Of the silence which he observed, trying as it was, he never had cause

to repent. Many of those who opposed him resumed their relations of

intimacy or friendship, when the bitterness of disappointment had passed

away, and could hardly have failed to regret the course which they had

pursued.[68] On the other hand, the noble and generous support of the

friends (most of all of Mr. Donaldson) who stood up to vindicate his

character against so strong a professional array, was intensely felt at

the time, and never forgotten in after-life.[69] It was the only point

in the whole proceedings which he cared to remember. But the trial was a

painful one, and, when the attack died away, it left a vague discontent,

which bore afterwards many fruits of trouble. It deserves a record as a

specimen of the drawbacks which attend on professional success.

Fortunately it is an experience which in all the important competitions

since opened has never had a parallel.

SECTION II.--These troubles having at last passed away, and all

preliminaries having been arranged, Mr. Barry entered upon his work full

of energy and hope. Great public expectation had been excited; the

design of the new building was generally popular, and the authorities

were prepared to aid and favour its execution in the best possible

manner. He did not feel the burden of the work, and the responsibility

now laid upon him. For a long time his unremitting exertion was in the

truest sense “a labour of love.” Had circumstances allowed of the

completion of the building, in anything like the time named, and at an

expense such as had been calculated, the work would perhaps have been

less beautiful than it is, and would certainly have been far less

important in its influence on the “Gothic revival.” But it would have

been universally accepted as a brilliant success, and the architect

would have been spared many troubles. As it is, the account of the

progress of the building shows conclusively (what those who have

experience of such works know but too well) that difficulty,

controversy, and misrepresentation beset the career of one who has to

work for the public service. Had all been foreseen, it cannot be doubted

that Mr. Barry would gladly have faced it all in the service of his art.

But he would hardly have entered on his work with so much buoyancy and

hopefulness of spirit, with so much self-reliance, and so much

confidence in the future.

His difficulties arose, first from the inevitable occurrence of delays,

for which he was in no sense responsible, and the liberty which he

claimed of modifying his design; next, from the appointment of

independent authorities to superintend certain portions of the work;

and lastly, from the course which the Government took in respect of his

professional remuneration. No one perhaps will say of the difficulties

which he experiences in life, that he does absolutely nothing to bring

them upon himself: but it may be safely declared of Mr. Barry that his

one object throughout was the perfection of his work, and he may claim

the sympathy which belongs to enthusiastic and devoted labour in the

cause of duty.

The first vote of public money was made on July 3rd, 1837, and the first

portion of the building, the river-wall, was at once proceeded with. The

superintendence of this work was shared by the architect with Mr. James

Walker, the well-known civil engineer. A coffer dam was constructed, and

the foundations of the wall laid upon concrete, which in some places is

as much as twelve feet in thickness. At the very outset of the work

unforeseen difficulties were encountered, and unforeseen expenses

incurred. The soil of the bed of the river was found to be exceedingly

treacherous, in many places little better than a quicksand, and

unfortunately the same character attached to the soil under a large

portion of the building. Great care however was taken with the

foundations, and they were made thoroughly satisfactory; still, as an

additional precaution, Mr. Barry resolved not to draw the piles of the

cofferdam, as had been at first intended, but to cut them off level with

the dredged bed of the river, in order that the lower part of the dam

might remain as a kind of fender or outwork to the wall, protecting it

against the scour of the river, which has in other places proved so

dangerous to the stability of buildings. The wall was faced with large

blocks of Aberdeen granite, and completed in 1839, and meanwhile the

rest of the work proceeded, till it was brought up as nearly as possible

to the level of the terrace on the river wall.

While the foundations were proceeding a commission was appointed to

examine and report upon the various kinds of building stone, and select

one, which should be at once thoroughly durable, and capable of being

worked with tolerable ease and cheapness. The Commissioners were all

distinguished men, Sir Henry (then Mr.) de la Beche, Mr. William Smith,

Mr. C. H. Smith, and the architect. In 1838 they visited all the

best-known quarries, and, after very careful inquiries and experiments,

they presented a Report on March 16th, 1839, recommending the selection

of the magnesian limestone from Bolsover Moor and its neighbourhood. It

was subsequently found that the Bolsover quarries were insufficient to

supply in good condition the large quantity of stone required, and for a

considerable portion of the building a stone of the same general

character (Anston stone) was used.

Well knowing the deleterious effect of the atmosphere (especially the

London atmosphere) on all stone, excepting those which, like granite,

are fit only for works of the most simple and massive design, Mr. Barry

was glad to share the responsibility of the selection with men of high

scientific attainment and reputation. That, in spite of all that care

and science could do, the stone has shown some signs of decay (in a

degree, it may be remarked, greatly exaggerated) is well known; but it

is doubtful whether any other selection would have proved more

fortunate, considering all the requirements of the case.

It is strange enough, that no public ceremony was thought necessary to

mark the real commencement of the most extensive and important building

of the time. The first stone was laid privately, by the wife of the

architect, on April 27th, 1840.

It was very unfortunate, that the site could only be taken possession of

gradually, as the old buildings upon it were gradually relinquished by

the public bodies occupying them, and that the exigencies of the public

service demanded the piecemeal occupation of the various parts of the

building, as fast as they were completed. There could be no grand

“opening” of the whole building, no opportunity for forming a judgment

of its various parts, in their due relation and subordination to one

another. Perhaps to this was due the fact, that throughout the whole

course of the work there was no public ceremonial to serve as a

recognition of its importance, and of the labour and talent bestowed on

its design and execution.

From April, 1840, the work proceeded with great dispatch, in spite of

many peculiar difficulties. The site (as has been said) could not be at

once occupied; various alterations were suggested, either by the

increase of public requirements, or by the experience gained in the

progress of the work. Perhaps the most serious difficulty of all was to

be found in the appointment in January, 1840, of Dr. Reid to

superintend the warming and ventilating of the building, and the

controversies (hereafter to be alluded to) which arose from that

appointment. These various causes could not but tend to delay that rapid

execution which Mr. Barry had expected, and which the public service

required.[70] From this delay arose the first of the many troubles,

which beset him in the course of his labours, and which must always, in

greater or less degree, be encountered by those who carry out works of

great extent and complexity, under public authorities, and with public

responsibility.

The temporary accommodation provided for the House of Lords was both

insufficient and inconvenient, while their old house, which had been

surrendered for the use of the House of Commons, afforded every

convenience and comfort. It was natural, perhaps inevitable, that the

delay in the completion of the new House of Peers should create

dissatisfaction. This feeling found its vent in the appointment of a

Committee of Enquiry, which began its sittings in 1844, and reported

from time to time to the House. In the course of its investigations it

was found that several departures from the original design (which are

noticed in the next chapter) had taken place, especially in respect of

the royal approach and staircase. It was allowed in evidence by Lord

Sudeley (Mr. Hanbury Tracy) one of the original Commissioners of

Selection, that it “never was the idea, expectation, or wish of the

Commissioners, that Mr. Barry should be confined to the plan approved

of.” It was contended by the architect, that the alterations were either

alterations of detail, not affecting the main features of the building

and not increasing the expense, or else such as were necessitated by the

requirements of further accommodation by the Board of Works, and

therefore having “direct or implied authority.” But the Committee judged

otherwise, and called the “special attention of the House” to the fact,

that “alterations had been made by the architect without due authority.”

This Report was equivalent to a public censure. Not only the decision of

the Committee itself, but also the tone of much of the examination,

naturally caused Mr. Barry the greatest possible mortification. Had the

Government assumed the same tone in its dealings with him, it is very

doubtful whether he would have been able to continue the work. But the

cordial and generous support of the late Duke of Newcastle (then Earl of

Lincoln and First Commissioner of the Board of Works), both set him

right in public estimation, and gave him personally the greatest

encouragement and comfort. His Lordship, in his evidence before the

Committee, while assuming for his office the power and responsibility of

a rigid control of expenditure, yet urged forcibly the necessity of

allowing much scope to the architect of a great public work, and of

giving him a free and liberal support. He declared his perfect

accordance with Mr. Barry in all the steps hitherto taken, while (in

order to meet the views of the Committee) he arranged that for all

subsequent alterations the previous sanction of the Board of Works

should be formally asked and obtained. The effect of this firm and

generous support was at once visible in the milder tone of the second

Report of the Lords Committee.

But the matter was not allowed to rest here. The question of the

alterations made attracted attention in the House of Commons, and a

Committee was appointed to investigate the matter still more closely.

The result was a Report declaring that “the Committee impute no blame to

Mr. Barry for the course he had taken, and have every reason to believe,

that all the alterations hitherto made have conduced to the convenience

and general effect of the building.” They approved (as the Lords’

Committee had done) of the new arrangement made by the Board of Works;

but they did so expressly on the ground of the “misapprehension”

existing as to the course hitherto pursued.

Thus the difficulty, which had seemed most formidable, passed away. It

was allowed by the architect that alterations, _not involving additional

expense_, had been made by his own authority. It is clear that, even if

the requirements of the public service had not varied, many alterations

must have suggested themselves in the carrying out of so great a work.

It was allowed on the other side, that some measure of freedom must be

granted to an architect, whose professional character and hope of future

reputation were at stake, in the endeavour to make his building as

perfect as possible. The only question was, whether the design, in its

main features, was still a fair development of that originally selected.

This being decided in Mr. Barry’s favour, all serious opposition was at

an end, while the opposition already experienced acted perhaps as an

useful corrective to his natural tendency to alteration and development

of plan.

It was, no doubt, in consequence of the difficulties above noticed, that

a Commission was appointed on March 17th, 1848, to “superintend the

completion of the New Palace.” The Commissioners were Earl de Grey, Sir

John F. Burgoyne, and T. Greene, Esq., M.P. They were to “determine upon

all designs for fittings, decorations,” &c., “all modifications of

plan,” “all arrangements for warming, ventilating, and lighting the

building,” subject to the approval of the Treasury, whenever additional

cost should be proposed. The office must have been a difficult one,

between the Treasury on the one hand and the Board of Works on the

other, and although their relations with the architect were of the most

friendly character, I cannot find that their appointment greatly

facilitated the progress of the work.

Such difficulties must be expected by all who work for the public. No

one can question the right of the Houses of Lords and Commons to

examine, censure, and indirectly control, those who are working for

their service. But then these public servants should be left free from

other interference, with undivided power and undivided responsibility.

This was not the case with Mr. Barry. It has been already said, that the

most serious difficulties, which he had to encounter, arose from the

appointment of various authorities to superintend certain portions of

the work, without any dependence on the architect, and without the

provision of any tribunal, to which differences between them and him

could be referred for final decision. In the case of the New Palace of

Westminster, as of other important buildings, experience has tended to

show the difficulty (almost amounting to impossibility) of such a

division of power and responsibility in the execution of any great

public work. This division is likely to suggest itself to official

boards or functionaries, anxious to unite all available talent and

knowledge in the service of the public. Moreover, what is true in all

classes of work is especially true in relation to architecture,

many-sided as it is, touching on one side the domain of science, and on

the other the domain of art. No architect in his senses is likely to

refuse to take advice, in the many and various questions which must meet

him in his work, from those who have made such special questions their

peculiar study. But to divide power is to paralyse action and destroy

responsibility. Even with the most honest intentions, and with the most

sincere desire of a good understanding on both sides, differences of

opinion must arise between co-ordinate authorities, leading to

controversy, which is likely to be obstinate, in proportion to the

earnestness and sense of public duty felt by both. Such was certainly

Mr. Barry’s experience. The work was so important, that interference on

all sides was likely; his own character was certainly one, open enough

to suggestions, but ready to resist dictation.

The first serious instance of this difficulty showed itself in the long

controversy, which arose between him and Dr. D. B. Reid. It will be

enough to glance at its leading features, and the principles which it

involved.

