Chapter 16

FOOTNOTES:[1]This is the case, for example, in respect of some valuable information as to the works at Trentham Hall.[2]The “fils d’un simple ouvrier” in M. Hittorf’s ‘Éloge’ is therefore erroneous.[3]Thus, for example, he notes over and over again the curious contrast of dirt, bad drainage, and bad paving in the Paris of that day, with the external brilliancy of the city, so unlike anything he had ever seen in England. It was, it seemed, symbolical of the state of the country, in which apparent peace and gaiety covered much political stagnation and discontent with the Bourbons, breaking out, as he himself experienced, into personal insult to Englishmen in out-of-the-way places.[4]Thus at Rome he writes of the great staircase at the Vatican: “The columns stepping up one after another, and the cornice and entablature following the rise of the steps, have to my mind an unnatural, and therefore a disgusting, appearance.”[5]At a small town in Italy, having stopped for sketching purposes without his passport, he found his bedroom invaded by a file of soldiers who insisted on his leaving instantly. But they retired before a resolute refusal and a drawn pistol, and contented themselves with posting a sentinel at the door.[6]Criticisms on special buildings are better deferred till the period of his return.[7]The Toledo at Naples is noticed as “the finest street,except the High Street of Oxford, I ever saw.”[8]The difficulty of travelling at that time is curiously illustrated here. They had to search at Bari for a vessel, and at last to cross in a small felucca, bearing and deserving the ominous name of Le Anime di Purgatorio.[9]For this remark I am indebted to Sir C. Eastlake.[10]At Smyrna (for example) the houses of English merchants were scattered along the coast, and almost all the trade engrossed by them.[11]At Bondroon (Halicarnassus) not even the governor dared to allow them to inspect the castle; and when they rowed under the walls to see the famous marbles embedded in them, and just “whitewashed in expectation of the Capudan Pasha,” they were ordered off by the soldiers on pain of death.[12]He had received a similar offer at Corfu from Mr. Bonar, but with this important difference, that no copies were to be taken. On this ground it was thankfully but unhesitatingly refused.[13]Several of these were afterwards engraved in Finden’s ‘Illustrations of the Bible.’[14]The Chapel of the Nativity at Bethlehem seems (as usual) to have struck them most for simple solemnity, and Naplous (Shechem) for natural beauty, with its fertile plain and the “whole town full of roses.”[15]In his house they found a volume of Palladio, given him by a Coptic patriarch, and highly prized.[16]In after years Mr. Barry published the results of his observations in an article in the ‘Architectural Dictionary’ on Baalbec. It describes the ruins with great minuteness, and is an excellent specimen of his accuracy of observation and clearness of description. It speaks of the three Temples as having great magnificence and “exuberance of decoration,” notices the “breaking of the entablature over each projecting columnar pier,” as producing, especially in the circular temple, “great movement in the skyline of the building, and a very picturesque effect,” and criticizes the style of decoration as showing much imagination and power. The description was written some thirty-five years after his visit, but it seemed as though drawn up on the spot.[17]The Bourbonrégimewas detested, and its wretchedness aggravated by the recollections of English rule; why England did not keep the island the Sicilians could not conceive.[18]Here they saw a famous telescope of Ramsden’s, as to which they were told that, “if it should be injured there was no one in the whole island who could repair it.”[19]From this point, almost to the end of his career, much of this memoir is based on MS. notes supplied by Mr. Wolfe.[20]MS. notes,W.[21]He adds, “The Egyptians, who made such use of colossal figures, being fully aware of their tendency to diminish the apparent size of the building, always placed at their feet other figures of the natural size, to give the true scale.”[22]It ought to be known that fountains, not unlike these in design, and not much inferior in magnificence, would, if means had permitted, have been made in Trafalgar Square.[23]In his only design for a grand portico (that for the Town-hall at Birmingham) this principle was fully carried out.[24]At Vicenza, as many of Palladio’s works were scattered about in out-of-the-way places in the neighbourhood, he hired a crazy gig, and without a guide, in spite of bad roads and worse information, he managed to hunt out every one. At the (so-called) “House of Palladio” there was some foliage which he wished to sketch by artificial light; he got ladders and torches, and proceeded with his work till he was stopped by the police.[25]This was a point which often struck him in many cases of restoration or new buildings where colour and gilding were only partially employed. He insisted that in this partial and incomplete use lay the real cause of gaudiness or tawdry effect. Of all the new buildings at Munich, the one which he admired must was the Royal Chapel, because in it the decoration was thoroughly and perfectly carried out.[26]I find (for example) that in 1822 he was commissioned to make a copy of his drawing of the Zodiac at Esneh for H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex.[27]In November, 1832, he contributed several sketches for the engravings in Finden’s Bible Illustrations, but these give little idea of the style of his original sketches.[28]Church architects seem to have been beset then, as now, by the tendency of their clients to extensive requirements on very limited resources. He speaks of a clergyman, who had some negotiation with him at this time, “as an Evangelical preacher, with a great idea of building churches for nothing.”[29]He had previously made designs for the alteration of Stoke Newington church.[30]He used to retaliate by reference to Mr. Pugin’s early work at Windsor Castle, which certainly gave him full opportunity for retort.[31]An amusing incident occurred on this occasion. The freemasons of the parish claimed the right of laying the stone, which the clergy not unnaturally contested. After the ceremony began, music was heard in the distance, and down came a body of freemasons in full costume, ready to take all by storm. The workmen were prepared to resist; but a parley ensued, and the freemasons allowed the ceremony to go on without disturbance, on condition of performing their own mystic rites afterwards.[32]This design was not carried out. But I believe it was the only design of the kind among those sent in by the competing architects. As a matter of fact, the whole competition was practically set aside, in favour of a firm, who offered to unite the functions of architect and builder, and erect a building in Anglesey marble for whatever other firms might ask for its erection in stone. The building carried out by them is a Greek temple. The feelings of the competing architects may be easily imagined, for these are the things which make competition a thankless and sometimes a hopeless work.[33]At a much later period, as will be seen, he made a Greek design for the proposed Law Courts in Lincoln’s-inn-Fields. Here also the requirements for the true application of Greek principles of architecture were fulfilled by the circumstances of the case.