that of the “special services.”
III. It is evident that the real ground of their action, and the reason
why that action was allowed to pass almost unquestioned in
Parliament,[89] was the great increase of expenditure on the building,
the delay in its completion, and the unpopularity into which, from these
and from other causes, it had been brought. But for these things, the
whole responsibility for which they were inclined to throw upon the
architect, they would not have ventured, and probably would not have
wished, to deal with him on a principle, which, in no other case (not
even in the completion of the New Palace itself) did they show any
determination to enforce. How far their course can be justified by these
grounds of proceeding, it must be left to others to decide.
Such is the general narrative of the erection of the building. It has
been given at some length, as forming a curious and not unimportant
chapter in the history of modern English architecture. Such critical
notice of it, as is necessary here, must be reserved for the next
chapter.
CHAPTER VII.
THE NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.
I. HISTORY OF THE GROWTH OF THE DESIGN.--Influence of external
circumstances on the design--Lowness and irregularity of
site--Limitation of choice to Elizabethan and Gothic styles--Choice
of Perpendicular style--Original conception of the plan--Question
of restoration of St. Stephen’s Chapel--Use of Westminster Hall as
the grand entrance to the building--Simplicity of plan--Principle
of symmetry and regularity dominant--Enlargement of plan after its
adoption--Conception of St. Stephen’s porch--The Central Hall--The
Royal Entrance and Royal Gallery--The House of Lords, its
construction and decoration--The House of Commons, and its
alteration--Great difficulty of the acoustic problem--Enlargement
of public requirements--Alterations of design in the River
Front--The Land Fronts--The Victoria Tower--The Clock
Tower--General inclination to increase the upward tendency of the
design, and the amount of decoration. II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE
ACTUAL BUILDING.--Its dimensions--Its main lines of approach; the
public approach--The royal approach--The private approaches of
Peers and Commons--General character of the plan--The external
fronts--The towers--Criticisms on the building by independent
authorities.
I. In considering the growth of the design of the New Palace at
Westminster, it is necessary to remember, that it was not left entirely
free, to be determined by the taste of the architect or the requirements
of the building, but was influenced by the site, by the existence of
Westminster Hall, of the Courts of Law, and of a portion of the old St.
Stephen’s Chapel, and by the limitation to either the Elizabethan or
Gothic style dictated by the judges.
The disadvantages of the site were so obvious--so obvious, that
proposals were made to rebuild the Palace on other sites, among which
may be noticed the high ground in the Green Park and Trafalgar Square.
But in the end the feeling for the old site prevailed, and architectural
effect was not unnaturally sacrificed to historical associations.
The site chosen was low; approached moreover from the higher ground of
Trafalgar Square, and (in close juxta-position with the principal front)
from Westminster Bridge, the parapet of which was then so high as
actually to conceal a large portion of the front on the first view from
the Surrey side of the river, and to give it the effect of being
completely sunk. In some degree this defect might be, and has been,
remedied, by the erection of a bridge (as at present) at a much lower
level of roadway, and with low parapets; and this was a plan which Mr.
Barry always strongly urged. But the only effectual remedy would have
been to raise the building on a great terrace (as is done at Somerset
House), so as to bring it on a level with the parapet of the bridge. It
would have been a costly scheme; but high cost would hardly have
deterred him from recommending it. The fatal objection was, that it
would have left Westminster Hall and the Abbey, so to speak, in a hole;
and this could not have been tolerated. The lowness therefore of the
site might be mitigated, but could not be remedied.
Moreover, the site was irregular, almost wedge-shaped in form; and on
the land-side Westminster Hall and the Law Courts (the former not
parallel to the river front), made a continuous elevation impossible.
These points presented great difficulty in plan, especially to one, who
held to regularity and symmetry as main principles of design. The Law
Courts might be and (he thought) ought to be removed; the other
difficulties still remained inevitable.
Between the prescribed styles of Elizabethan and Gothic there was no
long hesitation. The former appeared a bastard style, unfit for a
building of such magnitude. Gothic was at once chosen. Of all its styles
Mr. Barry admired most the Early English; but he then thought it hardly
fit for other than ecclesiastical purposes. Finally he chose
Perpendicular, thinking that it would lend itself most easily to the
requirements of the building, and to the principle of regularity, which
he intended to introduce in his design. But, if he could have had a site
to his mind, and had been left free to choose his style, there is little
doubt that he would have preferred Italian. The example most frequent in
his thoughts was Inigo Jones’ grand design for the Palace at Whitehall;
his own general ideas were manifested in the great design for the New
Public Offices, which was the last important work of his life. He
actually prepared some sketches and studies for an Italian design, in
defiance of the instructions to the competitors.
But he felt that, under all circumstances, Gothic was the style best
fitted for the New Palace, and, if Westminster Hall was to be made a
feature in the design, the only style possible; and he was consoled for
the loss of Italian mainly by the thought of the facility given by
Gothic for the erection of towers, the one method by which he thought it
possible to
[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.
PLAN OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR.]
redeem from insignificance a great building, in which convenience
forbade great general height, and for which a low and unfavourable site
had been provided.
Under the limitations thus imposed from without, his mind began to work
on the conception of a design. The original idea of his plan was
sketched out on the back of a letter, while he was on a visit to Mr.
Godfrey, one of his early friends. Even this contained the germ of all
that was to follow. But the first plan, which he drew out with care,
exhibited every one of the great features of the executed building; and
even at this early stage his views extended beyond this plan with a view
to the completion of the design. He proposed to enclose New Palace Yard,
erecting at the angle a lofty gate-tower, visible from Bridge Street to
the Abbey. Beyond this point was to be a grand quadrangle, in which the
Victoria Tower should be the principal feature, and from that Tower a
grand approach was to lead straight to Buckingham Palace.
In considering the plan, Mr. Barry at once saw that Westminster Hall
must either ruin any design, or form a principal feature in it. St.
Stephen’s Chapel was in ruins; it was difficult to restore it with
certainty; and if it were restored, it was natural that it should be
reclaimed to ecclesiastical purposes.[90] This he therefore thought it
better to avoid; but the crypt remained, to be preserved and rescued
from its former use, as the Speaker’s Dining-room, to a more worthy
purpose.[91] He therefore resolved at once to make Westminster Hall his
great public approach, and to carry the public through it, and through a
hall occupying the site of St. Stephen’s Chapel, right into the centre
of the site provided. There were difficulties in the way; the position
of the hall and chapel at right angles turned the line of approach;
there was a want of parallelism in the one, and of perpendicularity in
the other, to the line of the river front, and so to the principal axis
of the building; the vast dimensions of the hall itself would tend to
dwarf any other hall to which it formed the entrance. But he felt that
these were secondary considerations, not worthy of counterbalancing the
grandeur and the appropriateness of the general conception. The verdict
of public criticism, both at the time of the competition and
subsequently, has fully justified his determination.
These points determined, the rest of the plan followed naturally. The
Commons must be on the left of the Central Hall, their private entrance
in New Palace Yard, and the Speaker’s residence beyond; the Lords on
the right, their private entrance in Old Palace Yard, and the Royal
approach again beyond this. The suites of libraries and committee-rooms
could nowhere be so well placed as on the river front. This general plan
was at once adopted, and from its main features he never swerved. He
disliked, as an error of principle, the necessary duality of design, and
the need of carrying on the great line of approach to inferior rooms,
while the Houses of Lords and Commons lay on the right and left. He
would have preferred some one feature incontestably the chief, so as to
give the unity which he craved. But the plan adopted was recommended by
grandeur, simplicity, and convenience;[92] and these considerations kept
him firm and unhesitating in his adherence to it. In fact, he was
surprised that none of his competitors had adopted it.
The plan and style being thus fixed, the composition of the design next
suggested the question, whether there was anything in Gothic style which
ought to interfere with the principles of symmetry, regularity, and
unity, so dear to his artistic taste. Many (and his friend Pugin
especially) contended for irregularity, picturesqueness, and variety.
They would have had a group of buildings rather than a single one, or at
any rate a building, in which there should be a general unity of style,
rather than an actual symmetry of design, which they stigmatized as
“clothing a “classical design with Gothic details.” But Mr. Barry’s
notions were widely different. He conceived that, if certain first
principles were true, they could not vary in different styles. He
believed that symmetry and regularity were essential to unity and
grandeur; and on this conviction he acted throughout, though sensible at
the time that it would meet with opposition, and occasionally
disheartened by the increasing strength of the opposition in after
years.[93] This is, of course, no place for the discussion of so
difficult a question in the abstract. All that is needful is to indicate
the principle, which, as a matter of fact, guided and controlled the
design, and which probably accounts for the existence of certain actual
features, and the omission of others which might have been looked
for.[94]
The character of the building was, of course, to be palatial. There were
however but fragments of Gothic palaces to be found in England. Italian
Gothic had not yet attracted much observation. The town-halls of Belgium
occurred to him, and he went over to that country to see and to admire
them, especially those of Brussels and Louvain. They recurred to him
afterwards, as examples of visible roofs, and general enrichment. But at
the time they did not affect his design, which was mainly “castellated”
with embattled parapets, concealed roofs, and an absence of all spires.
The great tower, one hundred feet square, was to be treated as a “keep;”
the clock-tower differed little, except in size, from the same general
character. With his great love of unity and regularity he might have
desired a central tower,[95] but it must have been over the central
hall, and there it would have been too far back to form a centre to the
great river front, and half its height would have been concealed. He
always thought that great towers should be seen from their parapet to
their base; accordingly, he was content to place his towers in positions
where they would form natural and prominent features, without
interfering with each other, or with the great river front.
Such were the views which dictated the great outlines of the prize
design. He made countless variations, drawings literally by hundreds, as
studies of its prominent features, in the course of its formation; but
the main principles were deeply fixed in his mind, and to them he always
returned.
As soon as he was appointed to carry out the work, he was instructed to
remodel his plan. More accommodation was needed, and the Government
determined to extend the site southwards. This step had the additional
advantage of enabling the architect to enlarge the courts, required to
give light and air to so extensive a building. It was the first of many
alterations, some undertaken with direct authority, others more or less
on his own responsibility, with the strong feeling that they were real
improvements, dictated by an “architectural necessity,” and that as such
they must eventually be sanctioned.
This willingness to accept responsibility was shown in the first change.
The river line was not at right angles to the main approach through St.
Stephen’s Hall. If both were strictly preserved, much distortion was
inevitable. To diminish it as much as possible, he not only set back the
line of the embankment at the southern end, but advanced it at the other
end, near the bridge, so as to encroach on the river; and this he did,
without consulting either the Conservators of the Thames or the
Government. This bold step, sanctioned by its success, still left some
remains of the objectionable distortion at the entrance from St.
Stephen’s Hall into the central hall. There it still exists, but, owing
to the octagonal form of the latter hall, and some contrivances of
detail, it is hardly to be detected.
The next important alteration introduced one of the noblest features of
the present building. In determining to use Westminster Hall as a public
approach, he had feared that any important alteration might rouse
opposition; he had therefore proposed merely to enlarge the existing
entrance under the great south window. But now the grand idea of St.
Stephen’s porch was conceived, the great window was set back, and the
present noble entrance to the building was the result. He had proposed
also to raise the great roof of Westminster Hall,[96] being thoroughly
satisfied of the practicability of the process, and the great
improvement of proportion which must result. Considerations of expense
alone interfered with its execution.
