of the soil under their foundations demanded great care and deliberation in raising the superstructure; and their design perhaps gave more trouble to the architect than that of any other part of the building. “Nothing,” it has been truly said, “tended more to retard a general appreciation of the architectural merits of the New Palace than the necessarily slow and protracted realization of its chief vertical features and skyline.” The central tower was the first finished; next came the clock-tower; and finally the great mass of the Victoria tower received its last stone. The great flagstaff rising above was added subsequently. It was indeed the last object which engaged his professional attention in the building, and was left unfinished at his death. The drawings of the flagstaff, and the lantern-work at the base, with its screens and flying buttresses, were made by his son (E. M. Barry, Esq.) in accordance with his known intentions. But it was on a temporary wooden staff, that the great flag was hoisted “half mast high” on the day of Sir Charles’s funeral.

SECTION IV.--It is impossible in a life of Sir C. Barry to omit notice of the long, harassing, and unsuccessful controversy, which he carried on with the Government in relation to his remuneration for the New Palace at Westminster.

To his friends it is a painful subject; its nature and its effect upon his feelings and his health they would be glad to forget: but the true statement of the case is not only due to his memory, but also highly important, both to the architectural profession and the public. It often happens (it may probably be so in this case) that a battle lost to the individual by the influence of special circumstances, and by the use of overwhelming power against him, may prove to have been virtually won for those who come after him. It will be my endeavour to admit into the narrative as little as possible any expressions of mere opinion, and to tell the story chiefly through the main official documents put out on both sides, omitting the minuter details of the controversy, and the disputes on trivial points, which naturally arose from the antagonistic position produced by its continuance.

The question was briefly this, whether the architect of the New Palace at Westminster was entitled to the regular professional remuneration of five per cent. commission upon the outlay on the works executed under his direction; or whether there were special circumstances in the case, which justified a departure from the ordinary practice, and the remuneration of his services on a lower scale. In the course of the discussion arose another question, hardly less important to the public, whether the Treasury were justified, by their position and by their view of the requirements of the public service, in constituting themselves judges of the question in dispute, in refusing arbitration on doubtful points, and in enforcing their decision, by withholding all remuneration, until its principle should be accepted by the architect.

This is no place for discussing at any length the abstract justice and expediency of the principle of five per cent. commission regularly recognised by all architects as the method of their professional remuneration. The principle of a percentage evidently involves some considerable inequality, when it is applied to works of different characters, requiring for the same outlay very different degrees of skill, labour, and responsibility. It seems hard that the architect of a church, which requires elaborate designs, should be remunerated at the same rate as the architect, who designs a simple warehouse, or the engineer who raises great masses of brickwork, requiring but two or three simple drawings. Like other principles not wholly equitable in their operation, it is recommended by its simplicity and practicability, and, in fact, to those who regard their work as a profession, and not a trade, its commercial inequality is compensated by the corresponding inequality of artistic opportunities.

But it is certainly not an excessive rate of remuneration. Compared with the profits of the builders, who execute the work, it is absolutely insignificant; nor can the remuneration of an architect of eminence bear comparison with that of an engineer occupying the same position in his profession. The period over which the expenditure on architectural work is spread is comparatively large; the preparation of designs and working drawings, the incessant superintendence, and the duty of “measurement,” require a large and expensive staff of assistants. It is, therefore, rare that an architect “makes his fortune,” even if he is engaged in extensive works, and even if his gross receipts are considerable.

So much only is it necessary to remark on the general principle. On the

## particular case I must add (what will in all probability be generally

allowed) that a building of a highly ornate and artistic design, carried out for a public body, whose requirements and instructions varied greatly from time to time, and requiring constant attendance on official personages and Parliamentary Committees, was one for which the regular percentage would be (to say the least) no excessive remuneration. It is true that the gross outlay was very great, but it was spread over a period of about twenty years. It absorbed almost the whole of the architect’s time, and gradually destroyed most of his private practice. After 1842 that practice, which would naturally have continued to extend, both in scale and area, began to diminish, and it is likely that pecuniarily he would have been nearly as well off, if he had been able to devote himself to private work. There was nothing in the general features of the case, which could make it right to treat it as an exceptional one.

It is therefore necessary to inquire into the special circumstances, which were held by the Government to require a deviation from the established usage.