As early as 1839 the attention of the Government and of Parliament was

directed to the warming and ventilation of the New Palace generally, and

especially of the two Houses themselves. Dr. Reid had for many years

devoted much time and study to these subjects, and had attained

considerable reputation as an authority upon them. He was accordingly

consulted by the Government, and formed a plan, by which all chimneys

were to be dispensed with, and all the smoke and vitiated air of every

room in the building were to be carried into great shafts, forming

towers in external design, in which large furnaces were to create a

sufficient upward draught. Similar shafts were to convey cold air for

general dispersion, and various mechanical contrivances were to aid the

general action of the ventilating system.

It was generally felt at this time that some new system must be adopted

for the warming and ventilating of great public buildings. Hence, the

very novelty and comprehensiveness of Dr. Reid’s plan tended to

recommend it to public notice, in spite of much scepticism on the part

of practical men. Accordingly, in January, 1840, he was formally

appointed at a fixed salary, to superintend the warming and ventilating

of the New Palace. This appointment was made, without any consultation

with the architect, and without any provision whatever as to the

relative subordination of the two authorities thus created. What limit

(if any) should be put to Dr. Reid’s requirements of accommodation in

space and position, how they were to be reconciled with the æsthetic or

constructional character of the design, where the ultimate

responsibility was to lie, if the efficiency of the building were

seriously affected--all these questions were left undetermined. Nor was

any authority provided, to which appeal could be made, if any important

difference of opinion should arise between the architect and ventilator.

Division and disagreement were the inevitable result of this state of

things. In consequence of Dr. Reid’s requirements alterations became

necessary in every quarter of the building. The central tower itself was

originally designed to furnish a great ventilating shaft, though it was

afterwards gladly retained as an architectural feature. Finally it

appeared that about _one-third_ of the whole cubic contents of the

building was to be surrendered to Dr. Reid; and it was the opinion of

Mr. Barry that the construction would be seriously affected by the

ventilating arrangements, and especially that the “fire-proofing”

ordered by the Government was all but nullified.

This led to a decisive rupture,[71] attended of course by much

controversy and mutual recrimination, into which it would now be

needless and improper to enter. The Government determined to refer the

case to professional arbitration; Joseph Gwilt, Esq., was selected as

arbiter. After a long and careful examination of the statements made,

and papers presented by both parties, he made a report in September,

1845, stating his opinion, first, that Dr. Reid’s system, by the use of

vertical flues, destroyed the fireproof character of the building, and,

next, that the delay which had taken place was mainly due to the

division of authority, and the want of detailed drawings explaining Dr.

Reid’s views and requirements. He added a recommendation, that the whole

authority over the building should be restored to the architect, but

that he should be directed to call to his aid some “experts” in

ventilation, and to act by their advice.

This award was one in which Dr. Reid refused to acquiesce. The matter

was brought, by petition on his part, before Parliamentary Committees in

the course of the next year. Various witnesses were examined, chiefly on

the question whether a general scheme of ventilation could be applied to

the whole building, or whether it would be advisable to ventilate the

various parts separately. The final result was a report from the Lords’

Committee, stating that the only impediment to the preparation of the

House of Lords for the session of 1847 arose from the delay of

arrangements for warming and ventilating after the plan of Dr. D. B.

Reid, and recommending that the warming and ventilating of the House of

Lords be confided to Mr. Barry. So ended this long and painful dispute,

and in 1846 Dr. Reid ceased to have any official connection with the

building as a whole. It was found that responsibility could not be

divided; a false step had been taken, and that step it was necessary to

retrace.

For a time the general care of the ventilation and lighting remained in

the hands of the architect, who had the advantage of the advice of

Professor Faraday, in the course which he adopted. Subsequently, the

ventilation and lighting of the House of Commons were restored for a

short time to Dr. Reid, but he was soon after superseded by Mr.

Goldsworthy Gurney, who has since been succeeded by Dr. Percy.

Under the able management of these gentlemen, Dr. Reid’s system has been

set aside, at least as far as the collection of all smoke into one shaft

is concerned; and I believe that the constructional arrangements of the

building have been found satisfactory. The change, however, could not be

made without great difficulty, in respect of chimneys and ventilating

flues, for which Sir C. Barry has been, naturally but unjustly, held

responsible.

The next instance of the same difficulty arose from the appointment of

an independent authority (Mr. E. B. Denison, Q.C.) to design the great

clock and bells, and superintend their erection. No one can question Mr.

Denison’s ability, the attention he has devoted to clocks and bells, or

his real desire to do good public service. On the other hand, many

besides Sir C. Barry have found serious difficulties in working with

him, unless prepared to yield up their opinions entirely to his, or to

submit to injurious imputations, in the public press, and even in

official correspondence. In the course of the work upon the great clock,

Sir C. Barry was unfortunate enough to incur Mr. Denison’s hostility,

and was assailed accordingly in no measured terms.[72] Several of her

Majesty’s Ministers, filling the office of First Commissioner of

Works--Lord John Manners, Sir W. Molesworth, and Mr. W. Cowper--shared

this misfortune, and were attacked in a similar way; and Professor Airy,

at whose instance Mr. Denison was appointed, and who at first acted with

him as a joint referee, finally found himself compelled to resign his

position.

But it is needless to resuscitate a defunct controversy. I shall only

refer to it, so far as I am forced to do so by a “History of the

Westminster Clock,”[73] written by Mr. Denison before, but published

since, Sir C. Barry’s death. I shall notice merely its statements of

fact; but it is right to remark, that, in so doing, I labour under

considerable disadvantage. There are indeed many facts, with which Sir

C. Barry alone was acquainted, and many points, on which he alone could

have declared his opinions and motives of action. The case shall be

sketched out here as it is contained in public documents. Those who may

wish to refer to these documents will find them in Parliamentary Papers,

No. 500 of 1852, No. 436 of 1855, and No. 553 of 1860.

As the clock-tower rose above the building it became necessary to

provide for the construction of the great clock and bells. They were to

be of enormous size, and required the best possible workmanship.

With regard to the great clock Mr. Barry, by the desire of the Board of

Works, applied to Mr. Vulliamy, of Pall Mall, to inquire whether he

would be willing to furnish plans, specification, calculations, and

working drawings, for the guidance of the Government, it being

distinctly understood, that no promise that he should make the clock was

to be implied in this proceeding. Mr. Vulliamy agreed to do so, for a

fee of one hundred guineas if he should be employed to make the clock,

and for a fee of two hundred guineas should such not be the case. On

April 24th, 1844, Mr. Barry was instructed by the Board of Works to

accept Mr. Vulliamy’s offer.

Subsequently however (in July, 1846) the Government thought it better

that a work of such magnitude should be open to a select competition by

Mr. Vulliamy, Mr. Whitehurst of Derby, and Mr. E. T. Dent of London, the

conditions to be prescribed by the Astronomer Royal, and the plans

subjected to his arbitration.

Mr. Vulliamy however declined to compete on these conditions, conceiving

that the Astronomer Royal was already committed to approval of Mr. Dent,

by a letter written in October, 1844, to the Gresham Committee, stating

that he considered the Royal Exchange Clock “the best in the world,” and

another letter addressed to Mr. Dent himself, on July 22nd, 1845,

containing a declaration, that, in the event of his being consulted as

to a clock for the New Palace at Westminster, he should state without

hesitation “that he considered Mr. Dent the most proper person to be

entrusted with the construction of a clock of similar pretensions” to

that at the Royal Exchange. It is needless to say, that this letter was

written, when Professor Airy had no idea of being officially chosen as

referee in the matter. Professor Airy had however, in a letter to Lord

Canning, on June 22nd, 1846, recommended that the work should be given

to Mr. Dent, “without inquiry of other makers,” unless his price

appeared excessive, in which case he recommended that application should

be made to Mr. Whitehurst and to Mr. Vulliamy. For these reasons Mr.

Vulliamy objected to accept the Astronomer Royal as sole referee, though

he would readily have competed, if the matter were referred to others

conjointly with him.[74]

Accordingly, acting on his original instructions, he sent in his

drawings and specification in August, 1846, with some remarks on the

conditions laid down by the Astronomer Royal. Mr. Dent (declining, of

course, to be guided by these drawings) and Mr. Whitehurst also, sent in

drawings and specifications, with tenders for the execution of the work.

The Astronomer Royal (who still continued to be sole referee) made a

report on May 18th, 1847, recommending that Mr. Dent’s tender (for

1600_l._) be accepted, both on account of its lowness in comparison with

Mr. Whitehurst’s (for 3373_l._) and for certain reasons, which led him

to believe that the work would be best executed in his hands.

As Mr. Vulliamy had declined competition, he merely added some remarks

on his drawings, and on the objection which he had made to the

appointment of the Astronomer Royal as sole referee.

Mr. Dent did not as yet receive the formal appointment to make the great

clock. He had competed on the understanding that, if any other clocks in

the building were supplied by tender or competition, his name should be

included among the competitors. Some misunderstanding with regard to

clocks ordered for the House of Lords, in October, 1846 (before the

adjudication of the Astronomer Royal) from Mr. Vulliamy, led to his

withdrawal of his name from the whole competition; but, on explanation

of the circumstances, he saw reason to cancel this withdrawal, and

continued the preparation of the great clock.

In May 31st, 1848, Mr. E. B. Denison first appears on the scene, in an

eminently characteristic letter to Lord Morpeth, accusing Mr. Barry of

“acting in concert with Mr. Vulliamy” to set aside the decision of the

Astronomer Royal, endeavouring to persuade Lord Morpeth that “he is

familiar with the art of clockmaking, contriving to prevent the clock

being ordered,” and the like. No proofs are given of these statements,

made as they are in a letter to Lord Morpeth, to be submitted to the

Commissioners for the New Palace. At the same time, August, 1848, Mr.

Vulliamy applied for the two hundred guineas, which was to be his full

payment, offering to return one hundred guineas in case of his being

employed; but the Commissioners declined to recommend a payment of more

than one hundred guineas, on the ground, that there was “no probability

of any decision being required at present relative to the person to be

employed to make the clock,” (June, 1849).

The matter still lingered, till towards the end of 1851 Mr. Denison was

requested by Lord Seymour, the Chief Commissioner of Works, apparently

at the suggestion of the Astronomer Royal, to act with that gentleman in

the matter of the clock. He at once (to use his own words) examined, so

far as was possible, the various plans, and “was soon convinced that

none of them would do.” He therefore drew up a general specification,

accepted by Mr. Dent, in accordance with which the clock was to be made

under the direction of Professor Airy and Mr. Denison, for 1800_l._, and

within the space of two years. This arrangement was formally sanctioned

by the Board of Works, and thus for the first time the matter was put

fairly in train.

The clock-tower had been in progress since 1843, and was now about 150

feet from the ground. The internal shaft (11 feet by 8 feet 6 in.) was

of the same area on plan all the way up, and no hint had been given,

that it was not amply sufficient for any clock which was likely to be

required. But it now appeared, that the plan of the internal shaft was

in some points inconsistent with Mr. Dent’s plan of the clock, and some

modifications which appear to have been inconsiderable,[75] were made by

Mr. Dent, in order to remove that difficulty. It is to be observed, that

the architectural arrangements were all made before the clock was

ordered at all.

After this the work proceeded steadily, and (as Professor Airy was

abroad for some time) it proceeded under Mr. Denison’s sole direction.

So long as Professor Airy was able to take an active part in the work,

no difficulty seems to have occurred. But now a proposal was made by

Lord John Manners (who had succeeded Lord Seymour) that some other

referees should be appointed, and that the architect should be one of

them. This proposal seems to have greatly excited Mr. Denison’s wrath;

but, considering the trouble which Mr. Barry had already had from the

appointment of persons to carry out works on the building, independent

of himself and uncontrolled by any superior power, considering also the

temper which Mr. Denison’s letters had shown, and the unreserved way in

which he had identified his interests with those of Mr. Dent, it will

probably not appear so entirely ridiculous or unreasonable to others.