[34]After the completion of the church he returned to the charge. As late as 1841 I find a notice of his designing a spire to be added to the existing tower.[35]They cost 11,890l., 10,947l., and 11,535l.respectively, sums which many a church architect would consider liberal now.[36]On these points, as may be expected, he differed widely from his friend Mr. Pugin, and warm discussions of principle often arose in consequence.[37]I can remember his calling attention to the octagonal form of Sta. Maria della Salute at Venice as capable of supplying a hint for English church-building, and referring to certain forms of Norman and Early English, as well fitted, by their spaciousness and unity of effect, for our congregational requirements.[38]Mr. Ferguson, in his ‘History of Architecture,’ notes in the same way the prominence of the cornice as the characteristic feature of Mr. Barry’s Italian; but, by a slight chronological error, refers to the alteration of the College of Surgeons, designed in 1833, as the earliest instance of it, and to the Travellers’ Club as a later design.[39]Studies and examples of the Modern School of English Architecture, by W. H. Leeds. (Weale, 1839.)[40]‘The Revue de l’Architecture,’ edited by M. César Daly, contained in vol. i., 1840, pp. 333, 334, a careful description (with illustrations) of the Travellers’ Club. Its criticism concludes as follows:—“Le défaut qu’on peut adresser avec raison au plus grand nombre des travaux d’architecture en Angleterre, est le peu de soin apporté dans l’étude des détails; sous ce rapport M. Charles Barry forme une exception. Il suffit d’examiner la feuille des détails du monument qui nous occupe pour y reconnaître les qualités d’un artiste consciencieux, qui étudie toutes les parties en elles-mêmes et dans leur rapport avec l’ensemble.”[41]Extracted from a paper read at the Institute of British Architects, May 21st, 1860, by M. Digby Wyatt, Esq., V.P.[42]On this point, it was remarked by the ‘Building News,’ immediately after his death (May 18th, 1860),—“It is the perfection of invention to invest with novelty that which is old, to adapt what has hitherto been useless, to make artistic that which is commonplace, and to impart life and beauty to dead forms. Greater inventive powers are required to accomplish this transformation than perhaps to devise new forms, which will never move or have their being.... Critics who prefer the charge of copyism against him probably mistake eccentricity for originality; in that sense Sir Charles was never original, for he was never eccentric.”[43]A list, which is believed to be complete, is added in the Appendix.[44]See p. 9 of Mr. Digby Wyatt’s Memoir, already referred to.[45]It happened curiously enough that he was near being employed for the new building of the Carlton Club, adjoining and rivalling the Reform Club. He was invited by the committee to enter a select competition for it; and when he declined to do so, and the appointment of architect was put to the vote, Messrs. Basevi and Smirke were preferred only by a slight majority (220 votes against 210).[46]The only example of an original building in which he afterwards employed it was Cliefden. At the Board of Trade the necessity of the case led him to employ the columns of the old design as an engaged order. But though he was not entirely consistent in practice, the “astylar” principle of design still continued to be regarded by him us absolutely the best.[47]It ought to be noted, that the position of the building, which on the Pall Mall side is very unfavourable, and the exact line of its front were determined in reference to a plan for the extension of Pall Mall into the Green Park, having the Marble Arch as its entrance to the Park. A plan of this proposed alteration is given in Chapter VIII.[48]The building was actually carried out by my brother, E. M. Barry, Esq., A.R.A.; and, under these circumstances, at the risk of some slight repetition, I have thought it better to subjoinverbatiman account of the building written by him.[49]At a still later period he made a design, almost entirely new, to meet an intention, afterwards abandoned, of a considerable enlargement of the building.[50]The “Italian tiles” were, I believe, first manufactured in England, to be used in Walton House.[51]‘The English Gentleman’s House.’[52]The garden-front of Clare College, Cambridge, was an example which he much admired.[53]The work was going on about the same time as the erection of Bridgewater House.[54]In this work I believe he was much assisted by suggestions from Mr. Nesfield, the well-known landscape gardener.[55]The illustration will show how greatly this fact tended to influence the general effect, and limit the originality of the design.[56]I remember his quoting one day with great satisfaction the criticism of a working stonemason, behind whom he happened to stand, on a new building. “Well, it’s very fine; but somehow this here top doesn’t go with that ’ere bottom.”[57]This arrangement was no doubt necessary from the confined nature of the ground. It cannot be considered as abstractedly desirable from a practical point of view; those who know the habits of boys will always desire to give them as few stairs as possible.[58]He desired a larger and better lighted clerestory, but here economy interfered.[59]A letter from Mr. Borrer on the subject ends thus:—“It is admirably adapted for the purpose for which it was designed—to be a house of prayer and Christian worship, according to the rites of the Church of England. I can never forget the kind way in which Sir Charles listened to a young man’s fancies, and tried to carry out all my ambitions.”[60]The black lines mark the old work—all the lighter parts represent the new.[61]I owe my information on this subject chiefly to the kindness of W. Leslie, Esq., architect, of Aberdeen, under whose direction the works were executed.[62]Extract from Report of the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty to examine and Report upon the Plans which might be offered by the competitors for re-building the Houses of Parliament. Dated, Feb. 29th, 1836.[63]The exact sum named by Messrs. Seward and Chawner was (deducting 14,000l.as the value of old materials) 693,104l., to which was to be added 129,000l.for the embankment, purchase of land, &c., together with “a further and considerable expense, which cannot at present be satisfactorily ascertained,” for fittings and furniture of the residence, libraries, committee-rooms, offices, &c., for the provision for the records, for lighting, warming, and ventilating, for the great clock and bell. See quotation in pp. 3, 4 of Parliamentary Paper, No. 374, of Session of 1856.[64]The first vote of money was passed on July 3rd, 1837.[65]See ‘Recollections of A. W. Pugin,’ c. xviii. p. 242.[66]The ground of this monstrous statement was the warm personal friendship and constant support, which he had received from Sir E. Cust, ever since the building of the Travellers’ Club, and more especially their connection in a late discussion as to the alteration and improvement of the National Gallery.[67]Extract from Minutes of Evidence taken 10th March, 1836, by the Select Committee on Houses of Parliament, Sir John Hobhouse in the Chair.Ordered to be printed, 9th March, 1836.