It still remains to be seen, whether the value of these principles will

not yet be felt, and asserted more forcibly in the church architecture

of the future, and whether the actual requirements of our service will

not prevail over the beauty of special features and the power of old

associations. But in the stage, through which ecclesiastical

architecture was passing in the days of his active work, “correctness”

was everything, and any innovations were ruthlessly hunted down as

heretical. The stage was a very useful and necessary one; but it was

rather preparatory than final, and there are already signs that it is

passing away, and giving place to greater freedom and originality of

treatment.[37]

All these works gave him constant occupation, and were gradually

carrying him on through the first struggle of life to pecuniary

independence. The improvement of his circumstances was shown by his

removal in 1827 to 27, Foley Place, Cavendish Square--a house more

desirable in situation, and better fitted for his increasing family.

Still he found time for much subsidiary work. Then, as afterwards, it

was his practice never to neglect or despise anything. In October, 1824,

he undertook to make or correct a plan of Lambeth parish--a work in

which no doubt his old local knowledge stood him in good stead; and in

the next year he thought it worth his while to survey an estate in

Dulwich. Nor did he shrink from the labour of preparing designs for

competitions, or on the chance of professional employment. In March,

1824, he was busy upon a design for the “National Scotch Church;” in

1825 he sent in designs for the Leeds Exchange, and for the erection of

a church at Kensington. The year 1828 seems to have been one of great

activity. In it he prepared no less than four different designs in the

competition for the Pitt Press at Cambridge; in the same year we find

records of designs for three very different buildings--the Law

Institution, a new concert-room at Manchester, and a new church at

Streatham; while at the same time he was working hard at the design for

the Travellers’ Club, the building which, more than any other of the

period, secured him at once a high position in the architectural

profession. His life at this time, as at all others, tells the story of

work and enterprise, with the drawback of repeated failures, and the

encouragement of occasional success. Such practical work was gradually

absorbing the time hitherto given to artistic study. But he still found

time for occasional architectural tours, in which, of course, his

sketch-book was seldom out of his hand, for an elaborate plan and

drawings of Jerusalem, in 1823, and for a drawing of a building, which

he greatly admired, the cathedral at Palermo, contributed to a Leeds

exhibition in May, 1825. For his life was at this time full of activity

and a sanguine hope, which gave zest to its hard work.

But the building which first gained him high reputation, and which even

now holds a high place among his works, was the Travellers’ Club. He

entered into a select competition for its erection in the year 1829. In

sending in his designs he had great misgivings as to success; for,

though he felt confident that the building would be satisfactory if

erected, he thought that in the drawing it would be too plain to be

attractive. Fortunately he was mistaken; and no sooner was the building

carried out, than its erection was recognised as a real and important

step in artistic progress. Italian architecture was already making its

way in England; but it was observed at the time by a favourable critic,

that “Barry’s Italian differed from much of that which had preceded it,

as the perfection of language differs from mere patois.” The work itself

was noticed by those interested in the revival of the Italian style, as

a practical protest against the identification of that style in England

with what is “little more than one mode of it, namely, the Palladian,

which, if not the most vicious and extravagant, is almost the poorest

and the most insipid.” The chief points of novelty noticed in it were

the large proportion of the solid wall to the windows, and the striking

effect of the great cornice.[38] “There is no single distinctive mark”

(it was said) “which more forcibly characterizes the difference between

the Palladian school and that which preceded it, than the _cornicione_

employed by the older artists to crown their façades. It was reserved

for Mr. Barry to introduce the cornicione here, and its value as an

architectural feature may be said to have been since admitted by

acclamation. That the example thus set has not been lost upon us is

already tolerably evident.”[39] But the great charm of the building was

attributed with justice to the beautiful simplicity of its design

(according, as it did, so well with the comparatively small size of the

building), and the exquisite proportion and finish of all its parts.[40]

In it, as in all Mr. Barry’s designs, there was not a line which had not

been carefully and even elaborately studied, and the apparent ease and

simplicity of the result, while it might lead the ignorant to wonder

what there was in it to be called original, showed to competent critics

the presence of the “ars celare artem,” which is pre-eminently the

characteristic of genius.

The woodcut on the opposite page gives the elevation of the

garden-front, and the plan of the principal floor. With regard to the

latter, there is little to

[Illustration: THE TRAVELLERS’ CLUB HOUSE, PALL MALL, LONDON.

PLAN OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR.]

[Illustration: TRAVELLERS’ CLUB HOUSE, PALL MALL.

VIEW FROM CARLTON GARDEN.]

notice, except the care for finish and detail, which has been remarked

as eminently characteristic of its author. The position of the door at

one extremity of the street front was acknowledged by him to be a

blemish, inconsistent with the symmetrical principle of his design, but

forced upon him by considerations of convenience, and the very small

frontage at his command. The grouping of the central windows on the

garden front was also an innovation on the principle of the regular

Italian front, but it was one of a totally different kind. It was

thoroughly in accordance with the main idea of symmetry, while it gave

life to that symmetry by the evidence of artistic design, and it should

be added, that it is as successful and convenient, in relation to the

internal arrangement, as it is graceful externally. It was noticed and

approved of at once by all critics.

The success of the design being undoubted, it naturally followed that

its claims to originality were disputed. The garden front was

acknowledged to be original and singularly beautiful, but the street

front was asserted to be a mere copy of the Villa Pandolfini. On this

point it may be better to quote the words of one in the highest degree

competent to give an opinion. “The Pall Mall front has been

characterized by superficial observers as a copy, with slight

modifications, from Raffaelle’s Pandolfini Palace at Florence. One

moment’s comparison of the two elevations will suffice to entirely

dispel the idea. The Pandolfini Palace has, in common with the

Travellers’ Club-house, only the accidents of being two-storied, having

rusticated angles, and a doorway at the extreme right-hand of the

ground-floor of the principal façade. In every other respect the

dissimilarities are most striking; the proportions of the windows are

about one-third narrower in the Travellers’ than they are in the

Pandolfini; in the former they are Ionic on the first-floor and Doric on

the ground-floor; while in the latter they are Corinthian on the

first-floor, and have simply returned architraves and no order on the

ground-floor. The four windows on the first-floor of the Florentine

façade are surmounted with alternately angular and segmental pediments,

and united by panels in the interspaces, and by horizontal members;

while the five of the Pall Mall building are precisely uniform, and the

wall is entirely free from panelling, and the running through of any one

of the members forming or decorating the fenestration above the

cill-level. One of the leading features in the Pandolfini is its deep

plain frieze, adorned only with a simple classic-looking inscription;

while in the entablature of the Travellers’ Club the frieze is reduced

to so small a proportion, and is so highly carved, as in fact to do duty

rather as an enriched member of the cornice, than as a distinctive

frieze at all.”[41]

This question of originality, always recurring in the career of every

great artist, in fact of every distinguished man, is often most

inconsiderately handled. It is clear that the progressiveness of man

depends on the power, which each generation has, of using and modifying

the work of its predecessors. Every great epoch in science and in art

has had its period of anticipation and preparation. It is the

characteristic of genius to create out of materials common and well

known to all; and its creations are universally recognised and accepted,

as the clear and beautiful expression of that which is vaguely felt by

the generality of men. If a man, in order to be original, defies

established principles, and despises the treasures of the past, he

voluntarily places himself on a level below that which has been already

attained by humanity. Originality, in the true sense of the word,

implies that ideas and suggestions from without shall be truly

appreciated, studied, and reproduced with the stamp of native thought

and imagination upon them, to individualize what is general, and to

harmonize materials in themselves crude or uncongenial. Then, and

generally speaking not till then, can we hope for a new creation, which

shall be true, and therefore permanent, in harmony with that which has

gone before, and therefore capable of striking a new key-note not

unaccordant with the old.

In this sense it cannot be denied that Mr. Barry’s work was original.

Simple details excepted, he copied little or nothing. Every design was

conceived and moulded into shape, before he referred to a book or

drawing. His mind was teeming with the stores of memory; but, when he

borrowed an idea either from the works of the past or the advice and

criticism of the present, it was sure to be modified or replaced by some

fresh kindred idea of his own. External influence was with him only

suggestive; it set his mind in motion, but did not dictate the direction

in which it should proceed. “Where we have an opportunity” (says the

memoir already quoted) “of tracing the progress of his thoughts through

a series of studies for any particular building, we find the work

growing, as it were, evenly under his hand from the slightest

generalization in the first small-scale sketch, to the plotted-out bay

or repeat, and subsequently to the large-scale detail; then back again

to another general elevation, to see how far that particular detail will

work well in combination, then altered according to the result of that

test, and roughed out again on a large scale to make sure of the effect

of the parts when near the eye, and so on, till his fastidious judgment

would be almost bewildered under the multiplying and conflicting

impressions produced by the various studies. The man who works

perseveringly in this way may at least make sure of two things--that his

work will be good, and that it will be his own.”[42]

What is here so well said as to his work generally, is true of the

Travellers’ Club in particular. It was certainly like nothing which had

preceded it in England; it was certainly recognised as a model for

future imitation or guidance. These two facts alone stamp the design as

having a real place in architectural progress, and justify its being

regarded as that, which first secured to its author a position among

those who have deserved well of the cause of Art.

Meanwhile adverse criticisms did not weigh very heavily on his mind. He

felt that by the new building he had become a man of mark, and had

produced a decided effect on the growth and improvement of Italian

architecture in the country. He was steadily advancing in prosperity,

having passed through the period of doubt and difficulty, which besets

the opening of most artistic lives.