As soon as the arrangements were made public, a memorial of the

“masters, wardens, and court of assistants of the Clockmakers’ Company

of the City of London” was presented to Lord John Manners, to the

following effect, that, the original design and plan of the clock being

altered, a fresh competition ought to take place, but that, if this was

impossible, some committee of referees should be appointed in

conjunction with the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, including the

architect and Sir J. (or Mr. George) Rennie, _as originally proposed by

Mr. Dent_. To this memorial the natural answer was given, viz., that the

arrangements were already definitely made with Mr. Dent for the

construction of the clock, but that the question of additional referees

was under the consideration of the Chief Commissioner. A rejoinder was,

however, written by Mr. Denison, referring the memorial to Mr. Vulliamy

and “a certain set of clockmakers,” instead of treating it as, what it

certainly was, an official document of the Company, and containing

imputations of motives of underhand conduct against Lord J. Manners, Sir

C. Barry, &c., which, as being incapable of formal proof or formal

refutation, it is not usual to admit into official documents. Lord John

Manners naturally declined to enter into controversy, and proposed Mr.

Robert Stephenson as additional referee; but he did not think fit to

press the proposal, when it was met by Mr. Denison with a declaration,

that the Astronomer Royal and himself would resign, rather than admit of

any change in the footing on which they had consented to act.

At this time Mr. Dent died, and his successor, Mr. F. Dent, claimed to

succeed to the contract. Some doubt was entertained by the Government,

based on legal opinions, whether they were bound to accept this

succession. They did not, however, desire to injure Mr. Dent; they were

prepared at once to make a new contract, based on the terms of the

existing specification, with this single additional provision, that the

approval of the clock should “be vested in the Chief Commissioner (then

Sir W. Molesworth) acting under the advice and with the assistance of

the Astronomer Royal and Mr. Denison, or either of them, should any

difference of opinion arise between the two.” This reason of this

provision will be obvious from a letter of the Astronomer Royal dated a

few days before (November 7th, 1853), in which he stated, that, since

Mr. Denison’s appointment at his suggestion, subsequent intercourse,

while it had “confirmed his high opinion of that gentleman’s mechanical

ingenuity and horological knowledge, had shown that their ideas of the

mode of conducting public business were very different, and had at last

forced on him the conviction that they could not with advantage profess

to act in concert.” Professor Airy had therefore tendered his

resignation. After an interview, the Chief Commissioner induced him to

withdraw the tender; but it would not appear that he took any active

part in the subsequent proceedings.

It however proved that the Board had indirectly recognised Mr. F. Dent

as succeeding to the contract. The law officers of the Crown, though

declaring that this “did not alter the legal bearings of the case,”

advised that the contract should be allowed to go on as before, but that

the Board should insist on “the substitution of some other referee or

referees.” This last recommendation was not insisted upon, and all

accordingly proceeded on the old footing.

The clock was completed by Mr. Dent in 1855, and 1600_l._ was paid him

on account. It however could not be hoisted to its place, and much

discussion took place on the question, whether the tower was waiting for

the clock, or the clock waiting for the tower. In fact, neither of these

things was true. Both were waiting for the bells. As will be seen below,

the tower was roofed in by Sir Charles in 1856, after he had waited in

vain for some information about the bells, the tenders for which were

accepted in 1855, but which were not finally ready till 1859. This

necessitated the taking up the bells by the clock shaft, and so the

clock could not be fixed till 1859.

Its troubles were not yet over. The weight of the hands was too great,

and a vehement controversy, carried on in the usual spirit, took place

in the ‘Times’ as to whether the blame of this did or did not rest upon

Sir C. Barry.[76] Finally the difficulty was remedied, and the clock has

been going on well up to the present time. As a piece of workmanship, it

appears to do great credit both to Mr. Denison and to Mr. Dent.

Into the questions connected with the casting and the fate of the great

bell it is here unnecessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do

with it was that he recommended the appointment of Mr. Denison and the

Rev. W. Taylor, F.S.A., as referees to superintend the formation of the

bell; further proposing that certain bell-founders, Messrs. Mears,

Warner, Taylor, and Murphy, should be invited to tender for it; but that

if one founder alone should be selected, Mr. Mears should be chosen. It

is clear from this communication that he fully recognised Mr. Denison’s

merits, and was not disposed to allow any personal misunderstandings to

interfere with public advantage.

The recommendation was accepted, with the addition of the Chief

Commissioner of Works as an official referee, with a view (I presume) to

avoid the difficulties which had occurred in the case of the great

clock, and to give the head of the department, who had to be responsible

for the work, some opportunity of knowing what was going on. Mr. Denison

rejected the proposal, on the ground of the Chief Commissioner’s

incompetency as to technical knowledge, and the probability that he

would “act under the advice of somebody behind the scenes.” A delay

accordingly ensued; but in August, 1855, Lord Llanover (then Sir B.

Hall), who had become Commissioner of Works, appointed Mr. Denison, Mr.

Taylor, and Professor Wheatstone to superintend the casting of the great

bell. Six months before Sir C. Barry had informed the Board that the

roof of the tower was ready, and, after waiting in vain for information

about the bells, he was obliged to cover it in at the beginning of

1856.[77] This necessitated the carrying up the bells inside the tower,

which was not originally intended by the architect. The interior was not

under his control. Originally Dr. Reid intended a part of it for an

air-shaft, and Mr. Gurney subsequently, against the architect’s wishes,

used this part for a smoke-flue. The space available was about 8 ft. 6

in. in its smallest dimensions. Some difficulty occurred in consequence,

of which much has been made. But it was obviated by the simple expedient

of an alteration in the shape of the bell.

The first “Big Ben” was cast by Messrs. Warner, in August, 1856. In

November it was brought to Westminster for trial, previous to its being

hoisted into its place. It required a clapper of unusual weight, and in

a short time it cracked under the test in October, 1857.

The bell was then re-cast under the direction of Messrs. Mears, in

April, 1858. It was hoisted to its place, and tried with the clapper in

November, 1858. It began to strike in July, 1859, and on the 28th of

September it was found to be cracked. Into the charges and

recriminations between Mr. Denison and Messrs. Mears, and the consequent

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

necessary to enter. All that Sir C. Barry had to do with the matter was,

that Mr. Quarm, his clerk of the works, and Mr. James, the engineer,

gave their best assistance in the fixing and hoisting of the bell, and

in suggesting methods for overcoming any difficulties which presented

themselves. It is only needful to remark, that the tone of the

controversies which followed throws some light on the causes of the

difficulties and troubles, to which it has been necessary to refer in

the history of the great clock. In themselves these only formed one of

the many instances in which Sir C. Barry, during the erection of the

New Palace, suffered from the appointment of gentlemen, eminent in their

own departments, to superintend works, in connexion with the building,

and in perfect independence of its architect. But fortunately every such

instance did not lead to so fierce a controversy as that which raged for

a time about the clock and bells.[78]

There was one other case of divided responsibility, important as

affecting the æsthetic character of the building, to which I must draw

attention, as having caused Sir C. Barry much disappointment and

anxiety. On this occasion, however, the architect experienced neither

depreciation nor discourtesy; he sympathized with the object aimed at,

and had reason to admire, in connexion with it, the knowledge, taste,

and enlightened interest displayed by H.R.H. the late Prince Consort.

Indeed, the qualities which the Prince brought to bear on the discharge

of every duty undertaken by him, were perhaps never more conspicuous

than in his many labours for the encouragement of the fine arts in this

country.

As the building advanced, the public attention was drawn to the great

opportunity, which it offered for the encouragement of the arts of

painting and sculpture. His Royal Highness, who frequently visited the

work, and took considerable interest in its progress, was most anxious

that this opportunity should not be lost, and at the same time felt,

that only by great care and consultation of various authorities could it

be used to the best advantage. Accordingly in Nov. 1841 a Royal

Commission (the “Fine Arts Commission”) was appointed, under the

presidency of His Royal Highness, and consisting of the following

members:--Lord Lyndhurst, the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquis of

Lansdowne, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of Shrewsbury, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord

John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, Viscount Melbourne, Lord Ashburton,

Lord Colborne, The Right Hon. Charles Shaw Lefevre (Speaker of the House

of Commons), Sir R. Peel, Sir James Graham, Sir R. H. Inglis, B. Hawes,

Esq. jun., Henry Gale Knight, Esq., Henry Hallam, Esq., S. Rogers, Esq.,

G. Vivian, Esq., Thomas Wyse, Esq. To these were afterwards added the

names of Lord Mahon (now Earl Stanhope), T. B. Macaulay, Esq.

(afterwards Lord Macaulay), Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, Lord Canning, Lord

Morpeth, Sir B. Hall, and the Right Hon. J. Evelyn Denison (Speaker of

the House of Commons), Lord John Manners, and the Hon. W. Cowper. Sir C.

Eastlake was appointed Secretary.

It is obvious, from a glance at the names of the Commissioners, that

great care had been taken to represent on the Board, not only rank and

official knowledge, but also artistic and literary excellence. But it

will be noticed, that the name of the architect of the building does not

occur on the Commission. It was thought, perhaps, that, as having to

carry out the views of the Commission, he ought for technical reasons to

have no seat upon it. It might also have been supposed, that he would be

inclined to look at things too much from one point of view, and

endeavour to subordinate painting and sculpture too much to the

architecture of the building; so that, in the almost inevitable rivalry

of the arts, he would not be a disinterested party. But it may be

questioned whether technical propriety should have been allowed to

override practical convenience. And it is not likely that a single voice

on the Board would have been able to secure to architectural claims more

than their due share of attention.

He himself greatly regretted his exclusion, and was inclined to consider

it as a slight. He knew that practical questions must constantly arise,

on which a few words of information from him might save long

discussions, and perhaps serious mistakes. He felt also that few could

have studied the building, as a whole, so thoroughly as he had done;

that few therefore could be better qualified to give an opinion as to

the nature and disposition of works of art, which should not only be

beautiful in themselves, but should harmonize with one another, and with

the building on which they were “set,” so as to produce a magnificent

whole.[79] He was, of course, examined by the Commission, and was

invited to lay his views freely and completely before it. But this was a

very different thing from the opportunities of frequent suggestion and

free discussion, which he would have enjoyed, had it been thought right

to place him on the Commission. It will perhaps be interesting to quote

some passages from the Report which he prepared on this occasion,

showing the ideal towards which he desired, gradually but

systematically, to tend.

“With reference to the interior of the new Houses of Parliament

generally, I would suggest that the walls of the several halls,

galleries, and corridors of approach, as well as the various public

apartments throughout the building, should be decorated with

paintings having reference to events in the history of the country,

and that those paintings should be placed in compartments formed by

such a suitable arrangement of the architectural design of the

interior, as will best promote their effective union with the arts

of sculpture and architecture. With this view, I should consider it

to be of the utmost importance that the paintings should be wholly

free from gloss on the surface, so that they may be perfectly seen,

and fully understood, from all points of view, that all other

portions of the plain surfaces of the walls should be covered with

suitable architectonic decoration, or diapered enrichment in

colour, occasionally heightened with gold and blended with armorial

bearings, badges, cognizances, and other heraldic insignia

emblazoned in their proper colours. That such of the halls as are

groined should have their vaults decorated in a similar manner,

with the addition occasionally of subjects, or works of art, so

interwoven with the diapered ground as not to disturb the harmony,

or the effect of the architectonic decorations generally, or

interfere with the elementary features of the architectural

composition. That such of the ceilings as are flat should be formed

into compartments by moulded ribs, enriched with carved heraldic

and Tudor decorations. That these ceilings should be relieved by

positive colour and gilding, and occasionally by gold grounds with

diaper enrichments, legends, and heraldic devices in colour. That

the screens, pillars, corbels, niches, dressings of the windows,

and other architectural decorations, should be painted to harmonize

with the paintings and diapered decorations of the walls generally,

and be occasionally relieved with positive colour and gilding. That

the door-jambs and fireplaces should be constructed of British

marbles of suitable quality and colour, highly polished and

occasionally relieved by colour and gilding in their mouldings and

sculptured enrichments. That the floors of the several halls,

galleries, and corridors should be formed of encaustic tiles,

bearing heraldic decorations and other enrichments in colours, laid

in margins and compartments, in combination with polished British

marbles, and that the same description of marbles should also be

employed for the steps of the several staircases. That the walls to

the height of from eight to ten feet should be lined with oak

framing, containing shields with armorial bearings emblazoned in

their proper colours, and that an oak seat should in all cases be

placed against such framing. That the windows of the several halls,

galleries, and corridors should be glazed doubly, for the purpose

of tempering the light and preventing the direct rays of the sun

from interfering with the effect of the internal decorations

generally; for this purpose the outer glazing is proposed to be of

ground glass in single plates, and the inner glazing of an

ornamental design in metal filled with stained glass, bearing arms

and other heraldic insignia in their proper colours, but so

arranged that the ground, which I should recommend to be of a warm

yellowish tint covered with a running foliage or diaper, and

occasionally relieved by legends in black letter, should

predominate, in order that so much light only may be excluded, as

may be thought desirable to do away with either a garish or cold

effect upon the paintings and decorations generally. That in order

to promote the art of sculpture and its effective union with

painting and architecture, I would propose that in the halls,

galleries, and corridors, statues might be employed for the purpose

of dividing the paintings on the walls. By this arrangement a rich

effect of perspective, and a due subordination of the several arts

to each other, would be obtained. The statues suggested should be,

in my opinion, of marble of the colour of polished alabaster, and

be raised upon lofty and suitable pedestals placed close to the

walls in niches surmounted by enriched canopies; but the niches

should be shallow, so that the statues may be as well seen

laterally as in front. The architectural decorations of these

niches might be painted of such colours as would give the best

effect to the adjoining paintings, being relieved in parts by

positive colours and gilding, and the backs of them might be

painted in dark colours, such as chocolate, crimson, or blue, or

they might be of gold for the purpose of giving effect to the

statues.