[68]When Mr. Barry was attacked again in 1844, one of those, who had taken a prominent part against him, wrote to him, begging to be allowed to take part in any movement of his professional friends in his defence, and offering any consultation or advice, which might be “offered by a friend and admirer.”[69]Those who know Professor Donaldson, will be surprised at nothing in him, which indicates indignation at supposed injustice and generous support of a character unjustly assailed. But these motives were here quickened by a warm personal friendship, of which Mr. Barry always preserved a deep and grateful sense.[70]Some delay also was caused by a great strike of masons in the employment of Messrs. Grissell and Peto, in September, 1841.[71]It was thought by some that the architect’s protest should have been made earlier. But in the early part of Dr. Reid’s career such protest would have been entirely unavailing. His plans had succeeded, on the whole, well in the temporary House of Commons, and nothing but experience could prove the futility of their application on an enormous scale. Mr. Barry contented himself with quietly making provision for the substitution of more practicable arrangements, when the crash, which he foresaw to be inevitable, should arrive.[72]Thus, for example, in a letter to the ‘Times,’ Mr. Denison thinks proper to speak of the “stupidity of Sir C. Barry and his crew of handmakers and certificate-writers.”[73]In a treatise on “Clocks and Watches” (4th edition), Weale, 1860.[74]Professor Wallis, the President of the Astronomical Society, and the President of the Society of Civil Engineers, were suggested by Mr. Vulliamy in his letter. Mr. Dent in a letter to the Board of Works on November 14th, 1845, requested permission to erect the clock, “subject to the approbation of the Astronomer Royal, Mr. Barry, and Sir John (or Mr. George) Rennie being referees.”[75]Their estimated expense was 100l., about 5-1/2 per cent. on the original contract.[76]The evidence on this point is conflicting, and my father has left no papers on the subject. I feel, therefore, unable to enter into it.[77]The great bell was not hoisted till 1859, and, had the completion of the tower been delayed for it, the work would not have been finished till 1860. This should be noted by any who have read Mr. Denison’s denunciations on this subject.[78]Before quitting the subject of Mr. Denison’s relations to Sir C. Barry, I think it right to notice an error, contained in a statement made by Mr. Denison to the Courts of Justice Commission. After stating that architects are all ignorant of ventilation, and volunteering some information, that the works of the architect in this direction at the New Palace of Westminster “are reported to have cost 200,000l.,” he continues, “the ceilings of both Houses of Parliament were—one of them is—in such a state, that they may be set on fire at any instant.” No one could fail to draw the inference, that this was an error on the part of the architect. But the fact is, that “the roof of the House of Commons is wholly constructed of incombustible materials, and the question of danger can only apply to the wooden fittings which have been placed in the roof since its completion, by those intrusted with the ventilation and lighting of the Housewithout any architectural supervision.” (See official letter of E. M. Barry, Esq., printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 527 of Session of 1866.) The fact, rightly understood, tells directly against the advice (to discard architects on this point, and trust all to ventilators proper) which it is made to support.[79]In 1842 Mr. Barry had visited Munich, then in the zenith of its artistic reputation, to see both the new buildings, rising under the auspices of the late king, and the great fresco and encaustic pictures, which had made the names of Cornelius, Schnorr, Hess, and other artists well-known throughout Europe. Admiring greatly the artistic genius displayed in many individual works, he was yet convinced that they often wanted the harmony alluded to in the text, and tended rather to injure than to enhance the architectural beauty of the buildings which they would have otherwise adorned.[80]The most important parts of the Reports appear to be the Report of the Committee of Selection of Subjects in Painting and Sculpture, contained in the Seventh Report of the Commission (in 1847), and the Twelfth Report, presented in 1861.[81]See ‘Recollections of A. W. Pugin,’ by Benjamin Ferrey, Esq., c. xviii. Mr. Ferrey, although writing with the greatest candour and friendly spirit towards Sir C. Barry, is clearly in ignorance as to the exact position of Mr. Pugin in the matter, and is obliged accordingly to speak vaguely.[82]“It was no ordinary amount or quality of work which satisfied Mr. Barry. But with no tools but a rule and rough pencil, amidst a continuous rattle of marvellous stories, slashing criticisms, and shouts of laughter, Mr. Pugin would get through an amount of good work which astonished his friend.... Whenever Mr. Barry’s fire of enthusiasm began to pale, a visit from his ‘Comet’ sufficed to brighten it."—MS. noteW.[83]It may be well here to quote a letter of Mr. Pugin’s, in which, with his usual generosity, he disclaims the credit, which some of his admirers imputed to him, in respect of his services in the decoration of the New Palace.(From the ‘Builder’ of Sept. 6th, 1845.)“Decorations of the New House of Lords.“Sir,—As it appears by an article in the last number of the ‘Builder,’ as well as in notices contained of late in other periodicals, that a misconception prevails as to the nature of my employment in the works of the New Palace at Westminster, I think it incumbent on me, in justice to Mr. Barry, to state that I am engaged by him, and by him alone, with the approval of the Government, to assist in preparing working drawings and models from his designs of all the wood-carvings and other details of the internal decorations, and to procure models and drawings of the best examples of ancient decorative art of the proper kind, wherever they are to be found, as specimens for the guidance of the workmen in respect of the taste and feeling to be imitated, to engage with artists and the most skilful workmen that can be procured in every branch of decorative art, and to superintend personally the practical execution of the works upon the most economical terms, compatible with the nature of it and its most perfect performance. In fulfilling the duties of my office, I do not do anything whatever on my own responsibility; all models and working drawings being prepared from Mr. Barry’s designs, and submitted to him for his approval or alteration, previous to their being carried into effect; in fine, my occupation is simply to assist in carrying out practically Mr. Barry’s own designs and views in all respects. Trusting to your fairness in giving insertion to this letter in your next number,“I am, Sir, &c.,“A. Welby Pugin.“London, Sept. 3rd, 1845.[84]The professional reader will find a full description of the scaffolding used, especially in the three towers, in a paper read before the Institute of British Architects, June 15th, 1857, by my brother, C. Barry, Esq., Fellow.