His private life and tastes were simple enough. He appreciated the

higher class of society into which he was thrown, and more particularly

the peculiar brilliancy which distinguished that of Holland House. But

he never was so thoroughly attracted by it as to feel quite at home

there; probably, in England at any rate, few artists can be so. He came

back with constant relief and pleasure to the quiet of his own fireside,

and the society of his wife and children. Increasing work shortened his

time of amusement and relaxation; for, as the day was taken up with

business, the morning and evening became the times of composition and

study: but at these times he neither needed nor liked solitude; music,

in which he greatly delighted, was always a welcome accompaniment to his

drawing, and even conversation failed to disturb him. When the

opportunity for amusement came, he could always throw himself into it

with all the delight of a schoolboy. These days were the palmy days of

the London Theatre, and in theatrical entertainments he always took the

greatest pleasure, and found in them, as I suppose most hard-worked men

do, the most complete relaxation and change of idea. But of all evening

occupations, which his work left him time to enjoy, he cared most for

those afforded by scientific and literary institutions. At the Royal

Institution in Albemarle Street, while he lived in London, he was a most

regular attendant.

This time seems to have been, not indeed the most famous, but perhaps

the happiest and most hopeful period of his life. With good health and

spirits he entered with equal zest into hard work and complete

relaxation; he saw his way opening before him, and had not as yet had

that experience of disappointment, injustice, and misrepresentation,

which every public man must expect, and from which he was not to be

exempt hereafter.

CHAPTER IV.

CHIEF ITALIAN WORKS.

Plan of the Chapter. (A.) ORIGINAL BUILDINGS--Varieties of his

Italian style--First manner--Reform Club--Manchester Athenæum--New

wing at Trentham--Second manner--Bridgewater House--Third

manner--Halifax Town-hall. (B.) CONVERSIONS AND

ALTERATIONS--College of Surgeons--Walton House--Highclere

House--Board of Trade--Architectural gardening--Trentham

Hall--Duncombe Park--Harewood House--Shrubland Park--Cliefden

House--Laying out of Trafalgar Square. (C.) DESIGNS CARRIED OUT BY

OTHERS--Keyham Factory--Ambassador’s Palace at

Constantinople--General remarks on his Italian architecture.

The steps by which Mr. Barry won his way to a high professional position

have been narrated in chronological order. For the period of his life,

from 1821 to 1829, is the one which is in itself most interesting and

suggestive to those entering on a professional career.

It shows clearly enough, even by the variety of his designs, the

fertility and versatile character of his mind and his unwearied energy

of work. It illustrates the difficulties and disappointments, which

present themselves at the outset of most professional careers. It is not

uninteresting to remark the comparatively fruitless character of its

earlier years, and the rapid increase of work towards its close, an

increase which continued with progressive rapidity till the great work

at Westminster absorbed all his time and powers. If the lesson which it

reads is not uncommon, yet it is at the same time one which never loses

its value and interest.

But after this time his life had few vicissitudes. It became more and

more absorbed in actual work, and its progress was marked, not by years

or by events, but by the buildings which rose everywhere under his hand.

It seems better therefore to neglect the order of time, so as to follow

only the connexion of subject, and endeavour to group together in some

intelligible arrangement the various works which he was called upon to

execute. The New Palace at Westminster will demand a separate treatment

of its own.

The present chapter will be devoted to a notice of his chief works in

the Italian style, both public and private buildings. The success of the

Travellers’ Club naturally turned his attention principally to this

style for some time. In it, perhaps even to the last, he worked with the

greatest pleasure; and probably, if the choice had been left to him,

without any influence of external authority or local association, it

would have been the style of his New Palace.

His Italian works accordingly are numerous,[43] and naturally divide

themselves into two classes: the first, of buildings erected by him; the

next, of buildings which he was called upon to alter, to an extent often

amounting to a complete transformation. Some brief notice may also be

necessary of buildings for the designs of which he was consulted,

although the execution of the designs was not under his direction.

The first class of designs is not very numerous compared with the

second. This might have been partly accidental, but it probably was due

in great measure to his own fertility of resource, and the keen eye

which he had for the capabilities of existing buildings. As he seldom

admired any building unreservedly, so he seldom despaired of any, even

of those which most men would have condemned as hopeless. When he was

consulted therefore by public bodies or by private individuals, who

needed additional accommodation, or desired greater architectural

effect, he could generally strike out some plan of alteration which

satisfied both requirements, while it appeared less costly than the

erection of a new building, and preserved something of the charm of old

associations. It may be questioned whether more real originality is

shown in the design of what is absolutely new, than in the power of

impressing a new character on old materials. But he used to regret the

comparative fewness of his opportunities of erecting new buildings,

unconscious that it was in some degree due to his remarkable power of

giving fresh life to the old.

(A). It is, however, in his original buildings that his principles of

Italian design can be most clearly traced. Those principles remained

essentially unaltered. No competent eye can ever fail to recognise his

hand. But he had certainly different “manners,” and these are most

distinctly impressed upon the Italian buildings which he erected _de

novo_. The first manner is that of his Travellers’ and Reform Clubs, and

to it belong the new wing which he erected at Trentham and the

Manchester Athenæum. The second is marked in Bridgewater House. The

third is distinctly seen in one of his last designs, the design for the

erection of the Halifax Town-hall, which was carried out after his

death. It must, of course, remain uncertain how far it would have been

modified in process of execution, had he lived to see the work complete.

* * * * *

REFORM CLUB.--The Travellers’ Club was completed in 1831. Since that

time the great competition for the New Palace at Westminster had been

decided, and his success had secured him a place in the first rank of

British architects. In 1837 he was called upon to enter a select

competition with Messrs. Basevi, Blore, Burton, Cockerell, and Smirke,

for the erection of the Reform Club. His design was almost unanimously

chosen. He felt some difficulty in designing a building of such superior

magnitude in the same Italian style, side by side with his favourite

Travellers’. He would gladly have varied it as much as possible, but he

could not bring himself to depart from the “astylar” style; for of

engaged orders he never thoroughly approved. The Farnese Palace was

doubtless in his mind during the conception of this design, and a charge

of plagiarism has been grounded upon certain superficial resemblances,

in the same way and with the same injustice as in the comparison of the

Travellers’ Club with the Villa Pandolfini.[44]

In this Club-house, as the sides were liable to be seen at the same

time, an almost complete uniformity

[Illustration: REFORM CLUB HOUSE, PALL MALL, LONDON.

PLAN OF THE GROUND FLOOR.]

of design was preserved throughout the three visible fronts. To complete

breaks of design under such circumstances he had a rooted objection; he

would rather risk monotony, than break unity and give the effect (so

often seen in Venice) of façades merely “applied” to a building. Here,

as in the Travellers’ Club, simplicity, solidity, and repose, were the

great objects aimed at. The entrance seemed to some to want importance;

he tried (in deference to advice) columns and pilasters; a porch he

would not hear of, for it seemed to him a mere excrescence. But the

design so enlarged seemed out of harmony with the windows; it appeared

to break the unity of the design, and the entrance was therefore left in

its present simplicity.

In criticizing his own design, he greatly regretted that he could not

give to his upper windows an importance commensurate with that of the

lower stories, such as is found in the three full stories of the Farnese

Palace. He also took blame to himself because, for want of some relief,

the columns flanking his windows appeared to be embedded in the wall. He

would have gladly given more boldness to the dressings of the lower

windows, and possibly more size to the windows throughout. With these

exceptions, he continued satisfied with his design, and public opinion

has certainly continued to confirm that satisfaction.

In the original plan the central portion of the interior was occupied by

an open Italian cortile. A roof thrown over this converted it into the

magnificent Central Hall, which is now one of the greatest ornaments of

the building. A rival design (Mr. Cockerell’s) had a Central Hall. It is

possible that this may have first suggested the idea to the successful

architect. But considerations of convenience and suitability to an

English climate would have been sufficient to recommend such a step, and

little change after all was made, except the addition of the roof.

It will be easily seen that the grand effect of a Central Hall, which

became afterwards a leading feature in his Italian designs, cannot be

obtained without considerable sacrifice. It is liable to interfere with

the due provision of light and air for the basement story, and, in spite

of much skill in contrivance, this defect may be traced in the case of

the Reform Club. It is likely also to interfere with the existence of a

grand central staircase, as it does in this case and at Bridgewater

House. But it was a peculiarity of Mr. Barry’s plans that he seldom gave

up much space to a grand staircase. As afterwards at the New Palace at

Westminster, he was apt to consider such space as comparatively wasted,

and to think a more effective use might be made of it for a great hall

or gallery. At the Reform Club certainly he never regretted the

sacrifice needful to secure his magnificent Central Hall.

With the internal decoration Mr. Barry took great pains, but felt great

compunction in the use of imitations (scagliola and painting) in the

place of real marbles and other precious materials. Necessity compelled

the “imposture,” for, even as it was, the expense was great, and (in the

opinion of some members of the Club) excessive. But with _carte_

[Illustration:

_L. H. Michael, del._

REFORM CLUB, PALL MALL.

VIEW FROM PALL MALL.]

_blanche_ as to expenditure, he would have expelled every trace of it,

and have rivalled the examples of gorgeous decoration, which had struck

him in Italy.

This Club was remarkable for the great attention paid to internal

convenience. More particularly the kitchen department, in which the

enthusiasm and knowledge of M. Soyer were allowed full scope, was held

to be a model of excellence. The whole has been named (by Mr. Digby

Wyatt) as an example, that “the most minute attention to comfort, and

the satisfactory working of utilitarian necessities, are compatible with

the exercise of the most delicate sense of refinement, and the hardihood

of genius.”

