Chapter VIII

.

[48] The building was actually carried out by my brother, E. M. Barry, Esq., A.R.A.; and, under these circumstances, at the risk of some slight repetition, I have thought it better to subjoin _verbatim_ an account of the building written by him.

[49] At a still later period he made a design, almost entirely new, to meet an intention, afterwards abandoned, of a considerable enlargement of the building.

[50] The “Italian tiles” were, I believe, first manufactured in England, to be used in Walton House.

[51] ‘The English Gentleman’s House.’

[52] The garden-front of Clare College, Cambridge, was an example which he much admired.

[53] The work was going on about the same time as the erection of Bridgewater House.

[54] In this work I believe he was much assisted by suggestions from Mr. Nesfield, the well-known landscape gardener.

[55] The illustration will show how greatly this fact tended to influence the general effect, and limit the originality of the design.

[56] I remember his quoting one day with great satisfaction the criticism of a working stonemason, behind whom he happened to stand, on a new building. “Well, it’s very fine; but somehow this here top doesn’t go with that ’ere bottom.”

[57] This arrangement was no doubt necessary from the confined nature of the ground. It cannot be considered as abstractedly desirable from a practical point of view; those who know the habits of boys will always desire to give them as few stairs as possible.

[58] He desired a larger and better lighted clerestory, but here economy interfered.

[59] A letter from Mr. Borrer on the subject ends thus:--“It is admirably adapted for the purpose for which it was designed--to be a house of prayer and Christian worship, according to the rites of the Church of England. I can never forget the kind way in which Sir Charles listened to a young man’s fancies, and tried to carry out all my ambitions.”

[60] The black lines mark the old work--all the lighter parts represent the new.

[61] I owe my information on this subject chiefly to the kindness of W. Leslie, Esq., architect, of Aberdeen, under whose direction the works were executed.

[62] Extract from Report of the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty to examine and Report upon the Plans which might be offered by the competitors for re-building the Houses of Parliament. Dated, Feb. 29th, 1836.

[63] The exact sum named by Messrs. Seward and Chawner was (deducting 14,000_l._ as the value of old materials) 693,104_l._, to which was to be added 129,000_l._ for the embankment, purchase of land, &c., together with “a further and considerable expense, which cannot at present be satisfactorily ascertained,” for fittings and furniture of the residence, libraries, committee-rooms, offices, &c., for the provision for the records, for lighting, warming, and ventilating, for the great clock and bell. See quotation in pp. 3, 4 of Parliamentary Paper, No. 374, of Session of 1856.

[64] The first vote of money was passed on July 3rd, 1837.

[65] See ‘Recollections of A. W. Pugin,’ c. xviii. p. 242.

[66] The ground of this monstrous statement was the warm personal friendship and constant support, which he had received from Sir E. Cust, ever since the building of the Travellers’ Club, and more especially their connection in a late discussion as to the alteration and improvement of the National Gallery.

[67] Extract from Minutes of Evidence taken 10th March, 1836, by the Select Committee on Houses of Parliament, Sir John Hobhouse in the Chair. _Ordered to be printed, 9th March, 1836._

[68] When Mr. Barry was attacked again in 1844, one of those, who had taken a prominent part against him, wrote to him, begging to be allowed to take part in any movement of his professional friends in his defence, and offering any consultation or advice, which might be “offered by a friend and admirer.”

[69] Those who know Professor Donaldson, will be surprised at nothing in him, which indicates indignation at supposed injustice and generous support of a character unjustly assailed. But these motives were here quickened by a warm personal friendship, of which Mr. Barry always preserved a deep and grateful sense.

[70] Some delay also was caused by a great strike of masons in the employment of Messrs. Grissell and Peto, in September, 1841.

[71] It was thought by some that the architect’s protest should have been made earlier. But in the early part of Dr. Reid’s career such protest would have been entirely unavailing. His plans had succeeded, on the whole, well in the temporary House of Commons, and nothing but experience could prove the futility of their application on an enormous scale. Mr. Barry contented himself with quietly making provision for the substitution of more practicable arrangements, when the crash, which he foresaw to be inevitable, should arrive.

[72] Thus, for example, in a letter to the ‘Times,’ Mr. Denison thinks proper to speak of the “stupidity of Sir C. Barry and his crew of handmakers and certificate-writers.”

[73] In a treatise on “Clocks and Watches” (4th edition), Weale, 1860.