[85]This is, of course, not generally known, and for all insufficient accommodation the architect is held responsible. Thus, for example, the ladies’ gallery is neither large nor convenient; but it was with great difficulty that any accommodation for ladies at all was allowed. In the Building Committee in 1835, Lord Brougham spoke thus of the admission of ladies: “If such a proposition is to be made, I enter my protest against it, and shall take the sense of your lordships upon it, as being contrary to the principle which ought to govern legislative proceedings. I think the ladies would be better employed in almost any other way, than in attending parliamentary debates. I like to see them in their proper places.” The Marquis of Lansdowne added: “Ladies are not mentioned in the Report, and, so far as I can prevent it, they never shall be.”[86]The office was then called that of the “Woods and Forests,” but, to prevent confusion, I use throughout the name by which it has been known ever since the remodelling of the department.[87]These services are given in detail in a subjoined paper. They were connected with the provision for public records, the Fine Arts Commission, the warming, lighting, and ventilating, the various Parliamentary Committees, superintendence of the Government carving works for the New Palace of Westminster, &c.[88]The whole of the correspondence will be found in the following Parliamentary Papers, No. 491, of Session 1849; No. 405, of Session 1856; No. 108, Session 2 of 1857. Such portions are printed in the appendix as contain the chief statements on both sides.[89]There were a few members who did question it, in defiance of the fashion of the day and the economical leanings of the House. Mr. Henry Drummond once told the Government, that no increase of expenditure or supposed architectural defects could be an excuse for “robbing—yes! for robbing—Sir Charles Barry.”[90]The design was afterwards attached, as involving the “destruction” of the old chapel. But on investigation in 1836, evidence was given by Sir R. Smirke, and Messrs. Inwood, Montague, Kay, Wilkins, and Laing, that it could not with safety be preserved or restored. Sir J. Wyattville and Messrs. Savage and Cottingham were of a contrary opinion; but the balance of evidence was against all hope of its preservation. It might doubtless have been rebuilt, and its intrinsic beauty would have justified such a step; but, if rebuilt, it could hardly have been used for secular purposes as before; and if not so used, its position would have destroyed the whole arrangement of the building.[91]The restoration, which he began, was still incomplete at the time of his death. It was accordingly carried out by his son, Mr. E. M. Barry, and is designed to serve as a chapel for the accommodation of the numerous inmates of the New Palace. It appears now restored to more than its original splendour, and the result is one which, in beauty and richness of effect, will bear comparison with any chapel in Europe.[92]Thus (for example) on the whole of the principal floor, except in the altered lobbies of the House of Commons, there is not one single step. All is on one level, and that level approached by comparatively few and easy steps from Westminster Hall.[93]Mr. Pugin is reported to have said (see Mr. Ferrey’s ‘Recollections,’ c. xviii. p. 247), “Barry’s grand plan was immeasurably superior to any that “I could at that time have produced;” adding, characteristically enough, “besides, the Commissioners would have killed me in a twelvemonth.” He allowed that in the symmetry of the general plan convenience was as well preserved, as it could have been under the greatest irregularity.[94]“In composing, he always began with the simplest forms, and never made a break, till he felt it absolutely necessary. If the length of a front was too great for its height he admitted flanking towers. These did not destroy the unity of the mass. But to raise the centre was to cut the mass into three separate parts—a decomposition which he abhorred.” In the river front “the excessive length compelled him to raise the centre, but nothing would induce him to advance it."—MS. noteW.[95]The present central tower was not a feature of the original design. It was added to meet the requirements of Dr. Reid.[96]He had already ventured to remove on his own responsibility one of the enormous buttresses, supposed to support the roof, which interfered with the development of his plan.[97]His general inclination to sacrifice a grand staircase, if by the sacrifice he could obtain a great hall, has been noticed in Chapter IV. In his original design a great staircase led from the central hall direct to the committee-rooms. This was also given up.[98]I remember that he was greatly struck with the windows of the churches at Nuremberg in this respect. The new Munich glass, beautiful in itself, he thought wrong in principle, as ignoring the primary object of a window, and attempting the effects of regular painting.[99]Two stories, equal in importance, were not satisfactory. There was duality of design. In grand compositions he preferred, on a base well raised above the ground, three stories nearly alike; but the upper one somewhat more important (as in the Farnese Palace), so as, in some measure, to combine the three. When the three stories differed much, they should be perfectly dissimilar. By making the middle one the principal; the upper, of little importance; and the lower, a mere basement, the eye would not be distracted by three separate objects, but would rest upon the one principal story, by viewing the others as subordinate. When two stories only could be introduced, he preferred that the upper should be the principal, and the lower, a basement—as in the Thiene Palace at Vicenza. In the Reform Club and Bridgewater House, where he could not make the upper story important, he would, had convenience allowed, have made the lower one much less so than we now see it. Two stories of nearly equal importance, as in Whitehall and his New Palace, jarred with his principle of unity.—MS. noteW.[100]This tower has no diminution. He was quite aware, from the time he noticed Giotto’s Campanile, that such objects will, under certain aspects, appear larger above than below; and had this tower been plain, and without turrets, no doubt the optical illusion would have been corrected. But a diminution in the turrets would have made their inner sides out of parallel with the vertical lines on the face of the towers, and set-offs would have caused dislocation in the panelling—irregularities not to be thought of. For, full as Mr. Barry’s mind was of grand ideas, he was acutely sensitive in matters of the minutest detail. In the architectural decorations of his New Palace, extensive and elaborate as they are, every part has exquisite finish, and there will hardly be found the smallest defect, or even irregularity, that care or ingenuity could avoid.—MS. noteW.[101]This tendency to alteration grew upon him perhaps to excess in his later years. His taste, always fastidious, became morbidly sensitive; he could not tolerate the slightest appearance of defect in proportion or detail. The inevitable effect was not only great waste of labour and money, but occasionally a danger of losing the original harmony of a design in the multiplicity of alterations. But it was only an exaggeration of the one true secret of success and perfection—“the capacity of taking infinite pains.”