“I would propose that Westminster Hall, which is 239 feet long, 68

feet wide, and 90 feet high, should be made the depository, as in

former times, for all trophies obtained in wars with foreign

nations. These trophies might be so arranged above the paintings on

the walls as to have a very striking and interesting effect. I

would further suggest that pedestals, twenty in number, answering

to the position of the principal ribs of the roof, should be placed

so as to form a central avenue, 30 feet in width, from the north

entrance door to St. Stephen’s porch, for statues of the most

celebrated British statesmen, whose public services have been

commemorated by monuments erected at the public expense, as well as

for present and future statesmen whose services may be considered

by Parliament to merit a similar tribute to their memories. The

statues which have been already proposed to be placed against the

walls between the pictures, I would suggest should be those of

naval and military commanders. The subjects of the paintings on the

walls, twenty-eight in number, 16 feet in length, 10 feet in

height, might relate to the most splendid warlike achievements in

English history, both by sea and land, which, as well as the

statues that are proposed to divide them, might be arranged

chronologically. This noble hall, certainly the most splendid of

its style in the world, thus decorated by the union of painting and

sculpture and architecture, and aided by the arts of decoration as

suggested, would present a most striking appearance, and be an

object of great national interest.”

Side by side with these proposals, it may be well to place the substance

of the principal Reports of the Commission presented to Her Majesty.[80]

After examining the various methods and styles of painting, fresco, oil,

encaustic, and stereo-chrome (or water-glass) painting, and the best

materials for sculpture, they had proceeded in the first instance to

assume the superintendence of purely decorative works, and invite

competition even in wood carving, metal-work, and stained glass.

Fortunately they were led to reconsider this step, finding no doubt the

insuperable practical difficulties which it involved, and to report

“that experience proved that it was on many accounts advisable to leave

with the architect the responsibility of all strictly decorative works.”

They add that “he had undertaken on his own responsibility the whole of

the decorative works, except the stained glass,” and that they deemed it

right to abstain from all interference, and disclaim all responsibility

in the matter.

The tone of the Report appears to convey some surprise and

disapprobation of the course adopted by the architect; but any one who

considers the wide interpretation which may be given to the word

“decoration,” and the absolute impossibility of distinguishing between

decorative and constructional work, or of securing unity of effect, when

the building is in one hand and the decoration in another, will probably

conclude, that, as he was not a member of the Commission, no other

course was open to him, consistent with due care, either of his own

reputation or of the public service.

The Commission accordingly confined their attention to “works of art,”

and decided that (generally speaking) the painting and sculpture should

be historical, and that their subjects should be chosen from English

history and literature.

They then adopted a scheme, drawn out by a Select Committee, consisting

of the Prince Consort, Lords Lansdowne, John Russell, Morpeth, and

Mahon, Sir R. H. Inglis, and Messrs. Macaulay, Hallam, and Wyse, for the

choice and distribution of the various works of art. Westminster Hall,

which in the architect’s scheme formed one of the most magnificent

features, was strangely omitted from the scheme of this Committee, and

left in its present bare and dreary condition. St. Stephen’s Hall, as

occupying the site of the old House of Commons, was set apart for the

statues of “men who rose to eminence by the eloquence and ability which

they displayed in that house,” and for paintings “illustrating great

epochs in constitutional, social, and ecclesiastical history, from the

conversion of the Saxons to the accession of the House of Stuart.” The

Peers’ and Commons’ corridors, leading from the central hall, were to

contain paintings illustrative of the great contest, which began with

the meeting of the Long Parliament and ended in 1688. It had been

already determined, that the House of Peers should contain statues of

the barons who signed Magna Charta, and ideal paintings of Religion,

Justice, and Chivalry, faced by corresponding historical pictures, the

Baptism of Ethelbert, the Committal of Prince Henry by Chief Justice

Gascoigne, and the Investiture of the Black Prince with the Order of the

Garter. The Peers’ robing-room was to contain scriptural subjects,

illustrative of the “Idea of Justice on Earth, and its development in

Law and Judgment.” The Royal antechamber (the “Prince’s chamber”) was to

contain “portraits relating to the Tudor family,” copies of the famous

tapestry, representing the defeat of the Armada in the old House of

Peers, and small bas-reliefs of the Tudor period. The Royal gallery was

to be filled with paintings relating to the “military and naval glory of

the country;” and the Queen’s robing-room with subjects from the legend

of King Arthur. The Painted chamber was to illustrate “the acquisition

of the country’s colonies and important places, constituting the

British Empire.” The Royal gallery, robing-room, and landing-places of

the great staircase were to contain the statues of English sovereigns

down to Queen Victoria.

It is clear that the two schemes were constructed on totally different

principles. The scheme of the Commission was, so to speak, an ideal one,

drawn up with great skill and knowledge, so as to cover the whole field

of English history, and bring out those salient points, which might

properly be connected with the palace of the legislature. The scheme of

the architect was a practical one, drawn up with reference to the

various halls and galleries of the building, and designed to present as

grand and perfect a spectacle as possible to those entering and

traversing the building. It would have been very desirable that these

schemes should have modified and interpenetrated each other. Ideal

perfection need not have suffered, had some deference been paid to the

actual conditions of locality. But such was not the case. The Commission

indeed refer to the architect’s scheme as enabling them first to “select

fit localities” for the works of art, and next to “proceed to a general

scheme suitable to the localities selected.” Yet it is difficult to

trace in the arrangements actually made any reference to the

architectural character of the halls selected, or to the actual

convenience of exhibition of the works of art themselves.

The original recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee, which gave

rise to the Commission, was that “a plan should be determined on, by

which the architect and the artists employed should work not only in

conjunction with but in aid of one another.” The actual fact is, that,

in some cases, the works of art are utterly at variance with the

architecture, and ill-adapted to their position. Thus statues, beautiful

in themselves, are executed on such a scale as to ruin the architectural

effect of the halls, in which they are erected. This is the case with

the statues in St. Stephen’s Hall, and the fine group by Gibson in the

Prince’s chamber. In some cases fine paintings, such as Herbert’s

magnificent picture of Moses delivering the Law, are in positions in

which the public can rarely see them, while St. Stephen’s Hall, through

which the main tide of people flows, is still left without a single

picture. The series of statues of the British sovereigns is to be

divided among three or four different localities, so that it will be

impossible to see them at one time, or have them executed on one uniform

scale. These things ought not to have been, and it is hardly possible

that they should have taken place, had the Commission included one

member, who had before his eyes the building as a whole, and the scale

and succession of its various parts. Their labours have led to great and

valuable results: it is a pity that these results should have suffered,

even in a slight degree, from want of practical knowledge.

In order to carry out the ideas embodied in the scheme of the

Commissioners, great exhibitions of cartoons and sculpture took place in

Westminster Hall. Premiums were offered, and commissions were given to

those who gained the highest places in this grand competition. The work

is still going on, and (it is to be hoped) will be continued, till

something like the ideal proposed in the reports shall be realized. Few

buildings could be better adapted to serve as a British “Walhalla.” The

natural wish for the perpetuation of memorials of great men and great

events has filled St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey with monuments,

seldom fitted for places of Christian worship and Christian sepulture.

Such monuments might well find a place in future in a building, which is

at once a palace of the Sovereign and the home of the legislature,--a

building moreover, which by its extent and by its publicity gives the

greatest possible scope for such commemoration of the past. When we look

at what has been already done by the hands of our most celebrated

artists, it is impossible not to feel that already the object of the

Commission has been, to a great extent, attained, and a great

opportunity nobly used. It is to be hoped, that even now such

modifications may be made, during the continuance of the work, as may do

away with all such drawbacks as those noticed above, and secure the

harmony needed for grandeur of effect.

But, if it was Mr. Barry’s fate thus to encounter opposition and

difficulty, it was his good fortune in the execution of his great work

to draw round him men, who would work heartily under his direction, and

yet would bring to their work all the enthusiasm and the high artistic

spirit, which are usually supposed to belong only to independent

workers. The opportunity was a great one; the scale of the building, the

supplies given from the public purse, and (for a considerable time) the

large discretion left to the architect in the employment of those

resources, were at that time unprecedented. Mr. Barry felt the greatness

of the opportunity. Not only did he desire to make his building a

treasure-house of art and a sculptured memorial of our national history,

but he also hoped to raise up in the course of its execution a school of

decorative art, guided, but not servilely confined, by the examples of

Gothic antiquity, and bringing to the evolution of Gothic principles all

the resources of modern thought and science.

His ideas on the former point are embodied in the communication to the

Fine Arts Commission, which is quoted above. The appointment of the

Commission, of which (as has been remarked) he was not made a member, to

a great extent took the highest artistic decoration out of his hands;

and, but for his strenuous resistance, would have interfered even with

purely architectural details. Still, however, much remained in his

power; and his hopes in this direction did not fail of considerable

accomplishment.

Nor was he disappointed in his other expectation. In the extraordinary

progress of decorative art during the last twenty years the work in the

New Palace of Westminster may justly claim a large share of influence.

Infinite pains were bestowed on every detail; in some cases it seemed,

that the dignity of the building as a whole, rather than the absolute

need or object of the particular part under consideration, was allowed

to determine the care and elaboration to be bestowed upon it. In the

whole of the enormous mass there is hardly a square yard, which was not

the subject of careful study. It was rather an understatement than an

exaggeration of the truth, when the architect was forced to state to the

Government that “no less than between 8000 or 9000 original drawings and

models have been prepared for it, a large portion of which have emanated

from my own hand, while the whole of the remainder have been made under

my own immediate direction and supervision.” It was impossible that this

extraordinary labour should be wholly thrown away. It could not fail to

advance that cause of decorative art, to which it was so unsparingly

devoted. But Mr. Barry was well aware that such a work could not be

carried out by the unaided exertions of a single man. It was his good

fortune to give direction and stimulus to a crowd of artistic

coadjutors; it is the duty and privilege of those, who cherish his

memory, to record with the most unreserved acknowledgment the valuable

aid which he received from them.