For the embellishment of the hall he had, as has been shown in the last
chapter, grand dreams; frescoes, trophies, and statues, were to have met
the eye, “set” in profuse enrichment of colour and mosaic, and the whole
was to have formed a British Walhalla.
The central hall was originally intended to be far more lofty than at
present; the lowering of its proportions is one of the many changes
necessitated by the claims for ventilation made by Dr. Reid.
The most important alteration of all was made in the royal entrance. The
tower in the first design was one hundred feet square, the sovereign was
to have alighted within it, and the royal procession, turning round a
central pillar, was to have returned by the way it came. The reduction
of the size of the tower to seventy-five feet square set this plan
aside, and it was then arranged, that the sovereign should pass through
the tower into an inner hall, and alight at the foot of a grand
staircase, leading straight to the robing room immediately behind the
throne. But on consideration Mr. Barry grudged the great sacrifice of
space, and the interruption of communication on the principal floor, for
a staircase, which could be used only twice a year.[97] He conceived
the notion of the Royal gallery, as a hall for the use of the House of
Lords, for the viewing of the royal procession, and for the display of
architectural effect, unrestrained by the encumbrances which business
renders necessary in the Houses of Lords and Commons. To these
considerations he sacrificed the greater magnificence of the original
staircase, and on his own responsibility proceeded with the work.
This was the first alteration which excited discontent and opposition.
The nature of that opposition is referred to in the previous chapter;
its only effect however was to produce a still further alteration, by
the formation of the anteroom behind the throne (the Prince’s chamber)
for the convenience of the House of Lords. This involved the curtailment
of the Royal gallery, and the insertion of a comparatively small room in
the royal approach, and was never entirely satisfactory to the
architect.
In the House of Lords no great alteration was made, except in height. In
the original design the roof was kept low, in deference to authorities
in acoustics; but on more careful inquiry it was found that they
differed widely from each other, and the architect not unnaturally
thought that certain beauty of proportion need not be sacrificed to a
doubtful acoustical advantage. The roof accordingly was raised. It could
not be made open, because of the requirements for ventilation; but, in
fact, even in Gothic buildings Mr. Barry was disinclined to employ open
roofs. For inhabited rooms he preferred a coved or arched ceiling, and
believed that, in the abstract, a cove was the best method of connecting
a horizontal ceiling with vertical walls.
In the gorgeous decorations of the house not a little was due to the
work and the influence of Mr. Pugin, which added a stimulus, hardly
needed, to the architect’s own love of enrichment. The carved and metal
work, and generally the purely ornamental details, were designed by Mr.
Pugin, under Mr. Barry’s direction, and subject to his frequent
alterations; the painted windows were not only designed by Mr. Pugin,
but carried out under his superintendence, the architect only
stipulating for a sufficient amount of white glass to produce the
“jewelled effect” he admired in many ancient windows.[98] The unsightly
black effect of these windows at night was a great difficulty; a system
of external gas-lighting was adopted to remedy it, but it has since been
disused. The ceiling was a subject of much consideration; Mr. Barry
wished to produce as much as possible the effect of solid gold, the
enrichment of colour being purely subsidiary. His notion always was that
decoration, if begun, should be thoroughly carried out, and that only by
failure in this respect, and by partiality of decoration, was the effect
of tawdriness produced.
The House of Lords he considered as not a mere place of business, not
even a mere House of Lords at all, but as the chamber in which the
sovereign, surrounded by the court, summoned to the royal presence the
three estates of the realm. He thought, therefore, that it should
partake of royal magnificence, and lavished upon it all the treasures of
decoration.
The House of Commons underwent many changes. The accommodation required
by the original instructions, and the recommendation accompanying them,
that every member should be brought as near to the Speaker as possible,
necessitated enormous size and a nearly square form; but, on
consultation with the authorities of the House, it was found that they
considered the accommodation, both for members and for strangers, as
unnecessarily and inconveniently large, and that the preponderance of
their opinion was in favour of the old oblong form. On their authority
the width and available accommodation of the House were greatly reduced.
The difficulty really lay in this, that, whereas some accommodation must
be provided for each of the six hundred and fifty-eight members, yet,
for business purposes, the House must not be too large for the
comparatively small average attendance. The Government seem to have
dwelt more on the former consideration, the authorities of the House,
who knew its practical working, on the other. The architect inclined to
obey the latter, especially as their orders coincided with the claims of
architectural proportion. The consequence of this reduction, as has been
elsewhere stated, was great disapprobation by the House of Commons, and
the consequent alteration of the chamber, fatal to its architectural
effect.
On the subject of the acoustic properties of the House it is right to
remark that the difficulties were great and peculiar. In rooms where the
speaking is to be from one or two quarters only (as in churches,
theatres, or law-courts, in legislative assemblies, where the speaker
mounts a “tribune,” &c.), the task is comparatively easy, though even
here failure is not unusual. But in the Houses of Parliament a speaker
must be audible from every part of the House, even when using that
conversational tone which our method of Parliamentary speaking tends to
foster. To this is to be added the consideration above alluded to of the
fluctuating nature of the attendance. The House of Lords must contain
the peers themselves, the sovereign and the court at the upper, the
deputies of the Commons at the lower end; yet it is attended usually by
a few peers who speak quietly across the table. In the House of Commons
the variation of members is less, but the greater pressure of business
makes its inconvenience more serious. Add to these the undoubted fact,
that very few persons, especially in short conversational remarks, take
the trouble to speak distinctly, and use proper modulation of the voice,
and that in the case of a new building a certain time seems to be needed
(which in the House of Commons was certainly not given), to “season” the
House, and accustom the speakers to its pitch, and it will be seen that
the architect was not without some plea, to oppose to the censure with
which he was so freely visited. Theories he found to be discordant, and
time was hardly allowed for experience and trial of remedial measures.
Such were the modifications of plan voluntarily made by the architect;
others were rendered necessary by circumstances. Some additional
residences were introduced, refreshment rooms and offices were
re-arranged, provision was necessary to meet the immense extension of
the business of Parliamentary Committees, alterations made in order to
provide for the whole of the public records, and, above all, changes in
plan and elevation were necessitated on every side by the enormous
claims, both upon the space and arrangements of the building, made by
Dr. Reid for his schemes of ventilation. The central tower was wholly
due to these requirements; many other parts of the building were carried
up, and many smaller turrets were introduced, to meet the requirements
of his system. The spaces under the Houses, intended for the horses and
carriages of members, were surrendered to him, and the want of them is
severely felt. On the whole it has been already noticed that he absorbed
one-third of the cubical contents of the building. All these things
involved frequent changes, constant thought and labour, and no slight
increase of expenditure.
These alterations of plan were naturally followed by considerable
alterations of design; some, in fact, necessitated by them, others
dependent on certain changes of idea in the mind of the architect
himself, and in the general feeling as to Gothic architecture.
Both these kinds of alteration were manifested in
[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.
GENERAL VIEW, FROM LAMBETH PALACE.]
the river front. The great increase of extent required some device for
breaking the monotony and comparative lowness of this long front. He was
strongly averse at all times to setting back the wings, or greatly
advancing the centre of an architectural front, so as to break its line,
when seen in perspective, and interfere with its apparent size. He was
reduced therefore to attempt variation in outline, by slightly raising
the whole centre, by heightening into towers the masses which flanked
it, and by introducing visible roofs and turrets. This last change was
one of principle; the “castellated” form necessarily disappeared at
once, the parapet became subordinate, the turrets, originally
battlemented, now terminated in tops, which, after many trials, and with
some reluctance, were made of the ogee form. An upward tendency was
given to the whole. The towers of the front remained for some time
without visible roofs, and when the roofs were introduced they were so
kept down (in deference to the advice of others) in relation to the
angle turrets, that some confusion of principle resulted. He regretted
afterwards that he had not kept down the pinnacles, and made the roofs
boldly predominant. At the same time a change was made as to the
buttresses of the whole front. They had no thrust to sustain, they
interrupted the cornice and string-courses, and interfered with the
panelling. For these reasons Mr. Barry himself disliked them, and,
external criticism coinciding with his own feeling, he resolved to
change them into turrets, which were free from all these objections, and
which would tend at once to elevate and break the sky-line, and by
their greater projection to relieve the flatness of the front. These
turrets, once introduced, must of course prevail throughout; they made
their appearance accordingly in the prominent masses of the wings, and
so the change of the whole character of the front was complete.
This alteration may be considered to have been more or less occasioned
by the extension of front; other changes were made without any such
ground. In the original design the windows of the two principal stories
were set in arched recesses, with no string-courses to mark the
divisions of the stories, united, as it were, under one head. This was
now altered; the internal arrangements were manifested by the complete
separation of the two stories; the recesses and the pointed heads of the
windows of both stories were abolished, and in the attic story of the
centre the continuous arcading was changed into sets of triple openings,
so as to harmonize with the three-light windows below. These changes
were less generally approved, as tending to give a flatness to the
front, which the changes noticed in the preceding paragraph were not
sufficient to remove.
The lower story of the whole front was made very solid and plain. It was
indeed originally intended to contain a fire-proof range of vaults for
the public records. Plainness of design indicated its use; it harmonized
also with the principle which he always advocated, that the basement
line should be as unadorned as possible, and that richness should
increase with elevation; and it seemed to him more than usually
necessary in the case of the river front, in order to increase the
effect of the embankment, and give the appearance of elevation of site.
Such were the principles which governed the design of the great front,
and this design to a considerable extent determined that of the others.
The front in New Palace Yard differed chiefly in the adoption of square
buttresses, and (as the rooms looking into it were smaller) in the
division of the whole building above the basement into three stories
instead of two. This division not only suited convenience, but appeared
to him more accordant with true principle; and he rather regretted that
it could not have been adopted in the river front.[99] The front to Old
Palace Yard, with the Victoria tower at one end and Westminster Hall at
the other, might have given opportunity for greater variety of design;
but the same general character still was made to prevail, only varied by
the advancement of alternate bays and by the porch of the Lords’
entrance, which was required for convenience, and which is little else
than a portion of the basement advanced.
The great Victoria tower underwent repeated alterations. It had been
originally treated with all the solidity of a “keep;” but the reduction
on plan was compensated by increase in height, and the whole character
of the design was necessarily changed. The entrance had been of moderate
dimensions (professedly designed on the model of the Erpingham Gate at
Norwich), and the top of the niche-band ranged with the cornice of the
building. It was now raised to its present magnificent dimensions; the
niches remained; and the upper part of the tower was divided into three
large and two smaller stories. The design and arrangement of these cost
incalculable trouble before it assumed its present form, divided into
three windows, and the upper story rendered the prominent one by the
arched and canopied heads of the windows.
As the tower approached completion, he felt some longing for a high
pyramidal termination. But circumstances prevented his realizing this
idea, and reduced him to the high roof and the great flagstaff. In the
tower, however, as it stands, he always felt pride and pleasure, and
trusted that it would be the great feature of the building, by which his
name would be best known hereafter.[100]
[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.
VIEW FROM ROOF OF HENRY VII.’s CHAPEL.]
The tower was at first intended to contain such of the public records as
were not frequently in use, and was arranged accordingly with two lofty
internal stories. Subsequently orders were given to accommodate all the
records; not without great inconvenience, but with much ingenuity,
accommodation was provided by the insertion of numerous floors and other
contrivances. After all, the intention was abandoned by the authorities,
and all the trouble and expense were thrown away.