The annexed illustration gives a perspective view from the west (taken

from Pall Mall), and a plan of the ground floor. The chief point notable

in the latter is the careful attention to absolute symmetry of

arrangement,--the centres of doors, colonnades, entrances to staircases

and the like, being all made to balance with one another. The espacement

of the windows, dictated by the external design, was also made to adapt

itself symmetrically to each room, and in no case was recourse had to

the device of blank windows--a device to which, though not uncommon in

ancient and modern examples of Italian, Mr. Barry had a decided

objection. Another point is the careful provision of direct lines of

communication by corridors, and the picturesque treatment in many cases

of their termination. Generally speaking, it will be found that it

unites stateliness and architectural symmetry with great cheerfulness

and practical convenience.

The building, as a whole, was a decided success. Grander in scale than

the Travellers’ Club, it carried out more thoroughly and emphatically

the principles of design, which had made the former building famous. Its

exterior, perhaps, produced less effect on the public, for the earlier

design had pre-occupied the ground of originality. But it established

Mr. Barry in the first rank of Italian architecture, and showed, alike

by its points of similarity and its points of difference, that his

former success had not been a happy accident. On the interior the

difference of scale told for more than on the exterior. In the

Travellers’ elegance and comfort alone could be aimed at. In the Reform

Club there was an opportunity of adding grandeur, without destroying the

former characteristics. No one could doubt that the opportunity had been

nobly used. At the time of its erection the building stood almost alone,

as a model to foreigners of what a great English Club could be. Other

buildings have risen since on the same or even on a grander scale, both

as to size and magnificence of ornament; but still it may be doubted

whether its high position has been impaired.[45]

MANCHESTER ATHENÆUM.--The Manchester Athenæum, as has been said, belongs

to this period of his Italian style. The exterior is plain, for it has

no

[Illustration: BRIDGEWATER HOUSE. LONDON.

PRINCIPAL FLOOR.]

great advantage of position, and economy was an object; but in its

refinement of detail and perfection it is as characteristic as his

greater works. In the interior there was one remarkable feature

involving some bold and even hazardous construction. The confined space

made it necessary to erect the great Lecture Theatre on the top story;

and this, considering its size and the large number it was to

accommodate, was a matter of no slight difficulty, but it was

successfully achieved.

THE NEW WING AT TRENTHAM also belongs to about the same period. The

annexed woodcut shows its general character--a Palazzino in itself, with

an engaged order, not altogether unlike his favourite Banqueting-house

at Whitehall. It needs no more special notice.

BRIDGEWATER HOUSE.--The building which most distinctly marks his “second

manner” is Bridgewater House. The change is chiefly traceable in a

tendency to greater freedom of treatment, and to a desire for greater

richness of effect. It seems to have been partly due to a general change

of architectural taste in these directions, partly to his own

habituation to Gothic work at the New Palace of Westminster.

Bridgewater House (built for the Earl of Ellesmere in 1847) was the last

of his great Italian buildings in London. In his first design, fearing

apparently too great a similarity to his Club-houses, and inclining to a

more ornate style, he attempted to depart from his usual principles, and

produced a design (exhibited at the Royal Academy) in which on a lofty

basement appeared a grand Corinthian order with engaged columns and

entablature unbroken. But, as usual in such cases, he could not rest

content with this dereliction from the principles in which both study

and experience had confirmed him. He could not make up his mind to a

“walled-up colonnade,” and double stories masked by a single order.[46]

The design was rejected as too costly; and he not unwillingly returned

to his usual style, and produced the design now executed.

In it there was, as has been said, another conflict of principles in his

mind. Profuse Gothic ornamentation had made his earlier Italian

simplicity seem insipid; for a time his pencil was busy, covering every

yard of plain surface with panelling and sculpture. But here also his

old principles reasserted their dominion, and the design ultimately came

out as we at present see it, more ornate than his former works, but yet

preserving a general character of simplicity.

The street front remained uniform as in his Club-houses; in the Park

front internal requirements forced upon him the very effective variety

of the great three-light windows at each end of the façade. The porch he

was obliged to add for convenience sake, but, as it were, under protest,

for it seemed to him, as usual, an excrescence. The chief peculiarity in

the design was the treatment of the upper

[Illustration: BRIDGEWATER HOUSE, LONDON.

ELEVATION OF FRONT TOWARDS THE GREEN PARK.]

windows. He was obliged to make them small and place them close under

the cornice, and accordingly he united them by panels, and treated them

as a kind of frieze. But this also he did not in the abstract approve;

he doubted whether they were not too small for a story, yet too large

for a frieze, and whether the effect was not to diminish the apparent

height of the building. Another unusual step was the concealment of the

roofs, and the substitution of a balustrade. It is curious that, whereas

in his earlier designs (_e.g._ the Travellers’, Walton, and the Reform

Club) he had used a visible roof, yet in some later designs (_e.g._

Bridgewater House and Cliefden) he departed from this principle, and

employed a balustrade. The two are of course not incompatible, and

indeed, especially if the roof be high pitched, some protection of

balustrade or parapet is needed in London streets to prevent masses of

snow, slates, &c., from falling. In his great design for the Government

Offices, Sir Charles showed in almost all cases both a visible roof and

a balustrade, and accordingly, in the design for the Halifax Town-hall,

carried out since his death by his son, a similar arrangement is

adopted.

The annexed woodcuts give the elevation of the Park front, and the plan

of the principal floor. The latter manifests the same characteristics

already noticed in the Reform Club. It is quoted by Mr. Kerr, in his

‘English Gentleman’s House,’ as a typical specimen of a stately and

symmetrical plan, and contrasted with one in which a convenient

irregularity and picturesque effect are the main objects proposed.

It will be observed that the centre of this building, as of the Reform

Club, is occupied by a fine hall, the result here also of an

after-thought, for in the original design its place was occupied by a

grand staircase, enclosed by walls. For the decoration of this hall he

had formed great designs, which were never to be carried out. Delays

interposed, and after the death of Lord Ellesmere the hall was placed in

other hands. Mr. F. Götzenberg, a German artist, directed its

decoration, and in 1858 the architect was invited to inspect the work,

and aid it by his criticism. But, as might be expected, he found the

principles adopted by M. Götzenberg very different from those which he

had in his own mind. He could not take the responsibility implied in any

interference or suggestion, and he retired with deep regret.

The building is certainly one of his most beautiful designs. It shows

that the greater taste for richness and variety of effect had not

injured that delicacy of proportion, and exquisite finish of detail,

which had been so remarkably characteristic of his earlier

buildings.[47]

HALIFAX TOWN-HALL.--The Halifax Town-hall, the last Italian building

which he designed, marks still more strikingly the change which his mind

had undergone since the erection of the Travellers’ and Reform

Clubs.[48]

“This was the last of Sir Charles Barry’s works, and is in many respects

one of the most interesting. Its interest arises not from the size or

importance of the building, but from the evidence afforded by its design

of the results of a long experience in the mind of its architect.

“In the design of the Reform Club, and still more remarkably in the

design of the Travellers’ Club, he had adopted that type of Italian

architecture which aims at producing grandeur of effect by the symmetry

of its parts, the regularity of its arrangement, and the simplicity,

verging on severity, of its details. Ornament is sparely applied in

these buildings, and is in all cases subordinate to the strict

regularity which governs the design. The only exception to this

regularity, viz., the position of the entrance door to the Travellers’

Club, was always regarded by the architect as a blemish, only to be

justified by its absolute necessity, and forced on him by the nature of

the site.

“When, many years afterwards, Bridgewater House was designed, Sir

Charles Barry had evidently changed his views in some degree; for this

building, although preserving the rhythm and symmetry of a stately

Italian palace, relies more on its ornamentation than either the Reform

Club or the Travellers’.

“In it, as in the alterations to the Treasury Buildings in Whitehall,

which were proceeding at about the same time, we see indications that

Sir C. Barry had begun to give to his Italian architecture a character

differing considerably from that which marked his earlier productions.

“One important feature however may be remarked, as common to the

Travellers’ and Reform Clubs on the one hand, and to Bridgewater House

on the other, namely, the unbroken cornice which surmounts each

building. The cornice is proportioned to the whole height of the

building, and it is a curious circumstance that Bridgewater House is the

last of his designs which contains this feature. In the case of the

Treasury, the original design by Sir John Soane controlled of course

very decidedly Sir C. Barry’s operations, but the features which he

introduced, namely, the broken entablatures (tending towards a vertical,

as opposed to the original horizontal effect of Sir J. Soane’s work),

the carved panels between the two principal rows of windows, the

covering of the entire surface with rustication and panels, the

elaborate carving in the attics, go far to show that, whether influenced

by the decorative character of the New Palace, Westminster, or by other

considerations, he was rapidly changing the character of his Italian

designs, and ornamenting them with increased decoration. The same

tendency may be observed in his subsequent designs for the sculpture

galleries at Shrubland Park and for the Government Offices. At Shrubland

the entablature is broken over the columns and pilasters, and in his

design for the Government Offices Sir C. Barry showed his opinion of the

present Treasury buildings by adopting them as an integral part of

[Illustration: HALIFAX TOWN HALL.]

his design, which was indeed materially influenced by this circumstance.

“In the design for Halifax Town-hall the freedom of treatment above

referred to may be clearly noticed to an even greater extent, not only

in the more decorative portions of the work, but also in the arrangement

of the plan and general character of the entire design. The tower and

spire, which are placed at one corner of the building, form one of its

most remarkable features; and, though it is possible that Sir C. Barry

might have somewhat modified his design, if he had lived to carry it

out, its general outline, and even its details, were too far advanced at

the time of his death to have admitted of any radical interference with

its essential characteristics.