The designs and estimates were accepted, and the works commenced on July 3rd, 1837, without any official communication with the architect on the subject of remuneration. On March 1st, 1839 (_i. e._ _more than nineteen months after the commencement of the building_) he received from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests (the “Board of Works”) a copy of a letter from the Treasury, approving of the following recommendation from the office of Public Works,[86] and ordering it to be observed in the remuneration of the architect:--

“THE subject of the remuneration to be made to Mr. Barry, as the architect selected for superintending the erection of the New Houses of Parliament, having been pressed upon the attention of this Board, in consequence of the opinions expressed at different times in both Houses of Parliament against the principle of remunerating architects by a commission or percentage upon the amount of their estimates, we beg leave to state to your Lordships, that in deference to those opinions, we have given the subject our best and most mature consideration; and that having carefully considered all the circumstances of this case, the extent and importance of the building, the nature and description of the several works, the very large amount of expenditure contemplated in Mr. Barry’s estimate, and the period within which it is proposed that such expenditure should be incurred,--we are therefore of opinion, that the sum of 25,000_l._ will be a fair and liberal remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr. Barry in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the intended edifice.

(Signed) “DUNCANNON, B. C. STEPHENSON, A. MILNE.”

A request on the part of the architect to be informed of the principle on which the sum of 25,000_l._ was calculated, having been refused, he addressed the following reply to the office:--

_Foley Place, 22nd April, 1839._

“SIR,--As the Board has not deemed it right to make me acquainted with the principle upon which the amount of remuneration for my services in respect of the intended New Houses of Parliament has been determined, I cannot, of course, form any opinion, and will not question the correctness of the data upon which it is founded. I make no doubt, however, that the proposed amount, although very far short of the customary remuneration which has hitherto been paid to architects for extensive public works, is considered by the Board to be liberal under all the circumstances of the case; and therefore, with this impression, I have no wish to do otherwise than bow to its decision. In so doing, however, I cannot, in justice to myself and the profession to which I belong, refrain from expressing most decidedly my opinion that the amount is very inadequate to the great labour and responsibility that will devolve upon me in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the intended edifice; and I trust when this is made manifest, as I feel sure it will be, upon the completion of any considerable portion of it, that there will not be any indisposition on the part of the Board (especially if the work should prove to be satisfactory to the public at large) to award to me the remainder of the remuneration which has hitherto been customary on similar occasions.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES BARRY.”

To this letter no rejoinder was made. On January 2nd, 1841, the architect again addressed the office, stating that “the time was now arrived when some permanent arrangement must be made for the measuring and making out the accounts of work executed,” and requesting authority to make the requisite arrangements, the expense of which he conceived “to be included under the head of contingencies.” The office replied (January 18th) that this duty belonged to the architect as such, and that the expense was provided for in the professional remuneration already fixed. To this statement, on January 28th, the architect replied, pleading that the expense of measurement had been borne by the Board whenever less than five per cent. had been paid to the architect. He received a formal reply, declining to alter the view already taken by the office, and the correspondence was closed.

It is on the letters of Mr. Barry above referred to, particularly on that of April 22nd, 1839, that the case of the Government against him mainly depends. It is clear that his case would have been far stronger, had he at once ventured to refuse the 25,000_l._ offered him, standing upon the invariable custom of the profession, and the fact that his appointment had been made, and the work carried on for more than nineteen months, before any such conditions were mentioned. On the other hand, it is equally clear that he was placed in a position of much difficulty by the action of the Government. He was already thoroughly absorbed in the work, and had devoted much time and trouble to its commencement. His success in the competition had excited great and almost unexampled opposition and misrepresentation; he knew, therefore, that he had enemies, who would gladly seize any opportunity to produce a breach between him and the Government, especially on a subject on which public opinion was at least greatly divided. It appeared to him very hard that he should be placed in such a position. It was natural that he should endeavour to take a middle course, and to accept the terms under a protest, which would leave the matter open for future consideration. It may be added that the Government, by tacitly receiving a letter, which contained such a protest, and expressed a hope of such future reconsideration, must bear some of the responsibility of the unsettled state in which the question was left, and of the controversy which accordingly arose.

The whole matter now remained in abeyance for eight years, during which time the work proceeded. It had been supposed that the building would be completed in about six years, and at an expense of about 707,000_l._ But, as has been elsewhere shown, from various causes, some wholly beyond the architect’s control, some for which he was responsible, and for which the approval of the Government and of Parliamentary Committees had been obtained, the time occupied in building was greatly protracted, and the expense proportionately increased. It was conceived by Mr. Barry and by his friends that the “bargain” made with the Office of Works, if it had ever had any legal value, had now vitiated by the entire change of the circumstances on which it was originally based, and that the time was come when the whole matter must be re-opened. Accordingly he addressed a letter on February 6th, 1849 to the Commissioners for the superintendence of the completion of the New Palace, which contains a full and forcible statement of his case. It will be found in the Appendix. Its substance must be stated here.

After referring to the fact that he was appointed architect unconditionally, and that not till nineteen months after his appointment did he hear of Lord Bessborough’s proposition, he states that, having vainly asked for an explanation of the grounds of that proposition, he had acceded to it conditionally and under protest.