The clock-tower was the one feature of the building which gave the
greatest trouble, and for which design after design was made and
rejected. It was to be what its name implied: the clock was to be the
one prominent feature, not a mere accessory--treated as an architectural
ornament. For practical purposes it was to be raised on the highest
story, and made of immense size; the ornamental character of the whole
front required that the lower part of the tower should be faced with
delicate panelling, and yet a “top-heavy” effect must be carefully
avoided. It was at once decided that the lower part should be solid,
with but slight openings. To make the clock-story duly prominent all
sorts of devices were thought of, till at last an example was remembered
in which the whole clock-story was made to project beyond the body of
the tower. The suggestion was eagerly caught at; the example quoted
differed in almost every respect from the character of the tower to be
designed, and endless modifications were needed; but the general
principle was preserved, and the result is one of the most striking
features of the building. Still the termination remained; designs and
models were tried over and over again; some forms appeared deficient in
lightness, others were rejected as too ecclesiastical; till at last the
form was devised which we now see. On the whole he felt satisfied with
the tower, only thinking that the outline would have been improved by
raising both the bell-chamber and the terminal portion of the roof, and
regretting the angular projections on the face of the turrets below,
which are terminated abruptly by the clock-story afterwards devised. His
work on this and the Victoria tower gives a striking specimen of the
process by which the whole design was worked out; no labour, no delay,
no expense, seemed excessive in the pursuit of what he thought
perfection, even in the minutest detail. They were temporary; the
censures they might provoke were also temporary; the result was lasting,
and worth any temporary sacrifice.[101]
Such were the reasons which led to modifications of the original design
in the chief portions of the building. Besides these, however, two
general tendencies must be noticed.
The first was the desire to increase as much as possible the upward
tendency of the lines of the design, to elevate and vary the skyline
throughout. Every ventilating shaft was taken advantage of; every turret
was heightened, till the central lantern, itself an insertion, was
surrounded by a forest of louvres and spires. The whole character of the
design was changed; and the change arose, partly from original
predilection for the spire form, partly from advancing knowledge of
Gothic architecture, but principally from practical experience of the
great architectural disadvantages entailed by the site, and the
comparative lowness of the building itself. The change has been
generally recognised as an improvement.
The other tendency was to profuse ornamentation. His notion was that a
general spread of minute ornament, a kind of “diapering” of the whole,
was rich, but more simple, because less likely to interfere with the
main outline, than ornaments on a large scale more sparingly employed.
In the particular case before him he thought that smallness of scale in
details would help to give an appearance of size to the building. But
his feeling always was that ornamentation, if right in kind, could not
be overdone; he did not recognise the value of plainer portions to act
as a “setting” of the decoration; to him they appeared as “neglected
spots;” and partiality of ornament he considered as tawdriness. In the
internal courts he carried plainness out, even to excess; but he would
not unite the two principles.
The effect was visible over the fronts of the whole building, the more
so, because his great idea was, by the aid of the sister arts, to make
the New Palace a monumental history of England. Sculpture without,
sculpture, painting, and stained glass within, were to preserve the
memorials of the past, and declare the date and object of the
building.[102]
Nothing provoked more criticism than this high ornamentation of the
design; but, in spite of all such adverse criticism, he still held to
the principle as the true one, and believed that it would eventually be
recognised as such. It was once remarked by M. Guizot that the work was
a “mélange de finesse et de grandeur.” Such was certainly the leading
idea which inspired its design.
II. The preceding section has described the principles which governed
the original conception and subsequent modifications of this great
design. It remains only to give a brief description of the building as
it exists, so far as is necessary to serve as a guide to the annexed
plan.[103]
The whole building occupies an irregular site of about eight acres. Its
longest front (the river front) is 940 feet in length, each wing having
a frontage of 120 feet, and the terrace occupying the remaining 700
feet. Its greatest width (exclusive of Westminster Hall) is about 340
feet. It contains above 500 rooms, and includes residences for eighteen
different officers of the two Houses, of whom the principal are the
Speaker of the House of Commons, the Serjeant-at-arms, the Usher of the
Black Rod, and the Librarians of the Houses of Lords and Commons. It
thus provides for a resident population of about 200.
This large mass of building receives light and air, not only from its
external fronts, but from eleven internal quadrangles, many of
considerable area. In actual size, and in the extent and variety of its
requirements, it is equalled by few buildings of modern times.
The only portions of the old building, which it was found possible to
retain, are Westminster Hall, the Cloister Court, and the crypt of St.
Stephen’s Chapel, under the present St. Stephen’s Hall.
The main lines of the plan will be easily discerned, suggested as they
are by the nature of the site, the position of Westminster Hall, and the
duality of the object of the building. The first and most important is
the line of public approach through Westminster Hall. At the end of the
hall there is an ascent by a grand flight of steps to a landing under
the great window (to which there is a shorter public communication
through St. Margaret’s porch, from Old Palace Yard), and thence by
another flight into St. Stephen’s Hall. This hall is ninety-five feet in
length, twenty-nine in width, and forty-three in height to the pitch of the
groined roof. It contains several statues of celebrated statesmen, most
of which are very beautiful as works of art, though executed on so large
a scale as to be detrimental to the effect of the hall. It is intended
to cover with appropriate frescoes the panels and the large arched
recesses at the end of the hall.
An archway at the east end gives entrance to the central hall, octagon
on plan and vaulted. Its vault is the largest octagon vault known, in
which a central pillar is not used, and the lantern is sustained by a
cone of brickwork rising above the vault.
From this point the public approaches diverge. To the right and left
corridors open into the lobbies of the Houses of Lords and Commons. At
the east end another corridor opens into the “witness hall,” from which
access is had on the principal floor to the Peers’ libraries and
committee-rooms and the Commons’ libraries, which, with a central
“conference room,” occupy the whole curtain of the river front; a
staircase leads to the upper floor, containing another long range of
committee-rooms.[104]
The next great line is that of the royal approach. The royal carriage
drives under the great Victoria tower, and the sovereign ascending the
royal staircase enters the robing room, and thence emerges into the
“royal gallery,” a room one hundred and ten feet long, forty-five in
width, and forty-five in height, with panelled ceiling. This gallery is
open to the public at the opening and prorogation of Parliament, and
was intended to be the entrance to the House of Peers. For the
convenience of the peers an anteroom, the “Prince’s Chamber,” was added,
through which the sovereign passes to the throne end of the House.
Somewhat small in itself, and accordingly ornamented with small and
delicate detail, it has been much injured by the large statue of Her
Majesty, with the figures of Justice and Mercy flanking her throne,
designed by John Gibson, Esq., R.A., and placed in this chamber.
The two Houses are approached, either from the central hall, or by
private entrances for the members. The private entrance to the House of
Peers is in the centre of the Old Palace Yard front, and there is
another from the south-western angle of St. Stephen’s Hall. The
entrances to the House of Commons are by the Star Chamber and Cloister
Courts, and by an archway on the western side of Westminster Hall. Each
House has its lobbies, corridors, and refreshment rooms, with ready
access to its committee-rooms and libraries.
The two Houses themselves are of very different character. The House of
Peers, as being, not only one chamber of the legislature, but the
presence chamber of the sovereign, is of considerable size (ninety feet
in length, forty-five in width, and forty-five in height), and decorated
with lavish magnificence. The House of Commons, not presenting the same
characteristics, is smaller in size (seventy-five feet in length,
forty-five feet in width, and forty-one feet to the central line of the
ceiling), while it provides much larger accommodation in the galleries
and lobbies, and its decoration, though careful and elaborate, is less
magnificent in character. The official residences are, of course,
grouped round the Houses to which they are appendages. The offices of
the Lord Great Chamberlain are on the south front, the residences of the
Usher of the Black Rod, and Librarian of the House of Peers, at the
south end of the river front, and that of the Serjeant-at-arms on the
Old Palace Yard front. At the north end of the river front we have the
Speaker’s house, and the houses of the Serjeant-at-arms, the Librarian
and the Chief Clerk on the north front and the front to New Palace Yard.
The plan generally, though having great intricacy in detail, an
intricacy increased by constant variation of requirements, and by the
elaborate ventilating system originally imposed on the architect, is yet
perfectly simple and practical in its main lines. He adopted it from the
first as the only one which could be effective or satisfactory, and
never wavered in his approval of its great features; for it showed that
characteristic which has been noticed in all his works, the preservation
of the leading principle of “stateliness,” subordinating, often with
great skill, variety of requirement and of contrivance to a general
unity and repose in effect. And, although there are inevitable defects
in detail, such as difficulty in obtaining sufficient light in some
parts of the building, miscalculation of the amount of accommodation
required, &c., yet experience appears to have confirmed his opinion and
justified his confidence in the leading principles of his plan.
The first grand external feature is undoubtedly the great line of the
river front, which has been noticed above, and is illustrated, so far as
the scale will allow, by the view given. The other great front, the west
or land front, has never as yet been presented to the eye as a whole. It
is interrupted by the law-courts, the days of which appear now to be
numbered. When they are removed, it is to be hoped that due care will be
taken to substitute some front harmonizing with the building, on which
the present erection forms an excrescence. In any case this front will
present a more broken line, which will probably, considering the height
of the building, conduce to beauty and picturesqueness of effect. One
extension of it, shown on the plan, has never yet been made; for New
Palace Yard, which Sir Charles hoped to form into a great architectural
quadrangle, is now to be enclosed merely by an ornamental railing.
The other important features are the three great towers. Of these it is
to be remembered that the central tower was an after-thought,
necessitated by arrangements over which the architect had no control;
otherwise it is possible that, as has been suggested, it would have been
so enlarged as to form a principal feature of the design. It has been a
subject of some surprise, that the general principle of symmetry
followed in the plan and river front, has not been preserved in the case
of the two original towers; but from the very beginning of the design
this was otherwise arranged. The architect probably regarded each as an
almost independent feature, likely to group not with the symmetry of the
river front, but with the necessarily broken line of the land front. In
their design they present a marked contrast, massiveness and grandeur
being the characteristic of the Victoria tower, lightness and elegance
of the clock-tower. Each has its admirers. It is perhaps generally
thought that the clock-tower, from the smallness of its detail,
harmonizes better with the adjacent front, while the Victoria tower,
magnificent in itself, would have tended less to dwarf the rest of the
building, had it stood almost independent of it, connected only by some
grand cloister.
Such is a brief notice of the actual features of the building. The task
of criticism must be left to others. At first very greatly praised, it
was for a time somewhat recklessly condemned. Already it is clear that
it is taking the position due to it. Critics of very opposite schools
show their appreciation, both of the difficulties of the task assigned
to its architect, and the degree of success with which that object has
been attained. Mr. Fergusson, in a vehement anti-Gothic chapter,
regretting that the style of the building was to be Gothic at all,
concludes that, “taking it all in all, it is perhaps the most successful
attempt to apply mediæval architecture to modern civic purposes which
has yet been carried out.” Mr. Scott, in his work on Gothic
architecture, does not hesitate to speak of it as, “on the whole, the
most successful of our modern public buildings.” An article in the
‘Saturday Review,’ immediately after Sir C. Barry’s death, written in
kindliness of feeling, but written also with care and discrimination in
criticism, expresses pretty accurately the verdict of the educated
public taste. “In spite of the shortcomings, which just critical taste
or captious antagonism can find in the details and the mass of the
work,--in spite of the disadvantage of the primary idea of the style in
which it is built having been revolutionised in the course of its
progress--yet the Palace of Westminster stands alone and matchless in
Europe among the architectural monuments of this busy age. From the
border of the Thames, from St. James’s Park or Waterloo Place, from
Piccadilly or the bridge across the Serpentine, the spectacle of that
great square tower, of the central needle, and far away of the more
fantastic _beffroi_--all grouping at every step in some new
combination--stamps the whole building as the massive conception of a
master-mind.”[105]
CHAPTER VIII.