“The Town-hall is situated in the middle of the town, on a site which,

from its confined character, is not in itself favourable to

architectural effect. The tower is placed at one corner of the building,

so as to face the principal street, and to form the main entrance to the

Town-hall. The Tower is surmounted by a spire of a remarkable design,

which, in common with the whole of the building, displays a marked

Renaissance character, while from its position it gives an irregularity

of outline to the entire design, greatly at variance with the

symmetrical arrangement observable in Sir C. Barry’s earlier Italian

buildings. It may be noted however that in the New Palace at

Westminster, which has often been criticized as planned on Italian

principles, he placed his towers in positions of great irregularity as

regards the plan, which in other respects is arranged as far as

possible on the principle of strict symmetry. The design at Halifax

consists of two orders, with broken entablatures and arched windows in

each bay. At the corner opposite to the Tower the Council-room forms a

second projecting mass, thus departing still further from a symmetrical

arrangement of plan, and there are also smaller projections at the other

angles of the building. At Sir C. Barry’s death the foundations of the

building were just completed, and its erection was intrusted by the

corporation to me. At this time the details of the exterior had all been

fully made out and revised and approved by him. The interior however had

not been fully designed, and I am therefore responsible for its

architectural treatment, as also for the addition of a high roof to the

building, which latter feature was not to be found in the original

design. I have also succeeded in restoring to the design several

decorative features, which were at first omitted from the contract from

motives of economy, but which were readily sanctioned, on my

recommendation, by the corporation, whose public spirit and desire to do

justice to Sir C. Barry’s last design deserve from me a word of grateful

recognition.--E. M. B.”

It does not concern us to discuss the abstract merits of this gradual

change of Italian style, visible in Sir C. Barry’s works. But it is

certainly interesting in itself, and if it illustrates, as probably is

the case, a tendency in the architecture of the present day to break

down the rigidity of conventional divisions, and vary established styles

by greater freedom of treatment, it will serve to illustrate the remark

made in the first chapter, that his mind was one eminently plastic and

progressive, and one which therefore would partly guide, and partly

follow, the general movement of architectural taste in the country.

Holding, as he did, most strongly, the opinion that the styles which

divide the architectural profession into two rival camps, had each their

characteristic excellences, it is not surprising that he allowed their

influences to interpenetrate and modify each other. It still remains to

be seen whether his practice does not represent a tendency, which will

be more fully exemplified hereafter.

(B). The second class of Sir C. Barry’s designs includes those which had

for their object the alteration of existing buildings. In this work his

skill was proverbial and almost unrivalled. Possibly his sanguine belief

in the capabilities of the materials at command may at times have even

misled him into attempting alteration, where demolition and

reconstruction would have been little less difficult and much more

satisfactory. But as has been said, it is doubtful whether his

originality and power of resource were not manifested at least as much

in this kind of work as in the erection of new buildings. In many cases,

not only the fronts, but even the openings of the windows, would be

preserved, and yet the building would become new under his hand, and

what was plain and commonplace would start into richness and beauty.

Like a masterly translation, the design bore the appearance of

unfettered originality.

COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.--One of the first instances of such conversion was

that of the College of Surgeons in Lincoln’s Inn. Great additions were

required, and the site was accordingly extended. As usual, not only was

he to retain as much as possible of the old building, but the portico,

the principal feature of the original building, was, above all, to be

preserved. Mr. Barry himself would gladly have dispensed with the

portico altogether; it was (what he strongly disliked) a mere porch

attached to the building, not (as in the old Greek temples) an essential

and dominant portion of it. But he could not venture upon this; so he

changed its position to the centre of the new front by shifting one or

two columns from one end to the other, and left it otherwise unchanged.

The leading feature in his design was the severe and massive cornice,

predominating over the portico and front generally, and uniting the

attic with the main stories. The front itself he treated as a

background, carrying simplicity almost to baldness in order to

subordinate all to the main effect. It will be seen, of course, and it

has been already remarked, that in this change he was carrying out the

leading principle of his Italian street fronts, the use of the great

cornice to give unity and completeness to the design. Although more of

the exterior was preserved than usual, yet the spirit of the whole was

changed; and, plain as it still was, it gained a striking and original

effect.

The interior was almost entirely remodelled. The most important change

was in the New Museum. The old one had been divided for architectural

effect

[Illustration: COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, LINCOLN’S INN FIELDS.

VIEW OF PRINCIPAL FRONT AS ALTERED.]

by massive piers and transverse arches. All obstructions were now

cleared out; ample space and light were secured; indeed, not a foot of

space was wasted, and the light, diffused by transmission through a

continuous cove (the ceiling being left as a reflector), was excellent.

It became, as the curators declared, a cheerful and most convenient

museum. At a later period (1850) he was called upon to carry out some

further internal changes. These were intended merely to give additional

accommodation, and little architectural effect was aimed at. An

additional museum was erected on the same principles of design which had

dictated the alteration of the old, but with somewhat more of light

through the roof. Two new theatres were added, with suitable offices. No

alteration was made in the front.[49]

WALTON HOUSE.--The next specimen of Mr. Barry’s power of reconstruction,

under very different circumstances, is seen at Walton House, belonging

to the Earl of Tankerville.

The house stands on the banks of the Thames, in a position very pleasant

and beautiful in itself (almost buried in its magnificent trees, and

affording a ready access to the river), but having little openness or

elevation, and therefore placing some difficulties in the way of

architectural effect. The house had been a somewhat commonplace

straggling building. The site was such as to require a certain amount of

irregularity in treatment. In 1837 Mr. Barry was consulted for its

reconstruction. This was the time between the erection of the

Travellers’ and Reform Clubs, and belongs architecturally to his earlier

Italian style. Some considerable additions were made, especially a fine

entrance corridor, and a belvedere, on which probably the architect

relied for giving effect to a building which wanted elevation of site.

But the whole house was remodelled both externally and internally--the

work as usual growing in conception during its progress. It became

externally an elegant and at that time an almost unique specimen of an

Italian villa. The size is not considerable, but every detail is studied

so as to produce that effect of harmony and perfection at which Mr.

Barry at all times aimed. The style is simple, with the characteristic

features of a predominating cornice, and (as in the Club-houses) a

carefully studied proportion of solid wall to windows, and an Italian

roof made a visible and ornamental feature.[50] Seen, as so many Italian

villas are seen, on some rising ground, and with opportunity of

comparatively distant views, it might have produced a more striking

effect. As it is, although the plan and composition are well adapted to

the site, some part of its beauty is lost.

The interior arrangement has been quoted by Mr. Kerr[51] as an example

on a smaller scale, and on a somewhat irregular plan, of the same

“stateliness”

[Illustration: WALTON SURREY.

By Sir C. Barry.]

of design which he observes in Bridgewater House. Yet it was certainly

adapted most thoroughly to the special requirements of the case, and

cannot be accused of sacrificing convenience to effect. The chief

feature is the long entrance corridor, spacious and symmetrical, divided

by pilasters into equal bays, each square having its pendentive

ceiling--somewhat in the style which in an Italian climate would have

produced an open loggia. The internal details of the rooms are simple,

but with the simplicity which is the result of study and of thorough

understanding of principles. The house marks the change of taste (which

Mr. Barry had certainly a considerable share in promoting) from the

older Greek style of country houses, with their huge porticoes and

massive details, to the greater elasticity, elegance, and brightness of

the Italian style. It can hardly be doubted that the change was an

improvement, both in architectural propriety and in domestic comfort and

cheerfulness.

HIGHCLERE HOUSE.--But in the same year, 1837, he was called upon to

exercise his skill in conversion on a grander scale, and in a far more

striking manner, for the Earl of Carnarvon, at Highclere in Hampshire.

At Walton he had to add much, and almost to reconstruct. At Highclere

the whole constructional framework of the house was retained, and yet

the building became in the strictest sense new and original. In fact,

the contrast of its former and present condition, shown by the

comparison of the two woodcuts, almost renders any comment unnecessary.

The old building, as will be seen at once, is designed in the

comparative flatness and insipidity of bare classicism: under his hand

it became a palace, rich and original in design. Yet not only were the

main walls preserved, with scarcely any extension of the building or

plan, but even the secondary features were kept intact. In no case was

the level of any floor or the opening of a window changed.

The style chosen was less simple and richer in effect than the style of

pure Italian. He called it “Anglo-Italian,” an Elizabethan or Jacobian

style, which he thought excellent, when, as must often be the case in

domestic architecture, the openings were of necessity too crowded for

the purer Italian style, of which he had given examples in his

Club-houses.[52] The centre, contrary to his usual practice, he elevated

by an attic, feeling that the style admitted greater freedom and

irregularity of treatment, and wishing to give importance to the great

entrance; for he considered that the lofty and beautiful central tower

and the elevated angle-turrets would preserve the needful unity of

design.

The building thus transformed was one of his favourite works. It

certainly is in itself one of the most striking country seats in

England, and he could fairly claim it as his own, and rejoice over the

beauty created out of unpromising materials and under conditions of no

slight difficulty.

BOARD OF TRADE.--But of all examples perhaps the one best known is the

conversion effected on the

[Illustration: HIGHCLERE HOUSE, HAMPSHIRE.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE HOUSE PREVIOUS TO THE ALTERATIONS.]

[Illustration: HIGHCLERE HOUSE, HAMPSHIRE.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE HOUSE AS ALTERED]

[Illustration: THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE, BOARD OF TRADE, AND TREASURY,

WHITEHALL.