Foremost among all stands the name of the late Mr. Pugin. It was (as has

been said) during the erection of the Birmingham Grammar School in 1835

that he first became known to Mr. Barry, and at that time his help was

first received in designing certain details of the interior. From the

first moment of their acquaintance the connection between them became

warm and friendly. Agreeing in their entire devotion to art, and

differing widely in character and in artistic principles, they had

perhaps just that amount of sympathy and diversity, which leads to

mutual appreciation, co-operation, and friendship. Unrestrained as

their intercourse and mutual criticisms were--impossible, in fact, as it

would have been to restrain either in the assertion of what he conceived

to be orthodoxy in architectural faith--that intercourse was untroubled

by the slightest misunderstanding or estrangement of feeling, from the

time that they first saw each other in Birmingham, till the day when Sir

C. Barry was one of the few mourners who followed his friend to the

grave.

The first aid which he received from Mr. Pugin was under the pressure of

shortness of time in making the original design. Working under Mr.

Barry’s own eye and direction, Mr. Pugin sketched for him in pencil a

complete set of details, in a style perhaps bolder, less carefully

proportioned and less purely English, than would have been adopted by

himself. In the design they differed _toto cœlo_. Mr. Pugin would have

recommended irregular and picturesque grouping of parts, utterly at

variance with the regularity and symmetry actually adopted. Except in

details, he neither had, nor could have had, any influence whatever, and

those who compare the details of his own buildings with those of the New

Palace will readily see that even here his influence, however valuable,

was chiefly indirect.

As soon as he was appointed architect to the New Palace, he immediately

thought of his friend, and resolved to invite him to his aid. Convinced

that Mr. Pugin was at that time unrivalled in his knowledge of Gothic

detail, admiring his extraordinary powers as a draughtsman, carried away

by sympathy with his burning artistic enthusiasm, he could wish for no

other coadjutor. The invitation was accepted, and a connection was

established equally honourable to both artists. No man was more original

than Mr. Pugin. He held strongly certain principles, on the evolution of

which he greatly disagreed with his friend: he was one whose name and

genius could at all times command an independent authority. Yet for the

furtherance of his art he was willing to accept a distinctly subordinate

position, and to work under the superintendence and control of another.

His acceptance of the post, and the spirit in which he discharged its

duties, showed the generosity and unselfishness which were his

well-known characteristics. Nor, on the other hand, could Mr. Barry be

unaware of the danger of calling in a too powerful coadjutor. He knew

the almost inevitable risk which he incurred of being supposed to wear

other men’s laurels, of having all that was good or spirited in the

details attributed to Mr. Pugin,[81] and of finding it difficult or

impossible to control an enthusiasm, which might work in what seemed to

him undesirable methods. But these things he resolutely put aside for

the sake of an aid, which he thought likely to improve his great

building, and which he knew to be genial and inspiriting to himself.[82]

That Mr. Pugin was the last man in the world to encroach on another

man’s authority or credit he knew, and that this confidence in his

friend’s character was not misplaced is shown by the strong disclaimer

which he put out, when an attempt was made to attribute to him more than

he felt to be his due. The misapprehensions of others he could afford to

disregard.

After Mr. Barry’s appointment as architect, he still received the same

aid in preparing detailed drawings for the estimate, most of which

however, by changes in design, were afterwards set aside. Finally, at

his recommendation, Mr. Pugin was formally appointed superintendent of

the wood carving, and in that capacity he directed, first the formation

of a valuable collection of plaster casts of the most famous examples at

home and abroad, and next the execution of the wood-work, ornamental

metal-work, stained glass, and encaustic tiles throughout the whole

building. But in all cases it was thoroughly understood between them,

that the architect’s supremacy was to be unimpaired. Every drawing

passed under his eye in all cases for supervision, in very many for

alteration. Mr. Pugin’s originality and enthusiasm never interfered with

this understanding: he would carry out vigorously and heartily what he

himself could not altogether approve.[83] His suggestions and

criticisms, freely given and freely received, were invaluable; and his

enthusiasm, even in its eccentricities, was inspiring and irresistible.

For more than five and twenty years the intercourse between the two

friends and coadjutors continued, unbroken by any differences except in

taste, and, when Mr. Pugin was struck down by his fatal illness, Mr.

Barry felt that his loss was irreparable.

In the stone-carving Mr. Barry was fortunate in securing aid, only less

valuable than that of Mr. Pugin. In the same work, at Birmingham, he

discovered Mr. Thomas, then working as an ordinary stone-carver on the

building. He was struck by his ability, skill, and energy, and at once

resolved to aid in raising him to a position more worthy of his

talents. After experience of his powers, he entrusted to him, under the

same supervision, the entire direction of the stone-carving throughout

the building. The result proved the wisdom of the choice. Under Mr.

Thomas’s direction, stone-carving made a great step, which was felt in

its effect upon architectural sculpture throughout the country, and

which has conduced powerfully to the remarkable progress which it has

since made up to the present time. With the general results of his

exertions Mr. Barry was fully satisfied, and rejoiced greatly when his

success in this capacity enabled him to take and to support elsewhere an

independent position.

But an architect’s work is not purely artistic. The construction both of

the New Palace itself and of the scaffolding used in its erection, taxed

heavily scientific knowledge and ingenuity.[84] In fact, the whole

timber or framed scaffolding, with travellers, by which a stone, perhaps

elaborately carved, could be raised from the ground, and placed in its

proper position, had seldom, if ever, before been employed on so large a

scale. The constructional difficulties introduced by the need of

preservation of old buildings, and of piecemeal occupation of the new

ones, were great. But even greater were those caused by the frequent

change and increase of official requirements in the course of the work;

and most of all by the appointment of Dr. Reid, and his enormous claims

of space for warming and ventilation, never known till the whole

arrangement of plan and construction was settled.

Into all these difficulties Mr. Barry himself fully entered. He felt a

positive pleasure in the expedients by which they were to be met; and in

the invention of such expedients he was full of resources, and bold even

to the verge of rashness. But his knowledge was more practical than

theoretical, and in his work he received the most valuable assistance

from the scientific knowledge, ingenuity, and power of contrivance of

Mr. Meeson, who was for a long time his chief assistant in this branch

of office work. His aid was zealously and unobtrusively given, and

heartily appreciated. Working side by side with him, and bringing

practical energy, daring, and ingenuity to carry out much difficult and

hazardous work, Mr. Quarm did good service to the building, and showed

an enthusiastic loyalty and devotion towards his chief.

Meanwhile in the office Mr. Barry had associated with himself a series

of able and zealous assistants, who were destined hereafter to make

themselves a place in the architectural profession. He certainly was

able to kindle in them a rare degree of enthusiasm for art, side by side

with a strong personal attachment to himself, arising chiefly from

sympathy in this enthusiasm. And it can hardly be doubted, that his

peculiar refinement of detail and proportion, his careful study of every

part of a building, and his resolution to attempt, even in comparatively

trifling works, originality and unity of effect, must have left their

traces on the designs of those who had been associated with him.

It would be an almost endless work to recount the names of those who

worked under his direction in the decoration of the New Palace. Messrs.

Hardman in respect of the stained glass, Mr. Crace in the ornamental

painting, Mr. Minton in the supply of the encaustic tiles, took far more

than a commercial interest in the work. It is said truly, that much of

the beauty and vigour of mediæval works arises from the fact, that the

actual decorators worked artistically, with a view to the excellence of

their work, and not merely to the wages to be received for it. If this

spirit is reviving, or has revived, in the present day, much is probably

due to the work on the New Palace at Westminster, where there certainly

was in a very high degree this feeling among those who took subordinate

parts in the work. It can be hardly wrong to attribute some measure at

least of this feeling to the enthusiasm for art which actuated the

leader. It is certainly a duty to record the deep sense which he

entertained of it, and the support and encouragement which it gave him.

With these difficulties and with these supports, the work proceeded

steadily and energetically. The time which elapsed from the actual

commencement of the work in 1840, to the opening of the main part of the

building in 1852, cannot be considered long, if the extent of the work

be calculated, and its various drawbacks allowed for.

In February, 1847, the House of Peers was for the first time occupied,

not with any ceremonial opening, but for ordinary public business. Some

difficulty was at first apprehended as to the acoustic properties of the

House; but as soon as the Peers became more used to their new House, the

difficulty was greatly diminished, if not entirely removed.

Meanwhile the rest of the building proceeded rapidly. The public

approaches were completed, the committee-rooms gradually prepared for

use, and at last the House of Commons was opened. The temporary house

having been very convenient, the members of the Lower House had not been

very anxious to enter their new quarters. When they did so, they were

somewhat dissatisfied with the change. In the construction of the House

the architect had acted upon the instructions and advice of the leading

officials; and the general effect of these instructions had been greatly

to diminish the dimensions originally proposed, for the accommodation

both of the House and the public.[85]

When the House met, with an attendance increased beyond its usual

standard by excitement and curiosity, it was thought that this process

of diminution had been carried too far, and it was resolved to increase

the accommodation of the lobbies and galleries. To this alteration no

artistic objection could be offered. But it was conceived, without, as

Mr. Barry thought, sufficient trial and experience, that there was

difficulty in hearing; and members, accustomed to the lowness of the

temporary house, immediately concluded that it was the height of the

present building which was in fault. It was imperatively ordered that

the ceiling should be lowered, and the only way in which this could be

done was by the introduction of an inner ceiling with sloping sides,

cutting the side windows in half, and ruining the proportions of the

room. Never was a work carried out by an architect more unwillingly. Mr.

Barry could not feel that a sufficient trial had been made, to prove the

necessity of the alteration. When it had been carried out, he no longer

considered the House as his own work; and never would speak of it, or

even enter it, without absolute necessity.

In 1852 the Royal approach was completed, and Her Majesty made, for the

first time, her public entrance through the Victoria tower and the Royal

gallery into the House of Peers. At the same time the great public

approaches through Westminster and St. Stephen’s Hall were ready for

use.

The main portions of the building might now be considered as finished,

and the architect soon after was knighted by Her Majesty at Windsor. It

was at a time, when he began to feel keenly the attacks made upon him,

and the harassing controversies in which he had become involved. Such

circumstances gave an unusual value to the honour conferred upon him by

the Sovereign--almost the only official honour which in this country is

offered to artistic or scientific merit, although it has to be shared

with those who have no pretensions to either.

From this time the building proceeded quietly towards completion. The

towers were the last finished. There was not, of course, the same

pressure of necessity for their completion; the nature of the soil under

their foundations demanded great care and deliberation in raising the

superstructure; and their design perhaps gave more trouble to the

architect than that of any other part of the building. “Nothing,” it has

been truly said, “tended more to retard a general appreciation of the

architectural merits of the New Palace than the necessarily slow and

protracted realization of its chief vertical features and skyline.” The

central tower was the first finished; next came the clock-tower; and

finally the great mass of the Victoria tower received its last stone.

The great flagstaff rising above was added subsequently. It was indeed

the last object which engaged his professional attention in the

building, and was left unfinished at his death. The drawings of the

flagstaff, and the lantern-work at the base, with its screens and flying

buttresses, were made by his son (E. M. Barry, Esq.) in accordance with

his known intentions. But it was on a temporary wooden staff, that the

great flag was hoisted “half mast high” on the day of Sir Charles’s

funeral.

SECTION IV.--It is impossible in a life of Sir C. Barry to omit notice

of the long, harassing, and unsuccessful controversy, which he carried

on with the Government in relation to his remuneration for the New

Palace at Westminster.

To his friends it is a painful subject; its nature and its effect upon

his feelings and his health they would be glad to forget: but the true

statement of the case is not only due to his memory, but also highly

important, both to the architectural profession and the public. It often

happens (it may probably be so in this case) that a battle lost to the

individual by the influence of special circumstances, and by the use of

overwhelming power against him, may prove to have been virtually won for

those who come after him. It will be my endeavour to admit into the

narrative as little as possible any expressions of mere opinion, and to

tell the story chiefly through the main official documents put out on

both sides, omitting the minuter details of the controversy, and the

disputes on trivial points, which naturally arose from the antagonistic

position produced by its continuance.