[102]Thus, for example, the panels on the river front contain the coats of arms of all the sovereigns of England, from William I. to Victoria; the niches on the flanks contain statues of the Saxon kings and queens; the reigning family is exalted in the niches of the Victoria tower, &c.[103]I do not think it necessary to give a detailed description of the design and decoration of the building. For this I would refer to the illustrations of the New Palace of Westminster by E. N. Holmes, Esq. (Warrington), to the official Handbook to the New Palace of Westminster, and to a paper read before the Institute of British Architects, on February 1st, 1858, by E. M. Barry, Esq., A.R.A.[104]At the foot of this staircase stands the statue of the architect, in a position sufficiently public, but not very central or commanding.[105]For almost the whole of this chapter I am indebted to Mr. Wolfe. He alone aided Sir Charles by encouragement and help, by suggestion and criticism, in the labour of the first conception of the design, and the greater labour of its subsequent development.[106]He did not regard even Clapham Church as hopeless, as a sketch for a chancel made in his Prayer-book before service can testify. But such sketches were sometimes dangerously artistic, and excited hopes which it was hard to realize.[107]Thus in the competition for the New Palace at Westminster it was thought highly liberal to offer four premiums of 500l.each. In the competition (now going on) for the new Law Courts, each of the selected competitors, some twelve in number, receives 800l.[108]It is strange that great builders, who are encircling our chief towns with lines of “villa residences” generally vile in point of architecture, so seldom take the trouble to secure from some good architect a series of designs (to be carried out by themselves), both for the general laying out of a district, and for individual houses. The cost to them, and therefore the increase of rent to tenants, would be trifling, where the work was on a large scale; the gain to the public would be incalculable.[109]In speaking of this as an advantage, it was, of course, conceived that some provision should be made for the hundreds of people dispossessed. Sir Charles surveyed the district, not without considerable difficulty, and he found that inordinate profits were made out of the misery of its crowded and filthy dens.[110]At the present time (1866) the site is being cleared of the buildings upon it at a cost roughly estimated at 1,250,000l.; and designs are being prepared in competition by a limited number of architects for a “Palace of Justice” on a scale of unprecedented magnificence.[111]The information on this subject is derived from my eldest brother. He adds, “It may be doubted whether any ability of treatment would have made a design perfectly satisfactory, which involved so large a surface of stone wall, unrelieved by windows. But, had this proved to be the case, Sir Charles would certainly have modified it in execution, in the course of that consideration and reconsideration which he invariably bestowed upon his designs.”[112]It has been already stated that the position of Bridgewater House was fixed in distinct relation to this plan.[113]I find the first notice of such designs in his Diary for 1843.[114]See Parliamentary Paper No. 55, Session 1863.[115]See Parliamentary Paper No. 333, Session 1855.[116]Mr. Digby Wyatt, whose official connection gave him the opportunity of accurate knowledge in the matter, says: “The section of the columns, with its ingenious provisions for attachment of girders and superposition of other columns, the general proportions and arrangement of the leading parts, and the form of the transept roof (which I saw him sketch on the suggestion of Brunel, that, rather than cut down or exclude the great trees, it would be better to roof them in), were all his.”[117]M. Hittorf is clearly a strong anti-Gothicist. Whatever praise he gives to the New Palace at Westminster is, as it were, under protest. But the Gothic School of French Architecture were not behindhand in their appreciation of Sir Charles Barry’s works.[118]I subjoin it, as his last architectural opinion delivered:—“Protest of the undersigned, a member of the Committee for carrying into effect certain internal alterations and decorations of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in respect of a proposed second organ, and a new screen to the choir, upon the following grounds:—“1.Because upon æsthetical as well as practical grounds, it is undesirable to have an organ of large dimensions in the south transept.“2.Because if a second organ be required, it might be erected, not only without any disfigurement of the cathedral, but with advantage to its effect, in a capacious gallery over the western entrance to the nave, where it is considered that an instrument and a choir of sufficient power might be accommodated, and heard with striking effect throughout the cathedral.“3.Because, owing to the great size of the proposed organ and gallery, &c., it would have the effect of a gigantic piece of furniture out of scale with the building, and tend to destroy the simplicity, harmony, capacity, and grandeur of the interior of the cathedral.“4.Because, as it is proposed to make use of the marble columns of the old screen to the choir to support the gallery for the proposed organ, the opportunity will be lost of employing those columns (in connexion with certain beautiful iron work, in and about the choir, and no longer required in its present situation), with striking effect and great economy, in the formation of the proposed new screen to the choir of the peculiar character required.“And lastly. Because if a second organ must be placed in the south transept, the sub-committee have not had sufficient opportunity of duly considering the design of the proposed organ-case, gallery, &c.“8th May, 1860.“Charles Barry.”[119]He never built himself a house, but wherever he went he carried out his delight in alterations and reconstructions. No house of his was ever quite untouched; and his landlords must have found him a most excellent tenant.[120]A “Barry Club,” formed and kept up for some years by those who belonged to his office, was a practical evidence of their feelings. It seems almost invidious to single out any one of these, to whose aid he owed so much. But I cannot pass over the name of R. R. Banks, Esq., the head of his office for many years (the years in which the chief work of design was done), and afterwards the partner of my eldest brother. All who know anything of the work then done, know how much it owed to his single-hearted energy, ability, and conscientiousness. And Sir Charles himself was well aware of the warmth of attachment, which animated that active and conscientious labour.[121]One great inventor (a German) passed into a proverb with us. He had some invention which was to cure smoky chimneys, and his favourite declaration was “All men are fools; it is me shall make him (the smoke) go straight high.” But he was only an extreme type of a very numerous class, and he certainly acted as if he believed his preliminary axiom.[122]Report in ‘Times,’ May 23rd, 1860.[123]Agreed to, as a matter of course.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]This is the case, for example, in respect of some valuable information as to the works at Trentham Hall.