He then contends that the bargain as such has been annulled by acts of the Government, but that he is willing to meet the grounds alleged in Lord Bessborough’s letter. Accordingly, to the statement of “the extent and importance of the work,” he answers, that “the responsibilities of the architect are more than proportionally increased, and the demands on his skill, taste, and judgment are far greater than in works of less magnitude.” To the somewhat vague reference to “the nature and description of the work,” he replies by inviting a comparison between the New Palace and any other modern building, to show that in “variety of design, elaboration of details, and difficulties of combination and construction, the labour and responsibility incurred are greater than in any modern edifice,” and by referring to official delays and perplexities, and the control of Parliamentary Committees added to that of the Government. “It will not be irrelevant to mention (he adds) that already between 8000 and 9000 original drawings and models have been made, a large portion from my own hand, and the remainder under my immediate supervision.” The “statement of the large expenditure contemplated, and the period in which it was proposed that this expenditure should be incurred,” he meets by remarking, that “the annual expenditure has not been greater than that incurred in other public works on which the full percentage has been paid,” and that from circumstances over which he had no control, especially the difficulty of obtaining the whole site, and the introduction of Dr. Reid’s system of ventilation, the period of the execution of the building had been, and must be, greatly increased.

He then enumerated extra duties which had been thrown upon him, on which he might fairly claim remuneration.

He concludes by stating that his appointment had caused the loss of about two-thirds of his private practice, and declaring that the ordinary remuneration of five per cent. would be, to say the least, not more than an adequate return for the “labour, responsibility, and sacrifices incurred in conducting the largest and most elaborate work of the period, to which he had devoted almost exclusively the best period of his professional life.”

Of this letter it would appear that _no notice whatever was taken for about five years_. On February 8th, 1854, a communication was received from James Wilson, Esq., in reply to some letter of the same purport (not printed) from Sir C. Barry to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in accordance with a Treasury Minute on the subject.

Its main points are:--

(_a._) An assertion that a percentage of three per cent. had been accepted by Sir J. Soane, Sir R. Smirke, and Mr. John Nash (attached as architects to the Board of Works), and by Mr. Burton (unattached) for public works, and an assumption based upon this statement, that the fixed sum of 25,000_l._ had been calculated by Lord Bessborough as approximately 3 per cent. on the estimated outlay of 707,104_l._

(_b._) A statement (which it would have been somewhat difficult to substantiate) that a fixed sum had been “not unfrequently” substituted for a percentage, in order to “avoid an extension of the works and consequently of the cost,” such as that to which they advert in respect of the New Palace.

(_c._) An attempt, afterwards abandoned, to represent Mr. Pugin’s appointment to superintend the internal fittings as relieving the architect of labour and responsibility, and accordingly to deduct the salary (200_l._ a-year) paid to that gentleman, from Sir C. Barry’s professional remuneration.

(_d._) An offer (which they considered “fair and even liberal”) to allow three per cent. instead of five on the gross outlay, and to reimburse the architect for the expenses of measurement. In this offer it will be observed that they at once relinquish (it may be presumed as untenable) the principle of the fixed sum, and the bargain made by Lord Bessborough in 1839.

To this letter, after a delay caused by serious illness, Sir C. Barry sent on March 14th, 1854, a detailed reply. This reply addresses itself to each of the three points of Mr. Wilson’s argument, and shows--

(_a._) That the practice of the three per cent. remuneration had been abolished for seven years before Lord Bessborough’s proposition was made; that in former times, when the percentage was paid, the architects were relieved of all measuring and making up accounts, which was done by the Board; and that since 1832 five per cent. had been paid upon many important public works, including the British Museum, the National Gallery, the General Post Office, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, &c.

(_b._) That the increase of expenditure was caused by circumstances not under the architect’s control, especially by the requirements of Dr. Reid, and that, as it involved a corresponding increase of labour and responsibility, it formed no reason for diminution of the rate of payment.

(_c._) That the post held by Mr. Pugin was not such as to relieve the architect from responsibility, inasmuch as it was distinctly a subordinate one.

(_d._) He concludes by reminding the Treasury that mere reimbursement of expenses by no means meets the claim for measurement, and by urging once more his right to the customary remuneration.

This letter was so far effectual, that in the correspondence which follows we hear no more of the precedents for the percentage of three per cent., or of the deduction of the salary of Mr. Pugin.

But to the claim advanced in the letter no reply was made for more than six months. Application was made by Sir Charles for a payment of 5000_l._ on account, and in October 2nd, 1854, the Treasury consent to make the order (_for a payment, be it observed, due under any circumstances_) “on the distinct understanding that they do so in conformity with the principle of remuneration already laid down.”