The question was briefly this, whether the architect of the New Palace

at Westminster was entitled to the regular professional remuneration of

five per cent. commission upon the outlay on the works executed under

his direction; or whether there were special circumstances in the case,

which justified a departure from the ordinary practice, and the

remuneration of his services on a lower scale. In the course of the

discussion arose another question, hardly less important to the public,

whether the Treasury were justified, by their position and by their view

of the requirements of the public service, in constituting themselves

judges of the question in dispute, in refusing arbitration on doubtful

points, and in enforcing their decision, by withholding all

remuneration, until its principle should be accepted by the architect.

This is no place for discussing at any length the abstract justice and

expediency of the principle of five per cent. commission regularly

recognised by all architects as the method of their professional

remuneration. The principle of a percentage evidently involves some

considerable inequality, when it is applied to works of different

characters, requiring for the same outlay very different degrees of

skill, labour, and responsibility. It seems hard that the architect of a

church, which requires elaborate designs, should be remunerated at the

same rate as the architect, who designs a simple warehouse, or the

engineer who raises great masses of brickwork, requiring but two or

three simple drawings. Like other principles not wholly equitable in

their operation, it is recommended by its simplicity and practicability,

and, in fact, to those who regard their work as a profession, and not a

trade, its commercial inequality is compensated by the corresponding

inequality of artistic opportunities.

But it is certainly not an excessive rate of remuneration. Compared with

the profits of the builders, who execute the work, it is absolutely

insignificant; nor can the remuneration of an architect of eminence bear

comparison with that of an engineer occupying the same position in his

profession. The period over which the expenditure on architectural work

is spread is comparatively large; the preparation of designs and working

drawings, the incessant superintendence, and the duty of “measurement,”

require a large and expensive staff of assistants. It is, therefore,

rare that an architect “makes his fortune,” even if he is engaged in

extensive works, and even if his gross receipts are considerable.

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

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

allowed) that a building of a highly ornate and artistic design, carried

out for a public body, whose requirements and instructions varied

greatly from time to time, and requiring constant attendance on official

personages and Parliamentary Committees, was one for which the regular

percentage would be (to say the least) no excessive remuneration. It is

true that the gross outlay was very great, but it was spread over a

period of about twenty years. It absorbed almost the whole of the

architect’s time, and gradually destroyed most of his private practice.

After 1842 that practice, which would naturally have continued to

extend, both in scale and area, began to diminish, and it is likely that

pecuniarily he would have been nearly as well off, if he had been able

to devote himself to private work. There was nothing in the general

features of the case, which could make it right to treat it as an

exceptional one.

It is therefore necessary to inquire into the special circumstances,

which were held by the Government to require a deviation from the

established usage.

The designs and estimates were accepted, and the works commenced on

July 3rd, 1837, without any official communication with the architect on

the subject of remuneration. On March 1st, 1839 (_i. e._ _more than

nineteen months after the commencement of the building_) he received

from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests (the “Board of Works”) a

copy of a letter from the Treasury, approving of the following

recommendation from the office of Public Works,[86] and ordering it to

be observed in the remuneration of the architect:--

“THE subject of the remuneration to be made to Mr. Barry, as the

architect selected for superintending the erection of the New

Houses of Parliament, having been pressed upon the attention of

this Board, in consequence of the opinions expressed at different

times in both Houses of Parliament against the principle of

remunerating architects by a commission or percentage upon the

amount of their estimates, we beg leave to state to your Lordships,

that in deference to those opinions, we have given the subject our

best and most mature consideration; and that having carefully

considered all the circumstances of this case, the extent and

importance of the building, the nature and description of the

several works, the very large amount of expenditure contemplated in

Mr. Barry’s estimate, and the period within which it is proposed

that such expenditure should be incurred,--we are therefore of

opinion, that the sum of 25,000_l._ will be a fair and liberal

remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr.

Barry in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the

intended edifice.

(Signed) “DUNCANNON,

B. C. STEPHENSON,

A. MILNE.”

A request on the part of the architect to be informed of the principle

on which the sum of 25,000_l._ was calculated, having been refused, he

addressed the following reply to the office:--

_Foley Place, 22nd April, 1839._

“SIR,--As the Board has not deemed it right to make me acquainted

with the principle upon which the amount of remuneration for my

services in respect of the intended New Houses of Parliament has

been determined, I cannot, of course, form any opinion, and will

not question the correctness of the data upon which it is founded.

I make no doubt, however, that the proposed amount, although very

far short of the customary remuneration which has hitherto been

paid to architects for extensive public works, is considered by the

Board to be liberal under all the circumstances of the case; and

therefore, with this impression, I have no wish to do otherwise

than bow to its decision. In so doing, however, I cannot, in

justice to myself and the profession to which I belong, refrain

from expressing most decidedly my opinion that the amount is very

inadequate to the great labour and responsibility that will devolve

upon me in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the

intended edifice; and I trust when this is made manifest, as I feel

sure it will be, upon the completion of any considerable portion of

it, that there will not be any indisposition on the part of the

Board (especially if the work should prove to be satisfactory to

the public at large) to award to me the remainder of the

remuneration which has hitherto been customary on similar

occasions.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES BARRY.”

To this letter no rejoinder was made. On January 2nd, 1841, the

architect again addressed the office, stating that “the time was now

arrived when some permanent arrangement must be made for the measuring

and making out the accounts of work executed,” and requesting authority

to make the requisite arrangements, the expense of which he conceived

“to be included under the head of contingencies.” The office replied

(January 18th) that this duty belonged to the architect as such, and

that the expense was provided for in the professional remuneration

already fixed. To this statement, on January 28th, the architect

replied, pleading that the expense of measurement had been borne by the

Board whenever less than five per cent. had been paid to the architect.

He received a formal reply, declining to alter the view already taken by

the office, and the correspondence was closed.

It is on the letters of Mr. Barry above referred to, particularly on

that of April 22nd, 1839, that the case of the Government against him

mainly depends. It is clear that his case would have been far stronger,

had he at once ventured to refuse the 25,000_l._ offered him, standing

upon the invariable custom of the profession, and the fact that his

appointment had been made, and the work carried on for more than

nineteen months, before any such conditions were mentioned. On the other

hand, it is equally clear that he was placed in a position of much

difficulty by the action of the Government. He was already thoroughly

absorbed in the work, and had devoted much time and trouble to its

commencement. His success in the competition had excited great and

almost unexampled opposition and misrepresentation; he knew, therefore,

that he had enemies, who would gladly seize any opportunity to produce

a breach between him and the Government, especially on a subject on

which public opinion was at least greatly divided. It appeared to him

very hard that he should be placed in such a position. It was natural

that he should endeavour to take a middle course, and to accept the

terms under a protest, which would leave the matter open for future

consideration. It may be added that the Government, by tacitly receiving

a letter, which contained such a protest, and expressed a hope of such

future reconsideration, must bear some of the responsibility of the

unsettled state in which the question was left, and of the controversy

which accordingly arose.

The whole matter now remained in abeyance for eight years, during which

time the work proceeded. It had been supposed that the building would be

completed in about six years, and at an expense of about 707,000_l._

But, as has been elsewhere shown, from various causes, some wholly

beyond the architect’s control, some for which he was responsible, and

for which the approval of the Government and of Parliamentary Committees

had been obtained, the time occupied in building was greatly protracted,

and the expense proportionately increased. It was conceived by Mr. Barry

and by his friends that the “bargain” made with the Office of Works, if

it had ever had any legal value, had now vitiated by the entire change

of the circumstances on which it was originally based, and that the time

was come when the whole matter must be re-opened. Accordingly he

addressed a letter on February 6th, 1849 to the Commissioners for the

superintendence of the completion of the New Palace, which contains a

full and forcible statement of his case. It will be found in the

Appendix. Its substance must be stated here.

After referring to the fact that he was appointed architect

unconditionally, and that not till nineteen months after his appointment

did he hear of Lord Bessborough’s proposition, he states that, having

vainly asked for an explanation of the grounds of that proposition, he

had acceded to it conditionally and under protest.

He then contends that the bargain as such has been annulled by acts of

the Government, but that he is willing to meet the grounds alleged in

Lord Bessborough’s letter. Accordingly, to the statement of “the extent

and importance of the work,” he answers, that “the responsibilities of

the architect are more than proportionally increased, and the demands on

his skill, taste, and judgment are far greater than in works of less

magnitude.” To the somewhat vague reference to “the nature and

description of the work,” he replies by inviting a comparison between

the New Palace and any other modern building, to show that in “variety

of design, elaboration of details, and difficulties of combination and

construction, the labour and responsibility incurred are greater than in

any modern edifice,” and by referring to official delays and

perplexities, and the control of Parliamentary Committees added to that

of the Government. “It will not be irrelevant to mention (he adds) that

already between 8000 and 9000 original drawings and models have been

made, a large portion from my own hand, and the remainder under my

immediate supervision.” The “statement of the large expenditure

contemplated, and the period in which it was proposed that this

expenditure should be incurred,” he meets by remarking, that “the annual

expenditure has not been greater than that incurred in other public

works on which the full percentage has been paid,” and that from

circumstances over which he had no control, especially the difficulty of

obtaining the whole site, and the introduction of Dr. Reid’s system of

ventilation, the period of the execution of the building had been, and

must be, greatly increased.

He then enumerated extra duties which had been thrown upon him, on which

he might fairly claim remuneration.

He concludes by stating that his appointment had caused the loss of

about two-thirds of his private practice, and declaring that the

ordinary remuneration of five per cent. would be, to say the least, not

more than an adequate return for the “labour, responsibility, and

sacrifices incurred in conducting the largest and most elaborate work of

the period, to which he had devoted almost exclusively the best period

of his professional life.”

Of this letter it would appear that _no notice whatever was taken for

about five years_. On February 8th, 1854, a communication was received

from James Wilson, Esq., in reply to some letter of the same purport

(not printed) from Sir C. Barry to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and

in accordance with a Treasury Minute on the subject.

Its main points are:--

(_a._) An assertion that a percentage of three per cent. had been

accepted by Sir J. Soane, Sir R. Smirke, and Mr. John Nash (attached as

architects to the Board of Works), and by Mr. Burton (unattached) for

public works, and an assumption based upon this statement, that the

fixed sum of 25,000_l._ had been calculated by Lord Bessborough as

approximately 3 per cent. on the estimated outlay of 707,104_l._

(_b._) A statement (which it would have been somewhat difficult to

substantiate) that a fixed sum had been “not unfrequently” substituted

for a percentage, in order to “avoid an extension of the works and

consequently of the cost,” such as that to which they advert in respect

of the New Palace.

(_c._) An attempt, afterwards abandoned, to represent Mr. Pugin’s

appointment to superintend the internal fittings as relieving the

architect of labour and responsibility, and accordingly to deduct the

salary (200_l._ a-year) paid to that gentleman, from Sir C. Barry’s

professional remuneration.

(_d._) An offer (which they considered “fair and even liberal”) to allow

three per cent. instead of five on the gross outlay, and to reimburse

the architect for the expenses of measurement. In this offer it will be

observed that they at once relinquish (it may be presumed as untenable)

the principle of the fixed sum, and the bargain made by Lord Bessborough

in 1839.

To this letter, after a delay caused by serious illness, Sir C. Barry

sent on March 14th, 1854, a detailed reply. This reply addresses itself

to each of the three points of Mr. Wilson’s argument, and shows--

(_a._) That the practice of the three per cent. remuneration had been

abolished for seven years before Lord Bessborough’s proposition was

made; that in former times, when the percentage was paid, the architects

were relieved of all measuring and making up accounts, which was done by

the Board; and that since 1832 five per cent. had been paid upon many

important public works, including the British Museum, the National

Gallery, the General Post Office, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, &c.

(_b._) That the increase of expenditure was caused by circumstances not

under the architect’s control, especially by the requirements of Dr.

Reid, and that, as it involved a corresponding increase of labour and

responsibility, it formed no reason for diminution of the rate of

payment.

(_c._) That the post held by Mr. Pugin was not such as to relieve the

architect from responsibility, inasmuch as it was distinctly a

subordinate one.

(_d._) He concludes by reminding the Treasury that mere reimbursement of

expenses by no means meets the claim for measurement, and by urging once

more his right to the customary remuneration.