[2]The “fils d’un simple ouvrier” in M. Hittorf’s ‘Éloge’ is therefore erroneous.

[3]Thus, for example, he notes over and over again the curious contrast of dirt, bad drainage, and bad paving in the Paris of that day, with the external brilliancy of the city, so unlike anything he had ever seen in England. It was, it seemed, symbolical of the state of the country, in which apparent peace and gaiety covered much political stagnation and discontent with the Bourbons, breaking out, as he himself experienced, into personal insult to Englishmen in out-of-the-way places.

[4]Thus at Rome he writes of the great staircase at the Vatican: “The columns stepping up one after another, and the cornice and entablature following the rise of the steps, have to my mind an unnatural, and therefore a disgusting, appearance.”

[5]At a small town in Italy, having stopped for sketching purposes without his passport, he found his bedroom invaded by a file of soldiers who insisted on his leaving instantly. But they retired before a resolute refusal and a drawn pistol, and contented themselves with posting a sentinel at the door.

[6]Criticisms on special buildings are better deferred till the period of his return.

[7]The Toledo at Naples is noticed as “the finest street,except the High Street of Oxford, I ever saw.”

[8]The difficulty of travelling at that time is curiously illustrated here. They had to search at Bari for a vessel, and at last to cross in a small felucca, bearing and deserving the ominous name of Le Anime di Purgatorio.

[9]For this remark I am indebted to Sir C. Eastlake.

[10]At Smyrna (for example) the houses of English merchants were scattered along the coast, and almost all the trade engrossed by them.

[11]At Bondroon (Halicarnassus) not even the governor dared to allow them to inspect the castle; and when they rowed under the walls to see the famous marbles embedded in them, and just “whitewashed in expectation of the Capudan Pasha,” they were ordered off by the soldiers on pain of death.

[12]He had received a similar offer at Corfu from Mr. Bonar, but with this important difference, that no copies were to be taken. On this ground it was thankfully but unhesitatingly refused.

[13]Several of these were afterwards engraved in Finden’s ‘Illustrations of the Bible.’

[14]The Chapel of the Nativity at Bethlehem seems (as usual) to have struck them most for simple solemnity, and Naplous (Shechem) for natural beauty, with its fertile plain and the “whole town full of roses.”

[15]In his house they found a volume of Palladio, given him by a Coptic patriarch, and highly prized.

[16]In after years Mr. Barry published the results of his observations in an article in the ‘Architectural Dictionary’ on Baalbec. It describes the ruins with great minuteness, and is an excellent specimen of his accuracy of observation and clearness of description. It speaks of the three Temples as having great magnificence and “exuberance of decoration,” notices the “breaking of the entablature over each projecting columnar pier,” as producing, especially in the circular temple, “great movement in the skyline of the building, and a very picturesque effect,” and criticizes the style of decoration as showing much imagination and power. The description was written some thirty-five years after his visit, but it seemed as though drawn up on the spot.

[17]The Bourbonrégimewas detested, and its wretchedness aggravated by the recollections of English rule; why England did not keep the island the Sicilians could not conceive.

[18]Here they saw a famous telescope of Ramsden’s, as to which they were told that, “if it should be injured there was no one in the whole island who could repair it.”

[19]From this point, almost to the end of his career, much of this memoir is based on MS. notes supplied by Mr. Wolfe.

[20]MS. notes,W.

[21]He adds, “The Egyptians, who made such use of colossal figures, being fully aware of their tendency to diminish the apparent size of the building, always placed at their feet other figures of the natural size, to give the true scale.”

[22]It ought to be known that fountains, not unlike these in design, and not much inferior in magnificence, would, if means had permitted, have been made in Trafalgar Square.

[23]In his only design for a grand portico (that for the Town-hall at Birmingham) this principle was fully carried out.

[24]At Vicenza, as many of Palladio’s works were scattered about in out-of-the-way places in the neighbourhood, he hired a crazy gig, and without a guide, in spite of bad roads and worse information, he managed to hunt out every one. At the (so-called) “House of Palladio” there was some foliage which he wished to sketch by artificial light; he got ladders and torches, and proceeded with his work till he was stopped by the police.

[25]This was a point which often struck him in many cases of restoration or new buildings where colour and gilding were only partially employed. He insisted that in this partial and incomplete use lay the real cause of gaudiness or tawdry effect. Of all the new buildings at Munich, the one which he admired must was the Royal Chapel, because in it the decoration was thoroughly and perfectly carried out.

[26]I find (for example) that in 1822 he was commissioned to make a copy of his drawing of the Zodiac at Esneh for H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex.

[27]In November, 1832, he contributed several sketches for the engravings in Finden’s Bible Illustrations, but these give little idea of the style of his original sketches.

[28]Church architects seem to have been beset then, as now, by the tendency of their clients to extensive requirements on very limited resources. He speaks of a clergyman, who had some negotiation with him at this time, “as an Evangelical preacher, with a great idea of building churches for nothing.”

[29]He had previously made designs for the alteration of Stoke Newington church.

[30]He used to retaliate by reference to Mr. Pugin’s early work at Windsor Castle, which certainly gave him full opportunity for retort.

[31]An amusing incident occurred on this occasion. The freemasons of the parish claimed the right of laying the stone, which the clergy not unnaturally contested. After the ceremony began, music was heard in the distance, and down came a body of freemasons in full costume, ready to take all by storm. The workmen were prepared to resist; but a parley ensued, and the freemasons allowed the ceremony to go on without disturbance, on condition of performing their own mystic rites afterwards.

[32]This design was not carried out. But I believe it was the only design of the kind among those sent in by the competing architects. As a matter of fact, the whole competition was practically set aside, in favour of a firm, who offered to unite the functions of architect and builder, and erect a building in Anglesey marble for whatever other firms might ask for its erection in stone. The building carried out by them is a Greek temple. The feelings of the competing architects may be easily imagined, for these are the things which make competition a thankless and sometimes a hopeless work.

[33]At a much later period, as will be seen, he made a Greek design for the proposed Law Courts in Lincoln’s-inn-Fields. Here also the requirements for the true application of Greek principles of architecture were fulfilled by the circumstances of the case.

[34]After the completion of the church he returned to the charge. As late as 1841 I find a notice of his designing a spire to be added to the existing tower.

[35]They cost 11,890l., 10,947l., and 11,535l.respectively, sums which many a church architect would consider liberal now.

[36]On these points, as may be expected, he differed widely from his friend Mr. Pugin, and warm discussions of principle often arose in consequence.

[37]I can remember his calling attention to the octagonal form of Sta. Maria della Salute at Venice as capable of supplying a hint for English church-building, and referring to certain forms of Norman and Early English, as well fitted, by their spaciousness and unity of effect, for our congregational requirements.

[38]Mr. Ferguson, in his ‘History of Architecture,’ notes in the same way the prominence of the cornice as the characteristic feature of Mr. Barry’s Italian; but, by a slight chronological error, refers to the alteration of the College of Surgeons, designed in 1833, as the earliest instance of it, and to the Travellers’ Club as a later design.

[39]Studies and examples of the Modern School of English Architecture, by W. H. Leeds. (Weale, 1839.)