CHIEF DESIGNS NOT EXECUTED.
Large number of designs not executed--Views of Metropolitan
Improvement--Reasons for notice of such designs--Clumber Park--New
Law Courts--National Gallery--Horse Guards--British Museum--General
scheme laid before the late Prince Consort--Design for new Royal
Academy--Crystal Palace--Alterations of Piccadilly and the Green
Park--Prolongation of Pall Mall into the Green Park--Westminster
Bridge--Extension of the New Palace at Westminster round New Palace
Yard--GREAT SCHEME OF METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS. Plan and
description--General remarks thereon.
The list of Sir Charles Barry’s designs in the Appendix will show, that
the numerous works which he executed formed only a part of the many
designs conceived by him. It could not well be otherwise. In his early
days he, of course, entered into many competitions, and made many
fruitless designs. Even later in life his mind was always at work in the
conception of designs, often without regard to immediate practicability.
It was almost impossible for him (as has been said) to enter a building,
or survey a town, without devising plans for its improvement. As few
buildings were perfect, and hardly any to be despaired of, his naturally
sanguine temperament, and consciousness of resource, often led him to
forget or disregard all difficulties which stood in the way of his
improvements.[106]
In London especially his eye was always on the watch. Comparing it with
continental capitals, and especially with Paris, he, of course, felt
painfully the contrast of what might be with what is, and sighed over
the waste of resources, and the neglect of grand opportunities for
architectural display. His architectural career indeed began at a time
of strict economy and rigid utilitarianism. But as it advanced, he could
not but see that men were gradually emancipating themselves from the
conventional fallacy, which separated the useful by a strong line of
demarcation from the ornamental. Art was shown to involve, not mere
arbitrary taste, but substantial and reasonable principle, and
accordingly its influence was recognised, as important and valuable, not
only in the case of the individual, but in that of the community.
Accordingly artistic efforts have been allowed greater scope, and higher
reward.[107] Schemes are proposed, and sums of money voted for them,
which would have made the hair of the economists of 1835 stand on end
with horror. Nor is the feeling for artistic display confined to the
higher classes. It does not appear that the tendency to greater
democratic influence is likely to check the growth of this feeling. Sir
Charles rejoiced of course in its development, and his notions of
metropolitan improvement grew in boldness and comprehensiveness of
scale. His natural activity in this direction was quickened by the fact
of his long official connection with the Board of Works. Many of the
Chief Commissioners had much confidence in his opinion and designs. He
was not unfrequently consulted as to public improvements; and it was
seldom that his vivid imagination confined itself to the limits of his
official instructions. The great scheme of London improvements, which
was his last work, was only the expression and completion of the ideas
of a life-time.
Some of the conceptions which he formed for public and private buildings
may fitly find a brief record here. In a memoir, the interest of which
is mainly architectural, it is in some sense even more necessary to
refer to designs, which exist only on paper, than to buildings, which
are before the public eye, and which speak for themselves. But
independently of this consideration, it is not impossible that they may
still have a practical value. That many of them pointed in directions of
real public utility is obvious from the fact, that they have been since
carried out with success, although by different methods, and by other
hands. It is not unreasonable to conclude that those, yet unrealised,
may show a similar insight into public requirements, and into the means
of meeting them, and may therefore have some power of suggestiveness, in
relation to the many improvements which we yet hope to see. It will (I
think) appear, that, though his plans were comprehensive and often
costly, too costly for immediate execution, they were always thoroughly
practical. He had no sympathy with vague architectural dreams; nor did
his artistic taste and power make him forget reality.
[Illustration: CLUMBER HOUSE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
BLOCK PLAN OF PREMISES AS THEY EXISTED IN 1857.]
[Illustration: CLUMBER HOUSE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
BLOCK PLAN SHEWING SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT.]
[Illustration: CLUMBER HOUSE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR, SHEWING SUGGESTED ALTERATIONS. THE PROPOSED
ALTERATIONS ARE ETCHED IN LIGHT TINT.]
CLUMBER PARK.--In his connection with private clients, he made, of
course, many fruitless designs--admired in themselves, but rejected as
too grand and costly. Of all these the one which most deserves notice,
and which may well serve as a specimen of the whole, is the design made
in 1857 for the late Duke of Newcastle, in respect of Clumber Park. For
of all Sir C. Barry’s designs for a grand private residence, this was
the largest and most comprehensive.
The house is situated in a rich and pleasant country, not far from
Worksop, in an extensive park, and close to a beautiful lake. It is
large in size, but singularly ineffective from the lowness of its
external elevation--a defect aggravated by the fact that the main
approach descends upon it. The interior contains several handsome rooms,
but these ill-connected with one another. The house is entered by a
small entrance and a low insignificant hall, and does not possess a
single good staircase.
The cause of all these defects was obvious. The house had originally
been much smaller, and additions had been made with no definite plan. In
fact, the desire to preserve a room in the centre of the building, which
had been the chief room of the old house, had caused the sacrifice of
all good general effect in the much larger rooms and passages, which
were added.
The late Duke saw the cause, and determined to remedy it. He had long
been something more than an admirer of Sir Charles Barry as an
architect. He had shown him much personal friendship, and given him a
kindly and generous support, at a time when such support was
invaluable. Accordingly he applied to Sir Charles to furnish a general
plan, not with the idea of carrying it out at once, but in the hope
that, by having it before his eyes, he might make some alterations,
which were absolutely necessary, as an instalment of a satisfactory
work, and “leave a record to those who came after him of a design, which
they might be better able than he was to carry out.”
The work was naturally one in which Sir Charles took a more than
professional interest. He saw that only an extensive scheme of
alterations could utilize what existed, and add that which was still
necessary.
The annexed plans will show the general design which he formed.
The first change was to turn the approach to a new entrance court,
through an avenue which should mask the building till the visitor was
close to it, and conceal the lowness of site and elevation. A new
entrance hall led to a grand staircase, roofed over with a high cupola
or dome, which might serve externally to give height and unity to a low
and straggling building. The old west front was to be made a part of the
interior of the building--a large new block of buildings being erected
in front it, containing a grand range of galleries to unite the
disconnected rooms of the building. The interior court, so formed, was
to be treated in a somewhat novel manner, by being glazed over, and made
into a winter garden, connected with the state-rooms on the new west
front. Last, but not least, the private chapel, existing on the first
floor in a very inconvenient position, for the use of the tenants as
well as the
[Illustration: CLUMBER HOUSE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
VIEW OF THE GARDEN FRONT, AS EXISTING.]
[Illustration: CLUMBER HOUSE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
VIEW OF GARDEN FRONT, WITH PROPOSED ALTERATIONS.]
family, was removed, and a church erected on the east side of the house,
with an access to it through a newly-formed conservatory.
Externally, the Italian garden was to be extended so as to encircle the
house, and a range of conservatories added on the eastern side. For
architectural effect, Sir Charles relied greatly on the central dome or
cupola, and the new west front.
The plan was grand in scale and conception, and would have made Clumber
one of the finest of noblemen’s seats in England. But it was so arranged
that it could be executed in detail, and without interfering with the
occupation of the house.
The only part of it as yet carried out is the erection of the new church
by the present Duke, in the position indicated by Sir Charles, but from
the designs of Mr. Thomas C. Hine, of Nottingham. Whether any other
portion will be attempted is as yet uncertain. But the plan exists as a
guide for all future work, to be modified, of course, as circumstances
shall dictate. For the want of such plans, both in public and private
buildings, it is lamentable to see how much labour and money are
actually wasted.[108] In this point of view, as well as for its own
grandeur of scheme, the plan for the new house at Clumber may have some
interest to all.
But the great majority of these designs had reference to public
buildings, and to some of these it will be well to refer.
LAW COURTS.--The first design was intended to meet a public need, which
has been long increasing in urgency, and now, after twenty-five years of
discussion, is to be supplied on a scale of unparalleled magnificence.
In 1840 the need of additional accommodation for the Law Courts
attracted the attention of the Government. It was always felt that they
could not remain as they are, insufficient in accommodation, and a mere
excrescence upon Westminster Hall and the New Palace. To enlarge them
was impossible without a serious and unwarrantable encroachment on New
Palace Yard. Therefore, it was concluded that the old associations of
Westminster Hall must be set aside, and the Courts must be removed, and
on the removal Sir C. Barry was consulted. Two sites appeared to him
eligible: one in the centre of Lincoln’s Inn Fields; the other, fronting
the Strand near St. Clement Danes Church, between Lincoln’s Inn and the
Temple. Of these sites the former was clear, and would involve no
expense in the purchase of existing buildings. He believed that the area
occupied would be so small in comparison to the whole, that no serious
injury to one of the “lungs of London” need be apprehended; and, though
he yielded to the outcry, which arose against the scheme, he did not
recognise its justice.
The choice of the other site, instead of interfering with the free
space so highly valuable in London, had undoubtedly the advantage of
clearing away one of the worst of neighbourhoods.[109] To it accordingly
his attention was afterwards directed.
In his first design he returned once more to the Greek style, which he
had so long discarded. He considered that, for convenience sake, the
principal floor ought not to be raised much above the street, and that,
for acoustic reasons, the Courts themselves ought not to be high. This
would make the whole design low, in comparison with the large extent of
ground which it would necessarily cover; and to screen it by lofty piles
of offices or residences would interfere with light and air. Under these
circumstances, especially as he at first intended the building to be in
an open space, visible on all sides, he determined to surround it with a
classic peristyle, and seek massiveness and simplicity rather than
height or grandeur. In Lincoln’s Inn Fields, grouped with, and screened
by, masses of trees, so as not to be first visible at a great distance,
he conceived that the old classic style might appear at advantage. But
the scheme was afterwards abandoned, and the only Greek design of his
later days fell with it.
In 1845 he was again examined before a Committee of the House of
Commons, and submitted two designs; one occupying the second of the two
sites above noticed, a space of about seven and three-quarter acres,
which he proposed to clear for the purpose; the other involving the
enclosure of New Palace Yard, and the extension of the New Palace
itself.
But once more the scheme was deferred, to be now executed on the Strand
site, but on a far different scale and by other hands.[110] In any case,
it is a comfort to hope that the present unsightly “Law Courts” will no
longer disgrace the magnificence which surrounds them.
NATIONAL GALLERY.--The alteration of the present National Gallery has
formed a part of most schemes of metropolitan improvements. It was
constantly in Sir C. Barry’s thoughts from the very time of its
erection. He shared the universal opinion that its elevation was far too
low and uninteresting, and this impression he embodied in a little
sketch, made at the desire of Sir E. Cust, who was at that time a member
of a Parliamentary Committee on the subject, and intended for his
private information only. Unfortunately the fact of its existence oozed
out, as such facts always do; and, what was worse, imperfect copies of
it were made, and circulated without the author’s knowledge. He thought
himself compelled to allow a correct representation of it to go abroad,
and from this arose inevitably a serious difference between him and Mr.