This letter was so far effectual, that in the correspondence which

follows we hear no more of the precedents for the percentage of three

per cent., or of the deduction of the salary of Mr. Pugin.

But to the claim advanced in the letter no reply was made for more than

six months. Application was made by Sir Charles for a payment of

5000_l._ on account, and in October 2nd, 1854, the Treasury consent to

make the order (_for a payment, be it observed, due under any

circumstances_) “on the distinct understanding that they do so in

conformity with the principle of remuneration already laid down.”

The architect in reply on October 12th says, in reference to this

paragraph, “I presume that I am to understand that their Lordships

desire not to be prejudiced by any such payment in regard to the

principles which they have laid down.... This advance, therefore, I

receive as on further account of my claim, _without prejudice either to

the views of their Lordships on the one hand or of myself on the other_;

and I propose to avail myself of it accordingly.” Receiving no answer

for a week, he drew the 5000_l._ accordingly, and on October 30th

received a letter from Mr. Wilson, declining to consider that there are

any “questions in suspense as to the principle of remuneration, since

their Lordships’ communication must be held conclusive,” and actually

insisting that the acceptance of the 5000_l._ must be construed as an

“admission of the principle which they have laid down.”

Under these circumstances Sir Charles naturally felt it absolutely

necessary to place his interests in professional hands. Accordingly, J.

Meadows White, Esq., the eminent solicitor, continued the correspondence

on his behalf, and at once obtained a withdrawal of the inference

advanced by Mr. Wilson.

A request from Mr. White (on Nov. 20th, 1854) for further information

on some points connected with extra services remained unanswered for six

months, and was finally met, at an interview with Mr. Wilson on May

26th, 1855, by a withdrawal of the point relating to Mr. Pugin, an offer

of three per cent. on all the expenditure, and of one per cent. for

measurement on all works to which measurement applies. A complaint on

Sir C. Barry’s behalf of the _ex parte_ statements made by the Board of

Works to the Treasury and kept from his knowledge, and a request to be

furnished with some information as to their nature, were met, after

another month’s delay, by a refusal. On this Mr. White addressed a

counter-proposition to the Treasury, in a letter of July 14th, 1855, in

which, after alluding to the large amount of “extra services”

rendered,[87] and the claim of interest on the large sums which, by the

Treasury’s own estimate, were due to the architect, and had been

arbitrarily deferred, he proceeds as follows:--“I feel that I am

justified in adhering to this part of the claim (for extra services)

which I fully believe would extend to a sum of at least 10,000_l._ The

claim for interest, if worked out in detail, would amount to at least as

much.”

He then, after asserting strongly Sir C. Barry’s legal right to the

whole five per cent., submitted a counter-proposition--viz., to accept

the three per cent. commission and one per cent. for measurement on all

certified works, provided that the claim for extra services and

interest were referred to some eminent person (Sir John Patteson, Sir E.

Ryan, or Mr. J. Shaw Lefevre were named), or a specific sum were paid to

close all such claims.

It will be, of course, understood that, in lieu of this payment of four

per cent. and the extra claims, Sir C. Barry was prepared to accept the

regular five per cent., and withdraw all extra claims whatever, which

indeed, but for the attempt to diminish what he considered to be his

fair remuneration, would never have been insisted upon at all.

To this letter no official reply was given, and accordingly a general

reference of the whole question to arbitration was proposed. Both these

propositions were rejected. The services for warming, ventilating, &c.,

previously ignored, were, after a consultation with Lord Palmerston,

agreed to by Mr. Wilson, and 500_l._ per annum offered as a remuneration

for them. In other respects the former terms were adhered to; all

reference, either general or special, was unequivocally refused; and an

offer to accept 5000_l._ in payment of all other extra services was

apparently left unanswered.

The Treasury now proceeded to the final step. A minute was drawn up at a

meeting of the Lords (Jan. 29th, 1856), simply reiterating the former

terms (except with regard to the warming, &c.), and concluding as

follows:--

“My Lords continue to be of opinion that _their terms are not only

fair but liberal_. Considering, moreover, that this matter has gone

on for nearly twenty years without any distinct understanding

being arrived at, my Lords are of opinion that it is inconsistent

with the public interests that it should be any longer delayed, and

that they therefore, as far as they are concerned, must record

these terms as their final decision on the points at issue. They

are pleased, therefore, to direct that _no further payment be made

on account, until a final settlement of the past and an agreement

for the future be concluded_.”

This peremptory minute was framed without any further communication with

Sir. C. Barry, and presented to Parliament without any of the

correspondence on the subject. It was also published in the ‘Times’ of

the next day without his receiving any notice of the publication.

Accordingly he felt compelled to send to the ‘Times’ next day a brief

statement of facts, remarking on each of its clauses in succession.

A last application was made by Sir C. Barry, in an interview with the

Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wilson, in which he advanced a plea

that the original 25,000_l._ fixed by Lord Bessborough represented a

percentage, not of three, but of four per cent. The plea was evidently

an unfortunate one, entering as it did on statements, which, from the

nature of the case, it was almost impossible to substantiate with any

certainty, and, moreover, taking the case off the broad grounds on which

it stood, to return to an agreement long since dropped on both sides.

The Treasury were not slow to avail themselves of the advantage thus

given them. In a minute of July 4th, 1856, they again traverse the whole

ground, return to the original bargain, and conclude that Sir C. Barry

has failed to establish his position; they refer to the correspondence

in 1839, and his acceptance under protest of the sum offered, expressing

a doubt (which, except in official circles, has not been generally felt)

“whether they have not taken too liberal a view of the question;” and

state that, as the allowance of one per cent. for measurement, &c.,

applied to some works for which the services of a surveyor were not

ordinarily required, it was more than Sir C. Barry’s due, and should be

considered as giving a full equivalent for any extra services.

It was clear, both from the tenor of this decision and the spirit which

it manifested, that Sir Charles Barry could hope for nothing more from

any friendly negotiation with the Government. Two courses were open to

him. He could have brought the question to a legal issue, standing upon

the vitiation of the original agreement, and the invariable practice of

the profession. Had he been dealing with a private person, he would

undoubtedly have done so; and, in looking back on the question, his

friends are sometimes tempted to regret that he did not do so, even

against Her Majesty’s Government. But there was serious difficulty in

attempting such a course; and he himself was much shaken in health, and

had lost much of the sanguine confidence of earlier days. He could not

hope for much of that support of his claims in Parliament, which is

almost the only influence capable of materially affecting a Government,

nor could he rely on the aid of public opinion. The only other course

was to submit, under protest, to terms which he felt unable any longer

to resist. He addressed accordingly the following letter to the

Treasury:--

“_Old Palace Yard, 15th July, 1856._

“SIR,--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter

of the 10th instant, transmitting to me, with reference to my

letter to Mr. Wilson of the 23rd ultimo, a copy of a further Minute

of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, dated the 4th

instant, relative to my remuneration as the architect of the New

Palace at Westminster.

“It is with the deepest regret and disappointment that I find that

their Lordships have put aside my proposal to refer all matters in

dispute between us to arbitration. Their Lordships must be

perfectly aware that no individual in my position could with the

least chance of success contend with the Government, and therefore

that the power of decision virtually rests with themselves. But

this very circumstance I had hoped would ensure their determination

to refer the case to some authority, the impartiality of whose

decision could not be impugned.

“However, as their Lordships have thought fit to determine

otherwise, and as it is evident, from the tenor of their Minute of

the 4th instant, that no further arguments in support of my claim

could alter their determination, I have no course left but to yield

to necessity, and accept the terms dictated to me; in effect, to

submit to a sacrifice of what I fully believe to be fair and

legitimate claims, amounting, exclusive of a large sum for interest

on payments delayed, to 20,000_l._ at least.

“But, while thus compelled to yield to the decision of their

Lordships, I feel it due to myself and to my profession to state

that I do not admit the fairness of the arguments, or the accuracy

of the statements, upon which it is manifest this decision has been

founded; and further, that, after a reconsideration of the whole

case, and especially of all the reasons which have been urged on

the part of the Government, I remain firmly convinced that the

arrangement forced upon me in 1839 has been entirely set aside by

the non-fulfilment of any one of its conditions; and my claim ought

in justice, to say nothing of liberality, to have been allowed in

full.

“With respect to the completion of the works in hand, I beg to add,

that as every other architect employed on public building has been,

and is still being paid his full commission, nothing would induce

me to continue my services upon the reduced rate of commission

proposed but the strong and natural desire I have to complete a

work, which, by the devotion of so many years of labour and

anxiety, I have endeavoured to render not unworthy of the country.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES BARRY.

“SIR C. E. TREVELYAN.”

It will be easily understood that so important a professional

controversy could not go on without attracting the attention and

enlisting the sympathies of the architectural profession. Accordingly,

when the publication of the last Treasury minute showed the

determination of the Government to set aside both the claims of

professional practice and the offer of independent arbitration, the

Architectural Institute felt that they could no longer keep silence.

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

“_Royal Institute of British Architects,

16, Grosvenor-street, 9th July, 1856._

“SIR,--The attention of the Council of this Institute has been

given for some time past to the correspondence between Her

Majesty’s Government and Sir Charles Barry, respecting his

professional remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at

Westminster, from its commencement to the present time, with

especial reference to the principle involved therein.

“After careful consideration, the Council deem it incumbent on them

to forward to you, in your official capacity, the following

resolution, unanimously passed at their meeting on the 5th instant,

as a protest against the course proposed to be adopted by Her

Majesty’s Government on this occasion:--

“‘That five per cent. upon outlay has been, and is, the only rate

of charge recognised by the profession, as fairly remunerative in

the average practice of architects.

“‘That it is to be deeply regretted that it should be proposed to

depart from the above rate in the instance of the New Palace at

Westminster, a building involving in its design and execution the

exercise of the highest professional attainments.

“‘That the example which would be set by Her Majesty’s Government,

should the course proposed be carried into execution (a legal

appeal against their decision being practically impossible), is to

be regarded as disastrous to the future prospects of architecture

as a liberal profession in this country, as calculated to lower the

character of public monuments in England, and unworthy the

Government of a great nation, whose obvious duty it is adequately

to foster and protect the genius of its artists.’

“We are, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES C. NELSON,}

“M. DIGBY WYATT. } _Hon. Secs._”

They received the following reply:--

“_Treasury Chambers, 15th July, 1856._

“GENTLEMEN,--The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury have

had before them the resolution passed at your meeting on the 5th

instant, on the subject of Sir Charles Barry’s professional

remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster,

which was inclosed in your secretaries’ letter of the 9th instant.

“Although my Lords cannot recognise your right to call upon

Parliament or Her Majesty’s Government to conform to the

regulations or opinions of the society in arrangements which may be

made with professional gentlemen undertaking public works, their

Lordships are anxious that no misunderstanding should exist in the

minds of the respectable body which you represent on the subject of

the remuneration of Sir Charles Barry as architect of the New

Houses of Parliament.

“Their Lordships have therefore directed me to transmit to you

herewith the enclosed copy of their Minute of the 4th instant, in

order that you may be informed of the views by which this Board has

been governed in the matter.

“You will learn from that Minute that this Board has not in its

recent correspondence with Sir Charles Barry proposed any new

principle with regard to the professional remuneration of

architects employed on public works, but has, on the contrary,

endeavoured to carry out in a liberal spirit an arrangement, made

in 1838, in consequence of opinions expressed in Parliament, and

acquiesced in by Sir Charles Barry in the following year, as shown

by the correspondence quoted in the inclosed Minute, which took

place in 1838 and 1839, and you will observe that the only

objection then raised by Sir Charles Barry regarded the amount of

remuneration proposed, and not the principle on which it was based.

Their Lordships feel that you might, with greater propriety, call

upon a member of your own body for an explanation of the motives by

which he was governed, rather than address a remonstrance to Her

Majesty’s Government against the deviation, acquiesced in by him in

1839, from the rate of charge recognised by the profession.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “JAMES WILSON.”