BEFORE THE ALTERATION BY SIR CHARLES BARRY]

Board of Trade at Whitehall. He had to deal with a building, which had

long been before the public eye in a prominent position, and which was

not without many points of architectural excellence. But the altered

building seemed to take the public by surprise; it was practically new

in design and spirit, and, though exposed to much censure from one class

of critics, it commanded general admiration. The comparison of the two

woodcuts, which show its present and its former condition, will easily

explain the vividness of effect produced, and will show (what is

elsewhere noticed) the growing taste for richness and vigour of effect

visible in Mr. Barry’s later Italian style,[53] and in this case

remarkably contrasted with the strict classicism of the original.

Yet the conversion was carried out under conditions which might have

seemed hopeless shackles on his genius. Not only was it necessary to

preserve all the levels of the floors and the position of the openings,

but he was obliged also to keep and work in the Corinthian order of the

original building, in spite of his objection to engaged columns. The

original design, with many points of excellence, yet seemed to him to

want symmetry, force, and grandeur. To remedy these defects, he raised

the order on a basement story, did away with the superstructure, which

seemed to oppress it, and, removing the colonnades, which by their

shadows and projection cut up the wings, he gave the great flanking

masses their full effect.

The question next arose, whether the entablature should be broken or

not. Mr. Barry’s objection to engaged columns has already been

mentioned. Here, however, such an arrangement was forced upon him, and

the question was, how the impropriety could be best alleviated. He had

begun to think of breaking entablatures (which in days of classical

purism would have shocked him), partly from the example of Inigo Jones’s

Banqueting-house, partly from his Gothic studies, and the tendency to

vertical lines which they fostered. He conceived that, when this step

was taken, the engaged column changed its character; it no longer

affected to support the entablature, but became avowedly an adjunct.

This feeling, joined to the desire of greater variety and richness,

carried the day, and, in this case and others, the entablatures were

broken. In looking at his own work he felt that, from the necessary

position of the columns, the breaks were somewhat over-crowded; and he

rather regretted that he had not carried out an idea, which had occurred

to him in studying his design, of crowning the principal windows with

pediments to relieve the appearance of squareness. Otherwise he was

contented and pleased with his work, which has been acknowledged as

having given one more striking building to London. He long hoped that

the façade would have been extended along Downing Street, and have

terminated in a mass corresponding to those which now flank the

elevation. His ideas indeed went beyond this: far larger schemes of

extension were conceived by him in connection with the designs for the

Government Offices. But

[Illustration: THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE, BOARD OF TRADE, AND TREASURY,

WHITEHALL.

AFTER THE ALTERATIONS BY SIR CHARLES BARRY.]

[Illustration: TRENTHAM HALL, STAFFORDSHIRE. THE SEAT OF THE RIGHT HON.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND.

PLAN OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR, AS ALTERED AND IMPROVED BY SIR CHARLES

BARRY. THE DARK LINE INDICATES THE ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS.]

none of these were destined to be realized, and the building remains in

its original dimensions.

TRENTHAM HALL.--The next group of alterations to be noticed brings into

prominence a kind of work, in which he took the greatest pleasure, and

achieved very brilliant results. This was the architectural laying out

and ornamentation of gardens. Early in his career he had made some essay

in this direction at Mr. Attree’s house in Brighton Park. Up to the last

he retained almost a passion for it. His idea was that the definite

artificial lines of a building should not be contrasted, but harmonized,

with the free and careless grace of natural beauty. This could only be

effected by a scheme of architectural gardens, graduated, as it were,

from regular formality in the immediate neighbourhood of the building

itself, through shrubberies and plantations, less and less artificial,

till they seemed to melt away in the unstudied simplicity of the park or

wood without. In this the architect and landscape gardener must work

side by side.

These views he had the opportunity of exemplifying on a grand scale in

the works carried on for many years at Trentham Hall, the residence of

the Duke of Sutherland. To the old building containing the state

reception rooms, he simply gave a better cornice and improved its

details, adding moreover a grand entrance hall, which served also as a

billiard saloon, and communicated with the state rooms by a fine

semicircular corridor. He succeeded also in grouping together very

effectively the straggling offices of the great house. Though he could

not effect all that he wished, he was able thus to give some grandeur

and unity to the large mass of building. The design of the private wing

has been already mentioned.

But the great work was the change effected in the gardens.[54] His

difficulties are stated by a high authority, the late Mr. Loudon:--“We

could not help doubting whether even Mr. Barry could make anything of

this great dull flat place, with its immense mansion, as tame and

spiritless as the ground on which it stands; we have seen the plans,

however, for the additions and alterations. Let no man henceforth ever

despair of a dead flat.” The hall was surrounded by lawns and paddocks,

reaching down to a lake. These were converted into a succession of

gardens of regular design, stepping down by terraces from the house to

the lake, and by balustrades, vases, statues, and flights of steps, so

connected with the architecture of the house as to spread out its base,

and give it the dignity and apparent height which its natural position

forbade. This was a principle which Mr. Barry at all times pursued;

gardening was, of course, with him only a handmaid to architecture, and

in this particular case such treatment was the only method by which the

lowness of site could be corrected, and dignity be given to what

otherwise must have been but an ordinary country seat. He effected much;

could he have carried out his whole scheme he would have had an “Isola

[Illustration: TRENTHAM HALL, STAFFORDSHIRE.

VIEW OF GARDEN FRONT, AS ALTERED, WITH TERRACED GARDEN, PAVILION, &c.]

Bella” on the lake, and converted the lake itself into an architectural

basin. For in his development of the principle that all garden work

connected with buildings should have an architectural character, he was

accused sometimes, not quite unjustly, of desiring to extend the domain

of Art, even at the risk of encroaching upon Nature herself.

Probably the disadvantage of site still shows itself, and it may be that

the materials at his command were somewhat impracticable; but the great

confidence and liberality of his patrons gave him abundant scope, and

the result is a building which may take high rank among the palaces of

England.

DUNCOMBE PARK.--Another conversion, on a smaller scale, in which

remarkable effect was produced by much less alteration, was carried out

at Duncombe Park, the seat of Lord Feversham. The immediate object

contemplated was the increase of accommodation in the stables and

domestic offices, but the opportunity thus presented of improving a

building, which stands on one of the noblest sites, and commands one of

the finest views in England, was not to be lost. A design was prepared

accordingly, meeting the special requirements of the case, but going far

beyond them in its aim.

The house, which is ascribed to Vanbrugh, and was probably built by one

of his pupils, is massive and imposing in its style, and severely plain

in details. But it seemed to Mr. Barry merely to occupy the site,

without harmonizing with the surrounding scenery of the park. His

object was to bring it into this connection, and soften the

boundary-line between nature and art.

The main building he did not alter, except by suggesting a portico to

the entrance front, known to have formed a part of the original design,

though never actually executed; but he swept away a mass of subordinate

buildings on each side, containing the existing offices and stables,

and, designing a noble entrance court in proportion to the massive scale

of the building, he flanked it with two blocks of buildings (containing

the accommodation required), symmetrically designed, and showing

remarkable boldness of detail. These new blocks of building he connected

with the central building with quadrantal corridors, closed to the side

of the entrance court, but open to the private gardens on the other

side.

Having thus given grandeur and unity to a previously ineffective

building, he proceeded to connect it with the scenery around. He altered

the great avenue of approach through the park, so as to bring it, where

it approached the new entrance court, into a position of centrality to

the building. On the other side he remodelled the private gardens in his

favourite Italian style, and so gave to the windows of the private

apartments a view more suitable than that of the grass fields, into

which they had previously looked.

The effect, as usual, was to give the house perfect novelty and dignity

of effect, by utilising to the utmost size and capabilities

comparatively wasted before.

HAREWOOD HOUSE.--A somewhat similar work was carried out for the Earl of

Harewood, in the years 1843 to 1850. Harewood House is situated about

nine miles from Leeds, in a position of great beauty, looking over the

valley of the Wharfe. It was a house of some scale and pretension, built

in 1759, by Messrs. Carr and Adams, with a lofty centre, having a large

engaged Corinthian order, and connected by lower curtains with the

wings, which were plainer in design.

It had apparently some massiveness of design and merits of proportion.

It needed finish, life, and variety. The treatment of the work by Mr.

Barry (additional accommodation being required) was simply to raise the

wings, altering their design so as to bring them into greater importance

and greater harmony with the centre, and to improve the design of the

centre itself, by adding a handsome balustrade, and by raising the

chimney-stacks to the dignity of architectural features, so as to vary

the flat and monotonous lines of the former roof. Little else was done

except that some beautiful carving (by Mr. Thomas), in the pediment and

elsewhere, gave the greater richness and life which the original design

wanted. But the effect was considerable, and the house now commands

attention, not only by its scale and proportion, but by the evidence of

taste and design visible throughout.

In the interior the work merely included some alteration and enlargement

of the principal rooms and basement, and some new decorations.

But the gardens here also engaged his attention. The park and grounds

had been laid out by Mr. Lancelot Brown (well known in the last

generation as a landscape gardener), but the garden near the house

itself remained to be treated in Mr. Barry’s usual style. A grand

terrace garden was formed on the south side, rising by a handsome flight

of steps to the level of the house, adorned with sculptures and

fountains, and laid out in parterre beds of architectural design. The

gardens, kept up as they are with great care and skill, are among the

chief sights of the neighbourhood. It need not be added that they

thoroughly harmonize with the building and give it completeness and

magnificence.

SHRUBLAND PARK.--But of all parks of this kind probably the most

successful was that carried out for Sir W. Middleton at Shrubland Park

in the year 1848. Inferior in extent to the work at Trentham, it

presented greater capabilities, and was more perfect in result. On the

house itself he produced a striking alteration. The original building

had little architectural character; but it had been considerably altered

in 1830 from the design of Mr. Gandy Deering. On the house, as thus

altered, Sir C. Barry had to work, and the effect produced will be seen

by an inspection of the annexed woodcuts. He added a new entrance, with

a sculpture gallery on each side. At the same time he raised a portion

of the house, so as to form a beautiful specimen of his favourite

Italian towers, and substituted balustrades for the large pediments

surmounting the various fronts, which would have grouped ill with the

tower, and,

[Illustration: SHRUBLAND PARK, SUFFOLK.