Wilkins, the architect of the National Gallery. Mr. Wilkins not
unnaturally conceived its publication to be a breach of professional
etiquette, and denounced it as such in no measured terms, especially
when the success of Mr. Barry in the competition for the New Palace at
Westminster still further embittered his feelings. But to this, as to
the other attacks of the period, Mr. Barry made no reply, perhaps
feeling himself in the wrong, certainly regretting the anomalous
position into which he had been drawn, in his anxiety to rescue from
comparative insignificance the building which occupies “the finest site
in Europe.”
For some time the matter slept, till he was again consulted on the
subject of enlargement of the Gallery, and made in 1848 a design for
improving and extending the present building. He proposed to build over
the vacant space in front, and advance the building to the line of the
street. Several designs were made by him for the elevation, all having
some great central mass, to overcome, as much as possible, the fatal
effect of the Nelson Column upon the façade. He returned to the work
again in 1852, in connection with larger schemes, and with designs upon
a larger scale, for a building almost entirely new.
But nothing was done. The work, like all those which touch various
interests, and which have to be debated upon in a popular assembly,
presented difficulties, opened the door to various opinions, and ended
for a time in mere discussion. Now again, as in the former case, it
seems that substantial results may be hoped for. Another competition on
a grand scale, though not attaining to the magnificence of the Law
Courts, has been entered upon, and can hardly be allowed to be
undertaken in vain.
These two great plans are now shortly to be carried out. There remain
others, the execution of which must surely be a question only of time.
For the work, which has been commenced, of remodelling our public
offices, can hardly stop short. The Board of Trade, the Foreign Office,
and the India Board cannot be allowed to exist as isolated specimens of
a better style, contrasting with the meagre ineffectiveness of our older
buildings.
HORSE GUARDS.--In 1846 Sir Charles received instructions to prepare
plans for the enlargement of the Horse Guards. To confine himself to the
limits of instructions was hardly possible for him. He had long sighed
over the insignificance of the building, and the want of all effect
about the Parade. Insignificant in itself, it seemed still more unworthy
of its position, as forming a part of the “Via Regia,” the Sovereign’s
approach to Parliament. Ideas floated before his mind of a second “Place
du Carrousel.” The opportunity was too tempting to be resisted.
Accordingly he provided indeed for additional accommodation by an
additional story; but, having done this, he made a further ideal design,
raising the centre into a tower-like mass, introducing other alterations
on all sides, and transforming the building into a grand composition.
The Parade by ornamental enclosures was brought into architectural
connection with the design; the road from the Mall led by a gentle sweep
to a grand entrance opposite the building, and at this entrance the
“Marble Arch,” then just removed from its position at Buckingham
Palace, and cast upon the world for a habitation, was to be placed. The
Wellington Statue, then also in search of a resting-place, was to form a
central feature of the Parade, over which its illustrious original still
presided. The other buildings near, the Admiralty, Treasury, &c., were
to be brought into connection with its design; and a grand Place d’Armes
was to be formed, second to none in Europe.
The idea was long a favourite one; he returned to it again in his
“Metropolitan Improvements,” and his work at the Board of Trade shows
what might have been effected by his talent for conversion. Nothing
indeed was done; there was some doubt whether the foundation of the old
building would bear the additions contemplated. The design itself,
intrusted to the Government, was lost, and no trace of it can now be
found. But, sooner or later, the work must be carried out, and, when it
is carried out, it will in all probability follow the main lines of the
arrangement which has thus been indicated.
BRITISH MUSEUM.--Another design of his on a still larger scale had
relation to an institution, in which he always felt the most lively
interest.
The problem of securing sufficient accommodation for the collections at
the British Museum--a problem which constantly recurs, as the
collections increase, and the requirements of scientific men expand--at
one time occupied Sir C. Barry’s most anxious thoughts. The simplest
method of enlargement, by advancing the building towards Great Russell
Street, was rendered impossible by the existence of the grand portico.
Little could be done except to raise the building, unless additional
space were occupied. This could only be done at considerable cost,
larger in fact than would have been at that time contemplated, though
not larger than will probably at some time or other be found necessary.
Accordingly a plan was prepared, confining the building to its actual
site. It was Sir Charles’s opinion, an opinion which he strongly
maintained in public before a Parliamentary Commission, that the
collections of Natural History were out of place in the Museum. It
appeared to him, that they should be associated with “Zoological
Gardens;” so that the dead and living specimens of the animal creation
might be seen in connection, and the relations of the present to the
past, in contrast or similarity, be distinctly traced. On the present
site of the Museum this would be impossible; but, were the collections
removed, as for instance to South Kensington, room could be found for
any number of live animals, and for museums large enough to content
Professor Owen himself.
This being done, he would have devoted the whole building in Great
Russell Street to literature and art. He proposed to meet the
requirements of the former by surrendering the Natural History Rooms to
the Library, and providing for readers, not in one great hall, as at
present, but in a series of rooms of moderate size. The claims of art
and antiquities were to be satisfied by forming a magnificent hall,
which was to be nothing less than the whole central area of the
building, roofed with glass, capable of containing even the Egyptian
colossi, and unsurpassed in any building in Europe. There were some
objections to it in detail, which he thought might be easily overcome.
The idea was a grand one, and would have been carried out without
serious difficulty. But M. Panizzi proposed a different scheme; the
Government yielded to his authority, and the great Reading Room was
formed.
This being the case, the matter slept, until, some years afterwards (in
1853), it became evident that the National Gallery must be either
extended or removed. Against the notion of moving it out of the way to
South Kensington, entertained by many, and favoured by His Royal
Highness the late Prince Consort, Sir Charles most strongly protested,
and he ventured (as a Member of the Royal Commission of 1851) to address
a detailed letter to His Royal Highness, containing an elaborate
counter-scheme. This letter is printed (by permission) in the Appendix,
both for the sake of the intrinsic importance of its suggestions, and as
a specimen of his official correspondence.
Its substance was as follows: After stating forcibly the objection which
he conceived to exist to the proposed concentration at South Kensington,
he proceeded first to develope a plan for the formation of the “British
Museum of Art and Literature” on the site of the present British Museum
in Great Russell Street, by the alterations already referred to, which
had previously been submitted to the Government. It may be remarked that
it was based on a principle, analogous to that on which he had advocated
the removal of the Natural History collections. It seemed to him that
the works of art of all ages should fitly be viewed together, that the
“National Gallery” was chronologically a sequel to the Gallery of
Antiquities. The rudest efforts of imitative art, the works of Assyrian,
Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman antiquity, the schools of art of mediæval
and modern Europe, all seemed to form one great whole. He would have
united them locally, as they are connected theoretically. Accordingly,
removing the Natural History collections as before, he proposed to raise
the whole suite of rooms assigned to them, to re-roof and re-light them,
and so to form a range of galleries, excellently adapted for pictures
and sculpture, and capable of containing the national collection for
many years to come. This scheme, or some scheme like it, he at all times
strongly advocated. It had certainly much to recommend it in abstract
principle; he endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to prove that it could be
carried out gradually and systematically, without enormous outlay and
without public inconvenience.
He next proceeded to urge the scheme, already referred to, for the
transference of the Natural History collections to South Kensington, in
connection with zoological and botanical gardens; and he would have
united it to a “National Gallery of Science” in its various practical
applications, with museums, laboratories, and the like.
In the third place, he went on to deal with the present National
Gallery, which was, according to his scheme, after being enlarged and
remodelled, to be divided between the Royal Academy of Fine Art and the
School of Design for Practical and Decorative Art. Here again he
depended on the principle that art must be regarded as a whole, and that
“Fine Art” cannot be separated from decorative and practical art,
especially in a building, which he regarded as the home of art-teaching,
and a place for exhibition of its results, and which he accordingly
placed in a position second to none in respect of prominence and
centrality.
Fourthly, he proposed to deal with the Museum of Economic Geology, in
Jermyn Street, by removing its collection to the Temple of Science in
South Kensington, and devoting it to form a “National Polytechnic
Institution,” mainly for the use and instruction of the industrial
classes.
Lastly, the building of the Society of Arts in the Adelphi was to be
given up to meetings and lectures on all subjects connected with trade
and commerce.
Such is the outline of a scheme, to the elaboration of which he devoted
much time and trouble, and which will probably be thought to show
well-digested principle, and careful study of practicability and
convenience. It produced no effect at the time, for it opposed a plan in
which His Royal Highness was greatly interested, and in the support of
which many eminent men were already enlisted. Its author expected little
result; but such considerations seldom kept him back from bearing
testimony in the cause of his art, and so satisfying the imperious
requirements of his architectural conscience.
ROYAL ACADEMY.--In connection with these important schemes, another
fruitless design was made by Sir Charles Barry.
In 1859 the Government of Lord Derby proposed to dispossess the Royal
Academy of their present accommodation in Trafalgar Square, with a view
to that enlargement and alteration of the National Gallery, which was
felt to be inevitable. Burlington House was fixed upon, as a site which
might accommodate the Royal Academy, and certain other Institutions
which had claims upon the Crown. Messrs. Banks and Barry (of which firm
Sir Charles’s eldest son was a member), having lately gained high
distinction in the Public Offices’ competition, were appointed by the
Government to prepare general plans, showing how the entire area of
Burlington House and its gardens might be best made available. It was
ascertained that the Royal Academy would accept a portion of the site,
would conform to the general block plan, and would erect a building at
their own cost.
The whole area was to contain two great courts, with a grand
thoroughfare through them from Piccadilly to Burlington Gardens. The
Government placed ground at the disposal of the Academy occupying
two-thirds of the Piccadilly front, and the whole of the western side of
the first of the great courts. Sir Charles Barry was appointed by the
Academy to carry out the work.
His design occupied the entire frontage to Piccadilly, which necessarily
required an uniform treatment. It contained three great divisions
divided by bold turrets, with similar turrets terminating the façade.
The lower part of the central division was occupied by three great
archways for carriages leading into the court. The western wing, and
the upper stories of the centre, were occupied by the Royal Academy. The
corresponding eastern wing was given up to scientific societies.
The front was simple and massive in character. The central archways were
divided by bold Doric columns on plinths, and each of the wings had
similar columns dividing its three bays of windows. A fully detailed
cornice of the order terminated this story. On the principal story there
were no columns. The central wall-surface was occupied by three bays of
windows; the wings by niches, elaborately treated and occupied by
statues.[111] The whole was surmounted by a noble cornice and
balustrade.
The internal arrangement was simple. A grand staircase, entered from the
covered carriage-ways, led to the principal story, which was occupied by
magnificent suites of galleries lighted from above. The lower story was
occupied by official rooms and residences, and schools for the various
Professors.
All was ready to carry out the design. But a change of Government
introduced new ideas, and the whole scheme slept, till it was revived
under Lord Derby’s Government in 1866. The whole plan has now been
changed; the great thoroughfare is to be done away with, and the Royal
Academy building, designed by Mr. Sydney Smirke, R.A., is to occupy the
centre of the whole site, with frontage not to Piccadilly, but to the
northern side of the front court, entered by central archways from
Piccadilly, as originally proposed. The rest of the building remains
under the direction of Messrs. Banks and Barry, except the portion
assigned to the London University on the Burlington Gardens front, which
is intrusted to Mr. Pennethorne.