The architect in reply on October 12th says, in reference to this paragraph, “I presume that I am to understand that their Lordships desire not to be prejudiced by any such payment in regard to the principles which they have laid down.... This advance, therefore, I receive as on further account of my claim, _without prejudice either to the views of their Lordships on the one hand or of myself on the other_; and I propose to avail myself of it accordingly.” Receiving no answer for a week, he drew the 5000_l._ accordingly, and on October 30th received a letter from Mr. Wilson, declining to consider that there are any “questions in suspense as to the principle of remuneration, since their Lordships’ communication must be held conclusive,” and actually insisting that the acceptance of the 5000_l._ must be construed as an “admission of the principle which they have laid down.”

Under these circumstances Sir Charles naturally felt it absolutely necessary to place his interests in professional hands. Accordingly, J. Meadows White, Esq., the eminent solicitor, continued the correspondence on his behalf, and at once obtained a withdrawal of the inference advanced by Mr. Wilson.

A request from Mr. White (on Nov. 20th, 1854) for further information on some points connected with extra services remained unanswered for six months, and was finally met, at an interview with Mr. Wilson on May 26th, 1855, by a withdrawal of the point relating to Mr. Pugin, an offer of three per cent. on all the expenditure, and of one per cent. for measurement on all works to which measurement applies. A complaint on Sir C. Barry’s behalf of the _ex parte_ statements made by the Board of Works to the Treasury and kept from his knowledge, and a request to be furnished with some information as to their nature, were met, after another month’s delay, by a refusal. On this Mr. White addressed a counter-proposition to the Treasury, in a letter of July 14th, 1855, in which, after alluding to the large amount of “extra services” rendered,[87] and the claim of interest on the large sums which, by the Treasury’s own estimate, were due to the architect, and had been arbitrarily deferred, he proceeds as follows:--“I feel that I am justified in adhering to this part of the claim (for extra services) which I fully believe would extend to a sum of at least 10,000_l._ The claim for interest, if worked out in detail, would amount to at least as much.”

He then, after asserting strongly Sir C. Barry’s legal right to the whole five per cent., submitted a counter-proposition--viz., to accept the three per cent. commission and one per cent. for measurement on all certified works, provided that the claim for extra services and interest were referred to some eminent person (Sir John Patteson, Sir E. Ryan, or Mr. J. Shaw Lefevre were named), or a specific sum were paid to close all such claims.

It will be, of course, understood that, in lieu of this payment of four per cent. and the extra claims, Sir C. Barry was prepared to accept the regular five per cent., and withdraw all extra claims whatever, which indeed, but for the attempt to diminish what he considered to be his fair remuneration, would never have been insisted upon at all.

To this letter no official reply was given, and accordingly a general reference of the whole question to arbitration was proposed. Both these propositions were rejected. The services for warming, ventilating, &c., previously ignored, were, after a consultation with Lord Palmerston, agreed to by Mr. Wilson, and 500_l._ per annum offered as a remuneration for them. In other respects the former terms were adhered to; all reference, either general or special, was unequivocally refused; and an offer to accept 5000_l._ in payment of all other extra services was apparently left unanswered.

The Treasury now proceeded to the final step. A minute was drawn up at a meeting of the Lords (Jan. 29th, 1856), simply reiterating the former terms (except with regard to the warming, &c.), and concluding as follows:--

“My Lords continue to be of opinion that _their terms are not only fair but liberal_. Considering, moreover, that this matter has gone on for nearly twenty years without any distinct understanding being arrived at, my Lords are of opinion that it is inconsistent with the public interests that it should be any longer delayed, and that they therefore, as far as they are concerned, must record these terms as their final decision on the points at issue. They are pleased, therefore, to direct that _no further payment be made on account, until a final settlement of the past and an agreement for the future be concluded_.”

This peremptory minute was framed without any further communication with Sir. C. Barry, and presented to Parliament without any of the correspondence on the subject. It was also published in the ‘Times’ of the next day without his receiving any notice of the publication. Accordingly he felt compelled to send to the ‘Times’ next day a brief statement of facts, remarking on each of its clauses in succession.

A last application was made by Sir C. Barry, in an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wilson, in which he advanced a plea that the original 25,000_l._ fixed by Lord Bessborough represented a percentage, not of three, but of four per cent. The plea was evidently an unfortunate one, entering as it did on statements, which, from the nature of the case, it was almost impossible to substantiate with any certainty, and, moreover, taking the case off the broad grounds on which it stood, to return to an agreement long since dropped on both sides. The Treasury were not slow to avail themselves of the advantage thus given them. In a minute of July 4th, 1856, they again traverse the whole ground, return to the original bargain, and conclude that Sir C. Barry has failed to establish his position; they refer to the correspondence in 1839, and his acceptance under protest of the sum offered, expressing a doubt (which, except in official circles, has not been generally felt) “whether they have not taken too liberal a view of the question;” and state that, as the allowance of one per cent. for measurement, &c., applied to some works for which the services of a surveyor were not ordinarily required, it was more than Sir C. Barry’s due, and should be considered as giving a full equivalent for any extra services.