VIEW OF GARDEN FROM THE NEW TERRACES.]

[Illustration: SHRUBLAND PARK, SUFFOLK.

VIEW OF THE GARDEN FRONT AS ALTERED, AND OF THE NEW STEPS AND TERRACES

TO GARDENS.]

by distracting the eye, have interfered with unity of effect. A handsome

lodge was added with a central tower, through which the main approach

passed.

But the glory of Shrubland lay in its gardens, and it is in them that

the traces of his hand are most plainly seen. Beautiful in themselves,

they seemed to agree too little with the house, which had now assumed

some architectural pretensions.

The upper garden near the house was therefore rearranged, and enclosed

by balustrades. A handsome flight of steps led from the upper to the

lower garden. At the foot of the steps an open loggia was placed, and

the adjoining ground laid out with architecturally formed beds.

The works show in a very marked manner the refined taste and exquisite

finish which distinguished all his designs. The whole principle, indeed,

of his arrangements was dictated by the desire of perfect finish and

harmony, against which the original scheme, bringing an ordinary

flower-garden up to the very walls of the house, appeared to him to

militate. Few works produced so much effect, considering their scale,

and certainly few were so entirely after his own heart, as those at

Shrubland Park.

CLIEFDEN HOUSE.--Of all his conversions of existing buildings, this was

the one which approached most nearly to the conditions of an original

design. But his work was still in some degree fettered by the

circumstances of the case.

The house was originally built, in a fashion very prevalent some years

ago, having a centre with two distinct wings, which were virtually

separate buildings, and were only joined to the central mass by

connecting corridors on the ground-floor. Such a plan produces much

external grandeur; but this advantage, and some others which belong to

it, are dearly purchased at the cost of internal convenience, especially

when, as at Cliefden, the servants’ rooms are placed in one of the

wings. A fire destroyed the central mansion, but spared the wings; and

to Sir C. Barry was assigned the task of rebuilding what had been

destroyed, without sacrificing the portions remaining, and of rebuilding

it on the old foundations, which were still intact, and which it was

desired to utilise.

The first design which he prepared was set aside for economical reasons.

It differed materially from Cliefden as it now is. It was an astylar

Italian design, comparatively simple in detail, and having the angles

raised into towers, so as to be prominent features. Thus, although

designed on symmetrical principles, it would have presented far greater

variety of outline than the building actually erected. Considering its

magnificent position, and considering also the different points of view

and the great distances at which the house can be seen, the architect

greatly regretted the necessity which forbade the realisation of his

original design. He thought that a more vertical tendency and more

varied outline would have contrasted better with the horizontal line of

the beautiful bank of wood, out of which it rises.

The present house is built on the old

[Illustration: PLAN OF PRINCIPAL FLOOR.]

[Illustration: CLIEFDEN HOUSE, BERKSHIRE.

ELEVATION OF THE GARDEN FRONT.]

foundations,[55] the centre being the only new portion of the building.

The plan is that of a first-rate Italian villa, and is remarkable for

uniting elegance to great convenience of arrangement. For the great

charm of Cliefden is its lovely view over the valley of the Thames, and

it was absolutely necessary to bear this in mind in the arrangement of

all the living-rooms. At the same time it was necessary to provide such

access for the servants’ wing as should in some degree mitigate the

inconvenience of the old plan of the house, and to arrange the staircase

and corridors with due regard to dignity and architectural effect. The

solution of the problem may be deemed highly successful, and will have

some interest to the professional student.

In the external design Sir Charles adopted (what was unusual with him)

an engaged order with unbroken entablature. In regard to the design

generally, it may be doubted whether the house is of sufficient size to

justify the use of an order of two stories, which, as seen from a

distance, gives some impression of a want of breadth in the design. But,

bearing in mind the circumstances alluded to above, we may conclude with

some probability, that Sir Charles contemplated the enlargement of the

design, by carrying up and rendering prominent the low side buildings,

containing the dining-room and the private apartments. Such an addition

would exemplify a method of treatment of which he was fond, viz., the

employment of a central mass with two slightly elevated angles, and

would certainly add greatly to the effect of the garden-front.

The house, however, as it stands, may claim attention on its own merits.

It was one of his latest Italian buildings, though showing much of the

simplicity of his earlier designs.

TRAFALGAR SQUARE.--Of all Sir C. Barry’s works, the one which is

generally considered as least successful was the laying out of Trafalgar

Square. On this subject he was consulted by the Government in 1840, and

his chief idea in the arrangements, which he suggested, was to improve

the effect of the National Gallery.

A plan was already under consideration, which contemplated the raising

the whole square to the level of the pavement in front of the new

building, and finishing it with a terrace and balustrade towards

Cockspur Street. To this he had a strong objection. In common with the

world at large, he considered the National Gallery to be already greatly

deficient in importance and unworthy of its magnificent site. Such a

terrace as was proposed, seen in the foreground on approaching from

Whitehall, would throw it back into utter insignificance. He advised,

therefore, that the level of the square should be kept down to that of

Cockspur Street, instead of being raised to that of the base of the

building, and the terrace thrown back so as to make it appear a part of

the building, thus increasing instead of diminishing its height. This

plan was adopted, but greatly injured by the erection of the Nelson

Column, against which Mr. Barry protested in vain. Not only did it cut

up the building, but it interfered with a grand flight of steps, which

he contemplated in the centre of his terrace, of the width of the whole

portico of the gallery, and appearing from a distance to be a part of

it. Its own design would be no compensation: for to the use of columns,

as pedestals for statues, he objected on principle. He would have had

the Nelson and Wellington Monuments (treated in a different style as

grand designs in sculpture) placed on either side in the position of the

present fountains. When this proved to be impossible, he introduced the

fountains as a last resource. He intended them to be far larger; he

wished them, indeed, to be of the scale of the grand fountains in front

of St. Peter’s at Rome; but for this funds were not forthcoming, and an

unexpected difficulty was found in obtaining a full supply of water.

But, though fully aware that they were too small, he never felt the

justice of the severe criticism which has been so unsparingly lavished

upon them. For in this case, as in others, the architect’s work is

criticized in ignorance of the limitations imposed upon it by necessity,

and the interferences from without to which it has been subjected.

* * * * *

Besides these buildings, for which he was entirely responsible, there

were several instances in which he gave general designs to be carried

out by others; for, as his own time was more and more occupied,

superintendence became difficult. But he never much liked this; in the

buildings which he actually erected he was as fastidious in regard to

details, as he was careful in studying the great lines of the design;

imperfection in detail was to him as a discord at all times, but doubly

painful when it seemed to mar an idea originally his own, and he could

hardly rest till it was removed.

Thus in 1847 and 1848 he made some extensive designs for the Government,

to be carried out at Keyham Factory. They were intended to give some

architectural character to the buildings, planned by the Government

engineers for the execution of work for the steam fleet. These included

foundries, smithies, turning-shops, &c., buildings necessarily of great

extent and inconsiderable height. The designs made were Italian--simple,

of course, but effective in character. They deserve notice not so much

in themselves, but as being the only example of his treatment of a class

of buildings, which it has been common to despair of artistically, and

to surrender to the domain of plain and even ugly utilitarianism. In the

same year he modified the design for the Ambassador’s palace at

Constantinople, to an extent which greatly determined its general

effect.

* * * * *

It will be seen from this brief description of Sir C. Barry’s principal

Italian works, that, not merely by their number and size, but by their

variety of character, and the existence in almost all of some special

features of design or construction, they exercised a very powerful

influence on the Italian architecture of the country.

They certainly appear to have carried out, to as great an extent as

practice can ever carry out the dictates of theory, the principles which

have been described at the close of Chapter II., as deduced by him from

his original studies in Italy, except so far as these were modified by

the powerful though indirect influence of the Gothic revival. This did

not arise from any deficiency in power of originating novelty. There

were few cases in which ideas were not conceived, and designs made,

embodying more unusual forms and details than those finally adopted. Nor

does it appear to have been due to his adoption of a formally defined

system of principles--a kind of confession of architectural faith. It

may be doubted whether he himself could have given an analysis of his

own principles of design, as clear and as precise as that which has been

given by others. Perhaps few men, who have much originative power in

art, have also the power of such scientific analysis. He himself would

constantly adopt what he conceived to be new “first principles,” and for

a time mould every line of a design in obedience to their dictates.

But yet in almost every case he reverted eventually to his original

principles. If the comparison of the old with the new was fatal to the

latter, in respect of beauty or convenience, he was not the man to seek

apparent originality at the cost of real excellence. The temptation to

depart from the old methods, and the study of the methods by which such

departure could be made, only tended to confirm them in his mind, and to

show (what most practical men sooner or later discover in all provinces

of thought) that the prevalence of old forms is generally due, not to

arbitrary and pedantic convention, but to their inherent truth and

vigour.