CRYSTAL PALACE.--His connection with the Commission of 1851 led him to
volunteer another suggestion which would certainly have had a
magnificent effect. He had been greatly interested in the original
Exhibition building in Hyde Park, and (as will be seen elsewhere) had
urged during its erection several alterations which he thought likely to
improve it. Though he freely recognised the simplicity of its idea, and
its practical efficiency, he regarded that building as ineffective and
ugly. But this was a temporary building only, and therefore its design
mattered little.
When, however, the present “Crystal Palace” was projected as a permanent
building, with all the advantage of a splendid position, Sir Charles
felt persuaded that its external effect would be utterly unworthy of its
scale and site. He was not consulted on the matter; but, at the risk of
apparent obtrusiveness, he ventured to send the directors a sketch, as a
suggestion, for the benefit of their great undertaking. It exhibited a
great dome, rising in the centre of the present building, grouped with
[Illustration: CRYSTAL PALACE, SYDENHAM.
VIEW SHEWING THE IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY SIR CHARLES BARRY.]
[Illustration: CRYSTAL PALACE, SYDENHAM.
VIEW OF BUILDING AS DESIGNED BY SIR JOSEPH PAXTON.]
cupolas and towers, so as to produce a grand outline. The annexed
woodcut shows its effect, side by side with that of the present
building. And an extant correspondence proves that it was allowed to be
practicable and grand, and that the expense of carrying it out was found
to be a comparatively small percentage on the whole outlay--a sum quite
insignificant in comparison with that devoted to the waterworks, and
with other sums lavished on less important objects. But once more he was
to be disappointed. The design was “declined with thanks.” Yet it would
have been worth while to do much to redeem from ugliness a building,
which has the advantage of enormous scale, and which must be a
conspicuous feature in every view of the environs of London. The plan
proposed would have had a striking and even magnificent effect, and one,
moreover, unique in its kind. Few can fail to regret that, even when
rejected, it was not allowed to suggest some bolder and more artistic
treatment than is seen in the existing building.
ALTERATIONS IN PICCADILLY AND PALL MALL.--Another improvement, on which
he was consulted by the Government in 1841, was the proposed widening of
Piccadilly. He put the project into proper shape, and it was carried out
accordingly, bringing into Piccadilly the fine row of plane-trees which
extend to Hyde Park Corner, and which are the only trees standing in a
great London thoroughfare. But, as usual, his desires went beyond the
instructions given him. He cast a longing eye upon the Green Park,
which seemed to give room for a great design. The reservoir now existing
was to be transformed into an ornamental basin, flanked by appropriate
fountains, and surrounded by terraces with balustrades, vases, and
statues. Fine broad flights of steps were to lead down to the Park, and
thence by a long walk ornamented with sculpture to Hyde Park Corner. The
object was to combine in one grand design what is now a somewhat wasted
and ineffective space. But here again economy stepped in to forbid its
execution; and the design exists on paper only.
Another fine idea, referring to the same quarter of London, remained
equally barren of result. When the Marble Arch was in want of a site,
Sir Charles proposed to do away with the obstructions which now encumber
the east end of Pall Mall, so as to make a wide opening to the Park,
which should be occupied by the Marble Arch with Stafford House on one
side, and Bridgewater House on the other.[112] It was in such positions
alone, where the Arch was combined with flanking buildings or rested on
solid masonry as abutments, that he thought it a grand or even a
rational feature. Standing alone, or with mere iron railing on each side
of it, it seemed absolutely unmeaning, and therefore unsatisfactory. In
the position proposed, it would certainly have looked well, and supplied
(what is much needed) a grand termination to Pall Mall, and a good
entrance into the Park. The annexed woodcut will show its effect, and
the amount of alteration which it would
[Illustration: PLAN AND ELEVATION OF SUGGESTED CONTINUATION OF PALL MALL
TO THE GREEN PARK.]
entail. It may not be too much to hope, that hereafter some such worthy
termination may be found for one of the finest streets in London.
WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS.--While thus conceiving designs for the
architectural improvement of the metropolis in general, it was only
natural that he should pay special attention to the neighbourhood of
Westminster, in which his own main work lay. More particularly the
constant sight of the river, with its glorious capabilities, and the
miserable defacements of its banks, stirred him up to many projects for
its embellishment.
Westminster Bridge was, of course, his first anxiety. The old bridge
(the oldest in London since the old London Bridge had disappeared) was
not only ugly in itself, but by its high roadway and parapets, and the
massiveness of its general structure, exaggerated the defects of the
site of the New Palace. He looked upon it with a jealous eye, eager to
notice the first symptoms of decay. When that decay became serious, he
suggested every device for lowering it and lightening in the course of
its repairs; and, when all repair failed, and its demolition was found
to be inevitable, he rejoiced over it as an enemy removed from his path.
He then set to work at once to design a new bridge; its width he made no
less than 100 feet, its height he lowered as much as possible, in
defiance of all complaints as to the navigation. The lowness of the
banks, in his mind, forbade a grand massive bridge, like London or
Waterloo Bridges, which must dwarf all architecture near it, and which
was only fit to rest on banks of rock, or granite abutments, massive as
itself. Lightness and elegance here were the first things needful. In
style he would have Gothicized to suit the New Palace, and he would have
carried out the work far beyond the erection of the bridge itself. In
his design there was to have been a second Gothic bridge at Lambeth, a
new river front was to be given to Lambeth Palace, and a fine avenue and
quay formed along Bishop’s Walk to some new Gothic building at the foot
of Westminster Bridge. All the eyesores on the Surrey side of the river,
which marred the view from the terrace of the New Palace, were to have
been swept away, and the river would have flowed on through a vast
Gothic quadrangle.
But this again was one of those comprehensive schemes by which he
alarmed economists, and the general design for the time was set aside.
There is now a bridge at Lambeth, but it is the present paltry-looking
suspension-bridge. There is to be the Surrey embankment, but it will
hardly harmonize with the new bridge erected at Westminster. Yet,
probably, by the time all is done, the same area will be covered, and
the same expense incurred, without any general and comprehensive scheme.
When it was set aside, he thought it better to keep the bridge distinct,
though not inharmonious, in character. He adopted, rather in deference
to authority than to his own taste, elliptical arches, at first seven in
number, afterwards for convenience reduced to five; and submitted to the
Board of Works a design, in which he endeavoured to preserve strictly
the requisites above mentioned.
The design was never carried out, but the present bridge fulfils many of
the requirements which he had in view, and does something like justice
to the great building at its foot.
His views as to the improvement of the river were not indeed confined to
Westminster. The Thames Embankment schemes, so long discussed, and now
at last in course of execution, were not unfrequently in his mind. He
made several designs[113] for carrying out a work, which he felt to be
essential to the thorough usefulness and architectural beauty of the
Thames, and in which his own work at the New Palace gave him a special
interest.
EXTENSION OF THE NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.--But of all designs in this
quarter of the town the one which he had most at heart, and to which he
returned again and again, was the extension of his great building on the
land side. Such an extension was (as has been shown) contemplated in his
very first design; and, almost up to the time of his death, he continued
to urge it on the Government.
The extension was certainly contemplated by him mainly as an
architectural improvement. In 1853 he wrote as follows:--“By means of
these additional buildings the irregular, disjointed, and incongruous
character of the present building on the land side would be removed, a
degree of unity given to it on that side, in harmony with that already
obtained on the river front; and the principal entrance to the palace
would then become a marked and important feature of the building.”
But it was also intended to meet an absolute necessity. The requirements
of public business have greatly increased within the last twenty years.
The Government are at this moment renting house property, for the
accommodation of public offices and Royal Commissions, and for other
purposes, at an annual cost exceeding 37,000_l._[114] The houses in
Bridge Street are now removed: the Law Courts are speedily to follow
them. The Government are therefore now, as he foresaw that they would
be, in possession of a valuable site. The question with him was, whether
it should be made use of to meet the official requirements by supplying
the accommodation wanted close at hand, with great convenience and
economy to the public, or whether it should be left open, and so far
useless, while these requirements were still met insufficiently and
inconveniently elsewhere.
To the latter course Sir Charles was strongly opposed. There could be
nothing to recommend it, except the notion that it would give a better
architectural effect (for there is already open space close at hand,
fully sufficient for sanitary requirements). But this notion appeared to
him utterly erroneous. By leaving New Palace Yard open, or enclosing it
only by a railing, the buildings surrounding it (Westminster Hall and
the rest) are viewed from the higher ground of Bridge Street, and appear
actually sunk, while the area itself, having a considerable diagonal
fall across the open space, is singularly unfortunate in its effect. By
pulling down the Law Courts, and opening the whole side of Westminster
Hall, he conceived that a still worse effect would be produced; for the
scale and parts of the Hall are so large, that it must be utterly
incongruous with the buildings round it. He conceived therefore that
this proposal to leave the space unoccupied would be detrimental
architecturally, while in an economic and practical point of view it
would be an unwarrantable waste.
Accordingly his proposal[115] was to erect a line of building, occupying
the site of the Law Courts and the western and northern sides of New
Palace Yard, giving ample and even liberal accommodation for all public
needs. New Palace Yard was to be entered on its west side by a grand
gate-tower, or triple archway flanked by towers, leading by a gentle and
uniform slope (about 1 in 50) to the present entrances, which, having
been always intended as archways for an interior court, have not
sufficient dignity or importance for the chief public entrances to the
building. On the south side, Westminster Hall would form a grand centre
with a range of buildings on each side of it; and on the north side, if
a high range of buildings were thought objectionable, a cloister with
one story above it, or an open arcade, might mask the building from the
high ground of Bridge Street. The great entrance gate-tower he had
proposed to call the Albert Tower, in a kind of correspondence with the
Victoria Tower, which is the great royal entrance, serving like it to
mark the date of the building, and to commemorate the lively interest
which the late Prince Consort took in all that concerned its artistic
decoration.
Such was the scheme formed by him, and again laid before Lord
Palmerston’s Government by his son Edward in 1864. The annexed woodcuts
will show its general character. It has now some special interest,
because the removal of the Law Courts must soon give the question a
practical importance. All that is at present being done is to complete
the Clock Tower on its western side, to enclose New Palace Yard by an
iron railing, and to construct an arcade or cloister along its eastern
side, with a subway at the northern end passing under Bridge Street to
the Thames Embankment. There is nothing in all this, which is
inconsistent with the subsequent execution of Sir Charles Barry’s
designs, either in their original form, or with some modifications of
detail. It can hardly be doubted that such execution would have much to
recommend it, in regard both of artistic and of practical
considerations.
GENERAL SCHEME OF METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.--But all these designs were
embodied, and, as it were, absorbed, in the great design for
Metropolitan Improvements, which he exhibited in 1857, on occasion of
the Public Offices’ competition. Into that competition he did not wish
to enter. He was indeed retiring from his profession; his constitution
had been a good deal shaken; the remuneration controversy, and the
attacks made on the New Palace
[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.
BLOCK PLAN SHOWING SIR CHARLES BARRY’S PROPOSAL FOR ENCLOSING NEW PALACE
YARD AND FOR NEW BUILDINGS ON SITE OF THE COURTS OF LAW.
THE BUILDING AS EXECUTED IS SHOWN BY THE DARK TINT.]
[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.