The correspondence ended with their acknowledgement of this reply,

accompanied by a statement that “it was only after a careful examination

of the whole of the Parliamentary papers connected with the subject,

that the Council arrived at their own conclusions thereon, and framed

and unanimously adopted the resolution in question.”

It was not indeed likely that the Government would allow this

interposition to modify action, which they had formally adopted and

publicly announced. But the interposition itself was very gratifying to

Sir C. Barry, as an acknowledgment that he was fighting the battle of

the profession, and a testimony of the sympathy, which went with him in

a difficult and unequal contest.

It would have been well, if his letter of the 15th had been absolutely

final. But, as was perhaps inevitable, difficulties of detail arose in

carrying out the scheme laid down by the Treasury, and some acrimonious

correspondence was the result. Under the irritation caused by these

petty disputes, the architect once more embodied his views in a formal

protest, which was sent to the Board of Works, and met by a rejoinder

from Mr. H. A. Hunt, their surveyor. Neither the protest nor the

rejoinder add much new matter to the facts of the case, and they need

not be recorded here.

One important matter still remains to be noticed. After Sir C. Barry’s

death, his son, Mr. Edward M. Barry, who had long been his assistant in

the work, received from the Board of Works an invitation to undertake

the task of superintendence of “the works at the New Palace at

Westminster, which had received the sanction of this Board, and for

which Parliament had made grants of money,” the rates of his

remuneration to be “the same as those paid to his late lamented father.”

Mr. Barry, of course, rejoiced to have the opportunity of completing his

father’s work, and was willing to accept the rate of remuneration, in

which Sir Charles had already been forced to acquiesce. At the same time

he felt it right to inform the Board of Works that he did so in

consequence of this desire to carry out Sir Charles Barry’s designs;

“otherwise,” he adds, “I should have felt bound, on public grounds, and

in justice both to myself and the architectural profession, to have

called the attention of the Chief Commissioner to the fact that the

remuneration forced upon my father’s acceptance by the Treasury minute

of January 29th, 1856 (against the injustice of which he always

protested) is:--

“1. Less than is customary with architects of standing, and

adequate in the case of the Palace.

“2. Less than has been, and is now, paid to architects employed by

the Government on other works.

“3. Less than was recently offered by the Government to architects

of all nations, in the public competition for the new Government

Offices.”

In November, 1863, in sending in his professional charges, calculated at

the rate of four per cent., Mr. Barry remarked on the extension of the

work beyond the amount which was calculated upon in the first instance,

and for which money had been voted at the time of Sir C. Barry’s death,

and on certain additional duties which had devolved upon him as

architect. At the same time, considering the case as one of an

exceptional character, on which he had already maintained the abstract

principle in his letter of June 8th, 1860, he left the matter entirely

in the hands of the First Commissioner. The result was that in March,

1864, the Office of Works informed him that, by order of the Treasury,

they were ready to “pay a commission of five instead of four per cent.

upon the expenditure for the past and present financial years” (March

31st, 1862-1864). For all subsequent works upon, or connected with, the

New Palace of Westminster, Mr. Barry has received, without question, the

customary remuneration of five per cent. On the bearing of this

proceeding on the question at issue it is hardly needful to remark.

Before collecting in one view the results of the whole controversy,

there is one subject closely connected with it, to which it is necessary

briefly to advert.

In the course of the controversy constant allusions were made to the

great expenditure on the building, and especially to the great excess

over the original estimate. In fact, the original agreement imposed by

Lord Duncannon had for its object the prevention of such excess, by

removing what was, I suppose, held to be a pecuniary temptation to the

architect to incur it.

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

few remarks.

The original estimate for the erection of the building was 707,104_l._

and it is not unnatural that those, who contrast this estimate with the

amount actually expended, approaching two millions, should look upon the

excess as something monstrous. The comparison however of the two sums

gives an entirely erroneous view of the case.

The summary on the opposite page, presented to Parliament by the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1850, of all sums expended, or to be

expended, on the New Palace at Westminster is substantially correct, and

will throw some light on the subject.

(_a._) It will be observed that of the gross sum nearly 500,000_l._

is apportioned to furniture, fittings, and other decorations (not

included in the estimate).

The largeness of this amount is due in great degree to the

determination, expressed in the Fine Art Commission, and welcomed

with acclamation by the public, of making the erection of the

building a great opportunity for the encouragement of the fine arts

of painting and sculpture. This determination seemed to the

architect to necessitate a far greater amount of splendour and

perfection in the whole internal fittings; for it was his opinion,

strongly urged on the Commission, that the masterpieces of the

painter’s and sculptor’s art, if they are to have their full

effect, must be in harmony with the decorations surrounding them,

and fix (as it were) the standard of their magnificence.

It will be, of course, a matter of opinion how far this principle

has been successfully carried out in the New Palace at Westminster;

but probably few will question its theoretical soundness, or be

surprised

SUMMARY.

----------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------

| EXPENDED. | UNEXPENDED. | TOTAL.

+----------------+--------------+------------------

| £ s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._

For Works included in the Original Estimate | 522,170 0 0|159,934 0 0| 682,104 0 0

For Works specially excluded from the Estimate| 55,907 3 2| 32,000 0 0| 87,907 3 2

For additional Works in the construction of | | |

the Building | 35,063 3 1| 14,735 4 4| 49,798 7 5

For Additions to, and Modifications of, the | | |

original Plans of the Building | 19,150 1 0| 32,564 5 0| 51,714 6 0

For extra Charges consequent upon Changes | | |

in Materials and Workmanship | 51,721 6 2| 32,000 0 0| 83,721 6 2

For additional Cost occasioned by | | |

increased Ratio of Contracts, &c. | 53,400 0 0| 21,000 0 0| 74,400 0 0

For Works incidental to, but forming no | | |

Part of, the Works of the Building | 27,409 4 0| 16,177 7 2| 43,586 11 2

For incidental Charges upon the Funds | | |

appropriated to the Building, but | | |

not connected with the Works thereof | 38,972 13 8| 5,000 0 0| 43,972 13 8

For extra Works in Warming, Ventilating, | | |

and Smoke Arrangements | 77,533 19 0| 45,583 11 2| 123,117 10 2

For extra Works in Fire-proofing, in | | |

consequence of Warming, Ventilating, | | |

and Smoke Arrangements | 74,825 0 0| 10,050 0 0| 84,875 0 0

For Furniture, Fittings, Fixtures, | | |

and Decorations | 93,195 9 0|404,204 11 0| 497,400 0 0

For Purchase of Property for the Site | 82,382 11 4| .. .. | 82,382 11 4

For the Architect’s and Engineer’s Charges, | | |

and Cost of Superintendence | 41,510 6 3| 50,757 0 7| 92,267 6 10

+----------------+--------------+-----------------

£ |1,173,240 16 8|824,005 19 3|1,997,246 15 11

--+----------------+--------------+-----------------

that Sir Charles took advantage of that increase of taste for

artistic beauty and magnificence, which had grown up since his

designs were originally formed. In any case the expenditure on this

head must fairly be regarded, as in very great degree unconnected

with the first estimate, and deserving to be judged on its own

merits.

(_b._) It should next be noted that nearly 208,000_l._ was taken up

by the arrangements for warming and ventilation, and for the extra

work in fire-proofing which they rendered necessary.

The largeness of this amount will surprise no one who remembers

that for these arrangements one-third of the cubical contents of

the building was demanded; that the Central Tower itself belongs to

these extra works; that large portions of the building were carried

up for the purpose of providing continuous air and smoke flues, in

the cross roofs connecting those in the main building; and that

great changes of material were introduced, such as the substitution

of iron for slated roofs, and of iron girders and brick arches for

ordinary floors.

(_c._) Besides these two chief causes of increased expenditure, it

must be added, that the purchase of extra site and the cost of

works (such as the river wall) expressly excepted from the

estimate, absorbed nearly 170,000_l._, and that a sum of 97,000_l._

was devoted to purposes connected with the building, but not

properly forming part of the works.

These sums amount in all to 970,000_l._ The rest of the excess is

really and properly connected with the works, on which the

estimate was made. On this it is right to observe--

(_a._) That the treacherous nature of the soil, discovered after

the estimate was made, necessitated a large increase of expense on

the foundations (nearly 50,000_l._).

(_b._) That the failure of the Bolsover stone, and the employment

of the harder Anston stone, involved a great increase of labour

upon it, and therefore of expense.

(_c._) That the very fact, already noticed, of the piecemeal

occupation of the building, necessitating all kinds of temporary

arrangements, obstructing progress, and often preventing work from,

being done in the easiest and simplest manner, also tended in the

same direction.

(_d._) That large additional requirements were made for the public

service in the course of the erection of the building, including

the restoration of St. Stephen’s Crypt, the provision of residences

for the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Clerk of the Crown, the

gentlemen in charge of the ventilation of the building, &c.

(_e._) That the upward tendency of prices of labour and material,

within the time occupied by the erection of the building, naturally

told against the public, and very greatly increased the needful

expenditure.

All these causes were at work in swelling the excess of expenditure.

Some of them were altogether beyond the architect’s control; for others

he was partially responsible.

It was his earnest desire that the magnificence of the building should

be worthy of its grand scale and still grander destination. He thought

that, in the pursuit of this object, expense was to a great nation a

secondary consideration; for the sum voted year by year for the purpose

was after all a sum comparatively insignificant in the aggregate of the

public estimates. It is undoubtedly true that his own sanguine

temperament led him to undervalue difficulties and expense in carrying

out what he thought desirable, and his fastidious taste, showing itself

in numerous alterations, tended to increase actual expenditure. But

these errors (if errors they were) were but the excrescences of that

ardent desire for perfection, which was his real and principal motive.

Nor does it seem that the public verdict would greatly condemn his

theoretical principles. Those who have attacked the excess of

expenditure (when they have not followed mere fashion or acted in pure

ignorance) have done so, because they conceived that perfection had not

been attained, and that accordingly the expenditure had been so much

waste. On the final opinion, which shall be entertained of the building

in itself, will depend also the opinion, which will prevail on the

secondary question.

Much, however, of the action of the authorities in the matter of the

remuneration seemed to proceed on the principle, that, since an

architect by increasing expenditure increases his percentage, he should

not be allowed to profit by what is at least _primâ facie_ a misdoing.

On the general bearing of this principle on the remuneration by

percentage it is not needful to speak. But those, who knew Sir C. Barry,

will be well aware that, in any increase of expenditure, nothing could

be further from his thoughts than the idea of his own pecuniary

aggrandisement, and nothing was more painful to him than the imputation,

expressly or indirectly, of any such unworthy motive.

The fact is, that the present building, and the one for which the

estimate was made, although they are one in general principles of plan

and design, are yet wholly different both in size and in decoration. To

the bearing of this fact on the remuneration controversy, as well as on

the question of expenditure, it is needless to do more than refer. The

building must be judged in the matter of costliness as it stands; and,

when its cubical contents are estimated, and its style considered, it

will be found that excessive costliness has been attributed to it

without adequate ground.

Such is a brief statement of one of the most interesting and important

professional controversies of late years.[88] Without assuming a right

to pronounce judgment, certain points may not unfairly be noticed, as

summing up the really important features of the case.

I. The attempt to supersede the regular method of professional

remuneration by the offer of a fixed sum for the completion of the work

_was practically abandoned by the Government_. The question between them

and the architect turned on the amount of the percentage (whether it

should be four or five per cent.), a question which made a difference to

him of some 23,000_l._, but which did not settle any great principle, or

materially affect the public interest, in the general question of the

relations of the Government to the architects employed in public works.

II. It cannot be questioned that the Government made use of their power

to enforce an acquiescence in their terms, irrespectively of the

arguments by which they sustained them. This they did (as will be

noticed)--

1. By not unfrequent interpositions of delay.

2. By an attempt (afterwards withdrawn) to construe the acceptance of a

payment on account, due on any supposition, to be an acquiescence in the

principle of their proposal.

3. By ordering all payments whatever to be withheld until the architect

yielded to their terms, and by ignoring all claims for interest, on

payments thus deferred and afterwards acknowledged to be due.