It maybe added that, in his Italian work especially, harmony and

completeness seem to have been the great objects of endeavour. Repose,

rather than what artists call “movement,” was the characteristic of his

designs. Whether successfully or unsuccessfully, he laboured principally

to realize the conception of the whole, as having unity and perfect

interdependence in its parts, and was not compensated, in his own works

or those of others, for any violation of this unity, even by individual

features of startling and original excellence.[56] A consequence of this

feeling was that special attention to refinement and elegance of detail,

which has been noticed by most critics of his works. He felt strongly

that, when detail, however bold or beautiful in itself, attracts an

undue share of attention, and brings into prominence what should

properly be subordinate, an error in taste is committed, proportionate

to the vividness of the impression produced. Another consequence was the

paramount importance which he attached to beauty of proportion as

compared with richness or originality of decoration. He was fond of

pointing out in Sir C. Wren’s western towers of Westminster Abbey how

this beauty of proportion seemed all but to annihilate the painful

impression, produced by the badness of the details. In his own designs

he would take the greatest pains, would sponge out and redraw a whole

elevation, if he detected in its leading lines any defect in this his

crowning virtue.

It is evident that this principle may assume so tyrannical an influence

as to extinguish originality, and tone down a whole design to

respectable and consistent tameness. But it cannot be denied that it is

a principle of paramount value, and few will question that it is largely

manifested in his existing works. Not indeed that he allowed this desire

of unity and stateliness of design, or his determination to make even

the least work a real work of Art, to interfere with the thought of

practical convenience, especially as regards the requirements of English

climate and modern life. His Italian architecture was therefore

singularly free from artistic pedantry; it was no artificial exotic, but

a style thoroughly naturalized, and therefore one having an inherent

principle of vigour and life. On it his architectural fame must still in

great measure rest.

CHAPTER V.

MINOR GOTHIC WORKS.

Progress of the Gothic revival--Birmingham Grammar School--First

acquaintance with Mr. Pugin and Mr. Thomas--Alterations at Dulwich

College--Unitarian chapel at Manchester--Additions to University

College, Oxford--Hurstpierpoint church--Canford Manor--Gawthorpe

Hall--Designs for Dunrobin Castle.

While Mr. Barry was thus engaged almost incessantly on Italian

buildings, he did not neglect the mediæval style, which was every day

becoming better understood and more popular. In this style his works

(after 1829) were comparatively few, until he engaged in the competition

for the New Palace at Westminster. But the interest and study, which he

at this time bestowed on Gothic architecture, must not be measured by

the number of works which he actually carried out. He could not but be

aware of the increasing power of the “Gothic Revival,” and, though he

never wavered in his allegiance to the Italian, though to the last he

maintained, against the pure Gothicists, its intrinsic beauty and

peculiar appropriateness for certain classes of buildings, yet he viewed

the Gothic movement with the greatest sympathy. With his early Gothic

designs he had already learnt to be greatly dissatisfied; and, before he

ventured on any further attempts in the same style, he not only gave

much attention to the writings of the Gothic School, but studied

carefully every English example of the style, which could be quoted as

an authority.

BIRMINGHAM GRAMMAR SCHOOL.--The effect of this thought and study was

seen in the design for the Birmingham Grammar School in 1833. Greatly

admired at the time of its production, it did not, of course, escape

criticism in after days from its author as well as from others. But it

certainly indicated an extraordinary advance in knowledge of Gothic, and

in power of handling the style, both as to principles and as to details,

and proved that its author was at least keeping pace with the

architectural taste and knowledge of the time.

The site was such as to allow only of a street-front, and this fact had

great effect on the design. The building was to contain, not only the

Great Schools and Class Rooms, but also two residences, which of course

needed the advantage of street frontage. The elevation adopted was

regular and symmetrical. Simple as it is, it was the result of

considerable study. The central portion was of course devoted to the

Great Schools (placed on the first floor,[57] with an entrance cloister

and class rooms on the ground floor), and the residences were made to

form the wings of the building. Their two-storied oriels ranged with

the great windows of the school; the parapet was unbroken, except by

raised battlements over the centre of the wings.

Mr. Barry was inclined to raise these wings into towers, and would have

done so, had the building been isolated; but in its confined position he

thought that towers would be ineffective, or perhaps even detrimental.

Still he desired greater variety. He proposed a clock tower at one end

of the front, which would also have had the additional advantage of

giving greater importance to the building as seen down the street. A

lantern was also designed, to rise from the centre of the roof, and

relieve the flatness of the skyline. But these could not be carried out,

the expense already incurred being very great, and the design remained

without the relief proposed.

Another variation was at one time thought of with a view to giving more

prominence to the main entrance. To a mere porch Mr. Barry had always an

objection. It appeared to him a mere excrescence. Accordingly he tried

the effect of advancing the centre, inserting a bay window over the

entrance, and raising the centre of the parapet into a gable. But he

never could make up his mind to advance the centre of an architectural

composition. He maintained that the advanced portion must destroy, by

its effect in perspective, the apparent size of the building, and this

he considered an unpardonable artistic fault. At Birmingham this feeling

was increased by his consciousness that the frontage was already

somewhat small, and accordingly he felt compelled to leave the entrance

as it now appears. He

[Illustration: KING EDWARD VI.’S SCHOOL, BIRMINGHAM.

VIEW OF THE FRONT TO NEW STREET.]

[Illustration: BIRMINGHAM FREE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

PLAN OF ONE PAIR FLOOR.]

was not altogether satisfied with its effect; but nothing would have

compensated him for the loss of breadth and unity in composition.

The plan of the interior is perfectly simple. Almost the whole of the

centre is occupied by two grand school-rooms, which are probably almost

unequalled in magnificence of size and proportion. Few class-rooms were

required by the original instructions, but some have been recently added

by Mr. E. M. Barry.

Of the two principles of school arrangement, the architect will

naturally prefer that, which throws most of the space into great

school-rooms, and so gives greater scope for artistic effect. In

practice the two systems may claim a certain balance of advantages. But

in a grammar-school, where from the nature of the case many of the

assistant masters are likely to be young and inexperienced, the

preponderance of advantage seems to incline in the same direction which

architectural taste would suggest. For in this case the advantage, both

in guidance and support, to be derived from the presence of the head,

and the “swing” of the great machine, probably outweighs all

considerations on the other side of greater quiet and convenience. How

far the plan at Birmingham was due to the architect, and how far

determined by the instructions which he received, I do not know.

The school was completed in 1836. It attracted great attention and

considerable admiration from the public and from the critics. The

architect himself felt that the study of Gothic principles and details,

for which it was the occasion, had been of the greatest service to him,

especially in the competition for the New Palace, on which he was even

then preparing to enter.

There was also another reason which made him look back with pleasure to

this work. It was in connection with it that he first made the

acquaintance of Mr. Pugin, whose assistance he secured in making out

some of the drawings for details. The acquaintance ripened into

friendship, a friendship unclouded by a single misunderstanding, and

closed only by the death of his gifted coadjutor. Here, also, it was his

good fortune to discover Mr. Thomas (afterwards so well known for his

work at the New Palace of Westminster) working as an ordinary

stone-carver. Mr. Barry at once saw his remarkable talent, and resolved

to give it a more worthy sphere for development.

ALTERATIONS AT DULWICH COLLEGE.--His other Gothic works were of minor

scale and importance. In March 27th, 1830, he was appointed to the

surveyorship of Dulwich College, an office then less important than it

has now become by the extraordinary increase of the value of the college

property, but one in which he always took great pleasure, and

experienced great kindness from the Master and Fellows of the old

foundation. In the next year, 1831, he was called upon to design and

carry out the erection of a new wing to the College, and of a small

school for the education of the twelve foundation boys and others. The

wing then erected has been since so much altered and enlarged as

altogether to change its character. For the new constitution given to

the College in 1858, by which the small school contemplated in the

original foundation has been expanded into a large public school,

absorbing the greater part of the endowment, has necessitated changes

and enlargements on every side. Sir C. Barry’s own office expired with

the old constitution, but the new Board of Governors elected from a

number of candidates his eldest son Charles, who had for several years

previously assisted him at Dulwich. He has been called upon, not only to

erect the new schools on a scale of considerable grandeur, but also to

remodel the whole existing College buildings for the accommodation of

additional almspeople. In the course of this process it has been

necessary greatly to alter the wing built by Sir Charles, which in

itself was simple, and presented no marked features of design.

UNITARIAN CHAPEL AT MANCHESTER.--In 1837 Mr. Barry designed and erected

an Unitarian chapel in Manchester. The scale of the building was small,

and the design accordingly simple enough. The only notable point in it

is that its chief front is almost occupied by a lofty arch, behind which

the great window is recessed. The object was probably to obtain depth,

and as much vigour of design as the size admitted. The effect is

certainly successful.

ADDITIONS TO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, OXFORD.--In 1839 he was called upon to

carry out some work at Oxford. He added a wing looking on the High

Street, and containing only living-rooms, to University College. It was,

of course, necessary that this should harmonize with the old building,

of which it forms a part. But it is distinguished by the careful

attention to refinement of detail, which marks all his works, giving

evidence of the study which he thought it worth while to bestow, even on

buildings comparatively insignificant in scale. He naturally took a more

than usual interest in this work, for it was the only one he ever did in

an university town (some designs for Worcester College in 1837 having

led to no result), and it stood in a prominent position in the High

Street, which he always regarded as in some respects the finest street

in Europe.

HURSTPIERPOINT CHURCH.--At a much later period (1843) he erected a

church of considerable scale at Hurstpierpoint, in Sussex, standing in a

position of some importance, as being visible both from the high ground

of the Devil’s Dyke and the rich plain country which opens out below.

The old church was inadequate for the increasing population, enlargement

was difficult and expensive, and a new church was resolved upon, the

parish granting a comparatively small portion of the sum required, and

the landed proprietors, Mr. Borrer and Mr. Campion, and the rector, the

Rev. C. H. Borrer (on whose exertions, as usual, the main work depended)

guaranteeing the rest.

The first design made was on a scale too magnificent for their means,

and in the Perpendicular style. This was perforce put aside, and the

church actually erected in the Early Pointed style.