[40]‘The Revue de l’Architecture,’ edited by M. César Daly, contained in vol. i., 1840, pp. 333, 334, a careful description (with illustrations) of the Travellers’ Club. Its criticism concludes as follows:—“Le défaut qu’on peut adresser avec raison au plus grand nombre des travaux d’architecture en Angleterre, est le peu de soin apporté dans l’étude des détails; sous ce rapport M. Charles Barry forme une exception. Il suffit d’examiner la feuille des détails du monument qui nous occupe pour y reconnaître les qualités d’un artiste consciencieux, qui étudie toutes les parties en elles-mêmes et dans leur rapport avec l’ensemble.”

[41]Extracted from a paper read at the Institute of British Architects, May 21st, 1860, by M. Digby Wyatt, Esq., V.P.

[42]On this point, it was remarked by the ‘Building News,’ immediately after his death (May 18th, 1860),—“It is the perfection of invention to invest with novelty that which is old, to adapt what has hitherto been useless, to make artistic that which is commonplace, and to impart life and beauty to dead forms. Greater inventive powers are required to accomplish this transformation than perhaps to devise new forms, which will never move or have their being.... Critics who prefer the charge of copyism against him probably mistake eccentricity for originality; in that sense Sir Charles was never original, for he was never eccentric.”

[43]A list, which is believed to be complete, is added in the Appendix.

[44]See p. 9 of Mr. Digby Wyatt’s Memoir, already referred to.

[45]It happened curiously enough that he was near being employed for the new building of the Carlton Club, adjoining and rivalling the Reform Club. He was invited by the committee to enter a select competition for it; and when he declined to do so, and the appointment of architect was put to the vote, Messrs. Basevi and Smirke were preferred only by a slight majority (220 votes against 210).

[46]The only example of an original building in which he afterwards employed it was Cliefden. At the Board of Trade the necessity of the case led him to employ the columns of the old design as an engaged order. But though he was not entirely consistent in practice, the “astylar” principle of design still continued to be regarded by him us absolutely the best.

[47]It ought to be noted, that the position of the building, which on the Pall Mall side is very unfavourable, and the exact line of its front were determined in reference to a plan for the extension of Pall Mall into the Green Park, having the Marble Arch as its entrance to the Park. A plan of this proposed alteration is given in Chapter VIII.

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

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

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

[51]‘The English Gentleman’s House.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[83]It may be well here to quote a letter of Mr. Pugin’s, in which, with his usual generosity, he disclaims the credit, which some of his admirers imputed to him, in respect of his services in the decoration of the New Palace.(From the ‘Builder’ of Sept. 6th, 1845.)“Decorations of the New House of Lords.“Sir,—As it appears by an article in the last number of the ‘Builder,’ as well as in notices contained of late in other periodicals, that a misconception prevails as to the nature of my employment in the works of the New Palace at Westminster, I think it incumbent on me, in justice to Mr. Barry, to state that I am engaged by him, and by him alone, with the approval of the Government, to assist in preparing working drawings and models from his designs of all the wood-carvings and other details of the internal decorations, and to procure models and drawings of the best examples of ancient decorative art of the proper kind, wherever they are to be found, as specimens for the guidance of the workmen in respect of the taste and feeling to be imitated, to engage with artists and the most skilful workmen that can be procured in every branch of decorative art, and to superintend personally the practical execution of the works upon the most economical terms, compatible with the nature of it and its most perfect performance. In fulfilling the duties of my office, I do not do anything whatever on my own responsibility; all models and working drawings being prepared from Mr. Barry’s designs, and submitted to him for his approval or alteration, previous to their being carried into effect; in fine, my occupation is simply to assist in carrying out practically Mr. Barry’s own designs and views in all respects. Trusting to your fairness in giving insertion to this letter in your next number,“I am, Sir, &c.,“A. Welby Pugin.“London, Sept. 3rd, 1845.

(From the ‘Builder’ of Sept. 6th, 1845.)“Decorations of the New House of Lords.

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

“I am, Sir, &c.,

“A. Welby Pugin.

“London, Sept. 3rd, 1845.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[97]His general inclination to sacrifice a grand staircase, if by the sacrifice he could obtain a great hall, has been noticed in Chapter IV. In his original design a great staircase led from the central hall direct to the committee-rooms. This was also given up.

[98]I remember that he was greatly struck with the windows of the churches at Nuremberg in this respect. The new Munich glass, beautiful in itself, he thought wrong in principle, as ignoring the primary object of a window, and attempting the effects of regular painting.

[99]Two stories, equal in importance, were not satisfactory. There was duality of design. In grand compositions he preferred, on a base well raised above the ground, three stories nearly alike; but the upper one somewhat more important (as in the Farnese Palace), so as, in some measure, to combine the three. When the three stories differed much, they should be perfectly dissimilar. By making the middle one the principal; the upper, of little importance; and the lower, a mere basement, the eye would not be distracted by three separate objects, but would rest upon the one principal story, by viewing the others as subordinate. When two stories only could be introduced, he preferred that the upper should be the principal, and the lower, a basement—as in the Thiene Palace at Vicenza. In the Reform Club and Bridgewater House, where he could not make the upper story important, he would, had convenience allowed, have made the lower one much less so than we now see it. Two stories of nearly equal importance, as in Whitehall and his New Palace, jarred with his principle of unity.—MS. noteW.

[100]This tower has no diminution. He was quite aware, from the time he noticed Giotto’s Campanile, that such objects will, under certain aspects, appear larger above than below; and had this tower been plain, and without turrets, no doubt the optical illusion would have been corrected. But a diminution in the turrets would have made their inner sides out of parallel with the vertical lines on the face of the towers, and set-offs would have caused dislocation in the panelling—irregularities not to be thought of. For, full as Mr. Barry’s mind was of grand ideas, he was acutely sensitive in matters of the minutest detail. In the architectural decorations of his New Palace, extensive and elaborate as they are, every part has exquisite finish, and there will hardly be found the smallest defect, or even irregularity, that care or ingenuity could avoid.—MS. noteW.

[101]This tendency to alteration grew upon him perhaps to excess in his later years. His taste, always fastidious, became morbidly sensitive; he could not tolerate the slightest appearance of defect in proportion or detail. The inevitable effect was not only great waste of labour and money, but occasionally a danger of losing the original harmony of a design in the multiplicity of alterations. But it was only an exaggeration of the one true secret of success and perfection—“the capacity of taking infinite pains.”