It was clear, both from the tenor of this decision and the spirit which it manifested, that Sir Charles Barry could hope for nothing more from any friendly negotiation with the Government. Two courses were open to him. He could have brought the question to a legal issue, standing upon the vitiation of the original agreement, and the invariable practice of the profession. Had he been dealing with a private person, he would undoubtedly have done so; and, in looking back on the question, his friends are sometimes tempted to regret that he did not do so, even against Her Majesty’s Government. But there was serious difficulty in attempting such a course; and he himself was much shaken in health, and had lost much of the sanguine confidence of earlier days. He could not hope for much of that support of his claims in Parliament, which is almost the only influence capable of materially affecting a Government, nor could he rely on the aid of public opinion. The only other course was to submit, under protest, to terms which he felt unable any longer to resist. He addressed accordingly the following letter to the Treasury:--

“_Old Palace Yard, 15th July, 1856._

“SIR,--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, transmitting to me, with reference to my letter to Mr. Wilson of the 23rd ultimo, a copy of a further Minute of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, dated the 4th instant, relative to my remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster.

“It is with the deepest regret and disappointment that I find that their Lordships have put aside my proposal to refer all matters in dispute between us to arbitration. Their Lordships must be perfectly aware that no individual in my position could with the least chance of success contend with the Government, and therefore that the power of decision virtually rests with themselves. But this very circumstance I had hoped would ensure their determination to refer the case to some authority, the impartiality of whose decision could not be impugned.

“However, as their Lordships have thought fit to determine otherwise, and as it is evident, from the tenor of their Minute of the 4th instant, that no further arguments in support of my claim could alter their determination, I have no course left but to yield to necessity, and accept the terms dictated to me; in effect, to submit to a sacrifice of what I fully believe to be fair and legitimate claims, amounting, exclusive of a large sum for interest on payments delayed, to 20,000_l._ at least.

“But, while thus compelled to yield to the decision of their Lordships, I feel it due to myself and to my profession to state that I do not admit the fairness of the arguments, or the accuracy of the statements, upon which it is manifest this decision has been founded; and further, that, after a reconsideration of the whole case, and especially of all the reasons which have been urged on the part of the Government, I remain firmly convinced that the arrangement forced upon me in 1839 has been entirely set aside by the non-fulfilment of any one of its conditions; and my claim ought in justice, to say nothing of liberality, to have been allowed in full.

“With respect to the completion of the works in hand, I beg to add, that as every other architect employed on public building has been, and is still being paid his full commission, nothing would induce me to continue my services upon the reduced rate of commission proposed but the strong and natural desire I have to complete a work, which, by the devotion of so many years of labour and anxiety, I have endeavoured to render not unworthy of the country.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES BARRY.

“SIR C. E. TREVELYAN.”

It will be easily understood that so important a professional controversy could not go on without attracting the attention and enlisting the sympathies of the architectural profession. Accordingly, when the publication of the last Treasury minute showed the determination of the Government to set aside both the claims of professional practice and the offer of independent arbitration, the Architectural Institute felt that they could no longer keep silence.

The Council accordingly addressed Mr. Wilson as follows:--

“_Royal Institute of British Architects, 16, Grosvenor-street, 9th July, 1856._

“SIR,--The attention of the Council of this Institute has been given for some time past to the correspondence between Her Majesty’s Government and Sir Charles Barry, respecting his professional remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster, from its commencement to the present time, with especial reference to the principle involved therein.

“After careful consideration, the Council deem it incumbent on them to forward to you, in your official capacity, the following resolution, unanimously passed at their meeting on the 5th instant, as a protest against the course proposed to be adopted by Her Majesty’s Government on this occasion:--

“‘That five per cent. upon outlay has been, and is, the only rate of charge recognised by the profession, as fairly remunerative in the average practice of architects.

“‘That it is to be deeply regretted that it should be proposed to depart from the above rate in the instance of the New Palace at Westminster, a building involving in its design and execution the exercise of the highest professional attainments.

“‘That the example which would be set by Her Majesty’s Government, should the course proposed be carried into execution (a legal appeal against their decision being practically impossible), is to be regarded as disastrous to the future prospects of architecture as a liberal profession in this country, as calculated to lower the character of public monuments in England, and unworthy the Government of a great nation, whose obvious duty it is adequately to foster and protect the genius of its artists.’

“We are, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES C. NELSON,} “M. DIGBY WYATT. } _Hon. Secs._”

They received the following reply:--

“_Treasury Chambers, 15th July, 1856._

“GENTLEMEN,--The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury have had before them the resolution passed at your meeting on the 5th instant, on the subject of Sir Charles Barry’s professional remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster, which was inclosed in your secretaries’ letter of the 9th instant.