The whole design shows the remarkable progress of church architecture,

since the time when his hand was formerly employed in its service. The

plan is cruciform, with nave, aisles, transepts and chancel, the latter

being thoroughly spacious, and open to the body of the church, though

well raised above it. The scale is considerable, for it provides for a

thousand people, without galleries. The details and ornaments are

simple, but (a point on which he always laid great stress) carried out

with consistency and harmony of style throughout the whole design.[58]

The materials are all of the best and most durable kind, and there is no

instance of false pretension in any quarter. Externally the effect

depends, as usual with his buildings, very greatly on beauty of

proportion, and here, for the first time, he was able to carry out his

predilection for a handsome spire in stone--in this case specially

needed, as the church rises out of the level plain, and its spire is a

prominent object for twenty miles round. Yet the cost (about 10,000_l._)

was not so great as that of each of his Islington churches in former

days.

The work gave him great pleasure, though it came in the very busiest

time of the New Palace at Westminster, and though (as has been said)

church architecture was not the work to which his professional life was

devoted. With greater care for Gothic detail, with a far more thorough

grasp of the principles of the old Gothic architects, he did not,

however, lose sight of the fundamental ideas of the Church of England’s

Service, and secured the effect of space, openness, and unity, which he

conceived to be its paramount requirements.[59]

CANFORD MANOR.--In Gothic, as in Italian, he was called upon to exercise

his remarkable power of modification and reconstruction.

Canford Manor, the house of Sir John Guest, was one of the examples of

this process.

In 1826 Lord de Mauley, who then owned the house, consulted Mr. Blore as

to some necessary alterations, and the house was almost rebuilt from his

designs between 1826 and 1836, with the exception of the old kitchen,

which is named by tradition after John of Gaunt. Of the old house

therefore very little remains. Of Mr. Blore’s building there remain,

with many modifications, the dining-room and rooms over it on the east

front, and the whole of the south front. The rest is the work of Sir C.

Barry, who was consulted in 1848 by Sir John Guest. The plan will show

clearly the extent of his operations.[60] Alterations had been already

begun, and the removal of the principal staircase, entrance hall,

[Illustration: CANFORD MANOR HOUSE, DORSET.

GENERAL PLAN, SHEWING THE IMPROVEMENTS AS EXECUTED. ALTERATIONS ARE

ETCHED IN LIGHT TINT.]

[Illustration: CANFORD MANOR HOUSE, DORSET.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE HOUSE, AS ALTERED.]

and billiard room had cleared the space which the great hall now

occupies.

The main object which Mr. Barry had in view was to give unity, and

therefore grandeur, to a building, the effect of which was hardly

commensurate with its size. It will be seen by the plan that he built

the great entrance tower and corridor, completed the great hall, built

the conservatory, and the Nineveh porch for the reception of some

Assyrian marbles, presented by Mr. Layard to Sir John and Lady Charlotte

Guest. The old kitchen he restored, uniting it to the main building, and

remodelled or rebuilt the whole of the offices of the house. Besides

this, he carried out several external works. The gardens were laid out

with his usual care and interest, and with the objects which in such

work he invariably sought. He also added lodges and other external

works, besides the arch under the railway embankment for the main

approach, which was executed after the death of Sir John Guest.

As the extent of his work on the main building is given by the plan, so

its effect externally may be appreciated from the other illustration,

which represents the south front, and so contains both old and new work.

There can be no doubt that here, as elsewhere, that effect amounts to a

re-creation. It is interesting, as being the best example of his

treatment of a large Gothic house, and a proof that he could, on what

seemed to him the proper occasions, value the variety and

picturesqueness of grouping, on which so many authorities insist as the

one thing needful.

Internally the plan shows, as in other cases, how perfectly real comfort

and convenience can be united with much architectural grandeur. It

should be observed that, unfortunately for the effect of the interior,

the decorative portions of the work have not been fully carried out; and

there is, therefore, observable in them some want of that beauty of

finish and careful attention to minute detail, which is everywhere

characteristic in his designs. With the exception of this drawback, he

felt satisfied with a work, which he had carried out with great

pleasure, and which is ordinarily considered as exemplifying most

successfully his power to remodel existing buildings, with all the

vigour and effect which belong to original designs.

GAWTHORPE HALL.--The only other Gothic house of any importance, which

Sir C. Barry had the opportunity of restoring and remodelling, was

Gawthorpe Hall, near Burnley. The nature of the work here was different.

He had to deal with a fine old house of the Elizabethan period, built

about the year 1600, on the site of an older building, probably of the

“Peel” or border-castle character, and presenting considerable variety

of style in its different fronts. On one side it retained some of the

stern and bare simplicity of the old border Peel; on another, the

irregularity in position and size of the characteristic mullioned

windows produced a quaint and picturesque effect; the principal front on

the other side had greater regularity of fenestration, but was broken by

two polygonal bays at the angles and one square bay

[Illustration: GAWTHORPE HALL, LANCASHIRE.

VIEW OF ENTRANCE FRONT AS ALTERED.]

projecting from the centre front, in which a low-arched porch gave

entrance to the house.

There was so much in the exterior of picturesque variety and quaintness,

that, when Mr. Barry was consulted by Sir James P. K. Shuttleworth, in

1849, he felt unwilling to make any considerable alterations. All he

thought needful was to give importance to the tower and chimneys, by

raising them so as to produce greater boldness in the sky-line, and to

surround the building with a pierced parapet of the characteristic

Elizabethan style. The old grass terraces round the house had

disappeared; these he carefully restored, and carried out the same

principle of architectural gardening, which he had so often exemplified

in his Italian buildings, by surrounding the house with a formal garden,

designed according to the geometrical patterns of the Elizabethan

period. The changes were not great, but they all tended to perfect and

render more striking the original character of the building; and the

work was carried on _con amore_, for he was a great admirer of the

Elizabethan style for domestic purposes, and inclined to prefer it for

such purposes to the purer Gothic forms.

In the interior he had somewhat greater scope. It had been modernized by

successive owners, yet so that it still retained, almost untouched, the

dining-hall and the richly decorated ceiling and carved panellings of

the drawing-room. The problem therefore was simply to preserve and carry

out the old style of decoration, to sweep away modern excrescences, and

at the same time to give that greater convenience and adaptation to

present requirements, which these additions had been intended to

supply. It was not one likely to cause him much difficulty, and, though

all his suggestions have not been carried out, it was certainly solved

very successfully, and the house is now a picturesque and beautiful

specimen of its peculiar style.

DUNROBIN CASTLE.--A work of considerable importance, for which Sir

Charles Barry was consulted, although his designs were to a great degree

modified, and were carried out by others, was Dunrobin Castle.[61] The

castle, belonging to the Duke of Sutherland, overlooks the Dornoch

Firth, and has the advantage of a fine position. It was a very old

building, with some points of interest, but little pretensions to

grandeur. Alterations were begun upon it in 1845, growing, as usual, in

scale and magnificence, especially when the prospect of a royal visit

stimulated the owner’s interest in it, and increased his requirements.

In 1844 designs were furnished by Mr. Barry at the request of the Duke;

but it was found by Mr. Leslie that the information, on which they were

based, had been inaccurate, and that the designs could not be carried

out, without greatly enlarging the plateau on which the house stands, at

an enormous expense, and without more alteration of the old castle, than

the Duke was prepared to sanction. Some necessary alterations were

therefore suggested, and the designs returned for further

consideration. It would appear also that ideas of a design of totally

different character were entertained by the Duke. These would have

altered the building from the chateau-like treatment suggested by Mr.

Barry to a regular “castellated” style, with flat roofs and embrasured

towers. Subsequently however this design was altogether set aside, and a

set of drawings prepared by Mr. Leslie, with the characteristic high

roofs of Scotch castle-architecture, returning in great measure to Mr.

Barry’s original design as a basis. These were submitted to him for his

approval, and some alterations made by his suggestion.

The work was then begun. In the course of it Mr. Barry was frequently

consulted on points both of principle and of detail, and furnished

drawings of ornaments and internal arrangements, as well as of external

design. In 1848 he visited Dunrobin, when the work was nearly complete.

He then advised some considerable alteration of the great tower, and

designed a terrace garden, both of which were carried out.

It will be seen therefore that the work is partly Sir C. Barry’s and

partly Mr. Leslie’s. The original designs of Sir Charles were made the

basis of the work, and several alterations of principle and detail were

made by him, as “consulting architect,” during its progress. But, of

course, plans made at a distance must require much alteration, and the

work, growing as it proceeds in capabilities and requirements, calls for

much, of which the actual superintendent of the work must have the

credit and the responsibility.

On the whole, the north or entrance front is very much like Sir

Charles’s original design, except that this design had no attics nor

basement story. The southern and eastern fronts have far less

resemblance to what was at first proposed by him, as it was here that

the inaccuracy of the information supplied to him did the greatest

mischief.

It was the only work of any size, with which he was connected in

Scotland. He had given designs for an alteration of Drummond Castle in

1827, and for alterations of Drumlanrig Castle in 1840. But in neither

case were his ideas carried out.

It will be seen from this enumeration, that his Gothic works, though not

numerous, were varied in character, embracing buildings of collegiate,

ecclesiastical, and domestic style. After 1837 his Gothic study was

devoted to, and almost absorbed by, the works at the New Palace at

Westminster. The progress visible in these lesser buildings, both in

detail and in power of treatment, was partly introductory to the greater

work, and partly derived from it. In it mainly his Gothic architecture

must be tested. The other works merely show that his studies in Gothic

were not confined to that one style, or to those principles of

arrangement and composition, which he there considered to be rendered

necessary by the circumstances of the case.

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.