VIEW, FROM THE SOUTH-EAST, OF SIR CHARLES BARRY’S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
BUILDINGS ON THE SITE OF THE PRESENT COURTS OF LAW, AND ENCLOSING NEW
PALACE YARD.]
at Westminster, had disheartened, though they had not overcome him. But
he wished to embody all the designs for the improvement of the
Metropolis, which had floated before his mind, in one grand scheme, and
to leave it (so he expressed it) as a legacy behind him. He thought of
Sir Christopher Wren’s grand design for the rebuilding of London after
the fire, and the example stirred him up to boldness and extensiveness
of conception. That it would be but an ideal he knew well; he exhibited
it without reference to the conditions of the competition, and without
any idea of seriously concerning himself with it. It was, in fact,
brought forward in the names of his sons Charles and Edward, in the hope
that, if it secured public attention and approval, some of its leading
features might be executed by their hands. At any rate he conceived that
it would point in the right direction. Even if it were not substantially
adopted at any time, yet it might set the minds of others at work.
Before all things, he felt that in the great Metropolitan improvements,
which every day’s experience proves to be something more than desirable,
the chief danger to be avoided was that absence of a general scheme, or
at least general conceptions, which has, in England especially, wasted
time and money on erections of isolated and often misplaced
magnificence. He wished to place on record the strong expression of this
feeling, and he left the scheme, which he himself conceived to be the
best, for the criticism and consideration of those who should come after
him. With that vague presentiment elsewhere noticed, that the end for
him was not distant, he often said that he desired to leave it as his
architectural memorial.
It has been thought right accordingly to embody in this work, first the
general plan of his Westminster improvements, and next a considerable
part of a large drawing, executed almost entirely by his own hand, and
containing on a small scale, but with an artistic effect which can
hardly be reproduced, elevations of the chief buildings, which he
proposed to open to public view, to remodel, or to erect.
The following is the description of the design which he himself attached
to it:--
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PLAN.
In forming this Plan, its authors have ventured to be guided by the
spirit rather than by the letter of the official instructions,
which they consider to be incompatible with the best realisation of
the objects in view.
They suggest that the whole of the Public Offices should be
concentrated and combined in one group of buildings; that the
Parade should be treated architecturally; that the New Palace at
Westminster should be completed, as proposed, to Parliament Street;
that the Abbey should have a central tower and spire and be freed
from all its Italian solecisms of detail, and, together with the
Chapter-house, be properly restored; that additions should be made
to the Prebendal Houses, and a new Palace added, if need be, within
the Abbey precincts, for a future Bishop of Westminster; and, for
the due display of these important edifices, it is recommended that
large areas should be laid open to them for ample thoroughfares and
ornamental gardens. Thus these buildings, so isolated, could not
fail, when seen under varied combinations and effects, to produce a
most striking appearance.
The removal of the several public edifices and other buildings,
which happen to be on the site of the proposed ornamental
enclosures, would be necessary for the ultimate development of the
plan; but they need only be removed from time to time, as may be
found convenient. In the mean time the plan is so arranged, that
these enclosures, and the main thoroughfares adjoining them, may be
formed without necessitating the previous removal of the buildings,
and their unsightliness, in the interim, may be screened from view
to a considerable extent by planting.
With reference to the public buildings in question, it is proposed
that, sooner or later, St. Margaret’s Church should be removed to
the west side of the proposed Abbey-close, that the National
Schools should be placed in proximity with it, that the Westminster
Hospital should be placed in a more central position of the
district, that the Sessions House should be removed to the
Westminster Bridewell, that the Stationery Office should be placed
between Victoria Street and Tothill Street near their eastern
termination, and that the office of the Board of Control should be
removed, as soon as the accommodation provided for it in the
proposed group of Public Offices is obtained. The only residence of
any importance, that is sacrificed to the suggested improvement of
thoroughfares, is Carrington House, which, in its isolated
position, with thoroughfares on three sides of it, is not very
eligible as a nobleman’s residence.
THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND THEIR ADJUNCTS.
Considering the large expenditure already incurred upon the
existing Public Offices of the locality, the authors of this plan
are induced, upon economical as well as upon practical grounds, to
recommend that the Board of Trade and Treasury Chambers towards St.
James’s Park, the Horse Guards, and the Admiralty should be
retained, and, with certain external modifications, be made to
group with and form part of a scheme _for concentrating the whole
of the public offices in one connected mass of building_ between
the Park and Whitehall, which suggestion they believe may be
carried out in a most convenient and striking manner. Owing to the
lowness of the site, which is less than two feet above the highest
known tides, great loftiness of structure is proposed, and all
habitable accommodation in the basement is deprecated. A great dome
over the main entrance of the Public Offices is suggested, in order
that they may vie in importance with the Abbey and new Legislative
Palace, and have a distinctive character, both as a feature of
Westminster, and also as seen from a distance. To allow of a
comparison being formed between these offices and other existing
and proposed buildings of the district, a reference is solicited to
the illustrations of the block plan, where all such buildings are
shown truly upon one scale, in their relative positions, and on
their true levels. It is proposed that the principal carriage and
foot entrance to the Public Offices should be from Whitehall, into
a grand hall 320 feet long and 150 feet wide, covered with a glass
roof, and affording access by archways to the several courts of the
edifice. Upon the occasion of great receptions and other gatherings
the great hall would afford ample accommodation for all carriages
in attendance, and might be found useful occasionally for other
public purposes, when a large and well-lighted covered area might
be required. The magnitude and arrangement of the main building are
such as to afford ample accommodation for all the offices
enumerated in the official instructions, with the exception of the
Admiralty, for which it is proposed to have the additional quota of
accommodation provided for towards the Parade, where also, as well
as on each side of the Horse Guards, is provided accommodation for
other public purposes which may hereafter be required. The boundary
of the Public Offices towards the Park is so arranged as to
increase its present area.
The only existing office, in a sound state, and having any
architectural pretensions, which must be removed, is the State
Paper Office, which is obviously too much in the way of a good
general arrangement of plan to be allowed to remain. The Parade,
enclosed by the Public Offices on three sides, and by the open
screen to the Park on the fourth, would form a striking feature of
the locality, and provide a larger and more conveniently arranged
area for inspections than at present; and the advantage which is
proposed, of being able to close it at pleasure, might be found to
be of important use, in times of public excitement, not only for
the inspection of the military but also of the police.
THOROUGHFARES AND TRAFFIC.
Ample accommodation is provided for the diversion of the eastern
and western traffic, through the proposed main north and south
thoroughfares of Whitehall and St. James’s Park, by means of two
new bridges across the river, and a public thoroughfare through the
Mall to the Strand. Westminster Bridge, rebuilt as proposed, should
be retained in its present position, as being the natural line of
communication with the Birdcage Walk, and the most convenient
approach to the three important buildings in Westminster, from the
Surrey side of the river. It is of the utmost importance, however,
that the level of its roadway, as determined by Parliament, should
remain unaltered; otherwise the effect of not only the Palace at
Westminster, but also of the proposed Government Offices, will be
seriously injured. To obviate in some degree the sunken effect of
the New Palace at Westminster, as it will be seen from the bridge,
even when lowered to the level determined by Parliament, a raising
of the River Terrace of that building might be worthy of
consideration upon that as well as other grounds. The plan exhibits
two alternative propositions for the bridge at Charing Cross,--one,
an entirely new bridge, and the other the present Suspension
Bridge, widened for carriages. The former is preferred by the
authors of this plan, but, if the latter should be adopted, it is
hoped that its principle of suspension may be abolished, so that
the present towers and chains may no longer destroy some of the
finest effects of London, as seen from various points of view.
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS.
Assuming that the long-proposed and in part adopted plan of
embanking the river, with a view to the improvement of its
navigation and appearance, and the removal of its present offensive
and unwholesome effluvia, must at no distant period be
accomplished, it is proposed that at least such portion of the
river as lies between the proposed Lambeth Bridge and Waterloo
Bridge should be treated ornamentally, and have public quays on
each side of it, with houses and terraces adjoining them, so as to
screen from view the mean, unsightly, and in fact ruinous
buildings, which at present disfigure both shores of this noble
river. Amongst these buildings it is proposed to place a great
hotel, at the Middlesex end of the Charing Cross Bridge, the
promoters of which (it is believed) would construct so much of the
embankment as is needed for their purposes at their own cost, upon
having the fee simple of the site reclaimed assigned to them as an
equivalent. An extension of the National Gallery is proposed, for
an increase of the accommodation for the national collections of
art, and for the use of the Royal Academy and Schools of Design, as
well as for periodical displays of art and science, &c., in
galleries exclusively devoted to the purpose. This is however
proposed on the assumption that no better locality can be found for
such objects. The extension of Whitehall Chapel provides for an
improved United Service Museum, and would remedy the present
fragmentary appearance of the building, while it would form an
appropriate entrance to the road to the new Charing Cross Bridge.
If this suggestion were entertained, it might be worthy of
consideration, whether accommodation should not be provided in the
new museum for a gallery of portraits of all the most eminent men
of the naval and military services. With respect to the basin shown
for the use of the wharves under the Adelphi Terrace, it might
perhaps be worthy of consideration, whether the whole of the site
of that basin and adjoining wharves might not be devoted to a great
central terminus for the whole of the railways of the metropolis.
In such case it would be advisable that the present Suspension
Bridge should be converted into a railway bridge exclusively for
communication with the several railways on the Surrey side of the
river, and, with respect to those on the Middlesex side, it is
proposed that advantage should be taken of the Metropolitan Act to
connect them as far as the proposed station in Farringdon Street,
and continue that connection by tunnelling under Fleet Street and
the Strand to the great central terminus in the site suggested.
Such was his own sketch of his great plan, which, with the annexed plan
and illustration, will render further description needless.
It is probable that few will question its grandeur and
comprehensiveness. It would have made Westminster a palatial quarter of
the town, grouping together the buildings, which the public service of a
great country requires, in an unity, justified by their actual unity of
purpose, and all but necessary to their full architectural effect. The
great quadrangle of nine acres, with its sides formed by the Abbey, the
Government Palace, the New Palace of Westminster, and the public
buildings removed in order to clear the area, must have been its most
striking feature. Hardly inferior in magnificence would have been the
Park view of the Government Palace with the enclosed Parade, the large
area cleared along the Thames Embankment, and the great line of public
buildings extending from Great George Street to Trafalgar Square.
Essential points in the scheme were the embankments on both sides of the
river and the large spaces reserved, to be laid out in public gardens,
and so to give breathing space and opportunity for seeing the great
piles of building proposed. Taken altogether it would have produced a
general effect hardly to be equalled in Europe.
But it should also be noticed, that the plan was eminently practical.
It sacrificed little, it indicated the main lines which public
improvements must eventually take, and it was capable of being carried
out gradually. The concentration of public offices is demanded by public
convenience; the opening out the great buildings to be erected will be
an architectural necessity. The Thames Embankment is now a reality,
though Sir Charles would have little dreamt that its effect would have
been allowed to be broken in upon by the Hungerford Railway Bridge, and
the enormous mass of the Charing Cross Station. The enlargement of the
National Gallery is now only a question of time. The opening of great
lines of communication is hardly likely to be long deferred. In the
whole scheme therefore there was nothing visionary, nothing
impracticable.
Its cost no doubt would have been great. But it would not have exceeded
the cost, which will be ultimately incurred; and, if it had been carried
out gradually, the burden on the public resources would have been almost
imperceptible.
In the present state of public feeling as to the value of Art in itself,
and in its influence on the national character, there can be no doubt
that great public improvements will be demanded. The example set in
Paris can hardly be quite lost upon us. Unless unforeseen necessity
should absorb the public resources, great sums of public money will
certainly be expended. That which is to be ardently desired is that the
authorities who direct the public expenditure should have before them
some great and comprehensive scheme, which, while it leaves all details
perfectly free, and so avoids monotonous uniformity, may indicate the
general principles to be followed, and at least see that one improvement
does not destroy or ruin another.