“Although my Lords cannot recognise your right to call upon Parliament or Her Majesty’s Government to conform to the regulations or opinions of the society in arrangements which may be made with professional gentlemen undertaking public works, their Lordships are anxious that no misunderstanding should exist in the minds of the respectable body which you represent on the subject of the remuneration of Sir Charles Barry as architect of the New Houses of Parliament.

“Their Lordships have therefore directed me to transmit to you herewith the enclosed copy of their Minute of the 4th instant, in order that you may be informed of the views by which this Board has been governed in the matter.

“You will learn from that Minute that this Board has not in its recent correspondence with Sir Charles Barry proposed any new principle with regard to the professional remuneration of architects employed on public works, but has, on the contrary, endeavoured to carry out in a liberal spirit an arrangement, made in 1838, in consequence of opinions expressed in Parliament, and acquiesced in by Sir Charles Barry in the following year, as shown by the correspondence quoted in the inclosed Minute, which took place in 1838 and 1839, and you will observe that the only objection then raised by Sir Charles Barry regarded the amount of remuneration proposed, and not the principle on which it was based. Their Lordships feel that you might, with greater propriety, call upon a member of your own body for an explanation of the motives by which he was governed, rather than address a remonstrance to Her Majesty’s Government against the deviation, acquiesced in by him in 1839, from the rate of charge recognised by the profession.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “JAMES WILSON.”

The correspondence ended with their acknowledgement of this reply, accompanied by a statement that “it was only after a careful examination of the whole of the Parliamentary papers connected with the subject, that the Council arrived at their own conclusions thereon, and framed and unanimously adopted the resolution in question.”

It was not indeed likely that the Government would allow this interposition to modify action, which they had formally adopted and publicly announced. But the interposition itself was very gratifying to Sir C. Barry, as an acknowledgment that he was fighting the battle of the profession, and a testimony of the sympathy, which went with him in a difficult and unequal contest.

It would have been well, if his letter of the 15th had been absolutely final. But, as was perhaps inevitable, difficulties of detail arose in carrying out the scheme laid down by the Treasury, and some acrimonious correspondence was the result. Under the irritation caused by these petty disputes, the architect once more embodied his views in a formal protest, which was sent to the Board of Works, and met by a rejoinder from Mr. H. A. Hunt, their surveyor. Neither the protest nor the rejoinder add much new matter to the facts of the case, and they need not be recorded here.

One important matter still remains to be noticed. After Sir C. Barry’s death, his son, Mr. Edward M. Barry, who had long been his assistant in the work, received from the Board of Works an invitation to undertake the task of superintendence of “the works at the New Palace at Westminster, which had received the sanction of this Board, and for which Parliament had made grants of money,” the rates of his remuneration to be “the same as those paid to his late lamented father.” Mr. Barry, of course, rejoiced to have the opportunity of completing his father’s work, and was willing to accept the rate of remuneration, in which Sir Charles had already been forced to acquiesce. At the same time he felt it right to inform the Board of Works that he did so in consequence of this desire to carry out Sir Charles Barry’s designs; “otherwise,” he adds, “I should have felt bound, on public grounds, and in justice both to myself and the architectural profession, to have called the attention of the Chief Commissioner to the fact that the remuneration forced upon my father’s acceptance by the Treasury minute of January 29th, 1856 (against the injustice of which he always protested) is:--

“1. Less than is customary with architects of standing, and adequate in the case of the Palace.

“2. Less than has been, and is now, paid to architects employed by the Government on other works.

“3. Less than was recently offered by the Government to architects of all nations, in the public competition for the new Government Offices.”

In November, 1863, in sending in his professional charges, calculated at the rate of four per cent., Mr. Barry remarked on the extension of the work beyond the amount which was calculated upon in the first instance, and for which money had been voted at the time of Sir C. Barry’s death, and on certain additional duties which had devolved upon him as architect. At the same time, considering the case as one of an exceptional character, on which he had already maintained the abstract principle in his letter of June 8th, 1860, he left the matter entirely in the hands of the First Commissioner. The result was that in March, 1864, the Office of Works informed him that, by order of the Treasury, they were ready to “pay a commission of five instead of four per cent. upon the expenditure for the past and present financial years” (March 31st, 1862-1864). For all subsequent works upon, or connected with, the New Palace of Westminster, Mr. Barry has received, without question, the customary remuneration of five per cent. On the bearing of this proceeding on the question at issue it is hardly needful to remark.

Before collecting in one view the results of the whole controversy, there is one subject closely connected with it, to which it is necessary briefly to advert.