[74] Professor Wallis, the President of the Astronomical Society, and the President of the Society of Civil Engineers, were suggested by Mr. Vulliamy in his letter. Mr. Dent in a letter to the Board of Works on November 14th, 1845, requested permission to erect the clock, “subject to the approbation of the Astronomer Royal, Mr. Barry, and Sir John (or Mr. George) Rennie being referees.”

[75] Their estimated expense was 100_l._, about 5-1/2 per cent. on the original contract.

[76] The evidence on this point is conflicting, and my father has left no papers on the subject. I feel, therefore, unable to enter into it.

[77] The great bell was not hoisted till 1859, and, had the completion of the tower been delayed for it, the work would not have been finished till 1860. This should be noted by any who have read Mr. Denison’s denunciations on this subject.

[78] Before quitting the subject of Mr. Denison’s relations to Sir C. Barry, I think it right to notice an error, contained in a statement made by Mr. Denison to the Courts of Justice Commission. After stating that architects are all ignorant of ventilation, and volunteering some information, that the works of the architect in this direction at the New Palace of Westminster “are reported to have cost 200,000_l._,” he continues, “the ceilings of both Houses of Parliament were--one of them is--in such a state, that they may be set on fire at any instant.” No one could fail to draw the inference, that this was an error on the part of the architect. But the fact is, that “the roof of the House of Commons is wholly constructed of incombustible materials, and the question of danger can only apply to the wooden fittings which have been placed in the roof since its completion, by those intrusted with the ventilation and lighting of the House _without any architectural supervision_.” (See official letter of E. M. Barry, Esq., printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 527 of Session of 1866.) The fact, rightly understood, tells directly against the advice (to discard architects on this point, and trust all to ventilators proper) which it is made to support.

[79] In 1842 Mr. Barry had visited Munich, then in the zenith of its artistic reputation, to see both the new buildings, rising under the auspices of the late king, and the great fresco and encaustic pictures, which had made the names of Cornelius, Schnorr, Hess, and other artists well-known throughout Europe. Admiring greatly the artistic genius displayed in many individual works, he was yet convinced that they often wanted the harmony alluded to in the text, and tended rather to injure than to enhance the architectural beauty of the buildings which they would have otherwise adorned.

[80] The most important parts of the Reports appear to be the Report of the Committee of Selection of Subjects in Painting and Sculpture, contained in the Seventh Report of the Commission (in 1847), and the Twelfth Report, presented in 1861.

[81] See ‘Recollections of A. W. Pugin,’ by Benjamin Ferrey, Esq., c. xviii. Mr. Ferrey, although writing with the greatest candour and friendly spirit towards Sir C. Barry, is clearly in ignorance as to the exact position of Mr. Pugin in the matter, and is obliged accordingly to speak vaguely.

[82] “It was no ordinary amount or quality of work which satisfied Mr. Barry. But with no tools but a rule and rough pencil, amidst a continuous rattle of marvellous stories, slashing criticisms, and shouts of laughter, Mr. Pugin would get through an amount of good work which astonished his friend.... Whenever Mr. Barry’s fire of enthusiasm began to pale, a visit from his ‘Comet’ sufficed to brighten it."--MS. note _W_.

[83] It may be well here to quote a letter of Mr. Pugin’s, in which, with his usual generosity, he disclaims the credit, which some of his admirers imputed to him, in respect of his services in the decoration of the New Palace.

CENTER (_From the ‘Builder’ of Sept. 6th, 1845._)

“DECORATIONS OF THE NEW HOUSE OF LORDS.

“SIR,--As it appears by an article in the last number of the ‘Builder,’ as well as in notices contained of late in other periodicals, that a misconception prevails as to the nature of my employment in the works of the New Palace at Westminster, I think it incumbent on me, in justice to Mr. Barry, to state that I am engaged by him, and by him alone, with the approval of the Government, to assist in preparing working drawings and models from his designs of all the wood-carvings and other details of the internal decorations, and to procure models and drawings of the best examples of ancient decorative art of the proper kind, wherever they are to be found, as specimens for the guidance of the workmen in respect of the taste and feeling to be imitated, to engage with artists and the most skilful workmen that can be procured in every branch of decorative art, and to superintend personally the practical execution of the works upon the most economical terms, compatible with the nature of it and its most perfect performance. In fulfilling the duties of my office, I do not do anything whatever on my own responsibility; all models and working drawings being prepared from Mr. Barry’s designs, and submitted to him for his approval or alteration, previous to their being carried into effect; in fine, my occupation is simply to assist in carrying out practically Mr. Barry’s own designs and views in all respects. Trusting to your fairness in giving insertion to this letter in your next number,

RIGHT “I am, Sir, &c.,

“A. WELBY PUGIN.