[102]Thus, for example, the panels on the river front contain the coats of arms of all the sovereigns of England, from William I. to Victoria; the niches on the flanks contain statues of the Saxon kings and queens; the reigning family is exalted in the niches of the Victoria tower, &c.

[103]I do not think it necessary to give a detailed description of the design and decoration of the building. For this I would refer to the illustrations of the New Palace of Westminster by E. N. Holmes, Esq. (Warrington), to the official Handbook to the New Palace of Westminster, and to a paper read before the Institute of British Architects, on February 1st, 1858, by E. M. Barry, Esq., A.R.A.

[104]At the foot of this staircase stands the statue of the architect, in a position sufficiently public, but not very central or commanding.

[105]For almost the whole of this chapter I am indebted to Mr. Wolfe. He alone aided Sir Charles by encouragement and help, by suggestion and criticism, in the labour of the first conception of the design, and the greater labour of its subsequent development.

[106]He did not regard even Clapham Church as hopeless, as a sketch for a chancel made in his Prayer-book before service can testify. But such sketches were sometimes dangerously artistic, and excited hopes which it was hard to realize.

[107]Thus in the competition for the New Palace at Westminster it was thought highly liberal to offer four premiums of 500l.each. In the competition (now going on) for the new Law Courts, each of the selected competitors, some twelve in number, receives 800l.

[108]It is strange that great builders, who are encircling our chief towns with lines of “villa residences” generally vile in point of architecture, so seldom take the trouble to secure from some good architect a series of designs (to be carried out by themselves), both for the general laying out of a district, and for individual houses. The cost to them, and therefore the increase of rent to tenants, would be trifling, where the work was on a large scale; the gain to the public would be incalculable.

[109]In speaking of this as an advantage, it was, of course, conceived that some provision should be made for the hundreds of people dispossessed. Sir Charles surveyed the district, not without considerable difficulty, and he found that inordinate profits were made out of the misery of its crowded and filthy dens.

[110]At the present time (1866) the site is being cleared of the buildings upon it at a cost roughly estimated at 1,250,000l.; and designs are being prepared in competition by a limited number of architects for a “Palace of Justice” on a scale of unprecedented magnificence.

[111]The information on this subject is derived from my eldest brother. He adds, “It may be doubted whether any ability of treatment would have made a design perfectly satisfactory, which involved so large a surface of stone wall, unrelieved by windows. But, had this proved to be the case, Sir Charles would certainly have modified it in execution, in the course of that consideration and reconsideration which he invariably bestowed upon his designs.”

[112]It has been already stated that the position of Bridgewater House was fixed in distinct relation to this plan.

[113]I find the first notice of such designs in his Diary for 1843.

[114]See Parliamentary Paper No. 55, Session 1863.

[115]See Parliamentary Paper No. 333, Session 1855.

[116]Mr. Digby Wyatt, whose official connection gave him the opportunity of accurate knowledge in the matter, says: “The section of the columns, with its ingenious provisions for attachment of girders and superposition of other columns, the general proportions and arrangement of the leading parts, and the form of the transept roof (which I saw him sketch on the suggestion of Brunel, that, rather than cut down or exclude the great trees, it would be better to roof them in), were all his.”

[117]M. Hittorf is clearly a strong anti-Gothicist. Whatever praise he gives to the New Palace at Westminster is, as it were, under protest. But the Gothic School of French Architecture were not behindhand in their appreciation of Sir Charles Barry’s works.

[118]I subjoin it, as his last architectural opinion delivered:—“Protest of the undersigned, a member of the Committee for carrying into effect certain internal alterations and decorations of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in respect of a proposed second organ, and a new screen to the choir, upon the following grounds:—“1.Because upon æsthetical as well as practical grounds, it is undesirable to have an organ of large dimensions in the south transept.“2.Because if a second organ be required, it might be erected, not only without any disfigurement of the cathedral, but with advantage to its effect, in a capacious gallery over the western entrance to the nave, where it is considered that an instrument and a choir of sufficient power might be accommodated, and heard with striking effect throughout the cathedral.“3.Because, owing to the great size of the proposed organ and gallery, &c., it would have the effect of a gigantic piece of furniture out of scale with the building, and tend to destroy the simplicity, harmony, capacity, and grandeur of the interior of the cathedral.“4.Because, as it is proposed to make use of the marble columns of the old screen to the choir to support the gallery for the proposed organ, the opportunity will be lost of employing those columns (in connexion with certain beautiful iron work, in and about the choir, and no longer required in its present situation), with striking effect and great economy, in the formation of the proposed new screen to the choir of the peculiar character required.“And lastly. Because if a second organ must be placed in the south transept, the sub-committee have not had sufficient opportunity of duly considering the design of the proposed organ-case, gallery, &c.“8th May, 1860.“Charles Barry.”

[118]I subjoin it, as his last architectural opinion delivered:—

“Protest of the undersigned, a member of the Committee for carrying into effect certain internal alterations and decorations of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in respect of a proposed second organ, and a new screen to the choir, upon the following grounds:—

“8th May, 1860.

“Charles Barry.”

[119]He never built himself a house, but wherever he went he carried out his delight in alterations and reconstructions. No house of his was ever quite untouched; and his landlords must have found him a most excellent tenant.

[120]A “Barry Club,” formed and kept up for some years by those who belonged to his office, was a practical evidence of their feelings. It seems almost invidious to single out any one of these, to whose aid he owed so much. But I cannot pass over the name of R. R. Banks, Esq., the head of his office for many years (the years in which the chief work of design was done), and afterwards the partner of my eldest brother. All who know anything of the work then done, know how much it owed to his single-hearted energy, ability, and conscientiousness. And Sir Charles himself was well aware of the warmth of attachment, which animated that active and conscientious labour.

[121]One great inventor (a German) passed into a proverb with us. He had some invention which was to cure smoky chimneys, and his favourite declaration was “All men are fools; it is me shall make him (the smoke) go straight high.” But he was only an extreme type of a very numerous class, and he certainly acted as if he believed his preliminary axiom.

[122]Report in ‘Times,’ May 23rd, 1860.

[123]Agreed to, as a matter of course.

Back to Index Next