In the course of the controversy constant allusions were made to the great expenditure on the building, and especially to the great excess over the original estimate. In fact, the original agreement imposed by Lord Duncannon had for its object the prevention of such excess, by removing what was, I suppose, held to be a pecuniary temptation to the architect to incur it.

On the whole subject, therefore, of expenditure it is necessary to add a few remarks.

The original estimate for the erection of the building was 707,104_l._ and it is not unnatural that those, who contrast this estimate with the amount actually expended, approaching two millions, should look upon the excess as something monstrous. The comparison however of the two sums gives an entirely erroneous view of the case.

The summary on the opposite page, presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1850, of all sums expended, or to be expended, on the New Palace at Westminster is substantially correct, and will throw some light on the subject.

(_a._) It will be observed that of the gross sum nearly 500,000_l._ is apportioned to furniture, fittings, and other decorations (not included in the estimate).

The largeness of this amount is due in great degree to the determination, expressed in the Fine Art Commission, and welcomed with acclamation by the public, of making the erection of the building a great opportunity for the encouragement of the fine arts of painting and sculpture. This determination seemed to the architect to necessitate a far greater amount of splendour and perfection in the whole internal fittings; for it was his opinion, strongly urged on the Commission, that the masterpieces of the painter’s and sculptor’s art, if they are to have their full effect, must be in harmony with the decorations surrounding them, and fix (as it were) the standard of their magnificence.

It will be, of course, a matter of opinion how far this principle has been successfully carried out in the New Palace at Westminster; but probably few will question its theoretical soundness, or be surprised

SUMMARY.

----------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------ | EXPENDED. | UNEXPENDED. | TOTAL. +----------------+--------------+------------------ | £ s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._ For Works included in the Original Estimate | 522,170 0 0|159,934 0 0| 682,104 0 0 For Works specially excluded from the Estimate| 55,907 3 2| 32,000 0 0| 87,907 3 2 For additional Works in the construction of | | | the Building | 35,063 3 1| 14,735 4 4| 49,798 7 5 For Additions to, and Modifications of, the | | | original Plans of the Building | 19,150 1 0| 32,564 5 0| 51,714 6 0 For extra Charges consequent upon Changes | | | in Materials and Workmanship | 51,721 6 2| 32,000 0 0| 83,721 6 2 For additional Cost occasioned by | | | increased Ratio of Contracts, &c. | 53,400 0 0| 21,000 0 0| 74,400 0 0 For Works incidental to, but forming no | | | Part of, the Works of the Building | 27,409 4 0| 16,177 7 2| 43,586 11 2 For incidental Charges upon the Funds | | | appropriated to the Building, but | | | not connected with the Works thereof | 38,972 13 8| 5,000 0 0| 43,972 13 8 For extra Works in Warming, Ventilating, | | | and Smoke Arrangements | 77,533 19 0| 45,583 11 2| 123,117 10 2 For extra Works in Fire-proofing, in | | | consequence of Warming, Ventilating, | | | and Smoke Arrangements | 74,825 0 0| 10,050 0 0| 84,875 0 0 For Furniture, Fittings, Fixtures, | | | and Decorations | 93,195 9 0|404,204 11 0| 497,400 0 0 For Purchase of Property for the Site | 82,382 11 4| .. .. | 82,382 11 4 For the Architect’s and Engineer’s Charges, | | | and Cost of Superintendence | 41,510 6 3| 50,757 0 7| 92,267 6 10 +----------------+--------------+----------------- £ |1,173,240 16 8|824,005 19 3|1,997,246 15 11 --+----------------+--------------+-----------------

that Sir Charles took advantage of that increase of taste for artistic beauty and magnificence, which had grown up since his designs were originally formed. In any case the expenditure on this head must fairly be regarded, as in very great degree unconnected with the first estimate, and deserving to be judged on its own merits.

(_b._) It should next be noted that nearly 208,000_l._ was taken up by the arrangements for warming and ventilation, and for the extra work in fire-proofing which they rendered necessary.

The largeness of this amount will surprise no one who remembers that for these arrangements one-third of the cubical contents of the building was demanded; that the Central Tower itself belongs to these extra works; that large portions of the building were carried up for the purpose of providing continuous air and smoke flues, in the cross roofs connecting those in the main building; and that great changes of material were introduced, such as the substitution of iron for slated roofs, and of iron girders and brick arches for ordinary floors.

(_c._) Besides these two chief causes of increased expenditure, it must be added, that the purchase of extra site and the cost of works (such as the river wall) expressly excepted from the estimate, absorbed nearly 170,000_l._, and that a sum of 97,000_l._ was devoted to purposes connected with the building, but not properly forming part of the works.