“_London, Sept. 3rd, 1845._

[84] The professional reader will find a full description of the scaffolding used, especially in the three towers, in a paper read before the Institute of British Architects, June 15th, 1857, by my brother, C. Barry, Esq., Fellow.

[85] This is, of course, not generally known, and for all insufficient accommodation the architect is held responsible. Thus, for example, the ladies’ gallery is neither large nor convenient; but it was with great difficulty that any accommodation for ladies at all was allowed. In the Building Committee in 1835, Lord Brougham spoke thus of the admission of ladies: “If such a proposition is to be made, I enter my protest against it, and shall take the sense of your lordships upon it, as being contrary to the principle which ought to govern legislative proceedings. I think the ladies would be better employed in almost any other way, than in attending parliamentary debates. I like to see them in their proper places.” The Marquis of Lansdowne added: “Ladies are not mentioned in the Report, and, so far as I can prevent it, they never shall be.”

[86] The office was then called that of the “Woods and Forests,” but, to prevent confusion, I use throughout the name by which it has been known ever since the remodelling of the department.

[87] These services are given in detail in a subjoined paper. They were connected with the provision for public records, the Fine Arts Commission, the warming, lighting, and ventilating, the various Parliamentary Committees, superintendence of the Government carving works for the New Palace of Westminster, &c.

[88] The whole of the correspondence will be found in the following Parliamentary Papers, No. 491, of Session 1849; No. 405, of Session 1856; No. 108, Session 2 of 1857. Such portions are printed in the appendix as contain the chief statements on both sides.

[89] There were a few members who did question it, in defiance of the fashion of the day and the economical leanings of the House. Mr. Henry Drummond once told the Government, that no increase of expenditure or supposed architectural defects could be an excuse for “robbing--yes! for robbing--Sir Charles Barry.”

[90] The design was afterwards attached, as involving the “destruction” of the old chapel. But on investigation in 1836, evidence was given by Sir R. Smirke, and Messrs. Inwood, Montague, Kay, Wilkins, and Laing, that it could not with safety be preserved or restored. Sir J. Wyattville and Messrs. Savage and Cottingham were of a contrary opinion; but the balance of evidence was against all hope of its preservation. It might doubtless have been rebuilt, and its intrinsic beauty would have justified such a step; but, if rebuilt, it could hardly have been used for secular purposes as before; and if not so used, its position would have destroyed the whole arrangement of the building.

[91] The restoration, which he began, was still incomplete at the time of his death. It was accordingly carried out by his son, Mr. E. M. Barry, and is designed to serve as a chapel for the accommodation of the numerous inmates of the New Palace. It appears now restored to more than its original splendour, and the result is one which, in beauty and richness of effect, will bear comparison with any chapel in Europe.

[92] Thus (for example) on the whole of the principal floor, except in the altered lobbies of the House of Commons, there is not one single step. All is on one level, and that level approached by comparatively few and easy steps from Westminster Hall.

[93] Mr. Pugin is reported to have said (see Mr. Ferrey’s ‘Recollections,’ c. xviii. p. 247), “Barry’s grand plan was immeasurably superior to any that “I could at that time have produced;” adding, characteristically enough, “besides, the Commissioners would have killed me in a twelvemonth.” He allowed that in the symmetry of the general plan convenience was as well preserved, as it could have been under the greatest irregularity.

[94] “In composing, he always began with the simplest forms, and never made a break, till he felt it absolutely necessary. If the length of a front was too great for its height he admitted flanking towers. These did not destroy the unity of the mass. But to raise the centre was to cut the mass into three separate parts--a decomposition which he abhorred.” In the river front “the excessive length compelled him to raise the centre, but nothing would induce him to advance it."--MS. note _W_.

[95] The present central tower was not a feature of the original design. It was added to meet the requirements of Dr. Reid.

[96] He had already ventured to remove on his own responsibility one of the enormous buttresses, supposed to support the roof, which interfered with the development of his plan.

[97] His general inclination to sacrifice a grand staircase, if by the sacrifice he could obtain a great hall, has been noticed in