If the great scheme which occupied Sir Charles Barry’s last years sets
men’s minds to work, indicates public necessities, and suggests the
general lines of public improvement, it will (as has been said) do all
that its author hoped for. An artist, himself incapable of following
servilely the plans of others, could have desired nothing more than to
stimulate and guide the free conceptions of the future.
CHAPTER IX.
GENERAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC LIFE.
Public action--His natural dislike of publicity--His
characteristics as a Commissioner--Royal Academy--Scheme for
Architectural Education--Royal Institute of British
Architects--Scientific Societies--Royal Commission of
1851--Exposition Universelle of 1855--Professional arbitrations at
Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Leeds--St. Paul’s Cathedral Committee.
To the description already given of Sir Charles Barry’s architectural
works, it is necessary to add a brief notice of the various public
commissions and duties in which he was called upon to take part. The
labour bestowed on such work is perhaps less effective, certainly it is
less definite in its results. But no man, who takes a leading position,
has either the power or the right to refuse what is absolutely necessary
for collective life and action.
In respect of such official labours, it must be remembered, that his
constant occupation in professional work, and his great dislike of
public speaking and public appearances, kept him to some extent removed
from public life. No one acted more consistently on the conviction, that
each man contributes most to the great sum of general progress by doing
in the best possible way the task, which his station and talents
specially mark out for him. But, whenever questions arose directly or
indirectly bearing upon Art, he was naturally called upon for his
opinion and his services; and under these circumstances, even at the
busiest periods of his life, he could always make time for the work, and
take the liveliest interest in its progress.
He served, therefore, on several public commissions. In some respects he
must have been an embarrassing coadjutor. At all times he was more
inclined to originate than to criticize; and he would seldom consent to
limit his ideas by strict considerations of immediate practicability. He
was apt therefore to strike out a line of his own, for which perhaps he
could not command the sympathy of his colleagues; and, even when he
found the impracticability of such wider schemes, he was reluctant to
acquiesce in any others, which might seem to him too narrow for the
occasion. Yet it has been seen how frequently it happened, that the
ideas which he threw out proved ultimately fruitful, though under other
hands, and under different circumstances from those contemplated by
himself. For perhaps one of his most striking characteristics was
quickness of conception, and a certain “readiness of mind,” which made
its large resources available on the instant. This was certainly united
in his own actual work with an unwearied industry in the working out of
his general conceptions, and a willingness to consider and test them in
every possible point of view. But in the task of suggestion and
criticism, which belongs to a commission, it had the opportunities of
rapid and fruitful exercise, and he was always ready to meet every need,
and overcome every difficulty. Partly from a sanguine hopefulness,
which led him to make light of obstacles, partly from a deliberate
conviction, that in a country like our own considerations of expense are
trifling, if any great public want is really supplied, he was always led
to boldness and comprehensiveness in his conceptions, which might
probably cause alarm in the first instance, and prevent the immediate
execution of his designs, but which nevertheless arrested public
attention, and showed the ultimate object which public convenience
demanded. There are few public improvements at present proposed, which
did not at one time or another come under his official notice, and set
his pencil to work.
He was connected also with most of the artistic and scientific societies
of England, and found in them abundant scope for activity.
ROYAL ACADEMY.--In the work of the Royal Academy he took the greatest
interest, for he had high ideas of what it should attempt in the
guidance and direct inculcation of Art. Being himself a man little
fettered by system, he was quite aware how little academies can kindle
originality of talent, how liable they are to the danger of ignoring or
even discouraging it. He had artistic friends, whose genius he greatly
admired, among those who stood aloof from the Academy, who were the
bitterest denouncers of its actual work, and who would have denied it
even a theoretical value. But he always maintained that it had a most
important sphere, and he contended, that, allowing for the inevitable
defects of all institutions, it was working usefully and
conscientiously in the right path. This being the case, he was anxious
at all times to improve and develope that action still further, so as to
make it, even more than it is, the mainstay and guide of artistic
progress.
It was to his own department of Art that his attention was mainly
directed. This was due, not by any means to a narrow-minded
exclusiveness, for his great desire was that all branches of Art should
be proportionately represented, but to an idea that architecture and
sculpture existed in the Academy almost by sufferance under the
overwhelming predominance of the painters, and that they ought to have a
larger influence and more extensive representation. His own art he
believed to be most comprehensive of all in its scope and requirements,
and at least as powerful as any, in its effects on the taste and
intellectual progress of the country. He was therefore impatient of its
being regarded as holding a secondary position, and having a
quasi-mechanical character. As an Associate, an Academician, and a
member of Council, he laboured at all times to advance its due claims.
More particularly he felt that there was in England a great want of a
more formal and definite architectural education, and this want he
conceived that the Academy ought to supply. In 1856 a large Committee
was formed, with orders to consider how the instruction in the schools
of the Royal Academy could be improved. The subject of Architecture was
delegated to a small sub-Committee, consisting of Messrs. Cockerell and
Hardwick, and Sir C. Barry. Each member of the Committee prepared
suggestions for a scheme of architectural instruction, and these
suggestions were carefully and thoroughly discussed. No result, however,
followed from the time and thought expended on the subject; indeed, the
sub-Committee were fettered by alleged deficiency, both of accommodation
and of funds, for the carrying out of a perfect scheme. They reported
accordingly in favour of an annual grant of 150_l._ for a travelling
studentship, to be held for one year, and gained by competition amongst
the students who had obtained the gold medal. But even this was not
acted upon.
Sir C. Barry himself greatly doubted the cogency of the arguments
brought against the proposed improvements, believing that space could be
found or made, and that some part of the pecuniary balance in favour of
the Royal Academy (which was stated officially in 1860 as amounting
annually to above 3000_l._ on an average of seven years) might be well
expended for such a purpose, instead of being added to the large funds
(above 100,000_l._) already in hand. His own paper of suggestions is
full and elaborate. Perhaps it may seem to err on the side of excess in
requirements; and possibly his strong sense of his own want of regular
artistic education may have inclined him to this side; but it will
probably be thought to point in the right direction, and will have
interest at this time, when it is felt that artistic education is not
only both possible and desirable, but also capable of being based on
systematic principles. The practical question must recur, and, when it
does so, some guidance must be found in the record of the opinions of
any who have thought much on the theory of architecture, and have had
experience of its actual capabilities and needs. The transference of the
Academy to the larger accommodation now provided on the Burlington House
site must remove all difficulties of space, and probably, by the very
fact of change and enlargement, give an impetus to activity and
efficiency of work.
His scheme is accordingly subjoined.
CURRICULUM FOR THE STUDY OF ARCHITECTURE.
ELEMENTARY TEACHING.
1. Geometry, trigonometry, hydraulics, hydrostatics, chemistry,
optics, acoustics, geology, and mineralogy; and mechanics as far as
they relate to the powers and forces applied to the purposes of
construction.
2. Nature and properties of materials used for constructive and
ornamental purposes.
3. Principles of construction.
4. Drawing, perspective, and sciography.
5. Drawing from the human form, from the life, and from casts.
6. Freehand drawing from natural objects with reference to
decoration.
7. Conventional treatment of such objects as applicable to
architectonic decoration.
8. Drawing and modelling of ornament.
9. Drawing of the elements of each recognised order or style of
architecture.
10. Drawing of the best works of the Greeks, the Romans, the
mediævalists, and the most eminent masters of the revival of
classical architecture.
N.B. It is suggested that the whole of the above studies should be
conducted at the national establishments for art and science, the
Schools of Design, King’s College, London, the London University, and
other accredited institutions for teaching art and science, with a view
to obtaining certificates of proficiency from such institutions as a
qualification for admission to the Royal Academy.
FINE ART TEACHING, OR THE HIGHER BRANCHES.
Principles of--
1. Form, proportion, harmony, expression, outline, and stability in
composition.
2. Principles of ornamentation.
3. Principles of colour in ornamentation.
4. Sciographic and orthographic rules and systems of composition
employed by the Greeks, the Romans, and the mediævalists, in
Architectural Design.
5. Studies of composition in the several distinctly recognised
styles in ancient and modern times.
6. Principles of the application of painting and sculpture in
architectonic decoration.
7. Principles of the application of high art in painting and
sculpture in combination with architecture.
8. Exercises upon designs of existing works with reference to the
correction of what may be at variance with the true principles of
art.
9. Original composition emanating from the use of new materials in
construction, and the omission of all that interferes with
convenience and durability in the old or recognised styles, or that
may be incompatible with modern habits, fashions, and
requirements, or unsuitable to the climate of the country in urban
or suburban districts.
N.B. It is suggested that the above-named studies in the Fine Art
Department, or higher branches of architecture, should be taught within
the walls of the Academy.
REGULATIONS AS TO TEACHING IN THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE.
1. That, with a view to the efficient working out of the rules and
regulations of the Academy, specific duties with certain privileges
and emoluments should be assigned to each degree of membership in
the Academy, and that all should contribute their quota to the
teaching in the school. Thus, from the class of R.A. should be
chosen the visitor of the school for the time being, who should be
responsible to the council; from the class of A.R.A. should be
chosen a superintendent of the school, who should be responsible to
the visitor for its discipline; and from a proposed new class to be
called the Medallists of the Royal Academy should be chosen the
teachers in the school.
2. That a course of lectures should be given in each year upon the
History and Literature of Architecture, with criticisms upon
existing works, excepting (as at present) upon those of living
authors.
3. That two strictly architectural or scholastic competitions, one
for the silver medal and one for the gold medal, upon subjects to
be given by the visitor and council for the time being, should take
place in each year, and that the drawings offered in such
competitions should be exhibited to the public, prior to any
decision upon them.
4. That the prize drawings in such competitions should be exhibited
at the annual exhibitions, with an appropriate notice of them in
the catalogue.
5. That the school be open on Thursdays from ten till four, and on
other days of the week from seven till nine p.m., vacations
excepted.
HONOURS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
That a silver and gold medal should be offered every year; the
former for the best study of existing works, and the latter for the
best work in original composition.
That the gold medallists should, in addition, receive a prize of
fifty guineas, and a travelling studentship for two years, with a
salary of 100_l._ per annum, and at the end of that time a right of
membership in the Academy, as a class with certain privileges.
That in the annual publication of the names of members of the
Academy, those in the class of medallists (namely, such as have
obtained the gold medal) be included.
REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO STUDENTS.
That proper certificates from public and other institutions for the
teaching of art and science be produced by candidates for admission
to the Academy, for the approval of the council, together with an
original design and drawing of ornament as at present.
That such candidates as are considered by the council to be
properly qualified, in all respects, be admitted as probationers,
upon condition of preparing an original design within the walls of
the Academy for the approval of council as at present.
That upon the approval of such probationary designs, candidates
shall be admitted to the School of Architecture for two years.
That during the first year they may be allowed to compete for the
silver medal, and during the second year for the gold medal and its
rewards and privileges.
ACCOMMODATION REQUIRED.
That one room, the upper portion of whose walls may be covered with
a select collection of architectural casts, should be set apart
exclusively for a school of architecture as well as for
exhibitional purposes.
That the occasional use of an adjoining room for exhibitional
purposes be granted, when not required for the annual exhibitions.