These sums amount in all to 970,000_l._ The rest of the excess is really and properly connected with the works, on which the estimate was made. On this it is right to observe--

(_a._) That the treacherous nature of the soil, discovered after the estimate was made, necessitated a large increase of expense on the foundations (nearly 50,000_l._).

(_b._) That the failure of the Bolsover stone, and the employment of the harder Anston stone, involved a great increase of labour upon it, and therefore of expense.

(_c._) That the very fact, already noticed, of the piecemeal occupation of the building, necessitating all kinds of temporary arrangements, obstructing progress, and often preventing work from, being done in the easiest and simplest manner, also tended in the same direction.

(_d._) That large additional requirements were made for the public service in the course of the erection of the building, including the restoration of St. Stephen’s Crypt, the provision of residences for the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Clerk of the Crown, the gentlemen in charge of the ventilation of the building, &c.

(_e._) That the upward tendency of prices of labour and material, within the time occupied by the erection of the building, naturally told against the public, and very greatly increased the needful expenditure.

All these causes were at work in swelling the excess of expenditure. Some of them were altogether beyond the architect’s control; for others he was partially responsible.

It was his earnest desire that the magnificence of the building should be worthy of its grand scale and still grander destination. He thought that, in the pursuit of this object, expense was to a great nation a secondary consideration; for the sum voted year by year for the purpose was after all a sum comparatively insignificant in the aggregate of the public estimates. It is undoubtedly true that his own sanguine temperament led him to undervalue difficulties and expense in carrying out what he thought desirable, and his fastidious taste, showing itself in numerous alterations, tended to increase actual expenditure. But these errors (if errors they were) were but the excrescences of that ardent desire for perfection, which was his real and principal motive. Nor does it seem that the public verdict would greatly condemn his theoretical principles. Those who have attacked the excess of expenditure (when they have not followed mere fashion or acted in pure ignorance) have done so, because they conceived that perfection had not been attained, and that accordingly the expenditure had been so much waste. On the final opinion, which shall be entertained of the building in itself, will depend also the opinion, which will prevail on the secondary question.

Much, however, of the action of the authorities in the matter of the remuneration seemed to proceed on the principle, that, since an architect by increasing expenditure increases his percentage, he should not be allowed to profit by what is at least _primâ facie_ a misdoing. On the general bearing of this principle on the remuneration by percentage it is not needful to speak. But those, who knew Sir C. Barry, will be well aware that, in any increase of expenditure, nothing could be further from his thoughts than the idea of his own pecuniary aggrandisement, and nothing was more painful to him than the imputation, expressly or indirectly, of any such unworthy motive.

The fact is, that the present building, and the one for which the estimate was made, although they are one in general principles of plan and design, are yet wholly different both in size and in decoration. To the bearing of this fact on the remuneration controversy, as well as on the question of expenditure, it is needless to do more than refer. The building must be judged in the matter of costliness as it stands; and, when its cubical contents are estimated, and its style considered, it will be found that excessive costliness has been attributed to it without adequate ground.

Such is a brief statement of one of the most interesting and important professional controversies of late years.[88] Without assuming a right to pronounce judgment, certain points may not unfairly be noticed, as summing up the really important features of the case.

I. The attempt to supersede the regular method of professional remuneration by the offer of a fixed sum for the completion of the work _was practically abandoned by the Government_. The question between them and the architect turned on the amount of the percentage (whether it should be four or five per cent.), a question which made a difference to him of some 23,000_l._, but which did not settle any great principle, or materially affect the public interest, in the general question of the relations of the Government to the architects employed in public works.

II. It cannot be questioned that the Government made use of their power to enforce an acquiescence in their terms, irrespectively of the arguments by which they sustained them. This they did (as will be noticed)--

1. By not unfrequent interpositions of delay.

2. By an attempt (afterwards withdrawn) to construe the acceptance of a payment on account, due on any supposition, to be an acquiescence in the principle of their proposal.

3. By ordering all payments whatever to be withheld until the architect yielded to their terms, and by ignoring all claims for interest, on payments thus deferred and afterwards acknowledged to be due.

4. By refusing all arbitration, either on the general question or on that of the “special services.”

III. It is evident that the real ground of their action, and the reason why that action was allowed to pass almost unquestioned in Parliament,[89] was the great increase of expenditure on the building, the delay in its completion, and the unpopularity into which, from these and from other causes, it had been brought. But for these things, the whole responsibility for which they were inclined to throw upon the architect, they would not have ventured, and probably would not have wished, to deal with him on a principle, which, in no other case (not even in the completion of the New Palace itself) did they show any determination to enforce. How far their course can be justified by these grounds of proceeding, it must be left to others to decide.

Such is the general narrative of the erection of the building. It has been given at some length, as forming a curious and not unimportant

## chapter in the history of modern English architecture. Such critical

notice of it, as is necessary here, must be reserved for the next chapter.

##